ML20203F434

Forwards Drs Identified During Review Activities for Independent Corrective Action Verification Program.Drs Distributed IAW Communication Protocol,PI-MP3-01

ML20203F434
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/26/1998
From:	Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
9583-100, NUDOCS 9802270307
Download: ML20203F434 (43)

Text

I l

e f1 f

B a r g or N E , L u n d y '$$

y -3 f

Don K. Schopfer

!!Eyd%[f"*"'

Febmary 26,1998 Project No. 9583100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Pdwer Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following seven (7) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP, These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the L'ommunications Protocol, PI MP3 01.

DR No. DR MP3 0991 DR No. DR-MP31050 DR No. DR MP31064 DR No. DR MP31065 DR No. DR MP31067 DR No. DR MP31068 DR No. DR-MP3 1070 I have also enclosed the following one (1) DR that has been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for this DR. The basis for its invalid determination is included on the document DR No. DR-MP3-1059 I have also enclosed the following eleven (11) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L. \

{()

- DR No. DR MP3-0136 -- DR No. DR-MP3-0749 I DR No. DR-MP3-0316 DR No. DR-MP3-0766

.. , y v j { DR No. DR MP3-0633 DR No. DR-MP3-0780 l l g lll ll ll DR No. DR MP3-0683 DR No. DR-MP3-0802 '31,Ill ll1lil,Ill, I,I I,1 1

DR No. DR-MP3-0716 DR No. DR-MP3-0881 AOK hhhk23 DR No. DR-MP3-099F P PDR 4

• Chicago. IL 60603 5780 USA

• 312 269-2000

,e-L ,

i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 26,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100

, Page 2 4

I have also enclosed the two (2) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not

, accepted. S&L comments on these resolutions have been provided.

DR No. DR-MP3-0081 DR No. DR-MP3 0147 4

i Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269 6078.

Yours very truly, f

w& ,-

D. K. Seliopfer g Senior Vice President and ICAVP Manager i DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:

E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight i T Concannon (1/l) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU aw. , w swo2:s 6.

t T

_r..- . , _

w , _ , - . _ . . -

- . . - , - . . e.,, , , . . , , . . . - - - . . - w-,e-- -

4 ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0991 L Northeast Utlinies Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ewGroup systern DR VALIO Review Element: Modefication Design pgg ggg,y y 06ec6pline: Mechanical Doeign O Ya Diecropency Type: ceioulshan gg systerrevocese: NEW NRC signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6ehed: 2/26Se D6*crepency: DCR M3 97045 does not reference calculation for impact on service water cooling load.

DescriP tion: DCR M3 97045 reduces the containment recirculation system flow rate through the RSS heat exchangers. This will reduce the heat load on the service water system, No calculation is referenced in DCR M3 97045 which addresses the reduced heat load on the service water system, Calculation 90-0691065M3 through CCN #7 provides the hydraulic and thermalload analysis for the service water system and should be referenced in DCR M3 97045, it is recognized that the reduced heat lost on the service water system due to the reduced RSS flow rate through the containment recirculation spray coolers is in the conservative direction, However, changes in cooling load on the service water system due to plant design changes should be noted even if the service water flow balance is not changed as a result in the cooling load change.

Review Vol6d invalid Nooded Date inniatori reingold, D.J. 8 O O 2/isse VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 2/inse VT Mgt: Schopbr, Don K 8 O O 2/2iise IRC Chmn: 66ngh, Anand K O O O 2/ S8' Dee:

INVAL10:

REs0LUTioN:

Prov6ously iderd6hed by Nur Q Yes (@ No Non 06screpent condat6on?O Yes (@ No ResolutionPending?O Yes @ No Resoivisonunr ev.deO Yoo @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptotde Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopbr, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O

O O O Dee:

sL Comments:

= __ _ = _.

Printed 2/26/9e e 56 31 AM Page 1 of 1

4 ICAVP DR No. DR MP31060 5 Northeast Utilities naillstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report R. view oroup: sywem D,.vAtiD Review Element: Modtrestion Deegn g Diecipline: Structural Design O va 06ecrepency Types instenst6on implementation

@ No SystemProcees: NEW NRC signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NO:

Date Published: 2/2tV9e D6ecrepency: Modl3 cation DCR M3 97580 references the incorrect specification for structural steel.

Descriptkm: Modification DCR M3 97580 Implements repairs and corrections to the containment structure sump enclosure.

Page 2 of the modification package states that the modification is consistent with the originalinstallation of the sump enclosure framing and specification 2199.142 993. RFl 845 specifically requested specification 2199,142 993 as referenced in DCR MS-97580. However, the response to the RFI, IRF 1467, stated that the wrong specification was requested and that the correct specification was 2199.292 993.

A review of specification 2199.292 993 confirms it to be the correct specification. H3 wever, no evidence is found which demonstrates that the work on the sump screens specified in the subjed modification is performed in accordance with specification 2199.292 993.

Review I Val 6d inveild Needed Date J Initiator: Feingoid, D. J- 0 O O 2/iase VT Lead: Nori, Anthony A Q Q Q 2/1996 VT Mgri Schopter, Don K O O O 2/2ir9e ,

IRC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K Q Q Q 2/2596 Date:

INVALIO:

Dele:

REs0LUTION:

Previously identined by Nu? O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O vos @ No Resolution untosolved?O vos @ No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O Dese:

sL Comments:

Page 1 or 1 Printed 2/2tV96 9.00 44 AM

ICAVP DR No. DR MP301064 i Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DR VALID Review Elemord: Modscet6on Doo$n p,,,g ,gy D6ecipione: Mechanical Desig" O vos D6ecrepancy Type: Drawine

@) No SystemProcese: NEW NRC sigedftcence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date FuM6uwd: 2/269e D6scr*Pency: DCR M3 97094 adds new non safety valvos for which drawifgs are not added to the drawing system.

Descr6pt6on: DCR M3 97094 adds new valves 3RSS-V866,867,868,869 via DCNs DM3 001829-97 and DM3 001830-97, No new vendor drawings for these valves are identfled as being added to the Millstone Unit 3 drawing system.

Review veild invetid Needed Date initletor: Feingo6d D. J. O O 2/taes VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O 2/iaes VT Mgr: $<hopfer, Don K O O O 2/25/se IRC Chmn: Slngh, Anand K O O O 2/2s9e Date: 2/19/98 INVALID:

Date:

REs0LUTION:

Previously identtfled by NU? U vos (9) No Non D6ecropont Condition?Q vos @ No Resolution Pend 6ng?O vos @ No Resolution Unresolved?O vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K ~

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O "

O O Date:

st Commente:

Printed 2/269e 9.01:23 AM Page i of i

~

ICAVP DR No. DR MP31066 b Northe:st Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID

' PoterdialOperabilsty lseue D6ecipline: Mwher*al D"*" O va D6ecropency Type: Dnign Cortrol Procedure g syelemfrocese: NEW )

NRC signtnconce level: 4 Dele Faxed to NU:

Date Pulmohed: 2/2&96 Decropency: Change to Calculations Descripuon: DCR 97045 changed the design flow of the RSS System by adding an orifice at the discharge of each pump. DCR 97042 installed recirculation lines for the RSS C & D Pumps to provide a quarterly testing path.

The system changes due to the modifications required the following calculations to be addressed. It could not be confirmed that the calculations were reviewed due to th6 modifications.

US(B) 294 The NPSH analysis for the SlH and CHS Pumps.

The new orifice in the RSS pump discharge v/ill increase the pressure drop and decrease the NPSH available to the ECCS pumps.

