ML25197A088
| ML25197A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1975 |
| From: | Kerr W Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Gossick L NRC/EDO |
| References | |
| Download: ML25197A088 (1) | |
Text
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 10, 1975 Mr. lee v. Gossick Executive Director of Operations u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Cbrmrl.ssion Washington, OC 20555
Subject:
REPORT ON REVIEW OF SITING OOLICIES FOR LICENSING NOCLFAR FACILITIES
Dear Mr. Gossick:
In response to a request fran the NRC Staff, the Siting Evaluation Subconmittee of the ACRS met with members of the Division of Siting, Health and Safeguards Standards on Deeember 2, 1975, to discuss siting policies. 1bis matter was the subject of further delibera-tions by members of the Siting Evaluation Subcamdttee on December 3, 1975, and was discussed during the 187th and 188th Meetings of the full Conmittee, November 6-8, 1975 and December 4-6, 1975.
'Ihe Conmittee understands that the primary objective of the current review by the NRC Staff is to determine if changes in current siting policies are desirable.
In reviewing existing criteria for possible improvements, the Conmit-tee recommends that the following items be considered:
- 1. Extension of current siting criteria to include reactor types other than IWRs (for example BTGRs and IMFBRs), as well as floatin':J nuclear pc:n..ier plants.
- 2. 1he inpacts of major accidental radionuclide releases on water resources, such as underground aquifers and nearby lakes.
- 3. Reevaluation of the bases used for setting dose limits for the Design Basis Accidents.
- 4. Development of suitable criteria for acceptable risks to people (both individually and collectively) living in the vicinity of a site. 'Ibis effort will also require consideration of asso-ciated benefits.
3549
Mr. Iee v. Gossick December 10, 1975
- 5. Desirability of specifying a minimum size for the exclusion area, a minimum radius for the LPZ, and a maximum population distribution in the area surrounding a site. A potentially valuable input might be the siting policies and experiences developed in densely populated countries where a substantial level of nuclear power is in place or planned (Gennany, United Kingdom, Japan, and France}.
- 6. A "figure-of-merit" for population distribution, and perhaps for mete-orological characteristics, for use in site selection. Application of the consequence methodology of W'Affil-1400 to a range of sites may prove to be useful in obtaining an inproved basis for choice of a figure-of-merit.
- 7. Inclusion of seismic considerations.
- 8. Assessment of interactions between approved sites and changes in the surrounding enviromnent. Population increases and changes in the characteristics of industrial, commercial, or recreational activities in the neighborhood of an operating nuclear facility can have signif-icant impacts on the continuing acceptability of the site. ~ans for predicting and dealing with such changes should be investigated.
'!he developnent of memoranda of understanding between the NRC and other governmental agencies, both federal and. local, might be an effective approach.
- 9. Extent to which requirements for end-of-life decormnissioning and potential plant replacements affect siting policies.
- 10. Short and long term consequences of a major accident in a nuclear installation on other operations at a multi-unit site such as a nuclear power park.
- 11. '!he number of sites required within a given region over a specified period of time as a factor in deciding on the type of sites that might have to be accounted for in the siting criteria.
- 12. considerations of national defense and industrial security.
- 13. Evaluation of the potential impact of any newly developed siting policies on existing nuclear installations. A particular subject to be considered is the effect of any changes on sites already approved.
3550
Mr. Lee v. Gossick December 10, 1975 In conjunction with such a review, there appears to be a need for support-ing studies. For example, the Corranittee s1.ggests that:
(a)
Population doses be est:imated for a broad range of site character-isitics and for a broad spectrum of accidents, including Class 9, using probabilistic data and methods of the types applied in the Reactor Safety Stu:'iy (WASH-1400) including sensitivity stlrlies and allowances for uncertainties.
An important objective of this effort should be to determine the relative importance of specific site characteristics in terms of their :impact on population doses and risks under accident conditions.
(b)
Studies be conducted on the degree to which engineered safety fea-tures or alterations in plant design should be used to conpensate for specific site deficiencies.
In particular, it "-Ould be useful to determine whether there are characteristics for which conpensat-ing engineering changes should not be applied.
'lhe Corranittee recommends that an early effort be undertaken to develop criteria for other portions of the fuel cycle such as fuel fabrication and spent fuel processing facilities. Attention should also be given to the developnent of additional criteria for sites containing more than one reactor or nuclear facility.
Sincerely yours, W1Wv-
- w. Kerr Chairman 3551