ML20083Q072
| ML20083Q072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1984 |
| From: | Bell J, Roddy F BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083Q061 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404200316 | |
| Download: ML20083Q072 (34) | |
Text
AM COMPARISON g
- ~ ~ ' - -
CALLAWAY PLANT OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR ROUTINE EFFLUENTS Performed by Bechtel Power Corporation
'a Reviewed:
M[
J!J/f/
Date:
~
1 ii F. M. Roddy, Certifie Power Reactor Health Physicist 1
Approved:
f
,vt 8!N Mb Date:
J.H(. Bell,ChiefNuclearEngineer V
/
i 8404200316 840417 PDR ADOCK 05000483 A
pg
5:
Contents M
1 1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Background
3 3.0 Description of Test Cases 3
3.1 Liquid Effluents 3.2 Gaseous Effluents 8
4.0 Comparison of Bechtel and Union Electric Results 13 13 4.1 Liquid Effluents 4.2 Gaseous Effluents 19 5.0 Review of Other ODCM Information 29 5.1 Check of Pathway Dose Factors (A, P, and R Values) 29 g
g 5.2 Check of Direct RadiationfromOutsibeStorageTanks 29 6.0 Conclusion 31
=
- - =
List of Figures Figure
- -.M. _.._ _ _. _.
5 1.
Release Schedule for Liquid Effluents 9
Release Schedule for Gaseous Effluents - Case 1 2.
10 Release Schedule for Gaseous Effluents - Case 2 3.
List of Tables Pg Table 6
Liquid Effluent Concentrations (uC1/cc) 1.
11.
Principal Parameters Used in Gaseous Effluent Calculations 2.
12 Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters Highest 3.
14 Comparison of Results for Steam Generator Blowdown 15 4.
Comparison of Results for Liquid Radwaste Release 5
16 6.
Comparison of Results for High TDS Release 17 7.
Comparison of Results for Alarm Case 8.
Liquid Effluents Activity and Dose Summary 18 (Third Quarter 1984)
Continuous Release 9.
Comparison of Results for Unit Vent 20 (Case 1, First Quarter 1984)
Continuous Compcrison of Results for Radwaste Building Vent 10.
21 Release (Case 1. First Quarter 1984) 11.
Comparison of Results for Containment Purge (Case 1, First 22 Quarter 19S4)
Comparison of Results of Cas Decay Tank Discharge (Case 1, 12.
23 First Quarter 1984)
Comparison of Results for Total Annual Releases (Case 1, 13.
24 1984)
Continuous Release 14.
Comparison of Results for Unit Vent 25 (Case 2, First Quarter 1985)
Comparison of Results for Radwaste Building Vent Continuous 15.
26 Release (Case 2, First Quarter 1985) 16.
Comparison ef Results for Contain4ent Purge.(Case 2, First 27 Quarter 1985) j Comparison of Results for Total Annual Releases (Case 2, 28 l
17.
1985) 30 Typographical Errors in ODCM Revision 2 (3/7/84) 18.
l v
11
e
' 1. 0 Increducrian The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for Callaway presents the methodology for calculating setpoints and doses from liquid and gaseous effluents. To facilitate these calculations, simplify the tracking of previous quarterly and yearly releases, and quickly generate reports for submittal to the NRC. Union Electric Company (UE) has opted to computerize their ODCM. This report provides a comparison of resu'Its of test cases ~
~ " -
~
~
which were solved simultaneously by Bechtel Power Corporation and UE using hand calculations and the computer code, respectively.
9 4
i Q
1
l 2.0 B7ckground In Section 8.0 of Revision 1 to the ODCM, UE states that " computer codes are utilized to implement the ODCM methodologies.
These calculational methods include the same general features as provided in the ODCM. These codes will be verified to produce results consistent with the ODCM methodologies." The NRC commented that Section 8 of the ODCM " states that the computer codes will.be. verified. After the codes are verified, provide a reference (individual or company, name, title of document, and date) in Section 8 to document the validation of the codes."
UE responded to this comment by retaining Bechtel Power Corporation to develop test cases and scenarios using Callaway site specific data, solve the test cases by hand using the ODCM methodologies, compare those results to the UE computer generated results, and prepare a report documenting the code verification. To that end, we have developed the test cases defined in Section 3.0, compared the hand calculated and computer generated results as described in Section 4.0. and are hereby submitting this report to document the verification.
During the course of our review, Union Electric was preparing Revision 2 of' the ODCM. Any errors which we found in the ODCM text and tables were identified to Union Electric. The corrected values have been incorporated into Revision 2.
Typographical errors identified in Revision 2 are listed in Table 18.
l 4
i I
i 2
l, 3.0 Dascription of Test Cases Test cases were developed for both liquid and gaseous effluents. While developing the cases, the following points were considered:
a.
The cases should test all of the major calculations covered by the ODCM (setpoints and offsite doses).
b.
The scenarios should represent actual operating conditions as much as possible.
c, The cases should check each organ dose (total body, bone, liver, thyroid, kidney, lung, GI-LLI) and each dose pathway (ingestion, immersion, inhalation, ground plane, vegetation, grass-cow-milk, grass-goat-milk, meat).
d.
Some test cases should evoke warning statements or " flags" when the Technical Specifications are exceeded.
3.1 Liquid Effluents Four cases for release of liquid effluents were tested.
They are described below in chronological order.
3.1.1 Steam Generator Blowdown The first test case is designed to simulate continuous release of the steam
- generator blowdown surge tank from July 1 to September 30 (see Figure 1) at a rate of 270 gpm. Although the tank has a capacity of 1880 gallons, it,is-assumed for this calculation that there is ample influent to the tank to sustain a continuous release for a period of three months. The radioactive concentrations of the effluert stream are listed in Table 1.
The allocation factor for this release is 1/2.
The steam generator blowdown discharge monitor 0-BM-RE-52 continuously monitors the radioactivity at the blowdown discharge outlet.
The sample point is located on the discharge of the blowdown pump.
The high radioactivity alarm / trip setpoint initiates control room alarm annunciations and automatic isolation of the blowdown isolation valves and the blowdown discharge valve.
The steam generator blowdown water is diluted by the cooling tower blowdown flow, prior to entry into the Missouri. River. The dilution flow rate is 10,000 gpm.
3.1.2 Liquid Radwaste A liquid radwaste tank is released at a rate of 100 gpm on August 1 (see Figure 1).
The volume of the tank is 2,000 gallons and the radioactive concentrations of the liquid radwaste are listed in Table 1.
The allocation factor is 1/2 which indicates that discharge of the liquid radweste runs concurrently with discha,rge of the steam generator blowdown water. The dilution flow rate is 10,000 gpm and is assumed to come from'the cooling tower blowdown water.
A radiation setpoint is to be determined for the liquid radweste discharge monitor 0-HB-RE-18.
3
3.1.3 High TDS Collector Tank
~
It is assumed that the high TDS collector tank must be released during the same calendar quarter (see Figure 1) as the steam generator blowdown surge tank. The high TDS collector tank contains 20,000 gallons and must be completely discharged every two days during the quarter at 35 spm. This
release can be simulated as a batch release of 920,000 gallons (20,000 gallons x 92 days 2 days).
The release occurs between September 1 and 19.'
The isotopic concentrations of the liquid are listed in Table 1.
The allocation factor for this release is 1/2 and the dilution flow rate is 10,000 gpm.
A setpoint is to be determined for the secondary liquid waste monitor 0-liF-RE 45.
3.1.4 Alarm Case This is a fictitious case designed to test the " flag" subroutines built into the program. Atangcontaining1,000gallonsofliquidradwaste composed of Cs-137 at 10 uCi/cc is to be disch.rged at 10 gpm on October 1 (see Figure 1).
The allocation factor is 1/2 and the dilution flow rate is 5,000 gpm.
It was anticipated that all flags will be activated in the computer generated output.
P 1
I 4
u 5
i 1984
~
t i
Jan.
June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.'
1 A r B
l
[
Ce
- D I
I i
A.
Steam generator blowdown release from July 1 to Sept. 30, 1984 l
B.
LRW release on Aug. I for 20 minutes C.
Nigh TDS release from Sept I to 19 D.
Alarm case occurring on Oct. I for 100 minutes
+
1 i
I r
?
l Finnre I: Relcase Schedule for Liquid Effluents i
1 p +
m
'- + -
9
+ea-y---?-
t-gg--p-y7-y e.-3-y------
m er---g-9r-+,
y y+-w-.-
pr--
5y yp y
.r*.r
~
Tchte 1 LIQUID EFFt.tfENT CONCENTRATIONS (uC1/cc)
Steam Generator Liquid High TDS Alarm Isotope Slowdown Tank Redweste Tank Tank Case H-3 3.50E 4 2.03E-3 1.20E-4 C-14 2.40E-7 Cr-51 6.43E-8 Hn-54 re-55 4.SOE-9 1.85E-10 2.61E-7 1.73E-7 Fa-59 Co-58 2.41E-6 L
Co-60 5.40E-9 2.31E-10 2.94E-7 Ni-63 4.70E-4 i
l 6.43E-8 Br-83 Br-84 3.81E-9 5.54E-12 Br-85 1.96E-8 l
Rb-86 1.00E-8 Rb-88
. )
Sr-89 2.50E-9 8.03E-11 1.22E-7
, g
$r-90 4.99E-11 2.41E-12 2.73E-9 5.46E-9 Sr-91 2.25E-9 Y-90 3.70E-9 Y-91m 1.95E-8 Y-91 2.84E-10 j
Y-93 s
1.20E-8 Zr-95 t
Nb-95 2.41E-10 5.56E-12 1.22E-8 l
6.35E-6 Ho-99 2
5.66E-9 Ru-103
- ]
1.29E-9 Ru-106
/
2.96E-9 i
Te-125m 3.10E-8 Te-127m
' - <l 3.39E-8 Te-127 Te-12fm 1.66E-7 I
1.07E-7 Te-129 3.61E-8 Te-131m
[
6.70E-9 Te-131 Te-132 6.16E-8 1.60E-9 8.81E-7 x
i 1-130 4
J 1.88E-7 i
1-131 1.12E-6 4.86E-8 3.18E-4 2.57E-6 1 132 1-133 1.52E-6 1.53E-8 5.97E-5 1.48E-7 1-134 8.77E-6 1-135 Cs-134 1.59E-7 3.00E-7 7.78E-6 i
Cs-136 8.28E-8 1.30E-7 2.65E-6 Cs-137 1.15E-7 2.17E-7 5.67E-6 1 00E.6 4.44E-8 Ba-140 4.71E-8 La-140 2.29E-8 Ce-141 l
8.23E-10 Ce-143 1.34E-8 Ce-144 r
6 4
9 k
o i'
I f
Pr-143 9.55E-9 1.34E-8 i*
'Pr-144 7.80E-4 l
Np-239 5.37E-6 others Total 3.53E-4 3.40E-3 4.22E-4 1.00E+6 j
g
+ -
O g
e.
M P'
I
(
.m a
=
1 I
yga k
O
+
/
1.
s i
s J
- '"8w
.p,}d e:n p S
Y a
e 4
f
.' e o
J y
9
/
a
,a
)
+
/
+
./ ' f f
O d
i
,s.
/
I,
/
s
/'
N
'h h
h
$ /
r
+,
e
.s p,
.j, r
,f e
t h
Y 6
a 8
}
Jr
/
t l
p i
i t <>
l s>
w*
y
[
j
~
,i
[
{
y q a s
r 9
f.'*
,E
.s eenk ** '
?
s t
S l
p' 4
s g
s, c,
a
?
<>, c
),
/j l
j 1
s J
s' j f
N*
e j i lf y
s j. * * *
- y4
,4 y
\\
t 9
y e A
,+
~ g j' /
i s e j
ir 9.*
/ *y
/ -
,s j
M
' d
/
e, d
r e
l a
/
/
42 f-
[
3.2 Geseous Effluents continuously exhausts air from the auxiliary building, The unit vent control building, fuel building, hot machine shop, and steam jet air ejector.
In addition, the containment purges are exhausted via the unit Each flow path is provided with HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers, vent.
before the effluents exhaust to the unit vent. The unit vent radiation monitor 0-GT-RE-21 continuously monitors the gaseous effluents from the unit vent for particulate, halogen and gaseous radioactivity. The containment purge system monitors (0-GT-RE-22 and 0-GT-RE-33) continuously monitor the containment purge exhaust duct during purge operations for particulate, iodine and gaseous radioactivity.
The radwaste building ventilation effluent monitor 0-CH-RE-10 continuously monitors for particulate, halogen and gaseous radioactivity in the effluent duct downstream of the exhaust filters and fans. The flow path provides ventilation exhaust for all parts of the radwaste building and, also, a discharge path for the waste gas decay tank.
3.2.1 Gaseous Release Case 1 release is continuous for the entire calendar year of 1984 The unit vent and the containment purge is conducted on February 1 for 125 minutes (see Figure 2).
The radwaste building ventilation exhaust is released for the first quarter of 1984 and the waste gas decay tank is released on February 1 for 600 minutes. The allocation factor is 1/2 for each of the above two flow paths (unit vent and radwaste building vent).
The principal parameters used for calculating radiation setpoints and doses the site boundary are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
at 3.2.2 Caseous Release Case 2 The unit vent release is continuous for the entire calendar year of 1985 and the containment purge is conducted on February 1 for 125 minutes (see Figure 3).
The racwaste building vent is released for the entire calendar year of 1985.
The allocation f actor is 1/2 for each of. the above two flow paths.
The principal parameters used for calculating radiation setpoints and doses at the site boundary are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
The radioactivity from the containment purge represents approximately 1% of the core inventory of noble gases.
5 8
r, g,
o 4
4 t
)
1984
.y
~
..;2
.,e
. Jan.
Fe b".
Mar.
Apr.
May June July Dec.
.~
4
/,
yg_
^
~
?, $.,
B e
C; i
4 I
D i
Notes:
4 A.
Unit vent continuous release.from Jan. I to Dec. 31 B.
Containment purge on Feb. I for 12 minutes C.
Radwaste building vent continuous release from Jan. 1 to March 31 for 91 days D.
Release from waste gas decay' tank on Feb. I for 600 minutes I
a Figure 2: Release Schedule for Gaseous F.ffluents Case 1 j
i i
um v
a ce D
.!,I
,1
,i t
i;;
i 2
esa C
s tne e
u n
l u
f J
f E
suoesa 1
G y
3 a
r M
o c
f e
m D
o e
r l
o s f
u 5
t e
d 8
t e
e 9
I u s h
1 n a c
r
. i e S
p n m l
A a
e e
J 5
r s
2 a
m 1
s c
o u
l r
r o e
f o u H
f n
e i
s I
t 3
a n
r e
. o e
a l
b c r
M e e u
r F t
g n
i s n e F
u o v ou e g
1 n
g n 3 i r i
.b
t u d n
p l
c e
o e
i F
c t
u D n b B
t e
o n m e t
e e n t
v i s I
a a t
t w
i n d n
n o a a U C R J na is J
n.
c A B C s
p e
t A
C o
N
.-o
^
Table 2 Principal Parameters Used in Gaseous Effluent Calculations Concentration (uct/cc)
~- ~
^
Gaseous- Ca seou's' ~~ Volume,
Flow Rate,
~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Isotope Case 1 Case 2 ft3 cfm UNIT VENT NA 62,000 H-3 5E-5 SE-5 Xe-133 IE-5 IE-5 CONTAINMENT PURGE 2.5E+6 20,000 Xe-133 1E-2 4E+1 Ar-41 3E-4 Kr-85 2E-1 1-131 3E-5 I-133 2E-5 Co-60 3.5E-7 Sr-90 1E-9 Cs-137 IE-8 Ce-144 1E-14 RADWASTE BUILDING VENT NA 12,000 Xe-133 1E-5 IE-5 Ce-144 IE-14 1E-14 WASTE GAS DECAY TASK 6.0E+2 1
$E+2 Ce-144 1E-14 6
F G
d 11
o 1
Table 3 Highest Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters Radwaste Unit Vent Building Vent X/Q (sec.m~)
2.5E-7 9.7E-7 X/Q decayed (")
2.5E-7 9.7E-7 X/Q decayed / depleted (")
2.2E-7 8.6E-7 D/Q (m- )
1.5E-9 4.0E-9 B.
Nearest Residence X/Q (sec.m-)
2.2E-7 8.4E-7 X/Q decayed (")
2.1E-7 8.4E-7 X/Q decayed / depleted (") 1.9E-7 7.2E-7 D/Q (m~ )
1.6E-9 4.1E-9 Pp e
12
^
i
Comparison of Bechtel Hand Calculction and UE Computer Results 4.0 The comparison of our hand calculations and the Union Electric computer The doses by generated calculations yielded very favorable results.
Values isotope for each organ and each pathway agree within a few percent.
calculated by Bechtel and Union Electric are provided.
A percent difference is also included which is defined as:
Union Electric value - Bechtel value Bechtel value This reflects the difference between the methodology presented in the Callaway ODCM and the methodology utilized by the computer code.
4.1 Liquid Effluents Comparisons of the setpoint and dose calculations for each liquid release are provided in Tables 4 through 7.
Table 8 tabulates the activity releases and doses for the third quarter of 1984, which includes the steam The generator blowdown, liquid radwaste tank, and high TDS tank releases.
high TDS tank release is included in the activity and dose summary even-though it is determined that the Maximum Permissible Concentration will be exceeded at the discharge point, and therefore the release would not be permitted.
I J
9 4
9 13 9
~
Table 4 Comparison of Results for Steam Generator Blowdown Bechtel Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent
-~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ' '
- ~ ~ - -- ~ ~
~ - - " ~ ~ ~ -
alculatio calculation Difference- ~
Pre-diluted conc. (uci/cc) 3.53E-4 3.53E-4 0
Pre-diluted conc /MPC 5.40E+0 5.40+0 0
Max. permissible effluent flow rate, f,,
(gpm) 772.63 750.11
-2.9 Adjustment factor, A
>1 No Flag NA Radiation monitor setpoint, c (uCi/ml) 8.77E-6 8.77E-6 0
Doses, D (mrem)
Bone 6.10E-2 6.00E-2
-1.6 Liver 1.19E-1 1.17E-1
-1.7 Total Body 9.00E-2 8.85E-2
-1.7 Thyroid 6.36E-2 6.26E-2
-1.6 Kidney 4.14E-2 4.08E-2
-1.4 Lung 1.28E-2 1.26E-2
-1.6 GI-LLI 6.15E-3 6.04E-3
-1.8 a
$b
a Table 5 i
e Comparison of Results for Liquid Radwaste Release Bechtel Union Electric Computer-Percent
.. -. Hand
_ _,., alculation Difference _
alculatio Pre-diluted cone. (uCi/cc) 3.40E-3 3.40E-3 0
Pre-diluted conc /MPC 8.70 24.51 See Note 1 Max. permissible effluent flow rate, f
,,x (gpm) 466 165.19 See Note 1 Adjustment factor, A
>1 No Flag NA l
-Radiation monitor setpoint, c (uci/ml) 3.64E-3 2.29E-3 See Note l' Doses, D (mrem)
Bone 6.88E 4 6.71E 4
-2.5 Liver 7.81E-5 7.62E-5
-2.4 Total Body 5.58E-3 5.43E-5
-2.7,
Thyroid 2.80E-5 2.73E-5
-2.5 Kidney 3.22E-5 3.14E-5
-2.5 Lung 2.93E-5 2.85E-5
-2.7 GI-LLI 5.26E-5 5.13E-5
-2.5 1
Note:
1.
The difference is due to Union Electric's assumption that C-14 and Ni-63 were gamma emitters.
C-14 and Ni-63 happen to have high concentrations in this test case.
4 15
1 3
Table 6 Comparison of Results for High TDS Release 4
Bechtel Union Electric Hand-omputer-Percent
- ~ ~ ~
~ ~
alculatio alculation-
' Difference Pre-diluted conc. (uCi/ce) 4.22E 4 4.22E-4 0
Pre-diluted conc /MPC 1.12E+3 1.12E+3 0
I Max. permissible effluent flow rate, f,, (gpm) 3.64
,3.60
-1.1 Adjustment factor, A A<1 Flag E NA Radiation monitor setpoint, c (uci/ml) 4.39E-5 4.36E-5
-0.7 Dose, D (mrem)
Bone 7.90E-2 7.74E-2
-2.0 Livet 1.52E-1 1.49E-1
-2.0 Total Body 1.15E-1 1.13E-1
-1.7 4
Thyroid 3.94E-1 3.86E-1
-2.0 Kidney 5.30E-2 5.22E-2
-1.5 Lung 1.63E-2 1.59E-2
-2.5 GI-LLI 5.15E-3 5.38E-3 4.5 k
f 16
1
~
Table 7 Comparison of Results for Alarm Case Bechtel Union Electric
[ Hand-Y Computer-
} Percent (calculationAcalculation _ > Dif f erence - -_ _. _.
Pre-diluted cone. (uCi/cc) 1E+6 1E+6 0
Pre-diluted cone /MPC SE+10 SE+10 0
Max. permissible effluent flow rate, f,, (gpm) 4.06E-8 4.05E-8
-0.2 Adjustment factor, A
<1 Flag E NA 2
Radiation monitor setpoint, c (uci/ml) 4.06E-3 4.06E-3 0
Doses, D (mrem)
Bone 1.42E7 1.39E7
-2.1 Liver 1.94E7 1.90E7
-2.1 Total Body 1.27E7 1.25E7
-1.6 Thyroid No Data No data NA Kidney 6.56E6 6.46E6
-1.5 Lung 2.18E6 2.15E6
-1.4 GI-LLI 3.74E5 3.68E5
-1.6 e
17
u Table 8 Liquid Effluents Activity and Dose Summary (Third Quarter 1984)
Bechtel Union Electric Hand-
- Computer -
Percent-calculation alculation Difference Activity Released (Ci)
SG Blowdown 4.78E+1 4.78E+1 0
Liquid Radwaste Tank 2.57E-2 2.57E-2 O
High TDS Tank 1.47E+0 1.47E+0 0
Quarterly Doses (mrem)
Bone 1.41E-1 1.38E-1
-2.1 Liver 2.71E-1 2.66E-1
-1.8 Total Body 2.05E-1 2.02E-1
-1.5 Thyroid 4.58E-1 4.49E-1
-2.0 Kidney 9.45E-2 9.30E-2
-1.6 Lung 2.91E-2 2.85E-2
-2.1 Cl-LLI 1.13E-2 1.15E-2
-1.8 f
y 18 o
m-
~
4.2 Gaseous Effluents Two cases of gaseous releases are considered. The first case occurs within the year 1984 and consists of continuous and batch releases from both the unit vent and radwaste building vent.
Tables 9 through 12 show comparisons of setpoints, dose rates, and doses for each individual release. iable 13 summarizes the 1984 annual releases for Case 1.
The second case occurs within 1985 and consists of the same continuous Only one batch release is considered for Case releases as the first case.
2.
Tables 14 through 16 provide comparisons of setpoints, dose rates, and doses for each individual release.
Table 17 summarizes the 1985 annual releases for Case 2.
Tables 9 through 12 and tables 14 through 16 give the hand calculated total body and skin monitor setpoints and the most restrictive setpoint calculated by the computer calculation. These setpoints are only applicable for that particular release path (e.g., containment purge) and'do not consider concurrent releases (e.g., unit vent continuous release).
Given below are the concurrent setpoints for Case 1 (1984) as calculated by hand.
Setpoints (uCi/cc)
Release Total Body Skin Unit Vent (continuous plus containment purge) 0.0382 0.118 Radwaste Building Vent (continuous plus decay tank) 2.25 0.161 The computer output correctly identified the most restrictive setpoint to have a value of 0.0381 for the unit vent and 0.161 for the radwaste building vent.
For Case 2 (1985) the only concurrent release is the unit vent continuous and the containment purge.
By hand calculation the concurrent setpoints for the unit vent are 0.0706 uCf/cc and 0.178 uCi/cc for the total body and skin, respectively. The computer output correctly identified the most restrictive setpoint to be 0.0707 uCi/cc.
s s
19
Toble 9 Comparison of Results for Unit Vent Continuous Release (Case 1 First Quarter 1984)
_CHand-
__ Union Electric Bechtel Computer-}
Percent calculation calculationf Difference Noble Gases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)2.15E-2 2.15E-2 0
Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 5.08E-2 5.10E-2 0.4 Total Body Setpoint (uCi/cc) 9.30E-2 9.30E-2 O
Skin Setpoint (uCi/cc) 2.36E-1 NA Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 6.43E-3 6.44E-3 0.2 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.91E-2 1.91E-2 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
5.36E-3 5.36E-3 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
1.27E-2 1.27E-2 0
Non-Noble Cas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (crem/yr)
Bone 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
3.62E-1 0.3 Liver 3.61E-1 Total Body 3.61E-1 f.62E-1 0.3 Thyroid 3.61E-1 3.
"E-1 0.3 Kidney 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Lung 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 GI-LLI 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Dose frem All Pathways (mrem)
Bone 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
Liver 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 Total Body 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 Thyroid 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 Kidney 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 Lung 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 GI-LLI 7.01E-1 7.08E-1 1.0 Skin 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer re'sults presented doses.
20
Table 10 Comparison of Results for Radwaste Building Vent Continuous Release (Case 1. First Quarter 1984)
~~ - - '
--~ ~
- Bechtel
-Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent alculation alculation Difference Noble Cases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)1.61E-2 1.61E-2 0
Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 3.81E-2 3.83E-2 0.5 Total Body Setpoint (uCi/cc) 1.24E-1 1.24E-1 0
NA Skin Setpoint (uC1/cc) 3.15E-1 Camma Air Dose (mrad) 4.83E-3 4.83E-3 0
Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.44E-2 1.44E-2 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
4.02E-3 4.03E-3 0.2 Skin Dose (mrem)*
9.50E-3 9.55E-3 0.5 Non-Noble Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr)
@ Site Boundary Note: For this case the hand calculatio'n Dose from All Pathways assumed no non-noble gas releases; (mrem) therefore comparisons are not applicable.
Bone Liver Total Body Thyrcid Kidney Lung GI-LLI Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer.results presented doses.
4 21
u Tcble 11 Comparison of Results for Containment Purge _
(Case 1. First Quarter 1984)
~
~~
Bechtel ---
Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent calculatio calculation Difference Noble Cases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)1.32E.1 1.32E+1 0
Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 2.55E+1 2.57E+1 0.8 Total Body Setpoint (uCi/cc) 1.56E-1 1.56E-1 0
Skin Setpoint (uCi/cc) 4.84E-1 NA Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 3.54E-3 3.55E-3 0.3 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 6.44E-3 6.44E-3 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
3.13E-3 3.14E-3 0.3 Skin Dose (mrem)*
6.07E-3 6.11E-3 0.7 Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr)
Bone 3.92E0 3.91E0
-0.3.
Liver 3.87EO 3.87EO O
Total Body 2.05E0 2.05E0 0
Thyroid 1.17E3 1.17E3 0
Kidney 6.32E0 6.32E0 0
Lung 5.17E0 5.17E0 0
Cl-LLI 4.75E-1 4.75-1 0
Dose from All Pathways (mrem)
Bone 3.70E-1, 3.70E-1 0
Liver 3.67E-1 3.67E-1 0
Total Body 2.22E-1 2.21E-1
-0.5 Thyroid 1.09E2 1.09E2 0
Kidney 5.76E-1 5.76E-1 0
Lung 3.11E-2 3.11E-2 0
CI-LLI 6.40E-2 6.37E-2
-0.5 Skin 8
3.4'7E-2 3.25E-2
-6.3 Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
22
Table 12 Comparison of Results for Gas Decay Tank Discharge (Case 1, First Quarter, 1984)
Bechtel Union Electric
~
~~
Hand-
~
Computer-Percent
~-
alculation alculation Difference Noble Gases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)3.69E0 3.68E0
-0.3 Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 3.11E2 3.11E2 0
NA Total Body Setpoint (uCi/cc) 2.71E4 Skin Setpoint (uci/cc) 1.93E3 1.93E3 0
Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 4.49E-3 4.49E-3 0
Beta Air Dose (mrad) 5.09E-1 5.09E-1 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
4.21E-3 4.21E-3 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
3.55E-1 3.55E-1 O
Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr?.
@ Site Boundary Note:
For this case the hand calculation i
assumed no non-noble gas releases; Dose from all Pathways (mrem) therefore comparisons are not applicable.
Bone Liver Total Body Thyroid Kidney Lung GI-LLI Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
23
Table 13 Comparison of Results for Total Annual Releases (Case 1, 1984)
Bechtel Union Electric
- Hand--
Computer- - -Percent calculatio calculation Difference Noble Cases Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 3.87E-2 3.88E-2 0.3 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 6.07E-1 6.07E-1 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
3.29E-2 3.29E-2 O
Skin Dose (mrem)*
4.22E-1 4.22E-2 0
Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Dose from All Pathways (mrem)
Bone 3.70E-1 3.70E-1 0
Liver 3.19EO 3.22E0 0.9 Total Body 3.04E0 3.07E0 1.0 Thyroid 1.12E2 1.12E2 0
Kidney 3.40E0 3.43E0 0.9 Lung 2.85E0 2.88E0 1.1 GI-LLI 2.88E0 2.91E0 1.0 Skin 3.47E-2 3.47E-2 0
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
-24
Y Table 14 Comparison of Results for Unit Vent Continuous Release (Case 2, First Quarter, 1985)
Bechtel Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent calculatio calculation Difference Noble Cases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)2.15E-2 2.15E-2 0
Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 5.08E-2 5.10E-2 0.4 Total Body Setpoint (uci/cc) 9.30E-2 9.30E-2 0
Skin Setpoint uCi/cc) 2.36E-1 NA Gamma Air. Dose (mrad) 6.36E-3 6.37E-3 0.2 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.89E-?
1.89E-2 O
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
5.30E-3 5.30E-3 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
1.26E-2 1.26E-3 0
Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr)
Bone 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
Liver 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Total Body 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Thyroid 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Kidney 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Lung 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 GI-LLI 3.61E-1 3.62E-1 0.3 Dese from All Pathways (mrem)
Bone 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
Liver 6.93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 Total Body 6.93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 Thyroid 6.93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 Kidney 6.93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 Lung 6.93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 GI-LLI
- 6. 93E-1 7.00E-1 1.0 Skin 0.00E0 0.00E0 0
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
25 a..
~O Table 15 Comparison of Results for Radwaste Building Vent Continuous Release (Case 2, First Quarter 1985)
Bechtel Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent-calculation alculation Difference Noble Cases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)1.61E-2 1.61E-2 0
Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 3.81E-2 3.83E-2 0.5 Total Body Setpoint (uCi/ce) 1.24E-1 1.24E-1 0
Skin Setpoint (uci/cc) 3.15E-1 NA Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 4.78E-3 4.78E-3 0
Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.42E-2 1.42E-2 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
3.98E-3 3.98E-3 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
9.40E-3
-9.45E-3 0.5 Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr)
@ Site Boundary Note:
For this case the hand calculation assumed no non-noble gas releases; Dose from All Pathways therefore comparisons are not applicable.
(mrem)
Bone Liver Total Body Thyroid Kidney Lung GI-LLI i
l l
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
i 26
?
Table 16 Comparison of Results for Containment Purge (Case 2, First Quarter 1985)
Bechtel Union Electric
~
~ '
~ ~~~
~~ -
Hand-Computer-
' ' Pe r'c en t~~
~ ~ ' ~
alculation calculation Difference Noble Cases Total Body Dose Rate (mrem /yr)2.78E4 2.77E4
-0.4 Skin Dose Rate (mrem /yr) 6.63E4 6.65E4 0.3 Total Body Setpoint (uCi/cc) 2.89E-1 2.90E-1 0.3 Skin Setpoint (uCi/cc) 7.28E-1 NA Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 7.91E0 7.92E0 0.1 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 2.38E1 2.38E1 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
6.60E0 6.60E0 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
1.57El 1.58E1 0.6 Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Inhalation Dose Rate (mrem /yr)
G Site Boundary Note:
For this case the hand calculation Dose from All Pathways assumed no non-noble gas releases; (mrem) therefore comparisons are not applicable.
Bone Liver Total Body Thyroid Kidney Lung GI-LLI
~
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented dose.
27
'I
f Table 17 Comparison of Results for Total Annual Releases (Case 2, 1985)
.._ ___ Bechtel Union Electric Hand-Computer-Percent alculation alculatio Difference Noble Cases Camma Air Dose (mrad) 7.96EO 7.97E0 0.1 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 2.39El 2.39El 0
Total Body Dose (mrem)*
6.64E0 6.64E0 0
Skin Dose (mrem)*
1.58E1 1.59El 0.6 Non-Noble Gas Isotopes Dose from All Pathways (mrem)
Bone 0.00E0 2.76E-7**
NA Liver 2.81EO 2.84E0 1.1 Total Body 2.81E0 2.84E0 1.1 Thyroid 2.81E0 2.84E0 1.1 Kidney 2.81E0 2.84E0 1.1 Lung 2.81E0 2.84E0 1.1 GI-LLI 2.81E0 2.84E0 1.1 Skin 0.00E0 Not Given NA J
Dose model not presented in ODCM; computer results presented doses.
Considers contribution by Ce-144 added to containment purge and radwaste vent releases.
28
- l
(
o' 5.0 Review of Other ODCM Informstion The Callaway ODCM was thoroughly reviewed during the test case development and solution. Several items were found to be incorrect. These were identified to Union Electric during our review. The errors have been corrected and the revised values have been incorporated into Revision 2
(March 7,1984) of the ODCM. Additional errors, mostly typographical, have been identified in Revision 2 and are listed in Table 18.
UE has committed to notify NRC of these additional errors and corrections will be made in the next revision.
A summary of our review is provided below.
5.1 Check of Pathway Dose Factors (A P, and R Values)
Table 1 of the ODCM lists ingestion dose commitment factors for the adult age group for consumption of fish exposed to liquid effluents.
These factors were rigorously checked. Any discrepancies have been resolved and corrected values are incorporated into Revision 2 of the ODCM. Values which differed by less than five percent are deemed acceptable.
Table 3 of'the ODCM lists dose factors for exposure to a semi-infinite cloud of noble gases.
Again, these values were checked and errors corrected.
Tables 4 and 5 of the ODCM present dose factors for radionuclides other than noble gases for each pathway (inhalation, ground plane, vegetation, grass-cow-milk, grass-goat-milk, and meat).
All discrepancies have been corrected.
In particular, the grass-cow-milk and grass-goat-milk pathways were revised to apply to the child age group.
This is consistent with all other pathways for gaseous effluents and provides the dose to the maximally exposed individual.
5.2 Check of Direct Radiation from Outside Storage Tanks Section 4.2.3.1 of the ODCM was reviewed to ensure its technical accuracy.
k'e f ound that the methodology as presented is acceptable. Typographical errors were pointed out to Union Electric.
The revised section incorporates the corrections.
e I
i 29 j
I
/
Table 18 Typographical Errors in ODCM Revision 2 (3/7/84)
Should be Page 51 Mu-54 Mn-54 Mu-56 Mn-56 fe-55 Fe-55 fe-59 Fe-59 Zn-60 Zn-69 BR-83 Br-83 BR-84
.Br-84 RB-89 Rb-89 SR-91 Sr-91 Page 52 Rn-103 Ru-103 Rn-105 Ru-105 Page 53, 7th nuclide Cs-134 Cs-136 Page 54,P-32, Liver 4.37E10 4.37E9 Page 55 Rn-103 Ru-103 Rn-105 Ru-105 Page 56, 2nd nuclide I-131 1-132 1-132, Total Body 6.10E1 6.10E-1 Page 57, 2n-69, GI-LLI 9.11E4 9.11E-4 Page 58, I-130, Total Body 6.38ES 6.38E5 I-130, CI-LLI 5.79ES 5.79ES I
Page 59, 1-135, Kidney 1.70ES 1.70E5 Page 91, X/Q (m /sec)
(sec/m )'
X/Q Decayed /Undepleted
'(m /sec)
(sec/m )
X/Q Decayed / Depleted
(. m /sec).
(sec/m )
e b
30
e 6.o. Conclusion A detailed comparison of the results of the test cases has been performed by Bechtel. We conclude that the computer code utilized by Union Electric to calculate setpoints and doses from liquid and gaseous effluents is acceptable in that it. produces results consistent with the ODCM
- --methodologies. Our comparison shows that the parameters calculated by the Union Electric computer code are within a few percent of the values we calculated using the ODCM and hand calculations.
Union Electric has corrected all of the discrepancies we identified in the text and tables of the ODCM and has incorporated the changes into Revision 2.
There are no outstanding issues to be resolved.
?
t 31