ML20199H453
| ML20199H453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9711260121 | |
| Download: ML20199H453 (28) | |
Text
eI
/
(
Sargents &;Lundy *
Y]
jf Don K. Schoplet
$$2N$N November 24,1997 Project No. 9583100 Docket No. 50-423
- Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attent on: Document Control Desk i
Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following thirteen (13) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communication;s Protocol, PI MP3-01.
DR No. DR-MP3-0484 DR No. DR-MP3-0537 DR No. DR MP3-0496 DR No. DR-MP3-0539 DR No. DR-MP3-0506 DR No. DR MP3-0564 DR No. DR MP3-0522 DR No. DR MP3-0587 DR No. DR-MP3-0534 DR No. DR-MP3-0615 DR No. DR MP3 0535 DR No. DR MP3-0622 DR No. DR-MP3-0627
)
I have also enclosed the one (1) DR for which the NU resolution has been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR MP3-0038 I have also enclosed the one (1) DR for which the NU resolution has been reviewed but not accepted. S&L conunents on this resolution has been prosided.
DR No. DR MP3-01%
9711260121 971124 *
- oa ^oock o9ga Illill10lli,lil,illLlllli
$$ East Monroe Street
- Chicago,IL 60603-6780 USA * ?12 269 2030
c i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 24,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100
~ Page 2 i
Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly,
[
,b/
's 4M)
/
D. K. Schopfer Vice President and ICAVP Manager t
DKS.spr Enclosures -
Copies!
E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T, Concannon (1/l) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU
~
muovpben97 mil 24.n &w i
~
i I
e 4
Northeast Utilities lCAVP DR No. DR MP3-0444 MillstDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report R.v.e.cro e: srs DRvAuo Rev6ew Element: Sp'tm W p
g Di.cw.n.: - De*"
O vee Diacrepancy Type: Calculaten
@ No SysterivProcess: Rss
~
NRC Signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Done Put$shed: 110497 Di crepency: RSS Overpressure Protection items Deecrtpuon: Calculation P(R) 1192 (Rev,0) determines the overpressure protection requirements for the RSS System. The requirements are based on the pressures and terr,eratures from the Stress Data rackage (SDP), SDP RSS 1301, Rev. 4.
i
- 1. The calculation indicates that the limiting design condition j
f.cm the SDP la Condition 1. For the limiting temperature, this is not the case for the piping downstream of Valves MOV8837 A/B and MOV8838 A/B. For the limiting pressure, this is not the case for arty of the piping.
- 2. The calculation indicates the design conditions for the pump suctiun piping, accordirig to the SDP, are 40 psig @ 2f4 'F. The design conoitions from the SDP are 39 psig @ 257 'F. This will have an insignificant affect on the calculation.
- 3. Numerical error in interpolation for the pump discharge piping. The calculation indicates the maximum design pressere at 260 'F h 459 psig. Linear interpolation between the value given in AbME Section Ill,1971 results is a pressure of 456 psig.
1 4.
The calculation indicates the design conditions for the pump discharge piping, according to the SDP, are 260 psig @ 256 'F.
The design conditions from the SDP are 190 psig @ 257 'F.
This will have an insignificant affect on the calculation.
- 5. The calculation indicates the design conditions for the containment piping, according to the SDP, are 148 psig @ 116
'F. Yhe design conditions from the SDP are 150 psig @ 257 'F.
The maxiraum design pressure at 116 'F for Pipe Class 153 is 270 psig. The maximum design pressure at 257 'F is 223 psig.
This is non-conservative.
- 6. Solenoid Valves SOV50A/B do not exist any longer and should be removed from the calculation.
Review Valid Invalid Needed Date insuetor Langel.D.
O O
O
"'"'S7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Q
[
]
11/11 S 7 VT Mgr: benopfer. Don K Q
O O
1 7/S7 IRC Chmn: Singn. Anand K Q
Q Q
11/2097 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
Pnnica 1141197 3 $4 29 PM Page
- of 2
i 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0484 Millstone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report RESOLUTION:
Prev 60uely idenufied by NU7
's Yes
- 8 No Non D6screpard Cononion?Q Yes
- 9) No Rooo6ut60n Pending?O Y..
- 4) so
- a. wonuarewved70 ve.
- > No Rev6ew "Y#
inRiators (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Neft, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, An nd K SL Conwnents:
Printed 11721/97 3 54 3T PM P.ge 2 of 2
=
4 Northeast Utlinies ICAVP DR No DR MP3 0494 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report i
Rev6.w oroup: syWom DR VAUD Potentiel Opereb64My leaue DioceP 6ne: Moctanc*' ***"
O vee 4
06ecrepency Type: Componord Date
@ No sresemocess: Oss NRC sagenconcelevel 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6ehed: 11G497 0*crepancy: Inconsistency between 3DBS NSS 002.3 & spec 2280.000 968 w/ respect to spray nozzle design testing.
D*scr$Pt60n: Design Basis Summary Document 3DBS NSS-002 Revision 0 Sedion 4.1.18, and design basis summary document 3DBS NSS-003, Revision 0, Section 4.1.17, state that the containment spray systems are in accordance with ANSI /ANS 56.51979.
