29.11.2014 Views

DOE 2000. - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of Energy

DOE 2000. - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of Energy

DOE 2000. - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of Energy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

WIPP RH PSAR <strong>DOE</strong>/WIPP-03-3174 CHAPTER 5<br />

The 10-160B cask is a certified Type B shipping cask and is designed to withstand vehicle crashes, fires<br />

and other transportation hazards. The 10-160B cask SAR 66 contains (puncture test) analysis considering<br />

only the outer two inch thick carbon steel wall, which shows the 72,000 lbs loaded cask can withstand a<br />

forty inch side drop onto a six inch diameter mild steel bar without significant damage. The maximum<br />

loading on the cask outer wall is based on the properties <strong>of</strong> the six inch diameter mild steel bar (1.26x10 6<br />

lbs). The calculated stress due to bending is 1,613 psi which is less than the 48,000 psi allowable. In<br />

addition, the cask wall also contains 1-7/8 inches <strong>of</strong> lead and an inner wall <strong>of</strong> 1-1/8 carbon steel. If the<br />

cask composite wall was breached, the type A drum would also have to be breached inside <strong>of</strong> the cask.<br />

Based on this a conditional probability for a drum inside the cask to be breached and release its contents<br />

is conservatively taken as 0.01. The frequency <strong>of</strong> hazardous event 1B-6 is: 16 demands/yr * 1.0E-03 *<br />

0.1 * 0.2 * 1.4E-02 * 1E-02 = 4.4 E-08/ yr or "beyond extremely unlikely" (10 -6 /yr $frequency). There<br />

are no guideline limits for this frequency.<br />

Estimated Noninvolved Worker and MEI Consequences and Comparison to Risk Evaluation Guidelines -<br />

The worst-case, no-mitigation MEI and noninvolved worker consequences <strong>of</strong> NC3-G are well within the<br />

radiological (Appendix E Tables E-46 and E-47) and non-radiological (Tables E-49 and E-50) risk<br />

evaluation guidelines for the extremely unlikely range.<br />

Assessment <strong>of</strong> Immediate Worker Consequences - No current risk evaluation guidelines exist for the<br />

assessment <strong>of</strong> accident consequences to immediate workers. Therefore, in the absence <strong>of</strong> guidelines, and<br />

for conservatism, the noninvolved worker radiological and non-radiological guidelines for the extremely<br />

unlikely range are used as a reference point for the assessment <strong>of</strong> consequences to immediate workers and<br />

the evaluation <strong>of</strong> the adequacy <strong>of</strong> the WIPP defense-in-depth features. The worst-case consequences to<br />

the immediate worker from NC3-G (Appendix E Tables E-48 and E-51) are well within the risk<br />

evaluation guidelines. Therefore, no specific additional worker protection engineering or administrative<br />

controls beyond those already qualitatively identified as providing defense-in-depth for the immediate<br />

worker, are needed based on the quantitative consequence assessment results.<br />

NC3-H Dropped 10-160B Cask in RH Bay Accident Scenario:<br />

NC3-H consists <strong>of</strong> hazardous event 4D-1 which postulates the 10-160B cask, with loosened lid bolts,<br />

falling <strong>of</strong>f the road cask transfer cart (RCTC) in the RH Bay while the cask is being transferred to the<br />

CUR. The potential consequences <strong>of</strong> this event are: loss <strong>of</strong> production (CH and RH), breach <strong>of</strong> drums,<br />

direct radiological exposure to facility worker, on-site and <strong>of</strong>f-site consequences, spread <strong>of</strong><br />

contamination, release <strong>of</strong> hazardous material, facility and equipment damage. Breach <strong>of</strong> a 10-160B cask<br />

and drums could cause a significant release <strong>of</strong> radioactivity to the environment.<br />

Mechanisms for causing this to occur include derailment <strong>of</strong> the RCTC during movement, impact <strong>of</strong> the<br />

RCTC by a vehicle in the RH Bay, and impact with the CUR shield door separating the RH Bay from the<br />

CUR. Derailment <strong>of</strong> the RCTC during movement could be the result <strong>of</strong> either a foreign object on the<br />

rails or failure to replace the removable rails at the entrance to the CUR. Analysis 68 has conservatively<br />

shown that the event is not a credible as long as vehicles that do not exceed the limits <strong>of</strong> tables contained<br />

in the analysis are not allowed in RH Bay when a 10-160B cask head bolts are removed. The NC3-H<br />

event is not a credible event and has a frequency in the "Beyond Extremely Unlikely" range<br />

(10 -6 /yr $frequency).<br />

The loaded 10-160B cask contains ten waste drums. All ten <strong>of</strong> the waste drums could potentially be<br />

damaged. However, the waste drums are DOT Type A containers and will withstand a drop <strong>of</strong> four feet<br />

with no damage. Given the height <strong>of</strong> the 10-160B cask is only slightly more than seven feet 11 and even<br />

with the cask falling from an RCTC only the top drum carriage in the cask would experience the<br />

equivalent <strong>of</strong> a drop in excess <strong>of</strong> four feet. It is assumed that only five waste drums are impacted by this<br />

5.2-64 January 22, 2003

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!