Text

Forwards Summaries of Telcons Between Parsons Power Group, Inc,Nrc,Nneco & Neac on 971118,20,25 & 971203,04,09 & 11 Re Independent Corrective Action Verification Program
	ML20198C008
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	12/30/1997
From:	Curry D; External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	NUM2-PPNR-0956, NUM2-PPNR-956, NUDOCS 9801070149
	Download: ML20198C008 (28)
	v • d • e

..

. y c'

PARSONS

. Daniel t curry,va4 rweit om wun ouum twod, crem omp oc P075 tAsgentodo Rcw1

nemhng. Penrmpvama 10007 * (610) B% PE o ran. (610) 6% 260? '

December 30,1997 Docket No. 50 336 Parsons NUM2 PPNR-0956 L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D C. 20555 Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2 IndrPtodent Correctirs.ActionXcn& cation Prograa11K2LYD Gentlemen:

This letter transmits summaries of telephone conferences between Parsons Power Group Inc., the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NNECo and NEAC on November 18, Novent r 20, November 25, December 3, December 4, December 9 and December 11,1997. The purpose of .' :sc telephone conferences were as follows: Nov.18 Status of Vendor Manual Corrective Action; PDCR 2 :'" 86; MEPL Determinations; Electrical Calculations for Auxiliay Feed Water; Control Room Air CuaJitioning System Suction Switch Cut Out Setpoint; Condensate Storage Tank Dimensions; Drawings for Indicators on the RC02 Pancl: Nov. 20 Calculation 90-032 293E2; PA No. 95113, REV. No.1;ilPSI Pump Motor Design Life; PDCR 2 lbO-Hl; Main Exhaust System, DR-27; MOV/ VOTES Testing: Nov. 25 -

EWR M2 96 074;llPSI Containment Penetration Calculations; Calculation 90-032 293E2;ilPSI Pump Muor Design Life, Generic Implementation Program (GIP) Rev. 2; indicators PI 102 A, B, C, D: Dec. 3 -

DG Ventilation System; ACR # M2 97-0123. Three llPSI Pumps Aligned to the RCS at the Same Time; LER 95-019-01 Commitment Status: Dec. 4 - Control ofIleavy Loads Program; Re Analysis of selected Chapter 14 Events; EQ Schedule; Design input to Siemens calculation E 5614 591 1; CMP Results: Dec.

9 Calculation MP2-443 EC; Design Qualification Documentation - Appendix 'A' of NNECo Spec SP-ME 730; Use of P 1001 UNISTRUT for Tubing and Conduit Support; E0P 2532; Isolation of Safety-Actuation Loop From Non Safety Portion; RWST Level Instruments; Completeness of RAI Response; Control board indicators for Pressurizer Pressure; Steam Generator Pressure, SIT Pressure, SIT Level, and Containment Pressure; R.O.1.97 Instrumentation; Jumper Devices; Control ofilcavy Loads Program from 12/4/97 Conference: and Dec.1I UIR 2562; Steam Generator Tube Plugging; Thennal Margin / Low Pressure Trip; IIPSI Pipe Support Calculations; Isolation of Safety Actuation Loop from No c Safety Portion from 12/9/97; Appendix J Testing; Questions Regarding NU's Response DR-0034.

Please call me at (610) 855 2366 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, 9001070149 971230 DR

/ f')$e M t ADOCK0500g6- Daniel L. Curry e l

f(b()l Parsons ILn . 'roject Director DLC:djv l ,

. % i t

4 , .

Attachments 1. Telephone Conferena Notes from November 18,1997= i

;- 2. Telephone Conference Notes han November 20,1997 i

3. Telephone Conference Notes fiom November 25,1997 j

4. Telephone Conference Notes from December 3,1997 1

5. Telephenc Conference Notes from December 4,1997 i

6. Telephone Conference Notes from December 9,1997 i

7. . Telephone Conference Notes from December 11,1997 [

r cc: E. Imbro(2) USNRC J. Fougere NNECo

.11. Eichenholz USNRC Rep. Terry Concannon NEAC }

R. Laudenat Nr4ECo Project Files . !

i i

1 E

.ITNR0956 doc

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

* . ACMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTFS Nmember lit,1997 ,

PURPOSE: Administratlie telephone conference w 8th NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to i

. discuss

Status of Vendor Manual Correctise Action

MEPL Determinations t

PDCR 2 025 86

i Electrical Calculations for Ausiliary Feed Water e Control Room Air Conditioning System Suction Pressure Switch Cut Out Setpoint

Condensate Storage Tank Dimensions

Drawings for Indicators on the RCO2 Panel Date: November 18,1997 ,

l.lst of Attendees:

NNECo NRC NEAC Persons Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP steve Reynolds Wayne Dobson Fred Mattioll Supenisor, MP2 ICAVP Kent Russell ,

Rich !! wing Supenisor Design Engineering liill Jones JohnBemis Engineer MP2 Techt,ical Support Landal Powers Philliiggins Engineer MP2 Design Engineering Claude Didier Jim Dil.uca Design Engineering Paul Cc'lette Supenisor Design Engineering flarvey Becman Supenisor Technical Support Eng.

Ken Fox Supenisor MP2 Design Engineering Jim Petrosky Supenisor Program Eng.

Standards Don Becker Program Engineering Standards Tom Quin!cy Technical Support Engineering

1. Status of Vendor Manual Corrective Action (Claude Didict) a) What is the current status ofimplementing Section 1.7 of DC-167 b) What is the schedule for completing the effort described in Section 1.77 Implementation of the vendor manual upgrades per UCIG is divided in two phases.

Phase I consist of the equipment directly related to the examples given in Gls 90 03 Phase IIis the rest of the active safety related equipment. The upgrade n'ork starred with Unit 3. Unit 3 l'hase Iis completed. Unit 2 Phase I hasjust started and is scheduled to be completed on Alarch 9,1998 A vendor is being used to contact the equipment vendors, There a few manuals which will be common to both Unit 2 and

3. laimitorque openstors is the only common manual completed.

2. MEPL Determinations (Don Marks)

MCKGROUND: Through our use of PMMS, we have found many items classified as Catl=N, but we can not find any MEPL Evaluation identified in PMMS. Based on our understanding. a MEPL Evaluation is needed to change an item from Catl=U or Y to Catl=N, For example. we can not identify any MEPL Evaluation for the following LOCAL Ids:

PI 9860; TI 2536; LCV 21(B); PSV 7928; 2 AS-671; P93; TF-8058; TIC-8710; 2-CND-V411; 2-CL-45; PI 7868; T95; and 2 AR 52 PAGE1

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

i 8 . . AllMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES l Nmember 18.1997 l

QUljS1]QR llow did these items get down graded to Catl=N7 Is there some other process l for safety classification?

No, there is no other pn> cess for safety classification. IMI.\lS is currently going thn> ugh t alidation in 199 I a .\lRPL review populated 101.\fS. Some <1tEPL Evaluations are listed in the Ref. Procedure field.17te information should be in the Eval. CD field, (u hich is a controlled field). Hy start up NNECo plans to have all the Eval. CD fields populated. 17ds elfort is being controlled by CRM (NNECo to follow i up later) i i

1 PDCR 2 025 86 (follow up to Question 6 of 11/13/97. Wade Russell)

IMCKGROUNE On 11/13/97 NNECo was asked about the status of PDCR 2-025 86 relative to the installation of the reference leg for CST level instrumentation. The response indicated that the reference leg was installed under PDCR 2 025 86 and removed under PDCR ,

2 079-92. From our review of PDCR 2 079 92 we can fmd no indication that the reference leg was removed under this PDCR. A Parsons walkuvn has con 0rmed that the reference leg no longer exists. Since this is the current plant con 0guration we need to identify its current design basis. From PDCR 2-079-92 it appears that the reference leg may have been removed prior to installation of PDCR 2-079 92.

QUESTION: Was there another PDCR that removed the reference leg?"

PDCR .11P2 88 018 was implemented in 1988 to remove the reference leg. 17w work was done under A \\'O 112 88 081G.I.

4. Electrical Calculations for Auxiliary Fred Water (W. Jones)

IMCKQi(OUNR We are trying to identify calculations that address Auxiliary Feed Water electrical loads. The only recent calculation that we have found is PA791261027E2, "MP2 EDO leading Calculation" In an attempt to find Alv loads against nonnal supplies. we looked at calculations PA91004 276E2 & PA93-0451273E2. In the first calculation we can And no mention of AFW, PA93 0451273E2 contains a meic.c. DE2 951072, to Stone &

Webster directing them not to include AFW in this calculation, but doesn't explain why.

