ML19269E733
| ML19269E733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Sengstaken D ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269E723 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PT21-79-127-000 ZS-79-1005.142, NUDOCS 7906290545 | |
| Download: ML19269E733 (35) | |
Text
- g.N ZURN~~'-
w May 3, 1979 cc
$c-ZS-79-1005.142 2
r-c;
>Z 2.T E
gO
.T Mr. James P. O'Reilly d.
aqr Director, Region II
- cec, mQ Office of Inspection & Enforcement OO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c.
.' 2 230 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Suite No. 1217 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Subj ect:
Louisiana Power & Light Company Waterford Steam Electric Station - Unit No. 3 St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Mechanical Draft Wet Cooling Towers NRC Regulation 10 CRF 21 Gentlemen:
Zurn Industries, Inc., Cooling Tower "ivision, is the supplier'of two Mechanical Draf t Wet Cooling Tower i for Louisiana Power &
Light Company's Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No. 3, under Ebasco Services, Inc. Contract NY-403528.
Ebasco Services, Inc.
are the Engineers and the Agent for Louisiana Power & Light ij Company for this nuclear power plant nroject.
Y The cooling towers supplied by Zurn Industries, Inc. are part of the Essential Cooling Water System, and in conjunction with dry cooling towers, are required to remove heat from the Component Cooling Water System (CCWS).
The CCWS is designed to provide cooling water to the reactor auxiliary equipment during normal plant opera-tiou and to remove heat from the Reactor Coolant System during plant shutdown and to provide emergency cooling during accident and post accident conditions.
The wet cooling towers and dry cooling towers are physically located and arranged in concrete cells in a tight array adjacent to the reactor building.
Zurn Industries, Inc. has furnished all the wet cooling tower heat transfer and air moving equipment for installation in the concrete cells by the Owner.
2148 177 7 9 0 6 2 9 0 7S 5~
ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WEST KENNEDY BL VD.
TAMPA, FL, U.S.A. 33609 PHONE: 813/870-0040 TELEX: 52-410 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 24718, TAMPA, FL, U.S. A. 33623 v
Zurn Cooling Tosers " Constructed underlicense from Balcke-DUrr, Ratingen, Federal Republic of Germa.,
_____.'u.
gygg.-~~
May 3, 1979 ZS-79-1005.142 Page 2 In our. letter dated October 27, 1977, addressed to Ebasco Services, Inc., copy attached, which was prepared following issuance of Federal Regulation 10 CFR 21, we. listed specific concerns and questions regarding the capability of the Essential Cooling Water System to provide the required heat dissipation duty under the re-quired operating, accident and shutdown modes and design conditions.
Copies of the below listed subsequent correspondence indicate that 3basco Services, Inc. advised us that they had performed the cooling studies required by federal regulations and had included these studies and their conclusions in the Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports.
Furthermore they advised that since we had notified them in
, writing about our concerns regarding the application of our towers in their cooling system design, we had complied with 10 CFR 21 and no further notification to the NRC by Zurn was necessary.
We have studied the 10 CFR 21 regulation to determine our explicit requirements for notification of our concerns for application of our towers beyond the action taken on October 27, 1977 and find that there is no such explicit requirement, particularly since we have designed and supplied the wet cooling tower components in full accor-dance with the purchase contract specifications.
However, 10 CFR 21 does explicitly encourage reports of safety related concerns such as ours even though such a matter is outside of our jurisdiction.
For this reason, and because we do not have actual knowledge that the Commission has been or has not been adequately in-formed of our concerns and questions, and because we do not know of the scope or conclusions of the Engineer's studies regarding this matcer, we are hereby notifying the Commission that based on our know-ledge of cooling tower design and operation, as stated in our letter dated October 27, 1977 to Ebasco Services, Inc., Zurn Industries, Inc.
has certain conceras and questions regarding the capability of the Essential Cooling Water System of the Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No. 3 to function in a manner that will adequately provide for all safety related cooling requirements.
With regard to corrective action taken by the Owner or the Engineers, if any is required, we know of none other than redesigns of the air inlet and outlet of the wet cooling towers following our advice that changes to eliminate inter and intra cooling tower recirculation and for improvement in air flow conditions were necessary.
2148 178
.~;'
ZURN ~ ~~ ~~
May 3, 1979 ZS-79-1005.142 Page 3 Please advise us if you require us, by law or otherwise, to do anything beyond this letter in regard to our obligations under the requirements of 10 CFR 21.
~
Very truly yours, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
ooling Tower ivisi
/ 1c< t' /
y
. Donald J. S gstaken
'Vice President-Operations DJS:rg Attachments:
1)
Ebasco letter LW3-1818-77, dated August 22, 1977 2)
Zurn letter dated October 27, 1977
- 3) Ebasco letter LW3-2631-77, dr.ted December 16, 1977
- 4) Ebasco letter LW3-2661-77, dated December 23, 1977
- 5) Zurn ;etter ZS-77-1005.11, dated December 20, 1977
- 6) Zurn i.etter ZS-78-1005.16, dated January 17, 1978
- 7) Zurn Letter ZS-78-1005.18, dated February 6, 1978 8)
Ebai, letter LW3-271-78, dated February 15, 1978 and dotes of February 2, 1978 Meeting
- 9) Zurn letter ZS-79-1005.143, dated May 3, 1979 2148 179
EBASCO SERVICES INCDRPORATED UTILITY CONSULTANTS - E N GIN E E R S - CONSTRUCTORS TWO HECT0R STREET
., v..-m N EW YO RK. N.Y.10006 DATE:
- f f; M rc. ! nmci ]
"~
August 22,j--@7J- -
g j
_]
LW3-1818-7;fc g~ ~
!,, {
File No.: G.P-S ~ [ '
~,j 1
e ),= e.
.'. ' ~. !
!-~
Zurn Industries, Inc.
-b.'l Coolin's Tower Division l "Z.
i
~
Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard ph- -
, ' "- l, i
Tampa, Florida 33609
, 9,g;- -
~
VI.SI~l ___ _.
l SUBJECI: Waterford SES Unit No. 3
{
10 CFR 21 P.O. NY-403528
{
l 1
Dear Mr. T C Vicory,
1'4
~
3 "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulatio;; FILE 4 y '414J.
to require directors and responsible officers of firms and organiza-tions building, operating or owning NRC-licensed activities, to report failures to comply with regulatory requirements and defects in components which may result in a substantial safet,y hazard.- Also a
covered under the new regulations are directors and responsible officers of firms and organizations supplying safety-related components, including safety-related design, testing, inspection and consulting services.
This letter is to notify you, as a supplier / contractor for Waterford Unit No. 3, that the regulation, 10 CFR 21, becomes effective on August 10, 1977. Should you desire e copy of the regulation, it and further information is included in NUREG-0302, Remarks Presented At Public Regional Meetings To Discuss Regulation (10 CFR Part 21') For Re_
w porting Of Defects And Noncompliance". This Document is available rom:
National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price:
Printed Copy $4.00; Microficae $3.00"
?ours very truly, Robert K Stampley Project Manager
@ bb cc:
D L Aswell Power Production Dept - Nuc(3)
- 1. V Maurin H W Otillio A E Henderson C G Chezem D B Lester T F Gerrets C J Decareaux F X Shaughnessy P V Prasankumar
.. J M Brooks J O Booth (2) 0 e
4i (
f astepaheadoftomorrow
~wm_ -
2 October 27, 1977 Ebasco Services, Inc.
Two Rector Street New Yor,k, New York 10006 Attention:
Mr. Robert J. Stampley Project Manager Subj ect:
Louisiana Power and Light Company Waterford Unit No. 3 Project Identification No. LOU-1564.ll4A Ebasco Purchase Order No. NY-403528 NRC Regulation CFR21 Gen,tlemen:
We are in receipt of your letter LU-3-1818-77, dated August 22, 1977 advising us of the existance of the new Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Regulation 10CFR, Part 21 concerning the ra%nsibility of directors and responsible officers of organizations supplying safety-related components, to report defects or non-compliances to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We have read these regulations and have concluded, as have others, that they have rather broad implications concerning the responsibilities of suppliers of equipment for the safety-related portions of a nuclear power plant.
The ruling is quite clear that the responsibility for reporting cannot be delegated to the buyer and that it is a legal obli-gation of the supplier's responsible officers and directors.
However, the scope of the suppliers responsibilities for reporting defects or non-compliance as it relates to the equipment he is furnishing is not clear. As one of the NRC officials has indicated, "a real difficulty (for each supplier) of Part 21, would be to decide what is and isn't.
reportable under the rule".
Another NRC official has state'd that under the new rule, "a condition or circumstance involving a basic component that could contribute to exceeding a safety limit is considered a substantial safety hazard", and is reportable.
Even if a component is redundant, the NRC official pointed out that a deficiency in that component may be reportable under Part 21.
As we understand the regulation, if we as a supplier, of the Louisiana Power and Light Company's Wat'erford Unit No. 3, Class III wet cooling tower equipment in accordance with your technical specification, your 2148 181 ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WEST KENNEDY BLVD.
TAMPA, FL, U.SA. 33609 PHONE: 813l870-0040 TELEX:S2 410 g
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 24718, TAAfPA, FL, U.SA. 33623 Zurn Cooling Towers " Constructed under license from Balcke-DGrr, Ra:ingen, FederalRepub!< of Germany"
~
.lQQQ adepaheawnme:ow
~
4 Ebasco Services, Inc.
Page 2 Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 Attention:
Mr. Robert J. Stampley October 27, 1977 cooling tower design and your physical arrangement of the plant equipment, believe there is a potential for deviation from.the specifications and/or the Owner's construction license require-
. ments, we must follow a procedure which could result in our sub-mitting a report of such deviation to the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission.
We believe this procedure begins with our evaluation that a poten-tial deviation exists.
Following that we would report the-deviation to you as the Purchaser, by requesting that you perform your eval-(
uat, ion to determine that a substantial safety' hazard is involved and that you advise us of your determination.
As you are aware, Zurn Industries, Inc., is not in the position to make this evaluation.
If your conclusions are that the deviation could create a substantial safety hazard, the deviation must then be reported as a defect to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by us and probably by you.
As you know, from the outset of.our involvement in this project, Zurn Industries has expressed concern verbal]y for the capability of the overall cooling touer system to function in the intended manner and
~
therefore have limited our responsibility to the thermal performance of the wet cooling towers based on the air inlet conditions at the bottom inlet of the towers and the air distribution pattern limit-ations specified in our proposal.
In addition, our warranties concern-ing equipment and materials are based on proper and normal operating and maintenance in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements and the Zurn operation and maintenance manuals.
The basis of our concern for the ca'pability of the overall cooling tower system to function in a manner that will meet the safety-related require-ments include the following:
1.
Potential interaction between the discharge from the dry cooling tower and the intake of the wet cooling tower.
2.
Potential recirculation of the discharge from the wet cooling tower to its intake.
3.
The effect of potential increases in heat load to the wet tower due to recirculation between the inlet and outlet of the dry tower during the operating mode in which the wet cooling tower acts as a peaking cooling system for the dry cooling tower system.
O 2148 182
?
f(&h astwanead9 tomevro.v
}
1 Ebasco Services, Inc.
Page 3 Two Rector Street.
New York, New York 10006 Attention:
Mr. Robert J. Stampley October 27, 1977 4.
Potential maldistribution of the air flow pattern in the completed tower beyond the limits specified in our proposal of March 4, 1977.
~
5.
Whether or not there is adequate redundancy of alternate cooling tower system:.
6.
Whether or not there is adequate redundancy of fan equipment within the wet cooling towers.
In the event that a single fan failure were to occur in one of the wet cooling towers, the thermal performance of that cell would be reduced approx-
[
imat'ely 50%.
7.
Whether or not the emergency diesel power system has been designed to provide adequate power for starting the wet cooling tower fans under emergency conditions.
8.
Whether or not there is adequate missle protection for the cooling tower fans.
We are aware of similar cooling tower systems designed to provide similar safety-related service for nuclear plants, in which considerably more extensive missle protection is provided for the cooling tower fans.
9.
Whether or not the steel embedments in the concrete walls of the cooling tower are adequate to provide support for the cooling tower fill and distribution piping under all design bases and emergency conditions.
s.
Because of our concerns outlined above, we are requesting that you.
perform an evaluation of the capability of the overall cooling tower system to provide the intended cooling duty under each of the required operating, accident and shutdown modes and design conditions. We would appreciate your advising us of the conclusions of your evaluation as quickly as possible in order that we might comply with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Regulation 10CFR21.
It is regrettable that we must take this unusual position as the supplier of your equipment, but, as I am sure you appreciate, we must comply with'the law.
2148 183
gup;9.a.~.--
Page 4 Ebasco Services, Inc.
Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 Attention:
Mr. Robert J. Stampley October 27, 1977 Very truly yours, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
oling Tower Division Donald J. Se aken Assistant General Manager
(
cc:
F. J. Sweeney Chief Mechanical Engineer Ebasco Services, Inc.
R. F. Lindsay G. E. Bodick T. C. Vicary M. V. Gruber DJS:MG e
2148 184 l
EBASCO SERVICES INC0RPQRATED UTILITY CONSULTANTS. - E N GINEE R S - CONSTRUCTORS TWO RECTOR STREET NEW YORK, N.Y.10006 c.=, ux=......coc December 16 1977 LW3 2631-71 File: SQ-C-7b Mr. Donald J. Sengstaken Assistant Ger.eral Manager Zurn Industries, Inc 5401 West Rennedy Blvd.
P O-Box 24718 Tampa. Florida 33623
}
Re:
LOUISIANA PORER & LICHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS & ACCESSORIES 2P O NO. NY-403525 TITLE 10 0F FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 21
Dear Mr. Sengstaken:
Your request, in a letter to Mr. F. "Meyers, dated October 27, 1977, is contrary to our position on this subject matter.
Zurn is responsible for fulfillment of all requirements contained in our Pruchase Contract No. NY-403528, of which Specification LOU-1564.114A Revision 2 is a part. As a result of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 21, Zura is required by law to report to the NRC any defects or deficiencies in equipment supplied by Zurn and/or by Zurn's subsuppliers.
Our interpretation of this regulation is that we, Ebasco, or our client, are not responsible for issuing insurance nor is there any allowable by law to cover all costs incurred by Zurn, as a result of penalty, should Zurn fail to report a known defect or deficiency.
Further, it is our intent to discuss this matter at our forthcoming meeting to be held within the next three weeks. We suggest that your interpretation of this law be re-evaluated with your legal counsel.
Very truly yours, F J Sweeney, Jr Chief Mechanical-Nuclear Engineer By: C Seoane
' 'c' 2149
- 99
o
/
g
- .EBASCO SERVICES IECDRF0 RATED 9
Mr. Donald J. Sengstaken December 16, 1977 cc: D L Aswell L V Maurin A E Henderson D B Lester C J Decareaux P V Prasankumar Power Production Dept'-Nuc (3)
H W Otillio C C Chezem T F Gerrets J M Brooks J O Booth (2)
I t
DATE: /J.f 9 7 7' l FYi l nitial
(
~RFL l
l_
_GEB l
J
_T..cv l l
_M.V G l l
HWW l
_TJB l
l
_ FEM l
_l PEG l l
T.K.
i W.S.
l l
DJ5 /l l
JAc n i
l i
I l
I FILE M i
2148 186
l EBASCO SERVlCES INC0RPORATED UTILITY CONSULTANTS - E N G I N E I: p s - CONSTRUCTORS TTVO RECTOR STREET NEW YORK, N.Y.10006 c-co...... con-December 23, 1977 UR3-2661 -77 File: SQ-C-7b Mr. Donald J Sengstaken Assistant General Manager Zurn Industries, Inc 5401 West Kennedy Blvd P O Box 24718 Tampa, FL 33623 Re:
LOUISIANA PORER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TORERS & ACCESSORIES P O NO. NY-403528
Dear Mr. Sengstaken:
Your letter to Mr R K Stampley, dated October 27, 1977, concerning Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, is contrary to our in-te :pretation of this law. The following gives our position on this matter.
Zurn is responsibic for the fulfillment of all requirements contained in our Purchase Contract No. NY-403528, of which Specification LOU-1564 114A Rev 2 is a part. By acceptance of this Purchase Contract, Zurn has guaranteed the performance of the Cooling Towers in accordance with con-
'b ditions outlined in our Specifications.
In addition, Ebasco paid for model and fill tests to prove conditions necessary for cooling tower per-formance. Also, by Zurn's recommendation, additional tests were not performed because they would not have given any additional information.
)c Zurn's scope of responsibility is, in our estimation, quite clearly defined.
Ebasco has performed an evaluation of the essential cooling water system including potential failures, and this is part of the final Pre-Safety Analysis Report-to be submitted to the NRC ear 17 next year.
liminary studies were submitted to the NRC as part of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and on this basis the Construction Permit for Waterford SES Unit No. 3 was issued.
In accordance with Regulation 10 CFR, Part 21, which became effective Augurt 10, 1977, Zurn is obligated to report all defects and deficiencies '
Ihe format of components fabricated by Zurn and/or by their subsuppliers.
We for a report of defect or deficiency is contained in this regulation.
suggest that Zurn legal counsel further review this regulation relative to its ramification on this contract.-
2148 187
o r
EBASCO SERVICES REC 03PORATED Mr. Donald J. Sengstaken December 23, 1977 In closing, I would like to express that Ebasco and LP&L management are quite perturbed with what we feel is Zurn's "on again off again" attitude relative to the warranty / guarantee of the cooling tower perform-ance. We've worked closely with Zurn Management over the past year to resolve all matters surrounding this contract. The impression given in the first half of the year was that the parameters surrounding this matter were quite clear in everyone's mind.
Now, with the issuance of this letter, as well as others,.the distinct impression lef t is that Zurn has taken a negative posture concerning this contract. Hopefully, as a result of our forthcoming meeting within the next three weeks, our initial negative impressions will be dispelled.
Very truly yours, F J SWEENEY, JR
( ~ ~g Chief Me hanical-Nuclear Engineer c.
/p By: C Seoane FJS/CS/et MM.
cc: D L Aswell L V Maurin A E Henderson D B Lester C J Decareaux P V Prasankumar Power Production Dept-Nuc (3)
H W Otillio C G Chezem T F Gerrets.
J M Brooks J O Booth (2) esIm 2148 188
I,.
- -mne ~~_= - -
- =
a step aheadof tomorrow wanuu w December 20, 1977 ES-77-1005.ll
~
Ebasco Services, Inc.
Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 Attention:
Mr. F. J. Sweeney, Jr.
Chief Mechanical - Nuclear Engineer
Subject:
Louisiana Power & Light Company Waterford Unit No. 3 Mechanical Draf t Cooling Towers and Accessories Project Identification No. LOU-1564.114A Ebasco Purchase Order No. NY-403528 3
Zurn Contract No. CT-1005
/
Federal Regulation 10CFR21 Gentlemen:
~
We appreciate receiving your letter of December 16, 1977 in reply to ours of October 27, 1977 in regard to the referenced subject.
Howtier, we do not have a clear understanding of your position in response to our lettdr of October 27, 1977.
It was our intent in our letter of October 27, 1977, to advise you of our concerns regarding the application of the cooling tower we are supplying under this contract and its ability to provide whatever cooling duty you will require under adverse ambient conditions in the planned plant arrangement. We are not in a position to evaluate whether our concerns are valid or not and have asked that you advise.us of your determination of these
}
questions.
Undoubtedly, you reached favorable conclusions re-garding these questions during your design of the plant, but because of the new level of legal responsibility placed on suppliers of nuclear related equipment by federal regulation 10CFR21, we believed it incumbent upon us to express our concerns and request your advice.
The basis of our understanding of our responsibility in this matter is conts.1ned in the regulation, a partial copy of which, with pertinent sections underlined, is attached.
It is our desire to reach a full understanding of this matter to our mutual satisfaction.
As I indicated to Mr. L. J. Sas, during
/
2148 189 ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WEST KENNEDY BLVD.
g TAMPA, FL, U.SA. 33609 PHONE. 8131870-0040 e
h
gung.--a,_
1, 4
Ebasco Services, Inc.
. Attn:
Mr. F. J. Sweeney, Jr.
December 20, 1977' Page Two my visit to New York on Novecher 28, 1977, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cooling Tower Division
. Senga aken Assistant General Manager Attachment cc:
G. E. Bodick g
R. F. Lindsay T. C. Vicary M. V. Gruber R. C. McClenathan/Zurn, New York Office DJS:bja i
g 2148 190
/
e 33 RULES AND REGULATIONS d
Narmcarrow
- 40. 50,70. or 71. Nothing in these regu-as defined in paragraph (di(1) of this w Wy or lations should be deemed to preclude an acetion; or 21.21 Not e on gyc individual not subject to the regulations (3) A deviation in a por, tion of a fa.
t.
.g In this part from reporting to the Com. cility subject,to the construction permit P50CM " "? DCC " '"'
rnission a known or suspected defect or or manufacturing liceming regtilrctnents 21.21 ~ Procurement documenta.
fa!!ure to comply and, as authorized by of Part 50 of this chapter provided the l'wnncisows. Esconos law, the identity of anyone so reporting deviation could. on the basis of an eval-will be withheld from disclosure.'
untion, create a substantial safety haz.
.21.41 unapactionA ard and the portion of the facility con.
2121. Maintenance of remrds.
$ 21.3 Definh.um a, talning the devlation has been offered to Euroactuur As used in this part. (a)
- Baste compo-the purchaser for acceptnnee; or 23.e t ratture to noury.
Dent " when applied to nua (4s A coridition or etrettmstance in,!
m mer re.
Tolv!ng a bule component tha could.l a,ctofg rneans a_ plant structure. system.
stat.
- 4. Fu.
91-el 8 dt t.
component or part thereof necessary to_ contribute to the exceeding of a ssfety.
444: sec. 20s. Pub. I 03-438, os stat.12(a ksrure (AF the integrity of the scactor Umit. as cennec m inc technical spectfl-(42 tD5.c. 2201. 22e2. 68+6).
coolant pressure boundary. (2) the emon, cauons or a cant-nr nnera on inued blitty to shut r% &a reactor and main-pursuant n Pa r' " n' e w".
OrwznAt. Paovtstows.
taIn it m a safu.h::!4o_wn condition, or (c) "Deviatlon" means a departure
$ 21.1 Purpose.
(3) the capability to prevent or miticate from the technical requ!rements included The regulations in this part establish the consequences of ace! dents which in a procurement document (sce i 21.3 could result in potent!al o:Isite exposures (1) ).
procedures and requirements for imple-comparable to those referred to in (f) "Dirgtor" means an individual. '
mentation of section.206 of the Energy 1 100.11 of this chapter: " Basic compo-appointed or elected according to law, ?
Reorganization Act of 1974.That section nent." when app!!ed to other fact!! ties-who is authorized to manage and direct !i
~spon the o and when applied' to other.activitics 11-the affairs of a corporation, partnership cer af rn c tructi censed pursuant to Parts 30.40.50.10 or other entity. In the case of an indl. ;,
ht nent, structure, system. or part thereof vidual proprietorship. " director ** means i or 71 of thts chapter, means a compo-p o a 1t a tivit the Indiv! dual. isT11 censed cr otherwise regulated pur-suant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, that is directly procured by the licensec (g) "Evaluatlon" means the nrocess as amended. or the Energy Reorganiza-of a fac111ty or activity subject to the ' accompitshed by or Icr a Heensea to de-regulations in this part and in which terrnine whether n Darticular devtition tion Act of l914, who ebtrJm inforre'M7 a defect (see 121.3(d)) or failure to egf create a mb} tan _tial sticty huard; reasonably indicatmg: (a) 7nat the fa-cility. activity or basic component sup-comply with any applicable regulation (h) "C trating" or 'operauon" means piled to such facility or activity fails to in this chapter. order, or license issued the operation of a facility or the conduct by the Commission could create a sut.- of a !! censed activlty which is subject to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of stantial safety hazard (see 121.3fk)). the regulations in this part and consu!L. 1954. as amended, or any applicable rule. In all cases
- basic component" includes Ing services related to operations thaj.are regulation, order, or license of the Com-Entss!on relating to substantial safety des!gn, inspection. testing, or consniting important to safety.
hazards or (b) th2t the facilitI, activity. servlees important to safety thct are (13 " Procurement, document" means a or baste compenert v nua to such fa- -associated with the component hard-contract that defines the requirements cinty or cctivity conte daffds. which were, whether these services sire per-which facilities or basic components must could ercate n substanunt s9fet /huerd, formed b'y the component supplier or meet in order to be considend accepta-others. ble by the purchaser. to mmediatelv notify the commasion of 'such failure to comply or such defect. (b) " Commission" means the Nuclear (J) " Responsible omeer" means the unless he has actual knwledce that Regulatory Commission or its duly au-pre ! dent, vice-president or other in-the Commission has been a -~1e in-thorized representatives. dividual in the organization of a cor-formea et sm2r"Hinect ci failure to (c) " Constructing" or " construction" paration, partnership. or other entity comply. means the design, manufacture. fabrica* Who is vested w!Lh executive authority Lion placement. crection, installation. over activities subject to this part. $ 21.2 Scope. modification. Inspection. or testing of a (k) " Substantial safety hazard" means The regulations In th!s part apply, ex~- facility or activity which is subject to the a lo s of safety function to the extent cept as speelfleally provided otherwise in regulations in this part and consulting that there is a mefor reduct!r'n in the de. Parts 31. 34. 35. 40. or 70 of this chapter, services related to the facility or activity gree of protection ptovided to public to each individual, partnership, corpora. that are important to safety. health and safety for any facility.or ac-tion. or other entity licensed pursuant to (d) *Dafect" means: tlvlty licensed, other than for export. the regulations in this chapter to possess. (1) A ceviation see 121.3(e)) is a pursuant to Parts 30.*40. 50. 70 and 71. use. and/or transfer within the United basic component delivered to a purchaser (!) -sepplying" or "supplics mesns States source. byproduct and/or special for use in a f acility or an activity subject cont ractualiy responsible for a b::ste nuclear insterials, or to construct, man. to the regulatlons in this part if. on the component uvd or to be used b1 a facih-ufacture, possess. own. operate and or basts of an evaluation (see l 21.3 f gi). the Ity or activity which is sub ect to the transfer within the United States, any deviation could create a substantial icWlations in this part. production or utilization fac!!!ty, and to safety hazard; or each director (see 121.3(f)) and respon. -(2) 'nte installation, use. or operation 6 21.4 Int erpretations. s!ble omeer (see i 21.3(j)) of such a 11 of a basic component containing a defect Except as spec!!!cally author! zed by c' ens-e.The regulations in this part apply. the Commiss!on in writlne, no interpre-also to cach Individual. corporation. 8 NRC R glonal Omces will accept collect tation of the meaning of the regulations partnership or other ent!ty doing bust-telephone estle from individusts who Msh in this part by any omeer or employee ness within the United Statcs, and each to Speak to rfRC representstises concerning of the Commiss!on other than n written director and respons!ble omeer of such nuclear satar.utates probinna. m toes. gnterpretation by the General Counsel , organizatton. that constructs (see 121.3 [',*," * ",a enj,nu ,j wl!! be recognized to be binding upon, te s n ,g ,} (c)) a product!on or ut!!!2ation facility the Commission, lleensed for manufacture, construction Region: $21.5 Communications. or operation (see i 21.3th)) pursuant to I (Pnitadelphta)..... (215) 2s7-1150 Pnrt 50 of this chapter or supplies (see Except where otherwise specLfied in IT ptian ta)........ (4041 221-4 sos 1 21.3(11) bnsic components (see i 21.3 n! (Chicaso)....... (st2) 855-26' this part. n.!! communications and re-334-2a,o ports concerning the regulations in this (a)) for a fr.c!!!!y or activity licensed. IV (Danaan......... (alt 3 other than for export, under Parts 30, y (san Franetsco).. (416) es b3:41 part should be nddressed to the Director, IIDisaL RECl51f t. VOt. 47. NO.10s-. mon 3aY. JUNE 6,1977 2148 L91 g em3 m o wy Je ah
Yh x.: m m -. a step ebeadottomonow N'aw r January 17, 1978 ZS-78-1005.16 Ebasco Services, Inc. }- Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 Attention: Mr. L. J. Sas Chief Mechanical Nuclear Engineer Subj ect: Louisiana Power & Light Company Waterford Unit #3 Proj ect Identification No. LOU-1564.114A Ebasco Purchase Order No. NY403528 Zurn Contract No. CT-1005
Dear Mr. Sas:
In your letter dated December 23, 1977, No. LW3-2661-77 replying to our letter of October 27, 1977 regarding Federal Regulation 10CFR Part 21, you stated that Ebasco has performed an evaluation of the essential cooling water systems including potential f ailures and that this analysis is part of the Final Safety Analysis Report to be submitted to tne NRC early next year. Additionally, you stated that preliminary studies concerning these issues were submitted to the NRC as part of the PSAR. It is presumed that the conclusion of your studies and your report to the NRC demonstrate that the concerns of our letter of October 27, 1977 are unfounded and that there are therefore no conditions concerning the application of the cooling tower that could contribute to the exceeding of a safety limit and that no further action in this regard on our part is necessary. By our interpretation of Federal Regulation 10CFR21, which was imposed upon us af ter issuance of the subject purchase order, we must be notified by you that the conclusion of your studies are as indicated above. We regret that our response to Regulation 10CFR21 has created the feeling that Zurn's attitude toward this contract is something other than an earnest desire to be responsive to your requir2ments as well as to those of the Federal laws and to fulfill the requirements of your 2148 192 ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WEST KENNEDY BLVD. TAMPA, FL, U.SA. 33609 PHONE 813/870-0040 TELEX S2-410 g, g MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 24718, TAMPA, FL, U.SA. 33523 M E fin T er
