ML20140E433
| ML20140E433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1997 |
| From: | Ader C, Murphy A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007G200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, RTR-REGGD-XX.XXX, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 ACRS-GENERAL, AD93-1-001, AD93-1-1, SECY-92-215-C, NUDOCS 9704280246 | |
| Download: ML20140E433 (6) | |
Text
- - .- . - --
pug g -t UNITED STATES l l ;;. j e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056M001
- ,*[ April 22, 1997 I
l AD93-1 j
%P~
i MEMORANDUM TO: NUDOCS FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief [l f. 8/f4+" ,
Structural & Geological Engineering Branch i l Division of Engineering Techno!ogy Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Chalies E. Ader, Chief 2 AccMent Evaluation Branch +N[
Division of Systems Technology '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY HISTORY - REACTOR SITE CRITERIA INCLUDING SEISMIC AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND PROPOSED DENIAL OF PETITION FROM FREE .
I ENVIRONMENT, INC., ET AL (10 CFR PART9 50,52, AND 100), FIRST PROPOSED REVISION TO THE REGULATIONS Attached is a table that identifies pertinent documentation associated with the subject rulemaking. Also attached are the documents cited in the table. The documents are listed in two ,
categories, those marked "PDR" that can be made available to the public (items 1 thsough 40) and those marked "CF" that should not be made available to the public (items 41 nrough 57).
Within each category the documents are ordered by date. The designator "AD93 ' has been placed in the upper right-hand comer of each document.
The proposed revision to the regulations was published October 20,1992, in Vol. 57, No. 203 of the Federal Reaister. pages 47802 through 47821 as " Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition from Free Environment, Inc., et al,"(57 FR 47802). The proposed rulemaking effects 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100.
Attachnmnts: Table
' I Documents (57) __g i
250063 P 4 - MequM4e
@ >M 9704200246 970422 lk!llllI!!!!$!!0I
bT 1 ..L PDR PR I 50 57FR47002 PDR \ V'lD
[wh..o, W '3'3,c C.1%g l c5 di3 j
l i
i REGULATORY HISTORY Proposed Rule Revision of 10 CFR Parts 50,52, and 100 Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al.
l (Federal Reaister. Vol. 57, No. 203, pp 47802 - 47821)
No. Date Description 1 10/4/90 SECY-90-341, " Staff Study on Source Term 'Jpoate and Decoupling Siting from Design" 2 12/13/90 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Chairman Calr, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Curtis and Commissioner Rem'ck,
Subject:
Commission Briefing on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design (SECY-90-341).
3 1/25/91 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
SECY 341 - Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design.
4 3/22/91 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao, subject:
Summary of Meeting with NUMARC on the Revision of Appendix A to 10CFR100 - Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
5 4/23/91 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100,
" Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
6 12/10/91 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting of the Subcommittee on Extreme Extemal Phenomena.
7 12/24/91 Memorandum from Raymond F. Fraley to James M. Th.c
Subject:
Proposed Revisioas of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
8 1/15/92 Letter from David A. Ward to Chairman Ivan Selin,
Subject:
Proposed 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 100 (Nonseismic) Rule Changes and Proposed Update of Source Term.
9 1/23/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
COMSECY-92-002 - ACRS Request to Release Draft Docurnents.
10 1/24/92 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
l Proposed Revisions of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Seismic and j Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
I
l l
l 2 !
I 11 2/5/92 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on l Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on Extreme Extemal l Phenomena. )
12 2/7/92 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on l Reactor Safeguards,382nd Meeting.
13 2/14/92 Letter from David A. Ward to Chairman Ivan Selin,
Subject:
Proposed j Revision to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 and Proposed Regulatory Guides Relating to Seismic Siting and Earthquake Engineering Criteria.
14 2/18/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
i Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and l Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100,. I 15 4/28/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and j Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100. j 16 5/8/92 Letter from William H. Rasin (NUMARC) to Eric S. Beckjord (NRC) 17 5/29/92 Letter from Eric S. Beckjerd (NRC) to William H. Rasin (NUMARC). ,
l 18 6/12/92 SECY-92-215, Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, i New Appondix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and New Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 1 50.
19 6/22/92 Letter from Byron Lee, Jr. (NUMARC) to Chairman Selin (NRC).
20 6/24/92 VUGRAPHS " Commission Briefing on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria," by T. King, L. Soffer, A. Murphy l l
21 7/8/92 Letter from Byron Lee, Jr. (NUMARC) to Chairman Selin (NRC).
22 8/18/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
Questions l on SECY-92-215.
23 8/18/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
SECY 215 - Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and New Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.
I 24 8/18/92 Letter from Eric S. Beckjord (NRC) to Joseph Colvin (NUMARC).
25 9/8/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100 (6/17/92 meeting) 26 9/8/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100 (7/10/92 meeting) 4
I l
l 3
27 9/29/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
j Summary of a Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and j
, Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100.
28 10/20/92 Federal Reaister Notice 57 FR 47802, " Reactor Site Criteria including l Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and !
Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et i al."
]
29 10/20/92 Press Release, "NRC Proposes Revisions to Reactor Site Regulations" l 30 10/23/92 Letter from Cartton Kammerere tu All State Liaison Offices, Ah No I Significant Hazards Contacts, and All State Public Utility Commissioners, l
Subject:
Reactor Site Criteria; including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of )
Petition for Rulemaking from Free Environment, Inc. et al (SP-92-153) j 31 11/25/92 Federal Reoister Notice 57 FR 55601, " Draft Regulatory Guides and l Standard Review Plan Sections; Issuance, Availability"(for public comment) ;
32 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4003, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
33 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015, " Identification and Characterization of i Seismic Sources, Deterministic Source Earthquakes, and Ground Motion."
34 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1016, " Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes."
35 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017, " Pre-Earthquake Planning and immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Postearthquake Actions."
36 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1018," Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut j Down by a Seismic Event."
37 11/92 Draft Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.2, Revision 3, " Vibratory Ground Motion" 38 1/5/93 Federal Reaister Notice 58 FR 271, " Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al."(extending comment period on Proposed Rule) 39 3/26/93 Federal Reaister Notice 58 FR 16377, " Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al.*(extending comment period on Proposed Rule) and background information 40 2/23/93 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of a Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" to 10 CFR Part 100
4 I 41 8/2/90 Memorandum from Frank P. Gillespie to Eric S. Beckjord,
Subject:
Revision !
of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
42 8/22/90 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to James Taylor,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A,10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for !
Nuclear Power Plants." )
J 43 9/6/90 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Eric S. Beckjord,
Subject:
Revision ;
of Appendix A,10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for l Nuclear Power Plants."
44 7/3/91 Memorandum from L.C. Shao to J.E. Richardson, A.C. Thadani, D.M. ,
Crutchfield, W. Minners, and S.A. Treby,
Subject:
Rulemaking Review l Request, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
45 7/19/91 Memorandum from Dennis M. Crutchfield to Lawrence C. lao,
Subject:
j Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. -
46 7/24/91 Memorandum from A.C. Thadani to L.C. Shao,
Subject:
Rulemaking Review Request, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
47 7/30/91 Memorandum from James E. Richardson to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and Associated Documents.
48 8/9/91 Memorandum from David L. Meyer to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Review of Proposed Rule on Seismic Siting and Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
49 10/11/91 Memorandum from Themis P. Speis to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
i Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides 50 11/18/91 Memorandum from Themis Spels to Frank Congel, J. Richardson, Ashok Thadani, and Stuart Treby,
Subject:
Proposed Revision to Part 100."
51 12/9/91 Memorandum from Frank J. Congel to Themis P. Speis, Subject Review of Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, including New Appendix B, and Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50.
52 1/21/92 Memorandum from Lawrence C. Shao to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 - Geological and Seismological Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
53 2/18/92 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to Edward L. Jordan,
Subject:
Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides.
54 3/30/92 Memorar,dum from Goutam Bagchi to Andrew J. Murphy,
Subject:
Review of Part 100 CRGR Package.
i I
5 55 5/18/92 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to Edward L. Jordan,
Subject:
Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides.
56 6/23/92 Memorandum from Michael T. Lesar to Dr. Andrew J. Murphy,
Subject:
Review of SECY-92-115 " Proposed Rule on Reactor Site Criteria."
57 6/1/93 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
Questions from Chairman Selin Regarding Reactor Siting and Draft Responses r
l i
l
., - ~ . . - - . - - - ..
.4 April 22,1997 .
l l
AD93-1 )
W MEMORANDUM TO: NUDOCS l FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Geological Engineering Branch j Division of Engineering Technology '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1
Charles E. Ader, Chief i Accident Evaluation Branch Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY HISTORY - REACTOR SITE CRITERIA INCLUDING SEISMIC AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND PROPOSED DENIAL OF PETITION FROM FREE l ENVIRONMENT, INC., ET AL (10 CFR PARTS 50,52, AND 100), FIRST PROPOSED REVISION TO THE REGULATIONS Attached is a table that identifies pertinent documentation associated with the subject rulemaking. Also attached are the documents cited in the table. The documents are listed in two
, categories, those marked "PDR" that can be made available to the public (items 1 through 40) and those marked "CF" that should not be made available to the public (items 41 through 57). i Within each category the documents are ordered by date. The designator "AD93-1" has been i placed in the upper right-hand comer of each document. 1 The proposed revision to the regulations was published October 20,1992, in Vol. 57, No. 203 of the Federal Reaister. pages 47802 through 47821 as " Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition from Free Environment, Inc., et al,"(57 FR 47802). The proposed rulemaking effects 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100.
Attachments: Table Documents (57)
Distribution:
SGEB r/f
- RES-2D-1, RES-2D-2 DOCUMENT NAME: g:\rmk\ hist-1st.mem T* ,eceive a copu of tMe doeurnant, in,Beste in the ties: *C' = Copy without attachment /enennetwo *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy
! l OFFICE SGEB/RES l6 lSGEB/RES l DST /RES lE SGEB/RES l
{ lNAME RKenneally n n/ NChokshi 4//// CAder&# AMurphy AP*p lDATE 4fA /97 I"U~ .
4/M197 4hi/97 4/)l/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e \b' a
W 28002y
- D07't#2# NRC FR.E CENTER COPY
AD93-1 CF MEMORANDUM TO: NUDOCS FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Geological Engineering Br ch Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Resea h Charles E. Ader, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch Division of Systems Technol gy Office of Nuclear Regulato Research
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY HISTORY - REACTOR SITE CRITERIA INCLUDING SEISMIC AND EART t iAKE ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWE LANTS AND PROPOSED DENIAL OF PETITION FROM FREE EN RONMENT, INC., ET AL (10 CFR PARTS 50,52, AND 100), FIRp PROPOSED REVISION TO THE REGULATIONS Attached is a table that identifies 'rtinent documentation associated with the subject rulemaking. Also attached are th documents cited in the table. The documents are listed in two categories, those marked "_ R" that can be made available to the public (items 1 through 40 5 } ,58[) and those n'arked "CF" th/t should not be made available to th Within each category tpe documents are ordered by date. The designator "AD93-1" has been placed in the upper right-hand corner of each document.
The proposed revision to he regulations was published October 20,1992, in Vol. 57, No. 203 of the Federa! Register.
and Earthquake Eng/
neering ages Criteria 47802 for Nuclear Powerthrough Plants and47821 Proposedas " Reactor Denial of Petition Site Crite from Free Environnient, Inc., et al," (57 FR 47802). The proposed rulemaking effects 10 CFR Parts 50,52, and'100.
Attachments /: Table
/
Distribution:
/ Documents gg
( 8)/
SGEB r/f RES-2D-1, RES-2D-2
.I /
DOCUMENT NAME: g:\rmk\ hist-1st.mem /
To recebe e copy of this document, indicate in the boa: "C" = Copy without attachmen enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy 0FFICE SGEB/RES lE SGEB/RES __ , , DST /RES l SGEB/RES l NAME RKenneally,,,/ NChokshi W/ CAder AMurphy DATE 4/ii /97 (1
- 4/ M /97/ 4/ /97 4/ /97
/ OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
/
/
/
9744!!024?
REGULATORY HISTORY Proposed Rule Revision of 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100 Reactor Site Criteria Including Seismic and earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al.
(Federal Realster. Vol. 57, No. 203, pp 47802 - 47821)
No. Date Description 1 10/4/90 SECY-90-341, " Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design" 2 12/13/90 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Chairman Carr, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Curtis and Commissioner Remick,
Subject:
Commission Briefing on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design (SECY-9D341).
3 1/25/91 Wmorandnm fict.' ::muel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
SECY 341 - Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design.
4 3/22/91 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Meeting with NUMARC on the Revision of Appendix A to 10CFR100 - Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
5 4/23/91 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100,
" Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." ,
l 6 12/10/91 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting of the Subcommittee on Extreme Extemal Phenomena.
7 12/24/91 Memorandum from Raymond F. Fraley to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
I Proposed Revisions of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
8 1/15/92 Letter from David A. Ward to Chairman Ivan Selin,
Subject:
Proposed 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 100 (Nonseismic) Rule Changes and Proposed i Update of Source Term. j 9 1/23/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
l COMSECY-92-002 - ACRS Request to rtelease Draft Documents.
10 1/24/92 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
Proposed Revisions of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
l l
i
i 4 ..
2 i
i 11 2/5/92 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on ;
Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on Extreme Extemal -
Phenomena. >
( 12 2/7/92 Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on !
l Reactor Safeguards,382nd Meeting. '
13 2/14/92 Letter from David A. Ward to Chairman Ivan Selin,
Subject:
Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 and Proposed Regulatory Guides Relating to Seismic Siting and Earthquake Engineering Criteria.
14 2/18/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." N 10 CFR Part 100,. I 15 4/28/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
l Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A," Seismic and l Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100.
16 5/8/92 Letter from William H. Rasin (NUMARC) to Eric S. Beckjord (NRC) 17 5/29/92 Letter from Eric S. Beckjord (NRC) to William H. Rasin (NUMARC).
18 6/12/92 SECV-22 215, Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and New Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.
19 6/22/92 Letter from Byron Lee, Jr. (NUMARC) to Chairman Selin (NRC).
20 6/24/92 VUGRAPHS " Commission Briefing on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part
- 100, Reactor Site Criteria," by T. King, L. Soffer, A. Murphy 21 7/8/92 Letter from Byron Lee, Jr. (NUMARC) to Chairman Selin (NRC).
22 8/18/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
Questions on SECY-92-215. ;
l 23 8/18/92 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
SECY 215 - Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and New Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.
I 24 8/18/92 Letter from Eric S. Beckjord (NRC) to Joseph Colvin (NUMARC).
25 9/8/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100 (6/17/92 meeting) 26 9/8/92 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and I Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100 (7/10/92 meeting) ;
i
. , .e r - ,r e e, ,
.a 3
27 9/29/92 Memorandu'n from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of a Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A. " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100.
28 10/20/92 Federal Reaister Notice 57 FR 47802, " Reactor Site Criteria inciuaing Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al." .
29 10/20/92 Press Release, *NRC Proposes Revisions to Reactor Site Regulations" l 30 10/23/92 Letter from Cartton Kammerere to All State Liaison Offices, All No :
! Significant Hazards Contacts, and All State Public Utility Commissioners, ,
i
Subject:
Reactor Site Criteria; including Seismic and Earthquake l Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of ;
l Petition for Rulemaking from Free Environment, Inc. et al (SP-92-153) l
., 31 11/25/92 Federal Reaister Notice 57 FR 55601, " Draft Regulatory Guides and J
! Standard Review Plan Sections; lasuance, Availability" (for public comment) )
( l l 32 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4003, " General Site Suitability Criteria for l Nuclear Power Plants."
33 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015," identification and Characterization of l
Seismic Sources, Deterministic Source Earthquakes, and Ground Motion."
l 34 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1016, " Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for l Earthquakes."
r 35 11/92 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017, " Pro-Earthquake Planning and immediate
- Nuclear Power Plant Operator Postealthquake Actions."
l Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1018, " Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut 36 11/92 Down by a Seismic Event."
l 37 11/92 Draft Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.2, Revision 3, " Vibratory Ground l Motion" 38 1/5/93 Federal Reaister Notice 58 FR 271, " Reactor Site Criteria Including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and .
Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al."(extending comment period on Proposed Rule) ;
I 39 3/26/93 Federal Reaister Notice 58 FR 16377, " Reactor Site Criteria including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc., et al."(extending comment period on Proposed Rule) and background l information 40 2/23/93 Memorandum from Andrew J. Murphy to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Summary of a Public Meeting on the Revision of Appendix A " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" to 10 CFR Part 100 i l l .
l
.: o- i a e*
7 4 1 t
41 8/2/90 Memorandum from Frank P. Gillespie tc Eric S. Beckjord,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR t' art 100.
42 8/22/90 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to James Taylor,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A,10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." :
?
43 9/6/90 Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Eric S. Beckjord,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A,10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for ;
Nuclear Power Plants." i 44 7/3/91 Memorandum from L.C. Shao to J.E. Richardson, A.C. Thadani, D.M.
Crutchfield, W. Minners, and S.A. Treby,
Subject:
Rulemaking Review i
Request, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
45 7/19/91 Memorandum from Dennis M. Crutchfield to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
l Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. l 46 7/24/91 Memorandum from A.C. Thadani to L.C. Shao,
Subject:
Rulemaking Review '
Request, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
47 7/30/91 Memorandum from James E. Richardson to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and Associated Documents.
48 8/9/91 Memorandum from David L. Meyer to Lawrence C. Shao,
Subject:
Review of Proposed Rule on Seismic Siting and Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
49 10/11/91 Memorandum from Themis P. Spels to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides 50 11/18/91 Memorandum from Themis Spels to Frank Congel, J. Richardson, Ashok Thadani, and Stuart Treby, subject: Proposed Revision to Part 100."
51 12/9/91 Memorandum from Frank J. Congel to Themis P Spels, Subject Review of Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, including New Appendix B, and Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50.
52 1/21/92 Memorandum from Lawrence C. Shao to Raymond F. Fraley,
Subject:
)
- Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 - Geological and Seismological Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
53 2/18/92 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to Edward L. Jordan,
Subject:
Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 1 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to ;
Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides.
, 54 3/30/92 Memorandum from Goutam Bagchi to Andrew J. Murphy,
Subject:
Review 3
of Part 100 CRGR Package.
4 I,
i
e 5
55 5/18/92 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to Edward L. Jordan,
Subject:
Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and Appendix S to Part 50, and Associated Regulatory Guides.
56 6/23/92 Memorandum from Michael T. Lesar to Dr. Andrew J. Murphy,
Subject:
Review of SECY-92-115 " Proposed Rule on Reactor Site Criteria."
57 6/1/93 Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to James M. Taylor,
Subject:
Questions from Chairman Selin Regarding Reactor Siting and Draft Responses
i / ,, 3 AP93-1
. .' nuou P D F(
s POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
October 4,1990 SECY-90-341 For: The Commissioners From: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Subiect: STAFF STUDY ON SOURCE TERM UPDATE AND DECOUPLING SITING FROM DESIGN Purnose: To present the conclusions and seek Commission approval of the NRC staff's plan with regard to updated source term information and whether reactor siting should be decoupled from plant design.
Eummary: An integrated set of activities involving regulatory implementation of updated source term information in connection with the review of Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWR) is being recommended. Parallel activities on updating the use of source terms for the design and siting of future plants are proposed. These are 1) in the near term and until such time as decoupling is
! accomplished, performing plant reviews on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate revisions to cur-rent practice incorporated as a part of the design certification rulemaking, and 2) instituting a decoupling of reactor siting and plant design via rulemaking changes to both Parts 50 and 100. A technical update of the TID-14844 source term would also be carried out.
The status and review schedule for future plants has been a major consideration in the staff's
Contact:
NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Leonard Soffer, RES WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE i 492-3916 AVAILABLE F
,, % -DESIGNATED ORIGINAL L- jf Cortified By po i s,w *1004 % ~ ~~~ 0Fa CF SECY -
([g oo-341 CDC ,, .
l
, v. t l
l The commissioners 2 4
plans. The review of the Advanced Boiling Water l Reactor (ABWR) is currently being conducted on a ;
case-by-case basis, and proposed deviations from l the regulations were forwarded to the Commission I in SECY-90-016. Commission guidance has been l received on these certification issues as provided i in the Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs) dated i May 22 and June 26, 1990, respectively. The staff will provide a paper discussing the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with generic rule-making, as requested by the SRM dated May 22, 4
1990.
The staff proposes to initiate two parallel l rulemakings to decouple reactor siting from plant
! design in two stages. A rulemaking effort to revise reactor site criteria (10 CFR 100) would begin immediately and a proposed rule adding site criteria based on Regulatory Guide 4.7 would be J expected to be completed in time to support the review of an early site application in FY 1993.
4 This rulemaking could take the form of a new subpart to 10 CFR 100 that explicitly defines reactor site criteria, which would also prove useful for any site assessment required by Subpart A to 10 CFR 52. In support of this rulemaking,
- the staff will also carry out a technical update of the TID-14844 source term including revised timing, source term composition and chemistry insights.
A second stage rulemaking would revise Part 100 to delete the dose calculation requirement and revise Part 50 to include a revised source term or plant design requirements based upon revised source term insights. The revised Part 50 would essentially be a severe accident rule covering those aspects a of plant design now governed by the dose calcu-lations in Part 100. Those proposed deviations i from the regulations addressed in SECY-90-016 and certified by the Commission would be reflected in this rulemaking to the extent practical. This latter rulemaking would also begin immediately, but would require a longer schedule than the site criteria revisions.
The approach outlined above is expected to result l in a logical and orderly process for utilizing updated source terms in regulatory guidance. The staff wishes to emphasize, however, that the
4 e
-l Y
., <* t
, a .
The Commissioners 3 schedule will not be allowed to delay the review j of any advanced light water reactor (ALWR) appli-cation submitted to the staff. . Review of such an
- application would be carried out expeditiously,
- using available regulatory guidance together with
+
applicable source tera insights.
Backaround: In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated i July 31, 1989, the Commission requested that the
{ staff provide a paper on the extent to which the l current deterministic source term (TID-14844) j j could be updated or otherwise improved for future j 4 light water reactor designs. In response, the i staff transmitted SECY-89-341 which stated that j the staff intended to pursue updated source term i insights to modify, as appropriate, regulatory guidance for advanced light water reactor plant
- design aspects such as containment isolation valve
- closure time, efficacy of fission product cleanup ,
j systems and control room habitability. J With regard to siting, the staff noted that it had considered pursuing the development and utiliza-tion for siting of a replacement for the TID-14844 release which would make use of the insights
- obtained by recent research. The staff stated, however, that it also wished to consider an alter-i nate approach, and that it wished to undertake a short-term study to examine the implications of decoupling siting from plant design for future reactors, and to provide its recommendations to
, the Commission. '
t l In an SRM dated February 13, 1990, the commission 4
agreed that the staff should perform such a study.
! The Commission also requested that the staff j interact with the Advisory committee for Reactor 3
Safeguards (ACRS) on this item and, in addition, 4
that the study address:
?
- 1. The criteria that would be used in siting decisions, if siting is decoupled from' plant designs. Identify and discuss the considera-tions (e.g., risk, deterministic, policy) of the staff in establishing such criteria and specifically how the criteria were derived.
- 2. Benefits and disadvantages of risk based siting criteria.
I
.. _ m. _-._,___m_._ __ , _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _. _._ _ _ _ _
l .
-t /' c il The Commissioners 4 Ji!
l h N
- 3. Degree of conservatism between options under consideration.
f
.h
' 4. Applicability and impact on existing plants. [ ;
- 5. The pros and' cons for equating the low :U population zone to the emergency planning y zone.
i These items are addressed in Enclosure 1. b i l l The SRM dated May 22, 1990 also requested that the
! Commission be informed of the results of the
! technical review of EPRI's source term'recommenda-tion. A brief status of this review is also provided in this paper.
L Discussion: Decoupling light water reactor (LWR) siting from i l plant design was suggested by the staff for ,
further study because of the potential benefits which could be realized by such an approach.
Specifically, decoupling would replace existing siting dose calculation requirements (which traditionally have affected plant design more than siting) with explicit requirements more directly related to acceptable site characteristics. This would be accomplished by a significant change to 10 CFR 100 and its related guidance documents. A corresponding change to 10 CFR 50 would be re-
- quired to regulate aspects of plant design now L controlled by siting dose calculation require-j ments, i
Decoupling would mean that reactor site requirements would be largely independent of dose calculations and source terms (except perhaps for reactor power level). The site requirements would be expected to remain unchanged from present requirements although they would be stated mors explicitly.
Decoupling would also mean that plant engineered safety feature (ESP) design requirements would not be determined by the present design basis accident dose calculations. These design requirements would be based on best engineering judgment, i
rather than a dose calculation algorithm. The ESF i requirements are expected to change; development
! of new ESP (including containment) criteria is a key element of this effort. Developing these I
. - . . -- . - . . - - . - - . ~ . - - - - - . - - - - . - - . . . - . - - - _ . - - . . - - . -
, . o .'
=
e l
l The Commissioners 5 t
t l
criteria will result in a severe accident rule- !
making. The staff believes that such decoupling i could'potentially be of more benefit than simply L updating source term timing and composition i because it would explicitly stata siting -
L requirements in a regulation and focus more l realistically on those plant features which most l
affect risk.
i Site characteristics (e.g., seismic character-istics) would continue to influence design in many ,
ways. A parallel effort is underway to update the seismic requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 and a proposed revision to the Appandix to Part 100 is ,
expected in FY91.
Although this study was initially intended to focus on decoupling, it became clear in the course of the study that an integrated approach to regulatory implementation of updated source term information (including decoupling) was nece9sary considering the complexity and schedule cor.sidera-tions of changes in this area. Therefore, the scope of this study is somewhat broader than decoupling. The remainder of this sectior pro- ,
vides a discussion as to why potential changes in i staff practice are being considered, incit. ding the ,
consequences of current siting practice, tnd outlines individual phases for improvement. I
[ Following the discussion is a section providing l the staff's conclusions and proposed future ~
j actions. i l
! Why consider a chanae?
The current NRC regulations regarding reactor siting have been in existence since the early 1960's and together with implementing staff guidance have generally served to set the bulk of the requirements and practice for siting, as well j as certain accident mitigation features for the present generation of U.S. reactors.
Specifically, present reactors have been sited and designed based'on their ability to cope with a group of postulated accidents, the so-called design basis accidents. The ability of the plant
- to withstand these events, as well as'their
}l radiological consequences, must be shown to be l'
l
[ e .
- f. -
- . The Commissioners 6 -
i i
l acceptable in order for the plant to receive a
- license.
Reactor siting also reflects consideration of j accidents beyond the design basis. The statement
- j. of considerations (27 FR 3509) published with the issuance of Part 100 noted that accidents beyond l the design basis were a factor in the establish-i ment ~of the population center distance as a siting j- requirement.
4 j- Underlying the analysis of many of these accidents l
are certain regulatory assumptions regarding the
- accidental release of fission products which j profoundly affect the design of key plant systems. ,
Certain of these assumptions constitute what is generally referred to as the " source ters", that j is, the timing, composition, energy and other
- characteristics needed to analyze the radiological j consequences of interest. The most well-known of these is the TID source term, so-called because it L was given in the report TID-14844, issued in 1962.
i The TID report is referenced in a footnote to 10
! CFR 100 for further guidance in developing the i exclusion area, low population zone and population i center distance and is also used elsewhere in 10 j CFR 50 in relation to the design of certain plant 4
features such as environmental qualification.
other applications deal with the performance of engineered safety features such as containment i spray and filter systems.
Since the issuance of TID-14844, a great deal of information, based upon a wealth of research data, has been accumulated. The source term and other assumptions which make up the prescription used in the siting analysis, while providing a high level of plant mitigation capability, are not consistent with the results of recent research. Use of this prescription in its present form may force plant designers to include design features that may not enhance safety (e.g., valve timing and filter design). Similarly, use of this pre'scription may cause designers not to focus on certain aspects of plant accidents that should warrant-attention ,
(e.g., release of Cesium and potential containment failure under severe accident conditions).
Also contributing to the need for change is the way in which site evaluations have been carried
). .
.The Commissioners 7 i
out. Part 100 refers, via a note at the end of
' the regulation, to the document TID-14844 as providing a sample calculation that reflects
" current siting practices" of the Commission.
i TID-14844 did not give credit for fission product cleanup systems in dose reduction. As reactor
- power levels increased shortly after the promul-
) gation of Part 100, reactor designers introduced and developed such cleanup systems to keep site i
boundary distances from becoming excessively large. It soon became clear that such systems were, in principle, so effective in iodine doso l
reduction that very small site boundary distances could be found acceptable. But it alro became l
clear that maintenance of containment integrity was pivotal to meeting Part-100 site boundary dose guidelines. In order to avoid revision to the j siting regulations, the staff used a conservative methodology which allowed only limited degree of j
credit for the effectiveness of these systems in
- order to maintain acceptable site values, but
- assumed that containment integrity would be maintained under accident conditions. In this fashion, the staff kept exclusion area and LPZ distances roughly the same as those resulting from review of early plants. Stated another way, the staff's conservative methodology resulted in distances roughly reflecting" current-(i.e., 1962)"
siting practices.
Enclosure 2 provides a description of the NRC's current siting requirements and practice. Appli-cation of these requirements and practice over the past 28 years has had consequences in both the areas of siting and plant design which indicate that a change is warranted, as discussed in the following section.
Consecuences of Current Practice The consequences that arise from current practice can be considered to fall into two basic areas as described below:
A. Sitina Although Part 100 requires an exclusion area and a LPZ, it is important to recognize that it does not provide any numerical criteria for site parameters (other than that they must not result in the
.t , , f l . .
The commissioners 8 l
calculated dose consequences being exceeded).
With regard to the dose calculation method, Part 100 states contains a p(via a note rocedural at theand method end)a that TID-14844 sample calculation that " result in distances roughly reflecting current siting practices". However, as noted above, after introduction of fission product cleanup systems, the staff implemented conserva-tive assumptions to keep siting distances roughly equivalent to those approved for early plants.
Better guidance on actual site criteria that have been found to be acceptable can be found either from an examination of the results of past siting reviewa, or by relying upon the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 4.7. Based upon a survey of the 75 U. S. sites where reactors are presently operating or are under construction, the distance to the exclusion area boundary varies from 277 meters to 2130 meters, with a typical value of about 800 meters (0.5 mile). LPZ distances range from 1100 to 11,000 meters with a typical value of about 4800 meters (3 miles). Data for each site is presented in Enclosure 3.
Other aspects arising from current practice should also be noted. These are, first, that the size of the exclusion area and the LPZ is not regulated by Part 100 directly, as noted earlier, but is done so indirectly via the credit for fission product removal that is given for the sprays and filters and by the containment leak rate. Second, Part 100 provides that the population center distance is to be at least one and one-third times the LPZ
- distance and that a greater distance may be needed where very large cities are concerned but provides i no criteria for such case. Although a site within l
a population center of 25,000 or more persons i
would not satisfy Part 100, nothing in Part 100 would prohibit a sito immediately adjacent to the boundary of such a population center, especially if substantial credit were given for fission product cleanup systems. There are no restric-tions in Part 100 on population density other than those associated with the population center distance. Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains population density values for sites which, if exceeded, trigger a review of alternate sites having lower population density. However, Regulatory Guide 4.7 does not limit population density. In fact, it is arguable that, by
. . l
. . i The Commissioners 9 l
requiring consideration of alternative sites where
, certain population density figures are exceeded, Regulatory Guide 4.7 does no more than what NEPA would require. It is estimated that about half a dozen existing reactor sites have population ,
{
density values that are in excess of the values !
listed in Regulatory Guide 4.7. All of these sites were reviewed and approved prior to the '
issuance of this regulatory guide in 1975. It should be noted that the staff has not received 1 indications of any interest in high population '
density reactor sites since the Perryman
, application in 1977.
B. Plant Desion Current practice has also had a significant impact 1 upon plant design. This is because the TID source l term, originally intended for siting purposes, has also been applied to many aspects of plant design, as well. Examples of plant design aspects affected by the TID source term include control room habitability, equipment qualification, post-accident sampling systems, and timing of some containment isolation valves. Some aspects of the TID source term are now recognized as inconsistent with the results of recent research. These include such aspects as fission product timing, quantities and types of radionuclides released.
As a result, a rigid application of the TID source
" term may not permit the best engineering solutions for the design of these plant systems, as well as related systems, for futura plants.
In addition, current practice assumes that con-tainment integrity is maintained for the duration of the accident, although the containment is assumed to be leaking. Since the containment design basis is the temperature and pressure d
conditions associated with a loss-of-coolant
! accident (LOCA), the assumption of containment integrity under severe accident conditions, which could result in a TID-type release into contain-ment, may not be appropriate. Therefore, current practice does not address containment integrity and performance under those conditions (i.e.,
4 severe accidents) which would likely result in a TID-type release and which most affect risk. For example, Appendix J concentrates on testing to assure low leak rates for large break LOCA
, The Commissioners 10 3
j conditions. While assuring low leak rates for these conditions also tends to provide some
- assurance of structural integrity, which in turn
'provides a significant degree of protection against release for a wider range of accidents, it does so only indirectly. Containment integrity requirements more closely linked to containment capability to withstand the effects of severe accidents may provide better regulatory focus on principal safety attributes.
Finally, another aspect of current practice is that the review process, both for staff and utilities, tends to dwell on small changes in i containment leak rate or variations in site meteorological dispersion factors which affect the outcome of the dose calculations, but which are secondary for plant safety. A key point in this regard is that the offsite doses will be low over a fairly wide range of containment leak rates or atmospheric dispersion factors provided the containment maintains its integrity and the fission product cleanup systems function.
C. Severe Accidents
- As noted above, Part 100 siting evaluations depend on dose consequences from postulated accidents.
While TID-14844 is referenced in the regulation as
" guidance" for the source term, the regulation l
does not specify the source term or the postulated a
accident. Rather, the accident specified is one whose consequences are not exceeded by any accident considered " credible". After the early reviews, it became customary to treat the double ended large break LOCA as the accident assessed for compliance with Part 100. It was fairly common to have issues raised in licensing procedings concerning whether particular sequtnces should be considered as " maximum credible accidents" or should be considered in NEPA reviews. After TMI-2 and with the advent of probabilistic assessments of more severe events, some recent cases have resulted in complicated litigation over the probabilities and consequences of severe accidents beyond the design basis.
The Commissioners 11 Source Tern Update and Imorovement several parallel activities for improvement of the regulations and practices in these areas for future plants have been identified by the staff.
These are 1) performing plant reviews on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate revisions to current practice incorporated as a part of the design certification rulemaking, and 2) instituting a decoupling of reactor siting and plant design via rulemaking changes to both Parts 50 and 100. These activities are discussed in more detail below.
A. Case-by-case review In this first activity, siting and licensing for evolutionary LWRs would be done on a case-by-case basis. Any proposed departures from the current regulations would be reviewed by the staff, if justified, presented to the Commission, and, if ,
approved, would be made a part of the design car-tification rulemaking. This is similar to the process identified by the staff in SECY-90-16 and which is cur.rently being pursued for the evolu-tionary plants, including the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR).
B. Decouclino In this second activity, reactor siting would be decoupled from ESF design. This will be done in two stages. In stage one, Part 100 will be revised to add site criteria based on present practice and Regulatory Guide 4.7. Part 100 would retain reference to a source term but the referenced source term will be a revision to that given in TID-14844, making use of improved insights in fission product timing, composition, and chemistry. During this stage, Part 50 vill remain unchanged. This stage is expected to begin in FY91 and and in FY93 (see Enclosur,9 4).
In the next stage of decoupling, Part 100 will be revised a second time. The second revision will retain the previously added site criteria but will remove any reference to source terms or dose calculations. The issues previously addressed by the Part 100 dose calculations will be handled by a revisien of Part 50. Specifically, ESP design
,' I q;
The commissioners 12 4
, requirements will be added to Part 50. The ESP
! requirements will be based on best engineering
, judgements and will not resort to dose calculations. If the development of these ESF
' requirements proves intractable, dose criteria and reference to the new source term can be added to Part 50. This rulemaking activity (involved rulemaking changes to Parts 50 and 100) also will begin in FY91, but because of the extensive revision anticipated to be required to Part 50, is expected to require a longer schedule.
I It is important to recognize that revisions to I
Part 50 to incorporate revised source tern insights into plant design would essentially be a i severe accident rule. This is because it would involve the specification of radiological 1
performance requirements and criteria for a number of plant systems, such as control room habitabil-4 ity, equipment qualification and fission product cleanup systems that are now determined by the i
- postulated appearance of the TID source term within containment. This source term can, of
- course, arise only as a result of a severe accident involving significant core damage.
~
As requested by the SRM dated June 15, 1990 (Item 12), any revisions of these rules and guidance will consider the commission's safety Goal Policy and the Large Release Guideline.
Decoupling of siting from plant design represents a significant departure from present NRC regula-tions. This option was first seriously considered by and reported in NUREG-0625 by the siting Policy Task Force (an internal NRC staff effort which was convened shortly before the Three Mile Island accident to examine siting options for future plants). staff efforts were initiated for this activity, including the issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This affort was subsequently deferred by the commission in 1981, indicating that it should avait further developments on updated source terms and the development of the safety Goal.
3 The advantages of this step are that it would provide specific site requirements in the regula-tions. It would also tend to minimize litigation
.. . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~' ~
The commissioners 13 over severe accidents although some review and j litigation may still be required under NEPA.
Embarking on this effort will involve extensive staff resources because of the significant rulemaking activities required.
Even though the anticipated schedule to accomplish this step may
' not be compatible with the review of the evolutionary ALWRs, it la not ex i certification of these designs. pected to delay
Conclusions:
- 1. Reactor Sitina i
The staff concludes that reactor siting could be improved for the evolutionary plants (and possibly
! for the passive plants), by limiting to some
)
degree the flexibility to use plant design j features as a trade-off for site features. This could be accomplished by modifying Part 100 to 2
1
, incorporate these site parameters (exclusion area and LPZ distances, and population density values) considered to be acceptable.
- The staff expects that a rulemaking involving Part 100 can be completed in a time period compatible
' with the schedule for early site reviews. The staff has, however, reviewed sites in the past and concludes that the guidance of Regulatory Guide 4.7 should continue to be used in the selection of acceptable sites until Part 100 can be modified.
- 2. Plant Desian The TID-14844 source term, originally intended for
- site evaluation purposes, has been applied to many i aspects of plant design. Some aspects of this release into containment are now recognized to be incospatible with present research findings. As a i
result, a rigid application of the TID source term l
4 may not permit the best engineering solutions on some aspects of future plant design.
The staff concludes that improved insights regard-ing accident source terms, particularly in areas such as fission product timing, fission product composition, quantities and chemistry should be factored into regulatory practice, consistent with j the state of knowledge, so as to provide improved t guidance for designers of futura plants. This could be accomplished either by specifying perfor-b 4
! .= *
, l The Commissioners 14 l
mance requirements for each system (e.g., control 4
room, sprays, filters, etc.) separately, or by l providing guidance on the nature of the radio- I logical conditions that plant systems should be
, expected to accommodate. The staff believes that providing guidance on the nature of the radio-I logical conditions (that is, specifying a new source term) might be accomplished more quickly I and offer significant improvements. Maximum l benefit, however, would result from addressing ESF l engineering requirements directly, without reference to a source term or dose calculation. l 3
The staff will pursue, in parallel, a major revision to both Parts 50 and 100 which would 1
eventually replace the dose calculations currently a
required in Part 100.
Future Staff j Actions: The staff plans the following actions:
j 1. For 'uture LWRs:
i
" a) The staff will perform plant reviews on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate revisions to j
source terms and to current practice incorporated j
as a part of the design certification rulemaking.
Applicants will be encouraged to submit sites whose parameters are in agreement with those of Regulatory Guide 4.7. This represents no change in current siting practice.
b) The staff will initiate two rulemakings to decouple reactor siting from plant design (See Enclosure 4). This will be done in two stages.
- The first stage will focus on a revision of Part 100 to add specific site criteria. In support of 4
this effort, TID-14844 will be revised to reflect i
improved understanding of accident source terms with soma conforming. changes to Part 50 and Part i 100 included in this effort. Revised site j criteria (10 CFR 100) are expected to be available i
in FY 1993 for review of an early site application.
The second stage will involve further changes to Part 100 and changes to Part 50. Reference to a
! source term and dose calculations will be removed from Part 100. This will be accompanied by the 1
addition of ESF criteria to Part 50. These ESF criteria vill reflect the advances in knowledge -
- acquired since the promulgation of the present 5
MP" .
,9 -
1 4
i The Commissioners 15 Part 100. The staff's goal is to accomplish this 4
rulemaking prior to completion of review of the passive LWR designs. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) will be issued in mid-FY1991 explaining the two stage process and soliciting early comment and feedback on the i proposal.
- 2. For existing plants:
The staff plans to make available the results of i
' the updated TID-14844 for voluntary use (for 2
example, licensees may request license amendments
' in areas such as isolation valve closure time or allowable containment leak rate) by existing plants on a case-by-case basis.
The staff has also begun discussions with industry 4
groups, particularly EPRI, in regard to source term updates and its application to Advanced Light Wacar Reactors (ALWR).
As requested by the SRM dated May 22, 1990, the
' following discussion describes the status of the staff's review of EPRI'o source term recommenda-
'. tion. For the evolutionary ALWRs, EPRI has pro-posed that a technical update or modification of the TID-14844 source term should be carried out and implemented without significant rulemaking changes. EPRI has also made proposals regarding the timing and quantities of fission products released as well as the chemical form of the iodine fission products that would be used as a l
1 replacement for the TID-14844 source term, '
i Although the staff has not completed ite review, l it finds considerable technical mer.'.h in the EPRI proposal. The staff intends ts continue these l
discussions while evaluating the results of research in this area.
In the SRM dated February 13, 1990 the staff was also directed to " propose changes to regulatory positions as soon as possible for both current and advanced reactor designs in those areas where the NRC has a sufficient technical basis from avail-able research results (e.g., fission product timing) . " A paper discussing potential impacts of source term timing on NRC regulatory positions j
(SECY-90-307) has been transmitted to the Commission.
A
- e l' The Commissioners 16 4
The staff also notes that resources havt been 4 budgated in the Fiva-Year Plan to perfora the technical update of TID-14844 and the decoupling rulemakings. However, some adjustment of these l I
resources may be necessary to accomplish the two 4
decoupling rulemakings in parallel. These J adjustments will be reflected in the next update 1 of the Five-Year Plan. j
, Coordination: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to it.
. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards l (ACRS) has been briefed regarding the contents of i this paper and has provided a letter (Enclosure 5)
- on the staff proposal.
4 i Recommendation:
, That the commission approve the staff's plans to l implement updated source term knowledge including
! rulemaking for the decoupling of plant design from 4
site characteristics.
l 1 ,
i e es M. T lor i ecutive Director j for Operations
Enclosures:
1 1. Responses to SRM of February 13, 1990
- 2. Current Siting Requirements & Practices
- 3. Data for Existing 0.S. Reactor Sites ,
- 4. Schedule for Source Term Activities
- 5. ACRS Letter of June 13, 1990 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, October 19, 1990.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, October 12, 1990, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it reqQires additional time for
' analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners EDO OGC ACRS OIG ASLDP GPA ASLAP SECY REGIONAL OFFICES
+ .,A ,
o ,'
1 1
1 -
e
- d
-1' ENCLOSURE 1 4
4 Responses to Staff Reauirements Memorandum (SRM) dated February 13,1990 l
l The staf f requirements memorandum (SRM) dated Feb. 13, 1990 I 1
requested that the report on decoupling siting requirements from plant design should address the following:
- 1. The criteria that would be used in siting decisions, if siting is decoupled from plant designs. Identify and discuss the considerations (e.g., risk, deterministic, policy) of the i staff in establishing such criteria and specifically how the )
criteria were developed. i i
- 2. Benefits and disadvantages of risk based siting criteria.
! 3. Degree of conservatism between options under consideration.
] 4. Applicability and impact on existing plants.
i 1 i 5. The pros and cons for equating the low population zone to i the emergency planning zone.
l These items are provided below, in question and answer
, format.
Ouestion 1: The criteria that would be used in siting decisions, if siting is decoupled from plant designs.
Identify and discuss the considerations (e.g., risk, deterministic, policy) of the staff in establishing such criteria and specifically how the criteria were derived.
Response: Decoupling will not result in significant changes in reactor siting criteria. (The principal objective of this effort is to change the basis for evaluating certain Engineered Safety Feature (ESP) designs.) Guidance would continue to be that given in Regulatory Guide 4.7 " General Site Suitability criteria for Nuclear Power Stations",
Revision 1, November 1975. This guide discusses the major site characteristics related to public health and safety and environmental issues which the NRC staff considers in determining the suitability of reactor sites, and was
2 ,
intended to assist applicants in the initial stage of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power station.
With regard to population considerations, this guide states that a minimum exclusion area distance of 0.4 miles usually provides assurance that engineered safety features can be designed to bring the calculated dose from a postulated accident within the guidelines of 10 CFR 100. The guide also states that, based on past experience, the staff has found that a distance of 3 miles to the outer boundary of the low population zone is usually adequate.
With regard to population density in the site vicinity, the guide states that if the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area at that distance), or the projected population density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds 1000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles, special attention should be given to the consideration of alternatite sites with lower population densities. .
The criteria with regard to minimum exclusion area and low population zone outer radius distances arose from the determiniatic consequence calculations that are mandated by 10 CFR 100. It was based upon the judgment and experience of the staff that plants equipped with the normal complement of accident mitigation features (low leakage containment plus fission product cleanup systems such as sprays or filters) would be very likely to meet the guideline doses of 10 CFR 100, given these site parameters.
l The population density guidelines given in Regulatory Guide 4.7 were developed in order to provide a reasonable separation distance between nuclear power stations and large l population centers while maintaining a good availability of j potential sites for nuclear power plants, even in the i Northeastern United States.
!' The staff considers these siting criteria to be consistent with most existing U.S. reactor sites. Based upon a survey of the 75 U.S. sites where reactors are presently operating I
1 1
l
^
. s pi, i
j, .
1 .
- 3 i
or are under construction, the distance to the exclusion area
! boundary varies from 277 meters to 2130 meters, with a i typical value of about 800 meters (0.5 mile). Low population
! zone distances range from 1100 to 11,000 meters with a l typical value of about 4800 meters (3 miles). It is !
j estimated that about half a dozen existing reactor sites have
- population density values that are in excess of the values j given in Regulatory Guide 4.7. All of these were reviewed 1
and approved prior to the issuance of Regulatory Guide 4.7 in 1975.
Question 2: Benefits and disadvantages of risk based siting criteria.
Resoonse: The staff understands the Commission request for a discussion of this subject to be one of contrasting risk based siting criteria with the presently used deterministic criteria contained in Part 100 (the use of PRA-based source terms for purposes other than siting has been discussed in SECY-90-173). The following discussion focuses primarily on the use of risk-based criteria that 1) could be used to determine the acceptability of a proposed site for licensing purposes, 2) can be expressed quantitatively and 3) would replace present siting criteria. A closely related subject, design criteria for events of natural or man-made origin ,
associated with a proposed site that can adversely affect the safe operation of a plant is not discussed. These are typically called external events. For many of these (but not seismic), the staff already uses a probabilistic approach that deals wi+.h risk in the sense of risk of damage to the plant that may have consequences of offsite releases. The staff has also dealt with the operational and severe accident risks in approximately 30 plant-specific Environmental Statements and expects to do so more broadly as part of ongoing efforts to develop a Generic Environmental Statement in support of Part 51 requirements for licensing renewal.
Finally, the discussion is related to the licensing options now available in 10 CFR Part 52.
Risk based siting criteria implies a formulation as a risk statement in probabilistic terms, like the quantitative health objectives in the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement. Setting the numerical value of a criterion is i judgmental and also involves a selection among possible consequence measures, e.g., radiation exposure or dose, or
o o ,* ' ' .
a
~
I 4
health effects, and a selection of measures associated with risks to individuals or for risks to population groups. If a single measure were selected as a siting criterion, a perceived benefit might be the sense of equity created by requiring plants and sites to present the same public risk, I regardless of the nature or size of the plant and the characteristics of the site. An example would be a frequency criterion for a radiation dose to an individual to be equal to or less than a specified value at a specified distance from the reactor. Another would be a population dose equal to or less than a specified value for the population in a specified region. Alternatively, two or more consequence !
measures could be selected, in which case it is likely that i only one would be controlling at some sites, whereas another might be controlling at other sites. The potential benefit would then be the tangible recognition that the criteria selected deal with the reality that some consequence measures are conceptually more important for some sites than others, e.g., in contrasting sites with very different population density characteristics.
A process or analysis method is necessary to determine whether or not a proposed site is in compliance with a given siting criterion. For risk based siting criteria the only analysis method available would appear to be a Level Three probabilistic risk analysis (P RA) . A possible benefit of this would be the opportunity that a PRA presents in principle to be realistic, unbiased, and based on the facts i of the case. However, it would most likely be a very l resource intensive process. Further, existing Commission guidance is not to use safety goals and PRA results for individual plant licensing purposes.
With respect to the applicability of risk based siting criteria to the Part 52 categories of Early Site Permits and certified Designs, not all of the " facts of the case" would i appear to be present. Early Site Permits contemplate no I specific design and require no PRA. Hypothetical " bounding site characteristics" can be used to fill out a Level III PRA that might be thought of as bounding the risk and a showing ;
that the risk criteria are met. Even in this case, however, many portions of a PRA on a design, as distinct from a plant l
that can be walked down to observe firsthand such things as piping and valve configurations, are not ve.rifiable.
Although the combined CP and OL licensing option in Part 52
e ,. >
5 would bring together the available facts about both the design and the site, the use of risk based siting criteria here, in the absence of either an Early Site Permit or Certified Design, or both, would still suffer from the lack i of verification that can lend credibility to a PRA.
l
! In summary, the staff does not recommend the use of risk l based siting criteria for the reasons given above.
l l On the other hand, it is possible to set or reset I deterministic criteria in the light of a background of risk l analyses performed for a sufficient sample size of plants and sites. For example, for each such available PRA it might be useful to amplify the existing results to estimate the probabilities of exceeding the dose guideline values as given in 10 CFR Part 100. The values obtained might be useful in estimating the range of individual risk of exposure that appears to be implied by the current siting criteria and could, in principle, serve as a basis for a decision that they either continue to be acceptable, or might be changed to some other value (s) . The benefit of this could be improved
! understanding of the risk significance of the siting criteria.
Question 3: Degree of conservatism between options under consideration.
Response: As noted in response to question 1, the staff is proposing siting criteria that are consistent with all but a few present reactor sites. The staff considers that these criteria provide a high degree of safety to members of the public and society in the event of an emergency and assures adequate protection of the nuclear plant from potential l offsite external hazards. At the same time, these criteria l permit the availability of a large pool of potential sites in I every region of the nation.
l Ouestion 4: Applicability and impact on existing plants.
Response: Criteria being proposed for citing future nuclear power plants would not be applicable to existing plants.
l Since these proposed siting criteria are generally consistent l
with those for existing plants, the staff sees no need to review existing plants in this regard, and concludes that the l
proposed criteria will have no impact on existing plants.
f 1 .
6 j Application for existing plants of revised source term i
criteria that impacts plant design would be evaluated on a j case-by-case basis.
Question 5: The pros and cons for equating the low population zone to the emergency planning zone.
- Response
- The low population zone (LPZ) is the area i immediately beyond the exclusion area, and is required for i every reactor site by 10 CFR 100. Although the distance is j not fixed, a typical distance to the outer radius of the LPZ l is about 3 miles. Before the Three Mile Island accident, the LPZ represented the region where emergency planning was requirod.
- The plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) is the region around every nuclear power plant where emergency planning is currently required by 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50 1 Appandix E. The plume exposure EPZ is required to have a
- radius of about 10 miles. The size of the plume exposure i
emergency planning zone was based upon the insights of NUREG-j 0396, and reflected the considerations of the complete
, spectrum of accidents, including those beyond the design i basis. Another fundamental consideration for establishing the size of the plume exposure EPZ was that " detailed planning within 10 miles would provide a substantial base for j expansion of response efforts in the event that this proved necessary." (NUREG-0654/FEP.A REP-1, Rev. 1 at page 12). If jl the EPZ was reduced to the LPZ size the planning base might i be too small to provide adequate assurance that protective
- actions beyond the LPZ could be carried out if needed.
4 The way offsite doses would be expected to vary with j distance, assuming various offsite protective actions, was j calculated in NUREG-1150 (June 1989) using the Zion plant as 1 an example. Figures 13.5 and 13.6 (Attached) show the results for early and late containment failure, respectively.
- As can be seen, there could be a significant probability of d
exceeding a 50-rem' whole body dose within a few miles for i
'200-rom and 50-rem whole body doses were used to allow comparisons with earlier studies (e.g., NUREG-0396) and
- because they serve as surrogates for the early fatality and
- r .
l 1
l 7 this plant, even for late containment failure if no '
protective action is taken. However, this probability diminishes rapidly with distance from the reactor for both I
early and late containment failure.
In conclusion, the size of the 10 mile EPZ was determined using the methodologies available in 1980. Today there i exists more sophisticated techniques and computer models based upon recent research that tend to indicate that l radiation doses cnd consequences would generally be lower at a given distance than previously predicted. However, there
! are significant uncertainties associated with these analyses.
Furthermore, protective actions for the public are typically planned at the levels of the EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGs) (1 to 5 rem whole body and 5 to 25 rem thyroid), in contrast to the 50 rem and 200 rem levels where early health effects would be noted. Some severe accident scenarios could exceed the PAG 1evels at distances of 10 miles and beyond.
Overall, the staff believes that an overriding argument for maintaining the present EPZ size is to provide assurance that an adequate planning base is maintained.
l l
l injury thresholds, respectively.
- 13. Resource Document Probability of Exceeding 60-Rom Acute Red Bone Marrow Dose 1
Early Containment Fallure
.....u......a.....,
s . .. .
e
...w......e.
. . . . ...u....
... w .
u i..
i . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.8 !
l i
. 1 8
l 0.6 - . .
. e ,
0.4 -
. . I 0.2 -
t 0 , . n. ..n.. a mu.. so aue.
Distance from Reactor I
Probability of Esconding 200-Rom Acute Red Bone Mattow Does 1
Estif Containment Failure
. . .".w.'"
I... $.U.'.7%. . U. ."..'.".."'
0.6 :: ::.".!. :.::.". : .!..".".7*
...o . . . "".".*
0.6 ,
e O.4
- 0.2 I a 0 , , , , ,,n, ,,n, ...n..
Distance from reactor Figure 13.5 Relative effectiveness of emergency response actions assuming early containment failure with high and low source terms.
Nt'prn.tIcn IbI?
1 i,
- l. .
l
- 13. Resource Document
- l. .
I Probability of Exceeding 60-Rom Acute Red Bone Metrow Dose l 1
Late Containment Falture !!
s...............
.e.e...............
0.8 - *: ::::: *:'* :: T. "!.* ...... .I I
o.e -
0.4 .
0.2 -
O i u. s -n.. e n.. ...n..
Distance from Reactor ,
Probability of Exceeding 200-Rem Acute Red Eone Marrow Dose 1
Late contaloment f ailure 1.'."."*.'.*.%...'."....
.. ..... ~...... . ... ....... ....
' * " " " " " " " ' ' ' ' ~ ' " ' " "
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
l O i .at i a n.. ..n.. ,, n..
i Distance from Reactor PIgure 13.6 Relative effectiveness of emersency response actions suuming late containment failure with high and low source terms.
13-13 NURI!O-il50
.. . . . _ . _ . ~-. . -__ . - - - . - - . . - . - . - - - . .-----. - .-- - ---
, 24-MAR-1997 15: 19 ScreenScan
, ,- . : . .- l : .
4 i
l l
Probabilit) of ExceedinD 50 Hem Acute r4ed Bono Marrow Dose
- j. ,.. . . _ _ . . . . . . . . ,
- Late Containment Feilure . ..
.c................n, o.8 , . ...,....
,i ,
i
)
i !
o.s p l 1
0.4 ,
1 0.2 -
0 i ,,, u. ,,i n. . . ,,,i i. . so -n..
Distance from Reactor l
Probability of Exceeding 200-Rem Acute Red Bone Marrow Dose 3
Late containment f ailure
..... uu.n, i.c...n ,
.s .. . .
..........n.
1 i
. . .. e . s. .s. . .........u....w......u...............
0.8 O.6 i :
i I
0.4 -
0.2 -
0 - i ;,,;- s sisi - -- e an.. '- io n..
Dista'nce from Reactor
/
Figure 13.n Relatwe effec:iveness of emergency response actions assuming late co .ta:nment failure mth high and low source terms
.t; vi r r .- ,,
l l ENCLOSURE 2 Current Sitina Recuirements and Practice A. Sitina Reaulations The NRC's regulations with regard to reactor siting are provided in 10 CFR 100, promulgated in 1962. 10 CFR 100 requires that every reactor site provide an exclusion area and a low population zone (LPZ) around the reactor site. The exclusion area is defin-ed as the immediate area around the reactor. This area must be ]
under the control of the applicant, usually by ownership. Resi-dence by members of the public within the exclusion area is pro-hibited, but the exclusion area may be traversed by transporta-tion routes such as a road, railway or waterway provided these are not so close as to interfere with normal operations and prov-ided the applicant has made suitable arrangements to control such traffic in the event of an emergency.
The immediate area outside the exclusion area is known as the low population zone (LPZ). This area is not required to be under the control of the applicant and, although the regulation does not !
provide a numerical value, is one where low density residential areas are permitted. 10 CFR 100 also requires that the nearest densely populated center of about 25,000 or more residents must be located no closer than one and one-third times the outer radius of the LPZ. ,
Part 100 also assumes the existence of a low-leakage containment throughout the duration of the accident. Although TID-14844 indicates that the containment leak rate is 0.1 percent per day, the regulation does not require this value and plants have been licensed with a variety of leak rates. The regulation indicates that the site evaluation is to be performed using the expected i
demonstrable leak rate of the containment.
In order to evaluate a site and plant combination, Part 100 re- I quires that a fission product release into the containment is to i be postulated and that the radiological consequences for in- (
dividuals at two locations (at the exclusion area boundary and at the LPZ outer radius) are to be evaluated. With regard to the fission product release into containment, Footnote 1 to Part 100 i I
indicates that it should be " based upon a major accident", and notes furthermore that such accidents "have generally been as-sumed to result in substantial meltdown of the core with subse-quant release of appreciable quantitias of fission products."
rinally, Part 100 requires that the calculated doses must not exccod the values given in the regulation (25 ram to the wholo body or 300 rom to the thyroid gland) for a period of two hours
l l
l 2 and for the entire period of the cloud's passage, for individuals l located at the nearest exclusion area boundary and at the outer l radius of the LPZ, respectively.
B. Current Sitina Practice l Current siting practice and engineered safety features (ESP) design includes a number of assumptions regarding fission product release, plant performance and dose calculation methodology that,
[ although not specified in the regulation, are employed in l assessing compliance with Part 100 and other requirements. These are generally given in Regulatory Guides and the Standard Review l Plan (SRP) . Many of these assumptions and models play key roles i in implementing the regulation, so that a discussion of key
- practices is essential to a complete understanding of current l l reactor siting.
The fission product release into containment is derived from the 1962 report " Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites", TID-14844, by J.J. DiNunno, et. al. This report l is referenced in Part 100 and was published at the same time. At the present time the fission product release used by the staff for site evaluation is given in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 for Boiling Water and Pressurized Water reactors, respectively.
These specify a release into containment of a) 100 percent of the noble gas inventory of the core, and b) 50 percent of the iodine fission product inventory of the core (half of which is assumed to deposit on interior surfaces very quickly). In addition, Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 specify that the fission products are to be assumed to be instantaneously available for release from the containment, and that the chemical form of the iodine fission products are assumed to be 91 percent elemental, 5 per-cent particulate, and 4 percent organic iodine.
In evaluating the site and engineered safety features, the containment is assumed to maintain its integrity for the duration of the accident and is assumed to leak at the maximum leak rate that is to be incorporated into the Technical Specifications.
, Furthermore, for pWRs, the containment leak rate stays at its i I
maximum value for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period following the accident, after I which its leak rate is assumed to be half that value for the remainder of the accident duration (taken as 30 days). For BWRs, the containment is assumed to leak at its maximum leak rate for the entire duration of the accident.
l Fission product cleanup systems are given credit for reduction of l iodine concentrations in containment or for removal prior to release to the environment. However, such credit is evaluated conservatively (i.e., a realistic evaluation would indicate a greater reduction or removal of iodine than credited), to account for uncertainties.
l l
t 3
Doses to hypothetical individuals at the exclusion area boundary and at the LPZ outer radius are also calculated using conserva-tive assumptions, in that individuals are assumed to be on the plume centerline for the duration of the accident, no protective actions are assumed to be taken, and the atmospheric dispersion factors utilized represent highly unfavorable meteorological conditions that would result in higher doses no more than about 5 percent of the time for the actual site conditions.
Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations", is also applied. This guide provides guidance on a minimum exclusion area distrace (0.4 miles),
minimum LPZ outer radius (3 miles), and population density in the vicinity of the site. With regard to populatior. density, the Guide states that, if the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area at that distance), ,
or the projected population density over the lifetime of the l facility exceeds 1000 persons per square mile, special attention should be given to the consideration of alternative sites with lower population densities.
Finally, it must also be noted that reactor siting is determined by other safety as well as environmental considerations, in I addition to the exclusion area, LPZ and population density.
These include such diverse conditions as seismic characteristics, nearby industrial and military facilities, potential for flooding, and the availability of a suitable ultimate heat sink.
Consideration of these as well as other site characteristics is given in Regulatory Guide 4.7.
1 I
i l
l
l ENCLOSURE 3 EXISTING U.S. REACTOR SITES EXCLUSION LOW POPULATION AREA BOUNDARY ZONE (LPZ) POP. CENTER l
DISTANCE OUTER RADIUS DISTANCE i REACTOR SITE (METERS) (METERS) (miles) l 1. Arkansas 1046 4024 4 l 2. Beaver Valley 610 5795 5 1
- 3. Bellefonte 914 3219 4
- 4. Big Rock Pt 817 6439 45
- 5. Braidwood 457 1810 20
- 6. Browns Ferry 1219 3219 10
- 7. Brunswick 914 3219 16
- 8. Byron 460 4827 17
- 9. Callaway 1100 4023 25
- 10. Calvert Cliffs 1150 3219 45
- 11. Catawba 762 6097 5.1
- 12. Clinton 975 4025 22
- 13. Comanche Pk. 1400 6440 40
- 14. Cook 610 3219 8
- 15. Cooper 746 1609 60
- 16. Crystal River 1340 8047 55 1
- 17. Davis Besse 634 3219 20
- 18. Diablo Canyon 800 9656 12 l
l
- 19. Dresden 671 8000 14 l 20. Quane Arnold 440 9659 8
- 21. Farley 1260 3219 16.5
- 22. Fermi 915 4828 6
- 23. Fitzpatrick 975 5470 7
- 24. ft. Calhoun 375 4827 10 !
- 25. ft. St. Vrain 590 4827 14 '
- 26. Ginna 457 4827 16
- 27. Grand Gulf 752 3219 25
- 28. Haddam Neck 530 11,263 9.5
- 29. Hatch 1250 7250 48
- 30. Hope Creek 792 8045 18
- 31. Indian Pt. 330 1100 0.87
- 32. Kewaunee 1200 4827 17.5
- 33. LaSalle 515 6400 5
- 34. Limerick 760 2043 1.7
- 35. Maine Yankee 610 9654 26
- 36. McGuire 762 8850 11
- 37. Millstone 503 3700 3.2
- 38. Monticello 488 1609 22
- 39. Nine Mile Pt. 1555 6115 7
- 40. North Anna 1350 9656 24
- 41. Oconee 1609 9654 21
- 42. Oyster Creek 402 3219 8
- 43. Palisades 671 4827 20
- 44. Palo Verde 900 6437 34 2
l
- ' ~ ^ - - ~ - ~ '-
. ... .:. - .. :- . ~: .
A LPZ ..PCD_
- 45. Peach Bottom 820 7300 - 18
- 46. Perry 915 6437 6.3
- 47. Pilgrim 441 2414 2.5
- 48. Pt. Beach 1207 9012 8
- 49. Prairie 1s. 715 2414 26
- 50. Quad Cities 380 4827 7 St. Rancho Seco 640 8000 17
- 52. River Bend 914 4023 24
- 53. Robinson 425 7242 25 i
54.* St. Lucie 1554 8049 8 l
- 55. Salem 1165 8047 18
- 56. San Onofre 800 4827 17 t !
- 57. Seabrook 914 2413 4
- 58. Sequoyah 585 4827 16
- 59. Shearon Harris 2133 4827 12
! 60. So. Texas 1430 4827 26
- 61. Summer 1630 4827 26
- 62. Surry 560 4827 4.5
- 63. Susquehanna 567 4800 12
- 64. Three Mile is. 610 3219 12
- 65. Trojan 662 , 4023 6 l
l 66. Turkey Pt. 1269 8047 15 67 Yt. Yankee 277 8047 30
- 68. Vogtle 1098 3219 26 3
l l
l i
1 4
l HJL. LEZ_ fE
- 69. WPPSS1 1950 6440 8
- 70. WPPSS-2 1950 4827 12 1 71. Waterford 915 3219 13 J
l 72. Watts Bar 1200 4827 40 4 73. Wolf Creek 1200 4023 28
- 74. Yankee Rowe 945 3219 25 l 75. Zion 415 1600 6 1
l 5
h 1
i
)
I i
1 1
1 3
i i
)
1
. 1 4
4 ENCLOSURE 4 SCHEDULE FOR SOURCE TERM ACTIVITIES ,
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 ;
SOURCE TERM ACTIVITIES FY 1990 L
T 1
SUPPORTIWG ACTIVITIES .
- ENL UPDATE OF RELEASES
- INEL CALCUIATIONS ON TIMING t
1ST DRAFT :
- TID-14944 UPDATE PRASE 1 ALNR REVIEW ASWR DESICW SER CERTIFICATION l
- ABWR REVIEW SYS 90+
- CE SYS 90* REVIEW EVOLUTIONARY PASSIVE ;
- EPRI ALNR DOCUMENTS
! f DOE EARLY SITE REVIEWS _
SITE
- j(- ,
- EARLY SITE REVIEWS APPLICATION [
I PEASE 2 DECOUPLING REVISED SITING REGULATIONS CRGR TO PUBLIC FINAL CRCR TO FINAL I 1r ACRS COMM COMMENT PACKAGE ACRS COPM REVISIONS
- INTERIM REVISIONS TO e - - m - - - -
ANPR SEVERE As'CIDENT DESIGN REQOIREMENTS
- FINAL REVISIONS TO *
- PARTS 100 AND 50 i t
t t-
_.___ = _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -
i.. .
h '/
- UNITED STATES ENCLOSURE 5
,, ! c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! $ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS wash Notom,c.c.roess 3
i j June 13, 1990 l The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr
- Chairman
- j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 j -
- j.
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
DRAFT STUDY ON SOURCE TERM UPDATE AND DECOUPLING SITING l FROM DESIGN l During the 362nd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor j Safeguards, June 7-9, 1990, we reviewed the NRC staff's Draft Study i on Source Tara Update and Decoupling Siting from Design. This i matter was also discussed during our 361st meeting, May 10-11, j 1990. During this review, we had the benefit of discussions with l representatives of the NRC staff. We also had the benefit of the i
document referenced.
At present, siting issues ~, including the definitions of the i Exclusion Area (EA) and Low Population Zone-(LPZ), are governed by 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, which sets limits on the exposure of an exposed individual in the event of certain hypothet-ical accidents. The necessary calculations require assumptions about the amount of radioactivity released to the containment in those accidents, the so-called source term.
It is customary to use for the latter an old AEC report, Technical Information Document 14844, dated March 23, 1962. It has been recognized-for about ten years that that report grossly overes-timates radioactive releases in a typical accident, and mis-represents their forms. Consequently there has been in this period a leisurely effort to " update tha source tern."
The staff soon recognized that the effects due to possible reduction of the source term, and reduced probability of an accident, could combine with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 to make possible the licensing of plants with uncomfortably close boundaries, perhaps even in a metropolitan area. To avoid this, the staff proposed that the siting question be decoupled from the source term upgrade, so that the customary sizes of the EA and LPZ could be preserved, as encapsulated in Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. This is a matter of preserving the answer, in the face of creeping safety improvements, by rephrasing the question.
e,. u o
! . . 1 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2 June.13, 1990 l In the end, the staff considered a number of options, including a l revision of 10 CFR Part 100 through rulemaking, and concluded that i they were all so difficult that one ought to proceed by first l updating the source term to accommodate current technical under- l I
standing. Then the tentative proposed solution to the siting l problem is to " encourage" conformance to Regulatory Guide 4.7, in i effect substituting a regulatory guide for rulemaking.
l We support (as we always have) the effort to adjust the source term j to reflect current knowledge. Since it appeared at our meeting that the staff is not itself entirely clear about its position on 4 siting, we cannot yet provide definitive advice on that aspect of the problem. Perhaps, since no one is now proposing other than l remote siting of nuclear power plants in the United States, the question is moot.
Sincerely, dw Carlyle Michelson Chairman
Reference:
l Draf t Commission Paper from James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations,
Subject:
Staff Study on Source Term Update and Decoupling Siting from Design (Predecisional), transmitted by memorandum dated May 25, 1990 from Warren Minners, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, for Raymond F. Fraley, ACRS i
l 4
m .. _._. - . - - . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .. ... _ .- _. _ . _ ._ _ _ _ _
A>9 3-1 7 g o, UNITED STATES i
M '4 l
- ~ o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T. :
j WASHINGTON D. C 20555 p
'% , */ December 13, 1990 l
l ,
LW F^
J
, y s MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Carr I
~ V '
l I
Commissioner Rogers y /)
i Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick g 1 j
FROM: James M. Taylor f Executive Director 'j,t for Operations < / i
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION BRIEFING ON SOURCE T UPDATE.AND DECOUPLING SITING FROM DESIGN (SECY-90-341) I l
On October 15, 1990 the staff briefed the Commission on the subject SECY paper. The staff has received the Staff Require-ments Memorandum (SRM) dated November 16, 1990 (M901015B), in which questions were asked regarding examining possible alternatives to the plan and schedule proposed in SECY 90-341.
l Specifically,_the staff was requested to examine whether revision of Part 100 could be completed prior to the receipt of an early site application.
The staff has examined a range of-options with respect to updating source terms and revising Part 100 and Part 50. These options as well as the staff's recommendations are discussed i below. Responses to the first two questions in the SRM are also
! provided in this memorandum.
I To summarize, the staff now recommends a change from that given in SECY-90-341, and proposes that:
(1) The issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) be deleted.
! (2) Part 100 be revised only once and as soon as possible so as to facilitate an early site permit review. This would be accompanied by an interim revision of Part 50 which would be carried out and completed in parallel i with the revision of Part 100. Site criteria (e.g., l population density and distribution) would be added to Part 100. Reference to the TID source term and to dose calculations and criteria would be removed from Part i
- 100 and placed into Part 50. An updated TID source l
term would not be incorporated into Part 50 at this i time. Any dose calculations performed utilizing the interim revision of Part 50 would be for establishing l l plant performance criteria such as control room I
habitability or containment leak rate, and not for
%, _o C+ e> a y Nh lC I . . ., 1k
. .- - - - - - - ~ . - - . - . . - . - - - - . - _ _ ~ - . - -. ~-
l .-
f 2
I assessing site suitability. Appendix A' to Part 100 would also be revised to provide updated seismic site ;
criteria. Any criteria not associated with selection !
of the site or establishment of the safe shutdown ,
earthquake magnitude would be put into Part 50. .
(3) A. final. revision of Part 50 would be undertaken.to add performance requirements to plant design features based ,
on updated source term and severe accident insights, and to replace the dose calculations and criteria.
Updated TID source term insights would be incorporated at this time. Although it is not possible to complete
! this final revision of Part 50 prior to initiation.of ,
l the passive LWR design reviews, the staff would proceed l as fast as practicable on this rulemaking. {
[
I !
(4) In parallel with development of the revision to Part 100 and the interim revision to Part 50, the staff i intends to continue work on an updated TID. Existing !
and future plants wil?. not have to wait until the final Part 50 revision is complete to take advantage of the updated source term information. As noted in SECY !
341, the staff intends to apply appropriate revisions to current practice based on updated source term and i severe accident insights for future plants as~a part of ;
the design certification rulemaking. Results of I updated source term insights would also be made )
available for voluntary use by existing licensees.
This is consistent with the SRM dated February 13,
' Appendix A,10CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants", was issued in 1973. It has initially been a very useful siting regulation, but because of advances in the geological sciences and the occurrence of issues during licensing activities for several nuclear power plants that were unforseen by the authors, significant difficulties arose during its application. Several NRC documents since that time, such as SECY-79-300 " Identification of Issues Pertaining to Seismic and Geological Siting Regulation, Policy and Practice for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0625
" Report of the Siting Policy Task Force" and NUREG-1061 " Report of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee," have enumerated the deficiencies and difficulties with Appendix A, for example, the definitions of
' tectonic province and capable fault and the role of Operating Basis Earthquake in plant design, and have strongly recommended that it be revised. l I
f L On September 6,1990, the EDO approved the plan to begin work to revise i
( Appendix A and assigned a high priority status to this activity. The staff i
intent is for the revised regulation to be general in nature with more ,
detailed information contained in supporting regulatory guides.
i l .
1 1
=
3 1990, which stated that changes to regulatory positions would be proposed "as soon as possible for both current and advanced reactor designs in those areas where the NRC has a sufficient technical basis from available research results (e.g., fission product timing)."
The major benefit of this revised recommendation is that proposed rules revising Part 100 and containing interim revisions to Part 50 are expected to be available for public comment by about December 1991 and completed by September 1992, shortly before the time that an early site review application is expected.
Another, albeit less tangible advantage of the interim Part 50 revisions is that, for the existing plants, the current licensing basis and prior design features that have been driven by the Part 100 dose assessments would remain intact. While the principal rulemaking actions contemplated here are aimed at future plant and siting activities under Part 52 procedures, the interim changes in Part 50 would preserve a status quo for existing plants. This preservation is seen as being important to existing plants and to subsequent license renewal activities. The staff intends, however, that the final Part 50 revision to incorporate updated source terms and severe accident insights would clearly represent the preferred licensing bases, as applicable, for future plants. The use of such updated source terms would remain optional for existing licensees.
In arriving at this change in recommendations, the staff considered the following options:
Option 1: Revise Part 100 twice; revise Part 50 once. (Staff proposal in SECY-90-341)
This option involves the issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), and an interim revision of Part 100 to add site criteria and to include an updated TID source term as a reference in the regulation. This would be followed by a second rulemaking involving a final revision of Part 100 (removing any referer.ce to a source term or dose calculation) in parallel with a revision of Part 50 to address design / performance requirements which replace the dose calculation of Part 100.
The advantages of this option are that (1) an interim revision of Part 100 could be accomplished quickly, and (2) placing an updated TID into Part 100 provides a "legical" follow-on to existing staff practice which could help support review of the I evolutionary LWR designs as well as allow existing plants to take advantage of an up-to-date understanding of source terms.
The major disadvantage of this optica is that a siting rulemaking l is not expected to be completed by the time an early site application is submitted.
F l
!* 4 Option 2: Revise Part 100 once; revise Part 50 twice.
(Recommended Option)
This option would revice Part 100 only once. Site criteria would be added, dose calculations and criteria and reference to any source term would be deleted, and Appendix A to Part 100 would bc revised. In addition, an ANPR would not be issued. In parallel with the revision of Part 100, an interim revision of Part 50 would be undertaken. In this interim revision, the present TID ;
source term, dose calculations and criteria (for assessment of !
plant features) would be located in Part 50 so that appropriate 1 i
criteria remain in the regulations for application to any plant reviews underway or initiated prior to the final Part 50 l revision. A final revision of Part 50 would be undertaken later.
I The major advantage of this option is that deleting the ANPR and l revising Part 100 only once shortens the schedule for any siting I rulemaking and allows a rulemaking on siting to be completed by the time an early site application is expected. This option providas a clear step that would facilitate a decoupled review of l I
design and/or siting proposals.
\
The disadvantage of this option is that an interim revision of !
Part 50 must be accomplished in parallel with the revision of Part 100 in order to retain a reference to a source term in the l l
regulations. . _.
Ootion 3: Part 100 update associated with site criteria i i
This option would retain reference to the TID source term and to dose calculations and criteria in Part 100, but would add site criteria to Part 100. Appendix A would also be revised. This phase could be carried out quickly. A second phase would then require a parallel rulemaking to (1) revise Part 100 again to remove any reference to a source term, dose calculation and criteria, and (2) a revision of Part 50 to address plant safety features and reference an updated TID source term in this Part.
Although the first revision of Part 100 could be completed axpeditiously, this option suffers from the same disadvantages of Option 1 discussed earlier; namely, two revisions of Part 100 would be required, which make completion of rulemaking on siting unlikely prior to receipt of an early site review application.
Option 4: Revise Part'100 once; revise Part 50 once.
This option would revise Part 100 only once, incorporating the l
changes as given in Option 2. Part 50 would also be revised only once by incorporating updated source term and severe accident insights into the requirements for plant engineered safety features.
. d 5
The advantage of this option is that it would involve one revision each for Parts 50 and 100. On the other hand, this rulemaking would have to be conducted in parallel, since a source term would no longer appear in Part 100. The pacing item in this option is the revision of Part 50, which could be difficult to finalize until further experience in the review of the advanced LWRs is gained. Hence, this option is not compatible with the proposed schedule for an early site review application.
Based upon an assessment of the options discussed above, the staff concludes that Option 2, a single revision of Part 100 in parallel with an interim revision of Part 50; followed by a final revision of Part 50, can provide for a compatible schedule for an early site review application. This option also has considerable merit in thEt it allows staff experience gained in the review of advanced LWRs to be factored into a final rule for Part 50. None ,
of the options considered can acccmplish a completed revision of i Part 50 prior to the expected submittal dates for the passive LWRs. Estimated schedules for each of the four options discussed i are enclosed (Enclosures 1-4). !
Finally, the staff is also responding to Questions 1 and 2 in the SRM dated November 16, 1990, as follows:
Ouestion 1: How long would it take to incorporate Regulatory Guide 4.7 into the regulations? Why should tne
' ~ -
portions of Part 100 which influence design remain in place until the final step, as proposed in the i staff's plan? R v
Response: Some additional effort is needed to provide a more i explicit technical basis, presently lacking, for the guidelines presently in the Regulatory Guide.
, This may result in some modification of the criteria currently in Regulatory Guide 4.7. The staff ~ estimates the most expeditious way that applicable site criteria based upon Regulatory Guide 4.7 could be incorporated into the proposed revision of Part 100 is that shown in Option 2.
As noted above, Option 2 would revise Part 100 only once and would be strictly related to siting; hence, any portions of Part 100 which presently could influence design would be placed into Part 50.
Question 2: The staff's proposal states that the second revision to Part 100 and the revision to Part 50 would be accomplished prior to the completion of review of passive cesigns. How will this schedule allow designers to provide for the new require-ments of these two rulemakings in their designs?
t .
6 Response: The staff is presently in the process of reviewing proposed new designs, including those for the passive plants. As staff recommendations on proposed new requirements arise, these will be transmitted to the Commission (e.g., SECY-90-016 approach) and, upon approval, will be forwarded to applicants. Approved st'.;.f recommendations would become the basis for subsequent revisions to Part
- 50. This process is expected to allow designers to become aware of and to factor any new Commission approved NRC requirements into the designs of these plants well before they become formally codified in a revision to Part 50. j In connection with the secund phase of rulemaking the Commission will need to address the back-fitting decision as to whether the new dose calc:lation requirements will be backfit into previvusly approved certified designs.
0?);?.:! T"**^ **
hmes M. Taytor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
as stated l
l cc: SECY OGC l
Distribution: 1 LSoffer !
TKing )
WMinners LShao TSpeis l EBeckjord l TMurley MMalsch JTaylor ASummercur Circ /Chron SAIB
- See previous concurrence
- Parallel concurrence OFFC:RES RES RES RES RES RES NAME:LSoffer* TKing* WMinners* LShao* TSpeis* EBeckjord*
DATE: /,q/./c * ,
OFFC:NRR fJ s OGC bD NAME:TMurle) MMalsch* J ~ lo .
D
]p go , s.<
- \g u
. , >
- 1 t ,
) .
_ S
. W S 1
l.
LN i
V AN O S e E I I S T
N R FI r E V E M
u + i E R
E
_ s 3 0 l R o 9 N 8 S O
I U
l 9 O SR Y T Q c 1 I T YE L M F
E R
n Y A SS R A 0 C
E r C E I N NF R G GI G I I T R S SR
D A '-
C T N
E ID
_
- C
_ C E A -
_ G* -
LA E A K R
_ SNC E NI A V OF P E i
S A T LCN*
UI E -
2 E GLM-EB 9
9 V RUCD 1
I PC S G Y SR N F
- AE
- _ PS IT I
M D
SOO T C
_ R D Wt :
E RE S AS I '
E V E
_ L R
_ 0 RS GR 9 RC E CA
_ H l "
C S
T 1 F R
A Pl R l A
N 1 D O
9
- _ 9 T
_ I 1 S 1 Y T Y R P F A
_ N O O
_ I
_ *
- T U
L
. OR
- VE ES
_ s -
_ 0
_ 9 9
1 Y
F E G N N
. t I 3
1 M
( I S 1 T E O S S F N S T
_ E S A O O T S O l E E W N W S T f I L S S E
W E E E G N 0 l T E N N EI N 0 S5 V I R O 0 T A V I
V m t
I V I 1 N 0D I V I l E C E L 5 T I F T M i D E R 0 R P I l N C T O AR A P R U V sA A C L O L U W +
0 E O E i A E UF U R E R C R V0 M T C C 4 W I V
0 8 W T
I E 0 E0 R G A LL L 4 L R1 E N D AA A 8 A E R S L
A S D IM0 1 P C 4 R L5 T I T U CCI 1 1 R
Y S I L Y 2 E T t 1,
E R LM L -
E T R .
C O L N E E D E S
W B E R
P R
A S . N A l A R P N R H N I E A I P c P B OC T A A C E U P I M H O U *
- P * * *
- P
_ S S * *
.,? ![
l!: i! l h j ;!lFf !![ ' , , .L 1 s! ['
r cI !P
. L E A U N -
S I S F I
. T N
2 E q
D e e N p
o .
E C w
o 3 N 9 T l 9 O N
c 1 E
I T
n y M M A C
E F R O I O C L F
P E
C P U
I L
A S B E S U E T I
P 0 I l8t.M l uA L
1 S 0 O S N
_ 1 C SI .
I F R $ M G R M R C O C A C L O .*
A T
_ N G l E f P T
2 N E 9 E V 9 M T R I 1 R M N G S O O E R SR M C T
F F
E C
C DM N O
/
S AE PS U I EC R S L C S B
- A I U n P
E .
L t U M O
D C T
_ E O R H T g A
, T C S r-S . 1 R S T 2 G R F
- R C A C A R N 1 D O 9 9 T S
I 1 T 1 T R Y A '
P F T S *
- w O o I
T U
L OR
- VE
- ES 0
9 9
1 T
F E G N N I I 0 . D M 5 P O I O S I T 0 T P E 5 S 0 R S F N S E 0 A S F A O O T W S S
I G 1 P E O E G R E T T N - I L S S N A I N W I I T N T T A E N N E l P V E E V K R O I NI R O O T t - E M I I A A I V ER I I A A 4 R U V T P S I ME F T M T D M 0 C E C E" I T ST O AR A P E 1 E O R A L O V C SI L O L U L S T D UF U U E U T E A ER E C C 4 R I
V I
S R T M R R SC T W
R N G S A LL L 4 E I AA A 8 O R D L S E E O M N AY D CC C W N A T N I I I T P 4 A Y O S R T .I J 1 T L E ! E R NS L M I L -
E A
N T I
R L
R C E v T O CN l N E E D R S E N P EE t R H N I S I N P A P B OC T A F A E E U A R I T D I N L O H U * *
- P
- P *
- S P *
- S * *
, i, . t i; I' ! , l , , f s! t t' -(_ ,! 7 L tr 6' .
T N
Eq
- e p
o C
3 3 D 9 N E
_ e 1 9
r u Y F
s o R O _.
l F T c N n
_ E E U M E S M E
. S O O M I C r O O -
T C
- i S -
R R G C R _
C A . _
M _
_ M L .
O A G C N E R I P O pS E
F T T
2 N S
_ 9 E R 9 E C
1 R W p A Y O o /
F F C R
_ C G
E R U I C S
S I t .
E P T L P.
U i
_ M R m D M O
L A
T R
E C N A H O I
F T
S C T
^ '1 S
' 3 R S 3 G R R C C A N
O 1
_ I 9 * ,
T 9 T 1 R P Y A
T *
- T O F S F
_ A R
D
_ T
- S R 1 E
_ E
_ 0 9
9 1
Y F
E G N N 0 I I 0 . D M 1 P 0 I 0 O S 1 T 0 T P E 1 S
S R S F N W S
- A S F A O O T 0 E G R 5 E T S I G P E O E S N A I N W T N - I L S N T TA E N N E I P T V E E I I O O T K - R E M I V K O l NI R A A N A R U V I A I v ER I I M O P C E T M S i ME f T M T D P E E O R C E I T ST O AR A I D
A L V C S* LO L U L S O T E
! E A ER E UF U U I T I S R T Rt R SC C C 4 R V 9
R G S T
A LL L 4 E N W I S
E M N AY AA A 8 R O D L E
T I I
.T CC C 4 W I N A Y
O R T R MS I T LMI L 1
T L A
S I
A I L E E E D E N V T R R C E T O CN L NE S I E N P A R S N P EE N R H N I E E T A F R A U A I P T D B OC I M L O M U * *
- P *
- P *
- S P
- S * *
- e. l 2
I?tf l r!! t i' lI!e I r ' i; cI rltIf ;iIYiiIil!' 1f: :h, e Lilt r ) .
T -
N -
E .
m o
3 C 9 D N 9 N 1 O E I y T F T A
N C
I
" E M
L P
M P O A C
E -
R T -
O E l, M
M O .-
C -
O -
T 2 S 9 R E 9 C V 1 A 1
/ $
Y R SR F G AE R PS
' t .
E -
L U L A
D N E I F
T R
H A
T C S -
S 4
N 1 T O 9 9
F A
I 1 R
- V
- Y D Y R
P F T S
A O *
- 1 N
O I
T .
U L
9 9
1 Y
F E G
_ N N I I D M
_ O I S I T
_. E S S F 4 0 S W
E S A O 0 F A 0 0 S
. I E E OI 1 5 E T S
. T I L S S R I N W I T E N N E TE T T V E E
. V I R O O T NT R R E M I V
I V I I A EI A A R U
. T I F T M T D MR P P C E C T O AR A P SC E O R A C LO L U S O O T D
- A E UF U EY T T I E M T C C 4 ST S R T R G A L L L 4 SI G N N W I E N D AA A 8 AS N O O D L S T P C 4 N I I N A CCI I I T U 1 .E K S S A Y E R LM L - HD A I I I L C O l N E E D C N V V T R . R R P l e R M N I E . E E E N P A U P B OC I T T P L R R A E E O U O U L S S * * * *
- P R *
- P * *
., + ,
AD93-l M ACTION - Beckjord, RES iP S Cys: Taylor UNITED STATES SnieZek
- #, #** *'%I+,
., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thompson
- i S usumcrou.o.c. 20sss Blaha ,
i; Murley, NRR Jordan, AEOD:
k...../}
OFFCE CF THE January 25, 1991
- LSoffer, RES -
SEC%ETAMY 4
a MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations uel J. Chilk, Secretary PROM: h j
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-341 - STAFF STUDY ON SOURCE TERM r UPDATE AND DECOUPLING SITING FROM DESIGN t i
t' The Commission (with all Commissioners agrweing) has approved the ctaff's recommendation (option 2) containedThe in thestaff memorandum should proceed to !
the commission dated December 13, 1990. l with a single revision to 10 CFR Part 100 L'hich includes an interim revision to 10 CFR Part 50 to retain a reference to an ;
- in-containment radioactive material release in the regulations.
R3ferences to dose calculations in the interim revision to part 50 should maintain the status quo for existing Inplants making until the updated staff can complete its revision to TID-14844.
cource term insights available for voluntary use by existing licensees, the staff should review any requests for changes to _
casure that these insights are applied.in an evenhanded manner, that is, " unfavorable" as well as " favorable" insights are given
- equal consideration. Because the technology upon which TID- l 14844 is based is known to be outdated, the interim revision to Part 50 should be seen as only maintaining the current licensing basis regarding the in-containment release magnitudes until the completion of resesirch necessary to update the regulation. The otaff should further ensure that the revisions to Appendix A of Part 100 are available to support the time schedule shown in the paper for option 2, and are technically supportable with the l
i information that will be available at the time the draft comes
'fcrward for Commission action. The staff should ensure that uncertainties are fully accounted for, without anticipation The staff of should' what further research miaht show in the future.
ktep ACRS informed of these initiatives.
11/30/91)
-(400). (RES) (SECY Suspense:
l SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-90-341, AND THE VOTE. SHEETS OF '
l
- COMMISSIONERS ROGERS AND CURTISS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM W 6 0
- L C D T Yi~ fr L- ,
A'DM- 1
. mr PDR o UNITED STATES g
[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
$g.....)
MAR 2 21991 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH NUMARC ON THE REVISION OF APPENDIX A TO 10CFR100 - SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NRC staff met with NUMARC at Nicholson Lane on March 6, 1991, to discuss the schedule and technical topics for potential inclusion in the upcoming revision of Appendix A. Enclosure 1 shows a meeting agenda and attendance list for the meeting. Nearly fifty people attended the meeting including, among others, representatives from NRC, NUMARC, EPRI, DOE, and industry. Mr. L. Shao opened the meeting with a brief outline of its purpose. Dr. A. Murphy then led the discussion and explained the constraints of the schedule for revising Appendix A, which calls for a draft revision for internal review by May 1, 1991. Mr. R. Kenneally presented an NRC perspective on the engineering issues connected with the Appendix A revision, and Mr. R. McMullen discussed the geoscience issues. Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of their viewgraphs.
Mr. O. Gurbuz of NUMARC noted the tight schedule and said that MUMARC will attempt to provide some coments. A limited amount of discussion of technical issues followed before the meeting was adjourned.
Qt~l C- *W Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES
Enclosures:
As stated cc: R. Ng, NUMARC
- 0. Gurbuz, NUMARC
^
.. - -_ __ _ -. . -. . , . . . .~ - ._ ..
i l'
MAR 2 21991 l
l DISTRIBUTION: r M. Taylor, EDO -
P. Jehle, OGC G. Bagchi, NRR l D. Jeng, NRR
! R. Rothman, NRR l P. Sobel, NRR l A. B. Ibrahim, NMSS :
i E. Beckjord, RES l l T. Speis, RES l C. Heltemes, RES T. King, RES l
C. Ader, RES L. Soffer, RES N. Chokshi, RES :
1R. Kenneally. RESm "'
R. McMullen, RES' I C. K. Chou, LLNL D. Bernreuter, LLNL R. Murray, LLNL :
L M. Witte, LLNL j Public Document Room j l
l I
l l
i 1
> 1 I I
E n clo si4r e AGENDA ,
i PUBLIC MEETING ON REVISION OF 10CFR PART 100, APPENDIX A 6 March 1991 1:30 - 3:30 PM 1:30 INTRODUCTION and NRC SCHEDULE SHA0/ MURPHY 1:45 NUMARC COMMENTS ON THE REVISION TO APPENDIX A NUMARC ]
2:00 TOPICS FOR POTENTIAL REVISION IDENTIFIED BY NRC KENNEALLY/MCMULLEN 2:45 OPEN DISCUSSION ALL 3:30 ADJOURNMENT l !
Room 013 l 5650 Nicholson Lane I i l Rockville, Maryland 20555
Contact:
A. Murphy (301-492-3860) f l
l 4
4
slslqo 877E4W. L / 3 7' y ,n m r smwu rioa 43 /*4 fen ueClfdES M5 caA n s.TRh~ y.. <- as..z S A k.A_ 2. 8 E.a 1+ i m o/2,tl Cms3 (HhuG 1 DH& Sun 6&nffl.cnMnotogn713 Ervt 2-f b eCs N8C /AES ,
6oib LM onub %Ak carot tm Eia.+ cm Y$ b y d & f En g. ,
a 4) a$ w/ N d e ivw- . wa '
der) f~c s ev$ q)o E (N th14 D0L.
a An es5sz L.L M L L $ _ m a l. Wlt C/b! MSS } '
Nas //265 lAaies 5%%Al pay grWe %, MiGA& AG 8m/
2ec~r W:4+e.o h m i m ,. A a. w s e e ,.
PWittt & STVS $9'/blH$4 64*L*&y~GE49Hfd hu 3sm E W o se-Th yfliS .& y C.-lNLL Mona< wita um ,.~ < u ,---. M 1 as N
W h A $ T Z M. h bout &M M NE MAO Ef68 J
\\
t 1*
NWL k$1 thk& ? @M $
DENNI3 0378% & A$ Utsb 9/T 30897c 9 S e. R f a n,b s .SE Xc. H d w s w , ge sf U goi - gi7- so yy
- e4u w E.cra a/pos --. i g N1. - ( Y ( -c y<.
tu <o 4 v.4 }
l 'ist . 8 Q la. PreClOttOc 5ss.t/92.l~727 I
Miluk Cho ksh s ' 10 R c l A&S 3o] % 1 3El6 DHN i. Coni ivn c /2 E=r .fo / - n > rP /:
zrena M %s N u s co u. ,, ,,,a 3 c - 2. .n . > : n Davk c J Ma.cf r.cen V I g a.- At?
06B Do 4K NRc /.RE3/t)E 3w 49 -3870 l
i B .K hlngh 3o1-3 s 3- 3037
_D o E / N E l
l l
(
l l
I
I f / ^ 9 ; ?' l "
fk A!O flY/A//,
A. An 'pd j/ i 6/4d1 U 3 a/- Wz- 716 c -
Yj A/a
- Ate- {2o z_-) 272- /2 e e OEWW CVfSVL f/LIfnkg C. (2-o 7-)}72 -l 2/O lHf SCaiiiR* YN$ hlSY5W0 O foyr [nntJl y sec/ rces (w)ex 3su
!ka Coie) .pg e m Abpka-darwl4xn A 5507
- -v em UMAWY (4/hAf7~Po~ff y 99 pero De,6+. of Egy (3st) 153-4ar49
& }tstus % man i het13:p (o u ) c : -c^ =7 pf, fe)e.> Y 3>o E Q.z)5el-733<
9 XfmM) Doe (3 i) ans w2 4s %~
9 gu o nara_e U.u L Q 0her L fo V M * " " " '
Erelosare 2 i, . .'
i .~. :.
i =- . --
i i
i i
NRC PERSPECTIVE ON ENGINEERING ISSUES 4
ASSOCIATED WITH THE i 10 CFR PART 100, APPENDlX A REVISION i
i i
j l
l l PUBLIC MEETING ON THE REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 100, APPENDIX A ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND -
MARCH 6,1991 1
1 1
ROGER M. KENNEALLY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- i l l
)
i .
- .m'-
4 l.4::' -
] ,
CURRENT CONTENT OF PART 100. APPENDlX A 1
I DEFINES THE SSE AND OBE - Ilic, lild i
.I DEFINES SAFETY RELATED STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS l
4 AND COMPONENTS - Ille, VI(a)(1)(i - lii), VI (a)(2)
I i
i DEFINES THE MINIMUM VALUE OF THE SSE - V(a)(1)(v) l 1
i ESTABLISHES THE OBE/SSE RATIO - V(a)(2)
)
l REQUIRES PLANT SHUTDOWN IF OBE EXCEEDED -
! V(a)(2) .
i i
! VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION DEFINED BY RESPONSE SPECTRA AT ELEVATIONS OF THE FOUNDATIONS -
Vl(a)(1), (2) i I
4 j
- i l
i i
I U
<. , T
- m -
L c. . -
R ..
i j ~
CURRENT CONTENT OF PART 100. APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) i l IDENTIFIES ACCEPTABLE ANALYTICAL METHODS -
Vl(a)(1), (2)
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS QUALIFICATION TEST EQUIVALENT STATIC LOAD METHOD INCLUDE SSI EFFECTS AND EXPECTED DURATION OF MOTION ALLOWS STRAIN LIMITS IN EXCESS OF YlELD l
DESIGN FOR SURFACE FAULTING - Vi(b)
DESIGN FOR SEISMICALLY INDUCED FLOODS AND WATER WAVES VI (c) ,
SOIL CONSIDERATIONS - V(d)(1 - 4)
O
COMMISSION STAFF REQUlREMENTS MEMORANDUM ,
CONTENT OF PART 100, APPENDIX A l !'
SITE SELECTION ;
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SSE ENSURE THAT UNCERTAINTIES ARE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR , WITHOUT ANTICIPATION OF WHAT FURTHER RESEARCH MIGHT SHOW IN THE FUTURE CONTENT OF PART 50 I ENGINEERING ISSUES SCHEDULE ;
STAFF DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT PROPOSED I RULES - MAY 1.1991
! I i
l i
I 2
I
. 1
' 7_ ' )
.C -
CONCEPT OF THE OBE ,
SHOULD THE OBE BE RETAINED AS A DESIGN REQUIREMENT?
USED IN THE DESIGN OF ALL SAFETY RELATED STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS USED IN THE DESIGN OF SELECTED SAFETY j RELATED STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND 1 COMPONENTS (IF SO, WHICH ONES?)
l SHOULD THE OBE BE AN INSPECHON ONLY EARTHQUAKE 7 l
BASED ON THE NEW DEFINITION OF THE OBE, HOW I WILL HAZARD INFORMATION, BOTH SPECTRA AND !
l RETURN PERIOD, INFLUENCE THE NUMERICAL VALUE i
ASSIGNED TO THE OBE?
I WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVING THE OBE !
FROM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OR CHANGING THE OBE/SSE RATIO?
SEISMIC MARGIN AND SEISMIC RISK DISPLACEMENT RELATED FAILURE CRITERIA FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL STANDARDS, E.G., ASME, ACI LOAD COMBINATION RELATED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
e f'
PLANT RESPONSE TO AN EARTHQUAKE ESTABLISH AN EVALUATION THRESHOLD DEVELOP THRESHOLD EXCEEDANCE CRITERION ]
NRC INTERIM GUIDELINES TYPE OF SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY AND DISTANCE EPRI OBE EXCEEDANCE CRITERION (DRAFT ANSI /ANS-2.10)
CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE VELOCITY RESPONSE SPECTRA l DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY PLANT SHUTDOWN AND INSPECTION l EPRI PLANT RESPONSE REPORT ANS WORKING GROUP 2.23 e
-y.-
S 7. .
J.:. .-
I GROUND MOTION DESIGNATION -
i-j i
! CURRENT POSITION ON SPECIFYING GROUND MOTION:
l RESPONSE SPECTRA i
j FOUNDATION ELEVATION 4
j MINIMUM GROUND MOTION LEVEL i
! 0.1G AT THE FOUNDATION LEVEL i
i l STANDARD REVIEW PLAN SECTIONS WERE UPDATED i AS PART OF THE USI A-40 RESOLUTION POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY FUNCTIONS SITE-SPECIFIC VS GENERALIZED RESPONSE SPECTRA (REG GUIDE 1.60)
LOCATION OF THE SEISMIC INPUT MOTION CONTROL POINT
'l ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT NEED TO BE EXPLORED? .
UNIFORM HAZARD SPECTRA HIGH FREQUENCY GROUND MOTION I
APPENDIX A TO 10 CFR PART 100 i
REVISION GEOSCIENCES ISSUES l
- o SEISMIC SOURCES
! o POTENTIALLY HAZARD 0US FAULTS o CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS AND ROCKS o VIBRATORY GOUND MOTIONS o TSUNAMI OR WATER WAVES I
o MAN-INDUCED SEISMIC OR FAULT DISPLACEMENT HAZARDS o VOLCANIC HAZARDS i
i l
l t
i A
i' 2
I IN ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES,
! THE REVISED APPENIX A SHOULD:
i o EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINISTIC
.. STUDIES. .
i l 8
o EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROBABILISTIC STUDIES.
o ASCERTAIN THAT ACCEPTABLE UP-TO-DATE METHODOLOGIES ARE USED FOR BOTH.
o PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON HOW THE TWO ANALYSES WILL BE MERGED.
8
DESIGNATION OF SEISMIC SOURCES l
o REFERRED TO AS TECTONIC PROVINCES AND TECTONIC STRUCTURES IN APPENDIX A AND l BASED ON SURFACE GE0 LOGY, TECTONIC I; STRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY.
i
! o IN THE EASTERN AND CENTRAL U.S. MOST SEISM 0 GENIC STRUCTURES ARE APPARENTLY NOT EXPOSED AT GROUND
! SURFA'CE. EARTHQUAKE GENERATING FAULTS ARE NOT
! ALWAYS EXPOSED AT GROUND SURFACE IN THE WESTERN U.S. i
! i
- o EXPAND THIS CONCEPT TO INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF SEISHICITY, PALE 0 SEISMICITY AND TECTONIC i i STRUCTURE DEEP (SEISMOGENIC DEPTHS) WITHIN THE EARTH'S CRUST.
l 1
i
~
o IS IT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP A SEISMIC S0URCE ,
i ZONE HAP?
4 1
l ,
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF
- P0TENTIALLY HAZARD 0US FAULTS
) ,
i
) o CAPABLE FAULTS IN APPENDIX A.
l j o EASTERN U.S. - YOUNG FAULTS EITHER DON'T DISRUPT GROUND SURFACE, OR THERE IS INSUFFICIENT AGE-DATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE.
i 4
o WESTERN U.S. - YOUNG FAULTS ARE PRESENT THAT DON'T 4
i DISPLACE GROUND SURFACE BUT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECONDARY SURFACE DEFORMATION SUCH AS FOLDING, UPLIFT, SUBSIDENCE, OR SECONDARY FAULTING.
J
! o EXPAND CONCEPT TO INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF SEISMIC POTENTIAL AND BLIND FAULTS AND ASSOCIATED NEAR
. SURFACE DEFORMATION.
I o ADDRESS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TECTONIC AND NONTECTONIC FAULTS.
o EXPAND INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO ASSESS ADDITIONAL FAULT CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS PALE 0 SEISMICITY, SLIP RATE, HISTORY OF DIS-PLACEMENTS, TEMPORAL CLUSTERING, SENSE OF DIS-PLACEMENTS, DOWN DIP GE0 METRY, ETC. (R.G./SRP)
DETERMINATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF S0ILS AND ROCKS o HOW THEY AFFECT GROUND MOTION PROPAGATION BOTH REGIONAL AND SITE SPECIFIC.
- o STABILITY OF SOILS AND ROCKS UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING, INCLUDING FOUNDATION AND SLOPE STABILITY, LIQUEFACTION.
l A
o INCLUDES CONSIDERATON OF OTHER POTENTIAL f
, NONSEISMIC GROUND DISRUPTION HAZARDS, SUCH
i l
]
i
j j . .
l DETERMINATION OF THE j MAXIMUM GROUND MOTIONS AND j
j OTHER SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF SHAKING i
o MAIN GOAL OF APPENDIX A IS TO DETERMINE THE f
! DESIGN EARTHQUAKE - SSE.
o IS THE " MAXIMUM" GROUND MOTION AN APPROPRIATE-l PARAMETER, OR SHOULD IT BE THE "85%"?
o BROADEN THE REGULATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
'~
2 OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHQUAKES THAN ,
MAGHITUDE AND INTENSITY, SUCH AS CORNER FREQUENCY, STRESS DROP, ETC.
't o CONSIDER THE AFFECTS ON GROUND MOTION OF SENSE OF DISPLACEMENT AND LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO THE CAUSATIVE FAULT.
o PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON HOW TO G0 FROM THE GROUND MOTION DETERMINED BY INVESTIGATIONS TO THE GROUND MOTION USED IN THE DESIGN.
1
. l 1
ASSESSMENT OF TSUNAMI AND WATER WAVE HAZARD o PERTAINS ONLY TO C0ASTAL SITES OR SITES LOCATED ON LARGE, DEEP INLAND BODIES OF WATER.
o INCLUDES SEA OR LAKE FLOOR OFFSETS, LANDSLIDES OR SUBSEA SLIDES ACCOMPANIED BY OR TRIGGERED BY EARTHQUAKES.
\
EVALUATION OF MAN-INDUCED SEISMIC
~
OR FAULT DISPLACEMENT HAZARDS
! o FLUID WITHDRAWAL FROM OR INJECTION
- ' INTO THE SUBSURFACE I
o LARGE EXCAVATION OR MINING o RESERVOIR IMPOUNDMENT I
O
]
e i
- i i VOLCANIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT .
i
- o EXCEPT FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF SEISMICITY AhD i GROUND RUPTURE RELATED TO VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, l SHOULD THIS ISSUE BE ADDRESSED BY APPENDIX A?
i
! o SIGNIFICANT TO ONLY LIMITED REGIONS IN THE U.S.,
i .
i FOR EXAMPLE, THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST OR ALASKA. ,
l i
i
)
- l
\
f i
i