ML20059M935

Summary of 931020 Meeting W/Util in Cambridge,Ma to Discuss Util Responses to Comments from Ma Highway Dept & Federal Highway Admin Re Proposed Highway Movement of Four Steam Generators in Ma

ML20059M935
Person / Time
Site:	07109256
Issue date:	11/09/1993
From:	Osgood N NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9311300008
Download: ML20059M935 (35)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, l' 4 I y " ',, UNITED STATES n p {o . 1,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 l' } w NOV 0 91993 r STSB:NLO 71-9256 d HEMORANDUM FOR: !The File g PDRU FROM: Nancy L. Osgood, STSB, IMNS, NMSS

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

REGARDING TRANSPORT OF YANKEE STEAM GENERATORS a Attendees NRC Yankee FHWA-Mass FHWA-H0 -Ross Chappell Bruce Holmgren Hiram'Pearlman Henry Sandhusen Mort Fairtile Russell Mellor Edwin P. Holahan Nancy-Osgood John Parker Chem-Nuclear Patrick Sheldon Mass.Hwv. Dept. Jim.Braun GE1 Joe Gill Al Davis New Enaland Power Nabil Howrani Lockwood W. Konicki Steve Doret Ray Surette R. L. Phillips i Introduction A meeting was held on October 20, 1993, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the request of Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The meeting was. held to discuss Yankee's responses to comments from the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) and the Federal Highway ' Administration (FHWA) regarding the proposed _ highway movement of four steam generators in Massachusetts. The roadway movement. includes movement of the steam generators on a heavy haul transporter from the Yankee Nuclear Power Station site over an earth dam, a temporary bridge,_and approximately six miles of roadway. f Discussion NRC stated that the reason the FHWA and MHD.were requested to review the roadway transport was that it_was not clear that_the local ^ townships-had the i ' technical expertisa to evaluate the safety 1f_ these movements. In addition, the temporary bridge and earth dam were on private property and it was not clear who would' review the adequacy of those structures. The discussion was' based on the' attached meeting handout. To' accommodate the-MHD recommendation,' Yankee agreed to perform a dry run of-the roadway movement within Massachusetts..It was_ agreed that the test load should exceed.the o 931130000s 931109 ? I PDR ADOCK 05000029 - P PDR$ l' L m

. calculated weight of the steam generator package. Yankee stated that the weight of the steam generator load was well established but that they would attempt to get portable scales. Based on the information included in the meeting handout and the meeting discussion, FHWA agreed that they would send NRC a letter stating that there were no outstanding safety issues with the proposed movement. NCkD uok Nancy L. Osgood Storage and Transport Systems Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS

Attachment:

Meeting Handout i

i AGENDA FOR MEETING BETWEEN YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MASSACHUSE'ITS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 20,1993 9:30 am CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETfS l MEETING OBJECTIVE STEAM GENERATOR REMOVAL OVERVIEW i PROJECT SCHEDULE ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPILLWAY TEMPORARY BRIDGE ROADWAY CULVERTS SLOPE STABILITY CLOSURE r

l 4 3 MEETING OIUECTIVE RESOLVE FHWA AND MASS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS SUCH THAT FHWA CAN ISSUE AFFIRMATION LETTER TO NRC \\. h (

4 s STEAM GENERATOR REMOVAL OVERVIEW I l REMOVING 4 STEAM GENERATORS FROM YANKEE PLANT l PREPARED FOR SHIPMENT i ROADWAY TRANSPORT FROM PLANT TO HOOSAC TUNNEL j -i RAIL TRANSPORT TO BARNWELL, SOUTH CAROLINA e t i li i h i I

LICENSING REQUIREMENTS SIIIPPING STEAM GENERATCRS: REQUIRES 10CFR71 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE C OF C ISSUED BY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-ANALYSES DOCUMENTED IN SAF2TY ANALYSIS REPORT SG SERVES AS ITS OWN SHIPPING CONTAINER MEETS NORMAL CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT: 10CFR71.71 \\ 4 I

--s CliSI PROCEDURE flo. TR-0P-40 REVIS!Oli No. 0 233-3/4 (REF.) --/ ti4 (atr.) k c yq wet tuttR No. I ,,,,,3 we twcn uo. 2 g j g b I g-$9, 5 l -+ ~. I A '/Y'

,;;;,;;i;;n;;;;

ii -ii ii

-i Let I il ll 11 Il 1 1 i i '8 '1 m';b l ll ll ll / ,v m - - - - - ~~~~---- - - ~ ~ - - T,[ f i Ij ll jj l F-- ],jj ~~~f 4 i i \\ --- 25y [LJLJld--. nt=:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;im n ii n-i i / . )s .f 's' A r :: i '/. " - r. .ll.!,_.I.l ll ll l l i ,d i .\\\\ ~~~,-- I__"_ ~ ..y. ' "\\ ' NM ~~ I,1,1,1 !1 1 6' 7##4 J I,I li l I i l i_l i s i a ii TRANSFER a i i 6 I SADOLE No. 2 L ygg, BEAWS E No. I etAus + 26 20-3/4 (REF,) STEAM GENERATOR TIE-DOWN SYSTEM TR-0P-040-46063, APPEflDIX A CriSI PROPelIETARY FIGURE 5 PAGE 19 YANKSKT5 1-50

WEIGHTS OF STEAM GENERATOR PACKAGE COMPONENTS TOTA.L STEAM GENERATOR PACKAGE 273,000 # TIE-DOWN SYSTEM AND SUPPORTS 36,900 # TOTAL WEIGHT ON TRAILER 309,900 # l l b k I i I <i I s