The FSAR does not address ANSI /ANS 56.5-1979.
ANSI /ANS 56.51979, page 9, states that spray nozzles shah be either radiographed or hydrostatically tested.
According to design specification 2280.000-968 Revision 10, page 814, the spray nozzles meet the requirements of ASME Saction ill, Subsection NC, except that NC2500 shall not apply as in accordance with NC2121. The specification states that spray nozzles are not considered pressure retaining components; therefore, no RT or UT Inspection is required. In addition, the specification states that hydrostatic testing is not required according to NC6128.
The spray nozzle design specification is inconsistent with ANSI N56.51979 in that the specification exempts the spray nozzles from radiograph and hydrostatic testing.
Review Valid invried Needed Date innlator: Fengood. D. J O
O O
5'55S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/1197 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
11/17,97 IRC Chmn: srgh,Anand v.
Q Q
Q 11/21/97 Date:
INVALlo:
Dele:
REsOLUT10N:
Previously iderd6 fled by NU7 O Yes
- 1 No Non D6screpent Conddion7U Yes
- 1 No Resolut6onPendingfC vos s) No Roscivison unr.oorv.d70 vos
& No Review inMietor: (none)
VT Lead: $4ert, Anthony A b
VT Mgt; Schoofer Don K IRC Chmn: Smgh. Anand K D
sL Conenents:
Pnnted 11G1/97 3410 PM r w 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0506 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: syotem DR VALID Revlew Elemers: System Desgn p
Dioc6phne: Mechancel Dee'"
Om Diecrepancy Type: component Data p~g Systerr.Procoes: Rss NRC sign 6ficance level: 4 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Putnished: 11Q497 D6ecrepency: Matenal used in some minimum wall calculations is inconsistent with specification 2280.000-582.
Deecr6pt6on: Material Used In Calculation Not The Came As in Specification The material specification used as input to 'Jome pipeline minimum well calculations is not consistent with the lnsterial in the pipeline design specification based on the pipe classes identified in the plant computer data base, PDDS.
Pipeline design specification 2280.000-582 Revision 12 identifies material specification SA 312 Type 304L for pipe classes 0302 and 0153. However, material specification SA 312 Type 304 is used as input into the niinimum wall calculations. Pipe classes 0302 and 0153 are riesignated in PDDS for the affected pipehnes.
Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:
Minimum Wall Calculations MW(F) 170 Revision 0 & MW(B)-
132 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3 RSS 006-046 2 3 RSS 006-052 2 3-RSS 008-054 2 3-RSS-006-055 2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B) 127 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS-010 003-2 3 RSS-010 008-2 3-R&G-010-009 2 3-RSS-010-011 2 3 RSS 010-013 2 3-RSS-010 014 2 3-RSS 010 018 2 3 RSS 010-019-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-220 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3 RSS-010-005 2 3-RSS 010-015-2 3-RSS-010-020 2 3 RSS-010-034 2 3-RSS 010-036 2 3 RSS-010-038-2 3-RSS-010 039 2 Mir,imum Wall Calculation MW(F) 110 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3 RSS-010-010 2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B) 122 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS 012 0012 3 RSS-012 002 2 3-RSS 012 004 2 3-RSS 012-006-2 3 RSS-012-007 2 3-RSS-012 012 2 3-RSS-012-016-2 3 RSS-n12 017 ?
Material Not Designated in Calculation i
l Some minimum wall calculations for pipelines do not identify the pipe material used for input into the calculstion.
Pnnled 11Q1/97 3 56 46 PM Page 1 of 2
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4506 Millstone Unit 3 Giscrepancy Report t
Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:
Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B) 44 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3 RSS-010-005 2 3 RSS 010-015 2 3 RSS 010-020 2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B) 45 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3 RSS 012-0212 3-RSS 012 022 2 Review Vaud invahd Needed Dele intuator: Feingo6d, D. J.
O O
O toS7 VT Leed: Nevi, Anthony A O
O O
$1/11/87 VT Matt Schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
11/17/97 IRC Chmn: Shgh. Anand K O
O O
$5co'7 Deee:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60uely ident6 fled b/1U7 Q Yes 98 No Non Diecrepent Condit40n?Q Yes
- 9) No
~
Res.edion P6' whne?O vee s) N.
Ree.iuiion unt.o.ev.orO vee
<3) No Review Not Acceptable Nooded Date O
O O
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr' Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Comments:
I l
Printed 1tct/97 3 56 55 PM Page 2 of 2
I s
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0622 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD A'
3E Potential OperetWity issue D6ecip46ne: Moohenecal Desgn O va D6ecrepency Type: Ocensing Document M No systerwprocess: Rss
~
NRC sigruscence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Puble.hed: 11/2497 Durbancy: Inconsistencies with respect to RSS spray noule flow rate &
pressure drop.
Deecr6pt6on: FSAR Section 6.2.2.2 states that the mean surface diameter of the containment spray droplets is less than 1,000 microns at a design pressure drop of 25 psid for the containment recirculation system (RSS) and at a design pressure drop of 40 psid for the quench spray system (QSS).
Calculation ES 229 Revis!ca 1 (CCN 1) shows the mean diameter of the spray droplets to be less than 1.000 microns with a flow rate of 15.2 gpm and a pressure drop of 40 psid.
However, calculation ES 229 does not address the mean diameter of the spray droplets with a pressure drop of 25 psid.
Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) 3f>BS-NSS-003, Revision 0, Section 12.4.1 states that the RSS spray nonles shall be designed for a pressure drop of 40 psid at a flow rate of 15.2 gpm. Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) 3DBS.
NSS-002, Revision 0, Section 12.3.1 states that the QSS spray nonles shall be designed for a pressure drop of 40 psid at a flow rate of 15.2 gpm.
According to the SPRACo Catalogue page 8, the spray noules are designed to provide a flow rate of 15.2 gpm with a pressure dop of 40 psid or12.0 ripm with a pressure drop of 25 psid. The SPRACo Catalogue is teund as Attachment 1 to calculation ES-229.
Calculation US(B) 245 *10ws the RSS spray noules to operate with a flow rate of 12.0 gpm at a prese.ure drop of 25 psid.
Calculation P(R) 1096 shows the QSS spray nonles to operate with a flow rate of15.2 gpm at a pressure drop of 40 psid.
In conclusion:
- 1. Inconsistencies exist between calculation ES 229, calculation US(B) 245, FSAR Section 6.2.2.2, and DBSD 3DBS-NSS-003 Section 12.4.1 with respect to the RSS spray nonle pressure drop and flow rate.
- 2. No inconsistency exists with respect to the QSS sprr.y nonit:
pressure drop and flow rate.
Review Vel 6d invalid Needed Date inatlator: Feingold. D. J-G O
O it'1oS7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A g
Q Q
11/11/97 VT Mge: schopfer. Den K Q
Q 11/17/97 Prtnted 11/21/97 3 57.47 FM Page 1 or 2
l i
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0622 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRC Chmn: $rgh, Anene K g
]
Q 11/2097 Dde:
IWALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60usly identthod by NU7 Q Yes 98 No Non 06screpent Condstoon?Q vos
- 1 No Mesolut6on Pend 6ng?O vs.
6> No Reso6utionUnresolved?O ve.
@ No Rev6ew
. " " ' Not Acc-P Needed Date inawor: <=,
O O
O VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O
O O
Dee:
SL Comments:
l l-l Printed 11/21/97 3 57.57 PM Page 2 of 2
- 1...
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0634 Miiistone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group; syotem DR VAUD rem EW: sWn %n p,,,,,;,, op,,,,,gg, g,,,,
D6ecipinne: Mechanul Desgn O va D6ecropency Type: Calcuneton
& No lystenvProcess' N/A NRC 8 ynncencelevel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/2497 D'act*Pency: Calculation ES 257 DeectlPtion: Calculation ES 257 (Rev. 0) determines the overall water hold-up inside containment. The calculation covers the QSS and RSS sprays.
The refuel cavity area used is less than the reference. The calculation uses a refuel cavity area of 1392 sq. ft from Calculation ES 233 (Rev. 0) as the effective cavity area covered by QSS Spray. Calculation ES 233 determines the refuel cavity area to be 1327 sq. ft., the transfer canal area to be 105 sq. ft.
and the transfer trench area to be 62 sq. ft. for a total refuel cavity area of 1492 sq. ft. This increases the amount of water held up in the refuel cavity; decreasing the amount of water in the sump.
The overall conclusions of the calculation are not affected.
Howeverr, the time to equilibrium may change slightly.
Review Valid invoied headed Date initiator: Longel. D.
O O
O i t'5 5'87 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
1 ' '"'87 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K O
O O
57/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
"'2SS7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identined by Nu? L Yes el No Non D6screpent Conddion?Q Yes el No Resolution Pending70 Ye.
- )
No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes
- ) No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date b
VT Lead: Nort Anthony A O
O VT Mgr: Schopter. Don K IRC Chmn: sangn AnandK Date:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 11/21/97 3 56 43 PM page 1 of 1
~_.
s
_>.a c
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0536 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- Rev6ew Group: System DR VALID PotentLal Operability issue Discip44ne: MechancalDesgn dis >epncy Type: Calculaten 4
System / Process: Os3
~
NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11f2497 D6screpancy: Calculation P(R)-931 Descripuon: Calculation P(R)-g31 (Rev. 0) determines the insulation requirements for the RWST and the QSS piping located outside.
The insulation requirements are based on the heat loss in the winter and the heat gain in the summer. The water temperature In the RWST is maintained between 40 'F and 50 'F.
- 1. The heat transfer surface for the RWST is underestimated.
The surface of the RWST is modeled as a cylinder with a flat top. However, the top of the RWST is domed resulting in a larger heat transfer surfact 'han is modeled. The convection coefficient used is for a hor ontal surface. The larger surface 9
area would result in a lager temperature charsge. The calculation does not take credit for the thermal conductivity of the metal shell nor does it take credit for the insulating value of J
the air in the dome. The ca.culation assumes the tank is completely full up to the 24' vent line, it is unclear if these items t
would of' set the increased surface area of the RWST top.
- 2. The calculated summer heat gain from the RWST Recirculation Pump (Pace 9) is overestimated. The heat gain is the differcnce between the actual and ideal power output (work) of the pump. The wo.K of the pump. is converted from horsepower to Btulhr by multiplying by 2545. Twenty f:ve Hp is equivalent to 63.600 Btu /hr. The calculation determines the heat gain to be 66,170 Blu/hr. Since the heat increase is for the summer and the larger v:;lue was used in the calculation, this is ccaterve?ve, 3, The ideal pump power calculated c 88 Hp. The actual power is calculated by dividing ideal power by the pump efficiency.
- @ ideal pump nower used in the equation was 87 Hp. The irtemal energy increase is the difference Detween the actual ar.d the ideal power output and t! 's dif'crence is insignificant, d.
The cal 0 lt.lon determines tha temperaturt. change for various insutstice thickness. The ciculation for the piping (Page
- 13) determines it.:'.**rmal resistance due to the pipe as 0.0076. The resistance is 0.0027. This is src9ll compared to the Nsistance due to the insulation and has an insignificant affect on the results.
- 5. The summary of results indicates that the s'immer heat gain is 1R000 Blu/hr (Page 3). The calculation determines the summer heat gain to be 150,000 Btu /hr (Page 10).
Review Valid invalid N* wsed Date inletnine= 1 annst h i1Mim7 Pnnted 11/21/97 3M22 PM Page 1 of 2
o Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0636 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
. Inmotor:. A fet, D.
O O
"'"/87
[
11/11/97 VT Lead: tiert. Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O
O O
15'17'87 BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 11/2097 Dele:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev % sly ident6 fled by NU7 U Yes el No Non Discrepent Condstfon?Q Yes
- 1 No Resolution Periding?O yes V) No ResolutionUnresolved?C Yes
($)No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gg VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnents:
1 Prteted 11/21/97 3 59:29 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0537 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review o,,: syeiem DRvAuD hw EM: Spem %n Folential OpevNisty lasue Diecipline: Mechenscal Desgn O va Discrepency Type: Calculation
@ No System / Process: Oss
~
NRC Significance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Data Published: 11/247 Discrepancy: Calculation P(R) 943 Descripuon: Calculation P(R) 943 (Rev. 0; CCN 1) determines the ovarpressure protection requirements forthe QCS Systern. The requirements are based on the operating pressures and temperatures from the Stress Data Package (SDP) SDP-QSS-1358,Rev.6.
- 1. The calculatieri indicates the pump discharge piping design conditions are 175 psig @ 150 'F. The limiting temperature from the SDP is 242 'F. ~iha v.s J~m design pressure for Class 153 piping at 242 'F is 227 psig. This is still higher than the design pressure of 175 psig.
- 2. The calculation indicates the pump suction piping design conditions are 60 psig @ 150 'F. The design conditions from the Line List are 40 psig @ 1/ 0 'F. The maximum design pressure at 150 'F for Pipe Class 153 is 258 psig. The maximum design pressure at 140 'F is 261 psig. The maximum design pressure used in the calculation is conservative.
Rev6ew Vaind invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel, D.
G O
O
" S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
" '11'S7 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K G
O O
"'i 7/S7 IRC Chmn: singn Anand K G
O O
"'2SS7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLLTION:
Previously idenufied by NU7 L Yes
- ) No Nor* Discrepent Condition?Q vos G) No Resolution Pendmg70 Yes W> No Resolution Unresolved?O ve.
Wi No Revnev' Axeptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A V' Mgt: schoofei, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Arwvt K Date:
sL Comments:
' Prtnted 11/21/97 4:00.06 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0539 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element; System Desgn p
g Diecip44ne: Mechancel Deegn Om D6ecrepency Type: CN 4 g, System /Procese: Rss NRC Sign 6Acance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dsie Published: 11/2497 Discrepancy: Cd'culation US(B) 245 Desenpuon: Calculation US(8)-245 (Rev. 0; CCNs 1,2 & 3) is the hydraulic model for the ECCS Systems: RSS, RHR, HHSl and LHSI.
- 1. The loss coefficient for reducers and enlargers calnot be verified. Crane Technical Paper #410 (Crane) is the reference for the equations to determine the loss coefficient. The equations include the diame.ter change and the included angle.
The included angle is based on the diameter change and the length of the reducer. No information or reference is provided for either the length of the reducer or the inc uded angle.
- 2. The loss coefficient, UD, for a SO' elbow is if according to Crane. Crane does not tilrectly indicate the loss coefficient for 30* and 45' elbows. The caleciation assumed the loss coefficient for 30* elbows to be 40% of the loss coefficient for a 90* elbow. Similarly for 45' elbows, the calculation assumed the loss coefficient to be 60% of a 90' elbow. No basis was stated I
for these assumptions. UsinC the equation provided in Crane, 30' and 15' elbows should be 66.6% and 75% of a 90* elbow, p
- 3. CCN 2 - No justification is provided for not inciuding the l
resistance due to expansion joints. The calculation states that it is insignificant, but provides no further explanation of why it is insignificant.
- 4. CCN 2 The calculation of head loss in flow elements uses the dP instrument range of 147 inches of water at 5000 gpm.
Flow elements have some recoverable losses. The actualloss is smaller.
- 5. CCN 2 - The CCN used 14*f for the friction loss of a 45' elbow. Crane provides an equation to determine the friction loss for a 45' elbow based on the loss for a 90' elbow. Tha CCN did not use the equation and assumed the loss for a 90* elbow. Inis is conservative.
- 6. CCN 2 - The CC;4 used 20*f for the friction loss of a SD bend. Crane provides friction loss values for 40 and SD bends of 14*f and 17*f, respectively. This is conservative.
- 7. The friction loss for the heat exchanger is different between the CCN and the calcu:ation. The cale:ulation used the data sheets provided in Attachment 2 and the CCN used newer data sheets contained in the specification package, The CCN did not update the loss determined in the calculation for the newer data sheets.
Prtnted 11/21/97 4:03:45FM Page 1 of 2
DR No. DR MP3-06b Northeast Utilities ICAVP MillstDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 8. CCN 2 - In the calculation on Page 9, the olameter uw " was inconsistent. Some losses were calculated using the nominal pipe size and some losses were calculated using the inside diameter of Schedule 40 pipe. For sizes 3 mailer than 12', these two items are different.
These items do not change the coi.aus;on of the calculation.
Any one item is insignificant es is the combination of all these items.
Review
- 'elid inval6d Needed Date intietor: Langel, D.
[
O
]
11/11/97 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A
[
[
[
11/12/97 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K O
O O
$ 5'17/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
i r20S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION' Prev 6ously idenUned by NU? O Yes iG) No Non D6screpent Condstion?Q Yes to) No Resolution Pending?O Yes '!)No ResoiutionunresoevedrO Yes (E) No Review inMistor: (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Commente:
l Printed 11/21/97 4 03.53 PM Page 2 of 2
Nortneast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR#P3-0664 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RW Group: syetem DR VALID Potential Operabil6ty 8ssue Discipime: Mechencal Deeg" O va 06ecrepency Type: Calculebon
@ No System / Process: Rss
~
NRC Signs 6cance level: 4 DateI AXedIo NU:
Date Published: 11/2497 Discrepancy: Calculation US(B)-278 Descr4dion: The purpose of Calculation US(B) 278, Rev. O, is to determine the sump water lovel as a function of time. The calculation assumes that the time celay in starting RSS pumps after receipt of a CDA signal is 230 seconds. Calculation US(B) 278 concludes that a 230 second time delay is insufficient to assure an adequate sump water supply to the RSS pumps, after an MSLB.
The following discrepancy was identified in Calculation US(B)-
278:
A and B RSS pump actuation is delayed for 650 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal and C and D RSS pump actuation is delayed for 660 reconds after receipt of a CDA signal (LSK 24 9.4A, Rev. 9). Pacause these approx.11 min time rielays are much longer than the 230 second time delay used in US(B) 278, the calculatiori is invalid.
Calculation US(B)-326. Rev.1 addresses the issue of sump water supply after a LOCA for an RSS start timer setting of 11 l
- minutes, Therefos, Calculation US(B)-278 should be voided.
Review Vel 6d Invehd Needed Date initiator: Waketend. J. F.
g C
O 11/1147 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthr 1y A
]
[
11/11/97 VT Mgt: schopfer. Don K O
O O
1 '17S7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O
O O
r20<97 Date:
INVALID-Date:
RT. SOLUTION:
PaytouMy ident:6ed by Nu? O ves
@ No tem Discrepent Condation?Q ves
- J No Resolution Pending?O ve.
+ No Resolution unresolved?O ve.
@ No f
i Review g
Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K l
IRC C! ann: Singh. Anand K Date:
Prtnted 11/21/97 4 obhM~-~~
Page 1 of 2
...-~-....
=-
l
.1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP' DR No. DR-MP34564 l
- Alisistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report I
I l
l i
PrNed 11/21/97 4:07:36 PM PW W 2
Northeast UtF.ities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP34687 MillStDne Unit 3 D!screpancy Report Revtew Group: System DR VALID Review dhment: System Desgn p
g Discipline: Mecherucal Desgn O va Discrepancy Type: Comgrnent Dats
@ No SysterrvProcess: RSS NRC signifncance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/2497 Diecrepancy: Drawing 2472.210190-110 references notes which do not appear on the drawing.
Deecription: The design drawing,2472.210-190-010 Revision B, for containment recirculation system oritice pletes 3RSS*RO39A,B references Notes 1,2, and 3 for fabrication of materials.
However, the notes do not appear on the drawing.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inkletor: Feingold. D. J-0 0
0 1 '11/87 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A g
[
[
11/1107 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
11'17/S7 BRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q
Q 11/2097 Dei.:
INVAUD:
a.
Dete:
RFSOLUTION.
Previousiy identitled by NU7 Q ves @ No NonDiscrepentCondalon?Q Yes l#) No Resoiution Pending70 ve.
- 1) No Renoiution unroeoivedtO vee
- 3) Ne Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nev1. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 11/21/97 4:14:00 PM Page 1 of 1
l 1
DR No. DR-MP3-06br Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Systern DR VAllD Reh EW: Cee Acton Wm Potent 6al Operabilsty issue D6ec6pline: Mechanical Des gn Om Discrepency Type: Correctra Acton 4g SysterrWProcess: RsS
~
NRC SigrWfi:ance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 11/2497 D6.crepency: Inconsistency within specification SP ME 784 with respect to location of elastomeric seat.
Deecrtpoon: In letter 809878 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated May 15,1.'91, f Jortheast Utilities committed to change the design of containment isolation valves 3RSS*MCV23A,B,C,D to prevent them from f ailing their local leak rate tests This is documented in Northeast Utilities' Pl6 commitment record 19690.
The subject valvet, are butterfly valves. In the original design, an elastomeric seat was installed on the valve body. Letter B09878 documents that the root cause of the valve failure is seat separation from the valve body. Accordingly, the letter recommends that the new valve design locate the elastomeric seat on the valve disc instead of the valve body.
PDCR 93-015 implemented the chair,e by installing new valves with elastomeric seats on the valve body instead of on the disc.
According to PDCR 93-015, the design of the new valves are specified in specification SP-ME 784 Revision ? On page lii of the specification, the valve discs are identified as having rubber on the edges. But on page 17, the disc is said to be machined to ease entry of the disc into the seat. The two statements in specification SP-ME 784 are inconsistent; therefore, the installed configuration cannot be confirmed.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feingotc. D. J.
Q Q
11/1397 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
11/12sr VT Mgr: Schonfer. Con K Q
Q Q
11/17S 7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K g
[
Q 11/20S7 sne:
INVALID:
p Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously 6dentined by NU? Q Yes
$1 No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes ? No Resolution PeMng?C v:s j No Resoluwl.Lare6oivoc?C Yes M No Rev6ew initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Nort. Ar.thony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
Prtnted 11/21S7 4.14 51 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilitiss ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34416 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Conenents:
e Y
u
~
Prwed 11/21S7 4:14:57 PM.
Dage 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3-0622 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Pinr-e..e DR VALID Rev6ew Element: Ccerectrve Acton Process p
Diec6pline: Other O Ya Diecrepancy Type: Promoure implementaten
% No SystenvProcese: N/A
~
NRC Signif6c.nce 6evel: 3 Date F A ted to NU:
Date Publ6shed: 11/2497 Diecreowncy: Inadequate Corrective Action Documentation DeecMPtion: The corrective action desenbed in CR M3 97 2253 is incomplete or inedequate in the following areas:
- 1. No covrective actions are identified in the Corrective Action Plan (RP4-1, page 5 of 9) other than to revise procedures U3 WC 1 and WPC 2.
- 2. Page 2 of 9 of the Fe~n contains a statement that 00 MP3-010-97 addresses MEPL issues and that Engineenng Evaluation M3-EV 970009 addresses acceptability of components needed for defense in depth and covered items referred to in this CR (except COP *AVO19). This information should be expanded upon and included in the Corrective Action Plan portion of the CR.
- 3. Corrective Actions relative to Valve CCP*AOV19. Identified as specifically excluded from the above evaluations, is not sodressed in the CR.
In summary, this CR is not properly documented and does not coatain sufficient information with respect to corrective action.
Review Val 6d Inven6d Needed Date inet6etor: Wrone, S. P.
O O
O 11'1'S7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J G
O O
11/1 'S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
11'17/97 IRC Chmn: Sep. Anand K Q
Q O
11/21/97 D.i.:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Provtously identifled by NU? V Yes (R) No Non oiscrepant Conds'non?Q Yes
- 9) No Resolution Pending?O ves @ No Resolutxm unresolved?O Yes i) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J VT algt: Schoofer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Date:
SL C-omments:
~
Preted 11/21/97 4:15.5e PM -
Page 1 of 1
(
b Northeart Utiinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0627 Ministone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR VALID Review Elemord: system Desgn p
g g
Diecipune: Mechencal Desgn Om Discrepency Type. Laiculation
@ No systemProcess: Rss NRC signincence levet: 3
')ete faxed to NU:
Cete PutilieNd: 11/2497 Diecrepancy: RSS supply pressure to PASS used as input to calc PtR)-1127 II inconsistent w/ FSAR Table 6.31 Descrtpuon: FSAR Section 9 " 2.6.2, item 3 states that the post accident sampling system (PASS) has the capability of obtaining samples from the containment via the recirculation spray lin3s. Pictory from other installations shows thtt the supply pressure from the sump recirculation lines (s) might not be sufficient to fulfill the fiow and pressure requirements for the PACS sample feed.
