ML20216G594
| ML20216G594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1998 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9803200048 | |
| Download: ML20216G594 (80) | |
Text
l l g/
(,8Q r n 4 4l- i Sergerit& Lundy c
- L JO V
Don K. Schopfer Senior Vice President 312-269-6078 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk i Washington, D.C. 20555 l I have enclosed two (2) discrepancy reports (DR)s identified during our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.
i DR No. DR-MP3-1084 DR No. DR-MP3-1085 I have also enclosed the following thirteen (13) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.
DR No. DR-MP3-0564 DR No. DR-MP3-0878 DR No. DR-MP3-0573 DR No. DR-MP3-0959 ;
DR No. DR-MP3-0581 DR No. DR-MP3-0962 l DR No. DR-MP3-0592 DR No. DR-MP3-1022 i DR No. DR-MP3-0712 DR No. DR-MP3-1030 DR No. DR-MP3-0776 DR No. DR-MP3-1031 ;
DR No. DR-MP3-0787 e
[kjO! (
l 9803200048 980317 lllllfl llhlllllllllflllfllllllllll
- Chicago. IL 60603-5780 USA 312-269-2000
L. . i.<
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 171998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 l
l I have also enclosed the seven (7) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not accepted. S&L comments on these resolutions have been provided.
DR No. DR-MP3-0057 DR No DR-MP3-0793 i DR No. DR-MP3-0326 DR No DR-MP3-0806 DR No. DR-MP3-0763 DR No DR-MP3-0810 DR No. DR-MP3-0789 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, QQ] - _j D. K. Sc pfer g Senior Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copies:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight I T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1)NU l ntNcavpberdmar03174. doc l l
l l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0664 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Discipune: Matenkal Design FM ;- :i Type: C+ W O vos System /Procese: RSS Ce) No NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU-Date Published: 11/24/97 EE :i. Calculation US(B)-278
Description:
The purpuse of Calculation US(B)-278, Rev. O, is to determine the sump water level as a function of time. The calculation assumes that the time delay in starting RSS pumps after receipt of a CDA signalis 230 seconds. Calculation US(B)-278 concludes that a 230 second time delay is insufficient to assure an adequate sump water supply to the RSS pumps, after an MSLB.
The following discrepancy was identified in Calculation US(B)-
278:
A and B RSS pump actuation is delayed for 650 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal and C and D RSS pump actuation is delayed for 660 seconds after receipt of a CDA signal (LSK 9.4A, Rev. 9). Because these approx.11 min time delays are much longer then the 230 second time delay used in US(B)-278, the calculation is invalid.
Calculation US(B)-326, Rev.1 addresses the issue of sump water supply after a LOCA for an RSS start timer setting of 11 minutes.
Therefore, Calculation US(B)-278 should be voided.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakeland, J. F.
O O O 1 /1S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O 11' 1/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 15'57/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O /20<97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/14/98 i
RESOLUTION. DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0564, has I identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3 98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
CONCLUSION:
Printed 3/17/9612:55:41 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0564 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0564, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
.";;;':-_?; idonesed by Nu? O Yes @ No Non O' _ _y2 Coneuon?U Yes @ No WPoneng?O va @ no neeenonunroemed?O va @ No ne*.
~
Initiator: Weimand, J. F. ' '
VT Leed: Neri, Areony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/14/98 st Comments: Modification M3-97045 and the new design basis RSS sump water supply calculation, US(B)-362, demonstrate that the RSS system has an adequate water supply. Therefore Sargent &
Lundy agrees that DR-MP3-0564 should be changed to a NRC Significance Level 4 discrepancy and that calculation US(B)-278 may be voided after Unit 3 restart.
I Printed 3/17/9612M45 PM Page 2 of 2
1 I
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0673 ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipline: Mechanical Design C , :p Type: CmW O vos SystemProcese: RSS g
NRC S',,J": -w level: NA Date faxed to Nu-Date Published: 11/15/97 Discrepancy: Calculation 79-236-306GP Deecription: The Containment Recirculation Coolers (RSS-E1 A/B/C/D) had been redesiQned to accommodate an increase in the shell side flow to 5000 gpm (Letter NES-18767 and Adendum 3 to Specification 2214.803-020). As a result of the redesign, it was recommended that the initial system startup procedure include provisions to monitor the containment recirculation coolers for tube vibration (Letter NES-18767). Subsequently, it was decided that a theoretical evaluation would be performed instead of monitoring tube vibration during system startup.
The purpose of calculation 79-236-306 GP, Rev. O is to evaluate the potential for excessive tube vibrations in the RSS HXs for a i shell side flow of 5000 Opm. '
The discrepancy is that Calculation 79-236-306GP does not
, reach any conclusion. It recommends that more detailed l
calculations should be prepared, but no other calculations have been prepaired.
Calculation 79-236-306GP should be void and the validity of statements in 3DBS-NSS-003, Rev. O, Section* 8.7 and 12.3.3 need to be verified. The DBS states that the RSS HX can accept a flow of 4620 Opm on the shell side (see System Requirements REQ-MP3-RSS-0427 and 0533).
Review Vead invand Needed Date initiator: Waksiend, J. F.
O O O ior2as7 vr Lead: Neri, Anthony A 8 O O 11/3'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 15/5/87 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O " '87 Date:
INVALID:
- j Date: 3/14/98 RESOLUTION; DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0573 does not represent a l discrepent condition. Calculation 79-236-306 GP performed a parametric study to determine the adequacy of the RSS heat exchan0ers for flow induced tube vibration. The calculation was inconclusive in that it determined that additional engineering work was required. Subsequent to this calculation, additional calculations, tests and studies were perii mied by Stone &
Webster and Argonne National Laboratory which concluded that the maximum flow through the heat exchangers should be Printed 3/17/9612:56:48 PM Page 1 of 2 l
i Northeast Uguties ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3-0673 Ministone urm J Discrepancy Report lir> JA to 4620 gpm for long term operation which is consistent with current operating procedures (NU memo PSE-EM-86-041 attached provides a detailed discussion of the issue). Therefore, there is no discrepancy between the Design Basis Summary for l the RSS system and the supposting engineering documentation.
I i Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a
- discrepant condition.
CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0573 does not represent a discrepant condition. Calculation 79-236-306 GP performed a parametric study to determine the adequacy of the l RSS heat exchangers for flow induced tube vibration. The l calculation was inconclusive in that it determined that additional engineering work was required. Subsequent to this calculation, additional calculations, tests and studies were performed by Stone & Webster and Argonne National Laboratory which concluded that the maximum flow through the heat exchangers should be limited to 4620 Opm for long term operation which is consistent with current operatin0 procedures (NU memo PSE-EM-86-041 attached provides a detailed discussion of the issue). Therefore, there is no discrepancy between the Design Basis Summary for the RSS system and the supporting engineering documentation.
Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepent condition.
.L idonened try NU7 O vos @ No NonDeserspentConeuon?@ vos U No p% Penang 70 va @ No nosesum.nunr= *ed7 0 va @ No n.wiew ininetor: Weholand, J. F.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRc Clunn: Singh. Anand K O
osse: 3/14/98 sL coneness Sargent & Lundy concurs that DR-MP3-0573 is not a discrepant condition. >
Letter NES-18767, dated 1-27-86, provides the results of studies performed by Argonne National Laboratories and Stone &
Webster between March and Novemeber of 1985. The results of !
these studies provide the additional evaluation required by the I conclusions of 79-236-306GP. This design basis evaluation was completed prior to the 5-27-97 cut off date for the ICAVP review of the QSS/RSS systems.
Prtreed M741612.56:52 PM Page 2 or 2
1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4581 milestone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Gmup: system DR RESOLUTION AcCEPTEo Review Esement: system Design Discipune MechanicalDesig" m
r' . -- i Type: NW O vos systernprocese: Qss @ No NRc algnincencelevel: 4 Date faxed to Nu:
Date puhelehed.12/7/97 DescrepancF: Calculation US(B)-225 Descripmen The purpose of US(B)-225, Rev. 6 is to determine the QSS effective time for a design basis LOCA.
Four discrepancies were identified in Calculation US(B)-225:
- 1. In the computation of QSS fill volume from the EP-79 drawings, Point C (where the supply header splits into the upper and lower spray header supply lines) was placed too far upstream [pp.14-17]. As a result the B to C volume was miscalculated at 1075 gal instead of the correct value of 995 gal and the C to D volume was miscalculated at 470 gal instead of 547 gal. This error produces little not effect on the final fill time because it does not affect the total fill volume.
- 2. In transferring the loss coefficients from hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 to the fill time calculation, Point B (the boundary between filled and empty QSS piping, spray valves 3QSSWOV32A/B) was not correctly interpreted [p.18]. As a result, piping and fitting losses from the pump discharDe line upstream of the spray valves, are introduced downstream of the spray valves. This error increases hydraulic resistance and fill time. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to determine if this discrepancy changes the fill time.
- 3. Hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 is referenced for the line lengths of segments A to B and C to E, but the numbers used for line losses do not appear in this the hydraulic calculation (nor do they appear in the computation of fill volume on pp.14-17) [p.
18]. As a result, frictional loss is overstated and maximum fill time is overestimated. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to determine if this descrepancy changes the fill time significantly.
)
- 4. Descrepancies in hydraulic calculation P(R)-1096 are carried ;
over to the fill time calculation [p.18]. For example, the loss coefficient in flow meter FT*32A/B is computed on the basis of instrument range (K = 10.65) rather than the basis of unrecoverable losses (K = 6.4). Loss for each of the spray header supply lines C to D and C to E are missing one 900 elbow (K = 0.2). As a result, frictional loss is overstated and maximum fill time is overestimated. Calculation US(B)-225 should be evaluated to determine if this discrepancy changes the fill time significantly.
Revtew vand invand Needed Date initiator: Waheland. J. F. O O O $$ii2rD7 Printed 3/17/9s 12:57:34 PM Page1or 2 i
l Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4681 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Lead: Nort. Arthony A G O O 11'17/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K l
' O O O $2/i/s7 RC Chmn: Smgh. Anand K B O O 12rars7 Date:
mvAuo:
l Date: 3/16/96 Resol.UTioN. NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0581, has ,
identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which l l requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B18901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability l concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0581, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B18901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 Pl- 1 20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-96-0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per !
RP-4. j Previously identised by NU? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (G) No R.eduuonPenang?O von @ No P%Unrudved?O va @ No Review initiator: Wehetend, J. F.
VT t.eed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 3
RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O Dete: 3/16/98 sL commente: Sargent & Lundy concurs that resolution of the conditions l identified in DR-MP3-0581 may be deferred until after Unit 3
( restart. All of the errors identified in DR-MP3-0581 are in modeling the hydraulic resistance. All of these erros result in l overestimates of the QSS fill time. Therefore the existing fill time calculation is bounding and its revision may be deferred until after Unit 3 restart.
I Printed 3/17/9612:57:38 PM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utuities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0692 unustone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review aroup: syneem DR Resol.UTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design opereldutyleeue F-- 3 Type: NW O v.
systervWProcess: RSs gg NRC Signiacence level: 3 Date faxed to NU-Date Puhushed: 12/2o/97 Discrepancy: Design Requirement for Recirculation Spray after Main Steam Line Break Descripeson There are several desi0n basis and design documents that state RSS is required to function after a postulated MSLB:
- 1. FSAR Sec. 6.2.2 states that the QSS and RSS ' containment heat removal systems are designed to reduce containment pressure following a break in either the primary or secondary 1 piping system inside containment." (System Requirement REQ-MP3-RSS-0804) ~
- 2. The containment pressurization analysis, Calculation US(B)-
266, Rev. 2 assumes RSS operates after an MSLB. ,
- 3. The results of Calculation US(B)-266, which indicate that RSS operates after an MSLB, are provided in FSAR Tables 6.2-24 and 6.2-25. (System Requirements REQ-MP3-RSS-078 and 0759)
- 4. Specification 2280.000-968, Rev.10, Sec.13.45 states that the RSS spray nozzles are designed to operate after a LOCA or an MSLB.
The requirement that RSS operate after an MSLB is contradicted by the following containment sump design and operations documents:
- 1. ES-234, Rev. O concludes that there is an insufficient sump water supply for RSS operation after an MSLB.
1
- 2. US(B)-278, Rev. O concludes that there is an insufficient i sump water supply fcr RSS operation after an MSLB.
l
- 3. EOPs require the RSS be secured if RWST volume is greater than 520,000 gal and containment pressure drops below 17.5 psig. This condition will occur after MSLB. The results of US(B)-
266 indicate that during the desi0n basis MSLB at 75% power, containment pressure will drop below 17.5 psig at approximately 800 to 900 seconds into the event. This is within three minutes of the RS3 effective time.
Review ,
Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wakelend, J. F. S O O 12nwo7 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A B D 0 12nwe7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B D O $2fti/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $2tiato7 Printed 3/17/9612:58:15 PM Page1 or 3
l Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0692 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Dese:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/16/98 RESOUmON DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, l DR-MP3-0592, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The adverse condition was reported on 6/21/96 in ACR M3-96-0620 which described the adverse condition as follows: 'Several calculations for containment sump level, sump screen head loss, and RSS pump NPSH do not have good agreement between them conceming use of several critical parameters. Adequate RSS pump NPSH may not be demonstrated."
l l
The plan to address the concems of ACR M3-96-0620 has been developed, although not all the corrective actions have been completed. This plan does include all of the issues raised in DR
( M3-0592. Calculation US(B)-266 is being revised (to rev. 3) to reflect the condition in which no credit is taken for RSS operation in the MSLB event. Calculation US(B)-362, rev 0, has been I l completed to support this position. Thirteen other calculations I are affeded by the results of US(B)-362, and these have either been revised (7) or voided (6). When the calculations are finalized the plant procedures will be aligned with them. No change in automatic plant response will occur. In the MSLB event the RSS will start 11 minutes after the CDA (Containment Depressurization Actuation) signalis received at 8 psig. The QSS is expeded to have adequately filled the containment sump by that time, and the RSS is expected to operate. In some scenarios the sump inventory will not be adequate. This will be due to the small loss of inventory in those scenarios and the small amount of QSS flow, in these situations the RSS will not be able to pump at its rated flow rate. However, in all MSLB scenarios the QSS alone can depressurize the containment.
The inability of the RSS to function fully in these less severe l events will have no detrimental affed on the containment. If l there is inadequate water in the sump to meet the pump NPSH requirement, the operator may stop the pump. While there is a potential for pump damage, the loss of the pump would only occur after the pump is no longer needed to mitigate the consequences of the accident.
All technical work, including field implementation, will be completed prior to startup. The administrative closeout will be completed within 90 days of release to operations (as allowed in the Design Change Manual).
t CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0592, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Previously credit was taken for Printed 3/17/9812:58:18 PM Page 2 of 3
l Northeost Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0692 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RSS operation during a MSLB. This was incorrect because in some cases containment sump levels would be too low for the RSS to operate. NU has developed new and revised calculations which demonstrate that the plant will respond correctly to the MSLB event without RSS operation. The QSS alone will provide sufficient quenching of the released steam to depressurize the containment.
l The corrective actions of ACR M3-96-0620 are being tracked by NR 96028931.
Previously identised by Nu? (e) Yes Q No Non Descrepent Condition?O Yes (e) No PM%Pending?O vos @ N. Receiuimm unrossived7 0 vos @ No Review initiator: Wokelend,J.F.
VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K oste:
B D D - I 3/16/93 st Commente Sargent & Lundy concurs that the condition identified in DR-MP3-0592 was previously discovered by NU in ACR M3-96-0620 on 6-1-96.
l l
i l
4*
l l Printed 3/17/9612:58:19 PM Page 3 of 3 i
Northe:st UtiHties ICAVP DR No. DR41P3-0712 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System . DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipline: MechanicalDesign Discrepency Type: c*m Om systemprocess: RSs g,
(
M level
- NA Date faxed to NU:
Date Puldlehed' t/1046
. -i. NPSHa for ECCS Pumps During Recirculation Modes of Operation
, Descripson No basis was located for the capacity of the RSS pumps to l provide adequate NPSH to the SlH and CHS pumps for the hot l and cold leg recirculation modes of ECCS.
Calculations P(R)-0982, Rev. O, P(R)-0983, Rev. O and US(B)-
294, Rev. 5 provide a basis for adequate NPSH for ECCS ;
pumps taking suction from the RWST (DR-MP3-0704 addresses inconsistencies in this basis). However a review of design basis
- hydraulic calculations did not locate a similar analysis for the j l '
ECCS recirculation modes (see DR-MP3-0710).
The only information located on NPSHa for ECCS during l recirculation mode was Westinghouse Letter NEU-1693, "ECCS Hydraulic Analyses," dated 11-2-75. This letter provides a !
l preliminary evaluation of ECCS pump NPSHa for the injection
! and recirculation modes. Its preliminary conclusion was that the i
RWST provided adequate NPSH to the ECCS pumps for the injection mode, but that a single failure would prevent the RSS 1 pumps from providing sufficient NPSH to the SlH pumps for the I cold leg recirculation mode. This conclusion, however, applies to the old configuration in which RSS was required to supply HHSI and LHSI simultaneously during ECCS cold leg recirculation mode Review i vond invand Needed Date initiator: Wehetend, J. F. O O O 2/15/s7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O $2/iss7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 12/2se7 inc chen: singh, Anand K O O O 52/siis7 Date:
INVALD:
Dele: 3/13/98 l RESOLUTION. DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepany Report, DR-MP3-0712 does not represent a discrepent condition. The attached calculation SE/FSE-NEU-0162, Revision 0 titled
" Safeguards Pump NPSH Under Defined Conditions (Injection and Recirculation Modes) verified for issue on December 4,1996 provides the required design basis.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condition.
Printed 3/17/s812:58:52 PM Pope i of 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0712 Millst:me Unit 3 Discrepancy Report CONCLUSION: l NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0712 does not represent a discrepant condition. The attached calculation SE/FSE-NEU-0162, Revision 0 titled
" Safeguards Pump NPSH Under Defined Conditions (Injecilon and Recirculation Modes) verified for issue on Decerriae 4,1996 provides the required design basis.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condition.
NC z', Identiced by NU7 O vos (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?(f) vos O No mePeamnetO vos @ N. Rosemanunroemed70 vos @ No Review initiator: Wehetend, J. F. "
i VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A VT Mor: schaptw, con x 0 0 0 *= l IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/13/98 st. Comments: Sargent & Lundy a0rees that DR-MP3-0712 does not identify a descrepent condition:
The basis for determining that the RSS system provides sufficient NPSH to the SlH and CHS pumps for the cold leg / hot 1e0 recirculation modes of ECCS was provided by Westinghouse Calculation SE/FSE-C-NEU-0162. This basis has been updated for the new configuration created by modifications DCR M3-97045 and DCR M3-96077 in Westinghouse Calculation SAE/FSE-C-NEU-0079. In addition, it is evident that the bounding case for minimum NPSHa to the SlH and CHS pumps is the cold leg injection mode of ECCS. Stone & Webster Calculation US(B)-294 concludes that the RWST provides adequate NPSH to these pumps.
Printed 3/17/9612:58:56 PM Page 2 of 2
y i
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34776 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report )
l Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED l Review Element: Syedem Design
- m. uset.nics Design Discrepency Type: Calculation Potonnet O Yes systemProcess: Oss @ No NRC W level:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Put&hed: 1/50/98 h - ry: Top of ECCS Suction on the RWST Descrepelon. FSAR Figure 6.34 indicates that the top of the ECCS suction J
from the RWST is 4'4" above the bottom of the tank. This is i inconsistent with the design drcwings of the RWST.
Drawings 12179-EP-111M-8 and 2214.601-023-001R indicate that the 24-inch diameter ECCS suction line,3-SIL-024-152, connects with the RWST at a centeriine elevation of 4'4" above the bottom of the tank. Thus the top of the ECCS suction from the RWST is approximately 5'4" above the bottom of the tank.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Ininetor: Wakeland,J.F. O O O 12/ie/s7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O O 2/ isis 7 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K G $2/23,97 O O lac Chmn: singh Anand K G O O 2/31/97 Date:
INVAUD:
1 Date: 3/14/98 REsOLUT1oN NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0776 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. FSAR Figure 6.3-6 has been changed by FSARCR 97-MP3-327 to reflect the correct ECCS Suction Line elevation from the RWST and to be consitent with drawings 12179-EP-111M-8 and 2214.601-023-001R. The discovery of this discrepancy was a result of the original CMP and the initiating document is ACR 7007.
This issue was previously identified by CMP.
CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0778 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been addressed. As detailed in the disposition, FSAR Figure 6.3-6 has been changed by FSARCR 97-MP3-327 to reflect the correct ECCS Suction Line elevation from the RWST and to be consitent with drawings 12179-EP-111M-8 and 2214.601-023-001R. The discovery of this discrepancy was a result of the original CMP and the initiating document is ACR 7007.
This issue was previously identified by CMP.
Previously identland by NU7 @ Yes O No NonDiscrepentCondluon?Q Yee @ No I
Printed 3/17/9612:59:46 PM Page 1 or 2
(
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0776 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report PM% Pending70 vee (*) N. P-%urwesoeved70 vos (5) No flaview Inluetor. Wehetend, J. F.
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/14/98 sL Comments: Sargent & Lundy concurs that DR-MP3-0776 identifies a condition previously identified by NU in ACR 7007. ACR 7007 was initiated l in 1995, well before the May 27,1997 cutoff date for the i QSS/RSS ICAVP review. l l
l l
Printed W17/9612:59:40 PM Page 2 of 2
I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0787 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '
Review Group: Syalam DR RESOLLITION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design
%: Elodical Design r'= . my Type: N% O ves i l S'istemProcese: N/A g
NRC Signiacance levd 3 Date faxed to Nu: !
I i
Date Putdished 1/18/98 l l Discrepancy: Incorrect S.C. Current Value & Potential Associated Circuits 1 Issue (Calculation 178E) l Description This calculation determines the SkV and 8kV power cable l temperatures under fault conditions.
l The revised calculation for the SkV cable (contained in CCN No.
! 1, Rev. O to this calculation) uses a value of 41,921 amperes for l the available fault current as derived from Calculation NL-051 4 Rev.3. This value of short circuit current was changed to 44,594 amperes in CCN No. 2, Rev. 3 to NL-051, Pg. 20 of 169, I
( dated 12/10/96. This higher value of short circuit current should i be used in this calculation.
The temperature of the smallest and shortest SkV aluminum cable when using a short circuit value of 41,921 amperes is calculated to be 309.78 degrees C - well above the 250 degrees C insulation limit (refer to pg. 3 of 4 CCN No.1). This temperature will be higher once the 44,594 amperes short circuit value is used.
FPER section 6.3 states: " Associated circuits - The final concem raised by power cable faults relates to the potential for an electrical fault, which is not properly cleared, to dama0e adjacent 4 or nearby circuits which are required in the safe shutdown l situation (common enclosure). l l
Because some power cables, during fault conditions, can reach temperatures in excess of accepted industry practice there is a potential that an associated circuits issue exits. Since the calculation did not address the consequences of exceeding 250 degrees C, there may be a discrepancy with the statement in the .
FPER. I Review Valid invePid Needed Date initiator: Crocleott. Ed. O O O 1 5/88 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O ilsse VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 1/12/98 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1' 4/S8 Date:
INVALID:
Dele: 3/12/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0787, has l
identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. The issues identificci in this Discrepancy Report involving incorrect short circuit current values used in Printed 3/17/961:00:50 PM Page 1 or 4 l
T Northeast utilmies ICAVP DR No. DR41P34787 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Calculation 178E, "5KV & 8KV Power Cable Temperature Under Fault Condition" with potential associated circuit problems will be addressed via corrective actions identified in existing CR No. M3-97-2358 & MS-97-3413.
(1.) CR No. M3-97-2358, Dated 7/24/97; This CR issue was identified during reviews conducted to revise the following Specifications, to resolve items contained in Condition Reports (CR) No.10519 & 10785. l l
l 1. 25212-SP-EE-321 " Specification For Control of Electrical l Setpoint Data Base, Vol.1-Relay Setting Sheet, Vol. 2-Circuit i Breaker Setting, Vol. 3-Electrical Setpoint Calculation And Curve"
- 2. SP-EE-269 " Specification For Electrical Design Criteria for Millstone Unit 3" The CR identifies cables used in the 4KV system have i manufacturer's listed temperature limits of 250 Dog. C.
Calculations contained in DCN DMS-S-1027-94 (4/0 aluminum power cable) indicated that the temperature for a three phase ;
fault could reach approximately 489 Deg. C. Also this I calculation is based on 44Ka short circuit current. The revision to calculation NL 51 "MP3-6.9 KV,4.16 KV,480 V Short Circuit
& Equipment Duty Analysis"Indecates currents could reach 45.5Ka.
NOTE: CR No.10519, Dated 3/20/96 identified field protective relay setting for Vital 4.16KV Breakers not in accordance with l FSAR.
~
CR No.10785, Dated 3/22/96 cited a review of the electrical protection criteria contained in NERM 46, "4.16KV & 6,9KV Station Service Protection Philosophy" and NERM 45, " Station Service Protection Philosophy" against the actual setpoints i controlled by Specification SP-EE-321, " Control of Electrical Setpoint Database" which identified three discrepancies. This i review was being performed in response to questions posed during a NRC inspection.
(2.) CR No. M3-97-3413, Dated 10NI/97, This CR issue was identified while performing activities associated with the previous CR No. M3-97-2358 (evaluation of 4.16KV system protective
! relaying and cable thermal capatWlity under worst case short l
circuit oorulitions). A discrepency was discovered between the actual plant design and the required fault clearing times. It appeared the design basis calculation 178E "5KV & 8KV Power Cable Temperature Under Fault Condition" evaluation included inappropriate instantaneous relays models when determining fault clearing times. This discrepancy impacts seventy-one 4.16KV feeder circuits (non-Class 1E and Class 1E). This discrepancy resulted in License Event Report, LER 97-051-00.
I (3.a) AR No. 97018497 is tracking the Corrective Actions for CR No. M3-97 2358. The corrective actions include; perform additional analysis of issues raised by the CR: revise calculation l Prtsed 3/17/9e 1253 PM Page 2 or 4 I
l
Northeast Utinties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34787 Melistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report NL-051 and Specification SP-EE-269 accordingly and based on the results initiate additional Condition Reports as necessary.
(3.b) AR No. 97024703 is tracidnD the Corrective Actions for CR '
No. M3-97-3413. The corrective actions assignments indude; the electrical protection relaying scheme for the individual 1 4.16KV affected circuits will be restored to conform with the design basis; the design change must comply with R. G.
1.32(IEEE 380-74) and NRC Branch Technical Position BTP 9.5- ;
1 (Fire Protection). !
(4.) Corrective actions (Items 3.a & 3.b) to revise calculation NL-51 and Specification SP-EE-269, prepare, issue and implement ;
the electrical protection relaying schemes / modifications for the applicable 4.16KV circuits will be completed prior to startup.
i 1
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR- {
MP3-0787, has identified a condition previously discovered by l
NU which has been corrected. The issues identified in this !
Discrepancy Report involving incorrect short circuit current j values used in Calculation 178E, "5KV & 8KV Power Cable . '
Temperature Under Fault Condition" with potential associated !
circuit problems will be addressed via corredive actions '
identified in existing CR No. M3-97-2358 & M3-97-3413.
(1.) CR No. MS-97-2358, Dated 7/24/97, identified cables used in the 4KV system have manufacturer's listed temperature limits of 250 De0. C while calculations indicated that the temperature could reach approximately 489 Dog. C. Also existing calculation short circuit currents conflict with NL-051, "MP34.9 KV,4.16 KV, 480 V Short Circuit & Equipment Duty Analysis".
(2.) CR No, M3-97-3413, Dated 104/97, identified a i discrepancy between the adual plant design and the required 4.16KV protodive relaying fault clearing times per design basis calculation 178E "5KV & 8KV Power Cable Temperature Under Fault Condition" l (3.a) AR No. 97018497 & (3.b) AR No. 97024703 are tracking ,
the corrective actions respectively, !
The corrective actions include; pofform additional analysis of ,
issues raised by the CR; revise calculation NL-051 and '
Specifications as required; the electrical protection relaying scheme for the individual 416KV affeded circuits wiii b restored to conform with the design basis.
(4.) Corrective actions (items 3.a & 3.b) to revise calculation NL-51 and specefications, prepare, issue and implement the electrical protection relaying schemes / modifications for the applicable 4.16KV circuits will be completed prior to startup.
NT E?;idones.d by Nu? Uvs @ No NonDioce.pentComuuon?U v s @ No p- % P.=mnetO va @ No n muonune *.dtO va @ No n
Pnnled 3/17/981:00:54 PM Page 3 of 4
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4787 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
~
initiator: Womer, I. '
VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A b VT Mgr: sdepler, Don K NtC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/12/98 SL conenente: NU's conclusion states:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0787, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. The issues identified in this Discrepancy Report involving incorrect short circuit current values used in Calculation 178E, "5KV & 8KV Power Cable Temperature Under Fault Condition" with potential associated circuit problems will be addressed via corrective actions identified in existing CR No. M3-97-2358 & M3-97-3413.
(1.) CR No. M3-97-2358, Dated 7/24/97, identified cables used in the 4KV system have manufacturer's listed temperature limits of 250 Deg. C while calculations indicated that the temperature could reach approximately 489 Deg. C. Also existing calculation short circuit currents conflict with NL-051, "MP3-6.9 KV,4.16 KV, 480 V Short Circuit & Equipment Duty Analysis".
(2.) CR No. M3-97-3413, Dated 10/6/97, identified a discrepancy between the actual plant design and the required 4.16KV protective relaying fault clearing times per design basis calculation 178E, "5KV & 8KV Power Cable Temperature Under Fault Condition" NU's response lists two CRs which address the overtemperature issue:
CR M3-97-2358 is dated 7/24/97 CR M3-97-3413 is dated 10/6/97.
Althou0h we concur that the issue identified in this DR was identified before the DR was written, it is still classified as a. ievel 3 discrepancy because the identification took place after the ICAVP sudit start date.
Printed 3/17/961:00:56 PM Page 4 or 4
f 1
Northe st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0878 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1 Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Discipline: Mechanical Design r" - - - - :y Type: N%
g y, systemProcese: SWP Om NRC signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
DatePubMehed: 1/17/98 l
l . -i; Seismic reports are not available for ICAVP review for the following equipments.
Description (1) 3SWP-PT106A/B,26A/B,42A/B. Report requested per RFi#485, item #12 NU Response in IRF#693 said that this is non-safety equipment for which a seismic report is generally not applicable. As per PDDS database this is j a cat 1 item and per PMMS database this is cat N item. I As per specification 2472.520-658 these items should be '
qualified by seismic tests.
(2) 3SWP-Fl59B/C/D. Report requested per RFl#485, item #8 NU Response in IRF#693 said that this is non-safety l equipment for which a seismic report is generally not
! applicable. As per PDDS database this is a cat 1 item i and per PMMS database this is cat N ltem. As per !
specification 2424.100-245 these items should be qualified by seismic tests.
Review l Vaud invand Needed Date initiator: Patel, Ramesh 8 O O id'ese VT Lead: Nei, Antony A B O O 12/31/s7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 1/12/9e IRc chmn: singh, Anand K G O O i'13/se Dete:
INVAUD:
l Date: 3/13/98 RESOLUTION NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0878 has identified a condition not previously identified by NU which requires correction. The PDDS database erroneously indicates 3SWP-PT106A/B,26A/B, and 42A/B as well as 3SWP-Fl59B/C/D are QA Category 1 components.
Based on MEPL evaluations 1071-521,1071-401, and 0865-401, these components are non-Q, as correctly noted in the PMMS database. CR M3-98-0626 was issued to address this condition.
The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0626 will update the PDDS database for the 9 specific components per PDDS change package #98-0024 (action complete), and perform a review to reconcile the 50,000 component id's between PMMS, MEPL, and PDDS. Since this condition is a minor inconsistency between databases that has no impact on the licensing or design basis, the discrepancy should be down0raded from Significance Level 3 to Level 4 to be corrected after startup.
NL, identiaed by NU7 (_) Yes (#) No NonDiscrepentCondition?() Yes @ No RamunonPenene70 va @ No munramved70 va @ No Printed 3/17/961:o1:40PM Pese 1 of 2 i
Northerst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34878 Minstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report neview A'-psh Not A - , ^ "
Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sir @, Anand K Date:
SL Comments:
Printed 3/17/96121:53 PM Page 2 of 2
l Northeact UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0969 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR REsOLUDON ACCEPTED Review Element: System Deelen m %
O yes C . 7 Type: ChW g systenWProcess: HVX NRC signiacance M: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Putdished: 1/2546 E' . 4 Duct Support Calculation Discrepancy Description. We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation No.12179-NP(T)- i Z545J-1235, ReV.2.
Based on this review we noted the following discrepancies.
- 1. On page#12, Angle 4x4x3/4 is analyzed and due to interference, Angle 4x3x1/2 is used in the field.
This is noted in the calculation and accepted by engineering judgement. Angle 4x3x1/2 has lower sectional properties and it is not structurally adequate as shown below.
Ratio of Areas = 5.44/3.25=1.67 sq. in. l Therefore, actual axial stress =fa=11704x1.67=19590 psi I KUr (min)=1.0x64/.639=100 Therefore, allowable axial stress =Fa=12.98 ksi < fa=19.59 ksi (NO GOOD) 1
- 2. Angle sections are not checked for combined axial and bending stresses and also the AISC CODE check is not performed in STRUDL RUN.
- 3. On page#13, for Angle 6x4x1/2 axial stress ratio fa/Fa=.61>.15 and it is qualified by engineering Judgment.This is unacceptable methodology.
Review Vend invend Needed Date initiator: Patel, A. 8 O O 1/18S8 VT Land: Neri, Anthony A B O O irisSe VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O i1 wee stC chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1/22/se Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/13/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0959, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved coiTective action plan for CR MS-98-0728 (attached) will revise calculation 12179-NP(F)-Z545J 1235 to update the analysis to reflect the as-insta!Ied condition. In addition, within the body of the calculation the angle members will be checked for combined axial and bending stresses utilizing the correct methodology from Section 1.6 of theAISC Manual and an AISC Code Check will be performed on all applicable members. This revision will Printed 3/17/961:o4:16 PM PeGe 1 or 2
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4969 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report eliminate any possible confusion caused by the Engineering Judgments used throughout Revision 2. The independent Reviewer's comment on Page 7 of the subject Calculation indicates the acceleration "G" values used to derive the Design Loads were higher than the actual values. The use of the more realistic values will lower the Design Loads which in tum will lower axial stress and combined stresses. In addition, a supplemental STRUDL Run was performed as documented on page 9. This run included tne reduced angle size and demonstrated that the frame remains acceptable. Therefore, the impact of the changes to calculation NP(F)-Z545J-1235 do not adversely affect the conclusion contained within the calculation.
As such there is no effect on the license or design basis, therefore NU has concluded this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.
K _-., identiaed by Nu? O vee @ No NonDiscrepentcondidon?O vos @ No PWwPending?O vee @ No Ree iuliaaune.o eved70 vos @ No Review initiator: Kleie, N ~ '
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dele:
SL Comments:
Printed 3/17/981:o4:19 PM Page 2of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0962 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue l
"'"lP une. Mutencel Design O yes Discrepancy Type: ceicuishon SystemProcess: NEW gg NRC Sign #Rcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished: 2/7/96 D6screpancy: Calculation 89-094-0939ES
Description:
Calculation 89-094-0939ES [Rev. 0; CCN 1] is the MOV Program Scope Determination. It provides a list of all motor operated valves and determines if a valve should be included in the scope of the MOV Program as defined by NRC Generic Letter 89-10 including Supplements 1 through 6.
- 1. Assumption 3.2 indicates that Valves 3SWP*MOV130 A/B are not active valves since they are maintained in the normally open position. P&lD EM-133B, Note 6 indi::ates that the motor operators for these valves were electrically disconnected.
However, these valves are still listed as active valves in Calculation NM-027-ALL [Rev. 2; CCNs 1-6].
- 2. BWNS Calculation 51 1212083 is an input to this calculation. M3-RF1-00435 requested this reference which is not available according to M3-IRF-00490.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Langel, D. O O O 2t2/98 VT Lead: Nwl, Anthony A B D D 2/2/98 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K S O O 2/2/98 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O 2/3/98 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/1/98 RESOLUTION' Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0962, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Programmatic concems with the classification and treatment of active valves were identified in ACR M3-97-0191. As a result of the cormctive action valves 3SWP*MOV130 A/B were determined to be inactive. Revision 3 of Calculation NM-027-ALL no longer lists these valves as active. BWNS Calculation 51-1212083 is provided with this DR.
There is no impact on the design or licensing basis since having inactive valves classified as active results in more conservative surveillance criteria. NU has concluded that this discrepancy is a Significance Level 4.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, b 3/17/981:o4:54 PM Page 1 of 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34962 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0962, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which required correction. Programmatic concems with the classification and treatment of active valves were identified in ACR M3-97-0191. NM-027-ALL has been revised to no longer list these valves as active. BWNS Calculation 51-1212083 is provided with this DR. There is no impact on the design or licensing basis since having inactive valves classified as active results in more conservative surveillance criteria. NU has concluded that this discrepancy is a Significance Level 4.
Previously identined t>y NU7 (G) Yes O No NonDiecrepentcondinontO Yes (G) No n oionon P.nans70 Yee @ No neeousonunresoeved70 Yee @ No
- n. view M D.
= .' Not Amf8h Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/1/98 sL comments: ACR M3-97-0191 evaluates programmatic concems with the classification and treatment of active valves documented in Calculation NM-027-ALL. The ACR corrective action provides an overall review of the active valve program and a revision to Calculation NM-027-ALL Revision 3 to the calculation addressed the active valve status of Valves 3SWP*MOV130A/B.
BWNS Calculation 51-1212083 was supplied and reviewed.
There are no discrepancies resulting from this review.
Printed 3/17/981M57 PM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1022 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Elemer.t: system Deegn Diecipline: Mechanical Design O'-- - y Type: Calculation Ow SyalemProcese: NEW g
NRC S:e - ^ -s level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnished: 2/7/98 P C Y: Revisions to 97-ENG-01431-M3 for DCR M3-97045
Description:
The purpose of 97-ENG-01431-M3, Rev.1 is to detennine the flow rates through the new test lines for pumps 3RSS*P1C and D. The calculated flow rates through the recirculation lines are compared to the minimum flow requirements of the pump manufacturer.
Two discrepancies were identified in Calculation 97ENG-01431- l M3.
- 1. The 17 deg degree pipe bend identified on page 9 for the I discharge line for pump P1D is actually a 90 deg elbow rotated 17 deg in the horizontal (Ref. 7, Dwg.12179-Cl-RSS-20 sht 4 of 4, Rev. 5). This difference has a negligible impact on the calculation results.
- 2. The calculated flow area forthe 12" pipe se:: tion on pages 16 and 19 (0.7773 ft2) should actually be 0.7854 ft2, (p(12)2/(4(144))). The larger flow area would reduce the flow velocity and corresponding head loss, and ultimately allow more flow through the recirculation line, however the change is considered insignificant.
Review Valid invol6d Needed Dete initletor: Waketend, J. F.
8 O O 5'3 /S8 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G O O 2/2/98 vT mer: schopw. Don K G O O 2/2/98 IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K Q O O 2/3/96 Date:
INVAllO:
Date: 3/14/98 RESOLUTION: DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1022, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1280 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1022, has Printed 3/17/981:05:35 PM Page 1 of 2
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP3-1022 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability ,
concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1280 l has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.
Pr.viously identmed by NU? O Yee (G) No Non %-- ---: Condition?O Yee (G) No n.emison P.nmaa70 v= @ No neoouionunroemed70 va @ No movi Initiator: Wakeland, J. F. ' ~ ~ '
VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O S*
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/14/98 {
sL Commente: Sargent & Lundy concluded that any inaccuracy in the surveillance tcet acreptance criteria resulting from the two minor errors identified in DR-MP3-1022 would be too small to invalidate the surveillance test results. Therefore SarDent & Lundy concurs that resolution of this discrepant condition may be deferred until after Unit 3 restart.
Prtnied 3/17S61:05:38 PM Pope 2 of 2
Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1030 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Desagn g
E^, _ Mechancel Design Discrepancy Type: Calculebon Om system / Process: NEW gg NRC Significance level: 4 Date Faxed to Nu:
Date Published. 2mD6 Diecrepancy: Engineering Evaluation M3 EV-970314 Description The purpose of Engineering Evaluation M3 EV-970314, Rev. O is to demostrate that post-accident boron diluation is impossible because the minimum RSS pressure on the shell side of the Containment Recirculation Coolers (E1 A, B, C, D) is greater than the maximum Service Water pressure on the tube side of the coolers (FSAR Section 6.2.2.2).
Four discrepancies were identified in Engineering Evaluation M3-EV-970314:
- 1. The calculation determines the minirnum RSS pressure at the CRS heat exchanger by considering the elevation difference between the spray header and the nozzles at the heat exchanger. However, in converting the static head in feet to psi, a factor of 2.308 ft/ psi is used (p. 3). This factor (144 in2/ft2)/(62.39 lbs/ft3) is based on a water temperature of 56F.
The temperature of the recirculating water entering the heat exchanger (sump water temperature) can be as high as 258F (US(B)-352 Tbl 5, p. 21). The temperature of the water leaving the heat exchanger will be lower (heat transfer to service water),
but will still be significantly higher than 56F. The higher RSS <
I water temperature and resulting higher conversion factor will result in a lower RSS pressure. The existing calculation is not conservative and the effect of a higher water temperature should be addressed.
- 2. The maximum service water pressure is calculated based on l a Normal Tide mean range Elevation of 3.2 feet (p. 3).
However, per FSAR Section 2.4.2.2, a probable maximum storm surge results in a still water level of 19.4 feet and the associated wave runup elevation is 23.8 feet. The higher water elevation results in an increase in service water pressure of approximately 8.9 psi ([(23.8-3.2]/2.308). The higher water level and resulting higher pressure should be addressed.
- 3. The RSS header elevation is not shown on Ref. 5 (Dwg. EP-79N-8). The reference should be to drawing EP-79P.
- 4. It is not understood why this calculation is documented in an Engineering Evaluation. Since the calculation is performed to verify that a requirement in the FSAR is met, it should be documented in a calculation to ensure proper tracking and filing.
Review Valid inveNd Needed Date initiator: Weiosiend. J. F. O O O 5/31/S8 vT L.ed: Nort, Anthony A B D D 2t2me ennica rime t e2e eu % "'- *' es',0Vor4 e
i l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1030 '
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report v7 Mer: Schoper, Don K O O O 2r2/98 wic chmn: singh, Anand K G O O 2tsess Date:
INVALID:
Date: 3/14/98 RESOLUTION DISPOSITION:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in items 1 and 3 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1030, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0796 (attached) will revise Technical Evaluation M3-97-0314, revision 0 to use a temperature consistent with the system being in operation and to correct the drawing reference post startup.
Based on our review it is determined that the conclusion will not be adversely affected by the revision to this evaluation. As such there is no effect on the license or design basis, therefore NU has concluded this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items 2 and 4 of D!screpancy Report, DR-MP3-1030, do not represent discrepant conditions.
- 2) The use of Maximum Probable Hurricane tidal elevations in this Technical Evaluation would in effect impose Maximum Probable Hunicane conditions in conjunction with a Category iV accident condition. A review of the FSAR Chapter 15 Safety Analysis discussions shows that these conditions are not expected to occur simutaneousaly. Safety systems are designed to be operable under required seismic and storm conditions such as the Maximum Probable Hurricane, however it is not a requirement to consider these extreme design conditions concurrently with Safety Analysis events. In addition, AOP 3569, Severe Weather Conditions (attached), requires an orderiy plant shutdown if sustained wind speeds greater than 90 mph are expected.
- 4) A review of EV-970314 demonstrates that the requirements of NGP 5.31 are satisfied. The evaluation involved is not complex in nature and is based on information extracted from validated sources such as drawings, approved calculations, the MP3 Technical Specification Bases and the MP3 FSAR. The Engineering Evaluation received an Independent Review and was approved by an Engineering Supervisor and Engineering Manager. The Engineering Evaluation was submitted to NDS, is listed in the Generation Records information Tracking System (GRITS) and is retrievable. The use of the Technical Evaluation format was appropriate.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a 1 I
discrepant condition.
Printed 3/17/961:07:32 PM Page 2 of 4
I Northe:st Utilities iCAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1030 j Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report {
CONCLUSION:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in items 1 and 3 of I Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1030, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0796 (attached) will revise Technical Evaluation M3-97-0314, revision 0 to use a temperature consistent with the system being in operation and to correct the drawing reference post startup. Based on our review it is determined that the conclusion will not be affected by the revision to this calculation and it is largely editoral in nature. As such, there is no effect on the license or design basis.
Therefore, NU has concluded this to be a Significance Level 4 issue.
NU has concluded that the issues reported in items 2 and 4 of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1030, do not represent discrepant conditions.
- 2) Safety systems are designed to be operable under required seismic and storm conditions such as the Maximum Probable Hurricane, however it is not a requirement to consider these extreme design conditions concurrently with Safety Analysis events. In addition, AOP 3569, Severe Weather Conditions '
(attached), requires an orderly plant shutdown if sustained wind speeds greater than 90 mph are expected in the next six hours.
- 4) A review of EV-970314 demonstrates that the Engineering Evaluation process satisfies all the requirements of the applicable procedure NGP 5.31.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.
Prev 60usly idenufled by NU7 U Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (e) No Resolution Pending70 va @ No P% Unr=*ed70 va @ No Review A=5^'
^
Not A- - -
Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/14/93 sL comments: Sargent & Lundy concurs that items 2 and 4 are not discrepant conditions.
Sargent & Lundy concurs that item 3 is a level 4 discrepancy which may be resolved after Unit 3 restart.
Sargent & Lundy also concurs that item 1 is a level 4 discrepancy which may be resolved after Unit 3 restart - based on the following evaluation:
If the RSS/SWP differential pressure were to occur at peak RSS sump temperature with a failure of a train of SWP pumps, the Printed 3/17G8107.34 PM Page 3 of 4
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1030 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l water in the RSS would be 258F (US(B)-352, Rev. 0/CCN 1,Tbl.
5, p. 21).
This hot water would chan9e the static RSS-side pressure at the top of the RSS HX by no less than:
(141'-9" - 48'4")/(2.459 ft/ psi) - (141'-9" - 48'-6")/(2.308 ft/ psi) =
2.47 psi This hot water would change the static RSS-side pressure at the bottom of the RSS HX by no less than:
{
(141'-9" - 10*-0")/(2.459 ft/ psi) - (141'-9" - 10'-0")/(2.308 ft/ psi) =
3.49 psi Even if credit is not taken for reduced density of heated SWP water on the tube side of the RSS HX and if credit is not taken for the effect of reduced RSS water density on the RSS spray nozzle pressure drop, the RSS pressure would still exceed SWP pressure by 17.3 psi at the top of the RSS HX and by 7.0 psi at '
the bottom of the heat exchanger.
l FYNed 3/17/981:07:36 PM Page 4 of 4
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1031 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review element: Modtheetion Design r"-:-: , my Type: Ucensing Document O vee SpJE-:==: NEW g
NRC Signiacance imi: NA Date faxed to NU:
Date Published 2/12/98 Discrepancy: DCR M3-97094 & FSAR CR 97-MP3-562 contain discrepant safety evaluation screenin0s.
DescripNon Modification DCR M3-97094 adds vents and drains to the thermal expansion loops at the discharDe of the containment recirculation system heat exchangers. This modification chances the condition of these thermal expansion loops from normally dry to normally filled with borated water during plant operation. Due to this change, Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1 requires changing.
Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1 states, "Each ECCS subsystem shall be demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 31 days by verifying that the ECCS piping, except for the RSS pump, heat exchanger and associated piping, is full of water by venting the ECCS pump casings and accessible discharge piping points."
This Technical Specification specifically excludes RSS piping from being filled with water, thereby excluding the thermal expansion loops from being filled with water. Consequently, Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1 must be changed as a result of DCR M3-97094. i i
The safety evaluation screenings for DCR M3-97094 and the related FSAR change submitted via FSAR CR 97-MP3-562 show that a Technical Specification change is not required.
Review vaad invalid Needed Date initiator: reingold, D. J. O O O 2/3/98 vT Lead: Nwi. Anthony A O O O 2r3/96 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 2/s/98 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 2/r/98 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 3/13/98 RESOLUTioni Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1031, does not represent a discrepent condition. A design principle of all ECCS systems is that they be completely filled at the time of use. Being filled enables the system to i respond in a minimum length of time. This is ensured by I keeping the systems filled at all times. An exception to this principle is made in the case of the RSS because the system takes its suction from the normally empty containment sump.
Prior to the need for RSS operation the sump will contain water released by the accident, and this will fill the unfilled portion of Printed 3/17/96122.59 PM Page 1 of 2
1 Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1031 '
milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report the RSS. The Technical Specification quoted above recognizes this exception by exempting portions of the RSS from being completely filled. The words in Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1 do not require the RSS to be empty. On the contrary, the text '
provides only that some of the RSS does not have to be full of water.
The change made by modification DCR M3-97094 does increase the amount of filled piping. This does not violate the requirement of tne Technical Specification. On the contrary, by enabling more of the piping to remain filled, the system more closely approaches the desired state of being completely filled. ,
Since the modification is in accordance with the requirement of I the Technical Specification, the finding of the safety evaluation i screening is completely correct.
Conclusion:
l NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, l DR-MP3-1031, does not represent a discrepant condition. The Technical Specification exempts parts of the RSS from being filled. This is not a requirement for the RSS to remain empty, it is only a reflection that the RSS will not be filled until an accident has occurred. The change made to the RSS which results in filling more of the system is not contrary to the requirements of i Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1. Consequently the safety i evaluation screenings performed for DCR M3-97094 and FSAR l CR 97-MP3-562 are correct in finding that no Technical l Specification change is required.
Previously identmed by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non D6screpentConmuonr(#) Yes Q No ne iunon Penang 70 v. @ No p+unroemed70 va @ No n.wie.
Initiator: Feingold, D. J.
~
~
VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/13/98 sL Comments: Technical Specification 4.5.2.b.1 states, *Each ECCS subsystem shall be demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 31 days by verifying that the ECCS piping, except for the RSS pump, heat exchanger and associated piping, is full of water".
Applying Northeast Utilities' interpretation of the Technical Specification provided in their response, the " associated piping" exempted from the surveillance could be defined as portions" of the RSS piping, not necessarily including the thermal expansion loops.
Northeast Utilities' response is found acceptable based on this interpretation of the Technical Specification.
Printed 3/17/98 t23:02 PM Page 2 of 2
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0067 j Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR REaOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: System Design
- '"*'"'S" N , ny Type: N d=Han O v.
SystemProcese: SWP g NRC W levet:4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed. W22/97 hwwy: Liner Plate Pad calculation discrepancy Descript6on: 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-V1.088,RO 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 stress is not critical.
Review Vaud inveNd Needed Date initiator: Palei, A.
O O O S/18/87 VT Leed: Nwi, Anthony A B O O S1787 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Ntc Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O S/1787 Q O O S/1787 oste:
INVALID:
Date: 3/8/98 RESOLUTION NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0057, does not represent a discrepant condition. The calculation preparer and reviewer had determined that the insert pad qualification is Govemed by anchor loading and therefore modeled the attachment directly over a single stud as discussed on page 14 of the calculation. Plate stress is not a critical parameter as discussed in the Master Calculation. The evaluation of maximum plate stress is generically addressed in calculation 12179-NS(B)-
054 Rev.1 ' Containment Liner Inser1 Plate Qualification - Master Calculation" which is Reference 1 in calculation 12179-SEO-V1.088.
Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepent condition.
L /: __., identland by NU? O yes (S) No NonDeserepentCondition?O yes (e) No eM% Pending?O yes @ N. p - % unresoeved7 O vos @ No Review initiator: Patel, A.
VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Printed 3/1746125:40 PM Page 1 of 2
r Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34067 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report mc M G. G ' @ @ @
Date: 2/12/98
, sL comments: NU disposition states that the preparer and reviewer had l determined that the insert plate qualification is govemed by anchor loading and therefore modeled the attachment directly over a single stud.
This determination (engineering judgment) is not clearly documented in the Calc. #12179-SEO-V1.088, page 14. It is recommended that the NU disposition explanation with regards to the plate stress evaluation in the Master Calculation be included 1
on page 14 of the subject calculation for documentation.
Also, Master Calculation # 12179-NS(B)-054, Rev.1, page 126 shows that the attachment is TS 4x4 where as the subject calculation uses TS 2x2. The use of larger attachment size would produce smaller plate stress.This item needs further evaluation by NU for proper engineering disposition.
S&L agrees with NU conclusion that the plate will not be overstressed. However, the engineering judgment used for this determination needs to be documented.
Pnnted 3/17/981:25:52 PM Pope 2 of 2
Norther.st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0326 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLtm0N REJECTED Review Element: Syelem Design Diecipline: m Design Discrepency Type: Calculation O vee g 9o System /Procoes: Oss NRC S:,Jt---s level: 4 Date faxed to Nu:
Date Putdished.1o/23/97 Discrepency. Calculation P(R)-931 Basis for Result
Description:
The summary of results indicates the summer heat gain by the RWST Coolers is 351 Blu/hr. The document does not provide the calculation for this number nor does it provide a reference for the number. The value cannot be verified as a correct input to this calculation.
Review Vend invalid Needed Dets initiator: Langel. D. 8 O O 10/10'87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 5o/1o'S7 VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K Q O O 10/13'87 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O so/1a/97 Date: 10/9/97 INVALID:
Date: 3/1/96 RESOLUTION: Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-00326 does not represent a discrepant condition. Although the details are not included in calculation P(R)-931, the stated results of 351 Blu/Hr can be reasonably repeated using the inputs to the calculation and the heat exchanger dimensions as shown on drawing 2214.603-056-001F, based on the K factor provided, calculated for two inches of insulation.
The value of 351 Ptu/Hr shown in the calculation was probably included to provide assurance that the summer heat gain would not have an impact on the system performance. The value is insignificant as a portion of the overall capacity of the coolers which are sized to remove 6,252,000 Btu /Hr with the RWST at a maximum of 110 'F and 289,200 Btu /Hr. with the RWST at a minimum of 48'F.
The value stated in the calculation is therefore insignificant, since the heat transfer could be increased by a factor of 10 and not be great enough to affect system operation.
No system failure can derive from the correctness or incorrectness of the referenced heat transfer value.
Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
Printed 3/17/981:27.52 PM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4P3 4326 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-00326 does not represent a discrepent condition. The value is insignificant as a portion of the overall capacity of the coolers, and althou0h details common in current standards are lacking, the stated results of 351 Blu/Hr can be reasonably repeated using the inputs provided in the calculation, Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
Previouslyidennaed try NU7 O Yes (9) No NonDiecrepentCorubuon?U Yes (9) No n olunonPending?O va @ No P% Unr=@ed?O va @ No n.*w initiator: Langel, D. '
VT Leed: Neri, AnthorrfA VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O B O ** i utc chmn: Skyh, Anand K Date: 2/26/98 sL comments: Using the calculation methodology with the inputs as described,
]
J the result is ten times the value in the calculation. The value j calculated is for each cooler. The conclusions of the calcula'Jon j are unchan0ed. We agree that this value is insignificant; however, there is an error in the calculation of this value.
\
Printed T17/96127:56 PM Pope 2 of 2 l
Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0763 Mitistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Eierwnt: Syelem Design Discipline: ElectricalDesign NE my Type: Calculation Ow SystemProcese: HVX @ No NRC SignNicancelevel: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published.1/11/96 Descrepency: Discrepancies involving Voltage Drop Calculations 209E,210E, and 212E Description. A. Comments Which Apply to All Three Calculations 209E (CCN
- 2, Rev. 0),210E (CCN #1, Rev. 0),212E (CCN #2, Rev. 0):
- 1. These calculations refer to Calculation NL-038 as the calculation of record conceming minimum motor control center bus voltage. However, Calculation NL-042 Rev. 2 CCN 5 l
(" degraded voltage") has lower voltage levels than NL-038 as shown below-MCC 209E/210E/212E NL-042 3EHS*MCC1A1 433 volts 427 volts 3EHS*MCC3A1 435 volts 427 volts '
3EHS*MCC181 428.6 volts 424.1 volts 3EHS*MCC1A2 430 volts 428 volts 3EHS*MCC381 435 volts 430 volts 3EHS*MCC3A2 431 volts 428 volts it is not clear why NL-038 and not NL-042 is referred to as the calculation of record.
l 4
- 2. These calculations state that they are for reference only ("not a living document"). They do not state what calculation (s) control and evaluate the effects of future additions, deletions, or changes, only that PDCRs which implemerit changes will address the voltage drop of the changed circuit.
- 3. Installed cable lengths, which are documented as attachments to these calculations, are often substituted for cable lengths listed in NU's cable raceway database "M3CBLRWY".
However, "M3CBLRWY" has not been updated to include these installed cable lengths, therefore, it is not clear how NU maintains control to guarantee that the same cable length is used for the same cable in all calculations. Examples of the differences in cable lengths (expressed in feet) are:
CABLE NUMBER M3CBLRWY AS-BUILT 3HVPAOC500 15 8 3HVPBPC500 12 8 and 9 (see Calc 210E below) 3HVPAOK515 175 105 3HVPAC0516 295 275 3HVPAOC520 135 158 3HVRCOC500 10 8 3HVRAOC502 10 8
'U-l\/prtTRi n 994 1071174 (cam Antra OnQF halew)
Printed 3/17/961:28.33 PM Page 1 of'9
l Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3-0763 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3HVRCOC512 375 285 3HVRCOC511 630 590 3HVRCOC513 130 120 3HVRAOC595 230 175 3HVRAOC594 230 160 3HVRAOC591 110 100 3HVRAOC596 150 525 3HVRAOC598 100 100 3HVRBPC581 285 340
- 3HVRBPC580 65 15 3HVRCPC525 25 15 3HVRCPC526 228 282 3EGFBPK600 105 210 3BYSNOL600 60 40 38YSNOL602 65 40 38YSNOL610 45 15 38YSNOL611 45 15 38YSNOL620 45 30 i 38YSNOL645 220 185 38YSNOL646 320 185 38YSNPL600 75 40 38YSNPL602 75 40 38YSNPL610 50 20 3BYSNPL611 50 20 3BYSNPL645 180 160 l
38YSNPL646 180 160
- 4. The vendor drawings and calculations differ from the vendor drawin0s and from each other in the values used for full load current for the dampers. The calculations are not consistent in j what type of current is used (i.e., full load or locked rotor) in computing voltage drop for the damper circuits, with Calculations 209E and 210E using full load current and Calculation 212E using locked rotor current. Calculation 209E uses the full load current value of 2.2 amps (based on minimum allowable voltage of 102 volts). Calculation 210E uses the full load current value of 1.92 amps (based on 230 VA + 120 volts). Calculation 212E uses the locked rotor current value of 4.0 amps (based on a l memo of a telephone conversation with the vendor attached to the calculation as Attachment E). These calculation values do not agree with Vendor Drawings 2472.900-594-212B and 2472.900-154-213B which reflect a full load current value of 2.0 i amps and a locked rotor current value of 10.0 amps.
Calculations 209E and 210E should use the locked rotor current l when performing the voltage drop calculations, just as Calculation 212E does, but using the vendor's certified drawing data (as it is the most conservative). The test data included in Attachment C of Calculation 212E (this is shown in Attachment H of Calculation 209E and Attachment F of Calculation 210E) indicates that the startin0 current (locked rotor current) is 8.4 amps which disagrees with the data in the telephone cunversation. The data in the telephone conversation should only be used (in lieu of the data from the vendor drawings) if a justification is provided to indicate why it is more suitable than the vendor's drawina data.
Pdnted 3/175381:28:37 PM Page 2 or 9 -
I
l Northerst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34763 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 5. When converting the primary cable impedance (this is the impedance from the motor control center to the panel step down transformer) from the primary side of the transformer to the secondary side of the transformer, Calculation 210E considers the transformer boost but Calculations 209E and 212E do not.
Calculations 209E and 212E should be revised.
- 6. The transformer impedance of the panel steg>down transformer neglects the tolerance when determining the ohmic value. A justification for neglecting this tolerance should be stated or the tolerance should be included.
- 7. These calculations state in their CCN " Reason for Change" that they extracted panel voltages from Calculation 154E, however a review of Calculation 154E indicates that it is only a loading calculation and does not provide voltages. This note should be revised.
- 8. The current at the panel loads is based on using the nominal 120 voit current rating. This current may not be constant as the panel voltage dips below 120 volts. The current should be based on actual device terminal voltage.
B. Calculation 212E (CCN #2,Rev. 0)
)
- 1. Attachment A Page 72 shows the 120 voit source for Dampers 3HVR* MOD 49A, 3HVRWOD50A, 3HVR* MOD 49C1, and 3HVRWOD50C1 as Panel 3SCV*PNLR10 which is fed from Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC1 A2. This disagrees with the One Line Dia0 ram EE-1CC (Rev. 31) and with Calculation 212E, Pages 23-29 which show these dampers as fed from Panel 3SCV'PNL50 (which in tum is fed from Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC3A2). This appears to be a documentation discrepancy with no impact on the calculation's results.
- 2. Attachment A, Page 72 shows the 120 voit source for Dampers 3HVR* MOD 498,3HVR* MOD 49C2,3HVR* MOD 50B, and 3HVR* MOD 50C2 as Panel 3SCV*PNLR1P which is fed from Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC182. Panel 3SCV*PNLR1P is shown on ESK-6AEA (Rev. 6) and ESK-6AEB (Rev. 3) as feeding the relays associated with the dampers. This disagrees with Schematic Diagrams ESK-6AEA and ESK-6AEB which show these dampers as fed from Panel 3SCV*PNL9P. The One Line Diagram EE-1CC also shows these dampers as fed from Panel 3SCV*PNL9P (which in tum is fed from Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC381), which is the power source used in Calculation 212E, Pages 37-50. This appears to be a documentation discrepancy with no impact on the calculation's results.
- 3. The minimum voltage used for Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC3B1 is 435 volts (Pace 39). but Attachment A Paae Prned 3/17/961:28:37 PM Pape 3 of 9 Y
i Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34763 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 72 of Calculation 212E indicates that the voltage used for 3EHS*MCC381 should be 429 volts when evaluating Damper 3HVR* MOD 468. This would have a nonconservative effect of reducing the voltage at the damper's terminals.
- 4. On Page 39, the bus-to-neutral voltage is shown as 112.34 volts for Panel 3SCV*PNL9P, but it is shown as 112.33 volts on Page 40. This should be corrected, but this has no impact on the results of the calculation.
- 5. Page 67 shows Circuit 11 as spare, but One Line Diagram EE-1CG (Rev. 22) and Calculation 154E (Rev.1, CCN 1) shows the loads 3SWP*STRIB and 3SWP*STR1D connected to this circuit. This circuit and the effect of this load on the panel's voltage should be analyzed.
- 6. The impedance of #12 AWG cable at 90 degrees C is shown in NUSCO Spec. SP-EE-269 as 2.2155 ohms per 1000 feet, but this calculation has used a value of 2.1515 ohms per 1000 feet throughout (e.g., Pages 19,20,22, etc.). Since this is a non-conservative error, the computations should be redone.
C. Calculation 210E (CCN #1, Rev. 0)
- 1. Calculation 210E Page SE shows that, when evaluating Dampers 3HVR* MOD 28A and 3HVR* MOD 46A, the voltage at Motor Control Center 3EHS*MCC3A1 is 431 volts. However, Pages 49A and 59A show the voltage of Panel 3SCV*PNL90 as 112.67 volts which is derived from a motor control center voltage of 435 volts (Page 45), not 431 volts. This leads to less conservative results.
- 2. Calculation 210E Page 49A has omitted a routing point.
Wiring Diagram EE-12F (Rev. 9) shows Cable 3HVRAOC225 terminating at Junction Box 3JB*2519 (not at Junction Box 3JB*2507 as shown in the calculation), but it also includes Cable 3HVRAPC224 (which is not shown in the calculation) as connected between Junction Boxes 3JB*2519 and 3JB*2507.
Cable 3HVRAPC224 is 25 feet in length, has a Cable Mark Number of NHT-32, and is size #14 AWG. This additional cable will reduce the voltage at the damper's terminals.
- 3. The ir, stalled length of Cable 3HVPBPC500 is shown as 8 feet long on Page 82 and 9 feet long on Page 77A.
- 4. Page 91 shows Circuit 20 as spare, but One Line Diagram EE-1CC (Rev. 31) and Calculation 154E shows loads (e.g.,
3RSS*LE22B1) connected to 'his circuit. This circuit and the effect of this load on the panel's voltage should be analyzed.
- 5. Circuit 20 of Panel 3SCV*PNL90 indicates that the current is one amp for load 3SWP*RlY60A, but Calculation 154E shows this load as 2 amps. The appropriate calculation should be Pnnted 3/17/98128:38 PM Page 4 of 9
Northeast utsties ICAVP M No. M MP34783 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report revised to reflect the actualload current. Note: Using a 2 amp load would reduce the voltage at the load to 103 volts which still satisfies the minimum allowable voltage requiremerW of 98 volts.
- 6. On Page 52A, the cable mark number shown for Cable 3HVRAOC674, Mark Number NHN-40, does not exist in the NU Cable Database M3CBLRWY. The mark number for this cable, according to M3CBLRWY, is NHN-48. The calculation should be revised to reflect the actual cable installed. Note that the cable size used in the computations agrees with the size in M3CBLRWY (i.e., #14 AWG). l
- 7. On Page 76, the cable Mark Number NHT-77 (triplex 500 MCM) shown for Cable 3SCVBPK045 does not agree with the mark number shown in M3CBLRWY which is NHP-82 (triplex #8 (
AWG). The calculation should be revised to reflect the actual cable installed. Note that the cable size used in the computations agrees with the size in M3CBLRWY (i.e., #8 AWG).
- 8. Page 83A Steps 4 and 6 compute the circuit impedance by taking twice the cable length. This is the way to compute impedance for a single phase circuit, however this is a three phase circuit and the circuit impedance for these steps is equal to one times the cable length (Step 8 converts impedance to line-to-line).
- 9. On Page 76, the primary cable impedance is computed for a
- 6 AWG cable, but the cable is a #8 AWG cable. The Impedance computations shown in Steps 3 and 5 should be q
deleted as Page 76A now computes these values and, in effect, supersedes Page 76. ,
D. Calculation 209E (CCN #2, Rev. 0)
- 1. In Calculation 209E, the minimum voltage for Motor Control Center 3EHSWCC1 A1 is shown as 432 volts in Step 2 on Page 38 but is shown as 433 volts in Step 8 of Page 38 and on Page 60 of Attachment A.
- 2. The voltage drop is computed by Calculation 209E for the circuit with the longest run from Junction Box 3JB*8609 to Dampers 3HVP'1WlOD20A,3HVP* MOD 20C,3HVP* MOD 23A, and 3HVP* MOD 26A. Page 39 uses the cable length of 90 feet for Damper 3HVP* MOD 23A because it states that this damper has the longest circuit length. However, Attachment D (attached to Calculation 200E as Page 72) states that the length of Cable 3HVPAOC520 from Damper 3HVP* MOD 20A to Junction Box SJB*8000 is 158 feet. Since the length of Cable 3HVPAOC520 is longer than the cable fmm 3JB*8609 to Damper 3HVP* MOD 20A, Cable 3HVPAOC520 should be used.
Therefore, the resulting voltage drop of Calculation 209E is not conservative. The effect of using 158 feet insteed of 90 feet from Junction Box 3JB*8609 to the dampers is that the damper terminal voltane is 107,9 volts instead of 108.7 volts. which is Prtreed 3/17/981282 PM Paes 5 of 9
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4763 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report still above the minimum allowable of 102 volts and is acceptable.
- 3. The installed length of Cable 3HVRCOC510 is shown as 197 l j
feet long on Page 76 and 175 feet long on Page 77. l
- 4. Unlike Calculations 212E and 210E, Calculation 209E does not use the panel load from Calculation 154E but instead uses a value greater than the load in Calculation 154E but less than the panel's step-down transformer rating. Calculation 209E should state how this load value is determined (i.e., the basis), since it is a different percenta0e of the transformer rating for the various panels.
- 5. There are several numerical errors involving impedances and currents in this calculation (as well as Calculations 210E and j 212E). For example, on Page 8 Step 3, the primary impedance is computed as 0.2 ohms but should be 0.1 chms !
(conservative). On Page 54, Circuit 32 shows the load as 5 i
amps, but it is shown in Csiculation 154E as 0.5 amps '
(Calculation 209E is conservative).
- 6. On Page 36 Step 6, the circuit impedance is computed by taking iwice the cable length. This is the way to compute impedance for a single phase circuit, however this is a three phase circuit and the circuit impedance for Step 6 is equal to one times the cable length (Step 8 converts impedance to line-to-line). In Step 8, the drop (4.16 amps times the impedance) should be multiplied by the square root of 3 (reference Page 83 of Calculation 210E). In addition,in Step 4 the primary impedance does not include the effect of the transformer boost 4 when referring it to the secondary side of the transformer. In Step 5 Line 3, the voltage 208 should be squared (it has been squared in the result shown in Step 5, Line 4).
Review Vand invaNd Needed Date initiator: KendeN,D.J.
VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A O O O $2/s/97 G O O $2ss7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G D D 52/11/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O t/5s0
- Dete:
INVALlo:
Date: 3/10/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0763,has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which have been conected. As a result of the corrective actions of CR M3-97-0119 and LER 97-010, numerous problems and inconsistencies were noted in the 120VAC calculations.
Consequently, calculations 209E,210E and 212E have been superseded by a new calculation 97-ENG-01512E3(attached). All of the items identified are minor in nature and have no effect on the overall outcome of the calculation. These items are not being Printed 3/17/981:28Ao PM Pege 6 of a
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0763 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report addressed individually since calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 is new I and has reverified information and documented all inputs, methodology and conclusions using today's stanaards.
Therefore, since the inconsistencies in the calculations referenced were prediscovered and the calculations have been replaced, this not a discrepant condition.
Conclusion:
l NU has concluded the Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0763,has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which have been corrected. As a result of the corrective actions of CR M3-97-0119 and LER 97-010, numerous problems and inconsistencies were noted in the 120VAC calculations.
! Consequently, calculations 209E,210E and 212E have been superseded by a new calculation 97-ENG-01512E3(attached). All ,
of the items identified are minor in nature and have no effect on J the overall outcome of the calculation. These items are not being addressed individually since calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 is new and has reverified information and documented all inputs, methodology and conclusions using today's standards.
Therefore, since the inconsistencies in the calculations i referenced were prediscovered and the calculations have been replaced, this not a discrepant condition. J; Previouslyidentised by NU7 O Y.s (9) No NonDiscrepentCondition?O vos (G) No Resolution Pending70 ve. @ No n iuison unr. solv.d70 v
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K
! Date: 3/10/98 SL Comments: A. ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCREPANCIES AND ARE RESOLVED:
- 1. Items A1, B3, C1, and D1: the motor control center volta 0es have been updated basad on CCNs made to Calculations NL-038 (Duke Engineering # VN4500-F02-001) and NL-042 (Duke En91neering # VN4500-F02-003) which were prepared on 7/22/97 through 11/6/97. NU states that these items were previously identified, however, these CCNs were prepared after the cutoff date of 6/19/97, therefore, these items are still discrepancies.
l l 2. Items A2, A5, A6, A7, C7, C8, C9, D3, D4, and D6: these items are no longer applicable because Calculation 97-ENG-l 01512E3 eliminated the computation of voltage drops from the motor control centers to the distribution panels (this is now done by Calculation NL-038). NU states that these items were previously identified, however, Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 was prepared on 11/12/97 which was after the 6/19/97 cutoff date, therefore, these are still discrepancies.
l Printed 3/17/96128 42 PM Pope 7 of 9 I
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0763 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
- 3. Items A4, A8, B1, B2, B4, B5, B6, C2, C3, C4, CS, D2: these i items have been resolved by Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3. NU l states that these items were previously identified, however, l Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 was prepared on 11/12/97 which I was after the 6/19/97 cutoff date, therefore, these are still I discrepancies. l B. ITEMS WHICH ARE NON DISCREPANT CONDITIONS:
ltem C6: the damper associated with this item has been disconnected, therefore, Sargent & Lundy concurs with NU that ,
this item is not a discrepant condition.
l C. ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCREPANCIES AND ARE NOT RESOLVED:
- 1. Item DS: Although Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 resolved the numerical discrepancy examples cited in DR-MP3-0763 concomin0 Calculations 209E,210E, and 212E, Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 has several numerical and formula discrepancies of its own:
l The formula shown on Page 12 for determining the voltage across the load device is incorrect. The formula shown is VD1 =
(VS
- ZD1) / (ZC1 + ZD1), but it should be VD1 = (VS'
- ZD1) /
(ZC1 + ZD1) based on the following al0ebraic manipulations:
VS' = 11 * (ZD1 + ZC1) = (VD1/ ZD1) * (ZC1 + ZD1) or VD1 = (VS'
- ZD1) / (ZD1 + ZC1)
Note that VS does not equal VS'.
NU should verify what impact this has on the results of Calculation 97 ENG-01512E3. Sargent & Lundy has reviewed nine random circuits and concludes that this formula must not have been used as Sargent & Lt.ndy's results agree with the results shown on Attachments D1, E1, F1,11, and J1.
Page 13, Article 4
- Acceptance Criteria", states that the computed voltage at the device should exceed the minimum voltage required by the device. Most of the voltages at the devices meet this criteria, however, Page 7, Article 2.12 states
! that it is acceptable for devices to have computed voltages 0.3
! volts below the minimum voltage required by the device due to assumed conservatism in the manufacturer's required minimum voltage requirements. Sargent & Lundy does not believe it is acceptable to have a firm acceptance criteria (such as shown in Article 2.12) but not adhere to it (such as Article 2.12) without adequate justification. The statement in Article 2.12 needs to be t substantiated by documented evidence (e.o.. manufacturer's l Printed 3/17/98128:44 PM Pa0e 8 of 9 l
l l
f Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0743 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report written concurrence) or propose a different and substantiated argument (e.g., ambient temperature is lower than the 40 or 90 i degree C value which the calculation is based on, the device's power factor is below the assumed 0.8, the unscheduled cable length is less than the assumed 15 feet, etc.) in ortier to confirm that these safety related devices will be able to function.
Pa0e 2a omits Panel 3SCV*PNLR10 (it is shown as 3SCV*PNLP10).
Article 2.7 states that the length of unscheduled cable is considered to be 15 feet (or 30 feet of circuit length), however, l
the resistance used for Panel 3SCV*PNLR1P Circuits 19,20,21, and 22 assumes a 15 foot circuit length (0.0029 W/ foot times 15 l feet = 0.004 W) which is non-conservative. Compare the {
resistance of these circuits with those of Circuit 13 and 23 of i Panel 3SCV*PNLR10 (or the other panels) which use 0.09 W.
The effective device impedance 'Zd" is shown as 30.06 W for 3HVR*RlY10A/RE10A and 3HVR*RlY10B/RE10B in Attachment 11 and 59.41 W for 3HVR*RlY19A/RE19A and 3HVR*RlY198/RE198 in Attachment F1. These values should be essentially the same, however, Attachment 11 incorrectly computes "Zd" by using a device impedance of 60 W for the "RE" l type devices instead of 6000 W (60 W in parallel with 60 W is 30 W; 60 Win parallel with 6000 W is 59 W).
- 2. Item A3: As far as Calculations 209E,210E,212E, and replacement Calculations 97-ENG-01512E3 are concemed, Sargent & Lundy agrees that this is not a discrepancy. However, the Generic question raised in this Discrepancy Report of how NU maintains control of their cable lengths was not addressed by NU in their response, i
l l
l I
Printed 3/17/961:28:44 PM Page 9 of 9
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0789 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR REsOLUTeoN REJECTED Potential Operability leeue Diecipline: ElectricalDesign Discrepancy Type N Ow SystemProcese: DGX e No NRC significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed 1/11/98 Diecrepency: Discrepancies involving 120 Volt Panel Calculations 151 E, '
154E,182E, and 211E Description A. Calculation 151E (CCN #6, Rev.1)- VBA Panel Loading
- 1. Pages 4,43,82, and 110 of Calculation 151E show the l voltage of the ragulating transformers as 480-240/120 volts.
This disagrees with the One Line Diagram EE-1BA (rev. 21) which shows the voltage of these transformers as 480-120 volts.
Calculation 151E needs to be revised. This discrepancy has no impact on the results of this calculation. ,
- 2. The load on Circuit #6 of Vital Bus Panel 3A (Page 100) is ;
incorrect. Item C multiplies 3 lights by 5 VA per light and arrives l at 10 VA, not 15 VA. The load of Circuit #6 should be 65 VA, not ;
60 VA, which causes the load on Pages 82 (Circuit #1) and 94 j (Circuit #6) to be 2496 VA instead of 2491 VA and the total 1 Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB3 load on Page 82 to be 6001 VA instead of i 5996 VA. I B. Calculation 154E (CCN #1, Rev.1)- Dist Panel Loading
- 1. Dampers 3HVR* MOD 45B1,3HVR* MOD 45C1, 3HVR* MOD 45B2 and 3HVR* MOD 45C2 are shown as air operated dampers ("AOD"), not motor operated dampers on Attachment 9 (Pages 2 & 10), Attachment 10 (Pages 2 & 12),
and Attachment 19 (Items 50 and 62). Note that One Line '
Diagram EE-1CC (Rev. 31) also shows 3HVR* MOD 45B1 and 3HVR* MOD 45C1 as "AOD", but Schematic Diagram ESK-7QZ l (Rev. 8) shows them as
- MOD". The appropriate documents should be revised to reflect the correct identification.
- 2. Calculations 209E (Rev. O, CCN 2),210E (Rev. O, CCN 1),
and 212E (Rev. O, CCN 2) use load currents or panel loads which are less than those shown in Calculation 154E for the transformers or panels shown belovr.
- a. Calculations 210E (Pa0e 68) and 209E (Page 43) use a load of 12 KVA for Transformer 3SCV*XD10 but the transformer load is 12.983 KVA in Calculation 154E (Calculations 209E and 210E need to use this for the primary current only).
- b. Calculations 209E (Page 8) and 212E (Page 8) use a load of 12 KVA for Transformer 3SCV*XD1P but the transformer load is 12.906 KVA in Calculation 154E (Calculations 209E and 212E need to use this for the primary current only).
r- ('nir niinfinn ?inF (panne 7A nnel 7AA) nicmc n Innr1 nf 191(\/A
~
Printed 3/17/98129:56 PM Page1 or 8
1 1
=
l Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0789 !
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report for Panel 3SCV*PNL25P but the panel load is 2.846 KVA in l Calculation 154E.
- d. Calculation 210E (Pages 45 and 45A) uses a load of 4.9 KVA for Panel 3SCV*PNL90 but the panel load is 5.383 KVA in Calculation 154E.
- e. Calculation 212E (Page 39) uses a load of 5 KVA for Panel SSCV*PNL9P but the panel load is 6.221 KVA in Calculation 154E.
- f. Calculation 210E (Pa0es 83 and 83A) uses a load of 12.9 KVA for Panel 3SCV*PNLH2B but the panel load is 13.341 KVA in i Calculation 154E. i l
- 0. Calculations 209E,210E, and 212E should be revised to use i the above values from Calculation 154E. This will reduce the voltage at the panels (a non-conservative effect).
The impact of the above discrepancies need to be assessed. ;
i C. Calculath>n 182E (Rev.1, CCN 1)- Panel Voltage Profile
- 1. In Ahachment 1, Pages 55 and 57, the load current at 240 volts is shown as 29.2 amps for 3SCV*PNLR10. Calculation 154E (Rev.1, CCN 1) shows that the load is 7,342 VA which equals 30.6 amps at 240 volts. Since the value in Calculation 182E is nonconservative, Calculation 182E should be revised to raflect the actualload from Calculation 154E.
- 2. In Attachment 1, Pages 59 and 60, the load current at 240 volts is shown as 29.2 amps for 3SCV*PNLR1P. Calculation 154E shows that the load is 7,225 VA which equals 30.1 amps at 240 volts. Since the value in Calculation 182E is nonconservative, Calculation 182E should be revised to reflect the actual load from Calculation 154E.
- 3. Attachment 1 Column 6 is titled "V MIN / KV", however, half of the sheets compute the minimum panel voltage and half of the sheets compute the maximum panel voltage. To avoid confusion and possible misinterpretation of data, Attachment i should be reidentified so that the sheets which compute maximum panel volta 0e are labelled as such. An attemative would be to add a clarifying statement to the body of the calculation.
- 4. Several computed values in Attachment 1 have been incorrectly entered into Tables 2,7 and Sa. In Table 2, the minimum voltage for 3SCV*PNLH2A should be 192.5 volts and not 194 (see Att.1, Page 56), and the minimum volta 0e for 3SCV*PNLH2B should be 192 volts and not 193 (see Att 1, Page 59 which computes the voltage as 192.5 which should be rounded down for the " minimum voltage" entry). In Table 7, the minimum voltage for 3VBA*PNL-VB3 should be 101 volts and not 118 (see Att.1. Pace 55). In Table 8a. the minimum voltaae PrWed 3/17/98 030:01 PM Pa0e 2 of 8
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0789 ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report for 3VBA-PNL-6B should be 190 volts and not 200 (see Att.1, Page 51 which computes the voltage as 199.5 which should be l rounded down for the " minimum voltage" entry) and the I maximum voltage should be 201 volts and not 200 (see Att.1, Page 52).
1
- 5. In Table 7, the minimum voltage for 3SCA-PNL9N should be i 214 volts and not 215 as Attachment 1 computes the voltage for I 4
this panel as 214.5, and it should be rounded down for the
" minimum voltage" entry.
- 6. Tables 7 and 8 are misleading in that for some panels, the l
" minimum" panel voltage is greater than the " maximum" panel voltage (this is due to the fact that the panel current is sometimes larger for the " minimum" voltage run than for the
' maximum" voltage run - see SVBA*PNL-VB1 for example). The numbers in these tables are not really the minimum and maximum panel voltages but rather the panel voltages when NL-038 is run at the minimum and maximum runs (611 and 603, respectively).
- 7. In Attachment 11 Page 30 Transformer 3SCV*XD24P is shown as a 480-120/208 transformer, but One Line Diagram EE-1 AE shows this as a 480-240/120 volt transformer. This node sketch should be corrected and, if the program is based on the Page 30 configuration, then the program needs to be corrected as well.
- 8. In Attachment il Page 33, Transformer 3VBA-XRC-6 is shown as a 60 KVA transformer, but One Line Diagram EE-1BA shows this as a 75 KVA transformer. This node sketch should be !
corrected and, if the data in the OPAL program is based on the i Page 33 sketch, then the program needs to be corrected as well. j
- 9. This calculation uses the results of Calculation NL-038, but Calculation NL-042 is now the calculation of record for minimum i bus voltage and should be used for minimum bus voltages (NL- l 038 should still be used for maximum bus voltages). l
- 10. Assumption #6 provides the demand factors assigned to the paneld in this calculation but does not provide the basis for these demand factors. A reference to a calculation such as Calculation NL-025 should be made to identify the basis for the demand factors used in Calculation 182E.
D. Calculation 211E (CCN #3, Rev. 0)- VBA Panel Voltage Drop
- 1. This calculation states that it is for reference only ("not a living document"). It does not state what calculation (s) control and evaluate the effects of future additions, deletions, or changes, only that PDCRs which impioment changes will address the voltage drop of the changed circuit.
- 2. In CCN #3. the inrush current is considered for the J10 relays Printed 3/17/961:30:02 PM Page 3 of 8
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4789 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report in Circuit #22 of Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB1 and Circuit #20 of Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB2. There is no documentation to Indicate that inrush current has been consiGered in other circuits, even though !
other circuits have relays with inrush currents (e.g., Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB1 Circuit #10, Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB2 Circuits #10 and #20. and Bus 1 A Circuit #5 also have J10 relays). The effect of inrush current needs to be addressed for those circuits which have devices with inrush currents.
- 3. The loading in Calculation 211E does not agree with Calculation 151E (Rev.1, CCN #1). The latest loads are:
3VBA*PNL-VB1: 11,694 VA ( 97.45 amps @ 120 volts) 3VBA*PNL-VB2: 12,210 VA (101.75 amps @ 120 volts) 3VBA*PNL-VB3: 6,001 VA (50.01 amps @ 120 volts) '
3VBA*PNL-VB4: 2,098 VA (17.48 amps @ 120 volts)
- 4. These loads will decrease the panel voltage for Panels 1 3VBA*PNL-VB1 and 3VBA*PNL-VB2 as follows (using the inverter tolerance of-2.4 volts and the impedance of 0.083 W /
1000 feet for a #4/0 AWG cable):
3VBA*PNL-VB1: 117.6 - 1.6 = 116.0 V 3VBA*PNL-VB2: 117.6 - 1.2 = 116.4 V The effect that these lower voltages have on the panel loads needs to be assessed.
- 5. Calculation 211E computes the panel current using the nominal 120 voit output rating of the inverter (e.g., see top of Page 19) as opposed to using a reduced voltage of 117.6 volts when incorporating the inverter's tolerance. Calculation 211E considers a reduced inverter output voltage elsewl:ere in the calculation (e.g., see bottom of Page 19), therefore, the reduced voltage should be used when comput%g current (both overall ,
panel current as well as that of individual load devices), unless it can be documented that the loads fed from the panels are constant-current devices (i.e., current is not affected by voltage variations).
- 6. Using the latest load data from Calculation 151E and the -2.4 voit inverter tolerance, the voltage at 3HVR*FS278 is 104.7 volts and at 3HVR*FSS2B/988 is 104.96 volts (CCN #2 Page 6) which are less that the voltage of 105 required on Page 15 of CCN #2. Note that these occur during a transient condition.
- 6. On CCN #2 Page 12, the cables used to determine the voltage drop from 3HVR*PNL4B to 3EHS*MCC3B1 and from 3EHS*MCC381 to 3JB*1314 are size #12 AWG cables, however CCN #2 Page 11 shows that the cable from 3EHS*MCC3B1 to 3JB*1314 is a #14 AWG cable (this was confirmed by review of cable database M3CBLRWY) Using the appropriate cable impedance, plus the latest load data from Calculation 151E and the -2.4 volt inverter tolerance, the voltage at 3HVR*FS52A/98A is 104.96 volts (CCN #2 Pace 12) which is less that the voltsoe PrWed 3/17/9e 1:30:03 PM PeGe 4 or 8
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-WIP3 4789 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report of 105 required on Pa0e 15 of CCN #2. Note that this occurs during a transient condition.
- 7. The cable length used on Page 13 for Cable 3RPSAOC505 is shown as 321 feet, however cable database M3CBLRWY shows this cable length as 267 feet. Calculation 151E shows the load for this circuit as 112 VA, not 89 VA. These two discrepancies have no impact on the results of this calculation.
- 8. On Page 16, the cable number for Circuit #19 is 3VBA10C810 (verified by M3CBLRWY and One Line Diagram EE-11 A, Rev.13).
- 9. The cable description is missing for Cable 3VBANOK510 (Page 18, Circuit 21). It is 2/C, #12 AWG,1000V, CU.
- 10. Circuit #2 on Panel 3VBA*PNL-VB2 is shown as " SPARE' but is shown in Calculation 151E as a 360 VA circuit (3RPS*RAKSET6). Therefore, the voltage at the load for this circuit is indeterminate because it has not been evaluated.
- 11. On Page 25, the cable sizes for Cables 3RPS2WK800, 3RPS2WK801,3RPS2WK802, and 3RPS2WK803 are shown as
- 6 AWG, but a review of M3CBLRWY shows that these cables are #12 AWG. This reduces the load volta 0e to 116.8 volts (Circuit #7) and 112.6 volts (Circuit #8) which are still s,bove the minimum required volta 0e.
- 12. On Page 26, the load for Circuit #10 is shown as 89 VA, but Calculation 151E shows this load as 112 VA. This discrepancy has no impact on the results of this calculation.
- 13. On Pages 36 and 37, the Cable Mark Number is shown as NHP-98, but a review of M3CBLRWY shows that the Cable Mark Number is NHP-97. This discrepancy has no impact on the results of this calculation.
Review Vand invahd Needed Date initletor: Kondeu.D.J. 8 O O 2/irss7 VT Lead: Nui, Anthony A B O O $2/ises7 VT Mor: schoper, Don K O O O 12/23/97 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 1'5/S8 Date:
INVAUo:
Date: 3/11/93 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0789, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU wh!ch requires correction. Attachment 1 summarizes each of the issues identified in the DR and provides a disposition.
Deficiency Numbers 2,17,18,22,23,26,27,29,31,32,33 and Printed 3/17/961:30:04 PM Page 5 of 8
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0789 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Repost 34 as defined in Attachment 1 are considered valid. These items are either minor or editorial in nature and do not affect the outcome of the calculation, therefore NU considers these valid items to be Significance level 4 issues. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0378 will track and correct these items post startup.
NU has concluded that items 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, 14,15,16,19,20,21,24,25,28 and 30 are not discrepant as indicated on Attachment 1, therefore Significance level criteria do not apply to these items.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0789, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Of the 34 items identified on the DR, only 12 are considered valid and require correction.
Deficiency Numbers 2,17,18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 as defined in Attachment 1 are considered valid. These items are either minor or editorial in nature and do not affect the outcome of the calculation, therefore NU considers these valid items to be Significance level 4 issues. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0378 will track and correct these items post startup.
