ML20125D273: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 19: Line 19:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,
{{#Wiki_filter:,
e 4      %                          UNITE D STATES
e UNITE D STATES 4
    *b       d               NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j                   WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 PROPOSED REVISION 1 January 5, 1978 TASK NO. A-33 TASK ACTION PLAN
*b d
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 PROPOSED REVISION 1 January 5, 1978 TASK NO. A-33 TASK ACTION PLAN


==Title:==
==Title:==
NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks Lead Responsibility:                   Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Lead Assistant Director:               Richard H. Vollmer, Assistant Director for Site Analysis Task Manager:                         Oliver D. T. Lynch, Jr.
NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks Lead Responsibility:
Environmental Projects Branch 2
Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Lead Assistant Director:
: 1. Problem
Richard H. Vollmer, Assistant Director for Site Analysis Task Manager:
Oliver D. T. Lynch, Jr.
Environmental Projects Branch 2 1.
Problem


== Description:==
== Description:==
In 1971 the AEC determined that, consistent with NEPA, the environmental assessments of requests for construction permits and operating licenses should include consideration of the possible impacts from accidents. An Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D was proposed which provided guidance to applicants in this regard. This guidance was included in Regulatory Guide 4.2 and has constituted, since 1971, the basis for the staff reviews.
In 1971 the AEC determined that, consistent with NEPA, the environmental assessments of requests for construction permits and operating licenses should include consideration of the possible impacts from accidents. An Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D was proposed which provided guidance to applicants in this regard. This guidance was included in Regulatory Guide 4.2 and has constituted, since 1971, the basis for the staff reviews.
Since 1971, a considerable number of " realistic" accident assessments have been made. In substance these reviews have uniformly shown that the risks associated with potential accidental releases are very low.
Since 1971, a considerable number of " realistic" accident assessments have been made.
The approach in these assessments, typically, is limited to preparation of a two page narrative sumary that qualitatively describes accident proba-bilities and the rational for concluding that accident risks are low and a       i one page table that provides numerical estimates of the consequences of           ,
In substance these reviews have uniformly shown that the risks associated with potential accidental releases are very low.
various categories of accidents (excluding Class 9 events). The approach         !
The approach in these assessments, typically, is limited to preparation of a two page narrative sumary that qualitatively describes accident proba-bilities and the rational for concluding that accident risks are low and a i
to developing these consequence estimates also involves a largely simplistic analysis; minor adjustments are made from case to case (basically to account for variations in power level, exclusion boundary distance and population density). These numerical estimates are also limited to airpathway consequences.
one page table that provides numerical estimates of the consequences of various categories of accidents (excluding Class 9 events). The approach to developing these consequence estimates also involves a largely simplistic analysis; minor adjustments are made from case to case (basically to account for variations in power level, exclusion boundary distance and population density). These numerical estimates are also limited to airpathway consequences.
90017111 APPROVED BY TASC, 8001140 bh
90017111 APPROVED BY TASC, 8001140 bh


t A e
t A
.                                              The staff's environmental statement by its nature is typically the only document.concerning NRC license reviews that receives wide public and government agency attention and exposure even though other documents are circulated and available. It is evident from the comments received on the staff's statements that the present approach does not adequately inform the public regarding the sustance and depth of NRC's safety reviews nor adequately respond to public and various government agency questions dealing with the risks of accidents.
e The staff's environmental statement by its nature is typically the only document.concerning NRC license reviews that receives wide public and government agency attention and exposure even though other documents are circulated and available.
It is evident from the comments received on the staff's statements that the present approach does not adequately inform the public regarding the sustance and depth of NRC's safety reviews nor adequately respond to public and various government agency questions dealing with the risks of accidents.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior (D0I) expressed the need for an improved treatment of accident risks and an expansion of the staff assessments to include quantitative estimates of Class 9 events.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior (D0I) expressed the need for an improved treatment of accident risks and an expansion of the staff assessments to include quantitative estimates of Class 9 events.
Beginning in 1973, in response to EPA concerns, the staff augmented its assessments to discuss the then-ongoing Rasmussen Study as it related to Class 9 risks. For its part EPA agreed that updating of the standard         i assessment was mot warranted until after the Rasmussen Study results were     i made available. This dialogue was renewed in 1976, with EPA recommending that a generic environmental statement be prepared on accident risks. After extended discussions, the NRC staff reiterated its 1973 commitment to update the standard assumptions in the proposed Annex A. As a precursor to this update, the staff committed to an extension of the WASH-1400 study to include a more in-depth evaluation of Class 3-8 accidents and to further explore the significance of variations in site and plant design characteristics.
Beginning in 1973, in response to EPA concerns, the staff augmented its assessments to discuss the then-ongoing Rasmussen Study as it related to Class 9 risks.
The Department of the Interior has routinely suggested that more attention be given to the site risks associated with the liquid pathway. In mid-1977, DOI and NRC staff met to discuss the DOI's generic concerns. DOI was informed of the staff's programs to augment the generic studies in WASH-1400, but no connitments were made to revise the current approach (which, as noted j above, includes no discussion of the impacts of accidental releases to the liquid pathway).
For its part EPA agreed that updating of the standard assessment was mot warranted until after the Rasmussen Study results were made available. This dialogue was renewed in 1976, with EPA recommending that a generic environmental statement be prepared on accident risks. After extended discussions, the NRC staff reiterated its 1973 commitment to update the standard assumptions in the proposed Annex A.
Another issue that has surfaced during the last few years relates to the lack of guidelines on situations which require substantially different (more detailed /different scope) treatment. In the cases of CRBRP,* OPS /AGS** and Fulton/ Summit substantial departures from the standard assumptions were     I required; for example requests were made for analyses to support the claimed
As a precursor to this update, the staff committed to an extension of the WASH-1400 study to include a more in-depth evaluation of Class 3-8 accidents and to further explore the significance of variations in site and plant design characteristics.
        *CRBRP (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project)
The Department of the Interior has routinely suggested that more attention be given to the site risks associated with the liquid pathway.
      **0PS/AGS (Offshore Power Systems / Atlantic Generating Station) 1 1
In mid-1977, DOI and NRC staff met to discuss the DOI's generic concerns. DOI was informed of the staff's programs to augment the generic studies in WASH-1400, but no connitments were made to revise the current approach (which, as noted j
90017112
above, includes no discussion of the impacts of accidental releases to the liquid pathway).
Another issue that has surfaced during the last few years relates to the lack of guidelines on situations which require substantially different (more detailed /different scope) treatment.
In the cases of CRBRP,* OPS /AGS** and Fulton/ Summit substantial departures from the standard assumptions were required; for example requests were made for analyses to support the claimed
*CRBRP (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project)
**0PS/AGS (Offshore Power Systems / Atlantic Generating Station) 90017112


I 3-conclusion that Class 9 risks were low, comparable to typical LWRs. In the cases of CRBRP and OPS, substantial schedular delays have resulted, apparently because the applicants were not aware that the standard guide-lines regarding the treatment of Class 9 accidents applied to a limited     -
I 3-conclusion that Class 9 risks were low, comparable to typical LWRs.
design / site envelope. Additional guideling need to be developed to help avoid future situations as these.
In the cases of CRBRP and OPS, substantial schedular delays have resulted, apparently because the applicants were not aware that the standard guide-lines regarding the treatment of Class 9 accidents applied to a limited design / site envelope. Additional guideling need to be developed to help avoid future situations as these.
: 2.     Plan for Problem Resolution:
2.
Plan for Problem Resolution:
Based on a review of the various coments received over the last six years, and the commitments to EPA, the recomended approach is to conduct limited additional analyses (described below) and prepare a summary survey document which could be used as a standard reference regarding accident risks in the context of the staff's NEPA reviews (much as WASH-1400 is now cited in our statements). This same document would serve as the principal basis for a decision on the disposition of the proposed Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D.
Based on a review of the various coments received over the last six years, and the commitments to EPA, the recomended approach is to conduct limited additional analyses (described below) and prepare a summary survey document which could be used as a standard reference regarding accident risks in the context of the staff's NEPA reviews (much as WASH-1400 is now cited in our statements). This same document would serve as the principal basis for a decision on the disposition of the proposed Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D.
The area of quantitative risk assessment is very active and there are a variety of study efforts within and outside of NRC. Similarly, there are a multitude of efforts related to case reviews and generic issues. Both groups of activities may provide useful input to any revision of the guidelines for treating accidents in environmental statements. To the extent that results from these other efforts are available, consistent with the major milestones in this Task Action Plan, they will be con-sidered. This plan includes only those tasks which must be conducted to fulfill existing commitments to EPA regarding the update of the proposed annex, and will not result in a full description of any and all possible accident risks from Light Water Reactors. The plan, however, does provide for efforts to assure that they are consistent between principal arguments and conclusions in the safety and environmental reviews (note, for example, 3e through 3g which call for DSS input on event analyses and review of contractor work; both activities are aimed at assuring consistency of approach and use of best available information).
The area of quantitative risk assessment is very active and there are a variety of study efforts within and outside of NRC.
Similarly, there are a multitude of efforts related to case reviews and generic issues. Both groups of activities may provide useful input to any revision of the guidelines for treating accidents in environmental statements. To the extent that results from these other efforts are available, consistent with the major milestones in this Task Action Plan, they will be con-sidered. This plan includes only those tasks which must be conducted to fulfill existing commitments to EPA regarding the update of the proposed annex, and will not result in a full description of any and all possible accident risks from Light Water Reactors. The plan, however, does provide for efforts to assure that they are consistent between principal arguments and conclusions in the safety and environmental reviews (note, for example, 3e through 3g which call for DSS input on event analyses and review of contractor work; both activities are aimed at assuring consistency of approach and use of best available information).
The structure of this program is expected to involve four major subtasks:
The structure of this program is expected to involve four major subtasks:
: 1) extension of the WASH-1400 methodology to types of those events cur-rently analyzed in the staff's environmental statements (Class 3-8 accidents)* to develop a consistent, integrated set of generic risk analyses; 2) conduct of limited analyses to estimate the effects of major variations in site or design characteristics on accident-related risks (Note: Detailed assessments of designs, such as reported in WASH-1400 or   I research and development to substantially improve consequence models, are outside the scope of this task); 3) preparation and issuance of a for-comment report leading to a decision to revise or reissue as a Regulatory Mhe study will consider only those accidents already defined as Class 3-8.     !
: 1) extension of the WASH-1400 methodology to types of those events cur-rently analyzed in the staff's environmental statements (Class 3-8 accidents)* to develop a consistent, integrated set of generic risk analyses; 2) conduct of limited analyses to estimate the effects of major variations in site or design characteristics on accident-related risks (Note: Detailed assessments of designs, such as reported in WASH-1400 or I
research and development to substantially improve consequence models, are outside the scope of this task); 3) preparation and issuance of a for-comment report leading to a decision to revise or reissue as a Regulatory Mhe study will consider only those accidents already defined as Class 3-8.
No effort will be made to decide that those accidents adequately repre-sent the entire spectrum of possible events.
No effort will be made to decide that those accidents adequately repre-sent the entire spectrum of possible events.
90017113 1
90017113 1


                                                  -    ~         - -      -          ,
~
l i
4-Guide (or some other action) the proposed Annex A to 10 rFR 50 Appendix D; 4) developing the draft' Regulatory Guide or draft revised Annex A, as appro-i priate, including a revision to the Environmental Standard Review Plan
4-                                             1 Guide (or some other action) the proposed Annex A to 10 rFR 50 Appendix D; 4) developing the draft' Regulatory Guide or draft revised Annex A, as appro-       i priate, including a revision to the Environmental Standard Review Plan         '
-(ESRP) accident analysis (Section 7.1).
        -(ESRP) accident analysis (Section 7.1).
2.1 The Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study
2.1 The Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study                                       ]
]
WASH-1400 methodology will be extended-to a spectrum of non-core-melt accidents (Class 3 thru 8). The principal objective will be to develop risk estimates for the general class of events that are based on com-parable analytical methods. Sub-objectives will be to suggest modified standard assumptions for Class 3-8 accidents and to develop improved estimates of the relative risks of various categories of accidents.
WASH-1400 methodology will be extended-to a spectrum of non-core-melt accidents (Class 3 thru 8). The principal objective will be to develop risk estimates for the general class of events that are based on com-parable analytical methods. Sub-objectives will be to suggest modified standard assumptions for Class 3-8 accidents and to develop improved estimates of the relative risks of various categories of accidents.
2.2 Sensitivity Studies The main product of the sensitivity studies will be estimates of the range of risks that may be attributed to variations in plant / site characteristics. To the extent practicable, existing models should be used for this purpose. Studies of the variations in analytical         I results that are due to differing modeling techniques will be included where necessary.
2.2 Sensitivity Studies The main product of the sensitivity studies will be estimates of the range of risks that may be attributed to variations in plant / site characteristics. To the extent practicable, existing models should be used for this purpose. Studies of the variations in analytical I
2.3 Preparation of Report and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D After the tasks in 2.1 and 2.2 have been performed the results need to be documented, together with a presentation and discussion of the back-ground (including comments received) on staff assessments made during the period 1971-1977. This report will also be used to solicit views to modify the proposed annex. It must be resolved whether to revise the proposed Annex A and submit to the Commission the necessary rule making recommendations or it be more appropriate to issue a Regulatory Guide on the subject. Quite possibly, the study will reveal that some other action, rather than proposed Annex A revision or Regulatory Guide issuance, is more appropriate. This decision must be effected by NRC management after consideration of the staff's recomendations and input from interested parties on the study report.
results that are due to differing modeling techniques will be included where necessary.
2.3 Preparation of Report and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D After the tasks in 2.1 and 2.2 have been performed the results need to be documented, together with a presentation and discussion of the back-ground (including comments received) on staff assessments made during the period 1971-1977. This report will also be used to solicit views to modify the proposed annex.
It must be resolved whether to revise the proposed Annex A and submit to the Commission the necessary rule making recommendations or it be more appropriate to issue a Regulatory Guide on the subject. Quite possibly, the study will reveal that some other action, rather than proposed Annex A revision or Regulatory Guide issuance, is more appropriate. This decision must be effected by NRC management after consideration of the staff's recomendations and input from interested parties on the study report.
2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Subsequent to the decision indicated in Subtask 2.3, above, the appropriate action would be effected. Proposed rule making to revise Annex A would be developed and submitted to the Commission for action, or a draft Regulatory Guide would be developed and provided to the Office of Standards Development for action.
2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Subsequent to the decision indicated in Subtask 2.3, above, the appropriate action would be effected. Proposed rule making to revise Annex A would be developed and submitted to the Commission for action, or a draft Regulatory Guide would be developed and provided to the Office of Standards Development for action.
90017114 L
90017114 L
l
l


Revision of the Environmental Standard Review Plan It is expected that, based on the results of the above tasks, a revision to the current treatment will be developed in the ESs. This           -
. Revision of the Environmental Standard Review Plan It is expected that, based on the results of the above tasks, a revision to the current treatment will be developed in the ESs. This may include an analog to Table S-3, Summary of Environmental Considera-tions for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, which would include plant boundary conditions such that specific analyses would not have to be included.
may include an analog to Table S-3, Summary of Environmental Considera-tions for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, which would include plant boundary conditions such that specific analyses would not have to be included.
It is recognized that Task A-33, NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks, should be integrated with an overall NRR reactor risk study. The Rfsk Assessment Methodology Application Plan is still under development. At such time as that plan is finalized, this Task Action Plan will be revised to indicate the interfaces.
It is recognized that Task A-33, NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks, should be integrated with an overall NRR reactor risk study. The Rfsk Assessment Methodology Application Plan is still under development. At such time as that plan is finalized, this Task Action Plan will be revised to indicate the interfaces.
: 3.     NRR Technical Organizations Involved:
3.
: a. Environmental Projects Branch 2, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Task Manager will serve in the principal management function for the task. The Task Manager will have primary responsibility for maintaining coordination, task progress, and general monitoring of the task effort within NRR, as well as managing preparation of the study report.
NRR Technical Organizations Involved:
Estimated manpower:         FY 78     2 man months FY 79     4 man months FY S0     3 man months FY 81     1/2 man months TOTAL     9 1/2 man months
a.
: b. Accident Analysis Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis AAB will carry a major task load within NRR, performing the fol-lowing activities:
Environmental Projects Branch 2, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Task Manager will serve in the principal management function for the task. The Task Manager will have primary responsibility for maintaining coordination, task progress, and general monitoring of the task effort within NRR, as well as managing preparation of the study report.
: 1. compilation of survey of LWR ES accident risk assessments vs.
Estimated manpower:
principal site and design features (Subtask 2.3) ii. preparation (with PAS) of initial scoping assessment of accident risks (risk curve) for use in guiding the detailed     {1 studies by the contractors.* (Subtask 2.1) iii. preparation of survey of major comments offered on LWR accident discussions in LWR ESs. (Subtask 2.3)
FY 78 2 man months FY 79 4 man months FY S0 3 man months FY 81 1/2 man months TOTAL 9 1/2 man months b.
    *(See 3.c and 6.b below) 90017115 i
Accident Analysis Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis AAB will carry a major task load within NRR, performing the fol-lowing activities:
l l
1.
1
compilation of survey of LWR ES accident risk assessments vs.
principal site and design features (Subtask 2.3) ii.
preparation (with PAS) of initial scoping assessment of
{1 accident risks (risk curve) for use in guiding the detailed studies by the contractors.* (Subtask 2.1) iii. preparation of survey of major comments offered on LWR accident discussions in LWR ESs.
(Subtask 2.3)
*(See 3.c and 6.b below) 90017115


i I
i I
iv. compilation of models used in case reviews of inplant releases and event sumaries for use of the contractors.
iv. compilation of models used in case reviews of inplant releases and event sumaries for use of the contractors.
(Subtask 2.1)                                                       .
(Subtask 2.1) v.
: v.      compilation and limited extension of staff design sensitivity studies to guide detailed contractor studies. (Subtask 2.2) vi.     provision of miscellaneous technical assistance to laboratory contractors of RAB and RES participating in study.
compilation and limited extension of staff design sensitivity studies to guide detailed contractor studies.
(Subtask 2.1) vii. provision of major input to the study report.         (Subtask 2.3) viii. compilation of draft Regulatory Guide (if required) or revisions to Annex A.     (Subtask 2.4)
(Subtask 2.2) vi.
Estimated manpower:           FY 78     3 man months                         '
provision of miscellaneous technical assistance to laboratory contractors of RAB and RES participating in study.
FY 79     3 man months FY 80     3 man months FY 81     2 man months TOTAL     11 man montns MANPOWER
(Subtask 2.1) vii. provision of major input to the study report.
: c. Radiological Assessment Branch, Divisica of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis RAB will be a major participant in the study by providing:
(Subtask 2.3) viii. compilation of draft Regulatory Guide (if required) or revisions to Annex A.
: 1.       planning of exercises for consequences model studies; this will require some effort to:
(Subtask 2.4)
: a. review CRAC model (Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences-computer code) used in WASH-1400 Appendix VI.   (Subtask 2.1)
Estimated manpower:
: b. review modeling and sensitivity studies of consequence dose predictions. (Subtask 2.2)
FY 78 3 man months FY 79 3 man months FY 80 3 man months FY 81 2 man months TOTAL 11 man montns MANPOWER c.
: 11.     input for consequences to the liquid pathway based on the Liquid Pathway Generic Study results.* (Subtasks 2.1, 2.2)
Radiological Assessment Branch, Divisica of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis RAB will be a major participant in the study by providing:
* Current staff practices in environmental reviews do not include quantita-           l tive analyses of the risks resulting from releases to the liquid pathway.             lI The-bases for this practice will be one factor included in this task.
1.
planning of exercises for consequences model studies; this will require some effort to:
a.
review CRAC model (Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences-computer code) used in WASH-1400 Appendix VI.
(Subtask 2.1) b.
review modeling and sensitivity studies of consequence dose predictions.
(Subtask 2.2) 11.
input for consequences to the liquid pathway based on the Liquid Pathway Generic Study results.*
(Subtasks 2.1, 2.2)
* Current staff practices in environmental reviews do not include quantita-l tive analyses of the risks resulting from releases to the liquid pathway.
lI The-bases for this practice will be one factor included in this task.
The effort will largely draw on the Staff's LPGS and RES's program at Sandia.
The effort will largely draw on the Staff's LPGS and RES's program at Sandia.
90017116 1
90017116 1


i iii. review of PNL assessment of recommended consequence models for Classes 3 thru 8. (Subtask 2.1) iv.     administration of contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -     ,
i iii. review of PNL assessment of recommended consequence models for Classes 3 thru 8.
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. (Subtask 2.1)SeeItem4.
(Subtask 2.1) iv.
: v.       input to the study report. (Subtask 2.3)
administration of contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -
Estimated manpower:         FY 78       4 man months FY 79       4 man months FY 80       3 man months TOTAL   11 man montns, including MANPOWER 6 man months contract administrator time.
Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
: d. Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis HMB will compile a summary of previous staff estimates of meteorological dispersion at various sites and provide input and assistance for contractor assessments of the significance           I of variation in meteorology from site to site as required.
(Subtask 2.1)SeeItem4.
v.
input to the study report.
(Subtask 2.3)
Estimated manpower:
FY 78 4 man months FY 79 4 man months FY 80 3 man months TOTAL 11 man montns, including MANPOWER 6 man months contract administrator time.
d.
Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis HMB will compile a summary of previous staff estimates of meteorological dispersion at various sites and provide input and assistance for contractor assessments of the significance I
of variation in meteorology from site to site as required.
(Subtask 2.1)
Estimated manpower:
3 man months (FY-78) e.
Reactor Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety RSB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.
(Subtask 2.1)
Estimated manpower:
2 man months (FY-78) f.
Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety ASB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.
(Subtask 2.1)
(Subtask 2.1)
Estimated manpower:         3 man months (FY-78)
Estimated manpower:
: e. Reactor Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety RSB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models developed by contractors. (Subtask 2.1)
1 man month (FY-78) g.
Estimated manpower:          2 man months (FY-78)
Various other branches in Division of Systems 5afety (as appropriate)
: f. Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety ASB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models          -
Provide secondary reviews of scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.
developed by contractors. (Subtask 2.1)
(Subtask 2.1) j Estimated manpower:
Estimated manpower:          1 man month (FY-78)
1 man month total
: g. Various other branches in Division of Systems 5afety (as appropriate)
-manpower (FY-78) 90017117
Provide secondary reviews of scenarios and accident models developed by contractors. (Subtask 2.1)                                       j Estimated manpower:         1 man month total
                                            -manpower (FY-78) 90017117


8.
8.
: 4. Technical Assistance Requirements:
4.
Technical Assistance Requirements:
The Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis will administer a contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -
The Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis will administer a contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. This contract is to provide the following effort:
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. This contract is to provide the following effort:
: a. review and comparison of models and methodologies used in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I related dose analyses, Class 3-8 accident-related dose analyses and those used in Reactor Safety Study (Phase I).
a.
: b. modify available models, if necessary, to pennit consistent, compati-ble treatment of the spectrum of releases to the environment (PhaseII),
review and comparison of models and methodologies used in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I related dose analyses, Class 3-8 accident-related dose analyses and those used in Reactor Safety Study (Phase I).
: c. recommend standard assumptions for NEPA evaluations, accident Claces 3 thru 8 (Phase III).
b.
: d. recommend needed improvements, if any, to CRAC that would permit
modify available models, if necessary, to pennit consistent, compati-ble treatment of the spectrum of releases to the environment (PhaseII),
* improved assessments of impact of site-to-site variations.
c.
: e. perform analyses of the range of risks (e.g., in terms of estimated annual health effects) associated with accidental releases that result from variations in site characteristics (Phase II Class 3-8 releases and their relative probability to be developed by BNL/SAI and BCL, with input from NRR).
recommend standard assumptions for NEPA evaluations, accident Claces 3 thru 8 (Phase III).
: f. conduct additional studies on the variations in accident-related risks that results from variations in design (information to be provided under BNL Phara V or by NRR).
d.
recommend needed improvements, if any, to CRAC that would permit improved assessments of impact of site-to-site variations.
e.
perform analyses of the range of risks (e.g., in terms of estimated annual health effects) associated with accidental releases that result from variations in site characteristics (Phase II Class 3-8 releases and their relative probability to be developed by BNL/SAI and BCL, with input from NRR).
f.
conduct additional studies on the variations in accident-related risks that results from variations in design (information to be provided under BNL Phara V or by NRR).
This contract effort will involve approximately 6 man months of contract administrator time an 60 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 months. Phase I is presently funded at 575K and Phase II is funded at
This contract effort will involve approximately 6 man months of contract administrator time an 60 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 months. Phase I is presently funded at 575K and Phase II is funded at
      $160K.
$160K.
: 5. Interactions with Outside Organizations:
5.
Interactions with Outside Organizations:
Interaction with outside organizations will be primarily with the Environ-mental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior stemming from these agencies' interest and comments on NRC environmental statements con-sistent with Cortnission commitments to these agencies.* Briefings will be held early in the study to inform EPA and Interior of the NRC plan of action and intentions. These and other governmental agencies and the general public will have the opportunity to comment on the study results and planned revisions in our NEPA review practices.
Interaction with outside organizations will be primarily with the Environ-mental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior stemming from these agencies' interest and comments on NRC environmental statements con-sistent with Cortnission commitments to these agencies.* Briefings will be held early in the study to inform EPA and Interior of the NRC plan of action and intentions. These and other governmental agencies and the general public will have the opportunity to comment on the study results and planned revisions in our NEPA review practices.
* Letter:   L. V. Gossick to W. D. Rowe, USEPA, dated April 5,1977.
* Letter:
L                                                             90017118
L. V. Gossick to W. D. Rowe, USEPA, dated April 5,1977.
L 90017118


8 i
8
: 6. Assistance Requirements from Other NRC Offices:
' i 6.
      ' Assistance outside of NRR will be provided by the Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division and the Office of Nuclear Reactor               -
Assistance Requirements from Other NRC Offices:
Research (RES), Probabilistic Analysis Staff (PAS). RES PAS is administer-ing contracts with Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL), and Brookhaven lI National Laboratories (BNL)/ Science Applications, Inc., (SAI), which will provide a major input to the study as indicated below:
' Assistance outside of NRR will be provided by the Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Research (RES), Probabilistic Analysis Staff (PAS).
: a. Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division OELD will assist in preparation of a Federal Register Notice announcing the proposed rulemaking regarding any revision to the proposed Annex. Assistance will also be provided in review of the draft study report prior to publication.     (Subtasks 2.3 and 2.4)
RES PAS is administer-lI ing contracts with Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL), and Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL)/ Science Applications, Inc., (SAI), which will provide a major input to the study as indicated below:
Estimated manpower:       FY 78         0.25 man months FY 79         0.75 man months TOTAL MANPOWER     1 man month
a.
: b. Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, Probabilistic Analysis Staff 1
Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division OELD will assist in preparation of a Federal Register Notice announcing the proposed rulemaking regarding any revision to the proposed Annex. Assistance will also be provided in review of the draft study report prior to publication.
(Subtasks 2.3 and 2.4)
Estimated manpower:
FY 78 0.25 man months FY 79 0.75 man months TOTAL MANPOWER 1 man month b.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, Probabilistic Analysis Staff 1
PAS will direct work at Battelle Columbus '.aboratories and Brookhaven National Laboratories / Science Applications, Inc.
PAS will direct work at Battelle Columbus '.aboratories and Brookhaven National Laboratories / Science Applications, Inc.
These contracts are to provide assessment of probabilities and magnitudes of releases which would be associated with LWR reactor accident Classes 3 thru 8 consistent with the assess-ments of potential Class 9 accidents in WASH-1400.     (Subtask 2.1)
These contracts are to provide assessment of probabilities and magnitudes of releases which would be associated with LWR reactor accident Classes 3 thru 8 consistent with the assess-ments of potential Class 9 accidents in WASH-1400.
(Subtask 2.1)
The BNL-SAI and BCL contracts study is to be executed in four or five phases (Phase V is optional *), described as follows:
The BNL-SAI and BCL contracts study is to be executed in four or five phases (Phase V is optional *), described as follows:
      *The neeo for Phase V will be determined based on the results of Phases II and IV. If these earlier phases show that detailed design sensitivity studies will not materially improve the estimated risks associated with the selected Class 3-8 events, Phase V will, in all likelihood, not be performed.
*The neeo for Phase V will be determined based on the results of Phases II and IV.
If these earlier phases show that detailed design sensitivity studies will not materially improve the estimated risks associated with the selected Class 3-8 events, Phase V will, in all likelihood, not be performed.
90017119
90017119


                                                              !                              l
l
  ~
~ Phase Activity I
Phase                               Activity I                       Definition and Scope of Work for               L Pressurized Water Reactor II                     WASH-1400 extension - SURRY for Pressurized Water Reactor III                     Definition and Scope of Work for Boiling Water Reactor IV                     WASH-1400 extension for Boiling Water Reactor V (optional)           Review design and sensitivity of results for Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor This effort is expected to involve approximately 5 man months of contract-administrator time and 97 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 month, reith a funding effort of $759,000 for both BNL-SAI and BCL provioed by RES.
Definition and Scope of Work for L
: 7. Schedule for Problem Resolution:
Pressurized Water Reactor II WASH-1400 extension - SURRY for Pressurized Water Reactor III Definition and Scope of Work for Boiling Water Reactor IV WASH-1400 extension for Boiling Water Reactor V (optional)
Review design and sensitivity of results for Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor This effort is expected to involve approximately 5 man months of contract-administrator time and 97 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 month, reith a funding effort of $759,000 for both BNL-SAI and BCL provioed by RES.
7.
Schedule for Problem Resolution:
Major milestones and target dates for completion of the described work are given herein. The work progression should proceed as below.
Major milestones and target dates for completion of the described work are given herein. The work progression should proceed as below.
Subtask 2.1 Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study Milestone Description                                   Target Date
Subtask 2.1 Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study Milestone Description Target Date a.
: a. Committee approval of A-33 Task                   September 1977 Action Plan (TASC)
Committee approval of A-33 Task September 1977 Action Plan (TASC) b.
: b. Survey of ES comments on accident                 October 1977       l1 analysis (AAB)(PAS)
Survey of ES comments on accident October 1977 l1 analysis (AAB)(PAS) c.
: c. Scoping assessment of accident                     November 1977                 ,
Scoping assessment of accident November 1977 risks (AAB. PAS) d.
risks (AAB. PAS)                                                               l I
Completion of Survey of Risk January 1978 Assessment and Event Scenarios (AAB, PAS) Review by RSS, RSB l'
: d. Completion of Survey of Risk                       January 1978 Assessment and Event Scenarios (AAB, PAS) Review by RSS, RSB                                               l'
e.
: e. Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase I,                 January 1978 Definition and Scope of Work (RES) 90017120 l
Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase I, January 1978 Definition and Scope of Work (RES) 90017120


l Milestone Description                               Target Date
l Milestone Description Target Date f.
: f. Complete PNL Phase I (RAB)                   March 1978 l1 9     Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II,           September 1978 WASH-1400 Extension-Surry for PWR (RES)                                 ;
Complete PNL Phase I (RAB)
: h. Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III,           January 1979 Definition and Scope for BWR (RES)
March 1978 l1 9
: 1. Complete PNL Phase II (RAB)                   March 1979 l1
Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II, September 1978 WASH-1400 Extension-Surry for PWR (RES) h.
: j. Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV,           Anril 1979 WASH-1400 Extension for BWR (RES)
Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III, January 1979 Definition and Scope for BWR (RES) 1.
Subtask 2.2 . Sensitivity Studies Milestone Description                               Target Date
Complete PNL Phase II (RAB)
: a. Initiate PNL Phase III (RAB)                   March 1979 l3
March 1979 l1 j.
: b. Initiate BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V               April 1979                 '
Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV, Anril 1979 WASH-1400 Extension for BWR (RES)
(0ptional), Review design and sensitivity of results, PWR and BWR (RES)
Subtask 2.2. Sensitivity Studies Milestone Description Target Date a.
: c. Complete PNL Phase III, Address               January 1980 sensitivity studies of Phase Il results to determine critical parameters (RAB)
Initiate PNL Phase III (RAB)
: d. Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V (0ptional) (RES)
March 1979 l3 b.
March 1980 jI Subtask 2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D Milestone Description                               Target Date
Initiate BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V April 1979 (0ptional), Review design and sensitivity of results, PWR and BWR (RES) c.
: a. Receive Survey of Es comments for AAB         October 1977
Complete PNL Phase III, Address January 1980 sensitivity studies of Phase Il results to determine critical parameters (RAB) d.
: b. Receive Scoping assessment of accident         November 1977           1 risks from AAB and SAff /hs
Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V March 1980 (0ptional) (RES) jI Subtask 2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D Milestone Description Target Date a.
: c. Receive Survey of Risk Assessment and         January 1978 Event Scenarios from AAB and PAS                                         )
Receive Survey of Es comments for AAB October 1977 b.
Receive Scoping assessment of accident November 1977 1
risks from AAB and SAff /hs c.
Receive Survey of Risk Assessment and January 1978 Event Scenarios from AAB and PAS
)
90017121
90017121


Milestone Description                           Target Date
, Milestone Description Target Date d.
: d. Develop Scope and Outline of Report       February 1978 and Author Assignments (TM, AAB)                                 -
Develop Scope and Outline of Report February 1978 and Author Assignments (TM, AAB) e.
: e. Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II         September 1978 report (RES)
Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II September 1978 report (RES) f.
: f. Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III         January 1979 report (RES)
Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III January 1979 report (RES) g.
: g. Receive PNL Phase II reprot (RAB)         March 1979
Receive PNL Phase II reprot (RAB)
: h. Issue Draft Report on NEPA reviews of     April 1979 Accident Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD)
March 1979 h.
: 1. Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV         April 1979               l report (RES)
Issue Draft Report on NEPA reviews of April 1979 Accident Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD) 1.
: j.     End of Public Conment Period on Report   June 1979
Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV April 1979 report (RES) j.
: k. Receive PNL Phase III Report               January 1980
End of Public Conment Period on Report June 1979 k.
: 1. Receive BNL/SAI Phase V Report           March 1980
Receive PNL Phase III Report January 1980 1.
: m.     Issue Final Report on Accident           March 1980 Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD)
Receive BNL/SAI Phase V Report March 1980 m.
: n. Staff recommendations submitted to       March 1980 NRRmanagement(TM,AAB,RAB)
Issue Final Report on Accident March 1980 Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD) n.
: o. Initiate .Sunmary of study results for   March 1980 all Es use (TM, AAB, RAB)
Staff recommendations submitted to March 1980 NRRmanagement(TM,AAB,RAB) o.
: p. NRR management decision                   May 1980
Initiate.Sunmary of study results for March 1980 all Es use (TM, AAB, RAB) p.
: q.                      of Study Report        May 1980 CompleteSurvey(TM,AAB,RAB) for all ES use Subtask 2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Milestone Description                           Target Date
NRR management decision May 1980 CompleteSurvey(TM,AAB,RAB) of Study Report May 1980 q.
: a. NRR management decision on Annex A         May 1980 (See Subtask 2.3)
for all ES use Subtask 2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Milestone Description Target Date a.
.          b. Initiate Proposed Revision of Annex A     May 1980 l               . or development of draft Regulatory l                 Guide (TM,AAB)
NRR management decision on Annex A May 1980 (See Subtask 2.3) b.
Initiate Proposed Revision of Annex A May 1980 l
. or development of draft Regulatory l
Guide (TM,AAB)
)
)
90017122           l
90017122


Milestone Description                                 Target Date
Milestone Description Target Date c.
: c. Complete proposed Revision of Annex A           January 1981 or draft Regulatory Guide and provide                               -
Complete proposed Revision of Annex A January 1981 or draft Regulatory Guide and provide to Commission or OSD for further action (TM,AAB) 8.
to Commission or OSD for further action (TM,AAB)
Potential Problems:
: 8. Potential Problems:
RES may require additional funding to complete all related contract work as the schedule progresses. Failure to obtain these funds could affect the full benefit of the project.
RES may require additional funding to complete all related contract work as the schedule progresses. Failure to obtain these funds could affect the full benefit of the project.
In all cases. and at all levels timely completion of schedule performance will be required to assure the study does not bog down at the main points of interaction.
In all cases. and at all levels timely completion of schedule performance will be required to assure the study does not bog down at the main points of interaction.
Line 203: Line 268:


NEPA REVIEWS Of ACCIDENT RISK 5,1ASK A-33 GRAPHICAL 1ASK ANALYSIS T
NEPA REVIEWS Of ACCIDENT RISK 5,1ASK A-33 GRAPHICAL 1ASK ANALYSIS T
508iASK                                                                                                                                                             N
508iASK N
                                                                                                                                                                                      ~
~
SURRY/ PEACH BOTTOM Class 3-8 Study
~2.1 SURRY/ PEACH BOTTOM Class 3-8 Study Complete Survey N
                  ~2.1                                                                      Complete Survey                                                                           N AAB Survey of E5 Comments on Accident Analysis       --* 4 Complete Assessment                                                                   O p4                                                     ,
AAB Survey of E5 Comments on Accident Analysis
Scoping Assessment of Accident Risks                           i}
--* 4 O
AAB.
Complete Assessment p4 AAB.
i Complete Assessment AAB PAS Survey of Risk Assessment and Event Scenarios         ,        ',
Scoping Assessment of Accident Risks i}
i*                      ; Complete Phase I BNL/SAI and BCL Contract (RES)                                           .          -gr                                                 4 3s Y                                                   Y
Complete Assessment i
                                                                                        .        t
AAB PAS Survey of Risk Assessment and Event Scenarios i
* Complete Phase 1                     ,
; Complete Phase I 4 3s BNL/SAI and BCL Contract (RES)
* a
-gr Y
                                                                                        !        t PNL Contract (RAB)
Y Complete Phase 1 t
                                                                                        ;                      :        TJ                                         ;
a PNL Contract (RAB) t l
l                                                                 *
TJ l
                                                                                        ;        i             l                                                  8
i 8
                                                                                        ,        t              .      Develop Scope and Outline abe           d.k     M 2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and Decision Regarding Annem A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D 3
Develop Scope and Outline t
                                                                                                  "#          N        d'                                        W Receive Assessment                 Receive BNL/SAI Phase 11 Report J.2 Sensitivity Studies                                                         Receive Assessment I
abe d.k M
Receive Survey BNL/5AI and BEL Contract (RES)                                                                                               .
2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and 3
PNL Contract (RAB)
N d'
J.4 kevisian of Annen A or Draf ting of Regulatory Guide i     2     ,3     3   p     ,6     ,7     p   q     Ip     11     it   la if       ?
W Decision Regarding Annem A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D Receive Assessment Receive BNL/SAI Phase 11 Report J.2 Sensitivity Studies Receive Assessment I
noNTHS     .
BNL/5AI and BEL Contract (RES)
e        E     E       E     c     e   e       e     e     e     a     e g
Receive Survey PNL Contract (RAB)
e y
J.4 kevisian of Annen A or Draf ting of Regulatory Guide i
5 y
2
EE g g DATES     3         3       3       3       y     y     y     y     y     y     y FY                   l(                                       FY 78                               M O
,3 3
4>
p
                  @          G
,6
,7 p
q Ip 11 it la if
?
noNTHS e
E E
E c
e e
e e
e a
e e
5 EE DATES 3
3 3
3 y
y y
y y
y y
g y
y g g FY l(
FY 78 M
O 4>
G


                                  . f^                                                                                                                                                                                         O                                                                                   O           y
. f^
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .e J
O O
_W Os                     ,
y
.e
_W Os J
N N
N N
O O
O O
Complete Phase !!! Complete Phase IV N)                                                                                                                         = '})
Complete Phase !!! Complete Phase IV N)
1 l                                                                                                                  I g
= '})
Complete i
l 1
Phase Il                                                                               Receive PNL Phase 11 Report
g Complete I
:                                                                          6# i)                                  ,                                                          Start Summary                         Complete Susanary of Report l                                                                                             3
Phase Il i
[                                                                                           _13,) for ESs I                                                                                              l ,/ l' Receive BNL/SA!                               Receive Phase 111 Report                   j
Receive PNL 6 i)
                                              ,$                                                                                              5                         Y Phase IV Report                                             ,.
Phase 11 Report Start Summary Complete Susanary of Report l
                                          @)                                                                                     ;(2;                                   (pj           :(2p                                         f,3)           $ )Hev.eive l> sue Phase      V Report final Report A
3
Receive BNL/SAI e
[
i issue l Draft Report
_13,) for ESs l,/ l' Receive BNL/SA!
                                                                                                                                                                                          '' End of.Pubilc Consnent Period               I I
Receive Phase 111 Report j
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          '            fStaff       :]n        '' 5 0" *" ^""** ^
I 5
or egu aton GuW Action Phase 111                                                                                                                       8 A                                                               g             A Rec. to Report                                                                                                                          I                                                                                              thf')NRRMgt.
Y Phase IV Report
(?g2 ;                                                             ,            ~
@)
1                       Start Phase V (Optional)                                   i                   Complete p                                                                                                  Phase V g[W N.                                                                                       M.
;(2; (pj
Start Phase 111                                                           Complete Phase 111             , Start Revision                   Complete Revision
:(2p f,3)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ?.>b                                                   =&
$ )Hev.eive Phase V Report l> sue final Report
16                                                   17                                         1p                   19       20       21 22   23     24 25         26 27     28     29     30       31     32       33     34   35   36   37       38     39 40
:]n Receive e
                  .                                  .                                              .                                              .                    .        .      .          .    ,    .        .  .      .      .        .      .      .                .    .      .    .      .    .      t 5        :  C              ~      w                o,        m      ~      .      . 2;     5     C      -
i issue
C                                                                               ~                                                  m                            u,    m      ~    .    .                        -
'' End of.Pubilc Consnent Period I
so      so 6
A I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      '8                        '8      '8        '8    '8    '8    '8  '8      '8    '8    3
fStaff
: t.                                b._.                                          b.                                                b.                  C.      D.      D. D. D. D. D.      %. %.
'' 5 0" *" ^""** ^
FY 79                                      si                                          FY 80                                      mai            FY 81 ~
l Draft Report BNL/SAI or egu aton GuW Action Phase 111 8
r \~e                                                -
A g
A Rec. to thf')NRRMgt.
Report I
(?g ;
~
2 1
Start Phase V (Optional) i Complete g[W Phase V p
N.
M.
Start Phase 111 Complete Phase 111
, Start Revision Complete Revision
?.>b
=&
16 17 1p 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 t
2; 5
C 5
C
~
w o,
m
m
                                ~
~
C
~
m 6
u, m
~
t.
b._. b.
b.
C.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
'8 s
s
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8 3
o o
si FY 80 mai FY 81 FY 79 r \\~e m
~
~
9 I
9 I
6                           6
6 6
_ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . - - . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                                                  __ _      _              _        _                __}}
.}}

Latest revision as of 20:42, 12 December 2024

Proposed Revision 1 to Task Action Plan A-33: NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks
ML20125D273
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/05/1978
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20125D268 List:
References
REF-GTECI-A-33, REF-GTECI-EN, TASK-A-33, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001140216
Download: ML20125D273 (15)
v • d • e


Text

,

e UNITE D STATES 4

  • b d

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 PROPOSED REVISION 1 January 5, 1978 TASK NO. A-33 TASK ACTION PLAN

Title:

NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks Lead Responsibility:

Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Lead Assistant Director:

Richard H. Vollmer, Assistant Director for Site Analysis Task Manager:

Oliver D. T. Lynch, Jr.

Environmental Projects Branch 2 1.

Problem

Description:

In 1971 the AEC determined that, consistent with NEPA, the environmental assessments of requests for construction permits and operating licenses should include consideration of the possible impacts from accidents. An Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D was proposed which provided guidance to applicants in this regard. This guidance was included in Regulatory Guide 4.2 and has constituted, since 1971, the basis for the staff reviews.

Since 1971, a considerable number of " realistic" accident assessments have been made.

In substance these reviews have uniformly shown that the risks associated with potential accidental releases are very low.

The approach in these assessments, typically, is limited to preparation of a two page narrative sumary that qualitatively describes accident proba-bilities and the rational for concluding that accident risks are low and a i

one page table that provides numerical estimates of the consequences of various categories of accidents (excluding Class 9 events). The approach to developing these consequence estimates also involves a largely simplistic analysis; minor adjustments are made from case to case (basically to account for variations in power level, exclusion boundary distance and population density). These numerical estimates are also limited to airpathway consequences.

90017111 APPROVED BY TASC, 8001140 bh

t A

e The staff's environmental statement by its nature is typically the only document.concerning NRC license reviews that receives wide public and government agency attention and exposure even though other documents are circulated and available.

It is evident from the comments received on the staff's statements that the present approach does not adequately inform the public regarding the sustance and depth of NRC's safety reviews nor adequately respond to public and various government agency questions dealing with the risks of accidents.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior (D0I) expressed the need for an improved treatment of accident risks and an expansion of the staff assessments to include quantitative estimates of Class 9 events.

Beginning in 1973, in response to EPA concerns, the staff augmented its assessments to discuss the then-ongoing Rasmussen Study as it related to Class 9 risks.

For its part EPA agreed that updating of the standard assessment was mot warranted until after the Rasmussen Study results were made available. This dialogue was renewed in 1976, with EPA recommending that a generic environmental statement be prepared on accident risks. After extended discussions, the NRC staff reiterated its 1973 commitment to update the standard assumptions in the proposed Annex A.

As a precursor to this update, the staff committed to an extension of the WASH-1400 study to include a more in-depth evaluation of Class 3-8 accidents and to further explore the significance of variations in site and plant design characteristics.

The Department of the Interior has routinely suggested that more attention be given to the site risks associated with the liquid pathway.

In mid-1977, DOI and NRC staff met to discuss the DOI's generic concerns. DOI was informed of the staff's programs to augment the generic studies in WASH-1400, but no connitments were made to revise the current approach (which, as noted j

above, includes no discussion of the impacts of accidental releases to the liquid pathway).

Another issue that has surfaced during the last few years relates to the lack of guidelines on situations which require substantially different (more detailed /different scope) treatment.

In the cases of CRBRP,* OPS /AGS** and Fulton/ Summit substantial departures from the standard assumptions were required; for example requests were made for analyses to support the claimed

  • CRBRP (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project)
    • 0PS/AGS (Offshore Power Systems / Atlantic Generating Station) 90017112

I 3-conclusion that Class 9 risks were low, comparable to typical LWRs.

In the cases of CRBRP and OPS, substantial schedular delays have resulted, apparently because the applicants were not aware that the standard guide-lines regarding the treatment of Class 9 accidents applied to a limited design / site envelope. Additional guideling need to be developed to help avoid future situations as these.

2.

Plan for Problem Resolution:

Based on a review of the various coments received over the last six years, and the commitments to EPA, the recomended approach is to conduct limited additional analyses (described below) and prepare a summary survey document which could be used as a standard reference regarding accident risks in the context of the staff's NEPA reviews (much as WASH-1400 is now cited in our statements). This same document would serve as the principal basis for a decision on the disposition of the proposed Annex to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D.

The area of quantitative risk assessment is very active and there are a variety of study efforts within and outside of NRC.

Similarly, there are a multitude of efforts related to case reviews and generic issues. Both groups of activities may provide useful input to any revision of the guidelines for treating accidents in environmental statements. To the extent that results from these other efforts are available, consistent with the major milestones in this Task Action Plan, they will be con-sidered. This plan includes only those tasks which must be conducted to fulfill existing commitments to EPA regarding the update of the proposed annex, and will not result in a full description of any and all possible accident risks from Light Water Reactors. The plan, however, does provide for efforts to assure that they are consistent between principal arguments and conclusions in the safety and environmental reviews (note, for example, 3e through 3g which call for DSS input on event analyses and review of contractor work; both activities are aimed at assuring consistency of approach and use of best available information).

The structure of this program is expected to involve four major subtasks:

1) extension of the WASH-1400 methodology to types of those events cur-rently analyzed in the staff's environmental statements (Class 3-8 accidents)* to develop a consistent, integrated set of generic risk analyses; 2) conduct of limited analyses to estimate the effects of major variations in site or design characteristics on accident-related risks (Note: Detailed assessments of designs, such as reported in WASH-1400 or I

research and development to substantially improve consequence models, are outside the scope of this task); 3) preparation and issuance of a for-comment report leading to a decision to revise or reissue as a Regulatory Mhe study will consider only those accidents already defined as Class 3-8.

No effort will be made to decide that those accidents adequately repre-sent the entire spectrum of possible events.

90017113 1

~

4-Guide (or some other action) the proposed Annex A to 10 rFR 50 Appendix D; 4) developing the draft' Regulatory Guide or draft revised Annex A, as appro-i priate, including a revision to the Environmental Standard Review Plan

-(ESRP) accident analysis (Section 7.1).

2.1 The Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study

]

WASH-1400 methodology will be extended-to a spectrum of non-core-melt accidents (Class 3 thru 8). The principal objective will be to develop risk estimates for the general class of events that are based on com-parable analytical methods. Sub-objectives will be to suggest modified standard assumptions for Class 3-8 accidents and to develop improved estimates of the relative risks of various categories of accidents.

2.2 Sensitivity Studies The main product of the sensitivity studies will be estimates of the range of risks that may be attributed to variations in plant / site characteristics. To the extent practicable, existing models should be used for this purpose. Studies of the variations in analytical I

results that are due to differing modeling techniques will be included where necessary.

2.3 Preparation of Report and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D After the tasks in 2.1 and 2.2 have been performed the results need to be documented, together with a presentation and discussion of the back-ground (including comments received) on staff assessments made during the period 1971-1977. This report will also be used to solicit views to modify the proposed annex.

It must be resolved whether to revise the proposed Annex A and submit to the Commission the necessary rule making recommendations or it be more appropriate to issue a Regulatory Guide on the subject. Quite possibly, the study will reveal that some other action, rather than proposed Annex A revision or Regulatory Guide issuance, is more appropriate. This decision must be effected by NRC management after consideration of the staff's recomendations and input from interested parties on the study report.

2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Subsequent to the decision indicated in Subtask 2.3, above, the appropriate action would be effected. Proposed rule making to revise Annex A would be developed and submitted to the Commission for action, or a draft Regulatory Guide would be developed and provided to the Office of Standards Development for action.

90017114 L

l

. Revision of the Environmental Standard Review Plan It is expected that, based on the results of the above tasks, a revision to the current treatment will be developed in the ESs. This may include an analog to Table S-3, Summary of Environmental Considera-tions for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, which would include plant boundary conditions such that specific analyses would not have to be included.

It is recognized that Task A-33, NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks, should be integrated with an overall NRR reactor risk study. The Rfsk Assessment Methodology Application Plan is still under development. At such time as that plan is finalized, this Task Action Plan will be revised to indicate the interfaces.

3.

NRR Technical Organizations Involved:

a.

Environmental Projects Branch 2, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Task Manager will serve in the principal management function for the task. The Task Manager will have primary responsibility for maintaining coordination, task progress, and general monitoring of the task effort within NRR, as well as managing preparation of the study report.

Estimated manpower:

FY 78 2 man months FY 79 4 man months FY S0 3 man months FY 81 1/2 man months TOTAL 9 1/2 man months b.

Accident Analysis Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis AAB will carry a major task load within NRR, performing the fol-lowing activities:

1.

compilation of survey of LWR ES accident risk assessments vs.

principal site and design features (Subtask 2.3) ii.

preparation (with PAS) of initial scoping assessment of

{1 accident risks (risk curve) for use in guiding the detailed studies by the contractors.* (Subtask 2.1) iii. preparation of survey of major comments offered on LWR accident discussions in LWR ESs.

(Subtask 2.3)

  • (See 3.c and 6.b below) 90017115

i I

iv. compilation of models used in case reviews of inplant releases and event sumaries for use of the contractors.

(Subtask 2.1) v.

compilation and limited extension of staff design sensitivity studies to guide detailed contractor studies.

(Subtask 2.2) vi.

provision of miscellaneous technical assistance to laboratory contractors of RAB and RES participating in study.

(Subtask 2.1) vii. provision of major input to the study report.

(Subtask 2.3) viii. compilation of draft Regulatory Guide (if required) or revisions to Annex A.

(Subtask 2.4)

Estimated manpower:

FY 78 3 man months FY 79 3 man months FY 80 3 man months FY 81 2 man months TOTAL 11 man montns MANPOWER c.

Radiological Assessment Branch, Divisica of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis RAB will be a major participant in the study by providing:

1.

planning of exercises for consequences model studies; this will require some effort to:

a.

review CRAC model (Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences-computer code) used in WASH-1400 Appendix VI.

(Subtask 2.1) b.

review modeling and sensitivity studies of consequence dose predictions.

(Subtask 2.2) 11.

input for consequences to the liquid pathway based on the Liquid Pathway Generic Study results.*

(Subtasks 2.1, 2.2)

  • Current staff practices in environmental reviews do not include quantita-l tive analyses of the risks resulting from releases to the liquid pathway.

lI The-bases for this practice will be one factor included in this task.

The effort will largely draw on the Staff's LPGS and RES's program at Sandia.

90017116 1

i iii. review of PNL assessment of recommended consequence models for Classes 3 thru 8.

(Subtask 2.1) iv.

administration of contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -

Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

(Subtask 2.1)SeeItem4.

v.

input to the study report.

(Subtask 2.3)

Estimated manpower:

FY 78 4 man months FY 79 4 man months FY 80 3 man months TOTAL 11 man montns, including MANPOWER 6 man months contract administrator time.

d.

Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis HMB will compile a summary of previous staff estimates of meteorological dispersion at various sites and provide input and assistance for contractor assessments of the significance I

of variation in meteorology from site to site as required.

(Subtask 2.1)

Estimated manpower:

3 man months (FY-78) e.

Reactor Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety RSB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.

(Subtask 2.1)

Estimated manpower:

2 man months (FY-78) f.

Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety ASB will provide input on accident event classification and will review AAB assessment of event scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.

(Subtask 2.1)

Estimated manpower:

1 man month (FY-78) g.

Various other branches in Division of Systems 5afety (as appropriate)

Provide secondary reviews of scenarios and accident models developed by contractors.

(Subtask 2.1) j Estimated manpower:

1 man month total

-manpower (FY-78) 90017117

8.

4.

Technical Assistance Requirements:

The Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environ-mental Analysis will administer a contract with Battelle Memorial Institute -

Pacific Northwest Laboratories. This contract is to provide the following effort:

a.

review and comparison of models and methodologies used in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I related dose analyses, Class 3-8 accident-related dose analyses and those used in Reactor Safety Study (Phase I).

b.

modify available models, if necessary, to pennit consistent, compati-ble treatment of the spectrum of releases to the environment (PhaseII),

c.

recommend standard assumptions for NEPA evaluations, accident Claces 3 thru 8 (Phase III).

d.

recommend needed improvements, if any, to CRAC that would permit improved assessments of impact of site-to-site variations.

e.

perform analyses of the range of risks (e.g., in terms of estimated annual health effects) associated with accidental releases that result from variations in site characteristics (Phase II Class 3-8 releases and their relative probability to be developed by BNL/SAI and BCL, with input from NRR).

f.

conduct additional studies on the variations in accident-related risks that results from variations in design (information to be provided under BNL Phara V or by NRR).

This contract effort will involve approximately 6 man months of contract administrator time an 60 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 months. Phase I is presently funded at 575K and Phase II is funded at

$160K.

5.

Interactions with Outside Organizations:

Interaction with outside organizations will be primarily with the Environ-mental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior stemming from these agencies' interest and comments on NRC environmental statements con-sistent with Cortnission commitments to these agencies.* Briefings will be held early in the study to inform EPA and Interior of the NRC plan of action and intentions. These and other governmental agencies and the general public will have the opportunity to comment on the study results and planned revisions in our NEPA review practices.

  • Letter:

L. V. Gossick to W. D. Rowe, USEPA, dated April 5,1977.

L 90017118

8

' i 6.

Assistance Requirements from Other NRC Offices:

' Assistance outside of NRR will be provided by the Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Research (RES), Probabilistic Analysis Staff (PAS).

RES PAS is administer-lI ing contracts with Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL), and Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL)/ Science Applications, Inc., (SAI), which will provide a major input to the study as indicated below:

a.

Office of Executive Legal Director, Regulations Division OELD will assist in preparation of a Federal Register Notice announcing the proposed rulemaking regarding any revision to the proposed Annex. Assistance will also be provided in review of the draft study report prior to publication.

(Subtasks 2.3 and 2.4)

Estimated manpower:

FY 78 0.25 man months FY 79 0.75 man months TOTAL MANPOWER 1 man month b.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, Probabilistic Analysis Staff 1

PAS will direct work at Battelle Columbus '.aboratories and Brookhaven National Laboratories / Science Applications, Inc.

These contracts are to provide assessment of probabilities and magnitudes of releases which would be associated with LWR reactor accident Classes 3 thru 8 consistent with the assess-ments of potential Class 9 accidents in WASH-1400.

(Subtask 2.1)

The BNL-SAI and BCL contracts study is to be executed in four or five phases (Phase V is optional *), described as follows:

  • The neeo for Phase V will be determined based on the results of Phases II and IV.

If these earlier phases show that detailed design sensitivity studies will not materially improve the estimated risks associated with the selected Class 3-8 events, Phase V will, in all likelihood, not be performed.

90017119

l

~ Phase Activity I

Definition and Scope of Work for L

Pressurized Water Reactor II WASH-1400 extension - SURRY for Pressurized Water Reactor III Definition and Scope of Work for Boiling Water Reactor IV WASH-1400 extension for Boiling Water Reactor V (optional)

Review design and sensitivity of results for Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor This effort is expected to involve approximately 5 man months of contract-administrator time and 97 man months of laboratory effort over a period of 18 month, reith a funding effort of $759,000 for both BNL-SAI and BCL provioed by RES.

7.

Schedule for Problem Resolution:

Major milestones and target dates for completion of the described work are given herein. The work progression should proceed as below.

Subtask 2.1 Surry/ Peach Bottom Class 3-8 Study Milestone Description Target Date a.

Committee approval of A-33 Task September 1977 Action Plan (TASC) b.

Survey of ES comments on accident October 1977 l1 analysis (AAB)(PAS) c.

Scoping assessment of accident November 1977 risks (AAB. PAS) d.

Completion of Survey of Risk January 1978 Assessment and Event Scenarios (AAB, PAS) Review by RSS, RSB l'

e.

Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase I, January 1978 Definition and Scope of Work (RES) 90017120

l Milestone Description Target Date f.

Complete PNL Phase I (RAB)

March 1978 l1 9

Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II, September 1978 WASH-1400 Extension-Surry for PWR (RES) h.

Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III, January 1979 Definition and Scope for BWR (RES) 1.

Complete PNL Phase II (RAB)

March 1979 l1 j.

Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV, Anril 1979 WASH-1400 Extension for BWR (RES)

Subtask 2.2. Sensitivity Studies Milestone Description Target Date a.

Initiate PNL Phase III (RAB)

March 1979 l3 b.

Initiate BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V April 1979 (0ptional), Review design and sensitivity of results, PWR and BWR (RES) c.

Complete PNL Phase III, Address January 1980 sensitivity studies of Phase Il results to determine critical parameters (RAB) d.

Complete BNL/SAI and BCL Phase V March 1980 (0ptional) (RES) jI Subtask 2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and Decision Regarding Annex A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D Milestone Description Target Date a.

Receive Survey of Es comments for AAB October 1977 b.

Receive Scoping assessment of accident November 1977 1

risks from AAB and SAff /hs c.

Receive Survey of Risk Assessment and January 1978 Event Scenarios from AAB and PAS

)

90017121

, Milestone Description Target Date d.

Develop Scope and Outline of Report February 1978 and Author Assignments (TM, AAB) e.

Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase II September 1978 report (RES) f.

Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase III January 1979 report (RES) g.

Receive PNL Phase II reprot (RAB)

March 1979 h.

Issue Draft Report on NEPA reviews of April 1979 Accident Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD) 1.

Receive BNL/SAI and BCL Phase IV April 1979 report (RES) j.

End of Public Conment Period on Report June 1979 k.

Receive PNL Phase III Report January 1980 1.

Receive BNL/SAI Phase V Report March 1980 m.

Issue Final Report on Accident March 1980 Risks (TM, AAB, RAB, OELD) n.

Staff recommendations submitted to March 1980 NRRmanagement(TM,AAB,RAB) o.

Initiate.Sunmary of study results for March 1980 all Es use (TM, AAB, RAB) p.

NRR management decision May 1980 CompleteSurvey(TM,AAB,RAB) of Study Report May 1980 q.

for all ES use Subtask 2.4 Revision of Proposed Annex A or Issuance of Regulatory Guide Milestone Description Target Date a.

NRR management decision on Annex A May 1980 (See Subtask 2.3) b.

Initiate Proposed Revision of Annex A May 1980 l

. or development of draft Regulatory l

Guide (TM,AAB)

)

90017122

Milestone Description Target Date c.

Complete proposed Revision of Annex A January 1981 or draft Regulatory Guide and provide to Commission or OSD for further action (TM,AAB) 8.

Potential Problems:

RES may require additional funding to complete all related contract work as the schedule progresses. Failure to obtain these funds could affect the full benefit of the project.

In all cases. and at all levels timely completion of schedule performance will be required to assure the study does not bog down at the main points of interaction.

90017123 l

NEPA REVIEWS Of ACCIDENT RISK 5,1ASK A-33 GRAPHICAL 1ASK ANALYSIS T

508iASK N

~

~2.1 SURRY/ PEACH BOTTOM Class 3-8 Study Complete Survey N

AAB Survey of E5 Comments on Accident Analysis

--* 4 O

Complete Assessment p4 AAB.

Scoping Assessment of Accident Risks i}

Complete Assessment i

AAB PAS Survey of Risk Assessment and Event Scenarios i

Complete Phase I 4 3s BNL/SAI and BCL Contract (RES)

-gr Y

Y Complete Phase 1 t

a PNL Contract (RAB) t l

TJ l

i 8

Develop Scope and Outline t

abe d.k M

2.3 Report on NEPA Reviews of Accident Risks and 3

N d'

W Decision Regarding Annem A to 10 CFR 50 Appendix D Receive Assessment Receive BNL/SAI Phase 11 Report J.2 Sensitivity Studies Receive Assessment I

BNL/5AI and BEL Contract (RES)

Receive Survey PNL Contract (RAB)

J.4 kevisian of Annen A or Draf ting of Regulatory Guide i

2

,3 3

p

,6

,7 p

q Ip 11 it la if

?

noNTHS e

E E

E c

e e

e e

e a

e e

5 EE DATES 3

3 3

3 y

y y

y y

y y

g y

y g g FY l(

FY 78 M

O 4>

G

. f^

O O

y

.e

_W Os J

N N

O O

Complete Phase !!! Complete Phase IV N)

= '})

l 1

g Complete I

Phase Il i

Receive PNL 6 i)

Phase 11 Report Start Summary Complete Susanary of Report l

3

[

_13,) for ESs l,/ l' Receive BNL/SA!

Receive Phase 111 Report j

I 5

Y Phase IV Report

@)

(2; (pj
(2p f,3)

$ )Hev.eive Phase V Report l> sue final Report

]n Receive e

i issue

End of.Pubilc Consnent Period I

A I

fStaff

5 0" *" ^""** ^

l Draft Report BNL/SAI or egu aton GuW Action Phase 111 8

A g

A Rec. to thf')NRRMgt.

Report I

(?g ;

~

2 1

Start Phase V (Optional) i Complete g[W Phase V p

N.

M.

Start Phase 111 Complete Phase 111

, Start Revision Complete Revision

?.>b

=&

16 17 1p 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 t

2; 5

C 5

C

~

w o,

m

~

C

~

m 6

u, m

~

t.

b._. b.

b.

C.

D.

D.

D.

D.

D.

D.

'8 s

s

'8

'8

'8

'8

'8

'8

'8

'8

'8 3

o o

si FY 80 mai FY 81 FY 79 r \\~e m

~

~

9 I

6 6

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20125D273&oldid=4279299"