ML20034F538
| ML20034F538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1993 |
| From: | Congel F, Soffer L NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Beckjord E, Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303030386 | |
| Download: ML20034F538 (32) | |
Text
r 4
t 3
[pn Etcg'o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g g
g ' '
2 E W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,
?r*
f
%, U f
- ...+
-~
February 5,1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, NRR Leonard Soffer, Leader Section A, Severe Accident Issues Branch, RES
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT A special information meeting of the Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA) of the OECD was held in Paris, France on January 14, 1993.
The meeting stemmed from letters sent from H. R. Denton, Director of the NRC's Office of International Programs, to a number of foreign governments requesting comments on the proposed rule, as directed by the Commission. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss non-seismic aspects of the proposed revision of NRC rules on nuclear power plant siting (10 CFR 100), including the rationale and alternatives.
Approximately 25 representatives of 11 countries participated. An attendance list is attached as Enclosure 1.
F. Congel of NRR and L. Soffer of RES represented the NRC staff and made a presentation on the background leading to the proposed rule as well as its proposed elements. A copy of the viewgraphs used in the NRC presentation is attached as Enclosure 2.
A discussion was held during and after the presentation. Major comments of the participants are categorized and summarized below.
02000G 1
93030303s6 9302os l
=-
^
1 2-l Genera 1 o
A comment was made that although the distances and population densities of the proposed rule were stated as representing "present" US' practice, their effect,-if implemented, could be regarded as a tightening of existing US siting criteria. The need for more restrictive reactor siting criteria was questioned particularly in view of the fact that i
future reactor designs are expected to demonstrate reduced risk in comparison with existing designs.
1 i
Relation to Risk Criteria
't i
i o
The relationship of the proposed rule in regard to NRC risk criteria was raised. NRC staff responded that, because of the low risk characteristics of modern nuclear plants, the latent fatality Quantitative Health Objectives (QHO) of the Commission's Safety Goal i
Policy would be satisfied by siting a reactor even in densely populated i
areas, and that the smallest exclusion area distance investigated (400 meters or 0.25 mile) would satisfy the prompt fatality QHO.
It was for this reason that the proposed rule noted that the value of 500 persons l
per square mile was not to be considered an upper bound limit of i
acceptability. Nevertheless, prudence suggested that reactors not be sited very close to major population centers, although the distances and population densities chosen would be expected to vary, depending on i
national considerations and conditions.
i Exclusion Area o
The need for an Exclusion Area was questioned. Could reactors be designed such that no Exclusion Area would be necessary? NRC staff responded that the US philosophy postulates the occurrence of an accident, regardless of likelihood, and the Exclusion Area, together with other plant safety features, is part of the concept of defense-in-
}
depth.
o The technical basis for the value of 0.4 miles for the minimum Exclusion Area size in the proposed rule was questioned.- NRC staff noted that this value was a refitction of US experience that such a distance, in combination with typical credit given for plant engineered safety features, provides assurance that the dose values given in Part 100 1
would be met. A number of delegates expressed the view that the calculated distance was very much a function of a series of assumptions l
starting with the source term, the effectiveness of engineered safety-
-i
~
features, and atmospheric dispersion assumptions.
In view of the conservatism of many of these factors, including the use of thirty year i
old iodine inhalation dose conversion factors, some felt that a distance-of 0.4 miles was rather arbitrary, and lacked technical justification.
Additional comments stated that the implicit linear correlation of exclusion area size with reactor power had also been overemphasized.
i NRC staff noted that the exclusion area distanca was dependent on j
i i
i m.
. ~ -...... _. '
e a
, numerous aspects of the source term, fission product mitigation systems f
and dose calculation methodology, and acknowledged that use of modern iodine inhalation dose conversion factors, for example, might yield somewhat smaller exclusion area sizes.
In addition, NRC staff emphasized that the proposed distance was based on favorable siting experience and was not-rigorously generated.
Population Criteria and Remote Sitina o
The value of remote siting was questioned and it was stated that remote siting could have safety disadvantages, such as relying upon a weakened electrical grid with increased reliance upon emergency diesels, or where plant personnel could have less access to key personnel and central administration.
o A question was raised regarding the basis for the value of 30 miles where population density should be kept below 500 persons per square mile. The staff replied that there was no strong technical basis for the value of 30 miles or for the value of 500 persons per square mile; rather, these reflected US experience that this distance and population density provided a reasonable separation from population centers while allowing a selection of potential reactor sites in every major region of the US.
It was noted, however, that analyses of very severe accidents i
involving core-melt and early containment failure tended to indicate that condemnation of urban areas was highly unlikely beyond distances of about 20 miles. Some noted that as long as the possibility of large releases could not be excluded, remote siting was a desirable precaution.
However, it was felt that there was no reason to select a single universal distance.
Form and Applicability of Criteria o
Some participants indicated a preference that fixed numerical criteria not be stated in a rule, but should be left to less formal guidance, such as a Regulatory Guide.
In response, it was noted that the 1egalistic nature of licensing proceedings in the US provided some advantages to having numerical criteria in a rule.
o There was a fairly strong sentiment that the proposed values were likely to be practical primarily for the geographical conditions of the US, and i
that if adopted, the US should clearly indicate that the distances and population values selected may not be applicable for more densely populated countries.
In response to a question from representatives of Japan, the NRC staff 1
prepared a brief discussion of the relationship between 10 CFR Part 52, the Early Site Permit process, certified Designs, and the Combined Operating License.
i
o > --
At the conclusion of the meeting, the participants stated their appreciation to the NRC for its participation and the presentation. A number of the participants indicated that they are planning to submit written comments on the proposed rule. There was also a consensus that the CNRA should prepare a position statement on reactor siting.
Finally, there was also a consensus that a similar meeting should be held to discuss the proposed seismic revisions to 10 CFR 100, including the associated Regulatory Guides. HRC staff indicated a willingness to do so, and indicated that such a meeting should go forward within the next few months.
/
F. Congel
- g. a L. Soff
Enclosures:
As stated cc:JTaylor JSniezek TSpeis JHeltemes FMiraglia WRussell JRichardson RCunningham i
WMinners JMurphy TKing CAder LShao AMurphy GBagchi PDR II f
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Belgium Mr. Jean-Marie tambotte Ministiere de la Sante Publique et de l' Environment Service de Protection contre les Radiations--
Ionisantes Cite Administrative de l' Etat Quartier Vesale N.2-3 B-1010 Bruxelles Mr. Jacques Verlaeken A.I.B.- Vincotte Nucleaire Avenue des Melezes,17 B-1410 Bruxelles Canada Mr. Lawrence Colliaan Codification Officer Studies and Codification Division 1.tomic Energy Control Board P.O. Box 1046, Station B 270 Albert Street Ottawa, KIP SS9 France Mr. Philippe Dubiau (part-time)
Institut de Protection et de Surete Nucleaire Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique Centre d' Etudes Nucleaires de Fontenay-aux-Roses B.P. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX Dr. Bagher Mohammadioun (part-time)
Institut de Protection et de Surete Nucleaire Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique Centre d' Etudes Nucleaires de Fontenay-aux-Roses B.P. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX Mr. Jacques Rabouhams Relations Internationales Direction de la Surete des Installations Nucleaires Ministiere de l'Industrie et du Commerce Exterieur Batiment 01 Centre d' Etudes Nucleaires de Fontenay-aux-Roses B.P. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX 1
9 Germany Dr. Dietrich E. Becker Director, Nuclear Safety Department Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS)
(Federal Office for Radiation Protection)
Seesenerstrasse 9 D-3320-Salzgitter-Immendorf Mr. Karsten Schaaf Gesellschaft fur Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Forschungsgelande D-8046 Garching Italy Dr. Gianfranco Eletti Direzione Centrale della Sicurezza Nucleare e della Protezione Sanitaria (DISP)
ENEA Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48 I-00144 Roma Dr. Antonio Susanna Direzione Centrale della Sicurezza Nucleare e della Protezione Sanitaria (DISP)
ENEA Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48 I-00144 Roma Japan Dr. Yoichi Fu.iii-e Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors Tokyo Institute of Technology 0hokayama Meguro-ku Tokyo, 152 Dr. Yoshio Kani General Manager, System Analysis Section Technology Development Division 0-arai Engineering Center Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) 4002 Narita-cho 0-arai-machi Higashi-Ibaraki-gun Ibaraki-ken, 311-13 Mr. Shigeharu Kato (part-time)
First Secretary Japanese Delegation to the OECD 6 avenue Hoche F-75008 Paris 2
i
Japan Mr. Yukinori Mackawa Senior Examiner for Nuclear Safety Nuclear Power Safety Policy Planning Division Agency of Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE)
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) 1-3-1,- Kasumi gaseki Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, 100 Mr. Akira Sakai Director for Nuclear Safety Review Nuclear Safety Bureau Science and Technology Agency 2-2-1, Kasumigaseki l
Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, 100 Mr. Masayoshi Shiba Director General Institute of Nuclear Safety Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)
Fujita Kankou-Toranomon Building, 7F 3-17-1, Toranomon Minato-ku Tokyo, 105 Mr. Ichiro Takekuro Institute of Nuclear Safety Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)
Fujita Kankou-Toranomon Building, 7F 3-17-1, Toranomon Minato-ku Tokyo, 105 Mr. Takahiko Watanuki Assistant Chief Engineer BWR Safety Analysis Division Institute of Nuclear Safety Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)
Fujita Kankou-Toranomon Building, 7F 3-17-1, Toranomon Minato-ku Tokyo, 105 The Netherlands Mr. Gert C. Van Uitert Ministry of Economic Affairs P.O. Box 20101 NL-2500 EC Den Haag 3
Norway Mr. Gunnar Saxebol l
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority P.O. Box 55 N-1345 Osteras j
Spain Dr. Antonio De Acha. (part-time)
Deputy Director, Siting and R&D Programes Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear i
c/ Justo Dorado, 11 28040 Madrid Mr. Enrique Suarez- (part-time)
'}
Chief, Siting Area-Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear i
c/ Justo Dorado,.11.
28040 Madrid United Kingdom Dr. Probir K. Basu Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII F2)'
Health & Safety Executive Baynards House i
1 Chepstow Place j
Westbourne Grove London W2 4TF l
United States Dr. Frank Concel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 j
Mr. Leonard Soffer Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Comission of the Mr. Hans Maurer i
European Countries DG XI Comission of the European Countries l
Rue' de la Loi, 200 (Arts 2/45)
B-1049 Bruxelles Belgium i
.i 4
i k
.-* - - =i- -. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. * - _,
am#c-
-.. +
r
.m,91
OECD Nuclear Enerav Agency:
Dr. Jacques Royen (Secretary)
Deputy Head Nuclear Safety Division OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Le Seine-Saint Germain 12 Boulevard des Iles F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux France Dr. Hong Lae Chana (Observer)
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Le Seine-Saint Germain 12 Boulevard des Iles F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux France k
I t
1 1
e i
5 l
I REVISION OF U.S.
REACTOR SITE CRITERIA (10 CFR PART 100)
PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATORY ACTIVITIES (CNRA, OECD)
- PARIS, FRANCE JANUARY 14, 1993 FRANK J.
CONGEL LEONARD SOFFER U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
6 i
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION 1
l 1
1 o
BACKGROUND'AND HISTORY o
PRESENT U.S.
REGULATION i
o PROPOSED REVISED RULE o
BASES o
QUESTIONS IN FEDERAL REGISTER o
CONCLUSIONS 2
- p.
d8, s.
--.--__---_______,___-_.___1..#.__
......, _,..,m.
.__..,,,,m..
_.,._......r.,,4
,ry,,,_,,..,,
-,__7,,.,,
y...,
BACKGROUND-PART 100 ORIGINS I
o ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF RULE - ENSURE REMOTE SITING (1957 TIMEFRAME).
o CALCULATIONAL APPROACH (TID-14844)
ENSURED REMOTE SITING.
o NEW DESIGNS INCORPORATING LOW-LEAKAGE CONTAINMENT PLUS SPRAY. SYSTEMS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED CALCULATED DOSE.
o INDUSTRY PROPOSED URBAN SITE (RAVENSWOOD).
o COMMISSION ESTABLISHED POLICY REGARDING URBAN SITING REGARDLESS OF CALCULATED DOSES.
o REGULATORY GUIDES 1.3 AND 1.4 WERE DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE CALCULATIONAL GUIDELINES.
o SITES WERE EVALUATED AGAINST POPULATION CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN REGULATORY GUIDE 4.7.
3 1
PRESENT U.S.
REACTOR SITE CRITERIA l
l l
o PRESENT REGULATION IS 10 CFR PART 100 (APRIL 1962) o REQUIRES THAT EVERY REACTOR HAVE EXCLES10N AREA IMMEDIATE ZONE AROUND REACTOR.
NO RESIDENTS, BUT TRANSIENT ACTIVITIES PERMITTED.
DISTANCE TO EXCLUSION AREA B0UNDARY DETERMINED BY DOSE CALCULATIONS, AND IS NOT FIXED.
LOW POPU_LAT_ ION ZONE (LPZ1 ZONE OUTSIDE EXCLUSION AREA.
MAY CONTAIN RESIDENTS, BUT NOT DENSELY POPULATED CENTER.
SIZE 0F LPZ DETERMINED BY DOSE CALCULATIONS, AND IS NOT FIXED.
POPULATION CENTER DISTANCI DISTANCE TO-NEAREST DENSELY POPULATED CENTER MAY BE NO CLOSER THAN ONE AND ONE-THIRD TIMES THE LPZ RADIUS.
4
,---,.~n-,,,,-.-..n..-
.-.a,,-
..,,,,,,,--w.,...w,..,._
,, +,.,,..,, -,...,
,.<,.+,....,,,...,---....,,,,.---.n-
... -. _.,, _ ~ - -.. -....,
Part 100 Distance Requirements (Typical Plant) i Nearest Population Center of about 25,000 people Low Population Zone Exclusion Area
$jy',
At exclusion area boundary,2-hour dose from design basis accidents < 25 rem whole body Timely evacuation of Low Population zone must be planned Population center distance at least 1.3 times low population zone boundary distance b
s,1.,-w.4 n-
--.4-. 4m...
- - +
---,--.e---.,-
-4
,-.i.--,a...w_.---
,_mm-_.___-
m-
.- 4 m
U.S.
REACTOR _S_ITE CRITERIA (CONTINUED)-
I o
FISSION PRODUCT RELEASE WITHIN CONTAINMENT POSTULATED.
DOSES TO HYP0THETICAL INDIVIDUALS AT EXCLUSION AREA r
B0UNDARY AND LPZ-OUTER RADIUS MUST MEET VALUES (25 REM WHOLE BODY AND 300 REM THYR 0ID)
STATED IN PART 100.
o PRESENT PART 100 IS VERY FLEXIBLE AND HAS NO NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR THE EXCLUSION AREA, LPZ AND POP.
CENTER
- DISTANCE, i
o CURRENTLY, PART 100 AFFECTS PLANT DESIGN MORE THAN THE I
SITE PARAMETERS.
o PRESENT PART 100, APPENDIX A SPECIFIES SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITE CRITERIA (WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED HERE).
6 l
~
i REGULATORY GUIDE 4.7 POPULATION PARAMETERS I
o POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS SECTION PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON POPULATION DENSITY WITHIN 30 MILES FROM REACTOR.
500 PERSONS / SQUARE MILE AT INITIAL SITE APPROVAL.
1000 PERSONS / SQUARE MILE PROJECTED AFTER 40 YEARS.
o TOTAL POPULATION JUST MEETING REG. GUIDE 4.7
- WITHIN 10 MILES 157,000 PERSONS
- WITHIN 20 MILES 628,000 PERSONS l - WITHIN 30 MILES 1,410,000 PERSONS l
o CURRENTLY, ABOUT 7 U.S.
REACTOR SITES HAVE POPULATION DENSITIES EXCEEDING THE GUIDANCE 0F REG. GUIDE 4.7.
ALL WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE GUIDE:IN 1975.
7
- m
- -.-n
-. - - - - +,-+
..--.v.--------
...-,-,r----,w.n.,
.m....,.. ~.....
,3w,
..--w.
.w,,-+w.
wwe.--.-ww',--e e.w-ww -- ew =- e w +-
,t-*-1
PR0XIMITY TO LARGE POPULATION CENTERS l
l o
PART 100 ALONE COULD ALLOW REACTORS TO BE SITED CLOSE TO LARGE POPULATION CENTERS.
o SEVERAL PROPOSED SITES IN 1960's (E.G.,
RAVENSWOOD) 1 PROVED TROUBLING.
o STAFF ISSUED GUIDANCE ON POPULATION DENSITY, AS WELL AS SIZES OF EXCLUSION AREA AND LPZ, IN REG.
GUIDE 4.7 (1975).
o REG.
GUIDE 4.7 INDICATES THAT EXCLUSION AREA AND LPZ SIZES SHOULD BE 0.4 AND 3 MILES, RESPECTIVELY.
POPULATION DENSITY SHOULD NOT EXCEED 500 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE OUT TO 30 MILES.
o USE OF REG. GUIDE 4.7 IN CONJUNCTION WITH PART 100 PROVIDES EFFECTIVE MEANS TO KEEP REACTORS AWAY FROM DENSELY. POPULATED CENTERS.
t 4
8 m -
. mm
=w.. -.
-m.. =, - = -.
-.,-e.--r erw-m, err -.wme.
'eim*..e-me-+=.',
-,w-rv=-+we-w-e-eset--e was-e rv +w,r-e+ -o +me 1 -o w-e- v
- ~*-es--+&w et'n,*-=vtem-r=r+=ri-+w=ri
=v'w ew e-wm t-=-r4 =ww-erv w-iw e <w v'T---
=
1 r
/L i
i Mites f
025 0 50 075 i
1 1
1 1
I I
{
s0' i
~~
i I
r
?
I
/
10*
/
/
1 r
I f
i t
I 1
J i
i
+
I J
l 2 go
/
n.
f i
J q
/
I TOTAL THYROtD OOSE FOR 2 HOUR $ EOJALS 300 RADS.
f
- l l
b
[
l
/
l
/
s 3o r
8 f
/
/
/
OtRECT GAMMA DOSE FOR
[
2 HOURS EQUALS 2S RAOS.
1
- /
~
/
4
/
i i
i i
i i
O 200 400 600 800 8000 t?OO 9400 to r
RADtVS (MCTER$1 a
Figure 1.
Exclusion Radius Determination.
4 i
i h
32 i
i
}
(
i
.e t
l E
e d
MILES 4
i O.25 LO 2.5 t 0.0 S
tO :
1 I
I I
l j
l l
i LOW POPULATION ZONE i
40*
DIRECT GAMMA DOSE i
j Z
FOR 30 DAYS = 25 RAOS r
l l
i
/
a f
LOW POPULATION ZONE l
i TOTAL THYROID DOSE l
i
)
7 FOR INFINITE TIME =
5 300 RADS 3 50 e
I f
i a
f
~
t
~
/
l
/
f POPULATION CENTER 5
DISTANCE T
l 40 I
l j
i i
I i
i
\\
)
I l
l I il i 1 l l
l l l 1lI11!
I I l llIl1 4
(O 5
5 to' 50
,02
<0
- l RADIUS (METERSI i
l Figure 2.
Population Radius Determination.
$.i
~
4 4
e 33 4
a 1
1
l 1
EFFECTIVE FISSION PRODUCT CLEANUP SYSTEMS I
o TID-14844 (ISSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PART 100)
DID NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR FISSION PRODUCT RETENTION OR. REMOVAL, OTHER THAN LOW LEAKAGE CONTAINMENT.
o EFFECTIVE FISSION PRODUCT CLEANUP SYSTEMS WERE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED AS REACTOR POWER LEVELS INCREASED TO KEEP EXCLUSION AREA SIZES FROM BECOMING EXCESSIVELY LARGE.
NRC STAFF GAVE CREDIT FOR SUCH SYSTEMS BUT ATTEMPTED TO MAINTAIN SITING PARAMETERS (EX. AREA & LPZ SIZE) SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR EARLY SITES.
o
- HE1CE, FISSION PRODUCT CLEANUP SYSTEMS WERE EVALUATED IN A STYLIZED AND CONSERVATIVE FASHION IN ORDER T0 t
ACHIEVE DESIRED SITING RESULTS.
J-o 0VERLY STYLIZED EVALUATIONS OF FISSION PRODUCT CLEANUP SYSTEMS IMPEDE EFFECTIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED NEW PLANT DESIGN FEATURES.
11
~
1
~,-.-~-,-e-----...~,s
.--,--.--.-no--...
.,+~.--;se---,
.-r,~---
vne
,-wc-vo~~,-s--wo-,+.+mmw-,-,---w -m e-e-,-+-w s, m - w
i 6
L DISTRIBUTION OF EXCLUSION AREA SIZES-l FOR U.S.
REACTOR SITES I
1 EXCLUSION AREA SIZE No.
OF SITES IMETERS1 i
< 300 1
300 - 400 3
400 - 500 9
500 - 640 12 640 - 800 13
> 800 37 75 l
12 i
4-p.
,.w s y4 w gr e m 3..-
r-t
.e 9 -m wee t,
y w+ey--
,.-vww,r -my.v p p + 3 % e n ge.r-9
--,-w, 4--te vyrew w e + wr e v.-
w y--r< retr--
s w'er e 1-rw-w vs=w-e m mtr = wy stwm4 wg--ema,. - = =gr w r-
-ve--
- - w w w w. w e--+
=v e+e -swm*Se m wo-e esie
. ram-=+rm em w wr w + es,w <<we w."'.
e w r*
BACKGROUtID-SITING RULEMAKING l
o PROPOSED NEW DESIGNS HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS ON ADEQUACY OF PRESENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.
o STAFF RECOMMENDED (SECY-90-341)
THAT COMMISSION
~
DEC00PLE DOSE CALCULATIONS AND SOURCE TERMS FROM SITING AND SPECIFY SITE CRITERIA DIRECTLY - REFLECTED ACTUAL STAFF PRACTICE.
4 o.
COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF (SRM-JAN. 25,1991)
TO PROCEED WITH RULEMAKING.
o ADVANTAGES OF DECOUPLING:
SITE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ANY PLANT ARE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE RULE.
REALISTIC EVALUATION OF PLANT DESIGN FEATURES.
r 13
______________,__m_._______,__,,._,.,.._,____,,,____.u 7,
PART 100 SCHEDULE I
o 0CTOBER 20, 1992-PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED FOR 120 DAY COMMENT PERIOD.
o DECEMBER 1992-COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED.
^
o MARCH 24, 1993-CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD.
i o
JUNE 1993-ACRS/CRGR REVIEW FINAL RULEMAKING PACKAGE.
- o JULY 1993-FINAL RULEMAKING PACKAGE TO COMMISSION.
l 14 7
--_----e,-.
.. +===
so -w..--
-ew---J==%---
e w w = = e - ee w =.e e.
-ww.w-
-Wm
-+s-w= re r-
-m t ve-w-
vg=
ew ~te -t-4-P---s s -~
w-ar rw w+-
we'r**'
- +.
m m
._.,m
-- e
-,-e._._
-o e.--
ELEMENTS OF PROPQSED RULE (N0N-SEISMICL l
o PROPOSED RULE CONSISTS OF TWO SUB-PARTS
- SUB-PART A.
APPLICABLE TO EXISTING PLANTS; IDENTICAL TO PRESENT RULE.
- SUB-PART B.
APPLICABLE TO FUTURE PLANTS.
o SUB-PART B
- SOURCE TERMS AND DOSE CRITERIA DELETED FOR SITING.
PRESENT SOURCE TERM AND DOSE CRITERIA-MOVED ON AN INTERIM BASIS TO PART 50.34 FOR PLANT EVALUATION.
- MINIMUM EXCLUSION AREA SIZE OF 0.4 MILES.
LOW POPULATION ZONE DEFINITION DELETED.
15 J.
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED RULE (NON-SEISMIC)
-(CONTINUED)
I 1
o SUB-PART B (CONTINUED)
-POPULATION DENSITY AT INITIAL SITE APPROVAL.OR SITE RENEWAL NOT TO EXCEED.500 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE OUT TO 30 MILES (FROM REG. GUIDE 4.7).
PROJECTED DENSITY NOT TO EXCEED 1000 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE 40 YEARS AFTER SITE APPROVAL.
-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT COULD POSE SIGNIFICANT-IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT-0F' EMERGENCY PLANS TO BE IDENTIFIED.
-N0 METEOROLOGY EVALUATION FOR SITE SUITABILITY.
(BUT MET.
DATA TO BE COLLECTED AND USED FOR OTHER PLANT EVALUATIONS)
-NEW SECTION REQUIRING EVALUATION OF MAN-RELATED HAZARDS.
t 16
.L-.. -.---..-.-..
REVISION 0F APPENDIX A T0 10 CFR PART 100 SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CRITERIA I
FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS o
THE LICENSING BASIS FOR EXISTING PLANTS WOULD REMAIN AS APPENDIX A TO PART 100 o
GE0 LOGIC 'AND SEISMIC SITING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PLANTS WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS APPENDIX B TO PART 100 o
EARTHQUAKE. ENGINEERING' CRITERIA FOR NEW PLANTS WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS APPENDIX S T0.PART 50 t
h 17 1
m
-_-_.,,-**ete*3ewv.u--m_-..+,--_-eserwri.
ew-u-m--,.ew.s,
- ew w -
r+--+.we m
..+se.-
r4 u-6--v
+e eroev-me re.-
- w,w a6r---w-w ima,n-ew,e
.w-,,
e gw=m..-e..
- w w w w
,4s--
yin = = w ti,4w
--g < ev et-rw
,1-+vww+-h etw r w e+t--int
RELATIONSHIP 0F SITING TO EMERGENCY PLANNING I
o LOW POPULATION ZONE NOTED AS AREA WHERE EFFECTIVE PROTECTIVE MEASURES COULD BE TAKEN FOR THE POPULACE, IN THE EVENT 0F AN ACCIDENT.
o
- AFTER TMI ACCIDENT, EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE OF ABOUT TEN MILES WAS ESTABLISHED.
- HENCE, THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ASPECTS OF THE LPZ HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED.
o NEED TO EVALUATE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED SITE THAT COULD POSE AN IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT 0F AN AD' EQUATE EMERGENCY PLAN.
THIS STATED IN 10 CFR PART 52.
t 18 w-&
,m e m. c,
~tv e v w ww,pc w,,-w-r=,.ww--
--v
..e+=e--
,-w em
-w,
,wa,*. - -w s -sws-n
=. - -
- r-cw-=---=wv-w w w-v~
- --me-+--==---in-ev,r--.e -, a, w w v vw + + = -w-~www.--=-=-4rw-.
s r-i==+
--we'==~v w-=
e=
<=r-v-=
-**w--w===-~===-*'==---,r--
NON-NATURAL HAZARDS I
o PART 100 IS GENERALLY SILENT ON NON-NATURAL HAZARDS (E.G.,
- AIRPORTS, PIPELINES, ETC.).
o CONSIDERATION OF NON-NATURAL HAZARDS BEGAN IN THE t
1960'S (E.G., AIRPORT ACTIVITIES AT SH0REHAM).
o STAFF ISSUED CRITERIA WITH REGARD TO NON-NATURAL
- HAZARDS, FIRST IN STANDARD REVIEW PLAN (SRP)
SECTION 2.2.3, THEN IN REG. GUIDE 4.7 AS WELL.
4 o
-EVENTS HAVING A PROBABILITY OF GREATER THAN ABOUT 10 PER REACTOR YEAR LEADING TO CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD EXCEED THE PART 100 DOSES ARE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLANT DESIGN BASIS.
19
BASES FOR PROPOS_ED RULE (NON-SEISMIC)
I o
STAFF EXPERIENCE TOGETHER WITH RISK INSIGHTS HAVE SHOWN WHICH SITING ASPECTS ARE KEY TO ASSURING LOW RISK.
3 o
EXCLUSION AREA SIZE OF.0.4 MILES, TOGETHER WITH TYPICAL ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES, PROVIDES ASSURANCE THAT DOSES OF PART 100 COULD BE MET.
o POPULATION DENSITY VALUES FROM REG. GUIDE 4.7 CAN LEAD TO LOW RISK WHILE ALLOWING GOOD SELECTION OF SITES IN ALL REGIONS OF NATION.
o COMMENSURATE WITH PRESENT STAFF PRACTICE FOR NON-NATURAL HAZARDS.
o SITE CRITERIA PLUS RISK CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT REACTORS SATlSFY.THE SAFETY G0AL AND PROVIDE ASSURANCE i
0F LOW SOCIETAL IMPACT DUE TO LAND CONDEMNATION.
l l
1 20 1
CONCERNS REGARDING POPULATION DENSITY AND EXCLUSION AREA DISTANCE I
o SOME STAFF CONCERNS EXPRESSED REGARDING ADVISABILITY OF HAVING NUMERICAL CRITERIA IN THE RULE.
o PROS.- VALUES IN THE RULE WOULD LIMIT LITIGATION IN INDIVIDUAL SITE HEARINGS.
o CONS - NUMERICAL VALUES IN THE RULE IMPLY A GREATER PRECISION THAN MAY BE WARRANTED, AND MAY, BY IMPLICATION, RAISE CONCERNS FOR SOME EXISTING-SITES OR ELIMINATE SITES THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE ACCEPTABLE.
o STAFF RECOMMENDED ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED RULE WITH NUMERICAL CRITERIA INCLUDED.
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE HAS REQUESTED COMMENTS IN THIS AREA.
'21 -
L
MAJOR QUESTIONS IN FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE I
i' 1.
SHOULD EXISTING SITES WITH EXCLUSION AREA SIZE LESS THAN 0.4 MILES (640 METERS)
BE GRANDFATHERED?
2.
SHOULD EXCLUSION-AREA SIZE VARY WITH REACTOR POWER?
- 3. APPLICABILITY OF POPULATION DENSITY AND DISTANCES 4.
SHOULD THE. POPULATION DENSITY VALUES BE UPPER B0UND LIMITS OF ACCEPTABILITY?
5.; PERIODIC REPORTING OF 0FFSITE HAZARDS?
6.
ANY METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS THAT PRECLUDE SITING?
7.
HOW SHOULD THE DETERMINISTIC AND PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC ANALYSES BE WEIGHTED AND APPLIED?
22 e-g-,
- w,--
r-,
--.--.-,m,y-w.
,..--.w,-----.c---..--%.,
. -..w-e-.---..-,w gc.,---.,---.-.
,-,w..-.,,
---r,
_.,w,-
.c,..w,.,
.-w-.
,,,m.,
,.,...m
-.,a m--.,
CONCLUSIONS I
/
o PRESENT U.S.
REACTOR SITING PRACTICE HAS EVOLVED FROM THAT GIVEN ONLY IN PART 100.
o THE PROPOSED RULE DOES NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN PRESENT U.S. SITING PRACTICE, BUT PRIMARILY CODIFIES'IT.
1 l
23 l
'.u
.