- Constructed under license I,om Balcke-Dutt, Ratin en, FederalRepublic of Germanv*
gyggj.nn u-- y Ebasco Services, Inc. Mr. L. J. Sass January 17, 3378 Page Two contract in a timely manner including the meeting of guarantees of per-formance and warranties in accordance with our basic negotiations and understandings. We would like to assure you that we do not have an "on-again, off-again" attitude towards this contract and are hopeful that discussions to be held at our forthcoming meeting on January 19, 1978 will open the way for more frnitfu1Ldialog:ue and understanding in our continuing relationship. Very truly yours, {i ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. Cooling Tower Division n Donald J. Sengstaken Assistant General Manager DJS:lml cc: R. F. Lindsay G. E. Bodick R. C. McClenathan/New York e 2148 193 O
a step eheadottomorrow ---sec=: _. - - J February 6, 1978 ZS-78-1005.18 Ebasco Servie.es Two Rector Street New York, NY 10006 Attention: R. L. Roy - Project Buyer Subj ect:. Louisiana Power-& Light' Company) Waterford Unit No. 3 Hechanical Draf t Cooling Towers (, Ebasco P.O. No. 403528 Project Identification No. LOU-1564.114A 2148 194 Gentlemen: This will confirm agreements reached during our meeting in your offices on February 2,.1978. 1. Thermal Performance Guarantee Ebasco will prepare a contract change order containing the following specification changes: a) Revise Paragraph 5.3 of Section 5, Thermal Performance Tests, Ebasco Specification, Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower and Accessories, Part 2, General Requirements as follows: " Performance shall be based on the ambient wet bulb temperature measured in the inlet chamber leading to the tower.." b) Add the following to paragraph 10.09 of Section 10, Guaranteed Performance, Ebasco Specification,' Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower and Accessories, Part 1, Specific Requirements: "The purchaser agrees that the seller's Thermal Performance Guarantee shall apply only if the uniformity of air flow distribution to the fill sec-tion of each cooling tower cell is. equal to or better than the limits of Figure 1 of curve No. SKT-1005-1 attached to Zurn Industries, Inc. Air Velocity Profile Evaluation ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WEST KENNEDY BLVD. TAMPA, FL, U.SA 33609 PHONE: 813/870-0040 TELEX S2-410 B, MAILING ADDRESS:?.O. BOX 24718 TAMPA FL U.SA 33623 (- Zum Cooling Towers ~ Constructed under license from Balcke-Durr, Ratingert, FederalRepublic of Germany" ?
~ Jseco encadortomorrow ZS-78-1005.18 Ebasco Services Attention: R. L. Roy - Project Buyer February 6, 1978 Page 2- _~ Test Report dated January 19, 1977. A copy of curve SKT-1005-1 is attached hereto. If the cooling tower air flow velocity distribution is less uniform than that indicated in Figure 1 of SKT-1005-1, and the cooling tower perforcance does not meet specified guarantees, the seller will recommend cooling tower modifications to the purchaser to improve the air flow distribution pattern. All such modifications shall be provided by purchaser at no cost to seller and could include the addition of air directional vanes, additional fill material, rearrangement of fill material, etc. When the flow distribution meets the limits indi-cated in Figure 1 of SKT-1005-1, the seller's Thermal Performance Guarantee will apply." It was further agreed that the ambient vet bulb temperature will be the average of readings taken at the centerline of the inlet openings in the vertical walls of the cooling tower, at a distance 2 feet horizontally from the external surface of the valls. Additionally, to clarify the record, Ebasco stated, and will confirm in their minutes of the meeting, that there are no obstructions to air flow either at the inlet or the outlet of the cooling towers. ~ 2. Mechanical Warranty A conclusion was not reached concerning the warranty period. Ebasco's position is clearly understood, but Zurn has repeatedly pointed out that we do not guarantee any of our products for more than one. year and it was never our intent to provide a longer period of warranty on this contract. As stated, I will be in touch with you further concerning this matter after further review with our management. 3. Consequential Damages ~ Ebasco agreed to submit a contract change which wi'.1 be an addition to Article 16 of the Ebasco/LP&L Supplementary Terms and Conditions, which reads as follows: " Seller shall not be responsible for consequential damages." 2148 195 e
ffQ)ggj a stcpaheacottomorrow ZS-78-1005.18 Ebasco Services Attention: R. L. Roy - Project Euyer February 6, 1976 Page 3 4. Quality Assurance Ebasco stated that Zurn's latest Quality Assurance Manual (Revision 2, submitted February 2,1978) and their Vendor. QC Procedures (submitted November 10, 1977) were deemed adequate and that Zurn should proceed with the release of material for fabrication. Zurn agreed to do so and follow their specified QA procedures. ({, Ebasco agreed to telex to Zurn their approval / comments of Zurn's Q.^. Manual, Revision 2, by February 8,1978. Ebasco agreed that the only vendor item being furnished by Zurn under this contract requiring the ASME Boiler Code ~ Section 3 QA procedures is the distribution piping. The structural steel being furnished by Zurn under this contract is considered a part of the cooling tower building steel and therefore is to be fabricated under the general QA procedures. 5. Nuclear Liability Ebasco agreed to provide the following' indemnification clause as an addendum to Article 18 of the.Ebasco/LP&L Supplementary Terms and Conditions: " Owner hereby agrees to indemnify Seller and its suppliers of any tier and their employees against any liability for damage to any property at the site (including loss of use) resulting from a nuclear incident, including liability for damage caused by negligence of suppliers of any tier or their employees." "In the event Owner sells, leases or transfers ownership or operating rights in this facility to be constructed hereunder, Owner agrees to exert its best efforts to require the Purchaser, Leasee or Transferee to provide identical nuclear liability protection to that outlined above." As agreed, I will contact you by mail shortly concerning our acceptance of this revision. 2148 196
~. ' ' MURM ~p~ ~c-y ZS-78-1005.18 Ebasco Servicos Attention: R. L. Roy - Project Buyer February 6, 1978 Page 4 6, Fedpral Regulation _10CFR21' Regarding our questions concerning the application of this cooling tower in the arrangement provided by Ebasco in our letters of October 27, 1977 and January 17, 1978, Ebasco stated in their letter, EW3-266-1-77, dated December 23, 1977, they had adequately answered Zurn's questi.ons on this matter. Ebasco reiterated that they had performed studies for both the Waterford Unit 3 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and the Final Safety Analysis Report, and stated that the questions raised by Zurn must be studied as a matter of Federal Regulation and were included in these reports. Additionally, Ebasco stated that Zurn has complied with the requirements of 10CFR21 in notifying them in writing of our concerns, and that no further action on Zurn's part is necessary on this matter. 7. _10CFR21 Reimbursement of Costs to Comply Zurn's position is that following any action or inaction as a result of complying with 10CFR21, it is possible that we may become involved in some form of litigation, public hearings or other activities not contemplated at the time we prepared our firm price bid for this ~ contract. Therefore, because of such a possibility, we should be fully reimbursed for all time and expenses that we might incur on a normal reimbursable basis, and additionally be indemnified against any liability that ' we might incur as a result of compliance with 10CFR21. Ebasco stnted that their legal counsel had advised that there is oc involvement other than reporting to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in complying with 10CER21, and therefore because it is unnecessary, the contract amendment requested by Zurn will not be made. As stated, I will contact you shortly by letter af ter further review of this matter with our management. P., Project Delays While Ebasco denied that they had delayed Zurn in proceeding with this contract, they stated they would give full 2148 197
-aar sJ
=
ZS-78-1005.18 Ebasco Services Attention: R. L. Roy - Project Buyer February 6, 1978 Page 5 consideration to specific documented requests and evaluate - them on the basis of the terms of our contract and where applicable, force majure. 9. Miscellaneous Project Matters (a) Ebasco requested Zurn to submit the required Cooling Tower Performance Curves by the end of March,1978. (b) Ebasco requested Zurn to subedt a schedule of vendor shipping dates by February 23, 1978. (c) Ebasco will send Zurn a checklist of documentation that is to be included in the package to be sent to the field when vendor material is released for shipment. (d) Ebasco agreed to furnish the structural tee together along the imbedded plate which supports the Zurn structural steel, Previously Ebasco had marked on Zurn drawing FP-1 on 12/15/77 that Zurn should furnish the tee. While we were unable to resolve all open items at this meeting, I believe that the agreements made.were beneficial to the conduct of the project, and it is hoped that this dialogue will continue. Very truly yours, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. Cooling Tower Division </ D. Sengst en As istant General Manager DJS:rg cc: E. J. Summer, Jr. ._7..... bec:. G. E. Bodick R. F. Lindsay T. C. Vicary 2148 198 J. A. Cook e
4 EBASCO S E RVI'C E S INCOHPORATED UTILITY COMSULTANTS E N GINEE R S - C O N S TR U CT O R S TWO RECTOR STREET NEW YO RE, N.Y.1000G c..u ......co.- February 15, 1978, IR3-271-78 File:1-P-8 Response Required:2-22-78 Mr D Sengstaken Zurn Industries Cooling Tower Division Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Blvd Tampa, Florida 33623 Re: LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. NY-403528 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2.1978
Dear Mr Sengstaken:
Attached for your review are the February 2,1978 Meeting liinutes. Please submit any comments to these Minutes not later than February 22, 1978. Very truly yours, L R L Roy C Project Buyer RLR:eme @ Attachment ec: D L Aswell' L V Maurin j A E Henderson DATE: J/J O/ 7[ D B Lester I fYi unifict 2)kb l99 C J Decareaux
- Tit, g
'M I Meyer j G EO./ Power Production Dept-Nuc (3) ' H.y/.w. T W Schnatz EAa4 T F Gerrets jJ.3.v/ .g@ i 3 T A Reine ' M.\\.G. <g$ y N hm Waterford 3 Site (3) o T C.V. , ) jim h 5 9.g> @$ 'C P V Prasankumar _ys_C&! ';e = g m _. ~ T c.J "nz l G .co e a%S QN
- 'd NC
- i T. J.M.
-9" M AE G. ! \\ G?gzi th l DEL. P JA L., 24-78 -to as~.- As- , -.. A, g
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHZ COMPANY WATERFORD UNIT No.3 WET COOLING TOWERS P.O. NO. NY-403528
Subject:
NOTES OF THE NEETING HELD AT EBASCO'S OFFICES IN NEW YORK BETWEEN ZURN INDUSTRIES AND EBASCO SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 2, 1978 PRESENT ZURN INDUSTRIES EBASCO SERVICES D Sengstaken L J Sas (Part Time) R McClenthan (Part Time) S P Hecker C M Assini C Seoane R L Roy C J P Hopkins K Craig L Skoblar (Part Tine) D Galligan (Part Time) The purpose of the Meeting was to define and resolve outstanding engineer-ing and commercial issues, and to re-establish an expedient shipping
- schedele, m
MEETING AGENDA (As stated by D Sengstaken of Zurn) 1. Technical Aspects of the Thermal Performance Guarantee 2. Nuclear Liability Issue 3. Consequential Damage Statement 4. Application of Featral Regulation 10CFR-Part 21 5. Cost of Applying Federal Regulation 10CFR-Part 21 (. 6. Defining the Measurement Point of Ambient Wet Bulb Temperature 7. Outstanding QA Matters 8. Contract Status
- a. drawings
- b. fabrication OPENING STATEMENTS L J Sas voiced Ebasco's concern that Zurn's negative posture in administer-ing this contract is delaying Ebasco's construction effort.
In replying to this statement, D Sengstaken commented that Zurn is striving vigorously for completion of the contract, however, the outstanding unresolved issues were preventing them from proceeding. Technical Aspects of the Thermal Peformance Guarantee Brief ' discussion ensued regarding point 1 of Zurn letter ZS, 78-1005.15 dated January 17, 1978...This centered on two points: 1) measurecent of ambient wet bulb temperature; and 2) air distribution profile. 2P48 200
Technical Aspects of the Thermal Peformance Guarantee (Cont'd) It was acknowledged and agreed by L J Sas and C Seoane that Para-graph 5.3 Thermal Peformance Tests would be amended to read as follows: " Performance shall be based on the ambient vet bulb temperature measured in the inlet chamber leading to the tower." It was noted that this statement was previously agreed to in correspondence between Zurn. and Ebasco. Continued discussion ensued on a point raised by D Sengstaken regarding the exact point of ambient wet bulb temperature measurement. L J Sas and C Seoane clarified this point 'by stating..." Ambient vet bulb temperature shall be measured at the center line of the air inlet opening, approximately two feet horizontally from the outer wall." It was agreed and acknowledged that this statement would be incorporated into the contract specification for clarification purposes. It was also ( noted that there are no obstructions to air flow at the inlet or the outlet of the cooling towers. Regarding the Air Distribution Profile, D Sengstaken made reference to the following paragraph contained in Zurn's January 17, 1978 letter: "The Purchaser agrees that the Seller's Thermal Performance Guaran-tee shall apply only if the uniformity air flow distribution to the fill section of each cooling tower cell is equal to or better than the limits of Figure 1 of curve No. SKT-1005-1 attached to Zurn Industries, Inc. Air Velocity Profile Evaluation Test Report dated January 19, 1977. A copy of curve SKT-1005-1 is attached hereto. If the cooling tower air flow velocity distribution is less uniform than that indicated in Figure 1 of SKT-1005-1, and the cooling tower performance does not meet specified guarantees, the Seller will recommend cooling tower modifications to the purchaser to improve C' the air flow distribution pattern. All such modifications could include the addition of air directional vanes, additional fill material, rearrangement of fill material, etc. When the flow dis-tribution meets the limits indicated in Figure 1 of SKT-1005-1, the Seller's Thermal Performance Guarantee will apply." Further discussion centered on the obligations of both parties in the event the cooling tower must be modified due to improper air flow distribution patterns. The final agreement resulting from this discussion is as follows: "if the uniformity air flow distribution to the fill section of each cooling tower cell is equal to or better than the limits of Figure 1 of curve No. SKT-1005-1 and the cooling tower does not meet the required Thermal Performance Guarantee, then all costs for any modifications to correct this, including costs for retesting, will be for Seller's account. However, if the distribution is not equal to or better than the limits specified, then any tower modification to meet Thermal Performance Guarantees and costs for retesting shall be for Purchaser's account." 2148 201
The next item discussed was QA Matters. Outstanding QA Matters Opening statements by D Calligan and D Sengstaken made reference to revisions made to Zurn QA manual dated December 19, 1977. D Galligan reiterated previous comments made to this manual: 1. contained too many generalities 2. lack of formal QA department 3. lack of control over supplier D Sengstaken countered Galligan's statement with the fact that Zurn is striving to train people and qualify their QA program. He further added there would be a learning curve before Zurn personnel can totally ( come up to speed on QA requirements. Further discussion continued on the reasons surrounding the untimely delay in qualifying the QA program at Zurn's Tampa facility. D Sengstaken asserted that Zurn was delayed in meeting its contractual commitments because of Ebasco's untimely and ambiguous responses to various Zurn QA submittals. D Galligan countered this allegation by stating that it was unfounded based on the chronology of facts. The essential points of D Galligan's position were: 1. Zurn's Kokomo Indiana facility was previously QA qualified by Ebasco. ( The contract was unilaterally transferred by Zurn to its Tampa 2. facility in January 1977, and although QA requirements have not changed, the Zurn's Tampa personnel have not demonstrated a clear understanding of the existing QA requirements. 3. Ebasco has greatly exceeded the generally accepted level of involvement in assisting Zurn personnel in developing an acceptable QA program. 4. Zurn's Tampa facility failed to communicate with Kokomo for assistance in developing an acceptable QA program. Ebasco strongly stated that QA related claims for contract extras will be rejected. At the culmination of this agenda topic, D Sengstaken submitted-revision 2 of Zurn's QA manual for Ebasco's review. D Galligan stated that this manual would be reviewed and returned no later than February 16, 1978. 2148 202
Consequential Damage Statement Alter brief discussion, it was noted for the record that this issue was informally agreed to by Ebasco/LP&L in January 1977. R L Roy submitted a draft contract supplement for Zurn's review. Upon receipt of acceptable comments from Zurn, a formal supplement would be issued. Nuclear Liability R L Roy stated that it was LP&L's contention that Article 18 Nuclear Indemnity and Insurance of the Supplementary Terms and Conditions adequately protected Zurn and its subsuppliers. Further, it is not LP&L policy to deviate from the wording contained in this Article.
- However, in a spirit of cooperation, LP&L would agree to the additional wording requested with some modification.
R L Roy presented D Sengstaken with a draf t copy of a contract supple-ment which contained the proposed modifications. D Sengstaken requested a review period of at least three weeks. It was agreed that this period of time was acceptable. D Sengstaken contended that the delay in resolving this issue would likely result in an increase in motor pricing which would be for LP&L's BCCount. R L Roy rejected this, stating that Article 18 was previously accepted by Zurn on the original contract. D Sengstaken then claimed force majeure with respect to Allis-Chalmers and other motor manufacturers. He stated that it was beyond Zurn's control to come to terms on this issue without the assistance of Ebasco/LP&L. Therefore, they have incurred costs that are beyond their control. R L Roy acknowledged that a force majeure argument may have merit, but that the last sentence of Article 17-Delay of the Supplementary Terms and Conditions prohibits mtnetary relief for delays beyond the Seller's reasonable control. Federal Regulation 10CFR-2 D Sengstaken apologized for adding to the confusion with respect to Zurn's concerns over 10CFR21. In order to clarify his concerns, he restated them in two parts: 1. That Zurn had a monetary exposure in the event they had to attend hearings or have counsel in some litigation; and 2. That Zurn could not be certain that the application of Zurn's equipment for Ebasco's design was adequate. Ebasco rejected both of these concerns on the basis that our design was presented to and accepted by the NRC through the PSAR, and that the potential for additional costs resulting from this regulation 2148 203 e
Federal Regulation 10CFR-2 (Cont'd) was so remote that they did not merit consideration at this time. D Sengstaken agreed that further discussion would be conducted with Zurn Hanagement so as to determine their final position on this matter. Hardware Guarantee The major point of contention was the fif teen year hardware guarantee' stated in Section 10, Guarantee Performance, subsection 10.07. D Sengstaken stated that it was never Zurn's intent to accept a fiftcen year warranty. In support of this he referred to agreements made with Mr Lindsey during a January 1977 meeting. R L Roy took strong issue with that statement and referred Sengstaken to the meeting minutes which are silent on the issue of Hardware Guarantees. ( D Sengstaken insisted that it was never Zurn's policy to guarantee hardware for more than one year. Moreover, no company, to his knowledge, provided a fifteen year hardware guarantee. R L Roy and C Seoane countered this by stating that Ceramic Cooling Tower Company, a Zurn competitor, proposed a forty (40) year guarantee to Ebasco/LP&L. Furthermore, the fifteen year guarantee was part of the basis for awarding this cooling tower contract. Also, it was pointed out that 1) Zurn's original proposal stated a fifteen year warranty and in fact the fifteen years was a negotiated substitute for the forty years requested in the inquiry specification; and
- 2) T Vicary's proposal dated March 4,1977 took no exception to the fifteen year warranty.
An examination of the files revealed no cor-respondence prior to July 26, 1977 to substantiate this position, but to the contrary, the files clearly show that this issue was not raised ( until T Vicary's letter dated July 26, 1977 which returned executed copies of Supplement No. 2. D Sengstaken countered this position by stating: 1. At a January 6,1977 zurn/Ebasco/LP&L meeting, Zurn expressed their exception to the fifteen year warranty and in effect came to a " meeting of the minds". He further stated that Zurn considered this meeting to be a complete renegotiation of the entire contract, and 2. The last paragraph of a. subsequent letter from Zurn issued January 12, 1977, substantiates Zurn's claim. C Seoane and R L Roy refuted D Sengstaken's position with the following: 1. They were both in attendance at the January 6,1977 meeting and that the fif teen year hardware warranty was not discussed. Moreover, /he Meeting Minutes support this position. 2148 204
l Hardware Guarantee (Cont'd) 2. The January 12, 1977 Zurn letter does not address this issue. The last paragraph of this letter states the following: "In our meeting we agreed that while you would look to Zurn to work with you in solving the problems of inlet and-outlet restrictions, that you would look to Zurn to guarantee the performance of the towers, but under no circumstances would Zurn be responsible for consequential damages of any kind. Zurn's liability would be limited to those provisions outlined in your Supplementary Terms and Conditions." R L Roy pointed out that while this paragraph does discuss the issue of consequential damages, it does not address a fifteen-year hardware warranty which is an entirely separate issue. D Sengstaken countered this argument by emphsaizing the last sentence of this paragraph, to which C M Assini responded that this statement does not apply and referred Zurn to Article 1, Interpretation of The Supplementary Terms and Conditions which states that in case of any conflict or inconsistency, the contract specification shall prevail over the Supplementary Terms and Conditions. It was suggested by R L Roy and C M Assini that Zurn review the facts and discuss its position further with top management in order to avoid potential liabilities which could result if Zurn chose to.epudiate its hardware guarantee obligations. Contract Status D Sengstaken's opening statement contended that Zurn was unable to meet C. the contract delivery requirement of no later than December 31,1977 due delays in drawing review. Reference was made to Zurn letter dated December 15, 1977 in order to substantiate his position. C Seoane responded that such statements were totally unjustified. An examination of the chronology on drawings and technical data submittals substantiates that Ebasco was prompt in meeting its commitments in this area. It was pointed out that Zurn's Decenber 15, 1977 letter, which listed the chronology of submittals, verifies Ebasco's position. C Seoane further stated that Zurn was late in submitting drawings and data in order to support deliveries in December 1977. Reference was made to Ebasco letter LW3-1282-77 dated June 30, 1977 in which Ebasco informed Zurn that they were not meeting their commitments in drawing submittals and that this delay was jeopardizing the Construction
- schedule.
D Sengstaken stated that he was not aware of previous commitments made by Zurn on drawing submittals. 2148 205 e
Contract Status (Cont'd) R L Roy stated that the facts do not support Zurn's claim for added Costs. The next topic discussed was a point raised by D Sengstaken regard-ing the applicability of ASME Boiler Code Section III to the struc-turcl steel requirements for this contract. ~ C Seoane pointed out that the Code does not apply to the structural steel. The correct interpretation applies the Code only to the distribution piping. The structural steel is considered a part of the cooling tower building steel. Ceneral QA procedures shall apply. The next topic discussed was performance curves,which Zurn has not submitted to date. D Sengstaken commented that this data would be submitted to Ebasco by the end of March 1978. C-Other points discussed were: 1. Unpriced copies of all subvendor orders will be required. 2. Ebasco will send Zurn a checklist of required QA documentation no later than March 15, 1978. Zurn must assure that proper QA: documentation will be included in all subsupplier shipments. 3. Seismic Reports submitted by Zurn in mid-December 1977 will be returned by Ebasco no later than February 15, 1978. It was noted by C Seoane that Zurn's reports were tardy and that Zurn should have realized these reports would be required much ear-lier to support a December 1977 delivery. 4. Structural Tee welding attachments for the embedded plates will be provided by Ebasco. 5. D Sengstaken questioned whether missile grading, platforms and stairs would be part of the overall cooling tower arrangement. C Seoane pointed out that 1) the missile grading issue was re-solved per Ebasco/Zurn meeting of January 27, 1977, and 2) platforms and stairs are located in accordance with Zurn draw-ing R-6, revision 0 dated 10-7-77. D Sengstaken stated that he did not have a copy of the drawings dich eliminated missile grading, stairs and platforms. D Sengstaken was given an addi-tional copy of these drawings. 6. J Hopkins informed D Sengstaken that Supplement No. I to the contract was never signed by Zurn. D Sengstaken advised that he would look into this matter. 2148 206
e g d Contract Status (Cont'd) 7. It was further noted that: 1) Zurn's QA Manual Rev 2, submitted on February 2,1978 and 2) Zurn's Vendor QC Procedures submitted on November 10, 1977-were acceptable subject to comments to be submitted by D Galligan. Zurn should proceed and release their sub suppliers for fabrication. D Sengstaken acknowledged this statement. 8. D Sengstaken committed to submit a firm delivery schedule by February 23, 1978. 9 ~ 2148 207
,it. a step aheadol tomorrow May 3, 1979 ZS-79-1005.143 Mr. R. K. Stampley-Project Manager Ebasco Services,. 2. Two Rector Street New York, NY 10006 Subj ect: Louisiana Power & Light Co. Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Ebasco Contract NY-403528 Proj ect Identification No. LOU-1564.ll4A NRC Regulation 10 CFR 21
Dear Mr. Stampley:
In your letter LW3-1818-77 dated August 22, 1977, you notified Zurn Industries, Inc. of the issuance and effective date of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation 10 CFR 21. We responded in detail in our letter dated October 27, 1977, in which we listed our concerns and questions regarding the capability of the Essential Cooling Water System (of which we have furnished the wet cooling tower components) as designed and installed by you to function in a manner that will meet all its safety related recuire-ments. In that letter we.also asked that you make an evaluation of these concerns and questions and advise us of your conclusions. Subsequently, in your letters LW3-2631-77 dated December 16, 1977 and LW3-2661-77 dated December 23, 1977, you reminded us that our responsibilities under 10 CFR 21 regulations require Zurn to report to the NRC any defects or deficiencies in equipment supplied by Zurn and our suppliers. While the latter letter indicated that early preliminary studies of the essential cooling water system were submitted by you to the NRC as part of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and that your evaluation of the system, including potential failures was to be submitted to the NRC with the Final Safety Analysis Report early in 1978, we were not advised whether your studies included consideration of all of our concerns and questions, nor were we advised of the conclusions of your studies and evaluations. ~ 2148 208 ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. COOLING TOWER DIV. LINCOLN CENTER,5401 WESTKENNEDY BL VD. TAMPA, FL, U.S.A. 33609 PHONE: 813/870-0040 TELEX: 52-410 h 8 KE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 24718, TAMPA, FL, U.S.A. 33623 Zu'rn Cooling Tours "Constructedunderlicense from Balcke Clirr, Ratingen. Federal Republic of Germany" ,T >
gygg asteoesendornomorroa ZS-79-1005.143 Mr. R. K. Stampley Ebasco Services, Inc. May 3, 1979 Page 2-Similarly, during the February 2,1977 meeting in your New York offices, minutes of which.were reported with your letter LW3-271-78 dated February 15, 1978, and also reported by Zurn in our letter ZS-78-1005.18 dated February 6, 1978, we were told that the Ebasco design of the cooling water system was presented and accepted by the NRC through the PSAR and that since we had notified Ebasco of our concerns in writing, we had complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 21 and no further action by Zurn on this matter was necessary. Here again, we were not told whether your design ' included consideration of our concerns and questions, nor the conclusions of your studies. While we have designed and furnished our cooling tower components in accordance with our contract, and understand your assurances that studies required by federal regulations have been made, we still have the same concerns whether the equipment will provide the intended cooling duty under each of the required operating, accident and shutdown modes and design conditions, even though the Zurn cooling equipment will satisfactorily function in accordance with contract requirements. In the aftermath of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant incident last month, our legal counsel has reviewed this matter in detail, and on the basis of their advice as well as our sincere concern that there may be a question of the capability of the Essential Cooling Water System to function adequately and thus prevent a potential safety hazard, we have concluded that the prudent proi-dure for us to follow is to notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the requirements of 10 CFR 21 even in the event our concerns may not require notice under 10 CFR 21 and even if your studies prove that our concerns are groundless. It is recognized that the 10 CFR 21 Regulation is not clear concerning our respcnsibilities in making such.a report. However, the Regulation states that " Individuals that are subject to this part that become aware of a defect or noncompliance that is outside the respons#.bility of their organization. . are' encouraged but not required, to report to the Commission known or suspected defects or failure to comply." ~ 2148 209
gygg. n-~,- ZS-79-1005.143 Mr. R. K. Stampley Ebasco Services, Inc. May 3, 1979 Page 3' To repe t, in light of the recent Three~ Mile Island incident and because.e are concerned that there may be a question of safety with rr f.rd to th'e capability of the Essential Cooling Water System, and upon advice of counsel, we believe we should take every precaution possible, both in the interests of the public as well as our own, and make our concerns known to the Commission. A copy of our letter of notification to the NRC is attached. ,Very truly yours, ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. ling Tower Divis n j gy $-[W Donald J. Sea staken Vice President-Operations DJS:rg Encls. t 2148 210 .}}