ML20083G802
| ML20083G802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/14/2018 |
| From: | Pospiech R Portland General Electric Co, Sargent & Lundy |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083G798 | List: |
| References | |
| 11354-034, VPN-001-2020 2017-09306 | |
| Download: ML20083G802 (72) | |
Text
(
I VPN-001-2020 Enclosure 2 Trojan Calculation Tl-164 Sargent & Lundy Calculation No. 2017-09306 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation, Revision 0
/
ISSUE
SUMMARY
Form SOP-0402-07, Revision 12 DESIGN CONTROL
SUMMARY
CLIENT: Portland General Electric- Trojan fSFSI UNIT NO.: 0 PAGE NO.: 1 PROJECT NAME: Hazards Explosive overpressure Analysis Update SAFETY RELATED 181 YES O NO PROJECT NO.: 11354-034 S&L NUCLEAR QA PROGRAM GALC. NO .. : 2017-09306 APPLICABLE 181 YES O NO TITLE: Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation EQUIPMENT NO.: NIA IDENTIFICATION OF PAGES ADDED/REVISED/SUPERSEDEDNOIDED & REVIEW METHOD
/
Initial Issue INPUTS/ ASSUMPTIONS 181 VERIFIED 0 UNVERIFIED REVIEW METHOD: Detailed 0 SUPERSEDED BY CALCULATION NO. OVOID DATEFORREV.:
REV.: 0 3-:l'i..:.,
t£ _,
STATUS: '&"APPROVED PRE;PARER: ' Richard P. Pospiech n/ '. L l (JV-REVIEWER: Steven M. Dawson <*-e::::.. y . -~ \J tP~;;,.. *'-,
1~
l DATE:
DATE:
1:/. MA8,'2..ol~
l<{~~lf>
APPROVER: Robert J. Peterson W b/rT...V. ~
/ / -
.,,,-rv 'DATE:3,-:l'i.-L ~,
IDENTIFICATION OF PAGES ADDED/REVISED/SUPERSEDEDNOIDED & REVIEW METHOD INPUTS/ ASSUMPTIONS 0 VERIFIED 0 UNVERIFIED REVIEW METHOD: REV.:
STATUS: 0APPROVED 0 SUPERSEDED BY CALCULATION NO. OVOID DATE FOR REV.:
,PREPARER:
.) DATE:
REVIEWER: DATE:
APPROVER: DATE:
IDENTIFICATION OF PAGES ADDED/REVISED/SUPERSEDEDNOIDED & REVIEW METHOD
\
INPUTS/ ASSUMPTIONS r 0 VERIFIED 0 UNVERIFIED REVIEW METHOD: REV.: \
STATUS: 0APPROVED 0 SUPERSEDED BY CALCULATION NO. OVOID DATE FOR REV.:
PREPARER: DATE:
REVIEWER: DATE:
APPROVER: DATE:
NOTE: PRINT AND SIGN IN THE SIGNATURE AREAS sopo40201 .ooc*
Rev. Date: 01-02-2018
\
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 2 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Table of Contents Page
.............................. ................................ 1 Cove r Page ........................................................................
I
............................................. .......... :..... 2 Tabl e of Contents ................ :............................................. (,
......... ........... 3
........... ~ ...........................
1.0 Purp ose and Scop e ................. ~ ....................................
...................................................... 4 2.0 Refer ences ........................................................................
............................................................... 10 3.0 Definitipns ...............~ .............................................
............................................................. 11 4.0 Inpu t Data ...............................................................
.......................................................... 21 5.0 Assu mptio ns ...............................................................
............................................................ 23 6.0 MethodolC)gy ................................. ~...........................
........................................................... 39 7.0 Num eric Anal ysis ......................................................
........................................................... 50 8.0 Resu lts ................ ~ ......................................................
............................................................. 70 9.0 Conc lusion ...............................................................
Pages Appe ndice s: ......... ......... ... 3 1 Wind-1oint Frequ ency Distribution .................................... ........ 4 2 USA CE Waterborne Commerce Data ...........................
..........................................................4 3 Railw ay Explosion Analysis .............................................
............................................................ 196 4 Railw ay Traveling Vapo r Cloud Analysis ..................
.............................................................. 3 5 '-Waterborne Explosion Analysis ....................................
6 Wate rborn e Traveling Vapo r Cloud Analysis .........
................ :............................................... 384 Pages Attac hmen ts:
.................... ,........................................ 1 A SFPE Hand book Figur e 3-16.14 ....................................
................................................................ 1 B Google Earth Screenshot .............................................
....................................................... 230 C Material Safety Data Sheets .............................................
.......................................................238 D NIST Chemical Data .............................'...........................
........................................................ 169 E MISL E Database ............... ;.............................................
.......................................................... 15 F Incid ent Reports Datab ase ............................ .'..................
.......................................................... 100 GE-M ail Input Transmittals .............................................
.................................................... 8 H BNSF Commodity Flow (Proprietary) ....................................
Text and Google Earth files associated Elect ronic ally attached are the Excel, Math.cad, Access, and H. These electronic attachments are with Appendices 1 throu gh 6 and Attachments B, E, F archi ved in the following zip file:
Date: 'Size:
Filen ame:
12/8/2017 3:53P M 122,307 KB Cale_2017-09306_RO_elec_ arts.zip hments (1,356) = 1,427 Pages Total Pages: Main Body (71) plus Appendices and Attac
Portland General Electric*- Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazar~ Evaluation Page 3 of71
1.0 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this evaluation is to analyze offsite transportation explosion hazards to the Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The primary concern following a postulated explosion from a nearby railcar or vessel is the blast wave overpressure loading upon the ISFSI dry storage casks. This includes explosions at the railcar/vessel from solid explosives, vapor cloud explosions (VCE), and boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions (BLEVE).
Additionally, ~ vapor release can result in a chemical vapor traveling to the ISFSI* site with a concentration greater than or equal to the lower explosive limit (LEL) of the chemical.
The goal of this calculation is to show that none of the chemical hazards being transported via railway or waterway in the vicinity of the ISFSI site pose a threat by explosion. The sources include Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railcars, Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR)
- railcars and vessels navigating the Columbia River.
Acceptance Criteria:
- 1. Standoff Distance for an Explosion: '
- a. The di~tance between the hazardous chemical source and the site must be greater than the standoff distance calculated using the method detailep. in Regulatory Guide 1.91
[Ref. 2.2] and the SFPE Handbook [Ref. 2.26]. The maximum overpressure at a cask cannot exceed 2.2 psig [Ref. 2.19]. However, per Regulatory Guide 1.91, when overpressure at the target is less than or equal to 1.0 psig, the blast generated missile effects and ground motions are considered acceptable.
- b. The gas plume must <lispers~ enough such that the concentration of the chemical is less than the LEL at the concrete casks.
- 2. Probability- If the deterministic analyses for a chemical release show that the chemical can lead to a hazard (i.e., does not meet the above acceptance criteria) then the chemical must be analyzed probabilistically. To be acceptable, the frequency of a hazardous release for a chemical must be shown to be less than 1o- , hazards per year if conservative estimates are 6
used [Ref. 2.2, p.6]. *,._
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI
- Revision 0 Project No.: 1.1354-034 Page 4 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 2.0 References Plant 2.1 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1. 78, "Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclea r Power ber 2001.
Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," Rev. I, Decem at Nearby 2.2 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.91, "Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur Plants," Rev. 2, April 2013.
Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power I
al Accident 2.3 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potenti Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Rev. 1, Novem ber 1982.
(ISC3) Dispersion 2.4 EPA-454/B-95-003b~ User's Guide for the Industrial Source Comple x Models," September 1995.
a Postulated 2.5 NUREG-0570, "Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room Following Accidental Release," James Wing, June 1979.
July 1981.
2.6 NUREG-0800 Section 2.2.3, Evaluation of Potential Accidents," Revision 2, 2.7 NUREG/CR-2260, "Technical Basis for Regulatory Guide 1.145, 'Atmospheric r Power Dispersion Models For Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclea Plants' ," W. G. Snell & R. W. Jubach, October 1981.
Novem ber 2.8 NUREG/CR-6624, Recomm~ndations for Revision of Regulatory Guide 1.78,"
1999.
/
2.9 Material Safety Data Sheets (Included in Attachment C):
2.9.1 "Ammo nium Nitrate," ScienceLab.com Inc., November 2008.
2.9.2 "Argon," The BOC-Group Inc., June 1996.
2.9.3 "Bisulfites, Aqueous Solution," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/2622, accessed October 2017.
2.9.4 "I-Bute ne," Matheson Tri-Gas Inc., Decem ber 2008.
2.9.5 "Butyraldehyde, 99%," Acros Organics, May 2002.
2.9.6 "Diesel Fuel I," Exxon Co. USA, April 1993.
2.9.7 "1,1-Difluoroethane," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/DFE.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.8 "Ethylene Glycol Diethyl Ether," Acros Organics, July 2007.
accessed 2.9.9 "Ferric Chloride, Solution," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/3467, October 2017. ---
r Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 5 of 71 2.9 .10 "Ferrous Chloride, Solution," https ://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/347 6, accessed October 2017.
2.9.11 "Fluorosilicic Acid," Pelchem, Rev. 3.
2.9.12 "Gasolines, All Grades Unleaded," Citgo Petroleum Corporation, May 2005.
2.9.13 "Milestone Herbicide," Dow AgroScienpes, November 2014.
2.9.14 "Hydrogen," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/HXX.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.15 "Hypochlorite Solution," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/19267, accessed October 2017.
2.9.16 "Isobutylene," Praxair Inc., October 2016.
2.9.17 "Isoprene," ScienceLab.cominc., May 2013.
2.9.18 "Kerosene," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris!KRS.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.19 "Liquefied Petroleum Gas," http://natgases.com/Content/files/LPG.PDF, accessed October 2017.
2.9.20 "Methane," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/MTH.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.21 "Methyl Chloride," Occidental Chemical Corp., October 2009.
2.9.22 "Molten Sulfur," Chemtrade Logistics Inc., May 2015.
2.9.23 "Monoethanolamine," https://cameoche~icals.noaa.gov/chris/.MEA.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.24 Petroleum Distillate," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/DSR.pdf, June 1999.
2:9.25 Nitrogen," The BOC Group Inc., June 1996.
2.9.26 "Oils, Fuels: No. 6," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/OSX.pdf, June 1999.
2.9 .2 7 "Oils, Miscellaneous: Lubricating," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/OLB.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.28 "Confirm* 2F Insecticide," Dow AgroSciences, October 2003.
2.9.29 "Petroleum Coke," Marathon Petroleum Company, October 2015.
2.9.30 "Petroleum Coke," Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., October 2012.
/
2.9.31 "White Soluble Muriate of Potash," PotashCorp, August 2013. **
2.9.32 "Prop~lene," Airgas USA, October 2014.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 6 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation T.pdf, June 1999.
2.9.33 "Propylene Tetramer," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/PT 2.9.34 "EP4115, EP4117, EP4119," Eager Plastics Inc., January 2007.
2.9.35 "Sodiu m Metal," Thermo Fisher Scientific, May 2017.
ber 2005.
2.9.36 "Sodium Chlorate Solution 20%- 50%," ERCO Worldwide, Decem hris/SB X.pdf, June 2.9.37 "Sodium Hydroxide Solution," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/c 1999.
2.9.38 "Sulfur, Solid (Canada)," ConocoPhillips Canada, April 2012.
chris/I DI.pdf, June 2.9.39 "Toluene 2,4-Diisocyanate," https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/
1999.
2.9.40 "Viny l Chloride," Matheson Trf:.Das Inc., September 2000.
2.10 Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Part 110, "Anchorage Regula tions," 2013.
rous Cargo at 2.11 Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Part 126, "Handling of Dange Waterfront Facilities," 2001.
al Institute of 2.12 NIST Chemistry WebBook, Standard Reference Datab ase 69, Nation (Appli cable data included
. Standards and Technology, http://webbook.nist.gov/, June 2017.
in Attachment D)
H Pocke t Guide to 2.13 DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149, Third Printing, "NIOS Servic es Nation al Institute for Chemical Hazards," Department of Health and Human Occupational Safety and Health, September 2007.
D.W. Green, 2.14 Perry' s Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Eighth Edition, RH. Perry, McGraw-Hill, 2007 .
, "325 - Fire Hazard
. 2.15 Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, Fourteenth Edition al Fire Protection Properties of Flammable Liquids, Gases, and Volatile Solids," Nation Association, 2010.
National Fire Protec tion 2.16 NFPA 652, "Standard on the Fundamentals of Combustible Dust."
Association, 2016 Edition.
and Demolitions," U.S.
2.17 U.S. Army Field Manual No. 3-34.214 (FM 5-250), '~Explosives Department of the Army, July 2007.
Offsite Explosion Hazard 2.18 E-Mai l from B. Monroe (PGE) to R. Pospiech (S&L), "
Subject:
ment G).
Analysis Information," dated 07/12/2017 11: 17 AM. (Included Attach in
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 ,
Page 7 of71 Offsite Transportation Explo sion Hazard Evaluation
), "
Subject:
Additional Analysis Inputs,"
2.19 E-Mail from M. Tursa (PGE) to R. Peterson (S&L t G) dated 03/10/2017 12:02 PM. (Included in Attachmen al of Revision 6 to PGE-1069, 'Troj an 2.20 PGE Lette r VPN-037-2005 to USNRC, "Transmitt Safety Analysis Repo rt (SAR )'," July Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 21, 2005.
l Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power 2.21 USN RC Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Meteorologica Plants," Rev. 1, Marc h 2007.
), "
Subject:
Kick off Call for Hazards 2.22 E-Mail from M. Tursa (PGE) to R. Peterson (S&L Attachment G).
Analysis," dated 03/09/2017 07:25 PM. (Included in 0, "1989 Annual Mete orolo gy-J oint 2.23 PGE Trojan Calculation No. 1NP 91-12, Rev.
Frequency Distributions and Locations of Interest."
(S&L), "
Subject:
Offsite Explosion Hazard 2.24 E-Mail from B. Monroe (PGE) to R. Pospiech
- Attachment G)
Analysis," dated 07/11/2017 02:42 PM. (Included in (S&L), "
Subject:
Offsite Explosion Hazard 2.25 E-M ail from B. Mon toe (PGE) to R. Pospiech (Included in Attachment G)
Analysis Information," dated 08/17/2017 09:32 AM.
Second Edition, Society of Fire Protection 2.26 SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, t A)
Engineers, 1995. (Figure 3-16.14 provided in Attachmen Fifth Edition, Society of Fire Protection 2.27 SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Engineers, 2016.
Edition, E.A. Avallone & T. Baumeister 2.28 Mark s' Standard Hand book for Engineers, Tenth "
Ill, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1996.
fth Edition, M.R. Lindeberg, Professional 2.29 Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual, Twel Publications Inc., 2006.
Edition, Incropera and DeWitt, John Wiley 2.30 Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Sixth
& Sons, 2007.
r, P.A. Cox, P.S. Westine, J.J. Kulesz, R.A.
2.31 Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, W.E. Bake Strehlow, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1983 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 2.32 Meteorology and Atomic Energy, D.H. Slade, 1968.
R.P. Curt, T.D. Delaney, National 2.33 Marine Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas, Maritime Research Center, 1973.
/
C.C. Heald, Flowserve.
2.34 Cameron Hydraulic Data, Nineteenth Edition,
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFS1 S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 8 of71 2.35 Battery Reference Book, Third Edition, T.R. Crompton, Newnes, 2000.
2.36 Journal of Chemical Education, DOI 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333, "Why Combustions are Always Exothermic, Yielding about 418 kJ per Mole of 02," K. Schmidt-Rohr, ACS Publications, http://pubs.acs.org/journal/jceda8, September 2015.-
2.37 Department of Defense General Document MRL-GD-0018, "An Introduction to Lithium Batteries," Australia Defense Science and Technology Organization Materials Research Laboratory, September 1988.
I 2.38 Google Earth Version 6.2.2.6613, S&L Program Number 03.2.446-6.2, Built April 11, 2012 (run on Computer ZLl 1252). (Screenshot provided in AttachmentB)
- 2.39 Microsoft Access 2010 Version 14.0.7184.5000, S&L Program Number 03.2.435-14.0.
2.40 Mathcad Version 14.35, S&L Program Number 03.7.548-1435, C:\Program Files (x86)\Mathcad\Mathcad14\ (run on Computer ZLl 1252) 2.41 Oregon Rail System Map, Oregon Department of Transportation, March 2017.
2.42 E-Mail from J. VanLooven (PGE) to R. Pospiech (S&L), "
Subject:
BNSF Hazardous Material Commodity Flow Information - Portland General Electric - SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION (SSI)," dated 06/15/2017 02:30 PM. (Provided in proprietary Attachment H)
_2.43 BNSF Weight Restriction Map I (4 Axle Cars Over 45 ft in Length), Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, January 2017.
2.44 E-mail from B. Monroe (PGE) to R. Pospiech (S&L), "
Subject:
Methanol Project," dated
, . 09/11/2017 01 :26 PM: (Included in Attachment G)
I I
2.45 NOAA Nautical Chart #18524, 37th Ed., "Columbia River, Crims Island to Saint Helens,"
Published by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Octa ber 2017.
\
2.46 Waterborne Commerce of the United States, "Part 4 - Waterways and Barbo~ Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii," U.S. Arniy Corps of Engineers, Calendar Years 2006 - 2015.
I 2.47 NDC Report 96-3, Navigation Data Center User's Guide," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1996.
2.48 EPA Publication No. 903R83004, "Vapor .Controls for Barge Loading of Gasoline," U.S.
Environmental Protectipn Agency, December 1983.
2i49 "Marine Casualty and Pollution Data for Researchers," subset of the MISLE Database, https ://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/investigations/marine-casualty-pollution-investigations (click on Marine Casualty and Pollution Data for Researchers), accessed May 2017. (
(Provided in Attachment E)
I Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 9 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation ase Search,
2.50 "Offic e of Hazardous Materials Safety Incident Reports Datab Department of https ://hazrnatonline.phmsa.dot gov/IncidentR.eportsSearch/, U.S.
nistration. (Provided in Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admi Attachment F)
Regio n Harbor Safety 2.51 "Columbia River Anchorage Guidelines," Lower Columbia Committee, May 14, 2014.
ion Safety Databases,"
2.52 NTSB/SR-02/02 PB2002-917004, "Safety Report Transportat National Transportation Safety Board, September 11, 2002.
ical Hazar d Analysis 2.53 EPA Publication No. OSWERHCHAP, "Handbook of Chem U.S. Department of Procedures," Federal Emer gency Management Agency (FEMA),
Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
eFireH azard Analy sis Methods 2.54 NUREG-1805, "Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTs): Quan titativ ction Program,"
for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Prot~ction Inspe December 2004.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 10 of71 3.0 Definitions 3 .1 Chemical For the purposes of this document, chemical will mean any substance or material that could potentially be a hazard. ~
3.2 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL)
The LEL of an explosive chemical is the lowest concentration of that chemical capable of supporting an explosion, per the SFPE Handbook [Ref. 2.26, p.3-312]. Lower Flammability Limit (.LFL) is related to the LEL. The LFL is the lowest concentration of a chemical that will support flame propagation. The LFL and LEL are often nearly the same.
The SFPE Handbook recommends using whichever is more- conservative. For this CfLlculation, the LEL or LFL values in the referenced documents are used interchangeably.
3.3 Upper Explosive Limit (UBL)
The UBL of an explosive chemical is the highest concentration of that chemical capable of supporting an explosion, per the SFPE Handbook [Ref. 2.26, p.3-312]. Upper Flammability Limit (UFL) is relatecl. to the UEL. J:he UFL is the highest concentration of a chemical that will support flame propagation. The UFL and UEL are often nearly the same. The SFPE Handbook recommends using whichever is more conservative. For this calculation, the UEL or UFL values in the referenced documents are used interchangeably.
J 3.4 Vapor Cloud Explosion (YCE)
A VCE is an explosion as a result of a mass of gas in a vapor cloud being ignited, per the SFPE Handbook [Ref. 2.26, p.3-325].
3 .5 -Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE)
A BLEVE is a violent rupture of a pressure vessel containing a chemical *that is a gas at standard conditions but is stored as a pres~urized saturated liquid, per the SFPE Handbook
[Ref. 2.26, p.3-327]. '
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 11 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 4.0 Input Data 4.1 Facility Parameters
'03" W
- The geographic coordinates of the Trojan site are 46°.02'25" N latitude and 122°53 longitude [Ref. 2.20].
from site
- The specific location of the ISFSI pad and layout of the storage casks are taken drawings [Ref. 2.18] and Google Earth [Ref. 2.38].
- The height of the ISFSI storage casks is 211.5 in. (17 .625 ft) [Ref. 2.25].
1s 2.2 psig
- The acceptable explosive overpressure limit at the ISFSI storage casks
[Ref. 2.19].
4.2 Weather Conditions
- Design maximum temperature = 107°F [Ref. 2.22].
- Design minimum temper ature= -3°F [Ref. 2 . 22].
4, 1989)
- A compilation of the annual weather joint :frequency distributions (1980, 1982-8
[Ref. 2.23] [Ref. 2.24] is provided in Appendix 1:
F.
o The worst Pasquill Stability Class that occurs at least 5% of the time is Class o Stability Classes F and G wind speeds do not exceed 5._01 mis (11.21 mph); lower bound for Stability Classes A and B wind speed is 0.5 mis (1.12 mph).*
Table 4.2-1: Classification of Atmospheric Stability !Ref. 2.21]
Pasquill Stability Class Temperature Gradient °C/l OOm A LITs-1 .9
\ B -1.9 <L1T:S-l.7 C -1.7 <L1T< -l.5 D -1.5 < L1T:::; -0.5 E -0.5<L1T< 1.5 F 1.5<L1T:S4.0 G L1T>4.0
- 4.3 Chemical Data
4.3.1 Water
3
- . The density of water at 107°F and 1 atm = 61.91 lbm/ft [Ref. 2.34, p.4-4].
p.949].
- The thermal conductivity of water at 107°F (315 K) = 0.634 W/m*K [Ref. 2.30,
- The specific heat of water at 107°F (315 K) = 4.179 k{/kg*K [Ref. 2.30, p.949].
tion with 4.3.2 Table 4.3-1 provides chemical' physical properties and heats of combus references indicated.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 12 of71 Table 4 3-1: Chem1ca . 1Propert'ies andH eatso fC ombusf10n Specific Physical Heat of Molecular Boiling Gravity LEL Properties CombustionCc) Thermal Properties -
Chemical Name Weigh{a) Point(bl /Dens. (to UEL) Ref. (kJ/kg). Ref.
69°F [Ref. 2.27, Acetaldehyde 44.1 0.79 4.0% [Ref. 2.13] 25,100 (294 K) Table A.38]
244°F 4.0%- [Ref. 2.27, Acetic Acid 60.1 1.05 [Ref. 2.13] 14,600 I (391 K) 19.9% Table A.38]
133°F 2.5%- [Ref. 2.27, Acetone 58.1 0.79 [Ref. 2.13] 30,800 (329 K) 12.8% Table A.29]
[Ref. 2.29, Air 29.0 - - - p.24-15]
36.005 lbn/ft3
-28°F [Ref. 2.13]
Ammonia 17.0 (42.574. 15% 22,500 [Ref. 2.29, p.A-43]
(240 K) Dens: [Ref. 2.12]
lbm/ff at P.on)
Ammonium Nitrate - - 1.73 ) - [Ref. 2.9.1] - -
176°F 1.2%- ~
Benzene 78.1 0.88 [Ref. 2.13] 42,300 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(3J3 K) 7.8%
31°F Butane 58.1 0.60 1.6% [Ref. 2.13] 49,600 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(273 K) 243°F [Ref. 2.27, Butanol (Butyl Alcohol) 74.1 0.81 1.4% [Ref. 2.13] 36,100 (390 K) Table 18.2]
293°F Butyl Acrylate (C1H1202) 128.2 (418 K) 0.89 1.5% [Ref. 2.13] - -
20°F Butylene (I-Butene) 56.1 0.58 1.6% [Ref. 2.9.4] 48,500 [Ref. 2.29, p.A-43]
(267 K)
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard EvalDation Page 13 of 71 Specific Physical Heat of Molecular Boiling Gravity LEL Properties CombustionCc) Thermal Properties Chemical Name Weight(a) PointCbJ /Dens. (to UBL) Ref. (kJ/kg) Ref.
167°F [Ref. 2.27, Butyraldehyde 72.1 0.82 1.4% [ReJ. 2.9.5] 33,800 (348 K) Table A.38]
ll6°F [Ref:2.27, Carbon Disulfide 76.1 1.26 *1.3% [Ref. 2.13] 6,300 (320 K) TableA.30]
Dichloromethane 104°F [Ref. 2.27, 84.9 1.33 13.0% [Ref. 2.13] Q,000 (Methylene Chloride) (313 K) Table A.39]
[Ref. 2.9 .6]
MW: [Ref. 2.29, 320°F [Ref. 2.27, Diesel Fuel (Fuel Oil No. 1) 170.0 0.82 0.7% p.22-6] 46,100 (433 K) TableA.32]
LEL: [Ref. 2.15, p.325-67]
52°F )
1, 1-Difluoroethane (C2HiF2) 66.1 (284 K) 0.95 3.7% [Ref. 2.9.7] - -
[Ref. 2.27, Ethane - - - . 3.0%
Table 17.1] - -
173°F 3.3%-
Ethanol (Ethyl Alcohol) 46.1 0.79 [Ref. 2.13] 29,700 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(351 K) 19%
. [Ref. 2.27, Ethylene - - - 2.7%
Table 17.1]
Ethylene Glycol Diethyl 250°F Ether (C6H1402) 118.2 (394 K) 0.84 1.2% [Ref. 2.9.8] - -
Explosives - - 1.30-5.10 - [Ref. 2.31] - -
Formic Acid - - - 18% [Ref. 2.13] - -
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision O ',
Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 14 of 71 Specific Physical Heat of Molecular Boiling Gravity LEL Properties CombustionCc) Thermal Properties Chemical Name Weighla) Point<b) /Dens. (to UBL) Ref. (kJ/kg) Ref.
VD: 3-4 100-400°F 1.4%- [Ref. 2.27, Gasoline o.-n-0.11 [Ref. 2.9.12] 46,800 (Air= 1) (311-478 K) 7.6% Table A.32]
209°F [Ref. 2.27, Heptane 100.2 0.68 1.1% [Ref. 2.13] 44,600 (371 K) Table A.38]
Hydrogen 2.0 - -' 4.0% [Ref. 2.9.14] 142,000 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
ll°F 33.020 [Ref. 2.13]
Isobutane 58.1 1.6% 49,400 [Ref. 2.29, p.A-43]
(261 K) lbm/ft3 Dens: [Ref. 2.12]
20°F Isobutylene 56.1 0.63 1.8% [Ref. 2.9.16] 48,200 [Ref. 2.29, p.A-43]
(266 K) 93°F [Ref. 2.27, * .
Isoprene 68.1 0.69 1.5% [Ref. 2.9.17] 44,900 (307 K) TableA.32]
Isopropanol 181°P [Ref. 2.27, 60.1 0.79 2.0% [Ref. 2.13] . _31,800 (Isopropyl Alcohol) (356 K) TableA.38]
194°P [Ref. 2.27, Isopropyl Acetate 102.2 0.87 1.8% [Ref. 2.13] 26,600 (363 K) TableA.38]
Liquefied Petroleum Gas VD: 1.8 -40 to -4°F [Ref. 2.27, 0.51-0.58 1.9% [Ref. 2.9.19] 46,000 (LPG). (Air= 1) (233-253 K) Table 26.21]
-259 24.271 _[Ref. 2.9.20]
Methane 16.0 5% 55,600 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(112 K) lbm/ft3 Dens: [Ref. 2.12]
~
147°P ' 6.0%-
Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) 32.1 0.79 [Ref. 2.13] 22,700 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(337 IQ 36%
1-Methoxy-2-Propanol 248°P (Propylene Glycol 90.1 (393 K) 0.96 1.6% [Ref. 2.13] - -
Moncimethyl Ether; C4H1002) -
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision O Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 15 of 71 Specific Physical Heat of Molecular Boiling Gravity LEL Properties CombustionCc) Thermal Properties Chemical Name Weight'") PointCb) /Dens. (to UBL) Ref. . (kJ/kg) Ref.
-12°F [Ref.2.13] [Ref. 2.27, Methyl Chloride 50.5 0.92 8.1% 6,500
- (249 K) SG: [Ref. 2.9.21] TableA.30]
Naphtha (Petroleum 86-460°F 1.1%- [Ref. 2.Q.24]
99.0 0.63 [Ref. 2.13] 43,500 Distillates) (303-511 K) 5.9%
258°F [Ref. 2.13] 47,800 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
Octane 114.2 0.70 1.0%
(399 K)
( 97°F [Ref. 2.13] 49,100 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
Pentane 72.2 0.63 1.5%
. (309 K) 15-SG: [Ref. 2.9.29]
Petroleum Coke - - 0.8-1.0 1;000 EL: [Ref. 2.9.30]
g/m3 359°F [Ref. 2.27, Phenol 94.1
- 1.06 1.8% [Ref. 2.13] 31,0QO (455 K) TableA.39]
28.999 3
lbm/ft [Ref. 2.13]
-44°F 2.1% 50,400 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
Propane 44.1 (36.266 (231 K) Dens: [Ref. 2.12]
lbm/ft:3 atPaim) 207°F [Ref. 2.27, Propanol (Propyl Alcohol) 60.1 0.81 2.2% [Ref. 2.13] 31,300 (370 K) Table 18.2]
-54°F 29.550 [Ref. 2.9.32]
Propylene (Propene) 42.1 2.0% 49,000 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(225 K) lbm/ft:3 Dens: [Ref. 2.12]
295°F [Ref. 2.27, Resin Solution(d) 104.id) 1.04-1.08 1.1% [Ref. 2.9.34] 39,400(d)
(419 K) TableA.39]
Sodium 23.0 - 0.97 - [Ref. 2.9.35] - -
_)
(
Portland General Electric - Trojan lSFSl S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 16 of 71 Specific Physical Heat of Molecular Boiling Gravity LEL Properties CombustionCc) Thermal Properties Chemical Name Weightcal Poinlhl /Dens. (to UBL) Ref. (kJ/kg) Ref.
293°F [Ref. 2.27,
.Styrene 104.2 0.91 0.9% [Ref. 2.13] 39,400 (418 K), TableA.39]
30-Sulfur . - - - 1.8 1,400 [Ref. 2.9.38] - -
g/m3 151°F [Ref. 2.27, Tetrahydrofur1ID 72.1 0.89 2.0% [Ref. 2.13] 32,200 (339 K) TableA.39]
232°F Toluene 92.1 0.87 1.1% [Ref. 2.13] 42,900 [Ref. 2.28, p.4-26]
(384 K) 162°F [Ref. 2.27, Vinyl Acetate 86.1 0.93 2.6% [Ref. 2.13] 24,200 \
(345 K) TableA.30]
7op [Ref. 2.13] [Ref. 2.27, Vinyl Chloride 62.5 0.91 3.6% 20,200
/
(259 K) SG: [Ref. 2.9.40] TableA.30]
281°F Xylene 106.2 0.86 0.9% [Ref. 2.13] 43,400 [Ref. 2.29, p.A-43]
(411 K)
Notes:
a) For chemicals thl:l.t provide relative vapor density (air =l) in lieu of molecular weight, the molecular weight is calculated as MW= Pv
- MWa1r; where MW is molecular weight and p,, is relative vapor density.
b) Temperature unit conversion: T°F = 32° + (9/5)Toc; TK = T c + 273.15° = (5/9)*(ToF + 459.67°) [Ref. 2.. 29].
0 c) Heat of combustion provided as Btu/lbm in Marks [Ref. 2.28] and MERM [Ref. 2.29] is converted to kJ/kg by *multiplying by 2.326
[Ref. 2.29] and rounding to the nearest hundreds place.
d) The molecular weight and heat of combustion for resin solution are taken to be those of styrene. This is consistent with the MSDS for resin solution [Ref. 2.9 .34] which provides several properties as those of styrene (e.g., boiling point, LEL, vapor pressure, etc.).
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 17 of 71 4.3.3 Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 provide thermophysical properties for chemicals with low boiling points that are stored as iiquids and immediately flash to vapor in atmospheric conditions [Ref. 2.12].
- Table 4.3-2: Chemical Thermophysical Properties [Ref. 2.12]
Saturated Liquid.Properties at 1 atm Saturated Vapor Properties at i atm Liquid Storage Tank Properties at 107°F Internal Internal Internal Energy, u1 Enthalpy, ht Entropy, s1 Energy, ug Enthalpy, hg Entropy, Sg Energy, Ur Enthalpy, hr Entropy, Sr Chemical Name (Btu/lbm) ffitu/lbm) (Btu/lbm- 0 R) (Btu/lbm) (Btu/lbm) ffitu/lbm* 0 R) ffitu/lbm) ffituilbm) ffitu/lbm* 0 R)
Ammonia 82.502 82.566 0.21111 622.74 671.74 1.5759 231.98 233.19 0.51195 Butane 85.482 85.554 0.23802 235.40 251.49 0.57612 129.21 129.52 0.32080 1, 1-Difluoroethane 68.822 68.865 . 0.20260 197.88 210.80 0.51911 117.61 118.09 0.29898 Isobutane 74.566 74.639 0.21539 216.29 231.71 0.54921 128.84 129.29 .0.32018 Isobutylene\*J 3.6230 3.70 0.007654 154.10 170.49 0.35084 48.914 49.29 0.093781 (Isobutene)
MethanelbJ -0.10321 - -~.9068e-14 195.77 - 1.0933 32.766 - 0.14955 Pentane -0.071495 -2.4138e-11 -4.3004e-14 139.18 153.83 0.27639 5.6602 5.7472 0.010207 Propane 42.942 43.017 0.14474 208.20 2Q6.25 0.58536 133.06 134.38 0.32879 Propylene (Propene) 38.709 38.781 0.13436 209.22 227.71 0.59990 131.71 133.27 0.32643 Notes:
a) Thermophysical properties for isobutylene are not available in NIST [Ref. 2.12] and are taken from Table 2-228 of Perry [Ref. 2.14]. Energy is converted from kJ/mol to Btu/lbm by dividing by molecular weight and multiplying by 429.92; entropy is converted from kJ/mol-K to Btu/lbm- 0 R by dividing by molecular weight and multiplying by 238.85 [Ref. 2.29].
b) Liquid storage tank properties for methane are taken at -220°F (Assumption 5 .8). .
Table 4.3-3: Chemical Phase Change Data [Ref. 2.121 Heat of Vaporization, htg Heat Capacity of Liquid, cp,liq Chemical Name (kJ/mol) (J/mol-K)
Acetaldehyde 26.3 89.1 Butylene (I-Butene') 22.8 128.6 Dichloromethane 28.1 100.0 Isoprene 27.4 151.1 Methyl Chloride (Methane, chloro-) 21.0 81.2 Vinyl Chloride (Ethene, chloro-) 22.7 89.5
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 18 of 71 4.3.4 Table 4.3-4 provides chemical vapor pressure determined by Antoine Equation
[Ref. 2.12].
Table 4.3-4: Antoine Equation for Vapor Pressure at 107°F !Ref. 2.121 Antoine Parameters at 107°F (315 K) Vapor Pressure Chemical Name A B C at 107°F (bar)
Acetic Acid 4.68206 1642.540 -39.764 0.1 Acetone 4.42448 1312.253 -32.445 0.6 Benzene 4.01814 1203.835 -53.226 0.3 Ethanol 5.37229 1670.409 -40.191 0.2 Methanol 5.20409 1581.341 -33.500 0.4 Antoine Equation: log(P) = A - [B I (T \ + C)]; where P = vapor pressure (bar) and T= temperature (K) [Ref. 2.12]. Note: 1 bar~ 1 atm [Ref. 2.29].
4.4 TNT Equivalence for Solid Explosives The TNT equivalency yield fraction, a, for:
- Amonium nitrate is 0.42 [Ref. 2.17, Table 1-1]
- Explosives is 1.66 (bounding yield for explosives listed in Table 1-1 of U.S. Army FM 3-34.214 [Ref. 2.17])
- Lithium Batteries is 0.43 = 40/94 (one 94g lithium-sulfur dioxide D-cell [Ref. 2.35, p.9/5] is equal to 40g of TNT [Ref. 2.37])
4.5 Dust Explosion Maximum Pressure The maximum explosion pressure, Pmax, for dust of:
- . Petroleum coke= 7.6 bar [Ref. 2.16, TableA.5.2.2(c)]
- Sulfur::;: 6.8 bar [Ref. 2.16, Table A.5.2.2(d)] [Ref. 2.27, p.2770]
4.6 Railway Transportation Data 4.6.1 The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR) railway routes are obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) Rail Map [Ref. 2.41] and Google Earth [Ref. 2.38]. A screenshot of Google Earth is provided in Attachment B. The nearest approach of the BNSF line to the closest cask on the Trojan ISFSI site is 5,760 ft (1.09 mi). The nearest approach of the PNWR line to the ISFSI closest cask is 745 ft (0.14 mi).
4.6.2 The commodities shipped in 2016 on the BNSF railroad near the Trojan ISFSI have been provided by BNSF [Ref. 2.42]. The complete list of proprietary data is contained in Attachment H.
4.6.3 The 4-axle railcar gross weight restriction on the BNSF line is 286,000 lbm [Ref. 2.43].
This includes weight of the cargo and car.
/
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 19 of 71 4.6.4 Ethanol is the only commodity to be analyzed on PNWR being transported near the Trojan ISFSI site. This is based on shipment information from the Global Partners Port
.Westward industrial park located in Clatskanie, OR [Ref. 2.44].
4.7 Waterborne Transportati~n Data 4.7.1 The course of the navigable channel in the Columbia River near the Trojan ISFSI site is obtained from NOAA Chart #18524 [Ref. 2.45] and Google Earth [Ref. 2.38]. A screenshot of Google Earth is. provided in Attachment B. The nearest approach of the navigable channel to the closdt cask on the Trojan ISFSI site is 957 ft (0.18 mi).
4.7-.2 Data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) [Ref. 2.46] is used to determine the commodities that are transported on the Columbia River. The USACE Navigation Data Center User's Guide [Ref. 2.47] provides additional details on the types of products that pertain to each commodity group. USACE data is reviewed for the ten most current years (2006-2015) [Ref. 2.46] to determine annual number of trips and '
mass per vessel (see Section 7.4 and Appendix 2).
4.7.3 The boundaries of the Prescott anchC?rage located near the Trojan ISFSI site are identified in CFR Title 33 §110.228(11) rR.ef. 2.10] and shown on NOAA Chart #18524
[Ref. 2.45]. The anchorage was used 25 times in 2016, primarily for empty vessels
[Ref. 2.24]. Usag~ is defined further in the Columbia River Anchorage Guidelines
[Ref. 2.51]. ', I
- 4.8 Non-Explosiv e Chemicals Table 4.8-1 identifies chemicals that are non-explosive and the references used.
Ta ble 4.8-1: N on-Exp.os1ve 1 . Chem1ca . 1s Chemical N rune Ref. Chemical Nrune Ref.
[Ref. 2.9.13]
Argon [Ref 2.9.2] Pesticides [Ref 2.9 .28]
Bisul:fites Aqueous Solutions [Ref. 2.9 .3] Phosphoric Acid [Ref 2.13]
Carbon Dioxide [Ref. 2.13] Potassic Fertilizer (Potash) [Ref. 2.9 .31]
Chlorine [Ref. 2.13] Potassium. Hydroxide [Ref. 2.13]
Serric Chloride Solution [Ref. 2.9.9] Sodium Chlorate [Ref. 2.9.36]
Ferrous Chloride Solution [Ref. 2.9.10] Sodium Hydroxide Solution [Ref. 2.9.37]
Fluorosilicic Acid [Ref. 2.9.11] Sodium Hydroxide [Ref. 2.13]
Hydrochloric Acid [Ref. 2.13] Sulfur Dioxide [Ref. 2.13]
Hydrogen Peroxide [Ref. 2.13] Sulfur, Molten [Ref. 2.9.22]
Hypochlorite Solutions [Ref. 2.9.15] Sulfuric Acid [Ref. 2.13]
Nitrogen [Ref. 2.9.25]
j
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 20 of71
- 4.9 Low Vapor Pressure Chemicals Table 4.9-1 identifies liquid chemicals with a low vapor pressure(< 10 mmHg at 100°F) and the references used.
Table 4.9-1: Chemicals with Low Vapor Pressure (< l OmmHg)
Vapor Vapor Pressure at I00°FCaJ Chemical Name Temp Pressure Units (atm) (mmHg) Ref.
I Ethanolarnine 2 l00°F 0.022 lbr/in 0.0015 1.1 [Ref. 2.9.23]
(Monoethanolamine)
Fuel Oil l00°F 0.100 lbr/in2 0.0068 5.2 !Ref. 2.9 .26]
HexanolCbJ ) l00°F 275 Pa 0.0027 2.1 [Ref. 2.14]
Kerosene l00°F 0.099 lbr/in2 0.0067 5.1 [Ref. 2.9.18]
Motor Oil l00°F 0.100 lbr/in2 0.0068 5.2 [Ref. 2.9.27]
2 Propylene Tetramer I20°F 0.022 lbr/in < 0.0015 < 1.1 [Ref. 2.9.33]
2 Toluene Diisocyanate , I30°F 0.004 lbr/in < 0.0003 <0.2 !Ref. 2.9.391 1'/"otes: ~
a) Pressure unit conversion [Ref 2.29]: Multiply lbr/in2 by 0.06805 to obtain atm; Multiply Pa by 9.8693 x 10*6 to obtain atm; Multiply atm by 760 to obtain mmHg b) For hexanol, vapor pressure (Pa) is derived using Perry as follows [Ref. 2.14, Table 2-8]:
ln(P) = 135.421 -12288/T- I5.732*ln(1) + l.270IE-17*T]; where T= 311 K (l00°F) 4.10 Miscellaneous Material Densities When determining the weighted-average density of all commodities shipped via vessel in Section 7.4, the following material densities are used [Ref. 2.28]:
Table 4.10-1: Miscellaneous Densities [Ref. 2.28]
Substance Specific Gravity Barytes 4.50 Clay, damp, plastic 1.76 Fats 0.97 Gypsum, alabaster 2.80 Iron slag 3.00 Lead 11.34 Oak, live 0.87 Paper 1.15 Petroleum 0.87 I Piastics 2.50 Portland cement 3.20 Potassic Pert. (Potash) 2.00*
Steel, cold-drawn 7.83
- [Ref. 2.9.31]
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 21 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 5.0 Assumptions and have a unifor m depth 5 .1 Liqui d leaks form a circular puddl e centered at the release point e area, and therefore the of 1 cm. Minimizing the puddl e depth maximizes the surfac with NURE G-057 0 [Ref. 2.5, evapo ration rate. A.1 cm minim um thiclmess is consistent p.5].
reach atmospheric pressu re 5 .2 When determining plume rise, it is assumed that the chemicals table becau se a release from a and temperature imme diatel y after the release. This is accep g, and quickly reach steady sourc e at a higher pressu re would have rapid turbul ent mixin re will be a liquid which conditions; and a release from a source at atmospheric pressu evaporates due to the wind, which would cause mixing.
gradie nt for Stability Class G 5.3 Table 4.2-1 in Input 4.2 does not list a maxim um temperature gradient is 8°C/100m. This weath er. It is assum ed that the maximum temperature in Table 4.2-1.
assum ption is based on the other temperature gradient values reasonable because the site is 5.4 Atmo spheri c pressu re is assum ed ta be 14.7 psia. This is adjace nt to the Colum bia River off the Pacific Ocean (Input 4.1).
oil (Input 4.9), iJ is assum ed 5.5 Based on the vapor pressu re of fuel oil, kerosene, and motor lt and other chemicals with that gas oil, lube oil, petrol eum crude oil, petroleum jelly, aspha 10 mm.Hg at 100°F.
petrol eum or oil in their name have a vapor pressure less than er of vesse l trips in a year and 5.6 For waterborne commerce, USAC E provides the total numb specific comm odity' s yearly the yearly mass shippe d for each commodity. However, a shipm ent quantities in terms of numb er of trips or mass per trip is not known. Thus, yearly hout the total nillI!-ber of mass are assumed to be evenly, distributed volumetrically throug trips in a year. See Sectio n 7.4 for more details.
to be stored at atmospheric
- 5. 7 Chem icals that are mode led as being liquids are assumed This will increase the initial temperatures (see AsslJIIlption 5.8 for exception of methane).
energy.
mass that flashes to vapor which maximizes coI).centration and at close to atmos pheric 5.8 Metha ne is transp orted via cargo ships condensed to a liquid 4.3) [Ref. 2.33]. Lique fied pressu re by cooling it to below its boiling point, -259°F (Input this analysis. Assum ing liquid metha ne is conservatively assUIT}.ed to be stored at -220°F in s to vapor which maxim izes at a highe r tempe rature increases the initial mass that flashe conce ntratio n and energy.
analyses, 86.91, is calcul ated 5.9 The molec ular *weight of gasoline that is used for dispersion molec ular weigh t of air per assum ing the relative vapor density is 3 (86.91 = 3
- 28.97, the the ideal gas law (defin ed in Input 4.3) and density is propo rtiona l to molecular weigh t per specified in Input 4.3 is Sectio n 6.2.1). Using the lowes t vapor density in the range to a smaller conve rsion from conservative because a smalle r molecular weigh t will lead 3 n (mg/m or. lbm/ft3). The volum e based conce ntratio n (ppm) to mass based concentratio es is assumed to be 4. This vapor density of gasoline used for stationary explosion analys
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 22 of71 maximizes the mass of vapor in a tank. The vapor pressure of gasoline is assumed to be 1 atm (14.7 psia) at I07°F (i.e., the normal boiling temperature at atmospheric pressure is assumed to be I07°F). This is consistent with the MSDS [Ref. 2.9.12] which states that the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline at I00°F is between 6 and 15 psia. The same vapor pressure assumption is used for naphtha. This is reasonable since the vapor pressure of naphtha at 70°F, 0.732 lbtlin2 (38 mmHg) [Ref. 2.9.24], is much less than the vapor pressure of gasoline at 20°C (68°F), 220-450 rnmHg [Ref. 2.9.12].
5.10 All chemicals are assumed to follow the ideal gas law (defmed in Section 6.2.1).
5.11 When determining the explosive pressure in an enclosed vapor cloud explosion for a chemical that is liquiq at atmospheric conditions and stored in a tank as a liquid, the mass of vapor is calculated assuming the entire volume of the tank is vapor at the UEL. This methodology is also applied for dust cloud explosions. This is conservative because it results in the largest possible amount of explosive mass. To simplify the analysis of the BNSF railcar vapor cloud explosions, UBL is ignored (i.e., a UEL of 100% is assumed);
this is further conservative since a vapor cloud explosion cannot actually occur if the entire tank is filled with vapor (the fuel-air ratio would be too rich).
)
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 23 of71 6.0 Methodology The major tasks in this calculation are:
- 1. Chemical screening of non-hazardous sources.
- 2. Calculating the explosive overpressure due to a chemical explosion.
- 3. Determining the concentration in relation to the LEL from a chemical vapor release that travels to the ISFSI site.
- 4. Performing a probabilistic analysis (as necessary) for hazardous chemicals that exceed the limits in the deterministic analysis.
6.1 Chemical Screening ofNon-Threat Sources The *first step of the analysis is to eliminate the non-hazardous chemicals being shipped via railcar and vessel. Chemicals can be screened out by meeting either of the following:
- 1. Material is non-explosive. _
- 2. Vapor pressure of liquid chemical is less than 10 mmHg (0.013 atm) at I00°F - Per Regulatory Guide 1.78 [Ref. 2.1, p.8], this is an acceptable screening criteria in the analysis of toxicity which is often on the order of parts per million (0.0001 %);
therefore, it is very Feasonable for explosion analyses since explosive limits are typically greater than a tenth of a percent (0.1 %).
In addition, chemicals that are bounded by instances of the same chemical both in terms of distance and mass are screened out.
From Assumption 5.5, gas oil, lube oil, petroleum crude oil, petroleum jelly, asphalt and other chemicals with petroleum or oil in their name have a vapor pressure less than 10 mmHg and are therefore screened out.
I Chemicals that cannot be screened out by the above methods are then analyzed using the methods described below.
6.2 Determination of the Explosive Overpressure due to a Chemical Explosion The explosive overpressure at the nearest ISFSI cask due to a chemical explosion is calculated using the following methods.
?
6.2. l TNT Equivalency The first method for calculating the explosive overpressure uses Regulatory Guide 1.91
[Ref. 2.2]. This method uses TNT equivalence, where the mass of chemical that is exploded is converted into an equivalent mass of TNT. The standoff distance is calculated using Equation 6.2-1 below [Ref. 2.2, p.3]. Transportatio:q routes and nearest approaches are identified in Input 4.6 and 4.7.
Rmin=Z*Wl/3 Eq. 6.2-1
S&L Calculation No.: 2017- 09306 Portland General Elect ric*- Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Projeet No.: 11354 -034 Page 24 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Where:
(ft) , -
, Rmin = Distance from explosion 113 Fig. l16.1 4] (Atta chment A)
Z= Scaled distance (ft/lbro ) [Ref. 2.26, W = Equivalent mass of TNT (lbm) I
[Ref. 2.26, p.3-325], the book For this calculation, the SFPE Fire Protection Handbook
] and NUREG-1805 [Ref. 2.54, Ex.plosion Hazards qnd Evaluation [Ref. 2.31, p.202 mass of TNT for vapor cloud p.15-10] provide methodology for the equivalent ences and Table B.3 of the FEMA explosions in Equation 6.2-2 below. From these refer 2.53, p.B-43], a yield of 0.1 is Handbook of Chemical Hazard .Analysis Procedures [Ref.
r cloud large explosion for the a conservative upper bound for an unconfined vapo ction Handbook states that some chemicals in this evaluation (note the SFPE Fire Prote however, large explosions are small explosions are estimated to have a yield of 0.01, of vapor confined in a tank, a yield those of interest in this analysis). For the explosion This TNT equivalence is then used of 1.0 is used perN URE G-18 05 [Ref. 2.54, p.15-9].
in Equation 6.2-1 above.
a*& IC *m W
TNT
= AH ~ Eq. 6.2-2 TNT Where:
a= Yield fraction (-) (see above) t 4,.3)
LlHc = Heat of combustion of the chemical (kJ/kg) (Inpu in a 'INT explo sion= 4500 k:J/kg per [Ref. 2.26, '
LlHmT= Heat of explosion/detonation p.3-325] [Ref. 2.31, p.143] [Ref. 2.54, p.15-10]
m= Mass of the chemical that is exploded (kg or lbro)
I mass of TNT is simply equaJ to
- For solid explosives in this evaluation, the equivalent fractions for the various solid the yield multiplied by the mass of the explosive. Yield explosives in this analysis are identified in Input 4.4.
t (NBP) chemicals, the mass of For vapor cloud explosions 0f normal boiling poin filled with vapor at the chemical's chemical exploded is the full volume of the container r vapor cloud explosions which DEL, with exception of the analysis of BNSF railca is assumed (Assumption 5.11).
conservatively ignores DEL, i.e., a DEL of 100%
site design minimum temperature Because density is higher at low temperatures, the explosive mass. Equations 24.45 (Input 4.2) is used in the ideal gas law to determine the for the ideal gas relation shown and 24.46 in MERM [Ref. 2.29] provide the basis below:
P-14 4-V m-~--~-
-(R0 !MW )*T Eq. 6.2-3 Where:
P = -Absolute pressure (psia) (Assumption 5.4)
r-------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-99306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 25 of71 V= Volume (ft3) 0 Ro= Universal gas constant= 1545 ft-lbtllbmoJ- R [Ref. 2.29]
MW= Molecular weight (lbm/lbmoI) (Input 4.3)
T= Temperature ( 0 R) = T°F +459.67° [Ref. 2.29] (Input 4.2)
For vapor cloud explosions of low boiling point (LBP) chemicals that are stored pressurized as liquefied gases (e.g., ammonia, methane, propane, etc.), the mass _of chemical exploded is equal to the mass that initially flashes to vapor upon release. In this case, factoring of the) UEL is not applied since it is inherent in the use of the yield fraction for an unconfined vapor cloud explosion, a = 0.1, as discussed above. The initial puff mass is found by multiplying the liquid (shipment) mass by the expansion mass quality, x (see Section 6.2.3 for the mass quality derivation). Alternatively, the initial puff mass can be found by the product of the liquid mass and the flashing fraction, Fi (see Section 6.3.2.2 for the flashing fraction calculation).
For solid explosives, the mass of the chemical is simply equal to the shipment mass.
6.2.1.1 Heat of Combustion Alternative Calculation For the chemicals butyl acrylate, 1,1-difluoroethane, ethylene glycol diethyl ether, and 1-methoxy-2-propanol, documented heats of combustion could not be found.
Therefore, the heat of combustion (kJ/kg) is calculated using the following relationship for a chemical of composition CcHhOoNn (where c ~ n + o) [Ref. 2.36]:
AHc =[ 418-(c~h-O.So) *lOOO}(l+/-o-)
Eq. 6.2-4 Where:
MW= Molecular weight of chemical (g/mol) (Input 4.3) a-= Standard deviation= 3.1 % per [Ref. 2.36] /
6.2.2 Combustible Dust Explosive overpressure is also calculated for solids that are identified as combustible in dust form. Evaluation of combustible dust_ clouds is inherently conservative since a small explosion must first occur to result in dust becoming airborne [Ref. 2.31, p.190].
This dust would then serve as the fuel source for a second explosion. The combustible dust mass and resulting explosion overpressure are related using Equation 70.5 from the SFPE Handbook Fifth Edition [Ref. 2.2 7, p.2 774]:
Eq. 6.2-5 Where:
Mexp = Dust mass (kg)
Pes = Overpressure due to blast wave (bar)
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.:* 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page26 of71 DLF= Dynamic load factor(-)= 1.5 (conservativ3e) per [Ref. 2.27, p.2774]
Cw= Minimum flammable concentration (kg/m ) (Input 4.3)
Pm== Maximum explosion pressure (bar) (Input 4.5) 3 3 Vi= Blast volume (m ) = (2/3)nR = volume of a hemisphere - representing the blast zone from an explosion on a horizontal plane (e.g., at ground level or water surface level) - with radius, R (m), equal to the standoff distance from the deto'nation source 7JD= Entrainment fraction(-) = 0.25 per [Ref. 2.27, p.2774]
For dust cloud explosions, the mass of chemical exploded is the full volume of the container filled with dust at the chemical's UEL (Assumption 5.11).
6.2.3 Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor,Explosion The vessel rupture blast wave generated during a BLEVE is characterized by the energy released in the fluid expansion from the vessel rupture pressure to atmospheric pressure.
- This energy is given by Equation 3-14 of the SFPEHandbook [Ref 2.26, p;3-327]:
Eq. 6.2-6 Where:
Ee= Blast wave energy for fluid expansion (kJ or Btu) m = Mass of fluid in the storage vessel (kg or Ihm)
Ur = Fluid internal energy at rupture conditions (kJ/kg or Btu/lbm)
Ua = Fluid internal energy after expansion (kJ/kg or Btu/lbm)
The mass of fluid is conservatively computed based on the vessel volume and the density of saturated liquid at atmospheric pressure, even though the liquid storage temperature is greater than the normal boiling point temperature, and the liquid density decreases with increasing temperature. The initial internal energy, ur, is taken as that of saturated liquid at the ambient temperature.
The expansion process is modeled as occurring isentropically, and thermodynamic data are used to determine the mass fraction of liquid which expands to vapor. The initial entropy of the liquid at the time of tank rupture is denoted by Sr. The entropy of the liquid-vapor mixture after expansion is s2* Since the expansion process is isentropic, by definition Sr = s2. * \..
The entropy of any single-component two-phase mixture is given by *Equations 24.41 and 24.36 of MERM [Ref. 2.29] as:
Eq. 6.2-7 where x is the mass qual1ty, and the f and g subscripts refer respectively to saturated liquid and vapor. For expansion to atmospheric pressure, the entropy of saturated liquid and saturated vapor are known. The fraction of initial liquid mass which flashes to
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation
- Page 27 of 71 vapor can be determined from the following relation, using the known initial entropy of the single-phase liquid.
Eq. 6.2-8
~olving for the mass quality gives: \
Sr -Sf x=--"-
sg -sf Eq. 6.2-9 To maximize the value of x, the value of Sr is conservatively taken as that of saturated liquid at the ambient temperature, even though the chemical may be stored in insulated tanks.
Once the mass quality is determined, the internal energy of the isentropically expanded liquid-vapor ~ e , ua, can be determined according to the following relation:
Eq. 6.2-10 With ua computed, the value of Ee can be calculated and the blast wave overpressure determined through conversion to equivalent mass of TNT and the use of the scaled distance parameter as described in Section 6.2.1.
6.3 Traveling Vapor Cloud Explosion For chemicals that pose an explosive hazard due to a traveling vapor cloud, the concentration of the vapor resulting from a chemical release is to be analyzed. Regulatory Guide 1.78 [Ref. 2.1] and NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5] describe the methods for evaluation.
The standoff distance is defined as the distance where the concentration of the :flammable vapor at the location of the cask is just less than the LEL. Note that an unconfined vapor cloud explosion would not generate sufficient overpressure to damage the cask. If the concentration of the flammable vapor is above the LEL at the cask location, a damaging detonation could occur at the ISFSI.
- An important component of calculating the vapor cloud concentration is accounting for atmospheric dispersion downwind of the chemical leak. Dispersion causes the vapor to become less concentrated with distance. When calculating atmospheric dispersion, conservative meteorological conditions are used. The worst case wind speed must be found iteratively. A low wind speed may be conservative in some cases while a high wind speed may be more conservative in others because of the effects of meander (see below for more details on meander). As specified in Regulatory Guide 1.78 [Ref. 2.1, p.4], the worst case weather conditions that are exceeded less than 5% of the year will be used.
There are two methodologies that can be followed in order to determine the concentration following a release. Firs~ the entire mass of the chemical can be analyzed as being
S&L Calc;_ulation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 28 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation ion of the initial puff may occur releas ed as a vapor all at once. This is a puff release. Dilut to air entrainment. Second, if the if gases are stored under pressure prior to release due iner and evaporate over time. If the chemical is stored as a liquid, it can spill from its conta instantly flash to vapor in an initial chemical has been pressurized, some of the mass may e is more conservative because puff.* Combined, this is a puff-plume release. A puff releas ical concentration is calcu lated the peak concentration of chemical is higher. The chem discussed in the following sections.
using Math cad [Ref. 2.40] based on the methodology ls, whic h are docum ented in Addi tiona l discussion is included in the Math cad mode Appe ndice s 4 and 6.
6.3.1 PuffRelea se and Dispersion and the subse quent dispersion of The proce dure and equations describing a puff release
[Ref. 2.1] and NUR EG-0 570 the vapo r cloud come from Regulatory Guide 1.78
[Ref. 2.5].
onal dispersion. The calculation As a vapor cloud travels with the wind, there is additi ill Atmo spher ic Stability Class.
for this dispersion uses constants depending on the Pasqu 1.145 [2.3] and EPA- 454/B -
Using the methods and equations from Regulatory Guide rsion is obtained:
95-003b [Ref. 2.4], the following equation for lateral dispe crhi = [465. 1162 f(x)*t an(TH )].3.2 81 Eq. 6.3-1 TH=0.017453293 * [c-d -ln(x)] Eq. 6.3-2 And for vertical dispersion:
CYvi = [a*Xb ].3.28 1 For CYvi < 5000 m Eq. ?-3-3 O"vi =500 0*3.2 81 For CYvi 2:= soop m Eq. 6.3-4 Where:
x= Distance from release to evaluation point (km) crhi = Later al dispersion standard deviation (ft) o;,i = Vertical dispersion standard deviation (ft) a, b, c, d= Stability class coeff icient s(-) [Ref. 2.4]
above from EPA- 454/B 0 03b The stability class coefficients used in the equations For Stability Class G weather,
[Ref. 2.4] are only applicable for Stability Classes A-F.
(jhi is the value for Stabi lity Class F multi plied by 2/3, and (jvi is the value for Stability Class F multiplied by 3/5 [Ref..2.3].
follow ing equations [Ref. 2.5, For this analysis, the dispersion is calculated using the p.18]:
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 29 of71 Eq. 6.3-5 Eq. 6.3-6 1/3 cri =[ ~ ]
(ft) Eq. 6.3-7 21t3Pv
\..
Where:
Q = Total amount of mass released (lbro)
Pv = Gas vapor density (lbro/ft3)
O"i = Initial dispersion due to the expansion of pressurized gas Equation 6.3-7 only applies to puff releases, for plume releases, Equation 6.3-23 is used.
The dispersion is_ then put into coordinates where x is along the wind direction, y is horizontal and perpendicular to the wind direction, and z is vertical, as shown below.
Eq. 6.3-8 Eq. 6.3-9 The Gaussian diffusion model for puff of vapor results in the following equation for the chemical concentration in lbrolft3 at the point of interest [Ref. 2.5, p.18] [Ref. 2.32, p.115]:
x,.,(x,y,z,h)- (
21£
)'_p (J"xCJ"/J'z
.J- (< +
12 1
(J"x
<J}{exj-l (J"y ' 2 (z-:YJ+exj-l (z+fYJ}
(J"z ' 2 (J"z Eq. 6.3-10 Where:
X = X0 - U-t (ft) x, y, z = Distance from the puff center (ft)
U= Wind speed (ft/s) t= Time (s) x0 = Initial distance of release from point of interest (ft) h= Height elevation of source (ft)
Note Equation 6.3-10 is taken from Equation 3 .154 of Slade [Ref. 2.32], since there is an error in the exponent of 1T: in NUREG-0570, Eq. 2.2-1. Since the vapor cloud is taken as traveling in a straight line from the source, the center-line co~centration of the cloud is obtained by setting y = 0, per the recommendation of NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5, p.19].
This time dependent centerline concentration is then used to determine the time dependent chemical concentration.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Proje.ct No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 30 of71 6.3.2 Plume Release and Dispersion The equations describing a plume release come from NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5J. This describes how a liquid puddle evaporates and how the vapor dissipates as it travels with the wind.
6.3.2.1 Spill Area A released liquid quickly spreads by gravity from its initial shape into a thin pool on the ground. The surface area of the pool as a function of time is defmed by the following expression from NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5, p.4]:
Eq. 6.3-11 Where:
ro= ( J~
Initial radius of the spill= m 0 lrPz (ft) m0 = Initial mass of chemical that is spilled (lbm) g= Gravitational acceleration (ft/s2) 3 3 Vo= Volume of the spill, 1er0 (ft )
3 pi= Density of the liquid (lbm/ft )
3 Pa= Density of the air (lb~/ft )
t= Time (s)
The surface area is limited. to the smaller value corresponding to the volume at a thickness of 1 cm (Assumption 5 .1) or the berm area, if applicable. The corresponding maximum diameter of the spill, provided there is not a berm, will therefore be:
D2 s V A =11:--=--
max 4 th .
mm Eq. 6.3-12 Where:
Amax= Area of the spill (fr')
Ds = Diameter of the spill (ft)= .J4A/Jr 3
V= Volume of the spill (ft )
thmm = Thickness of the puddle= 1 cm (converted to ft) 6.3.2.2 Source Strength of Low Boiling Point (LBP) Liquids If the chemical that is spilled is stored or transported as a sub-cooled or pressurized liquid, some of the chemical will immediately flash to gas and some will spill onto
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 31 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation release. The the ground and boil off. This results in a combined puff-plume 0 [Ref. 2.5]
equations used to determine the mass release rate are from NUREG-057 and are shown below. '
produc t of the The liquid mass that initially flashes to vapor, Q, is given by the flashing fraction, Fi, and the initial mass M [Ref. 2.5, p.5]:
-Tb) hfa -hfb F; = c/Ta. = ~---' --
Eq. 6.3-13 hfg hfg Where: , (
0 Cp = Chemi cal specifi c heat (Btullbm- R) 0 Ta = Ambie nt temperature ( R) 0 Tb = Chemical boiling temperature at one atmosphere ( R) hta = Chemi cal liquid enthalpy at storage conditions (Btu/lbm) hfb = Chemical liquid tinthalpy at 1 atm and boiling temperature (Btu/lbm) htg = Chemi cal latent heat of vaporization (Btu/lbm)
Eq. 6.3-14 Where:
Q = Mass initially flashed to vapor (lbm)
M = Total mass of stored liquid (lbm) source streng th The initial mass release is used in Equation 6.3-10. The continuous spill due to various heat is determined by calculating the boil-off of the liquid ds of heat transfer mechanisms. Per NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5], the three metho convection, and transfer that should be considered in an analysis are conduction, radiation.
is determ ined The conductive heat flux between the earth and the chemical puddle using the following relation [Ref. 2.5, p.8]:
Eq. 6.3-15 Where: 2 qa= Rate of conduction heat transfer (cal/m -s) ke = Therm al conductivity of the earth (cal/m-s-K)
Te= Temperature of the earth (K)
Tb= Boiling temperature of the chemical puddle (K) t= Time after spill (s) 3 Pe = Densit y of the earth (grn/m )
Cpe= Specific heato fthe earth(cal/gm-K)
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034. ,
Page 32 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation on reduce s to:
Using values presented in NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5], the above equati J
. Eq. 6.n-16 puddle and the time This heat flux is then multiplied by the surface area of the nt of heat transferred allowed for heat transfer to take place. This results in the amou to the puddle for the time period considered (in calories).
studies, which are The convective rate of heat transfer q0 is derived from empirical summari~ed in NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5]. For a wind2 speed of 1 mis at 21 °C (70°F),
Equation 2.1-6 on the convective heat transfer coefficient is 1.6 cal/m -s-K. From with wind speed to page 8 of NUREG-0570, the convective heat transfer scales the wind speed for this the 0.6th power. The convective heat transfe; is scaled by by multiplying this analysis. The heat transfer due to convection is determined rature differential coefficient _1,y the surface 'area of the chemical spill, the tempe between ambient air and the spill, and the time step used.
um heat flux value For the rate of heat transfer due to radiation qr, the maxim corresponds to the of275 cal/m -s is used, per NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5]. This 2
at 30° North latitude.
maximum measured radiative heat flux at noon on a sunny day heat flux to yield This coefficient is multiplied by the same factors as the conductive the overall heat transfer due to solar radiation, in calories.
(Btu/f r-s), the total With conversion of heat transfer rates to British units vaporization rate becomes [Ref. 2.5]:
Q= A(t) * (qa + qc + q,)
H,, Eq. 6.3-17 Where:
Q = Continuous source strength (lbrr/s)
A(t) = Spill area as a function of time (fr)
Hv = Heat of vaporization (Btu/lbm)
)
s 6.3.2.3 Source Strength ofNor mal Boiling Point (NBP) Liquid r than the ambient The continuous source strength for pools with boiling points greate of the liquid spill by temperature is determined by calculating the evaporation rate forced convection, per NUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5, p.12].
begin to decrease As the spill volume is depleted due to evaporation, the area will
' rate is highest for from its maximum computed value. Note that the evaporation rature is used for this higher temperatures, therefore, the site design maximum tempe pool volume while analysis (Input 4.2). The area is updated based on the remaining
. ')
/
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 33 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 2.5, p.12], with turbu lent main tainin g the 1 cm thickness. From NUR EG-0 570 [Ref.
flow conditions, the mass transfer, coefficient is given by:
Eq. 6.3-18 Where:
hd= Mass transfer coeff icient (ft/s)
D = Diffusion: coefficient for liquid chemical to air (fi?-/s)
Ds = Diam eter of the spill area (ft)
Re = Reynolds numb er (-)
Sc = Schm idt numb er (-)
icient is taken as a wors t case Per NUR EG-0 570 [Ref. 2.5, p.10], the diffusion coeff olds numb er used above are value of 0.2 cm /s. The Schmidt numb er and the Reyn 2
defin ed as:
____ Eq. 6.3-19 Re=
Ds *U*pa *1- -
µ gc Eq. 6.3-20 Where:
µ = Abso lute viscosity of air (lbr-s/ft')
u = Velocity of the wind (ft/s) gc = Gravitational const ant (lbm.-ft/lbr-s2) mined using the following The rate of evaporation of the liquid chemical is then deter from NUR EG-0 570 [Ref. 2.5, p.12]:
. Eq. *6.3-21 Where:
Q = Mass evaporation rate (lbm/s)
M= Mole cular Weig ht of the chemical (lbm/lbmoi)
Ps = Saturation vapor press ure at ambient temperature (psf)
Pa = Exist ing partia l press ure of the chem0ical in the air (psf)
Ru= Univ ersal Gas Cons tant (ft-lbr/lbmor- R)
Amb ient Temp eratu re ( R) 0
- Ta =
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 34 of71 6.3.2.4 Plume Dispersion The dispersion equation for a continuous plume release with a finite initial volume is given by Equation*2.2-9 ofNUREG-0570 [Ref. 2.5, p.19], as the following:
- (x,y,z,h)= (!- exp{-l(y
- J}{exp(-1 (z-:YJ+exp(-1 (z+:YJ}
2 2trUCJ"y(Yz 2 CJ"y 2 CJ"z CY2 Eq. 6.3-22 An initial dispersion is also. taken into account because the evaporation release rate for .the plume is assumed to come from a point source. Similar to Equation 6.3-7, the initial dispersion for a plume can be derived by setting the distance of the release to zero and solving Equation 6.3-22 for the density of the chemical.
\
-[_k_]!/2 (J". -
Pvt.U Eq. 6.3-23, As cited in NUREG/CR-2260 [Ref. 2.7], the effluent concentrations measured at low wind speeds.are usually substantially lower than those predicted using the Pasquill dispersion coefficients. The reduced concentrations are due primarily to enhanced horizontal spreading of the plume as it meanders over a large area. This meandering produces Oj, values that are much larger than those obtained using the Pasquill
- constants. To account for this effect, use is made of a meander factor, MJ, which modifies the value of Oj, to include the lateral plume spread due to meander, 0* The value of Ly is calculated in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145 [Ref. 2.3] and NUREG/CR-2260 [Ref. 2.7, p.II-9], as:
For distances :S 800 m .Eq. 6.3-24 For distances> 800 m Eq. 6.3-26 The meander factor i~ a function of wind speed and atmospheric stability class. The value of M.r is a constant for* wind speeds less than 2.0 mis, and decreases to a minimum value of 1.0 at a wind speeH of 6 mis. The me'ander factor is determined from Figurv 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.145 [Ref. 2.3].
Regulatory Guid6' 1.145 [Ref. 2.3, p.3] provides equations for ground-level relative concentration at the plume centerline with credit for plume meander as:
(
Eq. 6.3-26
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 35 of71 Where:
U1o = Wind speed at 10m above plant grade This equation for a ground-level conc~ntration with meander is created by setting z, h, and y equal to zero in Eq. 6.3-22 and replacing ay with :Ey. For an above ground release, Eq. 6.3-22 is only modified by replacing ay with Ey, giv~ng the equation for plume concentration with meander, Eq. 6.3-27.
Eq. 6.3-27 6.3.3 Puff-Plume Combination In this calculation, where a mass of liquid evaporates off over time, the puff and plume analysis methodology is combined into an integrated puff method. In this method, the mass release rate over a given time step is released as a single puff. All of the concentrations for each puff are then added together to come up with the concentration at any given point. Because of this, Equation 6.3-10 is used with the dispersion coefficients accountin,g for meander, as used in Equation 6.3-27.
- Any benefit from plume rise for gases that are lighter than air is ignored in this evaluation except for in the analysis of vessel shipments of methane, in which case, the value of h in Eq. 6.3-10 is replaced by z, the height of the ISFSI storage casks (Input 4.1), per the guidance in NUREG-0570 !_Ref. 2.5, p.19]. This effectively places the plume centerline at the same elevation as the cask height to include the additional benefit for vertical dispersion.
- 6.4 Probabilistic Analysis For transported chemicals that do not meet the acceptance criteria from the above deterministic analyses, a probabilistic analysis is used. Probabilistic analysis is necessary for several vessel explosions hazards in this evaluation. The p'urpose of a probabilistic analysis is to show that the frequency of a hazard is less than 1o- hazards per year, based 6
on Regulatory Guide 1.91 I_Ref 2.2, p.6]. In addition, the Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 Section 2.2.3 !_Ref. 2.6], states that a hazard occurring with a probability of 10-7 per year, or greater, is a design basis event when accurate data is used. If data are not available to make an accurate estimate, a hazard is a design basis event if the probability of occurrence is greater than 1o- per year provided qualitative arguments can 6
be made to show the realistic probability is lower. For this analysis, a rate of a hazard for each vessel trip is calculated. This rate is then used to determine a number of allowable shipments of each chemical. The number of allowable shipments is compared to the actual number of shipments in order to determine if the hazard is of acceptably low probability.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-0 9306 Portland Genera l Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354- 034 Page 36 of71 Offsite Transp ortation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 6.4.1 Allowable Number of Vessel Trips es running many The process for determining the allowable number of vessel trips involv hazard for each case. Each case deterministic cases and summing the frequency of a a
involves picking set of parameters, for example, Pasquill Stability Class E with a wind Each of these speed of 0.76 mph and a spill of 50,000 liquid gallons of chemical.
eters, a standoff parameters has a specific probability of occurrence. Using these param neares t distance of the distance is determined. If the standoff distance is less than the
. If the standoff transportation route to the site, then that case does not pose a hazard to the site, the distance is more than the nearest distance from the transportation route calcula ted using
- case does pose a hazard. For each case, the rate of a hazard is Equation 6.4-1.
Rhaz == pspill
- Racctdent
- pweather
- Dtrip Eq. 6.4-1 Where:
Rhaz = Rate of hazards per vessel trip near the site (hazardous -spills/trip)
P spill= Probability of the spill size (spills/accident)
Racciden t = Rate of accidents (accidents/vessel mile) ions at the site)
Pweather = Adverse wind direction probability (hazardous weather condit past the Dmp = Hazardous trip length, the total number of miles that a vessel travels (vessel site each trip where an accident could result in a hazardous condition miles/trip)
/
ation provided in The probability of the spill size is taken from U.S: Coast Guard inform a spill of a given the :MISLE database [Ref. 2.49]. The value used is the probability of vative than the probability of a
- size given that a spill has occurred. This is more conser in a spill (i.e.,
spill of a given siz*e given an accident because not all accidents will result used for this vessel grounding). See, Section 7.3 for more detail on the values probability. i-The rate of accidents is taken from NURE G/CR-6624 [Ref. 2.8, p.9]. The rate of an 6 analysis, barge accident per barge mile is 1.8 x 10- accidents per mile. For this The WASH -1238 value is used accidents rates are used for v;essel accident rates.
to which other because they are identified in NUREG/CR-6624 as the primary source accident rates are compared.
r parameters The probability of adverse wind1directions is dependent on both the weathe is used to determ ine which and the standoff distance calculated. The standoff distance wind directions will blow the spill toward the site.
on the standoff The distance that a vessel travels past the site is measured based 2.38] are used to distance. The NOAA nautical chart; [Ref. 2.45] and Google Earth [Ref.
along the Colum bia River determine the route a vessel will take as it travels and Cotton wood (Input 4.7.1). Per the NOAA chart, the vessel follows the Kalama
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 37 of71 Island Ranges which are marked by buoys. For the probability analysis, the vessels are modeled as remaining in the route defined on the NOAA chart.
This process is repeated- for all possible combinations of parameters. Some combinations are not included explicitly because they are bounded_ by other cases. For example, as the Stability Class letter goes toward A, the release will disperse more and be less of a hazard. *Therefore, if Class F is acceptable at a given spill size, then Class E will also be acceptable and does not need to be analyzed.
The rate of a hazard for each case is summed to determine the total rate of a hazard.
The total number of allowable trips is calculated using Equation 6.4-2:
T _ 10-6 (hfl.Zards /year) allowable - LRhaz Eq. 6.4-2 Where:
Ta11owable = Allowable number of trips (trips/year) 1o- =
6 Total allowable number of hazards per year per Reg. Guide 1.91 6.4.2 Prescott Anchorage The Presscott anchorage boundaries are identified in CFR Title 33 §110.228(11)
[Ref. 2.10] with location shown on NOAA Chart #18524 [Ref. 2.45]. Per CFR Title 33
§110.228(11), no vessel carrying a Cargo of Particular Hazard identified in CFR Title 33
§126.10 [Ref. 2.11] (which includes Division 1.1 and 1.2 *explosives) may occupy the anchorage without permission from the Captain of the Port.
Additionally, the following characteristics of the Prescott Anchorag e serve to minimize any increase in accident probability:
/ 1. Probability of collision accidents is not increased by ships using the anchorage due to the positi<;m of the anchorage outside of the channel. Additionally, per the Columbia River Anchorage Guidelines [Ref. 2.51], the Prescott anchorage is provided with a stem buoy to prevent the anchored vessef from swinging into the channel.
- 2. Probability of groundings is similarly not increased by the anchorage since the anchorage position is deep. The Lower Columbia Region Harbor Safety Committee characterizes the risk of grounding in this anchorage as "low" [Ref. 2.51]. The depth of the position is listed as 52-ft to over 65-ft which can safely accommodate
)
fully laden vessels. *
- 3. Probability of allisions is not increased by the anchorage since there are*no fixed objects within the anchorage position.
In general, no new types of accidents are created by the Prescott anchorage since the use of other anchorage positions is already included in river accident statistics.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 38 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation may use the Prescott Per the Ancho rage Guidelines [Ref. 2.51], a fully laden vessel of the Captain of the Port.
anchorage for no longer than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> witho ut permission I
than seven days. No Other vessels would normally stay at the anchorage for no more days witho ut a permit vessel may occupy the anchorage for more than 30 consecutive used 25 times in 2016, from the Captain of the Port. The Presco tt anchorage was g docks along the river prima rily for empty v~ssels awaiting a berth at one of the loadin
,- )
(Input 4.7.3).
at the Prescott anchorage is To demonstrate that the probability of a hazardous explosion
-walled chemical tank negligible, consider the following: The failure rate for a single in the entire contents being is 1 x 1o-4 releases pet year where 10% of those result ical Hazar d Analysis spilled instantaneously, per the FEMA Handbook of Chem
- frequency for a single-Procedures [Ref. 2.53, p.11-36].5 Therefore, the complete spill able because it is likely .
walle d chemical tank is 1 x 10"
- Using this spill rate is reason materials, are more robust that tanks on vessels, particularly tanks of highly combustible used 25 times in 2016, than a single-walled tank. Per Input 4. 7.3, the anchorage was that use the anchorage are prima rily for empty vessels. Consider 10% of the vessels carrying explosive cargo -
loade d, Of those loaded vessels, 31.4% are considered to be hazar d annual trips (12,218 this percentage is found by dividing the sum of all explosive (38,905 trips, taken from trips, see Section 7.4) by the totarn umbe r of trips in a year years of USAC E data in 2012 which had the lowest total number of trips in the ten eight hours. and that all Input 4. 7 .2). Assum ing that the average anchorage time is l explosion :frequency is hazardous spills lead to an explosion, the anchorage annua calculated to be:
1 x 10-s spill . 25 vs! . l 0% vs!loaded
- 31.4 % vs!haz *
- 8 _!i!__ . _1_ yr = 7.17 x 10*9 yr yr vsl vslloaded vslhaz 8766 hr probability of site damage This anchorage hazard probability is negligible in 19-e total from offsite explosion hazards.
6.4.3 Actua l Numb er of Vessel Trips however, data from the The actual numb er of vessel trips of each chemical is unknown; collec ted that is used to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) [Ref. 2.46] has been Data from the USAC E is provid e an estimate for the numb er of trips (Input 4.7.2).
USAC E data includes reviewed for the ten most current years (2006-2015). The yearly mass shipped for information on the total number of vessel trips in a year and the numb er of shipments for
- each commodity. See Section 7.4 for the calculation of the each chemical.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 39 of71 7.0* Numeric Analysis 7 .1 Rail Chemicals -
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) identified the following list of commodities that were shipped on their railroad near the Trojan ISFSI site in 2016 (Input 4.6.2) - only the commodities with shipments greater than zero are analyzed in this evaluation. Several of the commodities are non-explosive and screen away immediately. See Input 4.8 for non-explosive commodities that are not intuitive by name such as fire extinguishers and vehicle parts (defueled). Other commodities like fuel oil and petroleum crude oil have low vapor pressures (< 10 mmHg) and screen away (see Input 4.9 and Assumption 5.5). Some commodities are bounded by other chemical analyses. The type of explosion analysis is indicated for the commodities that do not screen away. Explosive chemical vapors are analyzed for both stationary and traveling vapor cloud explosions (VCE). If the chemical is normally stored as a pressurized liquid - has a low boiling point (< 107°F) per Input 4.3
- then it is also analyzed for a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). Solid explosives are analyzed as stationary explosions only.
- Table 711 . - : Commod"f11es Transportedb,y Ra"l1 near the Tro1an . ISFSI s*t I e Commodity Disposition Commoditv Disposition Hazardous Waste, Solid, Bounded(a) 1, 1-Difluoroethane Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
N.O.S.
1-Methoxy-2-Propanol Analyze (VCE) Heptanes Analyze (VCE)
Acetaldehyde Analyze(VCE,BLEV E) Hexanols Low Vapor Pressure Hydrocarbons, Liquid, Analyze as Vinyl Chloride Acetic Acid, Glacial Analyze (VCE) (VCE, BLEVE)
N.O.S.
Acetone Analyze (VCE) Hydrochloric Acid Non-Exolosive
\ Analyze due to Sodium Alcoho).ic Beverages Non-Explosive Hydrogen Shipment (VCE)
Analyzed as Methanol / Hydrogen Peroxide, Alcohols, N.O.S. Non-Explosive Ethanol Aqueous Solutions Hydrogen Peroxide, Ammonia, Anhydrous Analyze (VCE, BLEVE) Non-Explosive Stabilized Ammonium Nitrate Analyze (Stat. Expl. only) Hypochlorite Solutions Non-Explosive Ammonium Nitrate Based Analyze (Stat. Expl. only) Isobutane Analyze (VCE, BLEVE) '*
Fertilizer Argon, Refrigerated Liquid Non-Explosive Isobutylene Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
Benzene Analyze (VCE) -Isoprene, Stabilized Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
Bisulfites, Aqueous Isopropanol
') Analyze (VCE) (
Non-Explosive Solutions, N.O.S.
Butane Analyze (VCE, BLEVE) Isopropyl Acetate Analyze (VCE)
Butanols Analyze (VCE) Lithium Battery Analyze (Stat. Expl. only)
Butyl Acrylates, Stabilized Analyze (VCE) Methanol Analyze (VCE)
Butvlene. Analyze (VCE, BLEVE) Methyl Chl01ide Analvze(VCE,BLEV E)
Butvraldehvde Analvze (VCE) Nitrogen, Compressed Non-Exnlosive Carbon Dioxide, N-Propanol Analyze (VCE)
Non-Explosive Refrigerated Liquid C;rrbon Disulfide Analyze (VCE) Octanes Analyze (VCE)
Other,,Regulated Substances, Bounded(a)
Chlmine Non-Explosive Liquid, N.O.S.
Combustible Liquid, N.0.S. Boundela) Pentanes Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page40 of71 Commodity Disposition Commodity Disposition Corrosive Liquid, Acidic, Pesticide, Liquid, Toxic, Bounded<a)
Bounded(a)
Inorganic, N.O.S. - Flammable, N.0.S.
Corrosive Liquid, Acidic, Bounded(a) Petroleum Crude Oil Low Vapor Pressure Organic, N.O.S.
Corrosive Liquid, Basic, Bounded(a) Petroleum Distillates, N.O.S. Analyze (VCE)
Inorganic, N.O.S.
Corrosive Liquid, Basic, Petroleum Gases, Liquefied AnalyzeCb) (VCE, BLEVE)
Boundela)
Organic, N.O.S. or Liquefied Petroleum Gas Corrosive Liquids, Bounded(a) Phenol, Molten Analyze (VCE)
Flammable, N.O.S.
Corrosive Liquids, N.O.S. Bounded(a) Phosphoric Acid Solution Nori-Explosive Corrosive Liquids, Toxic, Potassium Hydroxide, Non-Explosive Bounded(a)
N.O.S. Solution Dichloromethane Analvze (VCE, BLEVE) Propane Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
Diesel Fuel Analyze (VCE) Propylene Analyze (VCE, BLEVE)
Elevated Temperature Bounded<a) Propylene Tetramer Low Vapor Pressure Liauid, Flammable, N.O.S.
Radioactive Material, Elevated Temperature Non-Explosive . Transported Under Special Non-Explosive Liquid, N.O.S. AlTangement '
Engines, Internal Radioactive Material, Type Non-Explosive Non-Explosive B(U) Package Combustion Environmentally Hazardous Bounded<a) Resin Solution Analyze (VCE)
Substances, Liquid, N.O.S. \
Environmentally Hazardous Bounded(a) Rocket Motors Non-Explosive Substances, Solid, N.O.S.
Analyze (VCE; contact w/
Ethanol Analyze (VCE) Sodium water forms Hvdrogen)
Ethanol and Gasoline Analyzed as Ethanol / Sodium Borohydride and Non-Explosive Mixture Gasoline Sodium Hydroxide, Solution Ethanolamine Low Vapor Pressme Sodium Chlorate Non-Explosive Ethylene Glycol Diethyl Analyze (VCE) Sodium Hydroxide Solution Non-Explosive Ether FAK-Hazardous Materials Bounded(a) Styrene Monomer, Stabilized Analyze (VCE)
Ferric Chloride, Solution Non-Explo sive Sulfur Dioxide Non-Explosive Ferrous Chloride,So lution Non-Explo sive Sulfur, Molten Non-Explo sive Fire Extinguishers Non-Exnlosive Sulfuric Acid Non-Explo sive Flammable Liquids, N.O.S. Bounded<a) Sulfuric Acid, Spent Non-Exnlosive Flammable Liquids, Toxic, Bounded(a) Tetrahydrofuran Analyze (VCE)
N.O.S. \..
Fluorosilicic Acid Non-Exnlosive Toluene Analyze (VCE)
Fuel Oil Low Vapor Pressure Toluene Diisocyanat (l Low Vapor Pressure Fuel, Aviation, Tmbine Analyzed as Gasoline Vinyl Acetate, Stabilized Analyze (VCE)
Engine Gas Oil Low Vapor Pressure Xylenes Analyze (\VCE) -
Gasoline Analyze (VCE) '
Notes:
all kinds) a) Unless specified otherwise, because generic N.O.S. (not oth~rwise specified) and FAK (freight are not explicitly stated, they are considered to be bounded by more hazardous/e xplosive materials that materials are analyzed. '
b) Liquefied petroleum gas is analyzed as propane for BLEVE & travelling VCE.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 41 of71 The only analyzed chemical transported on the Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR) near the Trojan ISFSI site is ethanol shipments for the Global Partners Port Westward industrial park located in Clatskanie, OR (Input 4.6.4). The ethanol shipments are f111alyzed for both stationary and travelling vapor cloud explosions.
Railcar commodity shipment weights are not provided. Therefore, the BNSF (4-axle) railcar gross weight restriction of 286,000 Ihm is used (Input 4.6.3). This is conservative as maximum cargo capacity is much less than t~e gross railcar weight.
7 .2 Vessel Chemicals Data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) [Ref. 2.46] is used to determine the commodities that are transported on the Columbia River (Input 4.7.2). Most of these commodities are non-explosive and screen away immediately. See Input 4.8 for non-explosive commodities that are not intuitive by name such as fruit and steel. Other commodities like kerosene* and crude oil have low vapor pressures (< IO mm.Hg) and screen away (see Input 4.9 and Assumption 5.5). Table 7.2-1 shows the complete list of commodities and the first disposition of each of them.
- Table 7.2-1 : Commo d"f 11es Transpo rtedb>Y V esseI near the Tro1an. ISFSI s*t 1e Commoditv<aJ Disposition Commoditv<aJ Disposition Acyclic Hydrocarbons Analyze Marine Shells Non-Explosive Aircraft & Parts Non-Explosive Meat, Fresh, Frozen Non-Exnlosive Alcoholic Beverages Non-Exnlosive Meat, Prepared Non-Explosive Alcohols Analyze Medicines Non-Explosive Aluminum* Non-Exnlosive
- Metallic Salts Non-Explosive Aluminum Ore Non-Exnlosive Misc. Mineral Prod. Non-Exnlosive Ammonia Analyze Molasses Non-Explosive Animal Feed, Prep. Non-Exnlosive Naphtha & Solvents Analyze
/ Animals & Prod. NEC Non-Exnlosive Natural Fibers NEC Non-Exnlosive Asphalt, Tar'& Pitch Low Vapor Press. Newsprint Non-Explosive Bananas & Plantains Non-Exnlosive Nitrogen Fune. Comp. Analyze Barley&Rye Non-Explosiye Nitrogenous Fert. Analyze Benzene & Toluene Analyze Non-Fe1rous Ores NEC Non-Exnlosive Building Stone Non-Explosive Non-Ferrous Scrap Non-Explosive Carboxylic Acids Analyze Non-Metal. Min. NEC Non-Explosive Cement & Concrete Non-Explosive Oats Non-Explosive Chem. Products NEC Analyze Oilseeds NEC Non-Explosive Chemical Additives<bJ Low Vapor Press. Ordnance & Access. Analyze Clay & Refrac. Mat. Non-Explosive Organic Comp. NEC Analyze Coal & Lignite Non-Exnlosive Organo - Inorg. Comp. Analyze Coal Coke Non-Exnlosive Other Hydrocarbons Analyze Cocoa Beans Non-Explosive Paper & Paperboard Non-Explosive Coffee Non-Exnl0sive Paper Products NEC Non-Explosive Coloring Mat. NEC Non-Exnlosive Peanuts Non-Exnlosive Conner Non-Exnlosive Per.fumes & Cleansers Non-Exnlosive Conner Ore Non-Explosive Pesticides Non-Exnlosive Com Non-Exolosive Petro. Jelly & Waxes Low V anor Press.
Cotton Non-Exnlosive Petro. Products NEC Analyze Crude Petroleum Low Vapor Press. Petroleum Coke Analyze
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 42 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Commodityl*l Disposition Commodityl*l Disposition Dairv Products Non-Exnlosive Pig Iron Non-Explosive Low Vapor Press. Pi2111ents & Paints Non-Explosive Distillate Fuel Oil y Non-Expl osive Plastics Non-Expl osive Electrical Machiner Analyze Potassic Fert. (Potash) Non-Expl osive Explosives Non-Explosive Primarv I&S NEC Non-Exnl osive Fab. Metal Products Non-Exnlosive Primarv Wood Prod. Non-Exol osive Farm Products NEC Non-Explosive Pulp & Waste Paper Non-Expl osive Ferro Alloys Analyze Radioactive Material Non-Exolosive Fert. & Mixes NEC Non-Exnlosive Residual Fuel Oil Low Vapor Press.
Fish (Not Shellfish)
Non-Expl osive Rice Non-Expl osive Fish, Prepared Non-Expl osive Rubber & Gums Non-Expl osive Flaxseed Non-Expl osive Rubber & Plastic Pr. Non-Expl osive Food Products NEC Non-Explosive Sand & Gravel Non-Expl osive Forest Products NEC NEC Non-Exnl osive Shellfish Non-Exolosive Fruit & Nuts
' Non-Exrilosive Ships & Boats Non-Exol osive Fruit Juices Non-Exnlosive Slag Non-Expl osive Fuel Wood Analyze Smelted Prod. NEC Non-Expl osive Gasoline Non-Explosive Sodium Hvdroxid e Non-Exnl osive Glass & Glass Prod.
Non-Exolosive Soil & Fill Dirt '-- Non-Explosive Grain Mill Products Non-Exnlosive Sorghum Grains Non-Explosive Groceries Non-Expl osive Soybeans
- Non-Expl osive Gypsum Non-Expl osive Starches, Gluten, Glue Non-Exnl osive Hay&Fo dder Non-Explosive Sugar Non-Explosive I&S Bars & Shapes Non-Explosive Sulfur,Dr y Analyze I&S Pipe & Tube Non-Explosive Sulfuric Acid Non-Expl osive I&S Plates & Sheets Non-Exnlosive Tallow, Animal Oils Non-Expl osive I&S Primarv Forms Inorg. Elem., Oxides, & Non-Explosive Textile Products Non-Explosive Halogen Salts Analyze Tobacco & Products Non-Explosive Inorganic Chem. NEC Non-Expl osive Unknown or NEC fanored(c)
Iron & Steel Scrap Non-Exnlosive Vegetable Oils Non-Explosive Iron Ore Low Vapor Press. Vegetable s & Prod. Non-Explosive Kerosene Non-Explosive Vehicles & Parts Non-Exnl osive Lime Non-Exolosive Waste & Scrap NEC Non-Expl osive Limestone Analyze Water&I ce Non-Exnl osive Liquid Natural Gas Low Vapor Press. Wheat Non-Explosive Lube Oil & Greases Non-Explosive Wheat Flour Non-Exnlosive Lumber Non-Exnlosive Wood & Resin Chem. Non-Exol osive Machinery (NotElec )
Non-E:xplosive Wood Chips Non-Exol osive Manganese Ore Non-Exol osive Wood in the Rough Non-EXP iosive Manufac. Prod.NEC Manufac. Wood Prod. Non-Explosive Notes:
a) NEC is a shipping abbreviation for "not elsewhere classified."
, antifreeze, b) "Chemical Additives" is identified in the USACE User's Guide [Ref. 2.47] as oils, lubricants pressures (< 10 mmHg) per Input 4 .9 and Assumpti on 5 .5.
or transmission fluid. All have low vapor c) "Unknown or NEC" is too broad to analyze and likely non-hazar dous.
The commodities to be ~~lyzed are shown in Table 7.2-2. In addition, Table 7.2-2 shows what chemical will be analyzed for each commodity and what type of explosion must be analyzed. The chemicals used are taken from the USACE Navigation Data Center User's Guide [Ref. 2.47].
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 43 of71 Ta ble 7.2 -2 : Commo d"f 1 ies t o b e An a1yze l d Commodity Chemical Used in the* Analysis* Types ofHazards Acyclic Analyzed as propane (propane has a lower LEL than ethylene VCE,BLEVE Hydrocarbons and similar LEL to propene). * (Propane)
Analyzed as methanol and ethanol. Methanol has the lowest boiling temperature between methanol, ethanol, propano1, and VCE Alcohols butanol, thus a higher evaporation rate; ethanol has a lower (Methanol / Ethanol)
LEL (Input 4.3). Pressurization not required for liquefaction; therefore, BLEVE not postulated.
Ammonia Analyzed. VCE,BLEVE Analyzed as benzene - lower boiling temperature and similar VCE Benzene&
LEL (Input 4.3). Pressurization not required for liquefaction; (Benzene)
Toluene therefore, BLEVE not postulated.
Analyzed as acetic acid - a liquid, whereas benzoic acid is solid; has a much lower LEL than formic acid (Input 4.3). VCE Carboxylic Acids (Acetic Acid)
Pressurization not required for liquefaction; therefore, BLEVE not postulated, All chemical products identified in the USACE User's Guide . VCE,BLEVE Chem. Products
[Ref. 2.47] are waxes, alkylbenzenes, solids, or chemical (Ammonia)
NEC products and preparations. All are bounded by ammonia.
Explosives Analyze (stationarv exnlosion only). Stat. Exol. Only Analyzed as ammonium nitrate (all identified chemicals are Stat. Expl. Only Pert. & Mixes NEC (Ammonium Nitrate) solids, ammonium nitrate bounds stationary exolosion).
Analyzed. Pressurization not required for liquefaction; VCE Gasoline therefore, BLEVE not postulated.
Inorganic Chem. Analyzed as ammonium nitrate (ammonium nitrate bounds for Stat. Expl. Only NEC stationary explosion). (Ammonium Nitrate)
Corresponds to liquefied natural gas (LNG) per the USACE VCE,BLEVE Liquid Natural Gas (Methane)
User's Guide [Ref. 2.47]. Methane is used.
Naphtha& Analyze as naphtha. Pressurization not required for VCE Solvents liquefaction; therefore, BLEVE not postulated. (Nap4tha)
VCE,BLEVE Nitrogen Fune. Analyzed as ammonia for VCE and ammonium nitrate for (Ammonia),
Comp. stationary explosion. Stat Expl. Only (Ammonium Nitrate)
Analyzed as ammonium nitrate (all identified chemicals in Stat. Expl. Only Nitrogenous Pert. [Ref. 2.47] are solids, ammonium nitrate bounds stationary (Ammonium Nitrate) explosion).
Ordinance&
Analyzed (stationary explosion only).
I .. Stat. Expl. Only Access.
Analyzed as acetone - Has a high vapor pressure [Ref. 2.13] VCE Organic Comp.
and a low LEL (Input 4.3). Pressurization not required for (Acetone)
NEC liquefaction; therefore, BLEVE not postulated.
Organo - Inorg. VCE,BLEVE Analyzed as propane.* (Propane)
Comp.
Analyzed as vinyl chloride. Per the USACE User's Guide Other [.R,ef. 2.47], other hydrocarbons include: cyclohexane, xylenes,, VCE,BLEVE Hydrocarbons styrene, ethylbenzene, cumene, and trichloroethylene. Vinyl (Vinyl Chloride) chloride is the onlv one that is a gas at atmospheric conditions.
Petro. Products VCE,BLEVE Analyzed as propane.* (Propane)
NEC Stat.Exp!: Only Petroleum Coke Analyzed as combustible dust (stationary explosion only). (Dust)
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09366 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page44 of71 Commodity Chemical Used in the Analysis* es ofHazards Stat. Expl. Only Sulfur, Dry Analyzed as combustible dust (stationary explosion only). ust)
- Propane is selected as the most explosive chemical vapor shipped. Propane-ha s a lower LEL than methane, (Input 4.3). In addition, propane is heavier than air (unlike methap.e), so the benefits of ethane and ethylene plume rise cannot be credited.
Table 7 .2-3 summarizes the chemicals and types of explosions that are analyzed for the commodities listed in Table 7.2-2 to disposition all hazards transported by vessel near the site. i Table 7 2-3 : Chem1ca I d and therr
. Is to b e Anatyze . A ssocia . tedC ommo d"f I IC(S Commodities Analyzed Commodities Analyzed Commodities Analyzed for Stationary and for Boiling Liquid for Stationary Traveling Vapor Cloud Expanding Vapor Chemical Explosions Onlv *Explosions (VCE) Explosions (BLEVE)
Acetic Acid - Carboxylic Acid -
Acetone - Organic Comp. NEC -
Ammonia; Ammonia; Ammonia - Chem. Products NEC; Chem. Products NEC; Nitrogen Fune. Comp.
Nitrogen Fune. Comp.
Fert. & Mixes NEC; Ammonium Inorganic Chem. NEC; -
Nitrogen Fune. Comp.;
Nitrate Nitrogenous Fert.
Benzene - Benzene & Toluene -
Explosives; -
Explosives Ordinance & Access.
Gasoline - Gasoline -
Methane - Liquid Natural Gas Liquid Natural Gas Methanol / Ethanol - Alcohols -
Naphtha - . Naphtha & Solvents -
Petroleum Coke Petroleum Coke (Dust) - -
Acyclic Hydrocarbons; Acyclic Hydrocarbons; Propane - Organo - Inorg. Comp.; Organo - Inorg. Comp.;
Petro. Products NEC Petro. Products NEC Sulfur Sulfur, Dry (DustY - -
Vinyl Chloride - Other Hvclrocarbons Other Hydrocarbons 7 .3 Spill Size Probability Data from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Office of Hazardous Materials1Safety are used to determine the probability of sizes of spills.
The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [Ref. 2.50] has an online searchable database of reported vessel accidents in and near the waterways of the United States. In the database, the only criteria that are placed on the search are: the incident occurred between 2007 and 2016, the incident occurred on a waterway, and the incident occurred during transit (as opposed to loading or unloading). The results of this search are shown in Attachment F. A total of 436 incidents are reported. Several or the incidents do not have an associated quantity spilled; however, the largest spill release size in the database is 5,500 gallons .. The
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revisioh 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 45 of 71 MISLE database (see below) has many more incidents and many more large incidents.
Therefore the MISLE database is used for the rate of spill sizes. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety data is consistent with the MISLE data, as both show that over 90% of the releases are less than 100 gallons. '
The U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (USCG-
- MSEP) maintains a database of marine accidents in its Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) information system. The subset of the MISLE, Marine Casualty and Pollution Database [Ref. 2.49], contains data describing all investigations involving commercial vessels operating in U.S. territorial waters, or U.S.-registered commercial vessels operating elsewhere in the world that meet certain criteria. Accident investigations documented in MISLE are initiated for events resulting in any one of the following [Ref. 2.52, p.10]:
(a) One_or more deaths; (b) One or more injuries resulting in substantial impairment of any body part or function; (c) A fire causing property damage exceeding $25,000; (d) An oil spill exceeding 200 barrels; (e) Other injuries, casualties, accidents, complaints of unsafe working conditions, fires, pollution, and incidents that are deemed necessary to promote the safety of life or property or protect the marine environment.
A commercial vessel's owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge, is responsible for notifying the Coast Guard when the vessel is involved in a reportable accident or incident. Computerized data, entered by Coast Guard staff,* are reviewed by front-line
- supervisors and then transmitted to the*USCG-MSEP for inclusion in the MISLE database.
The data is provided as a set of text files. To analyze and use these files, a database is setup using Microsoft Access [Ref. 2.39] which allows the MISLE data to be queried by the type of vessel, waterway, tonnage and other fields. Two of the text files (MisleVslPoll.txt and MisleVslEven ts.txt) are combined in Access to determine the
\ characteristics of the spill. The Access,,file query links the incident numbers in these two text files (the Access file is MISLEVesseLmdb in the electronic attachments). This query is reduced in the following ways:
- 1. Date Range: The most current ten years of data is used: July 2005 to July 2015. The end of the date range takes into account that the database only uses closed case files.
- 2. One Spill per Vessel: For vessels carrying multiple chemicals, only the largest spill volume is used. This is for two reasons. First, a larger spill is bounding. Second, because this i~ used in a probability analysis, the data of interest is the number of vessel trips that could be hazardous: a single vessel can only lead to one hazardous condition at the site. '
The resultant table is shown in Attachment E. With the narrowed database, there are 14,954 reported incidents. Of these, 14,187 incidents had a reported spill size associated with* them. The 14,187 reported spills are used to determine a probability of a given spill size given a spill. Note the 207 million gallon oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon event on April 20, 2010 is not considered in this analysis because the mobile
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 46 of71 offshore drilling unit was stationed in the Gulf of Mexico at the time of the accident, not being transported on any waterways, and the primary source of the spill was the well, not cargo on board. Table 7.3-1 shows the probability broken down by spill size. In addition, Table 7.3-1 shows. the rate of spills per vessel mile by multiplying the probability of a given size spill by the rate of vessel accidents from NUREG/CR-6624 [Ref. 2.8, p.9], 1.8 x 10-6 accidents per *mile. This multiplication uses the conservative methodology that any accident that qualifies for NUREG/CR-6624 would result in a spill that is reported to the MISLE database. NUREG/CR-6624 has an additional multiplier of 0.025 (2.5%) that is the conditional spill probability given an incident. Based on Table 7.3-1, a spill of 1,000 gallons or larger .occurs 1.13 % of the time. It is therefore reasonable to use the probabilities in Table 7 .3-1 as the rate of spill size per accident of a vessel.
Table 7 .3-1: B re ak:downo f s;p1*11 s*izes Spills per Spill Size Occurrences Probability Vessel Mile*
0 to 100 Gallons 13,432 0.9467 1.70E-06
>100 to 1,000 Gallons 595 0.0419 7.55E-08
>l,000 to 2,000 Gallons 54 0.0038 6.85E-09
>2,000 to 10,000 Gallons 77 0.0054 9.77E-09
> 10,000 to 50,000 Gallons 21 0.0015 2.66E-09
>50,000 to 287,000 Gallons 7 0.0005 8.88E-I0
>287,000 Gallons 1 0.0001 1.27E-10 Total 14,187 1.0000 1.80E-06 6
- Note: NUREG/CR-6624 states that barge incidents occur at a rate of 1.8 x 10- incidents per barge mile.
The probability for each spill size is used to determine the rate of spills per vessel mile. For example, the 6 6 probability of a spill of Oto 100 gallons is 1.70 x 10; spills per vessel mile (= 1.8 x 10-
- 0.9467). Also, note that the Spills per Vessel Mile column is based OIJ. the calculated probability values, as opposed to the rounded values reported in the Probability column.
Furthermore, of the 14,954 reported incidents of chemical spills for vessels in the MISLE database between July 2005 and July 2015, there an:? 15 explosions of any type (0.1%)
[Ref. 2.49]. Based on this data, it is conservatively analyzed that 0.5% of incidents involving vessels containing explosive chemicals will lead to an explosion.
7.4 Number of Trips
- USACE provides the total number of vessel trips in a year and the yearly mass shipped for each commodity (In,put 4.7.2). However, a specific commodity's yearly number of trips or mass per trip is unknown. Thus, yearly shipment quantities in terms of mass are assumed to be evenly distributed volumetrically throughout the total number of trips in a year. That is, the ratio of a specific commodity's number of trips per year to the total number of trips in a year is assumed to be directly proportional to the ratio of a specific commodity's annual shipment volume to the total annual shipment volume (Assumption 5.6). This is ,
restated in the following equation:
nc Ve nc me I Pc n1mcP1,m*g Eq. 7.4-1
-=-=>-= =>n = - - - -
n1 v; nl ml/ Pt,m*g c, mtPc
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 47 of71 Where:
nc = number of vessel trips per year for the specific commodity(-)
n1 = total number of all vessel trips in a year (-) [Ref. 2.46]
3 Ve= me I Pc= volume of the specific commodity shipped in a year (ft )
3 Vi= mt I Pt.avg= total volume of all commodities shipped in a year (ft )
me= mass of the specific commodity shipped in a year (lbm) [Ref. 2.46]
mt = total mass of all c'Ommodities shipped in a year (lbm) [Ref. 2.46]
3 Pc= density of the specific commodity (lbm/ft ) (Input 4.3) 3 Pt.avg= weighted-average density of all commodities shipped in a year (lbm/ft ) (see below)
(
The ten most recent years (2006-2015) of data from the USACE [Ref. 2.46] (Input 4.7.2) are reviewed . to determine a conservative estimate for the number of trips for each commodity listed fa Table 7.2:.3. Data is pulled for the "COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM,"
which includes all µiain channels and navigable tributaries of the Columbia, Willamette and Snake Rivers. This is conservative as not all traffic on the river system passes by the Tr~jan ISFSI site. Data extracted from the USACE reports for 2006-2015 is summarized in Appendix 2.
For probability analyses, the parameters in Eq. 7.4-1 are conservatively biased using appropriate "worst year" data to maximize the calculated number of trips in a year. For the deterministic analyses, the parameters in Eq. 7.4-1 are biased to minimize the number of trips,'t:hus, maximizing the mass per vessel - calculated by dividing the maximum mass of a commodity shipped in a year by the minimum annual number of vessel trips of the commodity (= mc,ma:xlnc,min).
To maximize the calculated number of trips, the weighted-average density of all commodities shipped in a year, Pt.avg, is biased high. The following product densities (Input 4.10) are used for the various commodity groupings identified in USACE [Ref. 2.46]
as being shipped on the Columbia River. Refer to USACE [Ref. 2.46] for the complete list of commodities within each grouping.
Table 7.4-1: Commodity Densities Specific Grp. Name* Substance Gravity
\
20 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Petroleum 0.87 31 Fertilizers Potassic Fert. (Potash) 2.00 32 Other Chemicals and Related Products Plastics 2.50 41 F crest Products, Wood and Chips Oak, live 0.87 42 Pulp and Waste Paper Paper 1.15 43 Soil, Sand, Gravel, Rock and Stone Gypsum, alabaster . 2.80 44 Iron Ore and Scrap Steel, cold-drawn 7.83 46 Non-Ferrous Ores and Scrap Lead 11.34 47 Sulphur, Clay and Salt Clay, damp, plastic 1.76 48 Slag Iron slag 3.00 49 Other Non-Metal. Min. Barvtes 4.50
- Paper 1.15 51 Paper Products
f S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan 1SFS1 \ . Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 48 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Specific Substance Gravity Grp. Name Portland *cement 3.20 52 Lime, Cement and Glass Steel, cold-drawn 7.83 53 Primary Iron and Steel Products 11.34 54 Primary Non-Ferrous Metal Products Lead Oak, live 0.87 55 Primarv Wood Products 0.97 60 Total Food and Farm Products Fats Lead
- 11.34 70 Manufactured Equip., Mach. and Products Lead 11.34 80 Waste and Scrap NEC Lead 11.34 90 Unknown or NEC Using the densities listed above, the maximum average density of annual shipments, 3
(pi,avg)max, is found in Appe ndix 2 to be 137 lbm/ft: in 2008.
per vessel for each explo§ive hazard The .calculated annual number of vessel trips and mass mum annual mass shipped for each is shown below in Table 7.4-2. Also shown is the maxi mass of all commodities shipped in chemical, me.max* Note that when biasing low the total associated with the year from which a year, mr,min is specified as the lesser between the m 1 mc,max is taken (varies for each chemical) and mr = 53,009,000 tons in 2006, the year. from is specified as the greater between the whic h ni,max is taken. Conversely, mi,max biased high mi associated with the year from whic h me.min is taken (varies for each chemical) and mr =
nr,min is taken. Furthermore, when 57,267,000 tons in 2012, the year from which the density terms in Eq. 7.4-1 are calculating ne,min in determining mass per vessel, rmed in Excel and are electronically conservatively ignored. These calculations are perfo attached as VesselAnalyses.xlsx.
el Trips and Mass per Vessel Tabl e 7.4-2: USACE Data (200 6-20 15)-A nnua l Vess per Vessel Annual Number Mass Maximum Total Mass_
of Trips, (tons/trip) of Chemical Shipped nc,max (-)
per Year, me max (tons) fEa. 7.4-11 [= me mdnc min]
Chemical 4,000 12,000 48 Acetic Acid (Carboxylic Acid) 8,000 8,000 43 Aceto ne 3,688 118,000 849 Ammonia 3,897 e 530,00 0 1,285 Amm onium Nitrat 2,778 100,000 476 Benzene 3,000 3,000 10 Exolosives 6,744 .
4,181,000 1,671° Gasoline 9,000 9,000 96 Methane 11,615 302,00 0 1,599 Methanol/Ethanol (Alcohols) 10,50 0 21,000 140 Naph tha 2,573 993,000 5,933 Petroleum Coke 2,000 2,000 21 Propa ne 1,000 2,000 5 Sulfur 9,000 9,000 42 Vinyl Chloride other commodities, Eq. 7.4-1 is not shippi ng in larger bulk quant ities than
- Note: To account for gasoline 3004 [Ref. 2.48, p.2], gasoline barges ation No. 903R8 used to calculate number of trips. Per EPA Public s gallons and the average capacity is 840,000 gallon range in capacity from 420,000 gallons to 2,100,000 the annua l mass shippe d, 0.72 per Input 4.3). Dividing (2,503 tons using the specific gravity for gasoline of
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 49 of71 4,181,000 tons, by this average capacity equates to 1,671 trips per year. For the deterministic analysis, the maximum value of2,l00,000 gallons (6,744 tons, using a den,sity of0.77*62.4 lbml:ft' per Input 4.3) per vessel is used.
The Coast Guard MISLE database [Ref. 2.49] is used to determine the size of spills. The largest spill reported in the MISLE data is 1,826,626 gallons (as stated in Section 7.3, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on April 20, 2010 is not considered in this evaluation). A spill of 2,000,000 gallons is :used as the maximum spill size in this analysis. This mass (2,000,000 gallons equates to approximately 3,000 to 9,000 tons for specific gravities ranging from 0.35 to 1.05) is on the same order of magnitude as the vess~I sizes from the USACE data in Table 7.4-2. r
\
r
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 50 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 8.0 Results 8.1 Railway Transportation 8.1.1 Solid Explosive and Stationary Vapor Cloud Explosions on Railcar Blast wave pressures from solid explosives and vapor cloud explosions on BNSF and PNWR railcars are calculated in Appendix 3 using the TNT equivalence method documented in NUREG-1805 and SFPE Fire Protection Handbook I
. The results are summarized below in Table 8.1-1. Each of the hazards result in a blast wave pressure at the Trojan ISFSI site ofless than 1.0 psig.
Table 8 1-1: R esuItsof Staf10nary Exp1os10n. on Ra1*1car Blast Wave Chemical Railway Details Pressure (psig) 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 1, 1-Difluoroethane ' 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 1-Methoxy-2-Propanol 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 Acetaldehyde 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Acetic Acid, Glacial 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Acetone 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 Ammonia ,Anhydro us 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Ammonium Nitrate 5,760 ft from Site Ammonium Nitrate Based 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Fertilizer 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Benzene 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 Butane 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Butanols 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 Butyl Acrylates, Stabilized 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Butylene 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~ 0.3 Butyraldehyde 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ~0.3 Carbon Disulfide 5,760 ft from Site
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 51 of 71 Offsite Tran_sportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Blast Wave Chemical Railway Details Pressure (osig) 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3
, Dichloromethane 5,760 ft from Site ~
286,000 lb on BNSF s 0.3 Diesel Fuel 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Ethanol 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on PNWR 0.5 Ethanol 745 ft from Site Ethylene Glycol Diethyl 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Ether 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Gasoline 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Heptanes 5,760 ft from Site Hydrocarbons, Liquid, 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 N.0.S. (Vinyl Chloride) 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s 0.3 Isobutane 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Isobutylene 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Isoprene, Stabilized 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Isopropanol 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Isopropyl Acetate 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Lithium Battery 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Methanol 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3
,, Chloride Methyl 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s 0.3 N-Propanol 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s 0.3 Octanes 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 Pentanes 5,760 ft from Site Petroleum Distillates, 286,000 lb on BNSF s0.3 N.O.S. 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF s 0.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas 5,760 ft from Site
Portland General Electric - Trojan lSFSl S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation EXplosion Hazard Evaluation Page 52 of71 Blast Wave Chemical Railway Details Pressure (psig) 286,000 lb onBNSF Phenol, Molten ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF Propane ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF Propylene ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site )
286,000 lb on BNSF Resin Solution ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site Sodium (contact with 286,000 lb on BNSF <<0.1 water produces Hydrogen)r 5,760 ft from Site Styrene Monomer, 286,000 lb on BNSF
~ 0.3 Stabilized 5,760 ft from Site l 286,000 lb on BNSF Tetrahydrofuran ~0.3 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF Toluene ~0.3 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF
- Vinyl Acetate, Stabilized ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF Xylenes ~ 0.3 5,760 ft from Site 8.1.2 Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions on Railcar Blast wave pressures from a BLEVE on a BNSF r<tilcar are calculated in Appendix 3 using guidance from the SFPE Fire Protection Handbook. The ethanol shipment on PNWR is not a BLEVE hazard (i.e., does not have a low boiling point). Results are summarized below in Table 8.1-2. Each of the BLEVE hazards result in a blast wave pressure at the Trojan JSFSI site of less than 0.1 psig.
Table 8.1-2: Results ofBLEVE onRailcar Boiling Vapor Density Blast Wave 3
Chemical Point at NTP (lbm/ft ) Pressure (psig) Note l, 1-Difluoroethane 52°F 0.171 <0.1 Acetaldehyde 69°F 0.115 <0.1 (a)
Ammonia, Anhydrous -28°F 0.044 <0.1 Butane 31°F 0.151 <0.1 Butylene 20°F 0.146 <0.1 (a)
Dichloromethane I04°F 0.220 <0.1 (b)
Hydrocarbons, Liquid, N.0.S. 7op 0.162 <0.1 (a)
(Vinyl Chloride) .
Isobutane 11op 0.151 <0.1 Iso butylene 20°F 0.146 <0.1 Isoprene, Stabilized 93°F 0.177 <0.1 (b) (
Portland General Electric.- Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 53 of71 Boiling Vapor Density Blast Wave 3
Chemical Point at NTP (lbm/fi ) Pressure (psig) Note Methyl Chloride -12°F 0.131 <0.1 (a)
Pentanes 97°F 0.187 <-0.l Propane -44°F 0.115 <0.1 Proovlene -54°F 0.109 <0.1 Notes: ,
a) Acetaldehyde, butylene, vinyl chloride (hydrocarbons, liquid, N.O.S.), and methyl chloride
- have both a boiling point and vapor density greater than or equal to that of propane; therefore, a BLEVE from these commodities is bounded by a BLEVE from propane.
b) Dichloromethane and isoprene have both a boiling point and vapor density greater than that of butane; therefore, a BLEVE from these commodities is bounded by a BLEVE from butane.
8.1.3 Traveling Vapor Cloud Explosions from Railcar The BNSF and PNWR vapor cloud explosions hazards are analyzed in Appendix 4 to determine that the concentration from a chemical release is less than the LEL at the Trojan ISFSI site using the dispersion analysis methods described in Regulatory Guide 1.78 and NUREG-0570 . The results are summarized below in Table 8.1-3.
Ta ble 81 . - 3 : Resu1ts ofTrave Irmg VCE fr om R a1*1 car Boiling Worst Peak Chemical Point LEL Railway Details Cone. at Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.8%
1, 1-Difluoroethane 52°F 3.7%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
l-Methoxy-2-P ropanol 248°F 1.6%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 1.0%
Acetaldehyde 69°F 4.0%
1.09 mi from Site
' 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Acetic Acid, Glacial 244°F 4.0%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb. on BNSF Acetone l33°F 2.5% 0.6%*
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF Ammonia,An hydrous -28°F 15.0% 6.7%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Benzene 176°F 1.2%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.5%
Butane 31°F 1.6%
- 1. 09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Butanols 243°F 1.4%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Butyl Acrylates, Stabilized 293°F 1.5%
1.09 mi fro:rµ Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.6%
Butylene 20°F 1.6%
1.09 mi from Site
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 54 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Boiling Worst Peak Point LEL Railway Details Cone. at Site Chemical 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Butyraldehyde 167°F 1.4% 1.09 mi from Site
' 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Carbon Disulfide ll6°F 1.3%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.3%
Dichloromethane 104°F 13.0%
1 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Diesel Fuel 320°F 0.7%
1.09-ini from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Ethanol 173°F 3.3%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on PNW R 2.9%
Ethanol 173°F 3.3% 0.14 mi from Site Ethylene Glycol Diethyl 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
250°F 1.2%
Ether ~.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on ~NS);<' 0.6%*
Gasoline 107°F 1.4% 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Heptanes 209°F 1.1% 1.09 mi from Site Hydrocarbons, Liquid, 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.0%
7op 3.6%
N.O.S. (Vinyl Chloride) 1.09 mi from Site
\._ 286,000 lb on BNSF 3.2%
Isobutane 11op 1.6%
- 1. 09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.7%_
Isobutylene 20°F 1.8%
- 1. 09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6% J*
Isoprene, Stabilized 93°F 1.5%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Isopropanol 181°F 2.0%
l.Q.9 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF ,0.6%*
Isopropyl Acetate 194°F 1.8%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Methanol 147°F 6.0%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 2.7%
Methy1 Chloride -l2°F 8.1%
- 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
N-Propanol 207°F 2.2% 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%* '
Octanes 258°F 1.0%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%
Pentanes . 97°F .1.5%
1.09 mi from Site Petroleum Distillates, 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
107°F 1.1% 1.09 mi from Site N.O.S.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 55 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Boiling Worst Peak
\
Point LEL Railway Details Cone. at Site Chemical 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Phenol, Molten 359°F 1.8%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 5.4%
Propane -44°F 2.1%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 5.6%
Propylene -54°F 2_.0%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Resin Solution 295°F 1.1%
1.09 mi from Site Sodium (contact with water 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.03%
NIA 4.0%
produces.Hydrogen) 1.09 mi from Site Styrene Monomer, 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
293°F 0.9% 1.09 mi from Site
-stabil ized 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Tetrahydrofuran 151°F 2.0% 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Toluene 232°F 1.1%
1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Vinyl Acetate, Stabilized 162°F 2.6% 1.09 mi from Site 286,000 lb on BNSF 0.6%*
Xylenes 281°F 0.9%
1 1.09 mi from Site BNSF with a boiling
- Note: A fictional chemical release is analyzed to bound all chemicals on at the minimu m point;:::: 107°F by using a vapor pressure equal to 1 atm (14.7 psia) 107°F, m density in that of molecular weight in that of methanol, 32.1 (Input 4.3), and the minimu naphtha, SG = 0.63 (Input 4.3).
tration less than As shown in Table 8.1-3, each of the chemical releases result in a concen nts of butane, the chemical LEL at the Trojan ISFSI site except for the BNSF shipme butylene, isobutene, isobutylene, propane and propylene.
will not result in a BNSF railcar releases of butane, butylene, isobutene and isobutylene site for Stability concentration greater than the chemical LEL at the Trojan ISFSI F, these release s will result
- Classes A through E at any wind speed. For Stability Class for wind speeds in a concentration greater than tlie chemical LEL at the Trojan site 0.24% of the time greater than 3.01 mis. From Input 4.2, these conditions exist wind speeds of Stability (irrespective of direction). Additionally, postulating that all is.1.12 % of the Class G (0.88% frequency) exceed the LEL, the combined frequency isobutylene are time. Thus,. the BNSF shipments of butane, butylene, isobutene and (see Sectio n 6.3) because the acceptable per the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.78 weath er conditions which lead to a hazard occur less than 5% of the time.
tration greater BNSF railcar releases of propane and propylene will not result in a concen A through E at any than the chemical LEL at the Trojan ISFSI site for Stability Classes result in a concen tration greater wind speed. For Stability Class F, these releases will r than 2.01 mis. From than the chemical LEL at the Trojan site for wind speeds greate
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.:. 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 56 of71 Input 4.2, these conditions exist 0.84% of the time (irrespective of direction).
Additionally, postulating that all wind speeds of Stability Class G (0.88% frequency) exceed the LEL, the combined :frequency is 1. 72% of the time. Thus, the BNSF shipments of propane and propylene are acceptable per the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1. 78 (see Section 6.3) because the weather condiµ6ns which lead to a hazard occur less than 5% of the time. /
\ ..
8 .2 Waterborne Transportation 8.2.1 Solid Explosive and Stationary Vapor Cloud Explosions on Vessel
)
Blast wave pressures from solid explosives and vapor cloud explosions on vessels traversing the Columbia River, 957 ft from the Trojan ISFSI site at its nearest approach, are calculated in Appendix 5 using the TNT equivalence and combustible dust methods documented in NUREG-1805 and SFPE Fire Protection Handbook. The results are summarized below in Table 8.2-1. Also reproduced from Table 7.4-2 is each chemical's number of trips and mass shipped per vesseL Aside from the dust explosions of petroleum coke and sulfur, each chemical hazard can result in a blast wave pressure greater than 2.2 psig or greater than 1.0 psig. Therefore, a probabilistic analysis is6 required to demonstrate that the frequency of a hazardous explosion is less than 1o-hazards per year as defined by Regulatory Guide 1.91 and NUREG-0800.. The
.calculated chemical hazard :frequency is also tabulated below. See the discussion below Table 8.2-1 for details of the probability calculations. With exception of the solid explosives, the~e stationary explosion hazards additionally require probabilistic analysis for traveling VCE (see Section 8.2.3); therefore, the stationary hazard frequency must be combined with the traveling VCE hazard frequency to determine the overall allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
, Table 8 2-1: R esuIts of Stationarv
. 1 . on Vesse1 Expos1on Annual Mass per Blast Wave Hazard Number of Vessel Pressure Frequency Chemical , Trips (tons/trip) (psig) (explosions/trip)
Acetic Acid 48 4,000 >1 1.33E-10 (Carboxvlic Acid)
Acetone ~ 43 8,000 >2.2 1.33E-10 Ammonia 849 3,688 >>2.2 3.85E-10 6.14E-10 Ammonium Nitrate 1,285 3,897 >>2.2 (1,628 allowable trips)
Benzene 476 2,778 >1 l.33E-10 Ethanol (Alcohols) 1,599 11,615 >2.2 1.33E-10 8.93E-10 Explosives 10 3,000 >>2.2 (1,120 allowable trips)
Gasoline 1,671 6,744 >2.2 1.33E-10 Methane 96 9,000 >>2.2 6.14E-10 Methanol 1,599 11,615 >2.2 1.33E-10 (Alcohols)
Naphtha 140 10,500 >2.2 1.33E-10
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 57 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Annu al Mass per Blast Wave Hazard Numb er of Vesse l Pressure Frequency Trips (tons/trip) (psfo:) (explosions/trip)
Chem ical 5,933 2,573 < 1.0 -
Petrol eum Coke 21 2,000 >>2.2 6.14E-10 Propa ne I 5 1,000 <0.1 -
Sulfu r 42 9,000 >>2.2 6.14E-10 Vinyl Chloride sis (per Regulatory Guide 1.91, A 1.0 psig overpressure is used in the probabilistic analy 1.0 psig, the blast generated when overpressure at the target is less than or equal to acceptable). The probability
- missile effects and ground motions are considered is the analysis summary for calculations are performed in Appendix 5. The following ressure from an explosion ammonium nitrate: The stand off distance for 1.0 psig overp the probabilities established in.
of 3,897 tons of ammonium nitrate is 1.27 miles. Using E database [Ref. 2.49], the NUR EG/ CR-6624 [Ref. 2.8J and determined from the MISL s:
hazar d frequency for ammonium nitrate is calculated as follow 6
Incide nts per Mile 1.8 X 10" [Re£ 2.8] See Section 7.3 Spills per Incide nt 0.025 [Re£ 2.8] See Section 7.3 Explo sions per Spill 0.005 [Ref. 2.49] See Section 7.3 Miles per Shipm ent <2.73 mi Waterway length within 1.2 7 mi ofsite (Input 4. 7. l)
Explo sions* per Trip 6.14 X 10-lO Produ ct 6 number of allowable trips for Dividing this frequency by 10- hazards per year, the Table 8.2-1, the annual number ammonium nitrate is 1,628 trips per year. As shown in ore, meeting the probabilistic of trips for ammonium nitrate is less than 1,628; theref acceptance criteria.
l 8.2.2 Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapo r Explosions on Vesse rsing the Columbia River are Blast wav~ pressures from a BLEVE on vessels trave Fire Protection Handbook.
calculated in Appendix 5 using guidance from the SFPE duced from Table 7.4-2 is each Results are summarized below in Table 8.2-2. Also repro chem ical's mass shipped per vessel.
Tabl e 8.2-2: Results ofBL EVE on Vessel Mass per Vessel Blast Wave (tons/trip) Pressure (psig)
Chemical 3,688 ~3.5 "Ammonia 9,000 >2.2 Methane 2,000 >2.2 Propane 9,000 ~ 5.0 Vinyl Chloride As shown in Table 8.2-2, each of the BLEV E hazards result in a blast wave pressure at vessel stationary explosions in the Trojan ISFSI that exceeds 2.2 psig. Similar to the in Appendix 5 for 1.0 psig Section 8.2.1, a BLEV E probabilistic analysis is performed ce for 1.0 psig overpressure is overpressure. For each BLEV E hazard, the standoff distan
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan 1SFS1 Revision O Project No.: 11354-0 34 Page 5_8 of 71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation ISFSI calculated to be less than 0.5 miles. The waterway length within 0.5 miles of the ility calcula tion shown in site is 0.87 miles. Using this length in the same probab 10 10- These Section 8.2.1, the hazard frequency for each BLEVE hazard is 1.96 x .
(see stationary explosion hazards also require probabilistic analysis for traveling VCE cy must be combin ed with the Section 8.2.3); therefore, the stationary hazard frequen number of trips.
traveling VCE hazard frequency to determine the overall allowable This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3 Traveling Vapor Cloud Explosions from Vessel d in Traveling vapor cloud explosion hazards shipped on the Columbia River are analyze
- 1. 78 Appendix 6 using the dispersion analysis methods described in Regulatory Guide than the and NUREG-0570. Each chemical release can result in,a concentration greater s is require d to chemical LEL at the ISFSI site. Therefore, a probabilistic ana~si demonstrate that the frequency of a hazardous release is less than 1o- hazards per year.
spill The traveling vapor cloud hazard frequency is determined for each chemical using joint wind speed-w ind size probability from NUREG/CR-6624 and MISLE data, necessa ry direction-stability class data and waterway route lengths. In some cases, it is criterion to refine the a:iJ.alysis more than others to show that the probabilistic acceptance as oppose d to using the worst is met (e.g., each wind direction is analyzed individually analysi s for direction in the group). Each traveling VCE hazard required a probability hazard is both a stationary explosion and traveling VCE; the combined probability of a travelin g vapor cloud explosi on calculated in Section 8.2.4. The detailed results of each hazard are provided in the following sections.
8.2.3.l" Acetic Acid (Carboxylic Acid) by Vessel -Trave ling VCE:
from Carboxylic acid is analyzed as acetic acid based on the commodity information of any chemic al in th~
the* USACE User's Guide [Ref. 2.47]. The largest 'spill ix 6, MISLE database is 1,826,626 gallons (see Attachment E). As shown in Append for a 2,000,000 gallon spill of acetic acid can lead to an explosive concentration Stability Class F. The vapor pressure of acetic acid is 0.1 atrn at I07°F (Input 4.3.4).
atrn This is less than the vapor pressure of gasoline, which is assumed to be 1 the at 107°P for this analysis. The LEL of acetic acid is 4.0% which is higher than s is therefo re bounde d LEL of gasoline, 1.4% (Input 4.3.2). The acetic acid analysi acid by the analysis of gasoline. The traveling VCE haiard frequency for acetic 10 shipments is set to 4.35 x 10- , the same as gasolin e (see Section 8.2.3.5) . Acetic (see acid also required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion
( ed with Se"ction 8.2.l); therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combin This the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips.
calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.2 Acetone by Vessel - Traveling VCE:
dity Organic components NEC are analyzed as acetone based on the commo any information from the USACE User's Guide [Ref. 2.47]. The largest spill of
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034
- Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 59 of71 chemical in the MISLE database is 1,826,626 gallons (see Attachment E). As shown in Appendix 6, a 2,000,000 gallon spill of acetone can lead* to an explosive
- concentration for Stability Class F. The vapor pressure of acetone is 0.6 attn at 107°F (Input 4.3 .4). This is less than the vapor pressure of gasoline, which is assumed to be 1 atm at 107°F for this analysis. The LEL of acetone is 2.5% which is higher than the LEL of gasoline, 1.4% (Input 4.3.2). The acetone analysis is therefore bounded by the analysis of gasoline. The traveling VCE hazard 'frequency 10 for acetone shipments is set to 4.35 x 10* , the same as gasoline (see Section 8.2.3.5). Acetone also. required probabilistic analy_sis for a stationary explosion (see Section 8.2.1); therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.3 Ammonia by Vessel-Tra veling VCE:
Several of the chemicals identified as being transported by vessel near the site are analyzed.as ammonia for a vapor cloud explosion. These are: ammonia, fertilizers &
mixes NEC, inorganic chemicals NEC; nitrogen func. composites, and nitrogenous fertilizer (see Section 7.2).
Ammonia is released as a puff/plume. Because the ~onia is transported as a liquid under pressure, part of the ammonia will be released as an initial puff. The analyses for all of the ammonia models are shown in Appendix 6.
The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. It is conservativfiy evaluated that the standoff distance for all spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur at all stability classes. For- hazardous releases in Stability Classes D-G with a standoff distance of 0.5 miles, hazard frequency is calculated for each wind direction individually.
Table 82 . -3: Travermg VCEHazardFrequency fior Ammoma"bV r esseI Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst Volume Stability Dist. Length Wind. WindDir. Total (gal) '.
Class . (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Spill Rate Hazard 100 G <0.18 0 - - 0 l.70E-06 0 1,000 G 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.01% . 7.55E-08 6.95E-13 1,000 G 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.00% 7.55E-08 6.55E-13 1,000 G 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.00% 7.55E-08 O.OOE+OO 1,000 G 0.5 0.1 E - 0.00% 7.55E-08 l.77E-l3 1,000 G 0.5 0.12 ~SE - 0.00% 7.55E-08 2.12E-l3 1,000 G 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.06% 7.55E-08 9.14E-12 1,000 G 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.16% 7.55E-08 3.54E-12 2,000 G 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.01% 6.85E-09 6.30E-14 2,000 G 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.00% 6.85E-09 5.94E-14 2,000 G 0.5 0.11 . ENE - 0.00% 6.85E-09 O.OOE+OO 2,000 G 0.5 0.1 E - 0.00% 6.85E-09 l.60E-14 r2,000 G 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.00% 6.85E-09 l.92E-14 2,000 G 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.06% 6.85E-09 8.29E-l3 2,000 G 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.16% 6.85E-09 3.2IE-l3
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 60 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation
- 0 6.85E-09 0 2,000 F <0.18 0 - 0 0 - - 0 6.85E-09 2,000 D <0.18 SSE 0.16% 9.77E-09 l.33E -ll 10,000 G 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 0.06% 9.77E-09 5.38E-13 10,000 F 0.5 0.1 NNE
- 0.01% 9.77E-09 2.55E-13 10,000 F 0.5 0.19 NE
- 0.00% 9.77E-09 2.46E-14 10,000 F 0.5 0.11 ENE 4.51E-14 10,000 F 0.5 0.1 E - 0.00% 9.77E-09 l.88E-13 0.12 ESE - 0.02% 9.77E-09 10,000 F 0.5
- 6.37E-12 10,000 F 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.30% 9.77E-09 2.38E-12 10,000 F 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.81% 9.77E-09 7.83E-12 0.1 NNE - 0.80% 9.77E-09 10,000 E 0.5
- ' 0.26% 9.77E-09 4.82E-12 10,000 E 0.5 0.19 NE 9.85E-13 10,000 E 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.09% 9.77E-09 7.64E-13 10,000 E 0.5 0.1 E - 0.08% 9.77E-09 1.31E-12 10,000 E 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.11% 9.77E-09 2.50E-11 10,000 E 0.5 0.22 SE - 1.16%* 9.77E-09 l.OlE-11 0.03 SSE - 3.45% 9.77E-09 10,000 E 0.5 0 10,000 D <0.18 0 - - 0 9.77E-09
'-2.66E-09 1.14E -ll 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 0.16%
50,000 G 3.70E -ll 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 2.66E-09 50,000 F 0.9 2.14E-12 50,000 E 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.80% 2.66E-09 1.:ilE-12 0.19 NE - 0.26% 2.66E-09 50,000 E 0.5
- 0.09% 2.66E-09 2.69E-13 50,000 E 0.5 0.11 ENE 2.08E-13 50,000 E 0.5 0.1 E - 0.08% 2.66E-09 3.58E-13 0.12 ESE - 0.11% 2.66E-09 50,000 E 0.5
- 1.16% 2.66E-09 6.81E-12 50,000 E 0.5 0.22 SE SSE - 3.45% 2.66E-09 2.76E-12 50,000 E 0.5 O.Q3
- 2.36% 2.66E-09 6.28E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.1 NNE NE - " 0.48% 2.66E-09 2.45E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.19
- 0.20% 2.66E-09 5.92E-13 50,000 D 0.5 0.11 ENE 3.92E-13 50,000 D 0.5 0.1 E - 0.15% 2.66E-09 1.04E-12 0.12 ESE - 0.32% 2.66E-09 50,000 D 0.5 SE - 2.41% 2.66E-09 1.41E-11 50,000 D 0.5 0.22 SSE - 10.57% 2.66E-09 8.45E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.03 SSE 0.76% 2.66E-09 1.76E-11 50,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE 0
50,000 B <0.18 0 - - 0 2.66E-09 5.51E-12 3.97 N-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-I0 287,000 G 2 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 l.97E -ll 287,000 F 1.4 2.73 SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 5.25E-11 287,000 E 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 8.88E-10 l.61E-10 287,000 D 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E -I0 5.87E-12 287,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 8.88E-10 4.81E-12 287,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 0 8.88E-10 0 287,000 A <0.18 0 - 2.32E-10 10.58 NW-SSE SSE 17.31% 1.27E-IO
>287,000 All 5 I Total I 6.84E-10 ents of ammonia is 6.84 The traveling VCE hazard :frequency for vessel shipm a stationary explosion (see x 10-10
- Ammonia also required probabilistic analysis for hazar d :frequency must be Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2) 5 therefore the traveling VCE the allowable number of combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 61 of71 8.2.3.4 Benzene byVessel-TravelingVCE:
Because benzene is a liquid at standard conditions, it is released as an evaporating plume and the peak concentrations are substantially lower than those of chemicals that are gaseous at standard conditions. The analyses for all of the benzene models are shown in Appendix 6.
The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. It is conservatively evaluated that the standoff distance for all ~pills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can
. occur at all stability classes.
Table 8.2-4: TraveI"mg- VCEHazardF requency fior Benzene b1y V esse1 Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst .'
Volume Stability Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir. r Total (gal) Class (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Soill Rate Hazard 2,000 G <0.18 0 - - 0 6.85E-09 0 10,000 G 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 9.77E-09 l.33E-ll 10,000 F <0.18 0 - - 0 9.77E-09 0 50,000 G 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 7.13E-12 50,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 2.66E-09 l.88E-11 50,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 2.66E-09 8.0lE-11 50,000 D <0.18 0 - - 0 2.66E-09 0 287,000 G 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 3.79E-12 287,000 F 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 l.23E-ll 287,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 2.67E-I1 287,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 8.88E-10 8.17E-11 287,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E-10 5.87E-12 287,000 B <0.18 0 - - 0 8.88E-10 0
>287,000 All 5 1().58 NW-SSE SSE 17.31% l.27E-10 2.32E-10 Total 4.82E-10 10 The traveling VCE hazard frequency for benzene is 4.82 x 10*
- Benzene also required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion (see Section 8.2.1);
therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined\ with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3 .5 Gasoline by Vessel - Traveling VCE:
r Because gasoline is a liquid at standard conditions, it is released as an evaporating plume and the peak concentrations are substantially lower than those of chemicals that are gaseous at standard conditions. The analyses for all of the gasoline models are shown in Appendix 6.
The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. It is conservatively evaluated that the standoff distance for all spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur at all stability classes. For releases with a standoff distance between 0.18 and 0.9 miles, hazard frequency is calculated for each w~d direction individually.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034
- Page 62 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Table 82 -5 : Trave rmg VCEHazardFrequency fior Gaso l"me b>Y V esseI Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst Length Wind Wind Dir. Total Volume Stability Dist.
(mi) Directions . Direction Freq. SoillRat e Hazard (gal) Class (mi) 0 - - 0 6.85E-09 0 2,000 G <0.18 0.1 NNE - 0.01% 9.77E-09 8.99E-14 10,000 G 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.00% 9.77E-09 8.47E-14 10,000 .G 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.00% 9.77E-09 O.OOE+OO 10,000 G 0.5 10,000 G 0.5 0.1 E - 0.00% 9.77E-09 2.28E-14 2.74E-14 10,000 G 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.00% 9.77E-09 0.22 SE - 0.06% 9.77E-09 l.18E-12 10,000 G 0.5 10,000 G 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.16% 9.77E-09 4.58E-13 5.38E-13 10,000 F 0.5 0.1 (NNE - 0.06% 9.77E-09 10,000 F 0.5 0.19 ', NE - 0.01% 9.77E-09 2.55E-13 2.46E-14 10,000 F 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.00% 9.77E-09 0.1 E - 0.00% 9.77E-09 4.5IE-14 10,000 F 0.5
...., 0.12 ESE - 0.02% 9.77E-09 l.88E-13 10,000 F 0.5 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.30% 9.77E-09 6.37E-12 10,000 F 10,000 F 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.81% 9.77E-09 2.38E-12 0
10,000 E <0.18 0 - - 0 9.77E-09 2.73 N-SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 l.14E-ll 50,000 G 1.4 0.53 NNE - 0.06% 2.66E-09 7.77E-13 50,000 F 0.9 0.19 NE - 0.01% 2.66E-09 6.96E-14 50,000 F 0.9 0.11 ENE - 0.00% 2.66E-09 6.70E-15 50,000 F 0.9 0.1 E - 0.00% 2.66E-09 l.23E-14 50,000 F 0.9-0.12 ESE - 0.02% 2.66E-09 5.13E-14 50,000 F 0.9 0.22 SE - 0.30% 2.66E-09 l.74E-12 50,000 F 0.9 0.44 SSE - 0.81% 2.66E-09 9.5IE-12 50,000 F
- 0.9 50,000 E 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.80% 2.66E-09 2.14E-12 l.3IE-12 50,000 E 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.26% 2.66E-09 0.11 ENE - 0.09% 2.66E-09 2.69E-13 50,000 E 0.5 0.1 E - 0.08% 2.66E-09 2.08E-13 50,000 E 0.5 50,000 E 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.11% 2.66E-09 3.58E-13 50,000 E 0.5 0.22 SE - 1.16% 2.66E-09 6.8IE-12 50,000 E 0.5 0.03 SSE - 3.45% 2.66E-09 2.76E-12 6.28E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.1 NNE - 2.36% 2.66E-09 0.19 NE - 0.48% 2.66E-09 2.45E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.20% 2.66E-09 5.92E-13 50,000 D 0.5 0.1 E - .0.15% 2.66E-09 3.92E-13 50,000 D. 0.5 50,000 D 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.32% 2.66E-09 1.04E-12 1.4IE-ll 0.5 0.22 SE -<.. 2.41% 2.66E-09 50,000 D 0.03 SSE - 10.57% 2.66E-09 8.45E-12 50,000 D 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.01% 2.66E-09 3.07E-14 50,000 C 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.03% 2.66E-09 1.28E-13 50,000 C 0.5
} 50,000 C 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.00% 2.66E-09 l.34E-14 l.87E-14 50,000 C 0.5 0.1 E - 0.01% 2.66E-09 0.12 ESE - 0.02% 2.66E-09 6.62E-14 50,000 C 0.5 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.04% 2.66E-09 2.29E-13 50,000 C 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.03% 2.66E-09 2.75E-14 50,000 C 0 - - 0 2.66E-09 0 50,000 B <0.18 7.02 NNW-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 9.75E-12 287,000 G 3.4 3.37 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 2.43E-11 287,000 F 1.7
.A
/
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 , Revision 0 Offsite Transportati on Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 63 of71 Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst . Worst Volume Stability Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir. Total (gal) Class (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Spill Rate Hazard 287,000 E 0.9 0.53 NNE - 0.80% 8.88E-10 3.77E-12 287,000 E 0.9 0.19 NE - 0.26% 8.88E-I0 4.38E-13 287,000 E 0.9 0.11 ENE - 0.09% 8.88E-10 8.96E-14 287,000 E 0.9 0.1 E - 0.08% 8.88E-I0 6.95E-14 287,000 E 0.9 0.12 ESE - 0.11% 8.88E-10 1.19E-13 287,000 E 0.9 0.22 SE - 1.16% 8.88E-I0' 2.27E-12 287,000 E 0.9 0.44 SSE - 3.45% 8.88E-10 l.35E-11 287,000 D 0.9 0.53 NNE - 2.36% 8.88E-I0 1.IIE-11 287,000 D 0.9 0.19 NE - 0.48% 8.88E-10 8.18E-13 287,000 D 0.9 0.11 ENE - 0.20% 8.88E-10 l.97E-13 287,000 D 0.9 0.1 E - 0.15% 8.88E-10 1.3IE-13 287,000 D 0.9 0.12 ESE - 0.32% 8.88E-10 3.46E-13 287,000 D 0.9 0.22 SE - 2.41% 8.88E-10 4.7IE-12 287,000 D 0.9 0.44 SSE - 10.57% 8.88E-10 4.13E-11 287,000 C 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.27% 8.88E 2.37E-13 287,000 C 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.07% 8.88E-10 1.13E-13 287,000 C 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.04% 8.88E-10 3.58E-14 287,000 C 0.5 0.1 E - 0.01%J- 8.88E-10 l.02E-14 287,000 C 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.05% 8.88E-10 5.36E-14 287,000 C 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.45% 8.88E-10 8.84E-13 287,000 C 0.5 '* 0.03 SSE - 0.76% 8.88E-10 2.02E-13 287,000 B 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.24% 8.88E-10 2.14E-13
. ; 287,000 B 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.06% 8.88E-10 l.OlE-13 287,000 B 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.01% 8.88E-10 8.98E-15 287,000 B - 0.5 0.1 E - 0.03% 8.88E-10 2.65E-14 287,000 B 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.04% 8.88E-10 4.65E-14 287,000 B 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.31% 8.88E-10 6.05E-13 287,000 B 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.62% 8.88E-10 1.66E-13 287,000 A 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.66% 8.88E-10 5.89E-13 287,000 A 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.18% 8.88E-10 3.03E-13 287,000 A 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.08% 8.88E-10 7.64E-14 287,000 A 0.5 0.1 E - 0.03% 8.88E-10 2.85E-14 287,000 A 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.16% 8.88E-10 l.66E-13 287,000 A 0.5 022 SE - 1.42% 8.88E-10 2.77E-12 287,000 A 0.5 0.03 SSE - 0.93% 8.88E-10 2.48E-13
>287,000 All 5 10.58 NW-SSE SSE 17.31% l.27E-10 2.32E-10 I Total I 4.35E-10
' 10 The traveling VCE hazard frequency for gasoline is 4.35 x 10- . Gasoline also required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion (see Section 8.2.1);
therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calc1:1Iation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 64 of71 8.2.3.6 Methane by Vessel-Tra veling VCE:
The commodity "hydrocarbon & petrol gases, liquefied and gaseous" is analyzed as methane based on the commodity information from the USACE User's Guide
[Ref. 2.47]. .
The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. See Appendix 6 for the complete analysis. It is conservatively evaluated that the standoff distance for all spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur at all stability classes.
For the 100 gallon hazardous release, hazard frequency is calcuJated for each wind direction individually.
Table 8.2-6 : Trave I'mg VCEHazardFrequency fiMth or e ane bV>Y esseI Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst Vohune Stability Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir. Total (gal) Class (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Spill Rate Hazard 100 G 0.5 0.1 NNE - 0.01% l.70E-06 l.57E-11 100 G 0.5 0.19 NE - 0.00% l.70E-06 l.48E-11 100 G 0.5 0.11 ENE - 0.00% l.70E-06 0.00E+OO 100 G 0.5 0.1 E - 0.00% 1.70E-06 3.99E-12 100 G 0.5 0.12 ESE - 0.00% l.70E-06 4.78E-12 100 G 0.5 0.22 SE - 0.06%( l.70E-P6 2.06E-I0 100 G 0.5 O.Q3 SSE - 0.16% 1.70E-06 8.00E-11 100 F <0.18 0 - - 0 1.70E-06 0 1,000 G 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 7.55E-08 2.02E-10 1,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 7.55E-08 5.33E-I0 1,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 7.55E-08 2.27E-09 1,000 D "<0.18 0 - - 0 7.55E-08 0 2,000 G 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 6.85E-09 l.83E-11 2,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 6.85E-09 4.84E-11 2,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 6.85E-09 2.06E-I0 2,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 6.85E-09 . 6.30E-10 2,000 C <0.18 0 - - 0 6.85E-09 0 10,000 G 1.7 3.37 N-SSE SSE 0.16% 9.77E-09 5.15E-ll 10,000 F 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 9.77E-09 2.16E-10 10,000 E 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 9.77E-09 5.77E-10 10,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 9.77E-09 8.99E-10 10,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 9.77E-09 6.46E-11 10,000 B <0.18 0 - - 0 9.77E-09 0 50,000 G 3.4 7.02 NNW-SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 2.93E-11 50,000 F 2 3.97 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 2.66E-09 8.58E-11 50,000 E 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 3.45% 2.66E-09 2.5IE-10 50,000 D 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 2.66E-09 4.82E-I0 50,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 2.66E-09* l.76E-ll 50,000 B 0.5 0.87. NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 2.66E-09 1.44E-ll 50,000 A 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SE 1.42% 2.66E-09 3.28E-ll 287,000 G 5 10.58 NW-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 l.47E-ll 287,000 F 4.1 8.64 NNW-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-I0 6.23E-ll 287,000 E 3.4 7.02 NNW-SSE SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 2.15E-10 287,000 D 1.7 3.37 N-SSE SSE 10.57% 8.88E-10 3.16E-10 287,000 C 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E-10 1.15E-ll
. Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 65 of71 Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst Volume Stability Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir. Total (gal) Class (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Spill Rate Hazard 287,000 B 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 8.88E-10 9.45E-12 287,000 A 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SE 1.42% . 8.88E-10 1.09E-ll
>287,000 All 5 10.58 NW-SSE SSE P,31% l.27E-10 2.32E-10 Total 7.83E-09 9
The traveling VCE hazard frequency for vessel shipments of methane is 7.83 x 10- .
Methane also required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion (see Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2); therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.7 Methanol/Ethanol (Alcohols) by Vessel-Tra veling VCE_:
Methanol and ethanol are analyzed for alcohols based on the commodity information from the USACE User's Guide [Ref. 2.47]. Methanol is selected as a worst case alcohol because _it has the lowest boiling point. Ethanol is selected because it has a smaller LEL. The largest spill of any chemical in the MISLE database is 1,826,626 gallons (see Attachment E). As shown in Appendix 6, a 2,000,000 gallon spill of either chemical can lead to an explosive concentration for Stability Class F. The vapor pressure of each chemical at l07°F (Input 4.3.4) is less than the vapor pressure of gasoline, which is assumed to be I atm at 107°F for this analysis. Also, the LEL of each chemical is high~r than the LEL of gasoline, 1.4% (Input 4.3.2). The methanol/ethanol analysis is therefore *bounded by the analysis of gasoline. The traveling. VCE. hazard frequency for methanol/ethanol shipments is set to 4.35 x 10-10, the same as gasoline (see Section 8.2.3.5). Methanol/ethanol also required probabilistic analysis fat a stationary explosion (see Section 8.2.1); therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips: This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.8 Naphtha by Vessel-Tra veling VCE:
Because naphtha is a liquid at standard conditions, it is released as an evaporating plume and the peak *concentrations are substantially lower than those of chemicals that are gaseous at standard conditions. The analyses for all of the naphtha models are shown in Appendix 6.
The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. It is conservatively evaluated that the standoff distance for all spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur at all stability classes.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Proje ct No.: 11354-034 Page 66 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation T a ble 8.2-7 : Trave rmg VCE HazardFrequency fior N ap.htha b>Y Vesse Standoff .Trip Worst Worst Spill Weather Total Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir.
Volume Stability Spill Rate Hazard (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq.
(gal) Class
- 0 7.55E-08 0 1,000 G <0.18 0 - 9.32E-12 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 6.85E-09 2,000 G 0.5
- 0 6.85E-09 0 2,000 F <0.18 0 - 1.33E-11 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 9.77E-09 10,000 G 0.5 SSE 0.81% '9.77E-09 6.90E-11 10,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 0 9.77E-09 0 10,000 E <0.18 0 -
N-SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 l.14E-11 50,000 G 1.4 2.73 3.70E -ll 50,000 F 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE SSE 0.81%
3.45%
2.66E-09 2.66E-09
. 8.0IE-11 50,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 2.66E-09 2.45E-10 50,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 2.66E-09 l.76E -ll 50,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 2.66E-09 l.44E -ll 50,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 0 2.66E-09 0 50,000 A <0.18 0 -
SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 9.75E-12 287,000 G 3.4 7.02 NNW-SSE N-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 2.43E-11 287,000 F 1.7 3.37 N-SSE . SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 8.38E-11 287,000 E 1.4 2.73 SSE 10.57% 8.88E-10 l.6IE- 10 (
287,000 D 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E-10 l.15E-11 287,000 C 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 8.88E-10 4.8IE- 12 287,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SE 1.42% 8.88E-10 l.09E-11 287,000 A 0.5 0.87 NW-SSE SSE 17.31% 1.27E-10 2.32E-10
>287,000 All 5 10.58 Total l.04E-09 9
x 10- . Naphtha also The traveling VCE hazard frequency for naphtha is 1.04 (see Section 8.2.1);
required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion ined with the stationary therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be comb trips. This calculation is hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.9 Propane by Vess el-Tr aveli ng VCE:
vessel near the site are Several of the chemicals identified as being transported by ns (propane is acyclic),
analyzed as propane. These are: acyclic hydrocarbo organo/inorgano compounds and petroleum products NEC.
See Appendix 6 for the The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below.
standoff distance for all complete analysis. .It is conservatively evaluated that J:he at all st8:bility classes.
spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur p >Y V esse1 T able 8.2-8 : Trave1'mg VCE HazardFrequency fior ropane b Worst Weather Standoff Trip Worst Spill Total Dist. Length Wind Wind Dir.
Volume Stability Spill Rate Hazard (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq.
(gal) Class
- 0 1.70E-06 0 100 G <0.18 0 - l.03E-10 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 7.55E-08 1,000 G 0.5
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 Page 67 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Stando ff Trip Worst Worst Spill Weathe r Total Stability Dist. Length__ Wind Wind Dir.
Volum e Spill Rate Hazard (mi) (mi) ', Directions Direction Freq.
(gal) Class NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 7.55E-08 5.33E-10 1,000 -F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 7.55E-08 2.27E-09 1,000 E 0.5 0.87
- 7.55E-08 0 1,000 D <0.18 0 - 0 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 6.85E-09 9.32E-12 2,000 G 0.5 0.87 SSE 0.81% 6.85E-0 9 4.84E- ll 2,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-S SE NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 6.85E-0 9 2.06E-10 2,000 E 0.5 0.87
- 6.85E-09 0 2,000 D <0.18 0 - 0 9.77E-09 4.17E-11 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 0.16%
10,000 G SSE 0.81% 9.77E-09 l.36E-1 0 10,000 F 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 9.77E-09 2.94E-10 10,000 E 0.5 0.87 SSE 10.57% 9.77E-09 8.99E-10 10,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 9.77E-09 6.46E-11 10,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 9.77E-09 0 10,000 B <0.18 0 - 0 NNW- SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 2.93E- ll 50,000 G 3.4 7.02 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 2.66E-09 5.90E-11 50,000 F 1.4 2.73 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 2.66E-09 l.57E-1 0 50,000 E 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 2.66E- 09 4.82E-10 50,000 D 0.9 1.71 SSE 0.76% 2.66E-0 9 l.76E-1 1 50,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 2.66E-09 l.44E- ll 50,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE
- 2.66E-09 0 50,000 A <0.18 0 - 0 NW-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 l.47E- ll 287,00 0 G 5 10.58 NNW-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 5.06E- ll 287,00 0 F 3.4 7.02 N-SSE SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 l.22E-1 0 287,00 0 E 2 3.97 N-SSE SSE 10.57% - 8.88E-10 2.56E-10 287,00 0 D 1.4 2.73 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E-10 1.15E- ll 287,00 0 C 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 8.88E-10 4.8IE- 12 287,00 0 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SE 1.42% 8.88E-10 L09E- ll 287,00 0 A 0.5 0.87 NW-SSE SSE 17.31% l.27E-1 0 2.32E-10
>287,0 00 All 5 10.58 I Total I 6.06E-09 9
ne is 6.06 x 10* ,
The traveling VCE hazard frequency for vessel shipments of propa ary explosion (see Propane also required probabilistic analysis for a station frequency must be Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2); therefore the traveling VCE hazard allowable number of combined with the stationary hazard :frequency to determine the
. trips. This calculation is performed in Section 8.2.4.
8.2.3.10 Vinyl Chloride by Vesse l-Tra velin g VCE:
de based on the The commodity "other hydrocarbons"* is analyzed as vinyl chlori commodity information from the USACE User's Guide [Ref. 2.47].
Appendix 6 for the The frequency of a hazard per trip is calculated below. See stando ff distance for all complete analysis. It is conservatively evaluated that the stability classes.
spills greater than 287,000 gallons is 5 miles and can occur at all
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI -S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 68 of71 Table 8.2-9 : Trave rmg VCEHazardFrequency fior V"my1 Chlon.de b>Y Vesse1 Spill Weather Standoff Trip Worst Worst Volume ._Stability Dist. Length Wind Wiri.dDir. Total (gal) Class (mi) (mi) Directions Direction Freq. Spill Rate Hazard 100 G - 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 1.70E-06 2.32E-09 100 F <0.18 0 - - 0 l.70E-06 0 1,000 G 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 7.55E-08 2.02E-10 1,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 7.55E-08 5.33E-10 1,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 7.55E-08 2.27E-09 1,000 D <0.18 0 - - 0 7.55E-08 0 2,000 G 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.16% 6.85E-09 l.83E-11 2,000 F 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 6.85E-09 4.84E-11 2,000 E 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 6.85E-09 2.06E-10 2,000
- D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 6.85E-0.9 6.30E-10 2,000 C <0.18 0 - - 0 6.85E-09 0 10,000 G 1.7 3.37 N-SSE SSE 0.16% 9.77E-09 5.15E-ll 10,000 F 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.81% 9.77E-09 , I.36E-10 10,000 E : 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 3.45% 9.77E-09 5.77E-10 10,000 D 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 9.77E-09 8.99E-10 10,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 9.77E-09 6.46E-ll 10,000 B <0.18 0 - - 0 9.77E-09 0 50,000 G 3.4 7.02 NNW-SSE SSE 0.16% 2.66E-09 2.93E-ll 50,000 F 1.7 3.37 N-SSE SSE 0.81% 2.66E-09 7.29E-ll 50,000 E 1.4 2.73 N-SSE SSE 3.45% 2.66E-09 2.51E-10 50,000 D 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 10.57% 2.66E-09 4.82E-10 50,000 C 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 2.66E-09 l.76E-ll 50,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 2.66E-09 1.44E-ll 50,000 A <0.18 0 - - 0 2.66E-09 0 287,000 G 5 10.58 NW-SSE SSE 0.16% 8.88E-10 l.47E-ll 287,000 F 4.1 8.64 NNW-SSE SSE 0.81% 8.88E-10 6.23E-ll 287,000 E 3.4 7.02 NNW~ssE SSE 3.45% 8.88E-10 2.15E-10 287,000 D 1.7 3.37 N-SSE SSE 10.57% 8.88E-10 3.16E-10 287,000 C 0.9 1.71 NNE-SSE SSE 0.76% 8.88E-10 l.15E-ll 2'87,000 B 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SSE 0.62% 8.88E-10 4.81E-12 287,000 A 0.5 0.87 NNE-SSE SE 1.42% 8.88E-10 l.09E-ll
>287,odo All 5 10.58
- NW-SSE
- SSE 17.31% l.27E-10 2.32E-10 I I Total I 9.69E-09 The traveling VCE hazard :frequency for vessel shipments of vinyl chloride is 9.69 x 10-9* Vinyl chloride also required probabilistic analysis for a stationary explosion (see Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2); therefore the traveling VCE hazard frequency must be combined with the stationary hazard frequency to determine the allowable number of trips. This calculation is performed in Section~8.2.4.
8.2.4 Combined Probability For vessel shipments of the chemicals listed below in Table 8.2-10, a probability analysis is required for both a stationary explosion (Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2) and traveling VCE (Section 8.2.3). To determine that the overall hazard probability of each chemical is acceptable, the hazard frequency of both types of explosions must be
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision 0 Project No.: 11354-034 ,,
Page 69 of71 Offsite*Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation~
the bound ing frequency combined. For the stationary explosion hazard frequency, 8.2.1) and BLEVE hazar d betwe en the station ary vapor cloud explosion hazard (Section cloud explosion hazar d (Secti on 8.2.2) is used - in all cases, the stationary vapor is calcul ated below in frequency is bounding. The combi ned hazard freque ncy chemi cal's numb er of trips.
Table 8.2-10. Also reprod uced from Table 7.4-2 is each is found by dividing the The overa ll allow able numb er of trips for each* chemi cal comb ined :frequency by 1o- hazards per year.
6 Table 8.2-10 : V esse1 Shilpmentsw1"thComb"me dH azardFreq uency Stationary Hazard Traveling Overall Annual Frequency VCEHazard Combined Allowable Number (Secs. 8.2.1 Frequency Hazard Number of Trips . & 8.2.2) (Sec. 8.2.3) Frequency of Trips Chemical Acetic Acid 48 l.33E-10 4.35E-10* 5.68E-10 1,761 (Carboxvlic Acid) 43 l.33E-10 4.35E-10* 5.68:E-10 1,761 Acetone 936 849 3.85E-10 6.84E-10 l.07E-09 Ammonia 1,627 476 l.33E-10 4.82E- 10 6.15E- 10 Benzene ..
1,761 1,671 l.33E-10 4.35E-10 5.68E-10 Gasoline 118 96 6.14E-10 7.83E-09 8.44E-09 Methane M~thanol/Ethanol 1,599 l.33E-10 4.35E-10* 5.68E-10 1,761 (Alcohols) 140 l.33E-10 1.04E-09 l.17E-09 856 Naphtha 150 21 6.14E-10 6.06E- 09 1.65E-09 Propane 42 6.14E-10 9.69E-09 l.03E-08 97 Vinyl Chloride
- Results are obtained from bounding analysis of gasoline.
I the allowable for each As shown in Table 8.2-10, the numb er of trips is less than chemical, thus, meeti ng the probabilistic acceptance criteria.
S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Portland Ge-neral Electric - Trojan ISFSI Revision O Project No.: 11354-034 Page 70 of71 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation 9.0 Conclusion each of the potentially hazardous As shown in Section 8.0, Results, the acceptance criteria for to explosive overpressure on the chemicals are met. None of the chemicals pose a hazard due ed below. Table 9.0-1, below, Trojan ISFSI. A summary of the hazard anaey-sis results is provid analysis and those chemicals details those chemicals that are acceptable based on a deterministic probability is not increased by that are acceptable based on a probabilistic analysis. Accident ships using the Prescott anchorage as determined in Section 6.4.2.
I tion determines that the :frequency For each chemical requiring probabilistic analysis, this evalua Several conservatisms are used in is less than 1o- hazards per year, per the acceptance criteria.
6 traveling VCE analyses are the probability analyses. Significant conservatisms in tp.e vessel listed below:
spill sizes. For instance, a spill
. 1. The spill size fo~ each case is the maximum in the range of cal.
of 51,000 gallons is modeled as a spill of 287,000 gallons of chemi is used and the estima tion of the number of
- 2. Data for the entire Columbia River System shipments for ea.ch chemical is biased high in Section 7.4.
maximize the release rate, which
- 3. Storage conditions for chemicals are selected in order to cases, chemicals that are would maximize the concentration at the Trojan site. In some (e.g., propane, methane, etc.).
typically stored or transported as liquids ?i'e modeled as gases
~peeds mat ~:sult in a ~azard;
- 4. For a specific we_a~er stability class, o~y certain_ wind the probability calculation.
however; a probability of 1.0 for adverse wmd speed 1s used m
Portland General Electric - Trojan ISFSI S&L Calculation No.: 2017-09306 Project No.: 11354-034 Revision 0 Offsite Transportation Explosion Hazard Evaluation Page 71 of71 Table 9.0-1 : Off:SI*te Transportat10n Exp1os10n . H azardEva1uat1on Resu1ts Nearest Type of Deterministic Analysis Probability Analysis Source Aunroach Explosions Results
- Results Solid Explosives and All Hazards< 1.0 psig Stationary VCE NIA (Table 8.1-1)
(Section 8.1.1)
BLEVE All Hazards< 0.1 psig NIA (Section 8.1.2) (Table 8.1-2)
BNSF Butane, Butylene, Isobutene, 1.09 mi
- Railcar Isobutylene, Propane &
Propylene> LEL for Traveling VCE Weather< 5% of the Time NIA (Section 8 ..1.3) (Section 8.1.3)
Remainder < LEL (Table 8.1-3)
Solid Explosives and Stationary VCE Eth,anol < 1.0 psig NIA(
(Section 8.1.1) .,
PNWR BLEVE 0.14mi NIA NIA Railcar (Section 8.1.2)
Traveling VCE NIA Ethanol< LEL (Section 8.1.3)
Ammonium Nitrate Petroleum Coke < 1.0 psig < 1,628 Allowable Trips Solid Explosjves and *sulfur< 0.1 psig Explosives< 1,120 Stationary VCE Remainder> 2.2 psig or Allowable Trips (Section 8.2.1 & 8.2.4) > 1 psig (Table 8.2-1)
Columbia (Table 8.2-1) Remainder --t Combined
- Probability (see below)
River 0.18 mi Vessel All Hazards > 2.2 psig All Hazards (Exel. Solids BLEVE (Section 8.2.2 & 8.2.4) (Table 8.2-2) & Dust) Stationary &
Traveling VCE
' Combined Probability Traveling VCE All Hazards > LEL
< Allowable Trips (Section 8.2.3 & 8.2.4) (Section 8.2.3)
(Table 8.2-10)
)
.)