Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REPPIR Approach to Consequence Assessment and Associated Risk Framework
Authors: C Boyd
Version 1.– 15.2.2020
Slide 2 of 50
Contents
• Summary of Previous REPPIR Approach
• IAEA Approach
• REPPIR ACOP and the Risk Framework
• Uncertainties in Consequence Assessment
• Relevant Good Practice in Consequence Assessment
• How licensees have addressed REPPIR Consequence Assessment
• Results/Conclusions
Slide 3 of 50
Summary of Previous REPPIR Approach
• Reasonably foreseeable event
• NRPB-M-1311
• Schedule 2 values determined (ground level, 30 minute release, D5 best estimate Gaussian dispersion, 100 meter distance, 1 year dose)
• Criteria: 5 mSv effective dose, 50 mSv organ dose.
• If exceeded then Emergency Plan required. DEPZ based on the 5 mSv dose contour (typically 1-7 km).
Slide 4 of 50
5 mSv contour
DEPZ
Town and village bisected
Vulnerable group
Political/ county boundary
Boundary marked by geographical landmarks, roads, postcodes, etc.
A
B
Vulnerable group
Pre REPPIR 2019
4
Slide 5 of 50
IAEA Approach
IAEA-GS-G 2.1
• The Precautionary Action Zone (PAZ) is the area within which arrangements should be made to implement precautionary urgent protective actions before or shortly after a major release with the aim of preventing or reducing the occurrence of severe deterministic effects.
• The Urgent Protective Action planning Zone (UPZ) area where preparations are made to promptly shelter in place, to perform environmental monitoring and to implement urgent protective actions on the basis of the results of monitoring within a few hours following a release.
Slide 6 of 50
IAEA Approach
• Examples
• Reactors > 1000 MWth PAZ 3-5 km UPZ 5-30 km.
• For radioactive sources where A = Activity and D2 = “Dangerous quantity”, A/D2 100 to 1000 (For Pu-239 this would be a dispersible quantity of >6 TBq), No PAZ and UPZ 0.5 km
Slide 7 of 50
REPPIR19 ACOP
• First assess inventories against schedule 1 (also schedule 2 for fissile quantities). If < then REPPIR19 does not need to be considered further.
• If > then assess dose (using PHE data tables for low risk sites) and appropriate methods (at least 2 day and 1 year doses) for other sites to show <1 mSv.
• If > 1 mSv, Risk Framework
Slide 8 of 50
REPPIR19 Risk Framework
Minor
Moderate
Significant
Lower ERL - Sheltering
Very Low Low Medium High Very HighEvents not considered in the design
Imp
act
REPPIR RISK FRAMEWORK
Limited
No emergency planning required by REPPIR
Outline planning required Detailed emergency planning required
Region where regulatory action taken to prohibit or curtail activity - Detailed
emergency planning required
Catastrophic
Likelihood
Slide 9 of 50
REPPIR19 ACOP
• DEPZ determined for events with a predicted return frequency from around >1x10-6 to 1x10-5 per annum. (REPPIR19 Guidance 5(1)-5(2) 152).
• DEPZ determined at lower shelter ERL for averted dose (also thyroid dose).
• Outline planning as per schedule 5 or as specified by MOD. For sites regulated by HSE, the risk framework is used to determine whether an outline planning zone is required.
Slide 10 of 50
REPPIR19 ACOP
• Present results to local authorities for DEPZ for faults with shelter, evacuation and thyroid blocking distances.
• Also provide dose to emergency workers, food restriction distances and long term residual dose.
Slide 11 of 50
ERL contour
DEPZ
Town and village bisected
Vulnerable group
Political/ county boundary
Boundary marked by geographical landmarks, roads, postcodes, etc.
A
B
Vulnerable group
OPZ
11
REPPIR 2019
Slide 12 of 50
Uncertainties in Consequence
• Source Term
• Dispersion/Deposition
• Food transfer
• Dosimetric combined (inhalation/ingestion/physiology etc…)
Slide 13 of 50
Source Term
Slide 14 of 50
Release to Water Release to Air
Shoreline Irradiation
Consumption (Water)
Ingestion
Consumption
(Fish / Seaweed)
Ingestion
Ingestion (Milk)
Ground Irradiation
Ingestion (Foods)
Air Submersion
Air Inhalation
Deposition
Exposure Pathways for Man
Direct irradiation
SRP South West Conference – 16th & 17th October 2019
Slide 15 of 50
Some food transfer and dosimetricfactors
• Transfer rates from soil to food
• Removal rates from soil by erosion etc…
• Processing times for food
• Animal food source (pasture or feedstock)
• Fraction of food sourced locally
• Consumption rates
• Inhalation rates
• Indoor/outdoor occupancy, building reduction factors
• Physiology
• Dose/risk factors
Slide 16 of 50
Uncertainties in Consequence Assessment
• From ONR TAG-45 (*Dosimetric combined);Uncertainty in best estimate of risk from I-131 released from a large break loss of coolant at a PWR
Uncertainty in best estimate of risk from Pu-239 released from a fire at a fuel reprocessing facility
Source term 5 to 50 10 to 1000Dispersion 10 20Food transfer 2 to 20 2 to 20Dosimetric (ingestion, inhalation, physiological etc…)* 4 12
Slide 17 of 50
Combining Uncertainties
• Consequence = source x dispersion x uptake x dose per unit uptake x risk per unit dose
• Uncertainties are then combined as;
• =√{(uncertainty source)2+(uncertainty dispersion)2
+(uncertainty food transfer)2+(uncertainty dosimetric)2}
• So for iodine LOCA release using geometric means of 17 for source term and 6 for food uptake, with a dispersion uncertainty of factor of 10 and 4 for dosimetric; the uncertainty in the consequence assessment is √{172+102 +62+42} = 20. With a theoretical yet to exist dispersion and deposition model with a factor of 1 to 2 uncertainty, this reduces to 18.
Slide 18 of 50
Relevant Good Practice in Consequence Assessment
• R-91 is a Gaussian plume methodology developed by NRPB with associated subsequent reports (R-157, R-322, W-41 etc…) dealing with building wake, wet and dry deposition, habits etc…
• ONR TAG-45 states “R-91 is a “medium” range model, considered reliable between 100 metres to several tens of kilometres from the release point in constant conditions..”
• Provided sensitivities are performed, this is fit for purpose for REPPIR19 consequence assessment.
Slide 19 of 50
Relevant Good Practice in Consequence Assessment
• ONR recognise that for long range assessment (e.gsocietal risk target in SAPs, which require modelling of the entire UK), or post fault consequence predictions, Gaussian plume modelling is limited in it’s applicability.
• ONR are currently assessing whether advanced methods can be used for societal risk safety assessments (awaiting V&V status).
• For the very near field, ONR await research work by Imperial College (ADMLC contract).
Slide 20 of 50
How licensees have addressed REPPIR19 Consequence
Assessment
• One licensee has performed screening using Gaussian plume methods and then on higher consequence faults, used advanced methods (NAME/PACE 95th percentile dose) to determine the geographical extent for Local Authorities to determine DEPZ etc…
• Some lower hazard sites have performed hazard analysis to determine release fractions of inventories and then shown that these are less than schedule 1 of REPPIR19.
Slide 21 of 50
Results/Conclusions
• The minimum recommended DEPZ for sites has changed
– Some have slightly decreased due to the removal of hazards e.g. Magnox defueling
– Others have increased due to the use of more pessimistic weather categories in the methodology recommended by PHE
• In most locations the Local Authority proposes to maintain a similar DEPZ to that currently in place, but modifying to try to use physical features to set boundaries, and aiming to try to prevent bisecting communities
Slide 22 of 50
Results/Conclusions
• Outline planning has been brought into emergency planning.