PROJECT SCHEDULE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE APPLICATION s SUBMITFED TO NRC: APRIL 12,1993 ROAD AND BRIDGE TECHNICAL INFORMATION SUBMITFED TO NRC FOR FHWA REVIEW: AUGUST 2,1993 FULL LOAD DRY RUN FROM PLANT TO TUNNEL: NOVEMBER 10,1993 SG TRANSPORT - TENTATIVE DATES: NOVEMBER 16,1993 j i NOVEMBER 17,1993 l I DECEMBER 13, 1993 1 DECEMBER 14, 1993 NOTE: CLOSURE OF BARNWELL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY TO ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE SOUTHEAST COMPACT: )- JUNE 30,1994 r - - - - - - ~ -- --

f o g; [' N ^ v ? nl y'y f W X. _ { ' i'Q'L; ~v wm x x m .w; -~ . w,.,Qf.:n/ w c w\\y< L~.y,ic = ~:[.

N, y :

) 11, ', L 'u y Q suga%nv n.) a x n a +ew.w=nagstwp e st-{ (( >\\ $1 ,./ O,x ;.; 4p6 ~ "~~ v g .s:Q';@y e'= d)w'\\ f .yw x L y3 , % w%m & p f y:y 3 e}; v / l y ,/ 1, y n-- ; e,4gn.se,

• m*:4gjigj g g% c:t[ m s w : m.c 4 L=H~/

%b-4, .-g :.p y ?_9; 2 sy < i y - L / R j.1 yx, s y +m-v ,[_.[ k Mywn=~bD E. rN30 N _$Md.[. L N,. c w\\ k ,>~o 'g.m y, n u !n' L \\'lkg 4-n a m-J :3 ~ y f : Ipd,v fJeg [Jn - ') ; y .y-p_M' A'sf - Q.Sge WS,,, g 4,,A W[' y y $w, hqc.eM C .v-p A J ptrnaw w 7 ' e p _. qv x o-fs n

g. vQ U W &x, m{ fC &~ Q;;,.)v 'f,-} &

a1 h +%4fhMpf W%B4tWM#M w &w-~m% F am4 pn y M,;,p% m mg i 2 s@f #m% iu p & w,,,x @x w _. 7 og 1 'g9 N I pQ -L w y g 3'y - + J. p.,4 we,cm L .w w ,$rme =.,_, : n%:

4 y a 7

4 w

w e ,. ~ j @4 = -. 4 e y l ".:p gQ;Qy ,gn 2 r &,'& 'ijj ;jI'(i g,,,,,. .+ 'D. % w[;-)/ _y y, g Q Q[j f,7h _y & W Q[49y y;%; g4 ,N ~ 4 p Ayggjgyq,1-,.h j $g%e,I, l j y .-- g gq Q M m - q Vf p g 4, % y y y'Y{ 4.(g @e # o o g ., L (,d O pp sn-m m%e&g:s/ths ~u n hQQL.. .w Em #w,%w,d.KN.w m'L e-4 t A m A

• A 4d Cp; -

ti W' ,na M 4 3 'di -(% % g y 61==c -

' N x

Q ;,J _ ~ypuw. y. ;~. )m...q; %y w, g,3...[a 3y 3 y. t s 3-r""l,,,J A, [ 7)-. . s. x

4 L

i ,? /jE ).!) ll :, A go'g]s ' g,. / "),:j( p.

h. *7-s[x]'N y

4 Cs y y y d )} A g p )/ p g p q %gy$, ;f ( 3 y i qp c w s m, n ne a n/,~o._e 4 mj

w,

, u - y7f.,_w.g.,,. e gx., ~ ~ s e u, m% 9.,., , -,. ~ ,~ l ' ' ')y,\\ ?, w+- 'l ~ a ,; s ) W 4,4" k,,r} /

/

a~c. .. ~ mm 4.. ' . i; ~ w .I ' g " ~ 't r) j,/ Wh,;-tg% N f I g/.,_ . %, d , d P Ws M @ % [ u $ 1 h ( h M k'j h a k +& & 7 lM p-7 f ?' $ J,;'y, h,y.!v i d g, m, N, y i -.n y pg_ y 7 , u'm~ a o): p .c ' >f. Qy~.,y ' Q,, y. / c ,. 1 nl, '- Q,Q -Q ; Q^ % Q k p

m. v-gy y

w , wR N / Tf m! p[i pn } g%' f ~ ?; . %5,~p<,4 sy ' L. ) ,O v/w ; nOp ,[-3x q q',g,-fdw w g ; - pw9 a g. cy y .., yj n \\ fj g,_ ; .. 4 - o q,,,,-,e J 'y..;yyy. y n K + t. . y ~ uy h, I hb ,v, e' r{l ? $) Y i , n m c,x / w_g w/ w w,Z % Rjn/ M; x L;w u/. m,4 4 e g g y $. q J; f, g/ o' M ( f-v ~ + ",f, f ~_ _ fW ty m m%../ ,,\\ oc ,7 {. lf. };

