ML20217Q219

Forwards Discrepancy Repts (Drs) Identified During Review Activities for Independent Corrective Action Verfication Program.Drs Distributed IAW Communication Protocol, PI-MP3-01

ML20217Q219
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/09/1998
From:	Chopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
9583-100, NUDOCS 9803120065
Download: ML20217Q219 (164)

Text

,..o o '

j

f. 3, Lu ndy ' ' c ser genei%ly E Don K. Schopfer Senior Vice Pre.ident 312-269-6078 March 9,1998 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast 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 Enclosed are discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP.

These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.

I have enclosed two (2) DR that has been determined invalid. No action is required from Northeast Utilities for this DR. The basis for its invalid determination is included on the document.

DR No. DR-MP3-0887 DR No DR-MP3-1041 I have also enclosed the following thirty-eight (38) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by St DR No. DR-MP3-0058 DR No. DR-MP3-0400 I DR No. DR-MP3-0071 DR No. DR-MP3-0423 .

DR No. DR-MP3-0113

.r DR No. DR-MP3-0120 DR No. DR-MP3-0436 DR No. DR-M?3-0486 D/ /

q 2/l

~~

DR No. DR-MP3-0123 DR No. DR-MP3-0506 DR No. DR-MP3-0155 DR No. DR-MP3-0512 DR No. DR-MP3-0160 DR No. DR-MP3-0544 DR Ho. DR-MP3-0232 DR No. DR-MP3-0548 DR No. DR-MP3-0274 DR No. DR-MP3-0570 g g DR No. DR-MP3-0353 DR No. DR-MP3-0579 DR No. DR-MP3-0355 DR No. DR-MP3-0593 DR No. DR-MP3-0375_ DR No. DR-MP3-0594 9803120065 980309 PDR ADOCK 05000423 icago, IL 60603 5730 USA + 312-269-2000 P PDR

r W

! United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Msrch 9,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 DR No. DR-MP3-0390 DR No. DR-MP3-0600 DR No. DR-MP3-0704 DR No. DR-MP3-0900 DR No. DR-MP3-0711 DR No. DR-MP3-0922 DR No. DR-MP3-0714 DR No. DR-MP3-0958 DR No. DR-MP3-0759 DR No. DR-MP3-0970 DR No. DR-MP3-0768 DR No. DR-MP3-0982 DR No. DR-MP3-0777 I have also enclosed the following e ghteen (18) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed but not accepted. S&L comments on these resolutions have been provided.

DR No. DR-MP3-0242 DR No. DR-MP3-0657 DR No. DR-MP3-0330 DR No. DR-MP3-0670 DR No. DR-MP3-0394 DR No. DR-MP3-0671 DR No. DR-MP3-0428 DR No. DR-MP3-0765 DR No. DR-MP3-0503 DR No. DR-MP3-0925 DR No. DR-MP3-0546 DR No. DR-MP3-0928 DR No. DR-MP3-0552 DR No. DR-MP3-0942 DR No. DR-MP3-0555 -

DR No. DR-MP3-0998 DR No. DR-MP3-0615 DR No. DR-MP3-1010 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

Yours very truly,

. k ~

D. K. Schopfer j Senior Vice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr Enclosures i Copies:

E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU m%svpborA98hr03094 doc

Noetheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0064 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group

System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED i Discipline: Matunical

• Potential Operability issue Discrepancy Type: Ucensing Document O i system / Process: Rss g

! NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 9/11/97

D6scryoney

The RSS Pump Starting and Spray Effective time i documentation discrepancy l

Description:

Multiple values for the Recirculation Spray System (RSS) pump starting and spray effective times after the Containment Depressurization Actuation (CDA) signal are reported in the FSAR and the Design Basis Summary document as follows:

RSS Pump Start Time After Reference CDA Signal FSAR Sec 6.2.2.2 approximately 779 sect nds 3DBS-NSS-003 Sec 8.6 (14 sec. DG start time

+ 655 sec. time delay i 20 sec. timer tolerance )

3DBS-NSS-003 Sec 12.2.6 (660 sec. time delay i 20 sec. timer tolerance)

FSAR Sec 6.2.2.3 approximately 660 sec.

(-11 minutes)

FSAR Sec 6.2.2.4.2 Two time delay relays, one set at 650 sec.and one set at 660 sec.

NRC SER, Supplement 4 PI6 Commitment Record 13791 pump starting times of 660 sec. and 670 sec.

RSS Spray Effer: live Time After

Referenne CDA Signal FSAR Sec 6.2.2.3 max of 750 sec.

( max.12.5 minutes) 3DBS-NSS-003 Sec 8.6 & 12.2.6 779 sec.

FSAR Table 6.2-16 7") sec. with minimum ESF

Also, NRC Letter A05461 dated 12/17/85, Pl6 Commitment l Record 13843, requires that FSAR Table 6.2-10 be revised to ,

j reflect the RSS pump start delay following a CDA signal.  ;

However, no FSAR Table 6.2-10 exists in the UFSAR.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date inutietor: Feingold. D. J. O O O S/5/87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A g Q Q 9/5/97 vr w e%em rw v

'~ ~ ' '~~

ame Printed 3/10/98 9:05:00 AM ' Page 1 of 3 ,

t J

! Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0068 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report vi Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O waro7 NtC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O stator Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/2/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU hr.:s concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0058, has )

identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The RSS pump start and spray time discrepanies in the FSAR were prediscovered and documented in OIR 116, UIR 1890 and ACR M3-96-0497. These documents are on hold pending a revision to calculation US(B)-273, Conts;,1 ment Pressure and Temperature Analysis Following a LOCA. The revision of the calculation and update of the FSAR, i including NRC approval, will supersede the RSS pump start time j referenced in NRC SER Supplement 4.  ;

The inconsistency in the Design Basis Summary document is not discrepant. Section 8.6 is describing system requirements and spray effective time. Therefore, an average of both start times, 650 and 660, is used. Section 12.2.6 is describing component requirements, so the Tech Spec value for pump start time is used (T.S. 4.6.2.2.c)

The revision to FSAR Table 6.2-10, Accident Chronology - 0.6 Pump Suction DER with Minimum ESF, was contained in FSAR Amendment 17 as noted in NU letter B11929 dated 12/17/85.

FSAR Table 6.2-10 was replaced by Table 6.2-16, Accident Chronology Pump Suction DER with Minimum ESF. Refer to the attached commitment record 13843.

Conclusion:

3 NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0058, has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The FSAR discrepancies were previously identified by NU with corrective actions ongoing. The applicable OIR, UlR and ACR will address the corrective action to this issue. Resolution of these documents and the subsequent change to the FSAR wi:i supersede the referenced time in the NRC SER. The apparent inconsistency with the Design Basis Summary is not discrepant as the two sections are describing different requirements. FSAR Table 6.2-10 was revised in FSAR Amendment 17 in 1985. It has since been replaced by FSAR Table 6.2-16.

I Previously identined by NU7 @ Yes O No NonD6screpentCondit6on?U Yes @ No ResolutionPending70 Yes @ No Resoiuiionunresoeved70 Yes @ No l l

Review A= "'

Not Acceptable Needed Date FM, a 1 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A j Printed 3/10/96 9:05:04 AM Page 2 of 3

Northe st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0058 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report t , , _ . - - , - - , , ,

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K j RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O

Date: 3/2/98 SL Comments:

l I

i I

I f

I i

I 1

l l

l l

l l

1 l

l l

l l

i l

I Printed 3/1;F98 9:05:05 AM Page 3 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0071 Northe:st Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Discipline: Electrical Design Diecr@ency Type' Drewing Om

@ No SystemIProcess: SWP MtC S:e-f" - - - - level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: ar2997 Discrepancy: Extraneous conduit Number on Drawing Ducription: Drawing EE-55-A, Rev. 8 (1-3) shows conduit 3CC9700F 1" connected to 3SWP*MOV54C. This conduit is shown in TSO2 as appearing on Drawing EE-SSB and to be a 3" conduit associated with a different system. There are no unaccounted conduits associated with the MOV.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Server. T. L B O O atias7 VT Leed: Nori, Anthony A B D 0 ar2aro7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 O O ar22/97 IRC Chrnn: Singh. Anand K Q O O ar2cio7 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0071, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

CR No. M3-97-2926, item No. 2, 5es been initiated to address this condition.

A DCN shall be initiated to correct the drawings to reflect the "As Built" condition in the field.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0071, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0071 identifies a discrepant condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction as described above. CR M3-97-2926, item 2 was initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.

No work is required in the field.

Previously identifled by NU7 U Yes @ No Non Diecrepent Condition?O Yes (@ No Resolution Pending?O v.e @ No Recoiuiion unreceiv.d70 va @ No Review Printed 3/10/98 9:05:52 AM Page 1 or 2 J

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3 0071 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report initiator: Womer, L

-,^ M AcceptaWe Needed Date VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A 9 O O m VT Mgr: behopfer, Don K G O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O m M: )

)

SL Comments:

I I

l I

Printed 3/10/96 9:05:56 AM P M2 J

l l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group

• Confyrsetion DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED 4

Review Element: systeminotanation OperaMy haue Diecipline: Piping Design Discrepency Type: Instanation trnpiemontehon O vos i System / Process: Rss

(#)No l

! NRC S',,;- =s levet: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 9/22/97 E4+x . + Walkdown Discrepancies : RSS/QSS in The ESF Building Description The following discrepancies were noted during the walkdown of j the piping and mechanical equipment of the RSS/QSS in the l ESF Building: {

l I

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

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

3. Snubber for pipe support 3-RSS-4-PSSP406 shown on BZ-798-135 Rev 3 for line 3-RSS-004-122- 2 is set at 1 inch instead of 2 inch per drawing set position. This is outside of the allowed tolerance for pipe thermal longitudinal movement of 0.69 in.(Calc. no. MP(F)Z079B-406 dated 11/1996). This snubber has a 4 inch stroke.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Line 3-RSS-002-44-4 is resting on support CP-379014-H005.

The pipe should not be touching this support.

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

3. Valve 30SS*MOV34A has the operator removed and work is being performed. No Work in Progress Tag was observed.

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

Printed 3/1098 r,M45 AM Page 1 of 4

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0073 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

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

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

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

! observed.

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

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

l

10. The penetration into the containment for line 3-RSS-012-16-2 shows leakage / corrector.,

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

l

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

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

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

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

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

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

l

18. Valve 3QSS-V44 bottom shaft seal shows leakage / corrosion. ,

Review Valid invaM Neocled Date initiator: Reed, J. W. O O O S'18/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B D D S/15/87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B D 0 S/ 5'S7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 8/17/S7

)

Date:

l INVAUD:

Date: 3/2/98 i RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items # 4 and 5 under " Piping and Mechanical Equipment

• of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which have been corrected. Items #4 and 5 (3RSS*EJ2A-D) were corrected on 9/16/97 by a label request per OA-9 with 3RSS*EJ1 A corrected on 12/6/97 and 3RSS*EJ1B-D corrected on 10/17/97.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items # 6 and 7 under " Piping and Mechanical Equipment" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, have identified conditions previously Printed 3/10/96 9:06.49 AM Page 2 of 4 j

Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR.41P3 4073 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report discovered by NU which require correction. The missing plugs were identified on UIR 1328 items 1 & J and have been corrected per AWO # M3-96-15927.

NU has concluded mat the issues reported in items #1,2, and 3 under "Pipin0 and Mechanical Equipment" of Descrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, do not represent discrepent conditions.

Item # 1: Support 3PSR113 and 130 are depicted on BZ-798 1 and BZ-79-83 6 respectively. Support 3PSR113 on BZ-79-68-1 has no additional supports attached on the drawing or in the plant based on a field walkdown. Support 3PSR130 on BZ-79 6 has two additional supports attached which are shown on the drawing and were verified in the field. No additional supports are

- attached. Item #2: The additional tube steel attached to support PSR156 on BZ-798-109 is depicted on E&DCR T-J-04592, which is posted aGainst the BZ drawing in " GRITS". Item #3:

There are two snubbers associated with BZ 79B 135. One snubber,3 RSS 4 PSSP406 is item #11n the bill of materials ~

which calls for a cset of 1' 0 3/16". The other snubber,3 RSS 4 PSSP407 is item # 2 in the bill of materials and calls for a cset of cmid (i.e.1' 1" for a 4" stroke). Field walkdown dimensions shows that the coet for PSSP 406 is 1' O 1/4" and for PSSP407 a cast of 1' 1" which in both cases is within the allowed tolerance. It should be noted that the two snubbers were intended to have different settings which the walkdown indicated is the case.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items # 3 through t 8 under " Material Condition" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3- -

0073, have identifind conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. Trouble reports have been generated to schedule and repair these items. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-97-3377 will correct these issues. Items # 3,4, 7, 11,14,16 and 17 will be completed prior to startup, items # 5,6, 8,9,10,12,13,15 and 18 will be completed post startup. The issue of overall "" Material Condition" was addressed in IRF MS-IRF-00385 in response to DR-MP3-0042.

Based on the significance of those items remaining discrepant I and not previously discovered, NU considers this to be a Significance Level 4 DR.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1 and 2 under " Material Condition" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, do not represent discrepent conditions. Item # 1: A 'ield walkdown showed that there is at least 1/16" clearance between line 3-RSS-002-44-4 and the horizontal tube steel for small bore pipe support CP-379014-H005, which is consistent with the

""PLl" isometric CP-379016 Sh 2, Note 4. Itein #2: A field walkdown confirmed that the lug for pipe support 3-RSS PCST038 has rubbed agal?.st the wall and scraped the paint.

This line is Non-QA, Non-6tismic, Low Pressure (60 PSIG) and Low Temperature with very t, mall (<1/16") thermal movements, as such Engineering has determined the condition to be acceptable for the application by Engineering jud0ement.

Based on the significance of those items remaining discrepant and not previously discovered, NU considers this to be a Si0nificance Level 4 DR.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issues reoorted in items # 4 and 5 Printed 3/1o96 9:06:50 AM Page 3 or 4

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report under

• Piping and Mechanical Equipment" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which have been corrected.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items # 6 and 7 under" Piping and Mechanical Equipment" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, have identified conditions previously discovered by NU which require correction. The missing plugs were identified on UIR 1328, items 1 & J and have been corrected per AWO # M3-96-15927.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1,2 and 3 under " Piping and Mechanical Equipment" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, do not represent discrepant conditions.

The support details associated with item #1 are identified on drawings BZ-798-68-1, BZ-79-83-6, BZ-79-68-1 and BZ 79-83-6.

The support details for item #2 are depicted on E&DCR T-J-04592 and BZ-798-109. For item #3 a field walkdown has verified that the settings for the two snubbers are within the tolerances specified on drawing BZ 79B 135.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items # 3 through 18 under " Material Condition" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-97 3377 will correct these issues. Items # 3,4,7,11,14, 16 and 17 will be completed prior to startup, items # 5,6,8,9, 10,12,13,15 and 18 will be completed post startup. The issue of overall " " Material Condition" was addressed in IRF M3-IRF-00385 in response to DR-MP3-0042.

Based on the significance of those items remaining discrepant and not previously discovered NU considers this to be a Significance Level 4 DR.

NU has concluded that the issues reported in items #1 and 2 under " Material Condition" of Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0073, do not represent discrepant conditions. A field walkdown determined that there is at least 1/16" clearance between the pipe and support of item #1. An evaluation of the extent of the rubbing and the design parameters for the line in item #2 have  !

determined that the condition is acceptable as is.

Based on the significance of those items remaining discrepant and not previously discovered, NU considers this to be a Significance Level 4 DR.

Previouslyidentifled by Nu? O Yes @ No NonD6screpentCondition?O Yes @ No ~

ResolutionPending?O v @ u. R..oiuinon unr. iv.d70 ve. @ No Review c Acc M a W Needed Date Initletor: Reed, J. W.

8 0 0 m VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A 8 O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 0 0 0 Date:

sL Comments:

Pnnted 3/1048 9:06:51 AM Page 4 of 4 )

l J

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4113 Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revlow Group. Confl0urobon DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system lWM D6ecepline: Piping Design h- Om

, .g Type: InsteHetion imptomentshon SystemProcess: SWP g

NRC significence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Pubsid.ed: 10/18/97 Discrepency. Walkdown Discrepancies of The SWP in The ESF Building

Description:

The following discrepancies and material condition items were observed during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the ESF Building:

1. Drain valve line with valve 3SWP*V174 is capped but not shown as such on isometric Cl-SWP-28 Sht 7 Rev 9 or P&lD EM-1338 Rev34.

2. Drain valve line with valve 3SWP*V179 is capped but not shown as such on isometric Cl-SWP-28 Sht 8 Rev 9 or P&lD EM-133B Rev34,

3. Field installation of instrument line to 3SWP-PDIS166B does not agree with isometric drawing EK-526079.

4. Pipe support shown on drawing BZ-19R-6-3 Rev 3 for line 3SWP-002-068-3 has an additional unistrut attached for conduit that is not shown on the drawing.

5. Valve 3SWP* V137 and associated line is routed in the horizontal plane and in the west direction. Isometric drawing CP-319015 Sht 3 Rev 9 shows this line to be in the horizontal plane rotated 45 degrees from the north (i.e. northwest direction).

6. The tee for valve 3SWP*V2002 is located after the first bend from 3SWP*V145 instead of before the bend as shown on the isometric drawing EK-526078.

The following material condition items were observed during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the ESF building:

1. Valve 3SWP* V137 shows leakage and the entire valve has rust.

2. Valve 3SWP*V56 shows leakage and is rusting.

3. Valve 3SWP*V147 shows packing and gasket leakage.

4. Line 3-SWP-150-061-03 has sections with the insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

5. Line 3-SWP-150-061-3 has a section of insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal noi 3 Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

Printed 3/10/96 9:07:31 AM Pope 1 or 5 i

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Na DR-MP3-0113 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I

6. Valve 3SWP*V55 shows leakage and is rusting.

7. Lines 3-SWP-750 251-3, 3-SWP-750-252-3, 3-SWP-750-254-3, and 3-SWP 750-245-3 have insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was l

observed at the location.

8. Valve 3SWP*V53 packing shows leakage and the entire valve is rusting.

9. Line 3-SWP-003-67-3 has a section with insulation missing.

No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag wes observed at the location.

10. Line 3-SWP-003-312-3 and 3-SWP-003-210-3 has section with insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

11. Line 3-SWP-002-385-3 and 3-SWP-002-69-3 has insulation I missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a i Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

12. Valve 3SWP*V21 packing shows leakage.

13. Lines 3-SWP-002 384-3,3-SWP-002-388-3, and 3-SWP-002-402-3 have insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Wo.ic in Process Tag was observed at the location. l 1

14. Lines 3-SWP-002-146-3 and 3-SWP-002-401-3 have insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation remove' nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

15. Valve 3SWP*V52 packing shows leakage.

16. Line 3-SWP-002-145-3 has insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

17. Valve 3SWP*V20 packing shows leakage.

18. Lines 3-SWP-750-279-3 and 3-SWP-750-255-3 have insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removai nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location. q

19. Lines 3-SWP-002-382-3, 3-SWP-002-383-3, 3-SWP-002-146-3 and 3-SWP-002-401-3 have insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

20. Valves 3SWP*V149 and *V155 packing shows leakage.

21. Line 3-SWP-150-072-3 has insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

Prirded 3/10/98 9:07.34 AM Page 2 of 5

)

Northe st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-3113 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

22. Valve 3SWP*V51 packing shows leakage and the shaft is rusting. Mfg. labelis missing.

23. Line 3-SWP-150-072-3 has section of insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

24. Line 3-SWP-150-071-3 has sections of insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was observed at the location.

25. Restricting Orifice 3SWP*RO125C has 4 bolts with no thread extending through the nuts. Also insulation has been removed 1

and no Work in Process tag was observed at the location.

26. Valve 3SWP*V24 shows leakage and stem is rusty.

27. Line 3-SWP-002-142-3 has insulation missing. No DCN was found for this insulation removal nor a Work in Process Tag was i observed at the location.

Review Valid invalki Needed Date initiator: Reed. J. W. O O O S05/97 l VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O So'1/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 10/13/S7 i O O O o3/S7 l

Date:

INVALID:

l Date: 2/24/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0113 has  !

identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. Condition Report ( CR ) M3-97-3878 ( See Attached ) was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve these issues. The corrective actions outlined in CR M3-97-3678 necessary to correct these issues are: 1)

Revise the affected isometric drawings to correct discrepancies 3,4,5, and 6. 2) Maintenance Planning to initiate, track, and provide closure for Trouble Reports / AWO's to resolve material condition and tagging discrepancies identified in issues 1,2,3,6, 8,9,10,12,15,17,20,22,25, and 26. These corrective actions will be performed Post MP3 Startup.

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0113 identifies conditions previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Piping and Mechanical Equip;nent issues 1 and 2 were previously discovered by UIR 1312 ( See Attached ) and corrected 09/11/97.

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0113 identifies conditions which are not discrepant. Material Condition issues 4, 5, 7,11,13,14, 16,18,19,21,23,24, and 27 are non - discrepant and are discussed as follows:

Material Condition issues:

Issue 4 is non-discrepant. Line 3-SWP-150-061 requires only Printed 3/1096 9:07:35 AM Page 3 of s l

I i

l Northeast Utilities ICAVP Dik N3. DR-MP3-0113 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report a portion of insulation to be installed in accordance wlth E&DCR F-P-34967 pg 18, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

Issue 5 is a duplicate of issue 4 and is therefore non -

[ discrepant.

l Issue 7 is non- discrepant. Lines 3-SWP-750-251-3, 3-SWP-

! 750-252-3,3-SWP-750-254-3 do not require insulation and Line l 3-SWP-750-245-3 requires only a portion of insulation to be instated in accordance with E&DCR F-P-34967 pg 6, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 which is the parent

, specification of SP-ME-691.

l Issue 11 is non - discrepant. Line 3-SWP-002-385-3 does not l

require insulation and Line 3-SWP-002-069-3 requires only a portion of insulation to be installed in accordance with E&DCR F-P-34967 pg 20, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

Issue 13 is non - discrepant. Lines 3-SWP-002-384-3, 3-SWP-002-388-3, 3-SWP-002-402-3 do not require insulation in accordance with E&DCR F-P-34967 posted aga'nst Specification i

25212-2361.900-921 which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

1 Issues 14,16,19 and 27 are not discrepant. Lines 3-SWP-002- I

146-3, 3-SWP-002-401-3, 3-SWP-002-145-3, 3-SWP-002-382-3,

! 3-SWP-002-383-3,3-SWP-002-146-3,3-SWP-002-401-3 and 3-SWP 002-142-3 do not require insulation in accordance with 2 E&DCR F-P-34967 posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-l 921 which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691. f

{

+ lssue 18 is non - discrepant. Line 3-SWP-750-279-3 does not l

require insulation and Line 3-SWP-750-255-3 is not required to i be completely insulated in accordance with E&DCR F-P 34967 pg 20, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 which is {

the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

Issue 21 is non - discrepant. Line 3-SWP-150-072-3 is not required to be completely insulated in accordance with E&DCR F-P-34967 pg 7, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

Issue 23 is a duplicate of Issue 21 and is therefore non -

discrepant.

Issue 24 is non - discrepant. Line 3-SWP-150-071-3 is not required to be completely insulated in accordance with E&DCR F-P-34967 pg 8, posted against Specification 25212-2361.900-921 l which is the parent specification of SP-ME-691.

l

Conclusion:

l NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0113 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The corrective action necessary to resolve the issues detailed in DR-MP3-0113 will be implemented and tracked under the auspices of condRion report ( CR ) M3-97-3678

( See Attached ). The corrective actions outlined in CR M3 3678 necessary to correct this issue are: 1) Revise the affected isometric drawings to correct discrepancies 3,4, 5, and 6. 2)

Maintenance Planning to initiate, track, and provide closure for Trouble Reports / AWO's to resolve material condition and taggin0 discrepancies identified in issues 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9,10,12, 15.17,20. 22,25. and 26. These corrective actions will be Printed 340/96 9:o7:37 AM Page 4 of 5 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0113 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report performed Post MP3 Startup.

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0113 identifies cunditions previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Piping and Mechanical Equipment issues 1 and 2 were previously discovered by UlR 1312 ( Seo Attached ) and corrected 09/11/97.

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0113 identifies conditions which are not discrepant. Mat <* rial Condition issues 4,5,7,11,13,14, 16,18,19,21,23,24, and 27 are non - discrepant. These issues identify material conditions which are consistent with MP3 desk,.1 as configured by E&DCR F P-34967.

Prevkaly klontmed by NU? O Yes (S) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (9) No R=*i= Pendias70 v. @ No R - m ikm unr.

• edr o v . @ No Review hitletor: Reed, J. W. NW M' VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K O O = q O O O Date:

SL Comments:

(

l l

l Prtnted 3/10/98 9:07:38 AM Page 5 of 5

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. Drl-MP3 4120 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design .

Diecipline: Electrical Des 4O" Discrepancy Type: Drawing Om SystemIProcess: SWP g

NRC Signiacance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 9/14/97 Discrepancy: Schematic Diagram ESK-6ALG and Logic Diagram LSK-9-10E Discrepancy Description

• 1) Schematic Diagram ESK-6ALG, for motors 3SWP*P3A and 3SWP*P38, shows contact 7-8, from device 3-3SWP*P3A, in parallel with contact 7 from handswitch 1-3SWP*P3A. The logic diagram LSK-9-10E does not account for contact 7-8 (from device 3-3SWP*P3A) in parallel with the handswitch contact.

Similar for motor circuit 38WP*P38.

2) Motor circuit 3SWP*P3A uses contact 1-2 from device 3-3SWP*P3A. This contact is not identified with a device designation.

3) The revision block of Logic diagram LSK-9-10E (Rev.17) incorrectly identifies revision 17 as revision 15.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Morton, R.

O O O S'8'S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G O O S/S57 VT Mor: *c,hopfer. Don K G O O S/S'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O S'S/S7 Date:

)

INVAUD: l Date: 2/23/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

1) NU has concluded that the issue; reported oy item 1 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0120, does not represent a discrepant condition. Contact 7-8 on the latching relay (3-)

shown in parallel with contact 7 on the centrol switch (1-) detailed on ESK-6ALG, is represented on LSK-09-10E by the *NOT* gate from the latching relay in the *STOP* ckcuit. This restricts an operator from stopping the pump untii the LOP signal has been reset and also requires a two-step action to restart the pump.

Therefore no change is required.

2) NU has concluded that the issue reported by item 2 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0120, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which required correction. The applicable drawing will be revised to identify the device.

Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to provide '

the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.

3) NU has concluded that the issue reported by item 3 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0120, has ideittified a condition Printed 3/1o98 9:10:05 AM Page 1 or 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0120 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report not previously discovered by NU which required correction. The i' applicable drawing will be revised to delineate the correct revision. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3246 has been written to

, provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.

Conclusion:

I

1) NU has concluded that the issue reported by item 1 in i Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0120, does not represent a discrepant condition. The logic diagram LSK-9-10E correctly

)

restricts an operator from stopping the pump until the loss of power (LOP) signal has been reset and also requires a two-step action to restart the pump. Therefore no change is required.

l 2&3) NU has concluded that the issue reported by item 2 and 3  !

in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0120, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

Drawings ESK-6ALG and LSK-9-10E will be revised to identify the device for item 2 and to delineate the correct revision level for item 3. No changes in the field are required. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-4246 has been written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue.

Previously klontitled by NU? O vos @ No Non Discrepent Condition?U ves @ No me.olution Pendng?O va @ No nosoivisonunreeoived?O va @ No Review initletor: Morton, R.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K NtC Chmn: singh, Anend K Deio: 2/23/98 SL Comments: In general, S&L agrees with NU's response with the following comments:

ltem 1)

S&L agrees with NU's statement that the circuit "... restricts an operator from stopping the pump until the LOP signal has been reset..." and that a "...two-step action to restart the pump" is required. S&L's review of the schematic and logic diagram indicates that the *NOT* gate basically represents contact 1-2 of the latching relay. Contact 7 8 of the latching relay can be construed to be represented by the "NOT" gate since the handswitch contact is typically closed (closed in the after start and stop position). This conclusion is arrived from the following discussion:

a) The discussion will use the following definitions in the " logic statements";

'+" = and "v" = or A = Handswitch 1 contact # 7 (auto)

B = 3HVR*ACU1 A contact 7-8 Printed 3/10/98 9:10:09 AM Page 2 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR.MP3-0120 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report C = 3HVR*TS183A D1 = LOP contact 7-8 (from latching relay)

D2 = LOP contact 1-2 (from latching relay)

When the logic statement is simplified, D = D1 = D2.

From the logic diagram (LSK-9-10E Rev.17), in the start circuit:

The logic statement after the "OR* gate is as follows: (B+C)v (B+D) = B + (C v D). When this is combined with the handswitch

" Auto" throu0h the 'And" gate, the expression becomes:

A+ B + (C v D).

From the schematic diagram (ESK-6ALG Rev.7), to start the pump:

The logic statement is : (A y D1) + B + (C v D2) = (A v D) + B +

(C v D) = B + D v (A + C)

From these two logic expressions, it can be seen that LSK-9-10E does not account for a LOP contact (7-8) in parallel with the handswitch contact (7). However, since the handswitch contact (7) is an " auto" contact (closed after start and closed after stop), it is typically always closed. Taking into account that "A" is basically always closed (for all practical purpose), Doth expressions can be reduced to be equivalent (B + (C v D)).

By looking at the perspective of the " practical

• operation of the circuit, the Logic Diagram meets the intent of the schematic diagram. Therefore, in this case, S&L agrees that no further action is required. Note, a similar argument would apply to the "stop" sequ6 ace, except that the circuit is through a "Not* Date (LSK-9-10E) before it is combined with the handswitch contact via an "And" gate.

Also note, the above discussion does not include contacts 4-6 of timing relay 62, contact 8 of handswitch 1, and the thermal overload contacts, since these contacts are not in question and do not impact the discussion above.

4 Items 2 & 3) S&L agrees.

l l

I l

)

I

\

Printed 3/10/96 9:10.10 AM Pape 3 or 3 1

I j

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34123 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Review Group: system ' DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipihn: Eiselcel Design Discrepency Type: Drowing O vee g

Sb_.T.---~==: SWP NRC W level: NA Dale faxed to NU:

Date Pulmehed. 9/14/97 th . ~ :y. Schematic Diagram ESK4RR and Logic Diagram LSK-22-12B Discrepancy t*% - - Schematic diagram ESK4RR (for motor circuits 3SWP*P2A and 3SWP*P28) and logic diagram LSK-22-12B do not match, as indicated below.

1) The logic diagram indicates an "AN'D" condition between the control switch 1 3SWP*P2A and the trant fer switch 43A-3HVK*P1 A in the 'Stop" portion of the logic. The schematic shows these two contacts in series. Gher contact opening will de-energize the contactor and #f4 the pump motor, which should be reflected as an 'Orl condition in the logic diagram (i.e., 43A-3HVK*P1 A in "R9 mote" OR 1-3SWP*P2A in "Stop*).

Similar for motor circuit ?,SWP*P2B.

2) Schematic diagram liSK-6RR indicates the use of a relay (device 74) for annunchtion on the loss of control power or thermal overioad. Logic diagram LSK-22-128 does not indicate the use of a relay for annunciation.

Review Valid invalki Needed Date initletor: Morton, R. G O O S'B'87 VT Lead: Nwl. Anthony A B C O 9ta/97 VT Mor: schopfer Don K G O O S'S'87 1RC Chmn: singh. Anand K B O O S'S'S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/23/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0123, does not represent a discrepant condition.

1) The first item recommends changing the "AND* gate shown in the "STOP" portion of the logic for 3SWP*P2A and B to an "OR*

gate at the point the control switch is in the "STOP" position, the transfer switch !s in " LOCAL" position and the Chilled Water Pump,3HVK*P1A *NOT" Running merge together. The reason for this recommended change is that the Logic Diagram LSK 12B does not agree with the associated Schematic Diagram ESK-l 6RR. We agree that it is possible to stop the pump by placing the transfer switch in

• Remote". However the Logic Diagram shows the intended operation of the circuit.

By placing the transfer switch in the " Local" position, it is l Printed 3/10/98 9:10:43 AM Page 1 of 2~ l l

j

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0123 l Millstone Unit 't Discrepancy Report presumed that local operation of the pump is desired, i.e. from the Start Stop Switch located at the pump. A trained operator would not place a transfer switch in the " Local" position thus activating the Local Start-Stop Switch for a pump and then attempt to stop the pump from the transfer switch alone. Though it is not common place, other cases can be found within the industry where you can delineate unintended ways of ope,ating ,

equipment on circuit diagrams which are not depicted on Logic l Diagrams. This is generally done for clarity and/or because that method of operation shown on the circuit diagram is

• unintended". Accordingly, it is desirable for system operation that all three of these conditions be satisfied in order to stop the pump, hence an "AND* gate is necessary.

2) The second item discusses the lack of lo9k:!nformation on LSK-22-128 to support the annunciation circuit driven by the 74 relay on ESK-6RR. The logic information for this circuit is shown on the associated logic diagram LSK-22-12H, not 12B.

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-MP3-0123, does not represent a discrepant condition. For item 1, the logic diagram correctly delineates the desired manner in which the subject pump should be de-energized. For item 2, the logic information for the annunciation circuit is shown on the associated logic diagram LSK-22-12H.

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

Previously klenttfled by NU? O Yes (#) No NottDiscrepentCondition?@ Yes U No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. @ No Review initietor: Morton, R.

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dete:

SL Comments:

Printed 3f1Q96 9.10:47 AM Page 2 of 2 j

l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0155 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j Review Group: Accident hetigation DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED j

• " " O P '"""8 " Potentiel OpereldHty Inue Disctrine Matw*al% O vn piecrepency bpe: Lloonsing Document SystenWProceos! N/A gg NRC Signincance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdiohed' 10/18/97 r* my; Time Critical Activities Not identified in EOPs or Operator Training Manuals.

Ducription: In the response to a locked rotor event, the analysis described in FSAR $15.3.3.4 assumes that a Steam Generator Relief Valve is stuck open. The analysis assumes "the affected steam generator is isolated, by operator action, to close the isolation valve upstream of the relief valve within 20 minutes" to limit the offsite dose.

The ICAVP reviewed AOP 3554, EOP 35 E-0, EOP 35 E-2, and the lesson plans used to train the operators for various accident scer:arios.

The accident analysis, FSAR 615.3.3.4, assumes that the isolation valve closure occurs within 20 minutes of the accident as a means of limiting the potential offsite dose. However, there is no mention of a time requirement in the above procedures or in the training materials. Therefore, the operator is not cognizant of a need to close the isolation valve within the 20-minute period.

Review Vend invead Needed Date initiator: Peebles. W. R. O O O 10/ o'87 VT Leed; Reheja, Rel D G O O 10/10'87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 10/13'S7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 10/14'87 Date:

INVAUD:

cate: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0155, does not represent a discrepant condition.

A Locked Rotor Event will result in a reactor trip. Thus, the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) would be entered and AOP 3554 would not apply. EOP 35 E-0, EOP 35 E-2, as well other EOPs are based on the Westinghouse standard Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS). These procedures are condition driven, not event driven. As such, operators proceed through the procedure based on indicated conditions.

Except for critical tasks the timeliness of the action is pumesciy kept transparent to the EOPs condition driven steps. Only a few operator actions such as those relating to Steam Generator Tube Rupture events are procedurally and physically based on operator reaction time. The need to isolate a stuck open steam generator PORV in a timely manner is emphasized in Operator Training. The lesson plan MCORE04, rev 01," Decrease in Printed 3/10/98 9:11:18 AM Pepe 1 or 3

l l

i DR N;. DR-MP3-0155 Northeast Utilities ICAVP-Milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Reactor Coolant Flow" includes the wording "...until operator j closes the isolation valve upstream of the PORV within 20 -

miautes." This reflects the FSAR Chapter 15 assumption. The j original ERGS were validated by the Westinghouse Owners Group. Credited operator action time for a locked reactor l coolant pump rotor transient assumed in MP3 FSAR chapter 15 i has not changed since that initial validation.

In order to show the validation is still effective, the condition in DR-MP3-0600 was documented in Condition Report (CR) M3 0328, initiated 1/21/98. (CR) M3-98-0328 has developed corrective actions to improve the documentation and the interface between the Chapter 15 operator actions assumptions and the EOPs/AOPs. The corrective action plan will have the Safety Analysis Branch supplying the MP3 Training department with all credited operator actions (and times if applicable) from

, the MP3 FSAR, including the locked rotor transient. The Training department, in conjunction with Safety Analysis Branch and MP3 Operations, will perform a training needs analysis on the Safety Analysis Branch data. From this assessment, items l will be included in the training programs with appropriate training material and exam items. Those items deemed not requiring training will be logged with justification used in arriving at the decision. MP3 training will maintain the log. This needs analysis is scheduled to be completed after restart.

Based on the above information, NU does not consider ICAVP Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0155 a discrepancy. Therefore, the significance level 4 criteria does not apply.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0155, does not represent a discrepant condition.

I NU does not consider procedures (AOP) 3554 and emergency cperating procedures (EOPs) EOP 35 E-0, EOP 35 E-2 as being deficient as they do not contain expected operator response times used in the MP3 FSAR chapter 15 transient analysis for a locked reactor coolant pump rotor event. EOPs are based on the Westinghouse standard Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS). These procedures are condition driven, not event driven. As such, operators proceed through the procedure based on indicated conditions. The original ERGS were validated by the Westinghouse Owners Group. Credited operator response times for a locked reactor coolant pump rotor transient have not changed in the MP3 FSAR. The need to isolate a stuck open steam generator PORV is emphasized in Operator Training.

Lesson plan MCORE04, rev 01, " Decrease in Reactor Coolant Flow" mentions the time requirement in the section for locked l

rotor, radiological consequences. In part it states, * ...until operator closes the isolation valve upstream of the PORV within 20 minutes."

Based on the above information, NU does not consider ICAVP Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0155 a discrepancy. Therefore, the significance level 4 criteria does not apply.

l Printed 3/1Q96 9.11:21 AM Page 2 of 3 l

J

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0155 Northeast Utilities milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report  !

Attachments: Lesson Plan MCORE04, Rev 01,

• Decrease In Reactor Coolant Flow", approved 1/6/98 Previously klontHied by NU? O Yes W) No Non Descrepent Condition?(#) Yes O No l ResolutionPonding?O Yes @ No n-aionunresoeved?O Yes @ No Review initiator: Peebles, W. R. ,

VT Lead: Reheja, RW D VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Oste:

SL Commente:

Printed 3/102 9.11:23 AM Page 3 of 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0160 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Diecipane* MechanicalDesign F -- y Type: Ucensing Document Ow SystemProcess: Oss g  ;

NRC U ----E W:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/17/97

]

Discrepancy: Inconsistency between FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.2 & drawings w/ l respect to spray water drainage Paths Description. FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.2 states that spray water will not drain into the lower reactor cavity and incore instrumentation tunnel because the neutron shield arrangerr.ent blocles all paths below the nozzles.

A review of drawings 12179-EM-2E Revision 12,12179-EM-2F Revision 12,12179-EM 2G Revision 11,12179-EM-2A Revision 14, and 12179-EC-50G Revision 10 shows that only part of the upper reactor cavity is covered by shielding. Otherwise, water from quench spray and containment recirculation spray can enter the upper and lower reactor cavities.

Calculation US(B)-257 Revision 1 accounts for accumulation of containment spray water in the reactor cavity.

FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.2 states that spray water that falls into the refueling cavity drains to the containment floor via the reactor cavity drain system and the biological shield wall penetrations for the reactor coolant lines.

Drawing 12179-EM-2E shows that any water that enters the upper reactor cavity can fall into the reactor vessel annulus.

Drawing 12179-EM-2F shows that the neutron shield tank and the tank support arrangement block drainage to the incore )

instrumentation tunnel from the reactor vessel annulus. Instead, water collected in the reactor vessel annulus will drain throug's the biological shield wall penetrations for the reactor vessel coolant lines as stated above.

In conclusion, the FSAR, calculations, and drawings show how spray water is collected in the refueling cavity and routed to the containment floor. Therefore, FSAR section 6.2.1.1.11s inconsistent with other design documentation in regard to spray i

water drainage into the lower refueling cavity.

Review Vend inveNd Needed Date initietor: Feingold. D. J. 8 O O $ 1S7 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A B O O l'S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B D 0 $ /7/87 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B D 0 $ /2S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 3/2/98 Printed 3/1096 9.11:MUN Page 1 of 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0160 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

"*"" Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0160, has identified a discrepant condition previously ,

discovered by NU which requires correction. During the FSAR '

reviewiannotation process of the 50.54(f) effort, it was determined that some of the spray water could drain into the lower reactor cavity and incore instmmentation tunnel between the neutron shield arran0ement blocks, but that this small amount of water is fully bounded by the containment integrity calculation. Additionally, it was verified that, although i clearances between the reactor coolant pipes and holes in the shielo wall through which they pass can be seen in drawing 12179-EM-2F-12, " Machine Location-Containment Stmeture",

these gaps are plugged with s combination of thermal irisulation 1 and neutron shielding (see drawings 12179-EV 237A-C, Neutron i Shield Collar Type").

It is noted that for a detailed review of both the neutron shleid arrangement and the lower and upper reactor vessel cavity, drawings 12179-EV-9A-5, "Reac Neutron Shield Tank" and 12179-EV-237A-5,

• Neutron Shield Collar Type" provide a more detailed depiction than the drawings referenced in the discrepancy report.

FSARCR 97-MP3-543 has been issued to revise the wording of this ection to state: " Spray water that falls into the refueling  ;

cavity drains to the containment floor through the refueling cavity drain system."

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0160, has identified a discrepant condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. FSARCR 97 MP3-543 was issued to revise the wording of this section of the FSAR to simply state: " Spray water that falls into the refueling cavity drains to the containment floor through the refueling cavity drain system."

Previously identifled by NU? (9) Yes O No Non D6screpant Condition?O Yes (9) No RuolutionPending?O va @ No Resolution Unresalted?O ve. @ No Review initietor: Feingold, D. J.

VT Lead: Nwl, Anthony A VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K DSte: 3/2/98 SL Comments:

Printed 3/10/96 9:11:51 AM Page 2 or 2

i

! Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4232 l Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR REsot.UTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Discipline: I & C Design Et . ~ Ti Type: Drawing Om l SystenWProcess: SWP @ No NRC Signiacence M: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished.11/2/97 P^ . Ei: Drawing Discrepancy - LSK-9-10B,J E= . Logic Diagram LSK-9-10J, Rev 12 shows that Resultant "86E Motor Protection Lockout Relay Reset" requires Local / Remote Selector Switch at the switchgear to be in " Local" and Start /Stop l Switch at MB1 to be in "Stop". Local / Remote Switch should be in " Remote" to be consistent with remote control "Stop" signal from MB1. This is shown on Elementary Diagrams ESK-SCJ, Rev.17 and ESK-38, Rev 16.

Logic Diagram LSK-9-10J also shows that " Service Water Pump Auto Trip /Overcurrent" annunciation requlms Local / Remote Selector Switch at the switchgear to be in " Local" and Start /Stop Switch at MB1 to be in "After Start". Local / Remote Switch should be in " Remote" to be consistent with remote control "After Start" signal from MB1. This is shown en Elementary Diagrairs ESK-SCJ, Rev.17 and ESK-38, Rev 16.

Escutcheons for the switch 0 ear Local / Remote Selector Switch and MB1 Start /Stop Switch are missing from Logic Diagrams LSK-9-108, Rev 12 and LSK-9-10J.

Review Vaud invoud Needed Date initietor: Pineles. H. O O O o/17/S7 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthoriy A B D 0 1o<27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O tot 2s/s7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O 10/30/S7 Date:

INVAUD:

Dele: 2/23/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that issues # 1 and # 2 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0232, have identified a condition, which have been previously identified by Sargent and Lundy on DR-MP3-l 0126 and addressed by NU via CR M3-97-3246 and DCN DM3-001567-97. NU also concluded that issue # 3 in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0232, does not represent a discrepant 1 condition. This item was reviewed and both switch escutcheon details were found on LSK 9-10A and LSK-9-10K.

Therefore the three Mems on this DR do not present valid i discrepancies, nor do they require any further action. I

Conclusion:

NU has concieded that issues # 1 and # 2 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0232, have identified a condition, which have I been previously identified by Sargent and Lundy on DR-MP3-Printed 3/1096 9:12:35 AM Pege 1 of 2

Northemt Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP34232 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 0126 and addressed by NU via CR M3-97-3246 and DCN DM3-00-1587-97.

NU also concluded that issue # 3 in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0232, does not represent a discrepant condition. This item was reviewed and both switch escutcheon details were found on LSK-9-10A and LSK-9-10K.

Therefore the three items on this DR do not present valid discrepancies, nor do they require any further action.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes if) No Non Discrepent Condition?ff) Yes O No RecolutionPending?O vee @ No Reseisonunreceived?O vos @ No Review a -:= 2 "- Not aeear*=h8a Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A l

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K lRC Chmn: singh, ArW K Date: 2/23/98 st Comments: Issue #3: If an escutcheon is not shown on a logic diagram in which a control action is identified, then it is recommended for consistency that a reference be included on the affected logic diagram to where the escutcheon is shown or that the escutcht va is included on the affected logic diagram.

l l

1 l

Printed 3/10/98 9:12:38 AM Page 2 of 2

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0274 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED PotentialOpereldlity1seue wy%e sinxturalDesig" h ;y Type: Calculation O vee

, SystemProcese: SWP g

NRC W Iml:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdiohed: 9/29/97 Dikrgency. Pipe Support Design Discrepancies Description We have reviewed STRUDL Computer Run for Pipe Support Calculation no.NP(F)-ZO19R-014-H002,Rev.7. Based upon the results of this review,the following discrepancies were noted:

On page 11, shear stresses in Y and Z direction should be 371.8 psi (not 198 psi) and 50 psi (not 57 psi) respectively ( see page 14 of STRUDL Run).

On page 13, force F1 = 44 lbs corresponds to joint 3(not joint 7) and force F2 = 668.293# (not 484#).Sec reference page 15 of STPUDL Run.

On page 19, force Fxn = 44 lbs at loint 3 (not joint 7), Moment Mxn = 802.233 in-lbs (not 1553 in-ibs) and Myn = 1394.13 in-lbs ( not 419 in-lbs ).See reference page 15 of STRUDL Run.

Review Valid lovelid Needed Date initiat2r: Kleic, N 8 0 0 S/18'87 VT t.ead: Neri, Anthony ^ O O O S/18'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O n/22/97 ,

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 9/2ss7 i Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/2/98 RESOLUTION NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0274 has identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The 484 lbf. used is incorrect and should have been 668 lbs as noted in item 2. The 1553 lbs and the 419 lbs noted in item 3 are also incorrect. Condition Report (CR) M3-98-0119 has been approved to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve these errors.

Item 1 is not vald. The 198 psi and 57 psi are the correct member stresses. The items referred to from page 14 of the STRUDL run are member forces and not member stresses, j which are not applicable for the subject equation on page 11 of the calculation.

Item 2 is partially valid. The 44 lbs force F1 is correctly identified since this force occurs at joints 3 and 7 av is not a discrepancy.

The 484 lbs used in the calculation is not co ect and should have been 668 lbs as noted in the DR and this is a discrepancy, item 3 is partially valid. Tne 44 lbs force F1 is valid as noted Printed 3/10s8 9:13.57 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0274 Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report above and is not a discrepancy. The 1553 in Ibs and 419 in Ibs used in the calculation are not correct as noted in the DR and this is a discrepancy.

None of the above items chan9e the conclusions of the calculation.

The apr. roved corrective action to CR M3-98-0119 requires that a change notice (CCN) be issued to correct the calculation discrepancies. Since this is for clarification only and does not meet the start-up critieria, correction will be completed post-startup.

Previously beenU9ed by NU7 O Yes (S) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (S) No P%Peneng?O va @ no n iuuanunraav.d70 va @ wo n.vi

~~ '

Intuator: IGaic N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: singh. Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

l l

1 Printed 3/1098 9:14:o2 AM Page 2 of 2-

{

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0363 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DRRESOLUTioN ACCT MD Review E'e nont: system Design p

D6scipline: Electrical Design F , g Type: Drawing Om SystemfProcess: Rss g

NRC Signinconce level 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished 10/30/97 r+5 -i. Drawing Disrepancies Deecription.1. Note 2 of drawing 12179-EE-34AE, Rev. 6, Indicates that all trays are 30 inches wide unless noted otherwise. Trays 3TC0014N,3TC0015N, and 3TX016N are shown on this drawing without a commodity type which would indicate a different tray size. TSO2 indicates these trays are 18 inches wide. The installed trays are 30 inches.

2. The revision block for drawing 12179-EE-34TG, Rev.1, indicates that F-E-29282 was incorporated. This CCD was written against another tray drawing for the Containment area but was incorporated on this new drawing created to capture the tray cover data. The data included in the CCD was not incorporated into the drawing as shown in the CCD and no other design changes were referenced nor any explanation of the differences provided.

3. Conduit Support Log 'OSL)12179-FSK-CS-1343, Rev. 7, with no outstanding change Qcuments, lists conduits 3CX900PA, 3CX900WB2, and 3CX900PC2 as supported by this support.

These conduits are not included in TSO2 as supported by this support. TSO2 lists an additional conduit 3CX900PC, not shown on the CSL, ac supported from this support.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: server, T. L.

O O O 10/15'S7 VT Lead: Nwl, A,thony A @ O Q 10/15/97 VT Mgr: schopfw, Don K G O O 10/2as7 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q O O ar27/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/7/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0353, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This de:repancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have na operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteiia. CR M3-98-0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

Printed 3/10/96 9:15:13 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0353 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0353, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

N-/ z?,- hientined by Nu? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condetion?Q Yes (G) No n okmone.neno70 va @ No neeokmanunroemed7O va @ No  !

n.*w initiator: Kleie, N

• VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: sch@er, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Det..

SL Correneids: '

4 Printed 3/10/96 9:15:17 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities IbAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0386 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrgurobon DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System installation Diecipline: Electrical Design Discrepency Type: Installation implementehon Om SystemfProcess: SWP g

NRC TJ 5-;e level:3 Date FAAed to NU:

Date Putdished 11/297 Discrepency: Cable Routing is Not Consistent With TS02

Description:

Conduit 3CK768PB-4" runs between MCC 3EHS*MCC1B4 and the tray system above the MCC providiag transition of cabling to the supplied components. There are three *K" service level 480 V power cables in this conduit. These cables exit this conduit with at least one of the cables entering a tray marked in the field as 3TC768P - a 120V contrc! ("C" service level) cable tray.

This marking appears to be coralstent with the tray arrangement drawings. The TSO2 routings for all three of these cables show that these cabli 3 are all routed into 3TK768P - a 480V power cable tray. The routing of higher energy cables (480V) in lower j energy trays is Generally not done. The Cable / Raceway Control Program Users Manuals indicates that "C" cables may be routed in "K" trays on a limited basis, but does not allow "K" cables in "C" trays.

The routing of power cables in control trays could adversely affect all control circuits with cables rottad in the tray in the event of the power cable / circuit malfunction. Such a condition l has the potential to render several components of multiple systems within the train inoperable.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: sarver, T. L O O O $or2as7 VT Leed: Nwi, Anthony A B O O 1o/28/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O 'o'30'S7 O l IRC Chnn: singh, Anand K 8 0 0 1or3aS7 i Date:

INVALID:

l 1

Date: 2/24/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0355, has identified a conditiot. not previously discovered by NU which required correction.

> To verify this condition a walkdown was completed by Design Engineering. The conclusion is as follows: one cable, j 3FWADPK015, improperly transitions from conduit 3CK788PB to cable tray 3TC768P which is be% It's designated tray 3TK768P.

This cable runs in tray STC7G8P tcr approximately 3', then leaves and enters conduit 3CK76 SPA 1 to continue it's route, eventually ending at 3FWA*MOV35D. The as found condition in the field disagrees with this cable's routing in the TSO2 Database, in which the routing reads 3CK768PB, 3TK768P, Printed 3/1o/9e 9.15:58 AM Page 1 of 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0368 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3CK768PA1,3DK760P31,3JB*7516 & 3CK768PA3. As covered in the DR, the TSO2 user's manual / program indicates that "C" cables may be routed in "K* raceway, but does not allow *K" cables to be routed in 'C' raceways. Therefore, cable 3FWADPK015 needs to be reworked in the field to agree with the routing in the TSO2 database, a second walkdown revealed that the cable is long enough to accommodate the difference in routing. The approved corrective action plan (attached) for Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3945 provides the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. NU has generated AWO#M3-97-23210 to remove cable 3FWADPK015 from tray 3TC768P end re-route it in accordance with the Cable Raceway Control Program. This work has been completed.

NU believes that this is a Significance Level 4 discrepancy, since it has no impact on the Design and/or License basis for the unit.

MP 3's commitments to meet Regulatory Guide 1.75, IEEE Std.

384 and BTP 9.5.1 remain satisfied even with the identified discrepancy. Ampacity limitations associated with the tray section have considerable margin even with the K class cable in place, due to the very light fill of the tray with C class cables.

Additionally, the K class cable is the power cable for an MOV which experiences infrequent and very short periods of energization. The discrepancy represents a violation of the engineering design basis; i.e., it is an example of a non-compliance with the Architect Engineer's Specification 2400.000-527 and NU's Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2). NU has corrected this discrepancy.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0355, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which required correction. Condition Report (CR) M3-97-3945 was written to provide the necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. The approved corrective action plan (attached) for Condition Report (CR) M3-97-;1945 provides the necessary corrective actbus to resolve t.O issue. NU has generated AWO#M3-97-23210 to remove cable 3FWADPK015 from tray 3TC768P and re-route it in accott'ance with the Cable Raceway Control Program. This work has been completed.

NU believes that this is a Significance 1.evel 4 discrepancy, since it has no impact on the Design and/or License basis for the unit.

MP 3's commitments to meet Regulatory Guide 1.75, IEEE Std.

384 and BTP 9.5.1 remain satisfied even with the identified discrepancy. Ampacity limitations associated with the tray section have considerable margin even with the K class cable in place, due to the very light fill of the tray with C class cables.

Additionally, the K class cable is the power cable for an MOV which experiences infrequent and very short periods of energization. The discrepancy represents a violation of the engineering design basis; i.e., it is an example nf a non-compliance with the Architect Engineer's Spenfication 2400.000-527 and NU2 Osble and Raceway Program USO2). NU has corrected this dismpancv.

Printed 3/1098 9:16:01 AM Page 2 of 3 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0355 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l Previously identitled by NU? O Yes (#) No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes (G) No l ResolutionPending?O vos @ No n - ai-n unrescoved7 0 vos @ No Review m, % 7, g A"Yh Not A~Yh Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 2/24/98 st Commente: This discrepancy represents a significant deviation and as such can not be classified as a Level 4. This item, as indicated in the l NU response, is a fai!ure to comply with engineering design bases. Further, the corrective action involves a physical plant change mole substantial than minor maintenance. In addition, the inclusion of higher energy cables (480V) in control raceways 3 has the potential to challenge the circuit protection of all the  !

included cables - cable associated with a safety related train of l many systems.  !

Consequently, the DR Significance Level of 3 is reaffirmed.

l l

l Printed 3/1096 9:16:03 AM Page 3 of 3

l Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0375 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Review Group: Syelem DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED I Review Element: System Design Diecipan.: osciriew Desan Diecrepancy Type: Component Date

""'*""OYes l

! SystemfProcess: SWP g

NRC W level:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished. 11/2/97 Discrepancy: Desi0n Document Discrepancies Resulting from SWP Valve Operator Replacements DescripHon Motor operator valve 3SWP*MOV115A was chan0ed from the original purchase Specification 2282.400-568 Add. 3 from 0.13 to l 0.125 horsepower. Not all of the design documents reflect the l latest chan0es.

The AC Motor Evaluation Checklist, Limitorque EEQ Walkdown Checklist, motor overload test record, and molded case circuit breaker test record (pages 25 through 28 in Attachment 3) of Calculation 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4) have not been revised to reflect the changes in horsepower, full load current, i

and locked rotor current from 0.13 HP,0.45 amperes, and 3.15 amperes, respectively, to 0.125 HP,0.6 amperes, and 3.5 amperes for valve 3SWP*MOV115A. Both Plant Design Data System (PDDS) and Production Management Maintenance System (PMMS) refer to the replacement valve as being provided by Specification 2282.400-568 Add. 3 (Rev.1) (same ,

as the originally purchased valves), but this specification and the l

vendor Drawing 2282.400-568-96B still reference the

! horsepower, full load current, and locked rotor current of the originally purchased valves. Neither PDDS nor PMMS have .

been revised to reflect the change in the valves' horsepower, ful:  !

load current, and locked rotor current. Calculation NL-038 (Rev. i l 2, CCN 6) still shows the old horsepower and locked rotor current l and tne fuse list SP-EE-346 (Rev.1) still shows the old horsepower. These documents should be revised to reflect the latest motor data.

Review velid invend Needed Date anatietor: KendeR,D.J.

G 0 0 50/17/87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G O O 1o/27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O ior28/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O 10/30/87 Date:

INVALID:

l Date: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0463, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened por U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability Printed 3/10/96 9:16:33 AM Pege 1 of 2 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4375 Millstora Unit 3 Discrepancy Report concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4062 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0463, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI- i 20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4062 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identmed by Nu? U Y.e (9) No Non Discrepent Condithm?O Yes (9) No )

n duuonPendng?O v.s @ No n.eduuan unraalv.470 va @ No I n.vi.w i initiator: K.ndell, D. J.

VT t.ead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mor: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Det.: 3/4/98 stComments* CR M3-98-0494 is written to track resolution of Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0375. It classifies all of DR-MP3-0375 as discrepant except for the following item:

'The AC Motor Evaluation Checklist, Limitorque EEQ Walkdown Checklist, motor overload test record, and molded case circuit breaker test record (pages 25 throu0h 28 in Attachment 3) of Calculation 89-094-122E3 (Rev. O, CCN 4) have not been revised to reflect the changes in horsepower, full load current, and locked rotor current from 0.13 HP,0.45 amperes, and 3.15 amperes, respectively, to 0.125 HP,0.6 amperes, and 3.5 amperes for valve 3SWP*MOV115A."

From NU's response, it is apparent that the intent of CONS is to evaluate the technical acceptability of changes to the calculation and not to revise each and every page that will eventually need to be revised. On this basis, Sargent & Lundy agrees that CCN #3 adequately addresses the technical acceptability of the change in the motor sizing of the motor operated valve 3SWP*MOV115A l and therefore this item is non-discrepant (the other items in DR-MP3-0375 are still discrepant).

l

)

1 Printed 3/10/98 9:16:37 AM Page 2 of 2 i

l I

NortheCst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0390 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System OR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Des 471 pog,ential Operstmity leeue Diecipline MechanicalDookpi Discrepancy Type: Calculation O Yes SystemlProcess: SWP e No j

putC Signiecence level: 4 j Dole faxed to NU: i Date Putsehed* 10/18/97 h xi. Design input document to calculation 96-001 is incorrectly superseded.

Dwcription Calculation 96-001 is the latest Proto-Flo hydraulic model of the Service Water System. The design input document to this calculation is Proto-Power Calculation 94-065. Per NU document M3-IRF-00478, calc.94-065 is superseded by calc.96-001. Calculation 94-065 was incorrectly superseded since it is used for design input to calculation 96-001.

Review VaMd invalid Needed Date initiator: Dionne, B. J. ]

8 O O $ 0*S7 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O O 10'8'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B D 0 10/1a7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K 9 0 0 10/ia7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 3/3/98 RELOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0390 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report ( CR ) M3-97-3886 ( See Attached ) was written to provide :.he necessary corrective actions to resolve this issue. The corrective actions to correct this issue are: 1) Revise calculation 94-065 to active status to maintain Proto-Flo data base model basis but with notes as to changes made in calculation 96-001, 2) Add step to the DCM which requires reconciliation of parent / child relationships when superseding or voiding calculations. 3) Verify through CTP /

Passport calculation tracking that active service water design basis flow calculations contain no references ( design inputs )

which have been superseded. I t These corrective actions are scheuuled fo. completion but are i nut classified as Startup items.

Conclusion. 4 NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0390 has i identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which j' requires correction. The corrective action necessary to resolve the issues detailed in DR-MP3-0390 will be implemented and tracked under the auspices of condition report M3-97-3886 ( See Attached ). The corrective actions outlined in Condition Report M3-07-3886 necessary to correct this issue are: 1) Revise calculation 94-065 to active status to maintain Proto-Flo data Printed 3/10/98 9:17:11 AM Page 1 of 2 i

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0390 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report base model basis tnit with notes as to changes made in calculation 96-001. 2) Add step to the DCM which requires reconciliation of parent / child relationships when superseding or voiding calculations. 3) Verify through CTP / Passport calculation tracking that active service water design basis flow calculations contain no references ( design inputs ) which have been superseded.

These corrective actions are scheduled for completion but are not classified as Startup items.

7..e:. ?,- kloneaed by NU7 O Yes (@ No Non Discrepent Condition 70 Yes (@ No n usonp.nana70 Y= @ No n=*non unres*ed70 va @ No

n. =

Initiator: Dionne, B. J.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K l

1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments-i l

1 l

Printed 3/1ose 9:17:15 AM Pope 2 of 2 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4400 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR resol.UTioNICCEPTED Review Element: System Design g

Diecipilne: Mechanical Design r"= , - :i Type: Calcuistion Om SystemProcess: SWP

(,g g NRC SigniScance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished.1/25/98

'"+: - zi. Calculation 90-069-1065-M3 rev. O contains data the doesn1 coincide with the basis document.

Ducription. Calculation 90-069-1065-M3 rev. O through CCN 06 titled "MP3 Service Water System - NRC Generic Letter 89-13, item No. IV Design Basis Summary Report" Several discrepancies were noted as follows:

The introduction section on page 1 states that the model was used to detemined the minimum and maximum available component service water flows. No calculations that determine the maximum flow rates have been found or referenced. (Only calculations that determine the minimum flow rates for various scenarios were found.)

Table 5 - Heat Exchanger Data, should reference calculation 90-069-1131-M3, for HVR*ACU1 A/B with a SW outlet temperature of 95.4"F instead of 97.6"F, since the colle this chiller were replaced.

Page 6 - Section il under Technical Evaluation section states that " test results were compared to computer model to determine overall model accuracy" yet no computer model document was referenced and no bases was stated for how accuracy was determined or used. It was then stated that "the model wasn't adjusted to match test data, therefore the accuracy analysis compensates for all contributing factors", but no accuracy bases or usage was stated. Section Ill.A. - Modeling Desi0n inputs and Assumptions, states that "any differences between predicted and tested are accounted for within the calculated model accuracy as described in Section ll". However, it isni described in Section 11 as to how the accuracy is accounted for. Any difference between the model and tested data is unclear as to how it will be used or is determined.

CCN #3 updates the minimum required PASS cooler flow without giving justification for doing so. The statement still remains on pa0e 16 that "the analysis to determine minimum required SW flow to the PASS cooler has not been performed",

yet an assumed value was listod and now has been updated.

Then CCN #6 updated the minimum required PASS cooler flow to the same as the miniumum available flow from calculation 97-041. This updated value of 5.1 gpm is less than the flow required during an accident (6.3 gpm), as listed on Table 9.2-1 of the FSAR (dated April 1997).

Review Valid invalid Needed Data initiator Dionne. B. J. 1/1598 Printed 3/10/98 9:17:53 AM Page 1 of 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4400 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I initiator: Dionne, B. J. '15'se O O O VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A B D O trie/9e VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O $/ S'88 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K @ O O 1/21/96 Date:

1pWALID:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0400, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which  !

requires correction. Corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0600 i has been approved to correct calculation 90-069-1065-M3 after startup. In response to the first discrepancy, the flow model was to detennine available service water flows to individual I components. The flow may be minimum or maximum depending upon the component and the mode of operation being considered. The second discrepancy will be corrected by providing the correct reference for HVR*ACU1 A/B outlet temperature. The correct temperature was used in 'he calculation. In resporise to the third discrepancy, clarification will be added for the flow test re.dits and flow model accuracy. The flow test results are within the flow model overall accuracy.In response to the last discrepancy, the updated PASS flow value provided is correct and the FSAR Table 9.2.1 will be corrected by FSARCR 97-561. The above discrepancies do not impact the calculation results.

The Significance Level is concluded to be Level 4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0400, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved nction plan for CR. M3 ,

0600 will correct calculation 90-069-1065-M3 after startup. I FSARCR 97-MP3-561 will correct the FSAR prior to startup. The l Si9nificance Level is concluded to be Level 4 since the calculation conclusions have not been impacted.

Previously identified try NU7 O vos (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O vos (G) No Reeosution renmag70 vee

• No ResolutionUnresolved70 vos @ No Review A-:-: _ ,_ '_ M Not Areafd=Ma Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K g IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 3/3/98 sL comments: Acceptable based on review of CR M3-98-0600 and since these flow models have been superseded by the current Proto-Flo model. Malc.96-001) The accuracy of this model relative to the flow test results should be discussed relative to the overall model Printed 3/1o/96 9:17:58 AM Page 2 of 3

! Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0400 i

Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report accuracy.

Significance level is reduced from level 3 to level 4 since this l does not impact the conclusions drawn in calculation 90-069-1 1

01065M3.

I l

l I

l l

l I

i I

i 1

i I i

! l l

i l

l l

l PrWed 3/1Q98 9:18:00 AM Page 3 of 3

r Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0423 j Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLLTDON ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design l Diecipune: Erwironmnental Qualification I Discrepency Type: Component Data systerntProcese: Rss e No l NRC V mlevel: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published. 10/23/97 l

i

"=- m y: Components Model Number Discrepancy in Databases and Specifications Description

• The review of Millstone Unit 3 databases PDDS, the Electrical

Equipment Qualification (EEQ) Master List (M3-EE-0353, Rev.

2 Appendix I), and the Procurement Specification 2472.510-662 l shows different model numbers for the same comnonents.

In the EEQ Master Ust and the Procurement Specification's Datasheet of the pressure transmitter 3RSS*PT25A,B,C,D (Pages 2-7,2-8), the model number is shown as Rosemount 1153GB7.

The model number of the same component in the database PDDS is listed as Rosemount 1153DB6N0009. In the EEQ Master List the pressure transmitters' model number is shown as 1153GB7PC.

For the Limitorque Motor Operators 3RSS*MV8837A,B, and 3RSSMV8838A,B the model number in the database PDDS is

stated as SB-0-15, while in the EEQ Master List shows the model for the Motor Operators as SB-00.

For pressure transmitters 3 MSS *PT534,535 the EEQ Master

'; Ust shows that the model number is 1153GB9PC, while the PDDS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.

Aslo, for pressure transmitters 3RCS*PT457,458 the EEQ Master Ust shows that the model number is 1154GP9RC, while the PDDS lists it as 1153DB9N0007.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Yeesin, s.

8 O O io/a/sT l

VT Laod: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O in*S7 O O O 10/14/97

} IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O so/ts/97 Date:

INVAUD:

Date

3/6/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition; NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0423, has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which required correction.

1) A review of the PDDS & PMMS Databases, Purchase Specification, Vendor Drawing & Environmental Qualification Master Ust (EQML) in SP-M3.EE-353, Rev. 2 confirmed a discrepant condition between these documents for the mcud number of 3RSS*PT25A, PT258, PT25C PT25D,3 MSS *PT534, PT535, 3RCS*PT457 & PT458. This condition for Rosemount transmitters has been previously identified in CR M3-97-1453 on 5/14/97, in which one of corrective actions was to walkdown, Printed 3/1o/98 92123 AM Page 1 of 4

r Wst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4423 millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report review and align the PMMS & PDDS Databases and the vendor drawings with the installed model numbers for these transmitters.

Assi0nment AR97011729-03 is tracking this activity. Also CR M3-97-2235 was generated on 7/18/97 to address a generic discrepent condition for model numbers between the EQML and the field conditions. Part of corrective actions are to walkdown l

and document tne field conditions, then update this list.

l Assignment AR 97017417 is tracking this activity.

Approved Corrective Action Plans for both CRs (attached) will correct these issues post startup.

Both walkdowns have been completed and were performed independently. The data from each confirmed the model number's to be as follows: 1153GB7N0007 for 3RSS*PT25A, PT258, PT25C & PT25D; 1153GB9N0007 for 3 MSS *PT535; l 1153GB9PC for 3 MSS *PT534; and 1154GP9RC for i

l 3RCS*PT457 & PT458.

As a result, the vendor drawing, EQML and PDDS & PMMS Databases will be revised to reflect the installed model number for these transmitters per the previously mentioned assignments.

The Purchase Specification's Data Sheets indicate model ~

number 1153GB7 for 3RSS*PT25A, PT258, PT25C & PT25D, model number 1153GB9 for 3 MSS *PT534 & PT535 and model number 1154GP9RC for 3RCS*PT457 & PT458. The purchase l

Specification is considered to be an active document for procurement information only, not for vendor and model number.

One of the subjects discusseiin Section 1 of the purchase Specification covers Generic sechnical and performance requirements applicable to all instruments given on the specifk:ation's data sheets, unless otherwise noted in the data sheet. In this topic, it states that all instruments shall be purchased with 1/4 inch NPT process connections, unless otherwise stated on the data sheets. Also, one of criteria covered in the body of each data sheet is the signal output for that component. Since, process connection has been defined in the body of specification and signal output can be obtained from the data sheet, it isn't necessary to add the suffix code for both of these design parameters to the components model number. As a result there are no changes required to the specification's data sheets. The specification's data sheets are considered to be historical for vendor and model number.

Rosemount History initially, Rosemount Inc. has supplied the process transmitters with a suffix code of N0007 & N0009 specifically for Northeast Utilities. The suffix code N0007 means 1/4NPT in place of swa0elok fitting and 1/4NPT in place of vent / drain valve, and the

N0009 code means 1/4NPT in place of swagelok fitting and j

1/4NPT in place of vent / drain valve (both flanges). Over a period of time, there was enough of a demand for these transmitters that they were introduced into their product line.

The model number retained the same base code and meaning, for example 1153GB7 or 1153GB9, while the suffix code changed to accommodate various types of outputs and process connections. The new suffix code to replace N0007 is PC. where Printed 3/1o/96 9:21:27 AM Page 2 of 4

i i

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP34423 li Milestorm unit s Discrepancy Report P means a 4-20MA signal output and C means a 1/4-18NPT process connedion and drain hole (drain / vent valve not  !

supplied).

2) A review of the PDDS & PMMS Databases, Purchase Specification, Vendor Drawings & Environmental Qualifmation l l

Master List (EQML) in SP-MS-EE-353, Rev. 2 confimied a 1 difference, but not a discrepant condition between these documents for the model number of 3RSSWV8837A, MV88378,  !

MV8838A & MV88388. The EEQ walkdown under CR M3 l 2235, confirmed the model number for the limitorque operator to be SB-0 and the namco limit awltch to be EA-180 series on these valves.

Where as the purpose of the EQML is to provide a list of electrical equipment important to the safety of the plant in accordance with 10 CFR50.49(d); it depicts the electrical components only of the valves that it maintains the EQR and CRS documentation on, based on the requirements in the Electrical Equipment Qualification Program Manual. As a result, the EQML is correct because it gives the limitorque operator and the limit switch model numbers for the valves. The model i number in the PDDS Database represents the EQ model numbers, therefore it should agree with that shown in the EQML. I in this area, the model number in the PDDS CWabase should be revised from SB4-15/EA-180 to SB-0/EA-180 for all 4 valves  :

and the purchase onier number should be revised from 2280.050-878 to 2282.050-878 for 3RSSWV8837A, MV8837B & MV88388. '

The valve manufacturer's model number for these valves is G- I 55509-7-WE-E-X. This agrees with the vendor's drawing, the  !

PMMS Database and the Data Sheets in the Purchase l Specification.

These documents and database are correct, because the overall i manufacturer's model number for the as-built and procurement l purposes I.; refiedad. Note: The purchase Specirmaticn Data  !

sheets are considered to be historical for vendor and model number. For similar subject see DR-MP3-0422.

l'

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0423, has identified condition previously discovered by NU which required correction.

This condition for Rosemount transmitters has been previously identified in CR-M3-97-1453 on 5/15/97, in which one of corrective actions was to walkdown, review and align the PMMS

& PDDS Databases and the vendor drawings with the installed model numbers for these transmitters. Assignment AR 97011729-03 is tracking this activity.

Also CR M3-97-2235 was generated on 7/18/97 to address a generic discrepent condition for model numbers between the EQML and the field conditions. Part of corrective actions are to walkdown and document the field conditions, then update this list. Assignment AR 97017417-03 is tracking this activity.

Approved Corrective Action Plans for both CRs (attached) will correct these issues post startup.

v? r3 vy re, s -

~ ,-,- -- . c , v r p

i

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0423 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l n.ema areamastO va @m nee e noa uame

• set O v a @ mo

"" \

ininstor: Yeeein, S. '~~' " ^ I l VT Lead: Nwl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K sic chmn: singh. Anand K oste: 2/23/98 st. comments: In the disposition for the motor operators Nu confirms that there is discrepancy between the model numbers in PDDS and EQML.

NU response claims that EQML is correct, and model numbers in PDDS should be revised to agree with EQML. That means that there is a discrepent condition for these motor operators model numbers.

This is contrary to NU assessment that this is not a discrepant condition.

Also, it is the opinion of S&L that The Purchase Specification Data Sheets are considered to be part of the design parameters to be updated to match the installed components. That is the l

Purchase Specification Data Sheets are NOT considered to be historical for vendor and model number.

l Printed 3/10/96 9:2129 AM Pape 4 or 4

Nostheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0436 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Syelem DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Syelem Design Discipune: Mechemcel Design E- . - :, Type: Component Dets Om SystemProcese: RsS g

NRC Signiacence level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdtohed: 11/1547 1.

1 Inconsistency between PDDS & P&lD EM-112C with respect to line numberidentification.

Description. Line number 3-QSS-014-026-2 appears on P&lD 12179-EM-112C Revision 16 but not in the plant computer data base, PDDS.

Review vend invand Needed Date initiator: Feingold, D. J. O O O 5 '5057 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G O O 11'5057 VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K B O O '1/1057 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 11/11/g7 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/2/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0436, has ,

identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which l requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified l In NRC letter B16901 and 179010. It has been screened per US '

PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4063 has been w.itten to develop arx! track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0436, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 179010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 derferral criteria. CR M3-97-4063 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously keenmand by NU7 O Yes (9) No NonDescrepentConstion?O Yes (9) No RenoiutionPending70 Yee @ No R - a unresoeved7 0 Yee @ No R.vi Initiator: Feingold. D. J.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K AC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Printed 3/1046 9:21:57 AM Pope 1 or 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0436 Millstone unit 3 Discreponcy Report osse:

9 3/2/98 sL Comnants: According to CR M3-97-4063, the PDDS will be revised to change line number 3-QSS-012-026-2 to line number 3-QSS-014-026-2.

l l

t i

I I

l l

l l

l l

l I

l l

l l

l I

l Printed 3/10/98 9:22:01 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0486 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

! ReviewGroup Connguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Diecipane: Electrical Design l

E 4 Type: Drawing Om

! SystemProcess: SWP g

NRC C " =-2 level:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished 11/2/97 Discrepency: Upper / Lower Tier Tray Drawing Differences Description. t The following differences were noted in the tray support drawings" l

1. Drawing EE-34DL Rev 12 shows a support 8' east of Column l Une A and on Column Line 52 is shown as C274A-273. The )

Cable and Raceway Program (T302) lists this support as C274-273.

2. Drawing EE-34DL Rev 12 shows Section View 3-3 as being found on drawing EE-34KD (D-4). The section is not on that .

drawing i 3. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists C266-207 as support for tray 3TC4260. Support not located in area of tray per drawing EE-34DL Rev 12. Field walkdown of this support confirmed that support does not support tray 3TC4260.

I

4. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) does not list supports C302B-55, C303-70 and C345-40 as supporting tray 3TC4510 as is @own on drawing EE 34DL Rev 12.

5. Support C022B-352 as shown on drawing EE-34DN Rev.11 is j listed as CO22-352 in the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2). l The 0022B-352 designation is correct.  !

Review ,

valid invalid Needed Date l initiator: senw, T. L B D O 10/13/87  !

VT Lead: Nat, Anthony A B O O 10/15/97 4 VT neer: schopfer, Don K O O O 1a23/97 stC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O G O 10/30'87 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/7/98 RESOLUTION Disposition; NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0486, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B18901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4247 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

! Printed 3/1o98 9:22:31 AM Page 1 or 2 l

l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0486 unistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0486, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires conection. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-97-4247 has been written to develop and track resoluthn of this item per RP-4.

Nei:r?;idoneaed by NU7 O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (e) No n.uuison P.ndino70 ve. @ No neeciuuanunresoeved70 v.s @ No n.wi A captatde Not aerard.haa Needed Det.

N VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O " l VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 1 SL Comments:

i l

l

[

Printed 3/1096 9:22:35 AM Page 2 of 2 i

1 Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4606 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Syelem DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design g

Diecipune: Mechanical Design E' . :y Type: Component Date Ow SystenWProcese: RsS @ No NRC Signiacence level: 4 Does faxed to NU:

Date Puhelched. 11/24/97 P'- - ci: Material used in some minimum wall calculations is inconsistent with specification 2280.000-582.

Descripelon: Material Used in Calculation Not The Same As in Specification The material specification used as input to some pipeline minimum wall calculations is not consistent with the materia! Ir' .

the pipeline design specification based on the pipe classes identified in the plant computer data base, PDDS.

Pipeline design specification 2280.000-582 Revision 12 identifies material specification SA-312 Type 304L for pipe classes 0302 and 0153. However, material specification SA-312 Type 304 is used as input into the minimum wall calculations. Pipe classes 0302 and 0153 are designated in PDDS for the affected pipelines.

Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:

Minimum Wall Calculations MW(F)-170 Revision 0 & MW(B)-

132 Revision 0 for pipelines: ,

3-RSS-006-046-2 3-RSS-006-052-2 3-RSS-006-054-2 l 3-RSS-006-055-2 j l

Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-127 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-RSS-010-003 2 3-RSS-010-008-2 3-RSS-010-009-2 ,

3-RSS-010-011-2 3-RSS-010-013-2 3-RSS-010-014-2 3-RSS-010-018-2 3-RSS-010-019-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-220 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-RSS-010-005-2 3-RSS-010-015-2 3-RSS-010-020-2 3-RSS-010-034-2 3-RSS-010-036-2 3-RSS-010-038-2 3-RSS-010-039-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-110 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-RSS-010-010-2 l Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-122 Revision 0 for pipelines:

l' 3-RSS-012-001-2 3-RSS-012-002-2 3-RSS-012-004-2 l 3-RSS-012-006-2 3-RSS-012-007-2 3-RSS-012-012 2 3-RSS-012-016-2 3-RSS-012-017-2 Material Not Designated in Calculation Some minimum wall calculations for pipelines do not identify the pipe material used for input into the calculation.

Prtnted 3/10/9e 9:23:04 AM Page 1 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0506 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:

Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-44 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-RSS-010-005-2 3-RSS-010-015-2 3-RSS-010-020-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(B)-45 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-RSS-012-021 2 3-RSS-012-022-2 Review Vaud invoud Needed Date initiator: Feingold. D. J.

O O O 11/10/S7 VT 1.med: Nei, Anthony A B D 0 1 111/S7 l

VT Mor: schopfer, Don K G O O 11'17/S7 l

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q O O 11/20s7  ;

Date:

INVALID:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition: .

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0506, has  ;

identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which '

requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0506, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral cri*erla. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resoiution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (8) No NonDiacrepentCondition70 Yes (8) No R= autioneenmaa7 0 va @ No Raduison unr.ww.d70 Y= @ No Review initiator: Feingold, D. J. '

VT Leed: Nwl, Anthony A B VT Mgr: schopfw, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/3/98 SL Comments: Revision of RSS minimum wall calculations to incorporate the corrected values for allowable stress in ASME Class 2, SA-312, Type 304L piping would have the following results:

In MW(Bi-044. Rev. D. MW(Bi-045. Rev. O. MW(R-170. Rev. O Printed 3/1o/98 9:23:08 AM Page 2 of 3

Norttw:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0606 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report and MW(F)-212, Rev. O, the correct values of allowable stresses were used, so no corrections are necessary.

In MW(F)-190, Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0128 inches to a total of 54% of the nominal pipe thickness for Lines 3-RES-008-040,041,047 and 053.

In MW(B)-132, Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0060 inches to a total of 44% of the nominal pipe thickness for Lines 3-RSS-008-046,054 and 055.

In MW(B)-127. Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0078 inches to a total of 45% of the nominal pipe thickness for Lines 3-RSS-010-003, 008, 009, 011, 013, 014, 018 and 019.

In MW(B)-220 Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0121 inches to a total of 30% of the nominal pipe thickness for Lines 3-RSS-010-005, 015, 020, 034, 036, 038 and 039.

In MW(B)-110, Rev. O, minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0072 inches to a total of 34% of the nominal pipe thickness for Line 3-RSS-010-010.

In MW(F)-122, Rev. O, minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0033 inches to a total of 9% of the nominal pipe thickness for Lines 3-RSS-012-001,002,004,006,007,012,016 and 017.

None of the corrections would result in a major change in the minimum wall thickness and none of the corretions would result in an unsatisfactory minimum wall thickness. Therefore NU is correct in their assessment that these corrections in the piping design basis may be deferred until cfter Unit 3 restart.-

Printed 3/10/98 9.23:1o AM Page 3 of 3

l l

l Northeast utsties ICAVP DR Wo. DR-MP3-0512 l mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1 Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design j Diecipilnm MechanicalDesign i

h. ziType: Component Date O vee SystemProcese: QSS g l

{

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published. 12m97 D6ecevancy: Material used in some minimum wall calculations is inconsistent I

with specification 2280.000-582 1 I

Description:

Material Used in Calculation Not The Same As in Specification f

The material specification used as input to some pipeline minimum wall calculations is not consistent with the material in ,

the design specification based on the pipe classes identified in l the plant computer data base, PDDS. I Pipeline design specification 2280.000-582 Revision 12 identifies i material specification SA-312 Type 304L for pipe class 0153.

However, different material specifications are used as input into the minimum wall calculations. Pipe class 0153 is designated in PDDS for the affected pipelines.

Affected minimum wah calculations & respective pipelines are:

Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-174 Revision 1 uses SA-403-TP304 for pipeilnes:

3-OSS-012-025-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-45 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-OSS-014-019-2 3-QSS-014-021-2 3-QSS-014 022-2 3QSS-014-026-2 Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-125 Revision 0 for pipelines:

3-QSS-750-800-2 through 3OSS-750-803-2 Material Not Designated in Calculation l Some minimum wall calculations for pipelines do not identify the pipe material used for input into the calculation.

l Affected minimum wall calculations & respective pipelines are:

Minimum Wall Calculation MW(F)-321 Revision i for pipeline:

3-QSS-012-029-2 l

Minimum Wall Calculation 96ENG 1255-M3 Revision i for pipeline:

3-QSS-006-031-2 3-QSS-008-033-2 3-QSS-008-042-2 1.nnn nna.nu.>

Printed 3/10/96 9:23:36 AM Page 1 of 3

i Northeast Utinties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0612 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepar.cy Report neview Vead invand Needed Date inlitator: Feingold, D. J.

8 O O 11/17/87 VT Lead: Nort, Ardhony A O O O 5 $'27/87 1

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 52/iis7 l Inc Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O 12/3s7 j Dese:

INVALID:

{

Date: 3/4/98 1 RESOLUTION Disposition:

l l

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0512, has I identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which i' requires correction. This discrepancy meets tr.1 criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy RSport, DR-MP3-0512, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

L _ , klantified by NU? O Yes (G) No NonDiscrepentCondition?U vos (G) No no hmonPenangtO y= @m neunresoeved70 va @m Review Inllistor: Feingold, D. J. s

, VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 8 O O = j

. VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dese: 3/4/98 st Comments

• Revision of QSS minimum wall calculations to incorporate the corrected values for allowable stress in ASME Class 2, SA 312, Type 304L piping would have the following results:

In MW(B)-321, Rey, O. and 96ENG 1255-M3 Rev 0, the correct value of allowable stress was used, so no corrections are necessary, in MW(B)-129, Rev. O., the minimum wall thickness would <

increase by only 0.0031 inches to a total of 23% of the nominal l pipe thickness for 14-inch Spool Nos. 3-QSS-5-2-4-2 and 6-4-4-2.

In MW(F)-027 Rev. O, correction of a math error and the error in l

Printed 3/10 6 9:23:40 AM Page 2 of 3 l

l

l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3 0512 l l

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I allowable stress would decrease the minimum wall thickness by 0.0027 incht 1 to a total of 24% of the nominal pipe thickness for '

Line 3-QSS 014-022. I in MW(B)-142, Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0009 inches to a total of 7% of the nominal pipe thickness for Line 3-QSS-014-022.

In MW(F)-174, Rev.1, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0057 inches to a total of 20% uf the nominal pipe thickness for Line 3-QSS-012-025.

1 In MW(F)-45, Rev. O, the minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0040 inches to a total of 26% of the nominal pipe thickness for Line 3-OSS-012-025.

In MW(F)-125, Rev. O, minimum wall thickness would increase by only 0.0006 inches to a total of 60% of the nominal pipe thickness for Line 3-QSS-012-025.

None of the corrections would result in a major change in the minimum wall thickness and none of the corretions would result in an unsatisfactory minimum wall thickness. Therefore NU is correct in their assessment that these corrections in the piping design basis may be deferred until after Unit 3 restart.

I j

Pr.nted 3/1098 9:23:42 AM Page 3 of 3 E___

Northeast UtiHties ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 4644 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ReviewGroup connguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Desi0n Diecipline: Electrical Desig" ww pg ,p. ,

W 2, Type: Dramng O ;=

SystemProcese: Rss @ No NRC Signiacence level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:

Dele Published: 11/2/97 D6ecrepancy: Drawing discrepancies

Description:

The following drawing discrepancies are noted:

1. Support mark number #111 is shown as type R203A on drawing EE-34EE Rev. 8. The drawing does not list R203A in table of support types and the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists R203 for trays supports for trays 3TX 014N, 3TK007N and 3TC 013N, which includes support #111.

2. DrawinD 12179-EE-46D Rev 13, shows pull box "3JB-0161*

located in the containment at elevation 34 feet (drawing coordinates I-6). This box is actually 3JB*0161. The non-safety related box (3JB-0161) is located at elevation -18 feet.

3. Note 2 of Drawing, indicates that all trays are 30 inches wide unless noted otherwise. Trays 3TC0014N,3TC0015N, and 3TX016N are shown on this drawing and without a commodity type indicating a different tray size displayed for these trays.

TSO2 indicates these trays are 18 inches wide. The trays are depicted on the drawing similarly to trays that are listed as 30 inches.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date tremator: sener, T. L O O O 1o' S'87 VTt. sed: Nort, Anthony A B D 0 or27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O or28/97 1RC Chmn: singh. Anand K B D 0 10/30/87 Dete:

INVALID:

Dele: 2/10/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0544, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concern, and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0514 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Cutclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, OR-MP3-0544, has Printed 3/1o98 9:24:09AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34544 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 ?nd.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0514 has been written to develep and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identiSed by NU7 O Yes (S) No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes (9) No ReadutionPending?O Yes @ No ResNunon unresolvedrO .e. @ No Review initW.4: Kleic, N

• VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singn, Anand K .

Date:

SL Commente e

Printed $10/98 9.24:12 AM Page 2 of 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0548 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potentiel Operability issue Discipline: Electrical Design ts . :iType: Drewing Om s , _ .-- _Rss g,

NRC Sli pdacence M: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date PutWished 11/lW97 th . ~ :i; Drawings not in agreement osa:ription.

1. Drawing EE-33T, Rev. 3 shows electrical distribution panel 3SCV*PNLSP in the installed location of 3SCV*PNL9P and vice versa. The panels' installed locations (swapped from those shown on EE-33T) is consistent with other design documents including: EE-27F, Rev.12, EE-48V, Rev.5, and EE-488, Rev.

l 15.

2. There are five supports installed for Conduit 3CX1000A3.

Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates four supports.

3. Cable Tray Support A325A-34 shown on drawing EE-34DT Rev. 7 is shown as A325-34 on the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2).

4. TSO2 does not indicate Cable Tray 3TC10GO or 3TC1080 attached to Cable Tray Support A326-11. This support is shown on the drawing EE-34DT Rev.7 and verified in the field as close to the intersection of these two trays.

Review l Velid invalid Needed Date inattator: senw. T. L 0 0 O for2ars7 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A B O O 1o/27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 10/30'87 i

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K D D D 1 /d'87  :

Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 2/10/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

l NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0548, has i identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Th!s discrepancy meets the criteria specified l

In NRC letter B16901 and.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0548, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which Pnnled 3'1o/96 924 de AM Pope 1 of 2 i

1 l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0648 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report requires correctio1. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.1701011 has been Screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Prevkusmy Em by NU7 O Yes (9) h NonDiscrepersCondmon?U Yes @) No nammoneenenstO va @m Rammionu av.d70 Ya @ No Review

% ,, y Aceva Noe % N d.a om.

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A I VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O =  ;

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O = 1 O O  !

Date: j SL Comments:

l l

i l

i l

l I

Printed 3/10/90 924.53 AM Page 2 of 2 t

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0548 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipilne: Electrical Design O' , :p Type: Drawing Om SyalemProcese: RSS g NRC SignlAcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdiohed: 11/9/97

~ i. Drawings not in agreement T- ,

1. Drawing EE-33T, Rev. 3 shows electrical distribution panel 3SCV*PNLSP in the installed location of 3SCV*PNL9P and vice versa. 7 he panels' installed locations (swapped from those shown on EE-33T) is consistent with other design documents including: EE-27F, flev.12 EE-48V, Rrs 9, and EE-48B Rev.

15.

2. There are five supports installed for Conduit 3CX1000A3.

Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates four supports.

3. Cable Tray Support A325A-34 shown on drawing EE-34DT Rev. 7 is shown as A325-34 on the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2).

4. TSO2 does not indicate Cable Tray 3TC1060 or 3TC1080 attached to Cable Tray Support A326-11. This support is shown on the drawing EE-34DT Rev.7 and verified in the fiela as close to the intersection of these two trays.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Swver, T. L 0 0 0 50/28/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O o/27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O O O So/30S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 11/4S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/10/98 RESOLUTION DisposKion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0548, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deMrral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0548, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which Printed 3/10/98 9:26:52 AM Page 1 of 2

l 1

NortheastiJtilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0548 '

Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operabildy or reportability 4 concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 f has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per  !

RP-4.

Previously identified by NU? O vos (#) No NonDiscrepentcondition?Q vos (#) No PM%Pending?O vos @ No P-%unresoeved?O vos @ No Review A-- Not a-:-: g' Needed Date N

VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K Date:

SL Comments: I l

l l

i i

(

i I

l l

1 l

Printed 3/1046 926:56 AM Page 2 of 2

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTeoN ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design j

rhea r%: Meche'aical Design W- up Type: Component Dets Om i SyalemProcess: Rss g

NRC Sign 45cencelevel: 4 '

Date faxed to NU:

)

i Date Putnished: 11/20S7 Diecrepancy: Design specification (s) & drawings not available for RSS pumps  !

seal head tank valves.

Deecription P&lD EM-112C Revision 16 and the plant computer data base,  ;

PDOS, show the following valves for the containment  :

recirculation pumps seal head tanks, but no vendor drawing or j specification is Wientifed for these valves:

3RSS*V38 through 3RSS*V45 3RSS*V50 through 3RSS*V53 P&lD EM-112C in conjunction with P&lD Legend EM-100B  !

Revision 10 show the above listed valves to be Globe valves. l The PDDS references specification 2472.800-943 Revision 10 l for these valves. However, this specification does not address globe valves, only check needle, and ball valves.

Review l Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feengold, D. J.

O O O 11'1o'87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 11'11/S7 4

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 9 0 0 11/17187 1RC Chmn: singh. Arn*f K B O O 11/17/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 3/2/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0570, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter 816901 and 17010. It has been ccreened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0514 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0570, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0514 Printed 3/10/96 9:30.42 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0670 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

t/: 2, klontNied by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Constion?O Yes (9) No PM% P.nding70 Y.s @ u. n e unt d70Y.s @ wo Review inittstor: Feingold D.J. ~-

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O =

mc chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/2/98 l

sL comments Accordin0 to CR M3-98-0514, the P&lD is correct and the PDDS is incorrect. The condition report states that the PDDS will be corrected to reference drawings 2214.802-044-0128 and 2214.802-044-0178 for the subject valves.

l l

l l

l l

l l

Printed 3/1098 9:304 AM ~ Page 2 of 2

l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0579 ]

r,11tistorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report )

ReviewGroup: AccidentIAtipetmn DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design {'

Diecipline: Mechenical Design '*"

h , - :p Type: Licensin0 Document SystemProcess: N/A g

NRC Sign 6Aconce Iml; 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdehed 11/22/97 l N . - i. Discrepancy Between Accident Analysis Assumptions and Calculated Minimum AFW Performance Capability

Description:

Westinghouse Report WCAP 8330, " Westinghouse Anticipated Transients Without Trip Analysis," dated August 1974, e'. aluated the loss of normal feedwater event with the consideration Of no reactortrip. This evaluation used the assumption of an auxiliary feedwater system response in less than 60 seconds at a flow rate i of 1760 gallons per minute in the demonstration of adequate  !

capability of the plant to mitigate the accident.

l

• Plant Safety Evaluation for Millstone Generating Station Unit 3",

dated August 1990, Westinghouse evaluated the inadvertent I opening of a steam generator relief or safety valve event. In l demonstrating adequate response, Westinghouse assumed an  ;

auxiliary feedwater system flow of 1200 gallons per minute for 4-loop operation and 900 gallons per minute for 3-loop operation.

(The 1200 gallons per minute is used in lieu of the 1760 gallons I per minute stated above to incorporate conservatism.) l DBDP-MP3-FWA, " Millstone Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant Design Basis Documentation Package - Auxiliary Feedwater System,"

(DBDP) Revision 1, dated June 1,1995 specifies the design flow for each motor driven auxiliary feedwater pump as 575 gallons i per minute at 1289 psia. This represents a required flow of 470 gallons per minute, a recirculation flow of 45 gallons per minute and 12% maigin.

The DBDP also specifies the design flow for the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump as 1150 gallons per minute at 1289 psia. This represents a required flow of 940 gallons per minute, a recirculation flow of 90 gallons per minute and 12% marpin.

The D8DP specifies minimum auxiliary feedwater flow requirements for a number of accident scenar!os. However, the ATWS and stuck open safety or relief valve events discussN1 above are not addressed in the DBDP.

SP3622.1-2. " Auxiliary Feedwater Pump A Cold Shut &wn Flow Test," performed on 26MAY95 indicates a full flow capability of the "A" motor driven pump of 548.3 gallons per minute at s pressure of 1312 psig. This includes a recirculation flow of 43.3 gallons per minute.

SP 3622.2-2, " Auxiliary Feedwater Pump B Cold Shutdown Flow Test," performed on 26MAY95 indicates a full flow capability of the "B" motor driven pump of 545 gallons per minute at a j pressure of 1357.6 psig. This included a recirculation flow of 45 nnlinne rmr mlrusta Printed 3/1098 9:28:o3 AM Page 1 or 5

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR NA DR-MP34679 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report j

SP 3622.3-5, "TDAFW Pump Mode 3 Full Flow Test," performed on 2JUN95 was not completed satisfactorily because of check valve malfunctions. The PORC approved a change to the procedure (ACR 3260) which allowed the completion of the check valve surveillance. Tested full flow capability is not recorded on the data sheets provided by NU.

Proto-Power Calculation 96-067, *MP3-Auxiliary Feedwater System Comprehensive Flow Analysis", Revision 0, dated 16APRJ7 (including CCNs 1,2, and 3) evaluated the performance of the auxiliary feedwater rystem for various accident scenarios. One of these events represents the ATWS event, loss of normal feedwater without reactor trip. The response includes the scenario of 2 motor driven pumps and 1 turbine driven pump supplying 4 intact steam generators. For this scenario, the maximum calculated flow capability of the auxiliary feedwater system under degraded pump flow conditions is 1130 gallons per minute at 1000 psia.

The Proto-Power calculation indicates that the auxiliary \

J feedwater system's capability to respond to the mintmum flow 1 conditions cited in the DBDP is adequate in the degraded I condition. 1 i

Review of thes'e data reveals two discrepancies:

1. The DBDP has neitherjustified ignoring or addressed the higher auxiliary feedwater system flow requirements for the

{

ATWS and stuck open safety or relief valve events.  !

2. The Proto-Power calculation for fully degraded auxiliary feedwater system flow indicates a system capability (1130 gallons per minute at 1000 psia) which is inconsistent with the analysis assumption (1760 gallons per minute).

Further, the degraded auxiliary feedwater system capability is inconsistent with the assumed flow associated with stuck open safety or relief valve event analyses (1200 gallons per minute for 4-loop operation and 900 gallons per minute for 3-loop operation).

Review balid invWid Needed Date initiator: Poetnes. W. R.

VT Leed: Raneja. Raj D 8 O O 15/20S7 G O O 510S7 vT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 15' oS7 IRC Chmn: singh. Arand K O O O 1' SS7 Date:

INVAUD:

Dese: 2/16/98 Resol.UTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that discrepancy report DR-MP3-0579 identified conditions previously discoveied by NU which required correction.O Printed 3/10S8 928:o7 AM Page 2 or 5

J.

NortheCst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0679 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

1) ACR 08645 'DBDP Not Adequate as Sole Source Documents for QA Cat 1 Design Work" was initiated on March 20,1996 and independently identified that the DBDPs were not adequate to be used as sole-source design documents because there had not been sufficient management controls during their development.

These findings were reported again in ACR M3-96-0923 and its associated Common Cause Assessment dated 12/16/96.

Additionally, items relating to the use, updating, and closure of open issues were also identified. A corrective action in ACR MS-96-0923, (Corrective Action No. 4) was written to address some of the shortcomings. The action was to " define ownership, usage and controls of the DBDPs in the design change configuration control process prior to start-up." This action was evaluated and revised to replace tne DBDPs with the DBS Documents for the Maintenance Rule Group 1 and 2 Systems. The Westinghouse

• Evaluation of Revised Auxiliary Feedwater Requirements" and Proto-Power Calc.96-067 flow curves have been incorporated into the DBS for AFW, (AFW 3DBS-NSS-001). Each DBDP is annotated on the front cover with instructions that itxficate configuration control is not maintained and usage is restricted to "For Information only". The DBDPs have been " retired" and

" replaced

• by the DBSs which resulted from the 50.54f work and several condition reports generated in the past. The DBDPs were subsequently retired by DCN DM3-00-1322-97 dated 11/18/97.

2) Due to several related concems relating to AFW Flows, ATWS and inconsistencies in plart AFW Flow documentation, NU re luested Westinghouse to do an evaluation of FSAR Chapter 15 events using revised AFW flows identified in Proto- '

Power Calculation 96-067. This is the official calculation of record for AFW flows used for Chapter 15 events, procedure revisions and surveillance instruction acceptance criteria etc.

Engineering Record Correspondence (ER-96-0398, Rev 1) requested Westinghouse to perform the evaluations. Design Engineering also requested Westinghouse do an ATWS evaluation using Proto Power calculation 96-067 flow curves ,

(MP3-DE-97-1154). In addition, Northeast Utilities requested Westinghouse to evaluate the impact of increasing the delay time for startup of the Turbine Driven AFW pump from 70 seconds to 90 reconds.

Westinghouse response " Evaluation of Revised Auxiliary Feedwater Conditions" (NEU-97-319E) indicated that those FSAR chapter 15 events which could be affected by the revised AFW flows, and additional delay in the start of the turbine driven AFW pump were evaluated as acceptable.

Westinghouse also showed acceptable results were obtained for the ATWS event. No additional Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) penalty was assessed for either Large or Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident.The revised Feedline Break and Loss of Normal Feedwater / Loss of AC Power analyses indicated that applicable acceptance criteria are met with the calc. of record Prmfed 3/1096 926:06 AM Page 3 of 5

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0679 Mitistone uait 3 Discrepancy Report flows. The results also indicated that FEAR Chapter 15 updates for each event were required. The corrective actions have been completed with the exception of an approved DCR to enwre the revised auxiliary feedwater system design basis transient flowrotes are incorporated into all impacted design bases documer:tation, procedures, and programu. DCR MS-98007 has been drafted to complete this action.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that discrepancy report DR-MP3-0579 has identified conditions previously discovered by NU which required correction.

1) The MP3 50.54(f) effort resulted in the development of Design Basis Summary (DBS) documents which contain design information which has been verified and validated. ACR 08645 "DBDP Not Adequate as Sole Source Documents for QA Cat 1 Design Work" was initiated on Mamh 20,1996 and independently identified that the DBDPs were not adequate to be used as sole-source design documents because there had not been sufficient mansgement controls during their development.

These findings were reported again in ACR M3-96 0923 and its associated Common Cause Assessment dated 12/16/96.

Additionally, issues relating to the use, updating and clnsure of open issues were also identified. A corrective action (described in ACR M3-960923, Corrective Action No. 4) provided to address some of the shortcomings was to " Define ownership, usage and controls of the DBDPs in the design change configuration control process prior to start-up." This action was evaluated and revised to replace the DBDPs with the DBS Documents for the Maintenance Rule Group 1 and 2 Systems.

The " Evaluation of Revised Auxiliary Feedwater Requirements" and flow curves in Proto-Power Calc.96-067 have been incorporated into the DBS for AFW, (AFW 3DBS-NSS-001).

The DBDP's were subsequently retired by DCN DM3-00-1322-97 dated 11/18/97.

2) Due to several related concems relating to AFW flows, ATWS, and inconsistencies in plant AFW Flow documentation, NU requested Westinghouse to do an evaluation of FSAR chapter 15 events using revised AFW flows identified in Proto-Power Calculation 96-067, in addition, delay in the start time of the tuttiine driven AFW pump was evaluated. Acceptable results have been obtained in all cases. A separate evaluation of the impact of the changes in available AFW flow and start times on the generic ATWS analysis was performed. The separate evaluation showed acceptable results were obtained for the ATWG event. Suggested FSAR Chapter 15 updates for each event were p,0vided with each evaluation. The Proto-Power calculation 96-067 is the official calculation of record for AFW flows used for Chapter 15 Events, procedure revisions and surveillance instruction acceptance criteria etc..The corrective actions have been completed with the exception of an approved DCR to ensure the revised auxiliary feedwater system design basis transient flowrates are incorporated into all impacted da=3an bases darementation. oracadures and Droorams. DCR Pnnled 3/10S8 92629 AM Pags 4 or 5 O

I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4579 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1

M3-98007 has been drafted to complete this action.

Attachments:

Engineering Record Correspondence, ER-96-0398 Rev.1 NU M:mo to Westinghouse MP3-DE-97-1154, dated July 23, 1997 Westinghouse Response: Millstone Unit 3 Evaluation of Revised AFW conditions, NEU-97-319E, dated December 30,1997 Design Change Notice DM3-00-1322-97 ACR/CR# M3-96-0151 ACR M#-96-0923 ACR 08645 DCR M3-98007 (Draft)

Previously identlSed t>y NU7 (8) vos Q No NonDiscrepentCondluon?O vos (9) No needuta=PeamnerO va @ No Resoiutionunresaved70 vos @ No Review initietor: Peebles, W. R.

• VT Leed: Reheja, Raj D G O O ru

! VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O =

Date:

0 0 0 SL Comraords:

l l

l PrWed 3/104eNIl0 AM Page 5 of 5

1

)

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0693 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Diecipline: Mechanical Design E'-: , -- y Type: Component Date Ow i Sy- 7 ==: Rss g

NRC S' _ =- + level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putnished: 12m97 E2 - 7Y: RSS dewatering Pump spec 2225.202-050 is missing information i relative to coatings.

Deecription Specification 2225.202-050 through Revision 7 provides design information for the containment recirculation spray system dewatering pumps,3RSS-P2A and 3RSS-P28. Page 1-16 of the specification states that surfaces subject to corrosion receive one coat of Keeler & Long coating of the type specified on the following page. The following page in the specification provides the coating types for the other p"mps covered by the specification but not for the dewatering pumps. j Drawing 2225.202-050-025, Revisioit A," Containment Recirculation Dewatering Pump", does not provide coating details to support the specificaiton coating detail.  !

Review Velid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feingold, D. J.

8 O O 11/17/87 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony ^

8 0 0 11/ 7/87 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K S O O 2/i/87 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

G O_ O 12/s/97 INVALID:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0593, has ident;fied a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0168 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0593, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the' criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0168 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Printed 3/1096 9:29.04 AM Page 1 of 2

1 Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0693 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Pr viouth identined by Nu? U Y.s @ No NonDiacropantCondluon?U Y.s (9) No n meonponens?O v.s @ No n iutionunr *.d?O v @ No n.vi Initiator: Feingold, D. J.

• VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/3/98 SL Comments: The intended corrective action is not apparent from the Northeast Utilities disposition or from condition report CR M3-98-0168.

From the discrepancy report it appears that records should be '

researched to determine the required coating and the actual coating applied. If the actual coating does not match the requir >

coatin0, then the correct coating should be applied or the existing  !

coating justified. Finally, the selected coating should be reflected '

in the design specification.

Given that the RSS dewatering pumps are not safety related and are only used when the respective containment recirculation spray system train is removed from service, the applied pump coating is considered a minor issue that can be deferred.

i 1

4 Printed 3/10/96 9:29:08 AM P W2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0694 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report >

Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED I Review Element: System Design g

Discipline: ElectricalDesign Diecrepancy Type: Calculation Ow SystemProcess: DGX g )

1 NRC 87 mlevel:4 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Putdehed: 11/1597

- wi; Calculation of the Ampacity of the Diesel Generator Leads (Calculation 195E)

Description:

Calculation 195E calculates the ampacity of several cables. The review of this calculation for the ICAVP effort is limited to the cables for the emergency diesel generator.

The ampacity of the 2000 MCM,5 kV diesel generator feeders in conduit was calculated using a Kerite Co. ampacity table and derating factors. The calculation applies a derating factor to be applied to the ampecity of a single cable in an isolated conduit for three closely spaced conduits in a horizontal configuration.

However, the value used,0.85 is for three conduits in a vertical ,

configuration, not for a horizontal calculation as stated on page 36 of the calculation. The calculation gives an ampacity value of:

l= 1654 x 0.85 = 1405 amperes The factor given in the Kerite table used by the calculation for three conduits in a horizontal arrangement is 0.91. The value of cable ampacity,1654 amperes, is for a cable in free air. It is necessary to apply a conduit factor of 0.76 to obtain the ampacity of a cable in an isolated conduit. Therefore, the ampacity of the cable in three non-ferrous conduits arranged horizontally is:

la 1654 x 0.76 x 0.91 = 1143 amperes This assumes that the cables are properly installed in non-ferrous conduits and that that circulating currents have been controlled. Field walk down observations indicate that "as built" conditions do not match those assumed in the calculations or the expected field condition. This is documented in configuration Discrepancy Report DR-577.

The thermal resistance through the insulation of the two conductor,816 AWG cable is calculated on page 9 of Attachment G of Appendix A using the formula for a single conductor cable.

l However, in a multiple conductor there will be interference to I heat dissipation through the insulation due to the presence of the i adjacent hot conductors. This increases the effective thennal resistance of the insulation. This is accounted for by the use of a

" geometric factor" as described in Section 2.1.1.2 and Figure 2 of IEC 287-2-1. This section of the calculatbn should be revised to use the appropriate geometric factor for the two conductor cable.

Printed 3/10/98 9:29:35 AM Page 1 of 3 i

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0694 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The ampacity calculation on page 9 of Attachment G of  ;

Appendix A uses a thermal resistivity of 3.5 K m/W for both the  !

Insulation and Jacket material. This is the value of the thennal resistivity given in Table 1 of IEC 287-2-1 for low voltage ethylene propylene rubber insulation. However, a different material is used for cable Jackets. The thermal resistivity of the commonly used cable Jacket materials are 5 to 5.5 K m/W. This will lower the ampacity of the two conductor, #6 AWG cable slightly.

On page 4 of Attachment 1 of Appendix A, the calculation of the mean shield diameter assumes one layer of shielding tape, while the calculation of the thickness of material between the conductor and Jacket and the extemal diameter of the shield assume two layers of shielding tape. An explanation of this difference should be included in the calculation. Because the shleiding tape is very thin (8 mits), the effect of this difference on the calculation recults is negligible.

The loss factor for the diesel generator cable shield is calculated on page 7 of Attachment 1 of Appendix A. The shield loss was calculated for the outer phase of the three phase set with leading phase. The standard being applied, IEC 287-1-1, presents separate formulae for the shield loss of each of the three phases when they are in a flat arrangement. For the generator cables, the shield loss of the center phase will be about 1% of the total cable loss compared to the shield loss of 0.3% of the total cable loss for the outer phase considered. Therefore, calculating the shield loss for the center phase would be more conservative than the outer phase used in the calculation. However, b(cause the shleid loss is so low, the difference in heat genemtion is about 0.7%, which is not significant to the final answer.

The temperature rise of the cable trench is calculated using the )

empirical formula of Section 2.2.6.2 of IEC 287-2-1. This section '

indicates that the validity of the formula given in this section is still being investigated. Portions of the " trench" are fairly large rooms rather than a typical cable trench. Attemate methods of estimating the ambient temperature in these large areas are given in the ASHRAE standards, which should be considered for use for sections A2 and B2. It should be noted that a significant part of the,se areas are below grade, and that the soll temperature below grade is less than the outside ambient temperature of 49'C used in the calculation. Also, the heat from the cable tray was assumed to be distributed uniformly over the length of section A1, even though the cable tray is in only part of this length. Even if the heat is assumed to be dissipated in the section of the trench containing the cable tray, section A1 is not the limiting case.  !

Review l Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Bioethe. G. Wilhem b] O O 11/10/97 Printed 3/10/98 9:29:38 AM Page 2 of 3

m Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0894 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l l

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 15'10S7  :

VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O O 15' 0S7 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O $ 5'51'87 t Date: I me:

oste: 2/8/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0594, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified l

In NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 l has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per l RP-4.

l i

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0594, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0138 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4, Previously identined by NU7 (.) Yes @ No Non N ,__ ^ Condition?(_) Yes @ No R otion Pendina70 Yes @ No emahnionunresoeved70 Yes @ No Review

~~

initiator: Womer, l.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schapter, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K Date:

SL Commects:

l l

l Printed 3/1046 9.29A0 AM Pope 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0600 mmstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Accident Mitigation DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipune MechanicalDesign P' - , -i Type: Licensing Document O vos SystemProcess: N/A g

NRC W level:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished: 11/20/97 D6screpancy: Time Critical Activities Net identified in EOPs or Operator Training Manuals Deectlption. In the response to a Feedwater System Pipe Break, the analysis described in FSAR Section 15.2.8 for a Feedwater System Pipe l Break assumes that 30 minutes (Table 6.2-59) is required to {

isolate the auxiliary feedwater system from the faulted steam >

generator.

The ICAVP reviewed EOP 35 E-0, EOP 35 E-1, EOP 35 E-2, and the lesson plans used to train the operators for various acciderit scenarios.

The accident analysis, FSAR Section 15.2.8.2 (page 15.2-19),

assumes that the auxiliary feedwater system is isolated from th faulted steam generator within 30 minutes However, there is no mention of a time requirement in the above procedures or in the trainin0 materials. Therefore the operator is not cognizant of a need to isolate the faulted steam generator within a 30-minute period.

Review Vend invalid Needed Date inmissor: Kene,T.J. 9 O O 50/30'S7 VT Lead: Reheja, Rej D G O O 50/3 /S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S i>$'S7 NtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B D D 5 '17/S7 Date:

l lNVALID:

Date: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION Dispositjon:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0600, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Emergency operating procedures (EOPs) l EOP 35 E-0, EOP 35 E-1, EOP 35 E-2, as well other EOPs are based on the Westinghouse standard Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS). These procedures are condition driven, not event driven. As such, operators proceed through the procedure based on indicated conditions. Except for critical tasks, the timeliness of the action is purposely kept transparent to the EOPs condition driven steps. Only a few operator actions such as those relating to Steam Generator Tube Rupture events are procedurally and physically based on operator reaction time.The original ERGS were validated by the Westinghouse Owners Group. Credited operator action times for a feedwater pipe break transient assumed in MP3 FSAR Chapter 15 has not changed since that initial validation. Isolation of AFW to the Printed 3/10/9e 9:34:13 AM Pege 1 or 3

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-0600 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report affected SG is emphasized in Operator Training and is a Critical Task. However, in this case, successful completion of this task is based upon completion of the action within the required procedure steps rather than a specific ilme requirement. In order to show the validation is still effective, the condition in DR-MP3-0600 was documented in Condition Report (CR) M3-98-0328, initiated 1/21/98. Although there are not any required operator actions included in the FSAR that have not been validated through the training program or initial ERG validation program, l (CR) M3-98-0328 has developed corrective actions to improve

! the documentation and the interface between the Chapter 15 operator action assumptions and the EOPs/AOPs. The CR's corrective action plan will have the Safety Analysis Branch supply the MP3 Training department with all credited operator actions (and times if applicable) from the MP3 FSAR, including the feedwater pipe break transient. The Training department, in  ;

conjunction with Safety Analysis Branch and MP3 Operations, I will perform a training "needs analysis" on the Safety Analysis l

Branch input. From this assessment, items will be included in the j l '

i training programs with appropriate training material and exam items. Those items deemed not requiring training will be logged with justification used in arriving at the de Asion. MP3 training will r

maintain the log . This "needs analysis" is scheduled to be l completed after testart.  !

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR- MP3-0600, has i.

l hientified a condition not previously discovered by NU which i (equires correction.The discrepancy in DR-MP3-0600 was l documented in Condition Report (CR) M3-98-0328. Although there am no required operator actions included in the FSAR '

Chapter 15 that have not been validated through the tra!ning program tv initial ERG validation program, CR M3-96-0328 bas develope .orrective actions to improve the documentation and the interface between the Chapter 15 operator action assumptions and the EOPs/AOPs. EOPs are based on the Westinghouse standard Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS). These procedures are condition driven, not event driven. As such, operators proceed through the procedure based l on indicated conditions. The original ERGS were validated by the Westinghouse Owners Group. The CR's corrective action plan I will have MP3 Nuclear Training Department perform a training i

needs analysis for MP3 FSAR Chapter 15 transient analysis, l including feedwater pipe break, as provided by the Safety l Analysis Branch. Any items identified as requiring a change in training will be incorporated into the appropriate MP3 training program. The needs analysis will be completed after restart.

Field modifications are not anticipated for the feedwater pipe break transient credited operator action times.

7.d:z's identtaed try Nu? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (S) No ResolutionPending?O vee (*J No p--- an unresoeved70 vee @)No Review iniliator: Kane.T.J.

VT tand: Rahaja, Rej D Printed 3/10/96 9:34:17 AM Pa0e 2 of 3

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0600 Northe st Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report O O O =

VT Mgr: SM, Don K =

IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K O O O O O Date:

SL Commtvit6.

l l

l l

l I

Printed 3/10f98 934:18 AM PaDe 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0704 i Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

4 Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED l Review Element: System Design

! ""I P unewafwkalDugn O y=

l h ; my Type: Component Date SystemProcess: OsS gg NRC SO^ ----- level: 3 Date faxed to Nu:

Date Putnished.12f20/97 F- i. RWST Levels Used to Determine NPSHa for ECCS Pumps.  ;

Description:

There are three calculations which determine if RWST provides sufficient NPSH to ECCS pumps in the RHS, SlH, and CHS  ;

systems: P(R)-0982, Rev. O, P(R)-0983, Rev. O, and US(B)-294, l Rev.4.

l The RWST levels used in these three calcualations to determine  !

NPSHa for the ECCS pumps contain inconsistancies. They do not agree with each other, they do not correspond with the opertion of the RWST, and they do correctly incorporate level ,

setpoint uncertainties. l The inconsistencies between the RWST levels used in the  !

NPSHa calculations are as follows:

P(R)-0982 P(R)-0983 US(B)-294 RHR 37.9 ft 25'-5" 19'-2" i SlH 37.9 ft 4'-5" 19'-2"  !

CHS 37.9 ft 4'-5" 19'-2" Since the RHR pumps trip on low low RWST level, the worst-case RWST level for RHR is the low low level setpoint minus the setpoint uncertainty (RWST level after two minutes of drawdown in the event of a failure of the auto-trip function of one RHS pump is assumed to occur in US(B)-295, but the RWST does not i need to be designed to provide adequate NPSH for this I scenario). According to Calculation 3451B01-1232, the low low level setpoint is 25'-5" and the uncertainty in the setpoint is .

28.28". Therefore the minimum RWST level at which the RHR pump is required to operate is 23'-1" (see item 3 of DR-MP3-0373). This level is not used for any of the NPSH calculations.

Therefore the RWST levels used to determine RHR pump NPSHa are not conservative in P(R)-0982 and P(R)-0983.

The design basis for manual ECCS suction switchover is that it would be completed ten minutes after operators receive the RWST low low level alarm. According to FSAR Sec. 6.3.2.2.3 and FSAR Fig. 6.3-6, the minimum level at which SlH and CHS pumps are required to take suction from the RWST is 19'-2".

Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0266 identifies an error in this reported minimum level. Using the inputs of Calculation US(B)-

295, Rev. 5, "RWST Draw Down Rates and Switch Over Levels,"

DR-MP3-0266 concludes that the minimum level should be 18.90 ft. If the Correct value of 28.2E'is used for the uncertainty in the low low level setpoint, the minimum level at which ECCS pumps are required to take suction from the RWST is 18.54 ft.

This level is not used in any of the NPSHa calculations.

l ,, '5:=f = th: RWST ':;;' rd !c dt--5: E!H -d h e 2 l

1 l

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR.MP3-0704 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report pump NPSHa are not conservative in P(R)-0982 and US(B)-294.

noview VeEd inveNd Needed Date initiator: Wakeland, J. F. 8 O O 12/15/97 VT Leed: Nui, Arthony A B O O $2/11/e7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 12/11/o7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O 12iiaro7 Date:

INVALID:

Eve: 2/27/98 RESOLUTION: DISPOSITION:

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0704 identifies a condition i previously discovered by NU which is being corrected. )

inconsistencies between NPSH values for the ECCS pumps in calculations P(R)-983 and US(B)-294 were discovered during the CMP program and documented in UIR 2621 dated 6/25/97 and j on the Out Of Scope System inspection Request No. 81 dated 1 8/20/97. The resolution of the identified discrepancies is I I

currently in progress and will result in calculations P(R)-982 and P(R)-983 oeing superceded and calculation US(B)-294 being revised to reflect the reanalyzed design which incorporates current ECCS operating practices. This issue is bein0 tracked by AR # 97029510-02 and has been identified as a Start-Up item.

CONCLUSION:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0704 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been addressed. Inconsistencies between NPSH values for the ECCS pumps in calculations P(R)-983 and US(B)-294 were discovered during the CMP program and documented in UIR 2621 dated 6/25/97 and on the Out Of Scope System inspection Request No. 81 dated 8/20/97. The resolution of the !dentified discrepancies is currently in progress and will result in calculations P(R)-982 and P(R)-983 being superceded and calculation US(B)-294 being revised to reflect the reanalyzed design which incorporates current ECCS operating practices.

This issue is being tracked by AR # 97029510-02 and has been identified as a Start-Up item. ,

Previously idenoned by NU7 (e) vos O No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (e) No namuoneenene r O va @ No namuonunrum.d70 vos @ No Review Intestor: Wakelend, J. F.

VT Lead: Neri, Arthony A VT Mgr: ScW. Don K IRC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K G O O =

Date:

SL Conenents:

Prtnted 3/10/96 9:35:c2 AM Page 2 of 2

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0711 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design DiecipNne: Mechanical Design Eez , :p Type: Ucensing Document O vos SystemProcese: Oss g

NRC Signiacance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished.12/20S7 rex . - :y: Minimum QSS Initiation Tirne in FSAR Table 6.2-60 Description- FSAR Table 6.2-60 states that the minimum QSS effective time is:

For a LOP /LOCA and Max ESF: 48 seconds For a LOCA with offsite power available and Max. ESF: 33 seconds This is inconsistent with the Calculation US(B)-225, Rev. 6,

" Quench Spray Header Fill Time." US(B)-225 concludes that the minimum QSS effective time from receipt of a CDA signalis:

For a LOP /LOCA and Max ESF: 37.3 seconds For a LOCA with offsite power available and Max. ESF: 26.3 seconds Review l

Vend invaud Needed Date l

)

initiator: Waksiend, J. F.

O O O 2/aS7 i VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A G O O $2ttsis7

)

VT Mgr: schopfer DonK Q Q Q 12/11/97 l

NtC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O $2 tie,S7 Date:

INVALID: I Date: 2/27/98 l RESOLUTION DISPOSITION:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report,

)

DR-MP3-0711, has identified a condition previously discovered

{

by NU which requires correction. UIR 1129 identified conflicts j between the referenced calculation and the FSAR for resolution.

As a result of Revision 6 of US(B)225, UIR1129 was issued to address the impact of this revision on other calculations, FSAR, I etc. During the review of the decreased QSS response times )

calculated in Revision 6 of US(B)225, it was found that the response times using ma:dmum ESF resulted in values which are more limiting for determining minimum containment pressure as described in FSAR Section 6.2.1.5 and WCAP 8339 Appendix A. Stone and Webster had transmitted the original values to Westinghouse via NES-25187, dated 8/18/81 and these values are presently stated in FSAR Table 6.2-60. Westinghouse has reviewed and approved the new response times (NEU-97-318E).

An FSARCR is being prepared to revise FSAR Table 6.2-60. In additic.1, a DCN will be issued to revise the DBS and a CCN will be issued against US(B)-225 to clarify that the fastest QSS  ;

response times are used as inputs to the FSAR Section 6.2.1.5 l analysis. These actions were identified and will be included as part of the 50.54 (f) effort and will be included as part of the Printed 3/toSe 9:35:37 AM Page 1 of 2 I

1 i

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0711 milistone unu 3 Discrepancy Report closure of UIR1129 (AR 97003549-01) prior to startup.

CONCLUSION:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0711 has identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requirer correction. UlR 1129 identified conflicts j

between the referenced calculation and the FSAR for resolution.

This effort will be completed pre startup.  ;

ns.' rr';identHied by NU7 (e) Yes O No Non Discrepent ConditiontO Yes (e) No n.cowionpenano70 v. @ No nosomeonunr.conv.470 va @ No Review initiator: Wakeland, J. F.

• VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Sergh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

Printed 3/1096 9:35:41 AM Page 2 of 2

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0714 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED j Review Element: system Design  !

w %e: r EnvironmnentalQualification g h , :p Type: Calculation '

SystenWProcess: N/A Om NRC 4 - =,s level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published

• 1/ioSB D6screpancy: Class IE Cable EQ Testing Discrepancy D*ectlP tion: The review of the Equipment Qualification (EQ) Franklin Test Report No. F-C4497-2, Rev. O, dated March 1977 for Class IE General Electric (GE) 600V Vulkene Insulated Cables inside the containment show that the cable did not undergo Flame Tests.

According to Millstone FSAR Section 8.3, page 8-3.26: All Class 1E cables are type tested in accordance with IEEE 383-1974 to ensure their ability to perform their intended functions. j IEEE 383-1974, Section 2.5 describes the method for type l testing of grouped cables via the vertical tray flame test to determine their relative ability to resist fire.

in the above test report all tests were followed according to IEEE l 383-1974 except Flame Testing as required in Section 2.5.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Yeesin, s. 8 O O $2ii7/97 i

VT Lead: Nwi, Anthony ^ B O O 12it7/97 VT Mgr: schopfw, Don K O O O 12/23/97 l IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 52rsiis7 Date: j INVALID:

Date: 3/6/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0779, does not represent a discrepant condition. The general open tray Flame Testing requirements of IEEE 383-1974 are not applicable to General Electric (GE) 600V Vulkene Insulated Cable listed in the Franklin Test Report No. F-C4497-2. Although the Equipment Qualificatk,n Record (EQR 141.1-1) refers to this '

item as insulated cable whereas it is actually switchboard (SIS) wire as identified by the model number. The Electrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) program is not intended too, nor does it address the Flame Testing requirements of IEEE 383-1974 for cables or its equivalent test (IPCEA S-19-81) for switchboard (SIS) wire. The flame testing addressed in IEEE 383-1974, step 2.5 is forjacketed power, control, and instrumentation cables installed in open cable trays. Step 2.5.6 requires single conductors to pass a flame Tsistance test in accordance with ASTM D22220-68, Vinyl Chloride Plastic Insulation for Wire and Cable, Section 5 (IPCEA S-19-81, Section 6.19.6) requirements.

At MP3 switchboard wire is not allowed to be routed in open cable trays and therefore the only requirements of step 2.5 that j

is applicable is step 2.5.6. Flame testing qualification for cables Printed 3/1098 9:37;37 AM Page 1 of 2

i Northert UtilKies ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0714  ;

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report _ l and switchboard wiring is covered by standard specifications and purchase order requirements. Section 10.11 of SP-EE-070 Specification requires intemal switchboard wire to be purchased in accordance with NUSCO Specification SP-GEE 6 requirements. This specification also requires the vendo. to provide a Certification of Conformance to flame test requirements of SP-GEE-6 (a typical Certification of Conformance is attached). Section 7.1.2 of SP-GEE-6 Specification requires a flame test to be performed once per production run or in accordance with IPCEA S-19-81 requirements whichever is Greater. Therefore, the flame test qualification requirements of IEEE 383-1974 for General Electric (GE) 600V Vulkene Insulated Cable are being satisfied.

NU has concluded based on the above that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0714, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0714, does not represent a discrepant condition. Since, The open tray Flame Testing requirements of IEEE 383-1974 is not applicable to General Electric (GE) 600V Vulkene switchboard wire.

Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Prev 6ously idenused by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?@ Yes O No n auuonPendng?O Yee @ No needunonunr. eaved?O Yee @ No nev6ew initietor: Yeeein, s.

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopter, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

1

~i i

Printed 3/10/96 9:37:41 AM Page 2 or 2

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4769 Northe:st UtHities L

Minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operssons & Meirtenance and Testing DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Test Procedure O vos Discrepancy Type: 0 & M & T Procedure

. systenWProcess: Oss g

NRC signiacance M 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Puldlehed.1/22/96 Disorspenc3: Deficiencies in QSS Procedures SP 3609.1 and SP 3609.2

Description:

1. Step 4.1.5 of both procedures states: " Verify 3QSS*P3B". It appears that this step should refer to the "A" Pump in Procedure SP 3609.1. Though this appears to be a 'tyLo', it could lead to misunderstanding and confusion to an operator enhancing the opportunity for an error.

2. There is no Section/ Attachment to these procedures which allows for the Emergency Condition Restoration from the Quench Spray Pump Operational Readiness Test " Condition", as was included in the Containment Recirculation Pump Operational Readiness Tests. It appears that this would be of a benefit to minimize confusion during a CDA or St.

3. Step 4.3.1 appears to serve no function in the procedure.

The step should be deleted or the procedure should be enhanced by adding more steps to make the procedure more functional as explained below:

Step 4.3.1 is the only part of Section 4.3 that mentions testing the opposite

• rain.

There are no other actions to be taken.

There is no reference as to which step to enter the opposite Train's procedure at.

There is no time limit as to how long the RWST RECIRC PP'S may be in " PULL-TO- LOCK' in Step 4.3.2, when that step is skipped per Step 4.*o.1.

S&L considers the above items to be discrepant.

Review Valid invalid N wled Date initiator: Ungeren, R. B 0 0 12/22is7 2/24,87 VT Lead: sees,Kea B D D VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 1ri2/se IRc cienn: singh, Anand K B O O i'17/9e Dele:

WWALID:

Date: 2/24/98 RESOLUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that item Number 1 of Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0759 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. Condition Report (CR) M3-98-0941 was issued to document this discrepancy. The error was corrected with the issuance of ChanQe 4 to SP3609.1, Rev. 8 on 2/10/98.NU has concluded that the issues identified in item Numbers 2 and 3 do not represent discrepant conditions.

An emergency restoration procedure for SP 3609.1/2 is unnecessary. Surveillance procedures for both QSS and RSS Printed 3f10/96 9:41:04 AM Page 1 or 2

l l

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0759 Mi'istone unM 3 Discrepancy Report cause one subsystem to be removed from service, which requires entry into a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO. In the case of the RSS test, however, the alignment impacts inter-connected systems, complicated by the de-watering alignment. For this reason, a procedure to emergency restore the RSS pump is necessary. In the case of the QSS pump, restoration simply requires following the procedure from step 4.2.16.The step identified in item Number 3 is included to allow sequential testing of QSS pumps, which may happen when retuming from an outa0e. Subsystems are usually tested on a staggered basis, so that this step would not apply, but if both needed to be tested, the step would prevent the necessity to start an RWST recirculation pump and then stop it at step 4.2.3 in the other procedure. Since there is no direct interface between SP 3609.1 and 3609.2, no references to

. sections or steps is necessary.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that item Number 1 of D'screpancy Report DR-MP3-0759 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. This item, documented by (CR) M3-98-0941, was corrected with the issuance of Change 4 to SP3609.1, Rev. 8 on 2/10/98. NU has c concluded that item Numbers 2 and 3 do not represent discrepant conditions. Only the RSS pump surveillance procedure needs emergency restoration instructions due to the extent of re-alignment and steps needed to restore. Step 4.2.1 is needed to prevent the necessity to start and stop en RWST recirculation pump when sequentially testing both trains.

Previously idenGned by Nu? O Ya (S) No hn D6ecrepent Condtkm70 Yes (S) No n sunonP.neno70 va @ No nosohmonunr=wved70 va @ No Review ace.pa ha= Not AccMahaa Needed Date Wor- R.

VT Leed: Bees, Ken VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

sL Comments:

l Printed 3/10/96 9 41:06 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0768 1 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR REs0LUTioN ACCEPTED Review Elemord: System Design Diecipline: Erwironmnental Queimcation g

Discrepency Type: Calcuistion spr. =: N/A Om NRC signiacance levet: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished* 1/10s8 Descrepancy: Class 1E Cable Testing Description. The review of the Equipment Qualification (EQ) Isomedix Test Report Po. 375-03, Rev. O, dated March 1975 for the ITT Control Cables Model No. Exane 11 Gray (SIS) inside the containment of Millstone, Unit 3 thows that the type testing did not include Flame Testing of the cables as required by Section 2.5 of IEEE 383-1974.

In this section, the testing of cables shall include vertical tray flame test to determine the cable's ability to resist potential fire in the plant.

Also. the isomedix test report did not include the list of test equipment (meters, voltmeters, etc.) that were used during EQ testing.

Per IEEE 323-1974, Section 6.3.1.4, it is stated that the EQ testing shall be conducted by test equipment, which shall be calibrated against auditable calibration standards and shall have documentation to support such calibration.

f Review Valid invalid Needed Date iniststor: Yeeein, s. O O O $2tios7 VTt.and: Nort. Anthony A B O O $2/iss7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 8 0 0 i2r23s7 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 2/3i/o7 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/6/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0768, has identified two conditions, one previously discovered by NU which requires correction and a non discrepant issue.

Condition previously discovered:

The Equipment Qualification Test Report: Isomedix Test Report Number 375-03, Rev. O, dated March 1975 for ITT Control Cables Model trade name Exane 11 gray (SIS) did not include the list of test equipment used for testing of the cable. Per IEEE 323-1974, Section 6.3.1.4, states that the EQ testing shall be conducted by test equipment traceable to auditable calibration standards. This test report did not have such a listing. ITT Control SIS cables have been fully tested to IEEE 383 and 323 in various test reports used and evaluated here at Northeast Utilities. Exane ll Gray is a XLPO material which was manufactured by ITT Surprenant. For this test report the l

radiation test apparatus was calibrated and traceable to the NBS Printed 3/1os6 9.41:54 AM Page 1 or 3

i l

Northe:st Utilities . ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0784 Misistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report and since isomedix performed both the radiation testing and the environmental testing of the cable there is reasonable assurance that the test equipment, although not docurr. anted to be calibrated to NBS, was calibrated to NBS. During that time period it was not uncommon to have calibration records lost or not saved for particular tests. The original EQ Files for the qualification of this cable shows that a phone conversation between ITT Sur"nant and NU di=maad this issue. The response from IT1 was that the test equipment was calibrated in accordance to their calibration procedure in effect at the time of testing and that the calibration information was no longer available for review or incorporation into the test report. This conversation was held 3/7/88. It would be impossible to retrieve the information today. To give added assurance that the information given in the isomedix Report 375-03, Rev. O is correct, another test repost is being used to validate of the data in the report. EEQ TRA 161.0 for Franklin Report F-A5550-7, dated November 16,1982, addresses XLN ITT Surprenant 1/C

1. 12 AWG SIS wire for in-containment applications. Per Attachment F of the Franklin Report, the XLN insulation is XLPO material which is manufactured by ITT Surprenant. In addition, the XLN is identical to the Exane ll insulation. The SIS wire is a switchboard wire and does not contain a jacket. The sample selected for the test does not represent generic qualificMion of the ITT Surprenant cables, and is specific to the SIS apphcations.

The test equipment used by Franklin was calibrated to the NBS (Ref. 5.1, App. A). CR M3-98-0429 corrective actions will revise EQR 161-1-1 to utilize this additional report and document additional assurance that the cable is qualified to the standards that IEEE 323-1974 requires.

NU has concluded based on the above that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0768, is not a Significant Level 3 Discrepancy and should be downgraded to Significant Level 4.

Non Discrepent issue Associated with Flame Testing:

The general open tray Flame Testing requirements of IEEE 383-1974 are not applicable to ITT Control Cables Model No. Exane il Gray (SIS) Cable listed in the isomedix Test Report No. 375-

03. Although the Equipmerd Qualification Record (EQR 161.1-1) refers to this item as insulated cable whereas it is actually switchboaal (SIS) wire as identified by the model number. The Elodrical Equipment Qualification (EEQ) program is not intended to, nor does it address the Flame Testing requirements of IEEE 383-1974 for cables or its equivalent test (IPCEA S 81) for switchboard (SIS) wire. the flame testing addressed in IEEE 383-1974, step 2.5 is forjacketed power, control, and instrumentation cables installed in open cable trays. Step 2.5.6 requires single conductors to pass a flame resistance test in accordance wXh ASTM D222048, Vinyl Chloride Plastic insulaticn for Wire and Cable, Section 5 (IPCEA S-19-81, Section 6.19.6) requirements.

At MP3 switchboard wire is not allowed to be routed in open Printed 3/1048 9At56 AM Page 2 or 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0768 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report cable trays and therefore the only requirements of step 2.5 that I is applicable is step 2.5.6. Flame testing qualification for cables  ;

and switchboard wiring is covered by standard specifications and purchase order requirements. Section 10.11 of SP-EE-076 I Specification requires intemal switchboard wire to be purchased l in accordance with NUSCO Specification SP-GEE-6 requirements. This specification also requires the vendor to provide a Certification of Conformance to flame test requirements of SP-GEE-6 (a typical Certification of Conformance is attached). Section 7.1.2 of SP-GEE-6 Specification requires a flame test to be performed once per  !

production run or in accordance with IPCEA S-19-81 l requirements whichever is greater. Therefore, the flame test I qualification requirements of IEEE 383-1974 fore ITT Control l Cables are being satisfkxi.

NU has concluded that the flame testing issue is a non discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0768, has been identified a condition previously discovered by NU which requires correction. CR M3-98-0429 has been written with the corrective action plan approved to perform a similarity analysis between isomedix and Franklin Qualification Test Reports for the ITT Surprenant SIS wire. To give added assurance that the information Olven in the Isomedix Report 375-03, Rev. O, is consistent with test results where test apparatus has been identified and documented in the test report. Since, the ITT SIS wire has been tested and qualified under the Franklin Test Report (F-A5550-7) and found acceptable. NU considers this discrepancy to be an administrative error that does not effect any system operability but requires correction. CR M3-98-0429 coriuctive action plan has been approved for post startup implementation.

NU has concluded that the flame testing issue is a non discrepant condition. i Previously idennaed by Nu? @ Yes U No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No n muonP.noaatO va @ No n=*nonvaramed70 va @ No

n. view fi Not A~afidh Needed Date meY S.

VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A l VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K '

O O Date:

sL Comments:

l Printed 3/1oS6 9:42:00 AM Page 3 or 3

,,gg gp DR No. DR-MP3-0777 Mmstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Operatione & Maintenance end Testing DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Operating Procedure i O vee i F"-

, - cy Type: Procedure trnplementetion gg SystemProcess: N/A NRC S: f =5 level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published 1/1096

"{ ; my: MANAGEMENT'S EXPECTATIONS NOT CONVEYED DURING STATION STAND-DOWN

Description:

The Station Stand-Down, held on 10/29/97, conceming the use, compliance to , and Management's Expectations of DC 4,

" Procedural Compliance", was observed. This Discrepancy l

consists of two parts: the finit conceming the presentation handout and the second conceming the actual presentation and l

follow-up discussion.

PART1 Management's Expectations as stated in the Handout were, "Each individual shall strictly adhere to established Station i policies, programs, and procedures...", " Personnel shall not give directions, guidance, or clarification which conflict with approved procedures.", and 'A procedure shall be used for the specific tasks or evolutions it was written to perform".

l Under the heading, 'What is required when it is necessary to skip l steps in a Continuous or General LOU procedure", the handout states:

d. ENSURE omitting the step does not affect the following:

Change the intended objective or the task or evolution as specified by the procedure Create an unsafe plant condition

- Violate Technical Specifications or Technical Requirements Manual Result in a deviation from requirements in a License- l Basis Document (Commitments)

e. IF any of the items in step D. are affected, Go to DC 1,

' Administration of Procedures and Forms," and INITIATE a j procedure modification.

f. IF none of the items in step d. are affected, DOCUMENT reason for omitting step (s) using one or more of the following methods:

- If performance verification is required, directly in the document at the app 3 cable page and step Operations Departmant Shift Log DC 4-1 Form AWO l It does not appear that a process is provided to screen changes

! to verify and document the need fore a 50.59 review. Without this process, Management's Expectations will not be met and it could lead to Abuse of DC 4," Procedural Compliance".

Printed 3/1oS6 9:43.48 AM Page 1 of 5

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0777 Northe:st Utilities millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report PART 2 The Station Stand-down presentation observed was given by a Shift Manager (SM). The SM did not have the necessary insight to ensure that Management's Expectations were being delivered. His presentation and dialogue with the operators on his shift Indicated that the same, causal, non-professional, business-as-usual attitude would meet Mana0ement's Expectations. He conveyed this attitude by the following paraphrased statements:

1. I will take responsibility for ...as long as we know where we are taking the plant.

2. The SM will make the call and you are covered. I think that this is the intent of this procedure.

3. We skip steps all the time. If we cant do that we would not be able to get anything done.

4. If there is no intent chan0e, then the chan0e can be done in the Control Room.

Management revised DC 4, " Procedural Compliance", in or%1o meet industry standards regarding procedure compliance. From the above observations, it is evident that DC 4, " Procedural Compliance", has been abused in the past by Senior Shift Management and others, and that this practice will probably continue. With the lack of a screening process for 50.59's and the lack of understanding of DC 4, " Procedural Compliance", by Management Personnel, it is unlikely the Management's Expectations will be meet.

Review Vend inveNd Needed Date initiator: Ungeren, R. B 0 0 12/57/97 VT Lead: Bees, Ken 0 0 0 52/ias7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O $2/23/97 stC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O $2/31/97 Date:

wwAuo:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION- Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported e i Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0777, does not represent a dir < mnt condition. Part 1 - Procedures may be written to allow . .'.. ges in the sequence of performance of steps, or may provk 1 - option to not perform specific sub-sections due to specific plac enditions in accordance with the requirements of DC 4. Each procedure that allows changes in the sequence of steps and/or the option to not perform specific sub-sections addresses those options in the body of the procedure and receives a Safety Screening anc is approved on thsi basis. During the review and approval process for procedures which allow the options noted above, sequencing of steps and omission of steps are evaluated for impact on the evolution being performed and plant conditions. Blanket approval to omit steps /sub-sections and/or change the sequence Prtnted 3/1096 9:43:55 AM Page 2 or 5

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0777 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report of steps is not provided in all procedures. It is selectively given when appropriate to the evolution and when there is no adverse impact on plant conditions. This is in keeping with industry norms for procedural compliance. Furthermore, a review of the 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation Screening guidance provided in Figure 7.3 of NGP 3.12 shows that the Management expectations listed in the DR significanty overlap the questions and intent of the formal screening process. The formal screening asks if the activity requires a chango to the Operating License or Technical Specifications. Management's expectations are that omitting steps would not violate Technical Specifications or the TRM and that there would be no deviation from the requirements in a License Basis Document (Commitments). The formal screening asks if the activity makes changes to the facility or procedures described in the SAR or if the activity involves a test or experiment not described in the SAR. Management's l expectation is that omitting steps will not result in a deviation l from the requirements in a License Basis Document '

(Commitments). This certainly encompasses the SAR.

Procedural Compilance is being monitored via CR trending and Nuclear Oversight functions. Should an adverse trend develop, future steps can be taken to

)

heighten awareness and strengthen the program. Attached is the i Corrective Action Program Trend Report for the 4th Quarter of  !

1997. A review of the report does not indicate any Procedural Compliance issues with the Operations Department. It is however significant to note that two CRs were generated in the Maintenance Department relative to Procedural Compilance.

One of the CRs, M3-98-0064, was the result of an Oversight evaluation of work in the Maintenance Department. The other CR, M3-98-0038, was generated by the Maintenance Department after a self evaluation of several CRs which indicated an area needing improvement. The fact that this item was self identified by the Maintenance Department and that subsequently the entire Maintenance Department had an off-site stand down to review performance expectations, Procedural Compliance being a key issue, demon strates a heightened awareness by management of the impmved standards outlined in the management expectations as well as a willingness to take action to correct the course of day to day activities when a change is identified as being needed.

To date there is no indication that the abuse oi DC 4 is a concem. Requiring a 50.59 screening on procedures which have already been screened and approved with the option of omitting steps and/or changing the sequence of steps is redundant and outside of industry norms. Real procedure changes do receive the proper screening and review in accordance with DC 1 and NGP 3.12.

Significance level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Part 2 Without understandina the context in which the statements listed Pnnled 3/10/98 9453 AM Page 3 of 5

Northe st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0777 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report in the DR were made and the questions /concems they were  ;

attempting to address, no condusion can be made as to whether I these statements portend future problems with Procedural Compliance. The tone of the briefing alluded to in in the DR is at odds with the expectation of Operations Management. If an attitude exists in SMs or others contrary to expectations, it wil be detected by Operations Management. Operations management continuously monitors personnel performance and will take the necessary steps to meet the expedations of mana0ement in the area of Procedural Compliance should trends indicate additional measures are needed. This is also ths commitment of the management of other departments at Millstone. What can be stated definitively at this time is that Station Management including that of the Operations Department is keenly aware of past failures to adhere to procedures and the expedations of mana0ement as enunciated in the Procedural Compliance stand down. It is also true that the efforts to inform and educate all site personnel on the new standards and "expectat.ons' for Procedural Compilance were of an unprecedented nature at the Millstone site. Stand downs, meetings, e-mails, bulletins, etc. were all part of a massive effort to heighten awareness and raise standards. It should also be pointed out that in the Corrective Action Trend Report 4th Quarter 1997 there were no adverse trends or concems with Operations' Procedural Compliance edentified. It is also true that imlvoving standards is an ongoing process.

Significance level cdteria do not apply here as this is not a  !

discrepent condition. i

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0777, does not represent a discrepant condition. The ability to perform steps out of sequence or omit steps is necessary to smoothly complete various tasks which may not require every action within a procedure to be done. This is consistent with industry norms for Procedural Compliance. The process is controlled in accordance with DC 4 and is structured to ensure that omitting steps does not: change the intended objective of the task or evolution as specified by the procedure, create an unsafe plant condition, violate Technical Specifications or Technical Requirerr.ents Manual, result in a deviation from requirements in a License Basis Document (e.g. Commitments).

The effectiveness of the heightened awareness of Procedural Compliana issues will be monitored by normal Oversight functions as well as CR trending. To date there are no indications that the abuse of DC 4 is a concem despite the recent efforts to increase awareness and standards. Should performance indicators show that further actions are necessary, it is the commitment of Millstone management to ensute that the expedations referred to in the recent stand down are met.

- . - _ , y.__.

, r , ,_.__ m w __

n __.,..

r,w

I Northeast Utiitties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-Ob7 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report w%p.nanotO v. @m p - =~iu -emed7 0 va @m Moviet

, Not ^ -- , '

Neede:J Date R.

VT Leed: Bass, Ken VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K GC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments-Prtnted 3/1096 9:455 AM Page 5 c( 5

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0900 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Diecipane: Piping Design E- my Type: Component Date Om s,_r. == Dox g

NRC s:f" =---level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published.1/17/s0 F . i. PDDS disagrees with P&lD's, Specification and Vendor Drawing Description. Re9arding the Emergency Generatnr Fuel Oil System P&lD EM-117A-10, Spec 2362.150-162 and Vendor drawing 2362.150-162-008G all show the following valves as Globe valves, but the PDDS system lists them as Gate valves. Also, the PDDS system does not identify that they are ASME lil, Class 3 valves, as shown on the other documents. Please note that valve 3EGF*V979 is on a manual sampling connection and all the other valves are on instrument sensing lines. All valves are a nominal 3/4 inch body size.

3EGF*V15 3EGF*V16 3EGF*V17 3EGF*V18 3EGF*V19 3EGF*V20 3EGF*V22 3EGF*V23 3EGF*V24 l 3EGF'V25 3EGF*V26 3EGF*V27 3EGF*V979 3EGF*V984 3EGF*V985 3EGF*V992 3EGF*V993 Review Vead invalid Needed Date initiator: Russ.Eert. O O O 2/22ro7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O $2/2o97 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K G O O 12/23/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K S O O 5/13/S8 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 2/11/96 REs0LUTION. Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0900, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per Printed 3/1098 9 45:12 AM P30e 1 of 2

i l

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0900 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0900, has i identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which l requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified

! in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-l 20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability l concerns and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495

has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per l RP-4.

. .;/-"";idoneRed by NU7 O Yee @ No NonDiscrepentCondition?O Yee @) No l

l Perenene70 Yee @ No neeosunon unr.ooiv.d70 Yee @ No

^

n.wi

• ^: ' _ Not F= Needed Date l ,

VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A 8 0 0 m vr mer: senopeer, con x RC Clunn: S$, Anand K Date: ,

1 SL Comments:

I 1

I l

l l

l l

l Printed 3/10989:45:15 AM Page 2 of 2

i l

Northeast Utinties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0922 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED 1 Review Element: system instenation l Diecipune: Electrical Design Discrepency Type: Drewln0 O v. '

s,_ .-- m HVX

@ No ,

l l NRC signinconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU: l Date Putdehed 1/18SS I l " T :i; CONDUlT SUPPORT DRAWING ANOMAllES

Description:

The Following Drawing Discrepancies were identified during system walkdowns as noted.

1. Cable tray support is incorrectly identified on Drawing 25212-34011 SH AB-8750, Rev.1 as DY-A182-(2)-64. This should be DY-192-( )-68.

2. Conduit 3CC9350P is listed as OD on Drawing FSK-AB-525, l Rev. 4. Field observation revealed OP is Tag on conduit.

3. A 2" unscheduled flex conduit shown on drawing FSK-AB-6456, Rev. 2 is installed as 2" rigid AL conduit with tag l 9CK933PC. l

4. Sketch on drawing FSK-AB-6464, Rev.1 A shows four conduits when only three are listed and installed.

l S. Drawing FSK-AB-2742, Rev. 2 shows item AU for this support. Field identified installed strut as item BQ.

6. Drawing FSK-AB-3603, Pav. 3G lists conduit 3CL218ND2-3" as attached to this suppor' The conduit is not attached to this support.11 has its own supports nearby.

7 Dianng FSK-AB-3603, Rev. SG lists conduit 3CL218ND 3" as attached to this support. The conduit is nowhere near this support - - definitely not attached to it.

8. TSO2 data for conduits 3CC2070B1-1 %" and 3CC233NT3-3/4" lists them as AL. Field condition is steel.

9. Conduit 3CL218ND2-3"in shown on drawing FSK-AB-3876, Rev.1 A attached to this support. This conduit does not attach to this support. It has its own support nearby.

i

10. Drawing FSK-AB-4950, Rev. 2A shows 9'-7" dimension from

wall face to center of support and 9'-4" to HVAC support from wall face. Both should be to column line F.5 or be 7'-0" shorter.

i

11. Support on drawing FSK-AB-5385, Rev. 2C is shown as l

I extending past column face. Actualinstallation is flush with concrete.

12. Conduit 3CX104PFS is shown attached to support shown on FSK-AB-5717, Rev. 2A but is not routed on this support. It tums north before it reaches it from the west.

Printed 3/10Se 9 45:49AM Page 1 of 2 l

l l

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4922 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

13. Conduit 9CC203OB3 is identified as %" on TSO2; field walkdown and support drawing FSK-AB-1291, Rev.1 A indicates 1" installed.

14. Conduits are all listed as OA ("zero" A) on the following Drawings; should be OA (letter O): 25212-34011 SH AB-8631, Rev.1, 24212-34011 SH AB-8640, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8648 Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8658, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8667, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8675, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8684, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8693, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8701, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8738, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8750, Rev.1.

Review Velid invehd Needed Date initiator: Sener. T. L 8 O O 1rld's VT Laod: Neri, Anthony A @ O O 1/548 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O sit 2/es 5tc Chmn: Singh, Anand K S O O /1*S8 Dete:

INVAUD:

Dete: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0922, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0971 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identified by NU? U vos (9) No NonDiecrepentCondition?O yes (8) No Redd%Pending?O va @ wo p-d% unroeceved?O v. @ No Review Areafd Not are.gd.haa Needed Date N

VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anend K i Dese:

St.Cornmente:

Printed 3/10S8 9AS:54 AM Pege 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0922 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Contlguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Ir=hd=%

l Diecipline: Electrical Design t' - . :, Type: Drawing Om i

s_

, N - - - - - - HVX NRC Signenconce level: 4 Date faxed to NU: j Date Published.1/18/98 P'-1 . 1 CONDUlT SUPPORT DRAWING ANOMALIES

Description:

The Following Drawing Discrepancies were identified during system walkdowns as noted.

1. Cable tray support is incorrectly identified on Drawing 25212-34011 SH AB-8750, Rev.1 as DY-A182-(2)-64. This should be ,

DY-192-( )-68.  ;

2. Conduit 3CC9350P is listed as OD on Drawing FSK-AB-525, I Rev. 4. Field observation revealed OP is Tag on condult. j

3. A 2" unscheduled flex conduit shown on drawing FSK-AB-6456, Rev. 2 is installed as 2" rigid AL conduit with tag 9CK933PC.

)

l

4. Sketch on drawing FSK-AB-6464, Rev.1 A shows four conduits when only three are listed and installed. j l

5. Drawing FSK-AB-2742, Rev. 2 shows item AU for this support. Field identified installed strut as item BQ.

6. Drawing FSK-AB-3603, Rev. 3G lists conduit 3CL218ND2 3" as attached to this support. The conduit is not attached to this j support. It has its own supports nearby. '

7. Drawing FSK-AB-3603, Rev. 3G lists conduit 3CL218ND-3" as I attached to this support. The conduit is nowhere near this support - - definitely not attached to it.

8. TSO2 data for conduits 3CC2070B1 1 %" and 3CC233NT3-3/4" lists them as AL. Field condition is steel.

9. Conduit 3CL218ND2-3" in shown on drawing FSK-AB-3876, Rev.1 A attached to this support. This conduit does not attach to this support. It has its own support nearby.

10. Drawing FSK-AB-4950, Rev. 2A shows 9'-7" dimension from wall face to center of support and 9*-4" to HVAC support from wall face. Both should be to column line F.5 or be T-0" shorter.

11. Support on drawing FSK-AB-5385, Rev. 20 is shown as extending past column face. Actualinstallation is flush with concrete.

12. Conduit 3CX104PF5 is shown attached to support shown on FSK-AB-5717 Rev. 2A but is not routed on this support. It tums north before it reaches it from the west.

Printed 3/1098 9A8:42 AM Page 1 or 2

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0972 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepano,y Report

13. Conduit 9CC203OB3 is identified as %" or, TSO2; field walkdown and support drawing FSK-AB-1291, Rev.1 A indicates 1" installed.

l l

l 14. Conduits are all listed as OA ("zero" A) on the following Drawings; should be OA (letter O): 25212-34011 SH AB-8631, Rev.1, 24212-34011 SH AB-8640, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8648, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8658, Rev.1, 25212-3M11 SH AB-8667. Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8675, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8884, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8693, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8701, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH l AB-8738, Rev.1, 25212-34011 SH AB-8750, Rev.1.

l Review i vand invalid Needed Date l Initiator: Server T. L. O O O i2/se i VT Lead: Nei, Anthony A B O O 5/5'S8 VT My: Schopfer, Don K B O O 5/12/9e j

i IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O sii4,se Date:

INVALID:

l l

Date: 3/4/98  !

l RESOLUTION NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0922, has l identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability  ;

concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0971 l l

has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identified by NU? U vos (G) No NonDiscrepentCondluon?U vos (G) No ResolunonPoneng?O vos @ No Peunresoeved?O vos @ No Review

"=f' Not Areare.haa Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date:

SL Comments:

I l

Printed 3/10/9e 9:4e:47 AM Page 2 of 2 l

l

4 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0968  ;

umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmenc DR REsot.UTIoN ACCEPTED j Review Element: Change Process potengeloperM h Descrepency Type: Correceive Acuan O v.

@ No systenWyrocese: N/A NRC Signiacance level: NA Date faxed to NU: I Date puidlehed.1/29f98 Deserspency: Insufficient Documentation to Verify Corrective Action for of UlR 158 Descripelon. The UIR 158 Closure Package has two areas of insufficient documentation which are described below:

1) The UIR 158 Discussion Details block states as follows,

" Figure 18, This figure plots ITE Type HE 70A breaker as the feeder breaker to the inverters, based on the applicable vendor time-current curve. Based on information on the one- line diagram (12179-EE-1 AQ, Rev. 28), the adual breaker type is either Type HE43 70A, or a Type HED43 70A which is an  !

approved replacement. The Type HE time-current curve is not  !

applicable. The coordination evaluation requires revision to use j the corred time-current curve for the installed breaker type, and i any approved replacements".

The UIR 158 Closure Request Disposition (Tracking # 96007651-01), item 5 states as follows:  :

}

• Figure 18. This figure plots ITE Type HE 70A breaker as the feeder breaker to the invarters. Rased on the one- line diagram (12179-EE-1 AQ, Rev. 28), the adual breaker type is either Type HE43 70A OR Type HED43 70A which is an approved replacement. This change was incorporated into Rev.1 of Spec 269 (Attachment 4.2 pg 5 & 6 of 10). Please note that the time-current characteristics for both types of breakers is simibr except in the instantaneous trip range. The instantaneous trip range for 30-125 amps is 1000 Amp, which is 100A greater than the HE Type rating. The difference has been evaluated and it was determined that the coordination is not adversely affected by it (see Attached copy). "

The Spec. SP-M3- EE-269, Rev.1, Section 68 (Attachment 4.2 pg 5 & 6 of 10) states as follows:

" Note: Siemens Type HED43 breaker can be use as a replacement for Type HE43 breakers per RJE 0243. Type  ;

HED43 is a 125A frame with a trip range of 15-125A. The Time-Current Characteristics (TCC) for both breakers is similar. The TCC for 30-125A breakers is the same except in the instantaneous trip range. The instantaneous trip range for 30-125A breakers is 1000A on upper end which is 100A greater than the HE43 rating. The difference has been evaluated and determined that the breaker coordination for containment l

penetration protection is not adversely affected."

l Printed 3/10/96 Et47:42 AM Pope 1 or 4 ,

I 1

J

Northeast Utilitieo ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0958 ILillistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

The following discrepancy was noted:

The Spec. SP-M3- EE 269, Rev.1 addresses only the factinat I the TCC's between the Type HED43 breakers and the Type  !

HE43 breakers are similar and that the breakers can be interchanged. The Spec. SP-M3- EE-269, Rev.1 has not evaluated the differences between the TCC's for the Type HE43 and HED43 breakers verses the Type HE breaker nor has it determined that the breaker types can be interchanged without adversely affecting the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Curves as presently shown in the Spec. SP-M3- EE-269. j The UlR 158 Closure Request implies (without verification l documentation) that the Type HE, Type HED43 and Type HE43 l breakers'TCC's are similar and that the breakers can be  !

interchanged without adversely affecting the Appendix R Breaker j Coordination Curves as presently shown in the Spec. SP-MS-EE-269. I i

The documentation concems are as follows .

1 A) If the Type HE breakers' TCC's are not similar to the Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC's, the Spec. SP-M3- Ec- 1 269, Rev.1 and the Coordination Curve No.12 need to be i updated as required to reflect the actual breaker (i.e. HED43 70  ;

or HE43 70) TCC curve. I 1B) In addition, if the Type HE breakers'TCC are not similar to the Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC, the Coordination Curves No.1 and 2 also need to be addressed for proper coordination if the feeder breakers are not Type HE.

Note: if the Type HE, Type HED43 and Type HE43 breakers' TCC's are similar, the calculation should be updated to reflect the fact that the TCC's are similar and that the breaker types can be interchanged without adversely affecting the Breaker Coordination Curves in the Spec. SP-M3- EE-269, Rev.1.

2) The "Index for the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Figures

• in the Spec. SP-M3- EE-269, Rev.1 is duplicated. Reference Fi0ure 4.2 (Page 10 of 10) and Figure 4.2.2 (Puge 1 of 5).

Note: Figure 4.2 (Page 10 of 10) is the correct index.

Review Vead invalid Needed Date inleistor. Caruso, A.

O O O i/22/9e VT Lead: Ryan, Thomes J 1i22,9e Q Q Q VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O si22ise IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G si2xse O O Data:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0958, does not represent a discrepant condition.DCN Printed T1048 9:47As AM Page 2 of 4 l

1

Northout Utilitin ICAVP DR No. DR4tP3 0958 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i DMS-S-0069-94 identified that tweaker curve ITE-TD-4999 was not the corTect Breaker curve to be used for Millstone 3 and that curve ITE-TD 6000 should be used instead.

Effectively as of the date of approval of DON DMS-S-0069-94, 11/2/94, the HE curve in Specification SP-M3-EE-269 was superseded by the curve for the HE43 breaker. This was because the HE breakers while onsite in the other units and some of the outlying buildinos, were not used in Millstone 3. The initiator of UIR 158 apparently was not aware of the existence of DCN DM3-S-0069-94 since it had not been incviporsted into the body of SP-MS-EE-269. RIE-95-0243 property evaluated the use of HED43 breakers as replacements for HE43 breakers. There was no need to do an evaluation of replacement of HE breakers with HE43 or HED43 breakers as the HE breakers were not used in Millstone 3.

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

There is an extra index for the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Figures included in SP-MS-EE-269. Figure 4.2 (page 10 of 10) is the correct index. A/R 98003768-01 will track the removal of the extra index page on the next revision or change to SP-M3-EE-269. This is a minor administrative error with no effect on the information presented in SP-MS-EE-269. NU considers this to be an enhancement to the specifmation.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, )

DR-MP3-0958, does not represent a discrepent condition. DCN DMS-S-0069-94 identified that breaker curve ITE-TD-4999 was not the correct Breaker curve to be used for Millstone 3 and that curve ITE-TD 6000 should be used instead.

There was no need to do an evaluation of replacement of HE breakers with HE43 or HED43 breakers as the HE breakers were not used in Millstone 3.

Significance level criteria do not apply here as'his does not represent a discrepent condition.

There is an extra index for the Appendix R Breaker Coordination Figures included in SP-MS-EE-269. Figure 4.2 (page 10 of 10) is the correct index. A/R 98003768-01 will track the removal of the extra index pa0e on the next. revision or change to SP-MS-EE-269. This is a minor administrative error with no effect on the information presented in SP-M3-EE-269. NU considers this to ,

be an enhancement to the specirmation. l Attachments - DCN DM3-S-0069-94, RIE-95-0243 1 7... "; klenseed by NU7 U Yes (4) No NonDiewapentCondluon?(4) Yes U No P+PenenetO v. @ No m un, d?O v. @ No 1 PrNed 3/1098 9:47;47 AM Page 3 or 4

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0958 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l ..

g, Wh Not M . ' Needed Date O N VT Land: Ryan, Thomes J VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O =

ptC chmn: singh, Anand K Dese: 3/4/93 sL conmats. The NU response is acceptable NU has confirmed per their above response that the ITE Type HE breakers were not used in Millstone 3.

NU has also confirmed per DCN No. DM3-S-0069-94 that the correct 480V breaker curve for the ITE Type HE43 breaker is the ITE -TD-6000 (HE4) curve and that the curve has been incorporated into NERM 7.

In addition, Specification SP-M3-EE 269, Rev.01, Attachment 4.2.1 references on Curves 1,2 and 12 that the 480V ITE breaker curves are based on the ITE -TD-6000 curve The significance level criteria does not apply here as DR MP3-0958 does not represent a discrepant condition condition.

I I

l Printed 3/10S6 9.47As AM Page 4 of 4

f Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0970 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESoumoN ACCEPTED

"'** '"'"* 8r"n Du@n Potendel operetNoty leeue Disciperm:Ia C Dawn '

Descrepency Type: uoeneing Document O y=

SystenWProcese: DGX g, '

NRC SignNicence level: NA Date faxed to Nu:

Date Pubilshed 1/29/98

. 21 . Discrepancy between FSAR Section 9.5.4.5 and P&lD EM-117A l

Deecription. Millstone Unit 3 FSAR Section 9.5.4.5 states that "There are local pressure indicators on the discharge of each transfer pump and .....". P&lD EM-117A shows PT-21 A,B,C&D on the discharge of each transfer pump sending a signal to the plant computer but no local indication is indicated. A field walkdown verified that there are no local indicators which monitor the fuel oil transfer pump discharge pressure.

Review Vead inveNd Needed Date initiator: Zwyner, John 9 O O t/22/9e VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A B O O i/22/9s VT Mgr: schapter, Don K l O O O z22,iie NBC Chmn: singh. Anand K B O O s/23,9s i Date:

tWAUD:

i Date: 3/5/98 RESoumoN Disposition:

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0970 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been corrected. The description in FSAR Section 9.5.4.E is incorrect and has been chan0ed by FSARCR 97-MP3-32 ( See Attached ) to agree with i the field configuration and practices. The local level indication is guaged by sounding and there is no local pressure indication for the transfer pumps. The transfer pump pressure is registered on the plant computer in the main control room.

l This issue was previously identified by OIR 244 ( See Attached ).

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0970 identifies a condition previously discovered by NU which has been addressed. As detailed in the disposition, the description in FSAR Section 9.5.4.5 is incorrect and has been changed by FSARCR 97-MP3-32 ( See Attached ) to agree with the field configuration and practices. The local level indication is guaged j by sounding and there is no local pressure indication for the l transfer pumps. The transfer pump pressure is registered on the plant computer in the main control room.

This issue was previously identified by OIR 244 ( See Attached ).

Previounty ksentined by Nu? @ vos U No Non Discrepent Coneten?$ vos O No R otudonPenenatO va @ No Ree*tum unra m .d7 0 ya @ No Re*w l Printed 3/10/98 9A8:26 AM PeGe 1 of 2

l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0970 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report -.

initiator: Hindia, R.

