ML20054D592

Forwards Rept Re Risk Analysis of Postulated Pu Releases from Bmcl Bldg JN-1B,West Jefferson Oh as Result of Severe Natural Phenomena

ML20054D592
Person / Time
Site:	07000008
Issue date:	03/23/1982
From:	Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Toy H Battelle Memorial Institute, COLUMBUS LABORATORIES
References
NUDOCS 8204230172
Download: ML20054D592 (30)

Text

xW,

?f" p-v 1

,e 9

/

W*

Q}

%,Y C$Y

~.i

'-tribution: Original concurrence s

i copy to be returned to FB.rown SS 396

Docket File 70-8 3E N S R/F WBurkhardt FCAF R/F RTKratzke Docket No. 70-8 RECunningham LA File TFCarter Project M-3 LCRouse JEAyer Battelle Columbus Laboratories 4

ATTN: Mr. Harley L. Toy Licensing Coordinator 8

J ",,..

3 c

SOS King Avenue

d o 7

~

Coluabus, Ohio 43201 i

n x%,Slf8h 4

9 Gentlenen:

h h, ' ' ?O-N AS The purpose of this letter is to transmit for your infonnatioh the __- N final increment of the analysis of the effects of natural phenomena;j relative to your Duilding JN-1B at West Jefferson, Ohio. The subject increment of analysis is the risk associated with postulated plutoniaa releases from your West Jefferson, Ohio plant as a result of severe natural phenomena. The NRC staff has endorsed this final version of the

(

review for application in succeeding analyses. However, we will consider challenge of our position when supported oy credible technical bases.

Any questions you may have on the enclosed analysis should be eddressed to Ja:nes E. Ayer of this Branch.

Sincerely, Oricinal signed by Leland C. Rouse /

l Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety i

Enclosure:

l Risk Analysis of Postulated Plutonium j

Releases from the Battelle Memorial Institute Coluabus Laboratories, Building JN-1B, West Jefferson, Ohio as a Result of Tornado Winds abd Earthquakes 8204250/78

~na> F & )'

.........s.......

FCAF FCAF

= ~ *.J EAye r.,f,1,,b WB,ur,k 1a rdt,,, L,CR,o,,,,,,,,,

74205

"">..3/l.g.]82.... 3l.M J82.......31.yl32.........

/

Lwnc ronu aie msoi wacu ozdo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

- ms 2n24

nef pm7 p

m eq m

$3 3p Qf T

cf

.c M.

y k-k, h^

~

Distribution: Origli..

concurrence copy to be returned to FBrown SS 396 Docket File 70-8 PDR MAR 2 31982 w.o encl NMSS R/F FCAF R/F Docket flo. 70-08 LA File Project M-3 RECunningham TFCarter LCRouse MEMORANDUM FOR:

Leland C. Rouse, Chief JEAyer Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel LiG80dMd#tanch FR0tt:

J. E. Ayer/W. Burkhardt Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch

SUBJECT:

RISTs ANALYSIS OF POSTULATED PLUT0NIUM RELEASES FROM BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE BUILDING JN-1B FACILITIES AT WEST JEFFERSON, OHIO, AS A RESULT OF TORNADO WINDS AHD EARTHQUAKES The subject report prepared by Probabilistic Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, is attached. The purpose of this memorandum is to recommand acceptance of the attached review as a final increment of the analysis of the effects of natural phenomena upon the Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories, Building Jil-1B, West Jefferson, Ohio.

We recommend that this review including its summary and conclusions be adopted as a staff position subject to your approval. Subsequent to your approval we will make copies available to the public and to Battelle in accordance with review and documentation procedures agreed upon and described in our February 10, 1977 memorandua to R. M. Bernero.

t.1 h; J:

m-

,a J. E. Ayer Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch en i.n ;y s!. m.o.c.rd t.

W. Burkhardt Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Oricini signaciby Leland C. Rouse Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety

Enclosure:

As stated s

n

..1........

.. f CAf,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,, F,C,

==>

I

.J E

,;,Qb,,,WB,urk@,t,,,,,,,LCh$.e.,,,,

=~~>

74 3

8g......3l[$82........ 3f.Q/8g......

