ML20217B446
| ML20217B446 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1997 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ASB-300-44, NUDOCS 9803260068 | |
| Download: ML20217B446 (206) | |
Text
ORIGINA'_
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
NUCLEA.R REGULATORY COMMISSION e.,
. ..., .. 3 . ; ,., .. .
..p. ,
Title:
s;,, e . -
. WORKSHOP .ON REVIEW OF DOSE" - ,
v -e -
. . . . . c., .
., .. . . . . . ~ - .
.-/ .//.~?:..MODELLING METHODS FOR . .
ss .s
, 4. : < , , , , .
.. + ; 2 4; y , ~7 ' DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE
. ;. .:::r.y ~. . . . + - '
.' .WITH THE RADIOLOGICAL ' '.
- . .s. ,
CRITERIA F.OR LICENSE ~ . . . ;.
TERMINATION - .
'.,.. - : e. ,
. ~.
- s.. .,, , ., ,
Docket No.: ' '- .
., e .,
~ '
. ' - ' (;.
a
.' %h *: 1., *. -. .n .
. Work Order No.': . "..ASB'300-44 .
"'?....M.<>pk;. ; . ~ .
- e:
- V. *=
.u. .. .z. .: .:.p: ;. . ,,'
o .:,(. q... .
~.,
14CAMON: . ... -.RockvWe,MD . _
l' -
...v . . ', .
- . .- l
- .'G Y.j *SifD'.~ ?.
,,- in . .
~
DATE: '..
Thursday, Novemmber13,1997 . .
PAGES: 1 - 103 * *
- , , -. '. . i '.-;*e.. ,.
.' ~*: 19 ;,g,'^. , . ,. . *
.....g'.- .
. ggl.:)1.. 4 v,.. ,'..e : .. ,,
.4' ,
.,, *\ ,
- i .
- J.
..b.,t$. .
- IN Rd' b00&3118fid in ASSOCIATES, LTD.
h l I
FN61Suke 300 M-g:.4..pW . D.C. 20005 l
) 842-4034 l
' I ..Q fM 3G. ._
)
9803260068 971113 i PDR MISC !
9803260068 PDR i
1 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ***
.3 WORKSHOP ON REVIEW OF DOSE MODELLING METHODS FOR 4 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 5
RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION.
6 ***
7 ,
8 NRC Headquarters Auditorium 9 11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, Maryland 11 Thursday, November 13,- 1997 12 13 The above-entitled workshop commenced pursuant to 14 notice at 1:00 p.m.
15 16 PARTICIPANTS: .
17 JOSEPH MURPHY, RES/NRC 18 CHERYL TROTTIER, RES/NRC 19 DAVE FAUVER, NMSS/NRC 20 CHRIS DAILY, RES/NRC I l
21 TOM NICHOLSON, RES/NRC - -
22 THERESA BROWN, Sandia National Laboratories 23 CHARLIE YU, Argonne National Laboratories 24 ERNESTO FAILLACE, Argonne National Laboratories 25 ANDREW WALLO, DOE ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
r 2
1
, PROCEEDINGS 2
[1:00 p.m.]
3 MR. NICHOLSON: Good afternoon. We would like to 4 begin our workshop on Review of Dose Modeling. I would like 5 .to introduce our division director, Joe Murphy. He',s 6 director of the' Division of Regulatory Applications in the l L
7 Office of Nuclear Regulhtory Research. Joe.
8 MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Tom. It'r, my pleasure to 9 welcome you to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I l
10 Headquarters and to our workshop on the Review of Dose 11 Modeling Methods for Demonstration of Compliance with the 12 Radiological Criteria for License Termination.
13 EThis public workshop was noticed in the i 14 October 2nd issue of the Federal Register and on the NRC's 15 home page for technical conferences.
16 We are particularly pleased to welcome members of 17 the public and the invited speakers. We are very 3 18 appreciative of the cooperation by Sandia National 19 Laboratories, Pacific Northwest National Laboratorf, Argonne j 20 National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. !
21 . Environmental Protection Agency in organizing this workshops ..
22 The workshop co-convenors are Tom Nicholson of the 23- Research Staff and Jack Parrott of the Office of Nuclear 24 Material Safety and Safeguards.
l 25 It's my pleasure now to introduce Cheryl Trottier, ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
+
i 3 l 1
the chief of the Radiation Protection and Health Effects 2 Branch in the Division of Regulatory Applications in the 3 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. i' 4 MR. TROTTIER: Good afternoon. Again, I also want 5
to express my appreciation for all of you taking you,r time i 6 out of your day to come down here. I realize that a. day and 7 a hnif is a lot of time to commit. I'm hoping that we'll 8 all gain a lot out of this workshop.
9 My main goal here is to tell you what we're trying 10 to achieve by having the workshop. As most of you know by 11 now, we have published the final rule -- it was published in 12 July -- that provides criteria for releasing sites. Along 13 with that rule will be a number of guidance documents that 14 will be developed.
15 Our goal right now is to have the Regulatory 16 Guide, which will be the primary document, published in the 17 spring of '98, and along with that there will be a lot of 18 other documents that wil1 accompany it, a number of NUREGs 19 that will be published.
20 As many of you may know by now, the'NRC has been 21 developing a code, D&D, and you're going to hear about that. -
22 this afternoon. That's really a screening model, though.
23 So what this means is that what comes out in the spring of 24 '98, as far as guidance, is going to really address those 25 sites that are fairly simple.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 1 What we're hoping to accomplish out of having this l~
i 2 .workshop this afternoon is to develop criteria that we'll be 3 able to use to accept other more complicated models and, 4 hopefully, to advance our own modeling capabilities a little 5 so that some of these sites that today are handled on a 6 case-specific basis -- and will have to be' handled on a 7 case-specific basis come the spring of '98 -- there will 8 eventually be sufficient guidance out there that it will 9 help you in making some decisions about the kind of modeling 10 tools that you want to make use of. ,
11 So what we're really hoping to do in the next day 12 and a half is to come up with some criteria that will help 13 us in selecting what would be an appropriate model to use 14 for some of these more complex sites.
l 15 I also want to take this opportunity to remind 16 everybody about our technical conference Web site.
17 Everyone, I think, had access to the sheet which gives the i
18 name. For those of you who are as computer-illiterate as I 19 am, what I do -- it's reall) quite simple -- is to go the 20 NRC home page and click on Public Participation and School 21 Programs. - .
22 You look at the end of the list, click on 23- Rulemakings. When you get down in there, you go to -- I 24 forget what the exact title is, but there's one that talks 25 about rulemaking. You click on that, and then you'll see ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034 l
5 1 the Technical Conference for other Radiological Criteria 2 Rulemaking. That I can handle. Remembering to put all 3 these things into a bookmark is probably way beyond me.
4 But anyway, for those of you who have not accessed 5 the Web site, I would highly recommend it. We will keep you 6 posted about the current status of the development of all 7 the guidance and the tools that will accompany the final 8 rule.
9 I will also use this as an opportunity to tell you 10 that the next workshop that we're going to have, to deal 11 with guidance on the rule will probably not occur now until 12 early January. We had hoped to get something in sooner, i
13 but, as in many cases, you have good plans, and things i 14 become a little more complicated, and it takes a little 15 longer.
16 .
So, rather than have a workshop with half-baked j i
17 ideas, we thought it might be better to have a workshop 18 where we have pretty much finalized our thinking and so, 19 then, you have the best chance to review the guidance before 20 it becomes final. It will give you an opportunity to 21 provide reasonable comments rather than get an early draft . .-
22 out that doesn't really reflect even a semblance of 23 consensus among the staff.
24 So I believe, if I remember correctly, the-next 25 workshop will deal with surveys, followed up by the dose ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
6 1 modeling workshop, and probably even, within a two-day time 2 frame, a workshop on ALARA. So those will be the next 3 milestones we're trying to meet.
4 The dose modeling and ALARA workshops will 5 probably not occur now until February. I realize that it 6 looks like that's about the time when the Reg Guide is 7 supposed to come out, and it is very close, but this is the 8 most difficult part of this assignment, and we want to make I 9 sure that we give it adequate time in order to have a high i 10 quality product. I 11 With that, I'll turn this back over to Tom. Thank 12 you.
13 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you very much. You will 14 notice our court reporter, Jan del Monte, who will be making 15 a transcript. Copies of the transcript will be available in 16 approxinately two weeks.
17 I would like to introduce our first speaker, from 18 the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Dave 19 Fauver, who will talk on Dose Modeling Needs of Reviews.
20 Dave.
21 MR. FAUVER: Good afternoon.. It looks like a . .
22 pretty good turnout today, a lot of familiar faces. I hope 23 that generates some good discussion, because that is the 24 purpose of this day-and-a-half meeting, is to talk about 25 these issues.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
7 1 [ Slide.]
2 What I would like to do is just start with some 3 very brief comments just to provide some context for what 4 we're doing here today. Note that these comments are 5 preliminary. Some of the licensing issues I talk ab,out are 6
under development and based on what we see here today and 7
what comes out of some other work we're doing, things will 8 change a little bit.
9 [ Slide.] j 10 I want to go over the limits very quickly, talk 11 .about the screening criteria, talk about the site-specific 12 modeling, where it's used, and just some of the challenges 13 that we're going to be discussing in this meeting.
14 [ Slide.]
15 Basically, most of you are probably familiar with 16 the rule. It has an unrestricted use requirement and a 17 restricted use requirement that the licensee would select 18 which decommissioning option is best for their site. There i
19 are many other aspects of the rule, but basically, a 25 mrem 20 limit for unrestricted use.
21 For restricted use, it's also 25 mrem with the . .-
22 restrictions in place, 100 mrem, assuming the failure of 23 restrictions'. There are certain criteria you have to meet 24 to qualify for this option.
25 There are other more restrictive criteria to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
8 1 qualify for the second restricted use option, which is 25
- 2. mrem with the restrictions in place, and 500 mrem if the 3 restrictions fail. Next slide. I can get into some of the 4 detail in the next couple. -
5 [ Slide.] .,
6 From a licensing perspective, basically, this .
7 process is going to start with some screening' criteria.
8 It's essentially a preapproved decommissioning limit, 9 analogous to what we have now in the criteria that we've got 10 through the SDMP action plan and some other references.
11 It will be concentration limits in soil, and it 12 will be building surface contamination limits. Essentially, 13 it's an unrestricted use limit for the screening criteria, 14 and it's meant to be prudently conservative. We take that 15 very seriously.
16 We're taking a real close look at the parameters 17 that we're feeding into this model, and we're very seriously 18 looking at what's called the critical group, so that we do 1
19 not intend for this to be the maximally exposed individual, '
20 although there are some nuances I think you're going to hear ,
21- Chris Daily talk about as to what constitutes the critical.. -
22 group and this type of thing.
23 The goal is to develop a screening criteria that, 24 by necessity, needs to be conservative, but we're coing 25 everything within our ability to make it reasonable. ;
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATE'S, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
9 1
'We believe that this will be sufficient for most 2 licensees, although I suspect that the majority of the 3 people in this room will be going to some site-specific does 4 assessment. It may not be suitable for some of these other 5 sites.
6 [ Slide.]
7 If the' screening criteria doesn't work or the dose 8 is too high, above the 25 mrem unrestricted use limit, what 9 we anticipate will be done is that you'll go out and try to !
10 do some site-specific dose assessment.
11 Site-specific modeling applies to both 12 unrestricted use and restricted use. You may find that 13 you're close enough to the limit that you might want to 14 alter the model slightly or do some parameter changes to 15 meet the unrestricted use limit.
16 On the other hand, you feel, up front, after some 17 preliminary evaluations, that unrestricted use is probably 18 not going to be a viable option regardless of how much 19 modeling you do, because of the concentrations and the cost 20 issues associated with it. In that case, you'll go to 21 restricted use. - .
22 Now, in restricted use, you have basically two 23 aspects of site-specific modeling. The first aspect is with 24 the restrictions in place. For example, if a licensee were 25 to opt for on-site disposal with four feet of cover, et ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
10
.1 c e t e r a', there would be a site-specific assessment for that 2- configuration.
3 That assumes that the institutional controls will l l
4 1be maintained such that there won't be intrusion into this '
5 burial. In that case, pathways such as the farmer growing 6 the crops and soil resuspension from surface and these other 7' pathways may.not be appropriate or would not be appropriate, 8 intuitively, and groundwater may be'the important pathway at '
9 that point. So then that would be one dose assessment would 10 be required, site-specific assessment for restricted use.
11 However, there's another requirement. You recall 12 that there was a 100 mrem requirement for unrestricted use.
13 That assumes that there's intrusion into that disposal that 14 I described after failure of institutional controls. In 15 that case, you are, in essence, back to an unrestricted use ;
16 situation. -
17 It's important to note that we haven't fully 18 fleshed out whether scenarios other than the resident farmer 19 would be appropriate for unrestricted use, but that's )
l 20 something that we're going to be working on over the next ,
I 21 several months. - -
22 One could envision a situation where some other .)
i 23 land use'could be justified without restriction, but for now !
24 let's just assume it's the same type of resident farmer
- 'M5 default unrestricted use-scenario. So there are two types 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATE 5i, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l
I 11 I 1- of site-specific modeling that'you might have to do for !
2 restricted use..
3 From a licensing perspective, there's always an 4
efficiency that needs to be considered, both an efficiency 5 for the licensees to comply with the regulation and,, of 6 course,. for NRC to do its job in the review of the' s
7 submittals.
8 As it looks right now, the baseline screening 9 values, parameters, scenarios that we're looking at in the
-10 DED will be, in fact, a baseline. If you're going to go to 11 some site-specific modeling where you feel that the pond may 12 not be appropriate because you're in the desert or some 13 other site-specific situation exists that you feel justified 14 to modify some of the defaults in the screening baseline.
15 Well, in essence, from a licensing perspective, it 16 appears that, the most reasonable way to get through that 17 process is to start with the assumptions in the screening 18 model and back oft c' it, sr y, "Here's why we're changing."
19 That's as opposed the juur e carting leaping over to a new 20 situation and just developing a model from scratch. ~
21' Even if you were to do that and develop a model - -
22 from scratch with a blank sheet of paper for your site, the 1
23 same questions are going to arise. "Well, you're making
,24 certain assumptions in your model. Why did you not include 25 these other pathways? i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
(202) 842-0034 i
1 1
12 1 So either way, I think we're going to be connected 2 to the baseline screening model in terms of a licensing 3 process, and the justification will be for the pathways, the 4 parameters, the mathematical formulations and this type of l 5 thing.
6 One of the challenges is to develop a guidance !
7 document, an NRC review criteria that really is reasonable 8 to accept some site-specific parameters and some I 9 site-specific situations. We will avoid this trap of, I 10 "Well, how can you always assure that, over a 1,OOO-year l 11 period, this thing won't happen?" So we're being very {
12 careful in the process of developing this guidance and 13 working through this process to have a reasonable review 14 process.
15 [ Slide.]
16 Well, in closing, there are challenges, and I 17 think, with development of any guidance, you do have this 18 dynamic between the flexibility of the guidance and the cost 19 of implementation, both from the licensee and the cost of 20 the NRC review, which, in the end, for most licensees, is 21 billed to them anyway. It becomes a -licensee cost. . .- I 22 So we're very cognizant of that in our guidance 1
23 development. We are trying to balance, and we will balance !
24 those two competing goals. It's important that we don't i
25 leapfrog from the screening protocol to some other '
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 .
(202) 842-0034 '
13 1 site-specific model with no connection.
2 So there are opportunities there for inconsistency 3 and for different certainty values related to the decision 4 to be challenged. We need to have this thread that i 5 basically connects where we start from, which are 6 generically accepted NRC modeling parameters, formulations, 7 et cetera, to where we end up with the site-specific )
8 screening, and we do that to ensure the consistency of the i 9 licensing decisions.
10 So that's basically the brief overview of how this 11 information that we're going to ba talking about over the 12 next day and a half might feed into the process of 13 determining compliance with the dose criteria and the rule.
14 We have done considerable work up to this point, 15 as Chris Daily is going to describe in detail. However, we 16 do take these workshops very seriously, and we are looking 17 for feedback to refine this process and develop an efficient 18 licensing process. Thank you. Any questions?
19 [No response.]
20 Thanks.
21 MR. NICHOLSON: If you have any questions, we've . .-
22 got a table on each side of the room with a microphone, 23 since there-is a transcript being made. If you have 24 questions, we've reserved the seats there for the 25 questioners. You're more than welcome to go sit there at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
14 1 the table and then ask a question of all the speakers.
2 As you'll notice from your agenda, we have a panel 3 discussion tomorrow afternoon. On the back of your agenda 4 is a form, and you can write down your question if you like 5 and give it to me by the end of today or tomorrow, and I'll 6 pass them on to Jack Parrott, who will be the moderator of 7 tomorrow's panel discussions.
8 If there's no questions of Dave, then we'll move 9 on to the Development of Guidance Related to Dose Modeling 10 and Parameters Selection Needs. Chris Daily from the Office 11 of Nuclear Regulatory Research will make the presentation.
12 Chris.
13 MS. DAILY: Good afternoon.
14 [ Slide.)
15 I'm going to give you a little more detail -- as 16 Dave had been talking about -- on what we have already been 17 working on and a little bit of refinement of the kind of 18 information that we're looking for from licensees, and 19 especially in terms of more information about the other 20 models that are going to be talked about in this workshop. ,
21 With regard to the development of guidance that . -
l 22 we've already been working on for the last couple of years, 23 we are developing a decision methodology that these does 24- models will be used within as part of the process of 25 decommissioning sites. That methodology is going to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 1
15 1 described in detail in NUREG-1549. l l
2 We hope to have that NUREG out in the same time '
3 period as the Regulatory Guide. The first draft of that 4 NUREG is likely to contain a lot more information about 5 dealing with screening approaches, but it will have.at least 6 an outline of the approach expected to be used for a.more 7 eite-specific analysis and thd use of other models.
8 We have our own software, the DandD software that 9 has been out as an interim release since July of '96. I 10 know several of you have copies of that. If you need 11 copies, if you'll leave your business card, I can send you a 12 copy after the workshop.
13 We have developed a method for selecting default 14 parameters to use within DandD in screening, and I'll go 15 into a little more detail about what that process is and 16 what it means in terms of where we end up in the screening.
17 We're developing methods for replacing the default 18 parameters in DandD, and to a certain extent, the process 19 that we use when we move away from the defaults'for DandD 20 logically should be similar to the process that would be l 21 used for selecting parameters in other models. - -
22 We do have detailed documentation of the scenarios 23 and calculations in NUREG-5512, Volume 1. Volume 2 of 5512 24 is going to be the user manual for the software, and it will 25 also contain information about the differences between the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
16 1 calculations that are listed in Volume 1 and what we've come 2 up with now in the software itself.
3 We're also going to have documents that detail the
.4 parameter _ distributions that we're using for developing the 5 defaults and the whole process that was used for sel,ecting 6 those defaults.
7 ISlide.]
8 As anybody who as has done any kind of dose 9- modeling has noticed, there isn't one'model that answers all i 10 of the needs for every single site, and so we know that~we 11 need to develop a method that will allow us to evaluate dose 12 assessments that are developed using other models.
13 QA and documentation criteria for those dose 14 assessments are important questions that we need to resolve, 15 as well as the udnimum criteria that we would expect for the 16 parameter selection.in-the other models.
17 [ Slide.]
18 Just to give you a kind of quick overview of the 19 decision methodology that we're working on right now and 20 give you a little bit of context for how these does models 21 are going to be used in the decommissioning process, this is- .- !
i 22 a diagram of aid decision framework, the decision 1 23' - methodology that we're working on. It's expected to be a 24 iterative approach. .
25 For simple licensees, they'll simply move down l
ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17 1 straight from box number 1 to box number 7. If you're using 2 the DandD code with all defaults and you can demonstrate 3 that you're less than the 25 mrem criterion, it's really 4 pretty straightforward.
5 If you can't demonstrate on the first go-r,ound 6 that you meet that 25 mrem or you know that there may be 7 more work that needs to be done at your site, you would move 8 over and start defining different options, looking at survey
- 9 options, ok options, making a decision between restricted 10 and unrestricted release.
11 The idea of this process is that you don't 12 automatically go out and start of your site without 13 gathering sufficient information, without looking at 14 different options to take the most efficient path to 15 decommissioning your site.
16 Theresa Brown will be talking a little bit more 17 about this within the context of the DandD software.
18 [ Slide.]
19 I want to emphasize that this is expected to be an <
20 iterative process. We're not expecting this to be a 21 pass / fail type thing. If, the first time you go through, . $.
22 you don't demonstrate that you meet 25 mrem, that doesn't -
23 mean that you've somehow failed that process. It just means 24 that you're early in the process, and there needs to be more 25 analysis done.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 18
'l The concept of this approach and of screening that 21 I'll talk a little bit more about is that, as you gather 3 more site information,-the uncertainty and the does 1
)
4 assessment that you're doing goes down, and your does should l 5 also go down. When we screen, we assume that we don,'t have 6 a lot of information about the site, and therefore we have 1
7 to be relatively conservative. But as you make your dose )
i 8 assessment more realistic, the dose should decrease.
9 The process of having a methodology and a process ,
i 10_ that everybody can follow going through this should allow 11 better optimization of decommissioning activities, a better 12 balancing of costs and actions, and allow you to select the 13 most efficient way to move through the decommissioning 14 process.
15 That's the idea behind this. It has a simple path i 16 for people that don't need a lot of complexity. It allows I
17 you to bring more information in in a gradual way, the most 18 efficient way.
19 It's also an interactive process, and it will i
20 allow the regulators and stakeholders to interact with the 21 licensees at appropriate points in a realistic way, and it . .
22 lets everybody see what the process is so they understand !
23 .what's going on. j
- 24 [ Slide.) !
l 25 The purpose of having a screening model -- just to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
(202) 842-0034 {
19 1
reiterate so that we have a baseline to start with here --
2 is that we developed this modeling to be generic so that it 3 would cover almost all of our sites. i 4 This is supposed to be a relatively cost-effective !
5 wcy to do this, because we don't need to get a lot of l 6 site-specific data if it's not necessary, and, as Dave was 7 talking about, in terms of efficiency for licensees and fcnr 8 NRC staff reviews, there's no need to bring in a lot of 9 extra information if you don't need it.
10 If you follow this screening approach and use the 11 defaults, for example, we have high assurance that the site 12 actually meets the criteria and release of the license is 13 appropriate. Next slide.
14 [ Slide.]-
15 As we move forward and gather more site-specific 16 information, as that seems to be a logical approach, the 17 generic models are maintained, but they are adjusted. You 18 can modify or eliminate whole pathways. You can bring in 19 more site-specific information to modify specific 20 parameters.
21 We expect that you can use relative inexpensive - -
22 techniques to gather information. There's a lot of data 23 sets available, for example, over the Internet from the USGS 24 and from various state organizations that give you 25 information about your soil types, depth of groundwater, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
20 1 kinds of things like that that aren't necessarily expensive 2 to get, but can help you narrow the uncertainty on the 3 parameters in your model.
4 For the first couple of iterations through the 5
framework for modifying parameters, we're trying to, control 6 the error in any calculations to give you the flexibility to 7 incorporate site-specific information without having to p) '
8 to a full site-specific uncertainty analysis. But you 9 certainly can go to a site-specific uncertainty analysis if 10 you believe that's appropriate for your site.
11 [ Slide.)
12 In terms of the hierarchy as we're looking at it 13 now, in terms of modelling, for the default screening, the 14 NUREG-5512 approach would apply. It has got the scenarios 15 laid out, the parameters, the pathways. In that case, the 16 licensee only needs to bring in a site-specific source term.
17 For site-specific screening, which is kind of an 18 interim step between screening and full site-specific l
19 analysis, you can still use the generic models, but you're 20 varying pathways or eliminating pathways. You're using some 21 site-specific parameters, and, of course, you're still . .-
22 bringing in your site-specific source term. I'm going to 23 get to site-specific modeling in the next slide.
24 [ Slide.]
25 This allows you to go to alternative scenarios, l I
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters , i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034 >
i
1 I
21 1
any of the pathways or parameters that might be appropriate 2 !
to your site-specific source term. While we envisioned that '
3 the 5512 approach isn't going to be appropriate for all 4 sites, it's quite possible that portions of it will be. i 5 One of the things that we need to look at is the 6 concept that you don't have to replace models wholesale. If 7 you want to have, for example, more detail about your i 8 groundwater pathways, but the rest of your pathways seem to 9 be covered by the 5512 approach, that's a reasonable thing 10 to do. You concentrate in the area where you need more 11 detail, and you don't have to do a complete switchover and 12 lose any of the information you had for your other pathways.
13 At the moment, the licensee would need to propose i
14 a calculational approach, but within the framework of this l 15 decision methodology, the requirements for what kind of 16 information you would need to bring in and how that would be i 17 organized, I think we'll have a fair amount of guidance for 18 that in February, and once again, we're hoping to put that 19 into NUREG-1549.
20 [ Slide.]
21 So I'll digress a little bit and tell you what . -
22 technical basis documents we have out right now or have 23 planned for the near future. Decision Methodology and Dose 24 Assessments in NUREG-1549.
25 Scenarios and calculations right now are published ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
22 1 in NUREG-5512, Volume 1. Volume 2 is expected to be out 2 early next year, somewhere early next year. That is 3 primarily the user guide for the software, but it will 4 contain, also, infornation about any modifications that have 5 been made between Volume 1 of 5512 and the development of 6 the software. We have made some modifications to the models 7 and, of course, to the pa'rameters.
