ML19297A396

Staff Analysis Feasibility of Applying Price-Anderson Indemnification to Byproduct Matl Licensees

ML19297A396
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1979
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML19284C733	List: ML19284C732 ML19297A393 ML19297A396 ML20003G655 ML20003G658
References
FOIA-81-69 SECY-80-467, NUDOCS 8010300578
Download: ML19297A396 (21)

Text

.

'A Staff Analysis Re:

Feasibility of Applying Price-Anderson Indemnification to Byproduct Material Licensees Operations and Planning Branch Office of Nuclear.fiaterial Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulato'ry Connission

' July 1979 B010300.6?F

1.

Introduction 9

D TYh LAs

1. %

A study of the need for Price-Anderson coverage on the licensed radioisotopes industry (fuel cycle as well as byproduct materials) was requested by the Comission.

This request resulted in a contract being issued by the NRC in May 1977 to ORNL to assist in a study of the economic conseq~uences resulting from the accidental releases of radioactivity for four typed of licensed operations.

These are as follows:

1.

Plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants.

2.

Highly enriched uranium processing and fuel fabrication plants.

3.

Byproduct plants handling large quantities of materials 4.

Spent fuel storage plants.

The study was to provide a basis, for the 'NRC, to detennine whether or not Price-Anderson indemnification should be extended to these facilities.

The results of the study have been published in a NUREG report (NUREG/CR-0222) by ORNL.

It summarizes a list of radiois'otopes (fuel cycle and byproduct materials) in quantities which, if released to the atmosphere in "dispersable" and " respirable" form,.are estimated to require cleanup expenses and dose assessments in excess of $140 million dollars.

This sum of money is the amount of privately available nuclear liability insurance coverage then needed prior to utilizing Price-Anderson indemnification.

NUREG/CR-0222 is a refinement of the Guthrie-Nichol's Report, ORNL-3441 of 1964 using updated costs and more relevant population densities.

The Guthrie-Nichol's report investigated for the Price-Anderson Act, the possible economic ccasequences

2 of accidental releases from:

(1) U-233 and Pu-239 fuel fabrication plants, and (2) radioisotope processina plants.

The methodology of the NUREG/CR-0222, similar to that used in the Guthrie-Nichol's report, is limited generally to one pathway - inhalation.

The monetary loss estimates are based on three ranges of contamination and three ranges of exposure as summarized in NUREG/CR-0222.

A ground contamination level for non-restricted use was established for isotopes

-5

-I other than SR-90, I-131, and Cs-137 using a resuspension factor 10 m

in combination with the maximum permissible concentration-in air for non-restricted areas given in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II.

The contamination levels for Sr-90, I-131, and Cs-137 were conservatively based on their getting into the food chain.

NUREG/CR-0222 generically estimates quantities of some radioisotopes and licensees that might require Price-Anderson coverage, however, it did not analyze in detail all isotopes or specif.ic activities of Commission licensees in order to determine needs for actual coverage.

Accordingly, further analysis was required to:

1.

Determine potential release quantities of the full spectrum of byproduct materials handled by licensees.

2.

Determine by further analysis whether those licensees who might need Price-Anderson overage on possession limits alone are actually in need of such indemnification when specific current operations and activities are considered.

3 2.

Evaluation Proaram The preliminary draft of report NUREG/CR-0222 dated May 2,1978, with regard to the use of fuel and byproduct materials, was reviewed.

The preliminary report was discussed with the author, J. McBride, in June 1,978,'and a revised edition of the draft report was issued on July 5,1978, which incorporated many of the items which were discussed. As a corollary effort, a mathematical equation was developed which simplified the ORNL analysis for the purposes of the Price-Anderson study (Appendix 1).

This equation. represented the exposure-and deposition isopleth values of NUREG/CR-0222.

The equation has been applied to the radioisotopes listed in Appendix C of

~10 CFR 20 to derive calculated release values for radioisotopes that might require Price-Anderson coverage.

