ML20210P797

Submits Comparison of Util & Tera Responses to Comments Contained in Noonan 850809 & 0930 Ltrs Re Inconsistencies in Mechanical Discipline

ML20210P797
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Nevshemal J NRC
To:	Norkin D NRC
Shared Package
ML20198G216	List: ML20198G214 ML20210P747 ML20210P797 ML20210P833
References
FOIA-86-38 NUDOCS 8605130507
Download: ML20210P797 (8)

Text

-

. _ ~ . - , - . . . . . - . .

. l DATE: December 12, 1985 TO: Don Norkin FROM: John Nevshemal

SUBJECT:

Mechanical Discipline - Comparison of the TUGC0 and TERA Responses to the Comments Contained in Noonan's Letters Dated 8/9/85 and 9/30/85.

The following are the results of an item by item comparison of the TUGC0 responses contained in the Counsil to Noonan letter dated 11/22/85 to the TERA i responses presented in draft NRC/I&E letter (Taylor to Counsil). The results presented herein are keyed to the item designation utilizied in the Taylor letter.

Item (Mech) Comment Notes App 6 (DAP 3.2)

(5) Responses are consistent (6) Responses are consistent (1)

(7) Responses sre consister.t (1) '

(9) Responses are consistent (1)  ;

(1),(3)  !

App 9 (DSAP X)

(3) Responses are consistent (4) Responses are consistent (1)

( W X (9) (1)

Responses have a MINOR inconsistency (4)

App 10 (DSAP XI)

(18) Responses are consistent (19) Responses are Consistent (20) Responses are consistent (25) Responses are consistent (1)

App 3 (Table 1)

(1) Responses are consistent (1),(6)

(2) Responses are consistent (1),(6)

,(5) Responses are consistent (7) Responses are consistent i (8) Responses are consistent ng Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (7) ed c ( ((9) 10) Responses are consistent 8 g (11) Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency

$ d (12) (8)

Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency. (1),(9) 3 X. (13) Responses have a MAJOR Inconsistency (1),(10) cd A (14) Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (1),(11).

$54 Responses are consistent (1)

Okg X (15)

(16) Responses have a MINOR inconsistency i e o (1),(12)

17) Responses are consistent S$

ma.o$- ><, ((19) Responses have a MINOR inconsistency (13)

A(20) Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (14) g g,37 (21) Responses are consistent

.a< (26) J )

Respcnses have a MAJOR. inconsistency (15)

(16) g/ g l

c~

a .

Item (Mech) Comment Notes (31) k Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (33) (17)

1. Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (14)

(34) Responses are consistent (36) Responses are consistent '

(37) Y Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (38) (18)

NResponseshaveaMAJORinconsistency (19)

(39) Responses are consistent (41) d Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (42)

Responses are consistent (20)

(44) Responses are consistent (21)

(46) M Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency (47)

(48)

X Responses have a MAJOR inconsistency Responses are consistent (22)

(fTT M General: The Appendices to the NRC/I&E letter (Taylor to Counsil) accurately presents the commitments and agreements arrived at during the I&E audit of the TERA effort.

ATTACHMENT - (NOTES)

(1) The phrase " Responses are consistant" is meant in the broadest of terms.

The inspections during program implimentation should take into account the specifics described in the TERA response.

(2) The word " remote" should be changed to " runout" in the NRC Comment paragraph to the TERA response.

(3) Recommend the staff require an Engineering Evaluation be provided to justify and document the position that "other mechanical inspections will envelope the concern".

(4) The inconsistency lies in the fact that the TERA response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item that will require additional checklists but the TUGC0 response shows the item to be already included in the Phase 2 review. It should be pointed out that the TUGC0 response is modified by a comment which does result in a Phase 3 item for the electrical discipline. The TUGC0 response is very confusing.

(5) The inconsistency lies in the fact that the TERA response clarifies what is presented on their Mechan,ical matrix which indicates the item is being handled completely in Phase 2 but the TUGC0 response commits to additional Phase 3 scope expansion.

(6) The TERA response committed to revise a checklist, this should be identified as a requirement of closing the item but the TUGC0 response does not recognize this committment.

(7) The TERA response indicates that the item is out of scope but the TUGC0 response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion effort which entails the developmet of an additional checklist.

. . _ _ _ _ - . = - ._. . _. _ - - _ . . . - - -_

i .

0

} (8) The TERA response noted that Sump Design is a Phase 3 scope expansion item 4

as a Candidate Given which is consi' stent with their Mechanical matrix. The

! TUGC0 response did not recognize the inclusion of this item in the Phase 3

! i scope expansion effort also the assigned Comment No. 2 does not apply. The t

] comment that does apply is Comment No. 38. '

t t

! (9) There is no TUGC0 response for this item, whereas the TERA response commits f to an expansion of an existing checklist plus a Phase 3 scope expansion item. l

i (10) The TERA response recognizes the complexity of vortex protection in the  ;

containment sump which is already a Phase 3 scope expansion " Candidate Given".

{ The TUGC0 response only applies to Phase 2 review of the CST which in j comparison is a trival example of vortex protection. '

(11) There is no TUGC0 response for this item, whereas the TERA response '

j. -

commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion into another system where the NPSH design activity is more complex.  !

l (12) The TUGC0 response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item, whereas the TERA response only commits to an expansion of a Phase 2 checklist to cover a particular design attribute for this design element. ,

I (13) The TUGC0 response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item, whereas the TERA response attempted to demonstrate that,the item was adequately covered by j an existing Phase 2 checklist.

i (14) The TERA response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item, whereas the j TUGC0 response indicates that the design element is out of scope. Also, the i

comment associated with the TUGC0 response indicates the design-element is included in a " Candidate Given" which would make it a Phase 3 item.

(15) The TUGC0 response designates this item as (20) which results in two items designated as (20). The TERA response designates the item as (21) which l appears to be correct.

t j

(16) There is no TUGC0 response for this item, whereas the TERA response commits to the inclusion of this design element on a Phase 3 scope expansion j checklist (s).

)

i (17) The TERA response attempts to demonstrate that the design element is already included on a Phase 2 checklist but the TUGC0 response indicates the t

item is out of scope and not even a design element.

} (18) The TERA response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item, whereas the i TUGC0 response indicates that the design element is out of scope. Also, the j comment associated with the TUGC0 response appears to apply to item (38) Max

Flow Velocity Limitation.

) (19) The TERA response commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item as part of a l

" Candidate Given" But the TUGC0 response indicates that the design element is l already part of the Phase 2 review scope. It also appears that the TUGC0 J comment (38) should apply to this item.

i i

(20) The TERA response indicates that the item is out of scope but the TUGC0 response indicates that the design element is already part of the Phase 2 review.

' * (21) The.TUGC0 r:spenso design tes this item as (41) which results in twa items l design;ted as (41). Tha TERA r sp:nso d:signat0s th3 item as (42) which cpp ;rs to b2 correct. {

r (22) The TERA respense commits to a Phase 3 scope expansion item for positive displacement pumps bac the TUGC0 response indicates that the design element is

, already included in a Phase 2 review activity.

DON: I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ANY OF THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH TERA AT THIS POI TIME.

I PLAN TO START DOING THAT TODAY (12/12/85). I WILL KEEP YOU UP-TO-DATE ON THE RESULTS OF THES DISCUSSIONS IN WRITING, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT OR WHAT IS IN TAYLOR'S DRAFT LETTER.

JOHN.

THANKS,

.PA i

i 1

i a 5

I

'l i

e e

1. .  !

FILE NO. LMP Au_ 7 7 ; ></. 3 jl,* COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM DIST. // Ay , JA_1. / 41 m

' TRT/DA CONTACT LOG SNET y

g u.g. giu u , ft ,;9 .

SUMMARY

OF TELECON10R MEETING DATE: ohawAs /6 192 5 .

SUBJECT:

f) O M 1& ik %' widfm cd & NN bdl Lin,lign '

ORGANIZATION (S): hfat b a/ TEMI'M da PARTICIPANTS: TERA: d hAsa l .

OUTSIDE: (\ L .Ame(

o <

SUMMARY

f) ru a s r l druu ra r tuu is a hi r.t. la d n_ l}nnihm I

1. 6 h th fr A c tw ,dm L Avn le- h! C hh H Sea Lu 11 r.

4 iJa t % ,ikt k AYu 11A nAAh An , CPCTll3.

. dim 1 n/22/es $1 ni- 1 d 1A w 11i n im L tin-A Akt twirtY L xli ),hs, n in OHiul A 1, o } Y> si e As b.1, u

__fr,firsdbuwr. - 0nustbta kW: E Y I T

• bSA P X ilix 9- .% n rI L k i n 1}x firm 2 Arqc u ti. 3 a w ,

lh Morim$d An 3 M4t. >Av)A,uba aM k el

($ul)Ldb AA- AIAN12+ line }' , /AA>2 , e1 J in u er,,suan A i n - , u a ,d,a tiw Y ~

• Pl9,l2.5 /Au ~faL1L I ,

i 9- fsli & ve 11d1 JA w JAL ilim w milm h Ah DAPster_. u% +1 n ,v_ia k i w Jin;> Jw Aoi siba.~ n L. As)A 2. h ti n th ed i m I s a- 0 ld '

/

I '

[r1>.fi Nu J )

ACTION:

For A- f4, -38 -

i et 's  !

g, . /

J [

f' tl9lss oGW , Jats t , K i t -Awp jaw .ds~ a Aw)~1 A- wy 4%

3 M AN *

• 7 aa. wk. 32 oppMg.

W - a]9les /dh~ , JA I , & /2 - Ja>A. A.t" Jiu . den. .u a. Phw 3 .v. spa. .ww auww q ' ak k.A. w pw &

u .a d # k . a. ~ c&.s xhn d Yy

• 8/9/2.5 o&k , Job 4/39- ~ I, .i Ve k f/w g

k i / L u 3 w b % tlu- Aami.w- f) petx<a &

aa f r} # W Mt k.

li n

sb:1&nB~ r adAha- > M sak M Ade.-

J8 p. -

/- sl9les % , Jeh4. t, .xZen H - /Vf3H l Jha- A~ a a FAw. 3 .oupe. .wp1x2<~ k /smw--

a. tuu. Capt.ex cut- NKSH % .2Asr A. AAJ k~. jaw c a a w h Q.A. N Cd44-M# M fy at n n .unaa s~.

k

• 8/9/8s oGu ,Jaki, L I4- Op/Cha<

l JLuv $ ~ avla s u as.- m ch<wraaukn-

.4-skr sk & .utan aa casaak.

j W&% A d' A tlA b ARJ prpi puh k . J

, Jh y 2 aa a. /%. s m w% n ad- M.<.r. ~

(m)

e-9

• . +

g, .

. . . A 8l9l8.5 % , JeAr I , & 19 - Jir,& Chw Jhs Ahn a c<wa.L x. A A-ca<.~ 2 .oop<g .

a. M M 3 aa i.r. ~f ,

W2 8/9lss ddG~ , JA I ,

.w iter W

.&~

20- Jaa 't su ~ . ew , --

c<n a .38 m ap.

y e/4les c6mr, JaA i, 6 & - Ava aa & Ac Jk J. 4,.w Jkw .o n a a & 3 y u p e.a<. ~ . b -

Ubu& d & .a m v4 C4^. e1 k

& .ha w .

k 8/9lss 06%. ,, . Jar > , & .si - ~ &%%

Jha.dsn a m n +. / m 2.oup<

ac y & Mu 0+J- Aw W .

2/1l23 oGn~, JsA4i, & 3.5- ./ Cnza a- , -s a DA P y. Jh DAP &y dw ~c& M.

Jn M v p  % cuah~ huL La cw.38 x w' & .

ao p.r Awzy y Y 8/9/25 W , Ja I , A .s? - /%4m W fnp J M % .au a.)%.3 bpe.* W b- m p dxyb' M W x4 ,comvs r 32 duo w l

Go%.x)

~

~

. . .> : _ y . . ,o f - *]9lss sin ,Ja>u t, W38 yn 4~ VM JAo .ik.n hvjus.L sw pas <f ,L /km C 3 4 '2x{nML n a. Cer W W cornu ~r 38 appw.

Y ~ 8/1lgs & , d a i, 4% '//- N h u J.a di m.4 JAA .a ~ - e g 9 m -> A h k laaa g M & or

. eJ

% ch e-al mz L. .

Y 8/9 ,, jai, L 41-&w/& Cou Jin&m w ~A w A azc 4 m ~ , d a a s/9/ w.

Y -

8/1/8S &y JW I, sC~ 44 - 8effehk~ s

.sw se~ n a in s y a+ >

ku, W msw W~ )

I' l

NW Mf .

d6 /& A OM k M M V y %Z k */1/6 %l, , Jew I,- ak 41 - Av11d Q AkJu~

Ja An aw or m W Jh- pkrlo

/M L n 4 N'

/

9 I'_ /*'

,,- ,y, ,,g --- y ,--po- ,e-r ,4 w - g-~-----,,e,m --n