ML20024B477
| ML20024B477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1978 |
| From: | Dunn B BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-06, TASK-6, TASK-GB GPU-2704, NUDOCS 8307090002 | |
| Download: ML20024B477 (6) | |
Text
--
6, hj :rf,L.~--.
l' 1
7I Tat cABCoCx a w.COX COMPANY
~
NOV 6 IS E PO'. 2R GD ERAT 10!1, CROUP 1
[7 To l
j J.9. TAYLO? t'A*!*GER.1.TCENSING from B.M. DufM. fWl3GER. ECCS A?!At.YSIS (2138) h!,h g
se s
=._.
.y Cust.
File No.
or Ref.
Subj.
Date November 3.1978 patential Safety Coseern i
jn.....i............-....,.
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feeduater congr9t j i
,4I Thave reached the conclusion that the concern fe-ef-M Qevel
-uMb'y n examination of the paper trail leads to a belief a.pA that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant-of' these.. con-cerns. We do not m3nage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignoract-as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'.theIkey word.
of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So,long
~
towardresoluJtonof problems with de:ign changes exists. I believe there is no safety concern regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were.alGays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always
, existed.
The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.
s ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as i
documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate systsm to compensate for t.se 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely.
path has been followed. Ther-efore.-no safety-concern. exists..ip_my mi_nd.
Whythen'dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the
~
surrounding organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of 4/4/J8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, althoughd believe it,to-
. be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cements igshould eithe tial obstructi'ons are today nonexistent and this PSC s memo.
BMG/lc Y ' h #*E b 9 ?! '4 i
cc:
E.A. Womack
- fi W R.C. Jones N.H. Shah
/ f 'Jj g.,g4 du een Y x oAn M ej,. &,,,.. ll, un, <n.ctdQgg,R[/
S u. ' /Ju.
qy.A
-M
. v m.4
. j V,..
.u. w,.L p y.
&, g g.
r
. :.. / n, c.,.<
-v.
3...:, 3 :., 4,,
8307090002 781103 l
PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
HOL
.k O
( 1l W2.i y34 e
-. - - - -..m y..
N f*
Q(,.g /"/.
kY' ~ -
- . r. r.o
'/
' Tilt CASCOCX 4 Wl'.COX COMP ANY
/
- ~~~~
W 6 ISTE PO'. ER GENERATION, CROUP d
en an/
J.H. TAYLOS t'*,*MGER. LICE;istflG from B.M. 00?l'l. fW MGER. ECCS A'!ALYSIS (2138) h.
A <* y s e s
=._
Cust.
File No.
2 or Ref.
Subj.
Date Patential Safety Coseern November 3. 1978 g...............................,.
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O
the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrg1A 1evel fy -e W ITgThave reached the conclusion that the concern McF Fg (M.pSr-6attir^e#o$Ty.
nn examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ pc:ential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignerant of" t.V.se.. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, hcwever, and we.were not ignorant-as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'.the ' key word.
of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So lo'ng toward resoluJt on' of problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safetJ' concern i
regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were ainays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always
,. existed.
The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sunser of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore -no safety-concern. exists..in__my_ mind.
dkECCS file a PSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the Why the surroun ing organizations which control,.our funding and work flow. As of 4/4/)8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the planp'and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although4 believe it.to-
. be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-
' tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,,. considered resolved, per the cc:=ents in this memo.
BMD/lc gg z g i g ack bO E U M il..
cc:
f 'jd 3.,g4 H.H. Shah y
(,5 c t. '/ke
- 6 o e me a m en-rY M oAU-stb-s~Y kY
.Yr h,,,.
e l$.4 f.'
.f.,
~.g..., y....v,_,.,s y a m a x.
. u. m,
n.,
<_.uIS2d M.#J%
.Y
~
.\\f
'J
6,.
j tr/f..~-
1 L
6 IS[.~
7
'T;It i:ASC00X & Wl' COX C0 'PANY NOV 1
POM R GENERATION, CROUP To l
j 7M CWd7 J.H. TAYLO? I'A*!AGER. LICU3SiflG frota B.M. 00ft'l. fCf0MR. ECCS A!!ALYSIS (2138) hk C. ru.
ses
=__
Cust.
File No.
or Ref.
