ML19221A962
| ML19221A962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.8, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.8, SRP-02.04.08, SRP-2.04.08, NUDOCS 7907120064 | |
| Download: ML19221A962 (7) | |
Text
NUREG 75/087 pa r g%
f h[$y/OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTC A
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\.....
SECTION 2.4.8 C00LINC WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS
_ REVIEW RES_PO%IBILITY Primary - Mydrology-Meteorology Branch ( HM B )
Secondary None I.
AREAS Of REVIf_W This section of the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) presents the basis for the hydraulic design of canals and reservoirs used to transport and in, pound plant cooling water.
In addition, the hydraulic design basis for protection of structures (e.g.,
r riprap) is reviewed. for canals, the areas of review include the design basis fer capacity, protection against wind waves, erosion, sedimentation buildup, and freNoard, I
and (where applicable) the ability to withstand a Probable Maximum flood (PMf), surges, etc.
For reservoirs, the areas of review include the design basis for capacity, Probable Maximum flood design basis, wind wave and runup protection, discharge facilities (low level outlet, spillway, etc.), outlet protection, freeboard, and erosion and sedimentation 3 processes.
l II.
ACCEPTANCF CRITERI A The acceptance criteria for the protection of cooling water canals f rom wind wave, PMF, surges, etc., are the same as those outlined in SRP Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, and l
- 2. 4. 7.
The criterion for canal capacity is thc' the canal must be capable of transmitting to the plant sufficient water to meet all safet; requirements during postulated ext W e hydrologic events (i.e., both floods and droughts, Where canals comprise a part of the ultimate heat sink, Regulatory Guide 1.27 is used at a basis for the adequacy of design criteria and provisions. The design basis for cc.al capacity is analyzed, in any care, to assure that safety related water requirements can be supplied under all postulated extreme hydrologic events, or that alternative conveyance systems are designed to be available during the postulated conditions.
The acceptance criteria for the hydraulic design of reservoirs are as follows:
1.
For protection or structures against wind waves, input from SAR 5ections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, and 2.4.7 for PMF, Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH), surge, seiche, or tsunami 1 1s and coincident waves and runup must be considered to establish the maximum and minimum water level and w1ve conditions.
Also, normal pool level and coincident probable maximum wind wave activity must be considered.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Stendeed row,ew piene are propered foe the gu donce of the Othee of Nucieet Reartne Regu'etion etaff vo*/ 9eible for the rev6ew of appier etsone to construct and operate nuctee, powee piente These deewenente are enede avesemble to the pubhc es port of the Commiessen e poi *cy to inform tee nocteer ersdverry and the genesel pubhe of regatetary procedures ee.d pokesee Stendeed res ow piene see not subotnutos foe reguietorv guidee or the Commiseeon e regut* Hone and compftence weth '...em le not requered The etendeed recew plan sect ano ove heyed to Rev e,on 2 of the Stendeed Formet end Content of Saf ety Aner ete Reporte v
IOf Nuc4eer PO'eer Ple ste Not all Sect 6cne Of the Stenderd Forme 1 have e correspondin, receve pien
.-.d...
c.-.nt..nd E..e -.= -f,.m.t n. :i.4. n y e-
...n..v. -.w p..n. -.
-..,y
. p.. np...t.
.m-t..nd gg t
- n. f.r,mp..
..nt -
-d
.n..h......
nt t.,h. u $ -... t.ry
---.a
-..f R..c t. r Regulation Weeh6ngton, D C 20 eda 790712 0 OU{
Criteria and methods as reported in Corps of Engineers publicatiors are generally acceptable for design of embankment protection (r. orap, grass, soil cement, tetrapods, dolosse, etc.) and freeboard.
2.
fm emergency storage c ucuation, the spillways are acceptable if they can safely pass the FMF, or controlling design basis flood, without endangering safety-related facilities or increasing the hazard to downstream residents, la addition, low lesel outlet m3y be provided to evacuate the storage in an emergency.
3.
For reservoir routings, the maximum still water level is acceptable if the spillway design flood has been routed through the spillway (and ontlet works, if applicable) using standard methods as suggested by the Corps of Engineer s, USBR. and other>,
and a minimum of three feet of treeboard (inclu(ing wave,) is available. However, the antecedent reservoir level to be used with the flood routing must be at least ds high as that suggested by Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floeds for Nuclear Power Plants."
The probable minimum low water level is acceptable if the, sew during the design basis drought (f rom SAR Section 2.4.11) has been t oi'*-
i through the reservoir neers, USBR, and others.
using standard methods as suggested by the Corps of The antecedent reservoir level for this routing, if reservoir storage is the sole water supply source, must be the lowest reasonably possible, considering regional conditions at the beginnirJ of De drought and water demands, including plant requirements. In no case should the antecedent resermir level be greiter than the established normal operating level.
4 Where not covered above, the hydrau'ic design for the low level outlets, conduits, spillways (gated and ungited, regulating and emerg(ncy), and embankment protection is required where the failure of such items could constitute a threat to essential plant facilities or to safety-related water supplies. The design is acceptable if standard techniques have been used as suggested by the Corps of Engineers, USBR, and others such that the minimum design water level for safety-related pumps would not be violated.
S.
If reservoirs comprise 3 part of the ultimate heat sink, Regulatory Guide 1.27 is used as a basis for judging the acequacy of the design criteria and provisions.
1 Applicable prrtions of the following documents are to be used to determine the accept-l ability of the applicant's data and analyses. Regulatory Guide 1.59 discusses the l
design basis for flooding. Regulatory Guide 1.135 describes the met >ds used to deter-levels. (Al; estimated water 'evels should be referenced to mean or mine normal wat e
For those plants proposing multiple reservoirs for watei supply, analyses must be provided to assure that storage allocated for safety related water supply in alternate reservoirs will be available dur ng postulated drought conditions. Additionally, evidence of the right to use the water constmptively must be documented.
Rev. 1 2.4.8-2
norma, water levels.) Regulatory Guide 1.29 ic.ntifies the safety related structures, systems, and components and Regulatory Guide 1.102 describes acceptable flood protection to prevent the safety-related facilities from being adversely affected. Regulatory Guide 1.27 desc-ibes design criteria and provisions which the ultimate heat sink must meet.
Publications of the Corps of Engineers and USBR neovide guidance for canal and reservoir design criteria. SRP Sections 2.4.3 through 2.4.7 provide basic data for analy:ing the hydraulic desig" of canals and reservoirs during high flow levels.
III. PiVIEW PROCEDURF5 The co,servatism of the applicant's design basis is judged against the criteria iadicated above.
SAR Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, and 2.4.7 should provide the basis data fcr analyzing the high flow hydraulic design basis of the facility. The applicant's hydraulic design basis is judged against standard design practices discussed in Corp 3 of Engineers (Waterway Experiment Station) oc USBR publications. Low flow input data are taken from SAR Section 2.4.11.
The review procedures consists of independently
" designing" (hydrologically and hydraulically) the applicant's facilities (e.g., dams, canals, spillways) using the above methods and comparing the resultant " design" with the applicant's. W3ve and runup protection is evaluated using the methods of References 20 and 21.
Subsequently, the staff will de'.elop a position based on the analyses; resolve, if possible, differences between the applicant's and staff's design bases; and prepare the StR input accordingly.
The at;ove reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site region. Some items of review may be done on a generic basis.
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS Fcr construction permit (CP) reviews the findings will consist of a statement of the applicant and staff estimates of the type and adequacy of required structure protection ind the hydraulic design basis of canals and reservoirs. Because of the advanced design required for the CP and where the design has received a detailed review as the CP stage, the operating license (0L) findings will only be an acknowledgement of aiv changes and a statement of acceptability. If a design or flooding potential was not reviewed in detail at the CP stage, it will be done at the OL stage.
Sample statements from CP reviews follow:
"Although postul'ted flood waters are not expected to reach plant grade, protection of the essential auxiliary and main dams against their respective probable maximum floods is to be provided by riprap protection of exposed embankment surfaces (including areas in the plant site vicinity along the auxiliary reservoir intake channel) and concrete overflow spillways. At uur request, the applicant provided design bases for riprap protection and the hydraulic design criteria for the two spillways. The applicant at our request, in Amendment No. 31 to the PSAR, provided criteria for the windwave riprap protection based upon an empirical relationship for the median size stone to be placed in a blanket approximately two feet thick 70 r
p
}Q3 JL 2.4.8-3 Fev. I
and indicated its specifications for stone gradation. A filter blanket approximately one foot thick is to be placed under the riprap to prevent piping (removal of smaller material) through the larger armor riprap cover layer. Criteria were provided for the filter gradation, angularity, durability of the riprat, and placement which provides assurance that erosive fa. lure of safety-related embankments should not occur. An armor protection layer also is provided. We find these riprap design bases and spillway hydraulic design criteria to be acceptable.
"Strraje in the three reservoir system, runoff from the contributing drainage area, and diversion of A River flows to the main reservoir during periods of low runoff and high reservoir evaporation will constitute the water supply for the foun-unit once through cooling systems "The applicant hat. provided analyses of the capability O'f the main and auxiliary reservoirs to supply water during emergency conditions requiring emergency shutdown and cooldown of one unit and the simultaneous normal shutJewn and cooldown of the remaining three units as suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.27 - Ultimate Heat Sink.
In addition, the applicant has provided analyses of the operatior, of the plant and the main reservoir under historical and a synthesized 100 year drought condition.
For the shutdown conditions the applicant has demonstrated that the two reservoir -
A River diversion system constituting the ultimate heat sink would have a ater supply available in excess of thirty days in the auxiliary reservoir if water were not available f rom the main reservoir - atailiary reservoir - A River diversion facil. ties.
The operation of the sink as a whole will require that the auxiliary reservoir be kcpt at its normal operating level of elevation 250 feet MSL at all times by pumping water from the main reservoir to make up for water lost to normal evaporation.
"For the analyses of evaporation under normal plant operation during periods of assumed reoccurrence of historical droughts, the applicant has used historical flow records for the A River and synthesized flow data for the drainage area contiguous to the reservoir system. For the analysis of evaporation during a mare extreme drought than has occtered histo.ica'ly, the applicant has synthesized flows from both the A River and the contiguous drainage arsas for what is called a 100 year frequency drought. The staff, in consonance with our consultant (the U.S. Geolojical Survey), independently developed and analyzed synthesizc flows from both drainage areas. We concluded that it is iikely that flows from both areas could be substantially less than estimated by the applicant.
The applicant is installing a streamflow gage near the plant to determine runoff characteristics from the contiguous drainage which should allow more accurate analysis of the operating capability of the reservoir system prior to plant operation. Inaccuracies in estimation of runoff are considered to be only indirectly safety related since an adequate shutdown and cooldown water supply will be availabl! in the auxiliary reservoir should evaporation and the lack of runoff prevent replenishment of main reservoir storage above the minimum operating level of elevation 244 feet MSL."
1
~
9" J J d^ 7 Rev. 1 2.4.8-4 a
V.
RU [PENCES 1.
Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, " Hydraulic Models," Manual of Engineering Practice No. 25 (1963).
2.
Leo R. Beard, " Flood Control Operation of Reseevoirs," Jour. Hydraulic Division, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 88, No. HYI, pp. 1-25 (1963).
3.
Leo R. Beard, " Methods f or Determination of Saf e Yield and Co:T m ation Water from Storage," Seventh '.ternational Water Sapply Conference, Barce
, Spain (1966).
4.
E. F. Brater and H. W. King, " Handbook of Hydraulics for the Solution of Hydrostatic and fluid-flow Problems," McGras "11 Bonk Company, New Yor:, ('963).
5.
V.
T. Crow (ed), " Handbook of Applied Hydrology," McGr w Hill Book Company, New York (1964).
6.
V.
T. Chow (ed), "Open Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (i959).
7.
C. V. Davis (ed), " Handbook of Applied Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Crepany, Naw York (1964).
8.
G.
W. Fair, J. C. Geyer, and D. A. Okien, " Water Supply and Waste Water F.emoval,"
John Wiley & Son, Inc., New Yoik (1966).
9.
G. A. Hathaway, " Determination of Spillway Requirements for High Dams," Proc. Fourth International Conference on large Dams, New Delhi, Vol. 2, pp..-01-34/ (19bl).
^
10.
H. W.
King and E F. Brater, " Handbook of Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1963).
11.
R.
K. Linslej and J. B. Franzini, " water-Resources Engineering," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1964).
12.
H. Rouse (ed), " Engineering Hydraulics," John Wiley & SJn, Inc., New York (1951).
13.
" Hydraulic Design Criteria," prepared by the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, loose-leaf by serials.
14.
" Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels," Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601, Larps of Engineers, July 1970.
15.
"'iydraulic Design of Spillways," Engineer Manual 1110-2-1603, Corps of Engineers, March 1965.
)[s TGj Rev. I I
2.4.8-5 u
A
16.
" Hydraulic Tables," Corps of Engineers (1944).
17.
" Hydrologic Engineering Methods for Water Resources Development," Volumes 1 through 12, Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, U n is, California (1971).
18.
" Reservoir Regulation," Engineer Manual 1110-2-3600, Corps of Engineers, M.y 1959.
19.
" Reservoir Storage-Yield Procedures," Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (1967).
20.
" Shore Protection Manual," Technical Report No. 4, Third Edition, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (1966).
21.
" Shore Protection ManJal," Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (1973).
22.
Hydraulic Model Studies of the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Statiun.N 23.
" Design of Small Dams," Second Edition, Bureau of Reclam t.on, U.5. Dept. of the Interior (1973).
24.
" Design Standards No. 3, Canals and Related Structures," Chapter 2 of " General Design Information f or Structures," Bureau of Reclamation, l!.S. Dept. of the Interior, April 1962.
25.
" Hydraulic Model Studies" of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
26.
" Hydraulic Model Studies" of the Dept. of Water Resources, State of California.
27.
Regulatory Guiue 1.70, " Standard format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plantt 28.
Regulatory Guide 1.27, " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants."
29.
Regulatory Guide 1."9, " Flood Design Basis for Nuclear Power Plants."
30.
ANSI N170. " Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites" 31.
Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."
E /A series of such studies exists in the literature too numerous to mention here.
In addition to the three specifically cited series, studies by others will be utilized on an "as available" basis.
,* G r bc JLY fJ Rev. 1 2.4.8-6
32.
Regulatory Guide 1.102, " Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."
33.
Regulatory Guide 1.135, " Normal Water Level and Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants."
34.
ETL 1110-2-221, " Wave Runup and Wind Setup on Reservoir Embankments," Deoartment of the Army, Corps of Engineers, November 29, 1976.
9 145 330 145 123 2.4.8-7 Rev. 1 e