NU has performed a general calculation review for electrical calculations to identify si0nificant issues which would require correction prior to restart. While there are clarifications and cleanup items that can be made as well as cont alidation and simplification, these issues do not require comr letion before restart and are considered enhancements.
NU has concluded that items 1,3,4,5,6,7,6,9,10,11, ??,13, 14,15,16,19,20,21,24,25,28 and 30 are not discrepant as indicated on Attachment 1, therefore Significance level criteria do not apply to these items.
Previously klentined by Nur O Yes (S) No Non 9'-~ , M Condition 70 vos (@ No n=wooonP.ndina70 va @ No neunradv.d70 va @ No n.wi Initiator: Kandell, D. J.
~
~
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/11/98 st Cornments: NU states in the disposition and conclusion sections of DR-MP3-0789 that items 2,17,18,22,23,26,27,29,31,32,33, and 34 as defined in NU's Attachment 1 are discrepancies and that CR M3-96-0378 will track and correct these 12 discrepancy items post startup. NU's disposition block states that Attachment 1 provides a disposition for each item, however, Attachment i does Printed 3/17/981:30:oS PM Pope 6 or 8
}
l - _ _ _ _ - -
c ,
, Northeast Utilitiec ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0789 l Millstorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '
! not identify items 26 or 33 as discrepancies and it clearly identifies item 27 as not a discrepancy, therefore, Attachment 1 and the disposition / conclusion do not agree. A copy of CR M3 0378 is attached to DR-MP3-0789, and the attachment to CR M3-98-0378 identifies items 2,23,26,27,33, and 34 as non discrepant (leaving only 6 items as discrepancies, not the 12 stated in the disposition / conclusion blocks of DR-MP3-0789).
Section 5 of CR M3-98-0378 identifies items 23,26,27,33, and 1 34 as non discrepant (leaving only 7 items as discrepancies, not 1 the 12 stated in the disposition / conclusion of DR-MP3-0789).
Since NU's disposition / conclusion states that CR M3-98-0378 will ,
track and correct the discrepancies, NU should ensure that CR M3-98-0378 is consistent with the disposition / conclusion blocks of DR-MP3-0789.
I A. ITEMS WHICH ARE NON DISCREPANT CONDITIONS:
Items 1,3,24,25, and 30 - Based on clarification provided in ,
NU's response to DR-MP3-0789, Sargent & Lundy concurs that !
these items are non discrepant conditions.
B. ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCREPANCIES AND ARE RESOLVED:
- 1. Items 4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10: These items have been resolved by Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3. NU states that these items were previously identified, however, Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 was prepared on 11/12/97 which was after the 6/19/97 cutoff date, therefore, these are still discrepancies. (NU states that CR M3-97-0119 and LER-97-010, which weie prepared on 1/13/97 and 2/28/97, respectively, pre-discovered these discrepancies, however, these documents addressed auxiliary power de0 reded voltage concems and not the specific discrepancies identified in items 4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 of this discrepancy report which are resolved instead by Calculation 97-ENG-01512E.)
- 2. Item 21: This item has been resolved by CCN #4 to Calculation 211E. NU states that this item is not a discrepancy as a result of Calculation 211E CCN 4, however, a search of PORTAUG2 indicates that CCN 4 to Calculation 211E was prepared in December 1997 which was after the 6/19/97 cutoff date, therefore, this is still a discrepancy.
- 3. Items 11,12,13,14,15,16,19, and 20: These items are no longer applicable because Calculation 97-ENG-01512E3 eliminated the computation of voltage drops from the motor control centers to the distribution panels. The distribution panel l voltages are now computed by CCNs 7,8,9, and 10 made to Calculation NL-03 (Duke Engineering #VN4500-F02-001) which were prepared on 7/22/97 through 11/6/97. NU states that these items are not discrepancies because of updated (i.e., CCNs 7,8.
Printed 3/17/961:30:07 PM Page 7 of 8
l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0789 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j 9, and 10) voltage drop and load flow calculations in Calculation NL-038, however, since these CCNs were prepared after the 6/19/97 cutoff date, these items are still discrepancies. (NU refers to CR M3-97-0119 and LER-97-010, which were prepared on 4 1/13/97 and 2/28/9, respectively, but the specific discrepancies I identified in items 11,12,13,14,15,16,19, and 20 of this discrepancy report are resolved instead by Calculation NL-038.)
NU's response states that Calculation 182E has been superseded by Calculation NL-038, however, NL-038 Revision 2 CCN 10 still lists Calculation 182E as a reference (see Page 1 of NL-038 CCN 10 and Reference #6.1.17 in NL-038), and a 3/10/98 search of PORTAUG2 shows that (1) 182E is still valid, and (2) NL-038 only supersedes Calculation 227E, not Calculation 182E.
j C. ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCREPANCIES AND ARE NOT RESOLVED:
ltems 2,17,18,22. 23,26,27,28,29,31,32,33, and 34 : NU has concluded that these items are discrepant conditions and will be tracked and completed under CR M3-97-0378. Since item 31 involves a safety related circuit that has not been evaluated, it remains a Level 3 discrepancy because the results are indeterminate. (item 31 is the only Level 3 discrepancy in DR- l MP3-0789.)
i l
I Printed 3/17/961:30:06 PM Page 8 of 8 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0793 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR REsOLUrloN REJECTED Review Element: system Design Diecipune: Electrical Design F i Type: NW Om Systemproceae: N/A gg NRC signiacencelevel: 3 Date faxed to Nu:
DatePubMehed 1/1096 Discrepeacy: Inconect values used for motor full load current (Calculation l
129E).
Description This calculation determines the maximum motor control center loading based on feeder voltage drop.
l l
The calculation uses motor full load current from the NEC which is based on 460V but the MCC loading is based upon a MCC voltage of 422 Volts.
Page 7 of the calculation references Calculation 119E for ampacity values. This caiculation is superseded by Calculation 193E which is not available for review.
Review Vaud invaud Needed Date initiator: Crockett, Ed.
VT Leed: Nei, Anthony A O O O 12/i247 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O $2iierD7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K
@ Q Q 12/2347
@ O O 12/31/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/12/98 I stEsOLUTioN NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a discrepant condition. The !
calculation used motor load amperes at 460 Volts. The motors would draw hi0her current at lower voltages because the motors are constant power devices. Since the motors tend to be loaded i less than the nameplate rating the increase in current would be offset. The calculation method is reasonable for the purpose of .
sizing cables. 2 The DR has identified calculation 193E " Duct Bank Ampacity for Power Feeds to ESF Building-Duct Bank 903 & 904* was not available for review. A copy of calculation 193E has been attached for Sargent and Lundy use.
Calculation Change Notice (CCN) 3 posted against 129E states the calculation of record for voltage profile is NL-038. Also, An Assessment of Critical Calculation MP3 Electrical Distribution System in support of the MP310CFR50.54(f) effort was completed March 21,1997. This effort was documented in Engineering Repost M3-ERP-97-0002. The calculation 129E was reviewed from an administrative and technical assessment standpoint. One of the general comments from the review stated, This calculation was used in the design process and no longer provides a design basis for MP3 and can be voided Printed 3/17/981:33:36 PM Page 1 of 3
l l
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0793 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Condition Report (CR) M3-97-1217 was written to track the recommendations of the Engineering Report M3-ERP-97-0002.
Item 3 of the approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) established a tracking number in the Action item Tracking and Trending System (AITTS) as A/R 97009922-03 for consolidating and voiding calculations. The item is scheduled for completion post startup.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, doeu not represent a discrepant condition. A copy of calculation 193E is attached for Sargent and Lundy use. Calculation 129E is being voided since it no longer provides a design basis for MP3.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition. )
Previously identifled by NU7 O Yee @ No NonDiscrepentConstion?U Yes @ No Ru@ tion PenengkO va @ No Res@tionUnrused?O va @ No Review A Needed Me initiator: Womer, I. .
VT Leed: Nei, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/12/98 sL Comments: The DR identifies a conditions in which potentially non-conservative current values are used in a MCC loading calculation.
NU's response states:
The motors would drew higher current at lower voltages f' because the motors are constant power devices. Since the motors tend to be loaded less than the nameplate rating the increase in current would be offset. The calculation method is reasonable for the purpose of sizing cables.
While this is a good " rule of thumb" approach to calculating current loading, FSAR section 8.3.1.1.4.2.a6 states:
The criterion for safety related motor size is that the motor develop sufficient horsepower to drive the mechanical load under runout or maximum expected flow and pressure whichever is greater. Safety related motors are sized to permit the driven equipment to develop its specified capacity without exceeding the temperature rise rating of the motor when operated at the duty cycle of the driven equipment. Safety related motors are, in General, provided with a 1.15 service factor. Some 4 kV motors Printed 3/17/981:33.30 PM Pege 2 of 3
Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0793 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report are provided with a 1.0 service factor. Motors are sized to y handle the driven equipment requirements without i encroaching on the service factor during normal operating conditions.
Precautions are taken to ensure that the runout load does not exceed the service factor ratin0 .
The argument used in NU"s response implies that brake hp is always less than 92% (422/460) of the motor nameplate. Since the FSAR allows a 1.15 service factor and, in fact, implies that motors can be sized up to the 1.0 SF rating it would be prudent to ;
verify brake horsepower loadings and calculate the worst case current at degraded voltage.
Without verification that the worst case currents are used in the calculations we still classify this DR as a level 3 discrepancy.
l l
i
?
PrWed 3/17/9e 1:33AO PM Page 3 of 3
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4793 mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Condition Report (CR) M3-97-1217 was written to track the recommendations of the En0ineering Report M3-ERP-97-0002.
item 3 of the approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) established I
a tracking number in the Action item Tracking and Trending !
System (AITTS) as A/R 97009922-03 for consolidating and I voiding calculations. The item is scheduled for completion post startup.
t Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a discrepant condition. A copy of calculation 193E is attached for Sargent and Lundy use. Calculation 129E is being voided since it no longer provides a design basis for MP3.
Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition. '
Next; identified by Nu? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (9) No n.aolution Poneng70 va @ No p + unresoeved7 0 v a @ No nevi Initiator: womer, L
- "*' - "**d*d "*'*
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O m2m l
VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/12/98 sL comments: The DR identifies a conditions in which potentially non-conservative current values are used in a MCC loading calculation.
NU's response states:
The motors would draw higher current at lower voltages because the motors are constant power devices. Since the motors tend to be loaded less than the nameplate rating the increase in current would be offset. The calculation method is reasonable for the purpose of sizing cables.
While this is a good " rule of thumb" approach to calculating current loading. FSAR section 8.3.1.1.4.2.a6 states:
The criterion for safety related motor size is that the motor develop sufficient horsepower to drive the mechanical load under runout or maximum expeded flow and pressure whichever is greater. Safety related motors are sized to permit the driven equipment to develop its specified capacity without exceeding the temperature rise rating of the motor when operated at the duty cycle of the driven equipment. Safety related motors are, in general, provided with a 1.15 service factor. Some 4 kV motors Printed 3/17/961:34:15 PM Pepe 2 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3-0793 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report are provided with a 1.0 service factor. Motors are sized to
{
, handle the driven equipment requirements without l
encroaching on the service factor during normal operating conditions.
Precautions are taken to ensure that the runout load does not exceed the service factor rating.
The argument used in NU"s response implies that brake hp is always less than 92% (422/460) of the motor nameplate. Since the FSAR allows a 1.15 service factor and, in fact, implies that motors can be sized up to the 1.0 SF rating it would be prudent to verify brake horsepower loadings and calculate the worst case current at degraded voltage.
Without verification that the worst case currents are used in the calculations we still classify this DR as a level 3 discrepancy.
l I
l l
l
)
Printed 3/17/961:34:17 PM Page 3 of 3
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR ND. DR-MP3-0806 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: system Design Discipline: Electrical Deegn gm
. :y Type: ceiculation Ow systemerocess: N/A @ No NRC significencelevel: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished.1/10S8 I Descrepancy: Battery and DC System Calculation Discrepancies Description
- A. Calculation SP-MS-EE-011 (Rev.1)
- 1. This calculation contains tabs which derive data from numerous calculations which have been superseded l Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 does not state if the data from these superseded sources is still valid, only that SP-M3-EE-011 "is to ;
maintain and preserve documentation that serves as references )
for the DC calculations", including " portions of previous I calculations". The superseded sources should be evaluated to determine if they are still valid and, if they are, confirm in writing as part of Calculation SP-M3-EE-011, and if they are not, to be replaced with data from active calculations. For example, Tab 65 references and includes selected pages from Calculation 188E. Page 2 of Tab 65 shows the battery profile of Battery #3 and this profile shows a minimum voltage of 108.6 volts at a constant amp rate of 163 amps. However, the current battery calculation used for Millstone Unit 3 is BAT 3-96-1245E3 (Rev.
0), and it shows (on Pa0es 3 and 5 of Attachment H) that the minimum volta 0e is 106.66 volts at a varying load of 165.66 to 177.03 amps.
A listing of these superseded calculations which are referenced and include portions of themselves in Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 are:
Reference to Calc. Which i Tab Superseded Calc. Supersedes {
4,9,69,70,71,72, 91-019-086E3 BAT 2-96-1243E3 109,111,113 15,28,29,30,108 214E BAT 1961241E3 17,27 215E BAT 196-1241E3 17,25,26,107 216E BAT 196-1241E3 17 223E BAT 2-96-1243E3 17,110 225E BAT 2-96-1243E3 17,112 226E BAT 2-96-1243E3 '
31,32 213E BAT 196-1241E3 105.106 91-019-087E3 BAT 1-96-1241E3 65,67,68,116 188E (see "X" below)
"X" = BAT 1-961241E3, BAT 2-96-1243E3, BAT 3-96-1245E3, BAT 4-961246E3, and BAT SYST-1240E3
- 2. Installed cable lengths, which are documented as attachments to this calculation, are often substituted for cable lengths listed in NU's cable raceway database "M3CBLRWY".
p o_.._.._, m .
. . . . . - - - . . . - - - . o.m..m.m._ <___._ m._a. 1 _,.2. ___
- .www
....'r-----""--7 'g g
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0806 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report installed cable lengths, therefore, it is not clear how NU maintains control to guamntee that the same cable length is used for the same cable in all calculations. Examples of the differences in cable lengths are shown on Tabs 16 through 21 of the calculation. Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 states on Tab 16 that triplex cables should have their linear length increased by an additional 3% to account for the twisted conductors. It is not i clear if this calculation or other calculations which use triplex cables for voltage drop calculations (e.g.,200E,210E,212E, l
etc.) have increased the cable lengths by 3%.
l B. BAT 196-1241E3 (Rev.1) & BAT 2-96-1243E3 (Rev.1)
- 1. Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 (Rev.1) Tab 66 states that the minimum voltage required for an HFA relay is 60% (of 125 volts) for the operate coil and 75% (of 125 volts) for the reset coil, but the Path Volta 0e Drop Summary sheets of Calculations BAT 1 1241E3 and BAT 2 96-1243E3 use a minimum voltage of 76 volts (75 volts plus 1 voit for intemal wiring) for both coils.
Calculations BAT 1-96-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 should be revised to a0ree with Calculatbn SP-M3-EE-011. This discrepancy does not have an affect on Calculations BAT 1 1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 because the node voltage is always much Greater than the rating of the HFA reset coil (94 volts).
- 2. Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 Tab 33 states that the wattage of an Amerace (A0astat) 7000 series coil is 8 watts which equates to 8W /125V = 0.064 amps. Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 Tab 4 states that the amps of this coil is 0.07 amps or 0.14 amps. The value used in the Load Tabulation sheets of Calculations BAT 1-96-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 is 0.06 amps which is less than Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 and is therefore not conservative.
Calculations BAT 1-961241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 should be revised to agree with Calculation SP-MS-EE-011. This discrepancy does not have an affect on Calculations BAT 1 1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 because these devices are not energized during the battery load profile.
- 3. Calculation SP-M3-EE-011 Tab 4 states that the inrush current of a Gould J131TE relay is 160 volt-amperes, but Calculations BAT 1-96-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 use a value of 160 amps for inrush in the Load Tabulation sheets Calculations BAT 196-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 should be revised to a0ree with Calculation SP-M3 EE-011. This descrepancy does not have an affect on Calculations BAT 1 1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 because the inrush current is not used during the battery load profile.
- 4. Calculations BAT 1-96-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 state,in the Qmmary of Results" (" Device Voltage"), that a voltaQe drop analysis is not performed for all devices. Documentation could not be found in this calculation or other calculations which justify that adequate voltage will exist at these devices when these devices are roouired to operate in any of the scenarios listed in Printed 3/17/961:35:o5 PM Pa0e 2or 12
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0806 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Calculation BAT-SYST-1240E3 (Rev.1).
- 5. Appendix A includes a one line diagram for the battery, charger, and battery panels and loads. In Calculation BAT 1 1241E3, Cables 3EGFBPK600,3ENSBPK605,3EGEBPK600, 3EGSBPK600, and 3EGSBPK601 have lengths which are twice as long as shown in NU Cable Database M3CBLRWY. Other cables shown in the one line, as well as all cables shown in the one line of Calculation BAT 2-96-1243E3, agree with M3CBLRWY.
In the one line diagram .in Calculation BAT 2-96-1243E3, Cable 3ENSAOK605 is shown as a #12 AWG cable, but M3CBLRWY shows this cable with a Mark Number NHT-93 which is a #6 AWG cable.
In the one line diagram in Calculation BAT 2-96-1243E3, Cable 3CES60C110 is shown as a #14 AWG cabla, but M3CCLRWY shows this cable with a Mark Number NHQ-47 which is a 24/C
- 16 AWG cable.
Review vand invand Needed Date initiator: Kandell, D. J.
O O O 12 iia /97 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A 8 O O 12/18/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 12/23/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 12/31/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date: 3/4/96 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-M3-0806 has identified two conditions (B.3, B.5) not previously discovered by NU which require correction.
item B.3.
Calculation BAT 1-96-1241E3 & BAT 2-96-1243E3 has to be revised to reflect the correct inrush rating for Gould J131TE relays. Correct inrush rating is 160VA, not 160 amperes as currently used in the two calculations. This error does not affect the calculated values used in the battery load profiles presented in the calculations.
Because this discrepancy does not have an affect on the calculations, NU considers this discrepancy to be a Significance Level 4.
The corrective action plan approved in CR M3-98-0668 will correct this error post startup.
Item B.5.
Issues presented in item B.5 that are discrepancies.
In the one line diagram of Calculation BAT 2-96-1243E3, cable 3EGEBPK600 is designated as a #12 AWG, which agrees with Printed 3/17/961:35:07 PM Page 3 of 12
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0806 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report the cable raceway schedule. The database within the calculation indicates that it is a 210 foot #4 AWG cable. The voltage drop calculated using the correct cable conductor (#12 AWG) is .74 volts compared to a voltage drop of .22 volts used in Calculation BAT 2-E1243E3, Attm. B, page 4 of 187. This results in a margin of 7.61 volts instead of the previous margin of 8.12 volts. This is a discrepancy which has no impact on the calculation conclusion, therefore NU considers it a Significance Level 4.
The corrective action plan approved in CR M3-98-0668 will correct this error post startup.
Cable 3ENSAOK605 is not identified correctly on the one line diagram (Appendix A page 2 of 2) in Calculat'on BAT 1 1241E3 (Note - discrepancy report references the wrong calculation - BAT 2-96-1243E3) . It's correct cable Mark Number is NHT-93 which is a #6 AWG cable rather than a #12 AWG cable. Calculation Change Notice #7, Rev.1 has corrected this error. The correct cable values were used in the calculation.
Because this discrepancy has only a minor impact on the calculation NU considers it a Significance Level 4.
Issues presented in item B.5 which are not discrepancies.
Cable 3CES80C110 has a Mark Number of NHT-93 which is a
- 6 AWG cable. What is presented in the One Line Diagram i (BAT 1-96-1241E3) is an equivalent length in terms of a #14 AWG cable for all the cables. CCN #7 has required the terms
- equivalent level" to be added to the diagram. The correct cable values were used in the calculation.
NU considers this part of item 5.8 to not represent a discrepant condition.
Cables 3EGFBPK600,3ENSBPK605,3EGEBPK600, 3EGSBPK600 & 3EGSBPK601 are in shown on the one line diagram in Appendix A, page 2 of 2 of Calculation BAT 2 1243E3 (not in BAT 1-41241E3 as indicated in the discrepancy report). The cable lengths shown on the one line diagram are loop lengths (exactly double the cable length value presented in the calculation). This issue in item B.5 does not constitute a discrepancy because the correct cables lengths are used in the calculation.
NU has concluded that the other five items (A.1, A.2, B.1, B.2, B.4) reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0806 do not represent discrepant conditions.
Item A.1.
The specification SP-M3-EE-011 is referenced as a calculation throughout the DR. This document is not a calculation but a specification as stated on its title page. The purpose of this document is to ease the tracking of references and can be used to find other reference sources that are readily available such as specifications. An example of this is the solenoid operated valves. While minimum voltaoes are indicated in the reference Printed 3/17/981:35:08 PM Page 4 of 12
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0806 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report specification, the original specification numbers are also provided as the real source document, in this respect, the reference specification is used to capture documents that are in the nuclear documentation system for ready retrieval and also as an engineering tool to lead the user to original source documents. The difference in values between SP-MS-EE-011 and Calculations BAT 1-1241E3 and BAT 2-1243E3 as explained in item A.1 do not represent a discrepant condition.
Item A.2.
The control in the DC calculations are provided by having a centralized or main database. For consistency, calculation of voltage drop to panels and components are performed using this single database. The NU's cable raceway database contains 'as designed' or ' cut length's' of cables which was used to facilitate construction. It is acceptable to have this conservatism in the calculations. To move a step further, if 'as installed
- cable length information is available to use in the calculations, it is be acceptable. The main DC feeder cables from the battery to the main distribution switchboards and from these switchboards to distribution panels have been reviewed (via walkdown inspections) to provide more accurate values.
Since the most conservative value (cut length) is used in these l calculations unless a more accurate length is determined (by I walkdown). NU does not consider this a discrepancy.
Item B.1.
The HFA relay has a minimum voltage of 60% of its 125VDC I rating to pickup. Calculations BAT 1 1241E3 and BAT-1243E3 uses this value (75VDC) plus one volt (one voit accounts for contact and intemal wiring resistance) to develop the 76VDC requirement for both coils. This value envelopes the 75% value to reset the coil. As stated in the DR this issue voltage does not effect the calculations because the node volta 0e (94VDC) is i always much greater than the rating of the HFA reset coil. NU does not consider this a discrepancy because the difference in values between SP-M3-EE-011 and Calculations BAT 1-1241E3 and BAT 2-1243E3 as explained in item A.1 do not represent a discrepent condition.
Item B.2.
The 8 watts A0astat rating was used as an input to the calculation. The computer program rounds calculated values to the accepted method of roundin0 up when the value is 5 or above and down when it is 4 or below. This is acceptable when considering the third decimal place in a calculation.
NU does not consider this a discrepancy because the difference in values between SP-M3-EE-011 and Calculations BAT 1-1241E3 and BAT 2-1243E3 as explained in item A.1 do not represent a discrepent condition.
Item B.4.
The majority of components have voltage drop calculated to ensure proper operation and are documented in Attachment B of the calculations. All critical components that are connected diredly to the DC distribution system are calculated for voltaae ,
Prirded 3/17A161:35:00 PM Page 5of 12
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0808 minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report drop. The assumption is that if the specified voltage for the control panel (i.e. skid mounted equipment) is available, then voltage drop does not necessarily have to be calculated to l
Individual components for that panel.
NU does not consider this a discrepancy.
The above five issues do not represent discrepant conditions only clarification of specific issues, as a consequence, determination of Significance Level is not required.
J
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-M3-0806 has identified two items (B.3, B.5) not previously discovered by NU which require conection. The wrong component rating identified in item B.3 did not effect either calculation and the wrono cable designation in item B.5 caused a minor change to the cable's voltage drop determination. The approved corrective action plan for CR MS-96-0668 will correct both issues post startup. Because these items represent minor enors which have no impact on the calculation conclusions, NU considers this a Significance Level 4 DR.
NU has concluded that the other five items (A.1, A.2, B.1, B.2, B.4) reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0806 do not represent discrepent conditions. Only issue clarification was needed for these items.
M."-?; identified by Nu? O Yes (9) No NonDiscrepentCondition?Q Yes (e) No n.conmionPenanntO Y @ No p-% unresoived70 v.o @ No Review initiator: KondeN,D.J.
VT Lead: Nei, Anthony A 0 B Q VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K oste: 3/4/98 sL Comments:
item A.1 Sargent & Lundy a0rees that SP-EE-011 is a specification and not a calculation. This document states that it's purpose "is to maintain and preserve documentation that serves as references I for DC calculations". The example provided in this Discrepancy Report is just one example of how documentation was not i maintained. Until the purpose is revised, this is still a discrepancy because the inconsistencies between this specification and the j battery calculations.
Item A.2 As far as SP-EE-011 is concemed, Sargent & Lundy agrees that this is not a discrepancy. However, the generic question raised in ;
this Discrepancy Report of how NU maintains control of their cable lengths was not addressed by NU in their response.
Printed 3/17/961:35:10 PM Page 6 or 12 j
Northecst Utinties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0806 minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Furthermore, the statement that the most conservative value (i.e.,
cut length) was used in the battery sizing calculation is only true in regard to voltage drop calculations and is not true of short ,
circuit calculations (where the shortest cable length would be the 1 most conservative) which are also performed in the battery sizing i calculation. 1 items B.1 & B.2 l
Sargent & Lundy agrees with NU's response that this is not a j discrepancy. l l
ltem B.4 i Sargent & Lundy agrees that, for those circuits required to l operate under the scenarios described in Calculation BAT-SYST- !
1240E3, NU has modeled and analyzed each of those circuits and that NU has concluded these circuits are able to perform their I safety-related function. The point in question is for circuits included in the battery sizing calculations (e.g., BAT 1-96-1241E3, i BAT 2-96-1243E3, BAT 3-96-1245E3, BAT 4-96-1246E3) but which are not required to operate, Sargent & Lundy could not find evidence (e.g., a calculation) which addresses whether safety-related circuits such as the following breaker circuits would have adequate voltage at the close and trip coils (90 and 70 volts, respectively) to be able to perform their safety-related function under normaloperating conditions:
Skr Load: Description (Device ID) 32R01-2: 480V Bus 32R Supply Breaker (3EJS*ACB-AC) 32R04-2: MCC Aux Bidg (3EHS*MCC3A1) 32R05-2: MCC Rod Control Area (3EHS*MCC3A2) 32R06-2: Aux Bldg Air Filter Unit (3HVRTLT1 A) 32S-1T-2: Bus Tie to Bus 32R (3EJS*ACB-T2A) 32S01-2: 480V Bus 32S Supply Breaker (3EJS*ACB-AB) 32S07-2: Fuel Badg Filter Assembly (3HVRYLT2A) 32T-1T-2: Bus Tie to 326 (3EJS*ACB-T1 A) 32T01-2: 480V Bus 32T Supply (3EJS*ACB-AA) 32T05-2: MCC Control Building (3EHS*MCCA12) 32T06-2: MCC Cire. & Serv. Wtr. Pump Hse. (3EHS*MCCA15) 32T09-2: MCC Safeguards Area (3EHS*MCC1 A4) 32Y-1T 2: Bus Tie to 32R (3EJS*ACB-T4A) 32Y01-2: 480V Bus 32Y Supply (3EJS*ACB-AD) 15G-140 2N: EDG Neutral Breaker (SENS*ACB-GNA) 23SA3-34C-2: RSST Supply to 34C (SENS*ACB-AR) 34C01-2: 480V Load Center 32Y (SENS*ACB-AD) 34C03-2: 480V Load Center 32T (SENS*ACB-AA) 34C04-2: 480V Load Center 32S (3 ENS *ACB-AB) 34C05-2: 480V Load Center 32R (3 ENS *ACB-AC) 34C06-2: Quench Spray Pump (3QSS*P3A) 34C07-2: Residue Heat Removal Pump (3RHS*P1 A) 34C08-2: Safety injection Pump (3SlH*P1 A) 34C10-2: Reactor Plant CCW Pump (swing pump) (3CCP*P1C) 34C20-2: Containment Recirc. Pump P1C (3RSS*P1C) 34C21-2: CVCS Charnina Pumo P3A (3CHS*P3A)
Printed 3/17fJ61:35:12 PM Page 7 of 12
R I
Northeast Utmtieo ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 6808 mmstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 34C22-2: CVCS Charging Pump PSC (swing pump)
(3CHS*P3C)
To illustrate the point in question, Sargent & Lundy reviewed the '
i control circuit for 4KV Circuit Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR which is not required to either close or trip as shown in Calculation BAT 1 96-1241E3. The following are the results of this review. !
Five circuit paths were reviewed from the incoming fuses at Switchgear 3 ENS *SWG-A to the close coil 52X for breaker .
3 ENS *ACB-AR (Schematic Diagram 12179-ESK-5BD, Revision 24), and the associated cable number and Mark #, conductor ]
size, conductor length, and 900C resistance are shown below, starting at the load side of the fuse at the positive polarity:
Path A: Wire PC1 from SENS*SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM);
Wire PC1 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MBS (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MB5 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 WM); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNI.AS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet 0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 4.0237 ohms at 6 amps, or 24.14 voltage drop for Path A.
Path B: Wire PC1 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); ,
Wire PC1 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable l 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 W/ft); Wire COS from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire COS from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3RPS*RAKOTXA (Cable ;
3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 '
from 3RPS*RAKOTXA to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-80, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire CO3 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 foot 0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); W6re CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MB5 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14, 298 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 W/ft);
Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNI.AS (Cable 3ENSAOC353.
Printed 3/17/981:35:13 PM Page 8 of 12
Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0808 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26,
- 14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 6.2977 ohms at 6 amps, or 37.79 voltage drop for Path B.
Path C: Wire PC1 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT 80, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire PC1 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire COS from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire COS from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire CO6 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*PNLBG30 (Cable 3ENSAOC354, NHT-35, #14,110 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO7 from 3CES*PNLBG30 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC354, NHT-35, #14,110 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO7 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT 60, #12,158 feet. 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C07 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet.
0.0055465 W/ft); Wire CO2 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14, 298 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB5 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 W/ft);
Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet, 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet. 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26,
- 14,130 feet,0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet, 0.0034171). Total resistance is 5.8739 ohms at 6 amps, or 35.24 voltage drop for Path C.
Path D: Wire CO3 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet. 0.0021421 W/ft);
Wire CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet, 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire CO2 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MBS (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3CESWCS-MB5 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet,0.0055465 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet, 0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 4.0237 ohms at 6 amps, or 24.14 volta 0e drop for Path D.
Path E: Wire CO5 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet 0.0021421 W/ft); CO5 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to 3RPS*RAKOTXA (Cable 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 from 3RPS*RAKOTXA to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable Prirded 3/17M181:35:13 PM Page 9 or 12
so,meast utsti ICAVP M No. M.MP36 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO3 from SENS*SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, N HT-32, #14, 298 feet, 0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MBS to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet 0.0055465 W/ft);
Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26,
- 14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 5.8739 ohms at 6 amps, or 35.24 voNage drop for Path E.
Similarly, the circuit resistance from the swNchgear fuses to the trip coil of Circuit 3 ENS *ACB-AR is 1.0984 and 3.1350 for two paths that were reviewed, resulting in voltage drops of 6.59 and 18.81 volts, respectively.
As noted in the review, the voltage drop for the close coil of ,
Circuit 3 ENS *ACB-AR, ranging from 24.14 to 37.79 volts, is I significant. Since 90 volts is required at the close coil, a voltage of 114 to 128 volts is required (90 + 24 = 114 and 90 + 38 = 128) at Switchgear 3 ENS *SWG-A (and an even higher voltage at 38YS*PNL1 and the battery terminals). This would suggest that NU is taking credit for the charger, and not the battery, supplying power to de loads during normal operation, for the battery would not be able to sustain a voltage level of that magnitude.
However, if the charger failed, the battery would supply power to the de loads, but the battery would not te able to fumish adequate voltage to the close coil of 3 ENS *ACB AR (the battery would, however, be able to adequately supply power to the de loads listed in the scenario described in Calculation BAT-SYST-1240E3). [ Note: There is a spare charger connected (but not energized) to Panel 38YS*PNL1 which could supply power to the :
loads if the normal charger failed, however, the battery would still need to fumish power to the de loads until the spare charger was energized. If 3 ENS *ACB-AR was required to operate during this period, it could not fumish the necessary 90 volts at the close coil of 3 ENS *ACB-AR due to the aforementioned large voltage drop.]
In addition,if the charger, and not the battery,is supplying power to dc loads during normal operation, then on a 4KV bus undervoltage, the charger is disabled (on loss of power) and a bus fast transfer from the normal supply to the reserve supply cannot be performed because this Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR cannot close (because the battery cannot provide the required 90 volts to the close coif). Sargent & Lundy requests that NU:
A. Provide the calculation (s) or other documentation to verify '
that the de control circuits for the safety-related services listed Printed 3/17/961:35:14 PM Page to or 12
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0806 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report above have been analyzed for voltage drop and adequate voltage exists at the close and trip coils. If such documentation does not exist, then:
- 1. Concur (or indicate NU's differences) with Sargent & Lundy's l analysis of Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR as described in this discrepancy report.
- 2. Verify that NU relies on the charger rather than the battery for supplying power under normal operating conditions to the de loads. If the battery is relied upon, explain how the battery can supply these loads with adequate volta 0e to operate the close and trip coils. If the spare charger is relied upon, explain how the loads are adequately powered from the time the normal charger fails until the time the spare charger is energized.
- 3. If the charger is relied upon for supplying de loads during normal operation, either concur with Sargent & Lundy's conclusion that fast transfer cannot be accomplished, or if NU disagrees with Sargent & Lundy's assessment, then explain how fast transfer is accomplished.
l Item B.5 l A) NU's disposition states that Cable 3CES80C110 is a NHT-93 ;
cable (#6 AWG) disagrees with the Cable Schedule M3CBLRWY l which was reviewed on 2/25/98. M3CBLRWY does not have an i entry for Cable 3CES80C110 (referenced in NU's response to this l Discrepancy Report), but it does have an entry for 3CES80C110 i (the letter O after number 8), and it is identified as Mark # NHQ-47 which is a 24/C #16 AWG cable. Therefore, there is still a discrepancy, if not in the battery sizing calculations, then in the Cable Schedule M3CBLRWY.
B) NU states that an aquivalent length of #14 AWG cable is used for the cable run from 38YS*PNLDG1F to 3EGS*TBEG1 A (Circuit #5). This is only true if 3CES80C110 is a #16 AWG cable:
At 20 degrees C,1049 feet of #14 AWG cable = 1049
- 0.00268 ohms /ft = 2.8 ohms.
At 20 degrees C, (350 feet of #12 AWG cable) + (700 feet of
- 14 AWG cable) + (82 feet of #16 AWG cable for 3CES80C110)
= 350
- 0.00168 ohms /ft + 700
- 0.00268 ohms /ft + 82
- 0.00435 ohms /ft = 2.8 ohms.
If 3CES80C110 is a #6 AWG cable, this would equate to 2.5 ohms (#6 AWG is 0.00419 ohms /ft at 20 degrees C) and is not equal to 1049 feet of #14 AWG. (Cable lengths taken from M3CBLRWY.)
Sargent & Lundy agrees that the chan0e made to the calculation in CCN #7 addresses the " equivalent length" issue, however, this is still a discrepancy for the reasons noted above.
Printed 3/17/9e 1:35:15 PM Page 11 of 12
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0806 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report C) NU states that the lengths shown on the One Line Diagram for Cables 3EGFBPK600,3ENSBPK605,3EGEBPK600, 3EGSBPK600, & 3EGSBPK601 are loop lengths and not cable lengths. Sargent & Lundy concurs that, upon performing a manual voltage drop computation, the correct lengths were used l
In the volta 0e drop calculations of BAT 2-961243E3. However, this is still a discrepancy because the One Line Diagram l represents these cables in the same manner as Cables 3ENBBPK600, 3EJBBPK620, 3MSSNPK601, 38YSNPK601, 38YSNPK607, 38YSNPK603, 38YSNPK604, 3BYSNPK605, l
3BYSNPK606, 3EJBBPK605, 3RPSBPC601, 3EJBBPK610, 3EJBBPK615, 3EGFAOK600, 3ENSAOK605, 3EGEAOK600, 3EGSAOC600, 3EGSAOK600, 3ENBAOK600, 3EJBAOK621, 3MSSNOC602, 38YSAOC600, 38YSNOK610, 38YSNOK601, 38YSNOK602, 38YSNOK603, 38YSNOK604, 3BYSNOK605,
! 38YSNOK606, 3EJBAOK605, 3RPSAOC601, 3EJBAOK610, and 3EJBAOK615, yet the lengths shown on the One Line Diagrams for these cables are cable lengths and not loop lengths. In other words, the lengths must all be assumed to be cable lengths OR loop lengths, unless otherwise noted on the One Line Diagrams.
I i
i l
Printed 3/1W961:35:16 PM Pa0e 12 or 12
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0810 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: System Design Diecipune: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: ChW Om systemProcese: DGX g
NRC W level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putnehed. i/10/96 D6ecrepency: Could not locate Calculation which verifies adequacy of Control circuit voltage at 4kV breakers
Description:
Design Basis Summary Document 3 ELE-001, Rev.1, paragraph 12.2.3 states:
The control voltage for the 4160 V breaker shall be nominally 125 V DC ungrounded. The closing coil shall operate over a range of 90 to 140 volts. The tripping coil shall operate over a range of 70 volts and 140 volts.
Since the breakers may be required to operate at any time and at any range of acceptable battery voltage the ICAVP review attempted to verify that adequate voltage was always available at the closing and tripping coils, especially during minimum DC bus voltage.
We could not locate any calculations which evaluated control cable voltage drop, therefore we could not confirm that the breakers are always operable.
Review vond inveNd Needed Date initiator: Womer, I.
8 O O i2/i7/97 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O O t2/i7/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 0 0 52rzxs7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O $2/33ro7 Date:
INVALID:
Date: 3/13/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:
NU has concluded that the issue reported Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0810, does not represent a discrepant condition. Calculation BAT 196-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 (125VDC Calculations) provide the available voltage at electrical devices during specific operating scenarios and compare these values to minimum required operating voltages. In both calculations (one for each 1E train), Attachment B, Node ID #8 provides the voltage at the breaker trip /close coils for the evaluated scenario. For each device in a table format, the operating scenario, the voltage at the device (protective relays, trip /close relays, etc), and the required voltage is identified.
Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant Printed 3/17/961:36:56 PM Page 1 of 6
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0410 Millstorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report condition.
Conclusion:
NU has concluded that the issue reported Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0810, does not represent a discrepant condition. Calculation BAT 1-96-1241E3 and BAT 2-96-1243E3 verify that adequate tripping and closing voltage is available at the closing and tripping coils, especially during minimum DC bus volta 0e. Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.
NC- ;identifled by NU? O vos (9) 9 No NonDiscrepentCondition?Q vos (#) No ResolutionPending?O vos @ No P-W Unresolved?O vos
- No Review initietor: Womer,l.
R / - Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anihony A O O O mm VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O mm IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O m woS oste: 3/13/98 sL Comments: Sargent & Lundy agrees that, for those circuits required to operate under the scenarios described in Calculation BAT-SYST-1240E3, NU has modeled and analyzed each of those circuits and that NU has concluded these circuits are able to perform their safety-related function..
The point in question is that the battery sizing calculations (e.g.,
BAT 1-961241E3, BAT 2-96-1243E3, BAT 3-96-1245E3, BAT 4 1246E3) evaluate "... the available voltage at electrical devices during specific operating scenarios..." and do not address other possible operating scenarios. For example (see detailed evaluation further down in the text), it appears iliat the reserve feed breaker to the ESF bus may be unable to close on an ESF bus undervoltage.
Sargent & Lundy could not find evidence (e.g., a calculation) which addresses whether safety-related circuits for the following breaker circuits would have adequate voltage at the close and trip coils (90 and 70 volts, respectively) to be able to perform their safety-related function under conditions undefined in the battery sizing caculations:
Skr Load: Description (Device ID) 32R01-2: 480V Bus 32R Supply Breaker (3EJS*ACB-AC) 32R04-2: MCC Aux Bldg (3EHS*MCC3A1) 32R05-2: MCC Rod Control Area (3EHS*MCC3A2) 32R06-2: Aux Bidg Air Filter Unit (3HVR*FLT1 A) 32S-1T-2: Bus Tie to Bus 32R (3EJS*ACB-T2A) 32S01-2: 480V Bus 32S Supply Breaker (3EJS*ACB-AB) 32S07-2: Fuel Bldg Filter Assembly (3HVR*FLT2A) 32T-1T 2: Bus Tie to 32S (3EJS*ACB-T1 A) 32T01-2: 480V Bus 32T Supply (3EJS*ACB-AA)
Printed M7/961:36:50 PM Pope 2 of 6
Northerst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0810 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 32T05 2: MCC Control Building (3EHS*MCCA12) 32T06-2: MCC Circ. & Serv. Wtr. Pump Hse. (3EHS*MCCA15) 32T09-2: MCC Safeguards Area (3EHS*MCC1A4) 32Y-1T 2: Bus Tie to 32R (3EJS*ACB-T4A) 32Y01-2: 480V Bus 32Y Supply (3EJS*ACB-AD) 15G-14U-2N: EDG Neutral Breaker (SENS*ACB-GNA) 23SAS-34C-2: RSST Supply to 34C (SENS*ACB-AR) 34C01-2: 480V Load Center 32Y (SENS*ACB-AD) 34C03 2: 480V Load Center 32T (SENS*ACB-AA) 34C04-2: 480V Load Center 32S (SENS*ACB-AB) 34C05-2: 480V Load Center 32R (SENS*ACB-AC) 34C06-2: Quench Spray Pump (3QSS*P3A) l 34C07-2: Residue Heat Removal Pump (3RHS*P1 A) 34C08-2: Safety injection Pump (SSlH*P1 A) 34C10-2: Reactor Plant CCW Pump (swing pump) (3CCP*P1C) 34C20-2: Containmord Recirc. Pump P1C (3RSS*P1C) 34C21-2: CVCS Charging Pump P3A (3CHS*P3A) ,
34C22-2: CVCS Charging Pump P3C (swing pump) l (3CHS*P3C)
To illustrate the point in question, Sargent & Lundy reviewed the i control circuit for 4KV Circuit Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR which is not required to either close or trip as shown in Calculation BAT 1 1241E3. The following are the results of this review.
l l Five circuit paths were reviewed from the incoming fuses at j l Switchgear 3 ENS *SWG-A to the close coil 52X for breaker
! SENS*ACB-AR (Schematic Diagram 12179-ESK-5BD, Revision l 24), and the mamaelated cable number and Mark #, conductor l l size, conductor length, and 9000 resistance are shown below, starting at the load side of the fuse at the positive polartty: ,
)'
Path A: Wire PC1 from SENS*SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT 60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 WM);
Wire PC1 from 3CES*TB-MB60 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable i 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 fact,0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 l from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, ,
l NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from i 3CES*MCB-MBS to 3CES*MCB MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,
- 38 foot,0.0055465 WM); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to l 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, l' O.0021421 WM); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 4.0237 ohms at 6 amps, or 24.14 voltage drop for Path A.
Path B: Wire PC1 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-hnB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-40, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 WM);
Wire PC1 from 3CES*TS-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 WM); Wire COS from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire COS from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3RPS*RAKOTXA (Cable Prink J Sf17/981:37:o1 PM Page 3 or 6
Northerst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0810 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire CO9 from 3RPS*RAKOTXA to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wim CO9 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO3 from SENS*SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MBS to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055485 WM);
Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 WM); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENCAOC353, NHT-26, q
- 14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 6.2977 ohms at 6 .
amps, or 37.79 voltage drop for Path B. i Path C: Wire PC1 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 WM); Wire PC1 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055485 WM); Wire COS from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,32 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire COS from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT 40, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO6 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*PNLBG30 (Cable 3ENSAOC354, NHT-35, #14,110 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire CO7 from 3CES*PNLBG30 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC354, NHT-35, #14,110 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire CO7 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM); Wire CO7 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 WM); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB5 to 3CESWCB MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet 0.0034171 WM);
Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 WM); Wire CO1 l from 3CESWCB-MB80 to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-40, #12,158 feet 0.0021421 WM); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26,
- 14,130 feet. 0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet, 0.0034171). Total resistance is 5.8739 ohms at 6 amps, or 35.24 voltage drop for Path C.
Path D: Wire CO3 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-00, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 WM);
W6re CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet, 0.0055465 WM); Wire CO2 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356.
Printed 3/17/981:37.02 PM Page 4 of 6
Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0810 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3CESWCB-MB5 to 3CES*MCB-MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet,0.0034171 WM); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB- l MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet,0.0055465 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT 60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNI.AS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet, 0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNI.AS to SENS*SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 4.0237 ohms at 6 amps, or 24.14 volta 0e drop for Path D.
Path E: Wire COS from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet, 0.0021421 W/ft); COS i from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3RPS*RAKOTXA (Cable 3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 from 3RPS*RAKOTXA to 3CESWCB-MB80 (Cable ,
3ENSAOC357, NHT-26172 feet,0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO9 l from 3CESWCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, i NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire CO3 from l 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3CES*TB-MB80 (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT- l 60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire CO3 from 3CES*TB-MB80 to 3CESWCB-MB8 (Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16, 38 feet 0.0055465 W/ft); Wire CO2 from 3CES*MCB-MB8 to 3CESWCB-MB5 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, j 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire CO1 from 3CES*MCB-MBS to 3CES*MCB- 1 MB8 (Cable 3ENSAOC356, NHT-32, #14,298 feet, 0.0034171 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3CESWCB-MB8 to 3CES*MCB-MB80 ;
(Cable 3CES80C102, NHQ-47, #16,38 feet,0.0055465 W/ft);
Wire C01 from 3CES*MCB-MB80 to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC350, NHT-60, #12,158 feet,0.0021421 W/ft); Wire C01 from 3 ENS *SWG-A to 3RPS*PNLAS (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26, #14,130 feet 0.0034171); Wire COO from 3RPS*PNLAS to 3 ENS *SWG-A (Cable 3ENSAOC353, NHT-26,
- 14,130 feet,0.0034171). Total resistance is 5.8739 ohms at 6 I amps, or 35.24 voltage drop for Path E.
Similarly, the circuit resistance from the switchgear fuses to the trip coil of Circuit 3 ENS *ACB-AR is 1.0984 and 3.1350 for two paths that were reviewed, resulting in voltage drops of 6.59 and 18.81 volts, respectively.
As noted in the review, the volta 0e drop for the close coil of Circuit 3 ENS *ACB-AR, ranging from 24.14 to 37.79 volts, is significant. Since 90 volts is required at the close coll, a voltage of 114 to 128 volts is required (90 + 24 = 114 and 90 + 38 = 128) at Switch 0 ear 3 ENS *SWG-A (and an even higher voltage at 3BYS*PNI.1 and the battery terminals). This would suggest that NU is taking credit for the charger, and not the battery, supplying power to dc loads during normal operation, for the battery would not be able to sustain a volta 0e level of that magnitude.
However, if the charger failed, the battery would supply power to the de loads, but the battery would not be able to fumish adequate voltage to the close coil of 3 ENS *ACB-AR (the battery would, however, be able to adequately supply power to the de loads listed in the scenario described in Calculation BAT-SYST-Printed 3/17/961:37:02 PM Page 5 of 6
Northert Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0810 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1240E3). [ Note: There is a spare charger connected (but not energized) to Panel 38YS*PNL1 which could supply power to the loads if the normal charger failed, however, the battery would still need to fumish power to the dc loads until the spare charger was energized. if 3 ENS *ACB-AR was required to operate during this period, it could not fumish the necessary 60 volts at the close coil of 3 ENS *ACB-AR due to the aforementioned large voltage drop.]
in addition, if the charger, and not the battery, is supplying power to dc loads during normal opershon, then on a 4KV bus undervoltage, the charger is disabled (on loss of power) and a bus fast transfer from the normal supply to the reserve supply cannot be performed because this Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR cannot close (because the battery cannot provide the required go volts to the close coll). Sargent & Lundy requests that NU:
- Provide the calculation (s) or other documentation to verify that the dc control circuits for the safety-related services listed above have been analyzed for voltage drop and adequate voltage exists at the close and trip coils. If such documentation does not exist, then:
- 1. Concur (or indicate NU's differences) with Sargent & Lundy's analysis of Breaker 3 ENS *ACB-AR as described in this discrepancy report
- 2. Verify that NU relies on the charger rather than the battery for supplying power under normal operating conditions to the dc loads. If the battery is relied upon, explain how the battery can supply these loads with adequate voltage to operate the close and trip coils. If the spare charger is relied upon, explain how the loads are adequately powered from the time the normal charger fails until the time the spare charger is energized.
If the charger is relied upon for supplying dc loads during normal operation, either concur with Sargent & Lundy's conclusion that fast transfer cannot be accomplished, or if NU disagrees with Sargent & Lundy's assessment, then explain how fast transfer is accomplished.
Printed 3/17/961:37:o3 PM Page 6 of 6
Northe st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1084 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR VAUD Review Element: Modification Deel00 Discipline: Mechanical Design m pqm Dir4 epency Type: C+% O vee SystenVProcese: RSS gg NRC SigniScence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published 3/2098 Discrepency: Safety Evaluation of RSS/HHSI NPSH Interface Requirement for DCR M3-97045 Description
- Modification DCR M3-97045 adds flow restricting orifices in the discharge of each RSS pump and diverts part of the RSS pump output from the HHSI pump supply to the spray header. These two changes reduce the NPSHa to the HHSI pumps for ECCS cold leg and hot leg recirculation.
The integrated safety evaluation, E3-EV-97-0043, Rev. O, for Modification DCR M3-97045 did not address the RSS/HHSI NPSH interface requirement for the ECCS recirculation modes of operation.
This RSS/HHSI interface requirement was addressed by Westinghouse Calculation SAE/FSE-C-NEU-0079. SAE/FSE-C-NEU-0079 found that a substantial margin still exists between the NPSHa and the NPSHr for the HHS! pumps. Therefore this discrepancy is a level 4 lack of appropriate documentation for a 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation.
Rev6ew Vaud invoud Needed Date initiator: Wokelend, J. F.
O O O 3/i3/98 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A E O O 3/1e/es VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 3/1s/se IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 3/17/se Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identined by NU7 O vee (9) No NonDiscrepentCondition?O vee (G) No R euenPenano70 vos @ No Roeminanunroemed70 vos @ No Revi
"-,^
Not "---- , - - _ Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K g
Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 3/17/981:37:40 PM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1086 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DRVAuo Review Element: system Design Discipline:I & C Design D6ecrepancy Type: ceiculation Ow System / Process: NEW g
NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed 3/20/96 Discrepancy: 3QSS*LS56A,B C.D low tolerance values are below the QSS pump suction minimum requirement.
D**cription: Regarding the instrument Setpoint for level switches SQSS*LS56A,B,C,D (the RWST ' empty'setpoint):
CCN-2 to calculation 3451B03-01232E3, Rev. O uses the process setpoint value of 40.7 inches above the bottom of the RWST as specified in US(B)-295, Rev. 7. This value, per US(B)-
295, Rev. 7, is supposed to encompass the total loop uncertainty (TLU) of the level measuring instrumentation used to trip the QSS pumps before the RWST ' empty' level (for vortex considerations) of 28 inches above the tank bottom is exceeded.
Since the TLU is +12.7 inches, -13.8 inches, the level switches may not actuate until 26.9 inches above the tank bottom (40.7"-
13.8" = 26.9").
The proper process setpoint is 41.8 inches above the bottom of the tank as was used in CCN-1 of calculation 3451B03-01232E3, Rev. 0; this value would ensure actuation of the level switches on, or before, the RWST level decreases to 28 inches above the tank bottom.
Regarding the Process Setpoint for the RWST ' empty' level:
US(B)-295, Rev. 7 uses a RWST empty level setpoint of 40.7
, inches with an uncertainty of +13.8 inches,-12.7 inches. The
! setpoint should have been identified as 41.8 inches with an uncertainty of +12.7 inches,-13.8 inches. This would have made the minimum RWST empty level setpoint 28.0 inches (and the maximum RWST empty level setpoint 54.5 inches).
Calculation HYD-H39, Rev.1/CCN 1 determined that an RWST level of 28 inches is required to suppress vortexing and air entrainment in the QSS pump suction.
The error in the setpoint and the setpoint uncertainty used in US(B)-295, Rev. 7 results in a minimum RWST empty level trip setpoint of only 26.9 inches. This does not conform with the QSS design requirement in HYD-H39, Rev.1/CCN 1. This error does not have any safety significance because the RWST level requirement for QSS suction is determined in a conservative manner. Even if there was an onset of airingestion, the QSS pumps would experience it for less than a minute immediately before they are tripped. After they are tripped, the QSS pumps would not be restarted: they perform no safety function after the RWST is empty.
The error in the setpoint and the setpoint uncertainty used in i 1R/Ri.9Q8; Rav 7 reenite in a mnvimum RWRT mmrdu laval trin Pnnted 3n7se 1:38:26 PM ' ' Page 1 df 2
Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1085 l
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
setpoint for use in the containment pressurization analyses of i 54.5 inches. This is the correct value to use in determining the I duration of QSS spray for use in the design basis containment pressurization analyses. Therefore correction of the error in the setpoint does not affect inputs to calculations US(B)-253, US(B)-
273, or US(B)-266.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Reed, William.
O O O aris/9s VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O 3/15S8 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 3/58S8 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 3/$7/88 I
Date:
i INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION l l
Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (e) No Non D6screpent Condition?O Yes @e) No R autionP.ndins70 va @ No p+ unr=wved70 vos @ No Review
'= ^ "- Not A-:-: ;"'"- Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O l Date:
sL Commente:
Printed 3/17/961:38:30 PM Page 2 of 2