ML20199B891
| ML20199B891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1998 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| CON-9583-100 NUDOCS 9801290039 | |
| Download: ML20199B891 (31) | |
Text
~
9
\
- 4. , /
V.
Sar gerit & Lundy'c
[
Don K. Schopfer f \
Senior %ce President 312 269-6078 January 27,1998 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 States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following five (5) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP, These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3 01.
DR No. DR-MP3-0958 OR No. DR-MP3-0970 DR No. DR-MP3-0988 DR No. DR-MP3 0990 DR No. DR-MP3-0994 I have also enclosed the following one (!) DR that has been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for this DR. The basis for its invalid determination is }j included on the document DR No. DR-MP3-0948 q l have also enclosed the following six (6) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR-MP3-0211 DR No. DR-MP3-0213 DR No. DR-MP3-0234 DR No. DR-MP3 0240 DR No. DR-MP3 0309 DR No. DR-MP3-0335 9001290039 DR 900127 ADOCK0500gJ 1 1 111 gl g,, .
55 East Mooroe Street a Chicago. ll. 60603-5780 USA
- 312-269 2000
i
- {. -o..
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 271998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the two (2) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed-but not acceptei S&I, comraents or. these resolutions have been provided.
- DR No. DR MP3-0301 >
DR No. DR-MP3-0405 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269 6078.
Yours very truly, p c' b D. A. pfer Senior Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU m%evpwrar0127 s &w i
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0958 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetsc DR VAUD Mov6ew Element: Change Procoes D6ecipline: car C, zy Type: Corrective Action O we SystemProcess: N/A gg NRC sign 6Acance level: 3 Date FAXWo NU:
Date Published: t/2a96 DE , my: Insufficient Documentation to Verify Corrective Action for of UIR 158 Deecripeson: The UIR 158 Closure Packa0e has two areas of insufficient documentation which are described below:
- 1) The UIR 158 Discussion Details block states as follows;
- Figure 18 This figure plots ITE Type HE 70A breaker as the feeder breaker to the inverters, based on the applicable vendor time current curve. Based on information on th) one line diagram (12179-EE 1 AQ, Rev. 28), the actual breaker type is l either Type HE43 70A, or a Type HED43 70A which is ali approved replacement. The Type HE time-current curve is not applicable. The coordination evaluation requires revision to use the correct time-current curve for the installed breaker type, and any approved replacements *.
The UIR 158 Closure Request Disposition (Tracking # 96007651 01), item 5 states as follows:
' Figure 18. This figure plots ITE Type HE 70A breaker as the feeder breaker to the inverters. Based on the one- line diagram (12179-EE 1 AQ, Rev. 28), the actual breaker type is either Type HE43 70A OR Type HED43 70A which is an approved replacement. This char'ge was incorporated into Rev.1 of Spec 269 (Attachment 4.2 pg 5 & 6 of 10). Please note that the time-current characteristics for both types of breakers is similar except in the instantaneous trip range. The instantaneous trip range for 30-125 amps is 1000 Amp, which is 100A greater than the HE Type rating. The difference has been evaluated and it was determined that the coordination is not adversely affected by 't (see Attached copy).
- The Spec. SP M3- EE 269. Rev.1, Section 6B (Attachment 4.2 pg 5 & 6 of 10) states as follows:
' Note: Siemens Type HED43 breaker can be use as a replacemont for Type HE43 breakers per RJE 95- 0243. Type HED43 is a 125A frame with a trip range of 15-125A. The Time-Current Characteilstics (TCC) for both breakers is similar. The TCC for 30125A breakers is the same except Ir1 the instantaneous trip range. The instantaneous trip range for 30-125A breakers is 1000A on upper end which is 100A greater than the HE43 rating. The difference has been evaluated and determined that the breaker coordination for containment penetr& tion protection is not adversely affected."
~
Printed 1/27/9e 93e 23 AM Page 1 of 3
Northeast Utill3s ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0984 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The following discrepancy was noted:
The Spec SP M3. EE 269, Rev.1 addresses only the fact that the TCC's beiween the Type HED43 breakers and the Type HE43 breakers are similar and that the breakers can be interchanged. The Spec. SP MS EE 269, Rev.1 has not i evaluated the differences between the TCC's for the Type i HE43 and HED43 breakers verses the Type HE breaker nor has it determined that the breaker types can be interchanged without adversely affecting the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Cuives as presently shown in the Spec. SP M3 EE 269.
The Ulk 158 Closurc Request implies (without verificatiori documentation) that the Type HE, Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC's are similar and that the breakers can be interchan0ed without adversely affecting the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Curies as presently shown in the Spec. SP M3 EE 269.
The documentation concems are as follows:
1 A) If the Type HE breakers' TCC's are not similar to the Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers'TCC's, the Spec. SP M3 EE-269, Rev.1 and the Coordination Curve No.12 need to be updated as required to reflect the actual breaker (i.e. HED43 70 or HE43 70) TCC curve.
- 18) in addition, if the Type HE breakers'TCC are not similar to the Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC, the Coordination Curves No.1 and 2 also need to be addressed for proper coordi'istion if the feeder breakers are not Type HE.
Note: If the Type HE, Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC's are similar, the calculation should be updated to reflect the fact that the TCC's are similar and that the breaker types can be interchanged without adversely affecting the Breaker Coordination Curves in the Spec. SP M3- EE 269, Rev.1.
- 2) The 'Index for the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Figures
- in the Spec. SP M3 EE 269, Rev.1 is duplicated. Reference Figure 4.2 (Page 10 of 10) and Figure 4.2.2 (Page 1 of 5).
Note: Figure 4.2 (Page 10 of 10) is the correct In'>ex.
Review Volki invalid Needed Date initletor: Coruno, A. Q Q O 1/2298 VT Leed: Ryun, Thomes J @ Q [ U22/98 VT Mgr: Schopfer, oon K O O O ti2298 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1/2s98 Date:
INVALIO:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 6ously idenuned by Nu? O Yes ob No Non D6screpent Condition?O Yes @ No Printed 1/27/9e 9.38:27 AM Page 2 or 3
1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0968 Willstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Resolution Ponding?U Yes '#) No ResolutionUnresolved?() Yes (G) No Review
' - ;^ Not F , hooded Date
, initiator: W)
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O O l
VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K O O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand '( mm b
O _. O oei.:
SL Comments:
i i
l r 4
Prned 1/27/96 9.38:29 AM page 3 or 3
1 DR N , DR MP3 0970 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Minietone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD l
A'Y # 8#** O* Potordial Operabi' q leeue Diecipline: I & C Deegn D6ecrepancy Type: Licenang Docur, ont O va i
- 4) No
~
eyeserWProcese: DGX
- NRC8
- 7 :m tevel: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubilohed: 1/21W96 DWwy: Discrepancy titween FSAR Section 9.5.4.5 and P&lD EM 117A
Description:
Millstone Unit 3 FSAR Section 9.5.4.5 states that "There are ,
local pressure indicators on the discharge of each transfer pump and ....,*, P&lD EM 117A shows PT 21 A,B,C&D on the discharge of each transfer pump bending a signal to the plant computer but no local indication is indicated. A field walkdown verified that there a e no localindicators wl.lch monitor the fuel oil transfer pump discharge preseure.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date '
Initiator: Zwyner. Joha 1/22 ,6 O O O VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Q Q Q 1/22/96 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q Q Q 1/22/96 l 1RC Chrrm: Singh. Anand K Q Q 1/2396 M:
INVAUD:
4 Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously Mined by nut O Yes @ 9 Non Discrepent Condition?O v6 i @ No
! Resolution Poetleng?O yee + No Rosciution unr oiv.deO vos @ No Review pr u- g a-- #' Needed Date inaision inone)
VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K g
g Date:
sL comments:
f Printed 1/27/96 9.30.16 AM Pe0s 1 of 1
- - - - . - _ _ _ - - - - . - _ . - _ = _ - _ - ..
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0948 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR VALID Review Element: System Doogn pg Diecipline: Mechew Design Eu . .cy Type: Ceeculet6an O vos systemerocese: NEW 8 No NRC signiecence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed: 1/2aSe 06ecrepancy: Revision of Calculation US(B) 1186 for DCR MP3-97045 Deecription: The purpose of calculation US(B) 1186, ReV. 2 is to determine the RSS design pressure and temperature.
Four discrepancies were identified in US(B) 1186, Rev. 2:
- 1. The RSS pump suction nonle elevation of (-)29'-8'is
, incorrectly used to compute the design pressure for RSS suction piping. The correct elevation to use is the lowest point in the suction piping, centerline elevation (-)32' 3". This error reduces the maximum suction pressure by 2' 7" (1.1 p6. The design pressnre for the RSS suction piping should be 49.9 psig. The lowest part of the RSS system expused to RWST submergence pressure are RSS pump de-watering lines 3-RSS-150-43, 51, 84 and 87. Drawin0 EP 79N, Rev. 8 indicates that the minimum elevation for these lines is (-)49' 5" - which implies that the maximum pressure which could occur on the suction side of the RSS pumps is 57.3 psig (as computed on p. 8).
- 2. Calculation US(B)-362, Rev. O is incorrectly referenced for the maximum post accident sump level, elevation (-)11' 3". The correct reference is calculation US(B) 249, Rev. 3/CCN 1 -
which determines that if all of the water inventory of the RCS and the RWST were released onto the containment floor, it would reach elevation (-)11' 3".
- 3. Calculation US(B) 362, Rev. O is referenced for a maximum post-accident sump water temperature of 193F (pp. 6. 9,11 &
13). However, this is the maximum sump water temperature only for one scenario: 4" LOCA in Cubicle D whh failure of 1 QSS pump (Table 11d of US(B) 362). Calculation US(B) 362 identifies two PSDER scenarios for which the maximum sump water temperature is greater than 211F (Tables 11a and 11b of US(B)-
362). Furthermore Table 5 of US(B) 352, Rev. 0/CCN1 Indicates that the peak sump water tempersturs for the worst case LOCA is 250F.
- 4. No basis is provided for the maximum temperature of 2607 and the maximum pressure of 227 psig identified in the calculation suminary, p. 6.
Review Valid invalid Nooded Date Q Q 1/22Se inattator: Wakeland. J. F. O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 1/21/9e VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 1/22/9a O O 1/23Se IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G
- r Innled 1/27/9e 9:39 57 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR4AP3 0988 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Dele:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
N.J _ _ , identmed by NU? O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Constion?Q Yes '#) No Resolut6en Penang 70 Yes - @ No ReunresoevedrO va @ No Review 4 t t :_': Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schqfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
I E
Printed 1f27/96 9.40:01 AM PeGe 2 of 2
. - _. - - .- - - - _ - . . - . . - . _ . . ~ _ ---- -- - - ._
i l
Northeast Utliities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34990 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALIO I #
Potential Operabletty leeue 06ec6pl6ne: Mechencel Daign D6ecropency Type; hotellate Requrements O va g~
Syste WProcese: NEW NRC Sageh level: 3 Date FAEed to NU:
Date Pobilohed: 1/21W96 Descrepancy: DCR M3-97045 has a test plan that is inconsistent with the modification design, Ducription: Flow transmittt;r 3RSS*FT38A B and 3RSS-FT40C D, and flow indicators 3RSS-Fl38A B and 3RSS-Fl400 0 are respanned by DCR M3-97045. However, no Instrument loop Calibration or testing is identified in Section 7.0, Test Plan, of this mod!$c.ation package.
Review Valid invei6d Needed Date intietor: Feingod, D. J. @ Q O 1/22,96 VT Lead: Nort Anthony A g Q Q 1/22/96 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 1r22/96 1RC Chmn: S6ngh, Anand K -
0 1'22S8 Deis:
INVALIO:
Date:
RESOLUTION
- Previously id<anttaed by NU? O Yes M No NonDiecropontCondition?Q vee (G) No
- R osuisonPenene?O va @ No Roeht6on Unradved?O va + No R.vi Accep'able Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead
- Nort, Arthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O O O O Date:
SL Comments:
f f
Printed 1/2746 9443 AM Page 1 of 1
t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3 0994 Milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Syeiwn DRVAuD Review Element: System Deep p g D6ecip66ne: Electiteel Desag" Discrepency Type: Drawing O Ya s,_... m Dox (5)No NRC sign 6acence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubi6ehed: 1/2W98 D6ecrepency: Sch3matic diagrams do not match the wiring diagrams.
