ML20206U422
| ML20206U422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Hou S NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Shao L NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19284C882 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607100485 | |
| Download: ML20206U422 (2) | |
Text
..
~
i.,
~
)
I 1l,
.;.g.
)
't 83
)
', * ! ( 1 !, ', t f * *. g * '.
,.,,, * [a'. '.
,l
- '3 f
=, '.....: r
,w.
~
g
.,73 p,3
..:..i.,,.
{s J
[
.. r..... e.
,,.r*'.*
C-
!'l'U'r a
r j.7 51 + > < : i.. ii: a l Te,a '
s
.p.. n.. o.,; v.T
.j g., j u y-c c.,0...
- e. : n....s i e n !!.' i
cchanical I, Diping, TRT S!'E. JECT :
I:;TERVIB.* l'IT!: ALLFCERS (ll/S/f/-ll/It./0/. )
Enclesed herev ith are sun.naries of recent intervier s v ith alle ers conducted ty TRT r.enbers in the i:echanical F. Pipin; area.
iii g hl i: ',ts of discussions, interview results, and suggested follo.:vp actions. if a ny,' are incl ur.'ed.
f d'
i l
W Wl S'.e's-nien !b.*
"c:hs-ic-1 : ? i ;- i r. _, " -
l l:
- F0lA-85-59 hofg5860624 DR GARDE 85-59 PDR
~~\\ D t.- NFl!)EN11 Al. - h0] h* Pl'lil.1 C 111 SCI.hSI'Kl.
Follow up Interview Vith On the TRT met with to revity with him the conclusions of the TRT's review of his co n t < i n s... t Con.a n c h e Pc. L S t r.o..
Elect ric Stat ion.
The f o l l ow i ng i t en :. were di s c uss.cil:
~
(1) All Category 10 i
This concern dealt with intimidation of the alleger because i
hc made suggestions on how to redesign soine hangers in a tunnel.
The TRT told M that it could find nt, technical concerns
~
)
and that this allegation had been referred to 01 for further review. M said that. the transcript of the telephone interview written by' 01
- review, After M, on which the TR1 asked its was incorrect.
related the incident to the TRT in detail, it was evident that the original conclusion by the
)
TRT was still applicable.
4 (2) AP-24 through AP-28 Categories 34 and 35 These concerns primarily dealt with the verif.ication and valida-tion of computer. programs, seismic spectra and Class 3 & 5 piping interaction.
The TF,T told M,that all of the computer programs that he.leferred to, i.e. baseplate and piping analyses programs, had acceptable benchmark documenta-tion.
All of these programs also had acceptance traceability of their previous revisions which showed the proper follow-up actions where requi red.
The TRT also told M that the development of the response spectra described in the FSAR was acceptable and the interacticn of the seismic and non-seismic piping had been properly accounted for by the Damage Study Group.
I corr.nented on all the TRT's reviews by stating that he thought the TRT did more work on his concerns than he expected.
He also said that he was really concerned more about whether the correct input data was being used in the computer programs to result in a properly designed piping and support s9 stem and he could not understand why design criteria was constantly changing.
The TR1 ex;.lained toMthe function of QA/QC at nuclear facility and also said that a
" growing pains" in design is a normal occurrence.
The important fact is that design c6nt rol i s implemented to provide reasonable l
assurance that the designs are acceptable.
R..'lasterson - TRT tiember
~,
s
(
l l
l
~. -.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _, -.. _ _ _ _