ML20198R402
| ML20198R402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9711130267 | |
| Download: ML20198R402 (53) | |
Text
.
C f; soroorve t_u n d y "c y
Don K. Schopit!
Vee Pinident 312-26H076 November 10,-1997-Project No,9583100 Docket No. 50-423' Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program
' United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following twenty-nine (29) 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-MP3-0137 DR No. DR-MP3-0424 DR No. DR-MP3 0526 DR No. DR-MP3-0297 DR No. DR-MP3-0429 DR No. DR-MP3-0527 DR No. DR-MP3-0343 DR No. DR-MP3-0483 DR No. DR-MP3-0530 DR No. DR-MP3-0363 DR No. DR-MP3 0487 DR No. DR-MP3-0538 DR No. DR-MP3-0371 DR No. DR-MP3-0489 DR No. DR-MP3-0541 DR No. DR-MP3-0394 DR No. DR-MP3-0493 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0560 i
DR No. DR MP3-03%
DR No. DR-MP3-0505 DR No. DR-MP3-0562
\\
/b3 DR No. DR-MP3-0406 DR No. DR-MP3-0514 DR No. DR-MP3-0565 DR No, DR-MP3-0409 DR No. DR-MP3-0515 DR No. DR-MP3-0568 f-DR No. DR-MP3-0419 DR No. DR-MP3-0525 I have also enclosed the following one (1) DR that has been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for this DR. The basis for the invalid determination is included on the document, DR No. DR-MP3-0510 q
N SDO
,,2 3 l{!.b!.b!.b !!.!!
55 East Monroe Street + Chicago, IL 60003 5780 USA
- 312-269-2000
United States Nuclear Regulatory Conunission November 10,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100 Page 2 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly,
$,Y D. K. Sc pfer Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copics:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/l) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU m%evpuun97wIi104 Aw f
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0137 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
Revieworoup: AccidentMepeon DR VAUD Review Element: Operehng Procedure D6.capane: Mechancel D ig" O Yes Diecrepency Type: Licenewig Document
@ No SystemProcese: N/A NRC Sign 6ficance level: 4 Dele faked to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 Discrepancy: FSAR Accident Analysis Assumptions inconsistent With Operating Procedures EOP 35E-0 and EOP 35ES-1.1
==
Description:==
The accident analysis for a postulated loss of feedwater accident assumes the following operator action is necessary (Reference FSAR $15.2.8.2, item 3): Stop high head safety injection pumps if water level in the pressurizer is recovering, and the intact steam generators are at the safety valve set point, and the water level in the intact steam generators is in the narrow range span (NRS). NOTE: for the purposes of the accident analysis, i
assumption of the steam generators operating at the safety valve setpoint is conservative as this maximizes the steam generator pressure and temperature and minimizes ti,e heat removal from the primary system. In practice, the steam generators will be operated at the atmospheric relief (dump) valve setpoint or below.
The ICAVP review of the EOPS determined that the high head safety injection pump is stopped if the water level in the pressurizeris recovering and a heat sink is confirmed. (NOTE:
At Steps 16b and 27 within EOP 35E 0, the operator determines AFW flow is >530 gpm OR a NRS >6% in ONE steam generator as the means of establishing the existence of the heat sink.)
The FSAR and the EOPs should be consistent relative to whether water level is required to be in NRS in ONE or in ALL intact steam generators. Further, equivalency of a) AFW flow
>530 gpm and b) NRS >6% for the required number of intact steam generators requires justification.
Review Valid invalid Needed Dele initletor: Peebles, W. R.
8 O
O 10'2S<S7 VT Leed: Reheja, Raj D G
O O
10/36S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G
O O
>SS7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
51/7/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes (e) No Review c
e e Date Initiator: Peeth, W. R.
b VT Leed: Reheja, Raj D VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K Printed 11/1097 2-07:25 5 C"'" 2"W5"'0 N Page 1 of 2
.l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 0137 Misistone unu 3 Discrepancy Report m _. _.. -,, r,.
n
- Dele:
SL Comments:
i Printed 11/1097 2:07:32 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0297 Misistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Design g
Diecipune: Mechen6cel Design Om Diecropency Type: Calculation g-SystemProcess: Oss NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 DiecraPency: Design Pressure in Calculation P(RF1171 Deecription: A calculation is required to determine the basis of the QSS design pressures provided in the QSS line list. No QSS design pret.sure calcualtion was located in the NU calculation data base, Calculation P(RF1171, Rey,1 determines the QSS operating pressures and temperatures. Calculation SDP-QSS-01358M3, Rev,6 provides input for the QSS piping stress analysis. Neither of these calculations provide guidance on what design pressures should be k,entified in the QSS line list.
The calculations which provides the bds for the design pressures identified in the QSS lir.o list can not be located.
Review vand inveNd Needed Date initletor: Wakeland, J. F.
O O
O 10/32<87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
1 S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K 8
O O
15't/S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B
O O
1'/7/S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
.tEsOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K wtc chnm: Singh, Anend K Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 11/10/97 2,08 31 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0343 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group; Operations & Meintenance end Tee g DR VAUD r
Review Element: Test Procedure g
Diecipilne: Opwehons O vee Diecrepancy Type: Test Requiremods gg SystemProcess: OSs NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putailohed: 11/13/rv7 Discrepancy: Surveillance Testing incomplete Descripoon: Various testing requirements for the emergency diesel generator test of 6/8/96 were either not completed or lack adequate documentation. This is a discrepant condition.
Surveillance Procedure SP 3646A.18 and OPS Form 3646A.18-1 are performed to satisfy various Technical Specifications requirements related to emergency diesel generator and sequencer operation, plus testing of component response to various simulated signals, such as Safety injection System (SIS)
Initiation, Loss of Power (LOP), Engineered Safeguards Features (ESF) Actuation, Containment Depressurization Actuation (CDA), etc.
A review of test data from 6/6/96 revealed the following:
Step 4.3.3 requires that the POSITION PRIOR TO SIS / LOP be verified for the listed components on OPS Form 3646A.18-2 Section A, and Step 4.4.13 requires that the POSITION AFTER LOP be verified for those same components. Reactor Plant Closed Cooling Water Pump 1C is macked "PTL" (locked out) on the form, but is required to De ON before and after receipt of a SIS / LOP signal. A note on farm pg. 3 says "Not done - see note 1." Note 1 says "The breaker for CCP*P1C is tagged out and waiting parts (AWO M3-94-04800). The pump will be tested under a retest." A note on the form cover page states:
"3CCP*P1C tagged out - wl," be tested per 3646A.18-2, Retest."
A retest form OPS Form 3646A.18-2 is attached, with a cover page note stating that CCP*P1C needs to be retested, but no test was performed on that form.
Steps 4.3.3 and 4.4.13 require that the position of valves SSR*CTV19A,198,19C, & 19D be verified OPEN before and CLOSED after receipt of a SIS / LOP signalin Section A. Section A is initialed as if the test verification was performed correctly, but attached retest form 3646A.18-2 indicates that the valves were not available for test. Under " Proposed Retest," reference is made to testing these valves 13 months earlier (5-29-95) per procedure SP 3646A.9, Step 4.20, and again 16 months earlier (2-14-95) per procedure OP 3346A. Those test results were not attached.
Steps 4.3.3 and 4.4.13 require verification that CHS*CV8111 A Charging Pump A Recimulation Valve be OPEN before receipt of a LOP signaland CLOSED after LOP. Section A test results are marked "N/A" with a note which says:" Marked N/A per SP 3646A.18, Rev.10, Step 4.3.8.d. - will be tested per 3646A.18-2, Printed 11/1097 2:0026 PM Pe081 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 9343 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Retest? Step 4.3.8.d requires that either CHS*CV8111 A or CHS*CV8111C be marked *N/A,' depending on test conditions, which is okay. What it does not require, however, is a retest of the valve marked *N/A?
Steps 4.3.3 and 4.4.13 require verification that RCS*H1B Group B Pressurizer Heaters circuit breaker be CLOSED before LOP and TRIPPED after LOP. A Sedion A note indicates that the breaker did not trip as required, but the heaters simply went off.
Another note states:" Tech Support Engineering has determined that the Group B Pressurizer Heaters will trip as required; however, the greu. light will be lit vice the amber light. ACR M3-96-0046 (copy attached) was written to investigate? The fact that the heater breakers diJ trin meets the intent of this surveillance and satisfies acceptance criteria? No copy is attached.
Step 4.4.27 requires documentation of reset of all MOV Thermal Overloads on OPS Form 3646A.181, Sedion E. Sedion E, pg.
12, is marked out, with a note to see attached Page 12 of Revision 9, and says " verified no changes? There is a Revision 9, Page 12 attached, with the verifications performed. The procedure being performed, however, is Revision 10, and the wrong revision was used to document this verification data.