P(R) 1192. The over pressure protection calculation for the RSS System. Lines were added for testing the RSS C & D pumps.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Q 2/1996 Irelator: Longel. D. O Q VT Leed: Nevi, Anthony A Q Q Q 2/21/96 2/2iise VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 2/2596 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q Q Q _

Date:

IPNAL10:

Date:

REs0LUTION:

Previously idenuned by NU? U vos @ No NonDiscrepardcondetion?Q Yee @ No Resolution PendingtO vos @ No Resoivuonunt. ev.drO Yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Nooded Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anend K sL cormwnts:

Page 1 of 1 Pnnted 2/2696 9 02:03 AM

y Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31067 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID M*vtm timment: Moenost6an Mgn pp,gg,, y D6ecipien:: N 0"*"

O va 06screpency Type Lloonaang Document g~

systeWProcees: NEW - l NRC signiacance level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Pubashed: 2/2W9e 06*crepency: DCR M3 97102 and FSAR CR 97 MP3 569 are not consistent with each other.

Deecripewm: FSAR Secti:n 6.3.2.5 requires that a 50 gpm leak in the Engineered Safeguards Features (ESF) Building, excluding the pipe tunnels, be capable of being detected and isolated within 30 minutes. FSAR CR 97 MP3 569 changes the requirement to state that a 50 spm leak is capable of being detected and Isolated within approximately 30 minutes.

DCR M3 97102 does not achieve the requirement in FSAR Section 6.3.2.5, before or after FSAR CR 97.MP3 569.

Engineering Evaluation MS-EV 970281 provides the support for the conclusions in DCR MS 97102 and is attached to the DCR, According to engineering evaluation MS-EV.970281, paragraphs 1 & 2 on page 4, a 50 ppm seal failure in the RHS, RSS & SlH pumps would be detected in approximately 11 minutes. The same evaluation on page 7, states that prior to the modification a 50 gpm passive failure between the pipe tunnel and the CHS pumps would not be identified for a significantly longer time.

Page 7 of the evaluation states that after the modification, a 50 gpm passive failure between the pipe tunnel and the CHS pumps would be detected within 48 to 68 minutes. The detection time of 48 to 68 is not within the approximately 30 minutes as stated in FSAR CR 97 MP3 569, Review Val 6d inval6d Needed Date insistor: Feingold, D. J. O O O miserne VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 2/21/se VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 2/2i/se IRC Chmn: Singh. Aner , K O O O 2/2sios Date:

INVALID: ,

Date:

REs0LUTioN:

Previously identined by NU? O vos (6 No NonD6ecrepentCondition?Q vos (0) No Resolution Ponding?O vos @ No ResoluuonUnresolved?O vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Accepta.tde Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O J O O ] O Date:

Printed 2/2tve89:02:21 AM Page 1 of 2

-.- __ .~.-.- . --.. ------._-... - ..- - -.- _.- -.-.-.- .

4 ICAVP DR N2. DR MP31H7

& Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report st e - .: ,

1 l

l l

l I

i Pnnted 2/2tW6 9 02:21 AM Pope 2 of 2

p Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP31068 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review orcup: Syelem DR VALIO Potential OpersbetNy leave 06*ciP46as: M*he'**l Denien g y ,,

Diecrepency Type: Procedure implementaten syseenWProceae: NEW gg NRC sieni#cence imi: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Dale Pubitehed: 2t2&ee D6ecrepency: Incomplete documentation implementing changes to Specification SP ME 570

Description:

In the process of reviewing modification DCR M3 97063 and associated DCN-001122 97 the following is noted.

DCN-001122 97 states on ps0e 3 under the topic Specification Changes Required,

' Add snubber mark nos. 3 RSS-4 PSSP459 and 3-RSS-4 PSSP460 to the snubber list, Appendix U of Specification SP.

ME 570."

Based on a review of the subject DCN, no change paper incorporating the changes to Appendix U of Specification SP ME.

570 could be identified, in addition, the subject DCN also identifies the addition of other new pipe supports and the deletion of one support. It is believed these cases should be reflected by changes to the listin0 of pipe supports contcIned in Appendix M of Specification SP ME 570, The subject DCN does not mention this potential change to the specification or include any change paper to reflect its implementation, r

Discrepan:y:

DCN DM3-001122 97 does not provide change paper to implement the noted changes to specification SP ME 570 l Appendix U and does not identify or implement potential changes to Appendix M of the same specification, l Review t

! Valid invalid Needed Date

! InMietor: Olson, P.R. O O O 2r2ose VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 8 O O 2taise VT Mert Schopfer Don K O O O 2t21se IRC chmn: Singh, Anand K Q O O 2'25 S8 Dais:

INVALlo:

Date:

REs0LUTioN:

Previously identiflod by nut U Yee fe) No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yee (e) No Rowtution Pend 6ng?O yee @ No Renoiulion U,ne.oeved?O vee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date

- YT4eed. . ... ., - .' .

Printed 2f269e 9 02:30 AM Pope 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP31048

& Northeast Utilhies Miiistone unk 3 Discrepancy Report v i -. - i,m,- , n O

Vf Mgt: Schorder, Dwt K ,

MC Chmn: Singh Anand K SLComnerds:

Prtded 2/2MI6 9.02 37 AM

. Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utinties ICAVP DR No, DR MP31070 Millstone unu 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Systern DR VALID Moview tiement: Systen Dwign D6ecipline: 14 C Doolgn Potwelal Dpoemy im Diecrepency Type Wooneing Documord Ow System 9receos: 8WP @ No NRC sWWe level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 2t28/9e D6*cr*P*acy: SER Section 7.3.2,8 Inconsistent with Isolation of nonsafety-related Service Water piping, Deectlt6on:

P SER Sect!on 7.3.2.8 states that on receipt of a safety injection signal or loss of power signal, the water supply lines to the nonsafety related equipment are isolated. Per the below listing of Service Water isolation veh es and drawings, the nonsafety-related piping isolation valves are Isolated by a Containment Depressufization Actuation signal or a Loss of Power signal, but not a safety injection signal.

The following drawings depict the valve position required on receipt of the automatic Initiation signal:

SIGNAL SERVICE VALVE LCS DRAWINGS

......................=================

CCP hx 3SWP*MOV50A,8 +C+ EM 133B 34 LSK 91G Rev8 TBCCW 3SWP'MOV71A,B CC+ EM 1338 34 LSK 9 70,E Rev9,8 Circ Lube 3SWP'MOV115A,8 C C + EM 133D 23 LSK 21.1E ReV 10 Chlor 3WTC'AOV25A,8 NC+ EM 133C 18 LSK 910G Rev 12 ,

LSK 910L Rev 4 L = Loss of Offsite Power; C = CDA; S = SIS C = Close N = No Change; + = Remains Open Review Valid invol6d Needed Date initiator: DeMarco, J. O O O 2t21/se VT Lead: hert, Anthony A O O O 2t2iise VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K Q O O 2r2iise IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 2r2sse Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prestlously identined by Nu? O Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pend 6ngtO vos @ No Resolution UnresolvedtO vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A = -O-O - O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Pnnled 2/269e 9.02.53 AM Page 1 of 2

~

$ Northeast Utlinies ICAVP DR No. DR MP31070 Millstone und 3 Discrepancy Report utC Chmn: $6ngh, Anand K b O O l tw.:

sL Ct e nentet  ;

l i

Printed 2f2tW6 9.02.53 AM Page 2 of 2

. ICAVP DR No. DR MP31069 Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l Rev6ew Groups systern DR INVALID Review Element: Correctke Acton Proosso 06ecipline Mechanical Design O va D6ecropency lype: Correcthe Act6animp6ementataan gg systemProcese: Rs4 NRC sientacance level: 3 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Putdlehed: 2/26/96 D6scrapency: ACR M3 96 0620

Description:

ACR M3 96-0620 identified that adequate RSS Pump NPSH may not be demonstrated. The ACR reviewed calculations P(R).

1115 P(R) 1131, US(B) 257, US(B) 265, US(B) 278, US(B) 295 and US(B) 326.

The ACR Identiflod consistency problems in Calculation US(B).

326, US(B) 265 and US(B) 257. The recommended actions were as follows:

1. Evaluate the calculations and establish the base conditions.

2. Revise the calculations as appropriate.

The reportability review performed an evaluation of the calculations. However, the base conditions were not formally established as a result of this effort.