Subj.
Date patential safatv Concern Novemter 3. 1978 ln.....i......................%,.
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O
the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrg,1 A level Jpg* Thave reached the conclusion that the concern M
~
M (M.pA urig'ly.
on en examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant of' these.. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorant-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So,lo'ng as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path',toward resofuJt on of
~
l problems with design changes exists I believe there is no safety concern i
regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Iritegration were.alnays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always 7
existed.
' : The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as i
documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-l nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely-path has been followed. Therefore.-no-safety-concern. exists..in_.my mi.nd.
Why then,dbCCS file a PSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the
~
^
surrounding organizations which control,.our funding and work flow. As of 4/4/18 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /acd that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although4 believe it.to-
-'be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cements igs r.emo.
Qn'g,W'g-"'Wj*
M F
e.'
6"N g ebW cc:
E.A. Womack R.C. Jones f 'JJ 3.,g4 N.H. Shah
,7 a A um %-
awen-rYp$Q(;f{W S u. ' /k e Lem.
M k
\\
-h-v.4ejj&n..
.x t.
r.
.. r. V,..
.u.
.,: - p y f p p, g, g,,.
y...:, a :.,.a_g,..
t.c..e
..y..
925.--k M '..
)i
- rlk..-l.
N,,.
l
.)
7~
Tile i:ASCOC:( 4 Wl'.COX COMPANY NOV 6 19 [ -
PO'.ER GENERAT10N, CROUP Spa,99cd'
/
J M. TAYl.0?
P* *GGER. 1.1CENSit!G frote B.M. Duml FC'MGER. ECCS A'lAt.YSIS (2138)
M, g
s e s
=~
Cust.
File No.
or Ref.
Subj.
Date Pn+antial safety concern November 3,1978 l,w....i..........................,.
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O
the 205 plants in re ards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater cong1 A level f p :q;Tpf T have reached the conclusion that the concern 9de F Fg (M.p&$fr-nature'oril.
n examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of. potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant of these. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorar;t-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So,long as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'.the~ key word.towardres problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safety concern i
regardless of equipeent status. ECCS and Integration were.alnays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution alt:ays
,. existed.
The key change to a positive 6 foot control was cade in the summer of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation.
as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to ucarade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a 1hitcal and timely path has been followed. There fore.-no - safety-co ncern.exi s ts..in__my._m_f nd.
Why the 'dkECCS file a PSC7 I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the surrounding organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of 4/4B8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although l believe it to-be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those pdten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cc=ments in this riemo.
BMD/lc g
.. g
, y,,,
i t g a;*
bl.mnud!ik cc:
l y[ f 'f d g %
N.H. Shah
(.,5 c t. ' !/ c
!va ek, a w MY M OA U+t Y Y Y ~.'.' Y r,.*,,, h r er..
y.b
,?
~ ~.
e d hj
}
Q
[.
' A L.
, r'. Y r...
a u.
v.,: u
. r..-
=
l' II( 9-i
~
O'54 i
~
- ff, e -A l.
b,.
t
.a e
NOV 619[7I J
' Tile CASC00X l. Wl'.COX COMPANY PON R GENERAT10N, CROUP To l
hd8h J.P. TAYLO'J t'A*f *GER.1.lCENSiflG frote B.M. Dutcl. tWMMR. TCCS A'lAl.YSIS (2138)
NS Wey ses Cust.
File No.
or Ref.
Subj.
Date patential Safety Concern November 3.1978 liu,...i....................,.
After discussing the question of the 9otential Safety concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrgig e-ish$nly.fghave reached the conclusion that the concern 55.
Jg I""g' Qevel attire an examination of the paper trail leads to a belief a.pA that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant-of these..cca-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorar)t-I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So lo'ng of the potential concerns.
as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJon',of t
problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safet7 concern i
regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were al#ays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always 2
. existed.
The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation.
as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as i
documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.te 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore.-no-safety-concern. exists..in._m_y mi.nd.
dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe the fault lies within ECCS and the
~
Why thehing organizations wnich control,o,ur funding and work flow.
As of surroun 4/4/18 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although 1 believe it,to-i l
be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or. considered resolved, per the cements in this memo.
J f
8MD/lc g g.7 h,,,",,,i d N
h;"P ' h
- 5 h '-:"
I cc:
E.A. Womack N
R.C. Jones N.H. Shah yff',pd g.,g g c6 o e m
.e w m4-Y M o.Yt>-st Y Y
(,0 e t.
'!k i 4.. Y e,le, &,,,.. h.esl:n. 4 Whhk
- f, p yf p(p, g g; 4-
.o V,..
An.
3..:,
- ...m
.u.
n..-
e.c..<
02-l6 #M c.niSzi
.O o.. t:-
.. ; i
- - _ =
.,e :r/, -1_
[
f>,,g.
~
4 619[I~~
THE cABCOCX & Wl'.COX COMPANY T
NOV l
PON R GENERAT10N, CROUP 4P4 a 70d To l
=
i J.H. TAYLO2 t'.A*!*GER. LICE!1SitlG From s e s' B.M. Dutt!!. tW 4ER. i'CCS A!!ALYSIS (2138) hk C. A,..
File No.
Cust.
-s or Ref.
I Subj.
Date Patentin1 Safety Concern November 3.1978 l.....i...................,.
y o
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrgt j i
1evel E ?f have reached the conclusion that the concern teef-M (M.pA ur
'y n examination of the' paper tr&il leads to's belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant.of' these. con-We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignnant-cerns.
of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the' key word. So,lo'ng i
as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJt on of
~
problems with design changes exists, I bcileve there is no safety concern i
regardless of equiprrent status. ECCS and Irftegration were.always aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always j
existed.
i t'
' / The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as i
documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-I nate system to compensate for t.te 6 foot level. Again, a logical and tiroely-Ther.efore -no-safety-concern. exists..in_my_mt n,d.
i l
path has been followed.
e Why the dkECCSfileaPSC7 I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the surroun ing organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of 4/4/J8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although 1 believe it.to-
, be inappropriate, was to file the PSC.. For whatever reasons, tho,sn poten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cements i s memo.
BM0/lc g qg.,
Q-g*[*d g e '
cc:
E.A. Womack I' D' R.C. Jones yj f ')J wm N.H. Shah
& u. ' % ' d m.,, n n e v' x a. L 4. 3 Av - >.1 rl, 6 r,.
M kbR $af,
. /.. v,....,:. :;..t yu ;,s m,,,,, c.
n.4
.y.
..a_(,
.:.. / v,.c
%n0
- n..; p.
.. I i
~
l '.
., b,l.& :r/$. ~-
}' I
' Tile BASCOCX & Wl'.COX CC".PANY NOV 619II PO' ER GENERATION, CROUP l
To l
&M a7a/
J.P. TAYl.0?
U.*,'!ACER, t.ICGSit!G Frate B.M. 00f't. FW!sMR. ECCS A!!At.YSIS (2138) h4, A),
ses r-Cust.
File No.
or Ref.
Subj.
Date Pntantial Safety Con <cern November 3.1973 ln..............................,.
After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O
the 205 plants in rega,rds to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater cong,F1A lev 0,7fg7 have reached the conclusion that the concern W-c M- (M.p$el fge-epfrdrily.
r-natur nn examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant of' these. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorant-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So,lo'ng as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJt on of problems with design ch:nges exists I believe there is no safetJ' concern i
regardless of equipment status. ECCS and In'tegration were alnays aware of.
the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resoluticn always
,r.isted.
e The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.
ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was prcbably acceptable. We were wrong as i
documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studfas to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system te compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore.-no safety-concern. exists..in__my m.f.nd.
Why the dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe the fault lies within ECCS and the surroun ing organizations which control,.c,ur funding and work flow. As of 4/4/78 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although I believe it..to-
' be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-
' tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cccments in this memo.
B.MD/lc g
- g. g.,,,.
Q ',-g' g'h' y,,,W { I' W i'
cc:
E.A. Womack R.C. Jones N.H. Shah
/ f 'Jd g.,mg vuu.%dm o A -m L 3 Av
.Y cl,. 6,.n &., n <nd' x$5 ;(;R *,
i 74 N~~
t n.j+,.r.
..g;,:,;._,p 74 g.c,g..z.
. /. V,..
.u.
., 4, 248 og
- c. mszq 03i;-
.