ML20198M260
| ML20198M260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1998 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801200041 | |
| Download: ML20198M260 (105) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. f k-Sar germ _ Lundy"c y
Don K. Schopter ;
$$$$$1I January 14,1998-Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Static, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program 4
. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document ControlDesk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following forty-three (43) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.
DR No. DR-MP3-0324 DR No. DR-MP3-0871 i
DR No. DR-MP3-0341 DR No. DR-MP3-0872 DR No. DR-MP3-0360 DR No. DR-MP3-0873 DR No. DR-MP3-0387 DR No. DR-MP3-0874 DR No. DR-MP3-0389 DR No. DR-MP3-0876
+-
DR No. DR-MP3-0418 DR No. DR-MP3-0877 DR No. DR-MP3-0683 DR No. DR-MP3-0878 DR No. DR-MP3-0792 DR No. DR-MP3-0880 DR No. DR-MP3-0795 DR No. DR-MP3-0881 DR No. DR-MP3-07%
DR No. DR-MP3-088.2 DR No. DR-MP3-0798 DR No. DR-MP3-0883 DR No. DR-MP3-0826 DR No. DR-MP3-0886 DR No. DR-MP3-0841 DR No. DR-MP3-0894 DR No. DR-MP3-0855 DR No. DR-MP3-0897 DR No. DR-MP3-0860 DR No. DR-MP3-0900 DR No. DR-MP3-0861 DR No. DR-MP3-0904 DR No. DR-MP3-0866 DR No. DR-MP3-0908
' DR No. DR-MP3-0867 DR No. DR-MP3-0909
/
DR No. DR-MP3-0868 DR No. DR-MP3-0910 g
DR No. DR-MP3-0869 DR No. DR-MP3-0917 DR No. DR-MP3-0870 DR No. DR-MP3-0935 a No. DR-MP3-0947 9901200041 400114
~..
55 East Monroe Street
e I
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 14,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100.:
Page 2 j
I have also enclosed the following one (1) DR that has been determined invalid. No action
[
Eis required from Northeast Utilities for this DR.-- The basis for hs valid determination is included on the document; DR No. DR-MP3-0857 I have also enclosed the following fourteen (14) DRs for which the NU resolutions have :
been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
p
. DR No. DR-MP3-0040 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0459
. DR No. DR-MP3-0109 DR No. DR-MP3-0475
- DR No. DR-MP3-0253 DR No. DR-MP3-0522 DR No. DR-MP3-0310 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0587 DR No. DR MP3-0311 DR No. DR-MP3-0597 DR No. DR-MP3-0321 DR No. DR-MP3-0628 DR No. DR-MP3-0425 DR No. DR-MP3-0640 '
~ I have also enclosed the two (2) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not accepted. S&L comments on these resolutions have been provided.~
! DR No, DR-MP3-0019 DR No. DR-MP3-0082
. Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, D. K. Schopfer Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures e
Copies:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J Fougere (1/1) NU z
= % :iue
...... +,
~
Nonheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0324 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Rev6ew Element: system Design they%e: Mechancel Design g
W:
ni Type: Compunent Dets 4
(#) No systemprocese: Rss NRC $4niacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished: 1/17/96 D6ecrgency: Inconsistendes w/ FSAR Sec 6.3.2.2.5; ECCS gate & globe vivs stated to have lantem ring leakoff.
Dow:ription: FSAR Sedion 6.3.2.2.5 requires all emergency core cooling system gate valves to have stem leakoff connedions at the lantem ring. The FSAR section also states that control and motor operated valves exposed to recirculation flow have double-packed stuffing boxes and stem leakoff connections to the reactor plant gasoous drain system. Containment recirculation system components are described in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core coooling system.
- 1. Gate valve design specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 shows valves 3RSS*MOV38A,B not to have stem leakoff connedions. However, drawing 2282.050 67e 110 Revision E shows the valves to have lantern ring stem leakoff connedions. Packing within the stuffing box is not addressed in specification 2282.050-676 or drawing 2282.050-676-110,
- 2. Valve design specification 2282.050 676 through Revision 1 shows gate valves 3RSS*MOV8837A,8 and 3RSS*MOV8838A,8 not to have lantem ring i
leakoff connections. Howeverdrawing 2282.050-676-103 Revision I show 3 valves 3RSS*MOV8837A,8
~
and 3RSS*MOV8838A.B to hava stem leakoff l
connections. Packing within the stuffing box is not addressed in specification 2282.050-676 or drawing i
2282.050-676-106.
l l
- 3. Valve design specifications 2282.050-153 through Revision 3 and 2282.150-154 through Revision 2 show the following containment recirculation manual gate valves not to have stem leakoff connections.
l This is also substantiated by the respective valve i
drawings.
Gate and globe valve drawing references supplementing specifications 2282.050-153 and 2282.150154 are as follows:
2282.150-154-018 Rev G 2282.150154-019 Rev G l
2282.150-154-021 Rev G l
2282.150-154 022 Rev K i
2282.150-154-026 Rev G 2282.150-154-042 Rev G 2282.150-154-043 Rev G
??A? 1RtL1Ka nda Reg,n Printed 1/149611:17o2 AM Page 1 of 2 1
l
m
.,ww-r I
Northeast UtHWes ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34324 umstone unu 3 Discrepancy Report
.+ s%
u 2282,150-154-046 Rev G
+
2282.050-153-042 Rev A 2182.050153-039 Rev B (NOTE: this drawing shows a leakoff connedion on the valve)
Review Vend invoud Needed Dele inmistor: Fempold, D. J.
O O
O 1in1/Sr VT Leed: Nwl, Armony A G
O O
mm VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O i2/2ss7 IRC Chmn: Skyh, Anand K O
O tiisrae Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
T / 22'iidentNied by NU7 C) Yes tG) No Non Diecrepent Conditioit?Q Yee @ No c
PM% Pending70 vos @ No
~ % uar d7 0 vos @ No Rev6ew Not Wh Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: nort, Anthony A O
O 8
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
B IRC Chmn: Skyh, Anand K O
O Date:
SL Comments:
Printed in MI611:17.06 AM Page 2 W 2
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0341 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
,^
Review enoup: system DR vAuD Review Element: System Dee80n 4%
O Ya r g;, - ai Type: C* W g
SysmJoes: N/A NRC T; ~ ^=s level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.1/17/9e t'-
. mi; Reference Calculation # 12179-NP(B)-174-ZC & 12179-NP(B)-
174 XC Discrepancy D=cription Calculation Nos.12179-NP(B)-174-XC & 12179-NP(B)-174-ZC are referenced in the pipe support calculations listed below for qualification of the pipe straps. These calculations are voided (Reference NU Response I.D. No, M3-lRF-00174 ( Item NO.15 & 17 )). Therefore, pipe strap qualification cannot be vertfied. The associated pipe support calculations include:
- 1. NP(F)-ZO19R-019-H007, Rev.5
- 2. NP(F)-ZO19R-717 H003, Rev.5
- 3. NP(F)-ZO19R-018 H001, Rev.5
- 4. NP(F)-ZO19R-766-H001, Rev.1
- 5. NP(F> 2019R 015-H003, ~4ev.8 Review vaad invand Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.
O O
O 12/23,s7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 8
O O
2/21s7 VT Mgr: Sdever, Don K G
O O
tii2.se IRC Chmn: skyph. Anand K G
O O
1/12S8 Date:
INVAUD:
q Date:
RE80LLm0N Previounty idenuned by NU7 Q Yes it) No NonDescrepentCondition?Q Yes @ No R o wunon P.ad.aa? O Y a
<*D No Raouioaunreesved?O vee @ No R. view 6 Not Acceph Needed Date gg VT Leed: Nort. Arthony A VT Mgr: schover. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:
SL Consnente:
Printed 1/14se 11:18.00 AM Page 1 of 1 b
l.
Northeast Usmes ICAVP DR No. DR MP34360 minstone unit 3-Discrepancy Report newesw Group: System DRVAUD Revesw Element: System Design Discipilno: Modenical Design qy
. :i Type: Component Due g,
syneemProcese: Os3 NRC signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehed.1/17Al6 E
i; Specification 2362.200-164 & related drwgs are inconsistent for 3QSS*MOV34A,B
~
4 Descripeson. Vendor drawings 2362.200164-002 Revision E and 2362.200-164-043 Revision C, compliment the data in specification 2FS2.200-164 through Addendum 1, but also contain conflicting information.
The following are the specification and drawing discrepancies:
Type of Operator:
1.
Limitorque SMB-0002 per specification 2362.200164
- 11. Limitorque SMB-0005 per drawing 2362.200-164-043C lil. Limitorque SMB-0002 per drawing 2362.200-164-002E i
Revtow Valid inveNd Needed Date initiator: Fangold, D. J.
Q 12/16/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Armony A g
12/17/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g
g Q
12/2:W7 WIC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 1/13516 Date:
i INVAUD:
Date:
REsOLUTloN, N.
??;idenamed by NU? U Yes @ No Non CC - -.; Condition?Q Yee @ No Paaah% Pendeng70 vos @ No Panahahwiunresoeved?O vos (M)No Review Aco9teble Not Acceptable Needed Date initimam W O
G 1
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
vr Mer: s e.nmK IRC clvtwa: Smgh, Anand K Date:
SL Cavenents:
3 Prned1/1451611:19-11 AM Pago 1 of 1
~,.
- wee eme-s e M
4
[
Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR No. DRW34347 umstorm urist 3 Discrepancy Report
- c..
Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Elemose: System Design Discipene: Piping Design g
Diese peney Type: %%
SystemProcess: SWP NRC Sigmeconce level: 4 Date FAXad to NU:
Date Pubtehed.1/17/98 DWN Containment Recirculation Cooler Nozzle Load Qualification Discrepancy Dos, w n: In process of reviewing the following pipe stress analysis calculations, (1) Calculation NP(F)-1907 Rev. 4, CCN # 1:
(2) Calculation NP(F)-1908 Rev. 3, CCN # 1 (3) Calculation NP(F)-7919 Rev. 2, CCN # 6 (4) Calculation NP(F)-7923 Rev.1, CCN # 5 (5) Calculation NM(S)-748-CZC-003 Rev. O, CCN # 4 The following discrepancy was noted :
Calculation (5) provides an Evaluation of stresses due to nozzle loads for Conte!nment Recirculation Coolers 3RSS*E1 A, B, C, D.
1 Nozzle loads evaluated in Calculation (5) are not consistent with the nozzle loads computed in calculations (3) & (4). Calculated i
nozzle loads in (3) & (4) are larger than the qualified nozzle loads.
For nozzle load qualification, Calculations (2) & (3) incorrectly refer Rev.1 of Calculation (5).
Calculations (1) & (4) provide no reference to nozzle loads '
evaluation calculation.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date
(
Initiator. Singh R.
8 O
O
8*8 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
'/ase VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K G
O O
1/12,98 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
1/13/98 Date:
DNAUD:
Date:
RESoLUTK21:
7.etz';identined by Nur O Yes
@~ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No mPenenerO <ee
@ No Roomtmunree*ed70 vee @ No Review A~$h Not AccPh Needed Date m,g O
O O
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Pnnted 1449611:19.57 AM Page 1 or 2 l
l l
Northeast Utsties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0347 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
-4 _ =. _.
-__m O
O Date:
SL Comments:
i i
i a
I i
i 4
4
+ =.
d e
I Printed 1/149611202 AM PaGe 2 of 2 1
4
-w-m-
r
,a
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0389 Misistorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report moviewaroup system i
DRVAuo "d'"Y
- osseipano oeson'.
. N-y Type: CalctAsma g
8,
- _ _ ?. :
- N/A NRC Signiasonse level: 3 onte faxed to NU:
onte Putdiohed. 1/17196 r
ci. Microfiche is not available for pipe support calculations osseripeson: We have requested the reference documents (Microrx:he, E &
DCR, N & D etc.) for the following calculations. These documents are not available per NU ICAVP Response ID Nos.
as listed below. Thus the review of the calculations can not be completed.
CALCULATION No.
NU RESPONSE l.D. NO.
NP(F)-260R-506 H001 1087 NP(F) Z80R 261 H001 1087 NP(F)-Z707A-002 1087 No(F)-2545D-461 1120 NP(F) Z5450-484 1120 NP(F)-Z5450-518 1120 NP(F)-25450-552 1120 NP(F)-Z545G-874 1120 NP(F)-Z507A-064 1120 NP(F)-2612A-119-H005 1169 l
NP(F)-Z701A-001 1169 NP(F)-Z615A-003-H003 1169 C36.11 1189 NP(F)-Z545J-1288 (EQ MT.)
1169 NP(F)-Z5458-163 1154 NP(F).Z 545D-473 1154 C29.143 1154 l
NP(F)-Z5458-245 1154
)
NP(F) 254551304 1154 i
l NP(F)-Z545A-086 1154 SEO SE.34.339 1154 l
1154 NP(F) Z545J-1235 1154 NP(F)-Z545J-1221 1154 i
NP(F)-2545J-1252 1154 NP(F)-Z545D-479 1154 i-NP(F)-Z545G-828 1154 SEO-SE.34.350 1171 SEO SE.34.435 1171 NP(F)-Z545J-1286 (EQ. MT.)
1214 l
NP(F)-Z507A-039 1214 i
NP(F)-Z507A-017 1214
)
l NP(F)-Z507A-018 1214 NP(F)-Z545J-1291 (EQ. MT.)
1214 CFSK-736DA-E194 1198 CFSK-737R E17 1198 i
L CFSK-736L-E4 1198 l
CFSK-736MA E31 1198 1
t-e e n_ e e..n.. m,..
< < n..
i
f.,
h?st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34389 I
Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
CFSK-736KA-E16 1195 CFSK-736E E237 1195 NP(F)-Z507A-008 1154 NP(F)-Z545J-1323 1154 NP(F)-Z612A-013-H014 558 NP(F)-Z79B-062 121 NP(F)_Z19R-018-H001 1173 NP(F)-Z79B-086 506 NP(F)-Z798-003 506 CFSK-732B-E156 506 NP(F)-Z79B-064 506 CFSK-7328-E112 506 NP(F)-Z79R-006-H007 506 SEO-V1.051 506 NP(B)-1024-XC 910 NP(F)-Z612A-077-H007 910 NP(B)-2019A 910 NP(B)-10J-XC 910 NP(F)-Z19R-716-H004 910 NP(F)-Z79C-138 332 NP(F)-Z19F-253 332 NP(F)-Z19F-007 332 NP(F)-Z19A-128 298 NP(B) 1029-XC 380 NP(F)-Z612A-046-H003 558 NP(F)-Z612A-046 H001 558 NP(F)-Z626A-015-H008 558 ne*.
vm im,m u.e ed D*
Initiator: Patel, A.
O O
O 15S8 vi t.ed: n t Anmany ^
O O
O w oe VT Mgr: Schoper, Don K O
O O
iis2/se IRC Chmn: S@, Anand K B
D O
'1358 Date:
mauD:
Date:
nuoumon PMviously identtAed by NU7 O vos @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition?O vos @ No ne.*nonPonena70 vos @ no neemuon urve.*.d70 ves @ so Review Accepteble H Accepteblo Needed Date mg g O
O G
VT Leed: Nei, Anmony A VT Mgr: Schoper, Don K Inc Chmn: Shy.,Aactsjk Date:
St Comments:
Prtneed 1/1@96112133 AM Page 2 of 2 1
1 Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. OR MP3-0418 uinstone Unit 3 1 Discrepancy Report 1
noview aroup: system onvAuo Revtew Element: system Design
%* h Deegn
{yy,,
E' :. :p Type: C*%
gg s, U.
7SWP MRC aientaeones level: 3 Does FAXad to NU:
Dale Putmehed: 1/17Als t'
zi. The minimum well calculations were reviewed and several
. d;screpancies Mrs found.
Deecription: Serveral calculations were found to be using allowable stress
. values that did not coincide with the referenced ASME code for the specified piping material and at the given temperatures. The followin0 calculations used different allowables that resulted in non-conservative minimum well thicknesses to be determined.
Calculation MW(B)-91 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 9500 instead of 8740 as listed in ASME Vill-Div.1, Table UNF 23.2 Winter 72 Addendum, for temperature of 95*F.
Calculation MW(BF92 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 10000 instead of 8530 as listed in ASME Vill 1971 - Div.1, Table UNF-23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, at a temperature of 95'F.
Calculation MW(BF93 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 8706 instead of 7440 as listed f a ASME Vill-Div.1, Table UNF-23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, for temperature of 95'F.
Calculation MW(B) 94 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 8706 instead of 7440 as listed in ASME Vill-Div.1. Table UNF-23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, for temperature of 95'F.
Calculation MW(B)-95 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 8706 instead of 7440 as listed in ASME Vill-Div.1, Table UNF-23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, for temperature of 95'F.
Calculation MW(B)-96 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value l
of 8706 instead of 7440 as listed in ASME Vill-Div.1. Table UNF-23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, for temperature of 95'F.
Calculation MW(B)-97 rev. NA, used an allowable stress value of 8706 instead of 7440 as listed in ASME Vill-Div.1. Table UNF 23.2 Winter 73 Addendum, for temperature of 95'F.
Several calculations were found to be using a weld joint efficiency different than that specified for tho given material as follows:
l Calculation MW(F)-337, Rev. NA used a factor o' 1.0 instead of l
0.85 as referenced in ASME Vill 1971 - Div.1, Table UNF-23.2 note 5, for material SB-467.
Calculation MW(F)-339, Rev. NA used a factor of 1.0 instead of l
0.85 as referenced in ASME Vill 1971 - Div.1, Table UNF-23.2 l
note 5, for material SB-467.
Nneed 1/wse 11212e AM Page 1 of 3 l
Northeast Utsties ICAVP M No. MM 0418 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Several calculations had design inputs that could not be verified due to either the documents bein0 referenced were superseded,
- steled ts 'far information edi.1 nreidevcb:t documents (not in NU system), or the incorrect reference for the given design inputs. This affected the following documen s:
MW(B)-83, rev. NA MW(B)-84, rev. NA MW(B)-91, rev. NA MW(B)-92, rev.NA MW(B)-93, rev. NA MW(B)-94, rev. NA MW(B)-95, rev. NA MW(B)-96, rev. NA MW(B)-97, rev. NA MW(B)-98, rev.1 MW(B)-99, rev. NA MW(BF100, nev. NA MW(B) 101, rev. NA MW(B)-106, rev. NA MW(B)-107, rev. NA MW(B)-133, rev. NA MW(B)-140, rev. NA MW(B)-168, rev. NA MW(F)-7, rev. NA MW(F)-60, rev. NA MW(F)-89, rev. NA MW(F)-80, rev.1 MW(F)-81, rev.1 MW(F) 168, rev. NA MW(F)-178, rev NA MW(F)-336, rev. NA MW(F)-337, rev. NA MW(F) 338, rev. PM MW(F)-339, rev. NA MW(F)-342, rev. NA MW(F)-346, rev. NA MW(F)-347, rev. NA MW(F)-353, rev. NA MW(F)-52, rev. NA lt was noted in calculations MW(B)-106, rev. NA and MW(B) 107, rev. NA that an incoTect pipe material was notad as C#5 gr. 70 instead of SA516 gr. 70. Calculation MW(F)-342 rev. i A notes the material as SA466 and should be SB466 per piping class 158.
The title for calculation MW(B)-168, rev. NA stated that it is for a T fitting, which per pipe class 156 shr.ald be either material SB-61 or SB-62 instead of $8-466 that was noted. This also led to an incorrect allowable stress to be used.
In calculation MW(F)-178, rev. NA the pipe materlal is listed as SB467 or SB466 No. 766. The allowable stress value used indicates that SB467 No. 706 is used (S=7400). If this is the material that is used, the weld joint efficiency should be 0.85 1
instead of 0.80. If SB466 No. 706 is the material used, then the allowable stress is conservative.
Calculation MW(F)-346 rev. NA notes the nominal pipe thickness as 0.095* (for 3" pipe). This calculadon is determining the minimum well thickness for a 2" pipe and should be comparing the calculated minimum wall thickness to 0.083* Instead of 0.095*,
Calculation MW(F)-353 rev. NA Pas not state the nominal pipe size that is apolicable to this calculation. From the OD stated, it Pnnled 1/1Mie 11:21:12 AM Page 2 of 3
v Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0418 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report t
can be determined that the pipe size is 2", however, the nominal thickness noted is for a 2.5" special schedule pipe. The information as to the appropriate size pipe this calculation applies to is conflicting.
2 Due to the numerous discrepencies in both the conservative and non-conservative directions the actual effed to each of the minimum wall calculations cant be determined.
Review Vand invaad Needed Date Inities.r: Dumns, B. J.
O Q
Q 12N8/97 -
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
12/19P ?
VT Mgr: Schoper. Don K G
O 12m UllC Chmn: Segh. Anand K Q
Q Q
1/13/96
. Date:
DNAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
\\
../ --_";IdentNied by hU? O Yee f No Non Discrepent c-edition?Q Yes @ No nos.ium n Penene?O yee @ No noe.nmonunroe eved?O yee @ No novi.,
P Not &~=fah Needed Date gg g VT Lead: Neri Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Lon K lhC Chmn: 14 Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
S Peted 1/14961121:15 AM Page 3 or 3
-...i Northeast utsti.e ICAVP DR No. DRMM88 wastone unit 3
" Discrepancy Report
=
Revtow or.up: sm DR vAuD Revtow Stament: Meehoemen Design Dlootphne: Strwture' "*"
O va j
Disempancy ?vpe: Ce%
g'g r
8, _ _,
- 8WP NRC SignInse.no loved: 3 Does faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehad: 1/17/98 r. ci; Modification Review Checklist Ducree6an: We have reviewed Modification No. MMM56. Based on this reviw.'we have noted the following discrepency.
Supports 3-SWP 4-PSSP423, PSSP427 & PSST 060 were modified by the subled modificrion per DCN #'s DM3-8-0817-96 E DM3-S-0816 96. Per NU Response ID No. M3-IRF 00910, calculations for modified supports can not be found in Nuclear Plant Records. Therefore review of the modificat!on package can not be completed.
Rev6ew 1
vand invahd Neested Date infelster: Patel, A.
g Q
12/2357 g
Q 12/2397 VT Laod: Nort. Arthony A VT Mer: Schopfer Don K G
u O
tri2/se D
1/1396 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
IWAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION-4 Previously idente#ed try NU7 Q Yee @W NonDescrepentcompetton?Q Yee
@ No Resoluthn Pending70 vos @ N.
~% untee.eved70 vos @ No Review Inattesor: (none)
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
g mC Chmn: se, Anend K Date:
SL Comrnente J
-.~;.
,-4,
,y
~ - -
Northeast UtNaies ICAVP DR No. DR4P3Cm umstorm unu 3
! Discrepancy Report DRvAuD Review aroup, system 05 Diestrane N, :rType;Calcu, u
(,) g s, _.
HVX NRC Signiacense level: 4 O4e faxed to NU:
Date Pubitehed: 1/17/De DWecy Non-Standard Duct Support Calculation Discrept ncy Descr*t6an: We have reviewed the Duct Support Calculation no. NP(F)-
Z5450-560,Rev.3.
Based upon this review,we have noted the following discrepancies:
- 1. On page no.8,the compu;er model does not correspond to the STRUDL input at joints no. 6,7 and 8.
Also, the 6' eccentricity that er, aunts for the depth of the member FCx12.5 has nci beon accounter for in the computer model.
- 2. On page no.15,the ratio fa/Fa = 0.44>0.15.
Therefore, Equation 1.6 1a or 1.6 ib (instead of Equation 1.6 2 ) Shall be use:Ito evaluate stresses in member L 31/2 x 21/2 x 1/4 as required by the AISC,Cth edition,paDe 5-26.
Also, the allowable stresses useN to evaluate L 31/2 x 21/2 x 1/4 have not been adjusted (reduced) to account for the effed of bending about principal axes.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Kloc. N O
O O
12/12/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
Q Q
12/1,697 VT Mer Sdgfor Don K p
Q 12/2397 IRC Chmn: Sm Anand K Q
Q Q
1/1398 Date:
18NAUD:
Date:
RESOUffloN:
Previously identised by Nu? O vee to) No Non D6screpent Condalon?O vos @) No M% Punding70 vos @ No R-ion tereceivedrO vee @ No Review
^ -:
edag ar,.pa.m p
4.d pote VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K g
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
a O
Dese:
SL Conenente:
Printed 1/1N961122.37 AM Pope 1 of 1
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No, DRW34M umstons urdt 3 Discrepancy Report a-
.s, Movtow Group: System DR VAUD newtow mannen: system Desen otecipens: Meeheneer Demon n
b,No F
li Type: Componert Date s,
n : = :HVX
~
NRC signiacance lovt. 3 Date faxed to NU:
i Date putdiohed.1/17/96 E: ; ii. Specificatbns 2176.430141 and 2170.430140 Vibration Test Requirements peacetpelon: During review of the procurement specifications for auxiliary
)
building ventilation system filter exhaust fans OHVRTN6A/B and supplementary Isak collodion and release system exhaust fans 3HVRTN12A/B a discrepancy was identified regarding ANSI N509-1976 vibration test requirements.
Reg. Guide 1.C2, Rev. 2, paragraph C.3.1 requires that the fans be designed, constructed and tested in accordance with the i
provisions of Section 5.7 of ANSI N509-1976. ANSI N5091976 d
Section 5.7.3 states tMt fan wheels shall be statically and dynamically balanced.ior to assemh8v. Following assembly, the fan shall be dynarrJcan, balanced ag'.
and the maximum permissible velocities shall be 0.1 Indsec. radially and 0.2 in/sec axially. FSAR Table 1.8-1, Reg. Guide 1.52 Rev. 2 compliance does not taken exception to this requirement.
Specification 2170.430141. Rev. 3 and 2170.430140, Rev. 2 requires the fans to be fadory balanced not to exceed an j
amplitude of vibration peak-to-peak, in any plane measured on the fan casing as tabulated below:
3.5 mils at 600 rpm i
2.0 mils at 720 rpm 2.4 mils at 900 rpm 1.9 mils at 1200 rpm 1.26 mils at 1800 rpm 0.65 mits at 3600 rpm.
The specification requirements do not sgree with the requirements of ANSI N509-1976. T,)ey also are not as stringent as those contained in ANSI N509-1980 which are shown below forinformation:
3.2 mils at 600 rpm 2.7 mils at 720 rpm 2.1 mits at 900 rpm 1.6 mils at 1200 rpm 1.1 mils at1800 rpm 0.5 mils at 3600 rpm.
Review veed invoud Needed Date intenator: Sto4 M. D.
O O
O 12ii2S7 VT Land: Nort. Anthony A G
D 0
12tte.s7 VT Mgr: Schapler, Don K G
O O
12/22s7 IMC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
'/15S8 PrHod1/149611:2314 AM Page 1 or 2
.__ _ _ _ _ _ - ~. _
l Northeast UtiHeles ICAVP DR % DR4F34M5 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:
- AUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
NJ n'?,'identNied by NU7 O Yee
- J No NonDesceWConelten?Q Yes (#7h Reesenstlen % r O Yee + No me.enman un,.e, 47O yee @) No Mov'to 1
Acceptable Not F----^
Needed Uele initiators (none)
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Gohopfer, Don K O
O wie enmn: S@, Anand K O
Date:
I SL Commente.
I 1
i
}
i I
i Pftnied 1/1496112316 AM p
4 a
Northeast UWWes ICAVP DR No. DRMP34m ummmw unit 3 Discrepancy Report DRvAuD Review aroup, system 4
Review Element: sjoism Deegn olesipline: Mecherecal Deegn g y,,
Diesrepenry Type: Cwgo ad Ate
,4-) g sw:-
' Hvx NRC soplacam levet: 4 Jose faxed to NU:
Date Published.1/17/96 oneerepency: Valve 3HVR*V219 Classification Dacrtpelen: During review of the component data for valve 3HVR*V219 a discrepancy regarding the safety classification of the valve in the Plant Design Data System (PDDS) database was identified.
The valve is located in a Class 3 line (3-HVR-750 40 3 and 3-HVR 750-20-5) as shown on P&lD EM 148E, The PDDS valve description number is VOS0601V 3 fumished under specification 2282.150-154. This is a ASME Section Ill, Class 3 valve per the specification.
The PDDS QA Category for this valve is QA Cat 2. This does not agree with the valve specification, the PMMS database, or the clasalfication required based on the classification of the line it is installed in, Review Valid inveild Needed Date Inllistor: StoLA. M. D.
O O
O 12 tiers 7 VT Leed: Nort, Arunony A O
O O
12 tie /e7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Den K O
O 12/D97 1RC Chmn: S#gh, Anand K O
O O
$3**
osie:
INVAUD:
m, Deie:
RESOLUTION N / :r'i identdled by NU7 O "Yes
@ No Non Discrepent Condmon?O Yes @ No PM% Pending?O vos @ No Reconueion unre.e4v.d70 vee @ No Review M,"
Noi Arear h Needed Dele a
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, ANhony A
]
]
yT Mer: Se, Don x IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dele:
st Comments:
Prtnled 1/140s 1123 46 AM p.g. i og i
Northeast UtHkies ICAVP DR No. DR44P34m mustone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6.w Group: System DR VAUD Rev6ow Element: system Desigre 06ecipene: Emvenmnental cusweshan ny Diecrepancy Type: Camponent Date f-sii T.i
?HVX NRC signiesense level: 4 Date faxed to DAl-Date Puhilshed: 1/17/96
. ci; Missing Class 1E Equipment Data Sheets in Specification 2472.510426 t=-V
- n. The review of the Procurement Specification No. 2472.510-626 (ASCO Pressure / Temperature Switches Cat.1) shows that the Equipment Data Sheets of the following Class 1E components are missin0:3HVR*PS209A,B : 3HVR*TS172A.B ;
3HVR*TS175A1, A2, B1, B2 ; 3HVR*TS176A,B ;
3WVR"TS177A,B hAvever, the Millstone Equipmers Qualification Master List (EQML) shows these equipment as Class 1E components located in harsh environment in the Auxiliary Building in Zones AB-04, AB-26, and AB-39.
Review Vebd invalid Needed Date inalleter: Yeeean. S.
G O
12/i n 7 Q
12/1M7 VTLeed: Neri, ArWhery A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O 12/22 7 Q
1/1T96 1RC Chem: Segh. Anand K Date:
aWAUD:
Date:
REsOt.UTIoN:
Prev 6ously identesed by NU7 U Yee f No Non Disorspent Condition?U Yee
@ No Resolution Ponding70 m @m m e unre ev.d7 0 m l
Initiator: (none)
O VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schophr. Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K j
Date:
SL Commente:
(
l
,4 1
Prtnted 1/149611:24:26 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utsties ICAVP
" " M
- 84888 Mastone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
.es
, e-Revtew Group: system OR VALD mov6ew tiennt: system Deegn pqw Diecipiene: N Deegn g y,,
Descrepancy Type: Dronen0 (4 g s- _..- - oox NHC signiacance level 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehod 1/17/96 E. -i; Companson Between PDOS and P&lD EM 117A results in components not listed or not shown.
Descrip#ea A comparison was made between this P&lD and PDDS with the following comments:
Components on PalD but not matching PLDS:
3EGF*STRTIC(C-) versus P.TRIC in PDDS 3EGF*STRT1D(D-) versus -STR1D in PDDS Components on PalD but not listed in PDDS:
3EGF*V955(A-), Relief Valve *RV35A(A-)
3EGF'V956(A-), Relief Valve *RV36A(A-)
3EGF'V957(A-), Relief Valve *RV36A(A-)
3EGF'V958(A-), Relief Valve *RV36A(A-)
3EGF-PDIS22D (Please note that PDDS does show a 3EGF PDIS22, which may only be a typo.)
3EGF FiCV25A SEGF-FICV258 Components in PDDS but nct shown on P&lD:
3EGF*FE31A 3EGF*FE31B 3EGF FY31 A 3EGF FY31B 3EGF LS25A 3EGF-LS258 3EG8 -LS29A1 3EGF-LS29A2 3EGF-LS25A1 3EGF LS25A2 3EGF-LS25B1 3EGF-LS2582 3EGF LS29A1 3 EOF-LS29A2 3EGF-LS29Bi 3EGF LS2982 3EGF PY21A 3EGF PY21B 3EGF PY2:0 3EGF-PY21D Rev6ew vand invalid Nooded Date inleister: Ruse.Eart Q
O O
12/1H7 VT Lead: Nort. Arthony A y
Q Q
12/1M7 vr wr sceuover. Don x 0
0 0
12/22S7 m.edm aiizisni es,. i or 2
l
_l l
met utsues ICAVP M No, M4PW26 umetone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
.m 1RC C#wsm: Sirgh, Arend K g
y Q
1/1396 Oste:
IWAUD:
Dans:
REtOulTION:
NT- ?;idenamed ley NU7 O Yes
- 40) No Iden Descrepent Condelion?Q Yes (f) No w%PenslinetO Vee
- ) No Reessuinen unreseevedtO Yee @ No Moview We NotAW h Needed Oste Instister: (none)
YT Lassi: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K WIC Chmn: Srgh, Anand K
[
Date:
SL Comments:
J l
0 I
a i
Pitnted 1/1496112110 AM Page 2 of 2
A s.-
-+e Northeast UWHues ICAVP M No, MMM1 Mmetone ute 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD W Element: System Deegn Diecipene: SW W n y, F, :, Type: % m fg 8, _ __ _
.HVX NRC signeacance level: 4 Does faxed to NU:
' As Putdished: 1/17MI6 r--1
- ,1 Duct Support Calculation Discrepancy Descripmen We have reviewed ti e Dud Support Calculations no. NP(T)-
Z5450-501,Rev.2 and NP(F) Z5450 502,Rev.0.
Based upon this review,we have noted the following discrepancy:
Steel memeber angle sodions have been qualified by inspection only without providing any addhional technical Justification.
For examples,See qualification of L 31/2 x 21/2 x 1/4,3'-6' long (Page no. 6 of Ref. calc.no. NP(T)-Z545D-501,Rev.2) and L 21/2 x 11/2 x 1/4,3'-
9'long (Page no. 3 of Ref. calc. no. NP(F)-Z545D-502,ReV.0).
Review Vand invaud Needed Date inluosor: Klete. N O
O 12/1557 O
O 12/ sine 7 VT Lead: Nort, Archony A VT Myr: Schepfer, Dan K O
O O
12/22e7 IRC Chrnn: Singh. Anand K G
O O
1/ise6 i
Dele:
INVALID:
Date:
REtoltmoN.
n...:2$ identtaed by NU7 O vos @ No NonD6ecrepentCondit6cn?Q vos @ No I
Resolution ponaing?O vos @ No Pe% Unresolved?O vos @ No Review
&~=r h Not A-:-: -
Needed Date a
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K b
inc en,nn: Sv. Anand K O
SL Commente:
l l
l l
l l
Prteed 1/14961125:50 AM Page 1 of 1
!E
Northeast utstles ICAVP M No, MMSM5 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
.,. s nw6ow aroup: syenem DRvAuD moview esament: syneem Design Deedpene: P4mng Deegn p yp Dieseopency Type: cm fg s,o
-:Dax ssec sienencance tww: 3 Dane Faxed to Nu:
Date Pubtlehed: 1/17/98 E'
, -i. Incorrect dynamic displacements used in pipe stress analysis
==
Description:==
In the process of rev8 ewing the following DGX system pipe stress calculation:
NP(F) 728-XD, Rev. O. CCN 2,9-13-85 we noted the followir:0 discrepancy:
Background:
1 At the location of support H002 (NP 70), the y-direction OBE/DBE dynamic building displacements are 0.0028"/0.0045",
and the corresponding z ditedion displacements are 0.0213*/0.0325" Support H002 is fundional in x and y diredions.
Discrepancy.
The y-direction displacements have not been considered in the pipe stress analysis. Rather, z-direction displacements are considered in z diredion. However, s nce the support has no fundion in the z-diredion, the z direction displacements will,not be transferred to the piping and should not be considered. Only x and y direction building displacements will be transferred to the piping.
Incorrect dynamic displacements used in pipe stress analysis Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date inleister: Patel, Ramesh.D G
O O
12/ias7 VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A G
O O
2 SS7 VT M r: schapdor, Don K G
O O
'2/22s7 9
wic chmn: Sergh. Anand K G
O O
insse Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
PreviouWy Idenemoc' tr/ NU7 Q Ya @ No Non uscrepent Constion?Q Yes @ No ' ~
noe.hmenPenmas7O va @ No Ree hm. aunt =wvedtO va @ No n.wie.
Wa Not Acceptable Needed Dele
%g Pened in49011:32.58 AM Page 1 or 2 1
e
,, d arun+s Northeast Utsties ICAVP M No. M.MP3M umstone unu 3 Discrepancy Report j
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Arthory A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer DonK IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K Dele:
SL Canonents:
1 i
1 J
d i
1 Prned 1/1W9611:33.02 AM Page 2 of 2
e s%.-
w Northeast Utilt:w ICAVP DR No. DRMM Mi 6 storm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: syneem u
DR VAUD Review seemerx: system Demon Discipline: Piping Deegn p y, F
. ai Type: C*$ %
gg SystemProcese: DGX NRC Signiacense level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 1/17/96 Diecrepancy: Pipe stress calculations have unconfirmed assumptions Deeceiption-During the review of DGS System piping calculations, (i) 12179-NP(F)-X6007. Rev. O, CCN 2.
(ii) 12179-NP(F) X6006-Rev. O, CCN-1 we noted the following discrepancies:
- 1. Calculations (i) & (ii) require confirmation for assumptions 2(a), (b), (c), & 3.
- 2. Qualification calculatiotis for Flexhoses 3EGS*1 A,1B,2A &
2B are not identified.
3 Equipment Nonle loads were generated and transmitted to the stress reconcillation group. However no documentation is provided for the qualification and acceptance of these loads.
- 4. According to (i) & (ii) Stress Data Package SDP-EGO-O is to be issued
- Date--Later *. This SDP was not issued.
Revier Vand invalid Needed Date initiator: Jain. R. C.
G O
O 12/22/s7 O
12r2ns7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Ggr: Schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
12ftas7 0
0 tilsse IRC Chmn: S6nsh. Anand K Date:
- NAUO:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previousey identined by NU7 O Yee f No NonDescrepentCondetton?U Yes @ No
-readine7O va @ No Raht6onUnroomed?O va @ No R. view Accap8ahaa Not Acceptable Nooded Date O
O O
VT Leed' Nort, Anthony A g
O O
vr u,r: schapeer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
SL Conenents:
Pnnled1/1W9611:33.31 AM Pege 1 or 1 3
e mm_ _ _ _. _,.,
Northeast UtNeues ICAVP DR Noa DRW34881 Minetone Ur* 3 Discrepancy Report noview ee.up: syenem onVAun newesw element: syenem Deep
,,,g Disedpane: Pipirg Design g
Demerspency Type: c*%
gg s, _Z
= DGX NnC
- W - level: 4 ones faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.1/17/96 pisorepency: Evaluation for accelerations and di', placements of flexhoses was not addressed in calculation ossertposen: In the process of reviewing the following DGX system pipe stress calculations, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-797-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-453 XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (3) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-458 XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (4) Calculation No.12179 NP(F)-738 XD, Rev.2 CCN # 2 (5) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-941 XD, Rev.0, CCN # 2 we noted the following discrepancy:
Back0round:
Displacements and accelerations at the flexhoses identified below were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group for evaluation.
(1) Fle;; hose 4A Une # 3-EGS 375 9 3 Calc.(1)
(2) Flexhose-6B Une # 3 EGS-37510-3 Calc.(1)
(3) EGSHose 3A Une # 3-EGS-375-13-3 Calc.(2)
(4) EGS* Hose-38 Une # 3-EGS 37514-3 Ca:c.(2)
(5) EGSHose-4A Une # 3-EGS-375-113 Calc.(2)
(6) EGS* Hose-48 Une # 3-EGS-37312 3 Calc.(2)
(7) EGS*EGA-A Une # 3-EGD-001-13-3 Calc.(3)
(8) EGSHose 5B Une # 3-EGS-150-02-3 Calc.(4)
(9) EGS* Hose-58 Une # 3-EGS-150-04-3 Calc.(4) f (10) EGS* Hose Une # 3-EGS-001 15-3 Calc.(5)
(11) EGS* Hose Une # 3-EGS-150-03-3 Calc.(5)
(12) EGS* Hose une # 3-EGS 150-013 Calc.(5)
Discrepancy:
Evaluation / acceptance basis for the displacements and accelerations at these flexhoses is not provided, nor referenced in the above calculations (15).
Review Valid invetid Needed Date bestator. Patel, RameshD --
G O
O 12/22s7 VT Lead Ner', Merij /.
G O
O 12/20er VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K G
0 O
52/23s7 IRC Chmn: Skyh, Anand K G
O O
tisee Date:
f INVAUp:
Prtneed ti149811:3407 AM Page 1 of 2
,g l
Northeast Utletties ICAVP DR No. DRW34441 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- as Dese:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identeAed by NU7 O Yes t9) No Noe Diecrepent Condalon?O yes @) No W h Pendesg? O vos @) No
""dH Unreenived?O vos @) No Revtew AccepteWe Not A~th Needed Date mg VT Lead: Nort, Ardhony A VT Mor: !khopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: 4 Anand K
=
1 Date:
SL Conenente:
PrWed 1/149611:34 i1 AM PeGe 2 of 2
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DRWN umetone unit 3 Discrepancy Report DRVAUD llevhaw Greeap: Programmec flevtew Enemmant: Correcew Amon Process Disciphne: Piping Deeng" O v.
Descr*pency Type: Cormsw Acton g,?,
systemProcess: RSG NRC SepHicanoe level:3 Date faxed to inl:
Dese Puheehed: 1/17 Ale 1
Deserepancy: Incorted ACR Closure m acrtpe6an: ACR # 10773 contains the following which are indicative of Improper closure.
- 1. The ACR was apparently changed to a Significance Level B 1
(from D) on the Adverse Condition Report Transmittal Sheet, and a reportability determination is required. There is no Reportability Determination induded in the package.
Additionally, this incident appears to have been reportable under 10CFR50.72 (2) (I) which states," Any event, found while the reador is shut down, that, had it been found while the reactor was in operation, would have resulted in the nuclear power plant, j
induding its prindpal safety barriers, being......in an unanalyzed condition...." is reportable.
- 2. This ACR was apparently closed without PORC review. A note induded in the package states that the ACR was taken to PORC four times without success. The response to the note is to 'Close the ACR without PORC review.' No justification is provided with the remark. Another note is included on the Casual Fadors and Corrective Adion Plan stating 'ACR may be closed without root cause or PORC review", again without no explanation orjustification.
Review Yelid Imrelid Needed Date Ird86=8ar: Wrone. S. P.
g Q
12/2V,1 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J O
O O
2r2497 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
1;izse IRC Civvin: Singn. Anand K O
O O
$"3/ne Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
REaOLUTION Previously identfeed by Nu? (,) Yes (G) No Non W,-2 Conditten?O Yee @ No
"% Pending?O vee @ Ne
=-a-m% unr.oosv.dtO yee @ No Review
^
^
Not Aerata.ada Needed Date b
b VT Leed: Ryan. Themse J VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
PrtntedinMle11:3621 AM Page1 or 1 i
x
m.u%
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR % DRWL4847 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Programmeno DRVAUD Review Element: Correcthe Achen Process D6eceptino: N Deegn gy x
Discrepacy Type. Correct *ve #m
@ No g _____----.m NRC signiecence level: 4 mpg m Date Published; 1/17/98 r.
- i. No Corredive Action Plan induded in ACR Desertp46en: ACR M3 96-0721 does not conform to the requirements of the Corrective Adion procedure, i.e., no corrective adlon plan is induded which descnbos the adlons being taken to corted the i
identified deficiency and close the ACR. Additionally on Form RP f-4, there is a statement saying 'Close Per MRT Comments.' There are no MRT comments included in the ACR.
Rev6ew Valid tavelid Needed Date initiator: Wrone, S. P.
O O
12/24s7 VT Laert: Ryers, Thomas J O
O 12/24s7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, CJ1 K O
O O
1/12/se IRC Chmn: Singh. Arend K O
O O
1/1sse Date:
INVAUD:
Dese:
RESOLUTION' Provtously ident$Aed Ipy NU7 O Yes @ No Non Descrepent Conan6cn?O Yes @ No RM% Pending?O Yes @ No RomaniUnresolved?O yes
(*7 No Review A~W Not Acceptable Needed Date m,. g O
O O
VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mist: Schopfer, Den K IRC Chnm: Singh, Anand K D.
SL Conwnente Prtnted 1/1 W611:3Et14 AM Pege 1 of 1
w+
Northeast UWities ICAVP DR No. DR4P3468 Misestone unk 3 Discrepancy Report DnyAuD neview areup: system newtow teament: system Deegn j
Diecipane: Pptry Desi'"
O v.
Dieeropency Type: mm j) g, s,J.c _ - : HVX
~
NaC Signiscem imi: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date puhitehad. 1/17/9e D6screpenes Pipe atrtw analysis has unvenfied assumptions and drawing incorporation anomalies D=crepiten: During review of HVR system i & C tubing stress analysis, NP(F)-EK515003-XD-REV. O we noted the following discrepancies:
Assumption 8 on page 14 requires confirmation.
Change Request Notices ICRNs EK 515003-1010 to 1015 were incorporated in isometric EK 515003 Rev. 4, but in the process the following anomalies were created:
ICRN 1012 specifies a safety class break before valve V149.
P&lD EM 148D-8 and isometric EK 515003-5 both show the safety class break aner the valve.
Dimensions shown on isometric EK-515003-5 do not match the dimensions specified on ICRN's 1010 and 1012.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Join, R. C.
g Q
12/22/97 i
VT Lead: Nort. Ardhony A G
O O
i2/2os7 VT Mgr: Schapter, Don K G
O O
52/2ss7 IRC Chmn: Sangh, Anand K G
O
/$5S8 Dele:
INVAUD:
Dele:
nEsOLUTION:
7../:::';identesed by NU7 Q Yee @ No Non Discrepent Cor.detion?U Yee @ No W% PendlnetO Y=
@ No n=*ta unroemeerO Y=
@ No neview
^-,
Not M, ^ ~ ~ Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A -
]
~
viMen se,w. Don k Inc Chmn: S$ Anand K O
G Date:
sL comments:
Printed 1/14/9b 11:39 44 AM Pese 1 of 1
+Ne 4w.>
Norttmast UUHues ICAVP M No. MMM Milistone unN 3
. Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAUD Review alament: System Demon Diecipane: Ppng Demon p
06ecrepency Type: Calcunsten g
q s, _ r. -
- Hvx NRC Signoacana loved: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dee Putdlehed: 117 Ale N. cy: Pipe stress analyt,is calculation has unverified assumptions.
D*ecetption. In the process of reviewing Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X54002, Rev,0, we noted the following discrepancy.
The calculation dated 1982 contains the following assumptions which are still identified as requiring confirmation:
- 1. Drain lines leading from filters 3HVR
- FLTR 1 A,18,2A, 28,3A & 3B operate at ambient temperature ( 70 F ).
- 2. ANSI Tees are used at all tee connections in this problem.
SIF for ANSI Lateral Tees are per 1.0.M. from J. Goldberg, Dated 04 20 77 (EMTM 608 ).
Rev6ew Vand invol6d Needed Date O
58'd's indeleter: Singh, R.
0 0
5'M's VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT DAgr: SmopW, Don K O
O titanie IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1r vee
'hde:
IIWAUD:
Oste:
RESOLUTION Previously idents6ed t,y NU7 U Yee IG) No Non C-s---t Condelson?O Yee (9) No ResoluttonPendtng?O va + No PM%UnrW70 va @ No Review 1- -- ^
Not Accap8ah Needed Date O
O VT Lead: Nort, Arcony A O
O VT Mgr: Schefer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
Printed li1@9611429 AM Page 1 of 1
met utsties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0870 Mastone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j
w...
Revtew are=P: system DRvAuD i
Review enament: system Design Diestysmo: 8tnatural Design gy Discrepency Type: e**
8,.^
~:
- HVX NRC Signiaeanse level: 4 Dole faxed 6e la):
Date Putdehed: 1/17/96 l
F
. 4 Duct Support Discrepancy Descripteen: We have reviewed the duct support calculation no.12179-NP(T)Z-545G-874,Rev.0, dated 10/18/82, which is a main frame calculation.
Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.
Loads from the small bore support No. CB647707 - H001 (BZ-747R) attached to the main frame have not been accounted for in the analys;s.
Review Valid invalid Neeeed Date IMtia4&t: Klate, N O
O O
12/22,7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Q
1200'97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 12/23/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 1/1Y4 Date:
DAfAUD:
Date:
REaOLAm0N,
,% c: 3 teentsaevi try NU7 Q Yes (9) No Non Diecrepent Conetton?Q Ye, () No PM% Pendtng70 vos 4)No EM% Uncoenewed70 vos @) No Review A----
Not ' -: ;" _
Needed Date b
VT 1.eed: Nort, Areeny A f
VT Mer: Sdepfer, Don K Nec Civim: Singh, Pond K O
Dele:
SL Commente:
l l
Pmeed 1/144611:41:02 AM Pope 1 or 1
t l
Northeast UtHities ICAVP M No. M MP34871 unistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report y
.1 Revtew areup: syenom DRVAuD Revtew stament: syenom omegn Discopane: Stnxess Deeg" O v.
Dioceepency Type: rem gg S ^_-.~ was: HVX NRC Signiacancelevel: 4 Date faxed to fMJ:
Dese Puhitehed: 1/17/96 Onecre,ency: Dud Support Discrepancy Dacrip88aa: We have reviewed the Misc. Platform calculation no.12179-C29.347 Rev.0, dated 12/14/81.
Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy, Connedions check for clip angles and bolts used to conned the equipment to the platform steel has not been addressed Ir. the design.
Review Valld invalid Needed Date initiator: Klee, N O
O O
12/22/97 VTLead: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
i2/zos7 VT hegr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
12r2sts7 1RC Chmn: Sengh. Anand K y
Q 1/1398 Does:
DNAUD:
Dele:
RESOUlTION.
7.sc ";identiaed by NU7 O vos @ No Non C
--f Condition?Q vos (G) No PM% Pending70 va @ No Pe unr=*ed70 ya
@ No Review A=
Not " -, ^
Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K ptC Chmn: Smgh. Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
4 Prtneed in49611:41:34 AM -
PeGe 1 of 1
l Northeast UWWes ICAVP M No. MW3m72 Mastorm unit 3
- Diseropancy Report RevW Group: System DR VALD Rev6.w usensus: system Design g,,,,
O vos Deseropency Type: """.
gg s, _.. -
- HVX
)
WIC signissense level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehad: 1/17A16
)
Descrepancy: Duct Support Calculation Discrepancy Desertp#a We have reviewed the duct support calculation no.12179-NP(F)Z545J-1323,Rev.3. dated 2/5/85.
Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.
On page no.15 & 16 of this calc, Spilce Plate analysis is based on the four bolt pattem in lieu of checkin0 the actual three bolt configuration.
Review Valid invelhi Needed Date initiator: 10eic, N O
12/22/97 VT Leed: Ned, Anthony A O
O O
12r2arar VT My: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
12r23s7 y
1/13518 IRC Chmn: Segh, Anend K Dese:
DNALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION
- 7.;/ M hientemed by NU7 O Yes (G) No Non D6ecrepent Condet6on?Q vos (G) No P"% Pending70 v
@ u.
- % un,e. awed 7 0 vos @ No Review A=
Not = ' ' -
Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfsr, Don K g
IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Conswente*
Prtnted 1/149811:44.29 AM Pope 1 of 1
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR h. DR.44PW3 t
l umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
l noview oreup: syenem DRVAuo Potenhol Operability leeue Diecipene: Mechereoel Desden O va Diecroponey Type: C*.e 9, g s,LT. -
- oss NRC Signiacence level: 3 Does FAXedl2 PAJ:
f Dese Pedlehed 1/17Als
~
, ci. Static load test for MOV's does not consider 3g acceleration in 3 orthogonal directions.
Deecrtpeon: The seismic qualification reports D-00571 thru 5 for Henry Pratt butterfly valves 3OSS*MOV34A/B and 3RSS*MOV20A-D were reviewed a0ainst their specification requirements The review identified the following discrepancy.
As per specification 2362.200164, pages B32 thru B41, the equipmed shall be designed to be capable of continued operation with all of the specified loads considering 3g acceleration in all three orthogonal directions acting simultaneously whereas, above valves are tested (qualified) using loads due to 3g acceleration in least rigid direction only, noview Velhi invalid Needed Date insistor: Pated, Remeen 12/22/97 VT Leed: Nort, Arthony A 8
O O
12 oro7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
$2 5 7 inC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B
O O
iris,9e Date:
eNAUD:
Date:
nEa0LUTION-.
Prov6ously identiaed by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Co:xtetton?O yes @ No l
n oiononPonenerO vos @ No neemunon unresoeved?O v.e @ No navi
- - r"-
Not M ;^
Needed Date O
O O
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC C4wnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Conenente:
PrHed 1/1W9e 11:45 07 AM Page 1 of 1 I
a
-a.sr--
e.t.y-L Northeast Utsties ICAVP D N M M 74 l
Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
noview oremp: syenem DnvAuD nevtew E:ement: syneem Design 4
c, N*
W
@) ye, Discrepency Type: NW O=
s, ___. 2 -
-SWP NRC a4pniaeanos leved: 3 Does faxed to NU:
Date puhitehed.1/17/96 Descrepancy: Static load test for MOV's does not consider 3g acceleration in 3 orthogonal etirections.
Desceipesen: The seismic qualification reports D-005T-4,5&6 for Henry Pratt butterfly valves SSWP*MOV54A-D.57A-D, 3SWP*MOV71 A/B and 3SWP*MOV50A/B were reviewed against their specification requirements The review identified the following discrepancy.
As per specification 2362.200164, pages B32 thru B41, the equipment shall be designed to be capable of continued operation with all of the specified loads considering 3g acceleration in all three orthogonal directions acting simultaneously whereas, above valves are tested (qualified) using leads due to 3g acceleration in least rigid dirodion only.
Review Vand invalid Needed Date YT Laod: Nort, Arthony A g~
Q 12/22S7 inilleter: Penal, F.amesh O
O
$2/20S7 VT Mgr Schosh. Don K y
Q 12/23S7 Inc Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
1/1285 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
REsOLUT1oN:
Previously klenused by Nu? U Yee @ No NonDescrepentCondition?Q Yee @ No n shemeeamne70 vos @ No
% ua es *.d7 0 v.e
@ No neview AWh Not.A~, _ _ - Needed Date VT Lead: N.rt, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K utC chmn: Singh. Anand K
- =
Date:
sL Commente:
Prtneed 1/119011:4tL41 AM Page 1 or 1
s m
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No, D!!44P34876 Mastorm Unit 3 t
Discrepancy Report
%q OnvAuD Rev6ew oreup: syneem Revtow Element: System Design O vos D6ecrepancy Type: N *m gg syseenwermes: Hvx NRC Signiecence level 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 1/17/96 Deemepency: Seism 6c reports are not available for ICAVP review for the following equipments.
E:
- (1) 3HVR*RE10A/S,19A/B
- Seismic report # K-84 50/16435 does not qualify the equioment mounting (2) 3HVR* MOD 140A/B. Report requested por RFl#756,llem#3.
NU response in IRF#1175 provided qualification report numtwr 730.1.140. This report does not addrvss seismic qualification of this equipment.
(3) 3HVR*RlY10A/B 19A/B Seismic report #K-64 50/16435A Report requested per RFl#669, item #3 & RFl#614, item #1 Reports received per NU IRF#1098 and 1246 do not address tha seismic qualification of these equipments.
Rev6ew vond invand Needed Date Q
1/7/96 ineliseer: Palef Ramesh O
Q imD6 VT Land: Ne, Arthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K B
O O
it 2/96 IRc Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
sitsr96 Dese:
WVAUD:
Dele:
REsOLtmON:
Prev 6ouety idenuned try Nu? O vos (9) No Non D6ecropent Condluon?O vos @ No P"% Pending?O vos @ No a
.unes**sdr O vos (*J No Rev6ew F --
Not A= ="
Needed Dele VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: S@, Anand K Dele:
st Commente:
i Printed 1/149611:46,18AM Page 1 or 1 l
I-'
+ -
+
~
l Northeast utstise ICAVP DR No. DRMW7 j
Ministone urd 3 Discrepancy Report Review arene: system,
onvAuD Review seenant: symem Deelp Deseipene: Pm Desie ny g g, oleerspency1p:N a* n s,r
- : Dox NRC signissance levet: 3 Does FAXad he NU:
Does Pubilshed.1/17/98
. 26 Evaluation / Acceptance of pipe flanges not addressed in pipe stress analysis calculation Densetpelen: In the process of reviewing the following DGX system pipe stress analysis calculations, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X6002, Rev.1. CCN # 2 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X6003, Rev.1, CCN # 2 (3) Calculation No.12179-NM(S)-CZC-004, Rev.0,CCN # 1 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
For the flanges that form the interface between SWEC piping &
Cott Industries (vendor) piping, the piping loads from (1) and (2) were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group via transmittals NPV-198A and NPV 2228. The evaluation / acceptance basis for these loads has not been addressed in calculations (1.J).
Per page A6 (attachment A) of (3), piping loads at the interface were transmitted to Colt Iridustries for approval. Acceptance of these loads from Colt industries has not been documented.
9 Discrepancy:
The evaluation / acceptance of piping loads at the interface between SWEC piping and vendor supplied piping (Colt industries) is not documented in the above calculations (1 3).
Review vond invend Neemed Date initiekr: Patel. Ramesh.D G
O O
'257 vr t.ed: N.i. ^a'av ^
G O
O
' 2*7 vr m n se. Dan k O
O O
$2 a 97 e
iRc cienn: se. Annad K G
O O
5'$ vS8 ome:
DNALD:
Date:
REaOLUTloN Provisuety identised by NU7 O Yes @ *d
- on 06ecrepent Condaton?U Yes @ No RoomsonPenene O Y=
@ No munroe*edtO Ya @ No r
Revie.
Pened 11149612M45 PM Pese 1 or 2
}
l t
l Northeast UtWties ICAVP M No MMM77 Mmeterm ut* 3 Discrepancy Report AccepteWe Not W e Needed Date m
)
O O
VT Leed: Neri, Archony A O
O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
4 MC Chmn: Skgh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
i e
)
I Northeast unues ICAVP DR No. DR MP3478 Mmeterm ut* 3 Discrepancy Report DR VAUD novtow eneup: system Revtow assnione: syslam Demon
% p q i,,,,2 Diecipens: Moohenmed Deegn gg otaceepeney1ype: Ae g,
4 s,_
^-
--sWP NRC signisomece levet: 3 Date faxed to NU:
j Date Pulmahed tn7se
~
Deserepancy: Solamic reports are not available for ICAVP review for the following equipments.
Desertpeien: (1) 3swp.PT106NB,26A/B,42NB. Report requested per RFl#485, item #12, NU Response in IRF#693 said that this is non-safety equipment for which a seismic report is generally not applicable. As pa rCOS database this is a cat 1 Rem and per PMMS database this is cat N ltem.
As per specification 2472.520-658 these items should be i
qualified try seismic tests.
\\
(2) 3SWP-Fl59B/C/D. Report requested per RFl#485, item #8 f
NU Response in IRF#693 said that this is non-safety equipment for which a seismic report is generally not j
applicable. As per PDOS database this is a cat 1 item and per PMMS database this is cat N llem. As per
)
specification 2424.100-245 these items should be qualified by seismic tests.
noview Vaud inveed Needed Date indeleter: Patel, Ramesh 9
O O
1 **8 i
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A y
Q Q
12/31/97 VT Mor: Sdepter. Don K G
O O
in2res IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K B
D O
in"'8 Date:
l aNAUD:
1 Date:
REscumON Provtously idenmand try Nu? O Yee it) No Non otocrepent Constion?Q Yes (9) No P"% Pending70 vos @ No
-%unteeolved70 vos @ No 1
Review We Net.-- - " '
Needed Date VT Leed: Heri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chnm: Singh, Anand K Date:
at Commente:
Prtreed in49812M25 PM Page 1 or 1
Northeast Utl4Wes ICAVP M No. M W 34880 Minietone ur* 3 Discrepancy Report 1
noview oroup: system Det VAuD
^
Howiew Element: System Deegn O.ves Diessapency1 pre r = m g) 8- _-A -
- DGX
~
NRC tegnessanos level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Dane Puheehed.1/1746 Diecrepancy. Incorre::t area property of fuel oil day tank used in the calculation.
Deecripeten: The seismic qualificat. en review for fuel oil day tank, 3EGF'TK2NB, calculaMr.012179-NM(S)IA 187, was performed and folk.' tr discrepancy was identified.
Page #11 of calculation shows multiplication error in area.
The correct area should be 27.31 sq.in. Instead of 145.7 sq.in.
used in the analysis. This error is non-conservative since it underestimated stresses.
Review Veild invalid Needed Date 0
0 12r24s7 initiator: Pesel, Romeen VI Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
O 12/31/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O
O 1/i2/9e IRC Clenn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 1/1396 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOUmON:
Ta #:r'y idenhead by NUF Q Yes @ No NonDiscrepentCondspon?O vee @ No p"+ PeamnerO vee (W)No Ree iuisenunresoeved70 vee (!)so Revtew Wh Not AWh W Date m,
O O
O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K g
Date:
SL Conenents:
"d' m e. s.,
PrWed 1/149612:56.02 PM Pa0e 1 or 1
l-Northeast Utsties ICAVP M No.D N M 1 Missetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
, n.
onvAuo 9
newesw aroup: syenem newtow samment: syneem Desk Diecipane: Ppire Design n y, osserapeney Type: %%
h No systememeess: Dox NRCa p - inveg:3 Date FA1.ad to NU:
Does Puhnehed: 1/17Als osacespersy: Evaluation /Acceptamn of Equipment nozzle loads not addressed in calculations peacetpoen: In the process of reviewin0 the following DGX system pipe stress analysis calculaticas, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-430-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 2 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X6000, Rev.0, CCN # 3 we noted the following discrepancy:
Bcckground:
The equipment nozzle loads '.dentified below were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group for evaluation.
(1) 3EGF* PIA 3 inch conn. on top of calc.(1) tank 3EGF*TK1 A (2) 3EGF*P1C 3 inch conn. on top cf calc.(1) tank 3EGFm(1A (3) 3EGF*TK1A Conn. N7 & C1 calc.(2)
(4) 3EGF*TK18 Conn N7 & C1 calc.(2)
(5) 3EGF*STR2A Ln. 3EGF-003 26-3 calc.(2)
(6) 3EGF*STR2B Ln. 3EGF 003 29-3 calc.(2)
Discrepancy; Evaluation / acceptance basis for these equipment nozzle loadt is not provk$ed, nor referenced in the above calculations (1-2).
Rev6ew 2
Valbd invoud Needed Date inittefor: Psel, Rames tD g
Q Q
12397 a
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
2/2ani7 VT Mgt: Schapter, Don K '
8 O
O 2/2ss7 IRC Chic.:.,,, a
^
8 O
O iisse D&,:
)
DNAUD:
P oste:
RESOLUTloN.
Pnnled it149e 12:%32 PM Page 1 of 2 r
1
4+=
Northeast Utiinia ICAVP DRPnt.DR MP34481 Ministone Unit 3
' Discrepancy Report Ta.
?,- Identifled by NU?. U Yes @ No NonDescrepentCoammon?U Yee @ No
-PeamastO Y=
@ N.
Re
-ro v. @s Review AWh Nd AWh Needed Date m, p)
O O
VT Lere; Nort, Arnhony A O
O VT h:7. Schopfer, Den K 0
0 me ceann: % Anana x O
Dew 1
1 S
l l
s I
1
'f' s
Pnnled 1/1W9612M36 PM P
2W 2
Northeast Utsties ICAVP M No, M 44*34442 umetone unit 3 Dipprepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALJD Revtew Element: System Design Discipline: Ptpirv' W gyyg Descrepe.4y Type: Nm Sp r
- DGX NRc Signiacance level: 3 Date Faxed to RJ-J Done Putdiohed. 1/17196 Diesrepeacy: Evaluation / Acceptance of penetration seal ring loads not addressed in calculations Dessetptica: In the process of reviewing the following DGX system pipe stress an91ysis calculations, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-752 XD, Rev. 3 CCN 2 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-836-XD, Rev. O CCN 4 (3) Calculation No.12179 NP(F) 786-XD, Rev.1 CCN 2 (4) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X6000, Rev. O CCN 3 (5) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-891-XD, Rev.1 CCN 1 (8) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-10018-XD, Rev. O CCN 2 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Penstration sol ring loads as identified below were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group for evaluation.
1 (1) Sleeve #:
Une # 3-CNS-750-70-4 Calc. (1)
(2) Sleeve # 11 Une # 3-EGF.W2-31-3 Calc. (2)
(3) Sleeve # 5 Une # 3-EGF-150-10-3 Calc. (3)
(4) Sleeve # N.P.40 Une # 3-EGF-003-27 3 Calc. (4)
(5) Sleeve # 7 Une # 3-EGF-C'.,3-26-3 Calc. (4)
(6) Sleeve # 8 Une # 3-EGF-003-29-3 Calc. (4)
(7) Sleeve # N.P. C5 Une # 3-EGF-003-30 3 Calc. (4)
(8) Slaeve # 10EP60 Une # 3-EGF 002 28-3 Calc. (5) l (9) Sw Ring # S-9 Une # 3-EGF 150-23-3 Calc. (8) i Olscrepancy:
The evaluation / acceptance basis for these loads is not provided, nor referenced in the above calculations (16).
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inittstor: Pelol, Remesh.D G
O O
12nS7 l
VTt.eed: Nerl, Anthony A O
O O
12/2097 vr u r: schower.oaak O
O O
12n S7 e
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1;:S Dele:
INVALID:
Dele:
REsot.UTION:
Printed 1/149e 12-Se.o4 PM Page 1 of 2
l l
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P34882 Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
, henneghed by NU? U Yee. '9) No Non Descrepent Condelon?U Yee
'9.) No Reesiulien Pr W70 vos @ No e - + unreseevedt O vos @ No -
8 Review Acceptable Not ^- - ;^
Needed Date b
I VTt.eed: Nerl, Armony A O
VT Mgr: sdepser, Don K 0
0 lRc cienn: sm Anand x Deh:
SL Conenents.
4 5
t i
l I
4 I
l i
i i
Pnrtad th AS61256.00 PM
~
Pg 2 W '2
~
Northeast Utilties ICAVP-M No, M44P3-0843 i
Ministorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report
. +
Revtow Og: Systemj t
DRVAUD p
hav6ew Element: Syalem beatpn 7
Diecipline: Ptty Deeqpn ny r
Demerspency Type: c=%
gg syse. eeee: DGX NRC Signiecence level: 4 Does faxed to 94J:
DoesPutdished 1/17/De
. ii. Pipe stress analysis (toes not refied the piping as shown on the P & 10 drawing (1)
Descripolor.: in the process of reviewing the following documents for the DGX
- system, (1) P & ID DWG. No. EM-11SE-1, Rev.1 (2) Calculation No. NP(F)-458-XD, Rev. O, CCN 3,7-9-86 (3) Calculation No. NP(F)-459-XD, Rev.1, CCN 1,8-16-86 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
As shown on the P & ID drawing (1),1" lines 3-EGD-001-13-3 and 3-EGD-001 14-3 have a 3/4*x1" reducer, and the 3/4" pipe extends to equipmer:t 3-EGD*SP1 A & SP1B (Oil separators) respedively. A pipe class break SC3/NNS is shown at the end of the reducer.
In the pipe stress analysis (2 & 3), only 1" piping upto the beginning of the reducer (1" side) is included. The 3/4"x1" reducer and the 3/4" pipe connected to equipment is not included in the analysis.
Discrepancy:
No justification for ignoring the 3/4"x1" reducer and the 3/4" piping which connects to the equipment is provided.
Review vend invahd Needed Date initiator: Palet. Ramesh.D G
O O
12r22/97 VT t. sed: Neri, Anthony A 8
O O
2 00/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2/2357 IRC Chmn: Saigh, Anand K O
O O
1/1stee Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RE40(.UT10N-Previously identmed by NG? O Yes @ No Non Descrepent Condeon?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending70 Yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos @ No Review AWh Not %
Needed Date Preited 1/1441012:5(t32 PM Pope 1 of 2
Northeast UGWes ICAVP M No, M4P3M3 Mmstone unn 3 4t Discrepancy Report v - -,
VT Land:. Neri, Arthony A O
O VT Me Schopfer, Don K
-O O
IftC Chrnn: % Anand K Date:
i SL Conenents:
e t
i 4
i d
1 9
4 hinted 1/149612S6:37 PM Page 2 of 2
..,,m mepr-
-+%.e=ar>=-
P-wa-I e-Northeast UWWes ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0844 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Novtow Group: System DR VAUD Revesw riement: Moskemen Deegn Descapane MeeenmalDg n y, Disorspeney Type: Deegn Control Pmcedure g
8,r iSWP NRC Signiecence M: 4 Date FAXad to NU:
Date Putdished: 1/17Al6 Desempancy: PDCE MP3-68-025 Deecetpoon. The modification installs a vendor spacer kit in the actuator of Valves 3SWPWOV130A/B.
The vendor drawings and the vendor manual were not updated to reflect the installation. No doc Jmentation was included or referenced in the modification package to update these items.
Review Valid involod Needed Date inteleter: Lanpei.D.
12/22/97 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A 12/20/97 Q
12/ZW7 VT Mgt: Schapter, Don K a
D 1/1M16 IR.C Chmn: Singh, Anand K e
Date:
DNAUD:
1 Date:
RESOLUTION.
N.
-?;lete by NU? O Yee @ Ne Non Discrepent Candloon?U vos @ No Reach Ponding?O vos @ No ReeceutionUnresoludiO vos @ No 4
Review Accerteble Not F--
Needed Date j
~
VT Lead: Neri, Arcony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K inc chmn: S@, Anand K Date:
SL Commente i
45 PrWed 11149812 57.03 PM Page 1 of 1
e w.
sw I
[
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR nllP3-0894 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report n
- w' Rev6ew aroup: sywom DRVAUD Review PJament: System Design i
Dioc8 pane. m De*'"
O vae Discrepancy Type: Umnemg Document g
s, _ _ 7 - - : DGX NRC Signiacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published.1/17/98 Descrepancy: EDG Fuel Oil Filters Seismic Enclosure Ucensing Requirement Descripeson NRC i.etter No.A05543 dated 1-171986, required Millstone -3 to install a seismically supported protective housing and drain piping around the EDG Fuel Oil Filters. A review of P&lD EM-117A and the EDG modifications, shows no design documents 4.idicating that this requirement was incorporated ir.to the design basis, or installed in the plant.
Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-0729 Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Hemseemen, R, 12/22Al7 4
VT Lead: Nort, Anmony A g
12/20S7 VT Mgr: Scnover DonK 12/2347 1/13r1?S IRC Chmn: Segh, Anand K
=
Dese:
INVAUD:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Non "-,1Condetion?Q Yes @ No Preytoueiy idendaed by Nu? Q Yes @ No r
Paaamon pend 6ng?O Y.e
@ No paa.*%une ived70 vos @ No Review i
Fr Not A-:-:
Needed Date initiator: (none)
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoper, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
sL Comments 4
a i
Prmeed 1/1411612.57.37 PM Page 1 of 1 f
Norttu ast utstics ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0497 Mmewne unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
neMew aroup: syneem DR VALID newtow tiement: system ossign Deseepane: Medencel Design O va
, li Type: De gg s, _ _ T.
7DGX NnC segrJecence loves: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does puidlehed,1/17/96 r - -i. The P&lD Review for the EGO sobsystem of the Diesel Generators yielded discrepancies.
Descrtpeton The following EGO components listed in the PDDS sydem were net included on P&lD EM-116A or EM-116C:
3 EGO *LS26C 3 EGO *t.S260.
The following EGO components listed in the PMMS system were not incluoed on P&lD EM-116A or EM-116C:
3 EGO *PSA 3 EGO *PSB The following components listed in PDDS with the 3 EGO prefix should be designated with a 3EGS prefix:
3 EGO *V23A 3 EGO *V238 3 EGO *V24A 4
3 EGO *V248 The following EGO components were identified twice in the PDOS system. Once as safety related, the other as non-safety related:
3 EGO *STR3A & 3 EGO-STR3A SEGO*STR3B & 3 EGO-STR3B 3 EGO *STR4A & 3 EGO-STR4A 3 EGO *STR4B & 3 EGO-STR4B 3 EGO'TS30A & 3 EGO-TS30A SEGO*TS308 & 3 EGO-TS30B The following EGO component was listed in PDOS, however not located on P&lO EM-116C:
3 EGO *V9968 The following EGO component was shown on P&lD EM-116C, however not listed in PDDS:
3 EGO *V9958 The following EGO components were included on the P&lD's, however, were not foend in the PDDS/PMMS system:
3 EGO-Pl42A M"ntipl19A Proted 11149612-56.o1 PM Page 1 of 2 1
-s%e-mi y
e.-.,-
4-
-+-se.sa.
A Northeast Utmies ICAVP DR No. DRMN Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3 EGO'LS40A 3 EGO *LS408 The safety class break should be on the other side of valves 3EGON19NB.
Moview Vebd invoud Needed Date inNInter. Homestmen, R.
12/2397 Q.
12.2397 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Sduipfer, Don K in2/96 Q
Q 1M346 5tC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
. Dese:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLtIDON*
N / _z';identlAed by NU7 O vos (9) No Non Diecrepent Condition?U vos @ No W% Pending70 vos @ No P-%unresoeved70 vos @ No Review Acceptaine Not Wh Needed Date mg O
O G
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K sec chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments-1 i
l l
l
(-
Pmted in4S611582 PM Page 2 of 2 l
l
(
/
4.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0900 Mill
- tone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report w...
Rewtow aroup: System DR VAuD Revtow eternent: System Desen Denoipune: Piping Deegn p
c, Type: Componere Date g
F
- DGX s,
NRCa p - goveg: 4 Does faxed to NU:
Does Pubilshed: 1/17/96 PDOS disagrees with PalD's, Specification and Vendor Drawing r
-1 Descrepakm: Regarding the EmefDency Generator Fuel Oil System, P&lD EM-117A-10, Spec 2362.150162 and Vendor drawing 2362.150-162-008G all show the following valves as Globe valves, but the PDOS system lists them as Gate valves. Also, the PDDS system does not identify that they are ASME lil, Class 3 valves, as shown on the other documents. Please note that valve 3EGF'V979 is on a manual sampling connection and all the other valves are un Instrument sensing lines. All valves are a nominal 3/4 inch body size.
3EGF'V15 3EGF'V16 3EGF*V17 3EGFN18 3EGF*V19 3EGFN20 3EGFN22 3EGFN23 3EGF*V24 3EGF'V25 3EGF*V26 3EGF*V27 3EGF*V979 3EGF*V984 3EGF'V985 3EGF*V992 3EGF*V993 Review vond invalid Needed Dela Infllator: Ruse. East G
O O
12t22.s7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G
O O
12/20s7 VT Mgr: SctWw, Don K Q
Q 12/23/97 ptC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
1/isse Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
W:- ': f, Idennaed by NU? U Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition ~*U ves @ No
~ ~ P = anet O vos @w P-%unresoeved70 vos @ No nevi
^--
Not ^=, "- Needed Date O
G VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A Pnnled it14961256:30 PM Page 1 of 2 i
j
-m Northeast Utmuss ICAVP DR No. DP MP3-0900 Mmstone unit 3
,. Discrepancy Report Q
G vr u n sw.oon x e
O O
Ntc Chmn: Singh, Anand K 0
0 O
Date:
SL Comments:
i l
Printed 1/149812 58.33 PM 2W2
Northeast UWhies ICAVP DR No. DR MP364 ministorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6 w eeoup: c-.. _.
DRvAuD Review Element: system inessessen p
Dioelpane: I & C Deegn n y,,
Dioerspency Type: instdeban img4wrsM g
systeerecese: N/A NRC *W level:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puhitehed.1/17.98 1
. 4 Control Panel layout not in accordance with design d swings.
Demettpelea: The following differences were observed during the review and walkdown of the Main Control Boards and other panels within the Control Room.
- 1. Main Control Board 8: Front view drawing 12179-EE-025S Revision 7 shows item 10 as tag number VM-BYS*PNL-3 while equipment lists drawing 12179-ESK-4J-2 Revision 12 indicates that item 10 is AM-BYS*PNL-3. Waikdown of the Main Control Board confirmed that Installed is AM-BYS*PNL-3. A similar problem exists with item 132, the front view shcws the tag number as VM-EGS*EG-A while the equipment list and the walkdown indicates that the tag number as AM-EGS*EG-A.
- 2. Main Control Board 1: Front view drawing 12179-EE 258 Revision 8 shows that two switches item 275 (Tag number SWP*MOV115A) and item 276 (Tag number SWP*MOV1558) have been removed from the vertical section of the main board.
Walkdown of the Main Control Board resulted in the discovery that the switches are stillInstalled. Review of the drawings and the associated change documents has led to the discovery of DCN DM3-S-0794-94 which changed the configuration of Main Control Board 1. DCN DM3-S-0794-94 pages 124 and 125 show that removal of the switches in question, but this is not statused as incorporated into this affected document.
- 3. Main Control Board 1: Front view drawing 12179-EE-25B Re- !::!on 8 and Nameplate Engraving and Arrangement drawing v
12179-EE 25EA Revision 1 show a nameplate with the words
- engraved on it. Walkdown of the Main Control Board confirmed that this nameplate is not installed.
- 4. Drawing 2424.300-246-104 Rev. D provides the nameplate engraving for control room control panel VP1. The following discrepancies were noted between this drawing and the panel layout: Nameplate no. 2, third lir.c HVR* TIC 45A should be removed as the instrument is no longer on the panel: Nameplata no. 202, third line. HVR* TIC 458 should be removed as the instrument is no longer on the panel; Nameplate nos. 81 and 237 should be removed as the air mixing dampers are no longer on the panel.
noview Vand invalid Needed Date INustor: Server, T. L.
8 O
O 2r22/97 vri ed: Neri. Anmony A O
O O
12/2397 v7 w r: schooser oenx B
O O
ii12eoe e
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
1/1396 Printed 1/1496125e.Se PM Paes 1 or 2 J
6 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34904 Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
.3
- '~
s*
Date:
1pWALD.
Dcto:
RESOLifTION Prev 6ously klontilled ty NU7 U Yee
@ No NonD6ecrepentCondleon?U Yee @ No W%Pending?O vee
@>No
~% unresoev.d70 vee @) No Review AccepteMe Not AWh Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A W Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
Date:
SL Consnents i
i l
i l
l PrHed 1/1411612 50.00 PM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP.
DR No. DR MP3 490[
Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DRVAUD Review Elemose: System Deegn Diecipane. Mechanced Desen g y,,
W, ci Type: Component Date g
- s,nn =: DGX NRC Signiacence levet: 4 Date faxed b pfU:
Data puidlehed: 1/17/9e
"-. :i. Discrepancies in the EGA System Component Data Descrip88an Review of the EGA system components resulted in following discrepancies:
1, 3EGA*FLT3A,B,C,D, Engine Mounted Air Filters PDOS identifies these Specification 2447.300-241 filters as QA Cat. 2. Per Desi0n Basis Summary Document " Emergency Diesel Engine", 3DBS-EDG-001, Rev.1, (paragraphs 12.1.1 and 12.4.1) these fitters should be ASME Ill, Class 3, and Seismic Cato0ory 1,
- 2. 3EGA* HOSE 1 AA/B,2A/B, PDOS indicates that these hoses are QA Cat.1 and were purchased per Specification 2472.800653. Review of the Specificction could not verify this information. No technical documentation was identified for these hoses.
- 3. 3EGA RV2CA1/2,B1/2, Air Compressor Relief Valve Per P&ID's EM-1188-25 and EM-116D-5 the valve is set at 500 psig. PMMS shows that the set point is 450 psig.
- 4. 3EGA*TK3A/B, AirTank No technical documeritatio' pecification, drawing, calculation) was identified for this tank in the vendor technical manual OlM-241 or elsewhere.
- 5. 3EGA*V1,V2,V27,V28,V53,V54, 3/4" Globe Valves Per PDOS these globe valve were purchased from Dresser per Specification 2362.150-162. The valves are ASME lit, Class 3.
PMMS states that the valves are seismically designed.
However, no seismic qualification requirement could be found in the Purchase Specification. No documentation was found to verify that the valves are seismically qualified.
- 6. 3EGA*V20,V44, 2" Globe Valves Per PDDS these valves were procured per Specification 2117.?^^ 2it 'i;;;ner, ^0 M' = t!0n On t't V:!ve c0gg,
g
,y c.
7
._-A Northeast UNHties ICAVP-Dk No. DMP3-0908 i
1 ministorm Unit 3 -
Discrepancy Report
_.m i
found in the vendor technical manual OIM-241, or elsewhere, to verify PDOS/PMMS data. Also, PDDS and PMMS describe valve 3EGA*V20 as a plug valve, while the P&lD EM 1168-25 stow 1 t' as a globe % axe.
- 7. 3EGA*V23,V49, Check Valve in Shutdown Air Line Per PalD's EM-116B 25 and EM-116D.5 this check valve is in 3/8'line, it is assumed that the valve is the same size. Valve size could not be found in either PDDS or PMMS, Per PDDS the ntve was procured per Specification 2447.300-241. However,
' no ds.Mor a 3/8* check valve were found in the vendor technical manual O!M 24 I, Chapter 8, Section 7, Starting and Control Air Systems, or elsewhere.
8._ 3EGA*V5,V13,V31,V38, 3/4' Globe Valve at Air Receiver l
Tank Inlet Per PDDS this valve was procured per Specification 2447.300-241. However, no data were found this valve in the vendor technical manual OIM-241, Chapter 8, Section 7, Starting and Control Air Systems, or elsewhere.
9.3EGA f,V32,V40,V981,V982,V994,V995,1/2* Plug Valve Per P&lD's EM-1168 25 and EM-116D-5 each of these valves is In a 1/2"I;aes. Per PMMS, however, only valve V6 is 1/2" valve; the rest are 3/4" valves. Since the vendor technical manual OlM-241 does not reference equipment numbers on provided
)
information, no positive identification of appropriate Colt drawing for valve specifications could be mace in orrier to verify valve size.
- 10. 3EGA*V973 V972, Generator S Air Receiver Tank Drain Valve Per P&lD EM-116D 5 and PMMS these valves are plug valves.
PDDS, however, describes these valves as gate valves.
- 11. 3EGA*V979,V980,V992,V993, Strainer Drain Plug Valves PMMS shows these valves to be 3/4*. However, Specification 2447.300-241, page 1 17 requires that the drain connection ot.
l the Wye Strainer be provided with 1/2" ASME 111, Class 3 valves. Also, drawing 2447.300-241-006, Starting Air and Control Air Schematic shows the valves 1/2*.
I
- 12. 3EGA-V955,V958,V961, Gate Valves l
Prtneed 1/14fB61:00:16 PM Page 2 of 4 m-y
Northoest UtWties ICAVP DR No. DN84908 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Per P&lD's Em-1168-25 and EM-1160-5 these valves are in 3/4" lines, and are therefore presumed to be the same size.
However, PDDS shows them to be 1/2" valves.
- 13. 3EGA*V968,V969 Drain Valve in Diesel Generator Shutdown Air Line Per P&lD's EM-1168-25 and EM-116D 5 these valves are in 1/4" drain lines, therefore presumed 1/4" valves. PMMS shows them 3/4' valves, while PDDS shows V969 as 1/4" valve.
~)
14, 3EGA*V970,V971, Air Tank Vent Valve Per P&lD's EM-1168-25 and EM-116D-5 these plug valves are in 1 1/2" vent lines, and therefore presumed 1 1/2" plug valves.
PDDS has no information on valve size, however, PMMS shows them to be 3/4" valves. PDDS describes valve V971 as gate valve, and valve V970 as a plug valve.
- 15. 3EGA-C1 A/B,C2A/B, Air Compressor Air Compressor equipment number is 3EGA-C1 A,C2A,C1 B,C28, per P&lD's and per PDDS database.
The component drawing no. 2447.300-241-027D, however, designates this component with an equipment mark number 3EGA-CA1,CA2,CB1,CB2.
- 16. 3EGA*EFV29A, This valve was found entered in both, the PDDS and PMMS database. The valve however, Could not be found on the system P&lD's EM 1168-25.
Review Valid invalid Needed Dele initiator: Obereneljk$an.
G O
O 2/3oro7 VT Laod: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
12/siis7 j
VT K;p: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
1/12ise 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
O O
5'is<se
)
Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
FEsOUJTION Preytouofy klontle=gt ey NU? U Yee @.No Non C:__ _, - ^ Condition?Q Yee @ No Resolutiott F.c,d..
,* C ;c.
@ No sM% Unresolved?O van @ No Review A-Not ^=,
PrtntW 1/1EilIout19 PM Page 3 or 4 4
Northeast UtiNties ICAVP DR No. DRMP3-0908 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
-._._.. -,,,,,.. n O
O O
Dese:
SL Comments:
1 l
i 1
l I
i l
Prned 1/14/901:00.20 PM Page 4 of 4
,.,-e w utumes ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0909 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: ri.. -
DRvAuD Review Element: Correcthe Acson Procese Diecipane: other OP**""Y
- F--
- p Type: correcew Acton irnpiementaten systemerocese: N/A ;
~
NRC W level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date PulJished.1/17/9e DWncy: Closure of Unre5olved item Repert (UlR) 36 Descr4 #an: The Discrepancy item Closure Package (DICP) for UIR 36 Indicates that item 2 of the UIR was resolved by OIR 84 Contrary to the above, evidence was not found in the DICP and induded documents related to OIR 84 to show that part of item 2 of the UIR was resolved.
Discussion UlR 36, item 2 documented a concem regarding inconsistency between FSAR sections 6.2.1.1.1, page 6.2.13 (FSAR section 6.2.1.1.3.6) and PDCR MP3-89-013 regarding peak containment pressures reached during a LOCA. The dosure documentation in the DICP for this concem indicates that the concem was resolved by O!R 84.
i A r= view of OIR 84 and its dosure package indicated that OIR 84 aid resolve the inconsistency issue for FSAR section 6.2.1.1.1 (which is part of UlR 36 item 2). however the issue of inconsistency (also documented in UIR 36 item 2), relative to FSAR page 6.213 (section 6.2.1.1.3.6) was not addressed as part of OIR 84 resolution. In fad, the inconsistency issue j
documented in UIR 36, item 2 for FSAR page 6.2.13 (FSAR section 6.2.1.1.3.6) is not documented as a concem in OIR 64, therefore dosure of this portion of UIR 36 to OIR 84 is not corred.
Rev6ew VeEd invalid Needed Date initiator: Neverro, Me'*
O O
O 12/24s7 VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J Q
]
]
12/2497 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K g
Q Q
1/12/98 lRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
1/1398 i
Date:
12/24/97 NNAuo:
i Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prehc; identified try NU7 U Yee @ No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yee @ No Mesolution Pend 6ng70. vee @ No Mee*non unroemed70 v e 9-Review gg.
AWh Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J b
O O
O vT Mer: scnopter. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K eweed ii14se i:co42 eM e.se i or 2
\\
l
d met utiliti ICAVP M No. DR-MP3 4909 Milletone unn 3 Discrepancy Report m......
_. "-~"
O Date:
4 SL Conwnents-4 i
I E
n 2
l i
r i
l 1
l l
l Printed 1/14961:00.46 PM Page 2 of 2
1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0910 -
Mitistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
Rev6.w aroup: SyWom DR VAUD -
h E M SyWom W Potent 6el Operahumy leeue Diedpune: Struct:sW Deehi O vee
, _ y Type: C=W g' g F-Systerr/Precese: DGX NRC SignNlcera levd: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished 1/17/96
~
- r. Pipe Support Calculation Disctopancy E= w -
We have reviewed Calculation no. NP(F)-ZO60R-260-H004,Rev.4, dated: 8/20/85.
Based on this review,the following discrepancy has been noted:
On paQe 5,the support configuration has been qualified by comparison to the ' identical
- support structure and design loads for the support qualified in calculation no. NP(F)-ZO60R-258-H004.
Based on the review of NP(F) ZO60R 258-H004 support calculations and configuration,no similarities have been found between the supports addressed in aforementioned calculations.
Therefore,the qualification by the comparison is not valid.
Review Vaud inveHd Needed Date Q
12/2:W7 instwor: Kime, N x
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 12,7.V97 s
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g
1/12/96 IRC Chmn: SM Anand K 1/1398 Date:
pe,AUD:
Date:
RESfLUTION:
Previously ider.dnee by NU? O vos t@ No Non D6ecrepent Cor.lition?O vos @ No 4
ResciutionPend6ng?O ves @ No Resoluuon Unresolved?O vos @ No Review Wh Not Acceptable Needed Date ggy, g O
G VT Lead: Heri. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K
[
e IRC Chmn: Sm Anand K Date:
~
SL Cornments:
4 PrNed 1/14961:o1:10 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34917 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Redow Group: System DR VAUD ReWow Element: System Design D6ecipline: Mechancel Design Om 5" -
xy Type: Componard Date g
s, r,
- DGX NRC signiacance M: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Putdished. 1/17/9e F
zi. EGT[ System Component Data Discrepancies Re' iew of the EGS system components resulted in following Description v
discrepancies:
- 1. 3EGS*P2A/B, Jacket Water Circulating Pump PMMS data shows pump motor size at 3/4 Hp at 1745 RPM.
Vendor technical manual OIM-241, drawing 11907729 defines motor size as 3/4 Hp at 1750 RPM.
- 2. 3EGS*E1 A/B, Emergency Generator Diesel Engine Air Cooler Water Heat Exchanger The total heat exchanger heat transfer rate and temperature differential (water temperature increase / decrease while passing through the heat exchanger) given in the FSAR Table 9.5-3 do not match those shown in the Heat Exchanger Specification Sneet (drawing 2447.300-241-069C). Discrepancies are as follows:
FSAR Table 9.5-3 HX Specification Sheet Heat transfer rate (Blu/hr) 4,771,861 4,338,055 Temp. Differential (deg.F), shell 11.2 10.8 Temp. Differential (deg,F), tube 12.5 4.6 1
- 3. 3EGS*E2A/B, Emergency Generator Diesel Engine Jacket Water Cooler The total heat exchanger heat transfer rate and tube side temperature differential (water temperature increase while passing through the heat exchanger) given in the FSAR Table 9.5 3 do not match those shown in the Heat Exchanger i
Specification Sheet (drawing 2447.300-241-CS78).
Discrepancies are as follows:
FSAR Table 9.5-3 HX Specification Sheet Heat transfer rate (Btu /hr) 9,260,900 v
8,419,000 Temp. Differential (deg.F), tube 9
8.9
- 4. 38:GS*E3A/B, Lube oil Heat Exchanger Printed in4931:01:37 PLI Page 1 of 4
l l
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP M W. M-MP34917 Miamtone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The total heat exchanger heat transfer rate given in the FSAR Table 9.5-3 does not match that shown in the Heat Exchanger Specification Sheet (drawing 2447.300-241-071 A). Discrepancy -
is as follows:
FSAR Table 9.5 3 HX Specification Sheet Heat transfer rate (Btu /hr) 1,801,800 1,640,000
- 5. 3EGS*H2A/B, Generator Space Hester This safety related heater is listed in the PMMS database.
Component is described as QA Cat.1 and seismic. However, no entry for this component was found in the PDDS, nor is this component shown on the system P&lD's EM-116A-27 and EM-116C-12.
- 6. 3EGS* HOSE 9A/B,10A/B, Bearing inlet and Outlet Flexible Hoses The PDOS database shows that these hoses are per Specification 2447.300 241. However, they are not shown on the vendor technical manual OlM-241 drawing 11869458, Intercooler Water Schematic, nor was information about these hoses found anywhere else in the vendor technical manual. The -
hoses could not be found t-the PMMS.
- 7. 3EGS*TCV50A/B, Jacket Water Temperature Control Valve FSAR Section 9.5.5.3 states that the design for the Jacket water temperature regulating valve is not covered by ASME 111, but that the valve is designed to diesel manufacturer's latest standards for reliability. However, per Colt industries dwg.
11909934 (OIM-241) this valve is designed to ASME 111, Class 3 requirements.
- 8. 3EGS*RV32A/B, Jacket Water Heater Relief Valve Specification 2447.300 241, page 1-19 states that all skid cooling system components should be designed to ASME III, Class 3 requirements. Per FSAR Section 9.5.5.3 the emergency diesel cooling water system is designed to ASME lil, Class 3 with the exceptions listed in the Section. This relief valve is not listed among the exceptions. No documentation was found to verify that the relief valve is ASME lil, Class 3.
9, 3EGS*V967A/B,V968NB, isolation Valves on Fresh Water Expansion Tank Sight Glass These two valves are apparently an integral part of the sight alass. They are identified as alobe valves in PMMS and as cate Printed 1/149e 1:o1:40PM Page 2 of 4 1
- Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0917' 7
uilistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report valves in PDDS.
- 10. 3EGS*V9608,V961B, Test Valves on Jacket Upper Header, Generator B Only These valves are shown on P&lD EM 116C 12 as angle valves.
They are described as angle valves in PDDS, and as globe valves in PMMS.
- 11. 3EGS*V985A, This valve is shown on P&lD EM-116A-27 in the 1/2" lobe oil heat exchanger drain line. The PMMS describes h as 3/4" plug valve.
- 12. 3EGS*V3A/B, Three Way Thermostatic MMng Valve Specifx:ation 2447.300-241, page 1 19 states it'at all skid cooling system components should be designed to ASME lit, Class 3 requirements. Per FSAR Section 9.5.5.3 the t.mergency diesel cooling water system is designed to ASME 111, Class 3 with the exceptions listed in the Section. This thermo!datic mixing valve is not listed among the exceptions. No documentation was 1
found to verify that this valve !s ASME 111. Clast,3.
- 13. 3EGS*EG1 A/B, Diesel Engine P&lD's EM-116A 27 and EM-116C-12 designate Diesel Engine with this equipment mark number. No PDDS or PMMS database entry was found for this equipment number.
noview Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Obersnel,Bojen.
G O
O 12 race 97 1
VT Leed: Nori. Anthony A O
O O
12 tai /97 VT Mgr: Sctwg#4r, Don K G
O O
iii2.Se IRC Chnm: Swigh, Anord K O
O O
5'13'S8 De.:
- NAUD:
Date:
nEsoLUTioN:
Pr.viously identined tr; NU? Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condetion?Q Yee @ No no.wisonPeaansr0 voo @fNo neemisonunt atO vee @ No moview i
Not #-,
Needed Date VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A VT Mgr: Scht.isfer, Don K InC Chmn: f*1gh, Anand K Date:
~
Printed 1/14/961:01:42 PM Page 3 of 4
I Northeast UtHWes ICAVP M No. MWW17 umstone un# 3 Discrepancy Report SL Comments I
\\
Prth11/14961:01:44 PM Page 4 of 4 4
l
L g
i Northeast Utlitties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0936 Misistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report newtow oreup: System DR VAUD Review esament: system Deegn op,,,,,,,,,,,,
Diecipline: Erwironmnental QueidiceLon O Ya Discrapency Type: NW
@ No 3, _ A --. N/A NRC signiacence levet:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.1/17/9e Descrapency. Class 1E BlW CaDie Qualified to DOR Guidelines Deeerspoon: The review of the Electrical Equipment Qualification Test Report No. MNPS 1, Rev.1, dated 9/24/1985 for BlW Coaxial and Triaxial Cables with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) insulation and Bostrad 7 Hypelon (CSPE) Jackets shows that the coaxial cable test sample was not subjected to electrical load during LOCA test as required by IEEE 383-1974.
N corresponding Electrical Equipment Qualification Test Report Assessment Report No. EEQ-TRA-140.1 states that the test report meets the requirements of The Division of Reactors (DOR ) Guidelines.
However, Millstone FSAR Section 3.11.2.2 states that the Electrical Qualification of all safety-related equipment shall meet the requirements of IEEE 323-1974, the intent of NUREG-0588, and NRC 10CFR50.49.
Also, FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.4.3, pa0e 8.3-26 states that all Class 1E cables are type tested in accordance with IEEE 383-1974.
Review Valid kwaiid Needed Date initiator: Yeoman, S.
O O
O n/se VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A S
O O
in/se VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K B
O O
1i12/98 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 8
O O
1713se Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identsfled by NU? O Yes @ No Non Diecrepent Condstion?O Yes @ No Resciut6cn Ponding?O Yee @ No Ree iution unresoeved?O vos @ No Review initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 1114981:06:18 PM Page 1 or 1
.=.
Northeast Utsties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4M7 Mastone und 3 Discrepancy Report deview Group: System DR VALE)
Review Element: System Design Diecipline. Structurel Design O v.
C-
- Type: % %
gg 1
8,1:.
HVX NRC SL 1-- ; level: 4 Date FMed k NU-Cate Putdiohed: 1/17/96 D6scropency: Embedded plate calculation discrepancy Description We have reviewed EMB. PLATE Calculation No. BK5CAX-C735.1 THRU C735.176, ReV.2.
Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.
This EMB. PLATE Calculation is referenced by NU Response ID M3-IRF-01015 for Duct Support calculation NP(B)-Z545G-852.
The calculation does not address the embedment angla to which the duct support is attached. Therefore review can not be completed.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel. A.
1R/96 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 1 6/96 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K 1/12516 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K 1/13536 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION Previously identified by NU7 O voa
$ No NonDescrepentCondition?O vee @ No l
ResolutkmPending70 va @ No Recoiutkmunroomed70 va @ No i
Review Ae T h Not Acceptable Needed Date gg,,,,
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 1114961:06.54 PM Pe0s 1 of 1
. m
i.
Northeast UtilMies ICAVP DR No. DR MP34487 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syeesm DRBNAUD Rev6ew Element syneem Design g,,,
O vee F_
- y Type
- Drewing gg 8,J_.
. =*DGX NRC Signiecence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed.1/17/96 E
, cy: Lube Oil Heater Design Heat Removal Rate r,
FSAR Table 9.5-4 Design Data forthe Major Components of the Emergency Generator Diesel Lubricating Ol' System defines the Design H6st Removal Rate for the Lube Oil Hester as 51,194 BTU /hr. A review of the EDG purchase specification (2447.300-241), P&lD's EM-116a & EM116c, the Operating instruction Manual (OIM-241), and the lube oil heater drawing 2447.300-241-109a, could not verify this requirement. No documentation could be found to verify this requirement.
Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-367.
Review Vead invalid Needed Date intuator: Hemoetman, R.
O O
O ilmie VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
g Q
1/MI6 VT Mor: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
g stC Chmn: sv. Anand K O
O O
Date:
1/g/g8 INVAUD: The heat removal rate for the lube oil heater was found by knowing the Kw rating of the heater. From the vendor manual OlM-241-001 A, the rating is 15 Kw. Using the conversion factor of 3412.75 Blu/Kwh times 15 Kw, the Stu/hr matches the tabulated heat rate of 51,194 Btu /hr.
Dese:
RESOLUTION:
j Previonely identiMed by NU? O Yes @ No Non Diecropent Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O ves @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g,g,g g VT Leed: Nort. Ar@nny A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
SL Commente l
l 1
Prtneed 1/1N96106-19 PM PeGe 1 of 1 v
Northeast 9tmies ICAVP DR No. DR4P3440 Maisotone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6.w oroup: canagwesen DR ResowTioN AccerTED Revtow sinnent: sfeewn inessmenon ns.,9akie: Pging Doeten g
m 3 Ty,sonsionenen impeemenu.on e,,
systen#rocees: SWP NRC Signissance level: 4 Date FMed to NU:
Date Putnehed, a/11/97 osseropency: Walkdown Discrepancies of The SWP in The Diesel Generator Building Dweripeton: The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Emergency Diesel Generator Building:
- 1. 38Wo*RV90A (Relief Valve) missing from line 3-SWo 001-186-4. Flanges covered with cloth but no Tag for Work in
- Progress,
- 2. For line 3-SWP 010-264-3 shown on Cl-SWP-3SS Sht 2 Rev 10, the support shown on drawing BZ-60A 33 has one additional support attached and the support Nowm on drawing BZ-60A 32 has two additional r,upports attached that are not shown on the support drawings.
- 3. Lines 3-SWP-010 26 3 and 3-SWP-010109 3 have missing insulation (from floor to AOV39A,approximately 13 ft).
- 4. Line 3-SWP-002 249 3 is missing insulation.
- 5. Valve 3SWP*AOV39A shows gland packing leakage has occurred resulting in corrosion deposit.
- 6. 3SWP*RO39A (Restridir<! orifice) !s installed backwards (inlet side is facing downstream).
- 7. Valve 35WP*V298 Is miwing insulation and the bottom flange shows rust and corrosion.
- 8. Valve 3SWP*V16 is missing insulation.
- g. Valves V 111, V 986 V 110, and V 988 are shown per
- GRITS
- and Manufadure's draw!ng to be flanged valves and in the field were found to be socket welded valves.
- 10. Drain valve 3SWP*V111 are located at Heat Exchanger (3 CGS *E1B) outlet head. PalD EM 1330 Rev 23 shows the valve to be on the inlet head.
- 11. Valve 3SWP*AOV39A gland packing si'ows leakhge/ corrosion.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inesseer: Reed.J.W.
O O
O SSS7 VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A O
O O
"S7 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
9/8,97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
M97 Dete:
INVAUD:
Dese: 12/5/97 ResowTON Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1, 3,4, 5,6, 7,8,9 and 11 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0040, have ider#ified coridibons not previously discovered by NU which Prtnied in4961.tle.13 PM Page 1 or 3
-M Nmeneet Urties ICAVP DR No, DRW3440 M usem e unit :
Discrepe: icy Report require omroction.
4 Motorial Ccadition'of plant systems will be accomplished by the performance of system readenses rev%ws and weekdowns performed in secontence with EN 31007. These reviews and L
weihdowns commenced on September 22,1997 and are scheduled to be completed prior to Mode 4.
4 Items 1,3,4,5,7. 8 and 11 are material condition Noms which have had AWO's or Trouble Reports generated as follows to schedule and correct these leeues:
I item fi. AWO MS 97 00026 Item #3. TR 1?M3062613 5
^
Nem #4.TR12MC.2942 Nem 86&11 - TR j
12M3064068 item 87. AWO MS 9712441 NemOS-TR 12M3083224.
Design documentation and/or AWO's will be dri-g+1 to resolve Hem 86 and 9. CR MS 97 3068 was written to provide the noosseary corrective actions to resolve these issues. The 2
ortflos plate of item #6 is a square edge design not sensitive to orientation. Sesed on none of these items beine indicative of design or licensing bases issues or machine capability, NU has concluded that these are Signifloance Level 4 discrepencies, j
l NU has concluded that the issue reported in Rom #10 of I
Discrepency Report, DR-MP3-0040, has identified a condbn previously discovered by NU which requires orw stion. Item #10 has been identified in UlR 1322 llem D2 (The same is true for
?
the 'A' diesel and is llom C2). The valve number is listed incorredly as 38WP*V110B(8-), however Ms desciption is correct and it is shown correctly on the referenced sketch which is attached to this IRF.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item #2 of Disorspency Report, DR-MP3 0040, does not represent a i
discrepent condition, item #2 is doccmented by E&DCR N-CS-03145 posted aGainst BZ 60A 32 and 33. Significance Level criteria do not apply here es this is not a discrepent condition.
l
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issues reported in Nems #1,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9 and 11 of Descrepancy Report, DR MP3-0040, have identifled condN60ns not previously discovered by NU which require correction. Design documentation and AWO's will be L
issued to corted these issues vR MS 97 3068 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
NU has concluded that the leeue reported in Nem #2 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0040, does not represent a discrepent cordition. E&DCR N CS 03145 documents the addhional supports.
NU has conc uded that the lasue reported in hem #10 of a
Discrepency Report, DR MP3-0040, has identified a condition l
previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This item is identifier! by UlR 1322. Based on NU's evaluation of the non i
1 pre <$ecovered llems, we have concluded that a Significance
{L Level 4 is appropriate.
_ c,,_
_,-.c,,_
ag
~ _
L Poems tiwse toeis PM Page 2 or 3 i
)
~
_ i l
L a
w.. -- - -.. -. - _.-.--, w
Northeast utsties ICAVP M No Mmm umetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report t
m -
ResehsenPonenerO va
@m Roommea w *estO va
@m Review inWstor: Reed, J. W.
~
O u
O
$m VT Laod: Neri, Artho.,? A O
O 12titis7 vr u,r: sw.oon x O
$5Se IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 4
O Date:
SL Comments:
1
+
f Prtnted 1/1496 iM16 PM Page 3 oft
Northeast UtiHties ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3 4109 Minstorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report ravtow Group: Svetem DR REtoLIJTaoN ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: system 0eeden Dieciphne: Pipeg Design g
Descrepency Type: C**
y, s, r- -
a r.ss NRO &lgnonnense imi: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putillahed' IrlaST
% - -6 Pipe Crack Postulation Discrepancy Descripuon' in the process of reviewing Calculation 12179-NM(S) 787 DM.
17EA Rev. O, dated 12/2/85, discrepancies regarding crack postulation for the Recirculation Spray System (RSS) and the Low Prstsure Safety injection System (SIL) piping were noted.
References:
I (O FSAR Section 3.6.1.1.2, Design Basis Pipe Bresk/ Crack Criteria (10 Calculation No.12179-NM(op787 DM 17EA Rev. O, dated 12/2/85 I
(li0 Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X7920 Rev. 3, dated 1/29/85 with Calculation Change Notices (CCN's) 1 through 7. CCN 7 dated 11/27/96 (iv) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-X8200 Rev. 2, dated 8/9/84 with Calculation Change Notices (CCN's) 1 through 10. CCN 10 j
dated 12/4/96.
Background:
According to reference (0, the RSS and SIL piping is classified as moderate energy. Through wall cracks have to be postulated in moderate energy piping systems located outside containment.
The objective of reference (10 is to apply the pipe crack postulation criteria to segments of the SIL and the RSS piping in the Engineered Safety Features (ESF) building to provide an analytical basis to postulate er preclude pipe cracks in the long term, exclusively for environmental concems. The analytical procedure used is to comps.re the total additive stress in the piping to the pipe crack postulation threshold stress level.
According to pages 3 to 6 of reference (10, the threshold stress level for different segments of the RSS piping are 16875 psi and 18796 psi.
DS:repancies:
- 1. The RSS piping segments under consideration are analyzed in two par's (A'and B) in the pipe stress calculation, reference (110 The maximum total additive stress. according to CCN 7, ;,
w, 14 and 15 of reference (110, is 19335 psi (part A) and 28770 psi (part B).The maximum total additive stress in the RSS piping in the ESF building exceeds the threshold stress level for postulating through-wall leakage cracks in moderate energy piping. Yet no cracks are postulated in inference (in.
2.^.::::4 *: ":c;;:ctTec = d,c f MhcL=";
h Northeast UWities ICAVP M No MWH Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Safety injedion system, reference (iv), the total additive pipe stress level in the piping is 33,375 psi. This exceeds the pipe crack threshold stress level. Yet, per reference (10, no pipe cracks have been posulated for the Sll piping in the ESF building.
- 3. Calculation 12179-NM(S) 787 DM 17EA Rev. O, dated 12/2/85, reference (11), has not been revised to incorporate the i
latest revisions to the RSS and Sll piping stress analysis, references (110 and (iv). The pipe crack threshold stress levels used in reference (10 will be lower for the higher operating process temperatures considered in the revined RSS and SIL piping stress analysis, references (110 and (iv). This will increase the possibility that cracks would have to be postulated for the RSri and SIL piping in the ESF building.
Reviw vand invand Needed Does inst 6ekurt Prokeshf-0 0
0 8'5'87 VT Leed. Nort. Arcorw A Q
Q Q
s/1097 v7 ser: se oon x 0
0 O
wi2/s7 1RC Chnen: Singh. Anand K O
O O
ar12/s7 Dese:
mvAuo:
Dese: 12/11/97 RESOLUTION. Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0109, has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which requite corredion. The values reported in item #1 of the DR are incorred. These values are worst case stresses for ASME Code equation 11, not maximum total additive stress which is the combination cf ASME Code equations 9 + 10. The calculation referenced in item #1 did not address the moderate energy crack exclusion area requirement, consequently maximum total additive stresses were not tabulated. The calculation referenced in item #2 incorrectly used the stress limit of 0.8(1.2Sh + Sa) instead of 0.4(1.2Sh + Sa), the correct threshold allowable for moderate energy crack exclusion. The calculation referenced in item #3 should have been revised to incorporate the latest revisions te the affeded stress calculations. As a result of the CMP effort, these iswes are being addressed by CR M3 1545 (written on N20/97) and UIR-2544 (written on 5/21/97).
Corredive Action #2 of CR M3-97-1545 (A/R 97012144 assignment 04) was issued to revise pipe stress calculations associated with moderate energy crack excNsion areas.
Purchase Order 00017150 Releases 302 and 138 " Moderate Energy Piping Break Exclusion Assessment" was initiated 1o address the crack exclusion area issue, and Idel41fied the pipe stress calculations wkhin the scope of calculation 12179-NM(S)-
l.
737-DM, including the reference (110 and (iv) l calculations. Calculation 12179 NM(S) 787-DM will aim be
!~
updated under the scope of Release 302 and 338. However the statement in item 83 of the DR that the crack threshold stress levels used in reference (10 will be lower for the higher operating Prned in4Je 1:10 o3 PM Page 2 of 3
l Northeast Utilaise ICAVP DR No. DRMM109 mone unit 3 Discrepancy Report process temperatures is incorred. The RSS anu Gil piping in the scope of calculation 12179 NM(S) 787-DM is exemd from moderate energy line cracks based on the crtteria of MED 31 as stated in FSAR 6.3.2.5. The rules of MEB 31 are applieo and require the ose of normal / upset stresses and ellowables.
Therefore, faulted process fluid temperatures are not considered in the calculation. NU concurs that this is a Sign.!!cance Level 3 DR.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0109, has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which require correction. The calculatiori, will be revised to corred the identified issues. CR M3-971545 previously identified this issue. NU concurs that calcul Mn 12179-NM(S) 787-DM needs to be revised. However, the i%s in question are exempt from moderate energy line cracks as allowed by MEB 31 as stated in FSAR Section 8.3.2.5 NU concurs that this is a Significance Level 3 issue.
N.
?;idenWaed by Nu? (91 Yes Q No Non Descrepent Condet6mntV Yes (91 No Reasut pendlastO vos @ we no menun,eemedrO ve.
@ N.
Rev6ew Needed Dets intuator*. Prokeen, A.
O O
O
$2/11/87 vii.osd: No,t, % A O
]7 VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K plc chmn: Singh, Anand K g
onne:
12/11/97 se commerne: The identifieri NU documents CR M3-971545 and UIR 2544, although wrttien on 5/21/57, prior to the cutoff date of 5/27/97, were not available for ICAVP review.
~
Pmbed 1/14981:1006 PM Page 3 or 3
Northecst utsties ICAVP DR No. DRW34283 missecone Ur* 3 Discrepancy Report Newtow ereup: Pr'.. *erivvuma DR RatoLLmoN AoCEPTED Mewtow stomase: Corvoetwe Achen Procese O vee Dis tapency Type: Correathe Acear g
systemeieesee: DGX
~
NRC se rwacance level: 4 Does faxed to NU:
e case Puheeceed: 9/2a97
~
F.
- i. Inaccurate Data incorporated into the Corredive Action of ACR
- M3-96-0268 u seemen: The Adverse Condition description (Block 2 of Form RP 41) references UIR # 221 (part of the ACR # M3-96-0268) which lists 12 VSRT su00estions and questions with resped to the MP3 FSAR. Item #1 of these VSRT suggestions and questions reads as follows.
' Figure 8.310, Sheets :-3 / EGD 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> and 30 min.
ratings are shown incorrectly. SUGGESTION: Show 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> ratin0 as $486 kW and 30 min. rating as 5983 kW.*
The Recommended Corrective Adion (Block 6 of Form RP 4-7, Page 3 ) addresses item #1 as folbws :
'FSAR Figure 8.310, Sheets 1-3: FSARCR will be issued to revise the EGD 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> and 30 m;n. ratings to 5436 kW and 5983 kW respectively. DCN DM3-00-0149 97 will be issued to revise Drawing 39241, Sheet 189 which is designated as F10ere 8.3-10, Sheet 1 of the FSAR' dote: The Recommended Corredive Action 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> rating was inaccurately copied as 5436 kW Instead of 5466 kW from the UlR #2,71. The 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> kW rating of the EGD is conservative but sull inaccurate.
Review Vehd invalid Needed Date initiator: Ceruno. A.
O O
O etiss7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J G
O O
Sr15S7 vT u n scwor, con x 8
O O
mS7 e
1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
O 9/26e7 Date:
INVAllo:
Date: 12/11/97 Resolution. Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0253, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU.
Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3529 was written to provide the necessary corredive adions to resolve this issutr. Approved Corrective Adion Plan (CAP) attached, DCN DM3-010149-97 has been issued to correct drawin0 errors mentioned ll1 CR (DCN attached). No work is required in the field.
The Recommended Corrective Action (ACR S M3-96-0268, Block 6 of Form RP4-7, pa0e 3) 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> rating was inaccurately copied as $436 kW instead of 5488 kW from the UIR # 221.
Pitnsed 1/14961:10 43 PM Page 1 or 2
Northeast UtHNios ICAVP DR No. DR.44P34253 muleton. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ACR # MS 96-02S8 has been dosed. However the original has been updated.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepar.cy Report, DR-MP3-0253, has l$entified a condition not previously discovered by NU.
1 Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3529 was written to provide the necessary corredive adions to resolve this Isme. Approved j
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) attached, DCN SM3-01-0149-97 has been issued to correct dradng errors mentioned in CR (DCN attached). No work is required in the field.
Attachments:
Yes.1) CR M3-97 3529. 2) DCN DM3-010149-97
../ r; keeneaed try NU7 O Yes
'e> No Non D6ecropont Condmon?Q Yes @ No W% Pend 6ng70 Y.e 4> No
~% unr.o.ev.drO vs.
@>No nev6.w
""***d wtw. <: caruso. A.
YT Leed: Ryan. Thomas J VT Mgr: Schapter, Don K mc Chmn: Segh. Anand K Dek:
12/11/97 at conenente: NU's response is acceptable. NU's response confirms the discrepancy related to the incorrect value assigned to the 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> rating for the Emergency Diesel Generators. NU issued CR
- M3-97 357 to fulfill the requirement of PI 22 (Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) Communication and Discrepancy Reporting Protocol) which requires writing a CR for each Discrepancy Report confirmed to be not pre-discovered by NU. In addition, NU issued DCN # DM3-01-0149-97 revising drawings 25212 39241 Sheets 192 and 193 (part of Figure 8.310 included in the FSAR) to correct the 160 hour0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> rating from 5436kW to 548ekW for the Emergency Diesel l
Generators.
l 1
Printed 1/14961:1o 46 PM Pege 2 or 2
__m..
__m
-..__..__.m_--__
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR44P34310 umstone Unit 5 Discrepancy Report neview arouP: c.ndigwesen f.M nasoumoN ACCEPTED moveew samment: system Desen D6eedpshe: Ppme Deeg" O vue Diserspeacy Type: Desens 4 g, sp __ -
-'SWP NnC signeamenee level: 4 Does Faxed to NU:
Date Puldlehed: 10/10/97 Deserspeary: Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for Hydrogen Recombiner Room theertphon: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&ID with the as built Isometrics:
l
- 1. On CP-402052 Eld 1 Rev 4 line 3-SWP-750-278-4 is shown on P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 as 3-SWP-001278-4. Also continuation draw 6ng CP 319757 should be CP-310758. Lines 3-SWP 750 255 3 and 3 SWP 750 277 4 should be called out to have 1.5 in. Type J insulation per spec SP ME-691, nev6.w vanw inveild vw Do e n
inittstor: Reed. J. W.
O O
O orzarer VT l.eed: Nort. Arthony A O
O O
Sw'7 VT Mgr: schapser, Den K O
O O
1087 inC Chrnn: s ngh, Anand K O
O O
50'2/e7 Does:
sNAup:
Date:
1/6/98 mesottmON: DispoWtion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0310, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. P&lD EM 133B will be updated, CP-402052 shall be updated to revise the continuation drawing to CP.
319758 in accordance with DCN DM3-S-0628-95, which is posted and outstanding against CP-402052.
The references to insulation, pressure ar.d temperature will be deleted from CP-402052 as this information is in the line designation table and not required on the isometric. CR M3 3541 has been initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve these issues. Corrective Action Plan for CR M3-97 3541 and AR# 97025134 assignment 2 will track completion of this item, currently scheduled to be completed post startup.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concJwled that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0310, has identihea a cond!'Jon not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The P&lD and isometric will be updated to resolve these issues. CR M3 97 3541 was initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue, currently scheduled to be completed post startup.
N.
-?;identland twy NUP Q Yes @ No NonDWCondesten?O Yes @ No Printed in4981:11:19 PM Page 1 of 2
'Wim-Northmet utstin lCAVP M No. MWW10 j
Miliew ut* 3 Discrepancy Report i
WPendng?Q Yes
- 49) No MesseueionUnresolvedFU Yes @ No Rev6ew Inteloner: Sarwr, T. L Q
1N 1
YT Leed: Nei, Anthory A q
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Dor, K 9g
)
1RC Chrim: EWngh, Anand K g
g Date:
SL Comments:
j i
e 4
4 PrHed 11141161:11:23 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR NoMM34311 mienstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report novio...e.,: c.c OnnesotunoNaccerr D newtow E4ement: System Insteeskan Disc 5hne: P W g Do"'"
O yes Descrepeney Type: Insteeshon implementseon g' g syskouWProcess: SWP NRC angniacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Peliehed: iortW97 2. Walkdown Discrepanc6es for SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner r,
1 Room r--
The followir.g discrepancy items were found durin0 the walkdown of the piping and mxhanical equipment of the SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner Room:
- 1. Une 3-GWP 750 245-3 is not insulated as required by spec.
SP ME 691.
- 2. Lines 3-SWP 750 255 3 and 3-SWP 750-277-4 are not insulated as required by spec. SP ME-691.
The following material corxlition item was found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner Room:
- 1. Valve 3SWP*V840 pacAing shows leakage.
Rev6 w Vaud invahd Needed Deie Irdeletor: Reed, J. W.
O O
O iv23,7 V7 Lead: Nw1. Anthony A O
O O
S/2SS7 VT Mgr: schophr, Don K O
O O
$o'15'7 wic chmn: sinen. Atw v.
O O
O 102/97 Date:
INVAL10:
osto: 12/23/97 ResotunoN' Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0311, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which I
requires correction.
item #1 of" discrepant items' has been walked down and the required portions verified to be insulated per E&DCR r -P 34967.
A Trouble Report has been generated to schedule and repair item #2 Corredive action #2 of CR M3-97 3540 has been approved to track completion of item #2 of " discrepant items", it 4
Is scheduled to be completed post startup, item #1 (3SWP*V840 packing leaiQ of the " material condition" item has been completed.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0311, has ident;fied a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Item #1 of " discrepant items" has been walked down and the required portions verifef to be insulatW per E&DCR F-P 34967. A Trouble Report has been generated to Pnnled 1/149e 1:11:56 PM Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MPm11 Ministone und 3 Discrepancy Report schedule and repair item #2. Valve 3SWPN840 pacAing leakage has been repaired. CR M3-97 3540 approved corrective action plan will track the completion of this item post startup.
P reviously Idoneshod by NU7 Q Yes
- 0) Ho Non W CMion?C Yw
'9) W PM% Pend 6ng70 voo + No P - % unre evedr O vos @ u.
Review 2-M M
intuator: Reed, J. W.
O O
O im VT Leed Nort, Anthony A O
7 1m VT Mgr: Sctmpfw. Don K J
IRC Chmn: Singh, A.and K l
1/1lW6 SL Comnents:
l I
l I
l Printed 1/1498 *:11:50 PM p,,M 2 i
j
Northeast UtNities ICAVP DR No. DR44P34321 ulisstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow oroup: ConAgumisen DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Revtew Element: System Wm Diecipline: Piping Design Om Discrepency Type: tr=*an=#v 16mplementetson gg SystemProcess: SWP NRC Signancence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 10/1847 E
ci; Walkdown discrepencies fu the SWP in the Pumphouse DesertP#on: The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Pumphouse:
- 1. Unos 3-SWP-003-19-3,3 SWP-003 20-3,3-SWP-003 202 3, and 3-SWP-003-248 3 are not insulated as required by spec. SP-ME-691 and no work in progress tag observed in the area.
- 2. Unes 3 SWP-002 23 3,3 SWP-003 213,3-SWP-003-203-3, and 3 SWP-003-22-3 are not insulated as required by spec. SP.
ME 691 and no work in progress tag observed in the area.
- 3. Valves 3SWP*VS,3SWP*MOV102A (*V6) and 3SWP*V7 are not insulated and no work in progress tag observed in the area.
- 4. Line 3-SWP 003-213 contains 3 flanged connectica about 6 in. from pipe support PSR036 that is not shown on isome' ic drawing Cl-SWP 248 Sht 4 Rev 8.
- 5. Une 3-SWP-00212 3 insulation is not Type J as required per spec SP ME 691 and no work in progress tag was observed in the area.
The following materiai condition iterns were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Pumphouse:
- 1. Pumps 3SWP*P1 A and 3SWP*P1C seals show leakage.
- 2. Pipe ' upport H002 on isometric drawing CP-319703 exhibits sever.: rust and degradation.
- 3. Strainer 3SWP*STR1C top shaft seal and top cover flange shows leakage and corrosion.
- 4. Valves 3SWP'V969,*V972 and 'V1 flanges and bolts are rusted.
- 5. Unes 3 SWP-003-237-4 and 3-SWP-003-258-4 have insulation that is crushed from the 45 degree elbows to the wall panetration.
Review Veild invand Needed Date initheor: Reed, J W.
Q Q
Q 10597 VT Lead: Hert, Anthony A Q
Q 107517 VT Mgr: sc*mpfer, Don K Q
Q Q
10r1197 Pnnled 1/1496 012:26 PM PeGe 1 or 2
r Northeast Uti4Mies ICAVP DR No. DR&34321 Ministone unN 3 Discrepancy Report IRC chmn: Smgh. Anend K g
y Q
10/1497 Dese:
DNAUO:
Cate: 12/11/97 ResottmoN. Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issues reported under " Piping and Mechanical Equipment *of Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0321, have identified conditionr, not previously discovered by NU which require correction.
The approved Corredive Adion Plan for CR M3-97-3680 has documented the generation of Trouble Reports to schedule and repair items #1,2,3 and 5 and will track their completion post startup. The flanged connection identified in item #4 was added in accordance with PDCE MP3 88-047 and is depided on Sheet 1 of piping isometric C.l.-SWP 248 but failed to add them to Sheet 4 PL1 of the isometric. The PLI isometric will bc updated pcst startup and is being tracked by Corrective Action #1 to CR M3-97 3680. No work is required in the field for item #4.
NU has concluc'ed that the issues reported under ' Material C,ondition'of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0321, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved Corrective Adlon Plan for CR M3 3680 has documented the generation of Trouble Reports to schedule and repair items #1 through 5 and will track their completion post startup.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issues reported under " Piping and Mechanical Equipment *and ' Material Conditiori*of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0321, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved Correcilve Action Plan for CR M3-97 3880 has descrioed the necessary drawing update and repair activities to correct these issues. These corrective actions will be implemented post startup.
Provtously identened try NU7 O Yes (9) No Non Deecropont Condetion?O Yee
@ No Resolut6cn Pend 6ng70 vee 4) No P - % unresoev.47 0 vee
<!) No Rev6ew arearddda Not see.pedde Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A i
I VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
Prtnted in 4961:12.30 PM Pege 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0425 meistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group' Cordgurehon DR REsOUIT1oN ACCEPTED Ponensees operahaay luue Diecipane: Ptp6ng D1eign O va Discrepency Type: Insteashon impaomentehen g
syenemeroome: SWP
~
NRC sientacance len,t 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dese Putdiohed: 1or2em7 FT
--s Mod. PDCR MP3-93-038 : Modifications to heat exch. and associated piping for 3CCE*E1 A/B & 3CCl*E1B Dwertpteon: Two discrepancies were found in the dimensions shown on the heat excahanger isometric as built drawing 12179-Cl-CCE-E1 A Sht 1&4 ReV 7 in comparison to the fiald measurements made during the walkdown for this PDCR. Dimensions from the centerline of flange piece marks no.104 & 105 (shown on sheet 1 of the drawing) and the end of the transition piece hookup to the heat exchanger is shown at the top to be 41/16 in and was measured to be 515/16 in. The bottom dimension is shown on the drawing to be 3 7/8 In. and was measured to be 61/16 in.
These discrepancies are greater than the piping tolerance of 1 in.
allowed by Spec ME 570.1.B.9.1 for small and large bore piping.
Rev6ew Vead invalid needed Data inWetor: Reed. J. W.
G O
O 50
- 87 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
' 0 5'87 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
tor 20s7 IRc chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
sor2sio7 Oste:
pNAuo:
Dele: 12/11/97 REsOLtrrioN: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0425, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires corredion. CR M3-97 3733 corrective action plan has been approved to revise the piping isometric and stress calculation to refied the as-built dimensions. There is no work required in the field and this item is scheduled to be completed post startup.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0425, has identified a cork:ltion not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. CR M3-97 3733 corrective action plan has been approved to revise the piping isometric and stress calculation to reflect the as-built dimensions. There is no work rnouired in the field and this item is scheduled to be completed post stanup, Previouefy idenoned by NU? U vm @ No Non D6scropont condalon?O vos G) No PM%Pending?O va @ No P%Unruoind?O vm @ No Review hittator: Reed, J. W.
O O
O 2' 5/S7 ur i m.
w.m _ _..
PrWed in49e 1:13 09 PM' '
Pope 1 or 2
- ~
Northeast Utiinies ICAVP DR No. DR 44P3-0425 minstone unN 3 Discrepanc,y Report O
vi$r vr u, se conx 4
O O
im IRC Chmn: Sin 0h. Ane'id K O
O O
$iime Dele:
St Comments:
i 1
Prtiled 1/14981:13.14 PM M2
Northout Utunsa ICAVP DR No. DRm89 Misistone un# 3 Discrepancy Report Revlow Groesp: System DR RESOLUTloN ACCEPTED Review Element: syenom Design the+%e: Mecheruced Desi'"
Om h, :y Type: Componert Date gg systemProcess: HVX NRC signeacance level: 4 Date faxed to IM):
Deee Pulshehed: 102s97 E--
- ii SLCRS and ABVS filter unit pressure differential indicating switches Descripe6en: During review of the Supplementary Leak Colledion and Release System (SLCRS) filter unns 3HVRTLT3A/B and the Auxiliary Build;ng Ventilation System (ABVS) filter ualts 3HVRTLT1 A/B a discrepancy regarding which filter sedions are provided with pressure differential indicating switches was identified.
FSAR Section 6.5.1.5 states that a local pressure differential Indicating switch is installed across each filter element including the hGater.
Drawings EM 148E, EB-45H,2170.430-065-022D, and 2170.430-065-2180 do not show a separate pressure differential indicating 1
switch for the eledric heater in filter units 3HVRTLT3A/B 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 3HVR7LT1 A/B neview valu inveNd Needed Deee infilator: FAyJt, M D.
O O
O
'orOS7 VT l' t: Nwi, Anthony A O
O O
o/"'87 VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K O
O O
o'15S7 IRC Chmn: Singh. tsd K g
Q Q
10/9697 Dece:
INVAUO:
Dese: 12/18/97 REsOLUT30N NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0459, does not represent a discrepant condition. The FSAR as written is corred but is misinterpreted in the DR The statement is not meant to imply that the heater has its own unique switch. The switch for the heater is shared with the moisture separator. A switch across the heater alone would probably never read within the readable range of the indicator.
This would render the indication, accuracy and fundionality of the Instrument or its calibration constantly questionable.
Combining the measurement of differential pressure across both the moisture separator and the heater allows for the most accurate indication, when summed, of the total pressure drop across the cornplete filter bank.A review of Reg Guide 1.52 and ANSI / ASME 509-1976 and 1989 ",nfinn that there is no requirement for a differential pr wre measuring device across the heaters. Significance levr., criteria do not apply as this is not a
~
Prvted in4961:13M PM Page 1 or 2 v
N.
e w-,e-,
,w=
- m v
Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4469 ministone unM 3 Discrepancy Report discrepent condition.
Prev 6ously identsaed by NU7 (,) Yes t No Non D6ecrepent Condelion?@ vee U No W% Pending?O vos
- 3) No PM% Unresolved?O vos
- No neview Intuntor: Stod, M. D.
8 O
O 12/$as7 vn.e.. us,, %,
O O
=
VT Mgr: Sdwpfer, Don K f
unc chmn: singh. Anand x Dele:
12/18/97 s6 commente: A0ree with NU's response that Reg. Guide 1.52. Rev. 2 and ANSI N509-1976 do not require a pressure differential indicating switch acoss the eledric heater.
However, the statement in FSAR Sedion 6.5.1.5 Implies that there is a pressure differenticlindicating switch provided for the eledric heaters in the filter units.
4 e
l l
l Prued 1/14961:13.56 PM Pege 2 of 2
Northeast Utmus.
ICAVP M No. MW3M75 Minstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Moview Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review seament: system Demon Discopene unchanadDemon O vos r1
- p Type: Componert Date g
s, _. _
m Hvx NRC signesence W: 4 Dole faxed to NU:
Date Published. 11/15/97
, ii. SLCRS Charcoal Adsober Design Deecitpe6an: During the review of Supplementary Leak Colledion and Release System (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B a discrepancy regarding the face velocity and residence time was identified.
FSAR Section 6.2.3 states that the charcoal adsorber is a gasketless nontray type and is designed for a 0.21 second residence tlme per 2 inches depth for gases at a flow velodty of 47 fpm. The actual bed depth of the adsorber is 4 inches.
FSAR Table 1.8-1 Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.1 exception states that the dwell time for the minimum 2 inches of the carbon adsorber unit is 0.21 sec. All filters use a 4-inch thick charcoal bed. Testing of the charcoalit based on a maximum face velocity of 46 fpm.
FSAR Tabic 1.81 Regul. story Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.6.a exception states that the activated carbon adsorber section has a 4 inch bed and operating face velocity of 47 fpm (0.43 sec residence time)
Specification 2170.430-065 Charcoal Aosorber Cells Design and Construction section requires the filter to have a net effective area such that the face velocity is no greater than 40 fpm and that a 2 in. nominal adsorbent bed thickness will provide a minimum residence time of 0.25 sec. The bed depth shall be a nominal 4 in, thickness.
Rev6ew Va3d invand Needed Date initiator: stout, M. D.
O O
O
$o< c'S7 VT Leed: Nat. Anthory A O
O O
$ $'1/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Den K B
O O
$ 55S7 IRC chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
'5/1 187 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 12/16/97 REsOLUTM. NU has concluded that Nerepency Report DR-MP3-0475, has identified a condiaon previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This issue is addressed in UIR 1005. The UIR Closure Request details the changes required to implernent i
corrective actions. FSARCR 97-MP3-531 implements those changes. Corrective adions are required to be completed prior to Jtartup.
Prtnled 11149e (142e PM ~
(ei v.
() u.
ra_ -- -
r--
ti l v-tai u.
r_a w
- w uu, Pope 1 or 2
Northust UtiNum ICAVP M NE M MP3-0475 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report bv cg>
70 v Inst 6dv: Stout. M. D.
G O
O 15157 vr L.ed: Nwt, Arshany A O
O O
15157 VT Mgr: Sempf.r. Don K O
O
=
unc chmn: Singh, Ared K 0
0 0
t/1sm Date:
12/16/97 st coa m at.: Agree that this is a discrepancy previously identified by NU.
Note however that Engineering Evaluation MS EV 970224 Revision 0 used an airflow of 8,5000 cfm instead of the 9,800 cfm SLCRS maximum altflow shown on P&lD EM-148E in determining the charcows adsorber face velocity. The face velocity would be just under 40 fpm not the 34 fpm shown in Table 1 of M3-EV 970224.
i I
Prine.d tai 411e 1:14 32 PM 2W2
Nottiwast UtilNios ICAVP DR Nm DR.MP3-0822 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group; system DR REsOLtmON ACCEPTED h* Element: System Design osegosine unctwical Deeg" O vea h; :y Typ.s: Ucermng Document g
ei _ 7.-
' RSs NRC signNicence Imt: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Putdlehed. 11/2497 F-i; inconsistencias with respect to RSS spray nozzle flow rate &
pressure drop.
osseripeson: FSAR Sedion 6.2.2.2 states that the mean surface diameter of the containment spray droplets is less than 1,000 microns at a design pressure Wop of ' --H for the containment recirculation system (RSS) -
- a design pressure drop of 40 paid for the quench spra-s.n (QSS).
Calculation ES. '9 Revision 1 (CCN 1) shows the mean diameter of the n iy droplets to be less than 1,000 microns with a flow rate of 15.2 Opm and a pressure drop of 40 psid.
However, calculation ES 229 does not addniss the mean diameter of the spray droplets with a pressure drop of 25 psid.
Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) 3DBS-NSS-003, Revision 0, Section 12.4.1 states that the RSS spray nonles shall be designed for a pressure drop of 40 psid at a flow rate of 15.2 gpm. Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) 3DBS.
NSS-002, Revision 0, Section 12.3.1 states that the QSS spray nonles shall be designed for a pressure drop of 40 psid at a flow rate of 15.2 Opm.
According to the SPRACo Catalogue page 8, the spray nonles are designed to provide a flow rate of 15.2 gpm with a pressure dop of 40 psid or12.0 gpm with a pressure drop of 25 psid. The SPRACo Catalogue is found as Attachment 1 to calculation ES-229.
Calculation US(B)-245 shows the RSS spray nonles to operate with a flow rate of 12.0 Opm at a pressure drop of 25 psid.
Calculation P(R)-1096 shows the QSS spray nonles to operate with a flow rate of15.2 gpm at a pressure drop of 40 psid.
In conclusion:
- 1. Inconsistencies exist between calculation ES-229, calculation US(B) 245, FSAR Section 6.2.2.2, and DBSD 3DBS-NSS-003 Section 12.4.1 with respect to the RSS spray nonle pressure drop and flow rate.
- 2. No inconsistency exists with respect to the QSS spray nonle pressure drop and flow rate.
Revtew Vead invalid Needed Date Initiator: Feingold. D. J.
O O
O 1 '16S7 VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A G
O O
11/11 S 7 VT Mgr: Schop8er. Don K B
O O
'5'1787 Pnneed 1/14981:15:13 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utiikies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0822 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRc chmn: Srgh. Anand K g
g g
11/2097 oses:
wvAuo:
Date:
1/5/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0522 hcs identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. UIR 1952 identified conflids betweei' the referenced calculations and the FSAR for resolutio1. However as a program enhancement CR MP3 97-4545 %s been initiated to addresses these specific concems as n*:: of the UIR 1952 disposition.
C enclusi' n:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0522 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. UiR 1952 identified conflicts between the referenced calculations and the FSAR for resolution. As a program enhancement, CR MP3-97-4545 has been initiated to addresses these specific concems as part of the UlR 1952 disposition.
Prov6ously Idoneaed by NU7 iGi Yes O No Non Diecrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No Reso6ution PendMg?O va @ No Roemisonuar.ewed70 va @ No Rev6ew inatlator: Femrpid. D. J.
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfw Don K wic chmn: stwh. Anand K st comments:
b Printed 1/f 4961:15.17 PM Page 2 or 2
=
i l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR 44P3 0587 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow Group: system DR REtou1 TION ACCEPTED Revtow Element: system Deegn Dumipaae: uschenmes Do"'"
O vee Diecrepancy Type: Correonent Date
,g s u _.-== Rss NRC W level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11r24s7 E
. ci; Drawing 2472.210190-110 references notes which do not appear on the drawing.
Description? The design drawing,2472.210190-010 Revision B, for containment recirculation system orifice plates 3RSS*RO39A,B references Notes 1,2, and 3 for fabrication of materials.
However, the notes do not appear on the drawing.
Review Vead invalid Needed Date instietor: Femgo6d, D. J.
O O
O 11/11/97 VT Lead: Nw1. Anthony A O
O O
5 '1i'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
i t' 7/'7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O
O O
11r2os7 Dese:
INVAllO:
Date: 12/11/97 REsourrioN: Dlsposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0587, does not represent a discrepant condition. Drawing 2472.210-190-010B is the second in a series of four drawings associated with Permutit drawing number 556 32637. The notes can be found on drawing 2472.210-190 009B(Permutit Dwg. 556 32637 Sheet 1 of 4, attached). It is an accepted practice to develop Notes and References on the lead sheet only.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0406, does not represent a discrepant condition. The referenced Notes are depicted on drawing 2472.210-190-009B which is the first drawing in the series of four drawings associated witn drawing 2472.210190-010B.
Previously klonteaed by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condition 74) Yes U No Resolution Pendeg70 ves @ No nosoiutionvaresoeved70 vos @ No Revtew A~ar h Not Ar&"^
Needed Date a
m, p gj VT Leed: Neri, Antreny A VT ugr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Dese:
12/11/a' st Conenents. No cross reference to drawing 2472.210-190-0098 is provided on wa. a om st r.u an._4 i.n o..a.% a. rii,.u
. e.u. roon.-
1
. ~,.
Northeast Utimies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0687 Misistorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report computer data base, PDDS, does not reference drawing 2472.210-190-0098 for the orifices,3RSSPO39A,B, so that the materials of construction provided by Note 1 on drawing 2472.210-190110 can be identified.
Houever; this is not considered a discrepant condtion because the vendor drawing numbers are listed on the Northeast Utility version of the subjed drawings and these drawings are part of a sequence of drawing sheets provided by the vendor with the same vendor drawing number.
Prwed 1/149e 1:15 47 PM Page 2 or 2
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0697 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report nev6ew Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED OYee C:, my Type: component Date CD) No S,
- n ^ =^* Css NRC signenconce level: 4 Date Fued to NU:
Date Putdished: 11/2097 F- -- -i. Inconsistency between FSAR Section 6.2.2.2 and spec 2280.000-968 w/ respect to design pH Deecttphon: According to FSAR Sedion 6.2.2.2, the minimum pH of the spray from the quench spray headers into the containment strudure is 4.4. According to design specification 2260.000-968 Revision 10, page 8-15, the quench spray nozzles are designed for a pH ran0e of 4.7 10.5.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feargoid. D. J.
O O
O tilinS7 VT Lead: Nwt. Anthony A O
O O
$ 5'15'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer con K O
O O
11/17'S7 IRC Chrm: smoh. Anand K G
O O
15/17/87 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
1/5/96 Resolution' Disposition:
NU has concluded that DR MP3-0597 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. DCN DM3-01503-97 (See Attached), transmitted to NDS on 04/30/97, changes Specification 2280.000-968 to reflect the current acceptable pH range (4.4 - 10.5) of the Quench Spray as detailed in Section 6.2.2.2 of the FSAR. This issue was previously identified by UIR 182.
l
==
Conclusion:==
I NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0597 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. As detailed in the disposition, Specification 2280.000-968 was changed by DCN DM3-01503-97 to reflect the current acceptable PH range of (4.4 - 10,5). This issue was previously identified by UlR 182.
Provtously ident4Hed by NU7 (G) Yes Q No Non D6ecrepent Condeuon?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pending70 Yes i!)'No Resoivison unresoeved70 vos @ No Review
)
I instletor: Femgold. D. J.
VT Leed: Nort. AntNmy A 9
O O
=
VT u,,: se,u,w, Don g IRC Chmn: sirgh. Anend K 1
Dele:
Printed 1/14/961:16:13 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast utsties
. ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34697 Mmetoew unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Commente:
i f
a l
C 4
.-)
Prwed 1/14961:16.17 PM -
. Page 2 of 2 y
-myp-w+c.oe e
r-gi,.-
,we e
r y,,
m w
y--
Tw
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0628 maastone unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft Moview Greeap: Preqpemnubc DR RESOLl/ TION ACCEPTED Revesw enemem cemcow Acton Process v:Ia c Demon O yes F+-
, my Type: O 4 M & T Procedure 7,3 S,
N/A NRC SWWance Iwed: 3 Does faxed to NU:
Does Pubmehed-11/2497 Descrepency: Simulated Test Pressure Seieded for Performance of Technical Spedfication Surveillance Deecrepeten: Licensec Event Report (LER 97-031-00) describes an evert wherein the Licensee identified that pressure interiock bistables i
associated with the RHR system were calitWNi inproperiy.
Although the calibration procedure (when revised as documented in LER 97-031-00) would set the bistables Osppropriately, the surveillance documented in the LER 'uas conduded at a simulated pretsure of 500 psia. The interlock is required to be fundional anytime RCS pressure is greater than or equal to 390 psia. Testing at a simulated or actual pressure of 500 psla does not provide assurance that the interiock will fundion between RCS pressures of 390 psia and 500 psla. As written, the technical spedfication surveillance requirement 4.5.2.d.t) could be construed so as to allow testing at higher pressures, however we believe the intent of this test is to prove functionality of the instrument such that positive assurance is afforded that it would trip prior to exceeding 390 psia on increasing pressure as specified.
Ref. SP3442J01 Rev. 4, Sections 4.3 and 4.4 Review Vead invand Needed Date inamor: No.no. "
B O
O
$5S7 VT Laod: Ryan. Thomas J O
O O
'/1'S7 VT Mgr: Scnopter. Don K O
O O
11/57/S7 l
IRC chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
11'1SS7 Date:
INVALE Date: 12/23/97 RESOLUTION: Disposillon NU has concluded that tha issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0628, does not represent a discrepant condition. The current test method employed closely resembles the test philosophy used to verify the funchon of Reactor Trip and ESF actuations. One test verifies the setpnint of the bistable (the Analog Channel Operational Test of ACOT) and other tests verify the operation of actuation logic and relays used to produce the safety function. l&C procedure SP 3442J01 steps 4.1.3.g &
4.2.3.g c.etermine the actual setting of the bistable (i.e., what simulated pressure causes the bistable to trip). Sections 4.3 &
4.4 verify that the circuitry from the bistable will prevent the valves from being opened. After the setpoint is verified to be set Printed 1/14961:16 42 PM Page 1 or 2 Y
r'7 r
t'
Northeast Utstios ICAVP DR No. M MP3 0628 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report property in sections 4.1 and 4.2, the simulated pressure is increased to a level hign enough (500 psia) to ensure that the interlock works. The interlock check is performed at a simulated pressure that assures the bistable is reset. There is no advantage in making the simulated pressure equal to the nominal setpoint wiwi vonfying the fundion of the aduation circuitry. Currently, a Proposed Technical Specification Change Request (3-36-97), which reaulted from LER 97 031 (5/7/97), is being reviewed by the NRC to change the setpoint of the of the Low Pressure Interlock (4.5.2.d.1). Details of the change are described in the attached Proposed Technical Specification Change Request 3 36-97. The PTSCR does not impact the methodology of the surveillance. Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a ciscrepent condition.
Conclusion NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0628, does not represent a discrepant condition. The survr.ihance testing method is properly conduded. Secilons 4.1 and 4.2 of SP 3442J01 verify the setpoint of the Low Pressure Interlock. Sedions 4,3 and 4.4 then increase pressure to test the fundionality of the interlock. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condilun.
j Previouesy seene8ed ty NU7 O Yee (9) No NonDescrepentConmuon?@ Yu U No Pu%Peneng70 Yee
- No nossaunianunreseeved7O vee
- No n.wie.
We Net a fdh Needed Dele m %, m G
O O
im7 VTLead: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Commente:
l 1
l
~E 1/1W9e 1:16A6 PM P
Page 2 of 2
)
l l-l
1 Northeast UtNMbs ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0640 Muistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Movtow Group: Propwnmeec DR RESOUIDON ACCEPTED Revisw Elser ent: Test Procedure Discipione* Mechanical Design Om r'-:, ni Type: Test Requiremente (g
SystenWProcess: N/A NRc signiecence level: 3 Does faxed to NU:
Does Putdished: 11t;2/97 D6screpancy: Ultrasonte ExaminEfion of Reactor Pressure Vessel Studs Deecriptica: Procadare NU-UT-27. Revision 5, describes the method to examine the above studs. The procedure is based on Code Case N-3071 and utilizes a shear wave technique supplemented by a surface wave technique.
Case N 3071 is not part of the Unit 3 inservice inspection Program. Iri Td$ltica, lWA-2232(c) of ASME Section XI requires it,at ultrasonic examination of stixis follow Art;de 5 of ASME Sedion V. Pa ragraph T 536.1 of Section V requires that the ultrasonic examination be a strai0hi beam, axial scan.
Review veed invand Needed Date initiator: sheppard, R. P.
O O
O i'*'7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J B
O O
$ '557 VT Mgr. schover. Don K O
O O
'1057 iRc en n: sw.im;x 0
0 0
5SS7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
1/5/98 REsCLUTION Disposition:
NU has conduded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0640, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Code Case N-307-1 was approved for use on Un.1311/8/93 (See attached NRC letter A11306).
Subsequently a change to the ISI Program Manual incorporated Code Case N-3071 in Section 5.1.2 a. and NU-UT 27 incorporated the provisions of Code Case N-3071 in revision 5 (approved 10/25/94). At this point in time the the ISI required approvals and changes had been obtaine'., Section 1.1 and Table 3-4 of t'ie ISI Program Manual had not been updated as needed. UIR 2030 (initiated 4/19/97) identifieo multiple Code 1
Caties. Induding N-307-1, which were not referenced in the ISi Program Manual. Change 18, PORC approved 11/7/97, has Incorporated these intoProgram Manual. NU considers this a Shn!*ca::ce Level 4 issue as the ommissions are administrative in nature which had no impact on the program.
Condusion:
NU has conduded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0640, has Identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Code Case N-307-1 was approved by the NRC
' 'Pytneed 1/1W961:17.tle PM Pege 1 or 2
.~,
1 Northeast UUlities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34640 t
Mmetone unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
on 11/8/93, corresponding changes were made to the ISI Program Manual and NU-UT-27. Section 1.1 and Table 3-4 of the ISI Program Manual were ommitted from the chan0es however, these were discovered as part of the 50.54(f) effort and documented on UIR 2030. NU considers this a Significance Level 4 issue as the ommissions are administrative in nature which had no impact on the program.
Previously idenused try NU7 @ Yes Q No Non D6ecropont Condition?Q Yes (9) No Resolut6on Pending?O vos @ N.
Ree.iution unroe eved70 Yes @ N.
R ie.
Acceptahis Not A't -f Needed Dale
. R. P.
VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mer: Schoper, Don K IRC Chmn: S&qph, Anand K Date:
1/5/98 st connents: NU's response does not specifically address the use of shear and surface waves vs. longitudinal waves. Case N-3071 requires an examination of the inner diameter of the stud bore which is accomplished by the use of the surface wave technique. The Case does not prohibit the volumetric examination of the studs by a shear wave technique, and this technique will detect the types of Indications which need to be evaluated in accordance with ASME Section XI and this Case. Therefore, NU's response is acceptable.
t Printed 1/14901:17.13 PM Pege 2 of 2
n Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRM39 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report noois.% conn w.sen DR ResowTion ResecTeo.
Rwtow Element: system Design Diecipane: Ptpin0 Demir Ow r"ecrepency Type: Drusing gg syneenWyrocese: sWP NRC Signisc en twel: 4 Deb faxed to NU:
Date puhashed. 2/11/s7 Deserspency: Upper Tier To Lower Tier Drawings noview For SWP in D,esel Generator Building Desertphon:
The Uppe Tier to Lowner Tier drawings review found the f4owin0 drawing discrepancies between the P&lDs and the as t,ailt isometric drawings:
- 1. The following lin'a number discrepancies were found on the drawings as noted:
On P&lD EM-133D Rev 23 versus isometric Cl-SWP-35S Sht 2 Rev 10:
3 SWP 010-264-3 (P&lD H-9) vs. 3-SWP-010 26-3 (:30) 3-SWP-010-25-3 (P&ID H-9) vs. 3-SWP-010-264-3 (ISO) 3-SWP-010-26 3 (P&lO H-7) vs. unidentified (ISO) 3-SWP-010-40 3 (P&lD H 1) vs. 3-SWP-010-265-3 (ISO) 3-SWP-010-265-3 (Pal 0 H-1) vs. unidentified (ISO)
- 2. Cl-SWP-35S Sht 2 Rev 10 shows line 3-SWP-010-41-3 before valve V 49 versus after V-49 on P&lD EM-1330 P.ev 23 (H-3).
- 3. EM 1330 Rev 23 line 3-SWP-010 44-3 (J-1) is shown as 3-SWP-010-266 3 on Cl SWP-34 Sht 6 Rev 7.
- 4. EM-133D Rev 23 lirse 3-SWP-010-25-3 (J.9) is shown as 3-SWP-010-267-3 on Cl-SWP-34 Sht 6 Rev7.
- 5. No isometric drawings found for lines 3-SWP-006-416-3 cnd 3-SWP-006-289-3.
Rev6ew veed inveed Needed Dele initiator: Reed, J. W.
G O
O S/3/87 VTt.ned: Nai. Anthony A O
O O
W3/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
Sr8/'7 IRC Clwem: Singh. Anand K G
O O
S/8/Sr Date:
INVAUD:
Dese: 12/5/97 REsOWTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Repost, DR-MP3-0039, do not represent discrepant conditions.
Item 1-4, the isometric, the P&lD and the Une Designation Table are allin agreement with each other and Section 4.4 of EDI 30255 which Govems the development of these drawings.
Item 5, the piping in qucstioie was provided by the Vendor with components 3EGS*E1 A / 2A and 3EGS*E1B / 2B (Diesel).
These lines can be found on Vendor DrawinD 2447.300-241-150.
Prtrted 1114/981:17.53 PM PeGe 1 of 2 1
l Northeast Utsties ICAVP DR No. DRMP3@39 Mmeterm unit 3 Discrepancy Report Signif':ance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a j
dhcrepent condition.
)
Condusion:
NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0039, do not represent discrepant conditions.
The referenced drawings are in agreement with EDI 30255 which govems their development. Significance Level criteria ao not apply here at this is not a discrepent condition, r.. t";idenseed by NU7 Q vos (9) No NonOlmcrepentconeNon?Q Yes (9) No
- onenetO va @ No Roo&Non Unroemed70 y=
@ No now.
Whator: Reed, J. W.
VT Leed: N ei, Arm orw A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K pic chmn: S@, Anand K Date:
12/5/97 at caninmas: We have re-reviewed the line number discrepancies identified in items 1 thru 4 of this DR-MP3-0039 and remain onvinced that that the discrepancies between the P&lD and the isometric drawin0s exist as indicated.
We agree that item 5 is no longer a discrepancy.
f Printed 1MW981:17:57 PM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34082 useistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
~jf Review Group: system DR RESOLUTCN REJECTED Review Element: System Design Diecipline: **$ing Deegn O vee C:--, ;i Type: Cem gg si:_ ? --- ?Rss NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to MU:
Date Published. 10/18/97 Discrepency: Lack of analytical basis for operating temperature limit for unsleeved containment penetrations Description. In the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) FSAR Section 3.8.1.1, Description of the Containment (ii) FSAR Section 3.8.1.1, Steel Liner and Penetrations (iii) FSAR Section 3.8.1.5.2 Steel Liner and Penetration Structural Acceptance Criteria (iv) Design Criteria for Corts'nment Liner Penetrations, NETM-4 54, issued May 1984 (v) Calculation No.12179-NS(B)-120 Rev. 2, CCN #9, ' Class 2 l
Unsleeved Penetrations' (vi) SWEC Calculation 12050-NS(B)-043-LP Vol. 3, Feb.1979, Virginia Electric Power Co., Nottis Anna Unit 2.
we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Based on FSAR Section 3.8.1.1 (1): The design, analyses, and constrJction of the containment structure is similar to that of Virginia Electric and Power Cornoany, North Anna Power Statica. Units 1 and 2.
Based on FSAR Section 3.8.1.1.4 (ii): Unsleeved penetrations consist of piping instal led through the containment wall that is thermally cold, and the process pipe is welded directly to the reinforcement plate.
Based on FSAR Section 3.8.1.5.2 (lii): Initial penetration sizing is performed in accordance with Table 3.8-2. The final design i
j verification is in accordance with Tables 3.8-4 through 3.8-6.
Based on the Design Criteria for Containment Liner Penetrations (iv): Unsleeved penetrations are used for therinally cold systems, where the operating temperature inside the process pipe is 200 deg F or less. Sleeved penetrations are used for all thermally hot systems, where the operating temperature inside the penetratinn is moro than 200 deg F.
Calculation NS(B)-120 (v) performs the final evaluation for the Unsleeved Containment Penedtions in accordance with FSAR Tables 3.8-4 through 3.8-6 (iii). The penetrations are considered as fixed end pipes. The analytical procedure for the thin shell analysis of a fixed end pipe is referenced to the North Anna Calculation NS(B)-043-LP (vi).
Printed 1/14981;19 32 PM Pege 1 or 3
i Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR 44P362 Mastone unit 3 Discrepancy. Report rt e
i DimOrancy[
No jusiY0stion is provided in Calculation NS(B)-120 (v) for the 200 dog F process temperature limit for Unsleeved penetrations.
The calculation which forms the basis for the initial penetration sizing and analyzes the penetration design for the load conditions identified in FSAR Table 3.8-2 (iii) is not referenced, and therefore the associated temperature basis of 200 dog F can not be verifM Revtew vand Irwend Needed Date intietor: Praheeh. A.
.y Q
Q 101W97 VT Lead: Neri, Ant 5cny A G
O O
10/10/S7 VT Mgr: schagdw. Don K G
O O
10/13/87 inc chmn: Segn, Anand K G
O O
10/14'87 Date:
DNALID:
osse: 12/12/97 RESOLUTION. Response ID:M3-lRF-0104J Disposition:
NU has conclude 1 that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0082, dov, not represent a discrepant condition.
Design Criteria for Containment uner Penetrations (Reference Iv) provides the basis for the 200 *F limit for the penetrations.
Section 4.2 of NETM 54 clearly indicates concrete temperature limits are kept below a longer term limit of 200 *F. No specific justification for this criteria is required within calculation 12179-NS (B)-120 since reference 6 (see page 1.77) of this calculation is NETM-54. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report.
DR-MP3-0082, does not represent a riiscrepant condition.
Design Criteria for Containment Uner Penetrations, NETM 54 provides the basis for the 200 *F limit for the penetrations. No specific justification for this criteria is required within calculation 12179-NS (B)-120 since reference 6 (see page 1.77) of this calculation is NETM-54. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously identleed by NU7 O vos @ No NonD6ecrepentCondet6on?O ver ?W ResolutionPoneng70 vos @ No n- ~iunroeoeved70 vos @ No Review Wh Not A ~ '
Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A G
O mm
/T Mgr: schopfer, Don K O
G O
1*Se m
Printed 1/149e 1:19:37 PM
._m PeGe 2 of 3
1 s-L Northeast Uti Mies ICAVP w m.o m s40s:
ir Miiasporw unn 3 Discrepancy cieport r
ncrcr 4
7
- = - - - -. -
y O
O-Da-in a osse:
12/12/97 w w-at commes. bion 4.2 of NETM 54 provides a long term temperature limit of 200 'F for the adjacent concrete containment. This is necessary to ensure long term integrity of the concrete. The 200 'F is a limit on the maximum a!iowable temperature for the concrete. It is not -
a design basis limit for the unsleeved penetration pipe, which is c
welded (,n both sides of the 4'-6" containment wall. On the inside, the pipe is welded to a 1" thick collar plate, which leh to the
+
containment liner, and on the outside, the pipe is welded to a 1*
thick embedded plate,
> = Eve.
nne U.
The temperature limit for the unsleeved penetration p@ and its attachment to the 1" collar plate and 1" embedded plate needs to be justified. For an example, see NS(B)-174, ' Liner Sump Evaluation'.
M vy 4
l Printed 1/14961:19 30 PM Pege 3 of 3 e
___-