ML20063B672
| ML20063B672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | Hulman L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062N348 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-344 NUDOCS 8203220512 | |
| Download: ML20063B672 (1) | |
Text
_ __
r
=<
p _lg DISTRIBUTION DOCKET FILES AEB R/F LGHulman MAR 0 91982 WPasedag nect.et No: 50-537 MThadani i'Ei$PNT.H." FnR:
A. Thadani, Chief reliability and Rist; Assess ient l'rench, PSI FM!i:
L. G. !!uloan, Chief Accident Evaluation 1:ria.ch, nSI S!'4dECT:
PROBABillSTIC RISK ASSESS!:ENT REVIEW F0ll CulCP tiy r.worandua, dated February 17, 1932, regarding tentative schedule for the revicu of consegur.nce aspects of CRBPP Prehabilistic Risk Assessa:nt Study erroneously stated where the results of our PRA review would be reported.
It is our un<!vrstandinfl that AER's contribution to the FES supple ent (trans-
.aitted IP/19/01) conpletes our input to the Frs, anJ no further I.Elt input to the FLS is required, l'a further un.h>rstcrol that the preper disposition of PDA results will be crsi forad i s a part of & safoty evcimition.
Therefore, the schwfule prop.se1 in
.y t eno is no icoger.<c;>limble, and our input to the PPA r.:vieu uill t>e provided upon request fro 1 MRAn.
i L. f:. !! ult.an, Chief q
/cci a nt Evaluation Branch nivision of-Systms Inte;rction l
cc: Rnttson
$Uaneuer PCheck ftErnst R15;ouston Quay Pl.eech RStark URegan FPagano Glear LSoffer 4
ISpickler g
AllSpano g 6'?
f Jt' Q
li
.....S..I. :.A..E..B. '....
..D..S..b'
/.
....S I : AE B/..'..!.."..v D
D omcep suRur.ue)..M..T..h..a..d..a.n..i..:.'m...l.
...W...P..a..s..e..d..d.9....
..R...i.....'l.o..h...
..L..G.... 10.......
. 2/,g,g/,8,2,,,,,,,,,,,,2g,(.Q,8,2....... g.gdRR........p,5282........
omy Nac FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usc e.a.i-m ea i
AD DISTRI'BUTION CENTRAL FILE AEB R/F DEC:1.81981 MThadani Docket No.: 50-537 g
n
/7 WEKreger(2)
MEPOPANDUM FOR:
Paul S. Check, Director CRBRP Progras Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Wi' Liam E. Kreger, Assistant Director t
for Radiation Protection Division of systems Integration SUDJ ECT:
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UPDATE The Accident Evaluation Branch (AEB) has examined the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) Fina M nvironmental Statement (FES) with a view to updating sections 7, 9.2 and 11.7, reflecting any Plant-Site features, and regulatory framework changes that have occurred since February 1977, when the FES was issued.
We find that the information presented in FES sections 9.2 and 11.7 remains valid and no update is needed.
With respect to Section 7 however, we believe that a supplement or addendum that addresses the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy (issued J une 13,1980), regarding the consideration of severe nuclear power plant accidents, is needed.
The enclosure hereto addresses this matter.
AEB has also reviewed the meteorology portion of the FES and our update is being transmitted separately.
This input was prepared by Mohan Thadani, x28941, and Richard codeLL, x28018.
Origid danW W.E.Er W Wi L Liam E. K reger, A s sistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration cc:
R. Mattson P. Leech p
fsf lV pk g
s A
b omen >..D..S..
' D..S..[...:.A...D..E...:.HG..EB.
..........I A
DS
.................. ~..
. -.. - ~ ~ ~ ~...
ttI
..;.y.e.....WP.Ak2
..RCP.dAll...............G.9.9.....Y.E,Kre,ger
.12..f..f.8.1..........12..$/.81..... 1. 2..g/. 81.......12/J.8.1.....
12[.P781 omy
...... ~. ~. ~.. -.
- - - -. - ~ ~
ancronuaiso m m wopo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usano: = m a.
l.
e ACCIDENT EVALUATION BRANCH INPUT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UPDATE FOR CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT Addendum to Section 7.1 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS The staf f has examined the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) Final Environmental Statement (FES) with a view to updating the FES reflecting any plant-site f eatures or regulatory framework changes that have occurred since the FES was issued in February 1977.
The staff finds that since the issuance of the FES no plant-site changes have occurred that would mat e ri a lly change the environmental impacts or risks of accidents as reported in the FES.
Since the issuance of the FES, however, the Commission has issued a Statement of Interim Policy (June 13,1980) that provides guidance on the considerations to be given to nuclear power plant accidents under NEPA.
Among other things the Commission's statement indicated that "this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclusions regarding the environmental risks of accidents expressed in any previously issued (Environmental Impact) statements, nor, absent a showing of ---
special circumstances, as a basis for opening, reopening, or expanding any previous or ongoing proceeding."
i L
g
- e
--og__O_q
+4
...(
p-The staff in its environmental review of the CRBRP application concluded that the CRBRP did constitute
.a special circumstance that warranted consideration of Class 9 accidents in the Environmental Statement.
Since the CRBRP reactor was very different from the conventional Light water reactor plants for which the safety experience base is much broader, the staff included in the CRBRP FES a discussion of the potential impacts and risks of such accidents.
As noted in the Statement of Interim Policy, the fact that the staff had identified this case as a special circumstance was one of the considerations that Led to the promulgation of the June 13, 1980 Statement.
In examining the CRBRP FES, as issued in 1977, the staff has considered the guidance of the Interim Policy Statement which was provided for " Future NEPA Reviews." We have concluded that the discussion of accidents as presented in the FES generally meets that guidance except for consideration of the risks due to liquid pathways.
The staff has therefore examined the potential for significant contributions to CRBRP risks from liquid pathways, as discussed below:
1
1 t
Surface water hydrologic properties at CRBRP should be similar to those used f or the Liquid Pathways Generic Study (LPGS) small river site which was based on the Clinch - Tennessee - Ohio - Mississippi ri ve rs system, although the river uses and populations in the LPGS were based upon national averages and have not been di re ct ly compared to the CRBRP.
The groundwater characteristics at Clinch River do not indicate any unusual adverse transport characteristics.
Additionally, the CRBRP is'a considerably smaller plant than LPGS case (CRBRP is 1121 MWt vs. 3425 MWt assumed for LPGS), and contrary to the Light Water Reactors characteristics, CRBRP does not contain any large storage of water which couLd serve as a potential " prompt source" to the environmental liquid pathways.
Therefore, only the radioactive material Leached from the core debris by the local groundwater is likely to be transported to the Clinch River.
This source was found in the LPGS to be considerably smaller J
than the " prompt source".
Therefore, based on the preliminary appraisal of the liquid pathways, the staff concludes that the liquid pathways impacts of CRBRP would be probably smaller than those for the LWRs analyzed in the LPGS "SmalL River" site case.
nse><
s e.w-e
-n-
--.n-.
+
With this addition, the staff concludes that the environmental risks of accidents are adequately represented in the FES issued in February 1977.
)
&d 0W
)-
O/
/
o UNITED STATES
~,,
" " 'R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
j
~s., * * " * /
g
^
] Q )7
/
DEC 2 21981 3
/
Docket No. 50-537 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. Wayne Houston, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch, Radiatian Protection, DSI FROM:
George Lear, Chief Hydrologic & Geotechnical Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
LIQUID PATHWAY ANALYSIS FOR CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT Docket No.: 50-537 Licensing Stage: CP - FES Supplement Richard Codell of the Hydrologic Engineering Section is the hydrologic reviewer for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant. A question concerning the liquid pathway consequences of a core melt accident was prepared and given to Paul Leech but was not forwarded to the applicant at the time because of the understanding that no further Class 9 atmospheric pathway analysis would be undertaken for the preparation of this supplement. We, therefore, have not prepared a detailed Class 9 liquid pathway analysis.
However, a qualitative description of several major aspects of the liquid pathway is provided in this memorandum for your use in updating the accident analysis section. The staff can prepare a detailed analysis should this become necessary in the future.
The surface water hydrologic properties for the CRBRP should be similar to those used for the LPGS "small river" site. The LPGS site is, in fact, based on the Clinch-Tennessee-0hio-Mississippi River system.
Liquid pathway usage (e.g., drinking water, fishing, swimming) and populations for the LPGS case were based on national averages, however, and not on the Clinch River site.
No comparison of these usages has been perfonned.
Ground water use and transport properties at the Clinch River site do not appear to be extraordinary. There are two factors which would indicate that releases to the ground water following an assumed meltdown accident would be smaller in the CRBRP case than for the LPGS case:
a.
The CRBRP is considerably smaller (1121 MWT vs 3425 MWT in the LPGS case) and would, therefore, have a smaller fission product inventory; and b.
Unlike a LWR, the CRBRP containment does not have any large stores of water which could serve as a potential " prompt source" to the liquid pathway.,0nly he radioactivity leached from the core debris Jh
\\
e W
e 1
dk,r" t
R. Wayne Houston DEC 2 21981 by surrounding ground water would be transported to the Clinch River.
The " prompt source" scenarios in the LPGS were always several orders of magnitude more severe than the delayed " leaching" scenarios.
The staff, therefore, concludes from this preliminary appraisal that the liquid pathway consequences would probably be smaller than those for the LPGS "small river" site.
Or! inalsigned by George Lear 2
George Lear, Chief Hydrologic & Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering cc:
J. Knight E. Sullivan P. Check P. Leech M. Thadani W. Pasadag C. Thomas S. Acharya M. Fliegel R. Codell DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File - DCD 016 DE:HGEB Rdg. File s
J i
/
.....d.M..d....B DE:HGEB l
D
... E :HGE..B D
emerp suaune > E9.dR11.1.1D......d.O.l.e.9.e.l...G,L,e,a.r.,,,[gc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
12.././g../.8..1...........1. 2../f../. 8.1.....
..1.2./j f.al eran >
Nac ronu sia 00* Nacu oso OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usamwes-mu e
&N r
- "s '
DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL FILE AEB R/F N
DEC 181981 MThadani s
Docket No.: 50-537 WPasedag RWHouston WEKreger(2)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul S.
Check, Director CRBRP Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
William E. Kreger, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration SUDJ ECT:
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UPDATE The Accident Evaluation Branch (AES) has examined the Clinch River Breeder 'teactor Plant (CRBRP) Fina M nvironmental Statement (FES) with a view to updating sections 7, 9.2 and 11.7, reflecting any Plant-Site features, and regulatory framework changes that have occurred since February 1977, when the FES was issued.
We find that the information nresented in FES sections 9.2 and 11.7 remains valid and no update is needed.
With respect to Section 7 however, we believe that a supplement or addendum that l
addresses the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy (issued June 13,1980), regarding the consideration of severe nuclear power plant accidents, is needed.
The enclosure hereto I
addresses this matter.
AEE has also reviewed the meteorology portion of the FES and our update is being transmitted separately.
This input was prepared by Mohan Thadani, x28941, and Richard Codell, x28018 Origial d8"MI w.E.Ereger William E. Kroger, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration cc:
R. Mattson P a teech-
/.
/ l, s
pf
~
y)
W, ame,'yI f....M...... I..:...D..E...:.HG..E B..........
...S..I g......(.'...
^
D
.----r
- -> tiltif
.;.y.e......WP.Ahn
.E9.dfill.............. it,9,n,,,
,W,EK,r,e,ge,r,,,,,,,
12 F781-[---
12f./.8.1.......
12g.81 12
/81 pf81 p-12/ /
om)
--~~~~-
une,onu m po opecu m OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom i=-==
ACCIDENT EVALUATION BRANCH INPUT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UPDATE FOR CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT Addendum to Section 7.1 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS The staf f has examined the Clinch Riveh Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) Final Environmental Statement (FES) with a view to updating the FES reflecting any plant-site features or regulatory framework changes that have occurred since the FES was issued in February 1977.
The staff finds that since the issuance of the FES no plant-site changes have occurred that would meterially change the environmental impacts or risks of accidents as reported in the FES.
Since the issuance of the FES, however, the Commission has issued a Statement of Interim Policy (June 13, 1980) that provides guidance on the considerations to be given to nuclear power plant accidents under NEPA.
Among other things the Commission's statement indicated that "this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclusions regarding the environmental risks of accident.
expressed in any previously issued (Environmental Impact) statements, nor, absent a showing of ---
special circumstances, as a basis for opening, reopening, or expanding any previous or ongoing proceeding."
l pm. -
The staff in its environmental review of the CRBRP application concluded that the CRBRP did constitute a special circumstance that warranted consideration of Class 9 accidents in the Environmental Statement.
Since the CRBRP reactor was very different from the conventional Light water reactor plants for which the safety experience base is much broader, the staff included in the CRBRP FES a discussion of the potential impacts and risks of such accidents.
As noted in the Statement of Interim Policy, the fact that the staff had identified this case as a special circumstance was one of the considerations that led to the promulgation of the June 13, 1980 Statement.
In examining the CRBRP FES, as issued in 1977, the staff has considered the guidance of the Interim Policy Statement which was provided for " Future NEPA Reviews." We have concluded that the discussion of accidents as pro er.ted in the FES generally meets that guidance except for consiceration of the risks due to liquid pathwayr The staff has therefore examined the potential for significant contributions to CRBRP risks from liquid pathways, as discussed below:
Surfice water hydrologic properties at CRBRP should be I
similar to those used for the Liquid Pathways Generic Study (LPGS) smalL river site which was based on the l
l Clinch - Tennessee - Ohio - Mississippi rivers system, although the river uses and populations in the LPGS were based upon national averages and have not been directly compared to the CRBRP.
The groundwater characteristics at Clinch River do not indicate any unusual adverse transport characteristics.
Additionally, the CRBRP is'a considerably smaller plant than LPGS case (CRBRP is 1121 MWt vs. 3425 MWt assumed for LPGS), and contrary to the Light Water Reactors characteristics, CRBRP does not contain any large storage of water which couLd serve as a potential " prompt source" to the environmental liquid pathways.
Therefore, only the radioactive material Leached from the core debris by the local groundwater is likely to be transported to the Clinch River.
This source was found in the LPGS to be considerably smaller than the " prompt source".
Therefore, based on the preliminary appraisal of the liquid pathways, the staff concludes that the liquid pathways impacts of CRBRP would be probably smaller than those for the LWRs analyzed in the LPGS "SmalL River" site case.
p
(_
...., ~,
l With this addition, the staff concludes that the environmental risks of accidents are adequately represented in the FES issued in February 1977.
-, - -