8 And then, Volume 3 of 5512 is going to have 9 details about the parameter distributions and the whole 10 selection methodology for developing the default parameters 11 and the generic uncertainty analysis that's the basis for 12 the selection of those parameters.
13 [ Slide.]
14 I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking 15 about the parameter analysis process and what we're trying 16 to do with that. The analysis that we're doing is to 17 evaluate how the model and the parameters work together in 18 developing the eventual dose. The underlying concept in all 19 of this is that, when you move from the defaults to a 20 site-specific analysis, the does should decrease. As you 21 reduce uncertainty, you get a better estimate of your does,. ...
22 and it should be going down.
23 The approach that we have taken is to look for 24 default sets of parameters. At the moment, we have single 25 sets of parameters for each scenario. That set of E I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 23 '
1 parameters in the default mode should limit the probability 2 .\
that, when you do your dose assessment, the maximum dose 3 that you calculate is not going to exceed the default '
4 analysis. I 5 In other words, if you run all defaults, the dose 6 that you calculate is going to be higher than the does that s
7 you would calculate if you changed any or all of the 8 parameters or modified the pathways. And to the extent that 9 we can, we would like to control this such that if a 10 situation arose where you've got a higher dose, it wouldn't 11 be higher by very much.
12 [ Slide.]
13 The idea behind this also, as Dave mentioned 14 earlier, was that we would like to have these default 15 parameters be prudently conservative, and we are trying to 16 quantify what prudently conservative means.
17 For residential and building scenarios, we've been 18 working on developing these parameter distributions. Right 19 now, on the Web site, we have some descriptions of the input 20 distributions for the parameters in the building occupancy '
21 scenario. Those are drafts, but they would give you an idea ..
22 of the kind of analysis that we're doing. We're norking on l
23 the residential parameter distributions right now, and 24 those, as they are completed, will be posted on the Web !
25 also.
l I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
{. 24 1
The analysis'that we're doing will not only help 2 us decide on what-the default parameters should be, but it 3 will also help up determine the valid ranges for parameters I 4 within the model and tell us if there are.some parameters 5
that we really should control more closely -- in oth,er 6
'words, the point at which you need to do asp uncertainty 7 analysis will be determined as part of this parameter 8 analysis.
9 (Slide.)-
-10 The other question that we're looking at is that, 11 given that you can develop multiple valid sets of default 12 parameters, how do.you select the ultimate set that will be 13 the default parameters set?
14 What we try to do is make sure that all the 15 parameters are essentially equally conservative, that, 16 overall, we don't have this difficulty of piling 17 conservatism on conservatism.
18 There's some uniformity there because the analysis 19 is done within the nodel with all of the parameters combined 20 and that they all -- for example, if you wanted to be at the _
21 95th percentile, that are of them are as close to the 95th'. -
-22 percentile as possible. You don't have some that are at the 23, 95th and some that are way up at the 99th percentile. It 24 adds a little were control and gets us more toward that 25 prudent conservatism. 4 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
25 1 [ Slide.]
2 The proposed approach in terms of dealing with the 3 parameters, the technical basis for all of this will be in 4 Volume 3. 1549 is to talk about the process of modifying 5
parameters, eliminating pathways, and eventually mov,ing to 6 other models as appropriate.
s 7 Tha initial approach that we have for modifying 8 parameters is going to be based on modifying within certain 9 limits. Where we've already generically done the 10 uncertainty analysis, we would allow a licensee to do a full 11 site-specific uncertainty analysis, but the exact details -
12 for how that would be done -- or especially the requirements 13 that a licensee would need to bring in -- are still under 14 development.
15 They would be within the structure of the 16 framework, but beyond that I don't think we'll have anything 17 ready on that by February. That's still going to take a 18 little bit of work and, undoubtedly, some field work, which 19 we're hoping to accomplish some time next year, also.
20 [ Slide.]
21 So, just as a reminder of some of the things that. -
22- we're looking for from this workshop, these are some of the
-23 major points', I think, that we're interested in, and we'll 24 welcome any of the comments you have or suggestions. Thank 25 you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
26 1 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you, Chris. Are there any 2 questions of Chris Daily? Would you go to the mike and 3 ~ identify yourself.
4 MR. ROBERTS: My name is Rick Roberts. I work at 5 the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site out-in Golden, 6 Colorado. Chris, this question could be for you or it could 7 be for Dave.
8 In the modeling regime you all have set up under 9 5512, you've set up a couple of building scenarios -- a 10 renovation worker and an office worker, really. One of the 11 requirements within your license termination rule is that 12 you look for 1,000 years into the future.
13 Given that the building scenarios are really only 14 applicable to O to about 70 years at the most, how do you 15 model building material from 70 out to 1,000 years?
16 MS. DAILY: We don't expect people to model 17 buildings out past 70 years. The model can do that, but it 18 doesn't have a lot of meaning. I think the 70 years out of 19 the GEIS is a reasonable maximum at the moment.
20 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. So once you model the 21' building scenarios and clean up to that criteria, then you .
22 can either free release that site or restricted release that 23 site.
24 MS. DAILY: That's our intent at the moment, yes.
25 MR. ROBERTS: All right. Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27 1 MR. NICHOLSON: Other questions? If you want to, 2- you can just to the mike.
3 MR. FLORY: I'm Claude Flory with Northeast I
- 4. $
Utilities. You said you can go through the screening l
5 process, steps 1 through 7, and if you're below the 6 criteria, then .sg) right to license termination.
7 A part of that is the ALARA requirements. I'm 8 wondering if the screening model is good enough tool to 9 consider ALARA. It would seem what you're thinking of is 10 the screening model may be too crude for ALARA 11 considerations.
12- MS. DAILY: We're still having a lot of 13 discussions about ALARA and exactly how that applies and at 14 what stage. So we would welcome any comments that you would 15 have about actual application of ALARA. As you can imagine, 16 there's a lot of discussion about exactly what the j 17 definition of ALARA is at different stages in the ;
l 18 decommissioning process. So that's a very good point.
19 MR. FLORY: That's a question to be reserved for 20 later, you',re saying?
21 MR. NICHOLSON: Tomorrow afternoon -- . $.
22 MS. DAILY: Yeah.
23 MR. FLORY: Okay. I know you talked about having 24 an ALARA workshop later.
./
25 MS. DAILY: Right.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATNS, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 28 l l
1 MR. FLORY: That sort of consideration, taking 2 more into consideration with your modeling.
3 MS. DAILY: Yeah. There are parts of ALARA that 4 you can think of as being incorporated in the modeling 5 process. There are parts of ALARA that are more pol 1cy-type 6 issues, h. general, what we're trying to do is make sure 7 that the regulatory guide contains all'of the information 8 related to policy issues and that 1549 would have more of 9 the process infomation. The workshop on ALARA in February 10 or whenever will combine those issues.
11 MR. FLORY: Thank you.
12 MR. NICHOLSON: Next question.
13 MR. PETERSON: My name is Dave Peterson. I'm with 14 Duke Engineering & Serv l *n.
15 Christine, uhw' to talk about going to a 16 site-specific analysis -- say with something like DandD --
17 and being able to modify parameters, I was just curious to 18 know -- I think, in a lot of cases that we're going to be 19 looking at for non-building-type scenarios, taking credit 20 for overburden or cover material would be very important.
21 It's my impression -- maybe incorrectly -- that .
22 you would not be able to modify the depth of cover -- in 23 other words, that any contamination in DandD would be 24 considered to be at the surface. Is that correct?
25 MS. DAILY: DandD has surface contamination,. and l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- I
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 2 84 - b34
r 29 1 it does not, at the mcment, have a cover component. I don't 2 know if Dave wants to say anything about -- he doesn't want 3 to say anything right now. But there are a lot of options 4
under discussion about how scenarios should or could be 5 modified.
- {
6 i That's one of the issues in terms of bringing in '
7 other models to handle more complex situations. The other 8
one that you can think of is something like modifying 9 geometry for external sources. There are models that do 10 that; DandD does not.
11 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you. Next question.
12 MR. POTTER: Tom Potter, radiation protection i
13 consultant. I'm not sure.I understood something that I 14 thought I heard you say earlier, Chris, about the work j 15 you're going through to select default parameters lists. i j
16 It seems to me that one goal should be that the 17 dose calculated using default parameters lists should be on 18 the conservative side, no question about that. Did I 19 understand you to say that, in the selection of the default 20 parameters, you were also looking for individual parameters 21 pretty much on the conservative side, like 95 percentile, . \.
22 did I hear?
23 MS. DAILY: We're looking at a range of levels of 24 conservatism from 95 to 90 to 85 -- 25.
25 [ Laughter.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
30 1 MR. POTTER: Maybe now isn't the time, but I would 2 be interested in hearing how you would plan to use those, 3
since these parameters typically are used multiplicative1y 4 with other parameters or additively with other parameters 5 which would, in fact, tend to pile on conservatism.
6 MS. DAILY: That's why we're doing the analysis 7
- within the context of the model. If you did them 8
separately, then you would have a lot more danger of having 9 maximally conservative ones on top of maximally conservative 10 ones. This is a combined analysis.
11 And, of course, I'm being overly facetious -- and 12 I shouldn't in front of a court reporter -- on the 25, 13 because to make the defaults make sense, you have to have 14 the dose decrease as you bring more information into the 15 process.
16 MR. NICHOLSON: Next question.
17 MR. JOOSTEN: Chris, Jim Joosten with Connect-USA, 18 a consultant. I just have a general question for you.
19 I've noticed both you and the fellow before you --
20 I guess Dave -- made several references to the term, 21 " prudently conservative." I think one of the things the .
22 industry is concerned about is whether or not, under the new 23 competitive market, the NRC begins to sort of interject 24 itself into economic regulation, more so than just safety 25 regulation.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l l
l
31 1 The term, " prudence," is an economic term which 2 has a very precisely defined meaning to most of the nuclear i 3 utilities that are out there. I'm wondering if there's a 4 reason behind this choice of words that.has surfaced about 5 four times this morning.
6 MS. DAILY: It's a historical hold-over from the 7 original NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. I didn't realize that 8 there was an economic term like that.
9 MR. JOOSTEN: Yeah. Okay, thanks.
10 MR. NICHOLSON: Are there any other questions?
11 For those of you who have questions who would prefer, you 12 can write them on the back of your agenda. We have 13 additional copies of the questions on the registration 14 table, and feel free to provide those questions to us at any 15 time during the meeting.
16 We will take a brief recess, and then the next 17 speaker will be Theresa Brown, speaking on the D&D Code.
18 Thank you.
19 [ Recess.)
20 MR. NICHOLSON: I would like to introduce our next 21 speaker. Our next speaker is Theresa Brown from Sandia .
22 National Laboratories, who will talk on the DandD Code.
23 [ Slide.]
24 MS. BROWN: Chris Daily, who should know better, 25 asked me the other day how I got this job to come up here i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
32 1 and talk to you this afternoon. I said I won the David 2 Gallegos look-alike contest a couple of years ago,.and I've 3 been filling in for him ever since.
- 4. I didn't tell her that I actually had to draw on a 5 beard and moustache to do that. I had pictures of that 6 occurring and my winning, but I forgot to bring them, I'm- )
7 sorry to say. '
8 The DandD Code is what I'm here to discuss today, 9 and you'll have to forgive me. Occasionally I slip back' 10 into my southern accent, and I call it " Dandy".- So that's 11 what I'm talking about if you hear the word, Dandy, come out 12 of my mouth.
13 [ Slide.)
14 I'll start with a few slides, just a little 15 introductory information about D&D, and then proceed into 16 the questions that NRC published as part of this. workshop.
17 As most you now know from Chris and Dave's talks, 18 DandD was developed to specifically address the dose-based 19 criteria for license termination. Specifically, it 20 implements the screening that's published in 5512 and the
- 21. models that are published in 5512. - -
22 It incorporates all the information necessary for 23 that screening, that Level 1 screening that's often 24' discussed, and when the default parameters are finalized, 25 then all you will need to implement this first Level 1 I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 )
)
(202) 842-0034 1
33-1 screening is the-source term.
2 (Slide.]
'3 The scenarios and pathways,'then, that are
- 4. !
. contained within the DandD Code, that are'hard-wired in, are i
5 the four scenarios that are described in 5512. The building 6' scenario auxi the residential occupancy are two of the 7 primary scenarios that are discussed. ,
i i
8 (Slide.] l 9
And then the other two.are the' groundwater pathway. q 10 -- just a drinking water source -- and then the building 11 renovation scenario is also hard-wired in there. I don't 12 lamow at this point if all four of those will proceed forward 4 13 -throughout this whole process or whether just the two 14- , residential-and building occupancy, will be maintained, but 15 all four are in the Code.
4 16- The residential scenario is supposed to take care 17 of evaluating the surface contamination, the surface soil 18 contamination for a site for unrestricted use where 19 residential farming or light agriculture could be used at 20- -this site. And then.the building occupancy is supposed to 21 evaluate surface contamination in a building for a chronic . .-
22 exposure, a long-term exposure for a building occupant that 23' doesn't intentionally disturb any residual contamination on 24 the. surface. i 25 The other two scenarios were designed to analyze 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters f 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
(202)'842-0034 l
34 1 building contamination in walls themselves, so a volume 2 source, where the walls are intentionally disturbed. This 3 is more of an acute exposure, a short-term exposure. The 4 drinking water scenario was implemented just to analyze the i 1
5 dose due to the drinking water path. .
6 [ Slide.)
7 The potential limitations of DandD ih terms of the 8 source term and what you would be concerned about from that 9 perspective are the radon sources. They're not analyzed, 10 and I'm not sure that they will be required as part of the I 11 final rule. !
12 The other limitation is then more complex systems 13 in terms of looking at spatial geometry and spatial !
i 14 distributions of contaminants and how that might impact the !
l 15 results.
16 [ Slide.]
17 If we go to the first question, it asks you to 18 describe the history of the Code. Since this is sort of the 19 ' baseline code, that you would be stepping from this to 20 others er justifying stepping, not using this and stepping 21 to a more complex or a more site-specific modeling, we .
22 thought we would go ahead and answer these questions as they 23 were posed.
24 DandD was developed by Sandia. The models in 25 DandD are the NUREG-5512 models, and it was specifically ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
35 1 developed to address the new radiological, the dose-based 2 criteria.
3 [ Slide.] {
4 This development was supported by NRC. The draft 5 User's Manual should be out in February. Actually, maybe I 6 .should say that in a more positive sense. It will be out in 7 February. Since I'm not rebponsible for it, I think I will.
8 It will be out in February. It's intended to be.used as 9 part of that iterative approach, the decision framework that 10 Chris mentioned, 11 [ Slide.)
12 This is probably a very important thing to become 13 familiar with. Again, this is just proposed at this point, 14 so we ought to say that it's open to comment and suggestion 15 in terms of implementation approach, this iterative 16 approach. It's designed so that you can optimize the 17 process, optimize how you spend your money in terms of j 18 collecting additional site data for supporting site-specific 19 models, as well as spending your money for remediation.
)
20 [ Slide.)
i l
21 How DandD then fits into this decision framework . -
22 is shown in this slide. The pink area is essentially what 23 would constitute the Level 1 analysis with the DandD Code. !
24 You'll notice it does stop just before it gets to ALARA. I 25 don't remember who asked that question, but, essentially, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
l l
36 1 I the issues with ALARA still remain open, whether or not you i 2- can use DandD for that analysis. !
3 DandD can be used to some degree to move to the 4 site-specific -- and Chris stated that we were looking at 5 ways, the ranges within which the default parameters might
, l 6 be varied without doing an additional uncertainty analysis.
7 '
And so the DandD Code itself may be used to move 8 into this Level 2 analysis, the blue-shaded area, where 1 9 you've moved into looking at site-specific parameter values, 10 site-specific pathways -- pathways that could be eliminated 11 based on site-specific conditions or behaviors that might be 12 eliminated based on site-specific conditions.
13 [ Slide.)
14 In terms of question 2, which transport mechanisms 15 and exposure pathways are included, this is simply the list 16 from NUREG/CR-5512..
17 In the residential, you have external exposure to 18 penetrating radiation from surface sources, soil surface 19 contamination. You have inhalation due to resuspension of 20 particles -- contaminated particles, soil particles -- both j 21 indoors and outdoors and resuspension of those particles . ,..
22 indoors. i
-23 You have exposure due to inhalation of -- I'm j 24 sorry, house dust, and that's the resuspension of the 25 contamination of the contaminated soil particles, ingestion 1 I
i j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C. 20005
.(202) 842-0034
37 1 .of. agricultural products that,are e'ither irrigated with 2 contaminated water and/or grown in contaminated soil.
3 You have ingestion of contaminated drinking water 4: from a. groundwater, source. The irrigated portion of the
'5 pathways and scenarios applies both to the crops directly 6 consumed by the human or by animals that are fed 7 contaminated water and contaminated food products and then 8 are consumed._ And also, there's a pathway from the.
9 groundwater to surface water and-ingestion of contaminated j 10 aquatic products.
11 In the building occupancy, it's a little more 12 simple, a little more_ straightforward, because you have -
13 fewer exposure pathways. Those are due to external exposure 14 from penetrating radiation, again from the surface 15 _ contamination-in the building occupancy scenario; inhclation 16- of contamination resuspended particles from that surface; 17 and inadvertent ingestion. It's the "get your tongue off i
18 that wall" scenario. I 19 [ Slide.)
20 For building renovation, you have the same 21- exposure pathways, but you have a different process for .. -
i
~
22 causing the particles.to be suspended in air. You have intense, acute exposure.
i 23 From drinking water, it is simply 24 the drinking water ingestion path. i 25 [ Slide.)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
r 38 1 If you look at this graphically, for the building 2 contamination, then you see two pathways directly from the 3 surface to the human being, one being external -- exposure 4 to the penetrating radiation -- and the other being the 5 inadvertent ingestion -- direct contact with the 6 contaminated surface and then subsequent ingestion, and then 7 an indirect pathway from the air -- the contaminated surface 8 into the air, the suspension of particles, then to the 9 human.
10 Essentially in DandD, all of these links between 11 the contamination to the human are made with transfer 12 functions. It's a fairly simple model, but when you move to 13 the next level of analysis for, say, the non-building 14 occupant, for the residential scenario, we have soil !
15 contamination.
16 [ Slide.]
17 We have a lot of links. They're very simple links 18 between the contamination and the exposed individual, the 19 hypothetical individual, but when you start having all of 20 these links and making all of these connections between 21 these pathways, you end up with a lot of parameters -- 94 . .
22 parameters.
23 So saying this is a very simple model, that's true I 24 in one sense; in another sense, you're talking about a very 25 complicated process of simulating how this contamination can !
l 1 I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1 be translated into a dose.
2 [ Slide.]
3 How are the parameter. values determined for input? !
4 For DandD, for the user, it's a very simple process. On the 5 Level-1, all you.would'have to do is provide the source 6- term. The guidance on how to develop, how to go from what 7 -you know-about what might have been released or the !
8 potential contaminants into a source term for the model, 9 that guidance is going to be developed yet.
10 The prudently conservative default parameters 11 values, then, would provide all of the other information 12 that 'you would need for doing a Level 1 screening. If you 13 move to a Level 2 with DandD, with site-specific parameter 14' values, then of course the guidance for that still needs to 15 come out.
16 But you would have all'the parameters that you 17- know you would need to define and, hopefully, as part of 18 this process of defining the default parameters values, we 19 can provide you some valuable insight in which parameters 20 you may be most likely to be able to change and will provide 21 .the biggest bang for the buck -- let's say it that way -- - .-
22 which ones you may want to go out and collect site-specific 23 information on'to change. !
24 The nature of the default parameters is such that
.25' it would be very likely that you would be able to go out and l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court' Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
40 1
collect site-specific data and reduce the uncertainty that's 2
inherent in these default parameters values, the uncertainty 3
that's inherently incorporated in these default parameters 4
values, and then back off that initial dose calculation.
5 [ Slide.)
G In all other iterations, then, beyond that 7 Level 1, of course, you're going to move to site-specific '
8 parameter values.
You would have to define and defend these 9 alternative parameter values.
The user would have to do 10 that. NRC wouldn't be responsible for that any more.
11 Within Dar.dD, the process now is to look at how we 12 can restrict that range so that a complete uncertainty -
13 analysis would not have to be done for specific parameters 14 if you wanted to move to site-specific values.
15 Within DandD, you don't have the ability to 16 incorporate PDFs to. represent uncertainty in your parameter-17 values. Each parameter value is a deterministic value as 18 implemented in DandD. The process for coming up with the 19 default parameter values uses them as PDFs and does this.
20 uncertainty analysis so that the user doesn't have to. l l
21 But if you move beyond these NRC-defined limits . .
22 for changing parameter values or assumptions about pathways 23 -- eliminating pathways, for example -- then you would need !
24 to do a full uncertainty analysis. To do this with DandD 25 might be fairly onerous, because you would have to go in and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
41 l' change each individual parameter value as it stands now.
.2 [ Slide.]
3 Question 4 asks which radionuclides and chemicals 4 .are_ incorporated within the Code? Right now, you would not 5
be able to do any chemical transport, any transport.,of 6 hazardous chemicals, for example, with the DandD Code, J
7 because it's specifically designed to answer the 8 radionuclide question, and all 224 NRC-listed radionuclides 9 of concern are incorporated in the DandD Code.
10 It does incorporate radioactive decay and 11 in-growth, and there is an Mbsorption term for the 12 unsaturated to represent retardation of the radionuclide 13 transport to the unsaturated zone. But at this point, that 14' would be the limit of the chemical components.
15 [ Slide.] I 16 Question 5 is what are the time and spatial 17 limitations inherent in this method? In terms of time, 18 there's a functional limit of a million years placed on any 19 simulation, but again, this does not preclude a shorter run 20 time. DandD currently runs to peak, and it runs just past 21 the peak, so it knows it has reached-the peak. .. -
l I
22 So, in the building scenario, in most cases, it l 23 only runs for the first three or four time steps. It 24 depends on the radionuclides that are present. But 25- functionally, it does have a million-year limit, which is l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l-
42 1 well beyond the 1,000-year regulatory period.
2 And then the spatial geometry is the most limiting 3-factor of the DandD models and the DandD Code as it is 4 currently constructed. In many cases, there is no spatial 5 geometry inherent in the analysis. It's merely a tr,ansfer 6 function without any change in the concentration due to 7 dilution or dispersio'n within the media that it's being 8 transported through.
9 [ Slide.)
10 Question 6 is to what extent can alternative 11 remedial actions be assessed and compared? You could use 12 multiple executions of DandD to evaluate what the changes in '
13 the source term would do the simulated dose. You don't 14 obviously have cost modeling capability,'and you're limited 15 in the parameters and the way the system is described in 16 terms of using the DandD Code.
17 The NRC decision framework itself provides the 18 basis, framework for coming to these decisions in terms of 19 remediation versus site characterization versus restricted 20 use and all of those issues.
21 the one thing that we should mention here is that. -
22 if you're using DandD, the Code, with the Level 1 parameter 23 values, you probably shouldn't be setting your cleanup 24 levels based on that, because you have these prudently 25 conservative parameter values, and you may be setting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
{
Washington, D.C. 20005 !
(202) 842-0034 i
43 1 unrealistically low cleanup values for yourself, and so you 2 should proceed outside of the realm of the DandD Code to do 3 this.
4 [ Slide.] {
5 Question 7 is to what extent has the dose model 6 been tested and included in benchmarking studies? This is a 7 l'ist of all the testing that has been done to date. It has 8 already been through the beta test process.
9 Right now, there's a interim release -- 1.0 of the 10 Code -- out, and that's the version of the Code that Chris 11 will send to you if you give her your business card and ask 12 for it. We're in the process of working out all'of the I 13 software bugs. Anything that you can't do that it's 14 supposed to be able to do, we need to hear about. So it 15 isn't in its final version yet.
16 The testing of the user interface has been 17 completed, but I would say, if you find anything, go ahead 18 and send it back in and we'll fix it.
19 The model comparison for the results from DandD 20 versus other dose codes is planned for this fiscal year. To 21 date,'the Code itself has not been included in any . .
22 benchmarking studies. RESRAD did a benchmarking study, and 23 they compared the 5512 models in a spreadsheet format versus 24 the RESRAD code and other codes, but it was not a test of 25 the DandD Code specifically.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
44 1 [ Slide.]
2 The next question is, to what extent can the 3 method be used to analyze complex source terms, multiple 4 source terms, complex hydrologic systems, exposure pathway 5 combinations, remedial methods, the cost of those re, medial 6 methods, and ALARA considerations? It's probably the reason i 7 for this workshop, actually, because of the limitations of 8 the screening approach that is implemented in the DandD )
l 9 Code.
10 If you're going to use DandD, you're going to have ;
11 to have a single source term in your analysis, and then, for
]
12 each iteration, if you have multiple source terms, you could i 13 analyze each separately or you could analyze all of them in 14 combination, but you cannot look at the consequences of 15 having a spatially distributed source very easily in terms !
l 16 of looking at the interactions between these two sources.
17 [ Slide.)
18 In terms of the hydrological and hydrogeological l 19 conditions, you're limited to the 5512 models. You don't a 20 THREE D or TWO D flow and transport code.or model 21 incorporated in the DandD Code. -
22 You can change the conditions by altering the 23 parameter values. You can move to more site-specific 24 conditions, but again, this is a very simple description of 25 the hydrogeological system.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 45 1 It's very difficult to develop this to link it to 2 other models, but you could use other models, develop a j 3 single value for a parameter, say, and perhaps, depending on l 4 what NRC decides as guidance for how you would justify a !
5 single parameter value, be able to use other modeling to 6 justify or defend a more site-specific value for the.DandD )
1 7 Code if you wanted to just separate the physical flow 8 modeling or physical transport modeling from the dose 9 modeling. You can look at multiple e'xposure pathway 10 combinations with DandD. I 11 [ Slide.)
12 Doing cost analysis or an analysis of where-13 monitoring should be placed for mediation, extraction, those i
14 are well beyond the DandD Code because of the spatial '
15 limitations.
16 In looking at the ALARA question, there are some 17 parts of ALARA that you could do within the'DandD Code. You 18 could look at, again, reduction in source term, what that 19 would buy you in terms of reduction in dose, given all the 20 inherent assumptions in the modeling and the way the source 21 term is represented in the DandD model.- - -
22 But you cannot do the cost analysis within the 23 DandD model, and you may not have a very realistic estimate 24 of the distribution of the source term and the actual 25 remedial cost or what would be required for remediation.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
46 1 So, for some of the more simple sources, DandD may be !
2 appropriate, but beyond that,'in the ALARA analysis, it 3 probably is not.
4 [ Slide.]
5 Question 9 is, does the dose model include, 6 software graphical output for portraying dose versus time
-7 for various exposure pathways, for specific radionuclides 8 and total effective dose equivalents, including 9 uncertainties?
10 Yes to everything but the uncertainties. I'm 11 going to do a demo tomorrow afternoon during the break, and 12 then you can come and look at all the different graphical 13 outputs for the DandD Code, and I would be happy to show 14 those to you.
15 But, essentially, you can show the total effective
- 16. dose equivalent versus time versus pathway, by radionuclide, 17 by parent. You can roll everything up into the parent.or 18 you can show it as part of the parent in each of the i
19 daughter products.
i 20 [ Slide.] ,
l 21 Question 10 - .and the final question, I might add. -
22 -- is, can the analytical method consider various 23 restrictions ~on land use and site boundaries in calculating 24 concentrations and/or doses and in determining monitoring 25 strategies? I guess this is a common theme.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
47 1 Due to the inherent spatial limitations of the 2 Code, it's going to be more difficult to look at these, and 3 you should not use them to do your final plan. You might be 4 able to use it at a screening level, in a lot of senses, in 5 the same way that you use it as a screening level for dose.
6 You can use DandD for the evaluation when the s
7 restrictions fail to compare it to 100 mrem standard o'r the 8 500 mrem standard. It can be used to for the case where 9 restrictions are in place to look at just the drinking, the 10 off-site dose due to drinking water, or by eliminating or 11 modifying the pathways.
12 DandD output can be used to define important 13 pathways and radionuclides. Again, this gives you a 14 screening level for moving into a more complicated analysis 15 or a more detailed analysis of what your potential 16 remediation or restricted use options are.
17 That's my last slide, and I'll entertain '
18 questions.
19 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you, Theresa. As Theresa 20 was saying during her talk, the 10 questions she mentioned 21 are the 10 questions developed by the NRC staff. We'll have - >
22 copies of those on the table tomorrow.
23 She also mentioned a demonstration. We're going 24 to have demonstrations in the atrium outside of the 25 auditorium tomorrow, starting at about 9:00. We'll have an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and a half for lunch tomorrow, and that's when you'll l 2 have an opportunity, during the break.
3 Well, if no one has questions for Theresa, then j 4 we'll move on to our next speaker, Dr. Charlie Yu from 5 Argonne National Laboratory, who will be talking about the 6 RESRAD Code. Dr. Yu will introduce his two colleagues, 7 [ Slide.] '
8 DR. YU: Thank you. First, I would like to thank 9 NRC for giving us this opportunity to present RESRAD to you.
10 Our presentation will be organized in three parts. I will 11 talk about the introduction to the RESRAD family of codes, 12 followed by Andy Wallo's presentation on RESRAD history.
13 Andy is the co-author of the RESRAD code. He is' involved in j
, 14 the past since early 1980's in the development of the RESRAD 15 code. He is the director of the Air, Water & Radiation i
16 Division of EH-412,. DOE. '
17 After Andy's presentation, Dr. Ernie Faillace will 18 present all the rest of our presentation to answer those 10 19 questions. Dr. Faillace.is our principal instructor of the 20 RESRAD training workshops. We have conducted a lot of 21 training workshops, as you will see soon. . .
22 [ Slide.)
23 First, what is RESRAD? RESRAD is a family of 24 codes that we developed at Argonne National Laboratory for 25 U.S. DOE. RESRAD stands for Residual Radioactive Material ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 2000S (202) 842-0034 l
49 1 Guidelines computer codes. The RESRAD code is the first in 2 a series that we developed for DOE.
3 RESRAD is a pathways analysis program. It's 4 designed to derive cleanup criteria for radioactive 5 contaminated sites, and it can also be used to calcu, late a 6 radiation dose and excess lifetime cancer risk to an.on-site s
7 resident. An bn-site resident usually is a maximally 8 exposed individual or member of a critical population group.
9 [ Slide.]
10 On this slide, you can see the RESRAD family of 11 codes. The first one is RESRAD code. You will see in 12 Dr. Faillace's presentation all the pathways we consider in 13 RESRAD code.
14 On top of RESRAD, we have RESRAD-Probabilistic.
l 15 That's actually a pre-processor and post-processor that we 16 developed initially for RESRAD code to do uncertainty 17 analysie. However, this pre-processor and post-processor Je can be incorporated into any other codes, all the RESRAD 19 family of codes, to do uncertainty analysis.
20 Here you see the RESRAD-Build code for 21 radiologically contaminated sites. There are buildings on - .-
22 the site; the building may be contaminated also. So that's 23 why we developed this RESRAD-Build code, to evaluate 24 radiologically contaminated buildings, indoor contamination, 25 and our presentation today will be focusing on these two ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 1 computer code, RESRAD and RESRAD-Build code, designed for 2 DandD activities.
3 The next code is the RESRAD-Recycle code. The 4 Recycle code is designed to evaluate radiologically 5 contaminated metals and equipment and so on. ,
6 The next code is RESRAD-Baseline code. It's
'7 designed for conducting baseline risk assessment. You can 8 see the small icons there. That means RESRAD-Baseline has 9 both radionuclides in the database, and the user only needs 10 to input immediate concentrations, and the output is' dose 11 and risk.
12 The next code is RESRAD-Chem. RESRAD-Chem is a 13 chemical version of the RESRAD code. So it only has RESRAD 14 in it, but it has transport models similar to RESRAD code.
15 The next one is RESRAD-Ecorisk. As the name 16 indicates, it's designed to assess the risk to ecological 17 systems.
18 In addition to these codes, we also are developing 19 some other codes like RESRAD off-site codes. RESRAD is 20 designed for on-site dose assessment. The off-site model ,
21 will be able to handle off-site dose calculations,' and we . -.
22 expect to release the off-site model in the near future.
23 [ Slide.]
24 Currently, in the RESRAD code, we have Windows I 25 version 5.782. The DOS version was officially released in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
51 1 1989. The Windows version was officially released in 2 January 1997. Department of Energy is trying to see 3 whether, in the future, we're going to support a DOS version 4 of the code. So if anyone is still using DOS version of the 5 code, please send an e-mail to us or let us know so we can 6 make a decision whether, later on, we're going to continue s
7 to support a DOS version. I think most people are using the 8 Windows version now.
9 RESRAD-Build code, the DOS version was released in 10 December 1994, and Windows released in July of 1996.
11 Currently, we have version 2.2, which is a Windows versions.
12 All others of the RESRAD family of codes are for test and 13 evaluation purposes.
14 If anyone needs a' copy of RESRAD code, 15 RESRAD-Build code, any RESRAD family codes, or your version 16 of the code is not current, just send us an e-mail and we 17 will send it to you. The RESRAD family of codes is free of 18 charge to all federal agencies and their contractors.
19 With that, I'll introduce Mr. Andy Wallo to talk 20 about RESRAD history.
21 [ Slide.] - -
22 MR. WALLO: Thank you. Theresa's presentation 23 went through'the questions. We are also going through the 24 questions and trying to respond to all of the questions that 25 were set in the workshop. We're not restating the questions ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
52 l
1 as.we merge the answers, but I am answering those parts in I 2 number 1 that have to do with the history and the 4
3 development-of RESRAD, mainly because I think I'm one of the 4 few folks that have been involved in it continuously to some 5 degree throaghout its history.
6 Actually RESRAD was an integral part of the code 7 itself was the developments or guidelines for residual 8 radioactive material. Back in the early 80's, when we had a }
9 number of surplus facilities and formerly utilized sites, 10 the Department realized they needed guidelines in order to 11 release these properties, and so we were looking at methods 12 and standards to use for releasing the properties.
13 We held a couple of workshops in 1983 and 1984 14 that included representatives from our national laboratories 15 -- PNL, Los Alamos, Argonne. In addition, a number of 16 industry folks involved in the nuclear industry were invited 17 to the workshops.
18 We had representatives of all DOE field offices --
19 a good portion of the field offices involved in the cleanup 20 operations -- many DOE program offices, NRC representatives, 21 and EPA representatives, and the issue was how and the . .-
22 process we had used to develop standards.
23 The guidelines that were derived as a result of 24 these workshops were issued for comment and review within in 25 about mid-1984. The process at that time, those interim ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 842-0034 I i
53 1
guidelines were concentration limits that were derived using 2 the predecessor to the RESRAD model. We basically ran the 3 codes, came up concentration limits that all facilities 4 would supposedly meet and then apply ALARA to, so we had a 5 concentration limit and lower it by ALARA. Those 6
concentration limits would ensure that dose limits were met.
7 That did not receive good support across the '
8 complex or with those folks trying to implement it, and to 9 the next set was basically a determination. We wouldn't use 10 the generic soil concentration criteria. Rather, the DOE 11 guidelines would be dose-based and require an ALARA 12 assessment to derive the guidelines.
13 When we set those guidelines up and those 14 criteria, it was decided we needed a tool for folks 15 implementing the programs to do the dose assessments in 16 order to make the decisions on what the site-specific 17 cleanup standards should be.
18 That was the thrust that started the RESRAD 19 process and our development of RESRAD in assessing the tool 20 that would identify site-specific dose assessments based on 21 a multitude of scenarios, a multitude of land uses and -
22 different climate and hydrology situations, and be able to i 23 input into the ALARA process, not conduct it.
24 (Slide.)
25 One of the questions was, who sponsored it? This i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
54 1 code, the initial development was all sponsored by 2 Department of Energy. We wanted to use state-of-the-art 3 methodology, so Argonne was selected as the lead for 4 development of the code, but they got a lot of input from 5 the other national laboratories, and teams were set,up in 6 the labs to deal with various modules of development of '
7 RESRAD, whether.it be the groundwater, area factors. So 8 early on there was a substantial input from the other 9 national labs as Argonne began to develop it.
10 We wanted a code that was robust, accurate, and 11 traceable, and could be used to do a quick screening or a 12 reasonably detailed analysis to support the ALARA decisions.
13 We wanted some independent peer review and Senerally be user 14 friendly were the criteria we set out.
15 I'm not going to go through this, in the interest 16 of time, even though I set aside about six minutes for my 17 history talk. We'll probably do a written statement so NRC 18 will have for the record a more detailed history of RESRAD.
19 But being that we're so far ahead, I kind of feel I could go 20 on for a while.
21 Just quickly, how the Code development occurred,. .-
l 22 our first cut at it actually was to do the mainframe version 23 of it that was then converted to a PC code in '89. So 24 between 1985, when the first guidelines were developed, and 25 '89, when we actually released an approved code for use ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
55 1 within the Department for developing standards, we had about 2 four years of testing in there of the model and the code to 3 develop it.
4 Since '89, it has been the recommended code --
5 actually, since 1990, with DOE 5400.5, which took our 1985 6 guidelines and incorporated them into a DOE order. In 1993, I 7 we proposed the same guidelines, effectively, in proposed 10 8 CFR Part 834, and that's still our intent to publish them in 9 10 CFR Part 834.
10 There has been some evolution in the guidelines 11 and hence the way RESRAD code has been developed. Since 12 1985 and through 1997, pathways have been added; different 13 radionuclides have been added based upon user inputs and 14 also assessment of the activities.
15 In addition, our guidelines in 1985, when we wrote ,
16 them, just said, " Derive a number, something below 100, as 17 low as reasonably achievable." By 1990, when we issued 18 5400.5, we were using a dose constraint on the order of 19 about 30 mrem as the limit below which you had to do 20 population dose and select your cleanup standards. ,
j 21 I think that probably covers most of the history.. .
22 I can answer questions on the history. Ernie is going to go 23 through the presentation, answer the questions, and, as 24 Charlie said, a lot of materials from out training program.
25 DR. FAILLACE: Okay. I just want to make sure ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
56 1 this mike is working. It's working fine? Okay.
2 [ Slide.]
3 I would like to first lead off with our strong 4 track record of applying the RESRAD code. It has been used 5 by a number of federal agencies. We saw that it was,the 6 only code that was designed in DOE Order 5400.5 and also 7 will b'e in the proposed 10 CFR Part 834. It's to be used 8 for the evaluation of radioactively contaminated sites.
9 This includes not juEt the RESRAD code, but also the ,
10 RESRAD-Build code. l 11 NRC, through the numerous workshops that we've 12 taught here, as well, has used the RESRAD code for 13 evaluation by licensees who are .Lnvolved in decommissioning, 14 also in NRC staff evaluations of watte disposal requests, 15 and also, finally, for dose evaluation of sites that are i
16 being reviewed by NRC staff.
17 It has also been used by EPA in the analysis of 18 radiation site cleanup regulations, and also has been 19 considered by the EPA Science Advisory Board.
20 [ Slide.] .
21 We also have a strong track record among our . -
22 customers. The RESRAD code has been applied to over 300 23 sites around the United Stat.es and has been used extensively 24 by several universities, including Oregon State and the 25 University of Tennessee, as a health physics teaching tool, 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 57 1 and it has even been applied internationally in both code l 2 comparison studies, as well as actual site cleanups 3 overseas.
4 [ Slide.]
5 There's a number of documents that accompany the 6 RESRAD family of codes. Primary among these are the. user 7 manuals. The first one here is the actual user manual for 8 the RESRAD code. We also have a user manual for the 9 RESRAD-Build code and another set of supporting documents 10 that support both RESRAD and the other family of codes, such 11 as the data collection handbook, a literature search that 12 we've done on transfer factors for radionuclides, a ;
13 sensitivity analysis report.
14 The next couple of ones are for validation and 15 verification. We have a verification report for RESRAD and 16 a benchmarking report and, also, a number of other user 17 guides for the other family of codes.
18 [ Slide.]
19 A key thing in developing computer pingrams is to 20 have an extensive and complete QA/QC program in place. The 21 code is under configuration. control plan. There are . .-
22 periodic modifications to the code that have to be reviewed 23 and meet some strict peer review guidelines.
24 We've also had independent verification of the 25 code by an outside contractor. We've benchmarked the RESRAD ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
58 1 code against a number of other pathways analysis codes. It 2 has been included in code comparison studies that take 3 Chernobyl data and are sponsored by International Atomic 4 Energy Agency.
5 And'also, it has been used extensively in,the 6 field, and we've requested all the users of the RESRAD code, 7 if they could possibly send us the documents that they've 8 generated that have used the RESRAD code so that we can 9 compile a database library of all the places where it has 10 been used.
11 -
[ Slide.)
12 I would like to summarize now some of the major 13 features of the code. We'll go into more detail on these 14 later on in the presentation. The first point is that it's 15 a PC-based code. We left the IBM mainframe several years 16 ago. It's easy to install, and we believe it a very 17 user-friendly code.
18 It performs multimedia pathways analysis. The 19 original RESRAD code starts with contamination in soil and 20 moves through various environmental pathways to give us ,
21 doses to individuals. - -
22 It's flexible enough so that we can simulate 23 multiple exposure scenarios, ranging anywhere from 24 residential or industrial use scenarios all the way up 25 through subsistence farming scenarios.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
59 1 For all of the parameters that are included in the 4
2 code, we provide re.asonably conservative default values.
l 3 There's a very large number of these parameters; it's over J 4 150 parameters.
)
5 We have several tools that we've incorpora,ted in 6 the RESRAD code to perform sensitivity and uncertainty 7 analysis. We use these tools to identify the important 8 parameters, the ones we should focus our resources on more 9 than for other parameters.
10 The code itself maintains a mass balance of 11 source. We track the radionuclides in the source and 12 throughout the environment, in air or water. We model the 13 groundwater transport of radionuclides and treat the K i
14 products separately. This is an important feature of this I 15 code.
16 And also, we incorporate special models for 17 special radionuclides such as radon, tritium and Carbon-14 18 that may behave differently from other radionuclides in the 19 environment.
20 [ Slide.] .
21 Just an overview of the computer environment for- -
22 RESRAD. It's not a very demanding code. It takes up 10 Mb 23 of your hard disk space and 4 Mb of RAM. Most computers 24 nowadays can easily handle that. We have a DOS version, but 25 we've started to move more and more towards the Windows ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l l
)
60 l'
1- environment, and we have a full-fledged-Windows version that 2 was released officially. earlier this year.
3 The installation is'real simple. It takes'four 4 ' disks, which are self-extracting like most other Windows 5 programs. We have a very user-friendly user interface. It~
{
6 makes use of the graphical Windows environment. There is a i 7 lot of interactive help files that, at just the touch of 5 8 button, a function key gives you the help on any one of the.
9 parameters.
10 We have a main menu where we start things off, and 11 we can access any of the major data and function categories, 12 such as accessing input, output, graphics, and any of the 13 dose factors that we use.
14' [ Slide.]
15 RESRAD is a pathways analysis code, and these are .
16 the pathways that we assess. We assess external radiation 17 exposure from radionuclides in soil. I'll later on in the 18 talk focus on the RESRAD-Build code. For now, I'm just 19 going to focus on RESRAD for soils.
20 We also look at internal radiation pathways. We 21 have a number of inhalation pathways.- We look at inhalation 22 of particulates, inhalation of tritiated water vapor, or 23 Carbon-14 and CO2, and also we look at the inhalation of 24' radon and radon progeny. i l
25 Then we have a nunber of ingestion pathways -- l
.)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034 l
61 1 ingestion'of drinking water from either a well or a surfage 2 water source; the ingestion of produce, meat and milk; -
3: ingestion of fish; and also the incidental ingestion of the 4 contaminated soil.
5' [ Slide.] ,
~6 This slide here may be a little difficult for you 7 see. I'll just point the features ou'c here. This is the 8 residual radioactive material in soil that we start off with 9 -- our source -- and work our way through various 10 environmental pathways -- I mentioned the nine pathways that 11 we have -- and three exposure pathways, and finally end up' 12 with a calculation of a dose or cancer risk to the 13 individual.
14' This is a fcrward calculation that's entered into e' 15 RESRAD where the user would enter the concentration of the .
16 radionuclide in soil and come up with a dose to the 17 receptor. The code.also simultaneously performs a back 18 -calculation where we set ourselves a dose limit and this is 19 a user input quantity, and we can work our way back through 20 the various pathways to come up with a concentration in soil ,
l 21 so that we do not exceed those dose limits. . ,-
22 Some of these pathways'can be fairly complex. We 23 can go anywhere from simple direct soil ingestion to a 24 complex pathway involving livestock where there is 25 contributions to contamination in the meat or the milk ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
62 1 directly from the soil, from the ingestion of fodder, and 2 from the ingestion of contaminated water by the livestock.
=
3- [ Slide.]
4 I mentioned that we can analyze multiple 5 scenarios. .Certainly you would want to analyze the current 6 use for a site, and any plausible future land uses fo:e those 7 sites can be easily simulated. We do this by suppressing 8 one or more-of the pathways.
9 By default we come up with all of the nine 10 pathways for a subsistence farming scenario, and we can just 11 take out those that do not apply for the actual scenario 12 that we're investigating. And then, within those scenarios, 13 we can tailor the occupancy factors and the consumption 14 parameters according to that scenario.
15 Some of the typical exposure' scenarios that we've 16 investigated include industrial, recreational, residential, 17 and subsistence farming. These are just general headings 18 here, but you can have any variation. For example, within a 19 residential scenario, you can assess a suburban or an urban 20 ~ scenario where you might or might not have the ingestion of 21 plant foods or you might have or might not have the . -
22 ingestion of contaminated water.
23 (Slide.]
24 See that in the next series of slides here. Here, 25 I'm showing the industrial use scenario, where we might only ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
63 1 have a few pathways active. The example here shows soil 2 ingestion, external gamma inhalation of dust and radon.
3 [ Slide.]
4 Then we can easily add additional pathways when we 5 move to a subsistence farming scenario or any of the 6 intermediate scenarios. Here, the industry is substituted 7' by a home, and we might have the ingestion of contaminated 8 drinking water, the ingestion of contaminated plant foods, 9 and ingestion of contaminated meat or milk, and, finally, we 10 could also have the ingestion of contaminated fish from an 11 on-site pond.
12 [ Slide.]
13 The next series of slides will talk about the 14 RESRAD parameter database, and it's really divided into two 15 components. We have contaminant-specific parameters and 16 site- and scenario-specific parameters. j 17 In the first category, we have those parameters 18 that aren't changed very frequently by the user. However, 19 we do allow the user to change these and save them in a 20 user-specific data file. Any changes the user makes are 21 reflected in the output report. We show the defaults and . -
22 then, next to the defaults, we show the changes that are 23 made by the' user, so it's easy to check on where things have 24 been altered.
25 The defaults that are provided are conservative ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
64 1 and, again, are derived from federal guidance reports or 2 . literature searches, and these have all been well 3 documented.
4 For the site- and scenario-specific parameters, 5 the defaults we have are representative of national average 6
values or reasonable maximum values for a subsistence 7 farming scenario. Again, for any other scenario, you would 8 probably want to go ahead and change those values.
9 [ Slide.]
10 To focus in on the contaminant-specific database, 11 we include 84 radionuclides. All of these radionuclides 12 have half-lifes greater than one month. However, implicit 13 in these 84 radionuclides are some shorter-lived 14 radionuclides. For example, we might have Cesium-137 plus 15 its short-lived daughter, Barium-137M, and the dose 16 conversion factors for the shorter-lived radionuclides are 17 rolled into the longer-lived radionuclide parent.
18 .
We also have a database for.the decay and ingrowth 19 data for each of the radionuclides. We have a dose 20 conversion factor database, a cancer slope factor database, ~
21 and a database for food transfer factors that account for . .-
22- the movement of the radionuclides from the soil to plants, 23 meat, milk, or fish.
24 [ Slide.]
25 This is an example of one of the screens you would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 a
65 1 see in the Windows version. Here is the main menu of the 2 code. Here we have our dose factor library for U-238. This 3 is our nuclide selection list, and this is an example of a 4 help screen that we might pop up with the F2 function key.
5 [ Slide.] .
6 The dose conversion factors and slope factors that 7
are used in the RESRAD code are all derived from federal 8 guidance, namely EPA reports -- Federal Guidance-Report 9 No. 12 for external exposure dose conversion factors; 10 Federal Guidance Report No. 11 for the inhalation and 11 ingestion dose conversion factors. And finally, for the 12 slop factors, there are updates of the Health Effects 13 Assessment Summary Tables that we incorporate into new 14 releases of the RESRAD code.
15 [ Slide.]
16 We now move on to the site-specific and 17 scenario-specific parameters. I mentioned there were over 18 150 of these, and they can be grouped into a number of i
19 categories.
20 They can be grouped by physical parameters, which 21 would include the size of the contaminated zone, the depth. -
22 of the contaminated zone, physical properties of the soil 23 such as density and porosity.
24 We can also have hydrological parameters such as 25 the conductivity, the hydrolic gradient, water table depth, :
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 66 1 et cetera.
'2 We have geochemical parameters that define the 3' retardation of the radionuclides and the leaching of the 4 radionuclides from the source and the transport through the 5 various layers of soil.
6 We have a number of meteorological parameters that
-7 assess the effect on the source'from infiltration, erosion, 8 runoff, and.the release of radionuclides in air through the.
9 mass loading' factor or the dust loading factor.
10 And then, finally, these last parameters are the 11 usage and consumption parameters, and these are really what 12 define each of the specific scenarios or land use scenarios 13 that we might have. We might have different ingestion rates 14 or different occupancy factors for an industrial use 15 scenario, as opposed to a residential use scenario. 3 1
16 [ Slide.]
17 The nicest thing about RESRAD is that it only 18 requires input parameters that are used in your selected 19 pathways, so it doesn't overwhelm you with a need for data
- 20. if'you are suppressing a lot of pathways. It will only 21 require information for those specific pathways. . .
l 22 The guidance on selecting these input values is j 2 3_- giving in a number of reports that we've published. The 24 primarily among these is the Data Collection Handbook. It
- 25. gives justification for the default values that we've used, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
67 1 _as well as give you a method for collecting site-specific 2 data and the range of' literature values that have been 3 collected.
