ML20247D249
| ML20247D249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1989 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84056.167, NUDOCS 8907250118 | |
| Download: ML20247D249 (120) | |
Text
gg- ' ' ~~~ %
_ ~' . _ _ _ _ - --- -
__ - - -- y 7v , -
, n.; a & * '
l ~
$.Y 4+b k wem .
unnummmusuu
. y; ,,
1 =$rnwers
[ g+l]!"
3.'
2121 N; Cakfornia Blvd , Duite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934-5733 n[o '
l LJuly 12,1989 i 84056.167 ~ ,
- g-
, ;; n 4?
[ ' Mrs. Juanita Ellis -
.*+ President:
Citizens Association for Safe Energy l[ 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Communication Reports Transmittal
. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station
- ; TU Electric
- ..
. lob No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis-
- Enclosed please find communication reports associated with the design control review. We
. found out recently that these have not been transmitted to you. A list of the enclosed
. communication reports appears in Attachment 1. ;
If you have any. questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate ]
, . to call. ,
, Very truly yours, l
~
2 i
N. H. Williams . !
Project Manager .i j
. Enclosure j cc: ' Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric) .
Mr. W. Council (TU Electric) l i
' Mr. L Nace (TU Electric)
Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric)
Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)
Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)
. Mr. D. Terao. USNRC) l qMfD.5WdsonL((USNRC)T@ l MCC. Chiou (Ebasco) 1 Mr. E Hettinger (Ebasco) 1
> )
8907250118 890712 '
I k PDR ADOCK 05000445 ..
l A PDC _. I 1; u Boston ' Chicago Houston Parsippany Toledo Walnut Creek
'\tue\84056\ con-ltr.167 t . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _
j
l.
' Mrs. Juanita Ellis -
July 12,1989 Page 2
' bec: Ms. N. Williams Mr. R. Paedon Mr. D. Smedley Project File
\tue\84056\ con-Itr.167
ATTACHMENT 1 ,
List of Enclosed Communication Reports DATE TIME 8/25/87 1100 a.m.
8/28/87 800 a.m./1100 a.m.
8/28/87 10:00 a.m.
8/29/87 4:00 p.m.
8/31/87 900 a.m.
8/31/87 935 a.m.
8/31/87 4 00 p.m.
9/01/87 1:35 p.m.
9/01/87 1:45 p.m.
9/01/87 1:55 p.m.
9/01/87 4:00 p.m.
9/01/87 450 p.m.
9/0.2/87 8 30 a.m.
9/02/87 9:21 a.m.
9/02/87 9:40 a.m.
9/02/87 1:40 p.m.
9/02/87 290 p.m.
9/02/87 4:20 p.m.
9/02/87 8:35 a.m.
9/03/87 1055 a.m.
9/03/87 12:00 p.m.
9/21/87 8:30 a.m.
9/22/87 200 p.m.
9/23/87 830 and 9:00 a_m.
9/23/87 1103 a.m.
9/23/87 3:00 p.m.
9/24/87 1:25 p.m.
9/24/87 2:00 p.m.
9/24/87 2:00 p.m.
9/25/87 9:37 a.m.
9/25/87 10:10 a.m.
9/25/87 105 p.m.
9/25/87 200 p.m.
9/28/87 9:00 a.m.
9/28/87 10:00 a.m.
9/28/87 1105 a.m.
9/28/87 11:40 a.m.
9/28/87 1:25 p.m.
9/29/87 9:20 a.m.
9/29/87 4:15 p.m.
9/30/87 Before 12:40 p.m.
9/30/87 12:40 p.m.
9/30/87 3:30 p.m.
9'30/87 3:50 p.m.
\t ue\S4056\ con-Itr.167 u_____ __ _
, ;. ,, w , - - - - - - - - , - --
g
, ;0~1 , i j%9 ;[ , :
m ,,,, _
!- 9 A'ITACHMENT 1 (cont'd) g.
DATE TlME~
9/30/87 4:30 p.m. I i10/01/87- 8:45 a.m.
10/01/87 < 11:20 a.m.-
J. '
, 10/01/87- 2D5 p.m.
10/01/87 2:20 p.m.-
10/02/87. 8G0a.m.
10/02/87 1115 a.m.
10/13/87:- 9:36 a.m.
10/13/87 11:35 a.m.
10/22/87 9:25 a.m.
10/22/87- 200 p.m.
10/27/87 8:30 a.m.
'10/30/87- 10:10 a.m.
11/02/87' 9:15 a.m.
11/02/87 9:50 a.m.
11/03/87 4:15 p.m.
11/09/87 10:40 a.m.
11/13/87 - 2:30 p.m.
11/20/87 ~ 1090 a.m.
11/30/87 9:40 p.m.
11/30/87 10:40 a.m.
12/01/87 9:25 a.m.-
12/02/87 990 a.m.
1/25/88-1/29/88 800 a.m. to 590 p.m.
2/03/88. 200 p.m.
3!23/88 8D0 a.m.
3/24/88 790 a.m.
.3/24/88; 8:30 a.m.
- 3/24/88 1:10 p.m.
3/24/88 2:30 p.m.
3/25/88. 10:00 a.m.
3/25/88 '
1100 a.m.
3/25/88 1130 a.m.
3/25/88 130 p.m.
3/25/88 1:45 p.m.
3/25/88 '2:25 p.m.
4/24/88 135 p.m.
5/09/88 10:00 a.m.
5/09/88 10:45 a.m.
5/09/88 1100 a.m.
5/09/88 100 p.m.
5/10/88 830 a.m.
\tue\84056\ con-Itr.167
k i
ATTACIIMENT 1 (cont'd)
DATE TIME 5/10/88 100 p.m.
5/11/88 100 p.m.
5/11/88 350 p.m.
5/12/88 930 a.m.
6/06/88 9:00 a.m.
6/07/88 930 a.m.
7/07/88 1:'25 p.m.
7/12/88 12:40 p.m.
7/21/88 200 p.m.
7/22/88 100 p.m.
4 e
.' d
\t ue\84056\ con-Itr.167
Communications
[*hDh' fil Report
. lllIll111111ll11111ll1ll111111 Company conteence Report CES @ Telec n Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
08-25-87
Subject:
- Time.
Checklist Prep Vi{t to CPSES on 1100 am PDT 08-28-87 pioco:
WCAO Part#cipants: of Al Saunders T.U. Electric D. Smedley Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Discussed plans to visit site (CPSES) on 8-28 thru 9-3-87
- 2. Discussed scope of visit i.e: Review of applicable procedures related to CPRT and any program related to control of design activities at CPSES and contracted offices.
i
\TUE\DC\082587-A.TEL Signed Page of Distnbution' SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
1020 01a
= Communications LeYM t TJ Report lilillillllllillllillllllllll!
Company: Telec n CES @ Conference neport Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
08-28-87 Checklist Development 8D0 a.m/1100 a.m. CD7" Initial Meeting Piece:
CPSFS
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval.Mgr Tu Electric X8552 I.etty Dunn Secretary to EA Mar.
D. Smedley, C. Morelock, G.- Ross Cygna - Design Control Required stam Comments Action By
- e_ .
I
- 1. ' Met Mr. Saunders and discussed the building access and locations of records.
- 2. Discussed requirement for documenting discussion on Cygna Communication Reports.
- 3. Requested overview of program. Discussion to be held at 1000 am this date.
- 4. Mr. Saunders also requested to know whether or not copies of Communciation Reports would be made available to TUE list.
- 5. Per discussion at 1100 am with N. Williams it was determined that no copies of Communication Reports would be issued to T.U.
! except through normal channels.
I s-I
\TUE\DC\082887-A. CON signeo , Page of D'5tneuten" SE5 TTACHED DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
iD20 01s
Communications
[TL%'TJ Report -
111111111ll111111111lll111!!!1 1
i Company; Teiec n conference neport ES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oote: 1 08-28 "" * '*
Checklist Development 1000 am CDT Place:
CPSES Participant .: of A. Saunoers TU E cetric D. Smedley, G. Ross, C Morelock Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Mr. Saunders explained the relationship of each of the following manuals-a) Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedures and Policy manual b) E&C Vice President Policy and Procedures manual c) E&C Construction Procedures manual l d) E&C Projects Procedures manual e) E&C Engineering Procedures manuals, Vols 1-4 l f) Task Description manuals, Books 1-3 g) Field Verification Method manuals, Books 1-4 h) EBASCO Conmanche Peak SES Manual of Procedures Vols 1-3.
i) Impell CPSES Equipment Qualification and Fire Protection Project Instruction Vols 1&2.
I j) SWEC Description of Services k) SWEC/TU Electric CPSES Project Manual Vols 1-4.
Signed. Page of Distribution- SEE ATfACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
so20 oie t
BBBaumma: Communications
[41W fd Report llllllll11ll1111:11ll111111111 I
nem comments [Eo"n'*e# y I) SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedure (CPPP) Vols 1&2 m) SWEC Comanche Peak Procedure Project Memotanda (PM) Vol 1&2 n) SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedure CPPP-7 (one manual) o) SWEC Engineering Assurance Manual l
l
\TUE\DC\082887 B. CON
"*8' '
SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET. 2 2
x Communications dLah'in Report l!!ll11111101111111111111lll1 Company: Telecon h Conference Report Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
08.~29-87 Checklist Development 4:00 pm CDT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Assm. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric D. Smedley, C. Morelock Cygna - Design Control L. Garriott, G. Ross Cygna - Design Control Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders of TU Electric gave an explanation of how the Task Descriptions contain complete interface information. This makes for a much easier approach to determining interface responsibilities and a determination of their adequacy.
l
\TUE\DC\082987-A. CON
'*"'" l
[ /]pp ,/y f f) f _ {fm 1 D'5tobution SEE ^TT$CliED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
_MaM_ _ _ _ ____ _ _
~ ~'
Communications A itjlTJ Report lllll111111111ll111111110ll11 Company: Teiec n @ conference nepori ES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o te:
08-31-87 Checklist Development 9:00 am cDT 7 I
Place-CPSES ]
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Asst. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric D. Smedley, G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders arrived to check on our specific needs for information to aid in our work. When asked, he gave clarification on how Project Procedures (ECE) are . dispersed throughout contractor procedures.
l l
\TUE\DC\083187-A. CON
- ,gned- Page of Distribution- 'SnE AffA'CilED DISTRIBUTfdN SliEET.
1020 0ia
4 i
Communications
[gggg.4P'i ;' Td Report l lllll))Illllllllllllllllllllll f 1
Company: Telecon h Conference Report Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
08-31-87
Subject:
Time: l Checklist Development 0935 a.m. CDT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric C. Morelock, L. Garriott Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By -
- 1. A. Saunders answered a question about copies of indices on procedural interfaces in the task documents.- Copies cannot be made. Copies must be obtained through normal channels.
2.- . A. Saunders enquired as to whether our group still be required T.U. Electric Q.A. and audit information. The answer was affirmative.
\TUE\I:C\083187-B. CON Signed: Page of Distribution: - 'SEE ATTAC11ED DISTRIBlfff0N SliEET.
C == = Communications Md 2 f/1 Report ll11111111111lll!!!11111111111 Company: Teiec n @ conference neport CES l
Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
08-31-87
" *~
Checklist Development 400 p.m. cov-Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Manager TU Electric G. Ross, L. Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders arrived with a manual titled "Tugco Dallas Quality Procedures / Instructions Manual." This contains QA/QC implementing procedures and instructions. Many facets of a nuclear QA/QC program that we felt were needed to supplement the QA plan are now available for our review,
- 2. We requested copies of Impell's Project Instructions from A.
Saunders. These items were not originally made available to us.
However, these instructions contain references to procedures necessary to our review of Impell.
TUE\DC\083187-C. CON
*** g g,gf ,,Q fj4 1 i Distobution SEE hTTACifED DISTilIBUTION 5fiEET.
im oi.
m Communications A DS27A Report
- lll11111111111111lllllll111lll Company: Telecon h Conference Report Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
09/01/87 I
Subject:
Time:
Checklist Development 135 p.m. C DT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders returned with the CPSP's (Comanche Peak Site Procedures). He also gave a partial answer to the R.L Cloud question in that all he had found out so far was that they had performed calculations on "some" supports. He indicated that he was still researching that question.
- 2. G. Ross and C Morelock requested that he obtain a copy of task description CPE-TD-EB4)62. This is not in Book 3 of 3 of the TD's as it should be.
l l
l TUE\DC\090187-C. CON S'8""#
ggg fj /j ,
"'9*
1 1
Distribution. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBtfrION SIIEET.
L_____ _'?2"'t -- --
1 Communications
(*hi e'id Report
, filllillilillllllllililillllli i--
Company: mec n CES @ conference neport Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o te:
09/01/87 Checklist Development 1:45 p.m. cDY Place:
CPSF3
Participants:
of Letty Dunn TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Letty Dunn came by to let us know that Al Saunders is now at work and available should we have any questions.
TUE\DC\090187-A. CON '
*"'"/,%fj,j]j ) g #
1 I oestnbut50n: SE5' API ACliED DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
1020 0ia m -
L-
_ Communications-M M'O -
lililllllillllillillllllllllll Report company: Teiec n CES @ conference Report TU Electric " ' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,te:
09/01/87 i Subject. Time:
l Checklist Development 1:55 p.m. ctTT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders arrived with Impell project instructions and an explanation of their make-up.
- 2. a) L Garriott asked for CPSP's on SWEC-PSAS program. Asked for and received an explanation of CVC's (Change Verification Checklist). Additionally, L Garriott posed a question about R.L.
Cloud. Do they have their own program or work under TU ,
Electric's?
b) A. Saunders will obtain the CPSP's and bring them in for our review and research to obtain an answer on R.L Cloud's program document.
TUE\DC\090187-B. CON signe , Page at
/
~
p q l Distnbution- SEE AT'TXCIIED DISTRIBUTIOffSIIEET.
1020 0 t a
l
- ~
Communications A Leh' f a Report 1lll111111111111111111llll1111 l
Company: Teiec n E4 conference neport ES
- Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
09/01/87
Subject:
Time:
4 0 p.m. cDT Site Phone Directory Place:
Participants:
of Letty Dunn TU Electric LD. Garriott Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Letty Dunn was asked to furnish a site phone directory and one was furnished - use is to verify approval signatees on procedures.
1 I
l l
TUE\DC\090187-D. CON 4.
Distnbution:
k)f ,
SEE'XTTAdIED DISTRII30 TION SiiEET.
jf f,g 1 1 i
1020 Dia l j
1 >
1 1 1 l- ,,m__2 Communications ' l M=%M Report IIIl111ll1lll11111111111111111 l . Company: Teiecon 5 conference neport CES
"' I
TU Electric '"' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 . o,to:
09/01/87
'""'I* I"*
Checklist Development 4:50 p.m. C D7~
Place:
l
"*"'**" ' l A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD
-I Required item Comments Action By 1
- 1. Mr. Al Saunders delivered CPE-TD-EB-062 Rev. 0 5/20/87 as requested.
1 TUE\DC\O90187-E. CON Signed Page of Distribution. SEE ATTACHED DISTRH3UTION SHEET.
10?0 0 t a
i~ .= Communications
[+hl%' M Report 1111111111111111111111111111!!
company:
CES Telecon @ conference neport TU Electric "' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooto:
0')/02/87 i Checklist b velopment 8 30 a.m. CDT Place:
CPSES A. Saunders Eng. Au Eval. Mgr. TU Electric ,
N. Williams Cygna - Eng. Mech.
G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required j llem Cornments Action By L A. Saunders arrived to see if we needed anything. At this point he met Nancy Williams. Times for meetings and work elfort completion were discussed.
- 2. A. Saunders informed us that he will have the requestea R.L Cloud information later in the morning.
TUE\DC\O90287-A. CON l
Signed. Page of Distnbution: SEE A'ITACHEb DISTRIBUff0N SilEET.
1020 014
Communications
[.4M M Report
', lillllllilllilllllllilillllll!
' Company ES O Te'ecoa M cem>ere"ce aeno<<
Project: Job No.
" TU Electric 84056 CPSES IA" ase 4 cate:
09/02/87 subject
- CD . rnent 9:21 a.m. C PT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric 1
G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD N. Williams Cygna - Mech. Eng.
I Required item Comments Action By l
l
- 1. A. Saunders returned with an explanation of R.L Cloud's input.
They performed off-site specific issue review. No design or other inputs, Engineering Consultant.
- 2. N. Williams requested information on the nature of E.Q.E.'s (Earthquake . Eng.) role at CPSES. A. Saunders said he would attempt to gather that information.
TUE\DC\090287-B. CON Signed' Page of Distribution' SEE ATTA'CHED blSTRIBUTI6N SHEET.
1020 01a
h
. Communications MW TJ illililllillllilllllllilllllli Report L
Company: '**"
CES b C "*"** "*P Project: Job Ncr.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oce:
09/02/87
- "'I*
- Checklist Development 9:40 a.m. CDT j Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD N. Williams Cygna - Mech. Eng.
Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders returned with information on E.Q.E. (Earthquake Eng.). E.O.E. performed a proposal for rework of the control room ceiling; the proposal was not used. E.O.E. is currently under co'stract to EBASCO. EBASCO has program responsibilities over E.Q.E.
- 2. ti. Williams asked A. Saunders to clarify how many and what responsibilities of all Eng. Ass. groups on site.
TUE\DC\090287-C. CON Page of Signed: <
g distribution- SEE ATTdCMED' DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
1020 0ia j
Z Communications A L%'in Report llll1111111111111!!11111ll1111 compiny: **'*'" '"'*'*"'*n'"
CES Project.. Job No.
U Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 tute:
l subiect "
Telephone Call for 1:40 p.m. c DT Darlene Leong, Cygna - Mech. Eng. Piace:
Participants:
of Letty Dunn, Secretary TU Electric C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required .
Item Comments Action By
- 1. C. Morelock requested assistance from Letty Dunn in locating Darlene Leong. D. Leong had an urgent business call and was requested to return ASAP. Letty Dunn provided the necessary help.
TUE\DC\090287-D. CON Signed Page of Distribution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBl# ION SHEET.
'to?O Die
7--
!"' _j Communications-l-
[.41r]! fd Report lll1111111111!!ll1111ll1111ll1 company: '
Teiec n CES @ conferme Report Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056
09/02/87 Procedures 200 p.m. C PT~
Place:
CPSES A. Saunders -
TU Electric L Garriott- Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Request made for Impell Project Instruction G55-01 previously not furnished.
1 TUE\DC\090287-E. CON
- n Signed. . Page of Distribution- SEE'AWAClif1D DISTRIIldTION SiiEET. j im oi.
1 L :in.- _
Communications
[41%' M Report lillililllllillfilllllillllill Company: Telecon h Conference Report gg Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 onte:
09/02/87 Checklist Development 4:20 p.m. cDT Place:
Participants:
of -
A. Saunders ,I'U Electric G. Ross,' L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Impell Procedure PI-G5-1 was furnished as previgusly requested.
It was not on site. It had to be telecopied from Lgolnshire, IL TUE\DC\090287-F. CON signeo. Page o' 3 3 Distribution: SEE ^TTACliED I)ISTRIBUfiON SliEET.
10?001a
F _Z Communications
[Mdlfii lilllllilllilllillllllililllli Report company: @ conference neport -
CES C Teiec n
"' i*
TU Electric "' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooie.
09/03/87 Checklist Development 8SS a.m. cb7 Place-Ted Porfilio Supervisor, Eng. Supp. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. T. Porfilio stopped by to introduce himself. He "!!! be filling in for A. Saunders during his absense. We had no needs at that time, so he left.
1 l
TUE\DC\090387-C. CON Signed. Page of Distnbution SEE ATTACHED' DISTRIBUTION SIIEET.
t070 0ta
i i
Communications d i d fu
, Illill811111tilllillllillllll!
Report I
- Company; Teiec n @ conference neport ES _
Project. Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: {
09-03-87 suwect **
Checklist Development 10:55 a.m. cDT i Place:
Participants:
of Ted Profilio _
TUE Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD
~
Required item . Comments Action By
- 1. Impell PI Addendum Memorandum location was furnished.
- 2. Index of TD'S furnished.
\TUE\DC\090387-B. CON Signed. Page of o,stribution:
SEE Kfr^CHED DISTRIBUT4DN SilEET.
o '"E _' *_ _ _ _ . __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
n Communications M1'12 f~i Report illlililllllilllillllllillllll Company: Teiec n @ conference Report CES Projset: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4- oate:
09-03-87
Subject:
Time:
Checklist Development _
1200 p.m. c D7-Pts ,;t:
CPSES Participants 'of Ted Porfilio TU Electric G. Ross, L. Gariott Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Ted Porfilio stopped in to check on needs. We had none at this time.
l l
l l
\TUE\DC\090387-A. CON signeo. Page of Distobution- SEE39:FAdilED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
1070 01a
1
^
e- -
Communications IMd 2Id Report lll111111111111lllll11!!111ll1 Company:
CES O Te'ecom E cee'e,e ce aePori Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056-CPSES IAP Phase 4 oste:
09/21/87 Program Review at CPSES 830 a.m. cb T Place:
Participants:
of C. Morelock, D. Smedley Cygna l
A. Saunders TU Electric Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Mr. Saunders inquired as to whether or not we had all the reference material required to perform our analysis of the "CPSES" and sub contractor programs. Cygna's response was that "we don't know at this time however, as information is required we would ask for assistance."
TUE\DC\092187-A. CON Signed. Page of
~
Distribution ~ SEE ATf'AC11ED DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
1020 0ta
Er Communications M1N M ll11llI1111ll1!!!11ll111ll1111 Report j
company conference neport CES Teiec n TU Electric ' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4. oete:
09/22/87 Program Review at CPSES 200 p.m. c bT' Pl3C9:
CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Al Saunders checked in to see if there was anything we needed.
He had delivered the EBASCO QA Manual while we were out of the office. We responded that we had no additional needs at the present.
TUE\DC\092287-A. CON signed Page of
~
Distribution- SEE'ATi%CDBD DISTRIBUTI6N SIIEET.
1020 01a
-2 Communications L
L MM Ta lillililllllilllllllllililllli Report Company: Teiec n ES @ Conference Report Project: Job NJ.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
09-23-87
- " i " **
Program Review @ CPSES 8:30 & 9:00 a.m. cDT Place:
Patsy Lamb, Secretary CPSES p G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By TEXT STARTS HERE
- 1. P. Lamb came by to inform us that she would be at the job site for awhile (P.H. #6091) and then in the office (P.H. #6189). She also told us A. Saunders ws still working on obtaining the Impell Q.A.M.
- 2. P. Lamb returned before leaving for the site. We informed her we needed the Impell project instructions.
TUE\DC\092387-B. CON S'9"*d gg gg 7
"*9*
1 1
Distribution SEE ATI' ACHED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET.
1070 014
6 ~=a Communications PhDj;/3 Report 11111ll11lll1111lllll111111111 company: Teiec n @ conference neport CES TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ocie:
09-23-87 Program Review @ CPSES 1103 a.m. c b7 Place:
CPSES Patsy Lamb, Secretary to E.A. EntMg, ,m T.U. Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cyg$ - MSD w~ v~ v.a Required item Comments Action By
- 1. P. Lamb came by to drop off the Impell QAM as requested. No additional communication.
3 l
TUE\DC\092387-C. CON
9"**[,/)p g [ f) ,( j _ 1 1 oisinoution. ~SEE ATTXCliED DISTRIBtfflON SliEET. j 102O O'a
Prfsis!=~e Communications
[ 4 F .i t M Report lilllllilllllllillllllllilllli Company: Teiec n ES @ Conference neport TU Electric . "' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,ie 09-23-87 Program Review 300 p.m. cDT Place:
C. Weary, E.O. Supervisor T.U. Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. C. Weary, EQ Supervisor, came by to answer questions pertaining to CPE-TB-lM-017, Equipment Qualification Program Development and Implementation.
a) Clarified the work covered by this TD included verification of Equipment Qualification as well as in some instances initial qualification.
b) Clarified that TUE did not have a program that required interface with Impell but rather included their role / responsibilities in the Impell program.
c) An unapproved copy of NEO 2.25 Rev. O was given to us.
Mr. Weary noted this procedure in this form was approved but not currently issued.
i TUE\DC\092387-D. CON i
Signed. Page of
~
Distnbusson. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. i 10?0Dta
l Communications
[4frjJfa Report llllll111ll1111111111111111111 Company: Teiec n CES @ conference neport
, Project Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
09-24-87 i
Subject. Time-Program Review @ CPSES 1:25 p.m. c b7 l
l Place:
Participants:
of Larry Vota, Project Mgr. Westinghouse G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MS_D Required item Comments Action By
- 1. The work required by Westinghouse is addressed in the Task Description. Their procedures are not on CP site but are in Pittsburgh and are accessible for our review / verification of interface there.
Phone # (412) 374-4837 l
i TUE\DC\092487-A. CON g fh g ,)),_ [ 1 1 D$tr'but'on: SEE ATTACliED DISTRIBifflON SIIEET.
_. . . _ _ _ _ i
communications Mt %' M Report 111111111111lll11111111111ll11 Company: Telec n b G nference Report CES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 n CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooie:
]
09/24/87 q
Subject:
Time: l Program Review @ CPSES 2 00 p.m. c b r Place:
CPSES i of I
Participants:
A. Saunders TU J.C Aldridge, C. Watters Stone & Webster L Garriott, C. Morelock, G. Ross Cygna Required Item Comments Action By
- 1. Requested a general cverview of the program / procedures utilized by Stone & Webster en site. Mr. Aldridge and Mr. Watters provided the following information,
- a. The SWEC Quality Assurance Program onsite is governed by the Topical Report, SWSQAP 1-74A. The SWEC Corporate Quality Standards are the next in line governing standards. From SWEC, CQ standards are derived the EAP's, QAD's, and CMP's. From the EAP's, the site procedures CPPP's and CPSPs' are generated.
SWEC's Quality Control is provided by Brown & Root.
- b. The following questions were asked concerning SW2C's Engineering and Design Interface procedures:
- 1. What quality Program does SWEC work to?
(Ans.) Topical Report, SWEC Corporate Quality Standards and Engineering Assurance Procedure.
- 2. What procedure defines SWEC's interfact control both internal and external?
(Ans.) CPPP-6 and CPPP-9.
- 3. Is interface between site and NYO considered internal or external?
(Ans.) Internal. ,
Signed Page of Osstnbtfion SEE A dCIIED DISTRT5UTION SHEET.
--"T'_
- N Communications I s
Alth' M Report 11111lll!I111111111111ll111111 I
Reqwred i ttem Comments Action By i
- 4. What procedure defines drawing control in the Engineering _
Design Department? 1 (Ans.) CPSP-11.
1 Who audits Engneering Design?
(Ans.) Corporate Q.A.
- 6. What Systematic Methods are used to transfer information across external design interfaces?
(Ans.) A SWEC Correspondence Letter.
- 7. How is Design Change Information relayed to Design?
(Ans.) Via DCA's and NCR's.
- 8. Is documentation requesting information or action controlled by a system which assures the response and the request can be related?
(Ans.) Via RFI in Procedure PM003 and the Implementing Procedures.
- 9. Does QE have a direct function in engineering such as design review?
(Ans.) No inline function. They prepare procedures and audits.
- 10. Who is responsible for distribution of design changes?
(Ans.) DCC TUE\CD\092487-C. CON I dbb Al A AUlfbD D151RibUllON bilEbl Page 2 of 2
_____ !om' t .-- _. a
Communications
-- -~--
{
Dild Tu lillllllilllllilillilillllllli Report j ompany:
CES C Teiec n @ contuence neport Project: Job No. j TU Electric 84056 i CPSES IAP Phase 4 oair 9-24-87 Program Review @ CPSES 200 p.m. cbT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders _Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. T.U. Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD l
l Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders came by to inform us that 3WEC personnel would be coming by to discuss the SWEC PSAS program. He also clarified Impell's reporting requirements with TU Electric.
i
)
l l
l TUE\DC\092487-B. CON signeo: Page of
~
otstribution- SEE ATTACHED DISTRIs0 TION SHEET.
l im oi.
w_ ____
i
%Z::~.5 Communications APh' M Report 1111111111111111111111!Il!!!11
)
09-25-87 i Subject- Time'-
Program Review @ CPSES 937 a.m. c bT 4 1
Place: 1 CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. T.U. Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD item Comments Ac o By
- 1. A. Saunders dropped in to check on. our needs. C. Morelock asked to see C. Watters of the CAP Program for information and explanation of Internal Design Interfaces within CAP. G. Ross also requested to see C. Watters regarding design traceability.
A. Saunders said he would attempt to set up a meeting, as Mr.
Watters is due to fly out today.
TUE\DC\092587-A. CON 1
( ff d s f ) / } ) ,. J b y l 1 oistnbution- SE5 difACilE'D DISTRIBt1 TION SIIEET.
1020 016
m Communications I M i'Id Report -
lililllllllilllilllllillllllil Company; Telec n CES @ conference neport
"~
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 07 .
09-25-87
"" I*
- Program Review @ CPSES 10:10 a.m. c bT Place:
CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. CPSES G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By L A. Saunders came by to inform us that C. Watters of SWEC-CAP was unavailable. However, Dean Nelson of SWEC-CAP would come by @ 1.00 p.m. to answer questions on SWEC-CAP internal interfaces.
TUE\DC\092587-B. CON signed Page of Distribution: SEE 'ATfACHED DISTRIBUTNIN SIIEET.
t020 0ia
CZ7=T Communications Bleh'Id Report llll!!IlllI!!!!!!1111111lll111 Company: Telec n CES @ conference neport Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooie:
09/25/87 Program Review @ CPSES 105 p.m. cbT Place:
CPSES Participants; of D. Nelson, Asst. QA Mgr. SWEC-CAP D. Barry, Eng. Supp. Grp. Mgr. SWEC-CAP A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TUE G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cvgaa Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders, Dave Barry and Dean Nelson came in for a 100 p.m.
meeting, at our request. Questions were asked by us on CAP Internal Interfaces and where they are addressed and how verification of design adequacy was handled and addressed. The answers were forthright and helpful. l 1
t 1
J l
t TUE\DC\092587-D. CON 816/js[rf Iadb,- 1 I oistribut6n: SEE'ATTh'CHED 'DISTRIBUTTdN SilEET. ;
a v. j
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - _ . 1
nW Communications
[n%' fa Report llll1111111111111111111!Illl11 Company:
CES Teie n @ Conference neport TU Electric "' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oeie:
09/25/87 Program Review @ CPSES 200 p.m. C DT Place: I CPSES i
Participants:
of D. Berry, J.C. Aldridge SWEC G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna ,
l Required item Comments Action By
- 1. G. Ross asked the following questions-
- a. What procedure denotes methods that provide for relating the final design back to the source of design input?
(Ans.) CPPP-31, Rev.1, 5-15-87
- b. Where a significant design change is necessary because of an incorrect design, is the design process and verification procedure reviewed and modified as necessary?
(Ans.) CPSP-20, Rev.1, 5-14-87 and EAP 16.1, Rev. 6,10-31-84.
l c. Does the procedure also include follow-up actions that cannot be L immediately completed to assure timely resolution and/or completion of the corrective action?
(Ans.) CPSP-14, Rev. 4, 7-27 87.
! TUE\DC\092587-E. CON 1
l I
Signed- Page of Distribution ~ SEE WIT'^CI IED 'DISTRIB6 TION SI I EET.
1020 Die i E___________.._____._.___ !
)
wu== Communications M i'IJ Report lilllililillillllllilillllllil l
l Company: Teiec n @ Conference neport j ES Project: Job No. l TU Electric 34056 i CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooie: i 09/28/87 Program Review at CPSES 900 a.m. c bT Place:
CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Asst. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric T. Porfilio, Eng. Support Supervisor TU Slec. (Priv. Cont.)
G. Ross, L. Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Hequired item Comments Action By
- 1. Requested information on TU's role in the overall scope of work, interface, design responsibilities and Quality Program committed to.
(ANS.) TU Electric acts in an overview capacity to its contractors which has been delegated by TU for the total design effort with the exception of some minor design in the electrical area and calculations. TU and its lead contractors are committed to the " Quality Plan" and it's implementing procedures. QA department will provide us information on TUs Audit Program.
TUE\DC\092887-A. CON signeo ags #p page 3
of 0,,,,,,,,; see-AveneHeewsuuntmON-Sheet 1020 0'a
i Communications l Ble.i ,,' f a Report !
lilllilllllilllilllllllllillll Company: Teiec n CES @ conference neport Project Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.te: 3 09/28/87 i Subpct.- Time:
Program Review at CPSES 1000 a.m. cbT Place:
Participants:
of Carl Weary - TUE EO Supervisor T.U. Electric G. Rose, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna - MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Clarified TUE interface requirements with Impell and that specific interfaces are not addressed in TUE program. Carl Weary said TUE EQ supervision is over the Impell EQ group and therefore a segreated procedure would not be necessary.
TUE\DC\092887-B. CON Signed Page of Dist"buien- SE5 ATThCHED DISTRIB0 TION SHEET.
1020 02 a
Communications Md 2Id Report illllllillllllllilllllllililll Company; ES Teie n Q conference neport Project- Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,te:
09/28/87 Program Review 1105 a.m. cDT Place:
Participants:
of Wayne Perry, Staff Asst. to QA Mgr. TU Electric Mike Beaver, Supervisor of Audits TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna, MSD Required item Comments ~ Action By
. 1. G. Ross requested an overview of the TU Electric QA Audit Program at C.P., and the implementing procedures. i I
(Ans.) TU Electric has three areas of Audit Interest; Internal, Vendor and Technical. Technical Audits are primarily directed at QA and design. Program which covers Technical Audits is NEO 3.07-1.01, Rev. O, 9-29-87.
1 I
TUE\DC\092887-E. CON Sngned Page of l 1
~
Distobution /
SFF ATTA('lIFD DISTRTRUTION SHFFT ,
1070 0ia
p.
""-~ 3 -
Communications MWM lilllilllllllllillllllilllllli Report Company: Telecon Conference Report
' Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
09/28/87 Program Review at CPSES 11:40 a.m. cbr Place.
Participants:
of A. Saunders T.U. Electric ,
I Garriott Cygna Required item Comments Action De
- 1. Mr. Saunders wanted to verify Mr. Weary had answered all questions.
- 2. Mr. Saunders was verifying QA had answered all questions.
I
TUE\DC\092887-C. CON j
i l
i i
1 Signed Page of Distribution: SEh AtIACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. )
1
i 2 ,
Communications
[41 % rn Report lillllilllllilllllllllllilllli company:
CES Teiecon % conference Report Project TU Electric Job No 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 "'*
09/28/87
Subject:
T ' **
Program Review at CPSES 1:25 p.m. CDT Place' CPSES
Participants:
C. Weary TUE EQ Supervisor CPSES TUE C. Morelock; J. Ross; L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By
- 1. Asked Mr. Weary if testing was used as a design verification method. He said presently testing is not used as a design verification method.
TUE\092887-A. CON
'*"'" hl) k u grg,./],/_ /$3 "" l 1
Distobut <>n SEE A*ITACFIED blSTRIBUTION #$HEET.
1020 01a
r Communications M TW fd Report lilllllillllilllilllilllllllit i
l i
. Company: Teiec n @ conference neport CES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 l CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate. .
j 09/29/87 Program Review at CPSES 9:20 a.m. cb7-Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. T.U. Electric G. Ross, L. Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna, MSD Required item Comments Action Dy
- 1. A. Saunders came by to answer questions and see if we needed something. G. Ross had some questions about the location of some E.C.E. procedures. The titles and procedure numbers in the index to-the E.C.E. Manual do not always agree with what's in the manual.
He also showed G. Ross the location of some specific information in the manual.
- 2. L Garriott asked A. Saunders some questions about the NEO Manual.
Current revisions were in question due to the close proximity of dates of revisions, the question was satisfactorily answered.
- 3. C. Morelock asked the question: Does Q.A. audit the Eng. Ass.
Group?
(ANS.) There is no set, scheduled audit of their function. However, parts of their program have P n audited. !
TUE\DC\092987-A. CON Signed: Page of Distnbution SEE ATTACHED DISTRIB6 TION SHEET. .
f em o,. j
iszx== =5- Communications I i
, {4D-R M Report lllllll!!!!11ll11111llll111111 l
Company:
CES b T* " conference neport j Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,ie:
4 09/29/87
Subject:
Time: j Program Review at CPSES 4:15 p m. c bT ;
Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunde. , Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. T.U. Electric G. Ross, L. Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna, MSD Roqwred item Comments Action By
- 1. Requested information on procedure DCP-3 and its applicaton to the transmittal of design input info.
(ANS.) It is a mini procedure used by DCC for transmitting info.
- 2. Requested to talk to Carl Weary on Equipment Qualification and to an Impell Person about Cable Tray Design verification.
TUE\DC\092987-A.TEL 8'""*# "*9 '
g fj/y / M /,J j g 1 1 oistneution: 'SEE ATr^CIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET.
1020 0ia
F a Communications
[.*hM' M Report 111111111111111111111111111111
)
1 Company:
CES Teiec n @ conterence neport )
i Job No. j Project:
TU Electric 84056 j CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.te: l 09/30/87 Program Review @ CPSES Before 12:40 p.m. cbP i Place:
Participants:
of J. Park, Proj. Eng.; Brian Ramsey, Proj. Mgr. Impell G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD I
Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna asked where interface, organization and responsibilities were defined for CPE-TD-IM-025. The response was this information is contained in the TD-IM-025.
- 2. Cygna asked if there were any additional implementing procedures in addition to the Project Instructions and Impell responded that the Cable Verification Program used the PI'S, Impell QAM and TD25.
TUE\DC\093087-A. CON Signed: Page of o.sinoution- SEE NITACHED DISTITIBUTION SIIEET.
1020 0 5 a
.____.________________a
1 REL__ -
Communications l
[*hid 2 Id Report lililllllilllilllillllllllilli
~
company:
CES O m ecoe B cee'e,eece aePori !
Proicct: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 {
CPSES IAP Phase 4 pate. l 09\30\87 Subject Time-
! Program Review @ CPSES 12:40 p.m. cbT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunder, Eng. Ass., Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders came by. He checked that personnel that we needed to talk to had come by. They had. lie then asked if we needed anything else, to which we answered "not at present." He also stated that he was going to direct that a survey be made of contractor manuals due to problems we noted when trying to do research in them.
TUE\DC\093087-B. CON S#gned. Page of Distribution- 'SEE'5TI' ACHED DISTRIBl3flON SIIEET.
10?0 0ia
BE59E Communications Report l<
[4.f.% mfd llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Company: Teiec n Q conference neport ES Project. Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES 1AP Phase 4 oate:
09/30/87 Program Review 3:30 p.m. c)T Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cy gna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders came by at our request to answer some questions.
- 1) We asked for and received concurrence on our wish to contact J. Park of Impell directly by phone rather than having him make a trip from the site.
- 2) We asked if T.U. Electric possessed any flow charts or matrixes depicting interfaces and reporting requirements that we could use to . better understand the flow of information at CPSES. Mr. Saunders believes such information is available and will check on it for us.
l TUE\DC\093087-C. CON I
l 1
Signed Page of oistribut'on' SEE KffACliEb DISTRIBlfflON SilEET. i l
f 1C70 094 .
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _
Communications l M M'Id Report )
lillllilllllillllllllfillllill Company: Telecon Conference Report j
' "'"i' '
TU Electric ~ 84056 l CPSES IAP Phase 4 Date:
09/30/87 ,
' Program Review at CPSES 3:50 p.m. CDP Place:
Participants:
of Jeff Park, Proj. Eng. Impell l
L.D. Garriott Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna asked why there was not specific defined responsibilities in PI4)2, PI-03, PI-06, PI-07 etc.
Response was that these are Impell procedures and only Impell personnel work to them. If personnel are trained to the Project Inst. they can work to it.
- 2. Mr. Parks stated that Impell also works to the OAM. Most of the responsibilities are found in TD25.
TUE\DC\093087-A.TEL Signed. Page of Distribution SEE ^TTACf1ED DISTRiBllTION SHEET."
10200t a
l r- "
Communications hilmfa llllilllllllllllllllllllllllll Report ,
Company.
CES T *'" " b' C "'*" * "*P
Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 )
09/30/87 4 subject Program Review @ CPSES 4:30 p.m. CW Place:
CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. A. Saunders came in to see if we had contacted J. Park of Impell.
We informed him that contact was made with him with satisfactory results.
- 2. A. Saunders also clarified the significance of the FVM numbering system to our satisfaction.
- 3. A. Saunders also informed us that a man would be in in the morning with interface Matrix information for us.
, TUE\DC\093087-D. CON l
l signea g Page of Distribution- SE5 ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SliEET.
10"/ 0 0 t a
e ~7 Communications
[*hld TJ Report lilllllilllllllllllillifililli Company; Teiec n CES @ conference neport Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.ie:
10/01/87 subject
- Program Review at CPSES 8:45 a.m. OP Place:
Participants:
of John Soares, Eng. Ass. Eng. TU Electric Jesse Smith, Eng. Ass. Eng. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. J. Soares and J. Smith of TU Electric came by at our request. They were asked if they had an overall, comprehensive flow chart or diagram of interface activity on this project. They stated that they have an uncompleted, informal effort in that area, but no completed work.
I l
TUE\DC\100187-A. CON l
S4gned. P890 of D'sinbution SEE ATE 5CIIED DISTRIBUTI6N SIIEET.
j 1
toro o<a
l-
=s5-4 Communications L M r]t M '
lilllillliftlllllilllllllilll!
Report company: conference neport l: CES @ Telee n Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate.
10/01/87 i
Subject:
Time-Program Review at CPSES 11:20 a.m. CDT Place:
Participants:
of Jeff Park Impell L. Garriott Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1) .Jeff Park verified that no testing method was used by Impell on this project for design verification.
hih
'?E TUE\DC\100187-A.TEL Signed Page of D'$tribunon- SEE ATTAdHED DISTRII30 TION ' SHEET. #
10?001d
pr = Communications
-[l s M ' M Report illlilllillllllfillllllillllll Company: T*'e n @ conference neport ES-Project- Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
10/01/87 Program Review at CPSES 205 p.m. CDT Place:
CPSES Parteipants: of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric G. Ross, L Garriott, C Morelock Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1) A. Saunders came by. We asked him for EBASCO Procedure SAG.CP-18. This is on design verification for Cable Trays. He said he.would get it.
i L TUE\DC\100187-B. CON Signed. Page of Distnbution SEE AffACHE'D DISTRIITUTION SHEET.
c _ _ **2- _ __
I I
t Communications
[A bitId Report 11ll111111lll11111111111111111 l 1
j Company: conference Repori ES @ Teiec n
"'i"'
TU Electric 84056 )
CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate: i 10/01/87 j s eiect. ""
Program Review at CPSES 2:20 p.m. CAF Place:
CPSES A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric ,
C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Rec;uired item Comments Action By
- 1. C. Morelock requested that A. Saunders set up a meeting with EBASCO Eng. and Q.A. personnel on the morning of Friday, 10/02/87. The purpose of the meeting is a question and answer session to aid in our research. IIe replied that he would try to set up the requested meeting.
i.
TUE\DC\100187-B.TEL Signed. Page of
} )
Distnbution- SEE NITACliED DISTRlifUTION SHEET.
1070 0' a
c - Communications M&' M Report '
lllllllllllllllllllll!!lllllll
- Company: Telee n @ conference Report CES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 pate:
10/02/87 Program Review at CPSES 8 30 a.m. CDT Place:
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric J. Dwyer, Supervisor PCHVP Programs EBASCO Rajnikant Patel, group Lead Eng. - Tray EBASCO G. Ross, L. Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By L J. Dwyer and R. Patel of EBASCO were brought in by A. Saunders per our request to answer questions about EBASCO's on-site program.
The questions, which encompassed items 38 through 42 on the review matrix, were answered primarily by J. Dwyer. They were:
- 1) Do you have procedures for making design changes to approved documents?
Do these procedures require documenting changes and notifying all affected persons and organizations?
(ANS.) Procedure E-30, App. K and Q and E-76-CP cover the first part. The Q.A.M. (ETR-1001) and N-23 program req's
- handle the criteria changes and reporting.
- 2) Do procedures require, when a change is made for significant or recurring errors, determination of the cause and changes in the design process and Q.A. program to prevent recurrence?
(ANS.) J. Dwyer was uncertain. He would check and get back with us today.
Signed- Page of D'$t"bution 'SEE ATT5CHED'DISTRIBEWION SHEET.
1020 0ia
=- -
Communications (4Di t M '
Report lilillllilllllllllllllililllli Requaed
. item Comments Action By
- 3) Do procedures provide that corrective action be accomplished, within specified time limits for' those items that cannot be accomplished immediately. If no~ time limit is specified, how is this controlled?
(ANS.)- There are no specified time limits on corrective action. All corrective action in any given area or discipline must be completed prior to any turnover to T.U. Electric.
TUE\DC\100287-A. CON SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET page 2 of 2
~1020 01 b
E=-
I .
2;~
Communications W LW. .~M Report 11111111111tl1111111!!!!I11111 Companyo ***"
CES ""'""**"*P" Project- Job No, TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
10/02/87
~~
Program Review at CPSES 11:15 a.m. 'W Place:
Participants:
of J. Dwyer, Supervisor PCHVP Program EBASCO G. Ross, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna-MSD Requireo item Comments Action By
- 1. Mr. Dwyer stated that the design process is controlled by procedures which go through a review approval cycle per EBASCO A-1 dated 3/15/79 per Ref. from QA-I-1.
- 2. Responsibility of design change input and it.: effect on procedures lies with the design change reviewer / approver. These approvals are the responsibility of Engineering Manager and Project General Manager /VP per Mr. Dwyer.
- 3. Mr. Dwyer stated that EBASCO interface was addressed in some implementing procedures for specific field activities, however, the majority of interface is addressed in the Task Descriptions.
- 4. Mr. Dwyer responded to the timely control of open items by stating that EBASCO used the TUE Master Data Base tracking system.
Internal controls are via logs and scheduling commitments .
consideration and per TD59. Weekly status reports are issued and closure is based on scheduling needs.
TUE\DC\100287-B. CON l
signeo. Page of
~
Di51"bution SEE .ATTSCHED' DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
iO70 01a
=a Communications M 1427d Report
!!!11111111llll!!!Il1ll1111111 Company: conterence Report CES @ Teiec n Project' Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
10/13/87 Program Review - Design Control 936 a.m. fMT Place:
Cygna-WC
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric P. Lamb, Secretary to E.A.EM. (Above) TU Electric C.W. Morelock, Q.A. Supervisor Cygna-MSD Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Spoke with P. Lamb, trying to locate A. Saunders. She informed me that he was in a meeting. However, the meeting ended while I was still on the phone and he became available. ;
- 2. I informed A. Saunders that this call was to apprise him of my intent to speak to personnel subordinate to him and the purpose of my call to that person.
I told Mr. Saunders that we had further need to review the manuals used in our earlier effort, but that through an arrangement with Mr. Scott Harrison of T.U. Electric, these manuals would be made available to us at the reading room in the Impell offices in Walnut Creek, California. We needed to check our list of manuals with the complete list kept by L Dunn, to ensure that all needed manuals would be present. Mr. Saunders indicated he felt that that would be a good arrangement and would do what he could to expedite the effort.
TUE\DC\101386-A.TEL Signed Page of Distneuen SEE 'ATf'ACHED DISTRIBLfflON SIIEET.
m.
Communications
- hYd 2ij Report lilillllillllillllillllllillli Gmpany C conference nepon CES d Tere n
"' I
. TU Electric ' 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oeie: 7 10/13/8/>
Program Review - Design Control 1135 a.m. PDT Ptsce:
WCAO
Participants:
of Letty Dunn, Secretary / Admin. Asst. TU Electric C.W. Morelock, O.A. Supervisor Cygna-MSD LD. Garriott, Senior O.A. Engineer Cygna-MSD Required
. ._ ,n Comments Action By
- 1. Verified that Letty had a list of all reference material used during checklist preparation by Cygna so that she could notify Scott liarrison.
TUE\DC\101386-B.TEL Signed: Page of Dminoution- SEE ATrdCITED' DISTRIBfflON SliEET.
ID70 0$e ,
Erfr~- Communications
[#ald 2 Til Report lilllillllililillittlillifilli company: Conference Report h Telecon Project; Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
10/22/87 Subject. Time:
TU Electric Reading Room at Impell Offices 9 25 a.m. PW in Walnut Creek Piace:
Walnut Creek Participants- of Tom Lake Impel!
Linda Garriott, _Q.A.E. Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Tom provided a list of CPSES manuals that had been recived at the TUE reading room at Impell, Walnut Creek.
TUE\DC\102287-A.TEL n s D'ssnout.on:
}AhW dY jg5 ATTAU5IED D}STRIY3UTION SHEET.
l I 1020 0ta
i s;==~+ Communications M'Le$ J TJ Report ;
11111lll!!!1111111111111111111 j Company: conference neport CES @ Teiec n Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 )
10/22/87 TU Electric Reading Room at Impell 2 00 p.m. Pbr Office in Walnut Creek Pace Walnut Creek
Participants:
of Scott Harrison /Rene Gutheperson TU Electric Linda Garriott. O.A.E. Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Verified the schedule for sending CPSES contractor / owner manuals to Impell, Walnut Creek office.
- 2. Checked list of what TUE is sending vs. what Cygna needs to complete their assessment.
TUE\DC\102287-B.TEL r n '
Distribution
(
SEE ATTACliEDPDISTRIBUTION SiiEET.
, g Lffi,
/
l 1 1020 01e
i Ph== ism Communications i
[*hM' TJ Report 111111111111111111111111111111 i company:
CES @ men contence nepon Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,te:
10/27/87 Material in Impell (Walnut Creek) 8 30 a.m. PW Reading Room ptoc,:
Walnut Creek
Participants:
of A. Saunders, Eng. Ass. Eval. Mgr. TU Electric C. Motelock, Q.A. Supervisor (MSD) Cygna L Garriott, Q.A.E. (MSD) Cygna Required item Comments Action Ety
- 1. Mr. Saunders called to inquire about the status of our review of manuals at the Impell, Walnut Creek office.
He was informed that not enot gh books had arrived, as yet, to even begin the review, and that there were some problems with their shipment to Impell.
Mr. Saunders stated that he would look into the problems associated with manual shipments and would we, please, keep him informed.
TUE\DC\l02787-A.TEL signea Page of
,Q ~
p 3 3 Distnbuticn SEs ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
1020 01e
r _ - ___- . _ - -
1 E:: ~ s _ 2 Communications
[eh1G lilllilllllillllllllllllililll Report Oompany Telecon Conference Report Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 Daie-10/30/87 !
Subject-~ Time. 1 Reading Room Preparation 1010 a.m. tb7 !
Place:
Walnut Creek
Participants:
Of Tom Lake Impell L Garriott, O.A.E. Cygna Required item Comments Action By 1.
h h Mr. Lik"6 said additional TUE Manuals had been received today and he was preparing them for the reading room.
- 2. The two boxes previously received were still being processed and should be ready for review Monday, 11/02/87.
I TUE\DC\l03087-A.TEL l
mn n Destnbution M ~h ff]&h /]
SEYd'ITACIISD DISTRIBUTION SNEET.
a 1 1 10?O D'a
Communications ~
(4 Le"n'iii Report
- ll11111'!!1111111111ll11111111 Company: Telecon Conference Report g
- Project . Job No.
11/02/87
""'I ' **
Reading Room Verification 9:15 a.m. PST Place:
Wainut Creek Rene Gutherperson, Secretary TU Electric L Garriott, Q.A.E. Cygna Required item Comments Action By L Rene was calling to verify all' reference material had been received and was available for Cygna's review in the Impell reading room.
TUE\DC\110287-A.TEL Signed. Page of
~
oistnbution SEE A'TTACIfeD DISTRIBUTION SliEET#
1?M 01a
I
'- mE Communications l (41e][f/
ll11111111llll11111llllll11111 Report Company: conference neport CES @ Teiec n Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
11/02/87 -
Subject:
Time:
Impells TU Electric Reading Room 9.50 a.m. Pfr T-Place:
Walnut Creek Participants. of Tom Lake Impell L. Garriott, O.A.E. Cynna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Tom called to let Cygna know all material recieved by Impell for the TUE reading room had been processed and was ready for review.
TUE\DC\110287-B.TEL l . A A}JW) f,/ /mY " '"
1 1 D'St" button- SEE AYI'ACU5D D'ISTRIIRJTION SHEET.
1020 01a i
E -- ~= Communications T @ h'TJ Report ll11111111!!Il1111111111111111 l Company: conference neport CES- 3 Teiec n Project- Job No.
TU Electric 84056 l
- 11/3/8 7 Manual Receipt at TUE Reading Room 4
- 15 p.m. "PST Place:
Impell (WC)
Participants:
of T. Lake Impell L. Garriott Cynna l
Required item Comments Action By I
Called Tom to ask about receipt of FVM's from TUE. None received as yet.
TUE\110387-C.TEL Distribution:
$' / '
/), _
1 1 SEE ATTACHkD DISTRIlillTION SliEET. #
Communications fa'pg=
[G id 2 TA Report 1111111111!!!11111111111111111 conipany: conference neport CES @ Teiuon Project: -
Job No.
11/9/8 7 subject: "'"
Ebasco Scope of Work 10:40 a.m. PST Impell (WC)
Participants:
of L. Garriott, R. Seyferth Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Discussed Ebasco scope of work at the site and home office in New York for cable tray and conduit supports. Specifically, this was to clarify design responsibilities.
- 2. Discussed handling of nonconformances identified during the design validation effort.
TUE\110987 A.TEL Signed. Page
} of }
Distribution: SEE .A'ITAOllED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
1020 01a
- Communications L4&R (d Report lill!lllllillllllllllitilllll!
' c mpanyi conference neport Cygna .
@ Telecon Project: Job N '
CPSES 84056 11/13/87 subject: D '"'
Manual Receipt to TU Reading Room 14GO PST Walnut Creek
Participants:
. Tom Lake Impell LD. Garriott Cygna Required item Comments Action By L Tom called to notify Cygna that the TUE FVM's had been received and were ready for review.
1 1
TUE\111387-A.TEL
_ M signee
, kfAgv y Page 1 of 1 Distnbutio. SEE A i 1 ACHED DIS ~1 KIBU 1 ft)N Slibbl.
1020 01a
""~~51 Communications M L51tTJ '
Report lilllillllllllilllfillllllilli company:
CES @ Telecc n conference neport ;
Project:
TU Electric Job No. 84056 '
Subject:
IAP T' ** 10:00 a.m. PST Response to Cygna Questions Walnut Creek
Participants:
Al Saunders, T. Porfilio TUE, E.A.
L. Garriott, R. Seyferth Cygna t
l Required Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna previously asked for B&R program documents and TUE explained that Brown and Root provided personnel to TUE for inspection to work per TUE programs. Therefore, there is no need to provide the B&R OAM for Cygna review.
- 2. Cygna noted that timely resolution of NCR's is required per TUE TUE programs, however, it was not addressed as to hc.w timely resolution was assured. TUE to provide clarification how this is accomplished.
- 3. Audit and surveillance schedules were being mailed to TUE Reading TUE Room, Impell, Walnut Creek for Cygna's review.
- 4. TUE said an EDCN is being issued for ECE 2.13.02, Para 4.4, to TUE include NCR's.
- 5. Impell procedure PI-012, Para 6.9.2., requires only one reference TUE dwg/DCA. TUE clarified the acceptability of this because of the drawing structure of one drawing per CTH.
- 6. Mr. Saunders is still trying to locate Ebasco cale. S-001, Vol.1, Bk TUE 20 for his review.
TUE\112087-A.TEL signeo eage or j] 3 3 1
Distnbution SEE! ATTACIIED DISTRIl3UTf0N SHEET.
1020 01 a
Communications
{41d 2in Report
. lillllllllililillllillllilllll Company:- Conference Report CES @ Telecon
"' I**' #'"'
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 go,,
11/30/87
.sumect ""'* PST Response to Ebasco Question 9.40 a.m.
Walnut Creek
"*'*'P*"~ '
L A. Saunders, T. Porfilio TUE L Garriott Cygna Required item ' Comments . Action By TUE called in response to questions about Ebasco. The discussion was rescheduled for 12/1/87 at 9.00 a.m.
TUE\113087.B.TEL A
Signed: .
Page 1 of 1 Distnbution SEE ATTACIIECr DISTRIBUTION SliEbl. #
r 1020 014
wt Communications J+hlt M lillllllllllllllillllilllillil Report Company:
CES @ Telecon conterence neport Projectr TU Electric Job No- 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 "
11/30/87 Sub}ect: ""*-
Ebasco Response to Cygna Questions 10.40 a.m. PST Walnut Creek
Participants:
II. Kunis 201/460-6345 Ebasco L Garriott, R. Seyferth Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Kunis to explain Ebasco's audit responsibilities for on-site SIP activities. Mr. Kunis said two internal audits per year were performed of QA site activities. However, audits do not cover any activities performed in accordance with TUE FVM's. SIP is not part of the Ebasco program, therefore responsibility for performing audits is TUE's. Cygna notified Ebasco that this was not in agreement with ECE 1.01 & the T.D.
Cygna asked Mr. Kunis if TUE or Ebasco audits ref.'ected any negative trends in preparation of calculations. Mr. Kunis said that incause there were so few final calculations that had been design validated a negative trend could not develop herame cf a small sample.
Cygna asked Mr. Kunis how Ebasco controlled Cygna identified issues and he said Ebasco would perform an audit to substantiate or negate the concern and control the issue per the QA audit program.
Ebasco discussed how DCA's are generated. They were done in accordance with SAG-CP's. Ebasco discussed difficulty in administering the two types of controls. Ebasco stateil that interface controlled the distribution of appropriate design information and specific job responsibilities between the different Ebasco groups involved; i.e. NY, site, Atlanta, and Lindhurst, NJ are not formally defined, but is informally handled.
TUE\113087-C.TEL S'9"'d Distribution.
&f g, gf _
SEE ATTACifED [11STRIBUTIOW$HEET.
"*9' 1 1
70 01a
n=F Communications
[qN2 A Report lilllllililillllitilllillllill-Company: Teiecon conference neport CES Project:
TU Electric Job No 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 "
12/1/87
Subject:
- ' 9:25 a.m. PST Questions about Ebasco
"***~
kValnut Creek
Participants:
A. Saunders, T. Profilio, J. Soares TUE R. Seyferth, C. Morelock, L. Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked TUE to explain the following items.
- 1. TUE clarified Type 1 Mod.
- 2. TUE is checking on how third party identified deficiencies are TUE controlled.
- 3. TUE is checking interface control within Ebasco. TUE
- 4. TUE is checking interface between Impell and Ebasco. TUE
- 5. TUE is checking DCA's issue.d by NY, Atlanta and NJ offices of TUE Ebasco.
- 6. TUE is checking on how IDR's are processed within Ebasco because TUE EB QA-ETR-1001 does not require an IDR for CTH, conduit supports and HVAC duct supports because of their single discipline nature.
- 7. Ebasco PJ-2-CP, per Tl 7,, does cover transmittal of design ;
information. i
- 8. Ebasco E-21 and E-7 are the wrong rev's in control manual #47 @ TUE Impell, WC.
'9. TUE is checking on QADA covering control of all identified TUE deficiencies. x 1
9"** "*9" '
gg y,ppy f j')q l 2
. Distribution' SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHE.'ET.
1020 01a
l [.
f
?~1 ' -=,4 Communications Phld l fM Report lllllllllllllllll1111lll111111 Required item - Comments Action By
- 10. Cygna still has not received audit / surveillance schedules for'Impe!1 TUE SWEC or Ebasco.
- 11. TUE to justify Ebasco's use of ANSI N45.2.11,1974 in lieu TUE of TUE's commitment to rev. 2, draft 2.
- 12. Ebasco Calc. S-001,-Vol.1, Bk. 20 was design . verified and the TUE comments made by the verifier were written up as part of the calculation.
- 13. TUE ECE.2.13 should explain document distribution of T'CR's and TUE DCA's, which are the only documents used as design chage inputs.
- 14. Cygna asked why SAG-CP-20; 21; 25; 29; 22; 26 and 14 were omitted TUE form the Ebasco Manual of Procedures.
TUE\120187-B.TEL Page SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 of 2 V. :Ta !:-l h
et _ Communications l
[*t h ra lilllllllillfillllllllllllllll Report Cornpany: conference neport CES ,
3 Teiec n Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate:
12/2/87
Subject:
Time:
Ebasco Procedures 900 a.m. P.ST Place.
Walnut Creek
Participants:
of L Dunn TUE L. Garriott Cycna Required item Comments Action By Asked Ms. Dunn to give Al Saunders a message requesting the reason as to why the following procedures were omitted from the Ebasco Manual of Procedures: E74; E86; E88; A1; A30; A37; N21; N23; N24; PD10 and PD11. Per Ebasco QAl-1, Table I-13 these are also principle implementing procedures.
TUE\120287-A.TEL
/. _
D'5t"bu'*n
{] d ./M- 1 1 j SEYXTTA'CHED DISTRIBUTION SiiEET.
1010 0 $ a
E dE Communications M f.ej i M Report lilllllllilllillllllllllllilli company:
CES Teiecon % conference neport Project Job No.
,U EleiC 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,, .
1/25 - 29/88 Ebasco's Design Control Program for 8 00 - 5:00 ES7~
Conduit, Conduit Supports, Cable Tray pi,c, Hangers and Junction Boxes Ebasco, NY H. Kunis, R. O'Neil, J. Padalino, J. Marek Ebasco E. Moumouris Cygna l
~___
Required Comments Action By
- 1. I discussed Ebasco's responsibilities for design for TUE with H.
Kunis and J. Padalino. I requested the specific contracts delineating safety and non-safety related responsibilities of Ebasco including those from the SIP Program and TD CPE-TD-EB-007, Rev. 3. The following are the results of the discussion:
Ebasco's response: safety-related contract CPF-12171-S covered on-site and off-site design verification activities etc. for work performed under Ebasco's QA Program. Basic responsibilities as follows:
NY M Atlanta Dallas HVAC Systems Cable Tray Junction Boxes Is extension of I HVAC Supports Hangers ~ 3 people on-site group and and ducts in- = 80 people does not report to
, cluding plenums, NY Project Mgr.
l etc. Conduits a) Comanche Peak a) ISOS Design Verification b) Conduit Supports = Safety Related
= 80 people b) Other Ebasco l Personnel *
- =non-safety related under TUE's QA program.
Ebasco-NY-QA performs audits of onsite and offsite Ebasco groups working under Ebasco's QA Program under PO CPF-12171-S. Ebasco signeo. Page of SkE AThACilED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET.
1 -.
r Communications I*h f.M : TJ Report j
- llillllilllllilllllillllllllli 1
Required item Comments Act.on By has contract personnel working under TUE's QA Program under two non-safety related contracts. TUE, then would maintain j responsibility for audits of EBASCO personnel working under TUE's i QA Program.
- 2. I asked H. Kunis what Ebasco's approval signature on FVM's signified. l 1
H. Kunis stated that Ebasco's approval signature signified approval of the technical part of the FVM while TUE maintained responsibility for both technical and QA adequacy of design under TUE's QA Program.
- 3. I reviewed the following TUE PO's to Ebasco:
Safety PO .# Class Date Scope OA Program CPF-12219-S yes 11/5/8 4 SIP Ebasco CPF-21615 no 11/16/84 SIP, TUE Technical Eng. & Design Supp. #1 no 7/29/85 SIP & FVM TUE Supp. #2* - no 9/12/86 TUE Supp. #3** no 12/12/86 HVAC Walk- sitework to down to TUE Proc. & NY to Ebasco QA i Program
- Attachment 1 to Ebasco's General Services contract stated in part "Ebasco will function in cooperation with and subject always to the direction and control of TUGCO's authorized officers or TUGCO's designated representatives and will consult with TUGCO in advance of important decisions. . . ."
- Attachment to Supplement #3, "HVAC Engineering and Design Program" makes reference to Ebasco developing "an interface document. .to clearly define interdepartmental and j interorganizational interfaces and their control."
- 4. Discussed quality standards not being properly referenced in !
Ebasco's procedures i.e. specifically ANSI N45.2.11-1974 versus ANSI N45.2.11, Rev. 2, Draft 2 in E-7&CP, 8/25/87 and E-77-CP, 7/10/86.
l H. Kunis explained that the ANSI N45.2.111974 revision is more conservative than draft 2, Rev. 2. In addition, he stated that ANSI /ASME NOA-1 is a compilation of the latest ANSI revisions.
Ebasco project procedures are originated out of the NY office and are written by J. Padalino (the "NY office" consists of NY, NJ and SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION 2
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _SHEET -__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._-__ _ . _ _
11 u
l' l
- w Communications i N eilTJ 1111ll11111111ll111111llll1111 Report Required -
ltem - Comments Action By Atlanta offices only) with input from II. Kunis, QA Comanche Peak Project Engineer. Ebasco's OA program, ETR-1001, was approved by TUE and by the NRC (5/1/87). Section QA-I-1 commits Ebasco to implement ANSI /ASME NOA-1.
- 5. Discussed Ebasco's audit program with H. Kunis and J. Marek. Two audits a year are performed of each office and cover six months of activities prior to the audit. I reviewed the following audits-Office / Scone Audit # Date Audit Performed Applied Physics, NY/ AP-NY-287 12/15-23/87 at E-30, E-76-CP, Comanche Peak -
E-77-CP; 7 calculations - CTH, conduit support
& HVAC Design Validation SIP-Applied Physics / AP-SIP-187 12/23-31/87 E-30, E-76-CP &
E-77-CP; 7 calculations Site Engineering CP-TX-287 9/14-18/87
& Dallas / CPSES E-7, E-30, E-76-CP, E-77-CP, E-87, MOP Appendix K, N and Q Atlanta /E-30; 2799 9/10-11/86 3 calculations -
New Jersey 11/30/87-Cable Tray /E-30, 12/18/87 E-65-CP, E-76-CP, E-77-CP, PJ-2-CP &
E-66-CP (and see Item 20)
- 6. 1/26/88: Discussed finding regarding calculation AS-001 with H.
Kunis (i.e. assumptions not clearly identified, illegible pages, assumptions not verified, pages not numbered, omitted pages, etc.)
H. Kunis agreed with this finding but added that AS-002 and AS-003 were also deficient and would all be corrected by the end of February - beginning of March 1988.
I 7. I asked lierman Kunis why Impell and EQE were omitted as external interfaces in Ebasco's design control program, on Ebasco's Distribution Schedule and on other interface documents for cable j tray design verifications and system interaction.
Page vf SEE ATTAC11ED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET 3 11 ,,,
mm o
. = - -
Commun.ications pamame==
M%M Report 1111111111111111111111lll111ll nem comments [Ell*8v H. Kunis' response was that 1) EQE provided engineering services to Ebasco under contract E-10363' dated 5/29/87 and Supplement #1 (1/25/88) in accordance with Ebasco Specification 860-80 @l980.
Document transmittal requirements are included in the contract
" Correspondence" and " Scope" sections. Contract also requires the EQE project manager to assure that the contract requirements are met per the EQE QA manual. Last audit of EQE, San Francisco, by Ebasco was VER-849, 5/87, and EQE is listed on Ebasco's Approved Supplier's List,1/4/88. . I verified all above information as correct.
- 2) H. Kunis clarified that Impell provided design verification services to TUE under TUE contract. He agreed that Impell should have been on Ebasco distribution schedule for correspondence and drawing
- CTH, dated 10/26/87, and this should be corrected. Impell is on drawing review list for HVAC duct drawings and has review signoff responsibility for these drawings.
- 8. ' Discussed no documented interface control for Ebasco's satellite offices in Lyndhurst, Dallas and Atlanta with H. Kunis.
Ebasco's response was that interface control is addressed in E-7-CP, Table 1.H, PJ-2-CP for " Project Communications," and E-65-CP for
" Control of Project-related Design Documents." These procedures address distribution, receipt, review and approval of the specification review list, drawing review list, company procedures and correspondence of a technical nature.
- 9. Discussed responsibilities of satellite offices not delineated in procedures.
Ebasco's response was that these responsibilities are delineated in
. Ebasco's Manual of Procedures for NY, NJ, Atlanta and Dallas and are delegated by the supervising engineer in each office. Engineers would not work independently of the supervising engineer's authority. Ebasco's imple-nting procedures are delineated in ETR-1001 and in " List of CPSha Engineering-related Procedures"
- 10. Discussed Ebasco procedures not addressing distribution of design inputs to similar internal design groups. H. Kunis e.xplained the '
following organizational structure:
Envar Odar Conduits
\%~
CTH Group HVAC SIP Others ivil Design
"*9* 4 11 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET um
N Communications i A (% M Report illllilllillilillllllillllllil
)
Requwed item Comments Action By F. Hettinger (Civil Design) has overall responsibility of SAG Civil Design and delegates approval authority of design criteria. If a change in design criteria is made, he approves the SAG-cps. If a design criteria change is made in HVAC, he or his designer approves and knows about the change. The same applies to change in design criteria for conduit and cable tray hangers. F. Hettinger is intimately involved in developing design criteria for all programs.
Ebasco corporate procedure A-34 also provides for design improvement methodologies to be distributed throughout Ebasco disciplines at chief engineer management level. Ebasco's organization itself mandates the concern of this issue.
Note: Procedure E-77-CP,1/10/86, provides requirements for specifying (paragraphs 5.2.1-5.2.4), identifying, selecting, approving, using and documenting (Paragraphs 5.3.1-53.2), and changing (Paragraph 6.0) design inputs. This item was also discussed with Cygna conduit and conduit support engineers, Darlene i.,cong, Bilgin Atalay and Behrooz Shakibnia. They did not conclude any technical concerns had resulted from inadequate interface between the Ebasco engineering disciplines in regard to review of design input or methodology changes.
- 11. Discussed design documents, specifically procedures (task descriptions and FVMs) not being reviewed adequately and SAG-cps and FVMs not being maintained properly in Ebasco's Manual of Procedures (with H. Kunis).
Ebasco response: SAG-cps specify design criteria and instruction and are not considered Ebasco project procedures. SAG-cps are now maintained in separate binders and are controlled by the originating engineering discipline. They were removed from the Manual of Procedures on 12/23/87 (verified). Task descriptions and FVMs are TUE responsibility. They are writte. under TUE's QA program and are approved by TUE. This task is described under a non-safety related contract.
12.a Discussed improper distribution of controlled copy #47 of the Manual of Procedure (MOP) with 11. Kunis: ,
i Ebasco response: Ebasco maintains that the controlled manual holder of MOP #47 did not adequately control the manual. When Ebasco had been notified by Cygna on 1/14/88 and by the manual holder that the manual revision had not been received, another manual change (i.e. E-21-CP, Rev. 3,1/11/88; E-7-CP, Rev. 7, 10/26/87; and E-76-CP, Rev. 9,12/10/87) was sent. Manual revisions are sent to manual holders twice a month.
l SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SliEET _ _ _ _
5 11
Communications LM n.d Report llllllll1111111ll111ll11111111 Requned Comments Action By item Note: Reviewer verified that Lyndhurst office was listed on 12/9/87 i revision of the distribution schedule and verified that Atlanta was
' listed on the 6/12/87 and 8/31/87 revisions of the distribution schedule. !
- 14. Reviewer questioned H. Kunis regarding procedure E-65-CP not addressing control of TUE " Design Basis Documents" (DBDS).
