ML17054D184

Forwards IE Info Notice 79-34, Inadequate Design of Safety- Related Heat Exchangers. No Action or Response Required

ML17054D184
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/27/1979
From:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
References
NUDOCS 8001100005
Download: ML17054D184 (32)

Text

SIONC d WEOS1EA ENGILD Copy to:

PE ra ewis -3 0770'3226U Mr. C.

G. Lewis Pro)ect Hanager (H/C 394)

Nine Mile Point 2

General Flectric - NEG 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125

Dear Mr. Lewis:

January 10,.1980 J.O.

No.

12177 9H2-7959 ggpgdue oc ow

",NRC IE BULLETINS 79-27(VEND 79-28 NRC IE INFORMATION NOTICES 79-30 AND 79-31 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION The sub)set NRC IE Bulletins and Information Notices were forwarded by NMPC Letters No.

2192 dated December 18,

1979, No.

2190 dated December 18,

1979, and No.

2203 dated December 28, 1979.

Please review these items and advise us of any appro-priate action which should be taken for the GE scope of supply by January 24, 1980, for IE Bulletin No. 79-28; by February 4,

1980, for IE Bulletin No. 79-27; and by February 20, 1980, for IE Infor mation Notice Nos-79-30 and 79-31.

Very truly yours, ORIGINAL SlGNED FOR C.

C. Zappile Pro)ect Engineer JCA:HB

4lI I

lj STONE 8%EBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION CHERRY HILL OPERATIONS CENTER 3 EXECUTIVE CAMPUS.

P.O.

BOX 5200 CHERRY HILL. NEW JERSEY 08034 TWXI 710-892-0147 SOSTON NCW YORK CHERRY HILL.N.J.

OCNVCR CHICAOO HOUSTON PORTLANO. ORCOON SAN OICOO WASHINOTON. O.C.

710-892-0148 OE SION CONSTRUCTION REPORTS EXAMINATI0 NS CONSUl TINS ENOINECRINO Mr. C. D. Terry

Manager, Nuclear Generation Projects - Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard Vest

Syracuse, NY 13202 March 17, 1980 J.O.

No.

12177 8279

Dear Mr. Terry:

"IE'ULLETIN79-27 AND IE INFORMATION NOTICE 79-29 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 This letter provides S&V'8 response to the subject IE Bulletin and Infoxmation Notice regarding loss of non-Class IE instrumentation and es onses are numbered t

1 ower system bus during operation.

The resp

-27.

the same as the action items in IE Bulletin 79-F NMP2 the Class IE bus supplies power to the or d

related instrumentation and control systems, an Class IE bus supplies powex'o nonsafety-related mentation and control systems.

The Class IE and buses are physically and electrically separate.

safety-the non-instru-non-Class IE For each bus:

a The UPS System Trouble Alarm in the control room will alert the operator to a loss of power to the bus.

bus.

The alarm will be activated if the UPS output voltage should fall below 95 percent of rated output voltage.

b.

Vith Class IE and non-Class IE loads properly assigned, the loss of power to instrumentation and control systems will not affect the capability to achieve a cold shutdown condition.

GE has not yet responded to this IE Bulletin and they should address the load assignments.

However, the

= ~

0 7

7 0 '3 2

2 6 /'arch 17, 1980 9M2-8279 CDT 2.

Class IE UPS system has the required redundancy, capability, and reliability to supply power to all its safety-related loads required to achieve a cold shutdown condition.

C.

Unless it becomes necessary to reassign non-Class IE loads to Class IE systems to achieve a cold shutdown condition based upon GE's assessment of this IE Bulletin, S&W does not anticipate any requirement for design modifications.

2.

While NMPC is responsible for the development of emergency procedures, it should be noted that the loss of power to any Class IE or non-Class IE bus is very remote, since each UPS has a dc backup through a blocking diode on loss of ac supply and an alternate ac supply via a static switch in case of inverter failure.

Because long ago we recognized the problem with inverters described in this IE Bulletin, we chose to use the present scheme.

Unless NMPC identifies the need for a design change during the development of emergency procedures, S&W does not anticipate any requirement for design modifications.

3.

Based on our review of operating experience and re-review of IE Circular 79-02 dated January 11,

1979, we have concluded that the failure described is not applicable to NMP2.

Our responses to each of the potential problems were addressed in S&W Letter No. 9M2-6727 dated April 3, 1979.

If you have any questions on this response, please contact Mr. R.

H. Pinney at (609) 482-3124.

Very truly yours, ga~t C.

C.

ZappZ1e Project Engineer JCL:MB

GENERAL jQ ELECTR I G NUCI.EAR POWER GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 175 CURTNER AVE.~ SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95125 MC 394, (408) 925-3574 SYSTEMS DIVISION May 6, 1980 NMP2-3241 JO Nl2177 Ll e Mr.

K. Varadarajan Stone

& Webster Engineering Corp.

P.

0.

Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

Dear Mr. Varadarajan:

i, IAI'L

Reference:

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE'ILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 NRC IE BULLETINS AND NOTICES Stone

& Webster Letter 9M2-7959, C.

C. Zappi le to C.

G.

Lewis, January 10, 1980 In response to the reference letter, the following information is provided:

NRC IE Document Bulletin 79-28 Bulletin 79-27 Notice 79-30 Notice 79-31

~Ree once Answered by NMP2-3062 This was a

PWR event.

However, as stated in the NRC letter from B.

H. Grier to G,

K. Rhode, the concerns will be addressed as part of the licensing process.

No response required.

Please refer to responses for IE Bulletin 79-14 provided in NMP2-2799 and "2901.

If you have any question on the above information, please contact mec Very truly yours, PM C.

G.

Lewis Project Manager Nine Mile Point 2

CGL: jlk/1202 2AA R. J.

Hall S.

F.

Manno C.

C. Zap.;"e

u V NIAGARA 0 j~gg0C5Pr H U MOHAWK (82 38)

NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARDWEST, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202/TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511.

January 19, 1982 Mr. C. Gordon Lewis, Project Manager Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta. Unit 2 General Electric Company - NEG 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

Subject:

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Il'* dg~

Dear Mr. Lewis:

Niagara Mohawk has reviewed your letter NMP2-3241, dated May 6, 1980, which transmitted your response to IE Bulletin 79-27.

As a result of this review, we have concluded that your response needs to be expanded.

Stone 8 Webster's response to the above subject-bulletin, letter 9M2-8279, dated March 17, 1980, indicated that information was required by General Electric.

In particular, GE needs to address the Class 1E and Non-Class lE load assignments and an assessment indicating whether any loads will need to be reassigned.

Please review IE Bulletin 79-27 and provide your response by March 1, 1982.

A response is requested in order to determine if any redesign of the load assignments is required before enter-ing NMP2 OL review.

Sincerely, c~~~~

Carl D. Terry, Manager Project Engineering CDT/PM:jam cc:

Messrs.

P.

E. Francisco H. Reese R. L. Wagner C.

C. Zappile W.

R. D'Angelo

GENERAL ~Q:

L LEPTRI C NUCLEAR 'POWER GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95125 MC 394, (408) 925"3574 SYSTEMS DIVISION February 26, 1982 Responds to:

NMPC-497 NMP2-4198 JO 812177 Mr. S.

F.

Manno, Project Manager Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, NY 13202

SUBJECT:

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION " UNIT 2 IE BULLETIN 79-27 IE Bulletin 79-27 concerns loss of non-class 1E instrumentation and control power system bus during operation and control system failures.

A thorough response to the Bulletin requires DPL fault tree analysis, which is beyond the present contract scope.

A quotation to perform this work is being prepared, and will be provided to you by May 1, 1982.

Very trul yours C.

G.

Lewis Project Manager Nine Mile Point 2 CGL:hjr/C02268 cc:

W.

R. D'Angelo R. J. Hall R.

E. Miller G.

E. Sanford C.

C. Zappile

v 7'7 0

3 2

2 4

0 OPY GENERAL9 ELECTRIC

. NUCLEAR POWER GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95125 MC 394, (408) 925-3574 February 26 1982

')if>"'

(BB2 Responds to:

NMPC-497 0

NMP2-4198 JO 5'12177 Q L=

SYSTEMS DIVISION Mr. S.

