ML17214A204

Draft Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants,St Lucie Plant,Unit 2 (Phase I), Technical Evaluation Rept

ML17214A204
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/30/1983
From:	Shaber C EG&G, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17214A203	List: ML17214A204
References
CON-FIN-A-6457, REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR EGG-HS-6263, EGG-HS-6263-DRFT, TAC-47015, NUDOCS 8306160641
Download: ML17214A204 (18)

Text

CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT 2, (PHASE I)

Docket No. 50-389 Author CD R. Shaber Principal Technical Investigator T. H. Stickley Publ i shed Apri l 1983 EGEG Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Fal 1 s, Idaho 83415

Prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76IDO1570 FIN No. A6457 830b1bOb41 830531 PDR ADOCK 05000389 P PDR

.1

EXECUTI YE SUNYARY St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 does not totally comply with the guidelines of NUREG-0612. In general, compliance is insufficient in the followina areas:

~ Method of safe load path identification and control for loads where the "safe load area" concept is used in lieu of marked safe load paths a Operator qualification requirement to test the upper limi switch of cranes each shift that the crane-will be used

~ Identifying special lifting devices and reaching conclusions wi h your supplier from the discussions on the devices adequacy for static and dynamic loading.

The main report contains recommendations which will a'.d ir brinoino the above items into compliance with the appropriate guidelines.

~ ~

CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS AT NUCLEAR POWDER PLANTS FLORIDA POh'ER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT. UNIT 2 PHAG%'.

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Review This technical evaluation report documents the EGKG Idaho Inc., review r

of general load-handling policy and procedures at Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 This evaluation was performed

~

with the objective of assessing conformance to the general load-handling guidelines of NUREG-0612, "Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" [1], Section 5.1.1.

1.2 Generic Back round Generic Technical Activity Task A-36 was established by he U.S.

'uclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to systematically examine staff licensing criteria and the adequacy of measures in effec at operating nuclear power plants to assure the safe handling of heavy loads and to recommend necessary changes to these measures. This activity was initiated by a letter issued by the NRC staff on May 17, 1978, [2] to all power reactor licensees, requesting information concerning the control of heavy loads near spent fuel.

The results of Task A-36 were repor.ed in NUREG-0612, "Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants." The staff's conclusion from thi s evaluation was tha. existing measures to control the handling of heavy loads at opera ing plants, although proviging protection from certain potential problems, do not adequately cover the major causes of load-handling accidents and should be upgraded.

I SS I Sta f guidelines resulting from the foregoing are tabulatec in Section 5 of HUREG"0512.

1.3 Plant-Specific Backercund'n December 22, 1980, he NRC issued a letter [3l to Flo. ida Power ard Light Company, the Applicant for St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, requesting that they review the provisions for handling and control of neavy loads at St. Lucie Plant, Uni. 2, evaluate these provisions with respect to the guidelines of NUREG-0612, and provide certain additional information to be used for an independent determination of conformance to these guidelines. On August 6, 1981, Florida Power and Light Company provided the initial resporse [4] to this request.

Following discussions of an analysis of the initial response, on September 21, 1982, Florida Power and Light submitted clarification and supplemental informa ion on the St. Lucie Unit 2, first response.

This improved information [4aj is intended to resolve commen.s and upgrade the Florida Power and .Light Company submittal. The -wo reports provide current and comprehensive information on cor ormance with the guidelines.

A. Summar of A olicant Statements The Applicant's review of overhead handling systems identified the cranes=a'nd ho~~~~ n a Table and cooed as Group I those which handle heavy loads in the vicinity of irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment.

The Applicant initially identified )2 cranes by a Group II classification and subsequently added two more that have been excluded from satisifying the criteria of the .general guidelines of NUREG-06)2. The exclusions were determined by inspections that showed there is sufficient physical separation from any load impact point and any safety-related component.

B. EG&G Evaluation The Applicant reports that inspections were made to establish what they consider as sufficient physical separation between any load impact point and any safety-related equipment or any irrad',ated fuel. The lack of specific criteria or other information such as drawings showing the relationship between crane coverage and location of safety equipment prevents a detailed evaluation of the Applicant's initial )2 units excluded as Group II. The two additions assigned to Group II were justified in more detail in the September 21, )982, submittal.

C. EG&G Conclusions and Recommenaations Based on the informa ion provided, EG&G concludes tha+ the Applicant has included all applicable 'hoists and cranes in their Group I list of handling systems which must comply with the requirements of the general guidelines of NUREG-06)2.

K handled. Deviations from de ined load paths should recuire written alternative procedures approved'by the plant safety review committee."

A. Summar of Apolican S'atements Florida Power and Light identifies heir response as a "Position" and states that they intend to comply with Guideline 1 in general, but will take some exceptions.

1. Special load paths will be defined and followed only fo'r significant, periodically handled heavy loads. The loads are:

a. Reactor Vessel Head

b. Reactor Upper Internals

c. Reactor Hissile Shield

d. Pressurizer Missile Shield

e. Spent-Fuel'ask.

2. Load handling for all other heavy loads will be covered by a generic procedure using a "Safe Load Area" and "Restricted Zone" approach.

3. Designation of the safe load path or safe load area will be accomplished by training and included in the procedures rather than markings on the floor.

Following these excep.ions, Florida Power and Light provides a comprehensive discussion to justify a "Safe Load Area" I

concept. They emphasize that, for many small loads, the area concept is more simplistic and practical, with greater operational personnel flexibility; they submit their Engineering Depar ment sketches depic.ing safe load areas.

~0 C. EG&G Conclusions and Recommenda ions

1. Generally the guideline is met, except for the position

.on load path floor~markines; = '.t is recommended that Florida Power and Lich: s p"le.-..ent their plan wi h a requi rement that a rigger ac:ually lead the travel of the heavy loads along safe paths. This, along with j

other actions, constitutes acceptable compliance wi.h Guideline 1.

2.3.2 Load-Handl in Procedur es Guideline 2 NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.1 2 "Procedures should be developed to cover load-handling operations for heavy loads that are or could be handled over or in proximity to irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment. At a minimum, procedures should cover handling of those loads listed in Table 3.1-1 of NUREG-0612. These procedur es should include:

identification of required equipment; inspections, and acceptarice criteria required before movement of load; the s eps and proper sequence to be followed in handling the load; defining the safe path; and other special precautions."

A. Summar of Ap licant Statements In the August 6, 1981, submittal, Florida Power and Light provided lists of heavy loads that would require procedures. They were for pl anit Unit 1 and ccn ained .he information specified in NUREG-0612 Guideline 2, i.e.,

(a) identification of required equipment; (b) inspe tion and acceptance criteria; (c) steps and proper sequence, arid, (d) o.her special precautions. These procedures have been modified for Unit 2 and will be implemented at the proper time. The lists are not comple:e fcr all loads. Florida I

Power and Light listed the significant, periodically handled loads for whi'ch special procedures are appropriate. Most o,

1. Paragraph 2-3.1.2. An eye test of 20/40 ir, bo-.n eyes for new employees will be required.

2. Paragraph 2-3. 1.7.f, g, and h. Because of the power requirements of the crane mo.or heaters, the in:ent :f, these requirements will be met. by using .he crane dead man switch ins.ead of the main line disconnect devices.

3. Paragraph 2-3. 1.7.0. Those controls necessary for the crane operations to be conducted wi 11 be tested.

4. Paragraph 2-3.2.4.a. At shift change, the upper limit device under no load will be tried out unless a load is hanging from the hook at shift change, or unless no crane operation in the area of the upper limit is anticipated.

B. EGEG Evalua.ion The basic response s.ating implementation of ANSI B30.2 requirements is the goal of Guideline 3. The exceptions were evaluated carefully and the first three and the firs: .

part of the fourth were acceptable since they accomplish the intent of he guideline. The latter part of the fourth exception, stati ng, "unless no crane operation in the area of the upper limit is anticipated," fails .o meet the requirement or intent of the guideline. If crane operation is intended, a test of the limit control service is required to meet the defense-in-depth assurance for safe operation.

C. EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations S . Lucie Unit 2 generally is in compliance with Guideline 3.

The latter part of the fourth exception as discussed in evaluation above should be deleted. St. Lucie Plant, Ucii-. 2 wi 11 then be in acceptable compliance with Guideline 3.

C. 'GKG Conclusions and Re"ommendations,

~ The present s atus does no constitute acceptable compliance. When sui able-response information on =he discussions and resolutions of deficiencies are given !'RC, St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 will be in compliance.

2.3.5 Liftina Devices Not Speciall Designed I Guideline 5, NUREG-0612. Article 5.1.1 5 "Lifting devices that are not specially designed should be installed and used in accordance with the guidelines of ANSI B30.9-1971, 'Slings'7]. However, in selecting the proper sling, the load used should be the sum of the static and maximum dynamic load. The rating identified on the sling should be in terms of the 'static load'hich produces the maximum sta.ic and dynamic load. Where this restri cts slings to use on only certain cranes, the slings should be clearly marked as to the cranes wi .h which they may be used."

A. Summar of A licant Statements The program for sling use and maintenance at St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 meets the requirements of ANSI B30.9. A description of the program is attached. This program will be extended to Unit 2 at the proper time.

In addition to the requi rements of ANSI B30.9, NUREG-0612 Guideline 5 requires that: (a) the rated capacity be rarked on the sling; and (b) that the maximum working load be based upon static plus dynamic loads.

The program in effect at St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, whicr. will be used at Unit 2, does requi re the rated capacity to be marked on the sling. The maximum wonking load (rated capaci y) mar'ked on .he sling will be based upon the s.a. c

2. Unit 1 features will be extended to Unit 2:o meet Guideline 5

3. They comply wit'h AASi B30.9

4. Rated .capacity markings are on their sli.".gs

5. They use Safety Factors of five, St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 will be in compliance w'.th the intent of Guideline 5.

2.3.6 Cranes Inspection Testin , and Maintenance IGuic line 6 NVREG-0612. Article 5.1.1 6 "The crane should be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI B30.2"1976, 'Overhead and Gantry Cranes,'ith the exception that tests and ins"ections should be performed prior to use where it is not prac=ical to meet the frequencies of ANSI 830.2 for periodic inspe"tion and test, or where frequency of crane use is less than the specified i nspection and test frequency (e.g., the polar crare inside a PMR containment may only be used every 12 to 18 montns during refueling operations, and is generally not accessible during power operation. ANSI B30.2, however, calls for cer.ain inspections to be performed daily or monthly. For su"h cranes having limited usage, the inspections, test, and main.enance-should be performed prior to their use)."

A. Summar of A licant Statements All preoperational inspections, tests, adjustmen:s, a.",d measurements, as required by Chapter 2-2 of ANSI 530.2-'976, have been per formed and documented on the S . Lucie Plant, Unit 2 cranes prior to their initial use. Subse"uent frequent and periodic inspections, in accorcance w',.h this standard, with required maintenance, adjus+rer,=s, and repairs have likewise been performed and docu'en:ed during the period in which hese cranes have been use"'.or construction. The cranes have been subjected =o "normal" service conditions during construction use (i. e., opera i ng 15

A. Summar of A olican. Statements The St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 cranes comply with the applicable design requirements of A'A~3%2, CMAA 70, and CMAA 74.

Adequate records are being maintained for audit.

B. EG&G Evaluation The information of the original response has been reduced to the concise one above which provides the specific response that indicates acceptable compliance.

C. EGEG Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The basic guidelines are being met. Those hoists using CMAA-74 (ANSI B30. 17) design criteria are acceptable, where they apply, in lieu of ANSI B30.2. St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 is in compliance with Guideline 7.

2.4 Interim Protection Measures The NRC s aff has established (NUREG-0612, Article 5.3) that six mea; sures should be initiated to provide reasonable assurance that handling of heavy loads will be performed in a safe manner until final implemen-tation of the general guidelines of NUREG-0612, Article 5.1, is com-plete. Four of these six interim measures consist of general Guideline 1, Safe Load Paths; Guideline 2, Load-Handling Procedures; Guideline 3, Crane Operator Training; and Guideline 6, Cranes

( Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance). The two remaining interim measures'over the following criteria:

~ Heavy load technical specifications

~ Special review for heavy loads handled over the core.

4 C. EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations The indicated action to be taken by St. 'ucie Plant, Unit 2 is a suitable comms. merit 'for 'Cump11'ance with Interim Protection Measure 1.

2.4.2 Interim Protection Measures 2 3, 4. and 5--Administrative Controls "Procedural or administrative measures [including safe load paths, load-,.handling procedures, crane operator training, and crane inspection]... can be accomplished in a short time period and need not be delayed for completion of evaluations and modifications to satisfy the guidelines of Section 5. I of

[NUREG-0612]."

A. Summar of Ao licant Statements Summaries ot Applicant statements are contained in discussions of the respective general guidelines in Sections 2.3.I', 2.3.2, 2.3.3, arid 2.3.6, respectively.

B. EG&G Evaluations. Conclusions, and Recommendations II EG&G evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations are .

contained in discussions of the respective general auidelines in Sections .3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.6.

2.4.3 Interim Protection Measure 6 ecial S Review for Heav Loads Over the Core "Special at ention should be given to procedures, equipment, and personnel for the handling of heavy loads over the core, such as vessel internals or vessel inspection tools. This special review should include the following for these loads: (1) review of procedures for installation of riggi ng or lifting devices and movement of the load to assure that sufficient detail is provided and that instructions are clear and concise; (2) visual inspections of load-bearing components of cranes, slings, and 19

3. CONCLUDING

SUMMARY

3. 1 ADDllcable Load-Handlin S stems Base'd on the information provided, EGLG concludes that the list of cr'anes and hoists supplied by the Applicant as being subject .o the pl ovisions of NUREG-0612 is adequate (see Section 2.2.1).

3. 2 Gui de 1 inc Recommendati on s Compliance with the seven NRC guidelines for heavy load-handling (Section 2.3) are partially satisfied at St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2.

This-conclusion is represented in tabular form as Table 3.1. Specific recommedations to aid in compliance with the intent of these guidelines are provided as follows:

Gui del ine Recommendation

1. (Section 2.3. 1) a. In those locations where safe load paths are not marked and the "Safe Load Area" concept is used, require an employee (rigger) to lead the heavy load over the path when handling is required.

2. (Section 2.3.2) a. Acceptable commitments for compliance with Guideline 2 have been made.

3. (Section 2.3.3) The exception that the operator will test the upper limit switch only when dperating near it is unacceptable. Compliance requires this check each shift when the crane is used. Delete that part of the exception.

TAOLE 3.1. ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2, NUREG 0612 COHPLIANCE IQTRIX Neight Guideline I Guideline 2 Guideline 3 Guidel lne 4 Guideline 5 Guideline 6 - Guideline 7

" or Crane Special Crane-Test Equipment lleavy Loa'ds Capacity Safe Load Operator L I f t lng and De~si nat ion tons Procedures ~arasnan Oevlces ~51an s Ins~ecs inn ~crane Oasl n Intake structure 45 l.rash rake mono-rail Fourteen heavy-load handing systems excluded because load drop will not cause damage to system or components required for shut- ) ~ ~

down or decay heat rcmova l.

C Applicant action compiles with NUREG-0612 Guideline.

NC ~ Applicant action does not comply with NUREG-0612 Guideline.

R Applicant has proposed revisions/modifications designed to comply with NUREG-0612 Guideline.

I ~ Insufficient'Information provided by the Applicant.

Irterim Measure Recommendation 2, 3, 4, 5. Administration These Interim Measures are the same as

'ontrols di s usseo in nn'ect7ons 2.3. 1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.6 above, of this repor..

6. Special Review or Heavy Impl ementati on of specific procedures for Loads over the Core St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 will 'bring it into compliance with Interim Protec.ive Measure 6.

NRC F ORM 335 g 'REPORT NUMBER /ASSiyned Oy DDC/

U.S. NUCLEAR RcUULATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-HS-6263

" 4.. ITLE AND SUBTITLE 2. ILeere o/enrr/

Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants Florida Power and Light Company 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 (Phase 1) Docket No. 50-389

7. AUTHOR ISI S. DATE REPORT COMPLe TED MONTH YEAR T. H. Stickley April 1983 B. PERFORMING ORGAteIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS I/ne/lrde Zrp COde/ DATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH YEAR June 1983 EGEG Idaho, Inc. 6. ILeere orenk/

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 B. ILeeYe O/enlr/

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS l/ne/rroe Zrp Code/

10. PRO/ECT/TASK/WORK UNIT NO Division of Systems Inte ration Office of uc ear eac or e u ation 11. FIN NO.

U.S. Nuclear Regu atory Commission Washington, 'DC 20555 A6457

13. TYPE Oe REPORT Pf RlOD COVL RL D llnrrsr ~ srr rleres/

16. SV I'P LE ME N T A R Y NOTES I4. ILr ere ore rs /

16, ABSTRACT (200 words or less/

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).has requested that all nuclear plants, either operating or under construction, submit a response of compliancy with NUREG-0612, "Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants." EG8G Idaho, Inc.,

has contracted with the NRC to evaluate the responses of those plants presently.

under construction. This report contains EG&G's evaluation and recommendations for St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2.

17. KE Y 'I"ORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 174 DESCRIPTORS 17ls IDENTIF IE RS OPEN ENDED TER'.IS 16 AVAILAB/LITYSTATEMENT 14 SECURITY CLASS r Tn s reponl 21 'iD 0= o SES I/ake available only as specifically approved Unclassified by program office. Unclas ifi 20 SECURITY CLASS ITe s peoei 22 PRlCE 6

4 RC s C 4 " .336 ill sls

i ~,,yQ

/y

~ 4 (y+C p W&rU yys~Y- Z~~

~~~7~ Q C7 Gp4