ML20033C707
| ML20033C707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Ayer J, Burkhardt W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033C704 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-3 NUDOCS 8112030701 | |
| Download: ML20033C707 (34) | |
Text
_
q_______
l
- Original concurrcnca copy to b2 return:d to FBrown,SSg96,74205
].
g, s
y s
Distribution:
) Docket _ File 70 M Project File M-3 PDR WBurkhardt NOV 13 1981 LPDR JEAyer Docket No. 70-25 Project M-3 NMSS R/F RTKratzke FCAF R/F LA File RECunningham l
TFCarter MEMORANDUM FOR: Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch l
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FROM:
J. E. Ayer and W. Burkhardt Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
SUBJECT:
RISK NIALYSIS OF POSTULATED PLUT0NIUM RELEASES FROM THE ATOMICS INTERNATIONAL llUCLEAR MATERIALS DEVELOPMEllT FACILITY, SANTA SUSANA, CALIFORNIA, AS A RESULT OF TORNADO WINDS AND EARTHQUAKES The subject report prepared by Probabilistic Analysis Staff, Office of fluclear Regulatory Research, is attached. The purpose of this memorandum is to recomend acceptance of the attached review as a final increment of the analysis of the effects of natural phenomena upon the Atomics International Nuclear Materials Development Facility, Santa Susana, California.
We recomend that this review including its sumary and conclusions be adopted as a ::taff position subject to your approval. Subsequent to your approval we will make copies available to the public and Atomics International in accordance with review and documentation procedures agreed upon and described in our February 10, 1977 memorandum to R. M. Bernero.
0*'icinal Sq.;og y,
%2
- 1 yze (#,
0 0 2. f.' g p
.3pgg j
J. E. Ayer and W. Burkhardt Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
As stated Or1Ginal Signad by Approved by:
Leland C. Rouse Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch 8112030701 811113 Division of Fuel Cycle and
{DRADOCK0700 Material Safety
"'c'>
F
,FCA F,,
FCA,F
" " ' >.d...
... d s,,, WB,ud....,d t,,,,,(CRR.
y y. 81...... 11/...f./.81
.../g./81 11 me>
11
/.
N!C FORM 3I3IIO BolNRCM O240 O'FFICIAL RECORD COPY
-o *-a29 e24
s.
4 R
RISK ANALYSIS OF POSTULATED PLUT0NIUM RELEASES FROM THE ATOMICS INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT FACILITY AS A RESULT OF HIGH WINDS AND EARTHQUAKES INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sponsored a program to estimate the potential hazard to the general population as a result of the impact of high winds and earthquakes on the Atomics International Nuclear Materials Development Center, Santa Susana, California. This paper outlines the procedures used in combining the results of various increments of analysis obtained in this study to produce a measure of risk. The risk measure presented in this paper is the probability per year that a high wind or earthquake will result in doses above specific levels (complementary cumulative distributions). The two organs, lungs and bone, were chosen for the dose exceedance probability calculations since these organs are significant and generally dominate the 50-year committed dose equivalents from inhalation.
The doses were calculated for the population within a 80 km (50-mile) radius of the plant a..J for the nearest residence located downwind of the plant.
Three tornado wind speeds, 58 m/s, 67 m/s, 76 m/s, and one earthquake event, greater than.55g, were elevated for the analysis.
TORNADO WIND SPEEDS The estimated probabilities for the postulated tornado wind speeds were obtained from T. T. Fujita (Ref.1). The frequency, F-scale, and associated wind speeds of historical tornadoes (1916-1977) were also obtained from Ref.1 and are listed in Table 1 on the next page.
....5:
7 ; f.-
- . v;-
... :;,,.. fr..
-e s
.~
s s
e !
TABLE 1 TORNADO FREQUENCY, F-SCALE, AND ASSOCIATED WIND SPEEDS (1916-1977)
Nuc.ber of Reference Point To rnadoes -
Wind-Speed Range-m/s Wind Speed-m/s 18 18 - 32 26 15 33 - 50 41 J
5 51 - 70 59 0
71 - 92 79 0
93 - 116 101 0
117 - 142 123 To obtain confidence bounds on the probabilities of postulated wind speeds, an ermr factor of 10 was used throughout the analysis. Assuming that the postulated tornado wind speeds occur in accordance with a Poisson process, the ermr factor of 10 will, to an order of magnitude accuracy, provide conservative 90% confidence bounds for wind speed occurrence probabilities within the wind speed range of the observed data with one or more points.*
Estimates of complementary cumulative tornado wind speed probabilities and associated confidence bounds are provided in Table 2.
EARTHQU.' 'E_S S
One earthquake event was considered in this analysis.
The earthquake event consistea of a peak ground acceleration level in excess of.559 Probabilities vs. peak acceleration with estimated standard des iations (a) were obtained fmm Ref 2 and provided in figure 1.
Table 3 presents peak ground Th'ese 90% confidence bounds will in 90% of the cases cover the true wind speed probability if the assumed model and distributions are correct.
. s l
4
.l acceleration vs. cc probabilities and associated uncertainty bounds for the earthquake events. For the accompanying risk analyses, the bounds on the probability estimates were modified to a factor of 10 for the earthquake events. These modified factor of 10 bounds, in general, include more than Pavariations from the best estimate probability and are conservative ( > 90%). The exact confidence represented by the bounds is not critical to the subsequent risk analysis.
TABLE 2 A.
COMPLEMENTARY CUMULATIVE (cc) PROB _ ABILITIES OF TORNADO WIND-SPEEDS'AND ASSOCIATED CONFIDENCE LIMITS Tornado Wind cc Probability Conservative 90% Confidence Speed per year Bounds on the Probability 58 m/s 8.0E-7 (8.0E-8,8.0E-6) 67 m/s 4.0E-7 (4.0E-8, 4.0E-6) 76 m/s 1.0E-7 (1.0E-8,1.0E-6)
TABLE 3 B.
EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITY AND ASS 0'CIATED UNCERTAINTY 4
Peak Ground Probability Approximate 90% Bounds Acceleration per year on the Probability
>.55g 1.3E-3 (1.3 E-4, 1.3 E-2 )
F'
g
- g.,
'j 0
10
(
,1 l
l l
l l
l i
s' s'
i s
/
4 i
e i
/i
/i
,1 1
l
/ 8
/
I
_/
i i
I /
if I/
i i
V
/I
/
i E
i
/!/ V I
2 10
+D j
[I [
{
I i
/
I /
/e
[
/
if
/'
i i
/
/
/
t i
7 i
\\,
D I
I
/
/l
/
I t
i i
E i
I//
/
I i
i
// /
I I
10 l
y i
).
1 i
/ /'/
l l
l 6
BEST i
i i
1 ESTIMATE -
t i
i l
I l
i
}
l l
l l
i 0
10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
%g FIGURE l-l RETURN PERIOD - ACCELERATION FOR THE NMDF nk
s O
~5~
. t '-
CC CURVES FOR CONSEQUENCES FROM ACCIDENTAL RELEASES The 50-year committed dose equivalent from inhalation following a natural phenomena event of tornadoes or earthquakes were calculated by Jamison and Watson (Ref. 3). and presented in Table 4.
Table 4 provides the dose to the nearest resident and to the population within a 80 km (50-mile) radius of the plant from tornadoes and earthquakes. The table pmvides calculations of doses using most likely, and conservative estimates for the source releases and dispersion (meterological).
The most likely estimates were computed using the median (50%) values for source releases and dispersions and were assigned a probability of
.95.
(The median value was used as the approximate midpoint of the probability interval from 0 to 0.95). The conservative estimates were calculated using 95% values and were assigned a probability of 0.05.
The pmbabilities of possible sources and the probability of possible l
dispersions were thus discretized into two intervals, 0 to 0.95 l
represented by the median value and.95 to 1.0 represented by the 95th percontile. This breakdown of probabilities is gross, and care should be taken in interpreting any subsequent risk results to no more than an order of magnitude type of precision.
j Figures 2 and 3 give the step function cc curves of doses to lungs and bones for the population.within an 80 km (50-mile) radius of the plant due to damage from tornadoes. These complementary cumulative distributions give the probability per year that tornado-induced damage will result in doses greater than various values shown in the figures.
Figures 4 and 5
s
, 6
- g i provide the corresponding cc _ distributions of nearest resident doses for high winds.
Figures 6 through 9 contain the corresponding step function cc distributions for earthquakes.. 'These cc step functions and associated approximate confidence bounds have a similar interpretation.as those presented for tornadoes.
i j
4 i
4 t
i i
?
TABLE 4 FIFTY-YEAR COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INHALATION FOLLOWING NATURAL PHENOMENA EVENTS (CLASS Y MATERIAL)
Population Dose (person-rem)
Case (a)
Case Case Case-Event Organ I (.90)
II (SE-2)
III (3E-3)
IV (3E-3)
Tornado Wind Speeds 58 m/s Lung 7.5E+3 7.5E+4 2.0E+4 2.0E45 Bone 1.4E+4 1.4 E+5 3.6E+4 3.6E+5 67 m/s Lung 3.3E+5 3.3E+6 4.9E+5 4.9E+6 Bone 6.0E+5 6.0E+6 9.0E+5 9.0E+6 76 m/s Lung 1.4E+5 1.4E+6 1.6E+5 1.5E+6
' id Bone 2.6E+5 2.6E+G 3.0E+5 2.7E+6 Earthquake Acceleration
.55g Lung
-2.0E+5 2.4E+6 2.3E+5 2.6E+6 Bone 3.8E+5 4.5E+6 4.3E+5 4.7E+6
TABLE 4 (CONTINUED)'
Dose at Nearest Residence (rem)
Case (a)
Lase Case Case Event Orgaa I (.90)
II~(SE-2)
III (SE-2)
IV (3E-3)
Tornado Wind Speeds 58 m/s Lung 1 2E-2 1.2E-1 3.1E-2 3.1E-1 Bone 2.2E-2 2.2E-1 5.6E-2 5.6E-1 67 m/s
-Lung 4.4E-1 4.4E+0 6.5E-1 6.5E+0 Bone 0.0E-1 8.0E+0 1.2E+0 1.2E+1
?,
78 m/s Lung 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 2.7E-1 1.1E+0
. Bone 1.9 E -1 1.9E+0 5.0E-1 2.0E+0 4
Earthquake Acceleration
> 0.55g Lung 3.0E+0 1,7E+2 3.3E+0 1.7E+2 Bone 5.6E+0 3.iE+2 6.1E+0 3.1E+2
b TABLE 4(CONTINUED) i-Case I _ :
Most Likely Release (95%) and Most Likely Dispersion-(95%)
Case II :
-Most Likely Release (95%)'and Conservative Dispersion (5%)
Case'III:
Conservative Release (5%) and Most Likely Dispersion (95%)
Case IV :
Conservative Release (5%) and Conservative Dispersion-(5%)
l l
l
.{
__lj
TORNR00 RISK ANRLYSIS FOR RI. PDP. LUNG UNSM00THED CCDF 10-4 i l
l l
1,,
7 l
s c
10-8 i A
a I
AA A
3 e
X 10-6 i l-A e
e
-eg g
s a
j tu O
A A
o 5
u 10-'
i 4
l l l
c 7
i m
m 5
mm m"
~
H 3
e
_J O
O s
JL Cr 10-8 i
l j
CD 7
o l
,s La L
3 ma m
e 10-s i j
l q
7 5
3 m
1 0-10 t
,s-
- i
'0
_s 5
,g 0
t 7 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 2
TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR AI. POP. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF 10-4 1 7
5 3
A 10-8 i 7
I 4
a AA A
3 e
>< 10-s t
^
k g,
11J 1
w A
A A
g
'O m
11.
10-7 i O
7 m
m 5
mm a
H 3
e m
e e
g w
a cucc 10-e i 03 C
,s a
g 1
0 3
ma a
e 10-8 i 7
5 3
l m
i 10-10 t j
- g 3
i 3
3 i
3 i
3 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure.3
e g
i
- 1 TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. NR. LUNO.
UNSM00THED CCDF 10-4 i I
s 3
10-5 i A
7 L
I 3
a e
A A A
X 10-s i I
7 A
e g_
e s e
g V) 3 O
C 4
m 12.
10-7 1
^
C 7
b f5 A
A m
m3 m
l-I H
O
_J e
e s-e ot3c 10-s i 03 7
O m
(y_
1 3
A g
m m
8 10-e i 7
s 3
e 1 0-10 i'
-2 t'0-1 1'00 l'01 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)-
Figure 4
e
'g
'. 1 TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. NR. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF l
10-4 i j.
7 5
i a
10-8 i
).
7 A
s, a
^
n A
a i
3 i
e l
i X 10-6 i I
f' 7
A e
e 5
e e
3 tu i
W 3
A j
.c A
A t
C m
- t. _ 10-7 i j
i O
1 m
m l
W 125 m
i l-1 s
e J
e e
b i
CD A
4 Cr 10-8 i CD 3
C e'
g w
0-3 m
m m
.1 l.
10-s e
I 7
.s i
.)
m 10-10 1 '0-1 1
'.1'00 l'01 t'02 i
l 50 YR. DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
-1 Finnen.5 w
f.-
w
-w
,e
-m
-g4 ERRTHQURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. POP. LUNO.
UNSM00THED CC0F 10-1 a 5
-5 3
10-2 i 7
5 a -
)
t X 10-3 L 4
7
^
A g
c.
Lu 4
3 4
g
.o C
LL 10-4 t L
O s
p p
A l-
.2 i--+
_. J CD E
cc 10-8 1
CD 2
~
o
-OC O
Q.
3 s
6 10-s i 1
l 7
.s a
m
)
s a
, 7 a
- g'o4 t'0 '
l'Os 8
t'0 7 m.
vM.
50 YR DOSE COM,MITMENT (PERSON-REM) it '-
Figure 6 x ?.-
3:
..g.
p
.r.
a
..-.u
._, ]
EARTHOURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. POP. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF 10-1 1 l
l 4-7 g
5 4
l 3
10 t 1
I 7
1-s 4
i 3
1 ea
>< 10-3 1
,l 7
j
^
l tu
)
w O
me u_ 10-4 i C
0 1
Al
+
H 3
.i m
m I
m
.m cz-10-5 i i
m 2
.c 5
a::
d i
n_
3 10-s i 1
l d
l l
10-7 t 2
3 2
i i
3
,3 i,
0s t'07
\\
50 YR DOSE 1 COMMITMENT
( PERSON--REM )
Figure 7-
EARTHQURME RISM ANALYSIS FOR HI. NR. LUNG UNSM00THED CCDF 10-1 i 7
5 3
a 10-2 1 7
5 3
X
^
se 10-8 i y
l l
D C
C 5
Lt.
3 C
F--
Ip 10-4 i J
w 7
O c'
C(n O
3 OC 0
m 10-8 1 7
=
s 3
1 10-s i'0 g'01 1'08 ;
t 0 1'01 Figure 8 50 YR.00SE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM 1
-17 g
EARTHQUAKE RISK ANALYSIS FJR RI. NR. BONE UNSM00THED r.COF 10-1 i 1
s 3
l A
10-2 1 7
s 3
X
^
10-3 :
w l:
I U3 7
ao s
3
'O H
E*D 10-4 i --I H
7
.a I g 5
CE 03 O
3 M
'O m
10-5 s
i l
3 10-8 1 1'00 1'01 g02
- 3 3
i 3
7 2
gO3 l
50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM) i Figure 9
4 9
f
.18-
.For' all figures,.the' confidence baunds on the smallest dose point included in the cc summation were used as the confidence baunds for the cc distribution.
This appro.imation assumes. the cc probability is dominated by the probability of the smallest dase point.
If the assumption is not true (e.g., at-smallest dase values of the cc curve) then the confidence founds may be somewhat conservative.
The confidence bounds used are those given earlier and summarized in Table 2.
Because of the approximations used in obtaining them, the confidence bour,fs should be interpreted as only indicating the order of. magnitude precision associated with the cc curves.
Figures 10 through 17 present the step function cc curves obtained by applying isotonic regressions to the probability mass functions (proaability versus dose) used to construct the basic ~ cc curves in Figures 2 through The isotonic cu[ves in Figures 10 through 17 are thus smoothed 9.
versions of the basic step function cc curves in Figures 2 through 9.
Isotonic re.gression is a nonparametric method of smoething the basic
- step function cc curves which does not require assuming specific distribu-tion foms for the cc curve. *(Other approaches are called parametric approaches and involve, for' example, assuming that a Weibull distribution fits the points and then finding the paramete.s of the best WeiF 71.)
Since the isotonic regression does not require as many assumptions as the parametric approaches, it is more suited to situations where there are relatively' few points calculated for the cc curve--as was the case in this analysis.
The isotonic regression approach, however, dces have the disadvantage that it still produces-step functions and not smooth.
,/-
_19 continuous curves. -The isotonic fegressibn method is explained in
~
gretter detail in-.the appendix to - this report..
RISK TABLES:
Table 5 tabulates _ the risk, defined as proEdbility times consequence for the various events analyzed'in Table _4 The risk tables indicate the contribution to the total risk from the various events considert-d.
The total risk is the sum of the various contributions.
The error factors on-the' risk contributions are mughly the ermr_ factors on -the probability for :.he event, assuming;the uncertainties on the probability estimates dominate (or at' most, are comparable to the. consequence uncertainties.*
- i l-
"The ermr factors are-the upper confidence level divided by the best estimate. divided by the lower confidcnce bound.
6
t
-l TORNADO RISK RNALYSIS FOR AI. POP. LUNG SMOOTHED CCDF 10-4 i s
3
~
10-8 i I
s
?
T--A L
^
l 0-8 i 7
wL 3,
5
+
b m
-0 LLJ 3
en y
n O
4)
O
~
-4) j Lt_
10-7 i O
7
-()
S p
)
H 3
3 4
'!)
~
_.J M3
-E D
i L
c 10-8 i
O 7
d)
O
- )
3
!)
M) l 10-8 1 7
s
-t1 1 0-10 t,
,4
' 1'08 l'Os t'05
' i 0
50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 10 a.--
m
1 TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR AI. POP. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF 10-4 i l
l l
l 7
i s
3
~
10-8 i 7
4 4
3 m
WL U
X 10-s i g
[
I
~
A Q
O LLI ni
< s wc 4)
C
--4)
.)
ts 10-7 i O
7
-4)
O
-H "J
3 MJ i,)
__I
-f]
-E ]
CL--a y
n 10-a i 00 7
. c)
C 5
E
- )
)
L]
El-4) 10-8 1 g
7 5
l 3
,-f1 10-M 3
2 i
i i
3 s
i, lO8 l'Os t'07 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
. Figure 11
j
~
TORNA00 RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. NR. LUNG.
SMOOTHED CC0F 10-4 i
(
7 s
3 10-s i
^
7 s
3
. -O i
>< 10-6 i P
-m A
l 1
O LL1 9-3 m
C w)
C
-f 3 L
LL.
10-7 1
'E o
3
'd 1
D H
-!)
n..
3 J
- 1 O
cnc 10-s 1 (n
7 1
o o
i
t,1 3
f2 l]
O 10-9 i 7
s 1
--M 1 0-10 i 3
g'00 l'01 10-2 l'0-1 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 12
a TORNADO RISK RNRLYSIS FOR RI. NR. BONE SM00THED CCDF 4 a l
)
7 s
3 10-8 t 1
i r
1 4
5 a
3
-wk i-()
X 10-8 1 g
I
. A 93
~
7, i
La D
2 to o
4) o
- )
11.
10-7 1 g
C 7
y)
-,e-i
- p s
. 4 m3 F-=
U 3
l w
4
.J il 4
)
g ww cz-10-a i
.I 00 7
i O
--U 5
Q::
ij Q-3
!?
3 s.
-4) 10-s i 7
s 3
1 i
-43 10-10 i'
-t
[0-1 100
[01
[02
-50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Fiqure 13
.,4 EARTHQURME RISK RNALYSIS FOR RI. POP. LUNG.
SMOOTHED CC0F
.10-1 i l
l
'7 5
3 2.
l 10-2 i 7
s
'l (M
X 10-3~t 7
5 g
3 tr)o O
.a kJ%
- 1.i 10-4 1 C
7 a
i h
3 s
1-J w
-il cn cc 10-8 i
L
~ Cn 7
i O
QC g
4 1
3 i
,10-6 i
1 El 3
r 10-7 i O'
l'08 l'Os 3
4 g'07 i
50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 14 4
A.-
--e
.w---
y iw-r
-r-r-
y,----n
-w.c-
9.
25-
~
S
- g f
1 i
ERRTHQURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR RI. POP. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF 10-1 i 1
1 5
3 10-2.t 7
4 5
1 i
p X 10-3 1 I
j 7
n 5
L1J V)
C C
- %)
Lt.
10-4 i C
7 0
s 3
h g
3 w
._J w
43 oo cc 10-8 i
E 7
ll o
- )
i O
3 10-s i 7
5 3
10-7 i i 3
s a
i 3
1 4
to, 0s t'07 50 YR DOSE' COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 15
EARTHQURKE RISM ANALYSIS FOR RI. NR. LUNO SM0OTHED CCOF 10-1 i I
7 5
sw 10-2 i 7
s 3
X
^
t 10-3 t 4
y O
7 C
C 5
LL.
1 C
H
- P 10-4 1
-I l
l m
7 m
CC CD C
3 (Y_
O_
fl 10-5 i 7
I 10-e i'0 t
t'ot t'03 8
l'01 Figure 16 50 YR 00SE COMMI.TMENT
[ PERSON-REM) w
/
~
';'l.
s i
...,s.
EARTHQURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR PI. NR. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF..
10-1;l' 4
-7 5
4 3
J 10-2 1 4
7 i
j s
i 3
i > < -
i
!^
P
!j 10-3 t in 7
IU l
13 s
Il-3 io-iw f-(f)
! ".! 10-4 1 7
G in.
5
- I
!D 10 3
- E
!1.
El 10-8 t i
7
- )
l 5
3 i
10-8
's 1
- 1 00 10 1'02 103 50 YR DOSE. COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)
Figure 17 1
L TABLE 5
- RISK TO NEAREST RESIDENT AND NEARBY POPULATION FROM POSTULATED DAMAGE DUE TO NATURAL PHENOMENA Population Dose (person-rem / year)
Case (a)
Case Case
. Case Event Organ I (.90)
II-(SE-2)
III (SE-2).
IV (3E-3)
Tornado Wind Speeds 58 m/s Lung 5.4E-3 3.0E-3 8.0E-4 4.0E-4 Bone 1.0E-2 5.6E-3 1.4E-3 7.2E-4.
67 m/s Lung 1.2E-1
' 6.6E-2 9.8E-3 4.9E-3 Bone 2.2E-1 1.2E-1 1.8E-2 9.0E-3 E>
76 m/s Lung 1.3E-2 7.0E-3 8.0E-4 3.8E-4 Bone 2.3E-2 1.3E-2 1.5E-3 6.8E-4 i'.
Earthquake Acceleration
- > 0.55g Lung 2.3E+2 1.6E+2 1.5E+1 8.5E+0 Bone 4.4E+2 2.9E+2 2.8E+1 1.5E+1
?
?
, s,
, TABLE'5 (CONTINUED)~
~
Nearest Residence (rem / year)
Case (a)
Case.
Case Case
. Event.
Organ I (.90)
II (SE-2)
III (5E-2)
IV (3E-3)
Tornado Wind Speeds 58 m/s Lung 8.6E-4 4.8E-9 1.2E-9 6.2E-10 Bone 1.6E-8 8.8E-9 2.2 E-9 1.1E-9 67 m/s'
, Lung 1.6E-7 8.8E-8 1.3E-8 6.5E-9
-Bone 2.9E-7 1.6E-7' 2.4E-8 1.2E 'k.
m' 76 m/s-Lung 9.0E-9 5.0E-9 1.4E-9 2.8E-10 Bone 1.7E-8 9.5E-9 2.5 E-9 5.0E-10 Earthquare Accelerution i
> 0.55g Lung 3.5E 1.1E-2 2.1E-4 5.5E-4 Bone 6.6E-3
- 2.0E-2 4.0E-4 1.0E-3
-_ _.-_ =
I.
v
^
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
Case - I Most Likely Release (95%).and Most Likely Dispersion (95%)
Case II :
. Most Likely Release (95%) and Conservative Dispersion (5%)
Case III:
Conservative Release (5%) and Most Likely Dispersion (95%)
Case IV :
Conservative Release (5%) and Conservative Dispersion (5%)
i-l f
e T
L
,v References 1.
" Review of Severe Weather Meterology at Rockwell International, Chatsworth, California,"
T. T. Fujita, University of Chicago, June 30, 1977.
2.
" Seismic Risk Analysis for The Atomics International Nuclear I I
Materials Development Facility, Santa Susana, California,"
TERA-Corporation, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94705, Decenber 29, 1978 3.
Jamison, J. D., and Watson, E. C., " Environmental Consequences of Postulated Plutonium Releases from the Atomics International Nuclear Materials Development Facility, Santa Susana, California, las a Result of Severe Natural Phenomena," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-3950, August 1981.
4.
Barlow, R.
E., et. al., Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions, The Theory and Application of Isotonic Regression, John Wiley and Sons, London,1972.
i i
l e
t 4
~.
- s A-1
,'. 1 *A
- APPENDIX, ISOT0NIC REGRESSIDN (Ref. 4)
Isotonic regression was used to develop the risk curves in Figures to througlil7.
The only basir assumption in an isotonic regression is that the probability of dose to the populatioh or to the nearest residence is non-increasing as the dose increases. The assumption'is that the probability decreases (or is constant) as the consequence increases; which is not.an unreasonable assumption for risk analyses. We should note that we make the monotonic assumption on the probability.versus dose and not on the cc curve (which decreases by its definition). A general statement of our isotonic regression problem is as follows:
We are given a sequence of doses (D,
...D ) where D 5, Dg),
j n
g A
i = 1....n-1 and we give estimates of the probability P(Dj) that the population or nearest residence receives dose Dj..We are interested in minimizing the expression:
^
n 2
,[
^P(Dj) - P(Dj)
D.
1 -1 among all. isotonic functions P on the sequence (Dj,...D,).
We call the function that minimizes this sum of sequences (P*) the A
isotonic regression of P.
The isotonic regression is thus similar to a least squares type of analys,is (a us6al regression analysis) where we impose the restri.: tion that P(D ) is non-increasing as Dj j
increasess i
A-2
.. :. ;g The Pool-Adjacent-Violators Algorithm was.used to compute P*.
Plots of the isotonic ' regressions,of P* versus dose are-presented in Figurds 10 through 17 The probability mass functions
.wcre used to obtain the isotonic curves.
~
A The isotonic regression P* of P has the following desirable properties.
A 1.
The isotonic regression P* of P mini.mizes the weighted squared error 16ss, i.e.:
4
~
^
2 n
2 P(D ) - P*(D )
Dji}] P(Dj)
P(Dg)
D'g
}]
j g
i=1 i=1 -
for any isotonic function P.
A 2.
The isotonic regression P* of P minimizes the error in the risk, i.e.:
max n
n.
)[DP(D)-J]1 D P*(Dj) i j
j j
1=1 1=
max n
n 3
i i D P(D ) ,][ D P (D ) g g g 1=1 i=1 ) 'I i' 4 =p. .}}