Why SMRs Should Have Smaller Emergency Planning Zones

Marcus Nichol and David Young

The following is a guest post by Marcus Nichol and David Young of NEI.

In a recent decision, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed the agency staff initiate a rulemaking to revise emergency preparedness (EP) regulations and guidance for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) facilities. Small, scalable nuclear energy facilities are anticipated to become an important addition to the nation's electric power grids. However, in order for SMRs to fulfill this promise, it is important that an EP framework for these facilities recognize their advanced design characteristics and safety features.

Nuclear power plants must have plans in place to cope with any possible emergency. For the current fleet of large light water reactors (LWRs), these plans include two Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) around each nuclear power plant facility – one of about 10 miles for actions to protect from a possible radioactive plume (a plume exposure pathway EPZ) and the other of about 50 miles for monitoring potential contamination of food and water supplies (an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ). Compared to large LWRs, an accident at an SMR facility can be expected to result in a much smaller and slower release of radioactivity to the environment, and thus have significantly reduced offsite consequences. For this reason, an SMR facility should be able to justify EPZs that are smaller than those required for a large LWR, along with a commensurate reduction in the amount of resources directed to EP activities.

NuScale SMR facility (artist's conception).

Although the effort to establish an EP framework appropriate for SMRs is underway, significant work remains to provide the regulatory clarity, predictability, and stability needed for the deployment of these facilities. To support this goal, NEI submitted a white paper that proposes EP regulations and guidance for SMR facilities, and is intended to serve as a vehicle for engagement with the NRC. The industry’s proposed requirements will maintain the important role that EP plays in providing defense-in-depth for the protection of public health and safety.

Clinch River site (approximately 40 miles west of Knoxville)

Details on how the industry plans to implement EP for SMRs are expected to be submitted to the NRC soon. First, in early 2016, TVA Nuclear is expected to seek approval for an Early Site Permit (ESP) associated with its Clinch River site and, in support of its request, include two proposed emergency plans – one with a plume exposure pathway EPZ boundary at about 2 miles and the other with a plume exposure pathway EPZ encompassing only the Owner Controlled Area (i.e. a site-boundary EPZ). TVA's approach reflects the fact that the different SMR technologies may need different EPZ sizes. The first vendor application for certification of an SMR design will be submitted by NuScale in late 2016 and followed by the first SMR facility combined license application from the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) in late 2017 or early 2018.

We look forward to engaging with the NRC and other stakeholders to define EP requirements for SMRs in support of industry’s upcoming SMR applications.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog