ML032230311

Draft Information Input, Attachment 11, E-mailed on July 11, 2003 (50-313 and 50-368)

ML032230311
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/11/2003
From:	Alexion T NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4
To:	Sharon Bennett Entergy Operations
Shared Package
ML032260096	List: ML032230292 ML032230297 ML032230298 ML032230301 ML032230306 ML032230311 ML032230316 ML032230319 ML032230326 ML032230332 ML032230334 ML032230338 ML032230341 ML032230437 ML032230446 ML032230448 ML032230453 ML032230455 ML032230459 ML032230460 ML032230464 ML032230467
References
Download: ML032230311 (3)

Text

. i homas exdon - HA - CRANE D . _ ^. .

-=M!Ul From: Thomas Alexion To: BENNET, STEVE A Date: 7/11/03 1:16PM

Subject:

RAI- CRANE Steve, See the attached.

Tom

-tC.\WIN DOWSTEM ROW 1OOO-0l0.T MP Pnm 1 ps.e1 I CAWINDOWS\TEMP\GW1OOOoi .TMP Mail Envelope Properties (3FOEF10A.BFF: 0: 20628)

Subject:

RAI- CRANE Creation Date: 7/11/03 1:16PM From: Thomas Alexion Created By: TWA@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time entergy.com Transferred 07/11/03 01:17PM SBENNE2 (BENNET, STEVE A)

Post Office Delivered Route entergy.com Files Size Date & Time Rajan.wpd 7086 07/11/03 10:57AM MESSAGE 715 07/11/03 01:16PM Options Auto Delete: No Expiration Date: None Notify Recipients: Yes Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard To Be Delivered: Immediate Status Tracking: Delivered & Opened

FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) RELATED TO ENTERGY'S RESPONSE TO THE NRC REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF HANDLING HEAVY LOADS FOR THE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE ANO) SPENT FUEL CRANE MECHANICAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING BRANCH (EMEB)

1. The response to EMEB RAI-3 in Attachment 1 of the June 30, 2003, supplemental letter states, "Acceptance criteria are focused on assuring that the crane will hold and not drop the load which allows use of less restrictive acceptance criteria than a Category 1 component." Identify the specific criteria that you consider as less restrictive.

2. The response to EMEB RAI-5 in Attachment 1 states, "Although a full response spectrum or time history analysis of the structure was not performed, both historical and current analyses calculated the first mode of the structure and used it to determine appropriate seismic accelerations." Discuss your justification for this simplification in the calculation by identifying the conservatism built Into the employed methodology.

3. It is stated in response to EMEB RAI-5, Attachment 1, that, The new analyses considered the structure self-weight (original analyses considered only the seismic loads from the crane and the lifted load, which was greater than the structure self-weight."

Confirm that the new analyses also considered the seismic loads from the crane and the lifted loads in addition to the structure self-weight.

4. It is stated in response to EMEB RAI-5, Attachment 1, that, Seismic loads to the bent frame included loads from the L-3 crane; however, the entire load was originally applied to one bent at a time and no credit was taken for load sharing between adjacent bents.

New analysis shares the load between multiple bents." Explain how load sharing between adjacent bents would lead to conservative results.

5. It is stated in proposed Amendment 19 to the Safety Analysis Report, page 9.6-34 (Attachment 2 to the June 30, 2003, supplemental letter), that, An analysis was performed on the 3-foot. 6-inch thick reinforced concrete relay room ceiling slab, located below the cask travel Rath between column lines A2 and C2. The analysis was performed to demonstrate that a postulated cask drop would not damage any safety-related equipment located in the relay room. The analysis followed an eneray absorption method. The energy input to the relay room ceiling slab was based on a 260 kip cask weight. 92-inch cask diameter and a drop height of one inch. This considers that the main hoist is designed such that the maximum load motion following a single wire rope failure is less than 1.5 feet and the maximum kinetic energy of the load will be less than that resulting from one Inch free fall of the maximum critical load.' Provide the basis for the criterion that the maximum kinetic energy of the load will be less than that resulting from one inch free fall of the maximum critical load.

6. Attachment 6 to the June 30, 2003, supplemental letter, ANO Calculation No. 61 Rev. 2, "Fuel Building Cask Crane Runway Girds and Support,' page 3B, says, 'The runway was evaluated for 80% of lateral loads from Trolley based on its extreme location near one end of crane bridge in combination with 50% of the loads resulting from bridge dead loads.' Provide justification for the 50% reduction in the bridge dead load.

7. Provide justification for the reduction of the impact loads (vertical and horizontal impact factors have been reduced from the values provided in the previous submittal), as stated on page 4 of ANO Calculation No. 61, Rev. 1.