ML20067C135
| ML20067C135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | Jensen S, Stickley T EG&G, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20067C133 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8212080551 | |
| Download: ML20067C135 (26) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE o
\\,
f 1
CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
SEABROOK UNITS 1 AND 2 l
Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 i
Author S. A. Jensen 1
~
Principal Technical Investigator w
T. H. Stickley
~
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
November 1982 i
\\
8212000551 0
00 3
PDR ADOC pop A
ABSTRACT i
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested that all nuclear j
plants either operating or under construction submit a response.of compliancy with NUREG-0617., " Control of Heavy Leads 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 a,nd recommendations for Seabrook.
e
~
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Seabrook does not totally. comp 1y with the guidelines of NUREG-0612.
In general, compliance is insufficient in the following areas:
o Satisfactory action on Guidelines 2, 3, 5, and 6 has been promised but not completed.
s o
The Applicant has not sati.sfactorily responded to Guidelines 1,'
4, and 7.
The main report contains recommendations which will aid in bringing
~
the above' items into compliance with the appropriate guidelines.
~
. s mee 4
=
e e
e e
a e
I e
l
\\
~
i
CONTENTS ABSTRACT...........................'..................................
1 E X E C UT I V E S U MMiRY.....................................................
i o
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................,
1 1.1 Purpose of Review.........................................
1 1.2 Generic Background.........................................
1
~
1.3 Plant-Specific Background.................................
3-2.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................
4 2.1 Overview..................................................
4 2.2 Heavy Load Overhead Handling Systems......................
4 2.3 General Guidelines........................................-
8 3.
e CON C LU D I NG
SUMMARY
............................................. :- 17 3.1 ApplicableLeadHandlingSystems....c................$....
17 e
3.' 2 Guideline-Recom.mendations................................
17 R.- REN,C:S......................................................
19 ert 4.
TABLES 2.1 Crane / Hoist Systems Considered as Potential '
Sources for Damage of Safety Components...................
_ 7 3.1 NUREG Compliance Matrix..............'.....................
20 M
9 e
t g
~
~
11
O
\\
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR SEAER00K STATION 1.
INTRODUCTION l
l 1.1 Purpose of Review
=
~
This technical evaluatien report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of general load handling policy and procedures at Seabrook Thi,s evaluation was performec 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.'I.
1.2 Generic Backoround
.qtgeric Technical" Activity TasE 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 assure the safe handling of heavy loads 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 re' actor applicants, 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 existjng 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.
In order to upgrade measures for the control of heavy loads, the staff developed a series of guidelines designed to achieve a two phase, s
.~
d 4
1
i objective using an accepted approach or protection philosophy.- Th,e first, portion of the objective, achieved through a set of general 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 failur6 is u7iif6rmly small and '
appropriate for the critical tasks in which they are employed.
The I
I second portion of the staff's objective, achieved through guidelines l
identified in NUREG-0&l2, Articles 5.1.2 through 5.1.5,_,1s to ensure that, f6r 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 l
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 donsequences is quantifi'ed in NUREG-0612 into four accident analysit 7
evaluation criteria.
mo-The a;iproach used to develop the staff guideTines for minimizing the potential for a load drop was based on defense in depth and.is summarized as foll'ows:
I o
Provide sufficient operator traini.ng, handling system j
design, load handling instructions, and equipment I
inspection to assure reliable operation of the Iandling
~
system l
3 l
l l
o Define safe load travel paths through procedures and operator f. raining so that, to the extent practical, i
heavy loads.are not carried over or 'near irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment i
o Provide mechanical stops or electrical interlocks'to prevent movement of heavy loads over irradiated fuel or
- in proximity to equipment associated with redundant.
shutdown paths.
Staff guidelines resulting from the foregoing are tabulated in
[
Section 5 of NUREG-0612.
1.3 Plant-Soecific Backorcund On December 22, 1980,, the NRC issued a letter [3] to-the Public Service Company of New Hampthire, the applicant for Seabrook requesting that the applicant review provisions for handling and control of heavy loads at Seabrook, evaluate these provTsions with respect to'the guidelines of NUREG-0612, and provide certain additional information to be used for an independent determination of conformance to these gui.delines.
In September 1982 the Public Service Company of New Hampshire provided the initial response [4] to this request.
~
a Q
..ase e
m
-mo e
D
\\
~
3 l
r 2.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
]
2.1 Overview The following sections summarize the Public S'ervice Company of New Hampshire's revi'ew of heavy load handling at Seabrook accompanied by EG&G's evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations to the 1
applicant for bringing the facilities more completely int'o compliance, l
with the intent of NUREG-0612.
The Public Service Co=pany of i
I New Hampshire's review of the facilities does not differentiate between the units so it is assumed that all units are of identical design.
The applicant has in'dicated the weight of a heavy load for j
this facility (as defined in NUREG-0612, Article 1.2) as 2000 lbs.
i 2.2 Heavy Load Overhead Handlino Systems
)
This section reviews the applicant's list of overhead handling systems wlicharesubjectt5thecriteriaofNUREG-0612andareviewofthe justification for excluding overhead handling systems from the above I
mentioned list.
2.2.1 Scooe f
" Report the results of your review of pTant 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 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."
\\
l
~
k
-~
8 A.
Summary of Aoolicant Statements The applicant's review of overhead handling systems identified the cranes and hoists shown in Table 2.1 as those which handle heavy loads in the vicinity of i.r. radiated fuel a
or safe shutdown equipment.
However, the applicant excidded five (5) of the listed handling systems from evaluation in
~
response to,Section 2.1, Enclosure 3 of the NRC, request for information.
The applicant excluded these five (5) cranes ~
~
or hoists on the basis of operating procedures and redundancy of the equipment over which they are located.
1 The applicant has also identified other cranes that have been excluded from satisifying the criteria of the general guidelines of NUREG-0612.
o
~~
B.
EG&G Evaluation nno-The applicant appears to have included most applicable handling systems in their tables showing handling for which a load drop could damage equipment.
However, some. monorails and cranes were not considered in the remainder of'their response to Section 2.1 of Enclosure 3 of the NRC
~
request [3] for'information.
The handling systems 1n question include:
Radial Arm Stud Tensioner Hoists,~.
Charging Pump Service Monorail Hoist, Radioactive Pipe Tunnel Service Monorail Hofst, Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe l
Chase Crane, and the Diesel Generator Service Crane.
These handling systems should have been considered in the remainder of the response to this section of the request for information since their exclusion takes into account credit for operating procedures and techniques or assumes e
t o
9 5
redundancy as the basis for not providing further. safety.
evaluation.
The basis' for exclusion has some merit but is j
not a consideration for this section of the response,
)
The applicant has excluded two (2) handling systems whici) need a more detailed exianation for exclusion.
The two systems are the spent Fuel Handling Crane, which was excluded on 'the basis that no safety equipment.1s in the area, and the Spent Fuel Pool Bridge and Hoist, which was 1
excluded on the basis that it doesn't carry heavy loads.
The Spent Fuel Handling Cask may not be near any safety equipment but it does appear to handle irradia' ted fuel which
~
has safety implications:
The Spent Fuel Pool Bridge and..
Hoist has a capacity of two (2) tons and should be included if procedural controls are all that eliminates it f rom consideration.' '
~
r
~
C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations
+
I Based on the information provided EG&G concludes that the
~
applicant has included most of the applicable hoists and.
cranes in their list of handling systems which must compl'y with the. requirements of the general g,uidelines of5 NUREG-0612.
EG&G recommend's that the applicant include evaldation of cranes listed in Table 2.1 but not evaluated in their response to Section 2.1, Enclosure 3 of the NRC request for inform; tion.
We also recommend a more thorough explanation o,f exclusion of the Spent Fuel Cask Handling Crane and the Spent $uel Pool Bridge and, Hoist.,
O t
g m
A
.r e
r 3
o g
g g
g g
e d
t n
n n
n n
p n
a o
r n
ii ii ii li ii i
N t
t xd xd xd 'xd xd el P
r c
o O
n n
ul ul ul ul ul ve n
e e
Ai Ai Ai Al Ai in W ym i
e t
I u
T m
m u
u u
u u tn F
eig Cg a
A n n
yB yB yD yD yB cu nPa n
m i
i r
r r
r r
aT d o
l li r
C g
O a
a ay ay ay py ay o ne grd ed o
L t
t mr mr mr mr mr ie as rol sl f
1 S
n n
ia ia ia ia ia dp a
otl el n
T o
o ri rl rl ri rl ai Sh mau iu I
N C
C Pl Pl PI Pl PI RP MC EvD DD E
r N
o O
f P
M t
O s
C e
u Y
q T
y e
E r
r F
a C
A l
S Y
nl H
0 N
T iiax F
I C
C Hu 6
f A
A s
s s
/
s o
E P
n n
n n
n
- 5. s s
s o
s s
3 C
A on s o
o o
A C
lo n T
T T
2n n n
T n
n M
T o
/o.To*
o o
o o
A 0
T 5
5 5
- 5. T 5
T*
T.