Most jumper installation and removal steps on OPS Form 3646A.181, Sedions F & G. Pos. 13,14 & 15, were marked NA.
A note on Pg.14 states: "Per Shift Manager. Jumper removal will be accomplished following A Train LOP and ESF/ LOP tests?
The test data package does not contain a record of jumper removal.
Administrative procedure DC 4, " Procedural Compliance,"
classifies procedures according to level of use. Surveillance Procedure SP 3646A.18 is classified as a
- Continuous Use*
procedure. This means that the procedure controls a work at:tivity that is critical, complex, or involves infrequently re.1ormed evolutions or activities. Continuous level of use procedures require step by-step use to prevent immediate effects on nuclear vr personnel safety and plant reliability.
Administrative procedure, DC 1," Administration of Procedures and Forma," repulros, that if a certain procedure step cannot be perform 3d, then a procedure change is required before proceeding with the work. A change is performed to modify a document quicAly and accurately to allow work to continue. Per DC 1, an
- Intent Change" would have been the proper r echanism for revision of SP 3646A.18. An " intent Chango*_
involves the modification of a regulatory requirement, polley, technical basis, setpoint, acceptance criterion, safety limit, operating limit, tolerance, etc. Additionally, it includes anything that modifies the scope of the document or the basic method of task performarica.
Based on the previously identified discrepancies and the administrative procedure requirements, performance of W!!~= nedral P wA 184nd NS hrm NA.18' PrWed 11/1097 2 c0 32 PM Page 2 of 3 l
Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0M3 Mastone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report 1, which was completed 6496, was defkdent in the following areas:
a) The surveillance testing was net performed siep by step, and several steps related to testing of critical components were omitted.
b) There were no procedure changes or revisions documents attached to or a part of ibis surveillance test data package, and a check of procedure change records does not show that a change was initiated.
c) Procedure performers failed to initiate a procedure revision when steps could not be performed as written.
d) No reasons are given for not performing the initial tests and no reasons are given for retests. Retest forms are not a part of the test data package. Retest results, if any, are unknown.
Based on the lack of adequate documentation and/or the omission of testing of critical components, procedural requirements were not met it cannot be determined whether or not the Tech. Specs. surveillance requirements were satisfied for the 6/6/96 test.
Rev6ew vm invenid N ded Dei.
Intilator: Petrosky,AL g
Q Q
11597 VT Lead: Bees, Ken g
Q Q
11697 SchoP er, Don K O
O O
55/7/87 VT Mgr:
f 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
O O
11/r/97 Dei.:
18WALID:
Dele:
REsoLUTloN:
Previously klontined by NU7 U Yes (Si No Non Discrepent Condit6on O Yes (#1 No Aeview Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date inNW' M b
VT Lead: Bass, Ken O
O U
VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Dele:
sL Comments:
l b
l
~
Printed 11/1097 200 35 PM Page 3 of 3 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0343 M6llstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroesp: Syelem DR VALID Rev6ew Element: Systm De@
ist Operabu#y W D6ecipl6ne Pipen0 D*
O vee Descrepancy Type: coloulsten g
Systemerocess: SWP NRC 56pnincance level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11" &97 D6ecrepency: Analysis method for vent / drain configurations in calc NP(B)-408 is inconsistent with design criteria Deecripsbn: In the process of reviewing the following documents, (l) Design and installation of Small Bore Piping, NETM-24, Rev. 3 (ii) Calculation 12179-NP(B)-408-XD, Rev. O, 4/3/84 (ii) Interoffice Memorandum, Review of Calculation 12179-NP(B)-
692 XD, From RFHankinson to GPMilley, February 2,1964 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
According to (i): In the evaluation of vent / drain configurations, applicable seismic accelerations at the point of attachment (to header piping or equipment) are the higher of the values from computer analysis results (of the header piping) or the zero period acceleration (ZPA), ZPA values are obtained from the applicable ARS curve for the building and elevation where vent / drain is located. These seismic acceleration values, rnultiplied by a factor of 1.5, should be applied to calculate seismic reaction and stresses.
According to (ii): The objective of the calculation is to perform a small bore pipe stress analysis for a general arrangement of vents and drains for all elevations of all buildings. The vents and drains and root valve piping were analyzed as free end connections. It is assumed that statically applied deflections at the connection point would not generate any forces or moments in the piping system. Therefore, static and dynamic displacements were omitted from the analysis. The piping was seismically analyzed in the x, y and z directions by using the amplified response spectra curves for all buildir,gs and all elevations.
According io (iii):
- lf the vent / drain is rigid in comparison veh the piping response, the vent /drhin will experience the maximum piping response, if the vent /dra!n is not rigid in comparison with the piping response, the vent / drain will experience an amplification of the maximum piping response".
. Piping is excited by the building response through its supporting media, and as the free standing vent / drain is not attached to the building there can be no defendable justification for using building response to qualify the vent / drain".
Printed 11/1097 2.lo 06 PM Page 1 of 2
h Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4363 uisistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Discrepancy:
The seismic analysis performed in (ii) is inconsistent with the requirements of the design criteria for small bore piping (i).
Specifically, no justification is provided in (ii) to ignore the possible amplification of the siesmic excitation input for the small bore piping analysis resulting from the dynamic response of the header piping subjected to the seismic excitations at its attachment to the building.
Revtew Valid invalid Needed Date init6stor: Prokesh, A.
O O
O 50'30S7 VT Leed: Nort, Antnany A O
O O
1SS5/87 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
15/SS7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
15/7/87 Date:
INVAUD:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by Nur O vee
(*) w Non Diecrepeni condaion
(.) v.s (ei No Rev6ew Accap8 h Not Acceptable Needed Date ggg; g VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K
-e sL Commente:
Pnnted 11/1097 2:10.16 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0371 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: sptom DR VAUD Moview Element: system Design g
D6ecipl6ne: EWical Desi'"
Om D6ecrepency Type: Component Dato c,) g j
SystemProceos: Rss NRC Si6:.lacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU*
Date Putd6ehed. 11/1397 D6ecr*Pency: Vendor and NU Database Discrepancies for RSS Motor Operated Valves
==
Description:==
A. Vendor Drawing Discrepancies The data in the vendor Drawings 2362.200164 043 (Rev. C) and 2362.200-164-043A (Rev. B) does not match the data in Specification 2362.200164 Add.1, Calculation 89-094120E3 (Rev. O CCN 4), one line Diagrams EE 1 AH (Rev. 28) and EE-1 AJ (Rev. 28),PDDS, or PMMS regarding horsepower, full load current, and locked rotor current for the motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV23A, 3RSS'MOV23B, 3RSS*MOV23C, and 3RSS*MOV23D as shown below:
Vendor drawings 0.33 HP,0.95 full load amps,5.0 locked rotor amps PDDS and specification 0.13 HP,0.55 fullload amps,2.6 locked retor amps PMMS 0.125 HP,0.39 amps EE 1 AH, EE 1 AJ 0.13 HP Calculation 89-094120E3 0.125 HP,0.39 fullload amps,3.15 locked rotor amps Note that Voltage Profile Calculation NL 038 (Rev. 2 CCN 6) shows a horsepower of 0.13 and locked rotor current of 2.6 amps.
The documents should be revised to reflect the actual data.
B. NU Database Discrepancies
- 1. For motor operated valve 3RSS*MOV208, Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) has three ampacity categories and values for two ampacity attributes:
AFL = 0.55 ALR = 2.6 Amps = 0.13 Comparing the values in PMMS with other design docJments,
'AFL' and 'ALR" represent full load and locked rotor current, respectively, it appears that " Amps" represents the old horsepower of 0.13. " Amps" should be revised to reflect the actual motor attribute and value.
Printed 11/1097 2.lo.s4 PM Page 1 or 7
Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0371 milietone unN 3 Discrepancy Report
- 2. Plant Design Data System (PDDS) references a Class N type of insulation for motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV38A and 3RSS*MOV388, however, this class of Insulation does not exist in NEMA Standard MG 1 12A2, Review Vand invahd Nooded Date instielor: Kardell, D. J.
O O
O
'0SS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthor.y A O
O O
$n25/87 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
tiSS7 MC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
$ $/1/87 Dele:
WWAUD:
Date:
REsOLUTKW:
Previously ident6 fled by NUF U Yes (O') No Non 04::,:t Condelion O Yes @ No Review Acceptetdo Not Acceptable Needed Date g
VT Leed: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chrnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Cormants:
Printed 11/1097 2.1122 PM Page 2 of 2
..=.._ -
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0394 mmetone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Revkw aroup: Speem DRvAuD Potential Dporatdiay issue Dkciphne: Mechencal Design O Yes 06ecrepency Type: Ceiculation 4g Systeers9tocess' SWP
~
NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1197 D6*ct*P*acy: Calculation 90-069-1130-M3 rev. O design information not vertfled.
D**cti 46*a: The Westinghouse calculation notified NU in the body of the P
calculation that design inputs needed to be verified, however there is no statement that Indicates that NU verified this design information. This is in reference to refrigerant temperature of the HVK chillers (page 35, section 4.11.1, paragraph 1).
Westinghouse Thermal Equipment Calculation Report, TE EC. 027 was used for design inputs into revision 0, but this calculation was not issued per M3-lRF 00417.
Calculation P 2C 225, rev. 0
- NEU Safety injection Pump Seawater Minimum Flow Evaluation" and calculation P EC 230, rev. O 'CH/Sl Pump Cooling Water Evaluation for Millstone 3 (NEU)" were used for design inputs into revision 0, but were not found in Nuclear Documentation Services (NDS) per MS lRF-00524.
Review Vand inval6d Needed Date inn 6stor: Denne, D. J.
O O
O inSS7 VTLead: NWl, Anthony A O
D D
in' ins 7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q O
10'1497 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
$ $ri/S7 Date:
INVAllD:
Dek:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identiflod by NU7 O Yes
(#' No Non D6ecrepent Condition O Yes78) No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
vT Mst: Senopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
- e:
SL Comments:
Pitnied tid 097 2.13 05 PM Page 1 of Y
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP343H milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neview aroup: syenom omvAuo Review Element: syenem Due g n,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
D6ecipline: Mehetel Dwagn O vee D6ectopency Type: Calculeton
@ No systemereceos: swP NRC Sientacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1197 D6*cr*Pency: Calc. 90-0691116-M3 rev. O through CCN 02 contains several unaddressed issues.
Ducripuan: Calculation 90-069-1116-M3 rev. O through CCN 02 determines the Service Water System (SWP) minimum available cooling water flow rates under design basis accident scenarios. This calculation uses the Westinghouse PEGISYS SWP model. The following discrepancies were noted in this calculation:
- 1. A nodal diagram is needed to verify the inputs and outputs of the PEGISYS model. However, there is no nodal diagram included in the calculation. Thus the PEGISYS outputs (results) can not be correlated to SWP system components.
- 2. CCN 02 dated 5/27/97, states on the cover sheet that calculations NM-061 SWP, HYD H9, HYD-H10 and 12179-2330.110 are superseded by this calculation. On page 2 of this CCN, calculations P(T) 1005, P(T).1092,3 ENG 164 and NM-021 SWP were hand written in following the above calculations.
Pages 3-5 of this CCN does not included these four additional calculations as being superseded. it is unclear whether or not these additional calculations are superseded by CCN 02.
- 3. CCN 01 dated 3/31/97, states at the bottom of page 2 that this calculation is SUPPLEMENTED by calc. 90 0691097 M3, rev. O through CCN 02 which contains the latest service water PEGISYS model. Calc.1097 was not one of the references that were added by this CCN. It is not documented what affect this latest model Wil have on the results of this calculation. The model should have been re-run to verify that the system changes incorporated by calculation 1097 were included and the resultant minimum flows did not change adversely as a result of the model revisions.
- 4. Pages 47 and 48, state that the surveillance limits for the CCP heat exchanger and the HVQ ventilation units were reduced from 19 to 15 psid and from 6 to 4.5 psid respectively. There is no justification stated or documents referenced to quantify how these new limits were derived. The surveillance curves in procedure SP-3626.13 reflect these values, however, the calculations that develop the s,urveillance curves (cales.90-069 778GM and 90-069 776GM for CCP and HVQ respectively) still maintain tne original surveillance limits. Calculations.778GM l
and 776GM were not superseded by CCN 02,
- 5. Page 49 and 50 contain the table that summarizes the results of the PEGISYS runs. There is no conclusion stated that validates or invalidates the values listed. The margin in some Printed 11/1097 2:21 o6 PM Page 1 or 2 l
i
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 03H Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report cases is negative and this is not addressed. (CCN 01 lowers the minimum required flow for the equipment that previously reflected negative margin.) A statement should be made to address the results from the model runs.
- 6. The PEGISYS output for all the cases evaluated is included in this calculation. There were several cases in which the output stated that the pump flow rates exceed run-out. This occurred for the cases titled: case (page 78), case 5cep (page 280) and c5cepa (page 406). This was not addressed in the body of the calculation for acceptability of the model results. This could impact the results of this calculation and any other document that references these results.
The overall affect of the discrepancies noted for calculation 90-0691116-M3 rev. O through CCN 02 can not be determined without revising the calculation.
Review Vand invand Needed Date initietor: D6onne, B. J.
O O
O
$$/4S7 VT Lead: Nort. Ardhony A O
O O
15n/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O
O O
tims7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
11/7/87 Dei.:
INVAllD:
Date:
REsOLUTKW.
Prov6ously identihed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non hr M Condelion U Yes ty) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptelde Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Ardhony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K INC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
sL Commente:
Prtr**d 11/1097 2:21:13 PM Page 2 or 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0404 siisstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conflysehon DR VALIO Rev6ew Element: Modificehan instensten g
gy Diecipline: Papeng Design O Ya l
Diecrepency Type: Ir m implementation (M No Syalem9tocess: SWP NftC Sngnificance level. 4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Putdished: 11/1397 D6ectopency: Modification DCR 96078 : Pumps 3SWP*P3A/B Suction piping rerouting
==
Description:==
The detall verification of the modification package DCR 96078 found the suction piping to pump 3SWP*P3B as Shown on implementing DCN DM3-00-0564 97 page 4 has a 16ngth between Flange item 167 and the centerline of the 3D bend (SWP 3D-003-015 on DM3-S-0982 96 page 17) of 7 ft 71/2 inch in lieu of the Specified 6 ft-61/16 inch dimension.
Review Valid inval6d Needed Date inltistor: Reed, J. W.
O O
O
$$'3*$7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A C
Q Q
100097 VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K O
O O
ii/SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
$ $/7/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NUF O Yes (# 3 No Non D6screpent Condition O Yes tSTNo Review Acc8Ptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gg, VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Comments:
~
Printed 11/1097 2.2242 PM Pege 1 of 1
. - =
Northeast UtHities ICAVP DR No. D8t MP3-0409 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmets DR VALID Review Element: Correcthe Adeon Process Discapiene: Mechancel Dwig" O va Diecrepancy Type: conective Adson 4
Syelen#rocess: OSS NRC signincarce levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 D6ecrepancy: Incomplete Evaluation Package for Material Condition I
Ducrapeion: The resolution of ACRs regarding rust found in stainless steel piping and support connections lacks sufficient justification.
ACRs M3-96-0301 and 013789 evaluate rust found on stainless steel piping and on connedions with a support and a saddle, in ACR 013789 rust was not found on similar equipment fabricated from the same materials located in close proximity in a similar environment. The evaluation for the ACRs states that rust is not unusual on stainless steels in a humid environment and is most pronounced in areas which have been heavily ground in addition, the evaluation states that a complete welding material document review was conducted prior to the N 5 Code Data Report certification. Finally, reference is made to a study by Dravo Corporation during the construction of Unit 2 which concluded that the rust was strictly a surface condition.
While rust on stainless steels may be a surface condition, we do not agree that the ACR evalutlions support this conclusion for the conditions described nor do we see the connection to the heavy grinding based on the information provided. We recommend that the conclusion be verified by some positive means such as removing a small area of tne rust with a flapper wheel. Altemately, a copper sulfate test could be used followed by an appropriate flushing.
The lack of sufficient justification to support the conclusions reached, represents a discrepant condition in the resolution or the subject ACRs.
Review Valid inval6d Needed Date Instletort sheppard, R. P.
O O
O 15'SS7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J g
[
Q 11/197 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
' 5'7/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
15'7/S7 Dele:
INVALlO:
Date:
RESOLUT1oN:
Previously identined by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condet6on U Yes
@ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date Miete M O
O O
VT Lead: Ryan. Timmes J Printoa 11/1Q97 2.23.23 PM Page 1 of 2
I Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 4409 Mastorw unn 3 Discrepancy Report e
plc Chmn: sm Anand K O
O Date:
SL Comments:
i I
i i
Printed i1/1M7 2.23 29 PM Page 2 of 2
- - - -. ~.
.-i
c Northeast Utinties ICAVP Dr. No. DR-MP3 0419 i
minstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Review Osoup: System DR VALL3 E M :S W W Potential Operabany lseue e: - D-n o y, D6ecropency Type: Colouleten g
SystemProcess: SWP NRC Sign 66cance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Dele Published. 11/1197 DescrepancY: T he wrong methodology was used for tho orifice bore calculations.
Deecripe6an: The methodology for flow metering devices was used instead of the that for restricting orifices in Calculations NE 024-SWP, reV.