P&lD EM 112C Revision 16 shows tnat the PASS takes suction from the containment recirculation system (RSS) at pipelines 3 SSP-001 155-2 and 3-SSP 001 156-2, downstream of valves 3RSS*MOV8837A,B and 3RSS*MOV8838A,B. According to FSAR Figure 6.31, Notes to Figure in Mode B and in Mode C, the RSS system pressure and temp 3rature at the RSS to PASS interface !s 206 psig at 182 degrees Fahrenheit for Mode B and
, /5 psig at 1G2 degrees Fahrenheit for Mode C.
D Calculation P(R) 1127 Revision 0 identifes the pressure and temperature at pipelines 3-SSP-001-155-2 and 3-SSP-001 156-2 as 193 psig at 115 degrees Fahrenheit. This is inconsistent with the temperature provided in the FSAR for both Modes B and C, anc is inconsistent with the pressure provided in '.he FSAR for Mode C.
Calculation P(R) 1127 shows the pressure reaching the containment sump after passing through the PASS Sample Module to be 47.1 psig. Applying the value given in the FSAR for Mode C as the input pressure at pipelines 3-SSP-001-155-2 and 3-SSP-001 156-2 in calculation P(R)-1127, the resulting pressure at the cor.tainment sump would be 18 psl tess or 29.1 psig. This is lower than peak post accident contoinment pressure of 38.49 psig provided in FSAR Section ft.2.1.1.1.1.
According to calculation US(B) 273 Revision 5, the containment prese,ure one hour after the event would be approximately 28 psig. NUREG 0737," Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requi.~meras* requires a PASS sample to be obtained within one hour after the accident event. Therefore, sampling must begin prior to the one hour limit specified in NUREG 0737.
==
Conclusion:==
The RSS developed pressure at the RSS to PASS Interface as reported in FSAR Figure 6.31 is insufficient to operate PASS during Mode C, hot leg recirculation.
Review Valid invah<*
Needed Date Initiatort FeNoid. D. J 111497 Pnnted it!21.97 (16:52 PM Page 1 of 7 l
1
0 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. OR MP3 0627 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report inamtor: Feingosa. D. J.
O O
O
' 1 S '
VT Lead: Neft, Anthony A O
O O
$ SS7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
$ /10S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
11/20S7 Cate:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 6ously identsfled by NU7 Q Yes
- ) No Non Diacrepent Conddion?V Yes
- 9) Na Resolution Pend 6ng?O Yes
.@ No R ioiion unt. iv.d? O Y
- 1)No Rev6ew initiator
- (none)
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K SL Crmnents:
Irinted 11f21/97 4:17:01 PM
,2 of 2
I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0038 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR RESCLL* TION ACCEPTED Review Element: Correctrve Acton Process p
f.Asc6p46ne: Other Discrepancy Type: CorrectNo Action 74 SystemProcess: sWP NRC Sigruflcance level: 3 cete faxed to NU:
Date Published: 8/29.97 oiscrepancy: locomplete Corrective Action in ACR # M3-96-0341 Descript6on: The Causal Factor Corrective Action Plan included in ACR # M3-96-0M1 (Form RP 4-7, Pages 3 & 4) addresses the following:
- 1) Walkdown the EEQ Equipment to validate configurations using terminal blocks and weepholes. This will be part of EEQ Program Project. P/2 # 560000274(DE);
- 2) Generate equipment Qualificsilon Records (ECR's) f* GE Type EB-25 terminal blocks were applicable; address weepholes in EQR's; and
- 3) Revise EEQ's masterlist to reflect additions of GE EB-25 terminal blocks.
The Causal Factor Corrective Action falls to address the following required corrective actions:
- 1) Verificatio,; of the proper EQ procurement of Marathon Type 1500 terminal blocks; and
- 2) Revision of wiring diagrams to show the correct terminal block mark numbers.
Review Ve46d invalid Needed Date initiator: Caruso, A.
Q Q
8/22 S 7 VT Lead: Ry'in, Thomas J g
[
[
8/2597 VT Mge: schopfer, Don K g
Q Q
8/2597 IRc Chmn: TNh, Anand K
[
[
WN.97 Date:
INVAllO:
_a Date: 11/18/97 RESOLUTION: Dispositjon; NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3 0038 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction Condition Report CR # M3-97-3023 has been initiated to evaluate the corrective actions associated with the verification of proper EQ procurement of the Marathon Type 1500 terminal blocks and the revision of the affected wiring diagrams to depict the correct terminal block mark numbers.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0038, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which required correction. CR M3-97 3023 has been issued to provide and track the corrective actions necessary to resolve this discrepancy,
~
Previously identified by NU? O Yes G) No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes
- 8) No pnnted 11/21/97 3.s1.54 PM Page 1 of 2
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0038 Milistone Unit 3 Disc.epancy Report-Resoluuon Pendmg7f Yes U No Reeceuuon Unresolved 70 Yes
- 4) No "eview
~
initiator: Caruso. A.
b VT Lead: Ryan, Thomes J VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: singn, Anand K Date:
11/18/97 sL comme..a: NU's response is acceptable. NU's response confirms the discrepancy related to vedfication of proper procurement of Marathon Type 1500 terminal block, hov.ever, it does not provide any :nformation on the possible outcome of the vedfication or when the venfication wiil be done. Thus, the significance level is b:ing changed to 3 because the venfication process may result in corrective actions on the installed Marathon Type 1500 terminal blocks. This resolution has been changed to the "Pending" category.
Pnnted 11/21/97 3 s2:o3 PM Page 7 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0196 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Operations & Menenance and Testing DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review ElemerW: Operetng Procedee p
Diecipline. Opereuons O va Discrepency Type: Test Requirements 4
SysterrvProcess: Rss
~
NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 10C/97 Discrepancy: Missing guidance in the Containment inspection Precedure.
Ducripuon: The containment is to be inspected at least once per refueling interval by performing a visualinspection of the containment sump, venfying the sumps are not restricted by debris, and that there is no evidence of structural distress or abnormal corrosion.
Tech Spec 4.5.2.d.2 requires the containment inspection. The Tech Spec requirement is qualitative. SP 3612A.1, Containment Irnpections, provides the direction for performing the inspection.
The procedure gives examples of loose debris in Attachment 1.
The procedure does not provide similar examples of structural distress or abnormal corrosion. Altematively, the procedure does not specify either minimum training requirements or personal qualifications.
The procedure and completed OPS Form do not provide adequate information to independently verify that the inspectbn required by Tech Spec 4.5.2.d.2 is met.
Rev6ew Vand invalid Needed Date induator: Pierwowcz, R.
O O
O Sc2S7 VT Lead: Bass Ken g
Q Q
9C2/97 VT Mgr: schopfe*, Don K Q
O O
S22S7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O
O O
9/27/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 11i14/97 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report.
DR-MP3 0196, does not represent a discrepant condition. The procedure and form as written are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Tech Spec 4.5.2.d.2. The inspection of the CTMT sump for structural distress and abnormal corrosion is a general inspection to identify visible debris restrictions, material deformation and degradation of the sump components. While not explicitly required in the procedure, the final CTMT inspection at the end of an extended outage (including refuelino) is perfoni,ed cc,d signed us by a senior licensed operator (see attached copies of SP 3612A.12 for RFO4 and RFOS). The training and operating experience required for an individual to become an SRO is extensive and comprehensive. In addition, an SRO is responsible to know good housekeeping practices and to recognize equipment degradation when it exists.
As an enhancement to SP 3612A.1. two changes have been Pnnted 11/21/97 3.s2 s8 PM Page 1 of 3
,o Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0196 Mittstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report requested via DC1 Attachment 10, Feedback Fom1,
- 2. Provide specific examples of structural distress and abnormal corTosion as defined in ASME XI,1986 to ensure consistency among SROs.
With the enhancements requested, any question regarding the traliling requirements necessary to perform tho inspection should be dispelled.
Significance Level enteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0196, does not represent a discrepant condition. SP 3612A.1 is inspecting the CTMT sump for obvious deformation and degradation it is part of the Operations department's responsibility to identify and co,Tect poor housekeeping practices and equipment deficiencies. However, to enhance the procedure and ensure consistency among SROs, a change request has been submitted to the procedure group to specifically require an SRO be the responsible individual performing the final CTMT close out inspection and to provide examples extracted from ASME XI,1986 for comparison. Significance Level criteria do not apply he e as this is not a discrepant condition.
Attachments:
SP 3612A.1-1 completed 10/26/93 for RFO4 by L. E. Olson, Shift Manager SP 3612A.12 completed 10/7/93 for RFO4 by M. J.
Siebert,SRO SP 3612A.1-1 completed 5/31/95 for RF05 by P. G. Malzahn and J. A. Ruttar, Shift Managers SP 3612A.1-2 completed 5/29/95 for RFOS by J. A. Ruttar, Shift Manager Prr 'ously identified by NU? O Yes
-9) No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes
- 1 No Resokstion Pending?O ves W) No ResolutionUnresolved?O yes iW) No Re tiew initiator: Pierencz. R.
VT Lead: Bess. Ken VT Mgt: schopfer. Don K tRC Chrnn: singh, Anand K O
G O
em Date:
11/14/97 sL comnwnts: S&L recommends that the procedure, SP 3612A.1 Containment inspections, be icvised to include examples of #n!ctural di; tress and abaormal corrosion similar to the attachment added to describe loose debris. The personnel should be specifically trained on the procedure in an appropriate manner including visual examples of structural distress and abnormal cor nsiori.
The ASME Code could be used in developing examples cf structural distress and abnormal corrosion. The reference to the Pnnted 11/21/97 3.53.06 PM Pege 2 of 3
o,-
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0196 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1966 edition of the Code is incorrect, since subsection (WL was first issued in the 1988 addenda, The second Objective statement is stated incorrectly. Technical Specification 4.5.2.d.2 is the reference for the visual inspection of the san.p rather than removing power from components in containment.
Prtnted 11/21/97 3.53 09 PM Page 3 of 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _. _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _