ML20198C615
| ML20198C615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1991 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198C619 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107030096 | |
| Download: ML20198C615 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000440/1991005
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_
e
4
JUN 2? YA1
A
Docket No. 50-440
Docket No. 50-441
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company
ATTN:
Mr. Michael D.
Lyster
Vice President
-
Nuclear - Perry
10 Center Road
Perry, OH 44081
Dear Mr. Lyster:
This refers to the special electrical dir.tribution system
functional inspaction (EDSFI) conducted by Mr.
J.
H.
Neisler and
others of this of fice on April 29 through !!ay 24, 1991.
The
inspection evaluated activities at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
Units 1 and 2,
authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-58 and
NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-149.
We discussed our
inspection findings with Mr.
B.
E.
Beyer and other members of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection on May 24, 1991.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection.
The team assessed the design,
implementation, and engineering technical support relative to the
electrical distribution system.
The inspection consisted of a
selective review of design calculations, re. levant procedures,
representative records, installed equipment, and interviews with
engineering and technical support staff.
-
The team considered the design and operation of tht; electrical
distribution syste.n at Perry to be acceptable.
The electrical
distribution system appeared to be functional under design
conditions.
Several strengths were noted, including the
surveillance test program, the material condition of the
electrical distribution system, the robust design to provide
additional safety margins and capacity, and the improvements in
the function of the independent safety engineering group (ISEG).
However, several weaknesses were also identified.
Examples
,
included nonconservative assumptions in cable sizing calculations
and voltage drop studies, the lack of a comprehensive load growth
control program and incorrect assun.ptions .in battery sizing
calculations.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the
course of this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,
a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be
placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
9107030096 910627
l
ADOCK 05000440
l
0
6 O/ g
3
.. .
. _ . - . _ . _ -
. . _ . _ - - . . - - -
-
e
0
The Cleveland Clectric
2
JUN 2 7 GM
,
Illuminating Company
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this
inspection.
Sincerely,
L . , , m . ..
w a . . . -. .. , j j , .i. ,i l,1
H. J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure:
Inspection Reports
No. 50-440/91005(DRS);
No. 50-441/91003(DRS)
cc w/ enclosure:
F.
R.
Stead, Director, Nuc1 car
l
Support Department
R. A.
Stratman, General Manager,
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
M. J. Hayner, Acting Manager,
Licensing and Compliance section
!
S.
F.
Kensicki, Director, Perry
l
Nuclear Engineering Department
H. Ray Caldwell, General
Superintendent, Nuclear
,
'
Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
,
l
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
Terry J.
Lodge, Esq.
James W.
Harris, State of Ohio
Robert E.
Owen, Administrator,
Radiological Health Program,
Ohio Department of Health
A. Grandjean, State of Ohio,
Public Utilities Division
l
Clinton SRI
NRR, DRIS
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
4'
Q1]p/j k
Whh
(ff]]fert
4% k e .'
f
X
NM61er
Lanksbury
Gardner
king
Martin
[MI'ller
06/24/91
06/Af/91
06/,) ?/ 91
06/17/91
06/ t1/91 (06/p]/91
iW
. .
- .
_ - . . . .
-
__
..
.