ML12124A294
| ML12124A294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Surry  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/2010 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Information Services |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0083 | |
| Download: ML12124A294 (11) | |
Text
C0 Communication Plan for the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequences Analyses (Revision.4)
Overview The Statei-of-the-ArtR*ea.ctor: Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) project involves the reanalysis of severe accident conseql uences t.o developa, body of knowledge regarding the realistic
.outcomes of severe reactor accidents. In addition to incorporating the results of over 25 years of research, the objective of the SOARCA study -is to include in this updated plant analysis the significant plant improvements and updates (e.g', system improvements, training and emergency procedures, and offsite emergency response) that have been made by plant owners and are not reflected in earlier U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assessments, These improvements to plant safety also include .those enhancements recently made in connection with security-related events.
This initial phase of, the SOARCA project analyzes two plants that are typical examples of the two types of commercial nuclear power plants used in the United States'today. The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom) is a boiling-water reactor (BWR)i near Lancastetir,;:<.:..
Pennsylvania, and the Surry Power Station (Surry) is a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) near.
Newport News, Virginia.
The NRC staff completed a detailed technical evaluation of both Peach Bottom and Surry and provided a summary of the preliminary results to the Commission in March 2009. The draft report is currently undergoing review by an. ndependent peer review panel of subject matter experts. The staff will revise the report to address the peer review panel's comments before initiating internal and external reviews. After all comments have been addressed, the staff will
-provide the SOARCA NUREG to the Commission for review.
Goals The goal of the SOARCA prdject is to determine best estimates of the offsite radiological consequences for severe accidents at U.S. operating reactors using a methodology based on state-of-the-art analytical tools and to present those results using risk communication techniques to achieve informed public understanding of the important factors. These factors include the extent and value of defense-in-depth features of plant design and operation as well as mitigation strategies that are employed to reduce risk. As a result, the SOARCA project will update analyses such as NUREG/CR-2239, "Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria
,Development," dated 'November 1982.
Background
To develop information that will help in its regulatory mission to protect the public, NRC has performed several research studies to understand probabilities and potehtial consequences of severe accidents_a nuclear plants. B h~isia!stuedie S'.h ewy were based on wasevf assum ptions about how.the plants would be have. -AtA4m -ee-6411va' i6atbsve 'b* r erpiete neit.ed.* ..
To improve public understanding, the 'SOARCA projectseeks to produce more realistic and likely estimates.::
/ ý o- -- a -I..
Do- -"
Over the past 25 years, NRC, industry, and international nuclear safety organizations have completed substantial research on plant response to hypothetical accidents that could damage the core and containment. That research has significantly improved NRC's ability to analyze and predict how nuclear plant systems and operators would respond to severe accidents.
During that same time, reactor owners have improved plant designs, emergency procedures.
maintenance programs, and operator training, all of which have enhanced plant safety.i- Plant,.:.,
owners and local governments also have refined and improved emergency preparedness measures to further protect the public in the event of a severe accident., 'The SOARCA team
.ýJY' applied this accumulated research and incorporated plant enhancements to achieve a more':"
realistic evaluation of consequences from severe nuclear accidents. The results of this '
research will become the foundation for communicating aspects of severe accidents and,:
,updating information from older research studies.U The NRC staff used state-of-the-art information and com puter modeling tools to develop best A4 estimates of accident progression and, for scenarios in which accidents proceed to core damage, what radioactive material could 'potentially be released into the environment, The staff then assessed those releases to realistically estimate the potential consequence to the public.
The staff considered the following data in these new analyses:
Design-specific reactor accident sequence progression, taking into account the plant's, current design configuration, 0 Dsign-specinic potential containment failure timing, location, and size.
- Site-specific emergency planning assumptions, including evacuation and sheltering.
- GCredit for operator actions based on emergency operating procedures, severe accident management guidelines, and post-911 1 and other mitigation measures that were in place at the 'tine of the asses'sment.
, :Site-specific, meteorological conditions and updated population data.
