ML16148A588
| ML16148A588 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1992 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16148A589 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201140252 | |
| Download: ML16148A588 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1991201
Text
1 RNITEDSTATES
4
c.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- January
2, 1992.
Docket Nos. 50-269
50-270
50-287
Mr. Hal B. Tucker
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation Department
Duke Power Company
Post Office Box 1007
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT AND COMMERCIAL-GRADE DEDICATION
PROGRAMS AT THE OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3,
REPORT NOS. 50-269/91-201, 50-270/91-201, AND 50-287/91-201
This letter transmits the report of the assessment conducted July 15 through 19,
1991, at the Charlotte, North Carolina, general office of Duke Power Company
(DPC) and at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, by-R.P. McIntyre,
S.D. Alexander, R. Frahm Jr., and L.L. Campbell of the Nuclear Regulatory Com
mission's (NRC's) Vendor Inspection Branch, and M. Thomas of NRC Region II. At
the conclusion of the assessment, we discussed our findings with you, and the
members of your staff identified in the appendix to the enclosed report.
The assessment was performed to review DPC's program for the procurement and
dedication of commercial-grade items used in safety-related applications at
Oconee in accordance with Appendix B to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50) and to determine the extent of the imple
mentation of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) initiatives
in this area.
DPC has made a significant effort to strengthen its commercial-grade dedication
program since its inception in 1987. Its overall program description was
generally consistent with the dedication approaches described in the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report NP-5652, "Guideline for the Utilization
of Commercial Grade Items in Nuclear Safety Related Applications (NCIG-07)," as
conditionally endorsed by NRC Generic Letter 89-02, "Actions To Improve the
Detection of Counterfeit and Fraudulently Marketed .Products," March 21, 1989.
However, the lack of full implementation of this program was a significant
weakness. DPC senior management decided to phase in the new program by March
1993 (revised to December 1991) and to continue to purchase and dedicate
commercial-grade items (CGIs) on the basis of documented technical evaluations
in existence as of January 1, 1990. Therefore, the purchase and dedication of
CGIs previously evaluated and listed on the commercial grade items list (CGIL)
as of January 1, 1990, were not based on the requirements of the current.
program, but only on a review of product and supplier performance history (EPRI
Method 4).
During a July 26, 1991, conference call between DPC senior management
and the NRC, DPC stated that it had decided to accelerate to October 1, 1991,
D9201140252 920102
N
ADOCK 05000269
NB
n
Q
PDR _ __ ,~
Mr. Hal B. Tucker
-2
the phtase-in of the reevaluation of outstanding evaluations done under the old
program. Any remaining CGIs listed on the CGIL without new evaluations
completed by October 1 would be placed on hold pending completion of an
evaluation using the current program requirements. The assessment team
concluded that the dedication methods used for the large majority of CGIs
purchased after January 1, 1990, did not meet the DPC programmatic requirements
in place and also did not meet the NUMARC -initiative on the dedication of
commercial grade items. The NUMARC initiative stated that licensee programs
would meet the intent of the EPRI NP-5652 guidelines as of January 1, 1990.
The assessment team identified weaknesses both in the overall procurement
program and its implementation. DPC's philosphy that allowed selecting only a
subset of critical characteristics, instead of requiring verification of all
critical characteristics to provide assurance that the item would perform its
intended safety functions was a program weakness. The licensee .is responsible
for identifying the attributes necessary for performance of the item's safety
functions, establishing acceptance criteria and providing reasonable assurance
of conformance to these criteria. In addition, some critical characteristics
specified were not adequately verified for the procurement packages reviewed.
With appropriate modifications to address these concerns, the program, if
properly implemented, could provide adequate control over the commercial-grade
procurement process. Specific strengths and weaknesses are discussed in detail
in the enclosed report.
DPC had completed its review and assessment of the comprehensive procurement..
initiatives suggested in NUMARC 90-13, "Nuclear Procurement Program Improve
ments," dated October 1990. The initiative called for the licensee to complete
its review by July 1, 1991, and to complete implementation by July 1, 1992.. The
DPC progress in this area should enable you to meet the July 1, 1992, completion
date.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Although no response to this report is required, we expect you to consider the
concerns raised herein and to take appropriate measures. Should you have any
questions concerning this assessment, we will be pleased to discuss them with
you. Thank you for your cooperation in this assessment process.
Si
rely,
ivision of.Reactor P ects I/II
Office of Nuclear Reac r Regulation
Enclosure:
Assessment Report 50-269/91-201, 50-270/91-201
and 50-287/91-201
cc:
See next page
- 3
Mr. Hal B. Tucker
Oconee Nuclear Station
Duke Power Company
Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3
cc:
Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq.
Mr. M. E. Patrick
Duke Power Company
Compliance
422 South Church Street
Duke Power Company
-Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001
Oconee Nuclear Site
Post Office Box 1439
Seneca, South Carolina 29679
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief
Winston and Strawn
Project Branch #3
1400 L Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C.
20005
101 Marietta Street, NW,.Suite.2900
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Mr. Robert B. Borsum
Babcock & Wilcox
Ms. Karen E. Long
Nuclear Power Division
Assistant Attorney General
Suite 525
N. C. Department of Justice
1700 Rockville Pike
P.O. Box 629
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Manager, LIS
Mr. R.L. Gill, Jr.
NUS Corporation
Nuclear Production Department
2650 McCormick Drive, 3 Floor
Duke Power Company
Clearwater, Florida
34619-1035 .P.O.
Box 1007
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007
Senior Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Route 2, Box 610
Seneca, South Carolina 29678
Regional Administrator, Region II
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900
Atlanta, Georgia
30323
Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
County Supervisor of Oconee County
Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
Mr. Hal B. Tucker
-4
January 2,
1992
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287
CHehl, RI
WHodges, RI
LPDR
LReyes, RII
VIB R/F
AGibson, RII
DRIS R/F
EMerschoff, RII
SVarga
JJohnson, RII
GLainas
FJape, RII
WRussell
MThomas, RII
FMiraglia
AHerdt, RII
BGrimes
HMiller, RIII
LNorrholm
EGreenman, RIII
UPotapovs
BBeach, RIV
RMcIntyre
SCollins, RIV
LCampbell
RZimmerman, RV
SAlexander
RFrahm
RPettis
CVanDenburgh
GCwalina
DMatthews
MBoyle
LWiens
OFC
- RIS1:VIB:DRIS
- RIS2:VIB:DRf
.RIS1:VIB:DRIS :SPS:VIB:DRIS
- REGION I
NAME :RMcwia-
- SAlexande rp-:LCampbel
C :RFrahm j(
CMThomas
DATE
12/20/91
- 1/',/91
- /2/91
- 12/191
- (2/214/91
OFC
- SC:RIS1:VIB
- VIB: R :NRR
- TECH EDITOR
- D:
S
R
- P R/I/ I NRR
NAME
- UP povs
- LNo holm
- DGable
1
s
eins
DATE
- 1,/j/91
.
/91
- 12/12/91
- /t
'(/911
OFC
-
.
NAME
- SVa a
DATE :
7,/9/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY