ABSTRACT
Actions taken to reduce the consequences of a severe accident either before it occurs or while it’s happening are combined under the term “severe accident management.” So what’s the best strategy for managing a severe accident? The answer depends on your perspective. If we ask different individuals or groups (sometimes called “stakeholders”) who have an interest in a decision about alternative safety strategies, each individual or group may make a different choice. This case study looks into choosing the best strategy that nuclear power plant operators can implement for coping with a particular nuclear reactor severe accident. A decision analysis, using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) input, is developed from three perspectives: costs associated with radiological deaths; costs associated with loss of nuclear plant investment, repair, decommissioning, and litigation; and costs associated with regional financial losses resulting from a nuclear accident. We could argue that each of these is associated with somewhat different but not mutually exclusive stakeholder groups. For example, members of the public and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would be stakeholders because the NRC has a legislative mandate to ensure that nuclear power plants protect the public health and safety (NRC 2002). Federal regulations contained within 10 CFR 50 (NRC 2006a) and supporting regulatory guides (NRC 2006b) have been developed toward that goal. Regional business owners, state and local governments, and members of the public would be considered stakeholders if a nuclear accident affects regional economic activity and threatens public health. Because of their investment loss, nuclear power plant owners and operators would be stakeholders for a core melt accident, even if it releases no radiation and does not harm the public. We can also consider them to be part of the other two stakeholder groups because they are regional business owners and members of the public.
