From: Bob Simmons [bsimmons@pppl.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM To: Malsbury_Judy Cc: Reiersen_Wayne; Strykowsky_Ron Subject: CMP Not Quite Ready for Prime Time Signatures Judy, Thanks for catching that I had omitted your most recent comments. The omission was not on purpose. Here are the resolutions I propose. Please advise if these are satisfactory. (1) Page 2, Section 1.3 - Probably obvious, but should indicate that these are "OR" conditions. * Resolution: Agree. Section revised to reflect the "or" conditions. (2) Page 3, Table 1.3-1 Shouldn't this be moved to 4 to be consistent with the resolution of CHIT #10? Also CHIT #10. * Resolution: Agree. GRD moved to Category 4 ECP. (3) Page 7, Figure 3.1-1 - Changes I would suggest to this figure: 1. eliminate the word "significant" from the left box. Table 1.13-1 already states that ECPs are required for all changes. If significant means levels 1, 2, and 3 from this table, this should be stated. 2. What is meant by "Design Evolution Studies"? Suggest these words be deleted since they are unclear. * Resolution: Disagree. Believe that modifications/clarification in Section 3.1.3 resolves this issue. All that is meant that, especially in the CD phase, a series of design studies were conducted to arrive at a more optimized design. One need only look at the myriad of coil configurations to know what is meant here. This is a common term on NCSX. (4) Page 7, Section 3.1.3 - Suggest this concept be clarified in table 1.3.1. Also 3.1.3 states that this configuration management system is not used until CD-2? Is there nothing that should be put under configuration control before then? Later, the document states that the GRD should be under configuration control. Isn't the GRD approved before CD-2? What about drawings and model work occurring now? * Resolution: Disagree that figure is the correct place to clarify this. However, this section has been revised in a way that hopefully clarifies the decision process for determining whether the change is "significant" or falls into the "omnibus" category. * Resolution: Section revised to clarify the process of Configuration Control (distinction between formal DOE CM - CD2 and internal processes implemented last fall. (5) Page 7, Section 3.1.3 - Is this a Word form? Database? The Word form is easy to generate but time consuming to administer. A database would be easy to generate, and much easier to administer. Is there hope that we can get one? Does PTC have such a system? * Resolution: Thanks to your offer, we will soon have the forms in a word form format. What is PTC??? (6) Page 9, Figure 3.1-2 - Suggest a simpler diagram. I will provide a paper version. Procedure should have all detail, not the plan. * Resolution: I am concerned that anything simpler would gloss over some fairly important points. My inclination is to leave in the detail. However, I will be happy to look at what you provide. (7) Page 10, Section 3.2.1 - These should be consistent throughout this plan and NCSX-PROC-002. * Resolution: Not clear to me where the inconsistency is. Please clarify, although I will certainly check 002. (8) Page 12, Section 3.2.1.3.1 - This is pretty descriptive for a plan and should be defined in some lower level document, e.g. the Drafting Manual. * Resolution: Agree, however, until the Drafting Manual (DRFT-001) or the Pro/INTRALINK Users Guide (DRFT-002) are revised/approved, I intend to leave this in the CMP. (9) Page 13, Section 3.2.1.3.2 - Who makes this decision? & Not electronic. * Resolution: Section 3.2.1.3.2 revised to clarify both of these questions. (10) Page 13, Section 3.2.1.4 - But they should definitely come under document control, e.g., formal revisions and new signatures. * Resolution: Agree. Section 3.2.1.4 revised to clarify this point. (11) Global Comment - Is it reasonable to require an ECN to be attached to an ECP listing the drawings to change? For example, I am proposing a change that is high level and, if approved, will work on identifying the changes to drawings. However, at this time, I am not prepared to specify the specific drawing changes. How does this interface between the ECP and the ECN systems work? * Resolution: ECN will NOT come into play until a drawing has been released for Fab. When preparing the ECP, it would be nice to identify the drawings impacted to the extent possible. Once ECP approved, an ECN will be prepared and the impacted drawing(s) annotated by Siegel to show the ECN number. This is tracked in the ECP Implementation Log. (12) Global Comment - Not clear when drawings come under configuration control - when they are initially approved? * Resolution: Drawings make up the technical baseline. When technical baseline established last fall, the higher level drawings and models came under configuration control. Expect more to come under after PDR and all will be under by completion of final design. (13) Global Comment - CHIT #3 - Has Wayne been added to list of RLMs? Not on the Engineering web page if this has been done nor in the WP database. * Resolution: Mike has informed Hutch and Phil that Wayne is approved as the NCSX RLM. It is Mike's job to update the database, not ours. We are proceeding on Mike's verbal instructions. (14) Global Comment - CHIT # 8 - I don't understand the resolution. Appears to be that Frank's concern is still there. * Resolution: I have discussed this resolution with Frank and he appeared to be satisfied. The fact is that when a baseline is frozen, it will have a distinct name and identifier that anyone can go to.