ML20210S580

Forwards Twenty Six Discrepancy Repts (Drs) Identified During Review Activities for Icavp.Drs Distributed in Accordance W/Communications Protocol,PI-MP3-01

ML20210S580
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/09/1997
From:	Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
9583-100, NUDOCS 9709110052
Download: ML20210S580 (46)

Text

I f

an

.kkh Sor gent %)Lundy"*

%ip Don K. Schopfer Vice President 312 269-6078-September 9,1997 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423

- Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 i

Independent Corrective Action Verification Program l

l

-_ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C, 20555

. I have enclosed the following twenty six (26) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.

DR No. DR-MP3-0006 DR No. DR-MP3-0094 DR No. DR-MP3-0029 DR No. DR-MP3-0095 DR No. DR-MP3-0037 DR No. DR-MP3-0097 DR No. DR-MP3-0039 DR No. DR-MP3-0100 DR No. DR-MP3-0040 DR No. DR-MP3-0101 i

DR No. DR-MP3-0042 DR No. DR-MP3-0105

~ gDl g

DR No. DR-MP3-0041 DR No. DR-MP3 0104 DR No. DR-MP3-0048 DR No. DR-MP3-0114 -

DR No. DR-MP3-0053 DR No. DR-MP3-0115 DR No. DR-MP3-0056 DR No. DR-MP3-0117 DR No. DR-MP3-0058 DR No. DR-MP3-0135 DR No. DR-MP3-0074 DR No. DR-MP3-0136 DR No. DR-MP3-0079 DR No. DR-MP3-0146

((\\\\l{\\ll}\\\\\\{\\\\((\\\\ \\\\!l,I\\\\,\\} NO kOO$ 23 PDR e

• g 55 East Monroe Street + Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA
• 312-269-2000

)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 9,1997 Document Control Desk Project No 9583-100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the following two (2) DRs that have been determined to be invalid. ( No action is required from Northeast Utilities for these two DRs. The basis for their invalid determination is included on the document. DR No. DR-MP3-0102 DR No. DR MP3 0133 l Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078. Y-crs very truly, S' o D. K. Se opfer i Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr-Enclosures Copies: E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight 1 T Concannon (1,1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU mAicavpuwA97er0909a.&w

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP 0906 uitistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Reoort Review Oroup: Programmate DR VALlo Review Element: Change Pr: cess p g Diecipl6ne: Other Discrepancy Type: DeWgn control Procedure Om 4 SystemProcwas: N/A ~ NRC significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Diecrepancy: PORCISORC Review of Minor Modifications

== Description:== Safety-related MMODS are not required to be PORC/SORC reviewed. Revision 5 to the Design Control Manual (DCM) Chapter 1.0, Section 1.7 establishes the following bases for design changes being Minor Modifications (MMODs): A MMOD typically involves non complex / minor design o changes affecting either non safety or safety related systems, structures, or components described in engineering design documents. MMODs may be only used for design changes (non-safety o or safety related) that DO NOT require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation, The note under DCM Chapter 3, Section 3.0, Task 10 states "MMODs do not require PORC/SORC review and Unit Director approval; the design change can be directly implemented per Section 4.0." Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.d establishes I PORC responsibility for review of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety, and TS 6.5.2.6.g establishes SORC, responsibility for review of all common site proposed changes or modifications to systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety. Furthermore, the NRC I&E Enforcement Manual STS Section 6.5.1.1. provides clarification on the Licensee's review responsibility for matters related to nuclear safety. The discussion states, "...the on-site committee is responsible for the review of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systerr-i or equipment that affect nuclear safety. It is the NRC position that this requirement applies to all proposed changes or modifications that can affect the safety related functions of plant structures, systems and components. Such changes and modifications can involve plant systems and equipment which are not required to be covered by the quality r.ssurance program Regardless of the components or systems involved, changes or modifications that can affect safety-related functions must be subjected to on-site committee action." The discussion continues with an example of the insta!!ation of roof drain piping over electrical equipment that has a sMety bnction. Based on the DCM definition of MMODs and the Note included in Chapter 3, Section 3.0 of the DCM, the design change program is discrepant with respect to PORC/SORC review i requirements for safety-related MMODS which may affect nuclear safety. The 50.59 screening in DCM for safety related or Ented 939710 s4 42 AM Page 1 of 2 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR MP3 0006 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report non safety related modification may not always show that a 50.59 safety evaluation is required when a MMODS affects nuclear safety. Review Val 6d inval6d Needed Date s inkletor: Wrona, S. P. O O O 675S7 ( VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J Q Q Q k'197 ) VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O SSS7 IRC Chrrott Singh, Anand K O O O SSS7 Date: INVALID: Dele: RESOLUTION: Prov6ously identined by NU7 Q Yes it) No Review ^ * * *

• initletor: Wrona, S. P, O

O O l VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J I VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Late: sL Comnents: I Prtnted 9/ES710M48 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0029 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID ReMw: Spem Des %n Diecipline: Mechancel Design Potential OpereNitty issue Diecropency Type: Calculaten 4g Systen#rocese: SWP No NRC significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Discrepancy: Service Water Pumphouse Ventilation Calculation Discrepancy

== Description:== The following calculations were reviewed to venfy that the correct heat load from the service water pump motors were used in determining the service water pump room ventilation requirements: Calculation P 108 Rev. O, dated July 10,1973, Ventilation - Circulating & Service Water Pump House Calculation P(B) 901 Rev. O, dated 12/14/83, 3HW'FN2A/28 Cycling Frequency Calculation P(B) 920 Rev. O, dated 12/14/83, Recommended Period of Operation of the Service Water Pumphouse Ventilation Recirculation Mode Calculation P(B)-925 Rev. O, dated 12/14/83, Service Water Pumphouse Ventilation Requirements The review identified the following descrepancies: l

1) Calculation P 198 used 800 hp for calculating the heat loss t

from one service water pump motor. Plant Design Data System (PDDS) data for service water pump 3SWP*P1 A and l 3SWP*P1B states that the motor rating is 600 hp with a brake l HP requirement of 555 hp.Two pumps operate post-LOCA per FSAR section 9.2.1.2 while the calculation only considered one operating. This would result in higher than calculated heat loss to the pump room from the service water pump motors. Calculation P(B)-901 Indicates that P(B) 906 supersedes calculation P 198. However, calculation P 198 is still shown as an active calculation in the calculation database and P(B) 906 has been superseded by P(B) 925.

2) Calculation P(B)-901 considered only one pump operating with a bhp of 561. Two pumps operate post-LOCA per FSAR section 9.2.1.2 which would result in higher than calculated heat loss to the pump room from the service water pump motors.

3) Calculation P(B)-920 considered only one pump operating while two pumps operate post-LOCA per FSAR sec:lon 9.2.1.2

4) Calculation P(B)-925 used motor load values from calculation P(B)-901 which only considered one pump operating Per FSAR I

Section 9.2.1.2, two pumps on the same division are required to operate post-LOCA. The discrepancy is assigned a significance level 3 because the discrepancy may result in a higher Servive Water Pumphouse Printed 9/hS711:02:ss AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRW.P3-0029 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report (SWP) room temperature than the design basis temperatufe required to Support the SWP equipment operation, Review Valki invalid Needed Date initietor: Stout, M. D. O O O

• /'57 VT Leed; Nort, Anthony A O

O O S57 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O "S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O SSS7 Date: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously identined by NU? Q Yes @ No Review ^ * * *

• initiator: Stout, M. D.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K l Date: NL Comments: Printed M9711:03.01 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0037 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Programmetc DR VALID Review Element: Conective Action Process g D6ecip46ne: otho' O Ya Discrepancy Type: corrective Action 4 g, System *rocess: SWP ~ NRC Sigrd6cance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Discrepancy; inadaquate response for resolving the final Status of the Auxiliary Building 0 Ventilation Heaters.

== Description:== The ACR # M3-96 0310 Initiator recommends adding the safety-related Auxiliary Building Ventilation Heaters as a ' required load

• for coping with a SBO.

