Page images
PDF
EPUB

(b) During the course of the accident a halogen reduction factor of 0.1 shall be applied to the primary coolant source when the steam generator tubes are covered; a factor of 0.5 shall be used when the tubes are uncovered.

(c) Secondary coolant system radioactivity prior to the accident shall be based on:

(a) 20 gallons per day primary-to-secondary leak.

(b) Blowdown of 10 g.p.m.

(d) Volume of one steam generator shall be assumed to be released to the atmosphere with an iodine partition factor of 10.

(e) Meteorological assumptions-x/Q values shall be 10 of those given in AEC Safety Guide No. 4.

(f) Consequences shall be calculated by weighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the wind blows in each direction.

Large break

(a) Primary coolant activity shall be based on operation with 0.5 percent failed fuel. The primary system contribution during the course of the accident shall be based on a 20 gal./day tube leak. (b) A halogen reduction factor of 0.5 shall be applied to the primary coolant source during the course of the accident.

(c) Secondary coolant system radioactivity prior to the accident shall be based on:

(a) 20 gallons per day primary-to-secondary leak.

(b) Blowdown of 10 g.p.m.

(d) Volume of one steam generator shall be assumed to be released to the atmosphere with an iodine partition factor of 10.

(e) Meteorological assumptions-x/Q values shall be 10 of those given in AEC Safety Guide No. 4.

(f) Consequences shall be calculated by weighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the wind blows in each direction.

8.3(b) Steamline breaks (boiling water reactor).

Small pipe break (of 1⁄4 ft.2)

(a) Primary coolant activity shall be based on operation with 0.5 percent failed fuel.

(b) The main steamline shall be assumed to fall releasing coolant until 5 seconds after isolation signal is received.

(c) Halogens in the fluid released to the atmosphere shall be 1/10 the primary system liquid concentration.

(d) Meteorology assumptions-x/Q values shall be 10 of those in AEC Safety Guide No. 3.

(c) Consequences shall be calculated by weighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the wind blows in each direction.

[graphic]

Large break

(a) Primary coolant activity shall be based on operation with 0.5 percent failed fuel.

(b) Main steamline shall be assumed to fall releasing that amount of coolant corresponding to a 5-second isolation time.

(c) 11⁄2 the halogens in the fluid exiting the break shall be assumed to be assumed to be released to the atmosphere.

(d) Meteorology assumptions-x/Q values shall be 10 of those in AEC Safety Guide No. 3.

(e) Consequences shall be calculated by weighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the wind blows in each direction. (Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948; 42 U.S.C. 2201)

For the Atomic Energy Commission.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 26th day of November 1971.

W. B. McCOOL, Secretary of the Commission.

52

AEC COST BENEFIT GUIDELINES

AEC SCHEDULES MEETING ON DRAFT GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Atomic Energy Commission is scheduling a meeting on December 9, 1971, at 10:00 a.m., in the AEC Headquarters auditorium, Germantown, Maryland, for purposes of discussing and obtaining comment on a draft Guide to the Preparation of Benefit-Cost Analyses for Nuclear Power Plants. The guide pertains to such analyses which must be included in environmental reports to AEC from applicants for certain categories of completed and partially completed nuclear power plants. A draft guide for benefit-cost analyses with respect to plants in earlier stages of construction will be issued in the near future. Invitations to the meeting have been extended to members of the nuclear industry, to environmental organizations, and to appropriate agencies in states where nuclear power plants are under construction or being operated. After the presentation of the guide in the morning session, opportunity will be given in the afternoon for technical group discussion.s

Under the AEC's revised regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), applicants for nuclear power plant permits or licenses are required to submit a new or supplemental environmental report. The regulations further require that the report include a benefit-cost analysis which considers and balances the environmental impact of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility.

The new draft guide applies to benefit-cost analyses required of (1) all applicants for operating licenses where a public hearing is in progress or where notice of opportunity for hearing on the application has been published by the AEC; (2) holders of construction permits issued prior to January 1, 1970, (the effective date of NEPA); holders of operating licenses issued after January 1, 1970; and holders of provisional operating licenses issued prior to the effective date of NEPA.

In addition, such benefit-cost analyses may be submitted by holders of construction permits issued after January 1, 1970, on a showing by the holder of the permit that the extent of the present commitment is such that costs related to abandonment in favor of an alternate site or power source would exceed the environmental costs projected to be associated with completion and operation of the project as proposed. The new guide includes a format for benefit-cost information to be submitted by applicants. Forms have been designed to show information on benefits, generating costs for alternative engineering designs to minimize environmental effects, and estimates of the environmental effects actually incurred. The firms provide a method for summarizing

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

in a concise fashion the information required to make a licensing decision.

The new guide would supplement the draft Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants that was issued for comment and interim use in Februry 1971, and additional guidance on Scope of Applicants' Environmental Reports with Respect to Transportation, Transmission Lines, and Accidents, issued on September 1, 1971.

Mr. EDWARD J. BAUSER,

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., January 7, 1972.

Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States.

DEAR MR. BAUSER: We appreciated the opportunity of meeting with you and members of the Joint Committee staff on the proposed "Guide to the Preparation of Benefit-Cost Analyses." The development of guidance in this area is complex and an evolving one and we appreciate the assistance and comments that we have received from the many people who have reviewed the earlier drafts on this subject.

In view of the urgency of obtaining comments on the proposed revision we are planning to publish the guide in the Federal Register within the next few days for comment by February 15, 1972. In line with our discussion on December 22, 1971, we will be meeting again during the month of January with the relevant Federal agencies, including FPC, as well as representatives of industry and environmental groups.

In addition, we are developing several case applications of the guide which are scheduled to be completed by February 15, 1972, in order to "test" the approach set forth in the guide. We understand that several utilities are well along in application of the earlier draft to their own specific cases and it is for this reason that we feel that there is an urgency of issuing the revised version as soon as possible. Enclosed is the proposed Federal Register notice, the proposed guide, and a public announcement which would be issued early next week. We will keep the Joint Committee informed of developments in the preparation of the guide and will be pleased to meet with you again after we have obtained comments from the public and other interested groups. Sincerely,

[graphic]
[graphic]

L. MANNING MUNTZING,
Director of Regulation.

Enclosures: 1. Federal Register Notice, 2. Proposed Guide, 3. Public Announcement.

PROPOSED GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS*

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE

The Atomic Energy Commission has issued for public comment a proposed Guide to the Preparation of Benefit-Cost Analyses for Nu

*(37 F.R. 548, January 13, 1972.)

clear Power Plants. The proposed guide has been prepared as an aid to applicants in the preparation of their Environmental Reports. It would apply to such analyses which must be included in Environmental Reports to the AEC from applicants for certain categories of completed and nearly completed nuclear power plants under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Additional guidance for benefit-cost analyses with respect to plants at earlier stages of construction will be issued separately.

Under the AEC's regulations implementing NEPA (Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, issued in revised form on September 9, 1971), applicants for nuclear power plant permits or licenses are required to submit new or supplemental Environmental Reports. The regulations require (subsections A.1 to A.4 of Section 4, Appendix D) that each report include a benefit-costs analysis which considers and balances the environmental impact of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility.

[graphic]

:

The proposed guide takes into account many comments received as a result of discussions of a draft version in a series of meetings with representatives of Federal and State agencies, industry, environmental organizations and others, including a public meeting at AEC Headquarters in Germantown, Maryland, on December 9, 1971.

A format is included in the proposed guide for benefit-cost information to be submitted by applicants. Forms have been designed to show information on the benefits, generating costs, and environmental effects of alternative engineering designs that include designs which would minimize environmental effects. The forms provide a method for summarizing the information required by the AEC.

The proposed guide would supplement the draft Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants that was issued for comment and interim use in February 1971, and additional guidance on Scope of Applicants' Environmental Reports with Respect to Transportation, Transmission lines, and Accidents, issued on September 1, 1971.

All interested persons are invited to submit comments and suggestions concerning the draft guide by February 15, 1972. Comments and requests for copies of the proposed guide should be sent to the Director, Division of Radiological and Environmental Protection. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545. A final guide will be issued subsequently, taking into consideration the comments received.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 10th day of January 1972.
For the Atomic Energy Commission.

L. MANNING MUNTZING,
Director of Regulation.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

AEC ISSUES PROPOSED GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

The Atomic Energy Commission is issuing for public comment a proposed Guide to the Preparation of Benefit-Cost Analyses for

« PreviousContinue »