ML20091L942

Revised Control of Heavy Loads (C-10),Fort Calhoun Station, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20091L942
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/01/1984
From:	Bomberger C, Vosbury F FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Singh A NRC
Shared Package
ML20091L924	List: ML20091L942
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612 TAC-07991, TAC-7991, TER-C5506-356, TER-C5506-356-0, NUDOCS 8406080266
Download: ML20091L942 (30)

Text

.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS (C-10)

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-285 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 07991 FRC ASSIGNMENT 13 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 356 Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: F. Vosbury, C. Bomberger 20th and Race Streets Philadelchia. PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: I. H. Sargent Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555 1.ead NRC Engineer: A. Singh April 23,1984 Revised May 1. 1984 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe pr./ately owned rights.

. Prepared by: Review d by: Approved by:

/lt uiw _

$/ $ ci no Principal Authbr Glou;dLeader 6epartment Dire / tor d Date: W/8/Fd Date: Unf 4 Da's: 4. Ja.

4

00. Franklin Research Center l

A Division of The Franklin Institute The Deepen Frannhn Pernwey. PMe . Ps 19 03 (2 t $1448 1000 940522 I

h P

05000

1 8

TER-C5506-356 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Background . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 2 2 RVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Interim Protection Measures . . . . . . . . 17 3 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1 General Provisions for Load Handling . . . . . . 20

3. 2 Interim Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 APPENDIX A - Comparison of Fort Calhoun Special Lifting Devices with ANSI N14.6-1978 APPENDIX B - Summary of Stress Levels and Safety Factors in Head Lif t Rig Component Parts iii d Franklin Resear acommenwn.r .====

ch Center  !

_ _ ~ - _ , , . _ _

1 1

, - , 1

)

i i

TER-C5506-356 FORENORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.

Mr. F. W. Vosbury, Mr. C. R. Bomberger, and Mr. I. H. Sargent contributed to the technical preparation of this report through a subcontract with WESTEC Services, Inc.

s e

2 0 0 e.,

t i

g

] r,.numn n

'D0u ,en c ,

A Ehampo et The Pensen bumme l 1-*

4 TER-C5506-356

1. INTRODUCTI0tt 1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEN This technical evaluation report documents an independent review of general lo.id handling policy and procedures at the Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD) Fort Calhoun Station. This evaluation was performed with the following objectives o to assess conformance to the general load handling guidelines of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" [1],

Section 5.1.1 o to assess conformance to'the interim protection measures of NUREG-0612, Section 5.3.

4 4

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND Generic Technical Activity Task A-36 was established by the 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 in 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 l

information concerning the control of heavy loads near spent fuel.

The results of Task A-36 were reported in NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Ioads 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.

l

' In order to upgrade measures provided to control the handling of heavy loads, the staff developed a series of guidelines designed to achieve a ,

two-part objective using an accepted approach or protection philosophy. The first part of the objective, achieved through a set of general guidelines identified in NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1, is to ensure that all load handling systems at nuclear power plants are designed and operated so that their l

4UUUU Frank 5n Research Ceneer A Oneuen af The musume tuunne

, i i l i

TER-C5506-356 probability of failure is uniformly small and appropriate for the critical I

tasks in which they are employed. The second part of the staff's objective, achieved through guidelines identified in NUREG-0612, Sections 5.1.2 through 5.1. 5, is to ensure that, for load handling systems used in areas where their f ailure 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 consequences is quantified in NUREG-0612 into four accident analysis evaluation criteria.

A defense-in-depth approach was used to develop the staff guidelines in order to ensure that all load handling systems are designed anr* operated so

\

that their probability of failure is appropriately small. The intent of the guidelines is to ensure that licensees of all operating nuclear power plants perform the following:

o define safe load travel paths, through procedures and operator j

training, so that, to the extent practical, heavy loads are not carried over or near irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment i o provide sufficient operator training, handling system design, load I

handling instructions, and equipment inspection to assure reliable operation of the handling system.

Staff guidelines resulting from the foregoing are tabulated in Section 5 of NUREG-0612. Section 6 of NUREG-0612 recommended that a program be initiated to ensure that these guidelines are implemented at operating plants.

l 1.3 FIJurr-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND On December 22, 1980, the NBC* issued a letter [3] to OPPD, the Licensee for.the Fort Calhoun Station, requesting that the Licensee review provisions for handling ~and control of heavy loads at the Fort Calhoun Station, evaluate these provis ans with respect to the guidelines of NUREG-0612, and provide certain additional information to be used for an independent determination of FrankEn Research Center A Deans of The Puunes human

t TER-C5506-356 i

ccnformance to these guidelines. OPPD responded to this request on June 22, 1981 [4], November 30, 1981 [5], December 21, 1981 (6), and January 21, 1982

[7].

Based upon this information, a draft technical evaluation report (TER) w:s prepared and informally transmitted to the Licensee. A telephone ernference call was subsequently conducted on February 9, 1982 involving ecpresentatives of the NRC, FRC, and OPPD to discuss unresolved issues in this draft TER. OPPD provided additional submittals on June 2, 1982 [8],

September 1, 1983 [9], and April 6, 1984 (10], which have been incorporated into this final TER.

f i

U00 Frenidin Research Center A Chemn of The Pasume humans

s TER-C5506-356

2. EVALUATION l

This section presents a point-by-point evaluation of load handling provisions at the Fort Calhoun Station with respect to NRC staff guidelines provided in NUREG-0612. Separate subsections are provided for both the general guidelines of NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1 and the interim measures of NUREG-0612, Section 5.3. In each case, the guidelines or interim measure is presented, Licensee-provided information is summarized and evaluated, and a conclusion as to the extent of compliance, including recommended additional action where appropriate, is presented. These conclusions are summarized in Table 2.1.

2.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES 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 of the following criteria from Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612:

i Guideline 1 - Safe Imad Paths l Guideline 2 - Iced 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 by all overhead handling systems that 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. '!be Licensee's verification of the extent to which these guidelines have been satisfied and an evaluation of this verification are contained in the succeeding paragraphs.

4 Cen UUUU 4on Franidin

.evm.rimmeReneerch.mau.ter

e Telate 2.1 Fos t Calhoun/puseEG-0612 Congallance Matsia g teelght . .

m of Guideline I Guideline 2 Suaeses antesam Guideline 3 Guideline 4 Guideline 5 Guideline 6 Guideline # etse tus e ! Mwemus e 6

> Capacity sale Imad Caane Opesatot Special Lifting eseavy toads , Long Pathe Crane - Test Ted.selcal Special Ps ocedur e s Tsaintne Devices slines and Inspect 8un Csane Deelga specittoatione at t ent noen 5 1. Posar C ane

& Main escut Ile -- --

C -- --

C C --

f aus geook te -- --

C --

C C --

besctor vessel 120 m C --

R -- --

y Closure need -- --

C Upper Guide

-I Structure et R C --

R - -- -- --

C Menelle le a C -- --

C -- --

shielde C

2. aust!!asy tullding Crane seein seouk 15 -- --

C --

aus nook C C --

le -- --

C -- --

C C --

ue --

i Spent Fuel l B C -- --

C -- --

C Pool Gates --

taeu Fuel '

1.5 m C -- --

C --

Deceipt C --

Spent ruel 30 A C -- --

C -- --

C St.ipplag Cast --

3. Concrete slab -- -- --

C -- --

C Demoval senno- C -- --

tell

4. Weste Evapo- -- -- --

C --

setot Equip.

C C -- --

Isand t eng

.no..li g

- - . . .-. . - - . - _ . W

5. telecatinia -- -- --

C -- --

C C A Deeln area -- --

g sesnos a iI un O

m

6. Intate -- -- --

C -- . -. -

l C C -- --

ta

$ttuctuse Cs.no C = I.lcensee ct ion complies uith NOI4.G-0612 Guideline.

Ne 1.icensee leas geoga.mt sevissons os musJilicat aosam whee ls meet

--a tant egyl ical. le. Ll e totent ut the Nute:G-06 32 Guadeline.

h TER-C5506-356 2.1.1 Overhead Heavy Load Handling Systems

a. Scamary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions The Licensee's review of overhead handling systems identified the following cranes to be subject to the criteria of NUREG-0612:

o containment polar crane o auxiliary building crane .

o concrete slab removal monorail o waste evaporator equipment handling monorail o deborating domineralizer area monorail o intake structure crane other handling devices identified by the Licensee have been excluded from compliance with NUREG-0612 for the following reasons:

1. No safety-related equipment or irradiated fuel is located in close proximity to the handling system:

o turbine building crane o turbine building hoist o drusating area crane o maintenance shop crane o filter area crane

2. The handling devices are sole-purpose systems that are used only when the related equipment has been placed out of service in accordance with plant technical specifications or administrative procedures o diesel generator area monorails

3. The system does not carry loads that satisfy the weight requirement for a heavy loads o containment jib crane.

b. Evaluation and Conclusion The Licensee's exclusion of the listed load handling systems from compliance with NUREG-0612 is consistent with NUREG-0612 on the basis of the Licensee's justification that (1) no systems or components required for plant shutdces or decay heat removal are located in the areas where the handling UUUU Franidin Reneerch Center

_ __ _ - _ --___ WlW2 - -

6 TER-C5506-356 systems are located, (2) the devices are sole-purpose systems and are used only whe'n the equipment is out of service, or (3) heavy loads are not carried by the excluded systems.

2.1.2 Safe Load Paths [ Guideline 1, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.l(111

" 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 impact. These load paths should be defined in procedures, shown on equipment layout drawings, and clearly marked on the floor in the area where the load is to be handled.

Deviations from defined. load paths should require written alternative procedures approved by the plant safety review committee."

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions Two areas of concern have been identified by the Licensee where a load drop may damage fuel or safe shutdown equipment: the containment butiding and the auxiliary building. The Licensee stated that load corridors in the auxiliary building will be developed for movements within the spent fuel pool interlocks to govern movements of the following loads:

o spent fuel pool gate o new fuel o spent fuel racks ~

o shipping casks.

In the containment building, similar load corridors will be developed to control movements of the following loads:

o missile shields

• o reactor vessel closure head o upper guide structure o ventilation ducts.

Procedures in both locations will designate the applicable safe load l

corridors for load handling in the containment and over the restricted area in l the auxiliary building and will include drawings of the corridors. In addition, in lieu of marked load paths, crane signalmen with duties defined in procedures will be responsible for walking the load corridor and verifying

-7 b Franidin Research Center A Dhaman of The husume humane

a l

TER-C5506-356 that no obstructions are present in the travel path. Regarding deviation from the safe load corridors, the Licensee stated that any deviations from established plant procedures would require plant review committee approval.

b. Evaluation Information has been provided by the Licensee which demonstrates that load corridors developed and implemented at Fort Calhoun Station are consis-tent with the intentions of this guideline. Further, these predetermined pathways will be incorporated into procedures, are identified by drawings in these procedures, require the use of suitable visual aids (s,ignalmen) to ensure that load corridors are properly followed, and require an appropriate level of approval prior to deviation.

c. Conclusion Development and implementation of safe, load paths at Fort Calhoun Station are performed in a manner consistent with Guideline 1.

2.1.3 Load Handling Procedures (Guideline 2, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1. l(2) 1

" 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 sequence to be followed in handling the loads defining the safe path; and other special precautions."

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions The Licensee stated that written procedures govern the handling of each heavy load, with the exception of the spent fuel shipping cask. These

\

- procedures include identification of required equipment, inspections and acceptance criteria required before the movement of the load, and steps and proper sequence to be followed in handling the load. These procedures meet the intent of Section 5.1.l(2) of NUREG-0612.

4 _a_

UUUU FrankRn Reneerth Center A Canamn at The Prussen buenas

1

~

i TER-C5506-356 A procedure for the spent fuel shipping cask will be written prior to first use of the shipping cask. At present, the Licensee does not have a shipping cask.

b. Evaluation and Conclusion Procedures under development at Fort Calhoun Station are consistent in content with those specified in Guideline 2.

2.1.4 Crane Operator Training [ Guideline 3, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.l(3)1

" Crane operators should be trained, qualified and conduct themseleves in accordance with Chapter 2-3 of ANSI B30.2-1976, ' Overhead and Gantry Cranes ' [11] . "

I

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions OPPD has stated that the current training program,," Control of Crane Operations," does comply with ANSI B30.2-1976, and that ' cane operators will be advised of new requirements resulting from NUREG-0612. <

b. Evaluation and Conclusion Training and qualification of crane operators at Fort Calhoun Station are performed in a manner consistent with Guideline 3.

2.1.5 Special Lifting Devices [ Guideline 4. MUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1(4)]

"Special lifting devices should satisfy the guidelines of ANSI N14.6-1978,

' Standard for special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or Note for Nuclear Naterials' [12]. This i'

• standard 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 I

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."

!. n c 0 mr,snamn,w ,ch c.n ,

( ,. ,-

[ , _, .. _

I I i

l i

l t

i TER C5506-356

{ a. Sunuaarv of Licensee Statements and Conclusions bPPDstatedthatthespec,ialliftingdevicesofconcern(thereactor closure head and the upper guide structure lif t rigs) were designed and '

purchased in 1968. Steel members and components were designed in accordance with the guidelines of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

Edition 6. Although this code does not provide detailed guidelines, it does provide, in the Licensee's opinion, sufficient requirements to achieve a safe design of steel components. The Licensee has also performed a detailed comparison of these special lif ting devices with the specific items related to load handling reliability contained in ANSI N14.6-1978. The results of this comparison are contained in Appe'ndices A and B.

In addition, for the upper guide structure lift rig, information provided by the vendor indicated that design safety factors of 5 on ultimate strength and 2 on yield strength were used in designing this devices. Since ANSI N14.6-1978 did not exist at the time of manufacture, the Licensee stated that using a design factor of 2 instead of 3 was considered adequate.

The Licensee stated that an inspection program will be developed for the reactor closure head and upper guide structure lifting rigs. This program will consist of visual inspections of all welds of both devices each refueling outage. Nondestructive examination (NDE) of all critical welds will also be performed of all critical welds in each lifting device at intervals not to exceed five refueling outages. The inspection procedures will be performed in accordance with Section 5.1 of ANSI N14.6-1978 by qualified control personnel.

'ib date, no load test in excess of normal operating load has been performed for the vessel head lifting rig, and it is the Licensee's opinion thgt such a load test is not practical to perform for this device. It is the l Licensee's position that the device is of suitably simple design, has ample safety margins, and was fabricated under quality control conditions so that a i

load test is unnecessary to demonstrate reliability and proof of workmanship.

In conclusion, the Licensee stated that critical items such as design stress, inspection, and testing have been addressed and meet the intent of

! A  ;

L ll00lFr,enen,~n

o. e,ch

- c.n ,

i

l s

l l

1 l

l TER-C5506-356 ANSI N14.6. In the Licensee's opinion it has been demonstrated that safe engineering practices were used in the design of these rigs. l

b. Evaluation l

The Licensee performed as extensive comparison of the two lifting devices of concern with the criteria of ANSI N14.6-1978. On the basis of this comparison, both the head lifting rig and the upper guide structure lift riq are noted to substantially comply with ANSI requirements. Both lifting rigs satisfy the requirements of Section 3.1 (Designer's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that information regarding Sections 3.3 and 4.1 may be difficult to obtain since it has been several years since the devices were fabricated, and proof of quality workmanship can be evaluated with the continuing compliance testing program. Regarding design safety margins, detailed analysis performed by the Licensee indicated that two components of the head lift rig do not satisfy the design margins of 3 and 5. Although these components are not in strict compliance with the ANSI requirements, they have been clearly identified and margins to yield and ultimate have been adequately determined so that appropriate considerations can be incorporated into periodic inspection (visual and NDE) to compensate for the existing condition.

The programs that the Licensee identified to comply with Section 5.1 of ANSI N14.6 meet the intent of this guideline. Neither device, however, has been load tested to 150% of the maximum load carried as specified by ANSI N14.6-1978, Sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.1. The Licensee indicated that the upper '

guide structure lift rig has been tested to 125t; this overstress is considered adequate to meet the intent of the guideline. Although no load tes't has been performed for the reactor closure head lift rig, information has been provided by the Licensee to clearly establish the proof of workmanship I

that the load test was intended to accomplish. Specifically, the Licensee determined that, with limited exceptions, ample margins exist for this device, the device is of reasonably simple design, and assurances have been provided that suitable quality controls were useo during the fabrication of the device.

l 1 _ranklin Rese_ arch._ Center ,

s TER-C5506-356 Therefore, it is agreed that further load testing of this device is not required.

Proposed inspection programs for these devices are also acceptable, based on the Licensee's statement that visual and NDE will be performed by quality control personnel in accordance with the requirements of the ANSI standard.

Further, relaxation of the inspection intervals (each refueling outage for visual inspections and at periods not to exceed five refueling outages for NDE) is also reasonable based upon the limited frequency of use of these devices.

c. Conclusion and Recommendations Special lifting devices in use at Fort Calhoun Station were designed, fabricated, and, based upon continuing compliance programs, will continue to be used in a manner that assures load handling reliability consistent with that required by Guideline 4.

2.1.6 ff.fting Devices (Not Specially Designed) [ Guideline 5, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.l(5)1

" Lifting devices that are not specially designed should be installed and used in accordance with the guideline of ANSI B30.9-1971, ' Slings' (13].

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 slings to use on only certain cranes, the slings should be clearly marked as to the cranes with which they may be used."

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions The Licensee stated that non-special lifting devices are installed and i

used in accordance with ANSI B30.9-1971, including dynamic and static loading.

b. Evaluation l

l l The Licensee satisfies the requirements of this guideline on the basis that slings are installed and used per e'.NSI B30.9-1971. In addition, Fort 4UUUU Frerddin Research Center  !;

4ommun. n.ramminuens._ _ __ _ - - - - -- -- -- -- --

i

~

i l

l

, TER-C5506-356 j Calhoun Station satisfies the requirements for incorporating dynamic loads into sling selection and use.

I i c. Conclusion l

Selection and use of slings at the Fort Calhoun Station are consistent I with Guideline 5.

l l

[ 2.1.7 Cranes (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance) (Guideline 6, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.l(6)1

! "The crane should be inspected, tested, and maintained 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 (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)."

l a. Summary of Licensee Statements and conclusions The Licensee stated that the crane inspection, testing, and maintenance program at Fort Calhoun Station complies with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI B30.2-1976.

b. Evaluation and Crnclusion Inspection, testing, and maintenance of cranes of Fort Calhoun Station are performed in accordance with Guideline 6.

2.1. 8 Crane Design [ Guideline 7, NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.l(7)1 "The crane should be designed to meet the applicable criteria and i

guidelines of Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976, ' Overhead and Gantry Cranes,' and of CHAA-70, ' Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes' [14]. 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."

4 UUUU Franklin Research Center A Chaman of The Psames became

• s TER-C5506-356

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions i

OPPD evaluated its overhead heavy load handling systems for design compliance with CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2-1976.

The Licensee stated that the auxiliary t,uilding crane is currently being retrofitted and will be classified as a " single-failure-proof" retrofitted trolley system. This crane was designed to meet ANSI B30.2-1976 and CMAA-70 standards.

, The monorails and intake structure cranes were not designed to the CHAA-70 code or the ANSI B30.2 Chapter 2.1 criteria. However, the intake structure crane was designed to EOCI-61 criteria. With regard to the design of the monorails, the CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2 codes do not specify criteria for their design.

The containment polar crane was purchased to Gibbs, Hill, Durham, and Richardson (GBD&R) specifications for hoisting equipment. These specifications were based on EOCI-61, " Specifications for Electric Overhead-Traveling Cranes" and USAS Safety Code B30.2-1967. The Licensee compared the design of the intake structure crane and the containment polar crane point by point with CMAA-70. As a result of this comparison, the following items of difference between EOCI-61 and CMAA-70 were noted and, where available, OPPD's compliance with the requirements of CMAA-70 are noted for these cranes.

1. Torsional forces. CMAA-70, Article 3.3.2.1.3 requires that twisting moments due to overhanging loads and lateral forces acting eccentric to the horizontal neutral axis of a girder be calculated on the basis of the distance between the center of gravity of the load, or force center line, and the girder shear center measured normal to the force vector. EOCI-61 states that such moments are to be calculated with reference to the girder center of gravity. For girder sections symmetrical about each principal central axis (e.g., box section or I-beam girders commonly used in cranes subject to this review), the shear center coincides with the centroid of the girder section and there is no difference between the two requirements. Such is not the case

{ for nonsyimmetrical girder sections (e.g., channels) . Nonsymmetrical girders l were not used on the containment polar or on the intake structure crane.

I L b 0 Frankun Research Center A Dhumus of The human kuunne

_ _ ...._, . . . , . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . ~ . _ _ , , _ . _ _

8 l

l TER-C5506-356 '

2. Longitudinal stiffeners. CMAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1 specifies (1) the maximum allowable web depth / thickness (h/t) ratio for box girders using longitudinal stiffeners and (2) requirements concerning the location and minimum moment of inertia for such stiffeners. EOCI-61 allows the use of I

longitudinal stiffeners but provides no similar guidance. Ratios for h/t comply with CMAA-70 for the containment polar crane. The moment of inertia is t

5.1% less than that required by CMAA-70 and is considered acceptable by OPPD.

No longitudinal stiffeners were used on the intake structure crane.

3. Fatique considerations. CMAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1.3 provides substantial guidance with respect to fatigue failure by indicating allowable stress ranges for various structural members in joints under repeated loads.

EOCI-61 does not address fatigue failure. Since the polar crane lifts loads of less than its design condition on a 2-lifts-per-refueling basis, the near design loading cycle is not.close to the CMAA-70 guidelines, and is therefore not of consequence to this crane. The intake. structure crane lifts loads weighing less than design capacity; the requirements of CMAA-70 are not considered to be of consequence for this crane.

4. Drum design. CMAA-70, Article 4.4.1 requires that the drum be designed to withstand combined crushing and bending loads. EOCI-61 requires only that the drum be designed to withstand maximum load, bending and crushing loads, with no stipulation that these loads be combined. No information is available regarding this issue.

5. Drum design. CMAA-70, Article 4.4.3 provides recosumended drum groove

( depth and pitch. EOCI-61 provides no similar guidance. Drum groove depth and i

i pitch on the containment polar crane comply with the recommendations of CMAA-70. No information is available regarding this issue for the intake structure crane.

6. Bridge brake design. OEAA-70, Article 4.7.2.2 requires that bridge brakes, for cranes with cab control and the cab on the trolley, be rated at least 75% of bridge motor torque. This issue is not of consequence since the cab control, cab-on-trolley arrangement was not ur-d at Fort Calhoun.

l.

l 0 Frenidin Research Center l 4 on== .r Th. menen nuns.

__,......,m-.,y . - - . , , _ , . - . ,.,,_,.,_,,.,,,_.,,.m,,

s i-TER-C5506-356 j 7. Hoist brake design. CMAA-70, Article 4.7.4.2 requires that hoist j

holding brakes, when used with c method of a control braking other than mechanical, have torque ratings no less than 125% of the hoist motor torque.

l EOCI-61 requires a hoist holding brake torque rating of no less.than 100% of the hoist motor torque without regard to the type of control brake employed.

l No information is available regarding the polar crane hoist holding brake f other than that it was designed to EOCI-61. OPPD states that the 100%

provides sufficient margin of safety. For the intake structure crane, hoist f brakes are rated at 150% and are therefore in compliance.

j 8. Bumpers and stops. CMAA-70, Article 4.12 provides substantial t

guidance for the design and installation of bridge and trolley bumpers and '

ctops for cranes which operate near the end of bridge and trolley travel.

j Because it is a polar crane, no bumpers are necessary for the polar crane f bridge. Bumpers and stops are provided for the trolley near the end of l trolley travel. Spring-type bumpers on the trolley and rubber bumpers on the i

bridge satisfy OtAA-70 requirements for the intake structure crane.

i

! 9. Static control systems. CMAA-70, Article 5.4.6 provides substantial guidance for the use of static control systems. EOCI-61 provides guidance for magnetic control systems only. The Fort.Calhoun polar crane uses a static control system; however, insufficient information is available in order to cddress the requirements of CMhA-70.

The intake structure crane uses a full magnetic variable speed crane controls and therefore satisfies CMAA-70.

j 10. Restart protection. CMhA-70, Article 5.6.2 requires that cranes not equipped with spring-return controllers or momentary-contact pushbuttons be provided with a device that will disconnect all motors upon power failure and trill pot permit any motor to be restarted until the controller handle is 4

brought to the OFF position. OPPD states that the polar crane is equipped with l momentary contact push buttons and therefore complies with CMAA-70. The intake structure crane uses a relay that drops out on loss of power, deener-gizing the crane motors and requiring that the crane be restarted; such a i

cystem satisfies CMAA-70 requirements.

4 UUUU Frenadin Research Center

_********W _ _: . - .

1 TER-C5506-356 ,

b. Evaluation Fort Calhoun Station satisfies the requirements of Guideline 7 for the -

auxiliary building crane on the basis of the Licensee's verification that this .

crane was designed and built to CMAA-70 and AMSI B30.2-1976 standards. -

In the case of the containment polar crane and intake structure crane, =

the deviations from full compliance with those provisions of CMAA-70 noted by the Licensee are not felt to result in a substantial reduction in overall reliability of those cranes. {

None of these deviations by themselves or in the limited combinations reported are expected to result in a measurable -

difference in the proba:)ility of a load drop from these cranes compared to  !

cranes constructed in strict compliance with CMAA-70.

c. Conclusion The design of overhead electric traveling cranes at the Fort Calhoun 2 Station is consistent with Guideline 7. -

2.2 INTERIM PRCTfECTION MEASURES The NRC has established six interim protection measures to be implemented at operating nuclear power plants to provide reasonable assurance that no heavy loads will be handled over the spent fuel pool and that measures exist to reduce the potential for accidental load drops to impact on fuel in the ,

core or spent fuel pool. Four of the six interim measures of the report

]

consist of general Guideline 1, Safe Ioad Paths; Guideline 2, Load Handling Procedures; Guideline 3, Crane Operator Training; and Guideline 6, Cranes (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance). The tse remaining interim measures -

cover the following criteria:

1. Heavy load technical specifications

2. Special review for heavy loads handled over the core.

Licensee implementation and evaluation of these interim protection measures are contained in the succeeding pas.agraphs of this section.

rankNn Research Center A Ossumen of The human kummes

s TER-C5506-356 2.2.1 Technical Specifications (Interim Protection Measure 1, NUREG-0612, Section 5. 3 (1) ] .

" Licenses for all operating reactors not having a single-failure-proof overhead crane in the fuel storage pool area should be revised to include a specification comparable to Standard Technical Specification 3.9.7,

' Crane Travel - Spent Fuel Storage Pool Building,' for PWR's and Standard Technical Specification 3.9.6.2, ' Crane Travel,' for BWR's, to prohibit handling of heavy loads over fuel in the storage pool until implementation of measures which satisfy the guidelines of Section 5.1."

a. Summary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions The Licensee stated that the potential to impact irradiated fuel is minimized by not allowing loads te be carried over irradiated fuel and by the fact that a new retrofitted " single-failure-proof" crane in the auxiliary building is being installed.

b. Evaluation and Conclusion The Fort Calhoun Station will satisfy this interim protection measure by providing a single-failure-proof crane.

i 2.2.2 Administrative Controls (Interim Protection Measures 2, 3, 4, and 5, NUREG-0612, Section 5.3 (2) - 5.3 ( 5) ]

" Procedural or administrative measures [ including safe load paths, load handling procedures, crane operator training, and crane inspection)...

can be accomplished in a short time period and need not be delayed for completion of evaluations and modifications to satisfy the guidelines of Section 5.1 of [NUREG-0612]." ,

b. Evaluation The specific requirements for load handling administrative controls are contained in NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1, Guidelines 1, 2, 3, and 6. The Licensee's compliance with these guidelines has been evaluated in Sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.I. 4, and 2.1.7, respectively, of this report.

4UUUU Frenidin Research Center 4 ci w w r s mann,

___==.

a TER-C5506-356

b. Conclusions and Reconssendations Conclusions and recommendations concerning the Licensee's compliance with these administrative controls are contained in Sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.1.7 of this report.

2.2.3 Special Reviews for Heavy Loads Over the Core [ Interim Protection Measure 6, NUREG-0612, Section 5. 3 (6) 1 "Special attention should be given to procedures, equipment, and personnel for the handling of heavy loads over the core, such as vessel internals or vessel inspection tools. This special review should include the following for these loads: (1) review of procedures for installation

• of rigging or lifting devices and movement of the load to assure that sufficient detail is provided and that instructions are clear and conciser (2) visual inspections of load bearing components of cranes, slings, and special lifting devices to identify flaws of deficiencies that could lead to failure of the components (3) appropriate repair and replacement of defective components; and (4) verify that the crane operators have been properly trained and are familiar with specific procedures used in handling these loads, e.g. , hand signals, conduct of operations, and content of procedures."

a. Sunusary of Licensee Statements and Conclusions The Licensee stated that clear and concise instructions for handling heavy loads over the core will be provided. Also, requirements for necessary inspections will be included.

If required, appropriate repairs will be made.

In addition, only qualified crane operators are allowed to operate cranes; they are also briefed prior to the start of the procedures.

b. Evaluation and Conclusion OPPD complies with this interim protection measure.

I l

i I

i i

l

l. p l UUUU FrankNn Research Center t Acemener m r=uanmeses,

. . . , ,. __-4 . , . _ . _ _ , . - _ . . _ . . . . _ . - , , . . , _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . , ,

n TER-C5506-356

3. CONCLUSION This summary is provided to consolidate the results of the evaluation contained in Section 2 concerning individual NRC staff guidelines into an overall evaluation of heavy load handling at the Fort Calhoun Station.

Overall conclusions and recommended Licensee actions, where appropriate, are

provided with respect to both. general provisions for load handling (NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1) and completion of the staff recommendations for interim protection (NUREG-0612, Section 5.3).

3.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ICAD HANDLING The NRC staff has established seven guidelines concerning provisions for handling heavy loads in the area of the reactor vessel, near stored spent fuel, or in other areas where an accidental load drop could damage equipment l

required for safe shutdown or decay heat removal. The intent of these guidelines is twofold. A plant conforming to these guidelines will have ~

developed and implemented, through procedures and operator training, safe load travel paths such that, to the maximum extent practical, heavy loads are not carried over or near irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment. A plant conforming to these guidelines will also have provided sufficient operator training, handling system design, load handling instructions, and equipment inspection to ensure reliable operation of the handling system. As detailed in Section 2, it has been found that load handling ortrations at Fort Calhoun i

Station can be expected to be conducted in a generally reliable manner consistent with the staff's objectives as expressed in these guidelines.

3.2. INTERIM PROTECTION The NRC staff has established certain measures (NUREG-0612, Section 5.3) i that should be initiated to provide reasonable assurance that handling of heavy loads will be performed in a safe manner until final implementation of  ;

the general guidelines of NUREG-0612, Section 5.1 is complete. Specified measures include: the implementation of a technical specification to prohibit I g i UUUU Frenidn Research Center ,

A onemme el The memen ummas

s TER-C5506-356 the handling of heavy loads over fuel in the storage pool; compliance with Guidelines 1, 2, 3, and 6 of NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1; a review of load handling procedures and operator training; and a visual inspection program, including component repair or replacement as necessary of cranes, slings, and special lif ting devices to eliminate deficiencies that could lead to component failure. Evaluation of information provided by the Licensee indicates that all interim protection actions have been satisfactorily implemented at Fort Calhoun Station.

4} Frenidin UlJU! Research Center A m w h r - m=== __ . _ _ _ _

e TER-C5506-356

4. REFERENCES

1. NRC

" Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" NUREG-0612, July 1980

2. V. Stello, Jr. (NRC)

Letter to all Licensees

Subject:

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

l

3. D. G. Eisenhut (NRC)

Letter to All Operating Reactors i

Subject:

Control of Heavy h ds December 22, 1980

4. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy h ds i June 22, 1981

5. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads ,

November 30, 1981

6. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads December 21, 1981

7. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clarf. (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy hds January 21, 1982

8. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Beavy Loads June 2, 1982

9. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy h ds September 1, 1983) rankNn Resear

~~ ch Center .

f TER-C5506-356

10. W. C. Jones (OPPD)

Letter to J. Miller (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads April 6, 1984

11. American National Standards Institute

" Overhead and Gantry Cranes" New York: 1976 ANSI B30.2-1976

12. American National Standards Institute

" Standard for Lif ting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 Pounds . (4500 kg) or More for Nuclear Materials" ANSI N14.6-1978

13. American National Standards Institute

" Slings" ANSI B30.9-1971

14. Crane Manufacturers Association of America

" Specification for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes" Pittsburgh, PA CMAA-70 e

a l

l i

i l ranidin Research Center A Damen et The Feuen husene

APPENDIX A COMPARISON OF FORT CALHOUN SPECIAL LIFTING DEVICES WITH ANSI N14.6-1978 l

l .

i ah i

. .O_Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bergsmn Frarudn Partn.ey, Phda . Pa 19103 (215)448 1000 l

i 1

Appendix A Comparison of Fort Calhoun Special Lifting Devices with ANSI N14.6-1978 ANSI N14.6-1978 Reactor Closure Upper Guide Structure Section Reference Head Lift Rio Lift Riq Section 3.1 3.1.1 Limitations on the Used only for reactor Used only for upper use of the lifting vessel head. guide structure.

device.

3.1.2 Identification of All components are All components are critical components considered critical. considered critical.

and definition of critical character-istics.

3.1.3 Signed stress Information verified Unable to address for analyses, demonstra- from CE report S/102/P lack of information ting appropriate dated Aug. 14, 1970. from the vendor.

margins of safety. See Appendix B. Margins of safety were in accordance with AISC, 6th Edition.

3.1.4 Indication of per- No repairs are contem- No repairs are missible repair plated, so no procedures contemplated, so no procedures. are available. procedures are available.

Section 3.2 3.2.1 Use of stress design See Appendix B. Designed with a Sal factors of 3 for min- safety factor (ultimate) .

inum yield strength In addition, use of a and 5 for ultimate design factor of 2 strength.

instead of 3 (on yield) is considered adequate.

3.2.4 Similar stress design Complies. Unable to address for factors for load See Appendix 5. lack of information bearing pins, links, from the vendor.

and adapters.

3.2.5 Slings used comply Complies. Complies, with ANSI B30.9.

t A-1 000u r,.eksn n ,en c.n ,

A Guaman ed The Fsupues m

i

./

Appendix A (Cont.)

ANSI N14.6-1978 Reactor Closure Upper Guide Structure Section Reference Maad Lift Riq Lift Rig 3.2.6 Subject materials to Unable to address for Unable to address for dead weight test or lack of information lack of information charpy impact test. from the vendor. from the vendor.

Section 3.3 l 3.3.1 Consideration of Unable to address for Unable to address for problems related to lack of information lack of information possible lamellar from vendor. from vendor.

tearing.

3.3.4 Design shall ensure Complies (CE Report).

Unable to address for even distribution of

• lack of information the load. from vendor. However, the AISC, 6th Edition requires that design shall ensure even distribution of the load.

3.3.5 Retainers fitted for Unable to address due Unable to address due load carrying compo- to lack of information to lack of information i

nonts which may from the vendor. from the vendor.

become inadvertently i disengaged.

Section 4.1 4.1.3 verify selection and Materials verified from Materials verified from use of materials. the list indicated on the list indicated drawings, on drawings.

I 4.1.4 Compliance with fab- Fabricated in accord- Fabricated in accord-

! rication practice. 'ance with AISC, ance with AISC, 6th 6th Edition. Edition.

4.1 5 Qualification of Unable to address due Unable to address due welders, procedures, to lack of information to lack of information and operators. from the vendor. from the vendor.

l i l

/ {

m- -- 1

/

s Appendix A (Cont.)

ANSI N14.6-1978 Reactor Closure Upper Guide Structure Section Reference Head Lift Riq Lift Rig 4.1.6 Provisions for a Unable to address due Unable to address due quality assurance to lack of information to lack of information program. from the vendor, from the vendor.

4.1.7 Provisions for iden- Unable to address due Unable to address due tification and certi- to lack of information to lack of information fication of equipment. from the vendor. from the vendor.

4.1.8 Verification that Unable to address due Unable to ' address due materials or services to lack of information to lack of information are produced under from the vendor. from the vendor.

appropriate controls and qualifications.

Section 5.1 5.1.3 Implementation of a By procedure visually By procedure visually periodic testing inspect prior to use. inspect prior to use.

schedule and a system to indicate date of

' expiration.

5.1.4 Provisions for estab- Proced' Je of Procedure MP-RC-7-2, lishing operating lift metailed guidelines for use procedures. in the L of RCVH of UGS lift rig.

procedk. eMP- AC-6-1, RC-6-2.

5.1.5 Identification of Subassemblies may Subassemblies may subassemblies which not be exchanged. not be exchanged.

may be exchanged.

5.1.6 Suitable markings. Complies. Complies.

l 5.1.7 Maintaining a full This requirement is This requirements is

. record of history. being met as follows: being met as follows:

(a) This device is used (a) This device is used to lift the reactor to lift the upper vessel head, only. guide structure, only.

(b) The lift rig is (b) The lift rig is qualified for this qualified for this load. load.

I l

l 1

l A-3

[

_ranidin Rese_ arch._

. Center

)

s Appendix A (Cont.)

ANSI N14.6-1978 \ Reactor Closure Upper Guide Structure Section Meferencg Head Lift Rio Lift Rig 5.1.7 (c) The lift rig is (c) The lift rig is (Cont. ) visually inspected visually inspected prior to every lift. prior to every lift.

(d) Se lift rig is (d) h e lift rig is ,

used twice during the used twice during the I

refueling outage only. refueling outage only.

5.1.8 Conditions for ee- Subject to visual Subject to visual moval from service. inspection. inspection.

Section 5.2 5.2.1 Ioad test to 1504 Load test was not per- Tested to 1254 and appropriate formed. However, the inspected prior to inspections prior lifting rigs have been use.

to initial use. inspected and used to rated loads for over 10 i

years without any defect.

5.2.2 Qualification of' Ho program established No program established

' replacement parts. for qualification of for qualification'of replacement parts. replacement parts.

Section 5.3 f ,

5.3.1 Satisfying annual Inspected prior to use Inspected prior to use load test or ins'pec- every 1.25-1.5 years every 1.25-1.5 years tion requirements, deperiding upon frequency depending upon frequency of refueling. of refueling.

5.3.2 Testingfollowkng Devices will be tested major maintenance.s Devices will be tested in accordance with in accordance with

ANSI requirements. ANSI requirements.

5.3 4 Testing 'after appli- Davices will be tested Devices will be tested cation of substantial in accordance with in accordance with stress. 4. ANSI requirements. ANSI requirements.

3 5.3.6 Inspections by oper- Visual inspections Visual inspections ating personnel..$ performed by operating L

performed by_ operating personnel in accordance personnn in'accordance j 3 with ANSI requirements. with ANSI requirements.

1-  !

- 5.3.7 Norioperating or Inspections are Inspections are 8

maintenance personnel. performed by quality performed by quality.

control personnel. control personnel.

1

\ < t M

/;t ,

A-4 i ,

UUUU 4o w Franhan n.r. nm.m. Research +/ Cen.ter

. 3

l APPENDIX B

SUMMARY

OF STRESS LEVELS AND SAFETY FACTORS IN HEAD LIFT RIG COMPONENT PARTS l

l l

i

- \

an &

Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bememn Franahn Perm.ey Phda . Pa I9103 (215: 448 1000

_ _ _ _ _ _, ..w, _ . , , , , , .p. ,. .__ _ , . . , _ ,.,_ , . _ , . , , , , , , . . w.. , , ._,, , . .,

l 1

Appendix B Summary of Stress Levels and Safety Factors in Head Lift Rig Component Parts Ratio = Ratio =

Stress Ult. Stress / Yld. Stress /

Element Condition Nor. Load Nor. Load Tripod Tension 14.7 7.4 Lifting Eye Shear 9.4 4.1 Tripod Lifting Tension 6.4 3.2 Eye Shank Lifting Shear 7.5 3.5 Frame Lug Bearing 5.3 2.85*

Pin Shear 9.9 6.6 Rod Tension 10.7 8.3 Shear (TED) 19.0 12.7 Clovis Shear 11.9 5.2 Bearing 8.9 4.5 Tension 28.0 14.2 Pipe and Compression 17.1 Pipe Weld Shear 22.8 13.9 Tubing Tension 6.4 4.5 Lifting Bearing 11.7 5.9 Eye and Weld Shear 16.7 7.2 Tube and Tension 7.6 4.7 Tube Shell Weld Shear 3.7* 2.3*

Shell Tension 48.3 30.0

• The safety margins are lower than required by ANSI N14.6-1978. However, the safety margins are not significantly lower than required.

l [Ref.: Combustion Engineering Calculation No. RS-102 dated August 24, 1970 l

! and CE Letter No. CE-18074-989 dated June 30, 1981.]

i-l I

I l l B-1 UUUU Fuklin Research Center ADenmanetTheF m tuunne

. - _ ,.-. _. _. - - - , . - ._.