The ACR Causal Factor Corrective Action Plan's item 1 A is not clear if an evaluation will be made to determine whether or not the safety related Auxiliary Building Ventilation Heaters are a ' required load" for supporting the SBO Safe Shutdown.. The Corrective Action must include this determination along with any necessary revision to the appropriate calculation. Review Valid invalid Needed Date Init6etor: Caruso, A. O O O S 3/87 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J B O O S"7 l VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O S"7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O o/a/97 Date: g/3/97 INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION. Previously identined by NU7 O Yes t#) No Review Initiator: Caruso, A. VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: Printed 9@9711:03:40AM Page 1 of i

Northeast Utilities - lCAVP DR No. DR MP3 0039 Millstone Unit 3 - Discrepancy Report t Review oroup: conrgureten DR VAUD Diecipline: Ppng Dee' n PotentialOperobihty issue g g Diecropency Type: Drewtng SysterrWProcess: SWP NRC Signiftcance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU: Date Published: D6ecrepancy: Upper Tier To Lower Tier Drawings Review For SWP in Diesel Generator Building

== Description:== The Upper Tier to Lower Tier drawings review found the following drawing discrepancies between the P&lDs and the as built Isometric drawings:

1. The following line number discrepancies were found on the drawings as noted:

On P&lD EM 133D Rev 23 versus isometric Cl SWP 35S Sht 2 Rev 10: 3-SWP-010-264 3 (P&lD H-9) vs. 3-SWP-010-26 3 (ISO) 3-SWP-010-25-3 (P&lD H-9) vs. 3-SWP-010-264-3 (ISO) 3-SWP-010-26-3 (PalD H 7) vs. unidentified (ISO) 3-SWP-010-40-3 (P&lD H-1) vs, 3-SWP-010-265 3 (ISO) 3-SWP-010-265 3 (P&lD H 1) vs unidentified (ISO)

2. Cl SWP 35S Sht 2 Rev 10 shows line 3-S'NP-010-413 before valve V-49 versus after V-49 on PalD EM-133D Rev 23 (H-3),

3, EM 133D Rev 23 line 3-SWP-010-44-3 (J 1) is shown as 3-SWP-010-266-3 on Cl SWP 34 Sht 6 Rev 7,

4. EM 133D Rev 23 line 3-SWP 010-25-3 (J 9) is shown as 3-SWP-010-267-3 on Cl SWP 34 Sht 6 Rev7, 5, No isometric drawings found for lines 3-SWP-008-416-3 and 3-SWP 008-289-3, Review Volid Invahd Needed Date initiator: Reed, J. W.

O O O S2S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O "S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K Q O O "S7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O "S7 Date: INVAllD: Date: RESOLtm0N* Previously idenufted by NU7 (,) Yes ? No Review d initiator: Road, J. W. VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: Pnnted MS711:o4:29 AM Page 1 of 2

9 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0039 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Comments: l I Printed 9S9711:04.35 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP Det No. DR-MP3-0040 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Peyw oroup: conr,um. oR vAuD Review Element: systern instellation pg ,,g g,,, y Diecipline: Pipint! Design 4 y, Discrepency Type: Instellete Ingeenenwm j Systemerocess: sWP No NRC significence level: 3 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Discrepancy: Walkdown Discrepancies Of The SWP in The Diesel Generator Building 1 Descr$ tion: The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Emergency Diesel Generator Building:

1. 3SWP*RV90A (Relief Valve) missing from line 3-SWP-001 186-4. Flenges covered with cloth but no Tag for Work in

Progress,

2. For line 3-SWP-010-264-3 shown on Cl SWP 3SS Sht 2 Rev 10, the support shown on drawing BZ-60A 33 has one additional support attached and the support showm on drawing BZ 60A-32 has two additional supports attached that are not shown on the support draw;ngs.

3. Lines 3-SWP-010-28 3 and 3-SWP-010-109 3 have missing insulation (from floor to AOV39A,approximately 13 ft).

4. Line 3 SWP-002-249-3 is missing insulation.

5. Valve 3SWP*AOV39A shows gland packing leakage has occurred resulting in corrosion deposit.

6. 3SWP*RO39A (Restricting orifice) is installed backwards (inlet side is facing downstream).

7. Valve 3SWP*V298 is missing insulation and the bottom flange shows rust and corrosion.

8. Valve 3SWP*V16 is missing insulation.

i

9. Valves V 111, V 986, V-110, and V 988 are shown per

'GRITG* and Manufacture's drawing to be flanged valves and in the field were found to be socket welded valves,

10. Drain valve 3SWP*V111 are located at Heat Exchanger (3EGS*E18) outlet head. P&lD EM-133D Rev 23 shows the valve to be on the inlet head.

11 Valve 3SWP*AOV39A gland packing shows leakage / corrosion. Review Valid invalid Needed Date Inittetor: Reed, J. W-B O O S3S7 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A Q Q Q &'3S7 VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K 8 O O S'BS7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K 8 O O SSS7 Date: INVAUD: Date: - REs0LUTION: Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Printed BSS711:25:18 AM Page 1 of 2

w J-4.- '-.__a a L45 2 4 L da +4--r.-.a---@a, 4-eesu.~ _-4. - - -_i---

1. .A.4-.

-4.

• e*

A Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0040 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report R.*. i Accepta W NW AccepteW Nwed he ww.n n a. A w. O O O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A j O O VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O oei.: SL Comnents: I ) I i a J Pnnted 9/9,S711:25.24 AM Pm 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0041 Milistone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Confgurata DR VAW Review Element: system Design Discipline: Piping Des %n Potentiel OperabilNy lasue Discrepency Type: Drewmg C) y systemProcess; sWP $> uo NRC signincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Diacropency: Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawings Review for SWP in Pump House

== Description:== The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lDs with the as builtisometrbs: 2

1. P&lD EM 133A Rev 26 does not show the 1/2 inch capped line on line3-SWP 030-7 3 (12) as shown on the isometric Cl-SWP 18 Sht 4 Rev 11,

2. P&lD EM-133A Rev 26 shows the instrument line to PT268 on line 3-SWP-030-2 3 after the tee to 3-SWP 030-7 3 (K 2) versus before the tee as shown on the isometric Cl SWP 18 Sht 4 Rev 11.

3. DCN DM3-001469-96 changed the flanged connections on strainJrs 3SWP*STRIB and 3SWP*STR1D to be blanked off on P&lD EM-133A Rev 26. Isometric Cl-SWP 18 Sht 4 Rev 11 was not changed.

4. DCN DM3-00-1468 96 changed the flanged connections on strainers 3SWP* STRIA and 3SWP*STRIC to be blanked off as shown on P&lD EM-133A Rev 26. Isometric Cl-SWP 19 Sht 4 Rev 11 was not changed.

5. Isometric Cl-SWP 18 Sht 4 Rev 11 continuation line shown as 3-SWP 030-190 3 should be 3 SWP 030-256-3.

6. Valves V992, V993, V72, V73, MOV24D and MOV248 on isometric Cl SWP-247 Sht 5 Rev 11 are safety related and should be designated with a (*).

7. Line 3-SWP 003-256-3 on P&lD EM-133DRev 23 (B-2) should be shown as 3-SWP-030-256-3,

8. Line 3-SWP 003-257 3 on P&lD EM 133D Rev 23 (B-10) should be shown as 3-SWP 030-257 3.

Review Velid invalid Needed Date loMletor: Read, J. W-0 0 0 $3S7 W Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 9397 VT Mgt; schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 4B/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anend K Q Q Q 9/897 osie: INVALID: Date: Printed 9S/9711:05:15 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP34041 Millst n Unit 3 Discrepancy Report MESOLUTION: Prestously klentened tiv NUF U Yes Th No Rev6,w Acce64eW W Accorda W Nmied Date inMietor: Rest J. W. O O O VT Lead: Nett, Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K ] O O J O w.: $L Carments: l l Printed SLS9711EN AM Page 2 of 2 ~

9 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0042 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Confguration DR VALID Review Element: Sptom instenation p g gy g,, Diecipl6ne: Piping Design Ow Discrepency Type: Instenation Requirements e) No System 9tocess: sWP NRC Significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Dete Published: D6ecrepency: Walkdown Discrepancies of the SWP in the Pump House. Trains B & D Deecription: The following discrepancy items Were found during the Walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP Trains b & D in the Pump House:

1. Valve *V77 on Pl238 instrument line was in the Closed position with pump 3SWP'PIB running, Pressure gage Pl23B was showing pressure indicating possibly a poor valve seat.

1

2. Line 3-SWP 00310 appears (pipe is insulated) to have a flanged joint In the pipe between pipe support PSA033 and the elbow before the strainer 38WP*STRiD that is not shown on the isometfic Cl SWP 247 SHT 5 Rev 11.

1

3. The insulation is Coming off of the flanged end of line 3 SWP.

003 247. I Review Valid invol6d Needed Date inMietor: Reed, J. W. O O O S$97 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O Q Q 9/397 VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 9W97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $$S7 Date: IWALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously identitled by NU7 O Yet '#1 No Review inittetor: Reed, J. W. VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgri schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: SL CommeMs: Pnnted S9/9711 o613 AM Page 1 of 1 2 . _..., - ~. ~

Nottheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4048 Millstone unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Systern DR VALID I I 06ecipl6ne: 6tructurel Doolg" Potential Operabitwy leeue D6ecropency Type: Calculata O Ya SysterWProcese: $WP It) No ~ NRC Slgnmcence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: ~ D6ecropeacy: Discropancy in pipe support calculation 12179 NP(F).ZO19R 014-H003 ) Descr6pt6on: We have reviewed the Pipe Support Calculation No.12179 NP(F) Z019R 014 H003, Rev.6 and note the following discrepancy: Pipe thermal displacement in z direction at support CP 319014-H003 is 0.08' (Calculation 12179-NP(F) X1913, Rey, 5). Design Criteria NETM 45,Rev,1 requires that friction loads should to be considered when the pipe thermal displacements at the support in the unrestraind direction (s) exceed 1/16", The calculation for support CP 319014 H003 does not include the friction load due to pipe thermal displacements as required by the Design Criteria, Review Vei6d invei6d Needed Date innietor: Patel, A. O Q Q E2/97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O S'5S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O S*S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q Q Q 9/6/97 Date: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Prev 6ously idenufted by Nu? Q Yee <#> No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Nooded Date ,g p VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K b 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anend K SL Conenents: Printed RS9711:oS 53 AM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0062 Ministone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VAL 10 Review Element: System Deangn p g D6ecipline Structural Dougn Diecropency Type: ceiculation Om SystemProcese: SWP NRC SigMficence levet: 4 Date FMed to NU' Date Published: D6ecrepency: Pipe support calculation NP(F) ZO198-405 discrepancy DescHetkm: Wehave reviewed Pipe Support Calculation NP(F) 20198 405, i ReV,7 and note the following discrepancies:

1. On page 17, the Load factor should be 1.24 and not 0.41 based on Change Factor on page 13.

2. On page 30 the dimension A should be 8.64" and not 8.34".

This is a math error,

3. Loads on page 35 utilized in the analysis of the base plate correspond to the loads on Volded page 3 of ATT. 'A". No l

Justification is given for base plate loads used in the calculation. Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date Inteletort Patel, A. Q-O O

• • • 7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q

Q Q EW97 VT Mgra Schopfer, Don K O O O

• • S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q

Q Q SW97 Dele: IW AllD: Date: RESOLUTION-Previously identefted by NU? O Yes it' No Rev6ew initiator: Patel,A. O O O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: SinDh, Anord K Date: SL ConeneMs: Pnnted BS9711:0726 AM Page 1 of 1

Northamst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0064 Millstone UnH 3 Discrepancy Report Review 06oup: System DRVAll0 Diecipl6ne: Structural Doogn Potential Operabinety leeue i Discrepancy Type: Conculation Om SystemProcees: SWP NRC SigntAconce level: 4 Date Faxed to NO: Date Publ6thod: Discrepency: Pipe support calculation NP(F) Z19B 035 discrepancy Descript6on: We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation NP(F) Z198 035 Rev.7 and note the following dl*crepancies: 1 On page 9D, the joint 8 coordinate in Y direction is 36" based on the suppoft sketch. The computer model uses 33" as the Y coordinate, l

2. On page 9E. loading case 4, load force in Y direction at joint 7 should be '-100# and not '100#' based on the loading case 4 definition.

3. On page 16, the Fz =.11,712#. The latest load comparision per page 98 show the load to be ' 9,226#'.

Rev6ew Valid invol6d Needed Date Init6e%rt Patel, A. O O O nS7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 8'*87 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O $$S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O SSS7 Dnie: INVALID: Date: RE80LUTION: Prov6ously ident6 fled by Nu? O vos ei No Review ^## initletor: Patel.A. VT Leed: Nort Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: Printed ES9711:08 23 AM Page 1 of 1

h b f - g { Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0068 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR VALID Review Elemord: system Desgn DiecipNne: Mechancel Design Potenttal operebauty issue Om Discrepancy Type: Licensrg Docume't ei No systerWProcess: Rss NRC s6gnanconce levet: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Diecrepancy: The RSS Pump Starting and Spray Effective time documentation discrepancy

== Description:== Multiple values for the Recirculation Spray System (RSS) pump stalting and spray effective times after the Containment Depressulization Actuation (CDA) signal are reported in the FSAR and the Design Basis Summary document as follows: RSS Pump d Start Time After Reference CDA Signal FSAR Sec 6.2.2.2 approximately 779 seconds i 3DBS NSS 003 Sec 8.6 (14 sec. DG start time ( + 655 sec time delay t 20 sec. timer tolerance ) 3DBS NSS-003 Sec 12.2.0 (660 sec. time delay t 20 sec, timer tolerance) FSAR Sec 6.2.2.3 approximately 660 sec. (-11 minutes) FSAR Sec 6.2.2.4.2 Two time delay relays, one set at 650 sec.and one set at 660 sec. NRC SER, Supplement 4 Pl0 Commitment Record 13701 pump stading times of 660 sec, and 670 sec. RSS Spray Effective Time After Reference CDA Signal FSAR Sec 6.2.2.3 max of 750 sec. ( max.12.5 minutes) 3DBS NSS-003 Sec 8.6 & 12.2.6 779 sec. FSAR Table 6.216 780 sec. with minimum ESF l Also, NRC Letter A05461 dated 12/17/85, Pl0 Commitment Record 13843, requires that FSAR Table 6.210 be revised to reflect the RSS pump start delay following a CDA signal. However, no FSAR Table 6.210 exists in the UFSAR. Rev6ew Val 6d invalid Needed Date inttletor: Feingold. D. J. O O O $5S7 { Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O O S5S7 Prtnted &99711:09 05 AM ' ' '"W " ' + * ' " ^ pg M

.-. ~. Northeast UtilNies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0068 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report VI MF behopter, Don K O O O Saw MC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Su7 o.: IW Allo: Date RE60LUTl0N: Prov6ously ident6hed by NUF O Yet es No Rev6ew ACC#8W W oW W Me initiator: Feingold, D. J. O O O VT Lead: t4ert, Anthony A O O O VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K RC Ctenn Singh, Anand K N' b O O o.ie: SL Cortynonts P Pnnted SSW 11:09:12 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0074 Mill tone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Confgwauon DR VALIO Rev6ew E6ement: symm D 6en D6ecipline: Ppin0 Dee90 % op,,,,,,,,,,,,, Diecrepency Type: Drueng Qg 4g systenvProcess: RsS ~ NRC sigrecance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU: Date Pubushed: D6ecr*Peacy: Upper Tier To Lower Tier Drawing Review for RSS-QSS in ESF Bldg. Deecrtpuon: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the PalD with the as built Isometrics:

1. PalD EM 112C Rev 16 shows line 3 RSS 750129 2 connected to 3 RSS-01019 2 after 3 RSS 004122 2 (H 10).

Isometric Cl RSS 11 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows the connection before 3-RSS 004122 2.

2. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducers before lines 3 RSS 004 122 2 (H 10) and 3 RSS-008-55 2 (110) connect to 3-RSS 010-19 2. Cl RSS 11 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows reducers.

3. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducers on line 3 RSS 006 54 2 before 3 RSS 01014 2 (18). Cl-RSS-010 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows reducer.

4. EM 112C Rev 16 shows 3 RSS-001 117 2 connected to 3-RSS 01018-2 (G 9) between expansion joint 3RSS'EJ2A and reducer. Cl RSS 18 Sht 4 Rev 4 shows the line connected to the reducer.

5. EM 112C Rev 16 shows 3-RSS-001 113 2 connected to 3-RSS 01013 2 (G 8) between expansion joint 3RSS*EJ2C and reducer. Cl RSS 19 Sht 3 Rev 3 shows the line connected to the reducer.

6. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS 750 78-4 before it connects to 3 RSS 150 79-4 (I 7). CP 379004 Sht 4 Rev 5 shows reducer.

7. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS 750 73-4 (I 8). CP 379704 Sht 3 shows reducer in Fantom Line and one is required. CP 379005 Sht 4 Rev 6 should show the reducer on line 3-RSS 750 073-04 connection to 3-RSS 00107104,

8. EM 112C Rev 16 shows line from V937 connected to 3-RSS-002 89-4 (F-6). CP 379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows it connected to a 3/4 inch line to V938 (F-6).

9. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on 3-RSS 750-914 before it connects to 3-RSS-002 89-4 (D 10).CP 379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows the reducer,

10. CP 379013 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows no reducer o iline 3 RSS 150-79-4 before it connects to 3 RSS-002 89-4. Reducer needs to be added, it also needs to be added to EM 112C Rev 16 (G-6).

11. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on 3 RSS 150-85-4 before connection to 3 RSS 002 88-4 (D-8). CP 379015 Sht 2 Rev 3 shows the reducer.

12. EM-112C Rev 16 shows line 3-RSS 001 109 2 (G 4) connected to 3-RSS 010-8 2 before reducer. Cl-RSS 21 Sht 4 Rev 5 shows the connection at the reducer.

13. EM 112C Rev 16 shows line 3-RSS-750127 2 (H-4) to be connected afterline 3-RSS 004124 2. Cl-RSS 8 Sht 3 Rev 6 Printed OS9711:1013 AM Page 1 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N. DR4AP3 0074 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report shows the connection before 3 RSS 004124 2.

14. Cl RSS-8 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows a reducer on line 3 RSS-004 124 2 before connection to line 3 RSS-010 9 2. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer.

15. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS 006 46-2 (J-4). Cl RSS 8 Sht 3 Rev 6 shows a reducer before connection to 3 RSS-010-9 2,

16. EM-112C Rev 16 at (J 3) shows no capped line between 3 SSP 001 155 2 and check valve 'V35 as shown on Cl RSS 9 Sht 5 Rev 6.

17. EM 112C Rev 16 shows line 3 RSS-001 105 2 (C 2) connected to 3 RSS-010-3 2 before reducer. Cl RSS 20 Sht 4 Rev 6 shows the connection at the reducer.

18. EM 112C Rev 16 shows Flow Elements at (F 2, F-4, F 7, F.

9), but does not call them out as 'FE40D, 'FE38B, 'FE40C, and i 'FE38A.

19. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS-006 52 2 (J 2). Cl RSS 7 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows a reducer before the connection to 3-RSS 010112,

20. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS 750-49 2 (D 5). CP 379709 Sht 3 Rev 4 shows a reducer before the line l

connects to 3 RSS 002 57 4.

21. EM 112C Rev 16 shows at (D-5) a reducer on the 1 inch line to V939. CP 379014 Sht 3 Pev4, Detail B, shows no reducer.

22. CP 379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 does not call out STR2B (D-4) shown and called out on EM 112C Rev 16 (D 5).

23. EM 112C Rev 16 shows the line to valve 3RSS V942 (D 5) connected directly to line 3-RSS-002 57 4 CP 379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 Detail C shows the line for valve 3RSS V942 connected to the line to 3RSS V943,

24. CP 379014 Sht 3 Rev 4 shows reducers that are not shown on EM 112C Rev 16 at the following locations: Line 3 RSS 150-67-4 before it connects to line 3-RSS-002 57 4 (D 5); line 3 RSS 750 75 4 before it connects to line 3 RSS 150-67 4 (14);

line 3-RSS 00166-4 between3 RSS-00159-4 and 3 RSS 150-67-4 (I 4); and line 3 RSS 00159-4 before it connects to line 3 RSS-00166-4 (I-4). EM 112C 16 shows no reducer on line 3-RSS 750-614 at (12) but CP 379009 Sht 3 shows a reducer between line 3 RSS-00159-4 and 'V978,

25. EM 112C Rev 16 shows no reducer on line 3 RSS-150-67-4 before connection to 3 RSS-002 57 4 (D 5). CP 379016 Sht 2 Rev 4 shows the reducer.

26. CP 379008 Sht 3 Rev 9 does not identify instrument PI 428,

27. CP 379008 Sht 3 Rev 9 note that line 3-SSP 500126-4 continues on CP 394753 should be removed because the line is no longer on EM-112C Rev 16 (D-6).

VaM Inval6d Date inM6ator: Reed, J. W. Q Q Q M97 VT t.eed: Non, Anthony A O O O S'2S7 VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K Q O O "S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q M97 Date: INVALID: Printed M9711:1015 AM Page 2 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0074 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report om.: RESOLUTION: Previously ident6 fled by NU? U Yes ei No Rev6ew AcceMaW NW AccepaW Nooded Date Init6ator: Reed, J. W. O O VT Lead: Nort, #Ahony A b O O ] VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O o,,,.. SL Comments: 1 j 1 1 1 i =l Pnnted 9S9711:10 21 AM p 3g3 i

Northeast UtilNies ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3 0079 Millstone unH 3 Discrepancy Repoft Review Group: Programmatec DR VAUo Review tiement: corrective Action Process D6ecip66ne: Mechancal Desgn pgg pq g. O vee Discrepency Type: Calculeton + No systemProcess: DGX ~ N8tC signtAcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Putd6thed: 06ecr*P*acy: Procedural Controls for Revising Station Procedures Affected by Calculation Change NoMes (CCNs) Deecr6ption: In response to ' State how the corrective action will effectively prevent or reduce the possibility of the same or similar event or adverse condition from happening again", block 7 of form RP 4 7 page 4 Of 4, of Adverse Condition Report ACR M3 96-0485 states 'The CCN that affected the aforementioned surveillance procedure forms did not catch the impact to these forms. Per DCM (Design Control Manual) Rev. 3, the independent review process is sufficient to reduce the possibility of the same or similar event from happening again." Our review of the DCM Rev. 3, chapters 4 and 5 did not identify sufficient controls in the independent review process for Calculation Change Notices (CCNs) to prevent or provide added ~ assurance that this event would not be repealed. New calculations or actual revisions to calculations include a specific check for procedtralimpact (see NUC DCM FORM S 1 A item 5) which receives independent review, however the form used for CCNs (see NUC DCM FORM 5 5A) includes no such specific check in the independent review process, in addition, with exception of the requirement to consider 'Are adequate preoperational and subsequent periodic testing requirements appropriately specified?", specific guidance for independent reviewers of CCNs provided in Chapter 4 of the DCM does not include consideration of impact to station procedures. There is a check in Chapter 4 of Rev. 3 of the DCM by the independent reviewer that asks "has the integrated design package review considered appropriate supplemental reviews by other engineering disciplines (selsmic, electrical, etc.) and affected departments (Operations, maintenance, etc.)?" This could be ore link to help ensure the CCN would go to the Operations Department for their review and the assumption would then have to made that the affected surveillances would be identified for revision, however this link in and of itself does not go right to the issue of whether or not station procedures are affected. In any case, the statement in the ACR (block 7 of form RP4 7) of sufficient controls in the DCM for Rev. 3 for the CCN process with respect to flagging needed changes to station procedures has not been found, in addition, our review of the current 9evision 5 of the DCM for the CCN process also did not find sufficient controls which would prevent recurrence of the event documented in the aforementioned ACR. Valid invalid Date initiator: Navarro. Mark Q Q Q 9/197 Pnnted as9711:11:43 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast UtilHies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0079 Millstone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O O O $2S7 vi u i Schopew, Don K O O O $5S7 v IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $5S7 Date: 9/3/97 IWALID: Date: RESOLUTION. Prev 6ously 6dentined by NU7, Q Yes 'O' No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date ink 6etor: Nene, M O O VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J O O O VT Mge Schopfer, Don K O O 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: SL Conments: Printed ES9711:11:49 AM P 2 of 2

Northeast UtilMies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0094 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: system DR VALID I D6ecipline: Structure! Design Potential Operendlety issue O Ya D6ecrepancy Type: Calculeton Om SysterWProcese: SWP NRC sigrdftcence level: 4 Date faxed in NU: Dele Published: Discrepeacy: Pipe Support Calculation Discrepancy

== Description:== We have reviewed Pipe Support calculation no.12179-NP(F)- Z19A 135 REV.4. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepaneles.

1. The load tabulation on page 7, shows the stress calculation Rev.2. Latest stress calculation is rev.3, The rev,3 loads are increased and not incorporated in the calculation.

2. Incortect page reference on page 17:

see page 18 should be see page 19,

3. Incorrect page reference on page 20:

see page 21 should be see page 22. see page 20 should be see page-21

4. Drafting error on page 14:

F = 534 #/in should be 543 #/in, 5, Thickness value (T=0.38 in ) of run pipe, used on page 16 does not match with the value shown on page 8, which shows T=0,187 in. Review Val 6d inval6d Needed Date initletor: Petal, A, y C [ 9/497 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A g Q Q 9/497 VT Mor: Schopfc!. Don K Q O O S/SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q Q &%97 Dese: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously identiflod by NU7 (,) Yes @ No Review initiator: Patel,A. VT Lead: Non, Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: sL Comments: Printed SS9711:24 39 AM Papa 1 of 1

Northeast Utilnies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0096 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR VALID U=" ..: Structure! Desgn Potential Oper.6664ty lsease D6ecrepancy Type: Calculation O va syseerwproceost RSS O No NRC Sigencence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Publ6thed: D6ecrepency: Structural Steel Calculation Discrepancy Deecript6on: We have reviewed Pipe Support calculation no.12179 SEO BZ. 798.4 REV.1 Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.

1. Page 9 of the calculation has mathematical errors. It will not have any impact on result.

I = 9.27 ind, should be 11.78 in4 S = 2.42 in3, should be 3.07 in3 Tcap = 52.3 In-k, should be 66.31 in k l Review Val 6d invalid Needed Dale ( init6etc : Patel, A. O O O S'457 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony ^ O O O SS7 VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K Q Q Q SS97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Q Q Q sS97 Date: IWALIO: I Date: RESOLUTION: Prev 60uely identifled by NU7 Q Yee i#l No Rev6ew inalator: Patel, A. O O O VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K -e SL Conenente: e* Pnnted ES9711:24 00 AM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 009T Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworaupt sresem DR VAuo Review Element: System De66pn p Diecipline: Pp6ng Desig" Ow Diacropency Type: Calculaton M No system /Procese: QSS NRC slenincence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: D6 crepeacy2 Calculation NP(F) X7926 Pipe Supports and valve accelerations not evaluated for current loads DescripHon: In the process of reviewing Calculation 12179 NP(F) X7926 Rev. 2, including Calculation Change Notice (CCN) No.'s 1 through 6 we noted the following discrepancies: (l) CCN #6, dated 9/13/96 revised the piping stress analysis to incorporate containment displacemeni effects associated with various accident scenarios, as defined by Calculation No.12179-NS(B) 168, Rev.1 ' Containment Displacement Profiles'. The NUPIPE piping model has been reanalyzed to address the containment displacement effects. Consequently pipe support I loads are revised based on the new analysis. However, no support summary has been provided in the calculation, and there is no indication that the revised support loads have been transmitted to Pipe Support Engineering for evaluation. (ii) CCN #6, dated 9/13/96 references Stress Data Package SDP-f QSS Rev,0, dated 1 14-83, However CCN #3, dated 9/17/85 already evaluated the impact of revisions 1 through 3 of the Stress Data Package, CCN#6 does not reflect the appropriate revision of the stress data package,The latest revision of the ] Data Package is Rev. 6. (iii) CCN #1, dated 7/16/85 states that ' valve accelerations due to time history forces exceeded allowables of 3.0 g's for valves 30SS*V7 and 30SS*V3, The calcuation recomputes reduced acceleration values, however, the reduced acceleration levels toported in CCN #1 still exceed the allowable of 3.0 g's. There is i no justification provided for accepting these higher acceleration i

values, Review Vel 6d invol6d Needed Date initietor: Ja6n, R. C, Q

Q Q 8/?S97 VT Lead: Nyt, Anthony A O O O se2,97 VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K O O O S'897 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O SSS7 Daie: INVALlo: Date: RESOLUTION, Prov6ously identifled by NU7 C) Yes (#1 No Printed SS9711:1220 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP34097 Milletone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report R.** Acceptable Not Acceptande Needed Date Initiator: Jain, R. C. O O O VT Lead: Nort, AnPeny A O O O VT Mgr Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: 64ngh, Anand K ) O O O D.ie: SL Comments: j 4 1 1 1 1 j i Pnnted E9/9711:12 33 AM p,

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N, DRMP3 0100 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operstone & Meerdenence and Testing DR VAllo Review Element: Operating Procooure p D6ecipl6ne: Operetone O Ya Diecropency Type: 0 & M & T Procedure g, systerWProcese: sWP NRC signmcence level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Putd6thed: 06ecropency: Surveillance SP 3626.13,5.W. Fouling is not consistent with l response to Generic Letter 8g 13. DesertPHw NU response to Generic Letter 8913 committed to implement c i program which will detect and control flow blockage problems i due to blofouling. As part of the implementation of the GL 8913 program, surveillance procedure SP 362fl.13, Service Water Heat Exchangers Fouling Determination, y+as revised to collect data and provide the Operations Department with Initial criteria for determination of degraded and inoperable heat exchangers in the Service Water System. Three discrepancies were noted with Rev,15 Change 1 of SP 3626.13 and the associated Forms. l

1. Not all service water heat exchanges are flushed as part of the i

fouling determination. This surveillance procedure requires flushing of only the 3HVQ' ACUS 1 A&B,3HVQ' ACUS 2A & B, and 3EGS*Ei&2 A & B heat exchangers. The stated purpose of the blowdown is to remove any minor mussel growth, debris, and to establish Hypochlorite residual. Removing minor mussel growth, debris, and establishing Hypochlorite residual is important for service water heat exchangers which have low service water flow or have stagnant water due to being isolted or in standby,

2. Adequate acceptance criteria is not provided. Steps 4.2.4, 4.8.1.d and 4.8.2.d of surveillance procedure SP 3626.13 Identify, respectively the flushing of the heat exchangers identified in item 1 above, but do not give acceptance criteria, adequate guidance to the operator describing what he should be looking for, or adequate time and flow rate to accomplish the requireJ flushing.

3. The associated OPS Forms only require signoff verifying the position of drain valve and does not require the operator to record the results of the flushing and what if anything was flushed from the heat exchanger.

Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date init6etort speer, R. Q Q O &7697 VT Lead: Bass, Ken Q O 67697 VT Mgr schopfer. Don K Q O O 626S7 IRC Ctwnn: singh. Anand K O O O S'5S7 Date: IW E D: Date: RESOLUTION: Prev 60usly identmed by NU7 Q Yes

18) No Printed E99711:1313 AM Page 1 or 2

Northeast Utlittles ICAVP DR No. DR44P3 0100 Millstone unn 3 Discrepancy Report neyw cco able Not Accogdeb6e Needed Date idWor: 8p, R. O O O VT Lead: Bees, Ken i O O O VT Mgt: $chopfer, Don K b IRC Chmn Segh, Anand K = i O O om.: SL CommerWsi Prtnted ES9711:13.10 AM Pope 2of 2

l Northeast Utilitie. ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0101 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ewaroup syWom DR VALW "''**""""8**"" %; u chancelDee9n Peternies oporetwiety isou. Diacropeacy Type: ceneu6.uan O vee syn =ratocus:oss , g, NRC s69tWAconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU Dale Putd6 hed: ~ L4ecrosency: QSS/RSS Pump Room Ventilation Calculation Discrepancy Dacr$se6en: Calculation P(0) 1001 Rev 0 & CCN 1 were reviewed to verify that the correct heat load from the Quench Spray System (OSS) pumpt. 3OSS*P3NB and the Recirculation Spray System (RSS) pumps 3RSS'PINB/C/D were used in determining the ventilation requirements for the pump rooms. The review identitled the following discrepancies:

1. The motors for pumps 3OSS*P3NB have a 500 hp nameplate rating with a required bhp of 470 per PDDS. The pump brakehorse power requirements shown in specification 2214.602-040 are 386 bhp rated,470 bhp maximurn. The calculation uses 386 bhp when calculating the motor heat load. Using the maximum bhp shown in Plant Design Data System (PDDS) and the specification increases the motor heat load to 90.033 Blu/hr 4

from 73,942 Blu/hr.

2. The motors for RSS pumps 3RSS*PINB/C.O have a 500 hp nameplate rating with a required bhp of 456 per PDDS. The pump brakehorse power requirements shown in specification 4

2214.602 044 are 443 bhp design,458 bhp maximtim.The calculation uses 443 bhp when calculating the motor heat load. Using the maximum bhp shown in PDDS and tne specification increases the motor heat load to 162,063 Blu/hr from 156,75S Blu/hr. This was classified as a level 4 since the discrepancy does not increase the heat loads in the rooms above the capacity of the HVAC equipment shown on page 67 of the calculation. Review Vel 6d invand Needed (We intuator: Stout. M D. O O O $4S7 VT Leed: Nort. Anthony A Q Q Q W497 VT Mer: Schopfer. Don K O O O $1'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q O O SSS7 Date: INVALID: Date: REsOLLIT.ON: Previounty identined by Nu? () Yes sei No ~ Review inMietor: Stout. M. D. VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Pnnled ES9711:13 52 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast UtilHies ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0101 Millstone UnM 3 Discrepancy Report ,i5, 1,ri,. u n-r, n VT Mgt: 6:Aapfer DonK MC Chmm %% Anand K ' = l C 1 1 Da'e: SL C(comnts' 1 ^ i r j 1 i 1 4 Prmted BS971010.57 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast UtilNies ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0104 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Accidert Magebon DR VALl0 Dioc6pienet Otho' PotentialOperabil#y is69e O vee D6ecrepancy Type: Lkensing Documert 4g Systemfrocese: N/A NRC signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Diecrepency: Incorporation of Westinghouse Revisions to Plant Safety Evaluation and FSAR $15.4.8 D**ctisdion: Westinghouso Letter 91NE*.G 0001,' Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Unit 3. Revisions To PSE and Supplemental Data For Vantage SH.* dated January 9,1991, provides revised pages to the Plant Safety Evaluation (PSE) and other documents supporting the licensing of the VANTAGE SH fuel upgrade at Millstone Unit 3. The purpose of these revisions is to correct errors in certain non limiting cases for the non-LOCA analyses related to the Rod Cluster control Assembly ejection event. The revisions attached to 91NE*.G 0001 identify changes to the initial conditions, nominal values and results of the accident analyses reported in Plant Safety Evaluation and $15,4,8 of the FSAR. These changes have not been incorporated into the FSAR, Therefore, the FSAR is Inconsistent with the supporting analysis for the plant. A review of applicable corrective action databases for Millstone 3 has not identified any pending FSAR or PSE change notice items that willincorporate the WeMinghouse identified revisions. Review Valid invalid Needed Date l Inittelor Peebles, W. R. O O O STS7 VT Leed: Rahoja. Raj D G O O SSS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K Q O O SSS7 IRC Ctwnn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q E'&97 INVAll0: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously identtAed by NU7 U Yes Y No Review initiator Peebles, W. R. VT Lead: Rahope, Raj 0 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: sL Corronents: Pnnted ES9711:17.13 AM Page 1 of 1

-~ l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0105 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Aockient Megetkv1 DRVAUD Rev6ew E6amentt syetent De6&gi Dioceptene: Oth*' Potent 6el Operability leeue O ve. Diecrepency Type: Lkensvig Document l SysterwProcese: N/A

9) No NRq significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

4 Date Published: D6*crePaacy: Westinghouse Comments On Safety System Functional Requirements Document and FSAR Chapter 15 "=-x, 1 Westinghouse Letter NEU 96 614,' Northeast Utilities Service Company Mllistone Unit 3. Review of Safety Systems Functional Requirements,' dated October 25,1996, provides comments on the sections of the Safety System Functional Requirement report related to: Reactor Coolant System, ) Chemical Volume and control System, Emergency Core Cooling i System, Main Steam System, Main Feedwater System Auxiliary Feedwater System, Containment Systems, Reactor Protection Systems, and Emergency Safety Features Actuation System. The comments were provided by the Westinghouse non LOCA and LOCA analysis groups. Westinghouse provided these comments at the request of Northeast Utilities Service Company (NU). Westinghouse Letter NEU 96-622, ' Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Unit 3. Review of Safety System Functional Requirements," dated November 15,1996, provides comments on information contained in the Millstone 3 Safety Systems j Functional Requirements Document from the Westinghouse Fluid Systems Group. Westinghouse provided these comments at the request of NU. Westinghouse Letter NEU-97 536,' Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Unit 3. Review of FSAR Chapter 15,* dated April 8,1997, provides comments on the accident analyses reported in FSAR $$15.0 and 15.4. Westinghouse provided these comments at the request of NU, Westinghouse Letter NEU 97 537," Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Unit 3. Review of Steam Line Break M&E Information in FSAR Chapter 15,' dated April 8,1997, provides comments with respect to the steam and feedwater releases used in the radiological evaluations at Millstone 3. Westinghouse provided the comments at the request of NU. The comments contained in NEU 96-614, NEU 96-622, NEU 97-536, and NEU 97 537 identify revisions to the initial conditions and nominal values used by Westinghouse in the analyses supporting the licensing of the Millstone 3 plant. These changes have not been incorporated into the FSAR. Therefore, the FSAR is inconsistent with the supporting analysis for the plant. A review of applicable corrective action databases for Millstone 3 has not identified any pending FSAR change notice item that will incorporate the Westinghouse comments. Printed 9M711:18.1o AM Page 1 of 2

1 Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR4P3 0105 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report n.v Val 6d invalW Needed Date initiatort Peeb6es, W. R. O O O m257 VT Lead: Rahove, Raj 0 0 0 0 6297 VT % Schopfer DonK O O O Su7 j IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O nw7 om.: INVAUO: Date RESOLUTION: Prev 6ously identiflod by NU7 O Yes 'ei No Review AccMa Acc5aW Needed Dme inillator: Peeb6es, W. R. 0 0 0 VT Lead: Rabop, Raj 0 O O O VT Mgri Schopfw, Don K 4 b IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K m: s 0 e 4 om.: i &L Copenents: d I i 1 4 e e Prtnted SS9711:18.16 AM Pop 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0114 Miii tone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: Confguretwi DR VALID Re h E M :8 @ W 06ecipline: Pipin0 Dee4 " Potential operstdisty issue 9 Discr*Pency tyPs: Dm*6a0 Qg systemerecese: SWP (ei no ~ NRC signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Publiaised: D6*crepency: Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for SWP in ESF Bldg, Deecrwon: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lD with lthe as built Isometric drawings:

1. On CP 319768 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3 SWP 002 206 3 should be 3 SWP 002 380 3 and line 3 SWP 002 206 3 shown in note as continuation on CP 319015 Sht 3 should be 3 SWP 002 3813 per PalD EM 133D Rew34 (L 2).

2. On CP 319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 line 3 SWP 002 206 3 should be 3 SWO-002 3813 up to valve 3SWP*V19 and then should be 3 SWP 002 206 3 per PalD EM 133B Rev 34 (L 2). Also the note on the isometric CP 319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 for line 3 SWP 002 206-3 to continue on CP 319768 should be changed to line 3-SWP-002 380 3.

3. CP 319757 Sht 3 Rev 5 s.Jows drain line from valve 3SWP*V838 to be capped and P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (M 1) shows it not capped.

4. Cl SWP 27 Sht 8 Rev 13 shows drain line with valve 3SWP'V974 and PalD EM 133B Rev 34 shows nothing.

5. P&lD EM 133b Rev 34 (12) shows instrument 3SWP FT59D to be non safety related but Cl SWP 27 Shi 8 Rev 13 has it (*)

safety related.

6. PalD EM 133D Rev 34 (J 5) shows valves 3SWP*V810.

'V303, and 'V57 to be safety related and isometric Cl SWP 33 Sht 7 Rev 8 should also show them to be safety related with a (*).

7. Isometric CP 319025 Sht 3 Rev 6 calls out in the continuation note for line 3 SWP-002-63 3 and it should be 3-SWP 002 387 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 4).

8. On isometric CP 319765 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3 SWP 002 387 3 should be 3 SWP 002 386-3 and the continuation note line 3 SWP 002-63 3 should be 3-SWP 002 387 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 4),

9. On isometric CP 319012 Sht) Rev 8 the section of line between valve 3SWP'V54 and the toe to 3SWP'RV928 should be labeled 3 SWP 002 387 3 and at the continuation note the unlabeled line at the tee opposite 3 SWP 002 387 3 should be labeled 3-SWP 002 386 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 4).

10. On CP,319014 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3 SWP 002-69 3 before Printed SS9711:18 45 AM Page 1 of 3

. - =

I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0114 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report valve 'V12 should be labeled 3 SWP 002 385 3 and the drawing continuation line 3 SWP 002 69 3 should be 3 SWP 002 384 3 per P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (L 6).

11. On CP419021 Sht 3 Rev 6 the continuation note line 3 SWP.

002 69 3 should be 3 SWP 002 385 3 per PalD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 6).

12. On CP 319767 Sht 3 Rev 7 line 3 SWP 002-69 3 in the continuation note should be 3 SWP 002 385 3 per P&lD EM-1338 Rev 34 (L 6).

13. On CP 319013 Sht 3 Rev 10 the cection of line between valve 'V52 and the tee to line 3 SWP 002 4013 should be labeled 3 SWP-002 390 3 and line 3 SWP 002146 3 of the drawing continuation note should be 3-SWP 002 382 3 per PalD 4

EM 133B Rev 34 (L 7).

14. On CP 319020 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3 SWP 002146 3 in the drawing continuation note should be 3 SWP 002 390 3 per PalD EM 133B Rev 34 (L 7).

15. On CP 319766 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3 SWP 002146 3 in the drawing continuation note should be 3 SWP-002 390 3 per P&lD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 7).

16. On Cl SWP 28 Sht 7 Rev 9 safety related equipment 3SWP'RO125A and 'EJ8E as shown on PalD EM 133B Rev 34 (H 8) should be designated with (*).

17. On Cl SWP 28 Sht 8 Rev 9 safety related equipment 3SWP*RO1250 and 'EJ80 as shown on P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (H 10) should be designated with (*),

18. On Cl SWP 29S Sht 3 Rev 10 safety related valves 3SWP'V25 ('MOV 54A) and 'V27 (*MOV 54C) as shown on PalD EM 133B Rev 34 (J 7) (J 9) should be designated with (').

19. On Cl SWP 33 Sht 6 Rev 9 safety related valves 3SWP'V811, *V304, 'V809 and 'V24 as shown on PalD EM-1338 Rev 34 (J 6) should be designated with (*).

20. On CP 319026 Sht 3 Rev 9 safety related valve 3SWP'V313

(*RV940) as shown on P&lD EM 133B Roy 34 (I 8) should be designated with (*).

21. Cl SWP 27 Sht 8 Rev 13 Shows drain line with valve 3SWP'V974 that is not shown on the P&lO EM 133B Rev 34,

22. CP 319757 Sht 3 Rev 5 shows drain line with valve 3SWP*V838 to be capped that is not capped on P&tD EM 133B Rev 34 (M 1).

23. Per isometric CP 319012 Sht 3 Rev 3 and CP 319765 Sht 4 Rev 7 line 3-SWP 002 403 3 connects to 3 SWP-002 387 3 hafnra tha ton in lina 3.$WP nn2AAA.3 ndnnt in 3-9WP nn?-

Printed S99711:18_49 AM Page 2 of 3 ~

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0114 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 386 3 on PalD EM 1338 Rev 34 (L 4).

24. Per 'sometric CP 319015 Shi 3 Rev 9 and CP 319768 Sht 3 Rev 8 line 3 SWP 002 400 3 connocts to 3 SWP-002 3813 after the tee to line 3 SWP 002 380 3 and not to 3 SWP 002-380 3 on P&lD EM 133B Rev 34 (L 2).

25, Per isometrics CP 319766 Sht 3 Rev 8 a ut CP 319013 Sht 3 Rev 10 line 3 SWP 002 4013 connects to 3.SWP 002 382 3 after the tee to 3 SWP 002 333 3 instead of t>efore the tee on P&lD EM 133B Rev34 (L 8),

26. Per isometrics CP 319767 Sht 3 Rev 7 line 3SWP 002 402 3 connects to line 3 SWP 002 384 3 after the tee to 3 SWP 002-l 388 3 Instead of before the tee on PalD EM 133B Rev 34.

Review van InveM Needed Date Initiator: Reed, J, W. O O O S257 vtLead: Nw1. Anthony A O Q Q 4397 VT Men Schopfer. Don K O O O $557 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O S1557 Dae: wwAuo: Dele: RESOttm0N: Prev 60uely identifled by NU? U Yes !el No Review init6stor: Reed, J. W. O O O VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgra Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: Prtnted ES9711:18 52 AM Page 3 of 3 o

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4115 Millston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Accident Meigeten DR VALlo 3 D6ecip46 net Mechanical Design Potent 6alOperabliity leeue O Yes D6ecropency Type: Licensing Document g Sye6em erocese: N!A NRC signho level' 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: D6screpancy: Containment Purge isolation Valve Closure Time Discrepancy in Technical Requirements Manual oo*cript6en: In our review of FSAR Section 15.7,4.2.2, FSARCR 97 MP3 4, 4 and Technical Requirements Manual a discrepancy in the l containment purge isolation valves 3HVU*CTV32A/32B/33A/338 closure time was noted. l FSAR Change Request FSARCR 97.MP3-4 increases the required containment purge isolation valve closure time from the value of 3 seconds given in FSAR Rection 15.7,4.2.2 and FSAR Table 6.2 65 to less than or equal to 3.89 seconds This increase in required valve closure time is incorporated in the purge isolation time presented in the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) Section 3TRM 3.3.2 (page 5 of 6) TRM Table 3,6.31 (page 5 of 9) of the Technical Requirements Manual, which references FSAR Table 6.2-85, Indicates a required valve closure time of 3.0 seconds. Review Valid inval6d Needed Date inillator: Kane,T.J, O O O $5S7 VT Leed: Rehek, Raj D D D D

• • S7 VT Mp: Sc;epfer, Don K O

O O

• • 87 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q

Q Q 9/8/97 Date: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously identiflod by NU? (,) Yes : ) No Review initiator: Kane,T.J. VT Lead: Rahela, Raj D VT Mge Schopfer, Don K 9 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K = Date: sL Conenents: Printed 999711:19 35 AM Page 1 of 1

Northeast UtilNies ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3 0117 Millston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Accedere Maspetion DR VAllo Review E6ement: Menenorme Procedure D6eciphne: Menenance pgg g, g. Diecropency Type: Test implementaten O Yes 5yoterWProcese: N/A '91 No NRC signinconce level: 3 Date faxed to NO: Date Publ6shed: Descrepancy: Notification of Failed Survolliance Test for 3 MSS'etV26C DescrW6on: On 13APR95, Surveillance Procedure 37120, *Maln Steam Code Safety Valve Surveillance Test (IPTE)", was performed on the main steam safety valves (3 MSS'RV22A,B,C,D, 3 MSS'RV23A,B,C,D, 3 MSS *RV24 A,B,C,D, 3 MSS *RV25A,B,C,D l and 3 MSS'RV26A,B,C,D), During thii performance of the test on 3 MSS'RV260, the setpoint cauld not be adjusted to meet the acceptance criteria. The t.'st was terminated. The surveillance cover sheet (Maintenance Form 3712G 1, Rev 6) indicate that the acceptance criteria were not met, The surveillance cover sheet requires that the shift supervisor be notified of a failed surveillance, The data sheet does not Indicate this action. Review Valid inval6d Needed Date instletor: Peebies, W. R. Q Q Q 9097 VT Lead: Rehop. Raj D Q Q Q 9497 VT Mgr schopfer, Don K Q Q Q EWp7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9@g7 Date: IWALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previously ident4hed by NU7 () Yes t No Rev6ew ^**

• init6etor: Peebles, W. R.

O O O VT Lead: Rehop, Raj D VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K b IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K _e, SL Commente: Prtnted ESS711:2006 AM Page 1 of 1 =

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0135 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Mcident Mitgaton DR VALID Potential Operatwitty issue Discipline: Mechancel Design Ow D6ecrepancy Type: Design Control Procedure g System / Process: N/A NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: D acr*Po w : Discrepency in Documenting Fuel Building Filter Flow Rate 4 Surveillance Testing

== Description:== Surveillance Procedure SP3614C.2 lists steps for in-place vendor flow rate testing for Fuel Building filters. Step 4.3.6 is applicable for Train A and Step 4.4.6 is for Train B, The e procedure requires using OPS Form 36140.1 1 and corresponding OPS Forms 3614C.2 3,3614C.2-5,36140.2-7 and 36140.2 9 for Train A. Similarly for Train B, OPS Form 36140.12 and corresponding OPS Forms 3614C.2 4,36140.2-6,3614C.2-8 and 3614C.210 must be completed. These forms are used for determining and documenting system flow rates. Although the appropriate OPS Forms were used for Train B, for Train A the OPS Form 3614C.1 1 was not used. Therefore, for Train A, the requirements of the Surveillance Procedure are not met, in addition, no basis is provided for the i computed system flow rates reported in OPS Forms 3614C.2-3, 3614C.2 5,3614C.2 7 and 3614C.24. Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Kane,T.J. 8 O O 85S7 VT Leed: Rahoja, Raj D D O O S*S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q O O sta/97 IRC Chmn: Singt Anand K O O O SSS7 4 Date: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION i ~ Previously identifled by NU? (.) Yes @ No Review initiator: Kane.T.J. VT Lead: Rahe **. Raj D VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: 1 1 4 Printed 94/971121:41 J M Page1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0136 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Accident MitWe DR VALIO Diecipline: Mecharwcal Design Potential Operability issue O Ya Discrepency Type: Calculation

4) No Systemerocess: N/A

~ NRC Sign 4Acance level: 4 Date faxed to rJU: Date Published: Discrepeacy: Feedwater Calculation 12179 735P(T) Discrepancy Descr6pt6cn* Whlie reivewing the calcualtion 12179-735P(T):"Fallure of Feedwater Regulating Valve at Zero Power Level *, Revision 0, dated 03DEC81, a math error was discovered on page 10 of the calculation. The Steam Generator inlet Pressure is calculated to be 1313 psla. The computed value is 1213 psig when the math error is corrected. As this value is the basis for the remainder of the branch flow and pump curve adiustments, it could not be verified that the feedwater flow to a steam generator does not increase by more than 100% after the postulated failure of the feedwater regulating valve as required by the analysis assumptions stated in FSAR 515.1.2.2, case 2, item 2. Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date Irdelator: Peebies, W. R. O O Q 9397 VT Lead: RaFeja, Raj o O O O SSS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O m7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 85/97 Date: INVALID: Date: RESOLUTION: Previoui ey identifled by NU7 (_) Yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date P R. VT Lead: Rahela, Raj D VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: sL Comments: Printed M711:22:19 AM Page 1 of 1 ~

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34146 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Programmetc DR VAUD Diecipl6ne: I & C Design Potential Operetnlety issue O Ya Di a xy Type: Licensing Document c SystenWProcess: DGX g NRCS W e M :3 Date faxed to NU: Date Punished: D6ecrepency: incomplete response to ACR # M3 96-0928 Description' Condition Repoft has a Significance Level of 'B" and requires a Root Cause Analysis; however, only an Apparent Cause Analysis was attached to the package. Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Dombrowckt, Jim G O O Sa>87 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J g Q MS7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 'v5S7 1RC Chmn: Smgh, Anand K O O O "S7 Date: INVAUD: Date: RESOLUTION: Provtously identined by NU? (,,) Yee (9) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date j O O G VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: SL Comments: Printed 9/9/9711:23:03 AM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities-ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0102 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR INVALID Review Element: System Dese Diecipline: Electrical Doogn PotentialOperebelitylasue Discrepancy Type: Drawin9 Q y,, system /Procese: Oss @ No NRC signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: D6ecropency: Omission on Logic dwg (LSK 2712A & F) logic for the reset of motor relays (86E) is not provided.

== Description:== A review of the schematic diagram versus the logic diagram for 3OSS*P3A and 30SS*P3B resulted in the identification of the following: a) Quench Spray Pump 30SS*P3A (schematic ESK SDG, logic LSK 27-12F)- The schematic diagram ESK SDG identifies interlocks from two handswitches to allow the reset of the motor protection lockout relay 86E. The logic diagram LSK 2712F does not provide the " logic" for the reset of relay 86E. LSK 2712F only Indicates that the motor protection lockout relay is in the " reset" position in order to allow the start of the motor. ~ b) Quench Spray Pump 3QSS*P3B (schematic ESK SDH, logic LSK 2712A)- The schematic diagram ESK SDH identifies interlocks from two handswitches to allow the reset of the motor protection lockout relay 86E. The logic diagram LSK 2712A does not provide the ' logic" for the reset of relay 86E, LSK 27-12A only indicates that the motor protection lockout relay is in the " reset" position in order to allow the start of the motor. Note, the logic diagrams for the Service Water System Pump Motors (e.g.,3SWP*P1 A, logic diagrams LSK 9-10H & J) provide the required ' logic" to reset the motor protection lockout relay (86E). The logic diagrams for the QSS pump motors (identified above) do not. The schematics for the QSS and SWP pump motors are similar in regard to the operation of the motor protection lockout relay (86E). 4 Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: Morton, R. O O O SSS7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O O 83S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K O O O ar2s,97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K [ [ [ Date: 8/29/97 INVAUD: This DR invalid. The QSS logic diagram shows less detail on the reset of the motor relay; however, the schematic diagram properly implements the function. Date: Printed 9S9711:15:11 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0102 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RESOLUTION: Prev 6ously identtAed by NU? U Yes L.#1 No Rev6ew AcceMaW W Acc $ a k Needed Me initiator: Morton, R. O O O l VT Lead: NM Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O Date: SL Conenents: j l i 9 d b 1 c. Printed 9S9711:15:17 AM Pap 2 of 2 J

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0133 i_ ( Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmate DR INVALID Diecipl6ne: Pipin0 DeSi9" Potential Operability issue Om Diecrepancy Type: Correctree Acton g' SystemProcess: Rss NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU: Date Published: Discrepancy: Corrective action not adequately addressed for ACR

== Description:== ACR M3-96 0416, which identifies overistressed tie-rods for service water expansion jolnts, identifies the cause of the condition as engineering personnel oversight during the original design review of the joint design. The corrective action in the ACR addresse* the issue of overstress but does not address the programmatic issue of inadequate design reviews. Review Valid invalid Needed Date inNietor: Wrons, S. P. Q Q Q QS97 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J Q Q Q 9697 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: 9/5/97 INVALID: Additional review of the condition and the identified corrective action verifled that an extent of condition was performed on other expansion joints. Additionally, a review of the current Design control manual Indicates that the procedures se sufficient to prevent recurTence of the problem. Date: RESOLU110N: Previously identified by NU? C) Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date M S. P, O O O VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sangh, Anand K SL Comments: Printed 9/9/9711:21:07 AM Page 1 of 1 m -_o}}