NRC Generic Letter 1985-22: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:-.Iv ."I, -we .. ....I an, a; *.._A ..7,i0IxDecember 3, 1985TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING REACTORS, APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING LICENSEES,AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.Gentlemen:SUBJECT: POTENTIAL FOR LOSS OF POST-LOCA RECIRCULATION CAPABILITY DUE TOINSULATION DEBRIS BLOCKAGE (Generic Letter 85-22 )This letter is to inform you about a generic safety concern regarding LOCA -generated debris that could block PWR containment emergency sump screens orBWR RHR suction strainers, thus resulting in a loss of recirculation orcontainment spray pump net positive suction head (NPSH) margin.The potential exists for a primary coolant pipe break to damage thermalInsulation on the piping as well as that on nearby components. Insulationdebris could be transported to water sources used for long-term post-LOCArecirculation and containment sprays (i.e., PWR containment emergency sumpsand BWR suction intakes in the suppression pools) and deposited on debrisscreens or suction strainers. This could reduce the NPSH margin below thatrequired for recirculation pumps to maintain long-term cooling.This concern has been addressed as part of the efforts undertaken to resolveUSI A-43, "Containment Emergency Sump Performance." The staff's technicalfindings contain the following main points.0 Plant insulation surveys, development of methods for estimating debrisgeneration and transport, debris transport experiments, and informationprovided as public comments on the findings have shown that debrisblockage effects are dependent on the types and quantities ofinsulation employed, the primary system layout within containment,post-LOCA recirculation patterns and velocities, and the post-LOCArecirculation flow rates. It was concluded that a single genericsolution is not possible, but rather that debris blockage effects aregoverned by plant specific design features and post-loca recirculationflow requirement.O The current 50% screen blockage assumption identified in RegulatoryGuide (RG) 1.82, "Sumps for Emergency Core Cooling and ContainmentSpray Systems," should be replaced with a more comprehensiverequirement to assess debris effects on a plant-specific basis. The50% screen blockage assumption does not require a plant-specificevaluation of the debris-blockage potential and usually will result ina non-conservative analysis for screen blockage effects. _The staff has revised Regulatory GuideFmarn rnev C rs nalinn and Containment(RG) 1.82, Revision 0, "Sumps forSprav Systems" and the StandardJLO --L577/ra:pj: I7tVQReview PICTI- edilf;w G.. ', 1intIM"~l l latRjv FW11 VCLI l" de vMnlei s -N A ~~~~i @ * * * * * * * * * * * *
{{#Wiki_filter:-.Iv ."I, -we .. ....I an, a; *.._A ..7, i0Ix December 3, 1985 TO ALL LICENSEES  
* X 6. ......................*@ @ ~ ~ b * @ @ * @ o4* -5 t- 2 7 2 6 3 .....D A T E P ........................ .... ................o. i.. .-.. ..?JRC FOAM ,16 10 ) .24_F.AL. 'r,O FFICIA L KR E ccrxw %.WW-N4RC FORM 3s1B (10 810) NRCM 0240  
OF OPERATING  
2above technical findings. However, the staff's regulatory analysis-(NUREG-0869, Revision 1, "USI A-43 Regulatory Analysis") evaluated (1)containment designs and their survivability should loss of recirculationoccur, (2) alternate means to remove decay heat, (3) release consequences(which were based on pipe break probabilities which did not incorporateinsights gained from recent pipe fracture mechanics analyses), and (4) costestimates for backfits considered (i.e., reinsulating). This regulatoryanalysis did not support a generic backfit action and resulted in thedecision that this revised regulatory guidance will not be applied to anyplant now licensed to operate or that is under construction. The revisedguidance will be used on Construction Permit Applications, Preliminary DesignApproval (PDA) applications, and applications for licenses to manufacturethat are docketed after six (6) months following issuance of RG 1.82,Revision 1, and Final Design Approval (FDA) applications, for standardizeddesigns which are intended for referencing in future Construction PermitApplications, that have not received approval at six (6) months followingissuance of the RG 1.82, Revision 1.Although the staff has concluded that no new requirements need be imposed onlicensees and construction permit holders as a result of our concludinganalyses dealing with the resolution of USI A-43, we do recommend that RG1.82, Revision 1 be used as guidance for the conduct of 10 CFR 50.59 reviewsdealing with the changeout and/or modification of thermal insulationinstalled on primary coolant system piping and components. RG 1.82,Revision 1 provides guidance for estimating potential debris blockageeffects. If, as a result of NRC staff review of licensee actions associatedwith the changeout or modification of thermal insulation, the staff decidesthat Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 and/or RG 1.82, Revision1 should be (or should have been) applied to the rework by the licensee, andthe staff seeks to impose these criteria, then the NRC will treat such anaction as a plant-specific backfit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109. It is expectedthat those plants with small debris screen areas (less than 100 ft2), highECCS recirculation pumping requirements (greater than 8000 gpm), and smallNPSH margins (less than 1 to 2 ft of water) would benefit the most from thistype of assessment in the event of a future insulation change. RG 1.82,Revision 0 with its 50% blockage criteria does not adequately address thisissue and is inconsistent with the technical findings developed for theresolution of USI A-43.This information letter along with enclosed copies of NUREG-0897, Revision1, RG 1.82, Revision 1 and SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 should be directedto the appropriate groups within your organization who are responsible forconducting 10 CFR 50.59 reviews.OFFICEO ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ............SURN"UIE i ... ........................ ................................ ........................................ ........................ ............ ............... ......... ............... ........................DATE j ............. ........................I.....................-t ............. ............. ..........NRC FORM 319 (10 60) NFICM 0240O FFICIA L Rt6CCJKru %WTr-Ivans .,-... -..,  
REACTORS, APPLICANTS  
' io- *kg -3No written response or specific action is required by this letter.Therefore, no clearance from the Office of Management and Budget isrequired. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact yourproject manager._Urll1nal signed byHu'h L.ThomPSOfnJr.Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., DirectorDivision of LicensingEnclosure:NUREG-0897, Revision 1RG 1.82, Revision 1SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4*See previous sheet for concurrenceORAB:DL* SL:ORAB:DL* C:ORAB:DL* AD:SA:DL'l:D 4li-iOFIC ............ ..... ............... ......... ............. ........ ................. .,.......... ........................i PTremblay/t JHannon GHolahan DCrutchfiel r HThoII son................ .......... ........................ ............................... ............................... ............ .................. ..................................... ........................DATa.7-./1l.85 ... .. ..3l/85.... .8.l.I./.85.l.lt/.5.l .. ........ .. ........... .. .1 I.. .. ........ ....NRC FOAM 3tJ (10 60) NRCMt 0240O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OPYUSGPO 1N3-315-960  
FOR OPERATING  
}}
LICENSEES, AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION  
PERMITS.Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL  
FOR LOSS OF POST-LOCA  
RECIRCULATION  
CAPABILITY  
DUE TO INSULATION
DEBRIS BLOCKAGE (Generic Letter 85-22 )This letter is to inform you about a generic safety concern regarding LOCA -generated debris that could block PWR containment emergency sump screens or BWR RHR suction strainers, thus resulting in a loss of recirculation or containment spray pump net positive suction head (NPSH) margin.The potential exists for a primary coolant pipe break to damage thermal Insulation on the piping as well as that on nearby components.
 
Insulation debris could be transported to water sources used for long-term post-LOCA recirculation and containment sprays (i.e., PWR containment emergency sumps and BWR suction intakes in the suppression pools) and deposited on debris screens or suction strainers.
 
This could reduce the NPSH margin below that required for recirculation pumps to maintain long-term cooling.This concern has been addressed as part of the efforts undertaken to resolve USI A-43, "Containment Emergency Sump Performance." The staff's technical findings contain the following main points.0 Plant insulation surveys, development of methods for estimating debris generation and transport, debris transport experiments, and information provided as public comments on the findings have shown that debris blockage effects are dependent on the types and quantities of insulation employed, the primary system layout within containment, post-LOCA  
recirculation patterns and velocities, and the post-LOCA recirculation flow rates. It was concluded that a single generic solution is not possible, but rather that debris blockage effects are governed by plant specific design features and post-loca recirculation flow requirement.
 
O The current 50% screen blockage assumption identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.82, "Sumps for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems," should be replaced with a more comprehensive requirement to assess debris effects on a plant-specific basis. The 50% screen blockage assumption does not require a plant-specific evaluation of the debris-blockage potential and usually will result in a non-conservative analysis for screen blockage effects. _The staff has revised Regulatory Guide Fmarn rnev C rs nalinn and Containment (RG) 1.82, Revision 0, "Sumps for Sprav Systems" and the Standard J LO --L577/ra:pj: I7tVQ Review PICTI- edilf;w G.. ', 1intIM"~l l latRjv FW11 VCLI l" de vMnle i s -N A ~~~~i @ * * * * * * * * * * * *
* X 6. ......................*@ @ ~ ~ b * @ @ * @ o4* -5 t- 2 7 2 6 3 .....D A T E P ........................  
.... ................
o. i.. .-.. ..?JRC FOAM ,16 10 ) .24_F.AL. 'r, O FFICIA L KR E ccrxw %.WW-N4RC FORM 3s1B (10 810) NRCM 0240  
2 above technical findings.
 
However, the staff's regulatory analysis-(NUREG-0869, Revision 1, "USI A-43 Regulatory Analysis")  
evaluated  
(1)containment designs and their survivability should loss of recirculation occur, (2) alternate means to remove decay heat, (3) release consequences (which were based on pipe break probabilities which did not incorporate insights gained from recent pipe fracture mechanics analyses), and (4) cost estimates for backfits considered (i.e., reinsulating).  
This regulatory analysis did not support a generic backfit action and resulted in the decision that this revised regulatory guidance will not be applied to any plant now licensed to operate or that is under construction.
 
The revised guidance will be used on Construction Permit Applications, Preliminary Design Approval (PDA) applications, and applications for licenses to manufacture that are docketed after six (6) months following issuance of RG 1.82, Revision 1, and Final Design Approval (FDA) applications, for standardized designs which are intended for referencing in future Construction Permit Applications, that have not received approval at six (6) months following issuance of the RG 1.82, Revision 1.Although the staff has concluded that no new requirements need be imposed on licensees and construction permit holders as a result of our concluding analyses dealing with the resolution of USI A-43, we do recommend that RG 1.82, Revision 1 be used as guidance for the conduct of 10 CFR 50.59 reviews dealing with the changeout and/or modification of thermal insulation installed on primary coolant system piping and components.
 
RG 1.82, Revision 1 provides guidance for estimating potential debris blockage effects. If, as a result of NRC staff review of licensee actions associated with the changeout or modification of thermal insulation, the staff decides that Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 and/or RG 1.82, Revision 1 should be (or should have been) applied to the rework by the licensee, and the staff seeks to impose these criteria, then the NRC will treat such an action as a plant-specific backfit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109. It is expected that those plants with small debris screen areas (less than 100 ft2), high ECCS recirculation pumping requirements (greater than 8000 gpm), and small NPSH margins (less than 1 to 2 ft of water) would benefit the most from this type of assessment in the event of a future insulation change. RG 1.82, Revision 0 with its 50% blockage criteria does not adequately address this issue and is inconsistent with the technical findings developed for the resolution of USI A-43.This information letter along with enclosed copies of NUREG-0897, Revision 1, RG 1.82, Revision 1 and SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 should be directed to the appropriate groups within your organization who are responsible for conducting
10 CFR 50.59 reviews.OFFICEO ........................  
........................  
........................  
........................  
........................  
........................  
............
SURN"UIE i ... ........................  
................................  
........................................  
........................  
............  
...............  
.........  
...............  
........................
DATE j .............  
........................
I.....................-
t .............  
.............  
..........
NRC FORM 319 (10 60) NFICM 0240 O FFICIA L Rt6CCJKru  
%WTr-I vans .,-... -..,  
' io- *kg -3 No written response or specific action is required by this letter.Therefore, no clearance from the Office of Management and Budget is required.
 
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact your project manager._Urll1nal signed by Hu'h L.ThomPSOfnJr.
 
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licensing Enclosure:
NUREG-0897, Revision 1 RG 1.82, Revision 1 SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4*See previous sheet for concurrence ORAB:DL* SL:ORAB:DL*  
C:ORAB:DL*  
AD:SA:DL'l:D  
4li-i OFIC ............  
..... ...............  
.........  
.............  
........ .................  
.,..........  
........................
i PTremblay/t JHannon GHolahan DCrutchfiel r HThoII son................  
..........  
........................  
...............................  
...............................  
............  
..................  
.....................................  
........................
DATa.7-./1l.85  
... .. ..3l/85....  
.8.l.I./.85.l.lt/.5.l  
.. ........ .. ...........  
.. .1 I.. .. ........ ....NRC FOAM 3tJ (10 60) NRCMt 0240 O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OPY USGPO 1N3-315-960}}


{{GL-Nav}}
{{GL-Nav}}

Revision as of 13:25, 31 August 2018

NRC Generic Letter 1985-022: Potential for Loss of Post-LOCA Recirculation Capability Due to Insulation Debris Blockage
ML031150731
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Skagit, Marble Hill
Issue date: 12/03/1985
From: Thompson H L
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
GL-85-022, NUDOCS 8511270253
Download: ML031150731 (3)
v • d • e


-.Iv ."I, -we .. ....I an, a; *.._A ..7, i0Ix December 3, 1985 TO ALL LICENSEES

OF OPERATING

REACTORS, APPLICANTS

FOR OPERATING

LICENSEES, AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION

PERMITS.Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: POTENTIAL

FOR LOSS OF POST-LOCA

RECIRCULATION

CAPABILITY

DUE TO INSULATION

DEBRIS BLOCKAGE (Generic Letter 85-22 )This letter is to inform you about a generic safety concern regarding LOCA -generated debris that could block PWR containment emergency sump screens or BWR RHR suction strainers, thus resulting in a loss of recirculation or containment spray pump net positive suction head (NPSH) margin.The potential exists for a primary coolant pipe break to damage thermal Insulation on the piping as well as that on nearby components.

Insulation debris could be transported to water sources used for long-term post-LOCA recirculation and containment sprays (i.e., PWR containment emergency sumps and BWR suction intakes in the suppression pools) and deposited on debris screens or suction strainers.

This could reduce the NPSH margin below that required for recirculation pumps to maintain long-term cooling.This concern has been addressed as part of the efforts undertaken to resolve USI A-43, "Containment Emergency Sump Performance." The staff's technical findings contain the following main points.0 Plant insulation surveys, development of methods for estimating debris generation and transport, debris transport experiments, and information provided as public comments on the findings have shown that debris blockage effects are dependent on the types and quantities of insulation employed, the primary system layout within containment, post-LOCA

recirculation patterns and velocities, and the post-LOCA recirculation flow rates. It was concluded that a single generic solution is not possible, but rather that debris blockage effects are governed by plant specific design features and post-loca recirculation flow requirement.

O The current 50% screen blockage assumption identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.82, "Sumps for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems," should be replaced with a more comprehensive requirement to assess debris effects on a plant-specific basis. The 50% screen blockage assumption does not require a plant-specific evaluation of the debris-blockage potential and usually will result in a non-conservative analysis for screen blockage effects. _The staff has revised Regulatory Guide Fmarn rnev C rs nalinn and Containment (RG) 1.82, Revision 0, "Sumps for Sprav Systems" and the Standard J LO --L577/ra:pj: I7tVQ Review PICTI- edilf;w G.. ', 1intIM"~l l latRjv FW11 VCLI l" de vMnle i s -N A ~~~~i @ * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • X 6. ......................*@ @ ~ ~ b * @ @ * @ o4* -5 t- 2 7 2 6 3 .....D A T E P ........................

.... ................

o. i.. .-.. ..?JRC FOAM ,16 10 ) .24_F.AL. 'r, O FFICIA L KR E ccrxw %.WW-N4RC FORM 3s1B (10 810) NRCM 0240

2 above technical findings.

However, the staff's regulatory analysis-(NUREG-0869, Revision 1, "USI A-43 Regulatory Analysis")

evaluated

(1)containment designs and their survivability should loss of recirculation occur, (2) alternate means to remove decay heat, (3) release consequences (which were based on pipe break probabilities which did not incorporate insights gained from recent pipe fracture mechanics analyses), and (4) cost estimates for backfits considered (i.e., reinsulating).

This regulatory analysis did not support a generic backfit action and resulted in the decision that this revised regulatory guidance will not be applied to any plant now licensed to operate or that is under construction.

The revised guidance will be used on Construction Permit Applications, Preliminary Design Approval (PDA) applications, and applications for licenses to manufacture that are docketed after six (6) months following issuance of RG 1.82, Revision 1, and Final Design Approval (FDA) applications, for standardized designs which are intended for referencing in future Construction Permit Applications, that have not received approval at six (6) months following issuance of the RG 1.82, Revision 1.Although the staff has concluded that no new requirements need be imposed on licensees and construction permit holders as a result of our concluding analyses dealing with the resolution of USI A-43, we do recommend that RG 1.82, Revision 1 be used as guidance for the conduct of 10 CFR 50.59 reviews dealing with the changeout and/or modification of thermal insulation installed on primary coolant system piping and components.

RG 1.82, Revision 1 provides guidance for estimating potential debris blockage effects. If, as a result of NRC staff review of licensee actions associated with the changeout or modification of thermal insulation, the staff decides that Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 and/or RG 1.82, Revision 1 should be (or should have been) applied to the rework by the licensee, and the staff seeks to impose these criteria, then the NRC will treat such an action as a plant-specific backfit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109. It is expected that those plants with small debris screen areas (less than 100 ft2), high ECCS recirculation pumping requirements (greater than 8000 gpm), and small NPSH margins (less than 1 to 2 ft of water) would benefit the most from this type of assessment in the event of a future insulation change. RG 1.82, Revision 0 with its 50% blockage criteria does not adequately address this issue and is inconsistent with the technical findings developed for the resolution of USI A-43.This information letter along with enclosed copies of NUREG-0897, Revision 1, RG 1.82, Revision 1 and SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4 should be directed to the appropriate groups within your organization who are responsible for conducting

10 CFR 50.59 reviews.OFFICEO ........................

........................

........................

........................

........................

........................

............

SURN"UIE i ... ........................

................................

........................................

........................

............

...............

.........

...............

........................

DATE j .............

........................

I.....................-

t .............

.............

..........

NRC FORM 319 (10 60) NFICM 0240 O FFICIA L Rt6CCJKru

%WTr-I vans .,-... -..,

' io- *kg -3 No written response or specific action is required by this letter.Therefore, no clearance from the Office of Management and Budget is required.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact your project manager._Urll1nal signed by Hu'h L.ThomPSOfnJr.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licensing Enclosure:

NUREG-0897, Revision 1 RG 1.82, Revision 1 SRP Section 6.2.2, Revision 4*See previous sheet for concurrence ORAB:DL* SL:ORAB:DL*

C:ORAB:DL*

AD:SA:DL'l:D

4li-i OFIC ............

..... ...............

.........

.............

........ .................

.,..........

........................

i PTremblay/t JHannon GHolahan DCrutchfiel r HThoII son................

..........

........................

...............................

...............................

............

..................

.....................................

........................

DATa.7-./1l.85

... .. ..3l/85....

.8.l.I./.85.l.lt/.5.l

.. ........ .. ...........

.. .1 I.. .. ........ ....NRC FOAM 3tJ (10 60) NRCMt 0240 O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OPY USGPO 1N3-315-960

Template:GL-Nav

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NRC_Generic_Letter_1985-22&oldid=1010914"