Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
February 3, 1981
TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING PLANTS AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING LICENSES
AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS*
SUBJECT: CONTROL OF HEAVY LOADS (Generic Letter 81-07)
Gentleman:
By our leter dated December 22, 1980, you were requested to review your
controls of the handling of heavy loads to determine the extent to which the
guidelines of NUREG-0612 are presently satisfied at your facility and to
identify the changes and modifications that would be required in order to
fully satify these guidelines.
To expidite your review, three enclosures were included with the letter. One
of the enclosures was Request for Additional Information on Control of Heavy
Loads (Enclosure 3). We have found that five pages from Enclosure 3 were
missing due to a reporduction error. The missing pages are enclosed with
this letter. In addition the December 22, 1980, letter on Page 2 in Item 1
required that information identified in Section 2.1 through 2.4 of Enclosure
3 be included in a report documenting the results of your review. This
requirement should be modified to read: "Sections 2.1 through 2.4 for PWR
plants and Sections 2.1 through 2.3 for BWP plants."
Because of these errors we are extending the Enclosure 2 90-day
implementation requirement to May 15, 1981.
Sincerely,
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director
Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
"Enclosure 3" missing pages
*With the exception of licensees for Indian Point 2 and 3, Zion 1 and 2 and
Three Mile Island 1
.
Attachment (4)
ANALYSIS OF PLANT STRUCTURES
The following information should be provided for analysses conducted to
demonstrate compliance with Criteria III and IV of NUREG 0612, Section 5.1.
1. INITIAL CONDITIONS/ASSUMPTIONS
Discuss the assumptions used in the analysis, including:
a. Weight of heavy load
b. Impact area of load
c. Drop height
d. Drop location
e. Assumptions regarding credit taken in the analysis for the
action ofimpact limiters
f. Thickness of walls or floor slabs impacted
g. Assumptions regarding drag forces caused by the environment
h. Load combinations considered
i. Material proporties of steel and concrete
2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Provide the mthod of analysis used to demonstrate that usfficient load-
carrying capability exists within the wall(s) or floor slab(s).
Identify any computer codes employed, and provide a description of
their capabilities. If test data was employed, provide it and describe
its applicability.
3. CONCLUSION
Provide an evaluation comparing the results of this analysis with
Criteris III and IV of NUREG 0612, Section 5.1. Where safe-shutdown
equipment has a ceiling or wall separating it from an overhead handling
system, provide an evaluation to demonstrate that postualted load drops
do not penetrate the ceiling or cause secondary missiles that could
prevent a safe-shutdown system from perfoming its safety function.
.
(3) A description of any Engineered Safety Feature
filter system which includes information sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the guidelines of
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.52, "Design, Testing, and
Maintenance Criteria for Engineered Safety Feature
Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and
Absorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Power Plants."
(4) A discussion of any intial conditions (e.g., manual
values locked shut, containment airlocks or
equipment hatches shut) necessary to ensure that
releases will be terminated or mitigated upon
Engineered Safety Feature actuation and the measure
employed (i.e., Technical Specification and
administractive controls) to ensure that these
intial conditions are satisfied and that Engineered
Safety Feature systems are operable prior to the
load lift.
2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Discuss the method of analysis used to demonstrat that post-accident
dose will be well within 10CFR100 limits. In presenting methodology
used in determining the radiological consequences, the following
imformation should be provided.
a. A description of the mathematical or physical model employed.
b. An identification and summary of any computer program used in
this analysis.
c. The consideration of uncertainties in calculational methods,
equpment performance, instrumentation response
characteristics, or other indeterminate effects taken into
account in the evaluation of the results.
3. CONCULSION
Provide an evaluation comparing the results of the analysis to
Criterion I of NUREG 0162, Section 5.1. If the postulated
heavy-load-drop accident analyzed bounds other postulated heavy-load
drops, a list of these bounded heavy loads should be provided.
2-2
.
bound other postulated heavy-load drops, alist of these bunded heavy loads
should be provided.
3-2
