Text

Forwards 17 Discrepancy Repts (Dr) Identified During Review Activities for Independent CA Verification Program IAW Communications Protocol,PI-MP3-01.Three Invalid Drs & 5 Drs for Which Resolutions Have Been Accepted & Reviewed,Listed
	ML20217K542
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	10/23/1997
From:	Schopfer D; SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	9583-100, NUDOCS 9710280305
	Download: ML20217K542 (43)
	v • d • e

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

s. ,

4

- ,a Bar gervts_ &,Lundy' 5

%/

Don K. Schopfer Vu Ptestdent ,

312 269-6078 October 23,1997 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Compary Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document ControlDesk Washington, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following seventeen (17) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distrib .ted in accordance with the Communications Protocol, Pl MP3 01.

DR No. DR MP3 0286 DR No. DR-MP3 0300 DR No. DR-MP3 0342 DR No. DR-MP3-0344 DR No. DR-MP3-0425 DR No. DR-MP3-0458 <

DR No, DR MP3-0460 DR No. DR-MP3-0462 DR No. DR MP3-0472 DR No. DR-MP3-0476 DR No, DR-MP3-0477 DR No. DR-MP3-0478 .

DR No. DR MP3 0479 DR No. DR MP3-0480 DR No. DR MP3-0482 DR No. DR MP3-0490 DR No. DR MP3-0497 I have also enclosed the following three (3) DRs that have been determined invalid. No ggA action is required from Northeast Utilities for these three DRs. The basis for their invalid D deterr.unation is included on the document.

\

DR No. DR-MP3-0381 t DR No. DR MP3-0432 DR No. DR MP3-0434

@$$$fhkkfk 9710280305 971023 ,

PDR ADOCK 05000423 P ,

PDR 55 East Montce Street . Chicapo, IL 60603 5780 USA

312-269-2000 W-...-- - - - . . . _ . .- - - - - . , - - . , , , . , , ,.-, n ,,

~

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 23,1997 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583100 Page 2 I have also enclosed the following five (5) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.

DR No. DR MP3 0101 DR No. DR MP3 0117 DR No. DR MP3-0129 DR No. DR MP3-0135 DR No. DR MP3-0181 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

Yours very truly, h

f _

D. K. Schopfer Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures Copics:

E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU mWaybvr\97wl023-aAc I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0284 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DRVAUD Potential Operability leave Diocapeine: N Donen h;ry Type: Component Date O Ya systerWProcese: Oss 4"

l NRC signancance leM: 4 Date FAFed to NU:

Date Published: 10/26/97 D6ecropency: FSAR Table 6.2 61 does not agree with quench spray pump i drawing 2214.602 040-013.

Deecription: FSAR Table 6.2 61 states that the QSS pumps are inade of 304 stainless steel. However, pump drawing 25212 2214.602-040-013 Revision C shows the pump casing to be of SA 351 CF8M.

The drawing further identifies this material to be equivalent to 316 stainless steel. Finally, the drawing shows most of the pump parts to be made of material equivalent to 316 stainless steel.

Review Valid inve46d Needed Date initiator: Feingold, D. J. O O O 10/1SS7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 10/1557 VT Mget Schopfer, Don K O O O 10/5'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O ioratio7 Dele INVAUD:

, Date:

MEsoLUTION:

Prov60uely identemed by NUF U Yee @ No Non Diecreper.d Conetion O Yee @ No Review inatiator: Fotngold, D. J.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O VT Mgri Schopter, Don K d

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Deie:

sL Corronents:

1 11 1

Printed 10/2397 2 08 06 PM Page 1 of 1

s I

O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. OR4AP3 4300 j Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i Rev6ew oraup: system DRVAuD .

Potential Operebility issue

-: - 0 ,ee Discrepancy Type: Component Date

@ No systemProceae Oss ~

NRC sion6Aconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6ehed: 1o/2697 D6*cr*pency: The plant design computer data base PDDS, identifies 4 discrepant corr ponent specification numbers.

Deecript6en: Item 1 The plant design computer data base, PDDS,1Jentifies

, spedfication 009 for the quench spray pump desi0n Sped 0 cation. However, specification 2214.802 044 through 2

Revision 1 is found to be the applicable design specification.

4 i

llem 2

The plant design computer data base, PDDS, Identifies spedfication 2280.050-670 for the containment redrculation system valves 3RSS*MOV38A,B design spedfication. However, spedfication 2282.050-676 through Revision 1 is found to be the applicable design specification.

Rev6ew Vaind invalid Needet Date initiator: Feingold. D. J. O O O $0'1557 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 10/12S7 VT Mort Schopfer, Don K O 10/1'S7 O O

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O to/2iis7 Date:

WVAUD:

i Date:

REsOLUTKW:

Prev 6ously identined by Nu? U Yee 9) No Non Discrepent CondN6on U Yee f) No Review

=

Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

O O O sL Cornments:

Ptinted 1o/2197 2.o9 27 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0342 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieweeeups system DRvAuo Rev6ew Element: System Deegn g

Diecipline: h Doengn E:n , up Type: Chan Ow systenWProcess: Rss g' g NRC 34!" m level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Deee Published: 10"J697 Diecrepency: Calculation US(B) 245 Discrepancies E= ,^ J A. The following discrepancies were found in the piping take-l offs on page 43:

i

1. Lines 1/5/6/10. Did not include an entrance loss, an exit I loss to the pump, a Run Tee or a loss for the screens. l

2. Lines 2/4/7/9 The 17 90' elbows should only bo 6 elbows and the Run Tee should be a Branch Tee.

3. Line 9 The 10" x 16' reducer is a reducing flange

~

meaning that it should be modeled as a sudden contraction (K =

2)instead of as a gradual contraction (K = 0.669).

B. The following discrepancies were found in the piping take-offs on CCN 2 Pa0e 15:

1. Line A B . There are 2 more 90' elbows, there is only one Run Tee and there aren't any 45' elbows or reducers.

2. Line B-C Length for Train B is 130 feet not 100 feet.

- 3. Line D E There are 2 more 90' elbows 'inre is only one 45' elbow and a check valve is not installed at: .e exit of the pump.

4. Line E F There are only ten 90' elbows and one 180' retum.

5. Line G H V43 is a Gate Valve not a Check Valve.

6. Line J-K - (RO43) . There is only one 90' elbow and one 45' elbow.

7. Pump Recirculation Flow Line A B - A check valve is not installed at the exit of the pump.

All of the take-offs were reviewed against the referenced EP drawings and the piping diagrams.

C. CCN 2 - The total K for the fittings cannot be reproduced.

The individual K values for the fittir.gs were added together to get a total K value. The indivioaal K values from the CCN and from the original Calculation were used. No combination of values resulted in the CCN total K values.

Review Vaind inval6d Needed Date inetnetor: Langel, D. Q Q Q 10/497 VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Q Q Q 10/7/97 VT Mge Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 1o/1397 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Q O O iorat/s7 Dei.:

INVAUo:

Deta:

RESOLUTION:

Printed 10/2397 2:1o.37 PM 7ege 1 of 2

-- - ._- ~-. . _ - - - . - - . . . . - - . . . - - - . - - - . _ - _ - . . _ - -

C Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0342 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Ihykmely ident6Aed by fvu? U Yes G) No Non D6screpent Condatkm V Yes 49) No Rev6ew a ~+ able Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O l VT Mgrt Gehopfer. Don K IftC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O g me, sL Comments:

Printed 102197 2.10.44 PM Page 2 of 2

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No.

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System r9 Y A,L u E 'I j t", :: Mecheneel Deegn Potenuel OperabilNy leeue Diecrepancy Type: Component Date O va l

systerWProcess: HVX @ No

~

NRC st":e level: 3 Date Faxed to NU Date Published: 10/2697 j

DecroPency: 3HVR*ACU1A/1B Fan Brake Horsepower !

Description:

During review of the component data for the Motor Control I Center, Rod Control, and cable Vault air conditioning units 3HVR*ACU1 A/1B a discrepei.cy regarding the fan brake horsepower was identified.

FSAR Table 9.4-4 states that the units are rated at 26,000 cfm and 9 hvg static pressure.

~

Vendor submittal drawing 2176.430 648 540G indicates that at the rating point of 26,000 cfm and 9 iwg static pressure the fan brake horsepower is 47.1 hp.

Specification 2176,4?.0-648 Indicates that at the rating point of 26,000 cfm and 7 Iwg static pressure the fan brake horsepower is 37.16 hp.

The Plant Design Deta System (PDDS) database indicates that the brake horsepower for the units is 37.2 hp.

Review Veild Inveild Needed Date initiator: Stout M D.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A 9 O O iv80'7 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Q Q Q 10/147 Q Q Q- 10/1$97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 10f2147 Deio:

INVALID:

Date:

Res0LUTION:

Provkusly idenufnod by NU7 Q Yes @ No Non Discrepent CondNion Q Yes @ No Review

^ -- ^ '" Not AccepteNo Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

sL Cortynents:

Printed 10/2197 2.11:46 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utiittles ICAVP DR No. DRMP34425 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report neview aroup: Conhowman DR VAuo

- .'Y ' .aPiping Design Potentto operetsuyluus C:x:- - - :y Type: ineletetson imp 6ementation Ow

,M No systemProceae: SWP '

NRC s? J'- x level: 4 Date FAKod to NU:

~

Dale Putmahed: 167697 L . xy Mod. PDCR MP3 93 008 : Modifications to heat exch, and associated piping for 3CCE'.11NB & 3CCl'E1B r= . .! Two discrepancies wers found in the dimensions shown on the heat excahanger isometric as built drawing 12179-Cl CCE E1 A Sht 164 Rev 7 in comparison to the field measurements made during the walkdown for this PDCR. Dimensions from the centerline of flange piece marks no.104 & 105 (shown on sheet 1 of the drawing) and the end of the transition piece hookup to :

the heat exchanger is shown at the top to be 41/16 In. and was measured to be 515/16 In. The bottom dimension is shown on the drawing to be 3 7/8 in, and was measured to be 61/16 in.

These discrepancies are greater than the piping tolerance of 1 in, allowed by Spec ME 570.1.B.9.1 for small and large bora piping, nev6.w veed inval6d Needed . Date initienor: Reed, J. W,

@ Q Q 10@97 VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A O O O 'o/1557 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O O O ' Goos 7 Q Q Q 1021/97 Date:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously klontmed by NU7 U Yes Si No Non D6ecrepent Condet6on Q Yes #1 No moview Accapa h Not Accepteble Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Shgh, Anand K g g Date:

sL conenente:

Printed 107197 2;12:36 PM Page 1 of 1

ortheast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0488 Mmetone unM 3 Discrepancy Report n.wi o, e: s,w n rmvAuo

'** I 8I M Diocep44ner N W Potential Oper?Swy laoue D6eeropency Typet Cem 4 y,,

systemetocout SWP gg f#tC Sientacence level: 3 ,

Date faxed to NU:

Date Put:46ehed: 1O?6W N*poney: An oltxw was compared to unvenfled and incorrect acceptance criteria Dacriptkin The purpose of Calculation NCR 391406116-EM, Rev 0, was to ensure that the predicted minimum well thickness of 6 inch i

retum piping from the HVK was not less than the minimimum l required.

The approach used the " Erosion / Corrosion Restart Program",

~

which evaluated system inputs and ultrasonic testing measurements, to determine if components met certain acceptance criteria. Printed output from this program was Included as Attachment 1 to the calculation, however, the pages were not labeled as such and the program was not included a:. a l reference in the References Section.

The acceptance criteria involved comparing the nominal well thickness, t(nom), with the predicted well thickness, t(prod). For atraight mn rpe, the program deemed a t(prod) greater than 30% of t(nom) to be acceptable. For elbows, the program deemed a t(prod) greater than 87.5% of t(nom) to be acceptable. These two acceptance criteria could not be verifled because no reference was given.

The calculation states the evaluation is being made for lines 3 SWP-006-035 3 and 3 SWP 006 050 3. Included in Attachment i are (6) printouts from the " Erosion /Conrosion Restart Program" output. The program printouts in Attachment 1 indicate 1:1ey are forlines 3 SWP 006 035-4 and 3 SWP 006 050-4. Here, the assumption is made that a typographical error was made when inputting the lines into the program, and the program output corresponds with the lines being evaluated.

The body of the calculation addresses only (1) of these evaluations and determines all of the components to bo acceptable. A review of the (6) program outputs in Attachment i revealed that the elbow being evaluated in the 3 SWP 006-050 3 line was compared to a different acceptance criteria than the elbow in line 3-SWP 006-035 3. This program output was designated as ' Calculation Number. M3 02 01237 2B'in Attachment 1. The predicted wall thickness for the elbow, t(pred), was compared to 30% of the nominal wall thickness, t(nom), and determined to be acceptable. However, according to the methodology previously used by the program, the f(pred) for the elbow should have been compared to 67.5% of the t(nom). If this elbow had been evaluated following the methodology used in the calculation, this component would have been deemed to be unacceptable, contrary to the stated Pnnled 103W 2.13 35 PM Pope 1 of 2

O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DM MP34464 Millstone Unic 3 Discrepancy R6 port conclusion.

The calculation did not referenes a design change notice, (DCN) or any other source to indicate thi elbow was going to be replaced. Therefore, it could not Le verified this elbow has been replaced, if this elbow has not yet been replaced it is a potential operability issue that would impact system functionality.

Review

' Valid invalid Needed Date indiastor: Dionne, 8. J.

VTt.eed: Nort, Anthony A O O O $o/1557 O O O 10/1697 VT Mori schopfer, Don K 4

' O O O 10'2057 mC,:w: sinen, Anenax e a o ta22.e7 Date:

INVAUD:

Dele:

REsoltlTON:

Preyhely identened by NUF t ) Yes @ No Non D6et. repent Condnion C) Yea it) No Review A~ M W M =""- Needed Date VT Lead Neri, Anthony A O O O vi m ri e sonopeer, con x g O g IRC Charm: Singh, Anand K g

Dei.:

st Commeeds:

4 a

[

Printed 10?197 2.13 42 PM Paee 2of 2

. I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0440 ;

Millstone UnN 3 Discrepancy Report l l

Review oteupt sretam DR VALeo

' PotentialOperatuty leaue t':: :i Type: Coloulehen O vee

, system @rocese: sWP g~

NRC s4Mmlevel: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6thod: 10 W 97 t'

, n:y Insufficient reference and incomplete methodology identified in Calculation 88 BOP 677 GM. Rev 0.

0:- . 2 The purpose of calculation 88 BOP 677 GM, Rev 0 was to analyze the effects on the Millstone Unit 3 service water system after replacing certain short redlus small bore pipe elbows with 4D and 50 pipe bends located in the HVQ, CCl, and CCE i

portions of the system.

~

The approach taken by this calculation was to multiply the difference in the UD values for the affected lines before and i

after the modifications by the worst case flow to predict the change in pressure drop.

' The worst case flow rates were taken from Reference 6, i

Millstone Unit 3 Service Water Phase I & ll Test Report. The worst case flow rates used in the calculation could not be verifiec because the reference is insufficient. Reference 6 does not include a date when the tests were conducted nor does it include a number to identify it.

Assumptions and approximations are made in the calculation to determine the UD values for the affected lines before and after the modifications. The methodology section does not Indicate what assumptions and approximations will yleid conservative and non-conservative results For example, it is not clearif an i

assumption that over estimates UD for the pre-modifications condition is conservative or non conservative. An approach to detemiine conservative UD values for pre and post modification conditions should have been established, Pa0e 12 of the calculation contains a sentence that trails off:

"These slightly larger pipe ID's are not expected to cause ..." 7 The discrepancies identified in the calculation are not expected to effect the conclusion of the calculation that the modifications will have an insignificant impact on the service water system operation.

Review Vend invand Needed Date initiator: Dionne, B. J. y [ [ 10/1Q97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q Q O 10/11/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 8 O O 'o/1557 Q Q Q 10/22.97 ,

Date:

INVALID:

Printed 1Q7597 2.14.18 PM Page 1 or 2

Northeest Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0460 i Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Dele:

ResotunoN:

Prevkmaly idenuned by nut O Yee el No Non Dioctopent Condeuen V Yes to) No Review gg, ^^^ , ' _ Not '*'t ** Needed Dale VT Lead: Nort, Arthony A O O O VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O MC Chmn: $% Anand K O e O O one:

SL Conenente:

l Printed 1G7117 2.14 24 PM Pege 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0492 umetone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revis. si n oRvAun Diecipeine: N De** Potent 6el operabi6#y lease Diavepancy Types ceiouteten O vee sydeWProcess: sWP 4g NRC sientarence level: 3 Date faxed to Nut Date Published: 101697 Discrepancy: Required component flow rates in Calculation 17273.161P(T) were not able to be verified E . 3: The purpose of Calculation 17273,161P(D was to predict individual component flow rates in the service water system using degraded si tvice water pump conditions and compare them to required i .w rates established from several referenced sources.

The approach taken by this calculation was to use the HY 066 hydraulic model, using the degraded pump curves, to predict the flow rates to several components in the service water system.

The predicted flow rates were then compared to required flow i rates referenced from soveral sources, The required flow rates for the components analyzed are shown on Page 43 of the calculation along with their respective i

references. These references were not included in the Reference Section of the calculation on Page 4 of the calculation.

The referenced required flow rates identified on Page 43 could not be verified for (3) reasons. The first is that many of the references have been superseded. Referenced calculations 90-FAC-094GF,12179 P(T) 1100 and P(R) 1168 have been superseded. The second reason is that the required flow rate was not referenced from a particular operating condition.

References, such as the FSAR, contain several required flow rates for a component under different operating conditions. And lastly, the comparison does not Indicate the quantity of each component operating when comparing the required flow rate and model predictions. For example, is the required flow rate for the CCP heat exchanger based upon 1,2 or 3 operating, and are the predicted flow rates for the CCP heat exchanger based upon 1,2 or 3 operating so a direct comparision can be made?

The discrepancies identified in this calculation are not expected to impact the results of this calculation orthe functionality of the service water system. In fact, the objective of this calculation is also addressed by calculation 90 069-1116 M3 using the PEGISYS hydraulic model to demonstrate minimum component flow requirements will be met.

Review Val 6d inval6d Needed Oste Inilleton Olonne. B. J, Q Q Q 1o/1597 VT Lead: Nerl, Areeny A G O O 10/1SS7 vr uen sover.Donx Q O O 1020S7 mc camn: sinen, Anano x Q O O 50cS7 Printed 1D'2397 2.1523 PM Paes 1 of 2 YA .-

l I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DM No. DR4P3 0442 Milletone unN 3 Discrepancy Report Date:

WWALID:

Date:

Res0LUTION:

Previously idenuned by NUF Q Yee 9) No Non Deectopant Conethm Q Yes 't) No Review mg ' ' , Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead Nort, Anthony A O O O VT Mgri Schosder, Dan K O O O mc chmn: sm Anand K Date:

@ ]

SL Commente:

Prtnied 107397 2.15 29 PM Page 2 of 2 NN -

O Northeast l'tilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3M72 wiistone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: SM DRVAUD I8 ,

[ --

Potential Operabliny leaue Dieeropency Type: C*m Q y,,

SystemPresseet 8WP 4) No

~

NRC 64!^-_z level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putsched: 102697 D6earspeacy Conversion to proper units in Calc, No.12179-P(R) 1087 was not performed Desert P t6ent On page 17 of Calculation No.12179 P(R) 1087. Rev. O.

Change No.1, ' Control Building Flood Study,' the flow rate used in the calculation of the w6dth of the wolf (opening in the pipe l encasement in the mechanical equipment room at Elevation 4' 6") is cubic feet per minute when it should be in cubic feet per second. This portion of the calculation determined the width of

~

the opening in the pipe encaserrent that would be needed so that the maximum flow rate into the mechanical equipttient room will exit via the pipe encasement openint1 l Review Valid inveild Needed Dele weieien w ,c.u O O O ter v n eed: Nort, Ar#wny A VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K B O O to m 7 O O O $$5057 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K g Q Q 1o/22/97 Dele:

( INVAUD:

Deler RESOLUTION:

Previously identeRed by NUF Q Yee () No Non Descro;:ent Conetton U Yes 9) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgri Schopfer. Don K inc chmn: Singh, Anand K O b

- O b O SL Commeeds:

4 Prtnied 107397 2.16:2ft PM Pope 1 of 1 t -

Northeast Utmtle. ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0476 Mmetone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review orovt system DR VALID I

Potentiel Operab66My luce Diecrepancy Type: Cem O"

., - oc.ee,.wP 4g NRC sWacance byei: 3 Date faked to NU:

Date Published: 10/2697 D6screpancy: input to Calc No. 94 ENG 1013 M3 was revised but tl:e calc.

wcs not revised Descr6Puon: ANSl/ANS $6.11 1988 states that floor drains shall be assumed plu00ed. Based on this, Calculation No. P(R) 1194. Rev 1 'ESF Bido Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESP Bldg due to a Pipe Break,' was revised to remove all references and assumptions of flow through floor drains (Revision 2).

Calculation No. 94 ENG 1013 M3 Rev. O, *ESF Building Flooding Rate . 4' 6" Elevation,' references Rev,1 of Calculation No. P(R) 1194, Calculation No. 94-ENG 1013 M3, Rev. O takes into account flow through floor drains. Calculation No. 94 ENG.

1013-M3 needs to be reviewed to determine if it remsins valid and either voided or revised.

Rev6ew -

vand invend Needed Date I initiator: Launt C.M. O VT Lead: Ne t, Anthony A O O iori'S7 O O O 10'17 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q Q Q ior2097 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K D D D 'or2i/87 Date:

INVAL10:

4 Dele:

REs0LUTION:

Previously identifled by NUP Q Yee #8 No Non Descrepent CondN60n Q Yes it) No 4

Rev6ew A captable Not Acceptable Needed Date letm M VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A b VT Mgra Schopfer, con K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

O b Q SL Cone 'tente:

Printed 1c/2397 2.17.26 PM Page 1 of 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0477 Millston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew oroup: syenom DR vAuo i Potenuel oporabilty leeue Diecipl6ne Oths' D6ecrepency Type: Calculaten O"

systemProceae 8WP NftC signiacance levol 3 Date faxed to Nur Date Published: io m 7 06*crepency: Possible improper assumption about leak tightness of fire bemers i

Deecr6puen: Calculations No.12179 P(R) 1087, Rev. O, ' Control Building Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Bldg due to a ;

Pipe Break,*12179 P(R) 1073, Rev. 0,

Maximum Flood Levels and Effect on Safety Related Equipment in the Diest Generator Bulldmg,' P(R) 1194 Rev 2,

ESF Bldg Flood Study:

Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Bldg due to a Pipe Break,'

and 12170-US(B) 287,'PRA BounCng Estimated of intemal Flooding,* calculate the potential flood levels in the various plant buildings. These calculations assume that all fire baniers are water tight. For this assumptioa to be valid, all of the features in the banier (penetratic.n saals and fire doors) would need to have a test or analysis demonstrating that they are water tight. In addition, fire doors are usually not water tight and any changes made to a fire door to make it water tight may invalidate the qualification as a fire banier, nev6ew vand invahd Needed Date initiator; t.euni,C.M, Q Q Q tW1a/97 VTLead: Nat, Antony A O O O 181**7 VT Mort Schopfer, Don K O O O 10/2057 iRC Ctenni sinen, Ar.nd K O O iorzas7 O

neie:

INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identeeed by Nu7 Q Vee @ No Non D6ecrepent CondW6on U Vee ? No Rev6ew initiator: (none)

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmni Singh, Anend K g g, i Date:

sL Comments:

Prinled 10m7 2.18.16 PM Page 1 of 1

. . - . . _ __- .- _. - - _. . - .-. - ._. - . . __ - - - _ _ - - - - - . . - - ~.. -

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0478 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DMVAUD !

Review Element: system Design Potent 6el Operabietty leaue r , 2: Other h; ry Type: Calculotta O Yes pretemfrocose: sWP

9) No NRC sign 6acance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 102697

] D6ecrewy In correct drawing reference Descr6puen: Calculation No. 86 210 732GM, ReV,0,'MP3 Chlorine Monitor Pipe Break Evaluation,' calculates the flow rate from a break in l 1 the 3/4' SWP supply line to the Chlorine Monitor. This line is conected to the 20 inch turbine building cooling water heat exchanger SWP discharge line. Reference (2), P&l 12179 EM-1338 does not contain this 3/4"line.

Revtew Valid invetid Needed Date initiator: Leuni,C.M. O O O 10/5457 VT I. sed: Neri, Anthony A O O O 10/15S7 VT Mers schopfer, Don K O O O 1o2a97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anend K O O O io22/s7 Date:

INVAUO:

osse:

, REsOLUT#ON:

Prov6ously identised by NU7 U Yes 9) No P'on D6ecrepent Condellon ) Yes (9) No Rev6ew Acceptable Not Accapable Needed Date

initietor: (none)

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O VT Mgra schopfer Don K O O O inC Chmn: sin, An.no x 0 .

a O O Dese:

st Comm.nio j

I Prtnted 10/2397 2.19.06 PM Page 1 of 1

O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0479 millstone Unit 3 Olscrepancy Report I

Moview Gros /s System DR VAUD

"''* ""'"a: sm W ,,,,,,,,,op,,,,,,,,,,,

E " , J Otho' ti _ - xy Type: Coloulation O va s ,1. 7, !SWP 4~ g, NRC signWicanoe level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Deee Published: to m t 02- 1xyl Math error in Calculation No.130(P) Rev. O Dacrtpa6an: Calculation No.130(P), Rev. O, ' Service Water 1' Line Break.'

This calculation calculated the flow rate through a 1* and 2" diameter line breaks in 1* and 2' diameter lines connected to a 26' service water line. The flow rate through a 2 Inch diameter i break was calculated to be 317.5 gpm. A mathematical error '

was made. The flow rate should be 530 gpm. This reduces the time to cover the floor of the service water pump cubicle to a depth of i foot from $$ minutes to 33 minutes. This calculation was not used as input to any of the other flooding calculations rey!ewed for the ICAVP. A review should be made to determine the use of this calculation. Depending on the outcome of this review, the Calculation No.130(P) shoulo be either voided or revised.

nev6 w Valid invei6d Needed Oste inittster: Leuni, C. M.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 10/$ *'7 VT Mgr: Schopfw Don K O O O 50'1557 Q Q Q 1o/2097 1RC Chmn: $1ngh, Anand K O O O ior2irp7 Date:

INVAUO:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prov6ously idenuned by Nu? U Yen i No Non Discre: wit Condotton Q Yee el No Review g Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgn Schopfc. Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dei.:

O O O st Commente:

PnnteG 10~2397 2,19 46 PM Page 1 of 1

. _ -._._ - ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _

o Northeast UtilRies ICAVP DR No, DR MP3 0440 Millstone Unk 3 Discrepancy Report neview oroup: symem DRvAuo

"'* *'*"'enu syworn W Diecipline: Mechenced Doo$n ,,,,,,,,,op ,,,,, ,,,,,,,

Diecrepancy Type: Component Data Om syenemerocese: HVX @ No

~

NRC signiacence level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished: 1076S7 01 ~xy ESF Filter Unit Compliance with RG 1.52, Rev. 2 Position C 3.g Deecription: During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3N38 and the Auxiliary Bulliding Ventilation System exhaust filter units 3HVR*FLT1N1B for compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52 Rev. 2 position C.3.g a discrepancy regarding the layout of the housing and banks of filters was identified.

FSAR Teble 1.81 states that the filter units comply with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.g except that no intemal lighting is provided.

FSAR Table 6.51 states that the chaming pump, component cooling pump and heat exchanger area exhaust systein is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.g FSAR Table 6.51 states that the supplementary leak collection and release system is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52 Rev. 2 position C 3.g Regulatory Guide 1.52 position C.3.g requires that system filter housings, including floors and doors, should be constructed and designed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.6 of ANSI N5091976.

ANSI N5091976 Section 5.6 requires that the layout of the housing and banks of components within the housing shall provide for access to both sides of each bank of components for maintenance and testing.

Drswings 2170.430 065-022D,2110.430-065-023E, EB-45G 9 and EB 45H 12 do not show access doors provided for the upstream side of the demister filter bank, the upstream side of 15a parlur bank, and downstream side of the second HEPA thter bar'k.

Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed Date inalator stow. M. D.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 10/12S7 Q Q Q 10/1497 VT Mgri Schopfer. oon K O O O S20S7 IRC Chmn: SNh. Anand K Q Q Q 1071/97 D.i.:

INVAUD:

Date:

REs0LUTION:

Prtnted 107197 2.23.3e PM Page 1 or 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR4AP34440 Millstone Unit L,,,_, Discrepancy Report Prov6ously hientened by NUT Q Yes 'en No Non D6ecrepent Cordt6on V Ves e) No Rev6ew m, y Acc4Ptable Not Acceptable Needed Dole 4

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O vr u en senover,conx 0 O O inc chmn: sine, Anand x 0 C O none:

O C' O SL Comnents:

I d

?

Printed 107317 2.2147 PM Pope 2 of 2 1

4 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRJAP3 0442 i Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR VALM

' Potent 6el OperetWesty issue Diecrepancy Type: Calculation O vee systenvProcese: SWP 9 NRc signinconce levol: 3 Date Faxed to NU Dele Putnished: 10M97 06ecrepancy: The floor area for Cubicles Q,T and U is smaller than calculated resulting in a greater flood height Deecrtpe6on: As a result of a reviewof Drawing 12179-EM 28 Rev.14 the floor area of Cubicle "Q"is approximately 442 sq. feet instead of !

the 599 sq. feet calculated in Calculation No. P(R) 1194, Rev. 2, -l

ESF Bldg Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Bldg due to a Pipe Break," page 24. The dimensions used for the i' cubicle in the calculation appear to include the wall thickness.

Using a floor area of 442 sq. feet results in a flood height of 9.5

" feet. Calculation No. P(R) 1194 calculated a flood height of 7 feet.

As a result of a review of Drawing 12179-EM 28. Rev.14 the floor area of Cubicle "T"is approximately 690 sq. feet instead of the 1121 sq. feet calculated in Calculation No. P(R) 1194, Rev.

j 2,"ESF Bldg Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Skig due to a Pipe Break,' page 28. The dimensions used for the cubicle in the calculatiott appear to include the well 1

! thickness. Using a floor area of 690 sq. feet results in a flood height of 27 feet. Calculation No. P(R) 1194 calculated a flood height of 22 feet.

As a result of a review of Drawing 12179-EM 28. Rev.14, the floor area of Cubicle "U"is approximately 1359 sq. feet Instead of the 1465 sq. feet calculated la Calculation No. P(R) 1194, Rev. 2, "ESF Bldg Flood Study: Maximum Flood Height in the ESF Bldg due to a Pipe Break," page 28. The dimensions used for the cubicle in the calculation appear to include the wall thickness. Using a floor area of 1359 sq. feet results in 9 flood l height of 18.5 feet Calculation No. P(R) 1194 calculated a flood height of 17 feet.

For Cubicles 'T' and 'U," this does not change the conclusions of the calculation (pages 30-32). However, Calculation No. P(R) 1194 requires that the wall between Cubicles "Q" and 'R' and Cubicles "Q* and "S" be water tight to a height of 7 feet. With the potential of flooding Cubicle "Q* to a height of 9.5 feet above the floor, Cubicles 'O,"R" and 'S' could be flooded. Cubicle "R" contains the Loop A RHR pump and Cubicle "Q" contsins the Loop B RHR pump. Technical Specifications 3.4.1.4.1 and 3.4.1.4.2 require at least one loop of RHR be operational during Mode 5. A flood in Cubicle "Q* to a height of 9.5 feet would

) submerge the Loop B RHR pump.

Assuming an unsealed penetralon a little mnre than 7 feet above the floor, the potential exists to flow 1100 cubic feet of eter to Cubicle "R.* This would flood Cubicle 'R' to a height of Prinsec 107197 2.24 55 PM Page 1 of 2

he'rttwast utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0442 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report approximately 2 feet above the floor (up to Elevation 6.5 feet).

The L.oop A RHR pump is located at Elevation 9' 3 3/4"(Gee Calculation No. P(R) 1194, Rev. 2, Attachment 2, pa9e 3) or 4' 9 3/4* above the floor. Therefore, both RHR pumps would not be affected by such a flood.

The floor amas in this calculation were also used as input to Calculatl .40. 94 ENG 1013 M3, Rev.1.

Rev6ew Valid invalid Needed (W initiesor: tm 4 C. M-VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A O O O 10/1'S7 O O O 10/18987 VT uer: Schopter. Don K O O O 1o/2057 l IRC Chmn Singh. Anand K Q Q Q 1 0/21197 l

Dee:

INVAllD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prov6ously identined by NUF V Yes @ No Non D6ecropent Condmion (,) Yee Je) No 4-

._- .. m_

M y a-- .

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O VT Mgra Schopfer. Don K b IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K

. Dele:

g sL Comnente:

a l

l

}rtnied 10/2197 2:25 o3 PM Page 2 or 2 i

O Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0495' Mmston Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Aev6 w oraup: syetem DRvAuD Review tw se % Potenueloperatety issue DiscipHne: Piping Dee*

Diecrepancy Type: Camm O Ya l SysterWProcess: SWP (5) No NRC dignificance level: 3 Date faxed to NO:

Date Published: 10 M 7 D6ecrepancy: Bracket modifications for valve 3 SWP MOV 24C not performed

Description:

During review of the following Service Water System calculations (1) 12179-NP(F) 835-XD-Rev 4, CCN 1 (II) DCN DM3-S-0794-95 (Ill) 12179-NP(B) X1910-Rev 1, CCN 7 we noted folkswing discrepancy:

According to (1):

Page 3, item 3 The bracket for 3-SWP MOV 24C does not t

meet the PI 3 design basis criteria when subjected to piping-l specific seismic accelerations.

Page 5 Bracket Evaluation Summary Bracket for valve 3-SWP.

MOV 24C is "NG" (no good ) for the actual acceleration (g) levels.

f Page 4, Recommendation item 2 Modify the subject valve brackets to retum these valves to the design basis criteria as deilned in Pl 3, According to (11) DCN Problem Solution: The action recommended is a paper change only, No field work required.

Therefore, no work was performed on the valves and the DCN was closad.

Calculation (Ill) shows no documentation to indicate that any bracket modification work was performed on valve 3-SWP MOV-240.

Review Veild invel6d Needed Date inkletor: Jain. R. C. @ Q Q 10/1497 i VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O O O 1o/15/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K

@ Q Q 1o/2o/97 IRC Cim,: Singh, Anand K

@ Q Q 1021/97 Date:

INvAUO:

mem-mm Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prev 6ously identined U NU7 Q Yes I No Non Discrepant Condation Q Yes @ No Review A:ceptable Not Ar.ceptable Needed Date VT Leed: f 4ert, Anthony A G O O Prtnted 102197 2:27:25 PM Page 1 of 2

- .-. . . -. - . ~ . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . _ . - . . . -. . ~ . - - _ _.

c Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0490

, Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

, IRC Ctar.; Singh, Anand K !

O u-t

m. O O O st c== n.:

4

+

l 5

~

Printed 10/2197 2:27:32 PM P9 2 W 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0497

. Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft Neview oroup: system j DR VAUD 3

Diecipline: Piping DWon Potenuel Operabliity leeue Discrepancy Type: Cem Om System 9tocess: sWP 4) No

~

NRC signeacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Pucashed: 10/2697 D6ecrepencVi integration ilme steps may be insufficient to capture peak hydraulic transient forces Descripeton: In the process of reviewing the following docurneists, (i) Flow Transient Calculation No.12179-NP(B) 270-FA, Rev 02 (ii) Flow Transient Calculation No.12179-NP(B) 271 FA, Rev. 04 we note the following:

Backgroured and Discussion:

The hydraulic models of the piping networks addressed by (i) and (ii) consist of pipe segments from 3 ft. to 30 ft. In length.

Typical pressure wave velodtles in water filled pipes range from 3t90 to 4500 fps.

Calculation NP(B) 271 FA uses a pressure wave velocity of 2000 fps and validates this assumption based on field tests conducted on tne circulating water system at the North Anna Station. (Ref.

6.19,'Repe t on Hydraulic Transient Analysis and Related Circulating Water System Studies", North Mna 1&2, by SWEC, July,1979.) This calculation was requested for review under RFl 463, item 5.

The analytical integration time step used to establish the pressure force time histories on piping segments is 0.004 sec.

For pressure wave velocities of 2000 fps and 4000 fps, using a time step of 0.004 sec, results in the wave traveling a distance of 8 ft and 16 ft, respectively, during the time step. These distances are greater than numerous segments in the piping model.

Bc.,ed on a review of the force time history plots, some segment forces hit peak (maximin.) values at adjacent (0.004 sec) time steps. This demonstrates that the pressure transient is very rapid and may occur or reach peak values at some time between the evaluated 0.004 sec time step increments.

Discrepancy; Based on a review of calculations (1) and (ii), we believe the evaluated integration time step of 0.004 sec may not capture the transient forces in some piping segments and under predict some peak forces.