O and NE-025 SWP, rev. O which applies to 3SWP'RO122A, B and 3SWP*RO175A, B, C and D respectively inese orifices are located on the Containment Recirculation Coolerc Service Water outlet header (3SWP'RO122A & B) and on the Containment Recirculatloa Coolers Service Water outlet lines (3SWP'RO125A,0, C & D).
Also the calculations did not include references for the design inputs used to determine the bore diameters, therefore, the bases for these inputs could not be validated. These errors could impact the calculational results.
Review Valid invalld Needed Dole init6elor: 06 anne, B. J.
O O
O 10/35'S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A g
Q O
10/31/97 VT Mgrt Schopfer, Don K O
O O
"'SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q D
11/7/97 Date:
INVALIO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously ident4Aed by NUF O Yee
(#) No Non D6screpent Conristion U Yes (Si No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Dei.:
SL Conwnents:
Pnnled 11/1o97 2 31:57 FM Page 1 of 1
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0424 Mitistone ur9t 3 Discrepancy Report Rev.ew oroup: CorApursten DR VALID Potential Operablisty looos 06ecipline: P$4ne
- O vee Diecropency Type: Inseensten irrpierrentatum g
SystemProcees: SWP NRC %ence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: i1/1197 Descrepency: Modification PDCR MP3-88-136 : Add pipe couplings to line 3 SWP 150-072 3 D*tipuon: The sketch and note in the PDCR calls for a coupling to be added to lins 3-SWP 150-072 3 within one ft.(12 in.) from an elbow in the horizontal run of the pipe. The coupling was measured to be about 27 in from the centerline of the elbow.
'This discrepancy does not affect the pipe stress calculations.
Review Vei6d inval6d Needed D.e treillator: Reed, J. W.
O O
$60SS7 VT Lead: Nori. Anthony A O
O O
$$51/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
15/5/87 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O 51/1/87 Dece:
INVAL.lD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously klontified tiy NU7 O Yes i.#i No Non D6screpent Condit6on O Vee
(#> No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
VT Lead: Nort, Antrony A O
O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K D.e:
SL Commente:
Printed 11/1097 2 33 o8 PM p.g. g og i
~
i Northeast Utiinles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4429 Minotorm unn 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oteup: system DR VAL 10 Review Elwasat: sysium Daign g,,,, g,,,,,
06*cipline: Mechwucel Dnie
O Yes Dioctopency Type: Colouluten No systemProceae: SWP NRC signiacence level: 3 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Publ6ehod.11/11,7 Dioc'*Peacy: PEGISYS Computer Model showing pump curves exceeded, without follow up in analysis.
Deecrape6an: Calculation FSE/SS-NEU 1922, Revision 1 Dated 5/30/97,
- Millstone 3 tsWS Rerun of Test Cases for Uncertainty Oale. has computer output from PEGISYS 3.0 shown in pa0es A1 thru A104, on pages A26, A57 and A71 there is a note describing that flowrote exceeds runout and that the NPSH curve has been exceeded. These computer-generated automatic comments are not addressed in the body of the report nor in the NU review of the calc., leaving the acceptability of the computer results uncertain.
This could significantly impact the results of this calculation and that of other calculations which this output was used as a basis.
This output was used in calculations FSE/SS NEU 1924 and 90-069-1116-M3, both of which would Impact the results of calc. 90-069-1065-M3 which is the GL 8913, item IV Summary Document.
Review Valid invalid Needed Dele initiator: Denne, B. J.
O O
O 1027/87 VT Lead: Nor'. Anthony A g
Q Q
1077/97 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O
O O
in2asr IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
19 " S7 Date:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Previounty identined by Nu? O Yes (G) No Non D6ecrepent condet6on O Yes t.Gl No Review Acceptelde Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A O
O O
v7 u n schapen. Don K e
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Conenente:
Printed 11/1DT7 2.34 of PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utiiniel ICAVP DR No. DR MP34443 Missetone Unk 3 Discrepancy Repoft nev6.w oroup: ConRgwatson DR VAUD M*v6ew EW: System Deegn Potent 6al OperatiMey boue D6*ciphne: De*kal Desion O vee Diecrepency Type: Dreatng 4g SystenWProceeet SWP NRC Signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putil6thod: 11/1397 D6ecrepency: Upper Tier versus Lower Tier Design Document Diff erences Descript6an: The following differences in design documents have been noted:
- 1. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates that tray 3TC1140 is supported by support "A307-026." Tray Support locationsi drawing EE 34DT, Rev. 7 (C 5) shows this support to be *A306-26.* The support installed is marked "A306."
- 2. Tray 3TK210P was observed in the field to be 24 inches wide The Tray Location drawing EE 34Y, Rev. g, Indicates the tray is 24 inches wide. Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) shows this tray to be 30 inches wide.
- 3. Tray 3TK203P is shown on the Tray Location drawing EE 34Y, Rev. 9, as 24 inches wide Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) shows this tray to be 30 inches wide.
- 4. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates tray 3TK100P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover identification and Locati" drawing EE 34TP, Rev.1 Indicates that the tray has no covms and no covers are installed in the field.
- 5. The Ccble and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates tray 3TC140P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover identification and Location drawing EE 34TQ, Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has no covers and no covers are installed in the field.
- 6. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates tray 3TC119P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Location drawing EE 34T Rev.11, Indicates tray cover commodity types for this tray. Tray Cover Identification and Location drawing EE-34TQ, Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has no covers. No covers are installod in the field.
- 7. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TC2010 is to have covers top and bottom. T ay Cover Identification and Locati0n drawing EE 34TQ Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has only a top cover. A top cover is installed in the I
field.
- 8. The Cable ar'.1 Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TK404P is to bye covers top and bottom. Tray Cover identification aad Location drawing EE 34TL, Rev.1 Indicates that the tray has no covers and no covers are installed in the field.
Primed 11/1Q97 2 34 57E Page 1 of 2 l
Northeast UtilitiGs ICAVP Dit No. DR MP34443 Misistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 9. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TX200N has no covers. Tray Cover identification and Location drawing EE 34TQ, Rev.1 indicates that the tray has a top cover, 10 The Catde and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists support C116-74 as a support for tray STC4410. Per tray klentification drawing EE 34 BM Rev,8, this tray section ends prior to the location of the support.
Rev6ew Vehd invW Nooded Date initiator Server. T. L D
D D
iS2SS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
16'2697 VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
'S S T IRC Chmrt: Singh, Anand K O
O O
51/7/87 Date:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Previously iderAined by NU7 (,) Yes rt) No Non D6ecrepent Condit6on
(,,) Yes 10) No Revtew initletort (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Conenents:
Printed 11/1097 2.35 o5 PM Pope 2 d 2
Northeast Utiinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP34447 unitetone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: syo.em DR VAUD Peterdial abilty kaue Diecrepancy Type: Colouletson
% No ayaten#roceae: Rss NRC SWeconce leM: 4 Date faxed iJ NU:
Date Publ6ehed: 11/1397 D6ectormacy: RSS Minimum Wall Calculation References Deecript6an: The minimum wall calculations reference ASME Section lil, 1971 through 1973 Summer Addenda as the design code for piping. Reference 3 in the calculationc reference Section NB-3640 of this Code. Section NB of the Code is Class 1 piping requirements. The RSS lines are Class 2. Class 2 pir,ing and components are designed under Sec' ion NC of the Code. The Section NC allowable strusses were used in the calculation.
Because Section NC 3640 uses a similar equation for calculating the minimum wall as Sechon NB X40, there is no affect on the conclusion. This is a documentation discreparicy.
Tne calculations all reference a flow diagram (FSK) for the design pressure and temperature. The FSK series drawings has been classified 'For information Only? A review of the piping diagram arid the line list, which superseded the FSKs, indicates the pressure and temperature are correct in a!l cases except for Calculations MW(B)-127 and MW(F) 122. The discrepancies for these calculations are addressed in DR MP3-0312 and DR MP3-0165. Since the pressures and temperatures used in the calculations are correct, the conclusions are not affected. This is a documentation discrepancy.
The Minimum Wall Calculations are:
MW(B)-044, Rev. O MW(B)-045, Rev. O MW(B) 127. Rev. O MW(B) 132, Rev. O MWtB) 220, Rev. 0; CCN1 MW(F)-110, Rev. O MW(F) 122, Rev. O MW(F) 170, Rev. O MW(F) 190, Rev. O MW(F) 212, Rev. O Review Valid invaled Needed Date initletor: Langsl, D-O O
O taois7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
131147 sch$ er, Don K Q
Q Q
11497 VT Mer:
d 1RC Chmn: singh. Anend K G
O O
$ /7/S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
NEsOLUTioN:
Prov6ously identined by NU? O Yes (#) No Non D6ecrepene Conutuon O Yes (#1 No Printed 11/1097 2 35 35 PM Page 1 of 2
i Northeast Utlinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0447 t
ultietone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ne*.
ledtlators (none)
Not P'"' "- Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Antteny A VT Mgr Schork DeK MC Chmn: Segh, Anand K g
m Dele:
SL Conenents:
L PrWed 11/1Q97 2 35 42 PM Page 2 of 2
. -=.
