ML20198K307
| ML20198K307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9710230303 | |
| Download: ML20198K307 (103) | |
Text
,,.
/
(f f-4,h f
But'gntW $ Luridy $ $ *
};f o. u.6.,i.,
Ci!4?e i
October 20,1997 Project No. 9583100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nucien Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Attention: Dacument Centrol Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following thirty five (35) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review actMties for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed la accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI MP3 01.
DR No. DR-MP3 0295 DR No. DR MP3-02%
DR No. DR MP3-0313 DR No. DR MP3 0317 DR No. DR MP3-0326 DR No. DR-MP3-0328 DR No. DR MP3 0331 DR No. DR MP3-0337 DR No. DR MP3-0345 DR No. DR-MP3 0346 DR No. DR-MP3-0364 DR No. DR MP3 0370 DR No. DR MP3 0374 DR No. DR MP3 0379 DR No. DR MP3 0383 DR No. DR MP3 0386 DR No. DR-MP3-0392 DR No. DR MP3 0393 DR No. DR MP3-0395 DR No. DR MP3 0403 DR No. DR-MP3-0404 DR No. DR-MP3-0405 DR No. DR MP3-0408 DR No. DR MP3-0410 I
hU f
O DR No. DR MP3 0422 DR No. DR MP3 0423 DR No. DR-MP3-0430 DR No. l>R MP3 0441 DR No, DR MP3-0451 DR No. DR L4P3 0452 DR No. DR-MP3 0457 DR No. DR-MP3-0459 DR No. DR MP3-0469 DR No. DR Mi 3-0470 DR No. DR MP3-0471 -
9710230303 971020 k
PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
$5 East Monroe Street
- Chicago, IL 60603 5780 USA
- 312 269-2000
^
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 20,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583 100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the following ten (10) DRs that have been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for these ten DRs. The basis for their invalid determination is included on the domment.
DR No. DR MP3 0305 DR No. DR MP3 0361 DR No. DR MP3-0411 DR No. DR MP3 0412 DR No. DR MP3-0427 DR No. DR MP3 0443 DR No. DR MP3-0444 DR No. DR MP3-0447 DR No. DR MP3-0448 DR No. DR MP3-0450 I have alto enclosed the following seven (7) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR MP3-0012 DR No. DR MP3-0032 DR No. DR MP3 0050 DR No. DR MP3-0051 DR No. DR MP3 0056 DR No. DR MP3-0140 DR No. DR MP3 0172 1 have also enclosed the following three (3) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not accepted. S&L comments on the resolutions have been provided.
DR No. DR MP3-0001 DR No. DR MP3-0002 DR No. DR-MP3-0005 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours veiy truly,
%R b.b D.K.S pfer
)
Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures a
Copics:
E. imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Eaergy Advisory Council l
J. Fougere (1/1) NU mianduT\\97a1020-a &w
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0295 Mill *torw UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroup: system DR VAUD I
I potential Opereb64ety leeue D6ec6piene Mechanc41Doogn O Ya Diectopency Type: Calculation
(,3 g systemerosenet Rss
~
NRC TW"m level: 4 Date faxed k NU:
Date puh46ehed:
-ri Redundant Calculat!0rea Deserwehn: The following calculations have been superseded by more up to-date Calculations, but were statused as ACTIVE as of 5 27 97' 321201096 should be superseded by CRS MOV-01381M3 321201097 should be superseded by CRS MOV-01362M3 321201354 should be superseded by CRS MOV 01382M3 ES 230 should be superseded by US(B) 265 MW(B)-044 should be superseded by MW(F) 220 MW(B) 045 should be superseded by MW(F) 212 MW(F).110 should be superseded by MW(B) 220 MW(F) 170 should be superseded by MW(B) 132 ES 164 should be superseded by US(B)-342 (NU Cale data base was updated to show this on 7 6 97)
Review Vol6d invalid Needed Date inst 6elor: Wehetend,J.F.
O O
O 151057 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A g
Q Q
1W11/97 VT Mori schopfer, Don K O
O O
$$52S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
151657 o.:
INVAUO:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Prov60uely idenused by Nu? Q Yee
'G8 No Non 06ecropont Conen6on O Yes
'G) No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sint1, Anand K te SL Convnents:
Pnnted 10"2097133 44 PM Page 1 of 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0294 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DRVAUD Potenhel Opere4dl6ty issue 06ecipl6ne: Mechancel Desg" O va D6ectopency Type: Calculeton (9) No systeWProcess: QSs NRC s'; JWe level: 4 Date F Axed to NU' Date Published:
C.
-ii Redundant Calculations P
The following calculations have been superseded by more up to.
date calculations, but were statuned as ACTIVE as of 5 27 97:
422P should be superseded by P(R) 931 ES 144 should be superseded tr/ US(B) 318 MW(F)-027 should b1 superseded by MW(B) 142 MW(F) 045 should be superseded by MW(B) 129 Rev6 w Val 6d invei6d Needed Date init6etor: Wake 6end, J. F.
O O
O 10/5057 VT Leed: Her1, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10/11/97 VT Mgra Schopfer, Don K O
O O
to't557 1RC Chnn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
10/1657 Dei.:
INVAUD:
Date:
REsVLUTION:
Prev 60usly identened by Nu? O Yes
- 8 No Non Descrepent Conest60n O Yes Si No 8eview 1
Acceptable Not Acceptable 4 ded Date g
VT Lead: Nor1, Anthony A VT Mgra Schopfer, Don K IRC Chrevu Singh, Anand K
=
-e sL Comments:
Printed 1o%97134 42 PM Page 1 of 1 i
)
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N1 DR MP34313 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VALIO Rev6ew Elenant System Doegn p
g Doogn O Yee Dioctopency Type: C*'w=)
system 9%esee: Ras g
NRC W M 4 Date faxed to NU:
DelePutdiohed:
one-ey: Calculation P(R)410 Elevation Er70r C.-
The dimensions for the pump discharge elevation is incorred.
The calculation uses an elcvation r4 22' 9". Drawing EP 79N shows the pump discharge is at elevation (-) 23' 3*.
The calculation for the required pressure drop across the orifice, is the pump head minus the fridion losses minus the elevation change from the pump discharge to the pump recirculation nozzle. The pump recirculation nozzle is located at elevation (-)
29' 8". The values in the calculation suggest that the difference is $2' instr d of 6* 5* Subtracting the calculation value from the pump head will underestimate the required pressure drop of the onfice by approximately 45'.
The system function is nnt affected since the orifice size was verified by the pre-onerational system test.
Review Velid involld Needed Date inst 6esort Langel D.
O O
O 6'557 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
iof397 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
10/1397 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anerg K O
O O
'o/1657 Date:
INVAllO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prov60uely identined try Nu? Q Yee
- ' No Non 06ecrepent Condst60n Q Yee ? No Rev6ew
^***P"*
^****
initWor: (none)
VT Lead: Nort, Anthorry A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: $mgh, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnents:
~ l5'tt 10,3971:36 51 PM P
Pege 1 of 1
4 Northeast Utilnies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0317 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR VAWO I
Potential Operabilty leaue Diecipune: Mechen** "'"
D6ecrepenev Type: Componard Date O Ya erstmWProcess: HVX gg NRC C i n ; level:4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Putdished:
i Emergency Generator Enclosure Supply Fan Performance
,li M
During the review of component dets for the Emergency Generator Enclosure Ventilation System supply fans 3HVP*FNI A/1B/1C/ID discrepancies regarding the fan model number, motor nameplate rating, and fan total pressure rating were identified.
FSAR Section 9.4.6.2 states that each emergency generator enclosure supply fan provides 60,000 cfm of supply air.
Specification 2170.430-140 Indicate that the fans are Buffalo Forge model number 4885 rated at 60,000 cfm and 2.95 iwg total pressure. The fan horsepower requirements at the rating point is 37.2 hp. The fan motor data sheet conts'ns conflicting information on the nameplate rating of the motor. Under horsepower by fan mfgr it statee 60 hp, while in the column that contains performance data for the motor it indicates that the motor has a 40 hp rs.!!ng.
The Plant Design Data System (PDDS) database indicates that the fan brake horsepower required is 38.5 hp and that the motor has a 40 hp nameplate rating.
The vendor drawing for the fan,2170.430140100, states that the fa')is a Buffalo Forge model number 48B9 rated at 60,000 cfm and 2.5 Iwg total pressure with a 60 hp motor.
The fan performance curve dated 6/21/82 for the fan states that the fan is a Buffalo Forge model number 4885 rated at 60,000 cfm and 2.95 iwg total pressure.
Rev6ew Vaud invei6d Needed Dele inttletor: Stout. M. D.
O Q
Q 10/197 i
VT 1.ead: Non Anthony A Q
]
Q 10/197 VT Mort Schopfer, con K Q
Q Q
io/1197 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
106 697 osie:
INVAllo:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU? O Yes ei No Non Discrehnt Condition U Yes
- ' No Pnnted 10/20971:37.34 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP34317 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew inn 6stors (none)
Acceptable W Actoptable Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: Non, Anthony A VT Mgra sempfer Don K O
O O
0 0
inc c w : s % s An.nox O
O om.:
sL Cemnents:
o o ee 4 9 9
Pnnted 10M971.37.40 PM P
W2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0324 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Geoup: Syesem DR VALIO Review Eternent: System Cosgn g
Dioceplene: MechencelDes
O Ya tv ;1.;y Type: Ceiculation 4g systemprocess: OsS NRC "t-'"m,4 level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
pleaepancy: Calculation P(R) 931. Basis for Result Deeceipmen: The summary of results indicates the summer heat gain by the RWST Coolers is 351 Stu/hr. The document does not provide the calculation for this number nor does it provide a reference for the number. The value cannot be verifled as a corred (1put to this calculation, s,
Rev6ew Vand invahd Needed Date initletor: Longel, D.
O O
'S 057 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
1W1097 VT Mge Schopfer Don K Q
Q Q
1W1197 Ntc Chmn: Segn, Anand K G
O O
15'S'7 Date:
10/9/97 wwAuo:
Date:
REs0LUTION-Previously identil%* by NU7 Q Yes 98 No Non D6ecrepent Condit6on
() Yes fG) No Rev6ew Acceptabee Hot Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed; Nort. Anthorrt A O
O O
O O
O VT Mer: Schopfer, Con K IRC Chrmu Singh Anand K e
sl Conwnents:
Pnnted 103971:381( ?M Page 1 of 1
__.____-ww--_.--.-
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0328 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Potenuel Operabimy losue Discip46ne: Mechancel Des gn 4
Discrepency Type: Componert Data systerWProcese: HVX NRC significance level: 3 Date faked to NU:
Date Published:
m y: SLCRS and ABVS Filter Unit Drain Valves Desulpeon' During review of the component data for the Supplementary Leak Colledion and Release System (SLCRS) fitter units (3HVR*FLT3A/38) and the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS) exhaust filter units (3HVR*FLT1 A/18) a discrepancy regarding the safety and seismic classification of the isolation valves in the filter unit drain lines was identified, The SLCRS and charging pump, component cooiing water pump and heat exchang 'r exhaust ventilation system (ABVS) are classified as ESF Filter systems per FSAR Section 6.5.1 FSAR Section 6.2.3.1 states that the SLCRS ls classified QA Category 1, Safety Class 3, and Seismic Category 1. FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 states that the auxiliary btuding filtration units are Safety Class 3.
FSAR Section 3.2.3 and FSAR Table 3.21 Indentify the ESF filtration trains as QA Category 1, Safety Class 3 components.
FSAR Table 6.5-1 states that the systems are in essential compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.2.c in that all components are reismically qualified. FSAR Table 1.8-1 states that the systems are in compliance 'i.itn Fegulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 and does include the exception /clanfication to position C.2.c contained in FSAR Table 6.5-1, Regu stnry Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, porition C.2.c requires that all components of an engineered-safety feature atmospher; cleanup system should be designated a', Seismic Category 1 if failure of a component would lead to the release of significant quantities of fission products to the working or outdoor erwironments.
Pt?O EM 148E shows valves 3HVR V964, V965, V966, V967, V968, and V969 in the drain lines for SLCRS filter unit
,,dVR*FLT3B and valves 3HVR-V970, V971, V972, V973, V974, and V975 in the drain lines for SLCRS fnter unit 3HVP*FLT3A.
P&lD EM-148A shows valves 3HVR V988, V98,, M90, V9991, V992, and V993 in the drain lines for ARVS filter unit 3HVR*FLT1B and valves 3HVR V994. V995, V996, V997, V998, and V999 in the drain lines for ABVS filier unit 3HVR*FLT1 A.
The valves maintain the pressure and leaktge integrity of the filter units and prevent unfiltered air from bypassing the HEPA and charcoal filter sections. Based on this and the above Pnnted 10/20/971'38 s3 PM Page 1 or 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 0328 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report requirements the valves should be classified as QA Category 1, Safety Class 3, Seismic Category I components.
The Plant Design Data Systern (PDOS) database identifies the valves as QA Category 2 components. The valve description #
shown in PDDS is VGF015-N-4.
The PMMS database identifies the valves as non-seismic, non-category I components.
Specification 2282.050153 identifes valve type VGF015-N-4 as
- a 2.5" ANSI B31.1 Class 4 gate valve.
Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: Stout, M D.
g Q
!Q 100/97 VT Land: Nort, Arnhony^
O O
O inw7 VT Mgr: Schop'er, Don K S
O O
Soft 3/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10r1697 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 6ously iderdised by NU7 Q Yes it) No Non D6screpent Condelioc Q Yes (e) No Rev6ew initiator: (none)
VT Leed: Non, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
st Comnents:
Pnnted 10/20,971:39 00 PM Page 2 ef 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N% DR-MP3 0331 Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: System DR VAllo Review Element: Syelem Deegn p
g Diecipline: Mechanical Design O Ya Discrepency Type: Drawing gg systenvProcess: HVX NRC signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
D6eeropency: Fihi2 Unit Drain Valve Normal Position M.
During the review of the P&lDs for the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) and the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS) a discrepancy ;0garding the normal position of valves 3HVR V964,3HVR V970. 3HVR V993, and 3HVR V999 was identified.
FSAR Table 1,8-1, Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.h states that normally closed manual valves instead of water seals and traps will be provided.
P&lD EM-148E 10 and operating procedure OPS Form 33141 1&2 show valves 3HVR V964 and 3HVR V970 as normally open valves.
P&lD EM-148A 24 and operating procedurt, JPS Form 3314A-2&3 show valves 3HVR V993 and 3HVR V999 as normally open
- valves, Since the drain valves are not provided with water seals and traps and the housing operates at a negative pressure, the normally open drain valves would allow air drawn thru the drain line to bypass the demister, Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Stout, M. D, g
Q Q
10G97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
10397 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 8
0 0
1o/1157 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
10/18,17 D.i.:
INVALID:
'r RESOLUTION:
Prevumsty identined by NU7 U Yes 91 No Non Discrepant Conditu>n U Yes
- 9) No Review
- E
- initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Nert, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schoofer, Don K IRC Chrnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
st Comments:
Pnnted 10/20/971'41 o4 PM Page 1 of 1
9 Northe:st Utliities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0337 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VALID Rev6ew Element: System Desagn g
Diecipline: Mechenacel Deegn Ow Discrepency Type: cm (5) No system 9toceae: RSS NRC @acance levet: 4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Published.
W Tu. Calculation P(R)-1020 Discrepancies r
Deecription: Calculation P(R)-1020, Rev. O, " Verification that RSS Pumps have Sufficient Head to Provide containment Sump Water to SSP System for Sampling." The calculation uses the pump head and the piping friction losses to estimate the flow rate to the sampling system during Recirculation Mode. The flow rate through the sample system is required to be between 0.3 and 1.0 gpm. The calculation concluded the flow rate should be approximately 0.75 gpm.
The length of pipe from the pump to the cooler included only the vertical piping and the fittings. The horizontal piping is approximately 50% of the length of the vertical piping. This resuitt in an additional 1 psi pressure drop and decrease the flow rate.
The length of pipe from the cooler to the 8' x 10" reducer included only the horizontal piping and the ofte tee. The vertical piping is approximately 100% of the length of the vertical piping and there is another tee. This doubles the resulting head loss and decreases the flow rate.
The dP coefficient (0.000216) was incorrectly transposed (0.00216). The result reflects the correct coefficient was used in the calculation.
The length of 8* pipe is given as 103.75 feet. A review of the references indicates only about 72 feet of pipe. This decreases the head loss and increases the flow rate.
The sample lines are tubing. The relative roughness for tubing is
.00013 resulting in a frictios factor of 0.028 which is less than 0.037 used for the same size pipe. This decreases the head loss and increases the flow rate.
The dP from Point D to E is incorrect. The value of 0.18 psi was included in the equation as 0.018. This value was carned throughout 7.0 calculatlan; however, because of its size compared to the overall pressure drop (174.1 psi), it has no impact on the results.
The equation to calculate the angle for a reducer is incorrect.
The angle is based on half the diameter difference and the length of the reducer. The equation used half the length of the reducer. This overestimates the head loss and... creases the flow rate.
Pnnted 10,'20/97143 29 PM Page1 of 2
l Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP34337 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The head loss for the 10" x 16' reducers use the incorrect value for K. The numbers were not transposed correctly; however, the results reflect the correct number.
The approach indicates that the losses will be calculated across Train D. Trains A, B and C have 16' X 10* Reducers at the outlet of the Coolers. Train D has a 16* X 10' reducing flange.
This is better approximated by a sudden contraction. This does not impact the overall results of the calculation.
The dimensions for the sample lines could not be confirmed.
The referenced draWngs did not have all the dimensions nor were the drawings legible. Any gross overedimation of the tubing length will be offset ty, the conservatism used by assuming a higher frirAlon fador.
The calculation states, "No pressure drop is associated with elevaHon since the water being pumped starts from and retums to the same place." However, the calculation starts at the pump discharge and ends at tne end of the sample line. The sample line drains into the sumo. Since the dimensions and elevations for the sample lines could not be Veritled, the elevation loss cannot be determi ed.
tt Overall, the comments associated with this calculation do not appear to affect the conclusions of the calculation.
Review Valid invahd Needed Dele initiesor: Langel.O, VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A.
g Q
Q 10/1197 Q
Q Q
10/1197 VT Mgr; Schopfer, Dnn K Q
Q Q
10t1597 IRC Cvnn: Sangh. Anand K Q
Q
-Q 10/1&S7 Date:
INVAllo:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60usly ident6Aed by NU7 Q Yes
- 4) No Non osecrepent Condelion Q Yes
'91 No Reyww Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/2G97 P 13 36 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0348 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmate DR VALID Review Element: Opereung Procedure Diecapiene: Operwora PotentnelOperabilityleeue Diecrepency Type: O & M & T Procedure O vee systenWProcese: N/A
@ No NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Puhushed:
Descrepancy: Irsspristion of Approved Change to Operating Procedure OP3319A Rev.13, Change No.1 Desertpeten: OP 3319A Revision 13 changa number 1 (as approved) was issued to provide instructions regarding an attemate source of sealing water for th0 tube sheet sealing water system. To accurately incorpora.te t'ils change into the procedure, changes to two sections ( psces 18 and 25) are required. However, on!y one of the two sectiorn were revised. Additionally, an
(
ot;servation is made regarding ambiguities.
Discrepant Condition Revision 14 of OP3319A indicates the change approved for page 18 of Rev.13 was incorporated on page 19 of Rev.14 in the appropriate section, however, the change approved fcr page 25 of Rev.13 was not incorporated into the appropriate section of on page 26 of Rev.14. This is a discrepant condition.
Observation The documented Reason for Change (for Revision 13, Change No.1) contains wording which is not clear and could be misunderstood. The wording 'if 3CNS-V935 is unavailable
- could be taken to mean that it was the Author's, and by their subsequent approval, PORC's intent, to allow the attemale supply of sealing water (in this case,3CNS-V899) to be used only *if 3CNS V935 is unavailable', implying that there is a preferred source which must be used 'if available*, The procedure as wntten/ revised, does not impose any restrictions or suggest a preferred source.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date InMetor: Neverro. Meit Q
Q 10/&97 VT Leed: Ryan, Thomes J B
O O
10'8/S7 VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
10/1197 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
10/18,97 Date:
INVAllo:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identane 3 by Nu7 O Yes Gi No Non Discrepent Condition U Yes 97 No Review ine M Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomes J O
O O
O g
VT Mgr: Schoofer, con K Printeo 10/20/971:44 21 )!Nr "'"" "" V N ~ "
Page 1 of ~2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0345 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
=c cnmn. w. =na
- O O
5 o.i.:
SL Corm ems:
a>
i V
4 F
Pnnted 10/2G971.44 26 PM Page 2 of 2
9 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N, DR-MP3 0344 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID
. Review Element: System Deegn p,gg g,,
Diecipline: Mechancel Deegn.
O Ya Discrepency Type: Component Date gg s, _7.-- =9 QSs NRC C-m levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
4 Date Published:
. 4 FSAR Table 6.2-65 is inconsistent w/ 3DBS-NSS-002 for closure time of valves 3QSS*MOV34A,B.
Dacription: FSAR Table 6.2-65 Sheet 7 shows a required closure time for containment isolation valves 3QSS*MOV34A and 3QSS*MOV348 of less than 30 seconds. Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) 3DBS-NSS-002 Revision 0, Section 12,5,1,3, shows a required closure time for the same valve of less than or equal to 40 seconds These values are inconsistent with each other. However, both the FSAR and DBSD requirements are satisfied by the design specification for the valves,2362.200164 through Addendum 1 which shows a field adjustable closure time of approximately 30 seconds.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Femgold, D J.
G O
O 1515S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
C 1W1397 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
'S'SS7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O iwines7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU7 O Yes
@ No Non Discrepent Conddion O Yes 91 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptelde Needed Date VT Leed: Non, Anthony A bT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Conwnents:
Pnnted 10GGS71:46 07 FM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0344 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: System DR VALID 3
Potential Operability issue Discipline: Pong Desagn Om Diecropency Type: Calculaten g3 System /Proceas: SWP
~
NRC "'7"we level:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published.
F--
4 Evaluation of SWP Root valve pipin0 configuration for V175, 180,924,923 and 224 is duplicated E-.
. In the process of reviewing the following calculations, (1) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-417 XD, Rev 0,4/3/84 (2) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 28-V175, Rev 4,10/18/96 (3) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 28-V180, Rev 4,10/18/96 (4) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP-32S-V924, Rev 2,4/20/93 (5) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 31 A V923. Rev 2,4/26/93 (6) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 97 V224, Rev 1,10/4/85 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Pipe stress analysis calculation (1) evaluates the root valve piping configurations for SWP valves V175,V180,V924,V923 and V224. Although included in the calculation, SWP valves V180 and V224 are not included in the title block of calculation (1)
More recently, root valve piping configurations addressed by stress analysis calculation (1) have been evaluated individually by calculations (2-6).
Discrepancy:
It is not clear why the root valve configurations addressed by calculation (1) have also been evaluated by calculations (2-6), If the new calculations (2-6) supersede (1), then calculation (1) should be voided, Review valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, Rameen D G
O O
'o'257 VT Lead: Non, Anthony A
[.
[
[
10/7/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer Don K O
O O
10'1 *'7 1RC Chmn: Singn, Anand K O
O O
10' 7S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by Nu7 Q Yes O' No Non Discrepent Condrtion Q Yes
- 1 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
O O
O
-....m Pnnted 10/20,971.53.19 PM '
Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0364 Millstone unit 3
- Discrepancy Report
. - =.,. -. _, -
VT Mort Schopfer. Don K O
O IRC Chmn: S@, Anand K O
O O
O R
om.:
sL Comments:
'o Pnnted 10/20/97153 24 PM Pap 2 of 2 l
l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 0370 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Ofoup: System DR VALID Review Element: System Desagn p
g Discip46ne: Pipeng Deeegn Om Discrepancy Type: calculaten gg systerWProcess: RSs NRC signif6cence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Descrepency: Safety factors used for potentially non conforming welds may be unconservative N -- In the process of reviewing the following documents, (I) Calculation No. 79 236 397GP, Rev. 01, Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Embedded Containment Sump Une (ii) SDP RSS-01361M3,Rev. 04,5/29/97 Stress Data Packa0e, RSS and the additional references (iii) Newman and Raju, " Stress-Intensity Factors for Intemal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", Transactions of ASME, Vol.102, November 1980.
(iv) G.C.Sih, " Handbook of Stress intensity Factors", Institute of Fracture and Solid Mechanics, Lehigh University,1973, we note the following:
Background:
- 1) Calculation 79-238-397GP,(i), is based on the formulations provided by Newman, reference (iii), for the Applied Stress Intensity, Kl. On page 4 it is noted that: "This solution is valid to at least 90% through wall [ defects]..."
The initial condition assumed for the evaluation is a 95% through wall defect which would have passed the initial hydro pressure test.
2)Furthermore, assumDtion 2) on page 12 acknowledges that "At 95% they 'the solution) may no onger be very accurate" and
".. substantial errors in the calct'4ation of fatigue growth would not change the conclusions."
3)The final acceptance of this condition is not based on demonstration that the end of design life condition satisfies the original design basis (ASME lil) but rather that the computed safety factors are comparable to those implied by the ASME Code. The computed safety factor is 3.0 whereas the stated safety factor implied by ASME Sectior, XI is 3.2.
Discussion:
Based on a review of reference (iii), we believe the limits of the Newman formulation are 80%, a defect with an att ratio (crack depth to wall thickness) of 0.8.
Pnnted 10/20/97154 21 PM Page 1 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0370 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Therefore, the a4 ratio (0.95) exceeds the limitation of the Kl stress intensity factor formula, it is our opinion that it rnay not be conservative to use the formula for this higher alt ratio. This conclusion is based on a calculation using the Kl formula provided by Sih's Handbook (reference Iv) for an edge crack on a finite width plate subject to tension loading.
Comparing the results of these two formulations yields the following; The ratio of Newman's Kl values for a/t=0.95 and alt =0.8 is 1.845 The ratio of Sih's Kl Values for alt =0.95 and ah'=0.8 is 9.035 Therefore, the potential for a lower value of Kl will under predict the value of crack growth per load cycle, da/CN, by the difference in KI to the power 3.25.
It is also noted that the calculation identifies the design conditions for the affeded piping as 235 degrees F, whereas the SDP (reference li) identifies the maximum operating and design temperatures as 257 degrees F and 260 degrees F, respectively. This will have a nominal influence on the values for Flow Stress (collapse) and KIC used.
Discrepancy:
The formulation used to calc'Jlate crack growth rates may be unconservative forthe postulated alt ratio of 0.95 when compared to other methods. A higher growth rate would result in a lower safety factor than predicted and less than the stated safety factor implied by ASME Section XI.
Review Valid invaled Needed Date Init6ator: Otson. P.R-O O
O 50<2.s7 VT Lead: Non. Anthony A g
Q Q
10r1G57 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K g
Q Q
10/1497 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K G
O O
ioria/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identarted by Nu? O Yes
? No Non Descrepent condition U Yes
() No Review cceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Nen. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoofer. Don K 19C Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
Pnnted 10/2G9' 1:54.27 PM Page 2 of 3
Northert Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0370 0
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Comments:
4 Pnnted 10/20/97154 30 PM Pay 3 d 3
t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0374 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oroup: symem onvAuo Review Element: system Desagn g
06scipline: Peng Desagn Diecrepancy Type: Calculeton Ow systemProcese: RSS g
NRC signWicance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.
W. os ASME Code edition specified in NUPIPE stress analysis is E
^
inconsistent with design criteria In the process of reviewing the following documents, (i) FSAR Section 3.98.1.4.1 Seismic Analysis Methods Piping Systems (II) Pipe Stress Analysis Criteria Document, NETM-44, Revision 2 (ill) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X900 XD Rev 1 CCN's 1 to 4 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Accortfing to (i): The procedure used for modeling of Seismic Category I ASME Code Class 1,2 and 3 piping systems and the analytical methods employed for pipe stress analysis comply with ASME lil Subsections NB, NC, ND (1971 through Summer 1973 addenda) and Appendix F.
According to (ii): All Safety Related, QA Category 1, ASME Class 1,2 and 3 piping is designed to meet the requirements of ASME B&PV Code Section ill,1971 edition, including addenda through Summer 1973.
According to (iii): The code spechied in general control for NUPIPE analysis is 1977 edition, winter 1978 addenda, or 31,1 Power Piping, post summer 1973 addenda. The same edition is specified in all NUPIPE analyses in the scope or review.
One difference between the 1971 code and the 1977 code is the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) for Socket welded fittings -
(1.3 in the 1971 code, and 2.1 in the 1977 code).
In (iii), the NUPIPE analysis for Model-B uses an SIF of 1.3 at one end (NP 385) of valve 3RSS*V67 and 2.1 at the other end (NP 395). The NUPIPE analysis for Model-A uses an SIF of 1.3 at one (NP 185) of valve 3RSS*V66, and no SIF at the other end (NP 195).
Discrepancy:
The ASME code edition used in the computer analyses is not consistent with the edition specified in the licensing documents, in the case of (iii), SIF values from both codes are used.
Pnnted 10/20971:s5:11 PM Page 1 of 2
Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 0374 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Although the use of SIF values from the later code edition is conservative in this case, a full reconcillation between the two codes is not documented in the design criteria document (ii), nor in the pipe stress calculations.
No SIF is applied at the downstream socket welded end of valve 3RSS*V66 (NP 195).
Rev6ew Valid levetid Needed Date initiator: Prehosh, A.
O O
O 15257 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
1$757 VT Mgr: Scho#er, Don K G
O O
151'57 iP!C Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 151747 Date:
INVALID:
~
Dete:
RESOLUTION, Previously identined by NU7 Q Yes (G) No Non 06screpent Conditicm Q Yes (9) No Review F-- " ": Not '-- 7 " ~ Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
EL Commenta:
Pnnted 10/ZW71:5517 PM Page 2 of 2
Northe:stIJtilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0379 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Sysken DR VALlO FWn6el Operabady lseus Diecipline: Mechancal Desvgn O ve D6ecrepency Type: Componert Data g g, systen#rocess: HvX NRC sigreence level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Put:46ehed:
N-
- Y
- SLCRS Vent Stactilsohtion Valve Clrissification D**cr$ anon: During review of the component data for the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) a discreparicy regarding the safety classification of valve 3HVRN42. Valve 3HVRN42 is an isolation valve located in the SLCRS discharge line at the Unit i Vent Stack.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.1 states that the SLCRS is classified as a QA Category 1, Safety Class 3, and Selsmic Category 1 system.
The Plant Design Data System (PDDS) database identifies valve 3HVRN42 es a QA Category 2 component. The PMMS database identifies valve 3HVR*V042 as a QA Category 1 Seismic component.
Specification 2190.430 339 Addendum No. 3 identifies valve 3HVR V42A as a 18" ASME Section 111, Class 3 butterfly valve located in the Unit i Ver't Stack. Vendor drawing 2179.430-339 103C identifies valve 3HVRN42 as Nuclear Safety Related 18" butterfly valve, PDDS shows a valve description # of W1015 B-4 for 3HVRN42.
This valve description number is not identified in specification
-2190.430-339.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inttiator: Stout, M D.
O O
O
- S7 VT Lead: Non, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10m 97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K G
O O
10/1'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10/4 97 I
Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identified by NU?
. Yes
?' No Non Discrepant Condition s Yes
?) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nen. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sqh. Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/20/971:56 03 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 41343 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Desagn p
p, Diecipline: Piping Desag" Discrepency Type: Calculation O va system &receos: SWP gg NRC signiecence levet: 3 Date fared to NU:
Date Putnished:
h, n. Pipe stress analysis does not utilize latest design input r
E e During the review of service water piping calculations (1) 12179-NP(B) X1902 Rev 5 (1012179-NP(F)-918-XD Rev 2 CCN 5 (11!) 12179-NP(F) 788 XD Rev 0, CCN 6 1
(iv) 12179-NP(F) 10033 XD Rev 0, CCN 4 (v) 12179-SDP SWP Rev 10, dated 5/23/97 we noted the fol'owing discrepancies:
Pipe stress calculations (1) thru (iv) are performed using design input from a superseded Stress Data Packago (SDP) calculation.
The current version of the SDP is Rev 10 (v). Calculations (l) thru (iii) are based on Rev 9 of the SDP, while calculation (iv) is based on Rev 8.
The operating temperature used in pipe stress calculations (i) &
(ii) is 105 deg F, while the revised oper3 ting temperature for conditions 3,10,11 and 14, acecrdh3 to (v), is 125 deo F. The operating temperature used in calculation (iii) is 95 deg F & in (iv) is 110 deg F, while the revised operating temperature for condition 14, according to (v), is 190 deg F.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Jaan, R. C-G O
O
'0/3 S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
10/7/97 VT Mge: Schepfer, Don K O
O O
10' 'S7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
'S'17/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by Nu7 Q Yes
- No Non Discrepant Condition U Yes
- )
No Review In m % W Acceptable Not Acceptatale Needed Date VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, oon K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnents:
Pnnted 10/2G971:59 32 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR MP3 0344 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revhrw Oroup: Syelem DR VAUD Review Element: Sye'vn Desagn g
gy %
Diecipline: Piping Dosagn -
Ow
'"+: -.;r Type: C*%
(g g system @rocese: SWP NRC signiscence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Done Puheehad.
-,. Small bore calculation does not refM the latest header movements from large bore piping analysis.
P^
In the process of review 6ng the calculation no.12179 NP(B)-
X9904, it was noted that calculation utilizes header displacements and accelerations from revision 0 of the large bore piping analysis 12179-NP(B) X1903.
The current revision of the large bore piping calculation is revision 3. The small bore calculation 12179-NP(B)-X9904, REV. 3, CCN #2 has not been updated to incorporate the latest header displacements and accelerations.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Singh, R.
O O
O 1o*'7 VT Leed: Non, Arthony A B
D 0
tWr/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
O
'0/5 *'7 IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K Q
O O
10/57/87 Dele:
INVAUO; Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identiAed by Nu? O Yee i91 No Non Discrepent Condetion Q Yes @ No Review
_Cr,"
Net ^ ^'~ ^"- Needed Date VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Sangn, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnents:
Printed 10/2097 2:00:10 PM Page 1 or 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP34392 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Deegn Diecipline: Mechenecel Doogn O Ya Discrepancy Type: Calcuesten g' g SystenWProceae: SWP NRC sign 4Acence level: 4 Date faxed to NU-Date Puhushed.
E in Design document to calculations was noted to not be a valid calculation number by NU.
En.
Calculation )OOOO( 36-PS,
- Calculation of the Atmospheric Pressure which Coincides with Minimum Low Water Level at Millstone Station", dated 11/10/92 was referenced as a design input to calculations 90-0691065 M3 and FSE/SS NEU-1964, The referenced calc. number )0000( 36 PS was deemed as not being a valid calc. number by M3-IRF 00428.
Review Valid invahd Needed Dale inellator: Deonne. B. J.
8 O
O 10SS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
10/7/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
'o/1**7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1897 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identiflod by Nu? O Yes (G1 No Non D4ecrepent Condstion O Yee JG) No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gn g g VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Dele:
SL Conwnents:
Pnnted 1GM7 2 00 59 Pi)
Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34393 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALIO Reh Element: Syetem Dee4gn g
Diecipione: Pipin0 Dee'9" Om D6ecrepancy Type: calcu6aten
@ No system 9tocese: R$s NRC "7' me level: 4 Date FW to NU:
Date Pubilehed:
C i; inconsistencies in stress analysis of valve encapsulation Deecripeten: In the process of reviewing the following calculations, (1) 12179-NM(B) 20-JE Rev 0, dated 4/8/77 (ii)12179-NP(F).X7925 Rev 2, CCN 6, dated 10/18/96 N
0 t we noted the following discrepancies:
Background; Calculation (i)is the stress analysis of the encapsulation arrangement for valves RSS*MOV23A thru D. The encapsulallon 15 provided to prevent leakage of radioactive water in the emergency safeguard area.
Discrepancies:
Calculation (i) uses input from pipe stress analysis group (thermal and seismic loads). No reference is provided for the source of this input. This input has not been updated to reflect the latest stless analysis calculation (ii) despite the fact that the current loads in (ii) exceed the loads used in calculation (1).
For detail evaluation of embedment design under combined thermal and seismic loads, calculation (i) on page 56 refers to Appendix 2. No Appendix 2 is attached to the calculation.
The loads shown on page 29 are derived from the loads shown on page 58. The difference between the two sets of loads is a coordinate axis rotation. The load transfer is numerically inconsistent with the shown rotation angle and the coordinate axes.
Review Valid Invahd Needed Date Initiator: Prakash. A.
O O
O io<ess7 VT Lead: Non, Antnony A g
O O
10/E97 VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K Q
Q 10/1497 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
' o7/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
pygggyyg % ' y iwi Vws
^ iw iwi Li
..v.idCo.wovu Yw=
i Pah Nf 2 v
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR.MP3 0393 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report a v = =y-m
..a.y -r v1
.u m-v r..
Review Acceptatde Not Acceptande Needed Date gg; O
O O
VT Lead: Nort, Anttany A VT Mgr! Schopfer, Don K NtC Chmn: S% Anand K Date:
SL Comnents:
Pnnted 10/20/97 2.01:54 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0395 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DM VAlso Review Element: System Desagn Diecipl6ne: Mechenecel Dee gn O va Diacropency Type: Calculetson gg systemProceae: SWP NRC sientacance level:4 Deh faxed h NU:
Date Putdiohed-P-
-6 Calculation 95-ting 1177 M3 rev. O and CCN 01 incorrectly supersedes portions of other calculations.
Calculation 95-ENG-1177.M3 is adually a setpoint calculation to verify the SW Ir.:et temperature to maintain the maximum SW outlet temperature of 95'F from 3HVK*CHL1 A & B. This calculation incorrectly superseded portions of calculations 90-069-1130-M3 rev. O CCN 01,90-069-1065-M3 rev. O CCN 01,90-0691116-M3 rev. O CCN 01.
The calculation (95-ENG 1177 M3) does not prov4a design basis information as it is being used in the above mentioned (3) calculations. This calculation supersedes, in calculation 90-069-1130-M3 design information that caic. 95-ENG 1177 M3 uses as design input.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date init6eter: Donne 8.J.
8 O
O 10/a7 VT Laod: Nort, Anthony A y
Q Q
107/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K 8
O O
0/14/S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Ar.end K 8
O O
1oria/s7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 6ously idenhaed by Nu? O Yee
- 1 No Non D6ecrepent Condition Q Yee tGI No Review initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Nen. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Sogn, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/20/97 2 0417 PM Page 1 of 1 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N:. DR MP3 0403 Millstone Unit 3 -
Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VALlO Review Element: Syenem Desagn Di.cipiin.: usa-.i D '
O vee Discrepancy Type: Componert Data
@ No systemfProcoes: RSs NRC signiacase im6:(
Dale FAAed to NU:
Dese putdished:
N
- -ri FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.5 regarding check valve design is inconsistent w/ valve draw 6ngs & specs.
Descripuaa: 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. Containment recirculation system components are coscribed in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core coooling system.
According to drawings and specifications, containment recirculation system check valves 3RSSNO35 and 3RSSN036 are nominal 10 and 12 inch swing type check valves as follows:
Component Size Type Reference 3RSSNO35 8*
swing type drawing 2282.050-676-126 3RSSNO36 Revision B specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 3RSSN003 12" swing type drawing 2282.050-153-036 Revision A 3RSSN006 specification 2282.050-153 3RSSN009 through Revision A 3RSSN012 Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Femgold. O, J.
G O
O
$$1257 VT Lead: Non, Anthony A g
[
[
1W1397 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
'$$'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
10/16,97 Date:
INvAllD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identihed by NU7 Q Yes
'9) No Non Discrepent Condet6on O Yes
- 1 No Faview initiator: (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Non, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoofer, Don K IRC Chmn: Segh, Anano K Pnnted 10/20/97 2.06 21 PM Page 1 of 2
j_
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR44P34403 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report m......
...,. ~ ~ ~ "
O O
O om.:
SL CommeMs:
'o Pnnted 10r20/97 2.06.26 PM Page 2 of 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 4404 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: System DR VALlo Review Element: System Deegn y
gy Diecipline: Mechancel Deegn O Ya Diecrepancy Type: C m
gg systenWProceae: SWP NRC signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puedlehed.
Disc *epancy: Calculation 714P(T) does not completely evaluate the design pressure of the Serv!ce Water System.
M.-
Calculation 714P(T) rev. O through CCN 02, " Service Water System Design Pressure", does not calculate or reference all of the design pressures of the piping in the SWS as the title and purpose dictate. The calculation does not address the portions of the SWS that have a design pressure of 145 psig or 97 psig.
No other calculations could be found to justify the 145 psig and DR MP3-0398 should be referenced regarding the 97 psig.
CCN 02 for this calculation is incomplete. The description of change & technincal justification section (section 6) is left with an incomplete statement (partially complete sentence) to justify the change noted. Also, reference 3 of this CCN does not contain a valid calculation number as stated.
Revi'*
Valid invalid Needed Date initleter: Denne, B. J.
G O
O 50
- S7 VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
50'10'S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
'or1'1'7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
orisio7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by Nu? O Yes :9) No Non Descrepent Condition Q Yes
- 1 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/20/97 2.07.09 PM Pege 1 of 1
___m_____
Northeart Utilities ICAVP Dr Nr. DR-MP3 4406 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Deegn p
Discipiene: I & C Desgn O Ya Discrepancy Type: Liceneang Document g' g bystemerocess: QSS NRC Significence level: 4 Date FW to NU:
Date Puheehed:
C
-i; RWST fluid temperature instrument on design drawings does not agree with the FSAR requirements E
. = Per FSAR sodion 6.3.5.1 (listed as system requirements # REQ.
MP3-QSS-0576), fluid temperature in the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) is recorded in the control room, o o Per P&lD EM 115A.Rev.18; and test loop diagrams 3QSS-020, Rev.4, 3QSS-023, Rev,4, &3QSS 038, Rev. 3, there is no RWST fluid temperature recorder provided in the control room,
- Revw, Valid invand Needed Date initiator: Hruhe,R.
G O
O 105S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A
[
[
[
10/1Q97 VT Mer: Schefer, Don K G
O O
1or1*S7 1RC Clann: Sangh, Anand K G
O O
1 S'17/87 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION Prev 6ously identif6ed by NU? O Yes tei No Non Discrepent Condation Q Yes
- 48) No Review Initiator: (none)
VT Leed: Non, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 3RC Chmn: Segh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 10397 2 07.53 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utliities.
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0404 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VALID Review Element: System Dee80n y
Diecipline: Mechancel Deegn O Yee D6ecroponey Type: Component Data M No system 9rocess: HVX
'~
NRC signiacance level: 3 Dale faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed:
Eri SLCRS Duct Construdion hw Daring review of the Supplementary Leak Colledion and Release System (SLCRS) C.e following discrepancy was identified regarding the SLCRS dudwork construction.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.4 states that the SLCRS duct is of all-welded construction, Per Specification 2170.430 565 page 218, the SLCRS ductwork is construction dass SXH-LL with the exception of the ductwork upstream of the filters below auxiliary building elevation 66'-6" and SLCRS duct in ESF building which is construction dass SH-LL. On page 2 33 of the spedfication it states that SXH ductwork sha; be all welded construction and companion angle flanged transverse joints shall have the flange intemally seal welded to the duct On page 2-24 of the spectification it states that SH construction dass ductwork shall be in accordance with SMACNA High Pressure Duct Construction Standards. The specification does not require dass SH ductwork to be all welded.
Review Valid inveM Needed Date initletor: Stout, M. D.
Q Q
Q 10/697 VT Lead: Nort, Antnony A 6
O O
'o/7'S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
o'14'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
Oriars7 o.i.:
INVAL10:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by Nu? O Yes G) No Non Diecrepent Condition O Yes JG) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schoofer, Don K IRC Chmn: Smgh, Anand K.
Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/20/97 2.1157 PM Page 1 of 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP34410 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oroup: Syulom DR VAUD Review Element: Syelem Desen D6ecipl6ne: Enwonmnental Quahreaten Discrepency Type: ComponeN Date O
systemerocese: SWP
,g NRC sign 6Acence level: 4 Date faxed D NU:
Date Putnished.
m Specification Discropsincy P
The computerized databases PMMS, PDDS, and The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (MS-EE-0353. ReV.
2, Appendix I) show that the ASCO Tri-Pt Pressure switches 3SWP.FS$9A3,83, C3, D3 are safety-related equipment. They show that the Procurement Specification for these switches is Specification No. 2472.510426.
However, the Procurement Specification No 2472.510-626 does not contain Data Sheets for these components.
Review Valid invei6d Needed Date inst 6etor: Yeeem. S.
G O
O
'o'$ 3/87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
10/135'7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 0
0 10/1557 IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K G
O O
10/1ES7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION, Previously Identifled by NU? O Yes e) No Non Diacropont Condst6on C) Yes T No Rev6ew inettator: (none)
VT Lead: Non, Anthony A VT Mgr:- Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Conwnente:
Pnnted 10,%97 2.09 06 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0422 Millstoa Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroup: System DR VALID Rev6ew riement: System Des 9n Diecipime: Enwonmnental Qualirication Potentialoperabniny issue Discrepancy Type: Componert Data O vee Systemerocese: css j~ ) g, NRC signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pued6ehed:
F- - my Components Model Number Discrepancy in Databases and Specifications De*cr$ tion: The review of Millstone Unit 3 databases PDDS, the Electrical P
Equipment Qualification (EEQ) l Aaster List (M3-EE 0353, Rev.
2, Appendix I), and the Procurement Specification 2472.510-662 shows different model numbers for the same components.
in both the EEQ Master List and the ProCuremer t Specification't Datasheet of the pressure transmitter 3QSS*LT930 (Page 2 26),
the model number is shown as Rosemount 1153DB6PC.
The model number of the same component in ine database PDDS is listed as Rosemount 1153DB6N0009.
As for pressure transmitters 30SS*LT931,932,933 the EEQ Master List shows that the model aumber is 1153DB6PC, the PDDS lists it as 1153DB6N0009, and the Procurement Specification datasheet (page 2 27) shows the model number for the same transmitters as 1153DB6.
Review Valid invol6d Needed Date initiator: yeesin, s.
O O
O
'n'SS7 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A O
O O
insS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
1*aS7 IRC Chmn: S6ngh, Anand K Q
O O
1wiaS7 Dei.:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previour'y identified by Nu? O yes o' No Non Discrepent Condd6on
() Yes
- 8 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date insttator: (none)
VT Lead: Nett, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don g O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K b
b Date:
SL Conrnents:
i Pnn:ed 1o397 212 35 PM
Northeast Utilities ICAVP
- DR No. DR MP34423 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Reviewaroup syvem DRvAuo Review Element: System Deegn Diecipune: Erwironmnenw ou*#***
O Y=
ti ; my Typet Component Date gg eyeeempressee: Ras NRC sientacerse level: 4 Does faxed to NU:
DatePuWiehed:
~
4 Components Model Number D6ecrepancy in Databesos and Specifications Deseripeten: The review of Millstone Unit 3 databases PDDS, the Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEO) Master List (M3-EE 0353 Rev.
2, Appendix I), and the Procurement Spoolf6 cation 2472.510462 shows different model numbers for the same components, in the EEQ Master List and the Procurement Specification's Datasheet of the pressure tronomitter 3R88'PT25A,B,C,D (Pages 2 7,2 8), the model number is shown as Rosemount 1153GB7.
The model number of the same component in the database PDDS is listed as Rosemount 1153DB6N0009. In the EEQ Master List the pressure transmitters' model number is shown as 1153GB7PC, For the Limitorque Motor Operators 3RSS*MV8837A,B, and 3RSSMV88',5A,8 the model number in the database PDDS is stated as $8-015, while in the EEQ Master List shows the model for the Motor Operators as SS-00.
For pressure transmitters 3 MSS *PT534,535 the EEQ Master List shows that the model number is 1153GB9PC, while the PDOS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.
Asto, for pressure transmitters 3RCS*PT457,458 the EEQ Master List shows that the model number is 1154GP9RC, while the PDDS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.
Review vahd invahd Nomied Date inellator: Yeoesn. S.
g Q
Q 10'697 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A g
Q Q
10997 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
10/1491 IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K Q
Q Q
10't&97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
REsDLUTION:
Previously identaried by NU7 O Yes e1 No Non Discrepent Cot 4st6on O Yes 88 No Reykw Accepteble Not Acceptable Needed Date inh W VT Leed: Non, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Cin n: Singh, Anand K g
Dete:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 107097 41315 PM Page 1 of 1
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP34430 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repurt nev6.w oroup: syNem DnvAuo nev6.w siement: syvem Dee,n D6ec6pline: Erwtavnnentel Ouehrcat' "
O Ya D6ecrepancy Type: ComponenI Dete
@ No systemerecese: R$s NRC signiacense level: 4 Date faxed k Nu Date Puhitehed:
E
-ri Procurement Specification Discrepency neewlpeten: The Millstone computerized databases PDDS and The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master Ust (M3-EE 0353, Rev.
2, Appendix l) show that the Rosemount Pressure Switches 3RCS*PT457, and 3RCS*PT458 are safety related (Class 1E) equipment, The databases also show that the Procurement Specification Number for these components is 2472.510462.
Our review shows that the data sheets for the above mentioned components are not included in the Procurement Specification, nev6.w vand invand Needed Date inteleter Yeeem, s.
O O
O 5W1257 vr L.ed: Nort Armear A O
O O
55
- vim rs sch peer Den x 0
0 0
'*1557 e
inc Chmn: singn Aneralx g
g g
tW1we7 Dele:
10/13/97 16NAuD:
Dese:
Resolution:
PfevWeely identined by Nu? O Yes
'e) No Non D6ecrepent Condaion Q Yes 4) No Review Acceptatdo foot Acceptable Needed Dele inn W M O
O O
VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A VT Mgt: schopter. Don K
]
iRc chmn: snen An.nd x i
D.
SL Cortments:
Printed 10.%97 2.15 31 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR Mp3 4441 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System 0eesen p
g Diec6pime: h Doogn 4 v,,
Discrepency Type: ComporJ8 Date Om systoneProcess: HVX NRC s? J" = level 3 Date faxed to Nut Does Puhe6ehet C.
- SLCR8 Filter Unit Profiner Deser48 tea: During rev6ew of the componord data for the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/S discrepancies regarding the profiners were identified.
'o FSAR Sedion 6.2.3.2 states that each filter bank includes a moisture separater, electric heater, profilter, upstream HEPA filter, a charcoal adsort er, and downstream HEPA filter.
FSAR Sedlon 6.5.1 states that the supplementary leak collection and release system is classified as an ESF filter system.
FSAR Table 3.21 states that the SLCRS filter trains are in accordance with ANSI N509. ANSI N5091976 Section 4.1 states that profilters are required in ESF units.
FSAR Table 6.51 states that the SLCRS is in compliance with Regula'ory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.2.a for sequence of filter elements and posi' ion C.2.c regarding prefilter design, construction, and testing. FSAR Table 1.81 does not take exception to these Regulatory Guide positions. Regulatory Guide 1.52 Rev. 2 position C.2.a states that the systems should consist of the following sequential components: (1) demisters, (2) profilters (demisters may serve this function), (3) HEPA filters before the adsorbers, (4) iodine adsorbers, (5) HEPA filters after the adsorbers.
Vendor drawing 2170.430 065-022D shows the prefilters in the SLCRS filter units.
P&lD EM 148E 10 does not show the prefilter as one of the components in the SLCRS filter units. NU has stated in M3-lRF-00398 that no design document exists for the deletion of the prefilter because it was deleted during design development by SWEC in the 19821983 time frame. T he reason was to reduce system pressure to the capability of the fans. AWOs M3-86 10989 and M3-88-10 17 document the removal of the prefilters for SLCRS filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B.
Rev6ew Val 6d inval6d Needed Date initletor: Stout. M 0-O O
O
'SSS7 VT Leed: Neft Anthony A Q
Q Q
109,97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
10/1497 inC Chmn: Singh Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1897 Date:
Pnnted 10/2097 216 22 PMAum Page 1 of 2
=_
__.._.___m__
\\
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR44P34441 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report INVAuo:
J Date:
RESOLUTION:
i
]
N-/ W idonellied by NUF Q Yee @ No Non F,;' Conselleen Q Yes @ No l
Review Wh k AcceptaWe Needed Date j
bdelsters (none)
O 3
f VT Laod: Nort, Anthony A VT % Schopfer Don K 0
i IftC Chmnt 84, Anand K O
b i
-O a
Date:
SL Canonesas:
1 i
f t
l 1
.f I
a 4
(
I i
I i
I a
I 1
1 j
4 Pnnted 10,397 216 27 PM Page 2 of 2
., ~. - _. _ _ _.. _ - _ _ _ _., _.. _.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 0441 Millstone und 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Orcup: syetem DR VAUD Review siement: Cro6em Desden p
Dieeipiire: Mecheruced D,"
O Yee Discrepeney Type: Cahmelsen g3 g systenWProcess: SWP
]
W Signiseenee W: 4 Date faxed le NU:
a i
b Mi l
i
. -,i Calculat6on P(R) 115) has been superceded but the runrudasian
~
has not been identifled as superceded 4
S.
Calculat60n P(R)1194,'ESF Bide Flood Study: Maximum Flood i
Height in the ESF Bldg due to a Pipe Break,* Indicates on the original Rev. O cover page that it supercedes calculation j
P(R)1157, *ESF Building Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in ESF Building due to Pipe Break.' Calculation P(R)1157 (the j
document itsoff) has not been marked as ' void" or " superceded.'
Review Ved levetid Needed Oste instieter: Launt. C. M.
O O
1 o**7 YTLead: Nort, Anthony A C
IW1147 VT Mgr schapter. Den K c
O i*15*7 l
1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q
O iar$ **7 i
4 a
nese.
oNAUD:
1 7
Dees:
1 RssOLUTION:
~
Provtously identened try Nu? U Yes
- 48) No Non Discrepent Conestion Q Yes
'9) No j
Review 4
leister (none) l VT Lees: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgri ScNefer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Date:
SL Conwnente:
r 9
i
}
i 4
Pnnted 10QQS7 23 22 PM Page 1 of 1 i
e w-m a e w,--
r---,,
-w--
-~
e w
w--
,-w-,--
--,,sv,ww---v
--w-,n
-m v ry-r-r-v-,
Northeast Util6tles ICAVP -
DR N3. DR MP3 0482 Millstone urM 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review ElemovW: System Deegn g
(%cipune MechencelDoogn O va 06ecrepency Type: Drewl.g gg SystemPrecese: sWP NRC signNVAnce level: 4 Deh FAlkd k NU:
Date Puhitehed:
E w Safety Related Components in PDDS Not Shown on P&lD L.
The following safety related components are listed in PDDS but not found on P&lD EM 133A, B, C, or D:
38WP*V684 3SWP*V687 8,
38WP*V927 38WP*V928 38WP*STR4A 38WP*STR48
. The only additional information found regarding the above was a notation in PDDS that 3SWP*V927 and 928 are ' abandoned in place
- However, if they are still part of the SWP pressure boundary, they should still be showr. on the P&lD as these are check Valves, in addition, it is noted that two lines are shown on EM 133D with incorTed size designation - line numbtrs 256 and 257 are shown as 3 inch and should be 30 inch.
Rev6ew Valid inveild Needed Date initiator: Tonww*st, J. L Q
Q Q
1W997 VT Lese: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
55117 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
$$$a7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
10/1 " 7 Dei.:
INVALID:
Date:
Ret M.UTION:
Prov60ualy identined by NUF Q Yes
- 9) No Non D6ecrepent Condst6on O Yes Si No Rev6ew AccePtoble Not Acceptable Needed Date In h M O
O O
VT Lead: Non, Anthony A VT Mer Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Srgh, Anand K Date:
SL Conynente:
Pnnled 10/2097 2.21:03 PM Pope 1 of 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4457 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: System DR VAUD Rev6ew Element: Syelem Doegn g
Diecipline: Mechancel Doeg" O Ya Diecrepency Type: Chm (b No syenewpreseen: sWP NRC signiacense novel: 4 Date FAAed le NU:
Date Puhelehed:
Calculation W3 517 366-RE, Rev 0 has a cormat of status.
-1 Deemiption: Calculation W3 5171105-RE, Rev 1. CCN#1 states that it supersedes calculation WS 517 366 RE, Rev 0. However, calculation W3 517 366-RE, Rev 0 is not start ad
- SUPERSEDED
- and is 1lll shown as active in the Millstone Document Database,
's Review vand imend w.Jed Does inmeien cienne,s.s.
O O
O 5* o'7 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A G
O O
' *11/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
$$1557 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B
O O
$$$857 Date:
IDNAUD:
Date:
RssoLUTKW:
Provtously idenused by NUF Q Yes
<G) No Non Discrepent Condsuon U Yee tGJ No Revtow Acceptable Not A ---; ^ -- Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Dele:
SL Cortunente:
Pnnted 172G97 2.21:41 PM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Nu. DR4AP3 0489 Miiistone unit s Discrepancy Report Review oroup: System DR VALID Revlow Element: System Doeden g
Diecipline: Mechanced Deeg" Ow Diecrepency Type: componed Date gg systenWProcese: HVX NRC signeAcanos twet: 4 Date faxed le NU:
Date Pubilohed:
~
.i SLCMS and A8VS finer unt preneurs efferentialindicating switches Desertplien: During review of the Supplemortary Leek Collection and Release System (SLCRS) flMor units 3HVRTLT3NS and the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS) filter units 3HVRTLT1 A/S a discrepancy regarding which, filter sodions are provided with pressure differential indicating switchas was identified.
FSAR Sedion 6.5.1.5 states that s. local pressure differential Indicating switch is installed across each filter element including the heater.
Drowings EM 148E. ES-45H,2170.430-065-022D, and 2170.430-065 2180 do not show a separate pressure differential Indicating switch for the elodric heater in filter tinits 3HVRTLT3NS Drawings EM 148A, EB-45G,2170.430-065 023C and 2170.430-065 252A do not show a separate pressure differential indicating switch for the electric heater in filter units 3HVRTLT1 A/8 Rev6ew Valid invalid Neeeed Date laitieten Stout, M. D.
O O
O 151587 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A G
O O
1$11/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
1W1597 IRC Chne: $4ngh, Anand K Q
Q Q
1Wi&97 Date:
INVAllO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identined by NU7 Q Yee el No Non Discrepent Conddion C) Yee o) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Oste inMW M VT Lead: Non. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
SL cormwrde:
Pnreed 1W2097 2.22:29 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34449 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oteup: Confgurenan DR VAUD Rev6ew flament: Moorkehan instehothan Diecipline: Pigeng Design O v.
Discrepancy Typet inetonemen tergdemorenuon gg System 9tooses: QS8 NRC Signiemenee Imd: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puhitehed:
~
- i. Modecation DCR MS 90066 Modmoetion to Q88 pipe support Deseriposa: Pipe supsett S.QSS4 PS8T000 Shown on drawing 127268Z.
798 30 ReV 4 contains a rl ld strut with the pin to pin dimension 0
shown on the drawing to be 2ft 21/8 in. This olmension was verified to be 2 ft-9 in, during the welkdown whloh is a differonoe of 6 7/8 in. Spec SP ME.570 Appendix *N'(Pipe Support Field Fabrication and Ersation Toleranose) section 1.6 for Swing Strut Assembly allows a tolerance for the pin to pin dimension of + or.
31/2 in, unless the tolerance is wavled and explicitly documented which it was not on the drawing.
Rev6.w Valid leveled Needed Date initialert Reed,J.W.
Q 10f11/97 VT Laod: Nort. Ardheny A g
Q g
10f11/W7 YTlagri schopfer Den K O
O
'O't " 7 IRC Ctesm: singh, Anand K Q
Q 10fiM7 Date:
IINAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Provteuely neeMeeed by Nu? O Yes
'G_) No Non Diacrepent Condation U Yes @ No Review A--
Not Acceptatde Needed Date g
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A
]
O v7 u n server.Donx e
iRc Chmn: sm. Anana x 0
O Date:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 10/2097 223 27 PM Page 1 of 1
het Me ICAVP DR No. DR MP34470 morm unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rovesw Steup: Opersmene a Meweenance ered Teneng DR VALE Review sternese: Operseg Precedwo PatendolopeM leeue M. ""e* Type: o & M 4 T Presedwo O vee sysemowpossee: swr gg NRo signiesenselevet:4 Dale paned to Nu Dale Puhashed:
Olsesepener: Procedures not in pleos to ensure compilance with Plant Technical Specinoottone, essorspoen: The Technical specifications require inspection of snuthors when their system has emportanced unexpected, potentia #y damating trenelents. The necessary precedures to ensure compliance with this Tech. Spec, were not in pleos at the time of.
this independent review. While this DR is written against SWP.
It does app 6y to as systems.
Technical Specinostion 3/4.7.10d (page 3/4 7 23) states, 'An Inspection shall be performed of all snubbers attached to esctions of systems that have experienced unexpected, potentially dame 06ng transients as determined from a review of operational data and a visual inspection of the systems within 8 months following such an event. In addition to satisfying the visualinspection acceptance artierta, freedom of-motion of mechanical anuhters shau be vertned using at least one of the following: (1) manually induced enubber movement; or (2) evaluation of in place snubber piston setting; or (3) stroking the mechanical snubber throu0h its full range of travel.'
S&t. Request for information, RFI Number MP3 219 was submitted on 7/18/97 requeoling the Snubber Procedure used for Transient Event inspedion to satisfy MF 3 Tecn. Spec. 4.7.10d, pe0e 3/4 7 23.
IRF Response 10 : M3-lRF.00202 stated ' Items 8 and 9 are not addressed by en existing procedure. AR 97019941 requires a new procedure or revised procedure will address these items at a later date'.
Action Request, AR 97019941 was issued on 8/11/97 stating,
" Develop appropriate triggtt to ensure compliance with Technical Specification 4.7.10d which requires st'ubbem to be examined following unexper ed, potentially damaging system iransients within 6 rnonths of the event'.
AR 97019941 was closed per Assignment completion Notes,.
'9/26/t 7: This assignment is closed to AR 97023549 and AR 97023551 which were generated for OPS Department to incorporate trigger into procedure AOP 3570 (Earthquake) and procedure OP 3263 (Unit 3 Duty Officer Actions Following Trip or ESF Activation) to provide Engineering notiilcation to evaluate this applicability of Tech. Spec. 4.7.10d following an event".
Procedures necessary to demonstrate how Millstone Unit 3 personnel satisfy Technical Specification 3/4 7.10d were not in Pnnled 10?aW 2 2416 PM Page 1 or 2
=
l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0403 WHatone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Grose: System DRVAUD Review Element. System Doogn g
D6*c8 Plea *: N D***"
O Yes DE x y Type: componerit Date 4g systemProcese: Rss
~
NRC SON level: 4 Date FM NU:
Dale Pubilohed:
E-
@ FSAR Sect 6on 6.3.2.2.5 regarding check valve design is inconsistent w/ valve drewings & specs.
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. Containment recirculation system components are described in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core coooling system.
According to drawings and specifications, containment recirculation system check valves 3RSSN035 and 3RSSN036 are nominal 10 and 12 inch swing type check valves as follows:
Component Size Type Reference 3RSSN035 8'
swing type drawing 2282.050 676126 3RSSNO36 Revision B specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 3RSSNJ03 12" swing type drawing 2282.050153 036 Revision A 3RSSN006 specification 2282.050153 3RSSN00g through F vision A 3RSSN012 Review Valid invalid Needed De e innietor: Feingold, D. J.
O O
O
' o r -
VT Lead: Non, Anthony A g
Q Q
10/1397 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
10/1'S7 IRC Chrnn: $1ngh, Anand K O
O O
10/15S7 D.ie:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identif4d by Nu? O Yes Si No Non Discrepent Condetkm O Yes
=
IRC Chrru: Segt Anand K Pnnted 10/2097 2 06 21 PM Page 1 of 2
. --, _ ~.
Northsa:t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-C403 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report m......
... ' ~ ~ ~ ' '
O O
O o.i.:
SL Comments:
iI s
DG Pnnted 10'2097 2.06 26 PM Pop 2 of 'd
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0404 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALl0 Review Element: System Deegn g
Diecipline: Mechancel Doogn Diectopency Type: Calculebon O va g
8, _ r.
a swp NRC signiecence levet: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Done Puheished:
. iri Cakulation 714P(T) does not completely evaluate the design pressure of the Service Water System.
f=,
Calculation 714P(T) rev. O through CCN 02, " Service Water System Design Pressure", does not calculate or reference all of the design pressures of the pioing in the SWS as the title and purpose dictate. The calculation does not address the portions of the SWS that have a design pressure of 145 psig or g7 ps4g.
No other calculations could be found to justih the 145 psig and DR MP3 0398 should be referenced regarding the 97 psig.
CCN 02 for this calculation is incomplete. The description of change & technincal justification sodion (section 6) is left with an incomplete statement (partsally complete sentence) to justify the change noted. Also, reference 3 of this CCN does not contain a valid calculation number as stated.
Review Velld invalid Needed Dete initiator: Dennne, 8. J.
9 O
O 1a**7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A g
[
Q 1W1097 VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q 10/1497 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 10/1697 D.ie:
INVAllo:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identined by Nu? O Yes
- 9) No Non Discrepent CondetRm O Yee
- 9) No Rev6ew g
Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: NV, Anthony A VT myr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
s Pnnted 10/2097 2 07.09 PM Page 1 of 1
NortheCat Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0404 Millstone und 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DRVAUD Rev6ew Element: Syelem Doogn y
g, g.
06ecip44ne: I & C Doogn O Ya Discrepency Type: Oceneang Docurrent gg systenvProcese: 0SS NRC s7"we level: 4 Date faxed le NU:
Date Fuhitehed:
. E ri RWST nu6d temperature instrument on design drew 6ngs does not agree with the FSAR requirements E
Per FSAR section 6.3.5.1 (listed as system requirements # REQ.
MP3-QSS-0576), nuid temperature in the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) is recorded in the control room.
Per P&lO EM 115A.Rev.18; and test loop diagrams 3QSS-020, Rev.4,3Q88-023, Rev. 4, &SQSS 038, Rev. 3, there is no RWST nuid temperature recorder provided in the control room.
Revtew venid invalid Needed Date inlanator: Hines. R-O O
O 1o**7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
1510'7 VT Mort Schopfer, Den K O
O O
1514'7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
1W17/s7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Previously identifled by NU7 Q Yet el No Non Discrepent Condition O Yee
'e) No Rev6ew
- -r'"-
Not #= --'i Needed Date VT Lead: Nwt, Anttany A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Srgh Anend K
- e.
sL Comments:
Pnnted 10GO97 2 07.53 PM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34404 o
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR VALIO Revww Elenwwd: Syoiem Deegn g
O Vee Diecrepency type: Component Date g
systemProcess: HVX NRC signiacense levet: 3 Does faxed k NU:
Date Puhashed:
- SLCRS Dud Construction C,
~ During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) the following discrepancy was identined regarding the SLCRS ductwork construction.
FSAR Sedion 6.2.3.4 states that the SLCRS dud is of all-welded construction.
Per Spedfication 2170.430 565 page 218, the SLCRS ductwork
!? construdion class SXH-LL with the exception of the ductwork upstraam of the filters below auxillary building elevation 66' 6' and SLCRS duct in ESf' building which is construction class SH-LL. On page 2 33 of the specification it states that SXH dudwork shall be all welded construction and companion angHi flanged transverse joints shall have the flange intemally seal welded to the dud. On page 2 24 of the spedification it states that SH conswetion class dudwork shall be in accotance with SMACNA High Pressure Dud Construdion Standards. The spedfication does not require class SH ductwork to be all welded.
Rev6.w Yelld inveild Needed Oste initietos: Stout, M. D.
Q Q
Q 1o697 VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
10r1/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
$o'i'S7 IRC Chmn: &lngh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1&97 Dei.:
INVAL10:
Date:
REsOLUTK)N:
Prov6ously idenuned by Nu? ( ) Yes Je) No Non Discrepent CondM60n
(,) Yes e7No Rev6ew gngg,,g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schoofer Don K IRC Chmn: Sengh, Anand K Dele:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/2097 21157 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 4410 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Osoup: Syalam DR VAUD M*V*w Element Syekm Dossipt D6ecep660s: Environmnertet Quehreetion O Ya Discrepancy Type: Comprewn Dets g
systevesocess: 6WP NRC signiacance level: 4 Dets 9 Axed le NU:
Date Pubilohed:
~
-,e Spec 66 cation D6ecreparicy Deseripensa: The computerized databases PMM8, PDOC, and The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (MS-EU.0353, Rev.
- 2. Appendix l} show that the ASCO Tri-Pt Pressure switches 38WP F859A3,83, C3, D3 are safety related equipmen*.. They show that the Procurement Specification for these switches is Specification No. 2472.51M26.
However, the Procuromord Spec #lcellon No 2472.51M26 does not contain Data Sheets for these componevits.
Rev6.w Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator Yeomen, S.
Q Q
Q 10/1M7 VT Lead: Herl, Anmeny A B
D O
1 art 27 VT Mgri schepler, Den K O
O torttW'7 IRC Chrm: singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1H7 INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously ident6 fled by Nu? O Yes e) No Non D6screpent condW60n Q Yes @ No Rev6ew Acceptelde Not Accept *5te Needed Ide gg,,g VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K
]
f iRC chmn: sinen An.no x Date:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 10M97 2.09 06 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4422 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Geoup: Syelem DR VAUD d.
Diecip46ne: EnWonmnertal 0uelarcaten Potential OperatWity leeue Dioctopency Type: Componers Date O
i systaWpressee: Oss g
W:4 Date faxed le NU:
osse Puhashed:
4
~
]
-ri Cs.Tiswas Model Number Discrepency in Databesos and Specifications j
oescripenen: The review of Millstone Unit 3 databases PDDS, the Eledrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master Ust (MS EE-0353, ReV.
2, Appendix I), and the Procurement Specification 2472.510-662 shows different rnodel numbers for the same semponents.
4 In both the EEQ Master Ust and the Procurement Specification's Datasheet of the pressure transmitter 30881T930 (Pa0e 2 26),
4 th) model number is shown as Rosemount 1153086PC.
'she model number of the same component in the database i
PDDS is listed as Rosemount 1153DB6N0009.
As for pressure transmitters 3QS8*l.T931,932,933 the EEQ Master Ust shows that the model number is 1153DB6PC, the 4
PDDS lists it as 1153096N0009, and the Procurement Specification datashest (page 2 27) shows the model number for j
the same transmitters as 1153D86.
Rev6ew Vaud laveNd Needed Date-j initiator: Yeoman, S.
G O
O o**7 VT Leed: Nat. Anthony A g
Q Q
1Wh97 l
VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K g
Q Q
10/1497 i
Utc Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
10/1697 om.:
INVAUO:
4 Date:
RESOLUTION:
PrevWwely identined by Nu? O Yes
- 9) No Non Discrepent Condetion U Yes it) No Review g,,; g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Dele VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mer: Sctmpfer. Don K O
O O
J
}
IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K
-a, SL Conwnents:
i j
i Pnnted 10'2G97 212 35 PM p
,g,
)
~
O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0423 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALIO Review Element: Syelem Decepn elecipione: EnWonmnentalQereme" g
Diacropency Type: component Date O Ya syseemvirosese: nas gg NRCs' r = evel:4 Date FMed le W:
Does PuMiehed:
. ~ w Components Model Number Discrepancy in Databases and Specifications Deeutpeten: The review of Millstone Unit 3 databases PDDS, the Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEO) Master Ust (MS EE 0353. Rev.
- 2. Appendix I), and the Procurement Specification 2472.510462 shows different model numbers for the same components, in the EEQ Master List and the Procurement Specification's Datasheet of the pressure tronomitter 3R88'PT25A,B,C,0 (Pages 2 7,2 8), the model number is shown as Rosemount 1153GB7.
The model number of the same component in the database PDDS is listed as Rosemount 1153DB6N0009, in the EEQ Master List the pressure transmitters' model number is shown as 1153GB7PC, For the Limitorque Motor Operators 3RSS*MV6837A,B, and 3RSSMV8838A,8 the model number in the database PDOS is stated as SB 015, while in the EEQ Master List shows the model for the Motor Operators as SB-00.
For pressure transmitters 3 MSS *PT534,535 the EEQ Master List shows that the model number is 1153GB9PC, while the PDDS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.
Aslo, for pressure transmitters 3RCS*PT457,458 the EEQ Master List shows that the model number is 1154GP9RC, while the PDDS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.
Review Venid invenid Nemsed Dese initiator: Yawn, S-O O
O
'S'SS7 VT Lead: Non, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10997 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
10/1497 IRC Chmn: Segh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1&97 Dae:
INVALID:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Prev 6ously identired by NU7 4,,/ Yes ei No Non Discrepent Condetion C) Yes e > No Review initiator: (nore)
- N*
VT Lead: Non, Anthony A.
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K inc chmn: S,ngn Anono x 0
0 0
Dei.:
SL Cormwnts:
Pnnted 107097 21315 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34430 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System OR VALlo M E W :S e %
Potent 6el operetnisty leeue D6scipl6ne: Envvonmnereal Quahreaton O in D6ecropency Type: component Date
@ No SystemProceos: RSS NRC sOf"me level: 4 Date irAXed to NU:
Date Publ6ehed:
-y Procurement Specification Discrepancy r
The Millstone computertzed databases PDDS and The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (M3-EE 0353, ReV.
2, Appendix l} show that the Rosemount Pressure Switches 3RCS*PT457, and 3RC'/PT458 are safety-related (Class 1E) equipment.
The databases also show that the Procurement Specification Number for these components is 0472.510462.
Our review shows that the data sheets for the above mentioned components are not included in the Procurement Specification.
Rev6ew Vehd invand Needed Date inst 6stort Yeeem.s.
O O
O 15127 Vr M : Nort, Anthony A O
O O
'*157 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Dan K O
O O
15157 IRc chmn: $@, Anend K O
O O
$$157 Date:
10/13/97 INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Pro #6ously ',3enuhed by NU7 Q Yee e) No Non D6screpent Condation Q Yes ? No Rev6ew gg, A' teptab6e Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Non, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sngn, An.sys K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 1000/97 215 31 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4441 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReWow Group: system DR VAUD Rev6ew Element: system Design g
Diecipl6ne: Mechanical Detgn j)
Dierrepancy Type: Comparent Date O*
system 9%oses: HVX l#tC s' m level: 3 4
Date FAKad U:
Deen puhusk
+ SLCRS Filter Unit Profiner P
During review of the componerW data for the Suppiomontery Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) filter unita 3HVR*FLT3A/B discrepancies regarding the profiNors were identified, ao F8AR Sedion 6.2.3.2 dates that each fiNor bank includes a moisture separater, electric heater, profl!ter, upstream HEPA filter, a charcoal adsort>er, and downstream HEPA flNor.
FSAR Sedion 6.5.1 states that the supplementary leak collection and release system is classified as an ESF filter system.
FSAR Table 3.21 states that the SLCRS filter trains are in accordance with ANSI N509. ANSI N5091976 Seraion 4.1 states that profilters are required in ESP units.
FSAR Table 6.5-1 states that the SLCRS is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52. Rev. 2 position C.2.a for sequence of filter elements and position C.2.c regarding profilter design, construction, and testing. FSAR Table 1.8-1 does not take exception to these Regulatrvy Guide positions. Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position 0.2.a states that the systems should consist of the follov.ng sequential components: (1) demisters, (2) profilters (domister s may serve this function), (3) HEPA filters before the adsortwrs, (4) lodine adsorbers (5) HEPA filters after the adsorbers.
Vendor drawing 2170.430-065-022D shows the prefilters in the SLCRS filter units.
P&lD EM 148E 10 does not show the prefilter as one of the components in the SLCRS filter units. NU has stated in MS IRF-00398 that no design document exists for the deletion of the prefilter because it was deleted during design development by E. VEC in the 19821983 time frame. The reason was to reduce system pressure to the capability of the fans. AWOs M3-6G-10989 and M3 86-10987 document the removal of the prefilters for SLCRS filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/8.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date inM6etor: stout.M D G
O O
1 ass 7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
SSS7 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K Q
O O
'oS7 IRC Qhmn: Singh. Anand K g
Q Q
10/1&S7 Date:
Pnnted 10/2097 2.16 22 Pf6NVAN Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0441 WHetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report m m.m:
Date:
RESOLUDON:
h77 z'iidentNied by NU? O Yes @ No Non Oloctopent Condman U Yes T No Rev6ew We Not ^ - ' - ' '
Needed Date m g)
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Arnheny A O
O VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K I
O 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
Osts:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 1G7097 216 27 PM Pege 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 0441 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: 5',mm Desagn g
D6ec6plene: Mechermal Deegn O Ya D6ecrepency Type: Cem
@) No systeWProcess: sWP NRC sign 6scence levet: 4 Date faxed to Nu:
DanePubnehed:
F. iri Calculation P(R) 1157 has been superceded txst the calculation has not been identified as superceded P~
Calculation P(R)1194, *ESF Bldg Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Bldg due to a Pipe Break," indicates on the original Rev,0 cover page that it supercedes calculation P(R)1157, *ESF Building Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in ESF Building due to Pipe Break,' Calculation P(R)1157 (the document itself) has not been marked as " void
- or ' superceded."
Revtow Valid invahd Needed Dale Intenator: Leoni. C. M.
G O
O So*S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 8
O O
$0/11/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
10r1597 IRC Ch: singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10/1Wp7 D*:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prov60uely identofled by Nu? U Yes
'G) No Non D6ecrepent Condstion U Yes ? No Revlow Acceptab6e Not Acceptable Needed Date gg; g O
G VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
EL Commente:
Pnnted 10/2G97 2 20 22 PM Page 1 of 1
e e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0442 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Gtoup: System DR VALIO Rev6ew Element: syneem Demon g
Diecip66ne: unchenmei Deegn O Yee Diectopency Type: Drewmg
@ No systen# recess: SWP NRC s';J m level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
, iri Safety Related Components in PDDS Not Shown on P&lD E
The following safety related components are listed in PDDS but not found on P&lD EM 133A, B, C, or D:
3SWP'V684 3SWP'V687 o
38WP'V927 38WP*V928 38WP*STR4A 3SWP*STR4B The only additional information found regarding the above was a notation in PDDS that 3SWP'V927 and 926 are ' abandoned in place.' However, if they are still part of the SWP pressure boundary, they should still be shown on the P&lD as these are check yalves.
In addition, it is noted that two lines are shown on EM 133D with incorrect size designation line numbers 256 and 257 are shown as 3 inch and should be 30 inch.
Review Vand inveI6d Needed Date inM6stor: Tonwmkol, J. L.
G O
O
'oSS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
10/11/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
10/1557 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
10/1&97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prov6ously identined by NU? U Yee GI No Non D6scropont Condet60n Q Yes el No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptetne Needed Date g
VT Lead: Non. Anthony A VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Segh, Anand K Date:
SL Commerits:
Pnnted 1G7097 2 21:03 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 6447 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Steup: sm DR VAUD Rev6ew tilement: 8yelem Deegri Diocles6ne: m Deeg" O Yes D6ectopency Type: C*W gg systemmenen: swp NRC signulunw twei: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puhashed:
~
-,. Calculat6on W3-517 366-RE, Rev 0 has a confl6d of status.
Doestweiseu Calculation WS 5171105.RE, Rev 1, CCN#1 states that it supersedes calculation W3 517 366 RE, Rev 0, However, calculat6on W3 517 366-RE, Rev 0 is not stamped
- SUPERSEDED
- and la still shown as active in the Millstone Document Database,
'7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
1W1597 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
'51587 Date:
INVAL10:
Date:
REs0LUT10N' PrevMnasly identined by Nu? Q Yes 98 No Non D6ecrepent Condnion Q Yes
- e.
SL Corrments:
Pnnted 1W2097 2.22.29 PM Page 1 of 1
- c Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0449 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review or.up: conn,enen DR vAuo e
Review Element: Modshoshen instehehon Diecipline: Piping Desig" O va 06ecespency Type: Instenstan tmptomans hon g g, systeWPromees: Qss NR* s; '
--_x levet: 4 Done faxed to NU:
s Date Published:
Modification DCR M3-90056 Modification to QS8 pipe support
-1 cessWeten: Pipe support 3-QSS 4 PS8T000 shown on drawing 12729 796 30 Rev 4 contains a rt0id strut with the pin to pin dimension shown on the drawing to be 2ft 21/8 in. This dimension was verifled to be 2 ft 9 in, during the welkdown which is a difference of 6 7/8 in. Spec SP.ME 570 Appendix *N* (Pipe Support Field Fabrication and Eredion Toleranws) Sectkm 1.6 for Swing Strut Assembly allows a tolerance for the pin to pin dimension of + or.
31/2 In. unless the tolerance is wavled and explicitly documented which it was not on the drawing, Revtew Velhi invahd Needed Dale initionen Reed,J.W.
Q Q
Q 1M147 VTLasJ: Nort, Arthony A Q
g 1M147 VT Mgr: schopfer, Den K O
O SM"7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
' mar Date:
IDNAUD:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
previously idenuned by NU7 O Yes t No Non D6ecrepent Condelion U Yes @ No Revtew Acceptelde Not M-: ;"$5 Needed Date b
VT Lead: Nort. Antncny A VT Mer: Schophr. Don K IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O
O Dele:
st Comments:
Printed 10/20/97 2.23.27 PM Page 1 of 1
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR Me3 4470 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Otoup: Operemone & Mormonence end Tootmg DR VALID Review Element: Operenns P ocedure w
Diecrepency Type: 0 4 M & T Pmoodure O vee systenwProcese: sWP gg W W W:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pumaahes:
4 Procedures not in place to ensure compliance with Plant Technical Spedfloations.
D**ctipeien: The Tectinical Sp3cifications require inspedion of snubbers when their system has experienced unexpeded, potentially damaging transients. The necessary procedures to ensure compilance with this Tech. Spec. were not in place at the time of this independent review. Whild this DR is written against SWP.
It does apply to all systems.
Technical Specification 3/4.7.10d (page 3/4 7 23) states, 'An inspedion shall be performed of all snubbers attached to sect;ons of systems that have experienced unexpected, potentially damaging transients as determined from a review of 09erational data and a visual inapedion of the systems within 6 months following such an event. In addition to satisfying the vnsualinspection acceptance criteria, freedom-of motion of mechanical snubbers shall be vertfled using at least one of the following: (1) manually induced snubber movement; or (2) evaluation of in-place snubber piston setting; or (3) stroking the mechanical snubberthrough its full range of travel.'
S&L Request for Information, RFl Number MP3 219 was submitted on 7/18/97 requesting the Snubber Procedure used for Transient Event inspection to satisfy MP 3 Tech. Spec. 4.7.10d, page 3/4 7 23.
IRF Response ID : M3 IRF-00202 stated *ltems 8 and 9 are not addressed by an existing procedure. AR 97019941 requires a new procedure or revised procedure will address these items at a later date".
Action Request, AR 97019941 was issued on 8/11/97 stating,
' Develop appropriate trigger to ensure compliance with Technical Specification 4.7.10d which requires snubbers to be examined following unexpected, potentially damaging system tr tents within 6 months of the event".
A 019941 was closed per Assignment completin't Notes.
'91-97: This assignment is closed to AR 97023549 and AR 97023551 which were generated for OPS Department to incorporate trigger into procedure AOP 3570 (Earthquake) and procedure OP 3263 (Unit 3 Duty Officer Actions Following Trip or ESF Activation) to provide Engineering notification to evaluate this applicability of Tech. Spec. 4.7.10d following an event".
Proceduros necessary to demonstrate how Millstcne Unit 3 personnel satisfy Technical Specification 3/4 7.10d were not in Printed 1o397 2 24.16 PM Page 1 of 2
l t
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 047' Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report plan as of the ICAVP established review date of May 27,1997.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Neede(i Date initiator: Pinner. W.
O O
O 10/15S7 VT Leed: Bees, Ken O
O O
1012S7 VT Mgr: SWer, Don K g
Q y
10r1597 RC Chmn: Singh, At ' d K 8
O O
10/1657 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION Preyhasty ident: Sed by NU? (,) Yee
- 9) No Non Descrepent Condet.on D Yes @) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptatne Needed Date InMWor %)
O O
O VT Lead: Base Ken 0
0 B
vT u r: senopfer, con x e
0 0
0 mC Chmn: s m,Anonox 0
0 0
Dede:
SL Commente:
~,
s Pnnted 10/2G97 2.24 23 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0471 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Operstone & Memtenance and Tesung DR VAI.1D Moview Element: Operstm0 Procedure Diecipline: Opersans PotentW.speretsity leeue Discrepancy Type: O & M & T Prococure Q we systemerocese: SWP
($) No NRC sign 6acance level: 4 e
Date FAXesito NU:
Date Puhilehesi:
r; Procedures not in place to ensure compliance with Plant Technicel Specifications.
M.
The Technical Srecifications require the service life of mechanical and hydraulic snubbers be monitored to ensure the service life is not exceeded. The necessary procedures to ensure compliance with this Tech. Spec. were not in place at the time of this independent review. While this DR is written against SWP, it does apply to all systems.
Technical Specification 3/4.7.101 (page 3/4 7 26) states, "The service life of hydraulic and mechanical snubbers shall be monitored to ensure that the service life is not exceeded between survellance inspections. The maximum expected service life for various seals, springs, and other critical parts shall be determined and established based on engineering Information and shall be extended or shortened based on monitored test results and fsilure history. Critical snubber parts shall be replaced so that the maximum service life will not be exceeded during a period when the snubber is requirmf to be Operable. The parts replacements shall be documented and the documentation shall be retained in accordance with Specification 6.10.3."
S&L Request for Information, RFI Number MP3-219 was submitted on 7/18/97 requesting the Snubber Procedure used for Snubber Service Life Program to satisfy MP-3 Tech. Spec.
4.7.10d, page 3/4 7 26. This should have read Tech. Spec.
4.7.10i, page 3/4 7 26. *i he typo was the insertion of the d instead of the 1. The description and page numbers were correct.
IRF Response 10 : M3-IRF-00202 stated " Items 8 and 9 are not addressed by an existing procedure. AR 97019941 requires a new procedure or revised procedure will address these items at a later date'.
Action Request, AR 97019941 was issued on 8/11/97 stating,
" Develop appropriate trigger to ensure compliance with Technical Specification 4.7.10d which requires snubbers to be examined following unexpected, potentially damaging system transients within 6 months of the event". This Action Request did not address the Service Life Program issue.
Procedures necessary to demonstrate how Millstone Unit 3 personnel satisfy Technical Specification 3/4 7.101 are not in place.
Vahd invalid N ed Date p_,,,,7 - - % -
g;,
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MPJ4471 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report innsator: Proer, W.
O O
1*I$TS VT Lead: Bees, Ken O
O O
151557 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
1W1597 IRC Chnn: Sy, Anand K Q
IW1LD7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
feeh identseed by Np! Q 'Yee
@ No Non Diecrepent Conetton O Yes @ No Rev6ew w aq sha.,Needed M-a - - -
u-O VT Lead: Bees, Ken VT Mgri ScFrpfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comnente:
Pnntec 10/2097 2.25 06 PM Page 2 of 2
b Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0305 Millstona Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Opershone & Maintenance end Testing DR INVAllD Poential OperabiHty issue Disc 6phne: Otho' Om Discrepancy Type: O & M & T Procedure g
systerWProcese: OSS
~
NRC sagnmcence levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Fubilehed:
F-
-n Maximum Quench $Uray System Flow Performance Testing Not Demonstrated L,^
Millstone Unit 3 FSAR, Table 6.2-60,' Active Heat Sink Data For V'ilmum Post-LOCA Containment Pressure," requires a maximum Quench Spray System flow of 6,000 gpm.
it cannot be determined that either pre operational or surveillance testing for maximum spray system flow of 6,000 gpm was performed. A review cf the Design Basis Documents, Pre-operational /Startup Test Procedures, system calculations, and the Safety Evaluation Report reveals the following:
- 1) Design Basis Document (DBD) MP3-Spray, Rev. O, dated 9/1/93, Pg. 3.1 18 & 4.0-139, addresses non degraded and degraded QSS flow rate for both one and two pump operation, but states that br two pump operation, non-degraded flow varies from 2000 to 3700 gpm per pump, but does not address QSS flow with two pumps operating simultaneously to obtain maximum flow. Reference is also made to Millstone Unit 3 Calculation # P(R)-1096.
Based on the above references and tests, it appears that the Quench Spray System may not have been tested for maximum flow conditions. No surveillance test has been located to venfy maximum flow, it has been demonstrated through hydraulic calculations (SRG Requirements REQ MP3-0803 & 0123) that the FSAR maximum flow limits can be met, but it appears not to have been proven through actual performance testing.
Based on all available data. it has not been demonstrated that the FSAR Table 6.2-60 requirement for maximum Quench Spray Pnnted 103k97135.36 PM Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0306 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report System flow of 6,000 gpm was met.
Review Vel 6d invetid Needed DWe-InMietor: Petrosky,Al.
O Q
10/15/97 vr Lead: seu. *a O
8 0
10 rte <97 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
Dese:
10/14/g7 INVALID: On further review, it appears that Millstone elected to validate maximum QSS pump flow by analytical means rather than actual testing. The only physical testing that was performed was for one pump operation.The SRG is reviewing this requirement in their program (REQ-MP3-OSS-0803 & REQ-MP3-QSS-0123),
Their review has provided a hydraulic calculation that has determined that maximum flow will be less than 6000 GPM, which is within requirements, and is less than the 6500 GPM determined in the originalI.t,lstone 3 Calculation # P(R) 1090 which has since been proven to be in error by the SRG. The SRG has wntten DR MP3-0440 to address that calculation error.
Date:
REs0LUTION.
Previously identoaed by Nur O Yes
- 68) No Non 06ecropent Condah O Yes tGy No Rev6ew initiator: (none)
VT Leed: Bass, Ken VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Smgh, Anand K Date:
sL Comnents:
O Pnn'ed 10/20/971:35.43 PM page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0361 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: svetem DR INVAIJD Diecipline: I & C Doegn Potentiel OperetWitty leaue Om Diecrepency Type: Ceaculeton g~ g syster WProcess: Qss NRC signiacance imi: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puh46ehed.
C--w-my: Calculation SP-3QSS 4 Discrepancy D**criP ea: Back0round:
8 A review of the subject calculation Indicates no design basis for a low flow alarm setting of 3850 gpm. Logic Diagrams LSK 12A, Rev 13 and LSK 2712F, Rev 13 show that QSS Pump 3QSS*P3A/B low flow alarm is actuated if pump discharge flow (Flow Transmitter 3QSS-FT32A/B) is below thu setpcint 10 seconds after receipt of a CDA s;gnal (which is delayed by 5 seconds after EDG start in the event of a LOP /LOCA). Stone &
Weoster Calculation US(B) 225 on fill tirna mdicates that there is a 5 second delay for starting the QSS pumps on the EDG load sequencer during a LOP /LOCA. According to Calculation US(B).
225, the QSS pumps will reach full speed in 1 sec and will fill the piping downstream of 3QSS*MOV34A/B in no more than 50.2 sec for one pump operation and no less than 25.3 sec for two H.c m operation. Logic Diagram LSK-27-128, Rev 13 shows that MOV34A/B opens on receipt of a CDA signal and is independent of the EDG load sequencer, therefore it will begin opening as soon as the EDG connects to the 1E bus. MPR Assoc. Report 1824, Part 7 states that the nominal opening t;me of butterfly valves MOV34A/B is 30 seconds. Northeast Utilities Calculation NM-027 ALL statas that the surveihance limit for MOV34A/B opening time is 40 seconds. Thus, the worst case scena io for QSS oump low flow alarm is a LOCA without a LOP,10%
degraded QSS pump, and an MOV34 opening time of 40 ssconds. In this scenario, MOV34 will be 1/4 open (22.5 deg) 10 seconds after receipt of a CDA si0nal. Calculation US(B)-225 states that the flow from one degraded QSS pump with MOV34 wide open is 5580 gpm. MPR Report 1824 Part 7 uses this as the basis for the conclusion that with MOV341/4 open (22.5 deg), the QSS pump flow will be approximately 2525 gpm. The MPR report also shows that OSS pump flow of 3850 gpm will occur shen MOV34 is 30.4 deg open, which will require a maximum of 13.5 seconds.
Discrepancy:
Calculation SP-30SS-4 shows a QSS Pump low flow alarm of 3850 gpm. Logic Diagrams LSK 2712A and LSK 27-12F show that the QSS Pump low flow alarm is actuated if pump discharge flow is below the setpoint 10 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal. MPR Report 1824, Part 7 concludes that QSS Pump flow is 2525 gpm 10 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal. The MPR Report also shows that QSS Pump flow will equal 3850 gpm 13.5 seconds (maximum) after receipt of a CDA signal.
Review Pnnted 1W2G971:52:15 PM Page 1 of 2 1
Northeast Utilities -
ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3 0361 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report vow invow No.d.d Deie initiator: Pinenes H-Q Q
Q 10f17/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
'o' 7/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O
O O
IRC Chriwi: Singh, Anand K Q
O O
Date:
10/17/97 INVALID: lnformatM ire this Discrepancy Report is redundant to information in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0453 pmpared by Meclianical Discipline, Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously idents#ed by NU7 O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition U Yes @ No C--
Not W^
Needed Dele VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT E/: icopfw, Don K GC Chm.): Singh, Anants K O
B Date:
sL comrrme:
s, Pnnted 10,M71.52:21 PM Page 2 of 2
I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0411 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: sWom DR INVALID Potential Operability issue Disciplene: Envirorynnental Quahreston O Ya D6ecrepancy Type: Componert Data gg systemProcess: RsS NRC W level:4 Date faxed to MJ:
Date Published.
C%-4. Radiation Dose in FSAR Sedion 3.11B 1
E= -
a The Millstone Unit 3 FSAR, page 38-82, shows that As total radiation dose, for 40-yr life plus accident, for the harsh environmental (EQ) Zone ES 05 in the ESF Building is 1.3 x 10 (reds).
This value is not consistent with the total radiation dose for the same EQ Zone in the other Millstone documents.
The following are sorne examples of the docilments, where the total radiation dose for 40-yr life plus accident of Zone ES-05 is listed as 1.3 x 10E7 (rads):
- a. Procurement Specification No. 2472.510-662 (Attachment 1 Appendix D, page 3 of 3).
- b. Procurement Specification No. 2362.200-164 (Addendum No.
1, page 12 of 26).
- c. Procurement Specification No. 2214.802-044 (Page 1-60)
However, the review of the equipment qualification reports for the following components located in EQ Zone ES-05 :
3RSS*PT25A,B,C,D ; 3RSS*FT38A,B ; 3RSS-FT40C,D ;
3RSS*MOV20A,B,C,D ; 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,0 ; 3RSS*P1 A,B ;
3RSS-TE28A,B,C,D show that these components are environmentally qualified for the total radiation dose of 1.3 x 10E07 (rads).
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Yassan, S.
O
]
[
10/1597 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
g
]
10/1&97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
]
Q 10/1497 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
10/14/97 INVALID: This discrepancy report is considered invalid, because it is clearly a typographical error which has not resulted in the use of incorrect design information. Providing this invalid DR to NU is sufficient.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU? U Yes Gi No Non Discrepant Condition d Yes
es_ t ~,....
Pnnted 10/2G97 2 03 23 PM Page 1 of 2
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP34411 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report o:
Pnnted 1G"20'97 2.03.27 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N. DR MP3-0412 Millstone Unit 3
- Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR INVALIO Potential Opereh61Ry leeue 06ecip46ne: EnWonmnental Quehfleetion O Ya D6screpancy Type: Component Date gg systemProcess: SWP NRc sieni#cance 6mi: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Ds e Pub:lehed, E1 zi: Radiation Dose Discrepancy in FSAR Section 3.118 En.
The Millstone Unit 3 FSAR, page 38-82 shows that the total radiation dose, for 40-yr life plus accident, for the harsh environmental (EQ) zone ES-05 in the ESF Building is 1,3 x 10 (rads)
This value is not consistent with the total radiation dose for the same Zone in other Millstone documents.
The following are some examples of these other documents, where the total radiation dose for 40-yr life plus accident of Zone ES-05 as 1,3 x 10E07 (rads):
- a. Procurement Specification No. 2472.510-662 Attachment 1 Appendix D, page 3 of 3.
- b. Procurement Specification No. 2362.200-164 (Addendum No.
1, page 12 of 26),
However, the review of the equipment qualification reports for the following components located in Zone ES-05: 3SWP.
FS59A3, 83, C3, D3 ; 3SWP FT59A, B, C, D ; 3SWP*MOV57A, B, C, D show that these components are environmentally qualified for the total radiation dose of 1.3 x 10E07 (rads)
Review Valid invalid Needed Date InM'ator: Yassan. S.
O Q
10/1597 VT Lead: Non. Anthony A O
Q O
10'15S7 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
o'i'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
10/14/g7 INVALID: This discrepancy report is considered invilid, because it is clearly a typographical error which has not resulted in the use of incorrect design information. Providing this invalid DR to NU is sufficient.
Date RESOLUTION:
Previously identined oy NU? O Yes
- 1 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes
- 1 No Review
- E*
initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Non, Anthmy A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/2097 2 09 54 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34427 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR INVALID Review Element: Syelem DeseOn Diecipl6ne: Enytronmnental Quatircaton pgg p qg.
Diecrepancy Type: Componert Date O Ya SystemProcese: SWP gg NRC $72"m level: 4 Date FMo NU-Date Putdished:
-i. Discrepancy in The Database PDOS Dacription: The review of the Millstone Dattbase PDDS Indicates that certain fields are missing or have incomplete infomnation.
The PDDS does not list the information about the the model number for Pressure switches
!i 3SWP'PS152A,B, Valid invalid Needed Date inattator: Yeeeen, S.
O O
O 10/1557 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
10/15S7 VT Mgr: SchopW. Don K Q
Q Q
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
10/15/97 INVALID: PDDS defeciencies have been previously identified as a generic issue during NU's CMP and the ICAVP.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU? O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condalen Q Yes t9) No Review Acceptatdo Not Acceptable Needed Date initletor M VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sangh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted 10/20S7 2.1413 PM Page 1 of 1
t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0443 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Spiem DR INVALlo Review Element: Syalem Desagn Diecipline: Enwonmnental Qualificaten O Ya Discrepancy type: Component Date gg systemerocese: OSS
~
NRC signincance level: 4 Det faxed to NU:
Late Putnished.
" -1 c o Equipment Qualification Documents Discrepancy r
N.
The review of the Vendors Equipment Qualificatio 1 (EQ) Reports for the QSS System components shows that the receivM documents do not have any lists of applicable devices labeled with the corresponding Millstone identification numbers.
FSAR Section 3.118.1.2 states that 'All Safety.related equipment and components for each Class 1E specification, locat::d throughout the plant, are listed in the EQDs which are in separste reports. Each device specified is labeled, in the EQDs, with its plant Identification number, location, and environmental zone'.Also,IEEE 3231974 Standard,'IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations', states in Section 6.1, page to that the EQ Report shall include the identification of Class 1E equipment being qualified.
The following list shows the components ids and the corresponding EQDs which were reviewed for QSS System:
3QSS*t.S54A,B,C,D ; 3QSS*t.S$6A.8,C,D (ASCO Pressure Switches): Specification No. : 2472.510-526 ; EQ Report No. -
AQR 101083, Rev.1 3QSS*LT930,931,932,933 (Rosemount Pressure Transmitters): Specification No. 2472.510-662 ; EQ Reports Nos.108026, Rev. B.,108025, Rev. B 30SS*MOV34A,B (Limitorque Motor Motor Operators):
Specification No. 2362.200-164 ; EQ Report No.B0058, Rev. O Review Valid love 86d Needed Date initiator: Yassan, S.
O g
Q 10/15/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
g Q
10/16/97 VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
10.2als7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q
Q Q
Dete:
10/15/97 INVALID: The information in this Discrepancy Report was already incorporated in DR-MP3-0442.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prevuxasty identaried by Nu7 O Yes el No Non Discrepent Condetkm Q Yes el No Review inttutor: (none)
O O
VT Lead: Non. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoofer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K Date:
Pnnted 10/20/97 2.30.47 PM Page 1 of 2 l
s
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0443 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Conwnentu s;
3 4
Pmted 10f20/97 2:30.51 PM Page 2 of 2
7 4
Northeast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0444 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- R. view aroue: sye.m Dn mAuo Review Element: System oseen Diecipline: En*cnmnental Quahficaten Ow hz :xy Type: Componert Data g
systenWProceae: Rss NRc signiacance M 4 Date faxed to Nt?:
Does Published.
~ :W Equipment Qualification Documents Discrepancy
-. ~ 2 The review of the Vendors Equipment Qualification (EQ) Reporte for the RSS System components shows that the received documents do not have any lists of applicable devices labeled with the correspondin0 Millstone identification numbers, FSAR Section 3.118.1.2 states that 'All Safety-related equipment and components for each Class 1E specification, located throu0hout the plant, are listed in the EQDs which are in separate reports. Each device specified is labeled, in the EQDs, with its plant identification number, location, and environmentcl zone'.Also, IEEE 3231974 Standard,"lEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations', states in Section 6.1, pa0e 10 that the EQ Report shall include the identification of Class 1E equipment being qualified, The following list shows the components ids and the corresponding EQDs which were reviewed for RSS System:
' 3RSS*PT25A,B,C,0 ; 3LMS*PTG34, 935, 936, 937 ; 3 MSS
- PTS 14, 515, 516, 524, 525, 526, 534, 535, 536, 544, 545, 546 ;
3RCS*PT457,'458 ; 3RSS*FT38A,B ; 3RSS-FT40C,D
/
(Rosemount Pressure Transmitters): Specification No. 2472.510-662 : EQ Reports Nos. 108026, Rev. B.,108025, Rev. B
?'
3RSS*MOV20A,B,B,0 ; 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,0 ;
3RSS*MOV38A,B 3RSS*MOV54A,B,C,D ;
3RSS*MOV57A,B,C,0 ; 3RSS*MV6837A,B ; 3RSS*MV8838A B (Limitorque Motor Operators): Specification No. 2362.200-164 ;
EQ Report No.B0058, Rev. 0 3RSS*LE22A1,A2,A3 ; 3RSS*LEB1,82,83 (Transamerica Delaval, Gems Sensor Div. Level Transmitters): Specification No 2471.410-039 : EQ Report No. 45700-2, Rev. 0 3RSS*P3A,B,C,D (Westinghouse Pump Motor): Specification No. 2214.802 044 : EQ Report No. WCAP-8687, Supp. 2 -
A05B,Rev.0 Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Yassan. S.
[
Q 1o/1597 VT Lead: Nen, Anthony A O
O O
o'1SS7 VT Mgt: Schoorer. Don K Q
Q Q
IRc Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
Date:
10/15/97 INVALID: The information in this Discrepancy Report was already incorporated in DR MP3-0442 Date:
RESOLUTION:
ggp;gpgi=
Yee "L
Na L,. 4.; c_
- u Yet b2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0444 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report
,,o
-o..-.._,
o-Rev W Acc.g.m um Acc.ptaW Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT 4r: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Shgh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
I:
Printed 10/2097 2:17.35 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34444 wilstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System Review Element: System Dee91 Potent 6al Operabilty losue Diecipline: Enwonmnental ouancata)
Q ye.
Discrepancy Type: component Dets
@ No Systemfrocese: OSS NRC Signiacance leset: 4 CJe faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.
C;---
- it Components Environmental Zones Discrepancy 0**cti #an: The review o'l the Procurement Specifications for QSS System P
shows that in some cases the environmental zones sheets do not specify the corresponding components associated with each zone. This association is necessary due to the fact that the equipment qualification (EQ) for each component does depend on the environmental parameters of the component's location.
According to IEEE 3231974, 'IEEE Standard for Qualifying -
Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations",
Section 8.1, page 16, the data in qualification file "shall be pertinent to the application and organized in an auditable form".
The review of the Procurement Specification indicates that although the environmental zones for the components /
equiprnent are listed, the following specifications did not identify the components, which are associated with each environmental zone: 2472.510-662 (Pressure Switches - Cat ilA), and 2441.003-009 (4 KV and S.6 KV Attemating Current Induction Motors),
Review Valid invalid Needed Date init6ator: vasean, S.
O G
O 10/15S7 VT Lud: Nort, Anthony A O
Q Q
10/16/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
iRc chmn: s % n,An.aoV O
O O
Date:
10/15/97 INVAUD: This ccndition is not considered a discrepancy since the equipment was qualified by the vendor to the most sevare environmental conditions defined in the procurement specification.
Date:
resol.UTiON:
Prevously identified by Nu? U Yes iG) No Non Discrepent Condation Q Yes G) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lear'.; Non, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted ton r 2:18 53 PM
~
Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities iCAVP DR No, DR-MP3 0460 i
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVALio Rev6ew Element: System Demon pgg Discipline: Enwonmnental ouai.rcaten Ow D:acrepancy Type: component Date gg systemProceae: RSS NRC bignificance level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Published:
-1. Components Environmental Zones Discrepancy Descripoca' The review of the Procurement Spedfications for RSS System shows that in some cases the environmental zones sheets do not spedfy the corresponding components associated with each zone. This association is necessary due to the fact that the 64uipment qualification (EQ) for each component does depend on the environmental parameters of the component's location.
According to IEEE 3231974,"lEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations",
Section 8.1, page 16, the data in qualification file "shall be pertinent to the application and organized in an auditable form",
The review of the Procurement Specification indicates that although the environmental zones for the components /
equipment are listed, the following specifications did not identify 1
the components, which are associated with each environmental zone: 2472.510662 (Pressure Switches Cat IIA),2282.050-676
( (Stainless Steel Valves 21/2 in and Larger ), and 2472.310-683 (Resistance Temperature Detodion - RTDs)
Review Velid invalid Needed Date init6etor: Yassan, S.
O O
O 10/15S7 VT Lead: Non, Anthony A O
O O
10/15S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
t Date:
10/15/97 INvAL10: This condition is not considered a discrepancy since the equipment was qualified by the vendor to the most severe environmental conditions defined in the procurement specification.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
PrevuxJsly identined by NU? Q Yes ? No Non Discrepant Condst6on Q Yes
- )
No Review Initiator: (none)
VT Lead: N-
SL Cormwnts:
Pnnted 1o/2G97 2.19.36 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilitica ICAVP DR No, D9 MP3-0012 Millstone UnR 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Accusert MAgaton DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: system Dengn Diecipline: I & C Deeg" O vee Diecrepe,wy Type: UcerM Document gg systemProcess: N/A NRC sW leved:4 Date faxed to NU:
Dele Putdished: ar22/97
-6 Inconsistencies in MP-3 FSAR. Technical Specifications, and Westinghouse Safety Analysis E,
We have reviewed the following Millstone 3 documertation:
4 A) MNPS-3 FSAR, Chapter 15, June 1996;
^
B) Updated page markups for FSAR, Chapter 5 as reviewed and submitted by Westinghouse under letter # NEU "
623, dated November 25,1996; C) MNPS-3 FSAR, Figure 7.21, June 1996; D) Technical Specifications, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.3, Docket No. 50-423 Table 2.21 as amended on pages 2 5 through 212, May 2,1997, Based on the review of these documents we have noted the following :
- 1. FSAR Chapter 15. Table 15.0-6 identifies a Reactor Trip Function of "high steam generator level" under transient 15.1.
This function is also mentioned in the FSAR section 15.1.2.2 -
discussions of the analysis.
- 2. Westir.ghouse markup of analysis, Table 15.0-6 also identifies a Reactor Trip Function of "high steam generator level" under transient 15.1. The Westinghouse discussion of the ar,alysis under section 15.1.2.2 also includes this function.
- 3. FSAR Chapter 7, Figure 7.2-1, sheets 1 through 19, do not include a "high steam generator level" as a Reactor Trip Function.
- 4. Technical Specifications, Table 2.2-1 does not include a "High Steam Generator Level"in the tabulation of setpoints for Reactor Trip Functions, items 3 and 4 above show the current plant configuration, items 1 and 2 are incorrect. This discrepancy needs resolution.
Review Valid invalid Needed Data initiator: Baledis, V. E.
O O
O e,w7 VT Lead: Raheia.RajD G
O O
8S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
8SS7 IRC Chmn: Sogn, Anand K O
O O
8/7'S7 PnrWed 10/20/971:27.46 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0012 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:
INVALlo:
Date: 10/14/97 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0012, has identified a condition not previousny discovered by NU which requires corredion. The WesCnghouse analysis and the Chapter 15 references are incorrect in listing high steam generator water level as a reactor trip. Figure 7.21 and the Tech Spec Table 2.2-1 are correct. High-high sisam generator water level acts to trip the turbine and initiate feed water isolation. Above the P 9 setpoint, a turbine trip will cause a reactor trip,,However, the reactor trip is not fed from the steam generatof high-high water level. NU identified the error with Table 15.0-6 and FSAR CR 97 MP3-91, initiated 2/27/97, made the sppropriate correctior' The error was missed in section 15.1.2.2. An FSAR CR will be issued to correct the error. CR M3-97 2823 was initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Refer to the copy of FSAR CR 97 MP3-91 attachsd to M3-IRF-00266 (ICAVP response to DR MP3-0017) for changes associated with Chapter 15.0. The FSAR CR is currently awaiting PORC appmval.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0012, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The error with Table 15.0-6 was prediscovered and conected in FSAR CR 97-MP3 91. However, NU did not identify and correct the error in Section 15.1.2.2. An FSAR CR will be issued to correct the error. CR M3-97 2823 was initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Previously identmed by NU7 Q Yes ' O ' No Non Discrepant Condrtkm Q Yes
'GI No Reykw inmator: Bawis. V. E.
0 mW VT Lead: Raheia, Rai 0 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K iRC Chan: Singh. Anand K O
O O
1o<i7/97 Date:
10/14/97 sL Comments:
Printed 10/2tW7127,s3 PM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR-MP3-0032 uisistone unit 3 --
Discrepancy Repoft Review Group: system DR REs0LUTioN ?4CEPTED Review Element: syenem Design.
g.
D6ec6p66ne: Pen 0 D**890 Qg F: ;r:y Type: calculation gg systeme= cama Rss NRC signNicence levet: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
DesePuedished, ar20/97 C
lio Waterhammer Analysis Errorin nozzle thrust & centrifugal force calculation
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the "Waterhamrr.3r Analysis of Recirculation Spray System", Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-163 FA, Rev. 2, we noted the following discrepancy:
e, Page 24 of the calculation states that 'Two other forces were considered but their contribution to the stress in the system should be minimal. These forces are the jet forces (5.02 lbs/ nozzle) caused by the discharging spray nozzles and the radial (centrifugal) forces (1.03 lbstft) on the spray ring header,'
On page 27, the jet force per nozzle is shown as 5.06 lbs/ nozzle.
First, this is inconsistent with the valve of 5,02 lbs/ nozzle, as noted on page 24. Second, the computation shown on page 27 is numerically incorrect. The actual number based on the data shown on page 27 (Q=24.6 gpm, & DP=25 psi) should be 9.98 lbs/ nozzle. Furthermore, these Cow parameters were revised by Rev.1 (p0. 3A), if the latest flow parameters (Q = 20 gpm & DP
= 70 psi) are used, the jet force per nozzle is 12.5 lbs/ nozzle.
These loads have not been considered in the pipe stress analyses (see cales NP(B) X7912 Rev,1, & NP(B) X7918 Rev, 1). Consequently, the impact of these loads on pipe supports has not been addressed, No basis is provided for ignoring the support loads resulting from this force.
The numerical error should be corrected. 'n addition, tile judgement that contribution of there forces on pipe stress is
'- minimal' needs further elaboration, cspecially in view of the fact that the maximum pipe stress in the subject piping is 99.8% of the allowables. The judgement should also be extended to include the loading on pipe supports, Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: Prakash. A O
O O
SMS7 VT Lead: Nan. Anthony A Q
,Q Q
&%%7 VT Mgt; schoofet, Don K O
O O
6%S7 IRC Chmn: sangh. Anand K Q
Q Q
SE7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 10/7/97 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-00333 Disposition:
Pnnted 10Q0/971:28 44 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0032 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that Discrepar,y Report DR-MP3-0032 has identified a condition not previout!y discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3058 was wntten to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
The identified discrepancy is correct with regard to the jet force per nonle values stated in the referenced revision of the caiculation. The jet force should have been stated as 12.5 lbs/nonie. The nonles and jet forces are multi directional rM not totally reinforcing and additive. Even when totally added together and distributed to the supports, they are still more than an order of magnitude less than any design load on the RSS ring supports. Pipe stresses for EQ.11 sustained plus secondary stresses are close to Code allowable limits, but primary stress checks which contain fluid transient loadings (EQ. 9 faulted) for the RSS ring header piping are less than 25% of Code allowable values. Therefore, large margins exist to support the judgment that the contribution of these forces on pipe stress is minimal.
Note that the calculation in question is being totally revised as part of an on going task which involved RSS system fluid transient reanalyzes. The calculation is prepared and currently in review and is to be issued in September 1997. It already contains a detailed description of the consideration of nonle jet loads and includes the updated jet nonle load for updated conditions of 13.6 lbs/nonie.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Repart DR MP3-0032 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The revision process for calculation 12179-NP(B)-163-FA in support of in-progress modifications has corrected thece errors. Although the jet force value is higher than that originally stated, it remains small in compatison to other pipe stresses.
Previously.dentaned by NU? U Yes el No Non Discrepent Conddlon C) Yes t*) No Review intuator: Prakash. A.
VT t ead: Nen. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
10/17.a7 Date:
f SL Comments:
+
Pnnted 10/20,971.28 Sc PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0060 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Desagn Diecipline: structural Deseg" Ow Descrepency Type: Calcuteten (9) No System @rocese: Rs3 NRC Signiacence M:4 Date faxed to NU:
Dtde Putdished: aats7
,
- Liner plate calculation discrepancy C.
We have reviemd LINER Pl. ATE Calculations No.12179-SEO-V1-010, Rev. 2.
Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy, ss The subject liner plate has been evaluated for the adjacent pipe supports MARK NO. (1)- PSA012 L (2)- PSA021 using two independent BAP runs. ( Ref. to the above calc. Pg.'s 10,13,23
).
Since the clear spacing between the subject supports is only 4'
< 12'(Min Attachments Spacing Ref. Master Calc.12179-NS (B)-054. Page 130 ), the studs @ grid lines (11,5), (11,6) and (11,7) ( Ref. Calc Page 13 ) should be evaluated for the combined effect from both supports.
Review Vehd invetid Needed Date lattentor: Patel. A.
G O
O acos7 VTt. sed: Nort, Anthony A 8
O O
aass7 VT Mgt; schopfw, Don K 8
O O
aass7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K G
O O
aass7 Date:
INVAll0:
Date: 10/6/97 RESOLUTION: Engineering calculation 12179-SEO-V1.010, Rev,2 analyzes the liner Insert plate with two attachments modeled separatoly by not considering the row of anchors between the two supports. That is, the anchors that would be subjected to the combined loads from each support are not credited in the computer model. This is inconsistent with the 12' criteria provided in the master calculation. Therefore, the calculation should have considered the combined effect by modeling the two attachments on the same plate or by combining the maximum calculated interactions. The worst case interaction ratios are much less than 1.0, such that when they are algebraically combined, the interaction is still less than 1.0. Therefore, this discrepancy does not affect the conclusions of the calculation and no field work is required. CR M3-97-3282 was written to provide the necessary corrective acilons to resolve this issue. The combmed interactions are less than 1.0 which supports the conclusions of the calculation, however the basis for deviating from the master calculation is required to be documented. NU has concluded that this issue should be a Significance Level 4.
Previously identihed tsy NU?
Yes
- ' No Non Discrepant Condition Yes
- ' No s
Pnnted 10aGs7129.34 PM Page 1 of 2
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP34150 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review initiator: Petet.A.
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgra Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Cosaments:
eo 4
4 Pnnted 10'20/97129.40 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0061 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: system Deegn g
Diecipline: structurel Deeg" Ow Discrepency Type: calculaten gg s, U - :Rss NRC signiacanoe level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
note Puldiehed: a/2997
---4 Embedded plate calculation discrepancy 3
F We have reviewed EMB. PLATE Calculation No.12179-CFSK-732E-E66 Rev.1.
Based on this review We have noted the following discrepancy.
The subject embedded plate supports loads from two pipe supports.
The calculations show that the embedded plate (anchors) is overstressed by 10.55% due to loads from support #1 alone. The acceptance of this overstress condition is based on engineering judgment that due to redistribution of the wall loads, the actual loads on the embedded plate would be lower than computed.
The acceptance of the overstress condition needs further justification.
The calculations also computes the stress interarfjon coefficient of 0.uD5 for loads from support #2. This additional stress is considered insignificant based on engineenng judgment.
Because the stresses due to support #2 are additive to those from support #1 and the embedded plate is overstresand from loads due to support #1, ignorinJ the loads from support #2 in computing the total stresses needs further justification.
Review Vend invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel,A.
g Q
Q 8/25s7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
ar.ss7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
8,W 97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
s/2ss7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 10/8/97 RESOLUTION: Calculation No.12179-CFSK 732E-E66 Rev.1 will be revised to include the loads and document thc basis for any engineering judgement. The calculation should have addressed the increase in loads due to plate 2 in more detail since the interaction ratio increased and the vertical load increased significantly, such that it had an increased influence on plate 1. The calculation should have added the shear from plate 2 to plate 1 and considered the stud interaction. CR M3-97 3205 was wntten to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue, it is anticipated that the application of additional engineering will support the current conclusion that the plate is acceptable. Nu concurs that this is a Significance Level 3 issue.
Pnnted U2W'1bORPN i
~ ' ~ ' '
Page h5f 2
4 Eortheast utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3-0061 Millstone unit 3
- Olscrepancy Report R.vww Acc.pi.m uai Acc.m.m s 44 om p,,,.
O O
O
'o/SS7
""d: * ^'**"r ^
O O
O 10/15S7 S
O O
10/1SS7 "C'": * *
- O O
O 1m7m7 Det.:
SL Comnents:
It K
Pnnted 10/2G971:30:20 PM Page 2 of 2
f Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4066 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Discipline: structurel Doogn Ow Descrepency Type: ceiculeton gg systerWProcess: SWP NRC sientecence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Oste Puediched: W11197 4 Pipe support calculation NP(F)-Z198 035 discrepancy Deecr$5en: We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation NP(F).Z198-035, Rev.7 and note the following discrepancies:
- 1. On page 9D, the joint 6 coordinate in Y direction is 36' based on the support sketch. The computer model uses 33' as the Y cooidinate.
- 2. On page 9E, loading case 4, load force in Y direction at joint 7 should be ' 100F and not '100F based on the loading case 4 definition.
- 3. On page 16, the Fz = -11,712#. The latest load comparision per pa0e 98 show the load to be ' 9,226F.
Review Valid Invalid Needed Oste Inittstor: Patel. A.
O O
$557 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q 9/4/97 VT Mge: schopter, Don K O
O O
S'*S7 IRC Chmn: smgn, Anend K G
O O
So7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 10/6/97 RESOLUTION NU has concluded tnat Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0056 has 4
identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3209 was wntten to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.ltem 1 correctly identifies that the node dimension in the Y direction should be 36 inches. This does not change the results of the calculation, however, since there is no load applied in the
+ Y direction.
Item 2 correctly states that the Y direction joint 7 force should be minus 100 pounds to produce the worst case reactions and member stresses. The change to the calculation, however, is insignificant with respect to the results, item 3 correctly states that the Fz load should be minus 9,226 pounds. The value of 11,712 used in the analysis, however, produces conservative results.
Previously identifled by Nu?
-- Yes 9' No Non Discrepant Conortion U Yes
- 9) No Review fnitiator: Patet, A.
O O
O 104S7 Printed 10/20r971:31:10 PM ' ~ ~
Pege 1 cf 2
~'
4 Northeast (Ailities ICAVP DR N3. DRMP3-0066 Millstone unn 3 Discrepancy Report
..s.
. ~ _,,
O, O
O VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O
O 1
sL 'm:
s
'4 Pnnted 10/20/971:31:15 PM Page 2 of 2 2
Northeast Utilitu ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0140 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Speem DR REs0LUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Deegn DA*4pilnr MechanceIDe**"
O Yes Diecrepency Type: Dreweg gg s,.
- HVX NRC signtReenee levt 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Pundished: Gr14e7 E
1 Emergency D6esel Generstor Enclosure Tomado Dampers Desertree'u f alD EM-150015 shows an incorred orientation for tomado dampers 3HMMPT2A/B/C/D, 3HVPDAPT5A/B/C/0, and 3HVP9 APT 6A/B/C/D. Damper blades are shown openin,1 ln the direction of normal altflow, Damper blades on these exhat 4 paths should be shown to open against normal,,altflow in orJer to fuction property during a tomado,
~
Review Vand inuend Needed Date inittster: Stout, M. D.
G O
O sawe7 VT Land: Nort, Anthony A y
y Q
9/2S7 VT Mgr: schapter DonK g
Q Q
9697 utC clumn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
9991 Dese:
- BWALD, Date: g/30/g7 REsOLWloN: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0140 has identified a condition not previously dissvered by NU which requires crt rection, Design Change Notice (DCN) DM3-00-0889-97 has corrected the applicable drawings for eight of the twelve dampers identifie,1. The remaining four dampers will be corrected by a new DCN, Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3147 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. This is a documentation change only.
Prov6ously identified by NU7 C Yes @ No Non D6aropont Condition U Yes t No Review initiator: Stout, M. D.
VT Laod: Nort, Antnany A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chrnn: Segn, Anend K
_e sL Comments:
h
/-
Pnnted to/20G71:32 c1 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeas?, Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0172 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: System Dengn P
Opw h ylosue Dis 9966ne: Electrical DeWgn Y"
Diecropracy Vgs: Oconsang Document syste VProcese: sWP NRC sientac mee level: 4 Dele FAXad k NU:
Dele Putd6ehed: 62247 C---
M Design basis summary requirement for valves 38WP*MOV130A
~
& B is not in agreement with drewings.
P^-
Design basis tummary requirement for valves 3SWP*MOV130A
& B is not ir :.greement with piping and instrument drawing.
Design Dasis Summary Paragraph 12.5.5.7 stales: "MCC and RCA Air Conditionirg Units Service Water Retum Header MOVs - Normally closed MOVs in the dischstge lines of the MCC and RCA air conditioning units shall automatically open if the associated air conditioning unit is running, on a Loss of Offsite Power (LOP) or on high MCC and RCA area temperature.
Piping & Instrumentatitv tyagram Service Water EM 133B, Rev 34 note 6 statre
" Electric powat to c;en/ clot,e isolation valves 3SWP*MO',;130A/B is eliminated. Valves are capable of local manual operation.*
If these valves are no longer electrically operated, then the requirement does not agree with the drawing.
Review Val 6d Inve86d Needed Date y
init6ator: Womw, L G
O O
- 15S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
- 15S7 VT Mgr: Schopfw. Don K Q
O O
S/1557 IRc Chmn: sngh, Anand K Q
Q Q
9/17/97 Dei.:
INVALID:
Date: 10/7/97 REs0LuTK)N:
Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Repor1, DR MP3 0172, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
CR e M3 97 3270 has been initiated to address this condition.
Dasgn Basis Summary for the Servico Water System rev.1, par.12.5.5.7 will be revised to agree with Piping &
Instrumentation diagram Service Water (dwg.12179 EM 1338
)
35). The P&lD is the ' Operations Critical" document and depicts the intended field conditions.
Pnnted 10/2097 ) J144 PM Page 1 of 2
=
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0172 M!iistone un6t 3 Discrepancy Report As part of this investigation CR M3 97 2965 (Dated 9/5/97) was reviewed and found to document a similar condition with Table 1 of DBS-BOP 001. CR M3-97 3270 has been closed to this CR which will correct both deficiencies.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepency Report, DR-MP3 0172, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. CR # MS 97 2965 has been updated to address this condnion. Design Basis Summary for the Service Water System rev.1, par.12.5.5.7 will be revised to agree wMh Piping & Instrumentation diagram Service Wayr (dwg.12179 EM 1338-35).
M /- ^, leenWRed by Nu? U Yes @ les twen Olsempant cenemen U Yes (e) No Reykw Inleeter: Womer. l.
G O
O
=
VI Lead: Nort. Anthony A VI % scheP88f. Don 6:
O g
[]
B
- - > ~
e a
elCommente:
Pnnted 10CO,1171:32 50 PM Page 2 of 2 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR-MP3 0001 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmate DR RESOLUTION REJECTED 0
Potent 6el OperetWity iseue 06ec6pl6ne: Otho' O vos Dioctopency Type Dooga Control Procedure i No systesWProcoes: N/A
~
NRC *O f mlevel: 3 DA FAled to NO:
Date Putdehed: 7/497
. iri Consistency with Technical Specifications E.
We have reviewed Millstone Station Procedure DC 1. ReV, 5 (effedive 3/3/97), titled ' Administration of Procedures and Forms". Based on this review, we have notsd the following dlScrepancies.
o,
- 1. This procedure is not consistent with Techriiccl Specification 6.8.3.c. This sodion of the technical specification requires, in the case of temporary, non Intent changes to procedures required by Technical Specification 6.8.1, that the change be approved by the Stction Qualified Reviewer Program Manager or Nuclear Unit Director or Senior Vice President. Millstone St ation within 14 deys. Paragraph 1.6.3.a.4 of procedure DC 1 requires that non intent procedure changes be approved (including Independent Review and Safety Evaluation Screening) by the Department Head, Responsible Individual, PORC or SORC within 14 days. These requirements are inconsistent with the Technical Specification requirements.
- 2. Section 1.1 of proedJure DC 1 lids an obsolete Quolallon.
e This section quotes Section 6.8.1 of the Technical Specifications as requiring procedures for Security Plan and Emergency Plan i
implementation. Amendment No.128 to the Technical Specifications, dated 4/24/96, deleted these requirements. This is an editorial discrepancy since these types of procedures are required by other regulations and Millstone commitments, e.g.,
in CFR 50, Appendix E, and Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Rev6ew Velid invol6d Needed Gee inet6etor: Sheppard. R P.
O O
O 5/11'87 VT Leed: Ryan. Thomas J O
O O
5/1*S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
O O
SooS7 BRC Chmn: Sngh. Anand K Q
Q Q
7/197 Date:
INVALI0:
Date: 1g/13/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
Item 1:The Station Qualified Reviewer (SQR) Program has been implemented in accordance with Technical Specification 6.5.4.2.
Specification 6.5.4.5 directs that temporary revisions to procedures for which Qualified Reviewers are assigned be processed in accordance with Specification 6.5.4.2 in lieu of Specification 6.8.3. Specification 6.5.3.2.e provides 'or approval by the Retnantible Manneer for the functional ornun regnontjtig_
Pnnteo 1CV2G971:2s 04 PM Page 1 of 4
Northeest Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP34001 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft for review of the technical content of the specific procedure. The statemant " Station Qualined Reviewer Program Manager" in Specincation 6.8.3.c is the same 'f.esponsible Manager" mentioned in Specification 6.5.4.2.e.
If a procedure change is required (including the type described in Technical Specification Sedion 6.8.3.c), the owner department is responsible to perform the changw. Each type of procedure change requires, at a minimum, an independent Technical review, performed by a subject matter expert, and a review by the applicable Department Head to determine its applicability and corredness. For those Departments that have met the requirements to fully implement the SQR Program, and have been approved by their applicable Plant. Operations Review Committee (PORC) er the Site Operations Review Committee (SORC), the Department head is authorized to algn for
' Approval" of the change in lieu of presenting it to the PORC or SORC for their review and approval.
The intent of Technical Specification 6.8.3.c is further denned in the transmittal letter B15309 which submit 4d the Proposed Technical Specification Change Request (PTSCR) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s
- August 4,1995. The statements in the letter Indicate that a manager will be appointed to approve the procedures *1or that group." Key portions of the letter are quoted below:
" Description of Proposed Changes
.. establishment of a station Qualified Reviewer Program (SQRP) and the reassignment of certain procedure approvals to designated managers in lieu of approval by PORC/SORC."
" Those procedures and programs that will go to the SQRP will be defined in writing and are anticipated to include those procedure changes that do not require a 10CFR50.59 evaluation... Procedures that can meet the SQRP definition will-have a manager appointed who will have the authonty to approve the procedures."
- Safety Assessment These proposed modi 0 cations will create a new SQRP which will permit the review of designated programs and procedures that are required by Tednical Specification 6.5.1.6 and 6.5.2.6 to be performed by a SQl, and approved by designated managers....Those programs and procedures that would be reviewed by a SQR in lieu of PORC/SORC will be designated in wnting by the Unit Director or the Senior Vice President.
Millstone Station. SQRs and managers who are authorized to approve procedures will also be designated in wnting by the Unit Director or the Senior Vice President. Millstone Station.
Procedures which iequire a 10CFR50.5g evaluation will continue to require that a review be performed by PORC/SORC."
Implementation of the program is administered through Station Drrendura fP 14 *etsiinn nonhfind Qauioggf.Rronrnrn "
in Pnnted 10/20/97125 06 PM
~ ~ ~ ~ -
~
-~
' - ~ ~ ~ ~
Page 2 of 4
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0001 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report accordance with Section 1.6 of that procedure, the SQR Program will be implemented for a department only after the SQR candktates have been selected and approved, and the department has demonstrated that it can apply the program successfully and corredly.
Procedures DC 1 and DC 18 will be revised to state that a respons6bi44ty of the Department Head is to function as the
DR MP3-0001, item 2: Revision 6 to DC 1 was started in June 1997 and the reference to the outdated Technical Specification was recognized during the Verification and Validation process.
Specifically, it was noted by a reviewer during the performance of a ' Station Procedure Review" and provided as a comment for resolution. Subsequently, the paragraphs found in Revision 6 in Section 1.1 were rewritten to more clearly reflect that various c
regulations, standards, and commitments require the development of procedures. A copy of the draft change is attached.
==
Conclusion:==
The Station Quellflod Reviewer Program implements Technical Specification 6.5.4.2, with changes approved by the designated manager as stated in 6.8.4.2.e and as described in transmittal letter 815309 to the NRC. Clarification of the use of different titles will be included in the next revision to Station Procedures DC 1,' Administration of Procedures and Forms" and DC 15,
- Station Qualified Reviewer Prog.am." The issue ststod in item 2 of DR MP3-0001 was identified during development of Revision 6 to DC 1, which was initiated in June.1997, and will be included in that revision when issued. Condition Report M3-97 2069 will track these changes to completion.
Prov ously identined by NU7 V Yes Si No Non D6ecrepent CondM6on
() Yes Si No Review InM6ator: Shepperd. R. P.
O' O
O VT Lead: Ryan Thomas J VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
10/t?/97 SL cormwnts: 1. The resolution of part 2 of the discrepancy is acceptable.
- 2. The changes to procedure DC 1 stating that the Department Heads may function as SQRP Managers are acceptable.
- 3. No changes are proposed to paragraph 1,6.3.a.4 of procedure DC i. DC 1 needs to reflect the applicaole pr7ceduto appioval requirements in Technical Specifications 6.5.1.7.a. 6.5.2.7.a.
6.5.4.2.e and 6.8.3.c. Thas, the identified discrepancy remains unresolved.
Pfmted iG70/9712512bM Page 3 of 4
O
/
O
~'
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0001 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 4. The response does not address the extent of condition as follows:
- a. Have these temporary, non-intent changes, which were j
reviewed by Qualified Reviewers, been approved by personnel whose qualifications meet that o7 a SQRP Manager, i.e., do the Responsible Individuals dimenmaad in paragraph 1.6.3.a.4 of DC 1 meet the qualifications of this management position?
i 1
)
- b. If past changes have not been processed in accordance with Technical Specifications 6.5.1.7.a. 6.5.2.7.a. 6.5.4.2,6.5.4.5 and 6.8.3.c, what corrective action is proposed? Do any past temporary changes need additional approvals before start.up?
f l
j l
l 1
1 i
4 4
~
Prtnted 10/20/9712514 PM Page 4 of 4 i
.u.,__......-.
).
y Northeast Uti!ities ICAVP DR NO. DR4AP3 0002 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepaficy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR REs0LUTION REJECTED Revww Element: Change Process p
Diecipi6ne: Mechancel Dewgn O vos 06ecropency Type: Dewgn Cortro: Procedure M No
~
systenWProcese: N/A NRC styWacence level: 3 Date faxed le NU:
Oste Putdlehed: 7/a97
. s Use of Later Versions of ASME Sodion XI Desertpelon: We have reviewed Station Administrative Procedure WC 3, Revision 0, titled 'ASME Sedion XI Repair and Replacement Program' with Changes 1,2 and 3 effective February 3,1997 and Nuclear Group Procedure NGP 7.05, Revision 4, titled
'ASME Sedion XI Program for Repair, Replacement, and Modification Activities' effedive September 21,1994. Based on these reviews we have noted the following discrepancies.
- 1. These procedures are ambiguous concoming the need to obtain prior NRC unit specific approval before using a later edition of ASME Section XI for a repair, replacement or modification. The edition and addenda of ASME Section XI required for repair, replacement and modification at each unit is defined in its inservice inspection (ISI) Program. The ISI Program we have for Unit 3 (has 5/12/96 stamp) shows the 1983 EGition of Section XI with the Summer of 1983 Addenda, except that Class 2 welds are examined per the Summer of 1985 Addenda.
Section 1.1 of procedure WC 3 and paragraph 6.1.1 of procedure NGP 7.05 state that subsequent editions and addenda (of Section XI) may be used provided they are accepted by the enforcement and regulatory authorttles.
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(lv) is referenced in Unit 3's ISI Program.
This regulation allows the use of subsequent editions and addenda of Section XI incorporated in 10 CFR 50.55a(b), subject to Commission approval on a unit specific basis. Thus, it is not sufficient that the later edition use be accepted on the basis of 10 CFR 50.55a(b) alone.
(Side Note: Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1050 issued February, 1997 (draft Revision 12 to Regulatory Guide 1.147) endorses Case N 3891 without exceptions. Therefore, when this revision is issued and when a commitment to this Case is incorporated into Unit 3's ISI Program, the necessity to obtain pnor NRC approval of the use of later editions of Section XI for repir, replacements and modifications will be precluded.)
- 2. The note on Attachment 5 to WC 3 references Regulator /
9"'de 1.83. This should be Regulatory Guide 1.85. This is a pgraphical error only.
- 3. The training reouirements for Revision 0 to Procedure WC 3 and almnges thereto are inconsistent. Changes 1 and 3 to Revision 0 of the procedure, which are minor changes state Prtnted 10GW9712s 57 PM Page 1 of 3
%e s
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0002 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report under training: ' Familiarization required". Revision 0 to WC 3, the trutialissue of the procedure, states:"No familiartzation required".
Revkw Vaud invalid Needed Date insisten Shepperd. R. P.
O O
O
- /1257 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomme J G
O O
eriser VT Men Schopfer Den K Q
Q Q
6/3097 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
7'5*7 Dele:
INVALID:
Date: 10/13/97 nasottsTioN: Disposition:
CR M3-97 2079 was written to request corrections to t C 3.
Although this station procedure applies to all three Millstone units, each unit has a specific ISI program goveming repair and replacement of ASME Section XI components.
Each of these ISI programs has a clear statement that use of later editions or eddenda of ASME Section XI requires NRC approval. Item 1 of the sub,4ct DR was previously identified, in December of 1995 all three Millstone units requested NRC approval to use Code Case N 3891, which would resolve this problem for all our plants,(ref letter no B15120 und B15659).
To date, we have neither received approval, nor has the NRC issued a revision to Reg. Guide 1.147. In the meantime, even though there is no possibility of any Millstone unit using unauthorized editions of the code, CR M3-97 2079 will require that WC 3 be revised to state NRC approvalis required to use any subsequent editions and addenda of Section XI or portions thereof for Repair / Replacement actlivities that are beyond our specific plant ISI Program Section XI Code commitments.
! tem 2 is an obvious typographical error that will be corrected, item 3 requires no action. WC 3, Rev. O was converted to the new format from ACP-QA 2.18 with no changes in instruction or responsibility, therefore no training was required, For subsequent changes or revisions, the procedure writer may, at his discretion, guided by DC 1 Attachment 5, determine that the subject of the change does or does not require familianzation.
==
Conclusion:==
Each Millstone unit's ISI Program govems repair / replacement activities and each program clearly states that use of subsequent editions or addenda of Section XI requires NRC approval.
Howevet, until NRC approves our use of Code Case N 3891 or issues a revision to Reg. Guide 1.147, WC 3 will be changed to address use of Section XI outside of each specific ISI program.
The error identified in item 2 will be corrected. Item 3 requires no action, since determination of training requirements may Pnnted 10/20/971:26 03 PM Page 2 of 3
).
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0002 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft i
differ from one revision to another depending upon the nature of the change. These items are administrative and are not startup related. CR M3 97 2079 will track these changes to completion.
Prov6ously loontened try Nu? C Yee e) No Non Discrepent Condsteen Q Yes @ No neview
'Wh Not ? - ^
- Needed Oste
% 3%, g, p, n w:,,,,, %,,
O O
O
- N 0
0 O
m*
n %
,,n,,,,,, o,n x Ntf Chmn: Singh. Anand K-Dele:
10/13/97 SL comments: 1. The responses to parts 2 and 3 of the discrepancy are acceptable.
- 2. We accept your decision to revise procedure WC.3 to resolve j
the discrepancy in the future. However, the proposed resolution is incomplete for the following reasons:
)
- a. The corredive actions do not address the extent of condition as N relates to past use of other editions of Sedion XI.
i, Specifically, what mechanism would have prevented the use of unapproved code editions in the past?
- b. The statement " Item 1 of the DR was previously identified" is not supported by facts. It does not appear that the request for NRC approval for Code Case N 3891 recognized that procedure WC 3 was in error.
4 G
4 q
Printed 10/20/971:06 07 PM Page 3 of 3
~_., _ __-.. _ _.
,,f '
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR MP3 4006 Ministone unit s Discrepancy Report Revtew Otoup: Propommesc DR Rss0LUTioN RsJscTEo Review stament: Change Procese p
Diecipiene: Operate"*
O vos E"
. _ 4 Type: 0 4 M s T Procedure g
systempresses: N/A W 84pdaeanse level: 4 Oste PAXad to NW:
Date Puhashed: 74e7
+ intomal Procedure inconsistencies Dess'98 ten: This discrepancy relates to Millstone General Operating Procedure OP 3265, Rev.5 (effective gr20/93), titled 'EOP Change and Revision Process" which cordrots Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) and other EOP supporting procedures. This pmndure is self contradictory in some fundamental requirements regarding the reviews required for pmoedure changes.
- 1. The procedure is intomally inconsistent regarding the need for engineering reviews ar'd safety evaluations for setpoint o
changes. Paragraph 2.2.13 of procedure OP 3265 states that an intent change is, 'a modification which alters method, scope, or safe'y of a procedure. Sotpoird changes are considered intent changes." Further, notes 2 to paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 state that setpoint changes do not require en engineering review or an integrated safety evaluation.
Contrary to the above procedure requirements Attachment 1 to OP 3265 flow chart shows that all intent changes require an engineering review and an integrated safety evaluation.
- 2. The procedure is ambiguous concoming the necessity to verify and validate intent changes. The notes to paragraphs 4.3 and 4.3.6 of OP 3265 state that the EOP Coordinator decides whether procedure verification of validation is required and whether it will be full or partial. Thus, intent changes to procedures can be inade without verification or val,dation.
Contrary to the above procedural requirements, Attachment 1 to OP 3265 shows a procedure flowchart which Indicates that all intent changes receive verification, validation, local validation, engineering review and integrated safety evaluation.
Review Vehd invWed Needed Date intuator: Shepperd. R. P.
O O
O St oS7 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J Q
Q Q
6/3o97 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
6/3097 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
7/197 od.:
INVAllo:
DWe: 10/10/97 REs0LUTioN: Disposition:
CR M3-97 2071 has been initiated to track this iune AR Pnnled 1070971:26 46 PM page 1 of 2
~
o.(/
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0005 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 97016320 was generated to coordinate activities associated with CR M3-9*.' 2071. The corTective action for the CR is to conect the identified inconsistent wording. Ijillstone is currently revising OP 3265. Setpoints are govemed by Millstone calculation W3 517 981 RE. Any setpoint changes made to an EOP will have first had to t, ave gone through engineering reviews to change calculation W3 517 981 RE.
==
Conclusion:==
- 1) OP 3265 is currently in the revision procers to clarify the review requirements for setpoint changes 2) DC 2 Developing and Revising Millstone Procedures and Forms, Rev.1, change 2, clarifies that inforniational attachments will be referred to in notes. The flow chart referenced in DR MP3 0005 is intended to be used as information only, The fimv chart will not be removed but its use will be clartfied by referring to flowchart In a note.
Prev 60usly klontined by Nu? Q Yes
- i No Non Discrepent condfuon Q Yes
- 19) No Rev6ew Inauetor: Shepperd. R. P.
O O
O mw VT Leed: Ryan. Thomme J
(
0 0
O mW yr up, sa,,,,e,, oon x IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
10/10/97 SL conenents: We accept your proposed resolution conceming the control of setpoints, however the proposed resolution is incomplete because it does not address the extent of condition as follows:
- b. If so, does this violate the Unit 3 licensing basis and what corrective action is proposed?
- c. Based on the answers to these questions, do any Emergency Operating Procedures or EOP supporting procedures need Pdditional reviews before start-up?
Pnnted 107097126 52 PM Page 2 of 2