*** RMIS View/Print Document Cover Sheet *** This document was retrieved from the Documentation and Records Manaqement (DRM) ISEARCH System. It is intended for Information only and may not be the most recent or updated version. Contact a Document Service Center (see Hanford Info for locations) if you need additional retrieval information. Accession #: D195063899 Document #: SD-WM-SARR-011 Title/Desc: TOXIC CHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TANK FARM RELEASES [SEC 2 OF 2] Pages: 146 This document was too large to scan as a whole document, therefore it required breaking into smaller sections. DOCUMENT NUMBER: (,) \Y\_ - *S (\ A K - o / / SECTION <^ OF III Ld / cx-w A / r}^/Lsw\ DATE: ''/^ -? ORIGINATOR: £ A C•urp <c e CO: RECIPIENT: CO: REFERENCES WHC-SD-WM-SARR-011 REV 1 This page Intentionally left blank. C.O-2 WHC-SD-WM-SARR-OU REV 1 '/ Pap 1 off CONTROLLED MAAIUAL WAIVER REQUEST 5/11/94 Www fl#q»wt Hmto WA-517 DKUIIMI UkfuificatiM WHC-CM-4-46, "Nonreactor Facility Safety Analysis Manual" Bung Wamd Company policy on toxic chemical risk guidelines In Section 7, Subsections-3.2 and 4.2 (Attachment 1} OuctiptiMniBt^wsttdwww Request approval to use Westinghouse corporate acute risk guidelines for toxic chemicals and associated guidance In place of those currently in WHC-CM-4-46. Approval of this waiver request would allow use of guidelines that are more technically justifiable than those currently in WHC-CM-4-46. < Since issuance of the.^extsj.ijig(tflx {j: chemical, risk gu.idel.ines,, it^has, been determined that (a) interpolation'betweih-gtrideJjile.'va.luei ii'not appropriate^,(b.);Jthere are better iI-t£raaie_xaliL?.5-lfi. usi_irurtJLULJJLflJW^ftjtQt_^ (£)„.•«. __ additional guideline should be used for offsite risk guidelines, and (d) more detailed guidance is required to perform toxic chemical release analyses appropriately. These determinations resulted from work by the Westinghouse M4O Nuclear Facility Safety SubcofftfititteevomNonradiologica-i. Risk Acceptance. Guidelines Development, documented in WSRC-MS-92-206' (available upon request,from Janet S. Oavis at 376-9284), Suggested revisions to-WHC-CM-4-46 to incorporate these changes have been submitted to Safety Standards and Requirements (Attachments 2 and 3). Attachment 2 is the proposed revision for Subsections 3.2 and 4.2 of Section 7.0 of WHC-CM-4-46. .Attachment 3 is the proposed revision to Appendix.0 of WHC-CM-4-46, which is an expansion of the existing Appendix 0.2. • l,7^^^ The T waiver- wtt.7". be. in effect; unti£. a'forma) _revis;ion. is.madfe :tal,tfHC7CM-^-46". ; j ;r ; al.i.tx OadJ.o.lpgicaLAnalyses.. _ _• :.,_ . Orgt^ition Conuct. Janet S. Davis (375-9234) , Nuclear Safety Standards & Requirements ..:. •... .-•-•...••• . ..... upttix* A-i.teir/ Jerry I. Rathbun (372-2771) tukiOtsciipUon of AjftcttdJloctinints w4 JmpKi* fit tppfcihW. Not applicable . , .., ... , '.-• Douglas; K.; Craig. e.fal..',:""Toxic Chemical Hazard Classification; and Risk-.-. -• -,.'.'•'..' Acceptance- Gu'ide-Mfles .;for-Use 1n DOE Facilities -.Recommendations of the '" Westinghouse-Mid Nuclear-Facility Safety Committee"-Subcommittee on -.,-.w •^Nonradiologi-cal Risk"Acceptance Guidelines Development," WSRC-MST92-206*,. Rev. 1, ,,i:.., ...April 20, 1993. ' • 2 . -A.waiver from- the existing Appendix D is not being requested because the existing Appendix 0 merely provides definitions of Emergency Response Planning • '•• "Guideline (ERP6) levels. -The suggested revision to Appendix 0 includes guidance .. ... ,.,.on what values to. use.whei). ERPG values are nonexistent. (OlfWI W£?t37 "~"r~03 WHC-SD^WM-SARR-011 REV 1 RaquuifagOfgaabata and Mamaf kpftmi Authority ripniuni an mandatory. REQUESTING ORGANIZATION Qiiomtor. '~4 AmffzJ. ><XLU-6dJ DM 5/11/94 \^A • Janets. Davis Criticality &. Radiological Analyses •• Janes W. Da ugh try MANUAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY /^"<CO^ --. - • , Apprnadfay: * rfk Data bitefora rity- -•' -"• -•' Jerry L. Rathbun Apprond bv. >Aj-< Oau 2 Uanagv; (Uspantlt OrgauilMe Leslie L. Reed OTHER APPROVALS (As Required) Appravad by: . 'HA- "" -"• '-'""•• ' Otto JQniy'wtioa OOE'OirtctiHJ ara invohraol Apprmd or. - -^--Hj\v-^-^-r: -..-:....• driid (or rtquuts invaJvmQ DOE Diraeims or LivtJ I WHC'CbfiUfllid Manuals) ' AS0O0-6O4 (01WrWEF137 *' " C.0-4 WHC-SD-WM-SARR-O.il. REV 1 WESTINCHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY Manual WHC-CM-4-46 Section 7.0. REV 3 Page 1 of 7 HOHREACTOR FACILITY SAFETY Effective Date November 26, 1993 ANALYSIS MANUAL Organization ESQ/Huclear Safety TITLE: Approved DY RISK. r. L. Rathbun, Acting Manager' Nuclear Safety .1.0...PURP0SE . JEUskLjbLJiJ)uant4tatlyt.j9r qya.lititive expression of,possible loss which _.A considers both the probability that a hazard will cause harm and the '"" -•--" consequences-of £hat:event. This chapter defines radiological and v- • nonradioiogical acceptable risk guidelines for the evaluation of accident analyses. : 2.CL..SC0PE This chapter applies to all U.S. Oepartoent of Energy (DOE) activities and nonreactor facilities aanaged by Westinghouse .Ha.nfp.rd Company (WHC) for which a safety analysis is required. • - •'' •''• The safety analysis shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable . ...jis.surance_that.DOC;.operatipns and activities can be conducted In a manner . .that will limit risks to- the health and safety of the public and ' employees; and adequately protect the environment. Radiological and nonradiological consequences of all safety analyses must :"'-"be"= evaluated with respect to the acceptable risk^guidelines.presented in - th-is chapter, and documented In the appropriate section(s) of the safety . analysis report <e,g., PSE, PSAR, FSAR, safety issessnent, etc.).. 3.1 Radiological Risk Comparison Guidelines The radiological risk acceptance guidelines apply to doses which would result from direct exposure to the passing plume (i.e. inhalation and submersion), potential effects resulting from secondary exposure (e.g.,ingestion of contaminated food, exposure to contaminated soils, etc.) must also be evaluated. This evaluation nay be in terns of potential ingestion doses or estimates of the extent of ground contamination. In general, the risk of these secondary effects will be acceptable if potential ground contamination levels are not large enough to-warrant a safety class ] confinement system, or if potential ingestion doses are not large enough to require interdiction of food or impoundment of land. C.0-5 WHC-SO-WM-SARR-011 REV 1 M *-f NONREACTOR FACILITY SAFETY Manual WHC-CM-4-46 ANALYSIS MANUAL Section 7.0, REV 3 Page 2 of 7 RISK Effective Date November 26, 1993 Figure 7-1 defines offsite and onsite radiological risk comparison guidelines for all credible frequencies. If the event sequence is qualitatively categorized as 'anticipated,1 'unlikely,' or 'extremely unlikely,' the associated consequences must be shown by analysis to be bounded in the corresponding ranges. If a -single point estimate is used to report potential consequences, the value must be equal to or less than the lowest value in the corresponding probability range. 3.2 Honradioiogical Risk Acceptance Guidelines Takle.2-pr.eaants the., guidelines, to. be .used, in.the_j*etflnnijution of.rUK. .',...for nonradiol-ogical releases. These guidelines should be applied as *v!• c-b"nttn.upu.s curves, as illustrated in F.fgure 7-2 for chlorine. If the ""event sequence is qualitatively categorized as 'anticipated,1 'unlikely,' •;r-. or 'extremely unlikely,' the associated consequences must be. shown .by .lH_AnaJxs-ts_La..be_bounded_ia..tbe..correspondlag. ran&*s^_Jf..a_sfh.g.U..point. * estimate is used to report potential consequences, the value oust be equal-to-or less than the lowest value in the corresponding probability range. - . 4.0 PROCEDURE 4.1 Radiological Eviluation of Risk. ;. STEP !•: Identify the' frequency of the. event sequence and radiological consequence for the maxima onsite and the maximum offsite ..... '._ ..individuals ion each.accident scenario*. .. .; •• . STEP 2.--; Compare,.the values to either Figure. 7.-1 and/or Table 1 as " -. '•• appropriate to: determine 1f the risk is acceptable. If the risk. is. -T- ' below-the corresponding acceptable, risk., guideline, the risk ' - !..' :„..'. presented. by_uhe_event sequence.will.generally..J>* considered • .- acceptatxle. However; the risk auociated- with the operation of any '.:- facility will: be formally accepted on aff individual, * case-by-case * • -basis. If the event sequence is qualitatively categorized as 'anticipated,1 - -J '"'unlikely,' or 'extremely unlikely,' the associated consequences must be shown by analysis to be equal to or less than the lowest •": dose'value in-the corresponding probability range. Compare' the consequences and frequency determined in the accident analysis to the risk acceptance guidelines to determine if the risk .is. acceptable.... Risk., is generally considered to be acceptable if the consequences and/or frequency of the accident do not exceed the risk •-' acceptance guidelines. C.0-6 WHC-SO-WM-SARR-011 REV 1 \c\ HOHREACTOR FACILITY SAFETY Manual WHC-CM-4-4fi ANALYSIS MANUAL Section 7.0, REV 3 Page 3 of 7 RISK Effective Date November 26, 1993 STEP 3 If the risk is determined to be unacceptable, the accident scenario(s) should be reevaluated to eliminate excess conservatisms, utilizing the tools and techniques discussed in Chapter 2.0 of this manual. STEP 4 At the point that risk is verified as unacceptable and excessive conservatisms removed, management needs to be notified, plant designs reevaluated to consider additional preventive or mftfgative features,