r I
T l
u D
20 4
4 3
2 3
2 7
4 g
s
,'2 l
II5 R
o O
F c
n
!i S
E EC R
1 U
O p
2 S
mu n
L P
r o
A e
i r
l t
t e
I T
t et
'o t a
c I
N s o ts ns w e
i t
g c
ai ni d S
E t
)
l i
g rol Wo uo o p
T i
3 i
i l
O S
o
(
a n
ol v
l Tl e
m o
l g
r g
F u
t
. e T
Y n
r I
S a
s o nl e
nl ol o
P r
S r
dt n
c ai S
ii pi dn o'
o i
A G
C us o tt ha t
a ia na dt t
s l
N ti H
as cr ps or Pr ar os ad n
y So Bi xo mi oo o
G oi rn o
D I
l o En uo Cn on m fo oa p
E L
r l
k l
l nr s
R D
t m
s dl o
Pl o vo ao l
oC e
{
I tH iH es y tH E
n rr a i
f D
a a
Ae C cl a
gb n
t ra el C
r H
C n
Al
!co nl ee ce th nl e
7 I
c n
o r a
c a nc ac SC oa S
i l
l I
gr oi oi gr ol N
r ai ot cr i
i O
a is ts io Sv ro pv iv no ro sy rn Cr an mr dr ip on or r
dn C
ii l
o ae l o oo Ve ho oo ae ai ma S
[h i c e
P DS h
H tr L
I u
S F
YS d,
4 c
T t
S a
u I
C l
0l 4
a I
/
1 8
v E
D o
N B
8 0
0 A
5 1
5 8
t 0
1 2
2 o
R C
n 4
n k
H 1
A s
1 G
A A
8 A
A m
A 4
3 4
5 1
5 7
0 e
2 T
3 2
5 6
1 1
1 2
2 2
t R
s I
E R
E R
R R
R R
C R
R R
y L
C R
C C
C C
C C
C C
S
(
D 5
S A
H li S
S S
S C
D S
W C
T H
F C
C C
C C
C M
F D
8
-(
y 4
7 2.3 General Guidelines This sectioli 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' y
summaries for each g0ideline.
[' r,
i The.NRC has establishe'd seven general guidelines which must be' met in order to provide the defense-in-depth approach for the handling of f
- g heavy loads.
These guidelines consist of the following criteria from 1
- I E
Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612'
/
I I
l
/
{
A.
Guideline 1--Safe Load Paths
/
s i
I B.
Guideline 2--Load Handling Procedures o
I.*
l's
~~
L C.
Guideline 3--Crane Operator Training
[
t ~ '., ;
a y' '
e D.
Guideline 4--Special Lifting Devicis
~
. E.
Guideline 5--Lif ting Devices (not specially designed) -
Guideline 6--Cranes (Inspection, Testing,andMaintenance))
F.
i f
G.
Guideline 7-. Crane Design.
These seven guidelines should b8i: satisfied for' all overhe&d handling systems and programs in o w to handle heavy loads in the vicinity of the reactor vessel, r..,.pr.'tuel in the spent fuel ;iool, or in other areas where a a c J., a may damage safe shutdown systems.
The succeeding paragraphs address the guidelines individually.
1
\\
e e
+
} 3lj 8
r
).
2.3.1> Safe Load Paths [ Guideline 1. N REG-0612, Article 5.1.1(1)]
79
" Safe load paths should be defined for the movement of heavy
- oads tc minimize the potential for heavy loads, if dropped, to
'. j imoact irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel and in the spent fuel pool, or to impact safe shutdown equi.pment
.The path should follow, to the extent practical, structural floor members, beaJns, etc., such that.if the load is dropped, the structure is more t
likely to withstand the impact.
These load paths should be defined in procedures, shown on equipment layout drawings, and
-learly marked on,the floor in the area where the load is to be t,a ndl ed.
Deviations from defined load paths should~ require
~
l.",
written alternative procedures approved by the plant safety 5/
review committee."
a A.
Summary of Aeolicant Statements The applicant has evaluated load path locations for Seabrook -
^
Station.
The applicant states'that load movement follows 4
the safest and shortest route-with the load as cle'e.to the s
t floor as, possible.
Due to the nature of the load paths, the applicant states that marking the load paths on the : floor is I
generally not feasible nor would it contribute to reactor b
safety.
P B.
EG&G Evaluation The applicant response and drawings submitted indicates thai" G'uideline 1 criteria have been partly satisfied at Ssabrook Station.
Load prths have been developed for all heavy loads which have been identified.
However these load path as represented on the submitted seem to be load-areas and not specific load ' paths.
Also as indicated earlier no information is included for some systems'and loalfs.
l '.
The applicant's position on the unfeasibility of marking load pths on the floor is not acceptable.
EG&G does agree that for some areas and/or loads floor marking is not the i
best method for designating a load path, but for certain loads i,t may be the best method available.
9 j
g
(
O Lead path markings are meant to be used by load handling operators and their supervisors as a means for monitoring proper areas where movements of heavy load's will take place so that personnel not directly involved in load handling-will be alert ~ d to keep these pathways cliia['of non ref ated '
e materials:
By consolidating the various load paths, the applicant should be able to develop a systematic sequence of.
pathways for the movement of heavy loads ~ to t_ heir. lay-down or staging areas which is not overly complex or confusing "to.
operators and supervisors, thus contributing to the general safety of plant personnel by minimizing interference.with load handling operations.
For some crane systems such as monorails the load paths are defined by the routing of the monorail and the marking necessary would be minimal.
.i C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations T
c EG&G concludes from the applicant's response that the c
Seabrook Station partially comply with Guideline 1..
In ordei to adhere to the criteria of this guideline, EG&G recommends that the applicant develop more specific load-paths for all applicable systems and loads and clearly mark safe load paths on the floor o: by some other means 'in area's' where heavy loads are handled.
e 2.3.2 Load Handlina Procedures [ Guideline 2. NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(2)]
" Procedures should be developed to cover load handling operations for heavy loads that are or could be handled 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 -
g sequence to be followed in handling the load; defining the. safe path; and other special precautions."
i A.
, Summary of Aeolicant Statements
]
Jhe applicant states that procedures will be developed to-
' cover load handling operations for the heavy loads identified in Table 3.1-2 of NUREG-0612...The.se procedures will identify the required equipment, the inspection and acceptance criteria prior to load movement, the steps and sequence in, handling the load and define the safe load path
~
~
and other special precautions.
They also state that
' approved procedures will be in effect prior to use of the load handling system.
B.
EG&G Evaluation The applicant has stated that load handling procedures will be developed which will comp.ly with the requirements of.
s Guideline 2.
These guidelines shcald be available'for possible, review by jhe NRC prior to use of the load handling system.
C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations The Seabrook Station do not presently comply with Guideline 2.
In order to comply with the guideline tile applicant should complete the development of load handling procedures for the applicable cranes and loads.
These
, e procedures should be available for,.possible NRC review prior to use of the load handling system.
2.3.3 Crane Ooerator Trainino [ 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, I
' Overhead and Gantry Cranes' [5]."
\\
~
11
V A.
Summary of Acolicant Statements
,The applicant states that Seabrook' Station will comply with ANSI B30.2-1976 with respect to operator training.,
qualification, and conduct.
B.
EG&G Evaluation
~
The applicant is developing a tra.ining and qualification program and appears to be implementing the applicable ANSI B30.2 requirements.
No information on conduct was given by the applicant other than their statement that they will comply with ANSI B30.2-1976.
This compliance should be complete before fuel loading occurs.
C.
EG&G Conclusich ind Recommendations Based on the applicant's statement Seabrook Station will
- o-comply with Guideline 3.
Procedures and program records should be readily available for possible review and
~
inspection by the NRC staff.
~
Soecial Liftino Devices [ Guideline 4. NUREG-0612,
'I 2.3.4 Article 5.1.1(4)]
I "Special' lifting devices should satisfy the guidelines of ANSI N14.6-1978, 'Stcndard for Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More for Nuclear l
Materials' [6].
This standard should apply to all special l.
lifting devices which carr.y 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 devi e 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 t
weight (static load) or the load and of the intervening components of the special handling device."
i l
~
99
A.
Summary of Aeolicant Statements The applicant identifies five (5) special lifting devices.
The design of two (2) of these devices has not been finalized but the applicant states that an..ev.tluation for a
compliance will be completed.
The applicant states that the reactor coolant pump motor slings will comply with the l
guideline.
Special lifting devices for the reactor vessel head and upper internals have been provided by Westinghouse.
They j
are being evaluated by Westinghouse for compliance with ANSI N14.16 and NUREG 0612, Section 5.1.1(4).
B.
EG&G Evaluation 4
o The applicant has identified five (5) special liftiny.
j devic es.'
The information given on 'the design of these l
devices is inadequate for a compari_ son of the criteria used for design versus the requirements of Guideline 4.
The applicant has stated that periodic testing will be performed to maintain continuing compliance in accordance with Section 5.2 of ANSI N14.6-1978.
C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations Seabrook Station do not comply with Guideline 4.
In~ order to satisfactorily comply with the criteria, the applicant should perfore.the following:
(1) review, evaluate and report on the design and fabrication of all special lifting devices for which evaluation is not complete with, respect to the requirements of ANSI N14.6-1978 and Guideline 4.
I
\\
l i
13 l
{
(2) submit verification that procedures exist for ill.
I special lifting' devices which satisfy the requirements of Section 5 (A:ceptance Testing, Maintenance, and Assurance of Continued Compliance) of ANSI A34.6-1978.
Compliance with this guideline should be ccmplete for each lifting device before they are used in a critical situation.
~
2.3.5 1.iftino Devices (Not Specially Desianed) [ Guideline 5, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(5)]
" Lifting devices that are not specially designed should be
. installed and used in accordance with the guidelines of ANSI B30.9-1971, ' 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 the maximum static and dynamic load.
Where this restricts sli_ngs to use on only certsin cranes, the slings should be clearly marked as to the cranes with which they m'ay be used." '
~
A.
Summary of Aeolicant Statements I
Theapplicantstate'sthatallliftingdeviceswilimeett'he requirements of ANSI B30.9-1971 and Section 5.1.1(5).of,
l B.
EG&G Evaluation The applicant indicates that slings used at Seabrook Station will comply with the, requirements of this guideline.
l t
~
m
O C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations Seabrook Station will comply with Guideline 5.
2.3.6 Cranes (Insoection, Testino, and Maintenance)-[ Guideline 6, o
NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1(6)]
"The crane shoulq be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI B30.2-1976, 'Ove'rhead 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 duFing refueling operations, and is generally not accessible during power operation.
ANSI B30.2, however, calls for certain inspections to be p'erformed daily or monthly.
For such cranes having limited usage, the inspections, test, and maintenance
.should be performed prior to their. use)."
s L
A.
Summary of Aeolicant_ Statements e
A program will be developed to insure that cranes will be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI.B30.2-1976.
Frequency of tests and inspections will comply with Section 5.1'.1(6) of NUREG 0612.
~~
i B
EG&G Evaluation l*
The applicar.t states that crane inspection, testing, and maintenance programs will comply wifh ANSI B30.2-1976 with exceptions as allowed by Guideline 6.
S I
I l.
~
w 15
e C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations
~
,Seabrook Station will comply with Guideline 6 on the bisis of the applicant's statement.
The applicant should submit verification that the above mention'progrimi'are in place prior to fuel loading.
2.3.7 Crane Desion [' Guideline 7, NUREG-0612. Article 5.1.1(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 El.ectric Overhead Traveling. Cran'es' [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."
3-A.
Summary of Ap'plicant Statemehts
'*6-The polar gantry crane and spent fuel cask handling crane were designed in accordance with the CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2-1967.
Monorails and underhung cranes are designed to ANSI B30.11 and B30.16.
l B.
EG&G Evaluation
\\
The cranes m,entioned by the applicant in their response
~
comply with or meet the intent of Guideline 7 based on the l
applicant's statements.
C.
EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations Seabrook Station partially complies with Guideline 7 on the basis of the applicant's sta'tements.
Additional information
(
may be needed on cranes not mentioned in this response.
\\
~
l
~
i 3.
CONCLUDING
SUMMARY
g 3.1 Aeolicable Load Handling Systems The list of cranes and hoists supplied by the. applicant'.as being -
a o
subject to the provisions of NUREG-0612 is not adequate (see Section 2.2.1).
Information on all applicable cranes was not included in the applicant's response.
4 3.2 Guideline Recommendations Compliance with the seven NRC. guidelines for heavy load handling (Section 2.3) are partially satisfied at Seabrook Station.
This conclusion is represented in tabular form as Table 3.1.
Specific recommendations to aid in compliance with the intent of these; guidelines are provided as follows:
l Guideline Recommendation i
w 1.
(Section 2.3.1) a.
Provide safe load paths.for all
~
applicable cranes and clearly mark safe load paths on the floor or by some o,ther means.
2.
(Section 2.3.2) a.
Complete development of load '
handling procedures.
3.
(Section 2.3.3) a.
Operator training records, and.
programs should be available for NRC review or inspection ~.
4.
(Section 2.3.4) a.
Fully review evaluate and report on the design and fabrication of special lifting devices with respect to ANSI N14.6 b.
Submit verification that continued testing of special lifting devices will comply with ANSI N14.6.
5Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N14.6.</br></br>5" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
(Section 2.3.5) a.
Seabrook will comply with this guideline l
s
~
as s
17
k Guideline Recommendation 6.
(Section 2.3.6) a.
Submit verification that crane inspection, testing, and maintenance programs have bee.n implemented.
7.
(Section 2.3.7).
a.
Seabrook parti ~ ally complies sith this guideline. Additional information needed on cranes ~not.
included.
g.
W G
h 4
0
=
e t
t>o--
s g
e up.
W l
l l
~N t
as
(
L sta
4.
REFERENCES 1.
p Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants NRC 2.
V. Stello, Jr. (NRC)
~
Letter to all applicants.
Subject:
Request for Additional
~
Information on Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel
~
~
NRC, 17 May 1978
~
3.
USNRC Letter to Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
Subject:
NRC Request for Additional Irformation on Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel NRC,722 December 1980 h
4.
Rdlic Service Company of New flampshire l
Letter to Director of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation.
l
Subject:
Response to NRC Request for Additional Information on Control of Heavy Loads, September 1982 5.
" Overhead and Gantry Cranes" 6.
ANSI N14.6-1978 "Staadard for l'fting Devices for Shipping Cootainers Weighing i
10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or more for Nuclear Materials" 7.
" Slings" 8.
CMAA-70
" Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes" l
\\
~
e
~
19 i
Ta'hle 3.1 4
I nicight or GuldcIlne 1_ Guideline 2 Guidelina 3 Guld21tne 4.. Guldeline 5 Gundelt+rc 6 Guideline 7 Capacity Safe load Crane Operator Special 1.lf ttr.g Crane - lest.
Designation itcavy loads (tons)
Paths Procedures Training Devices Slings and _ Inspection CraneDespn, Equireent I
New Fuel Assembly 0.9 Crane Load Block 3
l (125 Ton)
I Irradiated Spect-men Cask I
Failed Fuel.
Containce
'llter Cask 4.5 C.
R/I
'R/I-C R/C C
bnorail lloist S CR-5 l
Filter Cask (CVCS 3.5 1
[
[
. system)
Concrete Floor
.l.5 Plug bric Acid Batching 4.5 C
R/I R/I C
R/C,
C bnorail. lloist llatch Cover 0.7 (2 sections)
Pallets of Doric 4.5 g
l Acid b'
C R/C C
CVCS llist Exchanger 3.5.
C-R/I R/I-5ervics Honorail lloist
[5-CR-13 i
Removable Concrete 3.3 Floor Plug (2 g
sections)
Ileat Exchanger" Tube 1.1 s
.e, Bundle i
c
(
le i
g c
C
- Licensee action comlgics with NURIG-0612 Guldeline.
s IIC
- Licensee action does not comply with IAJntG-0612 Guideline.
R = Licensee has proposed revisions / modifications desinned to comply with NURCG-0612 Guideline.
f I
_ Insufficient infoimation provided by the Licensee.
l u
--.m.-
y
..c Tabic 3.1 W2tght or Guideline 1 Guidelin:t 2 Guideline 3 Guld:line 4 Guideline 5 Guidelint 6 Guldeline 7.
Erlulgaent -
Capacity Safe Load Crane Operator Special Lifting Crane - Test Designa tion' licavy Loadj (tons) paths Procedures Training Devices Slings _ and Inspection Crane Design
~
.f R/l R/C I
Charging Pump Service 2.5/2.5/C.0 1
R/l tionora11 1101s t CS-CR-14A, 140 & 14C C
R/C C
Conyonent Cooling Water 3
C R/l R/I Pump Service Honorail lloist CC-CR-15A & 158 Primary Component 1.L Cooling Water Pump PCCW Pump Hotor 2.6 g
C.
R/C 1
Raditactive Pipe Tunnel 2
I R/I R/I Service Honorail lloist t.
CBS-CR-18A & 108 C
R/C I
Pialn Stream and Feed-
- 7. 5 I
R/I R/I water Pipe Chase Crane HS-CR-2f,A & 258 C
R/C C
Emergency feed Pump 4
C R/ I
_ R/I Honorail lloist FW-CR-27 Emergency Feed-2.9 water Pump Emergency Feed-42.4 water Pump 110 tor e
Emergency feed-2.0 water Pump Turbine i
6'-0" x 4 '-6" 2.0 Renovable Concrete Floor Plug C
R/C I
8 I
R/I
, *R/ l Dies 21 Generator Service Crane DG-CR-20A 1:288 l' '
C = Licensee action compTies withliUitLG-0612 Guideline.
NC.= Licensee action does not comply with NUREG-0612 Guide 1Inc.'.
R = Licensee has proposed revisions / modifications deslaned to comply with'it) REG-0612 Guideline.
I - Insufficient infonnation provided by the Licensee.
t
- j) '
~
I
}'
1 Table 3:1 W21ght Equipmtnt C pacit Safe Load ' Guideline 2 Guideline 3 Guideline 4 Guidelin2 5 Guidellnt 6 Guideline ?
or Guideline 1 Crane Operator Special Lifting Crane - Test Msignallrrt
. lh w..y leddi ** M.* tons')y_-"" - ra ths Procedures Training' Devices Slings and Inspection Crane Design l
C R/C C
blar Gadit Ctalle 420 Main NC R/I
, R/I
>CR-3 50 Aux e
MeutronShield 5
- Panel (0)
Reactor Cavity 9.3 Seal Ring I
~-
~ " '
- Reactor Missile 20 Shield and Support (plus CRTH cooling g
fans)
)
t CRDM Cooling Air
,[
Duct and Supports 1
lleaviest Section r
i Reactor Vessel llead 160 I
8, and Attachments
- p I
Internals Lifting 9.1 Rig l
I Upper Internals 76 l
Lower Internals 170 I
I
[
'holst and trolley) g 15 J1b Crane (includin l
I Stud Tensioners 1.25 i
RC Pump Hotor 50 C
1 RC Pump Motor 4.7 Support RC Pump Internals 22.5 l
47.2 RC Pump Assembly )
(including. casing p
e
[
C = Lic2nsee action complies with tRii4G-0612 Guideilne.
NC = Licensee action does not comply with IAIRtG-0612 Guideline.'
R = Licensee has proposed revisions / modifications designed to comply with NUREG-0612 Guideline.
' I - Insuf ficient infonnation provided by the Licensee.
~
Table 3.1 or Guideline I Guideline 2 Guideline 3 Guidzline 4*
Guideline 5 Guidelln2 6 Guideline i Walght Eoutpment Capacity Safe Load Crane Operator Special Lif ting Crane - Test Designation,
licavy Loads (tons)
Paths Procedures Training Devices Slings and Inspection Crane Design f
RC Purp Renovable 18.5 Concrete Plugs (2 sections)
RC pump flandling 5
Frame l
Plug for In-Core 5
l Detector Drive 420 Ton Ibist 15 Load Block 50 Ton lloist 1
- t.
- Load Diock In-Service Inspec-tion Tool
~
Hiscellaneous Equip-ment in Contalrunent Annulus Area
?
pressurizer Missfie 2.5 '
Shield f,
Equipment flatch 42.6 Cover (including i.
. airlock)
C II/C 1
l' R/I R/I Ridlal Arm Stud Tensioner floists fil-RE-24 C
R/C C
125 Main NC R/I R/l Spent fuel Cask 1
~
5 Aux llandling Crane fil-RE-1 o
Spent fuet Cask I
I 2
flew fuel Shipping 3.4 Container g,
l C = Licensee action complies wlIIIllliitIG-0612 Guideline.
'.4C e Licensee action does not cnmply with FAmtC-0612 GuldclInc.
R e Licensee has proposed revisions /nodifications desinned tn. comply with lyREG-0612 Guideline.
I - Insufficient information,provided by the Licensee.
e
_