QUESJ103 is there a calculation that addresses Alv running against nonnat supplies. not just the EDGs?

P.19100127GE2 over looked AFil' running as a steady state load. 17ds calculation u as planned to be revised in the future. NNECo is currently determining if a CR will be written on this subject.

5. Control Room Air Conditiening System Suction Pressure Switch Cut Out Setpoint (Landal Powers) follow up f*cm ! I/13/97 conference question #7 What is the procedure that identines the setpoint of the suction pressure switch PS 9968A for compressor F22A and switch PS 99688 for compressor F22B in the Control Room Air Conditioning System? ,

IC 2129H Attachment 23 PAGE 2

~, - _, . ._ , _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ , _ _- . . - . ___ .

+ i

' . . ACMINISTRATIVE CONFF.RENCE NOTES ,

Nmember lis,1997

6. Condensate Storage Tank Dimensions (Landal Powcrs) l f Condensate Stora6,e Tank Dimensions are given on drawing 25203 13006. Several prints have tan made from the card we have, but none are good enough to read the dimensioes needed. ;

What are the following dimensions?:

Outside diameter of the tank, and Thickness of the tank wall or inside diameter of the tank. !;

Datside diameter of the tank: 37ft. Ginch !

Thickness of the tank u.all:

Top =5/IG", Bottom 5 plates =3/8", Roof 5/IG" Dorne 3/8" l

7. Drawings for indicators on the RCO2 Panel (R.!L Porter) >

liACKGROUND: Calibration procedure SP2403E shows indicators LI 3001,2,3,4 (ESAS) on the RCO2 panel. We c:m not find these indicatore on P&lDs or the Loop diagrams. ;

QUI'STION: Do these indicators exist? If thov do, what drawings show them?

lDran'ing 25203 28500 sheel 100 (loop diagram),1WIU 2G015 siteet 2 I

i f

Y i

PAGE 3

.w .,,...,7_ . , . . _ _ - - . . . , . _ , .,-. -.c . . . - _ . . . . .

- . _ , y . . . . - ...~... . . . . . -. ,v

ACMINISTRATIVE CCNFEMENCE NOTES l Nmember 20,1997 i PURPOSE: Administrathe telephone conferente with NNECo, NMC . NEAC and Parsons to f a ; discuss: i

Calculation 90-032 293E2

PA No. 85 113. REV. No. I ;

e llPSI Pump Motor Design Life

PDCR 2160 81

Main Exhaust System DR 27

MOV/ VOTES Testing Date: November 20,1997 I ist of Attendecs:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP Steve Reynolds Mike Akins Fred Mattioll Supenisor, MP21CAVP Landal Powers Paul Collette Supenisor Design Kevin D'sona Engineering Norm Sacco - Supenisor MP2 Design Wade Russell Enginecting Geraid Ward Technical Support Engineering D Ramos ,

Marcel Ranieri Tes aical Support Engineering Doug 13ucche Andre Lassonde Engineer MP2 Projects Cris Cristallo Engineer MP2 Design Engineering 1, Calculation 90 032 29322 ilACSGROJJND: Our copy of calculation 90 032 293E2, page 47 of 70 appears to be cut oIT on the right side. On this page there is reference to a max. operation temperature of 93*F from llechtel specification 7604 ??????. We thought that possibly the identifier missing off the right side of the page was MS 1, the piping class summary specification. Ilowever, revision 1 I of this llechtel document shows the design rating temperature, normal senice conditions temperature, and maximum senice conditions temperature of Condensate Makeup from the Condensate Storage Tank to Condensers as 100 'F.

fMSIJON:

. Can you please tell us the specification number that this calculation refers to?

What is the reason for using 93'F instead of 100 't

'lhe tank specification is 7G01 C.13 NNRCo has not been able to irlentify the source of the 93T tmmb:r.

NNECo will cortlinue to look anti responti next 'ntestlay.

2. PA No.85-113, REV, No.1

. Arc LT 5282, LIS 5489, and LT 5280 mounted in rack 223 inside the insulated, cormgated metal walk in shed as shown in sketches SKWDVC85113100385 2 and -3, v hich are a part of Project Assignment No. 85 113, REY. No.1, entitled " Millstone Unit Two Condensate Storage Ta..k (CST) Level Modifications?"

PAGE 1 -

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

. . ACMINISTRATIVE OCNFERENCE N3TES l Nosember 20,1997

. If any of the above instruments are inside this shed, what are the highest and temperatures i e recorded inside this shed? ,

LT 5282, LIS 5189, and LT 5280 are mounted inside the insulated, corrugated metal u.alk in shed There is not temperature monitoring in the shed area. The shed is e.tamined each shift and is on the "ltounds Sheet" There are no calculatian covering the temperature in the shed for summer conditions

3. IIPSI Pump Motor Design Life HACKGROUNE: Parsons Power is looking for the documentation. which establides the design life of the llPSI pump Motors P41 A, P41B & P41C. CE General Engineering Spec. for Safeguard Pumps, Spec # 00000 PE-410 Rev 04 Paragraph 3.1.4 refers so another CE Spec #

00000 lCE4001 for design requirements, both of these documents do not establish the design life.,

QWSIlQN: What documentation establishes the design life?"

The motors are qualified to 10 yrs in the \Vylie report. Ilou'ever, NNECo has not found the n'here the design life is speelfied. This may be vary difficult to find, This will be covered in the Tuesday conference.

4. PDCR 2160-C1 HACKGROUND: PA 80168 addressed the replacement of transmitters for Pressurizer Pressure, Steam Generator Pressure, SIT Pressure. SIT Level, and Containment Pressure. The PA states that because the instmment loops were being converted from 10-50 ma to 4 20 ma, the control room indicators for these loops must be replaced. Within the associated PDCR for this PA, (PDCR 2 160 81) we can fmd no design for replacement of the control room indicators.

QUESTION: Were the control room indicators for above instrument loops replaced? If so, please identify the PDCR number or other design control mechanism that accomplished the replacement.

Yes, in a non-QA work orders 2 8310Iand 2 82 92. The initiator is believed to be I'l)Cil2 !GO-RI page 3 Item II The instruments were purchased > , der l'A 80 !GN as non-QA

5. Main Eshaust System in order to prepare comments to NU's resolution to DR-0027, we need to discuss with NU the perfomunce features of the Non-Q Main Exhaust System (MES).- Specifically the control function of the following MES control components:

Exhaust Plenum 2 AC-59 (IIV8715)

Filter L 25: 2 AC 1 land PDIC 8128 Filter L-27: 211V 173 and PDIC 8144 Filter L 26: 211%Il# :nd PDIC 8138 PAGE 2

' , . AGMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES Nm ember 20,1997 htC59 is coupled to l'S8715. the damper opens to the max setting after reaching a G"dellaP in the auta position The closeposition was ny know at this conference, it will be Investigated and discussed at the Thesday conference

6. MOV/ VOTES Testing 11ACh0ROUND; ENO Form 102A 21 Rev. I CllO. 3,4/17/95,"MOV VOTES Data", provides Engineering Requirements and Valve / Actuator data needed for VOTES testing.

ENG Form 102A 2-2 Rev. I CilG. 3,4/17/95, MOV Calculation Assumptions", provides Target urust Calculation assumptions related to VOTES testing.

Common Engineering Procedure C EN 102A, Rev. O,10/1/94," Review of MOV Testing"(D0 NOT USE status as of 9/30/96), refers to use of ENG Form 102A 21 in the reviewing of VOTES test results.

Common GTS Procedure C PT 1420112, Rev I,3/21/97," VOTES Equipment Setup", instructs Test Personnel to refer to MOV Coordinator's Engineering Sheets to complete Engineering Requirements, Settings and Nameplate information on VOTES Equipment Setup Data form C PT Form 14201121.

QUliSIl0NS

Arc the MOV Coordinator's Engineering Sheets the same as ENG Forms 102A 2-1 and 102A2 29 If they are not the same, then what are the controlling documents for the engineering requirements (c g., maximum torque switch settings and allowable thrusts) associated with VOTES testing?

e is procedure C EN 102A to be revised or is it to be canceled / superseded?

e if procedure C EN 102A is to be canceled / superseded, then are ENG Forms 102A 21 and 102A2 2 to be canceled / superseded also?

The requirements for the.110\'itTSprogram are contained in several documents. The primary reference is Crane .110\'itTS Rev 9. This is followed by the review of the design basis and cale.dations (several). Then it is followed by a DCN to a DCR thru PORC ta the implenwnting prveedure. \ lost of the information that is requested in this question is historicalin nature and have not been retrieve in this short time period.

Parsons has not receive lley. 9 of the docuinent. NNECo will send it lininediately. No Ital is required since it is covered in a previous RAI. This question will be tabled till after review ofitev. 9.

PAGE 3

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

. . ACMINISTRATIVE CONFEREtlCE NOTES Nm ember 25,1997 PURPOSE: idministrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to discuss:

EWR M2 96 074

IIPSI Containment Penetration Calculations ;

Calculation 90-032 293E2

IIPSI Pump Motor Design Life l

Generic Implementation Program (GIP) Rev. 2

Indicators PI 102 A.H.C.D Date: November 25,1997 List of Attendecs:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere Menager, ICAVP Steve Wayne Dobson Reynolds Fred Mattioli Supervisor, MP2 ICAVP landal Powers Hob Moyer Dom Ramos Ron Smith Mike Akins

1. EWR M2 96 074 (Ken Kraynick) ,

QUllSIl0B The copy of the EWR provided to Parsons appears to be incomplete. Sections 15(disposition) 20(Design Engineering Mgr. Approval) are blank, however, DCR M2 96067 has been issued to implement the change. Does an approved EWR exist? If not. how em the DCR proceed with ott an approved EWR7 NNRCo is checking to see if u e hat'e the latest copy of the !?ll'II.

IRCKGRO11ND:

Reference:

Parson's RAI 0586, Millstone Response: M2-lRF-00604 Millstone, in the above referenced response, forwarded 26 of the requested 32. In the response, Millstone provided a cross reference of EWR to MMOD, DCR, PDCR, c,r appropriate change vehicle, if applicable, as part of the supporting documentation. Without the cross reference provided in the RAI response, it is not intuitively obvious how NNECo was able to link EWR M2 96 074 with DCR M2 96067 QUliSIlON: Since EWR M2 96 074 doe; not reference the DCR, how does your proecss work to make this connection?

As n unclia', it is the supert'isor's responsibility to put the Alod # on the Hil'It during the Kl\'R close-out

2. IIPSI Containment Penetration Calculations (Bob Moyer):

DACKGROUNW RAl 339,535, & 679 requested desigt. calculations for the llPSI containment

. penetration sleeves and anchorages (Penetration No's 6,7,8.&9 on drawing 25203 11163, Type I per drawing i I 167), and similar information for other penetrations. Various calculations were sent with the RAI responses and the RAl's were closed by NU. None of the calculations received to date pertain to the llPSI anchorage design.

PAGE 1

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

. t

. . AOMINISTRATIVE CCNFERENCE N3TES Nosember 25,1997 - i bOESTION: Do any calculations exist for the llPSI anchorage design? If so, what are the calculation ID numbers? ..

NNECo can not identify any ca.'culations for the HPSI anclwrs. They believe the calculation ,

exist, but they can not be found.

3. Calculation 90-032 293E2 (Landal Powers) fontinuation of 11/20/97 ConfcIgnqc BACKGBQUND: Our copy of calculation 90 032 293E2, page 47 of 70 appears to be cut off on the l l

right side. On this page there is reference to a max. operation temperature of 93'F from Bechtel "

specification 7604 7?????. We thought that possibly the identifer missing off the right side of the page was MS 1, the piping class summary specification. Ilowever, revision 1i of this Bechtel document shows the design rating temperature, normal senice conditions temperature, and maximum service i conditions temperature of Condensate Makeup from the Condensate Storage Tank to Condensers as -

(

100 'F.

OUESTION: '

Can you please tell us the specification number that this calculation refers to?

e What is the reason for using 93'F instead of 100 'F ,

The tank specification is 7G0I.C.13 NNRCo has not been able to identify the source of the 93Tnumber. An old FSAR section dated 3/9 I uses an outside dry bulb temp. of 93 *F, but NNECo can find a good document basis for the number. A CH n'ill be n'ritten by NNECo to address this issue.

4. IIPSI Pump Motor Design Life (Kevin D'souza) Cantipyation of 1190/97 Confsttors DACKGROUND: Parsons Power is looking for the documentation, which establishes the design life of the llPSI pump Motors P4 I A, P4iB & P4 iC. CE General Engineering Spec. for Safeguard Pumps, Spec # 00000 PE 410 Rev 04 Paragraph 3.1.4 refers to another CE Spec # 00000-ICE-8001 for desi: n requirements, both of these documents do not establish the design life..

QUliSIl0N: What documentation establishes the design life?"

i The motors are qualified to 10 yrs in a ll'ylie report, Hou'ever, NNECo has not found the schere the design life is specified. Since :he motor was qualified to .I0 years by liivlie that is what NNECo is using.

5 Generic implementation Program (GIP) Rev. 2 (Roger Mauchline)

HACK 0ROUND: 'The Generic implementation Program (GIP) Rev. 2 (SQUG) program requires an evaluation of equipment anchorage. %c SEWS norksheets for equipment reviewed to date all have calculations for welds or expansion anchors as appropria'e to the method of attachment. For those -

attaching with welds, several equipment items have no discussion or apparent evaluation of the ,

embedded plates to which the items ud Examples are: 4.16KV EMG BUS 24C, 4.16KV EMG BUS 24D, 4.16KV EMG BUS 24E, and 480V MCC BUS B52.

F

' PAGE 2

, ~- -..:. - .- - - ~ _ . .- - . . - _ . - . _ -.- .-.

+

. . ACMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES Nmember 25. i997 Qilf;1T10N: Is tirre a gencric calculation or evaluation of embedded plates that was used by tiw GlP ;

walkdown peopic to detennine that the embedded plates were adequate for the loads from the attachment welds? 1 Section 1..l.1 of the Gil' discusses 11 checks ta be done. Number 11is on embeddments. The :

last paragraph states that the check can be done with a visual and measurements in l combination with drawings and engineeringjudgment. This was used in most cases, in a )

few cases calculations were done for specific embedment plates. 1

6. Indicators PI 102 A.B.C.D ( R. Porter) :

1 DACKGROUND: RAl.0729 requested the PDCR that replaced indicators Pt 102 A.H,C,D. The RAI response refers to PDCR 2 160 81 as replacing these transmitters. We can not fmd any information in ,

this PDCR regarding the replacemen; of these indicators. ,

1 OUESTION: Did PDCR 2160 81 replace these indicators?

Yes, at review of th 41\'O for this mod shows that the indicators where replaced.

i i

i 1

i L

t i y PAGE 3 L .

._ - . - . . -. . ~

4

. . ACMINISTRATIVE GNFERENCE NOTES December 3.1997 PURPOSE:. ,

Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC . NEAC and Parsons to discuss:

e DG Ventilatkin System

ACR # M2 97 0123, Three HPSI Pumps Aligned to the RCS at the Same Time e LER 95 017-01 Commitment Status Date: December 3,1997 4

i List of Attendees:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons ,

Joe Fougere Manager. ICAVP John Wayne Dobson Nakoski Fred Mattioli Supervisor, MP2 ICAVP Dan Wooddell Rick Bonner Supervisor Operations Ken Gabel Steve Wainio Supervisor- Design Engineering Dom Ramos Rich Ewing . Supenisor Design Engineering Roger 11all Steve Stadnkk Engineer Technical Support Eng.

Mike Marino Engineer Technical Support Eng.

Steve Letourneau CMP John Spano - CMP

1. DG Ventilation System Recognizing that the DG ventilation system has or is undergoing changer s a result of the CMP, the purpose of the following series of questions is to gather information on the status of various changes so Parsons can plan its review of the revised design basis documents.

a) RE: UIR 2521, AR 97012475 01, Status: NOTIFIED 9/2/97. Fire Protection to provide an analysis and resolution of UIR 2521.

QUES 11QN What is forecast completion of this AR and will there be engineering output associated with this analysis?

NNECo has concluded, based on a review of 10CFR Appendix N.12.C, that wntilation direction is not applicable to design, but to fire protection administration.17terefore, there is no problem and NNRCo plans to close this .1R by 12/15/97.

b) RE: UlR 2763, AR 97021740-01, Status: COMPLETE 11/13/97. This AR requested that an EWR be generated to evaluate DGV operation during tornado depressurization (CR 97 1873) and to verify train 11 missile shield.

QUESI1QN: What is SWR numbei? What will be the engineering output and what is the forecast complete for this output?

R\VR 2 9717G. The output is not yet been determined, nor has an approach been selected.

7'hereforv no completion date is projected as ofyet.

c) RE: UIR 2763, AR 97010289-05, Status: ACCEPTED 9/4/97. This AR is to track issuance of FSARCR to document the correct location of DGV missile shields. ;

OUESTION: When is forecast issuance of the FSARCR? lias a FSARCR number been assigned to this change?.

PAGE 1

L '

. . AE'MINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES December J,1997 TheFSAllCit immber has not been assigned. This change utill be prepared afterpart b above is prepared.

d) RE: UIR 2765, AR 97020898-01, Status: COMPLETE 11/14/97 UIR 2767, AR 97021816-02, Status: ACCEPTED 10/09/97 UIR 3354, AR 97021440-02, Status: COMPLETE 10/23/97 These UIRs and ARs reference an " ongoing HVAC design calculation cleanup task" under EWR-2 105. Reference is made to numerous historical Bechtel cales that will be superseded. The only reference made to a new cale is made by AR 97020808-01, which is Track Calc 97DGV-01849M2.

QUliSIlON: Are there additional DGV cales besides the 97DGV-01849M2 that have been issued or are forecast to be issued as part of EWR 2 96105? What is the overall status of EWR 2 96105 as it relates to DGV calculations?

No additional calculations are in the RI\1t scope for the DG ventilation. This R\\1t has become a general cleanup for many llVAC calculations. 97DGV 01819M2 tras issued on 10/3/97.

c) RE: UIR 2765, AR 97020898-01, Status: COMPLETE I1/14/97. Parts 2 and 3 of this AR require that post mod air flow test data from DCR M2-97-005 be evaluated to confirm that they support the requirements of the FSAR and to revise the FS AR as required.

QUESIlON: What document contains the post mod test data? What were the results of the engineering evaluation and was an FSARCR required?

l'ost mod test data is in DCil M2 97 005. This package contains the test sign offform. The test results n'ere OK. No I?ASRCR n'as needed.

f) RE: UIR 2767, AR 97021816 01, States: ACCEPTED 10/09/97. Drawing 29636 will be revised to include air flow test data after completion of DCR M2 97-005. DCR M2 97 005 was reported complete via UIR 3277 on 10/29/97.

QUESTJOR: Will drawing 29636 be revised as a result of the field test data and if so, what is the forecast completion of AR 97021816-01.

lNo drau'ing change is planned because the test results overe reithin design margin.

g) RE: UIR 2676, AR 97021816-02, Status: ACCEPTED 9/9/97. DG room transient and final temp to be evaluated as part of EWR 2 105.

QU11 SILON: What is the forecast completion of the temperature analysis and what will be the cale number? If there are additional thermal cales associated with the DG Ventilation System. please proside their identification numbers, Note: Ulit 2G7G should be UHt2767. No additional calc. is planned on these transients because llu'y are beyond the design basis of the plant.

h) RE: UIR 2771, AR 97019888-04, Status: ACCEPTED 08/29/97. Original Bechtel Process Flow Diagram for the DGV,26067, will be superseded by the Yokogawa Isometric, 29636.

QUliSIlQN: What is the forecast completion data for AR 97019888 04?

PAGE 2 P

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

. . ADMINMTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES !

Dwember 3,1997 i

i Forecast date for the DCN is 12/5/97 i) RE: UI 32',4, AR 98021824 01,-02, Status: ACCEPTED 9/97. Evaluate Normal DO Ventilation Test resi:hs and revise FSAR as appliuble. ;

QUliSIl0B: What document contains these test results? What is the forecast completion of AR !

98021824-01 & -027 TVormal HG testing is done via RN 10G3it, which will test the F27 fan. The next scheduled test is within a (cw weeks. !

j) RE: UIR 3342, AR 97010289-04, Status: COMPLETE 11/18/97. Initiate FSARCR to resisc 9.9.11.2.2, Table 9.9 12 and clarify the disision between sital and non sital ductwork. ,

QUllSIjDR What is the FSARCR number? ~

FSitHCit 97d11'2187 2, llPSI Pump Speedup Time Does any Millstone Unit 2 test verify the time for the llPSI pump speedup from stop to full speed for both full voltage and 70% voltage stans? ,

l*rocedure SP 26011' tests the time to fadt speed at full voltage. No other testing is done at '

degraded voltage.

3 ACR # M2 97-0123, Three llPSI Pumps Al:gned to the RCS at the Same Time a) The actual status of plant equipment is not clear from reviewing the ACR or LER 97-004 00.

What was the operability status of the diesel generators during this event?

e Were the ESAS breaker loading sequencers operable during this event? .

Iloth dieselgenerators were operable. The RSitS breaker loading sequencers were by-passed, b) What was the reasoning for detennining that this was a Signincance Level "C" event? We thought ACRs that result in filing an LER are nomially given a Significance Level I or 2.

\1 hen this itch was written there was a different governing procedure which contained different criteria. The old criteria was focused on impact to the plant. The significance level '

criteria was changed with procedure HP-l.

c) ACR M2-97-0123 states that Operations Personnel discussed dicsci generator loading with two llPSI pumps connected to the same bus. Was the potential for overloading a diesel generator evaluated?, if so, what conclusion was reached?

The potential for overloading was evaluated. Since there was no auto start signalfor the ,

pumps, there is no overload concern.

4. LER 95 019-01 Commitment Status in NNECo correspondence to the NRC dated 9-23 96, commitments B15913 01 through D15913-04 have a completion date of I 3197. What is the status of these commitments?

The above correspondence to the NRC identifies A/R 96030559. Is this a valid action item? We can not find this number in AITTS.

PAGE 3 7 - - - - - - , ,-,m ..r-, , , ., -

_ ..,. .. - . - - ._..v ._ - c,.

{

-. . A5MINISTRATiVE CONFERENCE NOTES i Dwember 3.1M7 - l I'n>cedure charwes are done (1115913 01). 'the AS.\lX Section XI inspection is done (Ill5913 i 02). Analysis of the itWSTis done (Il15913 03). hou'ever, there is folkne on unrk in this

, area due to a Cit on penetration loads. 'Ihe svot cause evahtation is done (il15913 0I) arut supplernent 2 to the 12ft was issued in .lan,1997.

I i

4 s

I i

,. ?

I l

k v- "

w h

PAGE 4 i

s. _ . - - . , , . . - _. . . , . . . . - ~ . - . . . . . , _ _ - _ . , _ . _ . _ . . . . . . , . _ _ . _ _ . . - . . . . , . . . . . , , _ . . . - . . . ~ , , _ . . . _ . , . . _ . - .

q

ACMINISTRATIVE COM ERENCE NOTES ;

Inecember 4.1997 -

PtlRPOSE:.' Administratise telephone conference with NNECo. NRC . NEAC and Parsons to discusst l

Control of Henty Icads Program j

Re Anal) sis of selected Chapter 14 Esents

EQ Schedule o flesign input to Siemens takulation E 5614 5951

CMP Results Date: December 4.1997 1,ist of Attendeest NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere hianager, ICAVP John Nakoski Wayne Dobson Fred Mr.:tioli Supenisor, MP2 ICAVP Ralph Architzel Rich Glaviano Rich Ewing Supenisor Design Engineering Rich McIntyre Bob Moyer Mike lemhardi Engineer . Design Engineering John Ililbish Norm llanley CMP Juan Cajigas

~ ke Kai Supenisor Safety Analysis

1. Control of Ilcavy leads Program

[M G ORQUND: Load drop calc 3200 M24)03 007, rev 0, 'M2. Evaluation of Cask Washdow n Pat' indicates perforation and failure of the El 14'-6" floor slab for a postulated drop on the Spent Fuci Shipping Cask.

' !!cucath this slab is a pipe chase containing redundant Senice Water headers (10".JGD 4) and redundant RWST Suction headers (18" 11C131). Perforation or failure of this slab could result in loss of these systems.

This scenario is also addressed in NU correspondence to the NRC dated July 21,1983, " Control oflicasy Loads", Docket No 50 336, Attachment II, page 24, and figures 9 and i1.

GUllTJOB What subsequent calculations, studies, procedural controls, or other actions have been taken to resolve this issue?

NNRCo trill respond on 12/3/97

2. Re Anal) sis of selected Chapter 14 Esents We'd like to discuss NNECo's plan fe re anal) sis of selected chapter 14 cvents. Parsons will review the end product and s alidate the Critical Design Chart.cteristics (design inputs) for each event as being present in the pkmt design.

Instead of waiting fot approval of the calculation results, we would hke to obtain the design inputs for cach event uhen such are available. Perhaps when they are provided to Siemens or ABB/CE. In this manner, we can " validate" the design inputs in parallel with the re-analysis. We will still need to review the approved calculations, but if the design inputs are unchanged, this final res icw will be short. This y as discussed during a mid Nosember conference call with NNECo. During the conference call, NNECo stated they werc +

developing a schedule for development of the resised design inputs and fer the tc-analysis. The schedule was to he provided to Parsons lias this schedule been developed? Please provide an update on this item NNRCo is still trorking on the schedule, They have not yet received a proposal response p>r the u>ork, The input for the re analysis is ready, l' arsons trillprepare a RAI for the input, ,

since they can start the revien' trith the input, l f

)

PAGE1

i e . ADMINISTRATIVE CONI ERENCE N3TES Deceniher 4,1997 ;

3. EQ Scliedele I To hcip us plan our resources, please tcIl us what is the priority by EQ Report # and manufacturer product for :

the production of documents agailable for use by NNECo, and therefore, Parsons? l 1he EQ elfort priority has recently changed. The current focus is on the IUICCW system.

NNRCo is currently u.orking on GR pump motors. l

4. Design loput to S6camens calculation E-$614 5951 ;

UACKGROUND: Sicmens calculation E.5614.$931 performs a disposition of hiillstone Unit 2 SRP events

" relative to an increase in the Safety Irdection (SI) and charging pump delay times coincident with loss of ;

offsite power.' This Siemens calculation later lists the TS delay times for IIPSI, LPSl; and charging pumps !

(now in the 1

TRht) and indicates that:

"The Technical Specifications indicate the above delay times include diesel generator starting and sequence

. loading delaya llowever, the plant interpretation of the Technical Specifications indicated that the delay times listed in Table 3.3 5 do not include an it i 2.0 sec delay time to account for the time from when a low voltage

, si 3nal is generated to the time of the actual emergency diesel generator start signal, coincident with loss of offsite power (Ref 3)" r Reference 3 of Siemens calculation E.$614.$9$.1 is page 2 of a letter from itL lleiks (ANF) to ILW. Erk ,

NUSCO), ANF.Cp 01'. 412, dated I/11/90, liased on the abo e, the Siemens calculation goes on to state that NUS CO requested an additional delay time of 13 secs over and above those values given in the TS be considered for the 51 and charging pump Systems in SRP cvahiations with coincident LOOP.

Siemens calculation 1b5747.$92 1, 'htiilstone 2. Cycle 12 Disposition of Chapter l$ Events" further increases this additional delay time to l$ seconds per E. Krinick (NUSCO) to R I Wescott (SNP) letter NE.91 F.E 10/21/91.

It appears timt the additional Si delay time of 15 seconds over and above the TS (or TRht) value is still a design input of record for Siemens calculations.

QESHQN: Please ludicate if the additional 15 second delay on Si is still valid, and in addition, provide the basis for this value for a I.OCA/ LOOP event.

Time delay is pmvided in Calc. 32 030131i E2, CCN#1, *he XDG 15.5 sec is thegoverning time for saf.'ty analysis input. Delays in TRAI "as is"can se used in the safety analysis, lhe additional 15 sec. is not being used systematically. The large break LGCA redone by Siemens recently used 15 sec.

5. CMP Results IMCKGRQMQ: We are trying to determine if the ChtP identified any issues associated with lack of design basis records, i.e. missing documents (calculations, specifications, drawings, etc.). We are not sure how UIRs on this topic would have been classified. Using key word scarches of the UlR database, we have identified sescral UIRs concerning missing information within a document, but nothing regarding missing documents.

QUESTION: Did the Chip identify any generic or specific issues regarding missing records? If so, u hat were the issues? We would like to discuss how they were classified. (so we can search for these UIRs)

NNECo has pnpared a matrix of RSARs, CRs, and ACRs that identifies trends fornul during the C3IP, These trends included missing documents. NNXCo teillfax this matrix to Parsons. During the CAIP a UIH reus a ritten n' hen specific documents cordd not be found.

i PAGE 2

. _ - . _ _ , _ - _ _ _ _ , , ,- -_ _ - ~ ,_ _ _ _ _ _-,_.__

l

. ACMINISTRATIVE CCNFERENCE N5TES l December 9,1997 i

i PURPOSEt- Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to discuss:

Cakulation MP2-443-EC i

Design Qualifkation Documentaske . Appendis 'A' of NNECo Spec SP ME 730 !

Use Of P 1001 !!NISTRUT For Tubing and Conduit Support) }

EOP 2$32

Isolatkm of Safet).Actuatkm teop Fran Non Safety Portlen, }

RWST tesel lastruments

Completeness of RAI Response

Control board indkators for Preneuriser Pressure, Steam Generator Pressure, SIT Perssure, SIT 14sel, and Containment Pressure

R.G.1.97 Instevmentation

Jumper Devkes

Control of Ileavy tende Program From 12/4/97 conference Date: December 9,1997 List of Attendecs:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere Manager. ICAVP hteve Waync Dobson Reynold Fred Mattioll Supervisor. MP2 ICAVP Gary Jackson Rick Bonner Supervir.or Operations Bob Moyer Steve Wainio Supemsor Design Engineering Dan Laughman Prem Godha Engineer Nuclear Materials Engineering Wayne Choromanski Dave BNumpaa Engineer . Thermal flydraulics Kent Russell liarvey Beeman Supenisor . Technical Support Eng. Ken Gabel Cris Cristallo Engineer . MP2 Design Engineering Ken Mayers Tom Moore Engineer . MP2 Technical Support 13ill Watson Manager . MP2 Procedure Group Rod Peterson Engineer Licensing Roger Bragg Procedurc Writer

1. Calculation MP2-443 EC '

HAGOEDJ1ND; Various correspondence between NNEco and the NRC in the July 1986 through Dccember 1986 time frame discusses the use of ASMU Code Case N-411, Alternate Damping Criteria.

NNECo sent a letter to the NRC on September 17,1986 discussing their interpretation of how the conditions of Code Case N 411 and Reg Guide 1.84 apply to Millstone Unit 2. In this letter NNECo -

requested the NRC StatT review this interpretation.

A Ictter from the NRC dated December 9,1986 discussed their review of NNECO's interpretation of Code Case N 4II and Reg Guide 1.84. The stafTdid not agree with NNECO's interpretation and concluded that Code Case N 411 could not be used at Millstone Unit 2.

Calculation ID MP2 443 EC(2) was signed offin October 1994. (Note that the body of the calculation has an originator date of December 1986 and a verification date of 0ctober 1994). The objective of PAGE 1

. - _ , . _ . - , , . . . __ _ _ _ _ ~ . - . . _ - . __ _

i ACMIN']TRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES Decrenher 9,1997 l

this calculation was to generate the floor design response spectra for the reanalysis of the piping j

systems under the snubber reduction program using Code Case N-411.

QllfiSIl0& I e What is the purpose of this calculation?

e lias this calculation been used in any design related activities?

e Why has this calculation been included in the calculation system, when the use of Code Case N. >

411 is not allowed on Millstone Unit 27 17se purpose of this calculation is to develop response spectra curves for blillstone Spec.3G8. l' FSAll section 5.81 contains the damping values that Afilistone uses for design activities.

2. Design Qualification Documentation Appendix 'A' of NNECo Spec SP ME 730 l}ACKGROUND: RA1-0541 requested calculation # EMD-062657, Rev.I which was referenced on the cover sheet of S&L Report (Appendix A) # EMD-065144 cxpceting to roccive the design qualification documentation which supports the design criterion specified by the S&L Report. Ec RAI response fonvarded a copy of the S&l, report.

- OUESTION: What is the backup or supporting qualification / calculation for SP-ME-7307 7'hese calculations are auditable at S&la. NNICCo does not maintain a copy on site. AIS GG is usedfor evaluation of existing design. Neu' tubing design uses 3110 730. A nen' revision of AllC 730 n'ill bring the applicable portions of AIS GG into this spec. for evaluating existing

, design. AIS GGis a historicaldocument;it is not supersea d.

3. Use Ol'P 1001 UNISTRUT For Tubius and Conduit Support inCKGROUND: Scismic instrument tubing isometric drawings indicate the multiple use of P-1001 unistmt cantilevered off a baseplate, i.e., drawings 25203 28408 sheets 607 and 642. A design !

drawing for this configuration has not been found. Today we have reviewed the 25203 series tubing restraint drawings including: 28503 shts. A to 11,28521 shts. A to C,28802 shts. 3A to 3U,34001 shts. 62 to 80, and Bechtel drawing 7604 MS 66 Figures 8 thru 17.

QUESTION: ht drawings detail a cantilevered P 1001 unistrut configuration?

See the note on figure 12 of AIS GG.

4. EOP 2532 EOP 2532 Rev 15, step 2.37 instructs operations to throttle back on the flow if stable motor current is not observed. The minimum within the E0P has a requirement for a llPSI pump flow to be greater then or equal to 30 gpm. What is the basis of this value?

NNECo reference SE 93-633 dated June 23,1993 From PS Higgins entitled " Pump Manufacturer's Recommended Recirculation Flow Rater." states that for short periods of time a minimum RECOMMENDED flow be 135 gpm. Why is this contrary to the EOP directions? Are there copies of the attachments listed in SE 93-633 available?

What is the implication and what does the statement mean contained within EOP 2532 Figure 3.4 that

" If containment pressure has exceeded 5 psig at any time durirp an event, then use this curve with caution."

The 30 gym requirement is due to temperature rise considerations. The 135gpm -

recommendation is due to wear considerations, blillstone's ils bulletin 88 01 response revictes time al min. flou', vendor recommendations, etc.. An attachment to the fliggins PAGE 2 l

ACMIN15 FRATIVE CONFERENCE N3TES De* ember 9,1997 j mema calculates the thermal rise. The expected time at min. flow is slwrt, (i.e.12 hrs) because al min. flme they would be using charging pumps.

i

5. Isolation of safety actuation portion of safety actuation loop from non. safety portion, which connects to computer, annunciator, indicators, recorders and other non safety functions BACKGROUND: NNECo has provided Parsons with limited documentation for Foxboro analog signal isolator (Model N 2AO VA) and Foxboro digital signal isolator (Model N 2AO L2C R). His information was provided in response to RAI $01. He infomtation provided on the Foxboro isolation device qualifications was dated prior to TMI. Additionally, to date Parsons has not rcccived any qualification documentation for the analog or digital signal isolators used for the RWST level loops LT3001, 2, 3, 4. His mformation was requested in RAI 382. l Ques 1. Following TMI, or at any time since that point, did NNECo in communication with the NRC staff regarding isolation issues related to SPDS, NUREG 0737, or ATWS obtain:

'(1) Any additional qualification documentation for the models or instrument loops in question? ,

(2) Revised its position on qualification? or (3) Provided input to NRC concerning Millstone Unit 2 electrical qualification devices (4) - Rcccive StafTapproval of the existing qualification devices?

Ques 2. Is Millstone in possession of any other isolator qualification documentation (dated or tested after TMI) , which demonstrates the ability of the Foxboro, GE, and RWST 1000 isolators to satisfy the following:

(1) Scismic capability and (2) Electrical isolation charactcristics Response will be procided on 12/1I/97 ,

6. RWST Level instruments a) is there a calculation or actual measurements that determines the minimum and maximum temperature of the RWST Level Instruments Enclosure during summer and winter months?

b) What procedure discusses the operation / setting of the space heaters during summer and winter operation?

c) What documents the seismic qualification of the enclosure building?

There is no eniculation. The tank is maintained between 50100T, and aboce 35Tfcw mode l&2. Temperature alarms are set at below 10T, The alarm instrument contacts the piping between the Ril' Stand the levelinstrument. The tubing is heat traced, but not inmlated.

Ops rounds performed under Op 2GG9A 1 eisually confirm l times per day that the space heaters are on, when needed. The temperature is not recorded. The enclosure building is not seismically qualified because no equipment in the enclosure is needed to mitigate a SSR.

7'he equipment is needed for a LOCA, but a LOCA plus SSR is outside of the afilistone

, design basis.

7. Completeness of RAI Response I1ACKGROUNQ: RAI #681 requested Enclosure 2 which was attached to a response to NRC Generic letter dated November 24,1980. Enclosure 2 was reported to be a summary listing of the open items conecming the fire protection features of the facility, He response to RAI #681, submi'ted on i1/26/97, consisted of 3 pages regarding Unit 2, addressing 3.2.1 Cable Spreading arca; PAGE 3.

}

. 1 ACMINISTRATWE CONFERENCE NOTES J December 9,1997

.. 3.2.2 Protection of Rulundant Cable Trays !

6.0 Administrative controls Fire Brigade ,

and 3 pages regarding Unit 1, addressing i 3.1.14 Auxiliary Boiler Blast Wall i 3.1.19 Safe Shut Down Modificetions j 6.0 Administrative controls Fire Brigade QUESIlO& Hased on the section numbering and the page numbering it appears that we did not ,

receive a complete copy of Enclosure 2. Is this the sum total of Enclosure 2 as requested?

Yes l .

8. Control board indicators for Pressuriter Pressure, Steam Generator Pressure, SIT Pressure, SIT Level, and Containment Pressure HACKGROUND: In the conference call on 11/20/97 we asked that you identify the design control mechanism that replaced the control board indicators for Pressurizer Pressure, Steam Ocncrator Pressure. SIT Pressure, SIT Level. and Containment Pressure. Your response indicated that the indicator replacements were made under AWO 2 82 092 and AWO 2 82104, which were associated with PDCR 2160 Hl.

QUESTION: From our review of AWO 2 82 092 and AWO 2 82104 we can not fmd reference to replacement of the control board indicators. Please explain how the control board indicators were replaced These truficators are Non-Q. The documentation of non-Q changes back in the 198182 time ;

frame tras not very good. llw A \\'O 3 N2 092 package contains a l'.0. for these non.Q irulicators. This n'as the standard practice for documenting this kind of change. Thepost work test wouhl not have past the requirements if the irulicators werv not changed out. Also, NNRCo check the maint. history loop fohlers. These were an informalinformation method used to keep track of maint history. The fohler nIso show that these indicators were changed out. _

9. R.G.1.97 instrumentation a) NRC Letter and SER dated 2/$/91 Confonnance to Open issues Regarding Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev 2 (TAC 73776) accepted the range of 0 to 3000 psig for the variable Pressurizer Pressure >

subject to the completion of pressure transient analyses under ATWS conditions. What document providal the maximum ATWS pressure transient to NRC tojustify the fmal range selection of 0 to 3000 psig for R.G.' l 97 instrumentation? (We will request a copy of this document.)

b) SP M2 EE-0012 Rev i dated 11/5/97 Attachment 6.1 Note 2 referenced document M2-EV 97-0027 as providingjustification for the design parameters used for RCS Pressure loop P 102H l. Please 1 discuss the basis for departure of this it.2trument loop from the R.G. l.97 guidelines that are contained in this document. (We will request a copy of the documents for review.)

To date NNRCo has not documented thejustification of 0 to 3000 psig for R.G.1.97 instrumentation. NNRCo is currently preparing commitment letter il1G3G5, which is scheduled to be completed trithin a treck, to athlress this subject. NNECo expects that the existing conditions are acceptable. It was the conclusion of M2 RY97 0027 that 0 3000psig inJication was acceptable for both R.G.1.97 and ATi\'S.

f

10. Jumper Devices PAGE 4

. . L o AGMINISTRATIVE CONITitENCE NOTES IMemleer 9.1999 {

,HACKGRQl)ND: Jumper Device Index No. 2 93 6$ consists of ajumper to bypass the amphenol !

connector at D RCP oil lift pump. The device wan installed 8/lI/93. The Jumper Device Control ,

I Shwt indicates that approval was granted for device restoration on 4/22/97. Ilowever, the Jumper '

Device Control Sheet does not contain any information that would indicate that the device was in fact restored. ;

QUES 110N: What is the status of Jumper Device No. 2 93 6$7 is it still installed or has it been !

restored?

It tras removed by AllD.112 96 08318. NNRCo will look for a completed Jumper I)erice l r

Control Sheet for 2 93 G5. t BACKORQUND: Jumper Device Index No. 2 95 137 dispositions "use as is" the operator for manual

- valve 2 SW 12C "ll" service water header supply to 11" EDO. (The drive sleeve had broken gear lecth) Department licad signoff for the device was !l/l$/97. Ilowever, the jumper Device Control ,

Sheet does not contain any information about installation. ;

QlliS))QN: What is the status of Jumper Device No. 2 93 1377 What is the status of manual valve [

2 SW 12C7 l

It was installed on Ii/15/95 by Allk\l2 9512003 and cleared on 2/20/96 by AllD.112 9512108. 71se valve has since been replaced.

11. Control of fleavy Loads Program From 12/4/97 conference '

DACKGROUND: load drop calc 3200-M2-003 007, rev 0, "M2 Evaluation of Cask Washdown l'it" indicates perforation and failure of the El.14' 6" floor slab for a postulated drop of the Spent Fuel Shipping Cask. Ilencath this slab is a pipe chase containing redundant Service Water headers (10"-

JGD 4) and redundant RWST Suction headers (18" 11C11 1). Perforation or failure of this slab could i result in loss of these systems. ~lhis scenario is also addressed in NU correspondence to the NRC dated July 21,1983, " Control oflicasy Loads", Docket No 50 336, Attachment 11, page 24, and figures 9 ,

and i 1.

QUESIl0N: What subsequent calculations, studies, procedural controls, or other actions have been ;

taltn to resolve this issue?

An internal memo discusses the risk of this scenark 71se memo is based on PRA and the safety analysis of heavy loads for .\lillstone. In I. { assessment, the failure of the concrete slab is assumed as a given, and normal off. site potter is used due to a failure of the diesel.

The memo concludes that this scenario has a n ry small risk.

3 PAGE 5

{

. o 9

ACMINISTRATIVE CCNFERENCE NOTES Decemlier 11,1997 l

1 PURPOSEe Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to (

discuss l

UIR 2562 - l

Steam Generator Tube Plagging

Thermal Margin / Low Pressure Trip

IIPSI Pipe Support Calculations

Isolation of Safety Actuation Loop From Non Safety Portion. FROM 12/9/97

Appendit J Testing

Questions Regarding NU's Response DR 0034 Date: December 11,1997

. L*st of Attc.idees:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons

' Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP John Wayne Dobson Nakoski Fred Mattioli Supenisor. MP2 ICAVP Wade Russell Steve Wainio Supenisor . Design Engineering Gordon Chen .

13ill Price . Supenisor Design Engineering John Strange Paul Collette Supenisor Design Engineering Paul Schmitzer liarvey llecman Supenisor . Technical Support Eng. Dan Laughman Ken Fox Sup'. visor MP2 Design Engineering Larry Collict Jim Petrosky Supenisor Program Eng. Standards George Zagursky l Cns Cristallo Engineer MP2 Design Enginecting Laird 13ruster Engineer MP2 ICAVP Chris Scully Engineer MP2 ICAVP

l. UIR 2562 DACKGROUND: UlR 2562 states: "Second Ten Year Insenice Test Program for Pumps and Valves .

(Relief Request #1WV II) states that :hese valves (2 SI 659 and 2 SI-660) are required to be open with valve operator power removed to assure a recirculation flow path during reactor operation."

' Quntion: What is the procedum or other document that controls removal and restoration of power to the valves? Is this power removal different from the contros circuit interruption provided by keylock switches llS3659A and llS3660A7 ,

The su' itches arv used as opposed to irmoving any fuses. This question svas also raised in NNRCo's ISI self assessment, and this n'ill be clarified for the third interval.

2. Steam Generator Tube Plugging .

Item (b) of RAl 765 requested the total number of tubes pluggul for each steam generator. 'Inc infonnation received ( Memo NME WC-97 360 ) is a report of the inspection completed on June 26, 1997. It indicated no tube plugging was performed as a result of the June 26 inspection. Does this mean that there are no plugged tubes in either steam generator (including previous inspections)?

There is one plug in one of the steam generators trhich tras from the original manufacturing. l PAGEi

,.9 A~ MINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NDTES December 11,1997 l

3, Thermal. Margin /Lew Presure Trip HACKGROUND: Fonnulas used to calculate the Thermal Margin / Low Pressure Trip have been reviewed

. to compare the plant TM/LP calculator setpoint with that shown in the Technical Specincation.1he comparison performed, based on Parson's understanding, is illustrated below.

Thc1hermal Margin / Low Pressure setpoint is calculated utilizing Technical Speci0 cation Tables 2.2 1 and Figures 2.2 3 and 2.2-4. The tables and Ogures provide the following equations: ,

P(trip) = 2215 (AI)(QRI) + 14.28 Tin 8240 Al u -0.5143 (Y1) + 1.1029 when YI </= t ! Yi is the measured asial shape index A1 = 0.5 (Yl) + 0.9 when Y1 >/= 0.2 l Depending on power level QRI is calculated as follows: .

QR1 = 0 6333 (PO + 0.45 when 0 </= Pf < 0.6 QRI = 0.55 (PO + 0.50 when 0.6 </= Pf < 0.7 QR1 = 0.3833 (PO + 0.6167 wlmn 0.7 </= Pf < l.0 QRI = Pf when Pf >/= 1.0 ,

Pfis the fraction of rated thennal power The multipliers in front of Pfin cach equation are derived using slope and intercept techniques on the curves in Ogure 2.2-4.

For the sake ofillustration, utilizing thc QRI equation for Pf between 0.7 and 1.0 and the Al equation for Yi </= 0.2, following is the combination of these equations:

P(trip) = 2215 (Al)(QRI) + 14.28 Tin - 8240 P(trip) = 2215 (-0.5143 (Yl} + 1,1029)(0.3833 (P0 + 0.6167) + 14.28 Tin 8240 P(trip) = ( l139.17 (Y1) + 2442.9)(0.3833 (P0 + 0.6167) + 14.28 Tin 8240

- P(trip) = 436.65 (Y1)(PO 702.53 (Y1) + 936.36 (PO + 1506 + 14.28 lin 8240 P(trip) = 436.65 (Y )(PO - 702.53 (Y1) + 936.36 (PO + 14.28 Tin - 6734 To convert this last equation from fraction of rated power to percent of rated power substitute Pf =

(P%)/100 where P% is the rated power in percent.

P(trip) = 436.65 (Yl)(P%)/100 702.53 (Y1) + 936.36 (P%)/100 + 14.28 Tin -6743 Ptirin) = -4.3665 (YI) (P"4) - 702.53 (Y1) + 9.3636 (P"4) + 14.28 Tin -6743 Procedure SP 240lJA page 10 instructs the person perfonning the calculator test to calculate Pvar per one of the equations. The equation for power between 70 and 100% is:

Pvar = 0,443 (0) (Y) - 69.55 (Y) 4 9.30 (0) + 14.28 TeoldCAL - 6656 in this equation Q is the pow er in %, the same as P%, TcoldCAL is the same as Tin, Yi is the same as Y, and Pvar is the same as P(trip). .

For the purposes of comparison of the two equations, P(trip) and Pvar, those terms which are close in magnitude will not be considered as ditierent. As can be seen, the P%Y1 multiplier in the P(trip) equation is 10 times higher than the equivalent QY multiplier in the Pvar equation. Likewise, the YI term in the P(trip) equation is also 10 times higher than the equivalent Y team in the Pvar equation. Normally, the axial shape index, Y or Y I, is equal to 0.0 in which case these terms would have no effect on the calculated PAGE 2

. o ACMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES Ikcember i1,1997 trip actpoint. llowever, when Y (or Yl) is not 0, these terms do have an effect and the formula used in the test procedure could be non-consen ative in relation to the fonnula shown in the Technical Specifications.

For example, for Y (or Yl) less than 0, the trip setpoint calculated by Pvar would be lower than the one calculated by P(trip).

QUESTION.

a. Why does the plant calculator appear to have treated the Axial Shape input to the formula by a factor of 10 times less than does the Tech Spec formula?

- b. Is there any supporting documentation which shows where the plant calculator formula comes from and why it may be conservative relative to the Tech Spec?

c. Is there any verifiable rational explaining the Y factor to be insignificant for any credible accident? -

The plant personnel responsible for performing pmcedure SP2101,lA obtain the value for the ASI, the term YI in the equation, from an indicator on the Reactor Panel. This indicator is scaled from 10 to +10 and basically reads volts u hich then corresponds to .WIin the 1 to

+1 range, 7'he voltage number (mm the indicator is plugged directly into the equation. This explains why the equation in the procedure uses a factor of 10 times less than the factor used in the Technical Specification formulas. ,lohn Strange agreed with this assessment and waived sInled that the remaining questions t ere no longer pertinent and did not have to be unsu cred.

4, ilPSI Pipe Support Calculations The llPSI pipe suppc,rt calculations provided to Parsons for ICAVP review are all calculations that were performed as part of the NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 and 7914 reviews. The small number of calculations suoplied represents approximately 25% of the totalllPSI scope support population. No design basis support calculations have been provided for review.

1. What were the Millstone Unit 2 commitments for performing the NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 and 7914 reviews, and how were they impicmented?

2. What piping systems and supports were included in the scope of the above programs, and how were they determined?

3. What documentation exists for those supports and piping analy ses that were not fonnally reviewed but were part of the 79-02 and 7914 programs?

The Afillstone 2 NHC IX lhdletin 79.Il and 79 02 programs were implemented in parallel utilizir y a screening process to identify the systems / supports to be reviewed. Tiro documents were identified by NNXCo which detail the selection process and summarize the results of the cealuations.1'hese documents are as follows:

A letter to the regional NHC Director, dated 9/10/ 79, defining the scope of the programs and the methods to be used.

Completion Report DII4GO, dated 2/22/M, summarizing the results of the programs.

lHoth of the above documents will be supplied through the RAI process.

5, Isolation of safety actuation portion of safety actuation loop from non safety portion, which connects to computer, annunciator, indicators, recorders and other non-safety functions. FROM PAGE 3

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

o ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES petember 11,1997 12/9/97 ,

+

l

)

IIAGORD.UND: NNECo has prosided Parsons with limited documentation for Fostoro analog signalisolator (Model N 2AO VA) and Foxboro digital signal isolator (Model N 2AO L2C R). His '

information was prosided in response to RAI 501. He information prosided cn the Foxboro isolation device qualifications was dated p*ior to TMI. Additionally, to date Parsons has not received any qualification documentation for the analog or digital signal isolators used for the RWST level loops LT3001, 2, 3, 4. This information was requested in RAl 382.

Ques 1. Following TMI, or at any time since that point, did NNECo in comn mication with the NRC staff regarding isolation issues related to SPDS, NUREO 0737, or ATWS d %c (1) Any additional qualification documentation for the models or instw.ent loops in question?

(2) Revised its position on qualification? or (3) Provided input to NRC concerning Millstone Unit 2 clectrical qualification devices (4) Receive Staff approval of the existing qualification devices?

On 7/31/8G NNRCo sent a letter to the NRC on the Millstone Unit 2 Safety Parameter Display System. The NRC response n'as dated 2/12/87, There is no additional qualification documentation for the instrument loops in question 3fillstone Unit 2 is not committed to IRRE 384 IRRR 279 is the design basis.

Ques 2. Is Millstone in possession of any other isolator qualification document lion (dated or tested after TMI) , which demoatrates the ability of the Foxboro, GE, and RWST loop isolators to satisfy the following:

(1) Seismic capability and (2) Electrical isolation characteristics Yes, Raton Corp. RSAS qualification Report.

6. Appendix J Testing Regarding 10 CFR 50 Appendix J testing. Does the plant use any qualified 30 day or greater water seals as a part of type C testing? If 30 day water seals or greater are used, to what systems are these seals nssigned and what is name anNor number of the document / record that qualifies the scal?

No 341 day or greater water seals are used.

7. Questions Regarding NU's Response DR-0034 in NU's response to this DR, it was stated that problems with the DCN/as-built drawing processes were previously identified by the CMP and these problems have been addressed in the current DCM to prevent reoccurrence. Parson's intended focus of this DR was the lack of a formal technical review for as built drawing DCNs not associated with a parent changa process. The focus of NU's response and cited references (e g., ERT report leading to ACR 8761, ESARs PES 97 012 & 028, et al) seemed to deal prinanly with the subject of documenting the physical plant with very little or no emphasis on performing a technical review for each change made. To help Parsons better understand NU's intention, the following issues and associated questions are submitted for further discussion:

1. We have been unable to find in Chapter 3 Section 7 of the DCM where it addresses as built drawing updates which are not associated with a parent process. Section 7 of the DCM lists 5 parent processes where DCNs are utilized (e g. initial & modified designs DCRs/MMODs, IEEs, MSEEs, and 10CFR30.54f document changes). DCNs are also used to: change specifications not associated with a modification; facilitate drawing and Vendor Manual maintenance when changes result from an PAGE 4

C D

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES December i1,1997 approved design; and to suppo7t NCR dispositions in,oking a parent document. This scope does not address the category of DCNs discussed in the DR nor does it appear to support NU's response. Also, cf the 11 DCN categories (010) listed on page 41, none addrcss DCN as-built discrepancies not associated with a parent process ( 8 titled ' Administrative DCNs"is currently used in the DCNs resiewed).

QUESTION #1: Where does the DCM specifically provide guidance regarding as-built drawing DCNs that are non-modification / parent process rehted?

QUESTION #2: Where/how does the DCM ensure that "The use of a DCN without a parent design control process is limited to purely administrative changes" as specifically stated in NU's DR response?

NNECo stated that for as-built situations that do not match design drawings, it is the CR that would determine if the plant is correct or the design documentation. The CR also determines operability and the corrective action. NNECo identified that Chapter i of the DCSI section 1.1I would send a person to RI' I when an as build aituation is encountered.

l' arsons review of this section however, finds no reference to as build discrepancies, it only refers to RP. lfor errors and deficiencies in design.

2. According to NU's response, ACR 8761 Corrective Action 6.8.6 was established to " correct the programmatic deficiency of circumventing the formal modification process through the use of unanalyzed DCNs" Corrective Action 6.8.6 specifically states that the "Use of DCNs for drawing update without a parent document or 10CFR50.59 should cease except for purely administrative changes" This corn ctive action is considered complete by NU and appears to be consistent with the current guidance in the DCM.

QUESTION #3: Dos MP2 consider a 10CFR50.59 screening evaluation to be a complete and adequate " Technical Resiew" equivalent to those required as part of a parent change process e.g.,

DCR, item Equivalency Evaluation, or MSEE? If so, how do you justify the difference in scope, level of detail. and documsntation?

NNECo does not consider a 10CFR50.59 screening evaluation to be a complete and adeqante

Technical Review.

3. According to NU's response, the Event Review Team investigation " developed a corrective action plan that included over 40 actions to prevent recurrence" Parsons' review of the 40 indicated that these corrective actions focused on documentation and process issues (such as past modification review and drawing updates, the scope of tin walkdown program, physical plant documentation , and document control) oser the need to perform technical reviews for each as built deficiency.

QUESTION #4: Of the 40 (ERT) corrective actions, which one(s) dealt with the technical renew of as-built deficiencies not associated with a parent process?

It is y combination of the corrective actions,

1. NU's response sta'ed that "DCNs which were closed were already incorporated onto the drawings reviewed for DB/LB compliance and therefore, did not need to be reviewed :cparately" i.e., they were addressed as part of the U2 PI 7 review.

t PAGE 5

'in

,a AI)MINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES December 11,1997 Ilased on our review of the PI 7 procedural guidance and some completed review summaries it appears that the PI-7 reviews were mostly system and major component oriented. They did not review the design requirements (as established by sizing calculations, component specifications, etc.) for each component within a system which would be required to account for the numerous DCN imtiated unanMyzed changes.

QUESTION #5: llow did the U2 Pl 7 revic'";aocess remain consistent with the requirements of ANSI N452.1 I while addressing the situation where numerous undocumented changes which occurred in the past we:e suddenly identified through walkdowns and added to drawings as a blocks of changes?

If a component has a DH/LH it was k>oked at as part of the PI 7 review. For example, every valve that had a pressure boundary DH/LH was checked.

PAGE 6

ML20198C008

Text

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search