Text

Forwards thirty-three Discrepancy Repts (Drs) Identified During Review Activities for Independent Corrective Action Verification Program.Twelve Drs Which Have Been Determined to Be Invalid,Listed
	ML20198S918
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	11/12/1997
From:	Schopfer D; SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	9583-100, NUDOCS 9711140161
	Download: ML20198S918 (93)
	v • d • e

- .. _ . . . . . . . _ ._.

[ -

. n (pA I Sergerd.[4k Luncly "c

/

Den K. schopter -

r 1 E-2I60$

- November 12,1997 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United Ststes Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washin3toi., D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following thirty-three (33) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified durmg j

our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI MP3-01.

DR No. DR-MP3-0084 DR No. DR-MP3-0464 DR No. DR-MP3-0596 DR No. DR-MP3-0275 DR No. DR-MP3-0475 DR No. DR-MP3-0603 DR No. DR-MP3-0302 DR No. DR-MP3-0523 DR No. DR-MP3-0604 DR No. DR-MP3-0306 DR No. DR-MP3-0528 DR No. DR-MP3-06%

DR No. DR-MP3-0325 DR No. DR-MP3-0542 DR No. DR-MP3-0607 DR No. DR-MP3-0378 DR No. DR-MP3-0552 DR No. DR-MP3-0614 DR No. DR-MP3-0428 DR No. DR-MP3-0571 DR No. DR-MP3-0616 DR No. DR-MP3-0436 DR No. DR-MP3-0573 DR No. DR-MP3-0633 DR No. DR-MP3-0446 DR No. DR-MP3-0574 DR No. DR-MP3-0634

~

DR No. DR-MP3-0449 DR No. DR-MP3-0575 DR No. DR-MP3-0639 DR No. DR-MP3-0456 DR No. DR-MP3-0594 DR No. DR-MP3-0651

/

I have also enclosed the following twelve (12) DRs that have been determined invalid. No j .

action is required from Northeast Utilities for these twelve DRs. The basis for their invalid determination is included on the document.

DR No. DR-MP3-0282 DR No. DR-MP3-0465 DR No. DR-MP3-0531 g g/

DR No. DR-MP3-0283 DR No. DR-MP3-0284 DR No. DR-MP3-0532 DRNo DR-MP3-0399 DR No. DR-MP3-0533 ,

, DR No. DR-MP3-0417 DR No. DR-MP3-0536 )

DR No. DR-MP3-0431 DR No. DR-MP3-0540 fok" N [ M PDR P

!2 i (i i. .

. ~ * 'A G .. J 55 East Montce Street Chicago.11. 60603-5780 USA

312-269-2000

\

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 12,1997 l Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 ,

i I

I have also enclosed the following five (5) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.

DR No. DR-MP3-0138 DR No. DR-MP3-0152 DR No. DR-MP3-0208

~ DR No. DR-MP3-0249 DR No. DR-MP3 0408 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

Yours very truly, 11 % ~

D. K. Sc opfer Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enshsures Copies:

E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (l!!) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU miavpbvr\97mrIi12-a as

~l-

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0084 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Revlow Group: System DR VALID Potential Operebility issue Diecipline: Mecherwcel Deslo" Discrepency Type: Drevnng Ow (5) No

~

SystemProcess: Qss NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 Discrepency: Interlock discrepancy between P&lDs Ehn-104A, EM 112A, & EM-113A. and FSAR Section 7.3.1.1.5 Descripinon: The suction valves to the charging pumps from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) are motor operated valves 3CHS*112D and 3CHS*112E. These valves are shown on P&lDs EM 104A Revision 26, EM-112A Revision 25, and EM-113A Revision 14.

Ac, cording to FSAR Section 7.3.1.1.5, valves 3CHS*112D and 3CHS*112E shall be interlocked to open on a safety injection signal (SIS). However, these P&lDs show no interlocks between SIS and these valves. Furthermore, the P&lDs shows no controls for 3CHS*112D and 3CHS*112E.

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initletor: Feingold, D. J- B O O 11/4S7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A B O O 11S7 l

VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 8 O O 1'5/S7 IRC Chmn: S%gh, Anand K O O O 11/1i/S7 l Date:

INVAllO:

Date:

REs0LUTION:

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (5 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes '9) No

! Review initiator. Feingold, D. J.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfy, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 11/12/97 007.40 PM Page 1 of 1

l Northeast Uti!Mies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0275 i Millstone Unit 3 Dicerepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID i

Potential Operatety issue Diecip46ne: I & C Doogpn Diacrepancy Type: Calculaten Om M No

~

SystemPrr. cess: SWP NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1s97 Discrepancy: Calculation SP 3SWP 16 data input & various design input discrep9ncies.

Description:

Calculation SP-3SWP-16, Rev.1, is performed to determine setpoints for switches 3SWP-PS26A,B and 3SWP*PS27A,B monitoring service water header pressure. Safety functions performed by these switches are:

1. Shutdown circulating water pump strainer motors 3SWP-STR2A,B, when the service water header pressure is below setpoint.

2. Start standby service water pump when associated train header pressure drops to the low-low setpoint.

Page 6 identifies pressures at node 1 for various plant conditions based on calculation 12179-P(T)1092 (reference 8). This calculation has been superseded by calculation 90-069-1116 M3.

Scenarios modeled in this new calculation predict pressures in the main service water header at nodes 1 & 2 that are less than 28psig. The results of the calculation 90-069-1116 M3 have not been incorporated in to the setpoint calculation. Nodal comparison problem between the old calculation and the new calcualtion is being addressed by the discrepancy report DR-MP3-0396. Based on this fact acceptability of the diagram '

Range of Possible Activation' on page 11 of the calculaticn can not be verified.

Page 7, item A.2 states that the setpoint calculation is performed per the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.105. However, the effects of uncertainties such as ' Calibration uncertainty *, ' Measuring &

Test Equipment Error,' Instrument Installation Error, etc., as required by the Reg. Guide and NUSCo procedure NETM-43, titled ' Preparation of Category i Instrument Scipoint Calculation with Respect to the Requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.105', are not included in the calculation.

Page 10, item F, identifies Tech. Spec as one of the components for the instrument setpoint calculation for the switches. A review of the tech, spec., Tech. Spec. bases, and Tech. Spec. requirements documents did not show this setpoint to be a Tech. Spec. limit value.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Hodia. R. O O O 117S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g Q [ 11/7S 7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 15/7S 7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O 11/15 S 7 Pnnted 11/12S71:08.44 PM Page 1 of 2

Nortbeast Utiinles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0275 )

Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report l Oste:

INVAUD: l l

I Date:

RESOLU110N:

l Prev 6ously identined by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condellon O Yes (G) No Review

^#* *

initiator: Hinois, R.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K ,

Date:

$L Comments:

Printed 11/1297120 50 PM Page 2 of 2

1 l

Northeast Utilhies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0302 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

Moview Group: system DR VALSO 0

Discipline: 1 & C Desig" Potential OperatWin /lasue Diecrepancy Type: Chm Om System / Process: Rss @)

~ No NRC significance level: 4 Data faxed to NU:

Date Putdished: 11/1597 Descrepency: Calcualtion NSP 101 RSS data discrepancies D**CriPuon: The purpose of calculation NSP 101 RSS, Rev. O is to provide setpoints for opening the Containment Recirculation Pump min flow recirculation valves 3RSS*MOV38A, B for low flow conditions (especially during clart-up and shutdown conditions) and closing once normal pump flows are established.

There were several discrepanc%s identified during the review of the calculation. Following is a listing of these findings:

1. Per page 8 of the calculation the transmitter errors are assumed to be similar to f.1odel 11538. Per specification no.

2472.510-662, revision 0 data ;heet (page no 2-55) for 3RSS*FT38A/388, model no. is 1154HP4RC. Hence, specifications figures for model 1154, series H dated April,89 were reviewed. The following is a list of discrepancies between the calculation and the Rosemount manual:

Type of error Calc data Rosemount data Supply voltage 0.15% of span < 0.005% of effect error out put span / volt Operating 2.5% of URL + Max LOCA influence of 0.5% of span Temp-420'F temp during +/-(1% URL +

accident 1% SP) Range code 4-8.

Operating 1.5% of URL 1(0.2% URL +

influence + 1% of span 0.2% SP) of accident radiation Drift error 0.25% of URL Post DBE t 2.5%

2. The converter errors and bistable errors appear on page 9.Per reference 6 page 3-4L, the converter accuracy is 10.25% of output span. Attachment 3 of the calculation identifies it as 0.5% s of span. Per Reference 6 page 3-9A, there is a voltage to voltage converter in the loop. Calculation does not account for this converter. Per page 3-10J of reference 6 the bistable accuracy is 12% of input span. The calculation identifies it as 11% of span per attachment 4. Based upon these observations calculated accuracy verification could not be performed.

Review Printed 11/12,971:10.51 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0302 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report _

Vasid invalid Pkeded Data initiator: Hrde. R. O O 11 5 S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g 11597 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K

@ Q 11/7/97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K -

Q 11/11/97 Dele:

INVALID:

L4:

RESOLUTION.

Pwtously identifled by NU? O Yes (8) No Non Discrepent Condition U Yes t*) No Review

, Acceptable Not Acceptab4e Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K ,

IRC Clwnn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

l l

l i

Printed 11/12971:10.58 PM P 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0306 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Potential stety teous Discrepancy Type: Component Date Systemerocese: RSS (s) No NRC Sign 6Acence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Discrepancy: Spec 2214.802 044-020, drwg 2214.802-044-020, & PDDS conflict w/ respect to RSS pump motor speed, Descriptkm: The plant computer data base, PDDS, shows the containment recirculation pump design for motor speed to be 1780 rpm.

Vendor drawing 2214.802-044-020 Revision C is in agreement, However the pump design specification 2214.802-044 through Addendum 5 shows the pump motor speed to be 1200 rpm.

Revk.y Veind invalid Neooed Date initietor: Feingold, D. J.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q C 11/1o 97 O O O 1/10'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q Q 11/1o 9 7 IRC Chmn: Singh, A,.and K G O O ' 5/1'/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identined by NU7 O Yee @ No Non Discrepent Cond8 tion U Yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Con 1mente:

Printed 11/12/971:11:31 PM Pege 1 of 1

i

\

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0326

{

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1 Review Group: system DR VAUD piecipaine: m De**" Peterwiel Operetnisty issue Diacropency Type: Component Dele O vos Systerr#rocess: RSS @) No

~

NRC SigrWficance level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:

l Date Putdished: 11/1597 Diecrepency: Inconsistencies with FSAR Table 6.3-1 motor operated valve closure time requirements.

Description:

ltem 1 FSAR Table 6.3-1 requires eight inch and smalle* motor operated valves to open or close withi" 10 seconds.

Containment recirculation system motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV38A,B are fourinch valves. Containment recirculation system components are described in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core cooling system.

Containment Recirculation System Design Basis Summary Document, (DBSD), 3DBS-NSS-003 Revision 0, Section 12.5.3.3, requires valves 3RSS*MOV38A,8 to open or close within 60 seconds. The basis for the DBSD requirement is calculation NM-027 Revision 2. The calculation states that there is no specific stroke time basis for valves 3RSS*MOV38A,B, but for conservatism,60 seconds is recommended from the ANSI N271 1976 guidelines identified in Regulatory Guide 1.141 for containment isolation.

Valve design specification 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 shows valves 3RSS*MOV38A,8 to have a design open or close time of twenty seconds orless.

Item 2 FSAR Table 6.3-1 requires eight inch and smaller motor operated valves to open or close within 10 seconds.

Containment recirculation system motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV8837A,B and 3RSS*MOV8838A,8 are eight inch valves. Containment recirculation system components are described in FSAR Section 6.3 to be included in the emergency core cooling system.

Containment Recirculation System Design Basis Surnmary Document, (DBSD),3DBS-NSS-003 Revision 0, Section 12.5.5.2, requires valves 3RSS*MOV8837A,B and 3RSS*MOV8838A,B to stroke within 60 secor:ds. The basis for the DBSD requirement is calculation NM-027 Revision 2. The calculation states that 60 seconds is the required stroke time from the ANSI N271 1976 guidelines identified in Regulatory Guide 1.141 for containment isolation.. The DBSD does not infer that the 60 second stroke time includes a sequence of events such as diesel loading.

Pdnted 11/12/971:12.07 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0326 Millstone Linit 3 Discrepancy Report Valve design specification 2282.050 676 through Revision 1 shows Valves 3RSS*MOV38A B to have a design open or Close time of twenty seconds or less.

Revien Valid invand Needed Date instastor: Feingold, D. J. g Q Q 10/30,97 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 10/31/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K

@ Q Q 11/S97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $ '11/97 Dese:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTK2d:

Previously identined by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condetion O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date inm: M VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g

Date:

SL Conwnents:

f l

I i

Printed 11/12/971:12.14 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0378 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: system DR VALID PotentialOperabuMy issue Diecipline: Electncal Design Dioctg ancy Type: Compowt Dets Om System /Prtcese: SWP (@) No NRC signincance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15S7 D6ecrepancy: Horsepower and Ampacity Discrepancies for SWP Motor Operated Valves

Description:

A. Calculation 89-094122E3:

In the thermal overload sizing section of Calculation 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O. CCN 4) for 3SWP*MOV115A, the calculation states that the fullload current of 0.60 amperes is otWained from a walkdown reading of the nameplate. A review of the nameplate data (page 25) indicates that the full load current is 0.45 amperes, not 0.60 amperes. The nameplate data should be revised to reflect the latest motor data.

B. Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS):

l The horsepower varies between 0.13 and 0.125 for valves

! 3SWP*MOV24A,3SWP MOV24B,3SWP*MOV24C, and 3SWP*MOV240. In Calculation 89-094121E3 (Rev,0, CCN 2) the motor overload test sheet, undervoltage analysis, and thermal overload heater analysis use 0.125 horsepower but the Reliance motor curve shows 0.13 horsepower. For these same t

l valves, the values in Production Management Maintenance System (PMMS) vary substantially, from 0.125 HP (3SWP*MOV24A) to 125 HP (3SWP*MOV248). Since horsepowe.ris not used in any formulas within the calculation,

! this variance has no impact. Plant Design Data System (PDDS), Specification 2282.400-568 Add. 3 (Rev.1),

Calculation SP M3-EE-342 (Rev.1), Calculation NL-025 (Rev. 3, i CCN 8), Calculation NL-033 (Rev. 3, CCN 1), Calculation NL-l 038 (Rev. 2, CCN 6), Fuse List SP-EE 346 (Rev.1), vendor

! Drawing 2282.400-!68-46 (Rev. B), and One Line Diagram EE-l 1 AE (Rev. 37) show 0.13 HP. These documents should be revised to reflect the actual horsepower value.

l C. Plant Design Data System (PDDS):

1

1. The full load and locked rotor current data in Plant Design Data System (PDDS) for valves 3SWP*MOV?A A 3SWP*MOV248,3SWP*MO'44u, and 3SWP MOV24D does l

not match the values shown on the One-Une Diagram EE 1 AE (Rev. 37), Production Management Maintenance Systera (PMMS), vendor Drawing 2282.400-568-046 (Rev. B), and Specification 2282.400-568 Add. 3 (Rev,1):

PDDS: full load current = 0.55 amps, locked rotor current = 2.6 Prinfed 11/12/971:12.53 PM Page 1 or 3

Northeast Utilities 1CAVP DR No. DR-MP3-C378 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report amps EE.1 AE, vendor, spec., PMMS: fullload current = 0.45 amps EE-1 AE, vendor, PMMS: locked rotor current = 3.15 amps The data shown in PDDS has not been used in calculations.

PDDS should be revised to reflect the actual motor data.

2. The Specification 2362.200-164 Add.1 (Rev. 2) snd Plant Design Data System (PDDS) do not have the same values for horsepower, torque (specification only), full load current (FLC),

and locked rotor current (LRC) as Calculation 89-094121E3 (Rev. O, CCN 2), vendor Drawing 2362.200-164-080 (Rev. B),

One-Line Diagram EE-1 AD (Rev. 26), and Production Management Maintenance System (PMMS) for valves 3SWP'MOV50A and 3SWP*MOV50B. The values are:

Specification - 0.66 HP,10 ft-lbs,2.3 amps FLC,12 amps LRC PDDS 0.66 HP,2.3 amps FLC,12 amps LRC Vendor drawing 1 HP,15 ft lbs,2.8 amps FLC,16 amps LRC One Line - 1 HP Calculation 89-094-121E3 used the values 1 HP,2.8 amps FLC, and 16 amps LRC which provides the most conservative results (i.e., using lower values would not change the results of the calculations). The starting terque value of 15 ft-lbs has not been used in the calculations performed in Calculation 89-094-121E3.

The horsepower shown in the Fuse List SP-EE-346 (Rev.1) is the same as PDDS (0.66). The AC motor evaluation checklist (CCN #1, Pages 26 and 30 of Calculation 89-094-121E3) has not been updated to reflect the 15 foot pound starting torque which is shown on the Reliance motor curve and the vendor drawing (the checklist still shows 5 foot-pounds).

These documents should be revised to reflect the latest motor data.

3. Valves 3SWP*MOV102A,3SWP*MOV1028, 3SWP*MOV102C, and 3SWP*MOV102D were originally procured under Specification 2362.200-164 Add.1 (Rev. 2) but were replaced under Specification SP-ME-584 (Rev. 2). The changes in attributes (i.e., horsepower, torque, and full load and locked rotor currents) were incorporated into Calculation 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4), One Line Diagram EE-1 AE (Rev. 37),

and Production Management Maintenance System (PMMS), but were not incorporated into Plant Design Data System (PDDS),

nor the horsepower into Fuse List SP E-346 (Rev.1). -These dar umente chnold ha rouiced in reflar4 the intnet matar rinto

~ ~ ~

~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~

Printed 11/12/97 L12:58 PM Page 2 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0378 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Calculation SS-094-122E3 includes PDDS in its Attachment 3 (pages 12,16,20, and 24), therefose it does not reflect the latest change in Attachment 3, ahhough it does reflect the latest change in its various analyses (i.e., thermal overload settings, breaker settings and undervoltage).

D. Specifications:

Specifiaation 2282.400-568 Add. 3 (Rev.1) data for locked rotor current for motor operated valves 3SWP*MOV24A, 3SWP*MOV248,3SWP*MOV24C, and 3SWP'MOV24D does not match other documents (Plant Design Data System (PDDS),

Calculation 89-094121E3 (Rev. O, CCN 2), and vendor Drawing 2282.400-568 046 (Rev,8)). The specification value for locked rotor current is 0.40 amperes which is less than, rather than greater that, the full load current which is 0.45 amperes. The value of 0.40 amperes for locked rotor current has not been used in calculations. The specification should be revised to reflect the actual locked rotor current.

Review V/Hd inveild Needed Date initiator: Kended, 0. J. Q Q Q 11 M 7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A 8 O O 15 m 7 VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K B O O 15/6/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K @ Q Q 11/11/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prrylously identihed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condition O Yes @ No Review gg Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT LeeJ: Nort, Anthony A b VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRA Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

I 1

{

Printed 11M2/971:13 02 PM Page 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0428 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAllD Potential Operability issue Diecipline: Mechancel Design 4

D6ecropencv Type: Calculebon SystanVProcess: sWP gg NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Discrepancy: The setpoint for (7) valves could not be venfied in calculation SP-3SWP 29, Rev 0, CCN#1

Description:

Calculation SP-3SWP-29 Rev 0, CCN#1, determines the control range for (8) valves: 3SWP*PV112A1,81, A2, B2 &

3SWP*PV113A1, B1, A2, B2; to be between 170 and 210 psig.The calculation references E&DCR N-ME-02985 and Vendor Manual OIM-144-003A as the basis for the setpoints.

E&DCR N ME 02985 states that the (8) valves required replacement of the freon actuators because the wrong ones were supplied by the manufacturer. Per E&DCR N-ME-02985, the control range for the valves should be between 170 and 210 psig after modifications have been made to the actuators.

E&DCR N-ME 02985 has been stamped " SUPERSEDED" by DCN DM3-S-1009 95 because the modifications had not yet been made to the actuators. DCN DM3-S-1009-95 has also been stamped " SUPERSEDED" and was replaced by DCN DM3-001500-96, which states that (1) flow regulating valve, 3SWP*PV113A1, was in fact modified by the valve manufacturer with the correct actuator. DCN DM3-00-1500-96 also states that DCN DM3-S-1009-95 incorrectly superseded E&DCR N-ME-02985 and therefore re establishes E&DCR N-ME-02985 as the goveming document to determine the control range for the valves which have been modified with the correct actuators.

Based upon the infofmation referenced in this set-point calculation, only (1) valve, 3SWP*PV113A1, has been modified and therefore only this (1) valve has a control range of 170 - 210 psig. Tnere is no referenced documentation to conclude that the modification has been made to the remaining (7) valves. If the modifications to the actuators have not been made per E&DCR N-ME-02985, then the control rcnge has been lacorrectly determined for the remaining (7) valves.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initbatev: Dionne. B. J. 8 O O 10/31/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 1 ' 19 7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q O O 11/t'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K (") D Q 11/11/97 Date:

ItWALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION

..._....m m,u,,, , o __ *1 m_ __ m r A, m_

, _____,,__mm_

, 4 ~,_

Prrited 1 '1/iMi7tf354Pst ' ""

- ~ ~ - ' ~ ~

Page fof 2 l l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34428 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

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

Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Vf Mgr: Schop6r, Don K J IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K l

Date:

SL Comments:

i l

l l

l Printed 11/12/9i > 31PM Page 2 of 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _- - - _ _ _ _ __-_r w-

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34436 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: System DR VAUD I

Potentiel Operatety leeue Diecipione: Modemcel De*'"

O Yee Discrepency Type: Component Date (5) No SyelemProceae: RSS NRC Signikonce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11n597 Discrepency: Inconsistency between PDDS & P&tD EM-112C with respect to line number identification.

Descripoon: Line number 3-QSS-014-026-2 appears on P&lD 12179 EM-112C Revision 16 but not in the plant computer data base, PDDS, Review Veild invalid Needed Date initiator: rosngold, D. J. 9 O O itnoS7 VT Lead: Nwt. Anthony A 8 O O 1"oS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 O 5 5"SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q O O 1 "$/97 Dese:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION, Prev 60uely idenufted by NU7 O Yee (@ No Non Discrepent Condnion O Yee l@ No Review A ceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date hKW W VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT %lgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:

SL Comments:

-4 Printed 11A2,971:15.46 PM Pege 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0444 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR VAUD Review Element: Syelem Design p

Discipline: Mechancel Design Discrepency Type: Chm Ow Syalem/ Process: SWP @ No NRC Signinconce level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Discrepency: Calculations using the HY-066 Model have not addressed physical changes in the SWS Descriptia: Calculations 12179-935P(T), Rev 0, CCN#2; 12179-936P(T),

Rev 0; 12179-956P(T), Rev 0 were all developed sarly in 1984 using the HY-066 hydraulic model to predict temperatures and pressures at several locations in the service water system.

Since that time, numerous changes have been made to the service water system piping and compoaents, i.e., replacing elbows and heat exchangers. The impact of these changes with respect to the model predictions have not been addressed by these calculations. Also, many of the references have been revised and/or superseded since the origninal issue of these calculations.

The roughness factor, epsilon, was datermined for commercial steel pipe and used as a design input for all (3) of these calculations. A large portion of the piping in the service water

( system is Ni/Cu clad, therefore, the roughness factor will riot be the same as that for commercial steel pipe. A more representative value should have been used, or a justification must be made for using the roughness factor of commercial steel pipo throughout the models.

The K values for the individual lines were determined in pages 20-27 of calculation 12179-935P(T) and pages 15-23 of

, calculation 12179-956P(T). Calculation 12179-936P(T) uses the same information as calculation 12179 935P(T). Determination of the K values used, other than those made explicit in the calculations, need further clarification, i.e., for elbows, valves and tees. Typically, K is calculated as : K=f*(tJD), Although a K value is referenced from Crane 410, it needs to go further and specify the equation used to determine K and the values used for I

both i and (t/D) because there are several types of elbows, valves and tees evaluated by Crane 410. For example: Page i

20 of calculation 12179-935P(T) lists 0.132 as the K value for a 90 deg bend. Using K=f*(t/D) and inserting UD = 30 for a standard elbow and i = 0.011 for a fully turbulent 30 inch pipe, O.33 would be the K value. Several K values listed for piping components could not be verified because not enough informati?n was given on how they were determined.

Review Valid inveied Needed Date initletor: Dionne, B. J.

O O O 11 5 S7 I

VT t. sed: Nort, Anthony A O 'O O 11 5 S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K G O O 11ms7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O t t'11/S7 Printed 11/12.971:16:24 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0446 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Date:

WVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identiflod by NUP O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepard Com64 tion U Yes @ No Review gg Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: S@, Anand K O' O O Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 11/12971;16:31 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0446 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -

Review Group: system . DR VALID Potential Operabilety issue Diecipl6ne: Mechen6 cal Desig" Discrepancy Type: calculaten O va (Si No System / Process: sWP NRC Signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished: 11/15/97 Discrepency: Calculations using the HY-066 Model have not addressed physical changes in the SWS

Description:

Calculations 12179-935P(T), Rev 0, CCN#2; 12179-936P(T),

Rev 0; 12179-956PC), Rev 0 were all developed early in 1984 using the HY 066 hydraulic model to predict temperatures and pressures at several locations in the service water system.

Slace that time, numerous changes have been made to the service water system piping and components, i.e., replacing elbows and heat exchangers. The impact of these changes with respect to the model predictions have not been addressed by these calculations. Also, many of the references have been revised and/or superseded since the origninalissue of these calculations.

The roughness factor, epsilon, was determined for commercial steel pipe and used as a design input for all (3) Of B Se calculations. A large portion of the piping in the service water system is rWCu clad, therefore, the roughness factor will not be the same as that for commercial steel pipe. A more representative value should have been used, or a justification must be made for udng the roughness factor ci commercial steel pipe throughout the models.

The K values for the individual lines were determined in pages 20-27 of cabulation 12179-935P(T) and pages 15-23 of calculatiore 12179-956P(T). Calculation 12179-936P(T) uses the j same information as calculation 12179-935P(T). Determination of the K values used, other than those made explicit in the calculations, need further clarification, i.e., for elbows, valves and tees. Typically, K is calculated as : K=f*(tJD). Although a K value is referenced from Crane 410, it needs to go further and

- specify the equation used to determine K and the values used for both i and (t/D) because there are several types of elbows, valves and tees evaluated by Crcne 410. For example: Page 20 of calculation 12179-935P(T) lists 0.132 as the K value for a 90 deg bend. Using K=f*(llD) and Inserting (JD = 30 for a standard elbow and f = 0.011 for a fully turbulent 30 inch pipe, 0.33 would be the K value. Several K values listed for piping components could not be verified because not enough information was given on how they were determined.

Review Veild invalid Needed Date initietor: Dionne. B. J. 8 O O 11 5 S7 VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A B O O 1 S S7 VT lAgr: schopfer. Don K 8 0 0 11/7/97 IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K Q O O it' /S7 Pnnted 11/12/971:17:07 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0444 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date: ;

INVA;'0:

, l 1

Date:

RESOLUTION: 1 Previously identined by NU7 U Yes ~ @ No Non Discrepent Condalon O Yes @ No R6 view I inMietor: (none)

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Gehopfer, Don K IRC Chrnn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

J l

l l

l Prtnted 11/12/971:17.13 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast UtlHties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0449 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Potential Operetnitty issue Diecipl6ne: Mechomal Decio" r"- , my Type: Calcatshon O vee g')

System /Proceae: SWP NRC Sign acance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6ehed: 11/1597 Diecrepency: Calculation 92 0801014ES Incorrectly Applied Hydraulic Data Deecript6en: The purpose of Calculation 92 0801014ES was to evaluate flow rate changes in the 3HVQ' ACUS 1P and 3CCl*E1B piping lines as a result of moaifications made by DCN DM3-S-034-93 and <

DCN DM3-S-0050 93. l The approach taken was to evaluate the form loss coefficient, K, before and aftu the modifications to predict changes in the flow rates. Table 1, page 7, identifies the UD for all of the components in the 3HVQ* ACUS 1B line before and after the modifications. The values listed in the UD column are actually the values of K, where K = f*(UD). This error is propogated all i the way through the calculation such that changes in K are being compared to changes in UD, which are not meaningful and probably not intended.

The 'Altemate Check Calculation'(included as Attachment A) assumes the information in Table 1 of the original calculation is correct and uses it in the attemate check calculation without verifying it. The change in the form loss coefficien*, detta K, for the 3HVQ' ACUS 1B branch is calculated on page A2. Here delta K is determined by multiplying f times detta UD. Since the referenced delta UD value was actually delta K, multiplying it again by f invalidates the results of the calculation as this error is propagated throu0h to the final result.

The percent UD reduction for the HVQ branch was incorrectly determined to be 0.09%. Had this analysis been done correctly, the percent UD reduction for the HVQ branch would have been approximately 5% and the percent UD reduction for the CCl branch would have remained as 4%. Therefore, the conclusion that percent UD reduction for the HVQ is less than the percent UD reduction for the CCI branch is incorrect. The difference between the two branches is minor (5% vs. 4%).

Review vend invalid W Date init6etor: Dionr.e, D. J. O 115S7 O O VT Leed: Nsrt. Anthony A O O O 11/497 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O $ tSS7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O 'l "'S7 Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

pyg g gtry W7 'V " ;w 6 E- = ,_ .; L ,- V Ph N 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0449 Millston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report FTWWIously icemme5 Dy NUT v Tel 9, NO NOA Dt6CftpetW GonGR600 v Te8 @ NO Review gg. Acce @ Not Accepte Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr; Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Sangh Anand l'.

Date:

SL Comnerets:

l l

l Pnnted 11/12/971:17:56 PM Page 2 of 2 l

ICAVP DR No. DRer>34454 Nortneast Utilities MillstDns unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieve Droup: System DR VAUD 3

Polential Operately issue Discipline: Mechanical Dee*

Discrepency Type: Liconomg Document O Y* 1 I

@) No systemProcese: Rss NRC Oz"me level: 3 Date faxed to NU: l Date Published: 11/1s97 i

06ecrePancV: Calculation US(B)-322

Description:

The purpose of Calculation US(B)-322, Rev. 2 is to determine the maximum and minimum temperatures for the recirculation spray system (RSS)in the event of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The calculation uses the LOCTIC computer program (SWEC proprietary) to determine the extreme temperatures of the water on the containment floor and of the recirculation spray water, following a postulated LOCA. The results are to be used for the qualification of the RSS cooler discharge valves and RSS Piping.

One discrepancy was identified in Calculation US(B)-322.

The initial containment temperature and dew point used for both the hot and cold cases is 120F (Attachment 1, page 1 and Attachment 2, page 1). This differs from the initial containment temperature of 80F and dew point of 55F, identified as minimum values in Calculation US(B)-253, Rev 4, page 18 (US(B)-322 Ref. 2).

The lower initial containment temperature and dew point should l be evaluated for their impact on the cold extreme temperatures

! of the water on the containment floor and of the recirculation spray water, following a postulated LOCA.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland, J. F. O O O 1000/S7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O 1001/97 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K -O O O 115S7 BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 5' S7 Date: 10/16/97 INVAUD:

Date:

l RESOLUTION:

Prov6ou,,1y identified by NU? O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition O Yes I No Review I

Meptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nevi, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K

' IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:

st Comments:

Prtnted 11/1297 24o.56 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR#P34464 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revkw Group: System DR VALIO Revkw Elemord: System W Potential Operetniaty leeue Diecipline: Mechancel Desgn Q y,,

D6ecrepency Type: C*"

@) No SysterWProcess: OSS NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Duropency: Spray Area Calculation ES-229 Descripuon: Calculation ES-229 (Rev.1: CCN 1) determines the spray area for each QSS and RSS spray header at standard containment pressure and at an elevated containment pressure.

1. Page 12 of the calculation introduces a friction factor. The friction factor is the effectiveness of the spray due to steam, air and other particulates in containment. This factor comes from SWEC Safeguards Generic Calculation PE-125. This calculation was requested by RFI MP3-278. Response M3 IRF-00222 indicated that Calculation PE 125 could not be found in the NU System. The conclusions of the calculation appear to be consistent with the purpose, methodology and inputs. However, a final conclusion cannot be drawn since Calculation PE-125 is not available.

i

! 2. The calculation modeled the spray pattem for all nozzle configurations as circular. The SPRACO charts show that the spray pattem is circular for nozzles pointed straight down. For nozzle configurations pointed 45',60' and 75* up from horizontal, the spray paMem is elliptical with th3 wioth greater than the length of the spray. The length is in the spray direction.

The width is perpendicular to the spray direction. For all other l nozzle configurations, the spray pattem elliptical with the length j greater than the width of the spray.

The calculation of the spray area for nozzles pointed 22.5* up, horizontally,22.5' down,45' down and 67.5' down is unaffected by the elliptical spray pattem. The calculation uses the length of spray for the circle diameter. The nozzle configurations as i

located on each header provide overlapping sprays. Therefore, this is not a concern.

However, the calculated spray area for nozzles pointed 45* up is overestimated. The calculation uses the average of the length and width of spray for the circle diameter. This overestimates

! the spray diameter which affects the coverage area.

Review Valid inve46d Needed Date initiator: Langel, D. @ Q ["] 11GP7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A

@ b Q 11G97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K @ Q Q 11/S97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K i

@ Q Q 11/11/97

! Date:

INVAUD:

Printed 11/12/971:19 55 FM Page 1 of 2

l ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0464 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prov60uely identined by NU7 O Yes iel No Non Discrepent Condetion U Yet i83 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Nteded Date VT toad: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K SRC Chmn: Singh, AnerJ K Date:

SL Commente:

l l

Printed 11/12S71:20:02 PM Page 2 of 2 l

l l

l 1.--.--_.-----______-_

l 4

l 1

Netheast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0475 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Potential Operatety issue D'= ; _. Mechancei Demo" D'ecrepancy Type: Component Dete O Ya

@ No SystemfProcese: HVX NRC Signincence level: 4 Dele FAKod to NU:

Dete Published: 11/1597 D6ecrepancy: SLCRS CharNal Adsober Design Dacripuon During the rr view of Supplementary Leak Collection and Release SyAerr (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B a discrepancy regarding the face velocity and residence time was identified.

FSAR Section 6.2.3 states that the charcoal adsorber is a gaskelless nontray type and is designed for a 0.21 second residence tirr.a p 3r 2 inches depth for gases in a flow velocity of 47 fpm. The actual bed depth of ;he adsorber is 4 inches.

FSAR Table 1.81 Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.1 exception states that the dwell time for the minimum 2 inches of the carbon adsorber unit is 0.21 sec. All filters use a 4 inch thick charcoal bed. Testing of the charcoal is based on a maximum face velocity of 46 fpm.

FSAR Table 1.8-1 Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.6.a exception states that the activated carbon adsorber section has a 4 inch bed and operating face velocity of 47 fpm (0.43 sec residence time)

Specification 2170.430-065 Charcoal Adsorber Cells Design and Constmction section requires the filter to have a net effective area such that the face velocity is no greater than 40 fpm and that a 2 in, nominal adsorbent bed thickness will provide a minimum residence time of 0.25 sec. The bed depth shall be a nominal 4 in, thickness.

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initietor: stout, M. D. O O 'o'ISS7 O

VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A @ 0 0 11'1'87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 5'SS7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Q 11/11/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTio"-

Previounty idendAed by NU7 O Yes 'Gi No Non D6screpent Condition U Yes f8) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Pnnted 11/12/971:20.54 PM Page 1 of 2

Nohast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP344)$

Millstwe tinit 3 Discrepancy Report RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K oeia:

SL Comments:

6

.t Pnnled 11/12/971:21:03 PfJ Page 2 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0623 Northeast Utilities Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR VAllD Review Element: System Doogn p,g Diecipline: I & C Doogn O Ya Diecrepancy Type: Calculaton (6) No

~

SystemProcess: OSs NRC Significance level: 4 Date FA'ted to NU:

Dele Published 11/1597 Diecrepancy: Instrument error value discrepancy tor the cmpty (low-low-low) level setpoint Dm:ription: l&C calculation 3451B01 1232, Rev. 00, titled "RWST Level Interlock Channel Calibration" calculates instrument channel uncertainty and setpoints for low-low and empty level instrumentation, Switches 3OSS*LS56A/B/C/D are provided on the RWST tank to provide empty level signals Upon detection of empty level signal OSS pumps are tripped and the condition is annunciated in the control room.

Per FSAR figure 6.3-5 these switches have an associated Instrument error of 12 inches for the empty level setpoint of 40 inches, Calculation hYD-H39 Rev.1 titled " Design of Vortex supressor for QSS Tank QSS*TK1" determined the empty level process setpoint should be 28 inches.

Calculation 34b1803-1232E3 is using 28 inches as nominal setpoint value. Per page 2 of this calculation the instrument error - identified as total loop uncertainty (TLU) is +12.7 inwc and -13.8 inwc Please note that the calculation is done for seven decimal accuracy. The write-up here is using one decimal for convenience.

The error of 13.8 inwc does not agree with the FSAR figure 6.3-

5. Additionally,the setpoint calculated in 3451B03-1232E3 does not support the level requirements of calculation 'iYD-H39.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date O 11SS7 initiator: Hindia, R- .O O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q ] 11/8/97 O 5 ' QS7 VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K G O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 11'11/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifbed by Nu7 Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review initiator: (none)

VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O G IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

Printed 11/12S71:21:47 PM Pege 1 of 2

Northeast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0623 Miiistone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report SL Conenerns:

~ ~ ~ ^

PrWed 11/12f f 71.2t$3 PM Pop 2 of 2'

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0528 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report r Review oroup: splom DR VALlo

I Potential OpereLady issue Disc 6pl6ne: Mechancal Desgn Discrepency Type: Calcunston Om (M No SystemProcess: Rss NRC Signiflcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Descrepency: Calculation US(B) 303 D*ecrtpt6on: The purpose of Calculation US(B) 303, Rev, O is to estimate the sump water approach velocities at the fina mesh screens, after a design basis accidant (DBA), for various scenarios.

The sump water approach velocities are calculated for the case when the fine mesh screens are completely covered by water

) and when the screens are partially covered by water (net wetted screen area), based on the minimum amouth of water on the containment floor following a OfiA. The time at which the minimum water in the sump occurs is 330 seconds per Calculation US(B)-278, Rev. 0 (US(B) 303 Reference 6), The 330 second time for minimum depth is based on RSS pump start 240 seconds after receipt of CDA signal.

The following riiscrepancy was identified in Calculation US(B)-

.I 303:

i According to LSK 24-9.4A Rev. 9, RSS pumps A and B start 650 seconds after receipt of CDA signal (and EDG connect to essential bus). RSS pumps C and D start 660 seconds after receipt of CDA signal (and EDG connect to ensential bus).

The approach velocity at the sump screens is calculated in US(B) 326 Rev.1 based on an RSS pump start time of approx.

11 minutes after CDA. This calculation also includes the effects of spray holdup end time delay, and insulation debris. US(B) 326 does not, however, calculate the sump screen area.

Therefore, Calculation US(B) 326 should be revised to include the sump screen area calculations currently in US(B)<03, and Calculation US(B) 303 should be volded.

Review

. Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakotand, J F.

O O O $ ':<S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 11'4 S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O i o7 IRC Chmn: s;ngh. Anand K Q Q Q 11/1119/

Date:

LNVAUo:

er-Date:

REsOLUT10N:

Previounty identified by NU? U Yes @ No Non Discrepent condit6on O Yes @ No PrWed 11/12971:2224 PM Page 1 or 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0628 Ministone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report n.vw Acc.g.w. m Acc.pi.w. u 4.o D.i.

VT L.ed: Nort, Ardhony A VT Mgt: Schopfw, Don K IRC Chmn: Sirgh,AnaM K Det.:

EL Conenents:

I Printed 11/12/97122 31 PM Pag. 2 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0642 Northeast Utilities Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VALID Review Element: System Dee4pn g ;

06ecipline: Electrical Deepn O va Discrepancy Type: Calculaten (,,

~

SystemProcess: DOX NRC sign 46cance level: 4 Date faxed to NO:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6screpancy: Second Level Undervoltage Relay Setpoint (Calculation NL 042)

Descripuen: Calculation NL 042 determines the setting of the second level undervoltage relays. The function of these relays is to detect a degraded voltage condition in which the voltage applied to the safoty related electrical loads is less than the minimum rating for contiunous operation. If the degraded voltage condition persists for too long a period, the emergency diesel generators are started and the safety related loads operated from the diesel generator. The operator is wamed before the emergency diesel generators are statied to allow the operator to correct the degraded voltage condition.

On page 7 the ratic error and burden error are treated as non-random errors. However, the voltage transformer tums ratio is fixed and is actually a bias except for the measurement uncertainty, Generally, the burden on the voltage transformers is l

fixed. This allows the ratio error to be determined within narrower bounds than the accuracy classification. These effects allow reducing the instrumentation tolerance. Calculation NL 042 is conservative in this regard.

On page g, the calibration tolerance for the pick up of the voltage relays is given as 0.05% when the value for the relay calibration tolerance is substituted into equation 6. However, the value of 0.05% is not consistent with the 'as left" values given in Attachment 2, which can be as high as 108.28 volts, (100.26% of 108 volts). (See the report for the test performed on May 17, 1987 on page 11 of Attachment 2.)

The discusslon on page 10 only addressed the repeatability of the timor relays and the accuracy of the equipment used to verify the sefting of the timer relays. Other common sources of inaccuracy such as power supply variations, temperature effects (for the non Agastat relays), etc. are not discussed. They should be addressed by the calculation. If some or all of these are negligible, an explanation should be provided.

The calculation ignores temperature effects on the undervoltage telay based on a relatively small normal temperature range at the relay location (10*F). However, the temperature effect also needs to address the temperature diffenence between the location where the relay is calibrated and the normal relay location as well as the temperature rise in the relay cubicle above the room ambient temperature. The justification on page 7 is based on the normal temperature variation in the instrument

. Printed 11/1297123 ot PM Page 1 of 2

DR No. DR MP3 0542 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report rock room, if the plant is expeded to continue to operate urKle-an abnormal temperature condition (e. g. failure of the HVAC equipment serving the relay location) that must be considered as well. The implicit assumption is made that the temperature effect is a simple function of the temperature span, that is reducing the variation from 85'c to 5.6'C (10'F) will cause a proportionate reduction of the temperature effect from iO.5% to a much lower value. This implicit assumption should be explicitly verifled based on testing or manufacturer's data.

Page 7 of the body of the calculation states that the drift error is taken to be to.5%. Page 5 of Attachment 2 states that this value has been adjusted to an 18 month interval. However, the data shows a drift at Bus 34D Cf +0.5 to +0.6% over the interval of February 15,1991 to September 11,1991, similar drift values are seen in the pick up values during this period. The drift at Bus D was -0.5 to 0.7% over the Interval between October 6,1992 through September 3,1993. Based on this data the value of drift used in the calculation ,10.5% seems too low unless the calibration interval is shortened.

The calculation makes the assumption that drift of the Agastat time delay relays can be neglected. However, relay 62H shows drift of about 1% of setting between calibration checks that are conducted annually. This 1% error is comparable to some of the other uncertainties that are considered.The 62T relay shows lower drift Calibration drift should not be neglected, at least for the 62H relays.

Review valid invalid Needed Date O O isisO97 initiator: Bloothe G.Wilham O VT Lead: Nort, ArAhony A O O O 1' ins 7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K ] [ [ 11/1097 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q Q Q 11/11197 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identined by NU7 O Yes el No Non D6screpam Condotton Q Yes it) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

(

Pnnled 11/12.971:23 09 PM Page 2 or 2 l

-' i ICAVP DM No. DR MP3 4682 Northe4F. i 4116tles P& stm W a s Discrepancy Report e< a +.ai, %; .

Review Group: Conneseten DR VAUD Review Element: System instenston Mont6el OpereWitty lasue D6. caps.es: Electncel Design D6ecrepency Type: Instensten implementaten 9 Y" i

@ No systemeroceae: Rss

4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdiohed: 11/ir>97 Descrepency: Installation not in accordance with drawings De*cription: 1. The conduit installed on Conduit Support SB 130 (Ref.

Conduit Support Log SB 130 Rev. 3) is not as shown on the latest version of the support drawing nor addressed by any open change documents relating to drawings EE 34MA Rev. 5 and EE-34MB Rev 5, Conduits G L, and K are not installed as shown on the CSL. An additional Conduit 3CX300PB 4' flex is located on Shelf (1).

2. Conduit 3CX307NC is listed as 2' In F.E 23681 for Conduit Support SB-028. Field walkdown found conduit to be 3". The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates conduit is 2*. No open change document for drcwing EE 34MA Rev. 5 addresses this discrepancy for Support 100-087.

3. Page 22 of 24 of F.E 32362 was to add *Z' bracing between Supports S104A 038 and S108B 046 (Ref. drawing EE 5gMA Rev. 5) due to the addition of conduit by this F E. No braces are installed per field walkdown and no open change documents discuss its deletion.

Review Vei6d invei6d Needed Date j

insistor: Server, T. L O O O 15/7/S7 VT Lead: Nort. Antrony A Q Q Q 11/7/97 11/1097 VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K Q Q Q 11/11/97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q Q Q Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

REs0LUTION:

Prov60uely identt6ed t>y NU7 O Yee ' S ' No Non Diecrepent condMion O Yes '91 No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date g

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Senph, Anand K t Date:

sL Conenente:

PrWed 11/12,97123 44 PM Page 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0671 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Systern DR VALID

"" 8 Potential Operabinety leeue 06ec6pkne: Moderzel De**"

O va Diecropency Type: Calcuishon 4, g, systemProcess: RSS NRC Sleniacence luei: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putnehed: 11/15S7 D6ec8*Peacy: Calculation US(B) 1187 Descriptkm: The purpose of calculation US(B) 1187, Rev.1 is to determine RSS operating pressures and temperatures for RSS stress data package SDP-RSS-01361M3, Rev 4 which are to be used in the piping stress analysis.

Four discrepancies were identified in US(B) 1187:

1. The elevation of the RSS pump discharge is incorrectly used.

Pump discharge pressure is conservatively calculated as occurring at the pump impeller elevation of 47'-4", which is intemal to the pump. This resulting discharge pressure is used to RSS HX outlet, and RSS 6 pray header pressures as if it occurred at the minimum elevation of the pump discharge line, 23' 3".

This error overestimates head by 24' 1" (9.8 to 10.4 psi) for all modes of operation.

2. A nominal water density of 62.34 lbm/ft3 is used to compute system pressures, rather than the actual densities of 62.426 lbm/ft3 at 40F,61.74 lbm/ft3 at 118F, and 58.60 lbm/ft3 at 257F.

This results in overestimates of pressure of up to 11.6 and underestimates of pressure of as much as 0.3 psl.

3. The reference given for RSS pump impeller elevation of 47'-

4" is Calc. US(B) 326. Calc. US(B)-326, Rev.1 does not, however, reference a pump drawing. It references Calc. NM(B)-

1 418 BD, which is superseded by Calc. NM(B) 323-BD. Thus, a proper reference for thle elevation was not given. The elevation that was used is reasonable because Dwg. EP 79N-8 shows that the bottom of the pump is at elevation -49'-0".

4. To compute RSS pressures during ECCS injection phase containment spray, a sump level of elevation of 25' 2"is used.

The reference for this level, Calc. US(B) 273, actually gives a level of

-23.1 ft.

i The cumulative significance of the discrepancies discussed above is to overestimate system pressures by up to 26 psi, it is the engineering judgment of the reviewer that overestimating l '

operating pressure is conservative and that reducing the estimated pressure by 26 psi would have a negligible effact on computed stresses in standard wall piping.

Rev,ew Valid invalid Needed Date Init6stor: Wehetend, J. F. O O O 100 S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 1001S7 Printed 11/12471:24 26 PWT *e'; UCh0P. U0" K Ph)PY6f 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP34571 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report vt up: senopeer, om ^ O O O " S* '

IRC Climn: Singh. Anand K Q Q Q 11/11/97 Date:

18#ALIO:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identrhed try NU7 Q Yes Si No Non 06ecrepent Londet60n Q Yes Si No i Rev6ew initiator: (none)

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K

< IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Comments:

PrWed 11/12971:24 33 PM Page 2 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0673 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: System DR VALID Potent 6el Operatssty luuo D6eceptine: Mechenecal Design D6ecrepancy Type: Calculation O va i0) No

'~'

SystenVProcess: Rss NRC signincarce level: 3 pote faxed to NU:

Dele Published: 11/1$97

~

Ch ^ xy: Calculation .s-236 306GP Dacript6en: The Containment Recirculation Coolers (RSS E1 A/B/C/D) had been rcJesigned to accommodate an increase in the shell side flow to 5000 gpm (Letter NES 18767 and Adendum 3 to Specification 2214.803-020). As a result of the redesign, it was recommended that the initial system startup procedure include provisions to monitor the containment recirculation coolers for tube vibration (Letter NES 18767). Subsequently, it was decided that a theoretical evaluation would be performed instead of monitoring tube vibration during system startup.

The purpose of calculation 79-236 306 GP, Rev. O is to evaluate the potential for excessive tube vibrations in the RSS HXs for a shell side flow of 5000 gpm. :

The discrepancy is that Calculation 79-236 306GP does not reach any conclusion. It recommends that more detailed calculations should be prepared, but no other calculations have been prepaired.

l Calculation 79 236 306GP should be void and the validity of statements in 3DBS-NSS-003, Rev. O, Sections 8.7 and 12.3.3 need to be verified. The DBS states that the RSS HX can accept a flow of 4620 gpm on the shell side (see System Requirements REQ MP3-RSS-0427 and 0533).

Rev6ew Val 6d inval6d Needed Date init6etor: Wake 6and. J. F. O O O 102SS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A -O O O 55/2S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O '55S7 IRC Chmn: $1ngh. Anand K O O O '1't 1/S7 Date:

INVALIO:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prev 6ously identined by NU? O Yes t#1 No Non Discrepent Condet6on O Yee 49i No Acceptable Not Acceptab!c Ivoeded Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

m ,. _ -_.

Printed 11/12/971:2fdbl% ~ ~ ~ Page 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR MP34673 Northeast Utilities Milestone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Prwed 11/129712514 PM Pope 2 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4574 Northeast Utilities Millstone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conheurstson DR VALIO R EW $@ W Potential Operetnity leeue 06ecip66ne: Pipeg Doegn 06ecropency Type: Dred"0 O Ya 4 y,

~

systemeroceae: SWP NRC Sigadecence level. 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6ehed: 11/1597 D6ecropency: PDCR MP3 93-009 Modi 0 cations to Service Water piping on inlet and outlet of pumps 3SWP*P2A/B D*.cript6en: DCN DM3 S-0475-93 of PDCR MP3 93-009 adds a standard support (Dwg BZ 300A 26) for pipe support CP-319012-H003 and attaches it to pipe support CP 319012 H005. However, in drawing BZ 19R 10 Rev 2 ( revised to incorporate DCN DM3 S-0475 93) the identincation of support CP 319012 H005 had been deleted.This is not consistent with the DCN. Both supports -

H003 and H005 should be called out on drawing BZ 19R 10.

Review Vel 6d invalid Needed Date inNietor: Reed. J. W. O O O $1'5S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O ii/5S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O "' SS7 1RC Chmn: $1ngh. Anand K O O O "'55/S7 Date:

INVAllO:

Date:

RtSOLUTION:

Previovely identifled by NUF Q Yee t() No Non Discrepent Condition O Yee '() No Review Acceptetne Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K .

Date:

sL Cormwnte:

i l

l Printed 11/12,971'25 46 PM Page 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0675 Northeast Utilities Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oeoup: syetem DR VAL.1D Rev EM: $$ W Potential Opersbelsty lasue D6ecipline. Mecherwcel Dong" O vee Diecrogxy Type. ' emponent Data 4) No systwwProcese: HVX NRC slanincence level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Diecrepency: Auxiliary Duikiing Filter Unit Charcoal Adsorber Face Velocity Deecription: During review of the auxiliary building ventilation system (ABVS) exhaust filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/1B a discrepancy regarding the face velocity, residence time, and efficiency was identified.

FSAR Table 1.81 Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.1 exception states that the dwell time for the minimum 2 inches of the carbon adsorber unit is 0.21 sec. All filters use a 4 inch thick charcoal bed. Testing of the charcoalis based on a maximum face velocity of 46 fpm.

FSAR Table 1.81 Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.6.a exception states that the activated carbon adsorber section has a 4 inch bed and operating face velocity of 47 fpm (0.43 sec residence time). Table 2 of RG 1.52, Rev. 2 assigns a 95%

decontamination efficiency for activated carbon sample having a methyl lodide penetration of less than 1%. It will be verified that within 31 days after removal, a 4 inch laboratory sample from the installed sample canisters will demonstrate a removal efficiency of 99% for methyl lodide when tested in accordance with ANSI N5101980.

FSAR Section 9.4.3.2 states that the charcoal adsorber is designed for a 0.21 second dwell time per 2 inch depth for Dases at a flow velocity of 47 fpm. Four inch depth of charcoal is provided. The impregnated charcoalis capable of removing in excess of 99 percent of methyliodide and 99.5% of elemental lodine.

Technical Spection Section 43.9 requires that a laboratory analysis of a representa'!ve carbon sample meets the laboratory testing criteria of Regulatory Position C.S.a of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2 for a methyllodido penetration of less than 0.175 %.

Specification 2170.430-065 Charcoal Adsorber Celts Design and Construction section states that the auxiliary building filters have a face velocity of 46 fpm and a minimum residence time of 0.22 sec. per 2 in of bed thlchness. The bed dep1h shall be a nominal 4 in, thickness.

The laboratory test acceptance criteria shown in FSAR Table 1.8-1 and Technical Specification Section 4.7.9 do not agree with each other.

Review Vehd invalid Needed Date Printed 11/12.971:26:2o P[

h h ot 2

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

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0675 Northeast Utilities Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1071/91 innsator; tetod, M. D. Q Q Q VT Leed: Nort, Antrey A g Q Q 11/197 VT Mgt: Schop8er, Don K O O O itSS7 NtC Chmn: $4ngh, Arwul K O O O $1'5 5/87 Date:

NALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identined try NUF Q Yes if) No Non D6ecrepent Conetton U Yes ty) No Revier' A-:7 ^ '- Not Acceptet's Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mg:t Schopfer, Don K O O O lRC Chmn: Singh, Arend K Date:

SL Comments:

- .r .. ...

Prtnied 11/12971:26.28 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Uupues ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4594 Muistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Moview Group: System DR VAUD Potentiel aldeityleaue 06ecrepency Type: Concuesten 4g systemfrocese: DGX NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6thed: 11/1$97 D6ectopeacy: Calculation of the Ampac4ty of the Diesel Generator Leads (Calcuistion 195E)

D cr*,peion: Calculation 195E calculates the ampacity of several cables. The review of this calculation for the ICAVP effort is limited to the cables for the emergency diesel generator.

The ampacity of the 2000 MCM,5 kV diesel generator feeders in conduit was calculated using a Kertte Co. ampacity table and derating faders. The calcu!stion applies a derating factor to be applied to the ampacity of a single cable in an isolated conduit for three closely spaced conduits in a horizontal configuration.

However, the value used. 0.85 is for three conduits in a vertical configuration, not for a horizontal calculatk,n as stated on page 36 of the calculation. The calculation gives an ampacity value of:

l= 1654 m 0.85 = 1405 amperes The factor given in the Kertte table used by the calculation for three conduits in a horizontal arrangement is 0.91. The value of cable ampacity,1654 amperes, is for a cable in free air, it is necessary to apply a conduit factor of 0.76 to obtain the ampacity of a cable in an isolated conduit. Therefore, the ampacity of the cable in three non ferTour conduits arranged +

horizontally is:

!= 1654 = 0.76 = 0.91 = 1143 amperes This assumes that the cables are property installed in non-ferrous conduits and that that circulating currents have been controlled. Field walk down observations indicate that 'as built" conditions do not match those assumed in the calculations or the expected field condition. This is documented in configuration Discrepancy Report DR 577.

The thermal resistance through the insulation of the two conductor, #6 AWG cable is calculated on page 9 of Attachment G of Appendix A using the formula for a single conductor cable.

However, in a multiple conductor there will be interference to la,ul daipaiiun through the insulation due to the presence of the adjacent hot conductors. This increases the effective thermal resistance of the insulation. This is accounted for by the use of a

" geometric factor" as desenbed in Section 2.1.1.2 and Figure 2 of IEC 257 21. This sedion of the calculation should be revised to use the appropriate geometric factor for the two conductor cable.

Pnneed 11H 297127.03 PM Page 1 or 3

Northeast UtilRies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0694 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft The ampacity calculation on page 9 of Attachment G of Appendix A uses a thermal resistivity of 3.5 K m/W for both the insulation and Jacket material. This is the value of the thermal resistivity given in Table 1 of IEC 287 21 for low voltage ethylene propylene rubber insulation. However, a different material is used for cable Jackets. The thermal resistivity of the commonly used cab!e Jacket materials are 5 to 5.5 K m/W. This willlower the ampacity of the two conductor, #6 AWG cable slightly.

On page 4 of Attachment 1 of Appendix A, the calculation of the mean shield diameter assumes one layer of shleiding tape, while the calculation of the thickness of material between the eductor and Jacket and the extemal diameter of the shield -

assume two layers of shielding tape. An explanation of this difference should be included in the calculation. Because the shisiding tape is very thin (8 mils), the effect of this difference on the calculation results is negligible.

The loss factor for the diesel generator cab!e shield is calculated on page 7 of Attachment 1 of Appendix A. The shleid loss was calculated for the outer phase of the three phase set with leading phase. The standard being applied, IEC 2871 1, presents separate formulae for the shleid loss of each of the three phases when they are in a flat arrangement. For the generator cables, the shield loss of the center phase will be about 1% of the total cable loss compared to the shield loss of 0.3% of the total cable loss for the outer phase 03nsidered. Therefore, calculating the shleid loss for the center phase would be more conservative than the outer phase used in the calculation. However, becsuse the shield loss is so low, the difference in heat generation is about 0.7%, which is not significant to the final answer.

The temperature rise of the cable trench is calculated using the empirical formula of Section 2.2.6.2 of IEC 287 21. This section indicates that the validity of the formula given in this section is still being investigated. Portions of the " trench" are fairiy 'arge rooms rather than a typical cable trench. Attemate methods of estimating the ambierst temperature in these large arest are given in the ASHRAE standards, which should be considered for use for sections A2 and 82. It should be noted that a significant part of these areas are below grade, and that the soil temperature below grade is less than the outside ambient temperature of 49'C used ' T. 0:.blatL: . Also, the heat from the cable tray was assumed to be distributed uniformly over the length of section A1, even though the cable tray is In only part of this length. Even if the huat is assumed to be dissipated in the section of the trench containing the cable tray, section A1 is not

the limiting case, j Review l Prwed 11/12S7127.09 PM Page 2 or 3 l

l

l l

1 Northeast Utiliths ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 06H !

Millstone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report !

Vaud hveW Needed Date inehator: Blasthe, G.Weem O 15'5SS7 O O .

YT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 11/1Q97 YT Mgri Schtpfer. Don K O O O 1 '10S7 l

., MC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O O O 55'55/87 Date:

ifWALID:

I Date:

NESOLUTION:

Preytously identined by NU? C) Yee @ No Non D6ecrepent Condstkm V Yes @ No Review Acceptebio Not Accepteblo Needed Date '

g VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer Don K RC Chmn: Sy, Anand K O O O O O O Date:

SL Comments:

i

. Printed 11/12,971:27.13 PM Page 3 of 3

Northeast Utilnies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 06H Milletone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroup: syelom DR VAUD Review Element: System Design g .

Diecipl6ne: Electncel Deedg" Discrepency Type: Calcu6eten O vos Syelw WProcess: DGX

No NRC Signiacance level: 4 Dale faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6ecrepewys Bus Differential Relay Setting (Calculation 420CA)

Deecte r 46an: One of the protec'.lve devices used for the Safety Related 4.16 kV switchgear is a set of General Electric Type PVD high impedance bus differential relays at each of the two switchgears.

Calculat6on 420CA determines the setting of the PVD relays.

The calculation was based on a maximum fault current of 41,000 amperes, which is the breaker rating at the maximum rated voltage of the switchgear (4760 volts). However, the circuit breaker rating at the normal operating voltage is higher, and symmetrical fault currents larger than 41,000 amperec are reported in Calculation NL 051. The existing setting of the voltage element (100 volts) leaves no margin from the calculated minimum setting for 41,000 amperes fault current (100.4 Volts). The minimum setting is determ!ned by the need to prevent false tripping during faults outside the protective zone of the relay. The calculation methodology assumes the complete saturation of a current transformer, which is conservative. Also, three phase bolted f.lutts near the switchgear terminals are rare.

However, the setting of the PVD differential relay voltage elements should be raised to accomodate a through fault current equal to the maximum interrupting rating of the circuit breakers (49,000 amperes).

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Inst 6etor: Bloethe, G. William O O O it'+S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 1 S 7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K G O O 11/10S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 11'i'/87 Date:

INVAUD:

Dele:

RESOLUTION:

l Prev 6ously identined by Nu? O Yes !*> No Non Deswepent Condit6on U Yes i#i No Rev6ew j Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date si seeo: rien, Anthony A k VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

Pnnled 11/12.971:28 24 PM Page 1 of 1 l

l . . . .-

Mortheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 M03 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Otoup: System DR VAUD Review Element: system Desden p g Diecipline: Electncel Design Diecrepency Type: Calcunston Ow

@ No SysterWProcess: N/A NRC Signancance led: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6shed: 11n$97 D6.crepency: Discrepancies in Calculation #64E ' Cable Sizes for Feeders to MOVs*

Deectlption: The review of Calculation #64E identified miscellaneous discrepancies in the calculation. The specific items are as follows:

1) Interoffice Correspondence C 02 attached to the calculation identifies installed cable lengths which differ from the lengths used in the calculation for the feed from the load center to the MCC. For the calculation of MOV feed cable lengths from MCCs with a running voltage of 418 V (Table A), the cable longth used in the calculation (page 3)is 479 feet. The installed length according to the memo is 550 feet.

2) Page 2 of the calculation identifies MOV ampacity as

.55(LRA @ rated voltage) a*, referenced in ETG IV-41. A review of the reference did not identify this basis.

3) Page 2 of the calculation identifies ampacities for 412 and

10 cables taken from IPCEA P-46-426. A review of the subject reference did not identify these ampacities.

4) Page 3 of the calculation identifit s the block load of MOVs at 3 MCCs. Reviewing the latest revision of the one line diagrams for the affected VCCs yields values approximately 20 hp higher than those used ire the calculation.

5) Interoffice Correspondence C 02 attached to the calculation states that page 5 of the calculation should reference

' Calculation #74E'instead of " Calculation #62E' as a basis for short circuit considerations. A review cf Calculation #74E did not 6dentify any basis for short circuit considerations.

6) A review of the calculation did not identify any basis for why the three MCCs analyzed in the calculation were chosen i.e.,

whether or not they are limiting. Also, no basis could be identified for the load current of the MCCs (150 A or 300 A) and the MCC running voltage (418 V or 422V).

7) On pages 13,14, and 15 of the calculation, no basis could be identified for choo,.. . . vdd vuitage of 331 KV in order to determine the load center voltage.

Some of these discrepancies are non conservative; however, there are other conservatisms in the calcul2tki which would ensure adequate sizing of MOV power feedu. Most notably is the conservative acceptance criterie for starting voltage of safety Pnnled 11n2,971:29 25 PM Pege 1 of 2

i l

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0603 Northeast Utilities Milletone Unit 3 D'screpancy Report l related MOVs. The MOV6 are capable of starting at 70% rated voltage, but a criteria of 80% is used in the calculation.

Therefore, the plant's licensing and design basis is still met and this discrepancy is rated a Significanca Level 4.

Review Vand inv3d Needed Date ,

0 O it'10S7 initiator: Kant J- 0 VT Lead: Nort, Antieny A O O O 510S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 55'1oS7 O 5n 87 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O ;

Dele:

INVALIO:

Dele:

RESOLUTION:

~ Previously identifieel by NU7 O Yes #) No Non D6screpent Cordt6on O Yes #1 No Re <6ew initiator: (none)

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K sL Cormiente:

Pnnled 11/12,9f 1:29 33 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilit'es ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0604 !

Mitistone urnt 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oroup: syetem DR VAllo Potential Operetnisty lanue Diecips6ne: Doctu Dese" O vee Deec*aponcy Type: Colousaten No systemMocess: WA NRC sign 6Acance level; 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6ehed: 11/1597 Discrepancy: Discrepancies in Calculation #67E

Maximum Cable Lengths for Continuous Duty Motors' D*ecr6pt'ea: The review of Calculation #67E identified miscellaneous discrepancies in the calculation. The specific items are as follows.

1) Page 6 of the calculation identifies nameplate starting current as 500.5 V phase angle 24.769. This should be 500.5 A phase angls 69.0226. The phase angle for starting terminal voltage is eN mislebeled. Tiie correct values, however, are used in the fasculation's equations.

') Page 2 identifies IPCEA P54-440, Trt.127 as a design input

/

for K T ay cmpacities. Table 11 should wso be listed.

3) The actual diameters used in Table A on page 2 of the calculation correspond to the maximum guaran eed values identified in the cable specification. This is no.e conservative with respect to using the minimum puaranteeJ values identified in the cable specification.

4) On page 5 of the calculation ars MCC voltage of 395.5 V is identified for motor starting condithns. This value is used in the equation for determining acceptabl6 length of cable for motor starting and was calculated based on cri MCC running voltage of 422 volts. The value is not conservative for the calculations involving MCCs with a running voltage of 418 or 416 volts. This discrepancy does not have an impact on the plant since a subsegrent letter attached to the calculation states that all MCCs have a minimum running voltage of at least 422 V. However, the calculation still contains non-conservative results f or MCCs with running voltages of 418 or 416 volts.

These discrepancies are not considered to adversely irnpact the output of the calculation. There are conservatisms in the calculation which would ensure adequate sizing of motor power feeds. Therefore, the plarWs licensing and design basis is still met and this discrepancy is rated a Significar.ce i.evel 4.

Rev6ew Val 6d invaled Needed Date

.. ; ; .. eveh. J. 8 O O it'ioS7 #

VT Leed; Non. Anthony A O Q Q 11/1097 VT Mgt: Fchopfer. Don K Q Q Q 11/1G97 1RC chnn: singh. Anand K [ Q Q 11/11/97 Dele:

NVALID:

Printed 11/12971%15 PM Page 1 or i

=

i i

ICAVP DR No. DR MP34404 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report :

Date:

RESOLUDON.

Prev 6ously ident6fbed by Nu? O Yes '9) No Non D6ectopent Condd6on O Yes itt No Review Acceptable Not Met:' '- Needed Date VT Land: Nort, Areony A O O O -

VT Mgi Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: $@, Anand K O b g

Date:

SL Corrmords:

1 i

Prwed 11/12971:30.22 PM Page 2 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0606 j Northeast Utidties Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report !

Rev6ew Group: Programmate DRVAUD Revlow Element: Correctwo Acton Process D6ecipi m : N P W Om% lasue Q y,,

D6ecrepency Type: Correctue Acton 4 g, system / Process: NA NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Diecrepency: Inadaquete response for resolving the OIR 131 D**criptka: The Millstone Unit 3's OIR131

Description of Unresolved item

block states the following:

'The output voltage of each battery charger is automatically regulated in either float or recharging range to 0.5% of the setpoint voltage from an input voltage of 480V with a 10%

variation.' The above statement is from the FSAR Section 8.3.2.1.2.1 dated April 1997.

The OIR's Discrepancy Closure Report

Background

block states the following:

'OIR 131 questioned whether or not the station battery chargers were tested over the full range of the specified input voltages (480V t 10% VAC). If not, consider performing the test during the battery charger testing.'

The OIR's Discrepancy Closure Report

Conclusion

block states the following:

'The station battery chargers were satisfactorily tested over the full range of the specified input voltages at the factory in accordance with SPEC 260.*

The SPEC 260 Battery Charger Tests were attached to the OIR 131's Discrepancy closure Report. These tests confirm that the station battery chargers were tested over the full range of the specified input voltages (480V 10% VAC) and that the output was within 0.5% of the setpoint voltages of 528V (480V +10%),

480V (480V +0%) and 432V (480V 10%) at a DC output range of 132.1 VDC to 131.3 VDC.

The SPEC 260 Battery Charger Tests do .ot confirm that the station battery chargers will automatically regulate to 0.5% over the full range of the specified input voltages (480V t 10% VAC) for the following specific charger DC outputs as stated in the FSAR:

a) Battery float setting (See Note 1 below) b) Battery recharging (equalizing) setting (See Note 2 below)

Note 1: The battery float voltage is 135 VDC as noted in Calculations BAT 1961241E3, Rev.1 BAT 2 961243E3 Rev.

1, BAT 3-96-12453E3, Rev. O and BAT 4 !+1aeE3, Hov. O.

( ( This value may or may not be the same for the remaining Unit 3 batteries.)

Note 2: The battery recharging (equalizing) voltage setting was not discovered in documents examined but is expected to be in the range of 137.4 to 140 VDC based on an equalizing value of

~

Printed 11/12/971:3129 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 MM Miiistone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report 2.29 to 2.33 voHs per cell.

Review Venid invalid Needed Date O 'o'85/S7 initiator: Caruso. A. O )

VT Lead: Ryan, Thomes J .

O O "' '87 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K Q Q 11597 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O " '" '8 7 1 Date: )

INVAllD: l Date:

RESOLUTION:

Provtously identmed by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent CondM6on O Yes @ No Review inMiet,v: (none)

VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J .

VT Mgr Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date:

SL Comments:

d Printed 11/12971:31.20 PM Page 2 of 2

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

I Northeast UtilitleS ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0407 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l 1

Review Oroup: system DR VALIO j I

Review Element: Modehcotin Doonen p g ,

D6scipiene: Mechancel Design D6ecropency Type: enetellsten impeementaten O Y=

systervWProcess: Rss il No ,

NRC Signi6cence level: 4 Date FAKod to NU:

Date Putdiohed: 11/1597 Discr*P*acy: PDCR 3-94135 De*criptkm: PDCR 3-93135 installed Trisodium Phosphate (TSP) baskets on the containment floor for sump pH control. The PDCR also abandoned in place the Chemical Addition Tank (CAT).

The CAT subsystem is part of QSS. The piping and valves associated with the subsystem are in the Line and Valve Lists.

The PDCR does not address revising the Line and Valve Lists.

The Pump List was revised for the CAT pump (30SS*P2). The Line and Valve Lists should be updated to indicate which lines were abandoned.

The CAT and Valves 30SS*MOV29A/B have associated vendor manuals and drawings. The PDCR indicates that only the manual for the CAT pump is affected. The only drawing that the PDCR addresses is for the CAT pump. The drawings for the tank and the valves nced to show that the equipment is abandoned in place.

Review Vo'M Invalid Needed Date initiator: Lanpol. D G O O iS31/87 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O iSoi/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O O 11'SS7 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O $ $'$ S7 Date:

INV *Llo:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previounty identined by NUF Q Yes to' No Non Discrepent CorvJet6on O Yes #) No Rev6ew g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Cervenents:

i l

i I

Pnnled 11/12,971;32.33 PM Page 1 of 1

s ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0414 Northeast Utilities Misistorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report .

Review Group: System DR VAUD I

Potenteel Operaldisty leave niecipline: Mechenecal Design 06ecrepency Type: Uoeneang Documt Om (5) No

~

systemProcese: Rss NNC sierdacance level: 3 Date faxed to NO:

Date Putdiohed: 11/1597 D6ecr*Pency: RSS Motor Acceleration Time D*ecripenon: 3DBS-NSS-003, Rev, O states that the RSS pump motor speed-up time is 2 seconds if offsite power is available and 1 second if offsite power is not.

This statement in the design basis summary document is inconsisterit with the design basis calculation which addresses the issue of RSS effective time, US(B) 270, Rev,5, Calculation US(B) 270 concludes that the RSS pump motor acceleration time is 0.8 seconds if it is powered from the emergency diesel generator, and 3.2 seconds if it is powered from offsite power, This conclusion is based on the assumption (Assumption (8), p. 8) 1101 the diesel generator load sequencer prevents any voltsge degradation, and that when started from offisite power y dhout a sequencer, the voltage is degraded to 70% of desigr., The motor specification data (The motor data sheet is provided as Attachment B to US(B) 270) indicates that the motor r,taft time is 0.8 seconds with 100 % voltage and 3.2 seconds with 70% voltage, Review Val 6d invol6d Needed Date initiator: Wokodend, J, F. @ Q O 11/2/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O $5/2S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K g Q Q 11697 11/11/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Provlously identifled by NU7 O Yee feTNo Non Discrepent Condethn O Yes '#i No Review Acceptande Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chnue: sin 0h, Anand K m e:

sL Commente:

Printed 11/12,971:3317 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0416 Millstone Unit 3 Discreparicy Report Rev6ew Group: syusem DRVAUD Review Element: system Design g

Di=waae: - Desen o y,,

Diecrepancy Type: Llooneen0 Document (5) No

~

systemsProcess: Rss MK ai9niacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Diuropency: RSS Pump Actuation Time in Design Basis Summary Document Descripuon: 3DBS-NSS-003, Rev. 0 states that in a LOP event, the RSS pumps will be energized from the EDG load sequencer in no more than 19 seconds.

The d'wrepancy is that a 19-second actuation time is not consistent with the design basis of '.he RSS system:

1 According to LSK 24 9.4A, the emergency Generator load sequencer delays the start of RSS pumps A and B 650 seconds after receipt of CDA signal and delays the start of RSS pumps C and D 660 seconds after recci;d of CDA signal The load sequencer delays start of the RSS pumps to allow an adequate supply of water to accumulate in the containment sump.

T According to TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.2.c, the maximum allowable error in the emergency diesel sequer.cer timer for RSS is 20 seconds.

3. According tc. Attachment B to US(B)-253, ' Documentation of LOCTIC Data Deck for Millstone Unit #3 LOCA Analysis," the maximum time required for the emergency diesel generator to start, come up to speed and connect to the essential bus is 14.0 seconds.

Therefore the maximum actulation time for RSS pumps A and B is 684 seconds (650 sec + 20 sec + 14 sec). For RSS pumps C and D it is 694 seconds (MO sec + 20 sec + 14 sec).

Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date instietor: Wakeland. J. F. O O O 11/2S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B D O 1 2S7 VT Mor: schopfer. Don K O O O 51>SS7 1RC Chmn: shgh, Anand K i t'i '7 O O O Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

3OLUTION:

Previously identined by NU? O Yes (8) No Non Discrepent Condetion Q Yes (Gi No Review

- E * #' '

initiator (none)

VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O O VT Mge: schopfer, Don K Printed 11n1971:33 53 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilhies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0614 unistone unk 3 Discrepancy Report

. . . _ , . . . ~

18tc Chmn: Singh, Arww K O e g

Dele:

SL Commente:

i l

Printed 11/12971:34 00 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Util:Ues ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0633 Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report

, Rev6ew Group: SyWom DRVAUD Review Element: System Doogn g

Discipline: Eleotncel Deegn Diacrepancy Type: Componord Date O Yes g

systerWProcese: QSS

~

NRC sierwficance level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6screpancy: No documentation shows the QSS pump motor shroud des @n change commited to in letter B13620.

Description:

According to Northeast Utilities letter 813620 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated August 27,1990, a quench spray pump motor shroud design change will be pursued with General Electric to correct the loosening and cracking problems with the motors. No documentation shows that the quench spray pump motor shroud design has been upgraded according to General Electric's recommendations.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initietor: Feingold. D. J. O 15557 O O VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A @ ] ] 11897 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 15'16S7 1RC Ct-nn: Singh, Anand K O O O $1/15/87 Dele:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously idenufled by NUF Q Yes (#1 No Non Discrepent Condition U Yee t#8 No Review initiator: (none)

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K sL Commente:

l

{

Prtried 11/12971:34 36 PM Page 1 of 1 l

1

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

1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0634 l

Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD PotentialOpersbelity lasue Discipl6ne: Electncal Design Discrepancy Type: CalculeSon Om Systern/ Process: N/A 4-NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 DieciePancy: Discrepancies in Cable Ampacity Calculations

Description:

The review of Calculation #143E

Determine the impact of Derating Cable Ampacity for Cables Routed in Conduit Bank" and Calculatiori #195E ' Verify Cable Selection for 6.9 kV and 4.16 kV Loads' identified miscellaneous discrepancies in the calculations. The specific items are as follows:

1) On page 5 of Calculation #143E, the transposed value for ampacity of #10 cable is identified as 41 instead of 40 This discrepancy has no impact on the calculation's output.

2) Table-2 on page 6 of Calculation #143E identifies cable sizer-for L tray. According to Calculation #67E, #4 and #2 cables can be routed in L tray. If these cables can be validly routed in L-tray, they should be addressed in Table-2.

3) Page 12 of Calculation Change Notice #3 of Calculation

195E, identifies a derating factor of .85 for 3 conduits spaced horizontally. A review of the appropriate reference identifies this derating factor as .91. A more conservative value was used; therefore, this discrepancy does not adversely impact the calculation's output.

These discrepancies are not considered to adversely impact the output of the calculations. Therefore, the plant's licensing and design basis is still met, and this discrepancy report is rated a Significance Level 4.

Review Vahd invalid Needed Date Initiator: Kish, J.

O O O 11 5 S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 1 SS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O " '10/97 IRC Chrnn: Singh, Anand K G O O 11'11/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

beviously identified by NU? O Yes #1 No Non Discrepant Conditon O Yes fGO No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date init h M VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopier, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Printed 11/12/971:35:25 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP2 0434 Ministone unM 3 Discrepancy Report O O O Dele:

SL Comments:

PrWed 11/12/971:35.31 PM page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0439 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroup: Programmenc DR VALID Rev6ew Element: Change Procese D6ecipline: Piplng Doogn D6ecropency Type: Inetehehon Requrements Ow g)

System 9tocess: SWP NRC significence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putished: 11/15S7 D6.crepency: Not Obtaining NRC Relief for Temporary Non-Code Repair

Description:

Temporary Alteration 3-97-027 approved 3/27/97 installed a temporary non-code patch over a pinhole leak in the "A" train Service Water pioing. Unit 3 was in Cold Shutdown, Mode 5, with only the "A" train supporting other operating systems. The temporary patch was installed under AWO M3-97 07380 under the control of Condition Report (CR) M3-97-09;is. In addition to the patch NU performed a flaw evaluation using the guidance of NRC Generic letter 90-05 and draft Code Case N-513 dated 8/13/92.

NU initially declared the "A" Service Water train inoperable based on the leak, but then apparently elected not to isolate the "A" Charging Pump cooling heat exchanger but rather declare this portion of the "A" train operable based on the patch and the flaw evaluation. This is in accordance with Section 6.14 of the operability portion of NRC Generic Letter 91 18 which states:

"For Class 3 moderate energy piping, the licensee may treat the system containing the flaw (s), evaluated and found to meet the acceptance criteria in Generic Letter 90-05, as operable until relief is obtained from the NRC." Generic Letter 90-05 states:

" Temporary non-code repairs are not permitted on ASME code piping without prior relief from the NRC."

Draft Case N 513 was rejected three times by the ASME Main Committee since the 8/13/92 version. This Case titled

" Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Class 3 Piping" was issued by ASME on 8/14/97. Although NU's engineering evaluation M3-EV 970071, Revision 0, of the flaw was based on an obsolete draft, it appears to be technically acceptable. Note that Generic Letter 90-05 would have found either a non-welded repair or a "through-wall flaw" evaluation acceptable.

Nonetheless, Generic Letters 91-18 (Rev.1), 90-05,10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv) and IWB-3125(b) of ASME Section XI (referenced by lWD-3000) all require NRC relief for either a non-code repair or an acceptance by evaluation in a system which is operable, but degraded, as described above.

No evidence was founu ni use semporary atteration or CR packages that this relief was obtained.

Review Vand invalid Needed Date initletor: sheppard. R. P. O 0 0 11SS7 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomme J 8 0 0 1 SS7 VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K G O O 11'10/97 Pnnted 11/12/971:35:s0 PM Page 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0639 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 11/11/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identmed by NU? O Yes 'G) No Non D6screpent Condition V Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K g

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O O Date:

SL Comments:

Prtnted 11/12/971:36.06 PM Page 2 of 2

1 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0661 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report R.*w oroup: conngur on DavAuD ReWw Ehrnent SyWwn indende Potential OperatMity issue D6ecipl6ne: Piping Desig" D6ecrepency Type: Insteneon imp 6wnentate Om SystemProcess: DGX % No

~

NRC Signancence level: 3 Date FAKod to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 D6screpancy: vValkdown Discrepancy of DGX

Description:

The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the Emergency Diesel Generators (DGX):

1. Pipe support CP 360512-H0002 shown on drawing BZ-60R 79 Rev 1 is suppose to be supported between two wide flange beams that are 5ft 3ln apart. The field walkdown found the support to be cantilevered out 2ft 8in from one beam only.

2. Pipe support CP 360267 H002 shown on drawing BZ-60R-102 Rev1 has vertical tube steel supported from a wide flange beam but not centered on the flange as shown on the drawing.

Review Voi6d invei6d Needed Date initiator: Reed, J. W.

O O O 1 /S'S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O iirar VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K G O O 51oS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 11/11/77 Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously ident6hed by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes it) No Rev6ew g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K SL Comments:

Printed 11/12!971:36 57 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0282 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVAUD Review Element: System Desgo g p

Diecipime: Doctrical Deegn Diacrepancy Type: Conculebon O vee (S) No

~

systemProcess: SWP NRC sign 4Acence levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 Dacr*Pency; SWP System Motor Operated Valve Voltage Drop and Overload Relay Heater Selection Calculations Descripoon: Calculations 89-094-00121E3 and 89-094-00122E3 determine the starting voltage of SWP system motor operated valves. They also select the heaters of the overload relays that protect the valve motors.

Comments applicable to both calculations:

1. The PSS/U (OP/.L) model used for the voltage drop calculations need adwtlonal documentation. The general methodology of calculating the feederimpedanco and modeling the motor at locked rotor are correct. A reference or description should be provid6d that describes the remainder of the PSS/U i model. It is suggested that PSS/U print a report of the feeder and valve operator data that has been entered to simplify venfying data entry.

l 2, The voltage drop calculation uses three MCC voltages, the voltage at the MCC during degraded voltage conditions given as input data in earlier revisions of the calculation, the MCC voltage used by PSS/U, and the voltage to which the results of the PSS/U calculation were adjusted to. References should be provided for each of these voltages, i 3. The calculation of the motor locked rotor kVA was carried out to as few as two significant figures, even though the results of the calculation are expected to be to two or three significant figures, and PSS/U appears to allow the free format entry of data.

4. The locked rotor current of the valves is adjusted downward to account for being located in an area with a 49'C ambient temperature. Coefficients for common valve operator motors are given in Pi-4. A reference should be added to Limitorque's l

10CFR21 report of May 13,1993 which gives the meaning of the coefficients.

l S. The allowable locked rotor and running time of the valve l operator motors is calculated using the hot spot temperature for Class H insulation (180'C). However, the valve operator manufacturer, Limitorque, has stated that this hot spot Prtnted 11/12,971:46 37 PM Page 1 of 4 l

r

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0282 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report temperature was to provide margin to allow for post accident temperature and radiation levels. Limitorque recommends that the hot spot temperature for Class B insulation (130*C) be used.

This will reduce the safe locked rotor and running time of the motors.

6. The calculation assumes that the current drawn by the motors is proportional to the voltage. This may or not be true for valve operator motors. The valve operator motor characteristic curves give the locked rotor and full load current at 1 and 1.1 per unit voltage, it is preferable that this information be used rather than assuming that the current is proportional to the terminal voltage.

Comments Specific to 89-094-121E3:

1. The voltage at the terminals of 3SWP*MOV54B is calculated as 395 volts. Performing the indicated arithmetic operations gives a terminal voltage of 396 volts.

2. The " standard" valve operator motor is rated for 15 minutes of operation. However, the settings of 3SWP*MOV24A-D, 3SWP*MOV50A&B, and 3SWP*MOV54A-D were based on a different time rai ng. A reference for the time rating used was not cited.

3. The adjustment of the locked rotor current for 3SWP*MOV24A D due to ambient temperature was based on information published in PI-4 for the motor described by Reliance Electric characteristic curve M2735A. However, the

! characteristics of the motor indicate that the motor is a different type.

4. For motor operated valves 3SWP*MOV24A, 3SWP*MOV248,3SWP*MOV24C, 3SWP*MOV24D,3SWP*MOV50A, 3SWP*MOV508, 3SWP*MOV54 A, 3SWP*MOV548, 3SWP*MOV54C, 3SWP*MOV54D, 3SWP*MOV57A, 3SWP'MOV578, 3SWP*MOV57C, and 3SWP*MOV57D, the "Open-to-Close Bypass" and "Close-to-Open Bypass" statements on page 8 do not match the bypass requirement in the " General Notes" of Logic Diagram LSK 0-38, Note 6.6, which states that the torque switch is bypassed through 95% of valve travel in the safety direction.

, . .e l Comments Specific to Calculation 89-094-122E3:

1. The overload relay heater selection calculation and the l

l summary indicate that a G30T10 heater was used for 14WP*1AAUT 14 A Mnwouar the unlinns rirnn enlevilntlnn wne

r p gg gg py --Page 2 of 4 I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34282 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report based on the use of a G30T12 heater. The G30T10 heater has a higher resistance compared to a G30T12.

2. No reference is given for the coefficient used for adjusting the locked rotor current of 3SWP*MOV11SB for ambient temperature. The motor type used for this valve is not listed in the correction ci sfficients given in PI-4.

3. The text of the overioad heate selection calculation has not been revised to indicate that the criterion that the pickup value of the instantaneoins magnetic trip element exceeds 10 times the pickup rating of the thermal overioad relays, even though this is apparcat from the numerical results.

4. Note 1 on CCN4, pages 35 and 38 states that "TOL is bypassed during accident condition." Although motor operated valves 3SWP*MOV102A and 3SWP*MOV102B are bypassed whenever the respective service water pump is running (reference CCN 1 Pages 6-9), Schematic Diagrams ESK 6AAU, ESK-6AAV, ESK-6AAW, and ESK-6AAX do not include a CDA signal bypass of TOL

5. For motor operated valves 3SWP*MOV71 A, 3SWP*MOV71 B, 3SWP*MOV102A, 3SWP*MOV102B, 3SWP*MOV102C, 3SWP*MOV102D,3SWP*MOV115A, and 3SWP*MOV115B, the "Open-to-Close Bypass" and "Close-to-Open Bypass" statements I on page 8 do not match the bypass requirement in the " General Notes" of Logic Diagram LSK-0-3B, Note 6.6, in addition, the schematic diagrams show the torque switch bypassed at 100% of valve travel.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Bloethe, G. William 11 'S7 O O O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O $ 11/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O IRC Chrnn: singh, Anand K O O O

Date: 11/11/97 INVALID: In IRF-00818, Northeast Utilities has indicated that the calculations that are the subject of this discrepancy report are being revised. The revised calculations will be included in the ICAVP scope of review.

oste:

RESOLUTION.

Prev 6ously identmed by NU7 O Yes * * * "

pant Condition Q Yes @ No Review lattiator: Bloathe, G. Wham VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC chmn: sin 0h, Anand K Printed 11/12/971:46 46 PM "

Page 3 of 4

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0282 Mmstone Unit 3 - Discrepancy Report o:

SL Comments:

l Printed 11/12/971:40 48 PM Page 4of 4

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0283 Northeast Utilities Miiistone unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: System DR INVAUD N

Potenual Operability issue Discipline: Electncal Deegn O vos Discrepancy Type: Calculaten C#1 No System / Process: Oss NRC Significance level: 4 Date faked to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 DisefoPency: QSS System Motor Operated Valve Starting Voltage and Thermal Overtoad Relay Heater Calculation Descr6 phon: Calculation 89-094120E3 calculates the starting voltage of 30SS*MOV34A&B, it also selects the heater of the thermal overload relay and the setting of the magnetic instantaneous trip element that protects the valve motors.

1. The details of the PSS/U (OPAL) model used in the voltage drop calce89 tions needs additional documentation. The general methodology of calculating the feederimpedance and modeling the motor at locked rotor is correct. A reference or description should be provided that describes the remainder of the PSS/U model, it is suggested that PSS/U print a report of the feeder and valve operator data that has been entered to simplify verifying data entry, 2, The voltage drop calculation uses three MCC voltages, the voltage at the MCC during degraded voltage conditions given as input data in eariier revisions of the calculation, the MCC voltage used by PSS/U, and the voltage to which the results of the PSS/U calculation were adjusted to. Reference should be provided for eech of these voltages.

3. The calculation of the motor locked rotor kVA was carried out to as few as two significant figures, even though the results of the calculation are expected to be to two or three significant figures, and PSS/U appears to allow the free format entry of data.

4. The locked rotor current of the valves is adjusted downward to account for being located in an area with a 49'C ambient temperature. Coefficients for common valve operator motors are given in PI-4. A reference should be added to Limitorque's 10CFR21 report of May 13,1993 which gives the meaning of the coefficients.

- - 5. The allowable locked rotor and running time of the valve - .c operator motors is calculated using the hot spot temperature for Class H insulation (180'C). However, the valve operator manufacturer, Limitorque, has stated that this hot spot telmperature was to provide magin to allow for post-accident temperature and radiation levels. Umitorque recommends that the hot spot temperature for Class B insulation (130*C) be used.

Printed 11/12/971:45 37 PM Page 1 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0283 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report This will reduce the safe locked rotor and running time of the motors.

6. The calculation assumes that the current drawn by the motors is proportional to the voltage. This may or not be true for valve operator motors. The valve operator motor characteristic curves give the locked rotor and full load current at 1 and 1.1 per unit voltage. It is preferable that this information be used rather than a*suming that the current is proportional to the terminal voltage.

7. The numerical results in the section of the calculation that selects the devices that protect the motors of SQSS*MOV34A and 30SS*MOV34B do not satisfy tne criterion that the instantaneous magnetic trip element pick up at no more than 10 times the pickup current of the thermal overload relays.

However, the text indicates that this criterion is satisfied.

8. For motor operated valves 3QSS*MOV34A and 3QSS*MOV348, Note 1 on CCN .4, pages 38 and 41 states that "TOL is bypassed during accident condition." The schematic diagrams show that the accident signal is in series with a second permissive, and this series combination bypasses the TOL, not the accident signal alone.

9. For motor operated valves 3QSS*MOV34A and 3QSS*MOV348, Article (C) (1) on page 7 states that the TOL should be bypassed during a safety signal. The schematic diagrams show that the accident signal is in series with a second permissive (RWST level "not empty"), and this series combination bypasses the TOL, not the accicient signal alone.

10. For motor operated valves 3QSS*MOV34A and 3QSS*MOV348, the "Open-to-Close Bypass" and "Close-to-Open Bypais" statements on page 8 do not match the bypass requirement in the " Genera! Notes" of Logic Diagram LSK-0-38, Note 6.6 which states that the torque switch is bypassed through 95% of valve travelin the safety direction.

Review Valid invoud Needed Date initiator: Bioethe, G. Will6am O '1'11/S7 O O O O 1 '11/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K O O O BRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Q Date: 11/11/97 INVAUO: In IRF-00818, Northeast Utilities has indicated that the ca. . ..,a.,,1,..i ..u i,ie subject of this discrepancy report are being revised. The revised calculations will be included in the ICAVP scope.

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously klontmed by NU? ( ) Yes '#) No hon Discrecent Condition ( ) Yes (#1 No Printed 11/12/971:45:44 PM Page 2 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0283 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report _ _ , _ _

. , _ . m_ ,_

-> m o-- .

Review

N' initietor: Bloeuw, G. Williun VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A b

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O O O Date:

SL Comments:

PrWed 11/12/971:45 47 PM P W3

I DR No. DR-MP3-0284 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVALID

I "

Potential Operatety issue D6scip46ne: Electncel Doogn Ow D6ecrepency Type: Calculeuon @ No Systen#rocese: Rss NRC Significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6ecroP*acy: RSS System Motor Operated Valve Start;ng VoltaCe and Overload Relay Heater Selection Calculations

Description:

Calculations 89-094-112E3,89-094117E3,89-094120E3, and 89-094-332E3 calculate the starting voltage and select protective devices for various RSS system motor operated valves.

Comments Applicable to All Calculations

1. The details of the PSS/U (OPAL) model used in the voltage drop calculations need additional documentation. The general methodology of calculating the feeder impedance and modeling the motor at locked rotor is correct. A reference of description should be provided that describes the remainder of the PSS/U model. It is suggested that PSS/U print a report of the feeder and valve operator data that has been entered to simplify verifying data entry.

2, The voltage drop calculation uses three MCC voltages, the voltage at the MCC during degraded voltage conditions given as input data in earlier revisions of the calculation, the MCC voltage used by PSS/U, and the voltage to which the results of the PSS/U calculation were adjusted to. References should be provided for each of these voltages.

3. The calculation of the motor locked rotor kVA was carried out to as few as two significant figures, even though the results of the calculation are expected to be to two or three significant figures, and PSS/U appears to allow the free format entry of data.

4. The locked rotor current of the valves is adjusted downward to account for being located in an area with a 49'C ambient temperature. Coefficients for common valve operator motors are given in PI-4. A reference should be added to Limitorque's 10CFR21 repcot of May 13,1993 which gives the meaning of the coefficients.

5. The allowable locked rotor and running time of the valve operator motors is calculated using the hot spot temperature for Class H insulation (180*C). However, the valve operator manufacturer, Umitorque, has stated that this hot spot telmperature was to provide margin to allow for post-accident Pnnted 11/12/971:44 5(, PM Page 1 of 4

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0284 North (ast ptilities Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report temperature and radiation levels, bmitorque recommends that the hot spot temperature for Class B insulation (130*C) be used.

This will reduce the safe locked rotor and running time of the motors.

6. The calculation assumes that the current drawn by the motors is proportional to the voltage. This may or not be true for valve operator motors. The valve operator motor characteristic curves give the locked rotor and fullload current at 1 and 1.1 per unit voltage, it is preferable that this information be used rather than assuming that the current is proportional to the terminal voltage.

Comments Specific to Calculation 89-094112E3:

1. The resistance of the feeder to 3RSS*MV8838B is shown as 0.373 ohm. However, performing the arithmetic operations shown results in a resistance of 0.381 ohm.

2. A reference for the stroke time of 3RSS*MV8838A and 3RSS*MV88388 could not be identified.

l-

3. The horsepower ratings for motor operated valves 3RSS*MV8838A and 3RSS*MV88388 have not been revised from 1.9 to 3.2 horsepower in the sketches on CCN 2, pages 8 l and 11.

Comments Specific to 89-094-117E3:

1. The section to calculate the starting voltage of l 3RSS*MOV388 indicates that the resistance of the feeder for

) this valve is 1.9050 ohms. However, performing the indicated l arithmetic gives a feeder resistance of 1.907 ohms.

2. The motors for 3RSS*MOV38A&B have been replaced. A reference could not be found that indicated whether or not changing the motor affected the valve stroke time.

3. The horsepower ratings for motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV38A and 3RSS*MOV388 have not been revised from 0.33 to 0.7 horsepower on the sketches shown on CCN 2, pages 8 and 11.

1 l

Comments Specific to Calculation 89-094-120E3:

l

1. The motor characteristic curve for 3RSS*MOV23A D indicates that the current at full load torque is about 0.6 ampere. The l

I nuarinnd ho ntor enlar finn r nli vifntinn eiend n untiin nf n '40

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 2 of 4

~~

~~~ ~~

Pnnted 11/12/971:45.00 PM l

DR No, DR-MP3-0244 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ampere for the current at full load torque. This changes the minimum tripping time of the overload relay from infinity in the calculation to 225 seconds. Both values are greater than the valve duty cycle time of 60 seconds. The calculation indicates that the minimum overiosd relay tripping time for 2 times rated torque load is 125 seconds, while the overload relay time current characteristic curve indicates 90 seconds. Both values are greater than the valve stroke time of 30 seconds.

2. In the sections for calculating the terminal voltage of 3RSS*MOV200 and the selection of the overload relay heater for 3RSS*MOV20A-D, the changes to the original calculation were incompletely marked.

3. For motor operated valve 3RSS*MOV208, the motor full load current (FLC) reference is given as Attachment 1, Page 1 on CCN3, page 32. However, the curve for this valve is shown on Attachment 1 Page 1 A.

4. For motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV20A,3RSS*MOV208, 3RSS*MOV20C, 3RSS*MOV200, 3RSS*MOV23A, 3RSS*MOV23B,3RSS*MOV23C, and 3RSS*MOV23D, the

Open-to-Close Bypass

and 'Close-to-Open Bypass

statements on pacs 8 do not match the bypass requirement in the ' General Notas* of Logic Diagram LSK-0 38, Note 6.6 which states that the torque switch is bypassed through 95% of valve travel in the safety direction.

Comments Specific to Calculation 89-094 332E3:

1. The rated torque of the new motors for 3RSS*MV3387A&B is 5 foot pounds. However, the overload relay heater selection l calculation Indicates that twice the nominal torque of the motor is 8 foot pounds.

2. The calculathn indicates that the tripping time of the overload l relay at the current corresponding to twice the rated torque is 40 l to 150 seconds. However, the overload relay time versus current l curves indicate that the tripping time is 70 to 220 seconds. Both l minimum values are greater than the valve stroke time of 12 l seconds. Both maximum values are less th - the valve motor thermallimit time of 248 seconds..

3. Tt e original motors of 3F ~ ; ' . e.~, <mL , ave been replaced with motors having greater torque output. A reference could not be found for the statement in the introduction to the l CCN that the stroke time changed from 10 seconds to 12

! seconds.

4. The horsepower ratings for motor operated valves SDSS*0tunn tvA nna Sn_gg+yggynun nn'. haan revised Pnnted 11/11971:45 01 PM Page 3 of 4

DR No. DR MP3-0284 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report frorn 1.9 to 3.2 horsepower in the sketches on CCN2. pages 8 and 11.

5. Motor operated valves 3RSS*MOV8837A and 3RSS*MOV88378 are referred to as butterfly valves on page 7, However this does not agree with P&lD EM 112C.

Review Valid invaled Needed Date inniator: Bioetne, G.Wehem O O O 15'15/87 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O $1'15/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O O O lac chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q Date: 11/11/97 INVAL10: in IRF 00818, Northeast Utilities has indicated that the calculations that are the subject of this discrepancy report are being revised. The revised calculctions will be included in the ICAVP scope.

Date:

RESOLUTION.

Prev 6ously identified by NU7 O Yes tilNo Non D6screpent Cond46cn O Yes (n) No Review inMietor: Blosthe, G. Wilhern VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A b

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

Printed 11/12971:45 05 PM Page 4 of 4

DR No. DR-MP3 0399 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Syenom DR INVAUD kit w Element: System Det'en 06ecipline: Mecherucal Design Om Diecrepency Tyy: LW Document @) No

~

Systen#rocese: QSS NRC Signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 D4ecropency: FSAR Change Request 97 MP3-76 is n0t consistent with PDCR 3-96135, Descrigtion: FSAR Section 6.5.2.1, including FSAR Change Request 97 MP3-76, takes credit for post accident removal of airbome radiolodine by quench spray. Subsequent to PDCR 3-94-135, installation of Trisodium Phosphate Baskets in Containment, the pH of the quench spray is not sufficiently high to solubilize radiolodine, Review Valid invalid Needed Date inatiator: Feingold, D. J. O O O 11'11/S7 O 1 '11/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O vi Mgr: schopen. Don K O O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: 10/30i97 INVALID: Calculation 88-019-96RA Revision 2 applies an lodine partioning factor for quench spray.

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identined by NU7 (.) Yes @ No Non D6screMnt Cond# tion (.) Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A VT Mgt: schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Conwnents:

(

Printed 11/12/971'4413 PM Page 1 of 1

l DR No. DR-MP3-0417 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discropancy Report Review Group: System DRINVALID R* view Element: Sp Design g gy D6eciPaine: W Design O Yes Discrepency Ty,* Component cete

@ No Syelemerocese: OSS NRC Signiflcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15S7 Di.crepancy: Specificatien 2275.601-023-001 shows a RWST tag number inconsistent w/ PDDS & other drwgs.

Deecripuon: The plant computer data base PDOS, drawing 2275.601-023-001 Revision R, and P&lD EM-115A Revision 18 show the tag number for the Refueling Water Storage Tank to be 3QSS*TK1, However, the tank design specification 2275.001-023 through Addendum 3 Identifies the tank tag number as 3OSS-TK1, Review Valid involid Nooded Date O $11'S7 initiator: Fengold, D. J. O O O 1 '10S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O VT Mgr schopfer, Don K O O O IRC Chmn: sat Anand K O O O Date: 11/10/97 INVALID: This condition is considered an editorial error in the specification.

f Editorial errors are outside the scope of the ICAVP.

l Date:

RESOLUTION:

(

Previously identified by NU7 Q Yee @ No Non Discrepent Conditkm O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date

(

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A

( VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anend K Date:

SL Commente:

l-Pnnted 11/12S71:43 25 PM Page 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0431 Northeast Utilit'es Millston* Unit 3 Discrepaocy Report Review Oroup: system DR INVALID Potential Operetnlity lesue Diecipline' Mecherweal Desgn O Yee tascrepency Type: uceang Documet j, g,

~

SysterWProceae: Rss NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15,97 Discrepency: FSAR Table 6.2-61 is inconsistent with DBSD 3DBS-NSS-003 w/

respect to TSP basket capacity.

Descript6an: FSAR Table 6.2-61 shows the trisodium phosphatc baskets in containment to have a minimum capacity of 81.17 cubic feet.

Design Basis Summary Document 3DBS-NSS-003 Revision 0, Section 12.9.2, requires the trisodium phosphate baskets to have a minimum capacity of 81.25 cubic feet.

Drawing 25212 51365 Revision 1 shows the inside dimensions of each basket to be d' 11" X 4'-11" X 3' 9*. This results in approximately 86 cubic feet of capacity for each basket, allowing for the volume of the basket framing. The dimensions of the basket framing members is provided on drawing 25212 51366 Revision 1. The actual capacity is greater than the minimum required volumes documented at 81.17 and 81.25 cubic feet.

Review Vend invalid Needed Date inmaanor: reingoid. D. J. O O O 110'S7 O 11'10'S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony ^ O O VT Mgr: scinpfer, Don K O O O IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 10/30/97 INVALID: This discre.oancy is invalid. The volume of the TSP bcsket in the FSAR (81.17 cft) and the Design Basis Summary document (81.25 cft) is the same for all practical purposes.

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously ider.tifled by NU? O Yee @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes i No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lsed: Nett, Anthony A O O O VT Mgt: bchnofer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

SL Commente:

Printed 11/12971:4245 PM Page 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0466 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR DNALID Potential Operebelity issue 06ecipline: Mechenecol Dmign O Ya Diecrepasw.y Type: Calculation 4 g,

~

SyelerWProcess: Rss NRC Signiacance level: 3 Det. faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 ,

Descrepency: Spray Area' Calculation ES 229

Description:

Calculation ES-229 (Rev.1; CCN 1) determines the spray area for each OSS and RSS spray heade>. at standard containment piessure and at an elevated containment prersure.

Page 12 ci the enulation introduces a friction factor. The friction factor is the effectiveness of the r, pray due to steam, air and other particulates in containment. This factor comes from SWEC Safeguards Genetic Calculation PE-125. This calculation was requested by RFl MP3-278. Response M3 IRF-00222 indicated that Calculation PE 125 could not be found in the NU System. The conclusions of the calculation appear to be consistent with the purpose, methodology and inputs. However, a final conclusion cannot be drawn since Calculation PE 125 is not available.

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: Longel, D. O O O '/1$1S7 11/11/g7 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A Q @ Q VT Mor: schopter, Don x 0 0 0 -

IRC Chnm: f,ingh, Anand K O O O Date: 11/11/97 INVAL10: This DR is invalid. The appropriate Information regarding this discrepant condition is already included on DR-MP3-0464.

Dece:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition O Yes i No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K De'e:

SL Comments:

Printed 11/12,971:42.o3 PM Pegs 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0631 Northeast Utilities Mill: tone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -

F.eview Group: System DR INVALID

Potential Operabi44ty issue D6cipiire: N Deegn O Yo.

D6ecrepancy Type: Calculeton

@ No systemerocess: R$%

M1C Enyner.::ence level: 4 Date faked to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6ecrapency: Calculation 554P Dener, anon: Calculation 554P (Rev. 0) determines the height of water in the RSS Pump Cubicles if new etructural walls are added, These walls were added as shown on Drawings EC-32A and EC-32F.

The calculation references Calculation 418P (Rev,0) for the water dischargt, rate from a line break of 787 gpm. Calculation 418P was superseded by Calculation P(R) 1194. Calculation P(R)-1194 Indicates the worst case line break will discharge approximately 560 gpm.

Review val 6d inval6d Needed Date inatsstor: Longes, c, O O O 15/11/S7 VT Leed: Nat, Antnany A O O O ' $'t $1S7 vr uge: schapter, D* K O O O IRC Civnn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 11/11/g7 INVALO: The condition identified in this DR is that a value referenced in a calculation was sute,equently revised and the calculation which initially referenced the value was net revised accordingly.

This condition is not considered discrepant since the initial value is bounding and yields conservative results.

Date:

RESOLUTKNd:

Prev 6ously identined by NU? O Yes ? No Non Discropunt Condit6on O Yes @ No Review ,

Acceptable Not Acceptable - Needed Date VT Leed: Neft, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K SL Comments:

Prmted 11/12/971:4121 PM Page 1 or 1

Northeast UtP s ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0532 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVAUD Patential Operability lesue Diecipline: Mecherncel Design Diseropency Type: Caiculebon SysterwProcoes: RSS g'

NRC SW levd 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 D'*crepancy: Calculation 555P Deactlption: Calculation 555P (Rev. 0) determines if a full flow rate test of the RSS Pumps can be accomplished with the present piping arrangement.

The calculation did not specify which pump's flow test path was chosen for determining head loss. Because of this, the length of pipe and number of fittings could not be dup'icated. The length of pipe and the number of fittings used fn the calculation are greater than the shown on the referenced drawings for any flow test path. The conclusions of the calculation are not adversely affected.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initeetor: Langel. D. O O O 111'S7 '

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O ' '"'S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q Date: 11/11/97 INVAUD: The Calculation bounds all the flJw test paths. The length of pipe and number of fittings resulted in a higher loss coefficient than would be determined using the length of pipe and number of fittings for any flow test path from the referenced drawings.

Dete:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifled by NU? O Yes (91 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes 9) No Review

,g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O G IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

4 Printed 11/12,971:4039PM page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0633 Milish ne unk 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: Systern DR INVAUD Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechenecal Design Disc!apancy Type: Can,Jetson Om SystemProcess: RSS g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6acrepancy: Calculation ES-237

Description:

Calculation ES-237 (Rev. 0; CCN 1) determines the amount of water, from the RSS and QSS Sprays, held-up due to the kick plate at Elevation 3'-8". This is used to determine the amount of water available in the sump for the RSS Pump suction. Two cases are considered: 1) for water to hold-up the full 6" depth of the kick plate, and 2) for water to hold-up to a depth of 2" above the floor.

The calculation did not consider a 4' wall by the Holst Area in Steam Generator Cubicle A. The wall does not affect the second case since the location is close to the containment wall where the floor is 1" below the top of the kick plate. The wall affects the first case. This does not affect the conclusions of the calculation.

Review l Valid invalid Needed Date initietor: Langel, D. O O O 11/11/S7 VT Lsad: Nort, Anthony A O O O 1 1/S7 l vr Mgr: Schopf. Don x 0 0 O BRC Civnn: Singh, Anand K O O O Dek: 11/11/97 INVALID: The 4' wall reduces the amount of water held-up by 15 gallons.

This increases the amount of water in the s mp and available for RSS Spray. Therefore, not accounting for this quantity is conservative and is not a discrepancy.

Date:

l RESOLUTION Previously identified by NU? O Yes !9) No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes (9) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

.... .c..as: 4 Printed 11/12/971:39 46 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34636 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Oroup: system DRINVAUD Review Element: System Desegn ,

Diecipline: Meenancel Desagn Discrepancy Type: Calculebon Om '

M No

~

SystemProcess: Oss NRC Signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11l1597 D6ecrepency. Calculation P(R)-934 Deecription: Calculation P(R)-934 (Rev. 0; CCN 1) determines the piping friction loss in the QSS Spray Headers.

The pressure loss between nozzles on the upper header due to pipe friction is based on the flow rate squared. The result (Page

6) is missing the Q^2 term. The equation is applied correctly throughout the calculation.

The overall pressure loss in the upper header (Page 7) iterates past each set of nozzles. The first iteration determines the pressure loss to be 0.046 psi. Using the equations developed and the values given, this value should be 0.058 psi. This is a 3.4% increase in the pressure drop.

The pressure loss between nozzles on the lower header due to pipe friction usee the inside diameter (ID) of the piping. The lower header is 10' Schedule 40 piping which has an ID of 10.02" The equation (page 9) uses an ID of 10.01".

None of these items affects the conclusions of the calculation.

Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel, D. O O O 11/11/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A ] @ Q 11/11/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q g Q 11/6/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: 11/6/97 lNVALID: This DR is considered invalid. There are three items on this DR.

1. The equation is correctly calculated even though the Q^2 term is missing from the equation. This is not a discrepancy.

2. The difference of 0.012 psiin this application is insignificant.

3. The difference of 0.01 inches on the ID of a 10" diameter is insignificant and not sufficient for a discrepancy report.

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Provinualy identined by NU7 Q Yes '91 No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptab6e Not Acceptable Needed Date init h

M VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Printed 11/12/971:38 52 PM Page 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0634 Northeast Utilities

- Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O O 1RC Chmn: S% Anand K O b b Dele:

SL Comments:

~Prned 11/12,971:36 58 PM Py 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0640 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: System DR INVAUD Potential Operatsity issue D6ecipline: Mechancel Doogn D6screpancy Type: Calculaton O

g v.

~

System / Process: RSS NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1597 D6ecrecancy: Calculation US(B)-311 Ductiption: Calculation US(B)-311 (Rev,0; CCN1) is the RSS branch flow analysis using degraded pump curves. This is a supplement to Calculation US(B) 245 (Rev,0; CCNs 1,2 & 3). The calculation uses Stone & Webster Program HY-063 for the calculation.

The calculation determines the branch flows for the ECCS systems for minimum (1 train per system) and maximum (all trains) safeguard. The program uses a flow differential of 0.5 gpm to determine convergence, For minimum safeguard, the second train needed to be eliminated so the head loss was set to 990,000,000. The results Indicate full flow from one train and approximately 10 gpm from the second train. The flow rates in the FSAR are based on this calculation. The flows arent significant.

Review Valid invalid Nooded Date initiator: Langel, D. O O O 11 /S7 11/11/g7 VT Leed: Nwl, Anthony A Q Q Q VT Mor: Schopfer. Don K O O O IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 11/j j/97 INVAUD: A model of the system with zero Train 2 flow would result in a flow rate change in Train 1 less than 0.5 percent. This percent change is insignificant. Further, the calculation is conservative since the system resistance la the common piping is calculated using a larger flow rate.

Date:

RESOLUTION Prev 6ously identifled by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K b IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Conwnents:

Printed 11/12971:30 09 PM page1 or 1

!Cle/P DR No DR-MP3-0138 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepaincy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potent 6el OperatWuty laeue Discipiene: Mechancel Doolgn 4 D6ecrepency Type: Component Date O No SysterrvProcese: HVX NRC Elgnificance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 9/1997 Discrepency: Tomado Damper Safety Classification Descripuon: FSAR 'nible 3.21 classifies the Emergency Diesel Generator Enclosure ventilation system, except normal exhaust fan, as ANS Safety Class 3. The PDDS and PMMS databases identify tomado dampers 3HVP*DMPT2A/B/C/D as QA category I components. Review of specification 2103.430-668 identified the following discrepancies:

1. Specification 2103.430-668 Addendum 1 on page 2 of 7 and on datasheets 2 8,2-9,210, and 211 identifies the dampers as 3HVP DMPT2A/B/C/D instead of 3HVP*DMPT2A/B/C/D which is used on the system P&lD EM 150C 15, physical drawing EB-7A.

12, vendor drawing 2103.430-668-031D, and the plant databases (PDDS, PMMS).

2. Specification 2103.430-668 datasheets 2-8,2 9,210, and 2-11 identify the dampers as QA Ill components instead of QA 1.

Vendor drawing 2103.430-668-031D does not identify the safety classification of the dampers.

This wi ; classified as a Level 3 as the vendor drawing does not clearly identify the dampers as QA I components instead of the QA lll classification shown on the specification data sheets.

Review Valid invol6d Needed Date initiator: Stout, M D- G O O $11/S7 O O 8/1"S7 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A O VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O 9/12/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K -0 0 0 S/1SS7 Date:

INVAll0:

Date: 10/14/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0138 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which sequires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3323 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.

A review of the specification was conducted to verify that the cias:;ification of tomado dampars DMPT2A/B/C/D on the non-Q normal ventilation subsystem is an error of identification in the specification, and that the dampers were purchased to meet the Quality Category I requirements. The rt suits are summarlzed below.

Prtnted 11n2/971:47.41 PM Page 1 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0138 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The specification sections: Seismic Requirements, Quality Assurance, Tests, inspections and Documentation, do not differentiate in the level of these activities for items listed in the specification as QA Category I against those listed as QA Category ill. The Testing, inspection and Documentation (TID)

Checklist, page 1-44 of the specification, summarizes these TID activities for all the items without distinguishing between listed QA Categories.

The Procurement Quality Control documentation has been reviewed for the TID activities, and for the following list of criteria, dampers 3HVP*DMPT2A/B/C/D were found to meet the same requirements as dampers designated as QA Category 1:

Welding Procedures, Welder Qualifications, Control of Weld Filler Metals, Weld Filler Metals Visual Weld Inspection Low Hydrogen Electrodes Material Certificate of Compliance, Painting, Seismic Final Analysis Report and Certificate of Compliance Operational Timing Test and Qualification Test Qualification Testing was limited to a sample of 12 dampers, which precluded the dampers listed as QA Category lit, as well as 28 QA Category I tomado dampers.

Dimensional Check - Although the specification does not define the extent of this activity, documentation shows that several l dampers were seiected for inspection. Precluded from this were the dampers listed as QA Category lit, as well as 19 listed as QA Category 1.

Packaging, Shipping, Records and Certification for Packaging, Handling and Storage ND'.' Procedures and NDT Personnel Qualifications Assembly and Marking, Documentation Audit and Shipping Release Tag The seismic qualific uon report addresses the technical treatment of all the dampers, including the "QA Catogory lll*

dampers, in one uniform manner.

None of the vendor documents of this purchese order identify the i

safety classification of any demper, whether QA Category I or Ill. Activities of the manufacturer are not directed by the Safety classifications and QA categories, but rather by the extent of testing, inspection and documentation required for each item in l the specification.

Based on the above it can be seen that dampers wur Aprupfco mere rwirrhnena tri tha enm.

Prtnted 11n2/971:47:46 PM Page 2 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0138 NEast utilities Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report requirements as other dampers purchased under the same specification that were designated as QA Category 1. This results in ths need to revise the specification only, therefore DR-MP3-0138 is considered an administrative issuo. NU Considers this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.

Prevkety klerd6rM by NUF V Yes * > No Non D6ectopard Condmon U Yee #1 No Rev6ew Acceptelde Not Acce,deble Needed Date initletor: StaA, M. D' " "7 VT Lead: Neft, Ardhony A O

O 55nS7 YT Mori schopfer, Don K O O 1RC Chmn: Srfi, Anand K O O O 5 t'in'S7 O O O t t/1157 Date: 10/14/97 SL Conmords: Based on informatloil Contained in response, Classify discrepancy as a Level 4 i

Prvded 11I14971:47.49 PM Pope 3 of 3 j

...mensmid

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0152 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oroup: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTLD Potent 6al Opetebeiny issue Di.cipua.: untw De.,"

O Yee d Descrepancy Type: Drewwg ,

g System / Process: RSS NRc s6rufbcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 10/1097 Diacrepancy: P&ID EM-112C 16 does not show cross ties on each pair of RSS pump suction lines.

Descriptkw According to FSAR Table 6.2-62, a cross tie between each pair of containment recirculation pump suction lines drawing from opposite sides of the containment sump is required. The purpose of these cross ties is to allow either containment sump screen assembly to supply either or both recirculation pumps in the pair should one recirculation pump suction screen become clogged . However, P&lD EM 112C 16 falls to show a cross tie with remote manual valves.

Review Val 4d Invahd Needed Date initiator: Feingo6d. D. J. O O O S'5hS7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A @ Q Q 9/1&S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S'5SS7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 103S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 11/3/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0152 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. P&lD EM 112C 16 accurately reflects the system design and configuration. The description in FSAR Table 6.2-62 was incorrect. This was previously identified by UlR 970.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0152 identifies a condition previously identified by NU which requires correction. The description in FSAR Table 6.2-62 was incorrect. FSARCR 97 MP3-82 has been issued to correct Table 6.2-62.

Prev 6ously klentsfbed by NU? tG) Yes O No Non Discrepent CondP.lon O Yes # ' No Review Accepteu root acceptause Needed Date inMu's FM. D. A V1 Lead: Neft, Anthony A VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K LRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sLCoaunant:1 Printed 11/12,97148 27 PM Pope 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0162

, Northeast utilities Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report

~~

Printed 11/12S71:48 32 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 020Y Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1 Review Group: Accident Magaton DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: $yetem Design p g j D6 cipi6ne: MechwucalD g" O vee D6ecrepency Type: tJeerming D:cument e) No

~

SysterrvProceed: N/A NRC Signincance levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 10/397 l D'*cr*P*acy: Fast Closure Time For Turbine Control Valves is Not Verified Descr6pt60n: The accident analysis reported in FSAR $15.2.2.1, page 15.2 3, ,

states ' Termination of steam flow to the turbine following a loss i of extemalload occurs due to automatic fast closure of the turbine contrei ,ralves in approximately 0.3 seconds."

Review of the equipment specifications did not identify data to .

support this requirement.

Review Val 6d lovelid Nooded Date inatiator: Peebles, W, R. O O O S'12S7 VT Lead: Rehop. Raj D Q Q Q 9/1297 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O v22S7 IRC Chmn: singh Anand K O O O S27/S7 Dei.:

INVAUD:

Date: 11/3/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0208, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires ccrrection.

S&L states in DR MP3-0208, that review of equipment specifications did not identify data to support the statement made in FSAR Sec.15.2.2.1 that automatic fast closure of the turbine control valves occurs in approximately 0.3 seconds.

FSAR Sec.15.2.2 states that since the close time of the turbine control valves is 0.3 seconds and the close time of the turbine stop valves is 0.1 seconds, only the more severe transient which results in closing cf the stop valves is analyzed.

The Main Turbine Control Valves (3 MSS MCV1 thru 4) were provided by General Electric (GE) under Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) Specification 2311.050-002 (M002) as part of the main turbine package. The M002 specification does not provide any data conceming the closing time of the main turbine coritrol valves.

Final Safety Analysis Report Condition Report (FSARCR) 97 MP3-42 was initiated on 3/8/97 by the 10 CFR 50.54f FSAR verification team. This FSARCR proposed revising FSAR Sec.

15.2.1 to change "approximately 0.3 seconds' to 'not less than 0.3 seconds' for the turbine control valve closure time and to change 'approximately 0.1 seconds

to *not less than 0.1 naconds' for the turbine sinn yglyg.ctneure time-Printed 11/11971.49 05 PM Page 1 or 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0204 Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report GE Power Generation Services was contacted and stated that closure times of the turbine stop valves and control valves are part of the GE intemal design of the main turbine. GE also identified closure times of 0.5 to 0.8 sec for the turbine control valves and 0.2 to 0.5 sec for the turbine stop valves for the MP3 main turbine (turbine number 170X578). The lower time values are for the ideal case with new valves. The higher time values are estimated times or valves on site as assembled.

The accident times assumed in chapter 15 are much faster than 0.3 seconds for the turbine control valve and 0.1 second for the turbine stop valve. The faster closure times result in a more severe transient. Therefore, these valve closure times are conservative with respect to the times stated is the FSARCR.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0208, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. FSARCR 97 MP3-42 was initiated on 3/8/97 by the 10 CFR 50.54f FSAR verification team to address this issue. The closure times provided by the vendor are conservative with respect to the times stated is the FSARCR.

Prev 6ously identmed by NU7 19) Yes O No Non D6ecrepent Condition U Yes (S) No Review Inniator: Poetes. W. R.

VT Lead: Rahepa.RajD 8 O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Comments:

{

l l

Prtnted 11/12,971:4912 PM Page 2 of 2 l

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

Northeast Utikties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4249 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Coingureten DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: syetem Des 6gn D6scipl6ne: EW Demp" 06ecrepancy Type: instel6 sten Requiremems O vee g

SystemProceae: sWP NRC Signmcence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6ehed: &2997 D'acrepancy: Missing Support Detalls Deecr6pt6en: Tray support location drawing 12179-EE 34EX, Rev. 5 calls for detail types D102A, D202A, D104A, and D204A. This drawing Indicates via tabulation that detall drawings for these supports are on drawing 12179-EE 34HR. Rev. 4. Review of this document and its open change documents did not reveal details for these support types.

Rev6ew Vei6d inval6d Needed Date init6atort server, T. L O O O S'I'S7 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony ^ G O O 8'15S7 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 27197 lac chmn: shgh, Anand K O O O S2s97 Date:

INVAUO:

Date: 10/19/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0249, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

A discrepancy has been identified as missing support detail on drawing EE 34HR that requires a documentation update. The discrepancy is a drafting error on drawing EE 34HR. The support tabulation on drawing EE 34EX refers to three trays at different elevations on EE 34HR, however, drawing EE 34HR shows four trays in the support details. A note on drawing EE 34HR located at zone G4 says that the cable tray supports are similar to the corresponding non alpha numbered supports, and that drawing EE 34EX should be referred to for the appropriate elevation levels of the cable trays. Although the supports were property constructed in the field, the design will be corrected and indicate what three trays belong to details D102A, D202A, D104A and D204A. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3429 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve the issue.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0249, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The discrepancy is limited to a drafting issue on drawings EE 34HR. This is only a documentation chance in drawina EE-34HR to clarifv the clinrnr1 detalic

' ' ~

Pnnled 11/1297149 $3 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0249 Millstone Unn 3 Disciopancy Report Condition Report (CR) MS 97 3429 was wntten to provide necessary corrective actions to resolve the issue.

Prev 60usly identined by NU7 O Yes GI No Non Discrepent CorwWon O Yes O' No Review Irdietor Server, T. L. W" P'" " M' I

VT Lead: Noti. Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K b O O II#OI 1RC Ctem: Shph, Anand K g O iins7 C LJ O 11/1157 SL Comments:

I Pnnled 11/12971,49 50 PM PQ 2 or 2

l 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4404 Northeast Utilities Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Reykw Element: system Deegn Pokntial Opereb6idy boue Diecipline: Mecherwel Doeg" O Ya !

Diacropency Type: Component Date (M No I SyelerrVProcoes: HVX NRc Sign 6ficance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Pubi6ehed: 10'2197 D6*cr*Pency: SLCRS Duct Construction Ducti Ption: During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) the following discrepancy was identified regarding the SLCRS ductwork construction.

- FSAR Section 6.2.3.4 states that the SLCRS duct is of all-welded construction.

Per Specification 2170.430-565 page 218, the SLCRS ductwork is construction class SXH-LL with the exception of the ductwork upstream of the filters below auxiliary building elevation 66'-6" and SLCRS duct in ESF building which is construction class SH-LL. On page 2 33 of the specification it states that SXH ductwork shall be all welded construction and companion angle flanged transverse joints shall have the flange intemally seal welded to the duct. On page 2 24 of the spectification it states that SH construction class ductwork shall be in accordance with SMACNA High Pressure Duct Construction Standards. The specification does not require class SH ductwork to be all welded.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: stout, M. D. O O O io*S7 O io/7/87 VT Leed: Nat, Anthony A O O VT Mgr: schoptw, Don K O O O io/1'S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O o/ t'S7 Dei.:

INVALID:

Dek: 11/6/97 RESOLUTION: NU hat, concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0408, does not represent a discrepant condition, Page 218 of Specification 2170.430-565 identifies the SLCRS ductwork as Class SXH-LL and SH-LL, however the SXH and SH portion of the designation describes the Class of ductwork. The LL following the Class designation describes a " low leakage" requirement for both Classes of ductwork and requires them to be of welded construction. Refer to the first two paragraphs on page 2 22 of Specification 2170.430 565 attached Significance Level criteria does not apr'" " Sh !* W c #.,crepant condition.

Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Diecrepent condM6on f Yes Q No Review initiator: stout, M D.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O mm vi Men scnope.r Don K Prwed 11/12,971.50 40 PM Page 1 or 2

Northeast Utstles ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0408 mmetone unn 3 Discrepancy Report 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O iirias7 Q O t tit tro7 Date:

SL Comments:

l l

i l

l l

Pnnled 11/12S71:50 46 PM Page 2 of 2 l

1

- - . - - . , . , . _ , . . _ . . . , . _ . ,

ML20198S918

Contents

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

ML20198S918

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search