ML17215A645

Forwards Addl Info Re Safe Loadpaths,Testing of Crane Controls & Special Lifting Devices,For Review of Response to NUREG-0612, Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.

ML17215A645
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	11/09/1984
From:	Williams J 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-84-327, NUDOCS 8411190289
Download: ML17215A645 (32)

Text

>>>>>>

REGULATOR NFORHATION DISTRIBUTION S EM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR;8411190289 DOC ~ DATE: 84/11/09 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50 389 St. Lucie Plant~ Unit 2~ Florida Power 8 Light Co, 05000389 AUTH ~ NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION WILLIAMS~J ~ W ~ Florida>> Power 8 Light Co, RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MILLERgJ ~ R ~ Operating Reactors Branch 3

SUBJECT:

Forwards- addi info re safe loadpathsitesting of crane controls K special lifting devicesifor review of response to NUREG 0612'Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants."

DISTRIBUTION CODE: A033D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL- SIZE:

TITLE! OR Submittal: USI A 36 Control of Heavy Load Near Spent Fuel NUREG 06 NOTES; 05000389 OL;04/06/83 RECIPIENT COPIES REC IP IEHT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL NRR OR&3 BC 7 7 NRR 8INGHi A 01 INTERNAL: ACRS 13 6 6 ADH/LFHB 1 0 NRR NEI GHBORS09 l. 1 NRR/DL/DRAB 12' 1 1 NRR/DL/TAPHG 1 1 SI/AEB 1 1 NRR/DSI/ASI 1 R Q4 1 1 RGN2 1 1 EXTERNAL; LPDR 03>> NRC PDR 02' 1 NSIC 06 NTIS 1 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED+ LTTR 29 ENCL 28

,e 1 h ii 1 N l I ~

N

~

~

'I 1 ilail ~ ~

11 i l 1 s( Nll g (III

~

1" ~

Nl I

'I 1)t",1 , Nh l 7>f N

!4 0

1

iXh ll/r rr), is~

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY November 9, 1984 L-84-327 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. James R. Hiller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ICI3 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Hiller:

Re: St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Control of Heavy Loads License Condition 2.C.12 Technical evaluation report EGG-HS-6263 was provided with the NRC letters dated May 31, 1983 and June 17, 1983. This report provided the results of the NRC contractor's review of Florida Power 8 Light's response to NUREG-0612, "Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" for St. Lucie Unit 2.

Additional information concerning safe loadpaths, testing of crane controls and special lifting devices is provided in the attachment to this letter.

FPL has determined that St. Lucie Unit 2 now conforms to the guidelines of Section 5. 1. 1 of NUREG-0612 as required by License Condition 2.C.12 and as discussed in the contractor report and in telephone conversations with the staff and contractor reviewers.

Should you or your staff have any questions on this information, please contact us.

Very truly yours, J. W. Williams, Jr.

Group Vice President Nuclear Energy JWW/PLP/js cc: J. P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F. Rei s, Esquire P NS-L I-84-408-2

84iii'II028'P05000389 84i,i09

,PDR ADOCK P

PDR PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

ATTACHMENT Re: St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Control of Heavy. Loads License Condition 2.C.12 Additional information in response to NRC letters dated May 31, 1983 and June 17, 1983.

TER Section 2.3. 1 Recommendation In those locations where safe loadpaths 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.

FPL Response As discussed in the telephone conference with the reviewers, FPL has prepared specific loadpaths for major loads which routinely take the same route or routes when carried. These paths are referenced in the applicable procedure, and are attached. In addition, FPL uses an individual to lead the heavy load over the path when handling is required.

TER Section 2.3.2 Recommendation Acceptable commitments for compliance with Guideline 2 have been made.

FPL Response No response is required.

TER Section 2.3.3 Recommendation The exception that the operator will test the upper limit switch only when operating near it when the crane is used.

is unacceptable. Compliance requires this check each shift Delete that part of the exception.

FPL Response The St. Lucie Maintenance Crane Operation Training Program describes the daily testing that shall be performed to cranes before operation. The testing requirements for the cranes include the following:

All upper limit switches shall be checked on hooks to be used without a Toaa on the hook at the beginning of each work shift.

Each motion shall be inched into its limit switch, or run in at low speeds, unless unique condition at shift change prohibits the testing (load already on hook).

~ - ~

C

ATTACHMENT Page 2 Re: St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Control of Heavy. Loads License Condition 2.C.12 TER Section 2.3.4 Recommendation Conclude the discussions with suppliers, establish if there are any deficiencies, and provide suitable resolutions to NRC.

FPL Response See Enclosure 2.

TER Section 2.3.5 Recommendation

, Assure that no crane lifting speeds exceed 30 fpm and other operating conditions continue as stated. St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 will meet the intent of Guideline 5.

FPL Response As stated in our previous submittals and referenced in the TER:

1. Hoisting speeds at St. Luci e Plant Unit 2 do not exceed 30 fpm at rated loads.

2. The same pr ogram for not specifically designed lifting devices for St.

Lucie Unit 1 has been extended to Unit 2.

3. The program for sling use and maintenance at St. Lucie Plant meets the requirements of ANSI B30.9.

4. The program in effect at St. Lucie Plant does require the rated capacity to be marked on the sling.

5. The maximum working load (rated capacity) marked on the sling will be based upon the static load multiplied by a safety factor of five as required by ANSI B30.9.

TER Section 2.3.6 Recommendation The actions reported meet the requirement of Guideline 6.

FPL Response No response required.

)

V

ATTACHMENT Page 3 Re: St. Luci e Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Control of Heavy-Loads License Condition 2.C.12 TER Section 2.3.7 Recommendation The response given indicates that St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 is in compliance with Guideline 7.

FPL Response No response requi red.

1 C(

ENCLOSURE 1 Page 5 of 5 ST ~ LU CIE PLANT GENERAL MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE NO ~ M-0021, REVISION 4 LIFTING OF THE PRESSURIZER MISSILE SHIELD APPENDIX A FIGURE 1 62 'LEVATION PRESSURIZER MISSILE SHIELD (LOAD PATH)

LDAD PATH

I ~

n g

.Q I'

l ~

I 1o t

g A))L I

~ 'b

I ~

~

I

~g R

I' l l~

(

1 I

ip' p~ lFARKW I

tg 1'

'I

e Page b2 of bd ST ~ LUCIh UNIT 2 GENERAL MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE NO. 2-M-OV36, KEVISIUN REACTOR VESSEL MAINTENANCE SEqUENCE OC OPE~ATlONS APPENDIX A - FIGURE 12 62'LEVATION REACTOR NEUTRON STEAMING SNIE.LD (LOAD PATn)

~<<

aaeeae\

aaa <<Q e

~ Io Q Q 0IW

~ &SIC

~ SIOOl

.I Oat N(IS iC($

<<'< ~

i!f-:..:. Q<<t' OO 0

~Q

.i V Qb QQ ~ ~ ~

~

O g

. -:-". f~~~'<<

~ ~ ~

QQ

~ Q

~MIWR V ~

r "~ N"

~

~

L ~~IKCR gQ KQCQ..Ci TIN ~ 4

'l Q ~

TIJ ~

+r! ~

egsga.. ~

OQ

~ QV r ~ .0

~Q e<<<<QQ~

~

<<] ~

0 ~ Q e ~ a ~

~Q KJCTOS

~TSSOO JISM tile

~ ~

~ NTOI

~

ST OVCl10s

~ I Q

.Q

~ ~

<<r

~Q ~ ~ a

Page 63 of 65 ST ~ LUCIE UN1T Gk NEKAL MAINTENANCE PROCEDUKE NV ~ 2-M-0036, KEY ISlUN 3 REACTOR VESSEL MAINTENANCE SE UENCE OF OPEKAT1VNS APPENDIX A - FIGUKE 13 62'LEVATION REMOVAL WALL As Referenced in Section 9.3.4 (LOAD PATH)

~ ~

~ I e a e a a a e e e e a a a a a a aaaa eeeeaeee e e e e e aa\

~ it

~ ~

~ ~

.-..;g'4R'~ ~ ella obli OO 0

e%

~ ~

O

~

~0 ~

~ .'

~ ta iiiicI ~

~ C;g; 'eP QL r~i I g~HOC% gQ Qkt ~

t ~laoA'%ill/

~

~ ~ ~

't'V. ' ~ ~

e ~

4 0&  :~r ~ ~~ I r e ~

etIke

~ rr4 Otek 0 ai CJ 41%0 aagi .i o +ra'., ~

hei e~ t

~ e

~ . ~ ~

~ +

~ r

%0844 aa.lii a ir tr yO

~ ~ lite C~

7 g

aJCTll aaci

%El'eaii

~e

~

~

e ~ ~

g 6') i

~ ~

i tt

<age 64.0Z bb ST o LUG IE UN 1T 2 GENERAL MAINTENANCE PKOCEUURa NO ~ 2-H-OO3b, REVISIvN 3 REACTOR VESSEL MAINTENANCE

- SEQUhNCE OF OPERAT1ONS APPENUIX A - FIGURE l4 62'LEVATION REACTOR CABLE 'JRAY & SUPPORT STEEL (LUAU k'ATOLL)

