Text

Analysis of Hazards for Rail & Highway Transportation Routes Near San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1
	ML13333B115
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	09/30/1982
From:	Michael Cheok, Nathan S; NUS CORP.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML13317A387	List: ML13317A386; ML13333B115;
References
	TASK-02-01.C, TASK-2-1.C, TASK-RR NUS-4099, NUDOCS 8211040100
	Download: ML13333B115 (88)
	v • d • e

NUS 4099 ANALYSIS OF HAZARDS FOR RAIL AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION ROUTES NEAR THE.SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION-UNIT.1 Prepared for Southern California Edison Company by M. C. Cheok September, 1982 Approved:

S. J'. Nathan, Manager Radiological Analysis Department Consulting Division NUS Corporation 910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, MD 20878 8211040100 821102 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PlI Ih

'n~r'FL

'~

PPDR REGLATOR DOCKE FIL CO111

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and Title' Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 2.0

SUMMARY

2-1 3.0 ANALYTIC MODELS 3-1 3.1 General 3-1 3.2 Explosive Overpressure Due to Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosions 3-5 3.3 Flammable Vapor Cloud at Air Intakes 3-13 3.4 Dispersion Model 3-16 3.5 Vapor Cloud Ignition 3-20 3.6 Solid Explosives 3-22 4.0 ACCIDENT RATES AND ACCIDENT SEVERITY 4-1 ASSESSMENT 4.1 Accident Rates for Trucks Transporting 4-1 Hazardous Material 4.1.1 Truck Accident Rates on California 1-5 4-1 4.1.2 1-5 Tank Truck Accident Rate 4-3 4.1.3 Accident Locations on 1-5 4-5 4.1.4 Spill Rate and Distribution 4-6 4.1.5 Explosion Rates 4-10 4.1.6 Accident Rates for Carriers of Explosives 4-15 4.1.7 Cylinders of Compressed Flammable Gases and Cryogenic Flammable Gases 4-18 4.2 Transportation Accidents on the Railroad Passing by the San Onofre Nuclear Gener ating Station 4-19 4.2.1 Train Accident Rates for Track Passing SONGS 4-19 4.2.2 Pressurized Tank Car Loss of Lading Rate 4-20 ii NUS CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section and Title Page No.

4.2.3 Severity of LPG Loss of Lading Accidents 4-22 4.2.4 Tank Car Modifications 4-32 4.2.5 Explosives, Accident Rates and Severity of Accidents 4-33 4.3 Use of Regionally Adjusted Accident Rates 4-34 5.0 ANALYSES AND RESULTS 5-1 5.1 General 5-1 5.2 LPG 5-6 5.3 Other Hazardous Gases 5-6 5.4 Explosives 5-9

6.0 REFERENCES

6-1 NUS CORPORATION

LIST OF TABLES Table No.

Title Page No.

2-1 Result Summary 2-2 3-1 Incidents Used to Compile Probability Distributions 3-9 3-2 Distribution of Explosion Yields 3-10 4-1 Summary of Data Supplied by California Department of Transportation 4-2 4-2 U. S. DOT Intercity Highway Truck Accident Rates Per Mile 4-4 4-3 National Truck Accident Rates 4-7 4-4 Summary of BMCS Reports for Compressed Hydrocarbon Gases 4-9 4-5 Truck Spill Quantity 4-12 4-6 Hazardous Material Incident Reports LPG Trucks 4-13 4-7 Nationwide Accident Rates for Explosives or Dangerous Articles 4-17 4-8 ATSF Freight Train Operational Data 4-21 4-9 Nationwide Train Accident Rate 4-23 4-10 Rail Quantity of Spill 4-24 4-11 Summary of Mechanical Damage Induced Loss of Lading Accident Severity 4-28 4-12 Railroad--Compressed Flammable Gases Summary of Results--Loss of Lading Caused by Mechanical Damage 4-29 4-13 Loss of Lading Caused by Fire 4-30 4-14 Railroad Accident Rates (Accidents per 106 Train Miles) 4-37 5-1 Commodity Dependent Input Parameters 5-2 1v NUS CORPORATION

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table No.-

Title Page No.

5-2 Overpressure and Flammable Vapor Cloud Input Parameters 5-3 5-3 Provided Resistance to Overpressurization 5-4 5-4 Risks from Comprehensive Gases to the Individual Buildings 5-5 5-5 Results--LPG 5-7 5-6 Other Highway Results 5-8 5-7 Highway Military Explosive Shipment Size Distribution 5-10 v

NUS CORPORATION

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.

Title Page No.

3-1 Simplified Event Tree for Transpor tation Hazards 3-2 3-2 Event Tree for a Spill 3-3 3-3 Region Definitions 3-4 3-4 Critical Buildings to Overpressure Damage 3-11 3-5 Region II Defined by the Building Layout 3-15 3-6 Probability of Flammable Plume Ignition Versus Plume Area at the Time of Ignition 3-21 4-1 Trucks--LPG & NH 3 Spill Quantity-Gal--Normalized to Max Truck Loads of 10,000 Gal.

4-11 4-2 Railroad Loss of Lading Quantity-Normalized at Maximum Car Load of 33,000 Gallons 4-25 HVA vi NUS CORPORATION

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is located near Interstate 5, a major eight lane highway, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railway's main coastal north-south route.

The potential hazard to Unit 1 from explosions due to acci dents involving hazardous materials on both 1-5 and the AT&SF railroad is evaluated in this report.

The following sections of this report summarize the work, des cribe the detailed analytic models, describe the accident rates and give the results of the analysis.

III 1-1 NUS CORPORATION

2.0

SUMMARY

The analysis of overpressure and flammable cloud intake haz ards from hazardous material activities on 1-5 and the AT&SF railway has considered historic and projected shipment fre quencies, historical accident rates and severity factors appropriate for the conditions near the plant and consequence models and parameters selected to provide an adequate and overall conservative description of the events.

Results of the analyses are summarized in Table 2-1.

As can be

seen, the total probability of exceeding 0.5 psi overpressure from an explosion is approximately 5 x 10-6 per year with accidents involving most commodities well below 10-7 per year.

Only LPG and solid explosives are significant contributors to the total probability. The total probability of a flammable vapor cloud existing at a Unit 1 intake is 1 x 10-7 per year.

The results of the analysis are believed to be a conservative estimate of the true probability of exceeding 10 CFR 100 guidelines. Specific items of conservatism are as follows:

o The criteria selected are conservative.

Exceeding the specified overpressure or having a flammable vapor cloud at an air intake will not necessarily cause any radioactivity release, much less one suf ficient to exceed 10 CFR 100 guidelines.

For example one floor reinforced precast concrete and reinforced masonry houses designed to comply with California earthquake codes were essentially undamaged (except for windows and doors) when subjected to peak overpressures of 1.7 psi (corresponding to about 3.4 psi peak reflected overpressure) in Nevada Nuclear Tests 4 5.

The probability estimated for San Onofre Unit 1 is that of exceeding 0.5 psi -eak reflected overpressure.

NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 2-1 RESULT

SUMMARY

SONGS UNIT NO. 1 Probability of Flammable Probability of Vapor Cloud Being Exceeding 0.5 psi at the Plant 6 per year 6 per year LPG -

Highway 2.09

.063 LPG -

Rail 0.45

.020 LNG

.010 Liquid Hydrogen 0.04

.001 Compressed Hydrogen -

1 0.04

.007 Compressed Hydrogen -

2 0.01

.001 Acetylene 0.007

.001 Explosives -

Highway 1.92 Explosives -

Rail 0.02 TOTAL 4.58 0.10 2-2 NUS CORPORATION

0 Most significant LPG truck accidents have involved the tank truck impacting massive obstructions or structures such as rock outcroppings, bridge abut ments or drainage ditch structures.

None of these types of hazards exist along 1-5 near the plant.

0 The Department of Transportation has mandated the retrofit of all flammable gas (LPG) tank cars with shelf-type couplers and head shields which reduce the likelihood of tank car punctures. Estimates of the degree of protection range from a 50% to a 90%

reduction in punctures. 4 6 The lower value of 50%

was used.

0 An instantaneous puff release of the spilled quan tity. is assumed.

In a significant number of acci dents the spill occurs over an extended time period, thereby reducing the hazard.

0 The dispersion model conservatively accounts for gravity spreading of the heavier than air vapors without dispersion, followed by atmospheric disper sion using class G stability and a low wind speed.

o The plant area for which a flammable vapor cloud is unacceptable was conservatively described as a cir cle with an area that is approximately twice the actual area of safety related buildings.

Most of the vapor clouds of concern will tend to be of very limited vertical extent.

0 The entire quantity in the puff is utilized in overpressure analysis. Analysis of a drifting puff 2-3 NUS CORPORATION

release7 has shown that the maximum quantity between flammable limits is on the order of 60-70% for materials of interest here and that for much of the travel distance, it is less than this amount.

2-4 NUS CORPORATION

3.0 ANALYTIC MODELS 3.1 General Prior work has indicated that the principal contributor to hazard probability is shipments of Liquified Petroleum Gas r

(LPG).

Other contributors are compressed flammable gases, cyrogenic

liquids, other flammable

liquids, and solid explosives.

Event trees showing those events (excluding the munitions)

F which contribute to either the overpressure or air intake flammable cloud hazards are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

In L

these event trees Region I (Circle I or 0 1) designates that area surrounding the plant in which an explosion would lead to an overpressure in excess of the specified value.

Region II (Circle II or O

) designates that area of the plant which incorporates all safety-related air intakes. These areas are shown schematically in Figure 3-3.

In general, a spill of flammable material can lead to either a fire, an explosion, or a flammable vapor cloud which disperses without a fire or explosion. The fire or explosion may occur at the accident site or away from the site.

The explosion will affect the plant only if it occurs within Region I. The flammable cloud will be swept into an air intake only if an unignited cloud gets to Region II before the concentration drops below the lower flammable limit. As indicated, the con sequences are a function of spill size and spill location.

The above applies only to materials which vaporize to form drifting clouds.

For solid explosives or munitions, only those portions of the event trees for accident site explosions are applicable.

3-1 NUS CORPORATION

NO ACCIDENT 0

FIRE ACCIDENT IN 01 X

EXPLOSION SPILL ACCIDENT OUTSIDE O

P(S1/A)OF0 NO.

OF DRIFTS OUT OF 01 N O. OF I

O SHIPMENTS VAPOR EXPLOSION IN 01 NSH CLOUD X

DRIFTS TO 0 FIRE IN 01 0 DRIFTS TO On ACCIDENT X

P(S2/A)

P(A/M)

OTHERWISE OTHERWISE PI(S3/A)0 P(S4/A)

Z NO SPILL 0

0 o

X : POTENTIAL HAZARD 31 0:

NO HAZARD 0

Z Figure 3-1. Simplified Event Tree For Transportation Hazards

EXPLOSION 00 k

EXPLOSION XE ACCIDENT IN FIRE ES O

O L fo IGNITED IN 01 DRIFTING CLOUD 1-fo-eo FIRE 0

ACCIDENTf OUTSIDE O

X WIND EI, X~lAO AL1 ENOT IGNITED BEFORE IT REACHES 01 OTHERWISE (ASPILL AL2 W IN D---

O P(S1/A)

FIRE WE fo O

IGNITED BEFORE EXPLOSION XE DRIFTING CLOUD IT REACHES 01 IGNITED IN 01 OTHERWISEO AL 1-fo-eo OTHERWISE FIR EXPLOSION OIR so0 OTHERWISE ALN XEN AN NOT IGNITED BEFORE L

LLTL IT REACHES 0, WIND--

XAl z

A 0

1 LFL

DISTANCE TO THE LOWER FLAMMABLE LIMIT DETERMINED BY O

THE DISPERSION MODEL U

XE

= OVERPRESSURE HAZARD O

XA

AIR INTAKE HAZARD 0

NO HAZARD 0

z Figure 3-2. Event Tree For A Spill

or Railway REGION I-Explosive Overpressure is of Concern REGION II-Flammable Gas is of I

Concern FIGURE 3-3 REGION DEFINITIONS

3.2 Explosive Overpressure due to Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosions The probability of exposing the plant to an overpressure greater than a certain value is the sum of the contributions from accident site explosions plus drifting cloud explosions.

The former is:

P' E = NSH P(A/M)

N P(Si/A)

P(E/S)

Li (3-1) 1

= 1 IJ where:

NSH

=

number of shipments of the commodity be ing evaluated P(A/M)

=

conditional probability of an accident per shipment mile P(Si/A)

=

conditional probability of the spill size given an accident P(E/S)

=

conditional probability of an explosion with a significant overpressure given a spill Li

=

length of route along which an explosion would yield an overpressure in excess of a specified value 3-5 NUS CORPORATION

The summation allows an historical spill size distribution to be utilized.

The size of Region I and the length of highway or railway cov ered by the region is obtained from consideration of geometry and an explosion overpressure range relationship.

The distance R from an exploding charge to a specified pres sure is calculated by the equation(1 ).

R

=

K(W)1/ 3 ft (3-2)

K

=

constant determined by the allowable pressure

=

131 ft/lb 1/ 3 -

for a peak reflected over pressure of 0.5 psi from a ground level detonation.

For a different criterion, the constant K can be obtained from Fig ure 4-12 of the Reference 1.

F W=

pounds of TNT For vapor cloud explosions, it is common practice(2, 3, 4, 5) to utilize a TNT equivalent calculated as follows:

W.

H

[

500 Kcal/lb -

TNT (3 W

=

SA 1A 5

K (3-3)

F

=

Fraction of spill quantity involved in vapor cloud Si

=

gm-mole of combustible chemicals spilled A

3-6 NUS CORPORATION

Si.

=

spill fraction Q

=

maximum quantity of shipment in volume P

=

density of liquid A

=

molecular weight FAH

=

Heat of combustion (Kcal),

gm mole E

=

Yield of explosion For liquified gases shipped at atmospheric temperature under their own vapor pressure, the fraction of spill quantity in the vapor cloud is the isenthalpic flash fraction.

For com pressed gases it is 1.0. These values are consistent with the conservatively assumed instantaneous puff release model. For cyrogenic liquids shipped at essentially atmospheric pres sure, a 10% flash fraction was used to account for initial vaporization on mixing with warm air and boiling from the spilled liquid pool.

The entire quantity in the cloud was assumed to be involved in the fuel air reaction.

The change in the quantity of vapor between upper and lower flammable limits as the cloud dis perses was conservatively neglected.

Analysis of a drifting puff release( 7 ) has shown that the maximum quantity between flammable limits is on the order of 60-70% for materials of interest here and that for much of the travel distance, it is less than this amount.

3-7 NUS CORPORATION

To obtain the equivalent TNT yield, the range of explosion yields reported in the literature were surveyed and Table 3-1 compiled, relying mainly on References 5, 6, and 53.

ft The incidents in Table 3-1 were chosen using the following criteria:

o Only releases of 5,000 kg or greater are considered as typical of road or rail accidents 0

The fuels involved should belong to the "normal" class as defined by Lewis 54 o

In the event of conflict between the three refer ences, Eichler and Napadensky are favored since their analysis appears to be the most thorough In Table 3-2, the yields of Table 3-1 are roughly combined so as to approximate a value for probability distribution.

The given values of the yield are applied to the total quantity of material released from the rail or road tanker, rather than the flash fraction. This is consistent with the way that the yield has been defined in References 5, 6, and 53.

Equations 3-2 and 3-3 give the maximum distance from any structure at which the explosion involving a particular com modity could yield the specified overpressure. The length of highway or rail-line within this distance of a plant safety related structure can be obtained from the geometrical plant layout shown in Figure 3-4.

This length (and the size of Region I) is spill size and commodity dependent.

3-8 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 3-1 INCIDENTS USED TO COMPILE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS Quantity Estimated Released Material Source of Yield %

(Te)

Released Release Place Date E

Reference 5.5 Propylene Process Plant Beek, Holland Nov. 1975 4.0 Gugan 6.9 Hydrogen Dirigible Hull,UK Aug. 1921 0.25 Gugan 7.6 Pentane Process Plant Texas 1974 2.0 Gugan 9.1 Isobutylene Process Plant Lake Chester, La.

Aug. 1967 12.0 Gugan 17.3 Ethyl Choride Process Plant Baton Rouge 1965 0.25 Gugan 36 Cyclohexane Process Plant Fleixborough, UK June 1974 7.8 Eichler 57 Propane Pipeline Port Hudson, Mo.

Dec. 1970 8.7 Eichler 63 Propane Railcar Decatur, Ill.

July 1974 7.0 Eichler 68 Isobutane Railcar Dallas, Tx.

Feb. 1977 0.25 Gugan 50/100 Light HC's Storage Pernix, Holland Jan. 1968 6.0 Gugan

<80 Butadiene Railcar Houston, Tx.

Sept. 1974 5.0 Eichler 114 Heavy HC's Process Plant New Jersey, USA 1970 4.0 Gugan

+ hydrogen 118 Propylene Railcar East St. Louis, Ill.

Jan. 1972 10.0 Eichler 18 Propane Road (?)

St-Amand-les-Eaux 1973 3.0 Gobert

TABLE 3-2 DISTRIBUTION OF EXPLOSION YIELDS Range of No. of Yields*

Incidents Typical Yield E*

Probability 10-12 2

10.0 0.14 6-10 4

7.5 0.29 2-6 5

5.0 0.36 2

3 0.25 0.21 f 7*

Energy Equivalence

% of Contents of Single Container 3-10 NUS CORPORATION

I 50' RAILWAY M ++

+H-+H++-+H+++t H +++-H++++++!-il+++++4-4H 635' 680' 740' 785' 8401 Diesel Generator 890' Buidn 953' I

Building Control

-Building Containment Turbine Building uel torzge dg.

.eco

-\\Ventilation AuxiiaryEquipment Building I

Bldg.

FIGURE 3-4 CRITICAL BUILDINGS TO OVERPRESSURE DAMAGE,

For drifting cloud explosions, the probability of exposing the plant to an overpressure greater than a certain value is:

PE=

NSH P(A/M)

N P(Si/A)

P(F/S) -

P(E/S)

M F

(Ignition O1)

P (E/I) AL (3-4) where:

P(F/S)

=

conditional probability of a

fire given a spill P (Ignition O)

=

probability of ignition (fire or explosion) in Region I given a spill at accident site j P(E/I) conditional probability of an explosion given an ignition AL=

incremental length of route lo cated a given distance and dir ection from the plant The probability of ignition in Region I is a function of where the accident occurs (inside Region I, outside Region I and distance away)., the wind direction, and a probability of igni tion as a function of cloud travel distance. The first summa tion allows for varying spill sizes, while the second summation allows for different accident sites.

3-12 NUS CORPORATION

For accidents inside Region I, the wind blows with a seaward component about half of the time and a landward component the other half of the time.

The distance traveled in Region I used for calculating the ignition probability was the maximum distance normal to the transportation route to the edge of Region I for each of the wind directions (seaward and landward).

The transportation routes outside Region I were divided into small (approximately 500 ft.) increments. For each increment, the probability of the cloud centerline being blown through Region I was calculated utilizing site wind direction probabilities from the SONGS Units 2 and 3 FSAR. The proba bility of an ignition in Region I was based on the shortest distance from the accident site to the Region I boundary and the maximum cloud path length in Region I (which is the Region I diameter).

The maximum accident site to plant dis tance considered was the maximum downwind distance to the lower flammable limit calculated by the dispersion model described later.

3.3 Flammable Vapor Cloud at Air Intakes In order for a flammable vapor cloud to be swept into a plant air intake, the flammable cloud must intersect Region II with out prior ignition.

3-13 NUS CORPORATION

The probability of this occurring is given by:

PA=

NSH P(A/M)

N P(Si/A) 1-P(F/S) -

P(E/S)

M 1 -

Pj (Ignition before 0,I)

P j(wind blowing to 0,I) *AL (3-5) where:

Pj (Ignition before OI)

=

probability that the cloud ignited before it gets to plant (O

).

P. (Wind blowing to

=

probability that the wind is blowing toward O from a given accident site j.

The probability of ignition before the cloud reaches Region II is based on the minimum distance from the accident site to Region II.

The probability of a flammable cloud intersecting Region II is based on the FSAR wind direction probabilities and crosswind distance from cloud centerline to the lower flammable limit based on the dispersion model described later.

Region II was analytically defined as a circle enclosing plant air intakes as shown in Figure 3-5.

3-14 NUS CORPORATION

I-5 Radius = 240' 780' Diesel Generator Building otl Buil ding Containment Turbine Building L

uel Stor age Ventilation Reactor Equipment Auxiliary Building II FIGURE 3-5 REGION II DEFINED BY THE BUILDING LAYOUT 3-15

3.4 Dispersion Model The dispersion model is used to determine the distance that the vapor cloud has to travel to reach the lower flammable limit and the crosswind distance to the lower flammable limit.

The downwind distance is used only to determine the maximum length of transportation route which must be considered. The crosswind distance is effectively added to the boundary of Region II to determine the probability of a flammable cloud intersecting Region II and being swept into a plant air intake.

An instantaneous puff dispersion model modified to account for initial gravity slumping of heavier than air vapors is utilized. The diffusion equation for an instantaneous (puff) ground level release with a finite initial volume is(8):

X(d) 2 2

2) 1/2]

-1

=I 7.87 oy

+ oly oz

+ Olz QI

. exp

-1/2 y

2

+

2 2

'2 ay

+ Oly Oz

+ Olz (3-6)

X (d)

Q0 unit concentration at coordinates y,

z from the center of the puff, m a (d),

az (d)

=

standard deviation of the puff in the hor izontal and vertical direction respec tively, m 3-16 NUS CORPORATION

d

=

distance from the origin of the puff release aly, alz

=

initial standard deviation of the puff in the horizontal and verical direction respectively, m (a7y # olz for heavier than air gas. For neutral of lighter than air gas ay = ol y, z

=

distance from the puff center in the horizontal and vertical directions respectively, m For those gases heavier than air, ay and olz are determined from the Van Ulden gravity spreading model (Reference 9).

The initial cloud formed at the accident site is assumed to be cylindrical in shape with the axis perpendicular to the ground and spreads according to the density difference between the cloud and the air.

It is assumed that during the gravity spreading phase, the flammable vapor concentration in the cloud remains unchanged.

The cloud spreads until the turbulent energy of the spreading equals the potential energy difference between the heavy gas layer and the surrounding air.

From Reference 9:

2=

Ro2 +

2 g

(Po -

Pa)

Vo L

-7 Po (3-7)

H

=

Ho Ro)2

\\R/

(3-8) 3-17 NUS CORPORATION

where:

R

=

cloud radius H

=

cloud height Ro = Ho

=

initial size of the cloud of the cylinder (m) g

=

gravitational constant = 9.8 m/sec2 Vo

=

initial volume of the mixture (m3 Po

=

initial density of the mixture (kg/m3 Pa

=

density of the air (kg/m3 The gravity spreading ends at time ts which satisfies the equation:

2u*

=

uf (3-9) where:

1 g

(Po -Pa)

Vo u

=

(3-10)

SPo uk u*

=

ln (z/z0 )

(3-11) u is a fixed wind velocity at a specified height z k is the Von Karman's constant = 0.4 3-18 NUS CORPORATION

z 0

= roughness length = 0.05 m If this criterion leads to a final cloud height of less than one meter, then slumping is stopped when the one meter height is reached.

One meter represents the height of terrain features within the cloud.

The distance that the cloud travels during the spreading period is as follows:

t s

ds ln (2

dt (3-12)

At the end of the gravity spreading, the concentration of the cloud is assumed to have a Gaussian distribution with the center point concentration being one (or pure vapor).

The 6yI' IzI are obtained from:

-y YR ozI Y H (3-13)

R

=

Radius of the cloud at the end of the spreading H

=

Height of the cloud at the end of the spreading 1/3 1

cL (3-14) 3-19 NUS CORPORATION

C

=

assumed initial puff concentration CL

=

Gaussian cloud center point concentration

= 1.0 (or pure vapor)

The equation for y comes from equating the amount of vapor in the cylindrical cloud to that in the Gaussian cloud.

An initial puff concentration of 0.25 was assumed for the base analysis to account for dilution due to turbulent mixing at the release point.

Several analysis and tests have I;

shown(10 ' 11) that momentum transfer of the rapidly expanding gas induces considerable mixing which if uninhibited is sufficient to reduce the resulting gas cloud concentration to below the flammable limit.

Sensitivity studies of this initial concentration have shown that the results are not strongly affected by the assumed value.

The Gaussian cloud disperses in accordance with equation 3-6 starting at distance ds from the spill site.

3.5 Vapor Cloud Ignition As indicated in Section 4.0, most spills of flammable vapor are ignited essentially at the accident site.

For example, James( 1 2 ) quotes statistics from the Association of American Railroads where for 81 vapor cloud ignitions, 58% occurred LJ from a few feet up to 50 feet, 18% between 50 and 100 feet and 24% from 100 feet to 300 feet.

A curve of integrated ignition probability as a function of distance from historical data of LPG spill accidents was published in Reference 13.

The curve is shown in Figure 3-6 and is represented as a line:

3-20 NUS CORPORATION

104 0 DATA EQUATION OF LINE:

LOG A-1.38021 PIA) 'A 1+erf ( 2.45318 N

E 103 wo

-l 0

100 0

10t

.02 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.98 FRACTION OF FLAMMABLE PLUMES IGNITED, P(A)

A - 0.175r 2 Figure 3-6. Probability of Flammable Plume Ignition Versus Plume Area at the Time of Ignition 3-21 NUS CORPORATION

I/logl0 A -

1.38021 P1 2

1 + erf 2.45318 (3-15) 2 A =

0.175 r (3-16) where:

r is the distance in meters.

The information in Reference 12 agrees reasonably well with this curve.

The data of Reference 13 also indicates that 10.5% of the drifting cloud ignitions resulted in an explosion while -89.5% resulted in a fire.

This agrees well with the data discussed in Section 4.0.

3.6 Solid Explosives For solid explosives, the probability of exceeding a certain overpressure was obtained from:

P'

=

P(A/M)

P(E/A)

NSH Li (3-17) where:

P(A/M)

=

conditional probability of an accident per shipment mile P(E/A)

=

conditional probability of an explosion per accident 3-22 NUS CORPORATION

NSHi

=

annual number of shipments of size i L.

=

length of route along which explosion of shipment size would yield an overpressure in excess of a specified value.

The length of route is obtained from the geometrical configuration of the plant and the route and the overpressure range relationship of equation 3-2.

Note that it is conservatively assumed that if an explosion occurs, it will involve all explosives in the shipment simultaneously.

Staggered explosions will not yield the same overpressure as simultaneous explosions.

3-23 NUS CORPORATION

4.0 ACCIDENT RATES AND ACCIDENT SEVERITY ASSESSMENT Truck and railroad traffic density and number of accidents along transportation routes adjacent to the SONGS site were analyzed to evaluate basic site specific accident rates.

These local accident rates were adjusted by nationwide accident statistics, where the data base was larger, to assess for commodity classes accident rates and severity of acci dents.

These accident rates and severity density functions which are used as input data to the analytical risk model were derived in References 60 and 61 and the basis for this deriva tion is reproduced in this section.

4.1 Accident Rates for Trucks Transporting Hazardous Materials Truck accident rates are determined from data collected on Interstate Route 5 (1-5) adjacent to the SONGS site.

Adjust ment factors and severity rates are determined from a nation wide data base collected by the U.S. Department of Transpor tation.

4.1.1 Truck Accident Rates on California I-5 Accident rates for all trucks* and commodities are determined for a 10 mile segment of I-5 extending approximately equi distant in both directions from the SONGS site.

California State Department of Transportation supplied data is summarized in Table 4-1. From this data, an observed truck accident rate of 0.566 x 10-6 accidents per truck mile is evaluated.

The data given in Table 4-1 is for 1-5 from mile post R61.38 to 91 mile post R71.38.

Truck traffic rates are based on weighted sample counting and extrapolated to annual counts. Northbound and southbound data are combined.

Traffic accidents are Truck is defined as any vehicle 5,000 pounds or more excluding pickup trucks, vans 4 Ind buses.

NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-1

SUMMARY

OF DATA SUPPLIED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Calendar Truck Miles Number.of Accidents Per Year on 1-5 Accidents 106 miles 1974 20.38 x 106 12 0.589 1975 19.88 x 106 9

0.453 1976 21.83 x 106 15 0.687 6

1977 22.65 x 10 12 0.530 Combined 84.74 x 106 48 0.566 4-2 NUS CORPORATION

accidents that are reported to the state if property damage is

$200.00 or greater, or there has been personal injury or death.

Later in this analysis, 1-5 accident rates are combined with U.S. DOT data where the property damage threshold for report ing accidents has been increased from $250.00 to $2,000.00.

To correct for the data base inequities, U.S.

DOT experience before and after the reporting threshold change is used to generate a correction factor. Table 4-2 presents data cover ing the transition period.14, 15 Correction Factor:

1973 Accident Rate 0.952 x 10-6 = 0.423 $2,000 Accidents 1971-72 Accident Rate 2.25 x 10-6 250 Accidents The 2.25 x 10-6 rate is the average of 1971 and 1972 rates.

This factor is applied to the 1-5 accident rates based on the assumption that California accident rates would be reduced by the same proportion as that observed on the national level.

The fact that the California threshold is $200.00 vs. $250.00 for the U.S. DOT would make the correction factor a conserva tive assumption.

The accident rate corrected to the $2,000.00 death or injury reporting criteria for all trucks on I-5 is:

0.423 x 0.566 x 106 = 0.239 x 106 accidents/mile 4.1.2 1-5 Tank Truck Accident Rate P-The bulk of hazardous commodities carried on I-5 past the San Onofre Site are in tank trucks.

4-3 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-2 U.S. DOT INTERCITY HIGHWAY TRUCK ACCIDENT RATES PER MILE Accident Reported Accident Injury Fatality Year If Over*

Rate x 10-6 Rate x 10-6 Rate x 10-6 1971

$ 250 2.19 1.00 0.083 1972 250 2.31 0.996 0.081 1973 2,000 0.952 1.02 0.071 Accident also reported if there was an injury or fatality.

4-4 NUS CORPORATION

Therefore, the 1-5 tank-truck accident rates are assessed by applying a correction factor based on nationwide experience.

An Arthur D. Little, Inc. Reportl6 evaluated a national tank truck accident rate of 1.33 x 10-6 per loaded tank-truck mile.

This accident rate is based on data from 1968 through 1972 (5 years).

The average number of loaded tank-truck accidents was 1,650 accidents per year and the average loaded tank-truck usage was 1.24 x 10 miles per year.

During the same five year period, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety published1 4 data yielding an inter-city truck accident rate of 2.41 x 10-6 accidents per mile.

This accident rate is the ratio of 160,347 accidents and 66,389 x 106 truck miles.

(Data extracted from reference 14 for this evaluation is shown in Table 4-3.)

Nationwide truck accident statistics show that loaded tank trucks have a lower accident rate than all types of trucks combined.

(1.33 x 10-6 vs. 2.41 x 10-6 for years 1968 through 1972 with the same reporting criteria.)

Therefore, the 1-5 accident rate for all types of trucks (0.239 x 106) is cor rected to loaded tank-truck accident rate by assuming the same relative improvement exists in California (1-5) as observed nationwide.

Loaded Tank Truck Accident Rate on 1-5:

0.239 x 10-6 1.33 x 10 0.132 x 106 accidents/mile 2.41 x 106 4.1.3 Accident Locations on 1-5 A review of LPG shipment data on 1-5 shows that most shipments are southbound or on the side of the highway nearest the plant.

The possible accident locations used in the realistic 4-5 NUS CORPORATION

analysis were derived from actual truck accident locations along the ten-mile stretch of 1-5 near the plant. The result ing locations and the assigned relative probabilities are:

West edge of right-of-way 0.22 West edge of roadway 0.38 Center of roadway 0.24 East edge of roadway 0.16 4.1.4 Spill Rate and Distribution Compressed gases in the liquified state pose a hazard only if they are released from the pressurized containment and vaporize. Most accidents reported and used in determining the tank-truck accident rate did not result in a loss of lading (spill). Therefore, to assess the potential hazard of a pres surized tank-truck carrying flammable gases, the fraction of spills per accident (probability of spill given an accident has occurred) must be determined.

The 1-5 data base is insufficient to generate this ratio, hence the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) of the U.S Department of Transportation accident reporting system was consulted.

Submission of accident report form MCS 50-T by carriers is required if the accident has property damage greater than $2,000.00 or personal injury or death. The stan dard annual report published by the BMCS does not analyze spill frequencies of flammable or hazardous materials. There fore, NUS Corporation requested and received computer magnetic tape records of the accident report forms for calendar years 1973 through 1977.

4-6 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-3 NATIONAL TRUCK ACCIDENT RATES Total Intercity Total Accident Calendar Vehicle Intercity Rate per Year Miles Accidents 106 Miles 1968 11 704 x 106 29 209 2.50 1969 12 461 x 106 30 672 2.46 1970 12 390 x 106 33 203 2.68 1971 13 951 x 10 30 581 2.19 1972 15 883 x 106 36 682 2.31 Combined 66 389 x 106 160 347 2.41 4-7 NUS CORPORATION

A computer program was written to select and print accidents which had the following characteristics: transporting hazard ous material and tank type of body and during an over the road (intercity) trip.

The magnitude of this data sort is illus trated by 1977 accident data.

30,567 Accident reports were submitted 24,216 Were over the road trips 3,457 Had tank truck bodies 1,886 Involved transporting hazardous materials 977 Had all characteristics The 977 accidents were manually reviewed to further select accidents which involved compressed flammable gases, LPG, propane, butane, etc.; were on divided highways when the acci dent occurred; and were not on an entrance or exit ramp when the accident occurred.

This reduced the number of accidents for 1977 to 33.

Two of the 33 accidents had spills.

This process was performed for each year 1973 through 1977; the results are summarized in Table 4-4.

As indicated 7 out of 109 accidents had spills.

A spill quantity distribution was obtained from the data sub mitted to the Office of the Hazardous Materials Operations on Hazardous Materials Incident Report forms.

The data base period was from mid-1973 through 1977.

All traffic accident induced spills for LPG and bulk anhydrous ammonia were con sidered. Both commodities are carried in trucks built to DOT specifications MC 330 and MC 331.

Differences in tank truck load volume is accounted for by normalizing all truck capacities to a nominal 10,000 gallon maximum load quantity.

Spills which did not give both spill size and truck capacity or fraction of load spilled were censored.

The distribution is generated from a total of 35 truck spills.

The results are 4-8 NUS CORPORATION

I TABLE 4-4

SUMMARY

OF BMCS REPORTS FOR COMPRESSED HYDROCARBON GASES Accident Calendar Year Total Result, Code 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 No Spill A

14 17 17 23 31 102 Spill B

1 1

1 2

2 7

Fire C

0 0

Explosion D

0 0

TOTAL 15 18 18 25 33 109 This analysis gives the probability of spill given an accident has occurred of 7/109 = 0.064.

This is for compressed LPG Truck MC 330 and MC 331, on highways typified. by 1-5 passing in front of the SONGS site.

4-9 NUS CORPORATION

I shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-5 gives the distribution used in the analysis.

4.1.5 Explosion Rates Given that a tank-truck accident has occurred and a loss of lading has occurred, three things can happen:

(1) the spilled LPG can vaporize, expand and form a drifting cloud (the poss ible outcomes of the drifting cloud will be treated elsewhere in this analysis) or (2) the spilled LPG can be ignited form ing a fireball (the size of the fireball can vary from small to large) or (3) the spilled LPG can expand and be ignited to form an explosion.

Spill data have been examined to determine and classify the results of the spill into one of the three classifications above.

To perform this analysis, data from the Materials Transportation Bureau, U.S. Department of Transportation has been obtained and sorted to eliminate those accidents which are inappropriate for analysis of LPG Tank-Trucks.

Since mid-1973, the Materials Transportation Bureau (MTB) has required reporting of hazardous materials incidents in accor dance with the Hazardous Materials Control Act of 1970.

Hazardous materials spills while in transit or temporary storage are required to be reported.

For this analysis, only those spills which were the result of a highway accident and where trucks were carrying LPG products are included.

Analysis of incident reports from mid-1973 through 1977 revealed 34 events which satisfied the above criteria.

However, 11 of these 34 incidents involved property damage of less than $2,000.00 and to be consistent with other accident statistics in this analysis, they were censored.

The 23 remaining LPG spill events plus one additional which will be explained are presented in Table 4-6 along with the 4-10 NUS CORPORATION

10k 9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k a*

2k 2

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Z

C

-0 7001 U

0.01 0.05 0.2 0.5 1

2 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 09 9 O

1)

%OF SPILLS LESS THAN ORDINATE VALUE 0600 O

Z Figure 4-1.

Trucks - LPG & NH-3 Spill Quantity - Gal - Normalized T^ fut-vs Tro,f I

s,,-s in nrin 0-no

TABLE 4-5 TRUCK SPILL QUANTITY Fraction of Spill Quantity Spills Gallons 0.2 10,000 0.2 9,000 0.2 7,000 0.4 1,000 4-12 NUS CORPORATION

e TABLE 4-6 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORTS LPG TRUCKS Number of Incidents Sub-One Severityi 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total Added Total Pi Spill 1

2 4

2 3

12 12

.500 Fire 1

1 0

3 3

8 8

.333 BLEVE*

0 0

1 1

1 3

3

.125 Explosion 0

0 0

0 1

1

.042 TOTAL 2

3 5

6 7

23 1

24 1.000

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion.

4-13 NUS CORPORATION

resulting severity density function. None of these LPG spills occurred within one hundred miles of San Onofre.

As indicated in Table 4-6 no vapor cloud explosions were observed in the 5 year period ending in 1977. In Mexico, dur ing 1978, there was strong evidence that a vapor cloud explo sion occurred from an LPG truck spill. 1 7 A post accident examination showed severe tree limb breakage at approximately 350 feet from the center of the blast area.

Also a sonic boom was reported. This accident was included to obtain the 0.042 mean explosion rate. This is conservative since the LPG truck acidents which did not lead to an explosion have not been accounted for.

Three other accidents are discussed, those classified as Boil r

ing Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions (BLEVE). Although orig inally classified as explosions by the MTB, an investigation by NUS revealed that overpressures were not severe.

1.

April 29,

1975, Eagle Pass, Texas.

A tank-truck with 8,748 gallons of LP gas overturned, ruptured and was ignited. A prefab sheet metal building 200 feet from the location of the truck accident experienced no structural damage and only one broken window. 1 8 According to the owner of the Border Diesel Service located in the build ing, the entire window frame was knocked out because of faulty assembly when the building was put together. One witness was exiting his pick-up truck at 150 feet from the accident when the blast occurred. The pick-up truck had the rear window knocked out, but otherwise sustained no damage. 1 9 The observed level of damage is consistent with an explosion of approximately 100 lb. of TNT.

The equivalent yield on an energy basis is less than 0.1%

which is typical of a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE).

4-14 NUS CORPORATION

2.

August 19,

1976, Flint, Michigan.

A tank truck with approximately 9,000 gallons of

LPG, propane, impacted the guard rail on an exit ramp, slid along the rail for 258 feet and on to an overpass. The truck fell from the overpass to the pavement below. Ignition occurred on or below the overpass. Seven vehicles and occupants within 400 ft.

suffered burns and fire damage, but no indica tions of overpressure damage--there were no body panel indentations; broken windows were minimal and might have been fire-caused.

The closest building, a house, at approximately 600 ft. had no structural damage and no broken windows although fires were started on the property.

At a distance of 1/4 mile a vibration was felt, but no sonic boom was reported. 2 0 Overpressure evidence suggest that the accident produced a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE).

3.

February 7, 1977, Detroit, Michigan.

A tank truck loaded with approximately 9,000 gallons of LPG, propane, col lided with a guard rail on an overpass exit ramp.

The truck broke through the guard rail and fell 20 feet to an embankment below, adjacent to a freeway.

Ignition occurred at impact with the embankment.

The closest building 300 to 400 feet away had no structural damage and no broken windows, although the tarred roof caught fire.21 A highway light fixture at approximately 80 feet had a broken globe and was burned; the next light fixture at 160 feet was intact but burned. None of the witnesses reported a concussion or sonic boom. 2 2 Evidence suggests that the overpressure was generated by a BLEVE.

4.1.6 Accident Rates for Carriers of Explosives Accident rates for trucks carrying explosives are evaluated by adjusting 1-5 accident rates with nationwide experience. The 4-15 NUS CORPORATION

BMCS evaluates accident rates for various categories of comodities.

One of these groups is explosives or dangerous articles.

Table 4-7 presents accident data extracted from BMCS annual reports (14, 15, 23, 24).

Nationwide truck accident statistics show that trucks carrying explosives or dangerous articles have a lower accident rate than all types of trucks (0.958 x 10-6 VS.

2.41 x 10-6 accidents per mile).

Assuming that trucks carrying explosives on 1-5 would experience the same relative improvement, I-5 accident rates are corrected as follows:

I-5 Explosives Trucks Accident Rate:

L 0.958 x 10-6 x 0.239 x 10

=.095 x 10-6 accidents/mile

-6 2.41 x 10 The probability that an accident would result in an explosion was determined by data provided by the Institute of Makers of Explosives on the accident statistics for commercial shipments of explosives.

During the four year period of 1972-1975, there were 70 accidents reported of which three involved explosions.

From this information, it is estimated that the conditional probability of an explosion given an accident is 3/70 or 0.043.

Accident Reports are filed when an explosive shipment accident results in (1) fire, (2) death or injury, (3) property damage exceeding $1,000.

The accident rate of 0.095 x 10-6 accidents per mile and the condition probability of explosion of 0.043 are used in the analytical hazard model.

4-16 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-7 NATIONWIDE ACCIDENT RATES FOR EXPLOSIVES OR DANGEROUS ARTICLES

[ Truck Number Accidents Carriers Miles of 6 per Year Reporting Thousands Accidents 10 Miles 1969 5

65 046 110 1.69 1970 1

1 764 1

0.57 1971 7

52 971 28 0.53 1972 7

56 568 30 0.53 Combined 176 349 169 0.958 4-17 NUS CORPORATION

4.1.7 Cylinders of Compressed Flammable Gases and Cryogenic Flammable Gases Nationwide accident rates for compressed gases in cylinders and cryogenic gases are assumed to be represented by tank truck accident rates.

Therefore, the 1-5 accident rates eval uated for loaded tank trucks are assigned to trucks transport ing cylinders of compressed flammable gases and cryogenic flammable gases.

BMCS data was searched for the period 1973 through 1977 to determine a loss of lading rate per accident for compressed gases in cylinders.

Accidents included in the data were over-the-road (intercity) trips transporting hazardous materials.

Accidents occurring on individual highways and exit and entrance ramps were also included.

A total of 16 confirmed accidents with cylinders of flammable compressed gases were identified.

By including non-flammable gases the number of accidents increased to 19.

Two of the 19 accidents resulted in loss of lading giving a spill rate per accident of:

2 spills

= 0.105 spills/accident 19 accidents Reviewing BMCS data for cryogenic truck accidents and spills as a result of accidents showed insufficient data to derive a parameter.

Therefore the spills per accident for LPG tank trucks

(.064 spills/accident) was assumed applicable for cryogenic tank trucks.

Reviewing the MTB data for severity of accidents involving flammable gases in cylinders and cryogenic gases revealed insufficient data to form fire and explosion rates given a 4-18 NUS CORPORATION

spill.

Therefore the parameters determined for LPG products were assumed applicable as follows:

Probability of explosion given a spill

=

0.042 Probability of fire given a spill

=

0.458 Probability of no fire or explosion given a spill =

0.50 These parameters were used as input data to the analytical risk model.

4.2 Transportation Accidents on the Railroad Passing by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Hazardous materials transported on the Atchison, Topeka, and g

Sante Fe (ATSF) rail line by the SONGS site are military ordnance and LPG.

The ATSF Railway Company does not antici pate any other hazardous materials being shipped along this track. Railroad accident rates and accident effect rates are evaluated from ATSF supplied data and national data.

These accident rates are applicable to the track and materials understudy.

4.2.1 Train Accident Rates for Track Passing SONGS From data supplied by ATSF for a section of Track from Fullerton to San Diego and passing by SONGS, Table 4-8 is developed.

Data is from 11 years less the month of December 1978 and the track is from mile post 165.5 to 268.0, a dis tance of 102.5 miles. While there are sidings, there are no splits on this section of track.

4-19 NUS CORPORATION

From Table 4-8, the average accident rate for the 11-year period is:

10 accidents 3.70 x 10-6 accidents per (102.5 miles) x (26,378 Trains) train mile 4.2.2 Pressurized Tank Car Loss of Lading Rate Loss of lading rate as a result of a train accident is evalu ated for pressurized non-insulated tank cars transporting LPG gases past the SONGS site. These tank cars are referenced by specification numbers 112A and 114A. They transport gases in the liquid state under pressure at.ambient temperatures.

A loaded tank car loss of lading rate is determined in an Association of American Railroad Report 2 5 to be 0.152 x 10-6 loss of ladings per tank car mile.

This spill rate is based on data from 1965 through 1970 (6 years) where a total of 49 loss of lading accidents were observed.

During this period, the average loaded pressurized tank car traffic (flammable gases) was 5.38 x 107 miles per year (from 1% Waybill statistics).

Thus, the nationwide loss of lading rate for liquified com pressed flammable gases is:

49 accidents 0.152 x 10-6 accidents 7 car miles car mile 5.38 x 10 6 years year Next, the nationwide pressurized tank car loss of lading rate is adjusted to the ATSF track passing by the SONGS site. This adjustment is based on the assumption that the ATSF pressur ized tank car rates will show the same relative improvement over nationwide rates as ATSF train accident rates show to nationwide train accident rates.

4-20 NUS CORPORATION

Table 4-9 presents the annual data for the past ten years. (47)

(This is the same time period from which the ATSF train acci dent rate was evaluated.)

The nationwide average train acci dent rate for this ten year period is 10.95 accidents per mil lion train miles.

The loss of lading rate for pressurized LPG tank cars on the ATSF track in the vicinity of the plant site is:

36 Loss of Lading

.0x 0.152 x 106 =

0.0514 x 106 Per Loaded 10.95 x 10-6 Tank Car Mile This loss of lading rate is used elsewhere in this report and as an input parameter to the analytical model.

The quantity of lading spilled as a result of an accident is determined for railroad tank cars from Hazardous Materials Incident Report forms submitted to the Office of Hazardous Materials Operation, DOT.

The data base period for this analysis is mid-1973 through 1977.

All spills in this assessment are DOT specification 112A or 114A tank cars loaded with flammable compressed gases (LPG).

Tank car volume is normalized to a

nominal maximum load capacity of 33,000 gallons. A distribution of spill quantity is generated from 76 tank car spills. The results are shown in Figure 4-2.

Table 4-10 presents the distribution values used in the analysis.

4.2.3 Severity of LPG Loss of Lading Accidents This section presents definitions for categorizing the severity of LPG loss of lading accidents and using these definitions to analyze accident data developes a probability density function. Jones et. al.,26 in their evaluation of the 4-22 NUS CORPORATION

II TABLE 4-9 NATIONWIDE TRAIN ACCIDENT RATE Train Total Train Train Accidegt Rate IRA Miles-Thousands Accidents-Per 10 Miles 1968 876 489 8 028 9.16 1969 864 081 8 543 9.89 1970 838 674 8 095 9.65 1971 783 844 7 304 9.32 1972 781 408 7 532 9.64 1973 831 347 9 698 11.67 1974 833 261 10 694 12.83 1975 755 033 8 041 10.65 1976 774 764 10 248 13.23 1977 750 042 10 362 13.82 88 88943 88 545 10.95 4-23 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-10 RAIL QUANTITY OF SPILL Fraction of Spills Spill Quantity--Gallons 0.60 33,000 0.10 30,000 0.05 27,000 0.05 10,000 0.20 1,000 4-24 NUS CORPORATION

1000I 9

9 8

7 7

7 6

6 5-5 0

4 4

30K 3*

20K 2 O W

g 0

4j 0

4 4

100 Z

13 4 C7 0

.100

.0 0

0 3

05 07 0

0 9

89 98 9

Ul6

-J to 5

4 3

2 z

I]

1J 0.01 0.05 0.2 1

2 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9

% OF SPILLS LESS THAN ORDINATE VALUE O

Z Figure 4-2. Railroad Loss of Lading Ouantity - Normalized at Maximum Car Load of 33.000 Gallons

risks of propane rail car shipments have defined five severity categories for propane loss of lading accidents.

The same five categories are applied to all compressed flammable gases; the categories are as follows:

Type I:

This type of incident could be caused by a major rupture of the containment vessel resulting in a

gross spill without ignition. The result would be that a very large vapor cloud would be formed.

If this cloud would be ignited after an explosive fuel-air mixture had been formed, a maximum incident explosion would result.

This type of incident is characterized by an unconfined L

fuel/air detonation.

Type II:

This type of incident would be caused by a

separate fire or a tank puncture resulting in a fire that would overheat the punctured propane tank or another pro pane tank in the near vicinity.

The result would be an explosive pressure rupture of the heated tank, causing nearby overpressure damage and possible schrapnel damage from the ruptured tank.

This type of incident is char acterized by a propane tank explosion.

Type III: This type of incident would result from a leak or a tank puncture resulting in a large spill with igni tion occurring immediately or shortly after the incident.

The propane would burn uncontrollably in a large, intense fireball.

No tank explosion would occur since the tank puncture would be large enough to relieve the pressure.

This type of incident is characterized by a large uncon trollable fireball with no explosion.

Type IV:

This type of incident would be caused by a leak, a tank puncture, a released safety valve or a bust transfer line or valve resulting in a controllable fire.

4-26 NUS CORPORATION

The fire may be of considerable time duration and does not result ifi tank rupture, either due to fire control measures or protective insulation. This type of incident is characterized by a controllable fire with no explosion.

Type :

This type of incident would involve a leak or a puncture, either small or large, in a propane tank or loading lines which does not result in fire.

If no source of ignition occurs, the propane will be dispersed in the atmosphere in a relatively short time. This type of incident is characterized by loss of lading, but no fire.

From the detailed analysis of LPG, tank car accident data from the period 1965 through 1977 accidents are categorized into one of the five severity types and presented in Table 4-11.

For this analysis, the differentiation between Type III and Type IV severity is not important and where the size of fire was not quickly determined, a worst case classification of Type III was assigned. To avoid misinterpretation, these two types are combined in the probability density function given in Table 4-12.

In addition to mechanical damage induced loss of lading, exposure to fire can lead to rupture by heating, loss of lad ing and rocketing tankage parts.

Incidents with this result are categorized as Type II.

Review of the University of Southern California report (26) and the AAR-RPI reports (28,

29) show that there were 17 incidents involving 49 LPG tank cars during the period of 1965-1970.

These accidents can be classified as shown in Table 4-13.

The probability of a directly occurring Type II accident due to mechanical damage is

.117 (from Table 4-12).

The 4-27 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-11

SUMMARY

OF MECHANICAL DAMAGE INDUCED LOSS OF LADING ACCIDENT SEVERITY Severity by Total Accident Category Types Number Data Period I

II III IV3 V

of Cars Source 1965 thru 1970 0

2 20 2

26 50 25, 28, 29 1971 0

3 4

0 6

13 Note 1 1972 1

1 1

0 10 13 Note 1 1973 0

5 8

0 8

21 Note 1 1974 2

3 10 1

12 28 Note 1 1975 0

4 6

1 5

16 Note 1 1976 0

0 2

0 5

7 Note 2 1977 0

1 3

0 11 15 Note 2 TOTALS 3

19 54 4

83 163 Note 1:

From Federal Railroad Administration Unpublished Summary List of Tank-Car Accidents--Hazardous Materials Section.

Note 2:

Data Source Hazardous Material Incident Reports, MTB, DOT.

Note 3:

Where accident reports did not have a positive identification of fire size, a worst case assignment of Type III was made.

4-28 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-12 RAILROAD--COMPRESSED FLAMMABLE GASES

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS--LOSS OF LADING CAUSED BY MECHANICAL DAMAGE Probability of Event (i)

Results Number of Given Spill Classification Events (Loss of Lading)

I Explosion (Detonation) 3 0.018 II Heated Tank Violent Rupture 19

.117 III & IV Uncontrollable Fi 4 and 58

.356 Controllable Fire V

Spill 83

.509 TOTAL 163 1.00 (1) Accident reports did not have a good indication of fire

size, therefore, unknown fire sizes were classified as Type III events.

4-29 NUS CORPORATION

e.

TABLE 4-13 LOSS OF LADING CAUSED BY FIRE Type Number Frequency of Occurrence LI 0

0.0 II39 0.796 III 2

0.041 IV 7

0.143 V

1 0.020 Total 49 1.00 4-30 NUS CORPORATION

probability of a Type II event occurring due to a fire is 0.796 (from Table 4-13).

Most Type II LPG tank car accidents (10 out of 12 in years 1965-1970) are caused by fires from other LPG tank cars.

These other tank car fires were the result of Type II or Type III accidents which occur with a probability of 0.473 (0.117 + 0.356 from Table 4-12).

The overall probability that a fire in one LPG tank car will result in a Type II event in a second LPG tank car is therefore:

0.473 x 10 x 0.796 = 0.314 12 Therefore the total probability of Type II event due to puncture accident of an LPG tank car is 0.431 (0.117 + 0.314).

For 124 LPG rail shipments per year the annual probability for Type II occurrence due to mechanical puncture of an LPG car per AT&SF track mile is 2.75 x 106 (0.514 x 10.

x 124 x 0.431).

In addition to the probability of.an LPG tank car fire, there is the probability that a train fire will be initiated by means of other than a puncture of an LPG tank car. WASH 1238 (30) states that fire occurs in about 1.5% of all train acci dents.

Conservatively assuming that none of these fires are caused by LPG tank punctures, the probability of a fire per train accident accident is 1.5 x 10-2.

The average accident rate of AT&SF trains is 3.7 x 106 accidents per train mile (see Section 4.2.1).

Using 62 LPG trains per year carrying 2 LPG cars the annual probability of a train fire is 10 -6

-~6 15x12 3.44 x 106 (3.7 x 10 x 62 x 1.5 x 102) per track mile.

Using an average train length of 70 cars and 10 cars involved in the accident (30) with the probability that a non-LPG tank 4-31 NUS CORPORATION

car will cause a Type II rupture (2/12 = 0.167) and the prob ability that either or both of the LPG cars are involved in the accident, the annual probability for a Type II rupture due to non-LPG tank car induced fire is 6.5 x 10-8 (3.44 x 10-6 x 10/70 x 0.796 x 0.167) per track mile.

The combined annual probability for Type II rupture from all causes is therefore:

2.75 x 10-6 + 6.5 x 10-8 = 2.82 x 10-6 per mile per year 4.2.4 Tank Car Modifications Railroad tank cars transporting liquefied gases under pressure have been retrofitted to include safety features. The safety features consist of three modifications:

(1) addition of shelves on the couplers to prevent coupler separation in a

vertical direction when subject to compressive loads; (2) head shields to deflect objects and str engthen tank heads to reduce the chance of tank puncture by couplers and other projectiles; and (3) the addition of an insulating tank covering to reduce sun heating and protect against fire heating.

Engineering assessments of the effectiveness of shelf couplers and head shields is summarized by statements taken from Refer ence 46.

"According to AAR, Association of American Railroads, testi mony, shelf couplers provide adequate protection in 60 percent of the accident situations."

"FRA, Federal Railroad Admini stration, research concluded that the head shields would pro tect the tank car from punctures in the tank head in 85 percent of accident situations.

The AAR believes that 50 percent reflected a more accurate figure for head shield protection."

During these hearings, Reference 46, all parties agreed that installing both shelf couplers and head shields 4-32 NUS CORPORATION

would provide the best protection, with puncture protection provided in over 85 percent of accident situations involving coupler override.

At present, there has not been sufficient accident experience to draw statistical conclusions about the effectiveness of the safety modifications;

however, expert analysis of accident sequences has yielded encouraging results in support of the safety features.

An NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) accident study, Reference 11, provides analysis of a rail accident in Paxton, Texas involving tank cars with and without protective head shields and shelf couplers.

With respect to shelf coupler performance, a post-accident investigation showed that 21 of 21 shelf couplers remained coupled, while only 1 of 27 non shelf couplers remained coupled. The shelf couplers were so effective that the head shields were not subjected to a test.

In another accident, 5 of 6 hazardous material cars were equipped with head shields and shelf couplers. All 5 retained their loads.

Initial accident experience does not refute the engineering assessment that the safety modifications could be 85 percent effective. For this assessment, a factor of two reduction in spill rate has been assumed.

4.2.5 Explosives, Accident Rates and Severity of Accident Reference 27 estimated that there were 1.98 x 107 explosive L

train-miles per year based on statistics for a 57 year period from 1917 to 1973. The annual average train miles during this same period was 1.36 x 10.

During this 57 year period there were 35 explosions involving in-transit shipments of explo sive. The national probability of an explosion due to a train accident involving explosivee-3 is 3.1 x 10-8 explosions per NUS CORPORATION

explosive train mile.

The accident rate for the Santa Fe Railroad is significantly less than the national average and therefore using the ratio of Santa Fe Railroad accident rate to the national railroad rate, the explosions per explosive train mile for the track in the vicinity of the SONGS site is:

3.70 x 10-6 x 3.10 x 10- 8

= 1.05 x 10-8 Explosions per 10.95 x 10-6 Explosive Train Mile Reference 27 also determined a significance factor to account for those accidents which did not yield a significant explo sive overpressure. This significance factor is 0.154 yielding a final explosive overpresure rate of:

1.05 x 108 x.154 = 1.62 x 10-9 Significant Explosions per Explosive Train Mile 4.3 Use of Regionally Adjusted Accident Rates The accident rates for both the railroad and Interstate-5 used in this analysis were derived to be representative of the specific conditions existing in the vicinity of the plant.

The local ATSF railroad accident rate is lower than the national average. This is attributed to the fact that finan cially sound railroads such as the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe can afford to spend the funds to:

(55) 0 Maintain track (i.e., frequent quality inspections with follow-up to correct deficiencies) o Motivate personnel (i.e., operator

training, advancement and monitoring of performance) 0 4-34 NUS CORPORATION

o Repair' operating equipment (i.e., replace worn wheels or brakes) and modernization of rolling equipment and tracks k

This trend towards lower accident rates for financially sound railroads is further supported by the data from the Federal Railroad Administration provided in Table 4-14.

In the case of 1-5, interstate highways generally have lower accident rates than other highway because: (56) o There are fewer interruptions to traffic flow resulting in an orderly traffic flow at approximately the same speed o

The median strip reduces the incidence of head-on collisions o

Interstate highways have wider shoulders which are clear of obstructions such as trees, rocks, parked cars, culverts, openings, etc.

o There are no grade crossings o

"U"

turns, stop

lights, cross streets and slow-moving traffic pulling onto the highway are eliminated Both nationwide and California statistics support the trend of rural interstate highways having considerably lower accident rates than average.

The even lower local 1-5 rate is attributed to generally better weather and associated pavement conditions, frequent patrolling and heavy but not overly congested traffic. The local I-5 truck accident rate is based on 48 accidents over a 4-year period. Detailed review of the 4-35 NUS CORPORATION

locations of this statistically large sample shows a relatively uniform distribuiion in either direction and along the 10 miles of highway near the plant.

4-36 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 4-14 RAILROAD ACCIDENT RATES (Accidents per 106 Train Miles)

Federal Railway SONGS Administration*

Analysis Railroad 1974 1977 1968-78 Local ATSF 3.7 ATSF 4.9 5.7 Southern Pacific 5.8 12.1 Union Pacific 5.4 7.4 Nation Wide 12.8 13.8 11.0 r*

Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 143, Calendar year 1974, U

U.S.D.O.T., Federal Railroad Administration, August 1975.

Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 146, Calendar year

1977, U.S.D.O.T., Federal Railroad Administation, August 1978.

4-37 NUS CORPORATION

5.0 ANALYSES AND RESULTS 5.1 General The parameters used in the analysis of overpressure, and flam mable vapor cloud hazards at SONGS Unit 1 from highway and rail transport of hazardous materials are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2.

The basis for the accident rate parameters is discussed in detail in Section 4.

The atmospheric dispersion parameters of Table 5-2 correspond to five percentile worst case conditions.

These were used for all accidents even though they occur only infrequently.

The overpressure criteria used in this analysis was obtained from Bechtel Corporation and are tabulated in Table 5-3.

The risks of overpressurization and flammable gas intake hazards were evaluated for each SONGS 1 safety-related building given in Table 5-3 using its individual overpressure criterion, building area, and proximity to the transportation routes. In addition, the risks were also calculated for a plant area that encompasses all the above buildings using an overpressure cri teria of 0.503 psi (this is the lowest resistance to overpres surization for all the buildings).

The results of this analysis are given in Table 5-4.

As can be seen from this table, the total plant probability is not the sum of all the individual probabilities of each individual building.

Instead it can be approximated by the highest probability among the individual buildings.

For the remainder of this section, the probabilities discussed are calculated using 1) the entire plant area covering all safety-related buildings and 2) an overpressure criteria of 0.503 psi.

5-1 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 5-1 COMMODITY DEPENDENT INPUT PARAMETERS Highway Railroad Hydroaen Hydrogen Hydrogen LPG LNG Liauid Gas-i Gas-2 Acetylene LPG Explosives Number of Annual Shipments 2200 420 52 260 6

24 6

52

-6 124

(

Accidents per Loaded Trick Mile 0.132 x 10-6 0.132 x 10-6 0.132 x 106

.0952 x 10

.0952 x 106

.0952 x 10 0514 x 10 1.62 x 10 Probability of Spill Given Accident

.064

.105

t.

I Probability Explosion Given Spill

.042 0

.042

.043

.0184 Probability Fire Given Spill

.458 0.5

.458

.473 Probability of No Explo3ion or Fire

.500 0.5

.500

.509 Probability of BLEVE 0.125

.117 Vapor Cloud Probability of Ignition Figure 3-6 Figure 3-6 Vapor Cloud Probability Fire Given

.895

.895 ignition

.895 1.0

.895

.995

.895.9589 Vapor Cloud Probability Explosion Given Ignition

.105 0.0

.105

.105 3

.105 Maximum Shipment Quantity 10,000 gal.(3) 9,200 gal.

8,500 gal.

16,425 ft gas 114,000 ft 3,300 ft 30,000 20,548 lbs.

Flash Fraction

.352 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0

.352 Un Quantity of Vapor(2) -

Lbs.

14,665 3,185 502 92 640 241 43,994 Lower Flammability Limit -

2.1 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.1 Spill or Shipment Size Distribution Table 4-3 1001 100%

100%

Table 4-4

1. Probability of significant explosion per explosive train mile.

2. For maximum quantity spilled.

3. 5,000 gallons 60% of the time and 10,000 qallons the other 40% of the time.

TABLE 5-2 OVERPRESSURE AND FLAMMABLE VAPOR CLOUD INPUT PARAMETERS Stability Class G

Wind Speed 1.5m/sec at 10 m height Initial Dilution Air/Gas = 3/1 Minimum Cloud Height 1 m.

Ambient Temperature 780F Temperature of the Gas Saturation Temperature at K

14.7 psia for Liquified Gas Ambient Temperature for Compressed Gas Wind Direction Frequency FSAR Table 2.3-22 Explosive Equivalent Yield See Table 3-2 Based on Energy Region II Radius 240 feet Peak RefeCcted Overpressure o0.5 psi 5-3 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 5-3 PROVIDED RESISTANCE TO OVERPRESSURIZATION Building psi Control 0.671 Reactor Auxiliary 0.503 Fuel Storage 1.165 Turbine 0.856 Ventilation Equipment 1.249 Diesel Generator 4.476 Sphere Enclosure 10.132 5-4 NUS CORPORATION

III TABLE 5-4 RISKS FROM COMPRESSIBLE GASES TO THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS Total* Probability of Total* Probability of Exceeding Resistance Flammable Vapor Cloud to Overpressurization Being at the Building Per Year Per Year Control Building 1.96-6 5.52-8 Reactor Auxiliary Building 2.40-6 3.71-8 Fuel Storage Building 1.10-6 3.44-8 Turbine Building 1.63-6 7.61-8 Ventilation Equipment 1.00-6 2.90-8 Building Diesel Generator Building 2.19-7 5.69-8 Sphere Enclosure Building 2.14-8 4.45-8 Circle Encompassing all 2.63-6 1.04-7 the Above Buildings This totals includes risks from LPG, LNG, liquid hydrogen, compressed hydrogen-1, compressed hydrogen-2, and acetylene.

5-5 NUS CORPORATION

5.2 LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas is transported on both Interstate-5 and on the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.

In addition to using the previously discussed transportation parameters, two other considerations were made.

The risks from transportation of LPG on I-5 is divided into two calculations; one where the shipment quantity is 5,000 gallons and the other where the shipment quantity is 10,000 gallons.

This is to account for the use of tandem trucks.

The largest shipper of LPG on I-5 has indicated that 60% of their fleet consists of tandem trucks composed of two 5,000 gallon tanks.(

5 8, 59)

If a

tandem truck should be involved in an accident on Interstate-5, it is assumed that, at most, the contents of one vessel will contribute to a vapor cloud explosion. This assumption is based upon the fact that there is no known transportation accident in which the con tents of more than one storage tank contributed to the mater ial involved in a vapor cloud explosion.

The criteria of applying TNT equivalency to potential accidents can, there fore, include the mass limitation equal to the contents of the largest storage vessel under most conditions.

The risk from transportation of LPG on the AT&SF railroad was reduced by a factor of two to account for tank car modifica tions (see Section 4.2.4).

The results of the analyses are given in Table 5-5.

5.3 Other Hazardous Gases Results of the detailed analysis for LNG, liquid hydrogen, acetylene and gaseous hydrogen are summarized in Table 5-6.

Note that in accordance with references 33, 34, 35, and 36, 5-6 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 5-5 RESULTS -

LPG Probability of Probability of Overpressure Flammable Greater Than Gas at 0.5 psi Intake 1-5 Shipments 10,000 gallon tanks 2.39-6 6.84-8 (frequency = 40%)

5,000 gallon tanks 1.89-6 5.99-8 (frequency = 60%)

Total Probability from 1-5 2.09-6 6.33-8 AT&SF Shipments Without Credit for Tank Car Modifications 8.99-7 3.89-8 With Credit for Tank Car Modifications 4.50-7 1.95-8 5-7 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 5-6 OTHER HIGHWAY RESULTS Probability of Probability of Flammable Vapor Cloud Exceeding 0.5 psi Being Swept Into Plant Per Year Per Year.

LNG 0

1.03-8 Liquid Hydrogen 3.93-8 1.44-9 Compressed Hydrogen -

1 3.75-8 7.10-9 O

Compressed Hydrogen -

2 9.72-9 7.63-10 Acetylene 6.71-9 1.24-9

.5-8 NUS CORPORATION

the generation

'of a

significant overpressure from an unconfined methane-air ignition from the LNG spill is not con sidered credible.

5.4 Explosives As stated in reference 37, the recent annual number of ship ments of military explosives past the site is 1411 by highway and eight by rail.

Reference 38 further states that changes in shipment routes and requirements for 911 of the current shipments will occur after 1980 so that there will be less than 10% of the 911 shipments in the future.

Assuming that the remaining 500 shipments (1411 -

911) are unaffected yields a projected 1-5 military explosive shipment frequency of 500 +

0.1 x 911 or 592.

The maximum net explosive weight is 20548 lbs by rail.(37) For the highway shipments 994 of the 1411 shipments were further divided by weight (ref. 38, 48, 49, 50, 51,

52) as shown in Table 5-7.

Utilizing this information and the accident rates of Sec tions 4.1.5 and 4.2.3 yields annual probabilities of exceeding 0.5 psi due to shipments of explosives of 1.9 x 10-6 and 0.02 x 106 for highway and rail respectively. Note that all rail shipments were assumed to be of maximum size.

5-9 NUS CORPORATION

TABLE 5-7 HIGHWAY MILITARY EXPLOSIVE SHIPMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION Size Distribution for Net Explosive Highway Shipment of Weight (1bs)

Shipments Explosives Frequency 3400 938

.944 3400-4400 11

.011 4400-5400 10

.010 5400-6400 7

.007 6400-7400 8

.008 7400-8400 6

.006 8400-9400 5

.005 9400-10400 4

.004 10400-11400 5

.005 994 5-10 NUS CORPORATION

6.0 REFERENCES

1. TM 5 -

1300, "Structures. to Resist the Effects of Acci dental Explosions," Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, June 1969.

2. Geiger, W.,

"Generation and Propogation of Pressure Waves Due To Unconfined Chemical Explosions and Their Impact on Nuclear Power Plant Structures," Nuclear Engineering and Design 27 (1974) 189-198.

3. Strehlow, R.

A.,

1973, "Unconfined Vapor-Cloud Explo sions - An Overview," invited review paper, Colloquium on Fire and Explosion, in Fourteenth Symposium (Inter national) on Combustion, pp. 1189-1200, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, c 1973.

4. Strehlow, R. A. and Baker, W. E., "The Characterization and Evaluation of Accidental Explosions," report pre pared for the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis tration, Washington, D.C.,

by the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, Report No. NASA CR-134779, 1975.

5. Eichler, T.

V.,

Napadensky, H.

S.,

"Accidental Vapor Phase Explosions on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Plants," prepared for Argonne National Laboratory, Final Report J6405, April 1977.

6. Lannoy, A., Gobert, T., "Analysis of Accidents in Petro leum Industry Determination of TNT-Equivalent for Hydro carbons," J 10/8.

7. Butragueno, Jose L., and Costello, James F., "Safe Stand Off Distances for Pressurized Hydrocarbons," Abstract.

6-1 NUS CORPORATION

8.

Slade, David H.,

"Meteorology and Atomic Energy," U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission, July 1968.

9. Van Ulden, A. P.,

"On the Spreading of a Heavy Gas Released Near the Ground," Royal Netherlands Meteor ological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands.

10. Hardee, H. C., and Lee, D. 0., "Expansion of Clouds from Pressurized Liquids," Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, SAND74-5210.

11. Heidzeberg, "Loss Prevention Symposium,"

European Fed.

Chemical Industries, September 1977.

12. James, G. B., "Fire Protection in the Chemical Industry,"

National Fire Protection Association Quarterly, p. 256, Volume 41, 1947-48.

13. Simmons, J. A.,

"Risk Assessment of Storage and Transport of Liquefied Natural Gas and LP-Gas," National Technical Information Service, PB-247 415, November 1974.

14.

"1971-1972 Accidents of Large Motor Carriers of Prop erty," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High way Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, May 1974.

15.

"1973 Accidents of Motor Carriers of Property,"

U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin istration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, July 1975.

16. Little, Arthur D.,

Inc.,

"A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of the Transportation of Hazardous Substances in 6-2 NUS CORPORATION

Bulk," report prepared for The U.S.

Department of Com merce, Maritime Administration, Office of Domestic Ship ping, Washington, D.C., Report No. COM-74-11272, 1974.

17. Discussion with Anthony H. Lasseigne, Hazardous Mater ials Division, National Transportation Safety Board, January 19, 1979.

18. Telephone discussion with Bob Davis, owner of building at Davis Used Cars,.Eagles Pass, Texas, February 15, 1979.

19. Telephone conversation with Joe Bastalleros, owner of Borden Diesel Services, February 16, 1979.

20. Telephone conversation with William Miller (313-732-9255), Police Officer, Flint, Michigan.

First officer arriving at accident site (approximately 5 min.

after ignition).

Filed accident report, February 16, 1979.

21. Telephone conversation with Chief Phillips, Detroit, Michigan, Fire Department, February 14, 1979.

22.

Telephone conversation with Officer Robert Grohola, Detroit, Michigan, Police Department, February 6, 1979.

23.

"1969 Accidents of Large Motor Carriers of Property,"

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Adminis tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1970.

24.

"1970 Accidents of Large Motor Carriers of Property,"

U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, March 1972.

6-3 NUS CORPORATION

25.

"Final Phase 02 Report on Accident Review," Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project, Association of American Railroad and Railway Progress Institute, Report No. RA-02-2-18, August 1972.

26. Jones, G. P., et al, "Risk Analysis in Hazardous Mater ials Transportation," report by the University of South ern California Institute.of Aerospace Safety and Manage ment for the Department of Transportation, NTIS Report No. PB-230 810, March 1973.

27.

Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, "An Evaluation of the Sensitivity of TNT and the Probability of a TNT Explosion on the GM&O Railroad Line Past the Braidwood Reactor Site," in Amendment No. 8 to the Appli cation for Construction Permits and Operating Licenses for Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2, NRC Dockets STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Commonwealth Edison, October 17, 1974.

28.

"Phase 02 Report on Dollar Loss Due to Exposure of Loaded Tank Cars to Fire -

1965 thru 1970," Association of American Railroads and Railway Progress Institute, Report No. RA-02-1-10, August 11, 1972.

29. "Final Phase -

01 Report on Summary of Ruptured Tank Cars Involved in Past Accidents,"

Association of American Railroads and Railway Progress Institute, Report No. RA-01-2-7, July 1972.

30.

"Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear.Power Plant," WASH-1238, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Regulatory Standards, December 1972.

6-4 NUS CORPORATION

31.

This reference is not used.

32. "Final Phase -

01 Report on Summary of Ruptured Tank Cars Involved in Past Accident," Association of American Rail roads and Railway Progress Institute, Report No. RA-01-2-7, July 1972.

33. Foster, J. C.,

Jr.,

et al, "Detonatability of Some Natural Gas-Air Mixtures," Air Force Armament Labor atory, AFATL-TR-74-80, November 1970.

34. Kogarko, S.

M.,

et al, "An Investigation of Spherical Detonations of Gas Mixtures," International Chemical Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1966.

35.

Loesch, F. C., "Thermal Radiation and Overpressure from Instantaneous LNG Release into the Atmosphere," TRW Report No. TRW-08072-4, April 26, 1968.

36.

"Safety Evaluation Report, Tennessee Valley Authority, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A and B,"

U.S.

Nuclear Regu latory Commission, NUREG-0014.

37.

Letter to Mr. D. F. Bunch, Chief, Accident Analysis

Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

38.

Letter to Mr. Duane F. Martin, Southern California Edison Company from Department of the Navy, Seal Beach, California, November 20, 1978.

39.

"National Transportation Safety Board," Highway Accident Report, NTSB-HAR-76-4.

6-5 NUS CORPORATION

'41

40.

"Final Phase -

01 Report on Summary of Ruptured Tank Cars Involved in Past Accidents,"

Association of American Railroads and Railway Progress Institute, Report No. RA-01-2-7, July 1972.

41. Personal communication with Dr. Roger Strehlow, Depart ment of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Uni versity of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

42.

"CANVEY An investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area."

43.

"Determination of Acceptable Site Specific Frequency of Hazardous Chemical Shipments Passing San Onofre Units 2, 3," prepared for Southern California Edison, NUS -

1942, NUS Corporation, September 1977.

44.

Iotti, R. C.,

Krotiuk, W. J.,

DeBoisblanc, D. R.,

"Hazards to Nuclear Plants from on (or near) Site Gaseous Explosions," Abstract, Topical Meeting on Water-Reactor Safety, CONF-730304, March 26-28, 1973.

45.

Glasstone, Samuel, Editor, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," Revised Edition, United States Atomic Energy Commission, April 1962.

46.

"Safety Effectiveness Evaluation," Analysis of Proceed ings of the National Transportation Safety Board into Derailments and Hazardous Materials April 4-6, 1978, Report Number: NTSB-SEE-78-2, National Transportation Safety Board.

47.

U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety, "Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 146, Calendar Year 1977," August 1978.

6-6 NUS CORPORATION

48.

Letter to Mr. D. F.

Martin, Southern California Edison Company from 'Department of Navy, Seal Beach, California, April 5, 1979.

49. Letter from Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California.

50.

Letter to Southern California Edison Company from Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California, March 13, 1979.

51.

Letter to Southern California Edison Company from Naval Plant Representative, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Office, Pomona, California, March 6, 1979.

52. Letter to Southern California Edison Company from U.S.

Marine

Corps, Trafic

Division, Camp. Pendleton, California, March 14, 1979.

53.

Gugan, K.,

"Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosions," Insti tute of Chemical Engineers, U.K.

54.

Lewis, D. J.,

"Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosions Historical Perspective and Predictive Method Based on Incident Records,"

Prog.

Energy Comb.

Sci.,

6 (1980),

pp. 151-165.

55.

Telephone conversation with Robert Folden, Federal Rail road Administration, January 5, 1981.

56. Telephone discussion with Dr. Ben Chatfield, Office of Highway Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Depart ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C.,

February 4, 1981.

6-7 NUS CORPORATION

57.

This reference is not used.

58. Telephone conversation with the dispatcher on duty of Petrolane Transport, Long

Beach, California, January 5, 1981.

59.

Telephone conversation with John Hellman, California Trucking Assoication, February 10, 1981.

60. Broadhurst, R. H.,

and Li, C. Y..,

"Analysis of Explosive Vapor Cloud and Missile Hazards for Rail and Highway Transportation Routes near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3,"

NUS Report No.

NUS 3367.

61. Broadhurst, R. H., and Cheok, M. C., "Analysis of Explo sive Vapor Cloud and Missile Hazards for Rail and Highway Transportation Routes near the San Onofre Nuclear Gene rating Station Units 2 and 3,

using a Best Estimate Analysis,"

NUS Report No. NUS

3367, Supplement 1, April 17, 1981.

6-8 NUS CORPORATION

ML13333B115

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

6.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

6.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search