NRC Generic Letter 1981-07

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Generic Letter 1981-007: Control of Heavy Loads
ML031080524
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000363, 05000355, Zimmer, 05000578, Fort Saint Vrain, Washington Public Power Supply System, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Bailly, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Cherokee, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/03/1981
From: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
GL-81-007, NUDOCS 8103120014
Download: ML031080524 (11)


4

.01ES

P/3/ L

ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES

Docket No. 50-348 Docket No. 50-3 Farley Unit 1 Indian Point Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 Docket No. 50-247 Arkansas Unit 1 Indian Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-368 Docket 50-286 Arkansas Unit 2 Indian Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-317 Docket No. 50-155 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Big Rock Point Docket No. 50-318 Docket No. 50-255 Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Palisades Docket No. 50-293 Docket No. 50-409 Pilgrim Unit 1 Lacrosse Docket No. 50-325 Docket No. 50-269 Brunswick Unit 1 Oconee Unit 1 Docket No. 50-324 Docket No. 50-270

Brunswick Unit 2 Oconee Unit 2 Docket No. 50-261 Docket No. 50-287 H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Oconee Unit 3 Docket No. 50-10 Docket No. 50-334 Dresden Unit 1 Beaver Valley Unit 1 Docket No. 50-237 Docket No. 50-302 Dresden Unit 2 Crystal River 3 Docket No. 50-249 Docket No. 50-335 Dresden Unit 3 St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-254 Docket No. 50-250

Quad-Cities Unit 1 Turkey Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-265 Docket No. 50-251 Quad-Cities Unit 2 Turkey Point Unit 4 Docket No. 50-295 Docket No. 50-321 Zion Unit 1 Edwin I. Hatch Unit 1 Docket No. 50-304 Zion Unit 2 Docket No. 50-366 Edwin I. Hatch Unit 2 \Q

Docket No. 50-213 Docket No. 50-315 Connecticut Yankee (Haddam Neck) D. C. Cook Unit 1 ABElD0-1 SloBI200l 4

- 2 -

Docket No. 50-316 Docket No. 50-344 Docket No. 50-305 D. C. Cook Unit 2 Trojan Kewaunee Docket No. 50-331 Docket No. 50-333 Docket No. 50-29 Duane Arnold FitzPatrick Yankee-Rowe Docket No. 50-219 Docket No. 50-267 Docket No. 50-339 Oyster Creek Unit 1 Ft. St. Vrain Ndrth Anna 2 Docket No. 50-309 Docket No. 50-272 Docket No. 50-311 Maine Yankee Salem Unit 1 Salem 2 Docket No. 50-289 Docket No. 50-244 Three Mile Island Unit 1 R. E. Ginna 1 Docket No. 50-320 Docket No. 50-312 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Rancho Seco Docket No. 50-298 Docket No. 50-206 Cooper Station San Onofre 1 Docket No. 50-220 Docket No. 50-259 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Browns Ferry Unit 1 Docket No. 50-245 Docket No. 50-260

Millstone Unit 1 Browns Ferry Unit 2 Docket No. 50-336 Docket No. 50-296 Millstone Unit 2 Browns Ferry Unit 3 Docket No. 50-263 Docket No. 50-346 Monticello Davis-Besse 1 Docket No. 50-282 Docket No. 50-271 Prairie Island Unit 1 Vermont Yankee Docket No. 50-306 Docket No. 50-338 Prairie Island Unit 2 North Anna 1 Docket No. 50-285 Docket No. 50-280

Ft. Calhoun Surry Unit 1 Docket No. 50-133 Docket No. 50-281 Humboldt Bay Surry Unit 2 Docket No. 50-277 Docket No. 50-266 Peach Bottom 2 Point Beach Unit 1 Docket No. 50-278 Docket No. 50-301 Peach Bottom 3 Point Beach Unit 2

FEB z 7 1981 PLANTS UNDER.OL REVIEW

1. Clinton 1/2 50-46 1/462

2. Byron 1/2 50-454, 455

3. Braidwood 1/2 -50-456/457

4. LaSalle 1/2 50-373, 374

5. Midland 1/2 50-329,330

6. McGuire 2 50- - 370

7. So. Texas 1/2 50-498, 499

8. Shoreham 50-32 2

9. Waterford 50-382

10. Grand Gulf 1/2 50-416/417

11. Diablo Canyon 1/2 50-275, 323

12. Susquehana 1/2 50-387, 388

13. St. Lucie 2 5-0-389

14. Summer 1 50-395

15. San Onofre 2/3 50-361, 362

16. Bellefonte 1/2 50-438, 439

17. Watts Bar 1/2 50-390, 391

18. Sequoyah 2 50- 328

19. Comanche Peak 1/2 50-445, 446

20.

21. WPPSS-2 50-397

22. Fermi 2 50-341

23. Zimmer 1 50-358

24. Perry 1/2 50-440, 441

25. Palo Verde 50-528, 529, 530

I 50-413, 414

26. Catawba

27. Marble Hill 50-546, 547

28. Wolf Creek 50-4 82

29. Callaway 50-4 83, 486 I 4

REB 2 7 2981 OPERATING PLANTS

1. Sequoyah 1 50-327

2. Salem 2 50-311

3. McGuire 1 50-369

4. Farley 2 50-364 a,

FEB 2 7 1981 PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

1. Cherokee 1/2/3 50-491, 492, 493

2. Beaver Valley 2 50-412

3. St. Lucie 2 50-389 .

4. Vogtle 1/2 50-4 24, 425

5. River Bend 1/2 50-458, 459

6.

7. Forked River 50-363

8. Nine Mile Point 2 50-410

9. Millstone 3. 50-423

10. Bailly 2 50-367

11. Limerick 1/2 50-352, 353

12. Hope Creek 1/2 "50-354, 355

13. Seabrook 1/2 50-443, 444

14.

15. Hartsville 1/2/3/4 50-518, 519, 520, 521

16. Phipps Bend 1/2 50-553, 554

17. Yellow Creek 1/2 50-566, 567

18. WPPSS 1/3/4/5 50-460, 508, 513, 509

19 . Harris 1/2/3/4 50-400, 401, 402, 403

20. FNP 50-437

  • os -~ UNITED STATES

( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, i t - WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20555 February 3, 1981 OPERATING LICENSES

TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING PLANTS AND APPLICANTS FOR

AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS*

SUBJECT: CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS (Generic Letter 81-07)

Gentlemen:

requested to review your By our letter dated December 22, 1980, you were the extent to which controls of the handling of heavy loads to determfine at your facility and the guidelines of NUREG-0612 are presently satisfied be required in order to identify the changes and modifications that would to fully satisfy these guidelines.

with the letter.

To expedite your review, three enclosures were included on Control Information One of the enclosures was Request for Additional oages from five of Heavy Loads (Enclosure 3). We have found that The missing pages Enclosure 3 were missing due to a reproduction error. 22, 1980, letter are enclosed with this letter. In addition the December in Section 2.1 on Page 2 in Item 1 required that information identified documenting the through 2.4 of Enclosure 3 be included in a reportbe modified to read:

results.of your review. This requirement should 2.1 through 2.3

"Sections 2.1 through 2.4 for PWR Dlants and Sections for BWP. plants."

2 90-day implementation Because of these errors we are extending the Enclosure requirement to May 15, 1981.

Sincerely,

\M %oreco a Ei en Division o Licensing Enclosure:

'Enclosure 3" missing Dages

3, Zion 1 and 2

  • With the exception of licensees for Indian Point 2 and and Three Mile Island 1

Attachment (4)

ANALYI1S OF PLANT STRUCTURES

nhe following information should be provided for analyses conducted to demon- strate compliance with Criteria III and IV of IZLVEG 0612, Section 5.1.

1. INITIAL CONlDITIONS/ASSL~r2'TIONS

Discuss the assumptions used in the analysis, including:

a. Weight of heavy load b. Impact area of load c. Drop height d. Drop location e. Assumptions regarding credit taken in the analysis for the action of impact limiters f. Thickness of walls or floor slabs impacted g. Assumptions regarding drag forces caused by th-:

environment h. Load combinations considered i. Material properties of steel and concrete

2.  ;;.0DOF AorALLYSIS.

Provide the method of analysis used to demonstrate that sufficient load- carrying capability exists within the wall(s) or floor slab(s). Identify any computer codes employed, and provide a description of their capabilities.

If test data was e=ployed, provide it and describe its applicability.

3. CONCLUSION

Provide an evaluation comparing the results of this analysis vith Criteria III and IV of NJREG 0612, Section 5.1. Wnere safe-shutdown equipment has a ceiling or wall separating it fronan overhead handling system, provide an evaluation to demonstrate that postulated load drops do not penetrate the ceiling or cause secondary missiles that could prevent a safe-shutdown s~ste- fro= performing its safety function.

(3) A description of any Engineered Safety Feature filter system which includes infor- mation sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the guidelines of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.52, "Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Engineered Safety Feature Atmos- phere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Absorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."

(4) A discussion of any initial conditions (e.g., manual valves locked shut, containment airlocks or equipment hatches shut) necessary to ensure that releases will be terminated or mitigated upon Engineered Safety Feature actuation and the measures employed (i.e., Tech- nical Specification and administrative controls)

to ensure that these initial conditions are satisfied and that Engineered Safety Feature systems are operable prior to the load lift.

2. )ETHOD OF ANALYSIS

Discuss the method of analysis used to demonstrate that post-accident dose will be well within lOCFRlOO limits. In presenting methodology used in determining the radiological consequences, the following information should be provided.

a. A description of the mathematical or physical model employed.

b. An identification and summary of any computer program used in this analysis.

c. The consideration of uncertainties in calculational methods, equipment performance, instrunentation response characteristics, or other indeterminate effects taken into account in the evaluation of the results.

3. CONCLUSION

Provide an evaluation comparing the results of the analysis to Criterion I

of NUPREG 0612, Section 5.1. If the postulated heavy-load-drop accident analyzed bounds other postulated heavy-load drops, a list of these bounded heavy loads should be provided.

A-2 i

bounds other postulated heavy-load drops, a list of these bounded heavy loads should be provided.

3-2

hiztacnment to)

3 of 6 SHIELDED SHIPPING. CASIS CERTIFICATED

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

I - Waste CROSS LOT IN

PRIYD:AP LICERSEE L2ES. (APPRO.) SECOM'MAy ICESreE

Poly Tiger Nhuclear Engineering Co. 35,000 APL, SEC, O'C, DLP,

XCO N?;, Ss', VUD

6771 SN-1 Nuclear Engineering Co. 60,000 APL, QPC, DLU, EPP,

amU, VEP

J-100 28,0O0 DLC

9079 M!;-100 Ser. 2 Eitt;zat lvclear and 98,0OD APL, CEC, CI-E,

Development Corp. DL?, JCP, MA,

17x PLC

90so E;-600 Bittr;an Nuclear and 42,0ooe BGE, dEC,

U =' r" , 3cP, s!1%lA,

Developmen: Cop.p _,c Xprt FzC, YAC

C': ':;-I10 Ser. 1 Eitt=an Nuclear and 46,OD0 APL, 3NGE. Y.A, DL? I

Development Corp. N?, JC°, mcE,

PCr, RGE

r.V =-_,

VC

Eittman Nuclear and 36,500 BEG, CAM-, CEC, Z1 ,

9C-SC E;-l00S

Developnent Corp- JCP, MA, IPmp  ?EC 9092 EX-300 Eittmzn huclear and 43,000

Development Corp.

EN-400 ittman Nuclear atd 43,000 XSYA

9093 Development Corp.

dEC, CPL,

Cher.-Nuclear Systems, 56,500 APC. APL,

9094 CSS I-21-095- iarc, Inc.

CIVE. CYA, crc, CPC,

,)Cs, FPL, PC,

,JCP,1 hN.%E,

0??, ?EC,

PGC, PEG, TVA,

VEP

Chem-1;uclear Systems, 57,450 APL, C?L,

9096 C!S 1-21-30D IDPC, F?L, sPC, GPC,

Inc .

3C?, XLC, h';EI

PEC,

  • So *tgtbbc':. 215 o.

o~f atsbrovis'-ID.t-.

Attachment (5)

S of 6 SHIELDED SHIPPING CASKS CERTIFICATED

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLAINTS

III - Byproducts GROSS LOT IX'

PRIVY LICENSEE LES. (APPROX.) SECOMARY LICENSEE*

5971 G-E-= 10, 000 PEC

5980 GE-40D 18,500 ME, NSP ,

6275 Cht-Nucl^er Systm.s, 30. DOD . APC, CPL, MFC, rL,

Inc. FPC, Np?, VD?

CIS-: 600 Ch=-Nucle.&r Systems. a6.000 APC, ZGE, CPL. DPC,

Inc. TPL, FPC, GPC. Nsp, TVA, VEP

Set attached li st of abbT evitat sns .

Template:GL-Nav