ML20096B168
| ML20096B168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1984 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 83090.016, NUDOCS 8409040024 | |
| Download: ML20096B168 (10) | |
Text
__-
50-WS E
50 -4e r..
101 California Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 941115894 415 397-5300 2
August 7, 1984 83090.016 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Telecon Transmittal #4 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 and 2 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 83090
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed please find telecons associated with Phase 1 and 2 Independent Assessment Program.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
If you are unable to reach me in the Cygna San Francisco office ask for Ms. Donna Oldag at the same number.
Very truly yours, 1,14. %
N. H. Williams Project Manager NHW/rb Attachments cc: Mr. D. Wade (TVEC) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. G. Grace (TUEC) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. S. Burwell,(USNRC) w/ attachments 8409040024 B40007 PDR ADOCK 05000
^
z2z 2 San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland
'/
Communications A (%' i -
Report llll1111111!!lllll11llllllllll 0
- E* "I Te N1We g conference Report Teiec n Project:
Job No 83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 2 6/13/84 Subject Time-Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) 9:00 a.m.
Place:
Review Meetina CPSES
Participants:
of S. Bibo. N. Williams. D. Smediev CYGNA M. Stranae. Reddina. M. McBay. D. Wade.
TUGC0 G. Grace. D. Hatlev CASE Walker BLCP&R Required item Comments Action By N. Williams opened the meeting by asking Mike Strange (TNE) to explain the validation process by which the DCTG data base was updated.
Mike began with a brief history of the DCTG function. He explained that the validation process (described in the 10/24/83 Cygna Communication Report between N. Williams and M. Strange) was for the most part completed. Since the DCTG data base was developed from the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking data base, the hanger and piping isometric drawings are not included since they were not part of Gibbs & Hill's design review respon-sibility. All changes to these drawings are being incorporated prior to design review. Overall, TUGC0 believes they are 99.9%
complete with design reviews on Unit 1.
Mike McBay explained how these piping drawings were being updated as part of the iterative piping / pipe support design process.
He also axplained that as of September 1983, TUGC0 implemented a program to start the design reviews prior to issuing the drawing to the field for construction. This was instituted to avoid a backlog of design verifications as they approached the scheduled fuel load date.
Mike Strange explained that for DCA's, a comparison of the contents of the G&H and DCTG computer listings was made to ensure l
that all DCA's were accounted for.
If there were any missing l
numbers, or discrepancies, the DCA and the associated Change Verification Checklist (CVC) was pulled and reviewed to determine and resolve the problem. The data base was then updated.
l I
>Se
/ms 1
3 N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project Film m o's
Communications o Le h Report 111lll11111111lll111lll1111111 nem comments Ac y
Mike also explained that the DCTG validation process for CMC's was basically completed. This process was accomplished by reviewing the CVC for each CMC and updating the data base.
In addition, a review of all drawings (except piping and structural) was performed to determine if the DCA/ CMC had been incorporated and if so, the data base was updated.
S. Bibo asked Mike Strange if he would walk us through the validation process and show us the documentation he used to record this process. Mike agreed to this and N. Williams asked the Case representative if she would want to witness this.
Mrs. Hatley (Case) said that she had other things to do but may want to talk to Nancy later.
N. Williams gave Mrs. Hatley the on-site Cygna extension where she could be reached.
N. Williams, D. Smedley, S. Bibo, and M. Strange proceeded to the DCTG area and were given a tour of the DCTG file area and computer terminal area. Mike showed us some design change files which were filed by discipline and grouped by design change number blocks (i.e., CMC 600 through 700).
He pulled a typical folder and explained the notes / markings on the log that was filed in front of each folder.
In particular one showed that during the DCTG validation process, a CVC was determined to be missing. There was a notation on the log that a copy was requested and received from Gibbs and Hill. The entire log entry for the OCA was then " highlighted" in blue which, as Mike explained, meant the file was completed. We returned to Mike's office and continued a general discussion of the validation process.
Mike explained in more detail the merging of the G&H and DCTG data bases. Mike said that if a DCA/ CMC was listed against an affected document on the G&H printout, but the document had nothing to do with the DCA/ CMC, DCTG changed the status to "NI" (not to be incorporated) but left the DCA/ CMC on the printout for historial purposes.
S. Bibo then requested Mike to pull the file of a DCA (the number was randomly chosen by S. Bibo), and the computer listing of affected drawings relative to the DCA selected.
Mike pulled the DCA and explained that we would have to give the computer a drawing number, to determine the DCA/ CMC associated with it. We asked the computer for the drawing number which was referenced on the DCA. A printout for that drawing revealed that in fact the DCA requested was listed against the drawing. The DCA indicated that it was to be incorporated into the referenced drawing, but the printout indicated "NI".
We questioned Mike on this and he referred to the CVC (attached to the DCA) which indicated that the DCA was not to be incorporated. We then asked Mike if it was i
Page of 2
3
Communications Alai Report imilmilmimmlilllilli
[c7oNy Item comments true that one function of the CVC was to change the incorporation requirement of the DCA. Mike said that was correct.
S. Bibo and Mike Strange held further discussions on the actual percentage of the DCTG validation effort complete. Mike stated that from the standpoint of merging the G&H and DCTG data bases, the effort was 100% complete, however, Mike felt that he was about three months away from what he considered to be a
" completed product."
S. Bibo and Mike Strange continued this dicussion (relative to percent complete) with N. Williams, D. Smedley, D. Wade, and G. Grace. After some discussion, all parties agreed that the DCTG validation process was basically complete and could be verified.
)
i Page of 3
3 10.101D
Communications A LW i Report 11111llllll1111lll11111llll111 Texas Utilities K Teiecon conference Report Project:
Job No.
83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8'
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 and 2 July 12, 1984
Subject:
Time:
Document Control Center 4:45 p.m.
Place:
Satellite Audit Results (Cygna letter 83090.013)
CES - San Francisco
Participants:
of D. Wade Texas Utilities D. Smedley Cygna N. Williams Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By Dave Wade called to get a more explicit description of what was meant by Cygna's recommendation to establish tighter management control over Satellite 304 in the DCC Satellite Review Results (Cygnaletter 83090.013). We explained that Satellite 304 did not appear to be as orderly as the other satellites. This was evidenced by the piles of unfiled change documents and the manner in which the books were being set up to handle new CMCs and DCAs as they were issued. Cygna's opinion was that these outward appearances may be due to excessive workload, understaffing and/or the quality of the management direction being ginn to the Satellite 304 personnel.
i i
signed; p,g, o,
D'" b"
N. Williams, D. Wade. G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, iosooi.
- 5. BurweI1, Project n se.
Communications d(ni Report 111lll111111111lll1111llllll11 I* "
contemnce Rmrt Toras titilitins x
Project:
Jeb No.
83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 and 2 6 /12 / R4 Subject.
Time.
4:15 PM Design Changes Issued p
From DCC Satellite 304 cpsps
Participants:
of R_ nickey TilSI S_
Sidhis Cygna J
Required item Comments Action By I asked Mr. Dickey if he received copies of design changes from DCC satellite #304 He stated that he has controlled copies of the drawings he has requested & he also gets a copy of all open CMC /DCA's issued against the drawings of which he has control.
I asked Mr. Dickey if I could review his DCA/ CMC files to verify that he had all the open ones against his drawings. He stated that he doesn't maintain them. He said he discards them because he doesn't need them.
1 v)%1(1JQ 5""
,m i
i oistnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Sidhu, S. Treby. J.
6
l Communications Al ci Report 1111111111111111111111ll111111
- "" Texas Utilities o Telecon q conference neport Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 D*
Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 6/11/84
Subject:
Time:
DCC Satellite Review 8:24 PM Place:
Participants:
of D. Smedley Cygna G. Grace TUSI Requ' red item Comments Actiort By We met with George Grace to inform him that we were on our way to see Chris Boyd relative to DCC satellite verification review and told him that if we had any problems or delays in obtaining information from DCC, we would require immediate management attention. George said he would be available to assist us if requi red.
Note: George also stated that the DCTG meeting was scheduled for 9:00 AM, 6/13/84 and that he needed to know by noon 6/12/84 who would be attending to that he could make plant pass arrangements.
h[gA
/ss 1
1 D'stnbution:
N. Williams. D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby,
,oan o,,
v. r. 6 s i s, r r uJ eu. rise, 3, gygg a
Communications AL ci Report 111111111111111111111111111111 Texas Utilities 9 Telec n Confuence Repon Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 Date:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 and 2 6/5/84
Subject:
Time:
DCTG 2:30 Place.
Boston Participants-of S. Bibo Cygna G. Grace TUSI Required item Comments Action By I called George Grace to request that the following information be made available during our meeting at CPSES on 6/7/84.
1.
An explanation of the DCTG DCA/ CMC validation Process (including any procedures that may have been followed to conduct the validation).
