ML17272A382

Submits Legible Copies of Response to NRC Questions 312.16 & 331.20

ML17272A382
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/17/1979
From:	Renberger D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-79-70, NUDOCS 7904240351
Download: ML17272A382 (91)

Text

Washington Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY P. O. BOX 908 3000 GCO. WAIHINCTON WAY RICHLAND~ WAIHINCTON QQ353 PHONK (508) 375 5000 April 17, 1979 G02-79-70 Docket No. 50-397 Director, Office of Nuclear Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. S. A. Varga

Subject:

WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SUBMITTAL OF LEGIBLE COPIES OF NRC UESTIONS 312.16 AND 331.20

Reference:

Letter, D. L. Renberger to S.A. Varga, "Responses to Round One questions - MTEB, CPB, AAB, ETSB, RAB, GSB, HMB,H 3/21/79, G02-79-45.

Dear Mr. Varga:

It has been noted that two of the responses contained in the referenced letter were not reproduced in a clearly legible form. Attached please find 60 more readable copies of the responses to NRC questions 312.16 (22.048) and 331.20.

Very truly yours,.

D. L. RENBERGER Assistant Director Technolo DLR:SAG:sg REGUI IITORY DOCI(ET FILE COPY Attachment cc: I. Littman - WPPSS, N.Y. - wo/att JJ Verderber - B&R, N.Y.-

JJ Byrnes - B&R, N.Y.

RC Root B&R, Site-HR Canter - B&R, N.Y.-

C. Bryant - BPA E.'hang GE, San Jose - w/att (4)

FA MacLean - San Jose - w/att (1) pX J. Ellwanger - B&R, N.Y. - w/att (5)

NS Reynolds - Debevoise & Liberman w/att (1) 4~~ e WNP-2 Files - w/att (1) 0$ p@ 0/5/,

~i E

L

Subject:

WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SUBMITTAL OF LEGIBLE COPIES OF NRC QUESTIONS 312.16 AND 331.20 STATE OF WASHINGTON)

) ss COUNTY OF BENTON )

D. L. RENBERGER, Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Assistant Director, Technology, for the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the applicant herein; that he is authorized to submit the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and believes the same to be true to the best of his knowledge.

DATED , 1979 D. L. RENBERGE awed

.On this day personally appeared before me D. L. RENBERGER to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein menthioned.

GIVEN under my hand and seal this IWday of . , 1979.

No ary Public in a for the State of Washin ton Residing at

r MiRP-2 g 312. 16 Provide an estimate, including your basis, of the total amount of hydrogen and methane gases that. can be generated by the radiolytic and chemical decomposition of organic materials and protective coatings under the conditions which would exist following a design base accident (i.e., a postulated loss-of-coolant accident). Your estimate should be limited to those materials and coatings that would be directly exposed to the containment atmosphere.

~Res ense:

The estimate of the total amount of hydrogen and methane gas that can be generated by the radiolytic and chemical decomposition of organic materials and protective coatings under the conditions of a postulated loss-of-coolant accident is discussed in the answers to guestion 022.048.

'j g DZZ. 048 You state in Section 6.2.5.3.1.3 of the FSAR that the corrosion of aluminum, zinc, and zinc base paints located either in the drywell or in the suppression chamber were determined to be insignificant.

However, we have determined that a potential hydrogen release from the corrosion of zinc following a postulated loss-of-coolant accideet should be considered in the analysis of the to .al hydrogen oroduction

'nd accumulation within the containment. Accordingly, provMe the following information:

a. Provide the corrosion rate as a function of temperature for all materials in the containment that could become a source of I

hydrogen due to corrosion.

I Describe how the corrosion rates assumed for the materials identified in Item (a) were es ablished: identify ihe experiment 1 t data base, including the aporooriate references, and discuss the conservatiBNlin the applicability of the data in view of the calculated environmental conditions following a postulated loss of coolant accident.

c- Provide the mass and surface area of zinc paint and galvanized steel and other corrodible materials in both the drys(ell and the wetwel 1 .

d. Provide a graphic representation of the total hydrogen concen-tration inside the containment as a unction of time with (1) no hydrogen recombiners opera'ting; (2) one recombiner operating; and (3) both recombiners operating.

e. Provide a gr phic r presentation of the contribution of each source of hydrogen as a function of time.

Oescribe the periodic surveillance that will be done to demon-strate the operability of the hydrogen recombiners and the backup purge system.

g. Identi-,g the location of (1) the hydrogen samole ooints in the drywell and the suppression chamber; and (2) the suction and discharge points oI" the combustible gas control system wi th respect to nearby structures and equipment.

ZESPdWSE:

rev'eu of "cute conducten to det on Plum'num, g'nc

'or /inc coatings, inaicates that several factors which woula tena to mitigate the evolu tion of hydrogen

'=ollowing a postulated loss-of-coolant accident have not been reportea or have not been investigated. A brief explanation, therefore, is conclusions recuired to sub-

'stantiate the rationale for the drawn in th' reSponse.. '

,'i

/

~ I

r~

Question 022.048 asks a question with respect to the corrosion of aluminum and the sub-sequent evoiut'on oz nydrogen. The water chemistry of ~p/~>'- 3 is such that the water is free from accitives and is neutral,'.e., a pH of 6.5-7.5.

Nith reference to Aluminum, Uhlig 1 states:

"Aluminum base alloys are not app eciably affectec by dist'ilod wate>> even at elevated temperatures (up to 180 C (350~F) at least) . Furthermore, dis-tilled ~ater is not contaminated by contact with most aluminum base. alloys."

Uhlig states: - "Condensate from steam boilers, if =ree from carryover/of wate" from the boiler, is similarly 'nert to aluminum base alloys. Thus, either wrought o" cast aluminum alloys are used success"uliv for s earn radiators as uni" heaters.

hhere aluminum allovs are used ' 's desirable to install su'table traps in the steam lines, s'nce entrapped bo'ie>> water, especially if alkaline wate" treat'ng compounds a'e employee, may be corros'e. "

Uhlig states: "S earn causes a cefinite pro-tective white ziim to form This film is h'ghly

~

pzotective aluminum alloys.

0 0 ag temperatures up to 180 to 350 C (3SO to 500 F). At tempe atures above this rance, under some conc'ions at least, the steam zeacts with aluminum w'th the format'on of aluminum oxide anc hvcrogen. "

Experimental data from the azorementioned rezerences indicate tha,t aluminum ana'luminum alloys are non-reactive witn pure wate~> and/or steam at temperat res up to and inclucing SOO F. Aluminum rapidiv form' a protective oxide film, in oxycen containing atmos-pheres, which is insoluble in neutral ~ater or steam.

Since the containment Q~c'%A Q o pef 8%nA oxygen and has been throughout ~

is noninerted, there is - free access to construction.."'---

The o~)ygen nas reacted with the alum'um to form the

~

protective ticht adherent water insoluble and non-

evolut'on i

reacting f 1m, which '~:,~~r><~s the Ms- oz hydrogen at the tempe ature and/or environment present

.during or following a postulated loss-oz-coolant l

l

~

t

~ I

1 f

Question 022.048 also adcresses tne corrosion of 'zinc and zinc base paints anc the evoiut'on of hydrogen following a loss-of-coolant accident.

Hubbell and =inkeldy stated: "L'ke several other metals whicn exhibi" marked resistance to corrosion in the atmosphere br'ght zinc rapidly tarnishes when firs exposed, forming a smooth "'ghtlv acherent protective film. The film is apparently a combina-tion of zinc oxide, zinc ca bonate and zinc hydroxide.

Zt 's not readily soluble in ordinary atmospheric

~aters nor easilv destroyed by other atmospheric agencies.

The film varies in tnickness depending upon the exposure conditions, probably reachinc a maximum thickness of .0003 in. Zf removed or worn tn'n by abrasion, it is renewed in a few days to its original thickness."

!tciCay and Worthington state in their chapter on De f 'ing Non-Corrosive ~neutral Range o f Raucous Solutions: "Zinc has useful resistance only in a relat'vely narrow, neutral range of solution; this resistance be'ng due in the simplest case to ilm of hvdrate, abetted in the case of a'rotective impure so'utions by other precipitated Cor osion products and compouhds deposited : om solut'cn.

The hydrate 's soluble on both the ac'd and alkal'ne sides o'f this neutral zone.

Work by Roetheli, Cox and Litteral has very effec-tively drawn the l'mits of the neutral, hvdrate-forming zone in tests in distilled water witn nydrochloric usec to throw the solu ion acid and~

sodium hydroxide alkaline. The solutions were kept rather strongly ag'ated." Figure ~depicts tne results. oz,z..oh'-1 HcKav and Wortnington 6

explain that: "The hydrate is seen to have been most protect'e between the neutral point of pHN~and pH~ 2. 5. The act, is brough" out that the exact shape anc locat'on of tnis curve is typical probably only of the partic-ula set of conditions under which the tests were made. Factors such as agitation, aeration, salts in the solut'on, and temperature, in conjunction witn hvdrogen-ion concentration, affect tne characteristics of film formation. The investigators conclude in a universal sense the condition of low or negligible corrosion probably lies between pH values of 6 and 8 as a minimum and ll as* (

a max'mum."

1

l e

Cox in a paper titled "Ef feet of Temperature on the Corrosion of Zinc,", established the efzec" of temperature on the benavior of zinc in aistillec wa ter . The spec imen s were constantly in motion in the solution, and the solut'on was aerated with a stream of unwashed. air bubbles. The duration of the test was 15 days.

The results of their invest'gation are shown in Figure 0 p<.048- 2 ~

Examination of the zinc hycrate film showea trat the strong increase in corrosion coincidea witn a change in the nature o the film zrom an adherent gelateneous state to a non-ache er.t granular sta. e.

02%. OM

~

able~1 gives the =esults of the change 'n tne 'm st ucture of zinc w'h respec" to tempe ature.

TaaLE /~e" 2..0~8-I

',:."""CT OF TE'OPERA URE ON THE CORROSION OF ZINC IN DISTILLED wAT P.

Cor"os ion Ratp erne.

o erne.

0C mcjdm /dav mil/vr Appearance o f Corrose on F 'm 68 20 3.9 .78 Gelatenous, very adheren-122 50 13. 7 2. 74 Less gelatenous, acherent 131 76.2 15.2 ilosti t granular, nonage "ent 149 65 577. 0. 115.4 Grarula to flakv, nonacherent 167 '5 460 92.0 Granular laky,'nonadherent 203 58.7 11.7 Compact aense, nonaaherent 212 100 23.5 4.7 Uery dense anc acherent

• Ro'lea h'gh-grade zirc,'mmersed for 15 days in water aeratea by air bubbles. Soecimens rotated at 56 RPH.

~ ~ ~ ~

ttcKay and <lorthington, 8 site work by Bengaugh and Hudson wnich says: "Of the neutral solutions, d's-tilled water 's re'atively hich in its action on z'nc. An icea of rates may be gained by tne ol-lowing data, from 24 hou" tests at room temperature on cast 99.97. zinc."

Dis ti'ed wate" mg. oe sa. dm. per d v Quite suspension 53. 76 Air-agitated 167; 199

~

)

A itated with I

~

143 arbon Pioxice

)g'te"et( w'th ei- 33 I

The auti o" s sta" e tnat a fa' average range of I

ra es in dist'lied baal wate would be 30 to 200 mg./sq- dm. per cay.

'nmethane L I e r L L ~.

estimate of the total amount of hydrogen and gases that can be generated bv the radiolytic and chemical decompos'tion o 0 genic (m(aterials anc protective coat'ngs unce" condit'ons which would ex.'st following a postulated 'oss-of-coolant accidentis c-6~5>deed 8 au3.

L ~ ~

There ', to oUr knowledge, no published evperimenta data which szates the amount of hydrogen att ibutab e to the ef fects of a LOCA on specific coatings or organic materials. There's also no published cata. which g'ves the amount o methane proauced fro~ the decompos'ion of organic materials in ap5'non~ nerted environment at the tempera"ure and radiation levels resulting from 3 loss-of-coolant accident. All oL the organic coating materials used within the containment have been subjected to the test reauirements stipulated in

'l I ~

AHSi H-101.2 agd AHSZ H-512 and 'to an accumulative dose of 1 x 10 rads, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Test results show the coatings were intact with no defects.

E 9

i~la ttson s tates:

I "Decomposition of 'Organics: A substantial amount

of organic materials is used in protective coating

systems including those over zinc-based primer paints I inside pNR and BNR containments. vlhen evposed to the LOCA envi"onment (high temperature, chemical, and radiation fields), these organic materials undergo a process o= decomposit'on to form hydrogen and hvdrocarbons. The Accident Analysis Branch (DS"")

has est'mated the resultant hydrogen and hydrocarbon concentrations resulting from tne radiolytic decom-position of organics and the thermal and chemical eact'on oz organ'c coat'ngs on concrete sur aces.

Assuming a conservatively .integrated radiation exposure of 10 rads, the Acc'dent Analysis Branch (AAB) estimates the hvdrogen concentrat'on due to radiolyt'c decompos'ion oz organic coatincs to be less than 0. 4~ zor PNR' anc less than 0. 2'o. for BUR'.

, d'or hydrogen generat'on due to thermal and chemical

', reaction of organic coat'ngs on pa'nted concrete su faces .the BAD est'mates the resu t nt hyd ocen I concentrat'on to be less than 0.3% for PhR's anc less than0.2~ for BWR's. ~

f we sum these hydrogen contributions from organic mater'als which were here-tofore not included in our analysis, the additional hvdrogen represents roughly a 10% increase 'n the hydrogen generated f=om all sources previously con-sidered, i.e., 2'irconium water reaction> radiolysis

( of water, and oxidation of zinc w'h its organ' top co/ during tne post-LOCA period.

Since will be a large amount of water, relat've

'to the the~e

, amount of organic materials, it can be con-ciuced tha" the hydrogen gas generated from radid-lysis of water should dominate that from decompos'ion oz the organ' materials."

W The corrosion rates as a nc"'ion of temperature for

. all materials in the containment that could become a

'source of hydrogen due to corrosion are:

P

<> / o /scr. f t./da 68 3.9 .0013 122 13. 7 .0045 131 76.2 .0250 149 577 .1892

'67 460 .1508 203 58.7 .0192 2'2 23 ' .0077 Aluminum applies to Peflective insulation around the RPV and +~ping Temp. 70 F to 340 .= itonreactive, will not procuce hycrocen a" temperature indicated.

Orcranic Materials Cons'sts of all organ'c coating Imaterials on steel and concrete in drywell and wetwe l. ito specif'c reaction rates have been published wherein the unc"ion of temperature on tne corros'on "ates of organic mater'als has been addressed. .'tost data addressed the loss in or de"erioration of pnysical propert'es such as strength, durometer and the like. A'1 of the materials used for coat'ng of concrete or steel have been subjected to the recrui ed tests stipulated in AiMSI N-101'nd AL'JSI N-512 in accordance with Bechtel Corporation's specificat'ons CP-951 and CP-956, by the Analytical Chem'stry Division of Oak Picge L~1ational Laboratory.

The test reports indicate tnat tnere were no de=ects in the coating materials, '.e., there were no signs of chau king, lakincr, crack ng, delamination dr blistering beyond the recu'emen-'s of the acceptance criteria o the ANSI Standa ds. Refe"ence 9 s ates that "The Accident Analysis Branch (DSE) has estimated the resultan" hvdrogen and nvdrocarbon concentration resulting from radiolytic Cecompos' tion of organics and the the mal and chemical

'eaction of organic coatings on conc ete sur=aces.

Assuming a conlervatively integ ated radiation e:<posure of 10 rads, th'e Acc'dent Analysis Branch

(~QB) estimates the hvdrogen cor.centration due to radiolyt'c decomposit'on o organic coa"ings to be less than 0.4% fo" PNR's and less than 0.2'or BNR's. Fo hydrogen generation c'.ue to thermal and chemical reaction of organic coatings on pa'nted surfaces the AAB est'mates tne resultant I concrete

'vdrogen concentration to be less than 0.3r'. fo PNR's and less than0.2% for BNR's."

I C

'or the specific BhR'in question, we are speaking

,of a possible0.4~ total hydrogen and hydrocarbon concentrat'on.

paaioiqmc. aQ~

$ q os',Q ow

. l'~~ gf, e4e-.- 6. 2. 5.

c rent m rv~

he corrosion rates for the mater'ls identified in tern (a) of the question were establ'ned as follows:

I. Zinc Since no def'nit've data with respect to the corrosion rate of zinc in a BNR environment, containing neutral water without additives, nas been reported the test'conducted by Oak Ricce "tational aboratory, Franklin nst'tute Research Laboratories or Brookhaven iVational Laboratory, it was necessary to refer to the investigat'ons conducted by otner,recognized corrosion experts agaj;4gt>cautions. Figu ei-2 and the accom-panvi..g ao 'er= explains tne inves tigat'ns con-ductec to dete mine the corrosion rate of zinc (rol'ed high grace) 'mmersed for 15 cavs in dis illed water aerated bv ai r bubbles wh'le rotat'ng the specimens at 56 R>t!. The table which appea s in the referenced publicat'ons shows tne actual corros'on in milligrams per scua e decimeter pe 'dav and mils per year at the various temperatures. he data wn'ch was used as a basis for calculat'ng the evolution of hydrogen is actual measured data. /

The premise that all oC the metal which corrodes will react to produce a stoichiometric quantity of hydrogen is ultra conservative, s'nce there are other competing reactions which will produce zinc carbonate and ~inc oxice. in our evaluation we determined the highesc corrosion rate of zinc occurred at 149 : and resu'"ed in a ra e o 577 mg/dm./day or . 89 ozfsq.ft./dar in our analysis we used this max'mum amount as the corrosion rate, at temperature, in the containment..

itis canconservative be determined from the published data that ~~is by a factor of more than 27~

if we cons'der that at 212 F the corrosion rate is 23 5 mg/cm./day or .$ 077 ozgsq.ft./day and that at 68 F '" is 3.9 mg/dm./day or .0013 oz/sq.ft./day.

