ML20197A885
| ML20197A885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9712230233 | |
| Download: ML20197A885 (63) | |
Text
- . ._ _
' f '
(g'[
Q Surgorft $;Lundy " *
%y Don K. Schopler -
1ll!:an l December 18,1997 Project No. 9583100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company :
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 1 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk
- Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following fourteen (14) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI MP3 01.
DR No. DR MP3-0228 DR No. DR MP3-0695 DR No. DR MP3-0334 DR No. DR-MP3-0703 DR No. DR-MP3 0442 DR No. DR MP3 0707 DR No. DR MP3-0586 DR No. DR MP3-0713 DR No. DR MP3-0635 DR No. DR-MP3-0724 DR No. DR MP3-0647 DR No. DR MP3 0726 DR No. DR-MP3 0670 DR No. DR-MP3-0770 I have also enclosed the following nineteen (19) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR MP3-0041 DR No. DR MP3 0286 DR No. DR MP3-0074 DR No. DR-MP3-0091 DR No. DR MT3 0092 DR No. DR4@3-0293 DR No. DR-MP3-0306 DR No. DR-MP3 0322
[ [/ (
DR No. DR-MP3-0094 DR No. DR-MP3-0403 DR No. DR-MP3 0114 DR No. DR-MP3 0406 DR No. DR-MP3-0142 DR No. DR MP3 0410 DR No. DR-MP3-0177 DR No. DR MP3 0415 DR No; DR-MP3-0194 DR No. DR-MP3-0430
, .a 33 DR No. DR MP3-0643 }
lll..ll
! llll ill l ll'Ill1 9712230233 971218 ***
$$ iast Montce Street iChicago, IL 60603-5780 USA
- 312-269-2000 L
i
. i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 18,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100 ,
Page 2 l l
F~
1 have also encloaed the one (1) DR for which NU resolution has been reviewed but not accepted. - S&L comments on this resolution have been provided. ,
DR No. DR-MP3-%39 ,
Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very i.uly, 4_
es* ;
i D. K. Sc pfer '
Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr l Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU W4covruvn97wI2184 ew f
i r
b
. s DR No. DRMP3 4228 Northeast Utiinies ICAVP Minetone unM 3 Discrepancy Report i Rev6ew Group: Contguretton DR"AUD Nev6ew tiement: Syemm benea nm w ,p,, y 06ecipane: Iae* O va Diecre pency Type: Instensta lmp6emordahon g SystemProcese: RSS NRC 4. me level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 12/2i/s7 D6ecrepency: Instrument Labeling Oncripuen: The following labeling inadequacies with respect to design l documents and requirements of Procedure OA 9," System and Component Labeling,' were noted during system walkdowns.
1, instrument 3RSS-TE28A was to be retagged per Table 2.
page 3 of Change Control Document T C-06640. The installed instrument is still identified as P683-TE28A.
- 2. Pressure transmitter 3RSS*PT25A as shown on drawing BK-16P 58-6 ReV. C was identified based on its location and connection to sensing line 3RSS*PT25A. The instrument is incorrectly tagged as 'sparn?
Review Valid invalid Needed Date O 12/iis7 initletor: Server. T. L O O VT Leed: Nort. Arthony A O O O i2ssi O O 12titier VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O 12/ ties 7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTKW:
Previously identened by NU? O Yes I No NonD6ecrepentCondellon?O Yes (#1 N6 Roeolution Pending?O Yes @ No Mesolution UnresolvedtO vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gggg; g ,, g, (T Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O b V) Sigr: Schopfer, Don K O O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente: ,
'P/Inled 12/1897 i236 49 PM Page 1 of 1 k
\ l E l
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0334 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: system DR VAuD
! se Design ,,,,,,,,,g , ,,,,,,y ,,,,,
_ - - , -. Pipin0 Design O va -
C'--- ; :y Type: Celculebon @) No MystemProcess: RSS NRC Sign 4tcance level: 4 Thte faxed to NU:
Date Putsehod: 12/21/97 D6ecrepancy: Pipe stress analysis dds not utilize latest design input De*cription' During reybw of the following relculations (Q 12179-NP(F) 842 XD Rev 2, CCN 1 (iQ 12179-SDP RSS. Rev 4, Dated: 5-29 97 we noted the following discrepancies:
Pipe stress calculativo (1) is performed using design input from a g
$ superseded Strayss Data Package (SDP) calculation 12179-SDP-RSS Rev. O, Drited: 1 14- 83. The current version of the SDP is (10. The operating temperature used in the pipe stress calculation (1) is 115 deg F, while the revised operating temperature foi condition 7, according to (ii), is 257 deg F.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date .
12ttin7 Initiator: Join, R. C. O O O O 1:/5'87 VT t. sed: Nort. Anthonyl' O O VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K Q Q Q 12/11/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 12/11/97 Date: 11/29/97 INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION, Previouesy identmed by Nu? U Y.s @ No Non D6screpant Condition?Q vos @ No Resolution Pending?O v.e @ No R. u m unt..oiv.47 0 v @ No Review Acc.pt.bie Not Accept.di. N d.4 D.i.
_ gn,,,)
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgt: Sch:pfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: SirWs Anand K O g Date:
SL Lanments:
rtnted 12/1%f 12:3i:34 PM Page 1 of 1
~-- -
l DR No. DR MP3 0442 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Un's 3 Discrepancy Report neview aroup: system DRVAuo Moview Element: Syenom Deelen wy pq w r
runa %e: Erwirotunnental Quehfnceuon Ow D6ecrepancy Type: Componenl osta gg SyalerWyrocese: N/A P"RC S4-._"":me level:4- 0 ge irAXed to NU:
Dele published: 12/21/97 ,
DiectePancy: Equipment Qualification Documents Discrepancy D**cripe6an: The FSAR and the IEEE 323 requirement that the Vendor Qualification Reports (EQDs) reference the applicable component identification number,is not met. A review of the EQDs for the QSS, RSS, and SWP System components shows that these EQDs do not reference applicable Millstone identification numbers.
FSAR Section 3.118.1.2 states that all Safety-related equipment and components for each Class 1E specification, located throughout the plant, are listed in the EQDs. Each device specified is labeled, in the EQDs, with its plant identification number, location, and environmental zone.
IEEE 3231974 Standard,"lEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations", states in Section 6.1, page 10 that the EQ Report shall include the identification of Class 1E equipment being qualified.
For the QSS system, the following is the list of components and the corresponding EQDs which were reviewed and where the qualified component is not identified by its Millstone identification numberin the EQD:
3QSS*LS54A,B,C,D : SQSS*LSS6A,B,C,D (ASCO Pressure Switches): Specification No. ; 2472.510-626 ; EQ Report No. :
AQR 101083, Rev.1 30SS*LT930,931,932,933 (Rosemount Pressure Transmitters): Specification No. 2472.510-662 ; EQ Reports Nos.108026, Rev. B.,108025 Re c. B SQSS*MOV34A,B (Limitorque Motor Operators): Specification No. 2362.200-164 ; EQ Report No .B0058, Rev. O.
For the RSS system, the following is the list of components and the corresponding EQDs which were reviewed and where the qualified component is not identified by its Millstone identification numberin the EQD:
3RSS*PT25A,B,C,D ; 3LMS*PT934,935,936,937 ; 3 MSS
- PT514, 515, 516, 524, 525, 526, 534, 535, 536, 544, 545, 546 ;
3RCS*PT457,458 ; 3RSS*FT38A,B ; SRSS-FT40C,D (Rosemount Pressure Transmitters): Specification No. 2472.510-662 ; EQ Reports Nos. 108026, Rev. B.,108025, Rev. B 3RSS*MOV20A,B,B,D ; 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,D ;
3RSS*MOV38A,B ; 3RSS*MOV54A,B,C,D ;
3RSS*MOV57A,B,C,D ; 3RSS*MV8837A,B ; 3RSS*MV8838A,B (Limitorque Motor Operatorc): Specification No. 2362.200-164 ;
PN 12/1M712M PM en o _ "
" ' ~ " '""'B0068 ""^" Pp 1 or 2
~ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-l ,
DR No. DR-MP3 0442 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3RSS*LE22A1,A2,A3 ; 3RSS*LEB1,82,B3 (Transamerica Delaval, Gems Sensor Div. Level Transmitters): Specification No. 2471.410-039 ; EQ Report No. 4U00-2, Rev. 0 3RSS*P3A,B,C,D (Westin0 house Pump Motor): Specification No. 2214.802-044 ; EQ Report No. WCAP-8637, Supp. 2 -
A058,Rev.O.
For the SWP system, tha following is the list of components and the corresponding EQDs which were reviewed and where the qualified component is not identified Dy its Millstone identification numberin the EQD:
3SWP FS!4A3,B3,C3,D3 (ASCO Pressure Switches);
i SNfication No. : 2472.510426 ; EQ Report No. : AQR-101083, Rev.1 3SWP-FT59A,B,C,D (Rosemount Pressure Transmitters):
Specification No. 2472.510-862 ; EQ Reports Nos.108026, Rev. B.,108025, Rev. B 3SWP*MOV50A,B ; 3SWP*MOV54A,B ; 3SWP*MOV57A,B,C,D
- 3SWP*MOV71 AQ,B (Limitorque Motor Operators)
Specification No. 2362.200164 ; EQ Report No .B0058, Rev. 0 3SWP*P3A,B (Westinghouse Pump Motor) : Specification No.
2214.432 042 : EQ Report No. MM-9112. Rev. 2.
The lack of component identification in the EQDs by the components' Millstone identification number is a discrepant condition.
Review vend invend Needed Date 12/2o97 inaister: Yasein, S. 8 O O VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A Q g g 12S 97 VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K O O O 12/11/97 iRC chmn: singh. Anand K g g O t2ittis7 Date:
INVALlO:
Date:
REaOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (8) No ~
Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Resouionunreemed?O Yes @ No Review acc.pe=Ma Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date:
SL Comments:
Page 2 or 2 Printed 12/1&S712:38:37 PM
l .
DR No. DR MP3 0686 Northaast Utilities ICAVP Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DRVAUD Review Element: syeeem Design g Diecipitr,e: Mechenul Design Q y, Discrepency Type: Calculation gg_
SysterWrocess: RSs NRC Signiacence level: 4 Deee Faxed to NU:
Date Published: 12/21 S 7 Decrapency: Design Temperature of RSS Piping Between RSS HX !.nd Containment Walt Ductlptioc The piping design temperature of 260F is not implemented in the line list.
Rev.1 and CCN 1 to US(B) 1187 added Conditions 7,8 and g as operating temperature conditions. These conditions are the loss of SWP flow events for the RSS system. The operating tempera'ure for piping downstream of the RSS HXs during
' Conditions 7, 8 and 9 is 257F, This piping temperature is reflected in Conditions 7,8 and 9 of SDP-RSS-1361M3 and is provided as input to the piping stress analysis.
Rev.1 to the design pressure and temperature calculation, US(B)-1
- 88, identifies the design temperature of piping downstream of the RSS HXs as 260F. This is consistent with a loss of SWP flow event.
The line list states that the design temperature for piping between the RSS HX outlet and the containment building wall is 235F, The line list should conform to the design bads calculations.
Review Vehd invalid Needed Date 12taS7 init6stor: Wehenend, J. F. O O O 12SS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q ] ]
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K .O O O 12/11/87 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O i2iiiis7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
REaOLUTION:
previously identmed by nut O Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condition?O Yee '@ No R autionreamne70 va @ No Reeduiion unroe*.d70 Y.e @ No Review AcnpteW Not Acceptable Needed De VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mor: schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O 8 Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 12/184712-30-40 PM Page 1 N 1
- - . , ~ . , ,
,L :
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0635 m an utiim s Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID I 8M Potential operebatty leeue Diecipane: Mechenkel De*"
O vos
% ry Type: Component Data
@ No systemereceos: oss NRC O :mlevel: 3- Date faxed to NU:
Dele Putdished. 12/21/97 Diecrepancy: Inconsistency between FSAR Sec 6.1.1.1 & design documents with respect to ASME S3ction il materials.
Deecripson: FSAR Section 6.1.1.1 states that mechanical properties of the materials used in the engineered safety features (ESF) are in accordance with ASME Boller and Pressure Vessel Code, Sedion ll.
The FSAR statement in Section 6.1.1.1 clearly epplies the requirement for materials to all safety-related piping and components. However, application of this requirement to pressure boundary materials appears mom appropriate.
Since the FSAR Section 6.1.1.1 does not specify that the mechanical properties of pressure boundary materials, only, are in accordance with ASME Section 11, all safety related quench spray system materials are evaluated against the mechanical properties in ASME Section 11.
All materials in safety related components are designated "SA" or "SB" from ASME Section 11, Parts A and B except for the following:
A 193 GR B8 A 194 GR BF A 276 TP 304 Cond A A 276 TP 316 Cond B A 296 CF8 A 296 CF8M A 307 GR B/CD B-438 GR 1 B-584 AL 836 Accordin9 to ASME Section 11, Parts A and B, the specifications for ASTM A193, A194, A 307, and B-584 have equivalent mechanical properties to ASME Section ll, Parts A and B, Subsections SA193, SA194, SA-307, and SB-584. Therefore, components made from matef als complying with these spectications are considered acceptable.
However, specifications B-438, SA-276 and SA-296 are not listed la ASME Section ll. Therefore, components constructed from materials deshned to specifications B-438, SA-276, SA-296, A-276, and A-296 do not have mechanical properties in accordance with ASME Section 11. Quench spray system components constructed from these materials are:
3QSS*P3A,B3 snnn unutn r4 Prtnied 12/1&9712A6:50 PM Page 1 or 2
I DR No. DR MP3 0436 Northeest Utliities ICAVP Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 30SS*V4, V8 30SS*V976V979 SOSS*V50 58 30SSW0, V941 3QSS*V94 8 V951 3OSS*V968 V975 3QSS*V933 V936 3OSS*V957 V959 3QSS*V964 V967 30SS*V986, V987 3QSS*V42,V43 Review Vaud invand Needed Dole initiator: Feingold, D. J. 0 O i2/iis7
-0 VT Lead: Nort, Atemny A O O O 12/SS7 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K O O- O 12/15/97 12/11,97 IRC Chmn: !Hngh, Anand K O O O Date:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
4 Previously identitled try NU7 O Yes @ No Non En ;-" Condeth?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pend 6ng?O vos @) No ResoauisonunresoevedtO vos @) No Review An.pash Not Acc7 ' Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A 1
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
IRC Chmn: Sench, Anand K O O O Oste:
SL Conenente:
Printed i2/184712 45:56 PM PW 2 of 2
- 1.
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0647 Northeast Udllues Muist< e ur* 3 Discrepancy P9 port Review Group: System - DR VAUD Review Element: System Design
" ' * * * ' " * " "" O vee t'- ; ny Type: cair'W g Systemeroceae: SWP NRC y we level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Published: 12/71 S 7 D6screpency: Missing Analysis Dacri Ption: Calc. # 12179-BE YQ2,RO and Calc. # 12179-BE-52YS,R2 We have reviewed Millstone Ur.it 3 Equipment Foundation Calc.
- 12179-BE YQ2,R0 and Calc. # 12179 BE 52YS,R2. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy.
- 1. These calculations were provided by NU to confirm the adequacy of equipment foundation for Junction Box No.
3SWP*JB 3A,B. These calculations are Generic calculations for seismic juncti .n box supports. Specific Calculations for the subject equipment noted could not be found in aforementioned calculations.
Review Vead involkt Needed Date 12/N97 insteetor: 10ec N @ 11/2947 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A -
VT begr: Schupfer, Don K O O O 12ttis7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O O O 2/i1/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
M oviounty identiaed by NU? O vos (#) No Non 0: : ;- " Condition?U vos (#) No R=% pomling?O vos @ No R*eolution Unresolved?O vos @ No Review A captable Not Acceptable Needed Date M6etor: W VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Ingr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 1RC Clenn: Singh, Anand K O g Date:
SL Comments:
l Printed 12tl89712:47;25
- Page 1 of 1
E l ..
DR No. Of;-MP3 0670 Northeast UtHWes ICAVP umotone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Aeview Group: Syelem DR VALID Review Element: ModHcohon Do.40n g pgp Diecipline. Mechanical Design O vos t'-- ; 1 y Type: Calculanon gg eyetemProcess: HVX NRC S;-7 =slevel: 3 Date faxed to NU:
DatePutdehed: 12/21/97 Dece pency: CCP & CHS Area Ventilation System Winter Operation r= J - During review of the charging pump and component cooling water pump area ventilation system calculations discrepancies regarding the minimum temperatures in the rooms were identified.
References:
- 1. Calculation 3 92103-191M3, Rev.1
- 2. Calculation 3-92103191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1-001
- 3. Calculation 3-92103191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1002
- 4. Calculation 3-92103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1-003
- 5. Calculation 3 92103191M3 Rev.1, CCN 1004
- 6. Calculation 3-92103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 5
- 7. PDCR MP3-92-103, Rev.1
- 8. FSAR Appondix '.B
- 9. FSAR Section 9.4.3.1
- 10. PDCR MP3-93-067
- 11. P&lD EM-1488-15
Background:
The charging pump and component cooling water pump area ventilation system provides ventilstion for the charging pump cubicles, wmponent cooling heat exchanger area , and the MCC
' & rod control A/C booster pumps area as shown on P&lD EM-148B-15.
FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 states that the charging pump cubicle tempeinture is maintained above the solubility temperature limit of 59'F for a 4 percent boron concentration.
The minimum room tempers,ture listed in FSAR Appendix 3B for the charging pump cubicles and component cooling pump area
- is 50*F. The minimum temperature listed for the MCC & rod control area A/C booster pumps is 65'F.
During the winter months the ventilation system mixes outside air and retum air and supplies this air to the component cooling pump area , and the MCC & rod control A/C booster pumps area. Retum air is drawn from all three areas served by the system. The minimum outside air flow is set to maintain auxiliary building ventilation system filter exhaust fan (3HVR*FN6A/B) airflow above stall conditions. Eight safety-related electric unit heaters (four per division) are located in the component conllrq water pump area.
PDCR MP3-92-103, Mechanical Technical Review ME-3, states that safety related equipment in these areas dre operable at a g 32*" =5Seir4emper$ 0 ;P ':^ ec =: 1) pcg c' j2 -
c ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0470 Northeast Utilities -
Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report boric acid system may be subled to precipitation at temperatures below 59'F and 2) the @arging pumps should not be started at temperatures below 65'F, but once started may be operated at an ambient temperature of 30*F.
Discrepancies:
- 1) Calculation 3 92103-191-M3, CCN 5 case 10 results show a 29.6'F minimum temperature in the component cooling pump '
area. This temperature is lower than the 32*F evaluated in Mechanical Technical Evaluation ME-3 of PDCR MP3-92-103,
- 2) Calculation 3 92-103101 M3 Rev.1 [ including CCNs 1 to 5) does not address the minimum temperature in the MCC & rod control NC booster pumps area.
- 3) The minimum room temperatures shown in calculation 3 103-191 M3 Rev.1 [ including CCNs 1 to 5) are lower than the temperatures shown in FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 and Appendix 3B Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Stout, M. D. O O O 11/13'87 O 11'16S7 VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A O O O 12s 97 VT Mgr: Schopeer, Don K O O Q 12497 l
IRC Clunn: Singh, Anand K @ Q Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identNied by Nu? () vos @) No NonDiscrepentCondition?O Yes @ No R nonPenena70 vos @ No p%u-seoivedrO yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Accard haa Needed Date mg VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K IRC Clunn: Singh, Anand K O O O Dele:
SL Conwnente:
Prt.1ted 12/1&971248.01 PM Page 2 of 2
DR No. DR MP3-0495 Northeast UtilMies . ICAVP milistone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Revt.w aro ,: syeom DRvAuD Review Element: System Desien g pqw Di=8 paine: Mechanical "" O yee
& ; :p Type: C*W gg SysteWProcesa: QSS NRC SignNlconce level: 4 Dale faxed to NU:
Date Published: 12/21/97 N ; ; ry: RWST Insulation D*ecription: FSAR Sec. 6.2.2.2 requires the maximum RWST heat up or cooldown rate be less than 0.25F/ day. Calculation P(R)-931, Rev. O assumes that the RWSTs are covered with 6 inches of thermal insulation in order to conclude that the maximum heat up and cooldown rates are 0.13F/ day.
There are no design documents which demonstrate that the RWSTs are Covered with 6 inches of insulation.
Review
. Valid inveild Needed Date 11/22/97
- InNetor: Waketend, J. F. @ Q-11/22/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A @ Q O O 12/is7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O i2/9s7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O __
Dele:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identNied by Nu? O Yee @ No Non Discrepent Cor.dition?O Yee @ No Reso5t6on Pending70 vos @ No Resoiuiion unr.coived?O vos Co'> No Review Areardahaa Not Accy.haa Needed Date g
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O i
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O iRC Ch n: swe, Anand x
@ @ y Date:
SL Commente:
l i-I Prtmed 12/18/9712 46.38 PM PeGe 1 of 1 i
~ ~- -
ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0703
- Northeast Utilities Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: Srdem DRvAuD-Review Element: Syelem Design r= , - _ . u"**"
- O Yee te . ciType: Dreatng g SyelemProcese: HVX NRC Signiacance M: 4 Data faxed to NU:
Dele Putdished. 12/21/97 ;
E :n:y: Emergency Generator Enclosure Ventilation inlet Dampr Minimum Position Descrt P tion: During review of P&lD EM-150016 for the emergency generator enclosure ventilation system a discrepancy regarding the minimum open position for the inlet dampers was identified:
FSAR Section 9.4.6.5 states "When the emergency generator diesel engines hava stopped (less than 360 rpm), the Supply fans are stopped manually from the main heating and ventilation panel in the control room. The inlet damper Goes to the minimum open position, the outlet and recirculailng dampers 90 fully close and open, respectively "
P&lD EM-150C-18 does not identify the minimum open position (minimum airflow) for inlet dampers 3HVP* MOD 23A/B Review Valid invalid Needed Date O 11r24s7 initiator: E*A, M. D. O O VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O 11/2as7 O 12rss7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g Q Q 12,G97 1 l
Dele:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION Previously identined by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Diecrepent Condition?O Ye6 @ No Resolution Pending70 Yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved70 Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Neen.d Date gg g VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mer: cchopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
l Printed 12/189712 40:14 PM PeGe 1 of 1 l
)
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4707 Northeest utimies milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Renort Revlow Group: systern DR VAllo Review Element: system Design M%e: Elsetcal Dempn O vee
'"+x - ry Type: Calcule;on gg s,_.7 : HVX NRC signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puhashed: 12C1/97 m , cy: Arc Suppression Capadtors for Solencid Operateo lves (Calculation 3-ENG-097)
Douription: Calculation 3-ENG-097 selects capacnors to bo tr/#t!!ed across the coils of some solenoid operated valves to suppress arcing
. across the relay contacts that control the valves. We have the (
following comments on this calculation:
Because of the way the loop current is defined, there is a sign #
error in Equation 6 on page 4. There is also a sign error in Equation 9 on page 5. As a result, the solution of the differential equation is a sinusoid, not exponential. Since the relay contacts interrupt the current si a s:urrent zero, and since the circuit is essentially purely inductive, the current zero will occur at the voltage peak. Therefore, the magnitude of the voltage across the solenoid coil will be equal to the oeak value of the control voltage or about 170 volts.
in order to understand how to suppress the arc, it is necessary to review what happens when the current is first broken. The voltage across the relay coil will oscillate at a natural frequency that is determined by the inductance of the solenoid coil and the capacitance in parallel with it. (If the proposed capacitor was not instal led, the naturally occurring stray capacitances determine the natural frequency.) The transient recovery voltage seen by the relay contacts is the difference between the control voltage and the voltage across the relay coil. At the time that current is first broken, this voltage is zero. The voltage acmss the solenoid coil will then oscillate at the natural frequency of the relay coil and parailci capacitance. Assuming that this frequency is much higher than the 60 Hz mains frequency, a voltage equal to twice the peak control circuit voltage will appear across the relay contacts after a half cycle of the solenoid coil oscillation. Since the insulation strength of the contacts cannot recover instantaneous,y, there is a possibility for the contacts to break down, striking an arc (restrike). Depending on how fast the insulation strength of the contacts recovers, there can be multiple restrikes, and the voltage of the restrikas can escalt'a.
Increasing the capacitance across the re!ay cell does not change the magnitude of the voltage across the solenoid coil following the initial current interruption. However, adding the capacitance lowers the natural frequency of the voltage oscillations acrose the solenoid coll. Lowering this natural frequency allows more time for the insulation strength of the opening contacts to recover. This reduces the likelihood of restrikes.
haview Valid invalid Needed Date
__ P^tBW G. William 11/2297 Printed 12f184712:40 46 t'M PeGe 1 of 2
ICAVP DR Ns DR-MFt0707 Northeast Utilities Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report O tii22/e7 hist 4aser. Stosene,G.Wuham O O O $tr2ive7 VT Lead: Neri, Ardhony A O O 12/ss7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $2/iuer Date:
PNALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION-N -/: 'i denttP i A by NU? O Yes in) No Non Diecrepant Condition?O Yes (G) No W% PendinetO vos @ No n-% unreceiv.dtO Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not # , ^ ' Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K b
1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O -
Date:
SL Commente:
4 Printed 12/1&S712451 pu PQ2d2
~ ~
DR No,- DR-MP3-0713 Mast UWMies - lCAVP Mittstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: setem DR VALID Review Eleormt: System Design Diecigdw: Erwtronmnengel Quemcation O va tr , my Type: C** gg Syneemreccese: QSs NRC Segniacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published, i2/21/97 Diecrepency: Equipment Qualification Discrepancy Deecripuen: EEQ-TRA 113.0, Rev.1, dated 1/14/1997 is the Electrical Equipment Qualification Test Report for Class IE General Eledric (GE) Quench Spray Pump Motors (Plant 1.D. No.
SQSS*P3A,B). It states on Sheet 2 of 7 that the GE test report GEK-42842 titled, " Topical Report IEEE 323 Clar,s IE Induction Motors Horizontal Class B insulated, Model Numbers SK821051C40, SK821054C26, SK828840C88', t1ated December 1978 meets the requirements of DOR instead of R>G 1.89, Rev. ,
1 and IEEE 3231974.
This conclusion was based on the fact that the motor qualification in the GE Topical Report was based on separate testing and operating experience which does not meet the requirements of IEEE 323-1974, However, the Procurement Specification No. 2441.003-009, Rev.
2, page 1 17 of states that these pump motors should be environmentally qualified in accordance with IEEE 323-1974.
Also, Millstone FSAR Section 3.11B.2.2 states that the Environmental Qualification of all safety related equipment shall meet the requirements of IEEE 323-1974, the intent of NUREG-0588, and NRC 10CFR50.49.
Review Valid I,tvelid Needed Date
, Initiator: Yeeein, S. 8 O O sii24/97 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 11/29/97 VT @ Schopfer, Don K G O O 12<ss7 IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K O O O i2ss7 l
M:
l INVALID:
Date:
l l RESOLUTION:
j Previously ident6Aed by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No R.coeuuon Peamne70 vos @ No Res*nonunroemed70 vos @ No Review areardaha= Not Acceptable Needed Oste
! VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O vT u e r: schape.r. Don K O O O l
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
l
^
Printed $2/i8/97 5250:22 PM Page 1 of i
. .- 4 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0724 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: Syenom Dc VAuD Review Element: System Deelen m.,a r m=a: M Design O v. 1 W ; my Type: Componord Date gg Systamproceae: HVX NRC T; =a level: 3 Date faked to NU:
Date Putsehec: 1 2/21/97 l D6screpancy: SLCRS and ABVS Filter Unit Backup Adsorbent Cooling Mechanism r= - - During review of the supplementary leak collection and release system (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B and auxiliary building ventilation system (ABVS) exhuast filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B a discrepancy was identified regarding backup adsorbent cooling.
FSAR Tabio 1.8-1 Reg. Guirle 1.52, Rev. 2. Position C.3.k aaception states " Exception is taken to the requirement of any cooling mechanism satisfying single-failure criteria because a backup mechanism is provided."
The backup cooling mechanism referred to in the Reg Guide exception was not found in the review of the system P&lDs and physical drawings.
Review Vend inveNd Needed Date Inolleter: Stout, M. D. O O O 11i2w97 ;
O $$r2ra7 VT Leed: Nwt, Anthony A O O l VT Mgt: Scnopfer, Don K Q O O 12/sS7 j IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 12/W97 !
Date:
INVALID:
Date: -
RESOLUTION:
l Prev 6ove#y identit6ed by qu? U vos (#) No Non D6ecrepent Cond4 tion?O vos () No R wion renene70 v.e- @ No Re.oivuon two.oev.drO ves @ No Review Ac'"Pe.haa Not Acceptable Needed Date
]
g VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O '
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g Date:
SL Comments:
l p
l Prtnted 12/18/9712.50 57 PM PeGe 1 of 1 l-
- 1 DR No. DR-MP3 0726 Northeast Utilities - lCAVP u!iistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: system DRVAun Review Element: System Deelen -
P: Mechanical Deelen O Y=
r ny Type: Calculation gg syeterWProcess: Hvx NRC signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubhehed: 12/21/97 Descrepency: ESF Filter Unit Damper Leakage
Description:
During review of the supplementary leak collection and release system (SLCRS) and auxiliary building ventilation system (ABVS) filter unit isolation dampers a discrepancy regarding damperleakage was identified.
FSAR Table 1.8-1, Reg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, Position C.3.p exception states Damper leakage will not impact on the air cleaning effectiveness of the ESF systems." A Calculation that determines the damper leakage allowable to meet air cleaning effectiveness requirements could not be located.
Review Vend invead N wded Oste l
11/2es7 initiator: Stout. M. D. G O 12* S7 v7 Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O 1 vT uer: schapser, Don K Q O ,
12/11197 52/11/97 IRC Chmn: Sin;,n, Anand K O O 1
Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identined by NU? O Yes (49 No NonDiscrepentCondition?O Yes @ No R % PonenerO Yu @ No RamuonUntm*ed?O Ya @ No Review haps.ha. Not ^- - ; ~ ~ Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K t.
SL Commente:
Printed 12/18,9712:51:40 PM PoDe 1 of 1
~__ ._. _ . _ . . . _ _
ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0770
.. Northeast Utilitier.
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALlo Mewsw Element: Syelem Dee4pn g Diecipline: Mechanical Design
'"=: ; my Type: Component Date O va
@ No SystemProceae: RSS NRC Signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6shed: 12/21/97 D6scropuey: Discrpancy between PDDS and PMMS relative to valve SRSS-V918 Dacription: Plant coranater data base, PDDS, shows valve 3RSS V918 to be a gate valve. This is consistent with P&lD EM-112C Revision
- 16. However, the plant computer data base, PMMS, shows this valve to be a globe valve.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator. Fcangold, D. J. O O 52/ ins 7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A g 12/11/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g 12/11/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g Q 12/11/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 O Yee (#1 No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yee (9) No Resolution Pending?O va @ No Raosuiionuaraalved70 va @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gg VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A vi mor: scww. "*
1RC Chmn: Singh, Arr nd K O O ,
Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 12/1&9712~3229 PM Page 1 of 1
c DR No. DR-MP3-0041 i Northeast Utilities ICAVP uilistDn. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report DR ret,0LUTION ACCEPTED Review Group: Conngirebon Review Element: System D@ PotonnelOperebany lseue D6ecip46ne: P54ng D* O vee D6ecrepency Type: Drawing @ No SystemProcess: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 9/11/97 D6screpency: Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawings Review for SWP in Pump House Deecripuon: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lDs with the as builtisometrics:
- 1. P&lD EM-133A Rev 26 does not show the 1/2 inch capped line on line3-SWP-030 7-3 (1-2) as shown on the isometric Cl-SWP 18 Sht 4 Rev 11.
- 2. P&lD EM 133A Rev 26 shows the instrument line to PT268 on line 3-SWP-030 2 3 after the tee to 3-SWP 030 7-3 (K 2) versus before the tee as shown on the isometric Cl-SWP-18 Sht 4 Rev 11,
- 3. DCN DM3-001469-96 changed the flanged connections on strainers 3SWP*STR1B and 3SWP*STR1D to be blanked off on P&lD EM 133A Rev 26. Isometric Cl-SWP-13 Sht 4 Rev 11 was not changed.
- 4. DCN DM3-00-1468-96 changed the flanged connections on strainers 3SWP*STR1 A and 3SWP*STR1C to be blanked off as shown on P&lD EM 133A Rev 26. Isometric Cl-SWP 10 Sht 4 Rev 11 was not changed.
- 5. Isometric Cl SWP-18 Sht 4 Rev 11 continuation lirse shown as 3-SWP-030-190-3 should be 3-SWP-030-256-3.
- 6. Valves V992, V993, V72, V73, MOV24D and MOV24B on isometric Cl SWP 247 Sht 5 Rev 11 nre safety related and should be designated with a (*).
- 7. Line 3-SWP 003-256-3 on P&lD EM-133DRev 23 (B-2) should be shown as 3-SWP-030-256-3.
- 8. Line 3-SWP-003-257 3 on P&lD EM-133D Rev 23 (B-10) should be shown as 3-SWP-030-257-3.
Review vend invalid Needed Date Q 0397
- Initiator: Reed.J W. Q Q Q 9397 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A Q Q 9/8,97 VT #dgt: schopfer, Oo- K Q Q Q Q 0397 IRC Chmn: singh, Anend K Q Q Date:
INvAUD:
Date: 10/10/97 i
Page 1 of 2 PrWed 12/18/971219MYleP'"
i ,
l 6 -
l a
t l I
DR No. DR MP3-0041 l Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report "U'" Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in Nems #1 and 2 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0041, have identified conditions previously discovered by NU which r6qu!re correction. Items #1 and 2 have been previously addressed on UIR 1300.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of Discrepancy Report. DR MP3-0041, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The errors associated with items #3,4, 5 and 6 will be corrected on their respective isometric drawir.gs, the errors associated with items #7 and 8 will be corrected by DCN DM3 0703 97, CR M3 97 3077 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Conclusbn:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1 and 2 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0041, have identified conditions previously discovered by NU which require correction. These items have previously been addressed on UIR 1300.
NU nas concluded that the issues reported in items #3,4, 5,6,7 and 8 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0041, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which requirs correction. These errors will be corrected on their resoective isometric drawin9s. CR M3-97 3077 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Previously ident68ed by NUf C Yes (ed No Non Discrapent Conditkm?Q Yes @ No ResolutionPen46ng?O Yes teD No ResoludonUntosolved70 Yes @ No Review Initiator; Reed J.W, $m VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O ISSS7 yr u,,. 0 0 0 schop,o,, non y O O mm IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K O O O 12titis7 Date:
st Comments:
Printed $2,49712:2029 PM Py 2 or 2
DR No. DR-MP3 0074 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Ministone Unit 3 ' Discrepancy Repcit Review Group: ConAgureitn DR REsot.UTION ACCEPTED I Potential Operability leave NW: Piping Dnign O vee 06ecrepancy Type: Drawing gg systenWProcese: RSS NRC Signifkance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 9/11/97 D6ecrepency: Upper Tier To Lower Tier Drawing Review for RSS-OSS in ESF Bldg.
Deecript6on: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lD with the as built Isometrics:
- 1. P&lD EM-112C Rev 16 shows lino 3-RSS-750-129-2 connected to 3-RSS-010-19-2 after 3-RSS-004-122 2 (H 10).
Isometric Cl-RSS-11 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows the connection before 3 RSS-004122 2.
- 2. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducers before lines 3-RSS-004-122-2 (H 10) and 3 RSS-008-55-2 (I 10) connect to 3-RSS -010-19-2. Cl-RSS-11 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows reducers.
- 3. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducers on line 3-RSS-006-54 2 before 3 RSS-01014-2 (I 8). Cl-RSS-010 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows reducer.
- 4. EM 112C Rev 16 shows 3-RSS-001.117 2 connected to 3-RSS-010-18-2 (G-9) between expansion Joint 3RSS*EJ2A and reducer. Cl RSS-18 Sht 4 Rev 4 shows the line connected to the reducer.
- 5. EM-112C Rev 16 shows 3-RSS-001-113-2 connected to 3-RSS-010-13 2 (G-8) between expansion joint 3RSS*EJ2C and reducer. Cl-RSS-19 Sht 3 Rev 3 shows the line connected to the reducer.
- 6. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-750-78-4 before it connects to 3-RSS 150 79-4 (I 7). CP-376004 Sht 4 Rev 5 shows reducer.
- 7. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-750-73-4 (1-8). CP-379704 Sht 3 shows reducer in Fantom Line and one is required. CP-379005 Sht 4 Rev 6 should show the reducer on line 3 RSS-750-073-04 connection to 3-RSS-001-071-04, 8, EM-112C Rev 16 shows line from V937 connected to 3-RSS-002-89-4 (F-6). CP 379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows it connected to a 3/4 inch line to V938 (F-6).
- 9. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on 3-RSS-750-914 before it connects to 3-RSS-00489-4 (D 10).CP-379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows the reducer.
- 10. CP 379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-150-79-4 before it connects to 3-RSS-002-89-4. Reducer needs to be added, it also needs to be added to EM-112C Rev 16 (G-6).
- 11. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on 3-RSS-150-85-4 before connection to 3-RSS-002-86-4 (D-8). CP-379015 Sht 2 Rev 3 shows the reducer.
- 12. EM-112C Rev 16 shows line 3-RSS 001-109-2 (G-4) connected to 3-RSS-010-8 2 before reducer. Cl RSS-21 Sht 4 Rev 5 shows the connection at the reducer.
- 13. EM-112C Rev 16 shows line 3-RSS-750-127-2 (H-4) to be connected after line 3-RSS-004-124-2. Cl-RSS-8 Sht 3 Rev 6 ethnwat the tannnar finn hafnra *LRSS nnt19to Printed 12/18/9712 21:31 PM Page 1 of 4
. _ ~ _ . . _ .
DR No. DR-MP3-0074 Northeast Utilities ICAVP r,..ustone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 14. Cl-IISS-8 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows a reducer on l'oe 3-RSS-004-124-2 bifore connection to line 3-RSS-010-9 2.- EM 112C Rev 16 show=l no reducer.
- 15. EM-11'tC Rev 16 shows no re.ner on line 3-RSS-006-46 2 (J-4). Cl-RSS-a m 3 Rev 6 shows .) reducer before connedion to 3-RSS-010-9-2.
- 16. EM-112C Rev 16 at (J 3) shows no capped line between 3-SSP-001 155-2 and check valve 'V35 as shown on Cl-RSS 9 Sht 5 Rev 8.
- 17. EM 112C Rev 16 shows line 3-RSS-001 105-2 (C-2) conneded to 3-RSS-010-3-2 before reducer. Cl RSG 20 Sht 4 Rev 6 shows the connection at the reducer.
- 16. EM 112C Rev 16 shows Flow Elements at (F-2, F-4, F-7, F-9), but does not call them out as *FE40D, *FE388, *FE400, and
- FE36A.
- 19. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-006-52-2 (J 2). Cl-RSS-7 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows a reducer before the connection to 3-RSS-010-112.
- 20. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-750-49-2 (D-5). CP-379709 Sht 3 Rev 4 shows a reducer before the line connects to 3-RSS-002 57 4,
- 21. EM-112C Rev 16 shows at (D-5) e reducer on the 1 inch line to V939. CP 379014 Sht 3 Rev4, M.all B, shows no reducer,
- 22. CP-379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 doe' not ceil out STR2B (D-4) shown and called out on EM-112C Rev 16 (D-5).
- 23. EM-112C Rev 16 shows the line to valve 3RSS-V942 (D-5) connected directly to line 3-RSS-002 57-4. CP-379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 Detail C shows the line for valve 3RSS V942 connected to the line to 3RSS-V943,
- 24. CP-379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 shows reducers that are not shown on EM 112C Rev 16 u the following locations: Line 3 RSS-150-67 4 before it connects to line 3-RSS-002 57-4 (D 5); line 3-RSS-750-75-4 before it connects to line 3 RSS-150-67-4 (1-4);
line 3-RSS-00166 i ')etween3-RSS-001-59-4 and 3-RSS-150-67-4 (I-4); and line 3-RSS-00159-4 before it connects to line 3-RSS-00186-4 (1-4). EM-112C-16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS-750-61-4 at (12) but CP 379009 Sht 3 shows a reducer between line 3-RSS-001 59-4 and 'V978,
- 25. EM-112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS-150-67-4 before connection to 3-RSS-002 57 4 (D 5). CP-379016 Sht 2 Rev 4 shows the reducer.
- 26. CP-37C003 Sht 3 Rev 9 does not identify instrument PI-42B.
- 27. CP-379008 Sht 3 Rev 9 note that line 3-SSP 500-126-4 cont'aues on CP-394753 should be removed because the line is no longer on EM-112C Rev 16 (D-6).
Review Vehd hmvelid Needed Date O O SGS7 inittetor: Reed, J. W. O O O S3S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O 9/8,97 VT Mgr schopfer. Don K Q Q Q IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K @ Q Q 9/B/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Printed 12/18/971221:37 PM Pope 2 of 4
m l
I
.ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0074 Northeast Utilities Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Ode: 10/10/97 nasoLUTioN: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1, 4, 5,12, 13,16,17 and 18 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0074, have identified conditions previously discovered by NU which require correction. Items #1,4,5,12,13,16 and 17 have been previously addressed on UiR 1327 and item #18 is addressed in CR M3-971604.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #2,3,6,7,9, 11,14,15,19,20,24 and 25 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0074, do not represent discrepant conditions. Reducers, reducing inserts, reducing tees etc. at branch connections are not required to be shown on P&lD's. The line s!zes can be determined by individual line numbering. Engineering Department Instruction (EDI) 30255 provides guidance for depicting reducers on P&lD's.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #8,10,21, 22,23,26 and 27 of Olscrepancy Report, DR MP3-0074, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The errors associated with items #8,21 and 23 will be corrected on the P&lD and the errors associated with items #10,22,26 and 27 will be corrected on the associated "PLl* isometric drawing.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1,4, 5,12, 13,16,17 and 18 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0074, have >
identified conditions previously discovered by NU which require correction. These ite ns have been previously addressed on UlR-1327 and CR M3-971604.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #2, 3,6,7,9, 11,14,15,19,20,24 and 25 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0074, do not represent discrepant conditions. Reducers, reducing
- inserts, reducing tees etc. at branch connections are not required
" to be shown on P&lD's. Engineering Department Instruction (EDI) 30255 provides guidance for depicting reducers on P&lD's.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #8,10,21, 22,23,26 and 27 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0074, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. These drawing errors will be corrected. CR M3-97 3155 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Provholy identtaed spy NU? O Yes (9) No Non D6ecrepent Condfuon?Q Yes (8) No n muonPenman?O vos @ No ReshuonUnroesed?O vos @ No -
n.*w ,
instietor: Reed J.W.
O "7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRc chmn: segh, Anand K Date: j Pnnted 12n8,971721 Ao PM Page 3 of 4
DR No. DR-MP3-0074 - ,
Northeast Utilities ICAVP milestone unit 3 : Discrepancy Report SL Comments:
e a
Printed 12/1M71221:42 PM p,,, 4 ,, 4
I DR No. DR MP3 0091 Northeast Utilities ICAVP willstone Unit 3 DiscNpancy Report Review occup: Syesem DR RESOLitTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design g 06ecipune: simhsw Daio" O va DwreP=wr Tree: c*um=.n o u.
SystenWProcese: SWP NRC SignlAcance W: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: W22/97 D6ecrepancy: Embedded Plate Calculation Discrepancy Deectlpt6an: We have reviered EMB PLATE Calculation No.12179-CFSK - 732D - L 81 Rev.1 Based on this review , We have noted the following discrepancy.
The reactions shown on pa0e # 2 of this calc. from pipe support M ARK NO. CP - 319767 H001 are inconsistent with the reactions shown on page # 24 of pipe support calc. no.12179 - NP ( F ) ZO19R -767 - H001 Rev. 7
- which is higher than the reactions used in this calc.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date 0 O $157 initiator: Patel.A- 0 $28'87 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O Wie/97
> VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K O O O O *17'87 IRC chnuu Singh. Anand K O O Date:
INVALID:
Date: 11/26/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0091, does not represent a discrepant condition. Page 6A of the pipe support calcula90n NP(F)-2019R 767 H001 Rev. 7 evaluates the load change in terms of a minimal increase in forces wt' ch is offset by a reduction in moments, and concludes that the embedded plate is acceptable. Therefore the embed plate is adequate as addressed in the pipe support calculation.
Sionificance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition Prevlonely identined by Nu? () Yes (I) No Non Diecrepent Condition?(f) Yes (,) NJ R okmonPonenetO vos @ wo Reeammunr=*.drO va @ u.
Rev6ew in6tietor: Patel,A. **
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O "N VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sin 0h. Anand K b
Dele:
SL Commente:
Page 1 or 1 Printed 12/18/9712'22:18 PM
1 ICAVP DR N:. DR MP3-0092 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR RESOLUTlDN ACCEPTED Review Elesesnt' Syelem Design Wf _. someturalDesign O vos D6ecropency Type: C*% gg Systemprocese: SWP NRC W level:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: SQ997 D6ecrepency: Pipe Support Calculation 12179-NP(B)-Z19G-106, Rev.4 Discrepancy Deecription: We have reviewed the Pipe Support Calculation 12179-NP(B).
Z19G 106, Rev 4.
Based upon this review we have noted the following discrepancy.
On page 14 (Strudl input) for load case #2, @ joint 131, force X should be 218# instead of 108#.
This error may not have any significant impact on analysis as it is not a goveming load case.
Review Valid inveild Needed Date inatiator: Patel, A. O O O v2ss7 VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A O O O v2ss7 O O v2ss7 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K O v2seg7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Dele:
INVAUD:
Date: 12/5/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy mport DR-MP3-0092 does not represent a discrepant condition. i.oad case #2 specifies a
+X load which imposes a load at joint 131 from PSR108 which is 100 pounds per the design load table on page 10. The calculation uses a load of 108 pounds which is conservative.
Note that the +X load of 218 pounds is due to PSR131 which is imposed at joint 12 for load case 2. Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previounty identened by NU7 O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent condition?@ Yes O No Resolution Pending70 vos @ No Re.oiuiion unreeoived70 vos @ No Review Initletor: Patel, A.
^#**E **W
SL Comments:
Prwed 12/1&s712:22:57 FM Page 1 of 1
DR No. DR-MP3 0094 Northessi Utilities ICAVP ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
' Review oroup: system DR REsowTioN ACCEPTED Review Element: Syelem Design Potonnel Operabally leeue D6esepene: structurel Design O vos
%- - :iType: Calculation O No system @rocese: SWP NRC signiecence level: 4 Deee faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 9/11/97
- =:mn:y: Pipe Support Calculation Discrepancy Descrip#on: We have reviewed Pipe Suppcrt calculation no.12179-NP(F)-
Z19A-135 REV.4. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancies.
- 1. The load tabulation on page-7, shows the stress calculation Rev.2. Latest stress calculation is rev.3. The rev.3 loads are increased and not incorporated in the calculation, ,
- 2. Incorrect page reference on page-17:
see page 18 should be see page-19.
- 3. Incorrect page reference on page 20:
see page-21 should be see page-22.
see page-20 should be see page-21
- 4. Drafting error on page-14:
F = 534 #/in should be 543 #/in.
- 5. Thickness value (T=0.38 in ) of run pipe, used on page 16 does n,t match with the value shown on page-8, which shows T=0.187 in.
Review Veild invalid Needed Date S/*7 betietor: Patel. A. O '
O O O Sla7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthon/ ^ G O VT Mgr: schopfer, Dun K O O O S/tvS7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 5MVS7 Date:
wwAUD:
Dese: 12/1/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3 0094, items 2,3, and 4 have identified conditions not previously discovered -
by NU which require correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 3208 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve these issues. NU has also concluded that items 1 and 5 do not represent discrepant conditions.
Item 1 is not a discrepant condition since the increased loads on the pipe support are addressed in the associated pipe stress calculation. Refer to NP(B)-X1908, Revision 3, pages 75F and 75G, attached. Page 75G contains the pipe support load evcluation sheet which shows the maximum load change factor Page 1 or 2 Prtnted 12/ilV9712.23:29 FM
DR No. DR MP3-0094 Northeast UtilRies ICAVP ultietone unn 3 Discrepancy Report of 1%. As estatAished on Page 75F of the stress calculation, no further support review is required.
Items 2 and 3 are administrative issues that do inot affect the calculation. The calculation will be corrected in accordance with the corrective actions for CR M3 97 3208.
Item 4 is a descrepant condition, but the change in Values is insignifk: ant with respect to the results.
Item 5 is not a desuepant condition. The proper wall thickness is 0.38 inches, which is greater than the nominal wall thickness of the piping provided on page 8 of the calculation. This is because a heavier wall spool piece was provided to accommodate the load transfer into the integral welded attachments (see E&DCR T-J-01288, page 4, Note 4, attached with referenced drawing 2361.300-450039).
Significance level criteria do not apply as this item is not a discrepant condition.
Previously klontHied by NU7 O Yes (a0 No NonD6ecrepentCondKiontO vos @ No a m Peamas70 va @ No naakmanuaradved70 va @ No Review initiator: Patel,A. "7 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A O O O VT Mgr: Saxpfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sh% Anand K Date: 12/1/g7 SL Comments:
Printed 12M&7712:23.34 FM Py 2 or 2
- 1 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0114 Northeast Utilities Mittstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: conAgurahon DR REsOLilTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: System Doengn pg
' D6ecipens: Piping Desig" Ow Diecrepancy Type: Drawing g" g SysterrWProcess: SWP NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dele Published: 9/11/97 Diecrepayi Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for SWP in ESF Bldg.
