Images de page
PDF
ePub

81520

[ocr errors]

EP2 Study Alecting

MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

NEW HAMPSHIRE, OWNERS OF THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS FOR PSNH TO PROVIDE

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

SEABROOK STATION EMERGENCY PLANNING
SENSITIVITY STUDY FILED WITH NRC. ON JULY 2

PROVIDES

WHAT ALIGHT BE

PSNH'S TECHNICAL BASIS FOR REQUIRED FOR FUTURE EMERGENCY PLANNING

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

NRC

15 BEGINMNG EXPEDITED REVIEW OF THE STUDY TO ASSESS THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY OF PSNHS ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THE STUDY'S CONCLUSIONS.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Enclosed is one copy of a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled, "Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study for Seabrook," FIN A-3852, being submitted for your review and approval. The proposal is being submitted in response to a verbal request from D. Fioravante of the NRC. Two copies have been sent to Mr. R. W. Barber, Department of Energy, one copy has been sent to Mr. M. Kaltman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and three copies have been sent to:

Ms. Diane B. Fioravante, Program Assistant
Division of PWR Licensing-

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
U. 8. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555

The total cost of this program is $245,000. No funds have been obligated to date.

This proposal has been prepared in accordance with discussions held between W. T. Pratt (BNL), C. Hofmayer (BNL) and NRC staff. If there are any questions regarding the document, please call the principal investigator or Mr. A. J. Romano, FTS 666-4024, Department Administrator for the Department of Nuclear Energy.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity

Project Title: Study for Seabrook

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

[ocr errors]

1. OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED WORK

Background

On July 21, 1986 Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) submitted a sensitivity study on the emergency planning zone (EP2). The study provides a comparison of dose versus distance curves for the Seabrook plant and site with similar generic curves from NUREG-0396 which were used in developing the ZPZ regulation in 10 CFR 50.47. The study concludes that a 1-mile evacuation radius at Seabrook provides for a sinilar or greater degree of public protection than was shown by MUREG-0396 for a 10mile evacuation radius around the plants considered by WASH-1400.

The study is largely based on the Seabrook Probabilistic Safety Assessment that PSNH submitted about 3 years ago. The source terms used in the Emergency Planning Sensitivity study were drawn from the source teras used in the WASH-1400 calculations, with some modifications under specific scenarios. Also, some of the probabilistic models have been changed from the Safety Assessment. Thus, the report is intended to examine differences made by the Seabrook design and site, plus the improvements in accident sequence modeling capabilities, without credit for source term reductions that may result from recent studies. The ZPZ study attributes reductions in their offsite dose predictions to the higher strength of the Seabrook containment, a more refined failure modes analysis for the containment, and a more realistic treatsent of the initiation and progression of interfacing systems LOCA sequences. Along with the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study, PSNH has also submitted a report titled "Seabrook Station Risk Management and Emergency Planning Study," which pro- . vides results of Seabrook specific calculations with new source terms based upon the recent IDCOR work.

The applicant has requested that the technical merits of the EPZ study be reviewed with respect to its adequacy to support a change to the emergency response process. The exact nature of the change has not yet been specified. PSNH has further requested that the review be completed on an expedited basis.

The conclusions of the EPZ Sensitivity Study are based upon comparison of the results of the study to three acceptance criteria that were drawn from NEC documents. One of the criteria is a comparison of the individual risk of early fatality in the population within 1-mile of the plant, assuming no immediate protective action, to the NRC proposed safety goal. A second criterion is the comparison of early fatalities at the Seabrook site, assuming a 1-mile evacuation, to the early fatalities results of WASH-1400, which assumed a 25 mile evacuation. The third criterion is the comparison of the risks of exposure to 1, 5, 50, and 200 ram whole body doses at various distances from the Seabrook site to the corresponding NUREG-0396 results at 10 miles, assuming no immediate protective actions.

To properly review the EPZ Sensitivity Study, it will be necessary to identify the baseline against which comparisons are made, to identify the appropriate criteria for making the comparisons, and to review the basic assumptions and the more significant aspects of the probabilistic calculations.

(See Continuation Sheet)

« PrécédentContinuer »