ML20137M682

Forwards Communications Repts Re Phases 1 & 2 of Independent Assessment Program

ML20137M682
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/05/1985
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
83090.028, NUDOCS 8509130298
Download: ML20137M682 (4)

Text

6 s es~~~

101 Cahtornia Street. Suite 1000 San Francisco. CA 94111-58W 415 397-5600 September 5, 1985 83090.028 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

Subject:

Comunications Report Transmittal #8 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 83090

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find comunications reports associated with the 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.

Very truly yours, Q

N.H. Williams Project Manager Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr. Si Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments" ~

Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/o attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/o attachments 8509130298 850905 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g b,N san Francisco Boston Chicago Richland

.p p(

l 3 .gisat=i:: Communications M M'M llilllillllilillllllilillllll!

Report Company:

Texas Utilities D Teiecon conference neport Project- Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 83090 Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 & 2 D8t' 11/20/84 suty.ct. Tim:

1:10 P.M.

Document Control Centp,. Place:

"'"'*'" S. Burwell, J. Spraul USNRC J. Ellis CASE N. Williams Cygna l

l Required item Comments Action By

Reference:

(1) N. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC) and H. Schmidt (TUGC0), "DCC Satelite Review 1

Results" 83090.013, dated June 30, 1984.

A conference call was held to discuss the problem Cygna had found with Recipient 100 during the DCC audit trans'n'.tted to all parties in Reference (1). J. Spraul was concerned that this may indicate a breakdown in the document control system sufficient to cast doubt on whether the plant was constructed to the latest i drawings. N. Williams responded by saying that there are really I two parts to that concern:

1. The specific problem associated with this particular recipient and the possibility of other recipients not maintaining control of the document issued to them.

2. The more generic problem of the plant being constructed to the latest design documents.

Regarding the first question above, N. Williams noted that she recalled a response from TUGC0 regarding this particular recipi-ent and the corrective actions taken in response to the Cygna  !

audit. A check of the project files will answer that question.

Status: N. Williams to check project files for TUGC0 response.

signee '

jjj / aj b " 1 2

~

oistnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade,'J. van Amerongen, D. Pigott, P. DiDonate, D. Smedley, .S. ;

)

9-Communications L4 L h i Report ll11111lll11111ll11111ll111111 R

8** comments 3c?o y The second question is nuch broader in scope. N. Williams does not believe that it can be answered purely in the context of a procedural design control review since the document control system has changed with time. One must turn to the technical reviews being performed to access, based on a thorough review of the design calculations, design documents and walkdowns, whether the hardware installed matches the design requirements and design drawings. The Phase 4 reviews include both the walkdowns and the design related reviews to aid in this area.

J. Spraul inquired as to the Phase 4 schedule. Since there was already a conference call scheduled to discuss the scheduling and scope matters on November 21, 1984, the question was deferred.

, .s .

\

Page of 2 2 L.