The agency learned more about ri_ ccidents. by rigorously and realistically quantifying a relativelyfyew important events. The project set technical criteria to determine which scenarios were important and focused its resources accordingly. The project team included scenarios having an estimated core 'damage frequency of 10-6 per reactor year (1 in a million) or greater.
.Also, bypass 'scenarios having an estimated core damage frequency of 10-7 per' reactor year (.1 in 10 million) or greater were included.
As noted above, the accident analysis for each scenario included credit for operator mitigation actions. Also, to quantify the benefits of the mitigation measures and4! - fffr
__cDaýýn4q asýa~i sf-un miti_'to ,severieacident sceir~aros, the SOARCA project analyzed these same scenarios assuming the event proceeded as unmitigated, leading ultimately to an offsite release. a-A" J'r_
An .independent, external peer-review committee'wiill examine the approach and 'underlying assumptions and results obtained for Peach Bottom and Surry to ensure that they are defensible and state of the art.
0ýýDelsi ý11 n ýrn t Iýrt 0 U
KeyMessages=
General Messages In carrying out its mission to protect public health and .safety, NRC performs research to.
determinethe risk oftcommercial nuclear power.plant operation to the public. The SOARCA research. project realistically estimates the potential.consequences.to the public given the state-of-the-art understanding of accident phenomena amplant performance:sunder.accident condition.: . . ., . .. .
.The results of this project indicate reactor safety has improved over the :years as a result:
of.efforts by industry to improve.plant design and operation and by NRC to develop improved regulations to enhance safety.
The SOARCA cancer risk values .are all significantly smaller than the .NRC-established safety goalthat `individual.nmembers of the: public should be provided a level of protection from the consequences of: nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant additional risk'to life and health " ."
Both mitigated and unmitigated cases.0predict that essentially no early fatalities will.occur, and average individual latent cancer.fatality risks are: very low for the unmitigated scenarios examined.
, Our analyses indicate that ptotentialradiation releases .would occur several- hours later than earlier thought, and they would be substantially smaller; as a result, al
- coxis*calr from severe accidents at nuclear power.plants would be smaller than / )
prevo sy -i'cted.*
- The results of this consequence. analysis. provide the public, NRC, and other. government agencies with a more realistic picture and:abetter.understanding of potential consequences in the unlikely event of: an accidentL Additional Key Messages for the Scientific.Community Information developed from years of: research has been incorporated into the tools/that NRC uses to evaluate potential accidents.: These tools:are the SPAR, MELCOR, and MACCS2 computer codes. These codes were used to select the scena rios,: model nuclear power plant systems and. operator: responses to severe accident conditions and produce a best estimate of consequences to the public.
- This study focuses on those accidents estimated to :have.a:one in a million chance per year or greater of core damage (a core damage frequency of about equal to or greater
- than 10.6 per-reactor year). SPAR models were used t0identify those potential scenarios for further evaluation.
In addition, the project placed emphasis.on sequences that may be a little less likely to occur but with the potential for more severe consequences:. Containmentibypass: events have the potential for more severe consequences and, therefore,:those bypass sequences estimated to have a 1 in 1.0 millioin chance per year or greater to result in core damage (a.core. damage frequency equal to or greater.than 10 .:per reactor year) i.-." n a
were included w~ithin th scope of SOARCA. The project teams used the SPAR models to identify the included potential bypass scenarios.
- Plant-specific MELCOR analyses reflected design-specific features. MELCOR code modeled the nuclear power plant behavior, the progression of the accident, and the radioactive material released into the environment. This includes the timing of fuel damage, component failures, and releases to the environment.
- 'Structural analyses determined the exp.cted containment performance during accidents. /P A_?
. .MACCS2calculations used site-specific actions, emergency planning," weather data, population data, and evacuation times (including sheltering) to estimate consequences
...such as early fatalities and latent cancer4:" :' " -
Communication Team (U)The cormmunication team includes the following members and will be responsible for facilitating communication activities for the SOARCA project:
Team Manager:
S gJimi Yerokun, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Team Members:
- Mark Orr, SOARCA Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
- Charles Tinkler, Office of Nu~clear Regulatory Research
- 'Richard Guzman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation aScott Burnell, Office of Public Affairs
- Susan Bagley, Office of the Executive Director for Operations
- :David Decker, Office of Congressional Affairs As the project progresses, other NRC staff members are expected to participate in communication activities as needed.
Audiences
- ýExternal Stakeholders include:
- General public
- *Public interest groups
- :AMedia
- Congress
- Licensees~
- Nuclear industry organizations (e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute, Institute of Nuclear Power.
'Operations, Electric Power Research Institute)
- Department of Homeland Security and other Federal and State agencies:..
- State. regulators and Agreement'States Internation'al groups
,Internal Stakeholders include:.
- The Commission
- Advisory Committee onReactor. Safeguards:(ACRS).
- NRC staff Communication Tools The following tools will be used to communicate with external. stakeholders:
- ,Public Website SOARCA information will be placed on the external Web site.
Q~uestions and Answers This *cnitains infirmatrion that highlights aspects of the project that.
audience members may inquire about. These questions and answers are given at the end of this Communication Plan.
Fact Sheet A fact sheet will be prepared to provide the public with an overview of the project. (
.Information booklet A summa f-*e SOARCA project will be presented in a separate NUREG,.K ooklet using plain language and applying risk communrc'8ation techniques. This booklet is atool to enable N&G 2-
- It, twIl be ibussuedafterthe peer. i completed.
-- .- s Iw l issued t peer uners ta di ....
Public Meetings Meetings will be held to publicly share information at key phases of
(~ the project.
C:,- 21 Press Releases
,I- A press release will be issued after the peer review is completed and at otheritimes as appropriate, Press releases will be coordinated with the Office of Public Affairs.
.Technical Reports Technical information about the process and results will be documented in a NUREG and will be made publicly "available through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and the NRC's external Website. This NUREG is being developed and will be issued after the peer review is completed.
Briefings
.External Briefings will be provided to congressional and State stakeholders as requested.
Internal Briefings Prior to releasing the results, the SOQARCA staff will hold briefings for technical staff in NRC regional offices and other interested NRC staff to help prepare them to communicate about the results.
MILESTONES OF COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES The following table identifies the planned or actual completion dates for the SOARCA documents.
Action Finish Date Semi-annual briefing rfi ::*;.::.*::..].:.:i,.::*::..d . TAs of Commission dnots~:i;*:;L;.;:.:.*!.ii : i"::
io:
. . .- .I -,.r. . . Ongoing
.:o :. ...
Quarterly briefing of DEDO ongoing
Action Finish Date Periodic Stee*ing Committee briefing Ongoing First review of draft SOARCA NUREG by.independ ent p eIe ;r reviewers Complet edL07/29/2009 Second review of draft, SOARCA NUREG by independ ent: peer, reviewers Completed: 09/1 7/2009 Revise SOARCA NUREG per reviewer comments 0/22/201 0 Third review of draft SOARCA NUREG and draft NUREG/BR by 2/22/2010- 2/2512010 independent peer reviewers Firstrevie6w of draft SOARCA NUREG and draft NUREG/BR by NRC 1129/2010i- 3/11/2010 Headquarters and Regional Offices Incorporate reviewer comments and RES internal review 3/11/2010 -4/15/2010 First review of draft SOARCA NUREG and: NUREGIBR by ACRS and OGC 4/23/2010 - 6/10/2010 (Possible May 2010 ACRS meeting)..
Incorporate ACRS comments 6/11/2010 - 6/25/2010 Distribute updated SOARCA NUREG and* NUEG/BR to NRC HQ and 6/128/2010 NRC field offices for review Distribute draft SOARCA NUREG and NUREG/BR to Surry & Peach 07/2/2010 - 7/16/2010 Bottom for fact checking Review of draft SOAROA NUREG and NUREG!8R by ACRS and OGC 7/30/2010 - 9/10/2010 (Possible September 2010 ACRS meeting)
Release draft SOARCA NUREG and NUREG/BR for public review 8/5/2010.
Public Meetings at Surry and Peach Bottom NPPs 8/25/2010 - 8/31/2010 Incorporate ACRS and OG comments on draft NUREG and NUREG/BR 79/10/2010 - 10/01/2010 RES Mgmt review of final SOARCA NUREG and NUREG/BR 10/4/2010 - 10/2212010 Brief Steering Committee on final SOARCA NUREG and: NUREG/BR 10/22/2010 Present final NUREG and brochuretto Commission- with recommendations 10/29/2010 The communication plan continues to be updated to reflect key ideas being communicated to stakeholders and key decision points in the project's progress. Communication from these venues will be reflected in responses to key questions and ideas during the project's progress.
New versions of the communication plan will be posted in ADAMS and on the agency's internal Web site list of active communication plans.
Evaluation and Monitoring The communication plan continues to be updated to reflect key ideas being communicated tto stakeholders and key*decision points in the project's progress. Communication from these venues will be reflected in responses to key questions and ideas during the project's progress.
,)r -De is n ' : ,.a ....
Questions and Answers What is the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequences Analyses (SOARCA) project?
SOARCA is a research project that develops realistic estimates of the potential public healthý.
effects*from a nuclear power plant accident where low-likelihobd scenarios could release radioactive material into the environment and potentially cause offsite consequences. The project also evaluates and improves, as appropriate, methods and models.for realistically evaluating both the plant response durinng si cluding evacuation and sheltering and the potential public riskY" Why is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performing this study?
NRC is doing this study to develop the most realistic evaluations possible for the potential consequences of severe nuclear accidents, Over the years, NRC, industry, and international nuclear safety organizations have completed substantial research on plant response to hypothetical accidents that could damage the core and containment. The results have significantly improved NRC's ability to analyze and predict how nuclear plant systems and operators would respond to severe accidents. Also, plant owners have improved the plant.
- design, emergency procedures, maintenance programs, and operator training, all of which..
have improved plant safety, Emergency preparedness measures also have been refined, and improved to further protect the public in the highlyunlikely event of a severe accident."'~
Combining all of this new information and analysis will improve the realism of accident
.consequenlce evaluations.
I A How will this study be different from earlier studies?
The SOARCA project will: -/7 LA-S Use an improved understanding of source terms and severe accident phenomeniology, /1~~
S Credit the use of severe accident mitigation strategies and procedures. pd?. ~Y~tA#L S Use updated emergency preparedness modeling. .5 /~' 4
'.,~. ~4, ~.
S Account for plant improvements. * ~
S Use modern computer resources and advanced software to yield more accurate results.
In addition, the SOARCA project is designed to be a more realistic estimate. Some of the I%"=
earlier studies also were designed to be best estimates; however, because they were limited by the available knowledge of accident phenomenology, these older studies were :-* - ":
conservative (particularly the very improbable severe accidents). The SOARCA lroý'eCt Will provide the latest basis fromh which the public and .decisionm ake s can assess the.
consequences of severe reactor accidents. ./..-
What are the potential uses of the SOARCA study?)
The overarching purpose of this study is to provide more realistic information about potential :
nuclear power plant consequences to the public and other stakeholders including Federal, State, and locala uthorities. This study also will increase understanding of the value of defense-in-depth features of plant design and operation, including the use of mitigative strategies.
What consequence measures are being estimated?
- t.. .....
This study assesses the health effects of ai potential radiation release to the general public.
State-of-the-art analytical models estimate the individual risk of prompt fatality and latent cancer fatality that could occur in the remote event that a severe reactor accident occurs.
Prompt fatalities are those resulting from exposure to very high doses of radiation as the result of a release. These fatalities occur days to months after exposure.. Latent cancer fatalities are those .resulting from the long-term effect of radiation exposure. The estimates of public health effects in this ,new study realistically account for the emergency planning measures in place at each reactor site, unlike some of the past studies that used generic assumptions.
The results from both mitigated and unmitligated cases predict that essentially no early fatalities will occur and average individual cancer fatality risks are very low for the,.
unmitigated scenarios examined.
Which plants are participating in the SOARCA project?
The first phase of SOARCA analyzes examples of two major types of nuclear reactor in the
,United States: (1) Peach Bottom Atomic Station, a boiling-water reactor (BWR) in Pennsylvania, and (2) Surry Nuclear Power Plant, a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) in Virginia. After the first phase has been completed, NRC will consider whether analyses are needed for other reactor types and sites.
D,:oes this study consider new reactors that may be built?
No. New reactor designs and containments are not part of the project. The project analyzes existing reactors.
- Are terrorist acts, such as aircraft impacts, being analyzed as part of SOARCA?
No. The focus of this study is on accident scenarios-not terrorist-related ones-that could potentially lead to a radiological release into the environment. NRC addresses security-related events in separate, nonpublic analysis.
Are accidents at spent fuel pools considered in this study?
No. This study does not consider spent fuel pools. The project is focused on evaluating the severe and very unlikely reactor core accidents that may occur quickly at operating power reactors.
.Why are the fatality numbers different from the resu~lts predicted by earlier research?
NRC is providing the most realistic, most accurate estimates calculated to date. When NRC published previous studies, the available analytical methods and data about nuclear plant operation were cruder and theiries er,-'ther-efce-nseriv Since then, NRC and the industry have improved safetyiŽand mitigation measures in the plants. In addition, NRC has improved methods to. calculate consequences. Therefore, the SOARCA project is an update to the previous research based on all the information known today.
How much different would the numbers be if NRC did the calculations the same way they were done inthe past?
- . n l .. ' U .'- - .. / . ......
...X: : *:.}
= : . "... ,. . . .a . ".. .:, :: .) t:
o
V e is'r n fih The.ýpuirpose o~ithetSOARCA.-prejetl~is-somewhgfdf6tifrr th-~'6Itbsdn~ the -
past15--<'~~se this-project _qrqesaa~yis.Inaddition,-RC' R~ C' k-oi :~ ~
ZtUIeVcapabilities, i ~ ~ ~~ ii ~~~~~~""4 ii!!iiiiiýbi~l~!iii~iii+ii
~and,.m-el~in~g..nethedologies-arf-(t-rnw, a_ rr Adetailed report (available through Agencywide Documents Access and
- Management System [ADAMS]) will describe the justifications for the changes in both input ?
values and calculation methods-regard less of their impact on the final number.
Wydoes NRC report individual latent cancer fatality risk and not total cancer fatalities.?.
Reporting the latent cancer fatality risk promotes better understanding and meaning to (2.
inaividuals. Cancer tataiity riSK provides easier co parison to otner Kinds ot cancers and context to what the accident scenarios mean to individuals. In addition, this method better.::
. pep ents ttto the site. The focus on -individuals from fjawa yto 4 cls in..crease in risk due to the :p ,-nostula se r uckqje.-. T .S. /
En'vironmental Protection Agency and others also commonly us~e cancer fatality risk as a way to report consequence.
If I live within one of the reported distances in the results of SOARCA, how do I interpret.
my specific risk relative to the average value reported?
The human health risks calculated in SOARCA are very small. To interpret the average individual cancer risk results from SOARCA, it is helpful to consider the NRC safety goal for cancer risk of 2 in 1 million per year.
ae.00abilriojp+anind ge.pendhe average indpi*rdual risk numbers decrease thexfurther the distance out from the planal(e.g,, 50 and 100 miles). The SOARCA cancer risk values are alLo....
significantly sm~aller than the NRC-established safety goal that "individual membe~rs of the*
public should be provided a level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power Z jY plant operation such that individuals bear no significantadditional risk to life and health".
Is this study being reviewed by outside experts?
