ML20094B497
| ML20094B497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1975 |
| 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 9511010093 | |
| Download: ML20094B497 (5) | |
Text
!
NUREG.75/087 SMaro o
~' g j' '
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
O 1
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
%.....+
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION v
SECTION 2.4,7 ICE EFFECTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Site Analysis Branh (SAB)
Secondary - None 1.
AREAS OF REVIEW The hydrometeorologic design basis is developed in this section of the safety analysis report (SAR) to assure that safety-related facilities and water supply are not affected by ice flooding or blockage. The areas of review include:
1.
The regional history and types of historical ice accumulations (i.e., ice jams, wind-driven ice ridges, floes, etc.).
2.
The potential for ice-produced forces on, or blockage of, safety-related facilities.
3.
The potential effects of ice-induced high or low flow levels on safety-related facilities and water supplies.
II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Publications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 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 streamflow records (USGS and state publications) will alert the reviewer to the potential for ice effects. The fol-lowing items must be considered and evaluated, if found necessary, in the design of protec-tion of safety-related facilities and water supplies.
1.
The regional ice and ice jam formation history must be described to enable an independent 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 icing or ice blockage of intake screens and pumps will not adversaly 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 supplies capable of meeting safety-related requirements are available from under the ice formations postulated and that safety-related equipment is protected from USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
- ""e'."'eN O*,"[,wYh.# '" TMTn"EN"eS"a$i. [m"e.".bE="",$"7Ee"c".'"E.Y.iMieY Now~. 24NtYdN
'.e d m.
epe e'em ',:!,".".e,:,:.'.:n=.t.ee.r '."e.g.,e ea."e-.t-. 0:Ta,g ".,".0.1",',t'."/,T ;'J,T".~d;" t;;e ;"e ' n.'0"eT!,e"*
' ~
=: ;, '.'0" d
.".n.".e n
t ee e.en
,e, e
,wtuoh.d standard rew6ew piene wl8 be #ewt.e4 perledicall. e. espropel.te. te.eeemmedese commente.nd to refle.t newy W,teemsteen and esper6. nee Comment. end.weg e.n. for impeevement will be.
I and.heteld be.ent to the U 8.svese.r Regw6away Commi. men.Offlee e..tu. seer Rea.ter Regua.esen. Weehengton. D C 3DBEE.
e u us/76 9511010093 751124 PDR NUREG 75/087 R PDR
~ _ __ ~ _.. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _..
1 l
icing as in 2.. above. If not, it must be demonstrated that alternate sources of water are availablo, that they are protected from free 31ng, and that the alternate source is capable of meeting safety-related requirements in such situations. Ice loading must have been included in the structural design basis if severe icing is possible.
4.
If floating ice is prevalent based on regional icing history, consideration of impact forces on the safety-related intakes must be a consideration in the design basis. The dynamic loading caused 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 establishing the flood and water supply design bases. If this water level would adversely affect the intake structure, or other safety-related facilities, it must be demonstrated that an alternate safety-related water supply will not also be adversely affected.
!!!. REVIEW PROCEDURES Applicable literature describing historical occurrences of icing in the region is reviewed
)
to determine if icing protection should be considered in the design of safety-related facilities. If so, the most likely types of icing conditions (floating ice, river blockage by ice buildup, frazil, etc.) are listed, and the impact on plant design of 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.
independent ettimates of the " worst case" will be made by either statistical or deter-ministic techrdques. Evidence, if any, of potential structural effects will be furnished the Structural Engineering Branch (SEB); similarly, mechanical impairment potential will be furnished the Auxiliary and Power Conversion Systems Branch (A&pCSB) or the Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB).
The above reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site regions. Some items of review may be done on a generic basis.
1 IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS For construction permit (CP) reviews, the findings will consist of a statement of the appli-j cant and staff estimates of the potential for ice flooding. If applicable. the minimum low water levels (from upstream ice blockage) will be included. If the estimates are similar.
staff concurrence with the applicant's estimate will be stated. If the staff predicts substantially higher or lower controlling water levels, or blockage of the intake, and 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 design basis, the statement will so indicate.
For operating license (OL) reviews of plants for which detailed icing reviews were made at j
the CP stage, the CP conclusions will be referenced. However, 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:
2.4.7-2 11/24/75
?
v*
= - - - - - - -
m<
- Ice Flooding, ::hich is comon on th) A River at the makeup intake structure, could only aff ct ths river intake structure which would not result in any adytrse 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 of 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. We concur with this conclusion.
"The safety-related pumps from the cooling lake are to be protected from ice blockage by means of traveling screens, stop logs, and trash racks located at the front of the lake screenhouse. In addition, the applicant proposes a warm-up line from the circu-lating water discharge which will keep the inlet water temperature 40" F. during winter operation. 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 facilities."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
E. Brown and G. C. Clark, " Ice Thrust in Connection with Hydro-Electric Design,"
Engineering Journal, pp. 18-25, 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. 307-309 (1949).
l l
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 Flexural Waves in Floating Ice Sheets,"
Report No. 34. Corps of Engineers, Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Research Establishment (1955).
I 8.
J. T. Wilson, J. H. Zumberge, and E. W. Marshall, "A Study of Ice on an Inland Lake,"
i Report No. 5 Corps of Engineers, Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Research Establishment (1954).
2.4.7-3 11/24/75 m
9.
"Rivsr Ice Jams - A Literature Review," Engine 1r 14chnical Letter No. 1110-2-58 Corps of Engineirs (1569).
- 10. " Design of Small Dams," Bureau of Reclanation, U. S. Department of the Interior (1973).
11.
J. H. Zumberge and J. T. Wilson, " Quantitative Studies of Thermal Expansion and Con-traction of Lake Ice," Jour of Geophysical Research, Vol. 61. pp. 374-383 (1953).
l-
- 12. " Surface Water Supply of the United States," U. S. Geological Survey, surface water supply papers as applicable to the plant region.
- 13. Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 2.
I l
I 1
2.4.7-4 11/24/75 f
4 ae
,a 9
e
n._
-