ML20202E391
| ML20202E391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9712080017 | |
| Download: ML20202E391 (43) | |
Text
/
s M
pg Bar gerntsMLundy'"
31 9 Don K. Schopler Vice Prek int 312 209-6078 L
December 4,1997 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Contiol Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following twenty-one (21) 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-MP3-0074 DR No. DR-MP3-0529 DR No. DR MP3 0648 DR No. DR-MP3-0434 DR No. DR-MP3-0569 DR No. DR-MP3-0653 DR No. DR-MP3-0453 DR No. DR-MP3-0581 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0676 DR No. DR-MP3 0500 DR No. DR MP3-0582 DR No. DR MP3-0677 DR No. DR-MP3-0502 DR No. DR MP3-0593 DR No. DR-MP3-0678 DR No. DR-MP3-0512 DR No. DR-MP3-0602 DR No. DR-MP3-0685 -
DR No. DR-MP3-0513 DR No. DR-MP3-0636 DR No. DR-MP3-0709 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, I
fhfe t \\
97120e0017 971204 D. K. Schopfer ADOCK O 4
gDR Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr 3 @ OOl Enclosures -
Copies:
. E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council gi
$@{'\\k$$,k L Fougere(1/1)NU 55 East Monroe Street
- Chicago,11. 6%03-5780 USA
- 312-269-2000 b
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0072 Millston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neview oreup: system DnvAuo Newtow staments system Design D6ecipline: MechenkelDugn y_
E
- y Type: Lkwweng Dzument j
s, -
- n Rss
{
NRC sientacence loved: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Does puemehed: 12me7 E1
- 6 Descrepancies on P&lD EM 112C Revision 16 are as follows:
Dacription: llem i P&lD EM 112C shows mlniflow recirculation lines for containment recirculation pumps,3RSS*PI A and 3RSS*P18.
Each miniflow recirculation line is shown to contsin a nomisily open motor operated valve and a flow restricting orifice. Each motor operated valve in the miniflow recirculation lines is provided with an interiock to a flow transmitter on the respective pump discharge. According to the Design Basis Summary Document,3DBS-NSSS-003, Revision 0, Sedloh 12.5.3.2, the interlock shall fundion to close the miniflow recirculation valves on RSS pump high discharge flow rate and open them on low l
flow rate.
l The interiocks are shown on the P&lD EM-112C as follows:
i Miniflow Recirculation Flow Interiock Line MOV Transmitter Function 3RSS*P1B 3RSS*MOV388 3RSS*FT388 High Flow, Close 3RSS*P1A 3RSS*MOV38A 3RSS*FT38A High Flow, close I
The interlock fundion to open the miniflow recirculation line motor operated valves on low RSS flow rate is not annotated such that it is consistent with the annotation for the close interiock fundion on high flow rate, item 2 FSAR Sedion 6.3.5.1 identifies that the '.emperature is recorderd I
for the outlet of the containment reciralation coolers. P&lD EM.
112C does not show containment r circulation cooler outlet e
temperature recorders.
ltem 3 FSAR Sedion 6.3.5.2 states that there is local indication of containment recirculation pump discharge pressure. However, P&lD EM-112C only shows the local pressure transmitters, l
3RSS*PT25A,B,C,D and 3RSS*PT43A,B,C,D, and the control
=- F:rm '- ":2, P'26A;S,C,0 fe> ".c re!r !!p 7 g.g W2 l-l l -.
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0072 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report pump discharge pressures. This hem is duplicated in l&C Discrepancy Report DR MP3-445 which details the discrepant condMions in the wiring diagrams.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inteleter: Feingood. D. J.
O O
O 11/2+s7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/2497 VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
12/147 1RC Chnm: Singh, Anand K O
O O
12/187 Dese:
INVAUD:
(
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identised by NUP Q Yee @ No NonDescrepentcondet6en?U vos @ No Redd%Pending?O vee @ No Ree.nuinenune.eeevedtO vee @ N.
Rev6ew
%deletor: Feingoed. D. J.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Civnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 12/W97 9.56.34 AM Pese 2of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0434 Mill tone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- n. view Group: Propommate DR VAUD Moview Element: Cyroceve Achon Process g
O vos tr. ci Type: Corrective Achon gg systemereceos: Qss NRC signescence level: s Date FAKod to NU*
Date Putdiohed: 12m97 r
api Conclusions Documented in Tedinical and Reportability Evaluations for ACR No. 012327 r:
Discussion:
The snbjed ACR was written to document that the TSP baskets were found with a volum:, at less than the fill line that specifies the minimum Technical Spedfication volurae per surveillance procedure SP 3606.10. The Reportability Evaluation relles entirely on a Technical Evaluation MP3-TS96-210 and it was determined that the issue is not reportable. The following observations form the basis for this discrepancy report:
The evaluation documents that the baskets were initially filled to the " full line' during RF05 and that there has been ' expected settling *. although the amount of settling ' expected
- is not mentioned. The conclusion is made that 'since there are no signs of leakage around the baskets, the total mass is still in place, and the baskets are still can. <ble of performing its function'.
- 1. We disagree (based on the documentation provided in the ACR and Technical Evaluation /Reportability Evaluation) that lack of
- signs of leakage' is sufficient basis to conclude that the
' total mass is stillin place ar;d the baskets are still capable of performing its function *. The analysis lacks the necessary confirmation that the initial charge (mass) of TSP was in fact adequate for meeting the functional requirements. This could be done by review of past records (also not mentioned). Had the settling been correctly anticipated, the initial fill would have been greater to prevent encountering this situation where settling has now occurred to the peint that the minimum Technical Specification volume (fill line) is not met. This oversight is sufficient to warrant verification that the correct mass was initially charged.
- 2. With regard to the corredive action for ACR 012327 which was to add more TSP, Safety Evaluations MP3-94-135 Rev.1(Mech 1 Mat 1 Chem.) and ISE/MP3 94-054 Rev.1 which are contained in PDCR MP3-94-135 state in part that a maximum pH of about 11.0 will occur...and a pH of less than 10.5 would be achieved after about 18 minutes. ISE/MP3-94-054 Roy. i "
further concludss that 'the transient pH behavior does not adversely affect metals, coatings and elastomers in the Containment and the performance of safety functions is not affected.' This statement is based on the conclusions documented in Safety Evaluation MP3 94-135. As noted in Gafety Evaluation MP3 94-135,"the important time periods to be munhiatad are thaca daerrihad ahnum whan rM le ruittida nf the Prtnled 12/497 9.5728 AM Pege 1 or 3 l
L Nwtheast UWities ICAVP DR No. DRW84484 Misistaw unit 3 Discrepancy Report quellflod condNions (i.e.....pH above 10.5), and when the low pressure injection pH is hl her than before?
0
- a. Based on NU's conclusion in ACR 012327 documentation that the original required mass was still in place, and subesquent addnion of TSP to 1/2 inch above the fill line (ftcm the as-found level whloh was below the fill line), the now greater mass of TSP shouH be considerd for Na potential Impact on the peak pH which would be achieved in a DBA requiring recirculation spray.
Such consideration is prudent to ensure that conclusions reached in the safety evaluations remain valid after addnion of TSP.'
- b. In addnion,110le periodic makeup of TSP due to compaction
~
or settling was omtemplated in the modification (MP3 94135),
the safety evaluations for the mod do not indicate if the maximum calculated pH (and reautant conclusion of acceptabilMy) included consideration of the addhional mar,s which would be added periodically to scoount for settling.
- c. With regard to the maximum pH which was evaluated to be acceptable in the safety evaluations, it is not clear what inWiel boron concentration was assumed. It is noted that the maximun toch spec boron concentration of 2000 ppm was used to conservatively define the minmum amount of TSP which would raise pH to greater than or equal to 7.1, however use of the maximum allowable toch spec RWST concentration would not be conservative when evaluating the maximum pH for, soceptablity.
- 3. In conjunction with lleins 1 and 2 above, NU should re-evaluate the reportability and significance level of this ACR.
Although the conddion was discovered in Mode 5 when the TtW baskets fundion is not required to be operable, all 12 TSP baskets were innially specified as INOP by the Shift Supervisor.
Then a technical evaluation and reportabilMy evaluation took place. The need to perform these evaluations ( simed at ensuring that safety fundions would be met when operability is questioned or qt utionable and at determinin0 resuRard reportabilNy) jus isles an intial higher si0nificanos (e0 at least level C) especially if there was rosson to susped (and no evidence is provided to the contrary) that the unanalyzed condMion could have existed in an operating mode where the TSP baskets were required to be operable, -
Review vend invase Needed Date initietw: Neverro. Me*
'O O
O 11rJo*7 VT Lase: Ryan, Thomme J Q
Q Q
11/2497 VT Mgn schepen. Don K O
O O
12iis7 inc canm: Singh. Anand K O
O O
12/**7 ones:
11/1g/97 marauo:
Oste:
MatoLLmoN:
Pvtnted 12/*97 9:57.35 AM Pese 2 or 3 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34434 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report hif ~;h ldentmed try Nur ' O Tee ' Ti ~we~~
~~weaoieri.peatcoadiocarC v.e ~ ~ikT~No '
i
~
PM% PendingtO vos @ N.
R-% uar.conv.drO v.e @ N.
Rev6ew freeptehle Not W.
No.ded Det.
O O
VT L.ed: Ryan, Thomme J O
O O
VT Mgra Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chma: Singh, Anand K Dele:
SL comments:
r*
Printed 12/497 9.57:30 AM Pope 3 of 3 l
Northeast Utilities lCAVP DR No. DR MP3 0483 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report newtow aroup: system onvaun neview timment: system Dwair paesipune: Mechamesa Design O vee
-, Type: NW
@ No syseenWPresses: oss NnC signeamence levet: 3 Dele faxed le NU:
Dose Puhitehed: 12/rS7 r
-ii Calculation SP 3QSS-4 Desertpelen: Calculation SP 3QSS 4, Rev. O concludes that the minimum QSS flow setpoint should be 3850 gpm per pump. The purpose of the minimum flow alarm is to alert operators resporKling to a postulated accident of the failure of QSS to provide containment spray. The low flow alamt is actuated if QSS flow is less than 3850 gpm 10 seconds after recept of the CDA signal, or 15 seconds if there is a loss of offsite power concurrent with a CDA.
There are two discrepancies in the SP 3QSS-4 determination of the low QSS flow setpoint:
- 1. The 3850 gpm value for the setpoint is based solely on an undocumented engineering judgment.
- 2. During a design basis accident, the opening time of QSS -
spray isolation valves SQSS*MOV34A/B would limit fim to less than 3850 gpm during the first 15 seconds of an event an9 a low flow alarm would be generated even if the QSS system were fully operational in accordance with its det,,ign basis (see evaluation below).
Logic Diagram LSK 2712A, Rev.13 shows that that Flow Transmitters 30SS FT32A and B will produce a low flow alarm 10 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal, (which is delayed an additional 5 seconds after EDG start in the event of a LOP /LOCA) if flow from one of the QSS pumps is less than the 3850 gpm setpo!nt.
Fill t!me calculation US(B) 225, Rev. 6 Indicates that there is a 5-second delay for starting the CSS pump on the EDG load sequencer during a LOP /LOCA. According to US(B) 225, the QSS pumps will reach full speed in 1 sec (when powered from the DGs during a LOP /LOCA) and will fill the piping downstream of SQSS*MOV34A/B in no more than 50.2 sec for one pump operation and no less than 25.3 see for two pump operstion.
Logic Clagram LSK 27128, Rev.13 shows that MOV34A opens on receipt of a CDA signal and its start is not delayed by the EDG load sequencer, so it will begin opening as soon as the EDG connects to the 1E bus, MPR Repon 1824, Part 7. Rev. 0 states that the nominal opening time of butterfly valve MOV34A/B is 30 seconds. NM-027 ALL, Rev. 2 states that the surveillance limit for MOV34A/B time to open is 40 seconds.
Thus 'he worst case for the low QSS pump flow alarm is a LOCA without a LOP,10% degraded QSS pumps, and an MOV34A/B
" : t0 0^^^ O' 40 000:2. M th': ter.-fr. the M^" Mg.N 2 p
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0453 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
be 1/4 open when the annunciator time delay permits a low flow alarm signal to be generated. US(B) 225 states that the flow from one degraded QSS pump with the MOV34 valve wide open is 5580 gpm. MPR Report 1824, Part 7 uses this as the basis for the conclusion that at 1/4 open (22.5 degrees) the QSS pump flow would be approximately 2525 gpm.
Thus, after a postulated accident which automatically starts the QSS pumps, a QSS low flow alarm would be received by control room operators, even if the QSS pumps are functioning in accordance with their design basis. The time delay as well as the low flow alarm setpoint need to be re-evaluated to deterime how they can be improved to support operator response to a postulated accident.
R. view veu viveu Newed Das initiolor: Wakeland, J. F.
O O
O iir22/e7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O
O it/22/e7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
12i,iro7 1RC Clenn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
12/357 Dete:
INVALID:
Date:
REs0LUTION:
Previously idennaed by NU7 V Yes @ No NonDioctopentConmuoes70 Yes @ No
~~ eenene7O ' t
@ N.
= + uar wv.d7 0 Yee @ No R.vi H-: ;
Not ?--:-:- ""- Needed Date O
O O
VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Dele:
sL Comments:
- Prtnled 12/497 9.58:30 AM Page 2 or 2
1 Northeast Utsties ICAVP DR No, DRW34860 MWetoew unit 3 Discrepancy Report moview aroup: svenom -
onvaun noveew seement: syeism Design esselyano sissenesiposi'"
O vos oneseepeney Type: caioulemen gg systenWpreenes: Dox Nnc signiseense level: 3 -
Does faxed to NU:
note pummehee: 12ms7 -
F. -,. Calculat6on NL433 (Emergency Diesel Loading and Starting kVA Calculation)
Dessetpalen: Calculation NL 033 determines the loading on the Division A emergency diesel generator for various scenarlos involving the loss of offsNe power combined wkh normal shut down, a small break in the secondary side of the nuclear steam supply system, a large secondary side break, a small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA), and a large break LOCA. It also estimates the transient volta 0e drop on the diesel generator to determine compliance with Regulatory GuLe 1.9.
The following hems were observed in this calculation:
The transient volta 0e and frequency dip information used in the calculation does not consider the effect of the steady state loadin0 on the transient volta 0e and frequency dip, and the steady state load used as the basis of the curve of paGe 12 of Attachment D that is used to calculate the starting voNa0e dip is not stated. However, pa0e 3 of Appendix B indicates that while 3600 kW of load are required to produce a 0.7% frequency dip on an unloaded machine, only 1253 kW are required to produce the same frequency dip when the machine is carrying 3766 kW of steady state load before the test load was added. There is a similar variation in the volta 0e dip. (See the Elodric Machinery Manufaduring Co. pamphlet "The ABC of Checking Volta 0e Drop in Starting AC Motors".) The calculation should either take the steady state load at each step in the starting sequence into -
account or explicitly use bounding (worst case) values.
Appendix D calculates the per unit peak input power to the component cooling water pump to reduce the calculated peak power demanded from the diesel engine and generator. The
. peak power is calculated from the output torque and speed, as well as the motor efficiency. The implied assumption is made that the motor eft'ecy W Wedown conditions is the same as durin0 steady stote fullload ope;ation. However, the motor current at breakdown torque conditions is much higher than during full load operation. This implies hi0her copper losses, and therefore lower efficiency. This can be seen by examining the calculated data for a two pole,700 hp,4000 voit motor:
Break Down Full Load Speed 3456 RPM =
3582 RPM Torque 2644 ft Ibf 701 ft Ibf PrWeed 12/49710$124 AM Pese 1 or 6
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3-0600 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 4
Current 305 amp 58 amp Power Factor 0.702 0.93g l
Emclency 0.875 0.945 4
The effect of the increased transient loading should be examined.
Page 13 Indicates that an assumed power factor of 0.85 will be applied to non-motor loads. However, the heater loads, which have unity power fador are added arithmetically to the kVA of other non-motor loads. As a result, the 0.85 power fador will be 4
applied to the heater loads. This will reduce their kW loading by a multiplier of 0.85, which is not conservative.
j The running kVA of the motor control center loads is determined i
based on typical efficiencies and power fadors with different values being used for loads larger than 50 hp and for loads 50 hp i
and smaller. However, the starting kVA is calculated using a single assumed conversion fador of 1 hp = 1 kVA. This is inconsistent. (The assumed efficiency and power fador values give a conversion factor of 1 hp = 0.921 kVA for loads larger than 50 hp, i hp = 0.9973 kVA for continuously running loads 50 hp and smaller, and i hp = 1.5224 kVA for motor operated 4
valves.)
Information about the brake powers of the various loads are given in more than one part of the calculation, e. g. Attachment B and Attachment E. Examples of these inconsistencies include the brake power given for the original impeller of 3CCP*P1 A in Althchment B and the brake power given for the cut down impeller in Attachment E, the input power for 3HVK*CHL1A on page 41 of Attachment B and the brake horsepower and efficiency given in Attachment E, and the values for the motor fullload current of 3HVR*FN6A B given in the motor data sheet of page 47 and the test report on page 4g of Attachment B.
Some of this information is inconsistent. Some information should be provided as to which of the conflicting information is valid and why.
Some of the rnotor data on pages 17 and 18 and the corresponding data on page 4 of Attachment A are inconsistent:
Load Quantity Value from Pages 17 and 18/
V.!ue !hm Pagc 4 cf Attachment A 3HVR*FN10A1&2 Power factoro.85 / 0.g2 3HVC*ACU2A Bhp 75/ 70 Printed 12/49710:01:41 AM Page 2 or 5 i
_ _... ~
Northeast UUWties ICAVP DR No. DR4P34600 Minstone Urdt 3 Discrepancy Report 3HVRTN6A Efficiency 0.928 / 0.902 in addition to the difference in the efficiency of the motor for SHVRTN6A noted above, its efficiency is shown as 0.928 on l
page 9 of Attachment E and as 0 N2 on page 47 of Attachment 8.
Appendix A, ph,;e 22 ttates that the ' nominal level at which the RHR pumps auto trip and 81 sump switchover" occurs is 25.42',
conosponding to 619,910 gallons of water remaining in the RWST. However, on page 23 of Appendix A, the calculation of the volume of water remaining in the tank at the time that the RHR pump trips is 479,005 gallons. This increases the largth of time that the RHR pump is assumed to operate.
Statement 8 on page 9 of Appendix A states that one of the two RSS pumps will be shut down 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> into the accident and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> before the residual heat removal pump is started in the case of a large secondary system break. However, the input data given on page 43 of Appendix A states that both RSS pumps'.All operate until the residual heat removal pomp is started. The -
difference should t,e explained.
Appendix A states that during a small break in a feedwater or main steam lino that a bank of pressurtzer heaters and the spent fuel cooling pump will be energized manually early in the event (typically 11 minutes after the beginning). However, page 7 of Attachment A (Table 3) indicates that these loads are started after the safety injection and residual heat removal pumps have been tumed off. AppervFx A states that this will happen 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the beginning of the event. This difference should be explained.
On page 9 of Attachment A (Table 5) for a large break in a feedwater or main steam line, Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCCI A3 is showi as starting after a residust heat removal pump is shut down. Appendix A states that the residual heat removal pump will be shut down about i hour after the aveat begins and that the motor control center will be connected about 20 minutes after the event starts. Also, Table 5 shows that a service water pump is shut down, while Appendix A indicates.
that they are operated for the duration of the accident. Table 5 shows that the pressurizer heater group is energized much later than does Appendix A. Table 5 shows the fuel building exhaust fan and filter starting late in the event, while Appendix A Indicates that they are started about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the start of the event. These differences should be explained.
?
Page 11 of Attachment A shows the spent fuel pump and Motor Control Center 2EHS*MCC1_A3 startina at least i hour after the Prned 12/we71o:01:42 AM Peer 3 or s
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0600 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report start of a small break LOCA event. They would be expected to start sooner based on the inforg.ation in Appendix A.
Pages 13 and 14 of Attachment A (Tables 9 and 10) show Motor Control Center 2EHS*MCC1 A3 energized 1 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the t* ginning of a large break LOCA. The motor control center would be expeded to be energized sooner. (See the discussion in Attachment A.)
Page 17 of the calculation gives the runout brake power of 3SlH*P1 A as 440 hp. However, the pump curve of Attachment B, page 12 shows a brake r1wer no larger than 420 or 430 hp.
For the purposes of this calculatiori, the result is conservative.
Page 17 of the calculation also gives the flow rate of the component cooling pump,3CCP*P1 A/C as 9600 gpm, while the memorandum that is page 14 of attachment B Indicates that the flow is 10910 gpm. Using the latter value increases the brake power of the motor to 745 hp as shown on page 16 of Attachment B.
The memorandum of Attachment B, page 19 Indicates that 3FWA*P1 A is described by pump test curve 377S2. However, pump curve 37761 is attached to the calculation instead.
Information about the starting voltage dip and recovery time is taken from page 12 of Attachment D. In the followirg cases, there were erro:s in transcribing the data from the curve. On page 10 of AttachmeG A, the recovery time for a 1044 kVA conweted starting kVA load is 0.10 second ar.d the recovery time for a 1491 corrected starting kVA load is 0.15 second. On pages 11 and 12 of Attachment A, the voltage dip for a 1657 conected kVA load is 4 %. On pages 11 and 12 of Attachment A, the voltage dip for a 2578 corrected starting kVA load is 7%. On page 12 of Attachment A, the voltage dip for a 3133 corrected starting kVA load is 7.5% and the voltage recoveey time of a 4099 corrected starting kVA load is 0.35 second. On pages 13 and 15 of Attachment A, the voltage dip for a 3133 corrected starting kVA load is 7.5% and the voltage dip recovery time for a 790 corrected starting kVA load is negligible.
The reference for the brake power of 3HVC*ACU2A should be Memorandum GMB-90134, not GMV90-13, as stated in the calculation.
On Page 12 of Attachment A, the starting kVA values are crossed out for 3HVU*FN2A, but the revised values were not copied in.
On page 33 of Appendix A, the indicated addition gives a total loss of 2.589 I W for the small miscellaneous transformers, not 2.449 kW as shown. This is small compared to the total diesel loading.
The addition Indicated on page 21 gives a value of the
- Total Non-Motor Demand Loads
- of 115.18 kVA. not 114.0 kVA as PrWed 12/49710o1:44 AM Page 4 or s
Northeart Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0600 Millstone linit 3 Discrcpancy Report shown on page 22.
The peak kW for step 4 on pages 5 and 6 of Appendix A IS 1991+ 2.2x800= 3751 kW, not 3359 kW as shown.
Review Velid invalid Needed Date Inllistor: Bloelho, G. Wdliam O
O O
"'15S7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O
O O
iirine7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O
O O
1'c1/87 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
til2tW97 Dele:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLimoN M:-
, identined by NU? Q Yes @ No Peon Discrepent Condet6co?O vos @ No PM%Peneng?O va @ No n.connionunr=wvedrO va @ No
- n. view Not A - f Needed Date VT Lead: thrt, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sin 0% Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Commente:
P f
1 4
Printed 12/441 10.01:40AM Pege 5 of 5 l
Northeast Ut!iities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0802 Millstoiw Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system onVAuo Review Element: System Design Diecipline: Mechanical Desig" Ow
. CE - :y Type: Component Date
@ No Systemerocese: RSS NRC Signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 12/147 CE ni; Pipeline design temperature inconsistencies t-
-~ Inconsistency between operating & PDDS design temperatures An inconsistency exists between the plant computer data base, PDDS, and the determined design temperature in calculation P(R)-1186 Revision 1 (CCN #2) for the following pipelines:
3-RSE 001-058 3-RSS-001-065-2 3-RSS-001 070-2 3-RSS-001-080-2 3-RSS-004-122 2 3-RSS-004-123-2 3-RSS-004-124-2 3-RSS-004-125-2 3-RSS-006-046 2 3-RSS-008-052-2 3-RSS-008-054-2 3-RSS-008-055-2 3-RSS-010-00}2 3-RSS 010-015-2 3-RSS-010-020-2 3-RSS-010-010-2 3-RSS-012-0212 3 RSS-012-022/
3-RSS-012-001 2 3-RSS-012-002-2 3-RSS-012-004-2 3-RSS-012-006-2 3-RSS-012-007 2 3-RSS-012-012 2 5-RSS-012-016 2 RSS-012-017-2 3-RSS-150-043-2 3 RSS-150-0512 3-RSS 150-084-2 3-RSS-150-087 2 3-RSS-750-060-2 3-RSS-750-063 2 3-RSS-750-072 2 3-RSS-750-077-2 3-RSS-750104-2 3-RSS-750108-2 3-RS; 750-112 2 3-RSS-750-116-2 3-RSS-750-126-2 3-RSS 750127-2 3-RSS-750-128-2 3-RSS-750-129-2 3-RSS-750-094-2 3-RSS-750-095 2 3-RSS-750-096-2 3-RSS-750-097-2 3-RSS-001-600-2 through 3RSS-001612-2 3 RSS-001-614-2 through 3RSS-001-760-2 3-RSS-001800-2 through 3RSS-960-612 2
.. \\ -
The design temperature in the PDDS is lower than the design temperature in calctlation P(R)-1188. This in itself is not a concem. However, the design termperature in the PDDS is lower than the operating temperature determined in calculation P(R)-1187 Revision 1 but the design temperature in calculation P(R)-1186 is higher than the operating temperature in calculation P(R)-1187.
Inconsistency between temperatures in PDDS & calculations For the fo!!owing pipelines, the design temperature in the plant com.wter data base, PDDS, and the temperature used as inptrr
(
into the minimum wall calculation are higher than the design temperature determined in calculation P(R)-1186 Revision 1.
Because the temperature input into the minimum wall calculation is bounded by the lower design temperature in calculation P(R)-
1186, the inconsistency between the PDDS and the design tem rature in calculation P(R)-1186 will not have an adverse Pfireed 12/#9710:02:s2 AM Page 1 of 3 l
- Northeast Utilities ICAVP No. DR-MP3-0502 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repot w.m.
Minimum Wall Calculations MW(F)-1!
> vit.
for pipe',ines:
3-RSS-008-040-2 3-RSS-008-041 2 W s d-047 2 3-RSS-008-053-2
_)
inconsistency betwn P(R)-1186 & input into min wa!! calculations
=--
The design temperatures used as input into the minimum wall calculations tur the following pipelines are lower than the doeign temperature determined in calculation P(R) 1186 Revision 1 (CCN #2). Therefore, an inconsistency exists between the minimum v d' calculations and the dC. ermined design e
temperatur
.1 calculation P(R)-1186, e
Minimum Wall Calculations MW(F) 170 Revision 5 & MW(B)-
132 Revision 2 for pipelines:
3-RSS-008-046 2 3-RSS-006-052 2 3-RSS-008-054-2
=_-_
3-RSS-006-055-2 Miv 'um Wall Calculation MW(B) 127 Revision 2 for pipelines:
3-U 3-010-003-2 3-RSS-010-008-2 3-RSS-010-009-2 3-RSS-010-0112 3-RSS-010-013-2 3-F'SS-010-014-2 l
3-RSS-010-018 2 3-RSS-010-019-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-44 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS-010-005-2 3-RSS-010-015-2 3-RSS-010-020-2 E
Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-110 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS-010-010-2 Minimum Wall Calculations MW(B)-212 Revision 0 & MW(B)-45 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS-012 021-2 3-RSS-012-022-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-122 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-RSS-012-001 2 3-Rt",-012-002 2 3-RSS-012-004-2 3-RSS-012-006-2 3-RSS-012-007 2 3-RSS-012-012 2 3-RSS-012-018-2 3-RSS-012-017-2 Specific temperatures are not provided here because they vary with the line designation.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date IWator: Te..g 4 C,..
G O
O 11/17S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G
O O
1 '17/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O 12/1/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
12as7 D.i.:
INVALID:
Printed 12/49710-03.00 AM Page 2 of 3 6
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-OH2 Millstone Unit 3 D!screpancy Report Date:
REs0LUTION Plwlously klentmed try NU? O Yes @ No NonD6screpentCorwhuon?Q Yes (8) No n
uison P.amne?O vos @ No P - = % unroe *.d? O vee @ No movi A-:-;- " - Not Arcariahia Needed Date VT Leed: tiari, Artwmy A VT Mgt: Schopfw, Dori K IRC Civm: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 12/49710:03:03 AM Page 3 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0612 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: splom DR VtilD Review Element: Splom Dagn P
OperM h Diecipline: Mechancel Owen O v.
CM 4 my Type: Componers Data gg 8, ^ - T.--==: OsS NRC Signmcence leve': 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Publ6 sheaf 12/7/97 Ducrepancy: Material used in some minimum wall calculations is inconsistent with specification 2280.000-582 Dacrisdion: Material Used in Calculation Not The Same As in Specification The material specification used as input to some pipeline minimum wall calculations is not consistent with the mt terial in the design specification based on the pipe classes identified in the plant computer data base, PDDS.
Pipeline design specification 2280.000 5C2 Revision 12 identifies material specification SA-312 Type 304l. for pipe class 0153.
However, different material specificatioris are used as input into the minimum wall calculations. Pipe class 0153 is designated in PDDS for the affected pipelines.
Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:
Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-174 Revision 1 uses SA-403 TP304 for pipelines:
3-QSS-012-025-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-45 Revision 0 for pipelines:
3-QSS-014-019-2 3-QSS-014-021 2 3-QSS 414-022-2 SQSS-014-026-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-125 Revision 0 for pipeiines:
3-QSS-750-300-2 through 3QSS-750-803-2 Material Not Designated in Calculation Some minimum wall calculations for pipelines do not identify the pipe material used for input into the calculation.
Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:
Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-321 Revision 1 for pipeline:
3-QSS-012-029-2 Minimum Wall Calculation 96EN51255-M3 Revision 1 for pipeline:
3-QSS-008-031-2 3-QSS-000-033-2 3-QSS-008-042-2 tonn nna.nu.9 Printed 12/4/97 to:o3:38 AM Page 1 of 2 a
[.
[
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0512 l
Milletone unn 3 Discrepancy Report l
- /aud mvalid Needed Date initiator: Fem 0old, D. J.
O O
11/17/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 11/17/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
Q 12/1/97 1RC Chmn: Smgh, Anand K Q
Q Q
12G97 Date:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION
- Provkweely IdentNied by NU7 O Yu @ No Non D6screpent Condition 70 Yes @ No p%P.amas70 ya @ Ne Ramuon ua eoorved70 ya @ No v.vi Acry.haa hot wy.haa Needed Date O
p VT Leed; f ert, Anthony A
- VT Mgr: tdefer, Don K O
b 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
? SL Cormmente:
Printed 12/4/9710-03:47 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0513 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DRVAUD EM S@ W Potenual Operatdtity issue EM _. Mechanical Deegn O va D6ecrepency Type: Calculetxw) g SysterWProcess: Rss NRC Signiacance twel: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6ehod 12/7/97 t=
ii. Calculation US(B)-342 Descrht6on: The purpose of US(B) 342, Re v.1/CCN 1 is to determine the RSS heat exchanger UA for dlWrent accident modes for input into LOCTIC containment pressur;zation analyses. US(D)-342 also calculates the fill rate and the fill time for the RSS heat exchangers.
The following discrepancy was identified in US(B) 342:
Table IV on p.18a conta. ins values for UAA for Cases 5 through
- 9. These values for UAA are incompatible with thc,se in the results table on p. 5 of CCN 1 for Cases 1 through 4. An increase in the RSS flow from 2990 gpm in Case 2 to 3882 apm in Cases 6,6a and 9 produced a reduction in UAA. For Case 2, the UAA is 6.532 MBlu/hr F (The value for UAA is twice the UA value of 3.266 MBlu/hr F provided in the results table for Case 2. This is because UAA includes the surface area of the two heat exchangers for each train of RSS that operate for Max. ESF, rather than the one). For Cases 6, Sa and 9, the UAAs are 5.4398,5.2310, and 5.4898 MBtu/hr-F, respectively. Likewise, increases in both RSS and SWS flows between Case 2 and Cases 5, Sa,7 and 8 result in reduced values of UAA. Cases 5 through 9 predict RSS HX performance during Max. ESF, for RSS flows of 3882 gpm and f.770 gpm, and for SWS flows of 5400 gpm and 5900 gpm. Increases in RSS or SWS flows should have increased the value of UAA.
The analysis of Cases 5 through 9 in Calculation US(B)-342 needs to be evalu;.ted and, if necessary, corrected.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland. J. F.
8 O
O 11'1SS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
11'1SS7 VT Mgr schopfer. Don K O
O O
12/4/97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
12/3/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOUJDON.
Prev 6ously identifled by NU? O vos @ No Non Discrepent Conddion?O vos @ No Resolution Pend 6ng?O vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos @) No Review Axeptab'e Nc4 Acceptable Needed Date Prtnted 12/4/971o.05:13 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0513 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report vr t.ee: Lib A O
O O
O O
O vr m n scnopen, con g e
RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Does:
SL Commente:
D Printed 12/#J710-0521 AM Pg2M2 a
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. *> l MP3-0629 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VA[
05 th - ci Type: C*W gg SyrM:: :'RSs NRC S'.-r=-:-:- levet: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsehed: 12/7/97 EH
-y: Calculation US(B)-316 Description The purpose of Calculation US(B)-316, Rev, O is to:
- 1. estimate the quantity of insulation that is removed and shredded as a result of jet impingement from a high energy line break (HELB)
- 2. determine the resulting pressure drop from said insulation being distributed across the RSS sump intake screens. The additional pressure drop across the sump screens is considered in the Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) analysis for the RSS pumps.
Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B)-316:
- 1. US(B)-316 assumes the sump screens are fully submerged, even though Calculation US(B)-326, Rev.1 concludes that the sc eens are only partially submerged during a significant portion of the postulated DBA event. The head loss due to the screen blockage on page 21 of US(B) 316, DH = 68.3 U 1.7911.07, (Reference 2 of US(B)-316, NUREG OS97, Rey,1) uses an insulation thickness, t, and an approach velocity, U, based on a fully-submerged net screen area of 244.2 ft2 (Reference 9, Calculation US(B)-303, Rev. 0). Using the wetted screen area of partially submerged screens would result in a larger insulation thickness, t, sinen the insulation thickness is determined by dividing the volume of shredded insulation by the effective (wetted) screen area. The larger approach velocity and the larger insulation thickness result in a higher head loss.
- 2. Justification for not ushg the more conservative (higher) approach velocities listed on page 12 of US(B)-303 (Reference 9 of US(B)-316) is not provided. The higher approach velocities on page 12 of US(B)-303 are due to further area reduction to account for open areas of the screen based on Attachment 2 of US(B)-303.
A revision to Calculation US(B)-316 to evaluate the above discrepancies should be performed.
Review s
Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakelarvi, J. F.
8 O
O 11/4S7 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A B
O O
1 rise 97 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K B
O O
12/1,s7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q
Q Q
12/397 Date:
Printed 12/49710:o6:00 Ab Pope 1 or 2 l
1
_________J
- _._, 7 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0629 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date
RESOLUTION-l Prev 6ously identmed by NU7 O Yes @ No NonD6screpentConmuon?O Yes @ No R.soeunen Peamne70 Yee @ No w % unr oiv.d7 0 Yes ~ @ No Revlow areth Not AceYh Needed Date b
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K b
b IRC Chmn: Smgh, Anand K O
i-Date:
i SL Commente:
i r
r i
l l
l l
i l
t ll 4
6 3
i j
'Prtnted 12/4971006:07 AM Page 2 of 2 t
(.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34549 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Review Element: System Deelen p
Diecipline: Mechanicei Desi0n O vee W
1:y Type: Calcutshon gg SystemProcese: RsS A
NRC s'. ' - n:-:-level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published 12947 F
T. Calculation US(B) 337
==
Description:==
The purpose. ' US(B) 337 is to determine the maximum containment pressure after a design basis LOCA with 5%
degraded QSS and RSS pumps (the calculation is based on the assumption that the second peak pressure is at its maximum for 5% degraded spray pumps).
The discrepancy is that US(B)-337 references ES-184 the RSS HX UA. Calculation US(B)-342, Re r.1 superseded ES 184 Rev.
1, but this change was not incorporated into US(B)-337. As a result, the input to Calculation US(B)-337 contains the two incorrect UA values forthe RSS HX:
- 1. Min. ESF LHSI Recirc Mode on p. 7 of US(B)-337 states that the UA is 3.056 MBlu/hr F, but Case 3 of US(B)-342 states that the UA is 2.396 MBtu/hr F (both are for RSS flow of 1187 Opm and SWS flow of 5400 gpm).
- 2. Min. ESF Spray Mode on p. 8 of US(B)-337 states that the UA is 3.812 MBtu/hr F (for RSS flow of 3740 gpm and SWS flow of $400 gpm). Case 1 of US(B)-342 states that the UA is 3.412 MBlu/hr F (for RSS flow of 3598 gpm and SWS flow of 5400 Opm) This implies that a 4% increase in shell side flow produces a 12% increase in UA, a result which is not possible.
These problems with the input data have a weak effect on containment pressures and temperatures calculated for the PSDER LOCA, however, they have a strong effect on the peak RSS HX heat load of approximately 193 MBtu/hr. Therefore the probicms with the input data need to be corrected before the results of US(B)-337 can be accepted as valid.
Review Vead Invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeiend. J. F.
O O
O 5' 4/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
Q 11/17 S 7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O
O O
2i1/s7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
2rss7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION Previously identmed by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes @ No n iunon eenein0rO vee @ No R% unre.oived70 Yee @ No Printed 12/497 tooS:s1 AM PeGe 1 of 2
Northeast bJlities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-4649 Milistone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report me,.pa h Not Arear8h Needed Date O
O O
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Scropfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, /wwwi K g
Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 12/%/10:06:50 AM Page 2 of 2
'\\
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0641 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6 w aroup: systern DR vAuD Review Element: Syenern Deelyi Diecipaine: Mecherucal Desig" O vee E_
- y Type: M* W gg Sji-P. =: OsS NRC Signiacance M: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdia ed: 12m97 r-ci. Calculation US(B)-225
==
Description:==
The purpose of US(B)-225, Rev. 6 is to determine the QSG effective time for a design basis LOCA.
Four discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B)-225:
- 1. In the computation of QSS fill volume from the EP 79 drawings, Point C (where the supply header splits into the upper and lower spray header supply lines) was placed too far upstream [pp.14-17). As a result the B to C volume was miscalculated at 1075 gal instead of the correct value of 995 gal and the C to D volume was miscalculated at 470 gal instead of 547 gal. This error produces little net effect on the final fill time because it does not affect the total fill volume.
- 2. In transferring the loss coefficients from hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 to the fill time calculation, Point B (the boundary between filled and empty QSS piping, spray valves 3QSS*MOV32A/B) was not correctly interpreted [p.18]. As a result, piping and fitting losses from the pump discharge line upstream of the spray valves, are introduced downstream of the spray valves. This error increases hydraulic resistance and fill time. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to determine if this discrepancy changes the fill time.
- 3. Hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 is referenced for the line lengths of segments A to B and C (n E, but the numbers used for line losses do not appear in this the hydraulic calculation (nor do they appear in the computation of fill volume on pp.14-17) [p.
18]. As a res uit, frictional loss is overstated and maximum fill time is overestimated. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to d3termine if this discrepancy changes the fill time significantly.
- 4. D!screpancies in hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 are carried over to the fill time calculation [p.18), For example, the loss coefficient in flow meter FT*32A/B is computed on the basis of instrument range (K = 10.65) rather than the basis of unrecoverable losses (K = 6.4). Loss for each of the spray header supply lines C to D and C to E are missing one 900 elbow (K s 0.1). As a resuit, frictionalloss is overstated and maximum fill time is overestimated. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to determine if this discrepancy changes the fill time significantly.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakelend. J. F.
B 0
0 s tri2.s7 Printed 12/4/9710:07:30 AM Pege 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34681 o
Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
11' 7 S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
12/1/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q
Q t ~/3517 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prwtously identined by NU? O Yes (4) No Non D6ecroynt Condation?Q Yes @ No
~'
PMdM Pending?O vos @ No ReumUnreedved?O vos @ No Rev6ew p __ _ _
g,, p
___..m, Dets m,_
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chrm: Singh, Ansvj K Date:
s 1
SL Comments:
s i
Printed 12/45171007AB AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-6542 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Review Element: systan Deegn Diecipitne: Mechancel Design O va
'"-,- xy Type: NW gg systemerocese: N/A NRC s4ft-e level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished.12/7/97 D6ecropency: Calculation US(B)-266 De*cription: The purpose of Calculation US(B)-266, Rev. 2 is to determine woist-case containment pressure ard temperature responses to a postulated main steam line break. The calculation depends on QSS and RSS system perfomiance input from US(B)-312, Rev.
O, US(B)-311, Rev. O, US(B)-225, Rev. 6 US(B)-270, Rev. 5, and US(B)-342, Rev.1. The calculation provides input for the ovaluation of containment sump water supply for RSS operation in Calculations US(B)-316, Rev. O, US(B)-278. Rev. O, and ES-234, Rev. O.
The discrepancy is that US(B)-266, Case Vil references US(B)-
253, Rev. 4 for RSS effective time, but takes this input from US(B)-253, Rev. 3. The RSS effective times in US(B)-253, Rev.
3 are too short, which results in the following non-conservative errors in RSS effective time:
Case Vila uses the correct RSS effective times. Case Vil should be removed from US(B)-266.
Review Vaud invalid Needed Date Initiator: Wakeiend. J. F.
O O
O 11/224,7 VT Lead: Nevi, Anthony A O
O O
iti24s7 VT Mge: schopfer, Don K Q
Q 12/1/97 IRC Clwnn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
12/1/97 Dn.:
INVALID:
Date:
RESCLUTION Previously identifled by NU7 O Yee
(*) No Non Discrepent Condiuon?Q Yee (#J No u uem eenans7O vos @ No Roewouonunreeav.d70 vos @ No R. view Acmptable Not Acceptable Needed Date O
O O
VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: SctKpfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Data:
Printed 12/4S710:08:30 AM Page 1 of 2
{
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0582 Millstone Unit 3-Discrepancy Report SL Cmmerds Printed 12/49710.08:38 AM Page 2 of 2
{
Nort! wast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34693 Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DRVAUD Review Element: System Design Diecipane: MeeenioV Desig" O v.
t ci Type: Component Date g
SystemProceae: RSS NRC signiecence levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed.12/7/97 Cei ;=y: RSS dewatering pump spec 2225.202-050 is miss;ng information relative to coatings.
Deecription: Specification 2225.202-050 through Revision 7 provides design Information for the containment recirculation spray system dewatering pumps,3RSS-P2A and 3RSS P28. Page 1-16 of the specification states that surfaces sut$K:t to corrosion receive one coat of Keeler & Long coating of the type specified on the following page. The following page in the specification provides the coating types for the other pumps covered by the specification but not for the dewatering pumps.
Drawing 2225.202-050-025, Revision A," Containment Recirculation Dewatering Pump", does not provide coating details to support the specificaiton coating detail.
Review Vaud invend Needed Date initiator: Fein00id, D. J.
8 O
O 11'1757 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
it' 7/87 VT Uy: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
12/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
12/1/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION, Provnovely idents#ed by NU? O vos @ No Non Discrepent Condition?Q vee (W No PM%Pending?O vos @ No Reeciutionunreconved70 vos @ No Review A~ard =Ma Not A- - _ f"'-
Needed Date VT t.eed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
St Corronente:
Printed 12/4/97 to 10:4s AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0602 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
Review aroup: Syelem DR VAUD Review Ilement: Syelem Design Diecipane: Mecherucal Design Om EM.- ;p Type: Component Date g
8 _ - __
- Oss NRC SV2 m level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date puidehed: 12/7/97 P'
, -i. Specification SP ME 784 does not specify delta ferite control in accordance w/ FSAR Section 6.1.1.1.
Deeceipoon: FSAR Section 6.1.1.1 states that delta ferite control is in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.31. Regulatory Guide 1.31 requires that the delta ferite content of test weld deposits from each tot and each heat of weld filler metal procured for the welding of austenitic stainless steel Class 1 and 2 components be verified for each process to be used in production.
Valve specification SP-ME-784 Revision 2 does not address delta ferite analysis. This design specification is utilized for procurement of the following valves according to the plant computer data base, PDDS:
Quench Spray System Motor Operated Valves:
3QSS*MOV34A,B Containment Recirculation Spray System Motor Operated Valves:
3RSS*MOV20A,B,C,0 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,D Note that the following specifications do include requirements for delta ferrite controlin weld material:
2214.602-040 Revision 6 2472.110-185 Revision 1 2275.001-023 Revision 3 2362.200164 Revision 1 2282.050-153 Revision 3 2282.150154 Revision 2 2214.802-044 Revision 1 2214.803-020 Revision 5 t
2472.210-190 Revision 3
\\
2332.910-669 Revision 3 Review Vaud invalid Needed Date initistcr: Feingold, D. J.
O O
O 1ir a/97 VT Leed: Neri, Arthonya Q
Q 11/18/97
'?-
VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K G
O O
IRC chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 12/3/97 Dese:
INVAUD:
Date:
Printed 12/497 to 11Im% ""
Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0402 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report f4E50LUTION.
h;':r';identitled in MJ7 U Yes @ No Non Diecropont Condition?U Yes @ No PMd% Pending?O vos @ No Reaahdm unresolved?O vee
- No Review A-:5- "
Not Acceptande Needed Date
^
g,,
p)
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O 8
Date:
SL Conenente:
Printed 12/4W M1133 AM Page 2 of 2 b
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0636 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
~
neview oroup: syneem onvAuo nev6.w tiement: syWem Desagn 06ecipune: m %
O vee r"--
J _-.:p Type: Component Date g~
8 _. A--==: Rs3 NHC s';N level: 3 Dee FW to NU-Date Putsehed.12/7/97 N --
, my: Inconsistency between FSAR Sec 6.1.1.1 & design documents with respect to ASME Section 11 materials.
==
Description:==
FSAR Section 6.1.1.1 states that mechanical properties of the materials used in the engineered safety features (ESF) are in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 11.
The FSAR statement in Section 6.1,1,1 clearly applies the requirement for materials to all safety-related piping and components. However, application of this requirement to pressure boundary materials appears more appropriate.
Since the FSAR Section 6.1.1.1 does not specify that the mechanical properties of pressure boundary materials, only, are in accordance with ASME Section 11, all safety related containment recirculation spray system materials are evaluated against the mechanical properties in ASME Section ll.
All materials in safety related components are designated "SA" or "SB" from ASME Section 11, Parts A and B except for the following:
A-36 A-193 GR B8 A-194 GR 8F A-276 TP 304 Cond A A-278 TP 316 Cond B A-276 TP 410 A-296 CF8 A-296 CF8M A-307 A-351 TP CF8 A-351 GR CF3 A-479 TP 316 A-563 A-582 GR 416 A-703 A-705 GR 630 B-145 Alloy 836 B-438 GR 1 TP ll i
B-584 Alloy 836 According to ASME Section 11. Parts A and B, the specifications for ASTM A-36, A193, A194, A-307, A-351, A-479, A-563, A-703, A-705, and B-584 have equivalent mechanical properties to ASME Section 11, Parts A and B, Subsections SA-36, SA193, SA194, SA-307, SA-351, SA-479, SA-563, SA-703, SA-705, and RR.RAA Thornfnro mmnnnante mneta imm mntarinic mmnluinn Pmted 12/49710:12-o6 AM Pege i of"3 I
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0434 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 6
with these specifcations are considered acceptaNe, However, specifications B-438, A 582, SA 276 and SA 296 are not listou in ASME Sedion 11. Therefore, components constructed from materials designed to specifications B-438, A-582, SA 276, SA-2N, A 276, anc' A296 do not have mechanical properties in accordance with ASME Sedion ll. Containment recirculation spray system components constructed from these materials are:
3RSS*MOV20A,B,C,D 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,D 3RSSN3, 6, 9,12 3RSS*V35,36 3RSS*V32 33 3RSS*V58 59 3RSS*V62-63 3RSS*V66-67 3RSS*V913 3RSS*V916 3RSS*V920-931 3RSS*V948-953 3RSS*V988-995 3RSS*V958-959 3RSS*V961962 3RSS*V26-29 3RSS*V64-65 3RSS*V68-69 3RSS*V912 3RSS*V974971 3RSS*V973 3RSS*V977 978 3RSS*V984 3RSS*V967 968 3RSS*V980-981 3RSS*V911 N
Vand inveed Deee initiator: Feingold, D. J.
O O
O 2 '17'87 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B
O O
11/1S*S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q 12/1S7 IRC Chmn: Singt., Anand K Q
O O
$2/ss7 Date:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
WiiW identitled by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent conditior?Q Yes @) No Pe% Pr.eding?O ves @ No noe iution uareceivedtO vos @ No AWa*
Not Acceptable Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
O 3
Printed 12/4/9710-12-16 AM n~.,
Page 2 of 3 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34434 wiistone unit 3
- Discrepancy Report accd sgGs' O
e 8
a e
om.:
sL Comments:
t Printed 12/M710:1220 AM Page 3 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0644 MiHetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew occup: systwr DRVAUD Revtew Eterunt: System Design Diecipline: Structural Design Ow En, ciType: Calcu:ahon g
Systemerocess: QSs NRC SignNicence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Pubilohed.123/97 F-
- :i. Calculation reference discrepancy
==
Description:==
Calc. # 12179-BE 52WV,RO We have revievied Millstone Unit 3 Equipment Foundation Calc.
- 12179-BE-52WV,RO. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy.
- 1. This calculation was provided by NU to confirm the adequacy of equipment foundation fer Junction Box No. 3QSS*JB27.This calculation is a generic calculation for the qualification of Dwg.
No.12179-BE 52WV. Specific calculations for the subject equipment could not be found in the aforementioned calculations.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date insdator: Kleic, N O
O 11/22/97 VT Laod: Neri, Anthony A Q
Q 11/22/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K G
O O
12/11e7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anend K Q
Q Q
12/347 Date:
DNALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by nut U Yes @ No NonDiscrepantCondition?Q vos (9) No R oiononPend.ng7 0 ve.
@ No Receiviu unre.oev.d70 ve.
@ No Review areap8ah4=
Not A -:9; "" ~ Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A -
VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 12/49710:12:57 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0463 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Programmetc DR VALIO Review Element: Corrective Action Process Necaptwo: Mechancel Design O va th -;__;y Type: Calculation g
syseenWProcess: N/A NRC E J 12 level:4 Does Faxed k NU-Date Puldlehed.12ft/97 Discrepancy: Design Basis Calculation for Ventilation System Oescribed in Design Deficiency Report (DDR) No. 870
==
Description:==
The DDR was originally dispositioned on 1/21/88 as " accept as is'. The technical justification included an estimate (not calculation) of maximum credible hydrogen concentration in air for the portion of system of interest and concluded that the design (which uses compressed air as purge supply for the rad monitors sample) was acceptable and that no further action was warranted. Another document in the DDR package (labeled to GMB-87 R 192) oocuments a subsequent review of the DDR disposition concluding that documentation is inadequate...and that the estimate of hydrogen concentration in the original disposition should be documented in a formal calculation with traceable references. This subsequent review was dated and signed on 5/22/87. No evidence in the package exists to indicate that the actions to prepare a formal design basis calculation were completed.
Review Veild invalid Needed Date Inteletor: Nevens, Mark O
O O
11 * '7 VTLead: Ryan, Thunos J G
O O
ittiw'7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
12i1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
Q 12rJ/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Previously identined by NU7 O vos @ No NonDiecrepentCondition?O vos @ No ResolutionPending?O vos @ No Reeoaution uar.eoived?O vos @ No Review a=,^'--
Not aerap8aMa NeeJed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgt: Schopter. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Commente:
Printed 12/4/9710:13:41 AM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34476 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Reviewaroup: conn rman ORvAuD e
Review ElerM: SystemInstatehon Diesip Ene: Other Ow r --- y Type: Instelisten implementemon gg s^,: : ; = HVx NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU-Date published.12/1/97
, :i. Waikdown Discrepancies of HVX and SLCRS Deecription: The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdov/n of the ductin0 and mechanical equipment of the HVX and SLCRS:
- 1. Flow elements 3HVRTE88A and 3HVR*FE888 have no NU labels.
- 2. Instrument line 3HVR-PDIS157A has an additional support (first support from the filter 3HVRTLT3A) that is not shown on drawing EK-512123 Rev 2.
- 3. Support DSA1139 shown on drawing BZ 545-48 Rev3 has an additional lateral pipe restraint attached to one of the vertical le0s of the support that is not shown on the drawing or its unincorporated DCNs.
- 4. Damper 3HVR*DMPB5B has no NU label.
- 5. Dampers 3HVR*DMPB6A and 3HVR*DMPF23 have no visible NU labels.
- 6. Dampers 3HVR*DMPBSA and 3HVR*DMPF22 have no visible NU labels.
- 7. Part of duct next to dampers 3GWS*AOD78A/B is not insulated (2 hr fire rated) as called for on drawing EB-45L Rev13.
- 9. Flow elemont 3HVR*FES2B label reads *FEB8A.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Reed, J. W.
O O
O 1111
- S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q 11/1W97 VT Mgr: Schopter. Don K G
O O
271/9 7 1RC CNnn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
12/3/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Printed 12/N97 fo:14:23 AM '
r T v-eni m m
m=---
-,r T v_
<ai m m- - ' -
-- w an n Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0476 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report
+
PMdMPending70 v
@ No -
R iuison unt ev.d70 v
@ No Review A -: --; ^ "- Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chenn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Conenents:
Printed 12/49710-14.31 AM Page 2 of 2
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0677 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: ConAgurshon DR VALJD Review E wnent: System instensuon Diecipline: Otrar g y, Ok, :p Type: Installamon imr%mentaten Om 8,n..._ = :HVX NRC sL!" =- e level:3 Date faxed to HU:
Does Pubilohed: 52/7/97 r
-i; Walkdown Discrepancies of HVX and SLCRS
==
Description:==
The following discrepancy item was found during the walkdown of the ducting and mechanical equipment of the HVX and SLCRS:
Dampers 3HVR*DMP6, 'DMP7, and 'DMP8 were observed on 11/13/97 to still be in summer position and should be adjusted to fully closed winter position on 11/1/yr per P&lD EM-148A Rev 25 note 17 and PDCR MP3-93-014.
Review Vead invalid Needed Date War: Reed, J. W-G O
O i'1457 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G
O O
11/20 S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
52riso7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
12r397 Dele:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION M/M;identNied by Nur O Yes (G.) No Non co : - : Condition 7Q Yes (9) No R onmoneenmao70 vos @ No Roomuor.unroemed70 vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Accepteblo Needed Date gg b
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Commente:
1 l
Printed 12/4/971015.04 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0478 Millstone unit 3
. Discrepancy Report Rev6.w aroup: Conn nman DR VAuD e
Review Element: System Desagn Diecipune: mer O v.
ti.
-- p Type: Drewmg gg systemesocess: HvX NRC signincence leve: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dee Putdiohed: 12/7/97 g
- sii Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for HVX and SLCRS r
, ~ The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lD with the as built duct drawings for the HVX and SLCRS:
- 1. On P&lD EM-184E Rev 12 (B-3) flow element 3HVR-FE20-33 in the stack should show tubing lines and root valves to be consistent with other P&lDs.
- 2. On P&lD EIL'GE Rev 12 the 61n x 6in 30 CFM register between %mpers 3HR*DMPF60 and 3HR*DMPF61 (I-7) is shown on drawing EB-15P Rev 14 as a 10in x Bin register.
- 3. On drawing EB-45H Rev 12 Note 13 should be removed as bracket was removed by PDCR MP3-91 124 and its implementing DCNs that have been incorporated.
- 4. On P&lD EM-1488 Rev 15 (A-9, D-9) darnpers
- MOD 49C1 and
- MOD 50C1 should be shown nonnally open and noted to fall close as per spec 2472.900 594. Also
- MOD 50C2 should be noted to fall close.
- 5. On P&lD EM-148A Rev 25 (A-6, B-7, G-3) dampers
- AOD42B, *AOD43B, and MOD 28A should be noted to fall close as per spec 2472.900-594.
Review VeBd invalid Needed Date initiator: Reed, J. W.
O Q
Q 11/14/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony ^
O O
O 11/19/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
12/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
12/3/97 Dele:
INVAUD:
Dele:
RESOLUTION Previouslyidentined by Nur _Q vos @ No Non IJiecrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Re.wunonPenana70 vos @ No Roewouonvareewved70 va @ No
'~
"" Y initiator: (none)
VTLeW: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Ntc Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
Printed 12/49710:153W ~~-'
Pege 1 of 2
M Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0678 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report n__.._-.
S 4
PrWed 12/49710:15:53 AM Page 2 of 2
i Northeast Utlittles
!OAVP DR No. DR MP3 OSS5 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
fieview Group: Programmeho DR VAUD Review Element: ConectNo Achon Procese O va j
E:, - :p Type: ConectNo Action g
"', _.- - ' GSs NRC @iac mos level: 3 Dele Faxed to NU:
j Date Putdiohed: 12/T47 i
r lii Maternal Change for Casing Wear Ring on Work order M3 :
03700 D=cewe6on: During a review of closcout of Design Defick.ty Report (DDhi 00295, it was noted that DDR 295 was closed out to UN8AT No.
UNS 3040. PMMS work order M3-85-03700 (which is included in the closeout documentation for UNSAT 3040) Indicates that a material change (from CD4MCU to Brass) was made to the casing wear rings for 30 SSP 3A. No evidence in the supporting documents provided indicates that a design change was processed. The material change to brass is contrary to the I
approved Design Specification (Spec. No. 2214.602-040 Addendum No. 6 dated 5/30/19) and the Vendor data (Goulds Fumps) sheet and drawing N235734#2 Rev 2 contained in OlM-040-001 A, whicli state that casing wear rings shall be CD4MCU, hardness 240 BHN.
Review Valld inveild Needed Date intuator: Nenno, Mark G
O O
12rtie7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J B
D O
i2ris7 VT Mgr: Schopfer DonK O
O O
5:til'7 1RC Camim: Singh, Anerul K Q
O O
$2/557 Date:
INVAUD:
Dele:
1 RESOLUTION-
~
Previonely identiaed by NU? U ves (0) No NonD6ecrepardCondiuon?O vos (#1 No PM% Pending?O yee @ No P - % unroe.eved? O v a @ N.
Review Not Accapenhaa Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomme J j
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:
sL Commente:
s 4
PrNed 12/4P to26%)o AM Pops i of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4709 f
Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syotem DR VAUD Moview Element: System Deeien O v.
E:::, - ;y Type: NW gg systemereceae: HVX NRC signoscence leW: 4 Does faxed to NU:
Does Putdiohed: 12/1/97 rm- :y: Fan 3HVR*FN13NB Pressure Requirements C+4 During review of the duct pressure drop calculation and f an perfonnance data for charging pump, component cooling pump and heat exchanger area exhaust fans 3HVR*FN13A/B a discrepancy regartilng the calculated fan pressure requirement and the fan performance rating was identified, Per specification 2170.430140 and vendor drawing 2170,430 140-9J exhaust fans 3HVR*FN13A/B are rated at 30,000 cfm and 6.5 iwg total pressure, Per calculatlon PBV-45AG 1 the total pressure requirement for the fan is 6.6g lwg. The calculation should address the higher than fan rating pressure requirements on fan performance, Rev6ew vand imelid Needed Oste initiator: Stout, M. D.
G O
O li/22/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A Q
Q Q
11/22/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
12/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
12/587 Date:
DNAUD:
REs0LUTION:
Previously identeRed by NU7 U Yes @ No NonD6ecropertCondluon?Q Yes @ No ResolutionPendmg?O yee @ No ResolutionUnresolvedtO yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable NeedeJ Date inluetm M VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
g g
vT u r: Schopeer, con K e
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Dele:
sL Commente:
e J
-