SRNS-F3200-2012-00019 Comparison of Parameters for Modeling Tritium Dispersion Accident Analyst Nuclear & Criticality Safety Engineering Savannah River.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
R. L. Buckley and C. H. Hunter Atmospheric Technologies Group Savannah River National Laboratory Recent Improvements to an Advanced Atmospheric Transport.
Advertisements

21M062007D The Shaw Group Inc. ® An Analytical Screening Technique to Estimate the Effect of Cooling Ponds on Meteorological Measurements – A Case Study.
David Copplestone CEH Lancaster 1 st – 3 rd April 2014.
RETS-REMP WORKSHOP June 25, 2012 Greg Jones R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC 1.
Modeling Atmospheric Releases of Molecular Tritium 2005 RETS/REMP Workshop Jim Key Key Solutions, Inc.
Session 11: Modeling Dispersion of Chemical Hazards, using ALOHA 1 Modeling Dispersion of Chemical Hazards, using ALOHA Prepared by Dr. Erno Sajo, Associate.
Overview of MACCS2 Doug Osborn and Nate Bixler
Meteorology Combined License NRC Review Process Meteorology Joseph Hoch Physical Scientist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June , 2008 Nuclear.
Introduction to SCREEN3 smokestacks image from Univ. of Waterloo Environmental Sciences Marti Blad NAU College of Engineering and Technology.
Introduction to SCREEN3 smokestacks image from Univ. of Waterloo Environmental Sciences Marti Blad.
Systems Analysis and Design Feasibility Study. Introduction The Feasibility Study is the preliminary study that determines whether a proposed systems.
International Energy Agency Hydrogen Implementing Agreement Proposed Task on Hydrogen Safety.
Temporal Comparison of Atmospheric Stability Classification Methods
Implications of Tritium Dose Conversion Factors in Deriving Regulatory Limits for Drinking Water and Effluent Compliance Ken Sejkora Entergy Nuclear Northeast.
Continuous Value Enhancement Process
Weather and X/Q 1 Impact Of Weather Changes On TVA Nuclear Plant Chi/Q (  /Q) Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman Jennifer M. Call Tennessee Valley Authority.
2. Dispersion We’re going to move on to the second major step in doing dose assessment.
1 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION METHODS S. Vanderperre Belgatom Vanderperre, Belgatom, chapter 7.
Vermont Yankee VSNAP Presentation February 22, 2011 Mike Romeo Director NSA.
US NRC Protective Action Recommendation Study National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference April 10, 2008 Las Vegas, NV Randy Sullivan, CHP.
The ANSI/ANS 2.15 Standard for Modeling Routine Radiological Releases from Nuclear Facilities John Ciolek AlphaTRAC, Inc.
Using ARCON96 for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments
ADMS ADMS 3.3 Modelling Summary of Model Features.
Overview of radioactivity vs. chemical toxicity issues for Overview of radioactivity vs. chemical toxicity issues for potential target materials presented.
Module 9 Atmospheric Stability Photochemistry Dispersion Modeling.
1 AirWare : R elease R5.3 beta AERMOD/AERMET DDr. Kurt Fedra Environmental Software & Services GmbH A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen AUSTRIA
Toxic Release and Dispersion Models
Safety assessment for Safety assessment for potential target materials: radioactivity vs. chemical toxicity presented by: Susana Reyes ARIES Group Meeting.
RADIOLOGICAL TOOLBOX V3.0
Jorge Schulz Bechtel National Inc. 10 May 2012.
Trinity Engineering Associates | United States Environmental Protection Agency CAP88-PC V4 T RAINING Module 1.1 Introduction to CAP88-PC.
WMO UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMME WMO UNEP IPCC Good Practice Guidance Simon Eggleston Technical.
SÄTEILYTURVAKESKUS STRÅLSÄKERHETSCENTRALEN RADIATION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AUTHORITY Protection of the environment from ionising radiation - views of a regulator.
OEC Webinar on Nuclear Safety New Airborne Dispersion Modeling and Its Impact on Safety Basis Documentation at a DOE Waste Handling and Processing Facility.
Radionuclide dispersion modelling
Energy Facility Contractors Group Safety Working Group Industrial Hygiene / Industrial Safety Technical Team Dina Siegel, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Air Quality Modeling.
Waste Treatment Plant Project Adapting Dispersion Software to DOE Standard 3009 Jorge Schulz Thomas R. McDonnell Bechtel National, Inc EFCOG Safety.
Safety Analysis Working Group FY2010 EFCOG Semi-Annual Meeting Brad Evans, Chair Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Rob McKeehan, Vice-Chair Oak Ridge.
1 U N C L A S S I F I E D Modeling of Buoyant Plumes of Flammable Natural Gas John Hargreaves Analyst Safety Basis Technical Services Group LA-UR
CHAPTER 5 Concentration Models: Diffusion Model.
EFCOG Safety Analysis Working Group May 10, 2012 Jeremy Rishel Bruce Napier Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling in Safety Analyses: GENII.
Session 4, Unit 7 Plume Rise
AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION MODELING Types of Pollutant Sources Point Sources e.g., stacks or vents Area Sources e.g., landfills, ponds, storage piles Volume.
Deposition Velocity Issues at Y-12 Bruce A Wilson Chief Engineer, Nuclear Facility Safety Douglas Clark Analyst B&W Technical Services Y-12 May 9, 2012.
Earth System Sciences, LLC Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases Doug Blewitt, CCM 1.
Creator: ACSession No: 16 Slide No: 1Reviewer: SS CSE300Advanced Software EngineeringFebruary 2006 (Software Quality) Configuration Management CSE300 Advanced.
Workshop U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Pacific Northwest National Laboratory November 15-17, 2005 GENII Version 2.0 Overview and.
Meteorology & Air Pollution Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun.
CLIC Implementation Studies Ph. Lebrun & J. Osborne CERN CLIC Collaboration Meeting addressing the Work Packages CERN, 3-4 November 2011.
Session 3, Unit 5 Dispersion Modeling. The Box Model Description and assumption Box model For line source with line strength of Q L Example.
1 of 36 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 6 - Specify Error Tolerances (60 minutes) (15 minute Morning Break) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall DQO Training Course.
Comparison of the AEOLUS3 Atmospheric Dispersion Computer Code with NRC Codes PAVAN and XOQDOQ 13th NUMUG Conference, October 2009, San Francisco, CA.
Lagrangian particle models are three-dimensional models for the simulation of airborne pollutant dispersion, able to account for flow and turbulence space-time.
Types of Models Marti Blad Northern Arizona University College of Engineering & Technology.
International Atomic Energy Agency Regulatory Review of Safety Cases for Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities David G Bennett 7 April 2014.
Consequence Analysis 2.2.
1 of 31 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 6 - Specify Error Tolerances 60 minutes (15 minute Morning Break) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall DQO Training Course.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Presenter Name School of Drafting Regulations for Borehole Disposal of DSRS 2016 Vienna, Austria Siting Strategies.
NUMUG - Oct Atmospheric Stability – Methods & Measurements Robert F. Yewdall PSEG Nuclear LLC.
Summary of the Report, “Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling” 22 September 2004 Walter.
Use and Conduct of Safety Analysis IAEA Training Course on Safety Assessment of NPPs to Assist Decission Making Workshop Information IAEA Workshop Lecturer.
Comparisons of CALPUFF and AERMOD for Vermont Applications Examining differing model performance for a 76 meter and 12 meter (stub) stack with emission.
Modeling of heat and mass transfer during gas adsorption by aerosol particles in air pollution plumes T. Elperin1, A. Fominykh1, I. Katra2, and B. Krasovitov1.
Meteorological Site Representativeness and AERSURFACE Issues
Modeling Iodine Released During a Nuclear Power Plant Accident
The application of an atmospheric boundary layer to evaluate truck aerodynamics in CFD “A solution for a real-world engineering problem” Ir. Niek van.
SAFETY AND SITTING ASSESSMENT FOR NPPs DEPLOYMENT IN INDONESIA
CFD computations of liquid hydrogen releases
Meteorology & Air Pollution Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun
Presentation transcript:

SRNS-F Comparison of Parameters for Modeling Tritium Dispersion Accident Analyst Nuclear & Criticality Safety Engineering Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC April 18, 2012 Eric Hope Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 EFCOG Safety Analysis Workshop

2 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions SRNS is the M&O contractor for DOE’s Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C. The primary initiatives for SRNS are national security, clean energy and environmental stewardship. –We provide nuclear materials management to support national defense and U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts. –We support the National Nuclear Security Administration by extracting tritium and delivering products to military and weapons design agencies. –We develop and deploy environmental cleanup technologies. –We conduct technology R&D on national energy independence initiatives.

3 Objective: Characterize the impact of MACCS2 input parameters on the result for a unit release of Tritium

4 Objective: This comparison is intended to look at responses of parameters, not as justification for any particular value

5 Methodology Establish a baseline result Vary one parameter at a time Use a range that reflects current and anticipated requirements Some parameters are essentially step functions

6 Methodology Baseline facility has large tritium inventory, small amounts of other species Some activation products No significant quantities of alpha emitting material

7 Input Parameters MACCS2 requires user input of parameters – some are: Plume Depletion/Deposition Velocity Sigma Z adjustment for surface roughness Sigma Y adjustment for time basis/plume meander Dispersion Coefficients Resuspension Coefficient

8 Baseline for MACCS2 Calculations Conditions and parameters used in existing analysis: Dry deposition with 0.5 cm/sec deposition velocity Offsite receptor at 11.5 km from release 95 th dose quantile Tadmor-Gur dispersion coefficients (far field) Sigma Z adjusted for site specific surface roughness of 100 cm using 3 cm as basis Sigma Y adjusted for plume meander (3 minute and 20 minute releases) using 3 minute time basis

9 Baseline for MACCS2 Calculations Conditions and parameters used in existing analysis Source term assumes 100% instant conversion from elemental tritium to tritium oxide ICRP72 IDCF for elemental tritium – 1.8E-15 Sv/Bq ICRP72 IDCF for tritium oxide - 1.8E-11 Sv/Bq Oxide IDCF adjusted by 1.5x accounting for skin adsorption ( = 2.7E-11 Sv/Bq)

10 Tritium in Several Forms ICRP72 IDCF Values for various forms of Tritium Organically Bound Tritium – 4.1E-11 Sv/Bq Elemental Hydrogen – 1.8E-15 Sv/Bq Tritiated Methane – 1.8E-13 Sv/Bq Tritiated Water (Oxide) – 1.8E-11 Sv/Bq Tritiated Water (1.5x Oxide) – 2.7E-11 Sv/Bq Type F Tritium Compounds – 6.2E-12 Sv/Bq * Type M Tritium Compounds – 4.5E-11 Sv/Bq * Type S Tritium Compounds – 2.6E-10 Sv/Bq * * 1u AMAD - Influenced by particle size distribution

11 Methodology Establish baseline parameters and results

12 Baseline for MACCS2 Calculations Baseline result is 3.25E-10 Sv/Ci tritium oxide Dry deposition 0.5 cm/sec deposition velocity 20 minute release duration – 180 second time basis 100 cm surface roughness – 3 cm basis Tadmor-Gur far field dispersion coefficients Ground level (0 meter) release 11.5 km offsite receptor 1.5x ICRP72 IDCF (2.7E-11 Sv/Bq) 1E-04 m -1 Resuspension Coefficient 95 th Dose Quantile

13 Methodology Vary parameters to determine impact on results

14 Sensitivity to Dry Deposition Velocity Plume depleted as it travels downwind Larger effect as distance from source increases Base case has 11.5 km offsite receptor

15 Sensitivity to Dry Deposition Velocity MACCS2 Results for Sensitivity to various deposition velocity values All other baseline inputs held constant One Curie (3.7E+10 Bq) release 2001 met data only Deposition Velocity (cm/sec) MACCS2 Result (Sv/Ci) % of Baseline E-10100% E-10113% E-10116% Deposition OFF 3.80E-10117%

16 Sensitivity to Time Basis Adjustment Plume meander increases dispersion Adjustment to Sigma Y based on power law 180 seconds for prairie grass experiments specified in MACCS2 FGR Time basis 600 seconds Time basis equal to release duration (1200 seconds)

17 Sensitivity to Time Basis Adjustment MACCS2 Results for Sensitivity to various Time Basis Adjustment values 20 minute release duration All other baseline inputs held constant One Curie (3.7E+10 Bq) release 2001 met data only Time Basis (sec) MACCS2 Result (Sv/Ci) % of Baseline E-10100% E-10124% E-10144%

18 Sensitivity to Surface Roughness Adjustment Vertical turbulence increases dispersion Adjustment to Sigma Z based on power law 3 cm for prairie grass experiments

19 Sensitivity to Surface Roughness Adjustment MACCS2 Results for Sensitivity to various surface roughness values 3 cm basis All other baseline inputs held constant One Curie (3.7E+10 Bq) release 2001 met data only Surface Roughness (cm) MACCS2 Result (Sv/Ci) % of Baseline E-10100% E-10103% E-10117% 35.33E-10164%

20 Sensitivity to Resuspension Depletion of the plume results in a ground concentration (Bq/m 2 ) Wind and traffic suspend deposited activity back into atmosphere Resuspension Concentration Coefficient of 1E-04 is default value in MACCS2 FGR – Baseline Input EARLY module input CHRONC module calculates environmental collective population doses using 1E-05 after emergency response phase 2007 paper by O’Kula and Thoman

21 Sensitivity to Resuspension MACCS2 Results for Sensitivity to various Resuspension Coefficients All other baseline inputs held constant One Curie (3.7E+10 Bq) release 2001 met data only 0.5 cm/sec dry deposition may influence magnitude Re- suspension Coefficient (m -1 ) MACCS2 Result (Sv/Ci) % of Baseline 1E E-10100% 1E E-1097% 1E E-1096% 1E E-1096%

22 Sensitivity to Dispersion Coefficients Typically not practical to get site specific data (budget, schedule, technical hurdles, etc.) Choices of default dispersion coefficients Selection based on applicability to conditions (surface roughness, elevation, terrain, distance, time of release, etc.)

Sensitivity to Dispersion Coefficients Default Sets of Dispersion Coefficients Tadmor-Gur widely used for ground releases Briggs typically used for elevated releases Pasquill-Gifford discussed in MACCS2 documentation (T-G is an implementation of P-G) Julich developed in Germany for elevated release from very tall stack 23

Sensitivity to Dispersion Coefficients Software Quality Assurance Issues HSS error in MACSS2 v and v2.4 Error dependent on input form of dispersion coefficients Other errors reported for “new” plume meander model The results for the next slide generated using MACCS2 v2.5; all previous results based on “Toolbox” v

25 Sensitivity to Dispersion Coefficients MACCS2 Results for Sensitivity to various dispersion coefficients All other baseline inputs held constant - issues –0 meter ground release –Sigma Z surface roughness adjustment to 100 cm from 3 cm basis –Sigma Y time basis adjustment –Distance to receptor Dispersion Coefficient Set MACCS2 Result (Sv/Ci) % of Baseline Tadmor-Gur (5 to 50 km) 3.25E-10100% Pasquill- Gifford (E-K) 3.14E-1097% Briggs Open Country 3.53E-10109%

26 Conclusion The comparisons applicable only to facility where tritium is dominant release Acute accident releases - Ground level only Offsite 11.5 km

27 Conclusion Tadmor-Gur dispersion coefficients appear to be a reasonable choice for ground level releases All three evaluated dispersion coefficients gave roughly comparable results for 11.5 km receptor

28 Conclusion Changing the deposition velocity parameter from 0.5 to 0 cm/sec may increase the offsite dose to this receptor by about 17%

29 Conclusion Changes to other parameters besides deposition velocity might have an even larger impact on offsite dose

30 Conclusion Potential future technologies emphasizing tritium compounds may be impacted by filtered and unfiltered release parameters Unlike current source term assumption of 100% instant conversion to oxide Needed research publications into response of tritium compounds under thermal stress

31 References , EFCOG SAWG Presentation by Kevin Brotherton, “Significant Sensitivities in Developing Radiological Dose Consequences When Using MACCS2” , Paper by O’Kula & Thoman, WSRC-STI , “Modeling Atmospheric Releases of Tritium from Nuclear Installations” , MACCS2 Computer Code Application Guidance for Documented Safety Analysis, DOE-EH MACCS2-Code Guidance (MACCS2 FGR) , Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide, NUREG/CR , ICRP Database of Dose Coefficients & ICRP 72

32 Questions