ML21183A073
| ML21183A073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/2021 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21183A079 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2021-000058 | |
| Download: ML21183A073 (99) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Tammara, Seshagiri From: Pickett, Douglas Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: Krohn, Paul; Mccoppin, Michael; Tammara, Seshagiri; Palmrose, Donald; Dentel, Glenn Cc: Tate, Travis
Subject:
Why Did We Assume an Easterly Breeze? By letter dated November 6, 2015, we responded to the 39 Paul Blanch questions that resulted from the second PRB presentation in July 2015. On December 14, 2015, Blanch responded back In the link below with another 46 questions. I've reviewed his letter and , with one exception, everything is a rehash of old issues. The exception is his questioning of our ALOHA input - specifically, he questions why we assumed an initial wind from the east which pushes the plume away from the plant. See his questions 12 and 34 . This question may come up during the February meeting and we need to be able to answer whether it makes any difference . I thought the assumed wind direction was meaningless and ALOHA was only used to calculate the total mass of gas available for an explosion. Thoughts? View DAM P8 Properties ML15348A324 Open ADAMS P8 Document (LTR-15-0613 Paul Blanch. Energv Consultant. E-mail re: comments and iuestions on NRC Letter dated November 6. 2015 r garding the AlM Proicct) Douglas V . Pickett, Senior Project Manager Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Douglas .Pickett@nrc.gov 301-415-1364
Tammara, Seshagiri From: Crane, Samantha Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:05 AM To: Mccoppin, Michael; Tammara, Seshaglrl
Subject:
FW: ACTION REFERRAL - FOIA/PA-2015 -00076 Referral Assignment Attachments: Review of IPEC Hazard Analysis - FOIA/PA-2015-00076 Importance: High Are we still working on this for Friday? Samantha Crane Technical Assistant Division of Site Safely & Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office. 301-415-6380 Samantha.Crane(@nrc.gov From: NRO_FOIA Resource Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:05 PM To: Mills, Vivian; Woods, Sylvia Cc: Tammara, Seshagiri; Crane, Samantha; NRO_FOIA Resource; Jardaneh, Mahmoud; Rivera-Lugo, Richard; Coates, Anissa
Subject:
ACTION REFERRAL - FOIA/PA-2015-00076 Referral Assignment Importance: High (DSEA) - FOIA Referral FOIA/PA-2015-0076- Recommended redactions of the IPEC Hazard Analysis Due: March 6, 2015 (please provide us with Y,our release determination via e-mail to the NRO_fOI~ Resource) The Referral document, (Enclosure 2 to NL-14-106, Hazard Analysis), has already been reviewed by NSIR (Rob Norman). A copy of the document with NSIR's recommended redactions was sent to the POCs (Seshagirl Tamara, NRO and Doug Pickett, NRR) on February 23, 2015. Thank you, Yessie Correa - FOIA Coordinator - I E-mail: Ye~.e.CQr a*o nrq1ov I Office: (301) 415-6522 I MS: T-6-C22 Anissa Coates - Backup FOIA Coordinator - I .!).,LJ..,,_._,.,.,,..,ui:1£:..nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-5812 I MS: T-6-K6 1
From: Dennis, Deborah Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:~n PM To: NRO_FOIA Resource; RidsNrrMaflCenter Resource Cc: Correa, Yessle; Dennis, Deborah
Subject:
FOIA/PA-2015-00076 Referral Assignment Importance: High A Referral for FOJA/PA-2015-00076 is being a signed Lo NRO;NRR on February 24, 2015. Due Date: March 10 201 The Referral document, ( nclosure 2 to NL-14-106, Hazard An lysis), has already been reviewed by IR (Rob orman). A opy of the document with N rR' recommended redaction wa sent to the POCs identified below in the attached email on February 23, 2015. RRP - Doug Pickett NROP h irl amm.m, The OIS FOWPA Specialist for this request is Deborah Dennis and she can be reached at 301-415-5704. 2
Tammara. Seshagiri From: Dennis, Deborah Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:57 PM To: Tammara, Seshagiri; Pickett, Douglas Cc: Dennis, Deborah
Subject:
Review of lPEC Hazard Analysis - FOINPA-2015-00076 Attachments: FOIA_Enclosure 2_Hazards Analysis.pdf ~T-he_ a _tt_a-ch_e_ d -an-n-ot-at-ed- do-c-um _e_n-t,-re--=fl-ec---:ti-ng-d.,.,..is-c,-- lo-su-re---, recommendations from staff, is withheld in its entirety Importance: Higlh under FOIA exemption 5. As ultimately released (in part) in response to FOIA/PA-2015-0076, it may be found as ML15103A170. Good Afternoon G nUemen, l(h)(li) Attached (s Rob Norman's recommended redact,oos of the !PfC Hazard Analysis for your review If From: Dennis, Deborah Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:40 PM To: Dennis, Deborah
Subject:
FW: ISB Recommendations: FOIA/PA-2015-00076 Referral Assignment From: Norman, Robert Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 4:54 PM To: Dennis, Deborah Cc: Parsons, Darryl; Ralph, Melissa
Subject:
ISB Recommendations: FOIA/PA-2015-00076 Referral Assignment Good afternoon Debor h 1 I've attached the two documents that ace a cart of the suh1ect lloe EOIA : l (b)(5) If you have any questions regarding the recommended redactions, please let me know. Rob Robert L Norman Sr. Program Manager (Safeguards Information) Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission www.nrc. ov Office: 301.415.2278 Fax: ~01.415.2190 1
P~oPoSGD A-Lo-HA 'RUN .S ~ 1.. - .._JJ_, b ~
~ ~ ~ft_r ~fl2.~ 1 ~~; Lvv--b er(~ e,u.J~
ss-o rff-~ ~P~
~) L,~d f-l ~
l>.M~r l--.N& J/\.-0 , pt;; t1W/V
~ -1\-LoHA
~-ft>
~ "~I.-, P"'te.~J, tk-..0.. A, Lo J+A av
;:J... Sb} o-..ru lbs_
~
- 2- '2-~ I b=--s:-
- 6 0 /2.e.c.
\ 0\'.3>i
- l.f 3/4{~ ~ ~~'=k-h> ~ ~~CD..-::1-v~ 1 (b)(7)(F)
~ ~ l,i ~ -~~ t,_;_{;k ~
~~ ~~~ frO\M. 'f-'!p.e._s
~ ~*<rk ""'
~ M~
~ ~
/\.1-f""""-~
~n
~ D1 }
~~ ~",
-..,(_ o...a.LtC. J.
'i'-n ~ 17V) l(b)(l)(F) I t:.r<. ~ ~ c~cwJi.4 .
~-fl~ tt-A CJ}.U2.- .i ( R ,u N C,As 6 :1. ( ~ ~ ~ / I ' ? ()-U_.,._ cl ~
' ~-- @ ~~~)
- r E~ ~f\~CJvv ~~ ~t.-e (re~~
~ ~fp,.<e.
~
Lt~ -ft:.., AL<i1tA ~,. ~ 1/4d,_ ~
, J_ 51,) ~ ft>s/ ~ ~ rJ..;v., ~ --4-o I ps; ~,~
~ ~-re.~
~ ~ ~.,J ~ R_~ . l9J ~oJ~~ M ~tluWS *, f J Ce. e,:x.rlo&--:6"'
~ ~u,_
Pr~*, ~*,
\ ~, ~ c~°"'°)
5 7- 'i ~ a.,{_! +: d-uv-Mf ~ N\.NYJ~*~wCJ /
~(S' * .A ~ " ~ (f ~ ~ (i'\,v ) ~_J:_
td-.-- i 0-.J -F-<hY -%-')y WtNT:. -rNT~
/1.
3/4 TW"r d cJ.,.., '1<) ~ ~ '2,"=> b~ - ~ ~~
- ~ ~<f\/'IL. ~ C e _
~ Soc.A
j\ Lo t-t A c_,,6\_ S-Q.. i Ccr.) Ru tv II ~'\1"'( ~ ~ fl~- (f°)\.,,
~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ -h ~ c;{Q__,+-e,v~J ~
w,..,,~"""U\-'-- ALc,HA 'v.i I\JLY~ (A)vf,k ~ tJ~
~ \~ 2s ~ ~ 2-5"h) ~ lbs. ~ 1t:t. I\A.r2.-~ D..MJ2...
zyW d ~ /J~ d.. ~ ~ f o ~ t-o
""t~e. ,;. vY,z..,L - ry;;; ....~ -~-\
=,}) b"-o-0 *Cl *0)
~5l)H-D
- o, o5" = 12., <ooo lb.s
\~* f.h~Ii~
\., ~
ALol-1 A ~ RtA.V) ~~ \~ ~ d 12, '?Da /be; ~ ~~
~ ~~CA- -\-v Sou1/4 ~ t fi~~ ~ ~f--CR....
-~ ;l.. 'b(,~ uw--J... ssc. ~-4. ~
s C) CA :-0 ~ l(b)(?)(F) I 1o -kl. dA ~#M-C-£ ~:) b ~ ...... r )-(7)(-F) _ _ ______.
~ ~~s~t:-~~'-'L 1 3of1/- to cl~ ~ ~ fo S"£c
~) n. , _
~
_.l..._
~ F-1 I
~r _
(J,,..., (b)(7)(Fl
- l ~~~s 1 __,
us~ 1- ( ~.%"; ,WO s+ 12;,1<:oJ; ~c;,.,,) GJ
~ j_ ( I..I.I.) 'fZ V 7V
~ .i RvN A-\~o ~ +t,~ ~ ~ 3 5 'f- ,G 5' 1 fo v..,,,. d s t,..r.-lt:., ~ ~e:-.. --i. c1\.,,
)
... G>..N~ ~ ~ ~k
= ~'Stf => bS I 'F~S -:. 3 Cj 4-0b /bs _
ql'Yvw. -====== ~
- TN, a, , 33':>!f
~ " 5 [ d-,/°f05] :=- ~2£3_ f;i--
V) _ llh)l7)(FI
A-Lo-HA 'RUN' S
=-
( Summary SITE DATA: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enc l osed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol
'rEE:L-1: 3000 ppm TEEL- 2: 5000 ppm 'rEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm U~L: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm J\mbient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0%
ATMOSPHE~~"""""~--'.....,""""t'L lNPU'I' OF DA"rA) Wind: from Eat 3 meters Ground countr Cloud Cover: !lh)(7)(F) Air Te Stability Class No Inversion He Relative Humidity: !<blm1Fi I SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas escaping from pipe (not burning) Pipe Diameter: 42 inches Pipe Length: l(b)(7)(F) Unbroken end of the pipe is closed off Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: !(b)(7)(F) ~ Pipe Press: 850 ps_i _a ____ Pipe Temperature: !(h)(7l( Release Duration: l[b)[)(F} I l(h)(?)(F} Max Average Susta1ne'a'. ~el ease Rate: (averaged over a minl1te or morel ToLal Amount Released: _(I_J)(_7l_W_) _ _ _ _ __,I THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of lgnition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run ! Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of bui l dings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi = serious jnjury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1.0 psi = shatters glass) THREAT AT POIN'1': Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet
*overpressure: l(b)(7)(F)
ave pressure at Point Time: June 21, 2013 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _AL 1200 hours ED'I' (user specified) _ OHA 5 .,A Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwi nd: 1580 feet Off Ccnt~rline: o. feet Overpressure: !(b)(7)(F) l Overpressure: . (b)(7)(r:J At Point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet
Overpressure ( Blast Force) 'T hreat Zone Ti.roe: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ... W>_)(_l)_(F_) _ _ _ __.I from E at 3 meters
'I'HREAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Lievel of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (B.O psi -= destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi = serious injury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1.0 psi = shatters glass) Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosi Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildi Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi :::: serious injury likely Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1.0 psi = shatters. glass)
'I'ext Summary SITE DATA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ -- -- -- -A.L _ O _H _A _ 5. 4 . 1 i' Locat i on: KI NGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enc losed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1 : 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000, 000 ppm or 100 .0 % ATMOSPHERi y DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: !i_b)(7)(F) ! from E at 3 meters .-------. Ground Roughness: open country Cloud Cover: !(b)(l)(F) Air Temperature: j(b)(l)(F) Stability Class: . No Inversion Heig..,h...t_ _ _ _ _ _ ___. Relative Humidity: SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas escaping from pipe (not burning) ~----,---. Pipe Diameter: 42 inches Pipe Length: l(b)(/)(F) Unbroken end of the pipe is closed off Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: .....,_;.___-,--...,....,,.,...., (b)(7)(F) Pipe Press: 850 psi a Pipe Temperature: Release Dura.tion: !lh)l7)/~*, I Max Average Sustained Release Rate: 170,000 pounds/min (averaged over a minute or ore Total Amount Released: (b)(7)(F) THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run: Gaussian Red (b)(7)(F) (26,400 ppm= 60% LEL; Flame Pockets) Orange: (44000 ppm= LEL) Yellow: .__ _ ___, (4,400 ppm= 10% LEL) THREAT AT POINT: Concentration Estimates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Concentration: Outdoor: ,-(h-)a-l-(Fl_ _ ____, Indoor: .
Flammable Threat zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA., 5 , 4 .1 i' Chemical Name: METHANE W' nd: ~r_)(_TJ_(F_l_ _ _ _ _lfrom Eat 3 meters 1 THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run: Gaussian Red (ll)(7)(F) ,_ __ (26, 1100 ppm - 60% LEL - Fla.me Pocket:s) Orange: ~-- (44000 ppm= LEL) Yellow: ~-- (4,400 ppm= 10% LEL) (b)(7J(F)
Concentra ion at Point Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 .5 0 (enclo~ed offlce)
'l'HREA'l' AT POINT:
Model Run: Gaussian Concentration Es l imates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0 feet Max Concentr.~A~t~i~a~n-*- - - - - . Indoor: ,__ _____ Outdoor: l/b)(7)rF) (h)(7l(F) AC Point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline : 0. feet
Text Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA s.,. l i' Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/rnol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHE~~C P:TA
- IMANU~L INPUT OF DATA)
Wind: ~~(?)(F)_ Jfrom E at 3 meters Ground oug ness: o en countr Cl oud Cover: l(b)(7l(F) Air Temperature: (b)(?)(F)
- Stability Class:
No Inversion Height Relative Humidity: SOURCE STRENGTH: Release Ourati gn; l Release Rate: fl@7)(F) mi~~~; Direct Source: 8500 pounds/min I Total Amount Released: ~----~f_\_ _ ___. Source Hei ght: O Note: This chemical may flash boil and/or result in two phase flow. Use both dispersion modules to investigate its potential behavior. THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: congested Model Run: Gaussian Red : LOC was never exceeded (8,0 psi ~ destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi= serious injury likely) Yellow: l(b)(7)(F) I --- (1.0 psi = shatters glass) THREAT AT POINT : Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0 . feet Overpressure: !(b)(7)(F)
Overpressure at Point ALOHA Time : June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: O feet Overpressure: !(b)(7)(F) Overpressure: 1(1))/?)(F) At Point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: O. feet
Overpressure (Blast Force) Threat ione ALOHA 5.4.l i ' Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE
.... )(l_)(_F)_ _ _ __.I from Wind: l(b_ .1:: at 3 meters THREAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Lev e l o f Congestion: conge s t ed Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi : destruction of buildings) Orange: Yellow : (h)(7l(F} i,ac was D P.Ver exceeded
! --- ( (3. 5 psi = serious injury likely)
- 1. 0 psi = shatters glass)
(b)(7)(F)
~~
~
Text Swnmary ALOHA 5 . 4 . _1 ___~ SITE DATA: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEBL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm l\rtlhj nt Roiling Pain : -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100 . 0 Source Height: 0 THREAT ZONE : Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) rom vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition : ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: congested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi= destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi= serious injury likely) Yellow: ...l(ll_)(7_l(_Fl_ _ _ _ _...,I psi = shatters glass) THREA'r AT POINT: Downwind: ......b ....., 71 f-_____ Overpressure Estimate at the point:
...__.., Off Centerline: 0. feet I Overpressure: (h)(7)(f) j
Overpressure at Point ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 ~ Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussjan Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: !n1la}ffl I Off Centerline: 0 feet Overpressure: ji_~_)a_)_(F_) _ _ _ Overpressure: l(b)(7)(F) At Point: Downwind: l_ (b_)a_ )_rF_) - - Off Centerline: 0. feet
Overpressure (Bl ast Force) *r hreat Zone ALOHA 5 . 4. 1 Time : J une 21, 201 3 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Wi nd: _l tb_)(_7 _)(F_~l _ _ _ _ _.l from Eat 3 meters THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explos i on Type of Ignition: ign'ted by spark or flame Level of Congestion: congested Model Run: Gaussian Red LDC was never exceeded (8.0 psi : destruct i on of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3 . 5 psi= serious i njury likely) Yellow: l(h)(l)(F) (1. 0 psi = shatters g l ass) (b)(l)(FI
'l'ext Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA~ 5.44 Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Pimbient Temperature: greater than 1 at:m Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHE L INPUT OF DATA) Wind: (b)(7)(F) from E at 3 meters Ground oug ess: open country Cloud Cover: l(b)(?](F) Air ~e1;1perature: l(b)(7)(F) Stability Class: . No Inversion Heig~n-e_ _ _ _ _ _ __. Relative Humidity: l(b)(7)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Release Durat ~QD
- l Release Rate: )fui(7)(F) min ~~;
Direct Source: !~(b_l(_7)_(F_l ...,...._ _ __. Source Height: 0 Total Amount Released: wCh~~~IIF~l.,......,.....~_.j Note: This chemical may flash boil and/or result in two phase flow. Use both dispersion modules to investigate its potential behavior. THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run : Gaussian Red Orange:
- l(b)(7)(F) f-- (26,400 pp1n ; 60% LEL :: Flame Pockets)
-- (44000 ppm~ LEL)
Yellow: _ _ _ _ _ --- ('I, '100 ppm = 10% LET ,) THREAT AT POINT: Concentration Esti tes al the point: Downwind: (h)(7)(F} Off Cen tcr line: 0 . feet Max Concen Outdoor: Indoor:
Concentration at Point Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOIIA 5.4.1 f' Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Concentration Estimates at the point: Downwind: F Off Centerline: 0. f eet Max Concen r i--,..........--~ Outdoor: (b)(7)(F) Indoor: (b)(7)(F) (h)(7)(F) At Point: Downwind: l(h)(7)(F) I Off Centerline: 0. feet
Flammable Threat Zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 1/2 Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ~l(b_l(_7l_(F_1 _ _ _ _ _,I from Eat 3 meters THREAT ZONE : Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run: Gaussian Red (ll)(7)(F) --- (26,400 ppm - 60% LEL ..- Flame Pock B) Orange: --- (44000 ppm= LEL) Yellow: --- {4,400 ppm = 10 LEL) (b)(7)(F)
- rext Summary ALOHA 5, 4 Sl'J'E DATA:
Loca ion: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user speci fied) CHEMICAL DA'l'A: Chemical Name: ME'l'HANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL- 3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 16~000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° P Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater Lhan 1 alm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100 . 0% ATMOSPHEfi~C P:TA; Wind: li_b1(7)(Fl_
!MANUM. INPUT OF DATA)
I from E at 3 meters Ground oug ness: open country Cloud Cover: l(h)(7J(F) Air ~ernperature: l(b)(7)(F) Stability Class: . (b)(7) No Inversion Heig~n-t - - - - - - - ~ Relative Humidity: (F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas 1s burning as it escapes from (b)(7)(F) Pi ..,
- 42 inche Pipe Pip ug ess: smoo Pipe Press: 850 psja Max Flame Length: 128 yards Burn Duration: ALOHA limited the duration to 1 hour Max Burn Rate: ~lrb~'~CT~)[Fl ..._,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---cl Total AinounL Burned: l(li)(7l(F)
'l'HR EAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Thermal radiation from jet £ire Red (b)(7)(F) !(b)(7)(F) I Orange: ~( ~ 5 ~. ,u.,.....k~w
~7.,....,...,
(s~q==-=m = .na degree burns
~)..........:!! wi hin 60 sec)
Yellow: -- (2 . 0 kW/(sg m) = pain within 60 sec)
'r'HHE:A'l' A'J' PO I NT; Thermal Radiation Estimates at the point:
Do,..mwind: 1580 feel - - - - - - - . Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Thermal Radiation: l~'b_)r_i_(F_l _ _ ___.
Thermal Radiation at Point ALOHA S 4 1 I I 'l'ime: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: No Model Given Thermal Radiation Estimates ac the poinc: Downwind: 1580 f~ot ,--.,.,.....,.,.....-----. Off Centerline: O. fee Max Thermal Radiation: ~'(b_)(_7J_(F_) _ _ _ __. At Poirt Downwind: 1580 feet Off C rtter1ine: O. feet
Thermal Radiation Threat Zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user s p c1 d) ALOH/\0> 5 . -1 . 1 f' Chemical Name: METHANE l Wind: ~l(b_J(_7)_(F_l _ _ _ _ _ f rom Eat 3 meters (b)(7)(F)
Text Summary ALOHA SITE DATA: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1 : 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Poinc: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater chan 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100,0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: l(b)(7)(FI I from E at. 3 meters ,.,...,..,,,...,,.,..-... Ground Roughness: :pen country Cloud Cover: 1(1:1)(7 )\Fl Air Temperature: l(bX7)(F) Stability Class: . _ No Inversion Heig'"'h..,.,.._ _ _ _ _ ___, Relative Humidity: (b)(l)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: F'lammable gas escaping from pipe (not burning) Pipe Diameter: 42 inches Pipe Length: l1 b)/7}/F\ Unbroken end of the pipe is connected to an infinite source Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: l~tb~*a.1~,r~'-,...........""' Pipe Press: 850 psia Pipe Temperature: !(l.i)(7)(F) Release Duration: ALOH~ limited the duration to 1 hour Max Average Sustained Release Rate: (b)(l)(F) (averaged over a min~u~t~e;.....,,;;o~r~ m~o~r~e~)- - . . . - - - - - - - - - ' Total Amount Released: (11)(7)(r) THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spa k or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi = serious injury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1 . 0 psi shatters glass) THREAT AT POINT: overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet Overpressure: !M(7)(F)
Overpressure at Point ALOHA 541 ~ Time: June 21, 2013 Chemical Name: METHANE 1200 hours EDT (user specified) I Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREA'l' AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet Overpressure: l(bl{7)(P Overpressure: l~
' b_J{_7 l_F_l _ _,
At Point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Cen erline: 0 feet
Text Summary ALOHA 5.4 . 1 SITE DATA : Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 {enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16,04 g/moJ TEEL -1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL : 165000 ppm Ambient BoiJ i ng Point: - 258. 8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentratjon: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHEffi~c ~ATA * (MANU~L INPUT OF DATA) Wind: _bjl)(F _ ! from E at 3 meters Ground Roughness: o en countr Cloud Cover: (b)( 7)(F) Air Temperature: (b)(7)(F) Stability Class: No Inversion Heig_.--_ _ _ _ _ __. Relative Humidity : !(b)(7)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gaa is burning as it escapes from pipe Pio '
- 42 inch Pi to Pi g ness: smoo Ho Pipe Press : 850 psia Pi : (b)(7)(fl Max Flame Length: 128 y a rds Burn Duration: ALOHA limited the duration to l hour Max Burn Rate : f~rb~)~Q~V0
":"',;::=;::::;;:::::====~I....
Tolal Amount Burned: -!(b_ )(_7 ~)(F_l _ _ _ _ _.....,
'T'HREAT ZONE:
Threat Mode l ed: Thermal radiat i on from jet fire Red Orange: Yellow :
- (b)(l)(F)
- 1{~(.t kw7 7 ( sq m) "' 2nd degree burns within 60 sec )
, - (2 . 0 kW/(sg m) = pain within 60 sec)
THREAT AT POlN'I' : Thermal Rad i at i on Estjmates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet - - - - - - - - . Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Thermal Radjation: ~l(b_lr_ l_(F_l _ _ _ __.
*rhermal Radiat i on Threat Zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified)
ALOH,.., s.,A Chemical Name: METHANE l11J_l(_7)_(F_) _ _ _ __.I from E at 3 meters Wind: ... THREAT ZONE: Threa ~~1..u;::.,1-Cl.....,.....,~ermal radiation from j et f i re Red Orange:
!ih)(Z)lfl
~(5.........0_ ..k~W
- /. .-
( s_q_ m I
~)__,; 2nd degree burns wi thin 60 sec)
Yel l ow: (2.0 kW/(sg m) ; pain within 60 sec) (li)(7)(F)
Text summary SITE DATA ; ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 i' Location: KINGSTON, NBW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) Time: June 2], 20 13 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMI CAL DA'rA : Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL - 3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8 ', F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DA'I'A) Wind: !lb)Ullf\ I from E at 3 meters ,--------. G:round Roughness: o en countr Cloud Cover: l(b)(7)(F) Air Temperature: (b)(?)(F) Stab i lity Class: No Inversion Hei- ' - - - - - - - - ~ Relative Humidity: (b)(?)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammab l e gas escaping from pipe (not burning) t pipe Diameter: 42 in_sjiPs Unbroken ena of fie yipe is closed ofU Pipe Length: l(b)(7)(F)
'""'"~*:;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..
Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area : ~(b~)~(7~)(F~)-~=,:'""'I Pipe Press: 850 ps i a Pipe Ternperat..ure: (t,)(7)(f) Release Duration: i minutes _ r A.,, n ,1 ( I ) , ,- Max Average Sustained Release Rate: 256,000 pounds/min .._,,,.,...µ<,. ~ (averaged over a minute or more) - Total Amount Released: 35'4, 651 pounds ___::._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ (.Ov")JL.;1. G
.J:.T
\
. .I) 1tv
'l'HREAT ZONE::
Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussiau Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi= destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi~ serious lnjury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1.0 psi= shatters g1ass) THREAT AT POINT: Overpressure EsLimate at the point: Downw i nd: 2363 feet Off Centerline: 0 . feet Overpressure : l(b)(7)(F) 0
Overpressure at Point Ti me: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5.4 . 1 i' Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT : Model Run: Gaussian Overpressure Estimate at the point : Downwind: 2363 feet Off Center line: 0 . tea t
- l. .
Overpressure : (b_)r_1(_F1_ __. j Overpressure: _!(b_)(_7)~(F_) _ __. At Poi n i; : Downwind: 2363 feet Of f Center l ine : O. feet
~
Overpressure (Blasl Force) Threat Zone ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 _'fll_ Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ... (F_l _ _ _ __.I from E at 3 meters l(b_)(_l)_ THREAT ZONE:
'l'hreat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildings)
Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3 .5 psi serious injury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1. o psi = shatters glass) Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosi Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildi Orange: LOC was never exceeded ( 3 . 5 psi = serious injury likely Yellow: LOC was never exceeded ( 1. 0 psi = shatters glass)
Text Summary ALOHA., 5. 4. 1 ~ SITE DATA.: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Ti me: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA; Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/rnol TEEL-1; 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Poin: - 258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: l(bf)!F) I from E at 3 meters Groundoughness: o en countr Cloud Cover: l(h)(7)(F) Air Temperature: (b)(7)(F) Stability Class: (Wi7 No Inversion Heig t Relative Humidity : ~ SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas escaping from pipe (not burning) Pipe Diameter : 42 inches Pipe Length: !(b)(7)(F) Unbroken end of the pipe is closed off ......._......._______, Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: ..._ (t""' 7 ).._ i)(_. (F.._
) ..__.~
Pi pe Press: 850 psia Pipe Temperature: (b)(7)(r) Release Duration: 9 minutes Max Average Sustained Release Rate: 256,000 pounds/min (averaged over a minute or more) Total Amount Released: 354,651 pounds THREAT ZONE: Model Red Orange: Rr::J' Threa~ Modeled: Flammable A.rea of Vapor Cloud
- (b)(7)(F) -- (26,400 ppm '= 60% LEL
- - (44000 ppm~ LEL)
Flame Pockets) Yellow: -- (4,400 ppm= 10% LEL) THREAT AT POINT: Concentralion Estimates al the point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Centerline: 0 . feet Max Concentr_.- i o_n____ Outdoor: (b)(7)(F) Indoor:
Fl ammable Threat Zone ALO H, Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (use1 sp c ie Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ... l(u_)(_7)_(F_)_ _ _ _ __,I from E at 3 meters THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run: Gaussian Red : (h)(7)(F) ~ -- (26,400 ppm= 60 !..EL, - flam e Pock t s / Orange: ~-- (44000 ppro ~ LEL I Yellow: ~-- (4,400 ppm ; 10% LEL) (b)(l)(F)
Concentration at Point Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5 4 , 1 f-Chemical Name: ME'I'HANE Building Air Ex changes Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office)
'l'HREAT AT POINT:
Model Run: Gaussian Concentration Estimates at the point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Concentrra-t~i-9-n-:_ _ _ _....., Outdoor: l(b)(7)(F} Indoor: (b)(7)(F) At Point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Centerline: 0 feet
Text summary ALOHAG> 5.4.1 SITE DATA: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour, o.so (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16 . 04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL - 2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 _ppm , UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient . Boiling Point: - 2 ~ ° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000.000 ppm or 100,0\ ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: !lh\/7\/Fi I from E at 3 meters Ground Roughness: o en countr Cloud Cover: _!(h_H_7l_(F_l _ __, Air Temperature: (b)(7)(F) Stability Class: ~--- No Inversion Heig Relative Humidity: !(b)(/)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas escaping from pipe (not burning) ~-,,,..,,..--~ Pipe Diameter: 42 inches Pipe Length: l{b)(7)(F) Unbroken end of the pipe ie connected to an infinite source Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: u..r,i.;......:....-.-.,...,.....,,,...___, b ) Pipe Press: 850 psia Pipe Temperature: (b)(7)(F) Release Duration: ALOHA limited the duration to 1 hour Max Average Sustained Release Rate: l(b)(7)(F) (averaged over a min~u~t~e~ o~r;....!:m
~o~r~e~ ~-==::;--------
Total Amount Released: (b)(7)(F) THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Heavy Gas Red LOC was never exceeded (8 . 0 psi = destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3 .5 psi = serious injury likely) Yellow: LQ.C...was -never exceeded (1.0 psi = shatters glass)
~ -
THREAT AT POINT: Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Centerline: O. feet overpressure: l_(b_l(7_l(_FJ_ __
Overpressure (Blast Force) Threat zone Time : June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE l(ll_)r_ll_(F_) _ _ _ _...,I from E at 3 meters Wind: ... THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud expJosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Heavy Gas Red LOC was never exceeded {8 . 0 ps i : destruction ct buil dings ) Orange: LOC was never exceeded - (3.5 psi serious injury likely) Yellow: LOC was never exceeded (1 O psi = shatters glass) Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force} from vapor cloud explos Type of Ignition : ignited by spark or flame Level of Congest i on : uncongested Model Run : Heavy Gas Red LOC was never exceeded ( 8 . 0 psi = destruction of build Orange: LOC was never exceeded ( 3. 5 psi = serious injury likel Yellow : LOC was never exceeded ( 1 . 0 psi = shatters glass)
'f*P.xt Summary SITE DATA: Locat i on: KI NGSTON, NEW YORK Bui lding . Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) Time: .June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight; 16.04 g/mo l TEEL - 1: 3000 ppm TEEL- 2: 5000 ppm *rEEL- 3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Amblcnt Uo il ing PolnL: - 258.8 ° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambi enL Sat ur aLion Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wir.d: l(b)(?)(F) I from E at 3 meters Gr-ound Roug hness: :oeo crnmttv Air Ternperature: J (b)(7)(F) Stabi li ty Cl ass: I. Cloud Cover : !(b)(7)(F)
-J No Inversion Hei n Rela ti ve Humjd i ty: !(b)(?){ !
SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas es caping from pipe (not
- arneter: 4 pe Roughness: smooth Pipe Press ; 850 psia Release Duration: ALOHA limited the duration to 1 Max Average Sustained Release Rale: 311,000 pounds/mi n
{averaged over a min~~e or morel
*rotal Amount Released: t (7l(F)
I
'I'HHEA'P ZON~: ..
Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud expl osion Type of Ign i c i on: i gnited by spark or flame Level of Congest i on: uncongested Model Run: Gauss i an Red LOC was neve r exceeded (8.0 psi destruc t ion o f buildi ngs) Orange: LOC wa s never exceeded (3 . 5 psl = serious i n j ury likely) Ye l low: LOC was never exceeded (1.0 psi = shatters g1aRs) THREAT AT POINT: Overpressure Est i mat e at the point: Downwind : 2363 f eet Off Centerljne : 0 . feet Overpressure: !(b)(?)(F)
Overpressure at Point _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ALOHA 5 .< , 1 ~ T line: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: ME'I'HANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Overpressure Estimate at the point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Cen 0rl1ne: O. feet Overpressure: l(b)(7)(F) At Point: Downwind: 2363 feet Off Centerline: O. feet
Overpressure (Blast Force) Threat zone Time: June 21 1 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Che1nical Name: METHANE
...._)(_ll_(F_/ _ _ _ __,I from E at 3 meters Wind: l(b 'l'HREAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncong sled Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi ~ destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3. 5 psi : serious injury likely) Y llow: LOC was never exceeded (1. 0 psi = shatters glass) Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosi Type of Ignit'on: ignited by spark or f lame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildi Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi = serious injury likely Yellow: LOC was never exceeded ( 1. a psi = shatters glass)
r<UN Tex Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA 5 . 4 . l i' Location; KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 {enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name : METHANE Molecular Weight : 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL- 3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Pain : -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature : grealer than l atm Ambient Saluration Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0 A'J*Wind: MOSPH;Rr: DATA. , MANJ~L INPUT OF DATA) _(bl~)(F) J from E at 3 meters Gro ind Roughness: :pen country Cloud Cover: !(b)(7)(F) Air Temperature: J (b)(l)(F) Stability Class: _ ,_.,.....,....~ No Inversion Hei n Relative Humidity: l(bl(7)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: .-----------, Direct Source: !(h)(7)(F) Sourc Heigh 0 Release Duration: 1 minute Release Rale: 213 pounds/sec Tota l Amount Released : 12,800 pounds Note: This chemical may flash boil eind/or resul in two phase flow. Use both dispers i on modules to investigate its po~ential behavior. THREAT ZONE : Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast Corce) from vapor c l oud explosio Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of CongesLion: congested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded --- (8.0 psi= destruction of bui l dings) Orange : LOC was never exceeded --- (3 . 5 psi= serious injury likely) Y )low : !(b)(l)(F) THREAT AT POINT: Overpressu~~~.;.1.1.1~ Downwind: t --- (l.0 psi = shaLLers glass) at the point: Off Centerline: 0 . feet Overpressure: (b)(7)(F) ~2-
Overpressure at Point ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 l~ i:e: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour; 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POIN'I': Model Run: Gaussian Overpress
- teat the point:
Downwind: Off Centerline: O. feet overpressure: (b)(7)(F} Overpressure: (h)(J)(F) At Point: Downwind: l(li)(7)(F) Off Centerline: 0 . feet
Overpressure (Blasl Fo ce) Threat zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: _! (b_J(_T)_(F_J _ _ _ _....,! from Eat 3 meters
'l'HREAT ZONE:
*rhreat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud explosion Type of Ignition : ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: congested Model Run: Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded --- (8.0 psi = destruction of buildings)
Orange: LOC was never exceeded --- (3.5 psi= serious injury likely) Yellow: l\b)(7)(r) --- (1.0 psi = shatters glass} (h)(/)(F)
'I'ex: t Summary ALOHA SITE DATA: Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: o_so (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16 . 04 g/mol TEEL- 1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -25a . 8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 1.00.0% ATMOSPB~~c D:TA
- Wind: tb~(7)(F) _
(MANUj u INPUT OF DATA)
! from E at 3 meters Ground oug ness: o en countr Cloud Cover: l(h){7)(F)
Air Temperature : (b)(7)(F) ----- Stability Class: No Inversion Hei .....,____________, Relative Humidity: (b)(?)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Direct Source: !(t1)(7)(F) Source Height: O Release Duration: 1 mi nute Release Rate: ifWT)ID I Total Amount Released: libll7l!F) I Note: This chemical may flash boil and/or result in two phase flow . Use both dispersion modules to investigate its potential behavior. THREA'l' ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapor Cloud Model Run* Gaussian Red (li)(/)(F) --- (26,400 ppm = 60% LEL = Flame Pockets) Orange: (44000 ppm= LEL) Yellow: - - (4,400 ppm~ 10% LEL) THREAT AT POI NT: Concentration Estimates at che point : Downwind: !/l,\[7)(f I I Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Concentration: Outdoor: ~l(b-/(_!)_(F_) _ ___ Indoor: .
Concentration at Point Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: Gaussian Concentration Estimates at che point: Downwind: !(11\(71/f) I Off Centerline: 0 feet Max Concentration: Outdoor: l(b)(7)(F) Indoor: 111)(7)(~) AL Point: Downw ind: l(t1)(7)(F, Off Cente line: 0 feet
Flammable Threat Zone Time: June 21 , 2013 1 200 hours EDT (user specif i ed) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind= ~l(b_Jt_'l_(F_)_ _ _ ___,I from Eat 3 meters THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Flammable Area of Vapo loud Model Run: Gaussian Red (h)(7)(r) --- (7.6, 400 ppm = 60 1, 't l*'l me t.><.: k " t s ) Orange: (4400 0 ppm "' LEL ) Yellow: --- (4,400 ppm= 10% u :r.) (b)(7)(F)
~ ~ ~ ~d I/
4-"-' 1/2 r Texl Summary
'l'E DATA_: _ _ _
Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Bui l ding Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.~0 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5.4 . 1 CHEMTCAL DATA; Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL,-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: - 258.8° r Vapor Pressure at Ambien t Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHY~C P:TA * (MANlrL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: l(b)(7)(F) from E at 3 meters Groun ~- oug~ness, : *
- c01mtrn Cloud Cover, l<hl(l)(F]
Air Temperature, J'"KIJIF) Stability Cl ass: I No Inversion Hei n Relative Humidity : 50% ZONE: THREAT Threat Modeled: Thermat r~d~:~~o~ Red :L b)(7)(F) J --- Jb)(7~F)____ _ _ _ f;o, Jet f lre Orange: --- 5 . sq m ~ 2nd degree burns within 60 sec) Yellow: --- (2.0 kW/(sg m) ; pain within 60 sec) THREAT AT POINT: Thermal Radiation Estimates at the pojnt: Downwind : 1580 feet - - - - - - - . Off Cencerline; 0. feet Max Thenna l Radiation: ~l(L_1l(_7_)(r_) _ _ ___, 0
Thermal Radiation at Point Time : June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5.4.1 :t Chemical Name : METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: No Model Gjven
'T'hermal Radiation Estima es at the point:
Downwind: 1580 feet: ,-,-eo.,,,.,,,,-----. Off Cent Jin 1 0 . feet Max Thermal Radiation : ~11b_)(_ll_(F_l _ _ __ , 1h)(/)(f) At Po i n t : Do wnw i nd: 1580 f e et Of f Centerl i ne: 0 . feet:
MA-~ Text Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA 5 . 4.1 i' Location : KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16 . 04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8 ° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentr ati on: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPH,RI C DATA ; (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: J!:1(7)(F) ! from E at 3 meters Ground Roughness: open country Cloud Cover: Air Temperature: l(b)(7)(F) Stability Class : _ No Inversion Heig~h~t,__ _ _ _ _ __, Rel ative Humidi ty: ltF~(?) I SOURCE STRENGTH: Fl ammabl e gas is burning as it from pipe .----------. Pie Diameter: 42 inches _ _ ....---;--:-~ Pipe Length: ~l(b_)(7_l(_F)_ ___, nbro en en Pi pe Roug ess: smooth Hol e Area: Pipe Press: 850 psia Pipe Temperature: (b)(7)(F) Max Flame Length: 125 yards Burn Duration: 3 m1nu es Max Burn Rate: wlrb~11~11~,F~l-r.:-.e::-:,-:-----4
*rotal Amount Burned: ._l(b_J(_7l_(F_l _ _ _ __,
THREAT ZONE: Thr eat ( et fire Red : (b)(7J(F) Orange: Yellow: .__ ___ __,
~nd degree burns within 60 sec )
pain within 60 sec) THREAT AT POINT: Thermal Radiation Estimates at the poi nt: Downwin:l: 1580 feet ~ Off Centerline: 0. feet Max Thermal Radiatio10 W/ (sq m) 0
~
Thermal Radiation at Point ALOHA 5 . 4 . 1 . 1'ti Time: June 2 , 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name : METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour : 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: No Model Given Thermal Radiation Estimates at the point : Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerl'ne: 0 , feet Max Thermal Radiation: 4.05 kW/(sq m) (IJJ(7)(F) At Poi n t: Downwind: 1580 f eet Of f Cen t er li n e: 0 feet
Thermal Radiation Threat zone Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ~l (b_)(_rJ_(F_1_ _ _ _ _.I from Eat 3 meters THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: jet fire Red (b)(7)(~) Orange: 2nd degree burns within 60 sec) Yellow: pain within 60 sec) (b)(?)(r)
Text Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA 5 . 4 .1 i' Loca ion: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1: 3000 ppm TEEL - 2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than l atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATM?SPHERIC DATA; (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: W!l[l)(IJ Jfrom E at 3 meters .-------. Ground Roughness: open country Cloud Cover: l(b)(?)(F) Air Temperature: J (b)(7)(F)
- Stability Class: . l7Gi"17'ii'Fll No Inversion Hei ht Relative Humidity: ~
SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas is burning as it escapes from pipe Pipe Diameter: 42 inches Pipe Length: !(b)(l)(F)
*unbroken end of the pipe is closed off ..__ _ _ __.
Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: !fb)U)ff1 I Pipe Press: 85 0 psi a Pipe Temperature: !{b)(7)(f) l Max Flame Lengtµ..._: ....=. l 4:. 2~ 8 ....:-.;d~ - s ____ Burn Duration: 9 mi nutes Max Burn Ra t.e: (b)(7)(1) Total Amount Bur'='n=-e:::-::r":""
- ,.(.b)-(7-)(F* )----...a1 THREAT ZONE:
Threat Jet fire Red Orange: 2nd degree burns within 60 sec) Yellow: pain within 60 sec) THREAT AT POINT: 1rhermal Radi tion Estimates at the point.: Downwind: !(bl(7}(Fl I Off Centerline: 0. meters Max Therma l Raa 1at ion: ~l(~_l(7 _ l_(r_l _ _ ___,
'l'hermal Radiation at Point ALOHA<>A Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified)
Chemical Na:me: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: No Model Gi ven 1rhermal Radiation Est.imates at the point.: Downwind: 182 motero ,_..,...,__ _ ___, Off Centerline: 0 , me ters Max Thermal Radiat ion: ~l(b-)(_7J_(F_l _ _ _____. j (li)(7)(FI At Point: Downwj nd 1 482 meters Of( Cen t erl i ne: O. meters
(b)<7)(Fl (b)(?)(F)
~ ~Text ALOHA(& 5 . 4. 1 - 'fti SITE DATA:
Location: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0 . 50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight : 16.04 g/mol TEEL- 1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL - 3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: - 258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature : greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: !(b)(?)(F) j from E at 3 meters Ground Roughness: o en Cloud Cover: !(b)(7)(F) Air Temperature: (b)(7)(F) St abi l i t y Cl ass: f(b}i'nl No Inversion Heig t Relat i ve Humidity: ~ SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammabl e gas Pipe Di ameter . s i t escapes from Pipe pipe Length: ~=~=====~::;'
... 1(b)(7)(F) .,J_/
Unbroken end ~l""~wi,,,"Pl"l"ffll' closed off Pipe Roughness: smooth Hole Area: ....,,...,... 1 ~1______..._, Pipe Press : 850 ps i a Pipe Temperature: fb)(7)(Fl Max Flame Length: 253 yards Burn Duration: 3 minutes Max Burn Ra t e: ~111'.':",)l"':l~)(f:""'-;::::======::::::: Total Amount Burned: ._!(b__)<7 ____
)(F_l _ _ _ __.
THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Therma l radiation from jet: fi re Red Orange: (b)(?)(F) --- (~b)~)(~ ll
--- (. 7'J7( sq m) = 2nd* degree burns within 60 sec )
Yellow: --- (2.0 kW/(sq rn) = pain within 60 sec) THREAT AT POINT: Thermal Radiation Estimates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet .--.,...---------. Off Centerline : 0. feet Max Therm.al Radiation: l~(b_)(_l)_(F_J _ _ ___, (b)(7)(F}
Thermal Radiation at Point Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) ALOHA 5 . 4 .1 :a: Chemical Name: METHANE Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) THREAT AT POINT: Model Run: No Model Given Thermal Radiation Estimates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet . - - - - - - - - - . Off Center.line: 0 . feet Max Thermal Radiation: ~'(b_H_ll_(F_l _ _ ___, (L)(f)(F) At Poi nt : Downwind : 1 580 fe et Off Ce~ter line: 0 , f eel
Thermal Radiation Threat Zone ALOHA'" 5 . ~ Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specifled) Chemical Name: METHANE Wind: ._l(b_)(_l)_(F_) _ _ _ ___.I from E at 3 meters
'I'HREAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Therma) Red Orange:
- L b)(7)(F) r~-a~*:;~CQO
= 1 -- f(bl(~(f-!.____
-- (5 .
f;~r jet
- fire sq m - 2nd degree burns within 60 sec)
Yellow: --- (2.0 kW/(sq m) = pain within 60 sec) (t1)(7)(Fl
Text Summary ALOHA 5 . 4.1 SITE DATA: Locat i on: KINGSTON, NEW YORK Bui l ding Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16.04 g/mol TEEL-1 : 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm Ambien Boiling Point: -258.8° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100 . 0% ATMO$PH ,==-,.=-=---*MANU - -=.; AL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: from Eat 3 meters r......,.-=---~ Groun Air T en countr Cloud Cover: J(b)m(F) Scability Clas No Inversion fl Relative Humidity: IM({)(F) SOURCE STRENGTH: Flammable gas is burning as it escapes Pipe Diameter: 42 inches o t e :is connected t o e Pipe 'r m THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Thermal Red (h)(7)(r) --- r~atr[ l(h)fnr *:~;*au f;pm jet fire h Orange: --- CS . sq m = 2nd degree burns within 60 sec) Yellow: ' - - - - ~ --- (2.0 kW/(sq m) = pain within 60 sec) THREAT AT POINT~ Thermal Radiation Estimates at the point: Downwind: 1580 feet Off Centerline: O. feet Max Thermal Radiation: 4.63 kW/(sg m) 0
Text Summary SITE DATA: ALOHA 5 . 4 . l 3/4 Location; KINGSTON, NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.50 (enclosed office) Time: June 21, 2013 1200 hours EDT (user specified) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: METHANE Molecular Weight: 16 . 04 g/mol TEEL- 1: 3000 ppm TEEL-2: 5000 ppm TEEL-3: 25000 ppm LEL: 44000 ppm UEL: 165000 ppm l\mblent Boiling Point: -258 . 8° t,* Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature : greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: {MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: ~b)(7)(F) J fr om E at 3 meters ------- Ground Roughness: o en countr Cloud, Cover: l(b)(7)(F) Air Temperature : (b)(?)(F) _ _ _ __, Stability Class: No Inversion Heig Relative Humidity: (t,)(7)(r) SOURCE STRENGTH : r-------------, Direct Source: !(h)(?)(F) Source Height: 0 Release Duration: 1 minute Release Rate: t, 7 Total Amount ~e~e~a~s~e.,...:-f."ih'.":"rr7viF~\- - - - , Note: This chemical may ash boil and/or resu l t i n two phase flow. Use both dispersion modul e s to investigate it s potential behavior . THREAT ZONE: Threat Modeled: Overpressure (blast force) from vapor cloud expl osion Type of Ignition: ignited by spark or flame Level of Congestion: uncongested Model Run : Gaussian Red LOC was never exceeded (8.0 psi = destruction of buildings) Orange: LOC was never exceeded (3.5 psi = serious injury likely) Yellow; LOC was never exceeded (1. O psi = shatters glass) THREAT AT POINT: Downwind: Overpress OVe rpress ............ timate ____ __. at the point: b)t7)(F) Off Centerline: 0. feet
Dimensions, Unjts, Co11version Fa'ct!rs, and Significant Digits Page I of 5 .Dimensions, Units, Conversion Factors, and Significant Digits
- Introduction o There is a difference between dimensions and units. A dimension is a measure of a physical variable (without numerical values), while a unit is a way to assign a number or measurement to that.dimension.
o For example, length is a dimension, but it is measured in units of feet (ft) or meters (m). o There are three primary unit systems in use today: the International System of Units (SI units, from Le Systeme International d'Unites, more commonly simply c*alled metric units) the English Engineering System of Unit.5 (commonly called English units)
- the British Gravitational System of Units (BG) o The latter two are similar, except for the choice of primary mass unit and use of the degree symbol, as discussed below. *
- Primary dimensions and units o ln total, there are seven primary dimensions . Primary (sometimes called basic) dimensions arc defined as independent or fundamental dimensions, from which other dimensions can be obtained.
o The primary dimensions are: mass, length, time, temperature, electric current, amount of light, and amount of matter. For most mechanical and thermal science analyses, however, only the first four of these are required. The others will not be of concern lo most mechanical engineering analyses. o ln order to assign numbers to these primary dimensions, primary units must be assigned. These are listed m
. th
- etabl e be Iow fior t hcthree umt systems:
jPrimary DimensionliSymbol 11s1unit IIBG unit IIEnglish unit I
!mass llm (sometimes M2 11kg (kilogram)ljslug IIIbm (pound-mass)!
