ML20199G133
| ML20199G133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1985 |
| From: | Shao L NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Scinto J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J178 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606250093 | |
| Download: ML20199G133 (1) | |
Text
j
~
.e l
/
es caro j
3
+
o UNITED STATES GAL g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*****$'
[
MAR 2 51985 i
q NOTE T0:
Joe Scinto FROM:
L. Shao, Group Leader, Civil / Mechanical Groups Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
SUBJECT:
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MECHANICAL AND QA/QC SSER i
4
)
In your note to me and Herb Livermore on 3/8/85, you pointed out some inconsistencies between three Mechanical / Piping SSERs and three related
{
QA/QC SSERs. The following is our response:
1.
Mech 2 (AQW 30) vs QA/QC AQ 7 5
After discussion with QA/QC, we both concluded that the subject matter related to AQ-7 will be covered under AQW-30 in Mech 2.
2.
Mech 43 vs QA/QC 8 4
The subject matter on liner plate has been discussed and resolved in j
such a way that we refer all QA/QC aspects to QA/QC 8 and they refer a
all mechanical / piping aspects to Mech 43. As for what kind of picture to represent TRT as a whole, I think it has to be decided by Noonan.
3.
Mech 10 vs QA/QC AQ 61 We found that these two SSERs do not address the same subject matter.
J Mech 10 relates to a gouge in pipe and QA/QC AQ 61 relates to gouges
[
in a structure member.
They even have different allegers.
1 h
Dr. Hou in our Group has discussed with Herb Livermore and Herb agreed with
(
above resolutions.
k t
L. C. Shao, <roup Leader Civil / Mechanical Groups Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
)!.
cc:
D. Eisenhut V. Noonon i
laulam m 6
S.
ou
-R. C. Tang P. Chen kN hofj3 860611 c r GARDE 85-59 PDR I
I.- % -
.