ML19329F217
| ML19329F217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1972 |
| From: | Anthony Giambusso US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Youngdahl R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006230742 | |
| Download: ML19329F217 (14) | |
Text
.
.3 3
= ~ -~ ~ m w_
_,b
- $ Y* W Y,.,w.angwrx;.w h*x.n w &mwc:wrMR25?E4'TP$$iW?MN A"
n W &:
z.+ba M;hY g)2: p % m? % BIi98+% M %
pq m:kg AjMAM ' Mb--@"g:::'Qg":.W)Husy# M' ~: "
MT w=CMx:S n:M M i
~
ll ;WMf4%
~
u._,._
P l
l DEC 1 5 1972 Docket Nos. 50-329 i
j and 50-330 Constamrs Power Company t
Am Russell l'-n-del IHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS senior vice President i
212 West F1 hie =n Avenue POOR QUAL.lTT.PAGES Jaetarri, Miehigan 49201 Gentlemen:
The Beeilatetny staff's contirniing review of ai.uc power plant safety irs 11 cates that the sonsequences of postulated pipe failures outside of the contairanent stzucture, inw1miing the rupture of a main steam ce j
feadwaten line, need to be adequately dociamented and analyzed by licensees and applicants, and evaluated by the staff as soon as possible.
Criterion No. 4 of the twredamien's canm-al n.=1-n Criter2a, listed in.
J g-App==v11r A of 10 CPR 50 requires that:
F "3tructurus, systems, and ocuponents important to safety shall be designed to acumarrlate the effects of and to be l
nrmpatible with the envirurunnratal conditirma associated j
uith normal operation, saintenance, testing and postulated accidents, ir=1=i15 loss-of-coolant meriderits. 'lhese i
structures, systems, and ermenr=nts shall be appropriately protected against dynamic effects, im1=11ng the effects of l
ud==11aa, pipe ubifying, and d4=ahwging fluida, that usy result fri:ss equigununt failures and fnet events and cruniitiens
.,a l
and=1de the nuclear. power unit.
ex 7
~, w.,. y e
ihn previous version of the nrweimeirm's General Design Criteria also l
zuflects the above requirements.
[
'hn, a nuclear plant should be designed so' that the reactor can be shut-down and nintat'=d in a safe simatdown corxiition in the event of a postulated zupture, outside contairment, of a pipe containinC a high ernu
(
fluid, im1mting the double ended rupture of the largest pipe in the unin steem and feeduater systems. Plant structurws, systems, and components important to safety should be Migr=d and located in the facility to acon==niate the effects of such a postulated pipe failure to the extent moomssary to assure that a safe abutdoun condition of the reactor can be
, e w w m.<
.e
, +.. _.
w.
-. +.
- ~
- 8006280 N
nk y 1,
a
-'< un, u.
-.a,.,w-s.
~,
x-
.c Consmers Power eunpary r Based cn the infomation we presently have avniinhle to us on the Midland Plant 9 Units 1 & 2, thi main steam arxi feedwater lines pass throu6h a penetration roca shared with electrical and other piping penetratiam. From this it appears that failure due to pipe whip, jet forces or overpressure of the closed capartrent may be possible ani sczne nodification of the facility may be necessary.
We request that you provide us with analyses and other relevant infomation needed to determine the consequences of such an event, using the guidance provided in the erelW general infomation request. The enclosum represents our basic infcruation requirements for plants now being cmstructed or operating. You should detemine the applicability, for the Midlnnd Plant - Units 1 & 2, of the itens listed in the enclosure.
If the results of your analyses indicate that charges in the design of structures, systems, or ccxrpenents are necessary to assum safe reactor shutdown in the event this postulated accident situation should occur, please provide infomation on your plans to revise the design of your facility to mee=edate the postula+=d failums described above. Any design mndificatims propcsed should include appropriate consideration of the guide-
[
lines and requests for infomation in the enclosure.-. ~
v 1.,
Please inform us within 7 days after receipt of this letter when we may expect to receive an amendment with your analysis of this postulated accident situation for the Fidinrx1 Plant - Units 1 & 2 and a descripticn of any proposed modificaticos. Sixty copies of the amerriment shenad be prvvided.
A copy of the C**sion's press announcement on this matter is also enclosed for your infomation.
- Sincemly, 9
zc a
e -.
l
., Original Signed by o
,p
.+
I l
n -
q 6.Giambusso,
2 N
u A. ninehusso, Deputy Director l
l for Beactor Projects l
Directorate of Licensing D1 closures:
As stated cc: See next page w
2 -
-)
~
- e. e.%,'
m a,_
a i
I
q-. c..c
~.%. -..g,
., p ;.
.-g
.,y,,,,
y Y
,;. ; c.y$:
",o.l ' ^;,. j.
%..s.f, % *,,
,f
- -q' n'-
~'
pp, s..
g ~..
g,,
'3_v.;-
. 3,:.
A y
x
,c.
- m
- ~.
.a v
t
.g.*
ew'.,
z'
+
ee 8 ;.
.f
$ - f,
, p ?-
.i.
.,~
'Consimers Power C,4 3-cc: Crace Down 4 M al Librury 1710 W. St. Andrews Road Midland, Michigan 48640 DISTRIBUTION AEC PDR Incal PDR RP Reading PhB-4 Reading SHanauer RSBoyd RCDeYoung DSkovholt FSchroeder RRMaccary DKnuth RTedesco EDenten Ph3 Branch Chiefs RWKlecker
~
000 RO (3) 7- -
.% : _1 i:_.
~
w;
-y - -
ASchwencer 7'
4,.
EGoulbourne
=
~,
..n
,' n'!,*:q;.
- 7..., s.; ye g-3.
,; w: ~
v
, ~
' ;.; L y
.y
. i
.a.
1 7
s.
k i
1 t
. FW 3-4 LyAEB1p!)
- LADFWR
'-L:DDRP
.A' az c 7p]. '
~
. y
-e
? svamme..AS.c nger:bp
. d.
R o
AG usso
~:.,
'1.. g~. - ~
+
i mm, 12[.2 12//r/72 12//'1/72 12//$/72 y
4g,. l Forum AEC-5ie (Rev.9-53) AECit 0240
~*u a eove e.g,,,,a o,,u. t972-466 ee3 -
~C.-,.
_.y.
- s; --- - -
3,,. 3 *
,f_.l, y ;,2,,,.J. -.. m.[l.-.
,;e,.y-g ;.
~,,s 3.
_a.
c-m
0
(~,
.]
General Information Raquired for Consideration of the Effects of a Piping System Break Outside Containment The following is a general list of information required for AEC review of the ef fects of a piping system break outside containment, including the double ended rupture of the largest pipe in the main steam and feed-water systema, and for AEC review of any proposed design changes that may be found necessary.
Since piping layouts are substantially different from plant to plant, applicants and licensees should determine on an individual plant basis the applicability of each of the following itema for inclusion in their submittals.
1.
The sys tems (or portions of systems) for which protection against pipe whip is required should be identified. Protection from pipc whip need not he provided if any of the following conditions will exist:
(a)
Both of the following piping system conditions are met:
(1) the service temperature in less than 200* F; and (2) the design pressure is 275 peig or less; or (h)
The piping in physically separated (or isolated) f com structures,
systens, or components important to safety by protective barriers,
or restrained from whipping by plant design features, such as concrete encasement; or (c)
Following a single break, the unrestrained pipe movement of either end of the ruptured pipe in any possible direction about a plastic hinge formed at the nearest pipe whip res traint cannot impact any structure, system, or component important to safety; or
,-+-e--u.
y sp,g--
,=+
+,
^
l 2-1 (d) The internal energy level associated with the whipping pipe i
can be demonstrated to be insufficient to impair the safety function of any structure, systes, or component to an unacceptable level.
2.
The criteria used to determine the design basis piping break locations in the piping systema shculd be equivalent to the following:
(a) ASME Section III Code Clags I piping breaks should be postulated to occur at the following locations in each piping run or branch run:
(1) the terminal ends; (2) any intermediate locations between terminal ends where the primary plus secondary stress intensities S,(circum-ferential or longitudinal) derived on an elastically 1The internal fluid energy level associated with the pipe break reaction may take into account any line restrictions (e.g., flow limiter) between the pressure source and break location, and the effects of either s'ngle-ended or double-ended flow conditions, as applicable. The anergy level in a whipping pipe may be considered as insufficient to rupture an tapacted pipe of equal or greater nominal pipe size and equal or heavier wall thickness.
2Piping is a pressure retaining cegonent consisting of straight or curved pipe and pipe fittings (e.g., elbows, tees, and reducers).
3A piping run interconnects components such as pressure vessels, pumps, and rigidly fixed valves that may act to restrain pape movement beyond that required for design thermal displacement. A branch run differs from a piping run only in that it originates at a piping intersection, as a branch of the main pipe run.
~-
e.-,-
,--,,w..e en,,
,.s
~
e
. calculated basis under the loadings associated with one -
half safe shutdown earthquake and operational plant conditions exceeds 2.0 S, for ferritic steel, and 2.4 S, for austenitic steel; (3) any intermediate locations between terminal ends where the cumulative usage factor (U) derived from the piping fatigue analysis and based on all normal, uptet, and testing plant conditions exceeds 0.1; and (4) at intermediate locations in addition to those determined by (1) and (2) above, selected on a reasonable basis as necessary to provide protection. As a minimum, there should be two intermediate lecations for each piping run or branch run.
(b) ASME Section III Code Class 2 and 3 piping breaks should be postulated to occur at the following locations in each piping run or branch run:
(1) the terminal ends; 4Operational plant conditions include normal reactor operstion, upset conditions (e.g., anticipated operetional occurrences) and testing conditions.
Sg is the design stress intensity as specified in Section III of the m
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, " Nuclear Plant Components."
6U is the cumulative usage factor as specified in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Cods, " Nuclear Power Plant Components."
_ __ _ -__ _ ~_
. (2) any intermediate locations between terminal ends where either the circumferential or longitudinal stresses derived on an elastica 11y calculated basis under the loadings associated with seismic events and operational plant conditions exceed 0.9 (Sh+8) c the expansion stresses A
exceed 0.8 S ; and g
(3) intermediate locations in addition to these determined by (2) above, selected on reasonable basis as necessary to provide protection. As a minimum, there should be two intermediate locations for each piping run or branch run.
3.
The criteria used to determine the pipe break orientation at the break locations as specified under 2 above should be equivalent to the following:
(a) Longitudinal breaks in piping runs and branch runs, 4 inches nominal pipe size and larger, and/or S is the stress calculated by the rules of NC-3600 and ND-3600 for h
Class 2 and 3 components, respectively, of the ASME Code Section III Winter 1972 Addenda.
S is the allowable stress range for expansion stress calculated by the A
rules of NC-3600 of the ASME Code,Section III, or the USA Standard Code for Pressure Piping, ANSI B31.1.0-1967.
0Longitudinal breaks are parallel to the pipe axis and oriented at any point around the pipe circumference. The break area is equal to the effective cross-sectional flow area upstream of the break location.
Dynamic forces resulting frca such breaks are assumed to cause lateral pipe movements in the direction normal to the pipe axis.
M%
'^
. (b) Circumferential breaks in piping runs and branch rur.s exceeding 1 inch neminal pipe size.
A summary should be provided of the dyna =ic analyses applicable to the 4.
design of Category I piping and associated atyperta which determine the resulting 1cadings as a resui: of a 7c.~..a:ed pipe break including:
(a) The locaticus and number of design basis breaks en which the dyna =ic analyses are based.
