Recommendations concerning models and parameters best suited to breeder reactor environmental radiological assessments

Abstract

Work en the model evaluation proj'ect is continuing at this time. As this work proceeds, modification of the recommendations presented in this report may be made to reflect the latest ii'ndings of the project staff. L Xll 1. mathematically simple and flexible, 2. in accord with much, but not a'l, diffusion theory, and 3. a reliable framework for the correlation of both field studies and mathematical and physical modeling studies of atmospheric diffusion. 2.1.1.1 Dispersion parameters. It has been found that the dispersi parameters, s and s , need to be carefully specified when using the Gaussian plume model. ' A number of empirically determined graphs of s and s as a function of downwind distance and atmospheric stability 8 9 have been proposed. GeiB et al. have published a useful set of com parisons between some of these sets of graphs.

Recommended environmental dose calculation methods and Hanford-specific parameters

“…The CR values for freshwater organisms were updated with information taken from Poston and Klopfer (1986) because they generally represented realistic rather than overly conservative estimates. Additional values were obtained preferentially from Jackson (1984), where the values were similar to those reported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC 1977), Miller et al (1980, and Lawson and Smith (1985). Values from the latter reports were used in some cases where they provided a more conservative estimate and there was no other basis for choosing an alternative.…”

Recommended environmental dose calculation methods and Hanford-specific parameters. Revision 2

“…Parameters associated with the ingestion of drinking water are presented in The CR values for freshwater organisms were updated with information taken from Poston and Klopfer (1986) because they generally represented realistic rather than overly conservative estimates. Additional values were obtained preferentially from Jackson (1984), where the values were similar to those reported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC 1977), Miller et al (1980, and Lawson and Smith (1985). Values from the latter reports were used in some cases where they provided a more conservative estimate and there was no other basis for choosing an alternative.…”

“…The ETC values were taken primarily from a draft InternationalAtomic Energy Agency document(a)to provide a consistent data set that had recently been updated and reviewed. When data were unavailable from the primary reference, these values were supplementedwith information from Ward and Johnson (1985), Lawson and Smith (1985), Ng (1982), Haywood et al (1980), Voilleque et al (1985), and Miller et al (1980). When more than one value was reported for a given element, the more conservativevalue (i.e., the one resulting in a higher dose via the ingestion pathway) was chosen when there was no other basis for discriminating between the alternatives.…”

A Simplified Model for Estimating Health Effects Due to Leaching of Long-lived Nuclides Stored in a Radioactive Waste Repository

“…The concentration factors (CF), the ratio of the activity per unit mass of plant to activity per unit mass of soil, have been taken from Miller et al (Mi80).…”