Northeast Udinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0449 Mill
- tone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report Pev6ew Oroup: System DR VALID I
II N Poteed6el Operabikty leeue D6ecipline: N Design O vee Dioctopency Type: Coloutston (e) No SyeleriWProcess: Oss NMC S4pedacance level: 4 Deu faxed h, NU:
Dele Putd6ehed: 11/1397 D6*ctopency: QSS Minimum Wall Calculation References Descript6an: The minimum wall calculations reference ASME Section 111, 1971 through 1973 Summer Addenda as the design code for piping. Reference 3 in the calculations reference Section NB.
3640 of this Code, fMetion NB of the Code is Class 1 piping requirements. The QSS lines are Class 2. Class 2 piping and components are designed under Section NC of the Codo. 'ihe Section NC allowable stresses were used in the calculation.
Because Sedion NC 3640 uses a similar equhtion for calculating the minimum wall as Section NS 3640, there is no affect on the conclusion. This is a documentation discrepancy.
The calculd.ons all reference a flow diagram (FSK) for the design pressure and temperature The FSK series drawings has been classified *For Information Only ' A wiew of the piping diagram and the line list, which superseded the FSKs Indicates the pressure and temperature are correct in all cases except for Calculation MW(F)-45. The discrepancy for this calculation is addressed in DR MP3-0164. Since the pressures and temperatures und in the calculation are correct, the conclusions are not affected. This is a documentation discrepancy.
The Minimum Wall Calculations are:
MW(B) 129. Rev. 0 MW(B) 142 Rev. O MW(F)-027, Rev. O MW(F)-045, Rev. O MW(F) 125. Rev.1 MW(F)174 Rev.1 MW(F)-321, Rev.1 Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Langed,0.
O O
O
'o 5 '87 VT Lead: Nori. Anthony A Q
]
]
10'31/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
1 5S7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K g
Q Q
11/7/97 Date:
INVALIO:
Dese:
nesoLUTioN:
Previously identmed by Nu? O Yes (Si No Non Diecrepent Condition O Yes (G) No Review Acceptelde Not Arreptable Nesdod Date g g,g,, g VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 0
0 0
. vi upr: schapter. Don x Prtnted 11/1097 2.3e 13 PM Peps 1 of 2
)
I
Northeast ut466 ties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0449 Mm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 9
9 RC Climn: Singh Anand K l
Date:
i SL Comments:
4 Prtnted 11/1097 2.36:20 PM Pm 2 W 2
Northeast Utlims ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0493 unitetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oteup: system DR VALIO A* view timment: System Design
.g D6ecirtlas: Mechenkdd Dalen O vee Diecewaacy Type: ceiouisam
(,) g,
systemProcees: RSS NRC 66pniaconce levet:3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Put,46ehed: 11/1397 D6*ct*Pency: Calculation SDP RSS-01361M3 Ductiriion: The purpose of SDP-RSS-01361M3, Rev. 4 is to provide a IMe.
by line listing of RSS operating pressures and temperatures fo,*
each mode of system operation in a format which can be used as input to the piping stress analysis. The operating pressures and temperatures are determined in Calculation US(B) 1187, Rev.1/CCN 1.
Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation SDP RSS-01361M3:
- 1. Valves RSS MOV'8837A/B and 8838A/B, which connect the RSS supply to the HHSI pump suct'on (via the RHS system), are closed for Operating Condition 1. ECCS Injection Mode. In this mode, according to P(R) 1192, Rey, O the RHS pump can operate at its shutoff head and pressurtze Lines 3RSS-006-040, 041,047 and 053 to 583 psig. Stress Data Package SDP RSS-01361M3 claims that the pressure in these lines for Operating Condition 1 is only 235 psig.
- 2. The following errors were made in transpot,ing data from Calculation P(R) 1167 to Stress Data Package SDP RSS-01361M3:
3RSS-012-003: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-012 008: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 012-013: Op Cond 4 piess should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-012-018: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-012-035: Op Cond 4 press should be 105 psig, not 37 psig 3RSS-010-038: Op Cond 3 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-006-041: Op Cond 3 press should be 0 psig, not 156 psig 3RSS-008-041: Op Cond 3 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001080: Op Cond 3 press should be 156 psig, not 0 psig 3RSM50-087; Op Cond 3 press should be 56 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 750-090: Op Cono 3 press should be 56 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 750-095: Op Cond 2 press should be 210 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 750-095: Op Cond 2 temp should be 116F, not ambient 3RSS 750-096: Op Cond 2 press should be 210 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 750-096: Op Cond 2 temp should be 116F, not ambient 3RSS-750102: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-750102: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001 103: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-001 103: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-750106: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS 750106: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001 107: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-001 107: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-750-110: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig PrWiled 11/1o9T 2.36 46 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0493 WNotone UnN 3 Discrepaticy Report 3RSS 750110; Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001 111: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 esig, not 0 psig 3ROS-001 111: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001 119: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psic 3RSS-001 119: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient 3RSS-001 120: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 ps!g 3RSS-001 120: Op Cond 4 temp should be 40F, not ambient i
3RSS-004122: Op Cond 3 press should be 156 psig, not 195 psig 3RSS-004122: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-004123: Op Cond 3 press should be 156 psig, not 195 psig 3RSS-004123: Op Cond 4 press should be 37 psig, not 0 psig 3RSS-004124: Op Cond 3 press should be O psig, not 195 psig 3RSS-004124: Op Cond 3 temp should be ambient, not 40F 3RSS-004125: Op Cond 3 press should be O psig, not 195 psig 3RSS-004125: Op Cond 3 temp should be ambient, not 40F These transposition errors require further evafJallon to determine how they affect piping stress calou ations X 7919, X-7920, X 7923, X 79't5, 688 XD,694 XD,695 XD,739 XD,900 XD, and 961 XD.
Review vehd invahd Needed Date init6stor: 5 Aeland.J.F.
O O
O 10oaS7 VT Leed: fvert, Antreny A O
O O
Soci'87 int Mgr: Schepfer DonK O
O O
15/Sc7 IRC Chmn: Sengh, Anerw'X 0
0 0
"/7/87 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Prov60uely identified by Nu? O Yee (#1 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes
(@ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date inittstor: (nore) b VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A h
b VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K b
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
=
Date:
sL Comments:
Pnnled 11/1097 2 36.56 PM Po 2 W 2
-. ~.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0608 Milestone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oreup: spasm DR vALlo Review Element: system Design D6ecipliae: Meche was Dmien O vee 06ecrepancy Type: PNm (9) No Systemerocese: Oss NRC W levet: 4 Dele faxed to NO:
Dele Putdiohed: 11/1397 D'acr*Peacr: Calculation NM(S) 753 De*ctlPuea: The purpose of Calculation NM(S) 753, Rev. O is to verify that the RWST vent is adequately sized.
Three discrepancies were identified in Calculation NM(S) 753:
- 1. The calculation does not identify the correct maximum drawdown flow. CCN 1 to Calculatio1 US(B)-295, Rev. 5 should have been used as input, it determined the maximum drawdown rate would be 18,410 gpm, based on maximum flow of 820 gpm for two CHS pumps,690 gpm for two SI pumps,10.200 gpm for two RHS pumps, and 6500 ppm for two QSS pumps (see DR-MP3-0440 and DR-MP3-0373).
- 2. The calculation does not identify entrance and exit losses for ven' ar d does not compute the total equivalent length of the vent pipe.
- 3. The calculation concludes that the maximum losses in the vent are 0.035 in w.c. for 100 equivalent feet of 24-In (std wall) vent pipe. This conclusion does not identify the maximum pressure drop in the vent and, thus, does not demonstrate that the vent size is sufficient, it is the engineering judgement of the reviewer that even though the basis for the RWST vent size is not property documented, the vent is conservatively sized. NM(S)-753 should be revised to provide proper documentat6n.
Review Val 6d in'JWd Needed Date initnetor: Wakelend.J.F.
O O
O t o'i>S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
Q 1011/97 VT Mgr: schopfee, Don K G
O O
15'tvS7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K G
O O
11/7/87 l
Date:
INVAllD:
Date:
REs0LUTeoN.
j Previously identitled by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non D6ecrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review M, "- Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K
~
Pnnled 11/1o97 2.37.34 PM Page 1 of 2 w
w.3, 9
rr
.,-e y
+w
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0605 M** tone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report O
O
. _..,. ~
RC Chmn: Sapi,AnandK n
g Date:
SL Cweenents:
l' I
i l
Printed 11/1097 2.374 PM Page 2 of 2
uheast utilities ICAVP DR No. t '-MP3 0614 uisistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAUD bytew Elonent: System Degn PotenM Opermy leeue W
N
@ yes Diectopency Type: Test Repremente O No SysterWProcese: HVX NRC Signiacance levet: 3 Date FAKee to Nu:
Date Published: 11/1197
~
D*ct*Pency: Containment Enclosure Building Negative Pressure onuiption: During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) a discrepancy in the negative pressure required to be maintained in the Auxiliary Building at elevation 24'-6" was identified.
SER Section 6.2.3 states that the capacity of the SLCRS is sufficient to reduce and maintain a pressure of 0.25 in. water gauge throughout the enclosure bulluing and contiguous buildings within 1 min after the accident, assuming wind velocity of 22 mph.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.3 states that the negative pressure is measured at Auxiliary Building 24-6 elevation and maintained per Technical Specifications at greater than or equal to 0.4 inches water gauge after a wsign accident (DBA). The 0.4 inch water gauge (iwg) negative pressure is measured at the Auxiliary Building 24-6 elevation in order to ensure a.1egative pressure in all areas inside the secondary containment bour.dary under most onsite meteorological conditions.
Drawing EM 2E 12 shows the high point of the containment structure enclosure as elevation 186' 2 3/4".
Calculation 92-071339M3 Rev. O and change number 001 determine correction factors to account for the difference in oressure at the tust location, elevation 112*-0" (top of SLCRS suction ductwork) and elevation 186' 2 3/4" (top of enclosure l
building) caused by differences in air temperature inside and outside the containment enciesure building. The 0.4 iwg negative differential pressure in FSAR Section 6.2.3.3 is the differential pressure at elevation 24'-6" needed inorder to maintain a 0.25 iwg negative differential pressure at elevation 112'-0* with O'F outside air temperature and 50'F containment enclosure building temperature. To maintain a 0.25 iwg negative differential pressure at the top of the containment enclosure building at these temperatures a 0.51 iwg negative differential pressure is needed at elevation 24'-6".
l The calculation also contains a table that provides the required i
negative differential pressure at elevation 24'-6" for various l
Indoor and outdoor air temperatures. For cases with the indoor i
air temperature lower than the outdoor air temperature, the required test differential pressure at elevation 24'-6" is less than -
0.25 iwg which does not meet the requirement that all areas are maintained at a -0.25 iwp dif'erential pressure.
Printed 11/1097 2Ao:18 PM Page 1 of 2 7
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34614 milistone Unk 3 Ulscrepancy Report Th i calculation does not address the effect of wind on the pret sure distribution around the containment enclosure bu iding.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Stod,M.D, y
Q g
10/1747 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
" '8 7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g
O O
11697 mc Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
11/7/87 Dele:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by Nu7 Q Yes (9) No Noen D6screpent Condulon U Yes
- 19) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date MW: M VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt; Schopfer, Oon K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Conenents:
I i
i Printed 11/1G97 2426 PM Page 2 of 2 L
Northeast LElities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0615 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revnew Group: System DR VALID Rev6ew Element: System Design p
D6ecipline: Mechartet D s4gn Ow D6ecrepancy Type: Cslousehon No SystenVProcess: QSs NRC Sigt meance level: 3 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 DiecreParEy: Design Pipeline Temperature in Line List and Calculation P(R)-
1171 0
w on: A calculation is required to determine the basis of the QSS design temperatures provided in the QSS line list.
Calculation US(B) 354 Rev. O computes the worst-case temperature transient for QSS piping inside containment (US(B)-
352. Rev. O and CCN 1 determined that the design basis LOCA would produce higher piping temperatures in containment than the design basis MSLB). The maximum piping temperature in US(B) 354 is approximately 240F. The piping lir a list indicates that the design s.mperature for QSS piping in t,ontainment is 150F. The line list should be changed to indicate a desi;n temperature of 260F for QSS lines in containment: 3-OSS-012-25,012 29,012 41,012-43,010-30,008-42,008-42,008-44, 006-45,750-40, ad 750-53 (This would be la accordance with NU Memo ES-SD-96-094, Rev.1, dated 812-96).
Calculation P(R) 1171, Rev.1 determines that the maximum QSS operating temperature is 98F. Calculation SDP-QSS-0135BM3, Rev. 6 provides input for the QSS piping stress analysis. Neither of these calculations provide guidance on what design temperatures should be identifled in the QSS line list (which states that the QSS piping design temperatures are as much as 150F), A calculation should be performed which establ,*hes the basis for the design temperatures in the line list for QSS piping outside containment.
Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: Wakeland, J. F.
O O
O 10/2097 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/1/g7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
111697 "tr/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O_
Date:
INVAL10:
Date:
REtoLUTION:
Previously identined by Nut O Yes iGi No Non 06screpent Condat6on O Yes @ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Printed 11/1097 2 42 s4 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities i
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0615 milistone unit 3
' Discrepancy Report O
O O
. -. ~ ' '
Date:
SL Cor/. nones:
I 4
Printed 11/1097 2:4300 PM P
2W 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0623 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report-Review Group: system DR VALD -
Review Element: system Design p,,g my,,
Diecipline: N Dwign Q y,,
E-
- cy Type: Calouishon g
SystemProcese: RSS NRC S&gnmcence levet: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/13/97 Dinero' ecy: G#ulation US(B) 353 Daci 'd On: T e g:'uose of Calculation US(BF353, Rev. O is to calculate tha a 41tainmed recirculation spray system (RSS) piping temperature trcnsients following a set of potentially limiting design basis LOCA scer.arios. Tlee calculated piping temperature transients are then to be used in the pipe stress analysis and support load calculations.
One discrepancy was identified in Calculation US(B)-353; The RSS average spray flow rata during the pipe fill is 4027.5 gpm as shown on page 18 of US(B)-353. This average flow rate of 4027.5 gpm is based on Reference 2 of Calculation US(B)-
353 (Calculation US(B)-270, Rev. 4). However, the data used to determine the average spray flow rate has been revised with Revision 5 of Calculation US(B)-270.
The impact of the average spray flow rate based on Revision 5/ latest of Calculation US(B)-270 should be evaluated.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland J. F.
G O
O 10/30/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
10/3i/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
11/5/S7 IRc Chmn: Singh, Anand K S
O O
11/7/S7 Date:
i INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION
- Prev 6ously identified by NU7 Q Yee @ No Non Discrepent Condition Q Yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O G
Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 11/10/97 2.43 43 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilmes ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4626 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem -
DR VAUD Review Element: Syelem DeeJgn g
Discipune: Mechanical Design O Ya Diecrepancy Type: Calculaten f9) No SystenWProcess: RsS
~
NRC signiacance level: 3 p ae faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 D impancy: Calculation US(B)-354
==
Description:==
The purpose of Calculation US(B)-354, Rev. O is to calculate the quench spray system (OSS) piping temperature transients followireg a set of potentially limiting design basis LOCA scenarios. The calculated piping temperature transients are then to be used in the pipe stress analysis and support load calculations.
l Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B)-354.
- 1. The quench spray flow rates tabulated on page 16 of US(B)-
354 are based on Reference 1 of Calculation US(B)-354 (Calculation US(B) 225, Rev. 5). However, the time dependent l
spray flow rates have been revised with Revision 6 of Calculation US(B)-225.
- 2. The containment pressure for scenario P02 at time 25.0 l
l seconds (page 14 of US(B)-354) is incorrectly listed as 35.97 psia. The correct pressure from Referer.ce 9 (Calculation US(B)-
352, Rev, page 24)is 38.02 psia. The value of 35.07 psia is j
listed in the input echo for scenario P02 (Appendix 1, pages 55 l
and 56 of US(B)-354). However, the difference of 2.05 psiis not expected to significantly affect the results.
The impact of the revised spray flow rates based on Revision 6 of Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland, J. F.
O O
O incoS7 l
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
O O
1 0'31/97 l
VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
1/SS7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O
O O
11/7/S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously idenufted by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent condition U Yes I No Review AccagwaNa Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K DateL i
Pnnted 11/10S7 2:44 29 PM Page 1 of 2 t
/
1 Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34626 utilstone unit 3 -
Discrepancy Report SL Comments:
}
PrWed 1W V97 2 44 35 PM Page 2 t,f 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0527 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report neview oroup: system DnvAuo Review Element: system Dee'gn Diecipune: Mechah De**"
O vos EN, ry Type: N
@ No SystemProcese: Rss NRC Wence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date PubGehod 11/13S7 Discrepency: Calculation ES-232
==
Description:==
The purpose of calculation ES-2E Rev. 2 is to determine the water elevation on the containmer.4 floor for various water volumes. The water on the containment floor is the resuK of a postulated design basis accident (DBA). The water elevations are calculated by incrementally determining the volume of the various shapes / geometry's which make up the containment floor and subtracting the corresponding volumes due to obstructions (tanks, equipment, etc.) on the floor.
