| . - . - . ,. , , sun azc avu.o. , _ _ DUKE POWER COMPANY (1) ID No: MP/0/B/7650/08 PROCEDURE MAJOR CHANGE Change No: 1 PROCESS RECORD GermanenW Restricted To (2) STATION: Catawba (3) PROCEDURE TITLE: Hooks - Safety Inspection t (4) SECTION(S) 0F PROCEDURE AFFECTED: 11.1.5 | (Attach additional pages, if necessary.) | (5) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: 11.1.5 . Section of MP/0/B/7650/05 (Cranes and Hoists - Safety | Inspection) or MP/0/B/7650/05 . A (6) REASON FOR CHANGE: To correct typograp al error. (7) PREPARED BY: , u kTE: ! ' (8) SAFETY EVALUATION This change: - Yes No l Represents a chang 4. o the station or procedures as described in the FSAR, or a test or experiment not described in the FSAR? Yes No 1 Requires a change to the station Technical Specifications? Yes No l Involves an unreviewed safety question? If the answer to any of the above is "Yes", attach a detailed' explanation. As approp iate attach a completed " Nuclear Safety Eva at on Check List" form. By: [, / Date: / / O (9) REVIE D BY: s * /A kd DATE: ////80 Cross-Discip inary Review By: N/R: .. / (10) TEMPORARY APPROVAL (IF NECESSARY): - | By: // (SRO) Date: By: // Date: (11) APPROVED BY: J u k _ DATE: 7- 2 -8C - (12) MISCELLANEOUS: .eg. | Reviewed / Approved By: Date: n,. Reviewed / Approved By: Date: '. " Ls5- 10An 1 - (13) Page 1 of $nte nu Yg@' -?uCLEAR 8208190314 820806 Rev 14 PDR ADOCK 05000413 9/20/77 A PDR - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ML . * * Form SPD-1002-1 ( ( DUKE POWER COMPANT (1) ID No: MP/0/B/7650/08 PROCEDURE PREPARATION Change (s) o t EROCESS RECORD . O Incorporat . (2) STATION: CATAWBA Hooks - Safety Inspection (3) PROCEDURE TITLE: DATE: 6 - S ~/ 9 ! (4) PREPARED BY: d [.x 2 N DATE: (, / 4./ 79 (5) REVIEWED BY: - , , N/R: b | Cross-Disciplinary Review By: I / (6) TEMPORARY APPROVAL (IF NECESSARY): 'f * | ' * By: . (SRO) Date: By: . Date: (7) APPROVED BY: b CC 6 Date: /_o 3-73 (6) MISCELLANEOUS: Reviewed / Approved By: Date: 4 Reviewed / Approved By: Date: . I t ! ESTERELE . - . o. ' ; , :' * - ~ , . m, eY * . I e e. ~ - . ** * '* * * * * * =g enum e. e -4. , , . |'_ . _ . .. l. I . ._ _ . _. m ._1..._~ ... .. I, ~i . .. , ' , . (, (. Tor: SPD-3001-2 INCLOSURI 3 | - , ~ DUC POWER COMPANY ,EUCLEAR SA.u u. IVA1.UATION CEICK I.IST (1) STATION: bb u/ba., UNTT: 1 2 3 OTEER: (2) CEICK LIST APPLICA3LE TO: /f//[#[474.$~O/#8 (3) SArrn IVALUATION - PART A The iten to which this evaluation is applicable represents:- Tes No A change to the station or procedures as described in the , FSAR, or a test er experiment not described in the FSAR? ! If the answer to the above is "Yes", attach a detailed description of the iten being evaluated and an identification of the affected section(s) of the TSAR. (/-) SATITY IVALUATION - PART 3 . Yes No / Will this iten require a ch ange to the station Technical . Specifications? - - . .... If the a'nsver to the above is "Yes",' identify the specification (s) affected and/or attach the applicable page(s) with the change (s) indicated. (5) SAFETY EVALUATION - 'PART C . * * *~ * .. .. ..- . # * '' .. - 4- # . ' . .. ~. " . ~ ' *; .' . ... 2 '.. i- | ," '. 0. V 1; * . YV TWM**? ' As a resulti of ,.t e item to which this evaluation is applicable: Yes No Will the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the TSAR be increased? Yes No _ Will the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the TSAR be increased? Yes No ' May the possibility of an accident which is different than . any already evaluated in the FSAR be created? Yes No 'ill the probability of a nalfunction of equipment impor- tant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR be increased 1 Yes No May the possibility of a malfunction of equipment impor- ' tant to the safety different than any already evaluated in ' the TSAR be created? Yes No Will the margin of safety as defined in' the bases~ to any Technical Specifications be reduced? If the answer to any of the following is "Yes", an unreviewed safety question i is involved. Justify the conclusics that an unreviewed safety question is or is not involved. Attach additional pages as necessary. (6) PREPARID BY: N DATE: 4--S -79 * (7) REVIIVID 3Y: DATI: / ' 4/4/79 . - fe DSme S ~ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -, -. - - . - . * . ~. Q (' DUKE POWER ' CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION , - HOOKS - SAFETY INSPECTION 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to provide instructions for performing ; inspections of hooks associated with cranes, hoists, and slings. 2.0 _ REFERENCES 2.1 ANSI E30.9-1971 2.2 ANSI B30.16 (Hoists) | 2.3 29CFR 1910.179 (Occupational Safecy and Health Act) - | " 2.4 29CFR 1910.184 (Occupational Safety and Health Act) i | 3.0 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS Personnel qualified to perform visual inspections of hooks shall be designated by the Maintenance Engineer. Non-destructive examination j of hooks shall be performed by the Quality Assurance Department. , - ' 4.0 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS a ' N/A . 5.0 STATION STATUS | N/A 6.0 PREREQUISITES , , _ 1 N/A 7.0 REPAIR PARTS , N/A I g 8.0 SPECIAL TOOLS . ! i N/A , 9.0 ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS ' , i | |' The presence of any of the following conditions requires that the - | hook be removed from service and scrapped. 9.1 Evidence of damage from chemicals. | r 9.2 Throat opening more than 15% grer.ter than the throat opening ' of an unbent hook. I ' 9.3 More than 10 degree twist from the plane of'an unbent hook. ! r 1 t 1 1 | . I * ._. - - - - - - - _ .. .- .. , ' , DUKE PO'J.R COMPAhT ) AIARA EVALUATION CECKLIST (1) Station: ' catsuba 1 1 1 . __ Unit: . 2 3 , Other: (2) Checklist Applicable to: _ /W/o/d / 76 5'o OP (3) ALARA Evaluation a Check those items below which were considered applicable during the preparation and review of t.his document. Flushing and draining w'as used to minimize so~urce - strength and con- tamination levels prior to performing an operation. ' Permanent and/or movable shielding was specified for reduction of levels. Use of permanent or te=porary local exhanst ventilation systems was used for control of airborne contamination. Operation was designed to be completed with the least practicable time spent in the radiation field. ' Appropriate tools and equipment ve.r:e.e specified for the opeYaTiiin to,be .(.... performed. * The operation was designed considering the minimum number of people - , necessary for safe job completion. , Remote handling equipment and other special tools were specified to ' reduce extemal dose. i ' Co:tr.mination _- centrol techniques were specified. The operation'was designed to be conducted in areas of as l'ow an |[| exposure as practicable. Additional ALARA considerstiens were: , . ' . - , t i f ~ / AIJ.RA Principles were not censidered since the procedure did not involve work in a radiation area. ( (5) Prepared by: c' Date J -/.2 -Ac | .. (6) Reviewed by: , Q .Y . Date' A- \2-8 0 - . I t , . - - . | . | . I . - _ . .- - - -_...____ . ....- . , _ .- . - _ _ . - . ~ . , ' - I , , , { .. R's 1 2 of 9.4 Any indication of cracks noted during visual inspection or found during non-destructive examination. 9.5 Cracks or deformation of end connections. 10.0 INTERFERENCE ITEMS N/A 11.0 PROCEDURE , 11.1 Visual Inspection 11.1.1 Look for evidence of damage from heat or chemicals. 11.1.2 Look for evidence of mechanical deformation of the hook, increased throat opening or twist of the hook . point from the plane of the unbent shank. 9 11.1.3 Look for any evidence of cracks. Perform Section 11.2, if required. ; 11.1.4 Compare any defect or damage with acceptance criteria, Section 9.0. If hook is not satisfactory for service, ; tag it out of service and ensure that it is removed j | and scrapped. ! .' 11.1.5 If hook inspection is being performed as part of the . I " periodic inspection" section of MP/0/A/7650/05 ! (Cranes and Hoists - Safety Inspection) or MP/0/A/7650/07 I (Chain Hoists - Safety Inspection), complete the | ! Data Sheet (Enclosure 13.1) and attach it to the ! other data sheets being used in the crane or hoist | inspection. | I 11.2 Non-destructive examination - Obtain the services of Quality ' ! Control to perform non-destructive examination of the hook. j This inspection may be performed in the field or at a suitable , ' ; test station as agreed to by Maintenance and Quality Assurance. ; Attach a copy of the QA inspection report to Data Sheet #1. t 12.0 RESTORATIONS ' N/A 13.0 ENCLOSURES | | [ 13.1 Data Sheet il . ! i t ! !. i i : ! i b . .- _, _ .._.- _ ., - _ . , , - - - . m - - - * * - " " ' ' ~ - * _ . _ _ - . _ - _ - - _ . -. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . -. .... .-- - - . - . - - - - - - . - - - . - - .. - ** ** . ( ( WR No. A. \. Dats DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION HOOKS - SAFETY INSPECTION 4 1. Evidence of damagt fro = chemicals Satisfactory Defective 2. Throat opening increase greater than 15% Satisfactory Defective 3. Twist from plane of unbent hook greater than 10 degrees Satisfactory Defective 4. Cracks noted during visual inspection . Satisfactory Defective i S. End connections . i . ' I Satisfactory Defective - i Inspection performed by - ! , j Reveived by , Maintenance Supervisor Date ' | . , . - - 6 - \ r t | ! 4 lI ! . r {i - . l . 1 I ;} . 'f , _ _w. - . , - - - w -w.