ML20005A055

Responds to Generic Ltr 81-07 Re NUREG-0612, Control of Heavy Loads.... Work on Interim Actions Completed.Extension of Select Response Dates Requested.Addl Info on Crane Design Compliance for Overhead Load Handling Sys Encl

ML20005A055
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	06/22/1981
From:	Trimble D ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612 0CAN068108, CAN68108, GL-81-07, GL-81-7, NUDOCS 8106290307
Download: ML20005A055 (11)

Text

e ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY POST DETIQ BOX 551 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 (501)371-4000 June 22, 1981

@CAN@681@8 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1&2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPR-6 NUREG-0612 " Control of Heavy Loads at Noclear Power Plants" (Generic Letter 81-07)

(File: 1510, 2-1510)

Gentlemen:

With reference to our letter dated May 15, 1981, we confirmed to you that AP&L had completed its work on the " Interim Actions for the Control of Heavy Loads" at Arkansas Nuclear One, Units One & Two. We

• also indicated that a report would be sent to you by June 1, 1981, that would sumnarize our actions relative to the information requested by Enclosure 2 of your December 22, 1980, letter. This report, sent to you in our letter dated May 29, 1981, also addressed specific work on the general requirements for overhead handling systems as referenced in Section 2.1 of Enclosure 3 of your December 22, 1980, letter on Page 2 of Item 1. We indicated to you that additional information would be forthcoming in order te meet the requested Section 2.1 response date of June 22, 1981. With the above as background information, the purposes of this letter are as follows:

(1) Interio Actions The first purpose of this letter is to reconfirm to you that AP&L has ,

completed its work on the " Interim Actions for Control of Heavy Loads" I at ANO-1 and 2. Specifically, the following items were considered in complying with the requested interim actions of Enclosure 2 of your December 22, 1980 letter:

f09 s 8106290307 /-

h MEMGER MIDOLE SOUTH UTIUTIES SYSTEM

. - c- ,

0, , .

..f x

w s (CAN#68198 June 22, 1981 (1) , Safe load paths were defined per the guidelines of Section 5.1.1 (1) of NUREG-0612.-

(2) ' Procedures were developed and implemented per the guidelines of Section 5.1.1 (2) of NUREG-0612.

(3) Crane operators will be trained, qualified and conduct themselves per the guidelines of Section 5.1.1 (3) of NUREG-0612.

-(4) . Cranes'will be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the guidelines of Section 5.1.1 (6) of NUREG-0612.

(5) Special attention will be given to procedures, equipment and personnel for the handling of heavy loads over the core.

It is our position that we have adequately considered and positively addressed all significant aspects of the requested interim actions and are now in full' and complete compliance in every respect. All documentation is readily available at the plant site for your-inspection.

~

(2) Crane Design Verifications with CMAA and ANSI Standards The second purpose of this letter is to complete our response to Section 2.1 of Enclosure 3, " Request for Additional Information on Control of Heavy Loads" at ANO-1 and 2. The purpose of these analyses (see Attachment 1) was to verify that the various crane designs complied with the applicable CHAA and ANSI guidelines. Specifically, the following items were considered in complying with the requested

" General Requirements for Overhead Handling Systems" information contained in this and our May 29, 1981, correspondence:

(1) We reviewed our plant 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.

(2) We-reviewed the exclusion of any overhead handling system from the 'above category by verifying that there is sufficient physical separation from any load-impact point and any safety-related component to permit a determination by inspection d2at no heavy load drop can result in damage to any system or component required for plant shutdown or decay heat removal.

(3) We considered and developed where appropriate the following

, ~ specific information items with respect to the design and

r e

I 1-

1. CAN968198 June 22, 1981 operation of heavy load handling systems in the containment and spent fuel area, and for those load handling systems identified in Item (1) above in this section:

(a) Drawings of sketches sufficient to clearly identify the location of safeload paths, spent fuel and safety-related equipment.

(b) A discussica of measures taken to ensure that load-handling operations remain within safe load paths, including procedures for any necessary deviations from these paths.

(c) A tabulation of heavy loads to be handled by each crane which includes the load identification, load weight, its designated lif ting device and verification that the handling of such load is governed by a written procedure containing, as a minimum, the information identified in NUREG-0612, Section 5.1.1 (2).

(d) Verification that lifting devices identified in (c) above, comply with appropriate ANSI standards. Describe

, . _ , alternatives where appropriate.

(e) Verification that ANSI B30.2-1976, Chapter 2-2 has been considered with respect to crane inspection, testing, and maintenance.

(f) Verification that the various crane designs comply with applicable CHAA and ANSI guidelines.

(g) Exceptions to these guidelines with respect to operator training, qualification, and conduct.