~ ' ^ M*

l VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K O O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O =

pese:

0 0 O 3/5/98 sL Conante: FSARCR 97-MP3-32 dated 3/4/97 did identify the discrepancy that is the subject of this DR.

l l

l l

l 1 1 l

l i

l j

i Printed MOS8 BA6:30 AM Page 2 of 2 l

f Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0982 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group. Connguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEFTED ReviewElement ModWicetionIrdma han

'htano: Electrical Design r-__ , ny Type: Drawing Om g

SystemProcese: HVX NRC Signinconce level: NA Ds.e a

faxed to NU-

[

l Date Putdished: 1/25/96 Discrepency: Difference in installed conditions and Modification

, documentation (PDCR MP3-92-103) l Description This Modification changed the start initiating circuits for HVR and 4 J

SLCRS fans. Several anomalies in the described design and the

! current as-built plant could not be reconciled.

Item 1

)

DCN DM3-S-1506-92 (page 6) indicated that cable 3HVRCOC700 was to be wrapped with Sil-Temp to resolve an apparent separation violation. Field observation revealed that this cable was not wrapped, however, adjacent conduit floor sleeve was extended and no separation violation was observed.

No change documentation could be found to eliminate the  !

requirement for wrapping of the cable.

l Item 2 DCN DM3-S-1495-92 required the removal of wiring from TB-4, points 1 and 2 at Panel 3CES*lPNL120. The DCN was incorporated into revision 4 of panel drawing EE-3NV. The current revision of the drawing (Rev. 5) does not show wires l connected to these points and none of the outstanding change documents for the drawings add wires to these points. Contrary to this, a black wire is landed on point 1 and a white wire is landed on point 2.

Item 3 Changes required by this DCN DM3-S-1606-92 included: the removal of an intemal jumper from terminal block 3T7-1 and re-landed at point 7; and the relocation of an intemal jumper between 3T7 points 8 and 9 to points 1 and 7. This DCN has been incorporated into the affected drawing (EE-3PH) with the l current revision (Rev.10) showing these changes. Field i inspection found these changes not installed with the current field wiring as depicted in the 'before" diagram within the DCN.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date l Inittstor: Server. T. L G O O 1 M's l VT taed: Nort, Anthony A B O O t'1M'e VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O O 1/2 arse IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O 1/22/98 Date:

INVALID:

Printed 3/1o/96 9M50 AM Page 1 of 3 l

l

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0982 l

uisistorm Unit 3 Discrepancy Report osse: 3/2/98 REsOLimON: Disposition: I i

l NU has concluded that the issues reported in DR-MP-0982 do not represent a discrepant condition.

Item number (1). A review of DCN DM3-S-1506-92 PG 6 l

confirms that a request for Sil-Temp was called for, for cable 3HVRCOC700 in pnl 3CES*lPNLl21. A a review of TSO2 indicates that this cable does not exist in that panel. A typo was found on the cover page of DCN DM3-S-1506-92 PG 6, however the Cable Schedule Data sheet, which work is performed to, has the correct panel location (3CES*1PNL120).

Cable 3HVRCOC700 is located in panel 3CES*lPNLl20, not l panel 3CES*1PNLl21. A field walkdown confirms that this cable 1 l

Is wrapped with Sil-Temp & Is located in 3CES*lPNLl20. l Therefore NU has concluded that this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a discrepant condition.

Item number (2) A field walkdown confirms that in fact a wire does exist on points 1 and 2 of terminal block TB-4. As required

! by DCN DM3-S-0256-96 wires were added to these points on the terminal block. DCN DM3-S-0256-96 is properly reflected in GRITS as being applicable. Therefore NU has concluded that this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a i

discrepant condition.

Item number (3) Review of GRITS reveals that DCN DM3-S-0256-96 has properly changed the wiring in this area of the panel and that is why the wiring differs. DCN DM3-S-0256-96 is REL (relesed for OPS / installation verified 10/23/97) and is presently being as-built on the drawin0s. Therefore NU has concluded that this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a discrepant condition.

NU concludes that discrepancy report DR-MP-0982 does not l

represent a discrepant condition. Significant level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepent condition.

l

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in DR-MP-0982 do not represent a discrepant condition.

Item number (1). A review of DCN DM3-S-1506-92 PG 6 l confirms that a request for Sil-Temp was called for, for cable l

3HVRCOC700 in pnl 3CES*lPNL121. A a review of TSO2

! indicates that this cable does not exist in that panel. A typo was found on the cover page of DCN DM3-S-1506-92 PG 6, however the Cable Schedule Data sheet, which work is performed to, has the corTect panel location (3CES*1PNL120).

Cable 3HVRCOC700 is located in panel 3CES*1PNLl20, not panel 3CES*lPNLl21. A field walkdown confirms that this cable is wrapped with Sil-Temp & is located in 3CES*lPNLl20.

Printed 3/10S6 9AO:02 AM Page 2 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34982 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Therefore NU has concluded that this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a discrepent condition.

Item number (2) A field walkdown confirms that in fact a wire does exist on points 1 and 2 of terminal block TB-4. As required by DCN DMS-S-0256-96 wires were added to these points on the terminal block. DCN DM3-S-0256-96 is property reflected in GRITS as being applicable. Therefore NU has concluded that this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a discrepent condition.  ;

Item number (3) Review of GRITS reveals that DCN DM3-S-0256-96 has properly changed the wiring in this area of the panel and that is why the wiring differs. DCN DM3-S-0256-96 is REL (relesed for OPS / installation verified 10/23/97) and is presently being as-built on the drawings. Therefore NU has concluded that  ;

this issue reported on DR-MP3-0982 does not represent a )

discrepent condition.  !

NU concludes that discrepancy report DR-MP-0982 does not j represent a discrepant condition. Significant level criteria does j not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. l L.;' ::", idenneed by NU? O Yes @ No NonDiscrepentComNtion?@ Yes O No n one.nrenene?O v. @ No r+ unr=*ed?O va @ No nevis.

Initiator: Womer, I.

VTLeed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K lRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date:

]

SL Comments-Printed 3d098 9:49:04 AM Page 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities - lCAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4242 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

Review Group: Conlipurellen DR RESOLUTloN REJECTED Review Element: system inesensson Discipune: Elutriosi Delon

-- . _, Type: Drawing O ves i systemprocese: sWP @ No NRC significanoslevel: 4 Date faxed to NU:

DalePubnehed. 10/30/97 '

. -i: Differences in Support Drawings and TSO2 Data i Descriptions 1. Drawing EE-34DT Rev. 7 (C-4) shows tray support A306-26 for Tray 3T1140. TSO2 does not list this support, but lists a A307-26.

2. Several tray supports do not have mark numbers - which provide for the unique identification of a support based on a '

standard support type and the specific location - shown on the support location drawings (EE-34-DX Rev. 8 and EE-34DY Rev.

8 ). Therefore, it is not possible to reconcile these supports with TSO2. Example: for tray 3TX214N, three type "A105" supports are shown - TSO2 lists the A105 supports as 53,41. ,

(typical situation with 34DY). I

3. F-E-20188 adds conduits to tray support A104 however, the drawing was not listed as impacted and no mention of the additional conduit loads (no other conduits are supported from this support) for the tray support was made on any the drawing.

4. Trays 3TX703N and 3TX706N are vertical risers located in the Fuel Building. These trays are shown on Support Detail Drawing EE-34 HM, Rev. 3. The supports are direct attachment angles to embedded strut. The tray is installed in accordance with the detail of the drawing. TSO2 does not list any supports for these tray risers.

Review Vaud invaNd Needed Date inflistor: sener, T. L G O O 10' 587 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A Q Q Q 10/15/97 VT RAgr: schopfer, Don K O O O io/20s7 IRC Clenn: singh. Anand K B O O 1or27/97 Does:

1 INWAUD:

Date: 3/4/98 J

REaOLUTloN. NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0242, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specifN' Nj

' in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-  ;

20 criteria and found to have no operabilit" or reportability 4 concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral rd tria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track reso Jtion of this item per  :

RP-4.  !

" ;f n, Identised by NU7 O Yee @ No NonDescrepentcondition?U Yee @ No Printed 3/1096 9:56:41 AM Pe0s 1 or 2

t Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0242 mistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report a****= P=*e70 y.e @m m un, Modro y. @w n.*w gggelor: IGeic, N M--. Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O 8 0 m VT Mgr: Schopfer Don K O O O =

Nec chmn: Singh, Anand K G O m 0888*

O O O 3/4/98 sL Commente* Adequacy of the tray supports needs to be verified for the addittional conduit and tray riser loads prior to start-up.

l I

PrintJd 3/10/98 9.56:45 AM Pege 2 M 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0330 minstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report I Review Group: system DR REs0LUTIoM REJECTED Review Element: system Design Discipline: Piping Design N= - Type: NW Ow systen#rocess: Rss g

NRC Signllicence level: 4 Date faxed to Nu:

Date Pubilohed.10/18@7 Discrepancy: inconsistencies in the seismic evaluation of spray nozzle piping l Descripden. During review of the following calculations (i) 12179-NP(F) 798-XD Rev 2, CCN 1  !

(ii) 12179-NP(F)-842-XD Rev 2, CCN 1 (iii) 12179-NP(B)-X7912 Rev 1.

l (iv) 12179-NP(B)-X7918 Rev 1.

(v) 12179-NP(B)-X7900 Rev 1. ,

we noted the following discrepancies: '

l

Background:

l l

QSS and RSS spray nozzles are cantilevered from the respective ring headers, and are not supported by the

containment building structure. Therefore, these spray nozzles l will be subjected to the ring header accelerations and not the l building structure accelerations.

l Discrepancy:

i

1. QSS spray nozzles are modeled and evaluated with the ring header piping in calculation (v) According b the ring header calculation (v), the spray nozzle calculation (i) has been l

superseded by (v). However, calculation (i) has not been voided, and is still active.

2. For the RSS spray nozzles, seismic response spectra curves used in the spray nozzle calculation (ii) are not the same as those used in the ring header calculations [(lii) and (iv)]. Fluid transient time history accelerations have not been considered in the evaluation of the spray nozzle piping. Acevieration 'g' values used for evaluating the spray nozzle piping are much lower than the ring header accelerations.

The ring header calculations [(lii) and (iv)] generate accoleration ,

values for the evaluation of the decoupled spray nozzle lines.

But the acceleration values have not been used in the spray nozzle calculation (ii).

Review Valid invalid Needed Date Inlileter: Join R. c. O O O 105W87 VT Leed: Nerl, Anthony A O O O 10' o'87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O ior 3/s7 IRC Clunn: Singh, Anand K 10' d7 O O O Date:

BfVAUD:

Printed 3/1096 9:57:20 AM Pope 1 or 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3 0330 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date: 3/2/98 RESOLUTION Disposition: Response ID: M3-lRF-00716.

Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0330, has identified two separate conditions. NU has concluded that the second issue, regarding the RSS ring header and sp% nonle calculations, is a discrepent condition previously discovered by NU which required correction. The discrepancy was corrected by Calculation Change Notice #2 to NP(F)-842-XD.

CCNs also were issued for calculations NP(B)-X7912 Rev.1 (CCN #1), and NP(B)-X7918, Rev.1 (CCN #1). These CCNs were issued as a result of EWR M3-97027 (dated 3/20/97) and EWR M3-97088 (dated 6/20/97).

NU has concluded that the first issue, regarding the QSS ring header and spray nonle calculations, does not represent a discrepant condition. CCN 2 (dated 9/3/96) to calculation NP(F)-

798-XD, Rev.1, indicates that the calculation, in its entirety, has been superseded by calculation NP(B)- X7900, Rev.1. Due to a large bacidog, this CCN has not yet been entered into Passport.

(Current status of calculation in Passport is " RESERVED".) As this calculation is still in the administrative process of being superseded as required per section 6 of Chapter 5 of NU's Design Change Manual (DCM), it is not considered discrepant

Conclusion:

Discrepancy Report, DR-lip 3-0330, has identified two separate conditions. NU has concluded that the second issue, regarding the RSS ring header and spray nonle calculations, is a discrepent condition previously discovered by NU which required correction. CCNs which address the issue of run pipe accelerations have been issued for calculations NP(F)-

842-XD, Rev. 2, NP(B)-X7912, Rev.1, and NP(B)-X7918, Rev.

1. These CCNs were initiated as a result of EWRs M3-97027 (3/20/97) and M3 97088 (6/20/97).NU has concluded that the first issue, regarding the QSS ring header and spray nonle calculations, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Calculation NP(F)-798-XD has been superseded by NP(B)-

X7900, Rev.1.

N. _ j;identined by Nu? Q vos @ No NonDiscrepentCondition?O vos @ N.

Pamahdian Pending?O ve. @ No n.coiuiionunr ev.dro v @ No neview inillator: Jain. R. C.

VT L.ed: Nort. Anthony A O O =

VT teer: Schopfer, Don K inc counn: singh, Anand K O O Date: 3/2/98 sL Conenents: We agree that item #1 is non discrepant and item #2 has been corrected. However, there is no evidence that NU previously discovered item #2. Additional, since in our opinion this condition would not have resulted in an overstress condition, the DR level has been changed to 4.

Printed 3/10/98 9:5723 AM Page 2 or 2

Northecst Utilitin ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0394 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Repoft Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Elonent: System Design Discipline MechanicalDesign F E, Type: Calcuishon O vos Systersocese: SWP gg NRC Sigrh level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Pulsehed: 11/13/97 FM . - :y: Calculation 90-069-1130-M3 rev. O design information not verified.

r+ . The Westinghouse calculation notified NU in the body of the calculation that desi0n inputs needed to be verified, however there is no statement that indicates that NU verified this design information. This is in reference to refrigerant temperature of the HVK chi!iers (page 35, section 4.11.1, paragraph 1).

Westinghouse Thermal Equipment Calculation Report, TE-EC-

, 027 was used for design inputs into revision 0, but this calculation was not issued per M3-IRF-00417.

Calculation P-EC-225, rev. O " NEU Safety injection Pump Seawater Minimum Flow Evaluation" and calculation P-EC-230, re'e. O "CH/SI Pump Cooling Water Evaluation for Millstone 3 A ,' were used for design inputs into revision 0, but were not AmM e Nclear Documentation Services (NDS) per M3-!RF-ps" Review valid inveild Needed Date m . r, , s. J.

9 O O 10'S/S7 VT Leed: .e, Anthony A B D 0 50/10'S7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O tot d'S7 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K G O O i'/t/S7 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3.5/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0394, does not represent a discrepant condition. CCN1 (pg 35) to calcuhstion 90-069-1130 M3 deleted the analysis for the HVK chiller condenser from the calculation including the reference t0 TE-EC-027. Calculations P-EC-225 and P-EC-230 are not in Nuclear Documentation Services since they are Westinghouse proprietary calculations referenced in calculation 90-069-1130 M3. 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-MP3-0394, does not represent a discrepant condition. CCN1 to calculation 90-06g-1130 M3 deleted the analysis for the HVK chiller condenser from the calculation including the reference to TE-EC-027. Calculations P-EC-225 and P-EC-230 are not in Printed 3/10/98 957:57 AM Page 1 of 2

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0394 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Nuclear Documentation Services since they are Westinghouse proprietary calculations referenced in calculation 90-069-1130 M3. Significance level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant Previounty identsaed by NU7 U Yes @ No NonDiscrepentConstion?U Yes (8) No w%r.nens70 Ya @ No P-% une.e*.dtO Y= @ No moview Initiator: Dionne,8. J.

• VT Leed: Nori, Areuriy A O O O =

VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K IRC Clunn: singh, Anand K Date: 3/6/98 O b O stComments llem one of this discrepancy was not addressed in this resolution.

This point becomes irrelevant since the calculation that supersedes the information in question, is now superseded by a new calculation (97123) as outlined in the resolution to DR MP3-0397.

Item 2, the calculations that were referenced and are noted as Westinghouse proprietary calculations should be provided so that we may complete our review of the calculation.

Printed 3/1Q969:58:01 AM Page 2 of 2

\ ____- ___ _

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0428 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepaticy Report Review oroup: system DR REsOWTION REJECTED Review Element: sychm Design P OperehMNyleeue D6scipane: Mecherdoel Design C. is Type: Coloulation g y, syneempresses: swP Om NRC SigniScence level: 4 Date Fauled to NU:

Date Putdished. 11/15/97 C :Y: The setpoint for (7) valves could not be verified in calculation SP-3SWP-29, Rev 0, CCN#1 Ducription: Calculation SP 3SWP-29, Rev 0, CCN#1, determines the control range for (8) valves: 3SWP*PV112A1, B1, A2, B2 &

3SWP*PV113A1, B1, A2, B2; to be between 170 and 210 psig.The calculation references E&DCR N-ME-02985 and Vendor Manual OIM-144-003A sa the basis for the setpoints.

E&DCR N-ME-02985 states that the (8) valves required replacsment of the freon actuators t:ecause the wrong ones were supplied by the manufacturer. Per EaDCR N-ME-02985, the control range for the valves should be between 170 and 210 psig after modifications have been made to the actuators.

E&DCR N-ME-02985 has been stamped " SUPERSEDED" by DCN DM3-S-1009-95 because the modifications had not yet been made to the actuators. DCN DM3-S-1009-95 has also been stamped " SUPERSEDED

• and was replaced by DCN DM3-00-1500-98, which states that (1) flow regulating valve, 3SWP*PV113A1, was in fact nodified by the valve manufacturer with the correct actuator. DCN DM3-00-1500-98 also states that DCN DM3-S-1009-95 incorrectly superseded E&DCR N-ME-02985 and therefore re-establishes E&DCR N-ME-02985 as the 90veming document to determine the control range for the valves which have been modified with the correct actuators.

Based upon the information referenced in this set-point calculation, only (1) valve, 3SWP*PV113A1, has been modified and therefore only this (1) valve has a control range of 170 - 210 psig. There is no referenced documentation to conclude that the modification has been made to the remaining (7) valves. If the modifications to the actuators have not been made per E&DCR N-ME-02985, then the control ran0e has been incorrectly determined for the remaining (7) valves.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Dionne, B. J.

8 O O 10r31/87 VT Leed Nort, Anthony A O O O ' 5' '87 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q O O $ 1'8'87 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O / 5'87 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 3/6/98 REsowTION Disposition:

Printed 3/10/98 958M AM Page 1 of 2 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0428 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0428, does not represent a discrepant condition. The setpoint calculation was revised as a result of the Pl 31 assessment of service water calculations. The correct setpoint for all the valves is as specified in CCN#1 to SP-3SWP-29, Rev )

0, N-ME-02985 and the manufacturer's drawing 2178.430-144- i 043. As stated in DCN DM3-S-0414-96 (5/98), only the operator for 3SWP*PV113A1 has been replaced. Revisions / modifications to the other seven valves are included in the scope of DCN DM3-00-0790-97. 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-MP3-0428, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Revisions / modifications to the seven valves are included in the scope of DCN DM3-01-0790-97. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously klenused by NU7 O Yes @ No NonDiscrepentCondition?O vos (9) No naonamnPennine70 va @ No nessuianunraaved70 va @ No Review inumw: D.onne, s. .:.

" " ' ^* " P " " ""d*d '

VT Lead: Nwt, Anthony A O O O =

VT Mgr: schopter, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K osse: 3/6/98 st Comments: E&DCR N-ME-02985 is stated as the correct reference for the setpoint basis. It was also stated in DCN DM3-001500-96 that E&DCR N-ME-02985 was incorrectly superseded. This document was superseded by NU document control and is still labeled as superseded in the GRITS system (as of 3/6/98). Thus, the basis document for the setpoint of these valves is still not a valid document.

Since the paperworic to r,orrect the problem with the seven other valves was initiated to rectify the issue, the significance level can be reduced from level 3 to level 4, as it is still applicable, l

1

\

Pnnled 3f10@6 3:58 37 AM Page 2 or 2

)

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0603 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION RTJECTED I Review Element: system Installation Diecipline: Electrical Design h J- .:y Type: Installation implementation Ow 8,___.... :sWP g NRC SL " Es level:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished 1o/30/97 hz :y: Supports not in agreement with design drawings.

j Daeription The following deviations from design drawings were noted:

)

1. Drawing DWG EE-34KA Rev. 3 for tray support Type C207 calls for Detail H which requires gusset plate at ceiling i anchorage. Support C207-172 does not have this detail as an i

auxiliary beam is installed in its position. '

2. Drawing EE-34KH Rev. 2 for support type C260 does not show horizontal W37 5/8*L member that is installed between the top and bottom intemal 'X' bracing on support C260-263. Open Chan0e Control Documents for this drawing did not authorized this deviation.

3. Three PS 204 members, which run to support C309-32, are installed on the upper 4 ft. section of the south vertical leg of support C309A-017 (reference drawing EE-34 KP Rev. 4). No design documents can be identified to authorize these members, Review Velid invalid Needed Date Ininetor sener,T.L 8 O O 10/15/S7 VT taed: Nort, Anthony A B O O o' 5/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Clwnn: singh, Anand K B O O 1or2 ors 7 G O O or27/97 Date:

INVAUD:

l Date: 3/4/98 REs0LUTioN. NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0503, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability '

concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0513 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identised by NU? O Yes (S) No NonDiscropontCondition?U Yes (S) No Read % Pend 6ng?O va @ No P=d% Unresolved?O va @ No Review Arcaptahls Not AceYahaa Needed Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A Vr Mgr: schopter, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K

_ Date: 3/4/98 Printed 3/10/96 9.59:13 AM Pope 1 of 2

l 1

I Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0603  !

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report sL commee Adequacy of the supports type C207, C260 and C309 - 32 needs I to be verified for the modified configurations prior to start-up.

l l

l l

PrHed 3/139f '59:16 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0546 Miitstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION RENCTED N'* I Diecipene: Electrical Doolgn Potentiel Opereldlity issue l D6screpency Type: Installation Implementation Om  !

SystemProcess: Rss @ No NRC S',.r e level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putnished 11/9/97 Discrepancy. Inadequate support of conduit E. Conduits 3CX014NH2 and 3CX014NH3 are installed with a span of approximately 9 feet between adjacent supports and 2-90 degree bends plus a 90-degree LB fitting. This is not in accordance with the crt!eria of standard support drawing BE-52AV, Rev. 4, which indicates maximum support spacing to be 8 feet and the maximum bends to be 1- 90.

Review I Valid invalid Needed Date I initietor: Server, T. L G O O or2a/s7 l VT Laod: Nerl, Anthony A B O O 1o/27/97 i VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 1or30'87  !

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 1l'S7 Date:

INVALID:

l Date: 3/4/98 '

RESOLUTION NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0546, has identified a condition not previously discovereo by NU which i requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-l 20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability i concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0546, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previounty identifled by NU? O vos (8) No Non Diecrepent Condition?O Yes (8) No Resolut6onPending?O va @ No Redutionunredved?O va @ No Review initietor: loeic, N

• VT Laod: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Printed 3/10")6 9:59.49 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0644 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

___.._. ~-~'

Dese:

O O O 3/3/98 st m: The adequacy of conduit span has to be demonstrated prior to re-start. l i

l l

l I

I l

I l

Printed W10/98 9:59:52 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0552 Minstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operetsity issue D6scipline: Electrical Design h- ' :y Type: Instellation implementaten Ow System /Procoes: RsS gg NRC s:,,J --n level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

j Date Published: 11/15S 7 N. Ei: Installation not in accordance with drawings Ducription: 1. The conduit installed on Conduit Support SB-130 (Ref.

Conduit Support Log SB-130 Rev. 3) is not es shown on the latest version of the support drawing nor addressed by any open change documents relating to drawings EE-34MA Rev. 5 and EE-34MB Rev. 5. Conduits G, L, and K are not installed as shown on the CSL. An additional Conduit 3CX300PB - 4" flex is located on Shelf (1).

2. Conduit 3CX307NC is listed as 2" in F-E-23681 for Conduit Support SB-028. Field walkdown found conduit to be 3". The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates conduit is 2". No open change document for drawing EE-34MA Rev. 5 addresses this discrepancy for Support 100-087.

3. Page 22 of 24 of F-E-32362 was to add "Z" bracing between Supports S104A-038 and S1088-046 (Ref. drawing EE-59MA Rev. 5) due to the addition of conduit by this F-E. No braces are installed per field walkdown and no open change documents discuss its deletion.

Review Vand invalid Needed Date Initiator: server, T. L 0 0 0 1 17'87 l

VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B O O 1 ms7  :

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 1 110/87 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Si' '87 Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION. NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0552, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.1701011 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0648 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identiflod by NU? O Yes (S) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No R.soiuno.Penene?O Yee @ No R=*uon un, drO Y @ No Review Not F = ^ " Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K Printed 3/10S810:01:12 AM Page 1 of 2

NortheTt Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0552 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ]

..._,,-,m RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/3/98 st Comments: Adequacy of conduit supports for the additional conduk weight Soads needs to be demonstrated prior to start-up.

)

I I

i l

i i

Printed 3/109810:01:19 AM Page 2 of 2

1 i

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No, DR-MP3-0555 l

umstone unM 3 Discrepancy Report Fleview Group: Configurshon DR RESOLUTION REJECTED

)

Review Element: System insteNebon

)

Discrepency Type: Installation implementation O vt:o Systemprocess: RSs g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Put$shed 11/2/97 Discrepancy: Cable and Reaceway data not in agreement with installed conditions CE- 1. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that -

conduit 3CC9700C8 is 21 feet long. Field verified conduit is  ;

approximatsfy 2 feet long. I

2. Tne Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC7570A is 12 feet long; the field installed conduit is approximately 12 inches long.

3. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC9700A8 is supported by 8 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 7 supports.

4. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that  !

conduit 3CK7000B3 is supported by 12 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 11 supports.

5. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC9700C7 is supported ty 12 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 8 supports.

6. The Cable and Raceway Pmgram (TSO2) indicates that 1 concluit 3CC7560G4 is suppo.ted by 10 supports. Field  !

observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is attached to 11 supports.

l

7. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC7560G4 is supported by 8 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is attached to only 7 supports.

8. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 9CC764PB3 is supported by 2 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 3 supports.

9. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 9CC764PB2 is supported by 4 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 5 supports.

10. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC763PC4 is supported by 14 supports. Ficld nhearvntinn nf ihm mnduit indir-atmc that the r nnduit le ennnnrtad Printed 3/10/9810:01:45 AM Page 1 or 3

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0666 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report  !

by 15 supports.

11. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CH76000 is supported by nine supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by six supports.

12. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CX970PB is supported by 12 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 11 supports.

13. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CX970PB1 is supported by 12 supports. Field j observation of the conduit Irvi8 ates that the conduit is supported by 13 supports.

Review Vaud Invalid Needed Date initiator: sener, T. L O O O 10'18'87 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B D 0 or27/s7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B D D tor 2als7 stC Chmn: singh. Anand K B D D 10'30'87 '

Dese:

wwAup:

Date: 3/3/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0555, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which I requires cor%on. This discrepancy meets 11- Meria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been sm ,ted per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0555, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B1690? and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found so have no operability or reportability concems and meets .he Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0495 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identelled by NU7 ( ) Yes (9) No Non Discrepent condition?() Yes @) No '

RoemianPenmas?O Y= @ No a-** unr.em.d?O Yu @ No Review initiator: Kleic, N yy a

• Nort Anthony A Printed Seto/se 10:01:40 AM Page 2 of 3

Northeast Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0556

{

Millstone unit a Discrepancy Report vr Mor: Schopfer, Don K O O O 3/*8 NtC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O osse: 3/3/98 st. Comments: Adequacy of the conduit spans needs to be demonstrated prior to start-up for all cases where the actual number of conduit supports is less than the number of conduit supports as indicated in the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2 ) .

J

)

l Printed 3/10S610:01:51 AM Pa08 3 of 3

I 1 I

l l Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-CS16 ,

i Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Potential Operebuity issue Discipune: Mechanical Design

'"= my Type: Conective Action O vos SystemrProcess: RSs g )

NRC f =-:= level: 4 Date FMed b NU-Date Published 11/2497

'"- . - :i; inconsistency within specification SP-ME-784 with respect to location of elastomeric seat.

Description:

In letter B09878 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated May 15,1991, Northeast Utilities committed to change the design of containment isolation valves 3RSS*MOV23A,B,C,D to prevent them from failing their local leak rate tests. This is documented in Northeast Utilities' Pl6 commitment record 19690.

The subject valves are butterfly valves. In the original design, an elastomeric seat was installed on the valve body. Letter 809878 documents that the root cause of the valve failure is seat separation from the valve body. Accordingly, the letter recommends that the new valve design locate the elastomeric seat on the valve disc instead of the valve body.

PDCR 93-015 implemented the change by installing new valves with elastomeric seats on the valve body instead of on the disc.

According to PDCR 93-015, the design of the new valves are specified in specification SP-ME-784 Revision 2. On page ill of the specification, the valve discs are identified as having rubber on the edges. But on pa0e 17, the disc is said to be machined to ease entry of the disc into the seat. The two statements in specification SP-ME-784 are inconsistent; therefore, the installed configuration cannot be confirmed.

Rsview Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feingold, D. J. G O O / 3'87 ,

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A G O O 11/i2/97 i VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K O O O 11/17187 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anord K O O O 11/20/97 Date: ,

INVALID:

i Date: 2/2/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

l NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0615 does not represent a discrepant condition. Specification SP-ME-784 is a purchase specification providing a general description of the desired valve design for bid and purchase only. The detailed design of the valve seat is documented on drawings 2362.200-164-109 and 2362.200-164-110 (Transmittal 51, dated 07/07/97). As documented on drawing 2362.200-164-109, the valve seat is constructed of hard rubber type E.P.T.. The disc is machined in such a way that it does not interfere with the interaction of the Printed 3/10/9810:0224 AM Page 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0615 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report valve seat and the rubber seating ring. Therefore, there is no j contradiction in specification SP-ME-784. The seat configuration as illustrated in the afore mentioned drawings are cor.sistent with the commitment made in B09878. Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0615 does not represent a discrepant condition. As detailed in the disposition, the detailed design of the valve seat is documented on drawings 2362.200-164-109 and 2362.200-164-110 (Transmittal 51, dated 07/07/97). As documented on drawirg l 2362.200-164-109, the valve seat is constructed of hard rubber type E.P.T.. The disc is machined in such a way that it does not interfere with the interaction of the valve seat and the rubber seating ring. Therefore, there is no contradiction in specification SP ME-784. The seat configuration as illustrated in the afore mentioned drawings are consistent with the commitment made in B09878. Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously klentiaed by NU? Q Yes (#) No NonDiscrepentConetion?O Yes (8) No Resolution Pending70 vos @ No PMW Unresolved 70 vos

• No l Initiator: Feingold, D. J.

VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K stC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 2/2/98 SL Comments Page 17 states that the disc is to be machined to ease entry of the disc into the seat. This infers that the edge of the disc is machined such that it can easily enter the elastomeric seat. If the elastomeric seat is on the disc, then the disc cannot move to engage the elastomeric seat.

The statement on page 17 of specification SP-IO784 is identical to e st,i'ement on page B1-25 of specification 2362.200164 for the o iginal butterfly valves with the elastomeric seat on the valve body. Therefore, the statement appears to have been missed when crict:ag specification SP-ME-784 from specification 2362.200-164.

The replacement butterfly valves appear to be designed in accordance with the commitment in letter B09878; however, the

, design specification is misleading and in conflict with drawings 2362.200-164-109 and 2362.200-164-110.

f Printed 3/10/9810:c2:27 AM Page 2 of 2

T 1

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR Noa DR-MP3-0667 l umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLLmoN REJECTED Review Element: System Design l

maear %e: Electrical Design i

F -- :y Type:1.lconsing Document Ow SystemProcese: DGX @ No NRC SL f swlevel:3 Date faxed to NU:

Date PutWiehed: 11/24/97

! 06screpancy: Descrepancy between Re9 Guide 1.9, Design Basis Summary  ;

l Document & Differential Trip of Generator 1 l Deecription:

l

Background:

1 Per Table 1.8-1 of the FSAR NU has committed to Revision 2 of i

REG GUIDE 1.9 " Selection, Design, and Qualification of Diesel- ,

Generator Units Used as Standby (Onsite) Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants", Revision 2, December 1979 Section B. DISCUSSION states in part:

• Protection of the diesel-Generator unit from excessive overspeed, which can result from a loss of load, is afforded by the immediate operation of a diesel-Generator unit trip, usually l set at 115 percent of nominal speed. In addition, the Generator

! differential trip must operate immediately in order to prevent j substantial damage to the generator..." l l l Section C.7 of the Reg Guide states in part:

"...In conjunction with Section 5.6.2.2, engine-overspeed and Generator-differential trips may be implemented by a single-channal trip..."

l Paragraph 4.1.15 of Design Basis Summary 3DBS-EDG-001 I states:

l

" ...lf protective features other than engine overspeed and generator overcurrent are retained during a design basis accident, two (2) or more independent measurements of these parameters yd.h coincident trip logic shall be provided."

l Discussion:

Generator differential relay 87G trips the diesel via lockout relay  !

86HP. If a design basis event occurs (SIS /CDA/ LOP) the lockout relay cannot be directly energized because it is blocked by a contact from relay TSR. The lockout relay will energize through a contact from time delay relay 62G, but only after a delay of 0.05-3.0 seconds, depending on where the timer is set.

l The Design Basis Summary Document implies that generator overcurrent and engine overspeed trips shall be treated alike.

The Dan ~ thide indirntac that annina

~

numrenand and nanarntnr Printed 3/10/9610:10:21 AM ~ Page 1 of 4 l

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34657 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repoit differential trips, not generator overcurrent, are to b3 treated alike.

l Conclusion Section B:

The second sentence in the paragraph states: "In addition, the  !

generator differential trip must operate immediately in order to

{

prevent substantial damage to the generator." Since a condition can occur in which the diesel-generator will not immediately trip on a generator differential fault, there appears to be a discrepancy with the Reg Guide.

Conclusion Section C.7:

The Design Basis Summary Document (DBSD) and the Reg Guide appear to be in disagreement.

This is based on a review of the following drawings:

ESK-5DR Rev 18 Elem Diag 4.16kV [15G-14U-2] i Emergency Diesel Gen Bkr [3 ENS *ACB-G-A]

ESKSDS Rev 18 Elem Diag 4.16kV [15G-15U-2]

Emergency Diesel Gen Bkr [3 ENS *ACB-G-B]

ESK-7Q Rev 11 Emerg Diesel Generator Brkr 15G-14U

[3 ENS *ACB-G-A] Aux Ckt ESK-7R Rev 11 Emerg Diesel Generator Brkr 15G-15U-2

[3 ENS *ACB-G-B] Aux Ckt ESK-8KC Rev 11 125V DC Emer DieselGen Start Ckt 3EGSAO1 [3EGS*G-A]

ESK-8KD Rev 12 125V DC Emer Diesel Gen Stop Ckt 3EGSA03 [3EGS*G-A]

ESK-8KF Rev 12 125V DC Emer Diesel Gen Start Ckts Ckt 3EGSB01,2 [3EGS*G-B]

ESK 8KG Rev 12 125V DC Emer Diesel Gen Stop Ckt 3EGSBO3 [3EGS*G-B]

ESK-8KJ Rev 09 125V DC Emer Diesel Gen Shutdown Ckt 3EGSAO6 [3EGS*G-A]

ESK-8KK Rev 09 125V DC Emer Diesel Gen Shutdown Ckt l 3EGSBO6 [3EGS*G B]

Review Vaud invahd Needed Dets Initiator: Womer, l. $'"/87

) 8 O O VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A y Q Q 11/11197 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K y Q g 11/17/97 Printed 3/10/9810.10:25 AM Page 2 c4 4

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0657 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K G O O SS7 Dese:

mvAuo:

Date: 2/25/98 RESOLtmoN Disposition:

NU has concluded that first issue in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0657, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

The Emergency Diesel Generator Design Basis Summary (3DBS-EDG-001) states: "If protective features other than engine overspeed ,and generator overcurrent are retained during a design basis accident, two (2) or more independent measurements of these parameters with coincident trip logic l shall be provided". It should have stated: ". ... generator differential....". Condition Report (CR) M3-97-4463 was written to provide the necessary corrective action to resolve this issue.

Approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (attached) and DCN DM3-S-00-1901-97 were issued to correct 3DBS-EDG-001.

NU also has concluded that second issue in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0657, does not represent a discrepant condition. The DR states : " generator differential trip must operate immediately in order to prevent substantial damage to the generator". A 0.2 see time delay (see Calc.12179GM-60-03.421CB, Spec. SPM3-EE-269) is employed, NU considers the 0.2 second trip to be "immediate"in the context of protection against substantial damage.

Since the first issue of this DR is the only discrepancy and this is an administrative issue only, NU considers this DR to be a Significance Level 4 issue.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that first issue in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0657, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. Condition Report (CR) M3 4463 was written to provide the necessary corrective action to resolve this issue. Approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

(attached) and DCN DM3-S-00-1901-97 were issued to correct 3DBS-EDG-001.

NU also has concluded that second issue in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0657, does not represent a discrepant condition. The DR states : " generator differential trip must operate immed!stely in order to prevent substantial damage to the generator". A 0.2 sec time delay is employed, NU considers the 0.2 second trip to be "immediate"in the context of protection against substantial damage.

Rinem tha hret Icena nf thic rid le ihm nr lu dierrannnew nnd thic le

~~

Printed W10S810:10:27 AM ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ page 3 of 4

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34657 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report an administrative issue only, NU considers this DR to be a Significance Level 4 issue. ,

Previounty keenened by Nu? O vee @) No NonDiscrepentcondition?U vee @) No Resolution Pending?O v.e @ No P- ~% unroeoived?O vee @ No Review initiator: womer, L

^ ^

1. ~' "****d "*

VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K g g g oste: 2/25/98 sL canmente: Reg Guide 1.9 states:

"In addition, the generator differential trip must opersie immediately in order to prevent substantial damage to the generator..." Ourinterpretation of the word "immediate"in conjunction with the use of differential relays is that there is no intentional delay added after the differential relays operate.

NU considers the 0.2 second trip to be "immediate"in the context of protection a0ainst substantial dama08.

Because we can not find documentation that NU's definition of "immediate" is acceptable to the NRC we still consider the second issue in the Discrepancy report a discrepant condition.

i Printed 3/1o/9610:10:28 AM Page 4 of 4

i t

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR PESOLUTION REXCTED PotentialOperabinty issue tes :p Type: Celculation O vos j

SystemProcess: HVX g

NRC Signincance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdished 12/21/97 l Ee1 :i; CCP & CHS Area Ventilation System Winter Operction i Description. During review of the charging pump and component cooling l water pump area ventilation system calculations discrepancies re9arding the minimum temperatures in the rooms were identified.

1

References:

1. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1

2. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1-001

3. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1-002

4. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 1-003

5. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1. CCN 1-004

6. Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1, CCN 5

7. PDCR MP3-92-103, Rev.1

8. FSAR Appendix 38

9. FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 l 10. PDCR MP3-93-067

11. P&lD EM-148B-15 j l

Background:

The charging pump and component cooling water pump area l j ventilation system provides ventilation for the charging pump i

j cubicles, component cooling heat exchanger area , and the MCC

! & rod control NC booster pumps area as shown on P&lD EM-1488-15.

FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 states that the charDing purnp cubicle temp 3rature is maintained above the solubility temperature limit of 59'F for a 4 percent boron concentration.

The minimum room temperature listed in FSAR Appendix 3B for the charging pump cubicles and component cooling pump area is 50*F. The minimum temperature listed for the MCC & rod l control area NC booster pumps is 65'F.

1 During the winter months the ventilation system mixes outside air and retum air and supplies this air to the component coeling pump area , and the MCC & rod control NC booster pumps ,

area. Retum air is drawn from all three areas served by the I

. system. The minimum outside air flow is set to maintain auxiliary I l building ventilation system filter exhaust fan (3HVR*FN6NB) airflow above stall condnions. Eight safety-related electric unit heaters (four per division) are located in the component cooling water pump area.

PDCR MP3-92-103, Mechanical Technical Review ME-3, states that safety related equipment in these areas are operable at a Printed 3/10/9810:10:56 AM 1 7

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report boric acid system may be subject to precipitation at temperatures below 59'F and 2) the charging pumps should not be started at temperatures below 65'F, but once started may be operated at an ambient temperature of 30*F.

Discrepancies:

1) Calculation 3-92-103-191-M3, CCN 5 case 10 results show a j 29.6*F minimum temperature in the component cooling pump area. This temperature is lower than the 32*F evaluated in Mechanical Technical Evaluation ME-3 of PDCR MP3-92-103.

2) Calculation 3-92-103-191-M3 Rev.1 [induding CCNs 1 to 5]

does not address the mir.imum temperature in the MCC & rod control A/C booster pumps area.

3) The minimum room temperatures shown in calculation 3 103-191-M3 Rev.1 [ including CCNs 1 to 5] are lower than the

)

J temperatures shown in FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 and Appendix 3B Review Vend inveNd Needed Date inattator: stout, M. D.

8 O O 15n3/97 VT Leed Nwl, Anthony A Q Q Q 11M8/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B D 0 12/ sis 7 IRC Chmn: S6ngh, Anend K B O O 52/ars7 oste:

INVAUD:

oste: 2/25/98 RESOLUTION. NU has concluded that the Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0670, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requiras correction.

CR M3-98-0224 was initiated to identify and provide a corrective action plan for the discrepancies noted in DR-MP3-0670. The DR-MP3-0670 discrepancies relate to the minimum temperatures in the Auxiliary Building areas of the charging pump cubicles, component cooling pump and heat exchanger area, and MCC & rod control A/C booster pump area. The temperatures in the areas are maintained by Charging Pump, Component Cooling Water Pump, and Heat Exchanger (CHS/CCP) Area Ventilation System which is a subsystem of the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS). The following is a timeline of events and actions relating to the minimum temperatums in the Auxiliary Building areas.

On 10/31/92, Rev.1 of PDCR MP3-92103," Auxiliary Building Filtration Systems / SLCRS Enhancements," was approved for construction. PDCR MP3-92-103 modified the ABVS including the CHS/CCP Area Ventilation System to enable the systems to operate in conjunction with the SLCRS to achieve the required drawdown of the Secondary Containment. PDCR MP3-92-103 modifications included removal the temperature control capabilities of the CHS/CCP Area Ventilation System.

P'tnted 3r10rse 10.11:00 AM Page 2 of 7

Northout Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

l Calculation 3-92103-M3, Rev.1 "CCP & CHS Pump Area Ventilation," was approved on 10/30/92 to support PDCR MP3-92-103. Calculation 3-92-103-M3 calculates the additional heat required to maintain 650F in the areas during winter and a Loss I of Offsite Power (LOP). As a result of the PDCR MP3-92-103, modifications and calculation results, Bypass Jumper 3-92-051 installed non-QA heaters to maintain 6 SF in the areas.

However, following a LOP the non-QA eaters will not be available and the minimum temperature in the areas could be

32*F.

1 Safety Evaluation (SE) MP3-92-103-9, Rev.1, "ABVS / SLCRS l Enhancements - ABV Low Ambient Temperatures," evaluated the lowering of the Auxiliary Building minimum temperature from 65'F to 32*F following a LOP. SE MP3-92-103-9 concluded that the modification and the lowering of the Auxiliary Building areas temperatures to 32*F is safe and does not constitute an unreviewed safety question. The SE conclusions were based, in part, on the PDCR MP3-92-103 Technical Evaluations.

PDCR MP3-92-103 Technical Evaluation, ME-3, " Minimum Acceptable Temperature for the Auxiliary Building," evaluated the effects of the 32'F temperature on the operability of safety related equipment in the Auxiliary Building. The Technical Evaluation concluded that the equipment is capable of functioning adequately at 32'F.

On 8/25/93, PDCR MP3-93-067, Rev. O, " Auxiliary Building CHS/CCP Area Ventiletion Heaters," was approved for construction. PDCR MP3-93-067 replaced the temporary non-QA heaters installed under Bypass Jumper 3-92-051 with a permanent QA Cat 1 heating system including eight unit heaters to maintain the winter temperature of the Auxiliary Building Areas at 65'F. With the loss of one train, four of the unit heaters {

installed under PDCR MP3-93-067 are sufficient to maintain the temperature above 32*F. SE MP3-93-067-1 evaluated the failure of one train of heaters to operate and concluded the i modification is safe and does not constitute an unreviewed l safety question. The SE conclusions were based, in part, on the

, PDCR MP3-92-103, Rev.1 and Calculation 3-92-103-191 M3, Rev.1, including CCNs 001 through 003.

I On 10/29/96, UIR 1074 was initiated to identify discrepancies in FSAR Section 9.4.3.1. The final disposition for UIR 1074 required a FSARCR to correct the winter design temperature in the Auxiliary Building areas to reflect PDCR MP3-92-103 and PDCR MP3-93-067 modifications. FSARCR 97-MP3-573 was approved on 12/12/97 to include changes to FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 as described in UIR 1074.

On 1/13/97, ACR M3-97-0119 was initiated to document discrepancies identified during the design basis review of the MP3 electrical calculations. The discrepancies documented in ACR M3-97-0119 relate to the voltage profile, degraded voltage setpoint calculations, and downstream voltage calculations for the battery charners. Inverters and 120VAC systems. On Printed 3/109810:1191 AM Page 3 of 7 l

l

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 1/15/97, ACR M3 97-0161 was initiated to document discrepancies identified during the design basis review of the MP3 Technical Specifications and supporting calculations. The j discrepancies documented in ACR M3-97-0161 relate to the '

minimum desi0n voltages for Class 1E heaters and the low l voltage capability of the heaters to perform its design basis l function. A formal rwt cause investigation was conducted which  !

included the calculation discrepancies identified in both ACR M3-97-0119 and ACR M3-97-0161. The root cause investigation provided corrective actions including: identify and analyze safety  ;

related equipment that could be affected by a degraded voltage  !

condition and determine the adequate relay settings to eliminate the identified deficiencies.

On 1/29/97, ACR M3-97-0161 Reportability Evaluation,

" Degraded Voltage and Equipment Heater," was approved. The 1 Reportability Evaluation reviewed Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 l and determined that with a loss of one train of heaters and a 12% reduced voltage, the CCP area temperature could be about 300F. This condition of 30*F for the CCP area was determined acceptable for continuos pump operation, based on input from W6stinghouse letter NEU-92-566, dated 10/4/92. The I reportability evaluation concluded that based on review of ventilation calculations, historic events, control room indication and system flexibility there is reasonable assurance that auxiliary building temperatures will be maintained within acceptable limits.

On,7/19/97, CCN 005 to Calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1 was approved. CCN 05 was developed in response to ACR MS-97-0119 corrective action plan to formalize the assumptions of ACR M3 97-0161 Reportability Evaluation. CCN 05 calculated CHS/CCP areas temperatures in winter when one heater train has failed and the other heater train is powered from the offsite Gr6d at 12% reduced voltage. CCN 05 calculated the minimum CCP area temperature as 29.6*F which is below the minimum value of 32*F as determined in PDCR MP3-92-103 and PDCR MP3-93-067. On 7/23/97, Calculation 97-ENG-01453M3,

" Vendor Calculation on Effects of Degraded Voltage on Safety Related Electric Heaters," Rev. O, was apporvea. Calculation 97-ENG-01453M3 determined if the Class 1E heaters are able to perform their design basis functions under a degraded voltage condition and cor.cluded that the heaters do not have a operability concem under degraded voltage conditions and will perform their safety related function. Calculation 97-ENG-01453 evaluated the CCN-05 results and concluded that the 29.6*F condition is considered acceptable based on Westinghouse letter NEU-92 566, dated 10/4/92.

On 11/15/97, DCR 97030, Rev.1, " Unit 3 Degraded Grid Modifications was approved for implementation. DCR M3-030 was developed in response to ACR M3-97-0119 corrective action plan to restore the operability of the MP3 degraded grid voltage protection relays. As a result of DCR M3-030, a charge to Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 is required to reflect the current degraded voltage conditions.

PrHed 3/1Q9610:11:02 AM Page 4 of 7

Norttmast Utilities ICAVP . DR No. DR4P34670 Millstorm unit 3 Discrepancy Report On 1/15/96, CR M3-98-0224 was initiated to identify and provide -

a corrective action pian for the discrepancies noted in DR-MP3-0670. CR M3-96-0224 corrective action plan requires 1) a -1 revision to Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 to reflect the current (

degraded voltage condition,2) an evaluation of Calculation 3-929103-191M3 results, and 3) based on the evaluation of the Calculation 3-929103-191M3 results, a revision to FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 and FSAR Appendix 38.

The following is a response to the 3 discrepancies identified in DR-MP3-0670:

1) The calculated (CCN 05 to Calculation 2-92-103-191M3) minimum temperature of 29.6*F in the CCP area was evaluated in the ACR MS-97-0161 Reportability Evaluation and Calculation 97-ENG-01453M3. The Reportability Evaluation reviewed

, Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 and determined that with a loss of  ;

l one train of heaters and a 12% reduced voltage, the CCP area J l temperature will be about 30*F. This condition of 30*F for the -

CCP area was determined acceptable for continuous pump operation based on input from Westinghouse letter NEU-92-566, dated 10/4/92. The reportability evaluation concluded that based i

on review of ventilation calculations, historic events, control l room indication and system flexibility there is reasonable i assurance that auxiliary building temperatures will be maintained l l within acceptable limits. Calculation 97-ENG-01453 evaluated 1

(

the CCN-05 results and concluded that the 29.6*F condition is {

considered acceptable based on Westinghouse letter NEU 566, dated 10/4/92.

( in addition, CR M3-98-0224 corrective action requires a revision l' to calculation 3-92-103-191M3 to reflect the current degraded volta 0e conditions. Thou0h CCN 05 calculates the CCP room temperature to be slightly below the Westinghouse evaluated

[ temperature of 30*F, a preliminary change to calculation 3 l 103-191M3 indicates that the temperatures will be above 30*F.

i The preliminary calculation is based on the corrective actions of l ACR M3-97-0161 and ACR MS-97-0119. The corrective actions included raising the electrical volta 0e relay settings which will increate the heater output.

l Therefore, the discrepancy between the FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 minimum temperature of 32*F and CCN 05 minimum l temperature of 29.6*F in the CCP area is considered a Significance Level 4.

1

2) CR M3-98 0224 corrective action requires a change to calculation 3-92-103-191M3 to address the minimum temperatures in the MCC and rod control A/C booster pumps area. CR MS-98-0224 provides an evaluation of the minimum temperature conditions on the equipment in the MCC and rod control A/C booster pumps area. The evaluation concluded that the minimum temperatures will not effect the equipment in the area. Therefore, the need to establish a formal calculation for ,

the MCC & rod control A/C booster pumps area minimum j temperature is considered a sionif'cance level 4. '

Prirted W109810:112 AM Page 5 or 7 I i

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0670 ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

3) CR M3-98-0224 corrective action requires an evaluation of Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 results. Based on the evaluation of the Calculation 3-929103-191M3 results, FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 i and FSAR Appendix 3B will be revised.  !

l The calculated (CCN 05 to Calculation 2-92-103-191M3) minimum temperature of 29.6*F in the CCP area was evaluated in the ACR M3-97-0161 Reportability Evaluation. The Reportability Evaluation reviewed Calculation 3-92-103-191M3 I and determined that with a loss of one train of heaters and a i 12% reduced voltage, the CCP area temperature will be about l 30*F. This condition of 30*F forthe CCP area was determined I acceptable for continuos pump operation based in Westinghouse letter NEU-92-566, dated 10/4/92. The reportability evaluation concluded that based on review of ventilation calculations, historic events, control room indication and system flexibility there is reasonable assurance that auxiliary building temperatures will be maintained within acceptable limits.

Therefore, the differing values between the FSAR Section 9.4.3.1 minimum temperature of 32'F and CCN 05 minimum temperature of 29.6'F in the CCP area is considered a Significance Level 4. A clarification to the Appendix 3B temperatures may be required following the evaluation of the change to calculation 2-92-103-191M3.

Attachments:

CR M3-98-0224 FSARCR 97-MP3-573 Previously klenosed by NU7 O Yee @ No Non Discropont ComNtionrU Yee @ No n.eenon P.ndina70 Yee @ No neeenonunroe*.d70 Yee @ No Review L i Not Acre Needed Date VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A '

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 2/25/98 )

sL comments: 1) Westinghouse letter NEU-92-566 dated October 4,1992 only addresses operation of the charging / safety injection pumps at a j 30*F ambient temperature. The letter does not address the CCP {

pumps, instruments, etc in the area that were evaluated for a 1 32*F temperature in PDCR MP3-92-103 Mechanical Technical Review ME-3. Calculation 3-92-103-191-M3, CCN 5 on page 5 shows a supply air temperature of about 16*F to the CCP '

pump / heat exchanger area and a 29.6*F air temperature leaving the CCP pump / heat exchanger area. The impact of below -

freezing conditions, especially in the areas near the supply air discharge to the room, needs to be addressed. The results of this evaluation are needed to establish the final significance level of the DR.

2) Results of calculation 3-92-103-191M3 revision are needed to Printed 3/10/9610:11 o5 AM Pege 6 of 7

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0670 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l.

I establish the final significance level of the DR.

3) Results of calculation 3-92-103-191M3 revision are needed to determine the final significance level.

Response also needs to address effect of lower room temperature on calculations, such as setpoint calculations, that used the 32'F l

room temperature as input.

l l

I I

L l

i 1

i i

l l

l l

l l l l

I l

Printed 3/10/9810:11:06 AM Page 7 of 7

l I

Northea:t Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0671 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report  !

Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: system Design 3

Discipline: Electncal Design Discrepancy Type: Calculation O vos l System 9rocess: N/A g q i

j NRC S'g - =+:e level: 2 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putnished 12/8/97 {

E- 4 Cable resistance values were not correctly icosposed (Calculation 230E)

Description:

This calcul. tion determines if Wu.D volt ige is available I across the relays and starter coil of the Charging Pump &

Component Cooling Water Pump Area Supply Fan (3HVR*FN14A). )

One of the cable resistance values t.ss incorrectly transposed from Rev.0 to CCN-2 of the calculation. The resistance of Cable No. 3HVRAOC004 is listed as 0.85 ohms in Rev. O of the calculation but was transposed as 0.085 ohms in CCN-2.

Also, the cable lengths used in the calculation are all shorter than the cable lengths listed in the NUSCO Cable and Raceway System. The source of these shorterlengths"are from an i interoffice correspondence included as Attachment D to Rev. O of the calculation. An explaination of the basis forthese shorter lengths should be included in the calculation.

There is only about 2 volts of margin in the calculation results (CCN-2 indicates that 85.2 volts are needed for the starter coil to pickup and 87.3 volts are available). Our review indicates that l

after correct!ng for the proper cable resistance on cable .

3HVRAOC004 the available voltage at the starter coil will be below the pickup value even when using the shorter cable lengths. The MCC degraded voltage of 428 Volts, per calculation NL-042 Rev. 2, CCN #5, is the available voltage considered.

Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: Crociistt, Ed. @ ] [ 11/13/97 VT Lead: Nei. Anthony ^ B O O $1/18/S7 VT Mgr: Schopfw, Don K B O O 2/ii97 1RC Chmn: Singn, Anand K B O O 12/4/97 Dese:

INVALID:

Date: 2/26/98 RESOLUTION Resolution: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0671, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The cable resistance of cable 3HVRAOC004 was indeed incorrectly transferred from revision 0 to CCNs 1 and 2 in calculation 230E. The cable length used in the calculation was based on actual field measurements versus the values used l Printed 3/1o/9610:1131 AM Page 1 of 5 l

l

[

f t

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0671 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

In the Cable and Raceway Program which are based on the 1 lengths shown on the cable pull tickets. The values shown on the cable pull tickets are the cable lengths of the cable as cut off the cable reel during pulling. These values are conservative but they do not account for excess cable at either end of the run which may be cut off at the time of termination. It is common practice, for circuits which may have voltage drop co 1cems, to use actual cable lengths in order to get a more accurate voltage drop value.

The actuallength of 3HVRAC004 has been field verified to be slightly less than 294 feet as used in the calculation and documented on the interoffice memo attached to calculatiort i 230E. The request on the memo is for actual cable lengths for i five cables and these actual lengths were provided in the memo response. This is the basis for using these values in the calculation and no further clarification is required.

The fact that there are some 480 volt and 120 volt devices which may not have adequate voltage under Degraded Voltage conditions has been previously identified and documen'ed in LER 97-010, CR M3-97-0119 and CR M3-97-0522. LER No.97-010 was issued as a result of CR No. M3-97-0119. This CR was written as result of the 10CFR50.54(f) assessment audit identifying that the 480V and 120V system calculations improper 1y evaluated circuit voltages for minimur,1 lnput MCC voltages.

The corrective action plan for CR No. M3-97-0119 provided for a number of modifications (see DCR No. M3-97030, attached) to improve the minimum voltages available at the 480V and 120V levels. Calculation 230E was revised by CCN No. 3, as a result of this DR, to correct the cable impedance error and further refine the key cable and wiring impedances and recognize an increase in the minimum MCC voltage from 428V to 436V because of design modifications (DCR No. M3-97030) as a result of CR M3-97-0119 and LER 97-010. The CCN show that adequate voltage is available to the contactor coll. The CCN demonstrates 86.1V available to the coil that requires 85.2V as a minimum.

The calculation assessment program did not find the input error in calculation 230E, as this would have only been found under a line-by-line verification. Because various measures such as changing tap settings on the 480 volt load center transformers have been completed and because of the existence of conservatism and marDin in the calculation, the discrepancy related to the caiculational error in calculation 230E is a significance level 4 discrepancy as the fan is capable of meeting l its design basis function, and the error is one of transposition that did not result in an unacceptable condition. {

1

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0671, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which {

requires correction. The cable resistance of cable 3HVRAOC004 was indeed incorrectly transferred from revision 0 to CCNs 1 and Printed 3/109610:11:35 AM Page 2 of 5

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0671 wiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report 2 in calculation 230E. The cable length used in the calculation was based on actual field measurements versus the values used in the Cable and Raceway Program 4.hich are based or the lengths show on the cable pull tickets. The actual length of 3HVRAC004 has been field verified to be less than 294 feet as used in the calculation and documented on the interoffice memo attached to calculation 230E. The request on the memo is for actual cable lengths for five cables and these actual lengths were provided in the memo response. This is the basis for using these values in the calculation and no further clarification is required.

The fact that there are some 480 vo!t and 120 voit devices which may not have adequate vol's0e under Degraded Voltage conditions has been previously identified and documented in LER 97-010, CR M3-97-0119 and CR M3-97-0522. LER No.97-010 was issued as a result of CR No. M3-97-0119. The corrective action plan for CR No. M3-97-0119 provided for a number of modifications to improve the minimum voltages available at the 480V and 120V levels. Calculation 230E was revised by CCN No. 3, as a result of this DR, to correct the cable impedance error and further refine the key cable and wiring impedances and recognize an increase in the minimum MCC voltage from 428V to 436V because of design modifications (DCR No, M3-97030) as a result of CR M3-97-0119 and LER 97-010. The CCN was able to demonstrate adequate voltage is available to the contactor coil. The CCN demonstrates 86.1V available to the coil that requires 85.2V as a minimum. Based on fan 3HVR*FN14A being capable of performing its design basis function, and the error being one of transposition that did not result in an unacceptable condition, this discrepancy should be a significance level 4.

Previously klontified by NU? O vos (e) No NonDiscrepentcondition?O Yes % No Resolut60n Pending?O vee @ No p -nunresoeved?O vos @ No Review inaistor: womer, L

1. ^

VT Leed: Nat, Anthony A ,

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Ntc Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 2/26/98 st.conenents: SL Comrnents: We have confirmed that degraded voltage condition issues were identified and documented in LER 97-010 (dated 2-28-97), CR M3-97-0119 (dated 1-3-97) and CR M3 0522 (dated 4-16-97).

We have reviewed the calculations and acknowledge the principal actions taken by NU which were to correct the transposed cable impedance in the calculation, reduce the lengths of some of the cables based on field measurements, and raise the minimum voltage of the motor control center to 436 Volts. CCN 10 to Calculation NL-038 confirms that the voltage at the motor control center is 436V under degraded volta 0e conditions. (See Duke Engineering & Services Calculation VN4500-F02-001, Revision 5, Printc4 3/109610:11:36 AM Pege 3 of 5

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP34671 umstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l page B2.)  !

However, based on the information provided we have incomplete data to concur with the conclusion that the issue defined in the D/R is acceptably analyzed. The issues that are open are:

1. Changing the taps on the unit substation transformers in order to raise the minimum voltage also raises the lightly loaded voltage on the same buses. Calculation NL-038, Rev. 2, CCN #7 was prepared to assess increasing the voltage on the 480V load centers during degraded grid conditions.

INPUT FROM DESIGN C.*TA:

Per Page 9 of DCR# M3-97-030, 'During elevated grid conditions j and/or the plant is in refuel outage, with fewer critical loads energized, the voltage could exceed the 105% maximum. This could cause accelerated aging / heating to the transformer and downstream components..."

Per Page 13 of DCR# M3-97-030, " Calculation NL-038, Rev. 2, CCN #7, concluded that with the tap change modihcations being done by this DCR, there is a chance of overvoltage on the 480V load centers when switchyard voltage is at or near the maximum expected voltage range. ABB 59N overvoltage relays will be added by this DCR to provide control room annunciator to signal the need to take compensatory action to prevent possible equipment damage from the overvoltage."

Operating Procedure 3353.MB88 indicates that if in MODE 5,6, l or 0, if Vital load center voltage is hip one of the following I actions is to be performed:

Cross tie affected load center Add additional load to the affected load center  !

Request CONVEX to lower grid voltage  ;

CONCERNS:

The unstated assumption in the DCR is that the only failure mode j associated with overvoltage is accelerated aging / heating to i

downstream components and that timely reduction of voltage is adequate to address the issue. This assumption has two weaknesses,1) the downstream components are not identified,2) there may be other failure modes associated with overvoltage, e.g., solid state components may actually fail.

Without an identification of the downstream components and an evaluation of the failure modes during overvoltage we could not confirm that raising the tap settings is acceptable.

2. The rated voltage of the typical General Electric CR120B control relay used for 42X is 115 volts not 120 volts as shown in the calculation cited for the impedana of this relay. The result of the lower coil voltage is a reduction in the relay impedance and an increase in the current drawn by the relav. While it is true that Printed 3/10/9610.11:36 AM Page 4 of 5 l

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0671 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report a 120 volt,60 Hz /110 volt, 50 Hz coil was availab'e, the most commonly used coil, the one rated 115 volt,60 Hz, is it'e one that was probably used.

1

( 3. The rated no load voltage of the control transformer is 128 i

volts with a 3% tolerance. However, the calculation assumed a base voltage of 120 volts, which is inconsistent with the transformer tums ratio. Using the proper base voltage increases l the impedance of the control transformer to 2.'.)97 + J 0.802 ohms compared to the value used in the calculation of 1.958 + J 0.749 ohms.

The use of these values (i.e., a contrul transformer base voltage of 128 V nnd a GE relay coil voltage rating of 115 V) in the calculation results in an inrush voltage of 85.1 volts or 70.9% of 120 volts across the contactor,42, and the associated auxiliary relay,42X. A minimum of 71% of 120 volts is required to pick up the contactor reliably. It should be noted that some minor impedances such as the resistance across closed contacts and that of the control circuit fuses weie not included or considered within the calculation. The inclusion 6.~ bese would lower the circuit voltages slightly.

Our review of the calculation indicates that the voltage required at the contactor will be fractionally below the minimum voltage required by the calculation. Without specific contactor test data to verify that the equipment will operate at the calculated vo'tage (71% of the coil rating is the minimum voltage allowed atd 70.9%

is calculated to be available) we cannot confirm that the n.inimum setpoint of 436V is adequate.

l Printed 3/104810:11:30 AM Page 5 of 5

i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0765  ;

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: Systwn DR RESOLUTION REJECTED l Review Element: System Design Diecipane: Electrical Desig" C. . , i Type: Calculation Om I ayetemProcese: N/A g I NRC Signinconce level: 3 Date FAXmi to NU:

Date Putiliehed 1/1098

"= :i. Documentation of Safety Related MCC and TOL settings Description.

Background:

Pa0e 8.3-24, Section 8.3.1.1.4 of the FSAR states:

The magnetic element setpoint must be greater than motor \

locked-rotor current but less than the thermal limit of the 4 overload heater.

l The contactor overload heaters for continuous duty safety related motors are selected well above rated motor nameplate i

fullload current....

Page 8.3-25, Section 8.3.1.1.4 of the FSAR states:

The nonmotor loads fed from these motor control centers are protected by molded case circuit breakers. These breakers are i

equipped with thermal elements to provide overload or low I current fault protection and magnetic elements to provide severe short circuit protection. The setting of the thermal element is selected above the circuit fullload current and the pickup of this l element is nonadjustable.

As part of the ICAVP review a request for clarification of Appendix J of SP-M3-EE-321 was issued. NU's response, M3-IRF-00740 states:

"... Currently TOLs and breaker trip settings are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-076, section 2, Appendix 2A. There is no j l one drawing or document where every TOL and breaker size is l located."

l Discussion:

l The FSAR states bounding conditions for setting molded case breakers and thermal overloads. SP-M3-EE-321 defines how to l set these breakers and overloads, but because we could not l locate documentation of the actual setting of the equipment we i could not confirm that the proper breakers and overloads settings i were, in fact, installed.

Our inability to confirm breaker sizes and settings also impacted a calculation review (Calculation No.12179-GM-60 .03-848CA) of the trip settings for the circuit breakers installed between 480V Swgr 32T Compt 32T4-2 and corresponding MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A.

Printed 3/1oS810:12:22 AM Pege 1 of 4 i

I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP Dit No. DR MP3-0765 millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '

Having confirmed that the proper time characteristic curve was used for the 480V MCC main feed breaker, we tried to confirm that the largest downstream MCC feeder breaker coordinates with the MCC main feed breaker.

The one line diagram for MCC 1 A1, Drawing EE-1 AK, Rev. 27 Note 5 states:

"The feeder breakers shown are Gould 100A frame type HE43.

The acceptable replacements for these breakers are Siemens 125A frame HED43 per R1E-95-0243. The drawing may not reflect the adual installed breaker frame. For the actual installed breaker, refer to PMMS and perform a field verification."

The drawing shows that there are 150A frame breakers installed in MCC1 A1. In a :cordance with note 5 a review was made of PMMS to try to verify the largest breaker within MCC 1 A1. No information was listed in PMMS with regard to the specific breaker types and sizes.

Conclusion:

There is presently no documentation available for confirming, and verifying the information against calculations, of the sizes and settings for the entire population (including the equipment within the scope of ICAVP review) of safety related molded case circuit breakers and TOLs. A program exists for incorporating the information into SP-EE-076, section 2, Appendix 2A, but the program only includes the 89-10 program MOV TOLs.  !

Review Vand Invand Needed Date intestor: womer, l. O $2ss7 O O  ;

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O $2/ss7 VT Mor: schopfer, Don K B D D '2tisis7 wtC Chmn: Sin 0h, Anand K O O O seseos Date:

IWAUD:

Date: 2/27/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0765, does not represent a discrepant condition. TOL and 4 breaker trip setting for continuous duty motors are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-076, Section 2, Appendix 2A.

MOV protection is controlled per the GL 89-10 Program by calculation MOV8910-01542E3 and associated DCNs posted against SP-M3-EE-321. The above specifications and calculation confirm and verify the entire population of class 1E motors.

While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time consuming and tedious, the settings and sizes can be determined and field verified. The cumbersome process does Printed 3/10s810:12:25 AM Page 2 or 4

l Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0765 l Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

not represent a discrepant condition.

Note 5 on drawing EE-1 AK says, "The feeder breakers shown are Gould 100A frame type HE43. The acceptable replacements for these breakers are Siemens 125A frame HED43 per RIE 0243. The drawing may not reflect the actual installed breaker frame. For the actual installed breaker, refer to PMMS and l perform a field verification." This note does not indicate that the largest breaker on the MCC is 125A or that 150A breakers are not used. The note was added under RIE-95-0243 to permit the replacement of 100A frame devices with its replacements which go to a 125A frame. The note attempts to avoid any possible error by saying,". .. refer to PMMS and perform a field verification". Nuclear indicators are the only QA fields within PMMS, hence the note also requires a field verification be done.

This does not represent a discrepant condition.

Calculation 12179GM-60-03.848CA does show the trip settings for the supply to MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A1. Curve 848CA plots the settings and shows coordination with the largest Motor Circuit Protector (MCP) on either MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A1 or 3EHS*MCC1B1.

Significance level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR- 1 I

MP3-0765, does not represent a discrepant condition. TOL and i breaker trip settings for continuous duty motors are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-076, Section 2, Appendix 2A. MOV protection is controlled per the GL 89-10 Program by calculation MOV8910-01542E3 and associated DCNs posted against SP-M3-EE-321. The above specifications and calculation confirm and l verify the entire population of class 1E motors. While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time consuming and tedious, the settings and sir.es can be determined and field verified. The cumbersome process does not represent a discrepant condition.

l l The note on EE-1 AK does not indicate that the largest breaker i on the MCC is 125A or that 150A breakers are not used. The note was added under RIE-95-0243 to permit the replacement of l 100A frame devices with its replacements which go to a 125A l frame. Nuclear indicators are the only QA fields within PMMS, hence the note also requires a field verification be done. This does not represent a discrepant condition.

Significance level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously klentined by NU? O Yo. (9) No Non Discrepent condition?O Yes (#) No Resolution Ponding?O v @ No R iution var ev.d?O v

• No moview Printed 3/1o98 to:12:27 AM Page 3 of 4

l I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-4765 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

)

initiator: womer. l. - MF: . Needed Date i VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O N VT Mgr: schopfer, Dori K O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 2/27/98 st.Commente? We concur that TOL and breaker trip settings for continuous duty motors are controlled by procedures. The concem defined in the discrepancy report is that there is no documented evidence that the procedures have been followed 100% of the time.

1 There have been numerous cases within the industry, as evidenced by various IE Notices, where verification of settings was not performed and devices were found that were not installed as defined by procedure.

For example:

1 IE Notice 98-03, Inadequate Verification of Overcurrent Trip Setpoints in Metal-Clad, Low-Voltage Circuit Breakers IE Notice 97-89, Reactor Trip Breakers and Surveillance Testing of Auxiliary Contacts IE Notice 95-15, Inadequate Logic Testing of Safety-Related Circuits Since there is precedence within the industry for installations which do not conform to design guides and even a DR written as part of this audit (DR 355 - addresses cable not installed per the design guide), we do not feel that the respnnse which states:

"While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time consuming and tedious, the settings and sizes can be determined and field verified", is adequate.

Note, in order to close DR-MP3-0846, this DR must be closed.

l i

Prtrded 3/104610;12:20 AM Page 4 of 4

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0925 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Confl0uration DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review CM system Design rueym=ie: Electricot Design gpg m Discrepency Type: Drawing Ow SysterWProcese: HVX gg NRC SignlHcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

l Date Published.1/18/96 r'-S 3 Miscellaneous Drawing Errors r=-. - The following design document (drawing) anomalies were noted i during the preparation for and conduct of system walkdowns

1. P&lD EM-148E, Rev.10 (Boundary Document Revision) indicates that the heater ele:nents within filter units 3HVR*FLT3A {

and B have control switches located on control room panel VP1.

These switches are not shown ori the elementary diagram (ESK-6AHB, Rev. 4), the vendor drawing (2170.430-065-070 Rev. C) nor on the control panel drawings. These switches were not observed on the Panel VP1.

2. The Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2) indicates a service function of " spare" for cables 3HVRAOC700 and 703, however the cable is not tagged with an asterisk ("*") indicating it is spare and the cable appears on circuit drawings as used.

3. The Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2) lists incorrect connection diagrams for the following cables:

3HVROX298,3HVRAOX252,3HVRBPX246, and 3HVRBPC215.

4. Drawing EE-12J Rev. 4, lists cable 3HVPCOC521 at junction box 3HVP*JB200 going toJunction box 3JB*8609. At junction box 3JB*8609 the cable is identified as 3HVPAOC521.

5. Drawing 3HVP-029B-1 Rev. 3 has cable 3HVPDPX220 shown twice. The cable at 3HVP*JB20B should be 3HVPBPX220.

6. Drawing EE-6AX, Rev. 4 shows both cable 3RMSNPC101 and 3RMSNPX420 with the same designator "G" at the terminal block / points. It is not feasible for two different cables to have the same intemal continuation desi0nator.

7. Drawin0 EE-18BF, Rev. 5 mwrectly shows cable 3HVRAOK010 at panel 3HVR*PNL-FLT-3A (correct number is 3HVRAOK011). Additionally, the drawings incorrectly shows cable 3HVRBPLO10 at panel 3HVR*PNL-FLT-38 (correct number is 3HVRBPLO11).

8. Conduit 3CX987NS8 is installed between equipment 3HVR*RlY10A AND 3HVR*RlY108. This conduit is routed completely within the Auxiliary building at elevation 66'-6". The Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2) manual indicates that conduits with numbers in the range of 986 to 989 (i.e., this conduit) are located in the Main Steam Valve Building. This conduit number appear to violate the number standards.

'= E= hkof3 Pttnted 3/10/9610:13:31 AM

F Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3 0925 ,

Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l l

l one of the connection diagrams for cable 3RMSNNX638 is "68F

• the correct reference is "6BF."

10. Connection Diagram EE-12BJ, Rev. 7 incorrectly identifies l the cables enteting Junction box 3JB*2015 as 3HVRCAOC503 and 504. The correct numbers are 3HVRAOC503 and 504.

l l

11. P&lD EM148B Rev.13 (Boundary Document Revision) indicates that temperature switches TIS-109A, B, and C are indicating (i.e., temperature indicating switches that provide local Indication). Field verification verified that these switches do have local indication and therefore the installation is consistent with the P&lD. These instruments were found to have both TS and TIS ta0s. The TS tag is used on the loop and layout drawings as well as in the Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2). This use of the TS is consistent with the fenction and these drawin0s. However, the vendor drawing,2472.900-609-

, 099 Rev. B, identifies the instruments as "TS"s only and fails to I

show that the instrument also carries the TIS tag.; it is noted that the description does reveal that it is indicating.

Review vand invand Needed Date initiator: Server, T. L G O O inv9e VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A G O O 1/5S8 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 1/12/96 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Q Q Q 1/1498 Date:

IsWAUD:

Dele: 3/4/98 ,

REsOLUTloN Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0925, has 4 identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which  !

requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-On i has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0925, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0971 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

. ../ M;identtRed try NU? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (#) No mee.mne O r Y= @ No neemuon ur =*ed70 Y= @ No Printed 3/1Q9610:13.34 AM '"'* Page 2 of 3

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 0926 umstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report nevmw R. Wh Not Acceldable Needed Date VT Leed: Nort, Anthony A O N VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 3/4/98 st comments: Item 1: S&L's opinion is that this item does not meet the deferral criteria for " Operations Critical Drawings" as defined in the Project Instructions PI-MP3-11, Attachment 6.9. The handswitch shown on P&lD EM-148E "may . . mislead the user".

Items 2 - 11: S&L agrees with NU's response.

Printed 3/109610:13:36 AM Page 3 of 3

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Revieworaup connpration DR REsOWDoN REJECTED D@: Elowical Desig" PotentialOperatnlity leeue E- --

. -.;i Type: Instellation implementation O vos eyetemrProcese: Hvx gg NRC Significanceinvol: 4 Dele faxed to NU:

Date Putdished 1/18/96

-i: Conduit Installation not in accordance with design drawings E .

The following differences between the Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2), Conduit Support Logs (CSLs), and the ,

installed condition were noted during the preparation of walkdown packages. Installation discrepancies with grounding requirements of the ElectricalInstallation Specification E350, Rev. 9 were also noted.

1, CSL 12179-FSK-AB-5558, Rev. 2D lists conduit 3CX1060F8 as supported from this support. TSO2 does not list this conduit for this support.

2. CSL 12179-FSK-AB-2609, Rev. 3 lists conduit 3CX23ONG as supported from this support. TSO2 does not list this conduit for this support. Further the character before the N has a slash through it indicating it is an "O" not a zero. This makes the format of the number wrong and invalid. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CK8600E3 has four supports; based on filed observation, the conduit has two.

3. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CK8620B is 12 feet long; based on field observation it is actually 12 inches (1 foot).

4. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CX9260F1 is support by 9 supports. Field obsarvation revealed 11 supports for this conduit.

5. TSO2, based on the material mark number, indicates conduits 9CC9260C1, 9CC9260C3, 9CC8640A1, 9CC8640A2, 9CC864PB, 9CC864PB1, 9CC8600A1, 9CC860A2 9CC8640A3, 9CC860PA1, 9CC860PA2, 9CC860PA3, 9CC8600A6 are rigid aluminum. Contrary to this, the field observed installed conduits are flex.

6. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC8640A1 is supported by seven supports. This conduit was field observed to be attached to 8.

7. TSO2 ' indicates conduit 3C1190A is rigid aluminum. Rigid steelwas found installed.

S. TSO2 indicates conduit 3C1190E is a rigid conduit; flexiL s conduit was observed installed.

9. TSO2 indicates conduit 3C1060A is a rigia conduit; flexibk conduit was observed installed.

10. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC157PA is supported by 4 supports. Only two supports were observed in the field.

, 11. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC131PK is rigid; flexible conduit l was observed installed.

I

12. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL933PP is 151 feet long, the

( installed length is closer to 18 feet.

I 13. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL103PB is rigid and 50 feet long.

The cor%it was observed as flex and no more than 10 feet.

14. TSO2 indicstes conduit 3CL113PB is rigid, installed as flex.

l 15. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL113PD is rigid, installed as flex.

(ww A. Te#%81. f A * --...____..am,..--, d. .:a 81/*. wi f.4, 4, 812, la  ! me . it 4 nm #I n u

-ve w 3,14, ,,ma,n!A,p,,,=__._.._ ,

1 Noreiesst utsties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

17. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL10508 is aluminum; steel was observed installed.

18. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL201PB1 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 inches of slack required by specification E350.

19. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL201PB3 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no l supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3

inches of slack required by specification E350 1

20. TSO2 indicates conduit 3Ct.201PB4 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no l l supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 l inches of slack required by specificaticn E350

21. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL201PB5 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 l

inches of slack required by specification E350

22. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC2070F is supported by 11 supports. Field observation noted 14 supports on conduit.

23. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL2000B7 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 inches of slack required by specification E350

24. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL200008 is rigid steel with a single support. The observed conduit is flex and has no supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 inches of slack required by specification E350

25. TSO2 indicates that conduit 9CC207009 is supported by to supports; field observation revealed three supports for this

! conduit.

l 26. TSO2 indicates conduit 9CC934PA4 has two supports; field

! observation identified only one.

27. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC934PA2 has five supports; field observation identified only four.

28. TSO2 indicates the length of conduit 9CC934PC3 is 3 feet; field observation revealed conduit is approximately 15 feet.

29. TSO2 indicate conduit 9CC2070F7 has no supports; field i observation revealed the conduit supported with one support. i

30. TSO2 indicate conduit 9CC202PV has no supports; field l observation revealed the conduit supported with one support  !

31. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC139PB is supported by four l supports; field observation identified three.

32. TSO2 indicates that conduit 9CC933PBS is support by one support; field observation revealed conduit supported by three supports

33. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC934PC is supported by two supports; field cbservation revealed one.

34. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC934PS is supported by 4 supports; field observation revealed 2..

35. TSO2 ind6 cates conduit 2CC202OR has no supports; field l observation reveal a single support.

36. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC945PD is supported by 21 supports; 18 supports observed as installed.

37. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC9350P is supported by two suDDorts: field observation revealed three support for this conduit.

PrNed3/109610:14:11 AM Page 2 or 4 I

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N:. DR4P3-0928 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

38. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC935PG is supported by one support; field observation revealed no supports.

l 39. TSO2 listed 3 supports for conduit 3CC202PU; field

) observation revealed five supports for this condult.

l

40. TSO2 indicates that Conduit 3CC1060K has two supports; field observation reveled one.

41. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CX1060R5 is has 21 supports; field observation revealed 18.

i

42. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC133PA2 has no supports. Field observation of this 20 foot conduit is supported by three supports

43. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC143PD has 3 supports; field observation revealed 2.

44. TSO2 indicates that conduit 9CC233NTS is 18 feet long; field observation verified the conduit as 18 inches long.

45. Conduits 3CC2070L3 and L2 are shown in tso2 as 6 feet in length; field observation revealed conduit is 6 inches. TSO2 list l 2 supports for this L3 and 1 for L2; none were observed as installed.

46. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC2070H3 has 5 supports; field observation revealed 1.

47. TSO2 indicate conduit 3CC1060K has 2 supports; 1 observed installed.

48. TSO2 listed 2 supports for conduit 3CC207PM1, however only 1 is installed.

l

49. TSO2 listed 2 supports for conduit 3CC207PM2, however  !

only 1 is installed. I

50. TSO2 list 4 supports for conduit 3CC133PA5; 2 obserad as installed.

Review  !

Vaud invaud Needed Date j eniciator: senw, T. L 8 O O $2/30/97 VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A B O O 12/31/97 VT Mgr: schopper, Don K B O O 5/12/es wic chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 1/15/S8 oste:

INVAUD:

osee: 3/4/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0928, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concerns and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0968 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

.%.'diidentified by NU7 O Yee @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No RemdutionPending70 vos @ No R-aan uareeoived70 Yee @ No j ****

~

l Initiator: Kisie, N ' '

VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A

~

~

O O Printed 3/109610:14.13 Asd Page 3 or 4

Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

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

Date:

O O O 3/4/98 sL Comnents: Adequacy of the supports for the additional loads needs to be verified prior to start-up.

l 1

)

I PrHed 3f109610:14:15 AM Page 4 of 4

Norther.st Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0942 Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report nevieworoup conneursson DR RESOUmoN REJECTED ReviewElement systeminelehbon Diecipane: Electrical Design

" . -i Type: Drewing Om Systemprocess: DGX @h NRC Signiacencelevel: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/1898 Descrepency: Differences between approved design documents and installed tray supports

Description:

The following items were noted in the review of documentation for the walkdown of tray supports as part of the systems walkdowns.

1. CCD F-E-06385 adds conduit to a tray support type C220 but is unclear which support is actually modified. (this was discovered in the review of support C220-078 shem on drawing E-34KC, Rev. 3, which was included as part of the detail review sample.). There is no key plan in this FE to show locations of

any supports. The document also states that the proposed conduit addition to the tray support is not approved as of the document date. It also states approval of the supports will come  ;

later. The approval status of the proposed design and its applicability is indeterminate based on these documents and the ]

open change documents for the drswings.

2. CCD F-E-4106g adds conduit supports to tray hangers C-052 and C-057 and lists drawing EE-34KD Rev. 4 as an affected document. Grits also lists F-E-4106g as an open (unincorporated) document against drawing EE-34KD Rev. 4.

However, tray hangers types C-052 and C-057 are on drawing EE-34LK Rev. 5. Grits does not list F-E-4106g as an open document against drawing EE-34LK Rev. 5.

i

3. The following FEs add conduit to existing tray hangers: F-E-16414, F-E 25718, F-E-16574,F-E-35143, F-E-35338, and F-E-35542. Tray hanger C166A-153 is impacted by these additions. l This hanger is on detail drawing EE-34U Rev. 7. However, none of the F-E documents listed show drawing EE-34U Rev. 7 as an affected document and Grits does not show any of the listed F-E documents as open against drawing EE-34U Rev. 7.

4. CCD F-E-35143 shows ten 2",'one 3", five 4" and two 5" diameter conduits attached to tray hangers C166A-153, C011- 1 155, and C011-156 (Reference Drawing EE-34U - Rev. 7).

However, it does not show the actual orientation of the conduit by size on the tray hangers. The positioning and therefore load distribution in unknown.

l 5. Field walkdown of sample support C226-156 (Reference l Drawing Ci41KD - Rev. 4) found the following attachments with no change control documentation providing description or approval of such attachments:

- Twelve-inch cantilever 'W" with item "X" spanning south at

.nnmeu .i.u.unn n.1n w Printed 3/109810:14:41 AM Page 1 or 4

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR MP3-0942 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

- Four 12" cantilever "W" struts with item "X" strut spanning north (four outer cable supports) at approximate elevation 38'-0",

39'-10", 41'-9" and 44'-0"

- Item "W" strut spans south at approximate elevation 43'-0" supporting two 3" conduits (3CX490NB, 3CX490NC).

- ltem "AL)" strut spans south at approximate elevation 42'-9" supporting three 2" conduits.

- ltem "W" strut spans south at approximate elevation 41'-9" supporting one 2" conduit.

- Three-inch conduit 3CX4170B runs north / south at approximate elevation 38'-6" with Sil-temp when crossing trays 3TC427P and 3TC450P

6. Field walkdown of sample support C258-216 (Reference i Drawing) EE-34KH - Rev. 2) found the following attachment with I no installation documentation. Twelve-inch cantilever "W" strut type with item "X" strut types spans east at approximate elevation 39'-0".

7. Field walkdown of sample support C274-268 (reference Drawing EE-34KK - Rev. 3) found the following attachments with '

no installation documentation:

Five cable support type item "X" struts span north at approximate elevation 35'-9", 37'-2", 39'-9", 41'-0" and 42'-8" item "X" strut spans north at approximate elevation 42'-6".

Two item "X" struts span south at approximate elevation l 39'-0" and 40'-6".  ;

Three dummy members - item "W"- are installed between the vertical legs at approximate elevation 39'-10",41'-2" and 42*-

6".

8. Field walkdown of sample support C279-281 (Reference ]

Drawing EE-34KK - Rev. 3) found the bottom horizontal mentNr has been removed and the verticallegs trimmed to suit. No j documentation has been found to authorize this change.

9. Field walkdown of sample support C292 237 (Reference Drawing EE-34KM - Rev. 4) found one 5" conduit (3CC516NJ) and one 4" conduit (3CC516NG) supported from horizontal member at approximate elevation 30'-6". No documentation has been found to install these conduits. F-E-15020 authorizes two 4" and one 3" conduit to be supported (CB-983) from the bottom horizontal member. However, these three conduits were not found during the walkdown.

10. Field walkdown of sample support C305-121 (Reference Drawing EE-34KP - Rev. 4) found the following attachments with no installation documentation:

Printed 3/10/9610:14.43 AM Page 2 of 4

1 Northeist Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0942 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

-- Cable support cantilever item "W" strut with item "X" strut spanning east at approximate elevation 41'-6" Six item "W" cantilevers on north leg - five have one item "X" strut spanning either east or west. Top cantilever has two item "X" struts, one spanning east and one spanning west. Item "W" lengths vary from 6" to 12".

l

11. Field walkdown of sample support C309-194 (Reference Drawing EE-34KP - Rev. 4) found the following attachments with no installation documentation: Six 9" cantilever item "W" struts with item "X" struts spanning east and west attemately; and Junction box 3FPA-JD88 is mounted to the vertical leg.

12. Field walkdown of sample support C325-107 (Reference Drawing EE-34KQ - Rev. 3) found the following attachment with no installation documentation: three cable support item "X" struts spanning east at approximate elevation 37'-2",35'-10" and 34'-8".

13. Field walkdown of sample support C342-094 (reference Drawing EE-34KS - Rev. 2) found the following attachments with no installation documentation:

Horizontal member No. 9 (from top) has two 4" conduits (CB-976A) and horizontal No.10 has four 52 conduits (CB-g768). However, F-E-15020 shows four 4" and two 5" conduits J

supported by horizontal No.10 and No.11 (CB-978).

Four cantilever item "W" struts with item "X" strut spanning east at approximate elevation 39'-10",38'-8",35'-10" and 33'-2".

On east vertical leg, above the top riser attachment member, is a similar member to support two 4' conduits (3CC446PA, 3CC446PB) and one 1 1/2" conduit (3CC436PA).

14. Field walkdown of sample support C120-173 (reference drawing EE-34LG - Rev. 4) found Conduit Support CB-1356 for conduit 3CC4460H mounted on embed between the fourth and fifth (from top) horizontal member. The evaluation / approval (previously observed for other supports via an FE) of the impact of the additional loads from the conduit support on the tray support due to the attachment to a common embed could not be located.

Review Vand invand Needed Date i Initiator: sever, T. L 8 O O $5S8 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B D D 1*S8 VT Mgr: schopter, Don K S O O iii2rse IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O $/1'S8 Date:

INVALID:

Printed 3/109610:14:45 AM Page 3 of 4

I Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3 4942 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report oste: 3/5/98 RESOLUnoN NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0942, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010.11 has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0068 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Previously identined by Nu? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Radution Peding?O va @ No p%unr av.dro v. @ No Review initiator: Kleic, N Dde VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O =

VT Mor: Schopfw, Don K O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O =

oste:

0 3/5/98 st Comments: Adequacy of the tray supports for the additional loads and/or configuration chan9es needs to be verified prior to start - up.

l l

l l

t Printed 3/10/9610:14:47 AM Page 4 of 4

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 4998 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oraup: Syelem DR RESOWTION REJECTED

'# 8*

• Potentief Operabiky luue Diecipune:I a C Design C:n , uyType: Drewing g

SystemProcese: SWP Om NRC C=s level:3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putdisind. 2/5/96 th . Ty: Conflict between LSK-9-10L, Rev 4 and FSAR Section 9.2.1.3 Descripeton: 3WTC-SOV25A2 is identified on logic diagram LSK-9-10L, Rev 4 and P&lD EM-133C-16 as a non-safety related component.

The valve is located in the instrument air supply line between safety related solenoid valve 3WTC*SOV25A1 and the diaphragm operator of safety related air operated valve 3WTC*AOV25A. Since 3WTC-SOV25A2 is non-safety related, 1 it cannot be assumed that the valve would either remain as-is or I fail in a safe position in the event of an accident. Therefore, if it is postulated that the air path through the "A" port of 3WTC-SOV25A2 is blocked, it would prevent 3WTC*AOV25A from closing. In addition, if it is also postulated that a single failure of i 3WTC*AOV258 prevents it from closing, it is conceivable that the path between the safety related portion of the service water system and the non-safety related portion (chemical feed ,

clorination system) would not be isolated upon receipt of a CDA '

signal. This conflicts with the requirement to provide isolation as stated in FSAR section 9.2.1.3, Safety Evaluation. This potential design deficiency could impact the ability of the service water system to provide adequate flow to various safety related components.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Pineias, H.

B O O 1r23/9e VT Land: Neri, Anthony A B O O ti24/se VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 1/2e/es IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 1r27/se i Date:

INVALID:

Dese: 2/18/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0998, does not represent a discrepant condition. The fact that SOV 3WTC-SOV25A2 is non-QA is of no consequence.

In the event that non-QA SOV 3WTC-SOV25A2 falls, AOV 3WTC*AOV25A will still fail closed by venting through QA SOV 3WTC*SOV25A1. Should QA SOV 3WTC*SOV25A1 fall et the same time , preventing closure of AOV 3WTC*AOV254, redundant AOV 3WTC*AOV258 would close providing isolation of the safety related portion of the Sevice Water System from the non-safety related portion upon receipt of the of a Containment Deprest,urization Accident (CDA) signal.A single failure of two separate QA components is not a credible failure scenario. A credible failure scenario for this situation would be for one of the two QA isolation valves, positioned in series, to fail Pnntert 3/10/9610:15:44 AM Peps 1 of 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0998 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report to close leaving the other isolation valve available to close and isolate the safety related portion of the Service Water System from non-safety related portion, upon receipt of CDA signal.

AOVs 3WTC*AOV25A and 3WTC*AOV25B are redundant. The failure of one of AOV will always leave the other AOV available for isolation upon receipt of a CDA signal. Therefore, this item is not a discrepant. Significance Level criteria do not apply nere as this is not a discrepant condition.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0998, does not represent a discrepant condition.The failure of non-QA SOV 3WTC-SOV25A2 is of no consequence bocause AOV 3WTC*AOV25A will still fall closed by venting through QA SOV 3WTC*SOV25A1.The single failure of one of two redundant AOVs will always leave the other available for isolation of the safety related portion of the Service Water System from the non-safety related portion, upon receipt of a Containment Depressurization Accident signal. Therefore, this item is not a discrepant. Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes IO) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (#) No ResolutionPending?O va @ No P% Unresolved?O va @ No

^"

Review A= Not ace.ps ha=

, Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

O B O -

2/18/98 sL comments: Non-quality /non-safety components can fail in any condition, any time, and cannot be taken credit for performing a safety function.

It is therefore postulated that 3WTC-SOV25A2 can block the release of air from the actuator of 3WTC*AOV25A at the time when 3WTC*AOV258 fails to close when demanded by a CDA signal. The non-safety portion of the piping would not be isolated from the safety portion, and flow required for safety-related loads would be reduced.

Pnnled 3/109610:15:48 AM Page 2 of 2 1

I

Northeast UtWties ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1010 umstorm unit s Discrepancy Report l

RevisW O'*MP: System DR RE8oWTIoN REJECTED Review Element: System Design l P: Mechanical Dealo" Discrepncy Type: NW Om SystemProcese: NEW g

NRc Signiacence imi: 4 Date faxed to NU:

l DatePuhushed 2mse

,: Appropriate Calculation Change Notices are not consistently being referenced.

Description:

Calculations are being referenced without the Current Calculation Change Notices (CCN's) included in the reference. This DR reports a programmatic issue rather than a technical discrepancy.

This discrepancy applies to calculations97-041,97-035 and 97-ENG-01427D3 with a sample of the problems this creates as follows:

Calculation 97-041 was written on 8/13/1997 (by Proto Power) and approved by NU on 9/1/1997. This calc. references

calculation 90-0691065M3 Rev. O when CCN's up to #4 were approved by 5/30/1997 and should have been referenced accordingly. This calc. also referenced calculation 90-069-1130M3 Rev. O. CCN #3 is later refered to in this calculation tud is not so referenced.

i Vend invend Needed Date inmaster: Dionne,8. J.

8 O O 2/2res VT Laod: Nort, Anthony A B O O 2/2/se VTIngr: Schopror DonK B D D 2/2/es IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O 2tsee Date:

INVAUD:

Date: 3/3/98 RESoWTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1010, has  :

identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the crneria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per US PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0967 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4;

Conclusion:

i NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1010, has l identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which I requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 crNeria and found to have no operability or reportability I concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0967 Printed 3/10S810:21:37 AM Pepe 1 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. OR-MP3-1010 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

. ... #;identmed by NU? O Yes (S) No Non Dioctopent Condition?O Yes (S) No n swi Penans?O Yee @ No r e unroe m ed7 0 Yee @ No n.*w Initiator: Dionne, B. J.

l I VT Lead: Norf, Anthony A O =

VT ugr: Schopfer, Don K RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dele: 3/3/98 st.Commente: The disposition of this requirement does not outline or identify how the appropriate documents will be referenced or tracked.

There is no reference to NU procedures as to how the CCN's posted against calculations referenced as design inputs will be tracked along with the calculation revision.

l Printed 3/1o9610:21:41 AM Page 2 of 2

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0447 ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR INVAUD PotentialOperetsity lseue Diecipune: Mechanical Dwign Discrepancy Type: Uoensing Documwt O Y=

systemGrocess: DGX g

NRC W W 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Putmehed asse r . ii. EDG Starting Air System Design Basis )

l Descripteen: FSAR Section 9.5.6 states that "The air start system (both systems operating in parallel) shall be able to crank the diesel engine, to manufacturer's recommended RPM and enable the generator to reach voltage and frequency and begin load sequencing within 11 seconds, from the low alarm setpoint of 350 psig." The procurement specification 2447.300-241 (section 15.47 thru 15.50) defines this requirement as 375 psig. The correct pressure setting should be updated in the FSAR.

Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-442 Review Vaud inveEd Needed Date initiator: Homestman, R.

D 9 0 1/2 ares VT Land: Neri, Anthony A O O O 1ross VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O O O 3r2res IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O  ;

Date: 1/16/98 l lNVAUD: The result of our review shows that both set pressures (350 psig l In the FSAR and 375 in the specification) are for performing i different functions. The EDG starting air system is provided with l

two sets of pressure switch. Pressure switch i 3EGS*PS28A1/A2/B1/B2 is for actuatir g the low pressure alarm when pressure is 350 psig decreasing and pressure switch 3EGS-PS22A1/A2/B1/B2 for starting the air compressor at 375 psig decreasing and stopping at 425 psig increasing. Therefore, both set pressures quoted in each document are correct and no correction to the setting in the FSAR shall be required.

Date:

RESOLUTION.

M/r";identNied by NU7 U Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (G) No R.e.iunonPenenetO va @= munr=*edrO va @ No R. vie.

n:- Not w . - N d.d Det.

VT Land: Neri, Anthaty A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: Singh, As and K Date:

st Comments:

Printed 3r10Se 10:22:19 AM Pepe 1 of 1 1

i l

Northecst Utilities ICAVP DR NS. DR MP3-1041 4 milistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review oroup: system DRINVAUD Review Element: Correctwe Achon Process Diecipune: Ia C Dmion r+- ~ :i Type: CorrectNo Action implementation O vee SystemProcese: NEW g

NRC signenconce inel: 4 Date faxed to NU:

DatePutdiohed 3/9/De h i; Inadequate technical closure of ACR M3-96-0506

Description:

ACR M3-96-0506 reported a condition which allows the RHS Pump Trip on LO-LO Level setpoint to be adjusted to a value that is below the desired analytical value for RWST Level i Switches 3QSS*t.S54A/B/C/D. Two DRs (DR-MP3-0266 and j 0373), which document the inadequacy of the process setpoint I value associated with these level switches, were issued as a i result of a technical review of the associated setpoint calculations.

Review Vaud invalid Needed Date initiator: Reed,Wilhem.

O O O 3/3/9e VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A O O O 3/4/9e VT Mer: Schopfer, Don K O O 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K Q Q Date: 3/3/96 INVAUD: The two DRs (DR-MP3-0266 and DR-MP3-0373) written to document the inadaquacy of the process setpoint values associated with these level switches sufficiently describe the technical discrepancy: this DR is redundant and not necessary.

Date:

RESOLUTION Previously identined by NU7 O Yes (G) No NonDiscrepentCondition?O Yes (80 No Resolut6onPending?O va @ No R=*nonUnr d70 va @ No Review

^r ^

, Not F= i' Needed Date VT Leed: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K I 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Dele:

SL Commente:

Printed 3/109610:23:07 AM Page 1 of 1

_J