ML20079F129

Requests NRC Approval of Teledyne Engineering Svcs as Independent Design Review (Idr) Contractor.Teledyne Proposal Forwarded.Criteria Used During Evaluation & Presentation Matl from NRC 840113 Meeting Encl

ML20079F129
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	01/16/1984
From:	Williams J CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20079F130	List: ML20079F129 ML20079F154 ML20079F160
References
LOZ-84-0012, LOZ-84-12, NUDOCS 8401180113
Download: ML20079F129 (8)

Text

._

, .~ .. .

!h- 3 ,\ .

s.

d 1 ' ; Lhd E C' ~ x - ,,.,. -

TIIE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTItIC COAll'ANY rTi Ch --- - -

u w c ww o m .e ,

January 16, 1984 LOZ-84-0012 Docket No. 50-358 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Mail Stop 316 USNRC, Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attention: Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director of Licensing Division Gentlemen:

RE: WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW (IDR)

W.O. 57300, JOB E-5590, FILE NO. 956C CG&E letter of October 5, 1983 by Mr. J. Williams, Jr.,

to NRC (RIII) submitted the Course of Action (COA). The COA contained a voluntary commitment by CG&E for an Independent Design Review (IDR),

CG&E submitted the proposed approach for conduct of the IDR and a copy of request for proposals to NRC (RIII) by letter of October 26, 1983 from Mr. J. Williams, Jr. NRC letter of December 1, 1983 by Mr. D. G. Eisenhut to CG&E directed that future correspondence related to the IDR be sent to NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations with a copy to NRC (RIII).

The purpose of this letter is to report the selection of the IDR Contractor and to request NRC approval of the Contractor.

A copy of the criteria used during this evaluation is attached as Enclosure 1.

Based on CG&E's evaluation of the proposals received, as regards to the independence, competence, experience, and approach, Teledyne Engineering Services (Teledyne) has been selected as the IDR Contractor. Attached as Enclosure 2 is Teledyne's proposal which describes the qualifications of Teledyne for this review, which describes the qualifications of the key individuals to be assigned to do the work, which confirms Teledyne's independence relative to the Zimmer project in accordance with the criteria in the request for proposal, and which summarizes the approach Teledyne intends to take when developing the detailed IDR plan.

8401180113 840116 i

• PDR A

ADOCK 05000358 A

• PDR {UpDI qa

}

i

Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director of Licensing Division January 16, 1984 LOZ-84-0012 Page 2 Your timely approval of Toledyne to function as the l Independent Design Reviewer is requested.

1 CG&E letter of October 26, 1983 by Mr. J. Williams, Jr.

4 to NRC (RIII) proposed protocol to be used for conducting the 1 IDR. We are continuing to apply this protocol to the IDR.

We intend to apply the same protocol as will be used by the Independent PVQC Auditor.

4 CG&E will review the relevant aspects of the Teledyne QA i Program. Should any changes be considered appropriate, CG&E would notify the NRC before directing Teledyne to make the changes.

The next action would be Teledyne's development of the detailed IDR plan. When the plan has been developed, Teledyne will submit it concurrently to the NRC and CG&E.

i Representatives of CG&E and Teledyne presented information 3

about the IDR to the NRC staff at the January 13, 1984 meeting

held at the NRC's Bethesda offices. A copy of CG&E's presentation 4

material for that meeting is attached as Enclosure 3 for your information.

1 i

Very truly yours, THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY By p34' _

. WILLIAMS, JR.I SENIOR VICE PRE DENT PCH/jlw Enclosures e, - , ,e + , - g -- ,- - --. --ng + - uw--

Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director of Licensing Division January 16, 1984 LOZ-84-0012 Page 3 cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attention: Mr. J. C. Keppler Regional Administrator 1

{ (Without Enclosure)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations J

Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. H. Denton j

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. J. L. Milhoan Chief, Licensing Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 316, Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attention: Mr. L. Kintner Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attention: Mr. E. R. Schweibinz NRC Zimmer Project Inspector NRC Resident Site Supervisor i Attention: W. M. Hill 1 l

~ ~

. .g Enclosure 1 12-28-83 page 1 of 4

! Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Evaluation Criteria 3 Independent Design Review Proposals I

Each IDR Proposal shall be evaluated using the following criteria. Proposal rating for each category shall be the product l of the category quality factor and the number of awarded points in that category. No more than 14 points shall be awarded in any category. Submittal of an acceptable QA Program and satisfying the independt7ce criteria requirements are prerequisite to being a

eligible for delection as the IDR contractor.

1 Category I Scope of Review Quality Factor = 8 Item Maximum Point Award l Pipe Stress Analysis 2 J

j Pipe Support Design 2 1

j Structural Design & Analysis 2 I

I Electrical Power Supply & Distribution Design 1 l Control Circuit Design 1 i

i Seismic Qualification of Equipment 1 Interfaces Between GE-S&L-Construction 2 l Meets Intent of Design Verification (N45.2.ll) 3 i Category II Program Completeness

) Quality Factor = 10 a

Item Maximum Point Award QA Review of Design Process 1 QA Review of Procurement Process 1 Design Input Document Review 1 Design Analysis Control Review 1 1

Design Verification 1 i Control of Subcontractors 1 l

1 l

l l

page 2 of 4 Category II (Con't)

Item Maximum Point Award Design Change Control Review 1 Test Program Review 2 Verification of As Built Condition 1 Drawing and Document Control 1 Category III Program Methodology Quality Factor = 10 Item Maximum Point Award Definition of What Constitutes Discrepancies 2 Identification and Resolution of Potential 2 Findings Identifying Generic Problems and Root 1 Causes System for Controlling Expansion of the 1 Review Methods for Evaluating Adequacy of Overall 2 Design from Specified Sample Organization for Performing Program 1 Category IV Acceptable Program Schedule Quality Factor = 2 Item Maximum Point Award Review of Quality Assurance Program 2 for Design Engineering Review of Design 2 Field Implementation Review 2 Issuance of Review Process Scoping Document 1 Resolution of CG&E Comments on Scoping 2 Document Issuance of Final Reports 1

- w- 12-28-83 p9ge 3 of 4 1

1 Category V Experience of Project Manager Quality Factor = 5 Item Point Award Total Years Applicable Engineering 0.1 per year Experience Total Years Commercial Nuclear Power 0.2 per year Experience Since 1970 IDR Program Management Experience 1 per project Previous BWR Experience 1 Category VI Experience of Lead Mechanical Reviewer Quality Factor = 2 Item Point Award l

Total Years Applicable Engineering 0.1 per year Experience Total Years Commercial Nuclear Power 0.2 per year Experience Since 1970 Previous IDR Experience 1 per project Previous BWR Experience 1 Category VII Experience of Lead Electrical Reviewer Quality Factor = 2 Item Point Award Total Years Applicable Engineering 0.1 per year Experience Total Years Commercial Nuclear Power 0.2 per year Experience Since 1970 Previous IDR Experience 1 per project Previous BWR Experience 1 Category VIII Experience of Lead Structural Reviewer Quality Factor = 2 Item Point Award Total Years Applicable Engineering 0.1 per year j Experience i

l I

, ... 12-28-83 page 4 of 4 1

Category VIII (Con't) i Item Point Award Total Years Commerical Nuclear Power 0.2 per year Experience Since 1970 Previous IDR Experience 1 per project Previous BWR Experience 1 Category IX Experience of Lead Instrumentation and Controls Reviewer l

) Quality Factor = 2 item Point Award Total Years Applicable Engineering 0.1 per year Experience Total Years Commercial Nuclear Power 0.2 per year Experience Since 1970 Previous IDR Experience 1 per project Previous BWR Experience 1 Category X Consultants In-house Support Oraanization Quality Factor = 10 Item Maximum Point Award Mechanical Component Design Capability 2 Mechanical System Design Capability 2 Electrical System Design Capability 2 Structural Design Capability 2 Instrumentation and Controls Design 2 Capability i

,.. , m+,

1 .

h [y'a f & & + g'e.w 1; lf'., Why'

,, j,,

k s. E' _

muuan - x  :;, + w ~.

"#TELEDYNE RECElVED ^"D 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS 02254 DEC 281983 ,,,,,,333s01 _ ,,3,32,,s,3 FILE:

nau;:,3 t, October 10, 1983 PR-6194-1

(

Mr. E. J. Wagner Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co.

Zimmer Nuclear Power Station U. S. Route 52 R.R. #1, Box 2023 Moscow, Ohio 45153

Subject:

Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. RFQ No. 828 dated September 12, 1983 TES Technical Proposal No. PR-6194 entitled " Independent Design Review of the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station" dated October 10, 1983

Dear Mr. Wagner:

Enclosed please find three copies of the subject proposal in response to your written request for quotation number 828.

We would welcome the opportunity to visit with you at the Zimmer site to discuss our capabilities and experience in the subject matter and introduce you to the key TES personnel who we propose for this project.

If you have any questions please contact the writer or Messrs. James A.

Flaherty, Manager - Engineering Design and Testing, or Mr. George A.

Carpenter, Manager - Engineering.

Very truly yours, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES exafd bMS Donald F. Landers Senior Vice President DFL/lh Enclosure cc: D. C. Funke (CG&E)

J. A. Flaherty (TES)

G. A. Carpenter (TES)

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _