ML20092N679
| ML20092N679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1984 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092N675 | List: |
| References | |
| TR-83090-02, TR-83090-02-R00, TR-83090-2, TR-83090-2-R, NUDOCS 8407030421 | |
| Download: ML20092N679 (10) | |
Text
I i
g.
I TR-83090-02 Rev. O !
June 29, 1984 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program DCC Satellite Review t
Nak T
& BA Project Engineer Design Control ud.f.h) W Project Manager 8407030421 840630 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR m-
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company 1 r4'bj 'T 1
l
' J IA Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lll1111lllll11llllll111ll11111 DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O
i Table of Contents Purpose and Scope.................................................... 1 Methodology.......................................................... 1 Review Results....................................................... 5 i
Conclusions.......................................................... 7 ,
4 h
1 t
i-Texas Utilities Generating Company L r*h:[8d L i fil Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lllllIl111tlllllllllll11lllllI DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O
DOCUENT CONTROL CENTER SATELLITE REVIEW RESULTS PtRPOSE AND SCOPE The, purpose of the satellite review was to assess how well the Comanche Peak Steam Electric' Station document distribution system was working. To do this, Cygna selected a sample of drawings and checked each of six satellites to determine whether or not the associated design changes (DCA's and CMC's) and ,
design change logs were being maintained in accordance with the requirements >
of TUGC0 procedure DCP-3, Revision 18, "CPSES Document Control Program." In addition, we reviewed recipients' files to assess completeness of packages transmitted on controlled distribution by the satellite.
There'are now four satellite locations, although, in two instances, two satellites exist at one location. ,
- 1. Satellites 300 and 301 - Supervisor S. Brown :
- 2. Satellite 304 - Supervisor J. Tate 7
- 3. Satellite 306 - Supervisor P. Wells
- 4. Satellites 307 and 308 - Supervisor S. Bruce (Note: Satellite ,
numbers 302, 303 and 305 are not in use.)
l Cygna reviewed all six satellites at four locations and one recipient. The i recipient was included in the satellite review since 24 drawings in the drawing sample were issued to Recipient 100 and not to a satellite. l t
ETHODOLOGY A sample of 66 drawings was randomly selected from the Cygna " Vendor / Client .
Drawing Control Log" which lists drawings associated with the Main Steam and ;
Component Cooling Water Systems. Drawings types were selected to assure an i adequate cross-discipline review, including Pipe Supports, Hanger Location, Mechanical, Piping, Electrical and Structural.
The sample size was based on ANSI /ASQC Zl.4 - 1981 (MIL-STD-105D) techniques ,
using a lot size of 267. Referring to Tables I and II-A in this standard, ;
respectively, " Sample Size Code Letters" (General Inspection Level II) and l
" Single Sampling Plans for Normal Inspection," the required sample size was determined to be 32. The actual sample size used was 66, broken down as follows: j l
l l
- hd 2 ((t Texas Utilities Generating Company 1 i
ll1111111111111111111111111111 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O ;
l
_ _ _ . _, _ _ _ _. . . _ . _ . . _ ~
.A i
Drawing Type Sample Size Pipe Support 19 Hanger Location 8 Mechanical 14 ;
Piping 10 Electrical 10 Structural _5_
TOTAL 66 ,
P On June 11, 1984, DCC (central) was requested to provide a computerized distribution list and, as applicable, a computerized or manual open design !
change log for the selected drawings. These drawings are listed below along (
with the revision number and change in status based on a 6/11/84 Open Design Change Log provided by DCC Central. ,
DRAWING SAM LE Open Design t Changes Drawing No. Rev Yes No CC-1-009-001-A33R-1 6 x CC-1-020-002-A33R-1 5 x CC-1-028-024-S33R-1 11 x CC-1-028-005-A33R-1 5 x CC-1-028-700-A33R-2 7 x CC-1-028-726-S33K-1 1 x ;
CC-1-077-011-S43R-1 3 x CC-1-077-014-S33K-1 7 x MS-1-001-001-S72R-1 1 x MS-1-001-005-572R-1 4 x MS-1-001-006-C72K-2 6 x MS-1-002-004-C72K-2 9 x ;
MS-1-003-001-S72R-2 2 x !
MS-1-003-001-C72S-1 3 x MS-1-004-004-S72R-1 2 x MS-1-004-006-C72K-1 3 x MS-1-004-009-C62K-1 6 x j BRHL-MS-1-RB-001 4 x BRHL-MS-1-RB-004 2 x ;
BRHL-MS-1-RB-017 2 x I
1 Texas Utilities Generating Company 2 3 . d{jg 3 [d Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilllllilililllilil!Il!!!!!!!! DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. 0
~ .
