ML20009E864

Revised Main Control Room Habitability Study.

ML20009E864
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	05/31/1981
From:	BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20009E855	List: ML20009E854 ML20009E864
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 101-25, TAC-12428, TAC-12429, TAC-53458, TAC-53459, TAC-55476, TAC-55477, NUDOCS 8107280495
Download: ML20009E864 (67)

Text

s . . e I

. PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT

..- UNIT 1 AND 2 s

s .

Main Control Room Habitability Study NUREG - 0737 i

i i

i l

l PREPARED BY:

Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco January, 198.!

May 1981, Rev.

{

l 101-25 bio 7280495 810720 PDR ADOCK 05000282

.?._.._-._.;_..,_.._.__., _..,a,_._, . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . - - . . - . ~ . _ . .

o . .

' INDEX i

SECTION 1 - CONTROL ROOM TOXIC CHEMICAL STUDY 1

l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.78 3.0 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES CONSIDERED 4.0 SOURCES AND DATA FOR CHEMICALS 5.0 CONTROL ROOM TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS 6,0 METHODOLOGY 7.0 RESULTS 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION II - DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT RADIOLOGICAL STUDY 1.0 CONTROL ROOM SHIELDING (DIRECT RADIATION) 2.0 CONTROL ROOM DOSES E

APPENDIX A - TOXIC VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CONTROL ROOM - MODELS APPENDIX B - INFORMATION REQUIRI7 FOR CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY EVALUATION l

l 101-25 t

I . . -. . ._ _- . . ._ _ _ ___

i e . ,

A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Due to the toxicity of commonly used chemicals, which may be transported near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station by railroad, highway or the nearby Mississippi river, a survey was performed to predict which chemicals may become hazardous in the event of a spill. This anal-ysis is specifically required and modeled to conform to forth thegyjdancesetand 1.78% NUREG 0570 g3)the .

Nuclear of The purpose Regulatory Guide this analysis is to determine which chemicals are shipped near the site and which chemicals must be monitored in order to prevent concentration in the control room for reaching toxic letrels in the event of an accident.

2.0 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.78 Regulatory Guide 1.78 discusses the requirements and guide-lines to be used for determining the toxicity of~ chemicals in the control room following a postulated accident. The guidelines for determining the toxicity of a given chemical include shipment frequencies, distance from source to rite, and general properties of the chemical such as vapor uces-sure and its toxicity limit.

( Two types of standard limits are considered in defining hazardous concentrations. One is the threshold limit value (TLV), defined as the concentration below which a worker may be exposed for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> a day, 5 days a week without adverse health effects. Another limit is the short term exposure limit (STEL), which is defined as the maximum concentration to which workers can be exposed for 15 minutes without suffering from irritation, tissue damage, or narcosis lending to accident proneness or reduction of work ef ficiency.

The eifects of concentrations between the TLV and STEL are not generally predictable. Both these limits are considered in the analyses.

The NRC guidelines for shipment frequencies provide the maxi-mum number of shipments which can pass by the site before the chemical is to be examined for toxicity limits in the control room. For truckr (high'ay shipments), the minimum number of shipments is 10 per year. Railroad traffic has a minimum number of 30 shipments per year and barges have a minimum number of 50 shipments per year.

The distance from the transportation mode, railroad, highway or barge also controls whether the mode is to be examined for shipments of toxic chemicals. Highway US 61, the Chicago -

l 101-25 . _ . _

1 . .

Milwaukee - St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (CMSTP & PRR),

the Burlington Northern Milroad (BNRR) and barge traffic on the Mississippi River are all within 5 miles of the Prairie Island Plant, as shown on Figure 1, and should be considered as possible toxic chemical sources for evalua-tions of the Prairie Island plant.

3.0 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES CONSIDERED

' The Mississippi River is navigable by barges up to Minne-apolis, thus river traffic is expected to travel past Prairie Island. The Mississippi river runs next to the plant site,

' at the closest approach of 1/4 mile to the control rocr. air intake. But, as seen on Figure 2, the closest navigable por-tion of the Mississippi River would be approximately 1/2 mile from the control room air intake.

The BNRR has a two track trunk line on the east side of the Mississippi River approximately 2 miles from the control room air intake. The CMSTP & PRR has a two track trunk line on 4

the west side of the plant 1/2 mile from the control room air intake. Both lines connect the Minneapolis - St. Paul area with points east, principally the cities of Chicago' and Mil-waukee.

4 Highway US 61 runs approximatly 21/2 miles from the control room air intake. This road connects Red Wing to Minneapolis -

St. Paul. Chemicals travelling on the road to Minneapolis -

St. Paul were not expected to travel un US 61, since major interstates connect Minneapolis - St. Paul with points east and south. Therefore, only traffic between Minneapolis -

St. Paul and the Red Wing area need to be considered. There ar9 ng gyoducers or major users of chemicals in the Red Wing area il ', therefore US 61 is not considered further in the report.

l .

4.0 SOURCES AND DATA ?OR CHEMICALS The list of chemicals to be initially considered as poten-tially hazardous was drawn from several sources in a wide range of incostries. The majority of the chemicals which are to be examine from Regu-latoryGuide1.78jgregivenasapaggiallist and NUREG 0570 Also, two other sources were found to list hazardous chemicals - the Assoc-iation of American Railroads under Specifications for Tank Cars and theLGgpittee ' A complete on Safety list of of the Nuclear hazardous Installations chem-Organization .

l icals listed from the above sources are given in Table 1.

i 101-25 l i

--- - - - , - . - , . , - . - . - . , _ , . , . , .--,- , , , n.,..,,, ..,....--.-.--n--- n. ,-- . . - . , , - ,

s. ..

Additional information concerning the physical properties was obtained along with the above list of chemicals. This fncludes the molecular weight, boiling point, density, e heat of vaporization, vapor pressure, diffusion coefficient and the threshold limit value. These chemical properties along with the critical pressure and temperature of some of the chemicals are given in Table 2 using references 2 and 5 through 13.

5.0 CONTROL ROOM TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS:

The models developed to calculate the concentration of toxic chemicals in the control room in the event of an accident are consistent with the models described in NUREG-0570. A description of the model used to determine the control room toxic concentrations is given in Appendix A. These include a consideration of the following f actors:

a. There is a failure of one container of toxic chemicals being shipped on a barge or tank car releasing all of its contents to the surroundings. Instantaneously, a puff of that fraction of the chemical which would flash to a gas at atmospheric pressure is released. The re-maining chemical is assumed to spread uniformly on the ground and evaporate as a function of time due to the heat acquired from the sun, ground and surroundings, rurther, no losses of chemicals are assumed to occur as a result of absorption into the ground, flow into the river, cleancy operations, or chemical reactions.

b. From the geography of the area near Prairie Island, a

, spill from a railroad is assumed to spread roughly over i a circular area. A spill from a barge is conservatively j assumed to spread over a circular area on the Mississippi.

I

c. The initial puff due to flashing as well as the continu-l ous plume due to evaporation is transported and diluted t

i by the wind to impact on the control room air inlet.

The atmospheric dilution factors are calculated using I

the methodology of R.G. 1.78 and NUREG-0570, with partial building wake effects conservatively considered.

d. To determine which chemicals need monitoring, the control I

room ventilation systems were assumed to continue normal

operation of the analysis. The chemical concentrations l

. as a function of time were calculated and the maximum I levels determined. These were compared to the Threshold Limit values (TLV) published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( ACGIH) . Where TLVs were not available, toxicity limits were obtained from available literature.

101-25 ,

e. Concentrations were calculated as a function of time for eight hours following the accident to compare with the published 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> TLv levels for all cases. For conservativeness, the maximum concentrations reached in the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period were compared to the TLV levels to determine v:hich chemicals need monitoring.

The contrcl rcom ventilation system is designed to draw 2000 cfm of outside air into the control rgom ventilation onvelope , which has a volume of 116,840 ft . At present, there are no toxic chemical monitors installed to alarm in the control room, therefore it was assumed that the control room ventilation system operates continuously at the design flow rates throughout the duration of the accident.

6.0 METHODOLOGY .

Two railroad lines and t'.te Mississippi River need to be examined for the shipment of hazardous chemicals as stated in Section 2. The specific location of railroads and the river are shown in the Prairie Island of f-site map in Figure 1.

The railroad analysis was performed by generating an initial list of chemicals to be examined. This was done by assuming the maximum load on a railroad car, for each chemical in Table 1, as a 13,750 gallon tank car. Then, a computer eval-uation was run using the models in Appendix A, and 98 chem-icals which could pose a problem to the operators were listed as a result. These chemicals are shown on Table 3. At this point, Burlington Northern Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, was also contacted and asked to examine their shipments through the area of Prairie Island Site for quag shipmentfrequenciesofthehazardouschemicalstggpiesand '

. The results of their survey are given in Table 4; and shows 2 The CMSTP & PRR was chemicalswhichmaygg) similarly contacted hazardous.and the results of their survey in shown in Table 5.

A survey of barge traffic on the Mississippi River was per-formed using Reference 17. The tonnage shipped is given for sections of the Mississippi River, and for the survey, the section from Minneapolis to the mouth of the Missouri is used. Conservatively, all traf fic in this section is assumed to pass by Prairie Island, with the exception of upbound traffic going to the Illinois River. The amount of chemicals shipped is shown on Table 6. Chemicals are shipped on barges with capacity of 1500-3000 tons with shipments generally using the larger barges. Therefore, a 101-25 . - -

barge size limit of 3000 tons was used to determine the shipment frequency. Table 7 shows the chemicals whose shipment frequency exceeds 50 shipments per year.

The effects on the control room habitability from an accident involving chemicals stored on site was also eval-uated. The chemicals stored on site are shown in Table 8.

7.0 RESULTS Nine of the chemicals found by the survey'near Prairie Island (Tables 4, 5 and 7), were found to be shipped in quantities and shipment frequencies which may affect the control room habitability. These chemicals are shipped on the BNRR, CMSTP & PRR and by barge on the Mississippi River.

Of the chemicals stored on site, only chlorine and hydrazine are potentially dangerous.

An analysis of these chemicals was performed using the as-sumptions and models of.Section 5 and Appendix A. The chem-icals shipped by the BNRR are assumed to be contained by 30 ton tank cars to determine the net weight of the chemicals.

Of the chemicals shipped by barge, only gasoline and dis-tillate fuel oil are considered further, since fertilizers are generally non-toxic and shipped in dry bulk fashion.

Some of the fertilizers are shipped in ammonia tanks. A calculation of the ammonia concentration in the control room was not performed for this case because our results _

for the railroad car shipment evaluation already indicate that ammonia needs to be detected. The effects of an accidental release of on site stored chlorine were assumed to occur at its storage location, 100 meters from the fresh air intake. Hydrazine was assumed to be spilled in the turbine building, where the vapors were taken up by the ventilation system, exhausted at the roof and then entrained I

by the control room ventilation system.

The results of the analysis, shown on Table 9, show that four chemicals; chlorine, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydro-chloric acid spilled near Prairie Island would produce con-centrations in the control room well above the TLV levels

! if no provisions for isolation are available.

Therefore, to ensure that the control room habitability re-l quirements of R.G. 1.78 are met, the control room needs to be isolated on receipt of high concentration alarm from one of these chemicals.

l l

f 101-25 _. . _. - .-

.___ . . _ _ - _ . = . _ _.

t 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Table 9 shows that 4 chemicals would exceed TLV levels in the control room if an accidental release occurred, thus necessitatir.g the addition of monitors to detect toxic concentrations of these chemicals.

The monitors would need to be set to isolate the control room at a sufficiently low level to ensure that adequate time (2 minutes is specified by footnote 6 of Regulatory Guide 1.78) is available for the control room operators to put on breathing masks. The TLV levels for the chem-icals can be used as tne monitor set point. If the con-trol room is isolated when the TLV is reached at the monitor location, the operators will have adequate time to don breathing apparatus before the concentrations in the control room reach the STEL levels. Possible monitor set points, TLV and STEL levels are shown on Table 10.

! To ensure rapid detection so that the operators have ade-quate time, the location of the monitors and the monitor Monitors should be placed response times are important.

in the ductwork as close as possible to the fresh air in-takes, and upstream of the isolation dampers, so that hazardous chemicals are detected at the earliest time possible. The maximum response time should be governed by the time required for the concentration in the control room to reach the TLV levels af ter they have been reached  ;

~

at the monitor location.

A monitor for chlorine, which is stored on site, could be placed near the storage tank, thus assuring ample time for the operators to take protective action. Monitors for the other chemicals would have to be located at the fresh air intake.

Monitor system response time (the time needed for the mon-itor to act and isolation dampers to close) need to be evaluated to ensure that operators have adequate time to take protective actions. Monitor response times along with l the detector levels should be used to determine which monitor l systems will be used.

Figure 3 illustrates the effects of a typical hazardous chem-ical spill on the control room atmosphere. If the control room is not isolated, the centrol room air concentration quickly approaches the air concentration at the control room fresh air inlet. The monitor for the isolation mode is set to isolate when the air concentration at the inlet reacnes l

101-25 . . . . . .- - .. -.-

I the TLV level (time T O). The monitor system requires a certain time to detect the chemicals and isolate the con-trol room. Isolation is achieved at the time TISO. The control room concentration continues to igcrease due to inleakage from the outside air. At time STEL, the con-trol room concentration reaches the STEL level. As des-cribed above, the monitor and the isolation response time (Ty go-Tg ) should allow at least 2 minutes for the time period TSTEL - Tygg.

i i

i 101-25 -- - - - . ~ - . - _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __. ,

REFERENCES

1. Regulatory Guide 1.78, dated June 1974.

2. NUREG-0570, " Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room following a Postulated Accidental Release", James Wing , June 1979.

3. Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Red Wing , Minn. Of f-site Area Map, 11/20/79.

4. Association of American Railroads, " Specifications for Tank Cars" , Standard M-1002, A. A.R. , Washing ton D.C. , July 1, 1972.

5. Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations Organiza-tion for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, " Physical and Toxic Properties of Hazardous Chemicals Regularly Stored and Transported in the Vicinity of Nuclear Installations", Paris, France, March 1976.

6. Field Manual of Military Chemistry and Chemical Compounds, Headquarters, Dept. of the Army, October 1975.

7. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "TLV's Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1978".

8. Sax, N. Irving, " Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials",

Third Edition, 1968, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

9. Weast, Robert C., " Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", 53rd Edition, 1972-1973, The Chemical Rubber Co.

l

10. De an , John A., "Lange 's Handbook of Chemistry", Twelf th Edition, Matheson Gas Products, 1971.

11. Braker, W. and A. L. Mossman, "Matheson Gas Data Book",

Fifth Edition, Matheson Gas Products, 1971.

12. Braker, W., A. L. Mossman , and D. Siegel, " Effects of Exposure to Toxic Gases - First Aid and Medical Treatment",

Second Edition, Matheson Gas Products, 1977.

13. Reid, R. C., J. M. Prausmitz, and T. K. Sherwood, "The Properties of Gases and Liquids", 3rd Edition , McGraw-Hill ,

1977.

101-25

I

14. Red Wing Area Chamber of Commerce - Manufacturers.

15. Letter John E. Baker, Bechtel to R. Grif fin , Burlington Northern Inc., " Hazardous Chemicals Survey, P.O. 10040-M30-SBC, Northern States Power Co., Prairie Island Station", 3 Dec. 1980. (DCN 3494).

16. Letter C. B. Hogg, Bechtel to R. W. Riedl, CMSTP & PRR

" Prairie Island duclear Generating Station, Northern States Power Co. , Request for Hazardous Materials Shipments" 11 Dec. 1980, (DCN 3565).

17. Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. , Calendar Year 1977, Depart-ment of the Army Corp of Engineers - Part 2 Waterways &

Harbors; Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System.

18. Telecon Jorge Schulz, Bechtel to Glenn Banks, Corp of Engineers , 8 Jan. 1981.

19. Telecon Jorge Schulz, Bechtel to Neil Schuester, American ifaterway Operators, 12 Jan. 1981.

101-25

__ m

TABLE 1 HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SOURCES (1) (2) (3) (4)

AAR TANK CAR R.G. NUREG-0570 CSNI Acetaldehyde X X Acetic Anhydride X X Acetone X X Acetone Cyanchydrin X Acrolein X X Acrylonitrile X X Aliphatic Mercaptan Mixtures X (See individual Mercaptans)

Allyl Chloride X X Ammonia X X X Amyl Mercaptan X Aniline X X Antinock Compound X (See Tetramethyl lead & Tetraethyl lead)

Arsine X Benzene X X Benzyl Chloride X X

, Butane Bromine X X Bromobenzl Cyanide (6) X Butadiene X X X Butanol X Butenes X Butyl Mercaptan X X X I

Carbon Dioxide X Carbon Disulfide X Carbon Monoxide X X X Carbon Tetrachloride X Chlorine X X X Chlorine Trifluoride X Chloroacetyl Chloride X Chloropicrin X X

Chlgprene X CNB(6) X i

CNC(6)

CNS x X

Cresol X

CumeneHydroperoxg X Cyanogen Chloride X

Cyclohexane 101-25 l

TABLE 1 (Continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

AAR TANK CAR R.G. NUREG-0570 CSNI Diethylamine X Di-isopropyl Benzene Hydroperoxide X Difluoroethane X Dimethylamine X Dimethyl Dichlorosilane X Dimethyl Ether X Dimethylformamide X Dimethyl Hydrazine X Diphenylchloroarsin (6) X X

Di.,henylcyggyarsine*) X Diphosgene Epichlorohydrin X Ethane X Ethyl Acetate X Ethyl Benzene X Ethyl Chloride X X Ethyldichloroarsine ( 6) 3 Ethyldichlorosilane X Ethylene Dichloride X X Ethylene oxide X X X Ethyl Ether X X Ethyl Mercaptan X Ethyl Trichlorosilane X Ethylene X Ethylene Glycol X Fluorine X X i

Formaldehyde X X Fonnic' Acid X Gasoline Helium X X l Hexylene Glycol X Hydrazine X X Hydrochloric Acid X X Hydrogen X Hydrogen Cyanide X X X Hydrogen Fluoride X X Hydrogen Peroxide X Hydrogen Sulfide X X X 101-25

h. - - .- _

. o

/

TABLE 1 (Continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

AAR TANK CAR R.G. NUREG 0570 CSNI Isopropyl Alcohol X Isopropylamine X Isopropyl Mercaptan X X

Lewisite ( 6)

Liquified Natural Gas X Liquified Petroleum Gas X Mercaptans X (See individual Mercaptans)

Methane X X X Methanol Methyl Chloride X Methyl Dichloroarsine(6) X Methyl Dichlorosilane Y Methyl Trichlorosilane X Methyl Mercaptan X Monochloroacetic Acid X Monochlorodifluoromethane X X

Monomethylg}ne X Mustard Gas X Mustard - Lewisite Mixture (6)

Muriatic Acid (Hydrochloric Acid) X _

X Methyl Formete X X Nitric Acid X X Nitrogen Nitrogen Dioxide X Nitrogen Mustard (HN-1)(6) X X

Nitrogen Mustard (HN-2)((6)

Nitrogen Mustard (HN-3) 6) X Nitrogen Peroxide X Nitrogen Tetroxide X Nitrosyl Chloride X Oleum (Sulfuric Acid, Fuming) X X

Parathion X

ParamethaneHgoperoxide X Pentaborane-9 .:

Perchloryl Fluoride X

Phenol X Phenbdichloroarsine(6) X Phosgene X (6) X PhosgeneOx{1gr Pentaborane 101-25

ar i

TABLE 1 (Continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

AAR TANK CAR R.G. NUREG 0570 CSNI Phosphor"s X Phosphorus Oxybromide X Phosphorus Oxychloride X Phosphorus Trichloride X Potassium Nitrate /

Sodium Nitrate X Propionaldehyde X Propylene Oxide X Propyl Mercaptan X Pyroforic Liquids X Propang) X Sarin (

Sodium X Sodi *

• Somann 6h X Styrene X Sulfur Dioxide X X X Sulfuric Acid X X X Sulfur Tricxide X Sodium Oxide X Tabun (6) X Tr ' raethyl Lead X Tetramethyl Lead X Thiophosphoryl Chloride X

Titanium Tetrachloride X X

Toluene Trichloroethylene X Trichlorosilane X Trifluorochloroethylene X Trimethylamine X Trimethylchlorosilane X vinyl Acetate X Vinyl Chloride F X X Vinyl Fluoride X i Vinyl Methylether X Vinyl Pyridine vinyl Trichlorosilane X Xylene X X 101-25 l

l

NOTES: (1) Reference 4 (2) Reference 1 (3) Reference 3 (4) Reference 2 (5) Reference 5 (6) Military poison gases, Ref. 6 I

l t

l l

i l

l 101-25

, e i

' TABLE 2 PitVSICAL PROPERilES OF YORIC CllEMICALS MW BP DENS CP IN VP OIFF TCRIT PCRIT TVPE ILV 4

J ............................................................................................................

Cl4E MIC A L l.00'02 44.9 20.2 .783 510 136.2 7.600*02 4030 2 ACEIAtDEHVDE 394 1.000808 .0750 569.00 46.20 2 ACEllC ANHVDWIDE 5.00*00 102.8 140.0 1.057 92.

2 ACETONE t.00:03 58.8 56.2 199 528 828.9 4.000802 .4340 2

.932 3.000 04 .0802 496.00 42.00 ACETONE CVANOHYDRIN f.00808 85.9 82.0 51.00 2 aCRPLEIN f 00-08 56.9 52.5 841 .588 826.t 4.750602 .0919 506.00 45.00 2 2.00800 53.8 77.3 806 .500 2.250802 .0845 538.00 ACRYLONiiRILE 303 90.5 6.500802 .0830 513.50 46.50 2 ALLYL CHLC41DE l.OO*00 16.5 45.0 .938 0 AMMONIA 2.50*01 17.0 -33.4 .674 l. LOO 327.4 2 342 0.380'06 .0936 128.00 34.50 AMVL MERCAPTAN l.OO*00 104.2 126.6 2 ANILINE 5.00'00 93.8 184.4 1.022 .528 103.7 1.500800 .0790 I f 5.00-02 77.9 -62.5 1.604 .283 59.2 2

j ARSINE .489 103.6 f.900*02 .0770 BENIENE 1,00801 13.4 80.8 .880 2

• .00'00 826.6 679.0 1.003 . J23 16.0 9.300000 .0810 BfNZYL CHLORIDE 44.9 3.800602 4090 2 l

GROMINE l.00-08 859.8 SR.7 3.120 107 737.40 35.50 2 4.80-08 496.0 242.0 9.470 55.7 7.000 02 .0539 BRodOHENZVL CVANIDE I l.00'03 54.1 -4.1 629 .545 99.8 t

RUIADIENE .564 32.0 5.00'03 58.l .S 608 SUIANE .563 148.3 f.800409 .0920 2 l.OO*02 74.0 117.5 880 lufANOL 595 .355 93.4 8 BUTENE t.43805 54.0 -6.3 45.9 4.800408 .0714 563.20 30.90 2 5.00-09 90.2 90.0 336 80TVL MERCAPTAN 468 .ted 33.2 9 CARRON DIONIDE 5.00603 44.0 -78.5 8090 2 i

2.00*00 16.4 46.5 f.293 .248 84.9 6.350602 CARRON DISULFIDE 3 CARRON MONOXIDE 5.00*01 28.0 -198.5 .5t5 St.6 2 1.00608 153.3 78.8 9.597 .209 47.3 2.190*02 .0010 I CARRON TEIR ACitLORIDE .226 CHLORINE l 00800 70.9 -34.0 9.570 68.8 9

l.00-01 92.5 98.8 f.770 .303 78.2 ClelDRINE 7RIFLOORIDE 2.320*01 .0760 579.90 50.40 2 CitLOROACETYL CitLORIDE 5.00 02 102.9 l0 5.0 9.495 4.000400 .0695 592.00 44.10 2 CllLOROPICRIN l.00-01 164.4 112.0 f.692 42.00 2 2.50800 88.5 59.4 .958 6.770402 .0779 525.50 CitLOROPRENE 1.200602 2 Cte 5.00 02 489.7 75.0 1.140 2 5.00-02 329.6 60.0 9.400 8.270802 CNC 9.270802 2 CNS 5.00-02 144.5 60,0 0.470 50.a0 2 CRESOL 5.00400 108.1 198.0 l.010 .550 102.9 1.000'00 .0678 704.60 33.70 2 t.00s00 152.2 153.0 0.050 2.500609 .0629 574.80 CUMENE HVOROPERORIDE l CVANOCEN CHLORIDE 3.00-05 68.5 83.9 9.218 .358 603.0 2 .

.779 432 93,s t 000e02 .07Je CVCLollE M ANE 3.00*02 e4.2 30.7 2 2.50808 73.8 55.5 685 .544 96.4 4.250*02 1090 t DIElliVL AMINE -26.5 0.004 .333 .78.0 DIFLUORGEillANE t.43405 66.0 1 t.00e00 45.8 6.9 680 724 820.5 DIMElllVL AMINE 1.080602 .0674 599.30 33.90 2 DIMETHYL DICelLOROSILANE 5.00000 129.4 70.0 9.800 9 4.00802 46.0 -23.7 661 535 til.6 DIM (IllVL Elltf R 153.0 953 155.4 3.700eOO .0706 647.10 43.70 2 i

DIMEiltVL FORMAMIOE t.00*00 73.8 2 1

5.00-09 60.0 63.3 .782 9.570802 0902 529.90 53.60 OIMETHYL litDRAZINE 56.6 4.600-03 2 DIPl4FNVL CHLOROAQSINE 5.00-02 264.5 307.0 1.387 79.3 5.000-05 2 DIPltfNDL CVANOARSINE 5.00-02 255.0 290.0 f.320 9.030808 2 DI Pilo 5GE NE 1.00-08 197.9 827.0 1.660 42.00 2 5.00800 92.5 118.8 f.i88 4.000808 0709 594.00 t E P I CitLOROllVOR IN 444 .321 187.0 E lll4NE 3.43805 30.7 -88.6 2 4.00802 88.9 77.2 .e95 459 107.0 9.060*O2 .0915 2 EillVL ACETATE 567 409 35.0 2.000e01 .0800 ElitVL RENTENE 1.00'02 906.2 436.2

. o e

we t e

> e e n n n n = n a n n n n n n n n = n n n n = n n a n n n

• n N M

• n n *

• n n n- N n n n n n-n we e

0C O

>e e

O 'O O O8 8 8 8. O.

. S. Oe. o. n. 8. O. M.

. 8.ne8

=e n. . 8. Oe.

.e u

s o.e n. .m e. n. ..

.e m.

ww=

On

.w me .-

.. n.

n e -

8 8mm e .

e *

.e: R. 8 8 S. S. 8 8 28 8 8.2 8 2. ?. R. R. S.  ?. 8 en On - en we w =

- e n

us O -. 8O o s,n., -e w ,e s ew e m. w.

n. e. e, -w e. .. . ,

e n. .e ,

e en O . en e .

w.

e e . nw m OO .~. pea

..e

.. no ce 8e e O ,w n

-p nc em n

e 8e -

me ee

e. ne ,

O M n

e se en w e

n. . .00 00 00 =

=. =.

o. O c. 000 = . = .

=e O. . .

co =nn n= -O- n-On n n e

On Mn MM- n== == nno ~nne n 000 0600

. e C O. O. O 0

. 0. 0 000 00 000 0000 . O. C. 0 0 Ce 00 O C0 O O O. O.

e O COC O

• O O COO O o een O Os e so e O >

se e e noe e e. . . e. e.

po

. O. e. . g n. e. o. . . .. . e. . O. . n.

. . . . e. . w--e.. ...

w-= pe=n e n e

e e= =a won aww en wm= -t-= n =nc op

w. n. O. m. e. O. e. e. O. O. =. C. o. m. O. w. O.

O. p. e. n. O.

e=n-e w.

nn

m. e. O. O. p . .p C. e. c. m. o. e.

menee-g *e e m e s s+ e ee v=enemo cOOOwe

=eO no- eneOw an eeme e= w s. w= w h memOes e n. -mento

n- = -n--e === *n- -- =

e e

=>O eCe eO- em

• ew eOO ee --=eme

• O*C nn- mes aos en e -> non

.t e e mesmem e one w e. v. n. n. n.

e. . .m. . n. e. . w o. n. w. e. n. s. w. . &.

W u ee n. n. n. e. v. e. n. n. .

s e

=O*

e u ***O e

Onnmemo

-c=Sonw Omo Ono n e n w anOnewwC eO= cec =e neocceOOwnocco-COO e-nosotamome-Ceeew see

= Zone .e.e.n.O. .n. w. n. e.

a zy = c. e s. e. . e. ==n. =. e. m.=e.-- n.. n. o. e.-~. . e. O. m. e. n. e. s. -e.

m.e.e.

-- --- =.e.n.e.w.s.w.o.

=- ---- ---

p , e -n g u e e n. O. n. m. e. c. h. e. n. e. n. c. e. O. e. . c. o. m. e. *. O. e. n. w. C. O e. M. M. O. c. e. e. p - s. e. e O. p e. O. O. O. O. e. o . . .

O u=

Uw se ceneonn~OwweencoenneneenOOn- awnn~-me-Comece-e.n~=e.o wennwn eOwenonenennen w w

a e=amone-nnemeOeee=e.en-Owene e - - . . -

e n=-

e n

e

=e --

e e- -. n=== e e

• e e 5 N

• O. w* o.* *o m e C. == = c. e m .

• m O O O - - m O. =

• cco

• e-e=CO*= * - m ** O O O O. O. n. o c *O. O. O O - . -

w O l e , ,* e . e n , , n n . O . Q w -no e

. n . n -annneWMO-ne@=ewweenemenw*eOnwww O w

• O p . - . n O O . C . e , e ---o . n . . O . ,= e . . .

4 e g w-e e

emnneewesenew=

== = = - n == = *-n

-enceOnnneC=

< ~e e nnO.=nanaCOOOne--Ce-oO-nc-nennnon-O

• C0000020000000000000000000000000000 s 0000000000C0 V

5.5.5.5.6.5.5.5.$.5.5.5 E.

$eom.===.w..=n...n-e-=n--w.=e-n-M.-..

s e

! 5. $. 5. 6. 5. 5. 5. 5 $. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5

>>n-.mmen.

e

a. e u o .

= e e . W e

e I w ---

e

=

= s - a -

s e e ww w

23=

2

• .me *

• O so ww 22 ==w = ggg a w

< s w I. 2 = .u = ___

--- w u Z= e --O 2 wowe o e.

= -- a a

. wa J - e =s

• a

* es =

womwg a we se w wcCoo=Ca y.

=e

== a se Os 20 e

J u

=

c==o woc camw- o=s-2Ou3w

a= 2 -

cama

===<wea> ===c uswoo gOw as O < ====5:u =OOatswwr e x===CaQ:

eona .uc -O u ZOOww=a ass ee:v== = Ommem=s

> u 42msszw *3=w w s-CO ems ub=

=sume.

Eg w 00 s = >sw3ges 02: Iuvec esc =

O =I I E E = ue:

e O T .g OQOguu >= O E uwse g =u u s a - C O s e w =

ogou .a= Zu wo JJ.

• JucCwa=OC: = O w a m a > c s.wwwww u42:22222s e .==wwww=wswwww

• ucC2222w1*2O 2 w2s22222>>>w

su=EwNucccccCCC=22sJssss.gs.cc Z= wwwwwtLL>wo wamucccccccew w>

• wwww 4>>>>>>uu24e=CCCCCC0CI asassassassa4=s3s4CCCCOcamme6>>>>>>CXXO->Eammamas4L=========

• g.. g =e >e =a m a s a m a c m e= = = = = = = =.a e::>>>>22:22:3mmesxcocoOccuCC3========

e>======*=>sOO4ww w>>>>> >eeewwwwwwwww CO9* =======**

1 1 1 I =2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 ewwwwwwwwwwwwwu;;g  :::22==-s1E211111 e

I

• e e

we L e m e n = n = n n e. n n = n n n n n n n = n n n n n n n n n n = = n n = = = se a n we

' e j

000 0 00 Ca 00 000

> 0 a. c. e.

=*

• C. e. o. e. n. o. M. O. m. o.

ae .

men * *= cc On one ue n www n On= ww nw nnn

&

• c e

e s

COO O CO CO OO C00 we O nw no won**

=* Ono-

• O w O. - * **

ae e.

• m **

a

-c em eno ue e enn e =O mm en cWn m e c meM pe we ese e e wwo e av e

e m mee e ne eme we ook e

n e-m w nw nne em non ese i se o een e so emm em we COO O* O= 000 CO C00

=e O* - * * * * - * * - ' * *

• Os e ===

=n == nn nn ee n O- a n n O =0 0 0 0000 w n = O = = = =0 0 0 0000000 00 000 eO 00 00 e O. 0 00 O CO

• O O C000 0 w wO n C Moto - O 00 to

. e. . . . a. . c. v. e. . we =.

peen . ,.

e

==

.=+

w-

. . e. . n. o. s. e. .

sw=m-en m==*nn=e-w

-n =en e

p m. e. e. .

e e. n. s. e. n. o. n. e. O.

e

. - w. C. . O. e. s. e. ..

ee=e o ge - e me =a e=en e en en e w e e n wmec on e-a moon = =

> es we amen =

• a w -

e e= n en e=e =n en nomw O

- e ts

=

e se e en =en nn en neew O w

uee n. o. n. n. e. w. n. n. w. e. n. e. e. n. c. e. .

, e e.

d e eon OOeneeOneeCOnwno=> COO m 4 e y u= +eeOOneoeewce==

zee ==Oce=emmonweOn ennecenneweowennemmem C Iw we neoooeweccessO=O - - - * * - - ** weeOweemewnesammenene

• • * ****** *****= *

• O 08 e-n===-- === -----=== ---

U =u e O y g e

O.S.w.e.p .O. n. .n. =. e. n. O. O.=. O. N. O.c.e. O.O. O.O.w.o.v.e.m. e.O. c.e. o.p o.e. . .

N =

w aee>m o ewee m e = n e e w n e w m m - > c O O w e O O p e o n -

• n nem=m OmwwnowCow=nwwC=nn=enn te n n e scow o e = =

OC O en een = e ====en an==== e u - e O

wg e

).- - e. n.

w 3e e O. n. n. e. . e. e. w. w. . . . O. =. w. n. =. =. =. =. n. e. n. c. e. . w. w. e. =. e. . e.

g xe=nnnwnonkwameConwweOnnpenn=ceeeenOecnepeeceneanweceweeceemensweenn=cceewcoeO ===

b w e e

n -- * == = n== = ==

a n

= e ennnOO==O=enn=% Onnn OnnCe=O=OcwOOn o

n n O =0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 000 De C.0000000000000 a e w .

8

. ":88888888.8.".8888 8888888.". ==.a.->= 8888.".8888.".888.8 .-=e=- -,==..=

& e.....=-..--==n s

J e 4 e u

=

a e

W e E *

• w a w E ww a Ow w u 2 w W w e

CO = =Q 2 J e J s= > s Z ee w == Oz w > 4 e ue w 2 mm O  : a

=e O = 00 m go

.s w - =

J E =

r. e = e gg 2

=

Ou: 2 w

• w e w e a s e .= uu wwe w w me u wuc 0  : O ce C 0D*

• w O ewJe s2Ewa ww=wa ue 3 0 W== ME 00- ws>m t 402OwoOw20 e ow >=4 Zwe

=

E ==W s sw Z s J g z : *< =m =a s s e e w O O* muO sgw ==. O :

e ww g wou O am.* weveu-OC:-w 2za ee C a s Ce=

e .

u 33 sww Z = m > COosses3=m-wwwE eZee>

e Caum =was e21 u Ouw Z=&we3 saz>>u 4umE&*

o=O00 O2qQw2w w = w w g =3 w CCOI: w s-.csssw. 2OwJs :gwocce=>>z=2wass m czw.g2**swwsssasaz R 2335 w2.

e: 2W . >>>w e==-u.zewecces=- awww5==mO=suumaz>w>ZZZu 000303> adag=w=wa=====ZZZ e

EZZawsgQgC3...masugoow333eww:=Osamam======>

ewwww: >>>>>>>>M e&&b&&b&&&&&&&WWWWWWW>>>>>> ppm e

7 *"w-g- -w- g7_

Table 2 ILV* THRESHOLD LIMli VALUE (PPM)

MW=MOLECUt AR WIIGili (CM/MOL E )

BP=DOILING POINT (DECREE CENilGRADE)

DENS

• DEN $ liv 0F LICulD (GM/CMo*3)

CP-14E A S C AP ACI T V 0F Ll0UID ICAL/GM-DEGksE CENT)

HVoHEAT OF VAPORITAllDN (CAL /GM)

VP= VAPOR PRES $URE OF LIOURD (MM-It0)

DIFF* DIFFilSION CDEFFICIENI (CM**2/SEC)

TCRIT= CRITICAL TEMPERATURE (DECREE MELVIN)

PCRIT* CRITICAL PRESSURE (AIM)

TVPE* TYPE Of CHEMICAL l* LOW BIDLlHG POINT 2* NORMAL-HoILING POINI 3*CouPRESSID CAS O

9 e

e I

i l

l 1

l e

Table 3 List Of Chemicals To Be Reviewed For Number Of Yearly Shipments And Container Shipping Size Acetaldehyde Diphosgene Nitrogen Dioxide Acetic Anhydride Epichlorohydrin Nitrogen Mustard (HN1)

Acrolein Ethyl Chloride Nitrogen Mustard (HN2)

Acrylonitrile Ethyl Dichloroarsine Nitrogen Peroxide Allyl Chloride Ethyl Dichlorosilane Nitrogen Tetroxide Ammonia Ethylene Dichloride Nitrosyl Chloride Amyl Merlaptan Ethylene Oxide Pentaborane Arsine Ethyl Ether Pentaborane - 9 Benzene Ethyl Mercaptan Perchloryl Fluoride Benzyl Chloride Ethyl Trichiorosilane Phenyldichloroarsine Bromine Fluorine Phosgene Butadiene Formaldehyde Phosphorus Oxychloride Butane Formic Acid Phosphorus Trichloride Butyl Mercaptan Hydrazine Propionaldehyde Carbon Dioxide Hydrochloric Acid Propylene Oxide Carbon Disulfide Hydrogen Cyanide Propyl Mercaptan Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Fluoride Sarin Carbon Tetrachicride Hydrogen Peroxide Soman Chlorine Hydrogen Sulfide Sulfur Dioxide _

Chlorine Trifluoride Isopropyl Amine Sulfur Trioxide Chloroacetyl Chloride Isopropyl Mercaptan Tabun Chloropicrin Lewisite Tetraethyl Lead Chloroprene Methanel Tetramethyl Lead CNB Methyl Chloride Titanium Tetrachloride CNC Methyl Dichloroarsine Trichloroethylene CNS Methyl Dichlorosilane Trichlorsilane Cumene Hydroperoxide Methyl Formate Trimethylamine l Trimethyl Chlorosilane

Cyanogen Chloride Methyl Mercaptan Diethyl Amine Methyl Trichlorosilane Vinyl Aetate Dimethyl Amine Monomethyl Amine. Vinyl Chloride Dimethyl Dichlorsilane Mustard Gas Vinyl Piridine Dimethyl Ether Mustard Lewisite Mixture Vinyl Trichlorosilane Dimethyl Hydrazine Nitric Acid i

i l

t

{ M19/15 1

i

f I Table 4 Chemicals Shipped By Burlington Northern Past Prairie Island (1 July 1979 - 5 July 1980)

Chmical Number Of Gross Weight of Shipnent (tons)

Shipments Average Maxim m Acetaldehyde 21 87.6 111 amonia, AnhydrousII) 526 126.6 132.5 Carbon Bisulfide or 30 Carbon Disulfide 1 30 Chlorine 15 88.3 98 32 32 Chlorine Rifluoride 1 Dimethyl Amine, Anhydrous 11 83.9 124 1 41 41 Hydrocyanic Acid Hydrofh xic Acid, Anhydrous 8 53.9 76 Hydrochloric Mid (1) 162 90.2 127.9 71 71 Hydrochloric A::id Mixture 1 Hydrogen Sulfide 29 117.5 124.8 Irritating Agent, N.O.S. 1 30 30 2 119.5 127 Monochlorodiluoro Methane Nitric Acid 4 51.5 51.5 13 66.6 85 Sulfur Dioxide 90.3 108 vinyl Acetate 4 Vinyl chloride 1 131 131 chemicals shipped over 3C time / year need to be evaluated to determine the effect af an accidental spill on the control room operators M-19/15 1

- = . . - __ .- -

o .

'mBLE 5 CHDilCAIS SHIPPED BY CSIP r. PRR PAST PRAIRIE ISIMD FOR 1980 2

Chemical Nurber of Container Size (Gallers)

Shipnents Maximum Minir an ChlorineIII 44 18,000 12,000 9 11,000 10,000 Hydrofluoricgid Formaldehyde 34 21,000 10,500

1. Q:emicals shipped over 30 times / year need to be evaluated to determine the effect of an accidental spill on the control roan operators.

l l

l l

l l

l l

102-29

e

• l t

Table 6 Barge Traffic Cn The Mississippi River Past Prairie Island. Calendar Year 1977 Chemical Ibnnage Shipnent Frequency (shipnents/ year)

Alcohols 50131 17 Benzene And Teluene 109942 37 Sulfuric Acid 31037 10 Basic Chenicals And Products 577S13 193 Nitrogen 60s Chemical Fertilizers 532410 177 Potassic Chemical Fertilizers 23714 8 Phosphatic Chemical Fertilizers 97700 33 mr:ilizer Ard Materials 606711 202 Miscellaneous Chemical Products 9862 3 Gasoline 2718821 906 Jet Fel 107506 36 Nerosene 25373 8 Distillate Fuel Oil 1337511 446 Naphta, Petroleum Solvents 63102 21 l

l Liquified Cases 55325 18 l

Shipment frequencies were calculated using 3000 tonsAarge capacity.

l l

i M-19/15 l

I

Table 7 Chemicals Shipped By Barge Which Exceed 50 Shipment / Year Basic Chemicals And Products Nitrogenous Chemical Fertilizers (Ammonia)

Fertilizer And Materials Gasoline Distillate Fuel Oil M-19/15

Table 8 Chemicals Stores On Site Chemical Number Of Container Location Containers Size 6 1 Ton 100 meters Chlorine 10 55 gal Turbine Building Ammonium Hydroxide 5000 gal Turbine Building Sufuric Acid 1 35 gal Turbine Building Hydrszine 8 5000 gal Turbine Building Sodium Hydroxide 1 M-19/15

. . l

. Table 9 FINAL ANALYSIS R3SULTS Chemical Quantity TLV Maximum Control Room Concentration (ppm)

Ammonia 102 tons 25 1531 Hydrochloric Acid 98 tons 5 1569 Chlorine (on site) 1 ton 1 733.7 Chlorine (CMSTP & PRR) 18,000 gal. 1 6100 Hydra:ine 35 gal 0.1 0.0064 Gasoline 3000 tons 500 360.7 Distillate Fuel Oil 3000 tons 200 23.60 Formaldehyde 21,000 gal. 2 228.1 M-19/15

Y e

Taole 10 Monitor Setpoints And Toxicity Levels Chemical Monitor TLV STEL Set Point (ppm) (ppm)

(ppm)

Ammonia 25 25 35 Chlorine (1) 1 1 15 Formaldehyde 1 2 2 Hydrochloric Acid 5 5 10 (1) The STEL for chlorine was obtained from R. G. 1.95 (2-minute level). _

h a

4 M-19/15

+

, . - - - 4_ ., ..,,__m,. ..-,,..,....m.__.., , - - . . . , , , _ , . , - , . . , . _ , , , . - - . - . , . , , . . ,, . ~ , _ - . -

7- [ }

l$ $ y/ k l

{ ~B w 9, k*

_ . +r s u in %

MOND =e o )=

s. J. i.

"w~(o

'e bl

.- g

• /  ? - gt ) l Q', ,'

%y.c L.:C3.,\m

~

$1UFF \ '

,N

. #f 1., { --

. . >%n =- =s-~g;5 EL

\(:N - -

mW

. vc '

\ , i .

i Y w

< .. v. '

la / gd ,t -

m p/;

'b'E(

I

'S C : g. N A5

' y.

.k ". AN

[ *k 8'l N .- .- j k I. .

t% t 35e g. w .. .q..

! 31 - 25-uru n '

- L

{' ,k

'-R I  : ~,, .Y . k er

1. Q Ni: ~ 50 / j N A

'N.Q: ' &#

7

. y. \ -

tenbein E

g. _ _; . ]

. x i w _

~

c l ' ; "3 - l 5

.' r + " -g- -is n,i

"'oe M ~,aya#,y W mi.wi - >

/

y s.

Q. 3

. g::!;

[ l ,*

l , V {. .

chw g

)-

3

] -f .i t Ei -

4

h. '

4 e, L' I C - i .j* - , r i __

- * \ '

. -c .,.

l [ #, /

- N

" { gfMS m /* nk ,

l .E . ,

,J5) e

] 'l9[

3 Q ^

7 1i.GUPI 1 V l - 1

,\[j'[. [ .. ((

i PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR

~

C.

R -

O

e. .ily/ g D[_f J

^

N l ree/c 33 GENERATING PIX;T OFF-SI.s AREA MA2 T.. @

l l  : *;;' - .'

O! -l 31 g j

, ), 5 I ., b  : q i{" f k[ L i

% Wte.,. ';ss./ -

a k M ., M N ne,m J. 'q s

- e ~~ *'-

,s

- - m .. .. . s> s &

'N a .u ,,

.E* /... ... s....1}_g s e. -

9 y,;

.~.

o

\

\ -

% , r c. :.

9b  %;s N .'

+ i 33. % sp. s,a?,.' r . ..

4 g azn;wTxo 'd ./N. s Yg w

- # f

w. . , +g

-- i r- < -

y-a-=x.,w... ..._.m-b.. .

~ . . ._ \,.

v ~-

-~ g:;- s-

+

s s s.,,s sN ,b

- s' 3

$~

%n '* W hy %p. .*;;;;:.

- _a_

, 2-Q/_ . ".

r- . p - T f

\ y, ' r.8 p=... .~~

^

%l y s . 4;;

sHj!._,__ _,wCc. _

,. ,._ - ._ ,,, - x. .7 \ : .7 _ '- is~,, - .' W 2 .,

c< . . . . . ._-

. x 3 -

?. -

• [' i' @ N

.(f* _ ~ ~'M 'sE ' y N k' 2-r l .' . , .

.-12' .

g

.a

..F  : s g

/- -

c.

.~

.~

,8 w<r., ,

, . is T6s7E 'y . -

,e- "

, roar.n not g I /'"~

,-2-. 3. . a=.

. . .; . . - c, .-

g:Er..: q ,, i,.r. 53;- ...- - . -%,..

.. ii.e Et.t.

_~

.

• I.- * ,~o k*g,' ',. 30

,'s i

.a .jrm.e m s t w o isc a x -

'-[. ; . n.sa.y4nex socxc4a:riQ.';'

s,

• ~ "- 4 . . . .;_,

'\.

s'e**. \ .

i - _

. ,,c j [f lh ,y.

p ,j , (, i (l n.

1. 'S .:E::.. '$ .

. s ,a.m ..._ ,, g<

. ,%= ,s: -  : '.~

t

-,... .i, q j. .

m_'

f t .i. glg , _d , ' l30 ,g'~

~

.n . -

. . ' . 4qm ca. s p- #- ,

, ~ w ser

~, *5 e cM.**,~' l:

'h. . .  : v.b ' , ,},i : 25' ',

f.

._e* _6 ;__w. %s mc $. _$ ;.. . . i. .J.". _

. :: .w -

s 4

ji /--

t

' -mNsocNo@\ . .* RN RJ E a v IM .AND .-

a, l

f,

_J.- -l- ' ,,

f.

i 9 3.:x

\

\ s gg,%;._._p; u w -

\.s. -

< s. .s. i '1 N.

g . .y...- g ,; - \' Q. v. g s

%- - . ,e*Tdi c g: ,,, ,

9 . %. V +% '

,e

-,-- ,h3,,i

'y y s x

% Q  %. > 33

- e--

.w.N

' s ej* .

o,.

.s i

= q,47' gN s s N.. ' '

- : . y 8.-

' ~' - .7:::-

%.gI ,'2-Y

.-  %,,pby(n, x ji ,

toi, k.cy wss' 9, Mi N

- - '>s..s. Y ecN

.'-  : * s N Wj.f /

W e%L $\ / ~';'i.. '"c " ' . i'. -

s '"

• n

~

\9g6 -Qe k p-

' J=f? / s,Q. ,. ' ,w$ ,%.4, . , ,,- / .s a

'.,:% ry *;,,0. E'. '.h: y. k .N s.

s

-. m x.

4..

, s y - --

na .x x/,,se, s e . 'e%*4. fr o

Lak, . s

. 4

.jt~. *I ,. j.

'% b N ,.g,? ' T.%5 $ ' $~~~l_ll .l~.

_,..u.

.,g.nf.s,;kN  %* \y

- ~ -

=,;

h v.. ___ . - }r- - '.

h^,j 5

?h]f<  ?.

?'N ' 4 ".c

$77Yf -

_isi.A g- i 3 _%. _- -

-. q x r..

/,-

_s.

s.

.- '.  :- s ev

.: n m,j -ge r 1

t

.~

d.a. -

~

rs m$[dh [p p5yMg r., g .

7,. ,

N%

~' 1 ,' y& I .4 ' ,

i.n ,.L es, ~

z

- y%.,: q e! D ,, ..

F,IGURE 2

. ~ O-, - . .,w-,,,

'J,: -  :.I7s s...,.r.~ ,r ( -~ -

4.p vv2'4 ,~ g PRAIRIt Is;AND NUCLr'R r JG _ -

- .- - Lg s.,.

%.: /~, : :.

v f "' p f.Q ~ s1:t

p. ; ,-

/~

- e ,_ T rcx ,c: .44fs v-r55~':.

,_ M;eeNtNtaarzNo ubI v GNIo: aAr orN

=r-e DE 2 N' L N Y./~~~ ~

'~' w. n a-t:N - . .-, ~, n/ ) Y

a - -

---z - - - -

8 e e

W

>=

. M a.

p

_Oe' i

== ,

/

/

f .

J E3 C o O SC 2

W a$

C o EZ o

E h2 g o.

U zo J>

J og u- Of E

o *8 .

-e E E=.

u h

8 m

N Z *

.o

\

E T

& < - 4 2 m k w - ) .

O <

2 W C

o .

. u e 1 m ~

o o o -e

. .E . k -

b l s=

-J I i l

2 c .

t U

j m

o *

'E p

'O 0 m i g I "

g 6 4 4 - -

. . e e e e e e - - -

(N11:!O S37d!110h1 NO!1VEf1N3DNCO

REFERENCES

1. Regulatory Guide 1.78, dated June 1974.

2. NUREG-0570, " Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room Following a Postulated Accidental Release", James Wing, June 1979.

3. Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Red Wing , Minn Of fsite Area Map, 11/20/79.

4. Atsseiat).on of American Railroads, " Specifications For Tank Cars", Standard M-1002, A. A.R. , Washing ton D.C. , July 1, 1972.

5. Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency,

" Physical and Toxic Properties of Hazardous Chemicals Regularly Stored and Transported in The Vicinity of Nuclear Installations",

Paris, France, March 1976.

6. Field Manual of Military Chemistry and Chemical Compounds, Headquarters, Dept. of the Army, October 1975.

7. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "TLV's Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1978".

8. Sax, N. Irving , " Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials",

Third Edition, 1968, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

9. Weast, Robert C., " Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", 53rd Edition, 1972-1973, The Chemical Rubber Co.

10. Dean, John A., " Lange's Handbook of Chemistry", Twelfth Ecition, Matheson Gas Products,1971.

Braker, W. and A. L. Mossinan , "Matheson Gas Data Book", Fifth 11.

Edition, Matheson Gas Products, 1971.

12. Braker, W., A. L. Mossman, and D. Siegel, " Effects of Expo-sure to Toxic Gases - First Aid and Medical Treatment",

Second Edition, Matheson Gas Products,1977.

Reid. R. C. , J. M., Prausmitz, and T. K. Sherwood, "The 13.

Properties of Gases and Liquids", 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1977.

e,, . - , ., -- - - - - -

14. Red Wing Area Chamber Of Commerce - Manufacturers .

15. Letter John E. Baker, Bechtel to R. Griffin, Burlington Northern Inc., " Hazardous Chemicals Surey, P. O.

10040-M30-SBC Northern States Power, Prairie Island Station" 3 Dec 1980. (DCN 3494).

16. Letter C. B. Hogg, Bechtel To R. W. Riedl, CMSTP & PRR

" Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station, Northern States Power, Request For Hazardous Materials Shipments" 11 Dec 1980, (DCN 3565).

17. Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Calendar Year 1977, De part-ment of the Army Corp Of Engineers - Part 2 Waterways &

Harbors; Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System.

18. Telecon Jorge Schulz, Bechtel to Glenn Banks, Corp of Engineers, 8 Jan 1981.

19. Telecon Jorge Schulz, Bechtel to Nei' Schuester,.American Waterway Operators, 12 Jan 1981.

t l

\

~

,p - -- - y , -e - e ~

APPENDIX A Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room - Models 8

k e

INDEX PAGE A.1 INTRODUCTION A-1 A.2 MASS TRANSFER FROM SPILL TO ATMOSPHERE A-2 A.2.1 Low Boiling-Point-Liquids and A-2 Compressed Gases A.2.1.1 Instantaneous (PUFF) Release A-2 A.2.1.2 Vaporization A-3 A.2.2 Normal Boiling-Point-Liquids A-5 A.2.2.1 Evaporation Rates A-5 A.2.2.2 Diffusion Coefficient A-6 A.2.3 Spill Area A-7 A.3 VAPOR DISPERSION A-9 A.3.1 Instantaneous (PUFF) Release A-9 _

A.3.2 Continuous Plume Diffusion A-12 A.3.3 Standard Deviations and Stability A-13 Conditions A.4 CONTROL ROOM CONCENTRATIONS A-15 A.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM) A-17 A.6 REFEPINCES A-18 s

i

~

A.l. INTRODUCTION The models used to calculate the concentrations of toxic chemicals in the control ros atmosphere are consistent with the models described in NUREG-0570.

Several conservative assumptions consistent with NUREG-0570 were made t'o calculate the concentrations of toxic vapor. Some of these are:

1. The entire inventory or cargo in one container is released.

2. The area of the spill, as predicted by eg. (2.3-1) spreads until a depth of 1 cm for the spill is achieved.

3. The vapor, in the form of a puff or plume, moves directly towards the air intake of the control room.

It should be pointed out that the probabilistic nature of the catastrophic spill of toxic chemicals, during transpor-tation and in storage, is not considered here. That is, the frequency of shipment and cargo size of each toxic chemical past the Prairie Island site, the accident rates of on-site release and of each shipment type, the distri-bution of wind speeds and directions, and the uncertainty of the weather conditions will not be included in the assess-ment of vapor concentrations.

A-1

A.2 MASS TPM STER FROM SPILL TO ATMOSPHERE The volatility of a substance is a direct function of its vapor pressure. Compressed gases, liquified gases, and many liquids have sufficiently high vapor pressures so that when released to the atmosphere, they will either vaporize or evaporate. For compressed gases and liqui-fied gases and those liquids where normal boiling points are far below the ambient temperature, instantaneous flashing will first take place. The remaining liquid will vaporize by drawing heat from the surroundings. On the other hand, if the normal boiling point is above the ambient temperature, the liquid will evaporate into the atmosphere.

A.2.1 Low Boiling-Point-Liquids and Compressed Gases For simplicity, a low boiling point liquid is considered to be a compressed gas, liquified gas, or a liquid whose boiling point is below the ambient temperature.

A.2.1.1 Instantaneous (PUFF) Release For liquified gases and low boiling point liquids, the heat balance in the' instantaneous puff formation assuming an adiabatic change is given by-mT Cp (Ta-Tb) = myo By (2.1-1) f where:

= total initial mass (g) mr Cp = heat capacity of the liquid (cal /g CC) f = ambient temperature CDC)

Ta s

l l

A-2

Tb

= normal boiling point of the liquid (CC) $Ta mvo = mass of the instantaneously vaporized liquid (g)

Hy = heat of vaporization of the liquid (cal /g)

A.2.1.2 Vaporization As a result of flashing, the temperature of the remaining fluid is reduced below ambient levels, The remaining liquid,,lm7-mvo), will vaporize by absorption of heat from atmospheric radiation, solar radiation, convection of air, and ground conduction.

The rate of total heat transfer, in cal /see from all of these sources can be described as follows (NUREG-0570 p. 9) .

h = A(t) (qr+9c+ cia) (2.1-2) where:

A (t) = area of the spill (m 2),

qr = solar and atmospheric radiation fluxes (cal /m2-sec) qc = heat flux due to force convection of air over the spill (cal /m2-sec) gd = heat transfer due to earth conduction (cal /m2-sec) various values at different locations in th'e southwestern region have been measured for gr. The maximum values are

/ Roosevelt Reservoir AR) 115 cal /m2-sec and 97 cal /m2-see for atmospheric and solar radiation, respectively for a total qr of 212 cal /m 2.sec . (NUREG-0570, P. 7).

A-3 e

r .

r'-+- y- - ,. , . _ . , _ _

The heat flux, ge, due to forced convection of air over the spill is (NUREG-0570, p. 8):

qe = hc(Ta-Tb) (2.1-3) where a value of 1.6 cal /m -sec 2 CC is used for he (NUREG-0570,

p. 8).

The heat transfer by earth conduction, qd, is given by the following relation (NUREG-057 0, p. 9) .

qd = 197 (TE -Tb) /t b (2.1-4) where TE = ground temperature (CC) t = time (sec)

For TE, the ambients temperature Ta is used.

Placing all of the above relations into 2.1-2, we obtain 212 + 1. 6 (Ta-T b ) + 197 (Ta-T b ) /t (2.1-5) ff = A(t)

The vaporization rate, dmy/dt, in g/sec, is then

"" = ( )

(2.1-6) d

= A(t)- 212 + (1. 6 + 1' ) (Ta-Tb) (2.1-7) where my = mass of the vapor A-4

- ,c-, . ._ - - , _ , . -,,.--,--,,n, , - - - . .- ,- , - , . _ , , . , --,,-,- , . , . ~

A.2.2 Normal Boiling-Point-Liquids When exposed to the atmosphere, the liquids with normal boiling points above the ambient temperature will evaporate by diffusion into the air. The main driving force here is the vapor pressure difference, i.e., concentration gradient, between the liquid phase and the air.

A.2.2.1 Evaporation Rates The evaporation of a liquid at ambient temperature in an open space with wind can be described as a mass transfer t process by forced convection.

l l

The evaporation rate can be calculated by the following formulae (NUREG-0570, p. 12) d (2. 2-1) d

=hd M A (t) (Ps-Pa) /Rg lTa+273.16) ,

where, for laminar flow, ,

hd

/ (2.2-2)

= 0.664 f (Re)b (Sc)

A (t) = area of spill (cm2)

Re = Reynold number = Lup/p Sc = Schmidt number = p/Do hd = mass transfer coefficient (cm/sec)

Rg = universal gas constant 2 = wind speed (cm/sec) p = density of air (g/cm 3) u = viscosity of air (g/cm-sec) j M = molecular weight of liquid (g/ mole)

A-5

Ps = saturation vapor pressure of the liquid at temperature Ta (mm Egl Pa = actual vapor pressure of the liquid in air L = characteristic length (c=)

- D = diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec)

Pa is normally zero for all liquids. The diameter of the spill is used as the characteristic length L. Since the spill reaches its maximum dimensions quickly, the mar,imum diameter of the spill is used.

A.2.2.2 Diffusion Coefficient The diffusion coefficients of the liquid into air are given for a few compounds in NUREG-0570 pp. 31-33. The diffusion coefficient, DA 3, of a gas A diffusing into a gas B may also be estimated by (Bird, et al. , p. 511) :

1

( + y h

(,Ta+27 3 ,1613/3(

DAB = 0.0018583 PcA32 GAB where M'A

= molecular weight of gas A fg/ mole)

MB

= molecular weight of gas B (g/ mole)

P = atmospheric pressure (atm) o = Lennard-Jones parameter

' DAB = dimensionless function of temperaturs and intermolecular potential field EAB The Lennard-Jones parameters are empirically estimated to be:

1. (2 2~4)

AB = (.UA+IBI/2 (2.2-5)

, cA3 = /cA cB I A-6 l

W Dg3 is tabulated as a function of k(T+273.161/cA3 by Bird, et. al.

c/k and a for each gas can be estimated using the following relations (Bird, et. al. p. 22).

(2. 2-6 )

c/k = 0.77 Tc c (2. 2-7 )

o=2.44[$Pc\1/3

/

for diffusion in air, the following parameters are used 0

CA = 3.617 A cA/k = 97 OK MA = 28.84 g/ mole P = 1 atmosphere For chemicals where Te and P e were unobtainable, a dif-2 fusion coefficient of 0.2 cm /see was used.

A.2.3 Spill Area The rate of mass transfer, i.e., vaporization or evapora-tion, of a liquid into the atmosphere is, among other things, directly proportional to the surface area c! the spill. Initially, the liquid is assumed to be in the shape of a cylinder, with the height equal to the radius of the base. The liquid is assumed to spread quickly by gr$vity to a thin pancake. The surface area, A, is given by (NUREG-057 0, p. 4) :

1 r

9 ' *~ ' (* -

A(t) =n< ro 2 + 2t W pe .

I

.)

( -

's 3 (2. 3-2 )

and Vo = wro

.. _ _ . ~ .

A-7

6 where ro = initial radius of the spill (cm) g = gravitational constant = 981 cm/sec 2 Vo = volume of the spill (cm 3) 3 P1 = density of the liquid (g/cm )

p = density of air (g/cm 3) t = time (sec)

The surface area, however, does not in reality expand indefi-nitely as eq. (2.3-1) indicates, but a maximum surface area is reached at some time. If-the spill occurs on a surface that will restrict the spread of the spill, then the maximum area of the spill can be calculated. In cases where the condition of the ground cannot be accurately determined , a depth of I cm for the spill is assumed.

It should be noted that Vo is the volume of the liquid spill remaining af ter instantaneous flashing to puff has taken place l

and is given by.

I 1

Vo = "T SV, (2.3-3) l El l

l l

101-25 A-8

l l

l A.3 VAPOR DISPERSION The vapor from instantaneous flashing (puf f) and from continuous vaporization of evaporation (plume) moves in the direction of the wind,and disperses by diffusion into the atmosphere. The dispersion is assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution for short travel times (a few minutes to one hour). That is, an individual puff may or may not be well-described by a Gaussian formulation, but an ensemble of puffs is assumed to disperse in a Gaussian function. This diffusion model is applicable only to the vapors whose densities do not differ greatly from that of air (Slade). The wind is assumed to be in the direction from the source of spill to the control room air intake.

It should be noted that the topography between the source and receptor is ignored in this treatment.

A.3.1 Instantaneous (Puff) Release The diffusion equation for an ins'tantaneous puff with a finite initial volume and a receptor at ene air intake is given by the following equation (NUREG-0570, p. 18) 9

~1 l- 1 2 v2

-3/2 xg (puff) = (2%) (C XIUYI UZI) exp y (xCXIJ b YI j

- exp (-hI* g

) + exp (-fI* g ) (3.1-1)

X/Q (puf f) is given in m-3

' CXI, U YI, 0.I  ? = adjusted standard deviations of the puff concentration in the horizintal along-wind (X), horizontal cross-wind (Y) ," and vertical cross-wind directions (Z),

respectively (m).

A-9

x, y, z = distances from the puff center in the X, Y, and Z directions, respectively Qu) . 3 is also the effective above-ground elevation of the receptor, e.g., the fresh-air intake of a control room.

h = effective above-ground elevation of the source.

To account for the initial volume of the puff, it is assumed that 2 2 XI 2 ,o,XI + # o (3.1-2) 2

1. YI 2 , c'yy , c 02 .( 3 .1-3 )

a gy 2 , c'2g7 ,0 0 2 i3.1-4 )

1. 2 , c 77 2 (3.1-5)

XI and letting x = xo - ut

~

~

3/2 py) 1/3 co =

myo/ (2 1/2 w l

l where l

co = initial standard deviation of the puff (m)

1. # # = standard deviation of puff concentra-7, 77, ZI l

tion in the X, Y, and Z directions, respectively (m)

"vo = mass of the instantaneously released puff (g)

(

! py = density of the puff (g/m 3) xo = ground distance between the source of spill and receptor (m) u = wind speed (m/sec) t = time after release (sec)

A-10

The density of the puff is calculated using the ideal gas law.

PV = nRT (3.1-6 )

and the relation between density and volume

,E.n (3.1-7 )

p V

which leads to:

Dy=

' (3.1-8)

RT where M = molecular weight (gm/ mole)

P = atmospheric pressure (atm) n = number of moles atm.m3 R = universal gas crustant 8.205x10-5 C mole K T = ambient timperature, OK .

V = volume On3)

Then, Eq. (3.1-1) may be used for the calculation of the center-line concentration where y = 0.

Since the control room air intakes are located 22.9 meters above ground level, heavier than air vapor must overcome gravity to rise to the intake, while lighter than air vapors will reach thm intake easily. To account conserva-tively for this effect, the puff dispersion, Eq, (3.1-1) is modified as follows:

A-11

For the vapors much heavier than air, the puff centerline is assumed to move up the hill to the ground level eleva-tion of the plant. Dilution will occur due to the puff rising up the hill, but no credit was taken to account for this e!! set, z=h=0 is used in Eq. (3.1-1). For vapors l

l much lighter than air, the puff centerline is assumed to move directly to the level of the air intake, therefore h is replaced by z in Eq. (3.1-1).

A.3.2 Continuous Plume Diffusion ,

The diffusion equation for the continuous release of a plume with a finite initial volume and a receptor at z above the ground le.el is given by the following equation (Slade, p. 99):

~

I

-1 exp'(-y2 )" (z-h) 2" X/Q (cont) = (2xucy02) o2 **P ~

go2 l

l

( y .

q .. 2 -a

• + (3. 2-1)

+ exp --

2 0 -2 z ,

where X/Q(. cont)is given in sec/m 3 ay, c z= standard deviations of the plume concentrations in the y and z direction, respectively.

To give credit for the finite initial size of the spill, c y here is replaced by (c2+c y yo2 )l/2 , where cyo is t'..e effective width of the spill. Although the distribution of a circular spill of a liquid in the cross-wind direction  !'

2 is not a normal function (it is of the form P = (1 - F )

where - 1. 0 $, F < 1. 0) , e yg may be approximated by the following method (NUREG-0570, p. 20).

A-12

c,=rn! /4.3 (3.2-2) y where r = radius of the spill. Similarly, az may be l

replaced by (o 2 + Czo2) to account for the building 2

! affee"., ago2 may be approximated by the following method:

I

.522 (3. 2-3 )

ozo 2=

I Again, to account for the differences for heavier than air and lighter than air vapors, z = h = 0 is used in Eq.

f (3.2-2) for vapors heavier than air. For vapors lighter l

than air, h is replaced by z in Eq. (3. 2-1) .

A.3.3 srandard Deviations and Stability Conditions The stability categories, i.e., the Pasquill's types of I weather conditions, are defined as:

Pasquill's Stability Catecory Weather Condition l

A extremely unstable l moderately instable B ,

l

' C slightly unstable D neutral E

slightl' stable moderately stable F

G extremely stable Although the Pasquill-Gifford curves are appropriate only

,for plumes, they may be assumed to be applicable for estimating the puff dispersion coefficients. Using the l Pasquill-Gifford curves (Slade, pp.102 and 103) a func-tional fependence for ey and a z was developed of the form:

A-13

-4 g--- --

.,,,.-...,,-..,,,---.,,.--ge , , - . _ . _ , - , , , . - ,, - ~ , _ - . , - - * , - , , , , , , ,.,.r. , . -,

log 10e = A + B loglox + C(log 10*I +D (10910x) (3.3-1) where x is the distance from the spill to the control room air intake in km The coefficients are as follows:

Coefficients for ey i

A B C D Pasquill Stability A 2.3237 0.89182 0.00028741 -0.01228 B 2.1556 0.91347 0.028256 -0.02334 C 2.0142 0.91977 -0.0022985 -0.008289 D 1.8288 0.92394 -0.0056984 -O.0062276 E 1.7006 0.92826 -0.0017835 -0.009115 F 1.5289 0.92159 -0.011057 -0.0032318

-1.6212 1.0648 -0.014857 -0.0020555 G (x in n)

Coefficients for o g A B C D Pasquill Stability 2.7301 2.6383 1.68666 0.59749 A

B 2.1003 1.3655 0.407576 0.0888029 1.8087 0.87272 -0.06512 0.00184558 C

D 1.4901 0.72583 -0.093465 0.011157 E 1.3284 0.67969 -0.10332 -0.0005092 F 1.1391 0.65602 -0.12889 0.0037608 G(x in m) -1.8981 1.1243 -0.036447 -0.0086351 i

A-14 f

A.4 CONTROL ROOM CONCENTRATIONS The concentrarions of the toxic chemical, CCR, in g/m3, in the control room, at any instant, is calculated by solving the following differential equation:

dCCR(t) (4 -1) dt = AI X(t) - Ao CCR (t) where Az is the control room air inflow rate, (sec-1)

Ao is the control room air exhaust rate (sec-1)

X (t) is the 3

concentracion outside the air intake (g/m )

3 CCR(t) is the concentration in the control room (g/m )

t in seconds The control room air inflow rate, AI , is given by:

FI ' (4-2)

Az = V CR.60 and similarly, Ao, is given by:

Fo o" (4-3)

VCR 60 where VCR is the control room volume (ft3)

FI is the control room air intake flow (cfm)

Fo is the control room air exhatst flow (cfm) .

The concentration of the toxic chemical, X (t) , at the air intake just outside the control rocm is the sum of the puff and plume concentration at any instance and is given by:

A-15

~

II (4-4 )

X(t) =myoypuff UDI + ( V){ cont I is given where myo is given by Eq. (2.1-1) , h puf f Eq. (3.1-1).

{ is zero for t < h and is given by Eq. (2.1-71 II is also zero for for any time thereafter. hcent t <h and is given by Eq. O.2-1) for any time thereafter.

The concentration of the toxic chemical at any time, t, in the control roon is given by the following solution of Eq. (4-1) :

CCR(t) =e 0 e A I X(t'.) dt (.4 -5 )

c l

l A-16 l

A.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (ppm)

A convenient method of presenting concentrations of toxic gases in the atmosphere is in units of parts per million

- (ppm).

To convert to ppm from gm/m 3 , we use the ideal gas law:

PV = nRT (5-1) where for a volume V, n moles of total gases are present.

The nu=ber of moles of toxic gases is given by:

C (qm/m3) .y (5-2) ni = MW 3

where C(gm/m3) is the concentration in gm/m V is the volume in consideration, m 3 MW is the gram-molecular weight of the substance (gm/molel .

The concentration in ppm is then.given by:

ni x 106 "

C (gm/m3) .R T x 10 6 (5-3)

C (ppm) =

n MW.P where R = gas constant 8.205 x 10-5 atm-m3 mole OK T = ambient temperature, UK.

P = atmospheric pressure (1 atm).

1 l

l A-17 l

l-- -

A.6 REFERENCES D. H. Slade, "Meterology and Atomic Energy", TID-24190, U.S. Atomic Energy Co= mission, Washington, D.C. (1968).

~

J. Wing, " Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room Following a Postulated Accidental Release", NUREG-0570, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. (1979).

R. B. Byrd, W. E. Stewart, W. N. Lightfoot, " Transport Phencmena, John Wiley & Sons, N. Y. (1960).

I I

l

(

l i

l .

A-18

APPENDIX B Included in Appendix B are control room 'nd other system charac-i teristics required by NUREG-0737 Section III.D.3.4, Attachment related to the toxic chemical study to aid in an independent evaluation as required by NUREG-0737.

The habitability of the control room during a DBA is discussed in Section ;I titled Prairie Island Control Room Design Basis Acci-dent Radiological Study.

Control room characteristics air volume control room - 116,840 ft 3 ceiling.

tofalsejloortofalse (143,030 ft including plenum space) air volumes do not allow for equip-ment volume but do include the relay and computer rooms serviced by this air.

infiltration leakage rate - zero in normal and high radiation condition (control room is press-urized). Zero (est.) in isola-tion mode, 100% recirc., no press-urization. (Control room has no walls or doors exposed to the out-side air.)

high efficiency particu-

- HEPA 99.97% on 0.3 micron particles late air (H'dPA) filter Charcoal Adsorber-Elemental Iodine and charcoal absorber 95%

efficiencies

- Organic Iodine 95%

(Both charcoal adsorber efficien-cies per 2" bed depth) i Closest distance between - 65 ft. from main control room air containment and air in- intake to reactor building wall.

take Automatic isolation cap- - damper closing time , damper leakage ability and area I

damper closing time - 7.5-15 sec.

l at 1" W.G. 12" dia. = 0.79 ft 2 - normal air intake opening -

assumed leakage = 12 cfm" l 20" x 16" = 2. 22 f t2 - fresh air intake opening"-

assumed leakage = 23 cfm 20" x 16" = 2.22 f t2 - exhaust opening - assumed leakage = 23 cfm *

• Assuming Class II type, equivalent and no credit for the two in j

series.

M-26/9

s If I2 .

gg dig g 3

/ 6 .g egg 3 o 62 a f

!@~j

~

.h$

.- a-h!T es ai gfr (N .-V si i 5*3 83 d 3

f b ~- 3 s

~~ .. O. ag 4E =

• • • t nom.m g%$

• ad I 7, g I4 i(4 3~a,

- e, a

'3 d2 1,.omt 2 ;E~ ,,

O es 4 J td Jd w = = =.J O t'

-S 7., N e , s f o

h5 ._

855 A  ! s ia r- ~~

L_- z

,_,9 o$ f -

1. - 3 . f *.

g .

- 3 4

se I I

a 0 e d

g

~ 4~~~

w 2

_ s.E d dN I l]T N 'i

• II

,e ,,

.i t-

- - +

8'T' 3e _

o'W saci3 2 r Am o-N2 8 Id r 0W$ "

lR'1 2,-  %

1

" d Q g s -

5 O D

• i

~l$g , D 1  %

i h N d

i ma g

a

> 51 - o dd

-\

\ *g J ~'

v$1n +t .

$3d

'2 #

.V2

$b.

e er y

J1 aoa y-;;.

21 2 i

- S e f52 e a 8 u=3 j-

_ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _ -.m ,_

6 e O

@ 98

, O*, fd ]I

.3 bie s* Ls. - 00- -

T. __-

p .._ _ _

7

~

w:~>D . . _

I%

~T~

l .~

- l y

=* .. U

-d.<.

~ . I- 1 _- -_ --

g Ce ,

ww t l L

em

• a ..... _._ m.. .

0 2-Q O

d.a.

l Y

d, '

N J

Y.'

,- .s . .g O

1 _!. _._,.

X! j.;

fi __ _

g.. :. __ .. t q __

.i.. ra 5 Z

H

. f 3 -

,41 l_

, Z

}.

/ O lr~ j'ia .

i y

l L .

I

.1 1

g' __.

- ) _ __._ . _ ;

G e

.g 4,

es 9

y _

'O! jjiI_

l I

ca q{

t .

I

~ ~

g --

~s l

1 i

- f

.l l' l__

i .

u t_ . t

.~~

. /

1 /

.  : ( _

.)f .

- 1

~.

0 0 I  ! ['  : -

a.,

O

,m....___..__..____.-.,

.. $ i o N r I .O I w i # F

! y  ! , (

o l

)

I i o Y

. w  ;

n i

' W d

. w i j '.

g L'). gy T

.. - - y .I

_." _ f-o

[j;' Mr

~ a - tA' m e, l

- ~ - .

[i  ;'

i i

o i

i .l-

,s -~ l i g i W

l - f  ; l--

.. . _t i? .  : l .

3 l . ' ' O.

l '

i =?

E

- i o .....

3

'l p' g...,. r - -

0 0

. ~

{J .

! O i

I

~

ass .J _ .

j 9 l

. s 4  :

% .s s

l-s

-r e -

e J .

c-, I

, . r--

. . l l -

l

_t r! -

0-12

~-

'- - o,7z

~l d,i G

r w s- ----e.s - r,-------m.--"~~r - -m.e---,----n- - , - , . - - - , - - , - < - - - - , - w ------~r n-

SECTION II PRAIRIE ISLAND CONTROL ROOM DESIGN BASIC ACCIDENT RADIOLOGICAL STUDY F

- s 1.0 CONTROL ROOM SHIELDING (DIRECT RADIATION)

The controi room design has been reviewed to determine the direct radiation dose rates in the event of a Design Basis Accident (D.B.A.). This design review was performed in conjunction with the requirements of NUREG-0737.

The design review determined the dose rates in the control room from various systems that, as a result of an accident, may contain highly radioactive fluids. Systems that were evaluated included the following: Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Safety Injection (SI), Containment Spray (CS),

Auxilary Building Special Ventilation ( ABSVS), Shield Build-ing Ventilation (SBVS), Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS), and the Containment Vessel itself. Due to the pys-sical arrangement of the systems, the sources assumed within these systems and the existing shielding, only the CVCS and the Containment Vessel contribute any significant amount to the DBA radiation levels in che control room.

The activity levels in the RHR, SI, and CS systems have been

~

conservatively assumed. It was assumed that 100% of the core equilibrium noble gas inventory and 50% of the core equili-brium halogen inventory had been diluted into the combined volume of the Reactor Coolant System and the Refueling Water Storage tank (RWST). This assumes that the water in the RWST l

' has been injected and that the RHR recirculation mode is in use. This is conservative because the dose rates are based-

on a time = 0 activity and assumed no degassing of the recir-culation water by the blowdown into containment.

The containment waus assumed to have 100% of the core equili-

' brium noble gas inventory and 50% of the equilibrium halogen inventory uniformly mixed within the containment atmosphers.

The build-up of radioisotopes on the Shield Building venti-lation System charcoal beds wt:a modeled using the design j criteria leakage of 0.25 w/o ,;tr day from the containment to the SBVS, The Auxiliary Bui] iing Special Ventilation System dose rates were based on the RHR pump seal failure in conjunc-t i

tion with the 0.1 w/o per day leakage from contsinment which by passed the SBVS and was deposited on the ABSVS charcoal beds.

The dose rates from the Chemical and Volume Control System l have been calculated assuming letdown was isolated af ter a gap activity release accident. The Letdown System should not be used in a high activity situation. The letdown portion of the CVCS will be isclated at a predetermined radioactivity level in the event of large fuel failure. With the addition

R 1

l of the Head Vent System letdown will not be required to mitigate the accident. Isolating the Letdown System also eliminates the need for analyzing the dose rates from the Waste Gas Systems.

~

Dose rates in the control room at time = 0 have been calcu-lated giving credit for the existing shielding. Credit was given for the Shield Building, Control Room walls,The andresult-the walls and floors within the Auxiliary Building.

ant dose rates at time = 0 in the control room show that the room is adequately shielded for direct radiation in an acci-dent situation. The maximum dose rate of 20 mrem /hr occurs in the corner of the controlApproximately room behind6 the control mrem board

/hr would be nearest the CVCS piping.

encountered in front of the control board nearest the af-fected unit. The rest of the Control Room would be at or less than 1 mrem /hr at time = 0.

The dose rates from containment decay quite rapidly. The dose rates at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, and 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> are expected to be 43%, 30% and 12% respectively of tne time = 0 dose rates.

Calculations have been made by Fluor Power Services for the dose to Control Room Operators in a Maximum Hypothetical Accident, These calculations were based on source terms of TID-14844. No credit was taken for shadow shielding provided by the structures around various components in the Auxiliary Building, and Control Room occupancy after the event of 4-40 hour weeks. A dose of.approximately 1 rem resulted from these calculations. The actual dose should be much less due to the shielding provided by the Auxiliary Building structure.

However, the maximum dose of 1 ret shows that the control room t

is adequately shielded for direct radiation in an accident I situation.

l

2.0 Control Room Airborne Doses 3

2.1 General Licensing Co7 sideration The requirements to show acceptable post LOCA doses in the Control Room (CR), (NRC's letter of 5/7/80) result in the need to evaluate the DBA-LOCA and the subsequent pathways for release of radioactivity. ,

i

! The dose calculations were performed to show compliance of the Control Room (CR) with GLC 19.

2.2 Methodology j The guidelines given Xin SRP 6.4 and R.G. 1.3 were used with an exception of the /Qs for CR and TSC. Atmospheric dis-persion factors are based on the Halitsky Methodology trom Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, as discussed in Section

! ... 1 Assumptions and Bases Regulatory Guide 1.4 was used to determine activity levels in the containment following a DBA-LOCA. Activity releases are based on a containment leakage rate of 0.25% per dcy for the first day and 0.125% per day thereafter. Table 1 i

lists the assumptions and parameters used in the analysis, i

The majority of the containment leakage will be collected in the shield building and exhausted to the atmosphere through the 95% efficient SBVS filters as an elevated release from the main stack. However, there exist certain release pathways from the containment which will bypass the FBVS filters. The bypass leakage was cuantified by as-suming that 1% of the primary containment leakage bypasses both the SBVS and the HBSVS systems directly to the atmos-phere.

2.2.2 Atmospheric Dispersion Factor (X/Q) i The following discussion is an explanation of the reasons for the use of the Halitsky X /Q methodology and a value of Kc =2.5 instead of the Murphy methodology (Ref. 2) which SRP 6.4 suggests as an interim position.

X Historically, the preliminary work on building wake /Qs was based on a series of wind tunnel tests by James I Halitsky et al. Halitsky summarized these results in Meteorology and Atomic Energy in 1968 (Ref. 1). In 1974 K. Murphy and ed their paper based K. Campe of NRC publisg/Q on a survey of existing data. This methodology which M-26/9

presented equations without derivation or justification, was adopted as the interim methodology in SRP 6.4Xin 1975.

Since that time a series of actual building wake fg measurements have been conducted at Rancho Seco (Ref. 3) and several other papers have been published documenting the results of additional wind runnel tests.

Reviews of the Murphy Eq. 6 and discussions with the author overtheyearshavedeterminedthatthy*guildingwakecor-were derived from rection factor, (K+2)/A, and K=3/(S/d) the Halitsky data in Figure 37 of Ref. 2 from Murphy's paper. The Halitsky data was from wind tunnel tests on a model of the EBR-II rounded (PWR Type) containment and the validity of the data was limited to .5 <s/d <3 (Ref. 1, Sect. 5.5.5.2). The origin and reason for the +2 in R&2 is not known. All other formulations use K only, and for sit-an 1 the use of K+2 imposes an uationswhereKislesstg/Q.

unrealistic limit on the For the Prairie Island plant, the building complex is com-posed of low, square edged buildings and two cylindrical shield buildings. For the HVAC intake on the Auxiliary Building roof, the intake will be subject to a building wake caused by the portion of the shield building above the roof of the Turbine Building-Auxiliary Building complex.

Since the Murphy methodology is overly conservative, a sur-voy of the literature was undertaken. .It 1, was found that the Halitsky wind tunnel test data (Ref. Section 5.5.5) conservatively overestimated K values "by factors of up to possibly 10". Given this conservatism, it was felt that the use of a reasonable K value from the Halitsky data should be acceptable. A review of Figures 5.29c from M&AE (Ref. 1) resulted in K valuesX in the 2 to 3 ragge. A value of K=2.5 'was chosen to ge t a /O of 5.33 x 10 . Informa-tion from other sources, as indicated below, has also shown that this should be a conservative value.

In a paper by Walker (Ref. 4), control room X /Q's were experimentally determined for floating power plants in wind tunnel *ests. Different intake and exhaust combina-tions were considered.

stack A exbaust, (in Ref.Using 4) Xthe data for intake 6,/Q values andof 2.95 x 10-gn 3.73 x 10-3 were found after adjusting the wind speed from 1.5 m/see to 0.6 m/sec. These values are approximately two orders of magnitude lower than the conservatively calculated value for Prairie Island.

M-26/9

/

In a wind tunnel test by Hatcher (Ref. 5), a model indus-trial complex was used to test dispersions due to the wake.

Data obtained from their tests show that K has a value less than 1, and decreases as the test points are moved closer to the structure. Meroney and Yang (Ref. 6) in a study to determine optimum stack heights, show that for short stacks (6/5 of building height), K reaches a value of approximately 0.2 and decreases closer to the building. They concluded that the Halitsky methodology was " overly conservative".

These recent egperimental tests show that K = 2.5 used to i determine the /Q for Prairie Island is a conservative estimate by, at least, a factor of 2 and possibly by 10 or more.

Field 3),

and u gests

/Q were were made on the obtained. DataRancho Secotopped from round facilitycontain-(Ref.

ment releases and square edged auxiliary building releases e used to simulate the Prairie Is -

Measured to app weg/Qvgluesrangingfrom8.07x10gandcase.Although m m

u 1 x 10- w /Q were inthe10-gre{ound. m range for those cases approximating the Prairie Island conf valueof8.07x10gguration,theworstRanchoSecocase at Pasquill G and 1.8 m/sec with a building area of 2050 m 2 is used for comparison purposes.

When adjusted to the Prairie Islandcongitignswithawind -3, speed of 0.6 m/sec and an area of 782 m a /Q of e.

whichis1.5timessmallerthanthevalue5.33x10g3x10 calcu-lated for Prairie Island using the Halitsky wind tunnel data. _

It was concluded that sufficient data and fieldX testr exist to give a reasonable assurance that the chosen /Q is a con-servative one, over and above the conservatism implied by using the 5th percentile wind speed and wind direction factors.

l i 2.2.3 Results The radiological exposures in the CR are included in Table 2.

The doses f all within the GDC 19 guidelines values.

l M-26/9

~

i.2.4 References

1. D. H. Slade, ed., Meteorology and Atomic Energy - TID 24190 (1968).

2. K. G. Murphy and K. M. Compe, " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilatior. System Design for Meeting General Cri-terion 19", 13th ACC Air Cleaning Conference.

3. e 'rt, G. E., J. H. Cate, C. R. Dickson, N. R. Ricks, G. a. Ackerman, and J. F. Sagendorf, " Rancho Seco Building Wake Effects on Atmospheric Diffusion, NOAA Technical Memo-randum, ERL ARL-69, (1977).

4. Walker , D. H. , R. N . Nassano , M. A. Capo, 1976: " Control Room Ventilation Intake Selection for the Floating Nuclear Power Plant" , 14th ERDA Air Cleaning Conference.

5. Ilatcher, R. N., R. N. Meroney, J. A. Pe terka , K. Kothari, 1978: " Dispersion in the Wake of a Model Industrial Complex",

NUREG-0373.

6. Meroney, R.N., and B. T. Yang, 1971: " Wind Tunnel Study on Gaseous Mixing due to Various Stack Heights and Injection Rates Above an Isolated Structure", FDDL Report CER 71-72 RNM-BTY16, Colorado State Univ.

l 1

L

~

e .

TABLE 1 LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT: PARAMETERS TABULATED FOR PO3TULATED ACCIDENT ANALYSES DESIGN BASIS ASSUMPTIONS I. Data and Assumptions Used to Estimate Radioactive Sources from Postulated Accidents A. Power Level (MWt) 1721.4 B. Burnup NA C. Fission Products Released 100%

from Fuel (fuel damaged)

D. Iodine Fractions

( 1) Organic 0.04 (2) Elemental 0.91 (3) Particulate 0.05 II. Data and Assumptions Used to Estimate Activity Released A. Primary Containment Leak 0.25 (0-1 day)

( Rate (%/ day) 0.125 (1-180 days)

B. No mixing is assumed to occur in the shield building prior to release to the atmosphere C. Bypass leakage (% of primary 1 containment leak rate)

D. SBVS Adsorption and Filtration Efficiencies (%)

(1) Organic iodines 95 (2) Elemental iodine 95 (3) Particulate iodine 95 (4) Particulate fission products 95 III. Dispersion (sec/m 3 ), .

A. {R-BuildingWake

/Q for Time Intervals of (1) 0-8 hrs 5.33 x 10-3 (2) 8-24 hrs 3.14 x 10-3 (3) 1-4 days 2.00 x 10-3 (4) 4-30 days 8.79 x 10-4 (5)30-180 days 4.40 x 10"4

d A TABLE 1 (Continued)

DE:s LGN BASIS ASSUMPTIONS IV. Data for CR:

A. Volume of CR (f t3) 116,840 B. Recirculation Rate through 3,000 Charcoal Filters C. Efficiency of Charcoal (%) 95 Adsorber D. Unfiltered Inleakage Rate (h+~1) 0.06 E. Occupancy Factors:

0-1 day 1.0 1-4 days 0.6 4-30 days 0.4 30-180 days 0.4 i

l A-33

" we , , , . .

~ .

TABLE 2 AIRBORNE ACTIVITY INSIDE THE CONTROL ROOM DOSES FROM A DBA LOCA (0-180) DAYS Thyroid Whole Body Skin 15.4 1.0 26.9 Doses (REM) 30 5 30 GDC 19 Dcse Guidelines (REM) 75*

• If protective clothing is worn

/

M-26

_.._._j