NUREG-0279, Forwards Final Rept & Three Progress Repts on Review of NUREG-0279 & Analytic Sciences Corps TR-0113-1-1

Forwards Final Rept & Three Progress Repts on Review of NUREG-0279 & Analytic Sciences Corps TR-0113-1-1

ML19289E620
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/03/1979
From:	Tse A NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:	Kabele T ANALYTIC SCIENCES CORP.
References
RTR-NUREG-0279, RTR-NUREG-279 NUDOCS 7904210782
Download: ML19289E620 (59)

Text

e OA E,

.,c t r.11 L O ST ATES j

.?

e.

c.'e f.UCLE AR REGULATORY cO:....irSIC'

'o,,Y'lllN h 5

k WAStilf;GTOfJ, D. C. 20 '

$Wy',5 g e.j j\\PR 3

Mr. Thomas Kabele I

The Analytic Sciences Corporation

=

6 Jacob Way Reading, Massachusetts 01867

[

Dear Mr. Kabele:

I i

Enclosed for ycur information is a copy of my final report and three progress reports on the review of LLL's NUREG-0279 and TASC's TR-Oll3-1-1.

If you and your staff have any comments, suggestions or corrections, please let me know.

p I must offer my thanks to you and your staff for your patient, E

helpful, and prompt.ssistance which enabled me to complete this F

review within a few weeks.

Sincerely, 5

Anthch N. Tse Transportation and Product Standards Branch Office of Standards Development l

i

Enclosure:

p As Stated

!P (IlllS DOCUMENT CONTAINS E

P00R QUAllTY PAGES

[

r I

'790421D78R -

F i

i e.%

9 j, q t? Git.gS t:':tT:n Gre a e

e'.

5 f'UCLE AR I: GU L..i GilY CO:.' "!L SIO.

. hC.,- $

rix:,. 3 To.. D. c. 2:::5 hk 5

• %,h;)/

c.

APR 31373 Dr. Richard lieckman Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Livermore, California 94550 l

Dear Dr. lleckman:

i Enclosed for your information is a copy of nty final report and three progress reports on the review of LLL's NUREG-0279 and TASC's TR-Oll3-1-1.

If you and your staff have any comments, suggestions or corrections, please let me know.

I.nust offer my thanks to you and your staff for your patient, helpful, and prompt assistance which enabled me to complete this review within a few weeks.

Sincerely,

[

0[o

/V

/

Anthon

. Tse i

Transportation and Product

Enclosure:

As Stated Standards Branch Office of Standards Development L

i l

w k

b 7

=

i

'r L

Z

Review of Transportation Accident Risk of High Level Solid Waste

- Final Report By A. N. Tse, TPSB, OSD February 28, 1979

k'..

. Table of Contents I.

Background

II. Scope III. Summary of Findings IV. Detailed Comparison between TASC-LLL and the NUREG-0170 Models -

For Spray Calcine Rail Shipment V.

Population Doses from Other Waste Forms (from TASC Report)

VI. Conclusions References Appendices:

A.

First Progress Report (Feb.1,1979 to Feb. 5,1979).

B.

Second Progress Report (Feb. 5,1979 to Feb.12,1979).

C.

Third Progress Report (Feb. 12, 1979 to Feb. 21, 1979).

.k '

I.

Background

The primary purpose of this review is to investigate and to resolve, if possible, the apparent discrepancy between the expected radiation risk, in terms of population dose, from transportation accidents of high level solid waste shipments and that of spent fuel shipments as reported in the draft DEISon waste disposal (I), dated December 11, 1978 and prepared by Teknekron, Inc.,

for the NRC.

The DEIS stated that the population doses from transportation accidents are about 40 man-rem /1000 MW -yr from rail shipments of spray calcine HLSW and e

about 0.03 man-rem /100'.!W -yr for spent fuel, with a difference of more e

than a factor of 1000 between the two doses. The population dose from spray calcine was taken from doses calculated in a TASC Report (2), which in turn, used models and equations developed in a LLL report (3) (NUREG-0279).- The dose from spent fuel was taken from a different report, NUREG-0170 (4) prepared by Sandia.

The question is whether the difference in the population doses is a real difference or is due to the difference between the models used in the com-putations.

II. Scope Because of time limitations, I reviewed both models in general, but specifi-cally, I used the spray calcine rail shipment as an example for calculating certain parameters such as, accident probabilities and release fractions.

III. Summary of Findings A brief summary of important findings from the review are presented below.

eV

• a The detailed O < :sion and calculations, on which the findings are based, are presented in the three Progress Reports (see enclosures).

Comparison between the two models Except for the source tems, the calculational model used in TASC-LLL report is, in general, less conservative than the model used in NUREG-0170.

For example, accident probabilities and release fractions calculated by ti.3 TASC-LLL model would probably be less than the corresponding values calculated by the NUREG-0170 model.

The source terms, radioactivities in a shipment that are releasable during transportation accidents, are considered, the TASC report, to be much larger in a spray calcine HLSW shipment than are the source terms for spent fuel shipments in the Sandia report. This is the primary reason for the difference in population doses.between the two reports.

If one uses the NUREG-0170 model and the existing parameters associated with the model to calculate accident risk (due to inhalation) from a spray calcine HLSW rail shipment, one would obtain a population dose greater than the corresponding population dose (due to inhalation) by using the TASC-LLL model.

Evaluation of TASC-LLL model The overall TASC-LLL model appears to overestimate the radiation risks from transportation accidents.

It is difficult to determine the factor of over-

~

estimation because the degree of conservatism is dependent on personal judgment. The reasons for overesti; nation are given below.

1.

The dose from external radiation (ground shine) is overestimated becaus ' (a) no corrective actions are considered, (b) no shielding

,.V

, is considered, (c) an infinite plane source is used, and (4) the dose is integrated to 50 years.

2.

The dose from the milk pathway is also overestimated because no corrective actions are considered.

3.

Air concentration and ground deposition may be overestimatee 1e-cause the total ground co.tamination (integrated from 100 meters 6

to 10 meters) exceeds the total activity initially released.

0 4.

The integration of downwind distance from 100 m to 10 m seems much beyond the range of validity of the Gaussian Model.

If global fallout is to be considered, as suggested by LLL personnel, an appropriate model should be used instead of extending the Gaussian Model to a region beyond its validity.

IV.

Detailed Comparison between TASC-LLL and NUREG-0170 Models A simplified equation for calculating the risk of inhalation dose from a stngle shipment due to transportation accidents can be stated as:

\\

miles h shipment )Mrob of acc. } x Population man-rem dose from

\\

mile

')

shipment /

inhalation f

f x Release x aerosolization x l respiratory (fraction factor

( factor x[resuspensionx[doseconversionrem)

( factor (factor for ci inhalation, j,

x population man affected m2 densi ty, m

x

area, x atmospheric x / activity in f

dispersion factor a shipment C,I

(

(availablefor shipmen

Telease, x(1 shipment)

.N s Each of the above parameters will be compared as tabulated in the following table.

Comparison Between TASC-LLL and NUREG-0170 Models TASC-LLL NUREG-0170 Model Model (Rail Spray Calcine (Rail spent fuel Parameter HLSW Shipment) shipment)

=

Probability of transp.

For impact For both impact accident resulting

-*4x10-8agg.

and fire in release For fire c<3x10-7 age s3x10-8agg.

(Model II, Type B) e Miles / Shipment 1500 miles 730 miles Release fraction For impact For both impact es> 0. 001 -

and fire -

(no release for no release for Va 40 mph) sev. cat. I & II, d

For fire 0.01 for III, es>10-7for 30000F 0.8 for IV, (no release for 1 for V - VIII T<t23720F)

(Note: These values may be modified for HLSW)

Aerosolization 50% of spray 0 for special factor calcine with form shipment 10pmsize or less 0.05 for large Pu. shipment 1 for most other radionuclides (exceptu) lespi ratory.

50% of spray 0 for special form factor calcine with 0.2 for Puunge supwed) 10 ynsize or less 1 for most other j

radionuclides (exceptu)

Resuspension not considered from 0 (special factor form) to 1.6 (pu and several others)

3-

, Dose pathways -

From INREM From INREM dose conversion computer code and others factors for inhalation Dose from external rad.

considered not considered -

(infinite plane source, negligible 50 yr exposure)

Dose from milk pathway considered not considered -

(uniform plane source, negligible 14 day removal half-time, 50 year exposure) 2 A

Population rural - 22 man /Km rural - 6 man /Km density 2

urban - 1280 man /Km urban - man /Km at center and decreased Extreme 15,444 to M00 man /Km2 at Urban 3861 40 Km from center Suburban 719 Affected For impact -

For both impact area area covered and fire -

by a puff area covered For fire - area covered by a plume by 22.50 sector downwind 100 m to 106m s100 m to 105m integration limits Atmospheric Dispersion -

For impact -

For both impact & fire -

Gaussian plume Model used Gaussian puff For fire -

Gaussian plume Windspeed 5 m/sec actual data from two locations Deposition velocity 0.01 m/sec 0.01 m/sec Height of release 1m line source from 0 to 10 m

.)

Sev. Cat.

Low Med. High Fractional occ. of Acc.

50% urban I, II 10 10 80 according to population III, IV 30 40 30 density zones 50% rural V

50 30 20 VI, VII, VIII 70-80 20-5 10-5 Activity in a shipment -

material shipped HLSW - spray calcine spent fuel material form powder solid with gaseous and volatiles in void spaces releasable activity all - most important gaseous and per shipment nuclides are:

volatiles in void (no s

solid release) 6 4

Sr-90 1 x 10 ci Kr-85 1 x 10 ci 6

Cs-1371.3 x 10 ci I-131 0.1 ci 4

3 Cm-244 2.7 x 10 ci Cs-137 1.3 x 10 ci 1 Direct radiation considered from the cask not considered Radiation risk per shipment -

inhalation only rw0. 2 man-rem / shipment r>0.004 man-rem / shipment inhalation, ground shine and milk pathway 20 man-rem / shipment not calculated If the accident risk from a rail shipment of spray calcine HLSW is calculated by both TASC-LLL and NUREG-0170 models, the approximate population doses from i

.3

. inhalation are shown below.

Accident risk (population dose from inhalation) per rail spray calcine shipment Based on TASC-LLL NUREG-0170 Model Model*

0. 2 man-rem N 10 man-rem (resp. fraction = 0.2 aeros. fraction =0'.05) i

• Release fractions from NUREG-0170 Model II were used.

However, these release fractions may be modified in the event the NUREG-0170 method is to be used to calcu-late accident risk from spray calcine HLSW shipment.

V.

Population Doses from Other Waste Forms (from TASC Report)

The accident risk from transportation accidents of various waste forms are tabulated below. These values were obtained directly from the revised TASC (O

Report. The table clearly indicated that there are other waste forms which would produce lower releases in accidents than does the spray calcine form.

Transportation Accident Risk - Expected Dose (Based sn TASC Report, Dated Oct. 10,1978)

ExpectedDoseIman-rem /MW,-yr Waste Form Truck Train

-2 Spray Calcine 1.2 2.8 x 10 2.5xIg-I 5 x 10 g 7.1 x l -3 Fluidized bed calcine Borosilicate Glass 8 x 10 Multibarrier Form 1 x 10-5 2 x 10-7

• For expected. dose per shipment, multiply the values by 500 MWe-yr/ shipment.

., VI. Conclusions 1.

The major difference between accident risks from rail shipments of spray calcine HLSW and spent fuel is due to the amount of radio-nuclides assumed to be releasable in each of the shipments.

2.

The overall TASC-LLL model (used to calculate risk per rail shipment of - ay calcine HLSW) appears to be conservative, i.e. overestimating pus.. ion dose, but appears to be less conservative than NUREG-ol70 model(used to calculate risk from spent fuel).

3.

As reported in DEIS, there are other waste forms of HLSW which would produce lower impacts than the spray calcine form.

(Note: The draft DEIS did not consider truck shipment of spray calcine which, according to TASC report, is about 40 times greater in pmaulation dose when com-pared to that of a rail spray calcine shipment.)

q --

References 1.

" Draft Environmental Impact Statement Concerning Proposed Technical Criteria for Continental Geologic Disposal of Waste at Facilities Licensed Under Section 202(3) and (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974" Teknekron, Inc., December 11, 1978.

2.

" Analysis of Nuclear Waste Management Options, Volume I and II" TR-1103-1-1, The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC), January 9, 1978 (Revised on October 10,1978).

3.

" Determination of performance criteria for High-Level Solidified Nuclear Waste" NUREG-0279, J. J. Cohen, et al., Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, July 1977.

4.

" Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes" NUREG-0170, OSD/NRC, December 1977.

3 Review of Transportation Accident of High Level Solid Waste First Progress Report (Feb.1,1979 to Feb. 5,1979)

By A. N. Tse, TPSB, OSD I.

Administrative Activities 1.

This high priority task is assigned to me on January 31, 1979.

It is to be completed within several weeks.

2.

I met with Mike Kearney, Mark Grayson and Steve Scheurs of NMSS on February 2, 1979. Background information on DEIS and other related documents were discussed. Mike Kearney will contact various contractors and subcontractors to ask-their cooperation in this review.

II. Summary of Results of Technical Review Preliminary results and rough calculations indicate there are no large differences in values of the probability of accident per mile and the release fraction from TASC Report and from NURES-0170.

I will confirm the preliminary findings by discussing with originators of the reports.

III.

Future Plans 1.

To confirm the preliminary findings with authors of TASC report.

2.

To review source term and dose commitment values used by TASC report -

TASC obtain these values almost directly from NUREG-0279 prepared by LLL.

IV.

Detail Technical Discussion I will describe briefly findings of the review so far on two reports.

DEIS - by Teknekron, TR-1102-1-1 by TASC (The Analytic Sciences Corp-oration), subcontractor of LLL.

1.

DEIS - Section E.2.4 - Transportation Accidents A.

Spent Fuel The DEIS reported the following population doses. These values were obi'ained directly from NUREG-0170 with minor changes.

Man-rem Release Model per 1000 Man-Rem / Shipment of NUREC-C'7p_

MWp-yr Truck Train Model II 3 x 10-2 6 x 10-4 4 x 10-3 Model I 83 1.5 10

et S B. HLSW lhe DEIS considered only rail shipments of HLSW and reported the following population doses from transportation accidents:

Population Dose HLSW Man-remi Man-rem.

Form per shipment per 1000 MW.

Spray Calcine 20 40 Fluidized Bed calcine 5

10 These values were derived from TASC report " Analysis of Nuclear Waste Management Options". January 9,1978.

I believe the following calcu-lations may be used to obtain the above values:

From Table 2.5-4 (P.2-44) of TASC report (Vol. I),

for rail transport of Spray Calcine, Man-rem /MW -yr = 4.1 x 10-2 e

therefore, man-rem /1000 MW -yr = 41,and man-rem / shipment (500 MW,-fr) = 20.5*20 Similarly, for rail transport of fluidized bed calcine, Table 2.5-4 gives

-3 man-rem /MW -yr = 9.7 x 10 e

Therefore man-rem / shipment - 4.85tv5 C.

Points to Considc.

1.

DEIS stated the transportation accident risk of HLSW (Spray Calcine) is about 1000 times higher than transportation accident risk of spent fuel (when Model II is used). This is the reason why tr.e review is initiated.

2.

DEIS considered only rail shipment for HLSW.

It stated that the rail seems to be the most likely ti portation mode for solidified high level waste.

If truck HLSW shipment is made, the population dose can be estimated based on similar calculation:

From TASC report Table 2.5-4, for truck shipment of spray calcine, man-rem /MWe.yr = 1.7

i a Therefore, man-rem /500 MW -yr = 1.7 x 1000_

e

= 850 It appears to be too high.

2.

TASC Report Since DEIS uses the population dose per MW -yr trom HLSW transportation e

accident from TASC Report, TASC report must be carefully examined. TASC has two reports: Volume I contains general descriptive information, and Volume II contains technical details.

I will corcentrate on train accident with spray calcine at this time because

(?) only train accident is considered in DEIS, and (2) spray calcine gives highest man rem dose than other form.

A.

Doses from Various Scenerios Table A.5-1 (P. A-52) of Vol. II, TASC Report lists, in part, nominal values of expected dose for spray calcine:

Expected Whole Body Dose - man-rem /MWp-Yr Accident Type Dispersion Dissolution Train-impact-urban 0

0 2

7.4 x 10-3 Train-impact-rural 3.4 x 10 8 4.4 x 10-9 Train-fire-urban 9.2 x 10-Train-fi re-urban 5.3 x 10-9 4.4 x 10-9 Subtotal 3.4 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-3 v

y J

Total 4.1 x 10-2 Note:

(1) Dose for " Train-impact-urban"~zero because the following two assumption are made:

a.

Train speed limit is 40 pmh in urban area, and b.

There is no release for impacts with train speed less than 67 mph.

(2) Doses for " train-fire-urban" and " train-fire-rural" are small because the report assumed no release below certain temperature 0

for spray calcine (2372 F).

, Because " train-impact-rural" dominate the expected dose, I will con-centrate on this scenero first.

Point'to Consider IASC Report calculate impact and fire separately, what would be the expected dose if an impact is followed by a fire?

B.

Overall Dose Equations - for Airborne Release from Train Impact Equation A.2-1 (P. A-8) can be expressed simply as:

Pop. dose = (p) (RF) (Q) (DF) (S) where P = accident frequency (prob / mile x miles / shipment)

RF = release fraction Q = curies shipped DF = dose comitment tactor S = tactors including dispersion, areas effected, population density C.

Calculation of P Parameters needed to calculate P are shown in Table A.3-3 of TASC Vol. II.

They are:

prob. of rail accident of any kind = 1.6 x 10-6 frac ion of impact 7

accident for a given accident of any kind = 5.1 x 10- fraction of acc. occur in rural area = 0.5 prob. ",f an impact acc. per mile

= (1.5 x 10-5

= 3.8 x 10-8 )(5.1 x 10-2) (0.5)

Miles per shipment = 1500 p = (3.8 x 10 -8) (1500) = 5.7 x 10-5 impact acc./ shipment Prob. of Accident from NUREG-U170 For train accident, Table 5-5, p. 5-15 of NUREG-0170 gives prob. per mile for Categorie's IVthrough VIII, acc

= 1.6 x 10-6 mile x 0.2 acc

= 3 x 10-8 mile

==

Conclusion:==

TASC train acc. probability is in the same order of magnitude as the sum

~

. of train probability of Cat. IVthrough VIII of NUREG-0170.

D.

Calculation of RF - Release Fraction For transportation impact accidents, Eqs. A.3.12 and A.3-14 (P. A-24,

25) give RF = (PP)

P(v)F(v)dv V=0 Wnere PP = pathway probability

= 0.1 for impact - airborne dispersion (Table A. 3-4) g

~

0- p2 s'~ I

-P(9)'=

oTt.j 0

v 6 Wo F(v) =

j W4\\~SW+b j (w -o-y f o

o (Spray Calcine) b b

/

c y = impact velocity Vf = upper credible velocity

= 120 mpn for urban impact

= 180 mph for rural impact M)3-5and6).,M, A, B, VO are constants tabulated in two tab 2

A (I have not been able to detemine the sources of these constants. Two references were listed, SLA-74-0001, and Van Konynenburg, R. A. LLL memo).

Calculation of P (v)

For train, Table A. 3-5 (P. A-26) gives N 1 = 30.49 d2=1,0p,a o

on,3 P(v) = 30.49 6 (3 (3o,4

. I iO3 u-y (mph)_

(30.49)\\ 0.703

~~~ M v

, ". b P (v) 0 0

1 0

50 1.42 0.1 7.8 x 10-3 68 1.76 0.02 2 x 10-3 70 1.79 0.016 1.6 x 10-3 74 1.87 0.011 1.2 x 10-3 100 2.3 5.2 x 10-4 6.7 x 10-5 120 2.62 3.3 x 10-5 4.8 x 10-6 180 3.48 1.2 x 10-9 2.3 x 10-10 Function of P(v) can be plotted as shown in Figure 1.

Calculation of F(vJ - For Spray Calc'ne O

U-L U'o W4.WiFtA (U -c;;,),

o o

LB

@ W tA o

Table A. 3-6 iP. A-28) gives W = 67, A = 8.0, B = 0.5 L

• .. Fiv) = 0 for v4 67 mph F(v) = 0.5 for v.'>75 mph F(v) is linear between 67 mph and 75 mph.

Function F(v) can be plotted as shown in Figure 2.

Calculation of P(v) F(v) dv Function P(v) F(v) can De calculated as following Table:

y (mph)

P(v)

'F(v)

P(v) F(vJ 0

0 0

0 50 7.8 x 10-3 0

0 68 2 x 10-3 0.06 4

1.2 x 10 4 70 1.6 x 10-3 0.19 3 x 10-74 1.2 x 10-3 o,44 5.3 x 10-4 100 6.7 x 10-5 0.5 3.4 x 10-5 120 4.8 x 10-6 0.5 2.4 x 10-6 180 2.3 x 10-10 0.5 1.7 x 10-10 Function P(v) F(v) can be plotted as shown in Figure 1.

The integration can be done by estimate the area under the P(v) F(v) curve. For urban, Vf = 120 mph. ~~

V9 P(v) F(v) dy = (75-67) x 6 x 10-3 4 Q(jw_.g x Nf3 v=0

.b

~_ c i

i 3

1 i g' g_

_1_, J_

s s

' _; Lc m

M_

+

4 i

_F

, ii

s. __

L1 t_

le e

e i,

e

, e'

+ i 4

aii

_' i i

8 4_.. n_gg,,i,,

.i r

i

. i e

_ L.i

, ii ei.

6 i i e.

. 1.

i i ie i

, f i,,,

, 2 i.

6 a_i i

I f f, i 1 ll I

s f

f f (

i l $ '

I 3 9, 9 l

l i

t t l l

6 8.

1 I

8. s I

i 1

e l t i

6 <

1 4 6 4 4

6 i

6 6

l

. f I

l l,

e i

I

, f i f i

6 4

1

. f f

I t i

t I

i i

e i l

(

t r

t l

r i

i

,i I

i 6 e I-1 1 4

i ei4 e

.I f

i e t

e ea.

l 4

t i e

i t

I 1

i l

1 I i l

I 8 8 i

i t i e 6 0 e l

. 4 e

., 1 6

1, i f

1 i

I i

l l,

N f.

4 4 4 I l e l l fq M

t

)

/t l

t I

t i

l 44 i

_/

6 8

1 e

6 6

6

'6 s 4 i e 4 i i

i e

i j

t I

ee i

f i j',v i

i e

p i

6 e

i l

I

• i AV i

e e

t i <

/A' i

s..

e t AQ e i i

F.

4. e s

at

, 4 vve 1

e s, i s i,

e i

e4 e i...

ti#

., i.

. 8 8 8

6 i e

i ti

' w 4 t-6

'T t.'

is.

i t

t,

i e t #

e r.

i i

8 8

4.,,

4 4

4 i i e

p i

V 6 e a

e e

a r..

i d

1 I

6

1. 1 e

l 1

i i 8 1

i 4 l e

f I

$ 6 t e

6 e i

e, l i

i t

i I

4 0,

(

. 4 g

ij,

,g j

j 1

(

l 1

e e,

t e,

e l

, i 4

6

' t t

,6 l p p g

' t i

i l,

a f

8 l f

e t e i

e 4 i

i i

. 6 6

, 4 g

f l f i

j e t i

' i i

e t i 8

I t t

i O,-

4 6

I i

t 4

I p i s

a e 4 )

6. e e. l 4

i g

4,

0 8 8

8 0

8

. t t I e, 6 f,

i,

(

i I

t 4 i t 4 e

4 ' I i

I i i *

• 4 s.

I e

8 8

. 6 e 1...

., i 4

. e i,

i i

e t

.e e

s,

. a

.t 8

f I

e 6 1

, e, e

_I t

I a

, i I t t

6 t

i i

, p 4

l I

I f

I f f I

,f

. e t t I i

e i i t.

t

, g 1

, a 4

g e e

a

. a. g i

, 4

.g I I l

f I i 9 I i,

t. s.

l,,,

l

.g

,g I

. t '

3 i

e t.

t, e :

f I 8 I

f. 8 o e e

, q t

t g

g I

e t

i i,

. g.

, 4.

8 8

1 4

i i

. i.

I t,

6 s

i 6

f a i 8

l I i a s

e t l.

s i

f.

4 9

g i,

g 4

et t..

. J I

s i

a g

i i l

i,

a{

i

., i i.

ei i+

i,.

.. i.

1 i

si i

e i.

e i

i

.e i

, F i

u,,

i.

L i i

.i

_.. i i i

., r

, 4,

,,, -,,,7

. i i.,

6 i. i,,

e 6 i

..., i.,

• i 6

i e i. i e 6 4 i P.

i #

-74, }-,

e i

eie I

i,,

,i.

. i i a.

.I e

r,,

e i.

i i i.,

,, i

' F _f-F,L,...;_1

_[ _j _L 4.L

-e_ a. t ^

1_,

-8 e

'.L l _,_

,i i*- i s

..,,,_,,;,1

,,g_;_. e

,e H

H--W '

-.mL

'A

\\'

' 4

(

O. f

. i 6

[ a_

,i]

B 3

_4. - 1.'

f f, ) ],',,' fN]

a i

r i

6 4

f

.)

e i,.

. e Q

90 An

c. n%

Cin ew

e %

O

-3

=48 x 10-3 i-159x10-3=0.2 For rural, Vf 180 mph

=

Yi P(v) F(v) dy = 48 x 10-3 U'=0 (180 - 67) x 6 x 10-3

+

= 48 x 10-3 + 339 x 10-3

= 0.4 Therefore the release fraction from imnact,' for urban, RFu = (0.1) (0.2) = 0.02 for rural, RFr = (0.1) (0.4) = 0.04 Release fraction from NUREG-0170 Tables 5-7 and 5-8 of NUREG-0170 list the release fraction as follows:

Type B Seven,ty Cat.

Model II Model I I

O U

II O

O III 0.01 1.0 IV 0.1 1.t V

l.0 1.0 VI 1.0 1.0 VII 1.0 1.0 VIII 1.0 1.0 Conclusion TASC release fraction (0.02 or 0.04) falls between the release fraction specified for Cat. III (0.01) and Cat. IV (0.1) of NUREG-0170.

Therefore, it appears no orders of magnitude difference in health effect canbeattributepg ifferences in release fraction.

_C_omparison of Values of (prob /mi) (release fraction) from TASC and NUREG-0170 TASC - For train impact and for spray calcine (prob /mi) (RF) = (3.8 x 10-8) (0.04)

= 1 5 x 10-9 NUREG-0170 - For train and type B package Severity Cat.

prob /mi R F, (prob /mi) (RF)

I 8 x 10-7 0

0 II 5 x 10-7 0

0 III 3 x 10-7

.01 3 x 10-9 IV 3 x 10-8

.1 3 x 10-9 Y

3 x 10-9 1.0 3 x 10-9 10 2 x 10 IU 1.0 2 x 1010 VI 1 x lu-l.0 1 x 10-10 VII VIII 2 x 10-l1 1.0 2 x 10-11 Total 9.3 x 10-9 It appears that TASC's value is not greatxthan NUREG-0170's value.

4 f

- _E. Values for Q - Source Terms Source tenns for biologically significant radionuclides are listed in Table A. 4-1 (P. A-39) of TASC report. These values were obtained directly from NUREG-0279. The review of the source terms will be done later.

F. " Values for DF - Dose Commitment Factors Dose commitment factors are listed in Table A. 4-2 of TASC report.

These values were obtained from three references, all by LLL. The review of these documents will be done later.

G.

Calculation of S - Meteorology - demograpny Pathway Factor Equation A. 2-6 of TASC report stated for puff release (for impact accident) g Xp 5 = x {'X=Nosce E *. % A M 34:

Q where E= average wind speed (meter 1 yr) p)=populai.iondensity (man /m2)

= centerline air cgncentration at surface (ci/m )

%)= centerline air concqntration per unit time (ci/m3 - yr) for rural jbc)=2;2x10-5; man;p7 or, 22 M man 7o = 100 meter - inner limit 7 = 1,000,000m - outer limit' h

(1,000km) 5 6

(NUREG-0279 used 10 m, but TASC report says 10 m was selected to capture as much of the population dose as possible)

(A, = 1.58 x 108 m/yr 100 M (Sm/sec) g g

Area effected = 22.50 segment YL.5

~

, equation (A. 5-2) of TASC stated gx)

= 4.3 x -0.65 dx (deposition velocity = 3 x 105 m/yr, or 2.01 m/sec was used)

S = i.58 x i08 x (2.2 x 10-5) >c

<.06

-0.65 4.3 x dx 102 106 1

m

~ r 35;

= 1.4 x 10-13 x 4.3 x 0.35 x

d 102

= 1.7 x 10-12 (126 - 5)

= 2 x 10-10...--- same value as listed in Table A. 5-2 5

If 10 m is used, then w

105

= 1.7 x 10-12 0.35

= 1.7 x 10-12 (56-5) x

~

~

102

= 8.7 x 10-11 Points for Consideration 1-TASC used centerline concentration for all effected persons -

overestimate?

2.

Xf = 1,000km seems toofar for this type of calculation.

Comparison' 'Between 'TAS0 and'NBREG40170

!;ateological information TASC NUREG-0170 Meteol Model Puff Plume Air concentration Centerline three dimensional Resuspension not-considered considered Deposition velocity 0.01 m/sec 0.01 m/sec Wind velocity 5 ra/sec vary

• Height of release 1m line source from o to 10 m

. Area Affected geometry 22.50 segment vary

• inner limit 100 meters ese300tt outer limit 1000 kn1 ese 50mi Population Density rural 22 6

urban 1250 3861 suburban 719 extreme density urban 15444

• NUREG-0170 used actual meteological data from two locations and used averaged result.

f

FEB 12 i!D9 Review of Transportation Acc4 dent of High Level Solid Waste becond Progress Report (Feb. 5,1979 to Feb.12,1979) oy A. N. Tse, TPSB, OSU I.

Administrative Activities 1.

I contacted the following persons on Feb. 5 and 6:

Sandra Fucigna (NRC/FCHLTB), Task leader for Teknekron's DEIS. ---

She suggested that I contact Teknekron's Sandy Cohen directly on questions related to DEIS.

Richard Heckman (LLL), Program Manager for NRC's waste management program. --- He su gested that I contact TASC directly (TASC is LLL's subcontractor.

N Arthur Sutherland (TASC), Program Manager for work on waste managernent performed under LLL's subcontract. --- Arranged a v1 sit to TASU.

Sandy Cohen (Teknekron), Program Manager for work on DEIS.

--- He was not in. Joel Cehn called me back on questions related to DEIS.

2.

Visited TASC facility at Reading, Mass. on Feb. 8 and Feb. 9,1979 The purposes of the visit were:

(a) to discuss detail calculations as reported in TASC Report; (2) to discuss and verify my simple calcu-lations as reported in my First Progress Reported (dated Feb. 6,1979);

and (3) to identify materials supplied to TASC by LLL.

3.

Made arrangements to visit LLL from Feb.13 to 16,1979.

II. Summary of Results of Technical Review during this Reporting Period I.

TASC personnel confirmed my simple calculations. --- TASC personnel agreed with results of my simple calculation (reported in my First Progress Report) except their computer calculation indicated that the release fraction should be about 0.001 instead of 0.04 (from my rough calculation).

Therefore, we can make the following conclusions (for train impact and for spray calcine):

(a) train impact probability per mile -- same order of magniftude for both TASC and NUREG-0170 models,

.s

. (b) release fraction due to train impact -- TASC model ytelds smaller release fraction than that of NUREG-0170 model.

2.

TASC meteorological model appears to hava some problem. -- Certain equations developed in NUREG-0279 (prepared by LLL) and used by TASC appear to have some problem. TASC and LLL also recognized the problems and changes were made in mid 1978. A revised report was published in October 1978. TASC personnel provided me a copy of their new reports (the original TASC report I reviewed was given to us by Mike Kearney and it was published in January,1978).

I still have some problems with the new model but I was advised that I should talk to LLL.

3.

TASC calculations on population dose contributions from various dose pa thways. - Three pathways were used by TASC:

(1) inhalation from passing clouds, (2) direct radiation from radionuclides deposited from the cloud on the ground, and (3) milk pathway from ground deoosi tion.

Rough estimate showed the relative dose contribution ays are: (TA6 c-qAw cQ p& uc. M m

ou from Inhalation: 41%

from direct radiation: ^75%

from milk pathway: N Z5%

Total dose:

100%

These relative contributions appear suspicious, because one might L<c*

thought inhalation is the dominant contributor.

I will check with LLL on this point.

III. Future Plans 1.

To discuss with LLL personnel on equations and parameters used in TASC calculations.

2.

To examine meteorological model and dose pathways used in NUREG-0170.

IV.

Detail Technical Discussions I will describe briefly my discussions with Teknekron on their DEIS; my rev ts, and my discussion with TASC personnel.

1.

Discussion with Teknekron personnel Mr. Joel Cehn of Teknekron, Inc., called me back and confirmed that values in Tables E-15 and E-16 were obtained as I have outlinc.d in my First Progress Report.

There are two minor points I made to Mr. Cenn:

(1) in Table E-15, man-rem per shipment for Model Il should be 8 x 10-4 for truck and 5 x 10-3 for train (instead of 6 x 10-4 and 4 x 10-3, respectively).

3_

(z) On cage E-59, 3rd paragraph, a statement was made which says:

"The results are scaled, however, and corrected in order to reduce the apparent conservati$nin this wo'rk."

If the same correction is made for spray calcine (see Table E-16),

then the man-rem dose would be about 40 man-rem per shipment instead of 20. Therefore, the correction may not be less conservative.

They will call me back on another question where do they obtain air-borne dispersion of 0.25 for spray calcine (see Table E-16)7 2.

Review of TASC Reoorted (the January 9, 1978 version)

A.

Meteorological Model - Puff a.

NUNEG-0279 (LLL)

For a puff release, p.192 of NUREG-0279 gives M_

1

- lY 4t) b q=.

0%og y 6 A

sch-whert f4 surface air concentration on puff centerline (ci/m3) g= activity released (ci)

On P.194, a simplified equation is given for estimating r'.lative centerline concentration from a puff release L g. 1o % g.- M Q

==

tor the following conditions wind speed = 5 m/sec deposition velocity = 0.01 m/sec Puff release height = 1 m stability = D On P. 201, area integral of the product of concentration, area, and population density f p f is d

CC isthepa m u x-o. w -

eg rage concentration at a distance X and over an Wherei p

h

$ ('/-)

[nm,.\\W ^

n f

.. D.

TASC Report (Dated January 9, 1978)

TASC used LLL equation directly except with a different definition.

On P. A-lo, eq. A. 2-/ and P. A-47, eq.,A. 5-2 gf ve

_ g, g-.

S = MQr A) f4c Q, A }& =:-4.3 X M.-dD where d= surface air concentration per un1t time on the puff centerline

/

x meters downwind of an accidert.

f cQ= rate of emission (ci/yr)

Note here " centerline" is used. But in equation @, NUREG-0279 clearly stated that&s an average concentration.

d c.

Verification of above equations Fron P.115 of " meteorology and Atomic Energy" 1968, equation 3.154 gives gg t

C "x'

'T #I

( M M== g t y g e g.

g for center of the puft. At surf ace, y = u.#, y = 0.

0 gpdeo-xcept for a {acfor of g.e_.- d -

1== y x

r This is same as eq.

I can not easily derive / equations @andhwithout knowing how depo-sition velocity is taking into account.

But the compatability of these equations can be checked by numerical methods:

x = 100m x = 4000 m

% " G?.

a lyn A'

Nli WA A Le 01 h

'i A 50 1.2 x 10-7 av in-3 R

( b m,1 br c/(B 1.5 x 10-11 1Rv in-1/

c 7 pg ',,'

C

% 0.22

" 02 TA00 18n nnn a m -

-'c " b l T x 10-4 s

1.I v 10-7 gg g Average conclusion (case E) should be smaller than d M c w h Y h hduWt-1 (case B),But,gase E is much greater than case B.

--- This contra-diction may indicate that this set of equations is not self consis.-

tant.

B.

Meteorological Model - Plume a.

NUREG-0279 (LLL)

For continuous release, p. 192 of NUREG-0279 gives

. 4 =l3 /^- 4 i W

0 if the plume is sector-averaged over 22.5.

where = surface air concentration on plume centerline On P.194, a simplified ecuation is given +or estimating relative centerl1ne concentration f ar a plume d

. % - t o-8 yc ' ' l g

for the following conditions wind speed = 5 m/sec deposition velocity = 0.01 misec plume height = 1 m stability = D g

On P. 199, the integral is

- 1

.L O Y\\

~

~

$w wnaaq hev n& ucw, clA=2gdyt = % xiX b.

TASC Report (Dated January 9, 1978)

TASC used equations @andh directly.

Eq. A.5-1 on P. A-46 gives M k C 1. 2

• 10 X

M

[1 Eq.131s obtained by multiplying equation h and equationO.

Again TASC define as centerline concentration which is different from LLL's definition.

c.

Verification of the above equations, From P.113 of " Meteorology and Atomic Energy." 1968, equation 3.143

'ives crosswind integrated concentrations:

fOL~- Wh $ _ D f k) 11 s

I h) p' - m = w;~ e.

m a

if eg. 9 is section-averaged concentration, than, cSf^t)

@M cwr t t.

~

%CD lwd %ng.

T of (7/h)

@ /A-)c n

&J

. Equation 6 may not be correct because crosswind averaged concen-tration should

(

(th

(/dhr cWI C Lwn "

s%

wyty-G k jd Thwa I

A T

&)e,wmY ~ @-

~

O Note:

ow n T This is my initial thought on this equation.

I must check with a meteorologist before I can say this analysis is correct.

If eqs. hand h are true, then equation @ overestimates the sector-average concentration.

Again, I can not easily derive equationhfrom equationh, c.

Question about Meteorological Model 1.

Where is the " time of inhalation" (24 nours in plume case and 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> in puff case) incorporated in the equations?

2.

How is the cloud depletion due to dry deposition treated?

d.

Dose Pathway Models Tnree dose pathways were considered in both NUREG-0279 and IASC Report:

1.

inhalation from passing cloud, 2.

direct exposure from radionuclides deposited on the ground from passing cloud, and 3.

milk pathways resulting trom ground depos1 tion.

Based on TASC equations A.2-1 and A.2-2, l% lhzo w Ub N D c'4t1

=

(b ~),h ppjg D h.

3) ALIAh where(D)1=[osefrom D 'Ih_

J tt. pathway (b F) y,

~

VD = deposition velocity (DF)i = dose conversion factor for LN athway p

(DF); are tabulated in TASC Tables A.4-2 (for2w(b), A.4-3 (for ext. mkand for milk).

. Equations @ and h can be obtained based on the calculations shown in Table 1.

The results showed:

D I-e>#. Ywl.

m 9O hh}t g).g

• 1 O.

@hLEA

/

Thus, the percent contributions to population dose are:

inhalation 41%

external rad.~75%

milk pathway ~ 25%

It is doubtful that these are true contributions.

Since the equations and dose conversion tactors are supplied to TASC by LLL, I will discuss with LLL personnel on this subject.

Table 1

@)

g) d)

d)

RohledUlr(d-ph [Whi Mu W, CbFhk_

W -10 1.9 x 103 5.6 x 109 0

1.2 x 106 cs-134 2.6 x 102 6.6 x 108 8.3 x 105 3.8 x 105 cs-tr7 2.7 x 103 3.9 x 1 M 3 x 106 2.3 x 105 4-W '?

2.5 x 102 2.3 x 10/

U 2.6 x 10-2 E-g I.4 x 102 4./ x 108 1 x 106 0,3 Ps t V 3.2 5.1 x lull 3x104 0.7 A-W\\

lu 9.4 x 109 2.5 x 105 U.02 Aw-w t 5.5 4.9 x lull 5.1 x 105 4.8 x 102 c-m -2 4 54 2.6 x lull 3.5 x 104 2.6 x 102 Inhalation

[(qQ

- 3 XitIl VD = 0.01 m/sec = 3.2 x 107 m/yr External - Q/o @_(#O 24X)I

%dth psthmb.

Vg(a)(A) = 1 XIDH Relat1ve dose A k M N.,

bYSM4W :=

• El u h /. h w

=

9mM - 3o*

5xtota

. E.

Transportation Fire Accidents Fire accidents contributes, based on TASC calculation, a very small fraction of risk for transportation of spray calcine.

However, for othar waste form, the contribution from fire could dominate the risk.

TASC used fire model developed jointly by TASC and LLL. Failure locus is used to define a temperature below which no release would occur no matter how long the fire lasted.

On P. A-30, eg. A.3-21 gives the time interval from the beginning of the fire until failure.

t =_ 6 c Ca - (4 A (. T-Tc 2 -

G where T= temperature of fire, *1:

