ML19323H752

Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under NEPA of 1969, 10CFR50 & 51 Statement of Interim Policy.Withdraws Proposed Annex to App D of 10CFR50 & Suspends Rulemaking

ML19323H752
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	06/09/1980
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
Shared Package
ML19323H750	List: ML19323H749 ML19323H752
References
NUDOCS 8006160142
Download: ML19323H752 (12)

Text

~

/b90-01 NUC' EAR REGULATORY CCS.ISSICM (10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 51)

Nuclear Pe er Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 AGE *;CY:

U.S. Su:l ear Regulatory C:mmission ACTION:

Statement cf Interim Policy SU?ARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is revising its policy for censidering the more severe kinds of very low probability accidents that are physically possible in environmental impact assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Such accidents are ccmonly refer-red to as Class 9 accidents, folloking an accident classification scheme preposed by. the Atomic Energy Cetx.11ssion (predecessor to NRC) in 1971 for purposes of implementing NEPA.1 The March 28, 1979 a::ident at Unit 2 of i

the Three M.ile Island nuclear plant has emphasi:ed the need for chances in NRC policies regarding the considerations to be given to serious accidents from an envir:nmental as well as a safety point of view.

Tnis statement of interim pclicy announces the withdrawal of the pre:csed Annex to A;;e. dix D cf 10 CFR Part 50 and the sus;ensi n f the rule. aking r::endin; that began with the publication of that pre:0 sed Annex en December 1, i ~71.

- is ne C mission's ;0sition that its Envir:n en al In:a:t State-men s shall include consider:tions of the site-spe:i fic e vir:nmental impacts a-.-itu.able to a:cident sequen:es that lead to releases Of radiatien and/or radiot:tive materials, including secuen:es that can resuh in inadecuate 00:lin;

rea::er fuel and to mehing of the reactor core.

In :nis regard, attentien snail be given 50th :: the probability of cc:urrence :f such releases and te I Fre;: sed as an Annex to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, 25 F:. 22351. The Oc mis-si:n's NEF*-im:lementing regulations were subse:uently Muly 15,1974) re.ised and recast as 10 CFR Part 51 but at -ha- -i e -he C --issien noted "Tne Fr::: sed Annex is st ll unter considera-i:n..."

29 FR 25279.

i 8006160 g f

I si CIC)~ L).L the er.te:r ental c:nsequences of su:h releases.

This state. ant of f..:erim

clicy is ta'ser. in c

crdina:icn ith :ther eng ing safety-rela ed activities

~

51: are dire::1y related t: a::ident :ensiderati ns in the areas of plant design, ::erational safety,, siting ;:li:y, and emergen:y ;ianc.ing.

The Cem-missi:. i.: ends to ::ntinue the rulemaking on this natter when new siting requirements and other safety relate'd requirements in:Orporating accident c:asidera-icr.s are in place.

DATES:

Comment period expires September'11, 1980, 1

1 ACDRESSES: The Cc==ission intends the interim policy guidance c:ntained i

j herein t: be innediately effective.

However, all interested persons who l

desire to submit written ecmnents or suggestiens for consideration in con-2 necticn with this statement should send them to the Se:retary of the Commis-i sien, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien, Washington, D.C.

20555, Attention:

Decketing and Service Branch.

a FOR FJRT"ER INFORMATION CONTACT:

R. Wayne Houst:n, Chief, Accident Evalua-1 tien Erar.:h, Office of Nuclear Ret::cr Regulation, U.S. !iu: lear Regulatory Cc-.issien, Washing::n, D.C.

20555, Telephone:

(301) 452-7223.

l i

i m -

2

70 SU-T..

.e. : :...,:. : :.., :. :.w.: i t. y.

n..

• ':t-

sidera hns in Fas: NE:' :.eviews

. e. o.e c.'. (5.*.**.='.'.*.*. '.he "n'..9 e x" )

... n.. x..,..,... s 4. x.., la n.

...r....

...g.s.

r.

