Text

Forwards Discrepancy Repts (Drs) Identified During Review Activities for ICAVP
	ML20247K013
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	05/18/1998
From:	Schopfer D; SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	9583-100, NUDOCS 9805210461
	Download: ML20247K013 (56)
	v • d • e

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

f l

l Sar gerit! E. Lundy " c )

l w 4 .

I

}hj[

7 l

Don K. Schopler Senior Vice President 312-269-6078 MaY 18' 1998 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 l

l l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

! Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 j

< Independent Corrective Action Verification Program i <

! United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 j i have enclosed the following discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our reiiew activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.

I l I have enclosed the following twenty (20) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been resiewd and )

l accepted by S&L. ;

i l DR No. DP. MP3-0247 DR No. DR-MP3-0879 DR No. DR-MP3-0366 DR No. DR-MP3-0928 DR No. DR-MP3-0483 DR No. DR-MP3-0930 j DR No. DR-MP3-0485 DR No. DR-MP3-0933 j DR No. DR-MP3-0545 DR No. DR-MP3-0938 l DR No. DR-MP3-0552 DR No. DR-MP3-0940 DR No. DR-MP3-0555 DR No. DR-MP3-0974 l DR No. DR-MP3-0647 DR No. DR-MP3-1061 DR No. DR-MP3-0873 DR No. DR-MP3-1089 l DR No. DR-MP3-0874 DR No. DR-MP3-1090 -

Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

l l Yours very truly, t 1 h C ~

f[2hkf P

23 Sen orVice President and ICAVP Manager DKS:spr En~losures Copics:

E. Imbro (1/l) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight OD T. Concannon (1/l) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU' mNcavgicorA9Tew0$18a. doc

! 55 East Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA + 312-269-2000 f

L_ __ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - . . _ . - - _ _ . _ - . - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - _ - . - - - - . - - - - - - - -

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0247 l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Con.,guraten DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operabil6ty issue l Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Drawing Om SystemProcess: SWP g

NRC Significance level: 4 Da's faxed to NU: l Date Published: 9/29/97 Discrepancy: Difference in Material Type Between TS02 and Conduit Support Log Descriswlon: Conduits 3CC931PA2 and 3CC931PA3 are shown on Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK-AB-2237, Rev.3A as rigid steel. TSO2 shows these as rigid Aluminum.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initis x: sarver, T. L.

8 O O S/17/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O S/ 8'S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K

@ O O 9/22/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K 8 O O 9/25/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

{

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0247, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Substitution of steel conduit for aluminum conduit is allowed by plant specification 2400.000-350 section 3.1.3.1, without the need to updated the raceway program. The plant Specification for Electrical Installation (E350) used by NU states the following in section 3.1.3.1: "The Contractor shall be permitted to substitute rigid steel conduit in lieu of rigid aluminum conduit (conduit support logs, if applicable, shall reflect the change.) .

The drawing and raceway ticket shall not be revised to reflect the above mentioned substitutions."

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

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0247, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Substitution of steel conduit for aluminum conduit is allowed by plant specification 2400.000-350 section 3.1.3.1, without the need to updated the raceway program.

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

SECOND RESPONSE:

Printed 5/18/9810:35:25 AM Page 1 of 2 L__ _ _____._______._________________________o

i Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP34247 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NL' has concluded that this issue reported in Discrepancy i Report. DR-MP3-0247, has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. {

l This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability i concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria.

The installation is in accordance with approved design i documents. The corresponding conduit suports have been qualified for the increased loading from the steel conduit. This discrepancy is limited to updating the main frame data base, l which has no safety significance. CR M3-98-2216 was closed to !

Bin CR M3-98-0137. The corrective actions of CR M3-98-0137 will correct the drawing deficiency post startup.There is no affect on License or Design Basis.

Previously identl3ed by Nu? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (89 No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Re.oiution unre.oived?O Ye. @ No Review initiator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K l 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 SL Comments:

Whereas it is an acceptable practice to allow the substitution of i steel for aluminum and vice versa without the re-issue of the !

raceway installation ticket as described in the response as allowed by the installation specification, it is not believed that it was expected that the Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2) would not be updated. TSO2 is a design document that is used to track raceway information. Furthermore, TSO2 performs calculation in the form of installed raceway weight per foot which is based on the installed commodity type. Therefore, if the commodity material type is not correct, then the calculated values are not correct and any analysis performed using this data from TSO2 is invalidated due to erroneous input data. If this data is not used in any analysis it should not be included in a design document given its un-reliability and the potential for application of incorrect information.

Therefore, this discrepancy is re-affirmed.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concurs with NU's disposition that the discrepancy involves administrative issue and can be addressed post startup.

l l

l Printed 5/18/9810:35:29 AM Page 2 of 2

Northe=t Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0366 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Elemant: system Design Discipline: Piping Design Discrepancy Type: Calculat6on SystenVProcess: sWP g

NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 10/1FJ97 q Discrepancy: Density of Fiberglass (J) insulation used in stress analysis is inconsistent with cited reference Descriphon: In the proess of reviewing the following documents, (i) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X1900 Rev. 3 CCN's 1 to 3 (ii) Pipe Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-X53900, Rev. 5 we noted the following discrepancy: l In pipe stress analysis calculations (i) and (ii), the density of Fiberglass insulation Type - J is specified for some lines as 4 ,

Ibs/cft, and for others as 5.25 lbs/cft. According to the reference l cited ln the calculations, the density should be 5.25 lbs/cft. No '

justification is provided for the use of the lower (4 lbs/cft) density.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date j initiator: Prakash, A.

O O O ia2/97 !

VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A B O O 10/x87 )

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 10/1

7 l

lRc Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 10/14/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: First Response ID: M3-IRF-01010 Disposition:

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. The use of 4 lbs/cu.ft. as opposed to 5.25 lbs/ cu ft for J-type fiberglass insulation does not represent a discrepant condition. The use of 4 lbs/cu ft is the generic minimum of J-type fiberglass insulation (See " Specification for General Thermal Insulation - M921", Transmitted in Transmittal 52 on 7/8/97 ). This generic minimum was used universally until I 5/15/84 when a specification was obtained for J-type insulation (

Ref inter-Office Memo from J.E. Woods to G. Milley dated 5/3/84 ) that specified the density of J-type fibergalss insulation as 5.25 lbs/cu ft. Subsequently, when NP(B)-X1900 and NP(B)-

X53900 were revised, the new density was used to perform the stress analysis on the length of affected pipe in accordance with the direction provided in Inter-Office Memo from P.Gopal and R.

Bain to General distribution. Additionally, calculation 79-236-l 921GP Rev. O dated 11/12/87 addresses insulation weight l effects and envelopes the above condition.

Printed 5/18/9610:38:19 AM Page 1 of 3

i l

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0366 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

l Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a )

discrepant condition. l l

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. As detailed in the disposition, the use of 4 lbs/cu ft as the density of J-type fiberglass insulation is the generic minimum density of J-type ,

fiberglass insulation specifif d in the Specification for General ;

Thermal Insulation -M921. This generic minimum was used l universally until 5/15/84 when a specification was obtained for J- J type insulation that specified the density of J-type fibergalss insulation as 5.25 lbs/cu ft Significance level criteria do not apply ,

as this is not a discrepant condition.

Attachment

References:

1) Inter-Office Memo from J.E. Woods to G. Milley dated 5/3/84 (2 pages)

2) Inter-Office Memo From P, Gopal and R. Bain dated 6/15/84 (

1 page )

3) Calculation 79-236-921GP Rev. O dated 11/12/87 ( 15 pages )

I Second Response ID: M3-IRF-02162 Disposition:

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. The reference to the 'old' density value of 4 LB / cu ft for type J insulation is deemed appropriate in instances where the segment of piping has not been re-evaluated. The need to not update the calculation is consistent with NRC endorsed NClG-05 " Guidelines for Piping System Reconciliation" which indicates that weight changes within 20 percent of the analyzed weight do not require reanalysis. The weight adjustments for calculations X1900 and X53900 are all well within this 20 percent criteria. NU's policy is to revise the stress calculations on a segment by segment basis as re-evaluation / re-analysis is required, but not to backfit the analysis across the board to address minor changes. This policy ensures consistency l between the specifications, calculations, and the plant.

Significance level criteria does not apply as these issues are not discrepant conditions.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0366 does not represent a discrepant condition. The reference to the 'old' density value of 4 LB / cu ft for type J insulation is deemed appropriate in instances where the segment of piping has not been re-evaluated. The need to not update the calculation is consistent with NRC endorsed NCIG-05 " Guidelines for Pipina Prhted 5/18/9610.38:22 AM Page 2 of 3 L_______________..__.._.__ _ . . _ . _ . - -

l N:sthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR NS. DR-MP3-0366 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report System Reconciliation" which indicates that weight changes within 20 percent of the analyzed weight do not require reanalysis.

Significance level criteria does not apply as these issues are not l discrepant conditions. !

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?(#) Yes O No l

Resolution Pending?O Yee @ No Re.oiution uare.oived?O ve. @ No Review '

^## * **

initiator: Prakash, A.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 SL Comments: First Response-Current revisions of calculations NP(B)-X1900 and NP(B)-X53900 still show the 'old' density value of 4 lb/cu ft in the ' Piping Data' for some pipe segments. Therefore, we still consider this as a Significance Level 4 discrepancy.

Second Response:

We concur with NU's justification that the need to not update the calculation is consistent with NRC endorsed NCIG 05 " Guidelines ,

for Piping System Reconciliation" which indicates that weight I changes within 20 percent of the analyzed weight do not require l reanalysis.

l I

l l

Printed S/18Tes 10:38:23 AM Page 3 of 3 L_-------_--------------------- - --- --

Nsrtheast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0483 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR REsOLUTK)N ACCEPTED Discipline: Electrical Des 6gn Potential Operability lasue Discrepancy Type: Drawing Ow g

SysterrWProcess: sWP "

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/13/97 Discrepancy: Upper Tier versus Lower Tier Design Document Differences

Description:

The following differences in design documents have been noted:

1. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that tray 3TC1140 is supported by support "A307-026." Tray Support

} locations drawing EE 34DT, Rev. 7 (C-5) shows this support to be "A306-26." The support installed is marked "A306."

2. Tray 3TK210P was observed in the field to be 24 inches wide The Tray Location drawing EE-34Y, Rev. 9, indicates the tray is 24 inches wide. Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) shows this tray to be 30 inches wide.

3. Tray 3TK203P is shown on the Tray Location drawing EE-34Y, Rev. 9, as 24 inches wide. Contrary to this, the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) shows this tray to be 30 inches wide.

4. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TK100P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover Identification and Location drawing EE-34TP, Rev.1 indicates that the tray has no covers and no covers are installed in the field.

5. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TC140P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover Identification and Location drawing EE-34TQ, Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has no covers and no covers are installed in the field.

6. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TC119P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Location drawing EE 34T Rev.11, indicates tray cover commodity type ;

for this tray. Tray Cover Identification and Locction drawing EE-34TQ, Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has no covers. No covers are installed in the field.

7. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TC2010 is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover identification and Location drawing EE-34TQ Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has only a top cover. A top cover is installed in the field.

8. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray 3TK404P is to have covers top and bottom. Tray Cover identification and Location drcwing EE-34TL, Rev.1 indicates that the tray has no covers and no covers are installed in the field.

Pnnted 5/18/9810:39:13 AM Page 1 of 3

r l

Northe:ct Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0483 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

9. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates tray l 3TX200N has no covers. Tray Cover Identification and Location l drawing EE-34TQ, Rev.1 indicates that the tray has a top cover.

l

10. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists support C116-l 74 as a support for tray 3TC4410. Per tray identification l drawing EE-34 BM Rev. 8, this tray section ends prior to the i l

location of the support.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: server T. L. O O O 10P28/97 j VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O 1o/28/97 '

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 8 O O io'30'S7 i

IRC Chmn: singh, Ar'and K 8 O O 11/7/S7 l

Date:

INVALID:

1 Date: 5/14/98 REGOLUTION: Disposition: l l

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0483, 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 17010. It has been screencd per U3 PI-l 20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability

concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0514 l has been written to develop and track realution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has conciuded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0483, has

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 deportability 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.

SECOND RESPONSE:

l NU has concluded that the issues reported in DR-MP3-0483 has identified a CONFlRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. Item 1 meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per l attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI-20 deferral criteria.

Item 1 indicates a discrepancy between a support number shown on tray support drawing EE-34DT and Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2). It was determined that for tray 3TC1140 the tray support number, A306-26, shown on EE-34DT is correct. CR Printed 5/18/9810:39:17 AM Page 2 of 3 l

L ._. . ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR NO. DR-MP3-0483 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report M3-98-0514 has been closed to Bin CR M3-98-0164. An administrative DCN is required to correct A307-026 listed in (TSO2). Note: Item 1 was previously identified in DR-MP3-0242 and screened for deferral in response M3-IRF-01580.After further investigation, NU has concluded that items 2 through 9, have identified confirmed significance level 4 conditions which have been corrected. These cable tray issues have been addressed by DCN No. DM3-00-0383-98. Specifically addressing items 2 and 3, trays 3TK210P and 3TK203P have been field verified to be 24' wide tray. TSO2 change results in tray fill increasing to 31% and 26%, respectively, well under 100%

allowable. There is no impact to ampacity.After further investigation, NU has concluded that item 10 has identified a non-discrepant condition. The TSO2 Support Summary Database accounts for tray 3TC4410 being supported by support C116-74. Tray identification drawing EE-34BM depicts the tray changing identification at the midpoint of the tee section and tray support drawing EE-34DN shows support of this tee section by C116-74. Design Engineering verified the installation agrees with the design drawings.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (9) No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes @ No Review initiator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O mm IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 5/14/98 SL Comments: The corrective action is not apparent from .'he response, nor can we determine if deferral is appropriate. For example, tray 3TK210P is narrower than the database indicates. We could not verify that this discrepancy does not impact tray fill or ampacity.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concurs with NU's second response based on the revicw of reference documentation and walkdown results.

Printed 5/18/9610.39:19 AM Page 3 of 3 L_-_________________ _

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0485 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Installation Discipline: Electrical Design #

Discrepancy Type: Irntallation implementation g

System / Process: sWP ~

Nkc Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/2/97 Discrepancy: Installation not in accordance with design documents

Description:

The following configuration deviations from design documents were noted during system walkdowns:

1. Conduit support CB-532 is used to support a 4' Fire Protection pipe by the attachment of 1/2" ATR to the bottom member.

General Note 16 on DWG. BE-52AP-7 says

Piping -SHALL NOT BE SUPPORTED

by conduit supports.

2. The field installed support shown on Conduit Support Log CB-532 Rev. 5A, does not match drawing. The attachment of the vertical legs is not consistent with the standard detail Drawing BE-52RA, Rev.4."

3. Installed conduit support CB-788 is not consistent with Conduit Support Log CB-788, Rev. 5. Item 'AU" is not installed on the tube steel member. This support is standard detail type WW as shown on Detail drawing BE-52-WW Rev. 3. The standard detail does not show items BQ or HB identified on the CSL as attemates to the 'HC' and "AU" shown on BE-52-WW detail.

4. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CC661NQ2 as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-2817, Rev.

6, and field observation indicate steel was installed.

5. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3 CL410PK as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-1000 Rev 6 and field observation indicate steel was installed.

6. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CX956PBY as aluminum. The Conduit Support Log indicates steel. Field observation confirmed steel was installed..

7. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CC956PD as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6577 Rev 1 A indicates steel. Steel confirmed installed.

8. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists all 4 conduit on support CB=6468 as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6468 Rev 3 indicates these conduits we to be steel. Steel confirmed installed. Further, the span between supports on the 3/4" conduit attached to support CB-6468 exceed allowable for type of support.

9. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CX956PBS as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6273 Rev 6A indicates the conduit is steel. Steel confirmed installed. The

^ ^ ' * ^

Printed 5/18/9810:39 49 AM GSL-showc conduite 3CG442PD7-and4GC05SPC10c S'Ya~ge i oT4

l l

l Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0485 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

I Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) list each as aluminum.

Aluminum confirmed installed.

10.80 stalled support CB-6216 installed as described on Conduit Support Log CB-6216 Rev 3, does not match details of the standard support type WV as specified in Standard Detail drawing BE-52-WV Rev . 5.

11. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) is not consistent with Conduit Support Log CB-6182 Rev.1 and field conditions; conduit 3CX9500J is steel, not aluminum; conduit 3CX9500A is 1-1/2" steel, not 2' aluminum. Further, The conduit span lengths to adjacent supports exceed allowable as established on standard drawing BE-52CA.

12. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CX9500J4 as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6154 Rev 2D shows steel. Steel confirmed installed in the field. TSO2 lists 3CC956NH7 as aluminum. The CSL shows steel.

Aluminum confirmed installed.

13. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CC9500A as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6142 Rev 4A shows steel. Steel confirmed installed in the field.

14. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduits 3CX956NC7 and 3CX956NB5 as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-6102 Rev. shows steel. Steel confirmed installed in the field.

15. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists all 8 conduits as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-516 Rev SD shows all 8 as steel. Only conduit 3CX519A1 is aluminum, other 7 are steel as verified by field observation.

16. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CC956PF as alu.ninum. Conduit Support Log CB-3915 Rev 1 shows this conduit as steel. Steel confirmed installed.

17. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) lists conduit 3CK9500A2 as aluminum. Conduit Support Log CB-3842 Rev 1shows steel. Steel confirmed installed in the field.

18. Conduits 3CC4380C,3CL961NL1 and 3CL961NM1 do not attach to member "F" as indicated by Conduit Support Log CB-1210 Rev 7A. Conduit 3CH4090B attaches to member "A", but is not indicated on CSL. Conduit 3CL4110J is not in the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2).

19. Several PS204 and PS202 members are attached to the South Vertical Leg of support C 201-106. The design drawing for this support (EE-34KA Rev 3) nor any of the open change documents listed for this drawing can be confirmed to direct these installations.

20. Cable Ladders were installed on the East lea of support C227-Printed s/18/9810:39:s2 AM Page 2 of 4

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0485 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 158 (Reference drawing EE-34KDRev. 4). A review of the design documents did not identify the approval documents for these addition.i.

21. Several PS204 horizontal members are installed on each verticalleg of support C274-273 (Reference 34KD Rev. 4). No design documents could be found to authorize these additions.

22. Ohange Control Document T-E-08011 added four horizontal shelvas to support C3028-055 (reference drawing EE-34KN Rev.

3) but incorrectly lists their size as E36. The correct member designation is E39 based on field measurement.

23. A PS204 and a PS202 member have been added to support C302 B-055 without identification on any design documents, reference drawing EE 34 KN Rev. 3.

24. The floor connection of the north vertical leg of support C345-040 is not an imbedded plate as called out on drawings EE-34KS l Rev. 2 and EE-34JB Rev. 6. It is a concrete expansion bolt plate.

25. The East vertical leg of support C359-011 as shown on i drawing EE-34KV Rev. 3, has eight cable ladder members installed. No design documents can be verified to authorize theses members.

26. Raceways 3TK407P and 3TK406P are listed in The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) as being supported by support C0728-001. The tray support location drawing, EE-34DN Rev.

11, does not show this support.

27. Conduit 3CX4010F (3*dia.) is attached to the bottom member of support C119-177. No design documents could be located to document this attachment of conduit.

28. F E 17180 addresses the installation of two 4 inch conduits to support CO228-352. Conduits were not found on this support in field walkdown.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: sarver, T. L. O O O 10/17/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O 10/27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 10/28/97 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K B O O o/3o'S7 l

Date:

INVALID:

oste: 5/14/98 l RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issues reported in DR-MP3-0485 have identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction.

Disposition:This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per U3 PI-20 Printed 5/18/9810.39 s3 AM Page 3 of 4

Northe st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0485 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria.U3 Pl 20 section 1.3.2 e defines the type of discrepancies which will be completed during the next refueling outage or later. Attachment 11 defines the type of issues which will be completed prict to startup. The intent of attachment 11 is to correct issues prior to startup that ,

would inhibit operations from aligning the plant systems for safe '

operations in accordance with the design basis.NU concludes that the assignment of priority 4 is correct and in accordance with U3 PI 20 section 1.3.2 e.CR M3-98-1673 was closed to Bin CR M3-98-0165.NU has concluded that the items 5,8,11,18,22 and 26 reported in DR-MP3-0485 have identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction.

The corrective actions in Bin CR M3-98-0165 will correct these items post startup. ine attached CR M3-98-1673 provides the details of each corrective action.NU has concluded that items 1,2,3,10,19,20,21,23,24,25,27 and 28 reported in DR-MP3-0485 have identified a non-discrepant condition. The justification for these items are detailed in the attached CR M3-98-1673.NU has concluded that items 4,6,7,9,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 reported in DR M3-98-0485 have identified a previously discovered condition. The justification for these items are detailed in the attachedCR M3-98-1673.

Prev 6ously identified by NU? O yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (8) No Resolution Pending?O v.. @ u. R..oiuison unr..oived?O ve. @ No Review A CePtable Not Acceptabie Needed Date N

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K Date: 5/14/98 sL comments: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of the reference documentation provided as an attachment to DR disposition.

l

)

}

Pnnted 5/18/9810:39.55 AM Page 4 of 4

N:rthea;t Utilitie,_, ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0545 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Contguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED l Potential Operability issue i Discipline: Electrical Design I Discrepancy Type: Drawing O ve.

g

~

system / Process: Rss NRC significance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU: j Date Published: 11/2/97 l Discrepancy: Conduit Support Differences

Description:

1. While checking supports CS 7503 and CS 7445, it was noted l

that the conduit fitting cover for 3CX900PB4 was missing. The fitting's open face is upward. Location is near CS 7445.

2. An unidentified / unscheduled 2" cenduit, which according to Conduit Support Log 12179-FSK-CS-3348, Rev. 6, is supported by support CS-3348, is not clamped on support CS-3348. The resulting span is over 10'-6" which exceeds the allowable span of 8'-O' per BE-52AN Rev. 5 and AU Rev. 4..

3. Field inspection of support R208A-098 found a section of 3/4 l Inch Steel conduit that is not clamped to the support, but is l resting on conduit supported by R208A-098. This conduit is in need of support in this approximate location to meet span criteria and to tske credit for the tray support supporting the conduit, a clamp / attachment is necessary.

4. Conduit Support Log (CSL)12179-FSK-CS-1343, Rev. 7, with no outstanding change documents, 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, as supported from this support.

5. Conduit Support Log (CSL)12179-FSK-CS-3058, Rev. 5, with no outstanding change documents, lists conduit 3CX900PA4 as supported by this support. This conduit is not included in TSO2 l as supported by this support. TSO2 lists an additional conduit, 3CX900PA, not shown on the CSL as supported from this support.

6. Conduit Support Log (CSL) 12179-FSK-CS-4708, Rev. 2, without outstanding change documents, indicates that conduit 3CX9000B4 is supported from support CS-4798. TSO2 also indicates this conduit is supported by the support. The detail shown on the drawing is for a field installed junction box and does not include any attachment of conduit. Further, the conduit is installed in the field with two supports, CS-7482 and 7483 which are listed in TSO2 and the CSLs correctly.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: sarver, T. L. O O O o/1S/S7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O 10/27/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 1o/2a/97 IF.C Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O o'30'97 Printed 5/18/9810:40 48 AM Page 1 of 3 l

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0545 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0545, has identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which requires action. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 Pi-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 Pl20 deferral criteria.

Item 1; Fitting covers are required for mechanical protection of the cables and this conduit is inside containment and is not subject to work activities during the current modes of plant operation. The cover plate also provides a barrier for cable separation criteria. This area has been walked dcwn for separation issues and it does not violate that criteria. CR M3 98-2005 has been initiated to direct the installation of the face plate during an applicable plant mode. CR-98-2095 has been closed to Bin CR M3-96-0165 will correct this issue post startup.

there is no effect or License or Design Basis.

Item 2: The conduit in question is an Unscheduled, Non-QA 2" Conduit and the area of concem has been walked down for the ll/l (Two-Over-One) Criteria and there is no concem due to overspan condition. CR NU M3-98-2005 has been initiated to reinstall the missing conduit clamp for the middle conduit at location "A" as sMwn on CSL CS-3348 (Reference tray support R260-37 on EE-34-EF).

CR M3-98-2095 has been closed to CR M3-98-0165. The corrective actions in Bin CR M3-98-0165 will correct this issue post startup. There is no affect on License or Design Basis, item 3: The conduit in question is an Unscheduled, Non-QA 3/4" Conduit and the area of concem has been walked down for the ll/l (Two-Over-One) Criteria and there is no concem due to overspan condition. CR M3-98-2005 has been initiated to reinstall the missing conduit clamp on the 3/4" unscheduled conduit at CSL 2135. The conduit runs from Emergency Light Unit CS-24 at Col. # 11.

CR M3-98-2095 has been closed to Bin CR M3-98-0165. The l corrective actions in Bin CR M3-98-0165 will correct this issue l post startup. There is no affect on License or Design Basis. i Item 4 : A review of the Cable and Raceway Program indicates that CSL-1343 does list conduit 3CX900PA, but does not list conduits 3CX900WB2 and 3CX900PC2. The Cable and Raceway Program is to be corrected to list conduits 3CX900WB2 ;

and 3CX900PC2 against support CS-1343. The additional conduit 3CX900PC listed against CSL CS-1343 the Cable and !

Raceway Program and an associated CSL CS-2153 which was not mentioned in this item, are to be removed. CR M3-98-2095 has been initiated to update the Cable and Raceway Program.

CR M3-98-2095 has been closed to Bin CR M3-98-0165. The corrective actions in Bin CR M3-98-0165 will correct this issue post startup.

There is no affect on License or Design Basis.

Printed 5/18/9810M51 AM Page 2 of 3

DR N;. DR-MP3-0546 N:rtherct Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report item 5 : This item was previously described on DR M3-0354 as item 2 and has been addressed in the response of that DR on IRF M3-IRF-02053.

Item 6 : This item was previously described on DR M3-0354 as l Item 1 and has been addressed in the response of that DR on l

1RF M3-IRF-02053.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes fe) No Non Di.crepard Condition?O Yes @) No Resolution Pending?O Yes Ce) No Re.oiution unreeoived70 Yo. @ No Review g Acceptable Not Acceptable N aded Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 '

1 SL Commerds: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of '

wa'kdown results, reference documentation and additiorial explanations provided.

l l

4 l

Printed 5/18/9810'40:52 AM Page 3 of 3

Narthext Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0552 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system installation p

Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation Cm l System / Process: Rss g

NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/15/97 Discrepancy: Installation not in accordance with drawings

Description:

1. The conduit installed on Conduit Support SB-130 (Ref.

Conduit Support Log SB-130 Rev. 3)is not E3 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 Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: sarver, T. L 8 0 0 11n/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 'il7/S7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 1 /So/S7 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K G O O 5'/15/S7 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 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.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability 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.

SECOND RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that this issue reported in DR-MP3-0552 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction.

Item 3 meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI 20 Printed 5/18/9810.41:31 AM Page 1 of 2

N:rtheIt Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0552 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI-20 deferral criteria. Design Engineering walked down the axial bracing at EL 11'-8" & EL 9'-

0" between tray supports S104A-(2)-038 & S1088-(1)-046 and verified it is installed as documented on E&DCRs F-E-32326 and F-E 35339. Both E&DCRs are not posted against the tray support drawing EE-34DQ and tray support detail drawing EE-34MA as a "c" status to indicate a drawing change. An administrative DCN will be issued to correct the app!icable documentation as necessary to reflect the as-installed condition post startup.NU has concluded that items 1 and 2 reported in DR-MP3-0552 has identified non-discrepant conditions. Item 1; conduit support SB-130 is made up of 4 horizontal members attached to tray supports S104G-(1)-14 and S1128-(1)-4. Design Engineering performed a walkdown of support SB-130 and found 12 conduits attached. A review of SB-130 in GRITS Database tumed up DCN DM3-00-1225-96, which documents the present field configuration of conduits. Also, DCN DM3-S-0540-96 includes the installation of conduit 3CX300PB-4' on support SB-130.ltem 2; Design Engineering performed a walkdown of conduit 3CX307NC and determined it is a 2" conduit as required and documented on conduit drawing EE-42B, CSLs SB-028, SB-029, SB-041, SB-042 and the Cable and Raceway Coretrol Program.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?Q Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O Ye. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes @ No Review i AcceptaM Not Acceptable Needed Date Initiator: Klaic, N O O s1 m VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O si m IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O si m O O O Date: 5/15/98 sL Conwnents: Adequacy of conduit supports for the additional conduit weight loads needs to be demonstrated prior to start-up.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of the reference documentation and additional explanations provided.

l Printed 5/18/DB toA1:3s AM Page 2 of 2 l

l

Northent Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0555 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Installation p

Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Installation implementaten Om System / Process: RSs g'

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/2/97 l Discrepancy: Cable and Reaceway data not in agreement with installed l conditions

Description:

1. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC9700C8 is 21 feet long. Field verified conduit is approximately 2 feet long.

l 2. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that l 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 3CK700083 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 l conduit 3CC9700C7 is supported by 12 supports. Field l

observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported i by 8 supports.

l l 6. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that

! conduit 3CC7560G4 is supported by 10 supports. Field !

observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is attached l to 11 supports.

7. The Cable end Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CC7560-34 is supported by 8 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is attached i i

to only 7 supports. !

l l

8. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) Indicates that conduit 9CC764PB3 is supported by 2 supports. Field I observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 3 supports. 3

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. Field nhenruntinn nf the r nndtilt indir ntpc that the r nnduit ic connnrtad l Printed 5/18/9810.42:09 AM Page 1 of 4 l

4 N:rthenct Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0555 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report by 15 supports.

11. The Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) indicates that conduit 3CH7600C is supported by nine supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported l by six supports. l l

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 theit condui! 3CX970PB1 is supported by 12 supports. Field observation of the conduit indicates that the conduit is supported by 13 supports.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: sarver T. L. O O O 1o/ S/S7 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O 1o/27/97 VT Mgr: schopter, Don K O O O 1or28/97 IRO Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 5or30'87 i

Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, CR-MP3-0555, 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 deportability 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 l in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 PI-l 20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability 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.

SECOND RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0555 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition that requires correction.

Printed 5/18/9810.42:12 AM Page 2 of 4

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N . DR-MP3-0555 milistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report

~

The items that relate to the issue described in the " Background" are 3,4,5,7,11 & 12.ltems 3,4, and 5 meet the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. They have been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI-20 deferral criteria based on the following discussion: Item 3: Conduit support ES-2455 is listed in the Cable and Raceway Program against conduit 3CC9700A8.

However, the conduit is not attached to the support. The span between the previous support (ES-2457) and the next support (ES-2454), as determined by field walkdown, is approximately 7'-

0", which is within the allowed span criteria of 8'-0" Max. for the type of standard conduit support installed for this conduit.

Therefore, the conduit is acceptable and the documentation problem will be addressed post startup. The subject conduit is adequately supported and meets its design basis.ltem 4: Conduit support ES-2533 is listed in the Cable and Raceway Program against conduit 3CK9700B3. However, the conduit is not attached to the support. The span between the previous support (ES-2395) and the next support (ES-2532), as determined by field walkdown, is within the allowed span criteria of 8'-0" Max.

for the type of standard conduit support installed for this conduit.

Therefore, the conduit is acceptable and the documentation problem will be addressed post startup. The subject conduit is adequately supported and meets its design basis. item 5: This item indicates there are (12) conduit supports listed in the Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2) against conduit 3CC9700C7.

This is not correct. TSO2 lists (9) supports against this conduit and field walkdown indicates the conduit is not attached to support ES-2533. The span between the previous support (ES-2395) and the next support (ES-2532), as determined by field walkdown, is within the allowed span criteria of 8'-0" Max. for the type of standard conduit support installed for this conduit.

Therefore, the conduit is acceptable and the documentation problem will be addressed post startup. The subject conduit is adequately supported and meets its design basis.

CR M3-98-0495 has been closed to Bin CR M3-98-0217. The corrective actions for CR M3-98-0217 will initiate an administrative DCN to update TSO2 to remove conduit support '

ES-2455 listed against 3CC9700A8 and ES-2533 listed against 3CK9700B3 & 3CC9700C7, and update applicable CSL's and Oneline conduit drawings, post startup.After further review, NU has concluded that items 7,11 & 12 do not represent discrepant conditions based on the following discussion:ltem 7: Field walkdown reveals that the correct number of supports are l installed for conduit 3CC7560G4. TSO2 indicate (8) supports and all (8) were accounted for. Therefore, this is not a discrepancy and no further action is required. Item 11: Field walkdown reveals that the correct number of supports are installed for conduit 3CH7600C. TSO2 indicate (9) supports and all (9) were accounted for. Six supports were in the RSS "C" Cubicle and the conduit passes through a blockout and three supports were located on the other side of the wall. Therefore, this is not a discrepancy and no further action is required.ltem 12: Field walkdown reveals that the correct number of supports are installed for conduit 3CX970PB. TSO2 indicate (12) supports Printed 5/18/9810 42:13 AM Page 3 of 4

1 N:rthenct Utilitie3 ICAVP DR Nc. DR-MP3-0555 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report j

and all (12) were accounted for. Therefore, this is not a discrepancy and no further action is required. Significance Level criteria do not apply to these non-discrepant conditions.

Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent CondRion?O Ye. (#j No Resolution Pending?O Yo. @ No Re.oivison unre.oiv.470 Yo. @ No Review l inMistor: Kleic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A l VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 ;

SL Comments: Adequacy of the conduit spans needs to be demonstrated prior to j l start-up for all cases where the actual number of conduit supports i is less than the number of conduit supports as indicated in the l Cable and Raceway Program (TSO2 ) . I SECOND RESPONSE: j i

S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of the '

walkdown results and the additional explanations provided. )

l Pnnted 5/18/9810.42:15 AM Fage 4 of 4

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0647 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design PotenUni Opwabihty issue Diecipline: structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculaton O Yes SysterrdProcess: SWP @ No NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 12/21/97 Discrepancy: Missing Analysis

Description:

Calc. # 12179-BE-YQ2,R0 and Calc. # 12179-BE-52YS,R2 We have reviewed Millstone Unit 3 Equipment Foundation Calc.

12179-BE-YQ2,RO and Calc. # 12179-BE-52YS,R2. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy.

1. These calculations were provided by NU to confirm the adequacy of equipment foundation for Junction Box No.

3SWP*JB 3A,B. These calculations are Generic calculations for se;smic junction box supports. Specific calculations for the subject equipment noted could not be found in aforementioned calculations.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Kleic, N O O O 12/4/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O 11/29/97 VT Mgr: schopfw, Don K O O O 2ii1/97 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K G O O 2/11/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0647, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepanc/ 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 deportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0515 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

SECOND RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that the overall issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0647 does not represent a discrepant condition.

The original discrepancy description is; Calc. # 12179-BE-YQ2,RO and Calc. # 12179-BE-52YS,R2 We have reviewed Millstone Unit 3 Equipment Foundation Calc. # 12179-BE-YQ2,RO and Calc. #12179-BE-52YS,R2. Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancy. 1.These calculations were provided by NU to confirm the adequacy of equipment foundation for Junction Box No. 3SWP*JB 3A,B.

These calcu'ations are generic calculations for seismic junction box supports. Specific calculations for the subject equipment noted could not be found in aforementioned Printed 5/18/9810.42:40AM Page 1 of 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

N:rthe:2t Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0647 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report ,

calculations. Subsequent investigation by NU has determined that specific calculations for each junction box do not exist. The drawing series BE-52 was specifically developed to install a variety of JB sizes and locations. Each drawing would establish several box sizes, locations etc. A seismic calculation for each drawing ws:) issued that justified the junction box installations generically This encompassed the conditions that can be encountered. Calculations BE-52YQ (correction from typo BE-YQ2) and BE-52YS generically provide the justification for these JB's.NU believes that providing a calculation which qualifies a standard support detail that encompass the actual conditions is adequate and that individual calculations are not necessary.

These calculations were prepared and checked by discipline competent people expressly for this reason. Significance level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition Previou.ly identified by NU? C) Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition? 8) Yes (.) No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Re.oiution unre.oived?O ve. rel No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date N

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRc Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 SL Cocwnents: To defer this DR, justification that the junction box is adequately mounted is needed.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concurs with NU's disposition that is based on the review of the documentation and additional explanations provided.

l l

I Pnnted 5/18/9810.42:43 AM Page 2 of 2 J

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N . DR-MP3-0873 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design Q ye.

Discrepancy Type: Calculation System / Process: Oss

@ No NRC significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/17/98 Discrepancy: Static load test for MOV's does not consider 3g acceleration in 3 orthogonal directions.

Description:

The seismic qualification reports D-0057-1 thru 5 for Henry Pratt butterfly valves 3QSS*MOV34A/B and 3RSS*MOV20A-D were reviewed against their specification requirements The review identified the following discrepancy.

As per specification 2362.200-164, pages B32 thru B41, the equipment shall be designed to be capable of continued operation with all of the specified loads considering I 3g acceleration in all three ortnogonal directions acting simultaneously whereas, above valves are tested (qualified) using loads due to 3g acceleration in least rigid direction only.

Review valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, Ramesh O O O 12/22/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 12t20/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 12t23/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 1/13/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/16/98 RESOLUTION: FIRST NU RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0873, does not repr6sent a discrepant condition. Two different valve qualification criteria have been combined. The section of specification 2362.200-164 rt:ferenced portains to the analyses for the seismic qualification of the valve including specified loads i of 3g's in all orthogonal directions acting simultaneously. The l Operability Testing Program, pages 46 and 47, of the same i

specification requires actual static loading at the center of gravity I

of the operator so as to impose the inaximum deflection in the direction of the weakest axis to demonstrate satisfactory valve operation.

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

SECOND NU RESPONSE:

As requested by S&L the following drawings are enclosed which show the insitu valve orientation:

Printed 5/18/9810 43:18 AM Page 1 of 2 l -_ __ ______...._________________d

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0873 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report VALVE DRAWING 3OSS*MOV34A 3-OSS-02 3QSS*MOV34B 3-QSS-03 3RSS*MOV20A Cl-RSS-11 Sh. 3 3RSS*MOV20B 3-RSS-08 3RSS*MOV200 3-RSS-10 3RSS*MOV200 3-RSS-07 l l Previously identified by NU? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepant Condition?IS) Yes O No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Re.oivison unteeoiv.d70 ve. @ No Review l Initiator: Johnson, Jay l VT Lead: NM Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 5/16/98 i sL comments: S&L COMMENTS ON FIRST NU RESPONSE: I l

l As stated in Specification 2362.200-164, the imposed deflection j for the static load test must, as a minimum, equal the deflection determined by seismic analysis or testing as representative of the l SSE condition. The SSE condition, as defined by this I specification, is an acceleration of 3.0 g in three orthogonal l directions acting simultaneously. l l

It is noted that identical requirements were specified in Specifications 2475.110-185, SP-ME-784 and 2282.050-676. The seismic reports provided for each of these specifications indude a static deflection test where the SSE accelerations were considered in three directions simultaneously.

S&L COMMENTS ON SECOND NU RESPONSE:

Although the S&L interpretation of the valve specification concludes that the static load deflection test should have ,

considered an SRSS combination of the 3.0 g acceleration in three orthogonal directions, it is recognized that during piping analysis the motor operator accelerations are maintained below 3.0 g in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe.

This is consistent with the 3.0 g acceleration used to determine the static load applied during the subject test, as performed by Henry Pratt Co., the valve manufacturer. Therefore,it is concluded that there is no design discrepancy with respect to the use of these test results for these valve applications.

l l

Snnted 5/18/96 tom 22 AM Page 2 of 2 l

Northeist Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0874 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED N 'I Y' **

Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design g y, Discrepancy Type: Calculation SystemProcess: sWP O No NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/17/98 Discrepancy: Static load test for MOV's does not consider 3g acceleration in 3 l orthogonal directions.

Description:

The seismic qualification reports D-0057-4,5&6 for Henry Pratt butterfly valves 3SWP*MOV54A-D,57A-D, 3SWP*MOV71 A/B and 3SWP*MOV50A/B were reviewed against their specification requirements l The review identified the following discrepancy.

As per specification 2362.200-164, pages B32 thru B41, the equipment shall be designed to be capable of continued operation with all of the specified loads considering 3g acceleration in all three orthogonal directions acting I Jmultaneously whereas, above valves are tested (qualified) using loads due to 3g acceleration in least rigid direction only.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date !

Initiator: Patel. Ramesh 8 0 0 12/22/97 l VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 12/20/97 ;

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 12/23/97 l lRC Chmn: 66ngh, Anand K B O O 1/13/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/16/98 RESOLUTION: FIRST NU RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0873, does not represent a discrepant condition. Two different valve qualification criteria have been combined. The section of l specification 2362.200-164 referenced peltains to the analyses l for the seismic qualificatica o; the valve including specified loads of 3g's in all orthogonal directions acting simultaneously. The Operability Testing Program, pages 46 and 47, of the same specification requires actual static loading at the center of gravity of the operator so as to impose the maximum deflection in the direction of the weakest axis to demonstrate satisfactory valve operation.

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

SECOND NU RESPONSE:

As requested by S&L the following drawings are enclosed which show the insitu valve orientation:

Printed 5/18f9610.44:12 AM Page 1 of 2

_____ _______ ________ ____ A

N:rthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0874 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

VALVE DRAWING l

3SWP*MOV54A Cl-SWP-29S l 3SWP*MOV548 Cl-SWP-27 Sh. 3 l 3SWP*MOV54C Cl SWP-29S l l 3SWP*MOV54D 3-SWP-027 3SWP*MOV57A Cl-SWP-28 Sh. 7 3SWP'MOV578 Cl-SWP-27 Sh. 9 I 3SWP*MOV57C Cl-SWP-28 Sh. 8 l 3SWP*MOV57D Cl-SWP-27 Sh. 8 3SWP*MOV71A Cl-SWP-22 Sh. 4 l 3SWP*MOV71B 3-SWP-022 l 3SWP*MOV50A 3-SWP-021 l 3SWP*MOV50B 3-SWP-020 l Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (#j No Non D6screpent condition?CG) Yes O No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution unresolved?O vs. @ No ;

Review initiator: Johnson, Jay l VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O mm IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 5/16/98 st Comments: S&L COMMENTS ON FIRST NU RESPONSE: l As stated in Specification 2362.200-164, the imposed deflection for the static load test must, as a minimum, equal the deflection determined by seismic analysis or testing as representative of the SSE condition. The SSE condition, as defined by this specification, is an acceleration of 3.0 g in three orthogonal directions acting simultaneously.

It is noted that identical requirements were specified in Specifications 2475.110-185, SP-ME-784 and 2282.050-676. The seismic reports provided for each of these specifications include a static deflection test where the SSE accelerations were considered in three directions simultaneously.

S&L COMMENTS ON SECOND NU RESPONSE:

Although the S&L interpretation of the valve specification concludes that the static load deflection test should have considered an SRSS combination of the 3.0 g acceleration in three orthogonal directions, it is recognized that during piping analysis the motor operator accelerations are maintained below 3.0 g in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe.

This is consistent with the 3.0 g acceleration used to determine the static load applied during the subject test, as performed by Henry Pratt Co., the valve manufacturer. Therefore, it is conc!uded that there is no design discrepancy with respect to the use of these test results for these valve applications.

f I

Printed 5/18/98 tom 16 AM Page 2 of 2

Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0879 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review (troup: System DR PEeOLUTION ACCEPTED l

Discipline: Mechancel Design Potential Operabliliy issue Discrepancy Type: Calculat'an g

System / Process: SWP Om NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published.1/2598 Discrepancy: Seismic repo'ts are not available for ICAVP review for the following equipments.

Description:

(1) 3EGS* HOSE 1N2A/2B/3A/3B/4A/4B. Seismic report requested per RFl#756, item #5, Qualification report provided( No. 206072 ) did not qualify the hoses.

(2) 3EGS*LS34A/B. Seismic report requested per RFl#669, item #40, Response IRF#1098 said that this item is generically qualified as a part of diesel generator equipment.

Qualdication report No. 206072 does not a 1 dress these level switches.

(3) 3EGF*PS38A/B Seismic report requested per RFl#669, item #46. NU Response in IRF#1098 sPld that these equipments are generically qualified as a part of diesel generator equipment. Report No.206072 does not address the qualification of these pressure switches.

(4) 3 EGO *PS23A1/A2/A3/B1/B2/B3. Seismic report requested per RFl#669, item #47. NU Response in IRF#1098 said that these equipments are generically qualified as a part of diesel generator equipment.

Report No.206072 does not address the qualification of these pressure switches.

(5) 3 EGO *TS30A/B. Seismic report requested per RFl#670, item #9. NU Response in IRF#903 said that there is no specific seismic qualification exists for theet squipments.

These equipments are on the skid mom.ted piping and are generically qualified by vendor. Report No.206072 does not address the qualif; cation of these temperature switches.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, Ramesh O O O 5/S/S8 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O /S/S8 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O '1SS8 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 1/21/98 Date:

! INVALID:

i Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0879, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0727 (attached) will identify Printed 5/18/9810A52 AM Page 1 of 2 t__________________---__--.____-----

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0879 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

~

and obtain the documentation of the seismY1ou.[ication applicable to the components listed in items 1 through 5 above and submit them to Nuclear Document Services (NDS).

This discrepancy addresses the control of required documentation. During the construction phase, the MP-3 AE monitored the procurement of this equipment and reviewed the seismic qualification report required by specification 2447.300-241. The diesel skid and the attached components at the time of purchase were found to be acceptable. Program improvements to address the past performance deficiencies and raise the standads of the Nuclear Document Services Organization are now in place. Nuclear Document Management Procedure 1 (NDM1) titled, Temover and Receipt of Nuclear Plant Records, arid Nuclear Document Management Procedure 4 (NDM 4) titled, Cor. trolled Document Distribution, clearly communicates the management standards and direction for the storage, control and distribution of quality records. As such there is no effect on the license or design basis, therefore NU has concluded this to be a l Significance Level 4 issue.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (9) No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Re.osution unre.oiv.d?O m @ No Review initiator: Johnson, Jay VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRc Chmr : singh, Anand K oste: 5/15/98 sL comments: The NU resolution as described in CR No. M3-98-0727 is acceptable. Operability Determination No. MP3-017-98 and Seismic Qualification Review No. SQR3-98-017 provide sufficient justification to silow start up and complete the seismic qualification documentation afterwards. Based on this Sargent &

Lundy considers this to be a Significance Level 4 discrepancy.

i i

l l

Printed 5/1&981oM56 AM Page 2 of 2

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report j Review Group: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED j Discipline: Electncal Design Potential Operability issue )

Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation Om Systern/ Process' HVX g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published.1/18/98 Discrepancy: Conduit installation not in accordance with design drawings j De.cription: 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, j 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 3CK862OB 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 observation revealed 11 supports for this conduit.

5. TSO2, based on the material mark number, indicates conduits 9CC 9260C1, 9CC9260C3, 9CC8640A1, 9CC8640A2, ;

9CC864PB, 9CC864PB1, 9CC8600A1, 9CCC60A2 9CC8640A3, 9CC860PA1, 9CC860PA2, 9CC860PA3, 9CC8600A6 are rigid aluminum. Contrary to inis, 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 steel was found installed.

8. TSO2 indicates conduit 3C1190E is a rigid conduit; flexible conduit was observed installed.

9. TSO2 indicates conduit 3C1060A is a rigid conduit; flexible 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 was observed installed.

12. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL933PP is 151 feet long, the installed length is closer to 18 feet.

13. TSO2 ir"ticates conduit 3CL103PB is rigid and 50 feet long.

The conduit was observed as flex and no more than 10 feet.

14. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL113PB is rigid, installed as flex.

15. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL113PD is rigid, installed as flex.

p ,

g g 16-TSO24ndicates-cond"!! 3CL113PJtas+gidrinstalledgig

____ ___________ a

[

Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

17. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL1050B is aluminurn; 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 supports. The ground wire for the flex fails to include the 3 inches of slack required by specification E350

20. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL201PB4 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 l 21. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL201PBC is rigid steel with a j 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

22. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC2070F is supported by 11 supports. Field observation noted 14 supports on conduit.

23. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CL200087 is rigid stect 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 3CL2000B8 is rigid steel with a I

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 9CC2070D0 is supported by to supports; field observatlon revealed three supports for this conduit.

26. TSO2 indicates conduit 9CC934PA4 has two supports; field observation identified only one.

27. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC934PA2 has five supports; field l observation identified only four. j

28. TSO2 indicates the length of conduit 9CC934PC3 is 3 feet; i field observation revealed conduit is approximately 15 feet. l

29. TSO2 indicate conduit 9CC2070F7 has no supports: field i

observation revealed the conduit supported with one support.

l

30. TSO2 indiune conduit 9CC202PV has no supports; field l observation reveiled the conduit supported with one support l 31. TSO2 indir.,ates conduit 3CC139PB is supported by four i supports; field observation identified three.

l 32. TSO2 indicates that conduit 9CC933PBS is support by one

! support; field observation revealed conduit supported by three supports.

33. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC93APC is supported by two supports; field observation revealed one.

34. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC934PS is supported by 4 supports; field observation revealed 2..

35. TSO2 indicates conduit 2CC202OR has no supports; field observation reveal a single support.

36. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC945PD is supported by 21 supports; 18 suppMs observed as installed.

37. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC9350P is supported by two supports: field observation revealed three support for this conduit.

Printed 5/18/9810 45:43 AM Page 2 of 5 J

Northext Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

38. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC935PG is supported by one support; field observation revealed no supports.

39. TSO2 listed 3 supports for conduit 3CC202PU; field !

observation revealed five supports for this conduit.

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.

42. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CC133PA2 has no supports. Field !

observation of this 20 foot conduit is supported by three supports i

43. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CC143PD has 3 supports; field j observation revealed 2. l

44. TSO2 indicates that conduit 9CC233NTS is 18 feet long; field 1 observation verified the conduit as 18 inches long.

45. Conduits 3CC2070L3 and L2 are shown in tso2 as 6 feet in l length; field observation revealed conduit is 6 inches. TSO2 list i 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.

49. TSO2 listed 2 supports for conduit 3CC207PM2, however only 1 is installed.

50. TSO2 list 4 supports for conduit 3CC133PA5; 2 observed as installed. l Review I Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Garver, T. L.

O O O 2/30/97 VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A B O O 12r31/s7 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 1/12/98 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 1'15/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 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 deportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0368 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

SECOND RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Repor', DR-MP3-0928, have identified CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 conditions which require correction.

This IRF-02299 only addresses the issue of ' Adequacy of the supports for the additional loads needs to be verified prior to Printed 5/18/9810:45# AM Page 3 of 5 i

1 Northert Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0928 i Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report start-up". The previous IRF-01861 addressed the administrative discrepancies of inconsistencies between field conditions and the TS02 program. The S&L questions were categorized rather than presented in the sequence given by S&L for ease in responding where generic responses were applicable. l Disposition Continuation:The items listed in Part A (Flex Support issues) do not impact the adequacy of the installation.DCN DM#-

S-0862 Page 50, Note 6 provides the basis for these items not being discrepant *No Supports are required for the Flex Conduit that run between the Junction Boxes and the Unit Heaters."The items listed in Part B (Discrepancies in the number of conduit supports between the TS02 program and actual field conditions) do not impact the adequacy of the installation.ltem 2 First Part - (not a support issue) Updating the TS02 will be done by an administrative DCN covered under previous IRF. Second Part - The cable raceway program reveals conduit 3CK8600E3 has only one support, DG-421 (not four as S&L indicates). This is consistent with the conduit one line drawing and does not indicate a discrepancy. Item 10 This item represents a wrong conduit support listed in TS02.

Conduit 3CC157PA is supported in two places on one Conduit l Support (MA-8557) (Reference drawing 25212-34011 Sh. '

MABS57A, MA85578, MA8557C). Support MA-8559A is j correctly listed forJunction box 3JB*1320 but not intended to be !

against subject conduit. Item 26 - TS02 incorrectly indicates conduit support AB-5753 for conduit 9CC934PA4. The correct I conduit is 9CC934PA9. Field walkdown did indicate one support for conduit 9CC934PA4 which is correct once the TS02 is corrected. Items: 27,33,36,40,43,45,46,47,48,49, and 50 represent installations where the number of conduit supports listed in the TS02 program were more than what was counted in the field. Reason - the number of supports listed in TS02 includes both the actual conduit supports and the supports for their associated junction boxes. Field walkdowns validated the number of supports for the above listed items. There is no discrepancy for this lesue on a matter of definitation. Example:

ltem # 46 - The TS02 program indicates 5 supports for conduit 3CC2070H3. A fiekt walkdown indicated 4 supports, the additional support is accounted for by as junction box (3JB2598) support. (Note for this case, S&L only counted 1 support, where actual field wa!kdown counted 5).

Item # 36, there is no conduit listed as 3CC945PD as stated.

Assumption - Subjcci conduit is 3CC935PD which TS02 list 21 supports. Field walkdown indicated 2 supports for the junction box ar:d 19 for the conduit.ltem 31 - TS02 incorrectly indicates conduit support AD-5961 for conduit 3CC139PB. A review of Conduit support logs indicates that support AB-5961 is associated with condu t 3CC139PB1. Three supports is the correct number of supports.ltem 34 - The four supports listed against conduit 3CC934PS in Tar 2 are: AB-5486, AB-5487, AB-4658, and AB-4278. The two supports AB-5486 and AB-5487 are associated with conduit 3CCC34PS. Support AB-4658 is associated with Junction Box 3HVR*JB288 which L. connected to conduit 3CC934PS and is accounted for as a conduit support >

(explained above, item 27). Support AB-4278 is not physically near or associated with conduit 3CC934PS and is considered an )

Printed 5/18/98 to:4s:4s AM Page 4 of 5 I 1

Northea:t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0928 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report administrative error.ltem 38 is not a support issue. The latest CSL drawing AB-2585 Rev 2, was issued to void this support.

Therefore there are no supports required for conduit 3CC935PG which is consistent with the field observation. This discrepancy was addressed in IRF 01861 where an Administrative DCN will be issued.ltem 41 represents a miscount by S&L and misreading of what is presented in the TSO2. For conduit 3CX1060K, TS02 l lists 20 supports. Field walkdown indicated 20 supports.

Previously identifled by NU7 O Ye. (e) No Non Discrepant Condition?U Yo. (f) No ResolLilon Pending70 ve. @ No Re.wouan unre.aved70 ve. @ No Review initiator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K oste: 5/15/98 st Comments: "*"NU'S RESPONSE THAT WE ENTERED IS INCOMPLETE.

WE MUST NOT HAVE ENTERED SOMETHING""

Adequacy of the supports for the additional loads needs to be verified prior to start-up.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of the walkdown results and reference document DCN DM3-S-0862.

Printed 5/18/9810A5A7 AM Ptge 5 of 5

1 Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0930 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED l

I Revhw Element: System Installation p

l Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Installation Irnplementation Ow l

System / Process: DGX g'

NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/18/98 Diacr*Pancy: Cable Tray Installation not in agreement with design documents

, Descripuon: The following differences between the installed conditions and the referenced design documents were noted during the walkdown of the system.

1. F-E-12463 added a horizontal tray section and a new vertical tray section in the 'B' train EDG building cable trench. The FE also provided for new supports D220-51 and D220-52. Drawing EE-34BC, Rev. 6, shows both the riser and horizontal tray sections and designctes them 3TK865P and also shows the ;

previously existing 12 inch tray. Drawing EE-34AX shows all l l three trays and is consistent with the FE. Drawing EE-34EX, Rev. 5, shows the two new supports but fails to show the added tray sections in tne cable trench; Detail D does not list support D220-52. TSO2 does not list either of the two supports nor does it provide identities for a support for the riser section of the tray.

2. F-E-28712 added ultra-violet detectors and junction boxes to supports D104-19 and D204-20 and identified the need to add j

W" bracing for axial restraint. NF-7759 allowed an 8 inch tolerance on the connection nearest the wall for the "W" bracing.

Currently installed configuration as well as plan drawing EE-34EX, Rev. 5 show a single angle iron brace installed on both ,

supports. No open change documents reviewed discuss this

, change in bracing. The installed configuration for support D104- l l 19 will not provide axial restraint for the support; only the j connection method is consistent with the "W" bracing detail.

3. Cable tray 3TH8600 is not installed as shown on drawings EE- ,

34BJ, Rev. 3 or EE-34EX, Rev. 5. No open changed documents i identified and reviewed modified this installation. l l

l 4. Cable trays 3TH860P and 863P are not installed as shown on )

l drawings EE 34 AX, Rev. 5 or EE-34EX, Rev. 5. No open i changed documents identified and reviewed modified this 1 l installation.

5. Field observation of tray support C355-183 noted the following differences from the support detail shown on drawing EE-34KT Rev.1. There were additional attachments to the vertical members that were not shown on the drawing for which approved design change documentation could be found.

Left vertical member two item "W" strut type members 8-inches long cantilevered with X" strut type members extending to the south; two "X" strut types members extending to the north for cable supports; four item "W" strut members 6-inches long Ented 5/18/98 to 46:15 AM

" Wage 1 of 3 l

m___________ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ l

1 Northe ct Utilitie3 ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0930 i

Miiistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report bottom for cable support.

l Right vertical member thiee item W strut type members, 8-inches long with "X" type strut members attached; one item "X" strut type member spanning north for cable support.

8. Field observation of tray support C226-207 notad the following differences from the support detail shown on drawing EE-34KJ Rev. 5. There is an additional attachment to the left vertical member that is not shown on the drawing for which approved design change documentation could be found. The additional connection to the support is an item "W" type strut member with an item "X" strut type member spanning to the north.

7. Field observation of tray support C092-227 noted the following differences from the support detail shown on drawing EE-34LE Rev. 5. The detail drawing indicates two trays are supported by the support at elevations 15 ft. 8 in. and 14 ft. 8 in. Only a single tray at elevations 15 ft. 8 in, was observed.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sarver, T. L. B 0 0 1/6/98 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 1/6/98 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 1/12/98 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K @ Q q 1/15/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 REsOLifTION: NU has concluded that the issues reported in DR-MP3-0930 have identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. Items 1,3,4 and 7 meet the criteria specifieriin NRC letter B16901 and 17010. They have been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets l section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI 20 deferral criteria.

item 1 item 1 is a valid discrepancy. A Design Change Notice will be initiated to correct Drawings EE-34EX to indicate Detail D against Tray support D220-52 on the Plan view and to include Support D220-52 as a reference on Detail D. Also, the Cable and Raceway Program is to be updated to include Tray Supports EX-D220-51 and EX-D220-52 against tray 3TK865P as necessary. These corrective actions are administrative only to clarify the as-installed condition of the two tray supports. The DCN will be issued post start-up. Item Sltem 3 is a valid drawing discrepancy. An administrative DCN will be issued post start-up, to correct the applicable documents as necessary to clarify the as-installed condition.ltem 4ltem 4 is a valid drawing discrepancy. An administrative DCN will be issued post start-up, to correct the applicable documents as necessary to clarify the as-installed condition.ltem 71 tem 7 is a valid drawing discrepancy. An administrative DCN will be issued post start-up, to correct the applicable documents as necessary to clarify the I as-installed condition. The Cable and Raceway Program Pnnted 5/18/9810M19 AM Page 2 of 3

.)

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-0930 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report indicates only one tray at this support, which confirms the field observation. The support has less load than indicated by i drawing EE-34LE. Therefore, this condition is deferrable as the l

tray support remains structurally adequate due to the l

conservative load based on two trays.CR M3-98-2092 was closed to Bin CR M3-98-0137. The approved corrective action,.s for CR M3-98-0137 will issue DCN's to correct these discrepancies post start-up.

NU has concluded that items 2,5 and 6 are not discrepant i conditions. Item 2ltem 2 is not a discrepancy. There are no open l Change Documents for the angle brace because it has abeady been incorporated onto EE-34EX. A search of the incorporated Change Documents against previous revisions of drawing EE-34EX reveals E&DCR F-E-14784 (Reference BCE-34EX), which was incorporated onto Rev. 4. This documerits an interference for the Det. "W" bracing and details the replacement with the single angle. The single angle brace is equivalent to the "W" l cross bracing since it is capable of transmitting the axial forces in the tray system to the wall connection, which is typically every third bay. Therefore, the bracing as shown is adequate and no further action is required. Item Sltem 5 is not a discrepancy. The Cable Support Attachments ses documented as shown on the Cable Tray Location Drawing EE-34DL and are based on an E&DCR F-E-23925 which is posted against that drawing. The East side attachments are Z177 & Z178 and West side are Z179 l

& Z180 per E&DCR F-E-23925 and detailed on other E&DCR's l listed within the F&DCR. Therefore, this item is not a discrepant condition and no further action is required.ltem 61 tem 6 is not a discrepancy. This item incorrectly identifies the Cable Tray Support as C226-207, it is actually C266-207 from the ceiling down and has an other support, C313-208, directly under it from ,

tile floor up (reference drawings EE-34DN and EE-34KQ). The I Cable Support Attachments are documented as shown on the Cable Tray Location Drawing EE 34DL and are based on an E&DCR F-E 23925 which is posted against that drawing. There are two West side attachment labeled Z223 at Elev. 43'-2" and 41'-4* per E&DCR F-E-23925 and detailed on other E&DCR's listed within that E&DCR. (Note : There are no cables attached to these two horizontal members). Therefore, this item is not a discrepant condition and no further action is required.

Significance Level Criteria do not apply as these items are not discrepant.

Prec ously identified by NU7 O Yes (0) No Non Discrepant Condition 70 Yes r#) No Resolution Pending?O yes @ No Re.oiution uaresolved70 v . @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A e O O 55'S8 VT Mgt: scnopfer, Don K O O 5 5'S8 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O 5 5'S8 O O O Date: 5/15/98 sL Comments: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of reference docume:dation and additional explanations provided.

Prtnted 5/18/98 tom 21 AM Page 3 of 3 l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

l a

Northert Utilitie3 lCAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0933 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration OR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potentia O bility issue Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation System / Process: DGX gg NRC Significance level: 4 Me faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/18/98 Discrepancy: Design Documents not in agreement; not consistent with l installation l

Description:

The following discrepancies with regard to Cable and Raceway l Control Program (TSO2), the referenced design documents and the installed conditions were noted during system walkdowns.

1. TSO2 indicates that tray 3TC486N has no covers, Drawing EE34TM, Rev. 2 indicates that a top cover is required.

2. TSO2 indicates Tray 3TC4100 shall have two flat covers.

Tray cover Drawing EE-34TM Rev. 2 indicates full ccreis.

Contrary to this requirements, the tray has a partial flat cover and partial vented cover and a section of no cover.

3. TSO2 indicates tray 3TC4120 has flat top and bottom covers. Contrary to this, the tray has a vented cove on the top.

4. TSO2 indicates tray 3TC413N has two covers, Drawing EE-34TM, Rev. 2 indicates that the tray has only a top cover. The tray was observed to have only a top cover.

5. TSO2 indicate that tray 3TC4130 has flat covers. Drawing EE-34TM, Rev. 2 indicates that tray shall have covers its full length. The tray was observed to hava a vented top cover and to be covered on the bottom for only part of its length.

6. TSO2 indicates tray 3TC437N has a single flat cover.

Drawings EE-34TM, Rev. 2 and EE-34TL, Rev.1 indicate no covers. The installed tray has a cover.

7. TSO2 indicates tray 3TC499N has two covers. Drawing EE-34TM, Rev,2 indicates tray is not covered. The Installed tray is not covered.

8. TSO2 indicates that tray 3TC595N has a single cover.

Drawing EE 34TM, Rev. 2 indicates the tray has no covers. The installed riser has a cover.

9. TSO2 indicates that tray 3TX415N has a cover. Drawing EE-34TN, Rev.1 indicates that the tray has no covers. No covers are installed.

10. TSO2 indicates that no covers are required for tray 3TX416N. Drawing EE-34TN, Rev.1 indicates a partial cover is required. Tray was observed to be partially covered.

11. TSO2 indicates that tray 3TX417N has no covers. Drawing EE-34TN Rev.1 indicates partial top and bottom covers are required. Try was observed to have partial top and bottom coveis installed.

12. TSO2 indicates tray STX422N has a single cover Drawing EE-34TN, Rev.1 indicates that partial top and bottom covers are l required. The installed tray has partial and bottom covers.

l 13. TSO2 indicates tray 3TX503N has a single cover. Drawing E-l 34TN, Rev. shows no covers for this tray. A cover was cbserved I

installed.

14. TSO2 indicates that tray 3TX504N has a single cover.

rirnwinn FF MThl Rav 1 indir ntne that ihn trnv' hne n inn nnd

~ '~

Pnnted 5/18/9610:46;49 AM Page 1 of 4

N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0933 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report bottom cover and a top and bottom cover was observed as installed.

15. TSO2 indicates that ray 3TX507N has a single cover. l Drawing EE 34TN, Rev.1 shows no covers for this tray,

16. TSO2 indicates that ray 3TX513N has a single cover.

Drawing EE-34TN, Rev.1 shows no covers for this tray.

17. TSO2 indicates that ray 3TC4700 has a single cover.

Drawing EE-34TL, Rev.1 shows ne covers for this tray and no covers are installed. I

18. TSO2 indicates that ray 3TC532N has a single cover. '

l Drawing EE-34TM, Rev. 2 shows no covers for this tray,

19. TSO2 indicates that conduit 3CX9260C has seven supports installed; only five could be located in the field.

20. TSO2 indicates conduit 3CK926GC1 has four supports; filed i observation revealed an additional support on the flex portion of the run yielding a total of five.

21. TSO2 lists tray 3TC4070 as attached to support 288-228.

The correct number as shown on Tray Support Drawing EE-34DL Rev.12 is C288-228.

22. TSO2 lists tray 3TC439N as attached to support C295-123. l The Tray Support Drawing EE-34DL Rev.12 shows this tray attached to support C295B-123.

23. Drawing EE-38T, Rev. 6 shows duct bank 870 conduit 11 as a control raceway (i.e. 3DC870P11) installed tag and the Cable and Raceway Control Program (TSO2) list it as 3DK870P11.

24. TSO2 indicates conduit 9CC926NQ3 is rigid; flex is installed.

25. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC4070 as attached to support 288-228. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.12 shows tray section 3TC4070 attached to support C288-228.

26. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC439N as attached to support C295-123. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.

12 shows 3TC439N attached to support C295B-123.

27. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC501N as attached to support C315-208. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.

12 shows 3TC501N attached to support C323-208.

28. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC516N as attached to supports C269-244, C269-245, C269-246, and C269-247, However, tiay support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.12 shows 3TC516N attached to supports C2698-244, C269B-245, C2698-246, and C269B-247. -

29. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC521N as attached to supports C269-242 and C269-243. However, tray support drawing 12179- I EE-34DL Rev.12 shows 3TC516N attached to supports C2698- 1 242 and C269-243.

30. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC523N as attached to support C038-144. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DN Rev.

11 shows 3TC523N attached to support C038-112.

31. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC545N as attached to supports l

C269-242, C263-243, C269-244, C269-245, C269-246 and C269-i 247. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE 34DL Rev.12 shows 3TC545N attached to supports C269B-242,

32. C269B 243, C2698-244, C269B-245, C269B-246 and C269B-247.

33. TSO2 lists tray section 3TC552N as attached to supports C269-244, C269-245, C269-246 and C269-247. However, tray support drawina 12179-EE 34DL Rev.12 shows 3TC552N

, Printed 5/18/981036 52 AM Page 2 of 4

)

Northeast Utilitieo ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0933 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report attached to supports C2698-244, C269B-245, C2698-246 and C269B-247.

34. TSO2 lists tray section 3TX405N as attached to support C343A-114. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL l

Rev.12 shows 3TX405N attached to support C343-114.

35. TSO2 lists tray section 3TX443N as attached to support C313-103. However, tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.

12 shows tray 3TX443N attached to suppoit C343-103.

36. Tray identification drawing 12179-EE-34BM Rev. 8 shows, in Plan C-40, the joint between tray section 3TC518N and section 3TC517N as being located 10'-0" west of column line D.2. Tray support drawing 12179-EE-34DL Rev.12 shows support C218-059 located at 10*-0" west of column line D.2. However, TSO2 does not list support C218-059 as being attached to tray section 3TC518N.

37. Tray support drawing shows tray section 3TC524N passing through support C037-109, C035-110 and C035-111 among others. However, TSO2 does not list support C035-110 as being attached to 3TC524N.

Review Valid invahd Needed Date initiator: sarver, T. L.

O O O 2/30/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthory A B O O 12/31/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O /12/98 lRC Chmn: singh. Anand K 8 0 0 1/14/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/14/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0933, have identified CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 conditions which require correction.

Items 2, 5, 7, 8,10,11,12,13,14, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,31,32,33,34, & 36 meet the criteria specified in NRC letters B16901 and 17'J10. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 crits and found to have no operability or deportability concems rc,d meets section 1.3.2.e fcr U3 PI-20 deferred critera. items 2,5,7,8,13, represent the same discrepancy condition. The as-installed tray cover condition for cable trays does not match the applicable drawing. However, the information provided in TS02 is conservative because the weight of covers on the respective trays indicated in the program is greater than the as-installed condition. Therefore, an administrative DCN is required to correct applicable documents as necessary clarify the as-installed condition.

Items 10,11,12,14, represent the same discrepant condition, differences in tray cover descriptions between Drawing EE-34TN and TS02. The additional weight added by the cover will not adversely affect the tray supports. TS02 support requirements will be reviewed and updated to reflect the as installed condition.

items 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, represent the same discrepant condition. These discrepancies are administrative in nature. An administrative DCN will be issued to correct TS02 to the cable tray support mark number. items 23, &

Printed 5/18/9810 46:54 AM Page 3 of 4

Northext Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0933 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i 1

36 represent the same discrepant conditon. Corrections will be made to correct TS02 cable tray support mark numbers.These j items represent administrative paper changes which require revising affected documents. The as-installed configurations are structurally adequate. The initiation of a DCN is deferrable as these conditions do not affect Nuclear Safety, Licensing Design Basis, Employee Concems or the safe operation of the Plant.CR l M3-98-2092 was closed to BIN CR M3-98-0137. The corrective actions for CR M3-98-0137 will be completed post startup. There is no affect on License or Design Basis.NU has conchded that items 1,3,4,6,9,15,16,17,18,19,20,24,35, and 37, do not represent discrepant conditions. item 1. A review of drawing EE-34TM indicated that no tray covers are required for 3TC486N.

Therefore, TS02 and the drawing are in agreement. Drawing EE-34TM is attached for reference.ltems 3,4,6,9,15,16,17,18, The applicable drawing govems the as-installed condition. For these cases, TS02 reflects a conservative weight for these tray l covers which is acceptable. Item 19. TS02 lists seven supports ,

for 3CX9260C and two supports are DG-031 and DG-044 which l are a junction box and a pull box support respectively. Conduit i 3CX9260C enters these boxes. This and the other five conduit supports account for the seven supports listed in TS02. Item 20.

The additional support is shown on the conduit as DG-392 and the CSL indicate that the only conduit associated with this support,3CK926GC1, was removed. The fact that the conduit is still attached is acceptable as it is conservative and does not adversely affect the conduit. Since the drawings and TS02 agree and the configuration is conservative, there is no need to remove the support in the field. item 24. Per Specification SP-EE-076, Section 3.3.1, flexible metal conduit may be substituted for entire conduit runs, subject to the limitations of this specification and drawings. General notes from the BE-52 series allow up to 4'0* maximum span for flex conduit without a support. Item 35. TS02 correctly lists cable tray 3TX443N against support DN-C343-103. Item 37. TS02 correctly lists cable tray 3TC524N against support DN-C035-110.

Previously identifled by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (8) No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes @) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Klaic, N O 5*"

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O S'SS8 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O S1S98 O O O Date: 5/14/98 SL Comments: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of the reference documentation and additional explanations provided.

Printed 5/18/9810.46:56 AM Page 4 of 4 1

N rthrcet Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0938 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design p

Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Design Control Procedure Om System / Process: N/A g

NRC Signl6cance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/18/98 Discrepancy: GRITS Problems

Description:

The following items were identified during the review of design documents in preparation of walkdown packages.

1. Change Document F-E-36281 was not field installed. The document was not superseded or voided. This document was closed 1/1/88 but did not change any design document. F-E-36281 shows as an outstanding change document on drawing 25212-34679.

2. Change Control Document F-E-17781 did not correctly reference drawing EE-34KA which would have provided as-installed information needed for existing support C201-106.

Drawing EE-34KA does not show all installed members .

3. Change Control Document F-E-17781 provides instructions to install two horizontal PS202 members on support C201 106.

However, this document is not listed as an open change control document for the support detail drawing EE-34KA Rev 3 and the member details are not incorporated into the drawing.

4. A 3 inch conduit was added to support C 227-158 by Change Control Document F-E-41489. This FE is not listed as an open document for Drawing EE-34KD which is the support detail drawing and the conduit information is not incorporated into the drawing.

5. NF 02419 references drawing EE-34MJ as an affected document, the actual drawing affected by the change document is EE-34MU.

6. F-E 29496 added a 6 x 3 tube steel member to Supports S104M-006 and S104M-008 that ties directly onto Support 0127-017A. The F-E does not list drawing EE-34MC (detail drawing for Support S127-017A) as an affected document.

7. F-E-15026 is not listed as an open change document for drawing EE-34JG Rev. 4, yet this F-E affects several supports found on this drawing: G2108-021, G213-032 & G218-016 are affected by F-E-15026.

8. A section of 4-inch conduit is used as a cable shunt between C P trays. This conduit is attached to Support G326-045 middle shelf and is labeled 3CC752PB. This conduit was added by DCN DM3-00-1227-96 which does not reference drawing EE-34JH, the support detail drawing.

9. N-CS-02144 is not listed as an open document for drawing EE-34MA Rev. 5. This N-CS has direct impact on Supports S104A-038 and S109A-096 on drawing EE-34MA Rev. 5 but was found only by reviews for drawing EE-34MB.

10. F-P-33182 lists EE-34LA as an affected document. Support-type 104A is only shown on drawing EE-34MA Rev. 5. F-P-33182 does not lead to correct drawing.

11. N-CS-01629 is used to modify the design previously modified I'

Prtr.ted 5/18/9810:47:20 AM age of 3

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0938 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Although the N-CS directly impacts the design shown on drawing EE-34LB, it is not listed as an open change control document on this drawing.

12. F-E-41011 added two conduits to the bottom horizontal member of tray support C046-192 but is not listed as affecting drawing EE-34KZ which is the reference drawing for the affected support. The FE failed to identify this drawing as being affected.

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

O O O $2/31/97 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A B O O 2/31/97 VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K S O O i12/98 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K @ O O 1/15/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 REsOWTION: NU has concluded that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0938, have identified CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 conditions which require correction.

Items 5 & 10 meet the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. They have been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI-20 deferral criteria.ltem 5. The N & D 02419 correctly lists drawing EE-34MU as an Affected Document. However, the hand writing was poor and the input into GRITS was mistakenly posted against EE-34MJ. This is an Administrative issae only to correctly post the N&D against EE-34MU as originally intended. Therefore, corrective action is required, but is deferrable as it does not affect Nuclear Safety, Licensing Design Basis, Employee Concems or the safe operation of the Plant.

Item 10. This item is Administrative only. The correct Change Control Document was not listed as an Affected Document on E&DCR F-P-33182. It should have referenced EE-34MA.

However, the attached support is traceable through the applicable cable tray support arrangement drawing, EE-34DQ and is therefore retrievable. An administrative DCN will be initiatedto correct the drawing for this CCD. Therefore, corrective action is required, but is deferrable as it does not affect Nuclear Safety, Licensing Design Basis, Employee Concems or the safe operation of the Plant.CR M3-98-2096 was closed to BIN CR M3-98-0164. The corrective actions in BIN CR M3-98-0164 will be compieted post startup.NU has concluded that items 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12 do not represent discrepant conditions.ltem 1. Based on field walkdown, the cable supports Z261 and Z262 shown on F-E-36281 are installed as detailed.

However, there are no cables attached to them. It serves no purpose to remove them at this time since they are traceable to '

this E&DCR from drawings EE-34DL, EE-34KN and EE-34KS ,

and they have a qualifying Calc. If they were to be used in the j future if necessary. Items 2 & 3. These two item have been .

previously answered by DR MP3-0485 (M3-IRF-02065), item 19 I as follows : Item 19 states that several PS204 and PS202 type !

Printed 5/18/9810:47:23 AM Page 2 of 3 i I

i

( l Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0938 l

Miiistone unit 3 Discrepancy Report members are attached to the South Vertical Leg of Tray Support !

C201-106. The design drawing, EE-34KA, Rev. 3 nor any open change documents for this drawing confirm the installation of these members. A review of the Cable Tray Support Location

drawing (EE-34DL), revealed that there are Cable Supports attached to the vertical legs for tray support C201-106. This is indicated by the designation "Z152" which indicates cable tray support members span between this support and an adjacent tray support. Further, a search of GRITS indicates that E&DCR F-E-23925, and others which supplement it, are posted against drawing EE 34DL. These E&DCR's provide details for the Cable Supports located throughout the entire location drawing and are designated as a number preceded by a "Z". Therefore, there is documentation for the attachment of Cable Ladders, PS204 or PS203 type Cable Supports to tray support shown on EE-34DL. item 4. The Change Control Document, F-E-41489 is l traceable through the applicable cable tray support arrangement drawing, EE-34DL and is retrievable by a search of GRITS.ltem

6. The Change Control Document, E&DCR F-E-29496 adds the TS 6 X 3 to Tray Support S104H, not S104M and is traceable through the applicable drawings as posted on the E&DCR. items l

, 7 & 9. A search of GRITS indicated that the CCD's mentioned '

l are correctly posted against the drawings referenced in each of the items. Item 8. The attachment of conduit supports ES-3396 l l

and ES-3397 to the Cable Tray Support is adequately documented on DCN DM3-00-1227-96, which locates and qualifies the attachment (See item 8 of the Problem Description). The conduit supports have identification Mark l Numbers which are easily traceable to the installation per the l DCN.ltem 11. The Change Control Document, N-CS-01629 is traceable through the applicable cable tray support arrangement drawing, EE-34DN and is therefore retrievable by a search of GRITS. The Tray Support drawing does not have to be listed as an Affected Document.ltem 12. The Change Control Document, F-E-41011 is traceable through the applicable cable tray support arrangement drawing, EE-34DN and is therefore retrievable by a search of GRITS. The Tray Support drawing does not have to be listed as an Affected Document.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (*) No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A 8 0 0 5'15'98 e VT Mgr: schopter, Don K B O 5/15'98 l BRc Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O 5/15/98 O O O Dde: 5/15/98

( sL comments: S & L concurs with the NU's disposition based on the review of the reference documentation and additional explanations provided.

Printed 5/18/9810:47:26 AM Page 3 of 3

1 Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0940 i

l Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguraten DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system installation Potential Operability issue Discipline: Electncal Design Discrepancy Type: Installation impiementaten Om System / Process: Oss gg NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/18/98 Discrepancy: Raceway Installation not consistent with Design Documents

Description:

The following differences were discovered during the review of Conduit Support Logs (CSL), the Cable & Raceway Control Program (TSO2), GRITS, and the installed configuration.

1. CSL 12179-FSK-AB-4333 Revision 2C lists conduit 3CC213ND as an associated conduit, however, TSO2 does not indicate this conduit as attaching to support AB-4333. TSO2 does show 3CC214ND as an associated conduit and CSL 12179-FSK-AB-4333 does not indicate conduit 3CC214ND.

2. CSL 12179-FSK-AB-6189 Revision 1 indicates the support type as a standard steel attachment, however, the GRITS title indicates this support as a special steel attachment.

3. CSL 12179-FSK-AB-8355 Revision 1 lists junction box JB*2035 and future '2" cond.' as associated, however, TSO2 does not indicate these items as being supported by AB-8355.

4. CSL 12179-FSK-MA-1103 Revision 3 indicates the reference !

elevation as 24'-6", however, the title field in GRITS Indicates the elevation as 4'-6".

5. CSL 12179-FSK-AB-4496 Revision 1 A provides for the support of conduit 3CX031YA2 on support AB-4496. This support was observed in the field to be installed at the proper location, however, the conduit hold down strap is rotated 180 degrees and the conduit is therefore not secured

6. The Cable and Raceway Control program (TSO2) indicates that the following conduits are aluminum. Contrary to this, these conduits are steel. (Note that the correct material type is shown on the conduit support logs): 3CX104PK1,3CX109WA1, 3CX031YA2,3CX931BA1,3CX107RA1.

7. The Cable and Raceway Control program (TSO2) indicates that tray 3TX105B has a single flat cover. Contrary to this, the tray cover drawing EE-34TQ, Rev. 2 with no outstanding change documents, shows this tray to have two covers and two covers are installed in the field.

8. The Cable and Raceway Control program (TSO2) indicates that tray 3TX106W has no covers. Contrary to this, the tray cover drawing EE-34TQ, Rev. 2 with no outstanding change documents, shows this tray to have a bottom cover and a partial bottom cover is installed in the field

' gkN Printed 5/18/9810:53.07 AM l

i

I N rthea:t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0940 i

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '

at each end of the conduit. The " extra tag"is 3CX109PA1 which based on the Cable and Raceway Control program (TSO2) is a 3" conduit with completely different from/to.

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

N O O 1/2/96 VT Lead: No.1, Anthony A B O O 1/5'S8 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K @ O O 1/12/96 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O /15/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that that the issues reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0940, nave identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction.

This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 Pi-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concerns and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI-20 deferral criteria. ;

Items 1 through 4. These items are administrative in nature. An Administrative DCN will be issued to correct the applicable documents and the Cable and Raceway Program and/or GRITS, I where necessary. I Item 5. A trouble report will be issued later to resecure the clamp to the conduit. This item is deferrable due to the total span ,

between the two adjacent supports (AB-4495 and AB-4497) l which have a span neglecting AB-4496 of 5'-0". This span is less than the 5'-5" allowed per the expanded span table in calculation 12179-SEO-SE-52.98. Therefore the conduit and supports are acceptable without support AB-4496 attached.

Item 6. An administrative DCN will be issued to correct the applicable documents. This condition has been previously corrected in the Cable and Raceway Program via an Administrative DCN DM3-00-061-97. These conduits will be handled in the same way.

Item 7. The Cable and Raceway Program will be updated per an Administrative DCN. The tray is installed as previously detailed which agrees with the design drawing and therefore, accounted for in the qualification.

Item 8. The Cable and Raceway Program will be updated per an Administrative DCN. a review of the applicable design drawing indicates the tray has a bottom cover and an asterisk to indicate a partiel cover. Therefore the tray is installed per the drawing requirements and as mentioned in the field observations given in this item.

Item 9 is a discrepancy. This is a tagging issue and will be resolved with a Trouble Report and an Administrative DCN to resolve any Cable and Raceway issues associated with these two conduits.

CR M3-98-2092 was closed in BIN CR M3-98-0137. The corrective actions in BIN CR-98-0137 will be completed post startup.

Printed 5/18/9810:53:10 AM Page 2 of 3

N:rthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0940 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Previously identified by NU7 U Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?U Yes (@) No '

Resolution Pending?O Yo. @ No R..oiution unr. solved?O Yes @ No Review initiator: Klaic, N C' C*PtaW M Me VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A O O Si m VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O S1 m IRC Chmn: Singh, Arend K O O si m O O O Date: 5/15/98 SL Comments: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the review of reference documents 12179-SEO--SE-52.98, DCN DM3-00-0616-97 and additional explanations provided.

l l

Printed 918/9810:53:12 AM Page 3 of 3 l

l

1 N:rthext Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0974 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RevNoroup: Configuration DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED -

Hoview Element: System installation p

Discipline: Piping Des,lgn Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation Om System / Process: SWP g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/25/98 Discrepancy: Walkdown Discrepancy of the SWP in the ESF Building

Description:

The following discrepancy item was found during the walkdown of the piping and mechanical equipment of the SWP in the ESF Building:

1. Pipe support PSR-165 identified on isometric drawing Cl-SWP-210 Sht 3 Rev 10 and shown on drawing BZ-19A-48 has a stiffener plate missing from the backside of the wide flange beam it is attached to.

Review Valki invalid Needed Date initiator: Road,1. W.

O O O 1/15/S8 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 1/15/S8 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O f20/98 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 1i22/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/15/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0545, has identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which requires action. This dNcrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It ;

has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI 20 deferral criteria.

1. This is a drawing error. The stiffener plate was removed with E & DCR F-J-08418 due to a supplemental steel beam et the same location. Therefore, this plate was not required. The drawing was not updated to reflect this E & DCR. CR M3 2095 was closed to Bin CR M3-98-0165 which will update the drawing post startupto reflect the as-installed condition and prevent further confusion.There is no affect on License or Design Basis.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (e.) No Non Discrepent Corxistion?( ) Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O ves @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date N

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mor: Schopfer, Don K O =

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 5/15/98 SL Comments: S & L concurs with NU's disposition based on the fact that stiffener Printed 5/18/9810 49:21 AM Page 1 of 2 L___________________________

l l

l N:rthenct Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0974 l

Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report removal due to the interference has been addressed and documented.

l l

Printed 5/18/9610:49:24 AM Pap 2 M 2

(

Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N . DR-MP3-1061 >

l Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue l

Diecipline: Mechanecal Dwign Discrepancy Type: corrective Action O vs.

SystenVProcess: DGX g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 2/23/98 l Discrepancy: Jacket Water Temperature Control Valve Classification l

Description:

Review of the modification package for PDCR M3-96076 l resulted in the following discrepancies:

1. FSARCR # 96-MP3-61 initiated changes to the FSAR which included adding jacket water temperature regulating valve to the i list of engine-mounted components not covered by ASME Section Ill, but which are designed in accordance with the diesel manufacturer's latest standards for reliability. The FSAR April 1997 issue confirms that the jacket water temperature regulating valve was incorporated into the list of components not covered by ASME Section 111. Thus, per FSAR, the valve is a non ASME lit component.

However, the seismic qualification report SQR No. 3-96-026 states that the jacket water temperature control valve is seismically qualified because it is an ACME lil Class 3 valve. In addition, the Safety Evaluation No. M3-96076, Section 1.3 also j states that "The replacement is an ASME Section 111, Class 3 !

valve." The safety evaluation is a part of the FSARCR # 96-MP3-61, and the FSARCR and the seismic report are included with the modification package.

2. The copy of the FSARCR # 96-MP3-61 submitted with the PDCR M3-96-076 modification package is different from the copy included with the implementation package for Unresolved item Report 579. The difference is that the sheets 2 and 4 of the copy of FSARCR in the modification package contain additional information; page 4 includes an additional change to the FSAR (adding the jacket water temperature regulating valve to the list of components not covered by ASME Section lil). Per FSAR April 1997 update, this additional change was incorporated in the FSAR. Therefore, the changes incorporated in the FSAR per FSARCR # 96-MP3-61 do not match the changes identified in the copy of FSARCR # 96-MP3-61 enclosed with the implementation package for UlR 579.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Obersnel,Bojan. O O O 2/i7/98 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 2/17/98 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 2/is/98 BRC Chmn: singh, Anand K G O O 2/19/96 Date:

INVALID:

'Me: 5/15/98 Printed 5/18/9810 49.53 AM Page 1 of 2

1 Northe:st Utilit':s ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-1061 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in DR-MP3-1061 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 and 'ound to have no operability or deportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria.

CR M3-98-1672 was closed to Bin CR M3-98-0163. Bin CR M3-98-0163 will revise the SQR and safety evaluation, post startup.

1 The SQR and SE do state that the valve is ASME Ill class 3 but the FSAR correctly !Jentifies these valves as non-ASME.

The SE does not take credit for the valve classification as part of its final evaluation. The SQR does base its determination on the valve classification. The SQR and SE shall be revised.

2 The changes made to FSARCR 96-MP3-61 between revision 0 and 1 have no affect on the outcome or the resolution of UlR 579. The FSARCR revision 0 was PORC approved on 2/7/97 and revision 1 on 3/15/97.NU has concluded that this issue has identified a NON-DISCREPANT condition.

l l

Conclusion ,

NU has concluded that the issue reported in DR-MP3-1061 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition wiuch requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 and found to have no operability or deportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria.

CR M3-98-1672 was closed to Bin CR M3-98-0163. Bin CR M3-98-0163 will revise the SQR and safety evaluation, post startup.

Previously identified by NU? O ves (#) No Non Discrepant Oondition?O Yes (9) No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. @ No Review initiator: Obersnel,Bojan.

VT Leed: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K ,

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K oste: 5/15/98 sL comments: The SQR should base the valve seismic qualification on the Colt industries report," Seismic Analysis & Test of the Temperature Regulating Valves", F.M. Contract 700002 for Hope Creek, which is referenced in the SQR. In this report the valve was qualified by

(

I a combination of testing and analysis for the Hope Creek Station.

SarDent & Lundy reviewed this report as part of the ICAVP System Raview and found it to be acceptable for this Millstone Unit 3 application. Based on this, revising the SQR after startup is acceptable.

I Printed 5/18/9610:49:56 AM Page 2 of 2 l

u _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3-1089 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Piping Design Discrepancy Type: calculation Systern/ Process: NEW NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 3/30/98 Discrepancy: Incorrect calculation revisions referenced in DCR'S

Description:

In the process of reviewing the following RSS Modification DCR's, (1) DCR M3-96063, Rev. 0 (2) DCR M3-97045, Rev. O we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

In the design input section of (1) and (2), revision numbers for the following calculations are incorrect. The correct revision numbers as reviewed by S&L, and confirmed by NU via IRF-01303 and IRF-01399, are shown in parenthesis:

NP(B)-X7907 Rev i (Rev 0, CCN 2)

NP(B)-X7909 Rev 1 (Rev 0, CCN 3)

NP(B)-X7910 Rev 1 (Rev 0, CCN 3)

NP(B)-X7913 Rev 2 (Rev 1, CCN 2)

NP(B)-X7914 Rev 2 (Rev 1, CCN 3)

NP(B)-X7915 Rev 2 (Rev 1, CCN 2)

NP(B)-X7916 Rev 2 (Rev 1, CCN 2)

NP(B)-X7917 Rev 1 (Rev 0, CCN 3)

NP(B)-961-XD Rev 3 (Rev 2, CCN 3)

NP(B)-X798 Rev 2 (Rev 1, CCN 2)

NM(S)-748-CZC-003 Rev 2 (Revi, CCN 2)

Discrepancy:

Incorrect calculation revisions are referenced in DCR'S. This is consisered a level 4 discrepancy.

Review Valid i.tvalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, Ranwsh.D 6 O O 3/20/98 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A B O O 3/21/98 j VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K G O O se23/98 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O 3/2s/98 l

Date:

j ANVALID:

l l

l cate: 5/15/98 l RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-IRF-02180 Printed 5/18/9810:50:23 AM Page 1 of 2 l i

l

l i

N:rthec:t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-1089 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1089 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. CR M3-98-2294 has been issued to i I document this discrepant condition. The CR was recommended

! for immediate closure since the discrepant conditions identified j within DR- MP3- 1089 have been corrected. DCN DM3-00-0163-l 98 (approved 2/23/98) has corrected the discrepancies identified i

in DCR M3-96063, Rev 0. Rev 1 to DCR M3-97045, which was PORC approved on 4/4/98, has corrected the discrepancies in DCR M3-97045, Rev 0.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1089 has identified a CONFlRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition which requires correction. CR M3-98-2294 has been issued to document this discrepant condition. The CR was recommended for immediate closure since the discrepant conditions identified within DR- MP3- 1089 have been corrected. DCN DM3-00-0163- i 98 (approved 2/23/98) has corrected the discrepancies identified l In DCR M3-96063, Rev 0. Rev 1 to DCR M3-97045, which was l PORC approved on 4/4/98, has corrected the discrepancies in DCR M3-97045, Rev 0.

l Attachments:

CR M3-68-2294 DCN DM3-00-0163-98 DCR M3-97045, Rev 1 Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant ConditionrO Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O Ye. @ uo ne.oiution unre.oivedro Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Prakash, A.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 9 0 0 Si m O O sis 9e VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O si m O O O Date: 5/15/98 sL comments: Based on NU's response, the subject discrepancies have been corrected.

I Printed WitW610:50:26 AM Page 2 of 2

i Northea;t Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-1090 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operaldlity issue i Discipline: Piping Design '

Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om (9) No System / Process: NEW NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 3/30/98 Discrepancy: Acceptance basis for nonle loads of pumps 3EGF*P1 A, P1B, P1C and P1D are not available

Description:

in the process of reviewing the following documents, (1) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-2743, Rev. O CCN # 1 (2) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-2744, Rev. O, CCN # 1 (3) Calculation 12179-NP(F)-2745, Rev. O, CCN # 1 (4) Calculation 12179-NP(F-}2746, Rev. O, CCN # 1 (5) Calculation 12179-NM(S)-760-CZC-001, Rev. 0 (6) Calculation 12179-NM(S)-760-CZC Rev. O we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

Comparison of calculated noule loads with their allowable l values for Emergency fuel oil transfer pumps 3EGF*P1 A, P1B, !

P1C and P1D is documented in calculations (1-4).

Calculations (1-4) refer to calculation (5) for acceptance of nonle loads, which exceed allowable values.

Calculation (5) has been requested twice per RF1-M3-854 and f RF1-M3-870. Corresponding Response M3-IRF-01881 and M3- '

IRF-01983 did not provide the subject calculation. Instead l calculation (6) was provided. i This calculation (6) performs the nonle load evaluation for normal load condition only. It also refers to calculation (5) for nonle load acceptance.

l l Discrepancy: l Calculation (5) which is referenced as the acceptance basis for pump nonle loads is not available.

NU should either provide the subject calculation (5) or should revise calculations (1-4 and 6) to correct the documentation.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel. Ramesh D 0 0 0 3/20/98 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A B O O 3/20/98 l VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 3/2 w 8 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K 0 0 0 3/26/98 Printed 5/18/9810.50.54 AM Page 1 of 2

l l

Northe "t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1090 I Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date:

INVALID:

Date: 5/16/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID:M3 - IRF - 02172 Disposition:

NU has concluded that this issue reported in DR-MP3-1090 has identified a CONFlRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 condition I which requires correction. Calculation 12179-NM(S)-760-CZC- 1 001 has been referenced as a basis for acceptance of nozzle l loads which exceed allowable values. This calculation has not been located nor is it filed in NDS. Therefore, the approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-2069 will revise the five calculations noted by S&L to provide the correct reference for acceptance of pump nozzle loads. This will be done after startup since the calculation results will not Change.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that this issue reported in DR-MP3-1090 has identified a CONFIRMED SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 4 cond; tion ;

which requires correction. Therefore, the approved corrective i action plan for CR M3-98-2069 will revise the five calculations i noted by S&L to provide the correct reference for acceptance of l the pump nozzle loads. This will be done after startup since the ;

calculation results will not change. )

i Attachments. -

CR M3-98-2069 with approved coiTective action plan Previously klentified by NU? O Yes (G) No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (8) No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O Yes @ No Review initiator: Prakash, A.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mge: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 5/16/98 SL Comments: Calculated nozzle loads have been compared with their allowable values, and under normal loading conditions the loads exceed allowable values. An evaluation for the normalload condition has been performed. The discrepancy, is therefore, a documentation issue.

NU's corrective action plan will revise the noted calculations to correct the documentation for acceptance of pump r.ozzle loads.

Printed 5/18/9610:50.57 AM Page 2 of 2

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

ML20247K013

Contents

Text

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

References:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Background:

Conclusion:

Description:

Background:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

ML20247K013

Text

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

References:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Background:

Conclusion:

Description:

Background:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search