ML20211P267

Forwards Summaries of 970930,1002 & 07 Telcons W/Nrc,Util & Licensee Re Drawing Changes,Vdc,Viewing & Establishing Status of Procedures & Commercial Grade Dedication

ML20211P267
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	10/10/1997
From:	Curry D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUM2-OONR-0661, NUM2-OONR-661, NUDOCS 9710200129
Download: ML20211P267 (14)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _

Q

. #ARSONE Daniel L Curry,Vce President Nxles k.nes Rarsons Peuer Group loc.

2675 Morgantown Road e Reading Pennsylvar.a 19607 + (610) 855-2366

• Fa< (610) 855 2602 Docket No. 50-336 Parsons NUM2-PPNR-0661 L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2 Independent Corrective Action Verification Procram (ICAVP)

Gentlemen:

This letter transmits summaries of telephone conferences between Parsons Power Group Inc., the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory C,mmission, NNECo and NEAC on September 30, October 2, and October 7,1997.

The purpose of these tsphone conferences were as follows: September 30 - Discuss drawing change.;,

VDC, viewing and establishing the status of procedures, commercial grade dedication, discussion of NNECo programs, cable tray / conduit systems, program self assessments, seismic qua'.ification of equipment, dass I analyses for safety injection lines, & DR response; October 2 - Discuss RWST level, Tech. spec. requirement, motor overload control, commercial grade dedication, examples of engineering record correspondence, combining three directional carthquake response & seismic anchor movements; October 7,1997 - discuss control rod position and calculation.

Please call me at (610) 855-2366 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, 4 MS Daniel L. Curry Parsas ICAVP Project Director DLC:djv Attachments 1. Telephone Conference Notes from September 30,1997

2. Telephone Conference Notes from October 2,1997 {

1

3. Telephone Conference Notes from October 7,1997 k cc: E. Imbro (23 - USNRC -

H. Eichenholz - USNRC 3

R. Laudenat - NNECo J. Fougere - NNECo fI Rep. Terry Concannon - NEAC 1 Project Files 9710200129 971010 PDR ADOCK 05000336 PDR P gll]l@ ll lll g ... .

. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES SEPTEMBER 30,1997 PURPOSE: Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to -

disam:

. Drawing Changes, VDC e Viewing and Establishing the Status of Procedures e Commercial Grade Dedication e Discussion of NNECo Programs e Cable Tray / Conduit Systems e Program Self Assessments e Seismic Qualification Of Equipment l

• Class 1 Analyses for Safety Injection Lines e DR Response Date: September 30,1997 List of Attendees:

NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP Steve Reynolds T. Concannon Wayne Dobson Fred Mattioli Supenisor, MP2 ICAVP John Nakoski Eric Blocher Richard Laudenat Director, ICAVP Mike Akins Steve Rovin Procedures Dan Curry Nabil Jura>dini Engineer - Design Engr. Roger Mauchline Mike Ahern Manager - CMP Ron Smith Jeff Putnum Supenisor - NDS Bob Steinmetz 11ich Ewing Supervisor - Design Engr. Paul Schmitzer Barber Willkens Manas c - PES Ken Kraynick Ken Mayers Tom Klein Ed Toll Jim Giova George Zagursky Samir Serhan John Hilbish Greg Cranston PAGE1

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES SEPTEMBER 30,1997 1.VDC' REFERENCE CONFERENCE ON 8/26/97 REGARDING VDC'S. AS A RESULT OF THAT CONFERENCE, WE WERE OF THE UNDERSTANDING TIIAT SINCE 1990, -

DRAWING CHANGES ARE IMPLEMENTED VIA A DCN (DRAWING CHANGE NOTICE) AND PRIOR TO 1990 IT WAS THE VDC THAT IMPLEMENTED A' DRAWING CHANGE. IN THAT CONFERENCE IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE CONTROLl>NG PROCEDURE FOR VDC'S WAS NEO 5.03. WE HAVE REVIEWED NEO 5.03 AND THIS PROCEDURE APPEARS TO CONTROL TRANSMITTAL OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS. WE CAN NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE TO VDC'S IN REVISION 0 DATED 11/01/84 TO REV 6 DATED 4/25/94.

I WillLE LOOKING THROUGH THE HISTORICAL PROCEDURE FILES, WE NOTICED

! NEO 5.09, DRAWING CHANGE /SUBM11TAL REQUESTS,(DCR AND DSR). THIS l: PROCEDURE DEFINES A DCR AS A DOCUMENT USED TO INITIATE AND CONTROL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO PLANT DRAWINGS. REV.1 IS P ATc0 12/85 AND REV. 8 IS DATED 1/24/95. BOTH REV.1 AND REV. 8 REFERENCE NEO 5.11. DESIGN CHANGE NOTICES FOR DESIGN DOCUMENTS. NEO 5.11 REV. O IS DATED 11/84 AND REV. 9 IS DATED 7/94. THE DCN IS DESCRIBED AS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH DES!GN DOCUMENTS (DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.). NEITHER NEO 5.09 NOR 5.11 CONTAIN ANY MENTION OF A VDC.

WE ARE CONFUSED. WE ARE TRYING TO DEFINE THE POPULATION OF DRAWING REVISIONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A MODIFICATION FROM WHICH TO SELECT THE TIER 3 SAMPLE. IT APPEARS THAT DCRS AND DCNS EXISTED

. AT THE DURING THE SAME TIME FRAME AND WERE USED TO REVISE '

DRAWINGS.WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A DCN AND DCRS? WHAT IS A VDC? HOWWERETHESETHINGS USED?

Discussion

1. From the 1974-75 time frame to 1996, drawing changes were controlled via DCR/DSR per NEO 5.09. In 1996 the acronym DCR was used for a plant modification,i.e. Design Change Record and the label in GRITS for DCR was changed to VDC. Therefore, DCR/DSR and VDC are the same thing.

-2. Prior to 1990, DCNs were used as a interim minor field change mechanism for -

- drawings, specifications, etc. A DCR/DSR would be prepared to implement the change described in DCN(s).

2. Viewing and Establishing the Status of Procedures DURING THE REVIEW OF NCR 2 96-0197, IT APPEARS THAT ACTIVE PROCEDURES ARE REFERENCING INACTIVE PROCEDURES. THE NCR REFERENCED AWO M2-96-07492 WHICH IN TURNED REFERENCED PROCEDURE NU-VE-3. OSCAR WAS USED TO TRY TO QUICKLY LOCATED THE CURRENT REVISION OF NU-VE-3. NU-VE-3 WAS NOT FOUND IN OSCAR. NEXT, WORLDVIEW WAS USED TO VIEW NU-VE-3, AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN WHICH IT WAS REFERENCED. THE PROCEDURE NU-VE-3 WAS NOT FOUND IN PAGE 2 l

i -

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES

^

SEPTEMBER 30,1997 WORLDVIEW, HOWEVER, IT WAS REFERENCED IN NUMEROUS OTHER PROCEDURES. THE PROCEDURES IN WHICH NU-VE-3 WAS REFERENCED ARE:

SP21216 SP21144 SP21149 EDIT SP21161 SP21155 SP31140 SP3712CA MP739.3 CMP 714C.

QUESTION WHY CAN T WE FIND NU-VE-3 ELECTRONICALLY? WHAT IS THE BEST METHOD FOR LOCATING, VIEWING AND ESTABLISHING THE STATUS OF PROCEDURES?

Discussion

1. NU-VE-3 is a visual examination implementation procedure for the NDE manual.

OSCAR and WORLDVIEW contain procedures and forms, but do not contain manuals or their implementation procedures. An RAI should be written to obtain a '

copy of this type of procedure.

3. Commercial Grade Dedication (Follow-up from 9/25/97 conference)

THE LIST OF COMMERCIAL GRADE DEDICATION EVALUATIONS PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO RAI 105 APPEARS TO PARSONS TO CONTAIN ONLY THREE EVALUATIONS PERFORMED IN 1995 AND NOTHING IN 1996 AND 1997. NNECO WAS TO CHECK ON PARSONS INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT DATE INFORMATION IN THE LIST, AND IF CORRECT PROVIDE THE MISSING INFORMATION.

Discussion

1. The list provide in response to RAI 106 mistakenly omitted the first 10 pages which contained most of the 1995 evaluations. NNECo will revise its response to RAI 106 -

and provide the missing 10 pages.

2. NNECo will fax to Parsons today the list of 1996-1997 commercial grade evaluations performed in MIMS.

3. The list of MIMS evaluations was not in NDS. (nuclear records). NNECo to explain why this information is not in NDS.

4. Discussion of NNECo Programs,(NNECo Requested Agenda Topic)

EQ

. HELB

. Fuse Control e Vendor Manuals PAGE3 i

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES SEPTEMBER 30,1997

- e' AFW Design Basis Calculations Discussion

1. Prior to CMP complete, NNECo performed a P-21 or some other type of self assessment for

- each of the NNECo Programs. This identified the licensing basis and any corrective actions.

2. NNECo is redoing a number of calculations as a result of the CMP: e.g. steam line break calculation, main steam hydraulic calculation; There were over 500 calculation changes identified by the CMP. NNECo has a list of all calculations being resised.

l 3. Parsons' Tier i review of corrective actions for the selected systems will need to include a review of new calculations. The resised calculation review should look at technical adequacy

! and any design modifications associated with the new calculation.

4. A face to face meeting is needed to discuss NNECo's planned corrective actions and schedule so Parson can plan for its resiew following completion of the corrective actions. Meeting L tentatively set for next Thursday.

5. CABLE TRAY / CONDUIT SYSTEMS CALCULATION S-E REV. O CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS NOT BRACED IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (SHEET -

2). HOW WAS THIS JUSTIFIED?

DETERMINATION OF NATURAL FREQUENCY OF TRAYS IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION BASED ON BEAM THEORY (CONTINUOUS WEB). (SHEET 8). HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO LADDER TRAYS 7 VERTICAL ACCELERATION OF l.06G (INCLUDES GRAVITY) WAS USED TO QUALIFY TRAY (SHEET 19). WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS VALUE7 DRAWING SERIES 25203-34001 MAXIMUM CONDUIT SPANS VARY FROM 10' TO 20' BASED ON CONDUIT SIZE (SHEET 40,41,42). ON SHEETS A 62 AND 63 THE MAXIMUM CONDUlT SPACING IS INDICATED AS 8'. WHAT WAS USED IN CONSTRUCTION? -

SHEETS 59,60,61 SHOW TYPICAL TRAY SUPPORTS. WHERE IS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS FOR THESE SUPPORTS: ANCHOR SIZES AND EMBEDMENTS, REQUIRED SIZES OF STRUTS, ACCEPTABLE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STRUTS?

SHEET 10 SPECIFIES TRAY SUPPORTS AT 8' UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.

SHEET 60 SAYS THAT MAXIMUM SPANS FOR. TRAY ARE 8' FOR CONTAINMENT AND 12' IN AlL OTHER AREAS. WHAT WAS USED IN CONSTRUCTION?

PAGE 4 l

~

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES SEPTEMBER 30,1997 Discussion

1. CALCULATION S-E Rev. O One needs to keep in mind the distinction between how cable tray supports would be designed today versus at the time Millstone Unit 2 was designed. The current A-46 program addresses the adequacy of existing cable tray support spacing and anchorage. This review found only one anchor that needed further evaluation.

1 What is the current NNECo design basis for cable tray? Specification SP-ME-828.

Most cable trays are the original design. There has been very few modifications to trays. The original design specifications are used when reviewing existing trays.

They would not be used to design r.ew cable trays.

2. DRAWING S ERIES 25203-34001: Sheet 40,41,42 contain requirements for specific areas in the plant. The notes on sheet 62 and 63 provide riandard spacing for general conduit runs not addressed by any other span provisions.

6. Program Self Assessments DO YOU HAVE ENGINEERING SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR HEAVY LOADS AND EXTERNAL EVENTS /IIAZARDS?

Discussion

1. For heavy loads the CMP used recent QA audits. External events / hazards is contaiaed in the Seismic /IPEEE self assessment.

7. SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LICENSING BASIS DOCUMENT THAT REFLECTS THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE USI A-46 (GIP) METHODOLOGY FOR VERIFYING THE SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

IN ADDITION TO THE GIP METHODOLOGY, MILLSTONE UNIT 2 IND!CATED THAT IT PLANS TO USE EXISTING SEISMIC QUALIFICA~ LION TEST REPORTS TO DEMONSTRATE SEISMIC ADEQUACY FOR ANY EQUIPMENT ON ITS SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT LIST (SSEL) WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY QUALIFIED TO IEEE 344-1975. CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH SOME INPUT ON WHICH METHODOLOGY WAS USED FOR THE HPSI AND AFW COMPONENTS LISTED IN THE SSEL.

Discussion

1. NNECc is still working on A-46. After the work is finished, the licensing basis documents will be changed to reflect the acceptability of A-46.

PAGE5

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES

. SEPTEMBER 30,1997

2. The current licensing basis is non-definitive. Some particular components are qualified to IEEE 3441971 and some to IEEE 3441975.

How can one tellif a component is seismicslly qualified? Ifit is on the safe shut down list then it is qualified by A-46, ifit is not then one must go back to the original equipment procuremer:t specification.

8. Class 1 Analyses for Safety Injection Lines WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME TELEDYNE qNALYSES FOR THE 12" AND 6" SAFETY INJECTION CLASS 1 PIPING (E-1475 2, E-1475-3, E-1475-4, AND E-1475-5; FROM THE SAFETY INJECTION TANKS TO THE REACTOR COOLANT LOOPS AND YHE i

CONTAINMENT PENETRATIONS). IS THIS THE ONLY ANALYSES THAT NNECO HAS FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PIPING SYSTEM OR IS FURTHER ANALYSIS COMING?. THE SUPPLIED ANALYSES ARE BASICALLY CLASS 2 PIPING ANALYSES FOR USE IN HANGER DESIGN. THERE SHOULD BE COMPLETE CLASS 1 PIPING ANALYSES AND CERTIFIED REPORTS FORTHIS PIPING.

WE ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE JUST RECEIVED COMPLETE CLASS 1 STRESS REPORTS WITH CERTIFICATIONS (TELEDYNE ANALYSES TMR-18,19,20,&21) FOR FOUR ONE-INCFI CLASS 1 LINES WHICH BRANCH OFF

-THE ABOVE LISTED LARGER LINES AND WERE DONE AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME FRAME.

WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE CLASS 1 ANALYSES FOR THE LARGER LINES TO HAVE BEEN WITH THE SMALLER LINE ANALYSES.

Discussion

-1. More Class I stress reports are coming.

9. DR Response PARSONS WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE TYPE OF RESPONSE NEEDED FROM NNECO IN ORDER TO CLOSE A DR.

Discussion

1. In Parsons' review of DR responses to date, ARs have been identified as addressing the DR issue. However, Parsons can not conclude if the action is acceptable as the AR may not be specific to the final coarse of action.

2. The NRC expects Parsons to rev' w the output from an AR,i.e. something that specifically identifies what was done to correct the item.

3. Everyone recognizes the need for timely initial NNECo response to a DR. This may conflict with taking time to work out the detailed final action and preparing the implementation docuraent(s). In the future when only an AR is identified as addressing a DR issue, NNECo will add a statement to the DR response that further PAGE 6 b

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES SEPTEMBER 30,1997 action is needed by NNECo to implement the change. Parsons will return these DRs to NNECo as "Open".

4. When NNECo references a CR in its response, NNECo is to identify which AR(s) associated with the CR are needed to address the DR issue. Also, NNECo is to provide a copy of any ACR/CR or other document referenced in a DR respanse.

Other wise Parsons' comment on tiie response will be delayed by preparing a RAI to obtain the document for review.

PAGE 7 1

1 I

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 2,1997 PURPOSE: Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and Parsons to discuss:

• RWST Level, Tech. Spec. Requirement e Motor Overload Control e Commercial Grade Dedication (Follow-up from 9/30/97 conference)

• Examples of Engineering Record Correspondence (ERC),

(Follow-up from 9/30/97 conference) e Combining Three-Directional Earthquake Response Seismic Anchor Movements (SAM's)

Date: October 2,1997 List of Attendees:

l NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP Steve Wayne Dobson Reynolds Fred Mattioli Supervisor, MP2 ICAVP John Eric Blocher Nakoski Richard Laudenat Director, ICAVP Mike Akins Rick Benner Supenisor - Operations Dan Curry Steve Wainio Supenisor - Design Mark Fitzgerald Engineering Debbie Hersey Operations jolm Hilbish Mark Suprenant Manager - Procurement Samir Serhan Rich Ewing Supenisor - Design Engineering John Rien ICAVP - TRT

1. RWST Level, Tech. Spec. Requirement WHAT DOCUMENTATION DOES A CONTROL ROOM OPERATOR USE TO DETERMINE IF THE RWST LEVEL IS BELOW THE TECH. SPEC.

MINIMUM? (370,000 GALLONS) IN OUR READING OF PROCEDURE ARP-2590A, IT APPEARS THAT THE CONTROL BOARD LEVEL INDICATION IS TANK % FULL IF THIS IT CORRECT, HOW DOES THE OPERATOR CONVERT % FULL TO GALLONS? IS THERE AN ALARM FOR RWST MINIMUM LEVEL, SIMILAR TO THE ALARM THAT EXISTS FOR PAGE1 l

1 l

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 2,1997 CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK AT MINIMUM LEVEL 150,000 GAL. = 53%

FULL?

Discussion

1. Weekly surveillance is performed. The % full reading in the surveillance log is multiplied by the tank capacity of 475,000 gallons to determine if the tech. spec.

minimum is met. In addition there is a low level alarm at 93% full.

QUESTION: Is the tank truly a right cylinder? Is the suction at the bottom or some distance above the bottom? Is the required 370,000 gal. supposed to be an uscable capacity? NNECo will to look into this furtl er in order to respond.

2. Motor Overload Control WHAT DOCUMENT IS USED BY NNECO ENGINEERS THAT PROVIDES GUIDANCE OR REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR OVERLOAD PROTECTION?

, Discussion

! 1. For MOVs, NNECo uses the MOV Program Manual, PI-06 instruction. For other motors, NNECo uses a 1973 Bechtei memo with its attachments.

QUESTION: Does the MOV Program Manual and Bechtel memo contain requirements for consideration of voltage variance, and locked rotor current? The MOV Manual does, the Bechtel Memo does not.

QUESTION: For non-MOV motors, NNECo does not consider voltage variance, and locked rotor current for overload heater sizing? Yes, that is correct.

3. Commercial Grade Dedication (Follow-up from 9/30/97 conference)

WHY ARE COMMERCIAL GRADE DEDICATION EVALUATIONS PERFORMED IN MIMS NOT PART OF MILLSTONES' NUCLEAR RECORDS SYSTEM? DURING Tile 9/30 CONFERENCE IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE EVALUATIONS DONE IN MIMS,(1996,1997) ARE NOT IN NDS.

Discussion

1. The evaluations are in NDS. Since MIMS is not approved for electronic storage of records, the evaluations are printed out when material receipt inspection is performed and placed into NDS along with the receipt inspection results.

4. Examples of Engineering Record Correspondence (ERC),(Follow-up from 9/30/97 conference)

NNECO TO IDENTIFY THE CONTROLLING PROCEDURE FOR ERC AND DISCUSS SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THEY ARE USED.

I PAGE 2

~

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 2,1997 l Discussion

1. ERCS are controlled by procedure NGP-5.31. Examples of ERC are as follows:

. Vendor proposed a design change. An ERC was used to document a comparison with some other technical information to develop a position regarding the vendor's recommendation.

4 An ERC was used to document HELM requirements in " layman" terms for Mode 6. This provided clarification of HELM requirements in terms non-engineering personnel could understand.

I i

e An ERC was used to provide seismic response spectra input to purchase

! specifications for control board items.

L

5. Combining Three-Directional Earthquake Response IT IS STATED IN THE FSAR ON PAGES 5.8-12 AND 13 THAT " .. A HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED FOR THE NORTH-SOUTH AND FOR THE EAST-WEST DIRECTIONS. THE RESULTS OF EACH ANALYSIS ARE COMBINED WITH THE RESULTS OF THE EXCITATION IN THE VERTICAL DIRECTION, THE DESIGN INTERNAL FORCE OR MOMENT, OR DISPLACEMENT IS THE LARGER NUMBER OBTAINED FROM EITHER OF THESE ANALYSES" IT IS STATED IN BECHTEL PROCEDURE NO. Il867-014-P003 PAGE 3 THAT "ONE OBE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMED FOR THE 3-DIRECTIONAL EARTHQUAKE, X, Y, Z. MODAL AND DIRECTIONAL RESPONSE SHALL BE COMBINED BY THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE SUM OF THE SQUARES (SRSS) METHOD" PLEASE CLARIFY WHICH METHOD IS USED FOR COMBINING DIRECTIONAL RESPONSE.

Discussion

1. Bechtel procedure P003 was used for the Millstone 79-14 evaluation. FSAR Chapte. 5 is currently the licensing basis and is to be used for any going fonvard work. The 79-14 effort was an independent analysis to confirm that Millstone design is acceptable. The SRSS method used by P003 was discussed with and approved by the NRC.

2. QUESTION: It Bechtel procedure 11867-014-P002 currently use for pipe supports? NNECo uses it for deter.nining operability, but not for new design.

3. QUESTION: What does NNECo use today for guidance on performing seimic analysis? The current design and licensing basis is FSAR Chapter 5, not P003.

New design would use applicable industry staadards on materhls, welding, etc.

Currently NNECo uses informal procedures, (desktop instructions) based on the PAGE3

. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 2,1997 FSAR methods. NNECo is in the process of developing a specification for this area.

6. Seismic Anchor Movements (SAM's)

WIIERE CAN WE FIND Tile SAM'S TO BE USED FOR PIPING ANALYSES.

Discussion

1. SAMs can be found in analyses and some additional calculations performed by Bechtelin the 6/30/97 thru 7/72 time frame.

PAGE4

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 7,1997 l

, PURPOSE: Administrative telephone conference with NNECo, NRC , NEAC and '

Parsons to discuss:

. Co.itrol Rod Position

. Calculation j Date: October 7,1997

! List of Attendees:

4 NNECo NRC NEAC Parsons 4

Joe Fougere Manager, ICAVP Steve Wayne Dobson

Reynolds Fred Mattioli Supervisor, MP2 ICAVP CliffMarks l

. Bob Borchert Supersisor, Reactor Engr Ray Thomas i

1. Control Rod Position

!- AS PART OF OUR TIER 2 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS REVIEW WE NEED TO

{ UNDERSTAND CONTROL ROD POSITION INSTRUMENTATION. PLEASE l DESCRIBE PHYSICALLY HOW CONTROL ROD POSITION IS MONITORED AND DISPLAYED AT MILLSTONE UNIT 2, AND PROVIDE THE PMMS

} LOCAL EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (S) FOR THE POSITION

! MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT.

1

Discussion I

j 1. Section 7.5.3 of the FSAR provides a general description. Thice different display

systems of CEA position are provided for the operator on the main control i board: 1)the pulse countir2 CEA position indication system,2) the reed switch j CEA position indicating system, and 3) the core mimic display CEA position

] indicating system.

) 2. The pulse counting CEA position indication system infers the position of each

CEA maintaining a record of the raise and lower control pulses sent to each j magnetic jack mechanism. This system is incorporated in the plant computer which feeds a control board digital display CRT and an output typewriter.

3. The reed switch CEA position indication system utilizes a series of magnetically actuated reed switches, spaced at 1-1/2 inch intervals along the CEA housing and arranged with precision resistors in a voltage divider network, to provide voltage signals proportional to CEA position. These signals are displayed in har chart form by a CRT on the main control board.

PAGE1

, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE NOTES OCTOBER 7,1997

4. The core mimic display CEA position indicating system provides CEA travellimit information to the operator. It also uses reed switches and provides indication of drop rod, a lower limit and an upper limit.

5. The CEA motion block and prohibit controls are provide through the reed switch / voltage divider system.

6. NNECo will fax to Parsons a list of PMMS identification numbers

2. Calculation REFERENCE CALCULATION NO. E-5634 595-001 DATED 3/21/91 PERFORMED BY ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUEL, CORP. DOES THIS CALCULATION ADDRESS THE OLD OR NEV. STEAM GENERATORS?

Discussion

1. It addresses the old steam generators.

i I

l 4

PAGE 2

.