ML19221A960
| ML19221A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.7, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.7, SRP-02.04.07, SRP-2.04.07, NUDOCS 7907120060 | |
| Download: ML19221A960 (5) | |
Text
N U M t k 13/ UD I
/p Rtag,%o e:' '
't U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
.)+(
W'V3 d STANDARD REV EW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SFCTION 2.4.7 ICE EFFECT4 Primary - Hydrology & Meteorology Branch (HMB)
Sec ndary - None I.
AR[A5 Of REVIEW tha hydrometeorologic design basis is developed in this section of the safety analysis repurt (SAR) to assure that safety-related facilities and water supply are not affected bv ice flooding or blockage.
The areas of r? view include:
1.
The regional history and types of historical ice accumulations ( i. e., ice jams, wind-driven ice ridges, floes, etc. ).
2.
TY. potential for ice produced forces on, or blockage of, safety-related facilities.
3.
Lie potential effects of ice-induced hiqS or iow flow levels on safety related facilities and water supplies.
II.
ACCfPTANCE CRITERIA Publications of the National Oceanic and Atuospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Geologic Survey (U5GS), the Corps of Engineers, and other sources are used to identify the history and potential for ice formation in the region.
Historical maximum depths of icing should be noted, as well as mass and velocity of any large floating ice bodies.
The phrase " historical low water ice affected," or similar phrases in strea.1 flow records (USGS and state publications) will alert the reviewer to the potential for ice effects.
The following items must be considered and evaluated, if fourd necessary, in the design of protection of safety related facilitias and water supplies.
1.
The regional ice and ice jam formation history must b.- described to enable an indep?n-dent determination of the need for including ice effects in the design basis.
2.
If icing has not been severe, based on regional icing history, design considerations must be presented (e.g., return of a portion of low grade heat to the intake) to assure that iring or ice blockage of intake screens and pumps will not adversely affect safety-related facilities and water supplies.
3.
If the potential for icing is severe, based on regional icing history, it must be shown that water suppli's capable of meeting safety-related requirements are avail-able from under the ice formations postulated and tt.at safety-related equipment is protected from icing as in 2.,
above.
If not, it must be demonstrated that alternate sources of water are available, that they are protected from freezing, and that the alts mate source is capable of meeting safety-related requirements in such situa-tions.
Ice loading must have been ir.cluded in the structural design basis, if severe icing is possible.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 1,
- m... 4
.. m. oe n.... w..
n.=,. n
.i.u,.a...
.+. e.. m..
... w r.o s,
.i..,
.m.c.--
...w...,m......
,-,,..~,.
......,.m.....~...~...........,~,.-c...s.,....
. ~,
.m c..,_
.-,....m.s,.~....................
w.
,..1
... -. ~.
.q.3.
) 3, q
e r-1 e
...~.
~
........~
... _..~..
.o c~.......m.u.........u.,,,_..._......
R is
. W hi.
. O C XME 7 90712 0 Ob6
4 If floating ice is prevalent, based on regional icing history, consideration of impact forces on the safety-rol ted inta'ses must be a consideration in the design basis. The dynamic loading 'used by floating ice must be included in the structural design basis.
5.
If ice blockage of the river or estuary is possible, it must be demonstrated that the resulting water level in the vicinity of the site has been considered in estab-lishing the flood and water supply design bases.
If this water level would adversely af fect the intake structure, or other safety-related f acilities, it must be demon-strated that an alternate safety-related water supply will not also be adversely affected.
The applicant's estiraates of potential ice flooding or low flows are acc*ptable if the estimates are no more than 5% less conservative than the staff's est mates.
If the applicant's estimates are more than 5% less conservative than the staff's.* the applicant should fully document and justify its estimates or accept the staff's estimates and redesign applictble flood protection. The suggested criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.27 applies when the water supply comprises part of the ultimate heat sink.
Apprcoriate sections of the following documents are used by the scaff to determine the acceptability of the applicant Jata and analy;es. Regulatory Guide 1.59 provides guidance for developing the hydrometeorological ces W basis. Regulatory Guide 1.135 describes acceptable methods for determining normal water levels. (All estimated n ter levels thould be referenced to mean or norm l water levels.) Regulatory Guide 1.29 identifies the safety-related structures, systems, and components, and Regulatory Guide 1.102 describes acceptable ficod protection to prevent the safety-related facilit:es from being adversely affected. Regulatory Guide 1.27 describes the ultimate heat sink capabilities wnich apply.
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES Applicable literature describing hi5torical occurrences of icing in the region is reviewed to determine if icing protection should be considered in the design of safety-related facilities. If ccnsidered necessary, the most likely types of icing conditions (floating l
ice, river blockage by ice buildup, frazil, etc.) are listed, and the potential impact on plant design cf each type is identified. Criteria of the Corps of Engineers and others provide a means of assessing icing impact and methods of mitigating adverse effects. For each type of icing condition, preliminary independent estim:tas af the " worst case" will be made by either conservative statistical or deterministic t'
- Jes.
If the applicant's estimates of ice effects are comparable to the staff's preliminary analysis, the staff will concur with the applicant's estimates. If the preliminary analysis indicates the ap: 'in nt's estimates of ice effects are not comparable to the
- Based on the difference between normal water levels and the flood event or low water.
m ne Rev. 1 2.4.7-2
staff's estimates, the staff's analysis will be repeated using more realistic techniques.
If there is evidence of potential structural effects, the Structural Engineering Branch 9
(SEB) will be requested by HMB to ascertain whether these effects are properly considered in the structural design basis for the plant; simila ly, if there is evidence c' yctential r
mechanical ef fects, the Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) and the Oxiliary
.,tems Branch (ASB) will be requested by HMB to ascertain whether these effects are pr'perly considered in the mechanical design basis for the plant.
The staff will develop a position based on the analysis; resolve, if possible, differences between the applicant's and staff's estimates of ice effects; and write the SER input accordingly.
The above reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site regions. Some items of re iew may be done on a generic basis.
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS For construction permit (CP) reviews, the finJings will summarize the applicant's and staff's estimates of the potential for ice flooding, and if applicable, the minimum low water levels (f rom upstream ice blockage). If the applicant's estimates are withir acceptable margins (described in Acceptance Criteria), staff concurrence w th the appli-i cant's estimate will be s uted.
If the applicant's estimates are not within acceptable margins or, if the staff predicts potential blockage of the intake, or if the proposed plant may be adversely affected, a statement of the staff bases will be made.
If the icing conditions do not constitute a desit basis, the findings will so indicate.
For operating license (OL) reviews of plants for which detailed icing reviews were made at the CP stig", the CP conclusions will be referenced. IDwever, a review will be made to assure that the design basis established in the CP review has been implemented properly.
In addition, a review of icing records since the CP review will be made.
If no CP review was undertaken (of the scope indicated), this fact will be noted in the OL findings.
A sample CP statement follows:
" Ice Flooding, which is common on the A River at the makeup intake structure, could only affect the river intake structure which would not result in any adverse effects to the plant's safety-related facilities. The applicant states that ice flooding may possibly raise the water surface near the A River intake to a maximum elevation of about 555 feet MSL.
The applicant further states that ice and ice flooding on the A River tributaries outside the cooling lake will not affect the plant facilities. The major tributary nearest the plant is the B Creek with the closest point located about one mile to the southeast of the site. The applicant concludes that, because cf the distance from the proposed site and the wide floodplain of the river, there will be no adverse effects at the plant site due to ice in the river and consequent flooding. Wo concur with this conclusion.
"The safety-related pumps from the cooling lake are to be protected from ice blockage by means ;f traveling screens, stop logs, and trash racks located at the front of the lake
~
screenhouse. In addition, the applicant proposes a arn-up line from the circulating water discharge which will keep the inlet water temperature 40 F during winter operation.
2.4.7-3 lhv 1
i sr kU3 U'
r
An essential cooling water screen bypass pipe is also available. We concur with the applicant that icing or ice flooding should not adversely affect the plant's safety-related fa-ilities."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
E. Brown and G. C. Clark, " Ice Thrust in Connection with hydro-Liectric Design,"
Engineering Journal, pp. 18-2S, 1932.
2.
V.
T. Chow (ed.), " Handbook of Applied Hydrology," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1964).
3.
O. Devik, " Freezing Water and Supercooling," Jour. of Glaciology, Vol.
1, No. 6, pp. 3d7<309 (1949).
4.
N. E. Dorsey, " Properties of Ordinary Water Substances," Reinhold Publishing Company, New York (1940).
5.
H.
T.
Mautis (ed), " Review of Properties of Snow and Ice," Report 4, Corps of Engineers Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Establishment (1951).
6.
E. Rose, " Thrust Exerted by Expanding Ice Sheet," Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 112, pp. 871-900 (1947).
7.
J.
T. Wilson, " Coupling Between Moving Loads and lexural Waves in Floating Ice Sheets," Report No. 34, Corps of Engineers, Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Research Establishment (1955).
8.
J.
T. Wilson, J.
H.
Zumberge, and E.
W.
Marshall, "A Study of Ice on an Inland Lake," Report No.
5, Corps of Engineers, Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Establish-ment (1954).
9.
"Rever Ice Jam' - A Literature Review," Engineer Technical letter Hv. 1110-2-58, Corps of Engineers (1969).
10.
Design of Small Dams," Bureau of heclamation, U.
- 5. Department of the Interior (1973).
11.
J.
H. Zumberge and J. T. Wilton, " Quantitative Studies of Thermal Expansion and Contract!on of Lake Ice," Jour. of Geophysical Research, Vol. 61, pp. 374-383 (1953).
12.
" Surface Water Supply of the United States," U.S. Geological Survey, surface water supply papers as appi; cable to the plant region.
13.
Regulatory Guide 1. 70, " Standard Format and Content of Saf ety Analysis Reports fnr h
Nuclear Power Plants."
Rev. I 2.4,7 4 ec 7 ')")
l'r J J L s.
14.
Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."
15.
ANSI N170, " Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Pcwer Reactor Sites" 16.
Regulatory Guida 1.29, "Sesimic Design Classification."
17.
Regulatory Guide 1.27, " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants."
18.
Regulatory Guide 1.102, " Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."
19.
Regulatory Guids 1.135, " Normal Water Level and Di charge at Nuclear Power Plants."
s 20.
G. D. Ashton, et al., "Icebreaking by Tow on the Mississippi River," SR 192, CRREL, Hanover, New Camp; hire, August 1973.
21.
Roscoe E. Perlam, " Forces Generated in Ice Boom Structures," SR 200, CRREL, Hanoser, New Hampshire, January 1974.
22.
lieorge D. Asaton, " Air Bobbler Systems to Suppress Ice," SR 210, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, September 1974.
23.
Darryl J. Calkins & George D. Ashton, " Arching of Fragmented Ice Covers," SR 222, CRREL, Hancvcr, New Hampshire, April 1975.
24.
W.
H. Brierley, et al., " Lock Wall Deicing with Water Jets: Field Tests at Ship Locks in Pontreal, Canada, and Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, SR 239, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, December 1975.
25.
Bernard kichel, " Ice Pressure on Engineering Struc.tures," CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, June 1970.
26.
F. D. Hnynes, et al., " Ice Force Measurements on the Pembina River, Alberta, Canada,"
SR 269, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, October 1975.
27.
K. L. Carey, et al., " Ice Engineering for Civil Works, Baseline Study," CRREL, Hc ;ver, New Hampshire, August 1973.
g 145 323 2.4.7-5 Rev. 1