DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

1

Literature Survey for Liquid Aerosol Release Data to Support Revised TPQ Methodology for EHS Solids in Solution February 200 8

1. DOE Aerosol Data for Aqueous Solutions Source: DOE Handbook, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for
N onreactor Nuclear Facilities. December 1994 Vol. I and II.

Airborne Release Fraction= ARF Respirable Fraction=RF DOE used a 10 μm Aerodynamic Equivalent Diameter (AED) to define respirable size. [(Note: EPA has a different definition for respirable size (< 4 micron)]

Airborne release rate = ARR, the fraction of the released material that has been deposited and then gets re

- sus pended over time.

Accident Scenarios

- DOE evaluated experimental data and models for many different accident scenarios. The ARF values for the scenarios varied widely in order of magnitude, from 1E

- 1 to 1E

- 8. Because EPA is more concerned with those acc idents with higher airborne release and to simplify the process of developing TPQs for aerosol type releases, only those DOE scenarios with of an estimated ARF 1E

- 4 or greater were
considered for discussion below.

A. Thermal Stress from Boiling Bounding ARF = 2E

- 3 ( 0.002 )

Data was obtained from experiments involving boiling (bubbles continuously breading the surface of the bulk liquid with >30% of the volume of liquid as bubbles) of aqueous solutions in flowing air. Mishima, Schwendiamn and Radasch (1968) measured ARFs during the boiling of a dilute solution of plutonium nitrate. 100 mls of solution was placed in a 180 borosilicate beaker on a hot plate. Air and particulate material escaping from the beaker was drawn through a glass bell jar and a n in

- line glass fiber filter. Velocity through the filter was estimated to be 3 cm/s. Hot plate temperature varied from
200

- 220 o C. Period of time heated varied from 42 to 66 minutes. The ARFs for the four runs at boiling ranged from 4.5E

- 7 to 1.8E

- 3. 1 Three of the four values ranged from 3E

4 to 1.8E

- 3. The two highest values were estimated by the sum of the filter acid lead and from acid washes of the equipment downstream of the filter position due to loss of filter (filter ruptured). These values included solution splattered on the vessel onto the glassware. Based on the experiment a bounding ARF value for boiling of aqueous
solutions of 2E

- 3 was selected by DOE. 2 Twelve other studies were evaluated by Borkowski, Bunz and Schoeck (1986) that ex amined the airborne release of bubble

- burst at the surface of aqueous solutions. The ARFs of 2E

- 3 measured by Mishima, Schwendiman and Radasch (1968) bounds the value measured by the other reported studies by approximately an order of magnitude.

1 1994 DOE V. I, pg. 3

- 13

2 1994 DOE V. I, pg. 3

- 1DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

2 Par ticle size analysis: Particle size was not measured in Mishima, Schwendiamn and Radasch (1968). In one of other studies evaluated, Garner et al. (1954), measured drop size distribution and total entrainment during evaporation in vessels of various diamet ers (4

- in and 12

- in. diameters tubes). Although ~95% of the drops were in the <20 μm diameter range, the total mass entrained was primarily due to drops > 100 μm diameter. Entrainment values
were in the 1E

- 5 range. 3 Bubbling experiments conducted by Heger et al. (1982, 1983) created airborne drops that were bimodally distributed with maxima at 0.3 and 0.8 μm
diameter. 4 Entrainment values ranged from 1E

- 7 to 1E

- 4. Adding tributyl phosphate reduced the surface tension and increased entrainment by a factor of 5 to 10. This also increased the generation of larger diameter drops.

B. High Pressure Venting Below Liquid Level Bounding ARF 0.12

Releases from venting pressurized liquids can range from pinhole leaks in pipes (generating a mist), to drips from very slow leaks to large jets of liquids that may gush from large holes. The amount and aerodynamic size distribution of the spray generated are a function of the size and characteristics of the breach, the upstream pressure, and the liquid characteristics (e.g. viscosity, density, volatility).

For purposes of airborne suspensio n, a conservative assumption would be the pressurized release of the liquid via a very fine hole as occurs in a commercial spray nozzle. The size distribution of aerosol releases from some commercial spray nozzles as a function of orifice diameter (0.063” to 0.128”) and upstream pressure (50

- 200 psig) were shown by Mishima, Schwendiman and Ayer (1978). 5 The size distribution of the liquid drops decreases with orifice diameter and increasing upstream pressure. Figure 3

- 4 in DOE
Volume 1 Handbook shows cum ulative mass fraction vs. droplet diameters range from
1E

- 4 to 8E

- 1 ( 0.0001 to 0.80 ) . The droplet diameters range from 7 to 500 μm. 6

It is not anticipated that drops form from breaches, cracks, leaks would generate finer drop size distributions than equ ipment specifically designed for that purpose. Therefore,
values from the 0. 063 ” orifice diameter run at 5 0 psig were used by DOE to assume a bounding ARF value of 1E

- 4 for aerosol sizes ≤ 10 μm. While DOE was focused on finding ARF values for only respi rable fractions, EPA should be looking beyond that. Figure 3

- 4 shows that at aerosol size ≤100 μm, the cumulative mass fraction varies from
3E

- 2 to 1.2E

- 1 ( 0.03 to 0.12 ) depending on the experiment run. 7 Therefore a bounding
value of 1.2E

- 1 ( 0.12 ) is exp ected for aerosol diameter sizes ≤100 μm. Note that although the x

- axis of Figure 3

- 4 is labeled cumulative mass fraction, it appears the data in the table is actually cumulative mass percent. Therefore values cited from the Figure
3

- 4 have been divided by 100 to obtain the mass fraction.

3 1994 DOE, V. I, p g. 3

- 15

4 1994 DOE, V.I, pg. 3

- 15

5 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 20

6 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 20 and 3

- 21

7 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 21DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

3 Data for Aerosol Releases from Pressure Venting Below the Liquid Level (50

- 200 psig)

Cumulative
mass fraction
airborne For aerosol

diameter,

μm

0.003

- 0.0001 ≤ 10 μm

0.03

- 0.12 ≤100 μm

C. Pressure Ventin g above the liquid level Bounding ARF 2E

- 3 ( 0.002 )

Sudden depressurization of a liquid allows the release of dissolved/trapped gases. This sudden release of gases may result in bubble formation that can create very small drops upon collapse. The drops c an be carried with the venting gas. Experiments were performed to measure the ARF due to venting pressurized volumes of aqueous solutions (uranine and UNH) in quasi

- equilibrium with their pressurizing gases (Sutter, August 1983).

100 cm 3 and 350 cm 3 of uranine (sodium fluorescein) and UNH (uranyl nitrate hexahydrate) solution were released at three pressures of 50, 250 and 500 psig. The solution densities were 0.99 g/cm 3 for uranine and 1.54 g/cm 3 for UNH. An 800 cm 3 volume container fitted with ruptu re discs, which rupture at a specified pressure, was used for the experiments. Pressurized air in introduced into the bottom of the chamber at

a pre

- selected experimental level, using a tube that exits above the liquid level in the containers. At the top of the container, two rupture discs are used to create an intermediate chamber between the discs. This chamber is also pressurized and a solenoid valve is opened letting the intermediate chamber depressurize. The pressure difference
across the lower dis c becomes too great and disc ruptures causing the upper disc to rupture microseconds later. During depressurization, liquid is ejected, samplers immediately turned on and aerosol laden air is pulled onto filters. The release is made into a cylindrical e nclosure, approximately 3 meters high and 2.9 m in diameter with 20

m 3 volume, about the size of a small room. The enclosure has four high volume samplers at 1 m and 1 level and one high volume cascade impactor at the 1.5 m level, equipped with appropriate glass fiber filters, as they were use to sample aerosol. The experimental device had also been designed for powder release experiments.

The force acting on the liquid was rapid depressurization leading to vaporization and
entrainment of the solution. Th e mass airborne was calculated as the difference between the source mass and the mass remaining in the apparatus. The mass airborne increased as a function of pressure for the uranine solutions and UNH, but the source volume did not appear significant in determining the magnitude of the release. Releases were also lowerDRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

4 than anticipated. Particle size distributions were measured by cascade impactor samples. Significant evaporation of droplets captured in the impactor could mean that the
measured size dis tribution does not correspond to that of the actual airborne aerosol. Releases of uranine solutions generated the finest, most uniform particles. Median diameters were 4 μm and less, with standard deviation (σ g ) values of 1.6 to 4. These particles were predominantly (70

- 90%), in the respirable size range of 10 μm or less. The UNH releases produced larger particle sizes and more polydispersed aerosols. Diameters ranged from 3 to 45 μm with σ g values from 2.5 to 7.5. Fewer particles of diameter 10

μm or less were generated, forming 34 to 76% of the aerosol.

For pressures less than 50 psig (0.345 MPa g ) , the aerosol release fraction ARF varies
from 3E

- 6 to 5 E

- 5. 8 Between 5 1 psig (0.352 MPa g ) and 500 psig (3.45 MPa g ) , the ARF vary from a bounding value of 2E

- 3 for lower density liquids such as uranine to 1E

- 3 for high dens ity liquids (such as UNH). 9 Table A

- 6 and A

- 7 in Volume 2 of DOE Handbook show the median droplet size values with their standard deviation for the experimental runs. The tables also s how the percentage aerosols that were of respirable size (< 10 μm). A consultant for Syngenta used the data in the tables with statistical analysis to figure out the fraction of droplets that were less than 4 μm diameter for the
uranine solution. This st atistical analysis involved using the median aerosol diameter and
standard deviation to calculate the aerosol diameter at one standard deviation below andd above the median diameter and creating a graph with those three points on log

- log paper showing aero sol diameter versus cumulative mass fraction. Using the same statistical analysis, one can determine the cumulative mass fraction of aerosols that are below 100 μm. The table below summarizes data for the aerosol releases from only the higher pressures of 250 and 500 psig, because these pressures produced significantly higher ARF than that for 50 psig.

Data for Aeros ol Releases from High Pressure Venting Above Liquid Level (250

- 500 psig only)

Solution Maximum

mass fraction
airborne Median

aerosol diameter, μm Mass

fraction ≤ 4 μm Mass fraction

of ARF that is ≤ 10 μm Mass fraction

of ARF that is ≤ 100 μm

ura nine 0.002 ~ 4 0.47

- 0.64 0.7

- 0.98 1.0

UNH 0.001 11

- 45 0.24

- 0.46 0.68

- 0.99

D. Superheated Liquid Bounding ARF 0.1 for T emperature ≥50 o C and ≤ 100 o C Bounding ARF 0.01 for Temperature ≤50 o C

Liquids heated a bove the boiling temperature of the liquid/solvent/diluent “flash” upon

8 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 22

9 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 3 and 3

- 22DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

5 release; that is, the excess heat above the boiling point of the liquid is expended in the bulk vaporization of the liquid and the remaining liquid is fragmented into fine droplets.
E xperiments were performed to measure the airborne release and size distribution of aqueous uranine solution (concentration 10 μg/L) over a limited range of conditions (Ballinger, Sutter and Hodgson, May 1987.) Aqueous solutions were heated to pressures
of 57 psig at ~134 o C, 124 psig at ~161 o C, and 240 psig at 202 o C using source volumes
of 700 cm 3 , 350 cm 3 and 100 cm 3 . The container was heated using a heat tape on the outside. The liquid was released from the open top of the ~4 inch diameter apparatus via a double rupture disk arrangement. The aerosols were contained in a stainless steel vessel approximately 3 m high and 2.9 m in diameter with a 20 m 3 volume. Once the chamber was depressurized and the liquid ejected, high

- volume samplers with glass fi ber filters were used for mass sampling; a cascade impactor was used for size distribution samples. The fraction airborne increased with initial pressure and decreasing source size. In the experiments, some of the solution impacted on the ceiling and spr ead to the walls. Only one run (57 psig) has uranine left in the container after release. The residual heat in the device following the release my have evaporated the remaining uranine solution from most of the runs; however, visual observation of the in terior of the chamber following sampling did not show a large amount of residue, which would be expected if the significant evaporation took place.

The ARF and RF depend upon the amount of heat available and the heat needed to vaporize the solvent. For relatively low energy liquids with temperatures greater than the boiling point but less than 50 o C superheat, DOE assumes bounding ARF and RF values
to be 1E

- 2 and 0.6 based on the 57 psig run. 10 DOE used bounding values of ARF and
RF of 1E

- 1 and 0.7 11 base d on data from the 124 psig and 240 psig runs for scenarios where superheated solutions are between 50 o C and 100 o C of superheat. Median diameter and standard deviation from each experimental run presented in Table A.9 of
Vol. II of DOE Handbook were use d to statistically graph aerosol diameter versus cumulative mass fraction. From these graphs, d ata on mass fraction of aerosols and
aerosol sizes are summarized in the table below.

Data for Aerosol Releases from Superheated liquid (Uranine solution)

Su perheat Maximum

mass fraction
airborne Median

aerosol diameter, μm Mass

fraction ≤ 4 μm Mass fraction

≤ 10 μm Mass

fraction ≤ 100 μm

≤50 o C 0.01 8.4 0.32 0.62 0.93

≥50 o C and ≤ 100 o C 0.1 5.9

- 7.7 0.25

- 0.34 0.66

- 0.78 1.0

12

10 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 4 and 3

- 29

11 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 4

12 1994 DOE. V .II, Table A.9, pg A

- 9DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

6 E

. Burning organic fire burning to complete dryness or burning solvent over aqueous phase burning to complete dryness. Bounding ARF 1E

- 1 ( 0.1 )

Scenarios E and F address potential releases of solid contaminant due to thermal stress for organic solut ions or organic and aqueous solutions present together. An organic burning liquid layer over an aqueous solution produces turbulence. During burning and subsequent evaporation, drops of liquid become entrained and suspended into the air.

Experiments w ere conducted using various solutions of TBP (Tri

- normal Butyl Phosphate) in kerosine with an aqueous solution of an acid (Halverson, Ballinger and Dennis1987). Either or both solutions contained radionuclides. Small volumes of liquids were place in meta l beakers and the liquids heated by heating tapes wrapped around the metal beaker. The organic liquid ignited and air was drawn up the chimney. Airborne particles were collected on glass filters as a function of time.

Based on several experiments, the conservative upper bound ARF was 1E

- 1 (rounded up
from 7E

- 2 for highest value in Table 3

- 13)

. 13 The RF was assumed to be 1.0 in absence of measured value. In absence of additional information, we will assume that probably 100% of the particles were less than 100 μm in diameter. The RF was measured for only one experiment with a value of 0.99

F

. Aqueous solution or air died salt under gasoline fire on heat conducting surface (i.e. metal). Bounding ARF 2E

- 1

Experiments were conducted in a wind tunnel using UNH (uranyl nitrate hexahydrate)
and air

- dried UNH on various substrates (soil, vegetation on soil, asphalt and stainless steel) during a shallow pool gasoline fire (Mishima and Schwendiman 1973). Liquid UHH was placed in a 22

- inch diameter flange in the floor of the wind tunnel. One gallon of gasoline was poured over the surface, ignited and the air drawn over the burning surface. Airborne particles were then sampled. The highest ARF measured was 1.14E

- 1
for the stainless steel substrate at a wi ndspeed of 10 m/s (22 mph). The RF for the stainless steel substrate experiment was 0.34 but was as high as 0.75 for other experiments in this scenario including the other substrates. 14 DOE represented the bounding ARF as 2E

- 1 for this scenario with an RF of 0.3 when summarizing the data on page 3

- 6 of Volume I of their handbook, although the highest experimental value reported was 1.14E

- 1. DOE notes that if a substrate conducts heat well, the liquid can be boiled rapidly generating conditions much more f avorable to generation of airborne

13 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 6 and 3

- 45.

14 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 48.DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

7 liquid droplets. To be conservative for the extremely limited data set, DOE probably rounded up the ARF to 2E

- 1. For EPA’s purposes, we will assume that probably 100% of the particles had diameters less than 100 microns

.

G. Aerodynamic Entrainment and Re

- suspension Bounding ARR 9E

- 5 (0.00009)/hr

Liquid re

- suspension. For those large aerosol droplets that fall out on the facility site without reaching the community, the possibility exists that this material could b ecome entrained back into the air by contact with wind upon the surface where it was deposited. The DOE Handbook provides resuspension rates know as airborne release rates (ARR) for resuspension of liquids from soil with unit of measure of hours - 1

. The ARR represents the fraction of deposited material resuspened over time and are in the form of droplets aerodynamically entrained from various surfaces under different conditions

. For example, a erodynamic entrainment (resuspension) at higher air velocitie s of UNH
solution from var i ous s u rfaces was measured in wind tunnel experiements (Mishima and Schwendiman, August 1973). From this data, a bounding ARR of 9.0E

- 5 with an RF of 1.0 is conservatively assumed. 15

DOE notes that there appear to be very larg e differences in suspension rates under experimental test conditions as well as an order of magnitude uncertainty in measurements for individual conditions and on this basis, have applied conservative
values. Short time frames of less than 100 hours shoul d be used with these values because they are intended for immediate post

- accident conditions and freshly deposited
material. 16 If one assumed that cleanup did not occur for about 4 days (100 hours), the fraction of the deposited release that would becom e airborne would be 9E

- 3 (9E

- 5/hr times 100). We can round this up to 1E

- 2.

1. Powder re

- suspension

However, large droplets that fall out on the facility site could dry out into smaller particles and then become re

- suspended

. The DOE Handbook, based on review of literature data, found that a bounding re

- suspension rate of 4E

- 5/hr determined by Sehmel and Lloyd (1976) was reasonable bounding ARR value for resuspension of powders deposited on various outdoor substrates. 17 The ambient conditions would be n ormal process facility ventilation flow or less, or nominal atmospheric wind speeds (<2 m/s (4.5 mph) with gusts up to 20 m/s (44 mph)). The test conditions for the bounding re

suspension rate of 4E

- 5/hr were based upon an aqueous slurry of submicron siz ed calcium molybdate stabilized with surfactant that was sprayed on the surface of a lightly vegetated area. Material re

- suspended was collected by samplers and analyzed.

If one assumes that cleanup did not occur for about 4 days (100 hours), the fracti on of the

15 1994 DOE V.I, pg. 3

- 5 and 3

- 41

16 1994 DOE. V.I, pg 3

- 5

17 1994 DOE. V.I, pg. 4

- 96 and pages 4

- 100

- 101DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

8 deposited release that could become airborne by resuspension would be 4E

- 3 (ARR of
4E

- 5/hr times 100 hrs).

The DOE Handbook also reported a bounding re

- suspension rate of 1E

- 2/passage based on passage of vehicles through solid particles of ZnS <25 mm in diameter deposited on an asphalt road (Sehmel 1973). The re

- suspension value decreases rapidly over time and are about an order of magnitude after four days of aging. 18

2. Data from Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Vapor Cloud Mod eling Subcommittee’s “Aerosol Project”.

For this work, the term “aerosol” means any liquid not falling to the ground within a short distance of the point of release. Field tests were conducted in 1989 for releases of superheated water from a storage ta nk through a release orifice, (Woodard 1995; Woodard and Johnson 1999). Water releases involved storage temperatures from 105

- 215 o C (378 to 488 K) corresponding to pressures at release orifice of 26.7 to 310 psia. The storage tank was pressurized with nitrogen pad to insure that fluid state a t the release orifice was 100% liquid. The orifice was located 4 foot (1.33 m) above a 50 foot (15.2 m) capture system designed to collect any liquid falling to the ground and direct the liquid to collection and weighing vessels. Capture pans were 50 foot long and 20 foot
wide in five 10 foo t long segments. The entire storage tank and capture system was enclosed in a greenhouse to shield the equipment from effects of the wind.

Tests were also made for chlorine, CFC

- 11, methylamine, and cyclohexane (1991 ).
Chlorine and CFC

- 11 are gases. Methylamine is a highly volatile chemical (vapor pressure = 300 mm Hg) and cyclohexane is less volatile (vapor pressure = 95 mm Hg) compared to water (vapor pressure = 24 mm Hg). Results for water and cyclohexane are

su mmarized below and are based on 20 data runs for each liquid

. 19 The fraction airborne was calculated from the reported fraction captured. (100

- % captured)/100 = fraction
airborne.

Liquid Mass

fraction
airborne Aerosol

diameter,

μm

Water 0.03

- 0.54 54

- 440

Cyclohexane 0.36

- 0.94 148

- 630

References

18 1994 DOE. V.I, pg. 4

- 102

19 1995. Woodward. Pgs 130

- 131, 137DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

9 DOE Handbook, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities. December 1994. US Department of Energy, Wa shington,
DC 20585 DOE

- HDBK

- 3010

- 94. Volume 1

- Analysis of Experimental Data and
Volume II

- Appendices.

Ballinger, M.Y., S.L. Sutter and W.H. Hodgson. May 1987. New Data for Aerosols Generated by Releases of Pressurized Powders and Solutions in Stati c Air, NUREG/CR

4779 (PNL)

- 6065), Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.

Borkowski, R., H. Bunz and W. Schoeck. May 1986. Resuspension of Fission Products During Severe Accidents in Light

- Water Reactor , KfK 3987 (EUR 10391 EN), Kernforschung szentrum Karlsruhe, Germany.

Garner, F.H., S.R.M. Ellis and J.A. Lacey. 1954. “The Size Distribution and Entrainment of Drops”, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 32 : p 222

Halverson, M.A., M.Y. Ballinger and G.W. Dennis. March 1987. Combustion Aerosols
Formed During Burning of Radioactively Contaminated Materials

– Experimental
Results. NUREG/CR

- 4736 (PNL

- 5999), Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Heger, R., et al. 1982. “Bestimmung der Quell terme bei verfahrenstechnischen Opertationen im Weiderau fbeitungsprozess”, KfK Nachrichten, 14 (3) :p 143.

Heger, R. and Th. Waescher. 1983. “Charakteriserung der Aerosolemissionen im Bahaelterabgas einer Wiederaufarbeitungsanlage” Jahrestagung Jerntecknik, Berlin, Tagungsband, p 423.

Mishima, J. and L.C. Sch wendiman. August 1973. Some Experimental Measurements of Airborne Uranium (Representing Plutonium) in Transportation Accidents , BNWL

1732, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.

Mishima, J., L.C. Schwendiman and J.E. Ayer. October 1978. In crement of Analysis

- An Estimate of Airborne Release of Plutonium from Babcock and Wilcox Plant as a Result of Severe Wind hazard and Earthquake, PNL

- 2812, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.

Mishima, J., L.C. Schwendiman and C.A. Radasch. November 1968. Plutonium Release Studies IV. Fractional Release From Heating Plutonium Nitrate Solutions in Flowing Air Stream, BNWL

- 931, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.

Sehmel, G.A. 1973. “Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck Traffic”, Atmospheric Environment

. 7 : pp 291

- 301.

Sehmel, G.A. and F.D Lloyd. 1976. “Resuspension Rates From A Circular Field Source”, Annual Report 1975 to the USERDA Division of Biomedical and
Environmental Research Part 3. Atmospheric Sciences , BNWL

- 2000, Part 3, PacificDRAFT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW

USEPA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

10 Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Sehmel, G.A. and F.D. Lloyd. 1976. “Particle Resuspension Rates”, Atmopshere

Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (R.D. Englemann and G.A. Sehmel, E d), ERDA Symp. Series #38, Technical Information Center

– Energy Research and Development Center (Now U.S. Department of Energy), Washington, DC

Sutter, S.L. August 1983. Aerosols Generated by Release of Pressurized Powders and
Solutions in Static Air

, NUREG/CR

- 3903 (PNL

- 4566), Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.

Woodward, J.L. 1995. Aerosol Drop Size Correlation and Corrected Rainout Data Using Models of Drop Evaporation, Pool Absorption and Pool Evaporation. In:
International Conferen ce and Workshop on Modeling and Mitigation the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials, September 1995. New York: American Institute for Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety , pp. 117

- 147.

Johnson, D.W. and Woodward, J .L. 1999. Release

- A Model with Data to Predict
Aerosol Rainout in Accidental Release. 1999. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.