ML20088A724
| ML20088A724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1984 |
| From: | Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404130017 | |
| Download: ML20088A724 (30) | |
Text
s
.-+
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101 APR 101984 JOHN S. KEMPER V IC E-PR ESID ENT ENGINEE R4NG AND RESE ARCN Mr. A.
Schwencer, Chief Docket Nos.: 50-352 Licensing Branch No.
2' 50-353 Division of Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1&2 Severe Accident Risk Assessment (SARA)
Reference:
Letter from J.
S.
Kemper to A.
Schwencer dated March 13, 1984.
File:
GOVT l-1 (NRC) 1-
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
Transmitted herewith are twenty copies of SARA Supplement 3 consistent with the schedule and purposes provided in the reference letter.
Sincerely,
$f"k!
f
/
JLP/gra/040384310 cc:
See Attached Service List
/y
^
8404130017 840410 PDR ADOCK 05000352 m _. - A PDR
.m
~-
cc:' Judge Irwrence Brenner-Judge Peter.A. Morris Judge Richard F. Cole ~
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq..
Mr. Frank R. Rcrnano Mr. Robert L. Anthony'
- Mr. Marvin I. Iewis Charles W. Elliot, Esq.
c Zori-G. Ferkin, Esq.
Mr. Thanas Gerusky Director, Penna. Emrgency -
Management Agency Mr. Steven P. Hershey.
Angus Iove,' Esq.
[C
- Mr. Joseph H. White, III David Wersen, Esq.
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Spence.W. Perry, Esq.
- Jay M. Gutierrez,' Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing
.. Appeal Board
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Docket & Service Section Martha W. Bush,.Esq.
James Wiggins
',V '
Mr. Timothy R.' S. Canpbell-Phyllis Zitzer r
1 4
k r
F 4
a f
~
l S
t r
e
'y+~-
r K
m
= !v 31'"'
-,80a n
$s.>e
- _r,..x x
~
O Supplement 3 REVISED CONSEQUENCE AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
+
.f 1.
PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENT As noted in a letter
- from PECo to A. Schwencer of Licensing Branch No. 2 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coimnicsion, in the process of converting meteorological data from computer tape to the input appropriate for the con-sequence program CRAC2, certain errors were made which resulted in incorrect wind direction frequencies in the CRAC2 calculation. As a result, some cor-rections to the Severe Accident Risk Aasessment are required. The correc-tions do not affect the predicted frequency of core-melt and containment j
failure; they only affect the predicted off-site consequences. The purpose of this supplement is to present revisions of the most important or " essential" c
results of SARA. The essential results are defined as follows.
1.
The results quoted in Chapter 12 of SARA.
2.
Any results used in the ER-OL, Chapter 7.
p f
Overall, the changes that arise from the revisions described above are small relative to the uncertainty bands and do not significantly affect the magnitude of the risk predicted in SARA (at the point estimate, median, or upper estimate) or the validity of any conclusions appearing in SARA or the ER-OL.
2..
REVISED RESULTS
+
l As noted in Section 12.5.1, one of the principal purposes of SARA is to calculate the public risk of early fatalities, latent-cancer fatalities, and other health and economic effects that might result from an accidental release of radioactive material to the environment. In Chapter 12, this risk is presented in the form of complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs). Revised CCDFs are presented in this supplement as detailed below.
Figures 1 through 9 (revised Figures 12-6 through 12-14) give the results for the following cases:
1.
Early fatalities frun all causes (i.e., all internal and external j
events) (Figure l (revised Figure 12-6)).
~
y 2.
Early fatalities from the initiating events analyzed in the LGS PRA
. (Figure 2 (re'rised Figure 12-7)).
- " Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Severe. Accident' Risk-
. Assessment (SARA)," letter from John S. Kemper (Philadelphia Electric Com-l j
y pany) to A. Schwencer (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), March 13, 1984.
l.
' l 4
..m..
,r e..,
,.,,.y.
.,. ~ _.. ~,.,
3.
Early fatalities from the initiating events of the LGS PRA plus a random vessel failure (Figure 3 (revised Figure 12-8).
4.
Early fatalities from seismic initiating events (Figure 4 (revised Figure 12-9)).
5.
Latent-cancer fatalities
- from all causes (Figure 5 (revised Figure 12-10)).
6.
Latent-cancer fatalities
- from internal initiating events (Figure 6 (revised Figure 12-11)).
7.
Latent-cancer fatalities
- from fire initiating events (Figure 7 (revised Figure 12-12)).
8.
Latent-cancer fatalities
- from seismic initiating events (Figure 8 (revised Figure 12-13)).
1 9.
Latent-cancer fatalities
- from seismic and fire initiating events (Figure 9 (revised Figure 12-14)).
The early fatalities and latent-cancer fatalities ** (excluding thyroid cancers) are examined in detail in Figures 1 through 9 (revised Figures 12-6 through 12-14).
The other health and economic effects are given without such a detailed breakdown in Figures 10 through 17 (revised Figures 12-15 through 12-22):
1.
Latent-cancer fatalities (excluding thyroid cancers), population out to 50 miles only, from all causes (Figure 10 (revised Figure 12-15)).
2.
Thyroid-cancer fatalities, population out to 500 miles, from all causes (Figure 11 (revised Figure 12-16)).
3.
Thyroid-cancer fatalities, population out to 50 miles, from all causes (Figure 12 (revised Figure 12-17)).
4.
Whole-body population dose out to 500 miles from all causes (Fig-ure.13 (revised Figure 12-18)).
5.
Whole-body population dose out to 50 miles from all causes (Fig-ure 14 (revised Figure 12-19)).
- For the population out to 500 miles and excluding thyroid cancers.
- The latent-cancer fatalities are the total appearing in the surround-ing population, not the number per year as was presented in the Reactor -
--Safety Study. The numbers presented here should be divided by 30 to obtain the estimated number of latent cancers per year in the period from 10 to 40 years after an accident.
2
-..J
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. ~ _ _ _ _ _
j 6.
Bone-marrow dose of 200 rem or more from early exposure from all causes (Figure 15 (revised Figure 12-20)).
I 7.
Offsite costs from all causes (Figure 16 (revised Figure 12-21).
i 8.
Individual risk of early fatality as a function of distance from the i
plant from all causes (Figure 17 (revised Figure 12-22)).
i The results are expressed as families of curves. The areas under the i
different curves are summarized in Table 1 (revised Table 12-4).
As has been I
explained, these areas can also be used as measures of public risk. The way l
in which CCDFs like those in Figure 1 should be read is described on pages 12-10 and 12-11.
l Figure 18 (revised Figure 12-23) shows the early-fatality median total-j risk curves and the corresponding curves for various internal and seismic l
accident classes (fire-initiated accidents make a negligible contribution to the risk of early fatalities). Figure 19 (revised Figure 12-24) shows the upper estimate (95th percentile level) risk curves.
i Figure 20 (revised Figure 12-25) shows how the results of this study I
compare with those of the IGS PRA.
Figure 21 (revised Figure 12-26) shows a comparison of the results of this study with the CCDF for early fatalities I
j for the boiling-water reactor analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study, both at the RSS composite site and the Limerick site.
!l Figure 22 (revised Figure 12-27) shows the median CCDF for latent-cancer fatalities and the contributions form internal, fire, and seismic accident classes. Figure 23 (revised Figure 12-28) is like Figure 22 (revised Figure 12-27) except that it shows the upper estimates. Note that the revisions of Figures 12-27 and 12-28 include correction of the original curves for seismic i
Class IV accidents which were inadvertently misdrawn. This leads to a slight modification of paragraph 12.5.4.1, which states that seismically initiated Class IV accidents are also significant contributors to latent risk. The replotted curves show that seismically initiated sequences are not signifi-cant contributors to the risk of latent cancer fatalities. The risk resu.lts for this class were properly included in all other results given in SARA.
Figure 24 (revised Figure 12-29) shows the results of the uncertainty analysis on the CCDF for latent cancer fatalities for internal events only, i
compared with the point estimate CCDF from the LGS PRA.
Figure 25 (revised Figure 12-30) shows the median CCDF for latent cancer fatalities from the l
i present study for internal events only, the median result for all initiating
['
events, and the CCDF from the Reactor Safety Study.
