ML20150D238
| ML20150D238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150D218 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812050079 | |
| Download: ML20150D238 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COS"4:55:0N
)
In the Matter of
)
)
0FFSHORE POWER SYSTEt45
)
Docket No. STN 50-437
)
(Floating Nuclear Power Plants)
)
)
ORDER The Commission has accepted review of the question certified to it in ALAB-500 which was one of the issues decided in ALAB-489.
The Appeal Board has phrased that question as whether " Class 9 eccidents are a~
proper subject for consideration in the staff's environmental stateinent on the floating nuclear power application."
ALAS-500(slipopinionat 4).'As part' of their briefs, the Commission wishes ~the parties to address five questions:
(1)
Given the possibility that a core-melt accident at a floating nuclear plant could bring the molten core directly into con-tact with a body of water, which would not be the case for a similar event at a land-based plant, why should not the Atomic Energy Act standard of reasonable assurance of no undue risk to the public health and safety require consideration of the possible consequences of such an accident and of possible measures to mitigate those conse;uences?
(2)
In light of the above possibilicy, c:es the National Environ-mental Policy Act recuire consideration cf alternative measures to mitigate oossi:le c:rsec.:er.ces of such an 7 812 0 5 0 0 ~7T
~
&::se =er.:
R l
accident, including the alternative of not providing such mitigating measures, and accounting for sujh accidents in the overall cost-benefit balance?
(3)
If IEPA does require such consideration and accounting, does the policy set forth in proposed Annex A to the former Appen-dix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (36 Fed. F.ec. 22851, December 1,1971) relating to discussion of accidents in the Commission's environ-mental analysis of nuclear power reactors apply to the OPS application?
(4)
If the ' policy set forth in the Annex does apply, was~ the staff's consideration of such accidents foreclosed by the-Annex as the Appdal Board held?
(5)
If'the policy set' forth in the Annex does-not apply, what consideration is appropriate under titPA?
The Commission is currently studying its overall policy on related matters, notably siting policy and risk assessment.
This adjudicatory review is not intended to resolve the generic issues being considered in those studies, and it. will be limited to the certified question and to the OPS proceeding.
However, as. an aid to i:s resolution of the certi-fied question, the Commission wishes the staff to discuss its current policy on consideration of core-melt accidents in connection with appli-cations for land-based nuclear reactors.
The Commission encourages parties c:her than those involved in the 0?S prc:eeding to participate
a
3 as amici curiae in this review.
Such participation shall focus on the OPS proceeding and may take the form of briefs supporting, opposir.g or taking no position on the issue decided in ALAB d89.
The Commission encourages parties with similiar positions to file consolidated briefs if possible.
Direct briefs should be filed 30 days after the date of this Order; and reply briefs, if any, should be filed 14 days after that date.
If the Commission chooses to hear oral argument, it will be scheduled in a future Order.-
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission
.r SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, DC, this day of October, 1978.
m
-