ML20027C319
| ML20027C319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1982 |
| From: | Baron J, Cordaro M, Dimascio N, Hamawi J, Pocalujka L, Schmitt J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP., TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027C225 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210150290 | |
| Download: ML20027C319 (122) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__________ -
..-4.*
2 LILCO, Octobar 12, 1982 r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (Emergency Planning --
Unit 1) ) Phase I) 1
)
TESTIMONY OF \ JOSEPH S. BARON, MATTHEW C. { CORDARO, NICHOLAS J. DI MASCIO, JOHN N. HAMAWI, LOUIS P. POCALUJKA, I l AND JOHN F. SCHMITT l ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 14 -- ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND DOSE ASSESSMENT MODELS 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Suffolk County's Contention EP 14, which contends that the methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or 1 potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition do not comply with the requirement of 10 C.F.R.
$ 50.47(b)(9) that they be " adequate." This testimony describes the dose model equations used to calculate projected offsite doses, and also shows that the assessment instrumention that provides the data to these dose models is adequate.
E 8210150290 821012 F PDR ADOCK 05000322 1 .T_ PDR
Attachments to this Testimony: 14-1 Resume of Dr. Joseph S. Baron 14-2 Resume of Matthew C. Cordaro 14-3 Resume of Nicholas J. Di Mascio 14-4 Resume of Dr. John N. Hamawi 14-5 Resume of Louis P. Pocalujka 14-6 Resume of John F. Schmitt 14-7 SP 69.022.01 14-8 Description of dispersion and dose assessment models l l l 1
LILCO, October 12, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
) (Emergency Planning --
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Phase I) Unit 1) ) I TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. BARON, MATTHEW C. CORDARO, NICHOLAS J. DI MASCIO JOHN N. HAMAWI, LOUIS P. POCALUJKA, AND JOHN F. SCHMITT ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 14 -- ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND DOSE ASSESSMENT MODELS I Ql. Will the witnesses please identify themselves? A1. [ Baron} My name is Joseph S. Baron. My business address is Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 245 l Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02107. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-1). As Power Engineer I am responsible for the procurement of a calibrated radiation-monitoring system at Shoreham. My role on this witness panel is to address the radiological instrumentation equipment which interfaces with the dose assessment software. [Cordaro] My name is Matthew C. Cordaro. I am Vice President, Engineering for LILCO. My business address
is 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York 11801. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-2). My role in emergency planning is to ensure that LILCO's emergency planning needs are being met and that management is kept apprised of emergency planning needs and problems. [Di Mascio] My name is Nicholas J. Di Mascio. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, P.O. Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792. I am a Plant Engineer,-Health Physics Section, employed by LILCO at the Shoreham Station. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-3). My knowledge about this contention is based on my being involved with the emergency dose calculation methods and my coordination of the on-site emergency planning effort. (Hamawi] My name is John N. Hamawi. I am President of Entech Engineering, Inc., which supplied the atmospheric dispersion and dose model equations that have been incorporated into the Shoreham Effluent Monitoring Software Package (EMSP). My business address is J&N Professional Building - 18 Lyman Street, Westborough,' Massachusetts 01581. A copy of my professional _ qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-4).
(Pocalujka] My name is Louis P. Pocalujka. I work for i ! TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., 800 Connecticut Boulevard, East Hartford, Connecticut 06108. My !~ position with the company is Manager, Air Monitoring Projects / Senior Project Scientist. A copy of my resume with professional qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-5). My familiarity with the meteorological monitoring system at LILCO's Shoreham Station results from TRC's contract to update the primary meteorological tower there. The proposal, system design, and installation were conducted by TRC's Air Monitoring Projects personnel, reporting to me. (Schmitt] My name is John F. Schmitt. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, P.O. Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792. I am the Radiochemistry Engineer at Sboreham. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment 14-6). My knowledge about this contention is based on my familiarity with (1) the radiation monitoring system and (2) the effluent quantification and dose calculat an methods we employ. l l t t
h Contention and Regulations Q2. What is Contention EP 14? A2. [Di Mascio] Contention EP 14, as revised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Order of September 7, 1982, reads as follows: EP 14: ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND DOSE ASSESSMENT MODELS (SC, joined by SOC and NSC) LILCO's plan fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential off-site consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use, and therefore does not comply with 10 CFR 550.47(b)(9). Q3. What does 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(9) say? A3. [Di Mascio] Section 50.47(b)(9) reads as follows: (b) The onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors l must meet the following standards (footnote omitted): (9) Adequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. Q4. What is the crux of the contention, as you understand it?
- _ - - _ = . -
l-t l' A4. [ Baron, Di Mascio, Schmitt] As best we can determine, judging mainly from early drafts of the contention and from the deposition of Suffolk County's consultant, Mr. Gregory C. Minor, the contention raises two concerns: first, that the radiological monitoring equipment used r to provide data for the dose projection calculations may be inadequate in some unspecified way; second, that the dose model equations for calculating the offsite doses may be inadequate. In addition, Mr. Minor has indicated that he may raise concerns about unspecified equipment having to do with meteorology. Accordingly, we have addressed in this testimony certain meteorological monitoring equipment. We judge, however, that this contention does not cover the equipment of the field monitoring teams or the iodine monitoring equipment, since those are the subject , of parts (A) and (C) respectively of a separate contention, EP 10, " Accident Assessment and Monitoring."~ If the County had wished to raise additional contentions i about field monitoring equipment or iodine monitoring equipment, presumably it would have done so in EP 10. Additionally, instrumentation used in monitoring the l course-of an accident and post-accident assessment is specified'in Reg Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2). This instrumentation was at issue in SOC contention 3/SC
contention 27. We have therefore concluded that, except for those issues that were deferred to later contentions, equipment specified by Reg Guide 1.97 (Rev.
- 2) is n't o at issue here. '
Notwithstanding what we have just said, we believe that the Board's admission of Contention EP 14, speaking as it does of " equipment," may represent a dscision that to a limited extent instruments covered by Reg Guide 1.97 may now be litigated. Accordingly, in this testimony we discuss certain instruments, covered by Reg Guide 1.97, l that provide data for the dose projection calculations. i We infer, however, that the County's principal concern under EP 14 is the offsite dose assessment model equations. The original contention (then designated EP 27) as found in the County's "First Amended Consolidated Emergency Planning Contentions," dated July 1 6, 1982, asserted that LILCO had not provided the basis ' for "the accident assessment and dose assessment models" (emphasis added). The restatement of the contention in I the County's July 12, 1982 " Response of Suffolk County to Objections of LILCO and of NRC Staff to First Amended Consolidated Emergency Planning Contentions" contains as its central proposition that LILCO has not ensured "the accuracy of the assessment models" (emphasis added).
. ~ - . . .. .,. . ..
, .l Equipment i QS. 10aat equipment does this contention cover? AS. -[ Baron, Schmitt) The post-accident radiation monitors-used to support the dose calculations or-to assess potential releases during a radiological accident are the only equipment that we believe relate to this contention. Q6. What radiological equipment would be used to assess and monitor the actual or potential offsite dose consequences of a radiological emergency condition? t A6. [ Baron, Schmitt) Assessment and monitoring of. actual and potential offsite consequences of a radiological 1 emergency condition are based on inputs from tdut radiation monitors in the Station Vent Exhaust and RBSVS Exhaust. The assessment and monitoring-of potential offsite consequences of a radiological condition'are also based on inputs from radiation monitors'in the primary containment. t Q7. Why do you believe these monitors are adequate to . provide data for use with dose projection calculations , 1 or to assess potential releases during a radiological accident? b l u ,.- -- , - - . . . . . , , ..-. .
~~'
1; 1 l' A7. [ Baron, Schmitt] The monitors in question are overlapping-range noble gas monitors and an iodine sampling system on the staticn vent, overlapping-range noble gas monitors and an iodine sampling system on the RBSVS, and tani high range area radiation monitors inside the primary containment. Current NRC guidance regarding these post-accident radiation monitors is NUREG-0737 and Reg Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2). With the exception of the low range noble gas { detector on the station vent, these monitors meet the design guidance of these documents. The low range station vent monitor is part of the station vent - nonaccident effluent monitoring system and was not originally purchased with seismic or environmental qualification. The power supply for this detector has been upgraded to meet the " highly reliable power supply" requirements of Reg Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2). In the NRC staff recommendations attached to SECY 82-111 the staff states (page 13): It is acceptable to rely on currently installed equipment if it will measure over the range indicated in Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2), even if the equipment is presently not environmentally qualified. Eventually, all the equipment required to monitor the course of an } accident would be environmentally qualified in accordance with the pending Commission rule on environmental qualification. 1
r
- 1 i'
. . l
_g.
\
j We believe that these monitors are adequate to provide ' l data for use with dose projection calculations or to assess potential releases during a radiological accident. The monitor ranges are very broad and cover
" worst case" types of accidents. The ranges are:
f Station Vent Exhaust 10-6 to 10+4 pCi/cc RBSVS Exhaust 10-6 to 1to10+g0+4 pC1/cc Primary Containment rad /hr Q8. Do you have any feel for what Suffolk County may think is inadequate regarding the monitors' support of the i dose calculations or potential release assessment during a radiological accident? l A8. [ Baron, Schmittl No. Q9. Is other equipment covered by this contention? A9. [ Baron, Schmitt] Mr. Minor said, on page 85 of his deposition, that he would "look at all equipment that would be relied on to assess the development of the accident which would not be just radiation monitoring." In light of the fact that he had as of that date l identified no specific equipment and still has not, so far as we know, until the date of filing of this testimony, we do not believe any other equipment (with the possible exception of meteorological instrumentation used in plume prediction, discussed below) is fairly within this contention. t ( . . .
t The only indication we have that the County may be concerned about meteorology equipment is in Mr. Minor's deposition transcript (page 73), where he says that he "may" investigate some of the equipment "which has to do with possibly -- I don't want to say for sure -- but possibly the meteorology and possibly the modeling that's used in the plume prediction." We have previously litigated contention SC 27/ SOC 3 concerning post accident instrumentation as contained in Reg Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2), which includes meteorological monitoring equipment, and so such equipment is not properly at issue in this contention. Q10. Please list the meteorological parameters used to calculate doses. A10. [Hamawi] Wind speed and direction at 150 feet and at 33 feet, temperature at 33 feet, and the difference in temperature between the 150- and 33-foot levels.
)
Q11. What equipment at Shoreham will provide these parameters? All. [Pocalukja] The system designed for LILCO provides the l basic input parameters-required to perform dispersion analyses, namely, wind speed,. wind direction and stability in the form of temperature difference (AT) and
standard deviation of horizontal wind direction (o0). , The meteorological sensors and translator cards are designed and manufactured by Climatronics. The analog recorder systems are designed and manufactured by Esterline-Angus. Q12. Is this system adequate? A12. (Pocalujka] Yes. The equipment is of standard design and similar to systems in use at other nuclear sites. The design specifications of the hardware conform to the 1 guidance provided by USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 and the proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.23. i Dose Assessment Methods Q13. Referring back to Contention EP 14, will you tell the Board what " methods" you plan to use for dose assessment? A13. [Di Mascio, Schmitt} The " methods" consist of real-time computerized models and, as a backup, hand calculations f as described in procedure SP 69.022.01, " Determination i of Offsite Doses" (Attachment 14-7). Q14. Let's first talk about the computer software used to calculate projected offsite doses. Will you please describe this software for the Board?
A14. [Di Mascio, Hamawi, Schmitt] The computer software that is used to evaluate the offsite radiological impact of radioactive effluents from the Shoreham Station is known as Effluent Monitoring Software Package (EMSP). The EMSP module that performs the dose-assessment analyses under accident conditions is called "ACC." l i ACC carries out dose calculations in two fashions: (a) once every minute using short-term accident dispersion models and (b) once every hour using long-term dispersion models. The short-term analyses include the j determination of offsite thyroid and wholebody ge.mma dose rates as a function of downwind distance from the plant. The long-term analyses consider not only the airborne radioactivity but also the radiocativity deposited on the ground along with the ingestion and inhalation pathways, and dose exposures are determined for the site boundary, the nearest residence, the nearest garden, and the nearest cow in the affected downwind sectors. For the short-term analyses, which form the basis for the implementation of emergency actions, the radionuclides considered are the halogens and the noble gases. The long-term scenario also includes an extensive list of particulates.
^
Two effluent release pathways are considered at all times: the station vent and the Reactor Building r Standby Ventilation System (RBSVS) exhaust. The isotopic inventories for each release pathway are 1 entered into the software manually following completion of grab-sample analyses in the laboratory, plant-specific default inventories being available for I j use at the start of an accident. The release rates to the atmosphere are adjusted every minute based on the I-prevailing air flow rate at each release point and the relative change in the effluent radiation monitor readings. Real-time meteorological data are updated every 15 minutes for the short-term analyses and every hour for the long-term case. Q15. Would you please describe the output of the accident module of the EMSP software which provides an assessment of the offsite radiological impact? A15. [Di Mascio, Hamawi) The ACC module provides the following output for emergency use:
- a. Wholebody gamma and thyroid dose rates at the exclusion radius, the site boundary, 0.5 mile, 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles, 4 miles, 5 miles and 7.5
miles in the affected downwind sector (hard printer copy, automatically every minute),
- b. Video display plots, on demand, which consist of user-selected scaled maps of the affected region (2 , 5, or 10-mile 7;anges) with superimposed isodoserate contours of, user-specified levels (wholebody and thyroid radiation exposure rate levels are plotted separately),
- c. Printer plots, on demand, each plot presenting the downwind regions of equal radiation intensity (up to 5 regions), the dose rates as a function of distance from the plant, the plume travel time, and the ofi-centerline distance at which the various dose rates are attained (20-mile maximum downwind distance).
- d. A video-display bar-graph plot of the downwind plume-centerline dose rates (wholebody or thyroid) at the exclusion radius, site boundary, 0.5 mile, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 and 50 miles at a user-specified time within the last 180 minutes of the accident.
- e. A video-display bar-graph plot of total cumulative doses versuc distance since the start of the accident for a user-specified downwind sector,
' ~ " ~ '** " ' ' * * * ^ ' "
- f. A video-display plot of the dose rates or total doses versus time using the most recent 120 minutes of data from the dose files for a user-specified distance and sector, and
- g. A video-display plot of dose-projection for a user-specified sector and distance which consists of the last 60 minutes of dose rate or dose data with a calculated linear projection 60 minutes into the future along with its prediction error.
Q16. Dr. Hamawi, did you develop any portion of the EMSP software? A16. (Hamawi] Yes. The EMSP software was developed by Nuclear Measurements Corporation. I was retained by I LILCO to upgrade the atmospheric dispersion software to include the new models in Regulatory Guide 1.145, and to incorporate finite-cloud gamma dose assessment models from overhead plumes. Incorporation of the finite cloud model has also necessitated revisions to the plot routines. Q17. Please describe briefly the atmospheric dispersion and dose-assessment models you have incorporated into the EMSP software.
A17. (Hamawi] A detailed description of the models is given in Attachment 14-8 to this testimony. Briefly, the dispersion and dose equations represent combinations of various models available in the regulatory guides and other standard references (in particular Reg Guides 1.109, 1.111, and 1.145; Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968; and Turner's Workbook on Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates). What is of interest in the models described in Attachment 14-8 is the definition of two different atmospheric dispersion factors, the " concentration (x/Q)" and the " gamma (X/Q)." The " concentration (X/Q)" is the standard (X/Q) factor representing the relative concentration of radioactive material at ground level at a receptor of interest. The " gamma (X/Q)" is a refined concept which can be used in place of the standard (X/Q) to transform the wholebody gamma dose rate equations for semi-infinite clouds to those for finite clouds. Definition of this new parameter was arrived at by simply restructuring the finite-cloud dose rate equations available in the literature. But unlike the standard ( X/Q), the gamma ( X/Q) is a function not only of wind speed, plume dimension, and elevation, but also of the normalized gamma spectrum corresponding to the airborne radioactivity. The influence of the gamma spectrum on the gamma ( X/Q) is not very strong, and
diminishes with increases in the size of the plume. For very large plumes, the numerical value of the gamma (X/Q) reduces to that of the concentration (X/Q), as would be expected. For close-in receptors and elevated plumes, the gamma (X/Q) will always have a finite non-zero number, whereas the ground-level concentration l may very well be zero. Q18. Have your equations been used at other nuclear power plants? A18. [Hamawi] Yes. My atmospheric dispersion and dose-assessment equations are used at the following nuclear power plants: Seabrook (FSAR) Charlestown (PSAR) Maine Yankee (Stretch Power Application) Pilgrim Station (Emergency Plan) Vermont Yankee (Emergency Plan) Yankee Rowe (Emergency Plan) Q19. Please tell the Board in what way your dose-assessment model is a refinement of the standard equations. A19. [Hamawi] The dispersion and dose equations are standard, as explained earlier. They have merely been mathematically restructured into forms which are easier
I _le_ to understand and apply, and which reduce the numerical computations. The umerical integration scheme which I developed for { the seu nr-average finite cloud model is presently included in Reg Guide 1.109. The finite-cloud sector average model is that described in Aeteorology and A_tomic. Energy - 1968. It is that model, along with the Gaussian puff model in the same reference, that has been incorporated into the EMSP software. Q20. Do your dose model equations comply with current regulatory guidance? A20. (Hamawi] Yes. Q21. What happens if the RMS computer is not working? A21. (Di Mascio, Schmitt) Then the offsite dose calculations can be done by hand using Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure SP 69.022.01 (Attachment 14-7), which uses the same dose assessmet.1 eqsations. Q22. Are your dose equations adequate for assessing doses from radioactive plumes resulting from radiological emergency conditions? A22. (Hamawi, Di Mascio] Yes.
Q23. Do you consider the assessment and monitoring equipment which input to the dose projection models to be adequate? A23. [Schmitt, Baron, Pocalujkaj Yes. Q24. Do the methods, systems, and equipment discussed in this testimony comply with 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(9)? A24. [Di Mascio, Baron, Hamawi, Pocalujka, Schmitt] Yes. l I
l' . Attachment 14 - 1
?
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOSEPH S. BARON Power Engineer, Nuclear Engineering Group STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION My name is Joseph Baron. My business address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02107. I am employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) as a Power Engineer and have held this position since January 1973. In this capacity I am currently responsible for the radiation mon-itoring system for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Project. I was awarded a Bachelor of Scienca degree in chemical engineering in 1966, dual Master of Science degrees in chemical and nuclear engineering in 1968, and a Ph.D. in nuclear engi-neering in 1971, all by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to joining SWEC in August 1971, I worked as a part-time Assistant Process Engineer for Diamond Shamrock Company in Cleveland, Ohio. I was responsible for the evalua-tion of chemical kinetics data, development of a workable ki-netics model for use in the design of a production chemical re-actor and design of scrubbing towers. Later as a Research I i I
Associate with Argonne National Laboratory, I established the setup and calibration of an analytical system for the determi-nation of inpurities in sodium. Next, with Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a Research Associate (August 1967 - February 1968), I was responsible for the design of an accurate method of determining the thermal flux history of the irradiaton cavity of the high flux isotope reactor, for feasibility and kinetic studies in the use of amines as dehydrating agents in the microsphere production step of the Sol-Gel process; ana-lysis of the electrical charge distribution in a metallic aero-sol; and preparation of reactor physics data for use in an economic evaluation of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). From February 1968 - August 1971 I was involved in 1 resident study toward my doctorate degree. Upon joining SWEC in August 1971 as an Engineer in the Nuclear Division, I functioned as an Assistant Supervisor in charge of the design and development of light water reactor (LWR) radioactive waste systems as well as specialist in ion exchange. In this capacity, I interacted with technical staff members involved in other plant systems in an effort to mini-mize potential radioactive releases. I supervised the simula-tion group which developed computer models for the operation of radioactive waste systems and for plant effluent releases, both steady state and transient. On assignment to the Boston Edison Pilgrim Project, I participated in the conceptual development 1 l .
4 . I of alternate radioactive waste processing capability. I was also involved in the evalation of the existing equipment, and I systems to determine the long-term viability. Another activity concerned determination and development of various accident scenarios for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMEBR) prototype project. On the Wisconsin Utilities Project as Principal Nuclear Engineer (February 1978 - July 1979) I was responsible for all nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) interfaces and the design of systems in the reactor portion of the plant. I participated in the development of site specific potential accident sequences. On temporary assignment to Virginia Electric and Power Company's Surry project, I assisted in coordinating the pro-posed primary coolant hot magnetic filter retrofit, which was not installed. - As Principal Nuclear Engineer on the SWEC sponsored Reference Nuclear Power Plant (July 1979 - May 1980), I ensured that systems designs within the reactor portion of the plant met applicable interface criteria for the various pressurized water reactor (PWR) NSSS vendors and developed generic systems descriptions. I participated in the design and development of the concept of the Independent Fuel Storage Facility. Later, as Lead Nuclear Process Engineer on the Nuclear Power Company, Ltd. (NPC), Project (April 1980 - May 1981), I-was responsible for the development of the Civil Demonstration
1 l Fast Reactor Cover Gas System design. Additionally, I coordinated design and structural activities for the NPC efforts within the London and Boston offices. I was also responsible for developing an economical and efficient method of cleaning the reactor coolant of a boiling water reactor following an inadvertent injection of sodium pen-toborate. A constraint was using existing plant equipment. This involved simulation of the various operations to determine the rate limiting step; the development and sequencing of the process to minimize the impact of this step was an integral part of the study for Toyo Engineering, Japan. Additionally, I was engaged in development of the con-ceptual process design for a coal slurry dewatering and storage facility. Although a generic design was being developed, spe-cific application was for the Nevada Power and Light Company. Since assigned as a Power Engineer on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 (SNPS-1) Project (May, 1981), I am responsible for securing a workable and calibrated radiation monitoring system. This will be achieved through the support of experience in the design and construction of test apparatus, planning experiments and analyzing accumulated data. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts and a member of the following technical socie-ties: The American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Nuclear Society, The American Nuclear Society's
~
1 Standards Groups developing design criteria for Gaseous and Liquid Radioactive Waste Systems for Light Water Reactors, Sigma Xi - Honorary Research Society, Tau Beta Pi - Honorary Engineering Society and Phi Lambda Upsilon - Honorary Chemical Society. Publications ihclude " Upper-Bound Cost / Benefit Analysis under Appendix I for a Hypothetical Pressurized Water Reactor," J.S. Baron and R.M. Vanasse, presented at the ANS Toronto meet-ing in June 1976; and " Treatment of Liquid Wastes," Chapter 6, Nuclear Power Waste Technology, J.S. Baron and B. V. Coplan, ASME (1978). l
.a -%
Attachment 14 - 2
.- ;r. . . -- .
, PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS l
MATTHEW C. CORDARO Vice President of Engineering LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY My name is Matthew C. Cordaro. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hichsville, New York 11801. I am currently Vice President of Engineering and have held this position since the spring of 1978. As Vice President of Engineering, I am responsible for all of LILCO's engineering activities. This includes responsi-bility in the areas of facility planning and engineering for nuclear and fossil electric generating plants, as well as elec-tric and gas transmission and distribution systems. In addi-tion, I am responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of all LILCO operations. I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Science from C. W. Post College in 1965. I received my Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from New York University in 1967. I received my Doctorate in Applied Nuclear Physics from the Cooper Union School of Engineering and Science in 1970. I was awarded the Atomic Energy Commission Special Fellowship in Nuclear Science and Engineering.
c y-My past professional affiliations include a position'as Guest Research Associate at Brookhaven Nstional Laboratory, Adjunct Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Polytechnic Institute of New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at C. W. Post College. I joined LILCO in 1966 and from 1966 to 1970 I,, held the l positions of Assistant Engineer (1966), Associate Engineer l (1967), Nuclear Physicist (1968) and Senior Environmental Engineer (1970). In these earliest positions with LILCO was I involved as a principal in all phases of nuclear power plant design, licensing and fuel management. I was also a lead wit-ness for the Company in Federal and State licensing proceedings for the Shoreham and Jamesport Nuclear Power Stations. In 1972 I assumed the position of Manager of
. Environmental Engineering. In this capacity I was responsible for the environmental impact of all LILCO operations. This j position involved the supervision, administration and direction' of all environmental programs aimed at demonstrating compliance with applicable standards.
I am a member of a number of related professional organizations including: the Board of Directors, Adelphi-
. University's Center on Energy Studies; and the Council of Overseers, C. W. Post College. Other related professional e
f i ep. M f numerous studies and reports related to the environmental
~'
~
effects of energy production. I recently testified before Congressional Committees on Nuclear Waste Transport and the Economics and Environmental Impacts of Coal Utilization. l l I e G
.4 6
- l. .. - . < .e . . . . i1
b _ Attachment 14 - 3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS l NICHOLAS J. DiMASCIO Nuclear Plant Engineer - Health Physics Sections LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY My name is Nicholas J. DiMascio and my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Post Office Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792. I have been Assistant Health Physics Engineer at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station since October 1978. In this capacity I am responsible for the development of many station radiation protection programs and activities. I was initially assigned the responsibility of developing a specification for the purchase of a combined Whole Body Counting and Ge(Li) Isotopic Analysis System. My other duties include: supervision of the Health Physics Technicians; preparation of Health Physics procedures; development of a computerized Dose Records Keeping System; establishment of a Respiratory Protection Program which meets the requirements of Regulatory Guide 8.15 and NUREG-0041; initiation of a TLD System; preparation of Emergency Plan and site Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures for compliance with guidance of
NUREG-0654 Rev.1; and assisting the Health Physics Engineer as required. I was averded my Bachelors degree in Radiological Health Physics in 1974 from Lowell Technological Institute. I subsequently attended the University of New York at Stonybrook where I worked towards a Master of Science degree in Industrial Management. I earned the last twelve credits of a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering at the Polytechnic
- Institute of New York. In addition, I successfully completed numerous training programs ranging from four days to twelve weeks. These programs include: Boiling Water Reactor Health Physics Technology (General Electric); Basic Power Plant Systems (Stone & Webster); Various Health Physics Workshops (Health Physics Society); Boiling Water Reactor Radiochemistry Technology (General Electric); Radiological Emergency Response Coordinators Course (United States Environmental Protection Agency); and Planning for Nuclear Emergencies (Harvard School of Public Health).
From November to June 1973 I was amployed by the New England Electric Company for a summer internship program. I was assigned as Health Physics Assistant at the Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stations and assumed the following duties: the performance of routine surveys and analyses; the use of radiation sources for the calibration of portable survey instrumentation; the provision of health physics coverage m . .
during a refueling outage at Vermont Yankee; a detailed survey of normal gaseous effluent releases at the site boundary of Yankee Rowe; and the collection of offsite environmental samples--liquid, gaseous, and ground--for analyses of annual releases from Yankee Rowe. From June 1974 to September 1978 I was employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Company as an Engineer in the Radiation Protection Department. My duties included performing the required accident analyses, evaluating radiation safety and determining adequate shielding for systems and components within nuclear power plants. I participated in a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I evaluation of effluent releases for Millstone Units 1 and 2. I developed specification for a digital radia-tion monitoring system for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station as well as determining detector setpoints for the radiation monitoring system at North Anna Units 1 and 2. While still an employee at Stone & Webster, I was assigned to LILCO as a con-sultant at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station for approximately fifteen months to assist the Health Physics Engineer in preo-perational planning and procedure development. Since October 1978 I have been a LILCO employee and, more specifically, have been assigned to the Shoreham Operating Staff as a Nuclear Plant Engineer in the Health Physics Section. During this period I have been assigned to On-Site Training I and II and training at Vallecito's Nuclear Training 1
-4 Center commensurate with performing duties with the position of Assistant Health Physics Engineer. On-Site Training I included formal classroom lectures on components and operation of sys-tems at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. On-Training II involved classroom lectures on operating procedures of each section of the Plant Staff, and familiarisation of several emergency operating procedures. My assignment at General Electric's Vallecito's Nuclear Training Center included inten-sive formal classroom theory on BWR Health Physics Technology and practical applications through actual performance of normal routine surveys and calibrations.
I am a member of the Health Physics Society and the Greater New York Chapter of Health Physics Society. My experience with radiation is extensive. In time increments ranging from twelve weeks to two years, I gained experience at Vermont Yankee, Yankee Atomic, Stone & Webster, General Electric and Lowell Technological Institute working with isotopes and their related types of uses. This experience included working with Co-60 and Cs-137 isotopes for calibration and check sources; mixed corrosion, mixed fission, and mixed activation products isotopes for use involving reactor coolant, radwaste, plant radiation, plant contamination and class exper-iments; noble gases isotopes for use as gas effluent samples and class experiments; and a Tritium isotope for liquid samples usage.
. .iuq .- _ mhaimm--mm.-A an
_d' -*'^^--'-- - ' - - - " - - - -
5-The training I received at Vermont Yankee, Yankee Atomic, Stone & Webster, General Electric and Lowell Technological Institute consisted of either on-the-job or for-mal training sessions. Ranging from three weeks to four years, the types of training I received involved: principles and practices of radiation protection; radioactivity me:asurement standardization and monitoring techniques and instruments; mathematics and calculations basic to use and measurement of radioactivity; and biological effects of radiation. l i 1 l
"" " MWL*_.2-__-,--_TTFP'*--
__-h 2. a'2M--- -mmL v.vmm,= = m.u - - -m - - ----- ----x--- - -------
i Attachment 14 - 4 I PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOHN N. HAMAWI President ENTECH ENGINEERING, INC. My name is John N. Hamawi and my business address is Entech Engineering, Inc., 18 Lyman Street, Westboro, Massachusetts 01581. I am currently the President of Entech Engineering and have held this position since November of 1979. I received my Doctorate degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969. From September 1963 to August 1969 I was employed in a graduate stu-dent capacity at MIT as a part-time research/ teaching assist-ant. In this position, I gained experience in the following areas: the design, construction and/or operation of a number of experimental setups in the Plasma Physics and Reactor Physics laboratories; radiation shielding; gramma-ray spectros-copy; activation analysis; and computer programming. From September 1969 to November 1970 I was employnd by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts as an Engineer in the Radiation Protection Group. My major assignments included: the nuclear design of an industrial radiographic facility with an 8 MeV electron linear accelerator which involved shielding calculations to ensure the selection of a design that would provide adequate protection
from radiation generated by the accelerator; and the development of an analytical method and computer code for eval-unting the radiological impact of nuclear power reactors from postulated accidental releases. In 1970 I joined Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), Westboro, Massachusetts. From December 1970 until September 1973 I was employed ai an Engineer in YAEC's Safety Analysis Group (now Radiological). One of my major assignments involved the development of analysis and computer codes for the eval-uation of: potential radiological consequences of accidents postulated to occur in light-water reactors; radiological expo-sure from routine radioactive effluents and finite clouds; radiation shielding; fission product generation, decay, diffu-sion and transport; radiolytic hydrogen generation during a postulated LOCA; body burden evaluation of power-plant person-nel from in vivo measurements; and meteorological data reduc-tion techniques (joint frequency distributions and atmospheric dilution factors). In addition, I was instrumental'in applying the above methods and computer codes in the preparation of-PSAR's, FSAR's and Environmental Reports. In October 1973 I was an Engineer in the Research and Engineering Development Group at YAEC. I retained this posi-tion through November of 1974. One of my major assignments and accomplishments was the development of an analysis method for
evaluating the smearing (or redistribution) of fission product decay heat between adjacent fuel rods during shutdown condi-tions for use in LOCA analyses. I also provided technical consultation in the Radiological Engineering Group at Yankee. Fron. December 1974 to October 1976 I held the position of Senior Engineer of Research and Engineering Development at YAEC. I was responsible for a project aimed at providing Yankee Atomic with a LOCA analysis capability. The project plan called for the adoption of the Water Reactor Evaluation Model (WREM) prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 1 for modelling the Yankee plant at Rowe, Massachusetts, as a benchmark. I was also responsible for the development of methodology and computer codes for the determination of: (1) hourly and average atmospheric dilution factors and deposition rates of power-plant radioactive effluents for inland and coastal sites (with trapping and fumigation), and (ii) statis-tical distributions of dose intensity from finite clouds of accidentally released radioactive materials for use in design-basis analyses. From November 1976 to June 1977 I was Principal Engineer in the Technical Resources Department at YAEC. My ; l respensibilities were to provide technical input to Yankee's l research and engineering development program, and to maintain an active technical / consulting role within the Yankee organization. l l l I l
The last position I held at YAEC, from July 1977 to November 1979, was that of Principal Engineer in the Environmental Engineering Department. My responsibilities included providing technical consultation and developing new, state-of-the-art analytical methods and computer codes in the area of radiological engineering and atmospheric dispersion. One of my major accomplishments was to develop a method for computing the gamma dose integrals for the finite-cloud sector-average model. This method has been endorsed b; the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is presently ir.cluded in Regulatory Guide 1.109. I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society, New England Chapter. My theses and publications include:
" Spectroscopic Measurement of Argon and Helium Excited State Densities in a Hollow Cathode Discharge", S.M.
Thesis, MIT, Nuclear Engineering Department, 1964 (Prof. L. M. Lidsky, Supervisor).
" Investigation of Elemental Analysis Using Neutron-Capture Gamma-Ray Spectra", Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Nuclear Engineering Department, 1969 (Prof. N.C. Rasmussen, Supervisor).
" Neutron-Capture Gamma Rays of 75 Elements Listed in Terms of Increasing Gamma-Ray Energy", MITNE-lOS, 1969 (Co-Author N.C. Rasmussen).
"A Useful Recurrence Formula for the Equations of Radioactive Decay", Nuclear Technology Vol. 11, pp.
84-88 (May 1971).
" Yankee Rowe Core XI - Decay Heat Redistribution Factor During Shutdown Conditions", YAEC-1071 (June 1974).
_____,,-----.__n --
"Toward the Development of Yankee LOCA-Analysis Capability - Project Plan, Phase I", YAEC-1081 (Jan.
1975)
"A Method for Computing the Gamma-Dose Integrals Il and I2 for the Finite-Cloud Sector-Average Model",
YAEC-1105 (April 1976)
"AEOLUS - A Computer Code for Determining Hourly and i
Long-Term Atmospheric Dispersion of Power-Plant Effluents and for Computing Statistical Distributions of Dose Intensity from Accidental Releases", YAEC-1120 (Jan. 1977) (see also ANS Transaction Vol. 26, P. 123, June 1977)
"A Modified Variable Trajectory Puff Advection Model for Airborne Effluents", ANS Transaction, Volume 27, page 122. November 1977 (Co-authors J. Laznow, B. L.
Drawbridge).
"SKIRON - A Computer code for Determining Atmospheric Dispersion Conditions for Design Basis Accident Evaluation", YAEC-1138, October 1977. (Also presented 3 in ANS topical meeting on "Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety", May 8-10, 1978, Los Angeles, California). (Co-author J. Laznow).
" Comparison of the Critical-Sector and Overall-Site Atmospheric Dispersion Models". ANS Transactions, Vol.
32, Page 107, June 1979
" Comments on Regulatory Guide 1.145, ' Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," ENTECH Report P100-R1, December 1979
" DIDOS-III - A three-Dimensional Point-Kernel Shielding Code for Cylindrical Sources", ENTECH Report P100-R2, December 1980 "A Nomogram for the Interpretation of I-131 Field-Sample Measurements without the Need of Numerical Calculations", ENTECH Report P100-R3, January 1981 "A Method of Computing the Gamma Dose Integrals II and I2 for the Gaussian Puff Model in Meteorology and Atomic Energy", ENTECH Report P100-R4, May 1981
"DORITA - A Computer Code for the Determination of Radioactivity and Radiation Levels in Various Areas of a Nuclear. Power Station and Offsite Following Accidental Releases of Gaseous Fission Products",
ENTECH Report P100-RS, October 1981 "SKIRON-II - The Finite-Cloud Gaussian Puff Model, The Valley Model, and Other Revisions", ENTECH Report P100-R6, December 1981 "SKIRON-II - A Computer Code for the Determination of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants - A Collection of Relevant Reports", ENTECH Report P100-R7, l December 1981 l "RADFLEX - A Two-Dimensional Shielding Code for the Determination of Skyshine Radiation from Point-Isotropic Gamma Sources", ENTECH Report P100-R8, 1 January 1982 l l
~~ -~
Attcchment 14 - 5 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS LOUIS P. POCALUJKA Manager, Monitoring Projects, Systems Engineering Group l TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. My name is Louis Pocalujka and my business address is TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., 800 Connecticut Boulevard, East Hartford, Connecticut 06108. I am presently Manager, Monitoring Projects in the Systems Engineering Group, within the Engineering Division of TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (TRC). In this capacity, I manage the design, implementation and operation of meteorological and air quality programs. I interface with other groups within TRC, such as Computer Systems, Dispersion Modeling, Quality Assurance, and Permits and Siting in multi-disciplinary projects. I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology and Oceanography in 1969 and my Master of Science degree in Meteorology in 1971 from the University of Michigan. Prior to joining TRC, I worked in the Environmental Division at Sargent & Lundy as a meteorologist. In 1974 I was appointed Supervisor of the Meteorological / Air Quality Section, I which grew to a staff of eight meteorologists and air chemists. l
My project duties included meteorological input to safety analysis reports, environmental reports and site selection stu-dies for nuclear and fossil fuel power stations. I have worked with design engineers and environmental staff of various disci-plines, providing design basis meteorology, dispersion analyses and specifying wind tunnel studies for determining optimum stack and vent heights for minimizing atmospheric impact. I determined requirements for meteorological and air quality mon-itoring program specifications, made recommendations for pur-chase and monitored vendor performance. I worked with clients j and regulatory agencies in relation to power plant licensing and/or operation. I have been an expert witness in various types.of proceedings, including environmental hearings, safety hearings, ACRS hearings, variance petitions and civil suits. While at the University of Michigan I worked as an Assistant Research Meteorologist and as a Teaching Fellow. I participated in the operation of a meteorological monitoring program for a lakeshore nuclear power plant; was involved in a meteorological and oceanographic field program on Lake Michigan; taught an undergraduate survey course in meteorology and instituted and conducted a special lecture program for ele-1 mentary and junior high school students. My non-project responsibilities at TRC include partici-pation in TRC's work group on PSD requirements, participation in TRC's work groups on the NRC's post-TMI licensing and emer-l gency preparedness requirements as they affect meteorological l
monitoring and modeling, and marketing and sales support. A sampling of my recent project experience includes: a) Project Manager for TRC's operation of Detroit Edison's Air Quality Monitoring Network. The network is comprised of 20 stations monitoring 96 parameters
- spread over the utility's service area.
The project includes the design and in-stallation of a new microcomputer based, real-time digital system as well as operations and data reduction. The program is required to conform with EPA guidelines for PSD monitoring as well as NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.23 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B for nuclear licens-ing purposes. b) Project Manager working with TRC's Manager of Quality Assurance to provide Virginia Electric Power with a QA/QC critique and evaluation of their Air Quality Division's program, including organization, design, field operations, hardware support, QA/QC practices and data processing. c) Project Manager for TRC's effort in support of Sandia Laboratories' work to study, design and build a deep salt mine repository for radioactive waste material. TRC's initial contract was to incorporate meteorolgical data col-lected by Sandia into a report suitable for licensing purposes. Follow-on work included the development of a refined data reduction process for Sandia, quality assurance training, consulting in the development of a quality assur-ance program for the meteorological and air quality programs at the site and external quality assurance audits of those programs. d) Project Manager for TRC's licensing work in support of the Illinois Power Company's Clinton Station. This work encompassed meteorological input into the PSAR and FSAR, including accident and long-term modeling. The long-term effort for the FSAR utilized the NRC
MESODIFF Model, recommended for Regulatory Guide 1.111 applications. e) Project Manager for TRC's licensing efforts for Ohio Edison's proposed Erie Station through their A/E, Com:nonwealth Associates. TRC provided PSAR input and several revisions to that document. The revisions included long-term X/Q modeling using the NRC's XOQDOQ Model which was developed to respond to Appendix I and Revision O of the Regulatory Guide 1.111. Other efforts for this work included control room habitability studies for chemical tank-car accidents and alternate site investigations. I am affiliated with the ASTM-22 Committee, the American Meteorological Society and the Air Pollution Control Association.
=
u
Attachment 14 - 6 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOHN F. SCHMITT Radiochemistry Engineer LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY My name ic John F. Schmitt. I am the Radiochemistry Engineer of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a position I have held since January 1975. As such, I am responsible for developing and implementing the chemistry, radiochemistry and effluent monitoring program for Shoreham. This includes, among other things, directing all work related to conducting the chemical and radiochemical analyses and treatments of plant process systems; detecting and controlling environmental re-leases; implementing the ALARA policy for these releases; and l preparing records and reports of chemical surveys. . l I graduated from Manhattan College in 1966 with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry and received a Master of Science degree in Environmental Health Science, specializing in Radiological Health (Health Physics), from the University of Michigan in 1974 and became a Certified Health Physicist in 1982. I completed the General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Chemistry Course in November 1975. I have also completed many industry seminars and training programs, including:
- a. Radiation Protection - LILCO Evening Institute
- b. Radiation Protection Workshops - General Electric Company m
- c. BWR Chemistry Training - General Electric Company
- d. Health Physics Review - Rockwell International
- e. Accelerated Health Physics Instruction - NUS
- f. Accelerated Nuclear Plant Chemistry Instruction -
NUS
- g. Health Physics Review - Brookhaven National Labs
- h. Environmental Radiation Surveillancu - Harvard School of Public Health
- 1. Radioactive Waste Management for Nuclear Power Reactors - ASME/ University of Virginia
- j. Post Accident Sampling Workshops - Sentry Equipment, EPRI
- k. Control of Plant Radiation Fields - EPRI, General Electric Company
- 1. Atomic Absorption / Atomic Emission Spectrometry -
Instrumentation Labs
- m. Gamma Spectrometer Operation - Canberra Industries I started work for the Long Island Lighting Company in 1966 as an Assistant Engineer at the Far Rockaway Power Station. I took a military leave of absence from 1967-1972 to serve as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. Returning to LILCO in 1972, I was an Associate Engineer at the Glenwood' Power Station. From 1973 until assuming my present position in 1975, I was assigned to the staff of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station as an Associate Engineer and Plant Engineer. During this time, I studied health physics at the University of
a P 3-Michigan and received training at the AEC's Savannah River Plant and Commonwealt;: Edison's Dresden Nuclear Power Station.
'I am a member of the Health Physics Society, New York Chapter of the Health Phisics Society, Power Reactor Health Physicists, and the Long Island Chapter of the American Nuclear Society.
i 1 s a.-~ , _ ,, w w ,* -
,,y y --e y ---* w. r- +sv-me--' -
Submitted: __ k f/ h A Y MC*
'Reviswad/0QA ngr.: h[mo Attachment 14'- 7
[ Approved / Plant Mgr.: SP Number 69.022.01 Revision: e Date Eff.: 7/no/R? TPC TPC TPC DETERMINATION OF OFFSITE DOSES ( . _ ._ _ _ .. .. _. . 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is describe the method to determine offsite doses. 2.0 RESPONSIBILITY The Radiation Protection Manager / Radiological Control Manager shall be responsible for the implementation of this procedure. PPF 1021.600-6.421
3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 This procedure is used to determine offsite doses based upon short term, abnormal release conditions. The dose calculations are based upon finite [ cloud analyses. - 3.2 There are two methods described in this procedure. One makes use of the computerized radiation monitoring system (RMS), while the other.is's annual method to be used in cases of RMS unavailability. 3.3 The computerized RMS method described in the' procedure assumes that the software is running in the ACCIDENT mode. This mode is selected either manually or automatically by the RMS. It is important to note that initial dose assessment, prior to grab sample analyses, is based upon an assumed inventory mixture of nuclides (i.e. LOCA, fuel bandling). ' 3.4 The manual method descrfbed in this procedure employs the use of nomograms for dose assessment. There are eight (8) nomograms from which to select. Each nomogram is based upon assumed LOCA nuclide release mixtures. When using this method, it is important to understand the bases and assumptions described on each nomogram. 3.4.1 only whole body dose calculations are provided for the normal station ventilation exhaust monitor. These doses assume 100% noble gas LOCA mixtures. 3.4.2 Both whole body and thyroid dose calculations are provided for the reactor building standby ventilation systen monitor. These doses assume 100% noble gas LOCA mixtures for the whole body, and 25% halogen LOCA mixtures with 99% filtration for thyroid doses. ( 3.5 This procedure details the method to obtain dose projection for o'ne point from beginning to end. The Radiation Protection Manager / Radiological Control Manager can have several different people doing this calculation for different distances simultaneously. If this is the case, the worksheet (Appendix 12.1) is filled out until the atmospheric dispersion factor (item
- 13) is obtained. Once this is done the highest dose can be obtained by using the nomograms for situations where time limits are constrained. The RPM /RCH will uce the best method for completing this procedure depending on staff availability. .
3.6 Topics covered in this proc'edure: g 8.1 Determination of offsite doses using the 3 comuterized radiation monitoring system
- 8. 2 Determination of offsite doses using the 3 nomograms Appendix 12.1 Radioactive Effluent Monitor Nomogram Worksheet Appendix 12.2 Tabulated Dose and Protective Action Worksheet Appendix 12.3 Terrain Heights SP 69.922 01 Rev. 9
( 7/09/82 Page 2
====m' '
Appendix 12.4 Plume Cantarlins Conesntratica (Xu/Q) Appandix 12.5 Gaussica Puff Gamma (Xu/Q) Appendix 12.6 Nomograms * [ 4.0 PRECAUTIONS
- N/A -
5.0 PREREQUISITES
- N/A 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND ACTIONS 6.1 Personnel using this procedure shobd be aware of the bases for the assumed nuclide sixtures used in the dose calculations.
7.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT . 7.1 Radiation honitoring System 1 -8.0 PROCEDURE 8.1 Determination of offsite doses using the computerized radiation monitoring system. (RMS) (LATER) _ 8. 2 Deter =ination of offsite doses using the nom,; ans. ( 8.2.1 Dose Assessment Staff Members or In plant a.adiation Monitoring
, Technician, obtain a copy of the Radioactive Effluent Monitor -
Nomogram Worksheet (Appendix 12.1) and fill out the worksheet usin5 the following instructions: 8.2.1.1 Record the current date (item 1) and time (item 2) 8.2.1.2 Obtain wind speed (item 3) and wind direction (item 4) for both 150 ft. and 33 f t. tower levels from either the Control Room or local tower readouts. Convert wind speed to appropriate units. Determine affected downwind sector (iten'4) by referring to the following table: l l Indicated Wind Direction Affected Downwind Sa'etor 0 to 11.25 5 11.25 to 33.75 SSW 33.75 to 56.25 SW 56.25 to 78.75 11SW 78.75 to 101.25 W 101.25 to 123.75 liNW 123.75 to 146.25 15i 146.25 to 168.75 NNW 168.75 to 191.25 ' N 191.25 to 213.75 NNE 213.75 to 236.25 NE ( 236.25 to 258.75 ENE SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 . Page 3 _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ . - _ . - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - --
Indiented Wind Dirnetien Affected Downwind Secter 258.75 to 281.25 E
- 281.25 to 303.75 g( ,
203.75 to 326.25 ESE SE 326.25 to 348.75 SSE 348.75 tb 371.25 . S 371.25 to 393.75 SSW . s? 393.75 to 416.25 - SW 416.25 to 438.75 WSW 438.75 to 461.25 W 461.25 to 483.75 WNW 483.75 to 506.25 NW 506.25 to 528.75 NNW , 528.75 to 540.00 - N
- 8. 2.1. 3 Determina atmospheric stability class (iten Sa, b, or c) using one of the following methods:
.1 Obtain the 33-150 ft. temperature difference (item Sa) from the Control Room or local tower readout.
Choose the correct stability class from the following tables Delta-T ('F) Stability Atmospheric 33-150 ft Class Condition Less than -1.22 A Extremely Unstable
-1.22 to -1.09 3 Moderately Unstable
-1.09 to -0.96 C Slightly Unstable
(
-0.96 to 0.32 D Neutral 0.32 to 0.96 E Slightly Stable i 0.96 to 2.57 F Moderately Stable Greater than 2.57 C Extremely Stable , NOTE: For borderline cases, choose the most stable class (e.g.,
if delta-T = 0.32, choose stability Class E).
.2 If the temperature difference (item Sa) is not available, record the standard deviation of wind direction fluctuation (eigne theta - item 5b) from either the 33-f t. level of the primary tower or the backup tower, and choose the correct stability class from the fonoving list:
signa checa (degrees) Stability Atmospheric 3 3-f t. Level Class Condition Greater than 22.5 A Extremely Unstable 17.5 to 22.5 B Moderately Unstable 12.5 to 17.5 C Slightly Unstable
- 7. 5 to 12.5 D Neutral 3.8 to 7.5 E Slightly Stable 2.1 to 3.8 F Moderately Stable Less than 2.1 C Extremely Stable
( SP 69.922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 4
NOTE: For bordsrlina cas::s, chscoo the mont otablo cless (e.g., if cigan theta = 7.5, chosco occbility Class E). * ( . .3 If no delta-T or sigan theta data is available.'
' e choose the stability class using the wind speed from item 3 and the following table: .
33-ft Wind
- Day h .t Speed Incomina Solar Radiation Degree of Loudiness (aph) Strona Moderate Slight >50% <50%
<4 A A-B B 4-7 A-B B C E . F 7-11 B 8-C C D -E - - -
l 11-14 C C-D D D D
>14 C - D D D D I
The degree of cloudiness is defined as that fraction of the sky above the local apparent horizon that is covered by clouds. The neutral Class D, should be assumed for heavy overcast conditions during day or night. MOTE: For borderline windspeed, choose the most stable class (e.g. if windspeed = 11 aph, choose stability Class C for daytime with strong incoming solar radiation). 8,2.1.4 Determine the type of release (ground-level or elevated) (. - by contacting the Control Room and obtaining ,the. station vent average flow rate (item 6a). Calculate the exit velocity (item 6b) and the velocity ratio (item 6c). Circle the release type (itsa 6d). 8.2.1.5 Radiation Protection Manager, Radiological Control Manager, or in plant MmMation Monitoring Technician, determine the distance to downwind receptor (item 7). NOTE: Use judgement when picking valves at. which to perform dose projection. Take into accosme factors such as windspeed, stability class, affected areas, and population. density. Dose projection can only be done for distances given in Appendix 12.3. If does assessasnt staff members are available, several calculations can be performed simultaneously at different distances. If this is the case the Radioactive Effluent Monitor Nomogram Worksheet (Appendix 12.1) can be completed for these different distances up to ites 13 (atmospheric dispersion factor) and recorded on the Tabulated Dose and Protective Action Worksheet (Appendix 12.2) before using the nomograms and completing the worksheets. I SP 69 922.91 Rev. 9
'7/09/82 Page 5
, 8.2.1.6 '
Detcraina rectptor cicvstien chova mecn can icval (MSL)
. by using Appendix 12.3 along with stability class (item
- 5) and distance to downwind receptor (item 7).,
( NOTE: THIS STEP FOR ELEVATED RELEASES ONLY. 8.2.1.7 Determine plume rise (item 9) for the appropriate stability class (item 5), and record the lowest valve using the guidance on the workaheet. NOTE: THIS STEP FOR ELEVATED RELEASES ONLY 8.2.1.8 Calculate the effective plume height above receptor (item
- 10) and then choose the tabulated plume height closest to this value.
NOTE: THIS ' STEP FOR ELEVATED RELEASES ONLY 8.2.1.9 Contact the Control Room and determine the release point (item 11). Determine the type of exposure (item 12) by circling the system affected. 8.2.1.10 Determine the atmospheric dispersion factor for type of exposure (whole body gamma and/or thyroid) as follows:
.1 Select the gaussian puff gamme Xu/Q tables (Appendix 12.5) for whole body exposure or plume centerline concentration Iu/Q tables (Appendix 12.4) for thyroid exposure.
( .2 From type of release (item 5) and/or tabulated plume height (item 10 - for elevated releases), choose the proper table for whole body and/or thyroid exposure.
.3 Find the proper Zu/Q value using the stability class (item 5) and distance to downwind receptor (item 7).
Record the Zu/Q value (item 13) on the worksheet. 8.2.1.11 Contact J;he Control Room and determine the radiation monitor reading (item 14) in cym. If the radiation monitor reading is offscale or inoperable obtain Xe-133 and I-131 dose equivalents free results of a grab sample. NOTE: Inform RPM or RCM that a sample is needed if not already takan. 8.2.1.12 Based upon release point (item 11), type of exposure (item 12) and radiation monitor reading or dose equivalents (item 14) determine the proper nomogram (s) to use. Record the number (s) on the worksheet (item 15) and obtain a copy of the noeogram (Appendix 12.6). ( i SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 6
Nomogram No. Deecriptien 1 Station vent routine offluent monitor
. noble gas release
( . wholabody gamma dose 2 Station vent high-range monitor
. noble gas release
. wholabody gamma dose 3 RBSYS low-range monitor
. noble gas release
. wholebody gamma dose 4 RBSYS low-range monitor
. potential halogen release rate
. . potential thyroid dose rate 3 . RBSYS intermediate-range monitor
. noble gas release !
. wholabody gamma dose 6 RBSYS intermediate-range monitor "
. potential halogen release rate
. . potential thyroid dose 7 RBSYS high-range monitor
. noble gas release
. wholabody gamma dose
,z -
( 8 RBSYS high-range monitor -
. potential halogen release rate
. potential tnyroid dose rate 8.2.1.13 Contact the Centrol Room to determine the airflow at the duct sampled or monitored (item 16) and time of reactor scram (item 17). Determine time since reactor scram.
NOTE: If the reactor is not yet shutdown, the time since reactor scram is aero. 8.2.1.14 Use the selected nomogram and the following information to compute the radioactivity release rate and the dose rate (item 18) at the receptor of interest:
. Monitor reading or grab sample concentration (from Step
. Vent flow (from Step 16)
. Time since reactor scram (from Step 17)
. Prevailing vind speed (from Step 3 in uph; use the 33-ft data for a ground-level release and the 150-ft data for an elevated release as determined in Step 6)
. The Zu/Q value (from Step 13)
( . . SP 69 922.91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 7 l ._ . . _ _ _ . . . ,
.- . . ~ . - . .. ..
8.2.1.15 To Determini Dom Ratn .
.1 Locate the monitor reading o' n the lef t hand axis.
If monitor reading is unavailable, use grab sample ( . dose equivalent and continue with Step 8.2.14.4.
.2 Nove horizontally to the right until the slanted line corresponding to the flow rate is intercepted.
.3 Move vertically up until slanted line corresponding to time af ter reactor shutdown is intercepted.
.4 Nove horizcatally to the right until slanted line corresponding to wind speed is intercepted.
NOTE: For elevated releases, use. elevated windspeed; for ground releases, use ground windspeed.
.5 Novs vertically down until the slanted line corresponding to the etmospheric dispersion factor is interceptsd.
.6 Nove horizontally to the right and read off the dose rate.
8.2.1.16 To Determine Release Rate
.1 Locate the monitor reading on the left hand axis.
i( ~ ~
.2 ' Move horizontally to the right until the slanted line corresponding to the flow rate is intercepted.
.3 Move vertically down until slanted line corresponding to time after reactor shutdown is intercepted.
.4 Nove horizontally to the left and read off the release rate.
8.2.1.17 Contact the Control Room and determine release duration (item 19). 8.2.1.18 Complete item 20 to determine whole body and thyroid dose for the point of interest. Record them on Appendix 12.1.
- 9. 0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA N/A
( SP 69 922.91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 8
30.0 FINAL CONDITIONS Projected whole body and/or thyroid doses for points of interest have been calculated. - 11.0 REFERENCIS , Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan . 12.0 APPENDICES 12.1 Radioactive Effluent Monitor Nomogram Worksheet, SPF69 922.91-1 12.2 Tabulated Dose and Protective Action Worksheet, SPF69 922 91-2 12.3 Terrain Heights 12.4 Plume Centerline Concentration Xu/Q 12.5 Gaussian Puff Gamma Zu/Q 12.6 Nomograms l l l (. ( SP 69 922.91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 9 ___ __m____ __------- - - - - - -------
APPENDIX 12.1 Peg 2'l cf 4 RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITOR NOMOGRAM WORKSHEET . Tour Name:
- 1. Date: 2. Time: .
- 3. Wind speed: u(33-ft level) aph; I 9 447 = m/see u(150-ft level) aph; I p.447 = m/sec
- 4. Wind direction: 33-ft level degrees; sector 150-ft level degrees; sector ,
~' ~" '"
(See page 3 of procedure for affected downwind sec't'or)
- 5. Atmospheric Stability (Pick one - use a, b, or e in that order. See Step 8.2.1.3 for instructions).
- a. Delta Temperature: (33-150 ft) dag. F; stability
- b. Sigma Theta (33 f t) ; stability
- c. Wind Speed (33 ft) aph; Time of Day (Choose one and circle appropriate condition in parenthesis)
Day - Incoming Solar Radiation (Strong, Moderate, Slight) Night - Degree of Cloudiness (>50% <50%) Stability
- 6. Release Type ~ *
- a. Station vent flow: F cfm
- b. Exit velocity : Wo = F(cfa) X 8.47 I 10-5 = m/see
- c. Velocity ratio : R, . y,( /..e) '/ u(150-f t; m/sec) =
NOTE: If Rv is less than .5, the release is to be assumed to be at ground level; if Rv is greater than or equal to 5 the release is elevated.
- d. Release type (circle one): ground release elevated release
- 7. Distance to downwind receptor: X= miles NOTE: FOR GROUND RELEASE (item 6d) PROCEED DIRECTLY TO STEP 11
- 8. Receptor elevation: he = a above MSL (ELEVATED RELEASE ONLY) from Appendix 12.3; use stability caass (item 5) and distance to downwind receptor (item 7).
SPF 69 922 91-1, Rev. 9 (
\
SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 10 ii
' APPENDIX 12.1
~
Pags 2 of 4
- 9. Plume rises (FOR ELEVATED RELEASES ONLY) -
Compute hpr(1) and hpr(2) for all stabilities: hpr(1) = 32.4 (Rv 2 I)I/3 = a hpr(2) = 7.98 Rv = a Compute hpr(3) and hpr(4) for stability classes E, F, and G only: hpr(3) = 30 Wol /2 = a (stability E) .
= 24 Wol /2 = s (stability F)
= 21 WoI /2 = a (stability G) hpr(4) =
6.4 (RvWo)I/3 = a (stability E)
=
5.5 (RvWo)l/3 = a (stability F)
=
4.9 (RvWo)I/3 = a (stability G) Choose the final plume rise (hpr) asi follows: Stabilities A, B, C, and D h pr = lesser of hpr (1) and hpr (2) = a ( Stabilities E, F, and G
- h pr = lesser of bpr (1) through hpr (4) = a
- 10. Effective plume height above receptor (FOR ELEVATED RELEASES ONLT). Use hpr (item 9) and ht (item 8) he = 75.9 + hpr - he
= 75.9 + - = a Tabulated p*.une height (H) closest to he is:
H (choose 35, 70, 105 or 140) = a
- 11. Release point (circle one): Station Vent; RBSYS SPF69.922 91-1 Rev. 9
(
~SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 11
l ' Appendix 12.1 P:32 3 cf 4 -
- 12. Type of er.posure (circle release point): Aiole body (station vent or RBSYS)
{ thyroid (RBSYS only) - -
- 13. Atmospheric dispersion' factor .
Type of exposure (item 12): . Whole Body - Use gaussian puff ganas Iu/Q ta51es (Appendix 12.3) Thyroid - Use plume centerline concentration Xu/Q tables (Appendix 12.4) Type of Release: - (Ground or elevated. If elevated release use tabulated plume height from item
- 10. Use proper table for thyroid and/or whole body exposure).
Choose ones ground level release elevated release (H = 35 m) elevated release (H = 70 m) elevated release (H = 105 m) elevated release (H = 140 m) Stability and distance (item 5 and 7) Find the proper Xu/Q value for whole body and/or thyroid exposure using stability class (item 5) and distance to downwind receptor (ites.7).
-( . Zu/Q (whole body) =
(1/m2 ) Xu/Q (thyroid) = (1/m ) - *- NOTE: Record these values and distance (item 7) or Appendix 12.2
- 14. Radiation monitor reading epm; Ze-133 Dose Eq. uCi/cc I-131 Dose Eq. uCi/cc
- 15. Number of nomogram selected: (Whole Body)
(Thyroid)
- 16. Air flow at the duct sampled or monitored: cfm
- 17. Time of reactor scram: ; Time since reactor scram
~
hours (24 hr clock)
- 18. a. Radioactivity release rate .uCi/sec; noble gas
- b. Offsite dose rate: ar/hr; whole body gamma
- c. Radioactivity release rate: uCi/sec; rcdiciodine
- d. Offsite dose rate: ar/hr; thyroid SPF 69 922 91-1, Rev. 9 l
sr 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 12
' Appendix 12.1 Pega 4 of 4
- 19. Release duration: hrs. -
20a. Whole Body Dose = Item 18b x item 19
= x / 1000 = ren
- b. Thyroid Dose = Item 18d x item 19
= x / 1000 = res 9
SPF 69 922 91-1, Rev. 9 8 SP 69 922.91 Ray. 9 7/09/82 Page 13
-n n .
.. m APPENDIX 12.2 TABULATED DOSE AND PROTECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET Ossneesson c0ctricetwT rn0Jtcato Oost EVACUATION 00$t SHELien 00$t htcoutetNDA180N DISTANCE lu LES) tilYn040(MU/QI WHolt SODYl Ell /ul THYRO 10 Witolt 8007 THindeO WHOLE 500f VHVn060. WHOLE 900f THYR 060 WH0tt 9007 8
(10'84'l 1:0-84) Insul latul (atul . tatus (atul (atul , t sTE eOun0Anv l l l de SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 . 7/09/82 Page 14
..u .- -
.s.
./ .
. . 1 m ..
5 ao9 === .... . . . . .., - ( . n R ... .s = 0, .
. n . ; -
. .n 5
i *sh......ov0 '
~
.- ; i
*E Em M a i
. .~ .
,gs. ss~ 6 ., . . x -
8 x 9* n m M m ~> ~s
. m
= .
g g,' -
. .n~
g '
- h t 4 4 4 4 4 " t h R 4'4%
2 y .
. 55.s
=~
- l. .._ R R ,s sss si45. 4 x,
,s'**
~
g %% 4 ,; *. 8 l
. ~ -
. R. .4 ~= 4 % 5 4 n .4.s. 4=ss = 4 4 *. . .
g H .g I
- g i .
$$$ Nhk E # *E5 NME N 2
~ .. . i. . - -
( m -
'~'
I u m .g 4-4% ms4 M N 84 4%. ekm
- cs Nw% **M
. H . ! . ,
i m
# 4%I YkN $$N N.N D D $ -
l . . E m m
- N IIk k'k -
k - o
$k kN . .
. 4 at
$ 4 m og e= g M ..O OOO OOO' y 400 000 000 OQQ OQQ .
as 400 000 00O QCO C00 2 * ' 7, . g wgC .00 000 000 000
.( s. * .-'
.. L' ** a m O in
= .m tse e .. e.en.. o nn. .o m. o .art. o.
g *d *
- M .-4 'MNm mww to r* et .
N. .
APPENDIX ) 4 Page 1 of . NMEHAN STATIM - PL18E-CENTERI.10E 1XBEElfTMTim (XeU/El (1/M25 l l
. GROUND-LEVEL RELEASE - StV1X RERATS SY INE MILLION 1
MILEE A 8 C 9 E F G
.10 73.824 142.587 218.885 451.874 733.325 1528.773 3529.400
.25 40.552 83.888 155.355 307.503 517.204 1035.001 2177.300
. .50 .8.338 25.814 58.555 134.300 203.135 428.801 548.132 .
.75 2.868 10.212 29.688 90.539 132.840 244.188 485.547 1.0 2.005 4.932 18.422 55.140 54.347 185.540 338.534 1.5 1.480 2.004 8.447 31.748 55.471 105.474 195.837 2.0 1.147 1,581 5.844 20.818 38.311 74.844 137.574 2.5 .945 1.235 4.019 l 14.781 28.872 57.284 108.70s i 3.0 .815 1.088 2.559 11.342 22.585 47.484 89.414 l 3.5 -
.720 .944 2.283 8.060 10.490 40.238 78.541 4.0 .844 ,.838 1.825 7.503 15.572 34.709 86.853 4.5 .585 .758 1.485 S.342 13.395 30.134 58.585 5.0 .538 .593 1.258 5.485 11.722 28.807 52.281 7.5 .368 .487 .713 3.208 7.151 17.112 34.340
. 10.0 .298 .390 .524 2.1H 5.020 12.509 25.580 15.0 .214 .274 .360 1.204 3.038 5.009 16.872 20.0 .185 .215 .231 .811 2.185 5.981 12.881 25.0 .138 .175 .245 .803 1.708 4.552 10.209 30.0 .120 .155 .213 .479 1.415 3.783 3.580 35.0 .106 .138 .188 .383 1.203 3.225 7.408 40.0 .096 .122 .188 .333 1.044 2.800 8.528 45.0 .007 .110 .148 .251 .927 2.482 5.853 50.0 .000 .100 .135 .258 .325 2.222 5.302 -
SP 69 922 91 gen g 7/09/82 page 16
. ... I
n n m
* / APPENDIX a .4 I Pega 2 of 5 95lEHAN STAillBI - FLifE-CDfMRLIIE EXM:GmlAT!tNI (Net #/WI (t/IIII ,
f* ELBMTED RELEAK (N = 35 NI - DIV!8E REELA.TS SY INE MILLItBI MILES A B C D E F G
.30 88.828 100.083 113.557 28.242 1.400 .000 .000 '
.25 30.738 31.800 105.985 38.150 12.023 .005 .000
~
.50 S.358 25.347 52.257 85.024 75.274 9.385 .021
.75 2.875 10.175 28.570 83.828 78.715 35.000 1.800 1.0 2.084 4.932 17.800 47.508 50.012 53.482 S.535 1.5 1.480 2.007 9.335 28.294 48.335 37.480. 25.584 2.0 1.148 1.583 5.003 15.517 33.880 48.853 31.488 2.5 .545 1.296 4.000 14.100 28.087 42.113 34.222 3.0 .817 1.005 2.548 10.984 20.047 35.882 ~35.829 3.5 .720 .945 2.277 0.M3 17.257 32.300 35.481 4.0 .544 .830 1.821 7.337 14.857 28.644 34.054 4.5 .585 .758 1.492 S.220 12.700 25.335 31.833 5.0 .535 .883 1.258 5.375 11.174 22.883 29.873 7.5 .388 .487 .713 3.155 5.917 15.173 23.013 10.0 .250 .300 .524 2.148 4.088 11.407 10.373 15.0 .214 .274 .380 1.187 2.575 7.408 12.914 20.0 .308 .215 .291 .000 2.149 5.485 10.007 25.0 .138 .179 .245 .001 1.585 4.330 3.305 30.0 .120 .355 .213 .478 1.357 3.801 7.063 ,
. 35.0 .108 .138 .188 .302 1.189 3.073 5.255 40.0 .098 .122 .188 .332 1.033 2.875 5.470 45.0 .087 .110 .349 .291 .517 2.300 4.941 -
50.0 .000 .100 SF 69 922 91 Rev. p
.135 .237 ' .521 2.137 4.503 7/09/82 rage 17
_x_____ . .. - . .-...a
e ^ g eguD11 12.4 ' Pcs'J 3 8I
. 98MIEHAN STATIM - PL12E-CDfiBILilE CIMBfMATIM (NeU/88 (1/112) '
ELENTES IIELEAK (N = 70 MI - DIVli'E 8EELA.78 BY (BE MILT.IM NILES A B C D E F 8
.18 38.107 17.438 3.011 .000 .000 0.000 0.000
, .25 29.950 29.170 12.598 .048 .000 .000 0.000
! , .50 0.220 20.704 27.534 7.238 .325 .00G .000
.75 2.878 9.557 20.889 15.001 5.278 .017 .000 1.0 2.084 4.818 14.825 18.538 10.878 .308 .000 1.5 1.480 2.005 8.453 17.158 15.815 2.888 .008 2.0 1.148 1.583 5.484 13.481 15.883 5.811 .085 2.5 .945 1.288 3.838 10.754 14.247 7.988 .218 3.0 .817 1.085 2.858 8.824 12.511 0.582 .548 3.5 . .720 .945 2.223 7.383 11.082 8.448 .957 4.0 .844 .838 1.787 8.292 5.925 9.5is 1.388 4.5 .585 '.758 1.470 5.442 8.983 S.288 1.875 3.0 . 5'18 .893 1.240 4.774 0.187 8.878 1.858
. 7.5 .388 .497 .711 2.828 5.583 7.417 2.955 10.0 .288 .390 .524 2.025 4.105 0.240 3.237 15.0 .214 .274 .380 1.155 2.018 4.888 3.050 20.0 .188 .215 .251 .788 1.330 3.007 2.870 25.0 .138 .179 .245 .588 1.535 3.048 2.839 30.0 .120 .155 .213 .4M 1.283 2.800 2.382 35.0 .308 .138 .188 .38 1.100 2.272 2.181 l 40.0 .088 .122 .188 .328 .881 2.02! 2.019
! 45.0 .087 .110 .145 .288 .857 1.829 1.091 I 50.0
.000 .100 .135 .255 .770 1.888 1.778 L SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 18 i
^ ^
I . O
; APPEZDIX 12,,
Page 4 of 5
,NSIENAM STA7IIBl - PLINE-CENTHLI8E CIMINTRAfftBI (Netf/Al (1/N2)
I ' ELEUATERHELEASEIN=105M3-DIh!8ENESUI.TBBYONENIti!ON MILES A B C D E F 5
.15 12.231 .834 .007 .000 .000 0.000 0.000
.25 ~18.888 5.221 .340 .000 .000 0.000 0.000
. .50 3.388 14.777 9.484 .818 .000 .000 0.000 t
.75 2.879 5.802 12.354 1.538 .057 t
l
.000 .000 1.0 2.084 4.817 10.730 3.884 .488 .000. .000 1.5 1.480 2.001 7.182 7.038 2.548 .018 .000 2.0 1.148 1.583 4.543 7.298 4.347
.383 .000 i 2.5 .945 1.285 3.583 S.758 5.205 l .481 .000 i
3.0 .317 1.000 2.717 5.125 5.342 l .854 .001 3.5 . .720 .945 2.137 5.484 5.310 1.213 .002 4.0 .544 ,.835 1.731 4.871 5.180 1.518 .006 4.5 .585 .753 1.432 4.355 5.058 1.743 .012
~
5.0 .535 .853 1.215 3.589 4.578 1.915 .021
. 7.5 .388 .487 .707 2.585 3.085 2.250 .007 10.0 .288 .380 .523 1.837 3.070 2.283 .178 15.0 .214 .274 .360 1.087 2.100 2.124 .277 20.0 .388 .215 .281 .752 1.814 1.088 .355 25.0 .138 .179 .245 .387 1.313 1.690 .380 30.0 .120 .355 .283 .454 1.115 1.511 .389 35.0 .108 .138 .388 .377
.887 1.374 .387 9
40.0 .088 .322 .388 .321 .852 1.254 .383 45.0 .087 .110 .348 .282 .765 1.175 .381 50.0 .000 .300 .135 .251 .891 SF 69 922 91 Rev. 9 1.104 .378 7/09/82 Page 19
.a
,: r.
(--. se En 3
=e -
g ~e s= e
. ,I ,I ,I ,I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. E. I. $. 5. B. E. 5. 5. 5. 8 E a s
l g .I%%%%%%%BIi'@iEEE58%BIE a t
~
8 g IIIIIEEEEEEERREIEEEEEEE lm?.
~~~___
( w I. I. I. E. 8. a ,8g,3 9 H E R 5, ag5g a a a. g g.....
. g g g g !!. !.
m ls.
= I. I. N,E. E. E. E. E. R. ~
u B. R. _5,R" H. R.n~ *~ ~" 8,,8 8,8, E .3.g..g,. M U N E. R. N. p gg4 anam . mE.eR.n5~5.eM.* N.
- 5. E. E.*R. R. .R. .g
- 3 E
8
.. I.8.EI5558'EEEERRRRE8EB8588
- ..:. aaaaseaeaeanaaeea
.......eeeeeeeee B
. m ,. n. e. ,.
h e e ( - b o
- APPENDIX .5 *'
Pega 1 et .,
. 1 SEREHlWI B7ATilBI - 8ARMIAN PtFF GdW95 (XeU/98 (1/X2)
{
+
GR0188HREL RELEASE - StVIDE RESIA.75 SY DIE MILList MILES A 8 C D E F E
.19 30.819 80.003 77.110 183.774 144.884 205.887 302.182
.25 25.073 48.350 33.374 32.051 121.875 171.401 242.415
.50 5.849 18.542 33.189 57.855 73.915 110.505 155.705 .
.75 1.235 G.829 20.853 42.003 57.529 88.555 110.788 1.0 .574 4.483 14.175 32.480 48.580 85.000 57.588 1.5 .587 1.597 8.063 21.733 32.505 50.222 72.387 2.0 .539 .700 3.250 15.523 25.000 30.911 50.018 2.5 .445 .800 3.718 11.023 20.109 33.347 50.251 3.0 .384 .512 2.785 5.448 18.084 28.220 44.828 3.5 -
.330 .444 2.174 7.787 14.217 25.825 40.582 4.0 .304 . 394 1.751 S.577 12.347 23.241 35.990 4.5 .275 .357 1.439 5.855 10.888 20.809 33.085 5.0 .253 .327 1.209 4.541 9.715 18.582 31.273 7.5 .174 .235 .830 3.005 5.301 13.348 23.058
. 10.0 .335 .384 .400 2.005 4.500 10.342 18.410 15.0 .101 .329 .217 1.105 2.354 7.032 13.152 20.0 .079 .102 .151 .793 2.004 5.284 10.388 -
25.0 .085 .084 .118 .591 1.844 4.205 8.827 30.0 .057 .073 .101 .488 1.308 3.520 7.400 35.0 .050 .084 .089 .385 1.188 3.022 8.503
- 40.0 .045 .058 .079 .328 1.018 2.843 5.003 45.0 .041 .052 .071 .283 .904 2.355 5.237 50.0 .038 .047 .064 sP 69 922 91 Rev. W
.249 .310 2.118 4.003 7/09/82 Page 21
n n m M PENDIX , 3 .
)
E8a 2 et 3 N STAT 1138 - IE E 8Al814 (Nell/8) II/N2)
- l ELEWTES SELEASE (N = 35 N) - 81UIDE SE8tLTS SY ONE N!!.1. ION NILES A 8 C D E F 8
.18 38.247 58.830 72.848 80.580 77.485 73.502 72.221
.25 25.848 48.000 St.884 78.208 80.137 75.124 72.785
.50 5.884 18.585 33.348 58.822 72.218 30.818 77.128
~
.75 1.280 8.851 20.805 43.178 38.783 75.802 80.544
~~
1.0 .877 4.505 14.285 33.443 48.I44 88.050 78.403 l 1.5 .888 1.801 8.118 22.300 33.833 53.808 71.808 2.0 .540 .788 5.280 15.810 25.884 43.088 83.838
. 2.5 .445 .808 3.734 12.088 20.878 38.032 57.228 l 3.0 .385 .512 2.787 8.838 17.331 31.518 51.451 3.5 .338 .445 2.182 7.831 14.744 27.832 48.851 4.0 .304 .385 1.757 8.888 12.788 25.018 42.835 4.5 .278 .357 1.443 5.743 11.254 22.482 38.1 73 l
5.0 .253 .327 1.212 5.014 10.032 20.422 38.258 ! 7.5 .174 .235 .532 3.040 8.471 14.320 28.714 10.0 .338 .184 .400 2.085 4.878 -11.000 21.300 15.0 .301 .330 .217 1.178 2.812 7.472 15.242 20.0 .078 .302 .351 .787 2.121 5.584 11.851 25.0 .085 .005 .318 .384 1.871 4.430 9.880 30.0 .057 .073 .301 .471 1 . 2 18 3.888 8.474 35.0 .050 .084 .088 .387 1.184 3.187 7.427
. 40.0 .045 .0$8 .078 .327 1.030 2.784 8.815 l 45.0 .041 .052 .071 .254 .818 2.458 5.881 50.0 .038 .047 .064 .250 .820 2.208 5.454 sr 69 922.91 Rev #
7/09/82 Fage 22 O
APPENDIX . 5 Page 3 of 5
- SHGlewt STATI(M - GAUB81AN P187 8ArtM 1Xog/81 (1/M21 -
. i t
ELEYRTE8 RELEASE (H = 70 M) - 81V!DE SEIRA.78 OY DE MILI.10N MILES A 8 C 8 E F S
; .38 28.871 33.441 32.128 28.782 27.885 27.372 27.171
.25 21.888 31.313 33.488 30.000 28.482 27.582 27.285
.50 5.481 18.452 28.085 33.428 32.223 28.007 27.838
.75 1.282 8.211 18.128 30.384 33.434 31.300 28.744 1.0 .873 4.381 13.055 28.114 31.873 32.873 28.888 1.5 .887 1.588 7.732 18.200 28.371 32.884 32.354 2.0 .538 .787 5.121 14.374 21.718 30.358 33.385
. 2.5 .445 .807- 3.857 11.223 18.181 27.418 33.347 3.0 .384 .512 2.755 S.080 15.488 25.088 32.588 3.5 .338 .444 2.158 7.583 13.431 22.850 31.478 4.0 .304 .385 1.741 8.428 11.807 21.074 30.182 4.5 .278 .357 1.434 5.554 10.500 18.332 28.842 5.0 .253 .327 1.208 4.871 8.438 17.845 27.528 7.5 .174 .235 .830 2.880 8.228 13.083 22.183 10.0 .138 .184 .400 2.083 4.554 10.332 18.487 15.0 .101 .130 .217 1.170 2.887 7.148 13.838 20.0 .078 .302 .251 .784 2.088 5.387 11.098 25.0 .085 .085 .118 .383 1.857 4.320 3.302
- 30.0 .057 .073 .101 .470 1.380 3.823 8.053 35.0 .050 .084 .008 .388 1.178 3.113 7.105
, 40.0 .045 .058 .078 .328 1.025 ' 2.723 8.382 45.0 .041 .052 .071 .284. .812 2.428 5.775 50.0 .038 .047 .084 .250 .817 2.181 SF 69 922 91 Rev. 9 5.284 7/09/82 Page 23
m
. APPENDIX 12 Prg2 4 cf 5 REMEHAM STATil31 - GA1581All RFF SAffti (Nell/03 (1/Ntl -
1 ELEYnTED llELEAK (N = 105 N3 - El ,'lK llERA.TB SY DIE MILLISBf I . MILES A B C D E F G
.18 17.321 15.585 14.100 12.907 12.818 12.432 12.357
.25 ~18.204 17.823 15.548 13.305 12.818 12.500 12.333
. .50 5.177 13.480 17.000 15.043 l
14.180 13.000 12.801
.75 1.267 7.521 14.483 17.823 ~
18.022 13.734 12.901 1.0 .884 4.190 11.250 17.511 17.430 14.581 13.200 1.5 .883 1.555 7.122 15.042 17.061 15.737 14.235 2.0 .537 .731 4.857 12.180 16.218 17.827 15.282
- 2.5 .443 .504 3.524 S.909 14.453 17.823 18.245 -
3.0 .383 .510 2.881 8.240 12.898 ! 17.357 17.048 3.5 .338 .443 2.113 8.900 11.515 15.890 17.574 4.0 .303 ,.353 1.712 S.010 10.347 15.938 17.848 i 4.5 .278 .358 1.414 5.243 3.356 15.105 17.820 l 5.0 .253 .328 1.182 4.532 0.518 14.308 17.338 7.5 .174 .234 .827 2.902 5.835 11.271 15.408 j 10.0 .338 .354 .398 2.022 l 4.348 5.228 14.860 ! 15.0
.301 .329 .215 1.157 2.785 5.82E 11.795 20.0 .073 .302 .351 .700
\ 2.058 5.084 9.014 25.0 .085 .005 .418 .580 . ! 1.831 4.132 8.411 30.0 .057 .073 .301 .468 1.3B2 3.492 7.300 i 35.0 .050 .064 .005 .385 e
" 1.165 3.017 S.581 40.0 .045 .050 .079 .328 1.018 2.850 5.958 45.0 .041 .052 .071 .283 .305 2.388 5.430 3 50.0 .030 .047 .064 .248 sr 69 922 91 Rev. p
.312 2.135 5.003 i
7/09/82 Page 24 4
e O R 1
\
AFFENDIX 12.8 , I Pegs 5 cf 5 l EDIEHAN ETAT 1(M - BAUSSIAN PtFF SAf886 (XeU/83 (1/M2) ' l
.. 1
, ELEVATED SELEAK (N = 140 MI - DIVIE SE8tA.T8 SY OK M1111tui MILES A B C 8 E F G
.18 8.881 7.841 8.784 8.288 8.158 8.074 0.041
.25 10.831 8.888 7.408 8.480 8.247 8.100 8.057
. .50 4.785 10.283 10.558 7.887 8.805 8.331 8.150
.75 1.245 0.882 '
10.012 8.371 7.855 8.834 8.283 1.0 .852 3.842 8.158 10.547 8.741 7.024 8.448 1.5 .888 1.530 B.357 10.770 10.488 8.108 8.835 l 1 2.0 .533 .773 4.512 8.851 10.831 8.381 7.274 2.5 .441 .800 3.345 8.341 10.821 10.273 7.788 3.0 .382 .500 2.578 7.185 10.007 10.714 8.358 l 3.5 . .337 .440 2.050 8.247 8.307 10.808 8.825 4.0 .302 ,.382 1.871 5.475 8.818 10.817 8.442 4.5 .275 .355 1.387 4.840 7.578 10.784 8.880 5.0 .252 .325 1.173 4.320 7.385 10.582 10.247
. 7.5 .173 .234 .522 2.781 5.333 8.170 10.831 10.0 .138 .184 .397 1.884 4.072 7.888 10.870 15.0 .101 .128 .218 1.138 2.874 5.870 8.460 20.0 .078 .102 .151 .781 1.888 4.714 0.280 25.0 .085 .004 .118 ,.585 1.584 3.885 7.318 30.0 .057 .073 .101 .488 1.338 3.317 8.583 35.0 .050 .084 .005 .384 1.147 2.888 5.842 40.0 .045 .058 .078- .324 1.002 2.550 5.427 45.0 .041 .052 .071 .283 .884. 2.288 5.003 30.0 SF 69.922.91 Rev. 9
.038 .047 .084 .248 .803 2.070 4.837 7/09/82 Page 25
O O', ea j S H 0 R E H A M N U C L E A R POWER S T A T I O N d {
} STATION VENT LOW-RANGE EFFLUENT MONITOR - WHOLE80DY CAMMA DOSE NOMOGRAN 7
10 3._ . . , , , , , p - TIE AFTER REACTOR SHUTDOWN (HOURS)
@ ' , , ,"S'f,L z , , WIND SPEED (MPH) .
i [ ,J .',;/, ,p w n.- i i me, s e,< , i i I . A i t,\
//hr//A . s
.i n .s s,
, i.,
ll W///// l s n / / A l l l i A V < j f ,e II w 10 6
! #h '
// s
-l i l 'x VN[ [/
w , < ' sk ' X VxA:~ -
>~- ;~ ;~ ~ ~
m , ,
/ 1
; i > ;,L ' '
'y '
u //rs, i, , S , i > ,
,' 1 /. 1 , : .
I///JV) ')
/.I .It i. , , ,,
m l W/////. // / l' '
/
'/'f.l / 's
/\ .'V / /,,.X /
b is s
/
,f
)
n 105 _h m ___l j h ' L': . .-
.~
[ , [ s / / [ [4 i
.~
,, ~
u START B '
,g: '
7 ., . 's'# , > :~ ;
~
_:n w .--
, //:/, ', ,w xr n
,. XY's / ' ,' ' '
O E
- ////'> /lf '*SA A N
, , n
.'. /Vt vu x
,.:( /, , , ',
#////AWXNW' li
;'; X '
! ll / }A 8/ .- /
0.0 i O 4' i i i / / Le /NWMAX A N 39 $$$l ' N N$ ' N '
?! '! !. - ~ /EY$W'{ D5
.,oi 02 K
~
-~
-. %.' s'Mp : :..
~
pMW
~
_f'.W iY ' 1' ,
- nN M r x ' 1 E
LP -1 w t
, //or;//
is ci i i A ran
>u su 2 1
,. 1 i.
s,'/Ii. .
,. ', AriV, ==
/ n? .z f
/
-s vu n e. --r -
E F///// //
/ ss ;\ / nn /. / ./ nw _$
fi \\\\V 10 I / / / A / / / M s- m/x- ,
-Ti hW / M %H h 10 3h,
, ,{! ! I f '
lk !/,,ifl ll .f l nd . I m
&{ 50 l
= .;..:: ' '- - -x - -
c -
% -100 : :
- ===5 w : ;
\
/ ,; /, , s / ,
x . ,. : , : :: ===1 w m/// .- r /
~-500 s, , / / /, .
- 1, m
T /' 1000 ' i$ f/// > / / .i IV/ AA/' l
' ' +i
![ N /
t i f
- i 102 10 6 ;;;
EFFLUENT FLOW RATE (CFM) t
'/M/(( .; ,,
[] , 10 3
. n i. .,
ATMOSP'HERIC Dl'5PER510N GAfftA' DOSE (Xu/Q)'(10- Y~~-) ;.::: f' !!
, .i a i.r i , ,. .
/i l I
. o ,,
II IIf
!! I I 11 /'<
l t lI5 l l 0 l 1. ilf,,t e 7 7
- 1. I l'l ; '
Ill i ; i i ' F;. i y
./.e' / .[/,
l 105[_ .lli h I l t i :lI
' .I I ! ! /
f_ [102 M .I 1 ' g n n i 1 ii nn e
'/ 1 i . i r.._ i i .i ,
r[i .
, /
E I II I I ' ., n , ..u,, , 1.u., A l/ /J I,I
/ v u.
J l el I ' i /t' // 'l t iiii ii II!!In
- iil ! . ;!! n I ?t. .Ii n.
4 /, f I .M f l 7
- ii u
a- 4 ll 10 *T l 1 5 Il l l
' '[ ' // _'
ll lU ! i:N ' i li fl/ /i-' /t1/ ],, f"k
;__r._ ; ' - -
a ' ~--j START A ,;
;z' =;
c i 10I H --,I / 'x ; i g
~ g q l 1 1 1 I k l I 't 1 .
I iI
, ., . , , , , , . ,. ,_ ., / , ,,y f ; y >
f g i t i ..I i , i t i r . s m' /?L x ' ' I i1 .i.t'h 1 1i l1 mr 1a V V R JI i l i I,1 1 11 I / // WTi "183*300 ' ' ' '"' ^ ' '# '
^ ' '
/' I 1.
I" '#
' ' I' d' # V#W 2
103, - l I
/ -
366*600ll'l! 549,900 l - ll
.l, 2
j ((j -/M((M 0
-+ -W : ; -:-
~.
*. .: .1
.. , y
' - ' - ~ '
On$ RTE WH01.E80DY GAMA DOSE RATE (MREM / HOUR) I .3 - ~ , ~ c. e o
- n. .
o
- d. o ee e-s .oe e=e e-o o o w e-o
@Er, _ _A,'x C 1 x 't 1.
- (-_1'.'N
, m ; ,
s' t A dii l'~ h q- 5( 9' x 'm 5 A ~s A N 4 '" -s es s - - s \ 3 ' s _\ 3 s s 8 8o8ooo in N e o
' N, N
- s ,
- q s s o m. u. . o. o. o. -
s
\ '
i s
\ s .o.em m - m N eW N - o o o o o o s --s &- \ ...,. . . _ .
z gr'q
-w=. g .. .
. N. , .
s_ -__a .s.N- _ l
,-;- 3 %-
4 _. c.
-- ==
4-s .5
- h; - ; %::.x ; y _
y;;;; x ss-en,, ;;;;. . . ,
;;; ::-; ; un
-s s s
q-s S , // rs i s s e r 7 , Y;sE__ [ .5 N-s s x s s A/xf / s ferm en u >& 5 .. $ S ..h 1 . _.2s.. X/XM ///MM//W EE
's ns e.sg i- V:s .:r, m_:0 -
hh-y U h n-s ) NS
. s \MM$8MZM8 m ne-c .- n- : e ;e e .- - :
a g[ . 7s,-
;g(. g i
;. h y
s g 8: \~ \ 'gfg[Q9p}q'h",)[ e'/- s se . . m e v f.m< e-se - s 4
.s s N x s s Asw x exprrv /v/v T~g_'I ,
/ *N
'T -
- s. \ \ \ )< M/X N/WVN/.( \ dE 2E~: = . E
~s '-
J
\\ \
.-%'L - ci, ~-s N i i
# ~
\
-3a x_ x y m 6 y V X9:+ -%-N- 5-% -A N A A i d.
s s q-s q - a x q ( s 7 g s - q q
-y - -
,3 i,
(5 2
~ "-- S
~ [ s N N \ \ " 5 N
, $ ' N Y N '
s N N 's N mr x ~ 2 fd::. _-c _c_:=2g _ ( .-_yx t
'x s q \
i sN i h s .i s'q s q s x s'q ,- s N.i s s
- . s s .
s s x s s x .s s x x s x s s x
~~~~ __ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ T.
N \ ' g
\\ n N
s
, \\ \
s
, \ \ \
s h \ \ s
\ \ -g 2 -
C5 '% --
~
3,---- ----- -- --.----. m
. D *C
- o. o. ooo a'$ --
3 msE- --: h YT" -
--=- __-.
=5 --
=
2 y.;g m />,/> re
- -- M, q5,s
,e y _. _.g y 4 , ._
?5E?
8 z __ A, '
-::- - =i: .
z % _-.._ - - y g C-_ '
- p. -
t tb, N\\ 5, A ^ g gQx -
% =;; -
g
-%-.v-u s
- - -- o o ...
u
~~-
s '
< < m ~
A ,
's A W '
qh. - s a N\<<s 5 I t _ _, ___ s 1'- ___-- M - g 5 s-
=
\'-
- j .x lIlli i i in _,
I l ll l l lli M
. n, j;, .g,- . . p, , -- '
N
.=e P'.= m m r-o 4F M N o
e o o o o
- - - - - .oe N '
(33Sh3n S50t!D) 31YB 35V313b SYD 3190N
S H 0 R E H A M N U C L E a R
- O W E R S T A T I O N I e
,. RBSYS LOW-RANGE EFFLUENT MONITOR -
WHOLEBODY GAMMA DOSE NOMOGRAM J
\.
6 I f 10 ."
= TIME AFTER REACTOR SHUTDOWN (HOURS) :::
,,,,,u,_____,_,_
c'e,',,fy _e r
=
m,,,,, WIND SPEED (HPH)
. _ _t,
/
.y
_c7 ;9w; <- --7, -
-y -77
~, (fy, ' '/t . ,/ -
/ ,/ , ;;
- /' / , / <
l / /, / /
~ 5- A; // /
! / / ! / /
10 - 7-j-
;;;; ,.7 ,, ; ,e y --; ,. _.; , c Qp--
- g 7; ;
u; :::
-_,c,s,a,3,..;, y-- ,- ,1 .
,. 1 y , -
---y -y~ , ,
rY
/Y. ,,~',,
~ ~~ '
l ~/ C / t / / - / / ,
& i /
7 (- 8, - ; / / - < w 4' A% h 5-W//N y r-
-7 / / -7 / /
7 / , . w g 1g
?..
;-= - ,
{ ,, ., jy
~'
/ /
o 4 = START B :n r,{; 4 -- / / k'g j
=
3
- w wec< y.
- ;F////
7 y% 4M 0.0 0, / /
/1 ggh ( '
7 ,1 / [ _l f D M :/// ' '- [ / j /W x < 8 gs, N s h - 0.2 ' -
, O.1 ;
b 0.2 b , i , o 3' 10 - 1 % 9- 0.5 -
' H '-
- _.. .i k
E
~~
',G,@j' n,
,-/c--- .
8 8 5 f.
*" 1 2
{-{. y-
- ???,- y $.- y)hqk~&f.
7 -- s y ; 0.5 1 {
/ / ../
' ~
M' V 2
/dE/
S QV N % 1
/ -
., 5 / ,
/ / ,
t a , h ,
-~ N o - 10 ~
/ ' '
/ / / ' N '-
-S ~
W y , V l'/ /? % l 20 / ,/ j '
/ / <' / / ?, , , ,
l10 { I ,NM-: %1-m 10 3 ___ J-, c-'Si h; g,t: r, - G- Q 50 100 EE g_ / =;r=p 7 F P ,.c;z r;6 -
- e
--/--/-
_ , = r 20 i SO E g g 1 , 1999 - . _y -y-- .
-y-y -
7Nf67 r, ~~ ' ' ~ w ,
' L t i -
/ / <
/
)
a y//p , j\ / < ,
/ / .
8 10g - ;r -1/ - 7 /e / <
,,e e < u
]
= /,'/) , Q ,
, s' / l , ,
_2_f_;:;,- . 1- - < , - , - , m p. m . , ,. p 10, i
't 106 1 = C rr '
RBSYS LFFLUENT FLOW (CFM) .: _A-,- . . ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION --GAMMA -- -- ,--- DOSE (Xu/Q) (10 ' m' )
/ i
/ '/ !
I 105 4 __ __ , ( , - - 10 E,:/ J - -- L~--~
~7 ~~C i
~ ~
r Af :
~
/ / / / ,
___?_- i / .. / / E 4 ' ' I 10 0
)
b 10 ~l' y -;D:- - : -._
==? ;
f7 , t-f.-f1 ' i K e
- START A ,-
~~7 t-- 7
, f e - -_ h g_. /
(
/
/ r
/
F
/,
Z / / -.
% s ^
g , '/ YL 580 / / i
/ / ,
-,/ /
w - s . 1160 - /
" 3
' / / / /
10 ,; - g'- :; y.9 ( ; /--.s , /- , m , 10-l u , 3p
-- ; -e ; .,
o , , - n -
,- s . - _ - - -
g h = - z 2: : -- -
, f / '&&/. M -
.t, [..
. o yj/-_[- y r
,c i
<! i e av i < , , o f-/, L i i m i
3
, l i ,j;l p '
f j je d_ - 3" y ,
WHOLE80DY GAMMA DOSE RATE (CREM/ HOUR) m __ , f.
* @ h @
3 3 2 2 E E h *,3 r k - x . N A 't \ \ \ i, \ \ ' i , s \ ' i ,
\ cNw
's % s 888ooo N
s N \\ s . s x'\ . s
\ \ . .
-m~-
= -
~-
= - -
~-oooooo
=
. . . N
.a
;"j"
. ~ ~ "
n :, ; j;;"[.', - Q"r r a' SN s - x s - s s r.1 r 7. /s re ,-
\ \ \ \ 1 rs .. g i ea t
\ '
\ Y ; "'
I / / /N / / /
\ \ \
t
// ,' / / > db i.
\ \ N , \ \7dM /// W[/// [/ d$
s \\\ \\\ Nhh$<YNb(( . l me
'n % 'x x s
.i t
s
~
x s x s s x . n ,
., Awe: ',' ',."." %' -
-m ,, ' ;
f ya 1 r i l ," ,' ,' N s is xi is 1 L vi hr i n i s j ia r N
\ \ \ '
t h [/ NIN Y %/ / ON 7[/l"*[WW p N. I \ \ \ \ i . C( c$ E hbN s [Y\\ . .
- :.- _.::.-. ' .- N \ b b[.b[f . 'b" efb h m \ 's 's 'si s e i sc e ^ e 'c
's I 's 'V \ 's 't i.
s i s s s . s s r. t \ Y A TkF* f. / \ ' t 'sf \ ' t \ \ \ \ \l ' t
\ \MS 'N 'N \ \ I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N W '$s[\\ 1h N s
\
\\.\
\
s [\ \ . .
's[\ . ._
'ti [p s u s
'x 'x, ~
- s. .
2 m 's V- x 't' x x s o s s . s s s s - s s n
't \ \ S t \- \ '
t I \ \ ' t \ \ ' t \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '
j
\
d Is N [g \ \ s h\ \ s [\\
's ,
\\ _
g a: I t.3
\ "u ' E 1 O um m t
\ \\ '2, u_ 6 E
i \ YY i N' '< s N O.ooooooo8 l 1 l
- s %k . .
ON****
. - v
~
y R w a p ,
, , . u s , / ,i /><; e
_f I { \ \ h
'2M h/ f / W I
l e < d hT/ /// l$
,Z
\ ,
, Mg
- z i i
"x Yb r i
( w ca h O
\ N=.026
=>
\ D 'k g,_
s s N
- c -
M , a s b . - N t2 o , I;$ ' s s ,
s ?
s Ch I
, u o w w 4 .
\ Ni. T\ N i N \ l s 1 W
\' w y . _
- i s
Um .t - 4 's .. m , iss.ss . y i s " N og o g I W q ; g m 3
>= '\ \ *==e s' N ,, 3:
=
\ 'h 1 emJ inJ
'\- \ f "
i.,,. .., , , . .. i,. .. " q m 9 M ;
,,,e N
- o m
o o o o o o m m M M *=* M (33shan ssous) am asyma svs amu l
e S H 0 R E H A M N U C L E A k o P 0 W E R S T A T I O N @ RBSYS LOW-RANGE EFFLUENT MONITOR - POTENTIAL THYROID DOSE NOMOGRAM ( )
~ " j D ilNr"AfTER RbNC b 5IIlffDN N p- : ~'
N3
~
= =s = q .
OURS) .2 f '
, b~~INdYPYEd'(ifPfl W
p _ - _ ,,i-[2 ,
- y[,i .
=..___ =_ ,r: , =: :
f g k l 9
/
,i ,
/ / : 7 /
L'
/
- i g
' * '=== +=u-: w az h- 7 dg,$ re :
~-
> === - =:= l AEfl Azi f-b __ == :c yy :y,'g _, t
--/p.
c
- , , i
-d? ,
_u
>-- 5 7';/ ?// ?./.
E
,< , [m$' ,
501_ s"'"
..:=q s / f[l g .
p[r - h ~gg/ p g
~2,~-
4 \ uf = g? ~ Q Z;<:g =.
, g3 E- j .
3 g / "
/
-[ j 0.5 a
l / / f f \ b *. ' 10 I l
/ -
i y r-
.'0.1
.gg G W
3 0 s 6(
=.: ': " 20 N- ' '
3 O 10! f}!. r O.2 g e 3 w m I / z p,'. c di: - 20u i0 E _
=3sfg3S.gpsf
-- , ._, y _ _
r . .-
- , ,. $P
_s 2
,i o
/ <../ < f 7_<{!
I L W s $. = 500 -- . , d
/ Ql 5
! f 3
/
1000 7 - e w
;' 10$ pf kg l kgI , I A:
10 _ f: sp = f-c .. 73 - L jf,_y=L ==
~= ==
k 20 g a pJ; p__ __ _ Q ;.- 'r
/I p -,Q_e_._f
~
t 10'2(h/y ' ~ 0' 'l,l l [/
/
/
/
e .
?
106 RBsysEFFLUENYFLOW(CFM) '
---f ATimdMfGTs GtH0H TAtidRlGT/47 il N4M)~ .
m I Il II' b b '(( II i I I I~ l III II II } l E I _ ll lI 11 II - / II I I l l _ l ll Il lI i 6 10 .
= g' == . _ :- = : j ___ /
=y_. _ -
r:n . -- 104
; - p,_ .
! 3 --
n - - ~ l____l___ I {} 7_Z_ p g 104j _ _ START j.
' ~
0 ( !!! ~~-i
/__g' 2
^ f ios
. I i iil" Il i i n ir le /i11 i ii ..E i i iii i- i i i i iim i vi 7
-h e / I E
E I Ill 11 1 IIII f 4 Ill i Il i II I l ill i II I A M 's' / A [l lll N ll I llll -
$ gg 3 l lll N ll l ll l lll Y
; F TFit i % j t=1*i1 Warf ; ; Fmili_Jn; ~"
[ #[: i
'oz W[4= i- -
e c5 . l l M l l liN ' ,H+ 1 il l lili !! i-ilb iliiiki !!!!H if i' , h ! ni >
- - - ,. pi - ...... . . . . . . -. - ..... - - -
g n 7_ 3 / ,. . , , n _ . . .3 , ,7.. 10 - ==.= = lon 3
. 2 w: /,.-+- y,
- -._ /;. 'y7-e > y,.i _g
;, 3,. _ _ _
- w. e E
, , _r ,, _ g
, g_ -- -
f -
.,n j
j o m f 7-f
,e ,f p y p
- _7 7 ', : , , ;-
f'~,** / _/ 101 7 ,/ /hl_?,
^^
"'/' /
/ / <
,' /
/ ,f <
// ,
G l -l ;/ '! !./J /, 5
=- :-
l _b t'4
~
._ .=r. =; ----.-
100 727' d 104 Li - TI ME t FTER REACTOR SHUTDOWN (HOURSJ:i:'
--~/ / .-F '
z' f--- f '/ %
-J '. :
s' y's',
-- y 2 / .y..- - - o
,' y',<
7 5)ny,
'*~
s , z _,7 -d B
/ <
_/ / '; / / sj;, "
.' ) y ., y o 3
/ / Y, l'l / < / / ,, ( ',
f f ,'f f ' 8 m _n 10 - -- f_
'--4 ,e- '/ / / _/ / _ _
.i,' h,,,, j ,
*j y _g g
y __ ,_?g ---+q
;. f. g7:
,, p
- m 8 -----.. .. _
V- t
> 1,1/
7 r
) /, ,, +, g 6, -y--p ; /
- s.
m 5 f7.., u
- L
? _' fs' d // / /
-'t_z_j_
/ / ,
s
.>s,,~', y
' 73r ,,, ~
,n f
gn23 l /hb !l=l, t l lI s ,l=t p-
,!, \(ys
/ $x
(>j..10000E- go-2 2
= v = s' 5:s ' -
J e n--
,s , t; f try ng, p
8
~%_, , Q,f- :p. =,
~
/ -y -_ f a ;,
',r y\}Ab aa
.7,i,5000 j;d
/{ NW t__ L
>' / / / / / , ,-
pp gys'- 2 ' - 0.0 / /
.' c
/ .
'/ *s' 1 %
@D'.,2000 1000 - "
Y,, w, -- / ' ' g ss 0.1 / / - ~7 7'T . sN. 500
$,,10 1 _e
/ g@g,, ..
c: h4'
-N- N W-s
- 0.5 5
E g =, / p _/ / 74i,
- f. ',
7:;n , pq, Wsl-ti;Q,, n 100
.200 ..
Eq go-3 V7 y'7 7. _-j-_ kl . > g / -
.dQy y 10 - - -
/ / -- '
j N 5 n , 50 :L
's
' s s / ~,,
; 200 , , y ;.go --
N.m'Q<J h
$,i G7
/ _ _
V- 500 __- / / -
/ / c' /
'Msy's..go-~
8 go o / / j ' 1000 ' f ,- / / '
/_ ,/ n g ~
kbqJ,.. j 5
~
E 2
'--wn- _ r_.__/:)eM, =e=v .
$p.g 2 _.
10'4
+ >" .i) - Qi?G
' ~
^
E ;i
-fW n.1 j -, , 'g ' , / t ,s 7 -
-s- -
Q,, %,,, . 0,5 ::
/ / , , ,,
/ wY i __
, f 0.2 '
10*I' - / ' crr I
" - --i-
[/ r-.
--- ..i ,
g 10'5
, ,7
, PRELIMINARY (MAY 17,1982) NOM 0 GRAM No. 4
*h
* *T SP 69.922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Fase 29
/
't ? I I
m O S H 0 R E H A M N U C L E A R o P 0 W E R S T A T I O N w s ,
'i RBSYS INTERMEDIATE-RANGE EFFLUENT MONITOR -
Ys0LE800Y GAMMA M T NOMOGRAM
)
9 e-+e+' :-+-+-e++-+-+-- ' m+e "-+-+ 10 - :.: __2_ui12): x=t-t+t c .c ( i WINf1 SPEED pf j
'= TIME AFTER REACTOR SHUTDOWN (H00RS),22-: ,
//s,
' '; ,.'.,G<;=
,/ m. -
m
-- y-f////,,',' s l' ~
- p~
/ /
< ;[7///// /l' f f '/~} ~
j7/ ,
<x: / y </ -,r / / e W/j/h .- Q
,,I
- , , j' .-
/ /
108, H 6 -' ,
;,-yj 1 -
y: =_ ;,=..,_..-r: '; :,:t ; rn n- " - ~y s ~ 1,s. 1 , o . T1 > >
< // v, ; y ,1/ i / -
7 , , s e f .fflff ' Y- ; w m: / ;r r; n
;7'fy s
,, e r ,,, r
~
8 b 10 .
-/ a
,..z.-,--._g
/ [ - r ; ' -
D ,*;/;
?
-f-',~,
o ; START B ), A ' ' M&^FX ' ' '
- //M-v, N t ~
dt x , P ~ ~t- m ' s s
,G2Qh ~
Q / Q fM//){s , 1 / / J
/
g ['\ A if, ::V///8
/ '
( ' - x 4 :: // 7 ) )>hn 5Q
\\ s % o'o t / / ' / / b'/ .A - 6 n
^
l
- =
-'-M'-- ,p/[
s 6* ? - N> , h)g- s 0.1 h$ 10 - ,v_ 4 b '.'b %N 0.2 . , ,_ _, - - ,2 y4s % 0.2 4
- j '4- /fN N
, c ,
'E;g 0.5 :: / /,_ / s y*,fji$
. i gqi ;
0.5 r m ", 7 nw s uz,
]g g/ s- 1.0 / / <
j' _lg t w; i :
;a /m////
?7///// / / /
,, i t >
% .Y w 2.0 5,0
/
f /,
/
/
/ /
/ y[y:-
; ", s ' %Q w m ,,,
E w
, / y ,
/ / e ;ry',#=" D/
a --/ y , %st 7 e <
,, s - - y 's 5 A \\\ '
/ / '
N\ '
.N' 5
5-
\ -
10 10 ::
/dy '
- qW ., , 20. .
e .-r
'-f -AM 20*
-,7,,. sg:, -?" _7 ' ' /-* m v. ,: C._j~.=./.;;
r s., '- 22- 2 i:2 C.- ~5% q
- 50. -- , , .L* . .7 --.- Y . ,
50* I' n y, & f/ / ' 100. :: i. e i. e t--- ' 7 J kj+- 'G < w im r//L 7/ N ., 500 / / / / /
? ?'///// / / / %. . goof,... / / - / l ' '_ ll 7 / /
ID A ;l') /h ,
/ / -
/ / 5 l,
#_ ,. ..,3 p,_ m 10 ;
109,= RBSV5 EFFLUENT FLOW (CFNI
/ f$ C ATPOSPflERIC Dl!PEMid,C/EOSE f Xu/0) no-6 ,-2j
.n, ,
7 g--__
, g 1
1 e
/
/ 4 108 _ _
j f_ f .
.; g 10 ,
M U! _[j. _~ ~f -}7h. ._ L] , , ,.
-, ,f.--
. . // F
^
107 - -
-- :=--- ,f; f l f-
's - - --
\
I f ' l,/ /
' -+
r 10 3 l b
~-
J= START A z' , [ $Nx , n MEE e-- . - ,- ,
/ , ' ,,/ r 4
S.D / 2 % % , N / / / / l p Q 5 / / - Th_0 i ,/ ,/
/ ~,f f /
n j/ 1160 ' f ' '
# d 106 - ,
y-
. _2_.. __. _.
_.y__ g ., 4 s
/, , 10 2
l g ; ,- ,r--7' c ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
,._ jlt .: pf ') ,1 j -
,L 1
jy l a C
~
f
/ / / / / / .,
f G
/ ,f-.iiiiin- 7 = / n /,,u / m = k t-m M, U
,, iiciinu7i-i iit i i u n __i 1 t t t t i u t ___ t t t u n u ___ t t u l ui ___ i o u uam ro un t i n i un e i
p _
}
1 hUHOLE30DYGAmADOSERATE(PREM/ HOUR) r,' _ I d v e W 4 h
- o . N. M. T. . e 1 o o o
o o o o y . 4 j I s x x x - niiii i i . unii i i ; .iii . i i i . _ (- s \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N N N N s . . N *
. .. , m~
,o s 38 8 8 e. oo. . . . . m. u. m. o. o. o. -
, , N s N .g
\ N g \ \ q \ N g \( *=*t4 N M W N M W N - o o o o o o _ j g, We-.+- . gg ls . . 'm s o s 's x - s 's ;
,. ; / 2 r
/ ,' J . ' ,r,".r,"i, ' "
," . M As i s s s s s s i -
. . a 2 = .r a e
. \ % '. % % '
\ \ s w e r / r s e r r r s r e s A w '
- s. \ \ 'm 'A \ '
m \ /\/ 6 IL 2P / / / /sP f 2's'/ i p.' s e4 i. t \ \ \ \ \ \ Y/Xp N/ //[dI/7 2 '#/[ [
\ \\\ \\\ s
.' _' / / / .a 1 .
~x .
s . .
. .,-.~:.=.:,:
e~ s = n x r s v ,rv 1 m r 8,c m . au r su rv a. rr . 7 @@ t t \ t \ \ sv v%s ts v m ,r .s rv .u a r i O k .. y . ,_, sNN\ pgg Wag, P4W,da. p[. ain,[
% ,f %. ,^ ': '-7Lf r?' ( .e4 .a ; '
MiR\. ' re '. > N N N N - t ( s
,.s_ fsrv s i eu L s x m
t s x x ( x s ( ( /v #Nr / V 't ( A t ( A '. ( ( ' .
'.5 < \ /s/ KIN \ m \ \ \ 't \ "'m 'A \ '
( Y/T ' ( \ \ ' s \ \ ( \ \ ' ( \ 1. ' t ( . ( . N
\ N
( . N N ( . 5 m. 1 1 5 1 X L. 1 % b, 5 L .
-. s s t s x t t s . s s t s s e
\ \ \ m \ \ 'm \ \ 'm 'A \ 'm 't \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l 5
\ \
s [g \_ \ [ s h _ s
\
s [s \ \ s , \
=m n i
s v x . E hll s 1 - s< s o . . . o u (., N 4k =oooooC o-Nm-c-r's ,'r' ,". ,"'c' :., m . . .m
..';ts 2 .
w u , s s,e > ,s v . x/ r/ /n / m _ <m
%Yf/// ss ,r c M
o s
/
o .- .- 1 w'L
-. ,u w g \W Tk
, v a '
8 5l% 5
- bN -
=
r h \
\:.
N m e M '; .. e=e o ms m
- a 4
m
\s
- L ,,.
m w ==
*.ss,w g 4 ( >=
( g H ('sN hk k 4 s . ?I" E s v w _. m a x x ,- i
\s y q & N
- s , w s< ' ac
'\ a.
. . , . .. j,. ..,,,. - ., i., ..
. , e ~ w e e
,o.e m o
.o
*h m a
e=e o m o e-e o m (33Sh3a S5085) HW 3SV3135 SYS 3190W .-
O O Q s 5 H 0 R E H A M N U cL E A R P 0 W E R ;-
\ S T A T I O N
(' RBSYS INTERMEDIATE-RANGE EFFLUENT MONITOR - POTENTIAL THYROID DOSE N0H0 GRAM 6 10 _ _ ,
.u,,,,_m
,,o, p };Z TIME AFTER REAN SHlF"DOWN (HQURS) --- .' ,' , 3 '
, E- WLND SPIED IN V)
~
I :/, a / / h
"..sh/
2- I '
/s p 2 ,
/ i / ,
"i ,
t i
/,,-
ll v,- !,//-/Ul .,, -
',/ / ,
/
',/.rr /'
.e
/
g 10M ', 7 ,
/
,< / ,
/
_cr j_ -
), j ,- .' ('.J' ' , ,'
, / d-' I # #
w 'I ,
, } =-
- ' 7 ,
l g f-';h ~~C'l / ' ' 8
='
n
,4. g'4/_ $,'s g/ /,,
< s / , s l
- -r Y,/ W,/ / /
/ / / / / ,
/ '
~ ~ i g r gn w / / / / / / / '
,f , - .- / ' '
/ <
A'"f'"jlh, , - 1 10AN
, /
AA!c -' .dd ..' .d-- 4 . l _M C Y[g.[!f' 0.0 F [ l 'K #A3 START B ' ,X f /' ,, - 3 x
/ -
vs.. 0.1
, -',f
- - .'. hm ykw~,,- / < ,
g s s Z :s
~1 ,,
D j w 0,2 ,/
/,< /
,?
/ / /// /3 l\\\ M NN
' e , ,
0.5 / y ' [/ sg]Q-- / {M
'j/ , q w 10 1
.[/ 10
/
' , ,Y o,1 +
W
E0 ";
. . ~ , -' ;'-
y- EE
~
~
W 'n 0.2
-J.-/~
s g ] -77
',' ,: M' , ' \\Q;, 50 . /
j j EE
/ / y ' sx Q 0.5
.y. 'h / 's ,: > ~100 x
w ,
>>n
, NNM-s. gng'
./ ,
/ ,/,/ / /./ / i g.sy ::
Q // /// /%fY > \wN
,1,0 500 -- #
w
= 10g - 27z, //
hh, _., V -
~
100b. j l
/
j
/ / ,
I
/ k,'? lb 0 7 ,
.p ';c_g
" EE ;,,_,
s O .gf._ , :; y 3',' 20.0 EE 37-E ----
/ / '
g // - , -/ ,' / / \ 50.0 : m 1 os /,w ,
/
/ ,
/ /
> / --
~
jl {n' /d$ ' I : -- I\ l / / ,
/ / /
1OI f,br/ / ,
/, / /
g 109 : / / 10 RBSYS EFFLUENT FLOW (CFM?. N , , - ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTOR (Xu/Q) (10-b m-4 tu s s '
/ ,/ 1,
,/
i N /f 10
- r' s-to 7
^}_ ..
,4w ,
< r
/ ,
T';fi T W h,[ / / ',
., b
/-
u / / .- 7 N / / / iE 10 4 = ,' 1{
'q y% .m ___
'/ / /
- I l',
?E START A / M\
_/ 106 c,
--_- s /
't n
/ '7 E -
,/ / 4 \ 'y /
/ / / / / \
/ / / /
w Q 10b4=
/ .'/
, / \
- : 580 1160. /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/, -
g; __ ___ c
,_.,._,=
/ ! /
, j_ / r
.g +--
s/'/ z , y ,' 10$
.- <... 6 cscsc%wm y y
/--f-
.-,4_
] #
. --- -- - , i .
l \ / / / y / y o
/ l i' / / / / -
,4.- y /
105 =1
.-' / ./ ./ .,, 4 m
(, ./
. = . . __ a 10 ~
_-- f. ^. - x _1_/ .g : ',
- m .- : 5 i ., -
/ / ; ; ; T
-y' ,
/ .s s._L- / / /
/ / /
fy-y , ,
/ L 9 / / -
/ / / / ,
104 l. l 7 ,
'/ / ,
7 7 ,
'p ; ,
p p --- g u--_ _._ ..
, / A h,,' .
/ / / '/ / . / / 10 3
g 10 4 -
=: TIME AFTER REACTOR SHUTOOWN (HGUU)
N O %s ' 7 ' 1
~
?
^ 7 v -
'. m'h..
,,un s s*
, +s
,. s s
g
, ! Ul,f
/ / / / s ,
z_; / / ; , , ; - y .' -- / / / ' y y O
)
. /s s l; w / , / / , ,
/ !j l / s.
- 10N
- m-
/ / / ,
H ,
\
( v -
,./ -
g $ m g :
.w.L __ ,
j ,
. _> 10
<.+
o ,c' :1-- ---- r-fM--- ' ' ' '
+ ; y
-. ,p,.'~~
fo e ,, ,
$g i s y . . .
i;I -
; [ y' ,'
/ / / n .
I / / .
///s h,' ,;Q 7 ,
pW[ %. /,@'s/ " M , 411 .[- / / , / ./ .d N ,
/ ,
j ^
/ / \
./_ u/
10N: _ _ . g, X .- < - --. m ; . H " - M N -n , 10 I E
, ~
- / / -7 g g q f(
0% Ssy (-- -, ,j O' i 100005E h yy
..w;
,. -y ... 0,0 s e
se s, / e
/
/
/ O' V' v i A xsa y T ' 5000 -- =>
/
//[00%,3 W ,., o,3 __ / / -
/ / s x\O,':M 's s s q -
2000 -- g 10 ( E
- Mi 6\ sh , '
N s 0.5 5.0 ::
' / '
c
/
/_ /Mhh
/
/
/ O V ,
g hh V N -' 1000 -- k 00
*i ,. ,/
A z, j'If.it=
._'_-,<o. s, _s. .., 10, , ,
z_ , _
.t. . -, .<.e4 , '45 s :x _
u,r, ., Af u.u-s
/. /
, m,
-, ;. .c w i, s. 100 .._ .
- F 200* - / , , .
y d
/
'f'/
//
4
' 500
/
/
/ sr
,e ; f f n
/
rhW,y Ag 50 20
; l1!
100h*-- /
' / '
,/ / '
10 --
// y> 5
/ s knsqqs S -
H d; /
/
'/ s s
s 10b ' '/ '
/ . 5 10-l'
[ 5M 2
# --~
gg
,[' ,. , ,
, ,3fj
[ / / '
; ; ys l. 1 '
, , ;,,, ~,.q s / / / / ( ; 0.5
, ,n
/ s: / / / s, i.
- 5. ' 0.2 4' [,t- ' / / -/
/-/-h'-? 0.1 10 2i 1 i / -
"f,- . ,i. .., ,, , , , , -
,,y ,
10'2 PRELIMINARY (MAY 17,1982) NOMOGRAM No. 6 l SP 69 922 91 Rev. 9 7/09/82 Page 31 j
/
7 1 l , t 3 I i I
'" U RM M
i APPENDIX 12.6 Prg) 2 cf 8 - ( . . ( '
. i Nomogram #2 (IATER)
J ( -
\
( SP 69 922 91 Rev. p 7/09/82 Page 27
APPENDIX 12.6 Pcg2 7 cf 8 ' ( Nomogram #7 (IATER) '( ( SP 69.922 01 Rev. p 7/09/82 Page 32
APPENDIX 12.6
- Page 8 of 8 t .
Nomogram #8 (IATER) l ( - - f (
~' ~
SP69.9b291 Rev. 9
. 7/09/82 Page 33 i
Rev 1 9/17/82 l SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l .- OFFSITE DOSE-ASSESSMEN'T METHODOLOGY FOR EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS PAGE SECTION 2 2.0 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DOSE MODELS 2 l 2.1 The Dose-Rate Equations 3 2.2 The Concentration (X/Q) 5 2.2.1 Basic Equations 5 2.2.2 Plume Meander 7 2.2.3 Plume Standard Deviations and Building Wake 8 2.2.4 Entrainment 10 2.2.5 Vertical Dispersion and Reflection 11 2.2.6 Effective Plume Height 12 2.2.7 Plume Rise 13 2.2.8 Mixing Depths . 14 2.2.9 Height-Dependent Wind Speeds 14 2.3 The Finite-Cloud Gamma (X/Q) 16 2.3.1 Basic Equations 16 2.3.2 The Integrals Il and I2 19 FIGURES 22 REFERENCES 29 s
&+
0 E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E h Page 1
2.0 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DOSE MODEIS I This section describes the models employed in the evaluation of atmospheric dispersion of plant gaseous effluents and the en-j suing radiological impact under accident conditions. The following radiation exposures are addressed:
. Thyroid dose exposure due to inhalation e External wholebody gamma dose from ove.-head plumes (finite cloud modeling), and e Skin beta-plus-gamma dose from overhead plumes (the beta and gamma components being based on the
'- ) semi-infinite and finite cloud models, respectively). With respect to atmospheric dispersion, two parameters will be described:
. The " concentration ( x/Q) " , which converts effluent release rates of radioactivity to ground-level concentrations at receptors of interest, and
. The " gamma (x/Q)", or (x/Q)y, which is used for the deter-mination of external wholebody gamma doses from finite clouds of radioactive material.
Decay in transit and plume depketion due to ground deposition have l been conservatively ignored. .
~
In general, the equaticns given below represent the atmosphe-ric dispersion and dose models in Regulatory Guides 1.109 (2) , 1.lll I and 1.145 I} , and in " Meteorology and Atomic Energy,(5) , Some of the equations had to be restructured so as to accomodate the " gamma (x/Q)" concept mentioned above. E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. Page 2
2.1 THE DOSE-RATE EQUATIONS By definition, the (X/Q) is a measure of the ground-level relative airborne concentration of released radioactivity at a given distance from the sor:ce. That is, if the release rate is Q'(pCi/sec), then the airborne concentration at the rcceptor of l interest is X(pCi/m 3)
= Q (pCi/sec) (X/Q) (sec/m 3) (2.1)
Exposure to this concentration could result in both inhalation , do;e and external wholebody and skin doses. The basic equation for thyroid dose exposure is D (X/Q) B )(,' Q[ (DFT)1 thy = (2.2) 1 where D[hy = thyroid dose rate (mrem /hr) B = breathing rate (m /hr) - Q[ = release rate of nuclide i to the atmosphere (uci/sec) (DFT)i= dose conversion factor for nuclide i (mrem per pCi inhaled). The equations for wholebody gafuma dose and skin dose due to a finite cloud of radioactive material have been expressed in the forms: D = (X/Q)7 ] Q[ (DFB)1 (2. 3) 1 and Dskin " 1*11 (X/0)y }{}Q[ (DF )1 + (X/Q) ) Q{ (DFS)1 (2.4) i i ENTECH E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E Page 3
where Dh = wholebody gamma dose rate (mrem /hr) D = skin dose rate (due to both gamma and beta radia-i skin tion) (mrem /hr) (DFB)1 = gamma dose-to-body conversion factor for nuclide i (mrem /hr per uCi/m 3) (DF )1 = gamma dose-to-air conversion factor for nuclide 1 (mrem /hr per pCi/m3) and (DFS)g = beta dose-to-sk~in conversion factor for nuclide i (mrem /hr per pCi/m 3 ), Note that these equations apply for both ground-level and elevated releases, the plume elevation, dimensions and gamma radiation spect-ra being properly accounted for by the " gamma (X/Q)". In addition, the (X/Q)'s represent either plume centerline or sector-average values, the former being for estimating instantaneous or short term dispersion effects, and the latter for dispersion during long periods of time. Decay in transit, plume depletion due to ground deposition and dose reduction due to the shielding effects of residential structures have be*en conservatively ignored. Detailed descriptions of the various dispersion models are presented in the sections which follow. , t h EN TECH E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E Page 4 { _ -_
2.2 THE CONCENTRATION (y/Q) Equations are presented for both plume-centerline values (as would be needed for short-time interval applications and instantaneous dose rates) and sector-average values (as would be applicable for long-time intervals) . All equations are based on the straight-line trajectory model with Gaussian dispersion, as described in Regulatory Guides 1 111(3) and 1.145(4) . 2.2.1 Basic Equations In contrast to Reg. Guide 1.111, wher'e credit may be taken for partial plume entrainment by the wake effects of adjacent buildings the (conservative) approach followed here is that described in EPRI Report NP-1380 (6) . Specifically, the entrain-I ment coefficient E t can be either 1 (a fully entrained plume) or 0 (an elevated plume), and as a result the dispersion equations need not represent the mixed-mode option. The applicable (X/Q) equations are therefore as follows:
. Ground-level plume-centerline:
1 (X/Q) Pc = g (2.5) G ug (nc cyz+B) w or 1 (X/0)P"" = CM (2.6) l nug M c y c z whichever yields the smaller value, the former accounting for building wake effects and the latter for plume meander credit.
- Elevated, plume-centerline:
1 (X/0)PC = EE (2.7) nue cy cz E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E Page 5
. Ground-level sector-average:
2.032 (X/0)sa = E G (2.8) ugX L 2 , with the condition that (X/0)sa <, (Xfg) pc and (X/Q)P (2.9) l e Elevated sector-average: 2.032 (X/0)** = IE (2.10) uX e z In these equations, superscripts "pc", "pcm" and "sa" stand for l " plume centerline"," plume centerline with plume meander", and
" sector average", respectively. The remaining parameters are defined as follows:
X = downwind distance from release point (m) u' wind speed (ground-level uq or elevated ue) (m/sec)
~
=
M = meander factor (a function of atmospheric ! stability and wind speed) (unitless) j t
=
oz vertical plume standard deviation at distance X for.the prevailing atmospheric stability (m) o = horizontal plume standard deviation at distance X for the prevailing atmospheric stability (m) E = horizontal plume standard deviation corrected for building wake dffects (m) I
=
I z vertical plume standard deviation corrected for building wake effects (m) (g = reflection correction for ground level releases with building wake E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E Page 6
5' (g = reflection correction factor for ground-level releases with plume meander,
=
(E vertical attenuation and reflection' correction for elevated releases, and Bw = correction for building wake effects, defined as By = 0.5 A or Bg = 2rayz a whichever is smaller, A being the cross-sectional area (in m 2 ) of the building causing the wake. Unlike the regulatory guides, the equations given above l also account for multiple eddy reflections of the radioactive l pollutants between the ground and an iversion layer alof t. This is accomplished though the use of the & parameter and, as shown l in Sec. 2.3.5 below, in limiting cases with relatively large vert-ical standard deviations, the desired result of uniform concentra-tion in the vertical plane will be predicted. Details on the various parameters are presented in the sub-sections which follow. 2.2.2 Plume Meander
}
According to Regulatory, Guide 1.145 , credit can now be taken for the benefit of plume meander in reducing offsite radio-logical impact predictions. The basis of this new position is recognition that dispersion models should provide more realistic, yet reasonably conservative, assessment of atmospheric dispersion. Figure 2.1 shows the curves recommended by the Commission for meander credit as a function of wind speed and atmospheric stabili-ty for distances up to 800 m. Beyond this distance, use is made EN TE CH E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. hA ~ E'N T E~C'H page 7
of the adjusted meander factor defined as: M' = (M-1)[cy(800)/cy ] +1 ( 2.11) where cy(800) is the horizontal plume standard deviation at a 800 m. Note that for unstable conditions (stabilties A, B and C) i and for wind speeds greater than 6 m/sec (independent of stability) I the meander factor is equal to unity. In addition, the combined effects of plume meander and building wake are not allowed. Thus, in the plume centerline case, dilution factors are computed using both Eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) and then selecting the lesser value. Plume meander in not allowed for elevated releases. 2.2.3 Plume Standard Deviations and Building Wake l Values of c y and a z are computed through the use of 9-degree polynomials which were prepared to represent the data versus dis-tance for the atmosphoric stabilities A through G shown in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 (from Ref. 4) , az values are restricted to a maximum value of 1000 m. For gound-level releases, consideration in also given to additional dispersion of the effluent plume within the wake caused by the buildings adjacent to the release point. The I building wake correction. factor Bw, as used in Eq. (2.5), repre-sents the overall effect of the structure and does not differentiate between the horizontal and vertical components of the dispersion. This latter information is necessary for computing the sector-average (X/Q)'s with building wake, the plume reflections between the ground plane and inversion layers alof t, and the lateral spread of the plume and its impact on off-center receptors. In such cases, EN TE CH EN GIN E E R IN G,1N C. E Page 8
i use is made of the adjusted standard deviations defined as: I = (gy 2 + 0.5A/u)l/2 ( 2.12) and Ez* ICz + 0.5h B2 fy)1/2 (2.13) where hB is the height of the building causing the additional dispersion (m), and A is the smallest vertical cross-sectional area (m2 ), l The maximum values of E y and Ez are restricted by the conditions: 1 (Ey) max " Cy (
- and l (Iz) max " W Cz (2.15)
Recall that plume meander and building wake effects have been l I assumed to be mutually exclusive. i i In the (X/Q) equations, building wake effects were essentially ' represented by two models, one making use of parameter B y for the overall combined effect, and one employing parameters r y and I z to l l account for the independent effects of the horizontal and vertical j plume standard deviations. A comparison of a building wake formula-tion relying entirely on E and I z with that in Reg. Guide 1.145 may be found in Ref. (7). l l E N T E C il E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E Page 9 1 L -
l , . 2.2.4 Entrainment According to Reg. Guide 1.111, effluents can be considered l to be ground level releases (Et = 1) , eldvated releases (Et = 0), or mixed-mode releases (0<Et11) depending on (a) the elevation of the release point above grade (h s ) relative to the height of adjacent solid buildings (hB ) and (b) the effluent exit velocity Wo relative to the speed of the prevailing speed during the period of interest. The alternatives are as follows: hs<hB Et= 1.0 (2.16) hs > 2hB Et = 0.0 (2.17) hB<hs < 2hB Et= 1.0 when (Ry < 1) (2.18) Et = 2.58 - 1.58Ry when (1 < Ry < l. 5) (2.19) Et = 0.3 - 0.06Ry. when (1. 5 < Ry < 5) (2.20) Et = 0.0 when (Ry >_5) where Ry = W o/u e ( 2. 21) In contrast to the regulatory guide, as pointed out in Sec. 2.2.1 above, the approach employed in this work represents the findings of experimental results reported in Ref. (6). According to this reference, mix-mode releases cannot be justified, and for cases where hB<hs< 2h B the alternatives should be as follows: hB<hs< 2h B E t
= 1.0 when (Ry < 5) (2.22) 7 Et = 0.0 when (Ry >_ 5 ) (2.23)
ENTECH E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E 9
Under these restrictions, it is clear that the plume can be either at ground level or totally elevated at any one time. 2.2.5 Vertical Dispersion and Reflectiod The & parameters in the (X/0) equations represent the exponen-tial decrease in ground concentrations with increasing plume height, l and the increase in concentration due to multiple eddy reflections i from the ground and stable atmospheric layers aloft. Definition of these parameters was based on the plume trapping equations in the USEPA Workbook on Atmospheric Dispersion (8) as follows: l n I G
= ]e (Yj) 2 (2.24) j=-n n
E M
=
} e -(33) (2.25) j=-n n
(g =
)[ e-b+0N (2.26) where d"-"
he (2.27) og /2 L /7 6 " (2.28) l Cz I L /7 Y (2.29) E z In these equations h e is the effective plume height above ground, L is the depth of the mixing layer and 2n is the total number of reflections. n = 3 or 4 is normally sufficient to include the important reflections. EN TE CH E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. N y Page 11
In case of large plume standard deviations, where multiple reflections occur and uniform vertical mixing has taken place, the equations reduce to simpler forms. For instance, limit (gE) = e -( + d) dj = (1/S) / (2.30) and is achieved forar'z greater than approximately 2L. Under these conditions Eq. (2.10) reduces to 2.55 (X/Q)sa = (2. 31) u e XL which is the familiar form of the sector-average dispersion equa-tion with uniform vertical mixing. 2.2.6 Effective Plume Height In accoruance with Reg. Guide 1.111, the effective plume ( height is defined as he = hs+h pr - ht-c (2.32) where c = downwash correction factor for low relative exit velocity (see below) (m) h pr
= plume rise above the release point (m) h, = physical height of the release point (m) ht =
maximum terrain height (above the release-point grade elevation) between the release point and the receptor (ht> 0) (m). The downwash correction factor is defined as c = 3(1.5 - R y )d when Ry < l.5 (2.33) c = 0.0 when Ry >_ l . 5 (2.34) EN TE C H EN GIN E ER IN G, IN C. E Page 12
where Ry is as defined in Sec. 2.2.4 and d = inside diameter of the release vent. In this application, due to the conditions imposed on the entrainment coefficient in Sec. 2.2.4 above, namely that an elevated release can occur only when Ry> 5, the downwash correction factor is always 0. In addition, since the resultant plume height in elevated releases is significantly higher than the surrounding , I terrain, the "h "tParameter was redefined to represent the terrain height at the receptor of interest. Pnysically, this redefinition implies that the surrounding terrain will not have any impact on the elevation of the plume above MSL (mean sea level). 2.2.7 Plume Rise Nuclear power plants normally have cold plumes, and hence only momentum plume-rise effects need be considered in the evalua-tion of the effective plume height. The applicable equations are as follows (9) , (10) , e Neutral and unstable conditions h pr = 1.44 Ry ! (X/d)1/3 d (2.35a) or - h p
= 3R y d (2.35b) whichever is smaller
- e Stable conditions h pr = 1.44 Ry 2/3 (X/d) d (2.36a) or h
p
= 3R y d~
(2.36b) EN TE CH EN GINEER IN G,1N C.' N Page 13
. . _ - __ _ _ _ \
or h = 4 (Fm / S)1/4 (2.37) pr or h = 1.5 (Fm / ue )l/3 g-1/6 (2.38) whichever is smaller, where Fm " IWo d / 2) 2 _ (2.39) S = (9.Sl/T) +0.0098 (2.40) _ az - T = ambient air temperature (UK) Parameters X, d and R y are as previoitsly defined. l 2.2.8 Mixing Depths Vertical diffusion 5f the plume is inhibited by the existence of a stable atmospheric layer (an elevated inversion) aloft. The rete of vertical mixing is reduced in such cases and the stable layer can be considered as an effective lid on the vertical trans-port of pollutants. The effect of plume trapping is included in the & tcrms discussed in Sec. 2.2.5, the depth of the mixing layer being re-presented by the symbol L. Low mixing depths should be selected for conservatism, typically 600 to 800 m. 2.2.9 Height-Dependent Wind Speeds The extrapolation of wind speeds from the height at which the measurements are taken to a height of interest is accomplished through use of the equation u new = uo ld ( hnew / hold ) (2.41; E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, IN C. E Page 14
where u old = measured wind speed (m/sec) unew = extrapolated wind speed ' hold = height of wind speed instrument (m) hnew = height of plume centerline above ground (m) q = stability dependent power coefficient, equal to 0.25 for Pasquill stabilities A, B, C and D and equal to 0.50 for stabilities E, F, and G. The parameters hold and hnew must satisfy the conditions h old 1 10 m (2.42) and h 1 10 m new (2.43) and in, extrapolating wind speeds to lower ~ heights, n new cannot become lower than some typical lower limit which is instrument specific (typically 0.5 mph). O e ENTECH E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E 5'
2.3 THE FINITE-CLOUD GAMMA (y/Q) There are two models of interest to the nuclear. power industry for the determination of external wholebody gamma exposures from gaseous effluents. Both models are described by D. H. Slade(5) In " Meteorology and Atomic Engery - 1968", and are as follows: (a) The short-term Gaussian puff model with straight-line advection and off-axis receptors, and (b) The long-term sector average model with uniform radioactivity distribution in the vertical plane. The models are of interest because they are suitable for the evaluation of both ground-level and elevated plumes and also because they provide radiological impact assessments which are more realistic and less restrictive than those based on ' semi-infinite clouds with uniform concentration. In addition, they can provide more accurate interpretation of survey-team plume tracking measurements following accidental releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere. 2.3.1 Dasic Equations In both Gaussian puff and sector-average finite-cloud models, the final equations for external gamma exposure were expressed by Slade in simple form in terms of certain integrals Il and I2 representing the spatial distribution of the radio-active material in the plume. As such, the equations do not explicitly include the X/O atmospheric dispersion term normally encountered in the equations for semi-infinite clouds. ENTECH E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E 9
The desire to have one form of equation which would apply for both finite and semi-infinite cloud models has prompted the definition by the author of the " gamma f X/Q)" which is described in this section. Indeed, through the use of the concept, the finite cloud wholebody gamma dose equation takes the form D' = (X/Q)y [Q[ (DFB) (2 44) 1 as given earlier in Eq. (2.3) and is identical in form to that for semi-infinite clouds with uniform concentration. The " gamma ( X/Q) " is suitable for both ground-level and elevated releases and properly accounts for the gamma spectra associated with the airborne radioactivity. The final equation includes the weighted contribution of each gamma. energy group as follows: (X/Q) = bk' A k(X/Q)h (2.45) k Ak k where Ak " Oi Aki
, (2.46)
Oi ,
- E O Aki
= ' ki Ek (2. 4 7)
[Q i Aki 1 Eki = actual energy of a gamma photon in group k emmitted by nuclide 1 (Mev) A ki
=
abundance of Eki Q[ = release rate of nuclide i (pCi/sec), and (X/Q) = finite cloud gamma (x/Q) at photon energy Ek' E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. j Page 17
1 . Definition of the last parameter depends on the finite-cloud model employed. For the plume centerline (or continuous puff) and sector average models in " Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968" (Ref. 5, Sections 7-5.2.2 and 7-5.2.5), the equa-tions are as follows: e Plume centerline model 2up (X/Q)k = 8 (I1 + KI2) (2.48) wu
. Sector average model 2 pa (El+KI) 2 k= (2.49)
(X/Q)Y /i u X A$ In these equations, p = linear air attenuation coefficient at E k (1/m) pa = linear air energy absorption coefficient at E k (1/m) Ac = w/8 radians (the width of a 22.50 sector) K = (u - pa)/Ma = buildup factor for air. (2.50) Il and I2 are the results of numerical integrations accounting for dispersion of the effluent plume, and are functions of the plume standard deviations, plume elevation, and photon energy, as defined in Ref. (5). They are discussed further in Sec. 2.3.2. ^l It is of interest to note that Eqs. (2.48) and (2.49) reduce to the " concentration (X/Q) " equations for large plume standard deviations. This, by far, is one of the most interesting features o'f the " gamma ( X/Q) " as presently defined. Details are prerunted in the section which follows. E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. Page 18
r l = Application of the above equations requires knowledge of the I gamma energy spectrum associated with the airborne radioactivity. In general, conservative results can be obtained by selecting a low-energy spectrum for ground-level releases and a relatively
?
higher energy spectrum for elevated releases. r 2.3.2 The Integrals I and I 2 t The finite-cloud models, and in particular the plume center-line (or continuous puff) model, have found only limited applica-tion primarily due to the mathematical complexity of the Il and
~
I2 integrals. A few years ago, va.ues for these integrals were painstakingly extracted from 6-cycle log-log multi-plots in Ref. (5), an approach which is tedious, aggravating and susceptible to serious interpolation errors. Presently there' exists two computer subroutines developed by the author (ll,12) which provide an e_ accurate determination of these integrals by fast numerical integra-tion techniques. The integration model for the sector-average model presently forms part of Regulatory Guide 1.109(2) . The plume centerline model was developed recently primarily due to its suitability in the implementation of emergency response plans. Analytical descriptions of the finite cloud models may be found in Refs. (5), (9) and (10). For the purposes of this report, [ it suffices to note that the mathematical expressions for the __ integrals are as follows:
- Plume-centerline (continuous puff) model
-_ * "exp(-pr)
I = C G(r,m) dr d(ut) y ( 2. 51) o o mr E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E age B
==
I = C f f p exp(-pr) 2 G(r,m) dr d(ut) (2.52) J, ), m (m-r)2 . (m+r) 2 - ] G(r,m) = exp -
- exp -
(2.53) 2a 2
. 2o .
C = ( 4 a p /27 ) -1 g , (g g ) l/2 (2.54)
- Sector-average model E
- r*
Iy = C G(2) Ey(pz) dz (2.55)
),
_ r" I2 = C G(z) exp (-pz) dz (2.56) (z-h) 2 . - (z+h) 2 . G(z) = exp -
+ eXP -
(2.56) 2 2o . - 2a2 . f exp(-pr) E(pz) - d(pr) J pr (2.57)
, pz C =
( 2 [2 ag) -1 g For large plume staddard deviations the Il and I2 integrals reduce to the following limits (as shown in Refs. (11) and (12)) : 7 I
- Plume Centerline (large - tmit) 1 I
l
= I 2
2 eXP (- 0.5 h 2/c 2) (2.59) 2M
= ~
E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E age 20 h
^
k
. Sector-aver, age (large a limit) 1 Ty = T2 = exp(- 0.5 h 2fg2) (2.60) f2 vo z _
Under these conditions, the " gamma (x/Q)" equations reduce to those for the concentration (X/Q), as can be verified by substituting Eq. (2.59) into Eq. (2.48), and Eq. (2.60) into Eq. (2.49). Note however, that the " gamma (X/0)" equations do not account for the presence of an inversion layer aloft, and hence, in this applica-tion, one must also eliminate the reflection terms in the equa-tions in Sec. 2.2.5 (i.e., one must also set n = 0) . Within reasonable approximation, the multiple eddy reflections in the case of the gamma (X/Q) equations can be handled by multiplying the results with the correction factor
=
Cg (G ( 2. 61) for ground-level releases, and GE
= exp(+a2 ) g (
- E >
for elevated plumes. For the sector-average gamma ( X/Q) , param-eters a, (g and (g are as defined in Sec. 2.2.5; for the plume-centerline case, it is also necessary to replace c z with the average plume standard deviation o. Graphical presentations of the integrals are shown in Figs. 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 (from Ref. 5). r E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E
I i 10 , 5tability Class E 6 E F
. 4 E
3 E i: kl E 8- o l 2
.I.
I 2 3 4 5 6 10 WINDSPEED (m/sec) Fig. 2.1 Plume meander correction factor as a function of wind speed and stability (from Reg. Guide 1.145) E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E Page 22
o
-w iC-~ T'~iFT- - -ti 2 _ - I 30'" ,'
S .. . . y . p . ,....a--[~g~l , -.- -.4-- . __.t ! i o.j !t w
/,<
e - - - I !Ii --
//,C'/k ~
7 3 , , y
- p, / , //
1.0
- I 8
( .
.f-- .
~ m t_.....
E. - {..u.7;!
'i
,; - l g T1 :' - --
ni.. g _ _
;l.]b ,' jd_
- i. , __ _ -
_--_4 5-
> s
.N- //,-v;<
. iO' , , ./ i l 1 Mg . , O'/ -.- ....,..... .... '
ga I ~ _ (( j. p q' .- . .. 00,.... , . ,7.. C
- SteGMf t , unstatt g ._ , _
e 0
- N(WIW4(
7
//
- t. StoGutt,Sfaett g / / ,,
F
- wo0taar,6, Staka , _J,...
,,e .
'_ u. .
[f ')~~ ' l~ ,, ..
~~
[ ..j "
. . ,0 00' 2 $ 10' t S e0* ,t 9 to' Gelf aseC, F80M SOVRCC Imp Fig. 2.2 Horizontal standard deviation of material in a plume (from Reg. Guide 1.145) during ex-For tremely purposes stable (G) of estimating atmospher a[c stability conditions, without plume meander or other lateral enhancement the following approximation is appropriate:
2 cY(G) = -c 3Y(F) E N T E C il L .V G I N E E R I N G, I N C. Page 23
8a60'
. / /
j .
,/
se' - -- - --- -- - - ,'
,- f .---, . --
g / / , , t
. r ? , / .,.,
J #
,,a d. -
f, *
!,. [ [ /
/ j '
i i',. ,
-r' ' f s - --
t x
> . ~
/ . .
y
. a .
,...e y G~ , &-R,' , ,
,' ,l"- , w' 4
c
'< s. !
?
/
s - s {
/ // / 2**
"-Y .-.
',, /ff // s' f / ,
,e '#
T G O'
, , A
- tafettatLT untfASLE ---
= >r S
- ts00taattLy uset7asti _,__..
b* 1(("d'
/ Il f Ii C
- StadsefLT vertfatit S
I 0 = atursat e 7 ( it rs, sr..a F ._-
- f. ,__
, - ap00 teat _str $14ett f
- _L_. . -
... . . .o' : io+ = . .o*
ra a . u.a ... I Fig. 2.3 Vertical standard deviation of material in plume (from Reg. Guide 1.145) For purposes of estimating az during extremely stable (G) atmospheric stability conditions, the following approximation is appropriate: l 3 az (G) = gaz(F) ) l E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. Page 24
toa _,
- y. . .
__m
. 4 7-+.b 4,l . .-
, ,.........; A,.. __r ----
r -
*'-I < -r+--
. 77y! t 1 i - - - ' - t ' - - --
se o 03- - er1- *
.------- ' -t-t-- + - -"
~-- 4 ,- , . . ,
-- s.s.. . - - ..
]Q#P y1g ggs.3 i ; - i_. .74,._..
. . 1
. . 9 . .. +; g4 4 g . ,,i ,,
.! 4-+, 7 .{._.
4 4 s ._si xSpN ..;., 7 _ . u_ __
-l .
r _4_6 -.. . .
. .l i .l 'e m.
Mk\ 1 \\ ,ll de , .. .I -j. .-~
', b '
. 's e !!0.03 i ,
g
, !l .l t N +i,t-t* ___.;,.
.35DN 3;I,55*t.E-iN ;._ ___. P~ Ef_5
~~'
U3
. . -N- nk.
.-- 5 -- , ,
., . e :--r- mn"-. -
i g-rn k- y* t p s _.-[. . ; 'l
---~-- -
..g _ _ ~.-n -;T
'n.v--
fit t.; --t y e" 2 N N F-- N i ,% A; sNc ,
- y. 1 -
m ---+-
%. 4 7
- l. 3 - ni
\! I . P \ \g. .Nl
.- ~ . --.
,0 m -
l - t i
. k.. . o..sY_.N
~. -
#MM, nV -Ht- .
- ,- tJ
.3.. , s _
g s ., s 1 mW - i 1.y
- c. p a.__+.4 ..,.. - r .-
M,s . __t .f
. , , , . u., ,
.__L .
.I d..y _p; 7.
,q -t
- p. . ., t
.d Ist: I t- I -
y...
=
., s p,ss s t
, i 3
.m.
l i ll ll 3
- i. ivs -
i, s.. e, ss
,s .
T'
..o tt=r+, ::. t.._.; m r.m.::r r.:
=
g m x m,~y1y 1 n, i,;j.tr.::t y ,-m a
, +--t m s
. +. , , ,; ,
.C. .-. ,! . ,i .._. . ' .. ... . ._
_'.g, , . 'g. . . } .g
- o
. s . .\ , 1 -;.
+
- N
.. ., . 4 m j..g 4, 9 7 - --
r- "
-f N= =M - '[ k J , h,. .- i i P- -C~
v
-jj+7,-g.
r , s, -
'w " hr s
~.o a. i .
-p.
t-t- f. iv '6,Y',b
,,., =r T g 3 g ..i.o f... .I. .
- .p
, _ -4o .sg 1:
-_4---,
1 , r c-
. r, -
.--,.4 3
-r, ,. i. p: . ,
; 5. 2 5 ,.7__
i
.1
-.._ .-. g -- 3.4- .
.,, , _ m.y
,e F, t ir
< - A s,
-+
- .i.. i . tit- -% , u
=
- i;
.g.
.g .a. ; + .,...; pq
. p. _ ~.i.
T,+ '4 . ._3 .e ll l, ,-.y
.i. :lh yj g
..,4 g m m...
j.- ] ,
,. 4 -
f , rj! g x ,, t----3
.l!
Q' H :. __.. _.. _ , _ . ) hr, g
\, gA.. .M...p m.+
l e t. s. . i , i. ,
,0.. i 1 ,, , s W
+
, e.iN
__ L -4 " 2*. ~ k N rI* 4. L
; 7 14
^
l-fhH-i
. i i i ***
, aq!-T'
;i !' t
$~ i%Q t "
m.. . , . ,.
-- f --
...s - i + _.g i.g h-k 1 pat-.-
4 { 4
.j j ,n.. t .]In.\ . Q; vg:--,.p r h.3 4
- q. g 4
, .l . ..-. , ,
- 2 _3.g _ .
1
;. . _.m .
- -l s +': -
go., is._, si r L
~
.I l
. i
- 1,: , I, t in+
g g, , ,6 i, et :
*i so
- q. O F
r. i _L - 10 8 lo.a no.s too gos loa van Fic. 2.4 Values of the I t integral (plume centerline or continuous puf f model) (from Ref. 5) W-k E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. E Page 25
l l 80 8 _.~.
.T t --
- u. :.. --. __ _ _
~.
.p t-m.+
--m .*
. u-A.,, ._L
;4 '
't
. . ..J j .f., .. __.
1,
. ,; g...__ . _ . _.q .._ .
+__.__. . , , ,
._ i _ ..J . . _
J q ,.y 4 ] .. +
, l l -( . - ._.__.- = .
lt t. k+g z, ; r--- s ,- "rM ; y
% g .-
t.. b ym.- b 4I te's s o.s[ l _..lb , ' l 7-~ l.
.cy a.d -
f 5 0,, - -
-D.~-m's %_q.9m-- . ::p: 1.;; r
< . _ _ _ . _ _ arr::2=: . s
%- %,- il.t, F m
. p e
- 50.W -%r-i i
..'3 , .
~pp. ;
- ss , .. p . i t:Tr _, ._.
4
, .. .i . .
m--I giK7N 1. @3%q ~ 99,. ...__.. _- .
._ j__ . . . > ,__
.._y ._g ,__
h't$.l. 'I i k h-3 N
~- ~ ~
\ \f hp
~
i _. m m-- ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 g om a 4_2. .p w'<. 3' e.. u .
"mi o .
Q,4r. fte --
.}
1
+ .
+-
n ;t_,x .s , gNhl e..q _ i . o 3
)
i t 3 5 %, ; - -- Y .% \ % ini m -!ll
--f- i + -
---t fr, (
{ -- ( iM l t. li ik 'F'\. T
~- '
4 .. 1 t i. $ l i .! a I..;.
~
7
'v 3 ,,.. DF ya e' -
- P- . !.
- . t, e . I. . '.
Ti *:".'""-* T':. :M ~
- 4/4 m g
g e-
. . +- . .;
-.__s_.- 4' -
}
* - *.{
y 3 ji- Th i , . ,e , /\ -
,p i ,.
.a:.i.. i ...... .. .,. . .q .. g, i yy 1g. . u._
.i
+ .7p n .4 .7-..4 .. .
t_._.,.. , , fysp i, p.t .f..9 m ._ _. .... ._. _..j. .
.,..s j 4 g, , ,, - [_ p., F- ,1 , s.
y <
- u- -
r . H',-. k ~ fb : i. i
~ "- ~'~~
T
-[*
i
~ '"
p- 1-i=s
. .. n. ,, .
. r L-
.o. .v-p n
= -
G T- :: ,e.
., ' .i, q,.y3. y .h... .p 9,. .
L YMh. k ~
":'O. ',
. .i i_.
. [.. i--k,
--l - t- t-
_n$ . ,d.,.. . f k_M. . h, - JI . A
.{lf.. .wp.__-. s :. . . ..
Pe
- t-
}r_ !)
i.'k-t
-k g .-.__ a 6 . . .
1 N I
.nft .. . ,
_cr.-.s+ .:.1 .1: i
' :- ,"--" 1. ,. Wk--_~4, '
J . ~. y_-- ..t_ _4%... .. ._.t +:.:.pZ+-" : -
..+ .
- h. y.S g , , - , .~...
p,a
.L ..__.p...__ 6_
-J=.r. m
.r I 3 .
'llt3.g n 1, kT --m
. u., ... yy h _ . ' -l'_-.. -j ' Ti,...-.-hy.
j# 7T_ h--dhf_f.bn - 7I
,t;F. .
-@ t -
-t- e
- tt ( -Tf -
r +-~?
.g i
l,
't
[.th.td/ g:- 6.; . A. _d '4 :?... i.... 3
,-^ --
.{
4
' es s s 10.W
.f i 8
b
- m. e J...
.i 0s' po e t01
.-l
- i t.~'
- ~ 4-:l
- Ut.i
..-iI 10 4 to a no.e toe ice nos ,
FI f t Fig. 2.5 Values of the I 2 integral (plume centerline or continuous puff model) (from Ref. 5) E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G,1 N C. Page 26 E
( . so' .... _ _ _. _4:-
.!"g
=
+ __", . :::- Tun w _,#
-r;n..- .,.M. T+.?3 &. . -- 3
~~
n.o - f-4,e au y -i12-'te M1 , r - c- _ :dc i i; - mas 4 ; ..% -
.m-N . .,4: * ,
W . +' ..u . c
-,. _ , _ ... t_
% . M. 4 27..
y._u n. o.: 2 %~ i w.. ai q..q." 2 m _ . i 4.. . L t
- M N.. s..
~ ~
3 NJ4fp5tK, W l '- -
' hi; ' '
I - I I i 10* n .o'as N A ~-- ' M ;d:' # % 1 ph.O.b-"+4 2 n, 7- (.- h=hk , _s
,l 4_
j 2
, , _ , , , _h k,,
N[
.t , #..' y
[Jh: 1 n)
-1 : --4 Y .._ J
. .g -T3,,9 g,#
J .; T
; 4- ---
s 1.. -.. .. m.:-:. i
,_.hf i
_.,_ . .ph a ti . k l. 1 , . y- k %, io.a rr I . _v . >
., i -
. I c
/.m,,,
a 6 .1 q.'e, .:g-' . sg + 1 f
-i 1
g:- _..y, . t. . _4.u
;37. -
' 3 y .
,---- . . _ .g.
f-w- ,o%t-,i ,. s Q: F:- :---~c .t..
- 4__
, rr: .. . ..
4
- i. i,._ ,s/ . - . . .. _ - ,
g 4 a _
]. *
,, eg :- 3 -- .
t
.e.g.
] -
r 5 .jn . 2.s y 'o., ,. m.,_ .... ., =w.rI.
!' k--^--'t)j<j!"-
]'d {l f Q-iMi 'i~ -'"
Y1
,, g .. o -
u .7n .g-wl ,_v. _ - _ z w..+4.__ e:.a.4 q_ q p; _.p c.
. _~.r:I y :.
g . g _t[,,] st : ,. c_
, ... q".~' _._ ..g;_..}. -. ;
g gd .; n-g'(- r P
; - ~
.,y .; _r _, ..
y _. '-*d---u - m
..,e ,_.
..yr,'
j j@ nih
.. .p o ._. _.4_. _ ..
. . .7.
y -J*N p t r- *, - yb Mg so- . . _ ,
, ;:: a -n . s'-.:=-pn - AL l._ s . *..:pM, 4
~ - _--
. _ . . .N ,
- 2. _q
.4
. _ _ ...4 .;$. .2 Mtz.,:_2 ; T T- . :-
- n. M; g,.h : y- - .
4,Wy_
. 7 g.}
X. ;+"1... , p ,. q .m; .. _, 9'.t.4& b g,., g,- -
~ - ,
. ... . _ . - _ ._-. .+. -
p
. %..r- +
i %. m N i.
-i *.,.-
.- . , r.'
J} %. M. ..%, i.; w,_L ' p.. a A L-.L m li 4
..i*
s -C t3 y"
,o.4
... la ..i
- __1 1
.L u {h w.cq-- ,
4 /i
,r. .:: .-T- ;-..., 1 -
;+1 7;; 43-,, ~~'
- 21
_ i .. 4 l -: - ,d,:t-M
. -i- g1
. . ,, . ; ;; x ::x t r
,_+ t +4-- I e- --+ +-y-rc r u.-_:: ,. r. -4r 4 t W.
9 ;
.H .;m L74.Hg n -- .<
r, 1.,4, m m
'o.p.r-r: r, . r.w- g1 em x n
~
.u.. ,..,
. dry,
. +4 4s 7 p . ,p y- .o,;~ l#o r
c n-W.+.- p vpt
- y. e:.-t
.. , . s_. g . _~ > 4 u
-t Et s. :
. _. i...ry a.c
- : .m ., 3 . m ;
g Hw h 3, v. . 10.s 9_
' +5::N R. R '* -- A* }1+T Ds E4i 'I
"'NN , Wi,, ...m.
ug# fA.-*E i io-* io-' i ioo io' io: io's ici
- m
- Fig. 2.6 Values of the I t integral (sector-average model)
(from Ref. 5) E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. Page 27
lh
- O-h,p; q, _ _ .
C 'W _, , , , ,, , , , , , ,,
':~f M 4 q ,,
,._m_._ y
~
l ;! ll}} - - -
+i---
$~43} -2 ij --l ,,
5E r,'o a _. i'-%d. u_ .. .-. -- - 4 :, y -
-[
y . s$3D ..-+-- .,.p-.--$,l g .j ,a,-.-q.- 3 l0 *
~
e .. . --. . Y - s
- * . . .-- ph o k.SO -I -.d3 3-
! i.
r . , r c: F-T-T~- -- _g
+ >+.
i h.- .; 4 . 7:1 . .
,nllg '
m, ..<-L.y- .' I*r"'...+ 77--" C. . ,* !. .h 1 g .'[/.Y{g 3y. J , _g tgy EEk," [{ ,' f s - . .
.j. l. p__ g 10-3
- laa
-a*
h._i -,- +'. . f. p h = 6 0EM m1b*. m m - ,
~
'm-~+.- @;Lw
.~...
.i l 'f 's
' 1'.
C p % -. L. - .. - 1 - , o **r5E"47_... -M ) ~ %. . v -- ".t.h- h-.j[kt-t. ._ q - b
.p.. qp _'_. ,'
r-t- --I J4 tgg+'q . 1 g_.. l - -t f. iM - Ivkh' g. -
'o.3 sw m IL.T . ti ;i; yyN__g"
- .r... +' sr
==
.i, ir 5- ,-
-. f .'
i: A e
~,.u.-- ,y:4 _.--,+. ,d_ ! __ L ,
- 1. .i r
%, ..-..u
,h ___. -
ut 6 , - - , _ 4 , yttp r.7- ,i;- --.--
.4.- p ,j. .,
---; J ,. ,.-- .&9q. :
y
~
~" ~'"
I .ph I4 .
$ FT~ -
io em.; _.w -
~ ~ ~ -+. ..* a4 {j
,i_-p'-
7 3haiO r di ',.* 7'~ k' '7 4 L 3: .: i d i
; "- +--i'.4fg h a '25'Mh 'a S O fw. a lo"v. e 4. ..y. g. , ,h
! i :i i .
- >- c yJ., 4;':.t
y pn - gt -g . + - t_ q . g ..T ' +-H- 1 '* 6H. h. k_a p .. _ - . 10*8 '
=
10-3 10-3 [0 0 10' 10 3 10 3 Me n d Fig. 2.7 Values of the I 2 integral (sector-average model) (from Ref. 5) E N T E C H E N G E N E E R IN G,1N C. Page 28
r . REFERENCES
- 1. "Shoreham Nuclear Power S tation -
Effluent Monitoring Software Package", Nuclear Measurements Corporation, 1982
- 2. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix I",
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (October 1977, Rev. 1)
- 3. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods of Estimating Atnos-pheric Transport aid Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors", U.S.
Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission (July 1977, Rev. 1)
- 4. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants", U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Aug 1979)
- 5. D. H. Slade (Ed.), " Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968",
USAEC, TID-24190 (1968)
- 6. R. H. Thuillier, R. L. Mancuso, et al, " Building Effects on Effluent Dispersion from Roof Vents at Nuclear Power Plants",
Electric Power Research Institute Report EPRI NP-1380 (April 1980) (SRI International project)
- 7. J. N. Hamawi, " Comments of Regulatory Guide 1.145,' Atmos-pheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants", ENTECH Engineering Report P100-R1 (December 1979) l
- 8. L. B. Turner, " Workbook on Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates", l U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. AP-26
__ (1970, Revised Edition)__ , ,
- 9. J. F. Sagendorf, "A Program for Evaluating Atmospheric Dis-persion from a Nuclear Power Station, NOAA Techical Memorandum ERL-ARL-42 (1974) d
- 10. G. A. Briggs, " Plume Rise", AEC Critical Review Series, TID-25075 (1969)
- 11. J. N. Hamawi, "A Method for Computing the Gamma-Dose Integrals Il and I2 for the Finite Cloud Sector-Average Model", Yankee Atomic Electric Company, YAEC-1105 (March 1975)
- 12. J. N. Hamawi, "A Method for Computing the Gamma-Dose Integrals It and I 9 for the Gaussian Puff Model in Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968", ENTECH ENGINEERING Report P100-R4 (May 1981)
E N T E C H E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. E
~ fVA T LILCO, October 12, 1982 00(METED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CFFICE OF SECRETreY In the Matter of hR$fCy RVICE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL) I hereby certify that copies of EP 1(B) " TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. SCHIFFMACHER AND WILLIAM F. RENZ FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 1(B) -- PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM" EP 2(A) " TESTIMONY OF ROGER E. LINNEMANN AND MICHAEL L. MIELE FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 2(A)
-- ADEQUATE MEDICAL SERVICES" EP 2(B) " TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS J. DI MASCIO AND EDWARD LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 2(B) -- GROUND TRANSPORTATION TO HOSPITAL" EP 4 " TESTIMONY OF BRANT AIDIKOFF, H. MARK BLAUER, MATTHEW CORDARO, EDWARD-LIEBERMAN, AND JAMES RIVELLO ON BEHALF OF T!iE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMCRGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 4 -- PROTECTIVE ACTIONS" EP 5(A) " TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, RUSSELL-R.
DYNES, DENNIS S. MILETI, AND JAMES RIVELLO ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION'5(A) -- ROLE CONFLICT" EP 5(B)- " TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS J. DI MASCIO AND EDWARD LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 5(B) -- TRAFFIC CONGESTION AFFECTING ONSITE EMERGENCY WORKERS AND OFFSITE LILCO PERSONNEL REPORTING TO THE SITE" [
4T EP 7(B) " TESTIMONY OF H. MARK BLAUER, MATTHEW CORDARO AND JAMES RIVELLO ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 7(B) -- ABILITY TO AUGMENT WITHIN 30 MINUTES" EP 10(B) " TESTIMONY OF H. MARK BLAUER, MATTHEW C. CORDARO, AND JOHN F. SCHMITT FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 10(B) -- REAL TIME MONITORS" EP 10(C) " TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. SCHMITT AND JOSEPH S. BARON FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 10(C)
-- ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING" EP ll(A), " TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM F. BENZ AND PHILIP (B), (C) FRIEDMAN FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIO:1 ll(A), (B),
AND (C) -- COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS" EP 13 " TESTIMONY OF JACK A. NOTARO AND ROBERT L. POLTRINO FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 13
-- INTERIM SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM" EP 14 " TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. BARON, MATTHEW C.
CORDARO, NICHOLAS J. DI MASCIO, JOHN N. HAMAWI, LOUIS P. POCALUJKA, AND JOHN F. SCHMITT ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE I EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION EP 14 -- ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND DOSE ASSESSMENT MODELS" were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by Federal Express (as indicated by an asterisk), or by hand (as indicated by two asterisks), on October 12, 1982: Lawrence Brenner, Esq.** Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
f _V . Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory RU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.. Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter ** Daniel F. Brown,-Esq.
Administrative Judge Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.** David J. Gilmartin, Esq.- Richard L. Black, Esq. Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq. County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suffolk County Department of Law Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20555 Hauppauge, New York 11787
-Herbert H. Brown, Esq.** Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, P. O. Box 398 Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.* Washington, D.C. 20036 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C. 9 East 40th Street Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith New York, New York 10016 Energy Research Group 4b01 Totten Pond Road Howard L. Blau, Esq. Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Matthew J. Kelly, Esq. Suite K State of New York San Jose, California 95125 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i . .. . .
. ~l Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 .
James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 12, 1982 m_}}