Yes. In addition to the peer review afforded by NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent external peer review of scientific and technical experts has assessed the methodological approach, underlying assumptions, and results obtained for Peach Bottom and Surry to ensure that they are defensible and state of the art. This peer review is a common practice in research and is used to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the research project. NRC will continue to use the methods shown to be
,strengths of the research project, and the experts's comments on the weaknesses will help improve future research projects.
i
- ::::::::::::::::::::::::e:: ýer ý 1 Zi
ýei================== ,in:a:::* : !e::;
SOARCA NUFOEG-~d NUREG/OBRRevk.- -d Arpp-oP--oi~ 1.. ::;
i I f'u
____~~~~~~7 ______________
SOARCA NUREG Rev 0 to Peer Review Committee 2a I 'a I qj i22322l3 1i1 _L76S222I1 jY4l7 14-2128 7 421286 4101022 JLF)~ 6 wa0,4112- ____
Incorporate Peer Review Comments into Vol 3 & 4 Incorporate Peer Review Comments into Vol 1 & 2 Techinic-aly edit SORACA NUREG - Rev..I 1112 V15 NRC technical review of SOARCA NUREG Rev1*
Incorporate NR Technical Comments ....
Provide SORACA NUREG Rev. 2 toDSA Mgt 1 2 Y,
Meet wI/DSA Mgmt to discuss NUREG Send SOARCA NUREG Rev. 2 to Peer Review Comm Issue SOARCA NUREG Rev. 2 for NRC internal review 211.26 3rd meeeting of Peer Reviewers 1/25 12 ...Inteirnal NRC review of 6SARCA NuREG Rev 2 41151 13 Peer Reviewers comment on SQARCA NiUERG Rev. 2
-1 incorporate comments from Peer Reviewers & NRC Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev. 3 toDSA Mgmt
""113" 16 Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev. 3.to Steering Committee Review of Rev. 3 by DSA Mgm.t 19 Issue SOARCA NUREG Rev. 3 to ACIRS for review v1614/22 4)22 Issue SOARCA NUREG Rev 3 to OG* for review 20 Review of Draft SOARCA NUREG by ACRS & OGC 4 36111 0.t2 Incorporate ACRS & OGC Comments 22.
Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev. 4 to RES Mert.,
24 Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev. 4 to Steering Committee
- .+
- ii
- ++++:
,+:
- i,;
,!+.
,.++',:+ :i]
- ++.,':i ': ....4 +i i+!+:':.Rev.
- ++: f.+ ;i~i i":,;!'.;,+,!
,+;
- ',+" ':~i:
i;................: *-61295 Provide SOARCA NUREG to NRC RegonOfie RES Mgmt review of SOARCA NUREG Rev. 4, Rt~~ikP Up1ý - UpsP .(3nn y anett Projnc: SOARCA NUREG Sc~die
)Railed iUPMlen -- D E3n spli D ou y -Macye
SOARCA NUREG -nd NUREGIBR R71andb APPro pias Oc'6 U9 id1J..
L qJU [bp JASS'US:~~3 No'i¶I Ua~ 9Jan10i PýP rluht~ii`Y- 1 L%1b-1iiL i u '10:
U 7 _____ 6 132-1 [11S N-6a 1M:15 22 F3196 101243 i
. 4 6;28 fig SOARCA Steering Committee review of Rev 4 2 7-6128 ý,qi2 NRC Regional Office Review of Rev 4 28 Issue SOARCA N.UREG Rev 4 to Sorny & Peach Bottom 715 % 7116' 249 Fact-checký of NUREG & NUREG/BR by plants' 7119 712 Incorporate comments from reviewers 71i23 Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev 5 rto Mgmt DSA Provide SOARCA NUREG Rev. 5 to Steering Committee Brief RES Mgmt on Rev 5 Brief Steering Committee on Rev 5 39 Release SOARCA NUREG for public review Public Meetings at Sorry & Peach Bottonm
Submit final SOARCA NUREG to OGC for review Incorporate ACRS & OGC Comments 40 RES Mgn't review of final SOARCA NUREG -i f(114~ J0122 Z10,22 Brief Steering Committee on final SOARCA NUREG 41
- 1012 Present final SOARCA NUREG to Conmmission PrseCi: SOIARCA o NUREGOShchrn~l. ý GTop~ 5s
61 T.6 12!8,09 Roid Up .~~. E...n Lil~if-k-
.......