ML20067A478

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants,Limerick Generating Station Units 1 & 2
ML20067A478
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/1982
From: Maringas N, Stickley T
EG&G, INC.
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20067A471 List:
References
REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8212010519
Download: ML20067A478 (30)
v • d • e


Text

-. _ _. _.

ENCLOSURE 1 ._ _

~

-~.*

l .

CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 Docket No. 50/352 and 50/353 Author N. Maringas.

Principal Technical Investigator T. H. Stickley EG&G Idaho, Inc.

November 1982 i

8212010519 821124 PDR ADOCA JJ5000352

. . 1 ABSTRACT _ . .

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC}-has requested that a-ll nuclear __

~

~~

plants either operating or under construction submit a response of _. _ , ,,

compliancy with NUREG-0612,' " control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power" Plants." EG&G 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 Limerick Plant Units 1 and 2.

9 e

i

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Limerick Plant Units 1 and 2 does not totally compiy with the guidelines of NUREG-0612. In general, additional evaluations are re_ quired.

in the following areas: > -

o Safe Load Paths o Crane Operator Training

, o Special Lifting Devices o Slings o Crane (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)

The-main report contains recommendations which will aid in bringing the above items into compliance with the appropriate guidelines.

l l

ii

CONTENTS ..

~ ~ '

Section Title Page ---

~

ABSTRACT ............................................................. i ii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... I 1.1 Purpose of Review ......................................... I 1.2 Generic Background ........................................ I 1.3 P l an t-Speci fic Back gro und . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. EVALU AT ION AN D R ECOMMEND AT IO NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Overview .................................................. 4 2.2 Heavy Load Overhead Handling Systems ...................... 4 2.2.1 Scope ............................................. 4 2.2.1.1 Summary of Applicant Evaluation on Overhead Handling Systems ............... 5 2.2.1.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations for Overhead Handling Systems ........................ 7 2.2.1.3 Summary on Heavy Load Overhead Handling Systems ........................ 8 2.3 General Guidelines ........................................ 8 2.3.1 Safe Load Paths [ Guideline 1, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(1)] ................................. 9 2.3.1.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation of Safe Load Paths ...................... 10 2.3.1.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recommendations of Safe load Paths ...... 10 2.3.1.3 Summary on Safe Load Paths .............. 11 2.3.2 Load Handling Procedures [ Guideline 2, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(2)] ..................... 12 iii

l o -

  • 2.3.2.1 Sumary of Applicant's Evaluation - - -

on Load Handling ProceduFes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3.2.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclus^ ions 'and ^

Recomendations'on Load,Handli'ng J:

Procedures ................. 3........... 12 2.3.2.3 Sumary on Load Handling Procedures .. . - 12 2.3.3 Crane Operator Training [ Guideline 3, -

NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(3)) ..................... 13 2.3.3.1 Sumary of Applicant's Evaluation of Crane Operator Training .............. .13 2.3.3.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recomendations on Crane Operator Training ................................ 13 2.3.3.3 Sumary on Crane Operator Training ...... 13 2.3.4 Special Lifting Devices [ Guideline 4, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(4)] ..................... 13 2.3.4.1 Sumary of Applicant's Evaluation on Special Lifting Devices .............. la 2.3.4.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recomendations on Special Lifting Devices ................................. 15 2.3.4.3 Summary on Special Lifting Devices ...... 15 2.3.5 Lifting Devices (Not Specially Designed)

[ Guideline 5, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(5)] . . . . . .. 15

, 2.3.5.1 Sumary of Applicant's Evaluation on Lif ting Devices (Not Specially Designed) ............................... 16 2.3.5.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recomendations on Lifting Devices (Not Specially Designed) ................ 16 2.3.5.3 Sumiary on Lifting Devices (Not Specially Designed) ................ 16 2.3.6 Cranes (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)

[ Guideline 6, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(6)] ....... 17 2.3.6.1 Sumary of Applicant's Evaluation on Cranes (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance) ............................ 17 2.3.6.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recomendations on Cranes (Inspection, Testi ng and Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.6.3 Sumary on Cranes (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance) ................ 18 iv

2.3.7 Crane Design [ Guideline 7, NUREG-0612, _ . .

Article 5.1.1(7)]..................:..............

18 -

2.3.7.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation ,

of Cr an e Des i gn . . . . . . . ;; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18  ::-

2.3.7.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions 1nd . .- _.

Recommendations on Crane Design . . . . . . . .~. 20 Summary on Crane Des ign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3.7.3 ,

21

3. CONCLUDING

SUMMARY

21 3.1 Applicable Load Handling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 3.2 G ui del i n e Rec ommen d ations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 3.3 Interim Protection ........................................

24

4. REFERENCES ......................................................

TABLES 22 3.1 L imeri ck P l ant Compl i ance Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 3.2 Summary of Recommendations for Limerick Plant ...................

I y

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ,

- FOR . _ __ ,

LIMERICK PLANT UNITS i AND 2 -

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Review

~

This technical evaluation report (TER) documents the EG&G Idaho Inc.

review of general load handling policy and procedures at Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Plant Units 1 and 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 Backaround Generic Technical Activity Task A-36 was established by the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to systematically examine staff licensing criteria and the adequacy of measures in effect at operating nuclear power plants to ensure the safe handling of heavy leads 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 reported in NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants." The staff's conclusion from this evaluation was that existing measures to control the handling of heavy loads at operating plants, although providing protection from certain potential problems, do not adequately cover'the major causes of load handling accidents and should be upgraded.

1

In order to upgrade measures for the control of heavy loads, the staff -

developed a series of guidelines desiigned to achieve ~a.two-phase objective using an accepted approach or1 rotecti,on philosophy. The _;

first portion of the objective, achieved through a set of gener_al _ . .

guidelines identified in NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1, is to ensure that all load handling systems at nuclear power plants are designed and operated such that their probability of failure is uniformly small and appropriate for the critical tasks in which they are employed. The .

second portion of the staff's objective, achieved through guidelines identified in NUREG-0612, Articles 5.1.2 through 5.1.5 is to ensure that, for load handling systems in areas where their failure might result in significant consequences, either (1) features are provided, in addition to those required for all load handling systems, to ensure that the potential for ,a load drop is extremely small (e.g., a single failure-proof crane) or (2) conservative evaluations of load handling accidents indicate that the potential consequences of any load drop are acceptably small. Acceptability of accident consequence:; is quantified in NUREG-0612 into four accident analysis evaluation criteria. .

The approach used to develop the staff guidelines for minimizing the potential for a load drop was based on defense-in-depth and is summarized as follows:

l o Provide sufficient operator training, handling system design, load handling instructions, and equipment inspection to ensure reliable operation of the handling system.

o Define safe load travel paths through procedures and operator training so that, to the extent practical, heavy loads are not carried over or near irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment 2

l

o Provide mechanical stops or electrical interlocks to prevent - -

~

movement of heavy loads over i,rradiated'_ fuel, or in proximity to equipment associated with redundant shutdown paths. 4

- 7-*

Staff guidelines resulting from the foregoing are tabulated in -

Section 5 of NUREG-0612. -

1.3 Plant-Specific Background In December 22, 1980, the NRC issued a letter [3] to Philadelphia Electric Company, the licensee for Limerick Plant, requesting that the applicant review provisions with respect to the guidelines of NUREG-0612, and provide certain additionel information to be used for an independent determination of conformance to these guidelines. On June 18,1981, Philadelphia Electric Company provided the initial response-[4] to this request.

3

~ -

2.

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIO.NS

~ '

2.1 Overview _

The following sections sumarize Philadelphia Electric Company Is-review of heavy load handling at Limerick Plant accompanied by EG&G's evaluation, conclusions and recomendations to the applicant for bringing the facilities more completely into compliance with the ,

intent of NUREG-0612. The applicant has indicated the weight of a heavy load for this facility (as defined in NUREG-0612, Article 1.2) as 700 pounds. -

2.2 Heavy Load Overhead Handlino Systems This section reviews the applicant's list of overhead handling systems ,

which are subject to the criteria of NUREG-0612 and a review of the justification for excluding overhead handling systems from the above mentioned list.

2.2.1 Scope Report the results of the applicant's review of plant arrangements to identify all overhead handling systems from which a load drop may result in damage to any system

! required for plant shutdown or decay heat removal (taking no credit for any interlocks, technical specifications, operating procedures, or detailed structural analysis) and l justify the exclusion of any overhead handling system from your list by verifying that there is sufficient physical separation from any load-impact point and any safety-related component to permit a determination by inspection that no heavy load drop can result in damage to any system or component required for plant shutdown or decay heat removal.

i 4

2.2.1.1 Summary of Applicant Evaluation on-0verhead - ~ ~'

Handling ^Sys tems - -- -

The applicant reviewed their pifnt and ide.ntified all overhead handling systems and provided an index in Table 1 of Reference 4.

The Reactor Enclosure Crane was the only overhead handling device identified by the applicant which could carry heavy loads over reactor fuel.

Pertinent data for the crane is listed in Table 1 .

of Reference 4. The applicant identified the following cranes / hoists which could carry heavy loads over systems or canponents required for safe shutdown or decay heat removal:

a. Diesel Generator Building Bridge Cranes.

(Diesel generators and auxiliaries are under the load path.)

b. Spray Pond Pump House Noists. (Service water valves are under the load path.)
c. Spray Pond RHR and ESW Pump Yard Crane. (RHR and ESW puups are u'nder the load path.)

Other cranes / hoists which could carry heavy loaos in the vicinity of safety-related electrical circuits or instrumentation are as follows:

l

a. Control Room HVAC Lift Beams
b. Recirculation Pump Motor Hoists l c. Core Spray Pomp Hoist 10-H-215
d. Core Spray Pump Hoist 10-H-216
e. Containment Equipment Door Hoist i 5 l
f. CRD Removal Platform Hoist , _ _
g. MSRV. Service and RemovaT Holsts
h. Containment Hydrogen Recombiner Cover Hoists ,

7*

i.

Control Room HVAC Equipment, Hoist. , _ _ . .

In Table 1 of Reference 4 the applicant identified .

cranes and hoists where safety-related equipment had been identified on the next elevation below the elevation of the load path. It was assumed-that a load dropped from these overhead handling systems will not penetrate the floor, but may cause spalling of the concrete below, which could affect the safety-related equipment. There are 24 cranes / hoist listed that fall into this ca'tegory. ,

All other cranes / hoists in Table 1 of Reference 4 not trentioned above, were excluded by the applicant based on the following criterion:

Criterion A: The crane or hoist is located in a structure which does not contain systems or equipment required for safe shutdown or decay heat removal. Structures included are the Turbine Enclosure, the Radwaste Enclosure, the Administration Building, the Auxiliary 3 oiler Building, the Circulating Water Pump House, and the Schuylkill River Pump House. This designation is based on the Limerick Fire Protection Evaluation Report which identifies safety-related equipment in each fire area and evaluates the effect of the loss of this equipment on plant safe shutdown capability (including decay heat removal).

6

Criterion B: The load carried by this crane or

~ ~ '

hoist is not greater than 700 pounds. Therefore,

~

it is not a heavy ioad. - -5 Criterion C: For these cranes and hoists there is no equipment required for safe shutdown or decay heat removal located in the load path. Absence of safe shutdown equipment was determined by review of the Fire Protection Evaluation Report and the results of the Separation Program. Load paths are defined on the drawings attached to this report.

Except where limited by walls or other barriers load paths are at least twice as wide as the widest load or hatch opening. Thus, the load will still land in the load path if swinging occurs before it is dropped. For a load whose height is more than twice its width, it is assumed that the load can tip over in any direction from an impact point below the centerline of the normal or crane hoist. In these cases the load will also land within the load path. Therefore, dropped loads cannot damage safe-shutdown or decay heat removal systems or components.

2.2'l.2

. EG&G-Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations for Overhead Handling Systems The applicant's response indicates that the overhead handling devices at the Limerick Plant are listed on Table 1, "Index of Overhead Handling Systems-Unit I and Common," of Reference 4. The drawings attached to Reference 4 identify equipment locations of all applicable overhead handling systems in the plant and their proximity l

l 7

~

' ~

to safety-related components. These drawings identify'each crane or hoist -by equipment iten

~

number used in Table 1 of _ Reference 4. ' EG&G ---

concludes that the applicant's ~T1st of cranes-and hoists is complete and satisfies the requirements of NUREG-0612.

The applicant reviewed the Limerick Plant .

arrangement and indicated that exclusions were based on physical separation, i.e., no load drops could result in damage to any system or component required for safe shutdown or decay heat removal.

Other exclusions were made based on the absence of safe shutdown or decay heat removal equipment in the area or loads would be less than the 700 pounds defined in Section 2.1, Overview. EG&G agrees with the applicant's evalua' tion of these devices and concludes that the applicant has met the requirements of NUREG-0612 concerning exclusion of overh'ead handling systems and justification for their exclusion.

2.2.1.3 Summary on Heavy Load Overhead-Handling Systems Limerick Plant fully complies with the criteria of NUREG-0612 on heavy load overhead handling systems.

2.3 General Guidelines This section addresses the extent to which the applicable handling systems comply with the general guidelines of NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1. EG&G's conclusions and recommendations are provided in summaries for each guideline.

i 1

8

The NRC has established seven general guidelines which must be met in order to provide the defense-in-depth' approach for-the. handling of heavy loads. These guidelines consist if the fqllowin~g criteria from __.

Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612: _

Guideline 1 -

Safe Load Paths Guideline 2 - Load Handling Procedures ,

Guideline 3 - Crane Operator Training Guideline 4 - Special Lifting Devices Guideline 5 - Lifting Devices (Not Specially Designed)

Guideline 6 - Cranes (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance)

Guideline 7 - Crane Design.

These seven guidelines should be satisfied for all overhead handling systems and programs in order to handle heavy loads in the vicinity of the reactor vessel, near spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, or in other areas where a load drop may damage safe shutdown systems. The succeeding paragraphs address the guidelines individually.

2.3.1 Safe Load Paths [ Guideline-1, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(1)]

Safe load paths should be defined for the movement of heavy loads to minimize the potential for heavy loads, if dropped, to impact irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel and in the spent fuel pool, or to impact safe shutdown equipment. The path should follow, to the extent practical, structural floor members, beams, etc., such that if the load is dropped, the structure is more likely to withstand the 9

impact. These load paths should be def.ined in procedures,

~

shown on equipment Ihyout d'rawings, and-ciearly marked on

~

the floor in the area where th'e load is to be hand 1'ed. __.

Deviations from defined load paths should requ' ire written .

alternative procedures approved by the plant safety review committee.

2.3.1.1 Sunnary of Applicant's Evaluation of Safe-Load ,

Paths The applicant provided equipment location drawings, Reference 4, which identified recommended safe load paths and locations of fuel and safety-related equipment. These drawings identified each crane or hoist by the equipment item number used in Table 1 of Reference 4 With regard to load handling procedures, the applicant does not have information at this time, but will consider load paths and deviations when developing procedures.

The applicant has taken exception to marking of safe load paths on floors. The applicant felt that training, procedures, interlocks and other indications such as signs provide a sufficient level of safety.

2.3.1.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations on-Safe Load Paths EG&G has reviewed the applicant's response to the criteria of Guideline 1, Safe Load Paths, and considers the marking of load paths on drawings as complete.

10

When the load paths and devia_tions from those - ~ ~

paths are -includdd.in load _handTing procedures, then the applicant'Will have compTied with that __

portion of Guideline 1. - ..

If the applicant would provide the training program, procedures, interlocks used and defines other indications that would provide a sufficient level of safety, then EG&G could evaluate the validity of the applicant's exception to marking load paths on floors, etc.

In it's evaluation, the applicant has not addressed approvals to deviations from safe load paths as stated in Guideline I criteria.

2.3.1.3 Summary on Safe Load Paths In order to fully cc ply with the criteria of Guideline 1, " Safe Load paths," the applicant should perform the following prior to fuel load:

a. Incorporation of safe load paths into procedures.
b. Provide substantiation that alternatives proposed to marking of safe load paths on floors, etc, are equivalent.
c. Incorporate approval by Plant Safety Review Committee to deviations from defined load paths using alternative procedures.

l l

i 11

2.3.2 Load Handling-Procedures-[ Guideline 2, NUREG-0612, _ _

Article 5.1.l(2)] -

Procedures should be developed to cover load. handling, _,

operations for heavy loads that are or could be handlid 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 of NUREG-0612. These

  • procedures should include: identification of required equipment, inspections and acceptance criteria required before movement of load, the steps and proper sequence to be followed in handling the load, defining the safe load path, I and other special precautions.

2.3.2.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation on load Handling Procedures The applicant responded to this guideline by indicating that written procedures in accordance with Guideline 2 will be available prior-to fuel load.

2.3.2.2 EG&G Evaluations, Conclusions and Recommendations on Load Handline Procedures EG&G has reviewed the applicant's response and considers the criteria of Guideline 2 will be met when written protedures are completed.

2.3.2.3 Summary on Load Handling Procedures _

The applicant will comply with the criteria of Guideline 2, " Load Handling Procedures," upon 12 f

issuance of written load hand 1ing procedures prior -

to fuel load. Thsse. proceduresu should be available for possib1e NRC review.-

2.3.3 Crane 0perator Training [ Guideline 3, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(3)]

Crane operators should be trained, qualified and conduct themselves in accordance with Chapter 2-3 of ANSI B30.2-1976, " Overhead and Gantry Cranes."[5]

2.3.3.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation-of Crane Operator Training The applicant has not addressed Guideline 3 in this report or " subsequent submittals. This should be completed prior to fuel load.

2.3.3.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations on Crane -Ocerator Training An evaluation by EG&G cannot be performed pending further information from the applicant.

, 2.3.3.3 Sumary on Crane Operator Trainino The applicant has not complied with the criteria of Guideline 3 of NUREG-0612. This should be completed prior to fuel load.

2.3.4 Special Lif ting Devices [ Guideline 4, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(4)]

Special lifting devices should satisfy the guide".ines of ANSI N14.6-1978, " Standard for Special Lif ting Devices for 13

~ -

Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More .

for Nuclear Materials".[6] This standa'[d_ r should apply to all special lifting devices which carry heavy loads in areas ,

as defined above. For operating plants certain inspections, and load tests may be accepted in lieu of certain material requirements in the standard. In addition, the stress -

design factor stated in Section 3.2.1.1 of ANSI N14.6 should be based on the combined maximum static and dynamic loads

~

that could be imparted on the handling device based on characteristics of the crane which will be used. This is in lieu of the guideline in Section 3.2.1.1 of ANSI N14.6 which bases the stress design factor on only the weight (static load) of the load and of the intervening components of the special handling device.

2.3.4.1 Summary of Apolicant's Evaluation on-Special ,

Liftino Devices The applicant identified special lifting devices to be used at the Limerick Plant in Table 3 of Reference 4. These devices are not certified to ANSI N14.6-1978. The applicant also advised that shipping cask yokes are designed to be single failure proof, which is superior to meeting the ANSI specification directly.

l The applicant is presently investigating the requirements that special lifting devices meet l

ANSI N14.6-1978. Based upon this investigation, the applicant may take exceptions to this requirement.

14

~ - -

2.3.4.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusion and Recommendations en -

Special Lifting Dbvices . ._ .

The applicant has not completed thei'r review of_..

the special li' ting devices for the Limerick Plant. EG&G cannot perform a review until further inforraation is : eceived from the applicant.

EG&G recommends the applicant should perform a point by point review to ANSI N14.6-1978 with special attention to Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3. 2.1, 3. 2.4, 3. 2. 5, 3. 2.6, 3. 3.1, 3. 3. 4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, .

4.1.9, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2. 2, 5. 3.1, 5. 3. 2, 5.3. 4, 5.3.6, and 5.3.7.

2.3.4.3 Summarr on Soecial Lifting Devices The applicant has not provided any information on compliance with Guideline 4, Special Lifting Devices. h.k should be completed prior to fuel lotJ.

2.3.5 Lifting Devices (Not Specially Designed)

[ Guideline 5,NUREG-0612. - Article 5.1.1(5)1 _

i i Lifting devices that are not specially designed should be installed and used in accordance with the guidelines of ANSIB30.9-1971," 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" which produces 15

a -

~

' ~

the maximum static and dynamic load. Where this restricts slings to use on onl'y certain cranes, the slings should be clearly marked as to the cranes with which they may be used. -2 2.3.5.1 Summary of- Applicant's Evaluation on Lifting .

Devices-(Not Specially Designed)

The applicant's response states that current .

requirements for slings utilized by Construction and Maintenance Division for Q-listed equipment will meet ANSI N45.2-1972. In addition, the applicant is presently investigating the requirements that slin'gs meet ANSI B30.9-1971.

Based upon that investigation, the applicant may take exception to the criteria of Guideline 5.

2.3.5.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations on Lifting Devices (Not Soecially-Desianed)

The applicant has not completed its review of slings for the Limerick Plant to the criteria of Guideline 5. EG&G cannot perform a review until that information is received. EG&G recomends the i applicant should address not only ANSI B30.9-1971

but the additional requirements in Guideline 5 when conducting there review.

2.3.5.3 Sumary on Lifting-Devices (Not Soecially Designed)

The applicant has not provided any information on I

l compliance with the criteria of Guideline 5, Slings. This should be completed prior to fuel load.

16 l

2.3.6 Cranes (Inspection,-Testing,-and Maintenance) EGuideline-6, - '

NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l('6)]. - -- '.

T .*

The crane should be inspected, tested, andena'intained in_ ..

accordance with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI B30.2-1976, " Overhead and Gantry Cranes," with the exception that tests and inspections should be performed prior to use where it is not practical to meet the frequencies of ANSI B30.2 for periodic inspection and test, or where frequency of crane use is less than the specified inspection and test frequency (e.g., the polar crane inside a PWR containment may only be used every 12 to 18 months during refueling operations, and is generally not accessible during power operation).

ANSI B30.2, however, calls for certain inspections to be performed daily or monthly. For such cranes having limited usage,'the inspections, test, and maintenance should be performed prior to their use.

2.3.6.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation on Cranes (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)

The applicant has stated that the Limerick Plant is still under construction, however, ANSI l B30.2-1976 will be considered in the preparation of the crane inspection,- testing and maintenance

(

procedures at the time the cranes and hoists are j turned over for plant use.

2.3.6.2 EG&G Evaluation,-Conclusions and Recommendations r

on Cranes (Insoection,-Testing and Maintenance)

EG&G cannot perform an evaluation until the applicant provides information that the crane l

I l

17 l

inspection, testing and maintenance will be in - ~

accordance with.the criteria 'of Guideline 6 of

~-

2.3.6.3 Summary on Cranes (Inspection, Testing and.

Maintenance)

The Limerick Plant will comply with Guideline 6 when the applicant submits information on their Crane inspection, testing and maintenance program

, prior to fuel load.

2.3.7 Crane -Design [ Guideline 7, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(7)]

The crane should be designed to meet the applicable criteria and guidelines of Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976, " Overhead and Gantry Cranes," and of CMAA-70, " Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes."[8] An alternative to a specification in ANSI B30.2 or CMAA-70 may be accepted in lieu of specific compliance if the intent of the specification is satisfied.

2.3.7.1 Summary of Applicant's Evaluation of Crane Dasign The applicant's response indicated that procurement specifications for cranes identified l

in Section 2.2.1.1 require compliance with all specifications and standards issued by the Crane Manufacturers Association of Am'erica (CMAA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) which were in effect prior to the date of the purchase order. The reactor enclosure crane was purchased in 1973 and therefore was designed to CMAA Specification 70 and an earlier version l

18

(1967) of ANSI B30.2. The diesel generator cran ~es ~

were purchased in 1972 and-designed to the same standards as ths~reactot, enclosure crane. ---

The applicant states that the cranes were -designed according to Chapter 2-1 of ANSI 830.2-1967.

However NUREG-0612 requires verification of compliance with Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976.

The applicant canpared the two editions and concluded that the aforementioned cranes generally comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976, with the following exceptions:

a. Welded construction (2-1.4.1)--The cranes welding procedures conform to AWS D2.0-66 rather than AWS D1.1.
b. Design of guard rails and toe boards (2-1.5.2 and 2-1.7.3) complies with OSAS A12-1932 rather than ANSI Al2.1.
c. Trolley bumpers (2-1.8.3.a.1) designed with energy absorbing capacity for 40% of rated trolley speed rather than 50%.
d. Wiring and equipment (2-1.10.1) complies with USAS Cl-1965 rather than Article 610 of National Electrical Code, ANSI C-1(NFPA 70).

The applicant does not consider the above differences to be significant with respect to safe operation of the cranes. Crane design should be considered to be in compliance with the guidelines of ANSI B30.2-1976.

19

2.3.7.2 EG&G Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations - - - -

on Crane ' Design ' __ .

EG&G has reviewed the applicants-respons.e_on the specifications under which their cranes were purchased and concurs with the applicant-determination. The applicant has demonstrated equivalency of actual design requirements where specific compliance with Guideline 7 standards were not provided. EG&G agrees with the applicants conclusion on the differences between the two specifications, ANSI B30.2-1967 and 1976.

2.3.7.3 Summary on Crane Design The Limerick Plant is in full compliance with the criteria of Guideline 7, Crane Design of NUREG-0512. The applicant should have all pertinent information to substantiate the design of its cranes available for possible NRC audit.

20

3. CONCLUDING

SUMMARY

3.1 Applicable Load Handling Systems -

The list of cranes and hoists supplied by the applicant as being, subject to the provisions of NUREG-0612 is complete (see Section 2.2).

3.2 Guideline Recommendations

  • Compliance with two of the NRC guidelines for heavy load handling (Section 2.3) are satisfied at the Limerick Plant; i.e., load Handling Procedures and Crane Design. The conclusions are presented in tabular form on Table 3.1. Specific recommendations to aid in compliance with the intent of the safe load paths, crane operater training, special lif ting devices, slings and crane inspection, testing and traintenance guidelines are presented in Table 3.2.

3.3 Interim Protection The applicant should commit to compliance with the seven guidelines of NUREG-0612 before fueling. If this is not accomplished, it will be necessary to address interim measures.

21

~

N. ,

.~

, 1ABLE 1.1 LIMIRICK PLANI COMPLIANCE HMRIX k-Weight Guideline 1 Gul< feline 2 Guideline 3 Guideline 4 Guideline 5 Guideline 6 Guidelin..

x or Crane Special Crane-Test Heavy Capacity Safe toad - Operatrw Lifting and

  • Equipment Desirestion loads (tons) Paths Procedures Training _ Devices Slings Inspection frane th- .p s NC NC , NC NC C Reactor Enclosure Crane C 125/15 NC C Diesel Generator C 15 NC C NC NC NC NC C

' s Building Bridge Cranes Spray Pond Pump House C 3 NC C NC NC NC NC C

~

Holsts

  • NC C NC NC NC WC C &

Spray Pond RHR and ESW C Pump Yard Crane C' NC NC NC NC C Control Room HVAC Lift C 3 NC Beams

  • e Recirculation Pump C 24 NC C NC NC K NC C Motor Holsts ,

Core Spray Pump Hoist C 5 NC C NC NC NC NC C (10-H215)

Core Spray Pump C 5 NC C cc NC NC NC C Holst (10-H216)

Containment Equipment C 6 10C C N NC NC NC ,

C Door Holst CRD Resoyal P3etform C 1 NC C leC NC IIC NC C Holst MSRV Service and C 1/2 NC C NC NC NC NC C Removal Holst ,

~

^~

NC NC NC NC I C Containment Hydrogen C 1 NC C l Recombiner Cover Hoist . i b1C *

  • C Control Room HVAC C 2/3 NC C NC NC NC Equipment Holst
  • Holst/ Crane to be borrowed from other locations when needed.

l C = Applicant action compiles with NtFFG-0612 Guidelines. .'

Applicant action does not Comply with NUREG-0612 Guidelines.

NC = -

'~

i l

i s

-r -- -_ -.

o . -

TABLE 3.2

SUMMARY

OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMERICK PLANT - - -

1. Section 2.3.1 a. Incorporation of safe load paths.'into procedures.

Safe Load Paths b. Provide substantiation that alternatives to __.

marking of safe load paths on floors, etc.,

' ~ are '

equivalent. -

c. Incorporate approval by Plant Safety Review-committee to deviations from defined load paths using alternative procedures.
d. Complete compliance prior to fuel load.
2. Section 2.3.2 Complete development and issuance of load handling Load Handling procedures prior to fuel load. The completed Procedures procedures should be available for possible NRC

, - review.

3. Section 2.3.3 Comply with criteria of Guideline 3 of NUREG-0612 Crane Operator prior to fuel load.

Training 4 Section 2.3.4 Comply with criteria of Guideline 4 of NUREG-0612 Special Lifting prior to f uel load.

Devices

5. Section 2.3.5 Comply with criteria of Guideline 5 of NUREG-0612 Slings prior to fuel load.
6. Section 2.3.6 Complete compliance with criteria of Guideline 6 of Crane (Inspec- NUREG-0612 prior to fuel load.

tion, Testing and Maintenance)

7. Section 2.3.7 Documentation verifying compliance to Guideline 7 Crane Design should be available for possible NRC audit.

23

4. ~ '

REFERENCES ..

1.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatocy Guide, NUREG-0612, 7;*

" Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear: Power Plants." .- . , _ _ . .

2. V. Stello, Jr. (NRC), Letter to all Licensees,

Subject:

Request for Additional Information on Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel, dated May 17, 1978.

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter to Philadelphia Electric Company,

Subject:

NRC Request for Additional Information on Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel, dated December 22, 1980.

4 John S. Kemper, Philadelphia Electric Company, Letter to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC),

Subject:

Response to Staff Position, Interim Actions for Control of Heavy Loads, dated June 18, 1981.

5. American National Standards Institute, ANSI B30.2-1976, " Overhead and Gantry Cranes."
6. American National Sta1dards Institute, ANSI N14.6-1978, " Standard for Special Lif ting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More for Nuclear Materials."

7 American National Standards Institute, ANSI B30.9-1971, " Slings."

8. Crane Manufacturers Asscciation of America, Inc., CMAA-70,

" Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes."

i 1

24

_. . _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20067A478&oldid=2995090"