ML20202J320
| ML20202J320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1998 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9802230131 | |
| Download: ML20202J320 (68) | |
Text
i*,
1
)
b Sar grarW$ Lundy 8 $ $
h/
le$oIV! P7s'nt 312 269 6078 February 19,1998 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423
-Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
~ Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Co6rective Action Verification Program United States N_uclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk.
Washington, D.C, 20555 -
Enclosed are discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our. : view activities for the ICAVP.
These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.
I have also enclosed the following twenty five (25) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L DR No. DR-MP3-0098 DR No. DR-MP3-0395 DR No. DR-MP3-0106.
DR No. DR-MP3-0402 DR No. DR-MP3-0118 DR No. DR-MP3-0471 DR No. DR-MP3-0119 DR No. DR4.fP3-0681 DR No. DR-MP3-0121 DR No. DR-MP3-0807 DR No. DR-MP3-0126 DR No. DR-MP3-0864 DR No. DR-MP3-0165 DR No. DR-MP3-0882 DR No. DR-MP3-0182 DR No. DR-MP3-0883
(
DR No. DR-MP3-0259 DR No. DR-MP3-0885 DR No. DR-MP3-0313 DR No. DR-MP3-0945 N
/-
' DR No. DR-MP3-0363 DR No. DR-MP3-0949 DR No. DR-MP3-0364 DR No. DR-MP3-0973 DR No. DR-MP3-0985 9802230131 980219 PDR ADOCK 05000423
~
55 Easu ;nrce Street + Chicago, IL 60603-5780 OcA
- 312 269 2000 s
I
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 19,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the three (3) DRs for which the NU resolutions have bee,. reviewed but not accepted. S&L cosaments on these remlutions have been provided.
DR No. DR-MP3-0366 DR No. DR-MP3 0674 DR No. DR-MP3-0703 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly,
$J,0%' AL D. K. Schopfer Senior Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU m \\ica9 cor69 tar 0219.a4w
\\
__________.__..__.____._.______J
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0098 Millston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR rtESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Potential Operability lasue Diocepl6ne: Pap 6ng Design O ve.
Discrepancy Type: Calculation
@) No System / Process: RSS NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 9/1497 D6screpar<y: Qualification of End loads for Expansion Joints is required.
Deecription: In the process of reviewing Calculation 12179-NP(F)-X7923 Rev.
1, including Calculation Change Notice (CCN) No.'s 1 through 5 we noted the following discrepancy:
The calculation 12179-NP(F)-X7923 Rev.1 has an unverified assu.iption that Expansion Joints 3RSS*EJ1 A to D and EJ2A to D are qualified for the end loads computed in the revised calculation.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inittetor: singh, R.
O O
O
$/4S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A C
C O
9/8/97 VT Mgr: Scnopfer, Don K G
O O
S/SS7 t
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
S/S/S7 Dei.:
INVALID:
Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-00580 Disposition; NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0098 does not represent a discrepant condition.
Calculation Change Notice (CCN) 4 and 5 of the subject calculation are in - process calculations. It was desirable to issue CCN 4 and 5 in an effort to expedite the reconciliation of pipe support loads, equipment nozzles, and other commodities, expansion joint loads were processed through the equipment vender and were expected to require an extended schedule. As such, confirmation required status was appropriate for the resolution of the expansion joint loads. Final approval for the expansion joint loads is currently under review and is a start-up item.
Note that CCN's 4 and 5 were issued under Stone & Webster's (S&W) calculation preparation and control procedures which allow, on an exception basis, issuloq calculations with unverified assumptions. Once the calculations are issued, S&W is responsible for tracking resolution of the unverified assumptions.
. Refer to Attachment A, SWNEO 5.06 which govems calculation preparation and control, and Attachment B, interoffice memorandum room R. Smith to R, Bain which allows calculations to be issued for the QSS, RSS and Si task with unverified assum;'lons.
Printed 2/19/9811:07:4s AM Page 1 of 2
Northea:t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0098 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
l NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0098 does not represent a discrepant condition.
The subject calculation was issued per the requirements of Stone & Webster Nuclear Engineering and Operation Procedure SWNEO 5.06, revision 4, attachment A. The written approval to issue the calculation with an 'inverifieu assumption was provided by attachment B.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Prev 6ously identified by NU7 O vee @ No Non Discrepent Condition?@ vee U No Resolution Pend 6ng?O vee @ No Resouionuareeoiv.d?O vee @ wo Review Acceptable Not Accogme Needed Date s
R.
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mr. Schopfer, Don K IRC chmn: s%h, Anand K Date:
2/16/98 sL commente: This discrepancy has been resolved in Calculation 12179-NP(F).
X7923, Rev. 2. Therefore, there is no discrepant condition.
Printed 2/19/9811:07:45 AM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34106 MillstDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operatetty issue D6ecipline: Electrical Deang6 O v.
Dioceepency Type: Drede
@ No System / Process: OsS NRC Significance level: 4 Deu FAKod to NU:
Date Putsched: 9/14/97 D6screpancy: Logic and Schematic Drawing Discrepancy for QSS MOVs De*ctl tion: Note 6.6 on the general notes logic drawing LSK-0 3B indicates P
that for valves that perform a safety function, the torque switches are bypassed 95% of valve travel. The schematic drawings for the QSS MOVs (3QSS*MOV34A & B) indicate that the torque switches are bypassed with limit switch contacts. The limit switch contacts, in effect, bypass the torque switch at 100% of valve travel. Reference schematic drawings ESK-6LS and ESK-6LT.
A similar condition was identified in the Service Water System via Unresolved item Report (UIR) No. 2099. The recommended resolution of UIR 2099 is to revise note 6.6 in the general notes drawing LSK 0-38.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Morton. R.
O O
O S*S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q
Q Q
9/8/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K B
O O
SSS7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K G
O O
o'S'S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 2/17/98 RELOLUTION: Dispositjon:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0106 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawing LSK-0-3S will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepant y Report DR-MP3-0106 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawing LSK-0-38 will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. No field modifications are required.
Cor.dition Reoort (CR) M3-97 3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Pra my identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent CondMion?O Ye.
@ No Resoluuon Pending70 ve.
@ No Re.oiution unre.oived70 v..
@ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date
,_m_,_.
Prtnted 2/19/9811:09:16 ANT Page 1 or 2
)
Northe:st Utiles ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0106 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report itJ L,'AQa O
O O
2/im e
O O
2., =
v1
,: we,.oon x O
O vi m IPtc Chann: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Dele:
SL Comments:
Pr6nted 2/15 f9611M18 AM Pg2W2
Northe:st Ut!: Hies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0118 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: Systern DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potenuel etery lone Discrepancy Type: Drawing gg System /Procese: Rss NRC Sigreconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date PutWshed: 9/1497 D6screpency: Scheinatic and Logic Drawing Discrepancy for RSS Pump Motor Circuit
==
Description:==
Logic Diagrams LSK 2711 A, LSK 2711B, LSK 2711J, and LSK 2711K !ndicate that there is a ' Loss of Power" Interlock in the s' art circuit of the recirculation pump motors (3RSS*P1 A, P1B, F 1C & P1D). The schematic drawings (ESK SCN, SCP, SCQ, and SCR) do not indicate a ' loss of power" interiock i-the starting circuit, but do show the loss of power interlock in the
' trip' circuit. These logic diagrams are not consistent in representing the loss of,.ser interlock in the start circuit with other similar motor start circuits, such as 3QSS*P3A and 30SS*P3B (reference logic diagrams LSK 27-12A and LSK 27 12E).
The representation of tht; loss of power interlock in the RSS logic diagrams implies that there is a " loss of power" contact in the start circuit of the motors. The representation of the loss of power interlock in the QSS logic diagrams does not imply a " loss of power" contact in the start circuit of the motor Both the QSS and RSS schematic drawings, for the pump motors, Indicate a
" loss of power" contact in the trip circuit only.
Review Vei6d invenid Needed Cde intuetor: Morton, R.
Q Q
9/B,97 VT Leed: Ne t Anthony A g
Q Q
9/BS7 VT Mor: schopfer, Don K Q
Q 9/9/97 wic chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
S'S/S7 Date:
wvAuo:
Date:
2/9/98 RESOLUTION: Dispoc4t!m NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0118 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The drawings will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0118 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawings LSK-2711 A,11B,11J and 11K will be revised to eliminrate the discrepancy. No field changes Printed 2/19se 11:10-13 AM Page 1 of 2
._____ O
Northeact Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0118 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report are required Condition Repoft (CR) M3-97 3246 has been written to provide the necessary Corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Previously identmed by NU7 U Yes (9) No Non D6screpent Condotton?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pend 6ng?O ve.
@ No Resolutionunresolved?O ve.
@ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initletor: Morton, R.
O
O 317 2 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
U O
Date:
SL Conenents:
e D
Printed 2/19/9011:10:13 AM Page 2 of 2
[
l Northent Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0119 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED 3
Potential Operetnlity lseue D6ecipune: Doctrical "*"
O vos D6screpancy Type: Drewtng
@ No SystemProcese: Rss NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6shed. 9/1497 D6ecropency: Logic and Schematic Drawing Disrepancy for RSS MOVs Ducrisd6on: Note 6.6 on the Senaral notes INic drawing LSK-0-3B indicates that for valves that orform a safety function, the torque switches f
are bypassed 95% of valve travel. The schematic drawin0s for the RSS MOVs indicate that the torque switches are bypassed with limit switch contacts. These limit switches bypass the torque switches at different ranges of valve travel as indicated below:
The limit switch contacts which are in parallel with the torque switches w'll bypass the torque switches at approximately:
- 100% of valve travel for MOVs 20A, B, C, &D, and 23A, B, C,
& D.
- 85% of valve travel for MOVs 38A & B.
- 80% of valve travel for MOVs 8837A & B and 8838A & E.
Note, a similar condition was identified in the Service Water System via Unresolved item Report (UIR) No. 2099. The recommended resolution of UIR 2099 is to revise note 6.6 in the general notes drawing LSK 0-38.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Mortort R.
O O
O S'5"~
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
9/8/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B
O O
S/S/S7 IRC chmn: singh, Anand K B
D 0
S/S'S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
2/9/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0119 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU whicts requires correction. The drawings will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Concluslun:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0119 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawing LSK-0-3B will be revised to elimin;te the discrepancy. No changes in the field are required.
Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide Printed 2/19/9811:11:30 AM Page 1 of 2
NortheaCt Utilitle0 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34119 Millstone Unit 3 Disciopancy Report the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
~
Previously iderdined by NU7 U Yes @ No NonD6ecrepentCondition?O Yee (9) No ResolutionPond6ng70 vee @)No Renoiuison un,. iv.470 vee @ No Review Accept.ble Not Acceptable Needed Date k W w* h,R.
VT Leed: Nett, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
IN 2/19/9611:11:31 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0121 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Re /lew Ofoup: system DR RFSOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Deegn Potential operability issue Discipl6ne: Doctrical Design O v.e Discrepency Type: Drawing
@ No SystenWProcess: sW.
NRC Significance level: 4 p
Date Published: 9/1497 D6*crapency: Logic and Schematic Drawing Discrepancy for SWP MOVs Descripuan: Note 6.6 on the general notes logic drawing LSK-0-3B indicates that for valves that perform a safety function, the torque switches are bypassed 95% of volve travel. The schematic diagrams for the SWP MCVs (3SWP*MOV24A, B, C, & D,50A & B,71 A & B, and 102A, B, C, & D indicate that the torque switches are bypassed with limit switch contacts. Th'e limit switch contacts, in effect, bypass the torque switches at 100% of valve travel.
Reference schematic diagrams ESK-6DD,6DE,6DF,6DG, 6AAK,6AAL, BAAM,6AAN, BAAU,6AAV,6AAW, and 6AAX.
Note, a similar condiCon was identified in the Service Water Sys'em via Unr6
.<ed Ittm Repurt (UIR) Na,2090, for other MOVs. The recommended resolution 01 U!R 2099 is to revise note 6.6 in the general notes drawing LSK 0-3D.
Review valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Morton, R.
8 O
O S/3'87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B
O O
o<a/97 VT Mgt; schopfer Don K 8
O O
S'S'S7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K 8
O O
SS'S7 Date:
INVALID:
C Dete: 2/17/98 REs0LUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3- 0121 has identified a condition not prev'ously discovered by NU which requires correction. The draw,ngs will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to rt. solve this issue.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0121 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawing LSK-0 3B will be revised to eliminate the discrepancy. No changes in the field are required.
Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Previously identified by NU?
(.,,) Yes @ No Non Discrepeat condition?() Yes
(*) No Resolution Pending?O vu @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O ves @ No Review Printed 2/19/9811:12:00 AM Page 1 cf 2
Northext Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0121 Mllistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Acceptatde MA Acceptaue Needed Date VT M: Neri, Anthony A 7
O O
O 2/17/se RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
one.:
SL Comments:
Printed 2/195511:12:01 AM Page 2 of 2 I
l l
l
'b Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0126 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Repoft Review oroup: SyWwn DR RESOLUTION ACCEr'TED Review Elwned S@ W Potential OperabiNty issue Di=ipane: asctrics Demon o y,,
j Discrepency Type: Drewing gg l
Syster;VProcese: SWP NRC Signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished: Br14"J7 D6screpancy: Schematic and Logic Diagram Discrepancy for Reset of Motor Lockout Relay and Indication Light
==
Description:==
Logic diagram LSK 9-10J (3SWP*P1 A and 3SWP*P1C) indicates that the reset of the motor protection lockout relay and amber light indication requires an interiock from the local / remote handswitch. The interlock is identified as a
- local
- contact from the local / remote handswitch. The schematic diagram (ESK-5CJ and SCL) indicatt:s that the interlock should be from a "remoto*
contact of the handswitch. Similar logic diagram LSK-9-108 (36WP'P1B and 3SWP*P1D) and schematic diagrams (ESK-SCK and SCM) indicates that the interlock is from a " remote" contact of the handswitch.
Review Voi6d invend Needed Date inatlator: Morton, R.
O O
O
. stats 7 VT Lead: Nert Anthony A G
O O
S'8/S7 VT Mor: Schophr Don K G
O O
S'S/S7 IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Arund K
-G O
O S/11/S7 -
Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0126 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The logic information between the transfer switch and the reset condition for the motor protection lockout relay and amber indicating light on LSK-09-10J will be moved from the Local to the Remote position on the transfer switch to agree with ESK SCJ & SCL. Condition Report (CR) M3 #
3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0126 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Drawing LSK-09-10J will be revised to agree with drawings ESK 5CJ and SCL. No changes in the field are required. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.
Prevlocsty identified by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O yes
(*) No Resolution Pending?O ve.
@ No Re. sui % unre.sved?O ve.
@ No Review Printed 2/19t9e 11:13.03 AM Page 1 of 2 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-C126 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report O
O WS VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A 0
g O
wa vimr: schope.r. oon x e
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anord K a
~
Date:
GL Comments:
}
Pnnted 2/1EW9811:13:04 AM Paps 2 of 2
Northeast UtilRies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0165 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: systern DR ktSOLUTION ACCEPTED PotentialOpereldittyissue Dimipline: Mwhardcol Design O vee l
Discrepancy Type: NW gg SystervvProcess: Rss NRC Sigadacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: F29/97 06ecrop.ncy: Minimum Wall Calculations Reference the FSKs for Design Temperature and Pressure Deurt tion: The minimum wa'l calculations reference the flow diagrams P
(FSKs) for the design temperature and pressure of the lines.
The FSKs are 'For Information Only" documents and are superseded by the piping diagrams and the line list. The desing temperature used in Calculation MW(F)-122 is different from the value in the line list.
MW(F) 122 Line List Temperature 235 260 Review Veild inveild Neered Date instietor: Langet. D.
G O
O 9/23s7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
& 73/97 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K O
O O
S/2s/s7 iRc chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
9/25/97 onee:
INVALID:
Dete: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0165 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3460 has been ap; roved to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve the incorrect temperature used in Calculation MW(F)-
122. Minimum wall calculations continue to reference FSKs due to changes NU has made in the use of controlled documents as described below.
a.
The FSK's were the documents of record for the design pressure and temperature under Stone and Webster. FSKs were the proper document of reference for most piping calculations since they were performed when design control was under the Stone end Webster system. After tumover, information from the FSKs was translated under the Northeast Utilities system into Line Designation Tables and P&lDs. FSK's were then retired in place as historical documents. Some DCNs have been written against FSKs to clarify historical information. As a policy, if i
changes are only administrative in nature, such as changes in drawing number, changes in revision level of a reference, etc.,
Northeast Util tles does not revise all calculaticris which contain those references. If the calculation needs revision due to a change in values (such as design conditions) which affect the Printed 2/1&9811:13A4 AM Pege 1 of 2
Northea:t Utilitle3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0166 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
results of the calculation, then references would be updated at that time, b.
Pipe minimum wall requirements were based on Generic code allowables and piping specification requirements.
Minimum wall calculations were only used when field conditions required a more precise calculation. Calculation MW(F)-122 was performed in 1982 to determine the acceptable minimum wall thickness for a pipe spool which had an indication that was less than the standard minimum wall allowance for the rege8 ed pipe t
schedule. At that time the design temperature for that portion of the system was 235' F. This was chan9ed to 260'F by Stone and Webster under their program in 1985 (Calculation P(R).
1186). Calculation MW(F)-122 should then have been updated to reflect the new condition. The existing wall thickness is 0.318 inches. The calculated allowed minimum wall thickness is appmximately.03 inches. Therefore the existing minimum wall of the piping in question is acceptable under the changed design temperature input.
This calculation will be updated in accordance with the corrective action plan for CR M3-97 3460.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0165 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Calculation MW(F)-122 will be revised in accordance with the approved corrective action plan for Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3460. This calculation will be updated post startup in accordance with the corrective action plan for CR M3-97 3460.
Previously identiaed by I4U? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condetkm?O Yes @ No nemouionPeaano?O Yee @ No Resoukmunroewed?O Yee @ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acce Needed Date m, g g, VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
2/17/98 sL Comments: The item meets the deferral criteria for revising the calculation.
1 Printed 2/19/9811:13.45 AM Page 2 of 2 l
NortheCst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0182 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Revlow Element: system Doolgn g
Diecipilne: Piping Design Ow D6ecrepency Type: ceiculetwi g
Systemfrocees: sWP NRc Significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6shed: fv29/g7 D6screpewy: Discrepancy in ' confirmation required' status for stress analysis calculation NP(B).X53902
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) Pipe Stress Analysis Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53902, Rev.
1, CCN'S 1 to 5 (ii) Pipe Stress Reconcillation isometric Drawing 12179-Cl-SWP-32A-4, Rev.12 (iii) Pipe Support Calculation 12179-NP(F) 2 739B-258, Rev. 2 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Revision 1 of the pipe stress calculation (i) has two items that require confirmation.
The first item is asnmption 2 on page 7. It is appropriately mark-d on the cover sheet of the calculation, and has been confirmed in CCN No.1.
The second is the installation of a pipe support modification assumed in the pipe stress analysis. A lateral constant type (l.C) pipe support is assumed at node point (NP) 117 of the 53902D piping model. Page B2 states that the installation of the assumed support modification requires confirmation. Page B56 indicates that a support number for the support at NP 117 will be identified later. On page E12 it is stated that the new support at NP 117 is not installed. However, this confirmation required item has not been identified on the cover-sheet.
The requirement of a new support at NP 117 has not been addressed by the calculation change notices 1 through 5. A -
notice of confirmation removalis attached to the calculation. The notice states that confirmation requirements from the large bore pipe stress design calculation have been removed entirely. But the statment only addresses the first item. No mention is made of the second item.
According to (11): The isometric shows a strut marked PSST-258 at the location corresponding to NP 117. The support PSST-258 has been designed and analyzed in (iii).
Discrepancy:
In the nina etreet ann!vele entrietntinn m thA inctallatinn nf PART.
~
Page 1 of 3 Pnnted 2/19/9611:14:35 AM
Northert UtlHties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0182 Millstee Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 258 support has not been cor' firmed.
Review Valid invahd Needed Date initleton Prokash, A.
O O
O S'12/87 VT Lead: Nwt. Anthony A B
O O
S'15S7 vi u n schoew, con x 8
O O
a22/s7 e
1Rc chmn: singh, Aned K Q
Q Q
9/26/97 oste:
INVAllO:
pese: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3 IRF-00588 Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0182, does not represent a discrepant condition.
Calculation Change Notice (CCN) 4 rep l aces the calculation Attachment E," Stress Reconciliation Report"(SRR) with a new SRR dated 8-19-85. Question 8.a of the new SRR states that all supports are installed on line 3-SWP-006-32-3. The Pipe Stress Reconcillation isometric Drawing Cl-SWP-32A-4, revision 12 which delineates line 3-SWP-006-32 3 and support PSST 258 is referenced on page 2 of CCN-4 as being part of the reconcillation walkdown package thereby confirming the installation of support PSST 258. In addition, the Notice of Confirmation Removal form which is attached to the back of the calculation e7d references CCN's 1 through 5 states that confirmation requirements from the large bore pipe stress design calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53902-1 have entirely been removed.
The hand written note provided at the ttttam of the Inter Office Communication (IOC) form provides additional clarification that the confirmation requirements for assumptions in the calculation were removed per CCN-4 and that CCN 1 through 5 have no Confirmation Required items added.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0182, does not represent a discrepant condition. The new Stress Reconciliation Report dated 8/19/85 which is part of Calculation Change Notice CCN-4 provides confirmation on page 16, question 6.a, that all pipe supports including PSST 258 have been Installed. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Prevlously identifled by NU? U ve.
@ No Non D6sciopent Condition?(*) Yes O No Hesoluuon Pend 6ng?O ve.
@ No Reemian unre.aved?O ve.
@ No Review initletor: Prakash. A.
VT Lead: Neri, Antho y A 8
O O
2ii7/98 vr u.,. m,., n,,
Printed 2/19/9811:1435 AM Page 2 of 3
antyp DR N3. DR-MP3 0182 t
Northea:t Utilitie3 lun i
l Ministone Unit 3 Discrepane
- Report
]
$17/96
,iw.
vv' r - -
RC Chmn: Sy, Anand K O
O O
Dele SL Comments:
'k y
Printed 2/199811:14:36 AM Page 3 of 3
Northe:st Utilities
-ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0269 l
MilictDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: System DR RESOttmoN ACCEPTED Reylew Element: system Design Diecipeme: Piping Doovn g.g Discrepancy Type: Calculottun
@ No SystemProcese: SWP NRC SigntAconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 9/2997 Descrepency: Load combination discrepancy in the computation of Normal / Upset and Fautted stresses
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) FSAR Section 3.9B.1.4.1 Loading Conditions (ii) FSAR Table 3.9B-11 Load Combinations for ASME Class 2 and 3 Piping (iii) Pipe Stress Analysis Cnteria Document, NETM-44, Revision 2
(iv) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53901, Rev. 6, CCN's 1 to 3 (v) Pipe Stress Calet:ation 12179-NP(B)-X53900, Rev. 5 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Accord'ng to (1): The structural stress analyses performed for Seismic Category I ASME Code Class 1,2, and 3 piping consider the hading and load combinations spo:ified in Table 3.9B-11 (11).
According to (ii), the normal / upset and f aulted plant operating conditions, ASME 111 Subsection NC Equation's 9N/U and 9F, include loads resulting from seismic loads and occasionalloads other than seismic, i.e. fluid transients. However, no guidance is provided on the combination of moments for the different loading conditions.
For Class 2 and 3 piping, the same table (11) is repeated as Table 4-6 of (ill). Here also, no Quidance is provided on the combination of moments for the different loading conditions. For Class 1 systems, Section 4.1.4.3 of (iii) provides procedures for combining moments due to different loading conditions. The procedure states that "if two or more independent occasional dynamic load casc:: sct simultaneously and need to be combined, this is done by square-root-of-sum-of squares (SRSS). In the case of time history dynamic cases, the moment components utilized are those which produce the maximum resultant moment *,
The above stated moment combinations are formed in (iv) as follows:
S(seismic) = S(oq. 9)- S(eq. 8)
S(eq. 9 total) = [S(seismic)^2 + S(timehistory)^2]^0.5 + S(eq. 8)
Here, S represents the stress level, and eq.'s 8 & 9 refer to the AmutF til.htn r neta animtinne Printed 2/19/9611:1s:58 AM Page 1 of 4 s
l
l NortheCst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0259 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report in (v) the (noment combinations 076 formed as 16110ws:
S(eq. 9 total) = [S(eq. 9)^2 + S(timehistory)^2)*0.5 This is inconsistent with the above procedure, and is un-conservative.
Discrepancy:
In pipe stress calculation (v) the procedure used for combining seismic and fluid-transient induced moments is not consistent with the design criteria, and is un-conservative.
Review vand invend Needed Date inkiesor: Prenmh.^-
0 0
0 S/1SS7 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A Q
Q 9/1&S7 VT Mgr: schopter, Don K O
O O
9/22i97 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
s/2er97 Date:
IPNALID:
Dete: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-01328 Disposition-NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0259 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. NU agrees that the method of the stress combination performed in calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53900 Rev. 5 is not conservative. However, the non-conservatism is not significant because the static stress component (Equation 8) is small in addition, the calculation used bounding values for stress. Thus the eo,uation 9 stress, a maximum for all piping locations with the same piping material, was combined with the maximum time history stress considering cll locations in the model. Given only the summary of computer results, a simplified correct method for dynamic stress combination is to first subtract out the static components of Equation 9, SRSS the difference with the time history results, and then corRne this result by absolute sum to the static components. Since design pressure is the same as maximum pressure, the static components of Equation 9 are represented by Equation 8. Calling the total stress Equation 9T, and time history TH, one can perform the calculation as follows:
Eq. 9T = Eq. 8 + SRSS(Eq. 9 - Eq. 8, TH)
(1)
As identified by Sargent & Lundy, calculation 12179-NP(B)-
53900 contained a manual stress combination that included non-dynamic components in the required SRSS combination. In effect, the combination was performed as:
Eq. 9T = SRSS(Eq. 9. TH)
(2).
Printed 2/19/9611:15:59 AM Page 2 of 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0259 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report This combination (2) is not equivalent to (1) and is not conservative.
From the calculation (v) the following stress summary information is available on pages 75 and 76A:
Eq. 9 at node 2161 = 9648 psi Eq. 8 at node 40= 4683 psl TH et node 445 = 2314 psi Eq. 9 allowable stress = 10,440 psi Usin0 the formula in Equation (1) above, one can bound the total Eq. 9T stress as:
Eq. 9T = Eq. 8+SRSS( Eq. 9 Eq. 8. TH) = 468%+SRSS( 9648 -
4683,2314)
= 10,160 psi < 10,440 psi (normal / upset allowable for equation 9)
Therefore the stress is within the allowable and the design basis for the piping is not exceeded. The net effect of the correction from the reported value of 9922 pst is only (10160 - 9922)/9922
= 0.024 or 2.4%.
Similar analysis for the faulted condition and for other locations would show even less effect. The other 10 stress calculations in the x53900 series were checked for their treatment of time history stresses. Only calculation 12179-NP(B)-x53902 Rev.1 had any defined fluid transient loading that required analysis, in that calculation, the time history loadin0 was combined with earthquake by SRSS within the NUPIPE SW computer analysis.
A sampling of other calculations were examined. Within the service water system, calculation 12179-NP(B)-x1900 Rev. 3 conservatively performed an absolute sum to obtain 10161 Equation 9 stress. This calculation revision was prepared by the same individual who reviewed calculation 12179-NP(B)-x53900 Rev. 5. Calculation 12179-NP(B)-x1901 Rev. 3 had defined fluid iransient loading and was reviewed by the same individual; its time history loading was cumbined within the NUPIPE-SW computer run, in summary, a sample of other calculations requiring combination of time history stresses with earthquake did not find any others with a non-conservative manual combination of the dynamic stresses, it is therefore considered that the methodological error in calculation 12179-NP(B)-x53900 Rev 5 was an isolated e: Tor. Additionally, the non-conservat!sm would be negligible in all but physically unrealistic cases of low seismic inertia but very high values of both equation 8 and time history.CR M3-98-0175 was initiated to address the condition. Its action plan included preparation of a calculation change notice to correct the calculation and review of other calculations to determine extent of condition. The review, described above, did not find any other calculations in which the unconservative method was used.The condition has no impact on satisfaction of the design basis; thus NU believes the item constitutes a Significance Level 4 discrepancy.
N
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0259 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which reautres correction. The completed Pnnted 2/19/9611:15:59 AM Page 3 of 4 uJ
NortheCCt Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34269 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report acthn plan for CR M3-96-0175 included preparation of a calculation change notice (attached) to correct the calculation and a samtie review of other calculations to determine extent of condition. The net effect of the correction on piping stresses was less than 5% and stresses remain within the design basis allowable The review did not find any other calculations in which the unconservative method was used. Since there is no impact on the licensing and design NU has concluded the Significance Level should be 4.
Previously klontifned by NU7 U vos (9) No NonD6ecropoMcondition?U vos
(#') No nosoww=Peamaa70 ve.
@ No n.couionuarosoived7 0 vos @ No moview initiator: Prekash, A.
O O
O mm VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: s@, Anend K oste:
2/16/98 sL conenents: The completed action plan for CR M3-t%0175NU corrected the
" isolated" calculation error. Also, NU has performed a review of similar calculations to determine the extent of the condition. This review did not find any other calculations in which the unconservative method was used.
We, therefore, concur with NU that there is no impact on the licensing and design basis, and that the Significance Level can be changed to 4.
Phnled 2/19/9611:16h) AM Page 4 of 4 l
1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0313 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design pg Discipline: Mechank:el Doogn Om D6screpency Type: Calculation gg System / Process: Rss NRC Signiflcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdtehed lo/23/J7 Discrepency: Calculation P(R)-610 Elevation Error
==
Description:==
The dimensions for the pump discharge elevation is incorrea The calculation uses an elevation of 22'-9". Drawing EP 79N shows the pump discharge is at elevation (-) 23' 3*.
The calculation for the required pressure drop across the orifice, is the pump head minus the friction losses minus the elevation change from the pump discharge to the pump recirculation nozzle. The pemp recirculation nozzle is located at elevation (-)
29' 8" The values in the calculation suggest that the difference is 52'instead of 6'-5". Subtracting the calculation value from the pump head will underestimate the required pressure drop of the orifice by approximately 45'.
The system function is not affected since the orifice size was verified by the pre-operational system test.
Review Valid invalid Naadad Date Inillator: Longel, D, 8
O O
'53'S7 VT Leed: Nort. Arthony A G
O O
'or3/S7 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
1o/13/S7 IRC Chmn: S6nph. Anand K O
O O
10/15/S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: D!sposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3 0313, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI 20 crl'erla and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4128 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
Conclusinn:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report. DR-MI-3-0313, has identitled a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4128 Printed 2/19f9611:16:28 AM Page 1 of 2
~
DR No. DR-MP34313 e
ICAVP Northeast Utilities Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report has been written to develop and track resolut!on of this item per l
RP-4.
Prev 6ously iderdined by NUF O Yes (@ No NonD4ecrepentCondMion?Q Yes (9) No Resolution Pending7O ve. @ No ResoMWUnresdved?O Yes @ No Review inR6atort Lergel,D.
VT Lead: Neri. Arthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: skgh, Anand K Dete:
2/17/98 CR M3-97-4128 recommends revising the calculation. This items st Comments:
meets the deferral criteria since testing has confirmed the orifice slZlDQ.
s Page 2 of 2
'P'nnted 2/195411:16:28 AM
l DR No. DR MP3-0363 ICAVP Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report DR RESOLUTK)N ACCEPTED Review Group: system Review Element: System Design Potential 0pereldlety issue Diecipinne: Ppino Design Q yes D6screpancy Type: Ceiculeton
@ Na systenVProcess: sWP Date faxed to NU:
NRC Significance level: 4 Date Published: 11/13/97 Analysis raethod for vent / drain configurations in calc NP(B)-408 06screpancy:
is inconsistent with design criteria In the process of reviewing the following documents, Descristion:
(1) Design and installation of Small Bore Piping, NETM-24, Rev. 3 (ii) Calculation 12179-NP(B)-408-XD, Rev. O, 4/3/84 (ii) Interoffice Memorandum, Review of Calculation 12179-NP(B)-
692 XD, From RFHankinson to GPMilley, February 2,1984 we noted the following discrepa icy:
Background:
According tu (1): In the evaluation of vent / drain configurations, applicable seismic accelerations at the point of attachment (to header piping or equipment) are the higher of the values from computer analysis results (of the header piping) or the zero period acceleration (ZPA). ZPA values are ontained from the applicable ARS curve for the building and elevation where vent / drain is located. These seismic acceleration values, multiplied by a f actor of 1.5, should be applied to calculate seismic reaction and stresses.
According to (ii): The objec',lve of the calculation is to perform a small bore pipe stress analysis for a general arrangement of vents and drains for all elevations of all buildings. The vents and drains and root valve piping were analyzed as free end connections, it is assumed that statically applied deflections at the connection point would not generate any forces or moments in the piping system. Therefore, static and dynamic displacements were omitted from the analysis. The piping was seismically analyzed in the x, y and z directions by using the amplified response spectra curves for all buildings and all elevations.
According to (111):
- If the vent / drain is rigid in comparison with the piping response, the vent / drain will experience the maximum piping response. If the vent / drain is not rigid in comparison with the piping response, the vent / drain will experience an amplification of the maximum piping response *,
- Piping is excited by the building response through its supporting me"ia, and as the free standing vent / drain is not attached to the building there can be no defendable justification for using building response to qualify the vent / drain".
Page 1 of 3 Pnnled 2/19/9011:17:49AM
- 1 v
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0363 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I I l'
Discrepancy:
The scismic analysis performed in (ii) is incoialstent with the requirements of the design criteria for small bore piping (l).
Specifically, no justification is provided in (ii) to ignors the possible amplification of the slet mic excitation Yput for the small bore piping analysis resulting from the dynamic sesponse of the header piping subjected to the seismic excitations at its attachment to the building.
Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: Prakash. A.
O O
O iS~3SS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10/31/97 VT Mgt: schopfer. Don K O
O O
i t'r>S7 inc chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
$5/"S7
)
Dei.:
INVALID:
=
Date: 2/16/98 REsoLUTloN: Response ID;MS IRF 01607 Disposition:
Nu has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0363, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which Q
requires correction. The discrepant condition should be reviewed in the context of the design process. As the design process evolved, the criteria for vent and drain qualification was enhaticed. Beginning with the referenct (111) Interoffice memo, Engineering attempted to develop a defendable position regarding appropriate amplification factors to be applied to vent and drain configurations. During the final stress reconcillation process in mid 1985, it was determined that the qualification raethod to be utilized for vent and drain connections would require that rigidity be demonstrated and that individual calculations be performed for each vent and drain configuration utiliziteg the worst case accelerations of either the run pipe or building 7.PA. However, the reference (ii) -. Mulation was performed in 1984 Ltilizing the earlier critena, and therefore should have been revised and/or superseded to reflect the enhanced design requirements.The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-56-0302 (attached) will revise calculation NP(B)408-XD to reflect the enhanced design requirements.There is no impact on physical hardware or the individual vent and drain calculatinns. As such there is no effect on the license or design basis, therefore NU has concluded this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0363, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires enrrection. The approved corrective action plan (attached) for Condition Report (CR) M3 98-0302 will revise calculation NP(B)408-XD to reflect the enhanced design requirements. There is no impact on physical hardware or the Pnnted 2/19,9e 11:17.50 AM Page 2 of 3 l
...~.
~
_j
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0363 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report individual vent and drain calculations. As such there is no effect on the license or design basis, therefore NU has conci'Jded this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.
Prev 6ously identmed try NU7 Q Yes
(#') No Non D6ecrepent Condt6on?O Yes (#1 No Resolut6on Pending?O ve. @ No Re iuiion unr..oived?O ve.
(i)Nw Review AcceMeW W Acc* W leeded Dete inillator: Prakesh, A, O
O O
2/isse VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O
O O
2/i7 m VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K O
O 2ii7m IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K f
D D
D Dd*:
2/16/98 sL convaents: NU's approved corrective action plan for CR M3 98 0302 will revise calculation NP(B)408 XD to reflect the enhanced design requirements. We, concur with NU that there is no effect on the license or design basis, and the Significance Level can be changed to Level 4.
Printed 2/199611:17:50 AM Pope 3 of 3
DR No. DR-MP3 0364 ICAVP Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Distrepancy Report DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Group: Sydem Potential Operability lasue l
Discipline: Piping Design Om l
D6screpancy Type: celculetson (5)No SystemProcess: SWP NRC Slgnificance level: 4 Date faxed to NU4 Date Published: 107N47 DiscroPancyTEvaluation of SWP Root valve piping configuration for V175, 4
180,924,923 and 224 is duplicated In the process of reviewing the following calculations, Deterl 460n:
P
/
(1) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-417 Xt', Rev 0,4/3/84 (2) Calculation 12179 NP(F) GWP 28-V175, Rev 4,10/18/96 (3) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 28 V180, Rev 4,10/18/96 (4) Calculation 12119-NP(F)-SWP 32S-V924, Rev 2,4/20/93 (5) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 31 A V923, Rev 2,4/26/93 (6) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-SWP 97 V224, Rev 1,10/4/85 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
Pipe stress sinalysis calculation (1) evaluates the root valve piping configurations for SWP valves V175,V180,V924,V923 and V224. Although included in the calculation, SWP vaives V180 and V224 are not included in the title block of calculatior (1).
More recently, root valve piping configurations addressed by stress analysis calculation (1) have been evaluated indNidually by calculations (2-6).
Discrepancy:
11 h not clear why the root vrnive configurations addre3 sed by calculation (1) have also been evaluated by calculations (2-6), if the new calculations (2-6) supersede (1), then calculation (1) should be voided, Review Valid invalid Naeded Date inittetor: Patel, Ramesh D 8
O O
$ o'2S7 VT Leed: Hert, Anthony A Q
Q Q
1o/7/97 vT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
10/1497 IRC chmn: Singh, Anand K 8
O O
io/17/97 oei.:
INYAuD:
Date:
2/6/98 RESO'.UTION: Response ID: M3-lRF 01593 Dispos'ilon:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0364, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified Page 1 of 2 Printed 2/1%e 11:18:10 AM
_________J
Northeest UtilRies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0364 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 Pl.
20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concerns and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR MS 98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolction of this item per RP4.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0364, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 Pl.
20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98 0138 has been written to develop ana track resolution of this item per RP4.
Previounty identined t>y NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent condition?Q Yes (e) No n.eamion P.nmas?O von @ No needwionunteeoiv.d?O vos @ No moview inetistor: Prokesh, A.
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A b
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K Dele:
sL Conenents:
4 t ttnted 2/1&9611:18.11 AM Page 2 or 4
Northeast UtWtles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0395 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Systen DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED meview Ew syenern Ontn p,,,,,,,n,,,,,,y,,,,,
Dwi.w u=>.r**' "*"
O va i
Diecrepency Type: ceiculation (g g systemProcess: SWP NRC significence level: 4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Puteshed: 10/2h/97 D6ecrepency: Calculation 95-ENG 1177-M3 rev. O and CCN 01 incorrectly supersedes portions of other calculations.
Ducription: Calculation 95 ENG 1177-M3 is actually a setpoint calculation to verify the SW Inlet temperature to maintain the maximum SW outlet temperature of 95'F from 3HVK*CHL1 A & B. This calculation incorrectly superseded portions of calculations 90 0691130-M3 rev. O CCN 01,90-0691065-M3 rev. O CCN 01,90 069-1116 M3 rev. O CCN 01.
The calculation (45 ENG 1177 M3) does not provide design basis information as it is being used in the above mentioned (3) calculations. This calculation supersedes, in calculation 90-069-1130-M3 design information that calc. 95 ENG 1177 M3 uses as desi9n input.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Deonne, B. J, G
O O
10/457 VT Lead: Nwi, Anthony A O
O O
10/7/97 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K Q
O O
10/1457 IRC chmn: singh. Ar.nd K G
O O
10/1a/97 Date:
WVALID:
Dele: 2/17/98 resol'JTeoN; Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Repo t, DR MP3-0395, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Calculation 95 ENG-1177 M3 has been superseded by Proto Power Calculation 97-123. The approved corrective action plan in CR MS 98-0406 will correct this issue by determining if calculations 90-0691116-M3 and 90-v691130 M3 should be superseded by the Proto Power flow model calculations or if active, revise them to be consistent with the Proto Power flow model calculations. These corrective actions will be performed post startup.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0395 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan in CR M3-98-0406, to be comfleted post stanup, will determine if calculations 90-069-1116-M3 and 90-0691130 M3 should be superseded by the Proto Power flow model calculations.
Printed 2/199611:25:26 AM Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilitws ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0366 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReMew Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED i
R'* Enent: system Design p,,,,,,,,op,,,,,,,,,,,,
D6*ci ilne: Pipin0 Design Om P
l D6ecrepency Type: Ce6culeuan
@ No system 9tocess: SWP NRC si nmcance level: 4 Det) faxed to NU:
Date Published: io/11W/
D6ecr*Peacy: Density of Fiberglass (J) insulation used in stress analysis is inconsistant with cited reference Desertinson: In the proess of reviewing the following documents, (i) Pipe Stress Calculation 1299-NP(B) X1900 Rev. 3 CCN's 1 to 3 (11) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B) X53900, Rev. $
we noted the following discrepancy:
In pipe stress analysis calculations (i) and (ii), the density of Fiberglass insulation Type J is specified for some lines as 4 lbs/cft, and for others as 5.25 lbs/cft. According to the reference cited in the calculations, the density should be 5.25 lbs/cft. No justification is provided for the use of the lower (4 lbs/cft) density.
P.eview Valid invel6d Nooded Date initiator: Promeh. A.
O O
O 50/2/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O
O O
tor 3'S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K G
O O
80/1'S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q
O O
'o/1'S7 Dei:
INVAUD:
Date: 2/16/98 REsV,uTION: Response ID: M3-IRF 01010 Disposition:
NU has concluded that DR MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. The use of 4 lbs/cu.ft. as opposed to 5.25 lbs/ cu ft for J type fiberglass insulation does not represent a discrepant condition. The use of 4 lbs/cu ft is the generic minimum of J-type fiberglass insulation (See " Specification for General Thermal Insulation. M921", Transmitted in Transmittal 52 on 7/8/97 ). This generic minimum was used universally until 5/15/84 when a specification was obtained for J type insulation (
Ref Inter-Office Memo from J.E. Woods to G. Milley dated 5/3/84 ) that specified the density of J-type fibergelss insulation as 5.25 lbs/cu ft. Subsequently, when NP(B) X1900 and NP(B)-
X53900 were revised, the new density was used to perform the stress analysis on the length of affected pipe in accordance with the direction provided in Inter Office Memo from P.Gopal and R.
Baln to General distribution. Additionally, calculation 79 236-921GP Rev. O dated 11/12/87 addresses insulation weight effects and envelopes the above condition.
Printed 2/199611:36;11 AM Page 1 of 2
___m
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0396 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepaticy Report PmkmWy Wwehod ty Nur V Yu @ No Non DuropmW CwumlontO Yu @ No neudvikePonens?O v
@ No n.= *awm uar* *.st O v.s
@ No nev6.w Acceptelde Not M= 7 "- Needed Date
%; %,,j O
O O
M75 VT L.ed: Ned, Artnany A O
M75 VT Men schoNw Don K wic chmn: Skgh, Anand K D*:
2/17/98 sL conenents: The resolution of CR M3 98-0406 will be completed / enveloped in CR's M3 97 4774,3897 and 3886. This is found to be acceptable bince this effort willincluds review of all SW calculations that use or affected the PEGISYS model calculations.
Printed 2/199611:25:29 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR P3 4402 Millstane UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Otoup: system DR REs0LUTioN ACCEPTED E M :s @ %
Peter tiel Opetabil#y leaue 06ecipehw: Mechanical Doelpo g y,,
Die repency Type: Coloulation gg systemProcese: sWP NRC sign 64cence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed: 1/22/96 D6screpeacy: Calc. 90-069-1097 M3 contains errors in the database update DescrlFilan: The purpose of Calculation 90-0691097 M3, Rev 0, through CCN#4 was to update the small bore portion of the comprehensive Millstone Unit 3 SWS Database which is used in several PEGISYS service water system models, item 2 in the Calculation Workscope Summary, pa08 9, states that a benchmark flow calculation will be compared to results obtained for the ' CASE" alignmont in Westinghouse Calculation FSE/SS.
NEU 1956 (dated 7/1/WJ), which later became NU Calculation 90-0691116 M3 (dated 5/18/95).
The remaining portion of this Discrepancy Report sites specific discrepancies in the calculation reviewed. The examples given are not an exhaustive list of those found, but rather used to illustrate the types of discrepancies focnd.
Page 49, Section 6 Part B, item i states that nodes were placed at trio entrance and exit flanges of each component, including heat exchangers. The nodal diagram on page 13 does not contain noces at the inlet or outlet of the CCP, CCS, HVK and RSS heat exchangers.
On page 67, the component fUD for the HVQ' ACUS 1 A.1B,2A,2B heat exchangers is listed as 11,12.
Note (3) for this section references calculation 90-0691116 M3.
Page 33 of the referenced calculation lists the fUD value for these heat exchangers to be 11.28.
Design 5put 11, page 12 of calculation 90-0691116 M3 states it.at wi. ;t pumps P3A and P3B are tumed off for the CASE alignment, they introduce additional resistance in the piping system. The additionalloss, K=fUD, for pumps P3A and P3B being tumed off was determined to be 52.8 by calculation FSE/SS-NEU-1576. This was addressed in the CASE alignment of calculation 90-0691116 M3, but was neglected in the benchmark run of calculation 90-0691097 M3. This additions!
fUD should have been displayed for pathways 106-109 and 106-107 on page 99 of calculation 90-069-1097 M3, Some of the heat loads identified on page 67, do not agree with the heat loads in the printout of the benchmark run. The heat load for HVK*CHL1 A,B is listed as 3,275,387 Btu /hr on page 67, but is displayed as 6,315,400 Blu/hr on page 95, the benchmark run printout. The heat load for HVQ* ACUS 1 A,0 is listed as 338,750 Btu /hr on page 67, but is displayed as 677,500 Btu /hr on pages 96 and 97. The neat load for HVQ* ACUS 2A,8 is listed as 387,500 Blu/hr on page 67, but is displayed as 775,000 Stu/hr on PrWed 2/199611:25A0 AM Page 1 oft
(
1 Mortheast umme.
ICAVP M No, MMP362 j
wisotone unit 3 Discrepancy Report To uposte the small bore portion of the PEGISYS 8W8 database, isometric drawing were used to generate piping takeoffs. The piping takeoffs were then summertzed in this calculatibn corrosoponding to the nodal diagram established for the PEGI8YS SW8 model. The piping takeoff summaries wers subsequently input to the PEGISYS SW8 database (filename =
NEUSW8). The review of this calculation did not include a comprehensive review of the database updating process, however, a representative sample was reviewed and found to contain discrepenoies. Examples are given below.
l Errors were identified when summertaing the piping takeoffs because en inconsistent sooounting method was used. When e node is located at a Tee, sometimes the Tee was included in the line upstream of the node and at other times, the Too was included in the line downstream of the node. For example:
There is a Tee at node 1071 in the line from node 107 - 1071, see page 122. In the piping summary for this line, pape 197, the j
Tee is not included, rather, it is sooounted for in the line downstream of the Tee, in line 1071 1072. This is acceptable,'
however, the accounting method changed in path 224 2251. - A j
Tee is located at node 2251, see pape 135A. The piping
)
summary for this line, page 207, includes the Tee for the line L
upstream,224 2251. This inconsistency led to incorrect piping summaries. The Tee at node 227, pa0e 138, is included in the line upstream of this Tee,226 227, page 137. The line summary L
for 22719 on page 207 also includes this Tee, accot.ating for it l
twice. This inconsistency is also apparent for the line 21 22.-
l l
pa0e 137. whloh accounts for a Tom at both the bo0!nning and -
ending nodes of the line.
Errors were also identified when transposing the piping takeoff '
summaries into the PEGISYS database (filename = NEUSW8)
- as described below.
The pipe length for line 66-42 is listed as 39.5 feet in the piping summary on page 190. The pipe length for this line was transposed to the database as 1 foot, page 257, The piping summary for line 102108 on page 202 listed the
)
elevation for nodes 102 and 108 as 21.3 and 44.8 foot, J
respectively.- When transposed to the database on page 280, the elevation for nodes 102 and 108 were input as 19.50 and 28.60 feet, respectively.
When the information for the (2) 90 dog 40 bonds were transposed to the database for pathway 79-23, paga 315, the i
values for the angle and radius of the bends were switched; j
The piping summary for line 2212211 on page 207 indicates -
l there are (2) 45 dog elbows in the line. The line was entered into the database on page 321 with (4) 45 dog elbows.
Note: Several SWP calculations used a previous version of this ~
o l
' service water system database for PEGISYS med.a such as l
Prned 2/199s 11:25:50 AM -
Page 2 of 4 j
Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0402 Minstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report FSE/SS-NEU 1405 and 90-0691116-M3. The discrepancies identified in the databasu may be applicable to other service water sys'em calculations which used the database after the update by calculation 90-0691097 M3. Examples include Calculation 90-0691065 M3, and those calculations developed after the PEGISYS model was converted to PROTO FLO in the PROTO POWER / NU calculations94-065,96 001,97-04197 OL5,97 001 and 97 ENG-0142703.
Revtew Valid invalid Needed Date inlineew: Dionne s.J.
O O
O imitas7 VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A O
O O
12'5857 VT Mgn schopfw, Don K O
O O
12/23,7 inc chmn: singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
1/1696 osis:
INVALlO:
Date: 2/16/98 REsOLUTeoN: Disposition:
NU has concluded that DR MP3-0402 has identified a condition not previously discov red by NU which requires correction.
The referenced calculations in DR M3-0402 have been supplemented / replaced by Protopower analysis. The corrective actions necessary to " clean up" the calculation documentation and references and resolve the issues of DR M3-0402, will be implemented and tracked under the auspices of Condition Reports M3-96-0567 and M3 97-4774. The approved corrective action plans for CR# M3 98-0567 and M3-97-4774 will correct this issue The corrective actions for this Isaue are:
Review cr.lculation 90-89-1116-M3, and calculations referenced within this calculation, and remove all assumptions necessary for input to the P:otopower PROTO Flo calculations (96-001,97-041 and 97-035) and NU calculation 90-0691065M3. Create a new calculation or technical evaluation for this information. Delete calculation 90-069-1116M3 and associated flow model calculations which are based upon the WNES Pegisys SWS flow model. Review all service water calculations to assure that they reference active calculations. Review allICAVP DR's ass 0clated with SWP calculations to assure that all discrepnncies identified as part of this administrative reconciliation have been addressed. The technical issues cited in DR M3-0402 are no longer valid conditions as the calculations have been replaced with Protopower calculation 96-001.
The Protopower service water system flow calculation,96-001 represents the physically installed system and has been adjusted by actual system flow test data obtained during RFO-5. This calculation is valid and confirms that the system will perform its intended safety function in accordance with the desl9n bases, therefore, this DR is not required for start up. NU has corecluded Printed 2n9S61125:50 AM Page 3 or 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0402 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report that this discrepancy is a Significance Level 4.
Condition Reports (CR) M3 97-4774 and M3 96 0667 were written to provide the necessary corrective ac'jons to resolve the issues of DR M3-0402. The co:rective actions for this issue are:
Review calculation 90-69-1116-M3, and calculations referenced within this calculation, and remove all assumptions necessary for input to the Protopower PROTO Flo calculations (96-001,97 041 and 97 035) and NU calculation 90-0691065M3. Create a new calculation or technical evaluation for this information.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that DR MP3-0402 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.
Donete calculation 90-069-1116M3 and associated flow tr.odel dculations which are based upon the WNES Pegisys SW3 flow model.
Review all servic6 water calculations to assure that they reference active calculations.' Review all ICAVP DR's associated with SWP calcul.tlons to assure that all discrepancies identified as part of this administrative reconciliation have been addressed. Compit. tion of the review of calculations referenced are not required prior to unit start up since calculation 96-001 represents the physically installed service water system and therefore, confirms that the system will perform its intended safety function in accordance with the design bases. NU has concluded that this discrepancy is a Significance Level 4.
Previously ident6hed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Diecrepent condition?U Yes @ No n oiunonp.amnetO Ya @ wo ne=**n unrmtO va @ No neview initiator: Okayw,B.J.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT le r: Schopfer. Don K e
1RC Chnn: Singh. Anand K Date:
2/16/98 sL comments: This discrepant condition will be corracted by Condition Reports M3-97-4774 and M3-98-0567. The significance level was changed from icvel 3 to level.' based on agreement that the Proto Flo model of the SWS, as confirmed by testing, proves that the system functions accordingly and this does not presen', a start-upissue.
Prtnied 2/199611:25:5o AM Page 4 of 4
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34471 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rowlew Group: Operatene & Maintenance and Testing DR RESOLUTION AccEPTE9 Rev6ew Element: Operating Procedure P M IOper % ' M Diecipline: Os*rstions O vos Diecropency Type: O 4 M & T Procedure
@ No systemerocese: sWP NRC signtAcance levet: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Dale Putdished: 1073/97 06screp ecy: Procedures not in place to ensure compliance with Plant Technical Specifications.
Descri Hon: The Tcchnical specificat'ons require the service life of P
mechanical and hydraul;. snubbers be m 'itored to ensure the service life is not exceed.d. The necessary procedures to ensure compliance with this Tech. Spec, were not in place at the time of this independent review. While this DR is written against SWP, it does apply to all systems.
Technical Specification 3/4.7.101 (page 3/4 7 26) states, "The service life of hydraulic and mechanical snubbers shall be monitored to ensure that the service life is not exceeded between survellance inspections. The maximum expected service life for various seats, springs, and other critical parts shall be determined and established based on engineering information and shall be extended or shortened based on monitored test results and failure history. Critical snubber parts shall be replaced so that the maximum service life will not be exceeded during a period when the snubber is required to be Operable. Tht parts replacements shall be documented and the documentation shall be retained in accordance with Specification 6.10.3."
S&L Request for information, RFI Number MP3 219 was submitted on 7/18/97 requesting the Snubber Procedure used for Snubber Service Life Program to saWfy MP 3 Tech. Spec.
4.7.10d, page 3/4 7 26. This should have read Tech. Spec.
4.7.101, page 3/4 7 26. The typ., was the Insertion of the d instead of the 1. The description and page numbers were correct.
IRF Response ID : MS-IRF 00202 stated ' items 8 ard 9 are not addressed by an existing procedure. AR 97019941 requires a new procedure or revised procedure will address these items at a later date".
Action Request, Art 97019941 was issued on 8/11/97 stating,
' Develop appropriate trigger to ensure compliance with Ter*inical Specification 4.7.10d which iguires snubbers to be examined following unexpected, potentially <tamaging system transients within 6 morahs of the event". Thh Action Request did not address the Service Life Program is5 Je.
-Procedures necessary to demonstrate how Millstone L.ilt 3 personnel satisfy Technical Specification 3/4 7,101 are not in place.
Review Volid invalid Needed Date Ith8M: Penner. W.
1o/1197 Printed 2/19/9611:27:52 AM Page 1 of 2 i
NortheCst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0471 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report innwoor e mer,W.
O O
O 10" V87 VT Leed: Bees, Men O
O O
10/ " 7 VT Mgr achapter, Don K O
O O
10/157 Ntc Chmn: Singh. Anend K Q
-0 0
10/in7 l-Date:
wvAuo:
Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition; NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0471, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The lack of a snubber service lif6 monitoring program to satisfy Tech Spec 4.7.10.1 was previously discovered by NU and documented on QAS Audit A23058,1/24/94, as Finding 03. The Unit Diredor's response to the audit and expeded corredive action is found in attached memo MP-3-94 035,2/15/94. AR 95046951 was initiated 7/18/95 to review the mechanical and hydraulic service life program and, if necessary, implement a formal program. The initial schedule reference for corrective action was completion required prior to refteling outage 4 (RF04). The NU corrective action program during this time perir4 is well documented as faulty. Because of this, the corrective clons were not implemented in a timely manner.
9504695102 was re scheduled for the current outage and is required to be completed prior to restart
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0471, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This issue was previously discovered in QAS Audit A23058. The Unit's response to the QAS Audit was to initiate AR 95046951 to review the snubber service life program and implement a formal program if necessary. This AR is scheduled to be completed prior to restart.
Previously identthod by NU? @ Yes O No Non D6ecrepent Condit6on?O Yes @ No ResolutionPend6ng?O Ya @ No R=*ison unr.orv.deO Yw @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date gg.
q, VT Leed: Bees, Ken VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 2/19/9e 11:27.52 AM Page 2 of 2
e Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0641 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Moview Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED I
8 Potential Operability issue D6ecipl6ne: Matetel D"*"
O vee D6ecrepency Type: Calculetkm gg 9yetemProcese: HVX NRo Signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
De Published: 1/22/96 D6ectopency: MCC & Rod Control Area CoJing Load and Ventilation Calculations Descr6pt6on: During review of the cooling load and ventilatisn calculations for the MCC & Rod Control Area Air Conditioning System discrepancies regarding the loads ar.d airflows were identified.
References:
- 1. Calculation P(B) 1184, Rev. 0
- 2. Calculation P(B) 1129 Rev. 2 4
3, Calculation P(B) 1129, Rev. 2, CCN 1
- 4. Calculation P(B) 1129, Rev. 2, CCN 2
- 5. Calculation P(B) i l29, Rev. 2, CCN 3
- 6. P&lD EM 148A 24
- 7. Duct drawing EC-45H 12 B. Duct drawing EB-45M 9
Background:
Calculation P(B) 1184 evaluates ti,e affect of a 6"x2" hole In the 3HVR*ACU1 A supply duct on system performance.
Calculation P(B) 1129 determines the cooling load and ver'tilation requirements for the MCC and Rod Control Area Air.
Conditioning system.
Air conditioning units 3HVR*ACU1 A & 1B provide cooling for the east and west MCC & Rod Control Areas in the Auxiliary Building as shown on P&lD EM 148A.
Discrepancies:
- 1) The hole in the supply duct is caused by a missile from fan 3HVR FN4A,3HVR FN4B or 3HVR FNS which are located near the 52" x 28' supply duct to the east MCC & Rod control area on elevation 66'-6" of the auxillary building. The location of the fans and duct are shown on drawings EB-45H 12 and EB-45M-9.
Calculation P(B) 1184 determined that 428 cfm would be lost through the hole in the ductwork. In evaluating the impact the hole in (Le ductwork would have on system performance the calculation considered the effect on overall system performance instead of the effect it would have on the east MCC & Rod Control Area.
- 2) Calculation P(B)-1184 was not revised when ca!culation P(B)-
1129 was updated to evaluate lower than design altflow to the east MCC & Rod Control Areas wid 3HVR*ACU1B running.
- 3) The supply air lost through the hole in the supply duct on elevation 66'-6' of the auxilialy building will result in air infiltratinn Intn ihm nrant carvad hv MNR* Ant 11 AliR Thlt wnnld
~~
Pe0* 1 of 4 PrWed 2/19/9611:29 07 AM
No.1heast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP34601 Milletone unit 3 Discrepancy Report increase the cooling load on the system since the temperatures in the surrounding areas have a higher design temperature.
Calculations P(B)-1129 and P(B) 1184 do not address this impact on the room cooling loads.
- 4) Calculation P(B) 1129 lakes creoit for heat loss to auxillrnry building ductwork passing though the MCC & rod control area.
This is not valid for accident conditions whan the non-safety-related fans (3HVR HVU2B and 3HVR FN11) associated with this ductwork are not operating.
Review venid invalid Needed Date inatiatort stout, M. D.
O D
D
$ 2/157 VT Lead: Nwl, Anthony A 8
O O
$2/iss7 VT Men schopfw,Dm K Q
Q Q
12/2397 IRC Chmn: singh, Anend K 8
O O
1/17/88 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: NU has cone'uded that the issues reported in DR.MP3 0681, llems 2 & 3, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. CR M3-98-0475 (Attached) has been written to develop the corrective actions associated with this DR.
For item # 2 Calc P(B) 1184 will be evaluated for the effect of lower than design air flow to the East MCC/RCA with 3HVR*ACU1B running. Reevaluation of calc P(B)-1184 for reduced air flows, as evaluated on CCN#3 to Calc. P(B)-1129, should have minimal impact as the calculated required air temperature leaving the cclls for the reduced flow rate is higher than the actual air temperature leaving the coils under a!!
analyzed conditions.
For item # 3, Cales P(B) 1129 and P(B) 1184 will be evaluated for the effect of infiltration of wariner air from the surrounding areas due to loss of cooling air through the hole in the ductwork.
The impact of air infiltration from surrounding areas as noted in item # 3 will be minimal. The areas served by 3HVR'ACU1 A/18 are in the Aux Building, enclosed by key locked fire doors, and in-leakage will be minor. Worst case is in leakage equivalent to 1
the flow 'brough the postulated missile hole, of _428cfm, (not revited for the lower flow rate to the East area with ACU1B running) at a temperature of 104 F,18 Cag. above the MCC/RCA normal design temperature. This represents approximately 4% of the total flow. CR M3-98-0475 has been issued to address the issues identified in items 2 & 3.
In addition, the MP3 Hazards Review Program for the Aux buildir.g, HAZ-01449-M3, has stated that no unacceptable interactions have been 'dentified due to the postulated fan missile. The System performance will not be signi'icantly degraded by flow losses associated wtth estimated 12 sq. in.
Prtnied 2/1 ASS 1129:07 AM Page 2 or 4
i Northenot UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0641 umstorm unit s Discrepancy Report hole caused by missile.
Based on the above, there is no indication that 'he unit is outside its' licensing or design basis. The DR is considered by NU to les Significance Level 4, and the Corrective Adlon spected in the CR will be deferred until after restart.
l NU has concluded that the issues identified in items #1 & 4 in DR MP3-0681 are not considered to be discrepent conditions.
For hem #1, evaluating the imped the hole in the ductwork would have on system performance, the heat load used in the calculation P(8) 1184 is the heat load for the East MCC/RCA, taken from Rev. O of P(8) 1129, and thus is not considering the ef'ed on overall system performance.
For item # 4 Calc P(8) 129 only 19kes credit for heat loss to the 6:;twork passing through the MCC/RCA for Case lit, Loss of Chilled Water. This is the same as Case I, Normal Operation, except that the heat load is being transferred to the Service Water System instead of the Chilled Water System. Heat load during accident conditions, with the lower heat loads from the eledrical and control equipment in these areas is covered by Case 11 of Calc. p(8) 1129. Oase ll does not take credit for heat loss to ductwork passing through the MCC/RCA area, and is bounded by case 111, Loss of Chilled Water, in addition, Calculation P(9) 1 !29 will be evaluated / revised for the imped on the heat load of the increased fan motor horsepowur from 37.2 to 47.1 for 3HVR*ACU1 A,18, identified in-DR MP3-0344.
Also the Engineering Calculations Data Base (PASSPORT) will be updated to include Calc. No.
P(B) 1164 as a reference in Calculation P(8) 1129.
Attachment:
CR MS 96-0475 M/- ?;identesedIpy Nu? Q Yes @ No NonDescr.pentcondition?O v.s
@ No n oimi n P.amaetO va @ No -
n emenu w *.dtO v
@ N.
n.wi Inittstor: Stout. M. O, VT Leed: Nori. Anthony A g
{g O
VT Mge: schophr, Den K InC Clenn: singh. Anand K O
O oste:
2/16/98 sL conenents: Agree that a 4% redudion in airflow due to the hole in the dud probably would not increase the temperature in the area above the 120'F design temperature when margin in the service water cooling coli and intemal heat loads are taken into account.
On item #4, calculation P(B) 1129, Rev. 2, CCN 3 states that Case il is enveloped by Case lil, therefore Case ill should addresscredit for heat loss to the auxiliary building duct running Printed 2/1o9811:2s:oS AM Page 3 or 4
Northe:st LHiliti.3 ICAVP DR No. DRMP34681 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report through the MCC and Rod Control Area.
Refer to DR MP3-0687 regarding fan missile hazard analysis 1
noted in NU's response.
The normal electrical loads used in Case ill (normal operation) are higher than the electricalloads expected for Case 11 (accident conditions) and sufficient margin appears to be available to account for the 4% reduction in airflow due to the hole in the duct.
Therefore, the significance level for the DR has been changed to Level 4.
e i
i Page 4 or 4 PrWed 2/19/9e 11:29 06 AM
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0807 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
Revlow Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: symm Design PMenuel operatalmy h O ves-D6ecropency Type: Componard Date Oe systemProcese: DGX NRC sientacance level: 3 Date FAved to NU:
Dele Putil6ehed: 1/1096 D6ecrepancy: Means for meeting commitment not identified Descripe6an: Section 8.3 of the FSAR contains the following statement. Safety-l related equipment in all plant areas is either protected from automatic fire protection effluents or, on the basis of test data, have demonstrated their operability in the environment that may be caused by the fire protection effluents.
4 Per item 453 in the annotaded SAR this is an open item; 'Yet to review specifications for cable, equipment, etc., in CO2 areas.
TBD." This note indicates that CO2 effects will be evaluated.
However information could not be located which indicated that Halon effluent effects have been evaluated for those areas where Halon systems are installed.
Rev6ew Ve46d invalid Needed Date initiator: Rich, J. M.
O O
O 12/18S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
12/i7/or schoP er. Don K O
O O
522SS7 f
VT Mer 1Rc Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
$2/31/87 4
Date:
INVAllo:
Date:
2/5/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0807, does not represent a discrepant condition.
The intent of item 453 was *, address the use of CO2 as a total flooding agent in safety-related areas. During licensing of MP 3, significant testing was performed to address the effects of CO2 as a cold agent, and the impact it would have on electrical components and fuel tanks.
The globalissue of the inadvertent operation of all fire suppression systems at MP 3 was previously evaluated in June, 1985, in the ' Inadvertent Operation / Rupture of Fire Protection Equipment
- report. This issue was identified by the NRC in I&E Information Notice 83-41, BTP CMEB 9.51, item C.1.b(8), and GDC 3 of Appendix A to 10CFRSO. The report included evaluation of the use of Halon, which was limited to 3 locations, and concluded that there was no impact on the ability of the plant to achieve and maintain safe shutdown. The study is being updated by an active assignment, A/R 97021368, which is scheduled to be completed post start up.
The only additional area that could effect MP 3 operation is in the MP 1 Fire Pump House, which is protected by Halon. Halon Prtreed 2/19se 1129:40 AM Pe0* 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0807 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1
could have an effect on the operation of the diesel fire pump engine (Halon in the combustien alt). To address this concem, the englno has an independent alt intake piped directly from the outside. The fire pomp is rell6d upon to supply fire fighting water to MP 3. This issue was evaluated in January,1984,in ite MP.
1
- Inadvertent Operation /Ruphire of Fire Protection Equipment
- report.
It is Denerally recognirod that Halon does not have the same etfect on equipment as CO2. It is electrically safe, does not leave a residuo and can be esed in occupied spaces. While CO2 is utilized at concentrations between 40% and 60%, Halon systems use concentrations of between 5% and 10% (7% at MP.
3). This is well documented in the NFPA Standards.
Memo (GMP 84 535) dated November 19,1984, details the results of a CO2 discharge test performed on November 9, 1984. One objective of this test was to determine the impact of CO2 impingement on specific mechanical and electrical equipment / components within the Diesel Fuel Oil Vault. This test monitored both surface and intemal temperatures on electrical components. Three electrical components were positioned within the vault. They included a spare relay, an inverter and a TV camera which was utilized to monitor the cor,ditions within the vault. These components were deemed representative of both energized and heat producing equipment (inverter / Camera) and non-energized eqtipment (relay).
Halon system discharge testing performed in November 1985, was used to verify proper concentrations within the Control Room computer room and the Control Building instrument rack room and to verify no significant temperature effects. This test did not show any significant temperature effects as a result of discharge of Halon into the *under floor" areas of these room, therefore, the evaluation of effects of fire protection effluents has been made and there is no discrepant condition.
Significance Level Criteria do not cpply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Preyhusly identifled try Nu? O Ye.
@ No Non Descrepent Condit6on?@ Yet O No Resolution Pending?O ve.
@ no Re.osucioa unre.otv.d r O ve.
@ No Review initiator: Rich, J. M.
O O
N VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopter, Don K 1Rc Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
SL comments:
Page 2 of 2 Printed 2/1rG81129 41 AM
Northeast utlinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0864 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED ReviewElement systemDesign y
D6ecipeine: Doctricet oe i'"
O yeo D6ectopency Type: Llooneing Documord g~ g nyetem9recese: DGX NRC tignenconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehod: 1/10/96 Descrepency: FSAR Table 8.3 3 appears to be incomplete.
Deeettplion:
FEAR Section 8.3.1.1.4, Page 8.3 25 states:
Loads with a non safety function which are connected to safety related buses are protected for short circuit and overload conditions. These loads are listed in Table 8.3 3.
Lighting Pnl ESF Bldg 3LAK PNL3ESF2P is connected to 3EHS'MCC1B4.
Heat Tracing Panel 3 HTS-PHLA3 is connected to 3EHS*MCC184.
Lighting Panel DSL Gen Bido 3L AD-PNL3DG01 is connected to 3EHS*MCC1 A1.
These loads do not appear to be listed in Table 8.3 3.
The loads were determined by a review of the following drawings:
EE 1 AJ rev. 28 480V MCC One Line Diag ESF Building Sh.
2 EE 1 AK rev. 21 480V MCC One Line Diag Dsl Enci & Aux BirA Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date Inillator: Womer,1, Q
Q Q
12/21i97 VT Leed: Nwi. Anthony A Q
Q 12/20/97 VT Mgri Schopeer, Don K G
O O
$2/2se7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
12,ati97 peie:
INVAUD:
n
.c Date: 2/13/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0664, does not represent a discrepant condition. In Table 8.3 3 (Nonsafety Related Equipment Connected to Safety-Related Equipment) under the column titled Equipment ID No. is listed as a generalitem 'All isolation Transformers". Panels OLAK PNL3ESF2P,3 HTS PNLA3, and 3 LAD-PNL3DG01 are panels that are powered from isolation Transformers which in tum are powered from Class 1E distribution. Rather than Individually listing all the isolation transformers and their associated panels in Table 8.3 3, they were encompassed under the torm isolation Transformers. The three panels lisied above are individually listed in Table 8.3-6 (Electrical Equipm.ent not Printed 2/19/9611:30:c6 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0464 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Requiring intemal Catta Separation).
Significance levelcriteria do not a
'y as this is not a discrepant conflition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded u, ' the issue reported Discrepancy Report DR MP3-086 does not represent a discrepant condition. The subject p.nels are encompassed under the general term *lsolation Transformers' in Table 8.3-3 and Individually listed in Table 8.3-6.
Signifbance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Prov6ously identmed by NU7 U Yes @ No NonD6ecropmWConetkm?(G) Yes Q No Resoluuon PenangtO vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O vos @ No Review initletor: Crockett, Ed.
D D
mm VT Leed: Nort, Areony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Den K MC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Cortments:
Printed 2/1He 11:30:06 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR NI. DR MP34'882 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR REs0LUTION AC,C.PTED I8 Potential? etability moue D6ecipl6ne: Pap 6n0 Design gg l
D6ecropency Type: Calcunsten gg systemerocew: DGX NRC sO2":me level: 3 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Published: 1/17/96 D6ecrepency: Evaluation / Acceptance of penetration seal ring loads not
~
addressed in calculations Dacript60n: In the proces,s of reviewing the following DGX system pipe stress analysis calculations, (O Calculation No.12179-NP(F) 752 XD, Rev. 3 CCN 2 A Calcuistion No.12179-NP(F) 886-XD, Rev. O CCN 4 (3) Calculation No.12179-NP(F) 786-XD, Rev.1 CCN 2 (4) Calculation No.12179-NP(B) X6000 Rev. O CCN 3 (5) Calculation No.12179 NP(F)-891 XL *tev.1 CCN 1 (6) Calculation No.12179-NP(F) 10018 XD, Rev, O CCN 2 we noted the following discrepancy; Back9round:
Penetration seal ring loads as identified below were transmitted to the stress reconcillation group for evaluation.
(1) Sleeve # 3 Line # 3 CNS 750 70-4 Calc. (1)
(2) Sleeve # 11 Line # 3 EGF 002 313 Calc. (2)
(3) Sleeve # $
Line # 3-EGF 15010 3 Calc. (3)
(4) Sleeve # N.P.40 Line # 3-EGF 003-27 3 Calc. (4)
(5) Sleeve # 7 Line # 3-EGF 003 26 3 Cale. (4)
(8) Sleeve # 8 Line # 3 EGF-003-29 3 Calc. (4)
(7) Sleeve # N.P. 95 Line # 3 EGF 003 30 3 Calc, (4)
(8) Sleeve # 10EP60 Line # 3-EGF-002 28 3 Calc. (5)
(9) Seal Ring # S 9 Line # 3-EGF 150 23-3 Calc. (6)
Discrepancy:
The evaluation / acceptance basis for these loads is not provided, nor referenced in the ebove calculations (16).
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Inilletor: Patel, Ramesh.D D
0 0
12t2297 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A Q
Q Q
12/2097 VT Mgt: Schopfw. Don K O
O O
12/23/s7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
1/1396 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 2/13/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF 01606 Prirded 2/19/9611:312 AM Page 1 of 2 I
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0482 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3 00882 does not represent a discrepant condition.
There is no programmatic requirement for the stress calculation to contain the ultimate disposition of load transmittals. The calculation is not a tracking document. The objective of the stress calculations with respect to structural loads is to determine and transmit the loads. Thus the calculation documents the load transmittal but no confirmation is required because there were project procedures in place to address such items. Since there is no requirement for closure within the calculation, there is no discrepancy.
The seal ring loads were reconciled in accordance with project procedure NETM 59 and documented in calculation 12179 NS(B) 157 Rev. O. (This is a large two volume calculation; the pertinent pages 17H and 183185 are attached.) All subject load transmittals are logged In this calculation. As described on page 4 of the calculation,it performed a sampling evaluation of all seal ring anchor loads in accordance with NETM 59.
Separate evaluation of each anchor was not required. One of the subject seal rings was selected for evaluation within the calculation; it is documented on pages 183185.
Significance Level does not apply here as this is not a discrepant item.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-00882 does not represent a discrepant condition. The stress calculation is not required to contain the final disposition of seal ring loads. Seal ring loads were addressed in Calculation 12179-NS(B) 157. Significance Level does not apply here as this is not a discrepant item.
Pleviously klontlaed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non D6ecropont condellon?@ Yes O No Resolution Pend 6ngtO vee @m R..oivoon unre.av.dtO ve.
@ No Review initiator: Patel, Ramesh.D VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
st.Conenents:
Printed 2/1&981131 o7 AM Page 2 of 2
c Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34883 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -
Review Group: System DR REs0LUTION ACCEPTED i
Potential Operability issue l
Diwip**: Pene Demon o y,,
j D6ecrepency Type: Calcuwian g
systemerocess: DOX NRC signincance level: 4 Dee FAKod to NU:
Dele Putsehed: 1/17/96 06ecropency: Pipe stress analysis does not reflect the piping as shown on the P & ID drawing (1)
Deecription: In the process of reviewing the following documents for the DGX
- system,
(?) P & ID DWG. No. EM 118E 1, Rev.1 (2) Calculation No. NP(F)-458 XD, Rev. O, CCN 3,7 9-86 (3) Calculation No. NP(F)-459 XD, Rev.1 CCN 1,6-16 86 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
As shown on the P & ID drawing (1),1" lines 3-EGD-001 13-3 and 3-EGD-001 14-3 have a 3/4"x1" reducer, and the 3/4" pipe extends to equipment 3-EGD*SP1 A & SP1B (Oil separators) respectively. A pipe class break SC3/NNS is shown at the end of the reducer, in the pipe stress analysis (2 & 3) only 1" piping upto the i
beginning of the reducer (1" side) la included. The 3/4"x1" reducer and the 3/4" pipe connected to equipment is not included in the analysis.
Discrepancy:
No justification for ignoring the 3/4"x1" reducer and the 3/4" piping which connects to the equipment is provided.
Review valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Petet RameshD O
O 12/22/97 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
O 12/20/97 VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K G
O O
12r23/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K g
Q Q
1/1398 Dele:
INVALID:
Dee: 2/18/98 RESOLUTION: Resporne ID: M3-IRF-01707 Di:; position:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0883, has identified a condition not previously Page 1 or 2 Printed 2/19,9611:31:24 AM
DR No. DR MP3 085 Northee9t Utilities ICAVP uniistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the ulteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI 20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3 96-0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
Conclus6on:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0883, has identified a condition not reviously discovered by NU which i
requires correction. Thit, discrept.ncy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 Pl.
20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3 96 0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
Prevknioly identined by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non DiscreperN CondNion?O Y.s (e) No R.colution Pending70 v.s @ No Res iuisonun, ev.dro v
@ No Rev6ew inuisiers Petel,Memesh.D VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt schopfer, Don K NtC Chmn: singh, Anand K Deio:
2/16/96 sL comments: In the pipe stress analysis, piping is anchored on 1" side of the 3/4"x1" reducer, instead it should have been anchored on the 3/4" pipe. However, since stresses are low, the modeling error will not impact the conclusions of the stress analysis.
1 Prtnied 2/19/9e 11:31:24 AM Pope 2 of 2
y. _ -. _. _
_ = - -..__
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0885 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operatione & Melrdenence and Tootm0 DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: Mo6ntenance Procedure p
Disctyline: I & C Design Ow D6ecropency Type: O A M & T trnplementation g
system /Procese: sWP NRC Slenincance level: 3 Date FANed to NU; Date Putd6ehed: 1/2598 D6ecrepency: Service water strainer timers not in calibration program
==
Description:==
Plant Design Change Request (PDCR) # MP3 92 013 replaced four time delay relays in the Service Water Pump Strainers. The PDCR was identified as a AQ, Cat, I activity and that the new time delay relays were required to be qualified as class 1E devices. Further, the PDCR documented the requirement to up date procedure PT 31459A, MP3 Timing Device Calibration Program. Revision 2 CH 2 of this procedure which has an effective date of October 1,1997 does not include the replaced time delay relays.
NU's Quality Assurance Program (NUQAP) states that ' Periodic calibration and adjustment of measuring and test equipment is performed and controlled to assure accurcey is maintained within limits necessary to verify and control to assure accuracy is maintained within limits necessary to vettfy that design and operating condition requirements have been met. The operating requirements for these relays is identified in the PDCR as providing a safe and reliable means of allowing the system to remain in its automatic mode to provide automatic gross filtering of the service water system cooling water, No documentation was provided that would verify the service water pt. 7p strainer timers were included in the Millstone Unit 3 timing device calibration program or were calibrated on a scheduled frequency.
The PMMS LOCAL ID for the timers in question are:
TDT 5M105 TDU5M119 TDTSM108 TDUSM120 Review Valid invalid Needed Date initletor: Speer, R.
O O
O imee VT Lead: Bees, Ken 8
O O
sio<ee
- vi Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O
O O
sit 89e IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
O O
si22ies Date:
INVALID:
Dete: 2/10/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0685, does not represent a discrepant condition Each Service Water Pump discharges through a separate self.
Page1 of 3 Printed 2/1&Se 11:3(13 AM
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0445 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report cleaning strainer, Backwash is an automatic function that initiales on high differentlat pressure across the strainer or a four hour time delay between motor starts. When the strainer motors are started on automatic timer function, they operate for approximately three minutes. The t,utomatic timer function is v4 credited in the plants accident analysis. The high differential pressure across the strainer is the credited safety function.
Group D timers do not perform a safety function. Group D timers are QA Category I only because of their use of safety grade power and are in a safety circuit. Therefore, they must be qualified as 1E electrical equipment.The procedure PT 31459A states that Group D timers are not calibrated at regular intervals s,id are not Individually identified as part of the procedure for scheduled timing device calibration. The second character in the timing device PMMS ID identifies the Group. The timers listed in this discrepancy report are Group D. MP3 Timing Device Calibration Program do not regire calibration of Group D timers.The documentation for the timers was changed in revision 2 of PT31459A which is attached. Item 7 in the procedure change summary sheet deletes TBT5M105, TCUSM119 TBT5M108 and TCU5M120 and makes them Group D timers Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condition.
==
Conclusion:==
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0885, does not represent a discrepant condition.The Service Water Strainer Motor Timers are Group D timars. The timers do not perform a safety function and are not credited in the plants kccident analysis. The Strainer Motor Group D timers are qualified QA Category I only because of their use of safety grade power and are in a safety circuit. The procedure PT 31459A identifies that Group D timers are not calibrate 1 at regular intervals and are not individually identified as part of the procedure for scheduled timing device calibration. The PDOR documentation requirements were completed in revision 2 of PT 31459A.
Significance Level criterta do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previously hienuaed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Diecropont Conditiont@ Yee O No nessuii p.adiaatO vee @ No needwienunr wv.dtO vos @ No n.vi Initiator: spear, R.
O O
O VT Lead: Base, Ken VT Mgr: schopfer DonK inc chmn: singh. Anand K Date:
2/10/98 st.conenente: S&L concurs that the high differentis' pressure across the strainers is the credited safety functic; and that the timers are properly identified as a
- Group D" timer.
However, S&L recommends that these timers be included in a surveillance or have the timing function verified on a regular Printed 2/19/9611:3413 AM Page 2 of 3
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34866 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report basis. This would be prudent because of the previously demonstrated unreliability and the need to cycle the stralners every eight hours based on operating experience.
PrHed 2/199611M13 AM p.g,3,, 3
V a
t DP N3. DR-MP3 0945 Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operations & Maintenance end Teatro DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Element: Corrective Acton Process pyg,, op,,gy g,,,
l Discipline: Operations O ve.
Diecrepancy Type: Conective Act6on M9 ementation
($)No-6 SystemfProcess: DGX NRC signincance leves: 4 Date Ft,Xed to NU:
Date Published: 1/25/96
-Discrepancy: A commitment to instruct operators to open D/G exhaust hatch in case of ice buildup has been deleted
==
Description:==
In a letter 40 the NRC dated S/17/84, the station committed to provide instructions to station personnel that in the event of ice bulld-up on the diesel generator exhaust access hatch or a tomado alert that the hatches should be opened. A precaution existed in OP 3346A to address this issue.
Revision 19 of OP 3346A removed this precaution based on memo MP3-DE 950863 (PLAAR 3-94-4). Memo MP3-DE-950863, datad 7/17/95 was written to remove the requirement to open the access hatches in the event of a tomado alert. The memo does not address the elimination of the requirement to open the access hatches due to the t'uild-up of ice. Since the precaution that was deleted in OP 3346A addressed both ice build-up and a tomado alert, this is a discrepancy.
DR No. DR MP3-0949 addresses a similar problem.
4 Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date g
Initiator: Tomlyn, Torn O
O O
1'8Se VT Lead: Bass, Ken C
C 1/9SB VT Mgr: schopfer, Don x B
D O
1'1SS8 1Rc Chmn: singh, Anand K G
O O
ii2iSe Date:
INVALID:
Date: 2/17/98 REST..UTION: Disposition:
NU hEs concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0945, identified a condition previously discovered by NU. The corrective action plan for ACR M3-96-0319, based upon PLAAR 3-94-4 concerns, evaluated the need to open the access hatches in the diesel generator exhaust stacks. A previous analysis conservatively modeled the site, exhaust enclosure openings, expected tomado strength and path, available missiles and piping thickness. From the analysis it was concluded that it is not credble for a tomado to damage either or both of the EDG exhaust systems. Therefore, there is no need to open the oxhnust hatches in the event of a tomado alert. Since the exhaust hatches do not have to be opened, the inspections for ice buildup is no longer required. Hence, such procedural requirements for these inspections are not required.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Repe 1, DR-MP3- 0945, has identified a condition previously discover.,d by NU. ACR M3-96-0319 identified concems with PLAAR 3-94-4 Printed 2/19S611:32:29 AM Page 1 of 2
- - - - -____________s
ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0945 r
Northeast Utilit.ees
=
Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report and the associated approved correction action plan determined the access hatches in the exhaust lines did not have to be opened for tomado alerts.
~
Previously iderdened by NU? @ Yes Q No Non D6screpant Condetkm?Q Yes @ No Resolutkm Pending?O ve.
@ No ResolutionUnresolved?O Yes @ No Review initiator: Speer, R.
VT Lead: Bass, Ken VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K rnte: SL Comments: a = 1 9 8
-r NSrtheast Utilmes ICAVP DR Nc.. DR-MP3-0949 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operetone & Mr'~>mnce end Techng DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: CorrectNo Actica Process g l D6scipline: Operations O v. Discrepency Type: CorrectNe Action Implementehon g SystemProcope: DGX NRC SignWicence level: 4 Date Faxed to NU: Date Published: 1/25/96 D6ecrepency: No AOP that requires inpection of D/G exhaust hatch if a potential for ice buildup exists
== Description:== In various communications between the applicant and the NRC resulted in a commitment by the applicant that they would 1 include in an abnormal operating procedure the requirement to periodically inspect the diesel generator exhaust hatch h the event of an ice storm, snow storm or freezing rain to ensure the hatch remains operable. The review could not identify any abnormal operating procedure that would satisfy this requirement. There is an abnormal operating procedure for severe weather conditions, AOP 3569, but it only addresses tomado or hunicane conditions. Review W.id inval6d Needed Date initiator: Tomtyn, Torn G O O 1/a/9e VT Leed: Bees, Ken 8 O O i!S/Se VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 8 O O 1'18'Se IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 1/21/98 Date: INVALID: Date: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition: NU has concluded that Diccrepancy Repon, DR-MP3-0949, has identified a conoition previously discovered by NU. The corrective action plan for ACR M3-96-0319, based upon PLAAR 3-94-4 concems, evaluated the need to open the access hatches in the diesel generator exhaust stacks. A previous analysis conservatively modeled the site, exhaust enclosure openings, expected tomado strength and path, avellable missiles and piping thickness. From the analysis it was concluded that it is not credible for a tornado to damage either or both of the EDG exhaust systems. Therefore, there is no need to open the exhaust hatches in the event of a tomado alert. Since the exhaust hatches do not have to be opened, the inspections for ice buildup is no longer required. Hence, such procedural requirements for these inspections are not required.
== Conclusion:== NU has concluded tilat Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0949, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU. ACR M3 0319 identified concems with PLAAR 3-G4-4 and the associated approved correction action plan determined the access hatches in the exhaust lines did not have to be opened for tomado alerts. Previously identifled by NU? @ Yes O No Non Discrepant Condition?Q Yes (4) No Printed 2/1&9811:32A8 AM Page 1 of 2 v
DR No. DR-MP3 0949 Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Resolution Ponding7O Yes (9) No Resolution Unresolved 70 vee (*) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date Mw: S R. 3 O O 2/17/9e n u.,,,,,. VT Mgt: Schopfer DonK IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: SL Conwnents: k Page 2 of 2 PrWed 2/19/9611:32 48 AM
[ s Northeast UtilMies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0973 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report kelow Group: Programmetc DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Correcttve Action Process p Discipline: Operatione Om Diecrepancy Type: Corrective Action @ No SystemProcess: Rss NRC signifnconce level: 3 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: 1r2598 Discrepancy: Corrective Action incurrectly scheduled
== Description:== The corrective action for UlR 2278 involves issuing changes to procedures which implement Technical Specification requirements relative to valve lineup. Identifying this UIR as "not startup required
- is inconsistent with NUC PI-20, Priority Code 2 criteria which identify "Ceficiencies affecting plant technical specifications" and " Documentation that may have operability and/or reportability concems associated with it."
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initletor: Wroru,1 P. g Q Q 1/15/9e VT Lead: Ryon, Thomen J G O O 1'1S/S8 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 1r2orse IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O ti22/se. n.ie: INVALID: Date: 2/6/98 RESOLUTION Disposition NU has concluded that the issue reported in Olscrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0973, does not represent a discrapant condition. Unresolved item Report (UIR) #2278 identified procedures SP3606.5 and SP3606.6 as performing valve lineup verifications - to meet Technical Specification Requirements 4.5.2.b.2 and 4.6.2.2.a. These surveillance requirements state that "at least once per 31 days by verifying that each valve (manual, power-operated, or automatic) in the flow path is not locked, sealed, or otherwise secured in position, is in its correct position." Procedure Forms, SP3606.5-1 and SP3606.6-1 had contained the follov'ing locked valves for verification of position: RSS*V920, RSS*V921, RSS*V922, RSS*V923, RSS*V946, RSS*V947, RSS*VG48 and RSS*V949. These valves are allidentified as locked closed on the PalD and Operations Procedure Form 3260B-1 " Locked Component Checklist." Bated on Expert Panel Sub-Committee review of this condition, the UIR was Voided based on MEMO MP3-DE-0907 which allows UIRs previously approved by the Expert Panel that can now be categorized as non-Startup by referring to Attachment 11 criteria provided in U3 PI-20, Rev.1. The surveillance requirements of Technical Specifications 4.5.2.b.2 and 4.6.2.2.a. were being met by performing the valve alignment check in two places (SP 3606.5-1/3606.6-1 and Operations Procedure Form 3260S 1) therefore the UIR was voided. Condition Report, M3 Printed 2/19/9611:33:06 AM Page 1 of 2 n,,
Northert Utilitle) ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0973 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1485, was initiated to identify and track the correction of these redundant surveillance procedures which implement Technical Specification requirements related to valve position verification. Identifying ftl= UIR as 'not startup required
- Is not inconsistent with NUC Pi 20, Priority Code 2 criteria which identify
- Deficiencies affecting plant technical specifications" and
- Documentation that may have operability and/or reportability concems associated with it.' The surveillance requirement of valve lineup verifications was being verified in two forms 1) the locked valves were identified and controlled in accordance with
( OP % 60-1 locked component checklist end 2) Procedo;es SP3606.5-1 and SP3606.6-1 verified valve position on a monthly basis, Performing these surveillance's by two methods does not constitute a deficiency affectir a plant technical specifications or documentation that may have vperability or reportability concems. The procedures went beyond the requirements of the Technical Specifications. Neither operability nor lack of adherence to Technical Gpecifications were issues in relation to UlR 2278, Significance Level Criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. Conclusion NU has concluded that the issue reported In Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3 0973, does not represent a discrepant condition. The procedures listed in the UIR went beyond the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements of 4.5.2.b.2 and 4.6.2.2.a. No operability or Technical Specification compliance issues were associated with UlR 2278, therefore voiding the UlR was appropriate, Significance Level Criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. Previously identitled by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?@ Yes V No Resolution Pending?O Ye. @ No Re.oeuisonune oeved?O Yo. @ No Review initiator: Navarro, Mark VT Leed: Rp, Thomas J VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: Page 2 of 2 Printed 2/19/981133:06 AM
V ' Northea'.t Utiilties ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0986 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmeue DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: CorrectNe Action Process p D6scipline: Other Ow D6screpancy Type: CorrectNo Action trnp6emertsuon g Syelem/ Process: DGX NRc Signiecance levoi: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Putd6ehed: 1/2s/96 D6mepency: Unresolved item Report (UIR 259) Closure Descrirtion: UIR 259 and Action Request AR 96007628 discuss a required change to operating procedure OP3346A and an update to the f FSAR. ACR M3-96-0186 was generated to revise the operating procedure however no action was taken to update the FSAR as descritrd nor is there any documented evidence to support that an FSAR update was not required. I Review Valid inveP1 Needed Date initiator: Navarro, Mark O O O t'1S'88 VT Leed: Ryan,Thornes J G O-O r21ese VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K G O O ii22/9e IRc Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Q 1/22/9e Date: INVAUD: Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0985, does not represent a discrepant condition. In the Description Section of UIR 259 the recommended actions were to delete the requirement to open the EDG exhaust during severe weather or a tomade, and to delete associated license requirement and update the FSAR, The procedure OP 3346 Rev.18 change 6 deleted step 6.9 which contained this requirement.The section of the FSAR involved is the Q&A portion which is historical in nature and is no longer updated.Pl 20 p ovides guidelines for completing non-ACR assignment forms, that is the Discrepancy item Closure Package (DiCP). This guideline only requires identified actions to be !!sted. Since updating the FSAR was not repeated its either the Recommendation Disposition Details or the Final Disposition, the DICP did riot address the FSAR update issue.The Expert Panel has reviewed the UIR through the PI 14/20 process and concurred with the disposition and required actions. Therefore, UlR 259 DiCP is coniplete. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition. Conclusion NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrupancy Report, DR-MPS-0985, does not represent a discrepant condition. PI 20 guideline only requires identified actions to be listed. Therefore, UIR 259 DICP is completc ?,lgnificance '.evel criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition. Printed 2/19E 11:30:34 AM Page 1 of 2
V Northea:t Utilitt:n ICAVP DR N:, DR-MP34t>86 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Prev 6ously identtfied by nut _ C) Yes (*) No Non Discrepent Cond6 tion?(#) Yes No s Resolution Pend 6ng70 vee @ No Rosaiuiionunreceived70 vee @ No Review inetletor: Neverro, Mark b VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J O m VT Mge: schopfer. Don K IRc chmn: singh, Anand K Dete: 2/16/98 sL comments: Based on further explanation provided in NUs response, we agree that FSAR Q&A section is historical and need not be updated. However, we disagree that corrective action closeout packages do r'ot require evidence that issues documented in the initial concem need not be eddressed even if the final conclusion (s) with respect to any particu.ar issue was that no action was required. Inadequate documentation only invites questions which the licensee mus' then address. As noted in your response, Pl 20 requires that actions to be taken be list 6d in tile non-ACR assignment forms as appropriate. Pl 20 does not prevent the goed practice of briefly explaining in a closeout package that a particular concem which was initially documented warranted no action and why. Without thorough documentation, the Reviewer ( with a questioning attitude and knowledgeable of the process) has no choice but to ask if the issue was addressed. Note that Pl 20 als6 states that "the DICP should be viewed as a stand-alone document. An outside reviewer should have enough information within the DICP to fully answer all potential questions regarding issue back0round and resslution." Pl 20 also states that "the Disposition listed on the closure request shall contain a discussion on the related findings and stated solutions". Printed 2/19/9811:33:34 AM Page 2 of 2 e
i Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-0346 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Piping Design Om D6screpency Type: C-*.ulation (O') No System / Process: sWP NRC SigniScance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: 1o/18/97 Diecrepency: Density of Fiberglass (J) insulation used in stress analysis is inconsistant with c!!ed reference D*ectlPtion: In the proess of reviewing the following documents, (i) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X1900 Rev. 3 CCN's 1 to 3 (ii) Pipe Stress calculation 12179-NP(B)W.53900, Rev. 5 we noted the following discrepancy: In pipe stress analysis calculations (1) and (ii), the density of Fiberglass insulation Type J is specified for some lines as 4 lbs/cft, and for others as 5.25 lbs/cft. According to the reference cited in the calculations, the density should be 5.25 lbs/cft. No justification is provided for the use of the lower (4 lbs/cft) density. Review Velid invalid Needed Date inPlator: Prekesh, A. B 0 0 tor 2/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anmony A Q Q Q 1o/3/97 VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 10/1 67 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B D 0 10/14'S7 Dele: INVAUD: Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-01010 Disposition: NU has concluded that DR MP3-0386 does not represent a discrepant enndition. The use of 4 lbs/cu.ft. as opposed to 5.25 lbs/ cu ft for J-type fiberglass insulation does not represent a discrepant condition. The use of 4 lbs/cu ft is the generic minimum of J-type fiberglass insulation (See " Specification for General Thermal Insulation - M921", Transmitted in Transmittal 52 on 7/8/97 ). This generic minimum was used universally until 5/15/84 when a specification was obtained for J-type insulation ( Ref Inter-Office Memo from J.E. Woods to G. Milley dated S/3/84 ) that specified the density of J-type fibergalss insulation as 5.25 lbs/cu ft. Subsequently, when NP(B)-X1900 and NP(B)- X53900 were revised, the new density was used to perform the stress analysis on the length of affected pipe in accordance with the direction provided in Inter-Office Memo from P.Gopal and R. Bain to general distribution. Additionally, calculation 79-236-921GP Rev. O dated 11/12/87 addresses insulation vtelght effeci5 and envelopes the above condition. Printed 2/19/9011:36:11 AM Page 1 of 2
e Northent Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0366 u;:istone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Significance level criteria does not apply as th's is not a discreper.1 condition. l
== Conclusion:== NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. As detailed in the - disposition, the use of 4 lbs/cu ft as the density of J-type fiberglass insulation is the generic minimum density of J-type fiberglass insulation specified in the Specification for General Thermal Insulation M921. This generic minimum was used f universally until 5/15/84 when a specification was obtained for J-type insulation that specified the density of J-type fibergalss insulation as 5.25 lbs/cu ft Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. Attachment
References:
- 1) Inter Office Memo from J.E. Woods to G. Milley dated 5/3/84
( 2 pages )
- 2) Inter-Office Memo From P, Gopal and R. Ba;n dated 5/15/84 (
1Page)
- 3) Calculation 79-236-921GP Rev, O dated 11/12/87 ( 15 pages )
Previously ident6 fled by Nu? Q vos @ No Non Diecrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No ResolutionPend6ng?O vos @ No Recoiutionunroeoived?O vos @ No Review initiator: Prakash, A. Vr Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: skgh, Anand K Date: 2/16/98 sL commente: Current revisions of calculations NP(B)-X1900 and NP(B)-X53900 still show the 'old' density value of 4 lb/cu ft in tha ' Piping Data' for some pipe segments. Therefore, we still consider this as a Significance Level 4 discrepancy. t Prtnled 2/19/9611:36:12 AM Page 2 of 2 4 e
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0674 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: Programmehe DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: CorrectNe Action Process p D6ecipline: Mechanical Design Ow Discrepency Type: Corrocuve Action g SystemProcess: Rss l NRC Signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: 1296 D6screpency: Closure of Design Deficiency Report (DDR) No. 641
== Description:== Discussion DDR 641 was writtea to document a concem regarding the potential for trapped air in the RSS system being delivered to the suction of the operating Chargir" and Safety injection pumps. Closure of the DDR relied in chs is to Operating Pro-a.%re EOP 35 ES 1.3 to address the ist J. These changes w, e incorporated into EOP 35 ES-1.3 Rev.1 Change 1 per KOC meeting number 3-86-14. Later, Revision 4 of EOP 35 ES-1.3 removed the changes that had been made without a safety evaluation per PORC meeting No. 3-91-209. The lack of safety evaluation to remove the changes (which had been made to resolve DDR 641) has been documented by NU in CR M3 1260. The corrective action for this CR is to " determine what changes, if any, should be incorporated into ES 1.3 after RSS modifications are complete to the system." RFI 652 requested a description of specific changes which were to be made to ES1.3 resulting from CR M3-97-1260. NU's response (sent via IRF 874) states that "the changes were originally made to the procedure in order to resolve the concem with air intrusion into the operatin0 SlH and CHS pumps following an accident. This concem is now being addressed by permanent plant modification DCR M3 97-04C." The executive summary and supporting design change package details for DCR M3-97045 Rev. C were submitted by NU as attachments to IRF 874 and have been reviewed. Contrary to the IRF response that DDR 641 issues (alt intrusion in SlH and CHS pumps) were now being addressed by permanent plant mod M3-
- 97045,
- 1. There is no description in DCR M3-97045 which restates the problems and specific concems which are documented in DDR 641. Based on our review of the documentation provided, it is not clear that the concems in DDR 641 are being addressed in the modification.
- 2. DDR 641 is not listed as a design input or reference
- 3. The DCR contains listings of various documents which are being addressed by the modifications. these include a listing of ACR's addressed, a listing of UIR's addressed, a listing of OIRs addressed and LERs addressed. DDR 641 is not listed among ti,ose
) documented issues being addressed by the modification. Prinw! 2/10011:36.44 AM Page 1 of 2
Ncrthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0674 3 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report in summary, based on the DCR M3 97 045 Re <, C modification documents reviewed, it does not appear that the issues / described in DDR 641 are being resolved as stated in NUs response, IRF 874. heview / Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Navarro, Mark 8 0 0 12r3S7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J B D 0 12ss7 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K D Q 12/11/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q O O 12/22/97 Date: INVALID: Date: 2/11/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0674, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability ( concems and meets the Unit 3 deferrai criteria. CR M3-98-04~r4 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4, Conclusion NU has cor.ciuded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0674, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter 816901 and.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0474 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4. Previously identified by NU? U Yes (#) No Non Discrepent condition?O Yes (*) No ~ Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O vee
- No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date ggg,g. Nava% M VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: schoofer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
2/11/98 st comments: Insufficient specific Information provided to determine that issue has been properly addressd in modification DCR M3-97045. It is our understanding that implementation of DCR M3-97045 is startup required. Therefore, the concems documented in the DR should be addressed in the modification or further specific justification needs to be provided why resolutlor of this DR prior to startup is not required. Pnnled 2/19/9011:36:44 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities. ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0703 Millstone Unit 3 Discreponcy Report Review oroup: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design O y= Discrepancy Type: Drawing gg systan/ Process: HVX NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: 12/21/97 Discrepancy: Emergency Generator Enclosure Ventilation Inlet Damper Minimum Position
== Description:== During review of P&lD EM-150016 for the emergency gene
- Jr enclosure ventilation system a discrepancy regarding the minimum open position for the inlet dampers was identified:
FSAR Section 9.4.6.5 states "When the emergency generator diesel engines have stopped (less than 260 rpm), the supply fans are stopped manually from the main heatin0 and ventilation panel in the ccntrol room. The inlet damper goes to the minimum open position, the outlet and recirculating dampers go fully close and open, respectively," P&lD EM-150C-16 does not identify the minimum open position (minimum airflow) for inlet dampers 3HVP* MOD 23A/B Revlow Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Stout, M. D. Q Q Q 11/24/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O 1 r29/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K B O O $2/5/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O 12/9/97 Date: INVAUO: Date: -2/16/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0703, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Th's discrepancy meet
- the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010, it has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and hund to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0164 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
Attachments: CR M3-98-0164 Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes (#) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (8) No Resolution Pending70 Ye.
- No ResolutionUrwesolved70 ves
- No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date 3
gg O 8 O 2tiese VT Lead: Nert, Anthony A 2/17 2 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K O 2/17/9e BRC Chrnn: Singh, Anar.d K O O O Date: 2/16/98 'Pnnted 2/19/9811:37;16 AM Page 1 of 2
N:rthe00t Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0703 Millstone Unit 3 Disc,repancy Report sL comments: The corroclive action is not apparent from the description in CR M3-98-0164 and comment *P&lD not required to show this level of detalt" entered on DR screening form. The DR should have been put in the FSAR ' bin" instead of the Drawing " bin' Printed 2/19/9611:37:16 AM Page 2 of 2 b ,}}