S

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE Paps 1 o r a

~ . E C N 605034 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Proj. ECN

Direct Revision 1x1

tion ( T w . or Standby ECN MIY) [ ] Yes (f i lL out Blk.

NOTE: ACCORDING TO SECTION WP-6.7, REV. 0 OF WHC-CM-6-32, SAFETY ANALYSIS AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING WORK PROC€DUR€5, 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.

C r l t e r i a Change Design InprovRnent Envirormental [ ] F a c i l i t y Deact ivat im [ ]

A-7900-013-1 106/92)

Page 2 of 2 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE

SDDIDD

Functional Design Criteria

Operating Specification

CRisaIiy Specifbation

Cancsptual Dasign Report

Equipmant Spec.

C4n.t. spec.

Rocurement Spec.

Vendor Intonation

O M Manual

FSARISAR

Safety Equipment List

Radiation Wok Permit

Environmental Impaot Statamant

Environmental Repon

Environmantsl Parmil

1. ECN (use M. from pg. 1)

605034

SoismiclStresi Analysis

StmdDasign Report

Interlace Control Drawing

Calibration Rocodura

Installation Prosodwe

Maintenance Procedure

Engineering Procedure

Operating Instruction

Operating Pmcsdura

Oparationd Saloty Requirement

IEFD Drawing

Cell Anangament Orawing

Essential Matorid Speoification

F.E. Roc. Samp. Schedule

Inspection Plan

Inventory Adjustment Request

16. Cost l l rpact

A d d i t i o n a l [ ] $

15. Design V e r i f i c a t i o n ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION Required

[XI NO Savings

A d d i t i o n a l [ I $ Savings [ I $

[ I Yes

[ I f

r i Tank Calibration Manual

17. Schedule lnpac t (days)

lrrprovernent [ ] Delay 11

Health Physic. Rocodum

Spares Multipb Unlt l isting

Ta't Rocadura.ISp~=ifK.tion

Compon*nt Index

ASME Coded Item

Human Factor Coneidentkm

Computer S o l w a n

Electric Clrcuil Schedule

ICRS Procedure

Process Control ManuaI1U.n

Process Flow Chon

Purchase Requldtion

k k h r File

NONE [ I rxi

L J [ I i1- 19. Other Affected Docunents: (NOTE: D o c m n t s l i s t e d belou u i l l not be rev ised by t h i s ECN.) Signatures k l o u

i n d i c a t e t h a t the s i g n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n has been n o t i f i e d of o ther a f f e c t e d docunents l i s t e d below. Docunent Nmber/Revis ion D o c w n t NLmber/Revi s i on Docunent N h r Rev is ion

\ / A

20. Approvals

OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING

cog. Eng. T. B. Powers 7 ~ 1 cog. ngr. D. s. Leach

S ignature

PA

Safety

Envi ron.

Other

Peer Reviewer. A. V. Sevino

/$,. f f / & W A O

pee +-/s-eocl 9// 9/9 6

Date

9// P /9L

S i g n a t w e ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

PE

PA

Safe ty

Design

Environ.

Other

Date

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Signature o r a Cont ro l N h r t h a t t r a c k s t h e Approval Signature

ADDITIONAL

A-7900-013-3 (11194) CEF096

8 WHC-SD-WM-CN-062, Rev. 1

HEPA Filter Fire (and Subsequent Unfiltered Release)

T. 8. Powers Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department o f Energy C o n t r a c t DE-AC06-87RL10930

EDT/ECN: 605034 Org Code: 8M100 B&R Code: EW3120071

UC: 510 Charge Code: NlFC3 T o t a l Pages: LT 5%

Key Words: contaminated f i r e , f i r e , HEPA f i l t e r f i r e , r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s , TWRS, t a n k farms, v e n t i l a t i o n system

A b s t r a c t : t h e f o l l o w i n g a c c i d e n t s c e n a r i o i n t h e TWRS F i n a l S a f e t y A n a l y s i s Report :

T h i s document suppor ts t h e development and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f

HEPA F i l t e r F a i l u r e - Exposure t o H i g h Temperature o r Pressure.

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 a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s a c c i d e n t scenar io a r e i n c l u d e d w i t h i n .

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. t rade name. trademark, manufacturer, o r otherwise, does no t necessar i l y c o n s t i t u t e o r i l r p l y i t s endorsercent, r e c m n d a t i o n , o r favor ing by the Un i ted States G o v e r m n t o r any agency thereo f or i t s c o n t r a c t o r s o r subcontractors.

P r i n t e d i n the Un i ted States of America. D o c w n t Cont ro l Services, P.O. Box 1970, H a i l s t o p H6-08. Rich land UA 99352, Phone (509 ) 372-2420; Fax ( 5 0 9 ) 376-4989,

Reference h e r e i n t o any s p e c i f i c comnercial product, process, or s e r v i c e by

To o b t a i n copies of t h i s docment, contact : UHCIBCS

ppfease Approval Date

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

( 1 ) DocMent WWr RECORD OF REVISION

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 Page 1

T . B. Powers D. S . Leach 1 pg F u l l replacement o f Revision 0 document with Revision 1 v i a ECN #605034.

(3) Revision (4) Description o f Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages

0 (7) New document re l eased v i a EDT #614551

A-7320-005 (08/91) UEFl68

Authorized for Release ( 5 ) Cog. Engr. I ( 6 ) Cog. Mgr. Date

G . W . Ryan I D. S . Leach

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV /

Caldt r ionNo. S-CLCG-00125

R o j e Accident Audysis for Hanford FSAR

HEPA Filta Hire (and subsequent NIA unfiltered release)

Tide Functional Clardficadon

Discipline: Safety

Cniculntion Cover Sheet

Project Number NIA Sheet 1 of 45

Rnision Rev. No. 1 Revisiun Descioticn 0 t orisid issue

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV / Calc No. SCLC-GM)125

Sheer 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CALC-NOTE CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 3 1.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 5 2.0 OPEN ITEMS ........................................................................................................... 6 3.0 INTRODUCTION ._._.__,. .,.._. .................................................................................. 6

b 4.0 DATA .................................................. ............... ... 5.0 ASSIJMPTIONS ................................................................................................... ... 8 6.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND CALCULATIONS .......................................... 1 0 7.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 2 0 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... . ........... 2 0 9.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM INPUT LISTING ......................................................... 2 I

10.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION .................................................. 2 I

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d/

CALC-NOTE CHECKLIST REVIEWS) :

NAME (PRIM OR TYPE)

R. D. Graves

1.

2.

>.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

a.

9.

IO

Calc NO. S-CLC-G-00125 Sheet 3

CIRCLE ONE

Is the Subject andor Purpose clearly stated?

Are the required Input Data and their references and source provided and are they consistent with the Calc-Note purpose? @ NO

Are the Assumptions clearly identified, valid and consistent with the Calc-Note purpose?

Is the Analytical Method or Approach Used clearly identified?

Are all the pages consecutively numbered and identified by the Calc-Note number?

@ NO

@ No @ N O

Idare the version(s) of the computer program(s) used identified and QA'd adequately?

Are input listings for all computer programs documented in this Calc-Note, and are they V&Vd and appropriate for the intended use?

Are the Results and Conclusions clearly stated?

Are OUTPUT documents included (or if not part of the calculation, clearly referenced in the Results section?) grammatically, correct, clear, and consistent with the main calc-note texr?

Are the results, methwls, input, and assumptions compatible with the stated purpose?

@ NO N A

YES N O @

@ N O YES NO@

IF OBTAIN MANAGER'S SIGNATURE BELOW

TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, LIST SHEET NUMBER@) WITH J U S T E X A T I O N AND

Manager's Signature

REVIEWER'S NOTES (use additional pages as necessary) Review method used: Alternate calculation-Attached?

Approximated Originator steps I / Y N -

3

Calc No. SCLC-G-00125 Sheet 4

VHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV a’/

WHC-SO-WM-CN-OS2 REV a’/ CalC NO. S-CLC-G-00125

Shee r s

1.0 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

/2

0

Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, DOE Order 5480.23, Change 1, U. S. Depamnent of Energy, Washington, DC, March 1994.

Facility and Process Description, WHC-SD-WM-SAR-067, Rev. A.

Interim Chapter 3 0. Hazard and Accident Analysis, WHC-SD-WM-SAR-065. Rev. 0, 199s.

Dry Waste compactor Hazard Identification and Evaluat1on,\SD-WM-SAR-009, ws Rev. 0

Cowley, W. L., Development of Radiological Concentration and Unit Liter Doses for Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safeq Analysis Repon Radiological Consequence Calculations, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-037, Rev. 0, 1996.

Gupta, M. K./ Leach, D. S., The dose rate at 30 cm from HEPA filters in the TWRS would be less than 150 mrhr. Information Validation Form (IVF) # MKG-Chapter 3-01.

Savino, A. V., MICROSHELD Dose Rate Calculations for HEPA Filters and Pre-Filters, WHC-SD-WM-CN-033, Rev. 0, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Company, R~chland, Washington.

Deleted.

Van Keuren , I. C. and Savino, A. V., Tank Waste Compositions and Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for Use in Safety Analysis Consequence Assessments, WHC- S D - W M - S M - 0 1 6 , Rev. 2, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Airborne Release Fractionsmates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities. Volume 1 - Analysis of Experimental Data, DOE-HDBK-3010-94, December 1994.

I

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV a’/ Calc NO. S-CLC-G-00125

Sheet 6

2.0 OPENITEMS

1. The IVF for Filter Dimensions needs to be confirmed.

3.0 INTRODUCTION

The consequence calculated in this calc-note is for the HEPA (IIigh Efficiency Particulate Air) fire (and subsequent unfiltered release) accident. This accident analysis was performed to support the Final Safety Analysis Reporr (FSAR) for Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) that conforms to DOE Order 5480.23 (Ref. 1). Passive or active ventilation is maintained across each waste tank, double contained receiver tanks (DCRTs), 204-AK 244-AR compactor building, and catch tanks. A failure of heater can cause a fire in the ventilation system or a fire around the ventilation system can degrade the filters. The integrity of the filters (HEPA and pre- filters) could be compromised by afilter fire resulting in a release of the inventory on the filters and unfiltered release of tank contents. The detailed description of the waste tanks, 204-AR, 244-AR, compacror building, and catch tanks is in chapter 2.0 of the lWRS FSAR (Ref. 2).

A frequency of Anticipated (> 1.0 E-OUyr) and Unlikely ( 1.0 E-04iyr to 1.0 E-OUyr) was qualitatively assigned to the active ventilation systems (with heaters) and passive ventilation system (without heaters), respectively. These frequencies are based on the operational history of the Hanford Tank F m s .

4.0 INPUTDATA

The following input data were used fro the consequences analysis:

The filter configuration is from Chapter 2 of the TWRS FSAR (Ref. 2) and the dimension of the filter from WF (Information Validation Form) (Ref. 3). SSTs (Single Shell Tank) active ventilanon flow rate = 3.30 cubic d s (7,000 cfm) (Ref. 2). SSTs passive ventilation flow rate = 6.8 E 4 cubic d s (Ref. 4). DSTs (Double Shell Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 5.50 E-1 cubic m/s (1,170 cfm) (Ref. 2). AWF, DSTs (Double Shell Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 1.89 cubic ds (4,000 cfm) (Ref. 2). DCRTs (Double Contained Receiver Tank) active ventilation flow rate = 1.98 cubic m/s (4,200 cfm) (Ref. 2). 204-AR active ventilation flow rate = 9.44 E-1 cubic m/s (2,000 c h ) (Ref. 2). 244-AR acdve ventilation flow rate = 7.08 cubic d s (15,000 cfm) (Ref 2)!!sEE Compactor building active ventilation flow rate = 9.44 E-1 cubic d s (2,000 cfm) (Ref. 5). Catch tanks (241-A417 and 241-AX-152) have inlet HEPA filters only (Ref. 2).

’

c.

*-,--..-n.--t-. c - ( ,-ft , ' C ~ C NO. S-CLC-G-00125 Sheer J

The unit liter dose (UtD) for diFferent *asre mans is from Reference 6. The table containing ULD is anached in Aopendix B

Note Concernina the 244-AR Vault Ventilation Flow Rate:

The value listed for the 244-AR active ventilation rate (7.08 ms/s [15,000 ft3/min]) i s for the canyon. exhaust ventilation system. exhaust system is currently inoperable and no plans exist to make it operable for any possible future operations.

Additionally, a vessel ventilation system exists for use in providing an active ventilation pathway for the four vessels in the canyon. This system, while currently not operating, is considered to be operable and may be used in future operations. A normal, maximum flow rate for this system, as cited in the 244-AR Vault Safety Analysis Report (WHC-SO-WM-SAR-018), is 0.30 m3/s (630 ft3/min). Since the calculations performed in this document bound those that would be calculated for a reduced flow rate, no changes will be made.

The canyon

REFERENCE :

WHC-SD-WM-SAR-018, 244-AR VauTt Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 0, 1991, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

7

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV Wf"' - 1

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV .("/

BEST LE Y

UHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d

’ @ . BEST AVAILABLE COPY

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV H)

'WC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV d/

x-CL c - 4 -0 01IA-

5 U L

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV d /

s - L L c- 4 - 0 0 1 u- J -13

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d)

._-. .-

WHC-SO-YM-CN-062 REV ,d i

it BEST BLE COPY

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV a'/

-+

I"'C-SD-'H'M-CN-062 REV ,d

b o k c ff-?AJ;a, i% Q

. . -

IE - - -

5i.E COPY

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV ,d/

W"C-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d

BEST BE COPY

I YI

- . _ _ .

A 3 1 290-N3-WM-(1S-3HM

5-

!3l” BLE COPY

. -F € ----r

..

-u r;, .!J l 7 l

-. P 00 m

7 E I

Y

ci.'

?' J

m

. . .

- . . -

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d/ - _ - _._ - .

WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,d/

.-

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV {/ Shedl

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV d/ S b t 2

Table 3-8. Sum-of-Fraction of Risk Guidelines for a Unit Release of Chemicals and Gases. ( 3 I

sheets)

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

T h e sum of fractions are multiplied by the release rate for continuous release and release amount tor a puff releases. Release rata for continuous releases are in units of liters per second for liquids and solids, and m31s for gases. Puff release quantities are in units of liters for solids and liquids and m.:

tor gasas.

Maximum Accident frequency. l/yr individual

I - 10-2 10-2 - 10-1 10-1 - 10-6

Double-shell solids ( L - I )

Double-shell solids 6-1) Onsite 5.2 E+03 9.7 E+O2 1.8 E+OZ

Onsitc 1.1 E41 5.9 E 4 2 1.1 E-02

++&e3

_. - WHC-SO-WM-CN-062 REV ,0’/ S+e?

s w 29

Continuous (slL) Onsire 1.3 E+O4 1.0 E+03

Puff (L-1) Onsitd 3.8 Et03 3.0 E+O2

Continuous (s/L) Offsite 1.1 E i O l 1.1 E + O l

Puff (L-1) Offsit6 4.3 E 4 2 4.3 E 4 2

2.6 E+01

8.6 € 4 1

7.5 E+Ol

3 3 E43 1 All liquids ( s L ) Onsite 1.0 E c W 7.5 E+02 2.1 E t 0 2 ’ All Liquids (s/L) Offsite 8.4 E+OO 8.4 E+OO 6.2 E-01

All solids (slL) Onsite 5.1 E+W 2.3 E t 0 4 All solids (s/L) Offsite 2.5 E+02 4.2 E i O l

1.2 E+O3 I

1.9 E+OI

Continuous (sL) Onsire 5.9 E+03 1.1 Ei03 3.0 E+02

Continuous (s/L) Offsite 1.0 Ei01 5.0 E+OO 9.2 E-01

Tne comparison to risk guidelines for chemical release consequences for a given accident scenario is determined using the following steps:

Puff 6-1) Puff (L-1)

1 . Determine the accident frequency range for the event.

Onsite 1.7E+03 3.2 E+02 8.8 E + O I 1 Offsire 4.1 E42 2.0 E 4 2 3.6 E-03 1

2. Determine the type of material being released (Le., SST solids or liquids. DST solids or liquids. 505% NaOH. all s o l i d s . m e ) .

' , headspace gases.

3. Determine whether h e release is a putY release or a continuous release. A release with a duration of less than 3.5 seconds can be treated as a puff release for maximum onsite individual evaluations. A release with a duration of less than 420 seconds can be treated as a puff release for maximum offsite individual evaluations. A puff release can be modeled as a i minute continuous release.

Exposure Time:

Exposure time may be determined based on the following guidance taken from Craig 199jd "Exposure time: In practice, observed atmospheric concentrations of chemicals downwind of a s o u r L C

vary widely about the mean concentration measured over a period of time. Unless information tcr the contrary is available, published limit parameters or guidelines must be treated as ceiling values at the point of interest. For practical purposes. the peak 15 minute average concentration is treated as the instantaneous concentration. It is recommended that this concentration value be used for comparison with the primary concentration guidelines."

For chemicals that are known to have dose dependent health effects rather than concentratllrn dependent effecrs. a I hour average may be used. However if the chemicals are not all known t ~ r be dose dependent, the I5 minute average should be used for releases of 15 minute to one hour. Tank waste. for instance. contains a mixture of dose dependent and concentration dependent chemicals 4 peak 15 minute average should be used for the tank waste evaluations

Averaging over 15 minutes for a very shon release duration and hence a very shon exposure time (such as a puff release) is potentially nonconservative since some chemicals have ceiling limits. {.e. concentrations that should not be exceeded. There is some recent guidance from Craig (Craig 1995b) that states:

"For practical reasons (e.g. limitations of instantaneous concentration monitoring for many chemicals) the peak I5 minute average value at the receptor point of interest is used except for those substances that may cause immediate irritation when exposure is shon (e.g. hydrogen sultide. sulfur dioxide). In such cases if the release scenario gives rise to peak concentrations significantly higher than the peak I 5-minute average concentration. then a shoner averaging time (not 125s than 1 minute) should be used." The chemicals involved in a release should be examined to determine if the chemicals involved cause immediate irritation. The chemicals should be assumed to cause immediate irritation unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

A very shon duration release (puff release) of chemicals including corrosives and irritants can be modelled conservatively as a one minute continuous release.

4 . Determine the relear;fh c'iantity J - I-cleai,e rare. For puff releases of solids or liquids, the number of iters r2lt:usld IS required: -or continuous releases o i solids or liquids, the ct:Ieas? rat,: is :equired. For putt' releases of gases. the number of cubic meters relcaszc is rzquired. for continuous releases of gases, the release rare ii required.

5 . Multiply the release quantity or release rare derermined in step 4 by the appropriate value from Table 3-8. The product is the sum of the concentrations divided by ERPG values. Values less than one indicate that the risk acceptance piaelines are met.

NOTE: The concentration of gases at the receptor is not linear wirh release rate or release amount. Determining acceptability by multiplying the values in Table 3-8 by the release rate or amount results in an approximation. T h e approximation is conservative because using the linear relationship over-predicts concentrations for releases larger than I L (0.26 gal) or I LIS (0.26 galls). The difference between linear scaling and the more exact method is negligible below release rates of about 5 m3ls (180 f r3 is ) or release amounts o f 5 m3 (180 ti3). Because the nonlinear term in the gas equation is I/( I -i V ' x -/Q'). this effect is only significant for the maximum onsits individual. For the maximum offsite individual. V' x -/Q' will be much smaller than one for any sredible release from the tanks. The largest ofsite -/Q' is 2.83 rhan I05 m3k.

x 10-5 slm3 and a l l credible releases are much smaller

Step 5 can also be wrinen as the following formulae:

Liquid or solid continuous release:

Sum-of-fractions of acceptanse limits = [release rate] x Fable 3-8 continuous release value1

Liquid or solid puff release:

Sumilf-fractions of acceptance limits = [release quantity x [Table 3-8 puff value]

Accident scenarios involving a release of both gases and solid or liquids should be treated by adding the sum of fractions for the gases and liquids or solids together. That is. the quantity of gas released should be multiplied by the sum of fraction and the product determined. T h e quantity o f liquid or solid should multiplied by the appropriate sum of fraction. To meet risk acceptance criteria. the sum of these two products must be less than or equal to one.

The sum o f fraction assumes that the.chemicals involved arebeing released with the same releas6 fraction. I f the accident scenario involves a significant preferential release of cenain chemicals. .I more detailed analysis should be performed that includes the chemical dependent release fractions.

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV a’/

Appendix f -6 HEPA Filter Doses

33

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV ,!d/

This appendix discusses the method used to calculate the amount o f material on the filters in various tank farm facilities. To do this, Savino (1996) modeled 3.7 X 10" Bq (1 Ci) of gamma emitters in different filter configurations and calculated the contact doses. Depending on the source material, the gamma emittlirs are different. For example, single-shell solids uses "Sr, 90Y, 137Cs and '"Eu for gamma emitters while double-shell liquids uses predominantly 13'Cs (the other gamma emitters have much smaller concentrations). the cases that were analyzed.

I

The spreadsheet tables give the relative amounts for each o f

Different filter geometries were modeled. These include high efficiency particulate air filters and prefilters. loading, a dose rate (mSv/hr) was calculated.

After inputing the geometry and the

High efficiency particulate air filters and prefilters have pre- specified operating limits. These were used, along with the calculated dose rate to form a ratio of the operating limit to the calculated dose limit. This gives the fraction of the assumed waste volume that could be loaded on the filter and give the operating limit. the a single bank of filters was calculated using one of the following schemes.

The amount of material released from

. The system I S a standard active ventilation system with a prefilter, a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. An additional amount, equal to another prefilter loading, was used to account for material that will come out of the ventilation duct work. plus two high efficiency particulate air filter volumes will be used.

That is, two prefilter volumes

The system is passively ventilated. The system is basically one high efficiency particulate filter sitting on a riser. There is not a prefilter and there is no ventilation ducting to speak of. That is, one high efficiency particulate air filter will be used. - The system has two de-entrainers, a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. loading in the de-entrainers and the material that will come out of the ventilation duct work, an additional volume equivalent to three high efficiency particulate filters will be used. total of five times the loading for one high efficiency particulate filter will be used.

To account for the

That is a

The system consists of a prefilter, a low efficiency filter (treated as another prefilter), a first stage and second stage high efficiency particulate air filter. In addition, a volume equal t o the prefilter will be used to account for material from the ventilation ducting. volumes and two high efficiency particulate volumes will be used.

That is, a total of three prefilter

The spreadsheet pages also identify how many filter banks are running at the same time. by multiplying by the appropriate release fraction.

A total amount o f material released from the filters is found For a filter fire, the

3 4'

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV d/

release fraction are then be used

is 1/10,000 of the volume is released. to calculate radiological and toxicological doses.

The volumes released

The radiological consequences were calculated using the unit liter doses found in Cowley (1996) and the methodology for calculating consequences is found in Van Keuren and Savino (1996). The unit liter doses are the radiation doses received per liter of tank waste. pathways of submersion (direct radiation), inhalation, and 24-hour ingestion. Cowley (1996) provides the technical basis for the unit liter doses. Keuren and Savino (1996) states that the following equation is to be used for calculating the inhalation and submersion dose.

The doses are calculated using the

Van

where p is the volume of waSte resuspended (L), x/Q' is the atmospheric dispersion coeffitient (s/m ) , 8 is the standard man breathing rate during light activity (m /s), and the U ~ D i r h a L , r i m is the unit liter dose (Sv/L) due to inhalation and submersion.

Ingestion doses are calculated using the following equation.

where again, Q is the volume of waste resuspended ( L ) , x/Q' i s the atmospheric

1 sv m 3 dispersion coefficient (s/m3) and ULD,,,,,nrim is the unit liter dose ( - due to 24-hour ingestion.

values and methodology found in Van Keuren (1996). liquid toxic materials, the peak concentratjon is of concern. For a continuous release the integrated x/Q' (s/m) can be used since it is equivalent to the continuous plume x/Q'. calculate the peak concentration, C (mg/m3) for a continuous release of solid or liquid toxic material.

S L

The toxicological consequences are calculated using the sum-of-fractions For a release of solid or

The following equation is used to

C = Q I X -7 Q

where Q' is the toxic material release fate (mg/s) and x/Q' is the integrated atmospheric dispersion coefficient (s/m ) .

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV ,d 1

This method has been extended to include the multiple chemicals contained in the tank waste. been applied. That is, on a per unit basis, the ratio of a chemicals concentration (calculated either at the 100 m receptor or the offsite receptor) is compared t o the appropriate limit), this i s done for all chemicals involved, then the ratios or fractions are sumed. If the sum-of- fractions is less than or equal to 1 , the risk guidelines have been met. If the sum-of-fractions is greater than 1, the risk guidelines have been exceeded. Thus, the above equation now becomes,

TO do this, a sum-of-fractions methodology has ,.

where T i s the measure of acceptance, 9' i s the toxic material release rate ( L / s ) and SOF is the sum-of-fractions of the risk guidelines ( s / L ) for either the onsite or offsite receptor.

Cowley, W. L., 1996, Development of Radiological Concentration and Unit Liter Doses for Tank Waste Remediation System Final Safety Analysis Report Radiological Consequence Calculations, WHC-SO-WM-SARR-037, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Savino, A . V., 1996, MICROSHIELD Dose Rate Calculations F o r M t Y Filters and, Prefilters, WHC-SO-WM-CN-033, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Van Keuren, J. C., and A. V . Savino, 1996, Tank Waste Compositions and Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for use in Safety Analysis Consequence Assessments, WHC-SO-WM-SARR-016, Rev. 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Van Keuren, J. C., 1996, Toxic Chemical Considerations for Tank Farm Releases, WHC-SD-WM-SARR-011, Rev. 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

36

MUKESH.XLS 5:04 PM

MUKESH.XLS 5:04 PM

23 m <

‘cs .

\I\

F

6/10/9G f Rick J Van Vleel. Ph D Page 2

MUKESH.XLS 5.04 PM

Page 3 6

Rick J Van Vleel, Ph.D. I1 0196

I . . ~ - ~

WHC-SO-WM-CN-06% REV ,d /

Composite

Single-shall t a n k liquids Single-shell tank solids

Double-shell tank liquids Double-shell t a n k solids Aging wnste f a c i l i t y liquids Aging waste facility s o l i d s

Inhalation VLD I n g e s t i o n ULD* (SV/LI (sv-m’/s-L)

0 . 0 5 2

4.1

0 . 0 6 8

0 . 4 8

0.092

1.1 E+04

2.2 E+05

6.1 E+03

5 . 3 E+05

1.4 E+03

1.7 Et06 8.1

Table 4. Centerline Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for 2WArea Tank Farm Acute Release to 100-m Onsite Receptor Located in Worst Sector.

aNRC Regulatory Guide I. 145 (NRC 1982) plume meander correction applied

50 percentile

Table 5 . Centerline Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients for 200-Area Tank Farm Acute Release to Site Boundary Receptor Located in Worst Sector.

2.12 E65 1.14 E47

Annual average 1.05 E65 7.92 E66 N 8.760 m N 8.760 m

1.43 E-06 3.79 €46 1.02 E-08 N 8.760 m I N 8.760 m 1 N 8.760 m 1

Meteorological condition

99.5 Percentile (bounding) Annual average

50 Percentile

I I I I I aNRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982) plume meander correction applied.

Integrated -/Q' @erson-s/m3)

SE pop= 114.734 1.25 E42

SE pop= I14734 6.05 E 6 3

SE pop= 114.734

4.86 EM

Meteorological condition

99.5 Percentile (bounding) Annual Average

50 Percentile

Integrated -/Q' Maximum puff - / Q I (s/m3) ( l lm3) 1

6.55 Ed5 6.47 ~ - 7 j W 2 6 0 r n W210m I

1.76 E d 5 NA ,

1.26 E d 5 1.41 E47 WSW 270 m

WSW 410 m

Metwrological Condition Integrated +/Q' (s/m3)

99.5 Percentile 1.78 E 4 5 (bounding) N 8.760 m Annual average 5.26 E-06

N 8.760 rn SO Percentile 2.36 E-06

N 8.760 m

Maximum P U ~ Y + Q 1 3.10 E08 I

NNW 8.690 m I ( l l m 3 )

i

NA

8.31 E49 N 8.760 m

Meteorological condition Onsite Sire integrated -/Q' boundary

Wm3) integrated +/Q' (s/m3, 1

Chronic annual average for ground level releases Chronic annual average for 46 m (150 ft) stack releases

I 4 03 E 4 4 1.24 E-07 E5E 100 rn E 12.630 m I 9.45 E47 6.81 E48 S 250 m E 12.630 m

. .

1

M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach

Tracking # MKG-Chaoter 3-01

Organization or Team 2 Date

Chapter 3 Team for TWRS FSAR 4/12/96

WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV k / Information Validatlon Form

dlternatj ves

5 Decisfon Reached

Name o f Originator

Consequences to Alternatives

6

Basis Tor Decision

a Date Requsted 9 4/23/96

3

Sent To Date Requested By 10 Lankford Ruffin 11 M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach

12 Response #2

Harch 7 . 1996 -psstp

4 3

Rev. 0

.4trachments ( L i s t ) 1. Scheduled radiation survey tank ilescri p t i on IJTF-W-2.

14

Responder #1 Name and Signature

16 R. f , f i c k r YWTR 'f,'?J/q6

Rev. 0

References (List) 15

-

Responder #2 Name and Signature

l i

PK : Filed: Routed: Further Action Rquir?d (i . e . . RYL. Senior Hanagment Attention. etc.)

__-___ 5- CLC-6 -0QLS

, - WHC-SD-WM-CN-062 REV//

m - x - 2 SCHEDULED RADlATlON SURVEY TASK DESCRIPTION weekly NIA

Takm contact radiation eaadfnq8- on +ha -A : i l+ .re , and p r r f i l t e r s of activa mxkaurters.

Document +he su-~sry ssaultf. on a Radiological Survey Report

. ImodLately contae- Shift Opuatiant. and RC Yanaqment of :.adtips of preater than 160 nr/hr for prLz.uy t i l t P r a and 80 =/br.Far perfUteit.. (r:hesc reldinqs are 80t of OS1 notification readinpa.)

.. . Any conditions insmaistent with radiological poatfngs. .-,itic#rlon or AmfnIu ( I f Ada L m l r uc.cdcd>:

n * *

Notify F i r a t Line %diologiCal Contro l II1P.g-r C UmTP -rations S h i r t Uanager Eetablinh qpropriats radiological poeciage and u n a control. m i t i a x e L r u d i o l o g i c d ~rohhm nisrt. Document a11 acEiooae and notification8 h the Xc s h i t t Log.

CHECKLIST FOR PEER REVIEW

Document Reviewed: "HEDA Filter Fire (and Subsequent Unfiltered Release) ," UHC-SO-YM-CN-062. Rev. 1, 9/96.

Scope o f Review: Entire Document

Yes No NA [ X I c 1 [ 1 Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, up to scope of

this review. with no aaps. Problem completely defined. Accident scenarios developed in a clear and logical manner. Necessary assiimptions explicitly stated and supported. Computer codes and data files documented. Data used in calculations explicitly stated in document. Data cnecked for consistency with original source information as applicable. Mathemaxi cal derivations checked including dimensional consistency of results. Models iopropriate and used within range o f validity or use outside range of established validity justified. Hand calculations checked for errors. Spreadsheet results should j e ;r?atod exactly the same as hand calculations. Software inout correcr and consistent with document reviewed. Stift!.rare output consisTent with input and with results repor~ed in document reviewed. limits/crir2ria/guidel ines applied to analysis results are appropriace and referenced. checked against references. Safety nargins 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 appropriat? NRC Regulatory Guide or other standards Review calculations, comments, and/or notes are attached.

Document approved. .

Limi ts/criteria/guidel ines

Anthony V . Savino L u k w Reviewer (Printed Name and gi4natut-e)

9/9/96 Date

Name of Originator 1 M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach

in them. 1. SSTs with active ventialtion - 3 by 3 array of 24x24~12 2. SSTs with Passive Breather Filters - 24x24~12 filter

- 1 HEPA and no prefi 3 . SSTs with Passive Breather Filters - 12x12~12 filter - 1 HEPA and no prefi 4. DCRTs - 12~12x12 filter 5 . OSTs - 24x24~12 filter 6 . AWF tanks - 24x24~12 filter

- 2 HEPAs and 1 prefilter

- 2 HEPAs and 1 prefilter

- 2 HEPAs and 1 prefilter

- 2 HEPAs. no wefilter. and 2 de-entrainers

Organization or Team 2 Date 3’ Chapter 3 Team for TWRS August 12, 1996 FSAR

i 1 ters

t er

ter

Decision Reached

7

7 . 204-AR and 244-AR -‘24x24x12 filter - 2 HEPAs, 1 prefilter, and 1 low efficiency filter

6

Basis for Decision

a

A1 ternatives

dimensions are different from above.

5

The number of filters and their

Date Requested 9 August 22, 1996

Consequences to A1 ternatives Change in the numbers of filters or their dimensions might impact the results of the analysis.

Sent To Date Requested By 10 Lankford Ruffin 11 M. K. Gupta/D. S. Leach

Attachments (List)

Response 12

References (List) 15

Responder $1 Name and Signature

I6 Lankford Ruffin ,L& f - 2 ~ - 96

18

Responder 82 Name and Signature

17 I

Eas t Tank Farms Emission Control Devices

s i r e (INCIIES) F e c i l i t y (Exhaust System) F i l t e r ( s 1

DSTs

261-AN Tank Primary 2 HEPA F i l t e r s i n Ser ies. 1 P r e - F i l t e r . 1 Deentrainer

241-AYlAZ lank P r imary

2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

2 4 ~ 2 4 x 1 2

24X24Xl2

241-AP l ank P r imary 2 IlEPA F i l t e r s in Series, 1 P r e - F i l t e r , 1 Deentrainer 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

241-AW Tank Pr imary 2 HEPA F i l t e r s i n Ser ies, 1 P r e - F i l t e r , 1 Deentrainer 2 4 ~ 2 4 x 1 2

241-17-101 Tank Amulur 2 IlEPA F l l t c r a I n s e r l e s 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

-E= 241-AV-102 l a n k A m u l u s 2 HEPA F i l t e r s in series 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

\ 241-AZ Tank Annulus 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

241-AN Tank Annulus 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

12 IlEPA F i l t e r s , 6 sets , 2 F i l t e r s per set . 2 Ddentrainer

241-AlIAZ~Backup-400D CFH) 8 HEPA F i l t e r s , d r e t s , 2 F i l t e r s per Set. 2 Deen t rn lne r

4 HEPA F i l t e r s . 2 se ts . 2 F i l t e r s per set , 1 Set per rant

4 IlEPh F i l t e r s , 2 sets , 2 F i l t e r s pe r set , 2 Deentrainer

241-AP Tank Annulus 2 HEPA F i l t e r s in Series 24X24X12

241-AU Tnnk A1))wIus 4 IIEPA F i l t e r s , 2 sets, 2 F l l t e r s per s e t . 2 Deentrniner 2(r24xl2

SSlS

241-C-1051106 Tank(Act ive) 2 IIEPA F i l t e r s in Ser ies, 1 P r e - F i l t e r , 1 Deen t rs ine r 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 12

SSTa Passive B rea the r F i l t e r 1 HEPA F i l t e r 12X12Xl2

DCRT

244-6 DCRT 2 IIEPA F i l t e r s in Series, 1 P r e - F i l t e r (150 CFM) 12" Diameter (150 CFM)

244-01 DCRT 4 IIEPA F i l t e r s , 2 se ts , 2 F i l t e r s p e r set , 1 P r e - F i l t e r pe r s e t 12xl2x6(125 CFH)

a + I

2

others

244-AR Vessel Vent 4 ilEPA Filters, 2 sets, 2 Filters per Set

2 4 6 - A n c c ( ( 1 Conyon 2 IlEPA Filters i n S e r i e s

244-CR Vault 2 ilEPA Filters i n series, 1 Pre-Filter

2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

24X24X12

2 4 x 2 6 ~ 1 2

204-AR Unloading Area SERIES uith 1 IlEPA Filter, 1 Deentrainer

209-E Criticality Lab. 2 llEPA Filters in ser ies , 1 Pre-Filter 2 4 x 2 4 ~ 1 2

2 ilEPA Filters, 2 set?., 1 Filter per set, 1 Pre-rilter per S e t 2 4 X 2 4 X 1 2

I

DISTRIBUTION SHEET To

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

From Page 1 of 1 T. B. Powers Date 9/19/96

k-6000-135 (01/93) UEF067

Project T i t l e w o r k Order

HEPA F i l t e r F i r e (and Subsequent U n f i l t e r e d Release), WHC-SD-WM-CN-062, Rev. 1

EDTNo. N/A ECN No. 605034

Name Text Tex t Only Attach./ EDT/ECN

MSlN Wi th All Appendix Only Attach. Only