The data oC Figure -2 and Table, 1 show that at the tem-perature of 149 F the max'mum 'rate occurs and that the rate falls sharply witn temperature inc"ease so that at a temperature of 340 F at 212 F.

it would be below tnat shown

4 g,,:Aluminum Our search of the literature (1), (2),

"(3) clearlv indicates tha" aluminum will not

,corrode or produce hydrogen since the pH of the

'water is in the neutral range and the temperature is below that required to produce hydrogen.

~

".'"..".. " '.,'"Q:;-:Or anic Coatings and Materials , Wha,

~ .

~3.aterazureY in an effort to determine iC there was

'any "irm data which showed that the organic coatings and materials used would produce hycrogen as,a result of ""-"a postulated loss-of-coolant acc'dent.

- do form hydrocarbons gt nas been postulated that organics as a esult of radiation> but this theory is based on tne fact that there i~s a loss of physical properties as radiation e:exposure increases. Ne have stated '.. ".. :"...". that the organic top coats anc coatings used within conta'n-

.ment were subjected to tho test recu'ments of IANSi i4-10). 2 and iVLlS" H-512 "o an accumu'at'e cose

,'of 1:< 10 rads, with a resulting no deCects.

ilattson states tnat "The AccidentvAnaIq&iS Branch (DSi) has estimated tne esultant hycrogen and hydroca bon concentration resulting from the radiolyt'c decom-position of organics and "he the mal and chemica reactions of organic coatincs on concrete sur=aces.

IAssuming. a. conse vatively integrated radiation ev-Iposure of 10 rads".g to be' less than 0.2'4 for B'i'B's.

He fu ther states anat ..

cnem'cal reactions are estimated to produce therma'nd

,',less than 0. 2% of hydrogen or Blvd's.

~ .

C~ The mass and surface area oC z'nc pa'nt, galvan'zek I

stee', aluminum and organ'c coatings 's as fol'ows:

Zinc Paint 280,853 sq. ft. 18,367.8 lbs. of zinc in drywell and wetwell above the water level Galvanize 67,483 sq. ", 3018.3 lbs. of galvanize drywell and wetwell above the wate" level Alum'um 460,700 sq. ft. 32,374 lbs. around reactor

~

pressure vessel and pip'ng

I

+, Organic Topcoats

,On steel 400,000 sa. "". - approx. 187,500 lbs.

I I On concrete 33,000 sq.'t. approx. 24,750 lbs.

h1 I+h

~ The graphic representation of the total hycrogen concent, ation. inside containment as a function of time is shown in figure k.

The graphic representation of the contribution of each sou ce of hydrogen r igures 3 o< 4

~aas unction- of time is sho~n in U ~ 1 I FThe pe" iocic surveillanc e that wi 1 be done to demon-

'stra te the'operability o f the 'hydrogen recombiner and

'the bac kup purge sys em LL "":.:" 4 Z.l.l 8<nc}. iOCLL,SS Ih lhA <.z. -.""

gqThe location of the nydrogen sample points in the Idrywell and the suppression chamber and the suet'on and discharge points o the combustib'e gas control system with respect to nearby structures and eauipment

,'s been answered '" "'- :":.. in resoonse to

'Ques

,: tion~~.

~zz. zK.

s~

pages ~-

F ~~a.

~uiskJ pe

~

I

~ ~

I I

C>

BiBLiOGRAPHY QQ QZ.Z.Qqg The Corrosion Handbook H.H. Uhlig p. 42, Pub. J. Weley & Sons The Corrosion Handbook - H.H. Uhlig p. 43, Pub. J. Neley & Sons The Corrosion Handbook H.H. Uhlig p. 617, Pub. J. Neley & Sons Corrosion Resistance of Hetals and Alloys R. HcKay &

R. Worthington p. 168, Pub. Reinhold Pub. Corp.

Corrosion Resistance of Hetals and Alloys R. i~1cKay &

R. Worthington p. 159, Pub. Reinhold Pub. Corp.

Corrosion Resistance of i'",etals and Alloys - R. NcKay &

R. Worthington p. 169, Pub. Re'nhold Pub. Corp.

Corrosion Res'stance of i'letals and Alloys R. HcKay &

R. Northincton p. 159, Pub. Reinhold Pub. Corp.

Corrosio'n Resistance of Hetals and Alloys R. NcKay &

R. Worthington p. 163, Pub. Reinhold Pub. Corp.

7 U. S. N. R. C., l!emorandum 10/17/78, R. J. Mat tson, Directo",

Division'of Systems Safety to R.S. Boyd, Director, Divis'on of Project 51anagment (Available tfRC Public Document Room) dZZ.Odg Fig.~ 1 p. 160 i'".cKay & 'Worthington

p. 13 Zinc: ts Corrosion Resistance Pub. Zinc inst'ute Fig. 2 p. 161 HcKay & Nor nington azz;04g-

p. 104 Zinc:

'~~8 p. 232 LaQue' its Corrosion Resis ance, Pub. Zinc insti tute

- Corrosion Resis"ance of i~~etals Copson O X,Z. d48-and Alloys /

Table" 1 p. 160 HcKay & Worthington

p. 233 Lague & Copson - Corrosion Res'stance of bietals and Alloys

p. 103 Zinc: Its Corrosion Resistance, Pub. Zinc institute Conversion Factor H. H. Uhlig he Coirosion Handbook p. 1160

~

Table 19 Final Report F-C4290, Hydrogen Evaluation From Zinc Corrosion Under Simulated Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Conditions Franklin institute Research Laboratories 8/76

%a l ~= 4 7

1

~ . '

~ 'I a

c AND Z )NC co@, lNcj3 ZZO z 2

)J 0 O 2.00 z Ql Q 0 O

Q) leo ~

W ~-

0 U uJ 2

I 60 g )40 i-g IZO

.IQO 0

HCl Nc OH.

0 (r ao) 6Q 40 2.0 0

0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEN E.F Fc.Ci OF pH ON COF,ROS ION I P CURE RA'TE. OF F'URF. Z.INC iN Og7.~y NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 0X, (6E.NP,Y I= D SOKUT'lONS 1

I I 500 500 4-00 K

Q 0

V) 2,00 0 0 0 g I OO IOO ISO 200 250 7E.MP ERAYURl= F WASHINGTOiV PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ZINC vs DlST tLUF.O WATF R ZrGURE dgg. &9-iVUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 E,FFC.GT OF TEMPFRKTURE.

V lA O

nC IO" m I Xl f M-W SOURCE A DRYWE LL O

Pl o m

Al BAD I OLYSIS SOU ACE O Sur VnESSION a CHAMBER g

~ IO rg RA 0 IOLYSI S DAY NELL SOU BC E a~+ rn

/PI. 0 p

RQ~

Pl

~Z Do< IO iO

~2,o Z-~n THE COHTRIBUTION OF THE zrzPl RADIOL (TlC AND THERh1A.L DECOMPOSlTIOH OF ORGAN IC

~-= rj

~gz ~O TOP COAT5 IS IHCLUDEQ IN THESE CURVES.

IO'lOTE:

~ Ci oP

~o Z

0 IO IO ha 4! Q~

C TIME (SEC)

~gW

n, 4

I%3 ' '

n O I

/

I m /

CQ NOTE: I.OOTTEO uVE REPRO'.5E.V TS AV IVCReASE IH H, NO AECOMBINEB g

n GENEAATlON FROM, Tll'E RAOlOLVTlC fj THE,RMAL /

O DBYwELL C

o DECONPO5lTLON OP ORCgANlC TOP COR,TS AHO m

n Dl P N INCR' 5E RE'50LTlH6 IN ll g EVOLUTION /

O x$

cn FRObl 'ZiHC usll4C A COHSERVAliVE. ESTlMATE /

~

g BA5ED Ohl A.'0hlC" DRY AHA.L (5l5.

fO g o lrl 2.SOLlo Llt4E. REPREGEHTS Hg GKHERKQOt4

(/1 'IwlTHOUT OBGAHlCS AND ZlHC Ul

-g m

)g O

lQ I05 SCFM 5 ~O

~ O~.

