ML20042C541
| ML20042C541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Repka D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C542 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203310500 | |
| Download: ML20042C541 (38) | |
Text
.
03/29/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ff
'q,
.ch BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
@ gd7R [/
d I&
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l
Docket Nos. 50-322 I
(OL)
N S
I)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD REQUESTS MADE AT THE CONFERENCE OF PARTIES AND IN THE BOARD'S MARCH 15, 1982 ORDER At the Conference of Parties held on March 9 and 10,1982, and in the Board's " Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties (Regarding Remaining Objections to Admissibility of Contentions and Establishment of Hearing Schedule)," dated March 15, 1982 (Order), the Board directed the Staff to address five matters by March 29, 1982. These five matters are:
1.
The existing computer run of the CRAC code for Shoreham.
(Tr. 397; Order, p. 26.)
2.
A status report on the emergency plans for Shoreham, including a schedule for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review of Shoreham.
(Tr.337-338,397; Order,p.26.)
3.
A status report detailing the schedule of the remaining Staff review of open items in the Safety Evaluation Report, focusing on matters related to the contentions in this proceeding.
(Tr. 436-37; Order, p. 26, fn.27.)
4.
A Staff estimate for the completion of construction of Shoreham.
(Tr. 449-50; Order, p.26,fn.27.)
DESICRTED ORIGIR&B 8203310500 820329 CM N D PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
[dl f gp
i 2
5.
Joint, or at least coordinated, advice of the parties as to whether litigation of on-site emergency planning contentions can be scheduled for hearing in advanceofoff-siteemergency)planningissues.
(Tr. 450-52; Order, p. 25-26.
InthisfilingtheStaffaddresseseachofthefiveitems.M 1.
CRAC CODE FOR SHOREHAM This filing includes two items related to the NRC's run of the CRAC code for Shoreham. The first, Attachment A, represents the actual computer results for the CRAC code analysis for Shoreham.2_/ The second, Attachment B, is a draft Appendix to the Sandia National Laboratories siting study further discussed below, for which Shoreham was analyzed.E Attachment B is a comparison of the results for the Shoreham site to the results for the 90 other sites analyzed.
The analysis for Shoreham does not purport to be a full reliability or accident consequences assessment. At the request of the NRC's Siting Analysis Branch, Sandia National Laboratories periormed the study to provide technical guidance to support the formulation of new regulations
-1/
With respect to item 5, the parties have conferred and been unable to reach agreement as to the schedule for litigation of on-site and off-site emergency planning issues. Therefore, rather than joint advice, the Staff in this filing offers its view on the subject.
-2/
Because of the bulk of the computer printout, Attachment A has only been included in one copy of this filing sent to the Board, and in the copies sent to the parties.
(Tr.397).
y The final version of the siting study is due to be published in several weeks. A copy will be sent to the Board and parties in this proceeding.
for siting commercial nuclear power plants. For purposes of the siting study a generic plant design was placed at each of 91 sites, including Shoreham. The generic plant design used bears little relation to the actual Shoreham design. For instance, the study assumed a standard 1220 Mwe PWR, and corresponding hypothetical releases. The Shoreham site specific characteristics incorporated into the study did include site population, windrose, and estimated meteorology.
It is this combination of generic design information and Shoreham site specific information which was run through the CRAC code.
In accident consequence analyses currently performed for Final Environmental Statements (not performed or required for the Shoreham FESSI) far more detailed design information is required.
The purpose of the Sandia siting study was merely a comparison of 91 sites, and not an analysis of the Shoreham site. See Attachment B, which illus-trates the comparison.
II. STATUS OF EMERGENCY PLANS FOR SHOREHAM A.
On-Site On January 11, 1982, LILCO submitted replacement pages for the Shoreham On-Site Emergency Plan which had originally been submitted on
+
May 27, 1981. These replacement pages respond to the items needing
-4/
See, "NRC Staff's Position Regarding Consideration of ' Class 9' Accidents," filed in this proceeding, December 24, 1980.
I'
. J
~
correction as noted in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0420, Supplement 1.N They are presently under Staff review. See Part III, infra.
LILCO has awarded a contract for installation of the Early Warning Systen(Sirens). A total systcm test is presently scheduled for September 1982.
The Staff has been informed by LILCO that the Implementing Procedures for the Emergency Plan will be submitted by March 29, 1982.N LILC0 has also infonned the Staff that an on-site appraisal of Applicant's plan should be completed by mid-April to May,1982.U B.
Off-Site In addition to the Applicant's on-site emergency plan, three off-site plans are required -- one each from the State of New York, Suffolk County, and the State of Connecticut. These plans are initially submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region II, for review against the Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Response Plans and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Plants, 5/
See SSER #1, i 13.3.17, at 13-37, 38, listing the six items which remain to be completed prior to a favorable finding by the NRC on emergency planning. LILCO's January 11 submittal corresponds to item A.
y See SSER #1, supra, item C.
y See SSER #1, supra, item E.
6
.S-NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1.
The NRC will complete its review of emergency plansaftertheFEMAfinding.E j
The NRC and FEMA provide a joint monthly status report on emergency j
preparedness for nuclear power plants to Senator Alan K. Simpson's Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation (Comittee on Environment and Public Works). The latest available version of this report is dated March 8, 1982, and is included as Attachment C to this filing.
FEMA's schedule for the emergency plans for the State of New York and Suffolk County are listedasfollows:1I 03/15/82 Scheduled formal submission of the state and local plans to FEMA Region II. This has not yet occurred. When plans are submitted FEMA will notice the event in the Federal Ragister.
04/01/82 FEMA was to provide the NRC with an interim finding based upon review of the plans by the Regional Assistance Comittee. In lieu of this interim finding FEMA has provided the NRC with a status report dated March 9, 1982.
This status report is included as Attachment D to tnis filing.
FEMA now promises an interim finding based upon review of the plans "as soon after April 15, 1982, as possible."
06/16/82 A joint exercise of the emergency plans is presently scheduled. @ A will prepare post-exercise assessments.=f l
8f See SSER #1, supra, item B.
9/
See Attachment C, Simpson Report, Part II (Material Supplied by FEMA),p.15.
10/ See SSER #1, supra, item F.
i l
\\
-. ~
07/07/82 A public meeting is scheduled to be held on the state and l
local plans.
08/06/82 FEMA Region II is scheduled to be ready to submit its l
findings on the emergency plans to FEMA Headquarters.
l i
09/06/82 Final FEMA findings on the off-site emergency plans and preparedness are scheduled to be ready and submitted $9, the NRC. An NRC decision is also scheduled for 9/82.^'1 At the time of this filing the NRC Staff is not aware of any intent by either FEMA or the NRC to further slip the Simpson schedule, not-j withstanding the fact that neither the State of New York nor Suffolk County have so far submitted plans.E In FEMA's interim status report submitted to the NRC on March 9, 1982, and mentioned above, the only slip in the schedule is that the interim finding by FEMA, based upon review of the plans, scheduled April 1,1982, is now due to be made after April 15, 1982.
In that status report FEMA reiterates the June 16 date for a joint L
exercise.E Brief mention should also be made of the State of Connecticut i
off-site plan. Connecticut falls only within the 50 mile ingestion pathway zone. The plan is within item J.11 of NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1, l
and action by FEMA is not yet scheduled.
1/ See Attachment C, Simpson Report, Part I, Table 1.
1_2/ See March 9-10, 1982, Conference of the Parties, Tr. 328-38.
2 f
13/ See Attachment D.
l l
p I q-
III. STATUS OF REMAINING STAFF REVIEW A schedule for completion of the Staff review of the remaining open items is included with this filing as Attachment E.
Special attention should be given to the expected completion dates for those open items which relate to contentions indefinitely deferred in this proceeding, pending completion of the Staff review. Those contentions are as follows:
remote shutdown panel (SC 1)
Item f62 I
environmental qualification (SC 8, Item #9 SOC 19(h))
containment isolation (SC 23)
Items #36
- 57 - II.E.4.2
- 61 emergency planning /
Item #53 1S IV. STAFF ESTIMATE FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION (i.e. Fuel Load Date)
As the Board is aware, the Applicant's estimated construction completion date for Shoreham is September, 1982. This date is reflected in the NRC's monthly status report to Congressman Tom Bevill, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development (Committee onAppropriations).
In response to the Board's request for an independent Staff estimate of a construction completion date for Shoreham, the Staff refers to recent testimony by the NRC's Executive Director for Operations, William J. Dircks, 14f See also, Part II, s_upra, for further details.
u i.
e before Congressman Toby Moffett's Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (Comittee on Government Operations). This testimony, sent to Congressman Moffett on March 11, 1982, as an insert to earlier testimony, establishes an NRC estimated fuel load date for Shoreham as December,1982. As stated in the testimony, that date was derived as a concensus of the combined judgments of the NRC Licensing Project Manager, NRC Resident Inspector, and the Region I Principal Inspector. The independent opinion of each of these three individuals may vary by a month or two around the concensus date. A copy of the March 11, 1982, insert to Mr. Dirck's testimony is included as Attachment F to this filing.
V.
ADVICE ON SCHEDULING OF ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS The NRC Staff believes that there would be no practical difficulties with scheduling the litigation of purely on-site emergency planning contentions in advance of the litigation of off-site emergency planning contentions.
In fact, such advance scheduling would be appropriate in order to avoid delay in these proceedings. However, the Staff is not aware of any current on-site emergency planning contentions. The Staff will object to the introduction of purely on-site contentions at this stage of the proceedings. The Applicant's on-site emergency plan has been available since May, 1981, with revisions in January, 1982.
To the extent that on-site emergency planning contentions address the relationship between the Applicant's on-site plan and the state
- r.'
9-and local off-site plans, the Staff would not object to any proposed contentions on timeliness grounds or to the joint scheduling of on-site and off-site contentions.
Respectfully submitted, b
David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of March,1982.
me =
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ffilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD REQUESTS MADE AT THE CONFERENCE OF PARTIES AND IN THE BOARD'S MARCH 15, 1982 ORDER" and ATTACHMENTS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 29th day of March,1982:
i Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Camer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James L. Carpenter
- Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Stanley Klimberg, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 l
2-l l
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
I John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W.
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 b 93k b David A. Repka
{
Counsel for NRC Staff I
~*
- )
i COURTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jeff Smith General Counsel Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 250 Old Coanty Road North Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K Hicksville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. P'eter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc.
Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Assistant Attorney General Veteran's Memorial Highway Environmental Protection Bureau Hauppauge, NY 11788 New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, NY 10047 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel New York Public Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223 i
- b. sNs
%1.Jj Sk.L;
+
n~iDy - p.-
an.,~.+
~~4 Appendix C - Site Specific Consequence Estimates j
s I
This appendix presents the consequence estimates for each of the 91 sites analyzed in Chapter 2.
It is important to note that in each case the calculations assumed (1) that the site contained an 1120 MWe PWR, (2) meteorology based on the most appropriate regional National Weather Service Station (from among the 29 detailed in Appendix A), (3) actual site windrose and population, and (4) a summary evacuation (all persons within 10 miles evacuate at 10 mph after dalays of 1, 3, or 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, with probability
.3,
.4,
.3, respectively).
Thus, the estimates presented in this appendix are only a guide to the impact of site characteristics (principally population distribution) on predicted consequences.
In no way are these to be taken as estimates of existing / reactor combinations.
Table C.1 provides a summary of the mean early fatalities, early injuries, and latent cancer fatalities for SST1, SST2, and SST3.
Table C.2 contains the 99th percentile values for early fatalities, conditional on SST1.
Figures 3dt C-1 through C-18 j/;
contain early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs for each of the 91 sites, conditional on an SSTl release and assuming the 1120 MWe PWR, summary evacuation, regional meteorology, and actual site population and windrose.
Since some of these characteristics do not exactly duplicate the characteristics of the actual reactor / site combinations, the CCDFs are not to be used in place of actual risk estimates for existing reactor / site combinations.
e h
ATTACHMENT B I
ll..
e Table C.l.
Mean Number of Early Fatalities, Early Injuries and Latent Cancer Fatalities for 91 Sites, Conditional on SST1, SST2, or SST3.
Assumptions:
(1)
Standard 1120 MWe PWR (2) Summary Evacuation (3) Actual Site Population and Windrose (4) Best Estimate Meteorology Mean Latent Mean Early Fatalities Mean Early Injuries Cancer Fatalities SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 Allens Creek 31 0
0 93 0.9 0
620 49 0.2 Arkansas 17 0
0 150 0.2 0
950 82 0.3 Bailly 58 0
0 1200 0.5 0
3300 260 0.9 Beaver Valley 150 0
0 1200 0.4 0
3400 200 0.6 Bellefonte 63 0.08 0
110 5.6 0
1000 70 0.3 Big Rock Pt.
15 0
0 90 0.5 0
680 53 0.2 Black Fox 13 0
0 220 0.01 0
780 69 0.3 Braidwood 160 0.05 0
420 10 0
3200 240 0.9 Browns Ferry 25 0
0 220 0.03 0
970 69 0.3 Brunswick 12 0
0 120 0.01 0
890 98 G.4 Byron 54 0.09 0
330 4.3 0
2500
, 190 0.7 Callaway 10 0
0 100 0.04 0
1200 97 0.3 Calvert Cliffs 18 0
0 170 0.08 0
2400 120 0.4 Catawba 100 0
0 710 0.2 0
1500 110 0.4 Cherokee 27 0
0 250 01 0
1200 76 0.3 Clinton 16 0
0 130 0.7 0
2300 170 0.7
Table C.l.
(continued)
A Mean Latent cancer Fatalities Mean Early Injuries SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 Mean Early Fatalities e
_SST1
.t
'N.
37 0
0 640 49 02 13 0
0 47 0.09 0
900 81 03 l
' Comanche Peak 4.7 0
0 88 0.9 0
590 66 0.3 Cooper 0
0 Crystal Rivarc., 21 21 0
0 420 0.6 0
2600 160 0.5 47 0
0 50 0
0 1200 98 0.4 Davis-Bestel
.s j
j,~
V Diablo Canyas? '
2.L 0
2500 120 0.4 1
0 04 0
590
- pf
,5 5,
DonaJd}C.tedok 1
540 0.3 0
3300 260 0.9 s
0 42 2, 0,'-
i
\\
0 380 0.4 0
1700 190 08 Dresden -
21
.0 Duane Arnold 1
0 08 0
'j70 71 0
3000 200 0.6 N-u-
g l60 '
Fitzpathick 5.0 ; 0 0
110 0.06 0
1200 57 0.2 Fermi i%
84 0
0 530 0.8 0
4400 200 06 ll0 Forked River 0
440 3.0 0
1100 AS44:
0.4
'N l
' ' ' 50 15 0
0 220 0
0 810 82 03 Fort Calhoun Ft. St. Vrain 11 0
0 370 0.1 0
1900 89 0.3 e
- t 73 0.7 0
700 60 03 Ginna 14 0
0 110
.0 0
890 1.2 0
2100 160 05 Grand Gulf.
19' O
0 140 0.04 0
970 64 02 Haddem Neck Hartsville 4
0 0
62 0.04 0
770 64 02 katch,\\
1 0
0 440 0
0 3000 160 05 s
,20 i.sope, Cheek fg l
0.08 0
3600 18 0
8100 590 18 f
1 830 i
12 0
0 85 0.03 0
670 56 0.2
,In,dian Pt.
l
(
l Joseph'M.,Farley s
t
'\\.,
t
,g
Table col.
(continued) r,1eca Lc.k d
)
Mean Early Fatalities Mean Early Injuries Cancer Fatalities SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 1.2 0
0 78 0
0 1200 70 0.3 Kewaunee Lacrosse 32 0
0 200 1.8 0
850 58 0.2 La Salle 26 0
0 180 0.6 0
2800 200 0.7 Limerick 970 2.2 0
2800 6.6 0
5400 370 1.3 Maine Yankee 4.1 0
0 34 0
0 770 29 0.1 Marble Hill 28 0
0 420 0
0 2400 180 07 McGuire 130 0
0 680 0
0 1600 130 0.5 Midland 320 02 0
1100 1.3 0
- 2200 130 0.5 Millstone 240 0.02 0
990 4.5 0
3200 160 0.6 Monticello 12 0
0 200 0.08 0
1100 98 0.4 Nine Mile Pt.
52 0
0 110 0.06 0
1200 58 0.2 North Anna 14 0
0 92 0.08 0
1800 75 0.3 0
240 0.03 0
1100 70 0.3 V:
2.0[
0 Oconee Oyster Creek 84 0
0 530 0.8 0
4400 200 0.6 Palisades 37 0.02 0
250 1.3 0
1700 90 0.3 Palo Verde 5.8 0
0 59 0.2 0
450 26 0.09 Peach Bottom 97 0
0 400 0.02 0
2800 140 0.4 Pebble Springs 0.41 0
0 37 0
0 230 18 0.07 Perkins 98 0
0 520 21 0
1500 120 0.5 O.C}
95
,T 0
520 4.2 0
2500 160 0.6 Perry Phipps Bend 170 03 0
300 16 0
1300 82 03 i
Pilgrim 71 0 02 0
300 2.4 0
1500 85 03
Table C.1.
(continued)
Al?A n M ' d
[
Mean Early Fatalities Mean Early Injuries Cancer Fatalities SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3_
7.7 0
0 110 03 0
1400 77 0.3 Pt. Beach 56 0
0 260 2.4 0
1400 110 0.4 Prairie Is.
17 0
0 290 0 04 0
1900 170 0.7 Quad cities 15 0
0 110 0.02 0
870 87 0.3 l
I Rancho Seco River Bend 31 0
0 200 0.2 0
750 60 0.2 16 0
0 170 0.01 0
880 59 0.2 Robinson St. Lucie 77 0
0 310 0.6 0
700 69 0.4 120 0
0 440 0
0 3000 160 0.5 Salem 11 0
0 150 0
0 1800 150 0.5 San Onofre 13 0
0 210 0.04 0
1000 54 0.2 Seabrook 110 0
0 690 0.6 0
1300 95 0.3 Sequoyah Shearon Harris 40 0
0 260 0.4 0
1300 110 0.4 140 0
0 870 1.9 0
3400 170 0.5 Shoreham 50 0
0 370 0.4 0
500 49 0.2 Skagit 52 0
0 32 0
0 610 43 02 South Texas 65 0
0 330 0
0 1700 95 03 Surry 180 0
0 700 0.2 0
3300 150 0.5 Susquehanna Three Mile Island 240 0
0 1200 4.5 0
3500 170 0.6 46 01 0
350 38 0
1100 73 0.3 Trojan 31 0
0 460 0
0 690 83 0.4 Turkey Pt.
3to 4,4 vermont Yankee 130 0
0 g
g 0
1800 72 0.3 12 0
0 120 0
0 1000 63 0.2 Virgil Summer
o
\\
Table c.1 teontinued)
AeAn Lad ll Cancer Fatalities Mean Early Fatalities Mean Early Injuries SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 SST1 SST2 SST3 0.07 0
0 85 0
0 900 70 0.3 Vogtle 0.1 0
0 110 0
0 310 37 02 WPPSS 1,4 1.0 0
0 120 0
0 720 53 0.2 WPPSS 2 0.1 0
0 110 0
0 310 37 0.2 WPPSS 3,5 170 0.2 0
580 8.3 0
990 93 0.4 Waterford 13 0
0 110 0.02 0
1000 66 0.3 Watts Bar 2.4 0
0 34 0 04 0
760 70 03 Wolf Creek 18 0
0 180 0 05 0
2300 100 0.2 Yankee Rowe 5.6 0
0 68 0
0 850 63 0.3 Yellow Creek 46 0
0 670 0.4 0
2400 170 0.6 Zimmer 520 4.1 0
1600 32 0
4000 330 1.2 zion e
l
Table C.2 99 Percentile Values of Early Fatalities Vl for 91 Sites) Conditional on SST1.
Assumptions:
(1)
Standard 1120 MWe PWR (2)
Summary Evacuation (3)
Actual Site Population and Windrose (4)
Best Estimate Meteorology 99% Value Early Fatalities 99% Value Early Fatalities Allens Creek 700 Davis-Besse 650 Arkansas 500 Diablo Canyon 0
Bailly 1100 Donald C.
Cook 750 Beaver Valley 2700 Dresden 800 Bellefonte 900 Duane Arnold 700 Big Rock Pt.
300 Fermi 1300
(
Black Fox 250 Fitzpatrick 0
Braidwood 1400 Forked River 1300 Browns Ferry 540 Fort Calhoun 800 Brunswick 40 Ft. St. Vrain 20 Bryon 700 Ginna 70 Callaway 230 Grand Gulf 200 Calvert Cliffs 400 Haddem Neck 1500 Catawba 300 Hartsville 200 Cherokee 600 Hatch 3
Clinton 380 Hope Creek
- 700 Comanche Peak 0
Indian Point 8000 Cooper 110 Jos. M. Farley 200 Crystal River 800 Kewaunee 0
i l
{
- Same site as Salem Creek 1
99% Value Early Fatalities.
994 Value Early Fatclitiec Lacrosse 400 St. Lucie 3000 LaSalle 450 Salem **
700 Limerick 8000 San Onofre 0
r Maine Yankee O
Seabrook 400 900 Marble Hill 600 Sequoyah McGuire 1800 Shearon Harris 700 Midland 1500 Shoreham 2000 900 Millstone 2200 Skagit 0
Monticello 400 South Texas 600 Nine Mile Pt.
O Surry 2000 North Anna 500 Susquehanna 400 Three Mile Island 5000 Oconee 500 Oyster Creek 1200 Trojan 0
Palisades 500 Turkey Pt.
Palo Verde 180 Vermont Yankee 1200 10 Peach Bottom 1000 Virgil Summer O
Pebble Springs 0,
Vogtle Perkins 900 WPPSS 1,4 0
1000 WPPSS 2 10 Perry Phipps Bend 1300 WPPSS 3,5 0
1000 Waterford 1800 Pilgrim Pt. Beach 350 Watts Bar 200 Prairie Is.
1000 Wolf Creek 80 Ouad Cities 110 Yankee Rowe 300 110 Yellow Creek 20 Rancho-Seco River Bend 700 Zimmer 700 Robinson 300 Zion 5000
- Same site as Hope Creek l
/ ite combinations, These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor s Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
11 :
11 ;
2:
_m 31 h_.'%
g i
Al
(
}
u.
\\
io, Ds so.
> t o.. -;
N 8
\\
5 I
h io._..
\\
n i
, io.
~
aio.
I
\\
4 fg 5
h 5
..,.I io ',,.
...,j.
g so',,.
..,j
...g.
s o ',,.
..g.
. ~g.
LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY lMC4%"CC"
! kbhdPC' t named sites, Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs a conditional on an SSTl release.1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, represent Figure C-1 :
Assumptions:
and actual site population and windrose.
(see Appendix A),
-.____----____3;
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv.
iv; ::
m s
x w
^I ci
>. i o '
\\
i o-.
io b
I$
a E
m O'MN 0-L y to'.
s o '-
so' y
E 4
E
\\
So L
i o
U 10' 10'
..,.l go' EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY r
RRr
{
. BRUNSeelCK Figure C-2 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
/i binations, These CCDFs do not_ represent effects from existing reactor s te com Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
18 i rr-_
11 18 ma --,
e x
AI LL.
\\
10*
O IO'-
>- 5 0-
f f
1
%N
~
\\
\\.
L L
E
\\\\
a,..
I I
5
)
0 a
h i o ',
..1tt.
.i 1
io'p.
..,d.
,g so' LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES,'<
EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY f.m'currs
.k F
t named sites, Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCD s a conditional on an SSTl release.1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representativ Figure C-3 :
and actual site population and windrose.
Assumptions:
(seo Appendix A),
tor / site combinctions, These CCDFs do no_t_ represent effects from existing reac Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv i
=
- x__,
N m
it ;
[
11 ;
i
=%
x
^I M
L io.
g io-h
>-so; 2
\\
d N
g
=-
8 E
io';
l J
io'-
dio' l
5 g
i 5
5 io' u
Io'
--- j so'
-- g, LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY g etm
.a
- m. navcn fatality CCDFs at named sites, Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancersummary evacuation, r Figure C-4 conditional on an SSTl release.
1120 MWe reactor,and actual site population and windrose.
Assumptions:
(see Appendix A),
- a
-,-r r
w
These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
11 iv.
iv,
1 X
^I u.
1 o
io'
>- so' io' E
.t 2
\\ \\
\\
io' io':
g io-*.
j L
5 s
g x.
u lo' so' io'
^
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY E o M o W ow T!Eb Figure C-5 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv; 11 11 N
7, i
~
N
-. _ \\
I
- h X.
(
1, i u.
t
_a E
\\
m
{
\\
e io*-
9 so' Q so' 8 %Q
)
C 5
=
O u
so' 4
io',,.
..,g.
.,g.
..g.
...g ro' LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY
!EH!N.
- PJIEP%4 Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, Figure C-6 : conditional on an SSTl release.
1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology Assumptions:
and actual site population and windrose.
(see Appendix A),
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv.
iv,
~
If.
x D
,,..k T x
\\\\
,0
- m 1
5
~
\\
n.
[~~'N
(
_a 10, to, g
to,.
q o
1 C
E 5u 10'
-, 10' 10
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
- 'L8'gr J
{ gnE Figure C-7 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDPs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site po,dulation and,windrose.
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
I -
II.
gg -
s
^I u.
0-'
o iO' T
(
}
g d
\\
\\
e 8
i
\\
a 10.
io*
iO'.,
}
)
z o
o i
t L
L o
L u
v N.
....t.
.q.
..g i o ',,.
.g
...g.
io' io.
g EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY g jpim pint iY%F Figure C-8 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
. Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
i These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinat ons, Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv :
y -
11 if.
55 55:
D Al
\\
o
'O' 10
10'~
==== D
\\
- f M
6 e
w a
8g 10*-
10'-
1 d 8 0 '.
e
\\
L 9
8 1
N
=
0
\\
i
)
iO '
N
..jg.
..j,.
j,.
...j g 8 0 ',,.
. ~,.,.
..., g.
10,,.
-7, LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY
". " hoc"*MP
conditional on an SSTl release.1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteoro Assumptions:
and actual site population and windrose.
(see Appendix A),
Note: TiTuse CCDFs do not represent ef fects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
~
v.
iv.
is:
7 h
x w
N
^'
_ = -
=
u.
i O
,t IO*,
1 O
5 %
\\
\\
=
N 3
~
8 N
a:
,\\
10,
10 '.
10 '.
z D
o E
\\
o 5
u I
iO'
...g.
...g.
...g.
..g
...j
...g.
iO'
- 0' EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
- ""5'sn&,e%.
'Ei
~
- BiME cxc=
Figure C-10: Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SST3 release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
iv.
iv, ig
_ _m x
=
AI o
kl
\\
L io.
N b.'
>-io-*
io
)
I\\
1 d %
m O
E i o '.
io' dio'.
{
3, z
L 3
b N
\\
(
k
\\
\\.
so'
.l io' r o ',,.
...gg.
...,.y.
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
- rod $
i!! EYE #'"
Figure C-ll: Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
O
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
it.
iv.
iv;
- _ _ _m X
W D
Al
(
io'
,g.
s o
t~
}
a 1I 1
a:
N
\\'
~
1
\\
io'.
so' y s o'.
t g
q p
5 8
u d
io'
.. g.
.y.. g
.,.'g
. ; 9,.
i o ',,
io'
..g
. 7g.
...,j EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
)
i
" Z7#
- i4W";7lce
. mi i Figure C-12: Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
i ting reactor / site combinations, These CCDFs do not represent effects from ex s all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
Note:
ie ;
iv; I
itl l
1
=
x Al R
\\
V
, y.
,e
\\
,, y.x 5' C
! %N
\\
\\
, o,-
'\\
,\\
, o._
\\
d
==
=-
o,,.
\\
S J
C g
E io' io'
.,j s o ',,.
- g.
.. g.
..,g.
.. g 8
LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X EARLY FATALITIES, X KEY
- M43F.3 Tucic fatality CCDFs at named sites, Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer tive meteorology conditional on an SSTl release.1120 MWc reactor, summary evacuation, representa Figure C-13:
and actual site population and windrose.
Assumptions:
(see Appendix A),
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
11 iv.
iv :
l 3,
x u.
N
(
ig.
> ig.
i g._
H N
]
2 NN.h s
L 0c.
j 10'.
I o '.
l o ',
5 G
5
\\
%. 7,.\\.jg 0
jg io ',g.
.~id '
' iv '
~io' '
~iv '
~~ie
v'
iv '
iv '
~~iv '
~~iv '
'iv s o ',
..jg.
i
. 7j.
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY 1%nt
. E805?2 n - ess Figure C-14 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl relense.
Assumptions: 1120 h.!e reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A)',
and actual site population and windrose.
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
11 iv.
iv; rr x
7 4:
NN
\\
\\\\
,\\
k 5~
N
\\
\\
\\
a 2
E r (
2,..N v
t
\\
{
\\
l
^
C 5
D r
N I
T h
8 10 to.
10
- g
- g -
7, -
- g -
- ;g -
- ;g -
~j,
,g -
-jg yg -
- jg -
jg -
g.
--, g
- g -
, o, -
o.
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
""5 a
Figure C-15: Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, Note: all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
gg 7
11, gg,
- w T
x Al ih 1
O
>-10~'
i o
10
i
\\
M j
t %
N
\\1 J
m<
r
(
}I
=
m i
j-go' I10' 10' O
((
o a-*
=
x O
U N
I i
10' 1 '
io' '
id '
gg ig id 10' 1 '
"iO'
. ic' '
' 10' '
S10'
'id 10' 1 10' -
- 10*
--18 1
10' 10 1
1
~
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
- EfSens
! h T W ct Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, Figure C-16: conditional on an SSTI release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
If,
18,
Id; X
^3 m
T
%\\
10..
10...
i 10..,
b
_J E
2
\\
\\'
k 10' 10' 10 '.
a, z3 h b a
k 10'
..g.
g.
10 '
..gg.
. ~,.g.
5, 10 ',,.
g
,g j
EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY
" " M O.0 i
$I Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, Figure C-17: conditional on an SSTl release.
1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology Assumptions:
(see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.
Note: These CCDFs do not represent effects from existing reactor / site combinations, all assume an 1120 MWe reactor.
11 11 iv; r -
I%
u
> 10*.
to' 10.
r o 3
8 e
5 \\
El J 8 0-
i L
=
\\
Qz o
O i
1 so'
.f.
go' go' EARLY FATALITIES, X EARLY INJURIES, X LATENT CANCER FATALITIES, X KEY b
- lfr Figure C-18 : Early fatality, early injury, and latent cancer fatality CCDFs at named sites, conditional on an SSTl release.
Assumptions: 1120 MWe reactor, summary evacuation, representative meteorology (see Appendix A), and actual site population and windrose.