Six discrepancies were identified in Calculation ES-232:
are actually 14" reduced to 12", not 16" (Drawing EV-1D).
- 2. The calculated volume for the four suction lines from the i
containment sump to the inlet to the RSS pumps is given on page 23 as 84.7 gallons. Based on drawings EP-79E, EP-79K and EP-79N, approximately 160 feet total of 12" diameter pipe for the four suction lines would result in a volume of approximately 125 ft3 or 935 gallons.
1
- 3. The numbers used in various mathematical operations do not agree with the results. On page 6 of calculation ES-232, the numbers used for calculating the cylindrical annulus work out to 938 gallons not 860 gallons. The value of 860 gallons can be judged acceptable since the projected area of the pillar in the sump is actuaily greater than 0.5 ft2 and the sump height is actually less than 1.0 ft based on drawing EC-50A, Rev. 8.
However, on page 10 of calculation ES-237., the equation reads:
Vol. = 860 gal (.5"/12) = 39.1 gallons. This equation would actually result in a volume of 35.8 gallons. The volume of 39.1 gallons is based on: 938 gal (.5/12) = 39.1. However, the summations on pages 24 and 26 of ES-232 are based on the volume of 860 gallons.
- 4. On page 10 of ES-232: Al = 109.4 ft2, however the equation would result in Al being equal to 100.9 ft2.
- 5. The result of the mathematical operation to determine Li (page 8) is incorrect. The result should be 6.98 ft not 7.73 ft.
- 6. The area cf the sloping region between radiallengths 43.6' and 51.8'(page 10) minus the area of the Si accumulator tank is calculated to be 86 ft2. The numbers liste(1 would result in an area of 99.6 ft2. The intermediate volume of this region based on an average depth of.25" (1.27 ft3) (page 10) is incorrect.
Pnnted 11/10/97 2:412 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3-0627 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report However, the cunversion to Galle,,,,, Dased on an area of 86 ft2 (13.4 gallons) is correct.
The impact of the above discrepancies should be evaluated. The water elevation corresponding to the minimum sump level when the RSS pumps are operating affects the approach velocities to the sump screens (Calculation US(B)-303, US(B) 326) which in tum affect the ava!!able Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) for the RSS pumps (Calculation US(B)-316, US(B)-326).
Review vesid invand Needed Date initiator: Waketend, J. F.
O O
O tor:SS7 VT Leet Nort, Anthony A O
O O
'o/3'S7 VT Mgr Ahopfer, Don K 8
O O
58VS7 IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K 8
O O
11/787 Dele:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU? O Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
VT Leed: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 11/10/97 2 45:20 PM PeDe 2 of 2
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0630 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oraup: sywom DR vAuD
"'** """nt: symern Design
,,,,,,,,,op,,,,,,,,,,,
j Discipune: i/scherocal omen O va Diecrepancy Tyl. ; P=hd=han (g g SystenVProcen: QSS NRC Sign 4Reence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished: 11/1397 Discrepancy: Calculation 501P
==
Description:==
Calculation 501P (Rev. 0) determines if the temperature in the RWST will drop below 40 'F during the winter.
The heat loss from the cylindrical section of the RWST has a math error. The calculation determines the heat loss to be 6.886 times the temperature difference. The coefficient should be 688.6. The correct value was transposed to the total heat loss equation.
Calculation 422P (Reference 1) should be superseded.
Reference i should be changed to Calculation P(R)-931.
The basis for choosing the initial temperatures is not given. The RWST fluid temperature is maintained between 40 'F and 50
'F. However, none of the design basis materialIndicates a basis for 46 'F.
Review Vaud invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel.D.
O O
O 50'1s/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
10'31/87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G
O O
'di/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
$$/7/87 Date:
INVADO:
l l
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date ing., g VT bed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Dele:
SL ComnMs:
Printed 11/10/97 2-46.26 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities -
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0638 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft Review oroup: System DR VAUD Review Element: Syelem Design g,,y Discipline: M Desig" O vos Diecrepancy Type: Celcuishon
@ No SystemProcess: OSs NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 Discrepency: Calculation P(R)-1096
==
Description:==
Calculation P(R) 1096 (Rev. 0; CCNs 1 & 2) is the hydraulic model of the QSS System. The calculation determines the inction loss for the piping and fittings. The friction loss equations and coefficients come mostly from Crane Technical Paper #410
- (Crane).
The calculation assumes that the 90' elbows are all short radius.
According to Crane the r/d is 1.5 resulting in an llD of 14. [Page 5]
The loss coe Ificient for reducers references an equation from Crane. The reducer sizo is given, but not the length or the included angle. The result cannot be verified. [Pg 8,10]
A total K for the line and fittings is shown in the calculation. The head loss computed used the K for the line and excluded the K for the fittings. [Pg 10,12]
The head loss of 9.8' for Line 3 at 1500 gpm is incorrect. Using the tiquation on Page 8, the result is 10.03. [Pg 13]
The head loss at 2900 gpm for the lower spray header is incorrect. The equation and the input data are not shown here, but it appears the pipe diameter used was 16*. The lower spray is a 12' pipe. [Pg 21]
Losses associated with the Containment isolation check valves were not included in the calculation. These are an additional one foot of head loss.
The calculation of head loss, h, in flow elements FE32 t.ses the dP instmment range of 400 inches of water at 5000 gpm. Flow elements have some recoverable losses. Computing the loss based on a beta of 0.66, K = 5.2 and h = 10.4 ft.
In Loop A, there are 4 - 90' elbows in Line 3 and 3 - 90' elbows in Line 2. The calculation includes 3 elbows in Line 3 and 2 elbows in Line 2. [Pg 7]
These items do not change the conclusion of the calculation.
Any one item is insignificant as is the combination of all the items.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel, D.
O O
O
$0/1857 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
$o'31/97 Pnnted 11n047 247:00 Pg1 mgr: wrer, von n pggpy6f 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0538 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q Q
11Mi/97 RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
iil787 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 O Yes (G) No Non Diacropont Condition O Yes (9') No Review
- fid =* M Acceptable Needed Dete gg,gg g b
VT Lead: Neri, Ant'my A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Dei.:
sL Comments:
Prtneed 11/1097 2A7.06 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0541 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: Syulem DR VAUD Reylew Element: Syelem Design y
gy%
Discipline: Mechanical Doongn O Y=
M,7 Type: Calculation gg SystemProcess: N/A NRC significance levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 D6screpancy: Calculation US(B)-350 Ducription: Calculation US(B)-350 (Rev.1; CCN 1) determines the requirements for the Tri-Sodium Phosphate (TSP) baskets to be installed in containment. The TSP is installed to provide sump pH control. This is determined using the RSS and QSS Sprays.
In calculating the sump pH, the flow rates from the QSS and Si systems to the containment sump are determined to be 29,654.9 liters per minute (Page 15) in calculating the sump water volume at RSS initiation, the equation used 29.694.9 liters per minute (Page 16). This results in overestimating the volume by 40 gallons.
During a LOCA, Hydrochloric Acid is produced from cable insulation. Appendix 1 contains all the cable information. of the Appendix is a summary of the data from Attachments 3 and 4. Attachment 1 Indicates the length of cables NHQ 52 and Nil-9 is 2600' and 365', respectively.
Summing the lengths listed in Attachment 4, the totals should be 2700' and 375', respectively. The quantity difference is inconsequential. also contains the percent of non-metal material for each cable. This information could not be verified. Attachments 3 and 4 Indicate the cable type, cross-sectional area and length.
The individual conductor area was not included in the Appendix.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date init6etor: Langel,D.
O O
O 10/1SS7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B
O O
10/31/S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K B
O O
11/5/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B
O O
1 /7/S7 Date:
INVAUD:
wa Dele:
RESOLUTION Previously identified by NU7 Q Yee (9) No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes ($ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date in h W VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: smgh, Anand K t
Date:
Pnnled 11/1097 2-47A0 PM Page 1 of 2 l
i l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0541 minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report sL Comnents:
)
l
[
Printed 11/1M7 2 47A6 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP3 0660 mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Pev6ew Element: system Design p
g D acipline: Mechanical Design O vee Discrepency Type: Mm (9)No SystemProcese: Rss NRC S4pnWicance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Ahliehed: 11/13/97 Discrepency: Calculation ES-234 Deecription: Calculation ES 234, Rev. O, determines the sump water level as a function of time. The calculation assumes that the time delay in starting RSS pumps after receipt of a CDA signalis 240 seconds. The calculation evaluates the adequacy of the available NPSH. Calculation ES-234 concludes that a 240 second time delay is inst.fficient to assure an adequate sump water supply to the RSS pumps, and that a level switch should be used to actuate RSS.
There are two discrepancies in Calculation ES 234:
- 1. RSS pumps are started soley from a CDA signal (LSK 11.A, Rev. 9, LSK 2711.B. Rev. 9, LSK 2711.J Rev. 9, and l
LSK 2711.K, Rev. 9).
- 2. A and B RSS pump actuation is delayed for 650 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal and C and D RSS pump actuation is delayed for 660 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal (LSK 9.4A, Rev. 0).
Calculation US(B)-326, Rev.1 addresses the issue of sump water supply for an RSS start ilmer setting of 11 minutes.
Therefore, Calculation ES-234 should be voided.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Waketend J.F.
O O
O 10/31/87 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B
O O
10/31/S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K O
O O
"'SS7 IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K Q
Q Q
11/7/97 Date:
IW AUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined try NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Co.ulition O Yes (a0 No Revies ce c
d Me initiator: (none) b VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopter, Don K IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K Date:
Pnnled 11/10/97 2474PW
~
Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP.
DR No. DR MP3-0660 mone unn a Discrepancy Report i
i PrWed 11/10@7 2.48.30 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast UtilMies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0642 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft Review Group: System DR VALID Review Element: Sye'em Design p
g D6scipline: Elecincel DookJn O Ya Discrepency Type: Chm
@ No systenerocese: DGX NRC significance level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/1397 D6.crepancy: Ampacity of Emergency Diesel Generator Cables in Duct Bank (Calculation PA91019-556E3, Revision 1)
D**CflPtion: Calculation PA91-019-556E3, Revision 1 calculates the ampacity of several cables that are installed in underground duct banks.
The review of this calculation was limited to Duct 915, which caries cables from the emergency diesel generator, The data for the cable at Row 1, Column 1 of Duct 015 is shown as a 3 conductor feed in the input data table on page A10-2, but as a single conductor feed in the computer run on page 810.
Since there is no retum feeder shown, the feeder is logically 3 conductor The effact of including the missing two cables will be to raise the temperature of the cables in the duct bank. Also, the conductor resistance is listed as 52.5 microchm per foot on page A10-2, but is shown as 52.4 micoohm per foot on page B10.
However, this food is very lightly loaded, so the additional heating will be slight.
The value of cable insulation thermal resistance for the 2000 MCM cable is not consistent between page A10 2 and page B10.
The value on page 810 is lower. A reference should be given for this item.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Bloethe, G. Wilhem O
Q Q
1001/97 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B
Q Q
1001/97 VT Mge: Schopfer Den K 8
O O
15'8/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
15/7'S7 Date:
INV'. LID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU? () Yes @ No Non DMcrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date b
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A
]
b J
VT Vgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singi. Anand K Date:
)
- 84. Conwnents:
Printed 11/1397 2 40 06 PM Page 1 of 1
Noetheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0666 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Review Element: System Desi9n wwpq w Diecipline: Mechanical Desig" Ow Diecropency Type: Caict,% hon gg SysterWProcese: Rss
~
NRC SWence lowl:4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 11/13/97 D6screpency: Calculation US(BF270 Descripuon: The purpose of Calculation US(B) 270, Rev. 5 is to determine the RSS fill time for a design basis LOCA.
Four discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B)-270:
- 1. The sump level is assumed to be 168 ft below the upper RSS spray header (which is El.145'-3") when the RSS pumps start [p.
7). This would make the sump level El. -22* 9", or 4'-53/4" above the bottom of the sump (which is at El. -27'-23/4"). No containment flood calculation or other source is cited as the basis for this input. Calculation US(B)-326, Rev.1 should be cited for this input.
l
- 2. The loss coefficient for fittings in the RSS A loop pump suction line is 1.365 in US(B)-245, Rev. 0/CCN 1, but the number transferred to this calculation is 1.665 (p.13). Even though this will have a small effect on the calculated fill time, the calculation should be corrected.
- 3. The head loss accross the annubar flowmeter is taken to be equal to the [p.12l the instrument span of 147 inches of water at 5000 gpm. Flowmeter instrument spans are much greater than the unrecovered head loss. Even though this will have a small effect on the calculated fill time, the calculation should be corrected.
- 4. The lir,e lengths and fitting loss coefficients for the RSS A Loop pump discharge line are broken-dowr. into two piping segments in this calculation, while the calculation from which they corria, US(B) 245. Rev. C/CCN 1 provides this data only as e total [p.13). The basis for these quantities is not shown. Even though this will have a small effect on the calculated fill time, the calculation should be corrected.
Review Veild invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland.J F.
O O
O tor 28/97 VT Lesa: Nort, Anthony A G
O O
10/31/87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G
O O
15 5/S7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K G
O O
it/7/S7 Date:
l>eVAUD:
Date:
REsOLUTX)N:
isy idii
' Vw
" ' iw iwn im% _; c.-A,
' ' V" b2 P
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0666 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
-===sa.y=r v1 o a.# -
v 1...-
l Review AccepteNo M AcceptaWe Needed Date O
O O
MWor: W)
VT Leed: Nwi, Anthony A O
O-O VT Mgr: Schapter. Don K 0
0 0
me chmn: s m An.nox 0
0 Date:
St.Conenents:
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0648 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neview aroup: symem DnyAuD Review Element: System Design g
gy Dinipsine: usetwnicel De*"
O Yes Discrepancy Type: Cmeulshon
@ No Symemerocom: oss NRC Signincance sevel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsehed: 11/1197 Discrepancy: Calculation P(R)-1171
==
Description:==
The purpose of calculation P(R)-1171, Rev.1 is to determine QSS operating pressures and temperatures for QSS stress data package SDP-QSS-01358M3, Rev. 6 which are to be used in the piping stress analysis.
One discrepancy was identified in P(R)-1171:
The minimum elevation of Lines 3-QSS-012-41 and 3-OSS-008-42 is 101'- 6*. This results in a distance below 3OSS*P3A of -
76'- 0", and an operating pressure of 96 psig (not the 75.3 and 68.7 psig pressures provided in the calculation). The minimum elevation of Line 3-QSS-012 43 is 98'- 6". This results in a distance below 3QSS'P3B of-73' 0", and an operating pressure of 98 psig (not the 75.7 psig pressure provided in the calculation). It is the engineering judgment of the reviewer that underestimating operating pressure by 22 28 psig results in negligible errors in computing stresses in standard wall piping.
Review valid invand Needed Date innistor: Wakeland,J.F.
G 0
0 50/31/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A g
]
Q 10/31/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O
O O
55/SS7 w.' chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
5'7/S7 Dme:
INVAUD:
Dele:
PESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NU? O Yee (9) No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes (n) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K Date:
SL Conimente:
l Printed 11/10@7 2.50'.29 PM Page 1 of 1 I
i l
Northeast Utiliti.e ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0610 i
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR INVAUD Review Element: system Design g
Diecipilne: Eletrial Dmi'"
O Ya M ; xy Type: Cebulaton gg System?rocess: DOX NRC Sigrg'Inconce level: 4 Date faxed ta NU:
Date Putd6 hed: 11/1397
~
Discrepency: Overvoltage Relays for Unit Substation Ground Fault Detection (Calculation 840CB)
Deecription: Calculation 840CB selects and sets...,rvoltage relays that are used to detect ground facts on the ungrounded Class 1E 480 volt unit substations. General Electric type IAV4.1D relays connected to a set of 480-120 voit wye primary, broken celta secondary voltage transformers are used to perform this function.
The calculatior, gives a test value for verifying the relay oporating time as 2.45 seconds at 64 volts (4 times the pick up value). However, General Electric Bulletins GEK45404C and GEH 1814B give the relay operating time as 2.82 seconds at this applied voltage. Since the test settings are used for field calibration of the relays, they may operate shghtly faster than intendod.
l The lAV 51D relays are used for alarming only. Therefore, voltage due to a ground fault col d be applied to a relay for an d
extended period of time. The continuous voltage rating of the relay is 199 volts, but the applied voltage durirw) a ground fault is j
about 208 vol's. This was a common application at the time j
Millstone 3 was designed, but it would be considered a raarginal j
application today. This should be considered should replacement l
of one of these relays be required.
Review Velid invalid Needed Date l
initietor: 840ethe, G. Will6am
]
Q 11/SS7 VT t. sed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
1/10S7 VT Mer: schopfer. Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Date:
11/8/97 l
l INVAUD: These relays are used for alarming only. Therefore, there is no I
chance that coordination will be lost with other relays due to the l
discrepancy in the test value, and the only consequence will be a very slight increase in the probability of receiving a false alarm due to a transient condition.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NU7 O Yee @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition O Yee @ No Rcview initiator: (none)
VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A -
VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O
rJ G
Prtnted 11/1047 2.51:41 PM "" ~ " " "' "" ~ "
Page 1 of 2
r.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0410 Milwone unu 3 Discrepancy Report m...... _. ~~~'
O O
O Date:
SL Commones:
I Printed 11/1097 2:51:40PM Page 2 d 2
.