Agenda - 11-17-1998 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 Chapter 8 Spel~~ Ft.~e! Risks The NRC first evaluated the spent fuel risk in the Reactor Safety Stud~• (RS~1 released in October 19i ~. The NRC had assumed that a spent fuel accident ~.•uuld only involve one-third of a reactor cure's in~•entorv, because the fuel assemblies discharged each refueling outage would be shipped uffsite fur repru- ce~sing shortly thereafter. The NRC considered the spent fuel risk to be smell compared to the risk from accidents involving the reactor cure. The National Em•irunmental Policy Act of 1969 compelled the \RC to release an environmental impact statement for spent fuel storage in August 199. The ~iRC reaffirmed its conviction that the "storage of spent foe! in water puul~ is a well established technology, and under the static conditions of storage repre- sents aloes em~ironmental impact and low potential risk to the health and safety of the public."= The NRC recognized that certain actions had erodeu'-the bads fur its origi- nal spent fuel risk analysis: after reprocessing vas eliminated, utilities had expanded spent fuel storage capacities at nuclear power plants and disposal had been indefinitely deferred. The RSS had not considered su many spent fuel assemblies being stored fur so many years. In addition, studies demonstrated that fire could propagate bet•veen irradiated fuel assemblies in the storage racks, a mechanism nut contemplated in the RSS analysis. The NRC undertook a stud~~ u~ the early 198Us to determine if the interim spent fuel storage rule presented unan- alyzed accident scenarios or more severe consequences than pre~•iuusly analyzed. The study involved a probabilistic risk analysis of pustulated spent fuel pool acci- dents initiated by random system failures, seismic events and dropping hea~-~• loads. The analysis considered initiating event frequencies, s~•stem respunse~, and accident consequences such as cladding fires to evaluate the health effects from the pustulated accidents.' The NRC's study reported that a spent fuel pool accident im•ul~•in~ toe! damage could result in an 8x10" person-rem total radiation exposure to the btii,~88 people living within a SU mile radius of the plant. This radiological dc»z averages 11.98 Rem per person, equivalent to ~ki9? times the maximum dose that federal revelations permit any member of the public to recei~•e in an entire ~•ear. The study estimated that such an accident could result in off-site propert~• ~iim- age totalling 53.E billion in 1983 dollars. As in the RSS, tLe stud~• assumed that the accident involved only the fuel discharged during the must recent refueling out- age (i.e, one-third of a reactor con:).' Huwe~•er the vRC~ study also reported that the chance. ut a spent fuel pool accident resulting m fuel damage ~~•ere l.~~ll) per reaitur year. ~~r ley thin ~~ne t09