ML20062D974
| ML20062D974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1982 |
| From: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR F0153A, F153A, TAC-08061, TAC-8061, NUDOCS 8208060279 | |
| Download: ML20062D974 (6) | |
Text
,__
s
- "******5d*"5"****"'"""*'"'
Em nnES IMfdECONNECTICUT M101 1
4
... m. -- 1... - ~
':l:':::::::::':?'X:*~
(zm) men i
L L
A CT * ":
li"ll:'
July 30, 1982 Docket No. 50-213 50-245 50-336 F0153A Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Washington, DC 20555
References:
(1)
D. G. Eisenhut letter to All Licensees of Operating Plants and Applicants for Operating Licenses and IIolders of Construction Permits, dated December 22, 1980.
(2)
D. G. Eisenhut letter to All Licensees of Operating Plants and Applicants for Operating Licenses and lloiders of Construction Permits, dated February 3, 1981.
(3)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. C. Eisenhut, dated June 25, 1981.
(4)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. G. Eisenhut, dated July 20, 1981.
(5)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. G. Eisenhut, dated April 16, 1982.
Gentlemen:
11ADDAM NECK PLANT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 CONTT10L OF 11EAVY LOADS In Reference (1), Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) were requested to review their ccatrols for the handling of heavy loads to determine the extent to PDR
Q.
. which the guidelines of NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants", are presently satisfied at our facilities. CYAPCO and NNECO were specifically requested in Reference (1) to implement the interim actions described in Enclosure (2) to Reference (1) by March 22, 1981. Ilowever, the NRC Staff extended this implementation date to May 15, 1981 in Reference (2). The extent of CYAPCO's and NNECO's compliance with the interim actions can be found in Attachment (1) to Reference (4).
In addition to the implementation of the interim actions, CYAPCO and NNECO were requested to provide certain information to the NRC Staf f by June 22, 1981. CYAPCO and NNECO indicated in Reference (3) that due to the significant effort and time required to develop this information, CYAPCO and NNECO were unable to submit such information by June 22, 1981. However, it was further indicated that CYAPCO and NNECO intended to submit an initial response to the NRC Staff by July 13, 1981. Our initial response to Reference (1) was submitted in Reference (4).
Additional information was provided to the NRC Staff in Reference (5).
The following information is provided as further response to the Refer-ence (1) requests and as an update to our Reference (5) submittal:
1.1 Submit the information identified in Section 2.1 of Enclosure (3) of Reference (1) by June 22, 1981.
Response
Information regarding Items 1, 2 and 3 was provided in Attach-ment (2) to Reference (4) and Attachment (1) to Reference (5).
Additional information regarding Items 3(c), 3(d), 3(f), and 3(g) can be found in Attachment (1) to this letter. The remaining requested information will be submitted in accord-ance eith the schedules provided in our response to Item Nos.
1.2, 2, and 3 below.
1.2 Submit the information identified in Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of Enclosure (3) of Reference (1) for PWR plants and Sections 2.2 and 2.3 for BWR plants by September 22, 1981.
2.
Furnish confirmation by June 22, 1981 thrt implementation of those changes and modifications you find are necessary will l
commence as soon as possible without waiting on staff review, so that all such changes, beyond the above interim actions, i
will be completed within two years of submittal of Section 2.4 Enclosure (3) of Reference (1).
3.
Furnish justification by June 22, 1981 for any changes or modifications that would be required to fully satisfy the guidelines of Enclosure (1) of Reference (1) which you believe are not necessary.
1 i
O
- -3
Response
Since the submittal of Reference (5), we have been actively involved in defining the specific scope, approach and level of effort required to complete our. responses to the above re-quests. Since there are a relatively large number of options available to us-for providing the requested information, we engaged the services of a consultant to investigate the var-ious options and to recommend the best one. The consultant visited cach plant to familiarize its personnel with each load handling situation, plant arrangements, interlock systems, load handling procedures and data contained in our previous submittals. Based upon their review, previous experience at other plants, and knowledge of available generic analyses, the consultant developed a set of work flow diagrams for each plant. The work flow diagrams show several alternate paths for developing the requested information.
We are currently reviewing the work flow paths to determine the person-loading requirements that each set of tasks is expected to take should we elect to complete the work with in-house resources. We have also requested proposals from three outside firms to complete the work should we deter-mine that the scope of work involved is more efficiently performed by an outside, firm under our direction. We expect to decide whether the remaining work will be completed with in-house resources or by an outside firm, generate a schedule for completion of the work, and submit the schedule to the NRC Staff on or about August 27, 1982.
i Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
l l
Very truly yours, i
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CJMPANY CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY l
l W. G. Counsil Senior Vice President I
~ _ _
f I
L
o Docket No. 50-213 50-245 50-336 ATTACllMENT 1 IIADDAM NECK PLANT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 CONTROL OF llEAVY LOADS JULY 1982
~
w ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 2.1 0F ENCLOSURE (3) TO REFERENCE (1) 3.c A tabulation of heavy loads to be handled by each crane which includes the load identification, load weight, its designated lifting device, and verification that the handling of such load is governed by a written procedure containing, as a minimum, the information identified in NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1(2).
Response:**
(a) Haddam Neck Plant Load
~
Load Weight Crane Identification (Tons)
Containment RCP 19 Polar Crane Monorail, PAB HPSI Pump A 5.5 and Elevation 21'6" Motor and Pump 2 (Estimated)
(b) Millstone Unit No. 1 No further information necessary.
(c) Millstone Unit No. 2 Load Load Weight Crane Identification (Tons)
Spent Fuel Crane Load 4.0 Cask Crane Block (Estimated)
Containment Crane Load 4.5 Polar Crane Block (Estimated) 3.d Verification that lifting devices identified in 2.1.3-c, above, comply uith the requirements of ANSI N14.6-1978, or ANSI B30.9-1971 as appropriate. For lifting devices where these standards,-as supplemented by NUREC-0612, Section 5.1.1(4) or 5.1.1(5), are not met, describe any proposed alternatives and demonstrate their equivalency in terms of load-handling reliability.
The information in this response is supplemental to information previously transmitted in References (4) and (5).
-ei
Response
(a) Haddam Neck Plant Reactor Head Lifting Rig Upper Core Lifting Rig (b) Millstone Unit No. 1 Reactor Head Lifting Rig Dryer / Separator Slings and Spreader Rig Regarding the above listed lifting devices, only verification of compliance with Sections 5 and 6 of ANSI N14.6-1978 remains.
Section 5 refers to acceptance testing, maintenance, and assurance of continued compliance. This section remains under review to determine how the requirements listed can best be applied to the lifting rigs listed above with respect to heavy load lifting re-liability.
Section 6 refers to special lifting devices for critical loads. As indicated in Reference (4), the critical loads at the Haddam Neck Plant, Millstone Unit No. I and Millstone Unit No. 2 will not be determined until after the completion of Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of NUREG-0612. Therefore, Section 6 of ANSI N14.6-1978 will be addressed after the critical loads have been determined.
3.f Verification that crane design complies with the guidelines of CMAA Specification 70 and Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976, including the demonstration of equivalency of actual design requirements for instances where specific compliance with these standards is not provided.
Response
Verification of cranc designs with respect to the guidelines of CMAA Specification 70 and Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976 indicated in Section 3 of our response to this item in Reference (4) is continuing. We intend to complete the verification prior to the next refueling outage at each plant.
Since we do not expect to use the subject crancs until the next refueling outages, the additional time necessary to complete our efforts poses no safety concern.
3.g Exceptions, if any, taken to ANSI B30.2-1976 with respect to opera-tor training, qualification, and conduct.
Response
No exceptions are being taken to ANSI B30.2-1976 with respect to operator training, qualification and conduct at this time by CYAPCO and NNECO. If any exceptions are necessary, the NRC Staff will be informed.