2.
Exceptions to the validation process (i.e. Any CMC /DCA not included in the process).
3.
A total percent complete.
4.
A sample of the " final product".
)
i l
YY))jf/JRh
/rke 1
1 N. Williams,'b. Wade, G. Grace, D. Smedley, S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis D"b"6 "'
L ioroo,.
Proaect H ie
c.
Communications A(xi Report Immimimmilmmmi
"*"Y ;
Texas Utilities g w econ conteence Repon Project:
Job No 83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electr" Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 2 D
July 13, 1984 DCC Satellite Review Results 11:00 PST Cygna - San Francisco C. Boyd. H. Hutchison, J. Roberts Texas Utilities N. Williams, D. Smedley Cygna Fi%uired item Comments Action By 1.
C. Boyd established a conference call to obtain more specific data behind the results of Cygna's DCC Satellite review identified in Cygna letter 83090.013 (dated June 30,1984).
2.
Mr. Boyd asked N. Williams and D. Smedley to specify the design change documents, drawings, etc., which formed the basis for the results section of the report.
N. Williams committed to preparing this information and calling back in one hour.
3.
The information as presented to C. Boyd, H. Hutchison and J.
Roberts on the follow-up telephone call is as follows:
Satellite 300 1.
The design change document missino rrom the Satellite was CMC 87326 Rev. O.
2.
The design change with the wrong revisior, in the Satellite was CMC 84663 Rev. 4.
3.
One recipient of CMC 84663 had Rev. O on file instead of Rev. 4 as required.
4.
Drawing 2323-M1-243 Rev. CP-5 was identified as in the possession of T. Cox at the recipient trailer but no " sign out card" was on file at Satellite 301. This was immediately corrected while Cygna was on site. Cygna had incorrectly reported this as applicable to Satellite 300 rather than 301.
, N,hh>h a
/ jam 1
3 N. Williams', D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D" b u*"
[
- 3. uurwe l l, Project t i le, L, nova
- ~ - - - - -
COmmuniCDilOnS 40 x i Repod ll111lllll11111111111111llllll Oc7oNy tiem comments Satellite 301 1.
The design change identified as missing from the Satellite was CMC 87326 Rev. O.
2.
The design change with the wrong revision was CMC 84663 Rev. 4.
3.
Design changes identified at the recipient which were not the latest revision were DCA 17714, Rev. 3 (recipient had Rev. 2) and DCA 20056, Rev. 1 (recipient had Rev. 0).
Satellite 304 Was not addressed at the request of C. Boyd.
Satellite 306 1.
The two design changes which were not the latest revision in the Satellite were CMC 90441 Rev. 11 (Rev. 10 was on file) and 90444 Rev. 9 (Rev. 8 was on file).
2.
Design Change documents missing from the Satellite were CMC 10528 Rev. 2, CMC 50164 Rev. 1, CMC 50435 Rev. O and CMC 79885 Rev. O.
Satellite 307 1.
The design changes missing from the Satellite were DCA 13320 Rev. 2 and DCA 14341 Rev. 2.
2.
The two recipients with incorrect revisions of design changes both had Rev. O of DCA 20312 instead of Rev. 1 as required.
Recipient 100 1.
The two drawings with missing and incorrect revisions of design changes were 2323-M1-509 Rev. 11 and 2323-M1-609 Rev.
11.
It was noted that the problem at Recipient 100 seemed to be that the Manual Log was not being updated to reflect the current status of design changes as indicated by the DCC Open Design Change Log.
i 2.
Chris Boyd then discussed the issue of Satellites and recipients having a later revision of a design change than the Computerized Log would indicate.
Chris explained that if DCC received a copy of a DCA, they had 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to issue it to the satellites / recipients.
In addition, they would enter it into the DCC data base as soon as it is received at DCC Central.
Chris explained that if a recipient had a later Page of 2
3
Communications Report AL i i 11'111ll11111111111111llltllll Item Comments Ac o y
revision of a design change than was indicated on the Open Design Change Log that we used for our review, it was
~
probably input between the time we received the change log and the time we reviewed the recipient's files.
He also explained that if we found a later revision to a design change than was on the DCC Satellite CRT it was probably a mistake by DCC. Chris stated that when DCC satellite receives a revised DCA from DCC Central, they hand deliver it to the recipient, and update the recipient's computer printout in pencil, until a new printout (issued weekly) is delivered.
i f
J Page of 2
3
'no o's
-