l

t

~. 7-

W$1fLg-1 7 9 9 f.i T f_ o. ; ; y c\\ % )%g ; - ,' A:: o ~~ ' 2' y ', s ^, N)y\\ $ ('.l ] ... h N ' D@J D',y ,/ R % A f'%s -. _.-Q f; \\N,. g'.[ Q-Q%n )/J p y ,,.i 'sq N ,x: N; g~ r .c N, ,7- / x w jv -y ' g N ->% s - n. .4 4 ,, - b_ yh s q-R Q yX mm 'm 1 t e - s,;*,gvg-m ;;x ~q - r e a -, 4r g g h t: % g'3 y 1, M 7 -';'N ; g - yw - m p-> _.-.-o -,.;e.-.- 4: s ( g -o_ ,, % >... n e a -n }k k.[Y.,4 _ jS ~.4 ' s y L-f- j % 'N, 3 K, fj % w [. j/ J'i anyk%Q[$NC%q;j hM u 3:~- q %qpLM sk['TN }5 ) ' '(9 p h-g M Yk~ N j w 'QfpgM] fw e m y w % p gf p 9j wry n3 p f ; nly/g 3 y yfg w g n g y.+ a= 4a.c,4{\\nw ;: n mmjy~wwm q m $$wwh anco w y Q W S W,'(w'; g g y~n'Q% [9 w j y g j p w g n h t z i g h f p[ [ hm yJ C 37 4 49 1 x vx 4pmw h k M3 bbbJUN y .3g;n hp% ;;g l-(u;~l - l r 3 . y< vpo ns ~ 7gg 3g ai 9 y v %y'yw;, ..j@f 3:,p s[ f ; b. wmu e g-e, vs.

, g s

QGhys%g h y, u -Qy@?qQ h i f_,1 pu m a i v i }bhy ;y y m-c n 9 % m & Y ^'y$ k Q & + w s ' 'b ~~'dD I? lH M 4 q w b h A nA s% w.m. \\QQ wyW~ ' n@ w$ x a k M f}{\\ '3 l Sg ,\\._ - g;"> gwe wy n s.. n m w fn n i-8 ,1y .,n a= gg*N .. fQ,' h,/ A "g-MQ k~d(v,. h j ISM, 7.m.@ $_ M 4 h1 3 0 , :y } x:: Q. . m. s a ,m n /<,,c - MynnN' M,, y.y / Qqxa $ c G M Q- +U f 7 0 ' 3 d f M>.q a g~ M.a L m y 9 w. NdI 2 u. en -y 3 .n yt 4'M ' MMW W # N+t_ g @_.. 3 dD - i= p n o m. v-r y%[' m p3 m A3.. a o s y**a-e Q\\ % 3 [ / [.T \\- L+ 3L- ..W w. 4-L ! ;.h ' m3 g- -r -r --- q{,M w;r: p ;c f ~w - -,s - 5 p y y y[g.% $px -."'j /(, 4 L M fj [? f vfy / L s Mem p h~ t x, Q 3 m;;. U Q 4, ' p'

, e., n,, / p 1

\\ /~ ' o [mi ' ' ' /M lf( k~'\\' g <.; - Y, Q - - h. \\ p; }/.h kfh$ jf,, khl, kh \\' ' [ s &f.. L. k, h h l kf M d h h b ? / m %} Q ; v 4 } f !3 t%y Vpyh l lflj n ~ W aiX o '. y q=C)/#MW) ,9 q} pf Q/ JT ll J f , h )p[ / f f 5Q N-Qf Vy. y=. ny /Y c fd N== 5 l }h b bj q[# g P QQ [ jND k W ; ~ $ $ j _ 0 0 9 f fj Y Q

I YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY COMPONENT REMOVAL PROJECT ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION 1 ^ FRANKLIN COUNTY: CALCULATIONS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER BERKSHIRE COUNTY: CALCULATIONS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITFED TO ^ THE COUNTY SURVEYOR e j TOWNS OF MONROE AND FLORIDA HAVE ISSUED OVERWEIGHT PERMITS FOR.THIS PROJECT e i k 1 6 f

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY COMPONENT REMOVAL PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURES NOTIFICATIONS STATES: OFFICE OF TIIE GOVERNOR CHIEF RADIOLOGICAL OFFICER i LOCAL: TOWNS, COUNTY OFFICIALS l INSPECTIONS .1 TRAILER TIE-DOWN SYSTEM OPERATING PERSONNEL ARE TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED WEATHER CONDITIONS SPEED NOT TO EXCEED 5 MPH I, STATE POLICE ESCORTS EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND RESPONSE YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. l

SPILLWAY TEMPORARY BRIDGE MHD COMMENTS 1 AND 3 FHWA COMMENTS 3,9, AND 11 - 19 FULL LOAD DRY RUN - NOVEMBER 10,1993 LOAD I)ISTRIBUTION - HYDRAULIC TRANSPORTER SPLICE PLATES WELD SI7E AND WELD EXAMINATIONS BEAM SET LOAD TESTS - 125 % BRIDGE JNSTALLATION i 1 BRIDGE ABUTMENT SUPPORT i ' COMPOSITE ACTION OF BEAM SETS = = -m om-a

= :O

=: :. =

3/2.Q93 glanCKWOOD

== P.O. Dox 564 / Itampton, Vir5 nla 23669 19'11 REO i p an22-"" vg.,iege_ Py tra% liydraulic PlatformTraller -Tourge Pult Arrangement yg,3, 3Qt ge{gc $qi o ~l 2. TRAVELING DIMENSIONS /WEIGIIT '"[o",'$"."3 22

