ML20010A044
| ML20010A044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dunn C DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108100435 | |
| Download: ML20010A044 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ~1 ~ i k Dist. ~* l z Docket; File. OELD LB#1 Rdg OIE (3) AUGI DEisenhut BJYoungblood bcc: JGrant TERA MRushbrook NRC/PDR RLTedesco L/PDR , Docket ko.:cL50-334 y RVollmer NSIC TMurley TIC RMattson ACRS (16) Mr. C. II. Dunn, Vice President RHartfield, MPA Operations Division Dequense Lignt Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dunn:
Subject:
Class 9 Accident Analyses in the Beaver Valley, Unit 2 Power Station Environmental Rcport The C<rn' Statement of Interim Policy dated June 13,1980, (45 FR 40101), stat wironmental :mports sub:nitted by applicants for construction perm gerating licenses on or after July 1,1980, should include a discussion of the environnental risks associated with accidents that follow the guidance herein." Therefore, in accordance with this policy statement, we request that you consider the more severe kinds of very low probability accidents that are physically possible in environnental impact assesscents required by the flational Environmental Policy Act. Such accidents are conmonly referred to as Class ' accidents. A copy of this statement is enclosec. Your analyses of these accidents should be presented in the Environmental Report regarding ileaver Valley Power Station at the time you tencer your application for an operating license. t% p Sincerely, s f[ 6(L. hk orfstme e wd br Ng y. p Enbert 1. T*1meo g hu' h. 0 5 p# W ~ Robert L. Tecesco, Assistant Director for Licensing k,,5 - - O@/ Division of Licensing Ng . h '
Enclosure:
-s T Poh9 Statement of Inter.. icy (45 FR 40101) cc w/ enc 1.: See next page 8108100435 810803 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P PDR ni, DL:L B5 L UL N.tt omee >...fQ............ Q./.......U L -{9]L suame >.@.r.inU.y.s..... 3.J.y.o ugg).p.p.q.,.g. .s.c.q.....
- 7. /..M/. 81.........7../..p*. /. 8.1.1
. 7../.../.8.1......... om> RC FORM 315 (10-J0) tiRCM 024o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY uscroo m.-m ma
I Mr. Earl J. Woolever Vice President Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Mr. M. H. Judkis Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Power Systems 1800 M. Street, N. W. P. O. Box 355 Washington, D. C. 20036 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 i Karin Carter, Esq. Mr. C. O. Richardson, Jr. Special Assistant Attorney Gene'ral Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Bureau of Administrative Enforcement P. O. Box 2325 Executive House - 5th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Joseph A. Fricker, Jr. Utility Counsel City of Pittsburgh 313 City-County Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Attorney General Department of Justice ~ i Capitol Annex Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1 i Governor's Office of State Planning & Development ATTN: Coordinator, Penna. State Clearinghouse P. O. Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 d Mr. Thomas J. Czerpah, Mayor Borough of c..ppingport P. O. Box 26 i Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 l U. S. Environmental Pro +ection Agency ^* ATTH: EIS Coordinator i Region III Office Curtis Building (Sixth Flcor) 1 6th & Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 l t E I L
lend to ret we cf re&;m e d z or radioacth e me!ca. intich: sNeen:es that u.n resd m m edepate cochng ofiaar f/ and to reh ng of the reactor core. In t:.4 regard. attention shall be gh :n both to the prWbility of occurrence of such releases and to the environmenta! consequenres of soth re! eases.This staternent of ir :e,m pohg is tJ en in teord.ndicn w.:h other onping safety-rehted act:vities that are directly related to accident considerations in the areas of ;Aant de:Jgn. cperational safety. siting policy, and emergency phnning. The Commissian intends to continue the rulemaking on this raatter when new sitmg requirements and othu safc:y related requirements incmporating accident considerations are in p! ace. DATES: This statement of interim policy is effective June 13.1930 Comment period expires September 11.1950. 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 AoonEssts:The Commission intends the interim policy pidance contained Nuclear Power Plant Accident herein to be imm'ediately effective. Considerations Under the National llowes er. al' interested persons who Environmental Poticy Act of 1969 desire to submit written comments or st,ggesticns for consideration in AGENCY: U.S Nuclear Regulatory connection with this statement should Commission send them to the Secretary of the ACTIOT Statement of Interim Policy. Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory SUM M ARY:The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Wa shington. D.C. 20555. Commission (NRC) is revising its policy Attention: Docketing and Service 6 for considering the more severe kinds of Branch. very low probability accidents that are ron runTHen 1% FORM A*.lON CONTACT: physically possible in environmcnta! R. Wa s ne llaus ton' Chn.: A ccident mpact assessments required by the Evaluatwn Branch Office of Nuclear ..ational Environmental Policy Act Reactor Replation. U.S. Nuclear (NEPA). buch accidents are commonly Regulatory Commission. % asyu.ngton. referred to as Cau n ar ri&nte D.C. 20555. Tele; h ane: (301) 492-7323. fobowmg an acJdent c!cssd,caison SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORM ATIO% scheme propose 1 by the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to NRC) in Accident Considerations in Past NEPA 1971 for purposes of implementing ppy;pw3 NEPA.'The March 28.1979 accident at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear The proposed isnnex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (hereafter the plant has emphasized the need for " Annex"J was pubhshed for comment changes in NRC policies reFarding the considerations to be given to.wriou, on December 1.1971 by the (forrner) accidents from an environmental as well Atomic EnerFy Commission.11 proposed as a safet3 point of view. to specify a set of standardized accident This statement of interim policy assumptions to be used in announces the withdrawal of the Environmental Reports submitted by proposed Annes to Appendix D of 10 applicants for construction permits or CFR Part 50 and the suspension of the operating licenses for nuclear power rulemaking proceedmg that began with reactors. It also included a system for the publication of that proposed Annex classifying accidents according to a on December 1.1971. It is the graded scale of severity and probability Commission's position that its of occurunce. Nine classes o'f accidents, ErwironmentalImpact Statements shall were defined. ranging from trivial to in%de considerations of the site-very serious. It directed that "for each spaific environmental impacts class, except classes 1 and 9. the attributable to accident sequences that environrnental consequences shall be evaluated es indicated." Class 1 events ' Proposed as an Annes to 10 CFE b rt so. were riot to be considered because of a Arg7ndia D. So FR 22ML The Com n man's NEPA. their trivial r unsequences. whererss in tm,metrenbrj repht.ons were sulseg ently (b.ly reFard to Clsss O es ents. the Annex 18.1W4) r evised sad remst as 10 CTR l art si liui at that ime the Commessn.n rioted that *'The Propened stated as fo!Iows: Annes is stdl under we+derahon * * *" 39 G 2Cr9
\\. Tim ~ /.nw u e CW o mne within a Lmik radius of the Punt and boh m wh'n the PU IID " IIr'" 8!* t , y.entes of & N d w e ise' h rs wmr. d;ffereacts Lt 1.vcen beiW w Mer sinf! A red es ixus on risk ta the reactors UnVN and p m& d' water endmr. men bu: d.d rot fmd tut the eve.eme than dm pntate d -M prubabihty of a cure wh es ent d wyn begs in potecme $3 s'em 4 reactors {pWR). Bwond thest. few occuring m the fest plu was crpnrerea safety fratu.es t heir specifics, the discEions have essentia!i3 any different than for land-conm;uer ces wud be men, flow ever, tr" reiterated the guidme cd e Annes based plag In its Wmorandum and J and have rehed upon the Annex's Order In tne Matter (J Offshore Power e r r nk e t c. y conclusica th.c the probahrhry of low. Defense in depth inuitige phydcal ochurrence of a Class 9 eved.s tao lew Systerns? the Com'nission (;oncurred m barnerst quaMy assurer.te for desis, the staes juuraent Thus. tne Reactor na.nlactu c. and eperanen. conmwed to warrant con,ideration. a condusion Safety Study and NRC experience with naveihna n d tutmg and c omeruhve based upon gencra!!y stated safety these cr s^s hae served to refocus design are all pphed to provide and consida n Hons. attent on on the need to reemphasize ir.aintain the reqmred high degree of Wit? r pubhcation of the Reactor that environmental risk entails both, as uram e that pa:ential accioer.ts m this Sa fM-2dy (WASil-1400) in draft prchbihdes and conwquences, e pomt class are. and wili rernain, sufnaently r a,ote b b y i probabihty th t the envircarnental ns October 1E5. the accidcn d:W-sions that was mde in the.pubhca. tion of the is entrene!y low cor the reasons. it is not Annet but was not gwen coequate in Environrnental Impact Statements necemry to discus such events in began to refer to this first detailed study empha st s. in July 1977 the NRC commissioned a appbcants' Erni cnm-of the risks assuciated with nadear Risk Assessment Review Group "to, v rt s. A footnote to the Anacx stated: power p; ant accidents. particularly clarify the achievements and hmitations Atthough this annex refers to applicant's events which can le'.d to the melting of of the Reactor Safety Study." One of the Enviroarrent Reptuts the current the fuelinside a reactor.' The referencc. cmdusmas of this study.pubbshed m a sn:mpts M other provisions thereof are to this study were in keeping with the. September 1976. as NUREG/CR-M00. appcable m ett u the content rnay intent and Spirit of NEPA "to disclose. " Risk Aces.srncnt Review Group Report e,tiarwise require to AEC draft and Snal te evant infortnation, but it is obvious to the U.S. huclear Regulatory D f ailed $tafe nents' that WASll-1400 did not form the basis Comrmssion." was that "The Rev,ew i Daring the pubhc comment period that for the conclusion expressed in the Group was unable to determine whether followed pubbcation of the Annex a Aanex in 1971 that the probability of the absolute prehabilities of accident number of criticisms of the Annex were occur nce of Class 9 cvents was too 5'9 **"C'S I" U AE# "" M "' received. Principal among these were jg.,.varrant their [ site specific) low, but beheves that the enor bounds the folinwing: cc.mnteration under NEpA. e those estiraates aie in general, (1)The philosophy of prescribm.g. The Commission's staff has. however. grea% understated. This and other assumptions does not lead to oby ctive identified in certain cases unique fmdings of the Review Group have also analysis. circumstances which it felt warranted sub tquently been referred to m 7 (2)It f ailed to treat the probabilities of rnore extensive and detailed Environmental irr. pact Statcments, along accidents in any but the roost general consideration of Class 9 crents. One of with a reference to the Commission s wa r. 'h"" *" S '!"' P"P "O policy statement on the Reactor Safety [5] No supporting analysis was given e r cactor aM KRM a hqd. Stude in light of the Risk Assessment to show that Claw 9 accidents are "II'" I"st breeder eactor very hiI w Crpup Report, pubbshed on sufheiently law in probabihty that their wnt imm t,ne mom mdonal January is.1979 The Commission's consequen'ces in terms of environmental St watu read r p n!s i r which the staternent accepted the fmdbg. ef the rids need not be discussed. safety experience bat.c is much broader. Review Croup, bath as to the P cctor (4) No guidance was given as tu how "I Safety Study's achievements : ; as to accident and normal reteases of h" ' " "R its lun,taHons, i radmactive effluents dar, g ;ilant discussion of the consideration it h d A few Draft Environmental m o;+ ration should be factored into the given to Class 9 events. Statements have been published cost-benefit analysis. in the early site review for the subsequent to the Three Mile Island (5)The accident assumptions are not {enyman site,the staff performed an accident These were for conventional gerierally appbcable to gas cooled or mfonnal assessmed fthe m!atn e land-bard light water reactor plants hquid m'etal cooled reactors. differences m Class 9 acc, dent and continued to nflect the past i (G) Safety ar.d environmental risks are mugmas arnong tne abaN practice with respect to accidents at not eswntially different considerations. 5 105- (SECY-7&-137) such plants but noted that the Neither thiAtomic Energy In the caw of the appkab.on by experience gained from the Tbece Mile Commission nor the NRC took any Offshore Pow er Systems to manufacture Island accident was not factored into further action on this rulemaking ' xcept Doanns nu&ar posver plants, the staff the discussion. e in 1974 when 10 CFR Par 151 was jadged that the env,ronmental risks of Our experience with past NEPA i promulgated Over the intervening years s me C. lass 9 events warranted special resiews of accidents and the TMI the accident considerations discussed in c nsideration 'nie special accident clearly leads us to believe that Environmenta! Impact Statements for circumstances were the potentially a charge i3 needed. proposed nuelcar power plants reflected serious co. sequences associated with Accortfmaly, the proposed Annex to the Fuidance of the Annex with few water (bquid) pathways leading to Appendix D of to CFR Part 50 published eaceptions. Typically, the discussions of radi lop, cal exposures if a mohen on December 1.1971.is hereby accident consequences tiirough Class 8 re clor core were to fall into the water withdrawn and shall not hereafter be (design basis s.rridents) for each case ur.ed by appl. cants nor by the staff. The have reficcted specific site
- *'""""'**h'"'*"'5*IYS'"dF reasons for the withdrawal are as characteristin associated with sseter refers to nor wen the term 'Cleet 9 areident-g"
"*S; meteorology (the dispersion of releases .hp,n term is w. mon %.4 en tweety of radioactive inaterial mio the eqmatent to a are incit et ciden: 8%P'ed" H A
- DM el 'o M **
- WMin htmry in atmos;4here), the actual population I
e e r -.....---.~.-. ~.- rg
'.ne . Ge nt. The ens mn:m ned cons p of i.w.: % t TM,.N, e het A. tin aff4 k m 6 cf. cWnb M
- whe e prd diihty < '+
- e sh a s / cf s : M b baa < sumtad shal! alc s arcumst inces e a N a fo: n W t (D s < that. G, m :q ta the L utf or d.semd in pmhahibshe tu + %ch ro,.enas o: m ad.n e:.yrre.- u r4 " pdt, deinate de a( cident coasequmces shall be chmcteraed in ongoing procred.ng SA, 5 E' The dJfddha of Ci.ess S accidents tenns of potenti.d radio:of ca! How ev er t is alsa the intr tofthe i in the / wx is not suff,ciently precise expe3ures io individuals. in gnpubtion Commission that the staff taka deps to identif addinanal cases that nopt in w t-wn its f urtl t. use in Commission groups, and. where appbcaih :o bic:a 3 pAcy. ru!cs. and rep? pons, nar as a Health and afety risks that may be warrant early con Almabon of e.ther decaian crikrma in agency practice. arso:iated with expesures to peop e additions! features or other actions l 3 The Annecs presmption of shall he di. cussed in a manner that which would pn. cat er m;tigate the as ca;stians to be used in the analysis forly reflects the c rient state of consequences of serious acc@nts. of the environmental consequences of knowledge regardi. such risks. Cases for such censideratioa are those ar< i bts does not c ontribute to Socioecono nic impats that might be int widch a F;na! Envircamcnial objectim cc, sideration. associat<d with einergency n:emres Stolement has a:teady b(en issued at 4.1he