Ebasco response: DBDs are controlled as design input in E-77 CP (7/10/86) under Ebasco's QA Program. But DBD's are written by Ebasco, NY under TUE's QA Program per ECE-DC-17, EDCN 1-6, 10/29/87.
Note: Reviewer verified that ANSI N45.2.11-1974 includes " design bases" under " design inputs" in paragraph 3.1, " General."
- 15. Reviewer questioned H. Kunis regarding Ebasco's Controlled Copy Distribution Schedule not specifying all design documents needed by Ebasco, NY engineering disciplines ex. CPE-TD-EB-007, FVM CPE-EB-FVM-SI-039 and CPE-EB-FVM-SI-051.
Ebasco response: TUE documents needed for reference were designated by Ebasco, NY Personnel. Task descriptions and FVMs not listed on the distribution schedule were determined as not needed for work performed by Ebasco, NY disciplines. Onsite and Dallas Ebasco personnel are on controlled distribution direct from i TUE. CPE-TD-EB-007 is titled " System Interaction Program" which is outside scope of Ebasco NY work. FVMs SI-039 and SI-051 are SIP FVMs used for work under TUE's QA program and are entitled respectively, " Environmental Analysis As Built Walkdown Data" and
" Target Evaluation Data." In addition,12/87 'TUE Monitor" of Ebasco's control of approximately 37,000 of 47,000 "085" controlled documents issued by TUE to Ebasco, NY resulted in questions on revisions of approximately 150 ISOs (piping) that could not be located. Ebasco was able to locate 148 of the 150 piping ISOs.
Work performed under the two ISOs in question had been completed some time ago. The two missing ISOs have been replaced.
Note: Reviewer reviewed the 12/87 "TUE Monitor" of Ebasco, NY's document control activities including Ebasco, NY's response and the results of the monitor to verify "Ebasco's response" discussed above.
- 16. Reviewer questioned H. Kunis regarding illegible controlled procedures in MOP.
Ebacco response: H. Kunis had been following up on this item as a '
result of the 1/14/88 meeting at Comanche Peak with TUE and I
Page SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 7 Of
-_ , i
)
> Communications k[ g*E i d t f d Report 11lllll1!!P111111111111111111 i
mm item Comments Ac o y Cygna representatives. Ebasco perforrned review of Manual of ) Procedures on 1/21/88 and verified illegible pages and incorrect documents listed in " References" sections of many MOP procedures. Ebasco's review included current manual procedures not just the ones identified by Cygna. [ Note: As of 1/25/88, pages had not been corrected. Reviewer verified the results of Ebasco's 1/21/88 review of its MOP.
- 17. Reviewer questioned H. Kunis regarding the process of transmitting design change requests to TUE for issuance of a DCA and lack of procedure, thereof.
Ebasco response: The procedural requirements for the above are controlled procedurally in the SAG-cps and Appendices, E-30, and E-7-CP which describe the methodology in the form of instruction from the discipline supervisor for design verification and preparation of calculations. Sketches are submitted to TUE to i suggest subsequent issue of a DCA from TUE under TUE's QA orogram. Modification group is onsite. If a design criteria fails, it can be evaluated and resolved by the walkdown in the FVM flow under the .TUE program.
- 18. Questioned H. Kunis why procedure E-66-CP, Rev. 2, does not include nonconformance reports or the current design change log.
Ebasco response: E-66-CP,12/23/87, now includes receipt of the current design change log from TUE, acknowledgment of receipt and distribution to respective Ehasco disciplines. Note: Reviewer verified on 11/25/87 current design change log for drawing CTH-1-00151, Sheet 1, Rev.1, that DCA 027194, Rev. 5 and NCR-CM-87-02604, Rev. O were listed. Per R. O'Neil, more NCRs are being written to document TUE QC inspection deficiencies than in the past and these NCRs are documented on the current design change log and are forwarded with the affected drawing. Note that the TUE monitor referenced in Item 15, above, did not include Ebasco control of CMCs, DCAs or NCRs in the drawing package review.
- 19. Questioned H. Kunis on reason for Ebasco not having procedures for resolution, review, trending and corrective action of Cygna identified deficiencies.
Ebasco response: This information is maintained in a list maintained by TUE. SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET 8 11
I U = Communications 1 [Mt'fM Report lillllllllllll!!!lilllililllil' ] I l Requwed I (tem Comments Action By
- 20. Questioned H. Kunis concerning Ebasco, NY SIP activities not being l listed on TUE's audit schedule and Ebasco's responsibility for surveillance (on-going) and biennial audits of the SIP activities. See Item 5 for audit reports reviewed. (H. Kunis explained that audit AP-SIP-187 was requested by C. R. Levine at TUE and was not a ,
scheduled audit). I also questioned H. Kunis on lack of audits of activities in the Atlanta and Dallas offices. Ebasco response: SIP-Applied Physics activities were being performed under Ebasco's QA program until 8/87 when the Applied Physics group started work for SIP under TUE's program. Prior to 8/87, Ebasco audited the Applied Physics activities for SIP twice a year. Atlanta and Dallas activities have also been audited twice a year. Requirements for Ebasco to implement surveillance of the SIP was an error in task description and present requirement for Ebasco to audit SIP should be deleted since Applied Physics-SIP has been working under TUE's program as of 8/87. I verifi:d that audits had been performed (and/or trend analysis of audit findings had been completed) of the Dallas, Atlanta and Applied Physics SIP group activities. I reviewed also the following trend analysis reports of audit findings of Ebasco Comanche Peak activities- _ Trend Analysis Report Date Groun 8/14/87 covered 1/1-6/30/87 Civil-NY, NJ. site, Atlanta, Dallas 8/14/87 covered 1/1/-6/30/87 Computer Services 2/11/86 covered 6/30-12/31/85 Engineering including Comanche Peak project activities 8/12/87 covered 1/1-6/30/87 Mechanical Dept. including NY and site - Comanche Peak 8/12/87 covered 1/1-6/30/87 Applied Physics 8/12/87 covered 1/1-6/30/87 Comanche Peak-NJ, Applied Physics, site and NY I also reviewed the draft audit schedule for the first half of 1988. The following CPSES Ebasco activities were scheduled: I Page U SEE XiTACHED DHSTRIBUTHOR SHEET _____ .. . 9 11
i
-=
Communications { MN 2 M Report Il!!!111!!11111111111111111111 Required item Comments Action By Activity Scheduled Audit Dates NY, NJ, site, Dallas, Feb., March, May and June l Engineering ! Atlanta January I also reviewed the 1988 activity plan for the entire 1988 year which included audits scheduled for NY, NJ, Atlanta and site (including Dallas). The activity plan was approved by the QA Engineering Supervisor, J. Marek. I discussed the audit process, trending program and results of the trend analysis with J. Marek and H. Kunis. I noticed that Ebasco audits and trend analysis reports (as far back as 1985) had resulted in similar calculation problems as those noted with calculation AS-001. This demonstrated that the Ebasco audit program was effective in identifying similar deficiencies. But I questione:'. H. Kunis whether this also indicated that if similar calculation problems had been identified in all Ebasco offices providing engineering for Comanche Peak since 1985, then the trend analysis and corrective action programs may not have been effective in identifying root cause of these problems project-wide. I also questioned, then, that corrective actions, as a result, may not have tren effective or adequate in preventing recurrence of similar calculation problems in al! Ebasco offices providing engineering for the Comanche Peak project. Ebasco response: An optional QA checklist, 'TUE-CPSES QA Checklist for Conduit Calculations" has been implemented by QA to verify adequacy of documentation of design verification, checker's initials, Form 599, general, cover sheet, calculation, computer runs and attachments. This checklist is used more'in NY than at the site. II. Kunis believes audits and trend analysis have identified two general trends over the project. One is the use of inadequate design criteria (SAG-cps) when performing calculations since SAG-cps may be in process of revision when calculations are performed. This included revising all affected calculations. The second trend is problems with non-technical detail on calculations. With such a large scope of work on the Comanche Peak project, isolated cases of problems in the non-technical, non-quality affecting detail will be identified and cannot be 100% prevented. All calculations affected by the questionable SAG-cps were re-reviewed to assure that calculations had been performed adequately. I verified that this corrective action had been specified for the SEE A'ITACIIED DISTRIBUTION SliEET ['9' 10 11
z u:m m s Communications [.4M' M Report i
. lilllittiilillllilililllitilli l
l- -_ i Regwred stem Comments Action By j 1 audit report finding on inadequate SAG-cps documented on the audit of the NJ office performed 11/30-12/18/87. ] ; I l. 1 TUE\012588-D. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET }} }}
C=7T Communications [41 W Id Report illllillllllfilllll!!!Ill!!Ill company: CES O reiecom M coe<e eece nene,t Project TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phee 4 cate- 2/3/88 suojet: SWEC Corrective Action Program Delineated Time- 2:00 p.m. 3"S7-by Project Procedures and Engineering Assurance Procedures Place ~ SWEC, Boston
Participants:
R. Drummond, C. Foye of SWEC E. Moumouris Cygna comments Ac o By
- 1. I noted inconsistency in entry desigrated " Design Category" on Stone & Webster's computer program validation form required by EAP 5.25, Rev.1, and " Design Document Classification" required by PP-037, Rev. O, issued 10/8/86 to Rod Drummond and Clem Foye. I also noted that all other forms reviewed had been projectized and included an entry labelled " Design Document Classification." I questioned what the correlation was between Stone & Webster's
" Design Categories" and TUE's " Design Classifications." Rod Drummond explained the correlation as follows:
SWEC Desien Category TUE Design Classification Category I Classification I or Classification II Category II No correlation with a TUE Design Classification Category III Classification N 1 noted that this correlation is not defined in PP-037 titled
" Definition of Design Document Classification and Marking of Design Documents."
TUE\020388.D. CON j 1 of I signed Page otsinnution # SEEVATTACl-LED DISTRIBUTION SHEbr. /
18Ei! - +m Communications [ 4 M T7i Report 1111111111111111ll1111111ll111 Company: conterence neport CES @ Te' econ
"' # J b No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 goi,. 3/23/88 subsct: "" CPSES IAP Questions 8 00 a.m. CST CPSES, Texas
Participants:
A. Saunders, T. Profillio, N. Hottle TUE D. Smedley, L Garriott, C. Morelock Cygna Required Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna asked TUE what audits had been performed on CPSES site EBASCO/TUE SIP program. TUE stated DR C88-00268 was written to address this issue and Cygna could review. DR C88-00268 addressed Ebasco's failure to audit SIP in 1987. However, did not address TUE QA failure to audit SIP.
- 2. Cygna asked what the status of EA surveillance report TSR 87-84 was. TUE responded that the surveillance is open as of 3/23/88.
- 3. Cygna asked if FVM CPE-EB-FVM-C5-003 and 002 had the interface EBASCO cou. trol reference revised. Ebasco to respond.
- 4. Cygna asked if CPE-TD-EB-007 had been revised to include Ebasco EBASCO and TUE procedures.s Ebasco to respond.
- 5. Does Impell have a procedure for get. rating PI addenda? TUE IMPELL stated Impell was currently locating the guidelines in their Project QA FILE.
- 6. How does TUE EA trend, track and close discrepancies and l observations identified on surveillance reports. TUE EA responded l that the observations and discrepancies were not required to be trended but periodically reviewed only. The tracking and closure of
findings" is addressed in ECE 3.23.
- 7. Cygna asked if the Ebasco distribution achedule had been revised to TUE include Impell? TUE is to provide Cygna with this information.
o' signed g j A Page 3 2 o.sindution- ' I SEE A'fTACHED DISTRIBCITION SHEET. 1020 01a .
E Communications [4M M 11!!!!Il1111111ll11ll11111llll Report l nem comments OEl$By
- 8. Cygna asked how design documents :and changes are distributed to EBASCO Ebasco satellite offices by Ebasco, NY? Ebasco to respond.
- 9. Cygna asked if Ebasco E-65-CP has been revised to include the EBASCO control of DBD's? Ebasco to respond.
- 10. Does Ebasco distribution schedule now include FD007 and FVM-SI- EBASCO 007 and 051? Ebasco to respond.
- 11. Do Impell procedures now disallow the attachment of TUE-ECEs to TUE their.IMTS? TUE to provide Cygna with this information.
- 12. What is the status of TUE-EA surveillance report TSR 87-847 TUE TUE is to provide the status.
TUE\03388-A. CON SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET "*9" 2 2
1 3
"""*" u l Communications l
[TLejlfj Report lilllllililllilllillllllllllll q !' { company: CES Telecon h- conference neport )
. Project:
TU Electric J b No 84056 i '_ i CPSES IAP Phase 4 - 3/24/88 subject: 7 """ 700 a.m. CST
- IAP Questions Place-CPS TX Pa. Aipants- '
N. Hottle TU Electric D. Smedley, L. Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action Oy Mr. Hottle and Cygna discussed Engineering Assurance Surveillance Reports and the philosophy in categorizing Discrepancies, Deficiencies and Observations. I l l TUE\032488-C. CON signed: Page of 3 i SEE ATTACllEb DISTRIBUTION blEET. 1020 0 t a
[NE;=1 Communications q [m 2 rit Report lillllllilllllllllilllllllilll 1 Company: Teiecon @ conference neport CES
"'" Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,io: 3/24/88
Subject:
Time: - T CPSES, TX R.M. Shetty, J. Dwyer Ebasco D. Smedley, L Garriott Cygna < Requned Comments Action By Cygna asked Ebasco the following questions:
- 1. Have FVM's CPE-EB-FVM-CS-002 AND 003 had their interface EBASCO-control references revised?
Ebasco responded that FVM-CS-002 was not going to be revised currently because it covers Unit 2 work only and Unit 2 is not being worked on. FVM-CS-003, as well as 9 other FVM's, were being presently revised.
- 2. Has CPE-TD-EB-007 been revised to include implementing procedures for Ebasco-NY and EQE, Inc.?
l Ebasco stated that a DR was written on this and TUE would TUE ! furnish Cygna with a DR#.
- 3. Cygna asked if the Ebasco Distribution Schedule had been revised to include Impell?
Ebasco stated no, it would not be revised because no design information was required to be exchanged per the contract; however, if design information was received by Ebasco from Impell, the information would have to be verified by Ebasco prior to use in accordance with Ebasco acquirements.
" ""8" '
[ jgf , g?/ [ 1 2 SEE ATI'ACliED DISTRIB lion SIIEET. 10200ia
l
! T Communications 4 141 %'fd Report lililllllifilllllilllillllllli item comments [f$"8v
- 4. Cygna asked if E-65-CP had been revised to address DBD's.
Ebasco responded that they use ECE-DC-17 Preparation & Review of DBD's Appendix NN of MOP.
- 5. Does the Ebasco Distribution Schedule.now include CPE-TD-EB-007 and FVM's FVM-SI-007 & 051?
Ebasco responded that the SIP activities were isolated to one group only and as such were not required to be on the schedule. l ( l TUE\032488-A. CON Page SEE ATI'ACIIED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 ae e_-_- __ _ --__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
mer:-f, Communications p=(A' M. te Report llllllI!!11!)ll19111111111111 company: TU Electric T*' econ @ conference nepo Project: PSES Job No. 84056 3/24/88 Information Regarding Actual Work Start Dates 110 p.m. CST for Design Verification by SWEC-CAP & PSAS, p,,c,; Impell-EQ & CTDV, and Ebasco Comanche Peak Participants of l P. Shupp, D. Smedley, E. Moumouris Cygna Required Comments Act on By Meeting was twid with John Soares of TUE concerning actual start CYGNA dates of lead contractor design control activities (i.e. Ebasco, Impel.1-EQ & CTDV, S&W-CAP, and S&W-PSAS). John Soares referred us to PO's for design control and verification activities for each contractor in question for the base line start date and suggested we contact cost and scheduling for initiation of work start dates per work packages. Ile clarified that work packages would have initiated task descriptions which were originally required around 8/86. TUE\032488-D. CON Signed- , Page of nestnnutoa S5E NITACHED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET. 1020 0' e
E a Communications L4 P".1t M Report lilllllilllillllillilIlillilil ly [h g . company: TU Electric @ conference neport N Te'ocon
- Project: Job N p .84056 3/24/88 P " "**' Work Start Dates of Contractors 230 p.m. CST -
TU Eng. Elldg. P. Shupp, D. Smedley, E. Moumouris Cygna l S. Harrison, D. Rencher TU Electric Required Comments Action By Discussed that Scott Harrison wculd obtain start dates for Impell TUE EQ, train-c-conduit, cable tray; Ebasco, and Stone & Webster CAP & PSAS design verification activities in the morning on 3/25/88. Discussed start date of 8/25/85 for S&W PSAS, suggested by Dave Rencher. D. Rencher suggested that we not refer to John Finneian for actual work start dates for S&W PSAS. Clarified that the actual work start dates were needed for completion of time tine on lead contractor design verification and design control procedures. TUE\032488-E. CON signeo ,A eage oi , Distobuten- SE8. ATTACllED DISTRIBUTION SlidET.
~
- w.w.
i Communications l i=m--, [*hDi2IJ Report ) lillillililillllll!!illlllllli l i 4 Company: Conference neport CES Teiecon { l Project. T!! Electric Job No 84056 1 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,1* 032588 subject. T""* Location of Calculation Pkg's For 1000 CST 1AP Questions. piace: CSPES I
Participants:
S. I h is m TU Elec C. Morelock Cygna Hequired Comments Action By Scott Harrison was asked if he could supply the location (s) of three 1 (3) calculation packages. He felt that all were located in the permanent plant records vault (PPRV). l i TUE\032588-D. CON Signed Page y of y SEE ATTACIkED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET. 1020 01a
[? 7:30: Communications 1+hPjJTd Report 11lll!Il1111ll1111111!I1111111 company: Telecon @ conference neport ' CES Project. TU Electric J b No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 *'* 032588 subjec' ""'* Location of Calculation Pkg's for 1100 a.m. CST IAP Questions Place: p g
Participants:
of y j TU Elec C. Morelock Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Harrison the location of 2 structural calculation pkg's that were not contained in the permanent plant records vault as previously reported. Mr. Harrison is checking on the location of those pkg's. TUE\032588-C. CON t A g
*"** g g g ] ) , ,Q ,j f, _ f & 1 1 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
1070 Die
i l,iize:Si . .- Communications z A Uj'fd Report lll!!11111111ll111llll!!Il1111 Company: conference neport CES h Telecon TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,,, 03/25/88 ~
"""I* * ' **'
IAP Questions 11:30 am CST CPSES, TX
"*'"P"" '
R. Shetty Ebasco L Garriott 'Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked for clarification on the following: L Was TD007 going to include the implementing procedures for EBAsco NY-SIP activitier? Ebasco will respond at a later date.
- 2. liow were CPSES issued DBD's controlled and distributed once EBASCO they got to Ebasco NY? Ebasco will respond at a lau:r date.
TUE\032588-C.TEL h M , n8 [,Mg_ l l SEE 1TACIIED DISTR BUTION SilEET. 1070 0ie
L e_ mg Communications [4N t M ' lIl!!!110111111llll1111111!!! Report company: @ conference neport CES Telecon Project' TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 "'* 032588 subject. *** L30 p.m. CST IAP Questions
"'"'" CPSES, TX
""'"P'"'*
L Yeager TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Achon Dy Cygna a:,ked Mr. Yeager which procedure addressed the generation i and control of the DCC Recipient Liu. Mr. Yeager explained that the DCC Recipient List was a self monitoring tool only and as such was not required to be procedurally addressed. i TUE\032588-b. con I MjM , /f[b[
,f l 1 Distnbution I # i SEE ATTACliED DISTRIBUTION SilEET. i c os. I
E:E=N
. :w- A Communications 1 LM%' LV Report illllllillllllilllilllllilllll Cornpany; CES % Teiecon Conference neport )
"' I* Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,,, 03/25/88 subject: ** 1:45 p.m. CST IAP Question l CPSES.TX/NY R. Shetty, E. O'Neill Ebasco L Garriott Cygna
)
Required Comenents Action By
- 1. Ebasco had previously committed to revising TD 007. Cygna asked EBASCO Ebasco if Task Description TD 007 had been revised to include Ebasco NY - Applied Physics procedures and Ebasco stated that TD 007 was in the process of being revised to include Ebasco - NY procedures.
- 2. Cygna asked how DBD's were controlled. Ebasco respwded that DBD's are controlled in E-66-CP by a Control Copy Distdbution List.
TUE\03258%B.TEL
~"""" h Distobuto-W 4Qfw/f{ 1 1 SEE ATI' ACHED DISTRIIIUTION SilEET.
l 1020 0 t m
r gp""- - Communications [4 Pjlfd Report 1111111!!ll11111111111!!111111 l company: CES O Te'ecoa @ coe'ere ce aenori P'I TU Electric Job No, 84056 J CPSES IAP Phase 4 "'* 032588 q subject ' T'"*
. IAP Questions 2:25 p.m. CST '
Place: CPSES TX
Participants:
of g , TUE
'L. Garriott Cygna J Required Comments Action By Cygna requested the technical audit of Ebasco SIP activities.
Barbara furnished Cygna with QA Technical Audit ATP 87-62. TUE\032588-a. con signeo Page of g g y SEE ATTACllED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. i 1020 0 t a
A _; - Communications [4Nlfd< Report lilllfillitilllilllilllllllill Company: Teiecon conference nepori CES
"' M TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 4/28/88 subject- Ti'"*
135 pm PST Ebasco Interface with Impell W.C., CA .
Participants:
of g gg EBASCO L. Garriott Cygna Hoqunted Comments Action ny Mr. Kunis called to clarify Ebasco's direct involvement with Impell. Mr. Kunis stated that Ebasco performs a drafting service only at Impell's direction. Ebasco has the responsibility of the CAD (Computer Assisted Design) program and issuance of the Preliminary As-Built (PAB) and the Final As-Built (FAB) to TUE for distribution per the TUE program. Mr. Kunis also clarified that in 1986 EB-NY sent the PAB to TUE's DCC for distribution to QC and Impell. QC and Impell then performed what was required (inspections, walkdown, design validation) and processed comments accordingly. Ebasco the*1 performed a final roll-up and the resulting product was the FAB. Mr. Kunis stated that in 1987, and presently, the function is being performed at the site. Ebasco would send Impell the FAB's, that fall within Impell's scope of work, for the final approval signature. The exchange of the drawings was controlled per Ebasco procedure l PJ-2-CP. PJ-2-CP required distribution per the Distribution Schedule. Cygna stated that Impell was not currently on the Distribution Schedule. Mr. Kunis then stated that the Engineering Design people knew who to send it to in Impell and that this did not constitute a design interface because Ebasco was only performing drafting services at Impell's request.
\TUE\l42888-A.TEL hmgf},4) ,f$y l 1 l- Distribution SEE .A'I'i' ACHED DISTRIl1UTION SIFEBT.
1020 0 t a
; Communications
[enW TA Report lillllllllillllllillllllli!!!! cornpany: - Teiecon
~
@ conference neport
.TUE Proje ,t: Job No.
84056 5/9/88 subg>ct. ""* Procedure Reviews 1000 a.m. CST CPSES, Texas Par'scipants' of TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Corntnents Action By y. Ted explained the procedure review process. He is responsible for the Design Control procedure reviews and Scott Everett is responsible for Task Description reviews. Their review is for compatibility to the TUE. ECE's verifying appropriate equivalent management level reporting and responsibilities, etc. Any comments made during the revie: process are resolved with the reviewer by the originating organization prior to issuance. Cygna asked where the review criteria was specified and TUE stated it was contained in ECE 1.03 and 1.04. Ted added a memo had been issued to clarify what was meant by compatibility when reviewing procedures as no standard guidelines existed prier to this. Cygna asked how the reviews were standardized. Ted said Scott Everett had the responsibility for assigning the responsible reviewer and for control of the review process. Ted stated that Engineering Assurance reviewr, all ECE's and Scott Everett assures format compliance per ECE 1.03 and 1.04 prior to issuance. QA verifies that ECE's comply with the NEO's. The NEO's are generated out of Dallas which includes Licensing and other Engineering Departments. When the NEO's 3.05 and 3.06 came up for revision this past time, Ted explained that TUE assigned a Task Team consisting of personnel from applicable departments to clean up the procedures and to assure contractor compatibility prior to NEO issuance. All contractor procedures are Signed. Page of ostnbution ' SBS ATTACH 5D DISTRIBUTION SHEET. = _ _ J????'_a_
4: ~X *WAM Communications [q'(C rg Report ummmmmmummu i l Requwed item Comments ' Action By compatible with the current revision of NEO 3.05 and NEO 3.06 because both are currently issued. Ted said the review of NEO 3.05 started approximately October,1987 and the review of NEO 3.06 concluded with its effective date of May 2,1988. When NEO 3.06 was revised, it deleted the requirement for "cause" and " corrective action to prevent reoccurrence" thereby lowering the severity level of the CAR. If, during the review, there is a disconnect between the contractor procedures and at TUE there is nothing that requires TUE to document it. Ted stated that TUE is only responsible for a compatibility review, in that, the contractor's procedure does not specifically conflict with TUE requirements. John Soares might look at the technical requirements. Cygna asked atyaut two (2) CAR's that were previously reported to have been written to address the inconsistent reviews being done on the ECE's as well as Lead Contractor procedures. Ted had no knowledge of any CAR's covering this subject. (S. Everett came by and introduced himself and we set up a meeting for 8:30 a.m., May 10,1988.) Ted stated that CPS QA are the people to speak to about whether any CARS were written on the procedure reviews.
\TUE\050988-C. CON Page c;f SEE ATTACHED D3STRUBUTBON SHEET __ __
2 2
pp,g;;;; Communications-MM 2 M Report illllllillfilllllllllllllllll! . compar>y: TUE conference Report
@ T*'ewn Project. Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP 5/9/88 Subject Ti'"
CARS 10:45 a.m. CST Place: CPS Tms
Participants:
L petty TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Comrnents Action By Mr. Petty was asked by Cygna if he was aware of any CAR's that were written to document contractor and/or TUE procedure review probleins. Mr. Petty stated that he had no knowledge of any CAR's written to address procedure reviews. l TUE\84056\050988-A.TEL Signed: Page g of
}
oistobution SEE N/TACHED DI$TR.19UTiON SIIEET.# 10?0 014
Communications Leibh'Id Report < lilllllllllllllillllllllllllli company: TUE Telecon % conference nepet Project. CPSES Job No. 84056 i' Date: 5/9/88
Subject:
T ""* CAR 1100 a.m. CST
"'"'* CPSES, Texas
Participants:
A. Saunders TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked if any CAR's had been generated against the ECE and lead contractors procedure reviews. Mr. Saunders replied that no CAR's had been initiated to his knowledge. TUE\050988-B. CON l l .
"*9' '
9"**
, g[ gg, 1 1 Distobution: SEE A'ITACOIED DISTEMBUTION SHEET. #
1020 0 t a
- - Communications !
MLW TJ Report llll!Ill11ll111!!!!!I1lll111!! Company:- Te' econ >!< conference Report Ebasco Project: Job No. P ES 84056 , oate: 5/9/88
. Subject. Time:
ST TUE Eng. Bldg.
"**'P*"
H. Kunis Ebasco N. Williams, D. Smedley, E. Dotson Cygna ; i Required Comments Action Oy . Mr. Kunis agreed that Impell is not on Ebasco's distribution schedule EBASCO for design control interface. He cited procedure PJ2 for example of transmittal letters. He maintained that there is no Ebasco/Impell design interface. The drawing transmittal is an Ebasco drafting service for Impell. However, he stated that Impell would be added to the Distribution Matrix. TUE\050988-A. CON l Signed- Page of oisinbution SEE NITACTIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET. l ic70oi.
= Communications AM TJ Report lilllilllllilllillillllllllill
- company: . Teiecon @ conference Report TUE Project:
P ES MP Job No. 84056 5/10/88 subrect- " Procedure Reviews 830 a.m. CST CPSES, Texas
Participants:
S. Everett TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action Dy Cygna asked Mr. Everett to explain the procedure review process and Scott said he is responsible for assigning the appropriate reviewers and also verifying everything in the procedures except design control. He also reviews for format, impact and assures the review cycle is completed prior to issuing the procedures. Scott added that the Engineering Assurance Evaluations Group reviews for design control interface and technical content. ECE 1.01 requires review of contractor procedures. Cygna asked j what review criteria was used and Scott stated that TUE memo NE- ! 17929, dated March 22, 1988 from Owen Lowe to distribution titled "CPSES Review Guidelines for Engineering Lead Contractor Procedures" was now being used to clarify what is meant by
" compatibility review", Specific disciplines do technical review for all lead contractor procedures.
Cygna reviewed NE-17929 - the content was as follows: I. Objectives are the same II. Definitions III. Level of responsibility same as similar processes I V. Technical requirements are specified hhg g/J'yg, "** 1 2 D'5tabutm" SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHE5T. _ _ _ - _ _ Co
w--+ Communications PhM'I/i lilllllllillll3 tililllllllll Report 6 -- Required Item Comments Action By v.