~ ~ ~

ee eoe ee \\ e e e 'e e e e eeee eeeeeeee o

%It

~ +CIS OX11 J

~ OW

~, L o1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ t eo ~ Aee oo'e

. Oo 'l ~ e

~

~

~ ~ pie ~

. ~

~ OO 0

~ Coo K@1 ~ ob

~ ~

a .QC ~

~o e o

~ ~

~ ~

o>> >>o e 'le Ottlhlkl ~o

~o

~ C~li+CS II

~ ~ i 4'V. ' ~

~ ~ ~ o>> ~ ~

e ~ o

~CIllOO ~0

~a Loco ~

o

~

r ~ -0 ~ ~ e>>e

~ ~

~ ~

~~ ~

~

e o~o ~

~ o

,e~ r

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ P

'/

~

~

~ '

. %san

'e\

a oI

~ O ~ o~ ~ ~ 'ItIOS +

)

~ eo ~

i

~ ~

ooO

~ to 0

~o o e ~ e ~ 1 ~

%at, ~ ~

lg 4

%%>a~ Oi gk

~o

~IV~ RTSR t o ~ e g

~ o e ~

~

~ ~

~ ~ o

~

. ~sit o ~

~ .-

~o ~

or

~o ~ ~ O \oeeo>>>>~ M

4 l!

I I' I-

~ l l~

~r .

rj~

e iaaf

~ '%gji~y A:]i. ~..rA)

, a+

I

tp

'K

~ y ~ ~ ~

I I

I

~ ~

~

~

I n

g

.R I R~

(

'3 ll~

i A"i)L I

I lt F

,J

o Page ba oi ba ST ~ LUCIE UNIT 2 GENERAL MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE NO ~ 2-H-OO36, Rh VISION 3 REACTOR VESSP.I MAINTENANCE - SEQUENCE OF OPERAT1ONS APPENDIX A F1GURE 15 62'LEVATION REACTOR CORE SUPPORT HAECKEL (LOAU PATt1 )

~ ~

o 4 SlhCLI>>

sscsosc C

ass

~ ~

sss

~ os>> sscl Allis s ~ o ~ 'w

~ ~ ~

/I ~ ~

ooo

~

O

~

'l

~o oo

\

oo

>>>>SSIaCS

~ I'

~ ~

-..  !SI

'i o ~ .

~

~ f SSISCS I~

ours

%(CAN .cs ipse)

IV a ~

~ e

~ ~

ro MS C 1 O'Iss

'ao a

>~s

~, "-O.Skl

~ . ', o

/

~ ~

~ 'o ~ ~ o sA

<<OI.ISO Ssi

\~ ~ o s Ns is7 o

0 ~ a ~

~

g i C')!.) /

swss <<JCISS SEJM

>>SSI& LJISSSS>>tk

/

1

~ o

~ ~

<<sasvmw o ~

~ ssfcR

~

I o~

W

~ .-

~o

~ sr

~ ~

~ ~ ~

0

Si~

E,

'J L'

ENCLOSURE 2 Re: St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Control of Heavy. Loads License Condition 2.C.12 ANSI N14.6 provides guidelines for special lifting devices for shipping containers weighing 10,000 pounds or more for nuclear materials. The guidelines in this standard were recommended for adoption for the special lifting devices in NUREG 0612.

St. Lucie Unit 2 complies with this standard except for the general cases listed below and the device specific cases provided in the attachment. We have determined that the exceptions noted are acceptable and do not affect the capability of the special lifting devices to safely lift the designated loads.

Section 5.1.3 Verifying by scheduled periodic testing that the special lifting device continues to meet its performance criteria and continues to be capable of reliable and safe performance of its functions, and providing a system that indicates the date of expiration of the validity of the test.

Response

This testing will be performed in accordance with Section 5.3. 1(2).

Section 5.1.6 Maintaining a full record of the history of the special lifting device or component, including documentation of required testing, all uses of the device, any incidents in which the device or any of its parts may have been loaded beyond the loads for which it was qualified, damage, distortion, replacement, repair, alterations, and inspections.

Response

The records of special lifting devices will be maintained in the plant work order files.

V Section 5.3.1 Each special lifting device shall be subjected annually (-period not to exceed 14 months) to either of the following:

(1) A load test equal to 150$ of the maximum load to which the device is to be .subjected. After sustaining the test load for a period not'ess than 10 minutes, critical areas, including major load-beari ng welds, shall be subjected to visual inspection for defects, and all components shall be inspected for permanent deformation.

(2) In cases where surface cleanliness and conditions permit, the load testing may be omi tted, and dimensional testing, visual inspection, and nondestructive testing of major load-carrying welds and critical areas in accordance with 5.5 of this standard shall suffice. If the device has not been used for a period exceeding one year, this testing shall not be required. however, in this event, the test shall be applied before returning the device to service.

'Response:

In part (2), dimensional testing is not applicable to these lifting devices.

Section 5.3.7 Special lifting devices shall be visually inspected by maintenance or other non-operating personnel at intervals not to exceed 3 months in length for indications of damage or deformation.

Response

In that maintenance personnel are the prime users of this equipment, quality control personnel will perform this inspection. The test interval will comply with Section'.3.1(2) due to inaccessability during power operation.

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

SUMMARY

OF, NONCOMPLIANCE TO NUREG 0612 - GUIDELINE /P0 FOR THE ST. LUCIE UNI:C NO. 2 REACTOR VESSEL CLOSURE HEAD LIFT RIG WITH ANSI - N10.6 - 1978 In the following listing, the number on the left identifies the specific section of ANSI NI0.6 -1978. To the right of the section number is a brief description of the contents of the section.'he first paragraph below the description states the area of nonconformance, and the second paragraph provides a justification for finding the nonconformance acceptable.

3.1.2 Identification of critical components and definition of critical characteristics:

The design specification does not distinguish the critical components.

The critical components are identified in the purchase order.

3.3.5 Retainers fitted for load carrying components which may become inadver tently disengaged:

The lifting shackle pin (pc. 115-13) does not have. a cotter pin.

The lifting shackle pin is secured with recessed nuts on both ends. When applying load to these nuts, a spring action results which prevents the nuts from coming loose. Though not specifically called out the recessed nuts should meet the intention of the section.

5.1.0 Provisions for establishing operating procedures:

The instruction manual for the lift rig (C-E Book //71172) does not address maintenance procedures.

Due to the nature of the equipment, it is unlikely to require maintenance.

5. 1.5.2 Suitable Markings:

The lift rig does not have a nameplate which lists the load limits.

Since this lift rig is designed and used only for one specific application, a nameplate is not considered necessary.

Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 Load test to 150% and appropriate inspections prior to initial use:

The lift rig was not load tested to 150% of the rated capacity.

The lift rig was load tested to 125% of the rated capacity, which was considered a good test standard at the time the lift rig was fabricated. the structural evaluation of the lift rig demonstrates the lift train components satisfy the allowable stress limits outlined in ANSI N10.6 - 1978. Although retesting to 150% could be accomplished without creating any stress in component parts beyound the allowable limits, it is recommended the lift rig not be 150% load tested. Overstressing in certain local areas of the lift rig or reactor vessel head may occur due to attachment of additional weight necessary to perform a load test. Testing, of the lift rig in containment is undesirable because it would require the use of the closure head as part of the '.ft weight.

t Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1

SUMMARY

OF NONCOMPLIANCE TO NUREG 0612 - GUIDELINE NO FOR THE ST. LUCIE UNIT NO. 2 UPPER GUIDE STRUCTURE AND CORE SUPPORT BARREL LIFT RIGS WITH ANSI N10.6 - 1978.

In the following listing, the number on the left identifies the specific section of ANSI N10.6 -1978. To the right of the section number is a brief description of the contents of the section. The first paragraph below the description states the area of non-conformance, and the second paragraph provides a justification for finding the nonconformance acceptable.

3.2.1 Use of stress design factors of 3 for minimum yield and 5 for ultimate:

Areas of nonconformance are summarized in the following tables.

U er Guide Structure Lift Ri Actual 3 x Actual Syield

~Com onent Stress Stress Q lOOoF A. Spreader '1,600 psi 30,000 psi 30,000 psi Beam Bending B. Column Plate 10,500 psi 03,500 psi 30,000 psi Bending Core Su ort Barrel Lift Ri Actual 3 x Actual Syield

~Com onent Stress Stress g 100oF A. Spreader 10,030 psi 30,100 psi 30,000 psi Beam Bending B. Column Plate 10,710 psi 32,103 psi 30,000 psi Bending All nonconforming stresses are less than I/2 of the yeild stress, which meets the design requirements in effect at the time of fabrication (1976).

5.2.1 Load test to 150Fo and appropriate inspections prior to initial use:

The lift rig was not load tested to 15096 of the rated capacity.

Both lift rigs were load tested to 12596 of operating load prior to use, which was considered a good test standard at the time the lift rig was fabricated. Following the load test all structural welds were liquid penetrant inspected prior to shipment. The 125% load test is considered to be adequate to insure the integrity of the equipment provided non-destrucitve testing of structural welds and visual inspection criteria are

'employed prior to each use.

A J'