ML17214A417

Forwards Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Addl Info Re NUREG-0612 General Guideline 7, Crane Design. Outstanding Concerns Resolved

ML17214A417
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/26/1983
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR L-83-463, NUDOCS 8309010312
Download: ML17214A417 (5)

Text

I REGULATORY fFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S EM '(RIDS)

J 4 ACCESSION NOR:8309010312 DOCeDATE: 83/08/26 NOTARIZED: DOCKET FACIL:50"335 St. Lucie Plant~ Unit 1~ Florida Power 8 Light Co. 05000335 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR'FFILIATION UHRIGg R ~ E, Florida Power 8 Light Co, REC IP ~ NAME REC IP'IENT AFFILIATION tlILLERgJ ~ RE Operating Reactors Branch 3

SUBJECT:

For war ds supplemental r esponse to NRC r equest for addi info re NUREG 0612 General Guideline 7< "Crane Design ~"

Outstanding concerns resolved, DISTRIBUTION CODE: A033S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZEe, TITLE:

k.

OA submittal: USI A"36 Control of Heavy L'oad Neai Spent, Fuel NUREG 06 NOTES:

RECIPIENT 10 CODE/NAME NRf<'RB3 BC COPIES I-TTR ENCL 7 7

'D RECIP IENT CODE/NAME NRR SINGHg A 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL INTf-RNAL'RH REQUArG 09 1 1 NRR/DL/ORAB 12 1 1 AEB 1 NRR/DS I/AS I i i REG FILE 04 1 1 RGN2 i EXTERNAL; ACRS 13 6 6 LPDR 03 1 1 NRC PDR 02 1 1 NSIC 06 i NTIS i

'TOT'AL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUI'RED: LTTR 27 ENCL 27

C f I~

~ " III I'

c It 'l 4

N Wt 0 I W, I!I

BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408

>~QI]ig Ptk>i~A%

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY August 26, 1983 L-83-463 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 83 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

Re: St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Control of Heav Loads (TER)

Reference:

FPL Letter I No. L-82-316 to the NRC, dated 7/28/82 In our initial response of July 28, 1982 to the Draft Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared for St. Lucie Unit 1, we had partially responded to your concerns pertaining to NUREG-0612, General Guideline 7, "Crane Design".

Me have since contacted the applicable crane manufacturers and have resolved the outstanding TER concerns as noted in the attached supple-

'ental response.

Very truly yours, robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology REU/PLP/cab Attachment 8309010312 830826 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P PDR PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

SUPPLEMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE 1 RESPONSE TO THE NRC'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0191ATION PERTAINING TO NUREG 0612 -- CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS INTRODUCTION On', December 22, 1980, the NRC issued generic letter 81-07 to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) requesting a review of the provisions for handling and control of heavy loads at St. Lucie Unit 1, an evaluation of these pro" visions with respect to the guidelines of NUREG 0612 and providing additional information as required to determine conformance with these guidelines.

On July 2, 1981, FPL provided its initial response to this request. On October 9, 1981, Franklin Research Center (FRC), a consultant to the NRC, issued a draft Technical Evaluation Report (TER) on this initial response.

On July 28, 1982, FPL provided a supplemental response to address the TER's request for additional information. In this response, FPL noted that the concerns pertaining to Guideline 7, "Crane Design," could not be fully addressed until additional information was received from the applicable crane manufacturers.

The purpose of this supplement is to provide the balance of the crane design information not addressed in our July 28, 1982 response.

Draft TER Section 2.1.7 Crane Desi n (Guideline 7, NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.1 (7))

a) FRC Conclusions and Recommendations St. Lucie Unit 1 does not comply with Guideline 7. In order to comply, FPL should evaluate the existing crane designs to determine compliance with the fourteen (14) design condition specified in the'ER.

b) FPL Position

'The following cranes are considered to fall within the scope of NUREG 0612, Guideline 7:

1. Reactor Building Polar Crane

2. Fuel Cask Crane 3.. Intake Structure Crane .

In our July 28, 1982 response, we fully addressed the following TER design conditions as they apply to the subject cranes (as such, our response to these conditions will not be repeated here):

1. Impact Allowance '(CMAA-70, Article 3.3.2 '.1.3)

2. Torsional Forces (CMAA-70, Article 3.3.2.1.3)

3. Fatigue considerations (CMAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1.3)

4. Hoist rope requirements (CMAA-70, Article 4.2.1)

5. Gear design (CMAA-70, Article 4.5)

6. Bridge brake design (CMAA-70, Article 4.7.2.2)

7. Restart protection (CMAA"70, Article 5.6.2).

The following is a breakdown of the remaining TER design conditions as they apply to the subject cranes

, ~

/

1. Lon itudinal Stiffeners (CMAA-70, Article 3 '.F 1)

The crane manufacturer has determined that the longitudinal stiffeners supplied on the Reactor Building Polar Crane do not conform to CMAA-70, Articles 3.3.3.1.2.1 and 3.3.3.1.2.3 (concerning the location and moment of inertia of these stiffeners). However, the manufacturer has also stated that an equivalent design procedure has been used in 'eu of these articles., As such, we have determined that this crane complies with CHAA longitudinal stiffener requirements.

Based on information received from the manufacturers of the Fuel Cask Crane and Intake Structure Crane, we have determined that these cranes comply with CHAA longitudinal stiffener requirements.

2. Allowable com ressive stress (CMAA"70, Article 3.3.3.1.3)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the allowable compressive stress specified by CMAA-70.

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the drum design requirements

'specified by CMAA-70.

5. Hoist brake desi n (CMAA-70, Article 4.7.4.2)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the hoist brake design require-ments specified by CMAA-70.

6. Bum er and Sto s (CMAA-70, Article 4.12)

The crane manufacturer has determined that safety cables for the trolley chocks on the Reactor Building Polar Crane have not been provided in accordance with the requirements of CHAA-70, Article 4.12.3.2. We are in the process of procuring these safety cables and we will advise the NRC of the schedule for installation when determined.

Based .upon information received from the manufacturers of the Fuel Cask Crane and the Intake Structure Crane, we have determined that these cranes comply with the CHAA-70 requirements applicable to bumpers and stops'.

Static control s stems (CMAA-70, Article 5.4.6)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the static control system requirements of CMAA"70.

Upon completion of the modification to the Reactor Building Polar Crane, noted herein, all applicable St. Lucie Unit 1 cranes will conform to the requirements of NUREG 0612.