ML20128K102
| ML20128K102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1985 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Noonan V NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128K080 | List: |
| References | |
| 83090.023, NUDOCS 8507100479 | |
| Download: ML20128K102 (18) | |
Text
r 1
- E_w' n '-s f3co.es?
way
'wm
.ieen UO1 shfornia Street Sune 1000. San Franc sco CA 94111-5894 415 3sL5533 March 8, 1985 ~ '
83090.023 Mr. V. Noonan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission-7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Subject:
Response to NRC Questions Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job No. 83090
Reference:
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (US NRC),
" Response to NRC Questions," 83090.021 November 6, 1984
Dear Mr. Noonan:
The abo.ve referenced letter transmitted responses for two of four outstanding questions associated' with the staff review of Cygna's Phase 1 and 2 Independent Assessment Program (IAP) final report. This letter transmits Cygna's response to the two rennining questions:
1.
With the infornation available from the Phase 4 cable tray walkdowns, can Cygna issue a letter stating whether or not the cable trays have been constructed in accordance with the latest drawings?
2.
With the information available from the Phase 4 cable tray support D
reviews, can Cygna issue a letter stating whether or not the design drawings match the construction drawings?
Cygna's Phase 4 cable tray support reviews included an evaluation of both the design and 1..stallation processes. This required a check of the original design calculations, design drawings, fabrication drawings, and a walkdown of selected installations. Although these reviews are not finalized at this time, suffi-cient information is available to provide a partial response to the above ques-i tions. Further detail will be available in the Phase 4 IAP final report.
In response to Question 1 Attachment A sumarizes the najor discrepancies iden-tified during the Cygna walkdown of 49 supports between the latest design draw-Attachment B ing, including applicable design changes, and the installation.
I e507100479 840911 PDR ADOCM 05000445 PDR A
San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland OO
..y,
, _,,, ~, - _ -, - - - -..., _,. _ _.. _ _.,,,,.,, _, _.,, _, _,... _,,,, _ _ _,, _ _,,,,. _,, _, _,, _,,,,,,,, _ _. _ _ _ _ _,
mmm WLL' I,8
?*.n.?",""
Mr. V. Noonan March 8, 1985 Page 2 contains a tabulation of discrepancies between the fabrication drawings' and the cesign crawings as requested in Question 2.
Eighty-nine supports out of a total sample of 91 supports exhibited discrepancies. And finally, Attachment C suma-rizes instances wherd weld' design details were omitted on the design drawings.
In order to assess the impact of these discrepancies and determine whether or not there are any resulting progransnatic implications ~, it is necessary to brief-ly describe TUGCO's documentation system associated with the installation and inspection of cable tray supports.
Brown & Root (B&R) Procedure ECP-10. " Cable Tray and Hanger Installations,"
covers the preparation and control of hanger location and fabrication draw-ings. The key documents discussed in this procedure are defined below:
Gibbs & Hill support plans (2323-El-XXXX-01-S, where XXXX is a unique e
number):
Floor by floor cable tray plans which identify support types and location along the run. Some specific support details are also shown.
Gibbs & Hill design drawings (2323-S-09XX, where XX is a unique num-ber):
Design details for generic support types and connections.
B&R support nap drawings (FSE-00XXX, where XXX is a unique number other than 159 or 179):
Gibbs & Hill support plan drawing which has been altered by B&R to include identification numbers for each cable tray support.
B&R fabrication drawings (FSE-00159 series): B&R detail drawing gire-
~~
e pared from the Gibbs & Hill design drawings.
B&R attachment detail drawings (FSE-00179 series)-
B&R connection detail drawings prepared from Gibbs & Hill design drawings.
l' The first two types of drawings, hereinafter referred to as design drawings, are t
prepared by Gibbs & Hill (G&H), the original design organization. The remaining three types of drawings are prepared by Brown & Root (B&R), the constructor, for use in the support fabrication and installation. Any change documentation, in the form of CMC's and DCA's, is written against the G&H design drawings. The l
j support number (as shown on the corresponding B&R nap drawing) is noted in block three on a CMC.
Per TUGC0 procedure CP-QP-11.10-2, " Cable Tray Hanger Inspec-
.r m
- WLd: Id ll %..
~'
Mr. V. Noonan March 8, 1985
~~
P, age 3 tion," QC must inspect the supports to the G&H design drawings or, if inspec-tions are performed using the fabrication drawings, the fabrication drawings must be reviewed for compliance with the design drawing.
In order to determine if there are any design changes associated with a cable tray support, it is necessary to check all design changes written against the G&H design drawing for applicability to a given support. Since more than one support design is shown on the design drawing and an average of 500 design changes, which includes revisions, may be written against a design drawing, the process of determining the latest design configuration is extremely cumbersome and time consuming. Tne field design organization maintains a listing of design changes by support number, but it is not controlled and was found to be inaccurate during the Cygna review.
Theoretically speaking, this is an acceptable process since all changes are written against the design drawings and QC is required to inspect to the design drawi ng's. The fabri' cation drawings appear to be used by construction only, while acceptability of the installation is still judged by compliance to the design drawings.
This should ensure that the supports.are constructed in accor-dance with the latest design drawings.
However, problems with this process became apparent.
Evidence was found which indicates that QC may be accepting installations based on the fabrication drawings which may conflict with the design drawings. The practice of allowing so nuny design changes to accumulate against the design drawings and the inability to'readily identify which changes are applicable to given details on the design drawings, appears to have in-7 ~'
creased the possibility that the QC inspector may accept an installation which does not incorporate all of the necessary design changes.
(See Attachment A for examples.)
As discussed above, the large number of design changes impacts the control of the support installations and their documentation.
However, Cygna has observed other weaknesses in the overall design process which also impacts the quality of the installation.
For example, G&H maintains design groups in New York and at the site and, either group nay review and approve design changes. Cygna has identified instances where the site group has reviewed and approved design changes to the generic support designs without carefully considering the impact on the original analysis. The New York group was not chartered with any respon-sibility to review these design changes so that the generic supports designs might be more. fully evaluated..In another instance, Cygna identified that the New York group was performing generic studies of the cable tray designs.. The l
purpose of these studies.was to provide a blanket approval of generic field de-viations or to identify those supports which nay be potentially deficient as a r
' W.z 2 NL$s'Id
".flll"""
unass:::.:
Mr. V. Noonan _.,'
March 8, 1985 Page 4 result of the deviation. Cygna noted that these studies were performed using the original design configurations and did not consider the effects of all design changes.
These concerns will be discussed in greater depth in the Phase 4 final report.
Until that report is issued, we hope that this information will give you a gen-eral understanding of the type of inconsistencies Cygna is finding with the design / construction interfaces. This letter should not be interpreted as a final conclusion by Cygna on this particular area.
It is evident now that dis-crepancies exist but the cause and impact is still being investigated by Cygna as part of the cable tray support assessment.
Please cal'. at your convenience if you wish to discuss this informatmion any further.
Very truly yours, eh.
N.H. Williams Project Manager N
l NHW/ajb p.[ _
Attachments e-cc:
S. Burwell (USNRC)
S. Treby (USNRC)
G. Bagchi (USNRC) i R. Kissinger (TUGCO) i D. Wade (TUGCO) l R. Ballard (G&H)
D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)
J. Ellis (CASE)
J. van Amerongen (EBASC0/TUGCO) l
,,. ~,,
Mr. V. Noonan March 8, 1985 83090.023 Page A-1
~-
.~
ATTACHMENT A Differences Between the Installation and the Design Drawings Without Appropriate Documentation
. (Question 1) 1.
Support No. 481 A longitudinal type A4 was installed using only single angles in the icngitudinal direction, not pairs which are required by tne design drawing.
No change documentation was located. TUGC0 is-sued a CMC to address this discrepancy in response to Cygna's question.
2.
Support No. 408, Type B4 The lower' corner of tne frame is modified by CMC 9916, Revision 1, to avoid interference with the CCW heat exchanger. This 4
change shows that 4" channel sections are to be used for the prescribed modification. A 6" channel section is actually in-stalled. TUGC0 has revised CMC 9916 to reflect the existing condition in response to Cygna's question, however, no pre-viously issued documentation explained the discrepancy.
3.
Support No. 649, Type Al This installation uses concrete anchorage " Alternate Detail 1" (G&H design drawing 2323-5-0903) which requires tne use of an L6x6x3/4. Cygna's field inspection discovered that an L5x5x3/4 was installed.
No existing documentation accounted for this discrepancy.
In response to Cygna's letter 84056.021, Question
- 4. TUGC0 issued CMC 99308 Revision 0, and performed supporting calculations to justify the use of the smaller angle.
O e
1
. g.g. a i
al%' M mummmmes Ele,_-
Mr. V. Noonan March 8, 198'5 83090.023 Page A-2 4.
Support Nos. 722 and 2606, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S Cygna's field inspection found a working point violation on the brace attachment to the wall.
Design drawing 2323-S-0929 Con-necgion Detail "F" was' used (2323-5-0903) which has a tolerance where 12"<bc30" Cygna's fiel.d inspection results of y
- 0.3b shoW the tolerance used was $
(i.e., the brace was loca-ted in line with one bolt). 7 - 0.5b In response to Cygna's letter 84056.021, Question 5. TUGC0 issued CMC 99309, revision 0, to document this condition.
5.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 3111, 6654 Type A2
References:
- 1. Gibbs & Hill, Inc., design drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S, Revision 3
- 2. Brown & Root, Inc., fabrication drawing FSE-00159
- 3. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition Reference *. identified the above seven supports as follows:
"A2 (except all members shall be MC6x12)," where L = 8'-3" (frame i
width), h = 4'-2" (frame height).
There were no calculations showing MC6x12 members, as specified on the design drawing, are acceptable for this' size frame. The original A2 calculations limit the width (L) to 6'-0" with C4x7.25 beams and C6x8.2 vertical hanger members. The fabrica-l tion drawing (FSE-00159, Sheets 2992 and 3005) specified C4x7.25 beams and C6x8.2 vertical hanger members. The Cygna walkdown i
j results show the installed member sizes are as noted in Table 1 below. An MC6x12 was used in one case only. Although Gibbs &
j Hill has recently performed calculations which show that the existing members and frame sizes are acceptable, no documen-tation exists to reconcile the differences between the design drawings, fabrication drawings and the installation.
au :a:L3s
[1itri ' f,1 uwn.-.
Mr. V. Noonan March 8, 1985 Pa ge A-3 83090.023
~ ~.
TABLE 1 Cable Tray Support Member Sizes Dimensions (See Note 1)
Member Size Flange Required Support Depth Width Existing Per Ref.
Per Ref.
No.
(In)
(In)
(Note 1) 1 2
2992 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 MC6 x 12 C6 x 8.2 2994 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 MC6 x 12 MC6 x 12 3005 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 MC6 x 12 C6 x 8.2 11017 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 MC6 x-12 ItC6 x 12 3021 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 MC6 x 12 MC6 x 12 3111 6
2-1/2 ItC6 x 12 MC6 x 12 MC6 x 12 6654 6
2-1/8 C6 x 13 MC6 x 12 MC6 x 12 Note:
- 1. Dimensions of the vertical channels are
~
based on measurements by Cygna. Member sizes are determined by selecting the chan-nel type from Reference 3 which most closely matches the measured depth and flange width.
6.
Support No. 455. Type SP-8 Cygna's field inspection indicated that the brace connected to the wall on one side of the support is located outside of the bolt pat-g ;~... ;.
tern on the base angle. Tne pe Detail "B" (2323-S-0903) connec-tion requires a tolerance of
- 0.2b. TUGC0 issued Cric 99307 Revision 0, to document this iscrepancy in response to Cygna's question.
7.
Support Nos. 2998 and 13080, Special Type Supports These supports were installed in floor slabs with 2" topping. The topping depth was apparently not considered in selecting the length of the anchor bolt. Therefore, the required embedment length was not achieved.
l i
8 e
n..---
.,,,n
,,,...,,_m_
n
~
l'T.
w
-b t.
March 8e 1985 Mr. V. Noonan 83090.023 Page B-1 ATTAOR G T B Discrepancies Between the Design and Fabrication Drawings 9
5 lhssher of Supports ihsseer of Sepperts III In Category Discrossacy tahlbittee Discreosecy facloded la tenitdema_
Comments en listedoum hesults The design dreeing shows ne meld details for the 12 6
$1s supports eshibited the weld detall spectfled en the fabricetten drawleg.
teamettien, but the fabricetten aewleg shout a lleidlag regstrements for these supports are sold ultneut say supporttag documentatten.
ender reelow.
