ML19221A958
| ML19221A958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.5, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.5, SRP-02.04.05, SRP-2.04.05, NUDOCS 7907120054 | |
| Download: ML19221A958 (9) | |
Text
NU R EG-75/087
[pm REogD P
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C; )W !
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN S
'%... s /
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SECTION 2.4.5 PROBABLE MALIMUM SU9GE AND SEICHE FLOODING REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Hydr' logy-Meteorology Branch (H G)
Secondary - t I.
AREAS Of ' VIEW In this section of t
'ety 1aly';r report (SAR) the hydrometeorological,iesign basis is developed to determine the extent of flood pratection recuired for sa'ety-related plant systems. The areas of review include the characteristics of the assumed Probablo Maximum Hurricane or other probable maximum wind storms ind the techniques, methodologies, and parameters used in the determinatiun of the design surge and/or seiche. Antecedent water levels, storm tracks, methods of analysis, coincioent wind generate'i wave acticn and wave runup on safety-related structures, potential for wave oscillation at the natural periodicity, and the resultant design bases for surge and seiche flooding are also reviewed.
l II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA If it has been determined that surge and seiche flooding estimates are necessary to l
identify flood design bases, the applicant's analysis will be considared complete and acceptable if the following areas are addressed and can be independently and comparably evaluated from the applicant's submission.
1.
All reasonable combinations of Probable Maximum Hurricane, moving squall line, or other cyclonic wind storm parameters are investigated, and the most critical combination is selectec; for use in estimating a water level.
2.
Models used in the evaluation are verified or have been previously approved by the staff.
3.
Detailed descriptions of bottom profiles are provided (o are readily obtainable) to enable an independent staff estimate of surge levels.
4.
Detailed descriptions of shoreline protection and safety-related f acilities are provided to enable an indepenJent stafi estimate of wind generated waves, runup, and potential erosion and sedimentation.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
, _ ~...._..._-._.._..2..._...-.._.c__.....-.
__._._...u.__._,<.____.._._.
6.*
. vv hb.t D C 20h.E.
7907120054 145 509
5.
Ambient water le.els, including tides and sea level anomalies, are estimated using NOAA and Corps of Engineers publicutions as described below.
6.
Combinations of surge levels and waves that may t,e critical to plant design are considers:d, and adequate informaticn is supplied to allow a determination that no adverse combinations have been omitted.
7.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59, Position 2, is elected by the applicant, the design basis for flood protection of all safety-related facilities identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 must be shown to be adnquate in terms of time required for implementation of any emergency procedures. The applics7' must also oemonstrate that all potential flood situations that could negate the time and capability to initiate flood emergency procedures are provided for in the less severe design basis selected.
This section of the SAR may also state with justification that surge and seiche flooding estimates are not necessary to identify the flood design bn is (e.g., the site is not near a large body of water).
Hydrometeorological estimates and criteria for deve' ment of Probable Maximum Hurricanes for east and Gulf coast sites, squall lines for the eat Lakes, and severe cyc1]nic wind storms for all lake sites by the Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the 'caff are useo for evaluating the conservatism of the applicant's estimates of sr..:rc windstorm conditions, as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
The Corps of Engineers and NOAA criteria require variation of the basic meteorological parameters within given limits to determine the most severe combination that could re; ult.
Theapplicant'shydrometeorologicalanalysisshouldbebasedonthemostcriticalcombinationl af these parameters.
Data f rom pt.blications of NOAA, the Corps of Enginee s, and other sources (such as tide tables, tide records, and historical lake level records) are used to substantiate antecedent water levels.
These antecedent water levels must be as high as the "10 percent exceedence" monthly spring high tide plus a sea lavel anualy based on the maximum difference between recorded and predicted average water levels for durations of two weeks or longer for coastal locations or the 100 yr. recurren;e interval high water for the Great Lakes.
In a l
similar manner, the storm track, wind fields, effective fetch lengths, direction of approach, timing and frictional surface and bo nnm effects are evaluated by independent staff analysis to assure that the most critical values have been selected. Models used to estimate surge hyrographs that have not previously bee reviewed and approved by the staff are verified by reproducing historical events, with any discrepancies in the model being on the conserva-tive (i.e., high) side.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers as generally summarized 'in Reference 30 are used as a standard to evaluate the applicant's estimate of coincident wind generated wave action and runup.
45 J045 Rev. 1 2.4.5-2
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers and other standard techniques are used to evaluate the potential for escillation of waves at natural periodicity.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers (Ref. 30) are used to evaluate the adequacy of protection from flooding, including the static and dynamic ef fects of broken, breaking, and nonbreaking Wave 5.
Regulatory Guide 1.135 is used to determine normal water levels at plant. All water levels must be referer.ced to normal or mean water levels.
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES j
The staff will evaluate the applicant's analysis, including all of the assumptions, techniques, and models used.
If satisfied with their technical soundness and a-
.ica-bility to the problem, the staf f's e.aluation will be f ccused on the conservatism of
. p.?r mterMsed -by the appi RaiiT.'
If not satisfied with the applicant's techniques, thc st af f w ll perform a simplified analysis of the controlling surge and seiche flooding level (coincident with wind-generated wave activity) and the resulting effects (static and dyanmic) to the safety-related facilities using simplified calculational prccedure; or models with demonstrably conservative coefficients and assumptions. If the applicant's estimates of critical water level are no more than 5% less conservative than the staff's estimates,* staff concurrence will be stated. If the applicant's estimAtas arc more than 5% less conservative, the analysis is repeated using more realistic techniques. The staff will develop a position based on the analysis; resolve, if possible, dif ferences between the applicant's and staff's surge and seiche flooding design basis; and write the SER input accordingly. The i
specific review procedures are descri';ed below and outlined in Figure 2.4.5.
In general, the conservatism of the.'pplicant's esumates of flood potential from surges andseichesisjudgedagainstthecriteriaindicatedinSubsectionIIaboveandasdiscussedl in flegulatory Guide 1.59.
If the site it not near a large body of water the staff findings may be prepared a priori. Methods of the Corps of Engineers and Natic.1al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (iluR 7-97 and amendments) are used to develop the critical Probable Maximum hurricane (PMH) param+ i ers Fnr the site. The Corps of Er.gineers model SURGE (or other verified models) may be used to estimate the maximum surge stillwater elevations at coastal, s,ites Cci v ident wir.d generated waves and runup are estimated from publications by the Corps of Engineers (Ref. 30).
Reports of NOAA and the Corps of Engineers are used ?o estimate probable maximum wind field > over the Great Lakes. Models such as Platzmann* s, or other verifiec mocals,
...ay be used to estimate the maximum surge or seiche stiilwat2relevationforGreatLagessites;coincidentwindgeneratedwavesandrunupare estimated as above.
Two-dimensional models (Refererces !5, 26, and 42) include seiching effects. Seiching potential is evaluated using one-dimensional model-by comparing the natural period of
- Based on the dif ferenc.: between normal water levels and the flood event.
145 306 2.4.5-3 Rev. 1
oscillation (resonance) of the water body with the estimated met eorologically-induced wave periods Resonance of a witer body may be calculated by the methods presented in Ref. 30 or s tand.ird te = t3 Jenerally, a demonstration thit the witer body cannot generate or sustain wives of the required period for resonance is satisfactory to discuss the possibility of dn iging seiching.
similarly, seismically induced seiching is precluded if the natural period of oscillation of the water body i s di ssimil.ir from the period of precluded 'eismic excitation.
Coor dinition with G5B to deter mine the controlling seismic parameters miy be required.
It resonance is possible, the maximum seiche must be cer.sidered in the selection of the critical flood design bases The above reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site region.
Some items of review may be done on a generic basis.
IV.
EVAL UAf tCN F INDINGS for construction permit (CP) reviews the findings will summarize the applicant's and staff's estimates of critical water level (incluoing wind generated wive levels) at the site.
If the estimates meet the criteria (described in Subsection II), st af f concurrence will bo stated.
If the applicant's estimates do not meet the u iter ia in Subsection II, and the proposed plant may be aNersely affected, a statement requiring use of the staff',
estimates for the design basis will be made.
If the flood conditions do not constitute a design basis, the statement will so indicate.
For operatinq license (OL) reviews of plants hich nave
Howeve', a review will be made to assure that protecticn against the design bnis witer level cordit ion < astablished in the CP review has been properly implemented.
In addition, a review of surge and x che history since the CP review will be made.
Any nt* information or improvements in predictive models will be noted.
If no detailed CP
'9 view was undertaken, this fact will be indicated in the OL findings.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59, Position 2, es elected by the applicant for protection, a statement describing lesser design bases will included in the findings with the staff conclusion of adequacy.
A sa ple statement for an OL review follows "The design basis hurricane-induced high and low stillwater levels were establishad during the CP review at elevations 22.0 feet MSL and -7.5 feet MSL, respectively.
These levels are based upon the estimated water levels, e=clusive of wave action, that would occur during passages of a Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) to the south and ncrth, respectively, of the plant. At the request of the staff, the applicant anilyzed the save conditions on safety related facilities that coulo accompany the 22 foot MSL surge level.
The results of these analyses indicate the most severe wave action would be restricted to the canal, and that high ground levels would limit wave heights in the vicinity of exr+ ed safety-related buildings, except the service water J b lJ
- rg r
3a Rev. 1 2.4.5-4 i O)
intake, to 1.6 feet.
For the intake, the applicant has estimated waves 3 feet high.
The resulting wave runup levels were estimated to reach a maximum elevation of 28.3 feet MSL on the intake, and 25,6 feet MSL on other exposed buildings."
V.
REFERENQ l.
G. Birkhoff, " Hydrodynamics; a Study in Logic, fact and Similitude," Princeton University Press (1960).
2.
B. R. Bodine, " Storm Surge on the Open Coast: F undamenf als and Simpli f ied Prediction,"
Technical Memorandum No. 35, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center (1971).
3.
C. L. Bretschnei@ r. "Horricane Surge Predictions for Chesapeake Bay," Miscella eous Faper 359, U.S. Army Bex h Frosion Board (1959).
4.
C. L. Bretschneider and J.
I. Collins, " Prediction of Hurricane Surge; An Investigation for Corpus Christi, Texas and Vicinity," NESCO Technical Report No. SN-120, prepared by National Engineering Science Co. for U.
S. Army Engineer District, Galveston (1963).
5.
R. Correnstein, " Wave Setup on a Beach," NHRP Rep
Gulf of M n ico," Technical Report No. 10, Dept. of Geophysical Sciences (1963).
21.
V.
A. Myers, " Characteristics of United States Hurricanes Pertinent to levee Design
'or Lake Okeechobee, florida," hydrometeorological Report 32, U.
- 5. Weather Bureau (1954).
22.
G. W. Platzmann, 'n Numerical Computation of the Surge of 26 June 1954 on Lake Michigan,"
Geophysica, Vol. 6 (1958).
23.
G. W. Platzmann, "The Dynamical Prediction or Wind Tides on take trie," Technical Rpt.
No.
7, Contr. CWB-9/68, Dept. of Geophysical Sciences, Univerisity of Chicago (1963).
24.
L. Prandtl, "The Mechanics of Viscous fluids," in " Aerodynamic Theory," W.
I. Durand, Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Volume III, Div. 6 (1935).
25.
R. O. Reic, " Modification of the Quadratic Bottom-Stress Law for Turbulent Channel flow in the Presence of Surface Wind-Stress," Technical Memorandum No. 93, U.S. Army Beach Erosion Board (1957).
26.
R. D. Reid and B. R. Bodine, " Numerical Model for Storm Sur$;es in Galveston Bay,"
Jour. Waterways and Harbors Division, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers. Vol 94, No. WWl, pp. 33-57 (1968).
Rev. I 2.4.5-6
..*q
,c O3 )
27.
T.
Saville, Jr., " Experimental Determination of Wave Set up,", NHRP Report No. 50, Proc.
of the Second Technical Conference on Hurricanes, pp. 242-252 (1962).
28.
T. Saville, E. McClendon, and A. Cochran, " Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Inland Reservoirs," Jour. Waterways and Harbors Division, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 88, No. WW2, pp.93-124 (1962).
29.
" Waves in Inland Reservoirs: Summary Report on CW1 Projects CW-164 and CW-165," Tech-nical Memorandum No. 132, U. 5. Army Beach Erosion Boara (1962).
30.
" Shore Protection Planning and Design," Technical Report No. 4, Third Edition, Corps of Engineers Coasto' Engineering Research Center (1966) and " Shore Protection Manual" (1974).
31.
" Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spillway Capacities and free-board Allowances f or Dams," Engineer Circular No. 1110-2-27, U.
S. Army Corps of Engi-neers (1966).
32.
" Computation of Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Reservoirs," Engineer Technical Letter No. 1110-2-8, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1966).
33.
W. C. Van Dorn, " Wind Stress on an Artificia! Pond," Jour. of Marine Research, Vol. 12 (1953).
S.
34.
T. Von Karman, "Mechanische Aholickeit und Turbulenz (Mechanical Similitude and Turbulence)", Proc. of the 3rd inteinational Congress for Applied Mechanics, Stockholm, Vol.
I, pp. 85-93 (1920).
35.
P. Weylander, " Numerical Prediction of Storm Surges," Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 8, pp. 316-379 (1961).
36 Regulatory Guide
'.29, " Seismic Design. i nsi f ica' ion. "
31.
Regu'atory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Pow,r Plants."
38.
" Interim Report - Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," U.
S. Weather Bureau Memorandum HUR 7-97, and HUR-97A (1968).
39.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-302 Letter to Florida Power Corporation requesting additional information regarding hydrologit ineering uad hurricane surge verification, October 12, 1973.
40.
Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Standa d Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for i
Nuclear % wer Plants."
2.4.5-7 Rev. 1
41.
ANSI N170, " Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites" 42.
T sai, Y. J. and Y. C. Chang, "Predit. tion and Verif ication of Storm Surges in takr Ontario and Lake f rie," 17th Conference on Great labas Research, International As'.ociation for Great Lakes Researt.h, August 12-14, 1974, llamilton, Ontario.
43.
Rm;ulatory Guide 1.102, "F lood Prutection f or Nuc lear Power Plants."
44.
Regulatory Guide 1.135, " Normal Water tevel and Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants "
45.
Dronkers, J. J. " Tidal Currputations in Rivers and Coastal Waters, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterd.rn Publishers, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1964.
I i
46.
- f. D. Masch, et al., " Analysis of tiurricane Tides at Padre Is land, Tem as,'
Proceedings, lith Coastal (nqineering Conference, American Society of Civil f
inqineers, Vol. III, Chapter 123, pp. 2031-2050, September, 1970.
47.
Taylor, C. and David, J.
M.,
"A Finite Element Model of Tides in Estuaries,"
International Symposium on F inite Llement Methods in flow Prnblems, Swansaa, U.
K., January 1974.
9 ma Rev 1 2.4.5-8
Figure 2.4.5-1 STANDARD REVIEW PLAN SECTION 2.4.5 Receive SAR NO h is the site at or near a large body of water? '
YES Evaluate applicant's model as to its applicability to oroblem,its basic ccnservatism and the conservatism y YES of its application, including all parameters used.
L__-__
is applicant's analysis satisfactory?
NO Are there significant enough problems with applicant's analysis to warrant independent staff analysis?
Rol FeO Request missing data Make conservative estimate ng staf f's model n
NO fm Are applicant's estimates conservative?
4 Review applicant's responses u
Are applicant's estimates conservative?
r[YES NO Develop staff positio Attempt to resolve differences with LPM and applicant Wreke SER inputg=
\\ p 'J
?, ) }
T s
2.4.5-9 Rev. 1