With the submittal of Attachment I to this letter and the Attachment to our May 29, 1981, letter, it is our position that we have adequately considered and positively addressed all significant aspects of the requested Section 2.1 information, " General Requirements for Overhead Handling Systems". Our conclusion is that we are iu general compliance with all Section 2.1 reporting requirements. For completeness, however, we will actively pursue to the fullest extent practicable the currently unavailable crane manufacturer's proprietary data identified in Attachment 1 to'this letter.

(3) Response Date Extension Requests The third purpose of this letter is to request your approval of the following extensions to the indicated response dates. Part of Item (1) on page 2 of your December 22, 1980, letter requested that we

p . ,e l 9CAN9681p8 June 22, 1981 submit Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 information within nine months of December 22, 1980. Items (2) and (3) of this same letter each had requested response dates of within six months of December 22, 1980.

Due to the nature of the complexities involved, we request a three-month extension to the response dates for each of these three items. By extending the duc dates to December 22, 1981, September 22, 1981, and September 22, 1981, respectively, we would be able to perform a more meaningful engineering analysis and assessment of the information requested.

(4) Overvie_w of NUREG-0612 Status The fourth purpose of this letter is to provide you with an overview of our-present NUREG-0612 status. To date AP&L has spent approximately

$120,000 on addressing NUREG-0612. The following information was requested on page 2 of your December 22, 1980, letter:

Requested

. Description of Original Extension Item Requested Information Due Date Date

1. Submit Section 2.1 informa- June 22, 1981 Completed

_, tion within six months of December 22, 1980.

Submit Sections 2.2, 2.3, Sept. 22, 1981 Dec. 22, 1981 and 2.4 information within nine months of December 22, 1980.

2. Furnish confirmation June 22, 1981 Sept. 22,1981 -

within six months that implementation of those changes and modifications you find are necessary will commence as soon as possible without waiting on staff review, so that all such changes, beyond the above interim actions, will be com-pleted within two years of submittal of Section 2.4 for the above report.

o L-? ' -

?

I pCAN968198 June 22, 1981

3. Furnish justification with- June 22, 1981- Sept. 22, 1981 in six months for any changes or modifications that would be required to fully satisfy.the guidelines of NUREG-0612 which-you believe are not necessary.

Altho 2gh our engineering analyses are not complete as yet, preliminary indications are that no crane hardware modificaticn: will be required at ANO-1 or 2 in order to meet the intent of NUREG-0612. With your approval, we will keep you advised as to our progress and conclusions per the above revised response schedule. Should you have any questions before our next scheduled reponse date, please advise.

Sincerely, David C. Trimble Manager, Licensing DCT:DET/jm Attachment

.)

4 ATTACHMENT 1 Response to Item 3(f)

SECTION 2.1, ENCLOSURE 3, " REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS" SIX-MONTH REPORT TO THE NRC Discussion Arkansas Power & Light Company has completed its evaluation of crane design compliance for the overhead load handling systems at Arkansas Nuclear One which fall within the realm of the requirements of NUREG-0612. Design compliance with CMAA Specification No. 70 and Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976 was evaluated for the following cranes:

Unit 2 Polar Crane - 2L2 New Fuel Handling Crane - 2L35 Unit 1 Polar Crane - L2 Fuel-Handling Crane - L3 Auxiliary Fuel Handling Crane Intake Structure Gantry Crane The results of our evaluations are presented below.

2L2 and 2L35 The first two cranes listed, 2L2 and 2L35, were designed and constructed to CMAA-70 which further addresses compliance with ANSI B30.2.0. Both of these cranes, therefore, fully comply with the requirements of CF.AA Spec.

No. 70 and Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976.

L2 and L3 the Unit 1 Polar Crane, L2, and the Fuel Handling Crane, L3, were designed and constructed prior to the issuance of CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2-1976. Both cranes, however, were built to EOCI Specification No.

61, Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes, which was superceded when CMAA-70 was issued. EOCI-61 is very similar to CMAA-70, with very few additional or revised criteria exhibited in CMAA-70.

Approximately half of the CMAA-70 requirements are equivalent to (verbatim) E0CI-61 requirements. Arkansas Power & Light Company, therefore, performed a point-by point review of CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2 requirements to determine the design compliance for L2 and L3.

For only one criteria did both L2 and L3 prove to be in specific noncompliance with the standards. Criteria 4.4.3.1 of CMAA-70 recommends that the minimum hoist groove depth be equal to 3/8 x hoist rope 1

s diameter. For the auxiliary hoists of L2 and L3, this minimum depth was not met by 1/64 and 1/32 inch respectively, which corresponds to a 6.7%

and 11.1% deviation.- It is the position of Arkansas Power & Light Company that the actual hoist groove depths provide sufficient margin of load handling safety.

Also, several items for which compliance could not be proved, due to unavailability of manufacturer's proprietary data and calculations, were identified during the evaluation. Arkansas Power & Light Company will attempt to obtain this information, however, these items are not considered significant to load handling safety for the following reasons:

• ~The intent of the CHAA nr ANSI criteria is met by the corresponding EOCI-61 criteria.

Both L2 and L3 have been operated since 1974 and load tested without structural mishap or wear beyond expected values.

'Both L2 and L3 have received the manufacturers recommended maintenance since being placed in operation.

The items for which compliance could not be proved are:

CMAA-70 (3.3.2.1.3.2 and 3.3.2.1.3.3) specify that twisting moments be calculated using the distances between the respective centers of gravity and the shear center of the girder section. EOCI-61

-- (18.B.1.c(2) and 18.B.I.c(3)) specify this distance to the center of gravity of the girder section.

CMAA-70 (3.3.3.1) specifies design limitations for welded box girders which differ slightly or expound upon the limitations provided in EOCI-61 (18.C.1).

CMAA-70 (3.4.3) specified allowable vertical stresses for bridge end trucks. EOCI-61 (19.C does not specify these allowable stresses.

CHAA-70 (3.5) and ANSI B30.2 (2-1.7.2.a) both specify that footwalks be designed for a live load @ 50#/ft.2 EOCI-61 (20) does not specify this particular loading. CMAA-70 (3.5) additionally specifies allowable steel stresses for footwalks.

CMAA-70 (3.7) specifies allowable steel stresses for trolley frames.

EOCI-61 (22) does not specify these stresses.

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.9.4.i and 2-1.9.5.a) specify that trolley and bridge brakes have torque capability to stop motion within 10% of the rated load speed when traveling ar. full speed with rated load. EOCI-61 (31.A and 31.C) do not specify this requirement.

• ANSI B30.2 (2-1.9.2.b, 2-1.9.3.b, 2-1.9.4.k, and 2-1.9.5.d) specify that trolley, bridge, and hoist brakes have thermal capacity for the frequency of service. EOCI-61 (31) does not specify this criteria.

2

p

. J-

• CMAA-70 (4.5.2) specifies allowable values of torsional deflection for bridge cross shaf ts. EOCI-61 (28.A) does not specify these values. This criteria applies to L3 only.

• CMAA-70 (4.12.1 and 4.12.3) specify deceleration rates for bridge and trolley bumper design. ANSI B30.2 (2-1.8.2.a.2 and 2-1.8.3.a.2) apecify same. EOCI-61 does not specify criteria for bumpers, however, the AP&L design specifications for L2 and L3 require bumpers wn*ch meet all other CHAA and ANSI criteria.

• - CMAA-70 (5.4.6.8) specifies that failure of any hoist control component shall not permit excessive hoist speed in either direction. L2 and L3 design specifications require compliance with this criteria only in the lowering direction.

CMAA-70 (5.4.6.10) recifies that the crane manufacturer shall state in his proposal whether hoist motor horsepower is based on average hoisting and lowering speed or actual hoisting speed required to raise the rated load.

Auxiliary Fuel Handling Crane The Auxiliary Fuel Handling Crane is a 2-ton standard manufacturer's motorized-trolley hoist. It is suspended monorail fashion from a 12 inch I-beam welded to one of the main bridge girders of L3. The standard

_ hoist is outside the scope of CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2 per Section 1.1.2 and 2-0.1 respectively. However, since the hoist is integral with L3, certain CMAA and ANSI requirements should be met by the hoist, particularly where the structural integrity of L3 is affected. Since the Auxiliary Fuel Handling Crane was included in the design of L3, any items for which specific compliance with CHAA-70 or ANET 930.2 requirements could not be met were identified in the evaluatio- of L3.

The Auxiliary Fuel Handling Crane was also reviewed with respect to ANSI B30.11-1973, Monorail Systems and Underhung Cranes, and ANSI B30.16-1973, Overhead Hoists. Crane design and construction were found to comply with the intent of both of these standards.

El The Intake Structure Gantry Crane, L7; was designed and constructed prior to issuance of CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2-1976. This crane was, however, built to EOCI Specification No. 61, Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes. Arkansas Power & Light Company performed a point-by point review of CMAA-70 and ANSI B30.2 requirements to determine the design compliance for L7.

The crane was found to be in specific noncompliance with only one criteria.

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.3.1.d) specifies that outdr sr storage gantry cranes shall be provided with remotely operated rail c.2mps or equivalent devices.

3 L.

Also,'.a wind indicating device is required which will give a visible and audible alarm to the crane operator at a predetermined-wind velocity. L7 is not provided.with remotely operated rail clamps or'with a wind

' indicating alarm. L7 does, however, have a storm lock which, by procedure, is engaged by plant personnel upon receipt of a severe weather waring from the AP&L system dispatcher (who obtains his information from an AP&L meteorological system and the National Weather Service).

Additionally, the onsite meteorological system continuously monitors wind speed and direction. It is the position of Arkansas Power & Light that-the intent of.this ANSI requirement is met per the above discussion, and that a potentially hazardous load handling condition does not result from this item.

Also several items for which specific compliance could not be proved, due to unavailability of manufacturer's proprietary data and calculations, were identified during the evaluation. As stated in the discussian for cranes L2 and L3 above, Arkansas Power & Light Company will attempt to obtain this information; however, these items are not considered significant to load handling safety.

The items for which compliance tauld not be proved are:

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.3.1.b) specifies that every outdoor crane shall be provided with secure fastenings convenient to apply and to hold the crane against a wind pressure of 30 pounds per sq: tare foot. Crane L-7 has a storm lock to secure it, however, design data to show

- compliance was not available.

CHAA Spec. 70 (3.3.2.1.3.2, 3.3.2.1.3.3) spectfy that twisting moments for girders be calculated using the shear center of the girder whereas E0CI Spec. 61 (18.B.c.(2), (3)) specify that twisting moments be calculated using the center of gravity of the girder.

• CMAA Spec. 70 (3.3.2.2) specifies that the combined bending stress for girders shall be calculated including a wind load of 5 pounds per square foot for outdoor cranes whereas EOCI Spec. 61 does not include a wind load for calculating the combined bending stress.

CHAA Spec. 70 (3.3.3.1.1 .5) specify proportions, moments of inertia for longitudinal stiffeners, basic allowable stresses, requirements for stiffened plates in compression, and requirements for diaphragms and vertical stiffeners for welded box type girders. These sections specify several additional requirements not addressed in EOCI Spec.

61. >

• CMAA Spec. 70.(3.4.3) specifies allowable vertical stresses for bridge end trucks. These are not specified in EOCI Spec. 61.

• CHAA Spec. 70 (3.5) and ANSI B30.2 (2-1.7.2.a) require that all footwalks be designed for a live load of 50 pounds per square foot.

CHAA Spec. 70 (3.5) further specifies allowable steel stresses for footwalks. These requirements are not addressed in EOCI Spec. 61

-(20).

4

I -

e

-9 ,

CHAA Spec. 70 (3.7) specifies allowable vertical stresses for trolley frames. These stresses are not addressed in EOCI Spec. 61.

• CMAA Spec. 70 (3.9) specifies special requirements for leg, end tie, strut, and sill members of gantry cranes. These requirements are not contained in EOCI Spec. 61.

• CMAA Spec. 70 (4.4.3.1, 4.4.3.2) recommend a minimum drum groove depth of 3/8 x rope diameter and minimum drun groove pitch of either 1.14 x rope diameter or diametet + 1/8 inch, whichever is smaller.

These requirceents are in addition to the drum design requirements contained in EOCI Spec. 61 (26).

• ANS1 B30.2 (2-1.9.4.i, k and 2-1.9.5.b) specify thermal capacity adequacy, deceleration capability, and- torque capability (with respect to stopping distance) of bridge and trolley brakes.

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.9.2.b, 2-1.9.3.b) specify that holding and control brakes on hoists shall have thermal capacity for the frequency of operation required by the service.

CMAA Spec. 70 (4.11.1, 4.11.4) specify wheel tolerance and clearance requirements. These requirements are not addressed in EOCI Spec. 61 (32).

• CMAA Spec. 70 (4.12.1(i), (i)A) and ANSI B30.2 (2-1.8.2.a.1, .2)

-. specify bridge bumper deceleration rate and energy absorbing capcity requirements. These requirements are not addressed in EOCI Spec.

61.

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.3.2.b.2) specifies runway stops be designed to withstand forces resulting from collisions at speeds of at least 40%

of rated speed.

CMAA Spec. 70 (4.12.3.(i)) specifies trolley bumper average rate of

• deceleration requirements. This requirement is not addressed in EOC1 Spec. 61.

ANSI B30.2 (2-1.8.1.b, 2-1.8.3.a.1, 2) specify trolley bumper and stop enetgy absorbing capacity and rate of deceleration requirements.

CMAA Spec. 70 (5.4.6.1) specifies that static power components such as rectifiers, reactors, etc., as required, shall be rated in accordance with the horsepower, voltage, and time ratings of the motor with which they are used. This requirement is not addressed in EOCI 61 (36).

CMAA Spec. 70 (5.4.6.8) specifies that the failure of any hoist control component shall not permit excessive hoist motor speed in either direction. This requirement is not addressed in EOCI 61 (36).

5

r

• CHAA Spec. 70 (5.4.6.10) specifies that the crane manufacturer shall state in his proposal' whether the hoist motor HP used with static control is -on the basis of average hoisting and lowering speed, or on the basis of actual hoisting speed to raise rated load. This requirement is not addressed in EOCI 61.

~

4 4

G i

e.

f 6