ML20107G305
| ML20107G305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1985 |
| From: | Spangenberg F ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR U-0800, U-800, NUDOCS 8502260374 | |
| Download: ML20107G305 (5) | |
Text
.. _
U 0800 L30-85 (02-21)-6 B48-85 (02-21 )-6
'^*
ILLIN0/S POWER 00MPANY iP CLINTON POWER STATION. P.o. BOX 678. CLINTON ILLINOIS 61727 February 21, 1985 Docket No. 50-461 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No.2 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Control of Heavy Leads (NUREG-0612)
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
This letter is in responsa to concerns identified by the NRC staff in July 1984 regarding compliance to NUREG-0612. "Ccittrol of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants," (Phases I and II).
Illinois Power believes that the attached information addresses your concerns.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact'us.
Sincerel yours,
@d
.h F.A. hang berg Director - uclear Licensing and Configuration Nuclear Station Engineering LRR/em Attachment cc:
B. L. Siegel, NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office Regional Administrator, Region III USNRC Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety OY 8502260374 850221 I
I\\
PDR ADOCK 050004.h1 A
PDR i..
3, p l'
t,......,...: :...... n.:
y.
.:c
.+n r
.s
... e ve y
Attachment to U- 0600 L 30-85 02-21 )-6 B48-85 02-21 )-6 lA.120 Page 1 i
Response: to NRC Coticerns Regarding NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" (Phases I and II)
Phise 1 Guideline 1, Safe Load Paths Question:
Provide specific inf ormation on the method (s) of physically matking safe load paths.
Response
Illinois Power (IP) will c'.ther ynysically mark the load paths, or a second member of the load handling party will be responsible for assuring that the designated safe load path is followed. Any temporary c'..anges to safe load paths will be reviewed and approved by an individual with the appropriate traini.ng and education in the area of plant safety.
Question:
Complete the load drop analysis on the refueling floor in the Containment and its effect relative to safe load paths. Note that single failure proof lifting systems do not create exemption from safe load paths.
Response
The load drop analysis will be completed and safe load paths modified accordingly. The modified safe load paths will be incorporated into the appropriate procedures.
Guideline 3; Crane Operator Training:
Question:
The "no exceptions taken to ANSI B30.2-1976" for Crane Operator Training is in effect a commitment which could be better expressed.
As we see this it is a commitment that is consistent with the guideline.
Attachmsnt to U-0800 L30-85 (02-21 )-6 B48-85 (02-21 )-6 1A.120 Page 2
Response
IP intends to comply with ANSI B30.2-1976 for Crane Operator Training.
Guideline 4; Special Lifting Devices:
i Question:
Confirm the actual number of Special Lifting Devices. Verify that each meets ANSI N14.6-1978 and all are designed for static plus maximum dynamic loads.
Response
Two special lif ting devices will be used at Clinton, the RPV Head
~
Stron& ack and the RPV Dryer / Separator Strongback, both of which b
have been designed and supplied by General Electric (CE) to accomplish their intended Reactor Vessel servicing and refueling functions. Both strongbacks are designed to be single failure proof and should adequately comply with NUREG-0612 paragraph 5.1.1(4) as demonstrated below.
Relevant' Component Weights (approx.)/ Ratings. (tons):
a)
RPV Head 63 b)
Drywell Head 65 c)
RPV Head Strongack including nut tray, 25 nuts, washers d)
RPV Head Strongback excluding nut tray, 23 nuts, washers re)
-RPV Separator
-44.5 f)
RPV Dryer
'29.5-g);
RPV Dryer / Separator Strongback' 4
- h)_
RPV Head Strongback Rated Capacity-100 1)'.RPV' Dryer / Separator Strongback Rated 44.5-Capacity
.I.
~ RPV Head Stro' aback:
n
.e The RPV ' Head Strongback will also be 'used to remove the Drywell -
Head. The configuration ofithe strongback for Drywell Head removall
'is such that the combined weightsLof'the-RPV Head with strongback~
~ (a !+ c, from above) and ;Dryve11 Head with atrongback -(b :+ d,! from?
Vi
'above) are~approximately equal.
~
4 1 General Electric: design calculations for.the RPV Head'Strongb'ack
~
>were based on a'loadLof~100 tons (astimated total RPV Head /Strongback weight of.86.7 tons plus a.15% dynamic. allowance of:
~ 13 tons);and.provided safety factors greater;.than 3'with-respect toL-yield andl greater then.5'with respect co'the ultimate' strength}of the material.:
~
~ ~
~
b 3(6
~
'k
i
Attachment to U-0800 L 30-8 5 (02-21 )-6 B4 5-8 5 (02 -21 )-6 lA.120 Page 3 Although the approximate weights or (a c = 88 tons) or (b + d = 88
+
tons) from above differ slightly (approximately 1%) from the estimated 86.7 tons used in the GE calculation, it is neglibible considering the substantial -argin between the 15% dynamic allowance used in the GE calculation and the actual dynamic load imposed on the handling system of 2.5% ( % of the load per foot per minute of hoisting speed from CMAA
- 70; i.e.,
h% of 5 ft./ min. equals 2.5%).
The load test perforced was at 125 tons (125% of rated load) and is in lieu of the 150% load test specified in ANSI N14.6-1978.
II.
RPV Dryer / Separator Strongback GE design calculations for the Dryer / Separator Strongback were based on a load of 54.5 tons (which included a 15% dynamic allowance factor) and provided safety factors of greater than 3 with respect to yield and greater than 5 with respect to the ultimate strength of the material.
Although the approximate weight of (e + g = 48.5 tons) differs slightly (approximately 2%) from the estimated 47.4 tons used in the GE calculation, it is negligible considering the substantial
?
.m margir between the 15% dynamic allowance used in the GE calculation and the actual load imposed on the handling system of 2.5% (as discussed above for the RPV Head Strongback).
The load test performed was 55.625 tons (125% of rated load) and is in lieu of the 150% load test specified in ANSI N14.6-1978.
l Guideline 5; Nor-special slings:
Question:
The commitment made in the 03-17-83 submittal is consistent with the guideline for aon-special slings. Any sling commited to a dedicated use should be identified according to the NUREG-0612, Reference 5.1.1(5).
Response
Any dedicated slings at CPS will be used in accordance with Guideline 5.
Phase II Question:
The fuel transfer tube shield plug jib crane status was, and is pending.
Submit data justifying an exempt status or that it meets NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.
Attachmsnt to U-0800 L30-85 (02-21 )-6 B48-85 (02-21 )-6 1A.120 Page 4
Response
Mechanical stops were added to the jib crane to limit rotation such that a shield plug, if dropped, will not fall into the Spent Fuel Storage Pool.
It is therefore exempt from NUREG-0512.
Question:
.Three cranes under design were listed but no information was provided. Confirm if they are exempt or meet NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.5.
Auxiliary Roof Gantry, Fuel Channeling Hoist, Screen House Trash Basket Hoist.
Response
The subject craros are exempt from NUREG-0612 as described below:
The Auxiliary Roof Gantry Crane.is used to remove concrete roof plugs that form part of the secondary containment boundary and is therefore used only during plant shutdown.
The Fuel Channeling Hoist will be used to install channels on new fuel bundles..It will not lift " heavy loads" and is therefore out of the scope of NUREG-0612.
The plans to use a Screen' House Trash Basket Holst were cancelled;
- therefore, conformance to NUREG-0612-is.not required.
.w p.-
'Y'
, i l' t
3 b
Q-
_