ML20210V296

Forwards 15 Discrepancy Repts Identified During Review Activities for ICAVP.DR-MP3-0127,determined to Be Invalid, Encl

ML20210V296
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/19/1997
From:	Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
9583-100, NUDOCS 9709230243
Download: ML20210V296 (28)

Text

.,

Ser garitiMNLundy*

Don K. Schopter Vice President

- 312 269-6078 September 19,- 1997 Project No. 9583100 Docket No 50-423

- Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 4 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program i

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk

.. Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following fifteen (15) 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-MP3-0049 DR No. DR-MP3-0141 DR No. DR-MP3-0057 DR No. DR-MP3-0150 DR No. DR-MP3-0073 DR No. DR-MP3-0151 DR No. DR-MP3-0089 DR No. DR-MP3-0154 DR No. DR-MP3-0091 DR No. DR-MP3-0093 DR No. DR-MP3-0161 DR No. DR-MP3-0169

)'f DR No. DR-MP3-0130 DR No. DR-MP3-01'72 DR No. DR-MP3-0132 I have also enclosed the following one (1) DR that has been determined to be invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for this one DR. The basis for the invalid determ'mation is included on the document.

DR No. DR-MP3-0127 9709230243 970919 %l{ll.lll.ll[,ll,{llM.l{l-l DR ADOCK 050004 3

. O U U ?.' ik 55 East Montce Street

• Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA + 312-269-2000

4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 19,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

Yours very truly, D, v }

D. K. chopfer Vice President and ICAVP hkanager DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:

E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/l) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU m \icavpW7WO919a.&w

\

Northen:t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-0049 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VALID ev EM: System %n Potential Operability issue l Discipline: structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculaton Ow (9) No system / Process: sWP ~

NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Pipe support Calculation NP(F)-Z19B-071 discrepancy Descripuon: We have reviewed the Pipe Support calculation No. NP(F).

Z19B-071 Rev. 5. Based upon this review we have noted the following discrepancies:

(a) On page no. 24 of the above calculation, applied forces an:1 moments are computed at center line of the splice (Point B) as follows:

Fxb = Fx/2 sides = 7,798#

Fyb = Fy/2 sides = 8,C!!#

Fzb = Fz/2 sides = 6,577#

The above forces are discrepant because they do not include the contributions from the applied moments at pipe center line.

The correct forces are as follows:

Fxb = Fx/2 sides = 7,798# ( No Change)

Fyb = Fy/2 sides + Mz / 2Lz = 9,580#

Fzb = Fz/2 sides + My / 2Lz = 7,078#

(b) On page no. 29, the allowable shear for 1" Diameter A 325 SC bolts used is 13.40 k. This is in error. The bolt allowabic shear should be based upon Shear Tension interaction for slip-critical connection per section J.3 of AISC manual,9th edition.

The correct value is 6.58k.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: Patel, A. O O O S/17/87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O S/18/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S/18S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O S/18S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O ve. @ No Review initiator: Patel, A.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3:02:16 PM Page 1 of 2  !

l

Northea_t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0049 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

Printed 9/19S7 3:023 PM Page 2 M 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-0057 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Revh EW: SWom W l

Discipline: Structural Design Potential Operability issue l Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om SystemProcess: SWP (M~ No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Liner Plate Pad calculation discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed Liner Plate Pad Calculation # 12179 SEO-v1.113,R1, Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy.

1. This calculation references Calc. # SEO- /1.088,R0 for the liner pad qualification. The FEM model used in Calc. #SEO-V1.088, page 14, conservatively specifies the attachment location at the anchor point which will produce maximum anchor load. However, this assumption would not produce maximum stress in the plate.

An evaluation of the maximum plate stress, using attachment location in the middle of the plate span, should be made to confirm that the plate stre,s is not critical.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

O O O S/1SS7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G O O S' 7/S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K G O O S/17/S7 IRC Civnn: Singh, Anand K G O O S'17tS7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLtJTION:

Previously identified by NU? O yes (i)No Revie ,

initiator: Patel, A. ##*

• U *

• VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chnvr. Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

Prtnted 9/19/97 3 03.07 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utillt'cs . ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0073 MillstDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Oroup Connguration DR VALIO Review Element: system instanaten p

Discipline: Piping Design Discrepancy Type: Instanation imp 6ementation Om SystenVProcess: Rss g'

NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepency: Walkdown Discrepancies : RSS/QSS in The ESF Building

Description:

The following discrepancies were noted during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the RSS/QSS in the ESF Building:

1. Pipe supports PSR113 and PSR130 shown on Cl-OSS-5 Sht 3 Rev 5 for line 3-QSS-014-26-2 have additional supports welded to them which are not shown on the support drawings.

2. Pipe support shown on drawing BZ-79B 109 Sht 3 Rev 3 for line 3 RSS-010-8 has a piece of tube steel which is not shown on the drawing.

3, Snubber for pipe support 3-RSS-4-PSSP406 shown on BZ-79B-135 Rev 3 for line 3-RSS-004-122- 2 is set at 1 inch instead of 2 Inch per drawing set position. This is outside of the allowed tolerance for pipe thermal Congitudinal movement of 0.69 in.(Calc. no. MP(F)2079B-406 dated 11/1996). This snubber has a 4 inch stroke.

4. 3RSS*FE40D has no NU Equipment Tag and the Mfg. Label can not be read due to insulation.

5. Expansion joints 3RSS*EJ1 A,B,C,D and 3PSS*EJ2A,B,C,D have no NU Equipment Tags.

6. Plug is missing from drain line on pump 3RSS-P2B as shown on P&lD EM 112C Rev 16.

7. Drain valve 3RSS*V944 has drain plug missing.

The following material condition items were found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the RSS/QSS in the ESF Building:

1. Line 3-RSS-002-44-4 is resting on support CP-370014-H005.

The pipe should not be touching this support.

2. The Lug on the pipe that is part of pipe support BZ-79-27-2 ( 3-RSS-4-PSST 038) on line 3-RSS-010-35-4 is rubbing against the wall.

3. Valve 3QSS*MOV34A has the operator removed and work is being performed. No Work in Progress Tag was observed.

4. Valve 3RSS*V954 (*MOV20A) has been removed and no Work in Progress Tag was observed.

Pnnted 949/97 3'o3.55 PM Page 1 of 3

Northe24t Utilities ICAVP DR Ne, DR-MP3-0073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

5. Valve 3RSS*V923 locking chain is not secured correctly.

6. Pump 3QSS*P3A shaft seal shows leakage / corrosion.

7, Expansion Joint 3RSS*EJ2C shows leakage. Scaffolding has been erected for work in the area but no Problem Tag was observed.

8. Valve 3RSS*V922 shows leakage at the capped end.

9. Pump 3RSS*P2A shaft seal shows leakage.

10. The penetration into the containment for line 3-RSS-01216-2 shows leakage / corrosion.

11. Valve 3RSS*8838A packing shows leakage.

12. Valves 3RSS*V926 and 3RSS*V927 packing shows leakage.

13. Pump 3RSS*P1 A shaft seat appears to have leakage.

14. Expansion joints 3RSS*EJ1 A 8,C,D and 3RSS*EJ2A,B,C,D have missing bolts on the guard cover.

15. Check valve 3QSS-V984 top cover shows leakage and corrosion.

16. Valve 3RSS*986 (MOV 88388) gland packing shows corrosion due to leakage.

17, Gate valve 3RSS*V939 packing shows leakage.

18. Valve 30SS-V44 bottom shaft seal shows leakage / corrosion.

Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: RMd, J. W.

VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A 6 O O S/16S7 O O Q 9/16S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 9/16/97 O O O S/17/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O vee @ No Review Liitiator: Road, J. W. *** * * * *

• VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3.04.06 PM Page 2 of 3

Northe:ct Utilities ICAVP DR N2, DR-MP3-0073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Printed 9/19/97 3DlO9 PM Page 3 of 3

Northe%t Utilit%s ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0089 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Systern DR VALID

• I '

ca.cipime: Structural Daign Potential Operability issue Discrepancy Type: Calculation O vn SystenVProcess: QSS O No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Cate Published:

Discrepancy: Pipe Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation # 12179-NP(F).

279C-127, R1, CCN1, Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancies.

1. Calculations on Page 17, Loading 104 Joint 16 Load Force Y should be -650 ( not 350 ).

2. Calculations on Page 58, the factor fa/Fa should be 0.0197 (

not 0.274 ). The value of fa did not consider the area in denorninator.

The above discrepancies are not significant for the final design, Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

O O O S'17/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O *17/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O S/17/S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O S'17/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O v.. @ No Review initiator: Patel, A. Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Scropfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O 8 O O O Date:

SL Comments:

Pr'nted 9/19/97 3.o5:14 PM Page1 of 1

ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0091 Northea:t Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Review Element: System Design Potential Operability issue Discipl6ne: Structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculebon Q ye, Systern/ Process: SWP Q No NRC Signit cance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Embedded Plate Calculation Discrepancy Descripilon: We have reviewed EMB. PLATE Calculation No.12170-CFSK- 732D E f,i Rev.1 Based on this review , We have noted the following discrepancy.

The reactions shown on page # 2 of this calc. from pipe support MARK NO. CP - 319767 - H001 are inconsistent with the reactions shown on page # 24 of pipe support calc. no.12179 - NP ( F ) - ZO19R -767 - H001 Rev. 7 which is higher than the reactions used in this calc.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

8 O O S/1SS7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A G O O S/1SS7 VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K O O O S'1SS7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O S/17/97 D.i.:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifivd by NU? O vos @ No Review p Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3:06:07 PM Page 1 of 1

N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0093 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Review Element: System Design Discipline: Structural Desegn P M ial ability issue Discrepancy Type: Calculeton O va Systerr#rocess: QSs O No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Pipe Support Calculation 12179-NP ( F )- Z798- 161 Discrepancy Ducription: We have reviewed PlPE SUPPORT Calculation No.12179-NP

( F )- Z79B- 161 Rev. 3 and CCN No.1. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy, The allowable stress for shear lug 21600 psi ( Ref, Above Calc, PG,13 ) is inconsistent with the allowable stress for the lug 's material (SA240-TP 304) at Temp = 256 F. The correct value is 0.6x23600 = 14160 psi ,

Review l Valid invalid Needed Date '

initiator: Patet, A.

O O O S/17/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O S/18/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q O O SI SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9/18/97 D.i.:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifled by NU? O va @ No Review p Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K -

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

g SL Comments:

)

l 1

I l

l l

Printed 9/19/97 3:07:09 PM Page 1 of 1

DR N2, DR-MP3-0130 Northeast Utillt'.:s ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmatic DR VALID Review Element: Correctwo Acton Process p ,

Discipline: Mechanical Design g

Discrepancy Type: Correctus Acton System / Process: SWP Om NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Inadequate Corrective Action - Action to prevent Recurrence

Description:

Two Condition Reports (ACR M3 96-0041, Lovel D and M3 0920, Level 2) identified the probable causes of the conditions as inadequate 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations. Although the technical issues were adequately resolved, in neither of these cases was the action to prevent recurrence (inadequate safety evaluations) appropriately addressed. Form RP-4-7, page 3 of 4, Causal Factor Corrective Action Plan states, " Detail those actions that havo been taken, are on-going or will be taken (near-term and long-term) that will be taken to verify the continued effectiveness of the corrective action." In neither case has the action to correct the causal factors been addressed, i.e.,

inadequate Safety Evaluations. The same applies on page 4 of for of Form RP 4-7, block 7 which requires a statement identifying, ". ..how the corrective actions will effectively prevent or reduce the possibility of the same or a similar event or adverse condition from happening again..." This section in ACR M3-96-0041 has nothing entered, while the entry for ACR M3 0920 is inadequate in that it does not describe how the correctiva action will prevent recurrence.

Review Valid invalid Needed Data initiator: Wrona. S. P. 8 0 0 SSS7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J B O O 9/i2s7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K B O O S/1SS7 IRC Ch;nn: Singh, Anand K G O O S'17/S7 Date:

INVAllD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O ves @ No Review initiator: Wrona, S. P.

VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date:

SL Comments:

Prtnted 9/19G7 3 08:16 PM Page 1 of 1

Northea.t Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0132 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmatic DR VALID Potential Operability issue Diecipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Corrective Action O va

{,) g System / Process: DGX NRc Signincance level: 7 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

ciscrepancy: Corrective Actions not identified for inadequate review of PDCR process,

Description:

ACR M3-97 0327 identified an inadequacy with a calculation which was updated due to the instalation of an additional filter in the diesel air starting line The ACR identified that the calculation update did not consider the pressure drop through the after cooler, coalescing filters and the after-fitter, The discussion in the ACR also identifies that the calculation was not reviewed at the time of initiation or completion of the affected PDCR, The identified corrective action provides for redoing the calculation but does not address the programmatic issue of why rcviews were not performed.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wrona, S. P.

VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O O O S."*7 G O O S/12/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q O O S/1SS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 8 O O S'17/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identined by NU7 O ves @ No Review p Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRc chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

O G SL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3.09.13 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0141 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR VALID Review Element: Maintenance Procedure Discipline: Maintenance PMW Mity luue Discrepancy Type: O & M & T Procedure O ves System / Process: N/A @ No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Assignment of Tech Spec Required Eq':1pment Surveillance as~

"Non-Tech Spec" Ducription: Maintenance Procedure MP 3789AA is designated as *Non-Tech Spec

• ACR 04195 was generated to address the question of whether a l surveillance was required for auxiliary building heaters. This ACR was subsequently closed on the basis that Maintenance Procedure MP 3789AA already existed to test the subject heaters.

The TRM (Technical Requirem$nts Manual) specifies requirements for entering LCOs if the subject heaters are inoperable and outside temperatures are less than or equal to 17 degrees F. Refer to OPS Form 3273-3/4.3.1.2.2 and 3/4.3.1.2.4; 3/4.3.5.2 and 3/4.3.5.3.

Documentation provided with the ACR included a June 18,1993 Memorandum that provided a surveillance procedure number (SP 3614.A4) for the new tech spec surveillance which would be generated to test the heaters, further stating that

• Engineering must determine the need for the surveillance." and

• I believe there should be one since we check heaters on the Aux. Bldg.

filters.* This new surveillance was apparently never implemented.

The ACR 04195 close out is discrepant because it does not fully address the issues raised in the ACR. Specifically,

1. Procedure MP 3789AA does not require the Shift Supervisor to review the test results for system operability determinathn. In absence of the shift supervisor operability determination, h is not clear how the TRM requirements to enter Tech Spec LCOs when the heaters fall the test is being ensured.

2. It is not clear what the justification is for not making the surveillance a Tech Spec surveillance with the attendent administrative controls for ensuring safety rela +ed equipment operability, Note that although the TPM requb s entering a Tech Spec LCO if the heaters are INOP when temperatures are below 17 degrees F, there is no reference to Tech Specs in MP 3789AA.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Navarro, Mark O O O S/157 VT Lead: Ryan, Thornas J O O O S'18/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S/18/97 Printed 9/19/97 3:1020 PM Page 1 of 2

Ncrthenst Utilit::s ICAVP DR N2. DR MP3-0141 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9/17/97 Date:

DNALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION Previously identifled by NU? O yes @ No Review initletor: Navarro, Mark VT Lead: Ryen, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g

Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3:10:30 PM Page 2 of 2

- DR N2, DR-MP3-0150 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAllO Reh EW: s#em W Potential Operability issue Dieciplini: structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om

@ No~

System / Process: N/A NRC S!)nifncance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: Lower Pipe Support Stiffness Review and inspection Discrepancy

Description:

Document EMD-80 2, dated March 5,1980, contains provisions and criteria for the support stiffness values to be used in the pipe stress analysis. In order to ensure consistency between the actual support stiffness and assumptions used in the stress analyuls, Section 3.6 of the aforementioned report requires the review and inspection of pipe support configurations for cases where the support stiffness may be substantially reduced.

A sample review of the support configurations identified instances where the support stiffness is substantilly lower than the one used in pipe stress analysis. However, for these supports, the review and inspection of pipe support configurations required by EMD-80-3 is not documented in the calculations. Thus, it could not be verified whether or not the required review was performed for the following supports:

Calculation no. NP(F)-Z79B-021,Rev.6, dated 07/25/85 ; Drawing no. BZ-79R 18 Stiffness used in pipe stress analysis: k = 1000 Mn

( From Stress Report no. NP(B)-X 7920,Rev.3,CCN 7, dated:

8/27/96).

Actual (calculated) support stiffness ka = 395 k/in < 1000 k/in, Calculation no. NP(F)-Z79R-753-H002,Rev.1, dated 11/27/96 ;

Drawing no. BZ-79R 53-1 Stiffness used in pipe stress analysis: k = 200 k/in (From Stress Report no. NP(F)-961 XD,Rev.2).

Actual (calculated) support stiffness ka = 18.7 k/in < 200 k/in.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date init6etor: Klaic, N O O O S/16/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O S/16/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 8 0 0 S/16/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K 9 0 0 S/17/S7 4

Date:

INVAll0:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU7 O ve. @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Pnnted 9/19/97 3:14 48 PM Page 1 or 2

DR N3, DR-MP3 0160 N:rthe=t Utilities ICAVP

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SL Commerds

Printed 9/19/97 3:14.55 PM Page 2 of 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N2, DR-MP3-0161 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Accident Mitgotion DR VALD ReWw EW: CMnge Process Potential Operability issue i*clPune: other Dieceopancy Type: LicensinD Docurnent O vee (Gi) No SystemProcess: N/A ~

NRc Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: FSAR Inconsistent with Calculations

Description:

A review of the following documentation has concluded that a discrepancy exists with regard to documentation relating to estimated doses in the Millstone 3 (MP3) control room following a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The documents reviewed are: "

1) MP3 FSAR, Chapter 15.0, Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) T9ble 15.6-13

2) Calculation 88-019-97RA, Rev. O, " Doses to the MP3 Control Room and Technical Support Center from a Unit 3 LOCA*

3) Calculation 88-019-98RA, Rev. O, ' Shine Dose to the MP3 -

Control Room and Technical Support Center from a Unit 3 LOCA' The two calculations cited above form the basis for the estimated doses to the to MP3 control room and technical support center following a design basis LOCA at MP3. A review of the reported results in FSAR Table 15.6-13 concluded that the shine dose contribution in calculation 88-019-98RA may have been omitted from the values reported in the FSAR. These values appear to have been updated in 1992 by FSAR update 92-22, but the values apparently did not reflect the shine dose -

contribution.

UIR 104 addresses a letter to the NRC that provided updated control room dose estimates, but the dose calculations referenced above were not cited.

Valid invalid Date initiator: Bennett L A. O O O S5S7 VT Leed: Rahoja, Raj D 0 0 0 S5S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O S/S/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O S/16/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O v.s @ No neyie, Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Raheja, Raj D VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Printed 9/1W97 3:16'oo PM Page 1 of 2

N:rthen t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0151 Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K

" m:

Date:

SL Comments:

d Printed 9/1&S7 3:16:00 PM Page 2 of 2

1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Ne. DR-MP3-0154 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

'"avlow Group: Operations & Maintenance and Testing DR VAllD Discipline: Other PotentialOperability issue Discrepancy Type: Test Implementatm Om System / Process: Oss NRC significance level: 4 Dats faxed to NU:

Data Published:

Discrepancy: Missing Documents in Preoperational Test Package for QSS Descripuon: The preoperational test package for the Quench Spray System (QSS) requires a surveillance test (SP 331105) to document that a valid QSS ncnel air test was completed. The surveillance test documents are missing from the QSS preoperational test package.

FSAR 6.2.2.4.1 requires that

• Means are provided for periodic in-place air flow tests through the quench spray nozzles ... The test will also be performed during the final stage of preoperational testing for this system to verify that the nozzles are not plugged."

l l

Preoperational test T3309-P001, Quench Spray System, I provides the necessary acceptance criteria and direction to {

satisfy this requirement. Section 7.3 of this preoperationaltest directs that surveillance procedure SP 331105, Containment Quench Header Nozzle Flow Test, be performed to verify acceptable flow from each header nozzle, and ta include the completed procedure in the test data package.

The completed surveillance procedure, with test results, is not in the preoperational test package. Therefore, the requirement that f

the alt flow test be performed during the final stages of preoperational testing cannot be verified, Review j

Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Pleniewlcz. R. O O Q 9/12S7

{

VT Lead: Bass, Ken 8 O O 9/i2S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S/17/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9/17/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifled by NU? O yes Ce) No Review initiator: Pieniewiu, R.

VT Lead: Bass, Ken VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

Pnnted 9/19S7 3.17:29 PM Page 1 of 2

DR Ns. DR-MP3 0154 N:rthea:t Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Pnnted 9/1M7 3:17.36 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0161 l

wilstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operatenu & Maintenance and Testmg DR VALID Review Element: Operating Procedure Potential Operability issue Discipline: Operatons Q ye, Discrepawy Type: 0 & M & T Procedure System / Process: SWP

@) No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Descrepancy: Flood Protection Procedures and Technical Specification Requirements Discrepancy Ducrigtlon: Tech. Spec. section 3.7.6, Flood Protection, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO), states that flood protection shall be provided for the service water pump cubicles and components when the water level exceeds 13 feet Mean Sea Level, USGS datum, at the Unit 3 Intake structure. This LCO is applicable at all times.

The associated action statement is "With the water level at 13 feet above Mean Sea Level, USGS datum, at the Unit 3 intake structure, shut the watertight doors of both service water pump cubicles wthin 15 minutes."

The surveilla.~.ce requirements associated with the flood protection LCO are:

1. Measurement at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when the water level is below elevation 8 feet above Sea Level, USGS datum.

2. Measurement at least once per 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> when the water level is equal to or above elevation 8 feet above Mean Sea Level, USGS datum.

The following listed procedures implement the flood protection requirement:

SP3665.1 Rev. 5, Flood Level Determination OPS Form 3665.1-1 Rev. 5, Flood Level Determination AOP 3569 Rev.10, Severe Weather Conditions SP 3670.2 Rev. 8, Tech Spec Related PEO Rounds (Mode 1-4)

OPS Form 3670.2-6 Rev. 7, Shift Outside PEO Tech Rounds (Mode 1-4)

SP 3672.3 Rev 4, Tech Spec Related PEO Rounds (Mode 5/6)

OPS Form 3672.3-3 Rev. 4, Shiftly Outside PEO Tech Spec Rounds (Mode 5/6)

Three flood protection requirement discrepancies were identified.

1. No procedural guidance exists that describes the flood protection program actions to be taken when the water level is determined to be equal to or greater that 13 feet above mean sea level, USGS datum as documented in OPS Form 3665.1-1 Rev,5. Section 7, Summary of changes, of SP3665.1 Rev. 5, Flood Level Determination , identifies one of the changes made in revision 5 of this procedure as " References to the adions taken if water level exceeds 13 seet have been removed. These actions are dealt with in EOP 3569, Severe Weather Conditions". Procedure EOP 3569, Severe Weather Conditions Printed 9/19S7 3:18:34 PM Page 1 of 3

DR No. DR,*vlP3-0161 Northeast Utilities ICAVP Milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report does not exist. This was confirmed by referencing Unit 3 Emergency Operating Procedures Index,3500 Procedure Index, Rev.141 dated 5/20/97. Procedure AOP 3569 Rev.10, Severe Weather Conditions, does exist and may be the correct reference rather than EOP 3569. This AOP does not adequately identify the Tech Spec required actions to be taken if the water level reaches or exceeds 13 feet.

The performance requirements identified in the Tech. Specs. are not adequately translated into the referenced operating / surveillance procedures.

2. Page 2 of Procedure SP3665.1 Rev. 5, Flood Level Determination, states in the box identified as Basis Information, "This monitoring is required every 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> even if the watertight doors and the normal sump drains are closed. No exemption is provided in T/S 4.7.6.b which would allow cessation of monitoring'. Page 3 of the same procedure states in the box identified as CAUTION, "With sea level approaching 13 feet above mean sea level weather conditions may warrant entering T/S 3.7.6 LCO and discontinue surveillance until conditions allow". These statements are in direct confli?

Page 5, Step 5 of Procedure AOP 3569 Rev.10 required the operator to ' Monitor sea water level at the intake structure hourly until wind speed exceeds 50 mph.' This step is not consistect with OPS Form 3665.1 1 Flood Level Determination which requires that the waterlevelis recorded every two hours. if the operator ceases to monitor the sea level when the winds exceed 50 MPH the required Tech Spec surveillance that is described in SP 3665.1 Flood Level Determination and OPS Form 3665.1-1 Flood Level Determination may be missed if the water level is high during high wind conditions.

These procedures appear to be contredictory and may preclude the service water system from being monitored in accordance with the Technical Specification during high winds and/or flooding conditions.

3. Tech. Spec. section 3.7.6, Flood Protection, requires determination of water level referenced to "Mean Sea Level, USGS datum, at the Unit 3 intake structure. We were unable to determine from the documentation provided, what type instrument was used to determine the mean sea level,

, specifically where the instrumentation is located, or how the instrumentation is calibrated and referenced to the USGS datum.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: spear. R. O Q Q 9/17/97 VT t.eed: Bass, Ken O O O S'17/S7 VT Mgt: schopfer, Don K 8 0 0 9/18/97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O S'18'S7 Date:

INVALID:

Pnnted 9/19/97 3:18 42 PM Page 2 of 3

I

• Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0161 Millstorie Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Date.

RESOLUTION:

Previously identifled by NU? O yes @ No Review t S R.

Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Bass, Ken VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

O O O SL Comments:

i

)

l l

l Printed 9/19/97 3:18:46PM Page 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 0169 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALID Potential Operability issue Discip46ne: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Licensing Docurnent Ow System / Process: SWP

@ No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

Discrepancy: FSAR page 9.2-8 description of SWP strainer motor control switch does not match drawing information.

Description:

FSAR page 9.2-8 states: "The service water pump strainer motor is controlled from the main board by a OFF/ AUTO /RUN switch with indicating lights,"

Per the Control Switch Contact Diagram the switch escutcheon reads OFF/ AUTO /ON. In addition, per the schematics and logics there are no indicating lights.

This was confirmed by reviewing the following drawings:

ESK-03N Rev 15 Control Switch Contact Diagram ESK-06DD Rev 14 Elem Diag 400V MC Serv Wtrr Pmp Strainer & Backwash Viv [3SWP*STRI A) [3SWP*MOV24A]

ESK-06DE Rev 14 Elem Diag 480V MC Serv Wtrr Pmp Strainer & Backwash Viv [3SWP*STR1B] [3SWP*MOV24B)

ESK-06DF Rev 15 Elem Diag 480V MC Serv Wtrr Pmp Strainer & Backwash Viv [3SWP*STR1C) [3SWP*MOV24C]

ESK-06DG Rev 16 Elem Diag 480V MC Serv Wtrr Pmp Strainer & Backwash Viv [3SWP*STR1D) [3SWP*MOV24D)

LSK-09-10C Rev 14 Logic Diagram Service Water System Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Werner, L 0 0 0 8'15S7 VT Lead: Nerl, A'thony n A B O O 8/1557 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O S'15'S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 8' 7S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identified by NU? O ves @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 9/19/97 3:19 58 PM Page 1 of 2

N:rthea:t Utiliths ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0169 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

?

Printed 9/19/97 3:20:04 PM Page 2 of 2 0

1

/ .

Northeast Utilities 10AVP DR No. DR-MP3 0172 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rsview Group: System DR VAllD Review Elemord: System Design Polonnel Operebuy leeue 06ecipione: Electrical Design Diecrepency Type: Lloonsing Document O vos (S) No

~

systemfrocess: $WP NRC signinconce level: 4 Cale faxed to NU:

Date Puteshed:

~

( Discrepancy: Design basis summary requirement for valves 3SWP*MOV130A

& B is not in agreement with drawings.

Description:

Design basis summary requirement for valves 3SWP*MOV130A

& B is not in agreement with piping and instrument drawing.

Design Basis Summary Paragraph 12.5,5,7 states: 'MCC and RCA Alt Conditioning Units Service Water Retum Header MOVs . Normally closed MOVs in the discharge lines of the

< MCC and RCA air conditioning units shall automatically open if the associated air conditioning unit is running, on a Loss of Offslie Power (LOP) or on high MCC and RCA area temperature, Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Service Water EM 133B, Rev 34 note 6 states:

' Electric power to open/close isolation valves 3SWP*MOV130A/B is eliminated, Valves are capable of local manual operation.'

If there valves are no longer electrically operated, then the reguliement does not agree with the drawing, Revlow Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Werner, l. Q Q Q 9/1597 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 9/159r VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 9/1697 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9/17/97 Date:

INVALID: _

Date:

REs0LU110N:

Previously identihed by NU7 O Yes @ No Rev6ew

! Initiator: Womer, l.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O

l Dese:

sL Comments:

I Printed 9/1&S7 3 20 43 PM Page 1 of 1

O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0127 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revlew oroup: System DR INVALIO RevkwE W :S W M n Potential opeabilNy issue Discipl6ne: Electrical Desion O vee i Discrepancy Type: DreA (9) No SystenVProcess: SWP NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published:

D6screpancy: Logle and Schematic Drawing Discrepancy for Valves 3SWP'TV35A/B l

Description:

Logic diagram LSK 2212F identifies 3SWP*TV35A as an I

' outlet

• valve in the ' resultants' and identifies 3SWP*TV35A as an ' inlet' valve in note 1. The associated schematic diagram ESK 6AFK identifies 3SWP*TV35A as an ' inlet' valve, Similar for 3SWP'TV35B. l Review I vaw inv.w N d.d Date ,

initiatori Morton, R- O O O S/'SS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 9/1&S7 VT Mgn Schopfw, Don K O O O 9/12/97 .

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O l DC: 9/12/97 l lNVALID: Although the terminology can be confusing, there is no discrepancy. Valves 3SWP'TV35A/B are on the condenser outlet piping and are called condenser outlet valves They are used to control the condenser inlet water temperature, and hence can be called " condenser inlet temperature control valves".

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously lJentitled by NU7 O ve.

• No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K IRc chmn: Singh, Anend K O O O D.i.:

SL Comments:

Printed 9/1997 3.21:29 PM Page 1 of I

- . _ _ . .__