ML20198T172
| ML20198T172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1986 |
| From: | Gad R ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#286-494 OL, NUDOCS 8606110355 | |
| Download: ML20198T172 (33) | |
Text
'
l o
Filed:
June 5, 1986 A -.
p, g, w1ED CORRESPON JON gBEb "
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
50-446-OL COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ANf.WERS TO CASE DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND INT _ERROGATORIES ON RESULTS REPORT I.a.4 Document Requests Request:
1.
Produce the following documents identified on the working file contents log of ISAP I.a.4, but not received by CASE:
9606110355 860605 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR t
G
WORKING FILE CONTENTS LOG SUBJECT /
Log Document Document RV CONTENTS No.
No.
Date From To
SUMMARY
001 12/10/84 HURBANEK WARNER RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO QI-QP-11.3 002 12/11/84 HURBANEK WARNER REQUEST FOR DRAWINGS TO SUPPORT ER 003a. CPP 17,933 03/11/85 VOGELSANG JONES RESULTS OF TUGCO REVIEW OF TRT FIN 004b. CCP 18,156 04/09/85 BATES JONES INCORPORATION INTL DRAWINGS OF DES 005c. CPRT-096 10/31/85 PEARSON MALLANDA ELECTRICAL ACTION PLAN WORKING FIL 006d. CPRT 139 12/09/85 MALLANDA VOGELSANG REQUEST FOR CLOSEOUT CONFIRMATION 007e. CPP 19,181 12/11/85 VOGELSANG MALLANDA RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLOSEOUT OF DRAWINGS I
008f. CPRT-293 03/07/86 PEARSON DISTRIBUTION OF DRAWINGS WITH 16-TWISTED l t 4
-n-m
s---,
--,.,,m----
r -
Response
Records maintained by the Applicants show that copies of these documents were in fact handed to Ms.
Garde on April 21, 1986.
Nonetheless, the documents will again be made available for inspection and copying upon request.
Request:
2.
Produce all documentation developed for or during the records review process of ISAP I.a.4.
This request includes all procedures used to complete the records review.
This is including, but not limited to, the records review process described in the following documents:
(a)
December 13, 1984 Memo from W.I.
Vogelsang to M.B.
Jones, CPP 17,538.
(b)
All documents identified in response to Interrogatory 1(a-f).
(c)
January 7, 1985 Memo from W.I. Vogelsang to M.B.
Jones, CPP 17,671.
(d)
August 20, 1985 Memo from W.I.
Vogelsang to M.B.
Jones, CPP 18,773.
(e)
September 27, 1985 Memo from E.D.
Shoupe to C.L.
Spinks.
(f)
October 10, 1985 Memo from E.P.
Sharpe to M.
Keathley.
1
Response
There are no documents beyond those contained in the Working File for this Action Plan, which CASE has already inspected.
Request:
3.
Provide copies of the lesson plan which is referred to in the July 3, 1985 memo from M.B.
Jones to R.
Bently.
Response
The document identified is available for inspection and copying at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, upon request made to counsel for the Applicants and agreement upon a a mutually satisfactory 1
time for the inspection.
Request:
4.
Provide the training certificates for all the inspectors who performed I.a.4 inspections.
Response
The documents identified are available for inspection and copying at the offices of texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, upon request made to counsel for the o
Applicants and agreement upon a mutually satisfactory time for the inspection.
Request:
5.
Provide a copy of list (a) NEMA standards WC 30-1974, (b) QC-QP-11-3-28 " Class 1E Cable Terminations" (all revisions), (c) XCP-EE8 " Control Circuit Functional Testing;" (d) C-P-SAP-20 " Guidelines for System Walkdown Inspections."
Response
The document identified in sub-part (a) is a copyrighted publication, which CASE should obtain from the publisher (NEMA).
The documents identified in sub-parts (b), (c) and (d) are available for inspection and copying at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, upon request made to counsel for the Applicants and agreement upon a mutually satisfactory time for the inspection.
Request:
6.
Provide the " engineering review" of the I.a.4 item identified in the August 20, 1985 memo from W.I. Vogelsang to M.B.
Jones, CPP 18,773.
Response
There are no documents, other than the referenced memo, that meet this request.._
Request:
7.
Provide the completed inspection checklists which were identified by, but not attached to, the October 14, 1986 memorandum from M.D. Keathley to J.
Millanda.
Response
The checklists in question were in fact attached to the copy of the referenced memorandum as it exists in the Working File for this Action Plan; nonetheless, these checklists will be made available again for inspection and copying at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, upon request made to counsel for the Applicants and agreement upon a mutually satisfactory time for the inspection.
Request:
8.
Provide the documentation generated by J.
Mallanda's independent validation of the random sample list identified in item 3 of the October 23, 1985 memo from J.R. Reason to John Ma11anda.
Response
There are no documents meeting this request.
Interrogatories Interrogatory:
1.
As to the " review of the drawings for the verification of the correct design of the sample conductors" identified in CPP 17,538 answer the following questions:
(a)
Who performed the review?
List the names, affiliation, and current location of all individuals who performed the review (b)
Identify all the procedures used to complete the reivew, including all oral instructions, or other unofficial procedures used to complete the review process.
(c)
Identify all documents which were developed during the review process.
(d)
Identify the person responsible for the disposition of the various " typographical errors" on the memorandum.
(e)
List all documents, or drawing, which were reviewed in this activity.
(f)
For each " typographical error" identified describe the corrective action taken to preclude the error from reoccurring.
Answer:
(a)
B.
B.
Crowell - CPPEE - TNE; A. W. Hollis - CPPEE - TNE; S.
S.
Simon - CPPEE - TNE; and D.
L.
Longenberger - CPPEE - TNE.
(b)
No written procedures were prepared.
The people were told to review the attachment to CPP 17,498 and insure that the information was accurate by comparison to the identified drawings and DCAs affecting those drawings.
(c)
The documents called for by this request are available for inspection and copying at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, upon request made to counsel for the Applicants and agreement upon a mutually satisfactory time for the inspection.
(d)
The Applicants are not aware of any
" typographical errors" in CPP 17538.
If the questioner meant to refer to typographical errors in '498, '538 was the
" disposition" of those typographical errors.
(e)
All of the drawings and documents reviewed are identified in the set of documents available for inspection and copying in response to Request No. 1(c).
(f)
None.
The Applicants are not aware of
" corrective action" that might be taken, in the case of a long, detailed list of
]
technical information and numbers, to prevent secretarial typographical errors, other than the sort of re-check of which
'538 was the product.
Interrogatory:
2.
As to the review by W.I. Vogelsang of two ECR Electrical Inspection Reports, dated January 4, 1985, answer the following questions:
(a)
Identify by name, title, affiliation, and current location all individuals who performed the review?
(b)
Identify the engineer (s) who provided the
" engineering evaluation" for each of the engineering evaluations in the memorandum.
(c)
Identify all procedures used by persons identified in (a) or (b) to accomplish the review and/or the engineering evaluations.
(d)
Identify all meetings between Mr.
Vogelsang and reviewers and/or engineering, regarding the findings by the reviewers or engineers.
(e)
Explain what is meant in item 1 by the 4
terms " acceptable both functionally and per site procedures."
(f)
Explain what is meant in item 3 by the term " functionally correct."
(g)
Explain the basis of the engineering position in item 4 that "the blue conductor would not be mistaken as the green conductor."
i l
I
_g.
l l
(h)
Explain what is meant in item 4 by the terms " functionally correct and acceptable."
(1)
For items 3-1, 3-2, and 4-3 identify the engineer or engineers who made the evaluation.
(j)
For items 3-1, 3-2 and 4-3 explain what is meant by the items " acceptable both functionally and per site procedures."
(k)
For item 3-4, explain the engineering evaluation in more detail, specifically explaining how the comments in the engineering evaluation resolved the identified deficiency.
(1)
For item 3-5, explain the terms
" functionally correct and acceptable" for Sample 87; explain the terms "both functionally and per site procedures." for Sample 177.
(m)
For item 3-6 explain the significance of the sentence " Note that +B3-53 is the functionally correct terminal for the blue Conductor."
(n)
Explain the basis of the engineering evaluation for item 3-6.
Identify the engineer responsible for doing this evaluation.
(o)
For item 3-7, 3-8 and 3-9 explain how the engineering evaluation for item 2-1 could be applied to inaccessible conductors.
Identify the engineer responsible for this evaluation.
(p)
For item 3-10 explain how the engineering evaluation for 2-1 resolves the identified deficiencies.
(q)
For item 3-11 explain the basis for the engineering evaluation for:
(1) sample 192 (2) sample 259 (3) sample 56 Identify the engineer or engineers responsible for making the determination.
(r)
For item 3-12 and 3-13 explain the engineering basis for the evaluation and how it resolves the deficiency identified in this item.
Answer:
4 (a)
W.
I. Vogelsang - Project Electrical Engineer - TUGCO - TNE.
(b)
Same as (a).
(c)
There were no written procedures.
In each case, the methodology employed in assessing the issues is reflected in the memorandum.
Generally speaking, the assessments were conducted by comparing the item in question with the applicable drawings and raceway schedules and forming a judgment, based upon the information contained therein and upon the knowledge and experience of the reviewer, as to the validity of the item in question.
l,
-}
(d)
See responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2(a) and (b).
(e)
Acceptable functionally means that the conductor will complete the electrical path that-it was designed to complete, if any.
Per site procedures means, in this case, that the spare conductor was not landed or tagged.
See DCA No. 14,017 (7/27/82) and memo Popplewell to Scott dated 7/20/82 (copies attached).
(f)
The same thing as is set forth in the response to Interrogatory No. 2(e).
(g)
In the multiple conductor cables of which this was an example, the function of the conductor color is to permit individual conductors to be distinguished from all of the other conductors in that cable.
In this case, the conductor intended to be denoted by the color designation " blue" was readily distinguishable from each of the other conductors in that cable and it was not, in the reviewer's judgment based upon visual inspection of all of the conductors in that cable, susceptible of being mistaken.
(h)
The same thing as is set forth in the response to Interrogatory No. 2(e).
(i)
Assuming the references were intended to be 31, 3-2 and 3-3, the same person indentified in the 1
response to Interrogatory No. 2(a).
(j)
For 3-1 and 3-2, it means that there was no requirement of the project, procedure or any code or standard for tagging of unlanded spares.
For 3-3, it means that spare conductors were not intended or required to be landed unless so shown on a drawing.
(k)
There was no deficiency.
The problem here was an error of a clerical nature in the population list (and therefore in the sample list when this member was drawn as a sample) that identified the cable as being shown on a particular drawing.
The cable was not shown on that drawing and was not intended to be shown on that drawing, and the drawing number was an error on the list.
This is why the inspector was unable to find I
the cable on the drawing he had been instructed to verify its conformity with, as he reported.
In fact, the cable was shown on the proper drawing, and two of the other conductors in that cable were drawn as samples (with the correct drawing number specified);
those two conductors were inspected and no "unsats" were reported. !
(1)
In the case of Sample 87:
this was a spare conductor but it was not shown on the drawing.
It was not required to be.
See the response to Interrogatory No. 2(e).
In the case of Sample 177:
this was a spare conductor and in an enclosed wireway.
As such it was excluded from the sample on grounds of inaccessibility.
Because the inspection report indicates that it was not found exiting the wireway, it necessarily was not landed and therefore was functionally correct.
(m)
Not only was this conductor, by virtue of its color, distinguishable from the other conductors in that cable, in the reviewer's judgment based on visual inspection; in addition, the reviewer pointed out that, perforce the proper landing of the conductor, it had also been distinguishable to the electrician who had installed it.
(n)
See the responses to Interrogatories 2(g) and (m).
W.
I.
Vogelsang.
(o)
See the response to Interrogatory No.
2(1).
By virtue of the fact that the inspector was unable to find the conductor exiting from the enclosed wireway, it necessarily was not landed and therefore was functionally correct.
W.
I. Vogelsang.
(p)
See the response to Interrogatory No.
2(o).
(q)
With respect to Sample 192:
the only discrepancy here was in the drawing, which was missing the digit "1"
(standing for Unit 1) in the identification of the cable on the drawing.
Note that, because the following five digits are serial to cables, there could never have been another cable in Unit 1 with the same last five digits -- the "1"
is helpful to i
someone who has only a cable number and wishes to know which unit the cable is in, but it is of no significance to someone who is working in Unit 1.
The cable itself and all of the conductors were in fact properly labelled.
See paragraph 5.2.2.1 of the i
Results Report.
With respect to Sample 259:
see the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2(1) and (o).
With i
respect to sample 56:
see Results Report paragraph 5.2.2.2.
W.
I. Vogelsang.
(r)
There were no deficiencies.
See the response to Interrogatory No. 2(e).
4
),
Interrogatory:
3.
Were there any discrepancies, or unsatisfactory items, or minor errors identified in any of the items which were removed from the original sample.
(See October 23, 1985 memorandum from J.R. Pearson to John Mallanda).
Answer:
3.
As is discussed in the Results Report and the documentation contained in the Working File,
" removal from the sample" occurred after inspection.
All of the "unsats" reported by ERC during the implementation of this Action Plan, whether of items within or without the sample, are discussed either in the Results Report or the Working File (or both).
Two classes of conductors were " removed from the sample."
One class were the spare conductors reported as " unable to locate" or "inside wireway."
The conductors were removed from the sample on grounds of inaccessibility (notwithstanding that, for the reasons set forth above, the conductors were functionally correct).
The inspector nonetheless reported an "unsat" oecause the inaccessibility of the conductor prevented him from completing his checklist.
The second class of conductors " removed from the sample" consisted of the mapping errors.
See Results Report paragraph 5.2.3.
In fact, however, each of the mismapped conductors was inspected and reported to be satisfactory; they were removed from the sample because they were improperly selected, not because of anything wrong with the termination.
A complete list of the conductors " removed from the sample" is attached.
Interrogatory:
4.
In a May 2, 1986 response to questions raised by i
the staff in the April 28, 1986 letter to W.
G.
Counsil to V.
S.
Noonan, Applicants stated that responses to the Board's questions would be published in the future.
For all responses to the Board's questions provide the documentary basis for each answer.
Objection:
This " interrogatory" is in fact a document request for documents to be created, if at all, in the future.
Such a request is improper under the Commission's Rules of Practice and the Applicants therefore object to it.
Interrogatory:
5.
Identify to what extent the Collective Evaluation Reports will consider the deficiencies (i.e.
using the definition of the original term used by the inspectors) identified by ERC inspectors during the actual inspections conducted in December 1984 - 1985.
d.
Answer:
There were no deficiencies.
The inspectors would not be expected to use this term; we are unaware that the inspectors did use the term; and we are unable to locate the definition referred to in the question.
The Review Team Leader, the Issue Coordinator and the SRT have previously considered whether the drawing error and the tagging error (see Results Report paragraph 5.2.2) should be further considered by CPRT as possible trends.
The result of that consideration was in the negative.
In the case of the drawing error, it was and is our opinion that the error was minor, probably not the result of any incorrect judgment on the part of anyone, and not of a potential to mislead or miscommunicate.
Not only was the digit "1"
not present, but the balance of the digits were not shifted to the left, i.e.,
there was an obviously anomalous space in the cable number as it appeared on the drawing.
In the case of the tagging error, for the reasons set forth in the Results Report, the anomalous "C" had no potential to mislead or to miscommunicate either... _ -
Interrogatory:
6.
If there will be no consideration of the deficiencies identified by ERC inspectors explain how the Collective Evaluation Reports will consider the findings.
Answer.
See the response to Interrogatory No. 5.
Interrogatory:
7.
Identify the process by which the findings will be transferred from ISAP team to the Collective Evaluation Reports.
Answer:
See the response to Interrogatory No. 5.
Interrogatory:
8.
What is the basis of L.D.
Bates determination expressed in the February 15, 1985 memorandum that there is not a technical concern associated with the indeterminate color"?
Answer:
See the response to Interrogatory No. 2(g).
The issue was not "What color is it?" but rather "Which of the conductors in that cable was the one intended to be denoted by the callout for ' blue'?"
Interrogatory:
9.
What is the basis of M.B.
Jones' statement in the February 15, 1985 memorandum that:
"This is, in practice, what has been done throughout construction and start-up testing.
, - - - - +
y
.g,-,,w.,
,,.,,,n, 3.-,-,y-
%y
.c w
w
_,3..---,-__--__-%_
--.__--____4._
_m.-___-y-.._
The cable was pulled, continuity checked, meggar tested, terminated and terminations were QC checked.
Then start-up personnel lifted the terminations, and again did a continuity check, and re-landed the terminations per the engineering drawings and applicable DCA's.
The control circuits were then tested element by element and as a complete circuit.
If any rework was required on circuits already tested, start-up was required to both reinspect and retest those circuits."
4 Answer:
i Mr. Jones made no such statement in the memorandum referred to.
The basis for Mr. Bates' statement was his familiarity with the construction and start-up procedures and processes employed at CPSES and discussions with both TUGCO construction and start-up personnel.
Interrogatory:
10.
How do the QA/QC findings by the TRT about the inadequacy of the implementation of the cable pulling, terminations, checking, testing, and other related electrical activities, impact the
' basis of Mr.
L.D. Bates statement in paragraph five of the February 15, 1965 memorandum to M.B.
Jones.
Answer:
They do not.
Interrogatory:
11.
What is the basis of the conclusion that the indeterminate color of Rockbsstos cables have been "due to the random sampling process which,
did not require the inspection of all conductors of the same cable."
(Para.
4, February 15 memorandum from L.D.
Bates to M.B. Jones).
Answer:
See the response to Interrogatories Nos. 2(g) and 8.
Mr. Bates' statement makes the point that an inspector whose attention is called only to one conductor might be unsure if its color was " blue,"
while he would have had (had he been requested to do so) no difficulty in distinguishing the denoted conductor from all of the other conductors in that cable.
Interrogatory:
12.
Prior to the correction of the unsatisfactory items identified by the ERC inspectors were the unsatisfactory items classified as " deficiencies" per CPRT definition of the same?
If the answer to this question is no, explain the statement in Item 1 of the September 19, 1985 memorandum from C.L.
Spinks to C.P.
Shorpe.
If yes, explain why the sample size was not expanded pursuant to the expansion criteria specified from I.a.4.
Answer:
No.
The tagging error had no relationship to the propriety of the termination or to the conformity of the termination to the drawing.,
Interrogatory:
13.
What is the basis for the determination of John Mallanda that "the blue conductor would not be confused with any other conductor," as stated in a March 10, 1986 Inter-office Memorandum from J.J.
Mallanda to Distribution.
Answer:
See the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2(g), 8 and 11s Inter'egatory:
r 14.
How did2W.I. Vogelsang determine that the NRR "had agre6d to accept" the sampling plan on j
termination verification if the random sample terminations were picked from systems'that would prevent core melt?
(See December 26, 1984 from
~
W.I.
Vogelsang to M.B.
Jones, CPP 17,641).
Answec:
Based upon,t,he TRT letter of September 18, 1984, a meeting was held with NRR on October 19, 1984, with respect to the manner by which the TRT concern would be investigated.
At that meeting NRR concurred with the judgment that the proposed cample re-inspections would accomplish the requested population investigation.
See Results Report parujraph 4.1.1.
Interrogatory:
15.
Was the decision to do " random sampling" reconsidered after the release of the QA/QC findings by the NRC in January 1985?
After the r
release of SSER #11 in May 1985?
(a)
If yes, provide the individuals involved in the reconsideration, any decision made, and the basis of that decision.
(b)
If no, why not?
Answer:
No.
(a)
N.A.
(b)
Because, as noted above, NRR had concurred in the judgment that the proposed sample reinspection would accomplish the task described in the TRT letter, and because no additional or different task were identified in the SSER.
Interrogatory:
16.
Explain how the list of random sample conductors for termination inspection was determined.
(a)
Identify the individuals involved in the generation of random sample conductors?
(b)
What procedure (s) was followed in the generation of random sample conductors?
Answer:
The steps, which are described in Appendix D to the CPRT Program Plan, are essentially these:
the members of the population were ordered; 350 random integers uniformly distributed in the interval (1, 3812] were generated; the population members associated.
with each of the drawn random integers were designated for reinspection.
(a)
W. C.
Ross.
(b)
CPRT Program Plan Appendix D (as then being formulated by Dr. Webster).
Interrogatory:
17.
Explain why TUGCO Quality Engineering designed and issued the special inspection report and inspection procedures for use solely with the I.A.4 inspection program?
Answer:
We are not aware of the TUGCO Quality Engineering-generated procedure referred to.
The inspections for this Action Plan were done to procedures issued by Evaluation Research Corporation and approved by the Review Team Leader, which are contained in the Action Plan Working File as items I.a.4-3.001 through 3.004.
18.
To what extent were deficiencies in original procedures, generated by TUGCO Quality Engineering, considered as a possible cause for the deficiencies identified by the NRC?
(a)
If it was considered how did ERC justify allowing TUGCO QE to generate the procedures and inspection report for the reinspection program.
)
(b)
If it was not considered prior to the t
release of the QA/QC findings was it considered.
Answer:
We are not aware of anything identified by NRC that amounts to a termination deficiency, as discussed in the Results Report, and therefore are unable to answer this question.
Interrogatory:
19.
Explain what " validation" of the original sample selection means?
(a)
Was the " validation" process discussed with Applicant's statistician?
If so, what were his comments?
(b)
Was the " validation" process discussed with the NRC prior to undertaking it?
(c)
To what extent is the validation process used in the performance of statistical sampling plans?
Answer:
' Validation means, in essence, to duplicate the process and compare the results.
In this instance, the random digits were multiplied, truncated and incremented again.
Then a sort for duplicates was performed, in the process of which two additional duplicates not noticed originally were discovered.
Then the sample numbers were compared to the population - __
list, and in this process the mapping errors were discovered.
(a)
No one recalls.
(b)
No.
(c)
Prior to the time that the entire process of random number generation, sample selection and mapping were computerized, validation of hand-calculated samples was done all the time (at least in the Electrical Review Team area).
Interrogatory:
20.
Identify the individual (s) who performed the independent check of item (1) in the September 27, 1985 memorandum from E.P.
Shoupe to C.L.
Spinks.
Answer:
B. Dunagan, M. Keathley.
(Two independent runs, compared.)
.UN 4 *a6 15:05 CPPT-GLEN PO p e,.3 g, c 2 Jun 3 '95.3: 44 4 0
- E i ' ' 517 - 3 9 2 -9 0 51 or.3[.23 sicmatures As to Answers:
I, Terry G. Tyler, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that I am the Program Director of the Comanche Peak Response Ten ("CPRT") (see " Comanche Peak Response Team Fregram Plan," 1/25/86), that I am familiar with the information contained in the CPRT files and available to CPRT third-party personnel, that I have assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answers, and that the foregoing answers are true, except insofar as they are based on information that is available to the CPRT (third-party as to which personnel) but not within my personal knowledge, I, based en such information, holieve them to be true.
y Terry 5.Tyly Swern to before me this 13 day of
- g gr, g 4
$_'~ % Y n Mitary PuBlia,M m erTe N u
" 2.s.19 f f _
Ny Commission Empirees l
l 1 --.
i As to Objections:
i s
h[_^
Thomas G.
Dig d, Jr.
'N
~~
s R. K. Gad II Ropes & G ay 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for the Applicants l
P.-..
ssIc,HAE TCGco,AM(4) 0 FIGURE I.
Page 1 of g
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION DESIGM CHANGE AUTHORIZATION (AM.) (WILL NOT) BE INCORPORATED IN DESIGN DOCUMENTS DCA NO. 14.017 1.
SAFETY RELATED DOCUMENT:
n YES' NO 2..
CRIGINATOR: CPPE n
ORIGINAL DESIGNER 3.
DESCRIPTION:
A.
APPLICA8LE SPECJEM F00CDBBut Es 100 REV. 2 8.
OETAILS
% eenAv-tors are not exotiritiv *essed in eneireine ace.:mmnta*4crs' so as to attems fi m - irm of c-ahim ter nima*1m when cahtee an inm+=11m4 by El-1700 hauen e 'e rw4tm t**mn + 5=m w t-iw e m inaticin drawinaw thest.
i Solutim: Paragraph 4.2.3.2 of ES 100 is c.larified as follows:
If a cable contains acre ccmductcrz tlan shown m the se-ticn diagram, tbs unused ccmductors need not be shom en the diagran, conversly, the unused conductors may be shown cn the sr-- tial diagram.
DCC Nn 2ni~~
THIS DOCllMFNT P11Donar hQ nC' u w..,. - -.
bR bN,,,C'YND 4
SUPPORTING 00CUMENTATION:
CPPA 21438 r
- i... _
i
)
oumtM VU LSE ONLY; 5.
APPROVAL SIGNATURES:INP:ct 7-27-82 A.
ORIGINATOR:
- J A-DATE B.
DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE:
_ Awd/
OATE 7/L7/rt i
< or
- s. VENDOR TRANSMITTAL REQUIRED:. YES NO n
7.
STANDARD DISTRIBUTION:
OCA FORM 11-80 ARMS (O'riginal)
(J1 TUGC0 5 tart-up Jos No,{y,7.,_
NL Quality Engineering (1) '
Comoletions T2C I) V c g- %
i is for Orig. Design.
(1)
Damage Study Grouo Westinghouse-Si te (1)
Jerry Henson-Producti nt 1]082.
Vendor Owg. Update Group (1) 2 2
ECElVE B_3
cPPA-21438 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To Bcb Scctt Glen Rose. Texas July 20, 1982 Subject GOdANF'-'E PEAK S~ TAM FMC STATICN CABLE C N R USEAGE ENGDEERE;G POSITIOi Several discussicns have been held emcarning the apparent disagreement betwen the cable schedula (El-1700, E2-1700) and terminaticn diagrans, in that the cabla e-pla calls for mcre cmductors per a specific cable than the tar"hticn diagram shows to be ccnnected (eg. De cable schedula calls for a 7 ccnductor cable and the termination diagram shows cnly 5 c m ductcrs terminated). m is is not an inconsistency.
He terminaticn diagram shows the use of the conductors necessary to complete the functica of the systam. Extra, unused cmductors per cable will not necessarily be shom cn the terminaticn diagram. Da ccnverse is also true, the unused ccrdact.ces may be shown.
As the need arises, unused emductors may be trought into service. At that time, the terminaticn drawings will amended to show tra proper nurrber of conductors that should be terminated.
L.
- lawell, Project Electrical Engineer LMP:ct cc: ARMS
$ V J I.Yfhawls& n %,
i Wesley Mahan Eddia Dantzlar
Pa9e No.
1 05/29/H6 CPRT ACTION PLAN I.a.4 ERC TERMINATION INSPECTIONS DRAWING SAMP AA MAP VALID TUGCO 2323-El SH NO CABLE COLOR 1 2 SPARE ERR SAMP. REMARKS
RESPONSE
============ = = = = = * = = = =
====================
==
0110 0 31S 127601 W SS X
.F.
1 0112 O
5 127733 G SS X
.F.
0113 0 313 122041 8 SS X
.F.
0140 0 321 104396 R SS X
.F.
0141 0
184 135033 W SS X
.F.
0155 0
17S 109754 WB U N SPARE
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,611 0155 0
34 109870 WB U N SPARE
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,671 0156 0
108 016987 0 U N SPARE
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,671 0172 1
261 109230 WB U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 0172 2
11/ 113580 R UU
.F.
CABLE NOT SHOWN ON DRAWING (M) CPP 17,671 0172 4
26S 111187 GB SS X
.F.
01/2 4
282 111187 WB SS X
.F.
01/2 5
1// 016018 HL U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (M)
CPP 17,671 0172 8 301 119/65 O SS X
.F.
0172 8
42 123485 8 U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 01/2 8
S1 015964 WB U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 01/2 10 246 145329 0 U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 8 0172 11 185 121930 G U U SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (M)
CPP 17,671 0172 11 312 121948 W SS X
.F.
0172 13 44 109957 R SS X
.F.
0172 13 298 145/31 B SS X
.F.
0172 13 342 111290 B U N SPARE
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,671 0172 13 333 111294 0 U N SPARE
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,671 0172 13 336 111294 8 U N SPARE X
.F.
UNABLE TO LOCATE CONDUCTOR (M) CPP 17,671 0172 13 254 109976 WB U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (M)
CPP 17,671 0172 17 259.120248 G U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 0172 27 20 111111 WB U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 0172 27 171 110738 WB U N SPARE
.F.
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 0172 27 320 111111 R U N SPARE
.F.,
LOCATED INSIDE WIREWAY (G)
CPP 17,671 0174 12 304 104545 8 SS X
.F.
0175 4
335 146291 G U U SPARE X
.F.
CONDUCTOR NOT SHOWN ON DRAWING CPP 17,671 (M) 0175 4
309 146384 8 SS X
.F.
- Total ***
1 e
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
1 I,
Robert K.
Gad III one of the attorneys for the Applicants j
herein, hereby certify that on June 5, 1986, I made service of the i
within " Answers to CASE Document Requests and Interrogatories on Results Report I.a.4" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H.
Jordan Mr. William L.
Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch 881 W.
Outer Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita E.'lis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S.
Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental-Protection Division Board Panel P.O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Kenneth A.
McCollom Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C.
20002 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B.
Johnson Geary S.
Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 l l 0
/
. _~
Robert K.
pkd III
._.