Population block assignments near Three Mile Island (a ... · Population block assignments near...

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


1000

(c) for constant release source term (Pasciak et al .)

1200

: :*!:::

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . . . .. .... . ... .. . ...... . ..... . ..L

. . . . . ..... . ..... . .. ... . . .. . .. . ........ ...... ..

. •-ce

•

iisi166•

1'-- ---•' -'--;. .1452 ._..-_- . • . _ .-

--.-_. . .. .-_.. .--..- . . . ..-_ . .-_.-------

F--: ------ iI. .e 200 - 400

688


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


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)


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


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


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-


E :-5WIND - R :10DEGDOSAGE DIFFERENCES(DOSES TO BLOCKS)

WEST-


D


04/13/89 15 :37LEVELS :-59 .6 - -35 .7-35 .7 - -11 .9-11 .9 - 11 .911 .9 - 35 .735 .7 - 59 .6


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.-- ...' . ~-~

!°

Population block assignments near Three Mile Island (a ... · Population block assignments near...

Documents

Transcript of Population block assignments near Three Mile Island (a ... · Population block assignments near...