Radiological Accidents

357 Pages·2005·9.75 MB·English

CONF-860932-
DE87 007690
ANS Topical Meeting on
Radiological
Accidents —
Perspectives and
Planning
September 15—17, 1986
Bethesda, Maryland
Proceedings
Date Published: March 1987
Prepared by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
operated by
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
MASTER
under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400
OlSTRIBUTUJH OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
American Nuclear Society
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
Federal Emergency Management Conference of Radiation Control
Agency Program Directors
U.S. Environmental Protection National Emergency Management
Agency Association
I Iealth Physics Society U.S. Dept. of Transportation
This meeting could not have taken place without the assistance provided
by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Safety.
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-
bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-
ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
Foreword
The increasing use of radioactive materials and the increasing public concern about possible
accidents involving these materials has led to greater emphasis on preparing for such emergencies.
The ANS Topical Meeting on Radiological Accidents—Perspectives and Emergency Planning gave
us an opportunity to review our experience with radiological accidents to determine what informa-
tion from this experience could be applied to improve our preparedness for future accidents.
The meeting covered some of the most important aspects of radiological accidents. We started
by inviting several speakers to present papers dealing with radiological accident experience and then
solicited other papers on related areas.
Technical response to accidents is of primary interest to many in the nuclear community; most
of the papers submitted fell into this area. So many of these papers dealt with the use of computers
in response that a session on that topic was arranged.
A very significant impact of most radiological accidents is the cost, especially the cost of
cleanup. There were papers on what is known about costs and associated current topics, such as
modification and extension of the Price-Anderson Act.
At least as important as the technical response to accidents is how society attempts to deal
with them. A session on institutional issues was included to discuss how governments and other
organizations respond to and deal with accidents.
Medical effects of accidents are of great concern to the public. Invited papers to review the
effects of high doses of radiation as well as very low doses were included in that session.
Although the nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, this fact often does not agree
with the public perception of the industry. The final session explored the public response to and per-
ception of radiological emergencies and accidents. This subject will ultimately determine the future
use of radioactive materials in this country.
I think you will find that this volume contains an interesting set of papers. The Technical Pro-
gram Committee did an excellent job of reviewing and selecting the contributions that appear here.
Although the Chernobyl accident occurred long after the planning for this meeting was under way,
a few papers on Chernobyl were added and many of the other authors managed to incorporate this
recent experience. If nothing else, this accident confirmed the timeliness and appropriateness of our
topic.
I hope that this review will help us improve our emergency planning, so that we will be even
better prepared to deal with any future accidents.
L. Joe Deal
General Chairman
MEETING OFFICERS
General Chairman Financial
L. Joe Deal Donald Marksberry
U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Associate General Chairman Registration
Clyde Jupiter Emmanuel Glakpe
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Howard University
Technical Program Publications
Conrad V. Chester Kathy S. Gant
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Arrangements Public Information
Raymond W. Durante Joseph Markiewicz
Schneider Enterprises Energy Consultants, Inc.
TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Chairman: Conrad V. Chester
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
David Aldrich Milton Levinson
Science Applications International Bechtel Power Company
Corporation
Joseph Logsdon
Joel Buchanan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Clarence Lushbaugh
Robert Catlin Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Electric Power Research Institute
Steven R. Miller
Harold J. Collins U.S. Department of Energy
International Atomic Energy Authority
Robert Ricks
Richard Cuddihy Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Lovelace Foundation
John Sorensen
Robert W. Davies Oak Ridge National Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy
Roberts. Wilkerson
Russell Dynes Federal Emergency Management Agency
University of Delaware
Andrew Hull
Brookhaven National Laboratory
IV
Contents
Sponsoring and Participating Organizations ii
Foreword iii
L. Joe Deal
Meeting Officers and Technical Program Committee iv
Introductory Remarks 1
Joseph Hendrie
Luncheon Presentations
The Federal Perspective 5
Samuel W. Speck
The Industrial Perspective 11
James A. Wick
Section 1. Accident Experience
Use of Radiological Accident Experience in Establishing
Appropriate Perspectives in Emergency Planning 19
J. M. Selby, D. W. Moeller, E. J. Vallario, and J. G. Stephan
A Chronology of the Chernobyl-4 Accident 29
G. Donald McPherson
Uranium Yellow Cake Accident—Wichita, Kansas 39
Harold R. Borchert
Aerial Survey Efforts in the Search for Radon-Contaminated Houses in the
Reading Prong Area Near Boyertown, Pennsylvania 43
Raymond A. Hoover and Dennis E. Mateik
Emergency Planners, Look Back at TMI-2 47
Robert L. Long
Section II. Technical Aspects
Source Terms Derived from Analyses of Hypothetical Accidents, 1950-1986 53
William R. Stratton
Radiological Source Term Estimation Methods 63
P. C. Owczarski, M. Y. Ballinger, J. Nfishima, and J. E. Ayer
Changing Perspectives on Severe Accident Source Terms 67
R. S. Denning, P. Cybulskis, and R. DiSalvo
NRC Perspective on Severe Accident Consequence Assessment 73
Thomas McKenna and James A. Martin
A History of Aerial Surveys in Response to Radiological Incidents
and Accidents 79
Joel E. Jobst
Status of Aerial Survey Emergency Preparedness and Ground Support
Equipment, Calibration, and Sensitivities 85
Thomas S. Dahlstrom
v
Aerial Systems Support for Nevada Test Site Weapons Testing 91
Philip K. Boyns
Mobile Robot Response to Actions Associated with the Release of
Hazardous Materials 95
Harvey B. Meieran
Communications Systems for Emergency Deployment Applications 101
Charles A. Gladden
A Mobile Laboratory—Emergency Sample Analyses at the Accident Site 103
R. H. Wilson
Developing a Comprehensive and Accountable Data Base
After a Radiological Accident 109
Hollis A. Berry and Zolin G. Burson
A New Method for Presenting Off-Site Radiological
Monitoring Data During Emergency Preparedness Exercises 113
M. P. Moeller, G. F. Martin, E. E. Hickey, and J. D. Jamison
Enhancement of the 1985 Browns Ferry Exercise Through the Use of
Spiked Samples 119
James L. McNees
Integrated Emergency Response Program at the Savannah River Plant 123
Richard W. Benjamin
Savannah River Plant Emergency Response: Operations and Exercises 127
Doris D. Hoel
A Mobile Laboratory for Near-Real-Timc Response to Radioactive Releases 131
R. A. Sigg
Improving Emergency Response Through Field Exercises 135
R. P. Addis, R. J, Kurzeja, and A. H. Weber
Savannah River Plant Remote Environmental Monitoring System 137
/. F. Schubert
Aquatic Emergency Response Model at the Savannah River Plant 141
David W. Hayes
Meeting NUREG-0737, II.B.3 Requirements—Backup
Analysis of Postaccident Samples 145
Todd L. Hardt, Mark J. Bradley, and Trudy E. Phillips
An Evaluation of Emergency Systems for the Monitoring, Sampling, and
Analysis of Reactor Coolant, Containment Atmosphere, and Airborne Effluents 149
Andrew P. Hull, Wayne H. Knox, and John R. White
A State-of-the-Art Aporoach to Emergency Preparedness—Remote
Monitoring of Nuclear Power Plants 161
James A. Blackburn and Michael C. Parker
Section III. Computer Applications
Computer-Assisted Emergency Preparedness and Response 169
James W. Morentz
FEMA'S Integrated Emergency Management Information System (IEMIS) 175
Robert T. Jaske and Wayne Meitzler
VI
The MAPSS Nuclear Emergency Management System 181
Howard A. Price, Jr., Larry D. Sadler, and Robert W. Johnson, Jr.
A Comparison of Computerized Dose Projection Models and Their
Impact oi. Protective Action Decision Making 187
Susan M. Reilly
An Importance Ranking of Various Aspects of Off-Site Radiological
Emergency Preparedness 193
John W. Hockert and Thomas F. Carter
A Goal-Oriented Functional Tree Structure for Nuclear Power Plant
Emergency Preparedness 197
Richard V. Calabrese and Marvin L. Roush
Results of the Early NRC Analyses of the Radiological
Monitoring Data from the Chernobyl Accident 209
Rosemary Hogan and Thomas McKenna
ARAC: A Centralized Computer-Assisted Emergency Planning, Response,
and Assessment System for Atmospheric Releases of Toxic Material 215
M. H. Dickerson and J. B. Knox
Digital Imagery Manipulation and Transmission for Emergency
Deployment Applications 223
C. A. Gladden and D. S. Phillipson
Image/Data Storage, Manipulation, and Recall Using Video/Computer
Technology for Emergency Applications 225
James M. Thorpe
Using MENU-TACT for Estimating Radionuclide Releases During
a Reactor Emergency 229
Andrea L Sjoreen
The MESORAD Dose Assessment Model 237
R. I. Scherpelz, J. V. Ramsdell, G. F. Athey, and T. J. Bander
Accident Analysis Codes That Predict the Transport of Radiological
Aerosol Through a Fuel Cycle Facility as a Result of an Accident 241
Kevin C. Greenaugh
REALM: An Expert System for Classifying Emergencies 247
Robert A. Touchton, Alan Dale Gunter, and David G. Cain
Section IV. Economic Issues
Perspectives on the Economic Risks of LWR Accidents 253
Lynn T. Ritchie and Richard P. Burke
Restoration of a Radiologically Contaminated Site: SAGEBRUSH IV 259
JackJ. Tawil
The NRC's Rulemaking to Require Materials Licensees to
Be Financially Responsible for Cleanup of Accidental Releases 265
Mary Jo Seeman
Applicability of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to Releases of Radioactive Substances 271
Steven R. Miller
vn
Price-Anderson—Where We've Been, Where We're Going 273
Ira Dinitz
Section V. Institutional Issues
Protective Action Guides: Rationale, Interpretation, and Status 279
Joe E. Logsdon
The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 283
Vernon Adler
Role of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center
(FRMAC) Following a Radiological Accident 287
John F. Doyle HI
Exercising the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 291
Kathy S. Gant, Martha V. Adler, and William F. Wolff
Emergency Response to Transportation Accidents 295
Cheryl Sakenas
New Source Terms and the Implications for Emergency Planning
Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants in the United States 297
Geoffrey D. Kaiser and Michael C. Cheok
Coordination Between NRC and FEMA: Emergency Preparedness Issues
of Current Interest 303
Edward M. Podolak, Jr.
Interactions Between Multiple Organizations Responding to a Reactor
Accident in Switzerland 307
Martin Baggenstos and Hans-Peter Isaak
Utility Perspective on Emergency Preparedness 313
George J. Giangi
Improving Emergency Management Through Shared Information
Processing—Considerations in Emergency Operations Center Design 319
Richard E. DeBusk and J. Andrew Walker
The NRC Operations Center's Function 325
Eric W. Weiss
Section VI. Medical Issues
Dose-Rate Models for Human Survival After Exposure to Ionizing Radiation 331
Troyce D. Jones, M. D. Morris, and R. W. Young
Radiation Carcinogenesis Following Low-Dose or Low-Dose-Rate Exposures 341
R. L. Ullrich
A National Emergency Medical Assistance Program for
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 345
Roger E. Linnemann, M.D., and Mary Ellen Berger
Section VII. Accidents and the Public
Evacuation Behavior in Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies:
An Alternative Perspective 351
John H. Sorensen
Warning Human Populations of Technological Hazard 357
George O. Rogers and Jiri Nehnevajsa
viii
Emergency Preparedness Training for Local Communities 363
Michael J. Cooley and Karen K. Thompson
Emergency Planning, Public Information, and the Media: Some
Recent Experiences 367
Steven B. Goldman
Factors Influencing Media Coverage of a Radiological Incident 373
Roy K. Bernhardt and Layton J. O'Neill
Indexes
Author Affiliations and Addresses 379
Author Index 385
IX
Introductory Remarks
Joseph Hendrie
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the ANS Topical Meeting on Radiological
Accidents—Perspectives and Emergency Planning. It is an auspicious time for such a meeting.
Much credit is due to the sponsors and the participating organizations. The sponsors are the
Environmental Sciences Division and the Washington Section of the American Nuclear Society, the
U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The participating
organizations are the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Health Physics Society, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, the
National Emergency Management Association, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. I will
speak for all of them in welcoming you here.
When they began the planning for this meeting, the sponsors could hardly have anticipated the
greatly increased interest in emergency planning that grew out of the Chernobyl accident. We are
very fortunate that the timing was such that we can hear at this meeting the early results from the
Vienna meeting at which the Soviets explained Chernobyl. In administering organizations, you get
blamed for a lot of things for which you are not responsible, but which happened at a time when
you were in charge. That suggests that you ought to get credit for events which occur during your
administration for which you had no responsibility at all; therefore, the sponsors of this meeting
ought to take full credit for the timing.
Our purpose here is to review what we have learned from past accidents that involve nuclear
materials and facilities and to use this knowledge to foster more effective emergency planning for
the future. We are going to have sessions on past accidents, medical and health consequences of
accidents, lessons learned in the past, current thoughts on radiation dose response, and mtdical
emergency preparedness. Economic considerations in nuclear accidents will be discussed in one ses-
sion, and we will have sessions on technical problems in emergency planning, institutional problems
in emergency planning and emergency response, and, finally, the role of the public in nuclear acci-
dent emergency planning and the importance of public perceptions.
Nuclear technology is one of the few technologies in which an appreciation of the possible
hazards was present at the beginning and became a serious and ongoing part of the planning and
development work. In most technologies, accidents begin happening after the equipment and process
have been invented, developed, and placed into service; over time a set of mitigation measures and
response measures evolves and becomes embedded in society's practice. In nuclear technology, we
started out with an early appreciation of the hazards.
As time went on during the development of nuclear technology, there were criticality accidents,
ovcrcxposurcs, and the like. The consequences of these were largely limited to on-site and local