The calculations reviewed by the ICAVP (5/97) were the same as those reviewed by this ACR (8/96). Calculation US(B) 265, US(B) 278 and US(B) 326 were superseded by Calculation US(B) 362. Calculation: US(B) 257 and US(B) 295 were not revised and there is no indication that they are under revision.

The Closure Request contains the DE Department Supervisor sl0 nature, but the Plant Manager has not s;0ned the packa0e.

Review Valid involid Needed Date initiator: Longel. D- O O O 2/2s96 VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A Q Q Q 2/2996 VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K O O O 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: 2/25/98 INVALID: This is not a discrepancy, information was missing from the ACR Closure Package. This information was ordered.

Date:

REs0LUTioN:

Previously ident6 fled by NU? O Yes (9) No Non D6ecrepent Conastion?O Yes (S') No Resolut6on Ponding?O vos @ No Renoiuiionvarosoeved?O veo (f)No Review Acceptande Not Acceptetdo Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A

-= _=

VT Mgt: _Schopfer, Don K _ _

IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O Dei.:

Pri,*ed 2/2696 9~07.12 AM Page 1 of 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP31069

. Northe1Ct UtilMles Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report _

SL Corryneeds:

9 Printed 2/2tW6 9.0713 AM Page 2 of 2

DR No. DR MP3 0134 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report __

Rev6ewGroup: AccadertMitgeton DR REsot.UTION ACCEPTED Rev6ew Elemord: System Doongn p g Disc 6pline: Machenical Do64pn O va t%ecrepancy Type: Coacunsten gg SysterWProcess: N/A NRC signtacance level: 3 Date faxed to NO:

Date Publ6shed: W11/97 D6*croPancy: Feedwater Calculation 12179 735P(T) Dix:repancy DescrlPt60n: While reivewing the calcualtion 12179 73!,P(T): *Fallure of Feedwater Regulating Valve at Zero Pow 9r Level", Revision 0, dated 03DEC81, a math error was discovered on page 10 of the calculation. The Steam Generator Inlet Pressurs is calculated to be 1313 psla. The computed value is 1213 psig when the math error is corrected. As this value is the t, asis for the remainder of the branch flow and pump curve adjustments, it could not be verified that the feedwater flow to a steam generator does not increase by more than 100% after the postulated f ailure of ;he feedwater regulating valve as required by the ans'ysis assumptions stated in FSAR $15.1.2.2, Case 2, item 2.

Review Val 6d invalid Nooded Date O SSS7 init6ator: Feebles, W. R. O O VT Lead: Rehois,RalD D D D SSS7 VT Mgr: s#wpfer, Don K Q Q Q W8/97 Q 9/897 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q D.i.:

INVAUD:

Date: 2/17/98 REsot.UTION: Additional Background inform 6 tion Supplied By NU:

Subsequent NU review determined that the correct ' required pressure

• on page 10 of the calculation is 1113 psia This lower pressure results in a flow rete of approx. 8.9x10E6 lb/hr, instead of the 7.55x10E6 lb/hr listed by the calculation. This higher flow rate in 235% of the normal fullload value Instead of the 200%

stated in FSAR Section 15.1.2. FSAR 8ection 15.1.2 concludes that the feedwater malfunction accidents are enveloped by the un:ontrolled rod cluster control assembly bank withdrawal accident of Sec.15.4.1. This statement needs to be reconfirmed for the feedwater control valve accident at 0% power with the higher tiow rate.

Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0136 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU wtilch reautres correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3186 was wntten to provide the necessary corrective actions to recolve this issue. The Calculation 12179-735P(T) will be revised to correct the identified error. The FRV malfunctlen at Zero power analysis will be rerun using the recalculated flow rate. NU has initiated a reportability evaluation per NGP 2.25 to determ'ns if the identified condition is reportable. NU will cubmit a follow up Page 1 of 2 Pnnted 2/269e 8:50:o3 AM

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0136

• Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j response describing the NGP 2.25 results as well as the additional corrective action results. Based on the response from NU, S&L may need to re evaluate the significance level.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0136 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The ca culation will be revised to correct this l error. Condition Report (CR) MS 97 3186 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. NU has initiated a reportability evaluation per NGP 2.25 to determine if  !

the identified condition is reportable. NU will submit a follow up l response describing the reportability evaluation results as well as the additional conective action results. Based on the response from NU, S&L may need to re evaluate the significance level.

Previously identised by Nut () Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Condition?() Yes @ No no.ow n r.nener@ Ya O No n.e.w.n unr**.dtO Ya @ No n.vi Instletor: Peebles, W. R.

VT Leed: Rehets, Ral 0 VT Mgt schopfer, Don K b b b NtC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date: 2/17/98 st.commenta: The revision to calculation [12179 735P(T)], which corrected tne math error, determined a flow rate that is 235% cf nominal flow.

This exceeds the limit assumed in the FSAR $15.1.2 analysis, 200 %.

The FSAR Identifies the controlling reactivity insertion event as a rod withdrawl from subcritical conditions. The reportability evaluation indicates that Westinghouse has been contacted to determine if the reactivity insertion limit will be exceeded by the higher flow rate (235% of nominal flow).

Closure of this DR requires the following documentation:

1) the results of the Westinghouse evaluation / analysis of the reactivity insertion for 235% of nominal feedwater flow for the zero power condition,

2) the reevaluation of the reportability of this issue, per 10CFR50.72, based on the results of the Westinghouse analysis (Item 1), and

3) a summary of actions and schedule that NU proposes for closure of this condition.

Page 2 of 2 Printed 2/~596

. 8 50 o4 AM

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0316

. Northeast Utilities Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Otoups syenom DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED M*vlow ElemeM: Sydem Do%i PdeM6el OpetalpaNy leeue D66cipune: Piping Deedg" D6screpency Type: Ceiculation O w-(() No systemProcese: SWP NRC significence level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Puhilohed: 10/1sS7 D6scrapency: Operating temperature used in stress analysis is not conalstent with current stress data packa0e Deectlpiton: In the process of reviewing the followin0 documents, (1) Calculation 12179-NP(F) 725 XD, Rev 3, CCN #1,4/20/93 (2) Stress data package calculation SDP SWP 01370M3, Rev 10, 5/23/97 we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

Pipe stress analysis calculation (1) for lines 3 SWP 750 ?$5 3,3-SWP 279 3 and 3 SWP 2814 is based on a maximum operating temperature of 160 de0 F.

According to the stress data package (2), under operating condition 14, the operatin0 process temperature for lines 3-SWP-750 255 3,3 SWP 279 3 and S SWP 2814 is 165 deg F.

Condition 14 is described as follows: Four hours after a Containment isolation Phase B (CIB) signal, reactor plant corpponent cooling must be re-established and the Post Accident Sample System (PASS) is in service and can be utilized to obtain a post accident sample, To provide flow to the post accident sample cooler, valves 3SWP'V839 & V842 are opened, Inlet temperature for the cooler is 75 de0 F and outlet temperature is 165 deg F.

For the 165 dog F maximum operating temperature, thermal expansion stresses will exceed ASME Code class 2 &3 allowable for Eqn.11 by 2.6% ,

Discrepancy:

The operating temperature used in calculation (1) has not been updated to be consistent with the latest revision of the stress data package (2).

Review vand invoud Needed Date initiator: Patel, Remesh D D D D ior247 VT Lead: Nori, Anthony A Q Q Q 1o/197 vi m er: senopter, con x 8 0 0 0/13S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 10/i'S7 Date:

1. NALID:

Pttnted 2/2646 8.5195 AM Page 1 cr 3

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0316

. Northeast UtilHies Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report oste: 2/19/98 REsoLUTeoN: Response ID: MS lRF 01457 Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0316 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

As shown in Unit 3 UIR 991 dated 10/2/96 (attached) and CR MS-

- 971596 dated 5/22/97 (attached), issues with service water operating conditions were identified previously. As a result of correctJve action associated with the CR, the subject pipe stress analysis was revised.

The operating conditions review determined that the specified maximum operating temperature for analysis of service water piping downstream of the PASS sample cooler should be 200 F.

The revised conditions are documented in Engineering Record Correspondence 25212 ER 97 0242 dated 10/27/97 (attached).

Design change M3 97 097 wu initiated to revise design conditions and rerate components as required; the package was closed out on 12/2/97. As part of this process stress data package SDP SWP-01370M3 Rev.10 was revised by CCN #1 dated 11/26/97 (attached).

The design change included removal of two service water pipe supports to accommodate the new temperature. Pipe stress calculation 12179 NP(F) 725 XD was updated by change notice CCN 2 dated 11/26/97 (attached), in this change notice the maximum reported Equation 11 stress is 16,731 psl, which satisfies the allowable stress of 18,750 psl. Thus the piping satisfies its current design basis requirements.

On the basis of the UIR and CR Identification of discrepant piping temperatures, and subsequent modification of the pipe stress analysis to fully bound the higher tempeiatures, the condition identified by S&t. is considered pre <liscovered.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0316 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which required correction. The completed corrective actions associated with CR M3-971598 resulted in revision of both the calculation and the stress data package to account for the higher service water temperature.

Previously klontiflod by NU7 @ Yes O No Non D6ecrepent Condel6on?() Yes O No Resolution Ponding?O ve. @ No ResolutionUnrescoved?O vos @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date mm P4 Rom.D VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q D D N vi m eri schope.r.oon K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anund K .

Date:

Pnnted 2/26S6 6.5196 AM Page 2 or 3

ICAVP DR N2. DR MP34316

. Northe:st Utlinies Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Commeeds:

f PrWted 2/2696 6 51:06 AM Page 3 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0433

. Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

Review Group: Cyotem DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED M'VI'* EW Y8 M M" Potential Opetetdilty issue D66cip46ne: Electrical Desig" O ve.

Discrepancy Type: Component Dats

@) No systen#rocess: Oss NRC signincance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/1tv97 D6screpency: No documentation shows the QSS pump motor shroud design change commited to in letter B13620.

DesctlP Hon: According to Northeast Utilities letter B13620 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated August 27,1990, a quench spray pump motor shroud design change will be pursued with General Electric to conect the loosening and cracking problems with the motors. No documentation shows that the quench spray pump motor shroud design has been upgraded according to General Electric's recommendations.

Review Vol6d inval6d Needed Date lnitiator: Feingold, D. J. O O O $55S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O '1'S57 VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K Q Q Q 11/10/97 1RC Ctenn: $4n9h Anand K Q Q Q 11/11/97 Dele:

INVALE Date: 2/20/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0633, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Additional information attached to this response indicates that various pumps were evaluated for this condition, and that some of the pumps were recommendert for a design change. The commitment made in letter 813620 was to pursue a design change for those pumps where the evaluation determined that loosening and cracking of the shroud would be a problem. PIR 389-206 committed to a yearly inspection of the CCS, CCP and CC' motors, and an inspection every three years for the FWA, QSS, CHS, and SlH motors. A commitment to pursue a shroud attachment design change was made only for the CCS and CCP pumps due their frequent use and their previous history of shroud cracking. No problems had been experienced with the OSS motors. Following the initial failure of the CCP pump shroud, the evaluation by GE indicated that insufficient bolt torque was the likely contributor to the CCP pump shroud failure, as referenced in their letter EJH-90 005. In accordance with this recommendation, repairs were made to the QSS and other pump motors to install washers and loctite. This task was performed under AWOs M3 90-22672 and 9013804, inspection of the QSS*P3 pump motor shrouds is currently performed at a frequency of once in three years, and no problems have been detected. (A design change was pursued for the CCP motors due to continued problems with shroud cracking.)

Printed 2/2696 6 52.13 AM Po9e 1 or 2 m._

DR No. DR MP3 0633

. Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The reference PIR, PIR commitment, and the AWOs used for the inspection are provided for information.

Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condnlon.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in D'w.repancy Report, DR MP3-0685, does not represent a discrepant condKlon. The QSS pump motors were determined to be not susceptible to cracking and a design change was not required. The pump motors will continuo to tn inspeded every three years per the commitment associatM whh NRC letter 813620, and the PIR commitment.

Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condulon.

Previously klontened by NUP Q Yes @ No Non D6ecrepent Conden on?@ Yes U No Resolution Ponding70 Yes @ No Recoiuiionua.esoeved?O vos @ No Review initletor: Feingold, D. J.

VT Laod: Nort, Anthony A VT Mge: khopler, Don K g O N 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K = ,

Date:

sL Commente:

Pege 2or 2 Pnnted 2/26f96 8.52:13 AM

l DR No. DR MP3 0483

- Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report e-w Rev6ew Group: System DR RESOLUTION AccEPTFD Review Element: Modifcetion Design p g, Diecip66ne Structural Dee$n O s'k Discrepency Type: Calculaten g system?toceos: SWP NRC signtAconce level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6shed: 1/17/98 D6ecrapency: Modification Review Checklist Descript6en: We have reviewed Modification No. M3 96056. Based on this review we have noted the followireg discrepancy, Supports 3 SWP-4 PSSP423, PSSP427 & PSST 060 were modified by the subject modification per DCN #'s DMS-S-08317 96 & DM3 S 0816 96. Per NU Response ID No. M3 IRF 00910, calculations for modified supports can not be found in Nuclear Plant Records. Therefore review of the modi'ir.ation p *,kage can not be completed.

Rev6ew Veild invalid Nroded Date init4stor: Patel, A. O O O 12r23/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Arthony A Q O O 12/23/97 VT Mor: SchoMer, Don K Q Q Q 1/12/9e O O 5'13*e MC Chrrw Singh. Anand K O Dele:

WVAuo:

Date: 2/21/96 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the lssue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0683, does not iepresent a discrepant condition.

Retponse Number M3 inF 00910 was in error. The attached calculations and associated DCN's for the subject pipe supports were found in the NU Tracting Program. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identiaed by Nut U Yes @ No Non06ecrepentCondelion?(9) Yes U No Resolution Pend 6ng?O vos @ No Reessuiionvar ev.dtO vos @ No Review inillator: Patel, A.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O =

VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singn, Anand K Dete: 2/18/98 sL comments: We received calculations for subject pipe supports.

Printed 2/26/9e 8.52.36 AM Page 1 of 1

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-C716 N rth:ast Utilities 4

Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revlew Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED E Rev6ew Element: system D' of a p ,

Diecipline: Mechanical Oesig" Om Descrepancy Type: calculaten g System / Process: Oss NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: ir22J96 D6screpancy: Instrument error inferred in FSAR Sec 6.3.2.8 differs from that in 4 calculation 3451B01 1232.

Descr6pt6on: FSAR Section C,3.2.8 states that:

1, initiation of switchover is conservatively assumed to occur at the Refueling Water Storage Tank [RWST) low-low level setpoint with allowance for negative instrument error (taqk elevation = 23 feet 5 inches).

[

2, When instrument error at this setpoint is considered, the volume of water available for core injection is reduced to 605,000 gallons from 646,000 gallons, a difference of 41,000 gallons.,

\

According to SPuo:nt calculation 3451B01-1232 Revision 0, the

} lowest level at wnich the RHS pump can take suction from the J

RWST is the low-low level trip setpoint of 25'-5", minus the setpoint error / drift of 28"(RHS pumps trip on low-low RWST level).

- t he vmi .ne of RWST water equivalent to a 28" negative ,

W toi%em .;rror is more than ths 41,000 gallons identified in the FSAn.

Based on similar discrepancies identified in Discrepancy Reports DR-MP3-704 and DR-MP3-373, the FSAR assumes a different instrument error than calculations 451B01 1232 Revision 0, US(B)-295 Revision 5, and P(R)-983 Revision O.

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initletor: Fein A!, D. J. 9 O O 12/t7/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B O O $2/17/97 VT Mgt: schopfer Don K S O O 12rz w 7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K B O O 1/17/98 Date:

INVALID:

Dete: 2/18/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0716, do not represent a discrepant condition.

NU is currently in the process of revising the RWST/QSS level setpoints to support new ECCS Runout Flows and instrument uncertainties through the implementation of Design Change Request (DCR) 97106. Applicable Calculations, FSAR and Pnnted 2i26,96 8 53.43 AM Page 1 of 3 1

• - - -n -

ICAVP DR Na DR-MM 0710

+ Northea;t Utilities uliistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Procedures will be included to support this design hange. The I

& C calculation and FSAR Section 6.3.2.8 referen .ed in the DR are included w'th2n the scope of this design modification.

The calculation referenced in the DR,3451B01 1232 Rev.0 [ sic.

3451B031232E3, Rev. 0) represents interim conditions during the development of DCR No. M3-97106, while the FSAR Section 6.3.2.8 referenced represents the existing Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) low-low level setpoint with existing instrument errors ano tank volumes. I&C Calculation 3451B03-01232 E3, Rev. O, titled 'RWST Level Interlock Channel Calibration" calculates instrument channel uncertainty and setpoints for low-low and empty level Instrumentation. This calculation supercededs calculation 3-ENG 111 which corresponds with the low low level setpoint analysic identified in FSAR Section 6.3.2.8.

ACR No. M3-96-0499, Dated 8/6/96, identified that the basis criteria for the RHR Pump shut off for RWST Level was not clear. DCR No. M3 97106 was initidied as a result of ACR No.

M3-96-0499. The DCR will change RWST/QSS level setpoints,and applicable FSAR Sections / Tables, Calculations and Procedures to support new ECCS Runout Flows and instrument uncertainties.

The ACR Corrective Action Plan includes preparing a change to US(B) 295 "RWST Draw-Down Rates and Switch Over Levels" to re-evaluate the setpoints using the latest instrument setpoint tolerances and revising applicable FSAR Sections and Figures to implement changes to effected RWST setpoints and volumes accordingly. The calculation referenced in this DR does not represent the current RWST Level setpoint field condition.

DCR No. M3-97106 is presently under development. AR No.

96028013-02 & 04 will track the RWST low-low level setpoint re-evaluation and FSAR Section 6.3 update. Design change modification DCR No. M3-97106 installation and testing is scheduled to be complete prior to Startup.

NU has recently updated the Design Control Manual, Rev. 6, procedure to add an " Installation Verified" box on new Calculation and CCN Title Pages. This box will eliminate confusion about if the results of a calculation has been implemented in the field. CR M3-97-3350, identified calculation control issues. AR 97024519 08 will provide corrective actions to identify calculations of record prior to DCM, Rev. 6. Also, AR 97024595 will involve implementing a calculation improvement plan to identify critical calculations and review requirements.

References attached:

1.) CR M3-96 0499 2.) DCR M3 97106, page 1 3.) CR M3-97-3330 Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a ,

I discrepant condition.

Page 2 of 3 f Pnnted 2/2W9e 8:53:44 AM

\

1

DR N3, DR-MP3-0716

, Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP _

unistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i(

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0716, do not represent a discrepant condition.

NU is currently in the process of revising the RWST/QSS level setpoints to support new ECCS Runout Flows and instrument uncertainties through the implementation of Design Change Request (DCR) 97106. Applicable Calculations, FSAR and Procedures will be included to support this design change. The 1

& C calculation and FSAR Section 6.3.2.8 referenced in the DR are included within the scope of this design modificPtion.

The FSAR Section 6.3.2.8 referenced in the DR supports the RWST low-low level setpoint switchover initation existing condition while the calculation referenced 34518031232E3, Rev. O in this DR represent interim revisions issued during the developement of DCR No. M3-97106.

ACR No. M3-96-0499, Dated 8/6/96, identified that the basis utteria for the RHR Pump shut off for RWST Level was not clear. DCR No. M3-97106 was initiated as a result of ACR No.

M3-96-0499. The DCR changes RWST/QSS level setpoints, applicable FSAR Sections / Tables, Calculations and Procedures to support new ECCS Runout Flows and instrument uncertainties.

The I & C Calculation referenced in this DR includes increased instrument uncertaintles. This calculation is being further revised to support DCR No. M3-97106. Revision of the increased instrument uncertainty will impact other documents (i.e. CCNs, Procedures, FSAR) still in development.

Design change modification DCR No. M3-97106 installation and testing is scheduled to be complete prior to Startup. AR No.

96028013 is tracking the RWST empty level and FSAR figure update.

Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identined by NU7 (39) Yes Q No Non D6screpent Condition?O Yes (9) No Resolution Pend 6ng?O Yes (E)No Resosution unr..oivedtO Y.s (!)No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date p

VT Lead: Neri, Anttony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 2/18/98 SL commants: Based on the disposition provided by Northeast Utilities, discrepancy report DR-MP3-716 represents a discrepancy previously identified by Norhesst Utilities in ACR M3-96-0499..

Pnnted 2/26/9e 8:53:44 AM Page 3 of 3 l

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0749

, {rthe%t Utilities Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i _

Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Deshn p ,

Discipline: structure! Des *"

Discrepancy Type: Calculaten Ow

1. No System / Process: SWP NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/1096 Descrepancy: Equipment mounting calculation

Description:

We have reviewed the Conduit Support Calculation no.12179-BE 52YT , Rev.0, Based upon this review,we have noted the following disc *pancy:

Calculation no.12179-BE 52YT has been provided by NU as a reference calculation for the qualifica"on of the mounting of the junction box no. 3SWP*JB39A,B. Review of the aforementioned calculation has not identified any specific reference to the qualification of the mounting detail for the junction box no. 3SWP*JB39A,B.

Review Velid invahd Needed Date initlator: K) ale, N O O O 12ii2S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Q Q Q 12/11/97 O 12/23S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O $2/35/97 D.t.:

INVALID:

Date: 2/19/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0749, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Junction Boxes 3SWP*JB39A and 39B were installed per Cor"$ ult Support Logs (CSL's) DG-429 and DG-428 respectively.

A review of these CSL's and a search of the Cable and Raceway Program indicates that the Qualification Documents are E&DCR F-E-25923 and Standard Support Detail BE 52YT, Detail YT.

Calculation 12179-BE 52YT qualifies the Standard Support Detail BE 52YT, but was never intended to have each support utilizing the detall listed within the body of the calculation, it was not possible to establish the exact number of supports that would utilize this typical detail at the time the calculation was prepared. However, for generhiacking purposes, each Conduit Support Log (CSL) was issued via the BE 52 Series, and E&DCR's which were posted against tne applicable Detail drawing,if required. A scarch in the General Records information Tracking System (GRITS) against Standard Support Detail drawing BE-52YT revealed that E&DCR F E-25923 was properly posted against it. Therefore, all applicable qualification documentation for the two Junction Boxes were property referenced and traceable to the as-installed mounting detall.Sigalficance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identitled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condit6n?(e) Yes U No Printed 2/2tW8 e.54:01 AM Page 1 of 2

DR Ns. DR-MP3-0749

. N:rthe st Utilities ICAVP Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report n..w a m r.nsnat o Y e wo R amonunr av.a70 Y @ No n.vw

.. ,, y Accc.w. Na Acc+.w. ua Dm.

v7 L.ed: Nwi, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfw, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g Del *: 2/19/98 SL Conwnents:

~

Page 2 of 2 Printed 2f26a98 8 54 02 Ah's

ICAVP OR No. DR-MP3-0766

. N:rthea:t Utilitie3 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION AcCErl6D e Ew: system W Potentiel Operability issue Discipl6ne: structural Design D6screpency Type: Calculation Om

@ No SystemProcess: HVX NRC SigrWficence level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/ioS8 Discrepancy: Duct Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed the Duct Support Calculation no. NP(F)-

2507A 123,Rev.1.

Based upon this review,wa have noted the following discrepancy:

The calculation NP(F) 2507123 has been revised to address the deletion of support DSA no.124.

The original analysis has been based on the assumption that the applied lateral loads will be equally distributed on two supports:

DSA no.123 and DSA no.124. Deletion of the support DSA no.

124 will result in the full load distribution on the only remaining support DSA no.123.Therefore,the applied lateral loads on the support DSA no.123 will double.The latest revision of the calculation has not reflected 100% load distribution on the support DSA no.123 and is still based on the original 50% load distribution input.

Preliminary review has determined that revised 100% load distribution will result in rverstress condition in two welded connections addressed on pages 17 & 18 of the subject calculation.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initietor: Kleic, N O O O $2tiss7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B D 0 $2/i857 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 12/2a/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 12/ sis 7 Dei.:

INVALlo:

Date: 2/19/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0766, does not represent a discrepant condition. A search of the General Records Information Tracking System (GRITS) Database against BZ-507A for support DSA-123 and DSA 124 reveals E&DCR F B-12905 as a change document.

This E&DCR deletes support DSA 124 and adds support DSA-123. Calculation 12179-NP(F)-Z507A-123, Rev.1 was done to document the fact that support DSA-124 does not exist (See

' Reason for Change' on Pg. 3 of the Calc.). Revision 0 of this calculation called DSA-124 the interface between the Dampers and the connection at the embedded angles for the concrete opening at Elev 51'-0*. The bolted connection at the Interface is not given a support mark number, but does act as a restraint point which is capable of taking seismic loads (Refer to the Problem Solution, Item 3 of E&DCR F-B-12905, Pg.10 and the detail on Pg. 7 which have been incorporated onto BZ-507A-52 Pitnted 2/26S6 8.5420 AM Page 1 of 2

N:rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0766 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report with the Detail *B' on BZ 507A-42). Therefore, calculation 12179-NP(F).Z507A 123, Rev,1 is justified in distributing 50 %

of the design loads to the frame analyzed as DSA-123 and the connection at the interface with the embedded angle and the damper flange ( which was once called DSA-124, but deleted from the calc and BZ Package). Even with 50 % of the load applied to the frame anelysis for DSA 123, the results are conservative since no connectivity is considered between the frame and the interface connection and the embedded angle, Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Prev 6ously identifled by NU? Q Yes (80 No Non D6screpent CondMion?(8) Yes U No ResoPut6on Pend 6ng?O ve. @ No Re.oiuiionunresoeved?O ves @)No Review

• * * * * "**d*

• innletor: Kleic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 2/13/98 sL comments: S&L recommends that the type of explanation provided in the disposition of this DR be included in the calculation in order to document the basis for the design load.

Pnnted 2/26/96 B:5421 AM Page 2 of 2

. Northeatt Utilities ICAVP DR NL DR-MP3 0780 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED W'* Potentnel Operobility issue Discipl6ne: Environmnentei Quakfcaton g

Discrepency Type: Calcunnhon SysterrWProcess: N/A Ow NRC Significance level: NA Dele faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/1098 Discrepancy: Class 1E Cable Testing Discrepancy Descr6ption: The Equipment Qualification (EQ) test report for Kerite Control Cables with FR 11 Insulated / and FR Jacketed Control Cables is the isomedix Report No, I-R978-03, Rev,3, dated Sept.1978,'

Environmental Exposure of Control Cables for Kerite Co.*,

The test report and the corresponding Test Report Assessment No, EEQ TRA 107,7 show that the cables did not underDo Flame Testing.

However, Millstone FSAR Section 8.3, page 8-3.26 states that:

All Class 1E Cables are type tested in accordance with IEEE 383-1974 to ensure their ability to perform their intended functions, Section 2.5 of IEEE 3831974 describes the acceptable methods for type testing of Class 1E Cables via the vertical tray flame test to determine their relative ability to resist fire.

Review Volid involod Needed Date initiolor: Y.ssin, S. O O O 12/11/97 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O 12/iss7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K G O O 2/2357 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O 12tairo7 Date:

INVAL10:

Date: 2/18/98 RESOLUTION: Disposillon:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0779, does not represent a discrepant condition. Test Report Assessments (TRA's) evaluate and summarize the environmental qualification test reports and analyses used to qualify a component. Ti,ese assessments are developed generically for the use of all four units (CY, MP1, MP2, and MP3) as potential design inputs into the Equipment Qualification Records (EQR) revision process.

Assessments are not automatically applicable to MP3 until they are specifically referenced within an Equipment Qualification Record.

Although the condition described in DR-MP3-0780 is correct in that the Kerite cable identified in EEQ-TRA-107.7 did not undergo flame testing, it is not applicable to MP3, since this cable type is not used erinstalled at MP3. Additionally, EEQ-TRA-107.7 is not referenced within EQR 107 and therefore, not applicable to MP3.

To determine which TRAs are applicable from the Electrical Qualification Master List (EEQML) Index, the vendor EQR file needs to be reviewed since, the index only provided the vendor Pnnted 2/26Ge 8.s4 41 AM Page 1 of 2

I ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0780

, N:rtheast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report EQR number.

Realizing that this can be confusing, the EQML was enhanced to include the specific EQR and TRA numbers in the index. This was accomplished by incorporation of DCN DM3-00196197 into Specification SP M3-E0353.

NU has concluded based on the above that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0780, does not represent a discrepa.it condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded based on the above that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3 0780, does not represent a discrepant condition. Since Test Report Assessment No. EEQ-TRA 107.7 is not applicable to MP3 Significant level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identined by Nu? O Yes (#) No Non D6ecrepent Condition?@ Yee O No Resolution Pending?O Yee @ No Reeoiuiian unt. iv.dtO Yee

• No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K

-e sL Commeeds:

i

)

Printed 2/26/98 8'.54.42 AM Page 2 of 2

' ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0802

. Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelern DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Re EW: systern W PotentialOperability issue Diecipline: Electrical Design Ow l

Diecrepency Type: Calculation gg I SysterrvProcess: N/A NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/1o/98 Descrepancy: Referenced loading condition sheets are not included with the calculation (Calculation 139E),

Description:

This calculation determines the running load conditions of large equipment under various plant operating modes.

To prepare Table 1 of the calculation, the prepa.wr of the calculation completed sheets which identified the loading conditions ior the various items of equipment and issued these sheets via interoffice correspondence to several NUSCO personnel for confirmation or comments. This interoffice correspondence is included in the calculation as Attachment 1.

However, several of the memos state that Nhe attached sheets are correct" but do not include the attached sheets so that a comparison can be made to Table 1. The sheets that were sent for review and/or confirmation with the Interoffice correspondence should be included with the calculation.

Review Valid Irwelid Needed Date initiator: Crockett, Ed. O O O 2iis/97 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 12/16/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 O O 12/2 ss7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 12/31/97 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 2/19/98 RESOLUTION: Resolution: Disposition: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0802, does not represent a discrepant condition. The attached interoffice memos to Calculation 139E were from an earlier revision of the calculation to document the numerous inputs and reviews. These memos are for information only. Table 1 of the calculation provides the approved results. The signatures on the title page which includes Mechanical Engineering reviewer and supervisor and Operations reviewer and supervisor and management approval are to attest that the document meets the procedures in effect at the time.

Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue seported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0802, does not represent a discrepant condition. The interoffice memos attached to calculation 139E are for information only. Table 1 of calculation 139E provides the results with approval signatures.

Printed 2/26,96 8:55:10 AM Page 1 of ' =

ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0802 N:rthe:st Utilities Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously Idemined by NU? O Yes @ No Non D6screpent Condluon?@ Yes Q No Resolution Pending?O vos @ No Resoiotion une. iv.drO vos @ No Review init6* tor: Crockett, Ed.

VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 2119/98 sL conenente: We acknowledge that the revisions were reviewed by Mechanical Engineering and Operations. Our recommendation for future type reviews is that positions and degree of review be more clearly stated on the review sheet.

Printed 2/2098 8:55:10 AM Page 2 of 2

.* DR N3. DR-MP3-0881

, Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design p Discipline: Piping Design Discrepency Type: calculation Ow SystemProcess: DGX gg NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/17/96 Descrepancy: Evaluation / Acceptance of Equipment nozzle loads not addressed in calculations

Description:

In the process of reviewing '.~ e following DGX system pipe stress analysk calculations, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-430-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 2 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(B) X6000, Rev.0, CCN # 3 we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

The equipment nozzle loads identified below were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group for evaluation.

(1) 3EGF'P1A 3 Inen conn. on top of calc.(1) tank 3EGF*TK1 A -

l (2) 3EGF*P1C 3 inch conn. on top of calc.(1) tank 3EGF*TK1 A (3) 3EGF*TK1A Conn N7 & C1 calc.(2)

(4) 3EGF*TK1B Conn N7 & C1 calc.(2)

(5) 3EGF*STR2A Ln, 3EGF-003-26-3 calc.(2)

(6) 3EGF*STR2B Ln. 3EGF-003-29-3 calc.(2)

Discrepancy:

Evaluation / acceptance basis for these equipment nozzle loads is not provided, nor referenced in the above calculations (1-2),

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, Ramesh.D 8 O O 12/22/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 12/20/97 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K B O O 12/23/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K S O O 5'13/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/19/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-01555 Printed 2/26/98 8:55A9 AM Page 1 of 2

l- .. DR N . DR-MP3 0881 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repcrt NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0881 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 strcss calculations with respect to nonle loads is to determine equipment nonle loads The conclusion of the calculation also uses this terminology. Since there is no requirement, there is no discrepancy.

The nonle loads were reconciled in accordance with project procedure NETM-49. Calculations were prepared for the equipment as follows. The calculations are attached.

3EGF'P1A 12179-NP(F)-2743 3EGF*P1C 12179-NP(F)-2745 3EGF*TK1A 12179-NP(F)-2098 3EGF'TK1B 12179-NP(F) 2099 No calculations for the strainers were required because they are common in-line flanged piping components, and are not QA Category 1 (the correct equipment identifiers are 3EGF-STR2A/B, without the asterisk that would have indicated QA Category 1). See the attached drawing and PDDS listing page, The strainers are part of the fuel oil fill pipe hose connection and do not experience significant operating loads.

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 MP3-0881 does not represent a discrepant condition. The stress calculation is not required to contain the final disposition of nonle loads. Nonle loads are addressed separately in the attached calculations. Significance Level does not apply here as this is not a discrepant item.

Previously identined by NU? O Yes (#) No Non Discrepard Condition?@) Yes O No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Re.osuiion unr. iv.d?O ve. @ No Review initiator: Patel, Ramesh.D

• Y*

• VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O mm VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K IRC Chnm: singh. Anand K Date: 2/1g/93 SL Comments:

Pnnted 2/2%8 e:ss:40AM Page 2 of 2

,. - .- _ _ - - . __. . .- -- .- - = .

l DR N2, DR MP3-0990

. Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Diecipline: Mechanical Desig" O v.

Discrepency Type: Installetion Requirements g System / Process: NEW NRC Significence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: tr29/9e Discrepency: DCR M3-97045 has a test plan that is inconsistent with the

' modification design.

Description:

Flow transmitter 3RSS*FT38A-B and 3RSS-FT40C-D, and flow Indicators 3RSS-Fl38A-B and 3RSS-Fl40C-D are respanned by DCR M3-97045. However, no instrument loop calibration or testing is identified in Section 7.0, Test Plan, of this modification package.

Review Valid Cnvalid Needed Date inittetor: Feingold, D. J- B D O $r22/se 0 ti22/se VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 8 0 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 O O it:2/se Q 1/2T9e

< IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3 0990, does not represent a discrepant condition. DCR M3-97045, rev 0, (attached) provides the detailed Test Plan, Previous revisions to DCR M3-97045 applicable for early release for construction indicated all proof of performance testing would be !ncluded in the final revision of the DCR The Test Plan contains both instrument loop calibration and testing criteria. Significance Level Criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0990,does not represent a discrepant condition. Revision 0 to DCR M3-97045 provides instrument loop calibration) and testing requirements. Significance Level Criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identifled by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condit6on?O Yes (9) No ResolutionPending?O vos e No Resolution Unresolved?O vos @ No Review initiator: Feingold. D. J.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Ehgh, Anend K 8 0 0 m Date: 2/17/98 Page 1 of 2 Printed 2/26/96 8:56:14 AM

ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0990

, Northe:st Utilities Miiistone unit 3 ,D,,i,screpancy Report m

sL cc nments: The test plan attached to the Northeast Utilities response to this discrepancy report was not orl91nally provided with or referenced in the modification package, DCR M3-97045, provided to Sargent

& Lundy for review.

However, the attached test plan adequately addresses the discrepancy identified by DR-MP3-990.

Printed 2/2G/90 8.56:14 AM Page 2 of 2

f!

.* DR N3. DR-MP3 0081

, Northeast Utilities !CAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REKCTED Aeview Elmient: System Desl0n Poter.nel Operability lasue

'"escipline:

, Piping Design Dier opency Type: Calculation Q 7,,

g go Qatern/ Process: Rss NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 8/29/97 Discrepancy: Incorrect operating temperature used in stress analysis, oescripuon: In the process of reviewing the following pipe stress calculations for the Recirculation Spray System, (1) Calculation No.12179-SDP RSS-01361M3 Rev. 4, dated 5/29/97 (ii) Calculation No.12179-NS(B) X7902 Rev.1, dated 9/3/96 (iii) Calculation No.12179-NS(B) X7903 Rev.1, dated 9/3/96 (iv) Calculation No.12179-NS(B)-X7904 Rev. 2, dated 9/3/96 (v) Calculation No.12179-NS(B) X7905 Rev.1, dated 9/3/96 (vi) Calculation No.12179-US(B) 353 Rev. O, dated 4/23/97 we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

Based on the stress data package (i), under operating condition 7 the operating process temperature for lines 3-RSS-010-5-2 and 3-RSS-010-10-2 is 257 deg F. The corresponding pressure in these line: is 150 psig. This is an Emergency & Faulted condition which is descr! bed as follows ' Containment Recirculation Pumps take suction from the Containment Recirculation Sump and dischargo to the spray headers. A failure of one train of service water cooling to the Containment Recirc Coolers .

3RSS*E1 A& C results in the affected RSS train (E1 A, C) discharging hot sump water (257 deg F) to the ring headers and the unaffected RSS train (E1B, D) discharging cccled sump water to the headers'. The two RSS lines are analyzed in calculations X7903 and X7905.

Since a failure of either train of service water (A or B) needs to be considered, the same operating condition of 257 deg F, and 150 psig needs to be considered for lines 3-RSS-010 20-2 and 3-RSS-010-9-2. These two lines are analyzed in calculations X7902 and X7904.

The four pipe stress analysis calculations (ii) to (v), utilize a maximum operating temperature of 245 deg F. This represents the maximum containment recirc piping temperature, as calculatad in (vi).

Discrepancy:

The pipe stress calculations utilize Rev. 3 of the stress data package, and have not been updated to reflect the latest revision Printed 2/26/98 8.48.34 AM 0

• PLge 1 of 4

.* ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0041

, N:rthert Utilities Miiiston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report descrepancy between tne ?.57 deg F defined in the stress data package (i) and the 245 deg F defined in references (ii) thru (vi),

Review valid laivel6d Nooded Date initiator: sirgh, R. O O O n/2 ors 7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O ar2aro7 VT Mor: schopfw, Don K Q O O e/22/o7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K @ Q Q 8/2s/97 Date:

INVAUQ:

Date: 2/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-00293 Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0061 does not represent a discrepant condition Although pipe stress calculations 12179-NS(B)-X7902, X7903. X7904, and X7905 all reference Revision 3 of the RSS Stres; f%?a Package, all were revised as a result of the increased RSS pov 5tri temperatures, as stated in the ' Basic Analytical Data Suna N./ page contained in each calculation (see attached, page 21 of calculation NP(B)-

X7902).

These calculations also static, under ' Changes to Existing Calculation-Operating Conditions'. how the criteria for maximizing stresses and support loads were developed (see attached pages 12 and 13 of the sample calculation) Details explain that the two worst case postulated LOCA combinations developed by the Nuclear Technologies Group were used in the calculations. The worst case scenarios did not require the 257'F temperature, but required evaluation for temperatures of 230*F and 245'F, based on time phasing of containment structure movements. Revision 4 of GDP RSS-01361M3 also states that re analysis of the piping system was in progress during review and update of the SDP (See attached page 5 of the SDP),

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0081 does not represent a discrepant condition, Pipe stress calculations 12179-NS(B)-X7902, X7903, X7904, and X7905 were worked in parallel with the RSS stress data package, with the result that the calculations did not reference Revision 4 of the RSS SDP. The pipe stress calculations, as issued, correctly account for the latest increase in RSS temperature which is now defined in Revision 4 of the RSS SDP, Previously identined by NU? (.) Yee @ No Non Discrepent Condition?( ) Yes Q89 No Resolution Pending?O vee

• No ResolutionUnresolved?O yee @ No Review g Acceptab!e Not Acceptable Needed Dete VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A m,., m O O O 2/17/98 Printed 2/262 8:48:35 AM Page 2 of 4

DR N:. DR-MP3 0081

.." Northert Utilities ICAVP Miiistone und 3 Discrepancy Report O P O 2r2m 1 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O m Oste: 2/16/98 sL comments: NU's disposition states that the discrepancy report does not i represent a discrepant condition because the calculation adequately explains how the criteria for maximizing stresses and support loads were developed, and the two worst case postulated LOCA combinations developed by the Nuclear Technologies Group (NTG) are utilized.

According to page 13 of the calculation, the finalized LOCA scenarios, as developed by the NTG, are documented in calculation 03705-US(B)-353. The two worst postulated LOCA scenario combinations (P02 and P24) were transmitted by NTG to the piping analysis group. Corresponding pipe temperatures for these two cases are 230F and 245F, At issue is the fact that the Stress Data Package (SDP) specifies a maximum operating temperature of 257F for the subject piping.

The disposition states that 'the worst case scenarios did not require the 257F temperature, but required evaluation for temperatures of 230F and 245F based on time phasing of containment structure movements'. This statement is not substantiated by calculation 03705-US(B)-353. None of the scenarios considered in the calculation lead to a pipe temperature of 257F. This is because the spray water outlet temperature of the recirculation spray heat exchanger RSHX [TDV300) as a funct!on of time in all scenarios considered is taken to be cooled sump water from the RSHX, The scenario leaoing to the 257F temperature corresponds to the RSHX discharging hot sump water due to a failure of one train of service water cooling. This scenario is not considered by calculation 03705-US(B) 353.

The SDF- specifies the 257F temperature for operating condition 7A/B. Condition 7 addresses one-half of the RSS coolers discharging hot, and one-half of the coolers discharging cooled sump water to the spray headers. The operating temperature for the spray header receiving cooled water is taken from calculation US(B)-353, as noted in Notes 1 and 3 of the SDP. The operating temperature for the spray header receiving hot sump water is 257F. Although the source for the 257F is not pr0vided in the SDP, the SDP does reference calculation US(B)-322 (Ref. 7a).

This calculation states that 'if the heat exchanger fails, then the piping of the recirculation spray system will be exposed to water at the temperature of the water on the floor', and provides the maximum temperature of the water on the floor as 256.9F.

According to the SDP: 'The SDP provides the system specification information required to perform the code piping stress analysis and therefore represents a design input documont for the pipe stress calculation. The SDP forms the basis for the input to the structural analysis of safety related piping systems and mechanical components. The SDP is reviewed for consistency with design basis assumptions regarding flowpath, single failure postulation, and operator action'.

Pnnted 2/26/98 8 46:3s AM Page 3 of 4

• DR No. DR4AP3 0081

• N:rtheest Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The discrepant condition is that the maximum operating temperature provided in the SDP, a design input to the stress ,

'y analysis calculation, is not consistent with the operating temperature used in the stress analysis calculations. Either the SDP should be revised to reflect the logic delineated in the stress analysis calculations, or the stress calculations should address the discrepancy The current stress analysis calculations do not address the identified discrepancy.

F e

Phnted 2/2%8 8:48:35 AM Page 4 of 4 i

4 - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _

1. DR No. DR-MP3 0147 e North:ast ut litiss ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operetnlity lasue D6scipline: structural Design Ow D6screpancy Type: Co nculation gg g System / Process: N/A NRC Significence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Pubilshed: 9/19/9T Descrepancy: Seismic excitation of support steel members

Description:

Criteria Document no. NETM-45,Rev.1,titledfPipe Support Design Criteria *does not address the self weigh excitation of auxiliary steel support members.

Section 3.2.1 of the FSAR requires that all Category I Structures be designed to remain functional during a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and to be within the elastic limit for a vibratory motion at 50 percent of the SSE,which is called the operating basis earthquake (OBE).

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: loe6c. N Q Q Q 9/11/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A @ Q Q 3/11/97 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K G O O n/i2/97 IRC Ctunn: singh, Anand K B O O 8/12/97 Dele:

INVALID:

Date: 2/17/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0147, does not represent a discrepant condition. The design criteria for pipe supports do not require that the mass of the support structure itself be considered when qualifying the support for seismic loads. FSAR Section 3.2.1 refers to QA Category I structures, systems and components. Piping supports are QA Category I commodities which are designed to accommodate seismic loads developed in the piping system.

However, self weight excitation of support members is not addressed in the design criteria and is not considered to be in the licensing / design basis for Millstone Unit 3. This is appropriate since the loads imposed on a pipe support are typically much greater than loads which would be attributed to the seismic response of the support structure (since support structures are usually stiff and would respond in the rigid range), resulting in insignificant impact on the support design. Note however, that in a few unique cases, support structure calculations do consider self weight excitation (RSS piping supports with long cantilevers in ESF building), but only on an individual basis where the analyst utilized sound engineering judgment to address the unique circumstance. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identifled by NU7 () Yes @ No Non D6screpant Condition?(,) Yes (*) No Resolution Pendirm . C Yes @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Ye. @ No Review w m. . m ,, Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date

~ ' - - '

Pnnted 2/2598 8.50:26 AM~ Pogo 1 of 2

DR No. DR-MP3 0147 e Northeast Utiliti:;s ICAVP Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report O 2/i7/98 VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A O O 2/21m O O VT Mgt: schopfer. Don K O O O mm Rc cw: singh, Anand K m O O O cate: 2/17/98 st. comments: G&L does not accept the response provided by NU for the folle.ving reasons:

- FSAR is s licensing / Design basis document that reqaires that ALL Category I Structures be designed to sustain OBE and SSE earthquake.

The impact of seismic self weight excitation could become a

' factor if the support design does not provide sufficient margin from the applied loads.Althougi: the applied support loads are typically greater than the loads from the selsmic self-weight excitation, the contribution of the smaller loads can still result in the overall stress level that exceeds the allowable one where the design margin is insufficient.  !

- There is no specific criteria that establishes the fact that the supports are to be designed to respond in the rigid range. Based on the inspection of the support configurations, the statement that the support structures are "usually stiff" cannot be verified.

Printed 2/20/98 8'50:27 AM .

Page 2 of 2

_ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .