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:
pplications. The purpose of SAMAs is to review and evaluate plant-design alternatives that could significantly reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing substantial core damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from containment in the event that substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a severe accident). In 1980, the NRC published an interim policy statement (Interim Policy Statement, “Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" [NRC 1980]) that stated that it was the intent of the Commission for the staff to take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions that would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. In 1985, the NRC published a policy statement (“Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants,” August 9, 1985 [NRC 1985a]). It concluded that existing plants posed no undue risk to public health and safety and no present basis for immediate action on a generic rulemaking or other regulatory changes for these plants because of severe accident risk. However, the policy statement indicated that “the Commission plans to formulate an approach for a systematic safety examination of existing plants to determine whether particular accident vulnerabilities are present and what cost-effective changes are desirable to ensure that there is no undue risk to public health and safety.” A 1989 court decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir. 1989] stated that the “Action of NRC in addressing severe accident mitigation design alternatives through policy statement, not rule making, did not satisfy NEPA, where policy statement did not represent requisite careful consideration of environmental consequences, excluded consideration of design alternatives without making any conclusions