ML19338C103
| ML19338C103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1971 |
| From: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338C099 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310680 | |
| Download: ML19338C103 (5) | |
Text
. - -
/
P ROi.Unt; EAc.3E' 321,Mo L..
V -
s.0", te V
UNITED STATES I
/
ATOMIC ENERGY dOMMISSION
- V*
wAssincros.o.'c. oses I
- gaf 5-
%ie' Sept' ember 3, 1971 g...
' ~
NOTE:. SENT TO AI.L AFFECTED LICENSEES, LICENSE APPLICANTS, AND
[
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS 3
Nr Sk:
The Atomic Energy Ccamission has adopted the enclosed revisien.of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 of its regulations pertaining to implementaticn of the National Envircrxental Policy Act of 1969 (IEPA), effective upcn publication in the. Federal Re rister.
Rev13cd Appendix D is an interim statement of the Cc=dssien's policy and pmcedures fer. imple. enting l2?A in ecmpliance with the July 23, 1971, decisicn of the United State.: Ccurt of Appeals for the District h;.
of Colurrbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs ' Cocrdirccin-Ccrittee, Inc.,
et al v. United States Atcric Enern Oc=.issien, et al.
.....p.
The revision tc es into account the views ~ expressed at the conference
/
of nucicar pcwer industry, envirenr. ental organizations ard State and t.
~.
Federal representatives conducted.by the AEC on this subject en
./
I' August 27,1971, in Genrantown, Marylan:1.
j
.y,-
a z
~
As noted in the enclcsure, since tNs. revision of Appendix D was
..i necessary to ec@ly with the Court cf Appeals' decision, the Ccami'ssion I
found cood cause existed for emitting the usual notice of pmposed mle r:cking and public pmcedure thereen as unnecessary and dr: practicable and for making the revisien effective upon publication.
g,, _,
F
' llowever, the Ccrission is inviting uritten ec=.ents and sug:;estiers concerning Appendix ~ D from all interested persens within 60 days after p'-
.publicatien. Shose ccmr.ents will be considered tHth the view toward p;.
possible further amendments.
I also am enclosing for your information a ccpy of a docu:mnt' entiuJed, "c. cope of Applicants' Envirormental-Reports with Resp.ect to Transportatien, Transmission Lines, and Accidents."
1.Cs. : "
J *.
Sincerely, y-c-
k e
t r
o Harold L. Price t-e c
=g Director of Regulation g
b.
DocKEiE3 Enclosurcs:
1.
Revised Appendix'D-S mN-
,g 2..'" Scope of Applicants'..."-
NOV101971,,
t a emm f
a.w ?rm'A'D pys po o
tenOA.
D
/
-8007.310N d. g wc>
sc
,q p
- = ~ a a
- t t
.f t V
n --
September 1,1971
.L.
SCOPC OF APPLICANTS' l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS '<l!TH. RESPECT -
TO TRMSPORTATION, TRMS:4ISSION-LINES, AND ACCIDENTS:
,v.;,
?
In addition to infonnation called for in the Draft AEC Guide to f
the Preparation of-Environmental Reports..for Nucicar Power. Plants,
.the -Applicant's Environmental Report should deal with the ~ following
' ma tte rs :
t 4
I.
TRM5p0RTATION Transportation to and from the facility being licensed.
P.-
p; In the licensing of, nuclear power reactors, the Applicant's Environmental Report should ' describe, to the extent practicable, the envi,roncental. effects of the tran,portatinn'of fuel elements from the fuel fabrication plant to the reactor as well as the transportation of spent fuel clerents' from the reactor to the c
fuel reprocessing plcnt and the transportation of. packaged f.
radioactive' material from.tne reactor to low ~ level waste burial F. @
grounds.
In the licensing' of f el re;2rocessing plants, the f
. Appii cant,'s. Envi ronren tal Repo shuuld describe the environmental
. e f fec ts i o f ' the' trans porta tion f spent. fuel to the plant _ and the" transportation of high levt I and low level wastes from g.
'the plant to. the location of s.orage or dispo:.a1 offsite.
This e-.
information should, to the ext nt practicable, include the L. /
method of transport (i.e., rai
, highway, or water) to and E
. from the: facili ty.being ' li cens 2d; anticipated frequency of' each ' type of shipnunt;- and the type of transport containers P'
for each type of shipacnt.
(;;.
II.
TRMSMISSION LINES
- ~~
g'j.
i
[, ";
In the licensing of nuclear.poner reactors, the Applicant's
. Enviro,nnental Report should contain a general description of the e
environrental effects of transmission lines whose' construction is necessitated by 'the addi tional.' electric. peder to be supplied from s the reactor.
In general, such transmission lines will include -lines running from tho' reactor to the location where 'the new line feeds b
. into a substation, major existing. grid, or other' existing systems, fr.
. The Applictnt 'should also identify any authorizations or approvals obtained from Federal, regional, State and local authorities.
^
l 3
t
_ 3 j,
'dD W
J ( *,
-1
_J-T f-
~
f p,,
m l
(
l i
- t...