Ar.nas does not gis e adequate during or following an accident shoold the Constmction permit stage but for cor.sideraban to the detailid trentraent alsa be discussed. The environt ital which the Opennng Lirense review of unsures taktn to pro ent and to risk of accidcats should also be stage has not yet been reached in mitigate the t.onsequences of an ;Jents compared to and contrasted with carrying out this directis c the staff in the safety resiew of each apphcation. radiological risks associated with should consider re!evant site features. The classification of accidents normal and antici;iated operatior:al including population density, anociated pn3 md in that Annex shall no longer releases. with accident nsk in comparison to such In promut ating this interim puAnce, features at ;>retently operating plants. ye qcd. In its place the fo!!owing g mter:m gmdante is gnen for the the Commission is aware that there are Staff should also consider the hkelihood treatr eat of accident risk and wili!ikelv remain for snme tirne to that substantiv e cbnaes in p! ant design wnsiderations in NEPA reviews-come many uncertainties in the features which may cSmpensate further ~ application of risk assessment rnethods, for adverse site features m.ny be more Atrident Considerations in Future and ii expects that its Enviromnental easily inrorporated in p ants when NEPA Reviews Impact Statements will identifv major construction has not yet propessed s ery ~ uncertaiaties in its,babibstic far. it is t,ne pos. tion of the L,onrn.s sion i ItM its Ensironmental Impact estirnates. On the e,.aer hand the Environmental Reports submitmd by ,7 S.winents, pu' uant to Section 102(c)(i) C,ommission believes that tae state of apph.tants for c onstruction permits and 4 a tae art is sufficiently ads anced t.r.at a for operating liter.scs en or af ter July 1. f of the o.. tional Envirenraental Policy } Act u.,M9 shal:.mclude a reasoned besmning shouhl now be made.m. t,h e IMO should m.cude a discussion of the r comiderahon of the environmental r. s "*" d I3**" "#I)'odo;ogies in the environmental r. ks associated w.th isx is i (impicts) attributable to accidents at the ugulat ry proms, and that s huse ac.cadents thr.t fol,mws the guidance partMeiar facility or facihties within the "'N "l""*". a c ntrac tive o m, ra tional gisen herem. ~ of each such statement. In the soon, sis and discussion o. such risks. forward step in the discharge of its Related Poh.c} m*terst. der r n any r epnnsanh ties. Consideratm.n epyournately equa,, attention shall be ,' is the m.ient of the Comm.u s:en m given ta the probabihty of ocrurrence of issuing this Statement of Interim Policy in addition to its resp:nsibihties rebses and to the probabihty of that the staff willinitiate treatments of under NEPA. the NRC aiso bears oc<.crence of the environm-ntal accident considera"ons,in accordance responsibility ender the Atmnic Energy crm*gurnces of those releases. with Ik fomgoing guidance in its Act for the protection of the public IWses refer to radiation and/or ngoing NEPA reviews, i.e., for any health and safety from the hazards radmctis e materials entering pror eed.ng at a licensing stage where a associated with t're use of nudear cr.dronraental exposure pathways, Final Environmental Impact Statement energy. Pursuant to this responsibihty int bdmt: air, water, and ground water. ihents or accident sequences that has not yet been issued. These new the Commissica notes that there are ht. I to n' cases sha!! include but not be treatments, which will take into account currently a number of ongains actidfies F od to thnee that can icason,bly be significant site-and plant-specific being considered by the Commission features, will rc.mit in more detailnd and its staff which intimately relate to e s rcted to necur. fr. riant accident discussions of accident risks than in the " Class 9 arr' 4nt" question and e mnces that can lead to a spectrum of which are either a subject of current r? -aws Mi be discussed and shall previous ensironmental stat, nents, in cM anences that can resnit in particular!y for those related., rulemaking or ar< md.date subjects for inadeT. ale rochng cf reactor fuel and to conventienallight water plants at land-rulcmaking. meP s of the reactor core.The extent to beed sites. It is expected that these On December 19.19a the resised treatments willleau to Commbsion issced for pubhc ccmraent
- which esents arising from cau3es enntlusions regarding the environmental a proposed ru'c whit.h would cxtema! to the plant which are consWred passible contributors to the risk s of accidents similar to those that significantly revise its requircrnents in risk conciated with the particular plant would be reached by a continuation of to CFR Part 50 for emersency planning sb?i also be discussed. Detailed cunent practices, particularly for cases for nuclear power plana. One of the gum!itative considerations that funn ir. solving special circumstances where considerations in this rulernaking was Clns 9 risks have been considered by the buis of probabilistic estimates of re! eases need not be incorporated m the the 5f ah as described above.Thus. this ac-,em c.u4.e D:.hd 6. wee
- h id = N rmeA s 'emm f
Envirorn. ental Impact Staternents but change ia pclicy is not to be construed sb!: be referenced therein. Sach as any Imk of confidence in c{mc!asions Q[* rcierentes shallin:.lude as np;iticable, rey.ucFag the environmental risks of .... w g, a,o n y c.,,,,,, accidents ex;newed in any previously aname reprts on saf ety evaluations. t 1
= , - al t e.' onces of Class 9 he a:14 L a's1:ss ye notic v nst.' ln At is: Us'V jusu nt to the Ce:rtmsior/s re';i.er.t a Sit:n;; Pahry asi f c:ce rede recomrnendatiens with respect to pasWbh* chanps in NI C rearf or sitcg pchcy and crite:ia.* rtm en$ se* forth m 10 chi Part IN As sta'ed the cin. its rerna.r.Endalians w e:e rmde !:s accompl;sh hmang c,thers; :Lc f:!k...ing sna! To td e a:o cons &ratien in sitms the ri k .nsv:s:cd wh accide: is br3cnd the design Ns3 (C5u r by c'abbig pcpubtion 6.m ey and d.smbution crin ria Tr :s matter is currently before the Commission. Tt:s and other recorrunenda!it.ns that hase been rude as a result of the ins eatiptions into the Three Mile Island accident are current!y being braeght incether by the Commission's staff in the form of proposed Action Plans.* Amor.g other matters. tht se :ncorporate t.sommendations for i 'ernokir:g related to d graded core cooling and core melt acc:dcats. *Ihe Commission expects to issue detisions en these Action Mans in the near future. It is the Comrnission's pohcy and intent to devote NRC's raajar r.:scurces to matters which the Cornmission beheves will make existing and future nuc! car power plants safer, and to present a recurrence of the kind of accident that occurred at Three Mile is!and in !!.e interi:n. howes er. and pending comp!ction of rulemaking actm:ies in the areas of ernergency planmng. siting criteria, and design and uprationa! safety. all of which ins olve wncderations of serious at ci lent pot-ntial the Commission finds it emntial to impros e its procedures for describing and declosing to the pub!ic the b.esis for arriving at conclusions regardmg the ensironmental risks due to acddents at nuclear power p! ants. On cenple:!on of the rulemaking activities in these are.rs. and based also upon the esperience gained with this statenrnt of ~ saterim policy and guidance, the Commission intends to pursue possible ch,nges or add:tions to 10 CFR Part 51 to end fy its position on the role of %cident risks under NEPA.
- Cf NUk1 C-ov6 'F"a,mrFIbsis for the I w.ek+mem s.! $t.te and lual Cm er, ment F.6td..t al r.serpr.g Eesponic Plans m 5 mrt of 1 grh % aver % dear Fower PlaMe "" Nos W%
- Nt:b ' 04*a 'F eport of the Samp Fs_.9Ta sk t erier %sas: WB.
- D: sh N! p FG4nco. " Ar t.s.n F.sa For
(+;4 cr -g Ec :c mre cr/ etio:. c f si.e f :es d. nt's C cr.ss 'o %d Oder 5 u6e: of e.3e IKU 2 A t e.drs." Fme'n'.cr 10, W9 + --}}