Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Nuclear Regulatory Commission”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Key nuclear data for non-LWR reactivity analysis

An assessment of nuclear data performance for non-light-water reactor (non-LWR) reactivity calculations was performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory that involved a thorough literature review to collect related observations made across different research institutions, an interrogation of the latest ENDF/B evaluated nuclear data libraries, and propagation of nuclear data uncertainties to key figures of merit associated with reactor safety for six non-LWR benchmarks. The outcome of this comprehensive study was published in a technical report issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This paper provides a summary of the study’s key observations and conclusions and demonstrates with two examples how the various methods available in the SCALE code system were used to identify key cross section uncertainties for non-LWR reactivity analyses.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Plant Modernization Technical Program Plan for FY 2021

This report presents the Technical Program Plan for FY 2019 for the Department of Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program – Plant Modernization research pathway. A summary of the vision and strategy is provided to explain how this program addresses key issues and barriers for modernizing instrumentation and control technologies and infrastructure in domestic nuclear power plants. The report describes the pilot projects that have been formulated to develop and validate enabling technologies over the next several years that will result in digital alternatives to the legacy analog II&C systems in place today. This will allow much needed modernization of these systems to address reliability and obsolescence problems, as well as serve as a platform for substantial operational improvement. The report further describes key project resources and cooperative relationships, including the Electric Power Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute )NEI), the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the IFE Halden Reactor Project, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and industry suppliers, that are instrumental to the success of the program. The report also lists the schedule for all program products, including the titles and report numbers for all published reports under this program.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Recommendations for a Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan for TRISO Fuel Fabrication Facilities Under NRC Regulations

A fundamental nuclear material control (FNMC) plan, which is required for all fuel fabrication facilities that are authorized to possess more than 1 effective kg of special nuclear material, describes how material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements will be met to comply with US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. Tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel fabrication facilities are likely to have issues in meeting MC&A requirements because of the new processes and fuel types their work involves. This report provides recommendations for an FNMC plan specifically for a TRISO fuel fabrication facility under NRC regulations and includes a draft outline of an FNMC plan. This report was produced for the Materials Protection, Accounting, and Control Technologies (MPACT) program under the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies programs within the US Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

REGULATORY TESTING AND 3D SCANNING METHODOLOGY OF THE DPP-1 TYPE SHIPPING CONTAINER FOR NCT AND HAC TESTS

The safe transportation of radioactive material using appropriately designed and certified transportation packages is important to protect the public and environment. In the United States of America all transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) along with input by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). All packages that contain radioactive material requires that it be transported and regulated by the requirements set by the DOT Class 7 hazardous material transportation. Federal regulations place strict administrative controls on the transport of radioactive materials. The two main goals for transporting radioactive materials are 1. Safety should be the primarily focused on the package because it is the first line of defense. 2. Package integrity should be directly related to the degree of the hazard of the radioactive material contents. The two-part goal ensures that the right package is used. Type B packages are designed to transport radioactive materials with the highest level of radioactivity. Examples of material transported in Type B packagings include spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and high concentrations of other radioactive materials. The purpose of this test protocol is to determine the effects of drop and thermal testing on package performance in a Type B shipping package (DPP-1). Required physical tests for the DPP-1 package include free drop, crush, puncture, penetration, compression, vibration, water spray, water immersion, and thermal. The preparation, regulatory testing, and post-test evaluation of a Type B shipping package tested to the 10 CFR 71.71 and 10 CFR 71.73 requirements will be presented. Six packages were tested and the responses when subjected to the HAC sequence of free drop, puncture, and thermal tests according to 10 CFR 71.73(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) were measured. The Free Drop, Crush and Puncture tests were performed at the NTRC in Knoxville, TN, and the Thermal tests were performed Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX. The test units were subjected to a pre-operational leak testing before the NCT and HAC tests and a post-operational leak test and a helium leak test once regulatory testing was complete. Finally, all test units were scanned with a handheld blue light scanner to capture a 3D CAD geometry of the test units in the deformed shape. The handheld scanner provided the most effective and reliable way to acquire accurate 3D measurements of the test unit. The scanned geometry was sectioned in areas with deformation and the cross-section profile was measured to determine accurate and repeatable results of the deformed shape of the test units.

Martinez, Oscar↗

Quality Assurance Program Plan for SFR Metallic Fuel Data Qualification

This document contains an evaluation of the applicability of the current Quality Assurance Standards from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard NQA-1 (NQA-1) criteria and identifies and describes the quality assurance process(es) by which attributes of historical, analytical, and other data associated with sodium-cooled fast reactor [SFR] metallic fuel will be evaluated. This process is being instituted to facilitate validation of data to the extent that such data may be used to support future licensing efforts associated with advanced reactor designs. The initial data to be evaluated under this program were generated during the US Integral Fast Reactor program between 1984-1994, where the data include, but are not limited to, research and development data and associated documents, test plans and associated protocols, operations and test data, technical reports, and information associated with past United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews of SFR designs. It is recognized that managing the data generated by large research and development projects presents a significant challenge for retaining data integrity and availability. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard NQA-1 (NQA-1) 2008/2009a provides appropriate requirements for this plan.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Procedure for the Computational Models created for the DOE/NRC Collaboration for Criticality Safety Support for Commercial-Scale HALEU Fuel Cycles Project (DNCSH)

This procedure outlines the application models developed as part of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) collaboration for criticality safety support for commercial scale HALEU fuel cycle and transportation (DNCSH) project, an effort authorized by the US Congress. The project is a joint effort among the DOE, NRC, numerous national laboratories, and private enterprises with project management from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 1, January-March 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 A Decision Support System for Maintenance Management of a Boiling-Water Reactor Power Plant, J. H. Shen, A. Ray, and S. Levine; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 12 On Prediction of the Ignition Potential of Uranium Metal and Hydride, M. Epstein, W. Luangdilok, M. G. Plys, and H. K. Fauske; 26 An Overview of the Primary Parameters and Methods for Determining Condensation Heat Transfer to Containment Structures, J. Green and K. Almenas; DESIGN FEATURES: 49 Modem Tornado Design of Nuclear and Other Potentially Hazardous Facilities, J. D. Stevenson and Y. Zaho; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 73 1994 Accident Sequence Precursor Program Results, R. J. Belles, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Coplnger, B. W. Dolan, J. W. Minarick, and P. D. O'Reilly; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 93 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE) Spring 1997 National Meeting; 94 European Safety and Reliability Association International Conference on Safety and Reliability ESREL ’97; 95 Criticality Safety Challenges in the Next Decade; 96 21st International Symposium on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 84 The Authors; 88 Letter to the Editor; 90 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 36.

05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 1, January-March 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 A Decision Support System for Maintenance Management of a Boiling-Water Reactor Power Plant, J. H. Shen, A. Ray, and S. Levine; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 12 On Prediction of the Ignition Potential of Uranium Metal and Hydride, M. Epstein, W. Luangdilok, M. G. Plys, and H. K. Fauske; 26 An Overview of the Primary Parameters and Methods for Determining Condensation Heat Transfer to Containment Structures, J. Green and K. Almenas; DESIGN FEATURES: 49 Modem Tornado Design of Nuclear and Other Potentially Hazardous Facilities, J. D. Stevenson and Y. Zaho; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 73 1994 Accident Sequence Precursor Program Results, R. J. Belles, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Copinger, B. W. Dolan, J. W. Minarick, and P. D. O'Reilly; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 93 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE) Spring 1997 National Meeting; 94 European Safety and Reliability Association International Conference on Safety and Reliability ESREL ’97; 95 Criticality Safety Challenges in the Next Decade; 96 21st International Symposium on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 84 The Authors; 88 Letter to the Editor; 90 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

The Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) Pre-Application Regulatory Engagement Plan

The Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) is a 50 MWe Gascooled Fast Reactor (GFR) being developed by General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) under U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), specifically Advanced Reactor Concepts 2020 (ARC-20). The 3-year conceptual design of the FMR is being conducted with verifications of key metrics in fuel, safety, and operational performance. GAEMS is pursuing design, licensing, and commercialization of the proposed reactor, with demonstration by 2030 and deployment by the mid-2030s. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recommends the pre-application regulatory engagement to provide for early identification of regulatory requirements for advanced reactors and to provide all interested parties with a timely, independent assessment of the safety and security characteristics of advanced reactor designs. As such, GAEMS is developing a pre-application regulatory engagement plan (REP) of the FMR.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Comment Response for the Draft Combined TREAT-LOC & SATS Integral LOCA Experiment Plan

This document provides a detailed description of comments and responses, to the Advanced Fuel Campaign (AFC) loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) experiment plan draft document shared in April 2022. Comments were provided from reviewers from U.S. nuclear fuel vendors, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) all provided comments after solicitation. All comments have been carefully considered and responded to accordingly. Editorial and clarification comments are excluded from this writeup, but all have been addressed directly in the text of the revised plan document.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Sensitivity analysis, surrogate modeling, and optimization of pebble-bed reactors considering normal and accident conditions

This research provides a valuable tool that streamlines the optimization process while significantly increasing its accuracy. This study creates a robust framework for reactor design optimization by incorporating comprehensive modeling using the Comprehensive Reactor Analysis Bundle, or BlueCRAB, within the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). BlueCRAB is the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's code suite for non-light water reactor analysis and includes the Griffin, Pronghorn, and Bison applications. This not only improves the efficiency of the optimization process but also enhances the reliability of the results. Such a tool is essential for advancing the state-of-the-art in pebble-bed reactor technology and is critical for achieving the goals of Generation IV reactors, which aim for safe, sustainable, and economically viable nuclear energy solutions. This work presents and applies this workflow on pebble-bed reactors while considering both normal and off-normal conditions. A representative gas-cooled pebble-bed reactor at equilibrium core conditions serves as the nominal design specification for normal operation and is based on previous research. The depressurized loss-of-forced-cooling accident is deployed for off-normal conditions in this work. After defining design-related parameters and quantities of interest regarding reactor safety and performance, this multiphysics model is sampled using the MOOSE stochastic tools module. The result is a comprehensive dataset of configurations, enabling sensitivity analysis and the generation of surrogate models. Subsequently, the dataset and surrogate models are employed in two optimization studies aimed at maximizing fuel utilization and economic profit while adhering to safety and operational constraints. Performing the optimization process with fuel utilization as the metric leads to an improvement of approximately 10%, compared to engineering-judgment-based nominal conditions. The optimization on economic profit leads to an estimated increase of ~300 million USD over the lifetime of the reactor.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

MELCOR Accident Progression and Source Term Demonstration Calculations for a HTGR

MELCOR is an integrated thermal hydraulics, accident progression, and source term code for reactor safety analysis that has been developed at Sandia National Laboratories for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) since the early 1980s. Though MELCOR originated as a light water reactor (LWR) code, development and modernization efforts over the past decades have expanded its application scope to include non-LWR reactor concepts. Current MELCOR development efforts include providing the NRC with the analytical capabilities to support regulatory readiness for licensing non-LWR technologies under Strategy 2 of the NRC's near-term Implementation Action Plans. Beginning with the Next Generation Nuclear Project (NGNP), MELCOR ha s undergone a range of enhancements to provide analytical capabilities for modeling the spectrum of advanced non-LWR concepts. This report describes the generic plant model developed to demonstrate MELCOR capabilities to perform high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) safety evaluations. The generic plant model is based on publicly available PMBR-400 design information. For plant aspects (e.g., reactor building size and leak rate) that are not described in the PBMR-400 references, the analysts made assumptions needed to construct a MELCOR full-plant model. The HTGR model uses a TRi-structural ISOtropic (TRISO)-particle fuel pebble-bed reactor with a primary system rejecting heat to a recuperative heat exchange r. Surrounding the reactor vessel is a reactor cavity contained within a confinement room cooled by the Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS). Example calculations are performed to show the plant response and MELCOR capabilities to characterize a range of accident conditions. The accidents selected for evaluation consider a range of degraded and failed modes of operation for key safety functions providing reactivity control, primary system heat removal and reactor vessel decay heat removal, and confinement cooling.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Considerations for Introducing Artificial Intelligence into Nuclear Power Plants

Advanced computational tools and techniques such as artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) can transform the nuclear power industry. This is necessary given that the economic viability of the existing fleet is in jeopardy and its labor-centric approach to operations and maintenance. Currently, AI/ML research is being undertaken for reactor system design and analysis including fault and accident prognosis, nuclear risk analysis such as plant safety and security evaluation, and plant operations and maintenance including predictive maintenance. Applications include both existing and advanced reactor technologies with the aim of improving operational and business efficiencies. Most every aspect of the organization can benefit, from instrumentation and control, to work planning, to human-machine interactions and business management. AI/ML in nuclear can simplify complex problems and produce more effective decision-making. Nonetheless, careful consideration must be given to the implementation of an AI/ML initiative. The aims of this research are to 1) review barriers to AI/ML adoption within the nuclear power industry, and 2) suggest potential solutions. These barriers are organized along five distinct categories (Figure 1) that are interconnected. The first are historical barriers that track the industry’s development over the decades including worldwide nuclear events that shaped public perceptions. The resulting federal scrutiny and intense safety culture that emerged are discussed. Technical barriers to AI/ML adoption are considerable, and include data privacy concerns, data governance, and the current lack of AI/ML expert knowledge at the plants. The main business case barrier remains cost, but an absence of an industry-wide vision and wide-scale adoption also produces reluctance. Stakeholder readiness is reviewed with special attention given to regulatory readiness. The 5-year strategic plan for AI readiness recently published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is highlighted. Last, adoption barriers at the user level are addressed including the importance of user experience and explainable AI. The AI adoption barriers described here are inter-related and ideally should be addressed in a holistic fashion.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

National Reactor Innovation Center NRC Early Site Permit Roadmap

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was authorized under the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (Public Law 115–248) to provide private sector technology developers with resources and infrastructure for testing, demonstration, and performance assessment to accelerate deployment of new advanced reactor technology concepts. NRIC’s mission is to enable clean, affordable, reliable energy by supporting U.S. government investments in nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of new nuclear energy systems. It intends to provide existing facilities and other undeveloped and previously developed sites at INL to advanced reactor vendors for prototype technology testing and deployment. Some of these demonstration projects may be subject to DOE authorization, while other projects may require approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to construction and operation. NRIC and INL are considering whether to pursue one or more ESPs to help facilitate new reactor deployment at the INL Site. An ESP would allow early investment in licensing infrastructure in advance of a reactor design being ready to deploy. Through the ESPs, NRIC would help reduce the cost and time required to deploy demonstration reactors at the INL Site. This also will allow INL to bring its nuclear and siting experience to the ESP development process allowing for better and more efficient improvements and utilization of the Site. A preapproved ESP at INL will also remove the uncertainty of NRC siting approvals from the demonstration project proponents, who may not be well positioned to complete the analyses in a timely manner. The purpose of this NRIC ESP roadmap is to provide rigor and understanding needed for INL and DOE decision-makers to make data-informed decisions on pursuing NRC ESPs in support of future advanced reactor demonstrations at INL. The roadmap provides a structured method for addressing potential challenges and identifying options for resolution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

National Reactor Innovation Center NRC Early Site Permit Roadmap

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was authorized under the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (Public Law 115–248) to provide private sector technology developers with resources and infrastructure for testing, demonstration, and performance assessment to accelerate deployment of new advanced reactor technology concepts. NRIC’s mission is to enable clean, affordable, reliable energy by supporting U.S. government investments in nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of new nuclear energy systems. It intends to provide existing facilities and other undeveloped and previously developed sites at INL to advanced reactor vendors for prototype technology testing and deployment. Some of these demonstration projects may be subject to DOE authorization, while other projects may require approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to construction and operation. NRIC and INL are considering whether to pursue one or more ESPs to help facilitate new reactor deployment at the INL Site. An ESP would allow early investment in licensing infrastructure in advance of a reactor design being ready to deploy. Through the ESPs, NRIC would help reduce the cost and time required to deploy demonstration reactors at the INL Site. This also will allow INL to bring its nuclear and siting experience to the ESP development process allowing for better and more efficient improvements and utilization of the Site. A preapproved ESP at INL will also remove the uncertainty of NRC siting approvals from the demonstration project proponents, who may not be well positioned to complete the analyses in a timely manner. The purpose of this NRIC ESP roadmap is to provide rigor and understanding needed for INL and DOE decision-makers to make data-informed decisions on pursuing NRC ESPs in support of future advanced reactor demonstrations at INL. The roadmap provides a structured method for addressing potential challenges and identifying options for resolution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Analysis of Radiological Release From Fueled Irradiation Experiments During Manual Handling (Slides)

Irradiation experiments are manually handled at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) by qualified operators using long handled tools. Standard handling evolutions include insertion and removal from the reactor vessel, transfer to/from a storage location or cask in the ATR canal, and handling/reconfigurations at a canal working tray. Such routine handling has the potential to result in mechanical damage to the experiment boundary which is credited to retain fission products. Since damage can occur due to operator error, this is an anticipated occurrence. This work determines the radiological consequences to receptors inside the ATR facility, as well as public receptors. Given the wide variety of fuel types tested at the ATR, a generic approach to the analysis is taken. The radiological inventory is determined to bound a variety of fuel types (e.g., ceramic and molten fuel matrices) and fission powers on the U-235 enrichment spectrum. The source term analysis considers different release fractions to bound different fuel types and burnups. The postulated handling events occur underwater; thus, retention of the released isotopic content is considered within the canal water column. Retention of radionuclides in the water column is determined using a modified approach of United States (US) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183. Radiological dose to the facility receptor is determined using a compartment release model. Dose to the public receptor is determined using atmospheric dispersion models using site specific atmospheric conditions with the use of the Radiological Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) program version 7.2.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗

Updated Economic Model for Estimation of GDP Losses in the MACCS Offsite Consequence Analysis Code RDEIM Model Report for MACCS v4.2

This report updates the Regional Disruption Economic Impact Model (RDEIM) GDP-based model described in Bixler et al. (2020) used in the MACCS accident consequence analysis code. MACCS is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) used to perform probabilistic health and economic consequence assessments for atmospheric releases of radionuclides. It is also used by international organizations, both reactor owners and regulators. It is intended and most commonly used for hypothetical accidents that could potentially occur in the future rather than to evaluate past accidents or to provide emergency response during an ongoing accident. It is designed to support probabilistic risk and consequence analyses and is used by the NRC, U.S. nuclear licensees, the Department of Energy, and international vendors, licensees, and regulators. The update of the RDEIM model in version 4.2 expresses the national recovery calculation explicitly, rather than implicitly as in the previous version. The calculation of the total national GDP losses remains unchanged. However, anticipated gains from recovery are now allocated across all the GDP loss types – direct, indirect, and induced – whereas in version 4.1, all recovery gains were accounted for in the indirect loss type. To achieve this, we’ve introduced new methodology to streamline and simplify the calculation of all types of losses and recovery. In addition, RDEIM includes other kinds of losses, including tangible wealth. This includes loss of tangible assets (e.g., depreciation) and accident expenditures (e.g., decontamination). This document describes the updated RDEIM economic model and provides examples of loss and recovery calculation, results analysis, and presentation. Changes to the tangible cost calculation and accident expenditures are described in section 2.2. The updates to the RDEIM input-output (I-O) model are not expected to affect the final benchmark results Bixler et al. (2020), as the RDEIM calculation for the total national GDP losses remains unchanged. The reader is referred to the MACCS revision history for other cost modelling changes since version 4.0 that may affect the benchmark. RDEIM has its roots in a code developed by Sandia National Laboratories for the Department of Homeland Security to estimate short-term losses from natural and manmade accidents, called the Regional Economic Accounting analysis tool (REAcct). This model was adapted and modified for MACCS. It is based on I-O theory, which is widely used in economic modeling. It accounts for direct losses to a disrupted region affected by an accident, indirect losses to the national economy due to disruption of the supply chain, and induced losses from reduced spending by displaced workers. RDEIM differs from REAcct in in its treatment and estimation of indirect loss multipliers, elimination of double-counting associated with inter-industry trade in the affected area, and that it is intended to be used for extended periods that can occur from a major nuclear reactor accident, such as the one that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan. Most input-output models do not account for economic adaptation and recovery, and in this regard RDEIM differs from its parent, REAcct, because it allows for a user-definable national recovery period. Implementation of a recovery period was one of several recommendations made by an independent peer review panel to ensure that RDEIM is state-of-practice. For this and several other reasons, RDEIM differs from REAcct.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Economic Model for Estimation of GDP Losses in the MACCS Offsite Consequence Analysis Code

