ML20024B477

Discusses Potential Safety Concern (PSC) Re Secondary Side Auxiliary Feedwater Control Level.Positive 6-ft Control Approved in Summer 1977.Return to 40-ft Control Studied. Potential Obstructions Nonexistent.Psc Should Be Withdrawn

ML20024B477
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/03/1978
From:	Dunn B BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
To:	Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
References
TASK-06, TASK-6, TASK-GB GPU-2704, NUDOCS 8307090002
Download: ML20024B477 (6)

Text

-- _ - _ _ - - _ _ -. -- . - _ _ _ - . _- - - - _ _ . ..

l' 1

6, hj :rf,L.~--.

Tat cABCoCx a w.COX COMPANY 7I ~

PO'. 2R GD ERAT 10!1, CROUP NOV 6 IS E 1

To l J.9. TAYLO? t'A*!*GER.1.TCENSING [7 j

, from B.M. DufM. fWl3GER. ECCS A?!At.YSIS (2138) h!,h g .y se s =._.

Cust. File No.

'. or Ref. ,

Subj. Date

' patential Safety Coseern -

November 3.1978 i

jn.....i............-....,.

After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against

the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feeduater congr9t i j

,4I Thave reached the conclusion that the concern fe-ef-M Qevel a.pA -uMb'y n examination of the paper trail leads to a belief .

that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant-of' these.. con-

> cerns. We do not m3nage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignoract-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So,long as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'.theIkey word.

~

towardresoluJtonof problems with de:ign changes exists. I believe there is no safety concern

regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were.alGays aware of.

> the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always

, existed. ,

s The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, i as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate systsm to compensate for t.se 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely.

path has been followed. Ther-efore.-no safety-concern. exists..ip_my mi_nd.

Whythen'dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the ~

' surrounding organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of '

> 4/4/J8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, althoughd believe it,to-

' . be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-tial obstructi'ons are today nonexistent and this PSC

withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the s memo. cements igshould eithe BMG/lc . , , , ,

i cc: E.A. Womack R.C. Jones Y ' h9 ?!#*E '4

• fibW

. N.H. Shah / f 'Jj g.,g4 Y x oAn M

! S u. ' /Ju. du een

. v ej ,. & , ,,. .qy.A ll, un , <n.ctdQgg,R[/

-M ..

m.4 r .

. j V ,.. ,

.u. w, .L p y. & , g g.

. : . . / n, c.,.< -v . 3...: , 3 :. , 4,,

8307090002 781103 l PDR ADOCK 05000289 P HOL O

( 1l W2.i .k

- _ _ . - - - - ..m

. y..

e y34

kY' ~ -

N f*

Q(, .g /"/.  ;. r . r.o

' Tilt CASCOCX 4 Wl'.COX COMP ANY / '/_ '...

. PO'. ER GENERATION, CROUP

- ~~~~

W 6 ISTE en an/d J.H. TAYLOS t'*,*MGER. LICE;istflG from B.M. 00?l'l. fW MGER. ECCS A'!ALYSIS (2138) h. A <* y ses =._

. Cust. File No.

2 or Ref.

Subj . Date

' Patential Safety Coseern November 3. 1978 g...............................,.

After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrg1AO 1evel fy -e W ITgThave reached the conclusion that the concern McF Fg (M.pSr-6attir^e#o$Ty. nn examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ pc:ential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignerant of" t.V.se.. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, hcwever, and we.were not ignorant-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So lo'ng as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive toward resoluJtpath'.theon' of ' key word.

problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safetJ' concern i- regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were ainays aware of.

the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always

,. existed. .

The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sunser of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore -no safety-concern. exists..in__my_ mind. ,

Why the dkECCS file a PSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the '

surroun ing organizations which control,.our funding and work flow. As of

• 4/4/)8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the planp'and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although4 believe it.to-

. 'be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-

' tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,,. considered resolved, per the cc:=ents in this memo.

BMD/lc gg z ,.

cc:

g i g ack bO E U M il.. .

. H.H. Shah y f 'jd 3.,g4

(,5 c t. '/ke :6 o e me a m en-rY M oAU-stb-s~Y kY .Yr h , ,,. e l$.4 f.' .f.,

~ .g.,.. . ,.-y....v,_,.,s

... n .,

,...: , .u.m, y a m a x.

<_.uIS2d M .#J% ._

~

.\f .. 'J . .Y

1 6, . j tr/f..~- .

L . ,

'T;It i:ASC00X & Wl' COX C0 'PANY 7

1 .

POM R GENERATION, CROUP NOV 6 IS[ .~

To l j J.H. TAYLO? I'A*!AGER. LICU3SiflG 7M CWd7

. frota .

B.M. 00ft'l. fCf0MR. ECCS A!!ALYSIS (2138) hk C. ru .

ses =__

! Cust. File No.

• or Ref.

Subj. Date

' patential safatv Concern Novemter 3. 1978 ln.....i......................%,.

After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O

the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrg,1 A

level urig'ly. Jpg* Thave reached the conclusion that the concern M

~

M (M.pA on en examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant of' these.. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorant-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So,lo'ng ~

as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path',toward resofuJt on of l problems with design changes exists I believe there is no safety concern i regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Iritegration were.alnays aware of.

7 the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always existed.

' : The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, i as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-l nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely-path has been followed. Therefore.-no-safety-concern. exists..in_.my mi.nd. ,

^

Why then,dbCCS file a PSC? I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the ~

surrounding organizations which control,.our funding and work flow. As *of 4/4/18 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /acd that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although4 believe it.to-

-'be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cements igs r.emo.

• M F cc: E.A. Womack Qn'g,W'g-"'Wj* e .' g ebW 6"N

• R.C. Jones

. N.H. Shah ,7 f 'JJ 3.,g4 S u. ' /k e Lem. a A um %-

awen-rYp$Q(;f{W M k

\ -h-v.4ejj&n.. ..

.x t .

r.

. . r . V ,.. . .u. .,: -

p y f p p , g , g , ,.

.- . .y . .

t.c..e y ...: , a :. ,.a_g,..

)i .-_ M '. .

_ . . 925.--k

l .

N,, . .) :rlk..-l.

7~

Tile i:ASCOC:( 4 Wl'.COX COMPANY PO'.ER GENERAT10N, CROUP NOV 6 19 [ -

' Spa ,99cd' /

J M. TAYl.0? P* *GGER. 1.1CENSit!G frote B.M. Duml FC'MGER. ECCS A'lAt.YSIS (2138)

M, g , ses =~

Cust. File No.

' or Ref.

Subj. Date ,

' Pn+antial safety concern November 3,1978 l,w....i..........................,.

After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against the 205 plants in re ards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater cong1 AO level f p :q;Tpf T have reached the conclusion that the concern 9de F Fg (M.p&$fr-nature'oril . n examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of. potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant of these. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorar;t-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is So,long as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'.the~ key word.towardres problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safety concern i regardless of equipeent status. ECCS and Integration were.alnays aware of.

the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution alt:ays

,. existed. .

The key change to a positive 6 foot control was cade in the summer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation.

. as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to ucarade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a 1hitcal and timely path has been followed. There fore .-no - safety- co ncern.exi s ts. .in__my._m_f nd.

Why the 'dkECCS file a PSC7 I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the '

surrounding organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of

• 4/4B8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although l believe it to-be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those pdten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cc=ments in this riemo.

BMD/lc g .. g , y ,, ,

cc:

i t g a;* bl.mnud!ik l . N.H. Shah y[ f 'f d g %

(.,5 c t. ' !/ c !va ek, a w MY M OA U+t Y Y Y ~ .' .' Y r ,.* ,,, h r er.. e y.b ,? ~~. ,

Y d hj

' A L .

, r'. r... a u. v.,: u } Q [.

. r . .- , .. .,.

_ - . .. _ = _. ... _ , , . ____. _ _ _,

l' II( 9-i .

~

i

• . ; , ~

O'54

e b, . .a t ;ff, e -A

l. ,

' Tile CASC00X l. Wl'.COX COMPANY NOV 619[7I J

. PON R GENERAT10N, CROUP To l J.P. TAYLO'J t'A*f *GER.1.lCENSiflG hd8h frote B.M. Dutcl. tWMMR. TCCS A'lAl.YSIS (2138) NS Wey ses  :._.

Cust. File No.

' or Ref.

Subj. Date patential Safety Concern November 3.1978 liu,...i....................,.

After discussing the question of the 9otential Safety concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrgig I""g' Qevel Jg e-ish$nly.fghave reached the conclusion a.pA attire an examination of the paper trail that leadsthe to aconcern belief 55 ,

that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of_ potential

ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were ignorant-of these..cca-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorar)t-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So lo'ng as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJon',of t problems with design changes exists, I believe there is no safet7 concern i regardless of equipment status. ECCS and Integration were al#ays aware of.

2 the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always

. existed. .

The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation.

i as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system to compensate for t.te 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore.-no-safety-concern. exists..in._m_y mi.nd. ,

dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe the fault lies within ECCS and the ~

Why surroun thehing organizations wnich control,o,ur funding and work flow. As of' 4/4/18 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and i manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although 1 believe it,to-l be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-

tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be .

withdrawn or. considered resolved, per the cements in this memo.

! " J 8MD/lc f g g.7 h, I cc: E.A. Womack h;"P N' h N *,,",,,i 5 h '-:" d R.C. Jones

. N.H. Shah yff',pd g.,g g

(,0 e t. '!k c6 o e m .e w m4-Y M o.Yt>-st Y Y iAn.4 . ,.' , Y e,le , , &

4-h.esl:n Whhk.p(p 4 ;f,

,g g;

-, . .o V ,.. . .u. ,.

p yf n . .- e.c..< .. .., . .

3 . .: ,  :. ..m _

c.niSzi 02-l6 #M -- - -

.. ; i .,

, .O o.. t:-

- ., . .. . __ _ _. . _ - - - - _ = -- - - . - .

4

~

f>,,g . .,e :r/ , -1_

[ . ,

T THE cABCOCX & Wl'.COX COMPANY l

PON R GENERAT10N, CROUP NOV 619[I~~

To l

= 4P4 a 70di J.H. TAYLO2 t'.A*!*GER. LICE!1SitlG From B.M. Dutt!!. tW 4ER. i'CCS A!!ALYSIS (2138) hk '

C. A,.. s e s' _

Cust. -s File No. '

- or Ref. ,,

I Subj. -

Date

' Patentin1 Safety Concern November 3.1978 l.....i...................,. y

. . . . o After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against the 205 plants in regards to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater congrgt i j 1evel E ?f have reached the conclusion that the concern teef-M (M.pA ur 'y n examination of the' paper tr&il leads to's belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant.of' these. con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignnant- '

i of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the' key word. So,lo'ng ~

as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJt on of problems with design changes exists, I bcileve there is no safety concern

i regardless of equiprrent status. ECCS and Irftegration were.always aware of.

j .

the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resolution always i

• existed. -

t ' /

The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, i as at that time we believed it was probably acceptable. We were wrong as documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studias to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-I nate system to compensate for t.te 6 foot level. Again, a logical and tiroely-l ,

path has been followed. Ther.efore e-no-safety-concern. exists..in_my_mt in,d.

Why the dkECCSfileaPSC7 I believe,the fault lies within ECCS and the '

surroun ing organizations which control,our funding and work flow. As of

• 4/4/J8 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although 1 believe it.to-

, be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. . For whatever reasons, tho,sn poten-tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cements i s memo.

BM0/lc g qg., , ,.

cc: E.A. Womack Q-g*[*d g e I D'

• R.C. Jones

, N.H. Shah yj f ')J wm

& u. ' % ' d m . ,, n n e v' x a. L 4 . 3 M kbR $af, Av - > .1 rl , 6 r , . ..

n.4 . .

yu ;,s m ,,, ,, c.

.:.. / v,.c - .

. /.. v ,..

.y .

., . .,:. :;..t

...

, ..a_(,

%n0

.. I i

.- n. .; p. .

~ .. . -

l '. . , b,l.& :r/$. ~-

' Tile BASCOCX & Wl'.COX CC".PANY

}' I PO' ER GENERATION, CROUP NOV 619II

&M a7a/l To l J.P. TAYl.0? U.*,'!ACER, t.ICGSit!G Frate B.M. 00f't. FW!sMR. ECCS A!!At.YSIS (2138) h4, A), ses r-Cust. File No.

or Ref.

Subj. Date

' Pntantial Safety Con <cern November 3.1973 ln..............................,.

After discussing the question of the Potential Safety Concern filed against O the 205 plants in rega,rds to the secondary side auxiliary feedwater cong,F1A lev 0,7fg7 have reached the conclusion that the concern W-c M- (M.p$el fge-epfrdrily. r-natur nn examination of the paper trail leads to a belief that we altered and perhaps shipped equipment before resolution of potential ECCS concerns were achieved and that further we were igncrant of' these . con-cerns. We do not manage by paper alone, however, and we.were not ignorant-of the potential concerns. I believe " ignorant" is the ' key word. So,lo'ng as a responsible, recognizable, and responsive path'toward resoluJt on of problems with design ch:nges exists I believe there is no safetJ' concern i regardless of equipment status. ECCS and In'tegration were alnays aware of.

the problem with a 6 foot level control and the path for resoluticn always

,r.isted.

e ,

The key change to a positive 6 foot control was made in the sumer of 1977.

ECCS was consulted and gave verbal approval, pending analysis confirmation, i as at that time we believed it was prcbably acceptable. We were wrong as

. documented in the PSC of 4/4/78. At present, we are engaged in studfas to decide whether to return to a 40 foot level control or to upgrade an alter-nate system te compensate for t.1e 6 foot level. Again, a logical and timely path has been followed. Therefore.-no safety-concern. exists..in__my m.f.nd.

Why the dkECCSfileaPSC? I believe the fault lies within ECCS and the '

surroun ing organizations which control,.c,ur funding and work flow. As of

• 4/4/78 we felt we had a problem with the design of the plant /and that serious obstructions to resolution would exist in obtaining' funding and manpower to resolve the concern. Our response, although I believe it..to-

' be inappropriate, was to file the PSC. For whatever reasons, those poten-

' tial obstructions are today nonexistent and this PSC should either be withdrawn or,. considered resolved, per the cccments in this memo.

B.MD/lc g g. g ., ,,.

cc: E.A. Womack Q ',-g' g'h' y* , ,,W i' { I' W R.C. Jones

. N.H. Shah / f 'Jd g.,mg i

vuu.%dm o A -m L 3 Av .Y cl,. 6,.n &. ,74 t n <nd'N~~ x$5 ;(;R *,

n.j+,.r...- .u. .

. /. V ,..

..g;,:,;._, p 74 g.c ,g..z.

., . . .: , . , 4,

c. mszq 248 og 03i;-