~
Form 9*. of documents are identical (DCA, NCR, DR, 5pec. drawings) VI. Review and approval identical VII. Document flow has the same objectives Scott said John Soares is responsible for the Task Descriptions and their review. o Program Compliance o Verifies correctness o Adequate procedures o Adequate interfaces Scott Everett stated he has final control of content and format. If the procedures do not comply with the requirement a "Stop Work" is - always an option. TUE\051088-A. CON SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET ""9" 2 _ _ _ 2' '_ _
1 " e- Communications [4'O-H IJ Report llllII11111111111111111ll11111 3 1 company: [] conference neport TUE @ Teiecon Project:' Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP 5/10/88 l subject: T ' ** Procedure Reference for Ebasco Interface 1:00 p.rn. CST with EQE, Inc.
]s CPSES, Texas
Participants:
Tm FW Ebasco Cygna l L. Garriott Requred Comments Action By Tom called to provide the procedure references controlling Ebasco interface with EQE, Inc. for SIP related activities.
- 1. TD007
- 2. EME 2.24 and 2.24-01, paragraph 6.4.b.3 and Section 7.
- 3. ECE 2.24, paragraphs 4.2, 4.3, 6.1, 6.4, and 6.5, and Figure 7.1 and 7.2.
- 4. EME 2.24-01, paragraphs 3.8, 3.9, 3.5, 6.2.1, 6.23, and Figure 7.4.
- 5. FVM-SI-040, Section 5.
EQE is not an external organization on site. TUE\84056\051088-A.TEL signeo y page o,
; y oistnbution. SEB ATi'ACllED blSTRIBUTION SHEET.
1020 0 ta
a L Communications i g NieR TJ Report , lllI11111ll!!11111111111!I1111
]
)
company: conference neport 1 TUE T*' econ ( Project: Job N p 84056 5/11/8 8 subject: '""* Ebasco Interface with EQE, Inc. 1:00 p.m. CST l CPSES, Texas Parbespants: ' D. Lourie/B. Leo Ebasco J. Barker TUE D. Smedley/L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna asked Ebasco where the interface controls were to control communications with EQE, Inc. Ebasco responded that there was no prescribed method and that they would generate a DR and would evaluate the impact of this omission. Ebasco additionally committed to revising the appropriate procedure. The DR# will be DR#C 02837. TUE\051188-A. CON signed Page of Distnbution IEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION S11EET.
' 10?0 0$ a
e Communications les'Ohi Report llll1111llll1111111111111!!I11 ; company TUE O Te'ecen E con'erence neve<< Project: Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP ,- 5/11/8 8
Subject:
' T ' ** l Status of Cgna Research 350 p.m. CST Place:
CPSES, Texas
Participants:
of gg TUE L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By Discussed the completed items for the day and proposed schedule for Thursday, May 12, 1988. I i l 1 TUE\84056\051188-B. CON signed: page or 3 3 Distribution: SEE NI'TACIIED DISTRIBUTION'SIIEET. 1020 Dia
i I F- ; Communications [W i M Report l lillllllllllllllllilllllllllll Company: ece 5 conference nepon CES
"' # Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,,,: 5-12-88 subject: "* Design Change Authorization Trending and 09:30 AM CDT Engineering Assurance Surveillance of Same pi,co , TU Engineering Bldg. ! Participants- of . Nelson Hottle TU Elec. Eng. Assurance C. Morelock Cygna i Required Comments Action By
- 1. Ted Porfilio and Nelson Hottle were asked to meet with Cygna on this day to discuss DCA trending and clarify points in that program where Cygna has questions.
- 2. C. Morelock asked Mr. Porfilio how " design errors" are differentiated from " design deficiencies."
Mr. Porfilio explained that any design change will have a reason that it was brought about. That reason is evaluated against the definition of a " design deficiency." If it meets this definition, it is treated as one. If it does not meet this definition, it is treated as a design error (not subject to deficiency reporting). j
- 3. C. Morelock asked Mr. Porfilio if " design errors" is defined in procedure or elsewhere in the program.
Mr. Porfilio stated that at this time if is not formally defined, but that it would be in the future.
- 4. Mr. Morelock then described his understanding of the DCA trending
" paper path." Mr? Porfilio indicated it was accurate.
TUE\051288-A. CON 8Wgkh /),8?w /k 1 l Distr but'An ' ' SEE ATT'A'CilED DISTRII5UTION SHEET. 1070 0 t a
~
l ISig=i Communications (qM' f3 Report lilllllillllllilllifilillllill company: conterence nepori ' TUE @ Teiecon j Project: Job No. CPSES IAP 84056 Date: June 6,1988
Subject:
Inadequate Procedure Reviews 9D0 a.m. PST Walnut Creek, CA
Participants:
of . L D. Garriott Cygna l Required Comments Action Dy Mr. Saunders called to get clarification of Cygna's procedure review question. Cygna stated that the contractors procedure review errors had been TUE documented by Engineering Assurance on surveillance reports but we had not seen anything requiring TUE to evaluate the procedure review process. Mr. Saunders said he would follow up on this issue. TUE\060688-A.TEL g .47 l'mg',_ l 1 Distnbution- SE8 ATTACifED DISTRIBUTION'N SHEET. 10J0 05 e
i l==>-= Communications j [.41%W Report lillllllllllllllllllllillllill i Company: TUE h Telecon Conference neport Project: CPSES IAP Job No- 84056 June 7,1988
Subject:
Procedure Review Adequacy 9:30 f.tn. PST
"*** Walnut Creek, CA
Participants:
Al Sau & s. TUE L D. Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By Mr. Saunders called to notify Cygna that TUE Engineering Assurance was reissuing the surveillance reports concerning procedure reviews performed by the contractors. By reissuing these surveillance reports, Mr. Saunders is requiring TUE action with respect to effectiveness of procedure reviews. l i TUE\060788-B.TEL signed page of
,p L,p 3 3 oisinuution 'SEE Nfi~ACilED DISTRIBUTION SilEET.
1020 0 \ a
E:- u Communications re - 1e(*12Id Report lifilllllllilllillllllllilllli ornpany Cygna Telecon Conference Report Project. Job No. 84056 Commanche Peak IAP Date 7/7/88 subject: Time: 1:25 CST Design Control Questions Place: CPSES Participants' Owen Lowe, Jim Muffit, Al Saunders of TU Electric N. Williams, D. Smedley Cygna Required Comments Action By
- 1) Cygna asked about the interface between Ebasco and TU Impell concerning the transference of as-built drawings from site to Impell through the Ebasco CAD group. The question is: What are the controls and is Cygna's understanding of the process correct. Also determine if Impell has been added to the Ebasco distribution schedule and check for remedial corrective action if warranted. Cygna to review the status of DR #C--8 8-02 8 3 7.
- 2) Cygna asked whether or not the NEO policy statement Cygna covering NCRs and DRs was consistent with the lower tier ECE procedures. Cygna's question was directed at "non-significant design errors" and " design deficiency" which were not apparently part of the NEO procedures. TU Electric has revised the program (NEO) to address the functional system which has previously been in place. Cygna will review the revised NEO policies.
- 3) Cygna asked about the level of review required by TU Impell procedure PI-AO-05. Cygna reviews indicate that project addenda may not be reviewed using the same criteria as original issues, TU to determine what level of review is performed and how procedure meets intent of requisite standards.
s
. g g 1 2 Distribution 1020 01a j
~~f" ; Communications.
MMM illllililllllillllllillllillll Report Requred Item Comments Action By l
- 4) Cygna asked about the level of detail concerning TU SWEC/PSAS review of project memoranda and about the amount of outstanding project memoranda against a SWEC procedure. TU was to evaluate the responses to EASR 87-77 and transmit completed surveillance report to Cygna.
- 5) Cygna questioned the status of TSR 87-55 which TU addressed the existence of superceded and outdated procedures. It was determined that TSR 87-55 was closed. TU to evaluate responses and determine whether Cygna's question had been answered and transmit current copy to Cygna for review.
- 6) Cygna questioned the excessive number of errors TU which had been detected during the reviews of procedures and asked TU to assess why the review and approval cycle did not appear to be effective.
- 7) Cygna questioned the status of EASR 87-79 concerning TU document control of procedures in manuals. TU to provide current copy of report to Cygna for review.
- 8) Cygna asked whether or not any audits had been TU performed, by Ebasco, of their Atlanta office and whether or not the existence of an audit program satisfies TU's requirement for " surveillance and audit program." TU act ion to check audit program and make objective evidence available to Cygna.
- 9) Cygna questioned the audits of the System Interaction TU Program (SIP). Cygna could not find audits as required. Tu has written a DR and committed to provide a current copy for Cygna review.
Page of 2 1020 Dib
l
""=- , Communications
[4M'M lililllllllllillllllilllillll! Report
.a Company: conference neport CES $ Teiecon
"'I"
TU Electric d b"-84056 i CPSES IAP oo,.. 7/12/88 subini: "'"" l Document Request 12:40 p.m. PST Walnut Creek A. Sanders TU Electric L Garrictt Cygna Required Comments Action By Cygna requested that copies of the most current documents, as listed below, be forwarded to the Impell Reading Room.
- 1. CAR 88-020
- 2. CAR 88-006
- 3. Audit TCP 87-24
- 4. EA Surveillance Report TSR 87-55
- 5. EA Surveillance Report TSR 87-84
- 6. EA Surveillance Report TSR 87-85
- 7. EA Surveillance Report TSR 87-59
- 8. EA Surveillance Report EASR 87-60
- 9. EA Surveillance Report EASR 87-79
- 10. EA Surveillance Report EASR 87-83
- 11. DR C-88-02837
- 12. DR C-88-00268
\TUE\071288-A.TEL n s D'5tobuten h ff) w d )
SEE'A1TAClihD DISTITI6UTION SIIEET. [ ] k ""** 1 1 1020 0ia
L L Communications L [4 h 'Td 11111111111111ll11111111111111 Report { Company: CES O 'e' ecee 3 coete,eece neao<t Project. Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 g,,, 7/21/88 sect: "** Design Control Questions 200 p.m. PST mace: CPSES
Participants:
A. Saunders TU Electric D. Smedley, R. Seyferth, L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By TU Electric was providing reference material tc. "ygna for review via the Impell Reading Room. Cygna had previvedy asked TUE question on 07/07/88 concerning Design Control. TU Electric briefly vrent through the issues and gave Cygna document numbers and explanations which should address those questions. The document / explanations were as follows:
- 1) Cygna previously asked if our understanding of the Ebasco and CYGNA/TUE Impell interface was correct- TUE stated that it was correct and TUE was yet to write an impact statement on the lack of documented interface between Ebasco and Impell TUE notified Cygna the Ebasco Distribution Schedule had been revised as of 5/25/88 to include Impell. Cygna is to review DR C884)2837 for the Ebasco-EQE, Inc. interface.
- 2) Cygna is to review NEO 3.05 snd ECE 3.05 to assure CYGNA consistency between the two definitions of hficiencies. TUE also stated memo NE-20650 was written by 't UE to clarify this area.
- 3) TUE stated Impell had written memo IM-T-0210-043-003 to CYGNA clarify the level of review of project addenda.
- 4) TUE said the use and approval of SWEC PSAS Project CYGNA procedures was documented in EASR 87-77, memo NE-20704 and NE-20648.
,, ,/) f,/ q 1 2
*St"oution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION 5 FLEET.
lier Communications N 51 Td Report ll1111111111111111111111111111
.f Required item Comments Action By
- 5) TUE responded that TSR 87-55, 59, 60 & 77 eppeared to answer CYGNA Cygna's questions about superseded procedures and that a closed copy was available for review at Impell, W.C. TUE added that memos NE 20727,17929, and 20575 further clarified this issue.
TUE stated that the controlled document distribution question was answered in EASR 87-79 and memo NE 20593.
- 6) TUE responded to Cygna's question on the crewive number of CYGNA errors noted during Cygna's procedure review by saying that memos NE 20727,17929 and 20575 analyzed the impact and -
severity of the errors. The memos were available for Cygna's review in the impell reading room.
- 7) TU Electric said the current copy of EASR 87-79 was available CYGNA for review in response to Cygna's procedure control question.
- 8) TU Electric stated that TUE QA Audits ATP 87-01, ATP S7-035 CYGNA and Ebasco audit CP-ATL-187 were performed on the Ebasco Atlanta work scope and were in the Impell reading room for Cygna's review. TUE additionally notified Cygna that Ebasco's lack of a surveillance program did not violate any TUE requirements and memo NE 20701 clarified TUES stand on this
. question.
- 9) TUE notified Cygna that an Ebasco SIP audit for 1986 was TCP CYGNA 86-29 and for 1987 was NY2858 and AP-NY-287. TUE stated that they had performed an extensive audit in December '87 which was a joint Technical and QA Audit #87-62. These audits were available for Cygna's review in the Impell reading roorn.
TUE\072188-A.TEL SEE ATTACllED DISTRIBUTION SHEET . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ 2. _ _2 _ _ _ _
F"S"= Communications 14 M Id Report lililllllllillllllllllilllilli Company. Teiecon CES -
@ conference nepori Project:
TU Electric J t) No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,,, 7/22/88 sut>iect: "** l Design Centrol Questions 1:00 p.m. PST Walnut Creek, CA
Participants:
of TU Electric D. Smedley, R. Seyferth, L Garriott Cygna Required Comments Action By i Cygna riviewed the reference material TU Electric brought to the Impell reading room in response to question previously asked. After Cygna's review of the memos, auc4ts and surveillance Cygna sequested additional clarification from TUE on the following:
- 1. Cygna understood TUE was to document an evaluation of Impell's TUE response to Cygna's question about Impell's use of procedure addendas. Cygna was unable to find any documentation to substantiate this. TUE stated it had not been done but they would make the determination and send it to the Impell reading room.
- 2. Cygna is to determine all specific issues which still require TUE CYGNA clarification and notifi/ TUE on Tuesday ?/26.
- 3. Cygna told TUE that the audits of SIP performed by Ebasco and TUE TUE answered Cygna's questions, however, Ebasco did not appear to be auditing any site activities which is contrary to what Cygna had been previously told. TUE originally reported that Ebasco had design respmsibility even though the SIP activities were being performed to a TU Electric program.
\TUE\072288-A. CON
~
signed Page e' i 1 oisint>ution SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION 4)iEET. 1020 Die}}