OFflCIAL RECORD COPY e use,0. w sa e2 N:C FORM 318 HO/80(NRCM O240_

RISK ANA1.YSIS OF POSTULATED PLUT0NIUM RELEASES FRON THE BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE FACILITIES 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 Battelle Memorial Institute Facilities at West Jefferson, Ohio.

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 and for the nearest residence located downwind of the plant. Four tornado wind speeds, 33.5 m/s, 42.5 m/s, 51.4 m/s,134 m/s, and one earthquake event, greater than.25g, 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 are also provided in Ref.1.

1 A

-- _.. _ - -.. ~ - -

-2 To obtain confidence bounds on the probabilities of postulated wind speeds, an error factor of 3 was assumed for the 33.5 m/s windspeed and an error factor of 10 was used for the remaining windspeeds. Assuming that the postulated tornado wind speeds occur in accordance with a Poisson process, the error factor of 10 will, to an order of magnitude accuracy, provide conservative 90% confidence bounds for wind speed occurrence probabilities 4

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 1.

EARTHOUAXES One earthquake event was considered in this analysis.

The earthquake event consisted of a peak ground acceleration level in excess of.25g.

Probabilities vs. peak acceleration with estimated standard deviations (c) were obtained from Ref. 2 and are provided in figure 1.

Table 2 presents peak ground acceleration vs. cc probabilities and associated uncertainty bounds for the earthquake event. For the accompanying risk analysis, the

]

bounds on the probabilities were modified to a factor of 10 for the earthquake event. These modified factor of 10 bounds, in general, include more than 2a variations from the best estimate probability and are conservative ( >90%). The exact confidence represented by the bounds is not critical to the subsequent risk analysis.

• These 90% confidence bounds will in 90% of the cases cover the true wind speed probability if the assumed model and distributions are correct.

. TABLE 1 A.

COMPLEMENTARY CUMULATIVE (cc) PROBABILITIES OF TORNADO WIND SPEEDS AND ASSOCIATED CONFIDENCE LIMITS Tornado Wind cc Probability Conservative 90% Confidence Speed per year Bounds on the Probability 33.5 m/s 1.5E-1 (5.0E-2,4.5E-1) 42.5 m/s 4.0E-3 (4.0E-4,4.0E-2) 51.4 m/s 3.0E-4 (3.0E-5,3.0E-3) 134.0 m/s TABLE 2 B.

EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITY AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTY Peak Ground Probability Approximate 90% Bounds Acceleration per year on the Probability

.259 5.0E-4 (5.0E-5,5.0E-3)

~

.j-10,000

,l l

/

h I

,s

/

/

4

-0 h

,/

gd W~ ~

+ a '.

/

1,000

,/

,f j

s

/ !

/

W' s

/

/

s f

f I /

i

/

/

j '~

/

/

/'

f

/ f,/

m

,/l/ /

/ jI /

~

/

Q 100 l s' /

i i

2

// /t i

r

// /I

'h

?

Y/ /

f s

I

\\

t y

/ //

/ //

l l

1 i/

l/l

\\

/

l/

/

10

, -/

I 6

I I

t G

I 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (% g)

FIGURE I RETURN PERIODS FOR SEISMIC ACCELERATION AT THE BMI WEST JEFFERSON FACILITY TERACORPORATION O

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 3.

Table 3 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 provides calculations of doses using most likely, and conservative estimates for l

I 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 0.95.

(Themedian l

value was used as the approximate midpoint of the probability interval l

f rom 0 to 0.95). The conservative estimates were calculated using 95%

4 values and were assigned a probability of 0.05.

The probabilities of possible sources and the probability of possible dispersions were thus-discretized into two intervals, O to 0.95 represented by the median value and 0.95 to 1.0 represented by the 95th percentile. 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.

u i

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 s.alues shown in the figures.

Figures 4 and 5 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 appro;imate confidence bounds have a similar interpretation as those presented for tornadoes.

e

TflBLE 3 FIFTY-YEAR BEST-ESTIMATE COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENT FROM INHALATION FOLLOWING SEVERE-WIND AND EARTHQUAKE EVENTS (CLASS Y MATERIAL) a Population Dose (person-rem)

Case b Case Case Case Event Organ I (0.90)

II (.048)

III (.048)

IV (.0025) c 33.5 m/s Lungs 4.6-6

?,1-5 4.6-5 2.1-4 Wind Bone 7.9-6

?.7-5 8.0-5 3.7-4 4.25 m/s Lungs 5.1-6 2.6-5 2.2-3 1.3-2 Wind Bone 8.9-6 4.5-5 3.9-3 2.3-2 h

51.4 m/s Lungs 3.0-4 1.3-3 7.6-3 5.7-2 Wind Bone 4.8-4 2.1-3 1/2-2 9.1-2 134 m/s Lungs 9.3-2 9.3-1 3.7+0 3.7+1 Tornado Bone 1.6-1 1.6+0 6.5+0 6.5+1 i

Earthquake Lungs 1.2-2 3.4-2 4.6-1 1.3+0

>0.25g Bone 2.1-2 6.0-2 8.0-1 2.3+0 a

Population within a 80-km radius of the plant bCase (parenthetical values are approximate probabilities):

I - Most likely release (0.95) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

II - Most likely release (0.95) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

III - Conservative release (0.05) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

IV - Conservative release (0.05) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

cScientific notation: 4.6-6 = 4.6x10-6

.. ~ _ _.

TABLE 3(CONTINUED)

Dose at Nearest Residence

( rem)

Case b Case Case Case Event Organ I (0.90)

II (.048)

III (.048)

IV (.0025) c 33.5 m/s Lungs 1.1-9 4.7-9 9.7-9 4.7-8 Wind Bone 1.8-9 8.2-9 1.7-8 8.2-8 4.2-5 m/s Lungs 1.3-9 6.7-9 6.3-7 4.2-6 Wind Bone 2.2-9 1.2-8 1.1-6 7.2-6 51.4 m/s Lungs 6.7-8 2.7-7 2.3-6 1.8-5 i

Wind Bone 1.1-7 4.4-7 3.7-6 2.9-5 i

134 m/s Lungs 1.2-6 1.2-5 4.9-5 4.9-4 Tornado Bone 2.1-6 2.1-5 8.5-5 8.5-4 Earthquake Lungs 4.6-6 2.8-5 1.8-4 1.1-3

> 0.259 Bone 7.9-6 4.8-5 3.1-4 1.9-3 bCase (parenthetical values are approximate probabilities):

I - Most likely release (0.95) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

l II - Most likely release (0.95) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

~

III - Conservative release (0.05) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

IV - Conservative release (0.05) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

Scientific notation: 1.1-9 = 1.1 x10-9 c

_g.

TORNR00 RISK RNALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. LUNG UNSM00THE0 CC0F 100 i

7

^

5 3

c' 10-1 i 2,

^

^

3 i

ID g

10-2 1 w

q, m

m

- u e,

3 E

Ei 10-3 t e

3

^

X m

OS 10-4 t A

7; "r,

tu v)

Om O

10-6 i O

O 3

7 s

LL 3

O 10-6 m

p

,i H

s s

3 J

10-7

~

og

,1 2

a-s i

00 3

O E 10-8

,i T

r 10-9,i 5

m 3

10-10 t 7

s 3

10-11 i l 3 '

g 0-s ' #1'0-5

' 1'0-4

' 1'0-3 1'0-2 t'0-1 1'00

'l

' ' t'0 1

1'02 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 2 L

. TORNADO RISK.BNALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF 100 i

l L

3 0

10-1 i

?

m n

3

^

0 e

10-2 i N

W 7

-m rv l

s m

l 3

E-G 10-3 i 7

5 n

3

^

X O

O m

^

10-4 i

,g

?

~

r, L1J

'~

3 (o

m a U

10-5 i e

O J

LL 3

O a

10-6 i y

p F--

5 w

3

__I 10-7

~

g

,i a-s m

3 O

E 10-8 i m

o._

7 s

g,

3 1.

10-8 1 7

5 E!

3 e

10-10 t 7

s 3

l 10-11 i

• t'0-8 1'0-4 1'0-3 1'0-2

' t'0-1 1'00 1'01 1'02

~

3 5 10-6 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 3

. TORNA00 RISK RNRLYSIS FOR BMI. N.R. LUNG UNSM00THE0 CC0F 100 i,

7 5 e 3

S 10-1 1 i

7 s e A

3 1

O e

10-2 1 seu f

=

m g!

t 3

E;[3 10-3 i e

l m

3

^

^

X 3

e c

10-4

,i A

c O!

Ltj 3

= d g

c c

U 10-5 O

O

,i i

s I

LL.

1 G G O

m 10-6,

p g

s s

3

_J 10-7 i

~

cn 3

Gs e,

n 00 3

O E 10-8 t a-

?

n i

3 l

10-8 i 7

s m,

10-10 t l

s' i

3 1 0-11 i 1 10-8

'10-8 10-7

'T

' 1'O s

' ' '0 -5

' l'0-4 10-3 l'0-2 1

l 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ T TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI. N.R. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF 100 3

0 10-1 t E

5 A

3 Aa O

O 10-2 i ww f

m m

3 35 a

a 10-3 i O

7 s

e

=

C D

X s

10-4 1 A

s 3

11.1 3

g a

3 v

v O

10-5 a

,t I

s 11-3 a s O

10-5 E

p

,t

---av H

s e--e 3

._J l

10-7,i o-.

au g

g s

D 3

O E 10-8 i d

e J

^

10-8 1

?

m 3

e 10-10 i 7

J 3

=

10-11 1 !

10-8 10-8 1'0-7 1'0-8 l'0-5 l'0-4

' 1'0-3

' ' 1'0 -2 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE. 5

. EARTHQUAKE RISK RNALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. LUNG UNSM00THE0 CCDF 10-2 1 7

s A

3 10-3 1 7

s e

A X

A 10-4 i y

N 7

O s

=

9 L1-3 O

O

}--

10-5 i

._I b--e 7

m S

T

~

CD O

3 D

CE' Q

O 10-8 1 7

2 3

m 10-7 i 1 10-2 t'0-1 l'00 l'01 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

Figure 6 u.

e 9 ERRTHQURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. BONE UNSM00THED CCDF 10-2 i

?

5 A

3 10-3 1 7

5 O

x A

I 10-4 i y

CD 7

Oo s

O L1_

3 O

O A

l-

"_.J 10-5 t H

7 O

r m

s CD O

3 U

M O_.

e 10-6 i 7

5 3

O

(

)

10-7 6 1 3

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 7

7

~

. ERRTHQURKE RISK RNALYSIS FOR BMI.N.R. LUNG tlNSM00THED CC0F 10-2 1 7

s e

3 5---

10-3 i 7

s c

3 a

X A

10-4 i w

O 7

O a

s L1-3 o

e H

10-5 i

-.J M

7 D

n 5

g 00 0

3 U

QC 0.-

e 10-6 1 7

s 3

m 10-7 1 5

-t'0-1 10-6

' t'0-8 l'0-4 l'C-3 l'0-2 1

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 8

. EARTHQUAKE RISM ANALYSIS FOR BMI.N.R. BONE UNSN00THED CCDF 10-2 7

5 A

3 10-3 i 7

d' 5

O

,k X

A 10-4 i y

V)

Oa s

=

c' Ls-3 iD O

F-10-8 i

_I k-e 7

e nt m

O 3

ID g

CL e

10-s t 7

5 3

m 10-7 i 30-6

' g'0-8 l'0-4

' l'0-3

' l'0-2 l'0-1 i

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 9

For all figu: es, the confidence baunds on the smallest dose paint included in the cc summation were used as the confidence lounds for the cc distribution.

' This appr:7.imation assumes the ce probability is dominated by the probability of the snallest dase point.

If the assumption is rot true (e.g., at smallest dare values of the cc curve) then the confidence baunds may be somewhat conservative.

The confidence haunds used are those given earlier and summarized in Table 2.

Because of the approximations used in obtaining them, the confidence bour.!s 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 (probability versus dose) used to construct the basic cc curves in Figures 2 through 9.

The isotonic curves in Figures 10 through 17 are thus smoothed versions of the basic step function cc curves in Figures 2 through 9.

Isotonic regression is a nonparametric raethod of smoothing the basic step function cc curves which does not require assuming specific distribu-tion fonns for the cc curve. -(Other approaches are called parametric approaches and involve, for" example, assuming that a Weibull distribution g

i-fits the points and then finding the parameter:, of the best Wei!' !l.)

Since the isotonic regression does not require as many assumptions as j

the parametric approaches, it is raa.re 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 nat smooth.

L

continuous curves.

The isotonic regression methad is explained in Sreater detail in the appendix to this report.

RISK TABLES Table 5 tabulates the risk, defined as pro $ ability times consequence for the various events analyzed in Table a.

The risk tables indicate the contribution to the total risk from the various events considered.

The total risk is the sum of the.various contributions.

The error factors on the risk contributions are roughly the error factors on the probability for the event, assuming.the uncertainties on the probability estimates dominate (or at most, are comparable to the consequence uncertainties.*

e h

y l

'l

.' i l-p 3

"The error factors are the upper confidence level divided by the best 9>

estimate divided by the lower confidence bound.

1 n

TORT 4RDO RISK Rt4RLYSIS FOR BMI. POP. LUNG i

SM00TliED CCDF 100 i

_ j_

.I i

3 O

10-1 i 7

T s

_t;_-_

-e r

g i

10-2 3 i

7

_-4).

r Tg).

. _.. A q_

L__

10-3 1 m

7 Y

s t

wl I

3

{

a

[]

)

10-4 1 7

y Z

1 3

3 10-5 1 n

7 t

3 g3 e

3 10-s 1

-f3 n 2 c

_ i_

=

7 s

a__

m m

3 10-7 1

O o

7 JL o

3 O-10-8 t e

o 7

, )._._

s 3

n 10-8 i O

f

[] _

TZZ 3

3 10-10,i d

3

3 ___

t I

1 0-11.i s.i 3

s,,

3 s,,

3 s,i 3 s,i 3

..2 10-1 100 s,,1 3 s.,2 10-8 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-10 10 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 10 t

l.

(

(

\\

6

_ _ _. TORNADO RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF 100 t

7 r,

3 D

10-1 1

?,

._,.."~

+5 3

0 L_n S

10-2 1,

i t

m'-t)

L.

e 3

Ji l-E]

_a 10-3 i

()

<]

+3 m

3 X

g T,

)

i e

10_4 t i

A 4

1 e,

3 3

()

(n H)

O 10-5 3 3

O 7

s Lt_

3

)

O 3

10-6

's,'-'

p

,i F

s

)

10-7 i lC CD 7

5 g

(D 3

O E 10-8 i

)

Q-7,

- s 2

3

]

10-8 i 1,

?

a 3

10-10 i 7

r,

3 m,

10-11 i 10-6 l'0-6 10-4 1'0-3 1'0-2 10-1

' t 0'0 1'01 1'02 3 '

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 11

TORNADO RISK RNM TSIS FOR BMI. N.R. LUNG St10DTHED CCDF 100

~

r 71'--.

_ _1 1" _ -

s e l

3 E) 10-1 4 j s a 3

-dL b_

10-2 i y -Ep

.t

}.)

._.g

-El 3

s 1-E]

p 10-3 i l

T

~

~

%L 3

_l_

." i

-Q 10-4 t

--^

A z

nr 11J 3

O -

W

-El O

+

10-5 1 Q

^

3 s

4__

H lL 3

=

O

-E l

( )_.