4 .More importantly, however, might be this other 5 tool that's used in'RESRAD. It's a sensitivity and, 6 uncertainty analysis modules, and we can use these modules 7 to focus on those parameters for which we really should e
- 8. using site-specific data.
-9 [ Slide.]
10 This next slide here just is an example, again, of 11 an input screen in RESRAD. Up here I've highlighted, there 12 are some buttons where we have active pathways here, 13 external exposure.and inhalation -- and a number of 14 ingestion pathways that have been suppressed.
15 Here we have ingestion pathway parameters that are 16 not-required because we've suppressed those pathways.
17 They're grayed out. These ones in black here are the only 18 ones that are being used by the code for this particular 19 scenario.
20 [ Slide.]
21 To_ talk a little bit more about sensitivity .
22- analysis, the way RESRAD performs sensitivity analysis is 23 through a graphic method. It doesn't compute it 24 numerically, so that we can see what the effects are on the
-25 variability'in a parameter that we can change up to five ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
'1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034 l
68
{
1 parameters at a time within.a run. But again, you could do 2 multiple runs to simulate additional sensitivity functions.
3 So that we can see what the effect of changing a 4 values of a parameter P has on the response. In RESRAD, the ;
5 response is typically a dose as a function of time o,r the 6 cleanup criteria as a function of time or a concentration in 7 various media as a function of'cime, so that when we have a 8 high sensitivity, that means that even small variations in P l l
9 result in large variations in the dose. I 10 These are the parameters that we really want to 11 focus most of our resources on to set priorities for 12 gathering additional input data and, from the regulator's 13 perspective, these would be the parameters that you would 14 want to basically put under the microscope.
15 [ Slide.]
16 Just an example, here we show parameter 17 variability where we might different amounts of 18 precipitation at the site. This one here might be 19 representative of the default scenario in RESRAD, but your 20 site might be in an arid area of the United States, so this 21- shows what effect departing from the default would have on . .
22 your doses.
23 [ Slide.]
24 This slide here shows what you would get after a 25 run with a variation on the precipitation by a factor of 2.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
69 1 The base case is typically in the middle, and here we have 2 the extremes.
3 [ Slide.] .
4 We see that doesn't really have much of an effect 5 early on in time, but over a time, when we start get, ting 6 into the'HP Laserjet Series II300HPLASEII.PRStime at.which i
7 the peak dobe occurs.
j 8 This can be done with pretty much all of the 9 parameters in the RESRAD code. We can run sensitivities on 10 all of them and possibly get different effects depending on 11 which parameter we're looking at.
12 Different graphics can be selected here. We can 13 look at, as here, dose as a function of time, or 14 concentrations as functions of time. We can look at various )
15 pathways and various radionuclides independently.
16 [ Slide.] .
17 This is a screen showing the uncertainty analysis 18 input in the RESRAD code. We have up to five distribution 19 types that we can pick from. In this particular example, 20 I'm looking at a triangular distribution for my area of ,
21 contaminated zone ranging from 500 to 2,000 square meters. . -
22 This, again, can be done for most parameters in 1 1
23 the code. The code will then run through a number of I 24 iterations -- in this example, 100 iterations -- and then 25 provide you a graphical outlook as well as a tabulated ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 70 1 output of your results as a function of time.
2 [ Slide.]
3 Now, I would like to go on a little bit about how 4 we calculate the guidelines. Guidelines, as well as doses, 5 risks and concentrations, are calculated for the 84 ,
6 radionuclides that I mentioned.
7 Some of these 84 radionuclides were added a few ,
8 years ago upon NRC request, and it's relatively easy to add 9 additional radionuclides. Currently, only Argonne really is 10 authorized to add additional radionuclides, but we have done 11 that upon request of outside agencies. l 12 The way we deal with chemical effects, again, is 13 we don't treat chemicals explicitly in the RESRAD code. We i
14 do that in the RESRAD-Chem code. However, chemical effects 15 that impact the transport of radionuclides are considered by 16 the user when they select their distribution coefficients 17 for groundwater transport and for transport through other 18 media by selecting biological transfer factors.
19 Also, the chemical form of the radionuclide is 20 taken into account by the selection of an appropriate dose .
21 conversion factor. I also mentioned earlier, we have some - -
22 special models that were developed for radon, tritium and 23 Carbon-14.
24 [ Slide.)
25 The transport model in RESRAD, we have a central ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
71 1 model for leaching which accounts for sorption-desorption 2 ion exchange. The key parameter here is the input of a 3 distribution coefficient to calculate that. However, these 4 are not always available, and we provide the user with a 5 number of alternative methods to come up with these ,
6 distribution coefficients shown here.
s 7
I think I mentioned earlier that we treat the 8 daughter radionuclides independently -- certainly the 9 longer-lived daughter radionuclides independently when 10 they're transported from the source to the exposure point 11 through the groundwater pathways. And again, the transfer !
12 factors take into account any other movement of 4
13 radionuclides through the environment from soil to '
14 biological media.
15 [ Slide.] -
16 This just lists the special model that's used for 17 radon. We consider two isotopes, radon-222 and radon-220, 18 and consider multimedia radon transport in a soil, water and 19 building materials. The radon model in RESRAD is relatively 20 simple compared to the one in RESRAD-Build, which is more of 21 an indoor air model for radon. -
22 We do account for ingrowth from the parents that 23 generate radon, and any time you would enter a radionuclide, 24 say from the natural uranium or thorium series, you have the 25 option of activating the radon pathway. Otherwise, for any ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
12 1 other radionuclides, that pathway is automatically 2 suppressed.
3 [ Slide.]
4 The next slide here shows some of the special 5 models that are used for tritium and Carbon-14. We have 6 different release mechanism isotopes. We have evaporation 7 of tritiated water vapor off gassing of Carbon-14 into a CO2 8 form. That CO2 then gets incorporated into plants through 9 photosynthesis, and that's a transfer mechanism that's 10 considered in RESRAD.
11 There are also some particular exposure pathways 12 for tritiated water vapor. We can also have dermal 13 absorption, and that's accounted for in the code, as well.
14 [ Slide.)
15 The next series of slides will deal with the 16 temporal and spatial considerations that are made in the 17 code. First off, the doses, guidelines, risks and 18 concentrations are' all calculated as a function of time, so 19 this is a time-dependent analysis code.
20 ,
We can assess time horizons up to 100,000 years, 21 but the default time horizon, again,.is typically set to . -
22 1,000 years. The code also calculates the time at which a 23 peak dose occurs, not just for all of the radionuclides 24 together, but for each individual radionuclide, because some 25 radionuclides may reach a peak at other times than the rest ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
73 1 of the radionuclides. l 2 For cancer risk calculations, we do a 3- time-integrated risk any time the exposure duration'is set i I
4 to a value greater than one year because concentrations in l 5 the environment of these radionuclides might change, and so
, {
6 the accompanying risk might vary, as well, over time. t
'7 This also brings me to a point to stress that '
8 RESRAD is a chronic exposure assessment code, and usually 9 you want to use this for exposure ~ durations of one year or i 10 -more. However, you can assess shorter exposure times. For 11 example, you might look at external gamma radiation over a I 12 short period of cleanup for ALARA purposes.
13 We also take into account implicitly short-lived ;
14 progeny, with the exception of radon, which we treat l 15 explicitly. These are all assumed to be equilibrium with I 16 the parent radionuclides, so while we have 84 radionuclides i
17 that are treated explicitly within those, I would say,40 or )
18 50 percent more would be indirect decay products.
19 [ Slide.]
20 Now going on to spatial considerations, we really j 21 don't have any restrictions on the source. We could, of . .
22 course, consider unlimited dimensions of the source, but in i 23 reality, most sources are going to be a finite size, and we 24 use scaling factors that account for this finite area size 25 and thickness.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
74 1 We can handle vertically distributed sources 2 through summing contributions of the individual layers, and 3 we also can incorporate hot spots by doing a separate run 4 that focuses just on the hot spot area.
5 We have a number of groundwater models tha,t are 6 use in the code. For the on-site model, we use a 7 one-dimensional transfer code for conservatis'm. It does not 8 account for lateral dispersion. However, for the off-site 9 code, we have three dimensional dispersion, lateral as well 10 as longitudinal dispersion.
11 The code is also being modified to link it to the 12 CAP-88 model for air dispersion and doses to off-site 13 individuals.
14 (Slide.)
15 RESRAD can be used as a tool for the assessment 16 and comparison of remedial alternatives, and it's done as 17 follows. It can take the output or generate input for 18 either alternative design models or cost benefit models.
19 One of the features in RESRAD that you might want 20 to use in conjunction with these two models would be the 21 sensitivity analysis feature. An example that I show here . .-
22 is that we can assess the changes in dose as a function of 23 cover depth'or field material that might be placed on top of 24 the contaminated site or, also, in reductions in the waste 25 thickness.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
75 1 The output, then, that's generated by RESRAD is in {
2 the form of dose versus time, and the dose can then be i 3 entered into a cost benefit model.
4 [ Slide.]
5 Here is just a graphical analysis of a tool, this 6 sensitivity analysis tool. This shows the dose from. s 7 Cobalt-60, and we have a bensitivity analysis on the cover I 8 depth. Again, we show dose as a function of time, and we 9 see that by increasing the cover thickness from the base 10 case here, we substantially reduce our dose. Again, this 11 can be used as a tool for assessing whether we want to add 12 more covering, whether it's cost effective to do so.
13 [ Slide.)
14 khe next set of slides will deal with the QA 15 issues in RESRAD. Basically, I would like to point out that 16 RESRAD has been extensively QA'd. All the calculational 17 results are verified by hand calculations, and this has been 18 documented all the way since 1989, when the first PC version 19 came out.
20 We also, again, had an independent contractor come 21 in to verify the RESRAD code which, at.the time, was at - .-
22 version 5.03, so fairly recently.
23 We've also participated in a number of code 24 comparison meetings sponsored by the International Atomic 25 Energy Agency. In some cases, these have used Chernobyl ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i l
'76 1 The next couple of slides are an example of one of
~
data.
2 those comparison studies. - i 3 [ Slide.]
4 Essentially, what is done in these studies is that 5 the users are given a problem where they're given a limited 6 amount of data -- for example, air concentrations of 7
radionuclides or concentrations of the radionuclides in soil l
8
-- and then are asked to estimate what the doses would be to 9 the population or concentrations of radionuclides in various 10 other media.
11 Then they provide their estimates with a best case 12 estimate and an estimate of their error, and then, after 13 _they have been submitted, they are then compared with the 14 official numbers released -- in this case, by the Finnish 15 government -- which are represented by the solid dark line 16 here, with the accompanying error estimate being the dashed 17 lines above and below.
18 The RESRAD code for the ingestion dose fell pretty 19 much right on the line and overestimated slightly the total 20 dose, primarily due to an overestimate of the external gamma ,
21 dose. - - - --
22 [ Slide.]
23 The code itself has been used in a number of 24 benchmarking exercises. .There have been three major 25 studies. This one here was referenced earlier, where we j
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034 !
77 1 compared RESRAD with six other codes, including the final 2 version of NUREG/CR-5512.
3 Again, we have to do this in spreadsheet fashion, 4
because the DandD code was not released yet, so we actually' 5 did hand calculations on the code. We've also compa, red it 6 with MEPAS and MM-SOILS codes. This is an ongoing effort, J
7 and since 1995, the PRESTO code has been added to this 8 exercise.
9 Some of the results that we obtained here showed 10 that we've got some pretty good consistency for the simple 11 pathways such as inhalation of particulates, but when you 12 start getting into more complex pathways, there was some 13 divergence. Some of this divergence actually led to some 14 modifications to either our code or other codes that were 15 included in the analysis.
16 (Slide.]
- 17 All of this ends up giving us a lot of feedback.
18 The next slide here shows where we get these sources of 19 feedback.
20 First of all, users. We basically get anywhere 21 from three to four, sometimes even five or six requests - . .-
22 at least the ones that come to me -- of assistance, and it's 23 either through phone calls that I get or through e-mail .
24 correspondence. I try to get back to the users as soon as I 25 get their messages, especially if it's a relatively simple ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034
l 78 1 question that I can get right back to them.
2 We also have a Web page that's available to the 3 public that basically gives general information on the 4 codes. It gives updates on the status of each code. We 5 show how things have changed from one version to the next.
6 And also, we have a listing of upcoming training workshops 7 so that the users that are interested in attending them can 8 contact us to make arrangements.
9 We also keep an extensive computer database of all 10 of our users. Each time we give workshops or distribute the 11 code, we will enter the addresses of the users. Any time we 12 have major code updates, we'll send out either a survey form 13 or a questionnaire if they need an update of the code.
14 From all of this, we do get feedback, not just 15 through these surveys, but also when we're conducting the 16 workshops and through these technical assistance means of 17 phone and e-mail correspondence.
18 [ Slide.]
19 I'll talk a little bit about the Argonne RESRAD 20 Software Quality Control Plan here. This is just the 21 cornerstone of the QA plan. In this plan here, all the - -
22 changes to the RESRAD code must be approved by a project 23 leader and a program manager.
24 Any modifications have to go through a gauntlet of 25 peer review. Essentially, we have to have four sign-offs i
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
79 1 here at various levels. Once a modification is completed, 2 we have a number of modifications that might bet 3 incorporated into the next version.
4 So all of these modifications are looked at as a 1
5 whole to make sure that there's no conflicts between, '
6 modifications. Again, changes to the code are generated not 7 just internally, but also there are some requests that are 8 either made by our sponsors or by various field users.
9 -[ Slide.)
10 I would just like to emphasize the training aspect 11 of the code. We've been conducting training workshops since 12 1991. We've held over 60 RESRAD and RESRAD-Build workshops l
13 at various sites around the country. This just gives a !
14 breakdown of the organizations that have co-sponsored the 15 workshops. It looks like NRC here is in the majority, 16 followed closely by DOE. A few other ones have been 17 co-sponsored by EPA and other agencies, such as the Corps of
- 18. Engineers or state health organizations.
19 [ Slide.)
20 The next set of slides here deals with how we 21 would apply RESRAD to complex problems, how we would handle. .
22 multiple sources and multiple receptors. Here I have just a 23 contract and compare for the two codes, RESRAD and 24 RESRAD-Build.
25 In terms of multiple sources, this can be done in j l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
80 1 RESRAD by doing separate runs, and then you can super-impose 2 the results by exporting the numbers to a spreadsheet, and-3 then you can sum them and plot them out, but you have to do 4 that separately, in separate runs.
5 In RESRAD-Build, we can account for up to ,10 6 sources and 10 receptors or receptor locations in each run, 7 so it is a little more flexible in terms'of locations of.
8 sources and receptors.
9 In' terms of geometric formulation, I mentioned
- 10. earlier there is no real limitations on sizes of the 11 contaminated areas in RESRAD, and finite sizes are accounted-12 for by scaling factors. We can handle multiple unsaturated 13 zones, as well as a saturated zone, a contaminated zone and 14 a cover zone, and there's really no restrictions on the 15 dimensions, as I mentioned. '
16 For RESRAD-Build, we can model not just one room, 17 but up to three rooms, and have an air model that moves -
18 contaminants from one room to the next. We can model up to 19 four source types, including volume, area, line and point 20 sources, so there is a lot of flexibility in modeling your ,
21 source there. The source, again, can be in a different room -
22 than the receptor, and the receptor might still receive a 23 dose from that.
24 We do consider shielding, and we account for eight 25 types of shielding materials that the user can use. Again, i
\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i 81 1 no restrictions on dimensions. _One' nice thing with 2 RESRAD-Build is that we can simulate a delayed release of 3 the source so that we can look at a. period of occupation and 4 then, after a few years, look at a renovation scenario 5 immediately following the occupational scenario.
4 6
~ In terum of combining,. adding or suppressing 7 pathways, these two codes are real flexible. In RESRAD we 8
can model as little as one or as many as nine pathways -- it 9.
doesn't matter what the combination is -- and the same is 10 I true for RESRAD-Build, where we have a range of one through I 11 six pathways that we can assess in a' single run.
12 [ Slide.] !
13 I would like to talk a little bit about how RESRAD 14 'has been used in applying DOE's ALARA policy. First of all, l 15 again -- this will always keep coming up -- the RESRAD 16 sensitivity analysis feature is one of the best tools that 17 we can use. We can also use multiple runs,.but we can do 18 this to rapidly evaluate doses for different remediation 19 scenarios. We showed the example earlier of adding more or 20 less cover.
21 This code has been used as a tool for ALARA . .
22 analysis at a number of sites in the DOE complex, including 23 Hanford and Fernald, and it has also been included in case 24 studies =in the draft DOE ALARA standard. Here is an example 25 of some of the fuse wrap sites at which it has been applied.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
82 1 [ Slide.]
2 The next slide here just shows an application of a 3 case where the RESRAD code was used in setting the ALARA 4 level. Here we see a Uranium-238 cleanup guideline as a 5 function of contaminated soil volume. This can be s,een as a 6 surrogate for dose and this as a surrogate for cost. So 7 again, data that was generated by RESRAD was input into this 8 model to come up with this graph here.
9 (Slide.]
10 The next couple of slides, again, emphasize the 11 graphic nature of RESRAD. I should mention, also, that we 12 have text output reports. They just don't translate nicely 13 into viewgraphs, so I've been strictly emphasizing the 14 graphic nature of RESRAD. But we do have text reports with 15 actual numbers, and probably too many significant digits for .
16 each of those. .
17 This gives you a nice visual feedback of what's 18 happening at your site. In this particular example, we have 19 'three radionuclides. We have our total dose contribution 20 from those three radionuclides. We see that in this 21 particular example, one radionuclide dominates the dose . ..
22 early in time, and then another radionuclide in the future 23 starts dominating the dose contributions.
24 This is due to the fact that you might have 25 water-independent pathways at first, and then the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. *
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 83 1
contaminants reach the groundwater, and all of a sudden you 2 have a different radionuclide that greatly affects the dose {
3 through the drinking water pathway.
4 [ Slide.]
5 Same case, just a different view. Here we have 6 the contribution by pathways. Again, dose is a function of a
7 m time, and we see that we start off with a dominant pathway i 1
8 -- in this example, plant ingestion and maybe a little bit 9 of external gamma exposure. But then, once we get into the 10 groundwater, the dominant dose becomes drinking water.
11 [ Slide.]
12 Next slide here just shows an example of what you 13 might get graphically from doing an uncertainty analysis 14 run. Here again, dose as a function of time. This green 15 line here just represents the average of -- in the example 16 that I had, we had 100 runs -- the average dose value over 17 time of those 100 runs and the standard deviation about 18 those average values and the minimum and maximum values 19 represented here in red.
20 (Slide .-]
21 Finally here, I would like to, in answering the ,.
22 questions, we can use RESRAD as a tool for monitoring 23 strategies. Her we show another graphic example where 24 we've divided the dose into the water-independent component 25 and the water-dependent component.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
84 i 1 So maybe if this portion of the dose is 2
contributed primarily through the inhalation pathway, we '
3 would focus on airborne monitoring, and this portion here i 4
would indicate that, at some point in the future, we might 5
have a groundwater problem, so we might start planni,ng for 6 groundwater monitoring, as wel3. l
\
7 [ Slide.]
8 We can also use this as a tool to set data quality 9 objectiver, This is a different type of slide. We show 10 concentration of a radionuclide in drinking water as a 11 function of time. We see that concentration is 0 until we 12 get past breakthrough, when the contaminant gets into the 13 well.
14 We reach a peak, and this is the estinated peak 15 concentration that we might expect, so at this point we can )
16 say this is the type of instrumentation that we might need 17 or the type of sensitivity that we might need to estimate 18 what the concentration is of that radionuclide.
19 [ Slide.)
20 And now, leading from RESRAD into RESRAD-Build, I 21 would just like to summarize that the original RESRAD code 22 was targeted for soil contamination, which would then move 23 through the environment through foodstuff and water 24 contamination until it gets to a human receptor. Most of 25 these are natural processes that are involved.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters
,1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
85
- 1. However, the RESRAD-Build code focuses on 2 contamination in buildings, in man-made products and air 3 flows, which are really set within a building that are not 4 natural phenomena, which would then lead to exposures to 5 individuals inside those buildings, either through normal 6 building occupancy, renovation or DandD activities in those s
7 buildings.
8 [ Slide.]
9 I would just like to go through the RESRAD-Build 10 pathways now. We start off with our source -- which can be 11 a volume source as shown here, or possibly an area source, 12 point or line source -- and a receptor that is exposed to 13 those sources by a number of pathways.
14 We have the inhalation pathways, external gamma 15 and ingestion. We can simulate the inhalation of radon and 16 radon decay products, radon diffusing out of the source into j 17 the room air, direct gamma exposure from the source to the i i
18 receptor, and we can account for any amount of shielding ;
19 I between that source and the receptor, and direct ingestion 20 of portions of that source by that receptor. I 21 There are some indirect pathways that make use of- .-
22 the air flow model in RESRAD-Build. We have a release of 23 particulates, uniform mixing in the room air, deposition 24 onto surfaces which lead to a number of pathways.
25 These are the inhalation of particulates, exposure ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 86 l
1 through external gamma from immersion in a cloud of 2 particulates, and from particulates deposited onto a floor, 3 and, finally, indirect ingestion by picking up contaminants i
4 from horizontal surfaces or floors and ingesting them. '
5 [ Slide.) .,
6 The next slide just illustrates the basic problem 7 in RESRAD. This shows the one-room model. Again, we'll see 8 in the next slide that we can have up to three rooms. We 9 define the coordinate system and locate the source within 10 that coordinate system, the receptor within that coordinate I
11 ' system, and define the ventilation rate. Again, we aren't 12 limited to one source and one receptor. We can have one 13 source and then simulate the receptor at various locations.
14 [ Slide.] 4 l
15 We can move from the one-room model, and we don't i 16 necessarily have to.have the source and the receptor in the 17 same room. They could be in separate rooms -- move to a 18 two-room model all the way to a three-room model and put'the 19 source in the third room. It can affect the receptor either 20 directly through direct gamma impacting the receptor, and .
21 the user would define shielding between the floors. . -
22 This is just a schematic, by the way. We can 23 simulate a three-room model that's like a ranch layout, as 24 opposed to a three-story building.
25 Not only is this receptor affected by external ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
87 1 gamma, but possibly also by the ventilation model that's 2 applied in this building. We can have particulate radiation I 3 moving from room 3 through room 2 all the way down to room 1 4 affecting the receptor in that way.
5 [ Slide.] ..
6 Now, just a listing of some of the scenarios in 7 which you might apply RESRAD-Build. The most obvious one l
\
8 would be for DandD activities prior to release. Then i 9 post-DandD occupation, such as an office worker or 10 residential occupation, or renovation following your 11 occupational period.
12 We can also use this as a tool to assess no action 13 alternatives. Do we really need to clean up this building, 14 and what would the doses be if we did not? And finally, you 15 can apply it for ALARA analysis to look at various levels of 16 cleanup.
17 [ Slide.)
18 This is an example screen from RESRAD-Build, some l
19 of the areas where you would enter input parameters. There l 1
20 is some graphical feedback in RESRAD-Build. We don't have I 21 plots like we do in RESRAD. But here we show icons of .
22 sources shown in blue here and receptors shown in gray. The i 23 color indicates which rooms they're in and so forth.
24 There's a lot of feedback for the user. You enter 25 XYZ coordinates, but you also get to make sure that you've 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
'l i
88 1 placed the sources correctly.
2 [ Slide.] i
'3 Again, geometry is based on a Cartesian system 4 where you locate the receptor and the sources based on your 5 XYZ access. Volume or area sources can be considere,d, as l 6 well as line sources and point sources. I 7 [ Slide.] '
i 8 The next slide here is just an example of some of 9 the parameters you might see for the area source. We would 10 enter the dimensions of the area, the direction of the area, 11 whether we have removable or fixed contamination or a 12 combination of both, releases of radon'if we have radon 13 precursors, and releases of material to air.
14 Not all of the removable fraction is necessarily
?5 released to air. Some of it could be scraped off, vacuumed 16 off, and not be released to air. So we have separate 17 fractions for that.
18 Then we also account for the amount of time. We 19 let the user enter the amount of time it would take for that 20 removable fraction of the source to disappear and just leave I 21 the fixed portion. - .
22 [ Slide.)
23 This leads to the next slide here, where we again 24 do account for the source evolution over time. This is done 25 either through erosion for a volume source or by defining a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 89 1 lifetime of the removable portion. We also account for 2
decay and ingrowth as we do for RESRAD, which basically l 3 allows us to estimate what the doses are in future years if 4 we have ingrowth of radionuclides where those doses might 5 actually increase over time.
6 Here is just an example of what I mentioned s
7 earlier by'short-lived radionuclides and decay into 8 longer-lived radionuclides. Here we show radium and 9 actinium as a short-lived daughter, so we sum it up with the 10 radium by adding the two dose conversion factors, but then 11 we treat the Thorium-228 independently.
12 [ Slide.]
13 This is the final slide here. It just shows some 14 quotes of a RESRAD user survey that we issued a few years 15 ago and got some feedback from some of our users. I guess, 16 at this point, we can entertain some questions.
17 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you very much. Are there 18 any questions? By the way, it was Andy Wallo from DOE and 19 Ernie Faillace from ARgonne. Yes, Bobby.
20 MR. EID: This is Boby Eid from NRC. I have a 21 question regarding the use of RESRAD.- Do you believe RESRAD -
22 could be used as a screening code in a similar fashion to 23 DandD screen'that NRC intends to use? And if you believe 24 so, what is your rationale for the pros and cons of using 25 it?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
90 7'
1 I have also a second question regarding about how l
1 2 did you select your default parameters? The selection was !
3 based on probabilistic analysis or it was based on j
4 deterministic analysis?
5 DR. FAILLACE: Let me take the second ques, tion, 6 and then you can address the first. The selection of default paramete.s was based on a literature search.
7 Again, 8 I mentioned we took national averages for reasonable ammimum 9 values. We do provide the user with the data collection 10 handbook to assess whether that fits their particular needs.
11 We also have a compilation of parameter 12 distributions report that is currently draft, but it 13 provides some of the parameters that you might want to enter 14 into an uncertainty analysis run. Again, we had to pick one l 15 parameter for a deterministic run, but that doesn't limit 16 the user from going through and doing uncertainty analysis 17 for their own parameters.
i 18 MR. WALLO: With regard to the first question, 19 I'll back away from answering with regard to using it for 20 NRC and that we're working with NRC in trying to understand ,
21 the full framework for the 10 CFR Part 20 requirements and -
22 NRC's intent and how the screening process will work, so I 23 won't answer that right now.
24 I will say that we do use it as a screening tool 25 at DOE in fulfilling our requirements. Basically, we use ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
91 1 the default parameters runs as a screening type with a 2 setting of a low dose limit -- appropriately low -- and we :
3 look at that, and then, in terms of establishing how 4 rigorous our ALARA analysis will be, we run the screens, 5 take a look at the total population dose.
6 If there's very little margin to be gained by l 7 reducing the dose still further after we run the defaults in 8 terms of we use a general criteria of 100 person rems per !
9 year, if we're not going to have that much margin at least, 10 then we don't need to.do a rigorous analysis and get into 11 the detailed site-specific for the purposes of the ALARA and 12 collective dose, though we may do it for selecting 13 individual dose and meeting.the individual dose limits.
14 So we use it for a' screening tool. We still need 15 to learn more about how NRC intends to screen to say how 16 RESRAD fits in that. process.
4 17 MR. NICHOLSON: Question?
18 MR. PETERSON: Yeah, I had a couple of questions.
19 MR. NICHOLSON: Would you identify yourself, 20 please.
21 MR. PETERSON: Yeah. Dave Peterson from Duke . ..
22 Engineering & Services. I had a couple of questions about 23 the groundwater pathway. I got the impression from when 24 Charlie talked that the downstream evaluation of contaminant 25 concentrations and associated doses and risks is still in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
92 1 development, but from your talk I gathered that it might 2 already be involved or be included in RESRAD.
3 DR. FAILLACE: We have a version of RESRAD that is )
I 4 out for test and evaluation. It has not been officially 5 released. It's still under QA. Basically, we have to go l 6 through test and evaluation process, get some feedback over !
7 time from users before we release it. But it has been used 8 in benchmarking studies with MEPAS and, I guess, PRESTO.
9 MR. WILLIAMS: Ernie.
10 DR. FAILLACE: Yes.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: i'm Alexander Williams. You need 12 to talk a little bit about the groundwater model that is 13 officially released in RESRAD, too.
14 DR. FAILLACE: Oh, well, what's actually included 15 in the released version of RESRAD is the one-dimensional 16 model. There's actually two models. One is really for very 17 small-sized areas, and that's the mass balance model, where 18 we just have time to breakthrough. That gives us our peak 19 dose or our peak concentration in groundwater. For larger 20 sources, we have -- and I think I have a slide here. Let me .
21 see. Maybe I can bring that up. - -
22 MR. PETERSON: Is the lighter one what you refer 23 to as the no dispersion model?
24 DR. FAILLACE: The non-dispersion model, yes.
25 That's the one most people would use, and that's the default ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
93 ,
i 1 model that's in there right now.
2 MR. PETERSON: I know you're trying to 3 concentrate. I apologize, but you said that there was no 4 lateral dispersion in that model, but you mean no 5 dispersion, period; right?
6 DR. FAILLACE: Yes. There's no dispersion.
7 There's a dilution that's taken into account. '
8 DR. YU: This is Charlie Yu. The non-dispersion 9 model in RESRAD code, from the name, there's no dispersion, 10 because we assume the well is right on the site boundary.
11 That's the on-site groundwater model we use in RESRAD code.
12 But Ernie also mentioned that.we have an off-site model 13 which considers the dispersion -- we move the well off-site, 14 considers three-dimensional dispersion, off-site model.
15 [ Slide.)
16 DR. FAILLACE: And that would be three-dimensional 17 dispersion, I guess, in the saturated zone?
18 DR. YU: Yes.
19 DR. FAILLACE: So this would be this area here.
20 For the on-site model, you just basically shift the well to 21 the downgrade in edge. That's where it's assumed to be by -
22 default, and there's really no dispersion in the aquifer.
23 MR'. PETERSON: But you do have dilution there.
24 DR. FAILLACE: There is dilution from incoming 25 flow of clean -- it depends on how deep your well is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
94 1 relative to the geometry of the sources.
2 MR. PETERSON: 'Right. And I had one other 3 question regarding that -- well, actually two. First of 4 all, how would, say, this dilution type of model compare 5 with the more simplified approach that's used in CR ,5512? I 6 Or I don't know if it's more simplified, but it should be i
7 relatively simplified in 5512, and I don't know if Sandia 8 could answer that or -- you said you did comparison studies 9 between spreadsheet versions of 5512 and, I would assume, i
10 this model right here.
11 DR. FAILLACE: Yes. I don't know. Since the 12 models were so different, it was difficult for us to do.
13 DR. YU: I can try to answer that. DandD model, 14 my understanding is that, for example, the radioactive decay 15 and ingrowth is -- they've made some assumptions in the 16 radioactive decay and ingrowth. For example, for some i 17 daughter nuclides, the Kd value, the distribution 18 coefficient, they assume it's'the same as the parent 19 radionuclide, but in RESRAD code,.we do not assume that.
20 It's not true any longer.
21 MR. PETERSON: I think you may be confusing it - -
22 with MEPAS perhaps.
23 DR. YU: Maybe they changed that, but initially, 24 maybe in the draft, NUREG/CR-5512, they do assume that.
25 Another thing is that in --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
95 1 MR. NICHOLSON: We'll call on Theresa after you 2 get done, Charlie.
3 DR. YU: And the other thing that may be different 4 is the geometry we consider. The well dilution, the well 5 depths for the geometry we consider in the code, tha,t may be 6 different from DandD code.
7 MR. NICHOLSON:' Theresa, do you want to make a 8 comment?
9 MS. BROWN: In terms of the DandD code and how the 10 saturated zone is handled, there is a leaching function out 11 of the unsaturated zone into the saturated zone, and the 12 volume for the saturated zone is fixed, either based on the 13 volume of infiltration or the volume of water that's 14 required for the well.
15 So you have two options, and that's mandatorily in ,
16 DandD. So there is a dilution factor, as well, in the DandD 17 code, and that's volume of water in the aquifer as set up by 18 the volume. It's determined either by the leachate volume 19 or by the volume required for the well.
20 DR. YU: We assume different Kd values to cover 21 the leaching. Is that correct? - -
22 MS. BROWN: There are different Kd values in the 23 unsaturated' zone. There's no retardation in the saturated 24 zone.
25 DR. YU: Right. That's what I'm saying.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 t Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034
96 1 MS. BROWN: And there are separate Kd values --
2 DR. YU: Right.
3 MS BROWN: -- for each of the isotopes in the 4 unsaturated zone.
5 DR. YU: Right. That's what I meant. In the 6 saturated zone, you assume the same Kd. If you don't have ,
l 7 Kd, you assume it is one, very conservatively. There is no 8 retardation in the saturated zone. Is that correct?
9 MS. BROWN: That's correct.
10 DR. FAILLACE: So I guess, in that respect, it's i
11 most similar to the mass balance model in the RESRAD code, '
12 where we reach a peak in the saturated zone immediately.
13 MR. NICHOLSON: Did you have another question?
14 MR. PETERSON: Just one other quick one, and that 15 is, if you're going to go ahead and come up with a 16 downstream groundwater pathway approach, which you say is 17 going through testing right now, and it does take into 18 account three-dimensional dispersion -- which really is a 19 form of dilution -- in addition to this method of mixing in 20 a well, do you still intend to use the existing method for 21 calculating the groundwater concentrations right adjacent to .-
22 the site? And if so, why? Why not use just the one 23 algorithm if it's probably closer to a realistic fate in 24 transport processes?
25 MR. NICHOLSON: Any of you guys want to handle ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
97 1 that?
2 MR. WALLO: Well, I'll start. Part of the key is, 3 as I said, that when we do DOE reviews, we do use the code 4 for screening purposes, so the groundwater options goes from 5 a situation where you need very little data to come ,up with 6 a conservative result to moving toward a situation where 7 we'll need more data to do the analysis.
8 And whether we use the off-site code, in a lot of 9 cases -- right now, we're using it, for instance, in i
10 evaluating potentia ~ standards we're developing. It's one !
11 of the' reasons that we have that particular one put into the 12 code, plus we found that it may aid us in trying to do 13 collective dose calculations for some of the more detailed 14 ALARA analyses.
15 That's the same reason we're going to basically 16 channel the RESRAD output into CAP-88, so that we can do the ,
i 17 collective dose estimates that, previously, we would do by :
18 getting a dose estimate and doing a spreadsheet.
19 So we still do the individual on-site dose and the 20 worst plausible dose situation to evaluate our standards 21 using those conservative assumptions; and then we use the -
22 likely use to compare against our real standard.
23 MR'. NICHOLSON: Charlie, you have a comment?
24 DR. YU: I would like to add a little bit. For 25 the on-site model, we do not consider the dispersion even if ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 98 1 we have the off-site with the dispersion model. If the well 2 is the site boundary, even if you consider dispersion, that 3
effect is not much unless the groundwater flow is very, very 4 fast, very quick.
1 5 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you. Mark Thaggard,.NRC 6 staff.
7 MR. THAGGARD: Just a real quick question. You 8 mentioned version 5.782 has an uncertainty routine. Are 9 there limitations on how many parameters you can treat as 10 uncertain in that model?
11 DR. RAILLACE: Yeah, just a note of clarification.
12 Right now, that uncertainty model is an add-in. When you 13 request the code, the officially released version does not 14 include uncertainty analysis, but that can be added in at 15 the request of the user. That is still in test and 16 evaluation at this point.
17 In terms of the number, I'll run it with as many 18 as six -- I think it's 10 -- Charlie, is it still 10, or 19 have we increased it?
20 DR. YU: Well, the number of parameters, actually ,
21 there is no limitations on the number of parameters. The -
22 only limitation we set in the code is by the memory of the 23 computer at this time.
24 DR. FAILLACE: So get a powerful computer with 25 lots of memory. That certainly helps in speeding up these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 99 1 uncertainty analysis runs.
2 MR. THAGGARD: The other thing, can you give out 3 your Web address? You mentioned that you periodically post 4 changes to the code on the Web.
5 DR. FAILLACE: Yes. I know I have that so,mewhere 6 on a slide.
s 7 DR. YU: It's www.ead.anl. gov /resrad.stad.
8 MR. NICHOLSON: One more time.
9 DR. YU: I'll read it to you one more time.
10 www.ead.an1. gov /resrad.stml. i 1
11 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you. Boby Eid, NRC staff. !
(
12 MR. EID: Yes. I'm curious to know about the i
)
13 benchmarking that you did for trying to see the results of '
14 running RESRAD versus other benchmarking codes. l 15 l Could you elaborate more on that and tell us about j i
16 your feelings, whether your cdde is more conservative, less '
17 conservative, because you indicated that your current 18 default parameters are prudently conservative. The question j 19 is how conservative they are, and this could be indicated, 20 could be concluded based on the results that RESRAD '
i 21 produces. - -
22 DR. FAILLACE: Okay. You mentioned parameters.
23 Now, when we did the benchmarking studies, we didn't 24 necessarily use RESRAD defaults. We had to basically 25 accommodate the scenario and the various pathways that we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
100 1 considered so we could cover as many of the codes as we 2 could.
3 Of course, not every code has the same default
'4 parameters, so we didn't necessarily just stick with RESRAD 5 defaults. We wanted to simulate the actual transpor,t and 6 pathways as closely as possible. We didn't want to have any 7 variation due to variation of parameters if we could avoid 8 that.
9 So I don't know if that would have answered your 10 question, because I really didn't make use of the 11 subsistence farming scenario in its current form.
12 MR. EID: In the benchmarking, my question 13 regarding, you showed very good agreement with the baseline 14 value for the TEDE. For the independent pathways, you did 15 not really elaborate on that.
16 DR. FAILLACE: Okay.
17 MR. EID: So if one takes different kind of 18 scenarios, how this could fit with the baselining or with 19 the benchmarking exercise that you have made? And also, my 20 question regarding other kind of codes that you compared ,
21 yours with, how they compare with each other. -
22 DR. FAILLACE: Charlie, do you want to get that?
23 In terms of the code comparisons, that was actual 24 validation, really not benchmarking. There, we had some 25 data that was given, basic data that we would then enter ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters {
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 t (202) 842-0034 1
i l
101 i
?1 into the code. We would then estimate what the transfer 2'
. factors would be through the various pathways and come up l 3' .with the doses. 1 4 1Again,;I think that was done~through literature i
5 search. Charlie, you were involved more in that tha,n I was.
'6. DR. YU: Right. The best scenario, we are.
7 provided with limited information. The fallout data, 8 basically, that' slit. But we know the site is at southern 9 Finland. So a lot of information not provided, we have to 10 guess. i 11 Some of the parameters are provided, like 12- temperature, rainfall data, those are provided. They 13 provided some data, but some. data we have to estimate. So 14 our task is to predict the media concentrations, and that's 15 a blind test. You will not see the results until you submit 16 your calculations. .
- 17. So that's a blind test, and after we review, after 18 the collected data are reviewed, we have' discussions on the
-19 parameter use. The whole' group.has detailed discussions, 20 and we found out some people misinterpreted the scenario, ,
21 made a mistake in the input, and so on.. -
22 But, in general, RESRAD also, in some cases, !
23 mispredicts some of the concentrations, but RESRAD is the 24 only code participating in this exercise that is a 25 non-dynamic code. The model will predict annual average '
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
102 1 concentrations, but the data required, they ask-you to 2 predict the concentrations in March, in May, in June and so 3- on.
4 So RESRAD is the only non-dynamic model 5
participating in this, and so the results shows that, for 6 the longer term, RESRAD can be used to predict, to conduct 7 this type of calculhtions, and the result shows that RESRAD 8 calculations, predictions are pretty good, although we 9 underpredict some of those concentrations.
10 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you.
11 MR..WALLO: I was'just going to note that I think 12 the best thing would be to look at the actual benchmarks to 13 see what the comparisons were --
14 DR. YU: Right.
15 MR. WALLO: -- and what the difference in the .
16 models were, rather than us try to summarize all the 17 different comparisons.
18 DR. YU: 'We have an Argonne report prepared, 19 published actually this year. I can give you a copy if you 20 want, and there is also an IAEA report. I have a copy. If 21 you want to see it, I can lend it to you. .-
22 MR. NICHOLSON: Any more questions? Dave. Dave 23 Fauver, NRC staff.
24 MR. FAUVER: Just a clarification, probably, for 25 the record. One of your earlier slides indicated that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
103 l' RESRAD was approved by NRC for decommissioning. While it is 2: -true that we've used RESRAD under old rule, which 3 essentially was a concentration-based collection'of 4 criteria, we did use RESRAD, in essence, to supplement these 5 concentration-based criteria with a dose estimate. ,However, 6 neither RESRAD nor any other model has, in fact, been 7
- approved to demonstrate compliance with the new rule as of-8 this date.
9 MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you. For those of you who 10
~
did not get handouts of Theresa Brown's or Chris Daily's 11 viewgraphs, we have made additional copies. They're on the 12 table as you leave the auditorium.
13 Tomorrow morning, we'll meet at 9:00 in the 14 morning, and there will be demonstrations during lunch 15 tomorrow. We'll have tables set outside in the atrium for 16 demos of the various computer codes. Thank you for 17 attending. '
18 [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the workshop was 19 recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Friday, November 14,
- 20. 1997.]
21 - -
22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
l NAME OF PROCEEDING: WORKSHOP ON REVIEW OF DOSE.,
MODELLING METHODS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR 1 i
LICENSE TERMINATION DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original , l transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
G..
\
iM4 48'24' JadDelnonte Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
Sign-Up Sheet for the Public 3Am Leltw Ec2 6%s
,9./k/) L. /
stassr,o ou,n,Ai, -
Mu 9 AEMA fr ce jscoanahanshet u w3 rL.,f., Yu ~ kA/L ,
S-h ua 5'lo deu doe Roc ku Fizs 45 Rekber 5fA deo K' .
(Y h t B_w// SCC 'te' ed Rwn % sed NEL -
'7&mmt I?dN aaw kVIScrwac,%
Ta h e~ 60sua e L .wwo L//{we m k J. O C E , E 7d - Y /
[c. - ) 5 % -e Ab e- tE.va _
Acurv //or /o y A </n An e>>/.s Ad ,.
Poett o t v. .i Pfal)Includd&
1 -y v i J 5N' GooSh Oonwf-MSS /
das' e & Jph s/ dmoa' he Msys/4 h,,.c w swa.r NAme-4t L.m -
$o-v N4 R,, l4-
~
,J . .0 3, .
s, D #** br uu wwF we s .nc/csac U L=C-w I t= lhGY,-k O h- - -
$W HMH GE S
4
Sign-Up Sheet for the Public
@ Ha Pf1AN (Gwfxi (3/ttm - M year [9a66 b\$C bh 8mbl N iers Sc,wM6 hlMlll! b00tX]land, 6 henhird Mrll/r, ZHA Ah5' (5 k 0 .. f l (o [0s .
OekfC VA '
o P fowia.A
$ inde tv , 6l J tVipfn !
( Pnn ku(1sf Sf$
Se;0(S / tv i F-1 de~ au. n .
sL<Lm Leata cn '
th,,, fd A kn oJ *~
ut Das s .. v a e r, Am A&J L4 .
Au d S w jor rfWy T T F h'; J ww L L i til n //e Pass
%Cb& we TAL M~a
l bA4llLD A b RD%L 6 (vD d -
- v '
& M,vuaer o.s kin I blbo*%c100 Kbi L IW h M NL B.T Ihi dd.ree. l hN is Ctfot.Jb Hv(lY GaU Cmv Mobpl EoP 6%p e
Sign-Up ShAet for the Public CLAupE FL CAY' M0kTWM3T VmIT/ff fAUL M. khswA - r/ZW kreis O k <Ie L u - [1eseau> L er t%-is
@u Ov+r @JL R 4 Ev.- t/ I A f%-
5% hocle.ll,' F M / M (w 6;w 6 wis m ,9 "
N f/r./ EdeE1Aro S cues Nauw hfd )
'Tsd ML Mc ces.nre(a op (otmdo 30%/ % & ft Ph/AlI, l9ne .OinAlM hU fL V1cA M, W 6% TL Nd, klucbt,[gfelt,.
b'O 9cA t- Sky ,
77tc $pvinni,s & M L do.
')oad kJq _
SAIL -
. >nvsh PE T E A S' od 'b u cu ci- E a& wem U NG-4 g M ces, EDD ld7Ay' C d&n DM J HeJH'~
h h %h<r GPU dukA~c 0
\ ., c. .
3Aun- %a.deTr ~D M hkwo b c-fuc k SSNk Ilo y F.
~
W"d*~ -
e6 A %r s ~
La hu tm kea *We khttu 3 MGsM%v Mt+T&f GAM.
NebEe~ h M 9e
.IamJ asL w w as n n.i ;
if
Sign-Up Sheet for the Public s
s Wu Duuz, l( 00 5 -
L Q. K,*ui fra n ram e Twindmi o - - .
e sdr 2ntst T un rss -m ee n .6 Ek.srbfL, ai,rus m ,4 sy</.
\ L em hti. . Lo m.L u Ls,m, 04th' Se}f A h' TW 1
' s a a k'e A ATsbR l
g6 9
h '
e
Sign-Up Sheet for the Public 4
- s. sk n Beck 4eJ cnr>.
SCew l]Itsc;c, jl. AGB/Cesfa.,t;,,zf;a;;<a; IIICAR 0 SC4t*S US A Ctfh*P1 A ;
bbh )[curhksfc--
kSWA~ - "
I l
l
l Sign-Up Sheet for NRC Staff A Gwm/ w .u w I?, a c ':: . u ik; J
-: % Nasoa % A fs 4 @ - 1
_ thu ALwn K1t- ,Ju W.
k:a a= ==m A%ia GLn / G%& S% tvkLx
/MEk' Ad4fe< 5 % %A ftlffGlE #1/L L /L N>wt U($vm 76CK ?AAA0T*T hmw.m G.c \+cn Brefle.
Vr1Lw ?aJt0 bum ped PJ&~ DJJJu M k& .
beam.ms iha Dead -
Paun un K. REED / %e (W %n br a b _ . $.b. ' -
A4 w ho ware
~
Juss % I M 'f APF 2,L.f % rec
'22 X2L 2A blecx -
'&1/b'd A, 8.m a-J A'M U.a Ok4 L n&.
efQ(
e
Sign-Up Sheet for NRC Staff b
451 N1W i4 Edda' . 4,s-se,, uss - tmes -
(2,G & EEL 2)UM -
s - ---
dLz Ad w
\h%610lA col 11%'BRADLGY WAss/m/v1 T Ae= umssU uersucss . deca- WA '
.hu e MW4 ou c:c Aw A Jw,, D. .tu /e*>/b u l R ch8 't oue<lAvu/
S(U3,0ilIcnrtf_
F r 411/b A4
/
l g4 9
e 4
T WRITTEN QUESTIONS SOBMITTED BY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES WHICH WERE ,
NOT ADDRESSED DURING THE PANEL DISCUS.SIONS BUT WILL BE CIRCULATED TO PANELISTS '
FOR CONSIDERATION IN PREPARING THEIR WRITTEN PAPERS FOR THE NUREG/CP t
i a
e
, $O8 f
a
en *
~? :D Nb
t'k@?,p
+! .
j 4.w, .
};g sg A;p;;b p f; y.[M."g - Wl G g
g* i. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .
E ln.;':.-P.h{f,,t'.'y.}f r ??t"Si //f Gk.Afff h/
}, p, .r.,+<, . ;.c; .
- l g./ g g f _/g m n) ,j
' ' ' " ~' * ' '
- ..j, ::> :. ' '
, y!;'4 : *- W bl U b /h/f k Y b e . d d b Y $ &
l- : .4 Giyle he Uk kr k c.
if ;::;N s,' {l;p :a,;lbi c .
.+ k.
- S#A *$ -
'0' 'iI * ' W# / " "###I i.IbAfh5((? 'I .
$iV'ibyb'k@%{k$ $$$f!@$.
f
""n4 %z h* &iS % . .U ? ^ *- .
w .Ms4M.
bffY/?-.-.
S .w}.c I . $d$?$j/I'b'
, ., . . . A .t 4;. u;w lg. , , ,
j j.g j bi?%l _
&$A SQh.# Ag M TJ w'r beh d A ferf/p
.:~
, . . . c ., v:t en n---e x--cazmc w w.6 % w ~ pM ~g*_*-thu .
- foxx<,
- w s;j p z r... w g e .f,qvggjeg.giw/.W ..
Y '
. r
-E C
t " _
..e n a 46Qwy.;s@%Jg,Q,: . . . ~ . . < - .
.. ~ . v. . . . ., .
- .g . +, : . .
~
l l
l
..,y... . , . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .. . - ,....; .- .
l
"-..e .
l
QUESTIONS FOR PANEL Name Stevt /hsciu/h organization Ao8/romfotia, Essi,,ee,;?
r Question: M C s h re d tdda n a n er e Driet E., anaksis u.o// l<ve la d W
a r &~ l :c vadiv J sa,a~ r><, Tie <!e las,n .u Cnw af f
de ,a n o in.ekd.eLin det.r m co< Sin Cv ~Aws r
j a) .rs ri ac nine t- sd47 4 tb << ~rin , n i c4//y,y, <
V f f f
.., J ,,satts feLir nn <,, sia< tv a ~4n : cLb., /*so2
- 1) a.l.n<<,nc..,
i s -
g<an cen r.;H c4 anuh, L/,, s, ; 4 n ,e 4 4 es a .
sa , fa, 24u-c(Do,r.,.,,4,5,?
e e c) W://aa oi,c,,e</ a v .na/r-:, A n aut<c / ,0, i
o a fan s ra/J i.) in c k l:n [b ///f> o i,o ls .s J f <
/v;llen J th cr c.Ja, . //w & 2 4 s a c b i ric m 6 4 fico af $1e or DCC/s ? .
$ Oa 4
Qs rse. kNET.
(b d a. % d l ece
~
l
. 1 m ahl, da no4 4ae. as a.ca aa+
a.Il heiJ ae.JM m # d cadiL4A e T. pH a r- us i+k a u erss4 k d,y<<s.~.
vsloes, mode./ w ever es4 k k.
pe* d er
-}~a. dese. Ly an der A mynihde or _
m re.
u)La :( 'A <re asi lI Le ma e .k, enwre. baa b acr;ues J " a. ra.un w<.
e.xfec U.
nr de$tAYn)~a.nb dots nih 5erl 4iw4ly ,v e r- es4M eua. d ses ?
- [ k GI4
i
- - as cor em mike.Russsil, SCE d olw G.A k. edsk ee *f ^coks -Hd Ls). *Jady
' bou ds.ee./ag. ~ A. Asssf wks4., f 42 44.s N A L n ss.)s~,.ss + deude A spa. Me wesey dsus/. pay %)b?
i I
f
< meO 4
W g6 a
- , i
b QUESTIONS FOR PANEL Name Ic:.v-\ Sc'M Organization A dS- C6;t) c 7ecatcFo-5 Question: 1) Noa; dog voor coc3e^ com pe e *fe I a c1k .s) C 1 -1.u_dv d ie., ebe < ch<cdc.,<i Af. {
c14 4 s;-le wh:ck Au b c/ s,A h ma & Moo.e-s CL 9 r~er ru\
G one un asa i oxJ8e+te,nsh ~
l l ,
Z) A, ._,_ A_ c e s u, a w naI + rec.+-
Y Y D%f"% U hlab ewd* C' H O6% EJb 5}%%
.w SC- 1 v. ;
O t Y' & $ CA.W .AA0h2( hec.Y k ,f wo+s ? l I
e
.gr e
\
4 4
[1 1 QUESTIONS FOR PANEL Name O- Ob8" Organization A r 3e w s. A/ d b d /.4 4 v
Question: A 2h. Scrun:m lev ~ ~t om s,% w a,4t mA y
L l
q uAM L hA 5
y A LA RA 'lii w< h1one.-
YMNcMa % A Apris screenin leak <4ht u -
mrt SheJJ L Qu=~ uaa2
.}. G[6 u a n isst, N e c ca&.een F L Kc-0
.4001tbk a hs& R(b 4 u.<ed & .8ete=0 n o n n ~ l ? Mow de b % ano L tipro M r-udn?
y < ra v ~ <
4 Gry dea MA. _% AdeL htodd htm Mm \
dilksJL , inldt aa. 2L*DE ^
Wy fi . Mkc. , \
h d,.' u sac & i , % c a . n s e ~ . .<
i
~
V" b
- e g6 W
W W
4
\
. I
% (Qs ld DOE
. L -.
4 9%29LL " LL " a, A,nD
~u w
w mA g 9 (a .s a&.
M J%
AD Lom 64 kt
- pa w
=% - oo L A % .A AA %. J,
!% A g~ /J1
%~L aQ a L LOz)
MA co ' -
> bJ e
&mb n , %
% J.
e pn ,
O O
m f
% fWkg (t .iW DOW 0% QcO - a m)#4 D C
a L QJ~n: f I
Rm uA m
) b w 4' ,
}, -~ _
m 4A Sh f<3 x-w .eGwn 42 0 fi~h m 4 ~ Age AL a
p Q&AmMLqA p a= n- cg%nacs
.ma
% W0-
_ _ m c-SU$. s%-)
Rm'A cn %
csA;
,uA M 3 L ? L a & ol d- A , m , %
cf% & ~
&. W sw=O $ c -
hA 7 ho p ft Q
.% HL M -wJ A o~e)
.W d M-4 ok M a ~ so
/wseQn D.?
Q wshws & %s d 4 % [afy T~fm u 3 xs oe Q d % k 1)3(m w: I ( t k z fa u d og m ' oe c/-o con c~4x4 & /ws
~
D 5 m WSag w in %
L/d D \)
s;z~vv% m %
/
""r >~ /ds W .
& mas,
& NS a ,r-e YLOf >k h A~o b. Cc,c,Lg(
p Mg.u# W A m dz/:m gm2 m es th<<G4th( Qm
y roo n & a o lQ n ed 2s p corcaA4x aK %W 9L % f AJ 6~Y w f 0 %
masw& W wk d cDJ M R %pw M.,w4 rM% 42r W-
! FW $f W cway wdhemn\ w c~vy f
/% nWb .
m j~w ~
$ k k S '
e
1 54ns b Ad
@ xf&u uss-e]w #iMsDm
] & h ]va (f OD/
J Ty~ wul wccu sk w+p 9 ~n w y.
O F gt~rv g k QPbW
~
f Ces v'
+ r<s meg a.o7 % A crf we Wl b W
/77aM9 %Qyf l
Swu 4 O & rewan ~
t &y 19 wce L :
- % S - vay a f pn M ,9 axes we mL (w s ~ .
OVESTIONS FOR PANEL I
Name CLAuDb FL4/2Y organization NORTH &9st artt rntt Question: fCR ARC? i k!ill DtD s/Amr nr M sane & 44itf ALMAn/&Ar ? 23&)Ws6 MC.
fcho/d A & M 1 4 m M f m 1 a m LA ,a JA m A& Ac Aw- ALEA5cNa-Adda mm6 ? 7Ain M d-A &
Ao nssfad r Mr / / mv M A L kt4 ( $1a 8#/ "
h Wirn / 4 A4G(Av d YarA<fM,n) 6-1 sG&lkJ s m s Ac d w l} d kFA" w m A'
e 215 MJi i A,dak ? -
M*
f i
e O
4
1 4
QUESTIONS FOR PANEL Name O o,Vd fa leih organization 00i7ers $ ASCoca b/ f);pi<ipp, Question: s 6 AL YC d ' e af SESSAl) M'okId oYhov kWde W aarpte d hoda/s- 4
- 9. s:ctschioM for P a for rads's th or+ ore heden tha t there sspropriuf<V -
,, i loo k a f h ebst levotr~ PA B TReD- 4ro therr 1 eAbwechM b afaf cohCiderad'si al1%nrho fiYes, a E/A As.c afo h + s osed hitsf wor >r on actoAonci/
Ere foM - I s if Ls brinc &fofod in fei the contidmfih, o Tbere oro Odfe who Wotild /hdin takr, vsH thok/d de en }
ttn(+rfain tV CisIVrit r+fordlaS- Dox/D see-ba lo a Void Yhis for defou// & even CliehPW h,s difind ces+ ? Compt on f ?
o lhef $flWl0 fGfifl[ m i edX<A/A,skAuWAAmO .
,e e
4
OVESTIONS FOR PANEL .
Name hocE MM Organization COM M mLYAcrt-l EMJmJ Co.
QuestionL 9(om u An _w , ! L h -
Lhtm
ut.E tra t4- h 5 i esch cs ett tu-a La 4 <J. 4-k'r c w nA, .ru.o ' '
i i
a, dmJuem t n o l' ~~ .
cnm p _L _
A.4.hm 4%. L,2--
Llw e L 4'Y, ,'- ., a h m e /c a s.a r L. .
= i, -
A Ln i a G WN M b8 %# N b A. enx e / oar. 1 wi Inv- Sw um1
k wk- 1,u .-emell es.t . G eZ ~ ,
i s bc l d. E u rk n_s _
cL u m i4AJA C' l A ts e U n ,_ DO W M ock - en id Aa c eh m s de u't w c to (% Me ,' o u .
MOI %h bm t a t.m + - A. cA - L, m,<+ n u, A+ 3 o c. iw ' '
2 , O b c" "* <-w e ~ -* L- d- - ma-6 l
.1. a.ow e C c evotu-C- 4 h A-.. k :
W h M bd bi MW N b a . .- _ . J. m. . . . _t,_
g.
4
QUESTIONS FOR PANEL Q g , g g [ g Name ' Organization de Obd du. I[
' TIcG,(W Sk Question:
b 0m% . &l.%. 6CA f.PC, c A:<s c deu.44 Alib bv- G b A Y b n ~ u tic e K Yr.L. C- l.Ja k .
A r-nosez .
NukEG - Tct2 .cf.sz 44f %te b .Y
'$%I
< n~we 4k w L .lat a m .su t 6.e.. -ll cal.*itia 2 4'af $ A 'L:IA.4 sis. ) % ,_
2<'c.2s % J . Ai- % . u.AG Y A t.e a ya %
e kt.A<. ed tc.'s den Am .+ : ;4 ( Axhe .esd ran.a c.L;s. 1.21 f. c.IJ.4 .< A .1 (D & L..'id.La ' t a.'ti e L ver e.k % a 4 fa .'.,
v.t a s N h .< w , a ~ 1.. L ;i< s c. L ;- %
l.L;ts ei.tas) L +e ha ahu w ier esso w seu rlo. b-r % %
so+ KI cah mix) atuu /I i
.C Cse l f A af- .An AA C eJ" e,A.
'. ~
- c, t.kh.i 6.,9r A% .
%2.; a-4ce- , y ,, ,< .rc e-. .
- a $*. I (h Th.' 5*A 4-2 Jealosed "/LuvLle A n, '.~ Es..r.A (kc\ e ,. s u a
. g s E+<rs f.r- u. . a hs A*EM/ **
g CEtcut new rlsA 4 /.r' e5. Pleu. JuA,a A 4 4 A r-asuams ce -1t.e f ,+ /0 <
c-s%+n 4 a+~ s RmE eum w%4 '
A. Alecz " G M I d'~ l o l eiu,< -%
$ 7%< 4 c~ rv.aAk ~ ru.,,;aAt 1. ~ Al %.
c t.s:, s.x C x a.C ~ u i, L n s..,
nJ.,:dr.:a ns,a ( . 4*s- %<. vutl llle of ide.
LM. * . Rav Jai.a 11<* a2 % aue.u n4su bu.
L % ) ,.;. dr.;e ns>: I a L ;12 7 n s ,;. I JTer-
- a LiI.tys v., A I I:A h a I,o00 yeare,
l
, QUESTIONS FOR PANEL ;
I Name Organization i l
Question:
.a . /_ c ffEt M ea n ,n,a ca,n u sL .
b -
- < lL_ L<< -
b I( A
^^
t tem Q P IJ I Oh 4.fm k a' & k ^^
L 3-a k a a l- -
v
.a t d *t h viva _.T i
A/4 ( % Aed l
bGen C A* _'a
- 1$ tem Va - fum L.A & at as k
- Lb y -
p k %La 1 y Mu w* M 4l = .r n. o ( .*v .* . AL k 4 q '
[ !
m ,-L :
- 1. I _e - .d _
- 1. _ .m i_ - t . _ - L, ,__' -_ - /.._
. a, ._J "m ..
e.. 9 -_ -
M >
...t ..O - 3 J m .
e ge m
9 4
00ESTIONS FOR PANEL Name Organization ,
i l
Question: !
a i
/. &A'// AJ f1 r en_Ct*t A & 4 lhtJ'ot e lt
.5 t Vett k ok ,e un a de {y
. c/
y er code, h .D 43 S cr<e n t e.h p I.f To w L i e.
e, FL + c.r.% e:,. Le we . yk-u ,4 e we-n sen-u.-. e.Ja.?
g A hre_ Alt uJe d v And '
me mk L.h4. e_
r cle f it G
b & V a tu(h($ . /L bC#eem dt_ h e ft_ ol ktit i
e n ... s t: .
. kl . m SL ca s
,u ll:sL J i ,
g =
uuAk g c,.l c t. . M I L % l 1_ ba 't LL, _
ew. . , a. r
.eco e -,1 m._th s e . . o r. ,s .s s e - t
( 3 8.v N..ea)
.Su & be . . a- % p.- a a L . .t.
-( . y ca w ,.a.ua n g is kk Ac . a 1 rJrt u 4) w L L. c4,s e m _ _ , - .ih e i f. t el i 7~/ _ r t t u m . t, , u & t r w < .- L i Lg% ,
'I /' p W
}
$. Uka t.a m aA . mM i- m. *.
h l h SCrtau
~ -
C, A .
i 0 J (0 e,.pu e u ,2 Lt. s tJ s .. ., u .s -
L e+ ca. m tru. ms w:st L hs v$n ~ c .1 a r..
4 1 w L >. w1s - w k.a.sws s W ,
CV b uO c.. uA, d s t, ,muu -l% Llb . b dl. '4 e. (
n e_ & w ' -
9 w ..,ge.w.-
1; t1 $: . hd A heu m . 1, A p n. L k i k i R e_ iyL ;
.1 b W6m i dOMi ^^ A E, , M A g
1J 1_ tt u t .fL ,
.. . L . t . .t.
. L. _ ..
u . _ . ._ ,
b'd
- sC-h s'tJ al . - L b l_ E W V&aam bl.
g -
4
OVESTIONS FOR PANEL Name Organization Question:
.A ,Ok[
8 sh $
h O 4 4 bb & b i dd M 8h A w A % a.J f,A A s
g-n Lj d . (
s
. e kn L . -/ -
Am_.._.L i
. m.m.,
g
, g h i (_ (Ltr L fm. t _ kk L.
y ,2 -
n A,,fr d, / P4 hl . k e qrLL $
bA us w4b -
$ _t Y , ang a. a g u, n
ufL v ul- f uL el- miresa A (L t i.14 g 6 '
) -
I ta w n .s L.L - t -- P L - !*. L-! u . I Ll . -- #f > _
.6 1 _. k . [ *t.*c k 'e . . Jo e m L __ ., . .1 . ., . a I
G . .$ L(< M V'
~
Y l .- ,., w ,L d sJJ .
u g'.*
.s n o A L r. L a r e_n w t , . L.* a j u .~a L.-
,as u
[=se an % e . h s C** st k T n A d ..., L d b 4.A ,
e bs_ _
e- % sc '
A -
L' w ,n. 1 .
~ ~
D r M L. -,. / . . . . . t ~ an , x ~L ~
um
.m,,__
.i .t, . . x, c. - c . m t, , m s, ,,
[
_ar 8 ._
_ _T a,k 8, _A, $ k--
AA ),2.
l l
1 1
f 1
l 4
E RESRAD .
Overview C. Yu, A. Wallo III,.E..Faillace November 13,1997
~
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Dose Modeling Workshop -
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory WhatIs RESRAD?
RESRAD is a family of computer codes develope'd at ANL for U.S. DOE ~to calculate: .
Site specific RESidu.al Radioactive material guidelines (cleanup criteria), and a Radiation dose and excess lifetime cancer .
risks to an on-site resident (a maximally exposed individual or a member.of a critical population group)
Endronmental Asseesment DMelon Argonne NationalLaboratory M_!
- A.
='= rJ rh w.
ASC
- iMb
- , g. __
- m
- Build ~ -
Endronmental Assessment DMslon u
7
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Arponne National Laboratory
. Current Status of the Codes
'. RESRAD .-
- DOS version released June 1989 .,
- Windovis version released Jan.1997 -
- Currently at version 5.782 .
- RESRAD-BUILD
- DOS version released Dec.1994
- Windows version released July 1996
- Currently at version 2.2 (Windows)
- All others released for test and evaluation EndronmentalAnneenmentMnelon Argonne NationalLaboratory Why Was it Developed?
= Workshops held by DOE in 1983/84 to support development
, of guidelines to control residual radioactive material
.* Resulted in developndnt of draft interim guidelines issued'for -
review and comment in 1984 ,,
- This generic soil concentration criteria appmach was generally.found to be unacceptable due to its inflexibility I
- RESRAD was developed as the recommended tool to conduct i
site and scenario specific dose assessments and support '
ALARA process analyses necessary to meet DOE requirements I
Endronmentel Aseenament Mdelon s
a 2
l 1
l NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Amonne NationalLaboratory History of RESRAD Code Development
- Initiated in the early 198.0's involving many national labs and DOE program offices *
,
- First draft code for IBM' mainframe in .1987 -
- First manual and PC code released in 1989 ,
1
- Revised manual and PC code released. in 1993 l t
- Cited in DOE 5400.5 and 10 CFR 834- i
- Prepared comprehensive supportisg documentation
- Developed other RESRAD family of codes
(* Continuously modified and improved Cndronmental ^=== ment Gvision i
1 Amonne NationalLaboratory l A Strong Track Record of Application l
- Federal Agency
- Only code designated in DOE Order 5400.5 and 10 CFR Pan 834 for the evaluation of radioactively contaminated sites '
- NRC has approved the use of RESRAD for dose evaluation by licensees involved in decommissioning, NRC staff evaluation of waste disposal requests, and dose evaluation of sites being reviewed by NRC staff
- EPA used RESRAD in the analysis of radiation site cleanup regulations, and the EPA Science Advisory Board reviewed the RESRAD model Endronmental Assessment Division 3
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne NationalLaboratory A Strong Track Record of Application (cont'd)
- Customers -
s
- RESRAD has been applied to rnore than 300 sites in the United States
- RESRAD has been used by several universities as a teaching tool .
- RESRAD has been applied internationally Endronmerstaf Assessment Olvfelon Argonne NetionalLaboratory Comprehensive and User-Friendly Documentation .)
a Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESRAD, Version 5.0 [1993], which replaced the 1989 Manual
- RESRAD-BuildManual[1994]
^
- RESRAD Data Collection Handbook [1993]
- Compliation of Radionuclide Transfer Factors [1993] '
= RESRADParameterSensitivity Analysis [1991] ^
= Verification of RESRAD [1994]
= PISRAD Benchmarking Against Six Radiation Exposure Pathway Models
[1994]
- Compilation of Parameter Dictritsution for Model Uncertainty Analysis
-[ Draft 1995]
= RESRAD-Chem Users' Guide [1995]
= RESRAD-Baseline Users' Guide [1995]
RESRAD-Recycle Users' Manual [ Draft 1995]
Endrenmental Assessment Diviolon 4
NRC Modeling Workshop,- RESRAD -
Argonne NationalLaboratory Extensive QA/QC
- Configuration'controlplan
- Peerreview Independent verification
- Benchmarking with other codes -
- IAEA validation studies and code comparisons
- Extensively field-tested and documented '
unaronmenw Aseeeanent aweson
, Arpanne NationalLaboratory .
l Major Features of RESRAD PC-based, easy to install, user friendly code Performs multimedia pathways analysis
- Simulates multiple exposure scenarios
- Provides reasonably conservative default values for -
all parameters ,
- Sensitivity / uncertainty analys'is identifies important parameters
- Maintains mass balance of the source
- Models groundwater transport of radionuclides
enwronmenw An eanent awaren /
t S
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD no,nameans w ar RESRAD Computer Environment 1
Computers: IBM compatible with 386 processor or higher
)
and math coprocessor -
{'
10 Mb hard disk space and 4 Mb RAM
- DOS and Windows 3.x/95 versions s
- Installation: - very simple (self-extracting files on 4 disks)
- User - very user-friendly / Windows environment Interface: - intemalinteractive help files and information on input and output data
- M ain - contains major data and function categories Menu: - all input and output are accessible from Main Menu or Windows Navigator ,
EnvironmentalAsenesmontDfvlefon
- ,.,n. muons < m f RESRAD Exposure Pathways
- External radiation exposure.
16ternal radiation dose from inhalation (including radon). -
. Internal radiation dose from ingestion
- drinking water (surface and/or groundwater)
- produce, meat and milk
- fish .
- soil i
6
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD I
d I"'
Esposure ocee or Source Pathway Pathway Concer Risk k o ".a M 4
~~
ae a_n E g- +3:- [5f:t st ZR -- iA e-
- g. 6"""'"
,M
- =-
eu ! U""
- $ )
ie =
i........................!
i[* '
II E
y I
~
gggg =.:::: -Esss ; @{$E J
g .- ~ W, Endronmental Assessment DMelon Argonne NationalLsboratory Analysis of Multiple Scenarios )
- Current use and plausible future use scenarios can be easily simulated
.
- One or more exposure pathways may be added or suppressed
- Occupancy factors and consumption parameters may be tailored according to the scenario being simulated
- Typical exposure scenarios include (but are not limited to) industrial, recreational, residential, and subsistence farming Endronmental Assessment DMelon 7
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD I Argonne National Laboratory ,
Industrial Use Scenario 1
, Surface Endronmental Assessment Olvision Argonne National Laboratory- - I Subsistence Farming Scenario 98 t .n.__. __ _.n J i i
- 8
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD
, Argonne Nation.f I ^%.4Wi r RESRAD Parameter Database .
- Contaminant-specific parameters -
, - Parameters not frequently modified, but may be -
cluinged and saved in a user-specific data file
- Defaults are conservative and are derived from federal guidance reports or literature searches
~
- Site- and scenario-specific parameters
- Defaults are representative of national average values or reasonable maximum values for a subsistence farming scenario EnwronmentalAeeeeemoutmaelon T
Aryann.unton r - : .:wi RESRAD Contaminant-Specific Parameter Database
)
84 radionuclides in database (half-life > 1 month); includes contributions by short lived progeny l j
Decay and ingrowth data
- Dose conversion factors l
- Cancer slope factors Food transfer factors (plant / soil, meat / feed, milk / feed, fish / water)
J !
unamenmenwseeeeanent asolan /
l l
1 9 \
)
. i NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD aroanne nationai.a orem .
User-Accessible Contaminant Data Libraries {
A 4::r::- . :::.:7-p- u,-.:::::::y:g~~J-. p =-- s g
=
_:._.* *'".'0:;:ll-** -- * ". !
- *'* 1 se i e '"."- >a U amnas
- :- - 55: summe i
=- ===== ;
E= .= -
E"'
O g
==
m, -
-- N& -
M .
kON M Endronmenda neenmentMvlalon Argonne National Laboratory Dose Conversion Factors and Slope Factors )
=
External exposure DCFs:
- Federal Guidance Report No.12 (EPA 1993) ~
Inhalation and ingestion DCFs:
- FGR No.11 (EPA 1988) ~~
~
Slope factors:
- Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (EPA) en aron m .n w a m .nr a s. ion fd
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory 150+ Site- and Scenario-Specific Parameters
- Physical parameters (size, depth, density, porosity, diffusion coefficient) -
- Hydrological parameters (conductivity, gradient, s soil b parameter, water table depth)
- Geochemical parameters (distribution coefficient, leach rate, solubility)
Meteorological parameters (precipitation, evapotranspiration, erosion, runoff, mass loading)
- Usage and consumption parameters (inhalation, inigation, ingestion, occupancy)
Endronmental Asenesment Dfviolon e
Argonne NationalLaboratory Selection of Site / Scenario Specific Parameters RESRAD only requires input for parameters that.are use_d for the selected pathway (s)
. . Guidance on selecting input values is given in ,
the Data Collection Handbook and the -
Compilation of Parameter Distribution reports
- Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis may be used to focus on parameters for which the use of site-specific data is highly recommended Endronmental Aseeesment Olvlelon
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne Netled Laboratory ,
Pathway / Parameter Selection el to.tr
.U %
0.
~
^
- ~-~ ~ , s- -
- v--- - m-
,," b U -~ w
- 5- F *;:.O MM MM ,
Endronmental ^===esent Mddon /
Argonne NationalLaboratory RESRAD Sensitivity Analysis RESRAD uses a graphic method to illustrate the effects of variability in.a parameter P on the response (e.g., dose as a fuhetion of time) ~
High sensitivity-strong dependence on P Low sensitivity-weak dependence on P Sensitivity analysis + set priority for gathering input data Endronmental Assessment Odslon i
12
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Arpmme Mand hw Parameter Variability Precipitation is an an example of a site-specific
~
parameter that affects the leach rate and groundwater ~
. transport of radionuclides. ,,
- use.a:g::s+:::;;;g::;+ec:::>::9'.
.g::,si:ss: ,so .:. .- -. -.:c. . 1 .:. .:.;. .
. p a. g.4 y,. , : : :..:;.:.v. . .:
k enasan nwa nraaean Aryanna mons wary RESRAD Sensitivit Anal sis
- s. %
, Demet W emus ents.esl . pemesteep"3 Eevee e.esen esse . - . _ _
Md W
- _" gems &
.= -
- -- w t.mammanud asse spammes amuser. .3
M
-sene t . F esme.as,. 6 o - 1M-sense ,
tuomme= T'""""'"* 7
- 8 8**** ,
====..= 'pe - -
8tsus - F 'F w d e n, m, . e w oa
- w*"',*,"" 3 ca @ % ,. j mam ms u m mis 81, ,. ,
MMM i tonm nt.t..:::: ;at an f3
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD ,
aroonne maname RESRAD Sensitivity Analysis
. ,, c .
. . s:
p,9E oo m% - = - -
,_m. ,
M6*j ,a q 4::::rd a
g 'f' i
.e- . m> = c v y; i
,, , n.9 ,
- r. ..is = > s \1 \
m y 3 (
C,e m < x, i ,
n \ \
-y ,,
, mm i i s u
, '# ~
hl \ \ \
, - , s ,
- W X $ a v-
vigg 4 nu + . + . - , .
fhh_h_g ff e a.
unaranamnw A m.nt m aaan Aroonne monarmary Uncertainty Analysis Input
,r -
a;e, ,
+w , ,
g r- f 7 37 :c -- -.
3 .. . ,
7 . .- .; __
r '
n u,r- s m w on -- ur--- umuu
.e - .
-- r -
""'"'"h dji 'es-Endronmental Aseeeement mdelen 14
i NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laborateri Considerations for Radionuclide Transport a Guidelines (and doses, risks, concentrations) .
may be calculated for 84 radionuclides (some added at NRC request) '
- Chemical effects impacting transport are controlled by user selection and input of
. distribution coefficients, biological transfer factors and dose conversion factors Special transport models developed for radon, tritium, and carbon-14 L -- A .-t - J Argonne National Labonntory =
Radionuclide Tranport Models
)
- Leaching model: sorption-desorption ion exchange-
- Input of distribution coefficient (K4)
, - Input of groundwater concentration
- Input of~ solubility limit '
- Input of teach rate -
- Correlation of Ko with soil-plant transfer factors
{
- Independent groundwater transport of daughter radionuclides from source to exposure point 1
Radionuclide transfer factors from soil or water to plant, meat, milk, and aquatic (organisms ,
Endronmental Annessenent Division 1
15
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESPAD Argonne NationalLabonetory Selection of Distribution Coefficients
,f,l.: .
g : .. . .. ;
b . .
~
)
1 g
l is ;1. _. .- s i _. _ . . ; . ,, - . _ .
^
.. , [
' .f 7.
- 3. .
\
l:.
C, , g TCO em- ,
.z -
- as-
- e -- -
glossammes 3enent
@g N '8" O .
ME .
Endnonmental Asenesment Dfvision l
Arponne NationalLaboratory
)
i Special Model for Radon
- Radionuclides:
- radon-222 and progeny
. - radon-220 (thomn) and progeny
- Multimedia radon transport:
- soil
- water
- building materials Ingrowth from parents:
- Natural uranium and thorium series Environmental Assessment Dfvision 16'
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD .
Areanne nations tesoraray S ecial Models for H-3 and C-14
-~
c -3 o
,7,**'""ar m
[c.u peisee. - o
..- r --_. z- enum V
Ufater, such Grounemotor T Evaporation, Degaasing, Leaching, and Decay of H 3 and C-14 in Soli Argonne NationalLaboratory emporal Considerations Doses, guidelines, risks and concentratio'ns calculated as function of time
- default time horizon is 1,000 years; user may increase up to 100,000 years ,
- code-calculates time to peak dose for each radionuclide ...
- time-integrated risk for exposure durations > 1 year Chronic exposures
- primarily for exposure durations of 1 year or more; shoner exposure times can be simulated
- short-lived progeny (except radon) are assumed to be in equilibrium with parent radionuclide Environmental Assessment Olvislaa 9
17
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Atyonne National Laboratory Spatial Considerations
- Unlimited dimensions of source
- scaling factors are used for finite source area and -
thickness -
s Vertically distributed sources can be resolved
- sununing contributions ofindividual layers
- special treatement ofhot spots
- One-dimensional on-site groundwater transport for conservatism; available three- '
dimensional off-site groundwater transport
. Being modified with link to CAP-88 off-site air dispersion model -
Endronmental Ansonsmont Olvlelon Argonne National Laboratory
.- [ Hot Spot Multiplication Factor
) l G, ** =.Gim(t )xd100/ A
.- 1 m (1 m*)
2G .
l l
5 m (25 m8) 1G ,
10 m (100 m8)
Endronmental Asseenment Dfvlelare 18
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Aqponne National Laboratory Assessment and Comparison of Remedial Alternatives Using RESRAD
+ RESRAD is used as a tool to generate input for -
(or receive output from)
- alternative design models cost benefit models
- Sensitivity analysis feature allows users to rapidly assess the health risk impacts of variations in one or more design parameters
. (e.g., cover depth or waste thickness)
- Output generated by RESRAD can then be entered into a cost-benefit model Endronmental Annement DMelon Aqponne National Laboratory Tool for Remedial Alternatives -
30
. 20 i
. - i-s .
'*:. \
! ,so
\ s
- N I s
~
,. . -- L ,
Years f>- == a -4)- ama a -e- - a Endronmental Assesement DMelon 19 :
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD I
Argonne Nationd Lebonntory -
Verification and Validation
- RESRAD calculational results are verified by hand
' calculations ,
- Internal verification has been documented since s 1989
- Halliburton NUS perfonned independent -
verification of RESRAD 5.03 Participating in international code-comparison and validation meetings - VAMP avid BIOMOVS II -
in some cases using Chernobyl data radmnments Aeeeesment addon 1
Argonne NationalLabonntary Results of Validation Study ) l lagestion Dese TesalDese M AprG12 31Decemberim M Apeg IM.31 December im
$ 10 e *
.g 1 -
, i;
- i. l
--v-----" af , 5--i.
- l i; s
. .u.. . , . . . . ... . . ,. ~ --
. . .J. [s .. .
1 a... ,. . 7..,,
n 0.1 ' ' ' ' ' '
O ll1144]l11H41181 ll11$4]IllH4]lil i i
> ~ , - - ,e,,.e. _ - - e. . .
Endronmental Assessment OfHalon 20
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD l
p Amanna ruona tasoratory
( Bench-Marking 1990: Compared with DECOM vc2.2 (RAC),
REUSIT v. 2 (EPA), and the draft l
NUREG/CR-5512.(NRC/PNL) .
i 1993: Compared with GENII (PNL), GENII-S (PNUSandia), DECOM (RAC), PRESTO- ,
EPA-CPG (EPA), PATHRAE (RAE), and I final NUREG/CR-5512 (NRC/PNL)
,
- 1995: Compared with MEPAS and MMSOILS l
< a--- - . )
Amonna NetlanalLabonnory .
i User Technical Assistance,Information and Feedback Rapid technical support is provided through
, telephone and e-mail correspondence -
~
+ RESRAD web page provides general ,..
information, updates on the status of codes, and upcoming training workshops
- A computer database allows users to be notified of major code updates
- Feedback from users is obtained from surveys, workshops, and tech. assistance unaronmenw a.- n.nt mason /
)
21
1 NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argontw National Laboratory RESRAD Configuration Control ANL RESRAD Software Quality Control Plan
- i Changes to RESRAD must be approved by the - '
Project Leader and ProgramManager A modification'must be reviewed by: I An independent scientist or programmer The Project Systems Analyst The Pmject I2ader The Program Manager j
All modifications are reviewed prior to release by
- all programmers l
l Changes also made following user / sponsor .
feedback . :
Endronmental ^=== ment DMelon Argonne National Laboratory Extensive User Training Over 60 RESRAD and RESRAD-Build training workshops have been held at DOE, NRC, and EPA
~
headquarters and regional offices; about 1000 people have lieen trained at these workshops since 1991 '
i
]
26 Requested by NRC l 24 Requested by DOE -
4 -
l m ;
6 Requested by EPA s,
.w l
6 Req. by Other Agencies -
~
Endronenental Asseesment DMelon d s
O
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD .
Aroonne NationalLaboratory Application of RESRAD to Complex Problems ,
Multiple sources / receptors '
- RESRAD: done by separate ruas, results may be exported to a *
, +i " d forsummention/ plotting '
- RESRAD BUILD: up to le sources and 10 receptors per run
. Flexible spatial / geometric formulation RESRAD: area, shape, cover, depth factors; multiple unsaturated zones; no restriction om dissensions RESRAD-BUILD: 1 3 rooms; 4 source types; r@7 and sources sney be la diferent rooass; 8 shiekiing materials; no 4 restriction on dissensions; can shoulate delayed source release Multiple pathway combination's RESRAD:19 environmentalpathways RESRAD BUILD:16 pathtvays
.ndic.nmental Assessment Mviolon i
aroonn.Neloner tasanay Source Mass Balance .
- Mass balance is maintained between the
. contaminated source and each transport pathway .
- RESRAD keeps track of source losses from '~
radioactive decay, leaching, erosion, resuspension and volatilization
- RESRAD accounts for ingrowth of daughters from initially present parent radionuclides L
t
.n,.n-t.. _t n 4
23
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne NationsiLaboratory
[ Source Mass Balance )
nuiv i.m 4 "NW rosion wacgLnana . s
- "maf' ZOncs dme .
dme t (0) t (n) ,
Endronmental Assosoment Mdelon Argonne National Laboratory Shape FactorInput kr o
wr-- -
l - .
-~
Basess== **ame= im J r==se p Gehemm8 samme ansasene senses, C" F C.e* e O. A nums -- -
- = _
M EEnd )
unaronn,ent.1 Assene,,,ent aseron ./
24 1
NRC Modeling Workshop- RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory Soil Strata Graphic Display
, . . . { ,. , . ,j ; . ~ , . -
c ' .' ' ' .1 j ,', 1. . _., .rh7 g - '
.i p .
,. . g3 'i .
-s 3
? , j..
s) ..
_ _ , (w; y- . -- - --- ci l____ s I
.~ -
Muss:::=nsuniili:: sun:# sfJAWV
)
p.s. c i r ,w s
!mm. wc,ammemquestaquaman .
If Q (1 Endronments! Assessment MWelon Argonne NationalLaboratory Schematic Representation of the Water Pathway Segments I I I l V hk a-wa.h v Ir%e80a.
c ,i
-r8 Contarnmaiad Redenucide Paths - > .
- d'. 2one l l l 1 Unsaiuraied I h **
(Vadose) Zone !
i r weier 1 = .{ t l
,,7 ,4 ,3 , , p, j l l g i 4 k h I orounement now I e l N.
saturaind zone (Aquaw) g %
N Endronmental Assessment avision 25
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESR.AD l
n own.nas.atasore.ar .
Water Pathway Segments - Offsite Well 1
-l l bv ~
v LLv '
$_y g
[y ] -e.; ~ '
m.,.,'a W , . ,,. i l
i
'rJ 4& _
4 1 Groundwetor Flow i
b
. l N stannied zone mouneo % -
I
-t I
l I
Arpartne Nationd Laboratoy Application of DOE's ALARA Policy Usin'g l
RESRAD i 1
RESRAD's sensitivity analysis feature (as well as multiple runs) may be used to rapidly evaluate doses 'from different remediation
, scenarios -
RESRAD has been used as a tool for ALARA l analysis at a number of sites including Hanford and Fernald 1
Case studies are included in the draft DOE ALARA standard: Colonie, Elza Gate, l
Maywood, Ventron, Weldon Springs EnvironmentalAsseenmentOvision
i l
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory Application of DOE's ALARA Policy -
Elza Gate Site, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Uranium Ocamep duidelines at Eira Gate 4
50000 -
40000 -
b
- 30000 -
20000 -
10000 -
0 I 5 i
25 i M,m,m 35 50 U-238 Oeanup Guidelines (pCl/g).
100 Note: volume estimate based on DOE's residual contaminaticn guidelines for Ra 226, Th-230, Th 232, and a variable U-238 guideline.
Esdronment.nl Assessment DMelon Amonne Nations! Laboratory Contribution by Radionuclides 1
post: An Nuc# des Summed AN Poemeys Summed to
,, w , I \ -
qur- N.- ,
l \ .
jap. --% f
, . -- x f (
'N X . / 1
_._ % NN \
NQ \ ,.
1 10 100 1000 Years
-e. - -o- -e -4. w Endronmental Assessment DMalon
~
27
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne Natford Laboratory Contribution by Pathways ooen:a n m w m .
1.
to
/ \ '
14 +
12 f10
^ ~ l
' \
" -%3 s / \ -
0 -
HR:9:.J /rxi..
t 10 100 1000 Yeare
_ + . . . , , - - - .
,--- +..- ~~
-- .. - +--
Endranneentet Aseeeement Ndelen Argonne NetionalLaboratory !
Uncertainty Analysis -
Statistical Summary Plot
.e 10
~
14 14
. 12 h10-8 m
4
.- N_
1 1. See 1000 yr
- L .n -t. _ .
28
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD .
1 Argonne nationa tason, tory Uncertainty Analysis -
_ Cumulative Distribution Plot 18 997 T -
es<
, d g
~
i u
3u u e.4 u-
.u.
M-u e 2 4 8 8 10 13 14 16 14
====Yr Endronmental Aseneernent Olvlalon Argonne NationalLabonetory Tool for Monitoring Strategies I
44 '
a /
= /
j .
J" /
- n .-
s i y I l u .
i \
j 3
\
s (
/ 'k t .
1 10 100 1000 V rs
-O- ==M -&- ww Endronmental Asseenment Ofvlelon 9
9 29
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD O
Argonne Nations Laboratory Tool for Monitoring Strategies ) >
ca con == % we ,
1A
- 1A 1, {"\
r 1A
,j l q ., . - \
, ,, )
u \
., \
QA '
1 10 100 1000 Yeare .
unwoonmenw Aeneaement anson /
Arranne nationatesoratory Comparison of RESRAD and RESRAD-Build RESRAD (soil) and RESRAD-Build (building) codes address different contamination sources
. .and uses:
-Sdil contamination which might lead to foodstuffs and water contamination through -
movement by natural processes
-Building contamination in man-made products .
and air-flows which might lead to exposure during nonnal building occupancy or D&D activities sawronmenw:= ===:aaelan
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD 1
ggg Mfgy33l W,j,7 . .... , , , - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ .
f RESRAD-Build Pathways j rathmar inheation :
External C ... 5 i w =
i h.. -
If Endronmend Asseesment DMalon :
i Argonne nietionef Laboratory RESRAD-Build Basic Problem -
g ,
bm .w.*
f
^g .
( .
i.,,4 , ..
' i, Wh .
j -
i, Endronmar.tal Assessment DMalon l 31
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Labonrtory RESRAD-Build Three-Room Model
~
9 .
0 Atpanne NationalLabonntory RESRAD-Build Scenarios
- D&D Activities .
- Pos~ t D&D Ocebpation
- Office / Residential ~~
- Post D&D Renovation
- No Action Alternatives
- ALARA Analysis i
Environmental Assessment Division 32
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory RESRAD-Build Parameter Input
. - - .- - e
- p., -
{ '
, 4 l , ,,, - r .
/ t p EDs. 1 gy. g ..
i,r-= m meusamma
- EJ Argonne NationalLaboratory RESRAD-Build Geometry Z
olume .-
or Area @
Y une (1,1,0) oint
.y (0,0,0)
Environmental Asmsment Division 33
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne National Laboratory RESRAD-Build Area Source Parameters
. I Am '
Radon Direedoo '
Release Fraction #*
z Air Release Fraction j
Reanovable Fraction ,
l Removable Ufetisme Fixed i
{ -
l Endronmental Assessment DMelon Argonne National Laboratory Source Evolution
. Erosion / Lifetime
. Decay and Ingrowth
- Time since placement -
+D" added to original radionuclides
- Assumes 'all products move similar to parent (e.g. Rn stays in material) h 22s 3 22s
(+Ac 22s) ,. + ,
l Endronmental Assessment DMelon 34'
NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD ,
( -.. -.. _.,
RESRAD-Build One-Room Air Flow Model v oca - i - x,vc - A vc + A ve, . A,vc + 1,4vc/(x,4)
T "1*"' 1% , . , "*l1". e y ,
l now.,ni.nW Assessenent NWWon pa, anne monetaan,tn f RESRAD-Recycle Pathways
( Q=;:n - .
t -
. e e== e== m use.
Oess Me-,3 E N usa .
9 3S
i NRC Modeling Workshop - RESRAD Argonne NationalLaboratory Ouotes from RESRAD User Survey California State Dept. of Health Services: "Used for all .
D&D sites in California as check /confhmation of contractor / licensee dose / risk assessments."
Utah State Dept. of Environmental Quality: "RESRAD has saved a large amount of time, money, and resources- '
, for the regulatory community. Thanks'."
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation:
"Used regularly - probably on 3-4 sites.each year."
Jacobs ER Team: "You're doing a greatjob. Our DOE client has expressed great satisfaction with the model; the EPA region IV regulators encourage its use!" -
Endronmental Ameement Owlsion
- a 4
4 4
9
.ed.
e e
e b
36
e.
s s e n hl gt u e e' e' c nhR L sci
- i l t ein dwo oRL e s oet D McaM nn i
DNrl ou i e
r e ai e si opr m l l r o oerfR l
ei v n a t
DmT fdin a wr o f
o o e c Cs o k
ob eoe nR wf Dnr o r
B La i ,
d ute t vnic7 i
J l eoL 9 a Rit r 19 nt i
ra a n s o : ao rf ,
a De nCn i ei r ta e
h N h
pt o ni s
sa1 oe3 r
t 1 4
fmlamT oscr i
d a
n kmi r
o DeC be Wra l r r m
ee siegT S a i l
coc bs oo fi g v e
udl N sslo Poo h i
Uso Ct d Rea N MR
- A d' i
a _
R -
D _
d _
n -
a -
D
~
Ill11l
ll :l ll!
n e y s' i o b l
' l t C a t a o n R d u t e
m r d d Nei e u ss o v r ns sen er f
k n e p e g i i e
i or dlcm i o n r
oy r l
b e b t drr iC n w a ( o c aof f oae s eRe eN m s
s 2 1
t d
ut r e e ce a 5 -
c yreos n -
i d r 5-shF e i l
olaid t C
t n R f e
r f n e C t i c cr e t Roo i h /
G d
s -
ni f c cu l
al a Ntrst i l g E )e u e I ea cl anRvl
- pgle i c )s thpe soal e si sD eeNa snUi t va i
D do(c ei l
vt nd gt e e nin r r nr ea e v r d pdlel o c o sete n oaun r r o m e an yiop s dn m e al e i l gs r" eo a r v D v e sin dnt eo a ml pos i o1 cl sc a at i
dati iomivnebly pa d t v DbnamDomDe d e i a d h o d "L de e l
snlt r ue nsmt n nt c n d as ao re oa e e Ddt c D mD DfoMpDc a r o rufe n o
' * = - - - D d
n a
D -
el -
vi o s
y i
t cs i h
n a aed oc n t n a dfla i
a a nl e e i
t yce a
w ara rui t ib na s
o i
l i
c u f
r L
h a s n l
t u ae ov o iol a
f s a dni d ii s s t
amo n t l
i agn P ede ie r s ci rb _
re r m g re eru nr ta n u mts d mio ot af o ni e so mi n _
rnd i r c ob p od gco se f
a n e u a e n x n tvioe cy ae l s i t
l be ei c tci c st era
- o. c a ar n u ob st n S of o i
pebn _
i r e r o rd a i ydla a l
h c uio a se c s cl c i et n
i ar emtae r
u uht i crm nl as m r
odan oi e n l
eo s s st v yi i
aua pd/ t e a/
uwma c cp xnea atrc t uswg i
nn ien drt v
S Seop o g cre c
r,oodnc ino m el i
a on rpmn y t naf i
l mt a i O rolatsaimo ni n s i '
D t nfrinr s moa gf e sc n eaf e em s
eev e mic s >
rt a usr f
d eeta r t n
i sn eh d sr d
iooy s d claig l 'd s e au pn ssu osao a
l i rc aps e u D R -
B D
d n
a D
.1 I !{ l s
s y
r o
o d
e gm br no a l f
s t
u s
ir kf n
id w l l
a i
d re d h t
~
h t
)
e w o mca a cs ag
, t s f oe rl f e s P rn ui sd r
u s
s ie d
l ei d ou ubi o p
rl u uc n isb r( n x
e s
on a a nms ei m
po xd i
s eu e r e o ea e r i
o cloid Svc l
t t
r
- i r
a l
o s n r eu o si a n gn h net a n i oaedo ri s
y esnoo t chc e a l ava r e v S wt c v f r sha ono i
t a n a ent S nro e oi s l
e r
t asertor
- ft gs l
W eao i
Rsr a ntn pws D
i ttl g n ni e s g od e d ue e n oc c re cr nt n cas e >
n puk ie s ufor i
d cnd con a
l iaca eo rs n doru gs u i r
D B - -
D -
D d
n a
D jl1
s e n b n
o t
o o i d t n .ra t
a t h r i
g s o o i
m i m
mdn e
t i L l s:h sf o y
et s D dwe i
r n o
d o t i at a n msewt r a
2id t n e
D 1 sn 5r u c n l
5of rog co i
a R e xl t Cl a n /bl ei t t
e Gap n Ecmtoo e
=
o i
Rl pc p P Up - -
Na 0
D
- d
~
n a
D
l!
G e .
h l
t 2 a?et r ci ed e 1 5
s i
5-t yedwoc s $
l apo R) e noh eh l
a CL ds re n /
G Ndn aleWtn ev i o E N ae he?o t d t
a R P oic dn N Uytl yr f
o y h pi o oe t a N b l l
f o
k rWloa i
d nr a ca t
o , e v
t n n ooi i r
s ige e )?
S a dwfie ct h
e d m" el l
sa ei r e(it cu ua y ht b an pc t nson big sl e eada bmwem d
e Dida r c p gleie i
r pe r p o dn (o c
sl oshre 's l s ayl oour l
ee ot dvpss e e eDg vi o eo n vi r er nl edo eu u I doiodai e
s d p ? "a t r ta a st s ar s Dra sdoDsn l
e 'd hos a do dt i e h id '
nb oe nCm l
Pohwr nh a a aRr e
- t 1 e opu oc DL MmDNt QmFss * *
- D d
n
~
a D
C r R )8 a N99 e .
l e o1 i v
. c t .t a
k u db r) _
N ee ekr y tF t
i t
i o
b d b mbynw ae t
e r
o p
l ud fo m se t r a t
al e a rF pn u
si o up nm ao pn si as o -
t ns sMc i '
se dc -
b ee i
e m 'r sD m
pm st e ou C l
o CoU( t be R e t n o (N f
vyaet er r .
)
t n
. dodmdc t
DlaDme a h =
o dud odo c nr
(
c ng n ep ae a r t 1
DRDfon pa I Q .
- * =
D d
n a
D
k s y
r sa n
o iho t t pa w
n o
d e
w mP u
t t np i
d i n
a e s &,
ss A e. l eO md e er k
t c
e i t
p f
I t
i M
n a
m l el a
da oV i pr" mfee . e s
u-n Mer r e
r et s e P
c F im v a e r Ra L
)
P m^
ndes oo i p El sr iP o t s Cc so e s -
c( n
, s n
f c ou e i odo t nt a ap i
sS mf r o D i e eo z ,O nti s rn e ed t o i
noh D ctU i
f a si eaid Dad r ne l h ete c ok i i t
& Cmi t
i S
eRse er t pL Odn ea z
D R l y e, am ni AT t
D a
a Om ,
g n ni o
/
nn n d ota o ia t
i s
xa i
t c i
i t
a n
a nf i
z s e =
ml Ef i i t t f t i
? n f
of en ea e d Ae i
S e nn Ded t st u nb e s Rm f s oi iy oi yp Se
' I 1 aea I 1 Aer r oae td i r aa c Cie t Li 3 g1 -
an nw n :Sl e Auq .
i9 '
sR _
l i ia o R m eh e n ct C R e i
s SaP c s i A
l O D e
O O9 D
d n
a
- D
jg 3 )^ : {jleN c I "
,y s
sa n
o w
~
ih t t pa n d o e mP t t np i
a i n
u a s &, eO $,,o n t n
ss md ( * ,it f i Ae u l e prr e 1 1 a l
el s' ,, O,p M da mfe p e oV i e
s n
Mre P r
e ete [c s
im g L k v a r e r Ra P m^ (
o w
Il e t s
. m so e s a r
Cc n
, s n
f c ou F i odo i sS n i
t nt aap z ,O mfo r
ed i o
e r n t o s i
nteo es i i noh i f ctU a si c eaid Dad r e n ok l
e e
" het c i i Cmi ert t
pL Odn D -
teRs _
_ "g i
S R e ea z
y e, D -
l am &
7 (i*
d*
ni AT D
El g% _
G
- [;"" @"t if #@
m
@s qp;$
t a .
~ S a T t kx -
D C ? .+ -
n ? s -
-d, g
nn I
ni o E n P sy i .
.R f d -
io t ota $ f o l a
d2 n a M si t i i -
xa t t n a -
nf c T sh i -
i i
Em f r oo i
f t en i
C A tst ml ea i
z M A e $ ? ea ea t
s n
e i
t e -
nn f Ded u # c n YN E
nbe ed p.
iv m S e f s td i
oI oI iy r e Se c yp
% q u e
4 a eas Cie t r
e r
a gl e l
ia an r aa nw eh W n o th e sno e %5 1 6
Sl e R
w*
i u
q e
i ne sR i
m s
g s ct SaP C [6 '
m e
R n e
s C 3 ~
, r i c
~
A O:f H - '
g l
e
< D m
g[E
- ~
,i 3 J U,$
f,i :; %%
F-
? ht " .
