ML110550667
| ML110550667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/2011 |
| From: | Farideh Saba Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Herrin D, Rose P, Westcott D Progress Energy Florida |
| Saba F, NRR/DORL/LPL2-2, 301-415-1447 | |
| References | |
| TAC ME5208 | |
| Download: ML110550667 (3) | |
Text
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
REGARDING CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST # 310, REVISION 0, DEPARTURE FROM A METHOD OF EVALUATION FOR THE AUXILIARY BUILDING OVERHEAD CRANE AND REVISIONS TO ASSOCIATED COMMITMENTS (TAC NO. ME5208)
- 1.
Background
By letter dated December 20, 2010, Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) submitted Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3) - License Amendment Request (LAR) # 310, Revision 0, Departure from a Method of Evaluation for the Auxiliary Building Overhead Crane and Revisions to Associated Commitments. In to the LAR, page 1 of 6, under Auxiliary Building (AB) design basis, the licensee stated:
The steel support structure (from the 162 foot to the 209 foot elevation) including the building siding and roof, is not a Class 1 structure. As such, it is not designed or licensed to withstand tornado loads or to Class 1 seismic requirements. As the ABs steel structure is not classified as a Class I or Class II structure, it is by default Class III, in accordance with FSAR section 5.1.1.3.
In Attachment 1 to the LAR, the licensee described that FPC would be including SSE loads in the analysis of AB structural members that serve as the crane support structure, and that FPC would perform building modifications as a result of the new analyses. In addition, the licensee described that the CR3 FSAR specified no damping coefficients for Class III structures, so FPC intended to use the ASME NOG-1-2004 damping coefficients (4% for OBE and 7% for SSE) for the new coupled seismic analysis of the crane and crane support structure, which would be performed in accordance with ASME NOG-1-2004 guidelines.
RAI -1:
Section 9.6.1.5.a.5 of the CR3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Fuel Handling System Equipment, states that the FHCR-5 crane and all supporting structures are Seismic Class 1. To confirm the adequacy of design since the crane support structure is intended to continue to perform its safety function of supporting the loaded crane following an SSE, please provide supporting documentation or information demonstrating the satisfaction of the criteria addressed in Section C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic Design
Classification, and Paragraph II.8 of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.2.
RAI -2:
Provide technical justification for application of the ASME NOG-1, 2004, crane structural damping values to the crane support structure rather than using reconciled values (i.e., values applicable to the crane and crane support coupled structure that consider those damping values applied in the licensing analyses for other Class 1 steel structures at CR3). This technical justification should address the rigidity of the connection between the reinforced concrete auxiliary building structure and the steel crane support structure.
RAI -3:
Section 5.1.2.2 of the CR3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Class I*
Design Bases, describes that structures, components, and systems designated as Class I* have been designed in accordance with the Seismic Class I design criteria to prevent fall down only. However, Class I* structures and components were not specifically identified or listed in the CR3 FSAR.
Section 5.1.1.1 of the CR3 FSAR, Class I, described that structures whose failure could result in an uncontrolled release of radioactivity are designated Class I, and listed the Auxiliary Building (excluding the steel roof support structure) and the fuel handling area crane as Class I.
The Auxiliary Building steel roof support structure extends over the spent fuel pool and the fuel handling area crane. Absent analyses demonstrating otherwise, the staff considers that the proposed design classification for the main structural members of the AB roof support structure (Class III) reasonably could allow the structural members to fall on the spent fuel, the spent fuel pool structure, and the fuel handling area crane, which then (directly or indirectly due to failure of the crane with a suspended load) could result in an uncontrolled release of radioactivity. Neither the license amendment request nor the NRC staff safety evaluation supporting CR3 License Amendment Number 226 to Facility Operating License DPR-72, which authorized removal of the spent fuel pool missile shields, addressed potential failure of the auxiliary building roof support structure. Therefore, consistent with the licensing basis for structural classification presented in the CR3 FSAR, provide justification for classifying the AB roof support structure as Class III rather than Class I*.
RAI -4:
In section 2.0 of the LAR, Description of Changes and Proposed Amendment Request, it is noted in part that the licensee is upgrading the FHCR-5 to a single-failure-proof crane Type I crane, as defined in ASME NOG-1-2004
design document, and is also upgrading the crane support structure. Please provide the design specification, design drawings and calculations for the upgrade of the crane support structure.
RAI -5:
In Attachment 3 of the LAR, the licensee is proposing to revise FSAR Section 9.6.3.1, Spent Fuel Assembly Removal, by deleting, When the Auxiliary Building Overhead Crane is operated in the cask removal mode, there is no spent fuel stored in spent fuel pool B and the gate between pools A and B is in place and sealed. However, in the letter dated February 8, 2007, Crystal River Unit 3 - LAR # 294, Revision 0, Elimination of Spent Fuel Pool Missile Shields, in Attachment A, page 1 of 6, in the second to the last paragraph, the licensee stated that, the primary example being movement of the containment tendon surveillance equipment performed once every five years. CR-3 plans to retain the missile shields for this and other potential heavy load lifts over the SFP.
Please address this discrepancy.