.as :.t'.'s'ed #:r :: r ent.cn Decenter i,1971 by the (fe-ner) A::.f c Energy

: 'ssh..

r ;csed to spe

ify a set of standardi:ed ac f dent assumptions

.: be used ir. Envi onmental P.eports :ubr.itted by applica-s for construction

er--i s

r :; era-ing li:er.ses for nuclear power react:rs.

It also included a syste-f:r classif.ving accidents accordin.g to a c.raded s: ale of severity and

:bability cf occurrence. Nine classes of accidents we-e defined, ranging

' :- trivial te very serious.

It directed that "for each class, exce:t classes 1 a.d 9, the environmental consequences shall be evaluated as indicated."

C* ass 1 events were net to be considered because of their trivial consequences, k e-eas in regard to Class 9 events, the Annex stated as follows:

'The c::urrences in Class 9 involve sequences of postulatad su::essive failures more severe than these postulated for the design basis for

r:.e:tive systens and engineered safety features. Their c:nsequences

.d be severe. Howeve:r, the prc5 ability of their Occurrence is so sr.aii -hat their environmental risk is extre ely loa.

Defense in de::n (ruitiple physical barriers), quality assuran:e for design, manu.

1. a: ure, and operation, continued surveillance and testing, and con.

se vative design are til applied :: previce and.thtain -he re:uired

-i;h de;ree cf assurance that potential acciden s in this class are, and af1'. re ain, sufficiently re ete in probabi:y that the environ-en.a'. -i sk i s extrensiy icw.

For these reas:ns, i-is no ne:essary

dis::ss such events in a::licants' Envir:nren.a1 :.e: Orts."

. s.

...x s.a.e..

.......... ' s 3... a. x. * #. a. s. a -. l i - *... '.s :... ". '... - *. -. = '. :.. = -..e,

... =.

... ; 4.....,...

.x....

c....

.. y.5..n.e

.....e,.,

..4 e

...s.

........,,3-..e....,

.-. '.. 2.."

1. . i n a '. 9 =...= '. i a. d

..,....._......-#.s=.*.."'..a.,

...s.

L-i. ; - e ::blic c: ment peried na- '011cwed ;;:'.i:a:i:n of :ne Annex a

.... m.. s ^......

4. v.

. 4.. :.. :.

.. :. 4.. j.e

.4.<w.

......;..... w...

.., :.-..,s...

t;):1L]-L]I O '; The :hilos:phy of :res:ribing assun;tions d:es n:: lead to objective analysis.

(2)

I failed to treat the pr:babilities of a::iden in any but the

s

eneral way.

f 5 ',

N: su:;;rting analysis was given te sh:w that C ass 9 accidents are sufficiently* 1:w in p-c.bability that their ::nsequences in j

terns cf environeental risks need not be discussed.

(i} No guidance was given as to how accidant and n:rnal releases of radioactive effluents during plant c;eratien sh:uld be factored into the c:st-benefit analysis.

(5) The accident assue;tiens are not generally a;plicable to gas cooled or liquid metal c:oled react:rs:

(c)

Safety and environ =en al risks are not essentially different considerations.

Neither the Atomic Energy C:amission nor the HRC took any further action on this rule aking except in 1974 when 10 CFR Part 51 was prenulgated. Over the in ercaning years the accident considerations discussed in Environnental Impact j

State ents f:r proposed nuclear power plants reflected the guidance of the Annex with few exceptions. Typically, the discussions of accident consequences throu;h Class 3 (design basis accidents) for each case have reflected specific site :haracteris-ics associated with meteorology (the discersien of releases Of radica:-ive naterial int: the a 30s;here), the a:: cal ;;;;1aticr within t

a EC-rile radius of the plant, and scme differences be ween 5:iling water

-ea:t:rs l5WE) a-d pressuri:ed ater react:rs (?'.7).

Eey:nd these few spe -

1 iet::, :ne dis:ussions have rei erated the guidan:e of the A.nex and have reited c::n the Annex's cen:1usien tha-the probabili y :# :::ur-ence of a Cl a s's i eve n-i s o: low :: warran COnsidera-icn, a :On:1csion based c:en l

generally stated safety :0nsiderations.

l l

.4-

/bSU-[

. a :... v S *.". d..v

( W..t " - 14 '.. ':, i n '. a #. *. '. *."7

...:......e

.a.

A.:.s

'97

• and final form in 0::cber 1975, the a::iden: discussions in

_.,r..... c.

.,_...g

..in

.a.#a.r.o

.'..'.s #.'..s. "a..='.'ied.

s *.u d.v e..

4...._,...;

1. -.e -isk.s ass::iated wi,th nu:". ear ;; er plant a: idents, par-icularly e tr. s

-':: :an lead to the mei ing of the fuel inside a rea:t:r.2 The

-s'ere ces Oc this study were in keeping with the inten and spirit of NEPA

dis:1:se" relevant information, but it is obvious that k'ASM 14C did not f: r the tasis for the c:nclusion expressed in the Annex in 1971 that the pr:babili y c' occurrence of Class 9 events was ::: 10w :: warran their

' site.s;e:ifi:) :ensideration under NEFA.

The Ccar.issi n's sta'f has, however, identified in certain cases ur.icue circumstances which it felt warranted more extensive and detailed :ensidera-ti:r. Of Class 9 events. One of tnese was the proposed Clinch F.iver Breeder F.sact:r Flar.: (CF.5RP), a liquid metal cooled fast breeder rea:t:r very differ-en- # :P the :cre conventional light water rea *0r plants for which the safety ex:er'en:s base is much broader.

In the Final Envir:nmer. a1 Statement for

ra *. i

?,

the staff included a discussion of the censideration it had

' een

:l ast 9 events.

's sa-ly si s review fer the :erryman site, - e af' erferred an

...:s............

..ns.

e.

.....e_.o.

e.. g e..) a. i v. s e. e. s...., c,. s.,..., s.e e.,

,,2...

.e :ss a.cr.; the alternative sites.

(SECY-75-137)

t : ate :# :.e a:;11:ation by Offshere ? wer Sys tr.s ::..anu f a ::ure u %,.e.

..,... e. a..~.a...._,..,,

.<gyg

.;a..g.. b a.

g., :.

t s.

s r.

4...... s.. ' a *. *. h a.

.. =. a... r S.= #. a. *.,v

.e.". d. v. a. v =,- -. = # s. s.... - - ". s a. s e..,

- s er " Class 9 at:ident" although this terr is ::rr:rly used as icesely

~

ecu.aient :c a core el ac:icent.

. ~. :..-.. -. : :, r....... y j e. -.

/ V U V - U ).

1. s: e : lass 9 sven s warranted s:e:iti ::nsiderati:n.

The special cir:un-s:!r:ss -tre :.e ; tentially seri:us ::nsequences ass:ciated with water fli:af e'; :a: -ays leading to radiological exp:sures if a molten reacter core

.ere : ' t '. ~. f..:: the wate.r body en which the plan ficats.

Merc the staff er: asi:ed 4 s f:cus on risk to the environment but did net find that the r:batili y cf a core melt event cccurring in the first place was essentially -

any diffe-er.: than for a land-based plant.

In its F.emerandun and Order In tre "!::er of Cffshore Power Syste.s,' the Commission concurred in the staff's jud; ent. Thus, the Reactor Safety Study and NRO experience with these cases has served

refocus attention on the need to reemphasi:e that environmental risk entails both probabilities and consequences, a ;oint tha was made in the

bli

ation cf the Annex, but was not given adequate emphasis.

h u'.y 1977 the NRC co riissioned a Risk Assessment Review Group "to clarify the a:hievenants and limitations of the Reactor Safe y Study." One of the c:nclusiens cf this study, published in September 1978, as NUREG/CR-0400,

" Risk Assess er. Review Grcup Repcrt t the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,"

was t a: "Tne.:.eview Group was unable to deter.ine whether the absciute prob-a:i". i-i es : f acciden sequences in 'n'A5h-1400 are high er low, but believes

- a:.he er-:r b: ends en these estinates are in general, greatly understated."

-is sr.d :- sr #indings of the Review 3roup have als: subse:ven-ly :een refer-

-ed a ir E.71rennen al Im;act Statements, alen; with a referen:e : the

:-issi: 's ::licy statemer.: en the Rea: Or Safe y Study in li;h: ef -he Us

.ssess er.: Review Group Reper, : blished en Ja.uary 13, 1979.

The

--issi:r's s:1 ement acce;ted the findings Of -he Review Greu:, b -h as :

- e Rea: :r Safety Study's achievements and as :: its limitati:ns.

' :::ke-N:. STN 50-437, Sectember 14,1979.

-o-

590 01

~

~

' s. a. r. - "..

• e. a-6,

• e. w..e s.... a..........hg

. s

.. e *... l.< *. * *. *... *. r. *. s

k...,.. a s..

., e..

7..

a g

• g*..,.

,..e.s...*..

The.s s were '.a ca. ys....3.c..,*

..,.... s s. s 1 4.. b.*.

.. a. s.

u. '. *. s..

...s 3

4..

W.

6 P. s. g,. *.

g.,....a.g,...,

..s g,..s..g.;gs.

r. s.,.... 6. 2..,.......,

...a g...

a.. '.. =. -. s

. s..

. l a n. s. b". r.. a. d.

.h a*..5.

5.7.=. '.*...*...='...a.' '. ra r.. '. h e a..:d,n.

..,s r..*

ac...e. ;n...., a.s.s,..ss<.cn.

a

.s... a. s

...,, u. s..,.

Car ex:erier.:e with ;as: N ;A revie.<s of accidents and -he T".: accident citarly leads us to believe that a change is needed.

Ac:erdingly, the ;rc;: sed Annex to Appendix D Of 1C C::. Fa-t D, ;;blished on e:e ter 1,1!71, is hereby withdrawn and shall net he-eaf:er be used by appii.

ca ts nor by -he sta.

The reasons f r the withdraw'.i are as follows:

1.

The Annex ;r: scribes censideration of the kinds c' a::idents (Class 9) 6..,'., a c.. d.'. r...c

• .h a.

e a c *.o. S a '. a. '. v.( *." d. y,

~d a...'.. a '. * *. k. a. a..i d a.r.*.. i s k.

2.

The definition cf Class 9 accidents in the Anr.ex is r.:t suf#i:iently precise to p.rrant its further use in Co t.ission ;cli:y, rules, and regulati:ns, nor as a decision criterion in agen:y practice.

3.

The Annex's :res:ription of assumptions t be use' ir the analys's of the envi :n ertti consequences of accidents d:es :: :entribute to w <... a. s.,... s i : r.,.. i c n.

e in ex d:ss r:

give adequate considera-icr.

"e de ailed treatment

f.easu-es taken :: prevent and :: mitigate the :: secus.:es of acci-

er.ts in -he sa'ety retiew of each appiitati:..

e :*.assift:it':

c' ac:idents e-::osed in thet nex skt:1.: 1:nger be used.

-itte -'e 3:1 : wing interim guidance is given 3:r : e rea-.ent of

..,s

.s.$. s.

4. s.r.

4. s,.a

4. a. s i n y e.:.:

...,s.,...

...,.....,., 3.,. :....,J...:::: :.y$

w, i

4..,....y,......,-

...............,.,_e.,..s, 1

4.

..,,.s..

.g..

.3,33,.

w..

u-sua.:

Secti:n IC2(:)(i) of the Na-icnal' ~nvi-r er.n'. 7:li:y. : ef 1959, s

...,s...s.

c. st.s..g.t.... <.na. a...a....-,..,-

.<.y.s !,t~.

..s,

z........s..

2

.. < s.... g........ <... l a. '..s.'..,.

1. . 2. #. * '. '. s e

,... i..,, a.

t

.,,,. 3,

4....,,.,,

..,,4..,

g.,3.g...

... r, 3....

1 i

../.

k n.r1 v

%, v V-j t.-

3::-:yf ate'.y e;ual attenti:n shall be given to the protability of occurrence releases and o the probability of cccurrence of the environ. ental conse-

.er:es :' -h:se releases.

.eleases refer to radiation and/or radioactive a eria s enterir.; environr. ental exocsure ;athways, includi.; air, water, and ground water.

Ever.:s or a: cider.t secuences that lead to releases shall ir.:lude but not be limited to those that can reasonably be expected to occur.

In-plant accident se; ences that can lead to a spectrum of releases shall be discussed and shall include sequences that can result in inadequate cooling of reactor fuel and The extent to which events arisino. from te neiting of the reactor core.

causes external to the plant which are considered possible contributors to Detailed the risk associated with the particular plant shall also be discussed.

quanti ative considt>.tions that form the basis of ;robabilistic esticates of releases need not be incorporated in the Environmental I.;act Statements but s'.all te referenced therein. Such references shall in:1ude, as apolicable, re:crts cr. safety evaluations.

envir:nre. ti consequences of releases whose pr:babili y :f ::urren:e Pt terms.

Such

.as beer. esti.ated shall also be discussed in pro:abilisti:

se:uer:es sea'.1 be characterized in terms cf c: en-f a radiological ex;0 e, =.. =. =...'. #.. ='.'i a.,.-. b i a. '..=.

4. ; < _4 s..,,. e, 3 3. e.ul $ '.'. o n

r. a u a s, c r..d,

.y ea;-h and safety risks that may be associated with ex::sures c se ple shall w

e.,.,

n. :. y.owias.,

2..

,..,g

.....,. :,s..; y.,.:.3,...g

.u..,.

s.i.s..

..e 2=.

u..y.

z.

gn.a. g.... :.....~.......n..e

.u..g.

z....

<,.,s

...u...........e....

. z. e a. g.

aise be discussed.

e er;ency reasures during er following an acciden; sh:ui:

and centrasted e e vir:r en;al risk of accidents snculd aisc be :: :ared ::

- -a:'clegical risks assc:iated w'th normal and a- ; i:a:ed ::erational

.i.

-eleases.

.s.

,.n.

[,%t f.f ((

s.

C,,,..... i s s... ' s a. >. - =...". E. '. h. a.. a.

4

....<..,... j....<-

...<s....,

. h a.

.2 a.=..=.'..'.'.l'.'.k*.*.v.=....='...

1. . r e.. *..'..=. ' o e,. -..*....>.7.v "... - =...= '.... i a. s i n '. h e

.:ey.

c.,,,es.....

.."s, and. i. a.x.=..s.n>.

i.s nvir.,nmen'oai z.. t.... z..,

s...

.......e

...........e

. 4.. 3 is

..<,,,.a4.

..... r., 4..

4.. s :.., 3. s.,..a 5,13 $ s. 4. c c.

,...r ha.s

.5.,.

c.

...jesic=. w.li.s..s

.6..a..n. s.a.. o,.h.

.e.<..,.

2.

.e.

.w.

...e o.

ar-is sufficiently advanced that a beginning should now be made in the use cf t.ese reth:d=1 c.ies in the reculater.v process, and that such use will re:reser.t a constructive and rational f:rward step in the discharge of its respersibilities.

It is the intent of the Cc =ission in issuing this Statement of Interim Pc' icy that the staff will initiate treatments of accident considerations, ir. accordance with the forecoin; guidance, in its ongoine NEp' reviews, i.e.,

f:- ary proceeding at a licensing stage where a 'inal Environmental Impact S ate ent has not yet been issued.

These new treatments, which will take into account significant site. and plant-specific features, will result in re-e detailed discussions of ac:ident risks than in previous environmental state ents, ;articularly for th:se' related to conventional light water plants

. 6.. e s..e.,/..e o. s........ s w.: ] ] l. a.

. s 4

3

,. s..., s e.,. sj..s.

1* js

.X.:.....;

5...,.

. g w..

......... 4...e

., =. p=. ". i n "... =. =.. ".. '....... a.. '. a l r. e k s w '..=-'.d.....e

.e 4...i l E.

• o '. h.. s a.

d.

,. i

....2 y z.......,.a.

,.,:.........,..a...e,

.,. a......,. 7 3.y

,, a....... u..

s.

f:r e.ases 1.v:lv'ng soecial cir:u-stan:es where lass i risks have been cen.

e. z.., a s

d. a. e... '. '. a. d..= ".. v e..

Thu.e,

.'.i.e

..k..=. c. =. i. g el i..v i s e

.e,s..

..e.

=.." 2. e a n.v. a. k c '.., r. '. i.- a.... = '..-..*.".e'..m..e

. =. =.. e 1 n r,

'. n a.

......... e. e r..e., e. 3, r. e. s.... e. x... e s a. d.

'. r. = n.v.. a. v i -"..e i.v 'i. s u =. d "..a. e ~.a. n. s,

a n:r, abse"; a showing cf si=ilar s:ecial circumstances, as a basis for cpen.

';, -:::e ' ; Or ex:anding any Orsvicus cr On;0ir.; :Poceedir;.'

4.

4. e p..,. ; :., ' '.-. ". d i a c. =. =. wi.'

..'.=. '..~.~.e.#..,

w '.. h a.

i..

u......,

3 - e.

... 2.1.'e '....-, n e i s '. a.. '.

.a.s.

1. . =. *.1

..".e.-......,

~

...c-...". a. v.. a.

e.

......-~.e. si.d. r.

.. -'ias-.

w

.v............ s...... a $ <.> 1, e.

a 4..

a. 4

...s.

.g.

'*: ', H

'n

/ UJf l.

. " e

1. . r. *. *. *. *..* #. '. ' * *. *.... i s s #. w- ".. **** *** -. * #. #.

• C<

• 3 *. *. *rs 4.

e.

.2

.r

.i

......... 2.

.,..g.,,

• I.V C *.,.*. s #..#. *. *.* *. i ". n * #,

A 1' '.h e r 4 s s..

4. :7 3. s i.. e... g ] g, 3,. 3.

. 4.. s..

n...

i

_4..jc.e.ge.,:n.

w

e. w w u!s.,..ey...

s ; 4.

4.... -

e......

2.3....L..T ag.:r. 3 e

c.

w..

o

.i..

.. w...

se:.er:ss :# Ie-i:us accider.:s. Cases for such censideratien are these for

. hic.. a :'r.ai Envircr. men al Statement has already been issued at the Construc-ti:n Fe:--it s age but for which the 0*eerating License review stage has not ye: been rea sec.

In carrying cut this directive, the staff should consider relevant site features, includir.g p pulaticn density, ass::#ated with accident risk in ::= paris n to such features at presently c;eratin; plants.

Staff sh:uid als: ::nsider the likelihood that substantive changes in plant design featuaes which r.ny c:mpensate further for adverse site features r.ay be mere etsii.v in:cr:: rated in plan's when construction has not. vet c. roc.ressed ver.v Enviren. er.tal F.eports submi:ted by applicants for constre::icn permits and fer c:erating licenses en er af er Atly 1,1930 should incluce a discussion

f the Envir: ter.tal risks asse:iated with accidents that follows the guidance

-.4. V.. w..

4..

I

.4a..s.

. ; e.. y u..,.'. a.. s U n. d. =. *. Ca.eida.ra ti an i

• at:iti:r, : i s respcnsitili-ies under 'iEF1, the ';.* a's: hears res:ensi.

1

.c,........

... :,...jc :.... :..

e...g....e....:..

.:."a.

. ". '.,i i t

.h.a..> 1 '. h l

.o..:.

I t Z t t *

• 3.S '. b.. d.'...

'...O.

t3 33*

C. O. C. *.* '/.

.O '.' f.t '.* l *. *.

4

• • a ". S * #

A****

..#.C.*.,***

• • A.

.s *

• CS

...W g,

.. = =

.... ~.....

-s..

".".a.*.* *

• I.V n u"..> h *.

.ws

.wa..

4. 4.. 4.. y.n e. a.....ee:.

e "..ne

...,-4

.a.

e.

ka.jn-...g w..s.s h.v.he. *...

d..e e... s e...

e..e.. $.gs.e. gr. i..

e ss.

3..

.:....e......

4..,4 4.,.e i :i:.t:ely raiate to the " Class 9 a :ident" cues:icn and which are either the s.tfe:: Of cu ren: ruiecaking er are candida e subje::s f:r rulemaking.

1 i

-Ie*

%.. G La,r.:.O.".

.y-

.... t h e C :-. ss,.cr. issued for public cer..en;s a orcocsed

..e:e :ar...:,

.le *':n w:uld significan-iy revise its recuirenents ir.10 CFR Part 50 for e e ;t..:y planni..g for nuclear :cwer plants.

One of the censiderations in

-is u'.e ak'.n; o.s the poter.t'ai conrecuences of Class 9 accidents in a generic sense.'

B Au;ust 1979, :ursuant to the Comission's recuest, a Sitir.g Policy Task Force r. ace recc nendations with respect to possible changes in NRC reactor sitir; ; licy and criteria,0 currently se't forth in 10 CFR Part 100. As a

stated therein, its rec 0=endations were made to acce. plish (among others) the following g:al:

"To take into consideration in sitine the risk associated with accidents

~

~

bey:nd the design basis (Class 9) by establishing peculation density and di stributien criteria."

This natter is currently before the Comission.

This and other reccmendations that have been made as a result of the investiga.

tiens into the Three Mile Islar.d Accident are currently beine. brauc.h-toc. ether by tre C:=issien't staff in the fem of proposed Action Plans.e Among other l

sttsrs, these 'nc:r;0 rate re::rendatiens for rulemakin; related to degraded

re :::'ine and core melt accidents. The C =issier ex:ects to issue de:i-s':.: :n t' ese s::icn Flans in the near future.

It is :*e

• missi:n's eclicy

,. s.

e.....

..s,.....

.. :- i s..,.p.... s e...... s.

..,.. r v :.....h a.

C e ni.e s i r n n...

o

'siisves will ake t.istin; and future nuclear p wer pla :s safer, and to

. -..:.:e Of S'.' REC-.C395, ":lannin; Easis for the Deveic::en ef 5:ste and Local Severn.en-Radiciogi:ti Energency Res:ense plans in Sc:ccr cf Light Vater ';uclear Power clan s, November 1978.

3 :. 7 o..

....... s.:..n.,

..... e.

s.he..e s.

a.. pe3$ y iasy :,..-a.,

c n

3

<,"Actic. T.ans for Inciementing :.e:

.e.dations O' the NU:.EC !C,

'c t#-

.,,s......,

.. s i o.". a *. *..- =...:. '.' ' i a. s e.' '....=.'.'...'-.'.."=....,n,a..a...oa..-.~. i.,

da

..s

.. l.

g

. +

........s 3

w....u.i e s...s.

s..

s.e..

.w.

.g...... s... s.

...c

"*~~.*.*.#.**

• #. ". ' 'I. *. ~...a k i n C.

a. V a..

2 '..." **".."#.~.~.

4.. g. J..,

6.

s

.. g n a. j a..,, 3.. 3.. -. 3.s J..s, gnd d.o. g i e, n 3

..3.4.J.e.g

3... '- s.

3.c..s 3

.a '. a.. a.. e e.. ;u

.s.' -.c..s.'..--=.. ~ 2 a '. s..;, a 'i i. '. v.:. '...'. :.voi\\.a..-..e'.'=..==.=.....e. '. e..'..us a-.'a.

~

s.

<....y,.

,...sgn.7,..,

... e....;gg...s... ca...g

a..,,,,.a..,.

y...

f:r ces:ritir.; and disciesing to tr.e public ne : asis f:r arrivir.; at conclu-s':.s re:trd'.: the envircr. ental risks due t: ac:ide :s at nutiear ;cwer O'. a r.t s.

Dr. :en:letion of the rulenaking activities in these areas, and based ais: u::r I,he experience cained with this state en: Of ir. eri, ::iicy and

..4.;..,...,

.w...... j.e.e :, c, 17.. e.. e. 3 *.,. -..s u a.

a - c.e 's '. l a.

w'..=...a a. s -..= d. d i. i o n s o e

e..

~

i~ OF ?ar: 51 := c:di fy its pcsition on the role of at:ident risks under a :....

g

.,s d.s,v : '.

LL*dA-1 0.* ^..

a..g

,.4..,.., g.e..

For he *:u:iear F.e;ulat:ry Commission I

./J L....,

r. 4.

s......

S a. c. a.. a. :. '.. Na......i.c.e i a..

c.

e

.