l Open Design Changes Drawing flo. Rev Yes &
BRHL-CC-1-AB-007 6 x l BRHL-CC-1-AB-013 10 x BRHL-CC-1-AB-049 6 x ,
BRHl.-CC-1-SB-O'01 5 x i
BRHL-CC-1-SB-003 5 x 2323-M1-202 CP4 x 2323-M1-228 CP4 x 2323-M1-243 CPS x 2323-M1-261 CP4 x 2323-M1-301 CP5 x 2323-M1-307 3 x >
2323-M1-430 4 x 2323-M1-508 11 x ,
2323-M1-511-01 12 x 2323-M1-609 11 x 2323-M1-612 14 x 2323-M1-619 11 x 2323-M1-623-02 1 x 2323-M1-700 9 x ,
BRP-MS-1-SB-010 5 x BRP-MS-1-SB-017 10 x BRP-MS-1-SB-025 7 x BRP-MS-1-SB-031 6 x ,
BRP-MS-1-SB-041 8 x
'BRP-MS-1-RB-001 8 x BRP-MS-1-RB-016 8 x ;
BRP-FW-1-SB-023 4 x l BRP-AF-1-SB-025 16 x BRP-AF-1-SB-0278 16 x l 2323-El-601-02 15 x 2323-El-601-11 4 x l 2323-El-605 10 x 2323-El-700-01 9 x !
2323-El-701-03 9 x 2323-El-713-02 19 x 2323-El-710-11 5 x l 2323-El-716-01 20 x !
l l
l N Texas Utilities Generating Company 3
h L M Comancha Peak Independent Assessment Program !
11111111111llll11111lll11lll11 DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O
._ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ ~ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ .
Open Design Changes Drawing No. Rev Yes jio 2323-El-716-11 2 x 1 2323-El-716-14 2 x 2323-El-601-01-S 4 x 2323-El-700-01-S 3 x 2323-El-701-01-S 5 x 2323-El-716-01-S 1 x 2323-S1-614 4 x The review at each of the four satellite locations was performed between 6/11 and 6/13/84 in accordance with Cygna Instruction entitled "TUSI IAP - DCC Satellite Review Instructions" (6/1/84). Using the DCC distribution list for each drawing, Cygna determined which satellite (s) were responsible for each sample drawing. A breakdown of the number of drawings reviewed at each satellite and the number of associated design changes is provided in the table below. As previously stated, Recipient 100 is included in this satellite listing since 24 drawings of the sample were not issued to a satellite.
Rather, DCC Central distributed them directly to Recipient 100, site Pipe Support Engineering (PSE), without satellite involvement. Unlike the satellites, recipients cannot reproduce or distribute drawings.
SUlemRY OF SATELLITE / RECIPIENT SAM LING Satellite or No. Required No. of Open Recipient No. To Be On File Design Changes 300 6 21 301 6 21 304 36 656 306 29 843 I
307 10 108 308 10 0 100 24 123 TOTAL 121 1,772 ,
l After reviewing the satellite files, a review of recipients who were issued, I or signed out, drawings from specific satellites was performed to assess F Texas Utilities Generating Company 4
[*h,L JN2 f d Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lll11ll11111llllll11llll11ll11 DCC Sate 11ite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. 0 ,
l 1
L distribution control between the satellites and the document holder (s). The 7 number of drawings and associated dt. sign changes for the recipient's review l are as follows: j Number of Signed Number of Associated !
Satellite No. Out Drawings Reviewed Design Changes Reviewed
. 300 4 21 301 4 21 ,
304 22 190 306 14 320 307 12 200 ,
308 2 0 TOTAL 58 752 l
[
This additional review, when combined with the number of drawings and design !
changes reviewed at all satellites, including Recipient 100, brings the total number of drawings reviewed to 179 and the total number of open design changes l reviewed to 2,524. ,
REVIEW RESULTS I
The review results for each satellite are provided below, followed by a (
summary and a description of generic discrepancies. l l
- 1. Satellite 300 - All six drawings were on file at the satellite. Of the 21 i open design changes required to be at satellite 300, one was not the lat,est revision, and one was missing. Of the four " signed-out" drawings reviewed, all were in the possession of the designated recipient. Of the 21 associated design changes, the recipient did not have the latest revis-ion of one design change. The " sign-out" card for one issued drawing was missing. ;
I
- 2. Satellite 301 - All six drawings were on file at the satellite. Of the 21 open design changes required to be at satellite 301, one was not the latest revision, and one was missing. Of the four " signed-out" drawings reviewed, all were in the possession of the recipient as required. Of the ;
21 associated design changes, the recipients did not have the latest I revision of two design changes. !
l i
Texas Utilities Generating Company 5 M. 2 9 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program '
111lll1111111llllllll11llll111 DCC Satel1ite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. 0 I
i
4
- 3. Satellite 304 - Of the 36 drawings required to be on file at satellite j 304, four were found to be missing (no hard copy, no aperature card). Of i the 656 open design changes required to be at Satellite 304, 72 were missing and five were not the latest revision. Of the 22 " signed out" .
drawings reviewed, all were in the possession of the recipient as required, and of the 190 associated design changes the recipient did not have 177 design changes.
i
- 4. Satellite 306 - All of the 29 drawings were on file at the satellite. Of the 843 open design changes required to be at the satellite, four were ,
missing and two were the wrong revision. Of the 14 " signed out" drawings l reviewed, all were in the possession of the recipient as required, and all of the 320 associated design changes were in the possession of the recipi-ents.
- 5. Satellite 307 - All ten drawings were on file at the satellite. Of the 108 open design changes required to be at satellite 307, two were missing. Of.the 12 " signed out" drawings reviewed, all were in the l possession of the recipient as required, and of the 200 associated design changes, recipients were found to have two incorrect design change revisions in their possession.
- 6. Satellite 308: All ten drawings were on file at the satellite. There
- were no associated design changes required at this satellite. Of the two
" signed out" drawings reviewed, both were in the possession of the recipi-ent as required. j
- 7. Recipient 100 (PSE): All 24 drawings were on file with Recipient 100. 22 of these drawings were issued "For Office and Engineering Use Only," which does not require that all design changes be maintained with the drawings.
Of the.123 open design changes required to be with Recipient 100, 23 were missing, and five were the wrong revision. It should be noted that Recipient 100 requested controlled distribution for two of the 24 drawings and associated design changes. The 123 design changes required to be controlled by Recipient 100 were associated with the controlled ,.
drawings. The missing design changes do not constitute an error by DCC, but appear to be a result of Recipient 100's filing system.
In sumary, four drawings of 179 were missing. All four of these were missing from satellite 304. 299 of 2,524 design changes required to be in the i satellite and recipient files were either missing or were the incorrect i L
t f
.. Texas Utilities Generating Company 6 b-[D d 9 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lllllll11llllll111ll1llllll111 DCC Satel1ite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O i
revision. 89 of the missing / incorrect design changes were associated with the satellite files.
L Two generic discrepancies were noted at various satellites as follows: ;
- 1. The number of copies identified on the DCC Drawing Distribution was not always consistent with the actual. number of copies within a satellite's l
" responsibility. For example, the 6/11/84 DCC Drawing Distribution for Drawing 2323-M1-202, Rev. CP-4 shows one copy issued to satellite f304; however, the actual number of copies needed for distribution by satellite
- 304 is seven.
- 2. In some instances the latest revision of a design change was not identi-fled on the Open Design Change Log. However, the change was on file at the satellite or recipient. For example, the 6/11/84 Open Design Change Log for Drawing 2323-El-701, Sheet OlS, Rev. 5 lists CMC 52462, Rev. 2. '
However, a review of the Auxiliary Task Force files (recipient) revealed that CMC 52462, Rev. 3 had been issued. ,
CONCLUSIONS j
Although Cygna noted procedural violations such as missing copies of design changes, the fact that the recipients (those who signed or were issued pack- l ages from the satellites) consistently received all the required changes ,
indicates that the documentation issued for design / construction is complete. ,
During the review, Cygna witnessed two satellites issuing packages (for daily sign out) to individuals. The first step in issuing a package was to access the central data base on the satellite remote CRT. The CRT displayed a I
listing of all open design changes against a given drawing. Satellite personnel then printed the listing and pulled all the associated design changes. If the satellite personnel didn't have a copy of a design change, they did not issue that package until DCC Central delivered the missing design i change (s). A case was observed where drawing 2323-M1-307, Rev. CP-4 was requested late in the morning of 6/11/84. When the Satellite checked the data base for this drawing, one DCA and one CMC (CMC 95628, Rev. 2) were listed as i open against this drawing. The satellite did not have a copy of the CMC but :
requested one from DCC prior to release of the package. It was found that CMC 95628, Rev. 2 had been input into the data base by DCC mid-morning of f l
6/11/84. The Open Change Log we received earlier that morning showed one DCA against.the drawing. This particular instance was a positive example that the j latest design changes are being issued for construction. l l
7
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company
[*h,(
L tj t f d Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O ll1lll1ll1111111111111lll11lll
.. [
Based on Cygna's review, drawings with outstanding design changes were all j tracked on the computerized system. Drawings being tracked by the manual l t
system did not have any design changes outstanding. Therefore, the instant updating capability of the computerized system is effectively assuring that >
the latest design changes are issued to construction.
Although design changes were missing in some satellites, the fact that only completed packages " cross the counter" demonstrates system control. j Generally, recipients were found to have missing design changes not because of :
lack of control by the satellites or DCC Central, but because of the !
recipients' filing systems as evidenced by the problems with Recipient 100 and l one of satellite 304's recipients.
The satellites have access to a computerized Satellite Recipient Entry System which gives a listing of all drawings " signed out" to each individual. This [
7-enables.the satellite to know exactly who has copies of which drawings, so ,
that when a design change is issued, it can be delivered to the recipient. ,
Cygna understands that this system is in the process of being linked directly :
to the DCC Drawing Distribution which will automatically update the " number of copies" on the DCC Drawing Distribution when the satellite adds an individual l to the Satellite Recipient Entry System. This should correct the " number of !
copies" discrepancies. ,
l l
4 l
l i
i i
- Texas Utilities Generating Company 8 4 L') t a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 18111111111lll14llll1lll11llll DCC Satellite Review, TR-83090-02, Rev. O j r
_.,_________________[