!length IIL (sometimes I) llm (meter) lift ~root2 lltt (foot)
!time lit (sometimes T) lls (second) lls (second) !Is (second2 jtemperature IIT (sometimes 0) IIK (Kelvin) lj0 R ~degree Rankine2IIR (Rankin~)
!electric current lit (sometimes i) IIA (ampere) IIA (ameere) IIA (ampere) amount of light lie (sometimes n lie (candela) lie (candela) lie (candela)
(luminous intensity)
!amount of matter lln or N (sometimes µ)j lmol (mole) llmol (mole) llmol (mole) o All other dimensions can be derived a combinations of these seven primary dimensions. These arc called secondary dimensions with their corresponding secondary units. A few examples are given in the table below:
Secondary !Symbol II I unit IIBG unit IIEnglish unit I Dimension
!force I~ (sometimes N (Newton = kg*
m/s 2) lbf (pow1d-force) llbf (pound-force)
!acceleration Ila lm/s2 lft/s2 llws2 I
!pressure llporP IN/m 2 , i.e. Pa (Pascal) llbf/ft2 (psf) Ilbf/in 12 in) 2 (psi) (note: I ft =
lcncrgy I;)(sometimes IJ (Joule = N- m) Ift. lbf (foot lft* lbf (foot pound) pound) I
!power IP llw (wan = J/s) 11ft. lbf/s li ft* lbf/s I http://www. mne. psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/Gencral/uni ts.htm 03/24/2015
Dimensions, Un~ts, Co11version Factors, and Significant Digits Page 2 of 5 o ote that there are many other units, both metric and English, in use Loday. For example, power is often expressed in uni ls of Btu/hr, Btu/s, calls, ergs/s, or horsepower, in addition to the standard units of watt and ft. lbf/s. There are conversion/actors listed in many textbooks to enable conversion from any of lhese units to any other.
- Comment about the gravitational conversion constant, gc o ome authors define a gravitational conversion constant, gc, which is inserted into Newton's second law of motion. I.e., instead of F = m* a they write F = m* a/gc, where gc is defined in the English Engineering System of Uni ts as lbm -ft
- g. = 32.174-1 f 2 b *S and in SI units as g _ 1kg-m
- N ,s1 o The present aulhor discourages use of this constant, since it leads to much confusion. Instead, Newton's law should remain in the fundarnenlal form in which it was created, without an artificial constant thrown into the equation simply for unit's sake.
o There has been much confusion (and numerical error!) because of the differences between lbf, lbm, and slug. The use of gc has complicated and further confused the issue, in this author's opinion. The following is an attempt to clarify some of this confusion:
- The relationship between force and mass units o The relationship between force, mass, and acceleration can be clearly understood with Newton's second law. The following is provjded to avoid confusion, especially with English units.
o SI units: Relationship Newton's second law, F :=m a. [Note: Bold notation indicates a vector.] By definition of the fundamental units, this yields 1 N = 1 kg* m/s 2 . Conversion Discussion l(::J The above expression is dimensionless and has a value of 1. Thus it is Lhe conversion I factor with which to multiply or divide any equation to simplify the units. Example How much force (in Newtons) is required to accelerate a mass of 13.3 kg at a.constant acceleration of 1.20 m/s 2? F )9
*I I mass, m Solution:
( m)( sl) Fx=m
- ax=(! 3.3 kg) 1.20 ~ kg N *. m =16.0 N to the right, since Fx is the x-component of vector F, and ax is the x-component of acceleration vector a.
Terminology It is not proper to say that 1. 00 kg equals 9. 81 , but it is proper to say lhal 1.00 kg weighs 9.81 N under standard earth gravity. This is obtained by utilizing ewton's second law http://www.mne.psu.edu/cimbala/Lcarning/Gencral/uruts.htm 03/24/2015
Dimensions, Un.its, CoQversion Factors and Significant Digits Page 3 or 5 LJ o EDI! rlS h um'ts: with gravitational acceleration i.e. { mxN-kg*-ms-W-rn *g (1.00 kg 9.81 1 s 2
} 9.81 N.
Relationship Newton's second law, F = m a. [Note: Bold notation indicates a vector.] By definition of the fundamental units, this yields 1 lbf = 1 slug* ft/s 2, or l lbf = 32.174 lbm* ft/s 2. Conversion (1bf -s2 ) ( lbf -s2 ) ( slug ) slug-ft or 32.174 lbrn -ft or 32.174 lbm Discussion The above expressions are dimensionless and each has a value of l. Thus any of them can be considered a conversion factor with which to multiply or divide any equation to simplify the units. Example How much force (in lbf) is required to accelerate a mass of 13.3 lbm at a constant acceleration of 1.20 ftls 2 ? F -- -9 mass,m Solution: ( :rsft)( 32.174lbf -sllb m - Fl(=tn
- 3/4=(13.3 lbm) 1.20
}
ft -0.496 lbf to the right, since Fxis the x-component of vector F, and ax is the x-component of acceleration vector a. Terminology It is not proper to say that one lbm equals one lbf, but it is proper to say that one lbm weighs one lbf under standard earth gravity. This is obtained by utilizing Newton's second law with gravitational acceleration, i.e. { W=tn* g=(l.00 lbm 32.174 ft)(
- -r s
lb f . s2 32.174 lbm
- ft
)=
-1.00 lbf .
- The Principle of Dimensio11al Homogeneity In any equation, each additive term must have the same dimensions. ln simple terms, you cannot add apples and oranges.
o Example - The area of a rectangle is the product of its width and its height, A = W H. The dimensions of both terms in this equation are {length2 }. The equation/\. = His clearly wrong, i.e. it is dimensionally inconsistent since the dimensions of the left term are {length 2 } while those of the right term are {length}. o The Principle of Dimensional Homogeneity is sometimes useful when checking the algebra of a problem solution. amely, dimensional inconsistency in an equation is a sure sign of an algebraic error! o The Principle of Dimensional Homogeneity also extends to units. The best way to avoid unit errors is to list the units along with any numbers supplied to an equation. Also, it is best to introduce conversion factors in the fonn of ratios. In the above example, suppose the width W of the rectangle is 48.0 inches, and the Height His 2.0 feet. The area A is desired in square feet, and is calculated correctly as follows: A = W H = (48.0 in) (2.0 ft) (1 ft/ 12 in) = 8.0 ft 2. http://www.mne.psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/General/units.htm 03/24/2015
Dimensions, Un.its, Co11version Factors, and Significant Digits Page 4 of 5
- Significant Digits Since the proliferation of calculators in the l 970's, the concept of significant digits has been largely ignored. As a result, many students and practicing engineers today present answers to five, six, or more digits, even when only two or three digits are significant. Many students, for example, will write out every digit (perhaps eight or ten) that is displayed on their calculators, never even thinking about how many of those digits arc actually meaningful. The present author encourages all students and engineers to consider significant digits in all written forms of communication - reports, papers, homework, exams, etc. Below is a discussion or the meaning and application of significant digits in engineering.
o By default, an integer has an infinite number of significant digits. For example, the number 43 implies exactly 43, as when counting the number of students in a classroom. Unfortunately, many au"thors Jo not follow this convention, and it is unclear to the reader how many significant digits there really are, especially when there are trailing zeroes. o The number of significant digits is determined by the overall accuracy of a measurement. For example, suppose the diameter of a pipe is measured to be 2.53 mm. By convention, the measurement is only good to the least significant digit; here the micrometer is accurate to 0.01 mm, but the exact diameter may lie anywhere between 2.525 and 2.535 mm. In this example, the reading is good to three significant_digits. o When considering thy number of significant digits, leading zeroes for numbers below unity do not count, but zeroes within a value do count. For example, 0.367 has three significant digits - the leading zero does not count. Note that this same value can be written in exponential notation as 3.67 x 1o* 1, where the number of significant digits is more obvious. Consider the value 34.05. The zero here does count, so that the value has four significant digits. o Trailing zeroes are a little more tricky, especially when not using exponential notation. For example, suppose a pressure reading of 101 ,300 Pascals is given. It is not obvious how many (if any) of the trailing zeroes are significant. Most likely, the pressure gage is only accurate to a hundred Pascals, so it is more appropriate to write this measurement as 101.3 kPa, avoiding the trailing zeroes altogether. The number of significant digits in this case is four. A reading of 101 .30 k.Pa implies that the trailing zero is*significant, and the total number of significant digits is five. o Tr trailing zeroes are significant, there are two ways to indicate this: First, use exponential notation, which clearly indicates the accuracy. For example, if a reading of I 000 is accurate to all lour digits, one would write it as 1.000 x 103 . Second, one can write 1000. as the numerical value. The decimal point at the end 11 11 11 of the number indicates that all three zeroes are significant. It is understood, then, that 1000." represents four significant digits of accuracy. 1n this same example, if only three digits are significant, one would write the value as 1.00 x 103 . Tf exponential notation is not desired, but one still wishes to indicate the number of digits, one can ~ite "l 000 to three significant digits". o Here is an important rule lo remember: When performing calculations or manipulations of several parameters, tliefinal result is only as accurate as tire least accurate parameter in tlte problem. For example, suppose A and Bare multiplied to obtain C. If A = 2.3601 (five significant digits), and B = 0.34 (two significant digits), then C = 0.80 (only two digits arc significant in the final result). Note that most students are tempted to write C = 0.802434, with six significant digits, since that is what is displayed on a calculator after multiplying these two numbers. Let's analyze this simple example carefully. Suppose the exact value ofB is 0.33501, which is read by the instrument as 0.34. Also suppose A is exactly 2.3601, as measured by a more accurate instrument. ln this case, C = A times B =- 0.79066 to five significant digits. Note that our first answer, C = 0.80 is off by one digit in the second decimal place. Likewise, if B is 0.34499, read by the instrument as 0.34, the product of A and B would be 0.81421 to five significant digits. Our original answer of 0.80 is again off by one digit in the second decimal place. The main point here is that 0.80 (to two significant digits) is the best we can expect from this multiplication since, to begin with, one of the values had only two significant digits. Another way of looking at this is to say that beyond the first two digits in the answer, the rest of the digits are meaningless or not significant. For example, if one reports what his calculator displays, i.e. 2.3601 times 0.34 equals 0.802434, the last four digits are meaningless. As shown above, the final result may lie between 0.79 and 0.81 - any digits beyond the two http://www.mne.psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/General/units.htm 03/24/2015
Dimensjons, Units, Conversion Factors, and Significant Digits Page 5 of 5 significant digits are not only meaninless, but misleading, since it implies more accuracy to the reader than is really there. o Most electronic instruments are good to only three significant digits. When in doubt, for most engineering analyses, three digits are usually the maximum that can be expected. o When writing out intermediate results in a calculation, it is okay to record more digits than the number which is significant, as this can avoid round-off errors in subsequent calculations. However, when displaying the final answer, the number of significant digits should be taken into consideration. http://www.mne.psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/General/units.htm 03/24/2015
Gas constant - Wi~inedia, the free encyclopedia Page I of 1 Gas constant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The gas constant (also known as the molar, universal, or ideal gas Values of R Units constant, denoted by the symbol R or R) is a physical constant [I] (VPT - *n- 1) which is featured in many fundamental equations in the physical sciences, such as the ideal gas law and Lhe Nemst equation. . 8.314 4621 (75i21 JK I mor 1 8.314 46 VCK- 1 mol- 1 It is equivalent to the Boltzmann constant, but expressed in units of 5.189 X 10 19 eV K- 1 mol- 1 energy (i.e. the pressure-volume product) per temperature increment per mole (rather than energy per temperature increment per 0.082 057 36(14) L atm K- 1 mor 1 particle). he constant is also a combination of the constants from 1.987 2041(18l1 cal K- 1 mor' Boyle's law, Charles's law, Avogadro's law, and Gay-Lussac's law. -- 1 1.987 2041(18) x 10- 3 l kcal K- 1 mor 1 Physically, the gas constant is the constant of proportionality that 8.314 4621(75) X 10 7 ergK- 1 ~or 1 happens to relate the energy scale in physics to the temperature scale, when a mole of particles at the stated temperature is being 8.314 4621 (75) x I 0- 3 amu (kmls)2 K- 1 considered. Thus, the value of the gas constant ultimately derives 8.3144621(75) L kPa K- 1 mor 1 from historical decisions and accidents in the setting of the energy and temperature scales, plus similar historical setting of the value of 8.314 4621(75) x 103 cm 3 kPa K- 1 mol- 1 the molar scale used for the counting of particles. The last factor is 8.314 4621 (75) m3 Pa K- 1 mol- 1 not a consideration in the value of the Boltzmann constant, which does a similar job of equating linear energy and temperature scales. 8.314 4621 (75) cm 3 MPa K- 1 mor 1 8.314 4621 (75) x I o-s m3 bar K- 1 mol- 1 The gas constant value is 8.205 736 X 1o-S m3 atm K- 1 mor 1 R = 8.3144621 (7.5) J [21 82.057 36 cm 3 atm K - 1 mol- 1 mol K 84.784 02 x I o-6 m3 kgf/cm 2 K- 1 mol- 1 The two digits in parentheses are the uncertainty (standard 8.314 4621(75) x 10- 2 L bar K- 1.mor' deviation) in the last two digits of the value. The relative uncertainty 62.363 67(} J) X )0-J m3 mmHg K- 1 mor 1 is 9.1 x 1o-7 . Some have suggested that it might be appropriate to name the symbol R the Regn ault constant in honor of the French 62.363 67(11) L mmHg K- 1 mor' chemist Henri Victor Regnault, whose accurate experimental data 62.363 67(11) L Torr K- 1 mor' was used to calculate the early value of the constant; however, the 6.132 440(10) ft lbfK- 1 g-mor 1 exact rea on for the original representation of the constant by the letter R is elusive.f41 l 5l 1 545.348 96(3) ft Ibf R- 1 lb-mor 1
- 10.731 59(2) ft 3 psi R- 1 lb-mor' The gas constant occurs in the ideal gas law, as follows:
0.730 2413(12) 1 ft3 atm R- 1 lb-mor' PV = nRT = mllspeciricT . 1.314 43 ft3 atm K - 1 lb-mor 1 ft 3 mmHg K- 1 lb-mol- 1 where Pis the absolute pressure (SI unit pascals), Vis the volume of 998 *9701 (l 7) gas (SI unit cubic metres), n is the chemical amount of gas (SJ unit 1.986 moles), mis the mass (SI unit kilograms) contained in V, and Tis the thermodynamic temperature (SI unit kelvins). The gas constant is expressed in the same physical units as molar entropy and molar heat capacity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_ constant 03/24/2015
Tammara, Seshagiri From: Comar, Manny Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 2:22 PM To: Tammara, Seshagiri
Subject:
FW: Message from "RNPl0ElDF" FYI From: Burskl, Raymond [maj!to:RAYMOND.BURSKI@fpl.com] Sent: Wednesday, Aprll 08, 2015 1:50 PM To: Comar, Manny Cc: Franzone, Steve
Subject:
FW: Message from "RNPl0ElDF" Manny , If there are any additional info or questions, please let us know. From: Richmond, Mary Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:26 PM To: 'Franzone, Steve'; Wyche, Altheia Cc: Kemp, Douglas
Subject:
RE: FSAR Sec2 .2.3.1.1.7. Steve : From the calculation, the reference describing the source is: 2.18. (Crowl and Louvar) Crowl, D.A., and Louvar, J.F., "Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications, 2nd Ed," Prentice Hall PTR, 2002 . Regarding actual constants and values used- below are excerpts from the calculation : Note 10: The choked pressure was determined in order to verify that choked flow conditions were applicable to the pipeline. The choked pressure was calculated as (see Section 4.4} p Chcl<ed
== p (2+ l )(/,)
o y WtlenJ P0 Is the pipeline pressure (736.7 psla) and y (1 .27) Is the hea.1 capacity ratio for natural gas.
No~ 11: The maximum release rate waa celculated aa (see ~otlon 4.4): Q,_ c CAP0 ~(-2)(rO RT y+I where C a discharge coefficient (equals, for maximum case) A
- area of the hole S1c,. gravttatlonal constant, 32.17 ft*lb,Jlb,-sz.
WI= molecular weigh~ 19.5 lbllb111111 R = Ideal gas constant, 1645 ft* ll>,'11>,_, "R T .. Initial pipeline temperature, 538 "R The area Is calcuCated as fonows, Whefe O Is the pipeline diameter In feet (2ft) A* TT*D2* 1/4
-----Original Message-----
From: Franzone, Steve Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:03 PM To : Mary Richmond; Kemp, Douglas (dakemp@bechtel.com) Cc: Wyche, Altheia; Orthen, Richard; Burski, Raymond
Subject:
FW : Message from "RNPlOElDF" Let's discuss sometime on Monday. A special request from the NRC PM concerning FSAR Sec2.2.3.1.1.7. Thanks Steve Franzone NNP Licensing Manager - COLA "Ideas are the beginning of all achievement" ~Bruce lee 561.694.3209 {office) !ih)(ti) I(cell)
"This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain informatio con all privileged. If this information Is received by anyone othe e addressee(s), the recipient should immediately no E-MAIL and 1.694.3209) and permanently delete the original and any copy, including printout on. I this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored y anyone other than the named addressee(s), excep consent of the e named addressee(s). -----Original Message-----
From : JBX_RICOHMPC6501_B3338 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:22 PM To: Steve Franzone Subject : Message from "RNP10E1DF" This E-mail was sent from "RNP10E1DF" (Aficio MP C6501). Scan Date : 03.27 .2015 13 :21:57 (-0400) Queries to: JBX_RICOHMPC6501_B3338
2~ U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment RPAC Support in Performing an Independent Analysis for the Proposed AIM Gas Pipeline near the Indian Point Energy Center Chronology in Addressing the Concerns raised in the Petition and by the Public & Elected Officials
Overview ~ -u .S.NR C Uni,cd St~tes Nuclear Regularory Commis,ion Protecting People a11d rhe Environment - IPEC structures and proposed pipeline location - NRCs role and jurisdiction regarding the regulatory process - Methods the NRC used to independently verify IPEC's safety evaluation results - Conservatisms in the NRC's analysis - Results of NRC's analysis - Address of concerns by the petitioner, and elected officials J
Overview - Closest Distances to SSCs /U.S.NRC ITS for Below Ground Portion of Pipeline United S1a1es Nuclear Regularory Commission
I\ Overview - Closest Distances SSCs ITS '\ t.. U.S.NR C Unired States Nuclear Regularory Commission for Above ~ :r9-und--Portion of Pipeline Protecting People and the Environment
{_~ U.S.NRC Requirements and Guidance Un iced Scace, :sludcar Regulatory Commission Protecting People and rhe Environment
- Regulatory Requirement 10 CFR 100.20
- NRC Regulatory Guidance: RG 1.91 and RG 1.78
- Standard Review Plan Section 2.2.3
NRC's Role and Tools United Sta,es Nucle:,r Rcgularory Commis;Jon Protecting People and the Environment
- NRC = safe operation of IPEC Y
- NRC t- licensing or approval authority for / .
pipeline * . --
- NRC/RPAC used the AL_Ol:i~ m cid el and Reg.
Guide-i *_g i) =--
~
- ALOHA is used by NOAA and EPA for hazardous chemicals and other gas facilities {gas cloud formation, transport, ignition, heat affects)
- RG 1.91 converts the gas to an equivale amount of TNT and deter
- Thresholds for Damage ~~ ~ U.S.NRC Uniced Sta te.s Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment 1 psi Glass shatter~ "rf1r-,v 2-6 psi Serious structural damage to houses 6-9 psi Severe damage to reinforced concrete structures 10 psi Destruction of Buildings
- No safety-related structure necessary to safely shutdown IPEC exposed to >1 psi 2 Pain within 60sec 5 Tolerable to escaping personnel c:] _1_2 ._6_ _ _ _ Plastic melts- ~ - -~
31 .5 Building Damage
- Max heat flux at SOCA boundary found which melts plastic
~£ U.S.NRC Confirmatory Analysis Uni1ed Stau,s Nudear Regu.larory Commission Protecting People a11-d the Envfronment Modelling
- Reason for confirmatory Analysis by RPAC
- Confirmatory Analysis/Modeling
- 1. Potential Hazards evaluated
- a. Overpressure (i). Explosion (ii). Vapor Cloud Explosion
~
_111111.
Confirmatory Analysis 2~ U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Modelling(cont'd) Protecting People and the Envil'omnent
- b. Thermal (i). heat flux (ii). fire
- c. Missiles from Explosion
Modeling Assumptions )~ U.S.NRC Un ited Sratc.s :-.ludear Rcgu1,uory Commission Protectillg People and the Envfro11mmt
- Modeled 3 scenarios, each witb_a full, bpen-ended break:
- where pipe comes out of ground - break in middle of buried pipe - valves shut (gas in pipeline allowed to empty) - Valves open for 1 hour (where unbroken end of pipe is connected infinite source).
- assumed 100°/o pipe break
~ U.S.NRC Modeling Discussion Un ired Stales Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the E,wironme:nt
- Deterministic Analysis & Results
- 1. Scenario 1
- 2. Scenario 2
- 3. Scenario 3
- Probabilistic Analysis & results
- Conclusion
Challenges ( -u.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment
- Modeling Perception/concerns raised by public
- 1. Valve Closure time
- 2. Use of ALOHA model for RG 1.91
- 3. ALOHA model use prohibited for pipe break in middle
- 4. Why pipeline with lesser diameter/operating pressure at Turkey Point is sited farther away from plant?
- Impacts Perception/concerns raised by public All potential safety/fire impacts from the proposed pipeline for FERC approval are perceived to be attributed to NRC confirmato though NRC has no jurisdiction over others than assuri safe operation/shutdown of Indian Po*
- from any p impacts due to th
- Chronology c~*U.S.NRC Un iced States Nucle.ir Rcgul,rory Commission Protecting People and the Environment
- February 2014: Spectra Energy submits an application to FERC for the new 42 inch natural gas pipeline near IPEC.
- August 2014: Entergy submits 10CFR 50.59 site hazards analysis.
- August 2014: FERC issues draft EIS and solicits NRC input for IPEC impact.
Chronology (cont'd) 2~ U.S.NRC Uni,~d Scares Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prot-ecting People and the Envfronment
- October 2014: Paul Blanch submitted a 2.206 petition claiming the hazards is deficient and incomplete, Entergy's contractor is not qualified, valve closure time of 3 min. is a flaw, NRC incorrectly used ALOHA model, an independent study/analysis is required and NRC should rescind FERC's approval with supplemented information multiple times.
Chronology (cont'd) {~ U.S.NRC United S1ues Nuclear Regulatory Commlnion Protecting Peopl.e and the Enviromnem
- November 2014: Region I performs 50.59 inspection and NRO/DSEA/RPAC performs confirmatory analysis. Staff concludes pipeline is not a hazard. Inspection report is issued.
- January 2015: Paul Blanch assisted by Richard Kuprewicz made presentation to Petition Review Board(PRB).
J
Chronology {Cont'd) 2 U.S.NR C United S,arc., ~udear Rcgulocorv Commission Protecting Peuple aud the Environment
- January/February 2015: NYS Assembly woman Sandra R Galef, Charles E Schumer, and Kristen Gillibrand wrote letters to NRC chairman, and FERC chairman requesting reevaluation of pipeline.
- March/April 2015: Multiple Paul Blanch/congressional communications were received regarding petition and proposed pipeline.
Chronology (cont'd) rt U.S.NRC United St:ucs :-.luclear Regulatory Commissioc Protecting People aud the Environment
- March 2015:
- supported in responding to chairman's questions posed by congress woman Nita Lowey at Budget hearings.
- Responded to questions addressed in March 17, 2015 letter to the commissioners by Paul Blanch.
- Responded to questions addressed in March 27, 2015 letter to chairman by Paul Blanch.
Chronology (cont'd) ~~;U.S.NRC Unired .>tares Nuclear Rcgula1ory Commlsuon Protecting People and the Environment
- April 29, 2015: Petitioner informed of PRB initial recommendation to reject the petition from 2.206 process, and offered second presentation before the PRB.
- April 30, 2015: Supported Govt. to Govt.
meeting.
- May 20, 2015: Supported Indian Point Annual Assessment meeting.
Chronology (cont'd) United S,a,es !',;uclca~ Regularory Commu.sion P,-oucting People a,zd the Environmetlt
- January, 2015 -Present:
Attended to several FOIA requests for the proposed pipeline project near IPEC that include the following: FOIA/PA-2015-00062 FOIA/PA-2015-00176 FOIA/PA-2015-00189 FOIA/PA-2015-00246 Lot of time was consumed in compiling the information and in making consistent redacted information .
- 1. ( > ~-----~ ~ ~ ~~ Do~ A'])NJ
~ CJd' 4-i - ~c/4. NI}\,~ f /AO Oc.::f..e_ t>~
~~ AA-. 1:1,,\ J;.o..,..,. rp~ ML I<; 3 2':r_A.ltt.'i oc;J-1,1.-µ_1_y- N'rV.t-{"-µ_1~
-z . Q.._.,,_,(;f c..+/-,~ o-j, A-vt.J..,-. f- RA,, /'l.l L / If'3 2) Al 'fI ov*r;,.,, ._, -~><,
f.l'
'?. :r~~(M f~ ~-f*:.1\1 $'~ cl 1
'S - ~ V~t ~ ~
I
91!USi I I L SEC0RI I I ICELA I Cb iii FURNIA I IOI Safety Review and Confirmatory Analysis Entergy's 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) EXPLOSION The ALOHA model used for explosion scenario 1 of the o ys* report (ADAMS accession number ML14330A276) used as a feeder to the ng Report (ADAMS accession number ML14314A052) conservatively as u upture coccurred al the far end of the pipe line above he surface, con 1ne to be 3 miles, with the rupture creating a hole equivalent to the d. m pipe at a m perallng pressure of 850 pslg. The ALOHA calculation nario resulted m sustained methane release rate of i256, ' ~_ !!l!IQ4.n.! Qf___ _ - tomml!llled [TSlJ: h11hll1h*
~54,651 pounds averag_ed over~ mlnu re of_ on valves -c-om
_m_ en _ ted ___[TS _ 2J-,-h,.-h-llt-ht- - - - - - - - - <* within 3 minutes, based on the assum pipeline sedlon between i commenled [TS3]: h'fhllih* the closed valves is being released. C xlmum release over one ----------------* minute ¢256,000 pounds of methan~. ~rit_a_O!o~nt_Y!ll__h _a y]eJd_ _ _ - ~ l e d [TS4J: h h11gi,, _ _ factor of 0.06 gl ta nee (d) to 1 psi overpressure Is as follows: WTNT: (Mf* DHC
- Y Where WTNT=
M1,. DHC= This calculated minimum ctual distance of 2363 ft to the SOCA (Security Owner Control Area) from the pipeline at the far end above surface or 2,..9_8_8 _.,. ft to the nearest safety-related SSC (nearest safety-related SSC inside SOCA from Is ebou 11 1(r)(r 1 ~ n from the edge of the SOCA) and therefore 1 psi overpressure is not expected at any sa e
- related SSC Inside the SOCA from a potential rupture and exploslon al the far end of the pipeline located above the surface. However, as \he cah;:ulatod minimum safe d~tance of 2351 ft is larger than the actual distances to all SSC ITS, they may experience greater than 1 psi overpressure. Therefore, the SSC ITS would be impacted. Nevertheless, their Impacts are bounded by the severe/beyond design basis accidents considered as part of low probability 9£1431 i 10£ SCCOl<i I i ALLAI CD 1141 01-0flAI 1014
SENSiil0f - SECORII I RCCAfEOiilfOf\Mill,1014 events such as natural phenomena that Include seismic, hurricane and tornado events Including Loss of Offsite Power and Station Black Out (SBO) consideraHons with design of redundant systems, engineering safeguards and mitigation measures In the plant l,lFSARs. Ho....-ever, due to a concern for the validity/uncertainty of valves closure within 3 minutes of pipeline leak/burst considered In the Impact evaluation that was raised, additional modeling with ALOHA was performed to determine the variation of results with and without valves closure. The original scenario 1 modeling considered that the unbroken end of pipe Is closed due to valves closure, and the natural gas present in the pipeline In between upstream and downstream closed valves, Is snowed to exit until pipeline Is e p d. The Impacts are detennined based on a maximum one minute release as a n rvatlve/bounding impact in determining the minimum safe distance to 1 psi overpre ure nd also potential heat nux due to Jet fire at SSC/SOGA. In this Infinite source scenari , I a aly is is remodeled With the same conditions by Imposing that the unbroken en o p pe (I.e., Q9 1eam) Is assumed to be connected to Infinite source (wilt, no valves clo d) r one hour (lim~s n of ALOHA model). Since the maximum calculated release rate of natural gas determined b\l t ALOHA model s
&lightly varied, the calculated results are margin 11~ anged e distance l<t psi overpressure changed from 2351 ft to 2509 ft, whie ar stUI lo r than the d t.tqce to the most llmltJng SSC of 2988 ft.
The frequency of exposure due lo lhe i Project pipeline Is also ent ort to whether the margin of safety Is reduced or due Al pipeline. JET FIRE n conservatively assuming that the pipe e surface, considering the length ol 3 miles, with alent to the diameter of the pipe at a Ing pressure ne is assumed lo be released from the ruptured pipe ,1 la 'jJ,l,l,~-.:...--11,U,11~ The ALOHA model run resulted In a maximum burn ra o b)(7l(FJ ~(!d_an_es!lf!l~~ totaj ~'!li;>~nt ~l!f!)~d- of_ _ - - -
- Commented (TS5): hlllhloahl
,054,651 pounds 11ve pv~r mln.utE!_ an_d cor:i~lderi!lg m_anual clo~ur~ of lb!! lsolal!ofl _ eom.--i [TS6J: hlthlieht valves within 3 minutes, o the assumption that the entire gas in the pipeline section ~ Cam.....ted [TS7]: h,ahttlh*
between the closed valves Ing released. The distances to thermal radiation levels of !(h)(/J I !(b)(l)(F i5.0 kW/m2 , and 2.0 kWlm 2 calculated by ALOHA are !1bl(7)1"' l respectively. In the Infinite source scenario, this analysis Is remodeled with the same conditions by Imposing that the unbrol<en end of pipe (i.e .upstream) is assumed to be connected to Infinite source (Wllh no valves closed) for an hour (limitation of ALOHA model). The maximum calculated bum rate of natural gas detennined by !he ALOHA model is not changed, however, the calculated lieat fluxes are marginally changed at the SOGA distance or 1580 ft from the enhanced pipeline from ~.05 kw/sq,m to '4.63 kw/sq.m ~ue to r.ustained
- ComlM!lllld [TSl) t h1thli1hl burning for extended time period, and are also much lower than the potential threshold heat '~ Com111e11ted (1&9).!_h'llhl~ _ _ _ _ _ __
flux rate of l(ti}(?)(F) Ithat would potentially damage any digital equipment. coNcLus10N A sensitivity analysis considering Whether the valves are closed (within 3 minutes) and the flow of natural gas from infinite source Is stopped or the valves are open such that the gas considered flowing for an hour was performed. Based on this analysis, It Is concluded that the changes In Impact results due to closer of valves within 3 minutes or extended period of lime, would be minimal, and NRC conclusion of safe operation or safe shutdown of the nuclear units without radiological release, Is still valid as the NRC acce nee criteris a"d regulatory 1requlrements are met. whether 3 minute criterion of valve cl u is applied or "ot 1However, It should be noted that if the valves are no d fo an xtended period time, ,potential adverse Impacts conslsllng of direct pro rty'damage, s e njurles and possible fatal~les may result due to the fire In the close ro tty of the plpeli lch Is outside the preview ol the NRC's regulatory frame work , n deration and Jurlsdict on from safe operation/shutdown of the nearby IPEC nuclear plan 's persp otlve.
Tammara, Sesha iri From: Pickett, Douglas Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:19 PM To: McCoppiri, Michael; Tamma ra, Seshagirl
Subject:
Rao's Work in ADAMS Mike/Rao - I have placed the following documents, prepared by Rao, in an ADAMS package in the link below: 1 - The initial blast analysis 2 - Rae's qualifications 3 - Sensitivity study Including the two hand drawings I have not placed any of Rae's redacted work in ADAMS . I assumed that the FOIA people would do this . 1,,,,,, Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Douglas,Pickett@nrc.gov .3 01-415-1364 t
31!!1W131'rl0 C
- 31!!CtJ"IT'11 ~EL;lc'fEll9 i,~FOftMilc"f'IOH Safety Review and Confirmatory Analysis Entergy's 10 CFR 60.59 Safety Evaluation Algonquln Incremental Market (AIM) Project Indian Point Energy Centier (IPEC)
Introduction Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) proposes an installation of new 42-lnch diameter pipeline near the southern boundary of IPEC for the trans,port of natural gas as part of the AIM Project, to replace the eX'isting 26-inch pipeline in vicinity of tPEC, which will remain in place but idled. Entergy prepared a 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation (Reference 1) related to the proposed AIM Project with an enclosure "Hazards Analysis" (Reference 2). The 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation and enclosure covered the consequences of a postulated fire and explosion following release of natural gas from the proposed new (southern route) AIM Project 42-inch pipeline south of IPEC and determined exposure rates as.sociated with failure of that proposed 42-inch natural gas pipeline. Based on the hazards analysis and also accounting for the pipeline design and installation enhancements, Entergy has concluded that the proposed AIM Project poses no increased risks to IPEC and there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. Therefore, Entergy further concluded that the chainge in the design basis external hazards analysis associated with the proposed AIM Proje,ct does not require prior NRC approval. The NRO/DSEA/RPAC Staff at NRC Headquarters has reviewed Entergy's hazards analysis that supports the 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation related to the AIM Project, by performing independent confirmatory calculations to determine whether or not the licensee's conclusion is reasonable and acceptable, and also to ascertain that thetre is adequate reasonable assurance of safe operation of the p*lant or safe shutdown of the plant. Summary of Evaluation The staff has reviewed Entergy's "Hazard Analysis" supporting the 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation related to the AIM Project. Entergy evaluated IPOtential hazards to safety-related structures, systems and components (SSCs) and also SSCs important to safety (SSC ITS) using reasonable assumptions and rationale. Entergy's methodology is appropriate and acceptable. The staff has performed independent confirmatory calculations with conservative assumptions and rationale using RG 1.91 methodology aind also using the ALOHA model for vapor plume explosion. The staff also calculated the frequency of potential pipe llne failure and determined that there is no additional potential risk to the safe operation of the IPEC units. Based on the review of the hazards analysis provided as part of Entergy's 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation, and the staff's independent confirmatory calculation results using conservative GE~4&1:J'l"E GE8l:IRl=r¥ REblc'fEl!!J IP*FOftMIICTIOr~
8E~481fl'JE SEOUR!=Pf RELA'fEB lt4F8RMAfl8t4 assumptions and rationale, the staff concludes that (1) no 1 psi overpressure is extended to any safet -related SSC Inside the Securl Owner Control Area SOCA , (bl/7}{~ 1 (b)(7)(F) owever, near y wou e a ec e , ecause e ca cu a e minimum sa e Is ances to the impacts are exceeded. The staff finds that the impacts to the SSC ITS from the proposed new 42-inch pipeline are bounded by the impacts from low probability events of extreme natural phenomena (including seismic activity, tornado winds, and hurricanes) which have been assessed and already addressed in the Indian Point Units 2 and 3 UFSARs. The cloud flash fire may occur aloft and bum very rapidly in a few seconds, without affecting any safety-related SSCs or equipment; and the existing margin of safety is not expected to be reduced due to a potential rupture of the proposed AIM Project pipeline near IPEC. The staff also finds that the applicant's conclusions, that the potential rupture of the proposed AIM Project pipeline near IPEC poses no threat to safe operation of the plant or safe shutdown of the plant, are reasonable and acceptable, and also comparable to the staffs conclusions. Technical Evaluation The staffs independent confirmatory analysis was performed based on the rupture of the proposed new 42-lnch natural gas pipeline consisting of about 3 miles between isolation valves, of which the enhanced section of pipeline length is identified to be 3935 ft., located along the southern route near IPEC. The analysis assumed that rupture of the natural gas pipeline may result in an unconfined explosion or jet flame at the source, delayed vapor cloud fire , or vapor cloud explosion . Missile generation may also accompany the rupture/explosion. For the assessment of an unconfined explosion, RG 1.91 (Reference 3) methodology was used to calculate the minimum safe distance. For the jet flame, cloud fire, and vapor cloud explosion, the ALOHA chemical release modeling computer code (Reference 4) is used to determine the hazard impact distances which are compared with the actual distances at IPEC to structures, systems and components {SSCs) related to safety or SSCs important to safety (SSC ITS), as listed in Reference 2, Table 1, in order to assess the impact potential. ALOHA is run using the appropriate source term (amount of methane released) for the scenario considered, using conservative meteorolo ical conditions lb)(7 F) (t,)(/)(F\ cloud cover of 0.5 and relative humidity of 50% , Open country ground roughness conditions modeling assumptions were chosen. EXPLOSION The ALOHA model for explosion scenario 1 conservatively assumed that the pipe rupture occurred at the far end of the pipe line above the surface, considering the length of pipeline to be 3 miles, j(ti)l7)(FJ !at a maxlmum operating pressure of 850 psig. The ALOHA calculation for this scenario resulted in a maximum sustained methane release rate of 256,000 pounds/min, and estimated total release amount of 354 ,651 pounds averaged over 9 minutes, considering manual closure of the isolation valves within 3 minutes. Conservatively assuming the maximum release over one minute (256,000
&E~*&lil¥E 8EOURlfY RELATE8 INF8RMA'fl6f~
SENSI I lvE SECURI I I Pltl!!Uc1'1!!" U4F8RIW.=FIQH pounds of methane), and determining the TNT equivalent amount with a yield factor of 0.05 (WTNT) with equation given below, the minimum safe distance (d) to 1 psi overpressure is calculated to be 2351 ft by using RG 1.91 methodology as follows: WTNT= (Mf
- DHC
- Y)/4500 where WTNT= TNT equivalent Mass, kg Mf = Mass of vapor, kg DHC = Heat of combustion , kj/kg (50030)
Y = Yield Factor (0.05) d= 45 * (w) 113 where d= minimum safe distance (ft) to 1 psi overpressure w= TNT equivalent mass in pounds This calculated minimum safe distance of 2351 ft is smaller than the actual distance of 2363 ft to the SOCA (Security Owner Control Area) from the pipeline at the far end above surface or 2988 ft to the nearest safety-related SSC (nearest safety~related SSC inside SOCA from is abou (IJ)[l)(r)
- l. . .
ib-)(7-)(F)
~ ;n from the edge of the SOCA) and therefore 1 psi overpressure is not expected at any sa e -
related SSC inside the SOCA from a potential rupture and explosion at the far end of the pipeline located above the surface. However, as the calculated minimum safe distane::e of 2351 ft is larger than the actual distances to all SSC ITS. they may experience greater than 1 psi overpressure. Therefore. the SSC ITS would be impacted. Neverthel'ess, their impacts are bounded by the severe/beyond design basis accidents considered as part of low probability events such as natural phenomena that include seismic, hurricane and tornado events Including Loss of Offsite Power and Station Black Out (SBO) considerations with design of redundant systems, engineering safeguards and mitigation measures in the plant UFSARs. The frequency of exposure due to failure of these SSC ITS from potential rupture of AIM Project is also briefly presented later in this report to address whether the margin of safety is reduced or compromised due to rupture of AIM Project. Assuming a 5% yield factor for an unconfined methane explosion (as given In RG 1.91), the methane amount determined from the maximum 256,000 pounds of methane released over one minute (determined from the ALOHA run) is used as an instantaneous methane release to simulate the vapor cloud dispersion, transport, and delayed explosion (conservatively assuming congestion similar to that from physical structures and dense forest in the area) with the ALOHA model. The model determined minimum safe distance to 1 psi overpressure due to delayed vapor cloud explosion Is 3054 ft, and ls slightly higher (by 66 ft) than the actual distance of 2988 ft to SSC inside the SOCA. However, it should be noted that the determined minimum safe distance assumed ignition with congestion in the area, and distances to SSCs from the pipeline are based on the rough estimates due to being an undeveloped area. Moreover, the SSCs are enerall designed to withstand an overpressure of 3 psi. !{b)(7)(F) I (h)(71(Fl as methane Is buoyant and quickly rises aloft, disperses rather rapidly, and, (b)(7)(F) Therefore, the ALOHA model was rerun with the same input except with an assumption of no congestion in the area. The ALOHA model resulted in no vapor cloud explosion of 1 psi Sl!P481flti'E &EOWAl:JiY RilaATiQ IHFQAHA liOII
SEIQ:SITI vI! !!!eURIW REbiAcllilil l~l~QRH 0I 1OM overpressure at any distance due to potential ignition. The potential pipe rupture underground at the enhanced section of the pipeline would be expected to result in a slower methane release rate, and thereby have potentially much lower impacts than those determined as above. JET FIRE The ALOHA model was run conservatively assuming that the pipe rupture occurred at the far end of the pipe line above the surface, considering the len!~th of pipeline to be 3 miles, 1bi1r1tF1 !(t,j/7)(F) _) at a maximum operating pressure of 850 psig. Methane is assumed to be released from the ruptured pipe as a flammable gas and burning. The ALOHA model run resulted in a maximum burn rate ot j1t1ai(FJ l and an estimated total amount burned of 354,651 pounds averaged over 9 minutes. and considering manual closure of the isolation valves within 3 minutes. The distances (Table 2) to thermal radiation levels of l(b)(l)(F) l s.o kW/m2 , and 2.01 kW/m2 calculated by ALOHA are*,..11b-H7-1(F-i --, !1bH7HF 1 l respectively. The ALOHA model was also run conservatively assuming that the rupture of pipe occurred in the middle of the pipe located underground at the enhanceid section Identified close to the SOCA, considering half the len th of the i eline between Isolation valves 1.5 miles on each side of the rupture location, (b}(7)(F) E?n"l at a maximum operatin.._ g_p-re_s_s_u-re_o_f_8_5_0_p_s_ig-. _M _e_t_h_a,-ne- is_a_s_s-um
- ed
- to_b
_e- re-le_a_s_e_d_fr_o_m__, ~ uptured pipe segment as a burning flammable gas. The ALOHA model run resulted in a maximum burn rate of !1w1xn , and considering closure of the isolation valves within 3 minutes. The calculated distances(Table 2) to the thermal radiation levels of j(b)(7)(F} ~ 5.0 kW/m2, 2.0 kWlm2 arel(b)(l\lFJ I, respectively. The distances determined to the thermal radiation level ofJl(bl(7)(F) !(which has a potential to damage structures and equipment) due to potentlal pipe rupture at far end of the pipell ne or In middle of the pipeline are !11,1m1r1 !, respectively. Both of these determined distances are smaller than the actual distances of 2363 ft and 1580 ft, respectively, to the SOGA. and therefore, jet fire would not pose any adverse effect on SSCs related to safety. However, it may Impact some of the SSC ITS as the radiation level of (ll)(f)(F) may be exceeded for some SSC ITS outside of the SOGA. Nevertheless, the impacts Ito ITS are bounded by the severe/beyond design basis accidents considered as part of seismic and tornado events covering Station Black Out (SBO) and Loss of Offslte Power considerations. with design of redundant systems, engineering safeguards and mitigation measures already addressed in the plant UFSARs. CLOUD FIRE The ALOHA model was run conservatively assuming that lthe rupture of pipe occurred at the far end of the pipe line above the surface, considering the len,gth of pipeline to be 3 miles, !(b)(7)(r) I l(t,)(7l(Fl I at a maximum operating pressure
se,,s, I IOE - SECORI Ii RELA I ED IIQFOkiVIA TIOiQ of 850 psig. The ALOHA model run resulted in a maximum sustained release rate of 256,000 pounds/min, and an estimated total release amount of 354 ,651 pounds averaged over 9 minutes, considering manual closure of the isolation valves within 3 minutes. Conservatively assuming the maximum release rate over one minute, 256,000 pounds of methane (determined from the ALOHA run) Is used as an instantaneous release over one minute, to simulate the vapor cloud dispersion, 4ransport to determine the distance to reach the methane lower explosive limit (LEL) of 44,000 ppm. The ALOHA model determined a distance of 1.8 miles to reach the LEL. This estimated distance would bound the potential distance to the LEL from the rupture in the middle of pipe In the enhanced area burled underground. Even though the methane plume travels for a long distance, it is buoyant and rises aloft quickly and, therefore, also burns rather rapidly in seconds far above the ground without sustaining and without challenglng the structures and components, if enough oxygen is available. Therefore, the impact from cloud fire on SSCs and equipment is not considered challenged . DETERMINATION OF EXPOSURE RATE FOR FAILURE OF THE AIM PROJECT PIPELINE NEARIPEC Based on Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) data (www.phmsa.dot.gov}, and also published information from "Handbook of Chemical Hazards Analysis Procedures" (Reference 5), the accident rate of pipes greater than 20 inches diameter Is about 5 x 104 /mile-yr. Assuming 3 miles of AIM Project pipeline near IPEC, the accident rate is determined to be 1.5 x 10*3 /yr. Based on the information in these references, estimating 1 percent of accidents result in a complete pipe break or 100 percent instantaneous re lease, and 1 assuming also only 5 percent of the time that the released gas becomes ignited leading to potential explosion , the explosion frequency for the AIM project pipeline near IPEC is calculated to be about 7.5 x 10*11yr. If this release is due to the underground pipe, the frequency of explosion wlll be further reduced by at least an order of magnitude. In addition, the frequency of a large radioactivity release from the reactor due to the frequency of the above pipe rupture event, considering operating reactor conditional core damage frequency (CCDF), would be at least a few orders of magnitude lower, and therefore would not be identified as a design basis event. Therefore, it is concluded that the pipe failure resulting in a methane release from the proposed AIM Project near IPEC, would not reduce any further the existing safety margins, and would not pose a threat to the safe operation of the plant or safe shutdown. CONCLUSION Based on the review of the hazards analysis provided as part of Entergy's 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation related to the AIM Project near IPEC, and staffs independent confirmatory calculatlon results using conservative assumptions and rationale, the staff concludes that no 1 psi overpressure is extended to any safety-related SSC Inside the SOCA (bJ(7)(F) (b)(/)(F) However, nearby SSC ITS would be affected, as the calculated minimum safe distances to the
SENSI I Ive SECURI I I l':ELATl!!!t, 1Nre~MJlcmfi8P~ impacts are exceeded, but these impacts are bounded by the impacts from low probability events of extreme natural phenomena that include seismic, tornado winds, hurricanes which have been assessed and already addressed in UFSAR. Cloud flash fire may occur aloft and burn very rapidly In few seconds, without affecting any s;:1fety related SSCs or equipment, and the existing margin of safety Is not expected to be reduci:3d due to potential rupture of the proposed AIM Project pipeline near IPEC. The staff also finds that the applicant's conclusions that the potential rupture of the proposed AIM Project pipeline near IPEC poses no threat to safe operation of the plant or safe shutdown of the plant are reasonable and acceptable. The staff's review finds that the hazards analysis supporting the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation is appropriate and shows that there is not moire than a minimal increase to the likelihood of occurrence or consequences of damage to ;a safety-related SSC or SSC ITS, when compared to the current hazards analysis in the plant UFSARs. REFERENCES
- 1. Entergy, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation and Supporting Analyses Prepared In Response to the Algonquin Incremental Market Natural Gas Project Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 & 3, NL-14-106, August 21 , 2014. ML14245A110.
- 2. Entergy, "Hazards Analysis," Enclosure to NL.-14-106, August 21 , 2014.
ML14245A111 (Non-public).
- 3. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.91, "Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at nearby Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, April 2013.
- 4. US EPA, NOAA,"ALOHA User's Manual," February 2007.
- 5. FEMA, US DOT, US EPA,* "Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures."
Principal Contributor: Rao Tammara Date: October 16, 2014 9EH91fl't'E 8EeURl'P¥ Rf:LA'fE!B IHFe~Milc'P1e,~
Qualifications of Analyst Name: Seshagiri Rao Tammara Organization: NRO/DSEA/RPAC
Title:
Scientist Qualifications: M.S. Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland M.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Maryland M.S. Chemical Engineering, Osmania University, India S.S. Chemical Engineering, Osmania University, India Experience: From May, 2006 to present, working at NRC Headquarters performing power plant siting evaluations, and external man-made hazards from nearby facilities at the proposed new nuclear power plant sites. These evaluations include potential accidents and their impacts consisting of potential explosions, vapor plume explosions, fires, and toxic vapor concentrations affecting operating personnel due to nearby chemical manufacturing, storage and transportation. Potential aircraft hazards and turbine missile impacts are also evaluated as part of power plant license application reviews. While at the NRC, worked on all COL and ESP applications since 2006. Presented to ACRS, the Safety Evaluations pertaining to Vogtle 3 and 4 ESP and PSEG ESP applications, and also pertaining to Vogtle 3 and 4, STP 3 and 4, Calvert Cliffs unit 2, Fermi 3 and Comanche Peak 3 and 4. From 1974- 2006, worked as a technical analyst at NUS corporation performing various tasks in preparing ERs, FSARs, EISs, and potential chemical and radiological accident impact evaluations.}}