The MACCS (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System) code is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tool used to perform probabilistic health and economic consequence assessments for atmospheric releases of radionuclides. It is also used by international organizations, both reactor owners and regulators. It is intended and most commonly used for hypothetical accidents that could potentially occur in the future rather than to evaluate past accidents or to provide emergency response during an ongoing accident. It is designed to support probabilistic risk and consequence analyses and is used by the NRC, U.S. nuclear licensees, the Department of Energy, and international vendors, licensees, and regulators. This report describes the modeling framework, implementation, verification, and benchmarking of a GDP-based model for economic losses that has recently been developed as an alternative to the original cost-based economic loss model in MACCS. The GDP-based model has its roots in a code developed by Sandia National Laboratories for the Department of Homeland Security to estimate short-term losses from natural and manmade accidents, called the Regional Economic Accounting analysis tool (REAcct). This model was adapted and modified for MACCS and is now called the Regional Disruption Economic Impact Model (RDEIM). It is based on input-output theory, which is widely used in economic modeling. It accounts for direct losses to a disrupted region affected by an accident, indirect losses to the national economy due to disruption of the supply chain, and induced losses from reduced spending by displaced workers. RDEIM differs from REAcct in its treatment and estimation of indirect loss multipliers, elimination of double counting associated with inter-industry trade in the affected area, and that it is designed to be used to estimate impacts for extended periods that can occur from a major nuclear reactor accident, such as the one that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan. Most input-output models do not account for economic adaptation and recovery, and in this regard RDEIM differs from its parent, REAcct, because it allows for a user-definable national recovery period. Implementation of a recovery period was one of several recommendations made by an independent peer review panel to ensure that RDEIM is state-of-practice. For this and several other reasons, RDEIM differs from REAcct. Both the original and the RDEIM economic loss models account for costs from evacuation and relocation, decontamination, depreciation, and condemnation. Where the original model accounts for an expected rate of return, based on the value of property, that is lost during interdiction, the RDEIM model instead accounts for losses of GDP based on the industrial sectors located within a county. The original model includes costs for disposal of crops and milk that the RDEIM model currently does not, but these costs tend to contribute insignificantly to the overall losses. This document discusses three verification exercises to demonstrate that the RDEIM model is implemented correctly in MACCS. It also describes a benchmark study at five nuclear power plants chosen to represent the spectrum of U.S. commercial sites. The benchmarks provide perspective on the expected differences between the RDEIM and the original cost-based economic loss models. The RDEIM model is shown to consistently predict larger losses than the original model, probably in part because it accounts for national losses by including indirect and induced losses; whereas, the original model only accounts for regional losses. Nonetheless, the RDEIM model predicts losses that are remarkably consistent with the original cost-based model, differing by 16% at most for the five sites combined with three source terms considered in this benchmark.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