s ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE Pago 1 of _ I.ECN 605034 Proj. ECN 2. ECU Category (mark one) Supplemental n Direct Revision M Change ECN a Temporary u Standby u Supersedure u Cancel/Void u 3. Originator's Name, Organization, MSIN, and Telephone No. T, B. Powers, 8M100, A3-34, 376-9557 6. Project Title/No./Work Order No. TWRS FSAR Development 9. Document Numbers Changed by this ECN (includes sheet no. and rev.} WHC-SD-WM-CN-062, REV. 0 4. USO Required? [] Yes [X] No 7. Bldg./Sys./Fac. no. Tank Farms 10. Related ECN No(s). N/A September 19, 1996 8. Approval Designator N/A 11. Related °0 No. N/A 12a. Modification Work [] Yes (fill out Blk. 12b) [X] No (NA Blks. 12b, 12c, 12d) 12b. Uork Package No. N/A 12c. Modification Uork Complete N/A Design Authority/Cog. Engineer Signature & Date 12d. Restored to Original Condi- tion (Temp, or Standby ECN only) N/A Design Authority/Cog. Engineer Signature fc Date 13a. Description of Change Full replacement of 13b. Design Baseline Document? [] Yes [X] No Revision 0 document with Revision 1. NOTE: ACCORDING TO SECTION WP-6.7, REV. 0 OF WHC-CM-6-32, SAFETY ANALYSIS AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING WORK PROCEDURES, CALCULATION NOTES ARE USED TO DOCUMENT THE ORIGINATOR'S ANALYSIS BUT ARE NOT TO BE USED TO AUTHORIZE ACTIVITIES OR JUSTIFY FACILITY MODIFICATIONS, OR CHANGES TO AN AUTHORIZATION BASIS, SAFETY BASIS, OR DESIGN BASIS. Ha. Justification (mark one) Criteria Change [X] Design Improvement [] As-Found [] Facilitate Const [] Environmental [] Const. Error/Omission [] Facility Deactivation [] Design Error/Omission [] 14b. Justification Details Minor math errors have been corrected in the revision 1 document. IS. Distribution (include name, MSIN, and no. of copies) See attached distribution list. RELEASE STAMP STA: i " 7 A-7900-013-2 (05/96) GEF095 A-7900013-1 (06/921
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
s ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE
Pago 1 of _
I.ECN 605034
Proj. ECN
2. ECU Category (mark one)
Supplemental n Direct Revision M Change ECN a Temporary u Standby u Supersedure u Cancel/Void u
3. Originator's Name, Organization, MSIN, and Telephone No.
T, B. Powers, 8M100, A3-34, 376-9557 6. Project Title/No./Work Order No.
TWRS FSAR Development 9. Document Numbers Changed by this ECN
(includes sheet no. and rev.} WHC-SD-WM-CN-062, REV. 0
4. USO Required?
[ ] Yes [ X ] No
7. Bldg./Sys./Fac. no.
Tank Farms 10. Related ECN No(s).
N/A
September 19, 1996 8. Approval Designator
N/A 11. Related °0 No.
N/A 12a. Modification Work
[] Yes (fill out Blk. 12b)
[X] No (NA Blks. 12b, 12c, 12d)
12b. Uork Package No.
N/A
12c. Modification Uork Complete
N/A
Design Authority/Cog. Engineer Signature & Date
12d. Restored to Original Condition (Temp, or Standby ECN only) N/A
Design Authority/Cog. Engineer Signature fc Date
13a. Description of Change
Full replacement of
13b. Design Baseline Document? [ ] Yes [ X ] No
Revision 0 document with Revision 1.
NOTE: ACCORDING TO SECTION WP-6.7, REV. 0 OF WHC-CM-6-32, SAFETY ANALYSIS AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING WORK PROCEDURES, CALCULATION NOTES ARE USED TO DOCUMENT THE ORIGINATOR'S ANALYSIS BUT ARE NOT TO BE USED TO AUTHORIZE ACTIVITIES OR JUSTIFY FACILITY MODIFICATIONS, OR CHANGES TO AN AUTHORIZATION BASIS, SAFETY BASIS, OR DESIGN BASIS.
14b. Justification Details Minor math errors have been corrected in the revision 1 document.
IS. Distribution (include name, MSIN, and no. of copies) See attached distr ibut ion l i s t .
RELEASE STAMP
STA: i " 7
A-7900-013-2 (05/96) GEF095
A-7900013-1 (06/921
ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE Page 2 of 2
1 . ECN (use no. from pg. 1)
605034 Design Verification Required [] ** [X] No
16. Cost Impact ENGINEERING
Additional [1 $ Savings [] J
CONSTRUCTION Additional Savings
17. Schedule Impact (days)
Improvement [ 1 Delay []
18. Change Impact Review: that will be affected
SDD/DD Functional Design Criteria
Operating Specification
Critic a lit Y Specification
Conceptual Design Report
Equipment Spec.
Con at. Spec.
Procurement Spec.
Vendor Information
OM Manual
FSAR/SAR
Safety Equipment List
Radiation Work Permit
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Report
Environmental Permit
Indicate the related documents (other than the by the change described in Block 12. Enter the
Seismic/Stress Analysis
Stress/Design Report
Interface Control Drawing
Calibration Procedure
Installation Procedure
Maintenance Procedure
Engineering Procedure
Operating Instruction
Operating Procedure
Operational Safety Requirement
IEFD Drawing
Cell Arrangement Drawing
Essential Material Specification
Fac. Proc. Samp. Schedule
Inspection Plan
Inventory Adjustment Request
engineering documents ident i f ied on Side 1 affected document number in Block 19.
Tank Calibration Manual
Health Physics Procedure
Spares Multiple Unit Listing
Test Procedures/Specification
Component Index
ASME Coded Item
Human Factor Consideration
Computer Software
Electric Circuit Schedule
ICRS Procedure
Process Control Manual/nan
Process Flow Chart
Purchase Requisition
Tickler File
NONE
19. Other Affected Documents: (NOTE: Documents listed below will not be revised by this ECN.) Signatures below indicate that the signing organization has been notified of other affected documents listed below.
Document Number/Revision Document Number/Revision Document Number Revision N/A
20. Approvals Signature
OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING Cog. Eng. T. B. Powers X ^ fo*U&C<4
Cog. Mgr. D. S. Leach A3 JJ£L**JU QA Safety Environ. Other Peer Revii Savino C & S & ^ t / j
tr/rt 7//?/7<r
9/ /? /M
Signature ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PE QA Safety Design Environ. Other
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Signature or a Control Number that tracks the Approval Signature
A-7900-013-3 (11/94) GEF096
WHOSD-WM-CN-062, Rev. 1
HEPA Filter Fire (and Subsequent Unfiltered Release)
T. B. Powers Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC06-87RL10930 EDT/ECN: 605034 Org Code: 8M100 B&R Code: EW3120071
UC: 510 Charge Code: N1FC3 Total Pages: AT ? £
Key Words: contaminated fire, fire, HEPA filter fire, radioactive materials, TWRS, tank farms, ventilation system Abstract: This document supports the development and presentation of the following accident scenario in the TWRS Final Safety Analysis Report:
HEPA Filter Failure - Exposure to High Temperature or Pressure. The calculations needed to quantify the risk associated with this
accident scenario are included within.
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.
printed in the United States of America. To obtain copies of this document, contact: UHC/BCS Document Control Services, P.O. Box 1970, Mailstop H6.-08, Richland UA 99352, Phone (509) 372-2420; Fax (509) 376-4989.
Release Approval JMAILL •<r^ja 1-2 7 -7*
Release Stamp
Approved for Public Release
A-6400-073 (10/95) GEF321
RECORD OF REVISION (1 ) Document Nunber
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 Page 1
(2) Title HEPA F i l te r Fire (and Subsequent Unfiltered Release)
CHANGE CONTROL RECORD
(3) Revision (4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages Authorized for Release
(3) Revision (4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages (5 ) Cog. Engr. (6 ) Cog. Mgr. Date
0 <7> New document released v i a EDT #614551 G. W. Ryan 8/9/96
D. S. Leach 8/9/96
1 RS Ful l replacement o f Revision 0 document w i th Revision 1 v ia ECN #605034.
T. B. Powers 9 / 1 9 / 9 y
D. S. Leach
A-7320-005 (08/91) UEF168
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV . # 7 S-&.CG-C-/:
Calculation Cover Sheet
Project Accident Analysis for Hanford FSAR Title HEPA Filter Fire unfiltered release)
.Preliminary x Committed Computer Program: Microsoft Excel
Confirmed | Version Release No.: 5,0
Purpose and Objective The purpose of this calculation note is to document the consequences of the fire in or around ventilation systems and subsequent unfiltered release in TWRS facilities. The consequences are for TWRS FSAR accident, HEPA Filter Fire (and subsequent unfiltered release). Summary of Conclusions The unmitigated on&ite and offsite radiological and toxicological doses, shown in Table 1 are well within the evaluation guidelines except the onsite radiological consequences for SSTs (with active ventilation only), DSTs, and 244-AR. The mitigated onsite radiological doses for SSTs (with active ventilation only), DSTs, and 244-AR are orders of magnitude below the evaluation guidelines. The CAM-interlock that detects potential unfiltered release and shuts off ventilation within 10 minutes for SSTs (with active ventilation only), DSTs, and 244-AR is credited in the mitigated analysis and designated as Safety Significant
Is the Subject and/or Purpose clearly stated? ( ^ V N 0
Are the required Input Data and their references and source provided \P^) ^0 and are they consistent with the Calc-Note purpose? —
Are the Assumptions clearly identified, valid and consistent with ( YES) the Calc-Note purpose?
NO
4. Is the Analytical Method or Approach Used clearly identified? \£^ N ^
5. Are all the pages consecutively numbered and identified by the rYESO NO Calc-Note number? ^ — ^
6. Is/are the version(s) of the computer program(s) used identified V^) NO N A
and QA'd adequately?
7. Are input listings for all computer programs documented in this YES NO Calc-Note, and are they V&Vd and appropriate for the intended use?
8. Are the Results and Conclusions clearly stated? ( YESy NO
9. Are OUTPUT documents included (or if not part of the calculation, YES NO (NA^) clearly referenced in the Results section?) grammatically, correct, clear, \ — ' and consistent with the main calc-note text?
10. Are the results, methods, input, and assumptions compatible with the stated purpose? fYESNO
IF NO TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, LIST SHEET NUMBER(S) WITH JUSTIFICATION AND OBTAIN MANAGER'S SIGNATURE BELOW:
Manager's Signature
REVIEWER'S NOTES (use additional pages as necessary) Review method used: Alternate calculation Attached? Y N
Approximated Originator steps ^^
3
WHC-SD-WH-CN-062 REV tfI Calc No. S-CLC-O-00125
Sheet 4
4
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV fCI Calc No. S-CLC-G-0O125
Sheets
1.0 REFERENCES
1. Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, DOE Order 5480.23, Change 1, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, March 1994.
2. Facility and Process Description, WHC-SD-WM-SAR-067, Rev. A.
3. . Information Validation Form (IVF) for filter Dimensions • Open Item /r / r / ' " j -az.
5. Dry Waste compactor Hazard Identification and Evaluation,^-WM-SAR-009, Rev. 0.
6. Cowley, W. L., Development of Radiological Concentration and Unit Liter Doses for Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report Radiological Consequence Calculations, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-037, Rev. 0, 1996.
7. Gupta, M. KV Leach, D. S., The dose rate at 30 cm from HEPA filters in the TWRS would be less than 150 mr/hr. Information Validation Form (TVF) # MKG-Chapter 3-01.
8. Savino, A. V., MICROSHIELD Dose Rate Calculations for HEPA Filters and Pre-Filters, WHC-SD-WM-CN-033, Rev. 0, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.
9. Deleted.
10. Van Keuren, J. C. and Savino, A. V., Tank Waste Compositions and Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for Use in Safety Analysis Consequence Assessments, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-016, Rev. 2, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.
11. Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities. Volume 1 - Analysis of Experimental Data, DOE-HDBK-3010-94, December 1994.
1. The IVF for Filter Dimensions needs to be confirmed.
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The consequence calculated in this caic-note is for the HEPA (High Efficiency Paniculate Air) fire (and subsequent unfiltered release) accident. This accident analysis was performed to support the Final Safety Analysis Repon (FSAR) for Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) that conforms to DOE Order 5480.23 (Ref. 1). Passive or active ventilation is maintained across each waste tank, double contained receiver tanks (DCRTs), 204-AR, 244-AR, compactor building, and catch tanks. A failure of heater can cause a fire in the ventilation system or a fire around the ventilation system can degrade the filters. The integrity of the filters (HEPA and pre-filters) could be compromised by afilter fire resulting in a release of the inventory on the filters and unfiltered release of tank contents. The detailed description of the waste tanks, 204-AR, 244-AR, compactor building, and catch tanks is in chapter 2.0 of the TWRS FSAR (Ref. 2).
A frequency of Anticipated (> 1.0 E-02/yr) and Unlikely ( 1.0 E-04/yr to 1.0 E-02/yr) was qualitatively assigned to the active ventilation systems (with heaters) and passive ventilation system (without heaters), respectively. These frequencies are based on the operational history of the Hanford Tank Farms.
4.0 INPUT DATA
The following input data were used fro the consequences analysis:
• The filter configuration is from Chapter 2 of the TWRS FSAR (Ref. 2) and the dimension of the filter from TVF (Information Validation Form) (Ref. 3).
• SSTs (Single Shell Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 3.30 cubic m/s (7,000 cfm) (Ref. 2).
• SSTs passive ventilation flow rate = 6.8 E-4 cubic m/s (Ref. 4). • DSTs (Double Shell Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 5.50 E-l cubic m/s (1,170 cfm)
(Ref. 2). • AWF, DSTs (Double Shell Tank) active ventilation flow rate =1.89 cubic m/s (4,000
cfm) (Ref. 2). • DCRTs (Double Contained Receiver Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 1.98 cubic m/s
(4,200 cfm) (Ref. 2). • 204-AR active ventilation flow rate = 9.44 E-l cubic m/s (2,000 cfm) (Ref. 2). • 244-AR active ventilation flow rate = 7.08 cubic m/s (15,000 cfm) (Ref. 2 ) . * s £ e P A 6 e 7
« Compactor building active ventilation flow rate = 9.44 E-l cubic m/s (2,000 cfm) (Ref. 5). • Catch tanks (24I-A-417 and 241-AX-152) have inlet HEPA filters only (Ref. 2).
G
; Gale No. S-CLC-G-00125 Sheet 7
The unit liter dose (ULD) for different waste streams is from Reference 6. The table containing ULD is attached in Appendix B.
Note Concerning the 244-AR Vault Ventilation Flow Rate:
The value l is ted for the 244-AR active venti lat ion rate (7.08 m3/s [15,000 f t 3 /min] ) is for the canyon.exhaust vent i lat ion system. The canyon exhaust system is currently inoperable and no plans exist to make i t operable for any possible future operations.
Addit ionally, a vessel venti lat ion system exists for use in providing an active venti lat ion pathway for the four vessels in the canyon. This system, while currently not operating, is considered to be operable and may be used in future operations. A normal, maximum flow rate for this system, as cited in the 244-AR Vault Safety Analysis Report (WHC-SD-WM-SAR-018), is 0.30 m3/s (630 f t 3 /m in) . Since the calculations performed in this document bound those that would be calculated for a reduced flow rate, no changes w i l l be made.
QflJa) ULD •at. act 3.30E-07 4.10E+00 6.62E-0S 3.29E-04 H t PttSl 8.80E-11 4.10E+OO 1.36E-08 1.09E-07 M t p a a 2 - 8.80E-11 4.10E+OO 1.36&08 1.09E-07 d o t 1.98E-07 5.20E-02 5.03E-07 4.03E-06 d a t l i o 5.60E-06 8.80E-02 1.S3E-06 1.48E-04 dat, awfl 1 .89&05 9.20E-02 8.50E-0S 8.80E-04 204-ar 9 . 4 4 R 0 8 8.80E-02 3.14E-07 2.51EJ38 244.ar 7 .0S&07 8.8OE-02 1 3 5 E - 0 8 1.88E-0S
Torioalo<ric; a lDoeeCon. •quence
Q(IV«> SOFfa/L) Doaeonaffca SOF(a/L) Doaeof fs iU aatact 3.3OE-07 4.00E+04 1.32E-02 9.40E+01 3.10E-0S aft paa l 8.80E-11 iioE+cay XM-&JO' i. 3.30E+01 2.24E-09 aatpaa2 8 . 8 0 E - U a-ioE+qa-y 1.43E-07' <4 3.30E+01 2.24E-09 dcrt 1.98E-07 9 .60E+03' 1.90E-03 S.OOE+00 1.58E-06 dat, l iq 5.B0E-06 ^fteoBnn— *f\ 4.40G-0B dat, l iq 5.B0E-06 ^fteoBnn— *f\ 4.40G-0B dat, awfl 1.88E-05 / l.OOE+04 l.SBE-01 { ' S.40E+00 ! ' 1.59E-04 204-ar 9.44E-08 / l.OOE+04 9.44E-04 i 8.40E+00 7.93E-07 244-ar 7.08 E-07 9.60E+03 8.80E-03 \ 8.00E+00 5.68E-06
V _ ^ - ^ - \ ^ /jf/a Y'
-/%£.Z£-0f
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV / / ">' C L ' 9 c o ' -
— ChiQOnaite ChiQOflrita ChiQ Orurite Ann ChiQ OfflSte Ann 2.81E-03 1.32E-04 9.81E-01 1.06E-03
Table 3-8. Sum-of-Fraction of Risk Guidelines for a Unit Release of Chemicals and Gases. 13 sheets)
T h e sum of fractions are multiplied by the release rate for continuous release and release amount fur a puff releases. Release rates for continuous releases are in units of liters per second for liquids and solids, and m3/s for gases. Puff release quantities are in units of liters for solids and liquids and m3
for gases.