• I FHCT11 7 92 l' ' IfrtcitT k-q 03 a.7. um iq,,

3 E I O'A D 40* 4 TOTAL.TR All. Tit WIDTil: ) 7' % " WEICI TT: 309 AO

==n

fyl;"[ ~ = "-

==> 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o ~~o-o h59',fe-59 -h 59" ) -- 59* -h 59'mh 59* --bl2 7 @@=@OOO'OO O 27.t3' f27.43, 17.43 27.4f [27.+3 27,t3 27A3 O LtdELOAD$ w , g, [ji TIRE SIZES ~ N d" E O OOOOOO-TM M i T o d 4 tc 7.z 5 /s s - pc p g. ), tj Fj ej y esp e> - $, % < stn N we s Gt, g 5 2 5 5 l Tn-n izon/2q & 9: a a e = m a m m g ^^'~n ( iO ) 3 {l %Ic $ b". I' ~~ D N O OOOOO0- ~~ - A -b - 0 $ .O = = 8' in 3 RvM g o o c O OOOOOO-8 O* s f2L O OuOOOO--- o% g (4 ts) J ,A 04 t3 P1 D n a .a '.3, -a a h il 6 N h { d

• E> t g p G

bb BOO 7= * ~ M; O OOOOOO-PA YLOAD WTORM ADON wv.gooooor q R 13 g p Vl y e y s, [y", tio' 'I " gen g y '/. " 4 ii. }gggtyTL \\919 'TGC\\ PASO 6 M E,2- , 3,o., Tapict thitec H ' r., " % i b dr'* BPOb\\5'203 M

w. _ OA EXISTING PLATE ~ /_ GIRDER 4"_ 25 11'4" 11 1 l deJeg Ap- .AmA w

e,lsc.%; -

m:x /j sf a/n me u$m l,$p,ls:

.9;,;.:'

p)py:$.

r,45.w,f4$

f [< x,w/ /; ';y /< m 5 ? ^ ^ %soQ'$% M9' 5 $$$R E $.u:v?Xd m sw ?' g.2$f'. w: . :9:my$v -. y$$,?M}o c . 3 %4 ..5N $:

'e dM' l'

gV4e m'vu" u

S

':%byJ:fy X tX$w <SofM l 1 .1 i L

1 mrl '/ ',

i l l I l f /1 l l 4 l l e' s 1 I b E. ~l F'. 7I I I I I If f

1. 1. r

.A l' 2 F _ l' . I L I I I l.' .c I-1 l ] l l [ l 1 -I I 1 I ' 34~ = (4 BEAM SET) ( 4 B! 34" (4 BEAM SET) 3e d tl .c 4 6' l, 0 5 I f '8 4 I e l. 9m* a susp9-e eee e ei a e e. m %M

si w nSm PO A 3 G-CARD f g y g ',,.. I t / /q.triule ('.n d MV2 " 11 % " 2 5 V2 "_. 11 %" l, -dm.:f -dET Ag Ag sx.p. nn.y$u x. jj;s: ':;; ShigP .;jsse.

m,px.

.:q. x x,v.x e.w' ge. ,w uu^. U p i:-

3

?gr;jjj; fjjij.j;jg .,,,, + +.+r+ c-a -,_,w ( a, \\ \\ I/ ' ;,4 1 _ .i ~~ L i l 's SPLICE 3 '4 " l 3 4,, k PLATE m .AM C"ET) (4 BEAM SET) (TYP.) ~ ' 3 4,, ~ (4 BEAM SET) '5%~ ~ l T3 \\\\ 3000 o T-O1 SCALE: 1 " = 1 '- 0 " E : /DGN /YRDECOM/SR I DGE. DGt

( ~ r ( 3 )40' x 5' x 11 " MATS j Q (20)W21 x 122 8 80'-0" LONG ( 2 )16' x 8' x 16" WEDGES e v h.4 M j 7-f = L*1=I l'I I = L'l I I' f a s J ge ,s.;.r,,7 :r~ry:...g.:; g g 3 p$g. g ; a e t y , w,u; 9 4 l b A ( 3 )16' x 5' x 6" .u ~ / h MATS a-,' i (1 )15' x 5' x 12" 1 MAT / r (1 )15' x 5' x 12" MAT (1 )16' x 5' X 6" MAT 4" x 4" CRIBBING i (8" HIGH ) ?'s [ Yi h .TO MONROE 7 ) SHERMAN DAW J TEMPORARY q l l UW9W pg a

• v

i Si ApatTORE CARD 1 i Also A C D # ': Ap;rn;u t 3"I i SHIM TO FIT (TYP.) RIDGE IRDER ( 3 )20' x 5' x 11 " 10 '-0 ~ MATS = = \\ ( 2 )10' x 8' x 12 ~ /_,,.....,,..,,,..,L,,......,,,,,,,,,, WEDGES CE A ~--

<.1 1. s1 1 1.:,1.i.1.1.,

' r- ~' N 24* ,- - :-- 7 ' 2- "#' E' PLATES pM16 ' x 5 ' x 6 " ( ^ 7 2 '-4 " ( 1 )15' x 5' x 12 " MAT c ( 1 116 ' x 5 ' X 6 " MAT i 4" x 4" CRIBBING 4 ( 8" HIGH ) \\ \\ TO PLANT m ) SPILLWAY BRIDGE 8 3 H3odooW~ ..r--.. e r / don /vroecom / br iCO A7 -

1 ~ ROADWAY CULVERTS MIIL) COMMENT 2 FHWA COMMENTS 4 - 8 AND 10 EVALUATED TO AASHTO CRITERIA USING SG TRANSPORTER LOADS RESULTS IN TABLE I OVERWElG11T PERMITS 2 CMP's AND 1 CONCRETE PIPE - QUALIFY BY DRY RUN CNSI SHIPPING CASKS - OVERWEIGHT PERMITS \\ f I 6

SLOPE STABILITY M11D COMMENT 4 9 ROADWAY IN VICINITY OF STATIONS 96+00 AND 97+00 ON RIVER ROAD + 4 GEI, INC. ANALYSIS RESULTS ACCEPTABLE BENCHMARK / DRY RUN/ INSPECTION \\. I l'l i. 1 l 1 --e 4 m y,.+ -~ y

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS 1 MHD COMMENT 5 FHWA COMMENTS 1 AND 2 ROAD RECONSTRUCTION - 1994 LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE YAEC ENGINEERING MANUAL . \\, l 1 I.

~ RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS / COMMENTS from MASS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 1. "We feel strongly that a dry test run be conducted using an equivalent non-hazardous mass. The potential for disaster speaks for itself." RESPONSE: Yankee concurs that a dry run is a good idea. It will demonstrate the safety of the transport operation, and should improve its overall efficiency. The Yankee Project Manager committed to perform a dry run at the September 22, 1993 meeting with the NRC. The dry run will be performed prior to the first Steam Generator (SG) transport using steel weights which equal the combined weight of the SG package and tie-down system. The transporter will be the same one which will be used to haul the four SG's from the plant. It was used to haul much heavier SG's - over 30+ miles of roadway in South Carolina. The dry run is tentatively scheduled for November 10. Yankee will keep the NRC and other interested officials informed of the actual date as our plans develop. Yankee and all of the people involved in the SG removal project hold public safety as their first priority. The SG's are thick-walled steel vessels which will be completely filled with concrete before shipment. They will be transported in the safest manner possible. We wish to point out~ that the likelihood of a serious accident during the transportation of the SG'st is remote. . i Nonetheless, both Yankee and our contractor, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (CNSI) have specific Emergency Procedures for this project and . ) are prepared to respond. Furthermore, in the unlikely event of an

accident, there is no reasonable chance of a

disastrous f radiological release due to the nature of the package contents. [ 2. "The structural calculations have assumed that a comparison between the AASHTO H2O truck and the transport vehicle is satisfactory. However this method is only acceptable when the AASHTO truck has been documented as the~ actual design vehicle for the structure under consideration. For this move, the actual loads which routinely travel the route must be considered. The transport vehicle can be checked against these loads, but ~in no case shall it be greater than the State legal limits. We have attached a copy.of 720 CMR and wish to draw your attention to Article 7.04 (2) which define the legal axle loads."

RESPONSE

The legal axle loads specified in 720 CMR for trailers. with less than 6-feet between axles is 18, 0 0 0. pounds. The SG transporter (axle) line load is 57,000 pounds. Yankee has requested and obtained Overweight Permits from the towns of Monroe and

Florida, Massachusetts for the SG hauls.

It is our understanding from discussions with state,

county, and local officials that the haul roads are owned by the counties and that

• I'

~ t*of,

_ _ ~ 4 'the towns are the permitting agents for these roads. 3 Regarding the culvert analyses, Yankee concurs that a comparison of actual loads with the HS20 truck load is insufficient to demonstrate acceptance. The HS20 loads were used only to qualify several miscellaneous buried structures and two corroded CMP's. The actual SG transporter loads were used in the evaluation of all other road sub-structures in our calculations. Comparisons to other loads have been made for sub-structures for which no structural information can be found. For example, the Bear Swamp Upper Switch Yard 135 ton transformer was delivered (c. 1972) via River Road on a transporter with a tractor axle load of 69,000 { pounds. This is larger than the 32. 000 pound HS20 axle load and l the 57,000 pound SG transporter line load. Table 1 presents a summary of the results of the evaluation of all buried structures along the haul route. In most cases the conduits were qualified per AASHTO using the SG transporter loads. Several i structures were qualified by comparison to the Bear Swamp transformer load. Two corrugated metal pipes (CMP) and one 12 inch diameter concrete drain pipe can not be qualified by either method. The CMP's are corroded and therefore do not have full section properties. Section properties are lacking for the concrete pipe. It is our intent to qualify these conduits on the basis of the full load dry run. 3. "For your information due to the limits of our jurisdiction we do not normally review and approve moves over a private bridge, + however we do have comments for your consideration on the power ( plant's bridge. We are.not comfortable with method of load i distribution on the temporary bridge. A more formal and detailed analysis of actually how the loads are distributed is required. I Additionally much ~ more information is required on the actual details used to construct the bridge. We are concerned with the f welding details and their quality." l l

RESPONSE

The total weight of the SG, the tie-down system, and hydraulic platform trailer is divided equally among the 7' lines /14 axles. The hydraulic ram on each axle will distribute the weight evenly to the 14 axles. The positioning of the 8 wheels per line on the 5 beam sets, plus the nesting of the beam sets, ensures that each beam set is loaded approximately. equally and that each-i deflects the same amount. Please refer to the attached' sketch which presents a cross-section of the temporary bridge beams and the SG transporter tires, The structural steel beams, which will temporarily span the Sherman. j f. Dam spillway bridge, are the property of Lockwood Brothers, Inc. (LBI) of Hampton, Virginia. The original 70 foot long W21x122 - beams were successfully used to temporarily span bridges during the transport of much heavier (450 tons) SG's. An additional 10Efoot section of W21x122 was welded to each of the original beams for use at the Sherman Dam spillway bridge. The beams were welded by.BI L in their Hampton, Virginia shop. A certified Level III Inspector. t ~,_

f 4

• from the CNSI Quality Assurance Department performed magnetic particle (MT) examinations on the final pass on 16 of the 20 beams.

He also performed an MT exam on the accessible areas of the other 4 beams. The MT was performed in accordance with CNSI Procedure No. QA-MF-006. No surface indications were observed on any weld, i As part of the receipt inspection process, once the LBI beams arrived at the spillway bridge they were subjected to a spot check radiograph (RT) conducted by an independent contractor. The results of RT examinations indicated the possibility that some of the welds had a lack of fusion in the root. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the beams are welded together, neither weld repair nor further RT examinations are practicable. Yankee and CNSI have concluded that the safest, most expedient solution is to ncgicct nyEJciredij ithe questionable welds and add a set of splice plates to carry the full load of the tension flange of the beams. The design of these splice plates will be Eras submitted to the FHWA and the Mass IIighway Ocpartment NRD prior ~ tid the October 20 meeting. Once the splice plates ha-/ M ccn W5f5 welded to each beam set, the new welds will bc Meh inspected ~13y MT. Then each beam set will bc was subjected to a load test equal. to 125 percent of the bending sEfess that will be imposed at the splice location by the SG transporter. Next, a confirmatory MT exam will be performed on the new welds. After the successful completion of this process, the beam sets will be erected over the Spillway Bridge and the full load dry run will be conducted. The following is a summary of the cr'itical b'eam s'tfesse's which occur when the temporary bridge,is, subjected to the full SG g transporter load. The maximum bending etress occurs'approximately i. at mid-span. The' maximum shear stress occurs'at the supports. I hailindin?bindidgs5EEEssENC5Nii i AASHTO $110wab1dystreds d1978M sis (( g @ sjiFi}j l p MsMiiiBMsheartsEfesal; MsMii S i 0fk j AASH. TOfalloWableistiedwm W-a N.e.aq,w. sis "SM vU7f,v.f.w.m.wE. f..,* m .e Y h 2 u55fF nv.ww uw ~o +-a -s s 5 The%AnifnuEbsifilihMsEE5sMiiEdeEEfMKSGIEfEnsjsofEEhflbidMAEEthA icQlodationdi10ffset$f$omij)t$e$hdjdf$ejs:hjbeam8$snas e EnddfEpsEEessTs%EpiT66~; TiMWs'i AASHTO$11opsb1eispgissM9 [Bh)O!(ik _ 2@55fyf 4. "An evaluation of the stability of the slope in the vicinity' i of Station 96+00 of River Road in Monroe should be made. The slope at this location is very steep (in' excess of 1:1 in some locations) 1 and is partially supported by a cribwall type of structure-consisting of rotted timbers. All computations (including computer input files and printouts) for the slope stability analyses should be submitted such that these calculations can be reviewed." RESPONSE: Based on the results of walkdowns performed'by Yankee i i

+ engineers this past summer, slope stability analyses were performed on five different locations along the haul route. All of theses analyses were arformed by GEI, Inc. Station 96+00 was not judged to be as crit. .1 as these other slopes. At Yankee's request, GEI is conducting a slope stability analysis for critical slopes in the vicinity of Station 96+00. Their preliminary results are (1) that the stability of River Road is relatively insensitive to the hauler load weight or its location on the roadway and (2) the stability of the road is highly sensitive to the ground water table level. The complete results of the GEI analyses will be made available to all interested officials as soon as possible but in no case later than the October 20 meeting. 5. "For your information the Department is planning a major reconstruction of River Road which is scheduled to advertise for bids in the fall of 1994."

RESPONSE

The removal of SG's from the Yankee plant must be completed well before June 30, 1994. That is the date the Barnwell Waste Management Facility is scheduled to close to organizations outside the Southeast Compact states, including Yankee Atomic Electric Company. Construction on River Road in the second half of 1994 will not impact the removal of SG's from the Yankee plant. -i 1 .i f -i

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS / COMMENTS 1 from l FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3 0, 1993 1. "In calculating the weight of the steam generator package components concrete weighing 30 lbs/cu.f t. was used. Is this light u weight concrete?" RESPONSE: The entire interior volume of each SG will be injected with light weight concrete which will have a density of approximately 24 lbs/cu.ft. The concrete is composed of water, portland cement, and Mearlcrete. This is an inert product which is manufactured by the Mearl Corporation. 2. " Calculations prepared in accordance with YAEC Engineering Manual-Instruction WE-103. Are the instructions compatible with AASHTO?"

RESPONSE

The Yankee Engineering Manual presents a set of instructions for Yankee personnel to follow while performing engineering work on those structures,

systems, and components requiring quality assurance.

Instruction WE-103, " Engineering 1 Calculations and Analyses," provides guidance for the performance, review, approval, and control of calculations. It is intended to address the quality aspects of analytical work and does not contain prescriptive criteria such as is found in a building code. Codes of record, such as AASHTO,

AISC, ACI, and ASME are used in conjunction with WE-103, if appropriate.

3. " Hydraulic trailer will assume equalized wheel loadings during - I the trip. This is a critical criteria." i RESPONSE: The Trabosa hydraulic platform trailer, also' referred to as the SG transporter, has 7 lines,'2 split axles per line,-and 4 wheels per axle. The load on each axle is controlled by a hydraulic ram with a 19.5 cm (7.7") stroke. The maximum capacity of each axle is 17 tons. The hydraulic suspension system equalizes the loading on each axle (approximately 14 tons per axle for the 150 ton SG plus transporter). 4. " Existing condition of structures'along route is good." RESPONSE: Yankee engineers performed.a walkdown of the entire 6+ miles road route between the plant and the Hoosac Tunnel during this past summer. In general, the road and sub-structures were in good condition. There are two CMP's located near the Hoosac Tunnel l which were found to be corroded at their invert, at least at the outfall end of the pipes. These are discussed further in the response to Mass Highway Department Question 2. l 5. "It seems that calculations are based on a 30 percent impact on the H truck but zero impact on the transporter. It is

' understandable why zero will be used with the transporter but not the 30 percent with the H truck."

RESPONSE

Page 9 of Yankee Calculation No. YRC-1027 references Section 3.8.2.3 of AASHTO which states that the impact factor for culverts with 0 to l'-0" cover is 30 percent. The calculation applied this factor to the H2O truck loading. The H20 truck loading was used for comparative purposes only - not as a basis for acceptance. All conduits were evaluated based upon applicable AASHTO criteria, using the anticipated SG transporter loads. Please refer to the response to Mass Highway Department Question 2 which summarizes the results of our analyses. 6. "On page 35 a statement is made that ' trucks equivalent to the HS20 have traversed the culverts, and there is no notable distress in the roadway on CMPs.' A HS20 is not a real truck but a design truck. The States' legal load is less than the HS20 load. We recommend that the actual maximum truck load be verified if it is to be used to judge the safety of the transporter loading." RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Mass Highway Department Question 2. 7. "On page 37 item 3 - same as comment 6."

RESPONSE

Please refer to the response to comment 6. 8. "On page 37 items 5 and 6 - same as comment 6." RESPONSE: Please refer to the r%punse to comment 6. 9. "No information was included regarding the temporary bridge I installation." I

RESPONSE

The temporary bridge will be installed in accordance with CNSI Procedure TR-OP-040-46063. LBI will erect the bridge using their 60 ton capacity crane. Individual beam sets (4 W21 ' s per set) will be lifted and positioned on one side of the bridge. Box rollers will be placed under the beam set. Utilizing the crane boom, the beam set will be rolled across the bridge where a second crane will assist in'lif ting the beams into position. This process will be repeated until all five beam sets are in place. .The-existing Spillway Bridge has a 135 tons-capacity. and can adequately support the temporary bridge beams during the erection process. Transition ramps and cribbing will then be placed on both sides of the-temporary bridge. A mandatory inspection will be performed by both the Yankee Cognizant Engineer and the CNSI Site Manager before the dry run can be performed. t 10. "No axle loads or axle spacing are given for the Chem-Nuclear. Systems 'over the road' trailers." l RESPONSE: CNSI plans to use two dif ferent trailers to transport the l

• NRC-licensed shipping casks which will contain the reactor internals.

The maximum axle loading is 18,300 pounds and the axle spacing is 50 inches. An overweight permit is required in Massachusetts for these vehicles, since they exceed 720 CMR legal limits. These operations occur with some frequency between the Yankee plant and CNSI. Each time, a permit is obtained from'the Commercial Motor Vehicle Center in Marlboro, Massachusetts. 11. " Weld sizes are not shown. The use of stitch welding is questioned."

RESPONSE

Adjacent beams within a beam set are welded together continuously along the flange tips. The minimum size of this fillet weld is 1/4". 12. "How were the wheel distribution factors determined?"

RESPONSE

Please refer to the response to Mass Highway Department Question 3. 13. "The line of action of the wheel loads is at the edge of the backwall. To prevent any damage the blocking should be such as to distribute the imposed load adequately."

RESPONSE

The temporary bridge beams will bear on wood blocking, which spans the entire width of the bridge, and is positioned directly on the abutments. This arrangement was recommended by

GEI, Inc. acting as consultant to New England Power Company.

Yankee concurs with this arrangement as the best method to transfer the load directly to the abutment. 14. "Pg. 13 of calculations - The maximum bending moment produced 1 by moving concentrated loads occurs.under'one of the loads when that load is as far from one support as the center of gravity of all the moving loads on the beam is from the other support." i RESPONSE: Yankee-agrees with this comment. YAEC Calculation No. YRC-1011 - will be revised to reflect this. .The revised maximum bending stress is increased by less than 1 percent to a value which is 85 percent of the AASHTO allowable stress. 15. "AISC allowable stresses are not applicable." RESPONSE: AISC allowable stresses were not used in the temporary bridge analyses. Actual stresses were compared to AASHTO allowable stresses. Page 15'of YAEC Calculation No.- YRC-1011 states that " stresses are within AASHTO allowable stresses which are less than normal AISC allowable' stresses." 16. "Will the deflection noted cause enough rotation at the bearings to-result in a concentrated load that is eccentric." RESPONSE: As stated in the response to Question 13, wood blocking will be used to support the W21 beams at each end. Rotation of the

~ ' beams at each end will be small (approximately 0.01 radian). Localized deformation of the wood cribbing will ensure even distribution of the load over the bearing length of each beam. 17. "What is the basis for assuming the 5 bridge sections act compositely."

RESPONSE

Please refer to the response to Mass Highway Department Question 3. 18. "What ef fect will the bending in the transverse direction have on the bridge. Should the temporary bridge be treated as a flat plate." RESPONSE: The 5 beam sets nested together will act as a flat plate. However, because the 8 wheels per line (2 ax3 es) extend over the total width of the temporary bridge, there will be no transverse bending. 19. "Page 24 - The first paragraph needs more explanation. Were sections f.nlly welded. Was welding checked. Did welding conform to AWS." RESPONSE: Details of the temporary bridge analysis and welding details are provided in the response to the Mass Highway Department Question 3. \\ I I I i 's

TABLE 1

SUMMARY

OF ROADWAY SUBSTRUCTURES EVALUATIONS Approximate Condui" Qualified Notes Femarks Location Diameter per AASHTO T.P. 33/22 12" YES - (1), (2) Corroded Section 12.2 T.P. 50/37 36" YES - (1), (2) Corroded Section 12.2 T.P. 51 24" YES - (1) Section 12.2 T.P. 52-53 16" YES - (1) Section 12.2 T.P. 55-56 16" YES - (1) Section 12.2 T.P.'s End 36" YES - (1) Section 12.2 T.P.'s End 36" YES - (1) Section 12.2 Sta. 0+00 24" YES - (3) Filled Section 12.2 (3) Sta. 5+50 24" YES Section 12.2 i i Sta. 11+00 18" YES - (3) { Section 12.2 t Sta. 19+00 18" YES - (3) I Section 12.2 ] T-Sta. 24+10 72" YES - (3) Approx. 60' Section'12.2 below-road Sta. 29+00 24" YES - (3) Section 12.2 -1 Sta. 34+50 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2-j Sta. 39+50 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2 STA.-55+00 36" YES - (3) Section 12.2 I

' ~ TAllLE I

SUMMARY

OF ROADWAY SUBSTRUCTURES EVALUATIONS (continued) Approximate Conduit Qualified Notes Remarks Location Diameter per AASHTO Sta. 65+75 42" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 69+50 24" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 73+00 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 77+00 42" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 79+65 24" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 81+50 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 85+18 36" YES - (3) Section 12.2 \\ Sta. 90+00 36" YES - (3) Section 12.2 1 Sta. 95+16 42" YES - (3) Section 12.2 .g i Sta. 104+15 36" YES - (3) { Section 12.2 Sta. 108+50 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 118+00 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2 ~(3) Sta. 123+00 24" YES Section 12.2 Sta. 131+50 36" YES (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 140+00 24" YES'- (3) Section'12.2 Sta. 145+10 30" YES - (3) Section 12.2

i TABLE 1 1

SUMMARY

OF ROADWAY SUBSTRUCTURES EVALUATIONS (continued) Approximate Conduit Qualified Notes Remarks Location Diameter per AASHTO Sta. 149+50 24" YES - (3) Section 12.2 Sta. 159+90 192" YES - (3) CMP 25-30' Section 12.2 below road Sta. 34+05 16" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 36+41 16" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 41+67 16" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 49+68 12" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 71+00 16" YES - (4) Section 12.2 i Sta. 74+00 18" YES - (4) New, Spiral Section 12.2 1 Sta. 76+97 16" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 81+94 12" YES - (4) { Section 12.2 Sta. 92+50 12" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 101+96 12" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 102+86.5 12" YES - (4) -Section 12.2 Sta. 103+97 12" YES - (4) Section 12.2 Sta. 109+75.5 72" YES - (4) Section 12.2 100 ft. North -12" YES - of Mill St. Section 12.2 i

t e. TABLE 1

SUMMARY

OF ROADWAY SUBSTRUCTURES EVALUATIONS (continued) Approximate Conduit Qualified Notes Remarks Location Diameter per AASHTO 0.3 Mi. North 18" YES - of Monroe Section 12.2 Bridge 0.3 Mi. North 12" YES - of Mill St. Section 12.2 0.4 Mi. North 42" YES - of Mill St. Section 12.2 MISC. SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES Approximate Conduit Qualified Notes Remarks l Location Diameter per AASHTO Canal No. 1 YES - Sect. Culvert 6.4.2 .n\\ Stone Arch at See Note (5) (5) Hoosac Tunnel y Concrete Pipe 24" YES - ) @ T.P. 54/39 Section 17.4 { Concrete Pipe 12" NO - See (3), (6) j @ Sta. Note (6) 31+2F.5 Electrical Qualified (3) )

Conduits, per YRC-1027

[' Sta. 34+00, Revision 1 107+50 Water Line, 2" Qualified (4) Sta. 81+00 per YRC-1027 Fevision 1 Sewer Lines & 4" & B" See Note (7) (7)

Manholes, Monroe Bridge S

r L ~ TABLE 1 SUMM*RY OF ROADWAY SUBSTRUCTURES EVALUATIONS NOTES (1) Location given by Telephone Pole (T. P. ) number in town of Florida. (2) CMP of this size and cover qualified per AASHTO.

However, this CMP was found to be corroded.

Final acceptance will be based on performance of CMP during " dry run". (3) Location given by New England Power stations. (4) Location given by Mass. Highway stations. (5) Stone arch has been in place since approximately the time of construction of the Hoosac Tunnel. Similar stone arches are present on the railroad line and are considered adequate for those loads. The Bear Swamp upper station transformer traversec} the arch in c. 1972. The transformer transporter had axle loadings greater than the SG transporter. The arch is therefore considered acceptable. (6) Insufficient data is available on this concrete pipe to qualify it to AASHTO. Final acceptance of the pipe will be

3 based on performance during " dry run".

i (7) Sewer lines and manholes were installed in 1970. The sewer I-lines have from about 6 ft. to 10 ft. c.; cover. The Bear Swamp upper station transformer traverse the lines in c. 1972. The transformer transporter had axle. loadings greater i than the SP transporter. The sewer lines and manholes are aidered acceptable. iiElf98WEtfssTAnks'sWIds j therefore P1arit; vias..;, Goaa5Miauledj$%5id3%hdHoo$a(ETiihiiels(NthA pressupsh 't.% d i JThegrotorgplugsidfilheighedjgogog m}}