10-6 i y

i 3

,J 10-7 i

'M

~

~

~_h l:-wt.

m 3

O E 10-8 1 1

l

.d~

~

3 a

10-8 1 7

s

---t3 3

)---

1 0-10 i 7

s 3

)

10-11 1 t 3 5 # '

3 $ #

g0-9 t0-8 t'0-7 l'0-8 10-5 l'0-4 l'0-3

' l'0 -2 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REii)

FIGURE 12

lu

, TORNADO RISK ANRLYSIS FOR BMI. N.R. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF 100 1

I 7

s n

J

---O 10-1 i T

7 5 d3' O

'4 3 _Q Ws k

10-2 1

^

n 2

7 T

_m

-41 L.a c,

IE) a 3

-E]

.--n 10-3 t l

-b I

i

__A 3

X t3 uys 10-4.i L

A s'

-5 I

LU W

a r

3 L

{m

---:]

o a

3 10-5 i g

5 a

t

}

T-O g

L

,3 10-6 i 7

F-5 m

3 J

10-7 i

~

r, CD 7

5 CE CD 3

O Cr-10-8 i CL 7

s q

3 n

10-8 i 7

C 10-10 i 7

5 3

r, w

10-11 1 '0 -8 3

t l'0-8

' t'0-7 l'0-6

' ' t'0-5 l'0-4 l'0-3

' ' l'0-2 50 YR DOSE. COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 13

EARTHOURKE RISK BNRLYSIS FOR BMI. POP. LUNG SH00THED CCDF 10-2 i

7 5 4 3

10-3 i 7

s -C, 3

g X

A 10-4 i y

(n Og 5 _{3_____._.. ')

Lt.

3

, )- ---

O

>~

I-

"_J 10-5 i s

1

(

.()

C 03 O

3 j.

r Of 0-()

l 10-6 i 7

b l

t l

[]

f 10-7 1 10,1 i 3

s i

3 s

10-2 10-1 100 4

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 14 1

. EARTHQUAKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI. POP. BONE SMOOTHED CCDF 10-2 1 3

5 3

10-3 i 7

s O

3

=

X A

10-4 w

W 7

O O

s 0

b_

3 O

O g

_m_

10-8 J

~

7 O

l.

e r,

g 00 0

3 J,

g a.

O 10-6 i 7

5 3

O 10-7

'0-2 t'0-1 100 l'01 3

5 l

50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 15

0 9

EARTHOURKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI.N.R. LUNG SN00 tiled CCDF 10-2 7

r, 3

10-3 1 r,

(l

_ _ _.. _ +-

3 10-4 1

-)

3 r,

l+

.... O c

3 g

0 v.

10-s i h

O O

3 i

r O

10-s i 7

=-

3

[3 t o-'

L a,

s ;,

3 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 16 EURTHQUAKE RISK ANALYSIS FOR BMI.N.R. BONE SMOOTHED CC0F 10-2 1 7

5 J.

3 10-3 1 7

's C

3 X

A 10-4 i w

W 7

O s

O m

1 3

O

)

_m-g 10-5 i

~

.-I e-.g 7

O r

i r,

g

.r.

{-

Q3 o

3

_v, 3

E i

O O

10-s i 7

r, 3

)

10-7 g'0-6

' g'0-5 l'0-4 l'0-3 l'0-2 l'0-1 50 YR DOSE COMMITMENT (PERSON-REM)

FIGURE 17

TABLE 4

^

RISK TO NEAREST RESIDENT AND NEARBY POPULATION FROM POSTULATED DAMAGE DUE TO NATURAL PHEN 0MENA a

Population Dose (person-rem / year)

Case b Case Case Case Event Organ I (0.90)

II (.048)

III (.048)

IV (.0025) c 33.5 m/s Lungs 6.21-7 1.50-6 3.28-6 7.88-8 Wind Bone 1.07-6 2.64-6 5.70-6 1.39-7 (1.5x10-I/yr) 4.25 m/s Lungs 1.84-8 4.99-9 4.22-7 1.3-7 Wind Bone 3.20-8 8.64-9 7.49-7 2.3-7 (4.0x10-3/yr) r'o 51.4 m/s Lungs 8.1-8 1.87-8 1.09-7 4.28-8 Y

Wind Bone 1.30-7 3.02-8 1.73-7 6.83-8 (3.0x10-4/yr) 1.44-5 7.5-7 134 m/s Lungs 8.37-9 4.46-9 1.78-8 9.25-9 Tornado Bone 1.44-8 7.68-9 3.12-8 1.63-8 (1.0x10-7/yr)

Earthquake Lungs 5.4-6 8.16-7 1.10-5 1.63-6

> 0.25g Bone 9.45-6 1.44-6 1.92-5 2.88-6

( <5.0x10-4/yr) aPopulation within an 80-km radius of the plant bCase (parenthetical values are approximate probabilities):

I - Most likely release (0.95) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

II - Most likely release (0.95) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

III - Conservative release (0.05) and most likely dispersion (0.95).

IV - Conservative release (0.05) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

cScientific notation: 6.21-7 = 6.21x10-7

TABLE 4(CONTINUED)

Dose at Nearest Residence (rem / year)

Case b Case Case Case Event Organ I (0.90)

II (.048)

III (.048)

IV (.00?5)_

c 33.5 m/s Lungs 1.49-10 3.35-10 6.92-10 1.76-11 Wind Bond 2.43-10 5.85-10 1.21-9 3.08-11 (1.5x10'I/yr) 4.25 m/s Lungs 4.68-12 1.29-12 1.21-10 4.2-11 Wind Bone 7.92-12 2.30-12 2.11-10 7.2-11 (4.0x10-3/yr) t 51.4 m/s Lungs 1.81-11 3.89-12 3.31-11 1.35-11 Wind Bond 2.97-11 6.34-12 5.33-11 2.18-11 5

(3.0x10'4/yr)

L 134 m/s Lungs 1.08-13 5.76-14 2.35-13 1.23-13 Tornado Bone 1.89-13 1.01-13 4.08-13 2.13-13 (1.0x10'7/yr)

Earthquake Lungs 2.07-9 6.72-10 4.32-9 1.38-9

> 0.25g '4 Bone 3.56-9 1.15-9 7.44-9 2.38-9

(< 5.0x10 /yr) b Case (parenthetical values are approximate probabilities):

l I - Most likely release (0.95) and most_likely dispersion (0.95).

II - Most likely release (0.95) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

III - Conservative release (0.05). and most likely dispersion (0.95).

IV - Conservative release (0.05) and conservative dispersion (0.05).

Scientific notation: 1.49-10 = 1.49x10-10 c

References e

1.

" Review of Severe Weather Meterology at Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio," The University of Chicago, report submitted to Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. 31-109-3731, 30 September 1977.

2.

" Seismic Risk Analysis for Battelle Memorial Institute Nuclear Research Facility, West Jefferson, Ohio," TERA Corporation, Berkeley, CA., remrt submitted to Lawrence Livemore Laboratory, 29 December 1978.

3.

Jamison, J. D. and Watson, E.

C., " Environmental Consequences of Postulated Radionuclide Releases from Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories, Jn-1B Building at the West Jefferson Site, as a result of Severe Natural Phenomena." Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-4099, November 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.

l

A-1 APPENDIX.

ISOTONIC REGRESSION (Ref. 5)

Isotonic regression was used to develop the risk curves in Figures 10 througlil7. The only basic assumption in an isotonic regress' ion 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 a-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 Dg 5, Dgj.

j 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:

S 2

a(Dj) - P(Dj)

D.

P g

I arong 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 us0a1 regression analysis) where we impose the restri.: tion that P(D ) is non-increasing as Dg g

increases,.

1 4

A-2 The Pool-Adjacent-Violators Algorith:r 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 were used to obtain the isctonic 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.:

~

~

^

2 n

2 P(D ).- P*(D )

Dj 5, {1 -P(Dj)

P(Dg)

D

{

g g

g i=

i=1 for any isotonic function P.

A 2.

The isotonic regression P* of P minimizes the error in the risk, i.e.:

I max n

n.

[ D P(Dj) - [1 DjP*(Dj) i j

1=1 i=

l max n

n 3

l D P (0 )

{ D P(D ) = [1 1

g 9

l g

9 1=1 i=

1 l

1 l

I

-