F.

Manno, Project Manager Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, NY 13202

SUBJECT:

Very trul yours NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POIN~JUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2

@VIS'.BUQX~UN~>%9:

7:.".

IE Bulletin 79-27 concerns loss of non-class 1E instrumentation and control power system bus during operation and control system failures.

A thorough response to the Bulletin requires DPL fault tree analysis, which is beyond the present contract scope.

A quotation to perform this work is being prepared, and will be provided to you by May 1, 1982.

C.

G.

Lewis Project Manager Nine Mile Point 2

CGL: hjr/C02268 cc:

W.

R. D'Angelo R. J. Hall R.

E. Miller G.

E. Sanford C.

C. Zappile

STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION SOSTON NEW YORK CHERRY HILL, N.J.

DENVER CHICAOO HOUSTON IIORTLAND OREOON SAN DIEOO WASHINOTON. D.C.

CHERRY HILL OPERATIONS CENTER 3 EXECUTIVE CAMPUS, P.O.

BOX 5200 CHERRY HILL. NEW JERSEY 08034 TWXI 710.892-0147 710-892-0148 I -"

(S CQPQ, DESION CONSTRUCTION REPORTS EXAHINATIONS C0 N S ULTI N O ENOINEERINO Mr. J. T. Niezabytowski Manager - Contracts Administration Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, NY 13202 February 2, 1983 J.O.No.

12177 9M2-13,518 Responds to:

NA

Response

Required by:

NA CONTROL SYSTEM AND BUS ANALYSIS IE BULLETIN 79-27 GE QUOTATION NO. 214 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2

Reference:

GE Quotation No. 214 dated October 8, 1982 SWEC has reviewed the subject quotation to conduct a control system and bus analysis in response to IE Bulletin 79-27 for NMP2.

This effort is neces-sary to comply with the NRC requirements outlined in the bulletin.

SWEC recommends that NMPC accept the quote.

The evaluation of GE systems to achieve cold shutdown upon loss of any bus power is best accomplished by GE due to their indepth understanding of GE-designed

systems, knowledge of GE-supplied equipment, and BWR operating and shutdown procedures.

Although SWEC could perform this evaluation, GE is more qualified and therefore technically preferable.

The GE quote of 360 man-hours is a time-and-material quote which relates to an estimate of

$31,500 and is considered reasonable for the work product outlined in Quotation No. 214.

The activities required by SWEC to perform this task are as follows:

1.

Review IE Bulletin 79-27 and formulate study requirements and scope.

2.

Review GE systems to determine cold shutdown system requirements.

3.

Identify critical components.

4.

Determine effects of loss of power.

5.

Tabulate results and draft report.

FEB 7 1983

O 7

7 O 3 2

2 b

0 February 2, l983 9M2-13,518 SWEC estimates it would require 1500 man-hours to perform the above activi-ties.

The SWEC effort to support the GE quote is minimal since most information is already available to GE, requiring approximately 30 man-hours.

NMPC support is required regardless of who performs the evaluation as outlined in Section 2, paragraph 2.1.1(1),

and Section 3, Items 2 and 6, of the GE quote.

GE will provide a final report 4 months after receipt of order.

This schedule is reasonable.

The quote expires February 28, 1983.

CEF 00783 has been prepared to update the Mod 1 cost file to reflect the current estimated value of the NSSS/PGCC contract with GE.

This CEF includes

$31,500 in the NSSS contingency account for the subject quotation.

The required funds will be transferred to the defined budget line item for NSSS/PGCC.

Management Reserve funding was required for CEF 00783, which will be transmitted to NMPC subsequent to SWEC dispositioning.

C.

C. Zappile Project Engineer Enclosures RFC: BP xc:

SFMann CDTerry KDWard

4 r,

C

07703 PDE C 0 E N E B O'L

~ !P E L E C T R I Il GENERAL ELECT C

PAR, 75 R

R AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95125 PY NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS DIVISION March 29, 1983 Responds to:

N/A NMP2-4938 JO ¹12U7, Mr.

R.

E. Miller Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corp.

P.O.

Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

Dear Mr. Miller:

\\

We ET qf happC

~< P~~

hi~~

SUBJECT:

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 IE BULLETIN 79-27 Confirming our conversation on March 26, T. Scherer, G.

F.

Darmohray and D.

M. Baer will meet with E. J.

Hubner, A. Gwal and others to plan work assignments and schedule for performing the Control System and Bus analysis responsive to IE Bulletin 79-27.

It is understood the meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m.

March 30 at Stone 8 Webster's Cherry Hill offices.

V y truly yours, G.

Lewis Project Manager Nine Mile Point 2 CGL:rm/A03297 cc:

R. J.

Ha11 S.

F.

Manna J.

P.

Ptak K.

D. Ward C.

C. Zappile

GENERAL PLGGTIIIC GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95125 MC 389, (408) 925-3574 NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS DIVISION May 12, 1983 Responds to:

N/A NMP2-5037 JO ¹12177 Mr. A.

F. Zallnick

Manager, Nuclear Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, NY 13202 Oear Mr. Zallnick:

R"-CEIYEO I >n AI'I Pt 2 P oIoct flAY 1b 883

"""~ "~0 h -ddquartors

Reference:

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 CONTROL SYSTEM AND BUS ANALYSIS IE BULLETIN 79 STATUS Niagara Mohawk letter from J.

T. Niezabytowski to R. J.

Hall, same subject, dated February 25, 1983 In the Reference, Niagara Mohawk authorized General Electric to perform a

Control System and Bus Analysis in response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-27 for an amount not to exceed

$31,500.

This letter summarizes the actions taken to date and the current status of this program.

Subsequent to Niagara Mohawk's acceptance of General Electric's proposal, a March 30, 1983 meeting of General Electric with Stone 8 Webster was held to discuss both analysis schedule and input required by General Electric.

As stated in General Electric's technical description of the

analysis, a draft of the plant shutdown procedures is required for General Electric to perform the work.

In the proposed work scope the shutdown procedures are used to identify BOP systems and components included in paths to shutdown.

Early in the meeting, General Electric was informed that no draft of the shutdown procedures exists yet.

Consequently, the work scope proposed would have to be modified.

General Electric and SWEC discussed at length alternative means of identifying BOP systems and equipment used to achieve shutdown.

It was decided that the information could be provided by an extensive review of SWEC plant power supply one-line drawinqs, motor and electrical load

lists, and

FSKs, Either General Electric or,SWEC could perform this alternative review, but it would far exceed either General Electric's proposed work scope or SWEC's assumed involvement.

Consequently, General Electric and SWEC decided to stop any further work pending discussions

A.

F. Zallnick Page 2

May 12, 1983 077082246 GENERAL pgpggg(~

with Niagara Mohawk during the scheduled licensing status meeting on April 5, 1983.

In the licensing status

meeting, the problem was explained to Niagara Mohawk.

NMPC requested that SWEC provide an estimate of the cost of SWEC's providing the analysis and report.

No further action was requested of General Electric, and no further work has been done on this program by General Electric.

The response to IE Bulletin 79-27 can be developed with either General Electric or SWEC given the lead responsibility.

In either case, the secondary participant will have to identify its systems and components used in shutdown and will have to transmit this information to the lead participant.

The total cost will be either the cost of General Electric's performing the analysis

($31,500 as proposed) plus the cost of SWEC input (including SWEC review of SWEC drawings),

or the cost of SWEC's performing the analysis plus the cost of General Electric input.

General Electric's input cost for the latter case has not been requested.

General Electric has stopped all work on this program pending further instructions from Niagara Mohawk.

V r tr ly yours, C.

G.

Lewis Project Manager Nine Mile Point 2

CG L: cal/K050215 cc:

R. J. Hall K. Miles R.

E. Miller J.

P.

Ptak C.

D. Terry K.

D.

Ward C.

C. Zappile

STONZ BOSTON NEW YORK CHERRY HILL. N.J.

DENVER CHICAOO HOUSTON POR'TLANO. OREGON WASHINGTON. D.C.

0ESION CONSTRUCTION REPORTS E XAMINATIONS CONSULTINO E N0 I N E E R INO 8 %WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION CHERRY HILL OPERATIONS CENTER 3 EXECUTIVE CAMPUS, P.O.

BOX 5200 CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY 08034 TWX: 710-892-0147 710-892-0148 Ap'r.

C. D. Terry Manager Project Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, NY 13202 September 6,

1983 J.O.No.

12177 9M2-14,723 Responds to:

NA

Response

Required by:

NA IE BULLETIN 79-27)

CONTROL SYSTEM AND BUS ANALYSIS -

GE QUOTATION 214 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 On March 30,

1983, a meeting was held between GE and SWEC to identify and discuss the information required to be supplied by SWEC on GE quotation 214, IE Bulletin 79-27, Control System and Bus Analysis.

After a lengthy discussion on the procedures that might be involved in doing the analysis, it was determined that GE's proposal underestimated the amount of information that SWEC needed to supply.

As stated in the

quote, the plant shutdown procedures and a

number of drawings were to be supplied to GE.

Since no plant procedures exist at this time, GE was requiring SWEC to supply a list of systems and equipment necessary for a normal shutdown and the flow path that would be followed by each system required to operate during a normal shutdown.

Also, SWEC would have to supply all plant power supply one-line

drawings, motor and elec-trical load lists,

ESKs, and FSKs so that GE could identify the control system and buses and the alarm and annunciation associated with them.

The clarified scope of work that would be required by SWEC greatly exceeds the 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> originally estimated to complete SWEC's input to GE.

The meeting ended with a hold on all work until GE could review its quote.

SWEC now believes that it would be more efficient if SWEC performed the analysis for SWEC's systems and GE performed the analysis for GE's systems.

SWEC should then combine the results of the analyses into one report.

SWEC estimates that it will require 1168 man-hours to perform the following activities for BOP systems:

1.

Review IE Bulletin 79-27 and formulate study requirements and scope.

~<<IIrr'-'"9 Review GE systems to determine cold shutdown system requirements.

Iine hAiL~ PI. 2 Project SEP "I'I983 Syracuse headquarters

A

V CDT September 6,

1983 9M2-14,723 3.

Identify critical components.

4.

Determine effects of loss of power and control room indication.

5.

Review and incorporate GE input.

6.

Tabulate results and draft report.

SWEC cannot estimate man-hours to provide input to GE until a revised quote is issued.

This effort can begin after October 1,

1983, and requires 6 months to com-plete.

The estimated hours have not been loaded into EMS.

GE indicated in I.etter No. NMP2-5037 dated May 12, 1983, that GE was per-forming no further work on this program.

NMPC will have to assign the lead responsibility to either SMEC or GE.

The secondary participant will have to supply its system and components used in shutdown to the lead partici-pant to finalize the report.

After NMPC assigns the lead responsibility, a

revised quote may be needed from GE.

A meeting of all parties may be advantageous in defining responsibilities,

outlines, and material to be supplied.

C.

C. Zappile Project Engineer RFC:DEM xc:

CDTerry MJRay AFZallnick APKordalewski

L

INTERNALCORRESPONDENCE FORM 112 0 R(f240 FRQM A.

D ~ Sassani A. F. Zallnick

'FILE I!l NIAGARA UMOHAWK DIsTRICT Nine Mile Point Unit k2 DATE May 30, 1985 FILE CODE sUBJEGT Control System Fail ure Analysi s NMPC Project Engineering has reviewed the SWEC Control System Failure Analysis Preliminary Report transmitted via 9M2-17,946 on May 24, 1985.

Our review has revealed inconsistencies, errors and apparent omissions.

Based on these inconsistencies, errors and apparent omissions we cannot complete Action Item P2 of IE Bulletin No. 79-27, which is to review the elements of the report against operating procedures.

Our comments are as follows:

1.

The report's written does not stand alone, i.e.,

a number of MCCs and 125VAC distribution panels are not included in the report.

Some may be included in the load sheets, however, there are some that are not in the report and are not included on the load sheets.

One Line

Diagram, EE-M01E-2, identifies buses that are not included in the report.

Examples of omissions are as follows:

Division I 2EJA*PNL101A 2SCM*PNL102A 2SCM*PNL104A 2SCM*PNL103A 2SMC*PNL105A Division II 2EJA*PNL300B 2SCM*PNL302B 2SCM*PNL303B 2SCM*PNL304B 2SCM*PNL305B The above panels are not shown on Figure 3-2, "bus tree".

Furthermore, Page 1, Section 2.1 does not address 125VAC safety-related class lE systems.

Page 1 also describes Division III as orange and it should be purple.

All MCCs and distribution panels and there elimination criteria should be shown in the report.

2.

Pages 5 and 6

LC 2NJS-USlA identifies MCCs 2NHS-MCC003A and 3C while EE-MOlA-2 shows only MCC003A supplied from LC 2NJS-US1A.

3.

Page 8

4.

Page 9

5.

Page 12 6.

Page 42 LC 2NJS-US2A does not address 2NHS-MCC005 while it is shown on EE-MClA-2 LC 2NJS-US3A identifies MCCs 2NHS-MCC006A and 6C while EE-M01A-2 does not.

LC 2NJS-US4A identifies MCCs 2NHS-MCC013A and 13C, while EE-M01A-2 does not.

P. wPj gp D FWS flow transmitter should be identified on"5>s'page.

MAY3

< t995

/

1 r(

7.

Page 54,'v 077032Z42 2BYS-PNLB101 loss will cause a loss of flow

~

'ransmitter C33-N002B.

As a result, there will be a

mismatch between steam and feed flow and an increase in vessel level.

This is not described'n this bus loss.

8.

Pages 57 and 70 Under procedures, the use of SLS is not consistent with the shutdown path diagram.

The RHR System is not a high pressure cooldown system.

9.

Page 57 and 58 LC 2EJS*USl does not address MCC 2EHS*MCC103A which is shown on EE-M01B-l.

10.

The analysis does not address the loss of 2SCA-PNL403 which causes loss of all three CCS pumps and loss of unit.

11.

Pages 1 and 25 Loss of 2NPS-SWG001 indicates use of an alternate path for core shutdown and cooldown while loss of 2NPS-SWG003 indicates the use of SWG001.

The procedure descriptions are inconsistent.

12.

Page 27 13.

Page 1

14.

Page 3

15.

Pages 14 -18 Loss of pumps 2CNM-PlB and PlC indicates in the procedure that pump 2CNM-PlC should be used.

Loss of 2NPS-SWG001 will lose only FW pump 2FWS-P1A per EE-M01A-2.

Loss of 2NNS-SWG011 and pumps 2CNM-PlA and P1C states in the procedures that P1C should be used.

Loss of 2NNS-SWG011 will cause loss of 2 pumps and possible unit tr ip.

Loss of individual feeder fuses to these 120 VAC distribution panels are not backed-up by 2NJS-US9A.

The field for effects should be reanalyzed.

16.

Pages ll and 18 EE-M01A-2 shows LC 2NJS-US4A and US4C as NC.

Loss of 2NJS-US4A would also mean the loss of 2NJS-US4C.

These two should be combined in one analysis.

17.

Page 27 2NNS-SWG013 does not have a

2CNM-P1C off the bus.

20. For all MCCs, 125VAC and. 120VDC distribution panels, the report should state what alarms will be initiated; if any, i.e.,

a loss of an MCC will not have a dedicated point alarm but it will initiate motor starter loss of power alarms.

This field should be complete even for those buses that are eliminated by the elimination criteria.

With the above inconsistencies, errors and apparent omissions we cannot do a complete review of operating procedures at this time.

ADS/dl (0652E) xc:

D.

R. Kimball R.

B. Abbott D. L. Pike N. L. Rademacher Project File assans 5 /3~/Ps

1 p

~

f