Risk and regulatory considerations for small modular reactor emergency planning zones based on passive decontamination potential

Travis S. Carless, Sola M. Talabi and Paul S. Fischbeck

Energy, 2019, vol. 167, issue C, 740-756

Abstract: It has been argued that risk and performance-based approaches to licensing would be appropriate for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) because their risk profiles differ from large-scale reactors. This is based on several factors including their limited electrical capacity of 300 MW, the below grade reactor vessel, and passive safety features. One design feature that can significantly reduce accident severity is the larger lateral surface area-to-volume (A/V) ratio of SMRs. Following a nuclear accident, this larger A/V ratio can increase the removal of radioactive particles due to natural phenomena compared to large light water reactors (LWRs). To quantify the improvements in safety, this work estimates the airborne radioactivity within containment and environmental dose exposure in a post-accident scenario for an advanced Generation III+ LWR (AP1000), a representative Generation II LWR (Surry), and an SMR. On average, the AP1000, Surry, and SMR produces 139, 153, and 104 curies/ft3 (182, 200, and 136 terabecquerels/m3) 75 min after a Loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA). Using Monte Carlo simulations, the SMR produces less radioactivity per volume in containment than the AP1000 and Surry 84% and 96% of the time, respectively. On average, the AP1000, Surry, and SMR produces 84, 106, and 7 thousand curies/MWth (3.1, 3.9, and 2.5 petabecquerels/MWth) 75 min after a LOCA. The larger A/V ratio of the SMR plays a substantial role in reducing the radioactivity. While it is expected that the SMR would have a lower levels of radioactivity compared to the AP1000 and Surry, the SMR produces less radioactivity after normalizing by thermal reactor power and containment volume. With respect to environmental dose exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency 1–5 rem (0.01–0.05 sieverts) Protective Action Guide (PAG) limits for whole body exposure is not exceeded at the 10-mile (16.1-km) EPZ using the mean estimates for the AP1000 and Surry. The iPWR does not exceed the 1 rem (0.01 sieverts) lower PAG limit for whole body exposure at the 5-mile (8-km) EPZ using the mean value. These findings can be used in conjunction with the improved analytical methods, found in the SOARCA study, to provide accurate and realistic estimates for exposure. This will help create a pathway to develop a regulatory basis for technology-neutral, risk-based approach to EPZs for iPWRs.

Keywords: Nuclear power; Policy design and impact analysis; Energy policy; Accident risk (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218321704
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:energy:v:167:y:2019:i:c:p:740-756

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.173

Access Statistics for this article

Energy is currently edited by Henrik Lund and Mark J. Kaiser

More articles in Energy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().