ML20199L017
| ML20199L017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1998 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9802090073 | |
| Download: ML20199L017 (64) | |
Text
!'
/
,fl e
N,Lundy'"
Sar go
}l
/
Don K. Schopfer
$'tt$$>?s*
February 4,1998 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 twenty four (24) 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-MP3-0756 DR No. DR-MP3-1015 DR No. DR-MP3-0961 DR No. DR MP3-1018 DR No. DR MP3-0962 DR No. DR-MP3-1019 DR No. DR-MP3 0971 DR No. DR-MP3 1021 DR No. DR MP3-0996 DR No. DR MP3-1022
= DR No. DR-MP3 1000 DR No. DR-MP3 1023 DR Nc. DR-MP31005 DR No. DR MP31024 DR No. DR-MP3 1007 DR No. DR MP3-1025 DR No. DR-MP3-1009 DR No. DR MP31026 DR No. DR-MP31010 DR No. DR MP31027 DR No. DR-MP3-1013 DR No. DR MP3-1029 DR No. DR MP3-1014 DR No. DR-MP3 1030 I have also enclosed the following two (2) DRs that have been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for these DRs. The basis for their invalid I
determination is included on the document hl l
O
20 R No. DR-MP3-0993 DR No. DR-MP3-1036 9002090073 900204 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
PDR 55 East Monroe Street
- Chicago, IL 60603 5780 USA
- 312 269-2000
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 4,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the following two (2) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
I DR No. DR MP3 0277 DR No. DR MP3-0804 I have also enclosed the five (5) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not accepted. S&L comments on these resolutions have been provided.
DR No. DR-MP3-0514 DR No. DR MP3 0566 DR No. DR MP3 0588 DR No. DR-MP3 0666 DR No. DR MP3-0667 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, 3.
)
d D. K. chopfer SeniorVice 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 mhnhwn98'ev0204-a &c
Northeast Utlinios ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4764 Millstorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow Group Operemone & Maintonence end Testme DR VALID Revtow Element: Operstmg Procedure O vee F-
. my Type: O 4 M & T :..,--..
gg Systemeroseso: N/A NRC tegniaeanoe level: 4 onte FAXedle NU:
Date PuWiehed: 2rh9e obserepancy: Deviation From Operating Philosophy of Emergency Proceouros.
Descr$tten: During a Simulator Scenario, the UnN Supervisor (US) coticly performed all the steps of EOP 35 E 0, ' Reactor Trip or Safety injection', w6th the exception of the last step (Step 34). This atop requires the operator to retum to Stop 21 and loop back through E 0, if he has not been able to determine, by control room Indication, that the plant has sustained a Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant, a Faulted Steam Generator, or a Steam Generator Tube Rupture. The US exited E 0 and went to EOP 35 E 3, ' Steam Generator Tube Rupture'. This wa* the correct procedure to be in, but it was entered without any procedural direction from the EOP's, which are based on the Westinghouse owner's Group (WOG) Guidelines.
A lesson loamed from the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident is to stay in the immediate actions or diagnosis procedure until specifically direded to go to an event specific procedure. This prevents the operator from making a misdiagnosis of the situation, as was the case at TMl, and taking actions which could make the situation worse, rather than mitigating the problem. Accordingly, the US should have either:
- 1) ' Looped' back to Step 21 in E 0 until it gave him spedfic diredion to go to E 3, or
- 2) Gone to EOP 35 ES 0.0, 'Redlagnosis', which would have direded him to go to E 3 or to retum to E 1. ES-0.0 provides guidance for the operator to determine or confWn the most appropriate post accident recovery procedure.
The Simulator Instructor (SI) questioned the US as to how he got to EOP 35 E 3. The US said that he knew that was where he needed to be. The Si mentioned that there was the Redlagnssis Procedure and the US agreed, but that he already knew where he needed to be. This was all that was said about the Redlagnosis Procedure or Procedural Compilance.
S&l. feels that this is a discrepant item, as the US failed to adhere to the philosophy of ' Verbatim Procedural Compliance' as is designed into the WOG Procedures and Guidelines and NU Procedure,
'DC 4-Procedural Comp!!ance'. Also the Sl failed to stress their importance to the US and the other members of the crew.
Review Vmild invalid Needed Date Inistator: Ungeren, R.
O O
O tr2 ass VT Leed: Bees Ken O
O O
ir2 ass VT Mgr Schophr, Don K O
O O
tr2nse Printed 2/*B8 911:11 AM Pope 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP M
- M*84788 Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
2/H6 Det :
DNAUD:
e Det.:
RESOLUTION:
7;..
- , Ident6And try NU? O Y.e
@ No Non Dioeropont Condetke.FQ Y
@ N.
R *uep.nenetO va + u.
R *u n uni *.dtO va @ w.
k n.*.
Inlaister. (none)
O O
VT L d: Bees, Ken O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Aneral K Det :
SL Conenents:
- s Prtnted 2/496 9,11:16 AM Page 'of 2
Northeast Utiittles ICAVP DR No. MW361 Massatorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report swow oreup: system DRvAuD neview timments syneem Damien Dessipane: Meehen6 ass Denip g y,,
D6eevepeney Type: Calculamen gg systenWProcese NEW
~
NRC signeteense level: 3 Does faxed le NU:
Date Published: 2/1/98 P^
. -i. Calculation CRS MOV.1382M3 Domsttreten: Calculation CRS-MOV 1382M3 [Rev. 0; CCN 1) documents the condet6ons, preneure, temperature, flow, etc., for the RSS System MOVs. These conditions are used in the torque and thrust calculations.
DCR 97045 Installed an ortfloe at the RSS pump o*wherge to reduce the system flow rete. The hydraulic analysis for RSS System operation was performed by Calculation US(B) 361.
CCN 1 of Calculation CRS-MOV 1382M3 incorporated the revised flow rates and references for RSS Valves MOV20, MOV23 and MOV 36.
The flow rates and references fer Valves MOV8837 and MOV8838 were not revised by the CCN. Calculation US(B) 381 determines nigher ECCS flow rates through these valves 'Non-Conservative). The current basis for the valve flow rates is Calculation US(B) 245, Section 5. Section 5 was deleted by CCN 3 of Calculation US(8b245.
Revtew Valid invelld Needed Date intelmeer: I angel. D.
O O
O 2/2ies Vr Leed: Nori. Anthony A O
O O
2/2ies VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
2/2res IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
2 ruse Dele:
18#AUD:
Date:
RE4oLUTloN:
N. : -'ir 1++118eed by Elf Q Yes @ No NonD6eerepentCondetion70 Yes @ No neeeksenrenenetO Yee @ No Roeoksen unroo@edtO vos @o Review Acceptable. Not ^--:- ' - Needed Date g
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthory A VT Mgra Schapter. Den K 1RC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K Dele:
sL Commente:
Prtnled 2/4/9s 9:11:40AM Page 1 or 1
N:rthen:t Utilitiso ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0642 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DRVAUD Review Element: System Design Diecipline: Mechancel Dee*
O va Diecrupancy Type' Caicuistion g
systemsweess: NEW
=
NRC Gignificancelevel: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubilehra: 2m96 E
mi. Calculation 89-094-0939ES Description Calculation 89-094 0939ES [Rev. 0; CCN 1] is the MOV Program Scope Determination, it provides a list of all motor operated valves and determines if a valve should be included in the secpe of the MOV Program as defined by NRC Generic Letter 89-10 including Supplements 1 through 6.
- 1. ALsumption 3.2 indicates that Valves 3SWP*MOV130 A/B are not active valves since they are maintained in the normally open position. P&lD EM 1338, Note 6 indicates that the motor operators for these valves were electrically disconnected.
However, these valves are still listed as active valves in Calculation NM-027 ALL [Rev. 2; CCNs 1-6],
- 2. BWNS Calculation 51 1212083 is an input to this calculation, M3-RFI-00435 requested this reference which is not available according to M3-IRF-00490.
Review Valid invenid Needed Date initiator: timpel,D.
8 O
O 2r2ise VT Leed: fieri, Anthony A O
O O
2mse VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2cse IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
2>2se Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
MsOLUTION.
Previously identi8ed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes @ No ReeolutionPendmg?O Yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O yes @ No Review g,ggf; g Accep*.able Not Acceptab61 Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K IRC chmn: Singh, Anend K Cate:
sL Comments:
Printed 2/4se 9:12:30 AM Page 1 of 1
N:rthe:tt Utilities ICAVP DR Ns 3R MP3 0971 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Potendel Operaldisty issue O Yo.
Diecrepency Type: Calculebon g
Systerfrocess: NEW NRC W M :3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putkhed: 2/7/De Diecrepency: Calculation SWS-MOV 1380M3 D*ectlptkm: Calculation SWS-MOV 1380M3 [Rev, 0] documents condi'Jons (pressure, temperature, flow, etc.) for the Service Water System (SWP) Motor Operated Valves (MOV) These conditions are used in the torque and thrust calculation, Section 3.2.8 is a table of the flows through the SWP MOVs and the reference for the flow, Calculation P(T)-1092 (Reference 3.1.51)is the reference for a number of the flows, Calculation P(T) 1092 is supe seded by Calculation 90-069-1116 (Reference 3.1.13). The flows determined in Calculation 90-069-1116 are considerably higher (non-conservative) in most cases than in Calculation SWS-MOV 1380M3, Review valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel, D.
O O
O 2r2/9e VT LAed: Mel, Anthony A O
O O
2/2/9e VT Mge: Echopfer, Don K O
O O
2r2/9e IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 2r3/9e Date:
INVAUO:
Date:
RESOLtm0N Previously ideritifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O Yes ($ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gg VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Ccmnents:
Printed 2/4/9e 9.13:03 AM Page 1 of 1
N:rthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0994 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworo, s/mem DnvAuo Review Element: Sptom DeWgn p
w ynne: weher*:st Dewgn O vee r" -n; _ ;i Type: Celculation gg 8,_..---:NEW NRC S',2"m lev = 4: 4 Date FMed to NU:
Date PutWehed: 2/74e C-
- ;y: Revision of Calculation US(B) 1187 for DCRs M3-97042 and 97045 Deecription: The purpose of Calculation US(B) 1187. Rev. 2 is to detennine operating RSS pressure and temperatures for input into the stress data package, SDP-RSS-01361M3, Rev. 5.
3 The Stress Data Package Plant Conditions Checkilst, pp.1319 of US(B)-1187, contains incorrect and outdated information.
These are editorial errors which could cause confusion over which system design information is correct:
- 1. Calculation P(R)-883 is referenced in several places for maximum RSS pressure, but this calculation was statused superseded on 7 30-97. The correct reference is P(R)-1186, Rev. 2. P(R)-1186 identifies to maximum RSS pump discharge pressure as 300.1 psig, not 304.3 psia (289,6 psig).
- 2. RSS Pump start time delays are identified as 290 and 300 seconds, but, according to LSK-24-9.4A, Rev. 9, the time delays are $50 and 660 seconds.
- 3. The procedure for manually operating RSS for the ECCS recirculation after a postulated small break LOCA without a CDA should not require MOV20A/B be closed before RSS pump start because this would air bind the ECCS pumps
- as discussed in DR-MP3-989.
Review Velid hvaled Needed Date inaistor: wekstend. J. F.
O O
O its los VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
2/2/98 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2t2/9e IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
2isse Date:
INVAUD:
suma Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifwo by Nu? O von (e) No Non DWrepent Corn *lon?O Yee @ No Resolution Penderg?O ves @ No Resoiution unreeoived?O yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptebie Needed Date inMW M VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT T Schopfer, Don K Printed 2/4/96 9:13.54 AM Page 1 of 2 i
d Northeast Utiuties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-09M Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report g
b IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
=
D 1-O Date:
SL Comments:
)
Printed 2/496 E 13:56 AM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVh DR No. DR-MP3-1000 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: system DR VAUD s
p,,,,,,,,
. j,,,,
Diecropency Type: C*W M No e,r 7NEW
~
NRC algnificence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Does Putdished. 2M96 C
~ i. Revi:,lon of Calculation US(B)-253 for DCR M3 97045 Dacription: The purpose of Calculation US(B)-253, Rev. 5 is to identify the sources of allinput data for the LOCA containment pressurization model and to compile the LOCTIC input data deck for this model.
Seven discrepancies were identified in US(8)-253:
- 1. According to Attachment B of US(B)-270, Rev. 5, the time required for the RSS pump to accelerate to full speed is 0.8 seconds, given no volte?e egradation - a condition previously assumed to correspon6 io RSS pump autostart for a postulated LOCA without a LOP. Rev. 5 to US(B)-253, increased this time to 2.0 seconds (pp.13 and 13a) without indicating a new reference for this new start time. Rev 6 to US(B)-270 no longer provides data on pump acceleration time.
- 2. According to Attachment B of UG(B)-270, Rev. 5, the time required for the RSS pump to accelerate to full speed is 3.2 seconds, given 30% voltage degradation - a condition previousiy assumed in correspond to RSS pump autostart for a postulated LOCA concurrent with a LOP. Rev. 5 to US(B)-253, decreased this time to 2.0 seconds (pp.13 and 13a) without indicating a new reference ;or this new start time. Rev. O to -
US(B)-270 no longer provides data on pump acceleration time.
- 3. According to p. 66 of US(B)-225, Rev. 6, the time required for the QSS pump'n accelerate to full speed is 2.0 seconds, given 30% voltage don.dation - a condition previously assumed to correspond to CSS pump autostart for a postulated LOCA concurrent with a LOP. Rev. S to US(B)-253, decreased this time to 1.0 seconds (pp.13 and 13a) without Indicating a new reference for this new start time.
- 4. According to LSK-24-9.4Q, Rev. 9, the 650 or 660-sacond RSS pump autostart timer would not start after a postulated LOCA/ LOP until the EDG tareaker closes - a sequence in which the EDG starts, comes up to speed, and synchronizes. It is conservatively assumed that the EDG breaker would close 14.0 seconds after the postulated LOCA/ LOP commences. Rev. 5 to US(B)-253 adds only 1.6 secot,ds rather than 14.0 seconds to the RSS effective time to account for when the autostart timer starts its 650 or 660 second count down (pp 13 and 13a).
- 5. None of the operating conditions for the RSS heat exchanger identified in US(B) 253, Rev. 5 (pp.13b,13d, and 139) corresponds with any of the 15 operating conditions listed in the Prtnted 2/4/9e 9:14:37AM 1 of 3
N:rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31000 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report runs except those in US(B) 342. Rev. 2 are identified as references in US(B)-253, Rev. 5. Therefore, even though the RSS heat exchanger UA values identified in US(B) 253 appear to be consistent with the HTRI model of US(B)-342, no basis for these UA values is provided.
- 6. According to US(B)-361, Rev. 0 (Oase 9), the ECCS cold leg recirculation flow for a LOCA/ LOP with Min. ESF and degraded RSS pumps is 1171 opm, not 1160 gpm, the value listed for this flow in US(B)-253, Rev. 5(p.13a).
- 7. According to US(B)-361. Rev. 0 (Case 5), the ECCS u.ld leg recirculation flow for a LOCA/ LOP with Max. ESF and non-degraded RSS pumps is 1553 cpm, not 1614 gpm, the value listed for this flow in UC(B)-253, Rev. 5 (p.13c).
The net effect of the above comments on spray effective time is as follows:
LOCA/ LOP (PSDER, Min. ESF, degraded pumps, p.13)
RSS Effective Time: 838.4 sec = 14.0 + 20.0 + 660.0 + 0.8 +
143.6 sec ZSTART: 68.6 sec (correct as is)ZDELAY: 768.2 sec = 838.4 -
70.2 sec LOCA with offsite power (PSDER, Min. ESF, degraded pumps, p.13)
QSS Effecdve Time: 53.8 sec = 1.6 + 2.0 + 50.2 see RSS Effective Time: 828.4 sec = 1.6 + 20.0 + 660.0 + 3.2 +
143.6sec ZSTART: 52.2 sec = 53.8 - 1.6 sec ZDELAY: 774.6 sec = 828.4 - 53.8 sec LOCA/ LOP (PSDER, Max. ESF, non-degraded pumps, p.13a)
RSS Effective Time: 789.6 sec = 14.0 + 20.0 + 660.0 + 0.8 +
94.8 sec ZSTART: 68.6 sec (correct as is)
ZDELAY: 719.4 sec = 789.6 70.2 sec LOCA with offsite power (PSOER, Max. ESF, non-degraded pumps, p.13a)
QSS Effective Time: 53.8 sec = 1.6 + 2.0 + 50.2 sec RSS Effective Time: 779.6 sec = 1.6 + 20.0 + 660.0 + 3.2 + 94.8 sec ZSTART: 52.2 sec = 53.8 - 1.6 sec ZDELAY: 725.8 sec = 779.6 - 53.8 sec it is the engineering judgement of this reviewer that the lack of input documentation will not affect the RSS heat exchanger UA input data.
The ECCS cold leg recirculation flows used in the LOC.\\
containment pressurization model are non-conservativo inputs.
The highcr values whict. thould have been used would result in a very small increase in the mass release rato - and, in the ludaement of the reviewer. an insionificant increa,e in credicted Printed 2/498 9:14.40 AM Page 2 of 3
N rthea:;t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31000 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy P. sport containment pressurt and temperature.
Review Vand invalid Needed Date ine.w: w.i.iend, a. r.
O O
O ir2s96 VT Leed: IWl, Anthony A
]
]
2/196 VT Mgri S@, Don K Q
Q 2/296 IRC Chmn: Singh, Arund K Q
Q 2/396 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously idonoRed by NU? U Yes (G) No Non Diecrepent Condition?Q Yee @ No Resolution Pending?O Yee @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Yee @ No Review gg Acceptable Not &Ya*
Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
SL Consnents:
Printed 2'496 9:14:42 AM Page 3 of 3
N:rthe=t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31005 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmatic DE.ALIO Review Elemord: CorrectNo Acton Process g
Diecipline: Mecherts' Doongn O Ya N -:
- i Type: CorrectNo Action g
fyetemerocese: OSS NRC Signieconce levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed. 2/7/9e C-
- ci. Failure to follow ;orrective Action Process Desertpt6on' UIR 1952 identifies inconsistencies in the FSAR relative to OSS
& RSS containment srsay droplet size, and related errors in supporting design calculations. This issue questions the operability of the QSS & RSS systems. Additionally, the issue
]
was potentially reportable under 10CFR50.72. Pl 14, Rev. O, paragraph 1.3.2 states, "lF ltem is potentially reportable OR impacts operability, Refer to RP-4, 'CoiTective Action Program,'
and INITIATE CR." No CR has been initiated for this issue.
(Refer to DR MP3-0314 for similar issues)
Review Valid invead Needed Date initietur: Wrone, S. P.
8 O
O irrisse VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J G
O O
1/27/9e VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
2/2rse IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
2f&9e Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION Prev 6ouely identafled by NU? O Yes @ No NonDiscrepentcondstion?O Yes @ No RecoiutionPendmg?O Yee @ No Reeoiutionunroeoived?O vos @ No Review initiator: (none)
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K sL Commente:
Printed 2/49e 9:15:00 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utiikles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1007 uisistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: hogrammeno DRvAuD Review EINMent: CorredfWe Achon Process Diecipene: I & C DesiO" O va t' a
- p Typs: Correottve Action imp 6ementshon g
SystenWProcess: N/A NRC signiecencelevel 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date P.;tdiohed: 27/s0 Inadequate implementation Documentation
~
2 1
==
Description:==
Adverse Condition Report ACR 12875 Causal Factors Corrective Action Plan lists the following four corrective actions to be implemented.
- 1. Perform a review of all annunciator inputs (Performed as part of Operability Determination).
- 2. Perform MEPL on Diesel skid mounted instruments that input into the annunciator system.
- 3. Remove Non Cat 1 inputs from annunciators (B/J 3-96-057, for EGA A[U1] & B/J 3-96-058, for EGA-B[U2]).
- 4. Issue design change to resolve separation problem.
The following are the problems associated with each Causal Factors Corrective Action.
- 1. The Operability Determination may have been part of the ACR; however, no section of the ACR is identified as such in order to verify its completion.
- 2. MEPL MP3-CD-843 was not included as part of the closure package to verify reclassification of select non-Cat.1 inputs to the EDG annunciator
- 3. NCR 3-4154 was not included as part of the closure packa0e.
- 4. DCN (MMOD M3-96 571) unexplainably evolved into DCP M3-96067 and was not included as part of the closure package which permanently incorporates B/J 3-96-051 and B/J 3-96-058.
Review valid inve M Needed Date initiator: Domtroweid Jim B
D O
1i27/es VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J G
O O
1/27/se VT Mgr: Schopfer. Con K O
O O
1/2sres IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
2/sene Date:
INVALID:
Date:
REsowin0N Prov6ouslyidentined by Nu? O Yes @) No Non D6ecrepent Condition?U Yes $9) No R im.on Pendin070 va @ No Ruoluuon Unt=olved?O va @ No Review h
Not Acceptable Needed Date m,
VT Leed. Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K 190 Chmn: Sin 0h. Anand K Printed 2/4/96 9:15:30 AM Page 1 of 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-1007 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report st.comm i
Printed 24138 915:43 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1909 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Re* o,,: r......
DRvAuD Review Element: CorrectNo Action Procese Diecipime: I & C Dm%n O vee DE - 4, Type: Corrective Accon imp 6ementetson
(,)
8, _..
9SWP NRC SW W: 4 Does faxed to NU:
Date Putdished 2/7/De Desce.pency: Inadequate implementation Documentation r -- - : Unresolved item Report (UIR) 432 Closure Request documents that an " engineering review"(Material Equipment Parts List (MEPL) evaluation MP3-CD 1071) was performed to disposition Non-Conformance Report (NCR) 395-065; however, this
" engineering review" (MEPL evaluation MP3 CD 1071) was not included in the UIR 432 closure package.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initietor: Dumteoweid, Jim Q
Q Q
1/30/96 VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J G
O O
1/sor9e VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2/2r9e IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
2ra/De Dets:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previodely identifled by NU? O Yes t@ No Non Discrepent Condet60n?O vos @ No Raar*% Pending?O vos @ No ReemtkmUnreemed?O va @ No Review A~$am Not Accogdeble Needed Date g
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
st Commente:
c Printed 2/498 916:16 AM Page 1 of 1 l
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31010 Milistone unet 3 Discrepancy Report s
Rev6ew oreup: sypom DR VAUD Review eienent: symem Design p
g,,,
Diecipene. Mech."
- O vee Discrepancy Type: Calculation
(,3 g 8,_ J.__ -'NEW NRC Signiecence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed. 2/7/9e
. ~ ly: Appropriate Calculation Change Notices are not consistently being referer.ced.
Descriphea' Calculations are being refert.nced without the current Calculation Change Notices (CCN's) included in the reference. This DR reports a programmatic issue rather than a technicai discrepancy.
This discrepancy applies to calculations 97 041,97-035 and 97 ENG-01427D3 with a sample of the problems this createa as follows:
Calculation 97-041 was written on 8/13/1997 (by Proto Power) and appro"ed by NU on 9/1/1997. Th!s calc. references calculation 90-069-1065M3 Rev. O when CCN's up to #4 were approved by 5/30/1997 and should have been referenced accordingly. This calc. also referenced calculat:on 90-06W-1130M3 Rev. O. CCN #3 is later refered to in this calculatior: but is not so referenced.
Review Valid invalid Nested 9ste inlitalet: Dionne. B. J.
O O
O 2/29s VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
2r2se VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K G
O O
2/2/se IRC Chmn: S@. Anand K 8
O O
2/sse Date:
INVALID:
Dets:
RESOLUTION Provtously identined by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condtton?Q Yes (#) No ResolutionPending?O vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos @ No Review Ac T h Not Acceptable Needed Date gg VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 2/4/9e 91e:4eAM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31013 v
milistone unn 3 Discrepancy Report l
Review Oroup: syelem DR VAUD Review Element: Modencehon Desion
%g C' - '._. m %
O vos E- _, li Type: Caeculation g
8,12.
!NEW NRC SignMicence twel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published. 2/7/96 CE ^ :i; Affected Calculations List for DCR M3-97045
==
Description:==
Calculation US(B)-363. Rev. O, ' Decay Heat " is included in the list of affected calculations diarneaad on p. 25 of DCR M3-97045, Rev. O,"RSS Pump Restriction Orifides to Prevent Suction Line Flashing." Calculation US(B)-363 should not have been includt !in this list.
The decay heat calculation provides input to calculations which are affected by the reduction in RSS design flow, but the c41culation which identifies the design basis decay heat curves is not affected by the reduction of the RSS design flow.
This DR addresses a programmattic issue rather than a technical deficiency.
Review veild invalid Needed Date initieter: Wakelend, J. F.
2/2/98 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B
O O
2/2/se VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q 2/2J96 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
W --
Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLtm0N Provtously IdemHied by NU? Q Yee @ No Non D6screpent Condition?Q Yee ty) No Resolution Pending?O yes
'!) No Reso' Aion Unresolved?O vos (!) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date ga,,.
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
~
SL comments:
5 Printed 2/496 V:1721 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utimies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-1014.
Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: ayesen DR VAUD Review Element: System Design Discipsine: I a e Design g y,,
r my Type: C+ %
gg 8 _.Ti-==* NEW NRC Sienlacence level: 3 Date FAXesar NU:
Date Pulmehed: 2ff/96 D6ecrepancy: Incorrect methodology and use of inputs for calculation SP.
3RSS-3, Rev.1 Deecripeon? The stated purpose of Revision 1 of calculation SP-3RSS-3 is to determine the new low pressure alarm setpoints for pressure switches 3RSS-PS43A/B/C/D based upon the implementation of design modificatien DCR M3-97045 which reduces the flow rate through the RSS pumps by installing a flow reducing orifice plate in the discharge line of each pump. SP 3RSS-3 Rev.1 incorrectly calculates the probable errors (uncertaintles) associated with the pressure sensing instrument loop configuration; therefore, the Total System Normai Channel Uncertainty is incorrect.
The stated p.smise that the calculation " demonstrates that the overall loop inaccuracles will not exceed 15% of the discharge pressure" is based upon a non-conservative assumption about the amount of air that may become trapped in each pressure transmitter sense line when the respective RSS pumps are started. A calculation that considers the minimum and maximum possible air entrapment demonstrates that for a desired process setpoint of 79.6 psig (dec), the pressure "seen" by the transmitter will lie between 65.6 psig (vertical portion of sense line full of water) and 79.6 psig (vertical portion of sense line void of water). And, including the probable channel Instrumentation errors, the actual process pressure will lie between 59.1 and 86.1 psig when the low pressure alarm is actuated. A pump discharge pressure of 59.1 psig is 37% below the design pump discharge pressure which is greater than th6 15% design value. An altemative means to reduce this error may be necessary to achieve the design intent.
Review vend invalid -
Needed Date initiator: Reed.WMem O
O O
2r2/98 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A g
C Q
2/2/96 VT Mgr: schopfer Don K O
O O
2t2/9e IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K 8
0 0
2/298 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identmed by NU? O Yes (s) No Non osecrepent Condstion?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pendenc?O Yes @ No ResoluuonUnresoNed?O Yes @ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not AccTh Needed Date mm
,m Prirded 2/496 9:17AG AM Page 1 of 2 l
Northeist Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-1014 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report O
O O
VT Leed:
Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Shgh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 2/496 9:17S AM Pg 2 W 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3-1015 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Design Diocepane: Mechanical Desig" O vee
'" 1
- p Type: Calcuishon g
s, _ r. -
- NEW
~
NRC signelicence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Pubitehed: 2mse Discrepancy: Revision of Calculation US(B) 273 for DCR M3-97045 Descripeten. The purpcse of US(B) 273, Rev. 6 is to determine the containment pressure and temperature response to postulated design basis 1.OCAs.
Two discrepancies were identified in US(B)-273:
- 1. Calculation US(B)-253 pmvides the input data deck for US(B)-273. US(B)-253, ReV. 5 chanQed the QSS time delay, ZSTART, to 68.6 sec after a CDA. Three results of the US(B) 273 analysis are not consistent with thle QSS effective time:
- e. For a pump discharge dc Wended rupture with Min.
ESF, the sequence of events (Table 7, p. 20) states that a CDA signal is generated 1.4 sec into the event, but that QSS does not become effective until 71.5 sec into the event - a time delay of 70.1 sec.
- b. For a 0.6 pump suction double ended rupture with Min ESF, the sequence of events (Table 8, p. 21) states that a CDA signal is generated 2.0 sec into the event, but thst QSS does not become effective until 71.5 sec into the event - a time delay 69.5 sec.
- c. For a 3 ft2 pump suction break with Min. ESF, the -
sequence of events (Table 9, p. 22) states that a CDA signal is generated 3.0 sec into the event, but that QSS does not become effective until 71.5 sec into the event - a time delay of 68.5 sec.
- 2. The sequence of events in the results section of US(B)-273 indicates that QSS spray stops 10,000 sec into a pump suction double ended rupture event with Min. ESF (Tbl. 5, p.18). This 10,000 see time to reach the RWST empty level setpoint requires an analytical hasis, but no calculation was referenced. The ICAVP reviewer could not locate a calculation which computes this quantity.
These errors have little effect on the conclusions of US(B)-273, Rev. 6.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland. J. F.
O O
O 2r2ue VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G
O O
2t2/9e VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K B
D D
2r2 roe IRC Chmn: singh. Anend K O
O O
2rs/98 Date:
P11nted 2/4Se 9:18:18 AM Pope 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR.aAp3.jois Millstorm unN 3 Discrepancy Report 81sW MLATe Date:
RESOLUTION.
Pr.; :z'; hientified by NU7 O Yes tt) No NonEr :
--'Condetkm7U Yes
(#) No r
PM*% Pending?O Yes @ No R oivuon u,w ev.drO v
@ No Review Wh Not ^ -, ~ ' ' ~ Needed Date g,.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfer, con K
[
pic chmn: SWgh, Anand K
- n Dele:
SL Conenente:
4 Printed 2/N98 9.18.21 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilitin lCAVP DP Ns. DR-MP31018 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Group: system DR VALID Revlow Element: Syelem Design e4--; _. Mechanical t*'"
O vee CM--
- r Type
- calculation gg sp.n-:==: NEW NRC Signiacance Iml: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehed. 2m9e C" - ^ xy: Revision of Calculation US(B)-266 for DCR M3-97045 DesertPtion: The purpose of US(B) 266, Rev. 3 is to determine the containment pressure and temperature response to postulated design basis main steam line breaks.
Three discrepancies were identified in US(B)-266:
- 1. The QSS effective time is input as 71.2 seconds (Attachment 7, pp.1 and 8, Attachment 8, pp.1 and 8), but Rev. 5 of US(B)-253 changed the QSS effective time, ZSTART, to 68.6 sec aftel CDA. The consequences are QSS initiates 76.3 sec, rather than 73.7 sec, aftc< the postulated MSLB at 75% power (Tab!e 2, p. 31), and OSS initiates 75.2 seconds, rather than 72.6 sec, ofter the postulated MSLB at 25% power (Table 3,
- p. 32).
2, The inputs for HHSI injection mode flow for postulated MSLBs with Max. ESF (p. 4 of Att,7, and p. 4 of Att. 8) are incorrect.
The correct source of this input is Table 4 on p. 63 of US(B)-361, Rev. 0:
Incorrect Correct Head Flow Flow (psid)
(gpm)
(gpm)
-23.4 1707 1467 0.0 1698 1458 500 1466 1250 1000 1181 990 1500 657 434 2000 407 322 2400 256 190
- 3. The inputs for HHSI recirculation mode flow for postulated MSLBs with Max. ESF (p. 4 of Att. 7, and p. 4 of Ah,8) are incorrect. This flow should be 1553 apm, not 2734 opm. The correct source of this input is Case 5 of Tables 2 and 3 on pp. 61 and 62 of US(B).361, Rev. O.
These errors have little effect on the conclusions of US(B)-266, Rev.3.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inittetor: Wakenend, J. F.
G O
O 1/3 'S8 VT Lead: Neft, Anthony A G
O O
2r2/se VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
2/2/96 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
2/3/98 Date:
printed 2/4516 9:18 49 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP31018 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report evvm.v.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prevlovely klonemed by NU7 O Yes @ No Non06ecrepentCone#on?Q Yet
@ No PM%Peneng70 vos @ No PMd% Unresolved?O yee @ No Review AWh Not F-, ^"- Needed Dele VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Carnn: Singh, Anand K O
G Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 2/N96 9:16:53 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR MP31019 Misistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DMVAUD Review Element: Moefkshon instatishon Diecipline: Piping Design O va En, ry Type: Calcuishon gg S,_.N- = *NEW NRC Sign 4Acera level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published. 2m96 t? - xy: Numerical errors in SIF computation
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) 12179-NP(F)-RSS-7 V893, Rev 0,121 97 (2) 12179-NP(F)-RSS-6-V892, ReV 0,12-1 97 (3) 12179-NP(F)-RSS-10-V891, Rev 0,12-197 (4) 12179-NP(F)-RSS-11 V,190, Rev 0,12197 we noted the following discrepancy:
In the calculation for a stress intensification factor (SIF) the diameter of the run pipe and the wall thickness correspond to 10"
+
pipe Sch. 40, Actual run pipe size is 8' Sch 40, Although, there is no impact on the conclusions of the calculation, the numerical errors should be corrected.
NOTE:
Calculations (14) are prepared as part of modification DCR M3-97094.
Review Vand invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, RameshD G
O O
2t2sse VT Lead: Nert, A% A g
Q Q
2r296 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2r2r9e IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
2r3/96 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identined by NU? U Yes tG) No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No Paa*H Pending?O vos (!)No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos (1)No Review
""af ahia Not Acceptable Needed D-te d
mg VT Lead: Neri, Antnony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: S:rgh, Anand K Date:
SL Conwnente:
Printed 2/498 9:19'23 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31021 uisistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Design Diecipane: P$4n0 Demon O vee E
ii Type: Cm
@~ No s, _ _ _ T _
- NEW NRC signiacance level: 3 Date F Ued to NU:
Date N:ww 2/h96 0
. 4 Typographical error and an unsubstantiated assumption in Calc NP(B) 163-FA E=
In the process of reviewing the following documents, (i) NP(F)-163-FA Rev 3 we noted the following discrepancies:
- 1. The equation for the calculation of stress in the orifice plate, page 7E, has a typographical error. The term a on the right hand should be a^2.
- 2. Units for M, the maximum moment, should be (Ib) not (Ib/ft).
- 3. On page 27E, the shutoff pump TDH is taken as 540ft, and on page 27F, the shutoff TDH is 580ft. The discrepancy should be correded. Also, proper units should be shown in the delta P calculation, t
- 4. Assumption 8 on page SA: "It is assumed that segment forces are proportional to the segment lengths of the same branch of WATHAM dynamic model, i.e. at fluid dynamically sliuilar locations". The assumption is used in Sec. 7.8 to determine the unknown segment forces for Loops B, C and D based on Loop A loads, which are computed using WATHAM, and the segmsnt length ratios, in some cases, the segment lengths for Loopa b, C and D are significantly smaller than the corresponding Loop A segment length. Therefore, based on this assumption, the corresponding s
segr: ent force is calculated to be significantly smaller, and is unconservative. No Justification for the assumption is provided.
Note: The calcWation has been revised as part of modification M3-097045.
Review Volid involid Needed Date initiator: Prokesh, A.
O O
O
- /2/96 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
2/2S6 VT Mgt: SWer, De K B
O O
2/2se IRC Chn:1: Singh. /,and K 8
O O
2/a/98 Dei.:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLLA10N:
Printed 2/446 9:19:s5 AM Pege 1 of 2
Nortneast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3-1021 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report W;/ MIdoroM by NU? U Yes @ No Non DW Condet6cn?U vos
(*J No Rhen Pending?O vee
<*) No Red *Munreeceved70 vos @ No Review A=
Not ^= - ' _ Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Cornmente:
Printed 2/498 919:50 AM Pege 2 of 2 i..
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1022 useistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DRvAuD Review Element: System Design Diecipline: Mechanical Desig" O von F-
- zi Type: *%
gg s, _ _
.NEW NRC signiacance level:4 Date FMed to NU:
Deee Published: 2mD6
- - y: Revisions to 97 ENG-01431 M3 for DCR M3-97045 Descripoon: The purpose of 97-ENG-01431-M3, ReV.1 is to determine the flow rates through the new test lines for pumps 3RSS*P1C and D. The calculated flow rates through the recirculation lines are compared to the minimum flow requirements of the pump manufacturer.
Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation 97ENG-01431 M3.
- 1. The 17 deg degree pipe bend identified on page 9 for the discharge line for pump P1D is actually a 90 deg elbow rotated 17 deg in the horizontal (Ref. 7, Dwg.12179-Cl RSS-20 sht 4 of 4, Rev. 5). This difference has a negligible impact on the calculation results.
- 2. The calculated flow area for the 12* pipe section on pages 16 and 19 (0.7773 ft2) should actually be 0.7854 ft2, (p(12)2/(4(144))). The larger flow area would reduce the flow velocity and corresponding head loss, and ultimately allow more flow through the recirculation line, however the change is considered insignificant.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland. J. F.
O O
O sistise VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
O Q
2/2/95 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K B
C D
2/2/se IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 209e Deie:
INVAUO:
Date:
REs0LUTION Previously idenufted by NU? O Yes s No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No Resoluuon Pending?O vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O yee @ No Review Acceptable - Not Acceptable Needed Date gg g VT Lead: Nert. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 2/49e 9:20.25 AM Page 1 of 1
,A
,m4
.e
. mens..e,uw
-.a4M.
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP.
DR No. DR-MP3-1023 mustone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review orcup: syemm DRvAuD W:wwa. syenom Design Peenneloperm m W,
_. Piping Design O v.
Discropocy Type: Cakulehan gg s,_ A =: NEW NRC Signiacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubsehed: 2mos F, ii. Evaluation of valve accelerations was not addressed Description' In the process of reviewing the following document, (1) 12179-NP(B)-X7923 Rev 2, CCN # 01,117 97 we noted the following discrepancy:
Evaluatien/ acceptance basis for accelerations at valve 3RSS*V895 on line # 3RSS-004-138 2 and valve 3RSS*V897 on line # 3RSS-004140-2 is not provided, nor referenced in the above calculation (1),
Note:
Calculation (1) has been revised per modification DCR4A3-97045,Rev0 Review vend inveNd Needed Date luiGator: Pelel, Remeett0
.O O
2/2/se x
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
2r2/96 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O
O 2/2/9e 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K x -
0 0
2rsese Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION' Previously identiaed by NU? Q vee @ No Non Diecrepent Condition?Q vee @ No PMd% Pendeng?O vee @ No Pesoluuonunresolved?O vee
(*) No Review aceYa*
Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 2/4/96 9 2P53 AM PeGe 1 of 1
-y-p
-M-e-wa--.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3o1024 umstone Unit 3
. Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Review Element: Correcove Acuan Process r2= '. _ u m* m enl
- O vos t'-
. - :p Type: Conectwo Acean imp 6ementehon gg SystemfProcese: sWP NRC Snydecence level: 3 Dele faxed to NU:
Dele Putdsehed. 2m9e 06screpancy: Incomplete Closure of UIR 210 and ACR 12880 Descatption' UIR 210 loentified 3 issues relative to the ability of MOVs, used to isolate the RSS heat exchan0ers, to close, issue 1 concemed a discrepancy between the IST flowrates and the MOV calc flowrates, issue 2 concemed the closure sequence of the inlet and outlet valves.
Issue 3 concemed a discrepancy between Chapters 6 and 9 of the FSAR relative to minimum required flowrates.
The UIR Form indicated that Final Dispostth> of the UIR was to disposition via ACR 12880.
ACR 12880 was generated and the CoTective Action Plan referenced A/R 96007043 along with Action numbers -02,-03, and -04. The closure packa9e for ACR 12880 included Discrepancy Closure Request forms for 96007043-01 (the base A/R) and 96007043-02 which addressed part of issue i from UIR 210, dealing only with the MOV cales, but the package did not include the revised calculations, in addition, no closure documents were included in the closure package for ACR 17880 for 96007043-03 or 96007043-04, both of which are required to close out the remainder of Issue 1 from UlR 210, and are required before startup.
In addition to the statement in the UlR that ACR 12880 was to disposition it, another A/R (97009493) was issued. The UIR closure packeage contained a Closure Request Form for 97009493-01 which stated that that ACR 12880, A/R 96007043 -
02,-03, and -04 would address issue 1 of the UlR. Issue 2 of the UIR was to be addressed by an " Attachment 7" This item was identified as A/R ltem 97009493-02 and dealt with a potential change to procedure to specify MOV closure sequence based on the results of items 96C07043 02 -03, and -04. Since -03 and -
04 were not closed, trm was no closure documentation in the UlR package for 97009493-02. Finally, Issue 3 of the UIR was to be add' assed by another Attachment 7 to follow the FSARCR process to completion. An approved FSARCR with backup info was included in the package, but no documentation to indicate closure.
Review Vand invalid Needed Date instietor: Terwreel, J. L G
O O
2/2se VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
2r2rse PrWed 2/49e 9.21:20 AM P h of 2
~"
- mM ww Northert Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-1024 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Mgr: Sctger, Don K g
Q Q
2/2/96 NtC Chmn: S$ Anand K Q
Q 2/196 Date:
DNALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously hienMed by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condettort?U Yes it) No PM*% Pend 6ng?O vee (1)No ResolutionUnrosoeved70 vee (F)No Review
- - ;^
Not ? ' '- ' '
Needed Date O
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 2/496 9:21:25 AM Pege 2 of 2
1 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31028 l
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system -
DRvAuD ReV w Element: CorrectNo Acton Process Diecipitne: Wr.herwcel Design O va E"
- p Type: CorrectNo Acton implementshon g
}
systemprocess: SWP
~
NRC signHlcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed 2mD6 Discrepancy: Improper Closure of UIR. 349 to OIR 71, item 2 Dacription' UIR 1049 identified a work around that had been in place for nearly 5 years which induded Bypass Jumper MP3-92 005 being installed to compensate for the inoperability of the SW PCVs at the four HVQ A/C units. The Jumper was installed via Special Test IST 3-92-003. In 1994, one of the bypass valves had to be replaced, and a new test IST 3-94-021 was performed to rethrotle the bypass Valves from their earlier settings. This plant configuration is not reflected in the FSAR.
The UIR recommended either permanent hardware fixes to solve the problem or revision to the FSAR to reflect the plant configuration.
UlR 1049 is indicated in the closure package, Closure Request Report 97003686-01, to have been closed against OIR 71, item 2.
However, included in the closure package are the meeting notes from the 3/31/97 EP Meeting which indicate that closure of UIR 1049 to OIR 71 was tabled due to minimal information provided and pending clarification that the isseds raised by UIR 1049 were indeed encompassed by OIR 71. Therefore the item has not been closed based on the package submitted.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Terwnnkel, J. L G
O O
2/2.58 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A g
Q Q
2/298 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
2/2se IRC Chmn: Sqpi, Anand K G
O O
2/3S8 Date:
INVAUO:
Dele:
RESOLUTION Previously identified by NUT Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condiuon?U Yes @ No Resolutaon Pending?O y-
@ No Re.oivuon unresoevedtO Y-
@ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date go,.
VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
.,e,-
Printed 2/496 923.5fAC'-
Pege 1 of 2
N rtheart Utlittles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP31025 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report m...
Printed 2/496 9:23.56 AM Page 2 of 2
w --
l Wortheast Utlinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP31024 Mikstone UnH 3 Discrepancy Report R* view Group: System DRVAUD 3
Potent 6el OperaciHty lseue 06eceptine: km Desig' O yes D6ectopency Type: Colouieuon M No syeeen#rocese: NEW
~
NRC 3ngnencet.co levet: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdlehed: 2/7/96 D6ecrepency: Revision of Calculation US(B) 353 for DCR M3-97045 Dowrtption: The purpose of Calculation US(B) 353 Rev. 0/CCN 1 is to determine the comalnrnent rtcirculation spray system (RSS)
L-ploing temperature transients following a set of potentially I
limiting deslon basis LOCA scenarios. The calculated piping temperature translents are then to be r* ed in the pipe stress onalysis and support load calculationm Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B) 353:
- 1. CCN 1, Qated 11/13/97, should be re-numbered CCN 2. CCN 1 to US(B) 353, Rev. 0 was issued 4/23/97.
- 2. Calculations US(B) 322 Rev. 2. US(B) 352, Rev. O, and
{
US(B) 353 Rev 0 all develop input for the analysis of RSS piping thermal stresses following a LOCA. It appears that US(B)-
352 and US(B) 353 would supersede US(B) 322 (from a RSS piping temperature stand point) since US(B) 322 determines limiting sump water and spray water temperatures and concludes that the RSS piping temperature will be between these temperatures. Wnereas, UG 353 uses RELAPS/ MOD 3 to t'atermine the time varying temperature of the RSS piping based on various LOCA scenarios documented in US(B)-352. These calculations also determine containment pressure and liner,
temperature. The results of these calculations are to be used for piping stress and support analysis. However, these analyses do not addrest a MSLB Calcutellen US(B) 296, Rev. 2. CCN 1 determines the peak liner temperature to be PSS.9 oF which exceeds the peak lin6r temperature of 235.1 oF documented in US(B) 352 arid US(B) 353. The results of US(R) 296 should be addressed in the RSS piping and support analysis. Addit onally, Calculation US(B) 354. Rev. O determines the QSS piping temperature transients fo' lowing a LOCA, using the same methodology used in US(B)-353, based on LOCA scenarios in US(B) 352. The results of US(B) 296 should bi, addressed in the QSS piping and support analysis.
The latest controlled documents are not property tracked to ensure the latest design input is used.
Rev6ew Valid mvelid Needed Dets innletor: Woiwiend, J. F.
O O
O 1/31/9e vue.d: n.n *.nmony A G
O O
2rme vT u r: setwe.r, Don x 0
0 0
2/2/9e o
ine ennn sine, Anono x 0
0 0
2'"8 Printed 2/06 9 24 21 AM Page 1 or 2 E'
t
Northeast utilities
!CAVP DR No. DRMP31026 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:
DNALIO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previovely identitled try NU7 Q Yes te) No Non D6ecrepent Cordestion?Q Yes (9) No P"% Pend 6ngtO Yes 4) No P"%UnresoevedtO Yes <!)No hview 1-- -, "- Not A-:-:
Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Art.:riy A
}
wu:s e,Danx r
D NtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Date:
SL Comnents:
Printed 2/4'96 9.24.25 AM Page 2 of 2 x
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31027 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rewh ereup: system DR VAUD Review Element: Syolem Design D6ecipune: Mechanical Design O va F-
, :, Type: Che 4g syenemh: NEW NRC tientacence level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
DatePuhashed: 2/Ime r
- r. Rovis6on of Calculetkm 97 ENG-01430-M3 for DCR M3 97042 r
o The purpose of Calculation 97ENG-01430-M3, Rev. O is to determine the allowable time Pumps 3RSS*P1C and D can operate during their new quarterly 4.0.5P ISTs. For the quarte 1y ISTs, the C ond D pumps operate in recirculation throu0h test lines installed under DCR MS-97042 and the hostup of RWST
' vater is limited to 200F. This calculation also determines the effect on the RWST temperature of pumping water the heated water back to the RWST after each IST.
One discrepancy was identified in Calculation 97ENG 01430-M3:
On pa00 7, the calculation assumes that the volume of water in an RSS pump is 63.29 ft3, which is 473 gallons. However, page 23 of Calculation ES-N2, Rev. 2, states that each RSS pump has an intemal volume of 385 gallons. If the smaller volume is valid, this would be a non-conservative elTor.
Review valid inveNd Needed Date Inalesor: Weistand.J.F.
O O
O 2rmee vTt.ed: N.i. Anthmy A O
O O
me vr u n scw., D= K G
O O
2*se e
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
O O
2/3/se Dei.:
INVAUO:
DMe:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identiflod by NU7 Q Yes
'91 No Non D6screpent Condst on?O Yes @ No Resolution PendingtO Yee + No RewAA6onUnreedved?O Yee @ No Rev6ew infilolor: (none)
VT Lead: Non, Anthony A VT Mgr; Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
PrWed 2/496 9.242 AM Pope 1 of 1 l
l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P31929
- Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review eeoup: system DRVAUD Moview Element: system Design Deseipline: Mechenleel Dawn g y, E:
J Type: Cele inton 4g syenemmenes: NEW
~
NRC signiecence imi: 3 Date faxed to NO:
Date Pubildedt 2mes F-ir. Revision of Calculation US(B) 349 for DCM M2 97045 h,
- The purpose of Calcuation US(D)-349, Rev,1 is to quantifly to mixing rate between the sprayed and unsprayed regions of the containment following a postulated design basis LOCA.
Calculation US(B) 349 provides input to dose calculations.
Onr. 6screpancy was identified in US(B) 349:
Yhe calculation assumes that containment atmosphere terr.;,erature will be less than 225F when RSS becomes effective (Assumption 2); however, Table 2 (p. 20) Indicates that a postulated PSDER with an MCC failure would result in a containment atmosphere temperature of 240.1F at 780 seconds, the RSS effective time for that event.
Rev6.w vand invalid Nee 4ed Date inauseet Weholand, J. F.
O Q
Q 1/3ttrw6 Vrt.eed: Nei, Anthony A y
Q Q
2/248 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
2/248 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
2/sres Dese:
INVAUO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60uely identifled by NU7 O Yes ei No Non D6screpent Conest60n?U vos @ No Resolut6o,t Pend 6ng7O va + No RoewuuanunreedvedtO vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date ggg,g,, g VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr Schopf w, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O ome:
sL Comments:
4 Pnreed 2/+98 9 32:27 AM evp 1 of 1 f
J Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P3103 Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report noview oreup: System DR VAW novtow element: system Design D6eelpene: Meeheneal Design
() y,,
Deserepeney type: mm g g, l
S__^-
m NEW NnC Signiseense levet: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 2/7/96 Deserepancy: Engineering Evaluation M3 EV 970314 Desertpelen: The purpose of Engineering Evaluation M3 EV 970314. Rev,0 is to demostrate that post socident boron diluation is impossible because the minimum RSS prosaurs on the rhell side of the Containment Recirculation Coolers (E1 A, B, P,, D) is greater than the maximum Service Water pressure on the tube side of the coolers (FSAR Sedion 6.2.2.2),
Four discrepancies were identified in Engineering Evaluation M3 EV 970314:
- 1. The calculation determines the minimum RSS pressure at the CRS host exchanger by considering the elevation difference between the spray header and the nozzles at the heat exchanger, However, in converting the static head in feet to psl, a factor of 2.308 ft/psl is used (p. 3). This fador (144 in2/fi2)/(62.39 lbs/ft3) is based on a water temperature of 56F.
The temperature of the recirculating water entering the heat exchanger (sump water temperature) can be as high as 258F (US(B) 352 Tbl 5, p. 21). The temperature of the water leaving the heat exchanger will be lower (heat transfer to service water),
but will still be significantly higher than 56F The higher RSS water temperature and resulting higher conversion factor will result in a lower RSS pressure. The existing calculation is not conservative and the effect of a higher water temperature sh'ould be addressed.
- 2. The maximum service wate prosysre is calculated based on a Normal Tide mean range Elevadon of 3.2 feet (p. 3).
However, per FSAR Section 2.4.2.2, a probable maximum storm surge results in a still water level of 19.4 feet and the associated wave runup elevation is 23.8 feet. The higher water elevation results in an inr:rease in service water pressure of approximately 8.9 psi ([(23.8-3.2}/2.308). The higher water level and resulting higher pressure should be addressed.
79N-8). Tne reference should be to drawing EP 79P.
- 4. It is not undarstood why this calculation is documented in an Engineering Evaluation. Since the calculation is performed to vertfy that a requirement in the FSAR is met, it should be documented in a calculation to ensure proper tracking and filing.
noview Vand invalid Needed Date inteleter: Weholand, J. F-B O
O 5/31188 VT Leed: Nort. Armony A O
O O
2/2/98 PM
~
Prinied 2/+96 9.33 o1 AM
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34030 Millstone Unit 2 Discrepancy Report vimnse e.oonx 0
0 O
m e
MC Chmn: $wpi, Am X Q
2/398 Date:
- NAUD:
Date:
NESOLUTION:
N/:::5;identmed by NU7 Q vee
- 9) No Non D6ecrepent Constion?O Yes @ No ud%Peneng70 vee
- 4) No PM*% Unresolved?O vos @>No Review Aeoeptable M Acceptable Needed Date
%g VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A b
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K g
Date:
SL Commente:
l l
l l
l l
l Printed 2/496 9 33.06 AM Page 2 of 2
Nwtheast Utmies ICAVP DR
- DR **P848 uisistorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow oreup: system DR swAuD
~
~
Review timment: Moenc : ten Design
""**"""""'"'"'D"*"
O v.
Deseroponey Type Uoensing Doornard gg s,1.-
NEW NRc signinoense level: 4 Date Faxed to Nu:
Date PuWiehed: 2/1/9s Desereeency: 3afety evaluation SS-EV 97-045 does not provide a resolution to increased environmental temperature, Deser$8een: Safety evaluations SS-EV 97 045 and ES-EV 97 014 are attached to and comprise part of modification package DCR MS-96054 RSS Modification For Temperature increase outside Containment, Safety evaluation 83-EV 97-045 states that the potential loss of service water to one train of RSS coolers coir,cident with a LOCA will result in the RSS cubicles to heat up beyond the area design temperature, Integrate 1 safety evaluation E3-EV 97-0014 resolves the increase in area temperature through CCN 1 to revision 10 of calculation US(B)-346," Temperature and Pressure Equipment Qualification Profiles Resulting From a MSLB and a LOCN. However, safety evaluation S3-EV 97-045 does not resolve the increase in area environmental temperature, after having identified the issue.
Rev6ew vond invetW Needed Dees intuator: Feingold, D. J.
O G
O 2r558 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O
Q 2/30s vruen schaper Dank O
O O
mC Chmn: sinen, Anand x 0
0 0
Date:
1/31/98 wwAuD: There is no technicr.1 discrepancy. The area temperature issue is adequately addressed in safety evaluation E3-EV 97 001 l.
Date:
REsOLUTloN:
prev 6ously keentened toy Nu? O vos @ No NonD6eorep WCondinon?Q vos @ No Resolunon Pending?O va @ No Rooseuuonunroemed?O va @ No Review AWWe Not ^ -- ; _ ' Needed Date O
O O
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoper, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Dese:
-- SL Comments:
1 Pnnled 2/4/98 9:34 c7 AM Page1of 1
~
e Hm-
---#J-4 JE Northeast UWWes ICAVP DR No. DR MP31934 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Reviewaroup system onsNAun Review Element: Meencellen Dmigri casespene: Mechanical Dee'
O va clescapency Type: Ucenairg Document gg s, _."
- NEW NRC sientheenes level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does Puulehed: 2mse 4 ir. SE EV 97 499 is inconstalent wMh FSAR Tab 6e 6.2 62 &
spec 6fication 2280.000 582.
Desertpenen: According to ps0d 5 of safety evaluation SE EV 97-499, the RSS piping is ASTM A452 Type 304 stair.less steel designed to ASME Section Ill, Code Class 2. Piping is not made from spedfication ASTM A452 material. The piping materialin the safety evaluation is provided as a quote from FSAR Table 6.2
- 62. However, FSAR Table 6.2 62 ldentifies RSS piping as Type 304 stainless steel, not ASTM A452 Type 304. The FSA*1 Table shows the RSS pumps to be made from ASTM A452 material.
Also, the ori0 nal piping desion specification 2200.000 582, l
Revision 12, for class 302 piping, states that 2 inch and smaller pipe is SA 312, Type 304 stainless steel. This is consistent with DCNs r)M3-00187197, DM3-001872 97, DMS 00-1829-97, and DM3-001830 97.
Rev6ew veed invend NeeeW Date inalaten Feingsid.D.J.
O O
O 2
- 88 VT t.eed: Nort. Ardhony A O
Q Q
2N98 vi men schophr, Den K O
O O
IRC Ctenn: skgh, Anand K O
O O
ceae:
2/3/98
- Nduo: Tliis is an editorial error which does not affect the sinfety evaluation conclusions. This type of discrepancy will be tracked and if it is determined to be a recurring condition,it will be addressed in the final report.
Dese:
RESOLUTION:
N. ar'y identHled try NU? Q vos @ No NonolocropontCondotten?Q Yes @ No p%penenetO vos @ No Reedutkaurweedved70 vos @ No R. view 4 ^
Not 4=,
Needed Date VT L end: Nort, Anthony A O
vi men schao er. Don K s
g IRC Chmn: Singh, wend K O
O O
Dene:
sL Comnents:
Printed 2iN98 9M Se AM Page '. or 1
l l
ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0277 Northeast Utilities i
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revlow Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Syelem Design D6ecipline: Pping Doeng" Om t'-
- p Type: Calculaten
@ No s, ^.Ji-:-:s SWP NRC signiseense level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Dele Putushed: 10/1o97
~~
D6ectopency: Installation of vent lines on large bore elbow fittings is inconsistent with design criteria t= V in the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) Calculation NO.12179-NP(B) SWP 33 V810, Rev 2,10/11/96 (2) Calculation NO.12179-NP(B) SWP 33 V811, Rev 2,10/11/96 (3) Calculation NO.12179-NP(B) X1906 Rev 3, CCN #1,10/11/96 (4) NETM-24, Design and installation of small bore piping, Rev 3 1
we noted the following ('screpancy:
BacAground:
As shown in (1) and (2), vents are installed on laige bore elbow fittings on lines 3-SWP 006 74 3 (1) and 3 SWP 008 73 3 (2).
According to the large bore pipe stress analysis (3), these vent lines are shown on the analysis woik sketch, and the vent lines are decoupled from the large bore pipe header. The effect of these vents on elbow fittings is not addressed in the pipe stress analysis calculation (3).
Discrepancy:
According to NETM 24 (4), installation of vents / drains on elbow flttings, bends, teos and mitted joints is not permitted.
Nevertheless, there are several vents that are installed on large bore elbow fittings.
Note:
These comments are based on a review of a sample of vent / drain support requirement calculations for the servies water system. The same comments may also be applicable to other vent / drain calculations.
Review Valid invenid Needed Date initiator: Palet, Ramesh.D D
D O
SrS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A
-- Q Q
Q 4397 VT Mgr: Schapter, Don K O
O O
10/1/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B
O O
10'457 Date:
INVAUD:
Printed 2/4/96 9.36:36 AM Page 1 or 3
f 4
.m
++
m.
a w
Nwtheast utsties ICAVP DP No. DR MP3 8277 Mustan unit 3 Discrepancy Report nasoumot Response ID: MS IRF-01355 -
DisposNion:
NU has concluded that the leeue reported Ira Discrepancy Report DR-MP3 0277 does not represent a discreperd condition.
NETM 24 has a statement under Section 5.3.6 Vents / Drains, Subsection 5.3.6.3 Analysis Method, paragraph (a) Limnations item (2) reading, Vents / drains not permitted on elbows, bonds, tom, mNeted joints. This statement must not be read as a limhation on the design configuration of ventaMrains (V/D) on fittings, but simply as refleding a limNation of the analysis.
method specified in procedure paragraph 5.3.6.3(b). Thus NETM-24 does not itself prohibit installation of V/D on elbows or mher fittings.
The piping design specification,2280.000149 Rev,13 dated 124/1985 with Addendum 1 dated 12/11/1985 has the following statement on page 210 (attached to this response) under the heading Branch Connections:
For Code Classes 2 and 3 piping, branch connedions on elbows 6 in, and smaller are prohibited. For elbows 8 in. and larger, branch connections should be avoided but may be used for 2 in, and smaller connections.
Therefore sinall bore branch connections are permitted to be installed on Class 2/3 piping 8 inch and above. The ched examples in DR MP3 0277 are on 8 inch piping, and therefore are permitted installations.
NETM 24 contains simplified methods for qualification of small -
bore piping that can be applied in many but not all cases.
Section 1.6 of NETM 24, Limitations states Those systems which
--i do not qualify shall be evaluated using a more detailed analysis such as the NUPIPE SW code in the present case the more detailed analysis was split between the large bore analysis, which addressed the presence of the connection on the elbow, and the remaining vent configuration which could be addressed in the usual way.
The large bore anelysis was documented in calculation 12179-NP(B) x1908. Page 37 of the calculation shows the location of the vent connection on the model. Pages 68 75 perform a special qualification of the elbow to address the attachment. The
. evaluatior... performed in accordance with S&W memorandum EMD 8103 Rev.0, which is Reference 14.5.2.7 of the general
. pipe stress criteria document NETM-44. Therefore the effect of the attachment on the elbow is property adoressed in the calculation in accordance with established procedures.
As stated by S&L, the vents themselves, apart from its effects nn the large bore pipe, were decoupled from the large bore piping analysis and were addressed in calculations 12179-NP(8) SWP.
33 V810, Rev 2 and 12179-NP(B)-SWP_33 V811. Rev 2. These calculations property considered the effects of run pipe '
Parned 2/ess 9:36.3e AM Page 2 or 3 Ah
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP34277 Miiistene unit 3 Discrepancy Report acceleration and flange loading. NU has conduded that S&L does not question the adequacy of these calculations.
S;nce the large bore connedion is property qualified by detailed analysis in the large bore calculation, and the vent configuration is adequately qualified in the vent / drain calculations, NU concludes the oveisli confl0uration is adequately qualified in accordance whn the design basis and there is no discrepent condMion.
Since there is no discrepancy the Significance Level does not apply.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR.MP3-0277 does not represent a discrepant condition.
Installation of vents / drain:: on elbow fittings 8' and larger is permitted by the piping desl0n specification. The cited vent / drain location restriction is a limhalion of the simplified analysis method contained in NETM-24. Calet'ation 12179-NP(B) X1908 Rev. 3 pages 68 75, addresses the impact of the vent connection on the fitting and shows that the configuration is acceptable. Since there is no discrepancy, Significance Lsvel does not apply.
PreWously idensaed by NU? O Yes @ No Non Descrepent condaientf Yes V No neesimien Peaane?O v=
@ No neemaenune=*es?O Ya @ No nedow inillator: Polel. Ramesh.D O
O O
=
VT Leed: Nwt, Anthony A VT Mgr: schophr Don K IRC Chmn: Segh, Anand K O
O Dele:
2/3/98 sL comments: We agree that the vent / drain location restridion is a limition of the simplified ar'*?< sis methods contained in NETM 24, and that for evalW.lon/qua..1 cation of other cases, a detailed analysis can be utilized.
The vent / drain analysis should include a reference to the large bore stress calculation to provide traceabildy.
= _ _ _
Prtnted 2/498 9:35 41 AM PeGe 3 ef 3 w
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0004 Misistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report moview oroup: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED newtow element: system Design Di=ie.ano: Ew Dawn o y,,
04 -:-
--:y Type inoestehen Requiremente g
systemerosses: DOX
~
HRC signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
DatePuhitehed: i/1098 F wy: Means for meeting commitment not identified rE 1 in FSAR Table 1.8-1, R. G.1.75 Compilance, it Is stated that,
" Cable that is not flame retarda.it is anciosed in a dedicatui raceway for the entire length of the run."
Spec E 350 states that 'All cable runs, except some of those for lighting, security, heat tracings, Cathodic protedion, communication, and grounding systems are covered by cable schedules." However, a review of available documentation, including SPEC E 350 *Eledrical installation Specifications" and
" Cable information System," did not disclose a means for identifying or controlling cable that is not flame retardant. There appeam to be no provision for identifying such cable in the cable information system.
Rev6ew Vehd inveed Needed Date initiator: Rich, J. M.
O O
O satiser VT Lead: Nort, Anthntg A O
O O
12tirm7 VT Mgr: Sch$er. Don K O
O O
12t23=7 IRc chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
2/3187 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
2/2/98 REsOLUTloN: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0804, does not represent a discrepant condition.
During MP3 construction Specifications E 350 ' Electrical Installation Specifications
- and 2400.000 527 Electrical Cat,le Schedule information System (ECSIS) were in place. All safety and non safety cabies were purchased as QA Category I and qualified to IEEE 383 for Millstone Unit 3 unless there was a speciaal deviation. All cable scheduled via ECSIS meet the IEEE 383 requirements. Deviations were controlled by E&DCR to the S&W specification 350 and required a new purchase specification.
Today the special use of cable not qualified to IEEE 383 or non flame retardant is controlled by the Design Control Manual (DCM). There are a number of detelled reviews that would be initiated by adding or changing cable:
- 1) DCM Appendix R review
- 2) DCM El&C Program review
- 3) DCM Fire Protection review Any cable deviation would require a new purchase specification and be reviewed to the DCM process.
PrWed 2/496 9 35 21 AM Pagei or 2
Northeast Utliities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34804 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report The Millstone standard design predic'.3 to use cable purchand qualified to IEEE 383. The spedfication E 350 *Eledrical Installation Specifications' has been replaced by the standard eledricalInstallation spedfication SP EE 76 " Standard Specification forSledrical Installation at Northeast Utilities Generating Plants".
S60nificance Level criteria do not apply here as this is no'. a discrepent condition.
N; :r';ldentined by Nur V Yes (S) No Non 0lecropont Conethm?(G) vos V No P"% PondingtO va @ N.
p-% une *.drO va @ N.
n We Not M- ;' ^
Needed Date m,; g y g O
O O
=
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr; Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K mm Date:
sL Conenents:
~~
Prtntoo 2/4/96 9:36:24 AM
'ege 2 of 2 i
\\
l Northeast Umities ICAVP DR No, DR W34614 unustone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rewtow Group: symem OR REaOLUTION RFJaCTED Review Element: system Desiri D
N
@ yo.
Deserspency Type: Test RequretrE *"*
O*
s, J.
- HVX NRc signiseense level: 3 Date FAXW to NU:
Date Pubilehesi: 11/1347 Dieeropency: Containment Enclosure Building Negative Pressure Desertpt8en: During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) a discrepancy in the negative pressure required to be maintained in the Auxillary Building at elevation 24'4" was identified.
SER Sedion 6.2.3 states that the capacity oi ths SLCRS is sufficient to reduce and maintain a pressure of 0.25 in, water gauge throughout the enclosure building and contiguous buildings within 1 min after the accident, assuming wind velocity I
of 22 mph.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.3 states that the negative pressure is measured at Auxlaary Building 244 elevation and maintained per Technical Specifications at greater than or equal to 0.4 inches water gauge after a design accident (DB,\\). The 0.4 inch water gauge (twg) negative pressure is measured at the Auxiliary Blinding 244 elevation in order to ensure a negative pressure in all areas inside the secondary containment boundary under most onsite meteorological conditions.
Drawing EM 2E 12 shows the high point of the containment structure enclosure as elevation 186' 2 3/4'.
Calculation g2 071339M3 Rev. O and change number 001 determine correction fadors to account for the difference in pressure at the test location, elevation 112'-0* (top of SLCRS suct;on ductwork) and elevation 186' 2 3/4" (top of enclosure building) caused by differences in air temperuture inside and outside the containment enclosure building. The 0.4 iwg negative differential pressure in FEAR Section 6.2.3.3 is the differential a
pressure at elevation 24'4" needed inorder to ma. min a 0.25 iwg negative differential pressure at elevation 112'-0* with O'F outside air temperature and 50*F containment enclosure building temperature. To maintain a 0.25 iwg negative differential pressure at the top of the containment enclosure building at these temperatures a 0.51 iwg negative differential pressure is needed at elevation 24'4".
The calculation also contains a table that provides the required negative differential pressure at elevation 24'-0" for various n<
indoor and ou' door air temperatures. For cases with the indoor air temperature lower than the outdoor air temperature, the required test differential pressure at elevation 24'4' is less than -
0.25 iwg wlas does not meet the requirement that all areas are maintained at a -0.25 iwg differential pressure.
":: ::':M:7 er nct :If:::: th: :"2 c' ;'.d on thy,,
g
Northea~)UWR6es ICAVP DR Noa DRh414 mestone unn 3 Discrepancy Report pressure distribution around the containment enclosure building, Rev6ew Vew invalid Neoced De%
inansaan stout, M. D.
O O
O
$o/1787 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/1/97 VT Men sdepler, Don K O
O O
15dW'7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
timer psie:
INVAUD:
Del *: 1/26/98 RosOLUTloN: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discr- ' cy Report, DR.MP3-0514, does not represent a discrep&nt ( v'.:.lon.
Proposed Technical Specification Change Request 3 30-93 contains a letter to the NRC dated 11/4/93 which recommends the changes to the Tech Specs and states in part on page B 3/4 6-7 paragraph 3/4.6.6.1:
"In order to ensure a negative pressure in all areas inside the secondary containment boundary under most meteorological conditions, the negative pressure acceptance criteria at the measured location 8s 0,4 iwg. It is recognized that there will be an occasional meteorological condition under which slightly positive pressure may exist at some localized portions of the boundary..,*
On 12/8/93 the NRC !ssued Amendment 87 along with its Safety Evaluation approving the changes to the Tech Specs This would supersede any prior statements found in SER section 6.2.3, Furthermore, there are no piping and electitcal penetrations above elevation 69' 9" in the containment liner (Reference CTMT pipe penetration drawing 12179-EP 121 A 10 and EP-121B-8.) Therefore, if a leak did occur, it would be below the SLCRS duct suction.
CCN 001 to Calcult.tlon 92-071339-M3 provided the independent calculation to establish the minimum negativs pressure required by the SLCRS test at elevation 24'-6' to render minimum negative p sssure of 0.25 iwg at elevation 112* 0* (top of SLCRS suction duct, reference drawing EB 15M.) This is the basis that the NRC accepted. The Tables in the calculation on pages 10 and 11 are based on the 186' 2 3/4" e%vation.
Significance level criteria do not apply.as this is not a discrepant con (tion.
Preytously identifled by NU7 Q Yes t No NonD6screpentCondition?O Yes @ No Resolut6on Pending7O vos *? No
- Roeosution u=eoi<ed70 vos @ No -
Review initletor: Stout. M. D.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
i'3
- m_m Printed 2/496 9:37.15 AM Page 2 or 5
Nc4heast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4414 Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 9
9 a
~,. -. -,
Nec Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O m
osse:
1/26/96 st. comments NU's response does not fully address the issues loentified in the discrepancy report.
- 1) NU Letter B14669 dated November 4,1993, vhich transmitted the proposed technical specification change requem for the supplementary leak coiledion and release system, provides a discussion for using a single point pressure measurement location. The argument was that there is a large open area between the various buildings and provides a table of the area of the openings. Looking Pt the areas provided in the letter it would seem that a single measurement location is reasonable.
However, when the physical rietails for the 4" shake space between the containment strudure and the surrounding buildings, IST 3 93-045 test results, and IST 3 93-046 test results are reviewed it is not obvious that a single point pressure measurement at elevation 24' 6"is representative of the pressure for the whole strudure, a) IST 3-93-045 conduded on 10/24/943 measured differential oressures in the auxiliary building, ESF Building, and main steam valve building (per Attachment i Test Rig Locations). Differential pressures where not measured in the hydrogen recombiner building and the containment enclosure during the drawdown test, b) IST 3 93-046 conduded on 10/27/93 measured differential pressures in the auxiliary building, ESF building, and main steam valve building (per Attachment 1 Test Rig Locations). Differential pressures where not measured in the hydrogen recombiner building and containment enclosure during the drewdown test, c) The auxilary building elevation 24' 6" general area measurement records the olfferential pressure between the auxiliary building and the service building. Depending on the relative pressure of the service building to the outside, the actual auxiliary building differential pressure with respect to outside could be different than that read on 3HVR PDIT212.
d) Drawing EA 181 sedion S 5 shows a flex sealin the shake space between the ESF building and Containment Stucture.
Drawing EA 42A 12 does not show the flex seal. There were no open change documents posted against drawing EA 1S that removed the flex seal, in addition sedion 10 70 on drawing EC-32E 5 shows ccmpressible materialinstalled in the shake space near the removable slabs on the ESF Building Roof. If the flex seal at the bottom of the containment enclosare shown on EA 1S-1 or the compressible material shown on EC-32E 5 is installed, the ESF twilding does not appear to directly communicate with the containreient enclosure.
- 2) NU Letter B14669 dated November 4,19f 3, page 14, states that there is a SLCRS duct connection for exhausting from the hydrogen recombiner building. Both P&lD EM-146E 12 and duct draudna FR 72A 8 thnw the avhanaf dur4 nnaninns blankad nff Pnnted 2/4/96 917M AM Pege 3 or 5
^
Northeast UG ties ICAVP DR No. DRW84814 umstone unit:
Discrepancy Report and that danger 3HVR*DMP90 in the duct that exhausts from the sample room is normally closed. Therefore, there would be no direct SLCRS exhaust from the hydrogen recombiner building during secondary containment drawdown as impl6ed in the letter.
3
[
L SLCRS exnsusts 6430 ofm from the containment enclosure at one location between columns C S D (auxiliary buliding side of the containmere encionwe). Not all of the conts;nment penetrations, shown on drawing EP 121 A 10 and EP 12184, are located in the same area (quadrant) as the SLCRS exhaust opening in the cordainment eMonure For example, the penetretions into the hydrogen rtcombiner building ero on the oppoeMe side of the enclosure. As the radius of the containment structure is -75' exhausting from only one location does not ensure that leaka0e it'to the containment enclosure space is exhausted by SLCRS if thermal or wind effects cause the pressure differential to be less than. 25 iwg in portions of the 3
containment enclosure.
- 4) NU Letter 814669 dated November 4,1993, pa0e 15, Indicated that the combination of low outdoor temperatures and moderate wind speeds would occur less that 2% of the time. Based on -
FSAR Table 2.315, the 33 foot wind speed is between 4 12 mph 80.8% of the year and betwoon 13 18 mph 16,77% of the i
year. Considering the containment structut? as a cylinder, wind i
effects resuu in the preneuro en the outside surface of the enciomure to very significarWly With e 18 mph wind, the outside j-surface pressure for the containment enclosure varies from +0.15 j
twg (0' azimuth) to 0.18 ing (90' azimuth). A 0.25 iwg differential pressure reading at 0* azimuth would resun in a +0.09 i
iwg difrarential at 90' azimuth. A 0.40 iwg differential pressure reading at O' azimuth would result in a 0.06 iwg differential at 90' azimuth. Net,lecting thermal effects that occur in the winter, using a single measurement location could resun in portions of the i
secondary containment not meeting the differential pressure j
requirement of.25 iwg (outlined in IE IN 88-76) more frequently than the 2% of the time stated in the letter, i
- 5) Using an outdoor air temperature of 0*F and Indoor air temperature of 50'F (ref, calc 92-071339 M3, CCN 001, pg 6) the differential pressure required at el 24'4' to maintain ths differential pressure at the top of the containment enclosure at -
l.
0.25 iwg is -0.51 hwg (ref, calc 92 071339 M3, pg 10). The 40 iwg differential at el 24'4" would maintain a 25 iwg differential with en outside air temperature of 20'F and an inside air temperature of 50*F. Note however, that based on New London, CT ASHRAE weather data, outside air temperatures are below 20*F more than 2% of the winter months. Therefore, to account for thermal effects only, the differential pressure at elevation 24'-
6] should be 0.51 iwg not 0.40 hwy.
[
This is considered a descrepent condition due to the following:
t
- 1. The 0.40 rwg differential pressure at elevation 24'4" does not maintain thu too of the containment enclosure at a 25 iwo Prtreed 2/4ss 9.37;10 AM Page 4 or 5 f
.r
,-,--rm<
_n n
--.,,..m
,v..
,a,--,,,..~
, -.,.- -.- ~,- - -,..,,,~... - -, -, ~ -. ~.<- --- - - -
Northead UtWties ICAVP DR No. DN8414 umetone unn 3 Discrepancy Report differential pressure when thermal effeds described in NRC Information Notice No. 88 76 are armunted for.
- 2. The differential pressure at elevation 24'-6* In the auxillary building has not been endablished as representative of the pressure in the contelnment enclosure and hydrogen recombiner building based on information received from NU.
- 3. The required differential pressure to offset normal wind effects on the containment enclosure has not been addressed.
l l
l t
PrWed 2/N96 9.37,19 AM Pa9e 5 of 5 l
~
.-.,w.
.y
,....7,,...,
_,7.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MPJ.0644 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: splom DR RESOLUTION MJECTED ikytow Element: Speem Design D6ecepNne: N Doetn O yes Dievepency Type: Instehelion Requremente gg systeWProcese: HVX
~
NRC Sientecmimi: 3 Date Faxed to NO:
Date Puhelehed: 11/22/s7 Descrepency: Auxillery Building Vent'lation Ductwork Classification Deecripe6an: During review of the Auxillery Building Ventilmtion System a discrepancy in the classification for the ductwork between the missile hood on the auxiliary t;ullding mof and the ventilation vont on the turbine building roof was identified.
Specification SP.ME-576 specifies non-QA non-seismic duct condrudion for the 10 ft by 10 ft dud from the auxillary building roof to the ventilation vent.
Specification 2170.430 565 specifies QA category ll non seismic duct construction for the 10 fi by 10 ft duct from the auxillary building roof to the ventilation vent. of NU letter 811392 dated December 6,1984 fmm W. G, Council to B. J. Youngblood states 'The ventilation dudwork associated with safety related portions of the Auxillary Building Ventilation System is seismiccily qualified. This ductwork runs through the auxiliary building outside to the turbine building where it aitaches to the turbine building vent stack which is not seismically quellfled."
Per FSAR Section 9.4.3.2, the plant ventilation vent is the release point for all ventilation exhaust air from the auxillary, waste disposal, and fuel buildings, the containment structure, and contaminated portions of the service building. The ventilation vent effluent point of release is at elevation 157 feet.
Per FSAR Section 6.2.3, the auxiliary building filtration units discharge to the environment via the ventilation vent on the roof of the turbine building.
Per FSAR Section 9.4.3.2. In the event of a SIS, the auxiliary building ventilation filter exhaust fans vent through the ventilation vent after hitration Per FSAR Section 6.5.1 the charging pump, component cooling water pump, and heat exchanger exhuast ventilation system is classified as an ESF filter system.
Per FSAR Table 3.21 and Section 9,4.3.1 the auxiliary building exhaust filtration system is ANS Safety Class 3 Per FSAR Section 9.4.3.3, the charging pump, reactor plant component cooling water pump, and heat exchanger ventilation and the filtration units including their fans are QA and Seismic Category 1.
Prtnted 2/ Wee 9.38.38 AM Page 1 or 3
Northeast UtHWes ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4666 t
umstorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report Per FSAR Section 3.1.2.64, after a postulated accident, the safety related ventilation vent high range monitors and the safety related Millstone i stack monttors are used to monitor the effluents from spaces contiguous to the containment structure.
Review Vaud inveW Needed oste init6ston Stod. M. D.
O O
O 10/31/87 VT Lead: Nat. Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/497 VT Men Schopfw, Don K O
O O
1t'5057 1Rc Chmn: singh. Anend K O
O O
iii ser Date:
wwAuo:
psee: 1/26/98 Resolution: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0566, does not represent a discrepant condition. NU has reviewed the referenced specifications and FCAR statements and determined that they are in agreement and correct.
f We have concluded that there may be confusion with respect to the wording within NU letter 811392, specifically the relationship between the two quoted sentences. The first sentence desc:1bes that all dudwork associated with safety related pcrtions of the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System is selsmically qualified.
This is a true statement and the FSAR and specifications support it. The second sentence needs to be disassociated from the first as it describes the entire run of ductwork which spans from the Auxillary Building to the Turt>lne Building ventilation stack and correctly states that it (the ventilation stack) is not seismically qualified. The specifications are more detailed in this respect and show that the associated ductwork between ti.e Auxiliary Building Roof and the ventilation stack are also Non-QA, Non Seismic. In additon calculation 12179 NP(B) 334-ZD demonstrated (with various failure mechanisms) that a failure of the frame during an earthquake will result in an open, unblocked ventilation area. The calculation concludes that reclassification of this structure to a non seismic category is acceptable. See the 1.iteroffice memo on page F2 of calculation 12179 NP(B) 334 ZD attached.
Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Attachments:
Calculahn 12179 NP(B) 2525A-001 Calculation 12179 NP(B) 334 ID Previously idenuned try NU7 U Yes @ No Non E _
M Condition?O Yes
? No Resolut6onPend6ngtO Yes No ResoulonUnresolvedtO Ya @ no Review intens:or: Stout. M. D.
""d*d VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schoplar. Don K 18tC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Printed 2496 9.36.42 AM Pepe 2 or 3
+nw u~a.
opp. 4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP34544 Misistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
~ - """"m """"" ---- Ci O
O nw Da***
1/26/95 st comments: NU's response does not fully address the issues identified in the DR regarding the classification of the auxiliary building ventilation dudwork between the missile hood and the ventilation vent.
FSAR Sedion 6.2.3 and 9.4.3.2 state that the auxiliary building filter exhaust fans discharge to the environment via the 4
ventilativit vent on the roof of the turbine building. FSAR Sedion 6.5.1 classifias the auxFlary building filter exhaust system as an ESF filter symem and FSAR Table 6.51 states that the ductwork design and consiruction is in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.02 Rev. 2 posMion C.3.n. Meg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 posMion C.3.n requires the dud to be designed and construded in accordance with ANSI N50te 1976. ANSI N5091976 cection 5.10.1 requires
)
the dud system to be designed and constructed to meet the structure' and pressure loadings and leak tightness requirements of Section 4, while transporting a possible contaminated air or gas streem from the point (s) of collection to the point (s) of ultimate release. Seismic forces are one of the structuralloading items identified in ANSI N5091976 section 5.10.3 on structural i
regairements. Since the auxiliary building filter exhaust system 1
uses the ductwork between the missile hood on the roof of the auxillary building and the ventilation vent the duct should be seismically designed and mr.intain its leak tightness during accident conditions. Calculation NP(B) 334 ZD concludes t5st during a seismic event the flex connection for the 10 fl x 10 ft duct would rip which results in the leak-tightness of the duct being lost.
1 interoffice Memorandum 'QA and Seismic Qualification of 10 ft. x i
i 10 ft. Duct and Truss', dated July 25,1984 from M. Scanlon; states 'ductwork upstream of the flexible connection is seismic and QA Category I'". This does not agree with Specification SP.
ME 576 pg 218. The specification does specify seismic medium pressure - low leakage (SM-LL) construction for the ductwork upstream of the flex connection but does not specify a QA category for the roof ducts discherging to turbine buliding vent stack.
Based on the FSAR and Reg. Guide 1.52 requirements identified above and the 12/6/84 letter which states that ductwork associated with the safety related portions of the auxiliary bullidn0 ventilation system is seismically qua9 fled, the auxiliary building ductwork be%een the missile hood and the ventilation vent should be ciassified as QA Category l Seismic Category I ductwork.
t a
4
5 a
nw-wm+
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0688 Milletone uiilt 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syseem DR REsoLUT1oN REJECTED Review Element: system Desipm g
O'* ' " U**"
(5) Yes Descrepancy Type: Component cete gg l
systewprocess: Hvx NRC"'
-level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:
l Date Putdiohed: 11497 D6ecrepancy: SLCRS and ABVS Filter Units Adsort>ent Cooling Deeceipuon: During the review of the Supplementary Leak Collfsetion and l
Release System (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/3B and the l
Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS) exhaust filter units I
3HVR*FLT1 A/18 a discrepancy rocording adsortzent cooling was identified.
Per FSAR Table 1.81, Millstone complies with RG 1.52 Rev. 2 l
' Design Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Engineered-l Safety Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants' i
regulatory position C.3.k with the following exceptior'.:
When conservative calculations show that the maximum det,ay heat generation from collected radiolodines is insufficient to raisa l_
the carbon bed temperature above 250*F with no system overflow, small capacity ESF atmosphere cleanup systems may i
be designed without an air bleed cooling mechanism. Exception is taken to the requiremerit of any cooiing mechanism satisfying single failure criteria because a backup mechanism is provided.
In addition, exception is taken to provide humidity control for the decay heat removal system cooling air flow which uses room air of less than 70% relative humidity.
Per FSAR Table 6.51, the Charging Pump, Component Cooling Pump, and Heat Exchanger Exhaust System is in partial compilance with RG 1.52. Rev. 2, position C.3.k. Adsorbers provided with sprinkler system. See Section 1.8.
l l
Per FSAR Tabie 6.51, the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System is in partial compliance with RG 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.k. Adsorbers provided with sprinkler system. See Section 1.8.
Per RG 1.52 Position C.3.k, The design of the adsorber section should consider possible lodine desorption and adsorbent autoignition that may result from radioactivity induced heat in the adsorbent and concomitant temperature rise. AcceptaDie designs include a low-flow air bleed system, cooling coils, water sprays for the adsorber section or other cooling mecnanisms. Any cooling mechanism should satisfy the single-failure criterion.
Per FSAR Table 3.21, the ESF filter trains satisfies the requirements of ANSI N509 in effect at the time of equipment order.
Per ANSI N5091976, Section 4.9 Adsorbent Radioactive Decay
"::: C::':n;;, ".t::: rt:f;; d-^y M:'.b;; :y M p pm
,g,
Northeast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR MP34644 umstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report si0nificard, means shall be provided to remove this heat from the adsorbent beds to limit temperatures to values below which significant lodine desorption will not occur; maximum adsorber temperature shall not exceed 300 F. (NOTE: Consideration must be given to heat of adsorption in determining maximum adsorbent temperature). For this purpose a minimum circulatory air flow shall be available for all operational modes of the unit and shall be based on the maximum possible radioactivity loading on the adsorbord beds. Water spray or delu0e systems are not acceptable for this purpose. The use of sprays is acceptable for fire protection (i.e., casualty loss) purposes.
The design air now for filter units 3HVRTLT1 A/1b is 30,000 cfm per P&lD EM 148A 24 and the design air flow for filter units 3HVRYLT3A/B is 9,500 cfm. At these air flows the filter units are not considered small capacity ESF atmosphere cleanup systems.
The exception to RG 1.52. Rev. 2, position C 3.k implies that tlere is a calculation that shows that the decay heat from collected radiolodines on the adsorber would not result in the bed temperature exceeding 250'F. UlR 2172 states that this calculation has md been found. The disposition of UIR states that a c36culation is to be prepared for the control roof, filter units but does not address tne SLCR8
.) ABV8 PNer units.
The use of a sprinkler system for adsorbent cooling per FSAR Table 6.51 does not most the requirements of ANSI N5091976 hadlon 4.9 which states that water spray or delu0e systems are not acceptable for this purpose, moview Vand invahd Neeeed Date inlete6en Stout, M. o.
O O
O too**7 VT Lead: Nwt. Anthony A O
O O
to w '7 VT Men schopfer. Don K O
O O
1o * '7 lac clunn: Sangh. Anand K O
O O
tastfor Dese:
INVALID:
4 Date: 1/14/98 nesotuTioN: NU has concluded that the 13 sue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0588, does not represent a discrepent condition. Reg.
Guide 1.52 revision 2 does not endorse ANSI N5091976 position with regards to the use of water spray as an acceptable method of charcoal decay heat removal. Position C.3.k of R.G.
1.52 specifically classifies water spray cooling of the udsorber section as an acceptable method of decay l'. eat removal. $1nce Regulatory Guides are hither order documents than ANSI Standards and represent acceptable methods for implementing the NRC's regulations in Appendix A to 10CFR50, a water spray decay heat reneval system is considered in compilance with -
MP3 Licensing basis.
UIR 2172 is specifically referring to the Control Room filter units Prtnted 2/49s 9 39:1s AM Page 2 or 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0688 Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report which do not have ally decay heat removal mechanisms (i.e.
water spray cooling of the adsorber section.) The " conservative calculations' will demonstrate that the decay heat removal systems are not required to prevent lodine desorntion and adsorbent auto-lgnition in socordance with Reg. Cuide 1.62, revision 2.
j FSAR Table 3.21 does not define the extent of compliance but rather is just a listing of applicable codes and standards. Extent of compliance is defined elsewhere in the FSAR (i.e. Tables 1.8-1,1.91,6.51).
Significance level crMeria do not apply as this is not a discrepent condition.
Wr'y idenused try Nu? O Yes
'#) No Non D6ecropsN Coneuen?Q vos @ No Resolut6on Ponding?O ve.
- 6) N.
Roomunonunr sv.drO v
@ N.
Review innesson stout.M D.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A vi Mer: Schopfer, Don K Nic chmn: Singh. Anand K
[
Date:
1/14/98 sL comnente: NU's response does not adequately address the issues identified in the DR.
- 1) A calculation that determines the decay heat cooling requirements for filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/18 and l
3HVR'FLT3A/3D is not available for review.
- 2) Calculation P(B) 1064 Rev. 0 ' Water Flow Discharge Time vs.
I Water Level in Charcoal Filter HouMoo' does not address if the water discharge times calculated ars wie to provide sufficient water for adsorbent cooling.
- 3) The water sprays use fire protedion water which may not be available post accident when adsorbent cooling would be required.
- 4) P&lD EM 146C shows a normally closed isolation valve (3FPW V119, VIM,.V122,.V123) upstream of the fire protection deluge valves (3FPW FV70. 71,72,73) that would have to be manually opened to supply water to the filter unit water sprays. The valves are located on elevation 66'-6' in the auxiliary build!ng outside the filter equipment rooms. This area may not be accessible after an accident when adsorbent cooling would be l
required to prevent lodine desorption and/of autoignition.
NU's response does not adequately address heat load due to radiodecay. The exception to the requirement for "...any cooling mechanism satisfying single failure criteria..." Impdss that either; (a) the heat load has been calculated to be below that which could lead to autolgnitioi, or (b) autolgnition is acceptable, ind the resulting fire would be sucessfully extingu!shed by the fire protection r,ystem. UIR 2172 indicates that the heat load due to Printed 2/*98 9.39.18 AM Page 3 or 4
i irtheast utsties ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0644 k;isstone unn 3 Discrepancy Report radiodecay has not been calculated for these filters. Therefore, addhlonal information is needed to support the devis:lon from this requ!rement and the acceptability of the potential for autoignhlon.
Prned 2/N96 9:R20 AM Page 4 of 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4P3 0664 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REJECTED neview Element: syonem Design g
Diecipune: Moohenmal Dee$n O vee Deserepancy Type: Concuishon gg s,_-_._,_ _!HVX NRC 41x level: 3 Date Fusello NU:
Date Pubilshed: 12/8/97 Discrwency: Calculation P(B) 741 CCP Area Temperature Gradient on Loss of Ventilation Deeutption: Calculation P(B) 741 Rev. 0 ' Auxiliary Building Ventilation. CCP Area Temperature Gradient on Loss of Ventitetion' determines tha temperature gradient within the component cooling area following the loss of ventilation due to a design basis fire in the mechanical equipment room. During review of the calculation the following discrepancy was identified:
The heat loads used in the calculation for the component cooling water heat exchanger, component cooling water pump, and 1
motor control center are assumed values and are lower than the i
heat loads for normal operation in calculation 3 92103-191 M3, Rev.1. As a result the calculation under estimates the time it takes the room to heatup to 185'F. FSAR Appendix 3B shows the maximum accident room temperature as 185'F neview Vend invahd Needed Date initiator: Stout, M. D.
O O
O tiraoe7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
is/20e7 Schop er, Don K Q
Q Q
12/t/97 VT Mgr:
p 1R0 Clenn: Singh. Aneruf K O
O O
12/4e7 Date:
INVAllo:
Date: 1/28/g3 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0666 does not represent a discrepant condition.
Calculations P(B) 741 and 3-92103191M3 represent diverse plant conditions and the equipment and system total heat loads used in these calculations are not comparable.
Calculation P(B) 741 determines the heat up in the component cooling water pump and heat exchanger (CCP) area due to loss of ventilation in the summer with only one train of CCP, but of no other system or equipment, in operation. This condition is postulated following a fire at elevation 66'-6* or a fire on the south side of the fire sprinkler curtain that separates the charging pumps (CHS) area from the CCP area. These scenanos are described in Appendix R Compliance Report.
Calculation 3-92103-191M3 was Generated in 1992 as part of PDCR 3-92103 which covers various plant conditions during winter and spring (but not in the summer), such as normal operation, Loss of Power, SIS etc. with and without single failure Printed 2/4ee 9.39 51 AM Page i of 3
Northeast Utmies ICAVP DR No. DRMP8444 umotorm ure a Discrepancy Report but with both trains of the CCP and CHS systems in operation.
i The heat loads used in calculation P(8F741 are not assumed values; they had been extraded directly from calculation P(BF29 l
as indiosted; only the CCP pump motor host rejection rate had been modified using up to date CCP pump motor thp and j
euloiency data which were not Gyallable at the time P(8F29 was i
prepared. P(BF29 was superseded and is now replaced by P(BF i
' 900. The quellfier " assumed" refers to the fact that at the tima of P(BF741 preparatian, there was no valid documerdery source for the assumption of only one CCP train operation to cope with an Appendix R fire. Calculation P(SF741 was one of the eartiest activities asacolated with the Appendix R task effort which ended up with the formal Appendix R Compliance Report.
In conclusion, the input data used in calculation P(BF741 are in line with the calculation of record P(8) 900 and Ma assumptions are in conformance with Appendix R Compliance Report.
Significanos Level Criteria do not apply since thl0 h not a i
discrepant condition.Attacilments: None I
.c "; Manused by Nu? U Yu @ No NonOteerepentcondmen?U Yes @ No -
neeshmenPenenerO va @m n=ehmenunroomadtO Ya @m newtow inmatert stout.M D.
VTLeed: Nort Anmeny A.
O m
VT Mgrt Schop er, Den K p
O b
O
=
unc chmn: sinsh, Anand K Des:
1/28/98 st.cenenente: Agree with NU's response that it is reaso,.atle to assume one component cooling water pump is operating durin0 normal plant conditions.
However, NU's responser does not adequately address the differences in the electrical equipment, cable, and lighting heat gains used in calculations P(BF741, P(BF900, and 3 92103 -
191M3.
The electrical equipment load in calculation P(8) 741 is s. motor control center at 13,640 Stu/hr.
The electrical equipment loads in c.alculation P(BF900 are motor control centers at 13.200 Stu/hr, miscellaneous electrical equipmerf, at 8,450 Stu/hr, cable loads at 4.200 Stu/hr, and li0hting at 25,600 Stu/hr for a total of 51,450 Stu/hr.
The electrical equipment loads shown on page 15 of calculation 3-92-103191M3 for normal operation is 95,660 Stu/hr and was based on calculation 92 LOE 189E3, NU's response should address the diffaronoes in the electrical
. loads used in the three calculations for normal conditions and why the loads from calculation 3 92103191M3 are not used in Prteed 2/4Ss a:3e:56 AM Page 2 or 3 y
m-
. -,-,r.
s-..r-=
y -
w
-,.,,-.,-m-v--..--y--~,-r,
--r.-r.-%
,,.-e-ie-we mvr-v--.
w.-=--eww w--
- .--e-.-c.,e--
-- =.,
m
..+w--re-----rw
- --e
,e e
_ _.= _ _ _ -._. -._ -.. - _
l I
i Northeast utNeties ICAVP DR No. DR MP34666 Ministone unM 3 Discrepancy Report l
calculation P(B) 741. Also, how would a faster heatup rete effect i
the conclusions of other calculations / evaluations that used the results of P(B) 741 as input?.
t l
f i
)
l l
I I
- PrNed 2/MI6 9 39.56 AM Page 3 of 3
N:rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0667 Milutune Unit 3 Discrepmcy Report 3
Q; Rev6ew Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operability issue Diecipline: MoeW Design O vee W-ny Type: Calcuisbon g) g System / Process: Hv'X NRC SigNilcance level: 3 y
Date faxed to NU:
r IA;te Pubitehed.12/8/97 osecrepancy: Calculation P(B)-1130 Temporary Ventilation for CCP Pump Area Doocription: Caiculation P(BF1130 Rev. O calculates the heat load and ventilation requirements for temporary ventilation in the N
component cooling water (CCP) pumps area due to a loss of primary ventilatic'1 r~niting from a fire on El 43'-6* or EL 66'-6" in the auxiliary building. During review of the calculation it.e
.s following discrepancies were identified:
- 1) Calculation P(B)-900 is usod as the source for11.
.omal heat loaos. The MCC and misc electrical equipment ht at loads used in P(B) 1130 are lower than those fced in PJ3)-900,
- 2) Calculat on uses a supply air temperature of 86'F in sizing the s
temporary fan but does not provide a basis for using this value.
L
- 3) Calculation selects a temporary fan but does not provide a b6 sis for the fan pressure rating selected.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inateator: stout, M. o.
Q Q
11/12/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A
[
[
11/18/97 VT Mer: schopfw, Don K O
O O
1:/t/S7 a
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 8
0 0
12/4s7 oste:
INVALlo:
Date: 1/18/98 RESOLUTION: NU has determined tha' % issue reco%1 on Discrepance Report DR-MP3-066Etces not reprt ;t..t a discrepant condition.
- 1. The hedt loads of calculation P(L;-iu0 have been extracted from calculation P(B)-900, and augmented by inputs from SGCS Calcula'.lon 95-052. Huever, theta calculations represent diverse plant conditions and their total heat ic3d values are not comparable. CCN-1 to P(B)-1130 evaluates the offect of higher
=
it..nperatures than those considered in th 6tiginal calculation and condudes that the addhlonal heat load is within design limhs.
K Calculation P(B)-900 covem normal and vddent plant operating cory"tians with both the cc,nponent cool."g watar system (CCP) and the charging pump system in operation.
Calculation P(B)-1130 determines the capacity of the porteble fans which are reserved for use in the event of a fire in fire area AB-1 to cool the CCP area assuming the operation of CCP equipment ordi This condition is postulated to arise due to the PrWed g/4'J6 942; AM Page 1 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0647 uisistorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report less of the ventilation system by a fire at elevation 66' 6" or by a fire on the south side of the fire soiinkler curtain that separates the charging pumps area from the. OCP area. This scenario is described in Appendix R Comp! ance Report.
- 2. Per FSAR Section 9.4.0,86*F is the outdoor summer desiCn temperature used for ventilation equipment sizing at Millstone Unit 3. According to the 1973 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamental,, this 86*F outdoor temperature value will be exceeded for 21/2 % of the summer hours every summer oss a statistical basis. ConcurTent with the outdoor temperature excursions beyond 86'F, there will bo indoor temperature excursions of almost the same magnitude beyond the indoor desi0n of 110'F.
- 3. The fan is used in a free delivery application, therefore a pressure loss calculation is not necessary. It is installed in the frame of door A-24-2 in the Northwer comer of CCP area and the single panel Northeast door A-24 9 is opened to let the air out. The specified 1/8"1.w.g. fan static head thus provides a margin of safety.
Significance Level Criteria do not apply since this is not a discrepent condition.
. MT ~'y identMind by NU7 O Yee @ No NonDiscrepentconddion?U Yes @ No g
w adi,meendiasr0 Y=
@ N.
> % unr=
- edt O Y a @ No i
n.wi Initletor: Scout. M. D.
VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K inc chrnn: Shgh. Anand K Dese:
1/28/96 st commente: NU is reouested to provide a copy of CCN-1 to P(B)-1130 which is required to complete the review of NU's response.
- 1) Electrical Heat Loads fiU's response does not adequately address the di,'ferences in the elec" cal equipment, cable, and lighting heat gains used in cak -. latins P(B) 1130 and P(B)-900.
The electrical equipment loads in calculation P(B)-1130 are lightin0 at 25,600 Blu/hr, MCC and misc. electrical equipment at 14,450 Blu/hr and cables at 4,200 Btu /hr for a total of 44,250 Btu /hr, The electrical equipment loads in calculation P(B)-900 are motor control centers at 13,200 Blu/hr, miscellaneous electrical equipment at 8,450 Blu/hr, cable loads at 4,200 Btu /hr, and lighting at 25,600 Blu/hr for a total of 51,450 Btu /hr.
Inaddition calculation 3r 92-10310iMJ has a different value for normal condition ele ;rical loads. The electrical equipment loads shown on page 15 of calculation 3-92103-191M3 for normal Pdnied 2/496 9426 AM Page 2 of 3 j
N::rthea:t Utilities ICAVP DR NL DR MP3 0447 Ministone Un:2 3 Discrepancy Report operation is 95,660 Btu /hr and was based on calculation 92-LOE-189E3.
NU's response indicates that the heat loads of calculation P(B)-
1130 were aug:nented by inputs from SGCS Calculation 95-052.
Describe what information from 95-052 was used and address why it was not documented in calculation P(B)-1130.
- 2) Supply Air Temperature Agree with NU's response that the design summer outdoor air tempeinture is 88'F.
Per NU's response the temporary fans draw air from the northwest stairwell at door A 24-2 and discharges to the elevation 24'-8' in the auxiliary building. The air is relieved to outdoors tru door A 24-9. Provide the basis for assuming that the temperature cf the air drawn from the stairwell is the same a' the outdoor air tempe 9ture.
Note that System Operating Procedure C4' 11314J, Rev. 4
' Auxiliary Building Emergency Ventilation and Exhaust' describes usir:g the temporary fans at door A 24-2 as exhaust fans but does not address what door (s) are opened to allow outside air into the area for cooling.
- 3) Fan Pressure While the fan is not connected to ductwork, there are still pressurc losses associated with the air intakt, inta the auxiliary building and outlet from tt.3 auxiliary building. These losses should be addressed in the calculation.
P 1
t Pnnted 2/496 94.26 AM Page 3 or 3