ML20078G548

Forwards Agenda & Topics of 830929 Prebid Meeting for Independent Design Review.Attendance List,Qa Matrix, Isometrics of RHR Sys & Responses to Questions Raised Encl

ML20078G548
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Kraus H CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
NUDOCS 8310120304
Download: ML20078G548 (25)

Text

l f

>vyf z

e U.e. y'ab d@J 0

n lkc THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY r:TJ " -

=--^-2 CINCIN N ATI OHIO 4 5201 September 30, 1983 FRitiCIPAL STAFF _

LW Ea-ENF NRC Region III Regional Administrator D/RA L565 4

-[ 3

]

799 Roosevelt Drive A/RA

{A0_

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 op Lo OFNA RC MSP A'ITINTION:

J. G. Keppler ML f

OL lF1LE &

/

en On September 29, 1983, a pre-bid meeting for the Independent Design Review (IDR) was held at the Zinmer Nuclear Power Staticn. The attendees are listed as Attachment I to this letter.

Mr. Wagner, Assistant Vice President of Nuclear Engineering, conducted this nueting and followed the agenda and topics which are also included as in Attachment II of this letter. The last agenda item at the neeting was a qmsticn and answer period. A copy of these questions and the responses are included in this padcage as Attachment III.

I have also included two other Attachments, which ware recuested as a result of questions pcsed during this meeting. These include a Quality Assuran Matrix (Attachment IV) e:d a copy of the Isanutrics on the Residual Heat Removal System (Attad: Tent V).

I hcpe these items will be of benefit to you and if you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely, H. Joseph Kraus, Jr.

Associate Buyer Materials Management Dept.

Nuclear Divisicn Enclosure FUK: smb B310120304 830930

'\\,

PDR ADOCK 05000358 J

lf[

A PDR

o Mdressees:

Cygna Enertjy Servi s Ebasco Serviws, Inc.

E. G. & G. Servi s Gilbert /Ccxmonwealth M. P. R. ' Assoc., Inc.

Teledyne Engin ring Services l

Technical Audit Associates Inc.

NRC Region III Regional Adminstrator (without Attachment IV & V)

NRC Offim of Inspecticn & Enforcerrent (without Attactment IV & V)

. NRC Zirmer Senior Resident Inspector (without Attachment IV & V)

NRC Zimner Project Inspector, Region III (without Attachment IV & V) t f

cc:

J. Williams, Jr.

E. J. Wagner W. M. Hill R. J. Pruski J. F. Shaffer H. C. Brinkmann J. C. Herman D. C. Funke-

[

J. L. Haun K. K. Chitkara C. Dick

4 8

a e

4 4

I N D E P L N D E N T 'D E S I G N REVIEW ATTACHMENT 1 e

ATTENDANCE LIST i

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PRE-BID MEETING l

CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES M. P. R. ASSOC., INC.

}

OM s

dind:

/,iu G

+

G 28%

n-BASCO SERVICES, INC.

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES bOUU bh b ^r fha

~

j e

l knas

~

E i

E. G. S G. SERVICES TECHNICAL AUDIT ASSOCIATES, INC.

$ C N n> l$ >

.f t

i S-7 7A-A; V r

()

i t'

GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH m a m., v o,.

.e j

o.u

/s 4

i_ d 1

, '/ - f.

/,w.(W,

ATTENDANCE LIST i-INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PRE-BID MEETING CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES M. P. R. ASSOC., INC.

l}

O/M'b din 4:

/,; u G u +

/

/

V

/

BASCO SERVICES, INC.

TEEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES bi fh1Le

(

s on-(k~JoeetY d

/

E. G. S G. SERVICES TECHNICAL AUOTT ASSOCIATES, INC.

t f

n N

$cIs v ]4,

./

/

a, w-i vr p-r GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH l bc, z..

na S t

f x...v / L/ L_ d l

^

j

~

i i

~

1

3 k

IN. DEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 1

i A T T A C H 14 E - N T 2 I

o e

~

WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLE'AR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA

~

SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 9:00 A.M.

INTRODUCTION 9:30 A.M.

DISCUSSION OF IDR 10:30 A.M.

PLANT TOUR 12:00 P.M.

LUNCH 1:00 P.M.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 3:00 P.M.

CONCLUSION O

e

1 WM.11. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW i

l

\\

ORGANIZATION PROJECT CG8E MANAGER I

PROJECT DIRECTOR BECHTEL e

_ _ _ = - _ _

I I

ARCllITECT/

NSSS CONSTPUCTOR ENGINEER SUPPLIER l

l KAISER SARGENT a LUNDY G. E.

OT11ERS

r-WM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 4

KEY PERSONNEL CGSE

~

SR VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR OPERATIONS -

J. WILLIAMS, JR.

' ASST. VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR PROJECTS -

G. F. COLE ASST VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING -

E. J. WAGNER ASST. VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR OPERATIONS -

D. S. CRUDEN MANAGER, QUALITY ASSURANCE -

J. F. SHAFFER MANAGER, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT -

H. C. BRINKMANN MANAGER, NUCLEAR SERVICES DEPARTMENT -

K. K. CHITKARA DIRECTOR, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT -

J. HAUN BUYERS, MATERIALS MANAGEMENT, NUCLEAR DIVISION -

B. FIELDS; H. JOSEPH KRAUS, JR.

~

BECHTEL PROJECT DIRECTOR -

G. B. JONES DEPUTY PROJECT DIRECTOR -

J. P. LASPA ASSISTANT TO PROJECT DIRECTOR -

R. P. METZGER MANAGER, ENGINEERING C. DICK

- Scl PROJECT DIRECTOR -

R. F. SCHEIBEL PROJECT MANAGER -

R. J. PRUSKI FIELD PROJECT MANAGER -

T. J. DALEY NRC RESIDENT SITE SUPERVISOR -

W. M. HILL

'.. ~,

WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW SHOW CAUSE ORDER NOVEMBER 12, 1982

'e INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ZIMMER PROJECT MANAGEMENT (COMPLETED BY TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY) e CGaE RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION (C0A) e PLAN TO VERIFY QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (PVQC)

• INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM e CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (CCP)

WM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW NET REPORT NUREG-0969 e

CONDUCTED JANUARY 24 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1983 e

IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION e

ONE. DESIGN DEFICIENCY I

e

J 4'

WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION It! DEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW

?-

INDEPENDENT REVIEW ZIMMER PROJECT MANAGEMENT i

TORREY PINE TECHNOLOGY REPORT DATED AUGUST, 1983 e

f Y

6

WM, H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW COURSE OF ACTION (COA) e SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER, 1983 e 14 MAJOR ACTIONS PROP.0 SED e IDR INCLUDED

l WM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW i

PLAN TO VERIFY QUALITY 0.F-CONSTRUCTION (PVQC) e BECHTEL MANAGEMENT e

DETERMINE QUALITY OF SAFETY RELATED ' ITEMS e

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR O

4 i -

r

\\

WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION-INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (CCP) e BECHTEL MANAGEMENT e REWORK TO CORRECT lEFICIENCIES e COMPLETION OF REMAINING CONSTRUCTION e

e

-f WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION j

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW SCOPE 1

1.

REVIEW QA PROGRAM FOR DESIGN

• DESIGN CONTROL PROGRAM e USE RHR SYSTEM 2.

REVIEW DESIGN OF THE RHR SYSTEM

• PIPE STRESS ANALYSES e PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN e STRUCTURAL DESIGN o ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY AND CONTROL CIRCUIT DESIGN

• EQUIPMENT (SEISMIC) QUALIFICATION eADEQUACY TO CONVEY AND CONTROL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION

• PERFORM PLANT WALKDOWN i

4 4

,,----r,

-,-e

-r,r-,

l l

l WN. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW INDEPENDENCE

• . INDEPENDENCE CRITERIA - ATTACHMENT II 0F RFP e CG8E OVERSIGHT BY INDEPENDENT CG&E INDIVIDUALS

+

l-4

4 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW SCHEDULE

• PROPOSALS DUE OCTOBER 14, 1983

• IDR BASED ON 8 MONTH SCHEDULE

m e

u-w m

~ = - -

.v w

w

-,m O

8 4

9 e

I N D E P E'N D E N T DESIGN REVIEW ATTACHMENT 3 l

i I

i I

I e

I 4

a,

,,n--

-, + -.-

,,,,r--cwr,-

,,w, w--m.w,,-,,,

e

,,,,--,,--,,..n,-,---,

--,,-,--w,

,m,-,,,.,-,,r-w,---.,,w-r,_._,,-,--,w,

3

• 4

=

ATTACHMENT III i

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES NOTE:

All answers provided by E.J. Wagner unless noted

~ 1.

Mr. Laney - Technical Audit Assoc., Inc.

Question:

How is the scope of the IDR affected by the following two (2) items of the RFP:

1)

Page 2 of the RFP talks about modification to the scope as a result of the ongoing activities under the SCO?

2), Section 3, Paragraph 3, states that depending on the results of the IDR, it may be necessary to expand the scope of review?

Answer:

Since the IDR specification was written before the Course Of Action, NRC interaction could cause change to the specifications of the IDR.

Bidders should bid on the specifications in the RFP.

Should any changes be required, the bidders will be formally advised.

Regarding Item (2), this statement recognizes that expansion of the IDR may be necessitated by the results of the specified IDR.

t 2.

Mr. Famiglietti - Cygna Energy Services Question:

Should the proposal include a detailed budget and when will the IDR be awarded?

Answer:

Considering the nature of the wcrk to be performed in the IDR, a detailed, itemized budget was not required.

Costs for major work elements is re-quired.

The award could depend on NRC action on the Course Of Action, but CG&E expects to award the purchase

]

order for the IDR within (1) month after receipt of the proposals, approximately mid to late November.

i 1

v v

n

--,.,-e.

n-c-.

,,,.---,,--.e

- -~

-~

r

Attachment III Questions and Responses Page 2.

3.

Mr.. Thomas - Cilbert/ Commonwealth Question:

Where is the data to be used in the IDR?

Answer:

The data is at the Zimmer site and in the Chicago offices of Sargent & Lundy.

Calculations are in Chicago.

Hanger work and hanger calculations will be moved to the site in November.

4.

Mr. Uniferro - Technical Audit Associates, Inc.

Question:

Are we to assume Sargent & Lundy will furnish detailed calculations or furnish books of cal-culations?

Answer:

Sargent & Lundy will' cooperate with the needs of the reviewer and Sargent & Lundy will provide documents as required.

5.

Mr. Sas - Ebasco Services, Inc.

Question:

Explain " functional licensing requirements".

Answer:

" Functional licensing requirements" means the technical requirements of the regulations.

This attempted to differentiate these technical re-quirements from administrative licensing re-quirements.

Bidders are not requested to make a licensing review of administrative requirements 2

in this IDR.

Question:

Define the scope of review of equipment seismic evaluations.

Answer:

The reviewer should satisfy himself that vendors seismic evaluations were compliant.

Question:

Do pipe rupture and jet impingement effects need to be evaluated?

Answer:

Yes, to the extent that they are required on Zimmer.

^

Attachment III Questions and Responses Page 3 5.

Mr. Sas - Ebasco Services, Inc. (Cont'd)

Question:

Should equipment operability be evaluated?

Answer:

Yes, to the extent that it is required on Zimmer, keeping in mind the vintage of the plant and the requirements for this plant.

6.

Mr. Thomas - Gilbert / Commonwealth Question:

Do you expect the reviewer to do any alternate design calculations in the area of pipe stress?

Answer:

If the reviewer deems it necessary.

The scope indicates that your program will be in compliance with the Quality Program requirements of 10CFR50.

If you do calculations, we expect them to be compliant and to be delivered to CG&E.

7.

Mr. Roberts - Cygna Energy Services f

Question:

What is the status of the plant in regard to Regulatory Guides 79-14, 79-02, and Appendix R?

Answer:

These requirements have been incorporated into the scope of design.

TMI requirements have been addressed in the design requirements also.

Much 4

of the engineering is completed but construction is not complete on all items and those actions of these regulations that require evaluation of' final construction, such as walkdowns, are, therefore, not complete.

8.

Mr. Schmidt - M. P.

R. Assoc., Inc.

Question:

What do you consider to be the cut-off date for licensing requirements?

Answer:

Address the latest requirements in the FSAR.

9.

Mr.. Thomas - Gilbert / Commonwealth Question:

Is there a FSAR on site and in Chicago?

Answer:

Yes.

i k

J Attachment III Questions'and Responses Page 4 10.

Mr. Uniferro - Technical Audit Associates, Inc.

Question:

Should the structures that house the RHR system be evaluated?

Answer:

No, the IDR specification identifies the service water structure foundation to be reviewed for structural design.

11.

Mr. Laney - Technical Audit Assoc., Inc.

Question:

Is the reviewer expected to reach an overall conclusion on the adequacy of design of the plant per Attachment 2, Page 4, Item 9?

Question:

Do you feel that the RHR system provides an adequate sample size to provide an overall plant design review?

Answer:

Yes, the reviewer is expected to have an overall finding on adequacy of the design of the plant.

The "two slice" approach in the IDR gives the reviewer the opportunity to evaluate an exten-sive plant system, which contains all the dif-i ferent processes of design, and to evaluate the overall design process applied on all plant de-sign.

The reviewer is further advised by the specification that he may need to evaluate pro-cesses not represented by the RHR system in order to complete the review of the overall de-sign process.

This "two slice" IDR should pro-vide a basis for a finding about the overall plant design.

12.

Mr. Hartstern - Gilbert / Commonwealth Question:

Relative to subcontractor design drawings, whose construction drawings will the reviewer ute?

Answer:

Hanger and support drawings were done by S&L.

Some design drawings were prepared by H.J. Kaiser.

Equipment is covered on vendor's drawings.

.1

,.I Questions and Responses Page 5 12.

Mr.

F' ntern - Gilbert / Commonwealth (Cont'd)

Question:

Are H.J.

Kaiser drawings to be picked up in the IDR?

Answer:

Yes, if the review flows to a H.J. Kaiser area, documents will be made available to the reviewer.

Access will be provided to any required design information, including information from CG&E, S&L, and Bechtel.

Question:

Sargent & Lundy was responsible for shop drawings but in the design review process, how far should the reviewer look into the valve manufacturer's drawings?

Answer:

It is not intended for the reviewer to review detail supplier design beyond the determination of compatibility of the valve design with re-quirements of the system being reviewed.

If the reviewer develops indications that the valve design may not be compliant, further examination of detailed design may be necessary.

13.

Mr. Panoff - M.

P.

R. Assoc., Inc.

Question:

How does the reviewer state broad conclusions by reviewing only the RHR system?

How does the reviewer conclude other systems are acceptable, such as the containment?

I question the re-quirement to have a broad conclusion from a small sample.

This question references Mr. Laney's earlier question concerning the selection of the RHR system by the owner and the feasibility of using the RHR system to make broad statements concern-ing design acceptability.

Answer:

See the answer to Mr. Laney's question (Question and Response Number 11).

i Attachment III Questions and Responses Page 6 14.

Mr. Flaherty - Teledyne Engineering Services Question:

Mr. Flaherty questioned the number of the pro-posals.

Answer:

One (1) copy of the proposal shoulu be sent to the Materials Management Department, Attention:

D.C.

Funke, and three (3) copies should be sent To E.J. Wagner as stated in the RFP.

15.

Comments offered by Mr. Pruski The reviewer will have access to Sargent & Lundy documents but Sargent & Lundy standards and procedures will only be available to the reviewer in Chicago.

Zimmer specific'in-formation will be available to the reviewer at his convenience.

Appendix B and a QA Matrix was offered to the bidders by Sargent & Lundy.

The referenced document is attached to the notes of the meeting.

.