The commettlen detall shone en the febr$Catlen I
(See Note 3)
See Este 3.
dreelag does met clearly show trace werkleg pelat er is met coaststent ulth other details en the i
fabrication Weeleg.
The structeral assenee listed la the till of 14 8
Tuo Sepperts and the sember stae roepstred by the design drawleg.
anterlels does met agree eith the esseers One support ted the messer slae regelred regelred by the design emeleg.
by the fabricetten drawleg.
See support uns covered with fire protective coettag se it ses leposittle to etermine the useher sites.
Fame supports roupstre admittenet flete eerificetten.
Tne sold detall these as the fearicetten drastag i
I One support mes coeered with fire protettlee does met agree with the detall shown en the design castlag se it ses leyessible to determine the weld detall used.
dramlag.
The concrete eacherego detall specifled on the 11 4
Three supports esed the concrete eacherege
.et.ii s,ecified t, t o,.6,icell...l
,e-lc.tle.,e. leg es.et og,ee.lth the One support used the concrete ancherego detall
' mit regelred by the design dreeleg.
specified by the destyi drentag.
The fabricetten droelag emits one er more smeters 3
1 One support lacluded all seaters regstred by the deslgt,eelag.
I regelred by the design dreelag.
The lecelles of a spater ettechlag to the base eagle 1
1 One support had the arvater ettechment es.
It shone entside of the design legatten tolersaces spectiled by the fatricetten t aulag.
with respect to the eeCher helts.
I l
i l
1 i
'To
- e. P
(
March 8e 1985 Mr. V. Noonan Pay B-2 83090.023 ATTACIW U T B Discrepancies Between the Deslips and Fatrication Drawings (continued) i e
ms-her of sepperts III m,.ser of s e ts le cate,ery tuhlhttime alscressacy tu leded la u.Indemn comments en unled ses.Its j
elsere,ew, i
e m.e.
the i eties.e e.c.or m.its eneedi sne ca. crete edge destance lletts those en the destge dreelag.
Ike fabrication W esteg lecludes e emeter ubich is 1
1 See $mpport nos testelled with only the sessers regstred by the design drawleg.
met regelred by the dest y dreelag.
3 3
Three supports were lastalled to the diesestems The support dessettens sheen en fearication Weslag specified on the fabricaties droelegs, ellier from the elasestems themen en the desty Weslag.
i St (See note 3)
See note 36 i
The meld stres spectfled en fabricetten eenslag are not the saae slees regelred by the desty droeleg.
(See este 2) est es:
1.
Some supports say love etscrepeacles in omre thee me category.
Fillet weld stres shama en the fabricetten droelags differed fare these regstred en the desty drawlegs.
2.
seeme,er. new supports that more testelled per e OEC and regelre a fabricatten eewing did not have this dis-Reductless in meld sleet any he ellesed per en Interpretatten of Sete F og GSI drawing 2323 3-0901; crepency.
Nemever, the lepeCt of this Aete en suppert lategrlty nas met evaluated la the esign regleu of reelsles 4.
Deste Change mothertsetten (OCA) 2365. revislen 2 which added Dete F to this dreelag mer.la any generlC stedles for the evaluellen of unld edegmacy.
3.
Ints attrlhete uns set lacleded la the neltdemn eerificatten.
e
- .y
-3
[N d 6 M y
Mr. V. Noonan turch 8, 1985 Page C-1 83090.023
. ATTACHMENT C Omissions of Welding Requirements on the Design Drawings i arid ~D,. Detail "7", Design drawing (1) Support ~ Types' D 2
2323-5-0903 The design drawing does not show any weld symbols for the beam-to-base angle connection.
(2)
Support Type SP-4, Detail "F", Drawing 2323-S-0903 The design draw'ing does not show any weld sumbols for the connection of the 3/8" gusset plate to the base angle.
(3)
Support Type Detail "11", Drawing 2323-5-0905 Tnis drawing does not show any weld symbols for the con-nection of the two M6x12 members together to form a com-posite beam, for the connection of the HC6x12 beams to the L6x6x3/4 base angle or for the connection of the N6x12 beams to the C6x8.2 hanger.
(4)x Support Type Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 This drawing does not show weld symbols for any of the ff:. % -
connection details used.
(5) Support Type Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 This drawing does not show any weld symbols for the con-nection'of the C3x5 spacer to the C4x7.25 beam.
In each of the above instances, no documentation could be found which provided design direction to the craft or QC personnel regarding weld sizes and configuration. Although craft or QC may have requested engi-neering direction through a Request For Information/ Clarification (RFIC),
this is not a controlled means of transmitting design information.
I I
- 3 saevres 101 California Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 941115894 415 397 5600 June 18,1984 83090.010 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
SUBJECT:
Telecon Transmittal #1 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 2 Job No. 83090
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed p! ease find telecons associated with the Phase 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
,Oldog at the same number.
Very truly yours, tY<
N. H. Williams
.[ s Project Manager NHW/
Attachment cc:
Mr. D. Wode (TUEC) w/attochment Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachment Mr. G. Grace (TUEC) w/ attachment Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o 4ld e
'b f
9
/
s San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland 0
L smmunications Report 4L i i Ellllllllllllllllllllllllll Texas Utilities y Teiec n conference Repon Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 U
Independent Assessment' Program - Phases 1 and 2 June 4, 1984
Subject:
Time:
Request for Meeting on DCTG 5:00 p.m.
Data Base Verification Activities gg, g Participants-of Mrs. J. Ellis CASE N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By I called Mrs. Ellis to inform her of a meeting set for Thursday, June 7,1984, at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. The subject of this meeting will be the data base verification activities which were conducted by Mike Strange's Design Change Tracking Group. As part of Cygna's conunitment to follow-up on the Document Control Tracking System, we will be auditing the data base verification activities. Prior to the development of the audit checklists, we think that it would be helpful to understand the verifications already conducted by Texas Utilities.
Since the exact time and meeting location have not been established yet, I told Mrs. Ellis I would call her again py..
tomorrow.
e Mrs. Ellis also asked about a recent transmittal of Texas Utilities responses to Cygna questions. Apparently, one of the Texas Utilities' letters dated May 2,1984, is marked "For Laywer's Attention Only, Not Discoverable." She asked if this was added by Cygna.
I told her this' was not added by Cygna and that I did not know what the stamp signified. Mrs. Ellis indicated that she would check with the lawyers.
Yh/s
/jw 1
1 N. Nilldms, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Bibo, J. Ellis, S. Treby, Detnbution io..
- u. rigou, rroaeu rise (cavyu)
... ~... -
Communications Repod 4Ln i 1111ll11llll111111111111lll111 compenr Texas Utilities a Telecon o conference Report Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 U *
June 4, 1984
Subject:
Time:
Phase 1 and 2 Protocols 1:00 p.m.
Place.
Cygna. SFR0
Participants:
f S. B ell US E N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By I called Mr. Burwell to request an interpretation of the recently issued Phase 1 and 2 protocol (D. G. Eisenhut's letter to L. L. Kammerzell and M. D. Spence, dated May 31,1984).
Specifically, Cygna desires to discuss the DCTG (Design Change Tracking Group) data base verification activities which were performed by Texas Utilities prior to the development of our audit checklists. Cygna thought that this was essentially a data collection activity in preparation for the audit.
Mr. Burwell said that the NRC would probably request that the discussion be handled in accordance with the paragraph on meetings. He referred me to the portion of letter which stated that the NRC believed the work remaining fell into the category 77%.
of " Discussion of Evaluation, Observations, and Findings."
I requested that this meeting be held the morning of June 7, 1984, so that our reviews could proceed in a timely manner.
After discussion with NRC management Mr. Burwell called back to confirm the June 7th meeting. He said that we should adhere to the protocol for observations and findings (top paragraph of page 3 of the above referenced letter).
In addition, he advised that I should call Mrs. Ellis and advise her of the meeting.
i l
l Signed.
Page of
)
N. Ril" tams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Burwell J. Minichiello, S. Bibo, J. Ellis, oistnbution:
I.
- [-
^^ hy I.is (C@C) r--.
L ammunications Repod 4L i i s 1111111111lll11ll1111lllllllll Texas Utilities q h econ Confuence Repod
"~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 Date:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/31 8 "* *
PI-01-01 8:00/3:00 Clarification of " Break Exclusion" Site D. Terao NRC (301-492-4421)
J. Minichiello Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Dave wanted to know why Cygna had used.4(1.2S +S ) for a " break H A exclusion zone" criteria in PI-01-01. He pointed out that the SRP (NUREG 0800, Revision 1, July 1981) allows.8(1.2Sg+S ).
I A
told Dave that this was moderate energy piping (RHR Containment Sump Recirculation) and thus used a.4(1.2Sg+S ) criteria for A
leakage crack definition. Thus Cygna was defining a " leakage exclusion zone" in the penetration area, using the lower, more conservative, criteria. Dave now understands our statements and will check into Cygna's interpretation of the SRP.
In a later call, Dave stated he agreed with Cygna's interpre-tation, but felt leakage cracks were a moot point. SRP Section 3.11 requires environmental qualification of all equipment, so p.
postulation of specific cracks is not of major significance. He does want to make clear that.4 is not a structural consideration, but only a level at which one would postulate a through wall crack.
Wh[j j'fM_
/rke 1
1 Distabution:
N. Williams, D.' Wade, J. Minichiello, Project File 1000 01s
& 'S0 L -
0
.-r.
101 Cakfornia Street Swte 1000 San Francisco. CA 94111-5894 415 397 5600 May 8, 1984 83090.008 Mr. J. B. George Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
'e Highway FM 201 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
Subject:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program, Phases 1 and 2 April 19,1984 - NRC Meeting Follow-up
Reference:
Letter 83090.007, Dated April 24, 1984
Dear Mr. George:
In order to aid in the sample selection as discussed in the referenced letter, item 2, please provide the latest revisions of the drawings listed below, along with all associated unincorporated DCA's and CMC's.
1.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0229 2.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0230 3.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0231 4
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0232 5.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0233 6.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0234 7.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0235 8.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0236-01 9.
G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0236-02 g.,
- 10. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0237-01
- 11. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0238
- 12. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0241
- 13. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0242
- 14. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0250
- 15. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0251
- 16. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0252
- 17. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0253
- 18. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0254
- 19. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0255
- 20. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0256
- 21. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0257 San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland
. y soevras Mr. J. B. George May 8,1984 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Page 2
- 22. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0258
- 23. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0259
- 24. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0260
- 25. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0261
- 26. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0262
- 27. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0263
- 28. G & H Drawing No. 2323-H1-0264
- 29. G & H Drawing No. 232?-M1-0265
- 30. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0266
- 31. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0267
- 32. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0268
- 33. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0269
- 34. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0270
- 35. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0300
- 36. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0301
- 37. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0202
- 38. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0203
- 39. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0206
- 40. G & H Drawing No. 2323-M1-0215 Yours very truly, I Si.
Nancy H. Williams Project Manager g'..
e cc:
D. Wade /TUEC G. Grace /EBASCO S. Burwell/NRC
- -Q 9 O C l
i July 26, 1984 83090.015 Mr. J.B. George Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station FM201 Glen Rose, TX 76043
SUBJECT:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assesment Program-Phase 1 & 2 Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) Data Base Review Questions Job No. 83090 i
REFERENCE:
CYGNA Communications Report, October 24, 1983
" Status of DCTG/DCC Merger" N. Williams and M. Strange As documented in the referenced telecon, on October 24, 1983, Mr. M. Strange described the validation process being initiated to insure that the document control data base is accurate.
In order to insure that CYGNA fully understands the extent of the effort involved, please identify any areas which were either not completed or were performed differently than originally specified.
Also, describe, in detail, any additional steps l
either taken or planned that would enhance the DCTG Data Base Validation Process.
Very Truly Yours, le h =A I
N.H. Williams Project Manager cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO)
I '... Mr. G. Grace (TUGC0/EBASCO)
-?
Mr. M. Strange (TUGCO)
Mr. S. Treby (US NRC)
Mr. S. Burwell (US NRC)/
l Mrs. J. Ellis (CASE) l l
l A'-
.