Finally, revised values of the individual risk of early fatality aver-aged over the population within one mile of the site boundary have been cal-
?'
culated to be 3E-9 per year at the median level and 6E-8 per year at the i
upper-estimate level. The revised individual risk of latent cancer fatality among the population out to 50 miles is 13-9 per year at the median level and 3E-9 per year at the upper estimate level.
- O 3
,,--,,-4y
-y.,,,,
,,,y,y
,m,_ -.,,.,
,,,y..,g, y
m-Ec.,-,,
,,r y
,mm
._-,_,.yms,w_.wemw-,-r,_,,ymn-.....m-,..,w
i i
4 Table 1.
Areas under CCDFsa (Revised Table 12-9 of ISS-SARA)
I Sth 50th 95th Point Consequenceb percentile percentile percentile estimate l
Early fatalities i
Initiating events of the IAS PRA 2.8-6c 2.0-5 1.6-4 2.78-5
{
i Initiating events of the IAS PRA plus randon
(
i vessel failure 3.2-6 2.5-5 2.3-4 5.11-5 Seismic initiating events 0
5.2-6 1.2-3 2.80-4 All initiating events 5.3-6 6.8-5 1.1-3 3.24-4 Latent-cancer fatalities (excluding thyroid), popula-tion to 500 miles j
Internal initiating events 4.4-4 3.5-3 5.7-2 1.74-2 Fire initiating events 1.4-5 1.8-4 8.9-3 3.79-3 Seismic initiating events 9.4-6 2.6-3 3.0-2 1.14-2 Seismic and ftre initiating i
events 1.5-3 1.1-2 3.5-1 1.52-2 l
All initiating events 2.0-3 1.1-2 1.8-1 3.26-2 l
Latent-cancer fatalities (excluding thyroid), popula-i tion to 50 miles 1.3-3 6.9-3 1.1-1 2.05-2 1-Thyroid cancer fatalities, population to 500 milem 1.8-4 1.1-3 1.3-2 6.39-3 Thyroid cancer fatalities, population to 50 miles 1.7 8.7-4 1.0-2 5.03-3 Whole-body popslation dose i
(asn-ren) to 500 miles 1.3+1 7.5+1 7.5+2 4.44+2 3
Whole-body population dose (asn-ren) to 50 miles 7.6+0 4.4+1-4.4+2 2.61+2 Bone-estrow dose of 200 ren or mored 4.3-5 3.4-4 8.9-3 1.97-3 i
Offsite' economic costs 1.5+3 1.0+4 1.7+5 1.56+4 aAll units are per reactor-year except for offsite economic costs (1980 dollars per reactor-year).
bunless otherwise indicated, the consequences listed are due to all ini-tiating events.
c2.8-6 = 2.8 x 10-6,
[
ODue to early exposure.
4 t
4-
--,-.._-m-3 -,,. - -
,,x r
r, sr.,,---,m-.
,,*e-,,-r-,..
O 4
10 i
i i
i i e iisis i i iiiii1 iiisitiI i i i sisiI eiisisil
=
10-5 4
~
Upper estimate j
to-8 m.
Z
-Median estimate O
g d
10-7
=
~
lower estimate
=
m.
10-8
==
6 m.
W 9
1 I tillit i l i 19118 i i l Illit i i tilli l i i 11111 7
0 1
2 3
4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 Numiser of earty fatalities, N Figure 1. CCDFs for early fatalities from internal and external initiating events.
(Revlsed Figure 124 of LGS-SARA)
~ - - -.
l O
104_
i i
i i i i iiiii ii:::::l iiisariI g i o itsiI e :::::I i
10-5
_~
I 10-6 1,
Upper estimate z
A E
2 u.
10-7 Median estimate E
Lower estimate
/
l 10-0 t
l 10-8 0
1 2
3 5
10 go 10 10 10 10 Number of early fatalities, N i
V Figure 2. CCDFs for early fatalities from the internal initiating events of the LGS PR A.
(Revised Figure 12-7 of LGS-SARA)
L
O 10-4 i
i i
i i i iiiii iisaisil iiiisil iiiisisl i s i iiiil i
j i
10-5 I
10-0
'g
/
-Upper estimate 2
O 1
g e
u.
Median estimate 10 -7 C
~
r Lower estimate 10-8 2
10' 8
' l
0 1
2 3
4 5
10 10 10 10 go 10 Number of early fatalities, N k-Figure 3. CCDFs for early fatalities from internal initiating events and random vessel failures.
(Revised Figure 12-8 of LGS-SARA)
. ~..
I I
r
[
4 10 i
i i
i i
iiisi i iinii1 iisisiI i i i siisI
- iisisiI i
10-5 l
l Upper estimate t
j 10-6 I,
2 z
A O
5 g
e l-u.
[
10-7 7
Median estimate 7
l 10- 8 t
10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 ig 10 Number of early fatalities, N g
k Fipre 4. CCDFs for early fatalities from seismic initiating events.
(Revised Fipte 12-9 of LGS-SARA)
. = _ _ _
O 4
10 i i i siii i i i insin i
i i saisi i i i siiii i
i iisii l
l l
l 5
N 2
Upper estimate 10-5 Median estimate
/
Lower estimate 10-6 3
g z
O 1
g e
u.
10-7 10-8 l
10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatelities. N Figure 5. CCDFs for latent-cancer fataltties from internal, seismic, and fire initiating events.
(Revised Figure 1210 of LGS-SARA) e +- - -,, -,,--,
n-w.,,,,,-,,-,--,w
,,, -,, -. - - -, - ~, - -.
O 104_
i i sigii i
i i i isisi i
i iisii i i i a sip l l
iiinsil.
l i
Upper estimate 10-5 Median estimate Lower estimate 10-6 3
z 9
q E
g u.
10-7
.~.
~
I>
l 10-8 10-9 I '"'
0 1
2 3
4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fata'.ities, N O
Figure 8. CCDFs for latent. cancer from internal initiating events.
(Revised Figure 12-11 of LGS-SARA)
O 4
10 i
i i
i i i sisii i sisii1 iiisiriI iisigiiI iiiiiiiI 10-5
~
~
Upper estimate j
10-6 Median estimate i,
/
x z
A O
E e
4a.
10-7 Lower estimate
/
10-8 10-8
' ' 'I"
0 1
2 4
5 10 10 10 1E 10 10 Number of latent fatalities. N Figare 7. CCDFs for latent-cancer fatalities from fire initiating events.
(Revised Figure 1212 of LGS-SARA)
1 I
O 4
10 i
i i i i iiisi iiisiii1 iiisiiiI iiisiisI iiiisiiiI Upper estimate 10-5
/
I
~
~
Median estimate
/
10-6 3
2 O
1 g
e u.
10-7
~
~
Lower estimate 10-8 10-8 I ""
0 I
2 4
5 10 10 10 gy 1o 10 Number of latent fatalities, N l
Figure 8. CCDFs for latent <:encer fatalities from seismic initiating events.
(Revised Figure 12-13 of LGS-SARA)
)
O I d - i i i i esis1 iiisitiI iiiIIllI iiiIIIII i
i i i iiliti i
~
Upper estimate 10-5 Z
~
i Median estimate l
l 10-8 3
g 2
^
Lower estimate o
[
2 10-7
~
10-8 7
3 I
~
2 I ' ' ' " ' '
l' 10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatalities, N Figure 9. CCDFs for latent-cancer fatalities from seismic and fire initiating events.
\\
(Revloed Figure 1214 of LGS-SARA)
l 2
0 4
10 i i ingini i i i ingii i
i a saisi i i i s aisi i i i i::::
l l
l l
.=
Upper estimate
~
10-5 Median estimate f
/
l i
Lower estimate 10-6,-
3 1
i z^
g e
u.
10-7 10-8 n l 10' 8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent-cancer fatalitie*, N Figure 10. CCDFs for latent-cancer fatalities (excluding thyroid cancer),
population to 50 miies, all initiating events.
(Revised Figure 1215 LGS-SARA)
l i
1 1
0 d
10 i i i s ilii i
iiisilij i i alu) i i i isili i
i iitini Upper estimate 10-5 Median
~
estimate l
10-6
- Lower estimate l
7
,B z
A O
E g
e u.
10-7
.~
10-8 10-8 0
1 2
3 4
6 10 10 10 jg 10 10 Number of Thyroid Cancer Fatalities, N O)
Figure 11. CCDF for thyroid-cancer fatalities, population to 500 miles.
(Revised Figure 1216 of LGS-SARA)
s 4
4 10 i iiissii1 iiiiiiiI isisiisI i i :::::1 i
i i i siniti t
~
~
Upper estimate 7
10-5 Median estimate 10-6 t
1 2:
z
'\\
Lower estimate U
E g
!w 10-7 10-8
~
a r.
' M 10-8 0
1 2
4 5
~
10 10 10 1E 10 (10
, te
/
Number of Thyroid Cancer Fatalities, N 3
s Figure 12. CCDF for thyroid-cancer fatalities, population to 50 milarJ.
all initiatin9 events.
~ :
e (Revised Figure 12-17 of LGS-SARA)
,.f e
,,I s.-
e
,=w,'Wm
.4
??
' s
.,,/
4 b
4 I
i ii: :
i i iisiii i,ii,,
10 8 iIiIilll IIilisll
=~
~
e Upper estimate 10-5
/'
Median estimate T
2 s
Lower estiniate
~
.e 10'8
~'
v h
3 2
A O
- ~,
r S
e u.
10~7 C
(
J 10-8
~
g
/
/
IIItilll tiIItil!
IIttiti!
i e t iesil li i
,e
, i ii, t
I i
10-8 I
4 7
108 109 e
10 105 106 10 Whole body population dose (man-rem) s ':; C)
Figure 13. CCDF for whole-body population dose (man-rem), population to 500 miles.
^
(Revised Figure 1218 of LGS-SARA)
,. g
.d*
,. 4 e
N i ys
O 4
10 t i i
i i
i i isiis i e ilivl i e i i u ol i i i s ig nl i i niipl
=
j
=
Upper estimate 10-5 2
Median estimate
/
w Lower estimate
/
10-6 3
g z^
O C
c g
t u.
10-7 l
l 10-8 l
i 10-8
(
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 10 19 10 10 10 Whole-body population dose (man-rem)
)
[.
(/
Figura 14. CCDF for whole-body population dose (man-rem), population to 50 miles,
(
(Revised Figure 1219 of LGS-SARA)
N.
1 10d_
i i
I i iiIII ieiilii1 iilissI iiilisiI i
ii sillI i
10-5
~~
~
Upper estimate 10-6 g
[
Median estimate A,
E g
eu.
10-7
~
~_
Lower estimate
/
l 10-8 j
l
'"'l
"l
''l
''l 10"*8 4
5 0
1 2
3y 10 10 10 10 10 Number of cffected people, N l
Figure 15. CCDFs for the number of people with a bone-marrow dose of 200 rem l
or more from early exposure.
(Revised Figure 12-20 of LGS-SARA)
{
O M
10 i i i
iitill i
i i i i isiis Iainij i i liirg ieiistig Upper estimate T edian estimate M
10-5 I
C Lower estimate 10-0
-~
3, 3
z
^
O g
t u.
10-7 C
1 10-8
~
''i
''l
' ' ' ' ' "l
' b ' '"
10-8 0
1 2
3 4
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 Offsite Costs, millions of dollars 1980 Figure 16. CCDF for offsite costs. (Revised Figure 12-21 of LGS-SARA)
W
n.,
e,-
t 10-6 4
10-7 Upper estimate
[>
i s1 i
l
~
~
O
.1s
-E 1
4s 1
~
10-8 Median estimate I
I l
1 l
t l
l in-9 2
4 6
8 10 Distance downwind, miles Feare 17 Indivukset risk of early fatality as a function of distance.
~
(Revned Figure 12 22 of LGS-SARA) e
-4.,.,.v..
_. ~..., -
7-
-r.
--.e
1 l
104_
i i
i i i i ::: :
isinizi1 i s i ninI i::::::I iiiiiiil i
10-5
~
d 10-6 q;
z A
~
C E
Total g
2 u.
10 Internal class IV 10~8 7 Random vessel failure 2
~'
i l
Seismic class IV 10~9
'"I 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of early fatalities, N l
i./
Figure 18. Median estimate of CCDFs for early fatalities, all causes.
(Revised Figure 12 23 of LGS-SARA)
--y.
m-
O 10-4 i i i iisii i
iisisi i i i iisig i i i i sig i i,,iiii 10-5 Seismic vessel failure Total
/
10-6 2
Internal dass IV z
A O
Seismic
~
y E
dass IV g
u.
l 10-7 Oass IS t
i Random vessel failure 10- 8
'"'l
''l
l
'l 10- 9 0
1 2
3 4
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of airly fatalities, N Figure 19. Upper estimates of CCDFs for early fatalities, all causes.
(Revised Figure 12-24 of LGS-SARA)
4 10 i
i e i i siin s
i i i i isii i i i i 31vl l
i i s iinl i i i s inl I
=
1 - This study, upper estimate Internal 2 - This study, median estimate i
,snitiating 3 - This study, lower estimate events 4 - This study, point estimate on;y 10-5 5 - From the LGS PRA i
10-0 I
l
-3 1
z i O 1
i g
10-l
^
2 l
S I
3 10-8 l
i 10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 i
l Number of early fatalities, N Figure 20. CCDFs of early fatalities - comperison of this study with the results l
l (Revised Figure 12 25 of. LGS-SAR A)
O 4
i i
i iTTTTT 10 i iisiii1 i isiiiI aiisisiI eiiissiI 1 - Reactor Safety Study, BWR at Limerick site 2 - This study, median estimate, all initiating events
~
~
3 - This study, median estimate, internal events only 4 - Reactor Safety Stud / BWR 10-5 10- 6 3
-h 2
A
~
\\
E
~
~
u.
10-7 1
2 l
10-8 1
4 I
10-9 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 i.
Number of early fatalities, N
(\\-
Figure 21. CCDFs of early fatalitias comparison with the reactor safety study.
(Revised Figure 12 26 of LGS-SARA)
O 4
i i i iiiii 10 i i :::i:1
- I siingsI sinigiI
.i 10-5 I
~
Total latent
~
~ Internal OPREL 10~0
~_
~~
(
[ Fires 3 2:
Z
'" Seismic OPREL
~
e u.
10-7 7
/
- Internal class IV 10~8 C
seismic class IV' k
~
~
10-8 i '"'
l"'
0 1
2 3
4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatalities, N Figure 22. Median estimate of CCDFs for latent concer fatalities.
(
(Revised Figure 12-27 of LGS-SARA) l t
I I
{
_.-_._,,_c
i O
104_
i i
i i i iisii ieisisil i i i iiriI iiiiniiI iiiiniiI i
f Internal OPREL Total i
10-5 Z Fires' I
~ Seismic OPREL' Seismic vessel rupture /
10-0 2
Y Z
h
/
Se.ismic class IV O
1 2
u.
10-7
~
Internal class IV t
10-8
~
10-9 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatalities, N Figure 23. Upper estimate of CCDFs for latent cancer fatalities.
(Revised Figure 12-28 of LGS-SARA)
O d
10 i
i i
a i i iiiiu ieiioli1 i i iiuiI i i a iiuI i i i iiIII 1
4_
10-5 5 ~
[
2 10-6 7
3 mh z
t y
e u.
10-7 l
l 10-8 1 - This study, upper estimate i,
l 2 - This study, mediar estimate ( initiating
~
~
3 - This study, lower estimate j events I only 4 -This study, oint estimate l-l 5 - From the LGS PRA l
10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatalities, N b]
Fiaure 24. CCDFs for latent-cancer fatalities comparison with LGS PRA.
l (Revised Figure 12 29 of LGS-SARA) i l
O 4
i i i::::
10 i i e insis i i siiri i
i iaisi i
iisisig
=
1 d
10-5 2
3 10-0 1,
~
3
~
2 A
e v
5 a
u.
10-7 l
10-8 l
[
1 - Reactor Safety Study BWR
[
j 2 - This study, median estimate, all initiating e vents 3 - This study, median estimate, internal events only -
''i
''i
' ' ' ' ' "i
' ' ' ' ' "i I
10-8 0
1 2
3 4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of latent fatalities, N I
O' Figure 25. CCDFs for latent cancer fatalities comparison with Reactor Safety Study.
(Revised Figure 12-30 of LGS-SARA)
_