37p. 2 of nglneerlng data transmittal 616283 …/67531/metadc682100/m2/1/high... · nglneerlng data...

FFB 1 3 1997 NGlNEERlNG DATA TRANSMITTAL

37P. 2

5. Proj./Prog.lDept./Div.:

8. or iginator Remarks:

6. Design Authority1 Design AgentlCog.

Document issued f o r approval and re lease.

11. Receiver Remarks: l l A . Design Baseline D o c m n t ? [ I Yes [ X I No

The at tached s a f e t y assessment es tab l i shes t h e s a f e t y b a s i s f o r t h e t r a n s f e r o f o rgan ic waste f rom t h e B P l a n t f a c i l i t y and demonstrates t h a t no increase i n r i s k t o t h e DOE i s created. The ac tua l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t he waste i s managed I by others.

Of -J- 1 . ~ 0 ~ 6 1 6 2 8 3

ANSUITTI ID)

Re". NO

- 0

IEI Titla or Dasoriptianof Data Transmitted

Safety Assessment f o r Storage o f Organic L i q u i d s Adjacent t o B P1 an t

8 . Related ED1 No.:

N/A

N/A

N/A

B P l a n t

N/A

N /A

'. Purchase Order No.:

1. Equip./Component No.:

IO. Systern/B\dg./Fecility:

2. Major Assm. Dug. No.:

3. Pernit lPermit Application No.:

4. Required Response Date:

(F) Approval

Ossiw nator

- SQ

21. DOE APPROVAL ( i f required)

11 11 Approved Approved u l c m n t s

[I Disapproved ulcomnents

Ctrl. No.

ED-7400-172-2 ( 0 5 l 9 6 ) GEF097

BD-74W172-1

3 HNF-SD-DPS-SAD-001, Rev. 0

Safety Assessment for Storage of Organic Liquids Adjacent to B Plant

F luo r Daniel Northwest, Richland, WA 99352 Steve E. Chalk U.S. Department o f Energy Contract DE-AC06-96RL13200

EDT/ECN: 616283 UC: 510 Org Code: 403 Charge Code: E58316 B&R Code: EW7002010 To ta l Pages: 4i-44 $,/., Key Words: USQ, Organics, Safety, Storage

Abs t rac t : hazards and acc idents t h a t cou ld occur d u r i n g t h e s torage o f o rgan ic l i q u i d waste ou ts ide o f t he B P lan t f a c i l i t y .

Th i s safety assessment was w r i t t e n t o analyze t h e p o t e n t i a l

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein t o any speci f ic comnercial product process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otheruise, does not necessarily c o k t i t u t e hr imply i t s endorsement, recomnendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or i t s contractors or subcontractors.

Printed i n the united States of America. Document Control Services, P.O. Box 1970, Mailstop H6-08. Richland UA 99352, Phone (509) 372-2420; Fax (509) 376-4989.

To obtain copies of t h i s docunent, contact: UHCIBCS

Approved for Public Release

A-6400.073 (10/95) GEF321

HNF-SD-OPS-SAD-001, Rev. 0

SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR STORAGE OF ORGANIC LIQUIDS ADJACENT TO B PLANT

Prepared By:

F l u o r Danie l Northwest P.O. Box 1050

Richland, WA 99352

For:

B & W Hanford Company P.O. Box 1200

Richland, WA 99352

February 1997

i

HNF-SD-OPS-SAD-001. Rev. 0

This page intentionally left blank.

i i

HNF.SD.OPS.SAD.001, Rev . 0

CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION . . . . . . . .

. 1

. 1

3.0 I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 . 0 HAZARDS ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 BASIC APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 . 2 L I Q U I D S P I L L AND BURNING SCENARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3 HYDROGEN GENERATION WITHIN THE TANK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5.0 CONSEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 . 1 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 . 2 ORGANIC S P I L L AND F I R E (RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES) . . . . . 15 5 . 3 ORGANIC S P I L L AND F I R E (TOXICOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES) . . . . . 1 7

5 . 3 . 1 P h o s p h o r o u s P e n t o x i d e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5 . 3 . 2 C a r b o n M o n o x i d e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 . 4 HYDROGEN EXPLOSION I N THE TANK HEADSPACE . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 5 . 5 S P I L L OF ORGANIC FROM EXTERNAL TANK (RADIOLOGICAL

CONSEQUENCES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 5 . 6 S P I L L OF ORGANIC FROM EXTERNAL TANK (TOXICOLOGICAL

CONSEQUENCES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

6 . 0 CONTROLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

6 . 2 TRANSFER FROM PRIMARY TO SPARE TANK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 6 . 1 RADIOACTIVE INVENTOR~ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

7 . 0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A MATHCAD CALCULATIONS . A - 1

APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY HAZARDS ANALYSIS (PHA) PARTICIPANTS . B-1 . . .

iii

1.

2.

3.

4 .

5.

6.

7 .

a.

9 .

10.

11.

12.

13.


LIST OF TABLES

PHA Table for Organic Storage Tanks USQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PHA Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

WHC Risk Acceptance Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Maximum 90Sr and 137Cs Quantities (Ci) Prior To Placement of Tank Onto Concrete Pad (Berm Not In Place) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Maximum "Sr and 137Cs Quantities (Ci) Prior To Placement of Tank Onto Concrete Pad (Berm In Place) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrogen Generation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Boundary Distances Used in Offsite Dispersion Calculations . . Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients (X/Qs) Used in the Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predicted Radiological Consequences For Organic Fire . . . . . . . Predicted Concentrations o f Phosphorous Pentoxide in Organic Fire Plume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predicted Concentrations for Carbon Monoxide in Organic Fire Plume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predicted Radiological Consequences For H, Explosion And Organic Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum "Sr and 137Cs Quantities (Ci) Prior To Placement of Tank Onto Concrete Pad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

12

14

15

17

18

19

21

23

iv


LIST OF TERMS

ALARA ARF ARR

BR Bq

C i DZEHPA DCF

EDE ERPG HAZOP HEPA ICRP I S B LSA LLW MeV N I O S H NPH PHA mPa MR

p s i RCT S&M ssc sv TBP us0

DOE-RL

PEL-TWA

WESF

X / Q WHC

as low as reasonably achievable a i rbo rne re lease f r a c t i o n a i rbo rne re lease r a t e Becquerel b rea th ing r a t e c u r i e Di -2-ethy lhexy l phosphoric a c i d dose convers ion f a c t o r U.S. Department o f Energy-Richland F i e l d O f f i c e e f f e c t i v e dose equ iva len t emergency response p lann ing g u i d e l i n e Hazard and O p e r a b i l i t y h igh e f f i c i e n c y p a r t i c u l a t e a i r ( f i l t e r ) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission on Rad io log i ca l P r o t e c t i o n i n t e r i m s a f e t y bas i s low s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y low l e v e l waste m i l l i o n e l e c t r o n v o l t Nat ional I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Hea l th normal p a r a f f i n hydrocarbon p r e l i m i n a r y hazards ana lys i s mega-pascal mass r a t i o pe rm iss ib le exposure l i m i t - t ime weighted average pounds p e r square i n c h Rad io log i ca l Contro l Technic ian Surve i l l ance and Maintenance s t r u c t u r e , system, and component S i e v e r t t r i b u t y l phosphate unreviewed s a f e t y quest ion Waste Encapsulat ion and Storage F a c i l i t y Westinghouse Hanford Company atmospheric d i spe rs ion f a c t o r

V


T h i s page intentionally left blank.

v i


SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR STORAGE OF ORGANIC L I Q U I D S AT B PLANT

1.0 SCOPE

The B Plant facility i s currently undergoing preparations for transition to surveillance and maintenance (S&M). outside of B Plant in a tank located on a concrete pad approximately 100 m (328 ft) NNE of the NE corner of the plant. An Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) screening was conducted and it was determined that the liquid storage of radioactive contaminated organic liquids outside the 221-8 canyon ventilation area such as the proposed activity was not covered by the existing Safety Basis of B Plant. This Safety Assessment (SA) supports the USQ Evaluation and addresses the outside storage of the organic liquid waste.

Organic liquid waste is to be stored

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM

The storage tank has a capacity of 17,500 L (4,623 gal). The concrete pad has a 0.6 m (2 ft) high berm that acts as a secondary containment feature to contain any leaks that might occur during storage. agproximatelr 5.1-m (16.7-ft) by 9.14-m (30.0-ft) with a total capacity of 28 m (2.8 x 10 L ) . The concrete pad will have a fence surrounding it and no electrical connections are provided to the tanks except for grounding connections. There will also be a spare tank identical to the primary tank located on the concrete pad. liquid in case of any leak or required maintenance on the primary tank. The tanks are designed with passive ventilation systems, being vented through HEPA filters to reduce any potential emissions. The passive vent system has been specifically designed to maintain hydrogen concentrations in the headspace of the tanks at approximately 2 vol%, below the lower flammable limit (LFL) of hydrogen in air, which is 4 ~01%. The spare tank located on the same concrete pad will have its own secondary containment (berm). 1.7 MPa (250 psi). an air driven pump. The Safety Assessment For Removal O f Organic Liquids From B Plant (WHC 1996a) analyzed the potential spray release consequences from transfer of the organic liquid into the tank located on the flatbed. radionuclides were analyzed at their maximum allowable concentrations to produce dose consequences of less than 50 mSv (5 rem) onsite. The washing and filtering of the organics prior to transfer will result in concentrations less than the maximum allowable. exceed 0.70 MPa (100 psi) as assumed in WHC 1996a, the consequences of a spray leak due to organic transfer to the spare tank is bounded by WHC 1996a.

The berm area is

The spare tank can be used to store the organic

Both tanks are rated at Any transfer from the primary tank to the spare will use

The

Therefore, as long as the pump pressure does not

3.0 I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF HAZARDS

As the first step in the development of the USQ Evaluation, a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) was performed. discipline team of experts (see Appendix B for lists) to examine the safety implications of removal of organic material from B Plant and storage on the

The PHA used a multi-

1


new organic storage pad outside of B Plant. operations, engineering (design and process), and safety.

The first column, labelled "Process Step" defines the process step being analyzed. The second column, labelled "Hazardous Condition'' refers to a credible abnormal event combined with an intrinsic hazard (radioactivity, toxic material, etc) which may result in adverse consequences to a facility worker and/or a person at a distance from the facility. A checklist (Table 2 ) was used to help ensure the completeness of the list of hazardous conditions, although the team could postulate hazardous conditions not included in the checklist. The third column, "cause" lists abnormal events which the team believed may initiate the hazardous condition. The fourth column, "consequences", qualitatively describes the postulated consequences of the hazardous condition. and sixth columns 1 ist the engineered and administrative features expected to be included in the design and/or operating procedures which may prevent or mitigate the consequences of the hazardous condition. The lists of equipment and procedures in these columns can be used to demonstrate defense in depth. The lists can also be used as the basis of safety equipment lists and technical specifications. The column labelled "inventory", is a qualitative description of the hazardous material which could potentially be dispersed in the hazardous condition (e. g., organic solvent, TBP, radionuclides, etc). The consequence and frequency category columns serve to qualitatively rank the postulated accident consequences and frequencies.

The experts represented B Plant

The form used for the PHA is included as Table 1.

The fifth

The safety consequences are ranked in the following four categories:

SO = No safety consequences or environmental events. SI = Facility worker injury or exposure to hazardous materials; reportable release of hazardous materials within or near the pad S2 = Hazardous material exposure to person (co-located worker) at a distance from the pad; significant hazardous material discharge beyond the pad S3 = Hazardous material exposure to the public; hazardous material discharge offsite

The frequencies of the consequences (hazardous condition and failure of

FO = Beyond Extremely Unlikely F1 = Extremely Unlikely F2 = Unlikely F3 = Anticipated

The "remarks" column is used to document comments or recommendations

mitigative/preventive features) are ranked in the following four categories:

(f<10-6/yr) (10+/yr < f < 10-~/y~)

(10-~/yr < f < 10-2/yr) (10-2/yr < f)

that the team felt should be communicated to the operations and design functions.

The information in the PHA table was used to select accidents for detailed analysis for this Safety Assessment, to help develop the accident scenarios, and to assist in the selection of safety-class and safety- significant structures, systems and components (SSCs).

2

0

5 W CL

3

0 0

I n

5 In n. 0

I

(0 I U

z I

n

uado a ~ v swan amssv 01

a3ueii ianms

m

Date: 7/18/96 Participants: See L i s t A

Proximity To Tank

F i l t e r Freer- ing

4nimal In t ru- sion

Snou

lrganic Build- JP

P

Dose To F a c i l i t y Uorker Exceeding Hanford Standards Hydrogen Buildup (Fire)

F i l t e r Fai lure (Airborne Release)

Hydrogen Buildup (Fire)




Hydrogen Buildup (F i re)


Process Hazardous

Storage

Storage

itorage

itorage

itorage

Storage Direct Radia- I t i o n Dose

Vent i la t ion System HEPA F i l t e r O r Vent Tube Blockage





;torage vent i la t ion System HEPA F i l t e r O r Vent Tube Blockage

Ubleweeds

(F i re)




Lacked Fence

Design Provi- sions

Storage T Adminis- trative features

Posted As A High Radiation Area Dounstream A i r Sanple

Periodic F i l - t e r Replace- m n t

Uaintaining hdequate Free- board

Surveillance 3 f Area

nks USQ.

Invento- ry

WIA

Tank Conten- t s (F i re)

F i l t e r In- ventory; Tank A t w - sphere

Tank Conten- t s (Fire)

F i l fer In- ventory;

Tank A t m - sphere Tank Conten- t s (Fire)

F i l t e r In- ventory

Tank A t w - sphere Tank Conten- t s (Fire)


Tank A t m - sphere Tank Conten- t s (F i re)


Tank Atw- M e r e Tank Conten- t s (F i re)


lank Atm- sphere

- S1

s2

s2

s2

52

:ontrol led W k g r e e O f :leanup

1

F2

F2

F 1

I z -n I v)

0

0 -0 v)

v)

D 0

0 0 w

E

<

0

Date: 7/18/96 Par t i c i pan ts : See L i s t A

Tal e 1. PHA T a t

Consequence

! f o r Organ Engineered

Safety Features

nks USQ.

Invento- r y

: Storage 1 Adaini s- t rat ive

Features

. -

Cause( s) Hazardous Condition

P

s2

s2

s2

s2

Vent i la t ion System HEPA F i l t e r O r Vent lube Blockage

f a i l u r e To Open Vent Valve Af ter lank Transfer


lank RUDtUre

Inspection O f lank t o Ensure Valve i s Open

Tank Conten- t s (F i re)

storage

F i l t e r I n - ventory

lank Atmo- sphere Tank Con- tents (Fire)


lank Atmosp- here Tank C o n - tents (Fire)


lank Atmosp- here lank Con- tents (Fire)

F i l t e r ln- ventory

Tank Atmosp- here lank Cm- tents (Fire)


Tank Atmosp- here lank Con- tents (Fire)


lank Atmosp- here

1 z 7 I

v) 0

0 V v) I

v)

g 0 0 c.

W (D <

0

f i r e Range f i r e Airborne Radioac- t i v e Release

Expansion

Airborne Toxic Release

:ence And Grav- ?I Surrounding 'he lank S p i l l 'ad

Housekeeping Storage

Storage Vehicle Acci- dent

Airborne Radioac- t i v e Release

Expansion


.ence surround- ng The Tank ind S p i l l Pad

Standard Hanford l r a f - f i c Controls

F i re

Storage F i re Lightning Airborne Radioac- t i v e Release

Expansion


,rounding Of ank

QC Inspection And Periodic Maintenance Of Grounding

Storage : ire delding Airborne Radiaac- t i v e Release

~~

Standard Con- t r o l s On Ueld- ing A c t i v i t y

s2

Expansion


Airborne Radioac- t i v e Release


la i ntenance itorage :1 re A h i n i s t r a t i ve Controls On Haintenance k t i v i t y

sz

0

> a CT - 0 0 I 0

v, I v, n. 0 I

O v, I U

z I

2s

ZS

1s

1s

uoisoidx3 afie~ols


Table 2. PHA Checklist. External Radioactive Contamination Internal Radiation Dose Critical i ty Loss of Shielding Loss of Liquid Containment Venti 1 at ion Fire Explosion Maintenance Problem

4.0 HAZARDS ANALYSIS

4 . 1 BASIC APPROACH

The basic approach is to focus on the accidents that potentially produce the maximum consequences. spent initially on determining the frequency of the accidents, but rather they are assumed to be credible and the consequences are determined. If the consequences, even at a probability of one are acceptable, no further analysis is provided.

A review of the PHA table revealed that the most serious credible hazards with the potentially highest consequences were: a) a fire, b) a hydrogen explosion caused by an ignition source and the hydrogen exceeding 4 vol% in the headspace, and c) a spill of the liquid orgqnic. personnel are planning to reduce the quantities of the ' 7Cs and 90Sr in the organic liquid as much as possible prior to transferring the liquid outside of the B Plant canyon area. The goal is to reduce the values of the radionuclides such that the liquid can be declared as Low Specific Activity (LSA) .

To assist in determining to what minimum level the two radionuclides (13'Cs and 90Sr) must be reduced, the concentrations were back-calcul ated (see Appendix A) to determine the allowable concentrations for an unmitigated (no berm) and mitigated (with berm) burning scenarios without exceeding the WHC onsite and offsite guidelines. These guidelines, from WHC-CM-4-46 (WHC 1996b), are summarized in Table 3 . The 50 mSv (5 rem) onsite criterion was chosen for the goal of the project. Th is approach is conservative as plume

Using the graded approach, 1 ittle resources are

B Plant

7

8

0 'hall 'IOO-(IWS-SdO-(IS-JNH


Table 5 . Maximum "Sr and 137Cs Q u a n t i t i e s ( C i ) P r i o r To Placement o f

4 . 2 L I Q U I D S P I L L AND BURNING SCENARIO

One poss ib le scenar io i nvo l ves an acc ident i n which t h e tank i s breached and t h e o rgan ic l i q u i d i s s p i l l e d and an i g n i t i o n source i s present , caus ing a r a d i o a c t i v e re lease from t h e bu rn ing organic . poss ib le . t he tank, w h i l e a second i s one i n which t h e berm i s breached and the r e s u l t a n t burn area i s increased. Ana lys i s (WHC 1996c) analyzed a s p i l l and bu rn ing o f t he o rgan ic l i q u i d w i t h i n B P lan t . The same methodology i s used i n t h i s SA t o c a l c u l a t e t h e burn t ime as w e l l as de te rm in ing t h e a i rbo rne re lease f r a c t i o n s (ARFs) t h a t re lease r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l i n the r e s p i r a b l e range. The acc iden t scenar io analyzed i n t h e B P lan t I S B and adopted f o r t h i s SA i nc lude t h e f o l l o w i n g assumptions:

Two bu rn ing scenar ios are

6 P l a n t I n t e r i m S a f e t y Bas is Acc ident

One i n which the l i q u i d i s conta ined w i t h i n t h e berm surrounding

The composi t ion o f t he o rgan ic ma te r ia l i n t h e tank i s 70% NPH, 10% TBP, and 20% D2EHPA. The s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y o f t h i s m a t e r i a l i s 0.82. kerosene.

The organic i s modeled by us ing t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f

The l e n g t h o f exposure f o r e i t h e r t h e o n s i t e o r o f f s i t e i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e f i r e i s l i m i t e d t o 8 hours and 24 hours.

The cesium and s t ron t i um i n t h e bu rn ing organic are conver ted t o p a r t i c u l a t e oxides. re lease f r a c t i o n (ARF) o f 1%. According t o t h e Nuc lea r Fue l Cycle F a c i l i t y Acc ident Ana lys i s Handbook, NUREG 1320, s t r o n t i u m i s n o n v o l a t i l e w i t h an ARF o f 0.77% (Ayer e t a l . 1988).

Cesium i s s e m i v o l a t i l e w i t h an a i r b o r n e

The su r face area f o r a s p i l l w i t h t h e berm i n t a c t i s 46.6 m2 and w i t h 15,140 L (4,000 g a l ) o f organic l i q u i d , t h e depth o f t h e s p i l l e d o rgan ic from the tank i s 0.32 m (1 ft). The f u e l burn r a t e i s equal t o t h e mass l o s s r a t e o f f u e l , M,. 1988). The values f o r t h e heat f l uxes , t he heat o f vapor i za t i on , and r a d i a t i v e heat l o s s i n the f o l l o w i n g equat ion are obta ined f rom Ayer e t a l . (1988).

Th i s i s c a l c u l a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g equat ions (Ayer e t a l .

9


where qi'= external heat flux per unit surface area, kw

m2

q;: = flame convective heat flux, kw m2

q:: = flame radiative heat flux, kw m2

The duration of the burn, which by :

burn time = volume x density = burn rate

qt; = surface radiative heat loss, !? m2

A= burning surface of fuel, m2 L = heat required to generate a unit mass of fuel vapors, (i.e., the

a latent heat of vaporization) k J .

is assumed not extinguished, is found

15.140 L (820 2 ) '' = 6.5 hour.

Without the berm, the spill area is considerably larger. To estimate the spill area without a berm, the values cited in A Simple Formula For Estimating Source Strengths From Spills o f Toxic Liquids (Clewell 1983) is used. as being approximately 1.2 m /L of spilled liquid. For spills onto gravel or other porous surfaces, a value of 0.15 m /L is cited. The value of 0.15 m2/L is used, as this is more representative of the spill surface area beyond the pad area. The exact quantity of organic liquid to be stored in the external tank is not known, but could range from 9,460 L (2,500 gal) up to 15,140 L (4,000 gal).

the spill area becomes approximately 2,270 m . With a spill area of 2,270 in2, the depth of the organic is initially approximately 0.67 cm (1/4 in.) and the organic liquid will rapidly soak into the soil. above, the estimated burn time without the berm and 15,140 L (4,000 gal) of organic becomes:

liquid, the spill area becomes approximately 1,420 m2.

Clewell cites the valye of a spill onto concrete or non-porous surfaces

With the conservative 15,140 L (4,000 gal) of spilled organic liquid,

Using the same equation

With the less conservative 9,460 L (2,500 gal) of spilled organic Using the same

10

HNF-SO-OPS-SAD-001, Rev. 0 8 , I, ,I I, (e, + arc + Prr- Qrr) area

L Mb =

0 *Y + 11 *Y + 14 !?! - 8 *Y (2270 m2) - m2 m2 m2 m2

1.5 E 'y-5 g ( J )

= 25,7004 5 .

15,140 L ( 8 2 0 !) = .13 hr. burn time = volume x density =

burn rate sec

equation above, the estimated burn time without the berm and 9,460 L (2,500 gal) of organic becomes:

I, I,

(q: + q;, + qtr- qrr) area Mb =

L 0 kv + 11 kv + 14 kv - 8 kv (1420 m2)

= m2 m2 m2 m2

= 16,1004 s.

burn time = volume x density = ( 8 2 0 4)

= - 1 3 hr. burn rate

sec

As can be seen, the burn times for the unmitigated spills involving either 15,140 L (4,000 gal) or 9,460 L (2,500 gal) are the same (-8 min).

4.3 HYDROGEN GENERATION W I T H I N THE TANK

As the actual quantity of organic liquid finally transferred to the external tank is not exactly known, various quantities of organic liquid are assumed in order to estimate the hydrogen generation values. A minimum value o f 9,460 L (2,500 gal) liquid organic is initially assumed (which allows a maximum headspace), and step-increases are then used to determine the time to generate 4 and 10 vol% of hydrogen in the headspace of the tank. for the specially designed vent system is taken.

Table 6 provides for 137Cs and 90Sr.

No credit

Hydrogen is generated via the radiolysis of water and hydrocarbons. values for the determination of hydrogen generation rates

1 1


H, Generation Rate = (Ci)(E)[G(H,)]/A

Where: A = Avagadro's number, molecules/mole Ci E = Total energy o f the disintegrations, eV/s-Ci G(H,) = Molecules H, /100eV

= Curies in the Liquid

Generation Rate = g-moles/s

If there is no ventilation, the steady state value is 100%. The time to reach a value or limit is:

V LFL% , t=-- In (I-- D VSS%

V = headspace volume Q = total gas flow V,,% = steady state volume%

Where

Since 90Sr has the higher hydroAen generation rate per Ci than 13'Cs, it is assumed that there are 708 Ci of twice for conservancy).

Sr (note that the decay heat is used The hydrogen generation for this quantitiy i s :

7 0 8 Ci *4 .03xlO l6 eV/s/ Ci *5.45molecul es/100 eV = 2. 6xl -6 gmol e/ I

6.02~10~~rnolecules/gmole G., =

With the assumption that the temperature is lOOf in the tank vapor

With 9,460 L space, the volume rate of production is 2 . 6 ~ 1 0 - ~ x (560/492) x 22.4 = 6 . 6 3 ~ 1 0 - ~ L/s (5.73 L/day). The tank volume is 17,500 L (4,623 gal). (2,500 gal) of organic liquid in the tank, the headspace volume is 8,040 L (2,124 gal). The time to steady state for 4% hydrogen assuming no ventilation is:\

12


t = -8,040 +d* In (1 -- 4 ) = 57 days 100

For 10% hydrogen 10

t = -8 I 04 0 *d * ln ( 1 - - 100 ) = 14 8 days

For a headspace volume of 1700L (full tank), and 708 Ci 90Sr in the the time to reach 4% hydrogen with no ventilation is 12 days.

The headspace (vapor) volume can also be varied and the time to reach a

liquid,

hydrogen concentration value are shown below assuming no ventilation and 708 Ci of OS^.

5.0 CONSEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS

5 .1 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The consequence analysis combines the results of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and ICRP reference man dose models to estimate consequences to onsite and offsite individuals. For onsite calculations, 100 m (328 ft) is used as the distance to the onsite receptor.

13

For each of


E ESE SE

SSE

s i x t e e n d i r e c t i o n s , a 99.5% X / Q (meaning t h a t t h e X/Q i s exceeded o n l y 0.5% o f t h e t ime) i s c a l c u l a t e d a long w i t h a 95% s i te -w ide X / Q (which considers a l l d i r e c t i o n s a t t h e same t ime) . se lec ted as t h e o n s i t e X / Q . The o n s i t e X/Qs are from B P l a n t I n t e r i m S a f e t y Bas is Accident A n a l y s i s (WHC 1 9 9 6 ~ ) .

For o f f s i t e c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e Hanford S i t e Boundary ( i .e . , fence l i n e ) i s used as the l o c a t i o n of t he o f f s i t e recep to r . The d i s tances from B P l a n t t o t h e Hanford S i t e Boundary are shown i n Table 7. The 95.5% X/Q values are compared f o r each o f t h e s i x t e e n d i r e c t i o n s w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t va lue se lec ted as t h e o f f s i t e X / Q . C a l c u l a t i o n s and Assumptions f o r Use i n WESF I S 8 (Hey 1996) d iscusses a case where o f f s i t e recep to r d i s tances correspond t o t h e near s ide o f t h e Columbia R ive r (as opposed t o the c u r r e n t Hanford S i t e boundary) f o r t h a t s t r e t c h o f t h e r i v e r which passes through t h e Hanford S i t e . recep to r a t t h i s nearer boundary are a l so considered f o r each o f t h e acc idents evaluated. The o f f s i t e X / Q s , t h a t were performed f o r WESF l o c a t e d immediately west o f B P lan t , are v a l i d f o r B P lan t .

The g r e a t e s t o f t h e seventeen va lues i s

The assumptions and c a l c u l a t i o n s document, Support ing

P o t e n t i a l consequences t o a

16.87 13.65 21.04 20.88 25.17 14.19 21.08 11.71

where C i = gQ = - -

t o t a l c u r i e s re leased as r e s p i r a b l e atmospheric d i spe rs ion c o e f f i c i e n t , sec/m3 b rea th ing r a t e , m3/sec (3.3 E-04m3/s)

14


Source/Receptor Descrf pt i on

Ground level release, point source

DCF = dose = 3.19 = 2.47

Hwy-240, Uye On-Site 100 BarrScade, and

3.44 E-02 1.35 E-05 1.90 E-05

conversion factor rem/Ci E+04 rem/Ci for '*Cs E+05 rem/Ci for "Sr (includes the daughter, 'OY)

Ground level release with plume meander Burning release with berm and plume ri <P

The toxic concentrations are determined using the relationship:

Conc. (mg/m3) = release rate (mg/s) x X / q (s/m3)

Table 8 shows the onsite and offsite X/Q values which are representative of the dispersion between the B Plant release point and the receptor locations under various release conditions. The particular X/Q value used in an accident analysis is determined based on the physical phenomena associated with the accident. For radiological releases (not involving a burning scenario) lasting 1-hr or longer, credit for plume meander is taken, while for releases less than 1-hr, no credit is taken. For radiological releases from a burning scenario, credit for plume rise is taken. For toxicological releases, credit for plume meander is not taken regardless of release time, but credit for plume rise is taken for burning scenarios. burning outside the berm area, two sets of X/Qs are provided. One case is if only 9,460 L (2,500 gal) is in the tank and spilled, while the other case is if 15,140 L (4,000 gal) is spilled. For burning scenarios, taking credit for plume rise, onsite receptor locations beyond 100 m (328 ft) were tested, and the 100 m (328 ft) location was determined to provide the maximum X / Q . X / Q s taking credit for plume rise are from Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters for B Plant Organic Liquid Storage Fire Scenarios (Himes 1996).

For spills and subsequent

The

Table 8. Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients (X/Qs) Used in the Accident

~

1.12 E-02 1.13 E-05 1.52 E-05

5.49 E-05 1.54 E-06 1.67 E-06

Burning release with no berm and plume rise (9,460 L organic) Burning release with no berm and plume rise (15,140 L organic)

4.51 E-06 1.50 E-07 2.55 E-07

3.03 E-06 1.50 E-07 2.55 E-07

5.2 ORGANIC SPILL AND FIRE (RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES)

Tables 4 and 5 provide the results for bounding values for 137Cs and "Sr combinations, using Mathcad computer software version 5.0. From the calculations, which are based upon not exceeding 50 mSv (5 rem) EDE onsittd calculations were performed to show the concentration limits of 137Cs and combinations that would not exceed a 5 rem onsite dose from a spill and

Sr

15


i g n i t i o n o f t h e o rgan ic l i q u i d . The c a l c u l a t i o n s o f Table 4 and 5 as d e r i v e d i n Appendix A were used t o determine t h e maximum 90Sr and 13'Cs concen t ra t i ons a l lowed w i t h o u t c r e d i t f o r plume r i s e f o r bu rn ing scenar ios. However, s ince plume r i s e does occur w i t h t h e burn ing o f t he o rgan ic l i q u i d , c r e d i t may be taken. I n t h e case o f no berm i n place, s ince t h e o n s i t e X/Q i s g r e a t e r f o r 9,460 L (2,500 g a l ) o f o rgan ic l i q u i d than 15,140 L (4,000 g a l ) o f t o t a l l i q u i d (Table 8 ) , i t i s assumed t h a t 9,460 L (2,500 g a l ) i s a t r i s k and burns. The h ighe r r a d i o n u c l i d e concen t ra t i ons (Table 5) are evaluated, as w i l l be done f o r a l l r a d i o l o g i c a l re leases, t o determine i f these h ighe r concen t ra t i ons may a c t u a l l y be acceptable.

The o n s i t e recep to r X/Q a t 100 m (328 ft), i n t h e d i r e c t i o n p r o v i d i n g t h e h ighes t X / q and t a k i n g c r e d i t f o r plume r i s e w i t h t h e berm i n p lace, i s 5.49 x Without t he berm, t h e burn area i s cons ide rab ly l a r g e r and the o n s i t e X/Q i s 4.51 x The X/Q f o r t h e o f f s i t e recep to r l o c a t e d a t t he s i t e boundary ( fence - l i ne ) w i t h the berm i n p lace i s 1.54 x s/m3, t a k i n g c r e d i t f o r plume r i s e , and 1.50 x s/m3 w i t h o u t t h e berm. Table 5 p rov ides the h ighe r "S r and 137Cs combinations and s ince a l l combinations are equ iva len t from a bu rn inq scenar io dose consequence, t h e combination o f 707.87 C i o f "S r and 3.0 C i o f 37Cs i s a r b i t r a r i l 4 chosen t o c a l c u l a t e t h e o n s i t e and o f f s i t e consequences. The ARF f o r t he 'Sr i s 0.0077 and t h a t f o r 137Cs i s 0.01. Therefore, 5.45 C i o f "Sr and 0.03 C i o f 137Cs are re leased as r e s p i r a b l e . For t h e m i t i g a t e d case (berm i n p lace) , t h e o n s i t e and o f f s i t e doses are c a l c u l a t e d us ing t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p :

s/m . s/m3.

Dose = C i x X/Q x BR x DCF

137Cs o n s i t e = (.03 Ci ) (5 .49 E-05 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(3.19 E+04 rem/Ci) =

1.73 E-04 mSv (1.73 E-05 rem)

90Sr o n s i t e = (5.45 Ci ) (5 .49 E-05 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 E+05 rem/Ci) =

2.44 E-01 mSv (2.44 E-02 rem)

137Cs o f f s i t e = (.03 Ci)(1.54 E-06 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(3.19 E+04 rem/Ci) =

4.86 E-06 mSv (4.86 E-07 rem)

90Sr o f f s i t e = (5.45 C i ) (1 .54 E-06 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 E+05 rem/Ci) =

6.84 E-03 mSv (6.84 E-04 rem)

I n a s i m i l a r manner, t h e o n s i t e and o f f s i t e consequences are c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e unmi t i ga ted case (no berm) and t h e consequences f o r bo th cases are summarized i n Table 9. As shown i n t h e above c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e "m i t i ga ted" ( w i t h berm) consequences are a c t u a l l y h ighe r than t h e "unmi t igated" (no berm) consequences, which i s due t o the a d d i t i o n a l l o f t i n g o f t h e plume due t o a l onger burn t ime and r e s u l t a n t l a r g e r heat generat ion r a t e .

16


Ons i te

O f f s i t e

Ons i te

O f f s i t e

4.51 E-06 2.0 E-02 50 (5) (2.0 E-03)

1.50 E-07 6.7 E-04 5 (0.5) (6.7 E-05)

M i t i g a t e d (With Berm) 5.49 E-05 2.4 E-01 50 (5)

(2.4 E-02) 1.54 E-06 6.8 E-03 5 (0.5)

(6.8 E-04)

By comparison, t h e maximum dose a t t he a l t e r n a t e s i t e boundary descr ibed i n Sect ion 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and t h e near s i d e o f t h e r i v e r , i s 1.1 x mSv (1.1 x rem) f o r t he unmi t igated case, and 7.4 x mSv (7.4 E-04 rem) f o r t he m i t i g a t e d case.

5.3 ORGANIC SPILL AND FIRE (TOXICOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES)

The combustion o f organic l i q u i d could produce a smoke plume t h a t con ta ins noxious gases and aerosols . i n h a l a t i o n hazard t o personnel i n t h e pa th o f t h e plume. p a r t i c l e s and gaseous products o f incomplete bu rn ing o f hydrocarbon f u e l s , t he combustion o f TBP would produce ox ides o f phosphorous. consequences o f so l ven t f i r e s are evaluated on t h e bas i s o f p r e d i c t e d concen t ra t i ons o f P,O,, and CO.

These noxious substances cou ld pose an I n a d d i t i o n t o soot

The t o x i c o l o g i c a l

5.3.1 Phosphorous Pentoxide

The TBP and DZEHPA burn are assumed t o burn i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a c t i o n s based on incomplete combustion, which r e s u l t s i n 15% o f t h e carbon remain ing as carbon monoxide.

Phosphorous pentox ide i s produced by t h e r e a c t i o n o f TBP and DZEHPA.

2 (c,,H,,Po,) + 3 4 o2 + 4 co + 20 co2 + 27 n20 + p205.

2 q6n3,Po4 + 4 6 o2 + 4 co + 28 co2 + 35 n20 + p205.

Based on these equations, t he P,O, t o TBP mass r a t i o i s 0.27 and 0.22 For a burn r a t e o f 528 g/sec ( w i t h t h e berm i n p lace) o f which f o r DZEHPA.

10% i s TBP and 20% i s DZEHPA by mass, t h e r a t e o f P,O, f o rma t ion i s 37.62 g l sec

17


P~O, mass rate = 528 2 [(IO%) (0.27) + (20%) (0.22)l sec = 37.62

sec.

For a burn rate of 25,700 g/sec (without the berm and 15,140 L [4,000 gal] of organic) of which 10% is TBP and 20% is DLEHPA by mass, the rate of P,O, formation is 1,825 g/sec

P,O, mass rate = 25,700 2 [(lo%) (0.27) + (20%) (0.22)]

= 1825 -.% sec.

sec

The mitigated (credit for berm and plume rise) onsite and offsite (site boundary) concentrations of P 0,, calculated using atmospheric dispersion factors for 100 m (328 ft) ana the site boundary, are listed in Table 10. ERPG-I, ERPG-2 and ERPG-3 values are 5 mg/m3, 25 mg/m3, and 100 mg/m3. PEL-TWA is 1 mg/m3. The unmitigated onsite concentrations, taking credit for only plume rise, is 5.5 mg/m3 and above the ERPG-1 value of 5 mg/m3. However, this peak concentration lasts for only 8 minutes, the length of the burn, and WHC-CM-4-46 allows the peak 15-min average concentration to be used. The time-weighted average over a 15-min period becomes 8/15 x 5.5 mg/m3 = 2.9 mg/m3. The resulting onsite and offsite concentrations are shown in Table 10 and all are within the guidelines.

The The

Table 10. Predicted Concentrations o f Phosphorous Pentoxide in Organic F i r e P1 ume.

Onsite 5.49 E-05 Offsite 1.54 E-06 0.06 RAG = risk acceptance guideline for >lo-‘ to <loo.

By comparison, the maximum concentration at the alternate site boundary described in Section 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and the near side of the river, is 0.25 mg/m3 for the unmitigated case, and 0.06 mg/m3 for the mitigated case.

liquid spilled over a 1,420 m2 area results in a PO, release rate o f 1,140 g/s and the resulting concentrations are slightly 3ess than those shown in Table 10.

Similar calculations as above but using 9,460 L (2,500 gal) of organic

18

HNF-SO-OPS-SAD-001, Rev. 0

'19 3 (sec/n 1 Receptor

5.3.2 Carbon Monoxide

The mass o f CO formed i s est imated on t h e bas i s o f an emission f a c t o r f o r h i g h l y i n e f f i c i e n t combustion. For example, t h e h ighes t emission f a c t o r f o r CO c i t e d i n P o l l u t i o n Con t ro l Technology (Fogie l 1973) i s 0.0425 kg f o r open bu rn ing o f munic ipa l re fuse . Using the p rev ious equations, t h e c a l c u l a t e d CO t o TBP mass r a t i o i s 0.21 and 0.174 f o r DZEHPA. burn r a t e o f 528 g/sec (m i t i ga ted , w i t h berm), o f which i s 10% TBP and 20% OLEHPA by mass, t he r a t e o f CO fo rma t ion i s 29.4 g/sec.

For t h e o rgan ic

co plune Recommend concen t rq t i on exposure jtnit*

(mg/m ) (mg/m 1

co mass rate = 528 2 [(IO%) (0.21) + (20%) (0.174) 1 = 29.4 9 sec sec.

Onsi te I 3.03 E-06 I 2.32

For t h e o rgan ic burn r a t e o f 25,700 g/sec (unmi t igated, w i t h no berm), o f which i s 10% TBP and 20% 02EHPA by mass, t h e r a t e o f CO fo rma t ion i s 1,434 g/sec.

40

CO mass rate = 25,700 4 [(lo%) (0.21) + (20%) (0.174)] = 1434 sec sec .

O f f s i t e I 1.50 E-07 I 0.12

Unmit igated (no berm) and m i t i g a t e d ( w i t h berm) o n s i t e and o f f s i t e concen t ra t i ons o f carbon monoxide, c a l c u l a t e d us ing atmospheric d i s p e r s i o n f a c t o r s f o r 100 m (328 ft) and t h e s i t e boundary are l i s t e d i n Table 11. The R e g i s t r y o f Tox ic E f f e c t s o f Chemical Substances recommends an exposure l i m i t f o r carbon monoxide o f 40 mg/m3 (NIOSH 1991). o f EPRG l i m i t s f o r carbon monoxide. The recommended exposure l i m i t i s a t ime- weighted average f o r a 10-hr work day d u r i n g a 40-hr work week. unmi t i ga ted and m i t i g a t e d concentrat ions are w i t h i n the guide1 ines .

WHC has n o t es tab l i shed a se t

The

Table 11. P red ic ted Concentrat ions f o r Carbon Monoxide i n Oraanic

40

Ons i te I 5.49 E-05 I 1.62 40 O f f s i t e I 1.54 E-06 I 0.04 *NIOSH 1991.

By comparison, t h e maximum concen t ra t i on a t t h e a l t e r n a t e s i t e boundary descr ibed i n Sect ion 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and the near s ide o f t he r i v e r , i s 0.2 mg/m3 f o r t he unmi t igated case, and 0.04 mg/m3 f o r t h e m i t i g a t e d case.

40

19


5.4 HYDROGEN EXPLOSION I N THE TANK HEADSPACE

A hydrogen concen t ra t i on o f 10 vo l% i s assumed a t which a hydrogen d e f l a g r a t i o n occurs. To determine t h e heat o f combustion (BTU), assuming 11,280 BTU/m3 (319.4 BTU/ft3) (Marks' Handbook) a t standard temperature and pressure (STP), r e q u i r e s a va lue f o r t h e hydrogen i n the headspace t o be determined. Wi th 9,460 L (2,500 g a l ) o f l i q u i d , t h e headspace volume i s 17,500 L - 9,460 L = 8,040 L (4,623 ga l - 2,500 ga l = 2,124 %a'). Wi th 10 vol%, t h e r e a re 804 L (0.804 m3) o f hydrogen. 804 L (0.804 m ) o f hydrogen equates t o 2.3 x lo6 c a l f o r t he heat o f combustion f o r t h e hydrogen. To c a l c u l a t e the grams o f TNT equ iva len t , t h e heat o f combustion f o r TNT o f 4.773 Mjoule/kg (Thompson 1987) i s used. A va lue o f 2.3 x 10 c a l equates t o 2,018 g o f TNT. To determine t h e amount o f o rgan ic l i q u i d re leased as r e s p i r a b l e , t he S te ind le r -See fe ld t c o r r e l a t i o n ( S t e i n d l e r & See fe ld t 1980) i s used. The S te ind le r -See fe ld t c o r r e l a t i o n developed a mass r a t i o (MR) w i t h the MR be ing de f i ned as t h e r a t i o o f t h e mass o f s o l i d o r l i q u i d m a t e r i a l a t r i s k (MAR), t o t h e mass o f t he TNT equ iva len t o f t h e exp los i ve . The c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t he exp los i ve m a t e r i a l and t h e MAR examined by S te ind le r -See fe ld t was t y p i c a l l y spher i ca l o r c y l i n d r i c a l w i t h a h e i g h t t o d iameter r a t i o o f near one. The exp los i ve was u s u a l l y p laced a t t h e cen te r w i t h the m a t e r i a l t o be d ispersed p laced i n t h e annular space surrounding. The experiments a c t u a l l y considered were o n l y up t o MRs o f 15, al though e x t r a p o l a t i o n s are prov ided i n the form o f p l o t s up t o a MR o f 400. From t h e MRs prov ided, t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l made a i rbo rne 10 micron o r sma l le r i s prov ided. For t h i s scenario, i t i s assumed the q u a n t i t y o f o rgan ic l i q u i d i s t h e lowest a n t i c i p a t e d o r 9,460 L (2,500 g a l ) . A t 820 g/L, t h e t o t a l mass o f t he l i q u i d i s 7.8 x lod g. The MR i n t h i s case becomes 7.8 x lo6 g i 2,018 = 3,865. Since the ac tua l experimental work on l y went up t o a MR o f 15, t h e more conserva t i ve va lue o f 15 i s used f o r t h e MR. Based upon t h e S t e i n d l e r - See fe ld t c o r r e l a t i o n , f o r a MR o f 15, -0.07 g o f m a t e r i a l / g o f TNT equ iva len t , i s re leased a t 20 microns o r l e s s . The use o f 20 microns i s chosen t o a l l o w evaporat ion o f t he l i q u i d p a r t i c l e s down t o 10 micron w h i l e enroute t o t h e recep to rs . I f t h e equ iva len t o f 2,018 g o f TNT i s re leased f rom t h e hydrogen detonat ion, 141 g o f organic l i q u i d would be re leased t h a t i s r e s p i r a b l e . However, Thompson (1987) s t a t e s t h a t t he "TNT-equivalent" f o r a unconf ined flammable gas -a i r de tona t ion seldom exceeds 10% o f t h e o r e t i c a l and recommends 10% be used f o r s a f e t y assessment purposes. assumed as t h e d e f l a g r a t i o n energy. re leased as r e s p i r a b l e . bounding case o f 707.87 C i o f "Sr from Table 5 i s assumed t o be conta ined i n the 9,460 L (7.8 x lo6 9) . C i o f " S r i s re leased as r e s p i r a b l e . Th is compares c l o s e l y w i t h t h e 1.1 x (Sect ion 3.2.2.2) f o r b l a s t e f f e c t s f o r a d e f l a g r a t i o n o f a flammable vapor m ix tu re over aqueous l i q u i d s .

Th is equates t o 1,140 ca l /g .

Therefore, 202 g o f TNT i s

Since t h e 90Sr has a h ighe r DCF than 37Cs, t h e Wi th a MR o f 0.07, 14.1 9 o f l i q u i d i s

Therefore, 14.1 g/7.8 x lo6 g x 707.8 C i = 0.00128 The r e s u l t a n t ARF i s 1.8 x

ARF recommended from DOE-HDBK-3010-94

Using the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f :

Dose = (C i ) x ( X / Q ) x (BR) x (DCF)

and t a k i n g no c r e d i t f o r plume meander as t h i s i s a " p u f f " re lease, t h e consequences are:

90Sr o n s i t e = (.00128 Ci)(3.44 E-02 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 E+05 rem/Ci) =

3.59 E-02 mSv (3.59 E-03 rem)

20


Receptor ERE 1 mSv (rem)

"Sr o f f s i t e = (.00128 Ci ) (1 .35 E-05 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 Et05 rem/Ci) =

1.41 E-05 mSv (1.41 E-06 rem)

By comparison, t h e maximum dose a t t h e a l t e r n a t e s i t e boundary descr ibed i n Sect ion 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and t h e near s i d e o f t h e r i v e r , i s 1.98 x 10.' mSv (1.98 x

I t i s h i g h l y l i k e l y t h a t i f a hydrogen exp los ion occurred, t h e o rgan ic l i q u i d n o t immediately re leased would a l so burn, and t h e combined consequences f o r both t h e m i t i g a t e d case (berm remains i n p lace) and unmi t i ga ted case (berm n o t i n p lace ) from Table 9 are shown i n Table 12. The combined consequences considers the exp los ion as a ground re lease w h i l e t h e bu rn ing o f t h e o rgan ic takes c r e d i t f o r plume r i s e .

rem).

Table 12. P red ic ted Rad io log i ca l Consequences For H,

RAfi €DE MSV (rem)

Ons i te 6.0 E-02 50 (5) (6.0 E-03)

O f f s i t e 6.8 E-04 5 (0.5)

2.8 E-02

6.8 E-04 RAG = r i s k acceptance g u i d e l i n e f o r > lo - ' t o 510'.

By comparison, t h e maximum consequences a t t h e a l t e r n a t e s i t e boundary descr ibed i n Sect ion 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and t h e near s i d e o f t h e r i v e r , i s 1.1 x mSv (1.1 x rem) f o r t he unmi t i ga ted case, and 7.4 x

mSv (7.4 x rem) f o r t h e m i t i g a t e d case.

5.5 S P I L L OF ORGANIC FROM EXTERNAL TANK (RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES)

Th is scenar io examines t h e consequences from a s p i l l o f o rgan ic l i q u i d

Since 90Sr has t h e h ighe r DCF, i t i s assumed t h a t 707.87 C i o f 90Sr

from t h e tank and the resuspension o f rad ionuc l i des i n t h e l i q u i d due t o wind ent ra inment . Table 5. i s present . DOE-HD8K-3010 (DOE 1994) prov ides recommended bounding suspension r a t e s based upon experimental t e s t cond i t i ons f o r aerodynamic ent ra inment and resuspension. For outdoors a t low wind speeds, a bounding a i rbo rne re lease r a t e (ARR) o f 4.0 x 10-7/hr i s provided, w h i l e f o r wind speeds a t 13.4 m/s (30 mph), a bounding ARR o f 4.0 x 10 6 /h r i s provided. A l though t h e d i s p e r s i o n f a c t o r s are h ighe r fo r t h e lower wind v e l o c i t i e s , t he 4.0 x 10-6/hr va lue i s conse rva t i ve l y used. l i q u i d , i n 8-hr t h e re lease made a i rbo rne i s 707.87 C i x 4.0 x 10-6/hr x 8-hr = 2.27 x

The tank i s assumed t o con ta in i t s h ighe r concen t ra t i ons from

With 707.87 C i o f "Sr conta ined w i t h i n the o rgan ic

For t h e o f f s i t e C i o f 90Sr re leased t o t h e o n s i t e recep to r .

21


receptor who is assumed to remain in the plume for 24-hr, the release is 6.81- 02 Ci of 90Sr. meander may be taken and the doses are:

"Sr onsite = (0.0227 Ci)(1.12 E-02 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 E+05 rem/Ci) =

Since the release last longer than 1-hr, credit for plume

2.07 E-01 mSv (2.07 E-02 rem)

"Sr offsite = (0.0681 Ci)(1.13 E-05 s/m3)(3.3 E-04 m3/s)(2.47 E+05 rem/Ci) =

6.27 E-04 mSv (6.27 E-05 rem)

By comparison, the maximum dose at the alternate site boundary described in Section 5.1, which considers Highway 240 and the near side of the river, is 8.44 x mSv (8.44 x 10- rem).

5.6 S P I L L OF ORGANIC FROM EXTERNAL TANK (TOXICOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES)

This is a similar scenario, but the toxic consequences due to the TBP is

The emergency response planning guidelines ERPG-2 = 15 mg/m3, and ERPG-3 = 50

examined. considered a toxic chemical. (ERPGs) for TBP are: ERPG-1 = 3 mg/m3 mg/m3. With an airborne release rate (ARR) of 4.0 x 10-6/hr (lil x 10-9/s) the equivalent of 15,140 L x 820 g/L x 1.1 x 10-9/s = 1.37 x 10- g/s (13.7 mg/s) of organic liquid is released. density of TBP is 0.98 g/cm3 while the organic liquid has a density of 0.82 g/5m3. With approximately 10% by volume of the organic liquid being TBP, on a weight percentage, the TBP represents about 10% x .98/.82 = 12% of the organic liquid. Therefore the release rate of the TBP is approximately 12% x 13.7 mg/s = 1.6 mg/s. credit for plume meander for toxic releases), the onsite concentration is 0.055 mg/m3. The offsite consequences are approximately 1000 times less. Both onsite and offsite consequences are well below the risk acceptance guide1 ines.

The organic liquid contains approximately 10% TBP, which is

The PEL-TWA value is 2.5 mg/m'.

The

With an onsite dispersion factor of 3.44 x s/m3 (not taking

6.0 CONTROLS

All accidents analyzed, even at the higher radionuclide concentrations of Table 5, result in all onsite and offsite consequences well below the risk acceptance guidelines, even at a probability of 1 for each event. Furthermore, there is no requirement for any safety-class or safety- significant structure, system, or component (SSC).

6.1 RADIOACTIVE INVENTORIES

Since no credit is taken for the administrative or engineered barriers in the above calculations, the only Control required for storage of the organic liquid is to ensure the radionuclide concentrations are below the 5 rem calculations in Appendix A and shown in Tab,# 5 prior to placing the tank onto the concrete pad. The allowable 90Sr and Cs concentrations still provide a large margin of safety, and are reproduced as Table 13.

22


Table 13. Maximum 90Sr and 13'Cs Q u a n t i t i e s ( C i ) P r i o r To Placement

6 . 2 TRANSFER FROM PRIMARY TO SPARE TANK

Trans fe r o f t h e organic l i q u i d from the pr imary tank t o t h e spare tank, as w e l l as t r a n s f e r back t o the pr imary tank, i s pe rm i t ted prov ided t h e pump pressure does n o t exceed 0.70 MPa (100 p s i ) and t h e same t ype o f f l e x i b l e hose i s used as f o r t he t r a n s f e r from B P lan t t o the ex te rna l t ank l o c a t e d on the f l a t - b e d t r u c k , as analyzed i n the S a f e t y Assessment F o r Removal O f Organic L i q u i d s From B P l a n t (WHC 1996a).

7.0 REFERENCES

Clewe l l , 1983, A Simple Formula Fo r E s t i m a t i n g Source S t reng ths From S p i l l s O f Tox ic L iqu ids , ESL-TR-83-03, Engineer ing & Serv ices Laboratory , A i r Force Engineer ing & Serv ices Center, Tyndal l A i r Force Base, F l o r i d a .

Crippen, M. D., 1993, Barometr ic Pressure Var ia t i ons , WHC-EP-0651, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Rich1 and, Washington.

DOE, 1994, A i rbo rne Release F rac t i ons lRa tes and Resp i rab le F r a c t i o n s F o r Nonreactor Nuc lea r F a c i l i t i e s , DOE-HDBK-3010-94, U.S. Department o f Energy, Washington, D.C.

Dose Conversion Fac to rs Fo r I n h a l a t i o n , Submersion, And Inges t i on , EPA- 520/1-88-020, U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Washington, D.C.

Associat ion, New York, New York.

San Jose, C a l i f o r n i a .

EPA, 1988, L i m i t i n g Values o f Radionucl ide I n t a k e And A i r Concentrat ion and

Fog ie l , M., Ed., 1973, P o l l u t i o n Con t ro l Technology, Research and Education

GE, 1989, Nuc l i des and Isotopes, Four teenth E d i t i o n , General E l e c t r i c Company,

23


Himes, D. A, 1996, Atmospheric D ispe rs ion Parameters f o r B P l a n t Organic L i q u i d Storage F i r e Scenarios, D r a f t WHC-SO-WM-CN-064, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Marks' Handbook, Standard Handbook f o r Mechanical Engineers, E igh th E d i t i o n , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York.

NIOSH, 1991, R e g i s t r y o f Tox ic E f f e c t s o f Chemical Substances, U.S. Department o f Hea l th and Human Services, Nat ional I n s t i t u t e for Occupational Safety and Heal th , Washington, D.C.

Rad ioac t i ve Waste, RHO-WM-EV-9 Rev. l P , Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , Rockwell Hanford Operations, R i c h l and, Washington.

S t e i n d l e r , M.J. and W.H. Seefe ld t , 1980, A Method f o r E s t i m a t i n g t h e Challenge t o an A i r C leaning System, Proceedinqs o f t h e 16th DOE A i r C leaninq Conference (M.W. F i r s t , Ed.), Harvard A i r Cleaning Laboratory , Boston, Massachusetts.

RHO, 1986, Hydrogen Con t ro l i n the Handling, Sh ipp ing and Storage o f Wet

Thompson, 1987, Engineer ing S a f e t y Assessment, Na t iona l Nuclear Corporat ion

WHC, 1996a, S a f e t y Assessment F o r Removal O f Organic L i q u i d s From B P lan t ,

WHC, 1996b, S a f e t y Ana lys i s Manual, WHC-CM-4-46, Release 18, Westinghouse

Ltd. , Knuts ford, Cheshire, Essex, England.

WHC-SD-WM-CN-017, Westinghouse Hanford Company, R ich l and, Washington.

Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

030, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. WHC, 1996c, B P l a n t I n t e r i m Sa fe ty Bas is Acc ident Ana lys i s , WHC-SD-WM-SARR-

24


APPENDIX A

MATHCAD CALCULATIONS

A- 1


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

A-'2


USQ Evaluation of Organic Liquid Storage Outside of B Plant Back Calculation of 137Cs and 9oSr Curie Concentrations to

Define Safety Envelope For Fire Scenarios

Mathcad computer software version 5.0 was used to perform these calculations. Mathcad is a trademark of MathSoft. Inc. The dose conversion factors (DCFs) are from EPA (1988). The ground release dispersion factors (was) and airborne release fractions (ARFs) are from B Plant Interim Safety Basis (ISB) Accident Analysis. With a berm in place around the tank, the burn time is greater than I-hr and credit for plume meander may be taken. Without a berm, the spill area is much greater and the burn time IS less than I-hr and in this case, credit for plume meander cannot be taken. Both cases are examined. The criterion of 5 rem EDE onsite radiological consequences to the 100 m receptor is used, which is valid even for "anticipated events. Since ARFs are taken from the B Plant ISB and for a release from a flammable liquid, are 0.01 for I3'Cs and 0.0077 for 90Sr The dose calculations are derived using the following equation:

is in equilibrium with the 90Sr, the DCF for 90Sr includes that of The

Dose = (Ci) x (XoverQ) x (BR) x (DCF)

where: Ci XoverQ BR DCF = dose conversion factor

= amount of curies release as respirable = Ci available x ARF = dispersion factor (units of s/m3)

= breathing rate (3 3E-04 m3/s)

= 3 19E+04 rem/Ci for 137Cs or (DCF137Cs) = 2.47E+05 rem/Ci for 9 0 3 (includes

ARF = airborne release fraction = 0.01 for 137Cs = 0.0077 for 90Sr

or (DCF9OSr)

Combining the above, the onsite dose can be calculated as:

Doseon = (Cil37Cs)(O Ol)(XoverQon)(BR)(DCFCs) + (Ci9OSr)(O 0077)(XoverQon)(BR)(DCFSr)

Definition of Terms For Mathcad Use

Doseon 5 rem XoverQon 3 44 I O O2 slm3 (no plume meander)

BR 3.3.10 O4 m3/s

DCF90Sr 2.46 10°5.rz

XoverQonpm 1.13.10 O2 s/m3 (with plume meander)

DCFl37Cs 3.1 9.1 0°4.rT

A-3


Rearranging terms and solving for CiSr9O as a function of CiCs137:

C190Sr(C1,37Cs) Doseon 01 C1137Cs XoverQon BR DCF137Cs 0077 XoveQon BR DCF90Sr

Ci137Cs O T i , .25.Ci.. 7 C i (Defines range for 13'Cs and steps to be evaluated)

Doseon .Ol~Cil37Cs~XoverQon.BR.DCF137Cs ,0077. XoverQowBR, DCF90Sr CiPOSR( Ci I37Cs)

Ci137Cs CiOOSr(Ci 1 3 7 0 ) Ci I

rem 1

A-4


In a similar way, the calculations are performed assuming the berm is in place and therefore credit for plume meander is taken

Doseon 01 C1137Cs XoverQonpm BR DCF137Cs 0077 XoveQonpm BR DCF90Sr

C190Sr(C1137Cs)

Ci137Cs 0.Ci,.25.Ci.. 7.Ci (Defines range for '37Cs and steps to be evaluated)

C,00SSr~C1137Cs) Doseon 01 C1137Cs XoverQonpm BR DCF137Cs 0077 XoverQonpm BR DCF90Sr

Ci I37Cs 1

A- 5


T h i s page intentionally l e f t b l a n k .

A-6


APPENDIX B

PRELIMINARY HAZARDS ANALYSIS (PHA) PARTICIPANTS

B- 1


T h i s page i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t blank.

6-2

HNF-SO-OPS-SAD-001, Rev. 0

Name

Steve Chalk FDNW/SAR Engineer ing

Kal eem U11 ah

Bruce G i 1 keson FDNW/Projects Monica Serkowski B&W Hanford Co./B-Plant S c o t t E l l i n g s o n FDNW/Engineering Rex Bendixsen FDNWISpecialty Engineer ing John Joyce LATA Evan H a f l a B&W Hanford Co./B-Plant Fred Heard NHC Kimber ly Wi l l i ams DOE/TPD/B-P1 ant/WESF J u d i t h Siemer LATA

Serv ices B&W Hanford Co./B-Plant/ Safety

Organ i z a t i on DNW/SAR Engineer ing


This page intentionally left blank.

8-4

&~F-SD-OF~-SAD-OO~, R~u.0 CHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW

Document Reviewed: C. H. Huang, " SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR STORAGE OF ORGANIC LIQUIDS ADJACENT TO B PLANT," February 11, 1997.

Scope of Review: SECTION 4 . 3

Yes No NA

[ ] [ ] v ] * Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, UD to scooe 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 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 1 imits. Results and conclusions address all points required in the problem statement. Format consistent with appropriate NRC Regulatory Guide or other standards

Spreadsheet results

[ ]

[>(I [ ] [ ]

[XI * Review calculations, comments, and/or notes are attached.

Document approved.

c. 14 Kucrr/u t$; *, ~ k UL; -ct: (a,! r/ 2 / / / / ? 7 I

Reviewer (Printee ame and Signaturej' 0 ' Date

CHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW

Document Reviewed: WHC-OPS-SAD-001, Safety Assessment For Storage o f Organic L iqu ids Adjacent t o B P lan t

Scope o f Review: Pages 1 through 29

Yes No NA [ 1 [ 1 [ X I * Previous rev iews complete and cover analys is , up t o scope of

t h i s review, w i t h no gaps. Problem complete ly de f i ned . Acc ident scenarios developed i n a c l e a r and l o g i c a l manner. Necessary assumptions e x p l i c i t l y s ta ted and supported. Computer codes and data f i l e s documented. Data used i n c a l c u l a t i o n s e x p l i c i t l y s ta ted i n document. Data checked f o r cons is tency w i t h o r i g i n a l source i n f o r m a t i o n as app l i cab le . Mathematical d e r i v a t i o n s checked i n c l u d i n g dimensional cons is tency o f r e s u l t s . Models app rop r ia te and used w i t h i n range o f v a l i d i t y o r use ou ts ide range o f es tab l i shed v a l i d i t y j u s t i f i e d . Hand c a l c u l a t i o n s checked f o r e r r o r s . should be t r e a t e d e x a c t l y t he same as hand c a l c u l a t i o n s . Software i n p u t c o r r e c t and cons is ten t w i t h document reviewed. Software output cons i s ten t w i t h i n p u t and w i t h r e s u l t s repo r ted i n document reviewed. Limits/criteria/guidelines app l i ed t o ana lys i s r e s u l t s are app rop r ia te and referenced. Limits/criteria/guidelines checked against re ferences. Sa fe ty margins cons is ten t w i t h good engineer ing p r a c t i c e s . Conclusions cons is ten t w i t h a n a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s and a p p l i c a b l e 1 i m i t s . Resul ts and conclus ions address a l l p o i n t s requ i red i n t h e problem statement. Format cons is ten t w i t h app rop r ia te NRC Regulatory Guide o r o t h e r standards Review c a l c u l a t i o n s , comments, and/or notes are attached.

Spreadsheet r e s u l t s

Document approved.

8/21/96 Date

John E. K e l l v

* Any c a l c u l a t i o n s , comments, o r notes generated as p a r t o f t h i s rev iew should be signed, dated and at tached t o t h i s c h e c k l i s t . Such m a t e r i a l should be l abe led and recorded i n such a manner as t o be i n t e l l i g i b l e t o a t e c h n i c a l l y qual i f i ed t h i r d p a r t y .

To

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

From Page 1 of 1 SAR Engineer ing Services Date 2/11/97

Project T i t l e w o r k Order

Central F i l e s ( o r i g i n a l + 2 copies) A3-88 X Chalk, S.E. A2-25 X Docket F i l e s (2 copies) 61-17 X Dodd, E.N. Jr. S4-66 X Gray, B.J. S6-81 Haf la , E.R. S6-60 X H i l l , M.A. S4-66 X Johnson, L.E. A2-25 Rau, A.B. A2-25 X Robbins, E.D. S6-59 Roege, P.E. S4-66 X

EDT No. 616283

X

Safe ty Assessment f o r Storage o f Organic L iqu ids Adjacent t o 6 P lan t

X

X

ECN NO. N /A

A-6000-135 (01193) UEF067

Name Text Text Only Attach./ EDT/ECN

MSlN Wi th All Appendix Only Attach. Only

37p. 2 of nglneerlng data transmittal 616283 …/67531/metadc682100/m2/1/high... · nglneerlng data...

Documents