Text

Forwards Discrepancy Repts (Drs) Identified During Review Activities for Independent Corrective Action Verification Program,Iaw Communications Protocol,PI-MP3-01
	ML20217E603
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	04/24/1998
From:	Schopfer D; SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	9583-100, NUDOCS 9804270355
	Download: ML20217E603 (62)
	v • d • e

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

e g

4 Sar ge$K Lundyc dk

'Ql ga Don K. Schopfer Senior Vice President 312 269-6078 April 24,1998 Project No. 9583-100 Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document ControlDesk Washington, D.C. 20555 Enclosed are discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our review activities for the ICAVP.

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

I have enclosed the following twenty-three (23) DRs for which the NU resolutions have been reviewed and accepted by S&L.

DR No. DR-MP3-0006 DR No. DR-MP3-0890 DR No. DR-MP3-0052 DR No. DR-MP3-0891 DR No. DR-MP3-0480 DR No. DR-MP3-0892 DR No. DR-MP3-0719 DR No. DR-MP3-0893 DR No. DR-MP3-0724 DR No. DR-MP3-0951 DR No. DR-MP3-0731 DR No. DR-MP3-0952 DR No. DR-MP3-0751 DR No. DR-MP3-0954 DR No. DR-MP3-0765 DR No. DR-MP3-0991 DR No. DR-MP3-0793 DR No. DR-MP3-1073 \

DR No. DR-MP3-0842 DR No. DR-MP3-1075 DR No. DR-MP3-0844 DR No. DR-MP3-1080 DR No. DR-MP3-0861 C\

k0 i 9804270355 980424 PDR ADOCK 05000423 p PDR 55 East Monroe Street + Chicago. IL 60603-5780 USA

312-269-2000

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 24,1998 Document Control Desk Project No. 9583-100 Page 2 I have also enclosed one (1) DR for which the NU resolution has been reviewed but not accepted.

S&L comments on this resolution has been provided.

DR No. DR-MP3-0557 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.

Yours very truly,

_m -

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

3 E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council J. Fougere (1/1) NU m%svpbun98WO424-a4w

Northe:st Utilit'es ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3 0006 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l Review Group: P4grhtnmetk

)

DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED l

PotentialOperability issue 1 l Discipline: Other '

! Discrepancy Type: Design Control Procedgre System / Process: N/A g-NRC Significance level: 3 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 9/11T/

Discrepancy: PORC/SORC Review cf Minor Modifications Ducription: Safety-related MMODS are not required to be PORC/SORC reviewed.

Revision 5 to the Design Control Manual (DCM) Chapter 1.0, Section 1.7 establishes the fobowing 1:ases for design changes being Minor Modifications (MMODs);

o A MMOD typically involves non-complex / minor design l changes affecting either non-safety or safety-related systems, l structures, or components described in engineering design

documents.

o MMODs may be only used for design changes (non-safety l or safety-related) that DO NOT require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety i evaluation.

l The noto under DCM Chapter 3, Section 3.0, Task 10 states "MMODs do not require PORC/SORC review and Unit Director I approval; the design change can be directly implemented per l Section 4.0." Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.d establishes

! PORC responsibility for review of all proposed changes or j modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear '

safety, and TS 6.5.2.6.g establishes SORC responsibility for review of all common site proposed changes or modifications to systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety.

l Furthermore, the NRC l&E Enforcement Manual STS-Section 6.5.1.1. provides clarification on the Licensee's review j responsibility for matters related to nuclear safety. The discussion states, "...the on-site committee is responsible for the

review of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety. It is the NRC position that this requirement applies to all proposed changes or modifications that can affect the safety related functions of plant structures, systems and components. Such changes and l modifications can involve plant systems and equipment which

! are not required to be covered by the quality assurance i program. Regardless of the components or systems involved, l changes or modifications that can affect safety-related functions l must be subjected to on-site committee action." The discussion continues with an example of the installation of roof drain piping over electrical equipment that has a safety function.

Based on the DCM definition of MMODs and the Note included in Chapter 3, Section 3.0 of the DCM, the design change program is discrepant with respect to PORC/SORC review requirements for safety-related MMODS which may affect nuclear safety. The 50.59 screening in DCM for safety related or P emem non cc cty40!Oted ~'Odific0t!0n may notelways+how4hg , y 4

l DR N3. DR-MP3-0006 N:rthert Utilities ICAVP Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Repcrt 50.59 safety evaluation is required when a MMODS affects nuclost safety.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wrona s. P- 0 0 0 Br2a/97 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J B O O S/3/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 9/8/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 9/8/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition (revised):

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0006, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. As described in the ICVAP DR, T.S.

6.5.1.6.d establishes PORC responsibility for review of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety. As stated in the DR, the NRC I&E Enforcement Manual (STS-Section 6.5.1.1) provides clarification of the issue stating, "the on-site committee is responsible for the revlew of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety."

l Further clarification is provided in that "the requirement applies to all proposed changes or modifications that can affect the safety related functions of plant structures systems and components."

The DCM process recognizes that changes and modifications to systems not covered by 10CFR50 Appendix B requirements may require PORC review and approval. The 10CFR50.59 screening ensures that those elements of the plant which may affect our l licensing basis documents (SAR) are reviewed for such impact.

Any modification resulting in such changes are processed via a DCR and are, therefore, subjected to PORC review and approval.

l l To strengthen the DCR/MMOD tie to the Technical Specification requirements for PORC review, the DCM has been revised to ensure that changes which " affect nuclear safety

are appropriately identified and processed. Chapter 1 of the DCM has been modified to state *MMODs provide a means of expeditiously packaging non-complex /mirier design changes to

, the Unit that do not affect nuclear safety' and "MMODs may be only used for design changes (non-safety or safety-related) that do not require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation and do not affect nuclear safety (i.e. modifications to safety related systems, structures, and components that do not affect safety functions or failure modes; modifications to non-safety related systems, structures, and components that do not result in interactions or failure modes that affect safety related functions).*

Pnnted 4/24/98 8M22 AM Page 2 of 4

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0006 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report it is, however, important to note that the design review process for both MMODs and DCRs is equally rigorous. During the development of the design change package, programs listed on DCM Form 3-2C are reviewed in the design screening process to determine impact. Three additional screens have been included in Revision 6 (See sections 1.7,3.1 and Form 3-2AA). This review also serves as an additional mechanism for design engineering to ensure the proper design change process is used.

The DR states thai',wardless of the components or systems involved, changes or modQcations that can affect safety related functions must be subjected to on-site committee action." It is NU's position that the enhanced DCM process (DCM Rev. 5 Change 3, effective 10/15/97 and DCM Rev. 6 Change 2, effective 11/26/97), ensures that modifications which affect nuclear safety are " subjected to on-site committee action".

Industry guidance (e.g., INPO AP-906) rscognizes that design change activities result in altering the design ccnfiguration by revising design requirements and include temporaiy changes, minor changes and major changes. Design change processes provide flexibility while ensuring safe and reliable operation. in keeping with this guidance, the accurate identificatio1 of minor modifications that do not require a 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation and do not affect nuclear safety ensures that the Plant Operation Review Committee (PORC) focums on issues important to safety. This process is structured to ensure that the review committee role is not diluted by issues with no safety significance while requiring technical and interdiscipline reviews be performed consistent with DCM process requirements. The design control processes in the DCM are consistent with industry standards and guidelines. The Millstone design control processes were independently benchmarked during 1997 by MDM Nuclear Services against other utilities, EPRI and NSAC.

Recommendations from the benchmarking have been incorporated into the Millstone design control processes. The l approved corrective action plan for CR M3-97-3380 has been written to track these enhancements to the design control process and the revisions to the DCM have been completed. NU concludes that this a Significance level 4 discrepancy in that it idences a programmatic weakness which has not resulted in failure to ic. set the plant license and design basis.

Conclusion (revised):

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0006, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The DCM process i

recognizes that changes and modifications to systems not I covered by 10CFR50 Appendix B requirements may require PORC review and approval. The 10CFR50.59 screening ensures that those elements of the plant which may affect our licensing basis documents (SAR) are reviewed for such impact. Any modification resulting in such changes are processed via a DCR and are, therefore, subjected to PORC rev.lew and approval. To strengthen the DCR/MMOD tie to the Technical Specification requirements for PORC review, the DCM has been revised to ensure that chanaes which " affect nuclear safety" are Pmted 4/2498 8:54:23 AM Page 3 of 4

y

)

Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR H2. DR-MP3-0006 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report appropriately identified and processed. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-97-3380 has been written to track these enhancements to the design bontrol process and the revisions to the DCM have been completed.

NU concludes that this a Significance level 4 discrepancy in that it identifies a programmatic weakness which has not resulted in failure to meet the plant license and design basis.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?U Yes (e) No ResolutionPending?O Yes $) No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. @ no Review 1 initiator: Navarro, Mark l VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J

! VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K ,

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 4/22/g8 8 0 0 -

i SL Comments: S&L accepts the response with respect to the programmatic improvements which have been made in procedures and the DCM to assure compliance with technical specification requirements. These programmatic improvements (which were viewed as both necessary and appropriate) are considered as the main factor in our acceptance.

l NUs statement that the " programmatic weakness did not result in l failure to meet the plant license and design basis" appears to be based on the assumption that the 50.59 screening process which previously existed would have identified any changes that affect l nuclear safety. While NU's recently issued safety evaluation screening procedure (RAC 12) includes guidance that should ensure such determination, it is not clear that historically this

, would have been the case. Nevertheless, we do not consider the

! historical record of procedural compliance for PORC reviews (for l

this specific administrative requirement) to be of major significance when compared to the more important programmatic improvements discussed above and NU's implementation of the CMP. However, the issue is generic in that it applies to all MMODs which affect nuclear safety and NU's corrective actions certainly resulted in programmatic improvements via needed changes to the DCM and issuance of RAC 12. Accordingly, in accepting NU's response we maintain that the programmatic l weakness was significance level 3.

in addition to above:

As agreed in our teleconference of 4/22/98, NU now accepts that the significance level of this issue is 3. No further action is required.

Printed 4/2496 8:54:25 AM Page 4 of 4

4 N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0052 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: system Design Potential Operability issue Discipline: structural Design

Discrepancy Type: calculation O vos l SysterrVProcess: Rss @ No NRC significance level: 4 I Date faxed to NU:

l Date Published: 8/28/97 Discrepancy: Pipe support calculation discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed Pipe Support Calculations No.12179- NP (F)-

Z798-086, Rev. 2 & CCN NO.1.

Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancies.

l 1. The forces & moments used to check the welds on pages 20-23 are inconsistent with input data from pages 9 & 10.

2- The force FX = 4809 # on page 17 is inconsistent with the f l force FX = 4764 # on page 24.

3- On page 18, M2 should be 838 instead of 2189.

! Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel,A.

O O O 8/20/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 8/20/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 8t22/97 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 8/22/97 l Date:

l lNVALID:

l Date: 4/20/98 l l RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that item #1 reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0052, does not represent a discrepant condition. The confusion is due to the difference between the pipe stress data and the pipe support data inputs. They are correct as written. NU has concluded that items #2 and #3 reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0052, have identified conditions not previously I discovered by NU which require correction. The calculations will be revised to correct items #2 and #3 of DR-MP3-0052. CR M3-97-3123 was initiated to provide the necessary corrective actions

! to resolve this issue.

SECOND RESPONSE:

l l NU has concluded that the issues reported in item 1 of l Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0052, have identified conditions not previously discovered by NU which require correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-1823 will prepare a Calculation Change Notice to Calc.12179-NP(F)-Z79B-086 to correct the orientation of applied loads and issue an administrative DCN to revise the support drawing to reflect the as-installed condition.

A field verification walkdown of the welds forjoint 2 and 4 determined that as constructed length of the weld leg is 4 inches

( full rap around weld) in lieu of the designated length of 3-1/2" Printed 4/24/96 8:55:08 AM Page 1 of 3

T' Northertt Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0052 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i Based on this extra length of weld and the new lower design I l

l loads, the as constructed welds were found to be adequate.

l As such there is no effect on the licensee or design basis,

]

I l therefore NU has concluded this to be a Significance Level 4 l l issue.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (#) No NonDiscrepentCondition?O Yes (@ No Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Re.osuinon unre.olved70 ves @ No Review initiator: Klaic, N " *

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1Rc Chmn: singh, Anand K Date: 4/20/98 sL Comments: 1) NU's response for items # 2 & 3 of the discrepancy is acceptable.

2) NU's response for item #1 of the discrepancy report is not acceptable.

l The NU response does not explain why the differences between j the pipe stress data and the pipe support data are ' correct as written'.

In Calculation 12179-NP(F)-Z79B-086 Revision 2, the design loads for qualification of the weld (Member 4 at Joint 4, see page

16) are noted on page 20 as : )

i

, OF1 = 268 #0M1 = 24,115 in #

OF2 = 1,230 #0M2 = 487 in #

OF3 = 4,017 #0M3 = 1,942 in #

l l

The force F1 and Moment M3 are much smaller than the loads {

l which would be expected at Member 4 at Joint 4 for the pipe support geometry and the lateral (Fx) pipe reactions of 4969 #

j (see page 9) applied at Joint 5. Similarly, the force F3 and Moment M1 appear to be larger than loads which would be !

expected. The weld at Joint 4 appears to be overstreesed when the weld qualification loads are correctly computed for the specified pipe reaction loads.

Similar discrepancy exists for the weld for Member 9 at Joint 2 j (see page 16).

l If our understanding of the pipe reactions or the weld qualification loads is in error, please clarify. We are upgrading the significance level for this discrepancy to 3 because the weld may be ovestressed.

SECOND RESPONSE:

S & L concluded that , based on the review of the NU's response, Significance Level revision to Level 4 issue is acceptable since Printed 4f24/98 8:55:12 AM Page 2 of 3

~

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0052 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report there is sufficient margin to offset the impact of the revised loads.

Based on the aforementioned review, this is not a re-start issue.

I 1

1 1

PrWed 4/24/98 8 55:14 AM Page 3 of 3 1

1

i N:rthext Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0480 i Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Poten".lal Operability lasue Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data Om SysterrVProcess: HVX g'

NRC Signincance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1o/26/97 Discrepancy: ESF Filter Unit Compliance with RG 1.52, Rev. 2 Position C.3.g j

Description:

During review of the Supplementary Leak Collection and

' l Release System (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/3B and the '

Auxiliary Builiding Ventilation System exhaust f:lter units i 3HVR*FLT1 A/1B for compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, ,

Rev. 2 position C.3.g a discrepancy regarding the layout of the i housing and banks of filters was identified.

! FSAR Table 1.8-1 states that the filter units comply with the l requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.g l except that no intemal lighting is provided.

FSAR Table 6.5-1 states that the charging pump, component l

cooling pump and heat exchanger area exhaust system is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.g FSAR Table 6.5-1 states that the supplementary leak collection and release system is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2 position C.3.g Regulatory Guide 1.52 position C.3.g requires that system filter housings, including floors and doors, should be constructed and designed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.6 of i ANSI N509-1976.

ANSI N509-1976 Section 5.6 requires that the layout of the housing and banks of components within the housing shall provide for access to both sides of each bank of components for maintenance and testing.

i Drawings 2170.430-065-022D,2170.430-065-023E, EB-45G-9 and EB-45H-12 do not show access doors provided for the upstream side of the demister filter bank, the upstream side of l the prefilter bank, and downstream side of the second HEPA l filter bank.

Review I Valid invalid Needed Date l InMlator: Stout. M. D. O O O 10/13/97 i VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B O O $o/14/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K 3 O O 10/20/97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Arund K G O O 1 o/21/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: First Response Printed 4/2498 8.55:48 AM Page 1 of 4 f

e i

l Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No DR-MP3-0480 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report )

l NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR MP3-0480, does not represent a discrepant condition. The i

filtration units are in compliance with the requirements of both i RG 1.52 and ANSI N509-1976. The requirement for access does not stipulate that the access be provided in the form of a door. These units are designed with removable filters and demisters. These components can be removed as required to gain access to areas of the units not provided with doors. There are also occess panels on the inlet and outlet duct in locations that would allow for limited visual inspection or installation of air test equipment if required.

Access doors (DRAs) are depicted on 12179-EB-45 series drawings. EB-45A was transmitted on 8/7/97 under transmittal

76. All others should be found on aperture cards. Grits has been reviewed to confirm that aperture card revisions are still current.

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

Second Response b has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0480 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

The statement in FSAR Table 1.8-1, referred to above, means that the (filter) units are provided with hinged doors, or bolted panels with inspection windows. It is not intended that hinged doors be also fumished with inspection windows, since they are easily opened to perform the required inspections. The visual inplace inspections required per ANSI N510 cannot be conveniently performed on the upstream sections of the demisters, nor on the downstream side of the SLCRS final HEPA filters, as stated above. NU has written CR M3-98-0895 to address this discrepancy. The approved correction action plan will require review of access provisions for filters 3HVR*FLT1 A/B and 3HVR*FLT3A/B to determine compliance with the design, construction and test requirements of ANSI N509-1976 and RG 1.52 and revision of FSAR Table 1.8-1 to clarify exceptions to the compliance. Corrective action will be complete prior to Mode 2. Licensing / design basis is not affected by this revision to FSAR Table 1.8-1. Based on Section 6.5.1 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) the exceptions to RG 1.52 identified above are minor in nature and, therefore, this discrepancy is classified as Significance Level 4.

Attachments:

CR-M3-98-0895 with approved corrective action plan.

Section 6.5.1 of SER Supplement to Second Response This response to DR-MP3-0480 supplements M3-lRF-01797.

Printed 4'24'98 8.55:51 AM Page 2 of 4 L

N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0480 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has revised the corrective action for CR M3-98-0895 to revise FSAR Table 6.5-1. to take exception from the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.52 Rev. 2, Position C.3.g and l ANSI N509-1976, section 5.6 to provide access doors upstream l of the demister filters and downstream of the HEPA filters on units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B and 3HVR*FLT3A/B. Corrective action will be completed before Mode 2. Based on section 6.5.1 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), these exceptions are minor, therefore, this discrepancy is considered Significance Level 4. j Attachments:

Action Request Report (A10) for AR 98003441-02 (revised corrective action for CR M3-98-0895)

Previously identifled by NU? O Yes @ No Non Descrepant Condition?O Yes @ No .

Resolution Pending?O ve. @ No Resolution Unresolved?O vs. @ No Review l Initiator; stout, M. D.

C

C*PtaW MM m l VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/22/98 ;

sL Comments: Comments on First Response I

FSAR Table 1.8-1, Reg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, positon C.3.g states ;

that the units are in accordance with ANSI N509 and that the units are provided with hinged doors or bolted panels with inspection windows.

The ductwork access door identified in Attachment C to Specification SP-ME-576 do not have inspection windows as stated in FSAR Table 1.8-1.

The duct access door locations for filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B shown on drawing EB-45G are located outside of the filter room and have fire dampers installed between the access door and filter unit. With the angle of the inlet and outlet transitions on the filter units use of the ductwork access doors for visual inspection of the mounting frames required by ANSI N510 would be very difficult. The drawing also shows little room for removal of the duct spool piece between the filter unit and fire damper.

Drawing EB-45H shows access doors in the inlet ductwork for filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B. There is a damper (3HVR*AOD95A/B) and an elbow between the access door and the filter unit inlet.

Use of these ductwork access doors for visualinspection of the mounting frames required by ANSI N510 would be very difficult.

There are no duct access doors shown on the square to round duct transition between the filter outlet and fan 3HVR*FN12A/B.

Removal and replacement of this duct section would require verification that the duct leakage is still within allowable limits.

Therefore, the access requirements of ANSI N509 have not been met and FSAR Table 1.8-1 should be revised to include this Printed 474/98 8 55 53 AM Page 3 of 4

N:rthert Utilition ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0480 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report exception to Reg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.g Commer!3 on Second Response This is considered a level 4 discrepancy as the corrective action requires an exception to RG 1.52, Rev. 2 requirements similar to one shown in FSAR Table 1.8-1 for the control room filter units.

Printed 4"2498 8.55:54 AM p, g4

Northert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0719 l Millstene Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Conrguretkwi DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Discipline:I & C Design Potential Operability issue Discrepancy Type: Installaten implementaten Om g

System / Process: N/A ~

NRC Significance level: 4 Date Faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/18/98 Discrepancy: Inadequate Labeling in Foxboro Cabinets

Description:

Component labeling / identification requirements are set forth in Procedure OA-9 Rev 2, " System and Component Labeling." The design drawings for the Foxboro Cabinets provide device numbers. The following conditions involving the lack of numbering / labeling and/or incorrect labeling were noted during the system walkdowns.

1. Panel 3CES*lPNLl12 does not have a rack nest identification on left side of intrument racks. Nest 4 - Slot 8, according to drawing 12179-2472.710-392-225 Rev. 3, is the owner of 3RSS-PY43A and 3RSS-PY43C. Cabinet and installed instrument I modules do not contain this type of identification.

2. Foxboro Spec 200 Cabinet 3CES*lPNLl20 component identification is described on drawing 12179-2472.710-392-519C. Cabinet 3CES*lPNLl20 does not contain the rack-nest-slot-identification program which is posted on the left side of the rack. The Cabinet contains various systems' components.

l i

3. Foxboro Spec 200 Cabinet 3CES*1PNLl21 component !

identification is described on drawing 12179-2472.710-392-520 Rev. C. Cabinet 3CES*1PNLl21 does not contain the rack, nest, slot identification program which is posted on the left side of l rack. The Cabinet contains various systems' components. I

4. Drawing 12179-2472.710-392-519 Rev. C (Foxboro cabinet 3CES*lPNLl20, Nest 3 - Slot 7) lists instrument modules 3RSS*FS38A1 and 3RSS*FS38A2 for Foxboro component model number N-2AP-ALM-AR. Contrary to this, the installed components are identified as 3RSS*FS38B1 and 2RSS*FS3882.

5. Drawing 12179-2472-392-520 Rev. C (Foxboro cabinet 3CES*FPNLl21, Nest 3 - Slot 5) lists instrument modules 3RSS*FS38B1 and 3RSS*FS3882 for Foxboro component model number N-2AP+ ALM-AR. Contrary to this, the installed components are identified as 3RSS*FS38A1 and 3RSS*FS38A2.

6. Drawing 12179-EE-12BY Rev. 5 and construction drawing 12179-EG-12BY Rev. 5A provide component numbering. The drawings / installation do not agree as follows:

Drawing indicates only slots 1 through 6 are occupied. Slots 7 and 8 are occupied and Slot 9 is a dummy load.

Instruments 3RSS*LY22A1 ( Nest 1 - Slot 3), 3RSS*FY38A2 Printed 4/2498 8:59:18 AM Page 1 of 4

N:rthext Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0719 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report 3RSS*L Y22B1 (Nest 1 - Slot 4) are not identified within the cabinet.

None of Foxboro instrument modules within the cabinets are identified with label / tag information.

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

O O O $2t24S7 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B C 0 2 tai /97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K 1RC chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O si 2/98 O O O S8 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: INITIAL RESPONSE:

Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0719, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 it has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0650 has been written te develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0719, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and.17010 It has been screened per U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets the Unit 3 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-0650 has been written to develop and track resolution of this item per RP-4.

SECOND RESPONSE:

Disposition:

NU has concluded that the new issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0719 does not represent a discrepant condition.

U3 Pl 20 section 1.3.2 e defines the type of labeling discrepancies which will be completed during the next refueling outage or later. Attachment 11 defines the type of labeling issues which will be completed prior 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 Pnnted 4/2498 8 59:22 AM Page 2 of 4

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0719 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report accordance with the design basis.

The Foxboro cabinets contain passive equipment that are not ,

operated or aligned and therefore do not impact and will not '

change the configuration, operation or safety of the plant. The assignment of priority 4 is correct and in accordance with U3 PI 20 section 1.3.2 e. Each cabinet has a controlled drawing that {

would be used for identification of the ccmponents and not the uncontrolled label. CR M3-96-0650 was closed to CR M3 ,

0137. The corrective actions in CR M3-98-0137 will correct these 1 issues post startup. >

Further investigation has determined that drawing EE-128Y is currently on rev 6 and is in agreement with item 6 of the DR. NU considers this new issue not to be a discrepancy, therefore no new corrective actions are required.

NU considers the overall classification of the DR to be significance level 4.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the new issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0719 does not represent a discrepant condition.

NU has concluded that these labeling issues are deferrable based on section 1.3 2.e of U3 Pl 20. The corrective actions in CR M3-98-0137 will correct these issues post startup. NU considers the overall classification of the DR to be significance level 4. The Foxboro cabinets contain passive equipment that are not operated or aligned and therefore do not impact and v,ill not change the configuration, operation or safety of the plant.

The assignment of priority 4 is correct and in accordance with U3 PI 20 section 1.3.2 e. Each cabinet has a controlled drawing that would be used foridentification of the components and not the uncontrolled label.

{

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O Ye. @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O yes @ No Review initiator: Warner, I. '

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K Date: 4/23/98 SL Comments: INITIAL COMMENTS:

Based on the statement in the screening criteria it appears that this issue is not deferable.

" Plant labeling discrepancies which have a direct impact on plant configuration, operation or personnel safety."

Printed 4/24/96 8.s924 AM Page 3 of 4

N:rthea:t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0719 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report COMMENTS ON NU'S SECOND RESPONSE:

We accept NU's second response.

I I

i M 47498 8 59:25 AM Page 4or 4

~

ICAVP DR Nr. DR-MP3 0724 N:rthea:t Utilities Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data Om g-Sysf.em/ Process: HVX NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Publ6shed: 12/21/97 Discrepancy: SLCRS and ABVS Filter Ur.it Backup Adsorbent Cooling Mechanism

Description:

During review of the supplementary leak collection and release system (SLCRS) filter units 3HVR*FLT3A/B and auxiliary building ventilation system (ABVS) exhuast filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B a discrepancy was identified regarding backup adsorbent cooling. l FSAR Table 1.8-1, Reg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, Position C.3.k exception states

Exception is taken to the requirement of any cooling mechanism satisfying single-failure criteria because a backup mechanism is provided."

The backup cooling mechanism referred to in the Reg Guide exception was not found in the review of the system P&lDs and physical drawings.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: stout, M. D. G 0 0 11/2S'87 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 11/29/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 12/5/97 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 12/9/97 Date:

INVALID:

rate: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: First Response l 1

NU has concluded that DR-MP3-0724 does not represent a discrepant condition. The backup adsorbent cooling mechanism employed at Millstone 3 is a water spray system. This method is consistent with Reg Guide 1.52 Section C.3.k. The water spray system shown on P&lD EM-146-C, rev.13 Fire Protection ( See Attachment ) performs the backup cooling function for filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B and 3HVR*FLT3A/B. Significance level criteria does not apply as this is not a discrepant condition.

Attachments:

1) P&lD EM-146-C-13 Second Response NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR MP3-0724 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

Printed 4'24'98 9:02:11 AM Page 1 of 3

~

ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0724 Northert Utilitiea Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Condition Report ( CR ) M3-98-0691 ( See Attached ) was written to address a series of issues related to SLCRS and ABVS which encompass the issue identified in DR-MP3-0724. Pursuant to discussions with S&L for clarification of the issue, the following approach was developed to disposition DR-MP3-0724:

In lieu of a formal calculation, ERC (Engineering Record Correspondence) 25212-ER-98-0103 ( See Attached ), prepared by SWEC, in conjunction with calculation 97-EBF-01955-M2 (

See Attached ) and ICAVP Technical Review Note ( See Attached ), establishes the maximum heat generation rate in the MP3 safety related ventilation filters from deposition of radioactive iodines following a Loss-Of-Coolant Accident. This evaluation assumes that the maximum carbon temperature is 250 'F, which is 50 'F below the minimum desorption temperature of 300 'F,... and approximately 1/3 of the minimum code required carbon ignition temperature of 572 'F. A formal calculation is in preparation, which will validate the assumption of a 250 'F maximum temperature. The calculation will be completed before mode 2. Meanwhile, the results of the referenced evaluation demonstrate that NU is in compliance with R. G.1.52. Since the heat load from radiodecay in the MP3 filter units is below that which would lead to autoignition, there is no need for backup cooling.

Based on the information contained in ERC 25212-ER-98-0103, the ICAVP Technical Review Note, and calculation 97-EBF-01955-M2, NU has concluded that the configuration of filter units 3HVR*FLT1 A/B and 3HVR*FLT3A/B are in compliance with R. G.1.52. The approved corrective action to CR-M3-98-0691 will develop a calculation to determine the heat load due to radioactive induced heat in the SLCRS and ABVS filter units.

Corrective action is being tracked by AR 98002864-03.

Based upon the preceding discussions, the LB / DB of MP3 is not impacted by this discrepancy therefore NU considers DR-MP3- l 0724 to be a level 4 discrepancy, i Attachments: l

1. Condition Report M3-98-0691

2. Engineering Record of Correspondence No. 25212-ER 0103

3. ICAVP Technical Review Note

4. Calculation 97-EBF-01955-M2 Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (p No Resolution Pending70 Yes @ No Pesolution Unresolved 70 Yes @ No Review initiator: Stout, M. D.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K IRC Chmn: sgh. Anand K Date: 4/23/98 st Cornments: Comments on First Response Printed 4/24/98 9:02:14 AM Page 2 of 3

i l

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0724 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report The FSAR exception to Reg. Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, position C.3.k implies that the backup cooling mechanism provided would be functional post-accident for adsorbent cooling. The fire protection l

system that provides the water for the water sprays is a non-safety system that can not be relied on to provide adsorbent cooling during post-accident conditions.

Related DRs that address adsorbent cooling and the classification of the fire protection piping / valves are DR-MP3-0588 and DR-MP3-0642 Comments on Second Response REFERENCES (1) Engineering Record Correspondence 25212-98-0103, Rev. O.

(2) Calc. 97-EBF-01955-M2, Rev. 0 (3) Calc. MP3LOCA94-01048-R3, Rev. 2 The methodology described in Reference 1 to estimate the MP3 SLCRS peak heat loading using the calculational parameters of MP2 has been reviewed and appears to be conservative.

However, the largest heat loading calculated in Reference 2, at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , may not be the peak value. The heat loading on the filteris a function of containment leakage and the radioactive decay of the various iodine isotopes 1-131 through l-135, among other things. Each isotope of iodine, having its own decay rate, has its own peak hem g.meration rate. It is, the sum of the heat generation rates that determines the peak heat generation rate experienced by the filter. From an examination of the summary table shown on page 21 of Reference 2 it is not evident the heat loading at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months is the peak. The time steps do not appear to be fine enough for this determination. More calculations are required at time points around suspected peaks to demonstrate a maximum..

It is estimated that the cooling available due to leakage thru backdraft damper 3HVR*DMPF13A/B (33 cfm @ 12.5 iwg),

entering air temperature of approx 150 'F (120'F entering operating filter unit + temperature rise across heater +

temperature rise across operating exhaust fan), and a leaving air temperature of 300'F is on the order of 5000 Blu/hr for the SLCRS filter units. This is sufficiently greater than the 800 Blu/hr heat generation rate contained in reference 1 to conclude that damper leakage will provide adequate airfiow for adsorbent cooling for the SLCRS filter units. For the ABVS filter units, leakage thru damper 3HVR* MOD 28A/B would provide for ABVS filter unit adsorbent cooling.

Base on the above, NU's second response, and CR M3-98-0691 3

corrective action plan this is considered to be a Level 4 discrepancy.

Printed 4/24/98 9:02:16 AM Page 3 of 3 1 l

l

Northert Uti!!*ie3 ICAVP DR N:. DR-MP3-0731 Mitirtone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Draw;ng SystemProcess: HVX NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 12/20S7 Discrepancy: Charging Pump and Component Cooling Water Pump Area Ventilation Winter Mode Damper Positions Description. During review of the charging pump and component cooling water pump area ventilation system a discrepancy regarding the outside airflow during winter mode of operation was identified.

Note 17 on P&lD EM-148A-24 states that during winter mode of operation dampers 3HVR*DMP4 and 3HVR*DMP32 are set to approximately the 50% open position. The note does not identify the minimum outside airflow required for stable operation of exhaust fans 3HVR*FN6A/B nor the maximum outside airflow allowed in order to maintain minimum room temperatures.

As shown in calculation 3-92-103-191M3, Rev.1 (CCNs 1 thru 5) the amount of outside air drawn in by supply fans 3HVR*FN14A/B directly effects the ability of the system to maintain the minimum room design temperatures.

Based on the above, winter mode design airflows are not reflected on P&lD EM-148A & EM-1488.

Review Valid invaisd Needed Date initiator: steut, M. D.

9 O O 12is/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 12/9/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 12/11/97 IRC Ctwnn: singh, Anand K O O O 12/16/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: First Response NU has determined that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0731 does not represent a discrepant condition.

Balancing dampers 3HVR*DMP4 and 3HVR*DMP32 were positioned to meet the flow requirements of PDCR MP3-93-014 for winter and summer conditions. Once the desired flow rates were obtained, the damper quadrants were painted and marked as

Summer" or " Winter" positions. Changing from winter to summer is as simple as placing the damper quadrant handle to :

the desired position. The requirements specified in PDCR MP3- !93-014 and verified by retest for the winter condition was a i minimum flow of 15,500 cfm to 3HVR*FN6A/B and a maximum outside air flow into fan 3HVR*FN14A/B of 17,000 cfm. It is not necessary to reflect this information on the P&lD.The ratio of Pnntad 474/98 9.02 do AM Page 1 of 3 1

)

l

N:rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR NO. DR-MP3-0731 Ministone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report outdoor air to indoor (recirculated) air does not change the volume of air moved by fans 3HVR*FN14A/B, so stable operation of the fans is not compromised by switching from summer to winter mode of oreration.

The EEQ temperature rangen in the Charging Pump and CCP cubicles are monitored and excursions activate alarms in the Control Room. There is no automatic control system goveming airflow either in terms of volume or temperature.

For the above stated reasons, NU has determined that there is no value in putting airflow volumes on the P&lD. I Significance Level Criterin do not apply since this is not a discrepant condition.

Second Response (M3-IRF-02056)

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0731 has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction.

This discrepancy is part of a comprehensive problem addressed by CR M3-97-4557. AR 97029996-02, part of the corrective action, will review all air flows and notes on P&lD drawings and related Tech. Spec. and FSAR sections. Flow rates will, in general, be removed. In this case, the 20,000 CFM flow rate noted at 3HVR*DMP4 will be deleted. Corrective action will be competed post startup Attachments: I CR M3-97-4557 with approved corrective action.

Action Request Report (A10) for AR 97029996 (CR M3-97-4557)

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (G) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Re.oiution unre.oived70 Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Stout, M. D.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O 'm VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O m IRC Chrnn: singh, Anand K O O m O O O Date: 4/22/98 l SL Comments: Comments on First Response Agree with NU's response that PDCR MP3-93-014 identifies the mininum and maximum " Winter" mode outside airflows.

i l However, P&lD EM-1488-15 shows an airflow of 20,000 cfm at I

retum air damper 3HVR*DMP4 which implies that when dampers 3HVR*DMP4 and 3HVR*DMP32 are repositioned for winter mode that the outside altflow is 7,000 cfm. An outside airflow of 7,000 cfm is below the minimum required for stable operation of fans 3HVR*FN6A/B. The P&lD should be revised to correct the drawing discrepancy.

( Printed 4/24/98 9:02.44 AM Page 2 of 3

N rthenct Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0731 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report l The significance level has been revised to a Level 4 discrepancy.

Comments on Second Response No comments on second response '

1 1

l 1

I l

l l

Printed N2498 9:02:45 AM Page 3 of 3

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0751 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '

Review Group: Programmatic DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: CorrectNe Action Process p

Discipline: I & C Design Discrepancy Type: CorrectNo Acton O ve.

i System / Process: HVX gg NRC Significancelevel: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/10/98 Discrepancy: Design Deficiency Report (DDR) Resolution

Description:

DDR 582 states that specification 2472.600-686 permits vertical mounting of the instrument. The acceptability of vertical mounting in specification 2472.600-686 could not be found. If documentation does exist that substantiates the acceptability of the vertical mounting, this documentation was not provided when requested from NU. In addition, no documentation could be found in DDR 582 that substantiates what corrective actions were taken to revise the vendors installation details (horizontal mounting) in order to correct the discrepancy between the vendors details and the "as installed" configuration.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Dombrowski, Jim O 2/ie/97 O O VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O O O i2/22/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O O 12/23/97 B

1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O $2rsi/97 j Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0751, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Fluid Components, Inc. (FCI) installation, operation and maintenance manual, OlM-686-2B, section 4, provides the installation and mounting details for the FR72-4 and FR72-4R flow switches. In particular, step 4.2.2 (see attached) states that the flow switch can also be installed vertically upward in the bottom of a horizontal pipe line. The orientation of the switch mounting in regards to being mounted either horizontally or vertically is not important. What is important is that at no time shall the back of the sensor head face the direction of flow. The manufacturer has marked one side of the flow switch with a " Flat i Up and Level" indicator. This indicator is to be mounted l horizontal and level with the direction of flow and ensures the flow switch is property installed in the duct work or pipe.

Considering the above,3HVR*FE88B is installed in accordance with the manufacturer installation details and requirements.

Therefore, Design Deficiency Report (DDR) 582 does not represent a discrepant condition.

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

Pnnted 4'2498 9:03.11 AM Page 1 of 2

)

N:rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0751 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0751, does not represent a discrepant condition. Flow switch 3HVR*FE88B is installed in accordance with the Vendor Technical Manual installation details and recommendations.

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

Attachments: Applicable pages of Fluid Components, Inc. (FCI) installation, operation and maintenance manual, OIM-686-28.

DDR-582 Previously identified by NU? fn Yes O No Non Discrepant Condition?ty Yes O No Resolution Pending?O Yes (M) No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes (M') No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Caruso. A.

VT Lead: Ryan Thomas J VT Mgr: schopfer. Don K IRC Chrnn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/22/98 st Comments: NU's response is acceptable. I Based upon the receipt of the applicable pages of Fluid Components, Inc. (FCI) installation, operation and maintenance manual, OIM-686-28, it was confirmed that vertical mounting of the instrument 3HVR* FE888 is acceptable. No field change is required for this installation.

This information was not available at the time of the issuance of this DR; consequently, this DR does not represent a discrepant j condition. l i

Pnnted 4/2496 9:03.14 AM Page 2 of 2

N:rthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0765 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: systeo DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED q Review Element: system Design p ,

Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om pg System / Process: N/A NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/10/98 Discrepancy: Documentation of Safety Related MCC and TOL settings Descriptisn.

Background:

Page 8.3-24, Section 8.3.1.1.4 of the FSAR states:

The magnetic element setpoint must be greater than motor locked-rotor current but less than the thermal limit of the overload heater.

The contactor overioad heaters for continuous duty safety related motors are selected well above rated motor nameplate full load current....

Page 8.3-25, Section 8.3.1.1.4 of the FSAR states:

The nonmotor loads fed from these motor control centers are protected by molded case circuit breakers. These breakers are equipped with thermal elements to provide overload or low current fault protection and magnetic elements to provide severe short circuit protection. The setting of the thermal element is selected above the circuit full load current and the pickup of this element is nonadjustable.

As part of the ICAVP review a request for clarification of Appendix J of SP-M3-EE-321 was issued. NU's response, M3-IRF-00740 states:

" .. Currently TOLs and breaker trip settings are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-076, section 2, Appendix 2A. There is no one drawing or document where every TOL and breaker size is located."

Discussion:

The FSAR states bounding conditions for setting molded case breakers and thermal overloads. SP-M3-EE-321 defines how to set these breakers and overloads, but because we could not locate documentation of the actual setting of the equipment we could not confirm that the proper breakers and overloads settings were, in fact, installed.

Our inability to confirm breaker sizes and settings also impacted a calculation review (Calculation No.12179-GM-60 .03-848CA) of the trip settings for the circuit breakers installed between 480V Swgr 32T Compt 32T4-2 and corresponding MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A.

Printed 474/98 9:05:07 AM Page 1 of 6 l

N:rthea:t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0765 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Having confirmed that the proper time characteristic curve was used fc,r the 480V MCC main feed breaker, we tried to confirm that the largest downstream MCC feeder breaker coordinates with the MCC main feed breaker.

The one line diagram for MCC 1 A1, Drawing EE-1 AK, Rev. 27 Note 5 states:

"The feeder breakers shown are Gould 100A frame type HE43.

The acceptable replacements for these breakers are Siemens 125A frame HED43 per R1E-95-0243. The drawing may not reflect the actual installed breaker frame. For the actual installed breaker, refer to PMMS and perform a field verification."

The drawing shows that there are 150A frame breakers installed in MCC1 A1. In accordance with note 5 a review was made of PMMS to try to verify the largest breaker within MCC 1 A1. No information was listed in PMMS with regard to the specific breaker types and sizes.

Conclusion:

There is presently no documentation available for confirming, and verifying the information against calculations, of the sizes and settings for the entire population (including the equipment within the scope of ICAVP review) of safety related molded case circuit breakers and TOLs. A program exists for incorporating the i information into SP-EE-076, section 2, Appendix 2A, but the '

program only includes the 89-10 program MOV TOLs.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Wamer, l. O O O 2/9/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O 2/9/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 12/is/97 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O ils/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/21/98 REsOLtrilON INITIAL RESPONSE Disposition:

NU has concluded the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0765, does not represent a discrepant condition. TOL and breaker trip setting for continuous duty motors are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-078, Section 2, Appendix 2A.

MOV protection is controlled per the GL 89-10 Program by calculation MOV8910-01542E3 and associated DCNs posted .

against SP-M3-EE-321. The above specifications and calculation y confirm and verify the entire population of class 1E motors.

While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time Printed 4/24/98 9:05:12 AM Page 2 of 6

t N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0765 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report ;

consuming and tedious, the settings and sizes can be determined and field verified. The cumbersome process does not represent a discrepant condition.

Note 5 on drawing EE-1 AK says, "The feeder breakers shown are Gould 100A frame type HE43. The acceptable replacements for these breakers are Siemens 125A frame HED43 per RIE 95-0243. The drawing may not reflect the actualinstalled breaker frame. For the actual installed breaker, refer to PMMS and perform a field verification." This note does not indicate that the largest breaker on the MCC is 125A or that 150A breakers are not used. The note was added under RIE-95-0243 to permit the replacement of 100A frame devices with its replacements which go to a 125A frame. The note attempts to avoid any possible error by saying, " .. refer to PMMS and perform a field verification". Nuclear indicators are the only QA fields within PMMS, hence the note also requires a field verification be done.

This does not represent a discrepant condition.

Calculation 12179GM-60-03.848CA does show the trip settings for the supply to MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A1. Curve 848CA plots the settings and shows coordination with the largest Motor Circuit Protector (MCP) on either MCC 3EHS*MCC1 A1 or 3EHS*MCC181.

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

Conclusion:

NU has concluded the issue reported in Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0765, does not represent a discrepant condition. TOL and j breaker trip settings for continuous duty motors are controlled by the procedures in SP-EE-076, Section 2, Appendix 2A. MOV protection is controlled per the GL 89-10 Program by calculation MOV8910-01542E3 and associated DCNs posted against SP-M3-EE-321. The above specifications and calculation confirm and verify the entire population of class 1E motors. While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time consuming and tedious, the settings and sizes can be determined and field verified. The cumbersome process does not represent a l

discrepant condition.

l l

The note on EE-1 AK does not indicate t'nat the largest breaker '

on the MCC is 125A or that 150A breakers are not used. The note was added under RIE-95-0243 to permit the replacement of 100A frame devices with its replacements which go to a 125A frame. Nuclear indicators are the only QA fields within PMMS, hence the note also requires a field verification be done. This does not represent a discrepant condition.

Significance level criteria do not apply here as this is not a {

discrepant condition.

Printed 4/24SB 9'o5:14 AM Page 3 of 6

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0765 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report SECOND RESPONSE Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue identified in the S&L comments on M3-IRF-01316 has been prediscovered and requires correction. A periodic self-assessment (SA),3DE-SA-97-03, was performed between 7/22/97 and 8/26/97 to determine if the overcurrent trip settings on the instantaneous breakers found in the 480V motor starters were consistent with design documents. The self assessment was initiated as the result of a general ;

acknowledgment of weak areas that were candidates for {

improvement during the 50.54f effort and the upgrading of j specifications SP-M3-EE-269 and SP-M3-EE-321. The assessment confirmed the need to improve the control of TOL sizes and Breaker trip settings. Based on the findings of the assessment, Condition Reports M3-97-3095 and M3-97-3096 j and their Corrective Actions were generated to address walking down loads and MCC cubicles to obtain motor nameplate data and O/L sizes and magnetic trip settings. Ultimately the sizes and settings will all be contained in SP-M3-EE 321, Appendix J.

As can be seen from the corrective actions specified for CR M3- i 97-3095,37 of 70 motors fed from Class 1E MCCs (excluding l MOV motors) were walked down prior to restart, with the remainder to be walked down after restart (see 810 report for AR# 97022859). Deferral is based on accessibility, availability, l high radiation areas, etc. l Additionally, a historical search was made of all AWOs associated with all motors fed from Class 1E MCCs (excluding MOV motors in the 89-10 Program) which were not walked down prior to restart to determine if any motor nameplate data may have changed since startup. Any motor nameplate data changes would indicate the need to review the protective devices and settings for the motor in question. This review indicated that no nameplate data had changed for the 33 deferred walkdown motors.

Future walkdowns will be scheduled to coincide with regular PMs and system outages. Motor Operated Valves are being documented by the ongoing 89-10 Program. AR assignment 97022859-05 of CR M3-97-3095 identifies which motors are being walked down prior to restart and which have been defened. An additional AR assignment 97022859-22 has been made to ensure that the "after restart' walkdown group of motors is tracked to completion. DCN DM3-00-0088-98 has begun the process of incorporating this data into SP-M3-EE-321.

Because there is a goveming specification for sizing thermal overloads and setting breaker trip devices, NU considers the changes being made as enhancements and process improvements, and therefore the significance level of this Discrepancy is Significance level 4.

Printed 4r24/98 9 05:14 AM Page 4 of 6

N:rthe t Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0766 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue identified in the S&L comments on M3-IRF-01316 has been prediscovered and requires correction. A periodic self-assessment (SA),3DE-SA-97-03, was performed between 7/22/97 and 8/26/97 to determine if the overcurrent trip settings on the instantaneous breakers found in the 480V motor starters were consistent with design documents.

Based on the findings of the assessment, Condition Reports M3-97-3095 and M3-97-3096 and their Corrective Actions were generated to address walking down loads and MCC cubicles to obtain motor nameplate data and O/L sizes and magnetic trip settings. Ultimately the sizes and settings will all be contained in SP-M3-EE-321, Appendix J. As can be seen from the corrective actions specified for CR M3-97-3095,37 of 70 motors fed from Class 1E MCCs (excluding MOV motors) were walked down prior to restart, with the remainder to be walked down after restart (see 810 report for AR# 97022859). Deferral is based on accessibility, availability, high radiation areas, etc. Additionally, a historical search was made of all AWOs associated with all motors fed from Class 1E MCCs (excluding MOV motors in the 89-10 Program) which were not walked down prior to restart to determine if any motor nameplate data may have changed since startup. Any motor nameplate data changes would indicate the need to review the protective devices and settings for the motor in question. This review indicated that no nameplate data had changed for the 33 deferred walkdown motors. Future walkdowns will be scheduled to coincide with regular PMs and system outages. Motor Operated Valves are being documented by the ongoing 89-10 Program.

AR 97022859-05 of CR M3-97-3095 identifies which motors are being walked down prior to restart and which have been deferred. An additional AR assignment 97022859-22 has been made to ensure that the "after restart" walkdown group of motors is tracked to completion. DCN DM3-00-0088-98 has begun the process of incorporating this data into SP-M3-EE-321.

Because there is a goveming specification for sizing thermal overloads and setting breaker trip devices, NU considers the changes being made as enhancements and process improvements, and therefore the significance level of this Discrepancy is Significance level 4.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (8) No Non D6screpant Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending7O Yes @ No Re.oiuuan unt..olved70 Yes @ No Review initiator: Warner, I.

VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 4/21/98 SL Comments: INITIAL COMMENTS:

Pnnted 4/24/98 9:05.16 AM Page 5 of 6

N:rthext Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0766 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report We concur that TOL and breaker trip settings for continuous duty motors are controlled by procedures. The concem defined in the discrepancy report is that there is no documented evidence that j

the procedures have been followed 100% of the time.

There have been numerous cases within the industry, as evidenced by various IE Notices, where verification of settings was not performed and devices were found that were not installed as defined by procedure For example:

IE Notice 98-03, inadequate Verification of Overcurrent Trip Setpoints in Metal-Clad, Low-Voltage Circuit Breakers l IE Notice 97-69, Reactor Trip Breakers and Surveillance Testing i of Auxiliary Contacts l IE Notice 95-15, inadequate Logic Testing of Safety-Related Circuits Since there is precedence within the industry for installations l

which do not conform to design guides and even a DR written as part of this audit (DR 355 - addresses cable not installed per the design guide), we do not feel that the response which states: i

'While verifying the breaker settings and TOL sizes is time j consuming and tedious, the settings and sizes can be determined {

l and field verified", is adequate.

{

Note, in order to close DR-MP3-0846, this DR must be closed.

RESPONSE TO NU'S SECOND RESPONSE:

We concur with NU's second response that this is a level 4 discrepancy l

I Printed 4/24/98 9.05:17 AM Page 6 of 6 1

I N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR ND. DR-MP3-0793 i Mil! stone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Calculaten Ow System / Process: N/A g

NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/1o/98 Discrepancv: incorrect values used for motor full load current (Calculation 129E).

Ducription: This calculation determines the maximum motor control center loading based on feeder voltage drop.

The calculation uses motor full load current from the NEC which i; basea on 460V but the MCC loading is based upon a MCC voltage of 422 Volts.

Page 7 of the calculation references Calculation 119E for ampacity values. This calculation is superseded by Calculation 193E which is not available for review.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Crockett. Ed. O O O $2/i2/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 12/ie/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 2r23/97 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O 2rai/97 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/21/98 RESOLUTION: INITIAL RESPONSE:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a discrepant condition. The l calculation used motor load amperes at 460 Volts. The motors I would draw higher current at lower voltages because the motors !

are constant power devices. Since the motors tend to be loaded less than the nameplate rating the increase in current would be cffset. The calculation method is reasonable for the purpose of sizing cables.

The DR has identified calculation 193E " Duct Bank Ampacity for Power Feeds to ESF Building-Duct Bank 903 & 904" was not available for review. A copy of calculation 193E has been attached for Sargent and Lundy use.

Calculation Change Notice (CCN) 3 posted against 129E states the calculation of record for voltage profile is NL-038. Also, An Assessment of Critical Calculation MP3 Electrical Distribution System in support of the MP310CFR50.54(f) effort was completed March 21,1997. This effort was documented in Engineering Report M3-ERP-97-0002. The calculation 129E was reviewed from an administrative and technical assessment standpoint. One of the general comments from the review Printed 47498 9:05:47 AM Page 1 of 4

r 1

\

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0793 miistone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I stated, This calculation was used in the design process and no l longer provides a design basis for MP3 and can be voided.

l Condition Report (CR) M3-97-1217 was written to track the

! recommendations of the Engineering Report M3-ERP-97-0002.

Item 3 of the approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) established

, a tracking number in the Action item Tracking and Trending System (AITTS) as A/R 97009922-03 for consolidating and voiding calculations. The item is scheduled for completion post startup.

l Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a j discrepant condition i

l

\

l

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a discrepant condition. A copy of calculation 193E is attached for l

Sargent and Lundy use. Calculation 129E is being voided since it no longer provides a design basis for MP3. l i

Significance Level criteria do not app!y here as this is not a l discrepant condition. j l

I !

l SECOND RESPONSE:

l Disposition:

, NU has concluded that the " Follow-Up" issue associated with l Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a i

discrepant condition.

Input data to the OPAL program for BHP (break-horse power) loading uses motor nameplate rating HP. DCN DM3-00-1769-97 in response to DR 467, clarified this issue by specifying l assumptions to be used for motor input data. By specifying the BHP equal to the nameplate HP provides a very conservative input, as the expected brake horsepower is less than the motor l nameplate. The motor nameplate input data is then utilized in l

Calculation NL-38 (Loadflow and Short Circuit Calculations) which then calculates the worst case conditions for Load Flow under Degraded Voltage scenarios. Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. NU considers the overall classification of this DR to be non-discrepant.

I

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the

Follow-Up" issue associated with Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0793, does not represent a discrepant condition. Brake horsepower is accounted for utilizing nameplate data in Calculation NL-38 when calculating the worst case conditions for Load Flow under Degraded Voltage scenarios which is conservative. Significance Level criteria do not apply as this is not a discrepant condition. NU considers the overall classification of this DR to be non-discrepant.

Previously identired by Nu? O Yes () No Non Discrepant Condition?@ Yes O No Printed 4'2498 9:05.50 AM Page 2 of 4 l

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0793 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

l ResolutionPending?O Yes (G) No Resolution Unresolved 70 Yes (*) No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Warner, L i gg VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A g

l VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O we

) 1Rc Chmn: singh, Anand K Cate:

O O O 4/21/98 1

SL Comments: INITIAL COMMENT:

The DR identifies a conditions in which potentially non-conservative current vs!9es are used in a MCC loading calculation.

NU's response states:

The motors would draw higher current at lower voltages because the motors are constant power devices. Since the

[ motors tend to be loaded less than the nameplate rating the l increase in current would be offset. The calculation method is reasonable for the purpose of sizing cables.

While this is a good " rule of thumb" approach to calculating current loading, FSAR section 8.3.1.1.4.2.a6 states:

! The criterion for safety related motor size is that the motor l develop sufficient horsepower to drive the mechanical load l under l runout or maximum expected flow and pressure whichever is greater. Safety related motors are sized to permit the driven l equipment to develop its specified capacity without exceeding i

the temperature rise rating of the motor when operated at the duty cycle of the driven equipment. Safety related motors are, in general, provided with a 1.15 service factor. Some 4 kV motors j are provided with a 1.0 service factor. Motors are sized to

! handle the driven equipment requirements without

, encroachin0 on

the service factor during normal operating conditions.

Precautions are taken to ensure that the runout load does not exceed the service factor rating.

4 The argument used in NU"s response implies that brake hp is always less than 92% (422/460) of the motor nameplate. Since the FSAR allows a 1.15 service factor and, in fact, implies that motors can be sized up to the 1.0 SF rating it would be prudent to verify brake horsepower loadings and calculate the worst case l current at degraded voltage. '

Without verification that the worst case currents are used in the calculations we still classify this DR as a level 3 discrepancy.

COMMENT IN RESONSE TO NU'S SECOND RESPONSE:

Printed 4/2496 9:05:52 AM Page 3 of 4

N rthentt Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0793 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report We accept NU's second response.

I Pnnted 4'2498 9:05.53 AM Page 4 of 4

N2rtheast Utilities ICAVP DR N;. DR-MP3-0842 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED ,

Potential Operability lasue Discipline: Structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om l

(

System / Process: HVX g,

l NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to Nu:

Date Published: 1/25/98 Discrepancy: DUCT Support Calculation Discrepancy !

Description:

We have reviewed Equipment Support Calculation no.12179-NP(F)-Z545J-1288,Rev.2. i Based upon this review,we have noted the following discrepancies: ]

1. On pages no.14 & 15,the following input errors have been identified:

a) Z coordinate at joint no. 59 should be '-18.0' (not + 18.0).

b) Two different BETA angles ( 0.0 and 180.0) have been defined for the same member (member # 27) c) BETA angle has not been defined for member # 33.

2. Flare Bevel Weld check has not been considered at jt.# I 35,38,44,47,33,41,42 & 50 l (See calc. pages no. 20 & 22).

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Klaec, N O O O 1' S'S8 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A O O O '1S/S8 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O S/S8 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O 1/21/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0842, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria.

Condition Report M3-98-2026 will be closed out to Bin CR M3 0138. The issues identified in DR-MP3-0842 are addressed as follows:1a. The Z coordinate forjoint number 59 will be revised l to be a 18 in lieu of a +18.1b. The BETA angle for member 27 will be 180. BETA angle 0.0 will be deleted.1c. A BETA angle of 0.0 will be added for member 33.2. A flare bevel weld check at joint numbers 35,38,44,47,33,41,42 & 50 will be added to the calculation. Bin CR M3-98-0138 corrective actions will correct calculation 12179-NP(F)-Z545J-1288 post startup.

Printed 4/24/96 9:06:43 AM Page 1 of 2

N:rthemt Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0842 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report '

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (8) No Non Discrepent CondNion?O Yes (8) No )

Resolution Pending?O ve. @)No Resolution Unresolved?O ve. *) No Review initlator: Klaic, N VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O =

~

VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/22/98 st Comments: S & L concurs with the corrective actions proposed by NU.

1 i

l l

l Printed 4/24/98 9:06:46 AM Page 2 of 2

i N::rthent Utiliti:3 ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0844 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Potential Operability issue l Discipline: Structural Design ,

Discrepancy Type: Calculation O vos l System / Process: HVX @ No NRC significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/22/98 l Discrepancy: Duct Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed duct support calculations for the following supports: I (1) CALC. # 12179-NP-(F)-Z545J-1221, REV. 5 (2) CALC.# 12179-NP(F)-Z60R-530-H005, REV. 3 (3) CALC.# 12179-NP(F)-Z545J-1235, REV. 2 Based on this review we have noted that the final " Normal & -

shear stress" interaction check has not been performed.See the following examples:

(1) CALC.#12179-NP-(F)-Z545J-1221, REV.5, PAGE #

15,16,17 & 18.

(2) CALC.#12179-NP(F)-Z60R-530-H005, REV.3, PAGE # 15.

(3) CALC.#12179-NP(F)-Z545J-1235, REV.2,PAGES #

11,12,13 & 18.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Klaic, N O O O 12/18/97 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O 2/i9/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K l

O O O 1/12/98 SRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O site /se Date:

lNVALID: l l

Date: 4/21/98 l l

RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0844, has l 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 !'

attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 PI 20 deferral criteria. Based on a review of the axial and bending stresses in the calculations, they will easily pass the combined axial and bending stresses utilizing the correct methodology from section 1.6 of the AISC manual.

Previously identified by NU? O ves @ No Non Discrepant Condition?U ves @ No ResolutionPending?O vos (6) No ResolutionUnresolved?O ves @ No Review Initiator: Klaic, N e CC6PtaW W Date

. .._= . . . . [] O O 4/21/98 Printed 4/24/98 9:07:13 AM' 'w' '""' """" " Page 1 of 2 l

N:rthe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0844 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

,io. c.wi, n. - - ., a VT Mor: Schopfw. Don K lRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O Date: 4/21/98 sL comments: S & L has concluded, based on the review of the design margins that the adjusted stresses will meet code allowables.Therefore, there are no pre-staft issues in this DR.

1 l

Printed 4/24/98 9:07:17 AM Page 2 of 2

. I N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0861 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED ;

Discipline: Pipeng Design Potential Operability lasue Om Discrepancy Type: Calculation g

System / Process: DGX ~

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/17/98 Discrepancy: Evaluation for accelerations and displacements of flexhoses was not addressed in calculation Ducription: In the process of reviewing the following DGX system pipe stress calculations, (1) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-797-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (2) Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-453-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (3) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-458-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 3 (4) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-738-XD, Rev.2, CCN # 2 (5) Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-941-XD, Rev.0, CCN # 2 l

1 we noted the following discrepancy:

Background:

Displacements and accelerations at the flexhoses identified below were transmitted to the stress reconciliation group for evaluation.

(1) Flexhose-6A Line # 3-EGS-375-9-3 Calc.(1)

(2) Flexhose-6B Line # 3-EGS 375-10-3 Calc.(1)

(3) EGS* Hose-3A Line # 3-EGS-375-13-3 Calc.(2)

(4) EGS* Hose-38 Line # 3-EGS 375-14-3 Calc.(2)

(5) EGS* Hose-4A Line # 3-EGS-375-113 Calc.(2)

(6) EGS* Hose-4B Line # 3-EGS-373-12-3 Calc.(2)

(7) EGS*EGA-A Line # 3-EGD-001-13-3 Calc.(3)

(8) EGS* Hose-5B Line # 3-EGS-150-02-3 Calc.(4) ,

(9) EGS* Hose 5B Line # 3-EGS-150-04-3 Calc.(4) !

(10) EGS* Hose Line # 3-EGS-001-15-3 Calc.(5)

(11) EGS* Hose Line # 3-EGS-150-03-3 Calc.(5)

(12) EGS* Hose Line # 3-EGS-150-01-3 Calc.(5)

Discrepancy: ,

Evaluation / acceptance basis for the displacements and I accelerations at these flexhoses is not provided, nor referenced in the above calculations (1-5). l Review I Valid invalid Needed Date j initiator: Patel, Ramesh D 0 0 O $2/22/97 ;!

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A 9 O O 12/20/97 1 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K Q Q Q 12/23/97

{

IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O '13/S8 i Date:

INVALID: '

Printed 4/24/98 9:08:15 AM Page 1 of 2

Northea:t Utilities ICAVP DR ND. DR-MP3-0861 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: Response ID: M3-!RF-02060 I l

Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0881, 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 j attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no l operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of i U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1671 has been written to l revise the calculations to adequately document the ;

evaluation / acceptance, post startup.

Ccnclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0861, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of i U3 PI 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1671 has been written to I revise the calculations to adequately document the l evaluation / acceptance, post startup.

Previously ident6fied by NU? O Yes fG) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (#1 No Resolution Pending?O vos + No Resolution Unresolved?O yes @ No i

Review initiator: Patel. Ramesh.D VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRc Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/23/98 sL comnets: We concur with NU's deferral justification provided in CR M3 1871.

Based on the provided justification, the subject flex hoses have been determined to be within design basis requirements.

Printed 4"2498 9 08.19 AM Page 2 of 2

i N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0890 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design l Discrepancy Type: Component Data

! SysterrWProcess: DGX NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

l Date Published: 1/22/98 Discrepancy: Design Data for the EDG Cylinder Liner Jackets & Turbochargers

Description:

FSAR Table 9.5-3 " Design Data for Components in the Emergency Generator Cooling Water Systems" defines the following for the Engine Cylinder Liner Jackets and Turbochargers:

Temperature Differential = 15 degrees F normal ; 18 degrees F maximum Design Heat Removal Rate = 6,781,000 BTU /hr Design Margin = 678,100 BTU /hr Total Design Heat Removal Rate = 7,459,100 BTU /hr A review of the purchase specification (2447.300-241), P&lD's (EM-116A & EM-116C), the vendor drawings and the Operating Instruction Manual OIM-241, was not able to confirm this information.

Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-507 Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Hameetman, R.

O O O 12/22/97 VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A O O O 12/20/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O $2/23/97 BRC Chmn: sogh, Anand K @ Q ] 1/17/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0890, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will provide the following:

1. Reorganize the Table to show that some of the Design Heat Removal Rates stated in the Table are actually Heat Rejection Rates and that their sum can be compared with the Heat Exchanger's heat removal rates to show margin.

2. Revise Table 9.5-3 to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load (Ref. Coltec Engineering Report R-5.00-0260 dated 12/15/93).

FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Conclusion:

, NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0890, has I identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which Pnnted 4/2498 9 09.05 AM Page 1 of 2 l

N:rthent Utilities ICAVP DR Na. DR-MP3-0890 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) re-organize FSAR Table 9.5-3 and revise the table to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load. FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Previously identiP*.tf by Nur O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes if No Resol:dion Pending?O Ye. <W)No Re.oiutionunre.oived70 Yes (3) No Review Initiator: Obersnel.Bojan.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K oste: 4/22/98 SL Comments: S&L agrees with the NU's CR M3-98-0764 Corrective Action #2 that the FSAR Table 9.5-3 should be revised. Since NU has committed to revising Table 9.5-3 prior to Mode 2, they should at the same time also revise it for the DR-MP3-0917 items 2,3 and 4, which address different values of the same table, and were previously accepted Level 4 (NU Response M3-IRF-01713).

Pnnted 4/2498 9:09:10 AM Page 2 of 2

N:rthert Utilitiea ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0891 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: System Design Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data System / Process: DGX (5) No

~

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/22/98 j Discrepancy: Design Data for Components in the EDG Cooling Water System

Description:

FSAR Table 9.5-3 " Design Data for Components in the EDG Cooling Water System" defines the following for the intercooler water system intercoolers:

Design Heat Removal = 3,000,606 Btu /hr.

Design Margin = 880,362 Btu /hr Total Design Heat Removal Rate = 3,880,968 Blu/hr.

A review of the purchase specification (2447.300-241), P&lD's (EM-116A & EM-116C), vendor drawings and Operating Instruction Manual OIM-241, was not able to confirm this information.

Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-512

)

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Hameetman, R.

O O O 12/22/97 VT Lead: Neri. Anthony A O O O 12/20/97 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K G O O 12/23/97 IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K B O O 1/16S8 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0891, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will provide the following:

1. Revise calculation 90-069-1130M3 and 90-069-1065M3 to incorporate the revised required heat load for the Intercooler Water Heater in accordance with Coltec Engineering Report R- l l 5.00-0260, dated 12/15/93.

2. Reorganize the Table to show that some of the Design Heat Removal Rates stated in the Table are actually Heat Rejection Rates and that their sum can be compared with the Heat Exchanger's heat removal rates to show margin.

3. Revise Table 9.5-3 to note that margin was provided in the design rrAing of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load (Ref. Collec Engineering Report R-5.00-0260 dated 12/15/93).

The calculations will be revised prior to Mode 4 and FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Conclusion:

Printed 4/2498 9 09:36 AM Page 1 of 2

Northert Utilitiea ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0891 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0891, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will revise calculations 90-069-1130M3 and 90-069-1065M3, re-organize FSAR Table 9.5-3 and revise the table to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load. The calculations will be revised prior to Mode 4 and FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (*) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @) No Resolution Pending70 Yo. (eJ No R oiuiion une. sv.d70 Ye. r*J No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date initiator: Obersnel.Bojan.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthorey A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O 'm IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Dde: 4/22/98 SL Comments: S&L agrees with the NU's CR M3-98-0764 Corrective Action #2 inat the FSAR Table 9.5-3 should be revised. Since NU has committed to revising Table 9.5-3 prior to Mode 2, they should at the same time also revise it for the DR MP3-0917 items 2,3 and 4, which address different values of the same table, and were previously accepted Level 4 (NU Response M3-!RF-01713).

Printed 47496 909 39 AM Page 2 of 2

Northerst Utilitie3 ICAVP DR NA DR-MP3-0892 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data System / Process: DGX g

NRc Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/22198 Discrepancy: Design Data for the Components in the EDG Cooling Water System Ducripuon: FSAR Table 9.5-3 " Design Data for Components in the EDG Cooling Water Systems" defines the following for the Intercooler Water System injection Nozzles:

Design Heal Removal Rate = 12,000 Blu/ hr Design Margin = 3,521 Blu/hr.

Total Design Heat Removal Rate = 15,521 Btu /hr A review of the purchase specification (2447.300-241), P&lD's (EM-116A & EM-116C), vendor drawings and Operating Instruction Manual OIM-241, was not able to confirm this information.

Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-0513 Review Val 6d invalid Needed Date initiator: Hameetman, R.

O O O 2/22/97 e VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O $2/20/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O $2/23rs7 1RC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1/it>/98 Date:

INVAllD:

Date: 4/22/98 RESOLUTIOrJ: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0892, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will provide the following:

1. Reorganize the Table to show that some of the Design Heat Removal Rates stated in the Table are actually Heat Rejection Rates and that their sum can be compared with the Heat Exchanger's heat removal rates to show margin.

2. Revise Table 9.5-3 to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load (Ref. Cottec Engineering Report R-5.00-0260 dated 12/15/93).

FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0892, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will re-organize FSAR Table 9.5-3 and Printed 4/2498 9.10:20 AM Page 1 of 2

Northert Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0892 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report I revise the table to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing ,

them at 110% Load. FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Previously identified by NU? U ves f@ No Non Discrepent CoeWition?O Yes (@ No j ResolutionPending?O vos @ No ResolutionUnresolved?O yes @ No Review initiator: Obersnet.Bojan.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/22/98 SL Comments: S&L agrees with the NU's CR M3-98-0764 Corrective Action #2 that the FSAR Table 9.5-3 should be revised. Since NU has committed to revising Table 9.5-3 prior to Mode 2, they should at the same time also revise it for the DR-MP3-0917 items 2,3 and 4, which address different values of the same table, and were previously accepted Level 4 (NU Response M3-IRF-01713).

l 4

Pnnted 42496 9-10:24 AM Page 2 of 2 I

, i L. .

N:rthert Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0893 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED j Potential Operability issue Discipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data System / Process: DGX fe) No

~

NRC Significance level:4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/22/98 Discrepancy: Design Data for Components in the EDG Cooling Water System

Description:

FSAR Table 9.5-3 " Design Data for Components in the EDG Cooling Water System", defines the following for the Intercooler Water System Outside Bearings:

Design Heat Removal Rate = 6,000 Stu / hr Design Margin = 1,760 Btu / hr Total Design Heat Removal Rate = 7,760 Btu / hr A review of the purchase specification (2447.300-241), P&lD's (EM-116A & EM-f 16C), vendor drawings and Operating Instruction Manual OIM-241, was not able to confirm this information.

Reference REQ-MP3-DGX-0514 Review Valid Invalid Needed Date initiator: Hameetman. R. O O O 12/22/97 VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A O O O 2/20/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 2/2a/97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1/17/98 Date:

IWALID:

Dete: 4/22/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0893, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will provide the following:

1. Reorganize the Table to show that some of the Design Heat Removal Rates stated in the Table are actually Heat Rejection Rates and that their sum can be compared with the Heat Exchanger's heat removal rates to show margin.

2. Revise Table 9.5-3 to note that margin was provided in the design rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load (Ref. Coltec Engineering Report R-5.00-0260 dated 12/15/93).

FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0893, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The approved corrective action plan for CR M3-98-0764 (attached) will re-organize FSAR Table 9.5-3 and revise the table to note that margin was provided in the design 1

Pr6nted N24/96 9:10.52 AM Page 1 of 2

^

N;rthertt Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3-0893 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report rating of the Intercooler and Jacket Water Coolers by sizing them at 110% Load. FSAR Table 9.5-3 will be revised prior to entering Mode 2.

Previously identified by NUr O Yes (@ No Non Discrepard Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending70 vos @ No R oiuuon unroos.dro ye. @ No Review initiator: obersnei.Bojan. ACC $ a W M Accelda W Nuded Date VT Lead: Nort. Anthony A O O =

VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K O O -

IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O 4m O O O Date: 4/22/98 SL Comments: S&L agrees with the NU's CR M3-98-0764 Corrective Action #2 that the FSAR Table 9.5-3 should be revised. Since NU has committed to revising Table 9.5-3 prior to Mode 2, they should at the same time also revise it for the DR-MP3-0917 items 2,3 and 4, which address different values of the same table, and were previously accepted Level 4 (NU Response M3-IRF-01713).

Printed 4'2498 9:10.56 AM Page 2 vf 2

1 Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0951 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Systern DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Poterdial Operability lasue Discipline: Structural Design Diecrepancy Type: Calculation Om System / Process: HVX g

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/25/98 Discrepency: Tubing Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed Tubing Support Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-

Z615A-003-H014, Rev.0.

j Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.

We have requested a standard base plate calculation no.12179-NP(F)-Z600F-912-0 thru RF1-MP3-737 for base plate arelysis. Per NU Response ID M3-IRF-1214, this calculation no. is not a valid no. Since tubing support calculation references the standard base plate calculation, qualification of the baseplate cannot be confirmed.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

9 0 0 S'98 VT Leed: Neri. Anthony A B O O 1/S'98 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 1S/S8 1RC Chmn: Singh. Anand K 9 O O 1r22s8 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0951, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2 e of U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1698 has been written to revise the identification number for the base plate load calculations referenced in the Tubing Support Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-Z615A-003-H014 post startup.

Previously identified by NU? O Yes (*) No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (#) No Resolution Pending?O Yes @ No Resolution Unresolved?O Yes @ No Review Acceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O O O Date: 4/23/98 st Comments: S & L concurs that there are no re-start issues in this DR. The problem addressed in this DR is only related to documentation items.

Printed 42498 9;11:57 AM Page 1 of 1~

r

~

N:rthert Utilitie3 ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0952 Millstone Unn 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Discipline: Structural Design Potential Operability Issue l Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om l System / Process: 'HVX l

NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/2598 Discrepancy: Tubing Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed Tubing Support Calculation No.12179-NP(F)-

Z612A-119-H004, Rev.0.

Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy. )

We have requested a standard base plate calculation no.12179-NP(F)-Z918-0 thru RFI MP3-808.

Per NU Response ID M3-IRF-1281, this calculation no. is not a valid no. Since base plate loads of tubing support are compared with loads from standard base plate calculation, qualification of the base plate cannot be confirmed.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

O O O 1'S'S8 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 1/S'S8 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O O O 1' S/S8 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 1/22/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0952, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2 e of U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1698 has been written to revise the identification number for the base plate load calculations referenced in the Tubing Support Calculation No.

12179-NP(F)-Z612A-119-H004 post startup.

Previously identifwd by NU7 O Yes (Si No Non Discrepant Condition?O Yes (S) No Resolution Pending70 vos @ No Resolution Unresolved?O ves @ No Review A c'Ptable Not Acceptable Needed Date N

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/23/98 st Comments: S & L concurs that there are no re-start issues in this DR. The i problem addressed in this DR is only related to documentation items.

Pnnted 4/24/98 9:12:37 AM Page 1 of 1

N:sthe:ct Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-0954 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: system DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability lasue Discipline: structural Design Discrepancy Type: Calculation Om g"'

l System / Process: N/A l NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 1/25/96 Discrepancy: Standard Tubing Support Calculation Discrepancy

Description:

We have reviewed the Standard Tubing Support Calculation No.

12179-NP(B)-1037-XC, Rev.0.

Based on this review we have noted the following discrepancy.

We have requested the reference calculations Z-979-12-0 & Z-979-16-0 for base plate load comparision thru RFI No. MP3-786.

l Per NU Response ID- M3-lRF-1216, these calculation nos. are not valid nos. Since these calculations are referenced in the standard tubing support calculation, qualification of the base plate cannot be verified.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Patel, A.

O O O S'S8 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 1/S'S8 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 1/1S'S8 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O i/22/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0954, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2 e of U3 PI 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1698 has been written to revise the identification number for the base plate load calculations referenced in the Tubing Support Calculation No.12179-NP(B)-1037-XC post startup.

Previously identified by NU7 O vos (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O vos (8) No Rosolut6on Pending?O vos @ No Resoiution unresoived?O ves @ No Review A ceptable Not Acceptable Needed Date N

VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K 1RC Chmn: singh, Anand K O O O Date: 4/23/98 SL Comments: S & L concurs that the issue addressed in this DR is only related to the administrative items. Therefore, there are no re-start issues.

1 Pnnted 4/24/98 9.13.06 AM Page 1 of 1

i N:rthent Utilities ICAVP DR N). DR-MP3-0991 Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability issue Diecipline: Mechanical Design Discrepancy Type: calculation System / Process: NEW NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 2/28/98 Discrepancy: DCR M3-97045 does not reference calculation for impact on service water cooling load.

Description:

DCR M3-97045 reduces the containment recirculation system j flow rate through the RSS heat exchangers. This will reduce the '

heat load on the service water system. No calculation is referenced in DCR M3-97045 which addresses the reduced heat load on the service water system. Calculation 90-069-1065M3 through CCN #7 provides the hydraulic and thermal load analysis for the service water system and should be referenced in DCR M3-97045.

It is recognized that the reduced heat loat on the service water system due to the reduced RSS flow rate through the l containment recirculation spray coolers is in the conservative direction. However, changes in cooling load on the service water system due to plant design change:; should be noted even if the service water flow balance is not changed as a result in the cooling load change. i Review i Valid invalid Needed Date :

Initiator: Feingold. D. J. O O O 2/19/98 VT Le.ed: Nerl, Anthony A B O O 2/19/98 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K G O O 2/2ir88 IRC Chmn: singh, Anand K B O O 2r2sS8 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/21/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0991, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The reference to calc 90-069-1065M3 has been added to DCR M3-97045. CR M3-98-1671 has been closed to the Bin CR M3-98-0138. CR M3-98-0138 will document the correction to DCR M3-97045.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0991, has identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which requires correction. The reference to calc 90-069-1065M3 has been added to DCR M3-97045. CR M3-98-1671 has been closed to the Bin CR M3-98-0138. CR M3-98-0138 will document the correction to DCR M3-97045.

Printed 4/2498 9.13.34 AM Page 1 of 2

N:rthest Utilities ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-0991 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Previously identified by NU? U Yes (#1 No Non Discrepent Condition?U Yes (G) No Resolution Pending?O ve. di) No Re.oiotionunre.oived?O ve.

No Review initiator: Feingold, D. J. c$a M Acc$able Needed Date VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 42ws VT Mgt: Schopfer, Don K O O O 423ss IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O 42ase O O O Date: 4/21/98 SL Corrments:

l l

Pnnted 47498 913.38 AM Page 2 of 2

N:rthert Utilitiea ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-1073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l

Review Group: Programmate DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Corrective Action Process p ,, g g, my g ,,

j Discipline: Operations Discrepancy Type: CorrectNe Acton implementation O va l SystenVProcess: DGX @ No

) NRC Significance level: NA Date FA%ed to NU:

Date Published: 3/5/98 Discrepancy: Closure of CR M3-97-1604 & Implementation of DCN DM3 0643-97 Ducription: DCN DM3-00-0643-97 was issued as part of the required l corrective actions for CR M3-97-1604. l This DCN indicates on page 1 (Block 12A) that procedures are affected. Page 3 of the DCN identifies that " Operations

, Procedure OP3346A will be revised to reflect the design changes I

to identification nos of the condensate traps?

Contrary to the above, no evidence is provided to indicate that the required procedure change was made.

Review Valid inval6d Needed Date initiator: Navarro, Mark 8 O O 2/25/98 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J B O O 2/2s/98 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 2/2s/98 IRc Chmn: singh. Anand K O O O 3/2/98 Date:

INVALID:

1 Date: 4/21/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1073, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Operations procedure, OP3346A-5 rev 6 and OP3346A-6 rev 7 chg i reflects the correct valve positions as documented on DCN DM3-00-0643-97. Block 12A on DCN DM3-00-0643-97 is a flag that identifies procedures will be affected by the configuration change. This should not be confused with the DCR process where a Tumover Checklist verifies that affected procedures have been updated. Therefore, NU does not consider this item to be a discrepant condition.

Conclusion l

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1073, does not represent a discrepant condition. Based on procedures OP3346A-5 rev 6 and OP3346A-6 rev 7 chg 1 containing the correct valve positions in accordance with the changes made by DCN DM3-00-0643-97, NU does not consider this item to be a discrepant condition.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent condition?# ves O No Resolution Pending?O va @ No Ruolution Unruolved?O va @ No Review Printed 4/24/98 9.14-o8 AM Page 1 of 2

4 N:sther t Utilitie3 ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-1073 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report inMiator: Navarro, Mark VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date:

SL Comments:

l Printed 4/2496 914.12 AM Page 2 of 2

l l 1 N:rthert Utilitiea ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3-1075 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: systern DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Potential Operability lasue Discipline: Electrical Design Discrepancy Type: Component Data Om System / Process: sWP g'

NRC SigntAcance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 3/5/98 Discrepancy: Incomplete implementation of CR-M3-97-1617

Description:

CR-M3-97-1617 addressed the deletion of Motor Operated I Valves 3SWP*MOV130A and 3SWP'MOV130B. Although the {

calculations which are affected have been veri 3ed to show that these motor operated valves are deleted, OPAL Database Specification SP-EE-342 Revision 1 still includes these devices l

and shows them as connected to motor control centers. 1 Since these are small intermittent loads, this discrepancy has negligible impact on the electrical auxiliary power system.

RevMrw Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Kendall. D. J- B O O 2/26/98 VT Lead: Nerl, Anthony A B D 0 2/2e/98 VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K B O O 2/26/98 IRC Chmn: singh. Anand K B O O 3/2/98 Date:

INVALID:

Date: 4/20/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1075, has i identified a condition not previously discovered by NU which l requires correction. This discrepancy meets the criteria specified in NRC letter B16901 and 17010. It has been screened per attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no .

operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of l U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1674 has been written to I remove these valves from SP-EE 342 post startup.

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that Dizrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1075, 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 attachment 11 of U3 PI-20 criteria and found to have no operability or reportability concems and meets section 1.3.2.e of U3 Pl 20 deferral criteria. CR M3-98-1674 has been written to remove these valves from SP-EE-342 post startup.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes @ No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes (9) No Resolution Pending?O yes @ No Resolution Unresolved?O yes @ No Review f initiator: Kenden.D.J.

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A Printed 4/24/98 9.14.44 AM Page 1 of 2

N:rtherct Utilities ICAVP on n ,,og_yp3,,,7, Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report

W. = i, ~ . ,, n VT Mgr: Schopfer. Don K C C IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O '"

Date:

O O O SL Comments-l l

i l

PrWed W2m 9.14.48 AM Page 2 of 2

Northe:st Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR MP3-1080 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: System DR RESOLUTION ACCEPTED Review Element: Modircation Design Discipline: Moctanical Design Discrepancy Type: Drawing Om System / Process: NEW g'

NRC Significance level: NA Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 3/12/98 i Discrepancy: DCR M3-97045 does not update drwg 2214.802-044-021 for new RSS pump flow rate.

Description:

DCR M3-97045 lowers the RSS pump flow rate and discharge ),

head. Changes to the vendor pump curve drawing,2214.802-

]

044-021, are necessary to reflect the new operating point for the i RSS pump flow rate and discharge head. No document is identified which changes the vendor pump curve drawing for the new design point.

Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Feingoid, D. J.

O O O 3/5'S8 '

VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A O O O 3/6/S8 )

VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O O O 3/$S8 i IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O O O 3/S/S8 Date: I INVAUD: :

Date: 4/21/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1080, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Drawing 2214.802-044-021 is the Containment Recirculation Pumps Characteristic Curve Sheet.

l DCR M3-97045 installed flow orifices within the RSS system to change the operating point of the system. The configuration of l the pumps was unchanged. The point indicated on drawing 2214.802-044-021 is the original procurement design point.

Therefore, the changes incorporated by DCR M3-97045 do not represent changes that need to be reflected on the Characteristic Curve Sheet drawing 2214.802-044-021.

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

Conclusion:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-1080, does not represent a discrepant condition. The point indicated on drawing 2214.802-044-021 is the original procurement design point. Therefore, the changes incorporated by DCR M3-97045 do not represent changes that need to be reflected on the Characteristic Curve Sheet drawing 2214.802-044-021.

Printed 47496 9.15:17 AM Page 1 of 2

Northe:st Utilitie3 ICAVP DR Ns. DR-MP3-1080 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identined by NU? () Yes it) No Non Discrepent Condition?f*) vos C) No Resolution Pending?O ve. <@ No Resoiution unre.oived?O ve. <@ No Review Initiator: Feingold, D. J.

i VT Lead: Nort, Anthony A VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/21/98 SL comments: Sargent & Lundy concurs with Northeast Utilities

resolution.

However, it is recommended that a note be added to drawing 2214.802-044-021 to indicate the actual operating point, in contrast to the operating point specified in the procurement documents. This would prevent any possible confusion when referring to the subject drawing in the future.

I i

Pnnted 47496 915:22 AM Page 2 of 2

a Northert Utilities ICAVP DR N3. DR-MP3 0567

, Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report i

Review Group: Configuraten DR RESOLUTION REJECTED Review Element: System Installaton Discipline: Electrical Design Potential Operability issue Discrepancy Type: Installation implementation Q ye, systerrvProcess: Rss @ No NRC Significance level: 4 Date faxed to NU:

Date Published: 11/9/97 Discrepancy: Wall Penetration sealing not in accordance with commitment

Description:

1. Conduit 3CX970G is routed though a wall penetration which has a 4 inch conduit encased within it. The encased sleeve was observed to be sealed only with Kaewool. Response to questions on the Fire Protection Evaluation, all penetrations will be sealed with silicone. Further, this embedded sleeve is not shown on any of the wall penetration drawings.

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

8 O O 'o'18/S7 VT Lead: Neri, Anthony A B O O o/27/97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K B O 10/28/97 BRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K B O O '5'87 Date:

INVAllo:

Date: 4/23/98 RESOLUTION: Disposition:

NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, DR-MP3-0557, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Conduit 3CX970G could not be found in the TSO2 Database, therefore it is assumed that the conduit in question is 3CX9700G, which passes through the Supplemental Leak Collection and Release System (SLCR) wall in the ESF Building. The Wall Penetration MAP Drawings 25212-24279-ES007A, ES0078 and ES007C (attached) show blockout #10 with several sleeves and conduits including 3CX9700G which passes through the sleeve designated as "E". A Design Engineering inspection in the field concluded that looking West at the G.7 Line wall, the blockout was found to be sealed with high density silicone elastomer and the sleeve sealed with silicone foam. Looking East at the G.7 Line wall, the sleeve was observed to be dammed with kaewool to stop the foam from running out when applied. Both of these seals comply with the design requirements specified on the above drawings and are installed per the installation requirements of drawing 25212-29680, sheet 23 (attached).

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

Conclusion:

i NU has concluded that the issue reported in Discrepancy Report, Printed 4/24'96 9.27:01 AM Page 1 of 2

e Northea:t Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0567 Millstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report DR-MP3-0557, does not represent a discrepant condition.

Conduit 3CX970G could not be found in the database, therefore it is assumed that the conduit in question is 3CX9700G, which passes through the Supplemental Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) wallin the ESF Building. The Drawings (attached) for this area show blockout #10 with several sleeves and conduits including 3CX9700G which passes through the sleeve designated as "E". A field walkdown concluded that the blockout was sealed with high density silicone elastomer and the sleeve was sealed with silicone foam on the west side of the wall and was dammed with kaewool on the east side (may be left in place) to stop the foam from running out when applied. Both of these seals comply with the design requirements specified and are installed per the installation requirements of drawing 25212-29680, sheet 23 (attached). Significance Level criteria do not apply here as this is not a discrepant condition.

Previously identified by NU7 O Yes (9) No Non Discrepent Condition?O Yes @ No Resolution Pending70 Ye. @ No Re.osuuon uare.olved70 Ye. @ No Review initiator: Warner. l,

VT Lead: Nerl. Anthony A VT Mgr: schopfer, Don K O m IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K Date: 4/23/98 sL comments: We concur with your assumption that the correct conduit is 3CX9700G. However, we have a question with respect to the appropriate seal detail. In your response you state that the seal complies with the design requirements of drawing 25212-29680, sheet 23. While we don 1 disagree with that statement we do question the type of seat being used. Blockout #10, shown on drawing 25212-24279, Sh ES007 indicates that the seals are to be configured for "T.S. Fire, SLCRS and Radiation". Detail "CRF" on sheet 23, which matches the description of the actual configuration, is rated for fire and/or air. It appears that the correct detail might be detail M4A on drawing 25212 -29680 sheet 1, or some other detail clearly radiation rated. Without an explanation of why detail "CRF" is acceptable, we have left this DR as a level 4 discrepancy.

l l

Pnnted 4/2W98 9:27:04 AM Page 2 of 2

.

ML20217E603

Contents

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Background:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Background:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

ML20217E603

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Background:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Background:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Description:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search