Deectlpeton: Schematic diagram ESK 7L Rev. 24 Identifies the use of contact 19 from handswitch 43-ENS *ACB-BR in circuit 3ENSB02. The 125 ydc Synchronizing Drawing (ESif 8DC) indicates contact 18 is used in the synchronizing circuit, not in circuit 3ENSB02. The corresponding wiring diagrams (including 2425.220-010 shts,490 Rev. F & 491 Rev.G) indicates contact 18 is used in circuit 3ENSB02 and that the handswitch has a total of 18 contacts available. The wiring diagram does not indicate the use of contact 19. Note, the standard handswitch development is shown on drawing ESK 3M (Rev. 8), detail'CC', Detail *CC" indicates a total of 20 contacts are available.
Review Veild inveild Needed Date initietor: Morton, R.
O O O ti22/9s VT Leed: Nort, Arthony A O O O tr22/as VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K Q Q Q 1/22/96 IRC Chmn: Segh, Anend K Q Q Q 1/2MI6 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION' Previously latenufted by NU? CJ Yes 'e) No Non Discrepent Cond4 tion?C) Yes (9) No Resolution PendingtO Yes 5) No Resolution Untosolved?O Yes (5) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anttey A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O O O IRC Chmn: Singh. Anend K
_e, sL Commente:
.prtnted 1/27/96 9.4299 AM Page 1 of 1
., , . l
ICAVP DR No, DR MP34944 Northeast Utilities Minietone unit : Discrenancy Report Review Group: Syenem DR IWAUD Review Element: system Deenen 06ecipane: structural Deegn O y-e EE , _ 4 lype: Calculeten g; 4,_.7 m DGX NRC 8gn6acence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubilehed: 1/2 ass 01 my Basis for missile ejection probability (P1) could not be confirmed.
Deectipt6on: Cciculation J.O. No. 1217912 Task DD 344," Turbine Missile impact Analysis," dated 6/6/77 computes the total probability of significant damage to critical plant components due to turbine missiles.
Page 6.5 of the calculation provides the numerical value for the probability of turbine failure resulting in the ejection of the turbine disk and fragments (the P1 value). The F1 value is a key parameter in the calculatk.n. This P1 value was derived from information contained in the GE memo report, ' Hypothetical Turbine Missiles - Prebability of Occurence, " dated Dec.1,1973 (Ref.1 of the calculation).
A copy of the GE niemo report was requested for the purpose of verifying the P1 value used in the calculation. On 1/6/98 NU l determined that the GE memo ,qort could not be located.
The conclusions of the calculation appear to be consistent with the purpose and methodology for the time period in which this calculation was performed. However, a final concludon to this review cannot be drawn since the referenced GE memo report is not available.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Rich, J. M. trases O O O VTt.eed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 1/26/98 VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K O O O itz2/9e IRC Chmn: SMh, Anand K O O O oste: 1/22/98 INVAUO: This DR is considered invalid. The design input document not available is a standard industry document provided by General Electric for all turbines that it supplied to nuclear plants. The issue of turbine generated missiles at Millstone Unit 3 has been given comprehensive review by the, NRC in hs Safety Evaluation Report (NEREG 1031) and the associated supplements. The focus cf the SER discussion is on the inservice testing and maintenance programs and the adequacy of the overspeed trip systems. The probability of turbine failure resulting in the ejection of the turbine disk and fragments is 6ssumed based on the s'andard input provided by the manufacturer. This missing document, if ever needed, could be obtained from General Electric; however this is not significant enough to warrdnt as DR.
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prtnted 1/27/98 9 4305 AM Pege 1 of 2
. U
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0944 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Previously hienteneJ try NU7 V vos (e) No Non D6ecrepent Conet6on?U vos (e) No Resolution Peneng?O ve. tilNo ResolutionUnresolvedr0 voo (!)No
- --^ ^
Review Not #-~ , ^ " hm Date VT Lead: Nort Anthony A vi ue n m.oon x IRC Ch: Sin 0h. Anand K
@ ] @
g Date:
SL Comnents:
l
~
Printed 1/27/96 9:43:09 AM Page 2 of 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . -J
ICAVP DR Noo DRMP3 0211 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Poterdial Operability leeue Diecipline: I & C Des 4pt Om Diecrepancy Type: Drom4ng gg SystemProcese: Oss NRCS'f" m level: 4 Date faxed to pn's Date Putdiohed: 10/3/97 Discrepency: Drawing Discrepancy . Scherr,atics 30SS-0271,2,0261,2 Descript6on: The limit switch contacts for valve 3QSS*AOV27 on Loop Schematic 3QSS-0271, Rev 2 and 30SS*AOV28 on Loop Schematic 30SS-0261, Rev 2 are inconsistent with valve position shown. The valve is shown open; the limit switch contacts are shown for a closed valve.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Prwies. H. O O O S':5S7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Q Q Q e/2597 VT Mgr: schopfer, Dan K O O O or2ss7 iRC chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O ar27/s7 Date:
INVALlO:
Date: 1/24/98 RESOLUTION. Disposillon:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0211, does not represent a discrepant cor'dition, in order to read the Test Loop Diagrams (TLD) it is necessary to understand 'wo philosophies which merge together on these documents. The first philosophy is that the presentation of a valve's mechanical arrangement and position (i.e. OPEN or CLOSED) on a TLD is based on the applicable P&lD. These drawings show a valve in its normal operating position, noting its failed position adjacent to the respective valve. The second philosophy is that the presentation of a valve's limit switches (i.e.
OPEN or CLOSED) on a TLD is based on the wirirg drawings.
Conversely to the P&lDs, these drawings always show a vcive's limit switches with the valve in it's full closed positiors.
Additionally, the operation of a valve's limit switches with respect to the valvo's position is then noted on the TLD. An understanding of these two cor.cepts should explain this condition.
During this review a drawing discrepancy on both TLDs,3QSS-271 and 3QSS-28-1, has been identified with the wiring at the valve's lower limit switch (33L). The >~.'onfiguration on the TLDs does not agree with schematic ESK 7A and wiring crawing EE-12AN. The TLDs nedd to be corrected to agree with their respective supporting documents. Condition Report (CR) M3 3517 was wdtten to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Concludon:
Printed 1/27/96 9A9.s3 AM Page 1 of 2
i ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 4211 Northeast Utilities Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report,
- DN-MP3-0211, does not represent a discrepant condition, in i order to read the Test Loop Diagrams (TLD) it is necessary to understand two philosophies which merge together on these documents. The first philosophy is that the presentation of a 1
f, valve's mechanical arrangement and position (i.e. OPEN or N CLOSED) on a 1LD is based on the applicable P&lD. These drawings show a valve in its normal operating position, noting its failed position adjacant to the respecth~ valve. The second ,
philosophy is tnat the presentation of a alve's !!mit switches (i.e.
F OPEN or CLOSED) on a TLD is oascd on the wiring drawings.
Conversely to the P&lDs, these drawings always show a valve's '
3 limit switches with the valve in it's full closed position.
)
Additionally, the operation of a valve's linit switches with respect J to the valve's position is then nde.1 on the TLD. An c understating of these two concepts should evplain this condition. There are no drawing or field changes required by this DR. ,
Previouet.'idenuned by NU1 () Yee tO! ko Non D6ecrepent cendstion?@ vee ( ) No ResoautionPendinq70 vos @ No Resoeuin.unresoeved70 vee (s.) no Review
~
initiator: Pne.re. H.
VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A VT Yor: Schepfw, Don K iPC c.hmn: SW. Anand K 7- Date: 12/4/97 st Comments:
b L
r
?
Printed 1/27/969M56 AM Page 2 of 2 K
c mm . _
wiistone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED
- Potential Operability leeue 06ecirline: I a o Deeg" O vee O'W; xy Type: Drewmg @ No SystenVProcese: Oss .
NRC Significance levet: 4 Date faxed to NU-Date Pubpshed: iof3/97 Diacrepency: Drawing Discrepancy - Schematics 3QSS-054A,B Descripuon: Device 43-3RHS*P1 A is shown on Loop Su.ematic 3QSS-054A, a
Rev 4. There is no corresponding device 43-3RHS*P1B shown on Loop Schematic 3QSS-0548 Rev 2. The corresponding Elementary Diagrams ESK SDE, Rev 18 for Residual Heat Removal Pump 3RHS*P1 A and ESK-SDF, Rev 16 for Residual W Heat Removal Pump 3RHS*P1B respectively both show these
- dev!ces.
Review Date I Valid Invalid Needed s/2ros7 -
inittetor: Poetas. H. O O O VT Lead: Non, Anthony A g Q Q s/25/97
) VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O s/25/97 9/27 4, IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K @ Q Q O.i.:
INVALID:
Date: 1/22/98 RESOLUTION: Disposillon:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3 0213, does not represent a discrepant condition. A review of the schematics for both pumps indicated that the closing and tripping portion of the circuit is set up differently for each pump. The reason for this is Appendix R concems. In that event of a fire in the control room, Train A equipment is the protected equipment and can be controlled fror. e Local location. As a result , some of the control fea~ r s for pump 3RHS*P1 A are isolated out of the circuit in this mode, the ability to ' rip this pump on low level in the RWST is one. This is the basis for having the transfer switch (43) in the RSWT Level LO-LO RHR Pump Off alarm circuit (QSS07). The (43) contacts open when the transfer switch is in Local position, isolating the auxiliary relay's (3) contact in tha alarm circuit. Ccnversely, a low level in the RWST can tri.' pump 3RHS*P1D with the transfer switco g43) in either the I a,al or Remote position. As a result, the transfer switch isn1 needed in the alarm circuit.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Roport, DR-MP3-0213, does not represent a discrepant condition. A review of the schematics for both pumps, indicated that the circuit for paimp 3RHS*P1 A is diffe ent due to Appendix R requirements, consequently there is an additional switch in the alarm circuit. In the event of fire in the control room, Train A Page 1 of 2 Pnnted 1/27/9e 9:51:35 AM
DR No. DR MP3 0213 Northeast Utilities ICAVP meistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report equipment is the protected equipment and pump 3RHS*P1 A can be controlled from the Local location by this switch. There are no drawing or field changes required by this DR, Prov6ously identmed by NU? O Yee it) No Non D6screpent Condition?(9) Yes Q No PM8M Pendet.g?O vos <!)No R.oosuuonunrosoivoorO vos @) No Review inJ. itor: Prwies, H.
VT Leed: NW. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: S@, Anand K =
Date:
SL Commende:
l o
Page 2 of 2 Ponted 1/27196 9:512 AM ,
1
ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4234 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: systwn DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED EW: S$wn %n Potential Operetnlity lasue Diecip9ne: I & C Deegn Discrapency Type: C W Om
@ No Systemr*tocoes: sWP NRC Signtilcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished: 10G97
~
M . :i; Drawing Discrepancy - LSK-9-10G,L Deectlptica Logic Diagram LSK 9-10L, Rev 4 for 3WTC*AOV25A does not show that; A) energizing 3WTC*SOVA1 and SOV25A2 admits air to open AOV25A and; B) de-energizing SOV25A1 or SOV25A2 vents air 'o close AOV25A, This logic is shown on P&lD 133C-16.
The drawing format used to depict the control of AOV25A on LSK-9-10L is inconsistent with the drawing format used to aepict
!. the control of AOV25B on LSK 9-10G, Rev 12.
Review
[
Valid invalid Needed Date O O O o/2ss7 initiator: Pinetes. H.
VT Lead: Nwt. Anthony A @ Q O 9/2sS7 VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K @ Q Q 9/25/97 IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K 3 O O 9/27/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 1/24/98 RESOLUT10N' Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0234, does not represent a discrepant condition. The solenoid / air operated valve presentulon shown on drawing LSK-910L for 3WTC*AOV25A is the standard arrangement used when more than one solenoid is required to control an air operated valve or damper. LSK-9-10L has a note under 3WTC*AOV25A that states: Closes on loss of air. Unlike the detail for 3WTC*AOV25A, the solenoid / air operated valve presentation shown on drawing LSK-9-10G for 3WTC-AOV25B is the standard arrangement used when one solenoid is needed to control an air operated valve or damper. Thesa arrangements were verified against several other LSKs and are consistent with the previously stated pbCosvhy, As a result there are no drawing changes requin1 for the condition described on this DR.
Dunng this review two a 4 W . discrepancies were identified that need to be corrected. The first is in the escutcheon details on LSK 9-10L. The identification for the control switch that reads 3WTC*AOV25A2 should read 3WTC-SOV25A2. The second is in the control switch information area on ESK-7XH. The identification for the control switch that reads PB-3WTC-SOV2 SAL should read 3WTC-SOV25A2 and the ESK that reads 3L should read 3E. These revisions will bring ESK 7XH and LSK-Printed 1/27/96 9:52-06 AM PeBe 1 of 2 a ,, _
Noetheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4234 Millstorw Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 910L into agreement with the supporting documentation for these valves. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3517 was written to n 2 vide the necessary corrective actions to resolve these issues.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0234, dcas not represent a discrepant condition. The solenoid / air operated valve presentation shown on drawing LSK-9-10L for 3WTC*AOV25A is the standard arrangement used when Inore than one solenoio M required to control an air operated valve or damper. Unlike the detail for 3WTC*AOV25A, the rolenoki / alt operated valve presentation shown or, drawing LSK-910G for 3WTC*AOV25B is the standard arrangement used when one solenoid is needed to control an air operated valve or damper. There are no drawing or field change required by this DR.
Previously klenufled by NU? O Yes #) No Non Diecrepent Cond8 tion?(s) Yes Q No ResolutionPending70 Yes c!) No ResolutionUnresolved?O Yes @ No Review
~
Instietor: Pineses, H.
VT Lead: Nerl. Arthony A VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K 1RC Chnwa: singh, Anand K l Date:
. GLCormments:
Printed 1r57f36 9.5211 AM Page 2 of 2
. _ _J
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0240 Ministono Valt 3- Discrepancy Report Revtew Droup: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Deelyt g
E'= 7 a 1& C Deonen r:1 -.:p Type: Drweno Om Systemerocese: sWP gg NRC 84 ?" =s level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished: 10M7 FM, ay: Drawing Discrepancy - Sct'ematics 3SWP 152A,B
Description:
On Loop Schematic 3SWP-152A, Rev 3, extemal wiring from terminals 1,3,4,5,6 of TB2, terminal 1 of TB1, terminals 5,6,6 of 10T20 does not agree with wirliig shown on laterfacing Looo Schematic 3HVR-103A 2, Rev 2.
On Loop Schematic 3SWP 1528, Rev 3, extemal wiring from terminals 3,13,14,15,16 of TB2, terminal 1 of TB1, terminals 5,7,9 of 4T20 does not agree with wiring shown on interfacing Loop Schematic 3HVR 103B-2, Rev 3.
Extemal wiring from terminal 12 of 9T1 on Loop Schematic 3SWP 152A and terminal 6 of 3T1 on Loop Schematic 3SWP-l 152B is not shown.
Review l Vand inveNd Needed Date insuetor: Pnelse H. Q Q Q s/2547 VT Leed: Norts.ntnony A G O O ar2se97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K
@ Q Q 9/2597 IRC Chmn: smgh, Anand K O O O S/27/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 12/2/97 RESOLUTION DispCsition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 1 and 2 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0240, does not represent a discrepant condition. The drawings reviewed by the ICAVP reviewer, Test Loop Diagrams (TLD's) 3HVR-103A-2, revision 2 and 3HVR-1038-2, revision 3 were not the latest revisions for that time A review of TLD's 3HVR-103A-2, revision 3 issued on 10/14/96 and 3HVR-103B-2, revision 4 issued on 10/14/96 determined that the cross reference wiring aligns correctly frcm 3SWP 152A to 3HVR-103A 2 and from 3SWP-1528 to 3HVR-103B-2. A review of the Master Card file which was the origin of the microfilm cards used to provide the drawings to the ICAVP reviewer determined that ONwings 3HVR 103A-2, revision 2 and 3HVR 1038-2, revision 3 weie still in the file as the latest revision of record. Further review however determined that the General Recoids Information Tracking System (GRITS) correctly delineated the latest revision 3 and 4 respectively and the two general card files reviewed which are used for drawing infcmiation also obtained the latest correct revision of the two drawings. Even though we are confident that this 18 an isohted case as it pertains to the Master Card File, Condition Report Printed tr27/98 9'.52'45 AM Page 1 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0240 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report s
(CR) M3-97 3463 N s been written to provide the necessary cc Tective actions to resolve this problem.
Significance Level criteria do not at ply to items 1 and 2 as this is not a discrepant condit'on.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 3 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0240, has identified a condition "
not previously discovered by NU which requiras correction. The wh-bk conductor in cable 3SWPAOC024 will be added on TLD 3SWP 152A between 3EHS*MCC3A1, Section F2H, TB1 1 A and 3HVS*PNLVP1,9T1 12 to complete the circuit as depicted on ESK-6ALG and the supporting wiring drawings. Similarly, the wh-bk conductor in cable 3SWPf3OC024 will be added on TLD 3SWP 1528 between 3EHS*MCC3B1, Section F2H, TB1 1 A and 3HVS*PNLVP1,3T16 to complete the circuit as depicted on ESK-6ALG and the supporting wiring drawing:. This is a drawing change only and no modification in the fieH is required.
Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3462 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Condudon:
l NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 1 and 2 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0240, does not represent a i
discrepant condition. A review of the latest revision to TLD's 3HVR 103A-2, revision 3 issued on 10/14/96 and 3HVR 1038-2, revision 4 issued on 10/14/96 determined that the cross refe.unce wiring aligns correctly from 3SWP 152A to 3HVR-103A 2 and from 3SWP-152B to 3HVR-1038-2. A review ofthe Master Card file v/hich was the origin of the microfilm cards used to provide the drawings to the ICAVP ccviewer determined that its out-dated revision 2 and 3 respectively was still on file.
- Condition Report (CR) M3 97-3463 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this problerr..
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
NU has concluded that the issue reported in item 3 of Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0240 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. A conductor will be added to drawings TLD 3SWP-152A and TLD 3SWP-152B to complete the circuit as correctly depicted on ESK-6ALG, This is a documentation change only. No change to the field is required. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3462 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve the issue reported in item 3.
Previously identifled by NU? L) Yes @ No Non Discrepent condition?Q Yes it) No ResolutionPending?O va @ No RenoiwonunreeoivedtO va @ No Review initiator: Pinetes. H.
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Printed 1/27/9e 9:52'40 AM Page 2 of 3 l
l
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP34240 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K 0 0 2-Date:
SL Conunents:
l l
l Printed 1/27/96 92.50 AM Pa08 3 of 3 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP OR Nr. DR-MP3-0309 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Elemen*: Avstem Deegn Diecipune; 5 4 C Deeegn E4+-_ . y Type: Calculation Ow SyelemProcese: Oss @ No EI N W: 4 Date FAxeo to NU:
Date Putsehed: 10/18/97 Discrepency: Calculation Discrepancy - 3451801-1231E3, Rev 0 Deecription: Design inputs for RWST Level Indicators 3QSS*Ll930, Ll931, Ll932, Ll933 on page 4 of Appendix A appear to be inconsistent with loop schematics 3QSS 930-2, Rev 2,9312, Rev 2,932, Rev 2,933, Rev 3; calculation shows 4-20 mA; schematics show 0-10 Vdc.
Design inputs for Mainboard Recorder 3QSS-LR930 on page 6 of Appendix A appear to be inconsistent with loop schematics 3QSS-930-1, Rev 2,931 1, Rev 2; calculation shows 4 20 mA; schematics show 0-10 Vdc.
Design inputs for Computer Points on page 7 of Appendix A -
appear to be inconsistent with loop schematics 3QSS-930-1, Rev 2,931 1, Rov 2,932, Rev 2; calculation shows 4-20 mA:
- schematics y c.aw 0-10 Vdc.
l Design outputs for Signal Converters 3QSS*LY930A,931 A on
! page 9 of Appendix A appear to be inconsistent with loop schematics 3QSS-930-2. Rev 2,931-2, Rev 2; calculation shows ( 1) - ( 5) Vdc; schematics show 4 20 mA.
On page 3 of calculation,3QSS*LQY-930,-931,-932,-933, LY-930,-930A,-931, 932 should be LQY930,931,932,933, LY930,930A,931,932 to be consistent with MP3 instrument tagging convention. 3OSS*LY-932 is shown twice.
3QSS*LY931 A appears to be missing.
Appendix A is referred to as Attachment A in Table of Contents on page 4.
On page 5 of Appendix A, mark numbers 3OSS*Ll930,931 should be SQSS*Ll930A,931 A to agree with loop schematics 3QSS 930-2, Rev 2,931-2, Rev 2.
Revietv Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Pinelas, H.
O O O 9/25/97 VT Lead: Nett. Anthony A @ O Q 10/7/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer Don K O O O 10/13 S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O o'14/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 12,2/97 RESOLUTION Disposhion; Printed 1/27/9e 9 54:20 AM Page 1 of 3
_ ____J
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR MP3 4309 Millstone unit 3- Discrepancy Report ,
NU has concluded that the first five items of Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0309 do not represent a discrepant condliion.
(items 1,2, and 3) The calculation provides scaling information for both a 0 to 10 VDC input directly to the individual component (Indicator, recorder, or computer point) for calibration as well as the curresponding 4 to 20 mA input to the rack for an overall loop calibration / check.
t item 4) The calibration procedure for these NSC Signal Converter Cards utilizes a set of output voltage test jaca to measure the card output during calibration. These test Jacks develop a voltage signal that is representative of the 4 to 20 mA output from the card. This allows the NU technician to insert the test equipment in parallel with the load rather than having to 5 remova wires and place the test equipment in series with the load. Calibration of the card utilizing the voltage output is a recommended approach piovided by the vendor for this 7300 system card.
(Item 5) The tag numbers provided on the Calculation Tracking Program (CTP) input sheet reflect the actual ID numbers used within the Plant Maintenance Management System ( PMMS) for e these items. Due to decisions made during s'irtup a number of identrfication conventions within our PMMS system differs from those used on the design documents. in this specific case of card level ID's NU decided to enter the Westinghouse 7300 rack component 10 #'s (i.e., LQY-930) in PMMS utilizing a hybrid number using the unit number (3), the system reference (QSS),
an asterisk (*) or dash (-) indicating whether or not the component !s safety related, and the ID number used on the Westingt,ouse 7300 wiring drtwings (i.e., LOY 930). The ID number required on the CTP forms now is 3QSS*LQY-930.
Outside the 7300 racks the MP3 tagging convention was used.
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report items 6,7,8, and 9 of DR-MP3-0309, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
(Item 6) 3QSS*LY-932 should only be shown once on the CTP input form.
(Item 7) 3QSS*LY-931 A is missing from the CTP input form.
(Item 8) The Table of Contents incorrectly refers to Apoendix A as Attachment A.
(item 9) The Aux Shutdown Panel Indicators should be identified as 3QSC*Ll930A & 931 A on page 5 of Appendix A Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3704 approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. The CAP is to update calculation 3451801-1231-Ei to correct the mark numbers in the CTP input sheets, reference Appendix A vs. Attachment A in the table of 5 contents and add the suffix A to mark numbers of the ASP Printed il27/9e 9:54:23 AM PaGe 2 of 3 l
- l l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3 DR-MP3 0309 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Indicators on page 5 of the appendix., The activity is being tracked by the NU Action Itm Tracking and Trending System (AITTS) as A/R 970225906-02. This is not a startup issue and is scheduled to be completed post startup,
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the first five items of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0309, do not represent a discrepant condition.
(Items 1,2, and 3) The calculation 3451B01-1231E3 provides scaling infom1ation for botn a 0 to 10 VDC input directly to the individual indicator, recorder, or computer point as well as the corresponding 4 to 20 n1A input to the rack for an overall loop calibration / check.
(item 4) The calibration procedure for these NSC Signal Converter Cards utilizes a set of output voltage test Jacks to measure the card output during calibration. These test Jacks develop a voltage signal that is representatiye of the 4 to 20 mA output komihe card, Calibration of the card utilizing the voltage output is a recommended approach by the vendor of this 7300 system card and is consistent with the calculation.
(Item 5) The tag numbers provided on the Calculation Tracking Program (CTP) input sheet refiocts the actual D nuinbers used within the Plant Mair,tenance Management System ( PMMS) for these items. NU decided to enter the Westinghouse 7300 rack component ID #'s in PMMS util! zing a hybrid number whether or not the component is safety related. The ID number is the one used on the Westinghouse 7300 wiring drawings. Outside the 7300 racks the MP3 tagging convention was used.
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report items 6,7,8, and 9 of, DR-MP3-0309, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3704 Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. The activity is being tracked by the NU Action item Tracki:q and Trendng System (AITTS) as A/R 970215906-
- 02. This is not a startup issue and is scheduled to be cori pleted post startup.
Previously identifled by Nu? O ves @ No Non Diecrepent C:mcJtion?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. @ No Review initiator: Pineles, H. c$a M Acc$aW Needed Date O O O e7 VT Lead: Neo. Ar.tnany A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O 1/1m IRC Chmn: Smgh, Anend K O O 1/im I
Date:
SL Comnants:
Prtnted 1/27/9e 9:s4:24 AM Page 3 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0335 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DT< RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Derign g
Diecipline: Structurel Desagn CA--- cy Typc: Celcuisten Ow '
Systim/Procese: SWP @ No NRC Signihcence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pub.ielwid. 10/18/97 Discrepancy: Pipe Support Calculation Discrepancies
Description:
We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation no.NP(F)-ZO19R-014-H002,Rev.7, Cased upon the results of this review,the following discrepancies have been noted:
- 1) On page no.5A,the applied pipe support loads per the latest revision are:
Fy = -226ft and Fz = 35#.
The applied loads used in the design load input for the computer model on page no 20 are:
Fy = -180# and Fz = 30#,
S:nce the latest loads are higher than those used in the analysis, load comparison on page no.6A is not valid,
< 2) Base plate at node no.l(mc' rr no.1) has not been addressed in the calculation.
Review Valid inveN Needed Date inittston: Kleic, N O O O 103 S7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A @ Q ] 10G97 VT Mgr: khopfer, Don K @ O O 10/1397 IRC Chmn: Singh .'.nsnd K to/1'S7 O O O Date:
INVAllD:
Date: 1/22/98
- RESOLUTION
- Disposition :
- 1) Revision 7 of calculation NP(f)-2019R-014-H002 identifies page BA as 'For Information Only*and is not the comparison of record. The appropriate load comparison is detailed on page 5B
, of the referenced calculation. The new loads listed on page SB compares the latest loads ( Fy = i 226 lbs and Fz = 35 lbs ) to the Existing Loads ( Fy ' t 200 lbs and Fz = 2 50 lbs ) in the calculation and uses the Change Factor of 1.13 to increase the Existing Loads arid Stress to be compared to the Allowables.
The comparison on page SB compares the load increase to the baseplate analysis on Pos.16 & 19. The comparison on Pg.19 uses loads from the computer run on page 10, which uses the Fy
=
- 200 lbs and Fz = i 50 lbs design losds. These loads are larger than the loads used on page 20. Therefore the comparison on page 19 is referenced on Pg 5B to indicate that the 2fl lbs increase will not adversely affect the baseplate ,
analysis resWts en Pg.16 & 19. )
/
~
Printed 1/27/96 9M55 AM Page 1 of 2 l
'I w
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4338 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 2) ltem 2 as stated is not a discrepancy. Pg 7 of the calc. at the bottom has a Note 2 which reads ' Top Base Plate is common witti supt. # 3-HVQ-4-DSR007. For Baseplete analysis see Calc.
- 12179-NP(F)-Z515G 007 (Top Plate Only)". A review of calculation 12179-NP(F)-Z515G-007 Rev. 3 ( See Attachment )
indicates the latest reactions applied to that plate from H002 were increased higher than the reactions supplied from the STRU?L run on pago 10 of the support H002 calculction.
Therefore, the baseplate at JT 1 of H002 has been addressed.
Previously idenuned by NU7 O Yee @ No Non D6screpent Condition?(G) Yes O No Romahd% Pending70 voa @ No PanahdW Unreenited70 vee @ No Review initiator: Kleic, N
~
VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mor: Sdepfw, Don K dtC Chmn: SirrJh, Anand K Dete: 1/22/98 SL connents: S&L Response:
We agree with NU's response,however,wa are also providing the following recommendations:
- 1) We recommend that the calculation pages no. 6 and 6A in Pipe Supp>rt Calculatio.i no.
NP(F)-ZO19R 014-H002 be voided or superseded in order to l
clear 1y separate information applicable to the latest analysis from the information that has been superseded by the latest calculaticin revision.
- 2) Note on page 7 of the Pipe Support Calculation no. NP(B)-
ZO19R-H002 states that the evaluation of the tori nlate is performed in the reference calculation 12179-NMFrZ515G-007.However,'he summary page 58 of the Pipe Support Calculatic e does not mention the impact of the load increase of 13 % on the evc!uation of the top base plate as it does for the bottom anchor plate.Wo recommend soding a statement on page SB that clarifies that the new increased loads are enveloped by the results of the previous analysis for the top anchor plate.
Printed 1/27/9e 9:54.50 AM Pege 2 of 2 l
s a
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR-MP3-0301 ulustone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element. System Design Dbcipline: 1 & C Design
(,)
IM--- q Type: CeW Systemerocese: SWP O No NRC Signifh:ance level: 4 f)ete FAXad to NU:
Date Published: 10/30/97 D6ecropwicy: Calculation SP 3SWP-28 data discrepancy.
Description. Pressure switches 3SWP*PS111 A, B will alarm locally when the pressure of the service water pressure drops below calculated setpoint. Th;s will signal a possibly damaging condition to the err.ergency diesel generator.
A review of calculation SP-3SWP-28, Revision 1 and CCN nos.
1 & 2, revealed followy discrepancies:
Per FSAR table 1.8 NRC Regulatory Guides, the MP3 is committed to R.G.1.105, Rev.1, dated November 1976. Per Section C, paragraph 1 'The setpoints should be established with sufficient margin between the technical specification limits for the p wess variable and nominal trip setpoint to allow for (a) the inaccuracy of the instrument, (b) uncertainties in the calibration, and (c) the instrurnent drift that c:cil d occur during the interval L between calibrations. Procedure NETM Preparation of
, Category i Instrument Setpoint Calculations with respect to the l (oquiremet:ts of NRC R.G.1.105, requirements also spell out the l methodology for setpoint calculations. Instruments identified in l the calculation were upgrad?d to safety related status by revision 1, in November 1983.
A review of applicable correcilve action dstsbase for Millstone 3 has not identified any pending change notices that A:ll update / revise inis calculation to the requirements discussed above Review Valid invalid Needeo Date initiator: Hmdia, R. B O O toss 7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G O O 10/17/S7 VT Mgt; schopfer. Don K S O O 0/20/97 o/27;97 19C Chmn: Sinr'* Anand K Q ["'
O Date:
INVALIO:
Date: 1/23/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0301, does not represent a discrepant condition.
The Pressure Switches 3SWP'PS111 A&B were upgraded to QA Category 1 by Design Gnange Request DCR M3 96067. This was done because Materitt Equipment Parts List (MEPL)
Determination No. MP3-CO-843 identified these and several other instruments as being directly contiected to the Diesel PrWed 11/7/9e 9:s5:29 AM Page 1 of 3 I
! Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-0301 l Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Generator Annunciator Panel. The Diesel Generator Annunciator
! Panel is designed as QA Category 1. These Pressure Switches l had to be designed and qualified to the same level as the Diesel Generator Annunciator system or electrically isolated to preclude potential degradation to the annunciator clicult. The NES Technical Review Summary for the MEPL determination documented that the Pressure Switches were upgraded to ensure proper electrical separation des;gn requirements. The Pressure Switches do not contribute to the Emugency Diesel Generator nuclear safety function and are neithe. required nor credited during emergency operation of the diesel. Because these Pressure Switches provide non-safety indication / alarm functions only within the Emergency Diesel Generator system, the reouirements of Reg. Guide 1.105 revision 1 do not apply. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU nas concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0301, does not represent a discrepant condition.
Prev 6ously IdentlSed by NU? Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condelion?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pondsng?O vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos @ No Review initiator: Hindia, R.
VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A viu n e senov.r.oon g O O p 1r2m IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Date: 1/23/98 st.connente: Attachment 4 cf Document NEAM-41 titled "Setpoint Calculation" establishes method for preparation of setpoint calculation to ,
support proper operation of QA Category I systems and control devices. This document is prepared in response to R.G.1.105 (November,1976). NEAM-41 is referenced in the NETM-43 section 5.0 as procedure providing setpoint calculation methodology.
R.G.1.9 dated Decemoer 1979 titled " Selection, Design, and Qualification of Diesel-Generator Units used as Standby (onsite)
Electric Power systems at Nuclear Power Plants" endorses IEEE Std 387-1977 titled "lEEE standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applies as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations". FSAR table 1-8 Indicates compliance to the revision of R.G.1.9. IEEE 3871977 paragraph 5.6.3.1 states that the diesel generator unit shall be provided with suiveillance systems permitting remote and local surveillance and to indicate the occurrence of abnormal, pretrip, or trip conditions. . IEEE 387-1977 paragrapn 5.6.3.3 Identifies these alarms as surveillance instrumentation required for successful operation and to generate abnormal, pretrip, and trip signal required for alarm conditions.
Credit is taken for manual opc ator action based upon these alarms in the NUSCO Abnormal Operating Procedures OP 3353.EGPA and EGPB (refer to annunciator wir, dows 6-3 for both
/ Prtnted 1/27M5 9:55:33 AM Page 2 of 3
. ________o
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRWF3 0301 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report procedures).
Per FSAR section 7.1.1.5 "The annunciators are non safety grade except for the eri argency diesel generator local alarms which is safety grade". Pet ?SAR section 8.3.1.1.3 the emergency diesel alarm panel is safety grade and meets IEEE 344 criteria. MEPL resolution appears to be in contradiction with FSAR section
/.1.1.5 and in agreement with sedion 8.1.1.3 and the resolution provided by NUSCo for this CR.
Based upon above explanation the calculation seems to be deficient in meeting plant procedure NEAM-41. No explanation is provided in the calculation which establishes any exception to the requirements.
I i-Pnnted 1/27/98 9:55:34 AM Pagt 3 of 3 J
- l. .
Northeast utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3-0408 mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potenti . 4-ir_ "ry leeue Diecipline: I s C Dosagn .
DP' Ow SystemfProcess: Oss
@ No NRC SignHlcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished? 10rtN97 Diecrepancy: RWST fluid ternperature instrument on design drawings does not agree with the FSAR requirements Description' Per FSAR section 6.3.5.1 (listed as system requirements # REQ-MP3-QSS-0576), fluid temperature in the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) is recorded in the control room.
Per P&lD EM 115A.Rev.18; and test loop diagrams 3QSS-020, Rev 4,3QSS-023, Rev. 4, &3QSS -038, Rev. 3, there is no RWST fluid temperature recorder provided in the control room.
Review Valid invalid Needed De initiator: Hinde. R. @ Q Q 10M/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
@ Q 10/10/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 10/14/87 stC chmn: singh. Anand K l @ Q- Q 10/1747 Date:
INVAUD:
uste: 1/23/98 RESOL'JTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0405, does not represent a disc.epant condition FSAR sectioc S.3.5.1 states "Fluli temperature in the RWST is recorded in the control room". While there is no dedicated physical recorder in the control room for RWST temperature, RWST temperature is monitored via control board irsdicator (QSS-Tl23) and recorded (OPS procedures 3670.1-1 and 3672.1-
- 1) by the operators everf 24 hcurs in accordance with Technical Specification surveillance 4.5.4.b. This satisfies the FSAR statement that " Fluid temperature in the RWST is recorded in the control room".
In addition, the plant process computer has the capability to provide recorder like trending of RWST temperature either on-line or through .1ata report printouts depending upon the period of interest. Addit!onally, historical recording is available via tape backup. If actual recording is necessary, there are several pen type recorders on the main controt board that operations can program to monitor and trend a particular computer point.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0405, does not represent a discrepant condition. The capability to record the fluid temperaf.ure in the RWST in the control room is provided via control ooard Indic,ator (OSS-Tl23),
Printed 1/27!9e 9:56:05 AM Page 1 of 2
_____________.____d
Northeast Utilitiec ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0406 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report which is recorded daley through Technical Specification surveillance and OPS procedures, rather than a dedicated physical recorder as interpreted by the DR. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
MV:M Identmed by NU7 Q Yes I@ No Non D6ecrepent Condibon?O vos (@ No P-*% Pending?O v @ so P-% une aiv.d70 v @ No Revtew initiator: Hw W ,R.
YT L.ed: Non, Anthony A yr , - ,, o,n g O O O mm wic crunn: skpt, Anand K uste: 1/23/98 SL cornments: FSAR Section 6.3.5 is titled " Instrumentation Requirements".
According to the first paragraph of this section, "This secticn describes instrumentation employed for monitoring ECCS components during normal plant operation and also ECCS pof.
accident operation". Henos, even though the explanations provided by NU in the disposition section regarrjing the OPS procedures are true. The logging of plant parameters by an operator or historical computer data trending are not typically included in Chapter 7 of the FSAR unless specifically ctated. The l FSAR section is in error, since there is no physical instrument
[i.e., recorder).
Printed 1/27/9e 956:00 AM Page 2 of 2 l
. _ _ _ _ _ _