Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Figure 1 .
Population block assignments near Three Mile Island(a) within 10 mile radius, 2 mile grid spacing;(b) 10 to 50 mile radius, 10 mile grid spacing .Refer to Table D-1 for precise locations and populations .
Figure 2 .
a a ..
90
50
30
6092
6
Three Mile Island 10-mile study area (Hatch et al .)(a) communities (b) block number assignments .
25QIWici
20COb-im
L
isa4J
18UR
--i4-1ci-id
2S
0
0
4
Source term based on area monitor datafrom PLLG Table 4-1
---<!,. . . .... .......... . . . .. . .... . . . . . .
..<;Lr:
. . .... . . . . .A:,: :-.~.
-:
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
Hour from start of accident
Area monitor source termreduced to seven time segments
:....t . ._
-- :-
;;:--
------ • • - ---- ::__•- -_. •, ---,_. . .
.----
8
12 16
28
24
28
Hour from start of accident
32 36
40
Figure 3 .
Noble gas source release rates based on area radiation monitor data (source term"P"), from Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick (PL&G)(a) adjusted exposure rates (PL&G Table 4-1, interpolated
to 15-minute intervals, as used by Hatch et al .)(b) rates from (a) averaged over seven time segments .
Figure 4 .
140 1
70
TLD locations and topography in the vicinity of TMI.Contour interval is 200 feet, with an added (dashed) contour at the 423 footelevation of the TMI unit 2 vent stack-
6
4
2
00 4
Base case estimated noble gas releasesfor first 38 hours of TMI accident
tUE
.1f...f.,,Y...I.Y.i..i..i.,.,t...i
8 12
16
20
24
28
32Hour from start of accident
36 40
Figure 5 . Noble gas release rate estimated by fit to TLD data .First 38 hours of accident, base case model assumptions .
-50
-250
(a) for bane case fit (source term A) to all TLOn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . ...1:
, Iasi
1-1--l-1- .~
14S1iSi
: °i
. ... .... . ... . . . : . . . . . . ... .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ...... . .. ... . . . . . .: ;*
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200Predicted TLD reading (mrem)
(b) for area monitor source term (Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick)
:: : !: ::
. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .----•-
It,
:1 ;:;---i
t. . . . . . ..... ...... . .
.1•
~-- -- : - . I
.P--------------------------
. . ..... . . . . . . . . .......
151=
•- - •- -=• • - --200 400
600
800Predicted TLD reading (mrem)
1000
(c) for constant release source term (Pasciak et al .)
1200
: :*!:::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . . . .. .... . ... .. . ...... . ..... . ..L
. . . . . ..... . ..... . .. ... . . .. . .. . ........ ...... ..
. •-ce
•
iisi166•
1'-- ---•' -'--;. .1452 ._..-_- . • . _ .-
--.-_. . .. .-_.. .--..- . . . ..-_ . .-_.-------
F--: ------ iI. .e 200 - 400
688
880Predicted TLD reading (mrem)
1000
Figure 6 .
Residual errors in TLD doses predicted by source terms(a) for base case fit to all TLDs(b) for area monitor source term of Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick(c) for constant release rate as . used by Pasciak et al.
•
1260
POPULATION BLOCKS10 MILE RADIUS
MODEL 2 R :1ODEGDOSE LEVELS (MREM)(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
WEST-
POPULATION BLOCKSSO MILE RADIUS
Figure 7 .
IN VICINITY OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
0U/)3/89 15 :32LEVELS :0 .0 - 22 .322 .3 - 44 .644 .6 - 66 .966 .9 - 89 .289 .2 - 111 .5
-EAST
0
04/13/89 15 :32LEVELS :0.0 - 6 .46 .4 - 12 .712 .7 - 19 .119 .1 - 25 .525 .5 - 31 .9
-EAST
IN VICINITY OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
Estimated gamma doses (mrem) to populated blocks(a) within a 10 mile radius of TMI(b) from 10 to 50 miles from TMI .
- 947 .
- 642 .
737 .
- 632 .
- 527 .
- (122 .
- 317 .
- 212 .
- 107 .
Figure P . Elevation plots of gamma doses in the vicinityof Three Mile Island . ,(view from Si to NW)
- 35
- 33 .
- 29 . (CD
- 26 .(t
- 22 .(D
19 .
A]16 . 1<
0- 12 . ,"f
- 9 . c
013
1
100
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .;. . . . .. . . .... ... . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . ....
. . ..
.. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . ..
------------------------------- I--+-- . .
.i.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.
Doses from noble gas releases duringthe Three Mile Island accident
1880
1008 10000
100000Affected population
1E6 1E7
Figure 9 .
Cumulative distribution of doses by populationBase case assumptions, from releases,during first 38 hours .
i
(a) Plume rise for temperature differences of 0. 10, and 100 C150
E
s 50
0
(b) Noble gas2000
Q)
.
(CS 1500-Q)NL 1000-
I
(c) Populationa) .. 50C +~
0 Q) 40->30 -
0I 20O
CL
-O Q) 1 0
d O-00
I I
dose within 80 km vs. plume rise
I
Figure 1 0 . Effect of plume buoyancy temperature difference on plume rise,estimated activity release, and estimated population dose .
1
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I aI
100
200
300
400
500Downwind distance from stack (meters)
activity release estimate vs. plume rise
I
I
I
I
I10 20 30 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100Temperature difference for plume rise (°C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10 20 30 40 50 60 _70 80 90 100Temperature difference for plume rise (°C)
edDhtrl~"AJt?'Jn Of ar'1i •'itU r?1e_s~~_ .:
1
Frequency (2000) trials"
1000
800
Distribution of 50-mile population dose
1000Frequency (2000 trials)
800
600
400
200
2000
Rctivity released, MN
4CCIO 6 J a
Population dose, person-reN
Distribution of maxi" block dose
Frequency (2000 trials)
O
4W
I
2C F
'1
0
100
200
300
400
10000?
Dose to highest block, mrem
Distribution of correlation of blockdoses to those from Epi Stuff
Frequency (2000 trials)
Correlation coefficient
Figure 11,E
Distributions of parameters estimated by Bayesian analysis(a) noble gas activity released during first 38 hours(b) population dose within 50 miles`of TMI(c) dose to block having highest exposure(d) correlation of dose pattern to dose pattern used in TMI epidemiology study.
meteorologicalmodel
Reactorcomplex
Figure A-1 . Schematic of model for projecting doses from airborne radioactive plumes releasedfrom a reactor site .
let .
<- NORTH SOUTH ->
Figure A-2 . Terrain elevations in the vicinity of Three Mile Island .Terrain features below stack elevation are omitted .
9 24 1988
9 24 1988
32B 515 1 .000
32B 515 1 .000
-18819 .2 -17482 .1 -1151 '04 .0 -14747 .9 -13390 .8 --12033 .5 -10878 .3
-9319 .2CTRX .T -14069-684 .
METERS
Figure A-3 . Calculation of doses to receptors from a passing puff .Path of plume is represented by the main horizonatally running line . The endpoints of branches from the line are receptor locations . The dots are points on theterrain contours . Part (b) is a close-up view of (a) . Numbers in upper right-handcorner are the date and time the puff was released .
.
LOId X:
4.
Figure A-4 .Moving puff of radioactivity . The dark concentric circles represent thecooling towers . The lower center line shows an expanding puff of materialat different time-intervals . The numbers refer to locations of TLD detectors .
NEXT PLOTPREY PLOT
EXPAND X2
TOGGLE
NEW VAL .
EXIT
Expanded version of (A)showing terrain contours as well .
NEXT PLOTPREY PLOT
EXPAND X2X10
REDUCE X2XIO
NEW CENTR
GRID/TLDTOGGLE
SIDEVIEW
TOGGLE
AXIS
TOGGLE
CIRCLETOGGLE
ANIMATICTOGGLE
CONTOURTOGGLE
GARP11PLOT
CONT LINETOGGLE
NEW VAL .
EXIT
•
C • x S
-1000 .0
-714 .3
-426 .6
-142 .9
142.9CTRX .Y 0 .
D .
KILOMETERS
4. C r w 3
9 3 1988
9 3 1988
2
9
2328 400 1 .000
9
10
428 .6
714 .3
IOD0.0
328 400 1 .000
``-1_
15
-4000 .C
-2057 .1
-1714.3
-571 .4
571 .4
1714 .3
2057.1
4000 .0
CTRX .Y 0 .
0 .
KILOMETERS
7
In
r
y
Nw
Uw
JY
w0JY
XID
REDUCE X2X1D
NEW CENTR
GRID/TLDTOGGLE 797DFV ; 94TOGGLE
I
AXISTOGGLE
CIRCLETOGGLE
ANIMATIOTOGGLE
CONTOURTOGGLE
GRAPHPLOT
CONT LINE
Outdoor temperatures for TMIMarch 28-29, 1979
Hour from start of accident (4:00 3/28)
Figure A-S . Outdoor temperatures at Three Mile Island, 28-29 March 1979,based on National Weather Service data for Harrisburg, PA .
U'0
10000
1000
100
10
0 .1
Teledyne us RMC TLD dose readings(period ending 3/29/79)
:: : . . ._
_: I:I~s
0 . 1 1
452
Net RMC dose (mrad)
Figure B-I .
Teledyne versus RMC dosimeter readings
list
10
100
1000
WEST-
MODEL I EPIBRSE ~~DOSE LEVELS (MREM)(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
POPULATION BLOCKS10 MILE RADIUS
R :1ODEG - EPIBRSEDOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
WEST-
04/13/69 15 :33LEVELS :0 .0 - 20 .020 .0 - 4D .040 .0 - 60 .060 .0 - 80 .080 .0 - 100 .0
0
-ERST
IN VICINITY OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
04/13/89 15 :34LEVELS : .-22 .0 - -13 .2-13 .2 - -4 .4-4 .4 - 4 .44 .4 - 13 .213 .2 - 22 .0
0
-ERST
POPULATION BLOCKS
. IN VICINITY OF10 MILE RADIUS
THREE MILE ISLAND
Figure C-1 .
Dose pattern comparisons with the TMI epidemiology study(a) block doses using TMI epidemiology study model(b) relative differences between base case model doses and (a)
WEST-
-9 .5 - -3 .2-3 .2 - 3 .23 .2 - 9 .59 .5 - 15 .9
POPULATION BLOCKS10 MILE RADIUS
C :IDDDEG - R :10DEGDOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
WEST-
POPULATION BLOCKS1D MILE RADIUS
D
-EAST
IN VICINITT OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
04/13/89 15 :36LEVELS :-32 .9 - -19 .7-19 .7 - -6 .6-6 .6 - 6 .66 .6 - 19 .719 . 7 - 32 . 9
0
-EAST
IN VICINITT OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
Figure C-2 .
Dose pattern differences for bounding cases of plume rise relative to base casemodel (]0°C thermal buoyancy)(a) no plume rise(b) high plume rise (100°C thermal buoyancy) .
B :NORISE - A :IDDEG 04/13/89 15 :35DOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS) LEVELS :
-15 .9 - -9 .5
D :+SWIND - R :IODEGDOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
WEST-
POPULATION BLOCKS10 MILE RADIUS
E :-5WIND - R :10DEGDOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS)
WEST-
POPULATION BLOCKS10 MILE RADIUS
D
IN VICINITY OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
04/13/89 15 :37LEVELS :-59 .6 - -35 .7-35 .7 - -11 .9-11 .9 - 11 .911 .9 - 35 .735 .7 - 59 .6
IN VICINITY OFTHREE MILE ISLAND
Figure C-3 .
Dose pattern differences for biases in wind direction(a) winds shifted +5° from nominal direction(b) winds shifted -5° from nominal direction .
01/13/89 15 :37LEVELS :-31 .7 - -19 .0-19 .0 - -6 .3-6 .3 - 6 .36 .3 - 19 .019 .0 - 31 .7
-EAST
-EAST
^
I
~
L86
--'. ..~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .~
.
°~-~-^.
0
21311
40
60
W
122;'T aendu* Weenu K3
Temperature differences ("C) corresponding to Some selectedprobability levels for the three log-normal distributions
Figure E71- . Temperature distributions for error analysis of plume rise, with.
.
.means - and standard deviations as indicated. :`~
Log-normaldistributionparameters
Cumulative probability (P)temperature difference isor equal to the tabulated
that theless thanvalue
Case Mean Std .Dev . P70 .05 P=0 .16 P=0 .50 F3 =O .EB
.
(a) 10 10 1 .8 3 .1 7.1 10 .4(b) 10 20 0.6 1 .3 4 .5 8 .1CO 20 20 3.6 6 .2 14.1 20 .9
Ln~nor~l ,ro~b ~it~~s
115
~O
~~~
~8Y.-- ...' . ~-~
!°