DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENO)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENO) w RECEIVED 8Y TIC JAN 141990- Mh -:;; --• NUREG-0637 Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENO) Office of the Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission IKVT NUREG-0637 Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENO) Manuscript Completed; December 1979 Date Published: January 1980 Office of the Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 \$ APPROVALS OF STAFF PANEL ON THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF AN EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE ^J^2L lee V. fossick Executive Director for Operations Williatn 0.T)ircks, birector Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Robert B. Minogue, Dirfeetor Office of Standards Development /^4&ZS2£%k. <t/L. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation J f Saul Levine, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ^Howard K. Shapar / Executive Legal Director 7 ^ v SjS,sQ4*'•^^v- '£<€*€<%&£ & j""., Director Office *taof Inspectio? n and Enforcement TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Findings and Recommendation 2 Background 3 Relationship of ENO Determination to Recovery for Nuclear Injuries or Damages 4 Formation of the ENO Panel 5 Work by Others 7 Language and Structure of the Cr.ceria for Determining an ENO 8 Criterion I - Substantial Discharge or Dispersal of Radioactive Material Offsite or Substantial Levels of Radiation Offsite 12 A. Assumptions 1. Duration of the Accident 12 2. Meaning of the Term "Offsite" 14 3. Characterization of the Offsite Person Exposed 15 B. Approach of the Technical Studies 18 C. Summary of Technical Report on Gaseous Releases and Releases in Water in Terms of Dose To People and Contamination of Property 19 0. Summary of Technical Report on Review of Environmental Measurements 22 IX. Criterion II: Substantial Damage To Persons Offsite or Property Offsite 25 Appendices A. Membership of the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurence B. Selected Materials Pertaining to the ENO Panel C. Public Comments D. Studies on Dose Assessment and Environmental Monitoring Data Collection Considered by the Panel E. As Assessment of the Releases of Radionuclides from the Accident at Three Mile Island for Meeting the Requirments of 10 CFR 140.84 F. Review of Measured Radiation Doses and Surface Contamination Measurements NUREG-0637 REPORT TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FROM THE STAFF PANEL ON THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF AN EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE (ENO) December, 1979 I. INTRODUCTION On August 17, 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed that a panel composed of members of the principal staff should be formed to assemble information relevant to a determination of an extraordinary nuclear occur­ rence (ENO), evaluate public comments and report to the Commission its findings and recommendation. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, defines the term "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" as "... any event causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material from its intended place of confinement in amounts offsite, or causing radiation levels offsite, which the Commission determines to be substantial, and which the Commission determines has resulted or will probably result in substantial damages to persons offsite or property offsite." The Act further states that the "Commission shall establish criteria in writing setting forth the basis upon which the determination shall be made." This panel was directed by the Commission to make explicit findings on whether the Commission's ENO criteria have been met, the factual basis for those findings, and a recommendation as to whether or not the accident at Three Mile Island constitutes an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." The -2- Commission's regulations provide that the Commission will determine that there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence only if it determines that both criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 140 of its regulations have been met. II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As directed by the Commission on August 17, 1979, the Panel made its findings and recommendation by applying the explicit criteria set forth in the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR §§140.84 and 140.85, to the information gathered and analyzed by the Panel. The Panel has not addressed the question of whether the criteria set forth in 10 CFR §§140.84 and 140.85 for deter­ mining whether an ENO has occurred should be changed for future application. This matter will be considered in a separate rulemaking which the Commission has announced in response to the July 24, 1979 petition of the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Critical Mass Energy Project. See 44 F.R. 50419, August 28, 1979. The Panel finds that the r'irst criterion, pertaining to whether the accident caused a discharge of radioactive material or levels of radiation offsite as defined in 10 CFR §140.84, has not been met. It further finds that there is presently insufficient information to support any definitive finding as to whether or not the second criterion, relating to damage to persons or property offsite as defined in 10 CFR §140.85, has been met. Since the Panel has not found that both criteria have been met, it recommends that the Commission determine that the accident at Three Mile Island did not constitute an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." -3- III. BACKGROUND In July, 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commi .i jn formally initiated, as described below, the making of a determination as to whether or not the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) on March 28, 1979 constituted an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. Although the Commission at that time had not received a petition requesting such a determination (one was received shortly after the Commission published its notice inviting public comments on the determination), the Commission concluded that proceeding with the determination was in the public interest for two reasons. First, the Commis­ sion noted that the events at Three Mile Island constituted the most serious nuclear accident to date at a licensed U.S. facility, and thus should be rigorously scrutinized from the standpoint of its effect on the public. Second, the Commission noted the pendency of various lawsuits concerning the accident, in which the determination of whether or not an ENO had taken place was pertinent, and acknowledged the informal request of the Federal district court in Harrisburg that the Commission make this determination as expeditiously as possible. On July 23, 1979, the Commission published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER inviting interested parties to submit to the Commission within thirty days any information in their possession relevant to the determination. The Commission also established this Panel to consider the information provided by the comments along with information independently assembled by the Panel. -4- IV. RELATIONSHIP OF ENO DETERMINATION TO RECOVERY FOR NUCLEAR INJURIES OR DAMAGES In the event of a nuclear accident (or nuclear "incident" as the term is used in the Atomic Energy Act), claims for injuries or damages can be brought against '•he plant licensee and other parties considered responsible for the accident. The Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (Section 170) provide a system of private insurance, electric utility funds, and government indemnity totalling $560 million to pay such public liability cl?ims. One of the principal obstacles to a claimant's recovery for injuries or damages could be the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the defendants. Congress attempted to remove this obstacle in 1966 by amending the Price-Anderson Act to introduce the closely related concepts of extra­ ordinary nuclear occurrence and waiver of defenses. When the Commission determines that a nuclear incident was an "extraordinary nuclear ocurrence" within the meaning of the Act and the Commission's regulations, then the waiver of defenses provisions of the .insurance policies and indemnity agreements making up the Price-Anderson system are activated, resulting in an essentially "no-fault" recovery scheme. When the Commission has determined that an ENO has occurred, any defendant must waive: (i) Any issue or defense as to the conduct of the claimant or fault of persons indemnified, (ii) any issue or defense, as to charitable or governmental immunity, and -5- (iii) any issue or defense based on any statute of limitations if suit is instituted within three years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event more than twenty years after the date of the nuclear incident. Unless an ENO is declared by the Commission, the waiver of defenses provisions do not apply. Whether or not an ENO is declared, however, a claimant would still have to prove that he was injured or damaged, the monetary amount of his loss, and the causal link between his loss and the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of the radioactive material released. When applicable, the waivers of defenses provisions relieve the claimant of having to prove negligence by any defendant and of having to disprove defenses such as contributory negligence.* V. FORMATION OF THE ENO PANEL On August 24, 1979, in response to the Commission's direction, a panel composed of members of the principal staff and chaired by the Executive Director for Operations was formed. The Panel created a working group drawn from the staffs of various NRC offices to assist in the review of public comments, data analysis and evaluation, and the drafting of the Panel's * More detailed information on the concepts of extraordinary nuclear occurrence and waivers of defenses can be found in the "Background Infor­ mation" attached to the NRC's news release of July 20, 1979 (No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC)
    Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) DRAFT Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin March 11, 2010 DRAFT for Policy Committee and public review Cooperators U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service Susquehanna River Basin Commission Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Maryland Department of Natural Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Acknowledgments This Plan was initially written in 1997 by Mike Hendricks, specifically as a guidance document for future Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) activities in Pennsylvania waters of the Susquehanna River basin. It was modified and updated in 2001 by Dick St. Pierre, the Susquehanna River Coordinator (Coordinator) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to incorporate recent information add new program elements and serve as an anadromous fish restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). It was updated and revised again during 2006-2010 to address additional migratory fish (anadromous, catadromous, and potadromous) including alewife, blueback herring, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and American eel. The authors appreciate critical reviews provided by independent reviewers and members of the SRAFRC Policy Committee. Portions were taken directly from the Chesapeake Bay Program's "Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan" (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). Other American shad plans reviewed included those from the Penobscot and Roanoke rivers. Plan writers: Lawrence M. Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service David W. Heicher Susquehanna River Basin Commission Andrew L. Shiels & Michael L. Hendricks Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Robert A. Sadzinski Maryland Department of Natural Resources David Lemon New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Reviewers: Richard St.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna River Management Plan
    SUSQUEHANNA RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN A management plan focusing on the large river habitats of the West Branch Susquehanna and Susquehanna rivers of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Fisheries Division of Fisheries Management 1601 Elmerton Avenue P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... .ii List of Appendix A Tables ...........................................................................................................iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................ix 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 River Basin Features .......................................................................................................5 3.0 River Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 22 4.0 Special Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin
    Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin Approved by the Policy Committee November 15, 2010 Cooperators U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service Susquehanna River Basin Commission Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Maryland Department of Natural Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Acknowledgments This Plan was initially written in 1997 by Mike Hendricks, specifically as a guidance document for future Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) activities in Pennsylvania waters of the Susquehanna River basin. It was modified and updated in 2001 by Dick St. Pierre, the Susquehanna River Coordinator (Coordinator) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to incorporate recent information add new program elements and serve as an anadromous fish restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). It was updated and revised again during 2006-2010 to address additional migratory fish (anadromous, catadromous, and potadromous) including alewife, blueback herring, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and American eel. The authors appreciate critical reviews provided by independent reviewers and members of the SRAFRC Policy Committee. Portions were taken directly from the Chesapeake Bay Program's "Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan" (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). Other American shad plans reviewed included those from the Penobscot and Roanoke rivers. Plan writers: Lawrence M. Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service David W. Heicher Susquehanna River Basin Commission Andrew L. Shiels & Michael L. Hendricks Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Robert A. Sadzinski Maryland Department of Natural Resources David Lemon New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Reviewers: Richard St.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Revision 24 To
    TMI-1 UFSAR 2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENT 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION Three Mile Island is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Middletown, Pennsylvania, at longitude 7643'30" west and at latitude 4009'15” north (approximate midpoint of the station). It is one of the largest of a group of several islands in the Susquehanna River and is situated about 900 ft from the east bank. It is elongated parallel to the flow of the river, with its longer axis oriented approximately due north and south. The island is about 11,000 ft in length and 1700 ft in width. The southeasterly flowing Susquehanna River makes a sharp change in direction, to nearly due south, in the vicinity of Middletown. After this directional change just north of Three Mile Island, the river widens to approximately 1.5 miles. The station is located on Three Mile Island, which is situated in the Susquehanna River upstream from York Haven Dam, in Londonderry Township of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, about 2.5 miles north of the southern tip of Dauphin County, where Dauphin is coterminous with York and Lancaster Counties. Its location with respect to regional topographic and cultural features is shown on Figure 2.1-1 and with respect to local features on Figure 2.1-2. 2.1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Figure 2.1-3 shows Three Mile Island and the designated Exclusion Area. For accident evaluations, the distance to the Exclusion Area in each direction is used. Those distances may be determined from Figure 2.1-3.
    [Show full text]
  • York Haven FERC License 2015
    20151222-3086 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/22/2015 153 FERC ¶ 62,233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION York Haven Power Company, LLC Project No. 1888-030 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (December 22, 2015) INTRODUCTION 1. On August 30, 2012, York Haven Power Company, LLC (York Haven Power) filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), an application for a new license to continue operation and maintenance of the York Haven Hydroelectric Project No. 1888 (York Haven Project or project).1 The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 19.62 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Susquehanna River in York, Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania.2 The project does not occupy federal land. 2. As discussed below, this order issues a new license for the project. BACKGROUND 3. The York Haven Project is one of five hydroelectric projects located on the lower Susquehanna River and, with its dam at river mile (RM) 55, is the most upstream. Proceeding downstream from the project are the 380.39-MW Safe Harbor Hydroelectric Project No. 1025 (Safe Harbor Project) with its dam at RM 33, the 195.5-MW Holtwood Hydroelectric Project No. 1881 (Holtwood Project) with its dam at RM 25, the 800-MW Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project No. 2355 (Muddy Run Project) with its powerhouse at RM 22, and the 574.54-MW Conowingo Hydroelectric Project No. 405 (Conowingo Project) with its dam at RM 10. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2012). 2 The Susquehanna River is a navigable waterway of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological and Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River: New Cumberland, Pa (Rm 69) to Conowingo, Md (Rm 10), June to August 2014
    BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER: NEW CUMBERLAND, PA (RM 69) TO CONOWINGO, MD (RM 10), JUNE TO AUGUST 2014 Publication No. 301 September 30, 2015 Prepared by Aaron Henning Aquatic Biologist Monitoring and Protection Program Susquehanna River Basin Commission INTRODUCTION In 2014, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) completed a water quality and biological survey of the lower Susquehanna River from New Cumberland, Pa. (River Mile (RM) 69) to Conowingo, Md. (RM 10). The project was designed to further the understanding of this understudied portion of the Susquehanna River and supplement data collected as part of SRBC’s Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin Year-2 Focused Watershed Study (Steffy, 2012). The 2012 SRBC pilot study focused on the lower 44 miles of the mainstem Susquehanna River, which is characterized by three large impoundments created by hydroelectric dams. The 2014 study included eight of the nine sites from the previous study and six additional sites between river miles 45 and 69. These additional sites bracket a fourth hydroelectric dam (York Haven) and represent a mix of true free-flowing and impounded conditions. In total, biological and water quality conditions at 14 sites on the lower 69 miles of the Susquehanna River were assessed from June through August 2014. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The lower section of the Susquehanna River consists of a variety of habitats and environmental conditions. This final 69 miles of river receives upstream inputs from over 27,000 square miles of various land uses and over 4 million residents from three states. The most upstream sampling transect was located at river mile 69, in vicinity of the town of New Cumberland, Pa.
    [Show full text]
  • 174 FERC ¶ 61,217 UNITED STATES of AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Richard Glick, Chairman;
    174 FERC ¶ 61,217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Richard Glick, Chairman; Neil Chatterjee, James P. Danly, Allison Clements, and Mark C. Christie. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Project Nos. 405-106 405-121 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (Issued March 19, 2021) INTRODUCTION 1. On August 31, 2012, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 an application for a new license to continue operation and maintenance of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project No. 405 (Conowingo Project or project). The 570.15-megawatt (MW) project2 is located on the Susquehanna River at river mile (RM) 10 in Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland.3 The project does not occupy federal land. 2. As discussed below, this order issues a new license for the project. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808. 2 On March 2, 2010, Commission staff approved Exelon’s revised Exhibit M, increasing the authorized capacity for the license from 514.4 MW to 574.54 MW to reflect the end-of-life replacement of seven turbine-generators units. Exelon Generating Co., LLC, 130 FERC ¶ 62,175 (2010). However, that order included an error and misstated the authorized capacity. The authorized capacity specified in this order, 570.15 MW, corrects that error. 3 The Susquehanna River is a navigable waterway of the United States. See Metropolitan Edison Co., 2 F.P.C. 703 (1940). Therefore, section 23(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 817(1), requires the project to be licensed.
    [Show full text]