Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: f75c60c4-c77d-43bc-9d0f-6a5615e750b4
Document Type: esrp
Title: SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 7
Section ID: 7.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
y given in NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 2 (NRC 1997a), and further analyze any SAMAs that are within a decade of the NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 2, or NUREG/CR-6349 (Mubayi et al. 1995) benefit-cost criteria to ensure that a sufficient margin is present to account for uncertainties in assumptions used to determine the cost and benefit estimates. The benefit-cost criterion in NUREG/BR-0058 is $200,000 per person-sievert averted ($2000 per person-rem averted) for health effects. In addition, a criterion of $300,000 per person-sievert averted ($3000 per person- rem averted) is given in NUREG/CR-6349 (Mubayi et al. 1995) for offsite damage and other related costs for severe accidents. (6) Subject any SAMAs that remain following the screening given above to further probabilistic and deterministic considerations, including a qualitative assessment of the following: ` the impact of additional benefits that could accrue for the SAMA if it would be effective in reducing risk from certain external events, as well as internal events ` the effects of improvements already made at the plant ` any operational disadvantage associated with the potential SAMA. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should describe the applicant’s analysis and detail the staff’s review process. Any design mitigation or procedural modification should be described along with the estimated benefit-cost ratio. The risk reduction for the facility should be provided. A concluding statement similar to the following should be made in the EIS: The staff concludes that the applicant completed a comprehensive, systematic effort to identify and evaluate the potential plant enhancements to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents. The October 1999 7.3-7 NUREG-1555 staff considered the robustness of this conclusion relative to critical assumptions in the analysis— specifically the impact of uncertainties in the risk and cost estimates and the use of alternative benefit-cost