L-82-316, Responds to NRC & Draft Technical Evaluation Rept Re Control of Heavy Loads.Responses Re Guideline 4 (Special Lifting Devices) & Guideline 7 (Crane Design) Require Info from Crane Vendors.Updated Status Expected by 820901

Responds to NRC & Draft Technical Evaluation Rept Re Control of Heavy Loads.Responses Re Guideline 4 (Special Lifting Devices) & Guideline 7 (Crane Design) Require Info from Crane Vendors.Updated Status Expected by 820901

ML17212B775
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/28/1982
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR L-82-316, NUDOCS 8208030336
Download: ML17212B775 (25)

Text

REGULATOR NFORMA'T ION DISTRIBUTION'EM (RIDS)

AOCBSSION NSR:8208030336 DOC ~ DATE: 82/07/28 NOTARXZEO!

NO FACIL:50-335 St. Lucie Plant~

Uni~t 1< Florida Power 8 Light Co.

'AUTH~ NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGg R ~ E ~

Flor ida Power L Light Co ~

SR BC IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CLARKgR ~ AD Operating Reactors Branch 3

DOCKET 05000335

SUBJECT:

Responds to NRC 820513 lItr 8 draft ~technical evaluation rept re control of heavy loads. Responses re -Guideli-ne 4 (special lifting"devices) 8 Guideline 7 (crane design) require info from cr ane vendors

~ Updated status expected by820901.

DISTRISUTION CODE:

A0330 lCOPIES 'RECEIVED:LTR Q,ENCL SIZE:.~

TITLE: Conrtol of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel (USI A-36) Operating Reactor NOTES:

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAMF ORB 03 BC INTERhAL; NRR REQUApG 09 NRR/DS I /ADOCS11 NRR/DS I/RAB 10 I

RGN2

)COP IES LTTR ENCL 7

7 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR CLEMENSON01 NRR/DL/DRAB 12 E

04 COPIES L'PTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 I

EXT~ERVAI ACRS NRC PDR NT?S 13 10 10 02

.1 1

1 1

LPDR NSIC 03 06

)TOTAL NUMBER OF CO'P IES REQ'UIRED ~

LTTTR 32 ENCL 32

0

~f 4

Ij II II I

D

~

If II I.

I I

F I

I g

II I

II I'I

P OX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408

~QVikz FLORIDAPOWER 8( LIGHT COMPANY July 28, 1982 L-82-316 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Nr. Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch g3 Division of Licensing U.S.

Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Nr. Clark:

Re:

St. Lucie Unit 1

Docket No. 50-335 Control of Heav Loads TER Florida Power 8 Light has reviewed your letter dated Nay 13, 1982 and tj>e draft Technical Evaluation Report (TER) which was included.

This draft report documented the NRC consultant's review of our respones to the NRC letter concerning Control of Heavy Loads.

Our responses to the findings in the draft TER are attached.

Work is still underway on Guideline 4 (special lifting devices) and Guideline 7

(Crane Design).

The responses to the findings concerning these guidelines require information from crane vendors which'we do not have at the present time.

We are in the process of obtaining this information and will pr'ovide an update on the status of these two guidelines by September 1,

1982.

'he procedure for use of the Inservice Inspection Tool di scussed in Attachment has been completed since our initial response.

Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 8 Technology REU/PLP/mbd cc:

J.P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F.

Rei s, Esquire 8208030336 820728 I

PDR ADOCK 05000335 P

PDR PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

CLARIFICATION Ec SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON ST.

LUCXE UNIT 1

RESPONSE

TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS SECTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1 On December 22,

1980, the NRC issued a generic letter to Florida Power 4 Light Company xequesting that FPL review provisions for handling and control of heavy loads at St.

Lucie Unit "1, evaluate these provisions with respect to the guidelines of NUREG 0612, and provide certain additional information to be used for a determina-tion of conformance to these guidelines.

On July 2, 1'981, Florida Power Ec Light Company provided its response to this request.

On October 9,

1981, Franklin Research Center (FRC) as a consultant for the NRC issued a draft Technical Evaluation Report (draft TER) on the FPEL response.

This draft TER and a subsequent telephone conversation with the NRC and FRC indicated some areas where addi-tional information would assist 'in theix'valuation of the FPL re-sponse.

The intent of the, following report is to clarify and sup-plement the initial response by FPL.

GENERAL GUIDELINES 2.1.1 Safe Load Paths

[Guideline 1

NUREG 0612 Article 5.1.1(1) ]

FRC Conclusions 8 Recommendations t.

uc e

n t partza y

comp ies. with Guideline 1.

FPL should perform the following:

-verify that the selection of load paths considers the loca-tion of structural members and beams.

-verify that safe load paths have been clearly marked on floors or structures.

-verify that deviations from load paths require written alternatives approved by the plants safe'ty review committee (or equivalent).-

FPL Position d

p h

H d

'2 I.

k 1

p to the NRC generic letter have been xevised in a subsequent response to NRC addressing the specific requirements of NUREG-0612 (4).

These safe load path areas and restricted zones were developed by the FPL Power Plant Engineering Department.

Copies of these safe load path drawings are attached.

These drawings indicate certain areas where the handling of heavy loads is restricted...

The bases for these restrictions are the different capabilities of the struc-tures in the area to withstand a dropped load and the poten-tial for damage to irradiated fuel and safe shutdown equip-ment.

te

~ I 2'.2 Flor a Power F Light Company d es not Seel that marking tk safe load paths on building floors is a practical or necee sary means of informing the operator of the safe areas.

'D sketches which are readily a'vailable to the operator at tk hoist controls, are easy to understand and serve the sar purpose as floor markings.

Also, floor markings can, be ok structed by equipment and are not feasible in certain aree (e.g.

the refueling pool).

The Plant Administrative Proce dure AP 100438 requires written alternatives for deviatior from the safe load paths.

These alternatives are approve by the Facility Review Group (FRG).

'oad Handlin Procedures

[Guideline 2 NUREG-0612 Article

. ~

I a.

FRC Conclusions E Recommendations P

part a

y comp es w t

~u2eline 2.

The following required for compliance:

-verify that all procedures that have been implemented (ir, eluding those for new and spent, fuel elements) and proce dures: being prepared contain the information specified i

this guideline for those loads identified in Table 3-1 c

NUREG-0612.

-develop procedures for those load handling devices ider tified by the Licensee but not addressed in specific pre cedures or provide reasonable justification for not devel oping such procedures.

I g

~

1'I I

~ ~

I I,

S" I b.

FPL Position

~

E1"

(3) II I

heavy loads which are periodically handled in the vicinit:

of irradiated fuel. 'he procedures for the handling c

these loads have been implemented and contain the informe tion specified in NUREG-0612, Guideline 2, i.e.

1) identifi cation of required equipment,

2) inspections and acceptanc

criteria,

3) steps and proper

sequence, and 4) other specie precautions.

'mplementation of these procedures we reported to the NRC in the second phase response (4).

Neither Table 2 of FPL's first phase response nor Table 3.

of NUREG-.0612 provide complete listings of heavy loads hanc led in the vicinity of irradiated fuel and safe shutdo1 equipment.

FPL's tabulation lists significant, periodical]

handled loads for which special procedures are. appropriate A complete listing of all loads handled in these areas ar, the development of special procedures for each load is nc practical.

Almost every plant component within the opere ting envelope of the crane would be included.

However,

'4 order to address the NRC concern.,

FPL's Power Plant Engr'eering department has analyzed the consequences of all pc tential load drops in these areas.

The analysis has enve loped all possible configurations, sizes and weights of pc tential dropped loads.

The safe load path areas and restric ted zones have been developed as a resul't. of this analysis

and consider the capabilities of the structures beneath the load.

Plant Administrative Procedure 100438 "Control of Heavy Load Lifts" requires the operators to confine the loads to these areas.

Compliance with this procedure assures compliance with NUREG 0612 Guideline 2.

Any devia-tion from the safe load paths shall be approved by the Faci-lity Review Group which will ensure that the necessary pre-cautions of Guideline 2 are taken.

FPL's first phase response provided safe load paths for the pump

room, charging pump

,and diesel generator monorails.

Subsequent to this submittal, FPL's Power Plant Engineering department analyzed the consequences of potential load drops from these load handling systems and determined that plant safe shutdown capability could not be defeated.

Consequent-ly, the plant safe load path sketches were revised! to ex-clude. these monorails.

This was reported along with -the justification in the second phase respons'e (4).

2.1.3 Crane 0 erator Trainin

[Guideline 3,

NUREG-0612 Article S~Tgg a.

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations y

p

!.h

!d 1!.

order for NCCO's to comply with this guideline, the Licensee should verify that they comply with the Standards for Opera-tor Conduct as specified in Chapter 2.3 of ANSI B30.2-1976.

b.

FPL Position ph p

(4!

d h

!!R September 30, 1981 reported on the implementation of the guideline.

Although the Nuclear Control Center Operators (NCCO) are exempt from NUREG-0612 requirements,(i.e.

they do not handle heavy loads) they do comply with the standards for operator

'conduct as specified in Chapter 2.3 of ANSI B30.2-1976 with exceptions as noted in our second phase response for standard crane operators.

2.1.4 Special Liftin Devices

[Guideline 4

NUREG 0612 Article

~

~

~

a.

b.

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations t.

uc e

n' oes not comp y w th Guideline 4.

~ To com-ply, all special lifting devices should be evaluated to verify that they satisfy Guideline 4 and ANSI N14.6.1978.

FPL Position PPL xs presently undergoing discussions, with the supplier of our special lifting rigs to determine if the, intent of Guideline 4 is met at St Lucie Unit 1.

FPL will notify the NRC of the schedule for resolution of this issue when it is made available to us from'he supplier..

2.1.5 Liftin Devices (not s eci all desi ned

{Guideline 5

NUREG rtce a.

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations t.

uc e

Un t oes not satyrs y

the criteria of this guideline.

Insufficient information has been provided to determine whether use of slings will satisfy the require-ments of this guideline.

b.

FPL Position

!K p

!! g d !..

1 meets the requirements of ANSI B30.9.

A description of the program is attached.

I In addition to the requirements of ANSI B30.9, NUREG 0612 Guideline 5 requires that (1) the rated capacity be marked on the sling and (2) that the maximum working load be based upon static plus dynamic loads.

2.1.6 The program in effect at St.

Lucie Unit 1

does require the

.rated capacity to be marked on the sling.

FPL does not believe that it is practical in the field to account for a*dynamic load factor or that such a factor is necessary.

Presumably, if such a factor was a real safety

concern, the universally accepted ANSI standard would re-.

quire it.

In any event, the hoisting speeds at St.

Lucie Unit 1're relatively slow and any contribution from a dyna-mic effect would not be significant;

Also, any critical lifts, (e.g. reactor head lift, reactor missile shield, etc) are always done at very slow speeds.

Superimposing a

dynamic load factor in addition to the 5:1 existing safety factor for the slings would not be consis-tent with other safety factors used in crane design.

For

example, the hoisting rope required a 5:1 safety factor with no dynamic contribution.

(Crane Manufacturers Association of America, Specification lI70, Section 4.2).'ranes (Ins ection, Testin and Maintenance}

{Guideline 6

NUR rt c e

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations t.

ucxe n t comp es w t uideline 6 based upon the Licensee's intentions to comply with ANSI B30.2-,1976.

b.

FPL Position p*,

gram complies with the requirements of. ANSI B30. 2-1976 with the exception that tests and inspections are performed prior to use where it is not practical to meet the frequencies of ANSI B30.2 for periodic inspection and

testing, or where frequency of crane use is less than the specified inspection and test frequency (e.g.

the polar crane is used every 12 to 18 months during refueling operations and is generally not accessible during power operation}.

2.1.7 Crane Desi n

Guideline 7,

NUREG-0612, Article S:1.1(7) ]

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations t.

uc e nest oes not comp y w th Guideline 7.

In order "to comply, FPL should evaluate the exsiting crane design and determine whether fourteen (14) design conditions are satis-fied.

FPL should also verify that the telescoping jib crane.

conforms with the criteria of CMAA-70.

FPL Position d

Ill I.hl.

h

• p of NUREG-0612 Guideline 7.

1.

Reactor Building Polar Crane 2.

Fuel Cask Crane 3.

Intake Structure Crane The Spent Fuel Handling Machine and the Refueling Machine are not considered to be within the scope of this guideline since they do not handle heavy loads.

The Turbine Gantry Crane is likewise not considered since interlocks prevent load handling in the vicinity of..necessary safe shutdown equipment.

The new telescoping jib crane in the containment does not fall within the scope of CMAA 70 since it is not a

bridge or gantry type multiple girder crane (CMAA 70 Section 1.1.2).

The design of this crane was specified to conform with Specifications CMAA 70, CMAA 74 and ANSI B30.2 where applicable and no exceptions were taken by the manufacturer to our knowledge.

Following's a breakdown of the fourteen (14) design condi-tions as they apply to the affected cranes at St. Lucie Unit l.

1.

Im act Allowance

- A listing of the crane lifting speed at rate oa

~o lows:

Liftin S eed at Rated Load (FPH) a.

b.

co Crane Reactor o aT rane Fuel Cask Crane Intake Structure Crane a

n oo 8

6 30 Since the hoist speeds at full rated load do not exceed 30

FPM, the CMAA 70 impact allowance section does not affect these cranes.

The main hook speeds are consider-ably less than 30 FPM.

2.

Torsional Force's

- All of the affected cranes are of symmetr ca ox girder construction therefore CMAA 70 Article 3.3.2.1.3 does not affect the design per EOCI 61.

3.

Lon itudinal Stiffeners

- The affected crane girder de-signs are present y

e ng evaluated against the CMAA 70 criteria.

4, Allowable Com ressive Stress The b/c ratio for the Fue Cas an nta e

tructure Crane girders is less than 38.

The Reactor Polar Crane girder design is being evaluated'.

5.

Fati ue Considerations The number of -design loading cyc es at or near rated load is less than 20,000 cycles.

It is estimated that the number of loading cycles at or near rated load is less than 2000 cycles for all affected cranes.

6.

7 48 ~

Hoist Ro e

Re uirements The weight of the load block s

sma compare to the rated load for the affected cranes.

In addition, the hoist rope has been specified to have a factor safety of six.

Therefore the hoist rope safety factor exceeds the CMAA 70 requirements.

-"*hd ig Eh CE d*

are presently being evaluated for conformance to the CMAA reco'mmendations.

9.

Gear Desi n

. The specifications for the affected cranes requ re conformance to the latest applicabl'e specifica-tions of the American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA).

This satisfies the intent of CMAA 70 Article 4,g,

10. Brid e Brake Desi n A cab on the trolley arrangement s not use on any

t. Lucie Unit 1 cranes.

Hoist Brake Desi n

The hoist brake designs for the a

ecte cranes are presently being evaluated to determine compliance with the CMAA 70 criteria.

12.

13.

r 14.

Bum ers and Sto s - The bumper and stop designs for the a

ecte cranes are presently'eing evaluated to deter-mine compliance with the CMAA 70 criteria.

Static Control S stems

- The static control systems for t e a

ecte cranes are presently being evaluated to determine compliance with the CMAA 70 criteria.

Restart Protection The Intake Structure and'eactor o ar ranes are pendant operated with pushbuttons which are spring loaded to assure automatic return to the "OFF" position when the buttons are released.

The'uel Cask Crane is cab operated with a device which discon-nects all motors on power failure -and will 'not permit reset until all operating switches are in the "OFF" position.

In summary, items 3,

4, 7,

8, ll, 12 and 13 above are not completely resolved.

FPL is presently in contact with the crane manufacturers to determine how to best address these concerns and will inform the NRC of the schedule for resolution when it is available to us.

2.2 INTERIM PROTECTION MEASURE 2.2.1 Technical S ecifications Interim Protection Measure 1

mMR rt ce a.

FRC Conclusions and Recommendations TEe Lx.censee ma e

no statements or conclusions regarding this interim protection measure.'.

FPL Position

• i i d

h i

i g

tection measure because this measure was not included in Enclosure 2 of "Interim Actions for Control of Heavy Loads" of the NRC generic letter.

St.

Lucie Unit 1

Technical Specification 3

9 7 prohibits travel of loads in excess of 2000 pounds over 'irradiated fuel assemblies in the storage pool.

2.2.2 S ecial Reviews for Heav Loads Over the Core Interim Protect on easure Art c e FRC Conclusions and Recommendations n

or er to a

ow a

n ng o

compliance, the Licensee should provide sufficient information for FRC to verify that

'he extent of this review was comparable to that identified for this interim protection measure.

b.

FPL Position h

i d

h di g

h i i dd all of the items given in Interi'm Protection Measure 6.

As a result of this review some revisions to specific load handling procedures were made and have been implemented.

These procedures are available at the plant for review.

REFERENCES:

2

~

3.',

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

NRC, July 1980 NRC Letter to all Licensees

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads, December 22, 1980 R.E. Uhrig (FPL) letter to D.G. Eisenhut (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads (L-81-276), July 2, 1981 R.E. Uhrig (FPL) letter to D.G. Eisenhut (NRC)

Subject:

Control of Heavy Loads (L-81-428),

September 30, 1981 5.

Draft Technical Evaluation Report Control of Heavy

Loads, St.

Lucie Unit No.

1, FRC, October 9,

1981.

ATTACHMENTS 1.

Safe Load Paths (as revised in final response) 2.

Exceptions to ANSI 830.2-1976 for Crane Operator Training 3.

Sling Maintenance Program

A5 E.

Q 8

0 t

g+

~llRR=

I~~~~=

I

~

~

I I

l

n,

.'/(""':

/

~ 1 th h1C

~,

tlaA I

~ I

)I uh ataat'.

La Ic LaCY 4

)4 )IIIIL It to'uttltat C.atv It%

rC.)<.ZS.SD

(.

.J

'I

)

CCSI CD t

LI

' aot Atat'to I >>al ~ la

%tat ~~

~ I>>>>

IIIL

~ll~

~

~

~ ~ 1 al'at ~,

la aa ~ ta 22K.

)'RLSLIIIII'Ll>

VP

~ I IL "

I

(

~ I IwIQ g

Lu CII+

4 t.ra

~

h

%I*I.)DR LC)&45

'l 42vat

~

(

r,.

t

< ~eei-la>>ta CD>>. otu ha )A)Y r

~av'C IQ

~IAIt

~C)t O'LOIY 0

~ II

~

~

4 I' IAI

)'lo.CIW CtuLI)

L>>1 I~

I la alolY Q

4 I )O.LI 14 chat 1v aaatctlov 4OAO Stat

~) I

~ catu'o l

I.fl1: Ilj I ALA J

'/ II/

Lta tht IO I

I ~

I ava th ac.04 I

>>alt la LCv

('t vol Il I'

~.a cwaltlaata c at I'oca>>>>r wit ID Litt'Ate tlv>>I 1 ttaa cwt1a>>au2+

tt%42u I

,+I) gr 8

Figure 9

~. )

Safe Ioad path is outside of cross.-hatched areas.

~

0 ~

I IS Lo>>C rl

/

C<ht oo'(

~l T

YLOOII CC.LS.OO J

It&la>>

t lhh ICIILI)l~

vtI.IL+>>C.DI I 9

SAFE LOAD PATHS Reactor Buildin Cranes I.

Polar Crane 2.

Auxiliary Jib Crane 3.

Re Fuel inJ~aehhn

1 47'fr/

If

~1 ff

~ W

~ I I

~ 44': l41+I 'LI jtLff4 I ~ 41 fuLL t00$

F. LL.Za-I 55.$ 1 $ 145%

X~

~f

~v I'Lv V4lIL

%FLY.4Lf0$

Wl l

f~L ~

r F$ LL f5 $0<

(LL'&)

~

I 4IM~

Q. %1 fA.

54 W FIf'F,L, 5

ILAGIL p.0,5',

f %$

~44 (ILLLL

~ 1f4ff$

I V

II 5 V 40055 FL 00' 40.00 ll ~ I Ifll f1C0 I~ ~

4 ~

~ 44 I

4 ~I I4154 fff@~ ~

n I,1f I$ 46 00 0 h.

Ail~

rv). 'LP.M EL. 48.00 I

azr any ~>~

FIL5 II5VCV 5 Safe load path is outside of cross-hatched areas.

GAFE LOAD PATHS Figure 10 Fuel Handlin Buildin Cranes I

1.

Fuel Pool Bulkhead Monorail 2.

Fuel Cask Crane f

~

f

~

1 ~

~ f

~

~

~ \\'1

~

I dl

~

1 I

~

~

~ 1>' fgy 1

~'f I

~

~

~ 1 11 l~f

~ "1

VhCvF

~

Pl T~

LAYS Ch'PJ.

/;RED Safe load path is outside of cross-hatched areas.

SAFE LOAD PATHS Figure ll Intake Structure Brid e Crane

I

.pttacly~ent to letter L-81-428 5o NRC dated September 30, 1981 ATTACHtKtlT Re;.

St. Lucie Unit 1

Docket No. 50-335 Interim Actions for Control of Heav Loads The f<RC letter dated December 22, 1980 (subject:

Control of Heavy Loads) requested implementation of 'interim actions for the training, qualification, and conduct of crane operators.

Florida Power 8 Light v:ill implement, at St. Lucie Unit 1, Chapter 2-3 of ANSI Standard B 30.2-1976 with the following exceptions to the referenced paragraphs:

Paragraph 2-3.1.2.

We will require an eye test of 20/40 in both eyes for nevi, employees.

Paragraph 2-3.1.7 f, g and h.

Because of the power requirements of the crane motor heaters, we will meet the intent of these requirements by using the crane dead man switch instead"of the main line disconnect devices.

'aragraph 2-3. 1.7.o.

We will test those controls necessary for the crane operations to be conducted.

Paragraph 2-3.2.4.a.

At shift change, vie will try out the upper limit device under no load unless a

load is hanging from the hook at shift change or unless no crane operation in the korea of the upper-limit is anticipated.

4 A speci al procedure wi 1 1 be devel oped for the Inservi ce Inspec tion Tool in accordance with flUREG 0612 Section S.l.l(2), before its next intended use.

The use of this item is not anticipated until the refueling outage in 1983.

0 ei

.Excerpt from St. Lucie Unit 1

'Mecharfical Maintenance Train~

Program for Control of Heavy ~ds WIRE ROPE The wire rope slings covered shall be as.:spec'ified in accordance 'with ANSI B30.9.

Other grades,

types, sizes, and constructions may be used.

When such slings are used, the slig manufacturer shall be consulted for specific data.

1.

Factor of Safety The factor of safety for rope slings lf all grades shall be a minimum, of five (5)'..

2.

Proof Load 4

~ 'L Slings of all grades'erminated by mechanical splices,

sockets, and pressed or swaged.terminals shall be proof loaded by the sling manufacturer when specified by purchaser.

3.

Effects of Temperature

= ~

Fiber core wire rope slings of all grades shall not be exposed to'emperatures in excess of 200 F.

0 When wire rope slings of any grade are to be used at'temperatures above 400 F or below minus 60 F. the sling manufacturer should be 0

consulted.

4.

Minimum Sling Lengths 6 x 19,. 6 x 37 and cable laid slings shall have a minimum clear length of'ope ten (10) times the rope diameter between splices.

~-

Braided slings shall have a minimum clear length of rope forty (40) times the component rope diameter Between the loops or end fittings.

5".

Storage 1

~... Wire rope, slings of all. grades should be stored in an area where

~" -.','whey will=,'not be damaged. by::

~

~

~

~,

I

~

~

I' a.

Moisture b.

Extreme heat c.

Corrosion d.

Being run over e.

Being kinked

6.

Inspection All slings shall be visually inspected each day they are used.

A periodic inspection should also be performed on a regular basis with frequency of inspection based on:

a.

Frequency of sling use b., Severity of service conditions c.

Nature of lifts being made d.

Experience >gained on the service of of slings used in sim'ila'r".circumstances.

Periodic inspections should be performed by an appointed or authorized person.

Any. deterioration which could result in an appreciable form of original strength shall be carefully noted and determination made whether further use of the sling would constitute a safety hazard.

7.

Replacement No precise rules can be given for determination of the exact time for replacement of a sling since many variable factors are involved.

Safety in this respect depends largely upon the use of good )udgment by an appointed or authorized person in evaluating remaining strength in a used sling after allowance for deterioration disclosed by: inspection.

Safety,.of sling operation depends upon this'remaining strength.

Conditions such as the following should be sufficient reason for questioning sling safety and for consideration of replacement.

l.

Six randomly distributed broken wiere in one rope lay, or three broken wires in one strand in one rope lay.

2.

Wear or scraping of one-third the original diameter of outside individual wires.

3., Kinking, crus'hing, bird caging oi any other damage resulting in distortion of the rope structure.

4.

Evidence of heat damage.

5...En4.attachments that are cracked,.deformed, or worn.

.6.

Hooks that.have been opened more than 15 percent of the normal throat opening measured at the narrowest point or twisted more::than 10 degrees 'from the plane of the unbent hook.

7.

Corrosion of the rope or end attachments.

8.

Safe Operating Practice Personnel using wire rope slings shall be instrucLed in and conform to the following practices:

a.

Determine weight of load b.

Select a sling of suitable rated capacity c.

Use the proper hitch d.

Guide loads with a tag line when practical e.

When using multiple leg slings select the longest sling possible so as to reduce the tension in the sling legs.

I 8.

Safe Operating Practice (continued) f.

Examine the sling for damaged or worn areas g.

Attach the sling securely to the load h.

Pad or protect any sharp corners the sling is in contact with Center the load in the base (bowl) of the book to prevent hook point loading.

Avoid any kinks, loops, or twist in the legs k.

Keep hands and fingers from between the sling and the load 1.

Stand clear of the attached load m.

Start lift slowly to avoid shock loading the sling n.

Do not pull a sling from under a load when the load is resting 'on the sling.

Block the load up to remove the sling.

o.

Do not shorten a sling by knotting, by wire rope clips; or by any other means..

p.

Do not inspect a ihling by passing baze,:hands over the body.

Broken wires, if present, may puncture'he hands.

q.

Keep the sling well lubricated in order to pcevent corrosion.

J'

~

I

SYNTHETXC WEBBXNG l.

Construction

~Webbfn Webbing shall possess the following qualities:

a.

Sufficient strength to meet the sling manufacturer's requirements.

b.

Uniform thickness and width.

c.

Have selvage edges and not be split from the woven width.

Thread The thread used in tive manufacture of a sling shall be of the

. same type material as the webbing.

~Fitttn s Fittings shall be a.

Of sufficient strength to sustain twice the rated capacity without permanent deformation.

b.

Of a minimum breaking strength equal to that of the sling.

c.

Pree of all sharp edges that would in any way damage the webbing.

I Attachment of End Pittin s to Webbin and Formation of F. es The stitch pattern shall contain a sufficient number of stitches to develop the full breaking strength of the sling.

~Coetln s

Slings may be coated with elastomers or other suitable material that will impart desirable characteri5tics, such as:

a.

Abrasion resistance.

b.

Sealing of pores.

c.

Xncreased coefficient of friction.

2.

Safety Factor Factor of safety for 'synthetic web slings shall be a minimum of five.

3-Harking I ~

~ r Each sling shall be marked or. coded to show:

a.

"Name or trademark of manufacturer.

b.

Rated capacities for the type of hitch.

c.

Type of material.

Rated Capacity Rated capacities are afiected by the type of hitch used, and by the angle from the vertical when used as multi-legged slings or in basket hitches.

The sling manufacturer shall supply data on these effects.

5.

Saf e Operating Practices Mechanical Considerations a ~

b.

C ~

d.

e.

f.

go h.

i.

Determine weight of.load.

Select sling having suitable characteristics for the type.

of load hitch and environment.

Slings shall not be "loaded in excess of the rated capacity recommended by the sling manufacturer.

Slings with fittings which are used in a choker hitch shall be of sufficient length to assure that the choking action is on the webbing.

Sling's used in a basket hitch shall have the load balanced to prevent slippage.

Slings shall not be dragged on the floor or over any abrasive surface.

Slings shall not be twisted or tied into knots.

Slings shall not be pulled from under loads when load is resting on sling.

Sling shall always be protected from being cut by sharp corners, sharp edges and highly abrasive surfaces.

Do not drop slings.

Environmental Considerations aO b.

'i d.

e.

Slings shall be stored in an area to prevent mechanical or chemical damage.

Nylon slings shall not be used where acid conditions exist.

Polyester and polypropylene slings shall not be used where caustic conditions exist.

Polyester and nylon slings shall not be use'd at temperatures in excess of 180 F nor polypropylene in excess of 200 F.

Aluminum fittings sha-1 not be used where caustic conditions exist.

6.

Inspection T

e o8 Ins ection b.

C ~

Initial Inspection.

Before using any new or repaired sling it shall be inspected to insure that the correct sling is being used. as well as to determine that the sling meets the requirements of this code..

Frequent Inspection.

This inspection should be made by the person handling the sling each time the sling is used.

Periodic Inspection.

This inspection should be conducted by appointed personnel.

If at all possible, it should always be made by the same person.

Frequency.,of inspection should be, based on a.

Frequency of sling use.

b.

Severity of service conditions.

c.

Experience gained on the service life of slings used in similar circumstances.

Periodic inspections should be conducted at least annually.

Possible Defects A sling shall be removed from service if any defects, such as the following, are visible; a.

Acid or caustic burns.

b.

Melting or charring of any part of the surface.

c.

Snags, punctures, tears or.cuts.

d.

Broken or worn stitches.

e.

Wear or elongation exceeding the amount recommended by manufacturer.

f.

Distortion of fittin'gs.

~

~

g.

Other. apparent defects which c~use doubt as to the strength of the sling should be referred to the manufacturer for determination.

i:::, Zns ection Records Written inspection records, utilizing the'identification for each sling as established by the user, should be kept on all slings.

These records should show a description of the new sling and its condition on each'subsequent inspection.

~Re ayers Slings shall be repaired only by a sling manufacturer.

The sling manufacturer shall certify the reated capacity of repaired slings' Temporary repairs of either the webbing ox the fittings shall,not be permitted.

S ~

A PLANT MA TENANCE INSTRUCTION PLANT PSL Dos oEscAIPTIQN Lifting Slings I'lI Unli pen Molor EQ Minor L'Q IO Acr Moinr MFA Minor MFA DATE/AFVISIONNO July 1982 MANUFACTURER NA rg g Quarterly Instructions:

NA MOO EL VQI.

WRITTEN OY F.. Gross

/ gDDPb Inspection:

Per ANSI Standard B 30.9-1971 411' I

I I

g, J

~

Conditions such as the. following should be sufficient reason for questioning sling safety and for consideration of replacement.

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

.17

~ '.8 1.9 1.10 Six'randomly distributed broken wires in one rope lay, or three broken wires'in one strand in one rope lay.

Wear or scraping of one-third the original diameter of outside individual wires.

Kinking, crushing, bird caging or any other damage resulting in distortion of the rope structure.

Evidence of heat damage.

End attachments that are cracked,

deformed, or worn.

Hooks that have been opened more than 15 percent of the normal throat opening measured at the narrowest point or twisted more than 10 degrees from the plane-of the unbent hook.

Corrosion of the rope or end attachments.

Note'nder reinarks as to any slings disposed of so replacements can be made.

Slings that need lube use ensign 383; Notify your foreman to determine disposition of'nsatisfactory slings.

~ 4

'I I

I II I

2.

Locations:

See Map.

Cut Disposition Kinked Badly Worn

.2 ~ 2 2 '

Secondary sling storage turbine bldg South 19.5 elev.

h Secondary side warehouse.

'2;4 Primary rigging cage personal hatch.

2.5 New Fuel Bldg Storage cabt 19.5 elev.

Inspected by:

Date:

Remarks:

Form 3476 (Non Stocked) Aav. 2/81

nhn Pe<ye ot

~

~