Advertisement

Comparison of Average Transport and Dispersion Among a Gaussian Model, a Two-Dimensional Model and a Three-Dimensional Model

  • J. A. Mitchell
  • Charles Molenkamp
  • Nathan E. Bixler
  • Charles W. Morrow
  • James V. RamsdellJr.
Conference paper

Abstract

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) code for predicting off-site consequences, MACCS2[1] (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System, Version 2), is used for Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Analysis Consequence analyses, planning for emergencies, and cost-benefit analyses. It uses a simplified model for atmospheric transport and dispersion (ATD), that is, a straight-line Gaussian model. This model has been criticized as being overly simplistic, even for its purpose. The justification for its use has been that only average or expected values of metrics of interest are needed for planning and that a simplified model, by averaging metrics of interest obtained using numerous weather sequences one-by-one, compensates for the loss of structure in the meteorology that occurs away from the point of release. The simple model has been retained because of the desire to have short running times on personal computers covering the entire path through the environment, including the food and water pathway, and covering essentially a lifetime of exposure to a contaminated environment.

Keywords

Stability Class Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern Great Plain Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Radio Acoustic Sound System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chanin, D., Young, M.L., Randall, J., “Code Manual for MACCS2,” NUREC/CR-6613, May 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leone, J.M., Nasstrom, J.S., Maddix, D.M., Larsen, D.J., and Sugiyama, G., “2001: LODI User’s Guide, Version 1.0,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sugiyama, G. and Chan, SS.T., “A New Meteorological Data Assimilation Model for Real-Time Emergency Response,” 10th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Polution Meteorology, Phoenix, AZ, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sjoreen, A.L. Ramsdell, J.V., Jr., McKenna, T.J., McGuire, S.A., Fosmire, C., and Athey, G.F., “RASCAL 3.0: Description of Models and Methods,” NUREG-1741, March 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foster, K.T., Sugiyama, G. Nasstrom, J.S. Leone, Jr., J.M., Chan, S.T., and Bowen, B.M., “The Use of an Operational Model Evaluation System for Model Intercomparison,” International Journal of Environment and Polution, Vol. 14, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Reactor Safety Study: Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences,” WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014, Appendix 6, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    http://okmesonet.ocs.ou. edu/Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heffter, J.L., “Transport Layer Depth Calculation, Second Joint Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, New Orleans, LA, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zilitinkevich, S.S., “On the Determination of the Height of the Ekman Boundary Laven” Boundary-Layer Meteorology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 141–145.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Draxler, R.R., “Accuracy of Various Diffusion and Stability Schemes Over Washington, D.C.,” Atmospheric Environment Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 491, 499.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Mitchell
    • 1
  • Charles Molenkamp
    • 2
  • Nathan E. Bixler
    • 3
  • Charles W. Morrow
    • 3
  • James V. RamsdellJr.
    • 4
  1. 1.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionUSA
  2. 2.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA
  3. 3.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoriesRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations