166746 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE ;;k/67531/metadc... · Radiation WoI* hnk Environmental Impact...

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE o f 2

1 6 6 7 4 6 1. ECN ......... - ............................. ;;k

hll r e v i s i o n o f WHC-SD-WM-CN-056, Rev. 1 t o Rev. 2.

!. ECN Category (mark one)

[1 Direct Revisi Change Teworary

CancellVoi d standby Supersedure [I I:

IOTE: 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.

3. Originator 's N m . Organization, MSIY, 6. US0 Required? 5. Date

G. W. Ryan, 8M100, A3-37, [I Yes [ X I NO August 27, 1996 376-5114 6. Project Title/No./Uork Order No.

ard Telephom No.

1. Bldg./Sys./Fac. No. 8. Approval Designator

TWRS FSAR Development Tank Farms N/A

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056, REV. 1 N/A N/A

9. Docunent Wurbers Changed by t h i s ECN 10. Related ECN No(s). 11. Related PO No. (includes sheet no. ard rev.)

14a. J u s t i f i c a t i o n (mark one)

: r i t e r i a Change [ X I Design lnprovement [ ] Envi ronenta l [ I F a c i l i t y Deactivation [ I

l2a. Modi f icat ion York

[I Yes ( f i l l out Elk. 12b)

12c. 12d) [ X I YO (NA Slks. 12b.

~. _ _ Lr-Fnnd [ I F a c i l i t a t e const [I Const. Error/anission [ I Design Error/anission [I 14b. J u s t i f i c a t i o n Deta i ls The r e v i s i o n t o t h i s document was necess i ta ted due t o t h e f u n c t i o n a l rev iew o f FSAR tex t r e l a t e d t o t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n note.

12b. Uork Package 12c. Modif icat ion Uork Conplete 12d. Restored to Orig ina l condi- tim (larp. o r Standby ECN only) No.

NIA NIA N/A

Design AuthoritylCog. Engineer Signature B Date

Design Authority/Cog. Engineer Signature B Date

15. D i s t r i b u t i o n ( include name. MSIY , and no. o f copies) jee at tached d i s t r i b u t i o n l i s t .

A-7900-013-2 (05 /96) tEF095

A-7900-013-1 (1 1/88)

' I . ECU (we M. frm pg. 1)

166746 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE

15. Design 16. Cost Inpact '.- Schedule lnpect (days) ENGINEERING COUSTRUCTIW V e r i f i c a t i o n

R-ired ->- ~

Addit ionel [I $ Mitiawl I:] $ I ~ r w a n e n t [I Delay I!]"; savings [ I 5 Savings 11

that w i l l be affected bv the chanae described in Btock 12. Enter the affected d o c w n t ounber i n Block 19.

I:] s 18. Change Impact Revieu: Indicate the re la ted documents (other than the engineering docunents i d e n t i f i e d M Side 1)

[ I 11 [ I 11 [ I 11 [ I [ I 11 [I 11 [ I [ I [ I [ I

Envimnmentd h m i t r i

SDDlDD

Functional Os*ign Maria

Operating Spesifie.tion

Ctttkality Specitication

COMPt".I D..." Paport

Equipment Spec.

Conm. spec.

Rosunment Spec.

vando, I"lon.tio"

OM Manual

FSARISAR

S*foty Equipment List

Radiation WoI* h n k Environmental Impact Statement

Envimnmantsl Repon

SsirmklSVars Analysir

Suor*/Dosign Papon

Intorf.s. Co"t,Ol 0r.winp

Calibr.tion Rocadun

Inn.ll&n ROOedum

Maintenance ROFedun

Ewinaoring Rosedun

Operating lnnnnion

Operating Rocodum

Operational Safety Raquinment

iEF0 Drawing

Call Arrangement Drawing

E**sntid Matarid Specif!don

F.c. Roc. Sarnp. Schedule

Inspection A m

Inventory Adiwtment R0wm.t L J L J

indicate that the signing organization has been n o t i f i e d of other affected docunents l i s t e d below. 19. Other Affected Documents: (NOTE: Documents l i s t e d belou u i l l not be revised by t h i s ECN.) Signatures belou

Document Y h r / R e v i s i on Document N h r / R e v i s i o n Docunent N u r t p r Revision W A

20. Approvals

Signature

QA

Safety Environ.

Other

Peer Revieuer. s. P. R o b l y e r g

Date Signature ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PE QA

Safety

Design Envi ron.

Other

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Signature o r a Control Nlmber that tracks the Approval Signature

Date

ADDITIONAL

A-7900-013-5 (11194) GEFD96

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056, Rev. 2

Fire in a Contaminated Area

6. W. Ryan Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department o f Energy Contract DE-AC06-87RL10930

EDT/ECN: 166746 UC: 510 Org Code: EM100 Charge Code: N1FC3 B&R Code: EW3120071 To ta l Pages: 39

Key Words: t rans fe rs , TWRS, va lve p i t

Abs t rac t : t h e f o l l o w i n g acc ident scenar io i n t h e TWRS F i n a l Safety Ana lys i s Report:

contaminated f i r e , f i r e , r a d i o a c t i v e ma te r ia l s . t ank farms,

Th is document supports t h e development and p resen ta t i on o f

F i r e i n Contaminated Area

The c a l c u l a t i o n s needed t o q u a n t i f y t h e r i s k associated w i t h t h i s acc ident scenar io are inc luded w i t h i n .

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. trade name, tradenark, msnufacturer, or otheruise, does not necessari ly const i tu te o r inpiy i t s endorsement, recormendation, or favoring by the United States Governnent or any agency thereof or i t s c m t r a c t o r s or subcontractors.

Pr in ted i n the United States of Amzrica. Doc-nt Control Services, P.O. Box 1970, Mailstop H6-08, Richlend UA 59352, P h o n (509 ) 372-2420; Fax (509 ) 376-4989.

Reference herein t o any speci f ic CoIUrercial product. process, o r service by

To obta in copies of t h i s &went, contact: UHCIBCS

Date Release Stenp

Approved for Public Release A-6400-073 (10195) GEF321

(1) Docurrnt Y&r

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056 RECORD OF REVISION Page 1

(3) Revision Authorized for Release

( 5 ) Cog. Engr. I ( 6 ) Cog. Mgr. Date ( 4 ) D e s c r i p t i m of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages

1 I I I I 1

0

1

( 7 ) New document r e l e a s e d G . W . Ryan D. S. Leach

F u l l r e v i s i o n by ECN#166745. G. W . Ryan D. S. Leach 8/1/96 8/1/96

8/8/96 8/8/96

1-7320-005 (08/91) UEF168

2

RS

F u l l r e v i s i o n by ECN#166746. G. W . Ryan D. S. Leach

~

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056 REV 2

FIRE IN A CONTAMINATED AREA

REVISION 0

Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report Project Safety Analysis & Nuclear Engineering

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.

August 1996


This page i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b lank .

2 o f 38

WHC-SO-WM-CN-056 REV 2

CONTENTS

1 . 0

2 .0

3 . 0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7 .0

8 . 0

9.0

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 o f 38

ANALYSIS INPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o f 38

ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o f 3 8

ANALYTICAL METHODS AND CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 o f 38

RADIOLOGICAL DOSE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 o f 38

TOXICOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . 14 o f 38

ANALYSIS RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 o f 38

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 o f 38

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 o f 38

APPENDICES

A ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 o f 38

B SKETCHES OF TYPICAL VALVE P I T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 o f 38

C INFORMATION VALIDATION FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 o f 38

D

E

SUM-OF-FRACTION OF RISK GUIDELINE FOR UNIT L ITER RELEASE OF CHEMICALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 o f 38

PEER KtVlEW AND HEDOP REVIEW CHECKLISTS . . . . . . . . . . . 33 o f 38

3 o f 38


LIST OF TABLES

1 . ULD f o r Aging Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o f 3 8 2 . Atmospheric Dispers ion C o e f f i c i e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o f 38 3 . Sum-of-Fraction o f Risk Guidel ines f o r a U n i t Release o f Chemicals14 o f 3 8 4 . R a d i o l o g i c a l Dose and T o x i c o l o g i c a l Exposure Consequences f o r F i r e i n a Contaminated Area Accident Scenario . . . . . . . . . . 15 o f 38

4 o f 3 8


LIST OF TERMS

AED ARF AWF CEDE DR DST FSAR HEOOP IVF LPF MAR rem RF SST sv TEOE TWRS ULO UNH v o l % WHC

aerodynamic e q u i v a l e n t diameter a i r b o r n e r e l e a s e f r a c t i o n aging waste f a c i l i t y committed e f f e c t i v e dose e q u i v a l e n t damage r a t i o doub le-she l l t a n k f i n a l s a f e t y a n a l y s i s r e p o r t Hanford Environmental Dose Overview Panel i n f o r m a t i o n Val i d a t i o n form l e a k pa th f a c t o r m a t e r i a l - a t - r i s k r a d i a t i o n e f f e c t i v e man r e s p i r a b l e f r a c t i o n s ing1 e-she1 1 t a n k s i e v e r t t o t a l e f f e c t i v e dose e q u i v a l e n t Tank Waste Remediation System u n i t 1 i t e r dose u rany l n i t r a t e hexahydrate volume percent Westinghouse Hanford Company


This page intentionally left blank.

6 o f 38


FIRE IN A CONTAMINATED AREA

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This document supports the development and presentation of the following accident scenario in the TWRS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR):

Fire in Contaminated Area.

ACCIDENT SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION

Numerous contaminated areas exist within TWRS facilities that are susceptible to releasing hazardous material in the event of a fire. significant number of these contaminated areas are associated with the waste transfer system. Some of the contaminated areas in the waste transfer system that are routinely accessed include valve pits, pump pits, and diversion boxes. These structures, while being mainly underground, do extend above ground, presenting a hazard associated with the fuel tanks of vehicles operating within close proximity.

causes for a fire in a contaminated area. Some of the causes included human error in positioning a crane load, pump motor electrical failure, or a vehicle being driven over a pit cover that ruptures the fuel tank.

A

The hazard analysis performed for the tank farms identified numerous

Evaluation of the hazards and associated causes allowed the identification of an unmitigated accident scenario that represents a set of hazardous conditions related to fires in contaminated areas. In the unmitigated accident scenario analyzed, a human error occurs such that a crane is positioned near a pit. vehicle hits the pit curb and spills gasoline into the open pit. source is present and the gasoline in the pit catches fire. the fire sweeps the hazardous material out of the pit into the atmosphere where it is transported away from the accident location by wind and other atmospheric dispersion phenomena.

The fuel tank of the crane or nearby support An ignition

Convection from

The analysis of this unmitigated accident scenario specifically bounds the release of radioactive or toxic materials from a vehicle carrying small waste samples or contaminated equipment due to a vehicle fire.

ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DEVELOPMENT

A frequency o f anticipated was qualitatively assigned to this unmitigated accident scenario. such an event occurrinq based on one location and one vehicle would be approximately 9.0 x 10' /yr (beyond extremely onlikely)[Appendix A]. frequency analysis was based on the number of miles per year travelled by a single crane or support vehicle near a single pit, as well as vehicle statistics involving fires compiled by the U. S. Department of Transportation (WHC-SD-WM-CN-056). However, the overall frequency of an event within the TWRS complex (multiple vehicles and locations) is estimated to be much higher (i .e., anticipated).

Investigation showed that the frequency of

The


The consequences assoc ia ted wi th t h i s acc ident scenar io a re compared t o t h e r i s k acceptance g u i d e l i n e s f o r a n t i c i p a t e d acc idents as prov ided i n WHC-CM-4-46, Rev. 1.

Waste M a t e r i a l I n h a l a t i o n ULD (Sv/L) I n g e s t i o n ULD (Sv-m3/s-L) AWF S o l i d s 1.7 x l o 6 8.1

- AWF L i q u i d s 1.4 103 0.092

2.0 ANALYSIS INPUT

Receptor

Ons i te

O f f s i t e

Uni t L i t e r Doses (ULD) f o r aging waste a re g i v e n below i n Tab le 1 (Cowley 1996).

I n t e g r a t e d X/Q' (s/m3)

3.41 x lo'* 2.83

I n t e g r a t e d Atmospheric C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r bo th o n s i t e and o f f s i t e r e c e p t o r s f rom Van Keuren (1996a) a re g i v e n i n Table 2. values are used f o r re leases l e s s than 2 hours i n du ra t i on .

The i n t e g r a t e d X / Q '

Dimensions o f t y p i c a l va lve p i t - The t y p i c a l va lve p i t i s 12 f e e t i n l e n g t h and 10 f e e t wide ( i n s i d e dimension). A d r a i n i s l o c a t e d i n one corner approximately 1 f o o t f rom t h e wa l l s . The f l o o r o f t h e p i t i s s loped from t h e 4 w a l l s t o t h e d ra in . The e l e v a t i o n o f t h e f l o o r w a l l s o f t h e p i t i s 1.5 inches h i g h e r than a t t h e d r a i n (see Appendix B f o r a sketch of a t y p i c a l va lve p i t ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , see t h e approved i n f o r m a t i o n v a l i d a t i o n form ( I V F ) f o r t h i s acc ident scenar io i n Appendix C.

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

It i s assumed t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l a t r i s k i s bounded by a one inch deep l a y e r o f d r i e d ou t aging waste ma te r ia l on t h e f l o o r o f a v a l v e p i t around t h e d ra in . Th is i s based on t h e observa t ion t h a t t h e l i p o f t h e d r a i n may pro t rude as much as one i n c h above t h e f l o o r i n some p i t s . A t y p i c a l va lve p i t was chosen because i t i s l a r g e r than t h e o t h e r types o f p i t s t h a t may c o n t a i n contaminated m a t e r i a l .

Waste composi t ion i s assumed t o be 67 vo l% Aging Waste F a c i l i t y (AWF) l i q u i d s and 33 v o l % AWF s o l i d s . Hanford waste t r a n s f e r s (Cowley 1996).

Th i s i s bounding f o r a l l p o s s i b l e

8 o f 38


I t i s assumed t h a t a l l o f t h e hazardous m a t e r i a l i s a v a i l a b l e t o be re leased d u r i n g t h e f i r e and t h a t t h e resuspension o f any hazardous m a t e r i a l l e f t a t t h e bottom o f t h e p i t as a r e s u l t o f t h e f i r e i s n e g l i g i b l e . f rom t h e f l o o r o f a p i t severa l f e e t below ground would be severa l o rde rs o f magnitude below t h e suspension r a t e due t o thermal s t r e s s

Th is i s a reasonable assumption s ince resuspension r a t e

(DOE-HDBK-3010-94).

For purposes o f c a l c u l a t i n g r a d i o l o g i c a l dose consequences, t h e f i r e i s assumed t o l a s t f o r l e s s than two hours. conse rva t i ve acute 99.5 p e r c e n t i l e i n t e g r a t e d atmospheric d i s p e r s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t X / Q ' w i t h o u t plume meander i s used t o c a l c u l a t e dose consequence (Van Keuren 1996a).

The a i rbo rne re lease f r a c t i o n (ARF) and r e s p i r a b l e f r a c t i o n (RF) d iscussed i n Mishima f o r t h e thermal s t r e s s on an aqueous s o l u t i o n o r a i r - d r i e d s a l t s under gaso l i ne f i r e on a porous o r o therwise absorb ing (i .e., cracks, depressions) su r face a re considered t o be approp r ia te and bounding f o r t h i s ana lys i s . acc iden t are ARF = 5 x l o s 3 and RF = 0.4, as l i s t e d on page 3-6 o f DOE-HDBK-3010-94. Since t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f gaso l i ne i n t o t h e p i t would r e s u l t i n m ix ing o f waste w i t h t h e gasol ine, t h e chosen va lues o f t h e ARF and RF are considered t o be appropr ia te, bounding, and conserva t i ve f o r use i n t h i s ana lys i s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s assumption bounds t h e re lease o f powders and t h e re lease f rom contaminated sur faces (DOE-HDBK-3010-94, pp. 4-61 and 5-21) due t o thermal s t ress .

Th is means t h a t t h e more

The bounding va lues chosen f o r t h i s

T o x i c o l o g i c a l exposure consequences depend on t h e concen t ra t i on o f t o x i c m a t e r i a l i n t h e a i r (Van Keuren 19966). S ince t h e r i s k acceptance g u i d e l i n e s are s t a t e d i n 15 minute averages, i t was conserva t i ve l y assumed t h a t a l l o f t h e combustible m a t e r i a l was consumed and re leased i n t h e f i r s t 15 minutes o f t h e f i r e (a l though t h e f i r e i s assumed t o l a s t f o r a l onger p e r i o d o f t ime) .

A crane o r a suppor t v e h i c l e t r a v e l s no more than 150 m p e r day c l o s e enough t o a p i t f o r f u e l f rom a r u p t u r e d f u e l t a n k t o f l o w i n t o t h e p i t . An assumption rega rd ing t h e d i s tance t r a v e l e d by v e h i c l e s i n and around p i t s i s r e q u i r e d i n o rde r t o es t ima te an acc iden t frequency.

4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND CALCULATIONS

The analyzed unmi t i ga ted acc ident bounds t h e consequences f o r any o f t h e hazards associated w i t h f i r e s i n contaminated areas. The acc iden t scenar io assumes a one i n c h l a y e r o f d r i e d ou t waste i n t h e form o f a powdery res idue on t h e bot tom o f a va l ve p i t . Fuel s p i l l s i n t o the p i t f rom a r u p t u r e d f u e l t ank and i g n i t e s . atmosphere as i n f l uenced by t h e f i r e .

Both r a d i o a c t i v e and t o x i c p a r t i c u l a t e s a r e re leased t o t h e

A i rbo rne Source Term Released:

The f i r s t s tep i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e dose i s t o d e r i v e t h e a i r b o r n e source term, i .e . , t h e amount o f a i rbo rne r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l generated by t h e

9 o f 38


accident that is available for transport to the maximum onsite and offsite individuals. Fractions for Ionreactor Nuclear tacilities (DOE-HDBK-3010-94), the airborne source term is typically estimated by the following formula:

As presented in Airborne Release FractionslRates and Respirable

Source term (9) = MAR x DR x ARF x RF x LPF

where

MAR = material-at-risk

DR damage ratio

ARF = airborne release fraction

RF = respirable fraction

LPF = leak path factor.

The MAR is the amount of material available to be acted on by accident-induced physical stresses such as temperature or pressure. The DR is the fraction of the MAR actually impacted by the accident. An interdependency exists between the MAR and the DR, i.e., if it is predetermined that certain types o f material will not be affected by a given accident, that material can be excluded from the MAR. defining the MAR.

In other words, the DR can be accounted for when

The ARF is the coefficient used to estimate the amount of material suspended in air by the accident as an aerosol and thus available for transport due to the physical stresses of a specific accident. that continuously act to suspend material (e.g., a spray release), an ARR is required to estimate the potential airborne release from postulated accident conditions.

The RF is the fraction of airborne particles that can be transported through air and inhaled into the pulmonary region o f the human respiratory system, and includes particles having a IO-pm aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) or less (POE-HDBK-3010-94). density (1 g/cm ) that exhibits the same terminal velocity as the particle in question.

through some confinement deposition or filtration mechanism. factors are developed as applicable based upon (1) established relationships among the size of the particulate material, airborne transport mechanisms, and losses by deposition; or (2) specified filtration efficiencies

For mechanisms

The AED is the diameter of sphere of

The LPF is the fraction of the material in the aerosol transported Leak path

(DOE-HDBK-3010-94).

M?

The MAR is calculated for a 2.54 cm (I-in.) layer of aging waste on the floor of a valve pit that is 3.048 m (10 ft) wide by 3.6576 m (12 ft) long. The drain is located near the corner of the pit. The elevation of the pit at the drain is 3.81 cm (1.5-in.) lower than at the walls (see Section 2.0,

10 o f 38


Analysis I n p u t ) . Based on t h e above dimensions t h e volume o f t h e aging waste on t h e p i t f l o o r i s c a l c u l a t e d us ing t h e equat ion f o r t h e volume o f a pyramid.

vWrmid = 1 / 3 + w h )

Where: A i s t h e area o f t h e base h i s t h e h e i g h t o f t h e pyramid

The area o f t h e pyramid based formed by t h e waste on t h e p i t f l o o r i s r e l a t e d t o i t s he igh t . t h e w a l l s ( i .e., 2.54 cm [l i n . ] o f waste i n a pyramid shaped c o n t a i n e r 3.81 cm [1.5 i n . ] deep), t h e area w i l l be:

For waste f i l l i n g t h e p i t 2/3 o f t h e d i s tance t o

A,,,,, = 2/3(LPit).2/3(WPit)

Combining w i t h t h e p rev ious equat ion g ives:

vpyrmid = 1 /3 - w 3 ( - 213 (wpit) I ( h i

C a l c u l a t i n g t h e volume o f waste g i ves :

(1/3)[(2/3)(3.048 m).(2/3)(3.6576 m).(0.0254 m)-(1000 L/m3)] e 42.0 L

The c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e MAR takes i n t o account t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f l o o r s lopes towards t h e d r a i n from a l l 4 w a l l s (See t h e sketch o f t h e p i t and f l o o r i n Appendix B) and assumes t h a t t he 4 f l o o r segments i n t e r s e c t a t t h e d r a i n . No c r e d i t i s taken f o r t h e volume occupied by t h e p r o t r u d i n g d ra in .

( i .e., exposed t o t h e f i r e ) , t h e damage r a t i o (DR) equals 1. Since a l l o f t h e waste m a t e r i a l i n t h e p i t i s assumed t o be i n v o l v e d

A i rbo rne Release F r a c t i o n IARF). Resoi rab le F r a c t i o n IRF). and Leak Path Fac to r (LPF l

I n the above scenar io , re lease and d i s p e r s i o n o f a i r b o r n e p a r t i c l e s comes from t h e m ix ing and hea t ing o f waste m a t e r i a l i n a g a s o l i n e f i r e . The a i r b o r n e re lease due t o t h e f i r e was conserva t i ve l y assumed t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y bounded by t h e ARF and RF f o r contaminated o rgan ic l i q u i d s under thermal s t r e s s (DOE-HDBK-3010-94, p. 3-6). These va lues are:

ARF = 5.0 x RF - 0.4

Once t h e waste atmosphere, LPF = 1.

i s ae roso l i zed by t h e f i r e i t 1 eaks d i r e c t l y t o t h e

C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e A i rbo rne Source Term Released i n t h i s Acc ident Scenar io

Source Term (4) = MAR x DR x ARF x RF x LPF

= (42.0 L)* (1) . (5 .0 x 10-3).(0.4).(1)

Source Term (4) = 8.4 x L

11 o f 38


5.0 RADIOLOGICAL DOSE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS

Given an a i r b o r n e source term, t h e doses from t h e i n h a l a t i o n and i n g e s t i o n pathways are c a l c u l a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g formulas:

I n h a l a t i o n :

Inges t ion :

Ding(Sv) = Q ( L ) x

where

Di, = dose due t o i n h a l a t i o n (Sv)

Ding = dose due t o i n g e s t i o n (Sv)

Q = r e s p i r a b l e source te rm (L)

=I 5 -L

x/Q' = atmospheric d i s p e r s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h o u t plume meander (s/m3)

R = b r e a t h i n g r a t e ( f o r acute exposure, 3 . 3 x I O s 4 m3/s)

ULD,, = i n h a l a t i o n u n i t l i t e r dose (Sv/L, c a l c u l a t e d below)

ULDing = i n g e s t i o n u n i t l i t e r dose (Sv-m3/s-L, c a l c u l a t e d below).

f o r t h e i n h a l a t i o n pathway, t h e dose c a l c u l a t e d i s t h e 50-year committed e f f e c t i v e dose e q u i v a l e n t (CEDE) d e f i n e d as the dose rece ived by t h e i n d i v i d u a l d u r i n g a 50-year p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e uptake. o n s i t e i n d i v i d u a l , t h i s dose must be combined w i t h t h a t due t o ex te rna l exposure ( i f any) t o y i e l d t h e TEDE. c a l c u l a t e d i s t h e CEDE f rom i n g e s t i o n p l u s t h e dose due t o ex te rna l exposure (e.g., ground shine) d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 24 hours a f t e r t h e re lease. Combining t h e i n g e s t i o n dose w i t h t h e i n h a l a t i o n dose y i e l d s t h e TEDE f o r t h e maximum o f f s i t e i n d i v i d u a l .

f o r t h e maximum

f o r t h e i n g e s t i o n pathway, t h e dose

C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t L i t e r Doses f o r Source Term i n t h i s Scenar io

composed o f 33 v o l % s o l i d s and 67 v o l % l i q u i d s . AWF l i q u i d s and s o l i d s g i v e n i n Table 1 g ives :

The source m a t e r i a l f o r t h i s acc ident was assumed t o be AWF waste Therefore, u s i n g t h e ULDs f o r

12 of 38


sv ULDinha, = (1.7 x IO6 x 0.33 + 1.4 x lo3 x 0.67)- L

5 sv = 5.62 x 10 - L

Svm3 s-L

ULDinp = (8.1 x 0.33 + 0.092 x 0.67)-

Svm3 = 2.73- s -L

Radioloqical Inhalation Dose Conseauence

Donsite = 8.4 x L x 3.41 x lo-* 2 x 3.3 x 1 0 4 z x 5.62 x 1 0 5 2 m3 S L

= 5.31 x lo-' Sv

Doffsite = 8.4 x 10' L x 2.83 x 10"i x 3.3 x 1 0 4 2 x 5.62 x lo5? m3 S L

= 4.41 x I O 4 SV

Radioloqical Inaestion Dose Consequence

Ingestion doses are only calculated for the offsite receptor (Cowley 1996).

svm3 L x 2.83 x 10"f x 2.73- D~~~~~~~ = 8.4 x m3 s -L = 6.49 x IOd Sv

Total Radioloqical Dose Consequences

Donsite = 5.31 x lo-' SV

ooffSite = 4.47 x sv


Tank Waste (Units of Sum-of- Fractions follow Tank Waste Type)'

Double-Shell Liquids (s/L)

Double-Shell Solids (s/L)

Double-Shell Solids (s /L )

Double-Shell Liquids (s/L)

6.0 TOXICOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS

Maximum Accident Frequency Individual >10-2

Onsite 1.0 x io4

Onsite 1.8 x io4 Off site 1.9 x 102

Offsi te 8.4

The methodology that is used to calculate toxicological exposure consequences is documented in WHC-SD-WM-SARR-011, Rev. 2, Toxic Chemical Considerations for Tank Farm Releases. is multiplied by the ARR and then multiplied by the appropriate sum-of-fraction (SOF) value from Table 3-8 of Van Keuren (1996). Table 3-8 of Van Keuren (1996b) is included in Appendix D and the important values for this scenario are reproduced in Table 3 below.

In this method, the released quantity

The sum-of-fraction values for the double-shell liquids and solids include the source term values for the aging waste facility liquids and solids, respectively.

Composite sum-of-fraction values are calculated for the 67 vol% Aging Waste Facility (AWF) liquids and 33 vol% AWF solids just as for the radiological source term.

= (.33)*(1.8 x lo4 s/L) + (.67)(1.0 x lo4 s/L) = 1.3 x 10' s / ~

SOFDffhite - (.33)-(1.9 x lo2 s/L) + (.67)(8.4 s/L)

= 6.8 x 10' s/L

For purposes of calculating toxic releases, an accident duration time of 15 minutes (900 s ) is conservatively assumed. This gives an airborne release rate (ARR) of: . .

ARR = 1/900 s = 1.1 x s-l

The amount released (9) in the accident scenario, as calculated previously, was 8.4 x lo-' L. This amount of waste is conservatively assumed to be released in the first 15 minutes of the fire, although the fire is likely to last longer, as discussed in the Assumptions.

14 o f 38


The toxicological exposure consequences are therefore calculated using the equation:

Toxicological Exposure Consequences = Q-ARR-SOF

The exposure consequences (Donsite) to the onsite receptor are:

Donsi te = (8.4 x lo-' L).(l.l x IO-'/s).(1.3 x IO4 s/L)

- 1.2 The exposure consequences (Doffsite) to the onsite receptor are:

D o f f s i t e = (8.4 x lo-' L)-(1.1 x 10-3/~)-(6.8 x IO' s/L)

= 6.3 x 1 0 - ~

7.0 ANALYSIS RESULTS

The results of the calculations (both radiological doses and toxicological exposures) are given in Table 4. The radiological results are well within risk evaluation guidelines for offsite receptors but over the risk evaluation guidelines for an onsite receptor for an anticipated event.

evaluation guidelines for offsite receptors but slightly over the risk evaluation guidelines for an onsite receptor.

The toxicological exposure consequence results are well within the risk

Table 4. Radiological Dose and Toxicological Exposure Consequences for Fire in a Contaminated Area Accident Scenario.

Unmitigated Accident Frequency: Anticipated

15 of 38


8.0 CONCLUSIONS

For an offsite receptor the calculated radioactive dose and toxicological exposure consequences are well within the risk evaluation guide1 ines. and toxicological exposure consequences are above the risk guidelines for an anticipated event.

Since the onsite guidelines are exceeded for this unmitigated accident with a frequency of anticipated, controls are necessary to either mitigate or prevent the hazards associated with this accident scenario and are documented in the TWRS FSAR. It should be noted that the onsite radiological guidelines are exceeded regardless of the frequency.

However, for an onsite receptor, the calculated radiological dose

9.0 REFERENCES

Van Keuren, J. C., 1996a, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-016, Rev. 2, Tank Waste Compositions and Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for use in ASA Consequence Assessments, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland. Washington.

Considerations for Tank Farm Releases, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richl and, Washington.

DOE-HDBK-3010-94, 1994, "DOE Handbook Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Restorable Fraction for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

Doses for TWRS FSAR Radiological Consequence Calculations, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-037, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richl and, Washington.

Transportation o f Hazardous Materials, FHWA-RD-89-013, U.S . Department o f Transportation.

H&R 522-1, 1995, Recommended Onsite Transportation Risk Management Methodology, H&R Technical Associates, Inc. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, (prepared for Westinghouse Hanford Company Packaging Engineering).

November 15, 1991, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Van Keuren, J. C., 1996b, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-011, Rev. 2, Toxico7ogical Chemical

Cowley, W. L., 1996, Development of Radiological Concentrations and Unit Liter

Harwood, 0. W., and E. R. Russel, 1990, Present Practices of Highway

WHC 1991, Safety Analysis Manual, WHC-CM-4-46, Section 4.0, Rev. 1,

16 of 38


APPENDIX A

ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DEVELOPMENT

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056 REV 7.


18 o f 38


Th is acc ident i s caused by a human e r r o r i n p o s i t i o n i n g a crane o r support veh ic le . The hazard a n a l y s i s p laced t h i s acc ident i n t h e " A n t i c i p a t e d " category w i t h f requency >IO-* per year. acc ident f requency can be c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h i s , g i v e n t h e number o f m i l e s pe r year by a crane o r suppor t v e h i c l e near a p i t and t h e v e h i c l e acc ident s t a t i s t i c s i n v o l v i n g f i r e s compiled by t h e U.S. Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n (DOT) (Harwood and Russel 1990).

However, an unmi t iga ted

The h i g h e s t acc ident frequency per m i l e f o r t r u c k s o p e r a t i n g on a r u r a l roadway i s accord ing t o d a t a compi led i n (Harwood and Russel 1990).

Th i s i s approximately the per m i l e acc ident r a t e recommended f o r Hanford S i t e and i s considered t o be conserva t ive f o r congested areas (H&R 522-1, 1995, p. 8-7).

The t o t a l d i s t a n c e t r a v e l e d i n a year by a crane o r a suppor t v e h i c l e near a p i t i s

day a m i l e d =365- x 150- x - y e a r day 1609s

m i l e = 34- y e a r

The acc ident v e h i c l e w i t h a p i t

i n i t i a t i o n frequency per year f o r t h e c o l l i s i o n o f a i s

= 4.5 1 0 ~ ~ ~ l l i s i o n m i l e x 34- m i l e y e a r

- - 1.5 1 0 + ~ ~ l l i s i o n y e a r

The frequency of a f i r e r e s u l t i n g f rom a c o l l i s i o n no t i n v o l v i n g another v e h i c l e i s (Ref. 6)

f i r e c o l l i s i o n

ffire = 6 x IO5

19 o f 38


Therefore, the unmitigated event frequency for a fire in a pit due to a collision with a pit curb is estimated to be

= 6 fire 1.5 1 0 ~ ~ ~ I l i s i o n coll i s ion Year

= 9.0 x 10-~/year

This frequency is vehicle and location dependent and would therefore be multiplied by the total number of vehicles available and the number of locations where the hazard exists.

20 of 38


APPENDIX B

SKETCHES OF TYPICAL VALVE P ITS

21 o f 38



22 of 30


WC-SD-WIS~-OOI, VOI. 2, Rev. o ''

figure 1-53. Valve .Pfts 241-AX-A and -8.

4



24 of 38


APPENDIX C

INFORMATION VALIDATION FORM

25 o f 38



26 of 38


Name of Ohgktor 1 Ronald D. G n v s

Organization or Tam 2 DaCC 3

SI1196 FSAR CHAPER3

A

Altenuuvu

1

~~

Consequences to Altcrruuves

6

Date Requcsccd By 5/13/94

tcsponrc X I For b e purpose of lhis analysrs. the numbers you have provided can be used I would offer that you look ac >ouble Shell Tanic Pan B Permit Application Chapf. 4.0, which bar ubk wlth pit dimensions if ic kcomes nscssuy. For he PLnt :espcw 10 componuon of m e . sa IVFChaprrr 3-HI.

-

27 o f 38



28 o f 38


APPENDIX D

SUM-OF-FRACTION OF RISK GUIDELINES FOR UNIT LITER RELEASE OF CHEMICALS

29 o f 3%


This page i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t blank.

30 o f 38


Tank waste type (Units of sum of fractions follow tank waste type)

Maximum individual

Accident frequency, I/yr

I - 10-2 10-2 - 104 I O 4 - 106 ' DST or SST solid or liquid continuous release

Single-shell liquids(s/L) Onsite I 9.6 E+03 I 7.5 E t 0 2 I 2.0 E t 0 2 Single-shell IiquidsWL) Ofisire 1 8.0 E+OO 1 8.0 E+OO 1 6.2 E 4 1 '

Single-snell solids(s/L) [Onsite 1 4.0 € 4 4 1 2.1 E+03 I 1.0 E-03 . Single-shell solidsb' l i /Ofs i r e 1 9.4 E+01 1 3.3 €101 1 1.7 E t 0 1 Double-shell IiquidsWL) /Onsite 1 1.0 E-04 7.5 E102 2.1 E ~ 0 2

Table 3-8. Sumof-fraction of Risk Guidelines for a Unit Release of Chemicals and Gus. (3 Shetts) *

7 h e sum of hacrions are multiplied by the release rare for continuous release and release amount rilr a puff rduces. Release rates for continuous releases are in uniu of liters per r a n d for liquids and soli&, and m3h for gases. Puff release quantiries are in uniu of liters for solids and liquids and m3

for gases.

Douole-shell liquids(s/L) I Ofisire 1 8.4 E-OO 8.4 E+OO 6.2 E41 1

31 o f 38

Double-shell solids (s/L) -. Double-shell solids(s/L)

Onsire 1 1.8 E+O4 1 3.3 E+03 1 6.3 EcO? Offsire I 1.9 E+O2 1 1.5 E r O l 1 2 . 8 ErOO

Double-shell liquids (L-I) 1 Offsite Doubla-jb~ll solids &-I) Onsite

Double-shell solids ( L - I ) 1 Onsite

3.4 E 4 2 1 3.4 E 4 2 1 2.5 E 4 3 5.2 E+03 1 9.7 E b 0 2 I 1.8 E-02 7 .7 E41 1 5.9 E 4 2 1 1.1 E 4 2



32 o f 38


APPENDIX E

PEER REVIEW AND HEDOP REVIEW CHECKLISTS

33 o f 38



34 o f 38


CHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW

Document Reviewed: WHC-SO-WM-CN-056, Rev. I , F i r e i n a Contaminated Area.

Scope of Review: Entire document.

Yes No NA l x I [ I [ l * 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 appl i cab1 e. Mathematical derivations checked including dimensional consistency of results. Models appropriate and used within range of validity or use outside range of established validity justified. Hand calculations checked for errors. Spreadsheet results should be 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/guidel ines applied to analysis results are appropriate and referenced. Limits/cri teria/guidelines checked against references. Safety margins consistent with good engineering practices. Conclusions consistent with analytical results and applicable limits. 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.

Document approved. .- - - * Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qual i f ied third party.


HEDOP REVIEM CHECKLIST for

Radiological and Nonradiological Release Calculations

Document reviewed (include title or description o f calculation, document number, author, and date, as applicable):

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056. Rev. 1, Fire in d Contaminated Area.

Submitted by:

Scope of Review:

YES NO* N/A

Grant W. Ryan Date Submitted: 8/7/96

Radio1 ogical and Toxicological Calculations.

1.

2 .

3 . 4.

5 .

6. 7 .

a. 9 .

A detailed technical review and approval of the environmental transport and dose calculation portion o f the analysis has been performed and documented. Detailed technical review(s) and approval (s) of scenario and release determinations have been performed and documented. HEDOP-approved code(s) were used. Receptor locations were selected according to HEDOP recommendations. All applicable environmental pathways and code options were included and are appropriate for the calculations. Hanford s i t e data were used. Model adjustments external to the computer program were justified and performed correctly. The analysis is consistent with HEDOP recommendations. Supporting notes, calculations, comments, comment resolutions, or other information is attached. (Use the "Page 1 of X " page numbering format and sign and date each added page.)

10. Approval is granted on behalf of the Hanford Environmental Dose Overview Panel.

All "NO" responses must be explained and use o f nonstandard methods justi f i ed.

g/gAc . . - . Hly17CT

\ HEDOP-Approved Reviewer (Printed Name and Signature)

COMMENTS (add additional signed and dated pages i f necessary):

Date

36 of 38


CHECKLIST FOR PEER R E V I M

Document Reviewed: WHC-SO-WM-CN-056, Rev. 2, F i r e i n a Contaminated Area.

Scope of Review: Entire document.

Yes No NA b I [ l [ l *

[XI 1 1 1

Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, up to scope o f 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 appropriate and used within range of validity or use outside range of established validity justified. Hand calculations checked for errors. should be 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/guidel ines checked against references. Safety margins consistent with good engineering practices. Conclusions consistent with analytical results and applicable limits. 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.

Spreadsheet results

Document approved.

&!% ' Date

L #?&A Reviewer (Prihted Namdand Signature)

* Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this-review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qualified third party.

Such material should be

37 of 38


HEDOP REVIEW CHECKLIST for

Radio1 ogi cal and Nonradiol ogical Re1 ease Calculations

Document reviewed (include title or description of calculation, document number, author, and date, as applicable):

WHC-SD-WM-CN-056, Rev. 2. Fire in' a Contaminated Area.

Submitted by:

Scope of Review:

YES NO* N / A

M [ I Dd [ I

[ I

Grant W . Ryan Date Submitted: 8/22/96

Radiological Dose and Toxicological Exposure Calculations.

1.

2.

3 . 4.

5.

6. 7 .

8. 9.

10.

A detailed technical review and approval o f the environmental transport and dose calculation portion of the analysis has been performed and documented. Detailed technical review(s) and approval (s) of scenario and release determinations have been performed and documented. HEDOP-approved code(s) were used. Receptor locations were selected according to HEDOP recommendations. All applicable environmental pathways and code options were included and are appropriate for the calculations. Hanford site data were used. Model adjustments external to the computer program were justified and performed correctly. The analysis is consistent with HEDOP recommendations. Supporting notes, calculations, comments, comment resolutions, or other information is attached. (Use the "Page 1 of X " page numbering format and sign and date each added page.)

Approval i s granted on behalf of the Hanford Environmental Dose Overview Panel.

* All "NO" responses must be explained and use o f nonstandard methods justified.

COMMENTS (add additional signed and dated pages if necessary):

To D i s t r i b u t i o n

Page 1 of 1 From G. W. Ryan Date 8/27/96

EDT No. N/A ECN No. 166746

Name Text Text Only Attach./ EDTlECN

With All 1 MSIN 1 Attach. 1 1 ApL:rydix 1 On”

A2-34 X A2-34 X A3-34 x

~ _ _ ~

E. R. Bruschi C. Carro D. S. Leach TWRS S & L P ro jec t F i l e s (6) A2-26 X S. P. Roblyer HO-32 X G. W. Ryan (3) A3-37 X Central F i l e s (Or ig ina l t 1) ~ 3 - 8 8 X

A-4000-135 (01/93) YEF067

166746 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE ;;k/67531/metadc... · Radiation WoI* hnk Environmental Impact...

Documents

Transcript of 166746 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE ;;k/67531/metadc... · Radiation WoI* hnk Environmental Impact...