ML20028F900
| ML20028F900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1982 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A699 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-530 NUDOCS 8302070085 | |
| Download: ML20028F900 (25) | |
Text
-
"Y/2-y,-.
STATUS OF SUPPORT WORK FOR REACTOR SITING CRITERIA RULEMKING I.
PRESENT PRACTICE Reactor siting practice has evolved over the years through staff experience in the licensing of reactors at ninety-one presently active sites as well as evaluation of other sites which were never approved (e.g., Newbold Island, Ravenswood) or have been withdrawn for various financial and scheduling reasons (e.g., Douglas Point, Greenwood).
The foundation for present practice is expressed in 10 CFR 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," (issued in 1962) and Regulatory Guide 4.7 " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations" (published as draft in 1974).
10 CFR Part 100 requires (see Figure 1) specification of (1) an exclusionzoneofsuchsizethatanindividualontheboundaryfor two hours following the onset of a postulated fission product.
release would not receive doses in excess of 25 rem to the whole body or 300 rem to the thyroid, (2) a low population zone (LPZ) such that an exposed individual on the outer boundary for the entire duration of passage of the release would also be limited by the same doses, (3) a population center distance of one and one l third times the LPZ boundary. Applicants are directed to assume a fission product release, containment leak rate, and meteorological conditions pertinent to the site. TID 14844 (March 23,1962) is referenced as providing a procedural mgthod and sample calculatfor.s for complying with these requirements.c In order to clarify the Staff's position with regard to consid-eration of populations, Regulatory Guide 4.7 was issued with specific population density criteria to be used in a trip level approach to this portion of the review.
The criteria state that cumulative population density at any rr. dial distance out to thirty.
miles should not exceed 500 persons per square mile at plant start-up or 1,000 persons per square mile at end of plant life.
Violation 1The fission product release assumed for these calculations should be based upon a major accident, hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or postalated from considerations of possible accidental events, that would result in potential hazards not exceeded by those from any accident considered credible.
Such accidents have generally been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of the core with subsequent release of appreciable quantities of fission products.
2While TID 14844 is referenced in the regulations, it is no longer used by the staff.
Technical reports published within the last 10 years such as standard review plans, Regulatory Guide 1.70 and related r.aterial are used in its place.
8302070085 821221 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB2-530 PDR
/
, of these criteria is not grounds for automatic rejection of an applicat' 9 Instead it causes the initiation'of a more detailed examina m of alternative sites.
In the 1977 review of the Perryman application the staff interpreted the Regulatory Guide 4.7 guidelines to mean that "... where, on balance, there are alternative sites o# approximately equal merit regarding issues other than population density, and where the proposed site has a population density substantially greater than one of the alternative sites and if that density is in excess of the stated guideline values thgn there does exist a site obviously superior to the proposed site."
In addition to the obvious control over general population density levels around a site, the cumulative nature of these criteria places an upper limit on the total number of people which can reside within a certain distance of a plant but without regard for their distri-bution within that distance (i.e., they could all be concentrated in a single direction).
II.
COMPLICATIONS /RE-EVALUATION j
In the mid 1970's two petitions for rulemaking were filed which' i*
contained detailgd recommendations for a generic rulemaking on siting criteria.
These petitions were factored into the general staff effort to consolidate siting criteria.
In August of 1978 a task force of senior staff members was formed to develop a policy statement on reactor siting criteria.
In August 1979'! this task j
force issued "The Report of the Siting Policy Task Force" (NUREG 0625) which contained specific recommendations for rev'ision of NRC
'l reactor siting policy.
In the fall and winter of 1979', ~the major examinations of Commission activities which followed the accident at Three Mile Island called for revision of the Commission's siting policy.5 i
3 Evaluation of Alternative Sites - Perryman Early Site Review, November 1977, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (page 3) - Internal staff document.
4 Petition for generic rulemaking on siting criteria was filed by the Public Interest Research Group, et al on June 1,1976 (PRM 100-2) and by Free Environment, Inc., et al on April 28, 1977 (PRM 50-20, Part 4).
5"Repor' of the President's Connission on the Accident at Three Mile t
Island," (John G. Kemeny, Chairman) October 1979, and "Three Mile Island, a Report to the Commissioners and to the Public" by the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Special Inquiry Group" (Mitchell Rogovin, Director),
January 1980.
In July 1980, the Comission issued an Advance Notice of Rulemaking (ANR) requesting comment on the recommendations in f;UREG-0625.
In December 1980, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was issued.
In August and September 1980 letters were sent to the Commission challenging the validity of ghe currently accepted methods for establishing accident source terms.
A re-evaluation of _the accident source terms was initiated in response to these letters.
In November 1981, a Scoping Sumary Report was issued for the environmental impact statement which pulled together the staff's best judgment with regard to the coments received on the ANR and NOI and identified those items of the NUREG-0625 recomendations still under consideration for ruleinaking as well as those deleted or deferred for separate action.
In December 1981, in response to the Comission's " Policy and Planning Guidance for 1982" (NUREG-0885), the staff stopped work on preparation of the environmental impact statement and proposed siting regulation in order to await results of the accident source term re-evaluation and the publication of a safety goal.
Since the technical support work is essentially complete, the staff's contractons have been directed to document their work in a set of technical reports which will be circulated for peer review and public comment.
i5 III. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF SUPPORT WORK i
III.1 Source Terms nn In the ir.itial stages of the rulemaking, in ie'sponse to Congressional directjon (FY '80 Authorization Act) and changes in Comission policy, the staff recognized the need to develop source terms which address a full range of potential accidents and do so in as realistic a manner as possible.
It was also recognized that any sat of source terms established now might be affected by the developing infonnation on severe accidents and the source term re-evaluation.
The staff has pr epared a technical report (" Reactor Accident Source Terms:
Design and Siting Perspectives," NUREG-0773) which presents present knowledge of the source term in such a:
way that future source term changes can be readily evaluated within the context of their importance to the development of the provisions of the regulation.
This report is in draft form and is consistent with the initial source term re-evaluation addressed in NUREG-0771
(" Regulatory Impacts of Nuclear Reactor Accident Source Term Assumptions," W. F. Pasedag, et al, July 1981) and NUREG-0772
(" Technical Bases for Estimating Fission Product Behavior During LWR Accidents," June 1981).
6 Letter from W. R. Stratton, A. P. Malinauskas, and D. O. Campbell to NRC Chairman J. Ahearne, August 19, 1980.
Letter from Chauncey Starr to NRC Commissioner J. Hendrie, September 2,1980.
7" Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," 45FR40101, June 13, 1980.
_g
o
-4_
The source terms developed for use in the siting rulemaking are sumarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Each of the source. term categories is representative of a set of accident sequences which include both BWR and PWR accidents.
Although actual accident sequences and probabilities exist for each of the source term categories, the release predictions and probabilities vary substantially among.
reactor designs.
The LWR accidents have therefore been grouped according to their potential consequences and a representative source term has been associated with each group.
While the proba-bilities of accidents.with similar consequences may vary by an order of magnitude, very rare high consequence events tend to dominate risk calculations.
Since population density and distri-bution criteria act to limit the consequences of reactor accidents and not their probabilities, only the consequences have been used in the analyses for the demographic criteria.
The most severe accident source term (i.e., SST 1) is representative of source terms currently used for accident considerations under NEPA.
Isolated changes in indivioual accident sequences will only result in changing the designation of which category contains that accident.
In order for the ongoing source term work to have an impact on the f ;
groupings, it must have the effect of eliminating ~ (or fundamentally 8 l changing the character of) a given category.
N g
III.2 Consequence Calculations a
~
Several contracts were placed for technical evaluations to support the development of siting criteria.
One effort centered on the application of CRAC2 (an improved version of the accident conse-quence model developed for the Reactor Safety Study) to the data on population, meteorological conditions and emergency actions at ninety-one existing reactor sites as well as hypothetical sites using the source terms from NUREG 0773. A systematic review of these consequence calculations was performed to establish signi-ficant relationships ainong the parameters important to the conse-i quence calculations, demographic characteristics, and source terms..
The insights gained from these studies are sumarized in Tables 3 and 4.
The distance relationships in Table 3 permit the identifi-cation of several distances that are of significance for the proposed regulations.
Consideration of the analyses which are summarized in Table 3 and other portions of the regulatory program (e.g., emergency planr.ing requirements with their plume exposure ~ pathway (10 miles) and food ingestion pathway (50 miles) emergency planning zones) have led the staff to conclude that specific provisions should be mad.e in the siting regulation to prevent or limit potential impacts within h mile, 2 miles and thirty miles.
The report of this work, " Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development," NUREG/CR-2239 (to be published), also contains the results of work on socioeconomic impacts of remote siting and site availability. A separate report will be published by Sandia on preliminary studies of the problem of external hazards as a siting concern.
The socioeconomic impact study indicated problems only in i
the event of extremely remote-siting. The site availability work used estimated 1980 population data and information on ground slope, seismic activity and water flow to indicate areas of the country where these factors,might limit opportunities for siting to the extent that stringent demographic criteria might completely preclude siting. This information demostrates that siting would be precluded in certain areas only if the most restrictive demographic criteria were implemented. The external hazards work provided input for a more detailed effort on the evaluation of external hazards.
The effort to date on external hazards has indicated that specific standoff distances for external hazards are not appro-priate solutions to this problem.
III.3 Environmental Impact Statement The preparation of the environmental impact statement required specificati sn of realistic alternatives and detailed evaluation of these alternatives. When this work was begun it became evident that it would be necessary to supplement the earlier work on site availability.
Preliminary 1980 census data were utilized to provide detailed maps which display the effect of specific alternative.
demographic criteria on site availability in three regions of the country.
In addition, to have a more realistic assessment of how this would interact with other siting constraints, previously docketed license applications were examined and ' actual sites referenced as alternative sites were mapped for these regions.
These actual alternative sites represent a good subset of potentially y!
viable sites because the NRC's existing. standards for alternative sites require that they be among the best that can reasonably be f
found. This subset thus provides a realistic spectrum of sites that were selected after examination of all usual siting consid-erations and which can be compared against detailed demographic analyses of the same areas.
In addition specific aspects of site availability that weren't covered in the previous work, such as the.
use of Federal lands and existing sites and the institutional availability of water resources, required specific efforts to address these topics.
Two technical reports will be published to document this work, one on the utilization of the recent census data and mapping effort and one on examination of alternative sites and other siting constraints.
The material in these reports was being prepared for publication in the EIS in February 1982.
However, the delay due to restructuring them for issuance as technical reports will result in publication in early summer 1982.
IV.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS The important summary tables from the support work have been included in this information paper.
Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the consequence calculations which have guided the structuring of alternative demographic criteria within a range which represents a refinement of present staff practice.
7"
. Based on the distance. relationships of Table 3, each alternative has an exclusion radius of mile and " restricted populgtion density" area between and 2 miles (population density < 250/mi ) and a
" population control" area between 2 and 30 miles.
(These " restricted population density" and " population control" phrases are coined to -
avoid confusion with the LPZ of existing Part 100 and the EPZ of Part 50, Appendix E.) Table 5 presents the range of criteria which the staff feels bound the alternatives for acceptable demographic ~
criteria.
The alternatives va between 2 and 30 miles (500/migy in the dgnsity to be applied or 750/mi ) and in the details of the application of a sector limit (k, 3/8 or of the total po lation at a given distance allowed within any two adjacent 22 gu-sectors).
The sector limit is specifically designed to provide additional protection for large population concentrations and_ thus directly limit consequences (See Table 4). An analysis was done to assess the effect of these variations on the three regions examined -
in detail for the EIS.
These regions were examined for each of the alternatives to identify areas that might be available for siting a nuclear power plant (considering only population).
Analysis of the alternatives shows that as the fraction of the total allowed within two sectors increases from to
, the sector-limit goes from being a meaningful restriction to having very little effect. The analysis also shows that where urban sprawl is predominant the sector limit has a reduced benefit.
The primary effect of the sector limit is to force sites farther out from well defined (i.e., compact) urban centers.
Examples of these analyses are presented in map form in figures 2 through 7 for the PJM power pool (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Miryland Interconnection).
In the future some applicants may not be able to find sites which j
meet these criteria.
In such ir stances the staff would propose a controlled relaxation of the criteria. Thus the criteria will not i be absolute but will represent a trip level which may be exceeded under certain conditions. The first condition would be a demon-stration that no otherwise acceptable sites meet the criteria i
within a reasonable site search area.
The second condition would depend on which of three alternative approaches is chosen for that purpose by the Comission.
The first approach would incorporate the consideration of residual risk in the alternative site com-parison of the environmental review as one of the factors in balancing the environmental costs and benefits of alternative sites.
There would be no fixed criteria for acceptance or rejection other than cor.ipliance with the numerical guidelines of the Comission's safety goal.
The second approach would allow incremental relaxation of the density criteria (2 to 30 miles) until sufficient sites had been found to allow a meaningful alternative site analysis.
(The Alternative Site Rule will specify conditions for acceptable numbers of viable alternative sites.)
The increments would be fixed and there would be no explicit consideration of residual risks in the
alternative site analysis. The effect of this approach would be to allow siting in bands around population centers which get closer to that center until the alternative site requirement is met.
The third approach would remove the sector limit and thus allow siting in the orange areas shown in figures 2 through 7.
Such sites would only be acceptable upon a demonstration that specific site charac-teristics reduced the risk profile of any such site to one which could be associated with a site in the normally acceptable areas.
This approach is also consistent with comments of ACRS and the power industry on the Advance Notice of Rulemaking that site specific 4
meteorology and terrain can have a significant effect on the distri-bution of impacts from a reactor accident.
V.
Next Steps The remainder of the technical reports will * ^ published within the next three months.
After these have been available for review, a peer review workshop will be held to obtain the views of interested '
States, interest groups, nuclear industry representatives and'g g,
members of the scientific community.
The staff presently plans to-lt insure an informed and meaningful dialogue by inviting participation by those who have shown interest by commenting on the rulemaking.
Discussion of safety goal considerations will be included at each step.
/
As soon as the results of the source term re-eiajuation are. known, a systematic review of NUREG-0773 will be undertaken to determine
-g how the siting source terms are affected. The results of the review will then be used to assess the impact on the development and evaluation of the alternative criteria.
Final supporting documents, including the results of the workshop, -
will then be prepared to accompany a proposed rule to the Commissio'n in mid to late CY 1983.
- ~.___-
y
8_
TABLE 1 - Brief Descriptions Characterizing the Accident Groups within the NRC
" Accident Spectrum" Severe core damage.
Essentially involves loss of Group 1 all' installed ~ safety features.
Severe direct breach of containment.
Severe core damage.
Containment fails to isolate.
Group 2 Fission product release mitigating systems (e.g.,
sprays, tuppression' pool, fan coolers) operate to reduce release.
i Severe core damage.
Containment fails by basema't
[
Group 3 mel t-through.
All other release mitigation systems t
have functioned as designed, t
Limited to modest core damage.
Containment systems Group 4 operate but in somewhat. degraded mod 6.,
=
Limited core damage.
No failures of enoineered Group 5 safety features beyond those postulated by the various design basis accidents are assumed.
The most severe accident in this group includes sub-stantial core melt, but containment functions as designed.
1 I
f
_g.
TABLE 2 - Source Terms for Siting Analysis Time of Release k'arning Release Release Release Duration Time Height Release Category (hr)
(hr)
(hr)
(meters)
Energy SST 1 1.5 2
0.5 10 0
SST 2 3
2 1
10 0
l SST 3 1
4 0.5 10
'0 SST 4 0.5 1
10 0
SST 5 0.5 1
10 0
Core Inventory Release Fractions (to atmosphere)
(for Release Categories SSTI to SSTS) l I 'a Xc-Kr I
Cs-Rb Te-Sb Ba-Sr Ru L
1.0
.45
.67
.64
.07
.05 9 x 10-3 0.9 3' x 10-3 9 x 10-3 3 x 10-2 1 x 10-3 2 x.10-3 3 x 10,i j
6 x 10-3 2 x 10-4 1 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 1x1j 3 x 10-6 1 x 10-7 6 x 10-7 1 x 10-9 1 x 10-11 0
0' 3 x 10-7 1 x 10-8 6 x 10-8 1 x 10-10 1 x 10-12 0
0 Accident Type _
Nature of Containment Leakage SST 1 Core Melt Large, Overpressure Failure i
SST 2 Core Melt Large, Hp Explosion or loss of IsoTation 1
SST 3 Core Melt
-1%/ day SST 4 Gap Release
-1%/ day I
SST 5' Gap Release
-0.1%/ day
(
.I flote: S$T stands for S_Iting S_ource Term
~
TABLE 3.
(
Approximate Distances-for Consequences (Assumes 1120 MWe Reactor)
Source Distancec (mi) a Term Consequence Mean Maximum SST1 Early Fatalities
<5
<25 Early Injuries
-<10 s50 Land Interdiction 20
>50 SST2 Early Fatalities
$0.5
<2 Early Injuries
<2 s5 t
Land Interdiction s2 s10 t
PAGs s20
>50 i.
E jt t
SST3 PAGs
< 0.5
<2 3~Even for adverse meteorological conditions, early fatalities, early injuries, and land interdiction do not occur offsite for SST3 and F not occur at all for SST4 and SST5.
bProtective Action Guides cStaff Note: The mean stated here is the average of the greatest
.+'
distances at which a given consequence was predicted to occur for all cases studied. The maximum is the greatest distance at which a given consequence was predicted for all cases.
e J
f
- ~ _..
5 TABLE 4 Siting Factors Which Influence Risk Relative Limits Significance 1 Comment
^~
1..
Population Density Consequences-10 Limits lotal Number '
of People 2.
Sector Limit Consequences 4
Limits Population Clustering i
3.
Distance / Grid Size Consequences 3
Limits Population
[
' Clustering 4.
Power Level Consequences 2
Linear 5.
Emeraency Response Consequences 10 Independent jf'h 1
- 6.
Correlation of Wind Probabilities 3
Data and Method *! E and Population 7.
Precipitation
. Probabilities 3
Data Problems
- Occurrence 8.
Number and Proximity Probabilities 2
Linear of Units 9.
Site Meteorology Probabilities 1.2 Data Problems * -
10.
Design Variations Probabilities 100 Independent
- Staff note:
There are significant natural variations and analytical-uncertainties associated with these factors.
These three entries are qualified by notations on data problems and method because of the natural variability and predictable uncertainty both in the information on meteorological conditions and in the prediction of meteorological phenomena.
It is clear, however, that data and predictions under some conditions have good reliability and that this information may have a significant impact on the probable distribution of consequences in the event of a reactor accident.
- +
v w-rw--
p---
e--.%iy.-w w-e--ww
-+---.w.
+
y..-
-e
_+.-g g
y e
v y-
TABLE 5 Alternative Demographic Criteria
~
Alternatives 1
2 3
4 5
6 Exclusion Radius (miles) h Restricted Density Area 250 250 250 250 250 250
'(OuterRadigs=2mi.)
(persons /mi )
Population Control Area Density 500 500 500 750 750 750 (OuterRadigs=30mi.)
-Q'.
(persons /mi )
a 1000 1500 2000-1500 2250 3000 Adjacent 2g)0SectorsDensity (person /mi
( of (3/8 of (h of
( of (3/8 of ( of total) total) total) total) total) total) e v-'
nm.
w w
w y
-w-v m
~----v-,v--
M p
m
7 NEAREST POPULATION CENTER OF ABOUT 25.000 PEOPLE l
l y POPULATION CENTER DISTANCE. AT LEAST ONE AND ONE
/
THIRD THE LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE.
/
LOW POPULATION ZONE
/
/
i
-N,
~
i i!
EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY DISTANCE
- LOW POPULATION.
~
~~~~--
ZONE DISTANCE.
I J
l
/
l l
NUCLE AR POWER REACTOR.
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PART 100 AREAS AND DISTANCES FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ORNL*DWC 82 7569 PJM POWER POOL AREA POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIALLY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTRICTION SECTOR EXCLUSION: GREATER THAN 1/4 OF MAXIMUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 NI > 250/SQ MI, 2-30 Mi > 500/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS)
ACCEPTADLE SECTOR ONLY RADIAL ONLY DOTil CRITERIA BO' 73 76*
74'
'I
' \\.
J r g' g, N $' );, I '\\
m '
}'C
.d"? ' 'l'('. _..,
t
'I
' J....1..1 i
-n,y.3 l~
- s. w..
9)b'?
M..w.d..; 6$
'. o, i
ilifi.9[ b, ' p% s j
t ike ' -
^
..I>
i
- )s f.; /,
{
c.
,[*
r"v 3
ni n
\\.
7
.....{. r '
'.,@g? fny 3
,y ggy.;g &a
~$... n.J, y5#iN+O &g$
144.8 s
~
4 ws wa e w ;-
,.mieh es6 v.
>y(0:..f
. ?l.fs h iyf$?rfl h,at 1
Dh'
}
'A
-.f ~
c
\\
'}ff..{ &{ 3,:i'. t..D. l.
g g =m,,,,.,,-,,
in
.s f
!: ".1.Q., -c,. v.k. 5 g=
Q i.,
i
,.f i
re. j s
sf ;i,/mg.
4.
~. uun n-s s
j c.s a umm ~
.s
' c',...l
)
y ' ; i'
- %'.%&.9L,, ' \\
(:}?..)
'A t.
c5y: L' 'c -..
q -
'w\\_.,.r ':y < r w-m; %...
- a
- ,,,. a t
..6-
,,.s
,f.
y..
/
,QN 02-17-a2 t
?-
'r'
' f-
' / '~ ~,r.
t
FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 ORNL DWC 02-7571 PJM POWER POOL AREA POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIALLY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTRICTION SECTOR EXCLUSION. GREATER TilAN 3/8 0F MAXIMUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 MI > 250/SQ MI. 2-30 MI > 500/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS)
] RADIAL ONLY ACCEPTAIILE SECTOR ONLY DOTil CRITERIA 00*
73 7g, 7.s *
--- E l
>$Cbf 2. k ' th; fz;.o
, A, cd. : 'v.
1 1
. /,
J s
q s
Rh
-$'---- 'e' h # $ Q ~i &g. f f[
~
9:f% 3 @I'd g
_@%;f7 4
I t.
->t:c
?
.s,.g,A t
< 4..u
/
e m
. -- 43..
..s
'}('A f4
.,1
/ a d
N,. x 2 N0;;','A,,,s
,.ms,,
f.
. /,.. p f'h.1 %,
v.
=,y-W g
- r'
)
h
- *. 4 v.. :,4 0.,.-
/[.
-l s
i
' 7'
-~
..,[,,..I,' Q I^ h' s' 9,
- m' U
[' s;
,f.,:
~ 4
'm,
( Q..
)
,'. " ' -,,/
' J.
yA l' ), ; s.
.4
- 1-ddh^'- T'wlmiNcy
.Jd"
. *~ 'I- *. '.
FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE 3
,,,L,,,,,,,,,,,
POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA PJM POWER POOL AREA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIALLY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTRICTION SECTOR EXCLUSION: GREATER TilAN 1/2 0F MAXIMUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 MI > 250/SQ MI. 2-30 M1 > 500/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS)
ACCEPTADLE SECTOR ONLY RADIAL ONLY DOTil CRITERIA e
80' 73 76*
74*
\\.,.,.x.. ) 4 l-- l }.' de ; }l[{#((.W hi shf Y 'rf'?N c !e <2 Jay P M. 1 r '{ h :$y% i . A'sg?;g&
- 3. f'8'.x*
W. I n' .q .}.,=_ &;h;Ykk** ~'I'
- k. )01
./ y.Qg.nr ,s g 9, '"t ~ <o' v *., e s. a 9 _ _y [,] E-4 es ~ g, ,g + /C D 1m)s % ~eq ~ a 1, j q w .a n = -. _,.
- IN2'd M'""*"'
/f C.. 2t'4 ~ J.p, s t c. :. t q )- ,~, ~ \\ h U...} ,>( ....i ~.7 : '.7 *01 '~~~ 3 - _,.}.
- w.<a,,.Q. ' N..
3 an - 5
- '\\,
j f.,. / ' * / 1* ? M N'7k W F . Z.en oz-iv_a2 WZIA - Mi N m' s s an o.o.
i FIGURE 5 ALTERNATIVE 4 0'mi. owc 82-7372 PJM POWER POOL AREA POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIAILY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTRICTION SECTOR EXCLUSION: GREATER TilAN 1/4 0F MAXIMUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 NI > 250/SQ MI, 2-30 MI > 750/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS) l ] [10Til CRITERIA ACCEPTAllLE SECTOR ONLY RADIAL ONLY 80' 7g. 76' 74' (f_] l.1] 3"' 55-$ ' ' l l h fls, l, 30
- i k h, -
g.n K.3. k t k CJ, ', s. } = 42 c, f_. sJ ' 5 E NIh__/~~!.'b @ ? k r-h$ ,,at- ,l 40' - s ' 9 } lE,. ~ Att! D M,- L - % 7/., ....u.. w$ V L> 1 4 h.. = >T Gy' n v .z I / *. v .N
- 4..
g , bu ) %r..g. or. sg n .../,," p ./ ( E' 4 Q ^) *f, y-,.;g j)., 4;g$ y. ;.a. y
- ~ k Ya~ N 'E " ? "'
- ==,... -,,,
a[,~b .y'*, f.\\" c i j' .v' 4 A .' [ R ' [.8;.i E;, ,. A.. . ?. J " ~ ~
- m h
-,*4.; ]7'~h',Qz'l,, 3 /,' y t',' f., - ft * <+g j\\ / ' m,.t.,/ yp,l s. .z, ^ s (($f-'d I N g/ ~ r,. . -- N 0:: , 82 ^' .->u .. s
- i. :,:. a:::
FIGURE 6 ALTERNATIVE 5 onm.-owc a2 7,ca POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA PJM POWER POOL AREA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIALLY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTRICTION SECTOR EXCLUSION: GREATER THAN 3/8 OF MAXINUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 MI > 250/SQ MI. 2-30 MI > 750/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS) ACCEPTADLE SECTOR ONLY RADIAL ONLY DOTil CRITERIA 80' 78* 76' 74* - [., Ig Q-vJE )Y^'l J e a,@, f a a ss t..a ~. s g [' -s cg 4,. t gh, y I I e . Y J.u% [ k s - *I g 'k p 3 4%, g., + ff h y *,. j h b Y / f d ' ?'f l af.),-p'...&. ' ' ' ), 5 [,rt." f ry* ]f%.w L A .u. p% .n . v D ' ; k@.'[ o ! / A ,14 6a ' [ t,.
- [
r
- =
$ f..'.h {. ' - s ' I'd N '~ n / .':> / '[/7 '7,.I. )[,,.,'}([.k p f*..., t. h~. $ m,5.g d g.
- 2. ",",,C,, u'/6,. u m n
,.s %, .T...., I h*.hig ~ 8 A 4LT, k,4TE slTF s A,. / . [.. y!. ,k - 'j ,Y ) ,,,l ..f' L, .i. n: a l ~ 4 T an - ,b _,. ' k' ' 'l ..k'! I ~ ~' ~ ~ l ys. / 3' NB -QN 02-17-82 i k'.'b .\\ .L ? 'h 1
e FIGURE 7 ALTERNATIVE 6 ORNL DWG 82 7573. PJM POWER POOL AREA POPULATION DENSITY SITING CRITERIA ZONES EXCEEDING RADIALLY VARYING DENSITY LIMIT AND/OR SECTOR RESTR SECTOR EXCLUSION: GREATER TilAN 1/2 OF MAXIMUM POPULATION IN 2 ADJACENT SECTORS RADIAL EXCLUSION: 0-2 NI > 250/SQ MI. 2-30 MI > 750/SQ MI (IN 5 MILE INCREMENTS} 'ACCEPTADLE SECTOR ONLY RADIAL ONLY DOTil CRJTERIA B O' 7g. 76* 74* v-
- e. g. e q i.&
3t Qfg l u mt . _ [. L [ n ( t,,{ s go ~$ 3 -,' ( p ~ ..~ L ?.~, .\\ g ..a e [ A, df,y9 n 9 f, f k' ~ ,^~g ,.. - L . ~. ;. ~m 1 ~,. 40' -s. p ty ~ ) u p'
- E..
M-- p 7 .( a.- +, .4~ ffa fg,f9 / 4 f?,. i /y ,t ~ @ MEfrm. rus,n, , i, u(. '9 g' x = = r-' t.../ 's.*y .. c. fi 4*3-' ... *'j ~ ;' .r.. ..: e (. j q 4 an ;- ).. j ' ' *,' $ ' y' p' (' [i x_, ~.,.^b ~ h(, N. a x,ia D '> X _ 2 ..; a. ~gu .2-n -.2 1
' 3~ (v c / -4 /- ~ fR (* / 00NCEPT PAPER s A STUDY TO EYALUATE AND REVISE THE ECONOMIC COMPONENT OF THE CRAC MODEL The purpose of this concept paper is to outline a study to evaluate the economic component of the CRAC code and propose ways to improve both the capability and accuracy of the economic forecasts ma,de by the model. In its present form the CRAC code purports to estimate the' direct costs of accident mitigation. Our preliminary review of the CFAC code { indicates that the CRAC code estimates only the following types of :gsts - of an accident: decontamination costs for real estate; evacuation and relocation costs for residents; farm product losses; and compensation for real estate interdiction (residential, business, and public). These estimates are useful first approximations but they are clearly inadequate for uses made of the CRAC code such as estimating the value of damages avoided through installation of safety-related systems. The costs imposed on society by a contaminating release from a commercial reactor are due to many factors. These include: loss of industrial and agricultural productive capacity; r loss due to disruption of production and economic. activity; damage to land and property; evacuation and resettlement costs; decontamination costs; and costs associated with human exposure to radiat' ion hazards. All these major cost components are significant enough to merit specific consideration in the CRAC model. The CRAC code in its current I .4
form omits any direct and indirect costs associated with contaminating release fren a commercial reactor. For instance, the direct costs of - accident nitigation associated with monitoring and decontaminac.on of the evacuated population and compensation for real property (other than real t estate) t.re omitted and compensation for loss of income due to disruption of econt.f c activity is treated incompletely. Similarly, indirect costs such as compensation for health damages, litigation expenses of the di utility involved, cleanup or early retirement of the reactor, and .h incremental costs of replacedent power are not considered at all. It f also does not consider the indirect effects (effects outside the affected I i-I region) of reduction in productive capacity, i.e., closing down of a major manufacturing plant or disruption of economic activity, i.e., closing down of major financia insitutitions In addition, the methods used to estimate costs are limited. Cost estimates generated by the CRAC code are point estimates b'ased ch highly aggregated state level data. Clearly this level of aggregation' is insensitive to some key considerations in estimating the expected costs. Costs are most likely to be governed by a particular site and how the concentration of people and centers of production and economic activity vary in different directions from the site and the wind patterns at the site. The influence of such considerations is not adequately addressed in the current CRAC model. There is also no existing mechanism in the model to update the estimates as more recent information becomes available. If the CRAC' code is to estimate the total social costs' of a nuclear accident at a commercial reactor, the existing scope of the code needs to be expanded and the estimation methodology needs to be refined. In the remaining sections, we outline a research plan to evaluate and modify the CRAC model. 2 s-
u Purpose The purpose of this research will be to: develop a detailed economic loss function associated with a contaminating accident at a commercial reactor; compare the economic component of the CRAC model with the economic loss function and identify the shortcomings in scope and precision of the CRAC model; expand the scope of the CRAC model to include all the significant cost elements in the model; modify the cost estimating methodology including data inputs to improve the precision of the CRAC model; 9 develop a general procedure for updating the input data used in the economic model of the CRAC code; and develop a users' guide to the economic component of the CRAC model, which will, in addition to the description and workin'gs of the model, show users how they can tailor the output of; the model to the various purposes for which the model might be'used. Approach The proposed research to improve the economic component of the CRAC ~ model focuses on three areas. These areas are (1) the scope of the model, (2) the structure of the cost-estimating methodology, and (3) the updating procedure necessary for maintaining the forecasting precision of [ the CRAC model. To address the shortcomings of the existing scope of the model, we,' The will start by developing a detailed generic economic loss function. intent will be to first identify all the direct and indirect cost elements likely to be affected by radioactive contamination. Having developed such a function, we will determine the appropriate level.of, element aggregation in the model. The relative magnitude and variation in individual cost elements across location settings, and the availability of data. The resultant function will fonn the basis for, expanding the scope of the existing model. 3
I ? Wth respect to the structure of thIcost-estimation methodology, we will examine the validity of the procedures used for estimating variods cost elements as well as the possibility of using countyilevel data During instead of the stategaverage data currently used in the model. this analysis, we will also explore the need to generate separate cost estimates for the various economic sectors covered by a specific' cost element. For instance, we will examine the gain in precision yield,ed by separating the loss of productive capacity by major industry groups. ~ This division could become important if the indirect effects of thy lost Such an evaluation productive capacity v'ary considerably by industry. ~ will also help to highlight and avoid existing biases in the modell,due to exclusion of major economic sectors such as transportation, mining, and services. Finally, we will examine how the estimates provided by the model re
- ?
affected by factors such as changes in absolute and relative prices, We will use economic growth, population movement, and technical change. the results to suggest how the model can be updated at regular intervals to maintain the accuracy of its cost forecasts. Specifically, we will he ' propose how regularly published sources of data c'an be used to update structure of the model as well as provide data inputs necessary to run l the model. l Task Descriptions This section briefly outlines the major tasks required to achieve the i l l objective of this effort. l Task 1. Critical Review of the Economic Component of the CRAC Model, l f This review will explore the linkages of the economic component with It the rest of the CRAC code in regard to both structure and input data. will seek to identify the output format required for the major current I 4
( uses of the CRAC code econom,ic estimates. During the review, we will
- e. valuate the underlying methodology used to take.the estimates.
Task 2. Development of a Generic Economic Loss Function _ A detailed economic loss iunction will be specified. Such i function. will lay out a comprehensive list of cost ' elements to be considered and provide a framework within which it will be possible to avoid omission of, r.ajor cost elements and double counting of costs. It will also provide S the basis for the selection of the optimal level of' aggregation across -e cost elements as well as a means to distribute the costs across contiguous or economically-related regions such as,' counties. The product' i-of this task will define the revised scope of the economic component of .[ l the CRAC model. Task 3. Evaluate and Modify the Cost Estimating Methodology _ A cost estimation methodology will be developed and do'cumented for. This will include both the direct costs and the selected indirect costs. A method will be several cost elements presently omitted from the model. developed for overlaying the locational grid used in the CRAC code with' county economic and demographic data so that the cipected costs in different sectors can be weighted based on wind patterns to generate an expected total cost estimate for the site. Weights for sectors in various directions from the site will be based on probabilities derived from normal wind patterns in the site region. ~ Task 4. Develop an Updating Procedure 4 A procedure will be developed and documented for updating the This structural parameters and the input data for the economic model. procedure will use the readily available information from various government sources. 5
.*4 r (. Significance In its present form the economic component of the CRAC code omits both important direct costs of accident mitigation and very large indirect cost components. Moreover, simplistic cost estimating Su techniques introduce large errors in the estimates.- The resulting i va e-of th
- economic consequences of contamination provides biased information for decision making.
Regulation of investment in safety systeh based on. ;- s such economic information is unlikely to' meet the objectives of the NRC or utilities. Given the importance of decisions based on info ation generated by the CRAC code, it.would be very valuable to improve the precision of the economic component of the CRAC model, which in recent -[. l years has come under some criticism. i h h s I / / 5 e e m h 6}}