,{
., ^
j;~~ Mkg D
. q, "g m ,
?' ~
3: M.h hd
,~
s 't i "
t . >;
n
' i. 4 IWA l
a
. D
d n
a .
s ,
i o
r a n n o e
c d s?,d e t s
s c s e r a u me sd b
(
d o
r t
s c
i i p u n s s d a
h o n y )1 a
l a
r o
r p
u c c wlo t
c e e hv l
e u i e
mra t t _
r c a r a , u i r
g u
q c y u _
s n s r
t r
oy s P21 o p f a n ot e
f a
a o p pa d5 x oia op x e n n ts w sw nh n5 al l o e gd n u e n cl ai t i o g n ei o c ai t i o n o
at Rair n at siknit a tsO nr at s t r pa sCt o/n e tex h a el l
n g e g e a gioiig l
e g
r rnt h t
igd x n hr ae r eii n n sd iid aEs a n a a a a ni u a n i
r ni l
eii n a
Ws u nRe e R B o cU - -
2p x SN Qe - ,
D d
n a
i D
4
(
) . _
t n
o _
(
c s
y a
- w .
h e r
t n u a os Piot a p -
d oe v x r n nl n nt e n -
aeai o oa o t
R n r atiWi t
)
s og e l s a e g e s -
int h x g n g >
t n r i n ni n al d eiik i
o nuim a ai n n
(
c eB r
D
- c - -
2 S Q -
O D
~
d n
a
. D
6 s
k &
n i
L d
nn ao i st n a t
ei n e n
o t
mma nr aus i
t a
rt a n mo up 4 A i r i n
po HxE m a
mC o g t
n
~
o Cn i C
l edl e -
c -
di .fa ou r u
MB S D .
d ,
n a
D D
d
~
n a
i D lllIl il
l s
a -
s m k i n
n i A L
d n
a o si t r na e n "
t mec e rS nr f
al pa au s mo r -
mi o n t up HxE i
A .
e Cd l
i e s n d e o e n
oR i t
a Z o r e
=
M n t a
~
i d
m e w _
D a f t
a d
~
=
=
d t n r n ,
=
=
=
n o u o u -
a C t
a r =
D s
l i n G =
o U m S -
D d
n a
D .
s o e l n t y
he l a y o s l r t s e l i e
fot oo 1 , tute s "e v bi s k
i ml e vit nd e l
i r v i t i t a rl y dit i
n e e s ait t si a r
e t vt ede ne u e" L
c(ste sl r
l a rn ea it dn re v
sn i
maqt r r su io k u re o nq teto ei _
r r e r oem f o ep sat eo s ostea s c be ml pb e y l
om t
er u do c s whe mr et y arapa al u t to l
n aa r
as dr dof -
r v ek ps en mln peh re ds hr o t
s ei ne ur i
t c l
ai c
uet h aol tuoe r t t ry i ways ui cif l
f d "p or l c
ab d h nfl al m o ct r e cp a e v
reas n e e a ai gfedr op anf u r r i
et a nl a ii tl ibsit l
e hes - -
ud e eg ia bi r mt et eit s ef v
t einn o d id r nt ae t
l cde r) aa us of C b v rahnas ati -
mtao art i h a vifah t e r d
v e c tsl oR rot pt e nt hv ra ec.bu n nisr n e odaieN f e s yvy ss pel u ci a ug pnr t i of e o )p o,l eb s a (d i l
ie s rpf e se u s) i t d t e n s e sed ds e
r i? at r s y c "g sepao e nlyr f e ae nr -
a ands r nt e ult n et Luiat mneen n i
soNlae f nh a e oicf ee
~
wCeoi o(ti l r de e ur oi S v d a
at r u dd et a as rc a n t a a H?ml ui t
i t UPS N 3p
- uar c nl Qi np aa I
c - .
D d
n a
^ D
y s td r i
nes e ta r
u t e
r e e er re m a
t c at r u se em e n at .
) pa m D t e stl eu r
" a r
a d l r 1 a e aa a n ao ut l p u uvp afte e e l l a ar g D v v v v e e n t n de e e ei r r s Lesiet i
u a n b tomt l
e sf o ne
" l al n a re s sr a i
sia otisc d vt oysp o r i i l t
a me ne r a l
pl e f r ir ot ed n f a vec el i t du yme o ni e
ata n i
l eq ne eafr e g gn a l
airf b ad
( niei nr d r ed u
p sc d n
att r cl u a g f odu sCoy l
a ts dn e i l nf e u R wi t
i oce ne i
i c ned r oh i
v l a
Nsi c t
as pf i e
t s
eLt cwo r p
vd c nix o
nl p r -
r ot e et edt Nu y p y i -
t t iss u DStp ot s s emt -
i d I u einbu n -
)
r o m nCoCui s aR n Rl a m n st r gs a i t
n et e e D Ni N v re ia h v re u e o t o sa l a a a t vdc e o nn
(
c oMUv DMau l
l 3
A Q
- D d
n a
D
?
n
) e
? b a t t c sne l
s
. l i n I
d e w 'r e h(t x e o m s s a o
hc?e i d n o r n p s
d u f d i a e e wreh et a l c e.
.~
t e
a t
n e
h c
hi ti t rv -
sd n i r r a m oit l
aiwi c s s
(
y
~
d) p esn es a p n
i u
r f c sa in o e l t) d b ny t
o an i i mo e c? c d i
i c sel uidtp e d e
i l
i ui nhe cg hed l i l
pc i cor n( o t d u
qa eh mr o c r e u are xeiy p n e l
c rc u p d t n ep ee r n )s oe f ie r nrd o r g s i
s ndt i r bh a ps oi i) d8 ds aoe e o e n i t l
id .
el po s r sit f e u nD s s n rP i
a3 dah en o darhc d Rlcm ui ct w md oy opi d o eh ce qad e
ryna i
n y (n sr pt fonD l
l ct t t eC ne I of r
r e
n e o yve y o y u e w i
s g gt t s21 i
h ge o ouioi t deb ndo oi r i
l sc -
nops r r b i v divid c ce l
pi tr icg l
5 C5 - c l
af id t t t c e t
t a ut du- RRi o a u i
c t i
s nl a a
r n n d ginid ci l aib l
aou -
t id o i
NC / mr e oat t
nnlpr el p yt i
r ma m i t it i i sidlt ic narca
~
adn 4G p y p oipi vidni I ha a 2E h s ae n nt c i
n n Wr t y ca 2R l
l U
c n oar e cR A -
4f ec e A (N Nt D - -
Qfad * * * .
D d
n a
D
d 0 o 7- s f o
i r t r n e
p 1
y o i o e r
D l p t a u d e l a s t y n m c n l u a r? a i i
p a
r c n ,
td D t y t l
a o _
eo e y r t
( 2 c t e
mh t h
t t o s 1
5 D u oe n l a r a 5- d n d em g
i dd eor u
g e
y .
R C Dd a) se l
e s I e s a a r ti l
a 0 G l
l t a ic re op (s 1 E aa c ti at y r = R hi n y pn r a x U gm n pl san oiy oe a N ui ol a
ct m y r e m da n as iu0 he n n l 1 e b tb i aeh na ev =
d o d dyd e e e ee x c n x a r et b e a i f
i me mn f -
eh m y e ssiy s d
i i vt c yd i t
t hia nd e n a
r y ya n he en sra o c p
t r ete estrwo l
eh c tt u t r e
i mnl s : )
s c m md mta o oooopn t
e rh i oar c o eme an l
l ct a i
a o ne g eg gh y -
i g s gt r s ct eyn) ms mu el ~
t as hn o i
t c d3 ei0 i
l ds r l
at e eome ecth d ad s1 ia eroe u e taspyr s yl(a egmo sost o i
.i .
Wia t m -
pc Ri Bs y p -
- i t i
Sm T S Ql i D
d n
a D_
?
e
) o h d t
s t e dw, t
s d n l
a o ed i
t s elno l c sn s e ) .
i d
.d ua i
x e st coe hyinf e
mgn .a bn es e tl s at dna l
e e s ni o r(
t o e n oud ede at n da noi eh u ves ca r s i
v se rsg e
it a
r o ad Dn t o r e a(C n p o s ne nL sR
- d. pht -
r ms e o n Dn ac y kt oG N t rci o t outCr l
a cio f i
e da n nrt t
oc l i
b wd l aDp .
a se a en u c an nv p c ek tde ot i
a mol a c afio nr ne n es c i t a u nre s g c fro cew 1 de t so x esfc c es nyl t
om e et oie n l o
ig et a t so aa xlad ed e sovdr e f n egdoil -
h eo ern o c col ed es n o
wbs o
i r
l pai pl t mD d o D u i sa d h de s i
t Tnp u mut s nCt l i o s oaRe nbc a
6t m
- i co m oc er cDNmDtd o e Qac - = - * .
D d
n a
' D
s
)
sd s e e sn noh ct n?srl oe ot i c n
e epp ip e
bd ei nm b
- e. t pm b l
etsec uio l e o d 8mul 9u s a d
oga re d o
t
( t eYs eFs a s m r
mikn twob m d
e l
p ral ef o
mf oled f
er e t e
saot y d
omsn f o i
l n
e l
p od c eoma don ec h oit a s m o e nme n h n gt a c c n i t
e nn b 4 e) f a aD d l od e sbt e i
r pd c f9 o- r7
~
a sm a9 e nae n d hn t
i t
e u g9 3
w9 t
n oDsl u c r s f o n s 1
ndl c n9 t i td e eao i t 1 f
oc
. i e a rodr ie x uo nd seifD n se i
s pne nd el cid u eu m oh t
t ainctn n) e det o d f st ets a8 o oir o b g h
wdnfu n1 g9 9
ie vt s e eh gnl c at t sl npt s ps e
on o al at i i i n nk i Td n sb te m tbal t
dmi s oo a s ra
- t eiee xo eu e M (c gahm a 7sF(tF E c B p T _
Qte- - - - - - ,
~ D _
~
d _
n
~
a D _
- e t n t c c s n e i
o yo f t a f f
t ac o ud i e da pu oz hrdhti wo t) uaing pe i t
e s
r cC n air o tete nt a pea ad i t p y cyiN s
/
mcaienR r
c k it ti sviD n( mlt on y l
aa griA ii nt c md c el l e dni ta l
r i
chlous sL i m (a en t a t a e a _
ty co r odA r esd eD u p p e s l
a rm ydx ph o) (f nt n eo e
l ad v n s n ehe t odihied ei e at))
eecdmn ed i t ha a gt r t t s e
n u t
d s r n e u c
hc((l a zunio a c r o t r ;;a; i
r rcoefed s s u s n ussis ehnde e oe a sr omn o dm e a~
t t cdct u ooc t
mrut nlt r
c sl p ae e i
c ) eimr ed eo s e u t i t t r ac cn t r n (a t deg aer ro u e m t
e:
x xr e ccno )r (e o p
r h t css ru o c) ee sf o s e n c oie t f
r p d a t i
f be e eu l g s. m mde odm u mt e au l a psisoc;n t n r ri nup l oiar v gnr o i et el c ooo se u e -
hmeoooi wolpoti a l it t t e u n t
ia wl e eup av t vl l
s e o erouec e p n o cie anr c l t
l noe ud i
r o a va nl t alud i n n n a a a Tle u gi m i u s r evi d u c c c dmrob s o-8a)dmdn Q
- n h (b y o n o hcac s
~
m-D d
n a
.' D
a s i n
e d l
u e at p l e
sn v e r e
d n n t no r c e x t e a o i a
r od e t e e m h d p L
i t s ,d a y e o i
dn ba mDn a
r da ap r
l l
a c b s
a r
p p
s a n , i a
on pase t a s y g cio g D a yta s m a n t n nwip r n o w i
n i cdi i i geh ot u h i f
gn o nl t o abarp p i
t a t a e oc h i
,p a s p d l
c s s sa ny t s
y oic eg yo oe i b w a g b
b pi n d gl o d t at rh mhap) m t o e oo r ge el s e o ng r ne n o a t
a n
d odlt e rsn e ci c s 2 e
i yroa i yun c m a gfe a oor i
h dme l
y eit u e h 2 b etl sndi wnsu o es h tae d d1 yday ssbe n n5 a oinb l f e l
yl u aa-5 mmms t
a me uQ od aa cR s elino pies go m rv c iC n v ei n i
g/ t e 'e (s i n ms se -
)
. goGioithp agms rl os yt ae =
t n oloEi t n u u eu u idpD i e wmt odrR dn te or sl osl unticha l
r t o r yU a rot raa c ol hsa ar
( dhN c at av p mD pp pp y - - - x - - -
8 h e Q * = .
D d
n a
D
n i
o s
Di c -
d e .
nd C a _
D fDCR R -
N d d f o n oN n a def o a n Di t i o nt s e t
x s t a
i u t o s on c
t n i sd o -
e y e c _
o l
m at c n -
t l e n u i d p f
ad d e -
e D mi o nt oc _
k d n c u ns nh g o ed a n u
i imD tr b l
o od o _
saf ohr rk pl c -
drget o u e -
e o opdw s ob hr oee o wd gu l t
eps ctam ea r r
- d. n t o mgh tF e ci u eh srk l
) nt en dd n oso ariebo l
. i >
t n ioi d di s Acomsye l
w dt s uc i t
am o ei n u oe Rn a s l
t c o wD Ac ona c af r
(
mo e L 8
rm -
A- - -
Q - - .
D d
n a
~ D
c r -
o s n f s e i e t E v t p
n D r
u e e
m l E c c i
t a T e x L e
e r s i v mm t
(
y a sudu ut i
ut -
wr eq m.p st n )s i u ae fovce t
ef e i
i i
x aE v
otru sespoe es mDl a el ca .
f E c n v oTi u e r _
do sd e y pft h
udde d n a oe l
cgnv e yu a rg ym _
nn ai c p at aa _
o hwir t
i n of o par l e is a yfe y t gl sp _
l ot a al a si .
s p mf dt r af cdt or wle?
i l ot e ru i
h h d oaf c c n yh m ptoha s t e a a a at e e e p es el tn e d
e aoi t r r s pt n oomit d s ar t mev _
o+ea di a f f i e ef e ee air nt r d
eps e ii mmon oulattrd st h t u o sc t t oe oio s si t nt sl ct op en t i vv a ta n ps s =
s xidu t EE l
xe c u o eco el aelcg ul uDD o csun PEE l ai mtp or i
Dihund
- pooiu i
t TT u - -
c s onp 9ardc i
l O
Qgvri ra an - ~
D
. d n
a D
- 1lll e r s t l ) o -
- u. a u
eee l f
o n cd b n ini r
l n a aoi npm n l
s o -
ai d vsn v o f i
t .
ri e a oe ni e a ' -
~e r ,
i t(
ali i
ta i(f e enlo oc das i
de l
ua l ury esd n(l s ns n c f) ca ad eei t i
f sa o uo l
a sial aswn od c br? s c nrot e cnh adda i ol p d oe eit i r ot e eiat t cs _
ot e/i si cc st u hidg s ne oi oi cpad i e
ng n t
dredrgr p edat a t rs s rsiouni t
n sdi n foe rd o mnans st r oerr -
l a eig o dnednl pbsr t f rep e am c
i st eet a ee aa ye t
yu ain r r shi r shr e cwd n ate a
l adnto n n ei t
uwp uwor g a t hr ala c n bedoeb. d ns u a o t
n o o r oin p p -
hoen com nip ae rp nitaot r
f) sg -
t n sgn g cp ta ae c pini t p
utn nn o '
n ni a iooir a oin Cit an ti D gs D gmimDtrst cl r dnndnl nira aug i
auys s npoo nie r udoivn i 0t
- iurr ce a mr 1 sl t DdaDdbaDipm Qre cdae *. -
- D d
n a
i D
g i
n r l
o e f d s o d o .
M h t
e l
e u L e s M R
s od n gh e o n D
Dee i o
s s
i l
nt eh n i
t a M oN i di t i e
t n m M
owmr l l
i v
d o m ee k ei o ecT c t t yC s n e o a ce l
iy a r oa s i
R l
el Do t Dlpn 7 R e ea f
o mce 9 S nl oL i
9 e r i t g u wC r 1
c e i s e i ef o 4 nt r R v of 1 ae h e nia 3 d Cr a R ore 1 i m e i t t r uar l c
pr ai r e Ga f P N
u ot C h s s nl a b
m e
o d S kr o c omig v
o }
N t
n a n U WDl eo e o i
c i d
m l b
R a
p u l
o P e C _
v R e N _
D -
l l l1 g
i n
l e )
9 n d 4 D D o o 5 d d si nt c M 1
- n n a o e' e G a i E D D t a e l
s o R r r u s l
U o o c re D N f
s f
s l at e t
o t f
r e
r e c m
a r
t e
t e sa d :
d ora e kr ( m m i r
t a ds y a a apt l o g r a
r a nl Re ee w l o p p eu ca d o t t sf eN l l e d u u e c o a a f od n n t
o e h t
f e
f e ns ai t l
p e d d on d
ic m g g i t o ue m n n n ai t l
o o i i c
t n bu Ge c i e
t c
e a ei r S s l
f ore d i c
r a l e
p e
mt u s n e w s r i t
nt e a d t r r cd o
e s f o
f o f o f o det r
m m s s de pr a e r
e n D d o
d o l e m g d oa o i
l t n h t
e h
t e
i aar l
eP r p O u
D a
m m t
dp ea vd Da en i n *
- o e e
li ljl l l
s e
d d
e o p m e
r o r l
e e .
f o v h L e e e t
o r d s r e s o o h t n d f t
e e n s
s o m o i t
n s h c o s e
t l e
i t s r
o e a s f s t
u a a r e
i s e i r
e t
e s
l l
o t i
r m
~
a d. c a r
r g n a f
o i t
n i o p r
kr a s t a o ul f o
l e t n a ad v o e i r
w e m e n r ore m us ct n t
i r
a: f o e c cs l
ee d dh ot o dm ds m
u h n s de t g m on e n aes i n
mis As mC i
au Q a. m oR .
NN * *
- k $ 3 tul< lc ,\j "lf' 1
3 f > h3 i.
i m,;
s g n g
an ,
fg tg*
'E
{! gjj j{5))3gi$i 7s. ee -
c..
)) 1 't ,i ! -
n+
11 1
4g
- 11 t 1 i ai
' ' 8 5.!-
( q, t,
P gb i J, 8 a 1 ,a I g i e99 9 0 0
I s
e c
u d
e r .
d n d n
k a a y g t
n s r
)
l i i n o
) i a a n t 9 f
/
t r o a 4 s e c
i s
l u
5 s s g 1 a p
n i e
- u m r G t o s m m E n ec o o R ,
u c r U d d e f t
N l
r e d u
( o r f o
p y w n n g l o n i s
a e
i t o l
o r a i t
a t
r o
o (
s mr z p p
d s o e i m u e
o e f ns i s s i
h c io t
p t
e o ed o
- r r
p t e de M
i sde s vl e t r
i t o n v gt n c o ch a
o p r e i
t a ie p i
s r dj dr o u eka i e t nt s c t I Ap S I e
D * * *
- l a
i m
i n i n
m f e
r s g f a a .
t e i n t s t s 1 i
s s l e u C u R a p te f l
h i N e c
i l
t s d d
a u f n g o o a n r m n i e s p oi to f
p e u g a s s A n u n e i l e t l
e l
e a c i s
d v i l
d o e t
o l
as a m s h M w mtn t ne e i
g "c o l i mc n i
n i r
e l
aat me r a .
n g n ed a e
i u
r u
e n e v sq s e
r i g ic n " ti f ue se -
c e s ci r ac -
S e r fece to e s n aia -
r t f c o fep erc hl o S p t- s pu l p
p s-e e t l
u u ot msoCm Ro _
s Sr e Nc i i -
Cs o f a S _
p e =
r D > > > > -
u ~
P e --
i
1ll r
e r o
i c h t e f
i a g g c n ep o t s a k t r rd s- s i f de r e e a ei i
t u t i a fcqu s q d i
c ee i
e r n t a pr oh c a fi ss me t d
l a p i
c ns eiy i
e e a b v n s l l l
a o fa n t
a tois i
g t e a d n t c d e ei s sy i
e p r e
ut n
f i
c t
s e x o v mi e u n t i
at a p j s s t r _
s n ae s- d i a e e e dc e s s c p c n t l ua c x u _
i S e na t a ef i il d n en ca a t
h o ad c s i *.
m ea o po t l r c e sit i
w c en wht i g i r so o a t ed n e nit L G id Sa i
n n eid e e id c _
e r G La - - -
c _
S > > _
)
s i
e l
)
p .
p s a i
e .
l p 2 1
p 5 a
5-s 2
1 r
e R 5 t C s 5- e / r m G e _
R a E t e
C r R mme
/ a m U G p r N
d e ar r _
E d t e ( i r a t R n e g a p e U a c n v c c N r r y (
s y u i
n e i f
u g s a o e s b i c o h
ws e e l
e l
c n r e n p s d h c d a r
o t fc s- fc i
a n i S o c i r
e e
e ma i p c e
c msy t e c i s e e
r c t i
f c a i i
c p p e hwe H
i i
S i
r l u s- c r s g e a e t
n f te p n t m te-n l
u e e i s- e g
a p oi i
l a g d s e s s e f e t i
d D > > > S > > > >
o M * * '
y _
h g -
o c l o
a ~
o d
r _
o y
p _
l p p h t
~
p a l a)y e 9
s t at m )4 r
e o nn a5 .
t n oi a g1 e
i m
l l
i tt l
are nG-i a w uc pE -
r a y cn oR a u eU l l .
l p e cg vN
) d k e _
d n i
l an d (g e
i a s s ed f u s l
ey su ol oin n a y
mda pcn se l
i ow sd t
n s we r mh oi r( eo c
o g s o h
t t
e 12ap t pl a om
(
c n de l
i r a p c t su ov r pic a r 5l f y i l
e o n e u 5l - a mp r ei c _
h c d o me c t
a oRr s s a p ht e p
c /Cof ns i
r M
c s r p e a i f e oi i
f Gy eC i se r
e c i
c v r c Et c l
sR n it i
i f
i e t p a i
p p eRe eN Cs i
H c e s- n a pUr s- Nd i i cr Rr g p e r
e y e LfoNfo n S- t il t n t i
i l
e s a a s - - -
. e t i
d S > > > >
o M
- o n
i o
t c
l e .
s e t s 4 n r e t e
m e s m s a e
s r
s 2 ap A & t e
l 1 u3 s e a e o :
s m f
e m D n u d u t
s & i ol o ,l s o e n y t aV nV e g l ,
o ,
m o u2 c1 i2 t
u l
c o l a 5 b u1 5 d 9 5- i5 o o4 c r -
D s
ht 5 d R nC t
iCsR $
e1 - a/ d / 9 MG i
s G r G B
a nE sE o R teE oR i r eR l
a c
iU s
iN aU nN mU aN i c e r n e c a h D > s > p >
c e
- T *
- y d _
e l
e l
d a E t
u e re r c D
pd on x _
n n e E a eg e.
ie t t l
l i
T dn a w x-ni ae dldso E a
sht io c ud t a D m n f t ce hs ted h E i l oht t T u i
pnl a s a pw i
t t x f e
mt sou e a s m d u n tetical r s st e smc a e c i
d ss r t
e i
f e to fh o e mc ai s i
e c
f o n o snt a e p x nc lti n r a s e o e uwi aee p e E
- i t r fe ns t t id D aa ,a l u sn E nt a
d s er a ta a T i
b h myc a n f
e hE ,
xl s mt o rwi d t y D aa l
- i. os cl t fhn y tE mm s
y e u gt a n pna f
i t iT l
i cs e se n bx i
f s hed e l i i I a v i aa c i bo m e pce t r o n f o gt d ioc nl i A et e niemiu ys h rt pl s ne r
e i ndath edr f c t au ter mef a i ie t
e o hot o o mfe sff ea e Wmn rl r i p id l fd I
m t t eas p a
r Ddu > A > >.
a P *
- l s
y l r i
a e e w w t esr a h r
a i r s t a me s t e r e p at r e.
r e
i r t e l am pa c
ma l
t 4 e e dr m.h e a d ia av t r
a n a
l ap ri t p vt n at pa a s e e v h r e n m t r e
t y
s f od i f
o ee l i u s t n l c
a n i l
i r o u dc a f
eo i
b a i n ol p dc a n tu o t b e c br d s e a y, o i
l i
t r r s t a l u ro
) i nle p g s r
. f v n d a i sf e
l t
n essi
- w. i l
r s o h e
od
,e d d n r s no u a fo t l l i
c t a c td i
si t
( x l e b eis ya s he t u a e c d g s l
ai n i
s got f ex n n y nb y inn de a a r
l a am r
l a dt ee l
a e n e co n nub h b i t n a t e
A i
f t y n i r a y, tlel a e u d e mr r
m o
mdn aa e
l e tr t o n i
s f r
r as p e mt t
t e c e r
e e pe p d f I a r D P e gn m uru o s a a
r Sp > F > > Ur a
P e *
- l l t
t" s
atn e ee e l m ed ru t
a? ar e hn s "p v -
t e s ef i s o uo t
e l
yec uhc at vn l
l j ab l
a e re etn uo v qn r b t
esr ei e) st ea t
ee mh at sm ae mte r t t a ea i
e rm e a
r m pe v a aa pr e (m er r
td en t
a e p han s sa
)
l ut wro i ee t
al u ec hl tb n f ea tt r ns ni o df e ei sc m u i s o c f hoi r
( odd reh t
em it pe s sl et x i
w sitr i
s t
e u na sac y s ho mi ah m r eee l
e s ain rt t vl a
n l
p pw a eib mac ti A
i t
l w e eh o smr t a r r vu r uh o a edo e m a,orhee ps r t t np e ni r hxt a oe l
l m
ee Cer vit Acr a
r ir Gc > >
a P
- y t
n -
D i _
t a _
d f o r n e c -
a n o n D
u i -
t r c c o i s u n f i ~
L f s d o c i
- s. b a e r
i t e r u p t
e n l
a f
o t i s _
e t
i i
c ht a bs te m d e n ca u s i
a s h ad r s c ol s l l
a u e r a pn d fu p c t
- po e o s 3 ai t -
mp i
t t i
t e
l u d ki e m rd i l
u a u s od s d f
e b
l l
o s e
wa eg we d
l o e wV2 n i
c mi l c
g ,
o r ay l
a o i
n h c 1 p f rl p h r
p c a 5 : sp c n a o r
5- 9 4
t r a a o a l
p p R 5 oy r c
=
p C pb p e
r a /
1
- p y p e s G G ut a ei r
o d
e E E sn a ss i
l ny f s R R da i el a o U U otr i t c in d p N N he n La o o r
t e c n I
h P Mu t > > > >
e .
M * *