Tc = temperature at which tnermally accelerated %&M we cm EA hcwd pg C.t.0Sa, Tc = u 71 F, 4 = 27. I, tub-oLw w A 6 = M8 TOF T-Tc 3.98 in (T-Tcj t(min 1 2372 0

2400 28 13.3 828 2450 78 17.3 585 2600 228 21.6 329 3000 628 25.6 88 3400 1U28 27.6

-30 The function t can be plotted as shown in F1gure 1.

Eq. A.3-22 gives oo E(F) = h._gT) TLT) ((y*W] AT O

For spray calcine and airborne release, Wo@-AQr-rc)]

p LT') =- ( o >

T <.rc._

For train tire,

> YDI-C-

- (TE) g, pq o 6-i & W;n g

0,co & k c fo7 T \\-k) -

E.

1 O

(*' +s-oj /

7#

h

( 2 1ro['O#Ip-d Y20

.p( p t(min) as.d 10 0.088 U.9%

0.015 20 0.31 0./3 0.02 30 0.64 0.53 0.021 40 1.09 0.34 U.017 50 1.63 U.2 0.012 51 0.0019 60 0.0017 80 0.U014 100 0.0012

e p(t) can be plotted as shown in Figure 2.

For train and truck, eq. A.3-25 gives lYoo F< TGfe[F

)

o

--- L, l' --li c o a

TF p(T)

O

\\ >1NOT O

/

1400 0

1500 0.54 x 10-3 1700 1.26 x 10-3 1900 1.5 x 10-3 p(T) can be plotted as shown in Figure 3.

F(T) can also be plotted in Figure 3.

Evaluation of E(F)

---eq.

21 For 30000F fire, bv*% = bo{d- @ dw (T-Td )= 9 0 g

E t is a smali number, a

(

0,o}

90

• cr g

E LF) = o 01 FLT) M T M T S1nce Tc = 23720F and p(T) is zero after 24000F ptr)ptr)kr h eg Mt, A 10-3 x 10-2 = 10-5, Y"Ic

.'. E(F) = 0.01 x 10-5 = 10 Therefore re 0 F r~ ire = (pp) x E (F) x 10-7 = lease fraction for 3000 10-7

=l Question:

1 must check with LLL to see whether the above calculation is correct. The release fraction is very small and will not go up 0

by increasing temperature because F(T) = 0 for T>2400 F.

Is this reasonable?

?

[CNt/F

~~

i eii Li i i

. i, #

e i i.

i er I

i iii

%jl.

f t t t 4 e i i t t t i e i !. e 8gg

.e 1 I L r--

1 1,

I ' Q

.)

' f

• f l,,

I.

.. i i i.

, 4 i i i.

.,. 4

, i.

6-I i

4 i 4 s e i. s

.. i I i 1,

e...

t 8

1. 1 I

. _. w.

• T

+.

I e

. e i

/

e a e, i e

,1 ig

,, l

,y i

, I ;

i t i,

., CA t

e Li

. N 9

f i.

.. i ei

[

t i

e 6

e a i

g.E i, e,

b e a

..i6 u

4 I

i 4

. i e t.

i t

e i

i i

~

,W f

O i

i 6

i i

~ -..

. i i e

i i

i

. i 4 i

i i

i f

I t i

+ i I,

l t.

4 l,

,.Q

.t 4,

, i i

i.,

. i i

e e,

i

. i,

. i,,

i, i.

,. i i,.

..i, t, 2l e

e i

6 v.

e

. 6 t

, t 4 i e i. i 1 e,.;

tw %

e i

. 6 re i e i i i t

i e

i. t

, 4 e i e e i i e i

i 4

i

. i 4 e

i i.

4 i i e i

e i,

e e

i e i ei, t

, e i.

i.

y e

i

, i,.

s.

i i

l g

e t

6, i i e.. i e i e

i i i e 4,

i e i

i e

i e

i

. i.

.. i i i

4

. i e.,

, e i

-r i

i J

4..

i I

i e i t

e e i

e e i

e.

. i,

. t..

i

. b I

i i i e e i,

[,

l l

, i l 1

,, f 4 e i e a i

e : 4 a,

e 4

i e6..

e i

I

$, t 6 i e 0

-e t e i i i

g s

ie i

i e

i 4.

1 t

, e i lil! 9 i..

. i e i.

1 i

' t,,

. i I f.

f t

3 i 4 i i=

, e e i

, i

' i e i, i e i., e i..

.. i i

e n-4 8.

., i 4 e r 4

. 6 e

i i. e i i i.

i i

. i 6

i..

, e, t

,.. i 6

'. i i i, i

. 4 e i e i a

. i,

, i.

,, i e 6 i..

.. i i i..

6e t.,

. t

, i.

1 i i

. t e

i) i i

6 i

... i 4 i,

,, i e i i 4,.

e.. i e i,

6

I.

, i i,

e i e

i i.

i e,

e.

. i' i

e e t i,

, i i

, i, e t

i,

, i j

i.

. i e

f a

e i i e t

. i

.. i s i i a 4..

4,.

i gh

)

e i

i..

. i i

e i a

t i e >K e i. i

. t i i e s..

, i.,

... i e,,,

i 6 i i e e e t

. i i t i e i

,6 i

i (,

1 e,,

. *, 6 e e i.

i,

6 6

• _T e 4 i t 6

i !

.. e t

, e i.

. i

,. i e e i I

, e i

. I t e i

51 a i e

i i

M e

i.

6 i., i i,,,

... e i,.

f

, f.

9/

• 3

• . i 1 '.

i..

6, I i

e f i i

8,

I f.

e i9.

a i

e i e ii i i.

t e/

i em.

. I a i

. i e e i,..

e i.

,4 i

.i i

, #A e r,t.

i, i 6 i i e i

i is i.

fu i.

.. i ri.

t i..

t

. i i

i g i. i e qi

/

. e e.

. e 4 e i 4.

i. 4.

t,

i i

r,.3 i_,

i,

..y i. i e

i 6

, a i.

. i.

. i e i 6

. i i

t ! I i V

, I i 4 i,.

4. i i

i t i i.

i

, i,

.. i e i i..

v i. 1 gr i. i i i 6 e

i.

6 s

, i i...

, e i i i

. i,

. i F

1

, i 6

i...

. 4. i i

e...

i i e i i.

, i

, i

,, ei i,

1. i e ;

i.

6 i

1. 4. I i

i

.. i,

., e i 4

i...

.' t i

. t i i,,

i ;,

i ; e i i

i,

. i a

i

, i e i.

. $ i l i I eh, i ii

. 9 e

i e i

,..i 8

1 i 8 0 e a i }.

4 1

(

l I {

e i t }

e 4

,3 i

I !

i l t, e

. ! i.

4 1 4 l

. s. $

i i i, i i s i s

i.

g

. i 6 i 4 i

e i

i i i i i i i i i,

,, i.,

. i e, 4 i. 4 i.

.e e,.

i. >

, i i i 6

i e i i

.. i add.

i. g i. g e l

4 3 i i g l e a g i,

i j g

i e

i e i

, i. '

i t 6 e i e

e i,

, 6 i e i, i e i i

. 4 6.

m i

e i

. i I. i e

i..

e

.. a e

2m

,t t i t

i i 4 4, I ih l i e i i.

8

.. j

{

. 9 e i

. i..

. g..

i. 4.

. 6.i

, i.

i,..

.. i e

e i.

. i i

1i s i..

. i i i,,

e i e i e i

e a i

s.

i. i.

i,

1

, e

, i i i a iA e,

,e

, i i i e i

. i i

e p 4 e i. t

, t :.

5.e i

i e

i 3.

i e

i..

i. 4

.g M

1

, e i.

i

, i.

,4

., i t..

1 #

r i..

... i i.

6 e..

e i.

, e h

I.

j..

I I t i e

i.. j i,

l l

i

'n

-T' #.L l..i e e i

1 e,,.

4 5,.

i

.,, 0

' l 0 i

f

. l.

i'*

, i.

,e i 4

a i i

+,

. i e,..

6 4.

' i 6

---@t F-r -

.4 e.

i J.1,4.,L. h i

e i

.i,1 i

i,,

i

~

g l.L _p. I.. ; 4

.1_1 w

-j L

'LM

-i M

!! b h}_LAhth 'i ;.M I-~ k% N e

i i,

i e i O

r-

,,' 44

,l!'

'-V --\\ C-i-1

i

l i

22c0 2 ADO 2-boo 2800 b000 3210 MOO

_Lt.1 i, e i

i e i i

4,ii i

e

,i.

i e i

__.U L1 i e

+ i i

i

- -F

-H-H-T-l h Tfr#

i

. 4 i r i

.i i..

1 i.,

i i

i i,,,

e i

e i, i i i i i

i e

~

i t i I

i i

j g (

t.

I i

e 6

, e e i

i e i

i i

e i i

.. i i e i,

e i i i

i.

i i

l i i i i D i.

., i; i i e

i, e

i e

e i i a i i i e

...,.,, i.

a e i

t a

i e

i 1

.au

.A6 (

s,#

. i e

i

, e e i

. i vj sM wrvi %

, i i

e 4

4 e

i i

i e

i

. f t

i a i e.

.'l t

I t

i

.e-i ! i

. i 8 i i

4 6

.,e a 6 4,

a6 e

i 6 i e f

i l

I e

e I

i i a. i

. 6 3,

. I i

e i.

Vg i

i e r a

i i,

I e

i I

eI e

4 e

e i

e e

e 6 e

i 6

i i

i i

e 1 e i i

e t,

t i

i e

6 i

. i e

i i e i

i 4.

., i 6.

e i i i

. i i

l

. i

!. ei i

i.

e i

t 4.

. e ei i t

t i.

i 6 i i ei e i l

I i

i i,

i i

,e i, 3 t

i t i

. i t a

s i. :

1. i

. F

. 1 i

i e.,

i i.

. i

,, i i,,.

. i, i t

6 6

i.

6

. i

. 1 4

4.

ei i..

. i,

, i.

.e

.. e i e i i e i i e

i

. i i

e e i

a i

. I i i

i i, i ea 6

i.

, e, i i

e i

.. i 6 6 i i.,

, 4 i

. i

. i

. i 4 i

i.

i i e

i.

.. i i I

i,.

.. e i e i i,

i ei,.

. i

.. i,

i i I ',

i,ii i

,, i i

t,. I i.

4 i 6 6,

i6 6 i 6

.. i e

i 6 i,. +

3 e

i i.

e

. i..

i i. #.

.,, 4 1

i. t e

i..

i 1

, i i i

i i i

+

i e i i i e

a i i i e., i i,.

9

.. I e

i i iW Ob i.,

,.. i i i i.

i..

. i e i 4

1, i,,

e i.

i

,i

., i,

,. j i.

i.,.

4 i

., i e,

e,

4,, e

,, i,

i f

. 8.

f I,.

i.

i i i

i

, 6.

6 l

. 4. i i e i

a 6 4

4 '

i, 6 i

, i e

i i i, i i,

... i i,

i

,. e a e i

. 6.

.. i.

... 4

, i.

y i..

T et

, i.

i ei.

., i.

. i, i i i i.

i.,

i,,i i e i,.

i, 6 i i

, i

, i, i V

J B F _

i i i e e i

i i e,

e i

ei6

. 6 i i

. 4.

e 4 e i., i e r.

, 6 i.

e

.e I i,

6,

e i e i i,,

e i e i i,

e,,.

e i,,

6, #,

F[7

. i i 4.

i i.

...i i

, i.

i e i.,

i

,,i i 1 i

, e i. t,

e..

. #. 4 e

e t i.

.,ii 1 i i

., t e i.

t i4 e

i 8. s

. i.

. e i e at i.

. i, e i i i. I i

.I i

e;i,

, i,'

i..

I i i e

,. 4 e i

, e i

i.

..ie i,.

6 i,,

,4 i. 4 e i e i

.. i.

i e i 4.

e i,.

i.

f 6

i.

e ii

, e e

6 i

1. [ t

, i e

.. Q, e

i e i

i 2 i.

t i i t i 6 e i e a

,,i, i i 6,

. #, I i

ei

,i 12 r i.

. i.

e i i 4 i,

i e i e i i i e,.

e I#.

Ti g...'

i i

6 1.

.6 4 e,,

e i ei i

i e

A i

, i i i.

L-i e

. i

,.i

.I i 6 i 6 i e e e

i. i.

, i i t i,,

.. i 4, 6 i

.., i

..i, i i

, i /i 6

..it i e a '

i i e

, i e i i i e i si i,.

i. 4

, i e

i..

, i e

i 6##

i

• i

.i e

g_.

. i t,, i 1

i 6 ye i i..

' s...

I,ua 4

t

.f,,

e e e e...

.i.,

V i me -

A %. /.

i,.

, e.i i,..

i,., mi,,

. i.,, ie, i,,,

i.

e,

i,

.i.

i.,c i,

, i

,i,,

f,.

i

..e 4

e,

.e..

i I,

, i os i

i..

.s r.

i. e.

i i,.

,,.m

. vo 1

6 e i

.. i,

iAi e i +i

, i.

.. i e

..i

, i,

., 4 e

,,n i.,,

... e i.,,

i,

e,

e

. i a i

i...

. i ri.

i,

ti i,

. 6.

, i,

m e..

, i e,

, i, 6. i

. i i. e.

i...

i,i,

, i.,

cr,

, Pe i i i

, t

.. i i,

s i i.

e 0,C1,,.

i.

i i

i,,

,,, e i,,

+4 4

. i,

i. 6,

i s,.

,, e m

i i

,, i,

..i.

6 i

i...

. i 4,

2

!',-...lll i'i:

i :

. i,

. u v

b. s.bt;

, i

, i

.w,

s...

6...

x r

3 f.

i u

i.

i f.

i s,,

i,,,

.. 6 4 m1..L r r

t-

=.

e

.,i i

ig l

- L.k..-

k l 8

! i e

i. -

i j f i.

l

[f

. > I I e i i f.

$. I 1

g

' e4=-"

i

' h

[ i e

9-eed

[

i.

g s

I I i I

-=

f-7.

b -lM d k.-l -H HhE, I..

bM+

d.

-.h E.

M

{

mp 3

,n

, _. _. _ T7.,

--.~ _

. i ).a.

2_=--.

6.

--i..

j

= 6-.

L.I..

f UP p

D i

e

'h' N ^. ' ' l i-i~' NN

-h

i i.~

O

.10 0 00 tC O IOD l2 0

f I I I I i !

t f I

• t I f f f f I 8 8 f f I I ' ! '

f f I f f1 8 '

' ' t '

t t i e e t t i t i i t

. 4 e i 6. I i i e.

e t i i e i e i i.

I e e i i e e.

6 6 i e i i i I 6 i i

.6 1 i i...

. t. t i,

e i.

i,

e i i t i. e i r-*-*-

• A i t i 4 &

i

, t 6

4 i

i i e e i e

t=%.

e e

=

, t e"s i

e i

+

3 1, + 6 i -

2._!

I i i

i il s..,

l r

' i i

e e i M /MALans 6,,

i i

4. i e.

• 9 e

i i

i gi i

,o

, i.

.. i.

i i 4.

i e

t i

e t

i

_- ~

. t i e

i,,

e 1

6 e

e i 1

I 1

t I f

t i 8 t

i I

e i

8 4 6 e i 6 i e e e

e t

4 i

e i e

+ e t 6 i i e i e e i r,

i 4

i e i i i.

6 i

i i e 6 e i e i i.

i i i.

, l 4 e.

i e i

, e e

, e.

t i t i

t

• t i

e i t

i t

i i i

t, I

( i i e i e i i

e i

e I

i i l l

l t e 4 i e i e 6 9 I

4 i

. i e

1 i e I t a t I i e e. I e e

g 4

i e i..

6,

t i

i 1,

t t

i e i i

• e '

e.

i.'

i

. t t

I, 6.

e e e i i

, e i

i t

6 e

t i

t 6

i i.

, i i e 6 1 4 i e e i, e i i

a t

a 6

6 i

e i

e t

+

i i i e e i i i e e e i.

i t

i i I

t i

e6 i

v.i..

i i e

i e

i i,

6.

e

. i.

., e i i i

i i e

i A1 4 i i e i i i it e e ie i

i i,

'N +

e i t p 5 6.

e t i t

t a

4 4

• e t

6 #

e a fi e

e

. I e

i e

/i i i t N i i i t 6 i i e i e i.

t

, e i i

e i

4 i

,ri a i i i t X i 6 i e t i,

t i i i e

6 i

i t 6 ' i

. i i i

i i

.. 6

</

e i..

(

i i

e,

,.. i i

e i t i e i.

e e/

e i i

, i i Ti i

e i e i,

fi e

t 6 e i t t \\'

I I e I e t

8

• I t

t I i *

' e i 6

i t i '

. e 4.

s i e

i e i e

if. e

, e e e A. i e

+ i i e e e i t t

i e 6 i

. i ei t

i efe*

3 e

i i 6.N i e,

t

, i r 6

i I i

\\1 i

.. i i

i i,

i, i

f. i.

i e,

i i

.. i

/,

e i e e e i

i i s. e e. e '

e i..

i e r I e

• 13 1 ea i.

e i,

i..,

I i i 1,6 e..

e e i i i

i e i 6.

t i i o i 6 i

e i e

i i i e,.Jf.

e, e i a, i I

I i KM ie i e.. 6 i t i 6 e, _

e e

j s

e e,

. 4 e s 4

4 e i e e 1 i i

da 1 8.

' i e

i i i i

. *s\\

i '

• 1 i i 6 i e..,

i i e

r '/

/

i *

• i i 6

i i

1 i

• . i.

d i i i.

. I,

m

. i,

. i i e.

g.

/, /1

. )

e e e t t,

i,

fA, e

, e

1. 4 1 4

6 i

.\\p i.

4 i L#

s'i' 'i wi i

/

i e 6J 7, e i.

I e e i ei i

e i, 4 i.

i i

.i rt t i i i i t t t

, i i e i.

. f'f e 9 I t e.. I

• t i e i e I t, i i e

e e i f 8/ 4 f

e,

e

• . j.

i. i l e

4

. 6.

i

• /p i.,

. i e..

. i,

,p.

T i

. #. i i

JL \\

, e,

,, 9 e i t I

/

i i e i t i 8 e i

.. t t t j e

e t.

T-

,, i

,, i,

i i.,

i i

. i m s., e

,, i,

i e,

i

,,, t i

i i,.,

,i i

.. i i i,,

, i

,.i.

. i.

4

, i

{ t I f f

6 6 i 0

. i f

f 3 9

i e 6 0 1 j l 0 0

e i

8 6

i e i i t I.

b I

l e e e

. 6 6 r

i e 6

, i 4.

4 9

i f

I 8

,. ' l 8

I f

i,,

,, i i i i,

s,,,

i.,

/

4 e e i

e

• I e

i e

e e i i

. i t 6

)

6 4..

e I i

i t e, is a 6 i.

I i i e i + e

. e e i

. 6

., i i e i,

e > i

, a6 e i..

. i,,

t e

i,, 4

.. ei e

e i,

e a i,

e i i e i

e i 4 e e i I, 4 i, e e

\\r i e i. e

, t t.

i i

. j j.

i

., e i e

.. i e i i

• 8 6

,e i,

e e 6 $ i i

t !

e i e e

i !

iil l e

e.

t

. t i j i / /6 l

e 8 i J

e t I i i e e i i e i e a e

j e i

a i *

• q 4 i e

e 6 9

l 6

l I i

0 e 6 { j 9

9 e g

{

, a I

i,

J.

.,, e l

9, i

e e i e

'd e

i..

i e

, e s s.

. e

. e, e e i.

.., e

==

.04 4,

., I i

. //.

i

. i i,

e,

i,.

i i..

6 l l

i j 6 $

9 l e t i

i l.

l. l.

6 i 9

. p 1 $

9 s 4

%I f l 8

.. 4 l 6

>, i 1

, e

,,, i i

i,,,

, i I

.g '-" T

. s

.. i i

. i l

e.

,, e i

.. i

e i,

i e i..

e fi i iX e,

, 1,,

... i

,. e s i

i e

6.

e i ee i

., a.

i s i.

. i n

. e 6 i i s..

i

, i i.

i

\\;

+

i.

. i e 6.

4 i

t j a

i 6 6 i e

i. 6 e i, i

., e i i,

,,, t 6 i.

e 3

).

6 i

a 4 e

. 4 6

e e i

e g 6 e i e

9 t e i e.

. i e t r

i e !

Y

. i

. i

• 6 4. i 6

, e i

,.s

,h e, e

{,

4 9 i 3

t l

6 ( t i ff i.

t i t t 3

e 4 s

6,

g i. i

. $. i 9 t l l 4

9

. $. i, a9 & 4.

i 4 i i i l t

6 0 j

4 i

.t i $ 4 om.

.q..6 i i,

. i i.,,

i i e i.

. i i

i i,

i...

. i i i

,,, i e. e i

e i

t e i

e i e, i i

.i e

i i p i o q

l 1 e e e a

q i.

I 1

p i i

e i 4

. l e e t 6 9 i

i i, i e

l i-.

e I s.

6 e.

e 8 '

• i i t l

' i

' ' ' s 8 *

' i

' i i 8 i l 0

. l l

4 i h D

9 i

e t t 6.

p l

e e g 4 l

9 i

i i 6 s

a

.I 4

.I 4 6 4

. e i

, i e i e

i i.

, r i

_, \\ i i n

e i i

gi,

, e i,,

., gi

+ i.

e i i 4.

.g g"1

}

i 6

i t

i e i e 6

iL4" l1

_f 1

t i 6 g l i_

e i i.

,f]

b i

6 i e

's i

i d

A

_.. I i

-. L. L.

r-m.

m l

. t l I t 8

6 t t

t

' T( \\-

i.

e

-. e i

e i

/

,J l._. -_

,.4_

-.Ys1

/e f.

.i g 4 i. i o e I

-s t

5

.i f

_i. 6.L 8 8 i

t i

i i

r, i*

i i

i i -

f

• • +-

g i

g g

, j

~

q

,7

.4-.

y p

j ;-- -y---- - -b-t

- -q q 4.

.l

. e. h.u.

a 2Ly.

.J i

.y_ u i -

.m h

.. L w!

.J _u.;.; o u,

._.i i i t i

t L t*

L..W_

H

._.i_

+

t

. ~.

2" 2 '-- - '- > FI-~'

t - ' : -

t " ' '- ! u- ---- ' ' h O

o

\\$

VtLO toOO L6CO 2DOO 2200 444'.D 2

e

.. 3.

Diccussion wit. i AS,G_ Personnel

' visited TASC facility at Reading, Mass. in the afternoon of Feb. 8 and Feb. 9, 19/9

.et with Art Sutherland, Thomas Kabele, John Battlett and Dan E r..

. war. Dr.

Ensminger provided most technical information.

I will briefly describe significant items covered in the discussion.

A.

TASC verification of my quick calculations as reported in my First Progress Report

-Adr Dr.

Ensminger agreed most of my discussions pertaining to TASC report are t

essentially correct. On the calculation of release fraction, however, TASC computer indicated the RF should be 0.001 instead of my approximate value of,(0. 04.

) v)p(u)dv on a semi-log graph paper; when 1 use a linear paper and re(plot (A conservative factor was introduced when I e integrate and recalculate the release factor, it is very close to what TASC's value).

B.

Meteorological Model Dr.

Ensminger agreed with me that there are some problems with the equations in the TASC report published in January,1978. TASC and LLL discovered the problems in mid 1978 and have subsequently corrected the equations. A re-vised report was published on October 10,1978 (with same TR number as the original report).

The effected equation is on P. 194 of NUREG-0279.

The original equation for puff:

QC--

== 18. t O K

The revised equation is N=),a. Job C

c. -

There is about 108 larger for-value.

However there is also another error in the integration with a actor about 10-g.

The final result shows that the new man-rem dose is about one-half of the original estimate.

Example: For train and spray calcine original estimate 4.1 x 10-2 man-rem /MW -yr e

new estimate 2.8 x 10-2 man-rem /MW -yr e

Since the puff dispersion equations and the integrated values were supplied to TASC by LLL I will discuss with LLL on this model..

These e ions and calculatio,s are shown on pages 1Eand in g-n C.

Water Dissolution We have discussed briefly how doses were calculated from water dissolution.

AccordingtoTASC'Theequationsforcalculatingreleasefractionsweregiven eter dissolution and air dispersion are mutually ex-clusive events.

to IASC by LLL. TASC developed a computer code "8I0 DOSE" and the code was

... used to calculate man-rem dose from water dissolution.

D.

Fire Accidents We have discussed briefly fire accidents and how release fractions were calculated.

I expressed some concern about the range of validity of the equations used.

Dr. Ensminger provided me a copy of their papers on " Release of Radio-nuclides from High-Level Waste During Transportation Fire", coauthored by A. Sutherland, S. Oston of TASC, and R. Van Konynenburg of LLL. e myyvideacprerica%d,k

l 7vC N N O >U:t/#![7# h V-b A-Ts.e-. usc W 4-A Page 15' tuo e fJLviud ?N k&c0 Thy _.

LL-U Oh

/

M c4A 4 the following corrections to Table D-1 of 4g C,* K NUREG-0279:

N Y SA'*

e Change puff average-case -

v,alue from cp

,mQMp

-3.7 to 1*.2x10fx-3.7

-3

[A W, M 3.8x10

(

q x

g 4

e Change puff worst-cas X/Q value from 5 -3 p, 1%

4.1xlO-3 -3.9 to 1.3x 3

x p T A-y/

The modification that eliminates " double" counting b

of population involves averaging the puf f over an 1(x)x1(x) } " 4 -

" equivalent square" that is equal in arca to the cloud at ground level at a distance x meters downwind from the source.

The meteorology-demegraphy integral then becomes x -tok f

) p(x) t(x) dA(x)

(man-yr/m )

3 q

x = x : to2,.,

g a

N*' # V(x) is the puff concentration per unit curie Ct' Q

emitted averaged over an 1(x) by 1(x) area (m-3), (cy ag,a)g7cye) p(x) is the population density averaged over the width of the cloud at a distance x meters 2

ddwnwind of the source (persons /m ),

t(x) is the time of puff passage at distance x (yr).

Note that t(x) = 1(x)fC, where n is the. wind-speedinm/g dA(x) is the differential area.in m and is equal to 1(x) dx.

This resolves the " double"-

counting problem because populations within successive differential areas are now mutually exclusive of one another.

M.

. _. _... _ h-,-

c

. %y L

p t" /

.d

..7 f

- - ~ ~ - **

1

-m n! sc :rsa

-,6 qA/7g

~h :

Dan Ensminget, TASC, Boston, Mass.

From :

lien Peterson, G *biv, LLL, Livey more,, CA Subjed: New rdues of fX,ge.tp dA. Avenge vdues l

lo'r apuM (D3MWity cal.fi7 = 5in/see)

~

l T FIRP_Q.ced.ent i

i i

I l

! 4(mi i 1 0 % t o " i i t ' '. t o " ! / d ? t o " to'" to i i

l l

i

~

I

'I 20sf-)l I.94F12)3.%(-n)l.2ef ti)4.38(n)4.37(1 l'

l

(

l l

i l

l l

s

_.E 7'-ans eda}in__jLeb*/ent i

l t

b.9.I2>.

A.LUJ' ab 5"I !

f 3

'b b

7 W

l

~

hit 4(j71) ~

I lo**' lo 10'*' 10* ' 10"-- 15' 10" 10 ' I i

,f i I

l M1 i

'203(-10)4.69(I)8.92(-Ic)I4+(-9)'l.99(-9) 209(~)9 2II(-912Jg(-9) im r}c-i I

k$ nd@

i

'l l-g l

2. l 3ii!ri 4, !7/

3-l %d

'T 3 B. !fam/j i

t.s ; (

S ftn)I ll0**Si lo lo i l04 l l O ? I o ' l l o '* 5l ( / O ' l Typ'{e,,

l j

j j

j; j pu f 5+(-1fl%(sh.!d?(-II) 2%(-!!h3A7(- 594(-t!)_E hil &g J

3-I I

r i

i

.E ske_aiddejt I

l

//:.~I64 Jh4Q G% ++

i

.i i

to ": if I to*"

to.3" lo'diOr$

2 3

4(m)

.to.s 10 ww I.99(~M).52S(~l)lAfk!&)f.g[-t 02(-M)? &3) 1.15(-11)5)2(-l

^l

~\\

x e.or(.-a) = a_cs xid~' inanpsa&Zat;'

.o Review of Transportation Accident of High Level Solid Waste Third Progress Report (Feb. 12, 1979 to Feb. 21, 1979)

By A. N. Tse, TPSB, OSB I.

Administrative Activities 1.

Visited LLL on February 14 and February 15, 1979 and discussed with Richard Heckman, Ted Harvey, Yook Ng, Norman Bonner and Howard Tewes on calculational methods and parameters used in NUREG-0279.

II.

Summary of Results of Review During This Reporting Period 1.

The current meteorological model used by LLL (and by TASC) appears to be reasonable except the following:

a) integrate downwind distance to 1000 km from the amdient scene is much beyond the range of validity of the Gaussian despersion model; b) in the case of plume model, whether an exposure period of 24-hour has been used, c) in the case of puff model a appears to be too large when compared to the values presented in " Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968," and d) the total ground deposition appears to be overestimated, which may imply that the air concentration were also overestimated.

2.

I believe the assumptions used to compute population doses from exter-nal radiation and milk pathway as a result of ground contamination from passing cloud are too conservative.

Remedy actions sill be taken after an accident involving release of radioactive materials and, therefore, such actions should be taken into account in the dose calculations.

III.

Future Plans 1.

To complete the review and prepare final report within next week.

2.

To discuss with experts on dispersibility and particle size distribu-tion of spray calcine.

IV.

Detail Technical Discussions Discussions with LLL personnel will be briefly described.

I also will show a rough calculation of population dose from transportation accidents involving spray calcine by using NUREG-0170 model, and a rough calculation to show that the ground deposition may be overestimated.

1.

Discussion with LLL Personnel on NUREG-0279 I will state my questions (as raised in my Second Progress Report) and brief describe LLL response (Notes by T. Harvey are c.losed, see

p. 13 to 18).

(a) Question - How c;n one derive equations in Table D.1 (p. 194) and eque. tion D-13 (p. 202) from equations 0-1 and D-2 (p. 192)?

Response - You can't.

Equations in Table D.1 were obtained by best fit of the results from more detailed computer calculations.

For plume, the calculational technique is published in " CPS:

A Continuous-Point-Source Computer Code for Plume Dispersion and Deposition Calcu-lations", K. R. Peterson, et al., UCRL-52049, May 21,1976.

LLL per-formed puff calculations by using similar code but a report on puff model is yet to be published.

Equation D-13 (for puff) can be derived from the centerline equation by using x(*) " "y(x) = 8.4 X10-3(x)3/2 (1)

According to LLL, equation (1) is also obtained from best fit of computer output (see p. 17 for the above equation).

When comparing values of a computed by equation (1) and values from Slade,"MeteorologyandAtdmicEnergy,1968",valuesfromequation(1) are much greater as shown below.

x (Puff), m e

Downwind From Slade (p. 175)

Distance, m From Equation 1 Unstable Neutral Very Stable 100 8

10 4

1 1,000 265 80 35 9

4,000 2,100 300 120 35 10,000 8,400 670 290 73 100,000 270,000 5600 2400 560 1,000,000 8,400,000 The population dose, however, would not be effected by the discrepen-cies because o will be cancelled when multiply X/Q to the n(2a )

• x x

Note:

The individual dose will be effected significantly by the dif-ferences in o '

x (b) Question - Why the puff equation in Table D.1 (p. 194) was not con-sistent with equation 0-13 (p. 202)?

2

Response - LLL has revised the equation in Table 0.1 and the current equations are consistent.

(c) Question - How is the cloud depletion due to dry deposition treated?

Response - The dry deposition is treated in the detailed computer calculations.

(d) Question - Why extend the integration to 1,000 km downwind while the Gaussian model is not valid beyond 50 to 100 km?

Response - To be conservative.

(e) Question - Why equation 0-1 (p. 192) does not dependent on cross-wind distance, y?

Resoonse equation D-1 is written as f=(f)3/2 exp(- f -

)

4 I X Z

However, the equation should be read as follows:

f=(f)3/2 exp(-fh 4

G uX 0

That is, X is not a subscript but is the downwind distance, and y = h for 22.5 sector.

(f) Question - Has the period of inhalation (assumed to be 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) been incorporated in the calculation of dose for plume case?

Response - The time period of inhalation should already be incorpo-rated in the calculation.

B.

Dose Pathway Model Conservative assumptions were used in the models that calculate doses from external radiation and from milk pathway.

These assumptions are:

For external radiation:

(1) ground contamination will continuously remain on the ground for 50 years except for radioactive decay.

3

(2) no clean up action or any other emergency actions were considered.

(3) no shielding from any intervening materials between ground con-tamination and persons was considered.

(4) individual dose are calculated based on infinite plane source 2

with uniformly distributed ci/m,

For milk pathway:

(1) Every person within the contaminated region drink one liter of milk per day (for 50 years) from cows grazing within that region.

(2) Radionuclides will be eliminated from pasture with a half-life of about 14 days.

(3) No remedy actions were considered.

C.

Source Terms and Dose Conversion Factors a.

Source terms Source terms (Table A-1, p. 162) were computed by "0RIGEN" code, assuming 99.5% of Pu and U are removed and decay for specific time periods.

b.

Dose conversion factors-inhalation Inhalation dose conversion factors (Table B-1, p. 174) were basically obtained from "INREM" code with the following modifications.

(DF)o279 = (DF)Inrem x20 fay x 365

= (DF)Inrem x20x365]"'yf Therefore, if inhalation period is other than 1 year, a proper time period (in year) must be multiplied to (DF)0279 to obtain the dose.

c.

Dose conversion factors-external gamma radiation The dose conversion factors for external gamma radiation were calculated based on the following assumptions:

1.

Exposure at 3 ft from the kg pow k*

ground from an infinite plane source of certain uniform a

ground contamination level 9'

g 2

m (ci/m ),

lll//////

4

.a 2.

No shielding is considered.

3.

The ground contamination remain constant for 50 yearsexcept for radioactive decay.

d.

Dose conversion factors-milk pathway These factors were calculated based on the forage-cow-milk model developed in " Transfer coefficients for the prediction of the dose to man via the forage-cow-milk pathway from radionuclides released to the biosphere".

UCRL-51939, Y. C. Ng et al., July 15, 1977.

The calculations is based on the following assumptions:

1.

one liter of milk per day per person.

2.

half-residence time for radioactive particles on forage is assumed to be 14 days.

3.

no remedy action is taken.

2.

Rough estimate of population dose by using NUREG-0170 model and the source terms from spray calcine It is difficult to go through dose calculations based on NUREG-0170 model without knowing more details about the atmospheric dispersion model.

However, a comparative method could be used to estimate the dose. Table 5-9 (p. 5-34) of NUREG-0170 gives, for Po-210 (144 ci) shipments, the expected latent cancer fatalities in 1975 = 0.00131 the corresponding population dose

= 0.00131 LFC x

= 60 man-rem ( L 2

F The number of Po-210 (144 in) shipments = 20 (for all modes).

The fraction of dose contribution from one rail shipment of Po-210 (144 ci) can be calculated as follows:

5

(Prob.) (RF) for Various Transportation Modes (a)

Aircraft Truck Rail -

Release (b = 1.44 x 10 8 km-1)

(d = 1.06 x 10 8 km-1)

(f = 0.93 x 10 8 km-1)

Severity Fraction (c)

(e)

(g)

Category (Model II)

Fraction axbxc Fraction axdxe Fraction axfxg I

O

.57 0

.55 0

.5 0

II 0

.16 0

.36 0

.3 0

III

.01

.03 1.3 x 10 11

.07 7 x 10 10

.18 1.7 x 10 8 IV

.1

.05 7 x 10 21

.016 1.7 x 10 9

.018 1.7 x 10 9 V

1

.03 4.3 x 10 10

.0028 3 x 10~9

.0018 1.7 x 109

~

VI 1

.03 4.3 x 10 10

.0011 1 x 109 1.3 x 10 4 1.2 x 10 10

~

~

VII 1

.04 5.8 x 10 10 8.5 x 10 5 9 x 10 10 6 x 10 5 6 x 10 11

~

~

VIII 1

.03 4.3 x 10 10 1.5 x 10 5 2 x 10 11 1 x 10 5 1 x 10 11 Total (p)(RF) 2 x 10~8 7 x 10 8 5 x 109

(a)

(b)

1. of Po-210 packages Ja)(RF) axb

~

~

Aircraft 12 2 x 10 9 24 x 10 9 Truck 7

7 x 10 9 49 x 109 Rail 1

5 x 10 9 5 x 109

~

78 x 10~9 Fraction of population dose per rail shipment

= 78 x 1

= 0.064 Therefore, population dose due to one rail shipment = 60 x 0.064

= 3.8 man-rem.

Note:

If use 20 packages directly without considering mode split, then man-rem /pkg = h = 3 mn-Nm Since NUREG-0170 considers only inhalation dose, I will limit the following calculation to inhalation dase only.

For inhalation, the most significant source terms from HLSW are Sr-90 and Cm-244:

Nuclide (Ci/FM YI)10 Ci/ Shipment (500 FN Y#)

e yr e

Sr-90 1.9 x 103 1 x 108 Cm-244 54 2.7 x 104 Doses from Sr-90 and Cm-244 can be estimated by compa. ing to that of Po-210 as follows (assuming the accident probabilities and the cor-re=ponding release fractions remain constant):

7

Po-210 Sr-90 Cm-244 Ci/ Shipment 144 1 x 106 2.7 x 104 (Dose factor) Lung 7.1 x 107 1.2 x 108 6.5 x 107 (from 0270)

(INREM)

(INREM)

-rem /ci Resp. fraction 1

assume assume Aeros. fraction 1

same as same as Resusp. factor 1.5 Po-210 Po-210 Pop. dose, 3.8 450 650 man rem (see below)

(see below)

Under the assumptions that the three factors remain constant, then, population dose for Sr-90

= 3.8 man-rem x (1

)

= 450 man-rem (4

0 Population dose for Cm-244

= 3.8 man-rem x (2.

6Sj107)=650 man-rem q

Therefore, total expected inhalation dose from a spray calcine HLSW rail shipment ~1100 man rem.

It is conservative to assume resp. fraction and aeros. fraction to be one.

Fractions less than one will reduce the population dose propor-tionally.

For example, if resp. fraction (0.2) and aeros. fraction (0.05) for Pu were assumed applicable to Sr-90 and Cm-244, the popu-lation dose would be for Sr-90 = 450 man-rem x 0.2 x 0.05 = 4.5 man-rem for Cm-244 = 650 man-rem x 0.2 x 0.05 = 6.5 man-rem total inh. dose ~ 10 man-rem Comparison between TASC value and NUREG-0170 value--for a spray calcine rail shipment TASC value:

Total expected pop. dose (froin all pathways) per shipment = 20 man-rem contribute from inhalation ~ 1%

from inhalation = 0.2 man-rem 8

NUREG-0170-value:

assuming resp. fraction = 0.2 and aeros. fraction =

0.05, pop. dose from inhalation = 10 man-rem It appears that the TASC value is less conservative than the NUREG-0170 value.

3.

More Discussions on LLL's Meteorological Model Since the equations used in NUREG-0279 were cbtained from best fit to the computer output, I cannot verify these equations without spending con-siderable effort to go through the computer model.

Hcwever, I will show indirectly that LLL's model is probably overes-timating the ground deposition, and therefore, may imply overestimating air concentration as well.

For ::rt:" ': 1 ci puff release, the equation for centerline air con-centration downwind is (from best fit to computer output)

-3.7 xCL = 1.2 104 x ci2 The concentration averaged over an area n(2a ) is x

-3.7 i = 0.432 XCL = 5.2 103 x c5F The average grour.d deposition rate is E

0" D

m' ec Since VD = 0.01 m/sec

-3.7

{=52x ci m"-sec The ground deposition rate at any time t is Rd = { A = 52 x -3.7 (2a )

n x

c 3/2

~

• "y = 8.4 10 3 Since o x

x R

= 52n x -3.7 (1.7 x 10~2 3/2)2 x

g

-0.7

= 0.047 x 9

.a Therefore, total ground deposition is t2 dt ci Gd=fRd D 1 Sincet={

dt=fdx x2 1

Gd=fRdT*

d X1 x2

-0.7

=1 f 0.047 x dx u

x1 Since u = 5 m/sec X2 -0.7 d = 0.047 f x

dx G

5 x1

=0.0094h[x.33 0

0.3]

(2)

=0.03[xg.3 - x1 For limits used in TASC, xi = 100 m, x2 = 1,000,000 m, Gd = 0.03 [63 - 4] = 1.8 ci (3)

Therefore, total ground deposition is about twice the amount released, it is certainly overestimated the ground deposition by using these equations.

I will obtain the same total ground deposition by using Ken Peterson's (LLL) value (see p. 16 of the Second Progress Report).

10

~

From p. 16, for rural (p = 2.2 x 10 5) 1,000,000 S=f(h)tpdA=1.28x1010*^"'/"

100 for 1 ci and VD = 0.01 m/sec V

• b*1 D

Ground deposition =

x 3.15 x 107 p

(sec)(man-yr)(ci) (sec) = (0.01)(1.28 x 10 10)(1) (3.15 x 107) = 1.8 ci m

m3 (2.2 x 10 *)

(man)

(Yr)

This is the same value obtained from equation (3).

In deriving the S values for rural as reported by LLL (see p.16 of the Second Progress Report), I believe the following equations were used:

x 2.,

S=fhptdA (4) xt 0.432(f)C.L.

where

=

(g)C.L.isequation(1)onp.15(SecondProgressleport),notf Uc.n3 e pawdag doew m BiY,J4.kave as reported on th(Lt page.

%D"Y p = 2.2 x 10'S man /m2 tdA=hdx 22 ~ n(2a )

x 3/2 Q=( g 8.4 10 3 x o =

x p

When all the values are substituted into equation (4), we have 11

r. i n g

y,'"

,g g_

h *

[

8

=,

P.

g., '

__._. = _ -

-. a_a

~

L,5 y

I,

k

. r.,

( + ).d,

-M1 0

'y h4 m

e p

g 4

Li n

[

y y:

-. : y 4w

%i

(

+

,k' 4

-t 9

u j.

E c ';

9t 3,

h 1

hP1.

, r

..g a

b

.h

.)

8,4 4

.gt in ^

y r,

• ?

I i,

x 4

W.

7..

41,

i - "

i

,. <: s

.7 Y

y j

i-e h.

Ib

. rgh

_ _ _, - _..;. m 6

W

..g..

I x

ERniNEERiks~ NOTE ^

/21

~~

~ " " m h,,A %

oo. w 9-

~ph+~

M.., %, d+c c

c. L-h L %A m.k V!W59

--g i

\\.

\\ba

+. Q O u. W c.e c w b.\\

h v s

y 6

S lx,,e A

~

g /n s ?

LLL<~

,... w

/

k

=

W-

-F

.t.y

~(.i

/

/

~

/

'2.

pln_ xh,f _

m..,

Jv s

. \\

[

.h Xe l

fuH

>~ oat M lu m twd L

Sh>A - s b h:::

x niodd.

Th popnlS~ a me kk L h'm A.

w.%t om t%

wo d AM =

2' Ax

(

= At h,T% G T d'P

-~

5 y^ gx)

A. q,

+k

.o A

2g X

U

/.a,I-

.s '

s-A u-.tm4.d b c3 M x.

M=O d-d% 4M1,

~

TL A.R ef ty l

/p.

- 7'~' de j

f '

N.-

%,n,u.b ?~ % g A Ox aom <R.

-u kne-4 Z ~

a 15 A k Q n.< 1 s) v/w s.

5

.. L l

iyi.

. cSI..mhn cac{.

k S

)< L la

% [~ycn) con AAan f

r ~-

(qy c:

y w

sof e-,alfl4 w % :.heg L

& f clow-A cmw+ -. %2~,

Sn 6/v)h ;~

. % -d '

)-

L cip.J vc(a d /th-X m)\\

y-j4'7 p.R h

m 4

9) vk run Gi.

. a l a d & J.' -

k T-.k,3',

x-me

., a e,x L.h & x

[ ee] -

e dk(M b N

rd bh MA dX

.)

~

Q' the w k Q euns vi [m v ak.

' kcAM ck ow_.

.. b t k To o Al-N A

k ~

.i to n puecdc,h fC.4 AA O j 4 ww,..p[

xucr

-l%

pey._

f, M

(. I g -Tcl e

7

) 2(Tg--TL) Qp( bI N f(O bl0 -

q q

'a mt.

k m

e b <13 sbb v~cLA G

ul.'d '~ in a~ ensL J w % f p'=

e.x.

IA-

'e

==

e l""

2 )ir/ 71 k%os-x; nLry 4,x o (*ALurma_Q.6.

I L.,

W

-6,4JL

-o m

)

c.W A.) chk ~W)y g ix j,

th A e me) fM MbM

-r

, by

(

~

Ea s (.w xp L JJg.t-4

(?q^)>,fyc.t=

( XY)pxMw r

r

=-

Xs

-q-q L, & prJA b 6 % g/m

/5

,X9 T

I

% (^I f(x) okA-(x) r 3

=

-Q hee j q

x(-

f(d MAC4 s

.$ (.x3h ) :

3kJd Lm i%

f,4 ikp.l a e'-

4 ap w;a n.2-s f ucret-ov, S

y e

l 15 l

p,

gg.(

~ ' ~ ' "

DATE

(

m.+o ped 1 2,

Ib -

L.

Tb e6 Me-2.2. T '

kl 15 A

se w u,c h#wN N

En e Al A

~

a.s.u ~ g a N

gep 4,'e k e k nt3 ofJ; n

e~

, :. a.

yCx, en = (cx%

m em<o h

sah slyt.

b u~, UMu~t.

7L 5--

mI

'ydV pf;h ik

~ 1.~

q e.mu e1 wt ob&~e a x.

(

7.

3.

ra TsMe_

n-t,&

pt,ana.L%

n xx +,u x

i w -s q

cb wy o m

u. r-, a q'

so O

{c.cb!cetE* v '

v.e l # a.M

\\"e W 44: tw, 4 y

{.r.'

1 a

wa Q.

.h do e t.

W o

/

'l m

A%

-A+x aus p_

m A

r?s s:A L

w."']

sw 6scJ~ p& ~

3, A 4 skA,19.cr,

g u'A cr; a c--

g, -%

Lg LJa_ILE.~.,

<~ -A.

cq = \\% x e 'g u LJ,1

,Lp Lt,_._

+%.

3

shEL, ggrL c h es g 6, %. c. % % f a A FA

LAWRENCE LivERMORE L ABORATORY - UNIVER$4TY OF CAllFORNI A FILE NO.

PAG ENGINEERING NOTE sk y

e, c g,,a;gms g, cgpw

..n ru &&

u m g, = m e ce q

w w,', a a n, a L

w.LU

~124 eq 073-gm = r.y us2 x' & f;g g h n

X

2. w m =-

I. *) X l'a T2ee ;*f'"*

a-k c k

< /o " ~ <" - N

• l'l ce-b

'iY (h" Law-= 9. (X IO'x j ha-u:.s.N~ )zhi NW

0. l sc herz. -

L

(

%tL c -Je.Ju ly sy LL, m

D.13 2-k

( s 6.a% k $wl

=.

9 9

TL-5, y g' = (o.y h)(i, woh~'")(9. mo'#x

-o.7

S 7g pk.d eg s.

f.oavalI

' Tz, ca 9

_D - 2. (

Nuaz; -o 2.71,

(

G

I

~4

• o-DATE

~/

2k =%,i mcT tk an v~J,;)

e va ui, sy A,e 2m.-

(ra-auik %k Lejeh.

'ik. yR msy JJ,r u 4 6. L J L i pL 9 is a.

Z(n 2nTvdt

/

=

?o rc m /g

-,.s L R L.

TG ~

w 2.n R g ac ;>,

Q~c k

?fhf is

} } yf L

C J g = - l(> b

-b

' q- ), e,f W

X

=

z a-

~

Zee o

s

~L/T U~

0 >Y 9

6 6

~~

p Ke

~~

• k i-6

[

O, h3 D

,] 1

= o. 4s2.- L j' & z-> nsi + u

.