Tank waste type (Units of sum of fractions follow tank waste type)
The comparison to risk guidelines for chemical release consequences for a given accident scenario is determined using the following steps:
1. Determine the accident frequency range for the event.
2. Determine the type of material being released (i.e., SST solids or liquids. DST solids or liquids, flammable gas watch list composite, headspace gases. 50% NaOH. all solids, ail liquids, or the C-106 composite).
3. Determine whether the release is a puff release or a continuous release. A release with a duration of less than 3.5 seconds can be treated as a puff release for maximum onsite individual evaluations. A release with a duration of less than 420 seconds can be treated as a puff release for maximum offsite individual evaluations. A puff release can be modeled as a i minute continuous release.
3P
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV /j
Exposure Time:
Exposure time may be determined based on the following guidance taken from Craig 1995a "Exposure time: In practice, observed atmospheric concentrations of chemicals downwind of a source vary widely about the mean concentration measured over a period of time. Unless information to the contrary is available, published limit parameters or guidelines must be treated as ceiling values at the point of interest. For practical purposes, the peak 15 minute average concentration is treated as the instantaneous concentration. It is recommended that this concentration value be used for comparison with the primary concentration guidelines."
For chemicals that are known to have dose dependent health effects rather than concentration dependent effects, a 1 hour average may be used. However if the chemicals are not all known to be dose dependent, the 15 minute average should be used for releases of 15 minute to one hour. Tank waste, for instance, contains a mixture of dose dependent and concentration dependent chemicals A peak 15 minute average should be used for the tank waste evaluations
Averaging over 15 minutes for a very short release duration and hence a very short exposure time (such as a puff release) is potentially nonconservative since some chemicals have ceiling limits, i.e. concentrations that should not be exceeded. There is some recent guidance from Craig (Craig 1995b) that states:
"For practical reasons (e.g. limitations of instantaneous concentration monitoring for many chemicals) the peak 15 minute average value at the receptor point of interest is used except for those substances that may cause immediate irritation when exposure is short (e.g. hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide). In such cases if the release scenario gives rise to peak concentrations significantly higher than the peak 15-minute average concentration, then a shorter averaging time (not less than 1 minute) should be used." The chemicals involved in a release should be examined to determine if the chemicals involved cause immediate irritation. The chemicals should be assumed to cause immediate irritation unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
A very short duration release (puff release) of chemicals including corrosives and irritants can be modelled conservatively as a one minute continuous release.
S\<^X2A
4. Determine the release caantity ;>" release rate. For puff releases of solids or liquids, the number of iters released is required; -'or continuous releases of solids or liquids, the release rati is required. For puff releases of gases, the number of cubic meters releasee is required; for continuous releases of gases, the release rate h required.
5. Multiply the release quantity or release rate determined in step 4 by the appropriate value from Table 3-8. The product is the sum of the concentrations divided by ERPG values. Values less than one indicate that the risk acceptance guidelines are met.
NOTE: The concentration of gases at the receptor is not linear with release rate or release amount. Determining acceptability by multiplying the values in Table 3-8 by the release rate or amount results in an approximation. The approximation is conservative because using the linear relationship over-predicts concentrations for releases larger than 1 L (0.26 gal) or 1 L/s (0.26 gal/s). The difference between linear scaling and the more exact method is negligible below release rates of about 5 m3/s (180 ft3/s) or release amounts of 5 m3 (180 ft3). Because the nonlinear term in the gas equation is 1/(1 + V" x -WQ'). this effect is only significant for the maximum onsite individual. For the maximum offsite individual. V x * /Q ' will be much smaller than one for any credible release from the tanks. The largest offsite -WQ' is 2.83 +T88 X 10-5 s/m3 and all credible releases are much smaller than 105 m3/s.
Step 5 can also be written as the following formulae:
• Liquid or solid continuous release:
Sum-of-fractions of acceptance limits = (release rate) x [Table 3-8 continuous release valuel
• Liquid or solid puff release:
Sum-of-fractions of acceptance limits = [release quantity x [Table 3-8 puff value]
Accident scenarios involving a release of both gases and solid or liquids should be treated by adding the sum of fractions for the gases and liquids or solids together. That is. die quantity of gas released should be multiplied by the sum of fraction and the product determined. The quantity of liquid nr solid should multiplied by the appropriate sum of fraction. To meet risk acceptance criteria, the sum of these two products must be less than or equal to one.
The sum of fraction assumes that thechemicals involved are-being released with the same release fraction. If the accident scenario involves a significant preferential release of certain chemicals, .i mure detailed analysis should be performed that includes the chemical dependent release fractions.
3iL
WHC-SD-WH-CN-062 REV // => - - " " - --->
Appendix l& HEPA F i l t e r Doses
33
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 R E V / / S ' C u c- 6-ooij.r
This appendix discusses the method used to calculate the amount of material on the filters in various tank farm facilities. To do this, Savino (1996) modeled 3.7 x 10'° Bq (1 Ci) of gamma emitters in different filter configurations and calculated the contact doses. Depending on the source material, the gamma emitters are different. For example, single-shell solids uses '°Sr, 9 0Y, 1 3 7Cs and , 5 4Eu for gamma emitters while double-shell liquids uses predominantly , 3 7Cs (the other gamma emitters have much smaller concentrations). The spreadsheet tables give the relative amounts for each of the cases that were analyzed.
Different filter geometries were modeled. These include high efficiency particulate air filters and prefilters. After inputing the geometry and the loading, a dose rate (mSv/hr) was calculated.
High efficiency particulate air filters and prefilters have pre-specified operating limits. These were used, along with the calculated dose rate to form a ratio of the operating limit to the calculated dose limit. This gives the fraction of the assumed waste volume that could be loaded on the filter and give the operating limit. The amount of material released from the a single bank of filters was calculated using one of the following schemes.
The system is a standard active ventilation system with a prefilter, a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. An additional amount, equal to another prefilter loading, was used to account for material that will come out of the ventilation duct work. That is, two prefilter volumes plus two high efficiency particulate air filter volumes will be used.
• The system is passively ventilated. The system is basically one high efficiency particulate filter sitting on a riser. There is not a prefilter and there is no ventilation ducting to speak of. That is, one high efficiency particulate air filter will be used.
The system has two de-entrainers, a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. To account for the loading in the de-entrainers and the material that will come out of the ventilation duct work, an additional volume equivalent to three high efficiency particulate filters will be used. That is a total of five times the loading for one high efficiency particulate filter will be used.
• The system consists of a prefilter, a low efficiency filter (treated as another prefilter), a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. In addition, a volume equal to the prefilter will be used to account for material from the ventilation ducting. That is, a total of three prefilter volumes and two high efficiency particulate volumes will be used.
The spreadsheet pages also identify how many filter banks are running at the same time. A total amount of material released from the filters is found by multiplying by the appropriate release fraction. For a filter fire, the
3H
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV // S~c-<- <•>- oo ^i
release fraction is 1/10,000 of the volume is released. The volumes released are then be used to calculate radiological and toxicological doses.
The radiological consequences were calculated using the unit liter doses found in Cowley (1996) and the methodology for calculating consequences is found in Van Keuren and Savino (1996). The unit liter doses are the radiation doses received per liter of tank waste. The doses are calculated using the pathways of submersion (direct radiation), inhalation, and 24-hour ingestion. Cowley (1996) provides the technical basis for the unit liter doses. Van Keuren and Savino (1996) states that the following equation is to be used for calculating the inhalation and submersion dose.
where Q is the volume of waste resuspended (L), x/Q' is the atmospheric dispersion coefficient (s/m ), 8 is the standard man breathing rate during light activity (m 3/s), and the ULD,,^,,,,,, is the unit liter dose (Sv/L) due to inhalation and submersion. Ingestion doses are calculated using the following equation.
where again, Q is the volume of waste resuspended (L), x/Q' is the atmospheric dispersion coefficient (s/m3) and U L D I n g M t ( o n is the unit liter dose ( — ) due to 24-hour ingestion.
The toxicological consequences are calculated using the sum-of-fractions values and methodology found in Van Keuren (1996). For a release of solid or liquid toxic materials, the peak concentration is of concern. For a continuous release the integrated x/Q' (s/m ) can be used since it is equivalent to the continuous plume x/Q'- 3The following equation is used to calculate the peak concentration, C (mg/nr) for a continuous release of solid or liquid toxic material.
C = Q ' i Q'
where Q' is the toxic material release rate (mg/s) and //Q' is the integrated atmospheric dispersion coefficient (s/m).
55
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV / / S-<.L«.-«-«»ui'
This method has been extended to include the multiple chemicals contained in the tank waste. To do this, a sum-of-fractians methodology has been applied. That is, on a per unit basis, the ratio of a chemicals concentration (calculated either at the 100 m receptor or the offsite receptor) is compared to the appropriate limit), this is done for all chemicals involved, then the ratios or fractions are summed. If the sum-of-fractions is less than or equal to 1, the risk guidelines have been met. If the sum-of-fractions is greater than 1, the risk guidelines have been exceeded. Thus, the above equation now becomes,
, T = Q1 SOF
where T is the measure of acceptance, Q' is the toxic material release rate (L/s) and SOF is the sum-of-fractions of the risk guidelines (s/L) for either the onsite or offsite receptor.
Cowley, W. L., 1996, Development of Radiological Concentration and Unit Liter Doses for Tank Haste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report Radiological Consequence Calculations, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-037, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Savino, A. V., 1996, MICROSHIELD Dose Rate Calculations forH€PA Filters *fld,__ Prefilters, VMC-SD-WM-CN-033, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Van Keuren, J. C , and A. V. Savino, 1996, Tank Haste Compositions and Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for use in Safety Analysis Consequence Assessments, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-016, Rev. 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Van Keuren, J. C, 1996, Toxic Chemical Considerations for Tank Farm Releases, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-011, Rev. 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.
u
MUKESH.XLS
^4
WHC-SD-WM-SARR-037 SX, C-106 SSTs with Passive Breather Fillers
0 = Two HEPAs, a Prefiller, and another volume equal to the premier for stuff coming out of the ventilalion ducting C 2'HEPA Volume + 2' Prefiller V
*A, no pre olume | ] | [_ I
P = Passive breather HE Prefiller V
*A, no pre liter, no second HEP/ K, and no appreciable ventilation ducting B 1-HEPA Volume | J J L _ _ l _ _
K, and no appreciable ventilation ducting
A = Two (2) HEPAs, no prefiller but (here are two (2) de-enfrainers and malerial in Ihe ventilalion ducting (1)
= 5'HEPA Volume I I | I I I C = Two HEPAs, a prefilter, a low efficiency filler (treated as a prefilt
volume equal to Ihe prefiller for stuff coming out of Ihe venlllalio er), and another Two HEPAs, a prefilter, a low efficiency filler (treated as a prefilt
volume equal to Ihe prefiller for stuff coming out of Ihe venlllalio n ducting
Table 6. Population Weighted Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for 200-Area Tank Farm Acute Release to 50-Mile Population
Located in Worst Sector. Meteorological condition Integrated -WQ'
(person-s/m3) 99.5 Percentile (bounding)
4.86 E-02 SEpop= 114,734
Annual average 1.25 E-02 SE pop =114734
50 Percentile 6.05 E-03 SEpop= 114.734
41
WHCgl)-WM-lN-U62 REV jf[ ~P^qv 4
Table 7. Centerline Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for 200-Area Tank Farm Acute Release to Onsite Receptor Located
in Worst Sector for a 46 m (150 ft) Stack Release. Meteorological condition Integrated -WQ'
(s/m3) . Maximum puff" •*- /Q
(l/m3)
99.5 Percentile (bounding)
6.55 E-05 W260m
6.47 E-7 W2I0m
Annual Average 1.76 E-05 WSW 270 m
NA
50 Percentile 1.26 E-05 WSW 440 m
1.41 E-07 WSW 490 m
Table 8. Centerline Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for 200-Area Tank Farm Acute Release to Site Boundary Receptor Located in
Worst Sector for a 46 m (150 ft) Stack Release. Meteorological Condition Integrated -WQ' (s/m3) Maximum Puff" +.'Q
(l/m3)
99.5 Percentile (bounding)
1.78 E-05 N 8.760 m
3.10 E-08 NNW 8.690 m
Annual average 5.26 E-06 N 8,760 m
NA
50 Percentile 2.36 E-06 N 8.760 m
8.31 E-09 N 8.760 m
Table 9. Chronic Annual Average Atmosphetic Dispersion Coefficients for 200-Area Tank Farm for Onsite and Site Boundary Receptors.
Meteorological condition Onsite integrated -WQ'
(s/m3)
Site boundary
integrated -c/Q' (s/m.i)
Chronic annual average for ground level releases
4.03 E-04 ESE 100 m
1.24 E-07 E 12.630 m
Chronic annual average for 46 en (150 ft) stack releases
9.45 E-07 S250m
6.81 E-08 E 12.630 m
V
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV / / Information validation Form
S - C - C - Q - O O I U " Sw.^-4-3
Tracking # MKfi-fhanter 3-01
Name of Originator
M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach
Organization or Team 2
Chapter 3 Team for TWRS FSAR
Date
4/12/96 'Statement of Problem The dose rate at 30cm from KEPA filters in the TWRS would be less than 150 mrem/hr
Alternatives
5
Consequences to Alternatives
Decision Reached Basis for Decision
Date Requested 9 4/23/96
Sent To 10 Lankford Ruffin
Date Requested By 11 H. K, Gupta/D. S. Leach
Response #1: Health Physics Technicians CHPT's) perform weekly KEPA filter radiation surveys per the attached task description. These surveys are taken "on contact" 1-2 CM from the filters. If levels were to reach 160 MR/HR. preparations would be made to change out the HEPA filters prior to reaching 200 MR/HR on contact. Dose levels at 30 CM would be at least 10 times less than on contact. Therefore, it is not expected that levels at 30 CM would ever exceed 150 MR/HR under normal conditions.
12 Response #2
13
March 7. 1996 -Page-4- Rsv. 0
Hi
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV ff \
Attachments (List) 1. Scheduled radiation survey tank description WTF-W-2.
14
References (List) 15
Responder #1 Name and Signature i6 R.e.ruckr.r -Atf-rAn/wi
• TaJcn c o n t a c t r a d i a t i o n r e a d i n g » OR t h e HEPA f i l t e r s , and p r e - f i l t a r s o f a c t i v a e x h a u s t e r * .
• Document t h e *urv*y r e s u l t * an a R a d i o l o g i c a l Survey Report
Special circunstance<: None
Required iMtfuaencition:
CP a n d / o r RO 2 doaa r a t a i n s t r u m e n t .
ACT!en Level*:
• rtranediataly c o n t a c t S h i f t o p e r a t i o n s and RC Management o f r e a d i n g ! of g r e a t e r than 160 tnr/hr f o r primary f i l t e r s and SO o r / n r f o r p r e - f i l t e r s . (These r e a d i n g s are 80% o f OSR n o t i f i c a t i o n r e a d i n g * . }
• Any ' c o n d i t i o n s i n c o n s i s t e n t with, r a d i o l o g i c a l p o a t i n g a . .-^JffcKfon or Actions <If Action Levels exceeded):
• N o t i f y F i r s t L i n e R a d i o l o g i c a l Contro l Manager G STTTP O p e r a t i o n s S h i f t Manager » E s t a b l i s h , a p p r o p r i a t e r a d i o l o g i c a l p o e t i n g s and a r e a c o n t r o l . • i n i t i a t e a R a d i o l o g i c a l . Problem R e p o r t . • Document a l l a c t i o n * and n o t i f i c a t i o n s In t h e RC S h i f t Lag.
CLEIG3PY
Approved BV
K Section/Unit l i u w f (Firf/t end tign)
A-SW0-J29 C02/9J) UEF050
45 EST I IWBLE COPY
w//c - J-J? -)*/si -CM -a6^. tfgi/ /
CHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW Document Reviewed: "HEPA Filter Fire (and Subsequent Unfiltered Release),"
WHC-SD-WM-CN-062, Rev. 1, 9/96. Scope of Review: Entire- Document.
Yes No NA [X] [ ] [ ] m [X] m { ] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [ ] [ ] m
[X] [X] [X] [ ] [ ] m [
Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, up to scope of this review, with no gaps. Problem completely defined. Accident scenarios developed in a clear and logical manner. Necessary assumptions explicitly stated and supported. Computer codes and data files documented. Data used in calculations explicitly stated in document. Data checked for consistency with original source information as applicable. Mathematical derivations checked including dimensional consistency of results. Models aopropriate and used within range of validity or use outside range of established validity justified. Hand calculations checked for errors. Spreadsheet results should is treated exactly the same as hand calculations. Software input correct and consistent with document reviewed. Software output consistent with input and with results reported in document reviewed. Limits/criteria/guidelines applied to analysis results are appropriate and referenced. Limits/criteria/guidelines checked against references. Safety .margins consistent with good engineering practices. Conclusions consistent with analytical results and applicable 1imits. Results and conclusions address all points required in the problem statement. Format consistent with appropriate NRC Regulatory Guide or other standards Review calculations, comments, and/or notes are attached.
Anthony V Document approved. Savino U~J 9/9/96
Reviewer (Pr in ted Name i«f iature) Date
?t
Information Validation Form Tracking # MKG-Chapter 3-02 Name of Originator I M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach
Organization or Team 2 Chapter 3 Team for TWRS FSAR
Date 3' August 12, 1996
Statement of Problem The following dimensions and number of filters on different ventilation systems
bound the all the different ventilation systems that have HEPA filetrs and pre-fliters in them. 1. SSTs with active ventialtion - 3 by 3 array of 24x24x12 filters
- 2 HEPAs and 1 prefliter 2. SSTs with Passive Breather Filters - 24x24x12 filter
- 1 HEPA and no prefliter 3. SSTs with Passive Breather Filters - 12x12x12 filter
- 1 HEPA and no prefliter 4. DCRTs - 12x12x12 filter