Printed tortV97 228.09 PM Page 1 of 2 e

Northeast Utilities 'ICAVP DR No DR MP3 0497 Millstone unn 3 Discrepancy Report The referenced North Anna calculation used to establish the - '

2000 fps pressure wave speed could not be identified in the NU calculation data base.

Review Vaud invand Needed Date initiator: Oleon, P.R.

Q Q Q 10/1497 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 10/1597 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 1G"2047 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 50/21/87 Date: I INVAUD:

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Prev 60uely identified by NU7 O Yes it) No Non D6ecrepent condition O Yes !() No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O 1RC Civnn: Singh, Anand K Dele:

sL Conenente:

Printed 10/:nS7 2:20 ;7 PM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0381 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew 0:oup: Operouons & MeWenance and Testing DRINVALID R EW: M h Dioc6p44ne: Opershons Potent 6el Operetnetty leeue Diecrepency Type: Test Requrements Om systemerocese: Rss 4g NRC signinconce level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putd6ehed tog &D7 D6ecrepency: Surveillance Procedure Test Methods inadequacies Descr6ptlon: Recirculation Spray System (RSS) Tech. Specs. Surveillance Requirements are as follows: 4.6.2.2.c, states: *Each '

Recirculation Spray System shall be demonstrated operable at least once each refueling interval by verifying that on a CDA test signal, each recirculation spray pump starts automatically after a 660 +/- 20 second delay." 4.6.2.2.d. states: "Each Recirculation Spray System shall be demonstrated operable at least once each refueling interval, by venfying that each automatic valve in the flow path actuates to its correct position on a CDA test signal." The test methods used in the applicable surveillance procedures, SP 3646A.17 & 18, and OPS Forms 3646A.171 &

181, may be inadequate to demonstrate operability of either the RSS 'A' or "B' components.

l Procedure step 4,1.2 requires the circuit breakers for pumps to be placed in the REMOTE TEST position with the breakers CLOSED, and they remain there throughout the test. This methodology activates the circuit breaker indicating lights but does not check the breaker auxiliary contacts operation, or that the breaker would have operated to start the pum? with a CDA signal in addition, the tests for pump 3RSS*P1C on OPS Form l 3646A.17-1, Sections A, B & C, for test under both SIS / LOP and CDA conditions, are marked 'Not Tested." A note on the form cover page refers to a retest on OPS Form 3646A.17 2, but the form is not attached to the test data package, and retest results, if any, are unknown.

Automatic valves in the flow path are required to actuate to the correct position on a CDA test signal. For 3RSS*MOV20A, the Train A discharge isolation valve, the test was marked "Not Tested" on OPS Form 3846A.171, Sections B & C, and it was not verified that the valve opened on a CDA signal. A note on the form cover page refers to a retest on OPS Fo'n 3646A.17 2, but the form is not attached to the test data package, and retest results, if any, are unknown.

Description:

Discussion:

The subject ACR was written to document that the TSP taskets were found with a volume at less than the fill line that specifies the minimum Technical Specification volume per surveillance procedure SP 3606.10. The Reportability Evaluation relies entirely on a Technical Evaluation MP3 TS96-210 and it was determined that the issue is not reportable, The following observations form the basis for this discrepancy report:

The evaluation documents that the baskets were initially filled to the " full !!ne' during RF05 and that there has been " expected settling *, although the amount of settling ' expected

is not mentioned. The conclusion is made that "since there are no signs of leakage around the baskets, the total mass is still in

! place, and the baskets are still capable of performing its function',

1. We disagree (based on the documentation provided in the ACR and Technical Evaluation /Reportability Evaluation) that lack of ' signs of leakage" is sufficient basis to conclude that the

' total mass is stillin place and the baskets are still capable of performing its function". The analysis lacks the necessary confirmation that the initial charge (mass) of TSP was in fact adequate for meeting the functional requiremis. This could be done by review of past records (also not mentioned). Had the settling been correctly anticipated, the initial fill would have been greater to preve.nt encountering this situation where settling has now occurred to the point that the minimum Technical Specification volume (fill line) is not met. This oversight is sufficient to warrant absolute verification that the correct mass was initially charged.

2. Accordingly, we e!so disagree with the reportability evaluation since 'he conclusion of 'Not Reportable

is based entirely on the technical evaluation with which we take issue.

3. In addition, we disagree with the assigned significance level as significance level D. Although the condition was discovered in Mode 5 when the TSP baskets furwtion is not requirea to be operable, all 12 TSP baskets were initially specified as INOP by the Shift Supervisor. Then a technical evaluation and reportability evaluation took place. The need to perform these evaluations ( aimed at ensuring that safety functions would be met when operability is questioned or questionable and at Printed 10i23,97 2:29:13 PM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRMP3-0434 Millstone Unit 3 Diecrepancy Report determining resultant reportability) Justifies an initial higher '

significance (eg, at least level C) especially i;f there was reason to suspect (and no evidence is provided to the contrary) that the unanalyzed condition could have existed in a1 operating mode where the TSP toskets were required to be oarable.

Review Valid invelki Needed Date initiator: Nemrro, Mark -

Q Q Q 10/22 S 7 VT Lead: Ryen, Thomas J VY Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O 10/22S7 O O O IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q Date: 10/22/97 INVALID: Upon further review of the circumstances as documented in the Corrective Action Plan of ACR 12327, it has been confirmed that i the corrective action is appropriate and that the work associated with restoring the level in the TSP baskets has been completed.'

Since the real concem (ie, TSP level in baskets was low) has been appropriately resolved, the three issues noted in the discrepancy report, namely:

1, The issue of using a "no leakage check" In the technical evaluation as the only documented basis to conclude that the total required mass of TSP is still in place, and

2. The basis for the conclusion reached in the reportability evaluation which relies solely on the technical evaluation, ar.d

3. The initial assignment of significance level are no longer a concem and require no further action.

Date:

RESOLUTION:

Previously identi6ed by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Conddion U Ye= @ No Review initletor: (none)

VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O O 8 Date:

SL Comments:

l Prmted 10/2397 2:29:21 PM Page 2 of 2 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0101 -

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6ew Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED EM W W Diecipline: Mechanicei Design Potential Operetnlity leaue Discreperry Type: C*W O vee SysterWProceae: Os3 @)

~ No NRC Significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6shed: 9/11/97 D6screpancy: QSS/RSS Pump Room Ventilation COculation Discrepancy Desertption: Calculation P(B)-1001 Rev 0 & CCN 1 were reviewed to verify that the correct heat load from the Quench Spray System (QSS) pumps 3QSS*P3A/B and the Recirculation Spray System (RSS) pumps 3RSS*P1 A/B/C/D were used in determining the ventilation requirements for the pump rooms. The review identified the following discrepancies:

1. The motors for pumps 3OSS*P3A/B have a 500 hp nameplate rating with a required bhp of 470 per PDDS. The pump brakehorse power requirements shown in specification 2214.602-040 are 386 bhp rated,470 bhp maximum. The calculation uses 386 bhp when calculating the motor heat load. Using the maximum bhp shown in Plant Design Data System (PDDS) and the specification increases the motor heat load to 90,033 Btu /hr from 73,942 Btu /hr.

2. The motors for RSS pumps 3RSS*P1 A/B/C/D have a 500 hp nameplate rating with a required bhp of 458 per PDDS. The pump brakehorse power requirements shown in specification 2214.602-044 are 443 bhp design,458 bhp maximum.The f calculation uses 443 bhp when calculating the motor heat load.

Using the maximum bhp shown in PDOS and the specifiertion increases the motor heat load to 162,063 Blu/hr from 156,756 Btu /hr, This was classified as a level 4 since the discrepancy does not increase the heat loads in the rooms above the capacity of the HVAC equipment shown on page 67 of the calculation.

Review VeEd invei6d Needed Date inittetor: Stout, M. D.

O O O S/4S7 VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A G O O S'*S7 VT Mor: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K

@ Q Q 9,W97 Q O O 9 tass 7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 10/14/97 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0101 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The calculation will be revised to correct this condition. Condition Report (CR) M3-97 3241was written to provide the necessMy corrective actions to resolve this issue.

A review of e nir trintinn No P(Rb1001 "Hent Lnnek for the Ec!F Pfinted 10/2197 ts7.02 PM Page 1 of

4' Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0101 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Building Emergency HVAC System' relative to the Brake HP used for the QSS and RSS pumps was performed. As outilned in the subject DR description, the calculation used the design BHP, not the more conservative maximum BHP value. Use of the more conservative maximum BHP values in the calculation does not increase the loads in the rooms above the capacity of the Alr conditioning units shown on page 67 of the calculation.

Prev 6ously identined by NU7 U Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition Q Yes (9) No Review iniuatort stout, M. D.

VT Leed: Nwt, Anthony A VT Mge: Schopfer DonK 4

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

bL Comments:

Pnnted 1073971:57;10 PM Page 2 of 2

t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0117 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Rev6 woroup: AcementMooshon DR REscauTION ACCEPTED Potential OperatWhty leeue Discrepancy Type: Test impiamenista O vee SystemProceae: N/A @ No NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished. 9/11/97 D6screpancy: Notification of Failed Surveillance Test for 3 MSS *RV26C oeecitpoon: On 13APR95, Surveillance Procedure 3712G, " Main Ste am Code Safety Valve Surveillance Test (IPTE)", was perfcrmed on the main steam safety valves (3 MSS *RV22A,B,C,D, 3 MSS *RV23A,B,C D. 3 MSS *RV24A,B,C,D,3 MSS *RV25A,B,C,D and 3 MSS *RV26A,B,C,D).

During the performance of the test on 3 MSS *RV26C, the setpoint could not be adjusted to meet the acceptance criteria.

The test was terminated. The surveillance cover sheet (Maintenance Form 3712G 1, Rev 6) indicate that the acceptance criteria were not met. The surveillance cover sheet requires that the shift supervisor be notified of a failed surveillance. The data sheet does not Indicate this action.

4 Rsview veind inveied Needed Date instietor: Poetnes, W, R.

Q Q Q M7 VT Lead: Rehele, Raj o G O O 8/3'S7 VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 9/IW97 IRc Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O - SW'7 Date:

INvAUD:

Date: 10/17/97 RESOLUTION: Dispositjon:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0117, has identified a condition that is discrepant. However, due to its historical and administrative nature and because proper -

notifications were made, it does not require corrective action.

During perfuanance of AWO M3 9317969, Main Steam Safety

, Valve Simmer Test, two of the Main Steam Safety Valves failed to meet the acceptance criteria.

Maintenance procedure SP 3712G requires notifying the Shift Managerif accep'ance criteria is not met. As indicated on the form for MSS *RV22A, the Shift Manager notification was documented, For MSS *RV26C, however, the sign off was not initialed.

Notification of the Shift Manager for a failed safety valve is procedurally driven. Please refer to the attached copy of the Shift Manager's log for April 14,1995 time 0051 for validation that the Shift Managerwas in fact informed of the failed surveillance. Also, per the AWO and procedure requirements,

< ACR 01839 (attached) was generated to document the failures.

This ACR was signed bv the Shift Manngen,,,There is alsn a sign Prtnted 10r2S971:58.00 PM Peos 1 of 2

O e

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DRJAP3 0117 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report off for OPS on the AWO.

Although the Shift Manager was informed, we have initiated CR M3-97 3117 tu document the administrative error that occurred.

The CR will be used in trending administrative and inattention to i detall errors.

Because of the administrative nature of this issue and because proper actions were taken upon failure of the surveillance, this OR should be 6esignated as a Significance Level 4 discrepancy.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Repon, DR MP3-0117, has identified a condition that is discrepant. However, due to its historical and administrative nature and because proper notifications were made, it does not require corrective action.

While the Shift Manager notification was not initialed on the surveillance form, his cognizance is documented in the Shift Manager's log. The Shift Manager notification was also documented by the AWO and the ACR. Based on the administrative nature of this issue and because proper actions were taken upon failure of the surveillance, this DR should be designated a Significance Level 4 discrepancy.

Previously klenufled by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Diecrepent Condit6on O Yes (G) No Review inallator: Peeblos. W. R.

VT Leed: Rehem. Rei D D O NS VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K osse: 10/15/97 SL Comments:

Printed 10/23/971:58:14 PM Pop 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0129 Millstone Unit 3 Discrapancy Report Review Group: Programmate DR PIE 60LUTioN ACCEPTED Diecipl6ne: Elecincel Design PotentialOperability lasue i Diecropency Type: Correctrve Action Om g l Systerrverocese: DGX ~

NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putnished: 9/1497 D6ecropency: Adverse Condition Report ACR M3 96-0272 Discrepancy

Description:

1 Adverse Condition Report ACR M3-96-0272 relates to a commercial grade dedication of a Beta Annunciator Power Supply by the use of a Nonconformance Report vs. the commercial grade dedication process. The management review form, RP 4-4, inadvertently has Ble:* 2 marked 'yes" instead of "no".

2. Parts of this ACR are illegible such as the attsched NCR 395-277.

Review Velid invenid Needed Date Inlanator: shepperd, R. P.

Q Q Q 9997 VT Leed: Ryon, Thames J G O O SSS7 VT Mer: schopfw, Don K Q Q Q SSS7 NtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 9/11/97 Date:

IN4/ALAD:

Dese: 10/6/97 RESOLUTION

Disposition:

NU has cone'uded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0129, does not represent a discrepant condition. The Correct Action Program has been evaluated and numerous concems were identified including the types of items identified in this Discrepancy Report. it is correct that block 2 on the management review form, RP 4-4, w s inadvertently marked "yes"instead of "no", in fact action a:sgnments were made and performed and the ACR was not immedlately closed. This is a minor adminisrative error and has been documenied in CR M3-97 3183. More legible copies of the ACR can be made available including a more legible version of NCR 395-277. The original documents are on file at Millstone. These are administrative issues which do not effect the correctness or effectiveness of the ACR corrective action plan.

Additionally, the Millstone Corrective Action Program was significantly upgraded in February,1997 following the performance of QAS Audit QAS-96-4108, dated June 19,1996, and the Corrective Action Plans for ACR 13318 and CR M3 0111. These ACRs and the Audit identified numerous discrepancies with the Corrective Action Program, one of which was incornpletely/ incorrectly filled out forms (ACR 13318 Item 9). Revision 4 to RP-4 significantly enhanced the Corrective Adinn Pronrnm as a renntt of the nrevious findinnt The DR Printed 1o/23971:58:55 PM '

Page 1 of 2

%-. _~m -

t Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0129 millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report identified item from the June,1996 time frame was before significant changes to the Correct!ve Action Program were made, The new changes within the program focused on improving future performance not correcting past administrative discrepancies. Therefore, these minor administrative issues warrant no further action. Significance Level critelia do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0129, does not represent a discrepant condition. It is correct that block 2 on the management review form, RP 4-4, was inadvertently marked "yes" inst 6ad of "no", in fact action assignments were made and performed and the ACR was not immediately closed. This is a minor admlnisrative error and has been documented in CR M3-97 3183. More legible copies of the ACR can be made available including a more legib!e version of NCR 395 277. The original documents are on file at MillMone. These are administrative issues which do not c'fect the correctness or effectiveness of the ACR corrective action plan and warrant no further action.

Revision 4 to RP-4 significantly enhanced the Corrective Action Program as a result of ACRs and a QAS audit. The DR identified 1 tem from the June,1996 time frame was before significant changes to the Colvective Actlen Program were made. The new changes within the program focused on improving future performance not correcting past administrative discrepancies. Therefore, these minor administrative issues warrant no further action. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identined by NU? O Yes 4) No Non D6ecrepent Condition O Yes @ No Rev6ew Imor: s , R. P.

A captable Not A-:-: -T " Needed Date VT Leed: Ryan, Thomas J O O "

VT Mer: schopter, con K O O O M7 IRC Chmn: singn, Anand K Date: 10/6/97 sL connents: The condition described in this Discrepancy Report is valid insofar as NU's Adverse Condition Report (ACR) M3-96-0272 does not met the record requirements of NU's Quality assurance Program Topical Report. However, since the individual prob l ems 3 described in DR-MP3-0129 are being corrected via CR M3 3183 e'id NU has identified the general problems with the Corrective Action Program, we accept your response.

Pnnted 10/23971:59.02 PM Page 2 of 2

e Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0135 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review p i,ap: Acoksen: Megebon DR REs01.UTioN ACCEPTED Review Lant: Test Procedure ts ; u. Matenal omg" Discrepancy Type: Design Control Procedure O va syssenwrocese: wA ((}No NRC signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to Nu:

Date Putd6ahed 9/11/97 Discrepency: Discrepancy in Documenting Fuel Building Filter Flow Rate Surveillance Testing Descript6on: Surveillance Procedure SP36140.2 lists steps for in-place vendor flow rate testing for Fuel Building filters. Step 4.3.6 is applicable for Tain A and Step 4.4.6 is for Train B. The procedure requis is using OPS Form 3614C.1 1 and corresponding Or*S Forms 3614C.2 3,3614C.2 5,3614C.2 7 and 3614C.2-9 for Train A. Similarly for Train B, OPS Form 3614C.12 and corresponding OPS Forms 3614C.2-4,3614C.2-6,36140.2-8 and 3614C.210 must be completed. These forms are used for determining and documenting system flow rates.

Although the appropriate OPS Forms were used for Train B, for Train A the OPS Form 3614C.1 1 was not used.

Therefore, for Train A, the requirements of the Surveillance Procedure are not met. In addition, no basis is provided for the computed system flow rates reported in OPS Forms 36140.2 3, 3614C.2 5,3614C.2 7 and 3614C.2 9, Review Vead inval6d Needed Date Initiator: Kane.T.J. O O O 8557 VT Leed: Rehega, Raj D G O O S*S7 VT Mge: set'opfer, Don K Q Q Q Ev8S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O ivaS7 Date:

INVAUD:

~

Date: 10/17/97 REsotuTicw: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0135, does not represent a discrepant condition. SP 3614C.2 requires that 3614C.1 1 be performed, to obtain system flow rate, whenever the 3614C.2 surveillances are performed.

Records for past completed performances of SP 3614C.2 3,2-5, 2 7 and 2-9 (frequency: Refuel) show that SP 3614C.1 1 was performed as well(see atisched examples). Completion of OPS form 3614C.1 1 provides a basis for the flow rate documented in the 3614C.2 surveillances. 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 0135, does not represent a discrepant condition.

During a review of the past two scheduled performances of SP 1 3614C.2 surveillances, it was noted that the full flow surveillance was also completed. See attached copies of completed OPS Prned 10/23971:59:45 PM Page 1 of 2

o e'

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0138 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Form 36140.1 1. Completion of OPS form 3614C.1 1 provides a basis for the flow rate documented in the 36140.2 survelllances.

Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepent condition.

Prov60uely identated by Nu? (#J Yee O No Non Discrepent condetion #) Yes Q No Review initiator: Kane,T.J.

VT Lead: Reheje, Rei D VT Mer: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Dele: 10/15/97 sL conenente: NU's Resolution to DR MP3-0135 is sufficient to allow ICAVP to close this DR.

DR MP3-0135 was vtht'en because the initial set of completed surveillances requested through RFI No. MP3-172 for SP3614C.2 did not include the OPS Forms 3614C.1 1 required to document the two system flow rates utilized to complete OPS forms 3614C.2 3, 5, 7, and 9 for Train B. The attachment to ICAVP Response Form M3-IRF 00348 provides the system flow rate i

documentation that was missing from NU's previous transmittal.

Therefore, ICAVP accepts NU's assessment that this is a non-discrepant condition and considers DR-MP3 0135 closed.

Printed 10/21971:59 55 PM Pege 2 of 2

+

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0181 Millstone un" 3 Discrepancy Report Revtew Group: Accident Meigetion DR REs0LUTION ACCEPTED Revlow Elanent: SW Doetn Potential Opwatnity luue D'"lP une: N De$n O yee l

Discrepancy Type: Uceneang Document !

SystenVProcess: N/A @ No

~ l NRC signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished: 1Q397 06ecrepency: Configuration Discrepancies Between FSAR Sections 15.6.2, FSAR Table 6.2-65, and P&lDs Decrtpe6on: (1) inconsistency in the Penetretion Number : Table 6.2-6b of the FSAR Indicates penetration number 12C for the sample line penetrating containment from the pressurizer vapor space. Per P&lD 12179-EM-144B 14, however, the penetration number for this line is 12%

(2) Inconsistency in Normal Valve Position: FSAR Section 15.6.2 states that the sample lines are provided with normally closed isolation valves on both sides of the containment wall. Per P&lD 12179-EM 144B 14 and Table 6.2 65 of the FSAR, however, these valves (3SSR*CD/20 & 21) are normally open, but fall closed.

Review venid invand Needed Date inniator: Kam.T.J. O O O anS7 VT Lead: Retnis, Raj D g Q Q 9/10.97 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K G O O ar2:oS7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K

@ Q Q 9/27/97 Date:

l INVALID:

l Date: 10/15/97 REs0LUTION: Dlsposition;

. NU has concluded that Olscrepancy Report DR MP3-0181, item 2 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3362 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. Section 15.6.2 will be revised to show the correct alignment as stated hi P&lD-EM-144B and Table 6.2-65, item 1 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU for which correction is complete. P&lD-EM 1448 and Table 6.2-65 both now show penetration 12A as the Pressurizer Vapor Space sample, and penetration 12C as the Pressurtzer Relief Tank Vapor sample. Thls condition was corrected by FSAR CR M3-96 ,

042.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0181, item 2 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 97 3362 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. Section 15.6.2 will be revised to shaw t;1e Printed 10/23,97 2 00:38 PM correct alianment as stated in P&lD-EM-1448 and Table 6.2-65.

Pege 1 of 2

. ,e e

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0181 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has also concluded that DR MP3-0181, Jtem i has identified a condition previously discovered by NU for which correction is complete.

Prevkwaly ident& Red by NU7 Q Yes , @ No Non D6ecrepent Cmkm V Yes @ No Review Acceptab6e N W A =;^ '

Needed Date mm % T.1 O -7 VT Laod: Raw, Raj D O m7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

4 i

i Pnnted 10/2397 2:00A5 PM Page 2 of 2

-.

ML20217K542

Contents

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

ML20217K542

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search