ML20198P628
| ML20198P628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9711100017 | |
| Download: ML20198P628 (46) | |
Text
-4
~
ye-s Sar ge$n?Bntkluncly '*
~*iAf i
o.a.
..,i.e Vice President 312 269-6078 November 6,1997 Pron No. 9583-100 s
Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
- Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 -
Independer' Corrective Action Verification Program f
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following fourteen (14) discrepancy reports (DRs)-identified during -
our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with -
the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3 01.
DR No. DR-MP3-0307 DR No. DR-MP3-0550 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0377
- DR No. DR-MP3-0551 DR No. DR-MP3-0481 DR No. DR-MP3-0553 t
. /
DR No. DR-MP3-0516 DR No. DR-MP3-0554 DR No. DR-MP3-0546 DR No. DR-MP3-0557
- DR No.- DR-MP3-0548 -
- DR No. DR-MP3-0558 DR No. Dn.-MP3-0549 '
DR No. DR-MP3-0577 1.have also enclosed the following five (5) DRs that have been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for these five DRs. The basis for their invalid determination is included on the document, y
DR No. DR-MP3-0198
/
i
' DR No. DR-MP3-0289 DR No. DR-MP3-0290 DR No. DR-MP3-0585 DR No. DR-MP3-0612 --
lll1111111lllll15ll11llll 9711100017 971106 DR ADOCK 05000423 av..
PDR 55 East Monroe Street Chicago. IL 60603-5780 USA 312-269-2000
er United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 6,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the following four (4) DRs for which the NU resolutions'have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR-MP3-0022 DR No. DR-MP3-0066 DR No DR-MP3-0079 DR No. DR-MP3-0103 I have also enclosed the one (1) DR for which the NU resolution has been redewed but not accepted. S&L comments on this resolution has been provided.
DR No. DR-MP3-0128 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very tmly,
~
D. K.
opfer k
Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU aw eno6.adx r
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0307 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Potential Operatdlity issue Discipline: Mechancel Desgn Om D6screpancy Type: Liceneang Document gg SysterWProcess: SWP NRC Signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepency: Discrepancy Between P&lD and GL 89-13 Commitment re SWS Continuous Chlorination
==
Description:==
In dispositioning requirment SWP-0303 it was noted that on Page 2 of Attachment 4 of their Letter A08201 to the NRC dated 1/25/90, providing Millstone 3 responses to GL 89-13, NU states that "The Millstone Unit No. 3 service water system is continuously chlorinated." As shown on P&lDs EM-133A and C, SWS chlorination is provided when both of the following conditions are met:
- 1. SWS Train A [which has the only connect 5n to supply dilution water to the chemical feed chlorination system) is operating, and
- 2. the dilution water line from SWS Train A is not isolated [which occurs when a CDA signal is received, instrument air supply to either of the isolation valves [3WTC*AOV25A or B] is lost, or electrical power to any of the three instrument air solenoid valves to 3WTC'AOV25A or B is lost.)In the case of LOP, the three lA solenoid valves are all backed by the DGs, however, valve A2, in the lA line to 3SWP*AOV25A, is powered by a non-safety related charger and battery.
Based on the above, there are a number of scenarios, none of which is expected to occur on a frequent basis, when continuous chlorination of the SWS would not be provided, it was also noted when dispositioning requirement SWP-0417 that SER Section 9.2.1 required each TW header to have connections to and from the chemical feed chlorination system for the addition of chlorine to the SWS to inhibit biological fouling. As noted above and as shown on P&lD EM-133A, chlorination dilution water is supplied only from Train A of the i
SWS, which is supplied by SW Pumps A and C. No connection is provided from Train B of the SWS, supplied by SW Pumps B and D. Also, the chlorine injection has been moved from the SWS headers as originally designed to the suction bell of each of the four SW Pumps which provides more complete and reliable treatment when the chlorination system is operating.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Tenwinkel. J. L.
G O
O e/2497 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
0/7/S7 vT u r: senopr.r. oon K G
O O
o'13/S7 o
IRc Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
1 l'S7 Date:
INVAUO:
Date:
RESOLUTION pyggggpy by C Y:
- M0 N E:: ? -t C1
Y:
PhNb 2
~
d
_ -. _. _.. _ _ _. ~
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34307 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
-,=-
Review Acceptatne Not Acceptatne Needed Date
+
VT L.eed: Neft. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
st Cortunents:
l 1
i l
Prinhd 11/S971:14:11 PM Page 2 of 2 o
7 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0377 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report nevww aroup: sywom DavAuo
""* ""'nent: symem w D6scipline: Electrral Desa06
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,,
Ow Discrepancy Type: Component Date gg System / Process: SWP NRC Signincance hvol: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished D6screpancy: Motor Curve Dis?,repancies of SWP Motor Operated Valves
==
Description:==
- 1. Full load current can be obtained from the Reliance motor curve sheet (included in the motor operated valve calculations) in three places: the table, the header, and the curve itself. The values from these three places are usually different, The valves listed below show differences between the Reliance motor curve header, table, and curve full load current values, but the full load current value used in the calculations was obtained from the nameplate (i.e., the Reliance motor curve full load current data was not used in the calculations). These documents should be revised to refied the latest motor data.
Valves 3SWP*MOV24A,3SWP*MOV248,3SWP*MOV24C, 3SWP*MOV24D Reliance Motor Curve curve = 0.35 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - header = 0.45 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - table = 0.45 amperes Value used in Calc. 89-094-121E3 (Rev,0, CCN 2) = 0.45 amperes l
Valves 3SWP*MOV50A,3SWP*MOVU)B,3SWP*MOV102A, 3SWP*MOV102B, 3SWP*MOV102C, 3SWP*MOV102D Reliance Motor Curve - curve = 2.4 amperes Reliance Motor Curve header = 2.8 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - table = 2.55 amperes Value used in Cales. 89-094-121E3 and 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4) = 2.8 amperes Valves 3SWP*MOV54A,3SWP*MOV548,3SWP*MOV54C, 3SWP*MOV54D, 3SWP*MOV57A, 3SWP*MOV578, 3SWP*MOV57C, 3SWP'MOV57D, 3SWP*MOV71 A, 3SWP*MOV71B Reliance Motor Curve - curvi = 0.7 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - header = 0.75 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - table = 0.7 amperes Value used in Cates. 89-094-121E3 and 89-094-122E3 = 0.95 amperes Valve 3SWP*MOV115A Reliance Motor Curw - curve = 0.6 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - header = 0.6 amperes Reliance Motor Curve - table = 0.55 amperes Value used in Calc. 89-094-122E3 = 0.6 amperes Valve 3SWP*MOV115B Reliance Motor Curve - curve = 0.4 amperes Printed 11/6/971:14 54 PM Page 1 of 3 e
Northeast Utilities -
lCAVP DR No. DR MP3-0377 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report >
Reliance Motor Curve header = 0,45 amperes Reliance Motor Ourve table = 0.45 amperes Value used in Calc. 89-094122E3 = 0.45 amperes l
Valves 3SWP'MOV130A,3SWP*MOV130B Reliance Motor Curve curve = 0.6 amperes Reliance Motor Curve header = 0.55 amperes Reliance Motor Curve table = 0.54 amperes Value used in Calc. 89-094122E3 = 0.55 amperes With the exception of motor operated valves 3SWP*MOV130A and 3SWP*MOV1300 (which are retired in place), the thermal overload relay sizing calculations used full load currents equal to or larger than the maximum full load currents shown in the Reliance motor curves, therefore, substituting any other values from the Reliance motor curves would not affect th" results of the calculation.
- 2. For motor operated valve 3SWP*MOV115A, the Reliance motor curve shows a locked rotor current value of 3.5 amperes in the header of the curve and a value of 3.15 amperes in the table of the curve. The value of 1 9mperes is used in the calculations performed in Calculattu.189-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4), and this value provides more conservative resuhs than the 3.15 ampere value.
Specification 2282.400-568 Add. 3 (Rev.1), vendor Drawing 2282.400-568-968, Plant Design Data System (PDOS), and Production Management Maintenance System (PMMS) reflect a value of 3.15 amperes.
These documents should be revised to reflect the actual motor locked rotor current.
6
- 3. For each motor operated valve, the header on the Reliance motor curve refers to the insulation as "B" which does not agrae with the purchase specifications which require an insulation rating of radiation resistant Class H.
- 4. In Calculations 89-094121E3 (Rev. O, CCN 2) and Calculation 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4), the locked rotor current of 5.25 amperes for valves 3SWP*MOV54A, 3 SWP*MOV548, 3SWP*MOV54C, 3SWP*MOV54 D, 3SWP'MOV57A, 3SWP*MOV57B, 3SWP*MOV57C, 3SWP*MOV570, 3SWP*MOV71 A, and 3SWP*MOV71 B does not match the value of 5 amperes shown in Specification 2362.200164 Add.1 (Rev. 2), vendor Drawings 2362.200-164-043 (Rev. C) and 2362.200-164-043A (Rev. B), and Plant Design Data System (PDDS). Calculations NL-038 (Rev. 2, CCN 6) and SP-M3-EE-342 (Rev.1) also show 5 amperes for smwo.unuui newo.unvur ona nnwo. unum ite.
Printed 11/iW71.14.57 PM
~~~
~
~
~'
~
Page 2 of 3 a
e Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0377 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report of the larger locked rotor currents provides more conservative results (i.e., substituting 5 amperes for the 5.25 amperes will not affect the results of the calculation).
The documents should be revised to reflect the actual motor data.
Review Vead invaad Needed Date initiator: Kended,D.J.
Q Q
10/1747 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B
O O
tcv27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
o/2as7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1115'97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 C) Yes T No Non D6ecrepent Condition
() Yes @ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Accapah Needed Date gg O
O O
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sah, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnents:
Printed 115971:15:01 PM Pag: 3 of 3 0
____u
+
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-4441 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Conrgurabon DR VALID Review Element: System ir=mm g
Diecipline: Electncel Design Ow D6ecrepency Type: insteashon Wome,m
@ No SystemProcese: SWP NRC Signmcance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsshed:
D6screpancy: Installation not in accordance with drawings Deecrtpeaan: The following differences between installation documents and the field conditions were noted during walkdowns of the SWP System.
- 1. The FSAR Fire Protection Evaluation Report in response to questions (page A 18) states that all penetrations between fire areas will te sealed wit's silicone. Contrary to this, the wall penetration foi tray:'aTC206P and 3TC161P through the Auxiliary Building to the cable tray chase / tunnel has no silicone and appears to be sealed only with Kaewool.
- 2. Section 4-4 of Drawing EE-34GQ Rev. 6, shows support for tray riser 3TX206N. The support detail does not include the field observed Appendix R light attached to the north leg of the support. in addition, this tray riser support is identified in the Cable and Raceway Program as GQ VIEW 4-001; the drawing should provide reference to this support number. Further, it was noted that a large quantity of cable exits tray 3TX205N transitioning into 3TX206N at the same point, over the same rung - this puts a significant load on the rung in a non standard configuration. The evaluation of the single rung to support such a load is not apparent. Additionally, cables exiting conduits 3CC203NG, K hM *,CC215NX transitioning to trays 3TC203N and 205N are routed across sharp edges of the tray and cable support hardware which is part of the tray support.
- 3. Tray Location drawing EE-34DX, Rev. 8 (M-8) shows a lateral brace on tray support A104. This memberwas not observed as installed in the f'ald.
- 4. Cables routed / installed in tray 3TC206P (or co-located tray 3TC161P) between supports A176 and A174C as shown on tray Support Location drawing EE-34DY, Rev 8 (J-9) short cut the 90-degree horizontal fitting. The cables exit over the side rail and then re-enter the tray over the side rail. This is not consistent with the Electrical Installation Specification E-350, Rev. 9.
- 5. Tray support A3278-48 (EE-34GC, Rev. 4) was observed to have a strut attached across the bottom member for the connection of lighting fixtures and a lighting conduit attached to one of the vertical members. These attachments are not shown on the support detail.
- 6. Tray 3TK202P was observed to have flat covers installed top and bottom. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) shows these covers to be vented; the Tray Location drawing EE-34Y, PrWed 11M,971:15:43 PM Page 1 of 2 0
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0441 Millstone Unit 3
- Discrepancy Report Rev. 9, note 2 indicates that all power trays (K service) shall l
have vented covers,
- 7. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduits 3CC2020A and 3CC2020B are held in place with 3 supports, These conduits are supported by 6 supports, 8 Conduits 3CC932PD,3CC932PC, and 3CC932PE are listed in the Cable and Raceway Program as having only one support.
These installed raceways have four supports.
9, Conduit 3CC1000Bils supported by two suppotts in the field.
The Cable and Raceway Program does not show any supports for this condult.
- 10. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CK1010A1 is support by three supports. The installed conduit is supported by two supports.
Review Vaud invaad Needed Date initiator: Server, T. L Q
Q Q
10/2847 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10f27S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 3
O O
10/30S7 BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1 14 S 7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOL.UTION Previously identined by NU? O Yes tG) No Non Discrepent Condstion
(.) Yes @) No Review Initiator: (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, An:hony A VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 116971:15:49 PM Page 2 of 2 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34516 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I
neviw oroup: syonem onvAuo Review element: System Dugn W Opermy luue 06ecipaine: Mechancei Dee o" O vee piecrepancy Type: c=wm g g, Sys:erWProcess: SWP NRC Significanc a level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published 06screpancy: Calculation P(T)-0938 rev. O has several inconsistencies.
Deectlption: Calculation P(T)-0938, rev. 0 " Service Water System Flow B6 lancing for Normal Operation" determines the butterfly valve throttling positions and orifice size for balancing the service water system in the normal operating mode.
The piping referenced in this calculation is class 158 (ref. 9). For 24" and 30' class 158 pipe, the well thickness should be 3/8" thick This would result in pipe ID's of 23.25" and 29.25' respectively. This calculation uses 23.27" and 28,75" which does not coincide with the referenced document.
The factor DPhho is used in calculating c(d) (used to determine valve choking) for the outlet valve nn pages 11,12 and 28. The values used for the factor DP/ rho are not consistent with the data noted and are not referenced. This questions the validity of the values being calculated.
The factors DP (units of psi) and DH (units of feet) are being interchanged in the analysis without account for the conversion factor between units. Thus the values used are not correct and the flow coefficients being determined are not correct.
The resistance coefficient for 3-way valves is not consistent with the referenced document. A value of k=10.21 is being used and a value of k=10.00 is noted in the reference 1. However, the value bitould be k=1.35 based on the document that reference 1 used as a basis, Crane Technical Paper No. 410. This affects the pressure drop being evaluated.
Page 29 references a pressure of 33.27 psi with an associated equivalent length of 142.02'. This value is not consistent based on the typical conversion factor of 2.32 ft/ psi which would yield an equivalent length of 77.19'. This affects the head differential that is determined using this value.
There were new nodes defined in this calculation that were to be incorporated into calc. P(T)-935. This information was not included in P(T)-935 through CCN 02.
Due to the vsitying degree of the inconsistencies found throughout this calculation the overall impact on the results can not be determined without re-calculating the model used.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Denne. G. J.
G O
O
'or27/97 VT Lead: Nort, ArAhony A G
O O
ot27s97 Printed 11/6<971:16:28 Pgj vI mgr: scnopter, von K PW2 o
~.
/
ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-061E Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report YT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
'or30S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
11'4S7 Date:
- NAUD:
Deta:
RESOLUTION.
Prov60usly klontifle i by NU7 O Yes
- ) No Non Discrepent Condetion U Yes it) No Review
" :-:= ^ ": Not Acceptable Needed Date b
VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
/
Prtrued 115971:16:34 PM Page 2 of 2 o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0546 Minston. Unit 3 Olscrepancy Report a-w Review Group: ConAgurate DR VALlO Review Element: System instalmon
. Deacipline: Elodiical Deeyn PotentialOpersbuity leeue O Ya Diecrepency Type: Installatm irnpiementaten (5) No Syalemerocess: R!iS NRC SigedRcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Inadequate support of Conduit Descript6on: Conduits 3CX014NH2 and 3CX014NH3 are installed with a span of approximately 9 feet between adjacent supports and 2 90 degree bends plus a 90-degres LB fitting, This is not in acCordance with the Criteria of standard sup@rt drawing BE-52AV, Rev. 4, which indicates maximum support spacing to be 8 feet and the maximum bends to be 1 90.
Review Var.J Invalid Needed Date initiator: Server. T. L.
g Q
Q 10/28/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony ^
O O
O 1o<27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
2o/30S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
iild/07 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously ident4Aed by NU7 Q Yes @) No Non D6screpent Cond4 tion O Yes () No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
SL Conwnents:
1 Printed 11/6/971:17:12 PM Page 1 of 1 e
. _ ~. _
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0544 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy 99 port Review Group: Configurehnn DR VAUD Diecipline: Electncal Doog" Potential Operability leeue Diacrepancy Type: Drawing O Ya gg SystenVProcess: RSS NRC Sign 6Acance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puthshed, D6ecropency: Drawings not in agreement
==
Description:==
- 1. Drawing EE 33T, Rev. 3 shows electrical distribution panel 3SCV PNLSP in the installed location of 3SCV*PNL9P and Vice versa. The panels' installed locations (swapped from thoofi shown on EE 33T) is consistent with other design documents including: EE 27F, Rev.12, EE-48V, Rev.5, and EE-488, Rev.
15,
- 2. There are five supports installed for Conduit 3CX1000A3, Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates four supports.
- 3. Cable Tray Support A325A-34 shown on drawing EE-34DT Rev. 7 is shown as A325-34 on the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2).
- 4. TSO2 does not Indicate Cable Tray 3TC1060 or 3TC1080 attached to Cable Tray Support A326-11. This support is shown on the drawing EE 34DT Rey,7 and verified in the field as close to the intersection of these two trays.
Rev6ew Vaad invalid Needed Date initiator: Sarver, T. L 8
O O
io2ss7 VT Leed: Nort, Antnony A O
O O
1o<27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G
O O
'o/30'S7 4
BRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q
Q 11/497 Dete:
INVAUD:
M e:
~
RESOLUTION Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes ? No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes i@ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, A.end K O
O G
Date:
c sL Comments:
Printed 11/5s71:17:51 PM Page1r? 1 0
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0649 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: conn unnian DR VAUD o
Review Element: Syelem instemation g
Diecipline: EW Design O Yes Diewspency Type: Installahan implementation
@ No SystemProcese: Rss i
NRC 86gnificance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished:
Deecrepancy: Installed supports not in agreement with drawings Descrignon: 1. A 1" conduit and lighting fixture are attached to bottom horizontal member of Cable Tray Support A308A-31. This attachment is not shown on drawings or documented in CCDs.
- 2. Detail. 8-8 nf Drawing EE-34DV Rev. 3 indicates no bracing is to be installed on the vertical legs of Cable Tray Support STRAY-43. Walkdown found shows four braces installed.
- 3. Local panel 3HVR*PNL48 is mounted below 3NME*AMPt.2 on the same vertical leg of Cable Tray Support STRAY-43 (Ref.
drawing EE 34DV Rev. 5). This attachment is not shown on the drawing, and open change documents covering this installation could not be found.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Server, T. L 8
O O
or2sws7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
tor 21L97 VT Mgr1 Schopfer, Don K G
O O
ior30S7 IRC Chmn: Shgh. Anand K Q
O O
11/'S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
REsoWTioN:
Previously idenOfted by NU7 O Yes @ No NM1 D6screpent Corulation U Yes @ No Revit.v Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
^
Date:
st Comments:
Printed 114971:16'27 PH Page 1 of 1 o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4550 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuremon DR VAUD Review Element: Syelem Design pg m y.3 m r"= '. 2 ElectncelDesign Om Descrepancy Type: Dramng gg SystenJProcese: Rss NRC signiscence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
D6screpancy: Drawings not in agreement
==
Description:==
- 1. Several vented tray covers have been Installed on control trays in contradiction to note 2 of drawing EE 34Q, Rev.13 which indices that that unless noted otherwise, all control tray covers shall be flat. Potentially affected trays are: 3TC3030, 3TC3040,3TC3050,3TC300P,
- 2. The Cable and Racey ay Program (TSO2) indicates that tray 3TC3080,3TH3030, and 3TH3040 are 18 inch wide trays with vented covers. Tray location drawing EE 34Q Rev.13, depicts these as 18 inches wide. The field observed trays are 18 inches wide. Contrary to this, note 2 of the tray location drawing indicates all trays are to be 30 inches unless noted otherwise.
This note also indicates that control trays will have flat covers unless noted otherwise. No notation on the tray location drawing (EE 34Q) was identified to document this deviation.
- 3. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates that tray 3TC3050 has covers on top and bottom in the Work in Progress" display. The tray cover location drawing (EE-34TE, Rev.2) does not indicate the added bottom cover nor are there any outstanding change documents to add the bottom cover.
- 4. Cable tray cover location drawing EE 34TE, Rev. 2 Indicates that trays 3TX310P,311P,312P, and 313P have covers top and bottom. This is interpreted from Change Control Document (CCD) P-E 7366, which " split trays" 3TX300W,301W, and 302W adding the "P" numbers corresponding to the "W" treys which are shown with covers top and bottom The field observed tray has those covers. Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates that this tray has no covers. Further, the CCD should be shown as affecting thMray cover location drawing (drawing has no CCDs).
- 5. Cable tray cover location drawing EE 34TE, Rev. 2 indicates that tray 3TX308N is not covered. The field observed tray does not have covers. Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that this tray has one flat cover.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Server. T. L 8
O O
'or2a.s7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B
C O
ior2s,S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer. oon K 8
O O
10/30'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1 l'S7 Dele:
9NAUD:
Printed 11M5/971:19:53 PM Page 1 of 2 4
O
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0550 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepaincy Report
'l osse:
RESOLUTION:
=
Previoussy wenuned by Nut U Yes (91 No Non (Mecrepent Condsuon U Yes (G) No Acceptable Not '9:
Needed Date I
VT taed: Nei, Anthony A g
O j
vr w r: schopin. oon x e
IRC Chnn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
l SL Connants:
i i
I.
b t
i I
e l
i l
i i
i b
l Prtnted 116971:19:58 PM Page 2 of 2 l
l l
i
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0661 Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: ConAguration DR VALID Potential Operabety leeue Discipline: Electncal Design
- O Ya Discrepancy Type: Drevnno (97 No Systen#rocess: Rss
~
NRC Signincance levet: 3 Date faxed in NU:
Date Puthshed:
D6ecrepancy: Drawings not in agreement
==
Description:==
- 1. Conduit Support Log (CSL) 12179 FSK SB-130, Rev. 3, Indicates that condults 3CL373NA and ND are 5 Inch diameter rigid aluminum. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that these conduits are 4 inch diameter rigid aluminum.
- 2. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates conduits 3CX402YA1 and 3CX402YC1 are aluminum. These conduits were verified in the field to be aluminum. The listed Conduit Support Logs indicate the conduits are steel. This material type difference could impact the allowable span betwe3n support and the actual weights on the supports identiflod on the CSLs. The affected CSLs are 2179-FSK SB-175,182,171,-172,173,-
174,-176,177,-179,-180, and 181.
Moview Valid invalid Needed Date intietor: Sarwr, T. L 8
O O
10'2SS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
10/2&S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
10f3047 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q 11/497 0ste:
INVALID:
Date:
RES X.UTION Previously identifle:1 by NU7 U Yes
'#) No Non Discrepent Condalon O Yes (8) No Rsview Acceptab6e Not Acceptable Needed Date Innh. W VT Lead: Nwi, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopf4r, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
C Printed 11M/971:20:54 PM Page 1 of 1 o
__J
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0643 Mistatone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: ConRgurohon DR VAUD Moview Element: Syelem Dessen g
Diecipline: Electrical Design O vee Diecrepancy Type: Drewog (g g SystemProcese: Rss NRC Slenincance W: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed:
Discrepancy: Design Documents not in agreement Deecription:
- 1. A 1 inch diameter corviutt for lighting is attached to south verticalleg of tray support G109-013. This attachment i.s not shown on the detail drawing EE 34JF, Rev.3. No referenced i
open change control documents for this drawing address this item.
- 2. Configuration of cable trays routed N-S as seen in Sections 2-2,20-20,2121 and 22-22 on drawings EE 34R Rev.10 EE 34S Rev.11 and F E 14937 cannot be resolved in field. The F E shows eight trays; EE 34R shows seven trays. There are seven trays installed, but configuration does not match any reviewed document.
- 3. Drawing EE 34AU Rev. 6, incorrectly identifies trays. Cable Tray 3TC774P is not clearly located on this drawing, it should be located at coordinates B-7 and shown in Section 4 but a
'P L" tray is shown instead.
- 4. Drawing EE 34AM Rev. 5 does not correctly depict cable tray locations. The "X" cable tray is incorrectly shown routing north and east past Col. Line 49.4 while the "K" cable tray is incorrectly shown stopping at Col. Line 49.4. The co. rect cable tray plan is as shown on drawing EE 34EN.
- 5. Cable tray 3TC7570 was extended east along Col. Line 49.4 by F E 14714. The tray identification drawing EE-34BB Rev.11, i
for "O-C2* trays was not corrected to show this change when Rev 9 was performed incorporating the F E.
- 6. Conduit Plan drawing EE 558; Rev. 8 shows flow transmitter 3RSS*FT38A as non-safety related (drawings has FT erroneously identified as 3RSS-FT38A).
- 7. Conduits 3CC764PA3,3CC763PA2 and PB7 are 1%" flexible conduits of approximately 4 feet long running between Junction box 3JB'7515 and valve 3RSS*MV88388. The Cable and Raceway Program indicates that these conduits are rigid.
- 8. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC763PC7 is supported by three supports. This 5-feet long conduit was observed to have only one support.
- 9. Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK ES-0442, Rev. 2A shows conduit 3CK760NA in Section 1 of view looking west but does not appear in plan view. This causes the numbor of conduits Printed 11/SW h23.09 PM Page 1 of 2 r
a
Norttieast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0553 Millston* UnM 3 Discrepancy Report shown in the two views of the same support to be different.
- 10. Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK ES-5129, Rev. 2, lists condu!t 3CC764PB1 and this conduit was observed in the field inMalled on this support. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) does not list this conduit as supported by this support.
- 11. Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK ES 1082, Rev.1, lists conduit 3CX970PB1 and this conduit was observed in the field installed on this support. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) does not list this conduit as supported by this support.
- 12. Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK-ES-1530 Rev.1 A, lists conduit 3CK765PF5 as supported on this suppvt. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) does not list this conduit as supported by this support.
- 13. Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK ES-439 Rev. 3A lists conduit 3CK758PF as supported on this support. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) does not list this conduit as supported by this support. TSO2 lists concult 3CK758NA as supported by this support, however, the CSL does not include this conduit.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: server, T. L G
O O
50c5S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10/26/97 VT Mgr: schopfer DonK G
O O
inoSS7 IRC Chrts sin 0h. Anand K Q
Q Q
11/497 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously ident:Aed by NU7 O Yes
(#) No Non Discrepent Condition Q Yes (9) No Review Y'
initletor: (none)
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A b
VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
sL Cornments:
Printed 11/6971:23.18 PM Page 2 of 2 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0664 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Confgurshon DR VAUD Review Element: syenom insteNeten p,
CA ( ; Elodrzel Design Om Discrepency Type: Installsten imp 6ementshon gg systemerecese: Rss NRC signinconce level: 3 Dese Faxed to NU:
Date Putnished.
06ecrepency: Installation not in agreement with design documents
==
Description:==
- 1. The third support from tray 3TX763N on conduit 3CX763NB is missing its clamp and therefore the conduit is not supported within the requirements for a maximum span of 6' on non-safety related conduits.
- 2. Conduits 3CC769NB2 and 3CX755NG are attached to Support G218-016 which is shown on Dwg. EE 34JG Rev. 4.
Neither this drawing nor any open changa documents address these additions.
- 3. Conduit 3CK970PB is routed on the southwest leg of tray Support G400B-026. The support detali drawing for this support, EE 34JK Rev. 3, nor any of the open change documents listed for this drawing address this addition.
- 4. Conduit 3CX9700G-1" spans 3'-6" to a support that should be an item FE as shown on drawing BE 52CD Rev. 5. Support is l
missing critical components and is non functional as found.
l Resultant span to next support exceeds criteria in BE 52CA Rev.
4 in that 4'-6" maximum allowed support spacing is not maintained.
- 5. Conduit 3CC763PC8 (1%") is attached support ES-2676. The
(
support spacing found in field exceeds the maximum listed on diawing BE 52CA Rev. 4, Table CA. Field span is 6'-6" (estimated) while maximum allowed spacing is 5'-6".
- 6. Conduit 3CK9700B3 (1%") is attached support ES-2528. The support spacing found in field exceeds the maximum listed on drawing BE 52CA Rev. 4, TableCA. Field span is 6' 9" versus allowable of 5'-6',
- 7. Conduit 3CK7500C, attached to Support ES-344, has support spacing in excess of the maximum allowed by Table CA on drawing BE 52CA Rev 4 for 1 1/2' aluminum. Field measured 6'-3* while maximum allowed is 5' 6*.
- 6. An electric outlet and an emergency lighting unit are installed on the verticalleg of tray Support S106-052 (Ref. drawing EE-34MA Rev 5). Two members are installed near the ceiling between Supports S109E 056 and S109D-065 with nothing attached to them. Neither the detail drawing nor any open change documents discuss these items.
G. A section of PS-201 was added to the north vertical leg of l
Pnnted 11/6971f24.02 PM Page 1 of 2 l
l l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-HP3 0664 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1.upport G306-039 to attach a light fixture and a lighting box.
- ~his attachment is not shown on the detail drawing EE 34JH i
Rev. 3. No open change documents listed for this drawing address these additions.
- 10. Drawirig EE 34JG Rev. 4 shows tray Support G213-032. A member not shown on the drawing has been added above the tray as a conduit support. No open change control documents address this addition.
- 11. Three sections of E 24 strut were added above the cable trays on cable tray support G203B-022 and are used for routing lighting conduit and a door alarm conduit for Door 386. A light'ng fixture was installed below the center two trays. This is not shown on drawing EE 34JG Rev.4 and no open change cor, trol dctuments referenced for this drawing address these additions.
Review Vaud invand Needed Date Initiator: riarver, T. L O
O O
tor 2as7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B
O O
ior2as7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Dori K Q
O O
50/30'87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
1114 S7 Def.e:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously idenuSed by Nu? O Yes
- 1 No Non D6screpent Condetion Q Yes @ No Review M-: ' "- Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Cbmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Commen:s:
PrWed 116971:24:11 PM Page 2 of 2 e
Northeast Utilities
-ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0657 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review or.,: Cennguroim DR vAuD Review Element: Syelem insteestm Diecipkw: Electral Dee%n O vos Diecrepency Type: Instelletm ingkwntste SystemProcess: RSS
@ No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date PAsiehed:
D6screpancy: Wal! Penetration sealing not in accordance with commitment
==
Description:==
- 1. Conduft ZX970G is routed though a wall penetration which has a 4 inch conduit enossed within it. The encased sleeve was observed to be sealed only with Kaewool. Response to questions on the Fire Protection Evaluation, all penetrations will be sealed with silicone. Further, this embedded sleeve is not shown on any of the wall penetration drawings.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Server, T. L.
O O
O 0/15WS7 VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10/27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
1'V28,97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
11/5/g7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously idenufted by NU? Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condelion U Yes @ No Review gg Acceptable Not Acceptabie Nealed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
sL Conwnente:
Printed 11/6/971:23:32 PM Page 1 of 1 o
l
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0564.
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conngurohon DR VAUD I
Diecnoline: Eindrical Design Potential Operetdilty leeue O Ya Diceropency Type: Installahan impiamentaten gg System / Process: QSs
~
NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date rutenshed-D6screpancy: Inadequate raceway protection Descitetion 1. Power cables transition from tray riser 3TL750N to conduit 3CL750NA2 via free air and a wall penetration. These raceways do not have a bonding (ground) conductor as required by Electncal Installation Specification E 350, Rev. 9.
- 2. Conduits 3CH970PA and 3CH970PB are raceways provided for QSS pump power cables. These conduits are the route between duct bank 908 and floor sleeves. The conduits stop approximately 81/2 feet short of the wall opening for the ductbank. The duct bank condutts (3DH908PO4 and POS) have been extend 4 feet into the ESF building in a cantilever arrangement (i.e., without support). Conduits 3CH970PA and PB stop short of the extended ductbank conduits by about 41/2 feet. The cables from the ductbank conduits to the rigid steel conduits are free alred. There is no bonding (ground) conductor between the raceways as required by Electrical Installation Specification E-350. Spec E-350 also limits the free-air length of cable to 3 feet and the extension of ductbank conduits to 1 foot.
Further, these exposed cables are in an area that is utilized for the servicing a valve 3SlH*MV8813 creating a personnel hazard and a potential situation that could result in damage to the exposed cables.
- 3. Conduit 3CK756NH2 is connected to junction box 3JB-7511 using an LB fitting. This fitting was observed to have no cover installed.
Rev6ew Vaud invalid Needed Deze initiator: server, T. L 0
0 O
o/28.57 VT t.eed: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
tor 2as7 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K Q
"Q Q
1o/3097 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
11597 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 60uely iderdified by NU7 O Yes i@ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes ($ No Review aWh Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Printed 114971:26:18 PM Page 1 of 2 o
.~..
J Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0664 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
--......... ~."'
O O
e Date:
4 SL Comments:
l i
4 f
i I
Printed 11/6S71:26.25 PM Page 2 of 2 l
e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34677 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6.w oroup: conn urmen n1VAuD e
Deacl oine! Electrical Deegn Potential Oggetniity leaue P
O Y=
Diectopency Type: Indensten Reguremente M No syeta#toceert DGX
~
NRC Significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date pubilohed:
Dexrepency: lostalled conduit type not in agreement with design document.
==
Description:==
Condults 3CH406PA, B, and C, and 3CH4070A, B, and C, which carry the emergency diese19enerator output cables, are listed in the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) as comodity type CAC 10. This comodity type $s for 4 inch rigid aluminum condult; the installed conduits are 4 inch flexible conduits.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Server. T. L O
O O
' 6"AS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anttmy A Q
Q Q
1Q77/97 VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
10/3097 IRC Chmn: kgh. Arend K O
O O
11557 Dele:
INVAUD:
Date:
REs0LUTioN:
Previously ident6Aed by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Cond8 tion U Yee @ No Review
""Y am Not Acceptable Nealed Date gg, g VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
-e, sL Comments:
4 Printed 116971:27,16 PM Page 1 of 1 e
. -., -.~
Northeast Utilities ICAVF*
DR No. DR MP3 0194 l
Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: system DR MAuo i
P'8*"'
- yle*"'
p D6ecrepency Type: Calcuisten 4g eyelerWProcess: sWP
~
NRC S' -2^m level: 4 4
Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6shed:
D6*crepancy: Noule load qualification for pumps 3SWP*P3A&38 is not traceable.
- Desertption: In the process of reviewing calculations 12179 - NP(B). X 1919 Rev 3, and 12179. NP(B). X 1917 REV. 3, CCN 2, we noted the following:
Nonle !oads for booster pumps 3SWP*P3A and 3SWP*P3B are 9enerated and summarized in attachment D, but no reference is provided for the quclification and acceptance of these loads.
Rev6ew vend Inveed Needed Date initiatort Jan, R. C.
O O
O itm7 VTLead: Nui, Anthony A O
O O
11
- 7 n u n schapen. Don K O
O O
e IRC Chnn: singh, Anend K O
O O
Dele:
11/3/97 MAup: Calculaticns 12179-NP(B) 2033 and 2034 received on 9/22/97 have qualifed the suction and discharge noules for pumps 3SWP 3A & 38, Date:
REs 3LUTION:
Prev 6ously idenpflei by Nu? O Yes (f) No Non D6ecropent Conditson O Yes (f) No Review initiator: Jan,R.C.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT ugrt schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Dele:
SL Comments:
Etreed 115971:07.50 PM '
- Page 1 of 1 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0198 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR WVALID Diecipeine: PW Dwig" Potenti i Operability leave O Yee 06ecrepancy Type: Calculaten No SyMemProcess: SWP NRC SignMcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubile:wd:
D6screpancy: Nozzle load qualification for pumps 3SWP*P3A&3B is not traceable.
D*ectipt6ent in the process of reviewing calculations 12170 NP(B)- X 1919 Rev 3, and 12179. NP(B) X 1917 REV. 3, CCN 2, we noted the following:
Nozzle loads for booster pumps 3SWP'P3A and 3SWP'P3B are generated and summarized in attachment D, but no reference is provided for the qualification and acceptance of these loads, Review Valid invei6d Needed Date initiator: Join, R. C.
O O
O 11/257 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
Q Q
11/497 VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Does:
11/3/97 WVALsD: Calculations 12179 NP(B) 2033 and 2034 received on 9/22/97 have qualifed the suction and discharge nozzles for pumps 3SWP 3A & 3B, Dese:
PesoLLm0N:
Previously identafled by NU7 O Yee 97 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yee iGT No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Nooded Date IdW Ja R. C.
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
- z g
Date:
SL Comnunte:
Printed 114971:09.o4 PM Page 1 of 1 o
___. -. - _.. ~
i Northeest Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4249 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DR WVALID Potential Operstdisty 66eue Diecipline: 14 C Doelp" O Ya D6ecrepency Type: Calcuisten systerWProcese: SWP j
NRC Signiflcance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Dele Publ6shed: 11497 06ecrepency: Calculation SP 3SWP 24 0 ecription: The purpose of calculation SP 3SWP 24, Rev. 3, is to determine the high and low flow alarms of the required service water flow 4
rates for the emergency diesel generator air intercooler and Jacket water cooler heat exchangers. Flow indicating switches 3SWP FIS41A and B provids control room annunciation on M81C for high and low service water flow through 3EGS*d1 A, 2A and 3EGS*E18,28. respectively; computer alarms for high and low flow; and low flow annunciation on EDG control panels 3EGS*PNLA and B, respectively, i
- 1. Page 6, item 7 states that the switches have no safety function. However, per FSAR sections 7.1.1.5, page 7.14 -
Alarms and 8.3.1.1.3, page 8.312. Emergency AC Power Source the DG alarms are safety related.
Review Ve%
- .vaild Needed Date inlaister: Hindia. R.
O O
O 115S7 VT Lead: Nwl, Anthony A O
O O
15 5 S7 VT Men Schopfw. Don K O
O O
1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Date:
114/97 WVALID: Per loop diagrams 3SWP 041 A 1, Rev. 2 and 3SWP 04181, Rev. 2, isolation cabinets have been provided between non-safety related (NSR) signals from the flow sw(tches 3SWP.
FIS41 A/B and safety related DG control panels 3EGS*PNLA and 3EGS*PNLB. The NSR status of the flow switches is in agreement with P&lD EM 133A 26.
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Provbuely identified by NU7 C) Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition C Yes (e) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfw Don K O
O lRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Date:
SL Comnents:
1 Pr6nted 11597 4 40.53 PM Pope 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0290 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Re*. o,ou,: sy.iem DR mAun Review Elenwnt: Syelem Design y
D6.caparw: IaC%
O Yee 06ectopency Type: Colouleton
@ No Systerr#rocese: SWP NRC signancence level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11497 Diect*Pency: Calculation SP 3SWP 25 vs. SP ST EE 286 requirement dlscrepancy.
DactlpHon: The purpose of calculation SP 3SWP 25 Rev.1 is to determine a setpoint for the Service Water intet temperature for the Control Room Air Conditioning Water Chlller Condensers (3HVK'CHL1 A, B) to minimize low temperature chlller trips during winter service conditions.
Page 5, item 4.4 of Attachment 2 titled Sensor Drift (SD),
slates that SD is accounted for in sensor calibration accuracy (SCA), Basis for this statement is not provided. Also this is not agreement with section 4.4 of SP ST EE 286 (Reference 2.1)-
Guidelines for Calculating Instrument Uncertaintles; which states that SD and SCA are sometimes considered interactive.
R***
Val 6d invalid Needed Date initiator: Hindse, R.
O O
O 15 5 S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
15 5 S7 VT Mgr: Sctopfer, Don K O
O O
wtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Dese:
11/5/97 MALID: Sensor in this calculation is an RTD. Hence, it is a non adjustable type of instrument. During ca!ibration check of an RTD only verification that can be performed is repeatability (accuracy) of the Instrument. When RTD is found out of manufaturer specified accuracy it will be replaced. Hence, sensor drift could be considered a part of sensor calibration
- accuracy, Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent CondRion O Yes (#) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptab6e Needed Date gngg,g, g VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
]
O Date:
sL Commente:
Printed 11497 4 50.39 PM Pope 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4648 Millstorn Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVAUD l
l Dkipione: Piping Design Peterdial Operability issue Discrepency Type: Calculaten O Ya systemetocese: SWP
% No NRC sion6ficace level: 4 Date Fned to Nu:
Date Published:
D6ecroPaacy: Pipe stress analysis does not identify nonle load qualification calculation h ^i.,
Durin9 the review of service water piping calculations (1) 12179 NP(B) X1918 ReV,3, CCN 1 (ii) 12179 NP(B) X1919-ReV. 3.
(iii) 12179-NP(B) X1917 Rev. 3. CCN 2.
(iv) 12179-NP(B) X1920 Rev. 3. CCN 2 we noted the following discrepancies:
Pipe stress calculations (i) thru (iv) generated nonle loads for control room AC unit HVR'ACU1A&18.
Although, upon further investigation, calculations 12179-NP(B).
2045 & 2046 for qualification of the 3HVR*ACU1 A&1B were located but no documentation was provided for the qualification and acceptance of these loads in the pipe stress calculations.
Review Vend invalid Nooded Date init6ator: Jam,R.C.
O O
O
$it4S7 vT t d: Nwi. Are ny^
O O
O 5 toS7 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Date:
11/3/97 lNVAUD: While it is noted that this calculation deviates from the standard practice utilized in other pipe stress calculations,this condition is considered to be an editorial type error and is therefore outside of the Icavp secpe. Reconcillation of the equipment nonle loads is in fact contained in seperate calculations. This DR me'ely identifies that the pipe stress report does not reference the calculations which qualliy the nonle loads.
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Previously identifled by NU? (,) Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition
() Yes @ No Review g
Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
Printed 114971:12:04 PM Page 1 of 2 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34548 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report SL Conenents:
PrWed 11/6971:12.00 PM Page 2 of 2 o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0412 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR DNALlo Diecipline: Operatene Potential Operabiiny issue O va l
Discrepency Type: O & M & T Procedsse M No sysletrWProcess: N/A
~
NRC significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepency: Reference to Technical Specifications in Abnormal Operating Procedure AOP 3571 R4, Att. F. Step 5 Ducription: AOP 3571 Rev 4 Attachment F step 5 removed reference to Technical Specifications table 3.31, Actions 5 and 8, for response to Source Range Nuclear instruments Channel Failure.
The Integrated ?efety Evaluation Determination prepared for the change lists the Dasis for deleting reference to Actions 5 and 8 as ' actions 5 and 8 do not apply to plant operation within the Source Range Nuclear Instrumert power range'.
Contrary to the above, Action 5 of Technical Specifications Table 3.31 (related to the Shutdown Margin Monitor) does apply to plant operation related to the Source Range Nuclear Instruments since the Shutdown Mergin Monitor uses the output of the Source Range Nuclear instrumentation for its input.
Therefore, the deletion of reference to Action 5 of Technical Specification Table 3.31 in AOP 3571 Rev. 4, Attachment F, step 5 was inappropfiate.
Review venid Invend Needed Date initiator: Neverio, Mark O
Q Q
11/497 VT Lead: Ryan ThomesJ O
O O
1isS7 VT Mor: schopfer. Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
11/4/97 INVALID: Additional information such as the RPS DBDP and the applicable surveillance procedures (SP3141E01/2) for the Shutdown Margin Monitor were reviewed and it was determined the the shutdown margin monitor is now fed from a separate system (Gamma Metrics) which is independent of the Source Range NIS.
Therefore, deletion of the reference to action 5 in Technical specification Table 3.31 discussed in the concem was appropriate and no further action is required.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU7 Q Yes
- 9) No Non D6screperd Conddion U Yes
(#1 No Review initletor: (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Ryan. Tnomes J VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
at commaas -
Printed 115971:13 04 PM Page 1 of 2 o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34412 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report PrWed 114971:13 06 PM Pg 2 of 2 o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0022 Millston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup: AcadentWigetson DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Syelem Design p,g g opy,g yg.
Diecipline: Other Q y,,
Onecrepency Type: Ocenang Documem (5) No systemerocese: N/A NRC Signinconce level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Published: a/2247 D6screpency: Westinghouse Comments on FSAR Section 15.1 l
Descripuon: We have reviewed Westinghouse Electric Corporation letter NEU 97 537,' Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Unit 3 Review of Steam Line Break M&E Information in FSAR Chapter 15," dated April 8,1997, which provided NU su0gested page markups for FSAR Section 15.1, increase in Heat Removal by the Secondary System. The purpose of these comments and markups was to provide assurance that the Millstone 3 FSAR is consistent with the Plant Safety Evaluation of record for the I
current fuel cycle.
The comments on this section identify changes to the input assumptions for the accidents analyzed in this section. The changes have not been incorporated int': the FSAR, making the FSAR inconsistent with the Plant Safety Evaluation.
A review of applicable corrective action databases for Millstone 3 has not identified any pending FSAR change notice items that will incorporate the Westinghouse comments into the FSAR.
Review vaad invalid Needed Date inatiator: Johnson. W. J.
O O
O atitis7 VT Lead: Rehoje.ReiD Q
Q Q
attiS7 VT Mor: schopfw Don K O
O O
- /1'/87 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
ati2S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 10/31/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
~
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0022, does not represent a discrepant condition. The FSAR values are acceptable and should remain as is to be consistent with the values used in the Calculation of record for the radiological consequences of a main steam line break.
Whenthe Westinghouse letter was received, the discrepancies noted by Westinghouse were evaluated. Most of them were rounding differences (radiological calculation only used three significant figures). The only difference that was not rounding was a change in the Inillalinventory of steam and water in the secondary side of the Steam Generators. The radiological calculation of record used a larger volume and henc, it was conservative and remains bounding compared to the revised Westinghouse consequences and the FSAR is still valid.
Slonificanca Level criteria do not anniv here at thir is not a Printed 11/64712.57.49 PM Page 1 of 2 o
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0022 Millstone unit :
Discrepancy Report discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0022, does not represent a discrepant condition. The recommended comments Westinghouse made to the FSAR were primarily changing a rounded value to a specific number.
The one comment not related to rounding was a change in Steam Generator volume. The value maintained in the FSAR was larger and more conservative.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously identined by NU7 ( ) Yes
- 9) No Non D6screpent Condition
@ Yes
(.) No Rev6ew initiator: Johnson, W. J.
VT Lead: Rehop, Raj D VT Mgn Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 7
Dele:
sL Commente:
Printed 1149712.57.55 PM Page 2 of 2 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0044 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 4
Review Group: Confguraten DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Instellation 06ecipl6ne: E W Da gn O va Discrepancy Type: Instenaton Irnplementetkm g
System?rocess: SWP NRC Signincance level: 4 Date FAXer; to NU:
Date Pubilehed: 8t2&97 Diecrepancy: Bonding Conductor Between Trays not Installed.
DacrI t6an: Trays 3TL7520 and 3TL7510 have cable transitioning in free air P
between them. There is no ground provided between these two trays consistent with the Electrical Installation Specification 350, good engineering practice and other trays in the area.
Review veind invalld Needed Date Initiator: senw, T. L O
O O
etias7 VT Leed: Net. Anthony A O
O O
8/2097 VT M r: schopfw, Don K O
O
~O ar22/97 9
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
atasS7 Dese:
wvAuD:
De8e: 10/7/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0066, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
During field verification of this DR, tray 3TL788N was found not to have a grounding cable in it, and trays 3TC768N,3TX768N, 3TL7520 and 3TL7530 were each found to have a ground cable but, was not connected to the ground grid.
CR No, M3-97 2925, item No.1. has been Initiated to address this condition.
J A DCN shall be inillated, AWO's gene.ated and completed to resolve this condition in the field.and bring into compliance with the Electrical Installation Specification SP EE 076 Section 6.2.21,
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Disciepancy Report. DR MP3-0066, has 4
identified a condition not previuisly discovered by NU which requires correction.
CR M3-97 2925 Item 1 was initiated to provide the necessary corective actions to resolve this issue and perform work in the field that will bring this condition into compliance with specification SP EE 076,
~ Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes @ No Printed 11/69719121 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Ut:lities ICAVP DR No. DR44P3-0043 i
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report n.
Initiskw: Server, T. L VT Lead: Nwt, Anmony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K
,: IC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 7
Date:
SL Conenents:
Printed 118971:01:07 PM Page 2 of,a
_ _ =.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0079 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmshc DR REsot.UTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Correcove Achon Process p
g Diecipline: Mec*mnical Demg" O va Diecropency Type: Calculebon M No systermitoceos: DGX
~
NRC sigreconce lavel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 9/11/97 Descrepancy: Procedural Controls for Revising Station Procedures Affected by Calculation Change Notices (CCNs)
Ducr$t6on: In response to " State how the corrective action will effectively prevent or reduce the possibility of the same or similar even; or adverse condition from happening again", block 7 of form RP-4 7 page 4 Of 4, of Adverse Condition Report ACR M3-96-0465 states "The CCN that affected the aforementioned surveillance procedure forms did not catch the impact to these forms. Per 4
DCM (Design Control Manual) Rev. 3, the independent review process is sufficient to reduce the possibility of the same or similar event from happening again."
Our review of the DCM Rev. 3, chapters 4 and 5 did not identify sufficient controls in ths independent review process for Calculation Change Notices (CCNs) to prevent or provide added assurance that this event would not be repeated. New calculations or actual revisions to calculations include a specific check for procedural impact (see NUC DCM FORM 5-1 A item 5) which receives independent review, however the form used for CCNs (see NUC DCM FORM 5-5A) includes no such specific check in the independent leview process. In addition, with exception of the requirement to consider "Are adequate preoperational and subsequent periodic testing requirements appropriately specified?", specific guiaance for independent reviewers of CCNs provided a Chapter 4 of the DCM does not include consideration of impact to station Drocedures.
There is a check in Chapter 4 of Rev. 3 of the DCM by the independent reviewer that asks 'has the integrated design package review considered appropriate supp.Jmental reviews by other engineering disciplines (seismic, electrical, etc.) and affected departments (Operations, maintenance, etc.)?" This could be one link to help ensure the CCN would go to the Operations Department for their review and the assumption would then have to made that the affected surveillances would be identified for revision, however this link in and of itself doec not go right to the issue of whether or not station procedures are affected. In any case, the statement in the ACR (block 7 of form RP4 7) of si:fficient controls in the DCM for Rev. 3 for the CCN process with respect to flagging needed changes to station procedures has net been found. In addition, our review of the current Revision 5 of the DCM for the CCN process also did not find sufficient controls which would prevent recurrence of the event documented in the aforementioned ACR.
Review valid invetid W
Date initiator: Neverro, Mark Q
Q Q
9097 Printed 11/6971:o413 PM Page 1 or 4 e
4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34079 i
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT 4.ead: Ryan. Thomme J Q
Q Q
W.V97 l
VT Mgn Schopfw, Don K Q
Q Q
9497 IRC Chmn: Sngh, Anand K O
O O
85S7 Dew:
g/3/97 WVAuo:
Dew: 11/3/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0079, does not represent a discrepant condition. This issue has been previously identified and changes have been implemented to strengthen procedural controls. Specifically, Cliange 1 to Revision 5 of the Design Control Manual (DCM) effective 5/27/97 and Revision 6 of the DCM significantly strengthened the CCN process.
These changes require that the preparer consider the affect of the calculation on other procedures and disciplines as well as program impacts caused by a new or revitied calculations.
DCM Rev. 5, Change 1, Chapter 5, Section 4,0 (New Calculations), Task 7 states:
CONSIDER whether the results of the calculation impacts either the programs listed in ODODCM FORM 3 2C or the Unit LB/DB (FSAR, Technical Specifications.
Technical DOORequirements Manual, Procedures, etc.) If the calculation impacts a program, notify the 00Oprogram manager, if the result of the calculation indicate a potential deficiency in the DOCUnit LB/DB, initiate a CR per RP 4. If the calculation is done outside of the Chapter 3 OOOdesign change process and an impact on design or licensing documents is identified, DOOPERFORM a 10CFR50.59 screening in accordance with NGP 3.12.
In addition Task 9 of the same section requires the Supervisor to:
DETERMINE the need for Interdiscipline review (s). Consider Programs as well as the Technical Disciplines listed in DCM FORM 3 20.
Form 3-2C includes Section R W, Procedure Screening Review.
Similarly, Section 5.0. Revisions or Changes to NU or Vendor Calculations, Task 10 requires the preparer of a calculation revision to:
CONSIDER whether the results of the revised calculation impacts either the programs listed in DCM FORM 3-2C or the Unit LB/DB (FSAR, Technical Specifications, Technical Requirements Manual, Procedures, etc.) If the calculation impacts a program, notify the program manager, if the result of the calculation indicate a potential deficiency in the Unit LB/DB, initiate a CR per RP 4.
i When preparing a CCN Change to Calculations, Task 18 directs the preparer to perform Section 4.0 steps 9 through 25. As Printed 11/6/971:o4.2o PM Page 2 of 4 e
_J
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR MP3 0078 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report described above, completion of task 9 requires the Supervisor to
- DETERMINE the need for Interdiscipline review (s). Consider Programs as well as the Technical Disciplincs listed in DCM FORM 3-2C. This includes Sedion R W, Procedure Screenn.3 Review.
These steps improved the process for calculation changes and revslons and stronghthoned the review of their impact on affected programs and procedures.
Note: Similar changes were made to Chapter 5, Section 6, Superseding or Voiding Calculations.
DCM Revision 6, currently SORC approved and schnduled for implementation on 10/30/g7, carried forward thr :mprovements of Change 1 to Revision 5 and further improved calculation change processes and controls.
Chapter 5, Step 4.1.7 for new calcutauons, Step 5.2.g for revisions to calculations, and Step 5.3.6 for CCN changes to calculations all require that the preparer consider the impact on programs listed in DCM FORM 3 2C or the Unit LB/DB (e.g.,
FSAR, Technical Specifications. Technical Requirements Manual, Procedures DBSs, etc),
Again, in addition to the direct reference to
- procedures *, Form 3-2C includes Section R W, Procedure Screening Review.
In addition, Step 6.1.6 for superceding or voiding calculations requires the preparer to review the unit design and licensing basis (e.g., FSAR, Technical Specifications, Procedures, DBSs, etc.) and determine any impact.
Further guidance is provided in all cases to ensurt the Preparer and/or Supervisor determine the need for interdiscipline review with consideration of the programs and technical disciplines identi'ied on Form 3-2C (See Steps 4.1.10,5.2.13,5.3.8,6.1.g).
The changes described above establish clear links to programs, FSAR, Technical Specifications, Technical Requirements Manual, Procedures, and DBSs.
Significance level criteria do notinpply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0079, does not represent a discrepant condition. This issue has been previcusly identified and changes have been -
Implemented to strengthen procedural controls. Specifically, Change 1 to Revision 5 of the Design Control Manual (DCM) and Revision 6 of the DCM significantly strengthened the CCN process.
Significance level critoria do not apply here as this is not P discrepant condition.
Prev 6ously identined by NU? @ Yes V No Non D6ecrepent Condluon U Yes @ No Prtnied 114971:o4.22 PM Page 3 of 4
-1 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0079 Maiston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Acceptable Not arrYh Needed Date MW New M VT Leed: Ryan, Thames J VT Men schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Atond K Dek:
10/27/97 sL canonents: This issue concems the adequacy of review processes in place to assure that CCN's receiva appropriate review for their potential Impact on statien procedures. This concem was prompted by ACR M3-96-0485.
The bulk of the response contains much information relative to the adequacy of controls for 1, New Calculations
- 2. Rt visions to calculations
- 3. S sperceding or Voiding calculations however the adequacy of controls for the above was never questioned. The DR dealt specifically with the adequacy of the review process (as claimed in the documentation of ACR M3 96-0485) for Calculation Change Notices (CCNs). NU's response relative to the CCN review process and their Lubsequent submittal of Change 1 to Revision 5 of the DCM (via IRF 724) provides evidence that a link now exists (via the revised step 9 of section 4 of DCM Chapt. 5) that the Supervisor will' consider programs as well as the technical disciplines listed in DCM Form 3 2C.* Entry into the revised step 9 is directed by step 18 of the CCN prccess in section 5 which d:rects the preparer to go to section 4 and implement steps 9 through 25, as applicable." This is the only link found relative to the review process for CCN's which would prevent recurrence of the event described in ACR M3-96-0485. Note that the documentation required for calculation revisions contains a specific check on DCM Form 51 A for procedural impact which must be filled out and signed while the cover sheet for CCNs does not contain this specific check.
In summary, since a link is established from section 5 step 18 (Chapter 5 of the DCM) to section 4 step 9 (revised via change 1) of Chapter 5 of the DCM, to form 3 2C of Chapter 3 of the DCM, and since sections R through W of Form 3 2C address impacts to station procedures, the discrepant condition described in the DR is resolved. No credit was given for potential further improvements in the CCN review process discussed in NUs response regarding pending Revision 6 of the DCM as this revision is not yet formally issued. However, since a link has beon established (as described above) within procedures for review of CCNs for impacts to stations procedures, no further action is required.
Prtnted 11/6971$4 25 PM Page 4 of 4 e
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP3 0103 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Systern DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Elemoed: Systern Design D6ecVine: Mecherscal Deegn Om Discrepancy Type: Ceiculaten fe) No systemProcese: SWP
~
NRC sign 6Acance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: WibS7 D6*crepancy: Motor heat loss from service wated booster pumps (3SWP*P2A/B)
Deecript6en: Calculation P(B) 958 Rev.1 was reviewed to verify that the correct heat lo3s for the control build % service water booster pumps (3SWP*P2A/B) was used in e/.ormining the ventilation I
requirements for the space. The followin0 discrepancy was identified:
Per Plant Design Data System (PDOS) each pump motor has a 10 hp nameplate rating,64.3% motor efficiency, and requires 7 bhp. Using the motor nameplate rating of 10 hp and 84.3%
motor efficiency the load is 4,740 Blu/hr. Using the pump bhp requirement of 7 bhp and 84.3% the load is 3,318 Blu/hr. The calculation determined the load to be 4,500 Blu/hr based on a 10 hp motor.
This was classified as a level 4 since using the 7 bhp motor requirement would result in a load lower than that used in the calculation.
Review Vend invaud Needed Dele initietor: Stout, M. D.
O O
O W10S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A
]
Q
]
W1097 VT Mor: Schopfer Don K O
O O
W12/87 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
O O
Wise Date:
INVAUD:
Dese: 10/16/97 RESOLUTION: Nu has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepacy Report, DR MP3 0103, does not represeni a discrepant condition. Using the 10 hp nameplate rating instead of 7 bhp in the calculation P(B) 958 rev.1 is a more conservative and does not compromise the ventilation in the Chiller Room.
Previously identined by NU7 O Yee (9) No Non Descrepent Condation f Yee O No Rev6ew initiator: Stout, M. D.
VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: - Singh, Arund K 7
Date:
SL Corronente:
Printed 114971:00:43 PM Page 1 of 1 e
e Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0128 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Gro9: Programmeue DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: Ccrtectra Acton Process D6ec6p46ne: Mechenscal Deegn O vee 06ecropency Type: CorrectNo Acton
(*) No systerWProcese: DOX
~
NRC sigreconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6ohed: M497 06ecrepency: Incomplete Corrective Action Package Descript6on: 1. ACR M3 96-0381 evaluated pitting found in the Vicinity of a Monel/ Copper Nickeljoint. The evaluation of the condition was performed by the Materials Testing Laboratory. The laboratory issued appropriate recommendations, but it is not clear from the ACR package whether these recommendations are being implemented, whether each of the similar types of joints has been electrolytically isolated, or whether coating on other joints has been oris being monitored.
- 2. There is no evidence in the package that a safety evaluation screening or safety evalutdon was performed to add the epoxy coating as required by paragraph 6.1.2 of NGP 3.12, revision 9, and NGP 8.06, revision 1.
- 3. There are a number of handwritten questions (some unanswered) and comments in the ACR package (see pages titled ' Corrective Action Review of Completed Assignments Prior to RP4 rev. 4 efod. date"). Condition Report packages are required to be Quality Assurance (QA) Records by pparagraph 1.17.1 of RP 4, revision 4, and by Technical Specifications 6.10.2.b and 6.10.3.1. Paragraph 3.2.1 of ANSI N45.2.91974 states that QA records are to be legible and completely filled out. ANSI N45.2.91974 is endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.68 dated November,1976 which is a commitment of the Northeast Utilities' Quality Assurance Program Topical Report.
Review Val 6d invalid Needed Date initiator: Sheppard. R. P.
Q Q
Q M S97 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J
_Q Q
Q
& 7/97 VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K Q
O O
S/SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
'O O
SSS7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 10/22/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 1 of Discropancy Report, DR MP3-0126, does not represent a discrepant condition.
- 1. The concem that initiated this ACR is described as: ' Pitting was found on the ID of the Monel pipe". The pipe in question is a 10" service water pipe. The corrective action plan (CAP) for the subjed ACR does not inc!ude nor does it need to include for Prtnted 115971:06:32 PM Page 1 of 4 j
O C
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0128 l
Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report the condition described the implementation of any of the recommendations provided in Materials Testing Laboratory Report Number 13 96-028. The approved corrective action plan as documented on page 3 of 4 which pertains to the Lab Report states: ' Perform an investigation into the effects of Monel and Cu Ni piping interfaces to evaluate these type of bimetal repairs in the future' and ' Provide a report to the System Engineer".
The corrective action plan only requires the report. It does not require the implementation of the recommendations from the report. The report recommendations which are, to take wall -
thickness measurements upstream of Monel to copper nickel welds and redesign the piping in that area are not warranted or appropriate for the minor pitting of the Monel stub ends described in this ACR. It is noted however that these recommendations are conidered as part of a review of all Cu.
NL/Monelinterfaces on unit 3. This review is being performed per Action Request 97013654 03 titled, determine the need for trending or replacement of service water piping.
Significance Level criteria does not apply to item 1 as this is not a discrepant condition.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 2 of Disaepancy Report, DR MP3-0128, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
2.
Contrary to your finding, there is evidence in the ACR package that a safety evaluation was performed to add the epoxy coating. The corrective action plan for the subject ACR provides reference to Action Request 96009509. This action request provides reference to NCR 396-309 which provides reference to Design Change Notice DM3 S-74196. The technical justification delineated on the DCN cover sheet in block 8 refers to PDCR MP3 95-058. The safety evaluation for this PDCR adequately addresses the application of ARCOR coating to service water piping. It does not however specifically address coating to the pipe spool identified in the subject ACR and therefore, the safety evaluation will be revised or a new safety evaluation will be written to specifically address the ARCOR coating of the spoolin question. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 34TJ has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. No changes in the fleid are required.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 3 of Discrepancy Re;ntt, DR MP3-0128, does not represent a discrepant condition.
- 3. The forms referred to are work sheets that the closure review group use to provide a higher level of confidence that corrective actions completed prior to RP4, revision 4 resulted in the corrective action being completed as assigned or the corrective action plan being modified accordingly, it provided useful information and as such is a valuable tool.
Thle nr th.itu wne nni ransilrad hu nervwAsirm hnt nrnoldne incaful Printed 11M71:o6:36 PM
'~~ ' ~ ' '
' ' ~ ' ' '~
~~'~~
~~ Page 2 of 4 4
a Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0128 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy F.eport i
information and t"
.s left in the CR package as part of the l
record. This is s.
4r to other informatio:. left in the package which provides usei 'information but is not in and of itself a QA record.
Significance Level criteria eees not apply to Iton 3 as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 1 of Discrepancy Report. DR MP3-0128, does not represent a discrepant condition.
- 1. The investigaticn into the subject ACR concluded that the ACR concem was not valid and did not warrant the implementation of the recommendations documented in the report. These recommendations however, are considered as part of a review of all Cu Ni/Monelinterfaces for the Service Water System piping on unit 3.
Significance Level criteria does not apply to item 1 as this is not a discrepant condition.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 2 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0128, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
- 2. The Technical Justification for adding the epoxy coating to the subject service water piping is provided in PDCR MP3 95-058. The safety evs'uation for this PDCR addresses the application of ARCC,R coating to service water piping. It does not specifically address the coating to the pipe spool identified in the subject ACR and therefore the safety evaluation will be revised or a new safety evaluation will be written to specifically address the ARCOR coating of the spoolin question. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3428 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. No changes in the field are anticipated as a result of the corrective action for this CR.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 3 of Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0128, does not represent a discrepant condition.
- 3. The forms referred to are work sheets that the closure review group use to provide a higher level of confidence that corrective actions completed prior to RP4, revision 4 resulted in the corrective action being completed as assigned or the corrective action plan being modified accordingly. This activity was not required by procedure but provides useful information and as such is left in the CR package as part of the record. This is similar to other information left in the package which provides use fut information but is not in and of itself a QA record.
Prtnted 115971:06.39 PM Page 3 of 4 ma
o Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0128 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Significance Level criteria does not apply to item 3 as this is not a discrepant condition.
Prev 60uely iderdined by NU? O Yes 1.i No Non D6screpent condn6on O Yes
'9) No Review b'
inaiolott Sheppard, R. P.
O N S7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thcmas J O
O mm7 VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O
im7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O tir4S7 Dane:
10/22/97 sL commente: 1. The resolution of part 2 of the discrepancy is acceptable.
- 2. The response states that a review of all Cu NI/Monel Interfaces on unit 3 is being performed per Action Request 97013654-03. Please elaborate on the monitoring being proposed for galvanic and pitting corrosion In the Service Water system and how this will relate to the monitoring being performed by the Generic Letter 8913 program.
- 3. It is recognized that the corrective action review sheets serve a valuable purpose, if portions of the final corrective action package are not considered to ba QA records, those portions should be identified as such or those portions should not be forwarded to Nuclear Document Services for storage as QA
- records, i
B e
p g,4 og 4 f
Printed 114S7106 42 PM
_.... _ _.