~m mr Wg

/

<0l Z{fl CL Cl NO BECOMBINER m-0 SUPP RESSION l50SCF M

-n

~X)

>(n

-l py

'2

~O CI IAMBER

~C IOS SCFM

-< O~

X m~

g r~

RECOMHINER FLOW START I50 SCFM (2,75I-IAS)

IO~ lO4 TIME AFTER LOCA (SECONDS)

%a NNP-2 Al"KiVDi41ENT NO. 2 December 1978

k. The system is designed to meet qualitv assurance, redundancy, power supply and instrumentation re-quirements for an engineered safety feature system.

1. Since the system is redundant and is not shared with other nuclear units, transporta-tion of the hydrogen recombiners is not re-quired.

m. Since all components of the system are redundant, a containment purge system as a backup is not re-quired. A containment purge system used for other environmental controls is discussed in 6.2.1.1.8.

6.2.5.2 System Design P

arable

~

he containment atmosphere control system prov'des effective control of the hydrogen generated following a postulated LOCA. Piping and instrumentat'on for the system is shown in Figures 3. 2-17, 3. 2-15 and 3. 2-6. Equ'ment details are given in 6.2-17.

.he system consists of the following:

1. A hydrogen mixing system which operates to

~

assure a well. mixed atmosphere in both the drywell and suppression cnamber. This system is the containment spray system and can be ac-tuated approximately 10 minutes after the postu-lated LOCA.

2. A hvdrogen concentration monitoring system measures the amount of hydrogen in the drywell and suppression chamber atmosphere.

3. Two 100 percent capacity hydrogen recombiners, one of which is manually initiated approxi-mately X.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> after tne accident to preclude the hydrogen concentration from exceed'ng four percent by volume. The recombiners, are cataly-tic type hydrogen oxygen recombiners.

6.2.5.2.1 Hydrogen i~1ixing System The function of the hydrogen mixing system is to provide a well mixed atmosphere in the drywell and suppression chamber.

6.2-72

l C

I

mp-2 AMENDMENT NO. 2 December 1978 The cooling water supplied to the aftercooler 's returned to the standbv service water system. The cooling water supplied to the scrubber is discharged to tne suppression pool.

All components of the containment atmosphere control system are redundant. Controls include the control panel located in the main control room and the local control panel for each recombiner located in environmentally suitable rooms in the reactor bu'lding. All of the functions necessary to control tne system are located in the main cont ol room.

6.2.5.2.4 Containment Purge Since active and passive components of the containment atmosphere control system are edundant, containment purge as a backup system is not recuired.

6. 2. 5. 3 Design Evaluation Based on the assumptions of the model described below, is calculated that the hydrogen concentrat'ion in the drv-it well eventually reaches 4$ bv volume approx'mately 10.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> after the postulated LOCA if the hydrogen recombiner

'is not in operation. The recombiner is started, however, when the hydrogen concentration reaches approximately 3.5% by volume hours after the postulated LOCA) to 1'mit the hvdrogen concentration 'below 4% by volume. Figure 6.2-26 shows the drywell and suporession chamber hydrogen concen-tration as a unction of time, with and without operation of the hydrogen recombiner system at design capacity of 150 scfm and at 105 scfm, minimum flow reauired to maintain the hydrogen concentration below 4%, by volume.

The determ'nation of the time dependent hydrogen concen-tration in the drvwell and suppression chambe" atmospheres is based on a two-region model of the primarv containment, a drywell and a suppression chamber atmosphere.

The drywell and suppression chamber free volumes contain air and water vapor at atmospheric pressure just prior for to the postulated LOCA. Gases considered available hydrogen dilution are the non-condensibles and water vapor present during normal operating conditions. Water vapor generated from blowdown is not considered. The radiolytic generation of free oxygen is added to the total inventory of gases. The pressure in containment is assumed to remain at atmospheric pressure and the temperature history of<,

Figure 6.2-7 curve a; is used. The. h~dmq~ u~+ibmO~

4am zinc. and. oman'ice boo V no neZR- 4e 3'Ao~or.

6.2-76

I S

• NNP- 2 P21EN'3 M 'NT NO. 2 Dece b >

l r 1978 BM '~~~pa~ O'A

6. 2. 5. 3. 1. 3 Corrosion"o f Containment materials and ~~041'HOG The corrosion of containment materials was conside ed as a otential source of hvdrogen. The corrosion of aluminum, zinc, ~+zinc base paints~vlocated either in the drywell or suppression chamber was evaluatedl as a potential source of hydrogen. l 4

lI 4 l

e. radielqha.Bnd m+A c,he.w'< e.a,l deca~poihien 1

n~aaic. Waver>ale

~ Aa Jl Vll 4 ll I I I ~

r 4 AVWA I A C l ~

el ~ kl mW

~ IP

, n Ho + ~ l% ~ l I

~ M f v ~ lM ~ a a I lie I ~I ll

~

6.2.5.4 Test'ng and Inspections The hyd ogen recombiners and the associated instrumentation are periodicallv inspected and tested to ensure reliable operation.

Eacn hydrogen recombiner system has been shop tested. Nritten test procedures and acceptance criteria 'n were establisned for all tests. Test results were recorded performance records.

The full scale performance tests were accomplished by placing eacn unit in operation, starting the hydrogen recombiner ana allowing atmospheric air, hydrogen and steam to flow through the unit. A flow of at least 155 SCFN was maintained through-out all tests. The simulated environmental conditions (temp-erature, pressure ana hvdrogen at 0.5 to 4% by volume) ol-lowing a postulated LOCA (Figures 6.2-6 and 6.2-7, curve c) were used during these tests.

The manufacturer nas also conducted a series of cata ys" per-formance tests including the effect of ioaine and methyl ioaide.

i<e. e.ualss4on <s isa.'lo't48 Ir WQ ~(pez sQ Q~

022. 048, C4. re,sul4-s a r %a~~

2,~ink i@ Figwort'-S 6. 2-~6.2-79 ~+~

~ I e

I 0

~ ~' t 4 I

2 IJl O

A I

Pl

~ r- NOTE: I.DOTTED LlhlE REPRESE.hlTS AH INCREASE lhl H2 NO BECOMI3INEB n GENERATION FROM, TllE AAOlOLYTlc $ THERMAL DBVXELL I O OECoWPOSnioN OF ORG~HlC ToP COTS AI4D C

m O

o P N IHCRGA5E REQULTlh16 Ihl lt p FVOLUTlOH

/

FROM ZNC U5114C A CoASERVPl'iVE. ESTIMATE

/

BA5ED Ohl A"eoHC'RY AHA.L (SI'5.

CA O

'ng

~

ill h5OLIO LII4E. RFPRESFHT5 Hg GFHER471014 W1THouw oRC <OIC,S AND ZINC O

I05 SCFM lQ

> ~O

~ O~~rn LLI

/ /x m~

~

cz~

z np CC

/

Ci NO BECOlv18INEB gn 0-M~ SupPBESSION I50SCF M

~O C I.IAh18 E B I05 SCFM 0

~ Zim 2'n 2

-i C)~

zz m~ n gi n BECOMBI N EB FLOE START I50 SCFM (2,75HAS)

)W Q>

r m

I02 IO~ IO4 T IME AFTEB. LOCA (SECONDS)

I f W

ill C) n I IO m I C

CD g

M-e SOURCE Cl DRY@Et L O -g m o m

RADIOLYSIS SOuACE 4/l O

o SUPPRESSION a CHAMBER g

lU 0 BAD IO LYSIS SOURCE DAY M/ELL rn 8p~ 0

,'F~ 1 p

mX'0 U p,Z ~

Qo ~

O IO C

U>

~B IQOTE:

+~As THE COHTRIBOTIOhl OI" THF z'

G' RADIOL'(TIC AND THERMAL DECOMPOSITION OF ORGAN IC TOP COATS IS INCLUDED IN 0 Toe.GE CURVES.

z ri z IO IO IO C

]<. g ViMZ (SZCI re>

AN P-2

(} 331.20

~12. 4. 1 )

In addition to the job group exposure breakdown in Section 12.4 of the FSAR, provide a profile of the estimated annual man-rem doses at the MAP-2 facility broken down by major functions such as operations, maintenance, radwaste handling, and inservice inspection. J'ing experience from operating boiling water reactors, provide estimates of doses resulting from non-routine or special maintenance activities.

Indicate the estimated dose rates, the expected required number of workers and the occupancy times required or performing such main-tenance work which you used in evaluating the estimated annual can-rem doses. Regulatory Guide 8.19 provides guidance in ttiaking such an assessment.

~Res onse:

See revised Section 12.4.* The tables in revised Section 12.4 provide a profile of the estimated annual man-rem doses at the 'HHP-2 facility.

The tables are based on operating BWR experience and are ormulated in accordance wi th Regulatory Guide 8. 19.

/ C ~

• Draft changes attached.

h

12.4 DOSE ASS"SSM"NT 2.4.1 DESIGN CRIT RIA g OCCUPANC ACTORS AND I PERSONNZL DOS" I r/

Th criteria for the dose to plant personnel. during normal ope ation and anticipated ope at'ona.l occurrences, includin ref cling, are based on the reauirements discussed in 10CrR Part QO. The design radiation 3.evels during normal operat'o and re>ueling are shown on Figures 12.3-$ 'o areas s ch as the control room and offices, the maximum dose 12.3-6. In rate doe not exceed 1.0 mrem/hr (Zone:I radiation level) .

=o persormel who work in controlled x-'ad'ation a. eas, rad-ia ion Zon II through U on Figu es 12.3-1 to 12.3-6,

! administrati e controls ensure that 4oses do not, exceed the reauirements f 10CP'R Par" 20.

The'ccupancy =

/

ctors used in estimating plan pe sonnel ra-diation exposure are 3.is ed on Tab3.e 12.4-3. for the six per-sonnel groups. /

/

. /

a. Group 1 includes ma'ntenance personne3. such as mec anical, electr'cal ins rument cra,=tsmen and =or men. Th'ere are approx'ately 46 people r

b. Group 2 inI2:ludes control and.ecuipment operators. There are app ox'ma e'y 29 people in this grou '.

Co Group 3 incl 'es technicians such as health phys'cs and chem" try technicians and eng'neer-

'ng assnts. '

e are approximately 8 people ia 'ais gro d Group . includes wginee s and technical supe vj sors. There a~@ approximately 9 people in th s group.

e. Group 5 includes inplant supe=visors such as ealth phys's-chem'tay supervisor, shift su erviso, etc. There arh approx'mately 14 people in this group.

f. zoup 6 'ncludes adminis r "'ve and.~nage.-,

~

ment personnel. Th'ere .a. e app oximately. 21...

people in &is group;:' .':,""... ': .

• '2.4-1

u se occupancv actors a e determin'ed by estimating "he

@nounts of t'me spent by personnel 'n controlled ad'ation

/areas while performing the following functions:

J g ~ Rollixne patrol

h. Pe 'odic tests and op@rations l i. Con" ml room o o era xo t's

.i

j. Refueling //

k. Maintenance //

I 1 l. Zn-service inspec ion I

Table 12.4-1 also lists/0'e estimated annual dose that will apply to a part'cv~lar group 'n a particular area. To f'nd the cose "hat wil" apaly to'ya pa ticula group, the jose rate is multip~~ed bv the occupancv factors and the num-ber of people in each group. The results, listed 'n Table 3.2.4-1, represent khole body exposure.

Da"a on personne exposure =rom ape ating BWR plants show Bat he opera."'on and main-'enance requirements of all BWR I,

'3.ants are s~~m'1ar, asd ma'ntenazze It ' antic'a~ed that "he ope ation ecui ements o= WNP-'2 will be similar to o'P.her BHR pl~its and here ore -'se ~h sonnel exposure data wali be si~le . 12.4.2 d'sc sses pe .sonnel exoosu e based on BWR ope at'ng expe ience.

~%

~ 0 12.4-2

12.4 DOSE ASSESSMENT 12.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA The criteria for the dose to plant personnel during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences, including refueling, are based on the requirements discussed in 10CFR part 20. The design radiation levels during normal operation and refueling are shown on Figures 12. 3-1 to 12. 3-6. In areas such as the control room and offices, the maximum dose rate does not exceed 1.0 mrem/hr. (Zone I radiation level). For personnel who work in controlled radiation areas, radiation Zone II through V on Figures 12.3-1 to 12.3-6 administrative controls ensure that doses do not exceed the requirements of 10CFR part 20.

~ h

12. 4. 2 PERSONNEL DOSZ ASSESSHZNT BASZD ON BWR OP"RATiNG DATA 12.4.2.1 General Zn general, recent data (1) from operating BWR's have shown that the man-rem exposures to plant personnel are p"imarily due to the co rosion product isotopes. Of the corrosion pro-duct isotopes, Co-60 is believed to be the single most impor-tant rad'nucl'e.

The variables that have been found to affect plant pe sonnel exposu e inc'ude the following:

a ~ BWR plants show an increase in otal personnel exposure du"ing the first few years of operation.

The need to minimize plant downtime reauires that inspec"'on and repair tasks must be sta ted immediately af er plant shutdown when the dose ates from shor -'ived radionuclides can be signif icant ~

c. Plan design and ecu'pment layout has a signifi-can ef ect on personnel dose. 12.3.1 discussed the design fea"ures used to minim'ze plant personnel exposure.

d. T a,'ning and experience o plant wo ke s.

e. The extent of maintenance operations reauired or a specific year.

The extent hat a ut'lity uses non-regular or con -actor personnel.

12.4.2.2 Pe sonne'ose =rom Operating BWR Data References 1 and 2 provide a tabulation o pe sonnel exposures for operating BWR's. Table 12.4- p tabulates the average per-sonnel exposure or several plan"s operating for a period of several years ~~s~8 o~ Mesc ~+e~r c.es R ~+cI c~c.es y4~ouqh '7 p roving'

~or'e I'e-c,e~< w~o~~~Vio ~ 7~ ~sscs~<<+

Sec.+i>< l~. q. 2. 3 i>cled e S

~ .f c g% i o4+r"~wb.

c

~, ='I', ~

~ + ~

1'2. 4-3

NNP-2 A~ abulation of the ave age fraction {in percent) of th an. al plant exposure is listed on Table 12.4-3. Th'able sho~ that the jobs 'isted account =or 47% of tne <<Xzal dose rece' by plan personnel on the average. The~emainina exposu" can be largely accounted or after con dering m's-cellaneo~ routine operations and maintenance Each of the tasks in thi,s category are insignif'cant as ar as radiation dose is conca ned. However, the cumulativ dose received by plant personnel, a e" performing manv o hese tasks becomes s'gn'cant. D+a show that the erpos e from routine oper-a"ions is approxima ely 33% of the t al annual exposu e. The remaining 20% of th total annual posure is accounted for a ter considering mis'llaneous rk dur'ng outages, bias in account'ng for exposur 'nd d'erences in dosimetry results, It is concluded that no s le source o exposure is dominant at ope ating BNR's. The a est single sources were the re-circula ion pumps inc~ 'ng c ~an-up sys em and work on valves, part"'cularlv rel'e.. nd safety%ah.ves. Each of these sources cont ibu ed 8% to ne to"al annual exposure. 'nservice in-of the annu t'ex spection, lingui as e treatment systems and uel handling con"ributed highest exposu" s, 4.9%, 5.6S and 5.5%

exposure, respect'vely.

Noae o e above d'cussion 'cludes the dose received by con"" or personnel. Looking at Table 12. 2, subtracting the olumn labeled "regular-man-rem" from "t "al-man-rem" vi ds he cose received by cont ac or personn l. Zn general, significan fraction (between 25% and 60~) o= the total an-rem is received by contractor personnel.

. 4.2.3 Resul s ana oncxusxon P.s c.'t:ssed previouplv, a precise estimate =. occupa 'nal expose>e o spec'='p in"ividua3/s is not at"a. nable. ~ gross assessmen is provided '.; the ollow'ng pa" graphs =or he i

s'x 'ob group r classifications de inec in 1 .4.1. 4

a. Grouo l - Ma'ntenance pe s nnel would rece've "he la eeet/dose of any o the sir g oups.

Based on taM data d'scus ed 'n the 'eceding sect'ons, " e average an ual perso el dose for all p a.nts with a. -. ermal outa g ea e than 50, 00 YiWD is 140 anrem pe year per plant. he plan-s con idered are 1' ed on

",.Table, l .4-2 s a l~. f- .3 12 . '4-4

I' 0 0

WNP-2

~

From Table 12.4-3, it is seen that maintenan operat'ons, which- include, control rod drive, recirculation pump, valve, turbine, fuel pool and condensate demineralizer maintenance oper-a ions';. would account for 21% of the average annual personnel dose. Xf one-half of the dos/.

from rout'ne operat'ons (33K) and miscellaneaus work during outages (20%) also is received by plant maintenance personnel, approximately/50%

of the total, annual average personnel dose', or 70 man-rem, 's received by this group. issue'ng 46 people are 'in this g=oup results in a / dose o 1.52 rem per'iperson annually. As d:sc ssed in 12.3..1, the equipmen desi gn and layout and the shielding design are such that th'e exposu e

's as low as reasonably ach'evable.

b. Groun 2 Plant ope=at'on pe sonnel can be davided into three G oups -'supe<~isors, con-'rol room staff and plant ecu'pmen" ppera~ors. These exposures can be esti. ted using radia ion zone 1.'mit values. The values given in Tab3.e 12.4-1 show that the to al personae'ose for oper-ation ana shutaown is a proximately 22 man-rem or about 0.7 re./y" perpe"son. As part o this total the sure vxora, and cont ol room sta would be expec-ea to receive an exposure of less than 500 mrem~/yr if ~~hey remain in the cont=ol oom na ag~inistratjx.e o 'ce a eas.

These people wil~ I howeve , spena time on of p3.ar.t systems.

/'pection

c. Groun 3 2= the plant: heal a phys'cs/cnem's"~

personnel spent lt o= Meir t~e collect~G samples in Zone ZZi samp3.ing sta ions, they will recp've a maximum nose of 30) m=em/yr.

Assuming that they spend the remainder of their/time in Zone 2 and Zone ZZ Seas, thei=

totaii dose would be be'ween 1 ana '2 rem per person. The plant health physics/chemistry p//rsonnel also conduct ac't'n activi 'es supreys and support maintenance which recuire moni oring and pre-job raa'ation su eys.

The exposure to.the Seal+& physics/c emistry staff can range fram 1 4o .3; em/yr This is based on experience from operating pl ts.'

12.4-5

0 WhP <<2 Assum'ng a dose ate per person of 2 rem/yr and considering the 8 people in this group, he " tal personnel dose is 16 man-rem.

d. G=ouo 4 The eng'nee ing staff and tec .ical supervisors will spend most of their ime 'n Zone areas where exposures will be le than 500, m em/yr. They will spenc time i igher radia-

~'on areas. However; the resu ing-dose that the wi'1 rece've 'is di cu to estimate in this roup is taken 'e accu tely. The dose rece'd by the 9 people 4.5 man- em.

e. G ouo 5 - P " sup visors will spend time supe v'sing Group an Group 3 personnel. The'r dose rate would be a ut he same" as that eceived by personnel in rou 1 and 3. Th's value 's about 1 rem/yr. ~th 14 ople in this group, the total per nnel dose M 14 man-rem.

Gro n w~ 1 T s, 's spend The adminis-'-at've expected that th e less than 500 mrem/yr'.

"'he -'tal personne'ose and plan" "heir t'me in Zo e '"X radiat'on pe sonnel ar'eas.

dose .rate will Wit 11 peop'e in "'his group, comes 5.5 man-rem.

The t em.al personnel dose o 211 groups is approx'. ely 130 man assuming tha anothe 130 man-rem b contractor personnel, as d'scussed 'n 12.4.2.2, wil'e ece'ved to-'al pe sonne'xposure is estimated -'o be 260 man- em.

.12 . 4 . 3 iNFD~TZON "XPOSURES Airbo ne radionuclioe concentrations 'n normally occup'ed a eas are, as discussed in 12.2.2, well below t.".e 1'mits set by 10 CFR Part 20 and hus inhalation exposures are negligible.

P P

\"

s h

12.4-6

~ I

12 ~ 4.2.3 OCCUPANCY FACTORS, DOSE RATES, AND ESTIMATED PERSONNEL EXPOSURES A summary of the total estimated man-rem doses broken down by major function is given in Table 12.4-1. More detailed breakdowns are presented in Tables 12.4-2 through 12.4-8 for each of the seven major functions qiven on Table 12.4-1. These tables are based, on the more recent information obtained from References 4 through 7. The data from Table 12.4-9 is given for comparison purposes only.

The results of the total estimated man-rem doses will be discussed with reference to six occupational groups as follows:

a. Group 1 - This group includes maintenance personnel such as mechanical, electrical, instrument craftsmen and foremen.

There are approximately 46 people in this group. Tables 12.4-4 and 12,4-8 provide the functional breakdown of exposure for this occupational group. As can be seen from the Tables, 373 total man-rem may be expected.

Routine and special maintenance operations which include control rod drive repairs, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) repairs, snubber maintenance, etc. account for approximately 62% o ihe average annual personnel dose. One to three rem per year per person is projected for the station maintenance personnel for a maximum total of 138 man-rem per year. Accordingly, the remaining 235 man-rem per year would be expected to,be received by nonstation maintenance personnel. As discussed in 12.3. 1, the equipment layout and design and shielding design are such that the exposures are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

b. Group 2 - This group includes plant operations personnel composed of supervisors, control room staff and plant equipment operators.

There are approximately 29 people in this group. Tables 12.4-2, 12.4-3, 12.4-5 and 12.4-6 show the total estimated man-rem for this group. As can be seen, the total is approximately 111 man-rem per year or approximately 3.8 rem per year per man. Personnel in this group will be performing routine and non-routine operation and surveillance, waste processing and refueling operations. In plant operations personnel are expected to receive approx. one'o two rem per year per man for a maximum total of 58 man-rem per year. The remaininq 51 man-rem per year may be expected to be received by nonstation personnnel. As part of this total, the supervisors and control room staff are expected to receive an, exposure of.'less than 500 mrem/yr.."

c. Group 3 - This group includes health physics/chemistry technician personnel. There are approximately 8 people in this group. If the plant health physics/chemistry personnel spend III li,'f their time collecting samples in zone sampling stations, they will receive a maximum dose of 300 mrem/yr. Assuming the remainder of their time is spent in zone I and II areas the total dose is between 1 and 2 rem per person. The plant health physics/chemistry personnel also conduct radiation surveys and support maintenance activities which require continuous and pre-job radiation surveys.

The exposure to these health physics/chemistry personnel ranges from 2 to 4 rem/yr. This is based on experience from operating plants. Assuming a dose of 3 rem per person per year and consi-dering 8 people in the group, the total is 24 man-rem per year.

Since this group covers vi rtually all functions delineated in Tables 2 through 8, this 24 man-rem is considered to be spread out across all the functions.

d. Group 4 - This group includes engineers and technical supervisors.

There are approximately 9 people in this group. Personnel in this group will spend most of their time in,Zohe I areas. where exposures are less than 500 mrem/yr. Table 12.4-7 indicates approximately 129 man-rem per year will be experienced for inservice inspection. Plant technical personnel will have a supervising roll in this operation with nonstation personnel performing the inspecting operations, Thus, the projected dose estimate for the 9 people in this group is 4.5 man-rem per year, the balance being accounted for by the nonstation personnel.

e. Group 5 - This group includes station supervisors such as health physics-chemistry supervisors, shift supervisors, etc. There are approximately 14 people in this group. Station personnel will supervise Group 1 and Group 2 personnel. Their dose is approximately the same as personnel in these qroups. With a projected dose estimate of 1 rem per year and 14 people in th .

group the total dose is 14 man-rem per year ~

f. Group 6 - This group includes administrative and management personnel. There are approximately ll people in this group.

Personnel in this group spend their time in Zone 1 radiation areas'he projected dose estimates will be less than 500 mrem/yr.

With ll people in this group and a 500 mrem per man per year the total dose is 5.5 man-rem per year.

As seen from Table 12.4-1, the total estimated man-rem exposure is 613 man-rem. Groups 3, 5, and 6 are considered to,be spread oyer all the functions. These'groups .constitute only,7X of. the 'total exposore in -any. case..'.

12.4.4 SiTE BOUNDARY DOSE Steam-handling ecuipment on the turbine operat'ng floor can contribute to the s'te boundary dose in two ways: through a direct component and through an air-scattered "skyshine" componen". Since the N-16 bearing ecruipment is known, be shielded to reduce the direct component.

it The "skysnine" can component reaches the site boundary as a result of those gamma ravs which are directed such "hat thev bypass any inter-cepting shield walls and a e scattered by the air to the site boundary.

The calculated results show that the skyshine dose will have i"s greatest effect on a dose point 1950 meters north of the turbine bu'lding. The skyshine dose at this point will be approximately 3.6 mrem/yr. Th's result- is based on a plant capacity factor of 80%, at. full power operation.

The ma.'n con ributors to tnis dose and their con r'but'on (in percent) are the south moisture-separator reheater (NSR) which contribute 60%, the north MSR which cont ibutes 20%,

the c oss over 1'es'hich contribute 10% and the tu bines and feedwater heaters which cont ibute 10%.

The dose es"ima"e was computed from a model ha- represents the N-16 gamma leakage by po'n isotonic sources. This model uses the outpu rom the COHORT Code(>) which g'ves the air-scat"e ed dose as a unction o distance anc source ray angle.

The site boundarv dose from 1'cuid and gaseous e fluen-s are discussed 'n 11.2.3 and 11.3.3.

12.4.5 RZ"ZR:"NCZS atomic Industrial Fo um, Compilation and Analysis of

$ 7 / )

Da a on Occupational Radiation =xoosure =experienced at Ooeratina Nuclear Power Plants, September 974.

-H-.4 " USAEC, A Compilation of Occuoat'onal Radiation Exposure rrom Ln t Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plan 1969-1973, WASH-133.1.

Wells, J. B., Collins, D. G., and Neuendorf, W. P.,

Boundary Dose Rates Due to Gamma Ra s at Power t >8~3 Reacto S'es, Report R&-7202, Radiat'n Research Associates (November 12, 1972) .

Vance J, Weaver C. L,, Lepper, E. M. A preliminary Assessment of the Potential Impac on operating Nuclear Power Plants of a 500 mRem Occupational Exposure Limit, Atomic industrial Forum, Washington D. C. April 1978.

p+ ~5 Murphy, T..D., Dayem, N. J., iland, 0. J., Pasciah, W. J., Occupational Radiation Exposure at ligh. water cooled power reactor 1959-~975, VS. NRC, NUREG 0109, Washinoton D. C., Apl il 1976.

ted%.- {',

Dickson, H. W., Cottrell, W. D ~, Jacobs, D. C., Application of ALAD concept to exposure of workers at light water reactors, 2 TYi-RNC 5126, Oak Ridge Tennessee, November 1975.

t~R-7 I Ninth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report, a p USNRC, NUREG

.'-0322, Washington.D. C., October l977.

12.4-8

rAnLE 12.<-1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSE TO PERSONNEL PLANT IN OPEBATION REACTOR BLDG. TUBI3INH BLDG. BADWASTE BLDG.

Number o f Occupancy Personnel Occupancy Personnel Occupancy Personnel Personnel People in Factor Dose Fac tor Dose Factor Dose Grod Grou / / (hr/man/ r) (man-rem) (hr man r)(man-rem)

Maintenance

~

Craftsmen

.- .(Group 1) 20 4.60 4.60 60 27. 60

,Operators (Group .2) 29 50 4.35 50 4.35 50 7.25 I

-Technicians

(Group 3) 50 1.20 50 1.20 50 2.00

Engineers

.(Group.4) .22 .22 .18 Plant "Supe'rv'i sion

':(Group 5) 35 1.46 35 1.46 30 2.10

'Hanhgement

'(Group .6) .03 .03 .05 11.86 39.18

Table 12.4-1

SUMMARY

OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSE ESTIMATES AT WNP-2 Man Rem/Year

1. Routine Operation and Surveillance 38

2. Non-Routine Operation and Surveillance 15

3. Routine Maintenance 275 4, Waste Processing

5. Refueling 47

6. Inservice Inspection 129

7. Special Maintenance 98 Total 613

~ e > ~

f 4

OCC"~-'0"'L1 DOS"=:"S ""-'-S DUE"'" %0"

'. OP:":='.:OKS i A:iD SURV:.:L ~ C:.

A'Z 'whiP-2 Ave. Dose xposl're 3 'ber Ra te 0= Dose Re~/dw "'orkers <<on va~ 2o~/veer wa1.'.".g .5 l/shift Check':g

.a 'ac Access 3./sh'it 2.2 Cha..ge Rooms Re'ay Room

"!Otor Geae=ator Se s

<<a te v Room Comov.te Roo-I 5>> <<teal Ge- e a jblJvol R of(

SG:S

'..oA 9 Qn Ge...

V o Le 4 %11 V~

~ I Lp

~3Ci~ nea= =xcha..gers RZCCi P" .Os RRvvi - x'Da.Ls:c.. 7a.L}

b. CRD P"-...Os 10 .5 .2 1/shi t C"-. =

v'Ta ts

~ e:"e'.g 1ea CRD P='ters R iCv De mo Res:;. Aa.Lks H~~

S".~~ ~"mrs A Coo e s

'"S'acks CPS Storage c Re@a'"

c.R'!v'CU Heat .x changers 50 1/shlft 5.5

~g

. =; .-.eat =xc ha~gers Ac=c ~'rp' c v.r v ='"..e

Ave, Dose :cposL' i'm>.be=

Rate tie 0 Dose

-..Z 2tl/ r.~ . "'o ke s  :"ec heck" ng (cont ecoa t

') Tank

~ ~ ~ ~

.De..i n ecoat L>>P 0.2, 0.5 1/shift 0,1

+

4asi Sa o a

-loo" D-a'n Sa-..p e ROOK

'Paste SL"ge

>>]Lip e>>- 2 S 'p PQEp Vaste SL=ge  %'

I

~ aQ C S ~ ~ 44>>

~

0+lr o i:

~ ~

2s 2 cC ~ ~

cg D's 0\ Q~ %%

Wp.s>> p l pv ~i'r L~P

~ c oo". D".a'n Co'lec-l'idP C1e ' was. e 'znK 0.5 1/week 1.3 Soen= B.csin P ...o Conce..sa e . nzse Deca"."

Con='ensate Phase ~'"cga S>>.ic ge M' 'gy go ~

-oc De I 1/week 0.8

'w'as te  :";cone"

'1>> <<e>>

"ZOO D>> c ~ e

>> V ~0 ns =="-.eats .5 1/shi t Cont o 'S

's Gen. Co1 S 2 424 4 l>>

<<:cate" =eec =L'.ps 2

Units ICva mal D e ~'pp>> '.. ~ 1 i

& Vz ves Svsa e~

catch:."ez above De-.in

~anc.s Shel

'ea'h 1 anl y Space'~CCw Heat mansion

x Ave. Dose ">:OOsl'- 2 ~

woe>>

Roc :icle 0= Dose V ~We ./2". ~ ~

s ~ 'vo" ke" s w '>> Oil ge Q/vep C'"e" k'"" (Co""t )

n .3CC'.~ "=zca"..s on Taink 0.3 1/shiz t 1.6 ni<< '-- o:l pip D ~ ~ P ecc 2 t lh aies ~

.2...ks De='n. P ecoa Pvwlps Sc..p -'vs ac to 'ee>> ~p T" oh¹

':!TC

~ 4 ~ v2

'i'oo'" ~ 0 ~~p ls <<

+~ << 'li'ep>>

ric Va <<0 S S

V21ves

~~o ."122 2>> ~ I ~ Ot

~

~

~

wc7 1<< ~ ~ 0.5 1/sh' t 13. 7 pc i 2 S il Tailks Cence-..se '~ate" 3ox C'c.

"- lveS

~ ~

wc <<Sv p>>l c'ms React ". ":eec ps ~

nes D"-'ee

.H ~ ~ c. cs ~

'o S

eec '.late= .-.ca=2"s Sea '~i.k G 'in 0 <<ea..i 'LrOncens 2 Hain "u=oine B.ehea te" Sepaza"-o"-s Total 37.8

I ~

~ lg 7<$ 4 /> 0-3 DCC '.=ATTCN~ DG:-:-ST:."~T:-S BUR <iG;!D.'iROUT:i4:

OP:~~:TOih A.'iD SuRV:"iL c<<%C:-

AT VX~-2 ~ \

~

Ave, Bose  :-:closure iv,umber Ra te ~ C~<<ae Of Dose mRe.-../'.":r. ilrs. wo Ke s ":reo ~'.an-Rem/vea=

1, 'Operation o- equipment:

a. Traversing in-core Probe System 2 2 3/year 0.02

b. Safety injection Sys 5 1 1/month 0.06

c. "eedwater Pumps a Turbine 1 1 l/week 0.05

c. instrument Cal bra ion 2 1 1/day 0. 73

2. Collect'n of Radioactive samples:

a. iquid System 10 0' 1 1/day l. 83

b. Gas System 5 0.5 1 1/mon th 0.03

c. Solid System'.

10 0.5 1 4 /year 0.01 Raciocnem'stry 1 1 2 1/day 0 73

~

e. 3 adwa s te Oper at'n 8 3 1/week 3 75

~

Health Physics 5 2 1/day 7. 30 Total 14.5

g al

7~5La (0 4-4 OCCU AT1OKA'OS~:S'-.'AT:"S DURING ROUTTbi': ".mZNT:-NANC~

AT )Pic?-2 Ave. Dose ".xposur e Numb e" s Rate Time Oc Dose Activitv mRem/Hr. llrs. Uorkers P>>eo an Rem/Yea>>

3.. >linor Repairs Reacto" Bu lding 1/week 2.1 2~ Ventilation & Air Cond'ioning g.5 20 1/week 0.5, 3,'Contro1 Rod Dr've Re'p air* 15 200 1/year 18

4. Reactor Hater Clean'p Pump~ 18Q 1/yea" 19 5, Reactor Vater Clean Up Valve & Heat* 110 1/yez 30

6. ".xchange

7. Resiauzl ;.Bat Re-oval System* 200 1/ye-r 43

8. Sz=ety Re1ie< Valves 80 30 1/yezr 12

9. 8" in Steam "so3.at'on Vz1ves lD 100 6 1/ve-r 45.

10. Recirc.'Pumps 200 50 3 /yearn 30 11 Sn bber nspector &

aeo 75 100 1/year 37 ~ 3 12 Y.isc..1'rb'ne bldg.

Repzi s 1/cay 5.8

13. Reactor Peed Pumps

& Turbine 2 6/ve"r p 96 14.-Drain Coolers 2 1/yezr

'1 1>. S Bam wet A'r

-j ectors 2 4Q 2 >/ye-" (p.32

16. 0='as System 2 40 2 6/ye-r C,. 96

17. ilTG Ac uator 5 40 1 1/year .24 18..Heater Dra'n "lash Tanks 4Q 1/year g.08

')

19. Condenso" hater Box Q 1/year p1

20. Annua',1'urb'ne

':nspection 120 10 1/yezr 3.6 21 ~ cise ~ Radwzs te Pump Repairs 40 6/yez 2.4 ~

.22..Misc. Radvaste VaLve

~

'Repairs ~

-5 .4Q.... 2 6'/yezr 2.4 .

23 P'1ter & Demin.

~ .65 .30, .

3 1/year '5.9

• 24 Centerzuge 5 8 2 .'4/yezr .32 1 7o

~ ~

~

m pl~ zp. < - a C I ~<)-

~~

.-'.ve. Dose ""xposur e <<)lusher

'Ra =e :ime pC Dose AC tivitv -,.P,em/H r. >>

!1 S ~ )>>>>0 ke s ec ~ <<)fan-Rem/Year

<<fechanical (Cont.)

5.:-vaporation 85 50 1/year 12.8 6 ',Turbine ins tr. E Control 2 10 1 1/week }.0 7, Haste Solidi icat'on 2 40 2 2/year 0>>32 8'rea <<fonitors 20 40 2 2/yea" O. 32 Total 274. 8

~ >>N

~ I L>>

~ Q~

~ ~ ~

>> ~ ~

~ I ~ ~

~ )

~ I

~ I

~ J%

4

~ ~ t 7pgfe /g,g g OCCUPAT'ZONAL DOSE ESTL'LCTES DURING 'WAS:E PROCESSING AT lVP-2 Ave. Dose Exposure Number Ra te Time Of Dose Activity mRem/Hr. Hrs ~ Workers Prea. ?fan-Rem/Year Radwaste Control Room .5 1/shift 4r4 Sampling 6 P'lte C'hanging 10 1/week 2~ 1 Panel Operator Xnsp.

& "es-'ng 1/Q y .73 Operat'o.. of Waste c Packaging <<ou>> p r 16 '/week 3 3~

Total 10r5

~'

r

~ r 1-79

0 pkIc. 12 4-'C OCCUPAT. 'ONA DOS ":-ST 'ET- DURTYG R" "UZ'AG A 4NP-2 Ave. Dose Exposure Yumber

\

Rate ~

'me Oc Dose Ac tl;vitv mRem/Hr. Hrs. Workers r reo. Han-Rem/Year Opening/Closing Reactor>> 60 40 10 1/year Pressure Vessel

.. ".uel P"eparat'on 10 24 1/year 0. 48

. Refueling >> 10 100 15 1/year

~: uei...":andi'ng 2 5 ,100 1/year 1.0

.:uel. S'pping 100 1/year 6.0 Total 46,5 1-7o

OCCUPAT:GNAL DOS:":S:~~2' S DURING ZNS:"RV'XC" XXSP"=C ION AT Mi'P-2 Ave. Dose "xpos-re Nv.u:her Act'vitv Rate Time Oc Dose mRem/Hr. Hrs. Workers eo. Han-Rem/Year Removal/Replacement

'n o'nsv.la" 150 40 1/year

'. Zns "alla"'n/Removal

& Ladders 1/year

. inspecting Inside Drv Veil+ 150 80 1/year 72 Recorder Data 50 80 1/year 5 , inspecting Outside Dry Veil* 50 1/year Total 129 1-79

~ y I 7u'ate /2- 9 -Z OCCUPA 'ONA~ DOS ZSTZ".L~T:-S DURZNG SP - CZAt "L'sZha'T NAXC:-

AT 4NP-2 Ave. Dose Exposure 3umber Rate Time OE Dose Activitv r:Ben/sir. Hrs. 4orkers Prea. Man-Rem/Ye lf Sparger Replacement 800 60 Shoula not be necessary CRD Rep3.acement 260 35 1/yea" 45.5.'urbine Ove haul 250 20 1/5 vea" Serv'ng Zn Detec"ors 15 50 1/year 2.3 coz'ys.

0 Overhau'00 Gas Cha" 100 1/20 yezr Special Hzintenance Reactor 150 1/10 year 6 vlzter Clear 1lp Sys.

Risc. P'p'ng Repair '<< I s 80 100 5 1/yea.r 40-To" a.l ~ 97. 8 1-79

1 l

WNP -2 TABLE PERSONN"L EXPOSURE FOR SEVERAL BWR PLAiNTS PLANT "3 RATED MWe: 640 PLANT CAL AG- TiDERMAL DOWN REGULARS* REGULARS TOTAL YEAR (YRS) MWD HOURS MAN-REM MAN-REM 73 5 452,708 2263 142 551 1449 72 4 540, 877 '548 108 399 651 71 3 486,380 1567 98 140 249 70 2 441,800 1687 48 69 1 49,806 68 67 .3 .3 P ANT -,5 R TED MWe: 630 P~TN T CAL AG" THEROQ DO'n'N P" GULARS* R- GULARS TOTAL YEAR (YRS ) MWD HOURS MAN-REM YAN-REM 73 4 457,173 2679 136 31 0 594 72 3 417,'9 I

2678 ,130 218 305 71 2 381,082 2798 68 106 206 70 1 247,501 4487 69 62

• Regulars - Denotes the numine of Re<gular (Non-Contrac or)

Plant Employees

lO ~ ~ I TA3L" I.',. -": .- c (Conti nued ) Sheet 4 P ANT =..13 RA =-D MWe; 652 PLANT CAL AGE THERMAL DOWN REGULARS* R" GU LARS" TOTAL YEAR '(YRS ) MWD HOURS MAN-RZM MAN-REM 73 3 58I082 8040 176 225 620

/2 2 403,650 3960 232 255 595 71 1 463,000 3240 244, 31 49 70 11,988 Regu ars: - Deno" es "ne number of Regula.r (Non-Con" acto )

Plant Employees

t.

~>pi>> f l~~,~ -'? {Continued) Sheet 2-Plant =,';8 RATED. MNe: Ul 200 U2,3 800 PLANT CAL AGE THERMAL DONN REGULARS" REGULARS" TOTAL YEAR (YRS) MND HOURS MAN-REM'MAN-REM (all units)(all uni s) 73 14 Vl 101, 2332 576 909 353 73 Ul 681, 807 174 73 3 U3 495, 2577 689 72 13 Ul 156, 17'2 6 239 368 728 783 72 U2 432, 3402 725 72 ' U3 618, 888 71 12 Ul 99, 3140 225 3'5 7 078 71 2 U2 364, 2669 023 71 u3 149, 5944 510 70 Ul 198, 498 202 127 143 835 69 10 Ul 120, 3292 182 215 493 9 133,307 3177 ~ '18 9 303 67 8 115,362 3855 170 363 66 7 199 I 214 368 107'5 6 138,149 1800 103 128 64 5 138,688 l547 71 90 63, .' " 3.30,,757 1992 . -

.,89 ..

'* Regulars - 'Denotes number oZ Regu'1 ar '(Non-Contractor)

Plant Employees

(~

gl al II f

,:.! > "~ t2,D-:. (Continued) Sheet 3 PLANT ~8 RATED HWe: Ul 200 (Continued) U2,3 800 P LANT CAL AGE THERMAL DOWN REGULARS* REGULA ARS* TOTAL YEAR (YRS ) MWD . HOURS ~N-REH HAN-REM (all units)(all units) 62 2 168,008 1716 182 86 145 6' 72,403 4500 105 105 60 1 31,707 64 PLANT -

I 9 (1) PATED MWe ~

Ul '00 U2 800 PLANT CAL AGE TH"BMAL DOWN REGULARS* REGULARS

• TOTAL vEAR (vRS) MWD HOURS HAN-REH HAN-REH 73 2 Ul 646,112 970 259 142 201 73 1 Ul 676,909 1074 72 1 Ul 1',733 3502 380 26 72 U2 205, 080 PLANT > 10 RATED HWe: 54 8 PLANT CAL AGE TH"RHAL DOWN R"GULARS* R.GULARS* TOTAL vEAR ( YRS ) MWD HOURS HAN-REM HAN-R"M 73 3 4 05, 000 2131** 105 91 156 72 2 445,000 1419 83 53 65 71 180,000 4367 82 27 29

""Furst sax months only

• Regulars Denotes the number oZ Regular (Non-Contractor)

Plant Emoloyees

i ik