The values for these radioisotopes are given in Table 1 attached to this analysis.. Those radioisc: opes which resulted in extremely large calculated values were immediately dismissed from further censideration because such possession limits were beyond the level covered by 237 252 HRC licenses.

Except for Np ara Cf

, no new radioisotopes were found that should be added to the list included in NUREG/CR-0222.

Other transuranics may qualify in the future based on increased usuage and availability of such materials and further analyses may be required as new applications occur.

We also recognize that further analyses may be required at the time that specific decontamination limits are established.

For information and perspective purposes, two such limits (1/10 and'l/100 of 10 CFR 20) are contained in the last 2 columns of Table 1 of this paper.

v 4

3.

Screenino Criteria One of the primary purposes of this study was to develop screening criteria that would serve to determine whether possession of radioiso, topes authorized in licenses and aualifying under the calculated release values, needed to be considered further for the study.

Specific properties of the radioisotopes that were used in NUREG/CR-0222 were studied to help determine such criteria.

It was found that some properties of the radioisotopes could not be used as a basis for such screening because of their wide range of variability. Among the properties which could not be used are MPC, specific activity, and radiotoxicity.

However after due consideration,'the following criteria' were developed for this study:

A. Initial Phase Criteria selected for use by considering properties and aspects of the radioisotopes that could qualify them further for indemnification by quick perusal of a license:

1.

The radioisotopes must be " byproduct materials."

Byproduct material is defined in 10 CFR Part 20 as any radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to ra>:iation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material. Thus, accelerator-produced radioisotopes are not licensed by the NRC and do not qualify.

5 s.

2.

The radioisotopes must have relatively long half-lives.

Byproduct materials with relatively short half-lives, such as a few minutes,or less, would decay so fast that they need not be considered as a signif-icant factor toward contributing to contamination and exposure, or clean-up costs.

~

3.

The radioisotopes must be in 1oose or dispersible' form. ' yproduct materials-that are received and handled.as sealed sources were not further considered since they ar'e not in "disperrible" or " respirable" form.

Such sources are generally constructed with doubly encapsulated stainless-steel heliarc welded containment and tested to ANSI standards.

4.

The radioisotopes must meet or exceed the potential release quantities derived from the equation discussed in Section -2 for the Price-Anderson Indemnity.

B.

Final Phase Criteria selected for use after the licenses had been initially screened as described in A above:

1.

The quantities of byproduct material actually possessed by the licensee meet or exceed the potential release quantities for Price-Anderson indemnification.

2.

The quantities of byproduct material actually processed by the licensee meet or exceed the potential' release quantities for Price-Anderson indemnification.

6 3.

The byproduct material actually possessed by the licensee and the specific operations involved meet the criterion of being in loose or dispersible form.

The chemical / physical form described in the license does not always verify these conditions directly and detailed investfgation was required.

4.

The byproduct material actLally possessed by the licensee meets the criterion of being in " respirable" form.

A review of the chemical / physical form described in the license does not always-verify this directly and detailed investigation was required.

The above criteria were verified by' either direct detailed review of the license.or in phone conversations with the licensee.

4.

Survey of Licensino Files To determine which licenses required consideration based on the screening criteria developed in Section 3, a survey of the licensing files of the

w 7

- Radioisotopes Licensing Branch was performed.

A computer print-out was reviewed and the relevant licenses were individually checked and reviewed.

Out of a total of 440 licenses initially reviewed,13 of them qualified for further indemnification study based on the criteria established in Section 3.

Among these are the following:

1.

Amersham, Corporation, Arlington l' eights, Ill.

Bab~ ock and Wilcox Co.,, Appollo, Pa.

2.

c I-3.

Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio

'4.

General Motors Corporation, Warren, Mich.

5.

John C. Haynes Co., Newark, Ohio 6.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., St. Paul, Minn.

7.-

New England Nuclear Corporation, Boston, Mass.

6.

Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minn.

9. _ Picker Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio 10.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md.

11.

Dept. of the Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

12.

Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

13.

Dept. of the Navy, Washington, D.C.

v 8

From the investigation conducted, Battelle Columbus Laboratories was found to be the only case possibly needing the Price-Anderson Indemnity, and that only under limited circumstances (i.e., for testing spent fuel elements containing Special Nuclear Materials).

Most of the 440 cases examined were

/

eliminated because their possession limits were much smalle'r than the values required for. the Price-Anderson Indemnity.

Others were eliminated because the radivisotopes were in.a sealed form. A few were eliminated by virtue of their being produced in an accelerator or having very short half-lives.

In-depth analyses were performed on the remaining 13 cases.

It was generally found that the licensee either was not handling the Price-Anderson quantities or the physical / chemical forms of the materials did not qualify for the study.

It was recognized that these 13 cases might require Price-Anderson Indemnity on the basis of their possession limits alone.

However, after closer review of their operations, most were determined to not qualify.

5.

Conclusion Based on the analysis of the 13 cases, we believe that licensee passession limits should be amended to reflect more accurately the licensee's actual operating conditions to avoid unnecessary needs for indemnification. We also noticed that, for whatever reason, should any of the operating parameters change, e.g., processed amounts, chemical / physical forms, kinds and quantities of materials, types of operations, etc., then these licensees may require the Price-Anderson Indemnification. The same observation may also apply to other licensees at the time that specific clean-up or decontamination limits are established by the Commission.

v 9

Thus, with the possible exception of one licensee, all the cases investigated in this study do not need the Price-Anderson Indemnity coverage at this time.

However, modifications to the licensee's operating activities, as well as specific levels for radiological clean-up or availability in the future of other radioisotopes in new quantities and forms, could alter substantially the indemnity needs for byoroduct material licensees.

O

Table 1 Curies Curies Curies (EQ'il 5 -

(EQ'N 5 -

(EQ'N5-Isotope

• it(rem /pCi)

MPC FC )

1/10 MPC )

1/100 M C )

g A

A A

Am-241 (I) 62.6 4(-12) 190 38 4

Sb-122 4.27(-2) 5( -9) 512,000 47,800 5,100 Sb-125 0.24 9(-10) 46,400 8,600 920 As-76 7.12(-2) 3 -9) 156,000 28,700 3,000 As-77 2.13(-2) 1

-8) 720,000 95,700 10,200 Ba-131 1.84(-2) 1

-8) 562,000 96,700 10,200 Ba-140 1.48(-1) 1( -9) 62,200 9,800 1,000 Bi-210 1.15 2(-10) 10,000.

1,900 200 Br-82 3.56(-2) 6( -9) 312,000 57,400 6,100 Cd-109 1.15(-1) 2(-9) 100,000 19,000 2,000 Cd-ll5 3.56(-2) 6( -9) 312,000 57,400 6,100 Ca-45 3.65(-l) 1( -9) 37,400 9,000 1,000 Ca-47 6.67(-2) 6( -9) 210,000 53,600 6,100 Cf-252 1.83( 3) 2(-13) 7.5 1.8 0.2 C-14 5.94(-2) 1( -7) 314,000 260,000 83,000 Ce-141 4.17(-2) 5( -9) 264,000 50,000 5,100 Ce-143 3.05(-2) 7( -9) 364,000 67,000 7,100 Cc-144 1.01 2(-10) 10,700 1,900 200 Cs-131 1.97(-3) 1( -7) 5.42( 6) 962,000 100,000 Cs-134 5.48(-1) 4(-10) 20,500 3,800 410 Cs-135 7.26(-2) 3( -9) 154,000 29,000 3,000 Cl-36 2.86(-1) 8 -10) 40,000 7,600 820 Cl-38 3.05 -3) 7 -8) 3.64 670,000 71,000 Cr-51 2.9

-3 8

4.0 760,000 81,600 Cu-64 5.34 -3 4 -

2.08 380,000 41,000 Dy-165 3.05(-3 7

3.64 670,000 71,000 Dy-166 3.05(-2) 7

-9) 364,000 67,000 7,100

• Excludes those isotopes which are accelerator-produced, which have extremely short half-lives, or which do not have sufficient physical data presently available.

- 1,-

Tabl a 1 (Cont'd)~

Curies Curies Curies (EQ'il 5 -

(EQ'N 5 -

(EQ'fl 5 -

Isotope

• N (rem /pCi)

MPC MPC )

1/10 liPC )

1/100 MPC )

A g

A A

Er-169 1.76(-2) 1(-8) 575,000 97,000 10,200 Er-171 1.07(.2) 2( -8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20,400 Eu-152 5.15(-1) 1( -8) 36,000 29,000 8,500 Eu-154 3.03 1(-10) 4,200 925 100 Eu-155 8.75(-2) 3( -9) 140,000 28,200 3,000 F-18 2.37(-3) 9( -8) 4.68( 6) 860,000 92,000 Gd-153 7.28(-2) 3( -9) 154,000 28,600 3,000 Gd-159 2.13(-2) 1( -8) 520,000 95,700 10,200 Ga-72 3.56(-2) 6( -9) 312,000 -

57,400 6,100 Ge-71 1(-3) 2( -7) 1.08( 7) 1.92( 6)-

204,000 Au-198 2.67(-2) 8( -9) 416,000 76,500 8,200 Au-199 7.12(-3) 3( -8) 1.56( 6) 287,000 30,600 lif-181 1.5 (-1) 1(- 9) 62,000 9,800 1,000 110-166 3.56(-2) 6( -9) 312,000 57,400 6,100 11-3 1.08(-4) 2.( -7) 1.9(7) 2.04( 6) 205,000 In-ll5 1.87(-1) l(-9) 55,800 9,700 1,000 I-126 1.58 9 -11) 5,700

/

800 92 I-129 5.73 2 -11) 1,400 200 20 I-132 5.31 -2) 3 - 9) 180,000 29,300 3,000 I-133 3.92-1) 4(-10) 24,300 3,900 410 I-134 2.49 -2) 6(- 9) 372,000 58,700 6,100 1-135 1.22 -1) 1(- 9) 67,300 10,000 1,000 Ir-192 2.53-1) 9q-1 45,200 8,600 920 Ir-194 4.27 -2) 5(-

260,000 47,800 5,100 Fe-55 7.4

-3) 2((-

1.53(6) 286,000 30,600 3

Fe-59 1.26 -1) 94,700 19,000 2,000 La-140 5.34(-2) 4(- 9) 208,000 38,300 4,000 '

i

Table 1 (Cc - t'd)

Curies Curies Curies (EQ'N5-(EQ'N d -

(EQ'N 5 -

Isotope

• N (rem /pCi)

MPC MPC) 1/10 MC )

1/100 ;4PC )

A A

A 3

Lu-177 1.07 -

2-1.04( 6) 190,000 20,400 Mn-52 1.02 -

5-147,000 43,000 5,000 Mn-56 1.07 -

2-1.04(6) 190,'000 20,400 119-203 8.87 -

2 - 9) 114,000 19,400 2,000 Ho-99 3.05(-2) 7(- 9) 364,000 67,000 7,100 fid-147 2.84(-2) 8(-.9) 402,000 76,000 8,200 tid-149 4.27(-3) 5(- 8) 2.6( 6) 480,000 50,000 lip-237 3.34( 3) 1(-13) 4.0 1.0 0.1 ftp-239 1.06(-2) 2(

8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20,400 fli-59 1.29(-2) 2(- 8) 934,000 190,000 20,400 fli-63 1.79(-1) 2(- 9) 75,700 18,000 2,000 Ni-65 1.07(-2) 2(- 8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20,t.00 fib-95 6.45(-2) 3(- 9) 164,000 29,000 3,000 lib-97 1.07(-3) 2(- 7) 1.04( 7) 1.9( 6) 204,000 Os-185 1.41(-1) 2(- 9) 88,600 18,700 2,000 1.55 2) 1(- 8) 609,000 97,700 10,200 2.37(2),

9(- 9) 468,000 86,000 9,200 Os-191 Os-193

(-

Pd-103 8.59(-3) 3(- 8) 1.4( 6)

Pd-1(1

?.13(-2) 1(- 8) 520,000 280,000 30,600 95,700 10,200 2.09{2) 1(- 8) 527,000 96,000 10,200 1.65 1) 2(- 9) 80,000 18,300 2,000 P-32 P t-19.~

Pt-197 1.07-2) 2(- 8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20.400 K-42 5.34 -2) 4(- 9) 208,000 38,300 4,100 Pr-142 4.27(-2)

St-9) 260,000 47,800 5,100 Pr-143 3.6 (-2) 6.'- 9) 310,000 57,300 6,100 Pm-149 2.67(-2)

S,- 9) 416,000 76,~?9 8,200 Re-186 2.67(-2) 8(- 9) 416,000 76,5vu 8,200 Re-188 3.56(-2) 6(- 9) 312,000 57,400 6,100 Rh-105 1.07(-2) 2(- 8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20,400 Table 1 (Cont'd)

Curies Curies Curies (EQ'N 5 -

(EQ'N 5 -

(EQ'N 5 -

Isotope

• N (rem /pC1)

MPC liPC )

1/10 MPC )

1/100 MPC )

A g

A g

Rb-86 9.78(-2 2. 9) 109,000 19,300 2,000 Ro-u7 9.89(-2 2 - 91 108,000 19,200 2,000 Ru-97 3.56(-3 6 - 3) 3.12( 6) 574,000 61,000 Ru-103 7.56(-2) 3(- 9) 151,000 28,600 3,100 Ru-105 1.07(-2) 2(- 8) 1.04( 6; 190,000 20,400 Ru-106 1.16 2(-10) 9,950 1,900 200 Sm-151 1.77(-1) 2(- 9) 76i500 18,200 2,000 Sm-153 2.13(-2) 1(- 8) 520,000 95,700 10,200 Sc-46 2.9(-1) 8(-10) 39,800' 7,600 815 Sc-47 1.07(-2) 2(- 8) 1.04( 6) 190,000 20,400 Sc-48 4.27(-2) 5(- 9) 260,000 47,800 5,100 Se-75 5.33(-3) 4(- 9) 383,000 40,800 4,100 Si-31 7.12(-3) 3(- 8) 1.56( 6) 287,000 30,600 Ag-lll 2.67(-2) 8(- 9) 416,000 76,500 8,200 Na-24 4.27(-2) 5(-9) 260,000 47,800 5,100 Sr-85 6.18(-2) 4(- 9) 192,000 37,800 4,100 Sr-89 4.14(-1) 3(-10 20,000 3,000 310 Sr-91 2.37(-2) 9(- 9 468,000 86,000 9,200 Sr-92 2.13( 2) 1-8 520,000 95,700 -

10,200 S-35 2.59(-2) 9 - 9) 446,000 85,500 9,200 Ta-182 2.2((-

2.97 7 -1 37,000 6,700 715 Tc-97 1-512,000 95.400 10,200 Tc-99 1.03(-

2-

)

106,000 19,200 2,000 Te-127 7.12(-

3(- 8) 1.56( 6) 287,000 30,600 Te-129 2.13 1(-7) 5.2 ( 6) 957,000 100,000 Te-132 5.34-}

4-

)

208,000 38,300 4,100 Tb-160 1.98 - )

1-T1-204 2.48 -))

9-l))

54,000 9,600 1,000 45,700 8,600 920 l

Table 1 (Cont'd)

Curies Curies Curies (EQ'll 5 -

(EQ'll 5 -

(EQ'fi 5 -

Isotope

• ft(rem /pCi)

MPC A) 1/10 MPC )

1/100 HPC )

A 4

A Sn-113 7,74 f _-

2(- 9) 96,500 19,000 2'000 1'22 Sn-125 9) 150,000 28,50G 3*100 W-181 5.15(-2

_" 9 212,000 38,400 4'100 W-185 5.87(-2 4(- 9) 197,000 38,000 4 100 W-187 2.13(-2) j 520,000 95,700 10,'200 4 f _~j Ur-234 53.8 38 4

Yb-175 1.07-2) 2(

190,000 20 400 Y-90 7.12 -2) 3f-

!9,00

$2 2,'f3(_j) j_

,2 0

,o

, 00 95,700 10'200 Y-93 4.27(-2) 5(- 9) 260,000 47,800 5 100 Zn-65 j,jj(_j) 2(

Z-3 2.' 2 ff_"g 1 56

)

2 87

)

306,O 82,000 51,200 9'500 Zr-95 1,97(_j) j_

,200 9,600 j,000 Zr-97 7.12(-2) 3(- 9 156,000 28,700 3,100 e

APPEt1 DIX 1 Economic Consequences of Radioisotope Releases ORfil has performed several analyses of the economic consequences of radioactive material releases.

Material presented in the recent draft, Economic Consequences of Accidental Releases from Fuel Fabrication and Radioisotope Reprocessing Plants, suggests that an explicit equation can be developed to calculate the amount of radioisotope release that would result in a given amount of damage.

Economic consequences from release of radioisotope releases have been assumed to be a function of population density, area affected (or contaminated), and a unit cost (S/ person), or:

(P/A)(5,3)(C,3)

$,3

=

5 5

where (P/A) = population density S = area affected i = index, number of areas ~*

.j = type of radioactive phenomenon-exposure (inhalation) or surface contamination th C$,3 = cost, $/ person for compensating for j pnenomenon

- ~

In the development that follows,1 represents the area of highest contamination exposure or area, 2 the middle, and 3 the area of lowest contamination.

D"*D D)' T T @

We onAAL

2 Generally, three levels of exposure and areal contamination have been specified, and two phenomena - ingestion and contaminat. ion.

The total cost for each phenomena can be written:

$3 =~(P/A) [(S),3)(C,3) + (S,j-31.j)(C2,j) + (3,5-S,j)(C,j)3 2

3 2

3 or

$3 = (P/A) [(C),3-Cg,3)(S),3) + (C j-C,j)(S,j) + (C,j)(3,j) 2 3

2 3

3 The area, Sj,j, is the area enclosed by a specific isopleth.

The subject paper presents a plot of area as a function of radioisotope concentration.

The plot suggests that a, simple exponential function would be a good representation, that is, E -al,k S j,1

= a2'k j

and Si,2 a3,k Dj-al,k

=

where al,k,a2,k and a3,k are constants (k = meteorological regime)

Ej = exposure isopleth, curie "sec md curie Dj = deposition isopleth, curie m' curie Limiting the development to a simple meteorological regime, the equations become:

" 8 E-4 S

E 2

(1)

= a D*

SD 3

(2) e

w 3

The subject report uses three levels of exposure to calculate costs, exposures such that E

= 10E 2

3 Ej

=100.E 3

Substituting these limits into equation 1, one has:

(33,E)(10)-")

.S 'E 2

(3 ;E)(100)-"I S

1,E 3

S3,E "2(E) 3 so that the cost resultingfrom inhalation becomes

$=

[(Cl,E 2,E)(100)-"I + (C 3,E)(10) N + C E"2(E }

2,E 3,E 3

But E k

=

3 W

k = constant N = 50 year dose commitment, rems /pCi Q = amount of radioisotope emitted (k = 15 rem 220 cchec }

Hence

-a

$ = I,a

/

I, or (3a)

/f')(C 2

SE*

E (3)

~

'I I

N Q

s 4

K is a function of the meterological regime, the unit costs for the several levels of exposure, the population density, and the levels of exposure.

The same sort of equation can be developed for deposition, except that some delay in decontamination is assumed to occur. prior to decon'aination of the inner areas, letting D

10 D / If )

2 3

2 100 D '

D)

=

3 1

D b.(

~

3 where 4:

~1

= W MPC* = peudo air concentration, Ci/m (for most isotopes, MPC* is the 168 hr. air concentration from 10 CFR 20.

For isotopes whose areal concentration is limited by dairying, etc.,

(MPCf) =C{xVg where C* is the limiting areal concentration, Ci/m and f is fraction of the isotope remaining after decay.

Therefore:

a [(C),D-C,D)(f ) *

(100) *l + (C2,D-C3,D)(f ) *

(10)~ l+C ] MPC 1

=

3 2

3 2

3 A

Q 9

5 So that:

-aI 3(MPC*)

=1

_g,

+ K total

-a

-a I

Q N

I or

~

i (4) ai =

Q a

KN I+

I.o E

(MPC)I Note that K is independent of isotope, and whereas K is aPParently E

D specific for each isotop'e.

K is equal to:

E K =(a):

[(Cl E.- C2,E)(100)

I + (C2,E - C3,E)(10) 3,E

+C 3

2 2

From the isopleth curve, it can be determined that:

a)-

1.15 for inversion

=

12.6 for inversion.

=

a2 0.00446 for inversion a

=

3 so that, using the unit costs given in'the subject document K = 1689 E

Al so:

-12 1.15 1.15

.1x 0

[85(f)

+WU 000]

K

=

D 1

2 O

m 8

e

v 6

bupposenodeceyoccurs,i.e.,f.=1 1

-8 (1.226)(8.81 x 10-12)

K 1.08 x 10

=

=

D If an infinite delay occurs,

-12

-9 (1000)(8.81 x 10

)

K 8.81 x 10

=

=

D The difference, 20%, between the two cases is small.

Therefore, assume no decay, and

-8 K

~

D Hence 1.15 6

Q 140 x 10 (5)

=

inversion-1.15

-8 1689 N

+ 1.08 x 10 1.15 (MPC*)

The equation has been used to calculate radioisotope releases for the same isotopes as given in the subject paper.

A comparison of the calculations is shown in Table I.

It can be seen that the agreement is excellent.

Note that equation 5 >has been corrected for change in 233 235 population area for Pu U and U.

The agreement between the

fuel, calculations of equation 5 and the data in the subject report is generally I

excellent.

Ir shows a difference of about 6%; Sr90 about 6%;

1131 l37 about 17%; and Cs about 5%.

Most other isotopes show differences of less than 5%.

.. ~

Table 1 Inversion Curies Curies Isotope N, Rem /pCi (MPC{}

(EQ'N 5)

(ORNL)

Co 60

.74 3(-10) 15300 15000

• Sr 90 11.08 1.7(-12) 173 160 Sb 124

.34 7(-10) 34300 35000

• I 1 31 1.44

~1.2(-11 )

1764 1400

• Cs 137 0.79 2(-11) 1950 1900 Ce 144 1.20 2(-10) 9746 9900 Pm 147 0.19 3(-9) 30751

' 81000 Tm 170 0.32 1(-9) 40834 41000 Ir 192 0.25 9(-10) 45491 42000 Po 210 32.4 7(-12) 352 350'

• • U 233 147 2(-12) 409 400

• • U 235 53.8 4(-12) 984 1000 Pu 238 5710 7(-14) 2.45 2.5

• ** Pu fuel 463 1.l(-12) 153 150 Am 241 2070 2(-13) 6.8 7

Cm 242 50.9 4(-12) 213 220 Cm 244 1260 3(-13) 11 11 Pseudo MPC* used - based on dairying contamination levels for Sr, A

-7 2

I, Cs; Pu fuel based on contamination limit of 1.1 x 10 Ci/m.

2

• • 500 people /mi ; eq'n 5 corrected to lower density.

e 8