A Comparison of ARCON96 vs. Murphy & Campe Including Case Study Results
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

A Comparison of ARCON96 vs. Murphy & Campe Including Case Study Results PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 64 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

A Comparison of ARCON96 vs. Murphy & Campe Including Case Study Results Stephen A. Vigeant, CCM and Carl A. Mazzola, CCM To be presented at the Eight Nuclear Utility Meteorological Data User Group (NUMUG) Meeting St. Charles, IL, May 9, 2002. Overview.

Download Presentation

A Comparison of ARCON96 vs. Murphy & Campe Including Case Study Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

A Comparison of ARCON96 vs. Murphy & Campe Including Case Study Results

Stephen A. Vigeant, CCM and Carl A. Mazzola, CCM

To be presented at the Eight Nuclear Utility Meteorological Data User Group (NUMUG) Meeting

St. Charles, IL, May 9, 2002


Overview

Overview

  • Murphy-Campe endorsed by NRC for CR Habitability Analyses Since 1974

  • Other Methods Occasionally Used (K Factors)

  • ARCON96 Developed for More Realistic Treatment of Diffusion Near Buildings

  • Nuclear Plants Start Using ARCON96 to Reduce Conservatism

  • DG-1111 Endorses both ARCON96 and Murphy- Campe


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Outline

  • ARCON96 vs. Murphy-Campe Methodologies

  • Compare Case Study Results

  • Explain Behavior

  • NRC Concerns in Application of ARCON96


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

ARCON96 Methodology

  • Straight Line Gaussian Plume Model

  • Ground-Level, Vent , and Elevated Releases

  • Low Wind Speed Plume Meander

  • Aerodynamic Wake Effects


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

ARCON96 Methodology

  • Diffuse Source Option

  • Sector Averaging Constant

  • Wind Direction Sector Width

  • Surface Roughness Length

  • Hourly Meteorological Data


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

ARCON96 Methodology

C/Q = [(u)(p)(S y)(S z)]-1 exp -1/2 (y/sy)2

where:

C/Q = relative concentration for a 1-hour period (sec/m3)

Sy = [sy2 + sy12 +sy22]1/2

Sz = [sz2 + sz12 +sz22]1/2

sy = normal atmospheric horizontal dispersion coefficient

sz = normal atmospheric vertical dispersion coefficient

sy1, sz1 = low wind speed corrections

sy2, sz2 =building wake corrections


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

ARCON96 Methodology

sy1 = 9.13E05[1 - (1+(x/1000 u))exp(-x/1000u]

sz1 = 6.67E02[1 - (1+(x/100 u))exp(-x/100u)]

sy2 = 5.24E-02u2A[1 - (1+(x/10A1/2))exp(-x/10A1/2)]

sz2 = 1.17E-02u2A[1 - (1+(x/10A1/2))exp(-x/10A1/2)]

u = wind speed (m/sec)

x = downwind distance (m)

y = horizontal distance from the center of the plume (m)

A = cross-sectional area of the building (m2)

Sector Averaging Used for Periods > 8 hours


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Murphy-Campe Methodology

  • Straight Line Gaussian Plume Model

  • Point Source - Point Receptor

  • Diffuse Source - Point Receptor

  • Building Wake Only


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Murphy-Campe Methodology

C/Q= [3upsysz]-1 (point source)*

C/Q= [u(psysz + A/(K+2))]-1(diffuse source)

where:

3 = wake factor based on Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4

k = 3/(s/d)1.4

s = source to receptor difference (m)

d = containment structure width (m)

*elevation difference between a point source and a point receptor less than or equal to 30 percent of the building height


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Murphy-Campe Methodology

Intermediate Averaging Times Based on 0-2 hour

C/Q Value:

AveragingOccupancyWind SpeedWind Direction

TimeFactorFactorFactor

0 - 8 hrs111

8 - 24 hrs15%/10% speed0.75 + F/4

1 - 4 days0.65%/20% speed0.50 + F/2

4 - 30 days0.45%/40% speedF

F is the fraction of time the wind blows the activity toward the receptor


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

  • Nine Meteorological Databases Included

  • Diffuse and Point Ground-Level Sources

  • Containment Walls, Vents, Relief Valves,

    Main Steam Line Breaks

  • Cross-Sectional Building Areas for Wake Effect Used when Appropriate

  • NRC/DG-1111 Guidance Used


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 1

Comparison of ARCON96 and Murphy-Campe Control Room C/Q Values for Site A (Low Wind Speed)

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site A: Unit 1 Containment Edge (x = 75 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.88E-032.88E-031.90E-036.62E-041.41E-04

ARCON964.88E-044.07E-041.79E-041.41E-041.22E-04

Credit5.9 7.1 10.6 4.7 1.2

Site A: Unit 1 Containment Top (x = 94 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.51E-032.51E-031.66E-035.77E-041.23E-04

ARCON965.93E-044.63E-041.84E-041.34E-041.16E-04

Credit4.2 5.4 9.0 4.3 1.1


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

Site A: Unit 1 Auxiliary Building (x = 28 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe8.24E-038.24E-036.01E-032.32E-036.18E-04

ARCON966.48E-034.91E-031.95E-031.45E-031.19E-03

Credit1.3 1.7 3.1 1.6 0.5

Site A: Unit 1 Main Steam Line Break (x = 35 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe7.81E-037.81E-035.55E-032.11E-037.11E-04

ARCON964.24E-033.87E-031.69E-031.18E-031.06E-03

Credit1.8 2.0 3.3 1.8 0.7

Site A: Unit 1 Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 86 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.97E-032.97E-031.94E-036.92E-041.54E-04

ARCON967.46E-046.31E-042.62E-041.98E-041.62E-04

Credit4.0 4.7 7.4 3.5 0.9


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 1 - CONTINUED

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site A: Unit 2 Containment Edge (x = 72 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe4.16E-034.16E-032.81E-031.09E-031.58E-04

ARCON964.82E-043.59E-041.55E-041.21E-049.18E-05

Credit8.6 11.6 18.1 9.0 1.7

Site A: Unit 2 Containment Top (x = 93 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.65E-033.65E-032.47E-039.56E-041.39E-04

ARCON965.56E-044.45E-041.91E-041.39E-049.35E-05

Credit6.6 8.2 12.9 6.9 1.5


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

Site A: Unit 2 Auxiliary Building (x = 25 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.33E-021.33E-029.30E-033.94E-031.20E-03

ARCON964.82E-033.20E-031.58E-031.13E-038.07E-04

Credit2.8 4.2 5.9 3.5 1.5

Site A: Unit 2 Main Steam Line Break (x = 54 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe6.46E-036.46E-034.90E-032.00E-035.75E-04

ARCON961.22E-038.69E-043.66E-042.71E-042.02E-04

Credit5.3 7.4 13.4 7.4 2.9

Site A: Unit 2 Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 91 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe7.75E-037.75E-035.63E-031.99E-033.26E-04

ARCON965.01E-043.58E-041.61E-041.19E-048.32E-05

Credit15.5 21.7 35.0 16.7 3.9


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 2

Comparison of ARCON96 and Murphy-Campe Control Room C/Q Values for Site B (Low Wind Speed)

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site B: Unit 1 Containment Edge (x = 46 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.10E-032.10E-031.40E-035.20E-041.40E-04

ARCON961.04E-037.60E-043.04E-042.73E-042.14E-04

Credit2.0 2.8 4.6 1.9 0.7

Site B: Auxiliary Building Stack (x = 94 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.70E-031.70E-031.20E-034.00E-049.00E-05

ARCON961.75E-031.25E-034.52E-043.34E-042.91E-04

Credit1.0 1.4 2.7 1.2 0.3


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

Site B: Unit 1 Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 45 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.10E-032.10E-031.40E-035.20E-041.40E-04

ARCON962.77E-032.02E-036.79E-045.63E-044.65E-04

Credit0.8 1.0 2.1 0.9 0.3

Site B: Unit 2 Containment Edge (x = 31 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.00E-033.00E-031.90E-037.10E-041.90E-04

ARCON961.34E-031.02E-033.88E-043.04E-042.23E-04

Credit2.2 2.9 4.9 2.3 0.9

Site B: Unit 2 Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 34 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.70E-032.70E-031.80E-036.50E-041.60E-04

ARCON963.75E-032.58E-039.28E-047.58E-046.91E-04

Credit0.7 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.2


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 3

Comparison of ARCON96 and Murphy-Campe Control Room C/Q Values for Site C (Low Wind Speed)

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site C: Building Vent to Intake 1

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.48E-042.94E-042.53E-042.01E-041.44E-04

ARCON961.20E-049.96E-054.85E-053.15E-052.02E-05

Credit2.9 3.0 5.2 6.4 7.1

Site C: Building Vent to Intake 2

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.48E-042.94E-042.53E-042.01E-041.44E-04

ARCON962.17E-041.64E-047.89E-054.33E-053.35E-05

Credit1.6 1.8 3.2 4.6 4.3


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 3 - CONTINUED

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site C: Ground Level Release to Intake 1

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.70E-032.38E-031.91E-031.19E-035.97E-04

ARCON962.00E-041.28E-045.72E-054.05E-053.09E-05

Credit18.5 18.6 33.4 29.4 19.3

Site C: Ground Level Release to Intake 2

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.20E-037.91E-046.42E-044.09E-042.14E-04

ARCON968.60E-056.46E-052.80E-052.00E-051.53E-05

Credit14.0 12.2 22.9 20.5 14.0


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 4

Comparison of ARCON96 and Murphy-Campe Control Room C/Q Values for Site D (Low Wind Speed)

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site D: Unit 1 Vent to Intake 1

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.84E-032.03E-031.68E-031.18E-038.89E-04

ARCON967.96E-044.68E-042.23E-041.78E-041.44E-04

Credit4.8 4.3 7.5 6.6 6.2

Site D: Unit 1 Vent to Intake 2

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe4.07E-032.47E-031.97E-031.37E-039.84E-04

ARCON964.03E-033.35E-031.54E-031.05E-038.81E-04

Credit1.0 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.1


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 4 - CONTINUED

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site D: Unit 2 Vent to Intake 1

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe2.53E-031.72E-031.46E-031.04E-037.23E-04

ARCON962.60E-032.16E-031.02E-036.96E-045.71E-04

Credit1.0 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.3

Site D: Unit 2 Vent to Intake 2

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.70E-031.10E-039.44E-046.73E-044.64E-04

ARCON965.85E-043.89E-041.93E-041.47E-041.17E-04

Credit2.9 2.8 4.9 4.6 4.0


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 5

Comparison of ARCON96 and Murphy-Campe Control Room C/Q Values for Sites E-I (Moderate Wind Speed)

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site E: Unit 1Containment Edge (x = 31 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe4.05E-034.05E-031.90E-039.55E-043.42E-04

ARCON966.10E-035.30E-032.66E-032.00E-031.52E-03

Credit0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2

Site E: Unit 2 Containment Edge (x = 31 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe4.05E-034.05E-031.90E-039.55E-043.42E-04

ARCON966.04E-035.30E-032.68E-031.98E-031.53E-03

Credit0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

TABLE 5 - CONTINUED

95th Percentile C/Q Values (sec/m3)

Site F: Unit 1Containment Edge (x = 31 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe6.24E-036.24E-033.16E-031.40E-033.50E-04

ARCON966.08E-035.32E-032.79E-031.82E-031.32E-03

Credit1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3

Site F: Unit 2Containment Edge (x = 31 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe6.24E-036.24E-033.16E-031.40E-033.50E-04

ARCON966.20E-035.37E-032.74E-031.80E-031.31E-03

Credit1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

Case Studies

Site G: Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 69 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.29E-031.29E-037.61E-044.84E-042.13E-04

ARCON961.13E-039.45E-044.54E-042.68E-041.67E-04

Credit1.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.3

Site H: Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 67 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe1.29E-031.29E-037.61E-044.84E-042.13E-04

ARCON961.24E-031.08E-035.29E-043.43E-042.72E-04

Credit1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.8

Site I: Main Steam Relief Valves (x = 30 m)

0 - 2 hr2 - 8 hr8 - 24 hr1 - 4 day4 - 30 day

Murphy-Campe3.19E-033.19E-032.05E-037.61E-042.13E-04

ARCON962.85E-032.31E-039.84E-048.83E-047.82E-04

Credit1.1 1.4 2.1 0.9 0.3


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

CONCLUSIONS

  • ARCON96 Provides Lower C/QValuesthan Murphy-Campe in Most Cases

  • Lower ARCON96 C/QValuesGenerally Occur at Low-Wind Speed Sites

  • Higher ARCON96 C/Qs Occur at Moderate- Wind Speed Sites

  • Lower ARCON96 C/Qs Due to DominanceofLow-Wind Speed Plume Meander Effect

  • ARCON96 C/Qs Maximize at Moderate Wind Speeds (i.e., 3-4 m/sec)


A comparison of arcon96 vs murphy campe including case study results

NRC CONCERNS

  • Proper Use of Meteorological Data

    • 5 years on-site data

    • data QA (e.g., no nearby obstructions)

    • correct wind speed units

  • Avoid Vent (i.e. mixed mode) and Elevated Release Options (i.e., for short distances)

  • Avoid Application to Distances < 10 meters

  • Appropriate Use of Cross-Sectional Building Area for Wake Effect


  • Login