(b) The postulated rupture orientation, such as a circumferential and/cr lengitudinal break (s), for each postulated design basis break loca:1cn.
(c) A descriptien of the forcing functicne used for the pipe whip dyna =ic analyses including the directics, rise time, magnitude, duratica an! initial conditions that cdequately represent the strea: dynamics and the syste= pressure difference.
jet c'
athe=atical -adels used for the dyna =ic analysis.
(d) Diagra=3 (e) A sum =ary of the analyses which de=custra:es that unrestrained actier. of ruptured lines ill not da= age :o an unacceptable or cecpenents i=pertant to safety, degree, structure, syste=4, such as the evntrol roe =.
Circu=ferential breais are perpendicular to the pipe axis, and the break 9
to the in:ernal cross-sectienal area of :he ruptured area is equivalent Dyna =le forces resulting frc= such breais are ass =ned to separate pipe.
the piping axially, and cause whipping in any direction normal to the pipe axis.
' 5.
A description should be provided of the meaJures, as applicable, to protect against pipe whip, blowdown jet and reactive forces including:
(a) Pipe restraint design to prevent pipe whip impact; (b) Protective provisions for structures, systems, and components required for safety against pipe whip and blowdown jet and reactive forces; (c)
Separation of redundant features; (d) Provisions to separate physically piping and other components of redundant features; and (e) description of the typical pipe whip restraints and a summary of number and location of all restraints in each system.
6.
The procedures that will be used to evaluate the structural adequacy of Category I structures and to design new seismic Category I structures should be provided including:
(a) The method of evaluating stresses, e.g.,
the working stress method and/or the ultimate strength method that will be used; (b) The allowable design stresses and/or strains; and (c) The load factors and the load combinations.
7.
The design loads, including the pressure and temperature transients, the dead, live and equipment loads; and the pipe and equirment static, thermal, and dynanic reactions should be provided.
7-8.
Seismic Category I structural elements such as floors, interior j
walls, exterior salls, building penetrations and the buildings as a whole should be analyzed for eventual reversal of loads due to the postulated accident.
9.
If new openings are to be provided in existing structures, the capabilities of the modified structures to carry the design loads should be demonstrated.
10.
Verification that failure of any structure, including nonseismic Category I structures, caused by the accident, will not cause failure of any other structure in a manner to adversely affect:
(a) Mitigation of the consequences of the accidents; and (b) Capability to bring the unit (s) to a cold shutdown condition.
11.
Verification that rupture of a pipe carrying high energy fluid will not directly or indirectly result in:
(a) Loss of redundancy in any portion of the protection system (as defined in IEEE-279), Class IE electric system (as defined in IEEE-308), engineered safety feature equipment, cable pene-trations, or their interconnecting cables required to mitigate the consequences of the steam line break accident and place the reactor (s) in a cold shutdown condition; or
. (b) Loss of the ability to cope with accidants due to ruptures of pipes other than a steam line, such as the rupture of pipes causing a steam or water leak too small to cause a reactor accident but large enough to cause electrical failure.
12.
Assurance should be provided that the control room will be habitable and its equipment functional after a stea= line or feedwater line break or that the capability for shutdown and cooldown of the unit (s) will be available in another habitable area.
13.
Environmental qualification should be demonstrated by test for that electrical equipment required to function in the steam-air environ-ment resulting from a steam line or feedwater line break.
The in-formation required for our review should include the following:
(a)
Identification of all electrical equipment necessary to meet requirements of 11 above. The time after the accident in which they are required to operate should be given.
(b)
The test conditions and the results of test data showing that the ayatens will perform their intended function in the environ-ment resulting from the postulated accident and time interval of the accident.
Environmental conditions used for the tests should be selected from a conservative evaluation of accident conditions.
(c) The results of a study of stea= systems identifying locations where barriers will be required to prevent steam jet i=pingment from dis-abling a protection system. The design criteria for the barriers should be stated and the capability of the equipment to survive within the protected environment should be described.
..m 9
(d)
An evaluation of the capability for safety related electrical equipment in the control room to function in the environment that may exis t following a pipe break accident should be provided.
Environmental conditions used for the evaluation should he selected from conservative calculations of accident conditions.
(e)
An evaluation to assure that the onsite power distribution system and onsite sources (diesels and batteries) will remain operable th roughout the event.
14.
Design diagrams and drawings of the steam and feedwater lines including branch lines showing the routing from containment to the turbine building should be provided.
The drawings should show elevations and include the location relative to the piping runs of nafety related equipment including ventilation equipment, intakes, and ducts.
15.
A discussion should be provided of the potential for flooding of safety related equipment in the event of failure of a feedwater line or any other line carrying high energy fluid.
16.
A description should be provided of the quality control and inspection programs that will be required or have been utilized for piping systems I
(
outside containment.
17.
If leak detection equipment is to be used in the proposed modifications, a discussion of its capabilities should be provided.
.A
~
10 -
- 18. A summary should be provided of the emergency procedures that would be followed after a pipe break accident, including the automatic and manual operations required to place the reactor unit (s) in a cold shutdown condition. The estimated times following the accident for all equipment and personnel operational actions should be included in the procedure summary.
19.
A description should be provided of the seismic and quality classi-fication of the high energy fluid piping systems including the steam and feedwater piping that run near structures, systems, or components important to safety.
20.
A description should be provided of the assumptions, methods, and results of analyses, including steam generator blowdown, used to calculate the pressure and temperature transients in compartments, pipe tunnels, intermediate buildings, and the turbine building following a pipe rupture in these areas. The equipment assumed to l
function in the analyses should be identified and the capability I
of systems required to function to meet a single active component failure should be described.
21.
A description should be provided of the methods or analyses performed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on the primary and/or secondary containment structures due to a pipe rupture outside these structures.
UF*R W"Bu884Mun muusut t
3 d4 k%
9 V
N M
'$^g g;!!. fill ? I s 4 OM i !32M; k
g.hf g =)
hh' NM* Jmd: 0 : ReargWL
).1 U
7 A
1 i
N f5 kkhhhA h h $h Nhw hN4$h.WibSW:ti W ~.. r.iEM MEG:h2S&E6G$%RSS$$lis No.
P-429 FOR DiMEDI ATE RELEASE
Contact:
Frank Ingram (Wednesday, December 13, 1972)
Tel.
301/973-7771 AEC REGULATORY STAFF REQUESTS DATA ON PIPE BREAKS IN NUCLEAR PLANTS The Atomic Energy Commission's Regulatory Staff is asking all utilities that operate nuclear power plants or have applied for operating licenses to assess the ef fects on essential auxiliary systems of a maj or break of the largest main steam or feedwater line.
These lines carry steam from inside the reactor containment building to the main turbine in the turbine building, and hot feedwater back from the turbine condenser.
The utility assessments will be evaluated by the AEC's Regulatory Staff.
The probability of a steam-line rupture is low.
Nonetheless it will have to be considered in the AEC's safety evaluation.
The review of the pipe break problem has been under way l
for several weeks.
It was started after the Advisory Com-mittee on Reactor Safeguards received a letter raising questions about the location of pipes in the two-unit Prairic Island plant in Minnesota.
The Regulatory Staff has reviewed the Northern States Power Company application to operate Prairie Island, and on the basis of data available it has concluded that design l
changes will be required at Prairie Island.
1 Based on the new information--to be submitted by utili ~
ties as soon as possibic--the Staff will determine what corrective action, if any, is necessary in each case.
The changes could include such steps as relocating piping, pro-viding venting of compartments, the addition of piping l
restraints, and, in some cases, structural strengthening.
1 l
l i
e l
.