ML17345B215

Supplements 820810 Response to NRC 801222 Request for Addl Info Re Draft Technical Evaluation Rept on Guideline 7, Crane Design of NUREG-0612.Info Obtained from Crane Manufacturer Should Resolve Item

ML17345B215
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/15/1983
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR L-83-449, NUDOCS 8308190381
Download: ML17345B215 (12)

Text

REGULAT INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STEM (RIDS)

AGGRESSION NBR;8308190381 DOC ~ DATE'3/08/15 NOTARIZED; NO DOCKET FACIL:50-250 Turkey Point Planti 'Unit 3g Florida .Power:and Light C 05000250

'.50-251 Turkey Point Planti 'Unit 4i Florida 'Power -and Light C 05000251 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGr'Re 6 ~ F1 or ida ~Power

'

Light 'Co,

<<AHCIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION VARGAgS ~ AD Operating Reactors Branch 1

SUBJECT:

Supplements 820810,response to NRC 801222'.reque eline for .addi info re .draft technical ~evaluation rept, on Quid 7,

."Crane Design" of NUREG 0612 Info obtained f rom c'r an e

~

manu f ac tur er shout d reso l.ve =i tern.

DISTRIBUTION 'CODE: A033S <<COPIES <<RECEIVED:LT<<R,,ENCL, Near't SIZE;, .

TITLE: OR Submi,ttal': OSI A"36 <<Control of, Heavy Load Spent -Fuel>>NUREG 06 NOTES; RECIPIENT ,<<COP I ES RECIPIENT ID'"CODE/NAME

,COPIES I6 CODE/'NAME L'T.TR'NCL LTTR ENCL NRA ORB1 'BC "7 7" NRR SINGHg A 01 '4 NRR REQUAe'G ' 09 1 NRR/DL/DRAB 12 1 'NTERNAL' 1

NR 1 NRR/DS I/AS I f II 04 1 RGN2 1 EXTERNAL; ACRS 6 LPDR 03 1 1 NRC PDR'NTT'S 13'2 1 1 NSIC 06 i

~TOTAL NUMBER OF <<COPIES REQUIRED'T<I; ), $ 1';, V,y,r, f .'i 5 J>lg ~ f 'I4L << ~ f ~3 C! f 4" c.I AC'." cc ~yg'j $ >>

"cS'uOVQ~ Inner

$ n@r J bnh 59~i9 4 GG c'llew f 4 qc, m) Ildht>> f'c 'P n'r 0"4 '( p ~

K II c II's ) '~

q f I.NVOVC!V 3 J inc~ 1>VI>'< O>>. r ilaf9 rnJ $ f Ate f"-O 'VA'f9 S '(6 a IVT c, Irf (0 I .*J, ll 3 qh Hu'-c f;l>c 3,l'A prj a'~ 1I9lir'0'"f GLP r 'gQ f 3 Tel J I 0 ~I>~ f I ~aLWI Z3)S g>Fllr Ji'19 "g'> ~ A, 4 q i<1.)'f r r lay NOBIIIP91 'i'.>C>l &0 ai <Il Of 9C'n@./89'l Vl'40'>8 V.",tnt I'3 f )ghee r f 3Jf~ 3 "C~

'3n l' Ger Ucl AQ fc.j'91l IllIQ r 0uU f ILilcC9 f GZI f'nlilQQf 0 Vg'l~) 9 II 9n5'lg 'hQ1 f 5'llnrr~'3 CIIQ gfl0$ q'>)g'~ c)g'lVr'I 7g "nji f c 3 t) Qfl>

,I'led ( 9V f~IP91 @if U~RC 101V)aetVncin c" $ f

'3X90J 3 "tf I>

f 4

F=v

~. O. BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 3340B iyhl /Z 0

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY August 15, 1983 L-83-449 Office of Nuclear 'Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

'I \

Dear Mr. Varga:

Re: Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Control of Heavy Loads Draft Technical Evaluation Re ort

Reference:

FPL Letter No. L-82-346 to the NRC, dated 8/10/82 ln the initial response of August 10, 1982 to the Draft Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared for Turkey Point Units 3 & 4, FPL noted that the concerns pertaining to Guideline 7, "Crane Design," could not be addressed until additional information was received from the applicable crane manufacturers.

FPL subsequently contacted the crane manufacturers and has resolved the TER concerns pertaining to crane design as noted in the attached supple-mental response.

Very truly yours, ert E Uhrig ice Pr ident Advanced Systems and Technology REU/SAY Attachment 8308190381 830815 PDR ADOCK 05000250 PDR I PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

oQ

!

IQ t

)E

!'

SUPPLEHENT TO THE TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 RESPONSE TO THE NRC'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO NUREG 0612 -- CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS INTRODUCTION On December 22, 1980, the NRC issued a generic letter to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) requesting a review of the provisions for handling and control of heavy loads at Turkey Point Units 3 & 4, an evaluation of these provisions with respect to the guidelines of NUREG 0612 and providing additional information as required to determine conformance with these guidelines. On September 4, 1981, FPL provided its initial response to this request. On December 29, 1981 and January 6, 1983, Franklin Research Center (FRC), a consultant to the NRC, issued draft Technical Evaluation Reports (TER) on this initial response. On August 10, 1982, FPL provided.

a supplemental response to address the TER's request for additional infor-mation. In this response', FPL noted that the concerns pertaining to Guideline 7, "Crane Design," could not be addressed until'dditional information was received from the applicable crane manufacturers. The purpose of this supplement is to provide the crane design information not addressed in'our August 10, 1982 response.

Draft TER Section 2.1.8 Crane Desi n (Guideline 7 NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.1 (7))

a) FRC Conclusions and Recommendations Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 do.not comply with Guideline 7. In order to comply, FPL should evaluate the existing crane designs to determine compliance with the fourteen (14) design conditions specified in the TER.

'b) FPL Position The following cranes are considered to fall within the scope of NUREG 0612, Guideline 7:

1. Reactor Building Polar Cranes

2. Fuel Cask Crane

3. Intake Structure Crane Turbine Gantry Cranes ~

The following is a breakdown of our responses to the TER design concerns as they apply to the subject cranes:

X Ve do not, however, plan to routinely use the Unit land 2 cranes in the vicinity of safety related equipment. He will develop criteria for their use which meets our commitments to NUREG-06l2.

Jl Pp

1. Im act Allowance (CMAA-70, Arti,cle 3.3.2.1.1.3)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the impact allowance criteria specified in CMAA-70.

2. Torsional Forces (CMAA-70, Article 3.3.2.1.3)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes have been designed to withstand the torsional forces specified in CHAA-70.

3. Lon itudinal Stiffeners (CMAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1')

The crane manufacturers of the Fuel Cask Crane, Turbine Gantry Cranes and Reactor Polar Cranes have determined that these cranes do not conform to CMAA-70, Articles 3.3.3.1.2.1 and 3.3.3.1.2.3 (concerning the location and moment of inertia of these stiffeners). However, the manufacturers have also stated that equivalent design procedures have been used in lieu of these articles. As such, we have determined that these cranes comply with the CHAA"70 requirements for longitudinal stiffeners.

.Based upon information received from the manufacturer of the intake Crane, we have determined that this crane complies with the intent of the CHAA longi.tudinal stiffener requirements.

Allowable con ressive stress (CMAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1.3)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the allowable compressive stress criteria specified in CMAA-70.

5. Fati ue considerations (CHAA-70, Article 3.3.3.1.3)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the considerations for fatigue loads specified in CHAA-70.

.6. Hoist ro e requirements (CMAA-70, Article 4.2.1)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that the hoist ropes on, these cranes comply with CMA-70 requirements.

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the drum design re-quirements of CMAA-70.

Ol ~ t Based upon the information received from the crane manufacturers, gear design can be divided into two categories: 1) strength horsepower rating and 2) durability horsepower rating.

A) Stren th horse ower ratin The crane manufacturers have determined that these cranes, with exception of the Unit 1 & 2 Turbine Gantry Crane, comply with the strength horsepower rating requirements specified in CMAA-70.

The strength horsepower rating for the auxiliary hoist drum set of the Unit 1 & 2 Turbine Gantry Crane does not comply with CMAA requirements. We are in the process of procuring a carburized gear set for this crane in order to comply with CHAA-70.

B) Durabilit horse ower ratin The crane manufacturers have stated that a durability failure of a gear is a non-catastrophic occurrence. Well before any failure can take place, severe pitting of the gear face will be present.

This pitting can be easily detected upon visual inspection. To preclude any potential .problems in this area, we have incorporated into our maintenance procedures for these cranes, a periodic inspection of the gears. Should this inspection indicate any undo wear or pitting, the gears will be replaced in compliance with CMAA-70 requirements.

10. Brid e Brake Desi n (CHAA-70, Article 4.7.2.2)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that bridge motion braking systems on these cranes comply with CHAA-70 requirements.

ll. Hoist Brake Desi n (CMAA-70, Article 4.7.4.2)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that the hoist brake systems on these cranes comply with CMAA-70 requirements.

12. Bum ers and Sto s (CMAA-70, Article 4.12)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that the Reactor Polar Cranes, Fuel Cask Crane, intake Crane, and Unit 3 & 4 Turbine Gantry Crane comply with CHAA-70 re-quirements for bumpers and stops.

The crane manufacturer of the Unit 1 & 2 Turbine Gantry Crane has determined that safety cables on the trolley chocks have not been pro-vided in accordance with CMAA-70, Article 4.12.3.2. This non-conformance will not affect the load handling ability of this crane, nor will the failing of the chocks affect any other safety related system. As such, we have determined that this crane complies with the NUREG 0612 requirements for bumpers and stops.

C 4

13. Static Control S stems (CMAA-70, Article 5.4.6)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes comply with the static control system requirements of CMAA-70.

14. Restart Protection (CMAA-70, Article 5.6.2)

Based upon information received from the crane manufacturers, we have determined that these cranes, with the exception of the Unit 1 & 2 Turbine Gantry Crane, comply with the restart protection requirements of CMAA-70.

ln order to prevent accidental restart of the Unit 1 & 2 Turbine Gantry Crane, we are in the process of procuring the necessary materials to modify this crane to comply with the requirements of C?KA-70, Article 5.6.2.

Upon completion of the modifications noted in this response, all applicable Turkey Point crane designs will conform to the requirements of NUREG 0612. D

P fi f