ML20217F653
| ML20217F653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9710090015 | |
| Download: ML20217F653 (51) | |
Text
r.__.-_-_-___-----_-___--
p/
j scar gork&Lur,cly $
'fl Don K. Schopfer 12 9 7 October 7,1997 Project No. 9583100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeat: Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclor,cd the following nineteen (19) dir,crepancy r our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are beirq3 distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI MP3 01.
/
DP. No. DR-MP3 0149 DR No. DR MP; 0294
[U () /
DR No, DR-MP3 0152 DR No. DR MP3-0298
/
DR No. DR MP3 0184 DR No. DR-MP3-0299 DR No. DR MP3 0193 DR No. DR MP3-0310 DR No. DR MP3 0201 DR No. DR-MP3-0311 DR No. DR MP3 0265 DR No. DR-MP3 0314 DR No. DR MP3-0267 DR No. DR-MP3 0315 DR No. DR MP3 0270 DR No. DR-MP3-0329 DR No. DR MP3 0272 DR No. DR-MP3 0348 DR No. DR MP3 0277 9710090015 971007 DR ADOCK 0500 3
ll g l
[
55 East Montce Street
- Chicago. lL 6%03 5780 USA
- 312 269-2000
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 7,1997 Docu.nent Control Desk Project No. 9583 100 Page 2 1 have also enclosed the following eighteen (18) DRs that have been determind invalid.
No action is required from Northeast Utilities for these eighteen DRs. The basib for their invalid determination is included on the document.
DR No. DR MP3 0112 DR No. DR MP3-0235 DR No. DR MP3 0158 DR No. DR MP3-0237 DR No. DR MP3 0176 DR No. DR MP3 0238 DR No. DR MP3 0192 DR No. DR MP3 0257 4
DR No. DR MP3 0199 DR No. DR MP3 0271 DR No. DR MP3 0203 DR No. DR MP3 0278 DR No. DR MP3-0216 DR No. DR MP3 0312 DR No. DR MP3 0219 DR No. DR MP3 0319 DR No. DR MP3 0220 DR Nu. DR MP3-0334 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, A) ; D 97(chopferYv D. K.
Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Coples:
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisony Council J. Fougere (1/l) NU m%svpuun97vr1007.a As i
A
I 1
Northeast Utihtlos ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0149 Millstor e unn s 0;screpancy Report Revtow Group: $$em DR VAUD Pt ' - 4: Strudurel Do"'"
Potent 6eloperebelity lasue O Yes D6ecropency TyPs: Conou6staan f yeterwProcese: SWP NRC sign 6Aconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dele Pubilehed:
D6ecropency: Small Bore Pipe Support Calculation Discrepancy Deecript6nn: We have reviewed Caletation no. NP(B) 1061 XC,Rev.1. Based upon the resuits of the review.the following discrepancy has been noted:
I Weld equations 4.1.1(a),4.1.1(b),4.1.2(a) & 4.1.2(b) contain multipliers (coefficients) for forces and moments for 3/4*NPS clamf plate. Calculation no. NP(B) 1071 XC,Rev.1.pg.no. 81 has been referenced as a source of derivation for the multipliers (coefficients),
Review of Reference calculation has determined that this i
reference is not applicable to the aforementioned weld equations j
since it provides test data for pipe slip cf 1/2' NPS clamp.Therefore, the adequacy of the weld equations cannot be veriflei.
Review Vaud invol6d Needed Da6e inattetor: Klanc, N O
O O
S25/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony \\
Q Q
Q 9G*A7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don A O
O O
9tsoro7 IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K Q
Q Q
1W2/97 Dets:
INVAU.4 un Date:
REa0LUT10N.
Prov6ously Id ened by Nu? ( ) Yes @ No Review o ce stable Not Acceptable Needed Date N
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A
]
viu r: Schope.r, Don K e
IRC Chmn: Singh. An vul K O
O O
Dei.:
SL Commerite:
1 Printed 107/97 9 50.04 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3 0162 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
~
1 Review Group: System DRVAUD I
Diecipliner Mecmncel Deegi Pedene6elopereheesty lseue gy P, -
- xy Type: Dravang s,-..". M==' Rss NRC si;:f":a-s-; level: 4 Dde FMed to NU:
Date Publ6shed:
D'*crea*ncy: P&lD EM 112C 16 does not :,how cross ties on each pair of RSS pump suction lines.
Deecr6ption: According to FSAR Table 6.2 62, a cross tie between each pair of containment recirculation pump suction lines drawing from opposite sides of the containment sump is required. The purpose of these cross ties is to allow either containment sump screen assembly to supply either or both recirculation pumps in the pair should one reci,culation pump suction screen become clo00ed. However, Palu EM 112C 16 falls to show a cross tie with remote manual valves.
Review Vead invalid Needed Date initietor: Feingoed, D. J.
O O
O W1u7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
win 7 VT M,r Schopfer, Don K D
O O
wi*'7 t
1RC Chmn: Sngh, Anand K Q
O O
$wa7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identened by NU7 O Yee
- 9) No Review initletor: Femgoid, D. J.
VT Leed: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Ana uf K O
G Date:
sL Conenents:
Printed toF1/97 9 Se.36 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0184 Mill 6 tone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: spiem DR VAUD Review Element: Speem Doogn 06ecipiene: Mechancel D,69" Potent 6el Doerebimy leeue Diecrolenty Type Lkenerg Docuwt O Yes l
g> y, systesWrotese: QSS NRC signescotw.e levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Dele Published:
D6ecrepancy: FSAR Tbl 6.2 62 is inconsistent with specification 2214.602 040 with respect to Quench Spray Pumps.
E
, r: F8AR Table 6.2-62 states that the casing of the quench spray pumps are designed for 450 degrees Fahrenheit and 250 psig pressure, with a 375 psig rraximum test pressure. Quench spray pump des!qn specification 25212 2214.602 040 identitles the casing of tha quench spray pumps as having a design pressure and temperature of 200 psig and 150 degrees Fahrenheit, with a hydrostatic test pressure of 300 psig.
Review Valid invetid Needed Date inittstor: FergWd, D. J.
O O
O
$22S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
S72S7 VT Mgr Schopfer DonK O
O S0097 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
10/2S7 Date:
IWAUD:
Date:
RESOLtJTION:
Prev 60usly identened by NU7 O Yee
- ) No Review inittetor: Feingo6d. D. J.
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Date:
sL Commente:
Printed 10f7.9710.00:46 AM Page 1 of 1
. ~
Northeast UUlitie, ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0193 Millstone Unit 3 DieCrepancy Report Revtew Group: Programmeue DR VALID Disc 6peine: Maintenance Potorw6el OperabiHey issue O va i
Discrepency Type: Cone:me W
$ No system / Process: N/A NRC signincance level: 3 Date Faxed to Nu-Date Pvtdiohed:
Diecr*Pency: NCR 393-035 Tripped tecelerometer on fuel shipping container.
Deecnption: The procedure in efiect at the time this NCR was written was NEO 3.05, Rev. 2, dated 3/1/92. According to NEO 3.05, Section 6, ' Instructions," Paragraph 6.1 'NCR Origination" Subparagraph 6.1.1 states *In the field, deficiencies are identified by trouble reports, automated work orders, PIRs surveillances, inspections, and audits.' Additionally, Subparagraph 6.1.2 states 'If t% NCR is utilized for problems associated with services or programs, the dispostion should include corrective action in accordance with NEO 2.18,' Corrective Action Request,"when appropriate,in 6ddition,10 CFR part 71.5 Paragraph (a)(1)(vi) requires
ictardous material employee training. 49 CFR part 172:
r Subpart H.* 49 CFR part 172.704 ' Training requirements
- Paragraph (a)(3)(lil). requires
- Methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the proper procedures for handling packages containing hazardous materials." Since the problem occurred in the field while removing the fuel bundle from the shipping container and there was the potential to have damaged the fuel cladding which potentially could affect plant safety or the ability of the plant equipment to operate property, this issue should have been dispositioned under the Problem identification Report (PIR) or Corrective Action Request (NEO ? 18) process.
Review Vead invalid Needed Date initiator: Dombrowsid. Jim O
O O
or2e/87 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomes J Q
Q Q
9W97 r
VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O
O O
S'3aS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
to/N97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prov6ously keenuhod by NU7 C) Yee el No Rev6ew
. Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Ryan, Thones J VT Mgri Schopfei, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dele:
sL Conwnents:
Printed 107471o 01:So AM Page 1 of 1 '
B Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0201 Millstone Unh 3 Discrepancy Report M
Revtow Group: Frogrammete MN hevtow flament: Change Protese l
Dioc5ME W PotenuelOpetabMy leeue U Yee ti ;- cy Type: Insie w im W *"
(9) No ayelemProcese: N/A NRC signeacanos level: 3 Date faked to NU:
Date Published:
C+x
- 4i inapproprtate Commercial Grade Procurement Desct5thm: In commercial grade dedication packages and associated documentation which were reviewed, two examples were found of inappropnate classification of procurement documents as commercial grade,
- 1. Commercial Grade Dedication Foim (CGDF) # MP3 92-017 was wntien to dedicate alt flow measurement services, in Section 5 of this form, the vendor was required to qualify test personnel to ANSI N45.2.61978. This is an inappropriate use of commercialgrade dedication by NU.
The purchase order for this service was classifled as commercial grade which does not meet 10 CFR 21 as it existed in 1992 or as it exists today because the evocerement contained specification requirements unique to facil...es or activities licensed as described in 10 CFR 21,3(a)(4)(a 1) and il imposes part of a quality assurance program which complies with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
10 CFR 21,3(a;(4)(a 1) in 1992 dsfined a commercial grade item in part as an item that is not subject to desigr or specification requirements that are unique to facilities or activities licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30,40,50,60,61,70,71 or 72,10 CFR 21.3(1)(ll) today defines a basic component in part as items designed and manufactured under a quality assurance program which complies with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,10 CFR 21,3 (3) today states: "In all cases, basic component includes safety-related design, analysis, inspection, testin0, fabrication, repikcement of parts, or consulting services that are associated with the component hardware whether these services are performed by the component supplier or others,"
ANSI N45.2,61978 is unique to activities licensed pusuant to the regulations listed in 10 CFR 21.3(a)(4)(a 1), it is endorsed with comments by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.58. In Midition, personnel qualified to this Regulatory Guide are used to perform testing govemed by Criteria 11 and XI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8.
Thus, the air flow measurement services discussed above should have been procured as a basic component (" nuclear grade"),
- 2. CGDF # MP3-0019 (7) the number is difficult to read.
signed July 25,1989 was for a belt drive for a Foxboro panel recorder. The attached standard purchase order notes in this package has " Title 10, Chaper 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21. Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance, applies to this Printed 1o/7/97 to 02.51 AM Page 1 of 2
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0201 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report m
procurement' circled Thus, the purchase order was basic component and no basis is provided for NU to perform the commercial grade dedicatiori.
Rev6ew Vei6d inve66d Needed Date initiator: Shepperd, R. P, y
Q Q
E7497 I
VT Leed: Ryan, Thctnes J g
Q Q
&7497 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don x 0
0 0
S2557 IRC Chmni Singh, Anand K O
O O
$ SS7 j
Dates DNALID:
Date:
RasolttTION:
Provtously leentened try NU7 V Yes t No Rev6ew Inistator: Shepperd. R, P.
O D
D VT Leed: Ryan, Thomes J 0
0 O
l vr m n senopen, con x e
]
]
iRC camn: s w.Ananax st Conenents:
i l
i f
1 d
Prtnted 10/7/9710.02.58 AM Page 2 of 2
..w.
,_n
.y-,
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0268 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew stoup: sreiem on yAuo
[
Potent ob64Mr issue ti, ui Type: Conculaten 4 g, SystemProcese: itA NRc Glend6cence levd 3 on, rAxed to Nu:
osse Published:
E - xt: Discrepancy in calculated natural frequency for free standing vents / drains and associated tem data C
, m In the process of reviewing the following cocuments, (i) Design and installation of Small Bore Ploing, NETM 24 Rev. 3 (10 interoffice Memorandum, Revin of Calcuimilon 12179-NP(B).
692 XD, From RFHaukinson to GPMilley, February 2,1984 (110 Calculation 12179 NP(F) OSS 3 V56, Rev. 2 (iv) Calculation 12179 NP(B) 4061 ZC, Rev.1,9/24/85 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
According to (1): In the evaluation of vent / drain con 0gurations, applicable seismic accelerations at tho ;,oint of attachment (to header piping or equipment) are the higher of the values from computer analysis results (of the header piping) or the zero period acceleration (ZPA), ZPA values are obtained from the applicable ARS curve for the building and elevation where vent / drain is located. These seismic acceleration values, multiplied by a factor of 1.5, should be applied to calculate seismic reaction and stresses.
Implicit in the above procedure is the assumption that the vent / drain configuration is rigid relative to the piping, as indicated by the following excerpts from (II):
j
. If the vent / drain is rigid in companson with the piping i
r6sponse, the vent / drain will experience the maximum piping respor'se. If the vent /frain is not rigid in comparison with the piping response, the vent / drain will experience an amplification of the maximum piping response".
- Piping is excited by the building response through its l
supporting media, and as the free standing vent / drain is not attached to the building there can be no defendable justification for using building response to qualify the vsnt/ drain".
In some instances, seismic accelerations at the point of vent / drain attachment to the header piping, as obtained from NUPIPE computer analysis, are lower than the building floor ZPA, see for exarnple (111). The calculated accelerations are lower than the ZPA because a sufficient number of rigid body modes have not been property accounted for in the header piping response. For these cases use of the higher ZPA values is n, quired.
Prtnted 10/r/97 tom 13 AM Page 1 of 2
.,--,.y w
4 m
Northee* Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34245 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft The requirement that free standing vent / drain configurations be rigid relative to the piping is not explicitly stated in the design enteria document (ii). Hwver, all vev/dreirt celeu'etions in the review sample demonstrate that the natural frequenc) of the vent / drain configuration is > 33Hz. Th's is performed by comparing the span lengths of the vent / drain conDguration with maximum allowable span lengths to irisure that frequency >
33Hz, as provided in (iv).
The allowable span length calculation (iv) also contains frequency data from tests performed on a small sample of as-built vent / drain configurations at the Millstone 3 site. The test results show th;.t some of the tested configurations have natural i
frequencies as low as 7Hz. As there is no mention to the contrary, the span length criteria of (iv) is presumably satisfled for these con 0gurations, and therefore their calculated frequency is > 33Hz. No interpretation of test results is provided in (iv),
i Discreancy:
1 The requirement that free standing vent /draln configurations be rigid relative to the piping, i.e. natural frequcncy > 33Hz, is not explicitly r.tated in the design criteria document (ii).
Natural frequency of vent /drW configurations is shown by calculation to be > 33Hz. However, test results contradict the calculated results for several configurations. The discrepancy has not been addressed in (iv).
Review Vabd invalid Needed Date inmator: Prakash, A.
Q Q
Q 9/2ss7 VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A O
O O
or2ss7 Vr Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O
O O
S'3057 IRC Chem: Singh, Anand K O
O O
n2,7 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prev 60uely identined by Nt'? O Yes @ No Review init6ator: Prokash A.
O O
O VT Lead: Nort. Antnony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O Date sL Conwnents:
Printed lorr/9710.05:19 AM Page 2 of 2
t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0267 Midstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow Group: System DR VAUD
+
D6ecipune: structural Demon Potenthal OperatWity tw w l
my.
Discrepency Type: Cmum systenvProcom: N/A
~
NRC significance level: 3 Date faxed to NO:
Deie rut.et,ed.
Discrepency: Design Criteria Discrepancy DacHe* ton: Crtteria Document no, NETM-45,Rev.1,titledfPipe Support Design Criterta*does not addrest the impact of thermal stresses on the pipe support auxiliary steet.
Thermal growth is significant in all cases where support configuration Iceludes auxiliary steel with rigid support points at both ends that preclude movement and relaxation of thermal stresses.
Rev6ew vand invelld Needed Date i
Init6stor: Kleic, N O
O 8/16S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
iw2s97 i
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q Q
97,Kvg7
]
IRC Chmn: Sbgh, Anand K Q
Q Q
10G9/
Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION.
~
Proveously idenused t[*,tJ7 (,) Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not A =f ^"- Needed Date 2
O O
G VT Leed: t;ee;, t mony A i
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K j
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Coi.enents:
i l
4 a
i 4
Printed 10/7S710:05A7 AM Page 1 of 1 i
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DiMP3 0270 Milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: System DR VAL.J Review Element: System Desagn i
Necapilne: Stnxture' Demm g y, 4
D6ecropency Type: Calculation g)
~ No systenWProcess: SWP NRC sign 6Acence level: 4 Date FAAed to NU:
Date Put:16ehed:
Descrepancy: Pipe Support Calculation Discrept ncy Deecripuon: We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculation no. NP(F) ZO19R.
766 H001,Rev,6, Dated 4/20/93.
Based upon the results of that review we have noted the following discrepancy:
On page 12,the maximum normal stress should be 19,514 psi (not 18,140 psi).
i Valid invalid Needed Date 5
initiator: Kleie, N 9/1897 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 9/2397 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
S'3057 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
10/2,97 Date:
4 INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Provtously identelled by NU7 V Yee @ No Review 1-,-^"
Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A l
vr ugr: schepter. Don K i
O O
IRC Chrw Singh, Anand K g
Date:
st Comments:
1
)
i i
a 1
Printed 10/7/9710-06:38 AM Page 1 of 1
,ese e.
-ee Northeast Utilities ICAVP CR No. DR-MP3 0272 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: system DR VAUD Review Eleesert Splom On9n l
Diecipline* PM Desgn Potential Operabiiny issue Descrepancy Type: Calcuteuon Y Y
SystemfProcess: N/A 191 No NRC Signmcance levd 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: W Discrepancy associated with the implementation of Code Case N-411 Desertption: In the process of reviewing the following documents, (i) FSAR Section 3.7B.3.1.2 Seismic Analysis Methods Piping Systems (ii) Pipe Stress Analysis Criteria Document, NETM-44, Revision 2
(iii) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84: Design and Fabrication Code Ctse Acceptability ASME Section lil Division 1 (iv) NUREG/CR 3526 Impact of Changes in Damping and Spectrum Peak Broadening on the Seismic Response of Piping Systems (v) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60: Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants (vi) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61: Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants (vil) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92: Combining Modal Response and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis, Rev.1 (viii) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.122: Development of Floor Design t
Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor Supported i
Equipment or Components, Rev.1 (ix) FSAR Table - 1.8.1 NRC Regulatory Guides (x) NU Letters: Dated October,10,1984 and November 9,1984 (xi) NRC Letter: Dated November 16,1984 According to (1): Damping values used for piping are 0.5 percent for OBE and 1 percent for SSE except that increased damping values may be applied on an as needed basis for final stress reconcillation in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411.
According to (ii): ASME 111 Code Case N-411 is to be used on a limited basis for stress reconciliation as specified by the lead engineer. Also when these attemate damping values are used for dev31oping pipe support loads, additional load cases must be specified to account for any applicable secondary type loads occurring during the plant faulted condition. All affected pipe supports shall be evaluated with these additional specified loads but the pipe stress criteria will remain unchanged. Where attemate damping values are used exclusively for evaluating equipment loading, valve acceleration or local IWA stress, the additional load cases mentioned above need not be considered by supports or stress.
According to (iii): Code Case N-411 is acceptable subject to the following conditions in addition to those conditions specified in the Code Case: (1) The Code Case damping should be used Pnnted 1o/7S710:07:14 AM Page 1 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0272 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
completely and consistently, if used et n!!. (2) The damping values specified may be used only in those analyses in which current seismic spectra and procedures have been employed.
Such use should be limited only to response spectra analyses (similar to that used in the study supporting its acceptance.
Reference NUREG/CR 3526).
The study supporting the code case acceptance (iv) addresses sources of conservatism in the seismic analysis procedure which is based on a consistent utilization of the methodology delineated in NRC Regulatory Guides 1.60,1.61,1.92 and 1.122
[(v) to (viii)). The objective of the study was to determine the impact of proposed changes to RG 1.61 damping values (Code Case N-411) and the spectrum peak broadening procedure of RG 1.122 on the level of conservatism remaining in the analysis.
Conservatism is introduced in the analysis process in numerous ways, among them, due to the broad-band seismic input (RG 1.60) and modal combination mett. xis (RG 1.92).
According to (lx): Millstone 3 is not required to, and does net, consistently comply with Regulatory Guides 1.60,1.61, i.92 and 1,122.
As identified in (x) and (xi): Millstone-3 requested and was granted NRC approval for the use of Code Case N-411. This approval forms the basis for its application in (i) and (ii).
Discrepancy:
i The ' additional load cases
- that 'must be specified to account for any applicable secondary type loads' as referred to in (ii), have not been defined. Also, it is not clear whether the ' additional load cases' have to be considered for evaluating equipment loading, valve acceleration and/or IWA stress.
Code case N-411 is implemented in large bore pipe stress analysis calculations in certain cases exclusively for evaluating equipment loading, valve acceleration or local IWA stress, and in others to reduce seismic stresses in the pipe. The code case is also implemented in small bore pipe stress analysis calculations to evaluate piping and supports. No ' additional load cases' have been specified in these calculations.
The use of Code Case N 411 is justified for reducing levels of conservatism inherent in pipe cass analyses which are based on consistent use of the meth x10 logy delineated in Regulatory Guides 1.60,1.61,1.92 and 1.122. The seismic design basis Ior Millstone-3 is not required to, and does not, comply with these Regulatory Guides. Therefore, the Millstone Piping Design Criteria (ii) does not fulfill the conditions set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.84.
Revtew VaHd invahd Needed Date initiator: Prakash, A.
g Q
Q 9/19/97 Printed to/7/971o:07:19 AM Page 2 of 3
4 9
Northeast Utlittles ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0272 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
sus 7 VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K O
O O
e/30s7 l
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
in2s7 E
Date:
INVALID:
Date:
4 RESOLUT10N'
]
Pif hsly identified by NU7 V Yes @ No Review Initletor: Prakseh, A.
C*Me Date O
O O
i VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
O
)
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K i
O O
O j
Date:
SL Comments:
1 a
1 1
4 Printed 10/7/9710'07:22 AM Page 3 of 3
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP3-0277 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: System DR VALID Diecipline: Ppng Desgn Pctent6el Peerat@ty issue N, ;y Type: Calculation Ob g
Systemerocess: SWP
~
NRC SigntAconce level: 3 Date FAKod to NU:
Date Published.
,- aii installation of vent lines on large bore elbow fittings is inconsistent with design criteria 4
Decrtption: In the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) Calculation NO.12179-NP(B)-SWP 33 V810, Rev 2,10/11/96 (2) Calculation NO 12179-NP(B)-SWP 33-V811, Rev 2,10/11/96 (3) Calculation NO,12179-NP(B)-X1908 Rev 3. CCN #1,10/11/96 (4) NETM-24, Design and installation of small bore piping, Rev 3 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
As shown in (1) and (2), vents are installed on large bore elbow fittings on lines 3-SWP-008-74-3 (1) and 3-SWP-008-73-3 (2).
Accostling to the large bore pipe stress analysis (3), these vent lines are shown on the analysis work sketch, and the vent lines are decoupled from the large bore pipe header. The effect of these vents on olbow fittings is not addressed in the pipe stress analysis calculation (3).
Discrepancy:
According to NETM 24 (4), installation of vents / drains on elbow fittings, bends, tees and mitred joints is not permitted.
Nevertheless there are several vents that are installed on large bore elbow fhtings.
Note:
These comments are ba3ed on a review of a sample of vent / drain support requirement calculations for the servn',e water system. The same comments may also be applicable to other vent / drain calculations.
Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: Ramesh,0. Patet G
O O
s/22/97 VT Lead: Neff. Anthony A 8
0 0
S/21S7 VT Mge: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
o'5/S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q 10/2/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Pdnted 10/7/9710:00:00 AM Page 1 of 2
~ _ _ _. _... _
.~.
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3-0277 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
\\
~
Date:
j RESOLUTION Previously idenufwd by NU? O Yes
- 1 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed pet.
Initiator: Ramesh D. Patel.
O O
O VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A O
O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
G 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
m.
SL Comments:
Printed 10/7/9710.08:06 AM Page 2 of 2
_ _ ~ _ -
3 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0294 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VAUD Review Element: System Desg1 Diecipline: Piping Desgn Om Diecrepancy Type: Calculeben System / Process: SWP
~g NRC sign 6ficance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Putd6ehed:
D6ecr*Pency: Lack of documentation for qualification of tie rods
==
Description:==
In the process of reviewing the following documents, (i) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X1900 Rev. 3 CCN's 1 to 3 (ii) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B) X53900, Rev. 5 (ill) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53901, Rev. 6, CCN's 1 to 3 we noted the following discrepancy:
Background:
According to (i): Expansion Joint Data Sheet for Joint Mark No, 3SWP*E18, at Nodes 501 - 511, shows the tie rod load for the worst case Thermal condition to be 191,716 lbs. The actual tie i
rod load should be 19,716 lbs, which is the load at NP 511, the attachment point between the expansion joint and Strainer 3SWP*STR1B (Inlet), Tie Rod loads for all other load cases correspond to the load at the Strainer inlet NP 511.
Discrepancy:
The thermal condition load for expansion joint (3SWP*E18) tie rods is numerically incorrect.
]
Tie rod loads are documented in pipe stress calculations, but no documentation is provided for the qualification of tie rods for these loads This is a generic discrepancy applicable to all the cases reviewed where expansion joints with tie rods are used, see for example (i to lii),
Review vand
!nvalid Needed Date initiator: Prekesh, A.
Q Q
Q 9/2197 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A y
[
]
9/24/97 VT Mgr: schopfer Don K 8
O O
10/1/S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
tor 2s7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLtrTION Previously identitled by NU7 Q Yes @ No Printed 10/7/9710:06:34 AM Page 1 of 2
l I
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0294
[
Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report P.eview l
Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed
- pet, inillator: (none)
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O e
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Date:
i a
/
,/
Printed 10/7/9710:08 A0 AM Page 2 of 2
P Northeast Utilities -
lCAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0298 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguropon DRVAUD Diecipline: Piping Doolgn Potentiel Operability issue Om Discrepancy Type: Dm
@ No systemProcoes: SWP
~
NRC sigMacence imi: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdiohed:
CA-r --i. Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for SWP in Control Bldg.
Deecripeton: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lO with the as built Isometrics:
i
- 1. On isometric Cl SWP-P2NB Sht 1 Rev 3 drain lines with valves 3SWP V984 and 3SWP V985 are shown to be capped but not on P&lD EM 133D Rev 24 (M-3 and M-7). These valves are designated as safety related per the P&lD and should be designated on the isometric drawing with a (*),
- 2. On Cl-SWP 226 Sht 2 Rev 8 a 3 in, welded plug is shown on line3-SWP 006-262 3 and not on P&lD EM-133D Rev 24. The isometric also has a call out for continuation on drawing Cl-SWP-366 for this plugged line that is no longer needed,
- 3. On isometric Cl SWP-30S Sht 5 Rev 9 safety related components 3SWP*TE35B and 3SWP*EJ10B per P&lD EM-133D Rev 24 (L 2) should be designated with a (*), Also continuation line 3 SWP 750-398-3 should be 3-SWP 750-410-3 per P&lD EM-133D Rev 24 (L-2).
- 4. On isometric Cl SWP 31 A Sht 4 Rev 7 safety related components 3SWP*EJ10D and 3SWP*FIS36B per P&lD EM-133D Rev 24(K 2) should be designated with a (*),
- 5. On CB439508 Sht 3 Rev 10 line 3 SWP 002-418 3 should be 3-SWP-002 288-3 per P&lD EM-133D Rev 24 (K 5).
Review Vaud inval6d Needed Date initiator: Reed, J. W.
O O
O S/22ST VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
&'2197 i
VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
o/1/87 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
10/2S7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
REsoLUTKW:
Preytously 1:lentifled by NU? Q Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Prtnted 10/7/9710:o9:o9 KNf "'" ""'W"' """'" ^
Page 1 of 2
(
Northeast Utilkies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0298 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report IMG Unmn: s q n,Anana 6 O
O O
i Date:
i SL Comments:
I I
4 l
- 1 l
j i
i i
?
I Pnnted 10/7.9710:09:16 AM Page 2 of 2
I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0299 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review orcup: Conrguretson DR VAUD I
Diecip66ne: Piping Design Potential Operetnlity issue Ow N: ;my Type: Instalisten implementaten gg
[
Systemerocess: SWP MtG signiecence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putdished:
DN. Walkdown Discrepancies for SWP in Control Building Deecription: The following discrepancy items were found during tN walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP 'n the 1
4 Control Building:
- 1. Lines 3-SWP-006 32 3 and 3-SWP 006 35-3 are inside the 48 in. cover pipe but not insulated as required by spec. SP ME-691.
- 2. Line 3-SWP-006-398-3 is insulated but not required to be t
insulated per spec. SP-ME-691.
- 3. Expansion joint 3SWP*EJ10C has no NU component tag.
- 4. Line 3-SWP-002 314 3 is missing insulation as is required by spec, SP ME-691.
- 5. Lines 3-SWP 006-263 3 and 3-SWP-006-50 3 have insulation
]
missing after the lines enter the 48 in, cover pipe. Insulation is required by spec. SP-ME 691.
- 6. Line 3-SWP-006-397-3 is insulated but not required to be insulated per spec SP-ME-691, i
- 7. Valve 3SWP*TV35B (*V47) has incorrect serial number per vendor drawing 12179-2472110.185-312 Rev D.Per GRITS, no DCNs are shown to be outstanding against the vendor drawing.
- 8. Line 3-SWP-002-315-3 is not insulated as required by spec SP-ME-691.
The following material condition item was found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP j
in the Control Building:
T
- 1. Pump 3SWP*P2A seal shows leakage.
Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: R sed. J. W.
6 O
O st2ss7 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A 8
O O
sr2ss7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q
Q 1o/1S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
Io/2.D7 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION Pnnted to/7S710:oG.43 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0299 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report
. ~., _,.
Provtously Wit 6ed by'NU? Q Yes
- 9) No Review Acceptable Not Accogdable Needed Date ggy VT Lead: Nort Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
3L Cwunords:
Prtnted 10/7S710-09:49 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0310 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguraten DRVAUo Potent 6e! Opereadlit'y issue O'= '._; Ppng Doog" O Ya D6ecropency Type: Om
@ No SystemProcess: SWP NRC Sign 4Acence levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
CE -- ~i: Upper Tier to Lower Tier Drawing Review for Hydrogen Recombiner Room Desertption: The following drawing discrepancies were found in reviewing the P&lD with the as built Isometrics:
- 1. On CP-402052 Sht 1 Rev 4 line 3-SWP-750-278-4 is shown on P&lD EM-1338 Rev 34 as 3-SWP 001278-4. Also conthuation drawing CP-319757 should be CP-319758. Lines 3 SWP 750-255 3 and 3-SWP 750 277-4 should be called out to have 1.5 in. Type J insulation per spec SP-ME-691.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date inatiator: Reed, J. W.
O O
O st2ss7 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A O
O O
S/2337 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q
O O
io/1S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G
O O
1or2.s7 Date:
INWALO:
_c Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 6ously identified by NU7 Q Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Leed: Ned. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:
SL Comments:
d Prtnted 10/7S71010:18 AM Page 1 of 1
Nortneast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0311 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: contguraton DR VAuD Diecipline: Piping Doogn Potential Operability issue C4e-z -.;y Type: Instektion implementaten g
System 9tocese: SWP
~
NRC Signiecence level: 4 Date faked to NL*:
Date Published:
Discrepancy: Walkdown Discrepancies for SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner Room Descr6ption: The following discrepancy items were found during the walkdown i
of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner Room:
1
- 1. Une 3 3WP 750-245-3 is not insulated as required by spec, SP ME-691,
- 2. Lines 3-SWP 750-255 3 and 3-SWP 750 277-4 are not 4
insulated as required by spec. SP-ME 691.
The following material candition item was found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the Hydrogen Recombiner Room:
- 1. Valve 3SWP*V840 packing shows leakage, Review Valid invalid Needed Date initintor: Reed, J. W.
G O
O S/22,i7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 8
O O
ar22,7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Dco K g
Q Q
10/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
Q Q
10/2/97 Date:
INVAUD:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identened by NU7 () Yee @ No Review l.-Wtietor: (none)
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Prtnted 10/7/9710:10:5o AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0314 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Programmete DR VAUo Review Element: CorrectNo Acton Process p
D6ec6p46ne: mer O vee Discrepency Type: Correctue Acton g
8yetem/ Process: N/A NRC signmcence level: 3 Date FAXsd to NU:
Date Putsehed.
c-my: Inconsistent initiation of Adverse Condition Reports (ACRs)/
Condition Reports (CRs)
==
Description:==
During our leview of the corrective actions taken for conditions adverse to quality found during the Unit 3 Configuration Management Plan Project, we noted an inconsistent initiation of ACRs or CRs for conditions which had been originally identified on Unresolved item Reports (UIRs). Note 1.3.10 of Instruction Pl 14, Revision 0, titled " Configuration Management Plan Project Process Administration Instruction" states: "A CR will be generated to address issues of a repetitive or programmatic nature as determined by EP (Expert Panel). RP-4 ' Corrective Action Program,' provides guidance on specific issues potentially affecting personnel safety, plant safety, or the proper operation of plant equipment that must be considered for a CR and brbught to the attention of the Shift Manager (SM). Where specific questions arise as to the need for a CR, EP will refer to RP 4 for additional guidance."
The following examples of situations when a CR should be initiated are given in Attechment 3 to RP 4, Revision 4:
Programmatic issues Engineering programmatic issues such as MOV issues and Fire Protection issues Rtgulatory issues Inaccuracles in informatlon previosly reported to the NRC.
Based on this cuidance, many conditions reported on UIRs should have been evaluated by the ACR/CR process. The ACR and CR processes have trend coding and, based on the Significance Level, causal evaluation and action to prevent recurrence which will be important to maintaining plant configuration in the future, The following four UIRs are examples where CRs should have been initiated:
UIR 2281 This UIR expressed the concem that there were safety and environmental screenings for procedure changes which have not been performed. In addition, the delay of the screenings which were specifically identified until after startup has not been justified.
UlR 1907 Printed 10/7S71011:56 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 0314 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report This UIR identified penetrations that were not being drained in i
violation of the UFSAR. The licensing and potential safety implications should be addressed, stR 1945 This UIR stated that no surveillance procedure was found for j
testing valve interlocks which are described in the UFSAR. This is a programmatic issue, i.
UIR 1539 i
This UIR Identifies a concem that the UFSAR commitments regarding environmertal qualification of components in mild environments are not being addressed in the Electrical Environmental Qualification Program. Thl51s a programmatic c
issue.
Finally, the following statement has been rr.c -'some ACRs and CRs: "ACR initiated by management directhra for all startup related issues." This directive has not been consistently applied as evidenced by the fact that many UIRs are identified as startup related without an ACR or CR having been generated.
A clearly defined and consistently appi!ed criteria is lacking for the generation of CRs from the UIR process. Altemately, there appears to be no process for trending or taking action to prevent recurrence for items identified in UlRs which do not result in generation of CRs.
Review vand invalid Needed Date Inthator-Wrone, S. P, 8
O O
se2+97 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J y
[
Q 9/2N97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
10/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g
C Q
10/2/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Prov6ously identified by NU7 Q Yee @ No Revtew Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K 4
IRC Civnn: Singn, Anand K
_ e:
sL Conwnents:
i Printed 10/7/9710:12:o4 AM Page 2 of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0316 MillstDne Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j
Rev6ew Grcup: System DR VAllo N"
-- _: Mechancel Desagn Potentiel Operab6lity lasue
)
CE,.=i Type: componers Date Om SysterWProcess: HVX NRC signiacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsidad:
NE zi. SLCRS HEPA Filter Altflow Rating and Pressure Drop D*ecreption: During review of the component data for the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) filter units, 3HVR*FLT3A/3B, a discrepancy regarding the design altflow and clean pressure drop for the HEPA filters was identified.
Specification 2170.430-065 specifies an airflow of 8,500 cfm for the SLCRS filter unit.
Vendor drawing 2170.430-065 022 shows an airflow of 8,500 cfm 4
for the SLCRS filter unit and that there are 6 HEPA filters in the unit.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.3 and Table 6.2-63 states that the SLCRS filter unit airflow is 8,500 cfm FSAR Table 6.51 states that the SLCRS filter unit airflow is 9,500 cfm and that there are 6 HEPA filters in the unit.
Piping & Instrumentation Diagram EM 148E shows a 9,500 cfm altflow for the SLCRS filter units 4
FSAR Table 1.81, Regulatory Guide 1.52, paragraph C.3.d clarification states that the HEPA filters will be subjected to l
velocities recommended by the HEPA fitter manufacturer which exceeds ANSI N5091976 Section 4.3.1 requirements.
Specification 2170.430-065 identifies a 1500 cfm rated airflow for the HEPA filter which corresponds to a 9,000 cfm madmum airflow for the unit.
FSAR Table 6.2-63 states that the clean HEPA filter pressure drop is 1.0 inches of water gauge (iwg). Specification 2170.430-065 and vendor drawing 2170.430-065-022 state that the clean pressure drop is 1.15 iwg. At the 9,500 cfm altflow shown on the P&lD the clean pressure drop will be higher due to increase in 4
airflow atave the ratino conditions for the fitter.
neview Vaud invalid Needed Date initiator: Stout. M. D.
O O
O sr24sr VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O
O O
st2ss7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G
O O
Io'1'S7 1
IRC Chmn: Singn. Anand K G
O O
10'3 S7 Date:
INVALID:
Printed 1o/751710:12'30 AM Page 1 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0315 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:
RESOLLmON:
Provkmaly ident# flee by NU7 O Yes ' O n No i
Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator *. (norw; VT L ted: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
M:
SL Comnesus:
i
)
i a
1 1
i ininted 10/7/9710:12-36 AM Page 2 of 2
Nonheast Utlilt'es ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0329 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR VALIO Review Element: Change Process pg D6eciphne: Other O va Discrepancy Type: Procedure implementaten 4g system 9tocese: N/A
~
NRC Signincen e level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsched:
D'---
cit Final Safety Analysis Report Change Request (FSARCR) technical review documentation Deectlpt6on: The following requirements apply to technical reviews:
A. Section 5.2.15 of ANSI N18.7, which is a comittment in NUQAP Topical Report, requires in part, that measures assure that documents are reviewed for adequacy by appropriate personnel.
B. Nuclear Group Procedure (NGP 4.03 Revs. 8 & 9) requires the PRD and additional Reviewers to complete and sign block
- 14. (Refer to Section 6.4, Task 10 of the NGP).
- 1. Contrary to the above, two persons signed in block 14 for FSARCR 97 MP3 30 whose names are different than the designated PRD Reviewer, it is not evident whether these persons individually or collectively have the required qualifications / authority to sign for the designated PRD Reviewer,
- 2. Contrary to the above, one person whose name is designated as a PRt> Reviewer on FSARCR 97 MP3-68 did not sign. It is not clear that the person that did sign (who was also specified as a PRD Reviewer) has the required qualifications / authorization to sign for the person who did not sign.
Review vend involod Needed Date initiator: Neverro, Mark O
O O
s/2as7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J G
O O
or2s,97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q
O O
tor 1/87 1RC Chmn: sin 0h, Anand K O
O O
1or257 Date:
i INVALID:
Date:
RESOLtmON Previously identitled by NU? U Yee 98 No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:
1 sL Comments-Printed 10f7/9710:14:03 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0344 Millstc.w unk 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmate DR VALID Review Element: Change Process Poe m 6elO w o m yissue Dioceptine: Otho' O vos D6screpancy Type: Calculation t
(5) No systenvProcese: SWP NRC Sign 6ftcence W d Date faxed to NU:
Date Put:46shed:
~
06screpency: Improper Preparation of Calculation Change Notice # 2 for Calculation No. 90-069-1130-M3, Re,v. O Deecr6Pk Calculation Change Notice (CCN ) #2 's
- Reason for Change
- block states '50.54 (f) Review determined that Calculation No.
90-069-1130-M3, Rev. O supersedes Calculation 12179-(P)-
1148, Rev.1 and NM-037 HVK*. CCN #2 's ' Description of Change & Technical Justification
- block states ' Calculation No.
90 069-1130-M3, Rev. O supersedes Calc.12179-(P)-1148, Rev.1* and provides a Justification also. Neither the " Reason 4
for Change' block nor the 'Descnption of Change & Technical Justification
- block state the change (s) to be implemented into the Calculation No. 90-069-1130-M3, Rev. 0.
This appears to be an improper application of the calculation j
process as there is no change to the Calculation No. 90-069-i 1130-M3, Rev. O stated in CCN # 2 [The calculations which are superseded should be superseded through DCM Chapter 5, Section 6,
- Superseding or Volding Calculations' process)
Review Valid invalid Nreded Date initiaW: Caruso, A.
O O
O 10/1/87 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomes J Q
Q 10/1/97 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q
O O
10/1/97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q
Q Q
1o/4/97 Date:
INVALID:
Date:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identified by NU? O Yee @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chrer Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed 1071/9710:14 44 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0112 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmetc DR INVAUD Review Element: Correctsve Action Process p
Disciplina: I & c Dee40" Om R: ; xy Type: Licensen0 Documert g
SysteneMocese: DGX NRC Signmcence levet: 4 Dete faxed to NU:
Dete Published:
"E:
- i. Ina'1 equate response to Diesel Generator annunciator issues.
Deecrtption' ACR # 012875, M3-96-0246, & 0247 address issues which potentially inop the Diesel Generators Annunclaior. While a 4
poterillal fault in the local annunciator does not inOp the dissel generator, the ACR's responses do not address the commitment in the UFSAR conceming common troubts annunciation in th Main Control Room. The MCR's trouble annunciators are fed from the local annunciators retransmitter; therefore, inOp'ing the local annunciator means that the Contro! Room Annunciator is i
also inop'd.
Rev6ew Vek invahd NeedoJ Date Indtlator: Domtrowski, Je
[
Q 10/1/97 VT1.eed: Ryan, Thome:J O
O O
$o/1/87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
Dese:
10/1/97
]
INVAllD: The Corrective Action Plan rccommends the non-Cat 1E annunciator inputs be removed, thus retuming the annunciators i
circuitry to compliance with the UFSAR; therefore, the Cat 1 annunciator functions will not be degraded. Although the EDG annunciators are powered and associated with safety related EDG electrical equipment, the annunciators do not in themselves perform a safety function; therefore, this condition does not result in the loss of any safety function. Annunciator inputs are provided from instrument and/or relay contacts; therefore a fault (short circuit or ground) will only cause an alarm. Since the ennunciator electronics are not qualified isolators, a fault through the electronics would only result in a loss of the annunciator. No EDG cuntrol circuitry or control functions would be affected.
l Date:
RESOLUTION Previously identified by Nu?
O.. Yes ? No Review initiator: Dombrowsid. Jim VT Lead: Ryan, Thomme J O
O 8
vr Mor: schopter. Don K IRC Chmn: Stry. J nand K Date:
sL Conunents:
Printed to/7/97 9.58:19 AM Page 1 of 1
1 J
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0168 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report rem Group: System DR INVAL10 R4Wr'4fement: System Doesgn p
biscipline: Mechencel Design Discsopac* Type: Ucenomg Document g"
SystemProcese: Rss NRC SWee level: 4 1
Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsched: 10/1G97 C--,--i: Design Basis Summa:y Doroment 3DBS-NSS-003 Section 4.1.30 has a typograp11ca! ett,r.
D*mrtption: Design Basis Summary Document 3DBS-NSS-003 Section 4.1.30 has a typograrhical error.
Section 4.1.30 states the following system requirement:
" Valves 30SS*MOV8837A,8 and 30SS*MOV8838A,B shall provide process signals for valve open/close permissives to i
ECCS valves 3SIL*MOV8812A<B; 3SIL*MOV8804A<B; i
3RHS*MOV8701 A,B: and 3 RHS*MOV8701 A,B.*
The system requirement should be stated as follows:
i
" Valves 30SS*MOV8837A,8 and 3OSS*MOV8838A,B shall provide process signals for valve open/close permissives to ECCS vaives 3SIL*MOV8812A<B; 3SIL*MOV8804A<B; 3RHS'MOV8701 A,B; and 3 RHS*MOV8702A,B."
Review Vend Invalid Needed Date inittster: Fengrud.D.J.
O G
O toss 7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
O O
10/7/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
G O
sti2/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
Date:
9/12/97 INVAllO: This DR is considered invalid. It is an obvious typographical error which would not cause any design or operations impact.
Date:
RESottmON.
PrevWaefy identifled by NU7 C) Yes @ No Review initiator: Feingold. 0. J.
VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K g
Date:
sL Comments:
1 Prtnted 10@9711:o5.o4 AM Page 1 of 1
Nortliaast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0176 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: Operouons & Mernenance and Tesung DR INVALID Review Element: Opereung Procedure pgg g,,yg,,,,
Diecipl6ne: Operouons Q y,,
Discrepency Type: 0 &.A & T Procedure
@ No SyeeemProcese: sWP NRC significence levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putn6shed.
D6ecropsacy LER commitments for Sewice Water Booster Pump (SWBP's) apparently not implemented.
osecr6pt6an, LER 96-005 dated 419-96 documented that the SWBP's auto-start feature was inadvertently disabled from 1990 until a review was conducted during an NRC inspectioa in 1996. The discrepancies identified were that the corrective actions noted in the LER were apparently not implemented.
4 During construction of Un!t 3, it was noted that both outlet isolation valves of the service water to the Motor Control Center and Rod Control Area Air Conditioning Unit (MCC/RCA ACU) were in the same fire zone. As a result, the decision was made to change the isolation valves to a normally open configuration. The original control scheme caused the outlet isolation valve to open on a high temperature in the ACU duct or on a Loss of Power (LOP) signal and send a start signal to the SWBP's.
To preclude the SWBP's from running all the time due to the change to a normally open outlet isolation valves, a Bypass Jumper (BJ) was installed in May 1990 to defeat the pump start on an open outlet isolation valve and to allow a direct pump start on an LOP signal.
As a result of an NRC review in March 1996 it was determined that the jumper had failed to incorporate the auto pump start feature on high temperature in the MCC/RCA ACU duct. LER 96 005 was wntten to report this condition as being outside the design basis. The deletion of the high temperature auto start function was not addressed in the BJ process or by a safety evaluation.
The identified corrective actions in LER 96-005 included starting and continuously running the SWBP's and revising operating procedures to address appropriate alarm response to high temperatures in the MCC/RCA ACU pending completion of a modification to remove the BJ.,
The follolwing discrepancies were noted:
- 1) A procedure requiring continuous SWBP operation could not be found. Further, procedure OP 3326 Rev.18, Service water System, states that in restoration of the service water system upon completion of a LOP, venfy that an air conditioning unit and the reactor plant chilled water system is restored, then stop both booster pumps. This action is in direct conflict with the commitment in LER 96-005.
Pnnted 1o/7/9710:00:10 AM Page1 of 2
Northenst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0176 Millstone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report
- 2) Changes to the appropriate alarm response procedure addressing High Temperature in the ACU could not be found, Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiolor: Speer, R.
O O
O 10/1/87 VT Leed: Bass, Ken O
O O
io*87 vT.%n Schos, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
Dete:
10/1/97 INVALID: Additional documentation was received on 9/29/97 which cor. firmed that the Bypass Jumper (BJ) had been removed and the modification /PDCR closed out, A review of the modification will be completed as part of the design change venfication.
4 Dete:
i RESOLUTION,
~
Provtously klentiaed by NU7 U Yes
(#) No Review
~Y Ng a~th Needed Date MmSM, R.
O O
G VT Lead: Bees, Ken VT Mgr; Schoper, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Dele:
SL C unments:
i 1
}
f l
Printed 10/7/97100017 AM Page 2 of 2
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP34192 Millstoi~,e UnN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Acc4 dent Mnigetion DR IWAUD Review Element: Test Procedure D6ecip;ine: I & C Doo*
Ow Discrepancy Type: Procedure implernentation M No SysterWProcess: N'A
~
NRC Signmcance levoi: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Putsched.
Discrepency: Discrepancy between Surveillance Procedure and Technical Specifications Manual Reference Desenption: SP 3858 Rev.4, Accumulator Boron Concentration, Section
- 1 and Section 6.2 refers to "Tochnical Specification 4.5.1.1.b".
The correct Technical Specifications f 4anual reference should be " Technical Specif' cation 4.5.1.b",
Review Vaud invalid Needed Date inatiatort zwynn, John O
O O
02S7 VT Lead: Rehega, Raid O
O O
toss 7 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K Q
[
Q IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
g/25/97 Iw Au D: This DR is considered invalid. The condition cited is an obvious typographical error. There is no paragraph 4.5.1.1.b, and there is possibility of inappropriate action resulting from this typo.
Dese:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identleed try NU7
(,) Yes @ No Review initiator: Zwyner, John VT Lead: Rehete, Raj D VT Mgt: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Does:
sL Comments:
Pnnted 10/7/9710:0120 AM Page 1 of 1 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0199 Millstone Unit 3 Discrapancy Report Review Group: Sy *::m DR INVALID R
E W :s p W Potential Operatstty issue r= '. _. Mechanical Dee.pn O va L.
ci Type: Licenem0 Document
'M No S1.7=
a Rss i
NIE Ah level: 3 pote faxed to NU:
Date Putsehed*
h i; Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.2 is loconsistent with P&lO EM.
112C.
Descript6on: Technical Spec;fication 3.4.6.2.2 states that there shall be two indepentier$t Containment Recirculation Spray systems. P&lD EM 112C shows two independent systems up to the common recirculation spray headers. The headers are not independent of l
each other.
FSAR Section 6.2.2.2 identifies the Containment Recirculallon subsystems to be exclusive of the RSS spray headers.
However, the design requirement specifies two independent recirculation spray systems, not subsystems. Therefore a discrepancy exists between Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.2 and P&lD EM-1120.
Review vaad invalid Needed Date instsetor: Fempold, D. J.
O Q
O 10/3*7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
8 O
S/1SS7 VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
wtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
9/15/97 INVALID: This OR is considered invalid since the discrepancy is an editorial error wnich would not lead to a misinterpretation of the Technical Specifications.
Date:
RESOLUTION PrMously identined by NU? L) Yes @ No Review initiator: Femgold, D. J.
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:
sL Comments:
Printed to/7/9710:o221 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP3 4203 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR INVAUD Diecipline: I & C Design Potonnel Operability issue g
C4E, ;y Type: Drawmg SystenVProcess: Oss NRC Signincence levoi: 4 Does faxed to NU:
Date Published: to/1Q97 Descr*pency: Drawing Discapancy - LSK 2712A,F
==
Description:==
Fct Pump 30SS*P3B on Logic Diagram 2712A, Rev 13, pull-to-lock prevents sequenced safeguard signal from initiating pump start; for Pump 3QSS*P3A on Logic Diagram 2712F, Rev13, pull-to-lock concurrent with local select permits sequenced i
safeguard signal to initiate pump start. Notation adjacent to " Pull.
To Lock" Control Action for Pump P3B says "(Note 5)", Note 5 on LSK-27-12A says " Outputs similar to Train A shown on LSK-2712F (28463 sh 6)".
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initteers: Pawlee, H.
O O
O ar27/97 VTLead: Nort, Anthony ^
O O
O
$o'7/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
9/27/97 INVAUD: A review of Elementary Wiring Diagrams ESK-SDG, Elem Diag 4.16 kv (3QSS*P3A) Quench Spray Pump P3A and ESK SDH, 3
Elem Diag 4,16 kv (30SS*P38) Quench Spray Pump P3B shows that the wiring on the Elementary Wiring Diagrams are different from each other, however, they agree with the corresponding Logic Diagrams. Therefore, there is no discrepancy, Date:
REs0LUTION.
Previously identined by NU? O Yes @ No Review initiator: Pinetes, H.
VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K 4
Date:
sL consnents:
j Printed 1o/7/9711:05A6 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast UtilNies ICAVP DR N2. DR4AP3 0218 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: sywom DR WVAUD Review Element: system Decepn F-, ni 1 & C Doogn Om D6esseperwy Type: Drenwg g,
systemfroceae: Os8 NPC sierdAcew level 4 Date FAXW to W:
Dele Pube6ehed: 10/1091 D6*cropency: Drawing Discrepancy. Schematics 30SS 932,933 DeecrWen: Cable 3RPS3NX901 on 3083 932, Rev 2 is shown unshielded.
Shleiding is required to provide noise suppression for low signal level instrumentation cables, maintain consistency with other cables of similar functions and utillre good engineering practice.
Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Pinetsa, H.
O O
O
$6587 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O
Q Q
1o/147 VT Mort Schopfer, Don K O
O O
(RC Chmn: Sineh, Anand K O
O O
Dese:
10/3/97 IWAuoi Cable contains multiple conductors, Individual pairs of conductors are not shleided. The cable has an overall shleid which is grounded to provide noise suppression, The drawings are correct, therefore there is no discrepancy.
4 Dane:
REs0LLrTION:
Prev 6ously identened by NUF Q Yes F No Rev6ew init6elor Pinoles. H.
VT Leed: Neft, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer Don K IRC Chmn Singh, Anand K m
g Date:
SL Comnente:
4 1
Preted 1o/7471106:22 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilitie.
ICAVP DR No. DRMP3 0219 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Revlow Group: Systwn DR PNALID A*I I8 *
. - ;i i & C Doogn Potent 6el opretniWy issue r"'
0 i'=
t': _
ci Type: Droneg Syenomfrecese: RSS
,3 g,
~
NRC tign6Acance level: 4 pate FAyn,,1 Le s NU:
Date Pstdehed: 1Or1097 to iri Drawing Discrepancy. LSK 27110 C:-, a 3R1S' LIT 22A and 3RSS* LIT 22B should be input to 3RSS'LR22.
Review Ve46d invaled Needed Date inattstor Pinoise, H.
O O
O 5057 vT14ed: Nort. Anthony A O
O O
10787 VT ugri Se, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
10/3/97 INVAllo: Further review indicates that only LIT 22A should be input to 3RSS'LR22; LIT 22B is input to 3 ras'Ll228 as depicted in the drawing. Therefore.there is no discrepancy.
Date:
RtSOLUTION:
n;;
i ident*Aed t#y NUF Q Yes (9) No Rev6ew Innester: Pinsies, H.
VT Laod: Nort, Anttmy A VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K g
O b
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
Date:
SL Conenents:
printed 107Nr 11titi.50 AM Page 1 of 1
1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0220 Millstone Unit 3
. Discrepancy Report Revtow Greup: System DR INVAUo Potent 6el Operetsety luue 06ee6phne: I & c Doong" Om D6screpancy Type: Drewog 91 No System 9toceos: RSS NMC SV/^ m levoi 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Date Publ6ehed:
-ri Drawing Discrepancy. LSK 2711F.G Desertption: Conditions '3RSS*MOV20A Molded Case Circuit Breaker Open" and '3RSS*MOV23A Molded Case Circuit Breaker Open" on Logic Diagram LSK 2711F, Rev 9 are also shown on Logle Diagram LSK 27110, Rev 9.
Rev6ew veed invol6d Needed Date initiator: Pinetos. H.
O O
O W2tW7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O
y Q
tort 197 VT Mert Sctmpfer. Don K Q
Q Q
IMC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
Date:
9/26/97 INvAuo: The identified condition is a typographical error which cannot lead to fnisinterpretation of the drawing.
Date:
RESOLUDDN:
Provtously identelled by NUP (,) Yes Of No nev6.w initiator: Pinetes, H.
O O
O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr Schophr, Don K IRC Civnn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Commente:
Printed 10/7/9710.03.32 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DRMP3 4235 Millstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: syWorn DR #NAL10 Revtow Element: splom Doongn D6ecipeow: I & C Doogn O vee F - ci Type: Drenvg
@ No sin.7 Me! SWP NRC signencance level: 4 Date FMed to NO:
Date Putd6ehed: 10/10/97 j
tt-
- Y
- Drawmg Discrepancy Various Schematics 0:
1: Shields on the following cables appear to require grtanding:
Cable Number Drawing (s) 1 3lHC1NX912 3SWP 026A, Rev 3,0268, Rev 3 1
31HC1NY907 3SWP 037A, Rev 4,04181, Rev 2 31HC1NX908 38WP 0378. Rev 4 SlHC1NX906 3SWP 041 A 1, Rev 2 3lHC1NX909 3SWP 043A, Rev 4,0438, Rev 4, (Palts 1016) 059A 1, Rev 7. 05981, Rev 6, 05901, Rev 8 3CESNNX304 3SWP 059A 1, Rev 7. 059C 1, Rev 8 3lHC1NX910 3SWP 059A 1, Rev 7. 059B 1, Rev 6, t
(Palts 15) 05901, Rev 8,05901, Rev 6 i
SlHCVNX902 3SWP 118A, Rev 2 31HCVNX906 3SWP 1188, Rev 2 This is to provide noisa suppression for low signal level instrumentation cables, maintain consistency with other cables of similar functiors and utilize Good engineering practice.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date init6elort Pinenes H.
O Q
1GM7 VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A O
O O
107/87 VT Mgn Schopfer Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anano K O
O O
Date:
10/3/97
- NAllD: Cables contain multiple conductors. Individual pairs of conductns are not shielded, Each cable has an overall shleid which is grounded to provide noise suppression The drawings are correct, therefore there are no discrepancies.
l Dele:
REs0LUTION:
Provoously identined t#y NU7 Q Yee ? No Rev6ew indtlator: Pinoise, H.
O O
O VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr schopfer, Don K IRC chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
i sL comments:
Printed 10%711$7:29 AM Pope 1 of 1
Northeast Utilniel ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0237 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report neywwomep sywom Da mAuo E
3 Diecipline:I & C Dooign Potentkl Operetn64ty laeue O vn 02 :'
- p Type: Dreimng 43 gg SystemProcese: SWP
~
)
Nec S'
!"m level: 4 Date Faxed le NO:
Date Putdkhed:
01 xys Drawing Discrepancy. Schematics 3SWP 059A 1,2,05981,2 0:
Shleids on the following cables appear to be unnecessary:
Cable Number Drawing (s) 3SWPNNC752 3SWP 059A 1, Rev 7,059A 2, Rev 2 3SWPNNC753 3SWP 059A 2, Rev 2,059B 1, Rev 6 3SWPNNC754 3SWP 059C-1, Rev 6,059C 2, Rev 2 3SWPNNC755 3SWP 059C 2, Rev 2,05901, Rev 6 3SWPNNC756 3SWP 059A 2, Rev 2 3SWPNNC757 38WP 059A 2, Rev 2 l
3SWPNNC756 3bWP 0590 2, Rev 2 3SWPNNC759 3SWP 059C 2, Rev 2 l
3SWPNNC760 3SWP 059A 2, Rev 2,0598 2, Rev 2 3SWPNNC761 3SWP 059A 2, Rev 2,0598 2, Rev 2 l
3SWPNNC762 3SWP 059C 2, Rev 2,059D 1, Rev 6 3SWPNNC763 3SWP 059C 2, Rev 2,0590 2, Rev 2 neview venid invoud Noesed Dew Inllister: Pinoise H.
O O
O SGSS7 VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A O
Q O
1D397 VT Mort Schophr. Don K O
O O
inC Chmn: Singh. Anend K Q
Q O
Date:
9/26/97 M M.80: These cables carry digital signals only (contact open or contact close). The signal vc!tage is 125 Vdc. Although not necessary, the shields would nc! have at y effect on loop operation, Dese:
RESOLUTION:
Previously identiced by NU7 O Yes 191 No Review lnistator: P6nelse. H.
VT Leed: Nett, Anthony A VT Men Schopfw, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
=
~
Date:
SL Comments:
PrWed 10,'7/9710 o4 04 AM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast UtilRies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0238 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Otoup: System DR INVAllD I
Potent 6el Operability issue CE ' _:1& C Desagn O Ya Diacropency Type: Dreamg M No SystwWProcese: SWP
~'
NRC SignHkenee level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Publ6ehed:
t4+x zii Drawing Discrepancy. Schematics 3SWP-059C.1.2,059D 1,2 DeecrtPteon: The following cables should not be shielded:
3CESNNX3T 3SWPNNC73 4 3SWPNNC7H 3SWPNNC758 3SWPNNC759 3SWPNNC762 3SWPNNC763 Revtew Vand invoied Needed Date inettelon Pineese, H.
O O
O vaS7 VT Leed: Nat, Areony A O
O O
O O
1RC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O
O O
Date:
9/19/97 INVALID: Olscrepancy Report is invalid because information previously listed has been added to Discrepancy Report No. DR MP3-0237.
Date:
REsOLitT10N:
Prev 6ously 6dentened by NU? U Yes
'98 No Review inattator: Pineese, H.
VT Leed: Noti, Anthony A VT Mgr: bchopfw, Don K g
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O Det.:
SL Cornments:
Printed torl/97 to o4~39 AM Pege 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 4267 Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report l
Rev6ow aroup: smen DR wvAuD m E6amenu span De ign Diecipline: I & C Deeg" p,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
O Y=
k-Zi Type: Dring c,) g, 5yetemfrocess: Ras MtC s' -7 ^ me level: 4 4
Date F Axed to NO:
Date Publeahed: 10/1097
'"Ex m y: Drawing Discrepancy. Schematics 3RSS 022A 1.2,02281,2, 043A D Shleids on the following cables appear to require grounding
- 4 Cable Number Drawing (s) 3CESNNX920 3RSS 022A 2, Rev 3 3CESNNX910 3RSS-0228 2, Rev 3 3lHC2NX946 3RSS-043A, Rev 2,0438. Rev 2, 043C, Rev 2,043D, Rev 2 This is to provide noise suppression for low signal level instrumentation cables, maintain consistency with other cables of similar functions and utilize good engineering practice, Revtew Vehd invaled Needed Date initiator: Pinetee, H, O
Q Q
1GTp7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10r7/97 I
vimen Se, Don K O
O O
iRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
Dese:
10/3/97 INVALID: Cables contain multiple conductors, Individual pairs of conductors are not shielded. Each cable has an overall shield which is grounded to provide noise suppression. The drawings are correct, therefore there are no discrepancies.
Dele:
REsOLtJTION.
Previously identtfled by NU7
(,,) Yes @ No Rev6ew indelstor: Pinsees, H.
VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Aneruf K g
Date:
SL Comments:
Prtnted 10/7,971122e AM Page 1 of 1
4 I
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No DR MP3 0271 Millstone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Spem DR INVAUD I
06eetphne I & C Design Potential Opwotnlity leeue O ve.
t:
-;i Type: Dreenf
- 5) No systenWProceae: QSs
~
NRC sZ^m level: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published: 10/1017 Discrepancy: Drawing Discrepancy. Schematics 3QSS-0351,2 Deecription: Shields on cable 3CESNNX131 on 30SS 0'451, Rev 3 and cables 3CESNNX260 and 31HC2NX901 on 30SSW 035 2, Rev 2 are not grounded.
This is to provide noise suppression for low signal level instrumentation cables, maintain consistency with other cables of similar functions and utilize good engineerir.g practice.
Revtew Vand invahd Needed Date intitotor: Pinoise, H.
O O
O to2S7 VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A O
O O
10787 VT Mgr: Schophr, Don K O
O O
1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
10/3/97 INVAUD: Cables Contain multlple conductors. Individual pairs of 4
conductors are not shleided. Each cable has an overall shleid which is gmunded to provide noise suppression. The drawings are corred, therefore there are no discrepancies.
Date:
RESOLUTION.
Prev 6ously idenufted by NU7 C) Yee
- 9) No 4
Rev6ew initiator: Pinetes, H.
VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K j
1RC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O
Q Date:
sL Conenente:
i Printed 10r7.9711:o8:40AM Page 1 of 1
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0278 Millstone unk 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: syetem DR INVAUD t,
- 1 & C Doogn Potenuel Operability 16eue P':
- _ ;y Type
- Dreatng O v.
M No l
systemProcess: sWP
~
l NRC s'4^-e level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:
Dele Publ6ehed:
~
01 c i Drawing Discrepancy. Various Schematics r
e ni The following cables appear to require shleiding:
Cable Number Drawing (s) 3SWPANX237 3SWP 137A, Rev 4 3SWPANX238 3SWP.137A, Rev 4 3SWPBNX237 3SWP.1378, Rev 3 3SWPBNX238 3SWP 1378, Rev 3 This is to provide noise suppression for low signal level Instrumentation cables, maintain consistency with other cables of similar functions and utilize good engineering practice, Revtew Veild inve46d Needed Dale Indeletort Pineles. H.
O O
O
$S2'7 VT Leed: NM Anthony A Q
Q Q
1W7/97 vi m n Samar Don K O
O O
e 1RC Chnn: Singh, Anand K Q
Q Q
Date:
10/3/g7 INvAuo: These cables are supplied by the vendor with DNC connectors.
The shield is tied to the connector and is grounded at the panel for noise suppression. The drawings are correct, therefore there are no discrepancies.
Date:
RESOLUTION:
hwMy identined by Nu? O Yee @ No Review initiator: Pinetes, H.
VT Lead: NM Antnany A b
VT Mort Schopfer Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O G
Date:
sL Comments:
Prwed 107/9711:00:23 AM Page 1 of 1
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DM MP34312 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revtow Group: system DR eWALIO Reveew Element: syveem Design g
i D6eeepane MooheneelDeseen O Yes 02:
n:y Type: Calculouen 4 g, systemProcese: RSS 4
~
NRC :f^ n - levoi: 4 Dele faxed to MJ:
Date Puhitehed:
02-
- cii Minimum Wall Calculations References Missing De artpesen: Minimum Wall Calculations MW(F) 127 and MW(F) 132 indicate that the reference for the pipe class and the design temperature and pressure is a flow diagram (FSK). The reference section of the calculation does not provide an FSK number.
4 The FSK drawing series was superseded by the piping diagrams and the line list. Calculation MW(F).132 has design input i
consistent with these documents.
4 Calculation MW(F) 127 is not consistent with these documents.
However, the pressure used is greater than the actual design pressure and the temperature is o'lly slightly lower than the i
design temperature, Rev6ew 4
Vand invalid Needed Dele analesen Langel D.
O O
O 10/457 VT Leed: Nwt. Antony A O
Q Q
10397 l
VT m n sot =ser. Dan K O
O O
e IRC Chnm: Singh, Anand K O
O O
I Dese:
10/3/97
- Allo: The calculations did provide a specific reference for the FSKs.
However, the FSKs were superseded by the piping diagrams and the line list. A review of these documents indicates that the l
calculation results are consistent with the inpirt or conservative.
Therefore, this is not a discrepancy, 3
Dese:
RESOLUTION:
PreWously identtaed by Nu? Q Yes @ No Review P-p "- Not Acceptable Needed Dele VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgrr Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anerxl K
=
g Date:
sL Comnents:
Prtnled 10/7/971o.11:31 AM Page 1 of 1 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0319 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repod Rev6ew preup: Opere'ene & Menonance end Techng DR s#ALID j
Revtow Element: ModAoshan I.mtenston t
p D'"*""**'
O vos t!x ;x:y Type: Cartooth, Achon jg systernerocese: sWP
~
N 80e"8AC8888 I*l: 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
~
t:x- - -yr Documentation of modification status inconsistent..
Deserw6en: LER 96 005 dated 4/19/96 documents that in 1990 the function of the service water booster pump to auto t, tert on high temperature in the MCC and Rod Control Area Air Conditioning UnN (ACU) duct was inadvertenly bypassed. LER 96-005 committed to removing the bypass jumper. Modification, PDCR No. MP3 94-099 Titled: Remove 3SWP.'P3A/B Start Signal from SSWP'MOV 130A/B, was designed to perfctm the removal of the BJ.
During construction of Unit 3, it was noted that both trains of service water to the MCC/RCA ACU outlet isolation valves were in the same fire zone. Due to common fallure considerations, the decision was made to chan9e the isolation valves to a normally open configuration. The original control scheme caused the outlet isolation valve to open on a high temperature in the ACU duct or an a Loss of Power (LOP) signal and send a start signal to the Service water booster pumps.
To preclude the booster pumps from running all the time due to the open outlet isolation valves, a bypass jumper was installed in May 1990 to defeat the pump start on an open outlet iso!r.tlon valve and to allow a direct pump statt on an LOP signal.
As a result of an NRC review in Maren 1996 it was determined that the jumper was still installed and LER 96-005 was written to report this condition as being outside the design basis.
Modification package. PDCR No. MP3 94-099 Titled: Remove 3SWP.'P3A/B Start Signal from 33WP'MOV 130A/B, supplied by NU in response to Request for Information (RFI) # 159 indicated that the modification was not yet completed.
1 Master Commitment Record (Pl-6) # 28306 states that PDCR 94 099 documents that Bypass Jumper 3 90-020 has been removed. Commitmer.i Record # 29113 states that this DJ was removed in May,1996 and a permanent plant modification was made that restores all auto start design features, and does not rely on any operator actions.
The discrepancy is that the transmitted modification package is not consistant with Master Commitment Records (PI-6) # 28306 and #29113. Removal of the BJ to restore design configuration can not be confirmed.
Rev6ew Vead invalid Needed Dale inittetor: Speer. R.
O O
O o'187 Printed 1074710.12.50 AM Page 1 or 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0319 Mi'Istone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VT Lead: Base, Ken y
g Q
1QWg7 VT Mort SctWer, Don K O
O O
MC Chmn: Singh, Arend K O
O O
Dese:
10/tN7 WVAllD: Additional documentction was received on 9/29/97 which con 0rmed that the Bypass Jumper (BJ) had been removed and the modl0 cation /PDCR closed out. This additional documentation verifies the design configuration.
A review of the modification will be completed as part of the design change verification.
Oste:
RESOLUTION:
Mcz / idenuned by NU7
(,,) Yes
'98 No Review A~-
Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Bass, Ken VT Mgri Schopfer, Don K MC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:
sL Comments:
l l
Printed 10/74710.13 06 AM Page 2 of 2
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR44P34334 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Onmap: system DR INVAUD Discipline: Piping Design Potential Operatety lseue Om t'n n:y Type: %wm g
s,-. 7
_:: OSS E IN M 4 Date faxed to NU:
Date Published:
E iii Pipe stress analysis does not utilize latest design input Descr$8ica: During review of the following calculations (i) 12179 NP(F)-842 XD Rev 2 CCN 1 (1012179-SDP RSS, Rev. 4. Dated: 5 29 g7 we noted the following discrepancies:
Pipe stress calculatics (1) is performed using design input from a superseded Stress Data Package (SDP) calculation 12179-EDP-R33 Rev. O. Dated: 1 14- 03. The current version of the SDP is (10. The operating temperature used in the pipe stress calculation (0 is 115 dog F, while the revised operating temperature for condition 7, according to (10, is 257 deg F.
Rev6ew veed lovelid Needed Date inntator: Join, R. C.
O O
O 10/557 VT t.ead: Nort, Anthony A Q
Q Q
10f7/g7 vr ugr: schopen, con K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Dese:
10/3/g7 INVAUD: The nozzles are free standing, Therefore, thermal expansion will not be obstructed, and hence the change in stresses due to the temprature discrepancy will be negligible. The discrepancy has nevertheless been identified in the checklist.
osas:
RESOLUTION:
Provtously identined by NU7 Q Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT t.eed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mge: Schop'er, Don K IRC Chnm: Singh, Anand K O
O O
Date:
SL Commente:
Printed to/74171129.54 AM Page 1 of 1
-