ML18139B427

Offsite Toxic Chemical Release Analysis, Vol 2

ML18139B427
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	06/02/1981
From:	Nathan S, Toth K NUS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML18139B426	List: ML18139B425 ML18139B427
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUS-3735, NUDOCS 8107020211
Download: ML18139B427 (25)

Text

I I

I I NUS 3735 I SURRY OFFSITE TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE ANALYSIS

• 1 Volume II I

I I Prepared for VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY I June 2, 1981 1* by K. J. Toth I s. J. Nathan Approved By: ()Q.~

E

• R.

-~l sclli1lidtfMAn 9er Systems Analysis NUS CORPORATION 4 Research Place Rockville, Maryland 20850 I

I II I NUS CORPORATION

---

~------------ ---------- - ----

I I

,I, TABLE OF CONTENTS l1 Section and Title I LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1-1

11. 2.0 SURVEY FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 2-1

.I 3.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 3-1 3.1 Release to Atmosphere 3-1 I 3.2 Atmospheric Dispersion 3-2

,I 3.3 Concentration Buildup in Control Room 3-2 I' 4.0 RESULTS 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES

5-1 II

• 11 1.

I I

'II i I NUS CORPORATION

,, --- --------

I t LIST OF TABLES I Table No. Title

'I, 2-1 LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES CONTACTED 2-5 I 2-2 2-3 LIST OF COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES CONTACTED CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS SHIPPED ON THE JAMES 2-7

• 1 2-4 RIVER CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS SHIPPED BY TRUCK ON 2-9 VIRGINIA HIGHWAY NO. 10 2-11 Ii 2-5 CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS USED AND/OR STORED NEAR SURRY 2-12 I 3-1 NOMENCLATURE 3-4 I 3-2 PARAMETERS FOR ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSIONS 3-5

.I EVAPORATION RATE 4-2

,,- LIST OF FIGURES

,I 2-1 SURRY FIVE AND EIGHT MILE AREAS TOXIC CHEMICAL SOURCE LOCATIONS 2-13

• 1:

I I

I I

I\ ii I NUS CORPORATION

,,

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1,

• -The chemicals transported and stored within 5 miles of the I Surry Nuclear Power Station are shown in Figure 2-1.

chemicals classified as potentially hazardous are shown in The l1 Table 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5.

releasing the contents An analysis of the consequences of of a single container of these chemicals was performed. The analysis considered the release 11 of the chemical,. its atmospheric dispersion and subsequent buildup in the control room air. The quantities, distances,

'I' and properties of each chemical considered revealed that the toxicity limit and the estimated cloud center concentration at I the control room air intake of most chemicals were not cause for concern. The cloud center concentration at the control room intake, and the control room concentration for gasoline I exceed the toxicity limit.

I

,,.

• I I

,,

I 1*

I

'

II\ 1-1 NUS CORPORATION

!1 I

2.0 SURVEY FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I

A survey of the Surry site was conducted to identify locations I* of chemical compounds transportated, stored and/or used within five miles of the plant which, if accidently released, might I present a hazard to control room operators.

,,\ The focus of the survey was the determination of locations, quantities, transportation, storage, and use of the toxic ti chemicals listed in the Appendix of NUREG-0570. The survey was conducted out to approximately eight miles from the plant to ensure identification of potential hazards adjacent to the I five mile radius of th~ required study area.

General characteristics and significant features of the Surry

'.I. site are described in the FSAR. The James River comprises most of the study area, with marsh/swampy contributaries, farm

.I land on the southern boundries and residential and recreation areas on the northern boundry.

I' As the figure 2-1 reveals, there are no major built-up areas I or communities within five miles of the plant. The James River and Virginia Highway 10 are the only two transportation I arteries serving the areas which pass within five miles of the plant.

I The survey began by initial telephone contacts with local business, industry, transportation, and governmental repre-I sentatives to identify potential chemical hazards by use, storage, and/or transportation thereof.

1*

'

'

rl '

2-1 NUS CORPORATION

.I

'I*

I The U.S. Coast Guard and the Commonwealth of Virginia, State Off ice of Emergency and Energy services were the initial con-tacts which provided substantial information regarding the I identification of tug-boat/barge operators and trucking com-panies. Table 2-1 provides a list of Federal, State, and lo-I _,

cal governmental agencies contacted during the course of this study. Table 2-2 contains a list of companies/businesses

,I which were contacted and provided inputs for this study.

Information concerning the number of moves and types of ma-

"'i terials shipped on the James River, provided by the various businesses and operators, was corroborated by statistical in-I formation provided by the Virginia Port Authority, the U.S.

Coast Guard logs of hazardous material shipped, and the U.S.

I Army Core of Engineers Part I Water Ways and Harbors, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.

'

I:

Tables 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5 summarizes the key sources of infor-mation on hazardous chemicals identified in this study.

Figure 2-1 presents the information graphically.

I

• The greatest number of chemical compounds trans-ported within five miles of the plant is on the I

• .... '

James River, Table 2-3. This list was compiled from information provided by tug boat/barge op-erators, some of whom refused to identify spec-I ific chemicals and/or their destination, and in-formation provided by the manufacturers located I in Hopewell and Richmond Virginia who did reveal what chemicals they were using and producing and I how they were received and shipped. The list in-cludes only the largest shipment of the indicated chemical compounds.

I I 2-2 I NUS CORPORATION

I II

,,

• The ocean vessels originating from and destined for foreign ports do also report to the U.S.

I: Coast Guard any hazardous compounds transported on u.s. waterways. Comparisons of the u.s. Coast Guard lists with those of the Richmond Deepwater

• I Terminal opera tors provided the data shown and revealed no unusually dangerous chemical I compounds.

!I

• It should be noted that U.S. and International

/,

\

...

.

Maritime Laws are very stringent concerning the packaging, hazardous handling, compounds.

and transportation Compliance with of these Maritime laws is indicated by U.S. Coast Guard statistics which revealed that between 1970 and 1979, of the 68 casualties (accidents) reported I* in the James River area, only 24 involved vessel or property damage. Further, that for the period 1978 and 1979, there were no chemical spills re-I

,,

• ported in the James River area.

Table 2-4 provides the list of chemical compounds transported by truck on Virginia Highway 10.

I This list does not include shipments of small amounts of chemical compounds shipped to and I

-~,

used by the local farmers and merchants in the Surry and Isle of Wight counties. There are many shipments of 4 to 6-55 gallon barrels of isect-I icides, pesticides, caustic cleaning supplies, and/or up to 5 tons of commercial fertilizers.

I I

I 2-3 NUS CORPORATION

.I I

I

• Interviews with local officials, Fire Marshall's, Sheriff's, County Emergency Services, and Social services personnel, reveal-I ed no incidents involving toxic or hazardous chemicals. Additionally, the Commonweal th of I Virginia, Traffic and Safety Division statis-tical data did not reveal any unusual highway ac-

'I cident information.

• 1*

• Table 2-5 lists the chemicals stored and used at the only major industry located within five miles of the Plant.

I

• The Badische Corpora ti on employs approximately t 500 people, produces acrylic fibers and yarn and, because of the process, operates continually.

The plant is located across the James River to I the east-northeast of Surry and lies just inside the five mile arc as shown in figure 2-1. In the I five to eight mile area there are other manufact-

,, uring/processing industries such as Busch, a Pepsicola bottling plant, and others, but none utilize or manufacture hazardous chemicals in large enough amounts to the extent that would I cause concern for the Surry Plant.

I I.

I I

I 2-4 I NUS CORPORATION

.. ..... . ..... .. ..... -

'

TABLE 2-1 LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES CONTACTED CONTACT LOCATION INFORMATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. Haz.ardous Shipments Highways U. S. Coast Guard, Commanding Officer Norfolk, VA Hazardous Shipments Port Safety Branch James River Commandant G-MA-16, Marine Safety Information Washington, D.C. Casualty (accident) and Analysis Staff Statistics Commonwe.al th of Virginia Culpepper, VA Highway Statistics State Department of Transportation Safety State Office of Emergency and Richmond, VA Hazardous Materials Energy Services, Hazardous Materials Shipped in State N State Office of Enviornmental Affairs Richmond, VA Hazardous Materials I Monitoring lll State Department of Highways and Richmond, VA Highway Accident Statistics Transportation, Traffic Safety Division State Health Department Richmond, VA Toxicological Incident Reports State Department of Agriculture Richmond, VA Product and Industry Regulation State Department of Transportation Norfolk, VA Hazardous Materials and Safety - Port Authority Shipped on James River Research Department

- .. .. - ., .. - ..,<<- . ...

TABLE 2-1 (Continued)

CONTACT LOCATION INFORMATION Portsmouth Marine Terminal Norfolk, VA Hazardous Materials Shipped on James River Surry County Surry, VA Knowledge of Hazardous Director of Emergency Services Materials used/stored Director of Social Services or transported in county Sheriff and/or problems encountered County Fire Marshall with such materials.

Isle of Wight County Lawson, VA SAME AS ABOVE Director of Emergency Services Director of Social Services Sheriff County Fire Marshall N James City County Williamsburg, VA SAME AS ABOVE I Director of Emergency Services 0\

Director of Social Services Sheriff County Fire Marshall

..

- - - - - - - - *- - -

• • .. .. ** ..

II TABLE 2-2 I' I

LIST OF COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES CONTACTED CONTACT LOCATION INFORMATION Contract Marine Carriers Charleston, S.C. Chemicals Shipped Allied Towing Corporation Norfold, VA Chemicals Shipped Texasgulf Chemical Company Raleigh, N.C. Chemicals Shipped Exxon Company, USA Richmond, VA Chemicals/Petroleum Shipped Allied Chemical, Fibers Division Hopewell, VA Chemicals Received and Shipped Wilson Trucking Corporation Fishersville, VA Chemicals Shipped E. I. duPont deNemours & Company Richmond, VA Chemicals Received and N

Shipped I

-.J Bralley-Willett (Trucking) Richmond, VA Chemicals Shipped Thurston Motor Lines Richmond, VA Chemicals Shipped Timlaph Richmond, VA Chemicals Shipped Pilot Freight Carriers Winston Salem, N.C. Chemicals Shipped Lonestar Industries (Barge) Richmond, VA Chemicals Shipped Wallace Edwards & Sons Surry, VA Chemicals Used (Meat Packer)

Interstate and Ocean Transport Philadelphia, PA Chemicals Shipped

-*- - - - - - - - .. ..

TABLE 2-2 (Continued)

CONTACT LOCATION INFORMATION Harbor Towing Baltimore, MD Chemicals Shipped Steuart Transportation Co. Piney Point, MD Chemicals Shipped Portsmouth Marine Terminal Norfolk, VA Chemicals Shipped Badische Corporation Williamsburg, VA Chemicals Used N

I (X)

--- - .. .. ..

- - - - - - .. - - - - -

TABLE 2-2 (Continued)

CONTACT LOCATION INFORMATION Harbor Towing Baltimore, MD Chemicals Shipped Steuart Transportation Co. Piney Point, MD Chemicals Shipped Portsmouth Marine Terminal Norfolk, VA Chemicals Shipped Badische Corporation Williamsburg, VA Chemicals Used N

I CD

---

- - -

.. - - - .. - .. .. - - - .. - - - - -

TABLE 2-3, CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, SHIPPED ON THE JAMES RIVER SIZE QUANTITY TYPE DISTANCE CHEMICAL CONTAINER PER UNIT CONTAINER MILES Diaminocyclo Hexane 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l~

Corrosive Liquid BO to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Ethanol/Inflanunable 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l~

Liquid 80 to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Tiazinetrione Dry 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

Oxidizer Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel Napthyl Methyl 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

Carbonate - Poison Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel Ethyl Alcohol 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l~

Flanunable Liquid BO to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel N Sodium Meta 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

I Per iodate - Oxidizer Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel

"'

Nitro Imidayol 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

Poison - Solid Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel Ethyacloxysilane 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l~

Corrosive Liquid 80 to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Dinitrochloro 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

Benzene - Poison Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel Monochloracetic Acid 50 lb. bags 40,000 to Closed Van l~

Corrosive Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel 2~Methox 4-2-3 Dyhydro 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l~

4-H Inflanunable Liquid 80 to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel

- - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - -

TABLE 2-3 (Continued)

SIZE TYPE DISTANCE CHEMICAL CONTAINER PER UNIT CONTAINER MILES Ortho-Phenylenediamine 50 lb, bags 40,000 to Closed van lJ, Poison Palletized 60,000 lbs. Ocean Vessel Chloro Benzo Tri Floride 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van ll.:;

Inflammable Liquid 80 to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Caustic Alkali 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van ll.:;

Liquid Corrosive 80 to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Thionyl Chloride 55 gal/barrels 4,400 to Closed Van l!.:;

Corrosive 0o*to 140 7,700 gals. Ocean Vessel Gasoline, #6 oil, Steel tanks 168, 000 gal. ea. Barge ll.:;

diesel oil, #2 oil 8 compartments 1,300,000 total Phenol Steel tanks 1,325 tons ea. Barge ii, 2 compartments 2,650 total N

I Ole um Steel tanks 1,500 tons ea. Barge l~

I-'

0 2 cqmpartments 3,000 total Sulfur (Liquid Steel tanks 10,000 tons ea. Barge ii,

@ 260°F to 275°F) 2 compartments 20,000 total Liq~!d Fertilizer Steel tanks 5,000 tons ea. Barge ii, cuiar1) 2 compartments 10,000 total Ammonium Sulfate 50 lb. bags 1,500 to Barge lJ, Palletized 12,000 tons Ammonium Sulfate 50 lb. bags 8,000 to Closed Van ii, Palletized 25,000 tons Ocean Vessel

- - - - - - - - - - .. -*- - - - - - -

TABLE 2-4 CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS TRANSPORTED BY TRUCK ON VIRGINIA HIGHWAY 10 CHEMICAL SIZE CONTAINER

---**-*----*~--~-~~N-~--;TY_;T_- --- roiff.:- --!-;;;=~*

Sulfuric Acid 25 Ton Truck 3,300 gals. Metal Tank Tank Nitric Acid 25 Ton Truck 4,000 gals. Metal Tank Tank Muratic Acid 25 Ton Truck 5,000 gals. Metal Tank Tank Petroleums 25 Ton Truck 8,500 gals. Metal Tank Gasoline, Oil Tank N

I I-'

I-'

- .. - - -*- - - '-- .. - - - - - -* - -

TABLE 2-5 CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS USED AND/~R STORED NEAR SURRY SIZE QUANTITY TYPE DISTANCE CHEMICAL CONTAINER PER UNIT CONTAINER MILES BERM Acrylonitrile 50,000 gal. 1 Metal Tank 4.9 50'x30'x4.5' (5,000 gal.) 4 ea. (30'xl5'x4.5')

Methyl Acrylate 25,000 gal. 1 Metal Tank 4.9 30'x20'x5.5' (5,000gal.) 1 (30'xl5'x4.5')

Sulfuric Acid 5,000 gal. 3 ea. Metal Tank 4.9 40'x20'x2' Hydrochloric Acid 5,000 gal. 3 ea. Metal Tank 4.9 40'x20'x2' N

I I-'

N

I I

I I' 3.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS The release and subsequent atmospheric dispersion of all I liquid chemicals were calculated using an evaporation model, since their boiling points are well above ambient tempera-I tures, and they conditions.

have moderate vapor pressures at ambient I 3.1 Release to Atmosphere I The rate at which material is released to the atmosphere is dependent on the size of the pool of liquid formed, the I physical characteristics of the material, and the meteorologi-cal conditions at the time of the spill. The release of I materials which have a boiling point greater than the ambient temperature is limited by mass transfer considerations. A brief description of the models used is given below. These I models are based on the concepts presented by Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot< 3 ).

I The size of pool of liquid f*ormed by the spill is estimated by I assuming a centimeter.

square shaped pool with a minimum depth of one The lateral extent of the pool is limited by the 1* topography when berms or other size restrictions exist.

The evaporation rates were calculated as:

I

= 3.471 x io- 2 M A D 2/ J , ; ; ln (

I a ab / ~ +l) (3-1)

I or (3-2)

I I 3-1 I NUS CORPORATION

I I Equation 3-1 is applicable to laminar flow regimes (Re 5xl0 5 )

I while equation 3-2 is applicable to turbulent flow regimes.

The symbols used in. these equations are defined in Table 3-1 (Nomenclature)

• I 3.2 Atmospheric Dispersion I An atmospheric dispersion analysis using standard Gaussian Plume Mode1< 4 > was performed for offsite continuous releases I of toxic chemicals near the Surry Nuclear Power Plant. Onsite Surry meteorological data for the period 3/3/74 -3/2/75 was I evaluated to determine a representatively conservative meteorological condition (approximately worst 5% conditions)

I in order to provide the wind speed, er. and ~ values needed.

y z For releases on the James River a meteorological condition of I Pasquil Class F and 1.0 m/s (2.2 mph) was selected for use in this analysis. The parameters used in the analysis are listed I in Table 3-2.

3.3 Concentration Buildup in Control Room I

The differential equation governing the concentration in the I control room is:

I (3-3)

I after rearranging terms:

I

• cR = (3-4)

I (see Table 3-1 for description of terms).

I I

I NUS CORPORATION

I I

This equation is solved numerically using a Runge-Kutta I procedure derived by Gill (S)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 3-3 I NUS CORPORATION

-1 I

I TABLE 3-1 I NOMENCLATURE I A Dab

=

=

Area of spill (cm 2 or ft 2 )

Binary diffusivity of species a into species b (cm 2/s)

I = Characteristic length of spill (cm)

= Molec,ular Weight of Material spilled (g/g-mole)

I = Atmospheric pressure (torr)

= Vapor Pressure of material spilled (torr)

I u

=

=

Reynolds number = u L/r Wind speed (cm/s)

I =

=

Evaporation rate or boiling rate (mg/s)

Concentration of chemical in air (mg/m 3 )

= Control room air intake rate (cfm)

I = Control room volume (cu ft)

= Concentration of chemical in control room air I (mg/m 3 )

= Time rate of change of CR I

I I

I I

I I

I 3-4 I NUS CORPORATION

I I

TABLE 3-2 I PARAMETERS FOR ATMOSPHERIC

• I DISPERSIONS DISTANCE I RELEASE LOCATION FROM CONTROL ROOM (Mi) c:r-y (m)

~

(m)

'XI Q*

(sec/m 3 )

• I James River 1.5 82.5 23.6 1.6 x 10- 4 (Gasoline)

I * ~ = __1 _ _ with Ll = wind speed (1.0 m/sec).

I Q 1T~'z. u I

I I

II

I

. I I I I

I I

I I

I 3-5 I NUS CORPORATION

I I

4.0 RESULTS 1.

The rate of evaporation of gasoline is evaluated based on the I model described in Section 3 .1. The resultant evaporation rate at a wind speed of 1.0 m/sec is listed in Table 4-1 along I with the parameters used in their determination.

The resulting peak concentration in the control room is 44,000

• 1 mg/cu-m which exceeds the toxicity limit of 1500 mg/cu-m. Our analysis of the time required to reach the toxicity limit in I the control room shows that Control room personnel would have 2390 seconds of warning if notified immediately of the acci-I dent. This time includes the time required for *the vapor cloud to drift to the air intake and then to build up to the toxicity limit in the control room. The amount of warning I available if detectors which can sense gasoline at its toxi-city limit are placed at the air intake is 192 seconds.

I Furthermore, 157 seconds warning is provided by detection of gasoline at its odor threshold (approximately 60 mg/cu-m) in I the control room air.

tunity for the All of these times provide ample oppor-control room personnel to don protective I breathing appartus. (Regulatory Guide 1.78 specfies a minimum requirement of two minutes.)

I I

I I

I I 4-1 I NUS CORPORATION

---

TABLE 4-1 EVAPORATION RATE Chemical Q A Gasoline 1. 68 x 10 5 0.1 114.2 517 6.8xl0 5 2.7x10 8 NOTES:

Q = quantity of chemical spilled (gallons}

Dab = diffusivity of chemical in air (cm 2/sec}

~

I Ma = molecular weight of chemical (grams/gram-mole}

N Pa = vapor pressure of chemical (torr} at l00°f A = spill area (ft 2 )

wa = evaporation rate (mg/sec}

z c

en 0

0 D

"D 0

D

~

0 z

I I

I

5.0 REFERENCES

I 1. "Threshold Limit values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment," American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, I Cincinatti, Ohio (1979).

I 2. "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous I Chemical Release, 11 Regulatory Guide 1.78 (June 1974).

I 3. Bird, R.

Transport B., Stewart, Phenomena, W.

John E.,

Wiley and and Lightfoot, E. N.,

Sons, New York (1942).

I 0

4. Slade, D. H., Meteorology and Atomic Energy," TID-24190 I (1968).

I 5. Romanelli, .M. J., "Runge-Kutta Methods for the Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations," pgs. 110-120 in Numerical Methods for Digital Computers, Vol. 1, I Ralston, A. and Wilf, H. s., eds, Wiley (New York) 1967.

I I

I I

I I 5,...1 I NUS CORPORATION