ML20148N340

Forwards Gale Vs Lebog Code Comparison Study.Study Represents Supplemental Radioactive Liquid Effluent Sys Evaluation.Lebog Code Used to Outline Conditions Under Which Plant Can Operate within 10CFR50,App I Guidelines

ML20148N340
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	03/28/1988
From:	Andognini G SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GCA-88-066, GCA-88-66, NUDOCS 8804060464
Download: ML20148N340 (13)

Text

'

O

%SMUD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTPicT 0 P. O. Box 15830, Sacramento CA 95852 1830,(916) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA MAR 2 81988 GCA 88-066 V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Associate Director for Projects 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 GALE YS. LEB0G CODE COMPARISON STUDY Oear Mr. Miraglia:

The District hereby submits a GALE vs. '.EB0G code comparison study which was performed by technical consultants Henry W. Morton and Thomas E. Potter. The study represents a supplemental Radioactive Liquid Effluent Systems Evaluation.

The Radioactive Liquid Effluent Systems Evaluation, which the District submitted to the NRC via letter GCA 87-810, dated January 12, 1988, used the LEB0G code to outline the conditions under which Rancho Seco can operate within the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I guidelines.

The NRR reviewer of Proposed Amendment No.155, Revision 2 is most familiar with the GALE code and has displayed an interest in reviewing the results of the GALE vs. LEB0G code comparison study.

This transmittal fulfills a commitment to provide the study.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Members.:f your staff with questions requiring additional information or clarification may contact Mr. Richard Mannheimer at (209) 333-2935, extension 4919.

Sincerely,

?

wx<

Carl Andogffini Chief Executive Officer, h0 G8040604e4 000328 Attachment f

ado m oso$Dk i\\

cc:

G. Kalman, NRC, Rockville 6

\\

600 yf\\Y A. D' Angelo, NRC, Rancho Seco J. B. Martin, NRC, Walnut Creek gg RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION O 1444o Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799;(209) 333 2935

}

Morton and Potter 10421 MASTIRS 11RRACE POTOMAC, MARYLAND 20854 IIENRY W MORTON lilOMAS E. POTTIR 1042t MA5TTR3 TTRR ACI 42 H JE N1f1R STRE ET. N T roTouac.uAmaso zosu

• ^"""'C*

March 7' 1988 301983 0M5 202 M3 4727 Mr. Harvey Story Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Mail Stop 292 1444 Twin Cities Road

+

Herald, California 95638-9799

Dear Mr. Story:

This letter is a response to your recent request to review the report, "Radioactive Liquid Effluent Systems Evaluation Using Program Lebog, Revision II," dated January, 1988.

He have reviewed the report and compared results to similar analyses using GALE and LADTAPII described in our draft report dated February 8, 1988.

This letter describes our review and findings.

Our review of the report included review of the model description, review of operational assumptions, review of input data related to plant design, and review of the computer code against the model description in the text of the report.

We performed a test calculation using the LEBOG model (not the code) to reproduce LEBOG results for one case.

We also performed a test calculation using the LEBOG model 'to try to reproduce results of GALE-LADPAP analyses in our draft report.

In out review we found one minor logic error, and identified j

one oporational assumption and one modeling assumption that may need further concideration.

From the standpoint of impact on conclusions, the modeling assumption is the most important and it is discussed last in this letter.

The logic error is the double counting of the plant availability factor in calculating annual release quantJties from the secondary system.

It is used first in calculating the concentration in secondary coolant (LEBOG line 440), and then is used again in calculating the quantity of liquid discharged (LEBOG line 210).

It should only be used once, preferably in line 210.

This error has a small effect.

In our attempt to reproduce the results of the LEBOG test problem (0.06% failed fuel and 0.1 gpm primary-to-secondary leak.), we calculate a fraction of 10CFR50 App I guidance of 0.84 rather than 0.64 from LEBOG.

This calculation is shown in Attachment 1.

If we introduce the double count of plant availability, we calculate 0.61, reasonably close to the LEBOG result.

T ECilNICAL CONSULT ANTS

k I

Mr. Harvey Storey page 2 The operational assumption that may need further consideration involves releases of secondary side water processed through the miscellaneous radwaste system.

In the LEBOG methodology, this release is fixed at 0.00038 Curies per year of Cs-137 and a proportionate quantity of Cs-134 (1,000,000 gallons per year at 1.0E-07 microCuries per milliliter).

It is not varied with different assumed values for failed-fuel fractions and primary-to-secondary leak rates.

The report states that the assumption is based on past experience, but it is not clear from information in the report that direct extension of that experience is valid for all combinations of failed-fuel fractions and primary-to-secondary leak rates evaluated.

Increases in this quantity by a factor of about two to three or less would not change results greatly, but larger increases could affect conclusions.

The modeling assumption that needs further consideration is related to Cs-137 removal in the secondary loop.

An assumption incorporated in GALE Rev 1 is that in plants without full-flow condensate demineralizers, 80% of the iodine and 90% of the other nuclides are partitioned to the stream that is pumped forward to the feedwater, bypassing the condensate demineralizers.

This assumption is based on measurements at three plants.

We have assumed in our analyses using GALE Rev 1 that Rancho Seco does not have full-flow condensate demineralization, based on the SMUD report demonstrating compliance with 10CFR50 App I, which states that the flow fraction to the domineralizers is 0.7.

The LEBOG analysis also implicitly assumes 0.7.

However, the LEBOG model assumes no partitioning of iodine or ce'sium between the stream pumped forward to feedwater relative to the stream entering the condensare demeralizer, ie., the cesium concentration entering the domineralizer is assumed to be the same as that bypassing it.

In this respect, the LEBOG assumption is the same as in GALE Rev 0.

For a given condensate demineralizer DF for cesium, the GALE Rev 1 model would estimate substantially less cesium removal from the secondary loop water than would the LEBOG model.

Separately, in the GALE Rev 1 model, the condensate domineralizer DF for cesium is assigned a value of 2.

By comparison, a DF of 10 for cesium is assumed in the LEBOG analysis.

The combination of these model differences and DF differences yields much higher effective removal of cesium, and thus much lower secondary coolant cesium concentrations, in LEBOG 1

than in GALE Rev 1.

4

Mr. Harvey Storey page 3 It may be that Rancho Seco data show that the secondary coolant concentrations calculated by GALE are too high, but we have been unable to obtain such data.

It appears to us that the only options are either to use the GALE assumption, or to provide data to support an alternate assumption.

Differences in analyses using LEBOG and the GALE-LADTAP models, including the effect of values assigned to sensitive parameters, were compared by axercising the models with similar assumptions in a comparison case, in Attachment 3.

We assumed 0.0012 failed fuel, 75 pounds / day primary-to-secondary coolant leakage, and 0.5 of the secondary coolant leakage from the Turbine Building treated by the sluiceable demineralizer.

This was similar to a 50%-50% weighted average of GALE-LADTAP cases L1A-M and L2A-M in our report.

In GALE case LlA-M, none of the secondary stream is processed through the sluiceable demineralizers while, in GALE case L2A-M, all of that stream is processed.

The weighted average was compared with the LEBOG scenario in which 50% of the Turbine Building drains stream is processed.

Comparison case values of other sensitive parameters used in the LEBOG and in the GALE & LADTAP analyses, and that differ, are listed in Attachment 2.

In addition to the overall comparison, corresponding parts of the models or of intermediate results were also compared.

An estimate of the relative effect on dose to a person offsite is 1

given in Table 1 as a ratic of GALE-LADTAP to LEBOG results.

Some of the differences do not affect results; for instance, secondary coolant volume is unimportant *,

Offsetting differences can be seen within the comparison case.

For example, the difference in the Turbine Building drai.n stream flow, a factor of 10 higher in LEBOG than in GALE, is partially offset by the difference in secondary coolant activity concentration, a factor of 4 lower in LEBOG than in GALE.

Parameters and values in Table 1 are of the most interest for comparison, for most of the difference between LEBOG and GALE-LADTAP results is explainable by these data or assumptions which lead to calculated release end dose.

j To broaden the comparison, the sensitivity of dose computed by GALE-LADTAP was examined as a function of a wider range of failed fuel fraction and of primary-to-secondary leakage.

In order to manage the number of original GALE-LADTAP computations, the doses were derived by scaling GALE-LADTAP cases LlA and Llc (Feb.

8, 1988 report) as described in Attachment 4.

Note that, for this comparison, it was assumed that the turbine building drain flow rate is 72,000 gallons per day and that half of this flow is processed through the sluiceable domineralizers.

These assumptions make results more directly comparable to LEBOG results.

Table 2 presents the resulting offsite dose as a

Mr. Harvey Storey page 4 fraction of the 10 CFR Appendix I dose objective.

To confirm this method, a comparable case was computed with GALE-LADTAP at 0.0012 failed fuel and 0.01 gpm primary-to-secondary leakage.

The computed total body dose to the most exposed member of the public was 0.98 of the 3 mrem annual Appendix I objective compared to a scaled value of 0.99 of it.

Table 2 may be compared with Appendix B in the LEBOG report.

The differences are not all in the same proportion.

In general, the tabulated dose is influenced by 1) H-3 and miscellaneous waste at lowest failed fuel and primary-to-secondary leakage, and

2) secondary coolant leakage at largest failed fuel and primary-to-secondary leakage.

For combinations of largest fuel failure and primary-to-secondary leakage, GALE-LADTAP results are substantially higher than LEBOG results.

LEBOG is commendable in that it focuses on the liquid waste and radionuclides that, historically, have produced most of the potential dose offsite.

In doing so LEBOG is concise, c

understandable, and easy to use in monitoring plant performance.

Please call if you wish to discuss these matters further.

Sincerely, d h[w w wa d,

ne Thomas E.

Potter I

i i

ATTACHMENT 1 CHECK OF SMUD LEBOG MODEL CS 137 PRIMARY COOLANT CONCENTRATION INPUT DATA 0.0005 D FAILED FUEL FRACTION 1.00E 08 VSU81 l-131 ESCAPE RATE COEFFICIENT (1/S) 2772 P THERMAL POWER (MWt) 0.029 Y l 131 FIS$10N YIELD (FRACTION) 3.3E+16 F FIS$10N RATE (ATOMS /MWt S) 88200 VRCS--PRIMARY SYSTEM VOLUME (CAL) 1.00E 06 R l-131 DECAY CONSTANT (1/S) 45 B LETDOWN FLOW RATE (CAL / MIN) 100 DFL--l-131 LETDOWN DF 0.14 CSRAT RATIO OF CS 137 To 1 131 IN PRIM COOLANT CALCULATIONS 8.42E 06 K = B/60.*(1-(1/DFL))/VRCS (1/S)

CLEANUP REMOVAL CONSTANT 1.60E C2 PRICS137 = CSRAT*D*VSUBl*P*Y*F/(%RCa*3785*37000*(R+K)) (UCl/ML)

PRIMARY COOLANT CONC CS 137 CS 137 SECONDARY COOLANT CONCENTRATION INPUT DATA 0.1 PSECLK PRIMARY TO SECONDARY LEAK RATC (GAL / MIN) 216000 VSEC VOLUME OF COOLANT IN SEC SYSTEM (GAL) 1650C BSEC FLOW RATE TO CONDENSATE DEMINS (GAL /M) 10 DFSDM COND DEMIN DF FOR CS 50 7 SEC LEAK #e 'E (GAL / MIN)

CALCULAfl0NS 0.001145 KSEC = BSEC/60*(1-(1/DFSDM))/VSEC (1/S)

CONO DEMIN REMOVAL CONSTANT 0.000003 LOSSLK = 2/(60*VSEC) (1/S)

SECONDARY LEAKAGE REMOVAL CONSTANT 1.07E 07 SECCS137 = PRICS137*3785'PSECLK/60/(VSEC*3785*(KSEC+LOSSLK)) (UCI/ML)

SECONDARY COOLANT CONC CS 137 i

n,

ATTACHMENT 1 (continued)

DOSE CALCULATIONS

]NPUT DATA 5570 AlJCS137-DOSE FACTOR FOR CS 137 (MREM /CI CFS) 8930 AIJCS134 DOSE FACTOR FOR CS 134 (MREM /CI CFS) 0.0927 AIJN3 DCGE FACTOR FOR H 3 (MREN/Cl-CFS) 0.55 CS134 RAT RATIO OF CS-134 To CS 137 100 H3REL H 3 RELEASE (CI/YR) 18.93 FLO DISCHARGE FLOW RATE (CFS) 1.00E+06 MWFLO-MISC RADWASTE FLOW RATE (GAL PER YR)

1. DOE 07 MWCONC-MISC RADWASTE CS 137 CCNC (UCl/ML) 0.5 SLCFRAC--FRACTION OF SEC LKG PROCESSED 50 DFSLCDM--CS DECON FACTOR FOR SLUICE DEMIN 0.61 AVAIL AVAILABILITY FACTOR CALCULAfl0NS 0.000378 MWREL = MWCONC'3785/1.E6*MWFLO CS 137 FROM MISC RADWASTE (Cl/YR) 0.003315 SECREL = AVAIL *SiCCS137*3785/1.E6*Z*60*8760*((1 SLCFRAC)+SLFRAC/DFSLCCM)

CS 137 FRDM SEC SYSTEM LKG (C1/YR) 0.489698 H3 DOS = H3REL*AIJH3/FLO H 3 00SE (MREM /YR) t 1.835562 SECDOS = (EECREL*AIJCS137+CS134 RAT *SECREL*AIJCS134)/FLO SEC SYSTEM RELEASE DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.209574 MWDOS = MWREL*(AIJCS137+AIJCS134*CS134 RAT)/FLO MISC SYSTEM RELEASE DOSE (MREM /YR) 2.534836 TDOSE TOTAL DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.844945 FRACTION OF 3 MREM /YR 10CFR50 APP I LIMIT FOR TOTAL BODY l

2.-

,-u.,.

l i

ATTACHMENT 2 COMPARISON OF PARAMETER VALUES FOR LEBOG AND CALE ANALYSES

......LE B0G UN I TS

-GALE UNITS

-d-*

LEBOG GALE LEGOG GALE COOLANT CONCENTRATION CALCULATION PARAMETERS PRIMARY COOLANT 88200 63385 GAL 734706 528000 LB PRIM CS 137/l 131 0.14 0.75 0.14 0.75 LE7DOWN FLOW 45 45 GPM 45 45 GPM SECONDARY COOLANT 216000 11981 GAL 1799280 99800 LB COND DEMIN CS OF 10 2

10 2

COND DEMIN FLOW RATE 16500 17147 GPM 8246700 8570000 LB/HR RELEASE CALCULATION PARAMETERS PLANT AVAILABILITY 0.61 0.8 0.61 0.8 H 3 RELEASE 100 96 CI/YR 100 96 Cl/YR MISC RADWASTE RELEASE LE80G ASSUMES 0.000379 CI/YR CS 137 AND 0.000208 Cl/YR CS 134 M&P ASSUMES VARI ABLE RATE, DEPENDING 04 PCA, SEC COOLANT ACTIVITY CS 137 RANGES FROM 0.0001 TO 0.0004 Cl/YR BASES FOR ASSUMPTICas DIFFERS GREATLY l

FRACTION OF TB LEG TREATED LEBOG ASSUMES 0.5, M&P ASSUMES ALL DR bOhE SLU!CE DEMIN OF 10 100 50 100 f

TB LKG FLOW RATE S0 5 GPM 72000 7200EPP DOSE CALCULATION PARAMETERS DILUTION FLOW RATE 18.93 18.93 CFS 8500 8500 GPM 8.33 LBPG LB PER GALLON WATER i

1 I

f

l: -

9-ATTACHMEkr 3 CHECK OF SMUD LEBOG MODEL REPRODUCE 50 50 WTD AVG OF GALE /LADTAP L1A M AND L2A M 4

GALE /LADTAP LEBOG CALCULATION UALUsS FOR COMPARISON CS 137 PRIMARY COOLANT CONCENTRATION INPUT DATA 0.0012 D FAILED FUEL FRACTION 1.00E-08 VSUB1 l 131 ESCAPE RATE COEFFICIENT (1/S) 2772 P THERMAL POWER (MWt) 0.029 Y l 131 FISSION YlELD (FRACTION) 3.3E+16 F FIS$10N RATE (ATOMS /MWt S) 63385 88200 VRCS PRIMARY SYSTEM VOLUME (GAL) 1.00E 06 R-l 131 DECAY CONSTANT (1/S) 45 B-LETDOWN FLOW RATE (GAL / MIN) 100 DFL -l 131 LETDOWN DF 0.14 CSRAT RATIO of CS 137 TO I 131 IN PRIM C00LANT CALCULAfl0NS 8.42E 06 K = B/60.*(1-(1/DFL))/VRCS (1/S)

CLEANUP REMOVAL. CONSTANT

[

1.35E-02 3.83E 02 PRICS1L7 a CSRAT*0*VSUBl*P'Y*F/(VRCS*3785'37000*(R+K)) (UCI/ML)

PRIMARY COOLANT CCAC CS II7 t

CS 137 SECONCARY COOLANT CONCEATRAi!0N INPUT DATA 0.00625 PSECLK FRIMARY TO SECONDARY LEAK RATE (GAL / MIN) (EQUlv 70 75 LB/ DAY) 11981 216000 VSEC v0LUME OF C00LANT IN SEC SYSTEM (GAL)

[

17147 16500 GSEC FLOW RATE TO CONDENSATE DEMINS (GAL /M) 2 10 0FSDM* COND DEMIN DF FOR CS 5

50 Z SEC LEAK RATE (GAL / MIN) 1 CALCULATIONS 0.001145 KSEC = BSEC/60*(1-(1/DFSDM))/VSEC G1/S)

COND DEMIN REMOVAL CCNSTANT 0.000003 LOSSLK = 2/(60*VSEC) (1/S)

SECONDARY LEAKAGE REMOVAL CONSTANT 4.88E 08 1.618. 08 SECCS137 = PRICS137*3785*PSECLK/60/(VSEC*3785'(KSEC*LOSSLK)) (UCl/ML)

SECONDARY COOLANT CONC CS 137 I

ATTACHMENT 3 (continued)

CALE/LADTAP LEBOG CALCULATION VALUES FOR COMPARISON DOSE CALCULAfl0NS IWPUT DATA 5570 A!JCS137 00$E FACTOR FOR CS 137 (MREM /Cl CFS) 8930 AIJCS134 DOSE FACTOR FOR CS 134 (MREM /CI CFS) 0.0927 AlJH3 DOSE FACTOR FOR H 3 (MREM /Cl CFS) 0.55 CS134 RAT -RAT!0 0F CS 134 To CS 137 96 100 H3REL H 3 RELEASE (Cl/YR) 18.93 18.93 FLO DISCHARGE FLOW RATE (CFS) 1.00E+06 MWFLO-MISC RADWASTE FLOW RATE (CAL FER YR) 1.00E 07 MWCOWC MISC RA0 WASTE CS 137 CONC (UCl/ML) 0.5 tLCFRAC-FRACTION OF SEC LEG PROCESSED 100 50 0FSLCOM c5 DECON FACTCR FOR SLUICE DEMIN 0.8 0.61 AVAIL AVAILABILITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS 0.000378 Mwaf L = MwCCAC*3785/1.E6*MWFLO CS 13/ FROM MISC RADWASTF. (CI/YR) 0.000497 SECREL = AVAIL *SECCS137*1785/1.E6*2*60*S760*((1 SLCFRAC)+SLFRAC/DFSLCOM)

CS 137 FROM SEC SYSTEM LKG (Cl/YR) 0.07 0.489698 H300s = H3REL*AIJH3/Flo H 3 DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.18 0.275334 SECDOS = (SECREL*AIJCS137+CS134 RAT *SECREL*AIJCS134)/Flo SEC SYSTEM RELEASE DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.07 0.209574 MWOOS = kVREL'( AIJCS137+ AIJCS134*CS134 RAT)/FLO MISC SYSTEM RELEASE DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.32 0.974607 700SE TOTAL DOSE (MREM /YR) 0.324869 FRACTICN CF 3 MREM /YR 10CFR50 APP I LIMIT FOR TOTAL S00Y RATIO OF CALE/LADTAP DOSE FROM SECCADARY RELEASES TO LEBOG DOSE FROM SEC RELEASES:

0.64

Table 1 Effect of Values of Selected Parameters on Computed Dose Equivalent Offsite Symbol Parameter GALE &

LEBOG Impact on Result" LADTAP GALE.LADTAP LEBOG VRCS Primary coolant volume (gal) 63385 88200 minor PRICS137 Primary coolant conc (uCi/g) 1.35E-2 3.83E-2 0.35 VSEC Second. coolant volume (gal) 11981 216000 none (not used)

DFSDM DF Cs in condensate demin 2

10 1.8 Fraction of Cs in steam in b

condensate demin feed 0.1 0.7 7

BSEC Flow to condensate demin 17147 16500 negligible SECCS137 Cs conc in second cool (uCi/g)6.88E-8 1.61E-8 (accounted for by factors above)

H3REL H-3 release rate (Ci/yr) 100 96 c

i MWREL Misc. Radwaste effl (Ci Cs137/yr) calc 3.78E-4 c

FLO Canal dilution flow (cfs) 18.93 18.93 1.0 DFSLCDM DF Cs in sluice demins 100 50 negl for 50%

)

treatment case Z

Turbine Bldg drain flow (gpm) 5 50 0.1 AVAIL Plant availability 0.8 0.61 1.31 j

Product of all factois i

~~"

~

0.6 t

" Secondary system releases only.

Condensate demineralizer flow is 0.7 of secondary steam flow.

c H-3 and Misc.

Radwaste System releases account for 0.7 mrem /yr in LEBOG and 0.14 mrem /yr in GALE-LADTAP.

e 4

-. -... ~ -

ATTACHMENT 6 SENSITIVITY OF DOSE TO FAILED FUEL, PRIM SEC LKG-*2/8/88 M&P REPORT TURB DRN, H3, MRW CONTRIBUTIONS CALCULATED BY DIFFERENCE THEN SCALED (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

CASE FLD FUEL P/S LKG MAX AGE MAX ORG AGE TURB DRN TURB DRN FRAC TB ORG MAX TB MAX ORG LB/D MREM /YR MREM /YR MREM /YR MREM /YR 1A 0.0012 75 0.489 AD 1.63 GI AD 0.346 1.541 1B 0.0012 75 0 3.6 AD 15.5 GI AD 1C 0.0036 75 1.32 AD 4.64 GI AD 1.031 4.540 10 0.0036 75 0 10.6 AD 45.5 GI AD i

2A 0.0012 75 0.147 AD 0.171 LIV AD 0.003 0.014 28 0.0012 750 0.176 AD 0.255 GI AD 2C 0.0036 75 0.285 AD 0.355 LIV AD 0.010 0.045 20 0.0036 750 0.376 AD 0.632 GI AD DOSE FROM TURBINE bulLDING DRAINS COMPUTED FROM DIFFERENCE BETWE4N 1A AND IS. THC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1A AND 18 IS 9 TIMES THE YURBINE BUILDING DRAIN CONTRIBUTION IN CASE 1A.

DOSE FROM TRITIUM, "H3", AND MISC RADWASTE, "MRW", !$ DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAX IURB DRN AND DOSE FROM ALL SOURCES (COLS 4 AND 6),,

,L DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R3 AND MRW CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 1A AND 1C IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN MRW CONTRIBUTION. H3 CONTRIBUTION IS SAME IN BOTH CASES.

I THAT DIFFERENCE REPRESENTS TWICE THE MAW CONTRIBUTION TO CASE 1A, j

BECAUSE IT IS DUE SOLELY TO TRIPLING OF FAILED FUEL FRACTION FROM CASE 1A TO IC.

THE ABOVE RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE USED TO ISOLATE THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM j

H3 AND MRW 10 DOSE:

I TOTAL BODY DOSE l

0.14 TBM3MRW1A H 3 AND MISC RADWASTE DOSE IN CASE 1A

= DOSE FROM ALL SOURCES - TURB DRAIN CONTRIBUTION 0.29 TBH3MRWIC H 3 AND MISC RADWASTE DOSE IN CASE IC

= DOSE FROM ALL SOURCES TURB DRAIN CONTRIBUTION 0.07 TBMRW1A

• MISC RADWASTE DOSE IN CASE 1A

= (TBH3MVR1C - TBH3MWR1A) / 2 0.07 TBH31A H 3 DOSE IN CASE lA

= TSH3MRW1A TBMRW1A

___,___--.3-n

_ ~.

~

TABLE 2 SENSITIVITY OF FRACT:0N OF 1DCFR50 APP I DOSE LIMIT TO FF AND P-S LKG g y r................;...............PR I MARY-TO-SE COND ARY LEAK RATE (GPM)------------ ---------

0.01 0.02 0.03 C.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.57 0.65 0.73 0.81 0.02 0.18 0.34 0.50 0.65 0.81 0.97 1.12 1.28 1.44 1.59 0.03 0.26 0.50 0.73 0.97 1.20 1.44 1.67 1.91 2.15 2.38 0.04 0.35 0.66

?.97 1.29 1.6C 1.91 2.23 2.54 2.85 3.17 0.05 0.43 0.82 1.21 1.60 1.99 2.38 2.78 3.17 3.56 3.95 0.06 0.51 0.98 1.45 1.92 2.39 2.86 3.33 3.80 4.27 4.74 0.07 0.59 1.13 1.68 2.23 2.78 3.33 3.88 4.43 4.97 5.52 0.08 0.67 1.29 1.92 2.55 3.17 3.80 4.43 5.05 5.68 6.31 0.09 0.75 1.45 2.16 2.86 3.57 4.27 4.98 5.68 6.39 7.09 0.10 0.83 1.61 2.39 3.18 3.96 4.74 5.53 6.31 7.10 7.88 0.11 0.91 1.77 2.63 3.49 4.36 5.22 6.08 6.94 7.80 8.66 0.12 0.99 1.93 2.87 3.81 4.75 5.69 6.63 7.57 8.51 9.45 0.13 1.07 2.09 3.11 4.12 5.14 6.16 7.18 8.20 9.22 10.24 0.14 1.n5 2.25 3.34 4.44 5.54 6.63 7.73 8.83 9.92 11.02 0.15 1.23 2.40 3.58 4.75 5.93 7.11 8.28 9.46 10.63 11.81 FRACTION IS THE RATIO OF CALCULATED TOTAL 800Y DOSE TO 1DCFR50 APP I OBJECTIVE, 3 MREM /YR, USING H-3, MISC RADWASTE, AND TURBINE BUILDING DRAIN DOSES CALCULATED IN ATTACHMENT 4 FRACTION IS COMPUTED BY SCALING RESULTS FROM CASE 1A, WHICH IS BASED ON FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS:

0.12% FAILED FUEL, 0.00625 GPM (75 LS/c) PRIMARY-TO-SECONDARY LEAK, 7,200 GAL /D SECONDARY LEAKAGE FRACTION * (TSH31A + %FF /.12 * (TBMRW1A + TBTDRNIA

• TDRNFLO * ((1 - TDTRTF) + TOTRTF / TDTRTDF) / 7200

• PRMTOSEC /.00625)) / 3 72000 TDREFlo--TUR8 DRAIN FLOW RATE (GPD) 0.5 TDTRTF--TURB DRAIN TREATMENT FR4CtION 50 TDTRTDF--TURB DRAIN TREATMENT GF 0.07 TBMRW1A--MISC RADWASTE DOSE !N CASE 1A 0.07 T8K31A--H-3 DOSE IN CASE 1 A 0.35 TSTDRNIA--TUR8tNE BUILDING DRAIN DOSE IN CASE 1A

%FF--PERCENT FAILED FUEL PRMTOSEC--PRIMARY-TO-SECONDARY LEAK RATE (GPM)

-