2'-
- l..
III.
ACCIDENTS Postulated accidents are discussed in another context in Applicants' Safety Analysis -Reports.
The principal line of defense is accident pmvention through correct design, manufacture, ft.,
t and operation, and a quality assurance-program is used to provide
- and maintain the necessary hn;h iiitegrity of the reactor system.
Deviations that may occur. am handled by protective systems to place and hold the plant in a safe condition. Notwi ths tan. ding all this, the conservative postulation is made that serious accidents might occur,' in' spite of the fact that they are.
cxtreccly unlikely, and engineered safety features are installed to mitigate the consequences of these unlikely postulated events.
In the consideration of the environrental risks due to postulated c..
accidents, tna probabilitics of their occurrence and their O
consequences must b.oth be taken int.o account.
It is not
/
practicable to consider all possible accidents, so the spectrum of accidents, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious, is divided into classes in the attached table.
Each class can be' characterized by an occurrence rate and a set of consequences.
F.
Ideally, the classes would be small and ho.iogencous; practically,'
p'.
each of the classes in the table includes events with different probabili tics and consequences.
Using typical or average f
l' characteristics' for eacn class is ~ nevertheioss satisfactory,
- since occurrences of greater or less severity are covered in other classes.
...W '"
For each class except Classes 1 and 9, the environmental c
consequences should be evaluated using assumptions as realistic
~
as the state of knowledge pemits.
Those classes found to
- F-have~ significant' adverse environ
- : ental effects should be evaluated as. to prooability, or frequency of occurrence, to
~
enable estimates to be made of environrental risk or cost Larising from accidents of the given class.
!),,
[
~
Clissil events need n'ot be conside' red because of their
]
trivial consequences.
.F a
2\\
y
~!,
E i
e '
6 e
S e
L D
- D'T l-D * * ]h e ]JL1 a
6 La we 1-
~
1
.=
O
1 pe s..
F Class 8 events are the ones considered in Safety Analysis Reports and Safety Evaluations They are used.. together s
with highly conservative' assumptions, as the design-basis events.to establisa the performance requirenants of engineered safety features.
The highly. conservati.ve asr.urations and calculations legitimately used for safety evaluations are not-sui table.for envirenrental risk evaluation,- because the t
\\-
probability.of occurrence is so icw for the unfavorable cor.binations of.circur.s tances used.
For this reason, Class 8 cvents are to be evaluated l realistically,.and will have consequences predicted in this way that are far less severe than those given for the samh events in Safety Analysis Reports, using conservative evaluations.
The occurrences in C-lass.9 involve sequences of postulated
"~
successive faiiures nore severe tnan those postuiated for the '
design-basis for pro:cction systems and engir. cered safety features.
Their cor. sequences cou'd be severe.
Howe ve r, the probability of their occurrence is so small that their envirocrental risk is extrer.ely Icw.
Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers), quality assurance for design, manufacture,
/
and operation, continued survei,11ance and te', ting, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of assurance that potential accidents g.
in this class arc, and will remain, sufficiently remote in
~
probability that the environmental risk is extremely low.
For these reasons, it is not necessary tu discuss them in j
Applicants',Environirontal Rep' rts.
o g
I" "- ~~
Attachnen t:-
Classification of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences I
i..
g.
e O
O g
e e
N s
s
.F-g
+
m i
-TABLE'
}$
"CLASSIFICATIO.E ~0F POSTliLATED ACCIDENTS A'l0 OCCURRENCES l
(*
l r
r;o 6F CLASS DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE (S)-
{ j.,, '
Trivial Incidents Small spills 1
Small leaks inside containment
{
2 Misc. Small P.eleases Outside' Spills Containment Leaks and pipe bmaks c~ ' ' -
'l 3
Raddaste System Fai~1ures Equip: rent failure Serious malfunction -
or human error n
4 Events that release radioactivity Fuel failures during normal into. the primary system operation.
Transients outside expected range of variables.
p c.
5 Events that release radioact vity ~
Class 4.& Heat Exchanger
[#
-into secondary system Leak-i 6
Refueling accidents inside Drop. fuel element con tainment -
Drop heavy object onto fuel.
Vechanical malfunction or e - -- ~
~
t loss of cooling in-transfer tube.
k 7
' Accidents to s' pent fuel outsi de, Drop fuel element 1;.,
(
^
Drop heavy object onto fuel.
~
containment-Drop, shielding cask --
[/s loss of cooling to cask _.
Transportatinn incident -
. 'S 7~
on site.
Is
~
8~
. Accident initiation events.
Reactivity transient.
. considered in design-basis -
Dunf um of primary piping evaluation in the Safety Analysis
- Flow dacrease - Steamline i-l Q.'.(l
' break Report lll Successive. failures of 9
, ; Hypothetical sequences of failures more sevem than multiple barrier',
i 1
Class:8~
nomally provided and maintained.
s,o 1
p9 q
m
~
y s
. -