Deecrkm: The following drawing discrepancies wers found in reviewing the P&lD with Itne as built Isometric drawmgs:
- 1. On CP 319768 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3-SWP-002 206 3 should be 3 SWP-002-380-3 and line 3-SWP-002-206-3 shown in note as continuation on CP 319015 Sht 3 should be 3-SWP-002 381-3 per P&lD EM-133D Rev34 (L 2).
- 2. On CP-319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 line 3-SWP 002-206-3 should be 3-SWO-002 3813 up to valve 3SWP*V19 and then should be 3-SWP-002 206-3 per P&lD EM-133B Rev 34 (L-2). Also the note on the isometric CP-319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 for line 3-SWP 002-206-3 to continue on CP-319768 should be changed to line 3-SWP-002-380-3.
- 3. CP-319757 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows drain line from valve 3SWP*V838 to be capped and P&lD EM-1338 Rev 34 (M-1) shows it not capped.
- 4. Cl-SWP 27 Sht 8 Rev 13 shows drain line with valve 3SWP*V974 and P&lD EM-133B Rev 34 shows nothing.
- 5. P&lD EM-133b Rev 34 (12) shows instrument 3SWP-FT59D l
to be non safety related but Cl-SWP 27 Sht 8 Rev 13 has it (*)
safety related.
- 6. P&lD EM-133D Rev 34 (J-5) shows valves 3SWP*V810, l 'V303, and *V57 to be safety related aad isometric Cl SWP-33 Sht 7 Rev 8 should also show them to be safety related with a (*).
- 7. Isometric CP 319025 Sht 3 Rev 6 calls out in the continuation note for line 3-SWP-002-83-3 and it should be 3-SWP-002-387-3 per P&lD EM-1338 Rev 34 (L-4),
- 8. On isometric CP-319785 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3-SWP-002 387-3 should be 3-SWP-002-386 3 and the continuation note line 3-SWP-002-63-3 should be 3-SWP-002-387-3 per P&lD EM-133B Rev 34 (L-4).
- 9. On isometric CP-319012 Sht 3 Rev 8 the section of line
, between valve 3SWP*V54 and the tee to 3SWP*RV928 should
' be labeled 3-SWP-002-387-3 and at the continuation note the l
j unlabeled line at the tee opposite 3-SWP-002 387 3 should be labeled 3-SWP-002-388-3 per P&lD EM-133B Rev 34 (L-4).
l 10. On CP_319014 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3-SWP-002-69-3 Defore
! Printed 12/1&S71224.0e PM
DR No. DR44P3C114 Northeast Utenties ICAVP unsetoin ur* 3 Discrepancy Report
' i continuation inne 3 SWP 002 69 3 should be 3 SWP-002 384 3 per PalD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L4).
- 11. On CP 319021 Sht 3 Rev 6 the continuation note line 3-SWP-002-69 3 should be 3 SWP-002 385 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L4).
- 12. On CP 319767 Sht 3 Rev 7 line 3 SWP 002-69 3 in the continuation note should b6 3-SWP 002 385-3 per P&lD EM-1338 Rev 34 (L-6).
- 13. On CP 319013 Sht 3 Rev 10 the sedlon of line between valve *V52 and the tee to line 3 SWP 002-4013 should be labeled S-SWP 002 390 3 and line 3 SWP 002146-3 of the drawing conthuntion note should be 3 SWP-002 382 3 per PalD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 7).
- 14. On CP 319020 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3-SWP-002143 3 in the drawin9 continuation note should be 3 SWP 002 390-3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 7).
- 15. On CP 319766 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3 SWP 002146 3 in the
& awing continuation note shouki be 3 SWP-002 390 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 7).
- 16. On Cl GWP 28 Sht 7 Rev 9 safety related equipment 3SWP*RO125A and *EJ8E as chw on P&iD EM 133B Rev 34 (H 8) should be designated with (*).
- 17. On Cl SWP 28 Shi 8 Rev 9 safety related equipment 3SWP*RO125C and *EJ80 as shown on P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (H 10) should be designateo with (*).
- 18. On Cl:SWPOS Sht 3 Rev 10 safety related valves 3SWP*V25 (*MOV 54A) and *V27 (*MOV 54C) as shown on P&lD EM 1330 Rev 34 (J 7) (J 9) should be designated with (*).
- 10. On Cl SWP 33 Sht 6 Rev 9 safety related valves 3SWP*V811, 'V304, 'V809 and *V24 as shown on PalD EM-1338 Rev 34 (J-6) should be des 19 nated with (*).
- 20. On CP 319026 Sht 3 Rev 9 safety related valve 3SWP*V313
(*RV94C) as shown o . P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (I-8) should be designated with (*).
- 21. Cl SWP 27 Sht 8 Rev 13 Shows drain line with valve 3SWP*V974 that is not shown on the P&lD EM 133B itev 34,
- 22. CP 319757 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows drain line with valve 3SWP*V838 to be capped that is not capped on P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (M 1).
- 23. Per isometric CF 319012 Sht 3 Rev 3 and CP-319765 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3 SWP-002-403 3 connects to 3-SWP 002 387 3 before the tee to fina 3-SWP-002 366-3 :nd not to 3 SWP-002-386-3 on P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L-4).
PrWed 4,&9712:2412 PM Page 2 of 4
4 4
DR No. DR44P3 0114 Northeast utsties ICAVP mmston2 unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
- 24. Per isometric CP 319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 and CP 319768 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3-SWP-002 400 3 connects to 3 SWP 002 3813 after the toe to line 3-SWP 002 380-3 and not to 3 SWP-002-380 3 on P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 2).
- 25. Per isometrics CP 319766 Sht 3 Rev 8 and CP 319013 Shi 3 Rsv 10 line 3 SWP-002-4013 connects to 3-SWP 002 382 3 after the tee to 3 SWP 002 333 3 instead of before the tee on PalD EM 1338 Rev34 (L.-8).
- 26. Per isometrics ("5 319767 Sht 3 Rev 7 line SSWP 002-402 3 connects to line 3 SWP 002 364 3 after the tee to 3 SWP-002-388 3 Instead of before the lee on P&lD EM 133B Rev 34. l RevioW l Vaud inveEd Needed Dele j O O 2 57 inmosen n.ed.a.w. O l O O nS7 VT t.eed: Nui, Anthony A O 9/&97 VT Men setWw, Don K Q Q Q iva97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O rJ Dese: j INVAllo:
Dele: 10/10/97 nrsoLUTioN: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0114, has identified multiple conditions. Some of these have not previously been discovered by NU and require correction.
Others have been previously discovered by NU with corrective J actions ongoing or completed.
ltems 1, 2, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15, 23, 24, 25 &26:
The line numberlag errors are actually on the P&lD, not the isometric. P&lDs were originally drawn with no relationship to a tee fitting orientation (the bull of the tee versus the run of the
'ee). A new Engineering Department instruction, EDI 30255, provides instruction for P&lDs with respect to tees and other piping comoonents. The P&lDs will be changed accordingly to conect the line numbering errors. CR M3 97 3156 was inhiated to provide the necessary corrective action.
Item 3:
Due to the numerous UlRs written to describe caps not being installed. OCN DM3 00-0138-97 (attached) was originated 2/3/97 to Specification SP-ME 570 to clarify that the P&lD will be the goveming document in regards to cap and plug installation in the field. DCN DM3 001592 96 (attached) was originatM 12/17/96 to have maintenance walkdown all vent, drain and test connections for caps and plugs. As a result of these walkdow. s and per DCN DM3 00 0138 97, DCNs are being written to evaluate and revise the system P&lDs as required.
Items 4,5,6,16,17,18,19 & 20:
The fabrication isometric sheet is corred for these items. The Pnnled 12/169712.2415 PM Paes 3 or 4 5
DR No. DR MP3 0114 Northeast utsties ICAVP mmetern UnN 3 Discrepancy Report errors occurred when the piping location isometric (as built) was developed. The PLI sheets will be fixed. CR M3 97 3156 was initiated to provide the necessary corredive adions.
Item 21 is a duplicate of item 4.
Item 22 is a duplicate of item 3.
Conclusion:
NU has conclur#4d that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0114. has identified multiple conditions. Item 3 has been previously .
d Scovered by NU with corredive salons ongoing or completed.
items 21 and 22 are duplicates of items 4 and 3 respedively. All other items have not previously been discovered by NU and require correction. CR M3-97 3156 has been initiated to provide the necessary corroctive actions to resolve these issues.
~
Previousey idenamed t,y nut Q (m (eTNo Non D6wrepent Condmon?C) vee (Si No meeetution PenrenerO vee
- No nosowienunreaevedtO vos (4)No Moview le.nesor: Reed, J. W. N VT Leed: Nort. Anttryiy A O N7 VT Mgr Schopfer. Don K O
IRC Chmn: Singn. Anand K Dele:
SL Commente:
Page 4 or s Pnreed 12/1tV9712.24.19 PM
e DR No. DR44P3 4142 Northeast UtHNies ICAVP umstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Reviewprog: Acc4dertlehgehen DR Rts0LUTION ACCEPTED i
me*w enaments symm Desien % ,, ,
'# 0 Yss 06ecrepency Type: Cakosuon jg systswProcese: N/A NRC sienl#cance level 4 Date FAXad to NU:
' Dele Published: 9/1497 N 9ency: Unsupported Design Assumption DeecripHon: A review of the following documentation has concluded that a d;screpancy exists with regard to documentation relating to estimated doses at the Millstone 3 (MP3) exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the low population zone (LPZ), The documents reviewed are:
- 2) Calculation 88-019-96RA, Rev.2, *LOCA from MP3 to EAB/LPZ'
- 3) USNRC Standard Review Plan Section 6.5.2 Calculation 88-019-96RA was performed to estire ate the offsite doses at the EAS and LPZ following a design basis Loss of Coolant l.rcident (LOCA) at MP3. The calculation was performd to incorporate revised inillal conditions Cor the MP3 conta'ninent system. In order to continue to meet the design basis for offsite doses, credit was Ol ven to the radiological removal capabilities of the containment spray systems.
In the above calculation, an exchan0e rate of two (2) tLmovers per hour between the sprayed and unsprayed regions was assumed per Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 6.5.2. SRP 6.5.2 states 2 tumovers per hour may be assumed provided adequate flow exists between the regions. The calculation does not address the flew capability between these two regions. Thus, the assumption is not substantiated.
i.eview Valid invalid Needed Deee O 85S7 initiator: Bennett,L A- Q O S5S7 VT Leed: nahele,R$D O O O O " S7 vi men s*vn Dan k O O O W S7 IRC Chmn: 86ngh, Anand K O O Dese:
INVALID:
~
Date: 11/24/97 mesoLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0142, does not represent a discrepant condition. The NU LOCA calculation 88 019-96RA was done in accordance with SRP 6.5.2 rev.1 as rev,2 was not issued at the time of the calculation (rev. 2 was effective 12/88 while the calculation was Page 1 of 2 Printed 12/11V9712 25.ie PM
DR No. DR MP3 0142 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP Ministe unn 3 Discrepancy Report tw4, signed off 10/88). SRP 6.5.2 rev. 2 states that a mixing rate of 2 tumovers per hour may be assumed provided adequate
- flow" exists betmen the sprayed and unsprayed areas. Rev.1 of the SRP atates that a mixing rate of 2 tumovers per hour may be assumed provided adequate " flow area" between the regions exists. A qualitative assessment determined that MP3 had sufficient flow area between regions and the 2 tumovers per hour was conservative.
MP3 was originally designed with a negative pressure containment and t once relied on high spray capacity and good mixing for heat retioval. For this reason, specific mixing rates were not calculated in 1988 but we conservatively used the 2 tumovers per hour based on the SRP and our determination
- adequate flow area.
In 1994, for a revised LOCA calculation and license amendment application, calculation US(BF349, MP3 Mixing Rate Between Sprayed and Unsprayed Regions within Containment, (refer to transmittal 81, dated 8/14/97 for a copy) was performed. The calculated mixing rates were determined to be as high as 14 tumovers per hour, thus confirming the extreme conservatism of using 2 in the 1988 calculation.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue repo 1ed in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0142, does not represent a discrepant condition. The calculation was performed using SRP rev.1 which required adequate flow area between sprayed and unsprayed regions which Unit 3 containment met, in 1994, calculation US(BF349, MP3 Mixing Rate Between Sprayed and Unsprayed Regions within Containment, confirmed that an adequate mixing rate existed for the Unit 3 containment.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously identmed by Nu? O vos @ No Non D6ecrepeM Coadmion?O vos (Gil No a.eakmaaPsamaetO va @ No n.e.iouon unr avedt O v @ No Review A~ar8 aMa Not AccagdaMa Needed Dele g
G O O e7 VT Leed: Rehe6e.RajD O O =
VT Mer: schopfer. Don K
" * * * ^"*"d
- Date:
b b 11/24/97 at.ceneneats: The ICAVP accepts the resolution to this DR as stated by NU, but recommends as an enhancement that the 1988 NU LOCA calculation 88-Ot9-96RA be updated with the information from the 1994 calculation US(B) 349,'MP3 Mixing Rate Between Sprayed and Unsprayed Regions within Containment".
Printed 12/1&9712:25 22 PM Page 2 of 2
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0177 Northeast utsties Mastone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Review ereup: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED E I Potential Operabihty leeue Diecipaae: Macranical Desie" O von E4 ~ , xy Type: Cornpanent Dele gg systemProcess: RSS NRC U^ we level:4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Pundiehed 11/2097 r" . my: FSAR Sec 6.3.2.2.5 reqmt for gate valves w/ flexible wedges is inconsistent w/ spec 2282.050-676.
Deecripesen: FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.5 states that the seating design for all emergency core cooling system motor operated gate valves are of the Crane flexible wedge design. Containment roe rculation system components are described in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core coooling system. Valve specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 shows the containment recirculation spray system valves 3RSS*MOV38A,B having a solid wedge design.
Review Vehd invalid Needed Dele
- trw.ator
- Feingold. D. J. O O O 11/1157 VT 4.eed: Nwt, Areony A O O O 15'1057 4
VT Men schopfer, Don K O O O it/14S7 IRC Chrnn: singh. Anand K O O O 1'I1787 Dese:
INVAllD:
Dew: 12/2/97 RESOLUTION: Disposillon:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0177, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU whleh requires correction.
The FSAR section 6.3.2.2.5 and valve specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 discrepancy was identified during the 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process. This was documented by Unresolved item Report VIR 2588. A change to the FSAR including a Safety Evaluation (SE S3-FV 97-0253) is being initiated according to PI 19, ' Millstone Unit 3 Final safety Analysis Report Verification *. The FSARCR w!ll be completed to prior to startup. The UIR 2588 activity is bein0 tracked by the NU Action item Tracktreg and Trending System (AITTS) as A/R 97018665-01.
Conclusion:
i NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report. DR MP3-0177, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
This condition was discovered and documented by UlR 2588 during ti.s 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process. A FSARCR Prmed t a189712.26 34 PM Pege 1 of 2
-- . _ . . . - . _ . ~ _._ . _ .__ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _. _ _. __ _ _ _ _ , ._
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0177 Northeast UtilNies millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report r wMh the supporting safety evaluation SE S3-EV 97-0253 has tren inNisted to corred the FSAR.
7;;.':';?;identHied by NU7 it) Yes Q No Non Descrepent CondekAPO Yes @) No ReeedutionPending70 v 4) N. - % unt tv.dr O ve. @>No Review t __ _ m m._ g t___ ~ ~ '
_ m a .~ g g '
initistor: Feingold, D. J. ~~ ', g ,7 VTt.eed: Nett, Anthony A 7 3
IRC Cism: Singh, Anand K O O 12/16S7 O O im7 Dele:
SL Crweenents:
- Printed 12/189712 26 39 PM Page 2of 2
l .
DR No. DR MP3 0194 Northeast Utilities ICAVP mmetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Moview Group: ConAgurehen DR REs0LUTioN ACCEPTED 3 Moview Element: System th [
the4%e: Ptp6ng Dee" O va D6ecrepancy Type: Inseenshon impbnentaten g) ,
'~
systemPrnees: DSS NRC L Me level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: B W 97 taecrepancy: Walkdown Discrepancies of the OSS in the containment En4 : The following discrepancy was found during the walkdown of the piping and meclianical equipment of the OSS in the Containment Bldg:
- 1. Support FSA140 shown on BZ 790 715 and E&DCRs F.J.
38427 and F-J 36205 and Isometric Cl-OSS 25 Sht3 ReV 10 has two additional Gusset plates not shown on the drawings.
Review Vand invalid Needed Date O O S'"S7 inmeion n.ed.J.w. O a'11/87 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT higr: Sctgfor. Don K O O O ar22S7 O w2ser wic chmn: singh, Anand K O O Det.:
DNALID: ,
Date: 12/5/97 Resotursos Disposition:
i4U has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0194, does n W represent a discrepant condition. The E&DCR's which are outstanding against the BZ drawing are supplemented and posted in GRITS by DCN's DM3-S-0620-96 and DM3-S-0740-96 which add and revise the gusset plates for PSA140. Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0194, does not represent a discrepant condition. Two Design Change Notices, DM3 S-0620-96 and DM3 S-0740-96 document the inodification to the gusset plates for PSA140. Significance Level criterta do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Pievtouser identmed by NUF Q vos @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition?C#'t vee U No RM%pending?O vos (3) No Ree i.iion u. 4eoivedtO vos @ No Review init6stor: Reed, J. W, VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A O O N VT Mgr: Schopeer, Don K Q
' " * * * " " **^"'"d
Date:
b b O 1 SL Commente:
PrWed 12/16971227;12 PM _ Page 1 or 1 f
- ._. ~_ _ _ __ _ . . _ _ _ . __ ,
DR No. DR MP3 0286 Northeast UWWes ICAVP Miwone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: syneem Nt RESOLUTION ACCE'TED Review Element: system Design D6ecipline: Mechenkel Desi'"
O va Diecrepancy Type: component Dets @~ No systeWProcess: Oss l#tC s6pnescence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed: iof2697 Dkrepancy: FSAR Table 6.241 does not agree with quench spray pump drawing 2214.002-040-013.
DescrIPeon: FSAR Table 6.241 states that the OSS pumps are made of 304 atalnless steel. However, pump drawing 25212 2214.602-040-013 Revision C shows the pump casing to be of SA 351 CF8M.
The drawing further identifies this material to be equivalent to 316 stainless steel. Finally, the drawin0 shows most of the pump parts to be made of material equivalent to 316 stainless steel.
Heview vai6d invahd Needed Date inansier: Feingold. D. J. O O O 0/13S7 O 1$53S7 vitoed: N=i. Anthony A O O io/14S7 VT Mgr: schopfw Don K O O O O O iot2iis7 plc Chmn: singh Anand K O Dese:
INVAUO:
Dese: 11/24/97 REsOLimoN: Disposition:
NJ has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0286, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Table 6.2-61 was revised by FSARCR 97 MP3 74 to depict the material for the Quench Spray Pumps to be 316 stainless steel. A copy of this FSARCR was trasnmitted to you via M3-IRF-00141 dated July 21,1997.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report. DR MP3-0286, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Table 6.2-61 was revised by FSARCR 97 MP3-74 to dopict the material for the Quench Spray Pumps to be 316 stainless steel. A copy of this FSARCR was trasnmitted to you via M3 IRF 00141 dated July 21,1997.
Previously identtaed by NU7 M Yes O No Non Discreper3 Condit6on?O Yee @ No ResolutionPending?O vee <@ No Resoiuiionunrenoived70 von (@ No Review initielor: FM. D. J.
VT Leed: h <- mA O O O $$'24S7 0 0 O -7 vr uge: senopen. Don x IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K Dese:
PrHed 12/184712:2e 07 PM Page 1 of 2
- ~ _ -
DR No. DR44P3 0286 l Northeast utsties ICAVP umotorm unn 3 Discrepancy Report ;
s SL Comments:
i 1
4 5
i1 i I l
l I
l I
PrNed 12/1M712:26.12 PM Pp2W2 i:-_
l i
-# _ ~ ~ ~ - - . . , , , _ , ,,_, _
ICAVP DM No. DR44P3 0293 Norjtheast utilities Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Repo.4 Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design mpqw m: unohwves' "*" O vee .
W ; ny Type: Carrymerd Date gg systemProcese: Rss NRC sientacem kvel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publish 6J: 11/2097 D6ecrepancy: FSAR Table 6.2-62 is inconsistent with specificat'on 2214.802-044 & drwg 2214.802 044-018.
Dacript6on: FSAR Table 6.2-62 states that the containment recirculation pumps are fabricated of ASTM A452 Type 304 stainless steel.
However, containment recirculation pump design specification 2214.802 044 through Revision 1 and drawing 2214.802-044 018 Revision G show no pump parts maos from ASTM-A452 Type 304 stainless steel.
Review veind invesid meded Date innistor: rempold, D. J. O O O $ $'55/87 O 1t/10S7 VT Lead: Nort. Arthony A O O VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K O O O S iS7 NtCChmn: SWgh, Anand K O O O 11/$7/87 Date:
twAUD:
Oste: 12/2/97 RESOLUTION: Dispogillon:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0293, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
The FSAR table 6.2-82 discrepancy was identified during the 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process. This was documented by Unresolved item Report UIR 970 and FSAR Change Request FSARCR 97 MP3-82. No work in the field is required. The FSARCR has been completed. The FSARCR provided the necessary corrective actions to resolve the issue.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0293, has identified a condillon previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
A material difference was discovered and documented by UlR 970 during the 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process.
FSARCP 97 MP3-62 was written and completed to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve the issue.
- Previously identined by NU? $ vos O No Non Diacrepent Condsuon?O vos @ No _
Roeolut6on Pending?O vos @ i.o RenoiuiionunresoivedtO vos @ No Review
._m_-- Acceptable Not Acceptebie Needed Date rw n J Printed 12/169712:2e 46 PM Ph@Ff6r 2
ICAVP DR No. DR44P34293 Northeast Utinties minstone uaN 3 Discrepancy Report i2csr O O
- n/ % 4 O n
nt 12w7 w wi %,non x 0 O Ntc Chnm: SWi, Anand K O W O ] O i2ettis7 '
Date:
SL Corrmnts:
4 4
a
%)
PrW*ws 12/1697 U2654 PM Py 2 W 2
ICAVP DR No. DR MP34306 Nov0 wast utilities Milestone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Sye4r n DR RESOLUTION ACCEFit;D Rev6ew Elwnent: Syenom Design g ,
oiecipline: Muhanical Dnign
- O von
'" N ay Type: Component Data yg SystemProcese: RSA NRC Signacauce level: 4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Publiened: 11/1597 0 accepency: Spec 2214.802-044-020, drwg 2214.802-044-020, & PDDS conflict w/ respect to RSS pump motor speed.
Dacri Puen: The plant computer data base. PDDS, shows the containment recirculation pump design for motor speed to be 1780 rpm.
Vendor drawing 2214.802 044-020 Revision C is in agreement.
However the pump design specification 2214.802 044 through Addendum 5 shows the nump motor speed to be 1200 rpm.
Review Val 6d invahd Needed Date O i10S7 iniastor: reingoki. D. J. O O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 11'10S7 D D 11/1097 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don A D 1RC Chmn: singh, Anend K O O O 11'11'87 Date:
INVAUO:
Date: 12/5/97 RESOLUTION: Olsposition:
WU has concluded that DR-MP3-0306 does not represent a discrepant condition. A review of PDDS Indicates that the motor speed for pumps 3RSS*PI A,3RSS*P1B,3RSS*P10, and 3RSS*PID is 1185 RPM ( see attached PDDS printouts ). This value is consistent with Specification 2214.802-On Rev 1 ( see .
Transmittal 52, dated 07/08/97 ) and Vendor Drawing 2214.802- l 044-020 Rev C, 1
l
Conclusion:
l NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0306 does j not represent a discrepant condition. As detailed in the disposition, PDDS, Specification 2214.802 044 Rev 1, and Vendor Drawing 2214.802 044 020 Rev C. are consistent and each Indicate that the pump motor speed for eich of the RSS pumps is 1185 RPM. Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously identelled by Nu? O Yes T@ No Non Diecrepent Condition?@ Yes O No Renoivu arendias?O va (*J No R aoiu m unraoev.dt O v a @ No Review initiator: Fein0cid, D. J.
O O N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O =7 vi m r:e schopee,, Don K IRC Chmn: Sirgh Anand K O O e7 PrWited 12/1&971229:34 PM PeGe 1 of 2
I ICAVP DR No. DR44P34304 Northeast UtHRies mm UnN J Discrepancy Report ,
- , ~"
O O O $2iiiw Dele:
SL Comnants:
a PrWed 12/1697 ii:2930 PM Pe2W2
DR No. DR-MP3 0322 Northeast Utstles ICAVP umstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report -
Revtew Group: ConAguraten DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Moview Element: Bye 4em instalistkvi D6ecipHne: PWh6 Deeg" Discrepancy Type: Installsten implementaten Om
@ No SystemProuse: SWP NRC S',re level: 3 pate grAXed to NU:
Date Pubilehed: 10'i&97 D6ecr*Pency: Walkdown discrepancy for SWP in the Pumphouse D**criptiea: The following discrepancy item was found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Pumphouse:
1 Pipe support H007 on isometric drawing CP 319703 (part of the 10% support sample) and shown on drawing BZ 19R 153 Rev 1 is a dead weight support for valve OSWP*V99 motor-operator but there is a 1/32 in gap between the cupport and the valve operator and honed it is not providing support.
Review Velid inveild Needed Date O S'25S7 inee6esor: Reed,J.W. O O vT t ed: N.i.Ane ,-
0 0 O w2s7 vr u en senov , %,.- 0 0 0 *13S7 1Rc chmn: Singh, Anend K O O O 'ori'S7 Dese:
wvAup:
Date: 11/26/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition; NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0322, does not represent a discrepant condition. Pipe support CP 319703-H007 by design is a vertical support (VS) as noted in the description of DR-MP3-0322.
Specification SP ME 573, Sketch P 567 pmvides the inspection attributes for support clearances and Note 12 on Sheet 1 of that sketch states 'ine clearance gap measurement should be taken at the point closest to contact between the support structure and the pipe or lug and pipe clamp where applicable?
In the case of H007 the point of measurement is between the underside of the valve operator of valve 3SWP*V99 and the 3XS plate (Item 3). As stated in the discrepancy there is a 1/32 in Qap between the support and the valve operator tm.1 this is true over most of the surface of item 3 however, a wa,tdown of the support shows that there is contact (i.e. zero gap) at the northwest comer of item 3 for an area of approx!ritately 3/4 in X 3/4 in. Therefore, the support attribute is met as it is taking the dead weight load of Fy = 300#, Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0322, does not represent a discreNint condition. Pipe support CP 319703-H007 is a dead weight support, a field verification was performed confirming zero gap be' ween the valve operator to plate (item
~Pnnled 12/169712:31to PM Pope 1 or 2
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0322 Northeast Utilities Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report 3). This satisfies the dead weight support attribute speciflad by Specification SP ME 573, Sketch P 567. Significance Level crMeria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
~
Previo ely ldentWied by NUP Q Yes Is No Non D6ecrepent Condet60n? F Yes O No Resolution Pending?O Yo. 4) No Resoiutionun, dro Y @) No Review inflietor: Reed, J. W, VT Lead: Nett, Anthony A VT Mgt: Sctwfor, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g g,g7 Dete:
8L Comments:
PrWed 12/1&9712.31:05 PM Page 2 of 2
ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 4403 Northeast UtiHene. l Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report l Novtow Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED E IY** W potentiel Operehmey leeue e :- -e-n a yes Dierrepency Type: Componwd Dels yg systemProcess: RSS NRC signiacerece level:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date P'Allehed: 1W2W7
~
D6 crepency: FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.5 regarding check valve design is inconsistent w/ valve drawings & specs.
Ducription: FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.5 states that emergency core cooling system check valves over 4 inches in nominal size are tilting disc type. Contalnment recirculation system components are described in FSAR Sedion 6.3 to be included in the emergency core coooling system.
According to drawings and specifications, containment recirculation system check valves 3RSS*V035 and 3RSS*V036 are nominal 10 and 12 inch swing type check valves as follows:
Component Size Type Reference 3RSS*V035 8' swing type drawing 2282.050-676126 3RSS*V036 Revision B specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 3RSS*V003 12" swing type drawing 2282.050153-036 Revision A 3RSS*V006 specification 2282.050153 3RSS*V009 through Revision A 3RSS*V012 Review Valid invoisd Needed Dele inittster: FeW. D. J. O O O 10/1SS7 VT Leed: Neri,4nthony A Q O O 1o/1397 VT Mgri Schophr, Don K O O O 10'14S7 wiC chmn: Singh. Anand K Q Q Q 10/1897 oste:
INVAUD:
.ammen Dese: 12/5/97 REs0LUTioN: Disposition:
NU has concluoed that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0403, has identified a condition previously discovered -
by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy in FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.5 was identified during 'he 50.54(f) FSAR verification process and le documented in MP3-DE 971100, page 6,3-41. annotation 331 A change to the FSAR locluding a Sa'ety Evaluation has been initiated according to PI-19,
~
Prbited 12/169712.31:46 PM Page 1 of 2 l
L - . . - -
ICAVP ')R No. DR MP3 4403 NortheaM IMWHes umotone ur* 3 Discrepancy Report
" Millstone Unh 3 Final Safety Analyt,ls Report Verification."
FSARCR 97 MP3 563 will be completed prior to startup.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0403 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This condition was identified as part of the FSAR verification process. FSARCR 97 MP3 563 with supportin9 safety evaluation has been issued to correct the FSAR prior to stadup.
Previously identmed by Nu? @) Yee O No Non D6Hteper.1 Condition?O Vee T) No Resolut6an Pending?O vs. ri>> No RoeosutionuareeoivedtO vs. + No-Review inst 6elor Feinecid, D. J. f VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A N :
vr m en sonopeer,conx 0 0 O IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K 7 Dete:
st Commente:
(
Printed 12n&9712.31:52 FM Page 2 of 2
=
ICAVP DR No. DW344M Northeast utstie.
Mmetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: conhpurehan DR REsoLUT8oN ACCfPTED Review Element: lAeddlcaban instatehon g g Diecipilne: Pgdrq Doeten O Ya D6.crepency Type: Instante implamiehon (,) g,
~
systemProcese: SWP NRc sigadacence level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed: 11/13,7 D
- repency: Modif6 cation DCR 96078 : Pumps 3SWP*P3A!E Suction piping rerouting D*ecropolon: The detail verification of the modification package DCR 96078 found the suction plping to pump 3SWP'P3B as shown on implementing DCN DM3-00 0564 97 page 4 has a length between Flange item 167 and the center 11ne of the 3D bend (SWP 3D-003-015 on DM3-S 09fl2 96 page 17) of 7 ft 71/2 inch ;
in lieu of the specified S ft 81/16 inch dimension.
Review Vehd invalid Needed Date inneetor: Reed. J. W. O O O 16587 O 5S 5 87 VTLead: Nwl. Anthony A O O VT Mgn Schopfer, Don K O O O iiSS7 0 O time 7 inc chmn: sins, Anand x 0 Date:
INvAuD:
Dese: 12/5/97 REsotuTD* Disposill>n:
Nu has concluded that Discrepancy Report. DR MP3-0406, does not represent a discrepant condition. A field walkdown was performed to verify the required dimension of 6' 81/16' as stated on page 4 of DCN DM3-00-0564 97. The dimension was measured to be 6' 71/4" which is within the ti" tolerance specified in Specification SP ME 570. This measurement is comprised of three separate dimensions (Center line of flange east to wall (1' 10") + wall thickness (1 6* REF.) + Wall f ace east to center line of the 3D bend (3' 31/4') = 6' 71/4*. We were unable to duplicate the T 71/2' measumment.
Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0406, does not represent a discrepant condition. Tlie dimension was field ,
verified to be 6' 71/4", within the ti" tolerance specified in i Specification SP ME 570. We were unable to duplicate the T 7 1/2" measurement, ,
l Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. 1 Previouch identi;ted by NUP D Yes @ No Non D c' repent Condulon?@ Yes O No 1
)
prinica miaer it.3224 ru es,e i or 2 1
= j
.- . ._. . . __ -.- ._- - .__-.= - - _ ._- - -- -
DR No. DR 44P34404 Northeast UWWes ICAVP umotone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l MoeottonPeneng?L) Yes (6) No Pe%unroeolved70 Yes (G) No Rev6ew
' 22 '
init6mor. Reed,J.W. '
VTt.aed: Nort, Anpuriy A b b b iaS7 viin r:e sen ,se,,can x 0 D D 0 0 O min 7 ine chmn: i,y. Anand x O O O svit/s7 Dele:
el Commentet i
I Primod 12/189712 32.29 PM Pope 2 of 2
-. ~ . . _- . - . - - -. -
i DR No. DR MP3 0410 Northeasi UtNMies ICAVP Minetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neyw oroup: syenom DR nesoturxw AcetPiro nevtew E4 ww Sree*m Daen p ,,,,, , p a y w Di.a,ans: o*.mieru oue'*"" " O vee Di*cto rency t ype,' Componard Ode (e) No SyelesWProides: $WP NnC 4rmelevel:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puteshed: 107197
~
D6ecrofoner Specification Discrepancy Deecri,dion: The computerized databases PMMS, PDDS, and The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (M3-EE 0353, Rev.
2, Appendix 4)' how that the ASCO Tri-Pt Pressure switches 38WP FS$9A3, B3, C3, D$ are safety related equipment. They show that the Procurement Specification for these switches is Specification No. 2472.510-626.
However, the Procurement Specification No 2472.510-626 does not contain Data Sheets for these components.
noview Valid inveild Nooded Date O Q forf397 init4 ster: Yeooin, S. O n Leed: N tAanharA O O O "*S7 vi e eri schopier. Don x 0 0 0 10/65'S7 O- So'i$S7 InC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O Date:
wwAuD:
Date: 11'29/97 nesoturioN: Disposition:
This discrepano report (DR) describes a lack of records in the purchase spes ^t.ation for the data sheets required to procure flow switches WWP FS59A3, FS5983. FS5903 & FR5903 when compared against all the applicable documente lion The PMMS & PDDS Databam, vendor drawings, Electrical Equipment Qualification idEQ) Master List (SP M3-EE-353),
EEQ walkdown records and Purchase Specification (247.'.510-626) wereverified to ensure an agreement between all documents for the model number of these flow switches. During this reviow, the reported missing data sheets were in E&DCR T-C-04576 which is posted against the purchase specification in the GRITS Database. This E&DCR provides the purchase and installation document for there flow switches. Therefore, a discrepant condition does not exist.
Significant Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepatit condition.
Previou.y Idonemed by Nut . O yes @ No Non Diecrepent condM6on?@ Yee O No nocoluttonPading?O vee
- No nee iuiionune ived70 vos @ No neview Acceptable Not Accogdeble Needed Date
%, y 3, VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A 8 O O it' S'S7 yr u,,: 3% oon g Inc Chmn: Singh. Anend K b o...
Printed 12/1841712-33.18 PM Page 1 of 2
_ ~ . . . - .- . _ . . . _ . _ - _ ._ __ __ _ __ _
4 l
DR No. DR MP34410 Northesst utsties ICAVP Mastone unit 3 , _ ,
Discrepancy Report
. SLComments:
l
)
5' s
4 n
Printed 12/1&9712:33,22 PM Py 2 W 2 L- , . _ _ . . . _ . . _ , - . _ _ . _ _ _ .
ICAVP M No MMP34415 Northeast Utinties minatorw Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelom DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED R* view Element: System Design O vos Dioctopency Type: Compone4 Deta @ No SyelenWProcess: Oss l NRC T,.2" mlevel:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puteshed: 11/22,97 D6*cr*Pancy: The RWST material in spec 2275.001-023 & drwg 2214.601-02T 001 is inconsistent w/ FSAR Table 6.2-61.
Descript6on: FSAR Table 6.2-61 identifies the Refueling Water Storage Tank to be made of specification A240 T304L stainless steel. The tank design specification 2275.001-023 through Addendum 3 FSAR Table 6.1 1, and design drawing 2214.601 023-001 Revision R describe the tank as having a shell and heads made of specification SA 240 Type 304 stainless steel. There is a discrepancy in that the FSAR specifies a low carbon alloy where the design specification and drawing do not Indicate such.
Review v.ad inv.ad Need.4 om.
O 1'11057 Initiator reingold. D. J. O O 15'15'87 VTLeed: Nwi. Anthony A O O O O $ $S7 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O O 11/18S7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O Dese:
INVALID:
Dde 12/?/97 Resolution: Disposit!on:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0415, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires corTection.
The FSAR table 6.2-61 discrepancy was identified during the 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process. This was documented in FSAR Change Request FSARCR 97 MP3 73. No work in the field is required. This FSARCR has been completed. The FSARCR 97 MP3 73 provided the necessary corrective actions to resolve the Issue. i
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0415, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
A material differer.ce was discovered and documented during the 10CFR50.54(f) FSAR verification process. FSARCR 97 MP3-73 was written and completed to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve the issua.
?reviously identtaed by NU? @ Yes O No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Reechdion PendinetO Yes @ No no weicaunr.convedtO vos @ No Prinloo 12/189712.33 59 PM Pepe 1 of 2 Y-. -
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0415 Northeast UtlWes umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review
- Not Maptable Needed Oste N1 F D.1 N7 VT Leed
- Nwt Areony A O O O vr u ne sc* w dv. oan k
@ ka O $# 7 wic chmn: 8% Anand K g 7 Dele:
SL commeto:
PrWed 12/1&S712 34 05 PM Page 2 of 2
ICAVP DM No. DM MP3 0430 I Northeast Utilities ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neview oreup: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED M*v6
- Elemed: sy*m Daion p m ,,op,,g,,,, %
Dieci,an.: en*onmne, e' """ O va
"---= .- - ;y Type: Component Date g systeWProcese: Rss NRC sagrdlicence level: 4 Osle faxed k NU:
Date Pubebehed: 10/2197 D6ecrepency: Procurement Spaci0 cation Dircrepancy
!= . m The Millstone computerized databases PDDS and The Electrhal Equipment Qual 10 cation (EEQ) Master List (M3 EE 0353, Rev.
2, Appendix l) show that the Rosemount Presswe Switches 3RCS*PT457, and 3RCS*PT458 are safety related (Class 1E) equipment.
The databases also show that the Procurement Specification Numbcr for these components is 2472.510-662.
Our review shows that the data sheets for the above mentioned components are not included in the Procurement Specification, nev6ew vand invand Needed Date initiator: veenin, S. O O O 50/1557 Vit.ned: Nort, Ardtmy A Q Q Q 10/1T97 O O 10/'f/87 VT Mori schopfer. Don K O Wlc Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O $c~1SS7 Date: 10/13/97 INVAUD:
~
Date: 11/28/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
This discrepancy report (DR) describes a lack of records in the purchase specification for the data sheets required to procure pressure transmitters 3RCS*PT457 & PT458 when compared against all the applicable documentation. The PMMS & PDDS Databases, vendor drawings, Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (SP M3-EE 353) EEQ walkdown records and Purchase Specification (2472.510-662) were verified to ensure an agreement between all documents for the model number of these pressure transmitters. During this review, the reported missing data sheets were verifie d to be in the purchase specification 2472.510-662 revis.lon i dated October 29,1986.
The data sheet information for t')ese pressure transmitters is on page 2 21 of the specification. This specification document was sent by ICAVP RF1028 transmittal 38 on 6/18/97.
Therefore, a discrepant condition does not exist.
Significant Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously leant 4Ae6 by Nu? () Yes @ No NonD6screpardCondluon?@ vos (,) No ReecM6onPend6ngtO va @ No nosauonunreedvedrO va @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date y 3, O O -7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O mW VT Mgr: schopfer DonK
~
11vded 12/189712:34 37 ?M Page 1 of 2
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
e a ICAVP DR No. DR MP34430 I
Northeast UtHhs umotone unk 3 Discrepancy Report D
O iria7 Wtc Chmn: Singh, Anand K g g 7 Dele:
SL convients:
a PrHed 12/184712.34 42 PM Page 2 of 2 1
e DR No. DR MP3-0643 Northeast Utiinies ICAVP Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review ereup: system DR RESOLUTeoN ACCEPTED I Poseed6ol Operabikty leeue Diecipane: Moohenumi D."
O vee Diecrepancy Type: cow Date (e) Ik systemProcoes: R$s NRC SLJ welevel:4 Date FAKod to NU:
Dele Pubilahed: 11/2097 Discr*pency: Inconsistency betwn FSAR Sec 6.2.4.1.1.2 & spec SP ME 784 for containment isolation viv design press Deecripson: According to FSAR Sedion 6.2.4.1.4. 2, the design pressure of all piping and comporients within the isolation boundaries afforded by the containment isolation system is equal to, or greater than, the design pressure of the reactor containment.
i According to FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.2, the containment design pressure is 8 psla to 45 psig. According to FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.3.7, the containment liner design temperature is 280 degrees Fahrenheit, The valve data sheet for valves 3RSS*MOV23A.B,C,0 in design spedfication SP ME 764 Revision 2 show the design pressure and temperature of valves to be 40 psig and 280 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the same specification identifies the valve as being 150 # class with a valve body constructed to material specification SA 351 CF8M. According to ANSI B16.34 Ratings ,
For Group 2 2.1 Materials, the rating for these valves is 205 psig at 300 degrees Fahrenheit.
Valves 3RSS'MOV23A,B C.D are capable cf withstanding an operating pressure greater than the containment design pressure based on the valve ANSI B16.34 design class, but the specified design pressure is less than the containment design pressure.
Review Valid invalid Nooded Date Inalator: Folngold. D. J. O O O tii2/97 VTt.aJd: Ned, Arthony A O O O 15'12/87 VT Mgr: Schophr. Don K O O O 15'17/S7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q O O 15'17/S7 Date:
DNAUD:
Date: 12/5/97 REsoLUT)oN: Dlspositjon; NU has concluded that DR MP3-0643 does not represent a discrepant condition. DCN DM3-S-00197 g3 ( See Attached ) to specification SP ME 784 approved on 3/26/g3 correded the design pressure of these valves to the RSS system design pressure of 60 psig, thereby making them consistent with the FSAR criteria.
Cc7clusion:
Prtnied 12/1&9712:35 44 PM Page 1 of 2 i - -
O e 4
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0643 Northeast tMilit6es Minstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report NU has conduded that Disefepancy Repott DR MP3-0643 does not represe It a decrepent condition. As detailed in the disposition, DCN DMS-S-00197 93 corrected Spedfecation SP.
ME 784 to be consistent with FSAR 6.2.4.1.1.2. Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
~
Previousey identeaed by NU7 U Yee @ No Non (Mecrepent Condet6on?@ Yw Q No Resolut6onPending?O vos @ No RooosuiionuareeeevedtO Yee @ No Review Acceptehle Not Acceptehle Needed Date WW1 FM D.1 O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O VT Mer Gdgier. Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 7
Dece:
St. Commente:
\
Prwed 12/1tV9T 12 36 50 PM Pope 2 of 2 1
DR N3. DR MP3-0639 Northeast Utilities IC.WP 9.a Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ,
wx y .
h Review Geoup: Pog.ammatic Review ElemosA: Change Prtcees DR RESOLUTION REJECTED
- Diecipane: PW Deel0" Om Diecrepency Type: Instelletion Requirements g
- SystemProcess: SWP NRC Signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
r- Date Published: 11/1597 L DLxtepency: Not Obtaining NRC Relief for Temporary Non-Code Repair Descripuon: Temporary Alteration 3-97-027 approved 3/27/97 installed a j temporary non-code patch over a pinhole leak in the 'A' train Service Water piping. Unit 3 was in Cold Shutdown, Mode 5, with only the "A" train supporting other operating systems. The temporary patch was installed under AWO M3-07-07380 under the control of Condition Report (CR) M3-97 0918. In addition to the patch, NU performed a flaw evaluation using the guidance of NRC Generic letter 90-05 and draft Code Case N-513 dated 8/13/92.
NU initially declared the "A,' Service Water train inoperable ,
based on the leak, b$ then apparently elected not to isolate the "A" Charging Pump cooling heat exchanger but rather declare this portion of the 'A" train operable based on the patch and the flaw evaluation. This is in accordance with Se( .8.14 of the {
a 1 operability portion of NRC Generic Letter 91 * , alch states: ,
"For Clar,s 3. moderate energy piping, the licera may treat the g I system containing the flaw (s), evaluated and found to meet the acceptance criteria in Generie Letter 90-05, as operable until relief is obtamed from the NRC." Generic Letter 90-05 states:
" Temporary non-code repairs are not permitted on ASME code piping without prior relief from the NRC."
- Draft Case N-513 was rejected three times by the ASME Main Committee since the 8/13/92 version. This Case titlod
' Evaluation Criterla for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Class 3 Piping
- was issued by ASME on 8/14/a7. Although NU's trpneering evaluttion M3-EV 970071, Nevision 0, of the flaw we.J based on an obsoleto draft, it appears to be technically acceptable. Note that Gei,eric Letter 90-05 would have found either a non-welded repair or a "through-wall flaw" evaluation acceptable.
Nor'etheless, Generic Lettert 91 18 (Rev.1),90-05,10 CFR 50.55a(g)(E)(lv) and IWB-3125(b) of AC;AE 5ection XI (referenced by IWD-3000) ell reqde NRC relief for either a non-code repair or an acceptance by evaluation in a system which is operable, but degraded, as describeo abovc.
No evidence was found in the temporary alteration or CR pact. ages that this relief was obtained.
R6 view Valid invalid l'oeded Date initletor: shepperd. R. P. O O O 11 m 7 vT to d: Ryan, Thomes.: O O O 11 8 7 vT v. schopter.oon x 0 0 0 11'io/S7 Primed 12/18/9712:19:00 PM Page 1 of 3
. .. e ICAVP DR NO DR-MP3-0639 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report wic cwmn: st.on. Anano K g a g ittits7 nA:
DNALID:
Date: 12/9/97 RESOLUTION Dispo*) tion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0639, does not represent a discrepant condition. The
{
NRC required relief pursuant to GL 90-05 is only applicable during power operation. As stated in the letter "This guideline applies when a flaw is detected during power operation. ,1f a flaw
!s detected during a scheduled shutdown, a code repalt is required before plant restart." Because the flaw was discovered i
during the cura nt shutdown, no NRC relief is requ! red but repair is necessary prior to restart.
Because the unit was not at power when the flaw was discovered, Specification SP ST ME 947, Rev. O and GL 90-05 were used for guidance only to evaluate the operability of the system containing the flaw. This evaluation was completed per Engineering evaluation M3-EV 970071, and Operability
! Determination MP3-027 07 was written to just!fy availability of the service water system. Repairs were r:ompleted in accoIlance with AWO M3-97 07379. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concl'Jded that the assue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0639, does not represent a discrenant condition. NRC relief is r ot required as indicated in GL 90-05 because the unit was not at power when the vlaw was discovered. Operability Determination MP3-027 97 was written to justify the availability of the service water system. Repair was comohted par AWO M3-97-07379. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a disaepant condition.
Previously identined by NU? O Yes (#) No NonDiecrepentcondsuon?Q Yes (e) No Resolution Pending?O Yee @ 92 Resok: son unresoiv.4?O Yee @ No Review Initiator: shoppera. R. P.
O G O =
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgr; Schopfer, Don K IRC Chnn: Singh, Anend K Dele: 12/9/97 st comn. ente: We have discussed Generic Letter 90-05 with Mr. Robert Hermann (NRC, phone number 301415-2768) who was one of the authors of this lettar. This letter provides guidance that will be considered by the NRC staff in evaluating relief requests submided bv licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv) for temporary '.un-code repairs of code Class 3 piping. The NRC staff determin' i that temporary non-code repair of Class 3 pipir.g Printed 12/18/971219:c6 PM Page 2 of 3
- l. _
DR No, DR MP3 0639 Northeast Utilities ICAVP meistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report that cannot be isolated without a plant shutdown is justified in sorne instances.
Neither 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(lv) nor Unit 3 Tectmal Specification 3.4.10.c. dealing with structural inte0rity, is limited ,
to power operation. If one train of Service Water is required to be operable as a support system by Unit 3 Technical Specification 1.19, a temporary non-code repair of a Wrou0h-wall leak or an evaluation per Generic Letter 90-05 or lWB-3600 of a portion of this tre.In which is not isolated requires NRC review. The 90 05 evaluation can use either a "through-wall" approach per this letter or a " wall thinning" approach using the letter and Code Case N-480.
Two engineering evaluations, M3-EV 970071, Revision 0, and M3-EV-970073, Revision 0, were performed for conditions associated with the through-wallleak. M3-EV 970071 was periarmed in addition to the terr.porary non-code patch to provida additional assurance c4 structuralintegrity. The evaluation used draft Code Case N 513 wt'ich is not intended to be used for pressure boundary leakage (see Generic Letter 90-05 and the NRC comments on this Case in the 12/3/97 Federal Register). This evaluation was not used to dernonstrate operability M3-EV.
970073 was performed to evaluate some wall thinning found due to expanded hspections as a result of the through-wallleak. M3-EV 970073 used the " wall thinning" approach of 90-05 and Case N-480.
Not obtalning NRC relief for the use of the temporary non-code patch and evaluation M3-EV 970073 and the lack of a prograrr.rratic requirement to obtain this relief in the Unit 3 ISI Program and implementing procedures constitutes a discrepancy.
l 1
Printed 12/18S712:1200 PM Page 3 of 3
- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _