ML20210Q312
| ML20210Q312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9708290089 | |
| Download: ML20210Q312 (24) | |
Text
?
. s.,., p
&!$k serge 4 M\\Lundy n*
gf n
- r 4* 1 Don K. Schepler
- Vee President 312 269-6078 '
-5 August 27,1997 l
Project No. 9583-100
' Docket No;50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station,- Unit No. 3
= Independent Corrective Action Verification Program I
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Attention Document ControlDesk Washington, D.C. 20555 -
1I have enclosed the following nineteen (19) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during
]
our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with -
ithe Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.
- DR No. DR-MP3-0032
. DR No. MP3-0064 DR No. DR-MP3-0034 DR'No.' MP3-0066.
- DR No. DR-MP3-0036 DR No. MP3-0069 DR No. DR-MP3-0038 -
DR No. MP3-0070 DR No. DR-MP3-0046 DR No. MP3-0071 DR No. DR-MP3-0050.
DR No, MP3-0080 g#
DR.No. DR-MP3-0051 DR No. MP3-0081 -
. DR No. DR-MP3-0055 DR No. MP3-0083 f
DR No.'DR-MP3-0060 DR No. MP3-0099 DR No. DR-MP3-0061 a
9708:290089 970827 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
PDR c--
O lll l
l
,il 55 East Monroe Street
- Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA + 312 269-2000
__ j
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 271997
- 'Docutsent Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, I
%,2' A D#
I D. K.
hopfer I
l~
Vice President and ICAVP Manager.
t DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight.
T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council i
l J. Fougere (1/l) NU suhysorr97wo827adw I
Norther _t Utilities ICAVP.
DR No. DR-MP3 0032 Miiiston. Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworoup: system DR VALID ReviewElement: sptem Design Diecipline: Piping Desgn Potent!aloperability leeue O yeo Diecrepancy Type: calculation (5) No System / Process: RsS NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Diacrepancy: Watertiammer Analysis - Error in nozzio thrust & centrifugal force calculation Descripuon: In the process of reviewing the 'Waterhammer Analysis of Recirculation Spray System" Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-163-FA, Rev. 2, we noted the following discrepancy:
Page 24 of the calculation states that 'Two other forces were considered but their contribution to the stress in the system should be minimal. These forces are the jet forces (5.02 lbs/ nozzle) caused by the dischaming spray nozzles and the radial (centrifugal) forces (1.03 lbs/ft) on the spray ring header.'
On page 27, the jet force per nozzle is shown as 5.06 lbs/ nozzle.
First, this is inconsistent vdth the value of 5.02 lbs/ nozzle, as noted on page 24. Second, the computation shown on page 27 is numerically incorrect. The actual number based on the data show) on page 27 (Q=24.6 gpm, & DP=25 psi) should be 9.98 lbs/ nozzle. Furthermore, these flow parameters were revised by Rev.1 (pg. 3A). If the latest flow parameters (Q = 20 gpm & DP l
= 70 psi) are used, the jet force per nozzle is 12.5 lbs/ nozzle.
These loads have not been considered in the pipe stress analyses (see cales NP(B)-X7912 Rev.1, & NP(B)-X7918 Rev.
1). Consequently, the impact of these loads on pipe supports has riot been addressed. No basis is provided for ignoring the support loads resulting from this force.
The numerical enor should be corrected. In addit;on, the judgement that contribution of these forces on pipe stress is
' minimal' needs further elaboration, especially in view of the fact that the maximum pipe stress in the subject piping is 99.8% of the allowables. The judgement should also be extended to include the loading on pipe supports.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: P akash, A.
O O
O e/2ss7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
e/2es7 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K O
O O
e/2es7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O
O O
er2es7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
,Previously identirled by NU7 ( ) Yee
(#1 No Prtried e/2es73:515e PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. 3R-MP3 0032 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review cc 4 Acc $ a NW hte inNietor: Prakash, A.
O O
O VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A O
O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Comments:
l l
j l
t Prirted 8/26973:5200 PM Pge 2of 2 l
Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0034 Millstone Unit 3 Discreparicy Report Revieworoup: System DR VAllD Review Element: System Design g
Diecipline: Piping Design Ow a
Discrepancy Type: Celculation 4
System /Proceos: QSS
'~
NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Diecrepancy: Piping System Data Package - Reference error
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the " Quench Spray System (QSS)
Stress Data Package", Calculation Number SDP-QSS-01358M3, Rev. 6, we rioted the follovAng discrepancy; Ref,3a on page 6 is identified as " Quench Spray System Piping Temperature Transients", Calculation No. 03705-US(B)-354, Rev,1, dated 6/25/96.
The actual reference should be Calculation No. 03705-US(B)-
354, Rev. O, dated 7/23/96.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Prakash, A.
O O
O ar22/97 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A 0
O si2e/97
/
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
a/2eso7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
8'26S7 Date:
INVAllo:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
~ Previously identifled by NU? (.) Yee l#) No Review ec e
opta W NW Me initiator: Prakash, A.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 8/2e/97 3 S3:12 PM Pege1 of 1 l
l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR ND, DR-MP3 0036 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup: System DR VALID Review Element: System Design p
Discipline: Piping Design Ow Discrepancy Type: Licensing Dxumert
)
SystemiProcess: N/A NRc Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Mathematical representation inconsistancy
==
Description:==
in the process of reviewing Section 3.78.3.6.2 of the FSM, we noted the following discrepancies:
(1) On page 3.7 20 of the FSAR lt is stated that, %en considering a particular vibration mode, res Jonses in a part'cular direction due to the two horizontal direction excitations are combined first t,y the SRSS method and then combined with response (in the same direction) due to the vertical direction excitation by absolute sum method",
l On tne same page it is further stated that, "In mathematical tern.5, the modified SRSS method of response combination due to three spatial components of an earthquake at a particular node point can be stated as Equation 3.78.310" Equation 3.78.3-10 has a typographical error. The response due to the vertical component of the selmic excitation should not be within the square root sl0n-(2) On page 3.7-27 of the FSAR, the te variables Rk and R are defined. The two definitions are interchanged.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Prakash, A.
G O
O 8/23 s7 VT Lead: FJert, Anthony A 8
O O
e/2es7 VT Mgr; Schopfer, Don K O
O O
e/2es7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
e/2es7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identitled by NU7 O Yes @ No Review initiatos: Prekash, A.
VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
s Pntted e/26s74m33 PM Page 1 oft
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0038 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup: Programmatic DR VALlO Review Element: CorrectNo Acton Process P
IOWWh Diecipilne: other Ow Discrepancy Type: correcthe Action 4
System / Process: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Incomplete Corrective Action in ACR # M3-96-0341 Desctlpdon: The Causal Factor Corrective Action Plan included in ACR # M3-96-0341 (Form RP 4-7, Pages 3 & 4) addresses the folloWng:
- 1) Walkdom the EEQ Equipment to validate configurations using term!nal blocks and weepholes. This Wil be part of EEQ Program Project. P/2 # 560000274(DE);
- 2) Generate equipment Qualification Records (EQR's) for GE l
Type EB 25 terminal blocks were applicable; address veepholes in EQR's; and
- 3) Revise EEQ's masterlist to reflect additions of GE EB-25 terminal blocks.
The Causal Factor Corrective Action fails to address the i
folloWng required corrective actions:
- 1) Verification of the proper EQ procurement of Marathon Type 1500 terminal blocks; and
- 2) Revision of Wring diagrams to showthe correct terminal block mark numbers.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Caruso, A.
O O
O e/22/97
{
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O
O O
8/25/07 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
8ci'97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
8/26/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identlfled by NU7 (_) Yes @ No Review initiator: Caruso, A.
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Ctwnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Prtried 8/26/975:4703 PM Page 1 of 1 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N9. DR-MP34046 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup: System DR VALID Review Element: System Design p
g Diecipline: Structural Design Ow Discrepancy Type: Calculation
,,) g SystemlProcese: SWP
~
NRc Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
DI crepancy: Pipe support calculation discrepancy
==
Description:==
We have reviewed pipe support calculation no.12179-NP(F)-
Z19C-007 Rev,4. Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancies.
1 The values of Fy & Fz are sWiched on page-11 of the calculation. The values of Fy & Fz should be 1600# & 250#
respectively. Also value of My should be 3500 in-# instead of 2800ind.
- 2. Due to above discrepancies, the values of F1, F2, F3 and M1 Wil change to 1600#, 471#, 415# and 3500 in-# respectively, on page-12, Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel,A.
O O
O e/2so7 l
VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A O
O O
e/2es7 l
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
ei28,97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
ar2eso7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
[
Previously Identified by NU7 O Yes
(*) No Review initiator: Patel, A.
VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
Pnnted 8/2G97 40237 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 0050 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworoup: System DR VALID Review Element: System Design Discipline: Structural Design Potential Operability leeue O ve.
Discrepancy Type: Calculation
@ No System / Process: RSS NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Liner plate calculation rtiscrepancy
==
Description:==
We have reviend LINER PLATE Calculations No.12179-SEO-V1010, Rev. 2.
Based on this reviewe have noted the follovAng discrepancy.
The subject liner plate has been evaluated for the adjacent pipe supports MARK NO. (1)- PSA012 & (2) PSA021 using tm independent BAP runs, ( Ref, to the above calc. Pg.'s 10,13,23
).
Since the clear spacing between the subject supports is only 4"
< 12"( Min Attachments Spacing - Ref. Master Calc.12179-NS (B)-054, Page 130 ), the studs @ grid lines (11,5), (11,6) and (11,7) ( Ref. Calc, Page 13 ) should be evaluated for ihe combined effect from both supports.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel. A O
O O
er20e7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G
O O
e/28,97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
ei2es7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
er2eio7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes
- No Review
^ * * * *
- Intilator: Patel. A.
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Pnnted er2eS7 4:15o2 PM Page 1 of 1 a:)
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3 0061 miilstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworoup: System DR VALID Review Element: Sptom Design p
Diecipline: Structurel Design Om Discrepancy Type: Calculation
(,) g System / Process: Rss NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Embedded plate calculation discrepancy Descripuon: We have reviewed EMB. PLATE Calculation No.12179-CFSK-732E-E66 Rev.1.
Based on this review We have noted the follovdng discrepancy.
The subject embedded plate supports loads from tvo pipe supports.
The calculations show that the embedded plate (anchors) is overstressed by 10.55% due to loads fmm support #1 alone. The acceptance of this overstress condition is based on engineering judgment that due to redistribution of the wall loads, the actual loads on the embedded plate would be lower than computed.
The acceptance of the overstress condition needs further justification.
The calculations also computes the stress interaction coefficient of 0.095 for loads fmm support #2. This additional stress is considered insignificant based on engineering judgment.
Because the stresses due to support #2 are additive to those from support #1 and the embedded plate is overstressed imm loads due to support #1, ignoring the ioads from support #2 in computing the total stresses needs furtherjustification.
4 Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: Petel.A.
O O
O er2ss7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
8/28/07 VT Mgr schopfer, Don K O
O O
e/2es7 l
IRC Ctunn: singh. Anand K O
O O
8/26S7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU7 C) Yes ? No Review
^#
initiator: Patel. A.
VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 8/26S7 4:1e:s1 PM Pege 1 of 1
.,r Norther.st Utilities ICAVP DR No DR-MP3 0055 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Os oup: Programmatic DR VALID Review Element: correctNo Action Process p
Diecipline: Mechanical Design Ow Discrepancy Type: Correcthe Acton 4
System / Process: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Incomplete Adverse Condition Report Deectlption: Adverse Condition Report (ACR) M3-96-0087 deals Wth a pipe strap that does not agree Wth the construction draWng.
Originally the Duty Officer decided that the ACR would not be closed folloWng initial review. Later this decision us changed, but the basis for closure Information (block 2A of Form RP 4-4) ms not filled out.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sheppard, R P.
8 O
O s/22s7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J B
O O
e/22/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
er22io7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B
D D
ar2ers7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by Nur O Yes (8.1 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Sheppard, R. P.
VTLead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: S!ngh, Anand K O
Date:
SL Commente:
Pnrted 8/26/97 5454 PM Page1 of 1
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR NO DR-MP3-0060 Milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewOroup: Programrnate DR VALID Review Element: Correcthe Acton Process p
Diecipline: Mechanical Design Om D6screpancy Type: Correcttw Acton 4
System / Process: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Use of an Unapproved Code Case
==
Description:==
- 1. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-0901 deals with a missed successive nondestructive examination. Corrective Action #4 of the approved Corrective Action Plan requires that a support inspection pmcedure be developed using Code Case N-491-1.
The NRC has only tentatively endorsed this revision of the Case, and the Unit 3 ISI Program commits to revision 0 of the Case.
This is piimarily a licensing issue, rather than a design issue, because the technical differences between the Case revisions are minimal as they apply to this application.
- 2. In addition to this discrepancy, information and signatures are missing on the first three pages of the CR package. The pages are titled " Corrective Action Reviewof Completed Assignments Prior to RP4 rev,4 efcd, date."
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sheppard, R. P, O
0 fj e/22aa7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J G
O O
e/22/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
e/22437 IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K O
O O..__
S/2SS7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTloN:
Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Review initiator: Sheppard, R. P.
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Prtrted 8/28/97 5:50:43 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3 0061 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworoup: Conhgurabon DR VALID Review Element: System installation p
Diecipline: Eledrical Design O vee Discrepancy Type: Instanation implemertaten System /Procese: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Conduit Support ES-1219 not in agreement Wth Design DraWng
==
Description:==
Conduit Support Log (draWng) 12179-FSK-ES-1219 Revision 1 (with no outstanding change documents) indicates that the conduit support is for conduits 3CC7540A1 and 3CC7550A3.
This is consistent Wth the TSO2 listing for these raceways.
Contrary to the above, these conduits are not supported on any common supports in the general location depicted on the support draWng. There are two suppotis in the area that have identification tags indicating that each is Support ES-1219.
These two individual supports each have one of the above conduitsinstalled on it, Review i
Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: Sarwr, T. L 0
0 0
8/1SS7 VT Lead: Nerl, Arthony A O
O O
e/20s7 f
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B
D D
er22s7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
er2es7 l
Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
k Previously identifled by NU7 () Yee @ No Review Accentable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Commente:
Pntted 8/26s7 4.21 A9 PM Pege 1 of 1
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3 0064 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Confguraten DR VALID D6scipl6ne: Electrical Design Potential Operability issue O Yes Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation System / Process: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Discrepency: Duct Conduit Numbering
==
Description:==
Drawing 12179-EE 32P Rev. 5. Table F (C 4) provides the identification of the condults connected to the ESF building via duct bank 908. There are two conduits that are labeled and used in the field which are not fully identified on the drawing. These conduits,3DC980N49 and 3DK908N59 as identified in the field, are identified on the drawing as 3D 908 49 and 3DC908 59, respectively),
in addition, this drawing in Table L (8-E), lists a conduit in duct bank 910 as 3DL910N23, however, the installation is marked as 3DL910023. This conduit has Train A cables (orange) routed through it which is consistent with its field tag, Review l
Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sarver, T. L O
O O
8/19/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
8r20'S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
8/22/97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
a>2e/97 Date:
INVALD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator ' rver, T. L j
a VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K l
Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 8/26/97 4.20:00 PM Page 1 of 1
em-Nerthea1t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34064 useisene unn 3 Discrepancy Report Mevlow Oroup: Configurettw1 DRVAUD
.. +
Review Elemord: System Installat6on D6ecipline: Electrical Design Potential Operdimy issue O Ya D6ecrepancy Type: Installett i imp 6errenletkw)
(g, y, Systerr#rocese SWP Wtc sign 66cence level: 4 Date rAXed to NU:
Date Publ6shed:
j D6ecroPency: Bonding Conductor Between Trays not Instailed.
Dacript6on: Trays 3TL7520 and 3TL7510 have cable transifloning in free air between them. There is no ground orovided between these two troys consistent with the Electrical Installation Specification 350, good engineering practice and other trays in the area.
Review Veild Ir. valid Nooded Date initiatort Server,T.L O
O O
ariwe7 VT Lo.ed: Neri, Anthorty A Q
Q Q
8/2097 VT Mgri Schopfer Don K Q
Q Q
672/97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
&T697 Deio:
INV iLID:
i Date:
i RESOLUTIC1N:
~
eviour'y ident66td by NUP (,) Yee f#i No
~
Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date N
T1 VT L%d: Nort, Anthony A O
O O-VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K D
D D
1RC Clenn: S6ngh, Anand K D.e.
SL Comnente:
Printed #2697 4 21:15 PM Pope 1 of 1
Northead Utilities ICAVP DR Nc. DR MP40049 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: confguretro DR VALID Review tiement: syst'niinstellation p g gy g, D6ecip66ne: Electrical Doolen O va D6ecrepancy Type: Instehetm implementation
(,3 g, systemProcess: SWP NRC signacance level: 4 Dele faxed to NU:
Date Publenhed:
becrepency: Trey Support Not Installed in accordarea En drawing.
Desertsdion: The following installt, tion differenm wi.re noted during walkdown:
- 1. Support G306A 40 shown located on drawing Eri.34EP, Rev.
6 (J 3) is not installed in accordance with the support detail shown on drawing EE JH, Rev 0 (H 7). The internal cross bracing in not installed.
- 2. S:.jport G309 33 shown located on drawing EE 34EP, Rev,6 (H 3) is not installed in accordance with the support detall shown on drawing EE JH, Rev 3 (19). The top horizontal cross member shown at elevation $1' 3* ls not installed.
- 3. Tray supports G328A 500 and 0328C 500 shown on location drawing EE 34EP Rev. 6 (C 3) and detall support drawing EE-34JJ Rev. 4 (J-8) are not in accordanc' with the detail, The C.
channel on these supports has been rotated 90 degrees. This deviation is not noted or authorized on the drawing, Review Vel 6d invoind Needed Date initiator: Server, T. L.
O O
O arias 7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
eraasr VT Mgri Schopfw, Don K O
O O
- 22/87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
e/2as7 Dee:
INvAllo:
Dele:
RESOLUTeoN:
Provlously identined by Nur (.) Yes FNo Rev6ew initletor: Server T. L O
O O
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer Don K IRC Chnm: tingh, Anand K O
J O
Dm.:
sL Conwnents:
Prr,ted W26s7 4 22.15 PM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34070 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group Contpeton DR VALID Review Element: System instellat6on potent rebilNy boue Diecipl6ne: Electrk.el Doelp" O vee Discrepency Type: Drawing
(#> No Syaletr#rocess: SWP NRC Signincexe level: 4 Date faked to NU:
Date Publ6ehed:
D6ecropency: Identification of Tray on Tray Location Drawing is incorrect.
I
==
Description:==
Drawing EE 34 AU Rev. 6, (F 3) shows two trays running east-west with the northern one being 'OH' and the southern 'OL.*
This is inconsistent with the installed condition, the tray identification drawing EE 34 BB Rev.11, and TSO2. The identitles are backwards on EE 34AU.
Review vol6d invalid Needed Date initiator: Server T.L O
O O
8*$7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
&7097 f
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
6 22,S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
67697 Date:
IWALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NUF U Yee f91 No Review ACC*Pleble Not Acceptable Needed Date m,,;
g,,,, y, g, VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K D...
SL Commenta:
Printed &?S97 4 24 '4 PM Page 1 of 1 ha
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0071 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy R6 port
' newn.ung: conteuroi.on DRvAuo nvw.riemore Sy*m Dawn Diecie ne: a.ctruiD un
,,,,,,w op,,,,,,,,,v, n
o y,,
D6screpancy Type: DreMng (9) No SysterWprocese: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NO:
Date Published:
D6ecrepency: Extraneous conduit Number on Drawing Deectlpt6an: Drawing EE 55 A, Rev. 8 (13) shows conduit 3CC9700F 1' connected to 3SWP'MOV54C. This conduit is shown in TSO2 as appearing on Drawing EE 55B and to be a 3' conduit associated with a different system. There are no unaccounted conduMs associated with the MOV.
Review Vaud invahd Needed Date initiator: Sewr, T. L.
O O
O alsws7 VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A O
O O
&?oS7 VT Mgrt Schopfer, Don K O
O O
622S7 IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O
O O
ar2&S7 Dele:
INVALID:
Dele:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60uely identtfled by NU7 O Yee f No Review hhlatm Sam T. L.
Acceptable Not Acceptable Nooded Date VT Lead: Nati. Anthony A VT Mgrt Schopfer Don K O
O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K DM.:
SL Commente:
PrWed &?S97 4 25.45 PM Page 1 of 1
1-Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0041 Millstone unit '
Discrepancy Report Review Stoup: System DR VALID Review Element: bystem Doo$n D6ecipl6ne: P$6no Da*'
Potential Operabitwy leeue l
O ve.
06ecrepancy Type: Ce6ouletkin (g > y, systenVProcess: Rss l
NRc 86enlacence level: 3 Date F Axed to Nu:
Date Published:
D6ecr*Pency: Incorrect operating temperature used in stress analysis.
Ductiption: In the process of reviewing the following pipe stress calculations for the Recirculation Spray System, (n 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 (lil) 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:
l 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-01010-2 is 257 deg F. The corresponding pressure in these lines is 150 psig. Tnis is an Emergency & Faulted condition which is described as f>llows. ' Containment Recirculation Pumps take suction from the Containment Recirculation Sump and discharge 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 (E18, D) discharging cooled 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 stres', analysis calculations (ii) to (v), utilize a maximum operating temperature of 245 deg F. This represents the maximum containment recirc piping temperature, as calculated 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 80697 4 27.4s PM Page 1 of 2
l s
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0041 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report (4) of the stress data packerte (I), As such, there is o l
descrepancy between the 767 deg F defined !n the strass data package (I) and the 245 d'sg F defined in references (ii) thru (vi),
Review VW inveN Nooded Dale initletor: Segh,R.
O O
O e/2avr VT Leed: Nort, Anthont '
O O
O
$50S7 VT ugt: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
62257 IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O
O
_O 62557 Dele:
INVALIO:
4 Date:
ftE OLUTION:
Previously identmed by NUF () Yes lei No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date Wor: B@, R.
O O
O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A 0
0 0
vT u,r scnopf.r, Don x 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K g
-e, SL Commente:
Printed &'2697 4 27.53 PM Page 2 of 2
. _ =.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0080 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- n. view o, up: sysiem DavAuo Meview Element: System Doolgn p
g,,
Diecipline: Piping Design Ow Discrepancy Type: Calculation (9) No systerrvProcess: Rss NMC significence level: 4 p.g, yAx,4 to w9:
Date Pubilehed:
_ 06scr*Pency: incorrect loads used to evaluate Containment Penetration 110 Deectlpoon: In the process of reVlewing the following Calculatlons for the Recirculation Spray System, (i) Calculation No.12179 NS(B) X7905 Rev.1, dated 9/3A 6 (ii) Calculation No.12179 NS(B) 120 Rev. 2, CCN #9, dated 12/20/96 we noted the followins discrepancy:
Background:
In the pipe stress analysis calculallen (i), Containment Penetration 110 is shown on the piping Isometric and is modelled in the NUPIPE piping analysis as nnde point 275. An in-line anchor PSA065 is shown on the isometric and is modelled as node point 240.
For the structural evaluation of Containment Penetration 110, piping loads from node point 240, which correspond to the anchor PSA085, were transmitted to and used by the Structural
- Engineering group to perform the evaluation of Containment Penetration 110 (il).
Discrepancy:
Inconect loads are used to perform the structural evaluation of Containment Penatration 110, Review Velid invalid Nooded Date initiator: Je6n,R C.
O O
O
- S7 VT t.ead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
M 97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O-O m S7 IRC Chmn: SWgh, Anand K Q
Q Q
80697 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identifled by NUF Q Yes tf No Printed 8C697 4.27.01 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP34080 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Paview instielor Join, R. C, O
O O
VT Lead: Nwl Anthony A O
O VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, A% K
=
O o.ie:
SL Comments:
)
4 Printed 8C697 4-27.08 PM Page 2 of 2
l l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0083 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report R.
oroup: sye.m DR vAuo Re*w Ehnet Symm Da$n Potenual operabny issue Diecipune: Mechanical Design O va Discrepency Type: Lkensing Docurrent (9) No SysterrWProcess: Oss
~
NRC s6gnincance level: 4 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Pu' A6ehed:
DiacroPency: FSAR Tables 1.91 & 1.9-2 are inconsistent with FSAR Section 6.5.2 with respect to SRP 6.5.2.
Dacription: FSAR Tables 1.91 & 1.9-2 are inconsistent with FSAR Section 6.5.2 with respect to SRP 6.5.2.
Table 1.91 under SRP 6.5.2 states:
I Containment spray system requirements are not discussed in Section 6.5.2.
Table 1.9-2 under SRP 6.5.2 states:
A. The containment spray system requirements of SRP 6.5.2 I
are not discussed in FSAR Section 6.5.2.
B. No credit for containment spray fission product removalis taken in the Millstone 3 design.
However, fission product removal by the containment spray systems is specificaly addressed in FSAR Section 6.5.2.
Affected System Requirements:
OSS 384 RSS 329 Rev6ew Vaud invalid Needed Date initletor: Feingold, D. J.
O O
O
&?oS7 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A O
O O
&?o/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
6 2/97 IRC Chmn: Sing % Anand K O
O O
6 5S7 Date:
INVALlO:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 O Yes (#i No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date inWor FM.D. A O
O VTLead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Pnnled &?697 4 28.36 PM Page 1 of 1
Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3 0099 l
Miliston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup: Programmatic DR VALID Review Element: Correctw Adon Process PhnhWM im Diecipline: other yp, Discrepancy Type: Correctw Actkm
,,. g System / Process: DGX NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
Diecrepancy: Insufficient Significance Level for ACR M3-960221
==
Description:==
The ACR describes that both the EDG's had Control Panel Doorsets which vere not latched or had broken latches. NU assigned a filgnificance Level *D" for this ACR per Form RP4 4, Rev. 2. The NU evaluation of the ACR states 'The condition is reportable fis a condition outside the design basis, similar to the reporting condition made on the 4160V SvAtchgear", in addition,
the condition is identified by NU as an operability concem for A EDG due to two broken door latches.
A Significroce Level "D" is not considered approplate considering the Reportability and Operability condition and because the condition is not of " Low Consequence and Low Complexty" Review Valid invalld Needed Date initiator: Caruto. A.
O O
O 8/2097 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J Q
Q e/2D97 VT Mgr: Schonfer, Don K O
O O
8/2S7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
acas7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
PreviouMy identitled by NU7 C) Yue
'Si No Review initiator: Caruso, A.
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopf er, Don K 1RC Civnn: Singh, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Prtrted Sc6S7 5.51:43 PM Page 1 of 1