.. u- - a .- -. - -- ; . . . . - . . . - .. . a. aL.-. ~ .. - ....~-....~.-.m--,

*$ ..

:,.

; *.

i'

ij

.

...

I

*1

v

-i

.i

4

4

CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 5

WATERFORD GENERATING STATION, UNIT 3 e

,

LOUISI ANA POWER AND LIGHTING C0rfANY'o

-1

- I

Docket No. [05000382]

.

4 Althor'

J. C. Rawers

j . .

-| Principal Tecnnical InvestigatorT. H. Stickley

jij

i .

t o4 EGLG Idano, Inc.,

iI 'N

| April 1982 -

|

q-

|a.

'

' .4^

1 .?|,)

|7,

**o s

-

S ws ms. m am , w - = - _ ---;-- ~ a m m mw d

_ _ _ . , _ _ .- , - _ . _ . - _a ..~- ;. - . a-

.i*

o. ,.

. .

,

.

ASSTRACTq

.

j The Nuclear Regu'latory Commission (NRC) has requested that all nuclear'

plants either operating or under construction submit a response ofcompliancy with NUREG-0612,, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear PowerPlants." EGLG Idano, Inc. has contracted with the NRC to evaluate theresponses of those plants presently under construction. This report

', contains EG&G's evaluation and recommendations for the Louisiana Fower &Lignt Company (LP&L Co.) Waterford Generating Station, Unit 3 (WGS No. 3).

i ,;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

o

:) Waterf ord Generating Station, Unit 3 (WGS No. 3), Louisiana Power & ,

Lignt Company (LP&L Co.) does not fully comply with the guidelines of' ''

NURE G-0612. An examination by EG&G of the Licensee's Report indicates thatalthough several sections were well presented and developed, there areseveral major deficiencies for compliance for example: (1) programs,procedures, etc. are not yet completed and several not even started, and

f (2) vague and general terms are used as part of the compliance responsewhich are too open-ended for EG&G to accept.

'd1.j

- -

N The main report contains recommer.dations which will aid in bringing.oD the Licensee's Report into compliance with the appropriate guidelines.4,< .

4+) a

/

( ,\>*

f,

I '

*I

r- - = -

,

; *

!#,

j'" .

.

,; .

[[ !JO

..

..*!'

l~l''

b.j, o

f- m,

i} y ,m,7.--..- -,

- , , , , ,- . , 22 - . - -- ,P~ 9-m.,,g

_. . . ,

, Q, - :%. - ,.a. _ _- _ a .._ a - "m

!4 . ...

; .

. .

*i .

CONTENTS-.

^ 1,1i

[ % ,,

.,

..j A B STR A C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ii. . . . . . . . .. . .........i

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... iis

, . 1. I N TR O D UC T IO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

.q] 1.1 P u rp o s e o f R e v i e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

.,

j 1.2 Ge n er i c B a ck g r o u n d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

i

i

'] 1.3 Plant-Specific Background ................................. 3,.

A

-d 2.ij EV A LUAT IO N A N D R E COMME NDAT IO NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . .4:

i 2.1 Overview .................................................. 4 ,

'j. 2.2 He avy 1.o a d Overhe ad Hand l ing Sys t ems . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

'

2.3 Ge n e r a l Gu i d e l i n e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-

5++

.{ 2.4 In ter im P rotect ion Me asure s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-

*O1

.-

: 1 3. CONCLUDING SUMMARY .............................................. 15'..,

Ij 3.1 Ap pl icab le Lo ad Ha ndl ing Sys tems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15a.

. 3.2 Gu i del i n e Recommend at i on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 ,1

h

! 'd 3.3 In t er i m P r o t e c t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16x

4. REFERENCES ...................................................... 17o<

5. TASLES.......................................................... 18*.

6i*

'd Comp l i a n c e S t a t u s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

. q,

5

.,* gI -

1.1| T| .A'

-C

b da '.

t

3

4'

i " C-

?/

| L.';y*

,.

cm

4.r

?* .|

.).5 d.

.. .'

.g

- I' e O b. M The a4M9M v r e 4% W " h h- 9m- 3 mm ht#f &m-A mu,M' #4Sh&M 4M h 'h * Ab Ef NE MMe @-h-= NM E"4M h4 - " * -

x. .. _ - K G- i M Z ... L L i L : L L ._.. J . K .-

> (* ~

. .

i-

,

'

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT; FOR

'

WATERFORD GENERATING STATION UNIT 3 (WGS No. 3)'

J

LOUISI ANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (LP&L CO.),

,

1 -

,

o 1. INTRODUCTIONy

j 1.1 Purpose of Review

This technical evaluation report documents the EGLG Idaho, Inc. review

of general load handling policy and procedures at Waterford Generating. .i Statica Unit 3 (WCS No. 3), Louisiana Power & Lignt Company (LP&L

,

Co.). The review was performed to assess conformence to the general *

'

load handling guidelines of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads atj tbclear Power Plants" [1], Section 5.1.1.

.

1.2 Generic Backc_round.

.

'

Generic Technical Activity Task A-36 was established by the U.S..

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to systematically examineNuclear Power Plant licensing criteria and the adequacy of measures in

effect at operating nuclear power plants to assure the safe handling'

of heavy loads, and to recommend necessary changes to these measures.This activity was initiated by a letter issued by the NRC staff on "

y- May 17,1978 [2), to all power reactor licensees, requesting14 information concerning the control of heavy loads near spent fuel.

J7)?

The results of Task A-36 were reported in NUREG-0612, " Control of.

Heavy loads at ibclear Power Plants." The staff's conclusion from1

.

d this evaluation was that existing measures to control the handling ofheavy loads at operating plants, although providing protect. ion fromcertain potential problems, did not adequately cover the major causes

} of load handling accidents and should be upgraded.C

,

t

'

. .__-

,, :_ m% m, swf:. # 1*" * ~ ~~

-

v- - -.w . n.~ .as..gw~. a w:.s- . - . -. . . , -

I *

. . .

E'

In order to upgrade measures f or the control of heavy loads, the staffI developed a series of guidelines, based on an accepted approach or

,

protection philoiophy, designed to achieve a two-pnase objective .The first portion of the objective, achieved througn a set of generalguidelines identified,in NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1, is to ensure that

i

tne design and operation of all load handling systems at nuclear powerplants is appropriate for the critical tasks in which tney are

; employed and that the probability of f ailure is minimal. Tne second

portion of tne staff's objective, achieved through guideline:3

; identified in NUREG-0612, Articles 5.1.2 through 5.1.5, is to ensurethat, for load handling systems in areas where their f ailure might,

result in significant consequences, either (1) f eatures are provided,in addition to those required for all load handling systems, to ensurei *

*

. that the potential for a load crop is extremely small (e.g., a,

single-failure-proof crane) or (2) conservative evaluations of loada

handling accidents indicate that the potential consequences of any,

'load drop are acceptably small. Acceptability of accident

.

consequences is quantified in NUREG-0612..

The approach used to develop the staf f guidelines f or minimizing the~potential for a load drop was based on defense in depth,and is

I summarized as follows:O

,. . -

provide operator training, handling system design, loado..

I.

handling instructions, and equipment inspection to assurereliable operation of the handling system;i.a

define safe load travel paths through procedures ando,

. , . operator training so that, to the extent practical, heavy ..

} loads are not carried over or near irradiated fuel or saf e -

shutdown equipment;-

g5 *

h-1, .provide mechanical stops or electrical interlocks to prevento

|T movement of heavy loads over irradiated fuel or in proximity3, to equipment associated with redundant shutdown paths.

i

e.4-

: 2

. .

x - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - .. - - . .

T ,-_-.....a.--- -

- - - -- - - - - - - - . . . , - . .. . :: a-~.

|

.Ij Staff guidelines resulting from the foregoing are tabulated in,

Section 5 of fiUREG-0612.1 <.

..

I

f 1.3 Plant-Soecific Background.

0" December 22, 1980, the tiRC issued a letter [3] to Louisiana Power &Light Co., the Licensee for Waterford Generating Station, requesting

1I that the Licensee review provisions for handling and control of heavy

loads at Waterf ord Generating Station, thit 3, evaluate theseprovisions with respect to the guidelines of tiUREG-0612, and provice

,

certain additional information to be used for an independentdetermination of conf ormance to these guidelines. On June 19, 1981,

i Louisiana Power & Light Co. provided the initial response [4] to tnis '

.request. -

On September 21, 1981, Louisiana Power & Light Co. submitted a second

or follow-up response to this request. ' Only the Phase I guidelineobjectives will be addressed below. These involve approximately 60%of tne June 19, 1981 response. The remaining sections of the June 19,1981 and all of the September 21, 1981 response are concerned withPhase II. Compliances to Phase II requirements are semi-independentof Phase I and will not be addressed below..,

O

L .

J .

_

-

R. s.

4

ig1

,

i e

s

'.: 3.

. ..

_

,, _- _ _ ___-. ._. - , _ _ . . a.m______,_ .m....,,.,

:

i / -

,-. .

,

2. EVALUATION AND RECCMMENDATIONS

'

2.5 Overview -,

The following section,s summarize Louisiana Power & Light Co. (LP&LCo.) review of heavy load handling at Waterford Generating Station,Unit 3 (WGS No. 3), and include EGLG's evaluation, conclusions, andrecommendations which will aid the licensee in bringing the f acilitiesmore completely into compliance with the intent of NUREG-0612. The

; licensee nas indicated the weight of a heavy load for this facilityR (as defined in NUREG-0612, Article 1.2) as approximately 1,450 poundsp.f (Licensee Report Paragraph 4, Fage 6).1;

i ,

j 2.2 Heavy Load Overhead Handling Systems *.

< ':

Vj This section reviews the licensee's list of overhead handling systemsi which are subject to the criteria of NUREG-0612 and the licensee's

3 justification for excluding other overhead handling systems from' theh above mentioned list.}

~

2.2.1 Scope.

-4y " Report the results of your review of plant arrangements to1 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 (taking no credit for any interlocks,..|, technical specifications, operating procedures, or detailed7 structural analysis) and justify the exclusion ~ of any overheadC handling system from your list by verifying that there is9 sufficient physical separation from any load-impact point and any

safety-related component to permit a determination by inspectioni, that no-heavy load drop can result in damage to any system or

,

y component required for plant shutdown or decay heat removal.".

A. Summary of Licensee Statements'

.

j By plant design, only three cranes need be addressed::

R (1) Reactor Containment Building Polar Crane.

.

__ _ _ _ _ _____ _

] ._ _ Li, _. 1 . _ - - - - - - - . . .- . -

: . .

*.

.

| (2) Fuel Kancling Building Bridge Crane.}J

J

(3) Reactor Auxiliary Building Radwaste Cask Handling Briage''

*s'

Crane.

j All other cranes'are physically separated from irradiated fuel,reactor vessel, spent fuel storage pool, and saf e shutcownequipments / components.

i

Heavy loads were generally selected in accordance with guicelinesin NUREG-0612.s

B. EGLG Evaluation3 ,

.

EGLG Evaluation of LP&L Co.'s Responses which were pertinent tocrane identification Section 3 (overnead cranes), Section 4(heavy loads), and Section 5 (evaluation), were determined to bereasonably complete and well presented. However, the response

-j did not state what criteria were used for f ailure analysis; i.e.,1-; did the criteria include analysis of failure situations in which-

a heavy load would break through a wall or floor and then impacton saf e shutdown equipment? Similarly, in tne selection of heavyloads f or each overhead nandling system, the LP&L Co. response

did not state what criteria were used for elimination of certain3

heavy loads from NUREG-0612 Table 3.1-1. In particular, it was~ .

l! not obvious that the list of heavy loads provided by LP&L Co.,J ,

j included all crane operations involving load weights above..

' 1450 lbs.P

1

| .k =

.

In addition, although EGLG has no reason f or questioning the'

integrity of the LP&L Co. report, specifically the detenninationof which cranes require response to NUREG-0612, EG&G requests, -

- that all cranes in the plant be listed and the reason for

excluding any crane from furtner considerations be given.t . <

'

'

:

.

1 5y

ase ?_m~ uw m um,- 4~;ww . .o:orsm=+ man- s o m -: :-e ~ -- - =m***emMWM

_ _ _ . . . _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

*!

.

!I

j C. EGLG Conclusions and Recommendations!;

; The LP&L Co. response provided insufficient information to assess.i compliance with the guideline quoted in paragrapn 2.2.1.!

EGLG recommends that LP&L Co. identify more explicitly and morej lucidly the criteria which were used in the decision process

relative to establishing ccepliance with tne NUREG for guideline.

!

] EG&G recommends the loao capacity of each crane be provided.I1

! 2.3 General Guidelines14

5

This section addresses the extent to wnich the applicable handlingsvstems comply with the general guidelines of NUREG-0612

,

Article 5.1.1. EG&G's conclusions and recommendations are provided insummaries f or each guideline.

,

'

The NRC has established seven general guidelines wnich must be met in

-} order to provide the defense-in-depth approach for the handling cfj heavy loads. These guidelines concern the following criteria from

d Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.1:

A. Guideline 1--Safe load Patns

'Ir'

B. Guideline 2--Load Handling Procedures

C. Guideline 3--Crane Operator Training.

D. Guideline 4--Special Lif ting Devicesc

E. Guideline 5--Lifting Devices (not specially designed)'

F. Guideline 6--Cranes (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance) -

G. Gu ideline 7--Crane Design.

,

6

. .

.y-y .my +vry,, __ __,_W p

_---m-. - -

.- - -~c , . - . .w . > . m . . - . -(,'

. ,,

! -

.

1

These seven guidelines must be satisfied for all overhead handling,

I systems and programs in order to permit handling heavy loacs in the.

'vicinity of the ' reactor vessel, near spent fuel in the spent fuel

'h pool, or in other areas where a load drop could damage safe shutdownsystems. The succeeding paragraphs address the guidelines,

i individually.J

l 2.3.1 Safe Load Patns [ Guideline 1, NUP.EG-0612, Article 5.1.l(1)]

: ; "Saf e load paths should be defined for the movement of heavyloads to minimize the potential for heavy loads, if cropped, toa

impact irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel and in the spentfuel pool, or to impact saf e shutdown equipment. Tne path shouldfollow, to the extent practical, structural floor riemoers, beams, ,

etc., such that if the load is dropped, the structure is more,

* - ; likely to withstand the impact. Tnese load paths should bedefined in procedures, shown on equipment layout drawings, and

u clearly marked on the floor in the area where the load is to be* handled. Deviations from defined load paths should require.

- written alternative procedures approved by the plant safetyreview committee."

.

A. Summary of Licensee Statements;j

Safe . load paths were generally defined in accordance witn the4.

( guidelines. ibwever, the actual load travel' path may oe taken.

[ with greater'flexicility than those outlined. Load path drawingsare shown for each crane operation. (Licensee Report

,': Section 5.3) .o

-,e

Y B. EG&G Evaluation

2-

'{ LP&L Co. provided detailed and well illustrated drawings of the*

-

t load paths for each crane load handling operation addressed in?q Section 2.2.1, above. LP&L Co. stated that the load paths were

generally defined in accordance with the guidelines. ~!iewever,P they did not explicitly state which guideline points were

excepted, or what alternative criteria were establisbeo andy"' substituted.'s

2

5d

\ 7n$1*.n

* .S A a .' diI ' U ' ~7. ~~ s AaAETA L- ~'' '' * . . " ~ .- ) - 6M_-'

''*'

'. . - . - - . . . - - - - ~ - . . . _ . .

, ,

.,

.

I-1 In addition, the Guideline specifies several criteria whicn were

not addressed in tne response: (1) load patns should be cefined<

|in the procedures, (2) load patns should be clearly marked on :ne' .

,

3 floor, and (3) alternative load paths shoula be descriced and> justified in written, approved p oceoures.

C. EGLG Conclusions and Recommendations

4 EGLG concludes that LP&L Co. is not in compliance with the intent,

'

of Guideline 1, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.1.,

EGLG recommends that LP&L Co. state specifically wnat criteriawere used to ce ermine load paths and load handling areas. -

EGLG recommends that LP&L Co. be more specific in describingpossible alternate routes. Written procedures are needed to

define conditions for permissiole use of these alternative patns,provide, safety assessments cf such use, etc.

EG&G recommends that LP&L Co. establish and document a method to| delineate the actual lcac paths.!

d2.3.2 Load Fundling Procedures [ Guideline 2, NUREG-0512, Article.

'

5.1.l(2)]

" Procedures should be developed to cover load handling operationsfor heavy loads tnat are or could be handled over or in proximityto irradiated fuel or safe shutdown equipment. At a minimum,procedures should cover handling of those loads listed in

H. Table 3-1 of NUREG-0612. These procedures shouldj include: icentification of required equipment; inspections and -

acceptance criteria required before movement of load; the stepsand proper sequence to be followed in handling the load; definingthe saf e path; and other special precautions."

'

.

8~

1

, '1

'''''''''"''''L,~ ,

" " * ~~

'

~?" * ~. L . ~- C. . i ' 1_ x :- '- ' G.L i_ :AT '

__.- .-- . .. - .. . . - . . ....a.-.- . . . - . ~-..n_

r a

< -.

|1 A .' Su= nary of Licensee Statements1-

i.f

!'

'For all cranes concerned, procedures will be developed to cover '

i _ load handling operations for the heavy loads listed inParagraph 4 that are or could be handled over or in proximity toirradiated fuel or safe snutdown equipment in accordance with theGuidelines of Section 5.1.l(2) of NUREG-0612,' (Licensee ReportSection 5.2, Paragrapn 1).

} B. EG&G Evaluation114

y EGLG is in basic agreement with the program outlined by LP&L Co.for ccmpliance with Section 5.1.l(2) of NUREG-0612. However,

.EGLG suggest the procedures be written as soon as pessible.

7

C. EG&G Conclusions and Recommendations

C_ [

EG&G has concluded that LP&L Co. is in minimum compliance with,

'

the intent of Guideline 2, NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(2)..

.

2.3.3 Crane Operator Trainino (Guideline 3, NUREG-0612,

Article 5.1.l(3)],

' '

.-

" Cran'e operators should be trained, qualified and conductthemselves in accordance with Chapter 2-3 of ANSI B30.2-1976,,

{! ' Overhead and Gantry Cranes * [5].".

A. Summary of Licensee Statementsi

. .

:b .

-

,

3 ' Crane operators will be trained, qualified, and conducty themselves in accordance with the Guidelines of Chapter 2-3 of'

ANSI B30.2-1976, "Overnead and Gantry Cranes." (Licensee Reportp Section 5.2 Paragraph 2).F -

B. EGLG Evaluation~

'

W*

:,

jf EGLG is in basic agreement with the proposed program that LP&LCo has submitted for compliance with the Guideline.

,

%

' C

I'

aA

.. 9Yi

? ,-

q'. .. - -

.

[j,k MM "#'' '' ' ' '- 0 - * ^ ^ " -

--= ~ . . . . . .. .- .a...-...-...--..-.. - ..:......--...-...

{<|

-

.

'

C. EGLG Conclusion and Recommendations.

1

EGLG has concluded that LP&L Co. does meet the minimal basic' '

conditions for compliance with the intent of Caideline 3,

f NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(3) .

[[ 2.3.4 Special Lif tino Devices [ Guideline 4, NUREG-0612,

Article 5.1.1(4))

. "Special lif ting devices should satisfy the guidelines of ANSIj N14.6-1978, ' Standard for Special Lif ting Devices fcr Shipping9 Containers Wei

Materials' [6]ghing 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More f or NuclearH This standard should apply to all special.

1 lifting devices which carry neavy leads in areas as cefinedabove. For operating plants certain inspections and load tests '

may be accepted in lieu of certain material requirements in the '

standard. In addition, the stress design f actor stated inSection 3.2.1.1 of ANSI N14.6 should be based on the combinedmaximum static and dynamic loads that could be imparted on thehandling device based on characteristics of the crane which will,

*

be used. This is in lieu of the guideline in Section 3.2.1.1, of- ANSI N14.6 which bases the stress design f actor on only the

weight (static load) of the load and of the interveningj components of the special handling cevice."qi A. Summary of Licensee Statements

s . .

'

-

'Special lifting rigs for the reactor vessel head, core supportbarrel, and upper guide structure, as well as reactor coolantpump motors, will be verified to satisfy the guidelines ofca

Section 5.1.l(4) of NUREG-0612 on ANSI N14.5-1978.I (Licensee''

.

Report Section 5.2 Paragraph 4). -

4

5'

B. EGLG Evaluation:

EGLG is in agreement with LP&L Co. proposed program..

t

s EG&G wishes to point out several salient features of NUREG-0612'

b Section 5.l.l(4) which LP&L Co. should address: (1) All special2 1 lifting devices which carry heavy loads are to be addressed. For} ' the WGS No. 3 plant, heavy loads are defined to be 1450 l b

,_

minimum, not the 10,000-lb lower limit of ANSI N14.6-1978:

;A

+

.

S 10

?9 <~ '

.-

m. I "3 U 4 - M b -*=A " 'M - ""- - "

_ ;.:-w+.:: w=. a. 2 -.u.a = . .qu .w =- .a-.L.:-- -

. . , . . ,

; . .i .

* d.. A - (2) In addition, the stress oesign factor is based on a*

g*

q y' ~1 c$ din'tDrhof static and dynamic loads, not just the static loadq. 3 -

a s., ..

m,.q of ArtSI N14.6-1978. ~3, ~

'i. ,,g ,

,

,..

C. EGLG: Conclusions and Recormendations vwt

;- 'MEG&G has concquded that LP&L Co. has provided insufficient '\

, fi. inf ormation f or compliance with NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(4).3

q

EG&G recommends that LP&L Co. address tne stress design factor C'p. . -

{h- 1

and the (eight definition qf heavy loads necessary to comply with'A the guideline.'t ~,; 'i

.

3 i ' ,

2.3.5 LiftinA Devices (tbt Specially Desiened) fGuideline 5. '

NUREG-0612. Article 5.1.l(5)]_

,

3 3ij " Lifting devices that are not specially desig Jed should beeK installed and used in accordance with the guidel, ires of -

ANSI B30.9-1971, ' Slings ' [7]. However, in sehcting tne.. proper. sling, the load used should be the sum of the static and' niaximumS dynamic load. The rating identified on the sling sh'oild te'in% terms of the 'ststic load' which produces the maximum sr.aDic and1 dynamic load. 'Tnere this restricts slings to use on on?y certain<

7 cranes, the slings snould be clearly marked as to the cranes withh which they may be used."% ys

J- A. ' Summary of Licensee Statements.ygb ',

'.sq, \0ther lifting devices will be installed and used in accordanceg ,

$W with the guidelines of Section 5.1.l(5) of NUREG-0612 or ANSI -9i 830.9-1981 "Sl ings". ' (Licensee Report Section 5.2 P&agraph 5).M '

~

Q B. (G&G EvaluationY r' \ ..

9 ~ .

@ EGLG i' a agreement with LP&L Co. proposed program.,

w.s-

;y % ..U 3 .1 points out a specific requirement feature o'f.

;;j. nCREG-0612 Section 5.1.l(5) which LP&L Co. must address: The! U.

f b stress design f actor is based on a comoination of static and -

[2 dyndiic loads, not just the static l'oad of ANSI B30.9-1971.'

: ,

y,

1

{,

,

ei

W 115" ..

/$- <

r|, - . < .

_ , , , - . . = _ - - - - .

z ~~.AA '-- =". = .. ./ x. ...-.s-- --.- - --

.. .

*.

,j EG&G also suggests that each sling be properly marked or'

otherwise identified as to its load limits, for wnich cranes it.may be used, and any other restriction whien may be placed upon a-

-

particular sling.;.;

a

! C. EG&G Conclusions' and Recommendations,

'1,

3 EGLG has concluded that LP&L Co. does not comply with the intent!

of Guideline 5, NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(5).,

:

'

EGLG recommends that LP&L Co. provide suf ficient information that

] the stress design f actor for each load has been properlyj! addressed.

,

.

2.3.6 Cranes (Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance) [ Guideline 6,s

.i . NUREG-0612, Articl e 5.1.l(6)]4

' 31 -

"The crane should be inspected, tested, anc maintained in -1 accordance with Chapter 2-2 of ANSI E30.2-1976, ' Overhead and

6]jGantry Cranes,' with the exception that tests and inspectionsshould be pertormed prior to use where it is not practical to

4 meet the frequencies of ANSI 330.2 for periodic _ inspection and.i test, or where frequency of crane use is less than the specifiedj inspection and test frequency (e.g., the polar crane inside a PWR

containment may only be used every 12 to 18 months during'

refueling operations, and is generally not accessible during! "]y power operation. ANSI B30.2, however, calls for certain

inspections to be performed daily or monthly. For sucn cranes| -- j having limited usage, the inspections, test, and maintenance ~

l5 should oe performed prior to their use)."['

A. Summary of Licensee Statements

:'

LP&L Co. 's statement is essentially a restatement of NUREG-0612.

f- Article 5.1.1(6) with the ADDED STATEMENT," and where therequirements of the rated load tests do not conflict with Safe '

M Handling Practices." (Licensee Report Section 5.2 Paragraph 3).: .

[., B. EG&G Evaluation

,

EGLG is in general agreement with LP&L Co. proposed program.,;

'1

U

.

1

I'

. 12

:ll, iy

%1

e- = w .

- - o - - - _ - - -

=__ .._. . _____ _ . .. ._. . - . . - .

_ a.__L ,.,c;. .:...,.._;.o.- -__ _._ a w. : t r. ' a ma - = . _ _ _ . . . . = - - - _ _ ._. _

. .

'. .

'

.

EG&G requests that the. individual instances where the load rate.

tests do conflict with saf e handling practices be cited and .-% .

alternative tests be proposed and submitted for review.1

i

)

] C. EGLG Conclusions'and Recorrendations'

,

3EG&G concludes that LP&L Co. does comply with the minimum intent4

q of Guideline 6, NUREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(6).

j 2.3.7 Crane Design [ Guideline 7, NUREG-0612, Article 5.1.l(7)]ii

"Tne crane should be desigr.ed to meet the applicable critcria and*

|1 guidelines of Ciapter 2-1 of ANSI 830.2-1976, ' Overhead and ,

~ j Gantry Cranes,' and of CMAA-70, ' Specifications for Electric .

j Overhead Traveling Cranes' [8]. An alternat1ve to aj specification in ANSI B30.0 or CMAA-70 may be accepted in lieu ofj specific compliance if the intent of the specification is

, :.1 satistied."d

E A. Summary of Licensee Statements .

3,j ,

n. . .l "tbne of the above cranes are considered as sincle- f ailure-

. ' > proof and they do not comply completely with NUREG-0554."' '

" Upgrading the existing cranes to improve the reliability of'

d their design, fabrication, installation, and testing is not,j contemplated."d'.j "However, all cranes were designed, f abricated, installed, and.

,

Q tested in accordance with EBASCO Specifications which generally] comply witn the Guidelines of CMAA Specification No. 70, andf4 Chcpter 2-T of ANSI B30.2-1976." (Licensee Report, Section 5.1d Page 3).:A'1 B. EG&G EvaluationJ71

,] EGLG has no reason to believe that the cranes at WGS No. 3 do not *

M comply with the intent of the Guidelines. However, tt,1e -

e information supplied to EGLG is insufficient for proper.I evaluation. For example, EGLG was not provided with a copy of

|qp EBASCO Specifications. Therefore, it was not possible to conduct

.

an item-by-item comparison between EBASCO specifications and

|| those of CMAA 70 and ANSI B30.2.m|

:

, 13k

. , - , - . - . ., - . . - - , - - - . - - . - . - - . - - -

.x_ . - : u~ e.a =1 : + - - w -a- -== -- ~2 i A-'

. . -

*.

*-

, .

JC. EG&G Conclusion and Recommendations

'

i * .

j EGLG has concluded that LP&L Co. does not comply with the intent.

,; of Guideline 7, flVREG-0612 Article 5.1.l(7).-] -

- EGLG recommends that LP&L Co. specify eacn incident in which;.

ESASCO specifications do not agree with CPAA 70 and AriSI B30.2; specification and_what precautions have been taken or variance!

.j has been substituted.- *;.

I

2.4 Interim Protection Measures1:

,1uj .

The tiRC staff has established (tiUREG-0612, Article 5.3) that six [j measures should be initiated to provide reasonable assurance that

"i

. I'handling of heavy loads will be performed in a safe manner until final

i implementation of the general guidelines of t1UREG-0612, Article 5.1 isa .

4,1 complete. However, because the WGS tio. 3 plant is currently not. an.l operating f acility nor will it be operating in the near future, EG&G3~

recor=: ends that LP&L Co. not spend time and effort adcressing the

d. 4Interim Protection Phase of riUREG-0612, but instead devote its efforts

; to . addressing the guideline deficiencies listed in Section 2'of thisay report.>

'.}4

'; .

'j

d -

3d')i..

_

.

i

<N

! :-jp.,

.

I "l

|baf 9

|

:

k-

; 14

>._l

.. ._ _ . _ _ _ . _ -_ _=,_____m_..._.___._.m..-.-..

. ,

*

. .

.

3. CONCLUDING SUMMRY

'

Witn respect to 'the wording of various sections of the LP&L document.

EGLG finds tne terms: ' generally oefined' (Section 5.3), ' generallycomply' (Section 5.1), ' generally selected' (Section 4), and' generally taken' (Section 2) to be vague. EGLG believes that

i

: LPLL Co. should state explicitly the points on which LP&L Co. does notcomply with the intent of NUREG-0612. EGLG will not endorse anyguideline response which is written in open-ended terms.

i!

! 3.1 Anolicable Load Handling Systemsi9

j The list of cranes and noists supplied by the Licensee as being i

j subject to the provisions of NUREG-0612 appears in adequate (seeI

Section 2.2.1) . EGLG recca.i. ends that all cranes in the plant be1

] listed and a more thorough justification be provided for excludingj those cranes which LP&L Co. feels are not subject to NUREG-0612

j' provisions. '

,b

3.2 Guideline Recommendations.

.

Compliance with the seven NRC guidelines for heavy load handling'

,

(Section 2.3) is not satisf actory at Waterford Generating Stationj Un i t 3. This conclusion is presented in tabular form as Table 3.1.

?

Several of the principal specific recommendations whicn will aid in ~

t bring the plant into compliance with the intent of these guidelinesare provided as follows:

.

e

?

:

<!

m

.

l i

b|'

15,

1| 'm i m -m., m ,.c.w.%._._._....~_,,,__ _. . -- e. _c ,. , _ ,

wa~ - w_nn -.

~~ 3 m. - &_ , _

_

,

1 . .

*

.

.

't Recor:rnendationGuideline SubjectJq

Criteria used to determine loadj 1. Safe Load Paths a.p.aths and load handling areas ...

!

Ishould be specifically stated.

*

3l b. The subject of alternate routes

should be considered in more depth.-,

An effective method of delineatingc.load paths should be determined..,

2. Load Handling Procedures Immediate attention should be directedtoward development of written procedure.. , -

iJ~

3. Crane Operator Training Immeciate attention should be directedtowards developing a written program

q which covers the training,qualification, and worx concuct of crane

'

operators.*

'4 . Special Lif ting Device Immediate attention should be directedtowards addressing the specificationsu

{ listed in the guideline.

Immediate attention should be directed1 S. Lif tino Devices towaros addressing the specification;

listed in the guideline.4

,1 Immediate attention should be cirected.

! :j 6. Cranes

1- toward development of a written program

for the inspection, testing, andj maintenance of cranes.J

Specific disagreements or , discrepanciesI. 7. De sign between ESASCO specification and CPAA 70

,_j. and ANSI S30.2 should be identified and.j addressed.~

i .H

.

3.3 Interim Protectionaja , .

Proper responses to the guidelines defined in Section 2.3 of thisv*

report will eliminate the need for interim measures.

:

4

a .

,*

N 16

'

.

,#gM *M + <m .. .denwis va+1w, ,qm g. , p, __ '-"^=or=+*. = A% 6_; i

__ __ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ - - --~~- - - - - - - - - - - - ----i'-""'

!. *

,

*

; .

1

4. REFEREtiCES

.,

1. NUREG-0612 -

Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants1 NRC ~

f.o

j 2. V. Stello, Jr. (HRC)j Letter to all licensees. Subject: Request for Additional Information

i on Control of Heavy Loads taar Spent Fuel,q NRC, 17 May 1978

n

3. NRC letter to PLCO. Subject: NRC Recuest for Additional Informationon Control of Heavy Loads t; ear Spent Fuel ',

NRC, 22 Decemoer 1980 -

'1 4 Letter to NRC: Subject: Waterford 3 SES Control of Heavy LoadsFrom L. V. Maurin, Associate Vice President, LP&L Co. toD. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing USNRC Dated19 June 1981.

5. ANSI S30.2-19 76b

-

" Overhead and Gantry Cranes"

6. ANSI N14.6-19 78

" Standard for Lif ting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing1 10,000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More for Ibclear Materials".sa

; 7. ANSI B30.9-19 71

] " Slings" '

, . ,.

/ 8. CMAA-70.

. . . " Specifications for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes".]u

'.-

d

idis?

,

b _-

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ~ ~

w-_.s AL L.. - - X -w . - - - - a~ ~- 'A'~,, .. . . <

' ~ ~' ~~~~~ ~~ '' '"

Lut1,'LI Aut.L bl AIUS Of Luul51 AM TUWLR Aliu LIGillifr. Cttf rRt4Y Uret i hu, 3, ilEAvf loa 11 Cortlitet. Pl. Arts R?lu RCilvillES*

4 Atti 1.8 )

f.i

,

'

Guidelines per NuitCG-0612, Art icle 5.1.1Weight .

or Guideline i Guideline 2 Guideline 3 Guideline 4 Guideline 5 Guideline 6 Gipdeline 1 hEquipment Capacity Safe load Crane Operator Special Lifting Crane - fest

!. .Designation Heavy loads (tons) Paths Procedures fraininq Deelces Slings And inspection Crane Desig I'Reactor l' I -- C -- -- C 1

Containment,

kDullding PolarCrane

Reactor Vessel liead la'i C C -- I -- -- -- sw/ Lif ting Rig

5

3. Reactor Internals 16.5 C C -- --1

' Lifting Rig .--.

,Reactor Upper Guide 73 C C. Structure w/ Lifting --

1 --

.elly

-. ---

m Reactor Core Barrel 19 C Cw/Lif ting Rig 1--

-- -- -- I

5tud Tensioner 1.5 C C -- --1 -- --

RC Pump IA-tiotor 59 C C --1 -- -- --w/ Lifting Rig

RC Pump 18-Motor 59 C C --1 -- -- -- [

iw/Lif ting Rig"

RC Pump 2A-Motor 59 C C --1w/ Lifting Rig --

-- --

--3 RC Pump 28-Motor 59 C C --1

,

F

] w/Lif ting Rig -- --

f(

A'--

i Plant Equipment 5 C C --*

from Lower floors --1 -- --

..

Main Hook Load Block 4.5 C C -- --1 -- --

Auxillary llock Load | C C -- --1 -- --

he Block -

i'

..

i*

!

Ii

!

,l '

. .

G I.*

j, - - |-a. . _ r

_ __ _ __--- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ ,..n-..n. y

I:6 Guideline s per NU1EG-0612, Art ic le 5.1.1

+

E Weightor Guideline 1 Guideline 2 Guideline 3 Guidelina 4 Guideline 5 Guideline 6 quideline1

.

E1o lpinen t Capacity Safe Load Crane Operator Special Lifting Crane - Test *Desiqc.ation lleavy Loads jtunsL Paths Procedures Traininq_ Devices Slings And Inspection Crane Desig 'g fuel tisndling I i -- C -- --C 1

,

4 Building Orldge *

4 Crane''-

. ,.3 ;m Spent fuel Cask 100 C C -- -- I -- --

,

f.tw/10 Fuel Assemblies;. -

yGate #1 is C C - -- I -- --t'{nGate #2 1.6 C C -- --

1 -- ' {--

!. 'Gate IJA & #38 12.1 C C -- --

,-

I -- -- *'Gate #4 10.8 C C -- --

1 --' '

--

Hatch Cover HC-6 11.5 C C -- -- I -- --

Hatch Cover HC-5 12.0 C C -- --1 -- --

Hatch Cover HC-15 5.5 C C -- --

,

1 -- .-

New Fuel Containers 3.5 C C tw/2 Fuel Assemblics

-- -- I -- --

"

Plant Equipment fro <n 10.5 C C -- -- I -- --,i

.

l'Lower Floars

!Main Hook Load Block 2.1 C C -- --1 -- --

(;

j'!L

I.

(.

ii

e>

e-

,g p-.

1 -

i .a

[|_ ::|. - ~;,L,. ;,.'O' | N OE n%:t '

_a 2. u- - - -' - --- -. J - -

j IAt!LL J.I (continued),

. .

Guidelines per NUREG-0612, Article S.I.I '

i Weight * '

or Guideline I Guideline 2 Guideline 1 Guidelice 4 Guideline 5 Guidelina 6 tivideline 1 -

-

) Equipment Capac i t y Safe Load Crane operator Special Lifting Crane - Test'

hi Designation lleavy loads .(tons) Paths Procedures Traininq Devices Slings And inspection Crane Design t.k-

,$ Reactor I I -- Ct Aunillary

-- C I !|--

[ Building Ilad-- waste Cask

llandlingUrldge Crane '

Radwaste Shipping 18 C C -- -- 1 -- --Cask including Sof t3Liner With Solidified '

t MaterialsI

llatch Cover llc-9 10.5 C C -- -- 1 -- -- (A*

Hatch Cover liC-8 11.5 C C -- -- 1 -- -- !I; lon Exchangers 1.1 C C -- -- 1 -- -. !~iii inn Exchangers 1.1 C C -- -- I -- -- F

i

j Crane Load Block 1 C C -- -- g ,, ,,

}>

C * Licensee action compiles with tiUREG-0612 Guideline.f NC = Licensee action does not comply with flVREG-0612 Guideline.[- R = Licensee has proposed revisions / modifications designed to comply with fiUREG-0612 Guideline. I.j ie Insuf ficient Information provided by the Licensee. I.i *

i.

3 ii!!

I.

- t! F.

[L.

4 .

i

,

$

e

- e

b