ML20031E115
| ML20031E115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1981 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Maurin L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110150105 | |
| Download: ML20031E115 (5) | |
Text
-
(
s y
7 p
g DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-382 MPA LPDR IE (3)
NSIC Docket No.: 50-382 Files RHVollmer RJMattson Mr. L. V. Maurin SHHanauer Assistant Vice President - Nuclear Operations DGElsenhut Louisiana Power & Light Company TEMurley 142 Delaronde Street hTde New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 SB ack
Dear Mr. Maurin:
g Subject; Request for Additional Infomation - WaMord 3 We have determirad that certain additional infomation is required in order to permit us co complete our review of your application for an operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
The enclosed request for additional infomation was prepared by the Siting Analysis Branch and is numbered 311.1 through 311.2.
We would like to schedule a meeting on these issues within the next several wecks.
Please sontact the project manager, Suzanne Black to arrange a date for this meeting.
Sincerely, Frank J. Miraglia, Chief
, g }'
Licensing Branch No. 3
/g/
Division of Licanring
/s7 r, s.
I Enr.losure:
NbJ l
L As stated
~
9 1981'"* g\\
OCT
.)
W
" 4 tsn W
$y/
cwemod cc: See next page.
Se D
[g\\
l DL:LB#3p gD
,, 3 orric r >
sumaucy SCBlack:jb FJtj glia f..
8110150105 811006 cart >
10/f.../81 10/y../81
.{DRADOCK 05000382 pap uc row m,,o so,,c" 2'
OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
> uscm,m_m,3
'Al g reeg
- (
12 /d.,9.Maurin WATERFORD I Y(ss;s'istant Vice President - Nuclear Operations
- 3. ih Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 W. Malcolm 5,tevenson, Esq.
Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Mr. E. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. D. L. Aswell Vice President, Power Production Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Mr. F. J. Drummond Project Manager - Nuclear Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Mr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Lyman L. Jones, J r., Esq.
Gillespie & Jones P. O. Box 9216 Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Luke Fontana, Esq.
824 Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Stephen M. Irving, Esq.
535 North 6th Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS P. O. Box 822 Killona, Louisiana 70066 Dr. Krishna R. Iyengar Middle South Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161
A o
WATERFORD-3 REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PIPELINE AND LPG TRUCK HAZARDS 311.1 Our review of the pipeline hazards in the vicinity of Waterford-3 indicates that the postulated rupture of some of the pipelines can lead to flammable / explosive vapor clouds which may pose a hazard with respect to the safe cperation of the proposed plant. The liquified propane gas pipelines, in particular, have the potential for forming extensive clouds due to the relatively high density of the gas and the assumption of highly restrictive meteorology. Our concern, however, is directed at the possibility of multiple line failures, wherein the rupture of a single pipeline may lead to the rupture of ore or more additional pipelines. A recent occurrence of this type in Goldsmith, Texas indicates that multiple pipeline failures are possible.
In view of the above, we request that the applicant provide us with a description of the deployment of the pipelines in the vicinity of Waterford-3.
The description should include items such as depth of burial (where underground), burial features (soil type, for example), separation distance between the pipes, pipe construction features (wall materials, thicknesses, method of coupling), corrosion protection aspects, and any other information which could be used in evaluating the potential for multiple line failures. The pipelines to be considered specifically are the Gulf, Texaco, and Dow pipelines near the site exclusion boundary.
I
, 311.2 Our review of the hazards associated with the LPG truck traffic on Highway 18 near Waterford-3 leads us to believe that over-pressures in excess of the design basis values can be generated in the event of a. truck accidenc followed by ignition and detonation. We agree..with the applicant's estimates that indicate a low probability of LPG cloud drift followed by delayed ignition near the plant. Hence, the overpressure hazard to be addressed is the possible propane detonation in situ, on Highway 18.
The above findings point to the need for consideration of either additional protective measures or additional analyses which could demonstrate a higher overpr, essure rating for the safety related portions of the plant. One possible protective measure would be to establish a road restriction which would prohibit explosive or flammable substances such as LPG from being shipped on Route 18.
This traffic could be rerouted along Route 3141, 3127, and 3160.
A supporting reason for the above approach is the consideration of the potential consequences even if a truck accident occurred at scme distance greater than the minimum of 453 feet on Route 18.
For example, a truck accident leading to an explosion near the front of Beker Industries, Hooker Chemical Company, or Union Carbide Company may have the capability to induce substantial damage and cause multiple secondary releases of flammable and/or toxic chemicals.
Similar concerns can be directed at the possibility for damaging the pipelines which cross Route 18.
1 Although the above events may be viewed as secondary hazards that 5
t
, have a relatively low likelihood, we believe that it is prudent to consider LPG truck traffic rerouting as an effective protective measure with respect to Waterford-3.
4 An alternate approach would be to provide appropriate structural response analyses which would demonstrate an enhanced overpressure capability sufficient to withstand the postulated explosion hazards. We believe that this approach is feasible. The estimated overpressures for detonations at the closest point on Route 18 are within the range of values which have been shown to be accept-able on other light water reactor plants.
We request that the applicants consider the above concerns and provide us with a description of the approach to be taken in resolving this issue.
l
....