Comments on RAW System Review

**October 24, 2001**

# Water Systems

[Presenter: D. Pushka]{.underline}

1.  ([Reviewer: D. Johnson]{.underline}) I held a meeting with members
    of the Operations Department to discuss some of the items from the
    review. We would like to be involved with the naming and addition of
    items to ACNET. This includes items for alarms too. We also suggest
    system graphics displays for the water systems. This will help
    people understand the system and makes it easier to troubleshoot. We
    are willing to assist in the creation of these displays. The degree
    of our involvement will depend on manpower and machine operations at
    the time of the request. We would also like to be involved in any
    special procedures for leaks and access requirements. I did not see
    anyone from BD ES&H or the Interlock Group at this meeting. Some of
    the systems will be connected to the safety system and have the
    capability of taking out the beam permit. This should be discussed
    in detail with them.

2.  ([Reviewer: D. Plant]{.underline}) Absorber RAW system:

    a.  It may be beneficial to install one or more conductivity probes
        in the full flow part of the system as well as the probes now
        measuring the ion beds only.

    b.  Consider some simple control for the various water modules
        within the absorber enclosure. It seems that there will be a
        large difference in heat load across all of the modules. Perhaps
        just a one piece, no moving parts, limiting orifice or squeezed
        pipe would suffice to but the flow where is it is needed most.

    c.  We should make sure that the resin beds we will be using are
        capable of the radiation levels and, temperatures that we will
        be exposing them to. Temperature problems have "gotten" us in
        the past.

    d.  It may be wise to insert a low cost SS sieve filter downstream
        of the ion bed in each system. If the sieve was large in size,
        but small enough to get only resin beads, it probably would not
        be a high maintenance item.

3.  ([Reviewer: D. Plant]{.underline}) We may need high level alarm for
    the expansion tank in the decay pipe system. This would alarm if
    there is a leak in the heat exchanger.

4.  ([Reviewer: D. Plant]{.underline}) Think about adding klixons to all
    pumps. I understand that some of the pump motors are small in size
    but even small pumps can fail and break their castings. A klixon set
    at a relative high temperature may not protect the pump from some
    damage but we should be able to set the trip point to something
    before a catastrophic failure that could spill water.

5.  ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) The piping diagram conforms
    with the ISA piping standard and is readily understood by those
    familiar with process piping.

6.  ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) The cooling water to the
    adsorber pile shielding has multiple parallel paths (and
    parallel/redundant paths) without an obvious means to equalize or
    set desired flow rates to the modules. It understood that the amount
    of energy deposited will vary among the different modules. I further
    understand that efforts were probably made to design in the correct
    flow impedances. It is worth designing in a convenient means of
    adding valves should flow balancing be necessary.

7.  ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) As mentioned by a different
    reviewer in the meeting, if the purpose of the expansion tank (at H5
    on drg. ME-406229, rev.B) in the adsorber raw system is to separate
    out evolved gas, the flow should be in one end of the tank and out
    the other.

8.  ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) Alternatively, an experience I
    have had with gas in water systems is that the air collects in the
    top of the full flow filters on the suction side of the pump. That
    is a bleed off point that we commonly use. You may consider moving
    the expansion tank at H5 to a large port connection on your filter
    at E5.

9.  ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) The back pressure regulator on
    the expansion tanks should be replaced by a manual flow control
    valve. The back pressure regulator and supply regulator will fight
    each other.

10. ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) You probably should have plans
    to have a gas analyzer connection to the vent line of your expansion
    tank to determine the level of H2 in the nitrogen.

11. ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) I agree with your decision not
    to rely on flow measurement as an alarm or interlock point.

12. ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) Your expansion tanks seem to
    fall outside of the scope of ASME boiler and pressure vessel code,
    but to save yourself time and energy with the safety committees, you
    might consider putting a diverter valve and an additional relief
    valve on such. It will allow you the means to pull off the relief
    and test it periodically.

13. ([Reviewer: R. Rucinski]{.underline}) I think the connections to the
    ejector pump may be incorrect. The horn drain should go into the
    throat of the ejector pump. The pump flow goes through the venturi.

14. ([Reviewer: T. J. Sarlina]{.underline}) All of my questions or
    concerns were answered to my satisfaction during the review. I do
    think you\'ll need to keep in close contact with Dan Johnson to make
    sure the number and variety of alarms coming into the Control Room
    are acceptable to him and his Operations staff though.

15. ([Reviewer: A. Wehmann]{.underline}) Jim Hylen made the point about
    the expansion tank on the Absorber RAW system only having one water
    line. To him, this seemed inconsistent with the purpose of having a
    purge gas above the water level in the expansion tank to remove
    tritium. His suggestion was that water in the expansion tank change.
    I interpreted this to mean several lines to the tank, and some sort
    of flow through it. I believe that Dave Pushka recognized the need
    for this.

# Calculation of Induced Activity

[Presenter: K. Vaziri]{.underline}

1.  ([Reviewer: D. Boehnlein]{.underline}) This calculation (on the
    [review web
    page](http://www-numi.fnal.gov/numwork/reviews/oct_24/boehnlein_10_24.doc))
    is only a rough estimate and a more thorough investigation should be
    made before choosing a gas for the RAW surge tanks. However, my
    preliminary conclusion is that the choice of argon does not present
    a problem from the standpoint of releasing radioactivity to the
    environment.

2.  ([Reviewer: N. Grossman]{.underline}) One suggestion, which Kamran
    is in the process of doing already, is to update, clarify and
    document the RAW water calculations. This includes dose rates from
    DI bottles and the tank. The Be will plate out mainly in the filters
    and DI bottles and this needs to be reflected in the estimation of
    dose rates. Exactly what the NuMI inputs (and non --NuMI inputs) to
    the calculation were for each case need to be clear in case NuMI
    makes changes. Inclusion of the H gas production estimates in this
    document would be best.

3.  ([Reviewer: N. Grossman]{.underline}) Along the same lines, the
    project needs to look at the resultant rates versus time and
    finalize the amount of shielding needed for the various systems.
    This should be based on the frequency, time in the location and
    number of personnel in the vicinity of different parts of the RAW
    system. In most cases a 1-hour (or even more) cooldown time is
    probably realistic. The access information from the project needs to
    be appended to the RAW water document of Kamran's, clarifying our
    best guess of what shielding is needed and why.