ML20148J886
| ML20148J886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1988 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-67403, TAC-67404, NUDOCS 8803300420 | |
| Download: ML20148J886 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000413/1987023
Text
_
.
8
o
UNITED STATES
I
["
j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g,
- E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,
\\
/
MAR 2 5 1988
Docket Nos. 50-413
and 50-414
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker
Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION 0F CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-413/87-23, 50-414/87-23
(TACS 67403/67404)
Thank you for your letter dated December 18, 1987, which responds to the
Quality Verification Function Inspection documented in NRC Ir.spection Report
Nos. 50-413/87-23 and 50-414/87-23. We appreciate your having taken the
initiative to address the issues raised in the report. After a careful review
of your letter, we believe there are several areas of apparent misunderstanding
regardino the purposes and conclusions reached at that inspection.
The inspection was designed to assess the ability of your quality verification
(QV) organizations to identify, resolve, and prevent issues that affect plant
safety and reliability. The inspection was performance based and concentrated
on issues that affected plant safety and reliability. The planning and imple-
mentation of the inspection emphasized those activities of safety significance.
The inspection focused on areas of known or suspected technical problems;
where safety significant problems were confirmed to exist, the team assessed
the effectiveness of the activities of both your QV organizations and manage-
ment in identifying and resolving the issue. The inspection is intended to
influence your QV organizations to be more technically competent, effective,
and useful to plant management.
For the purpose of these inspections, we have
defined QV organizations to include quality assurance (QA), quality control
(QC), quality engineering, independent review comittees, and other line
organizations that identify problems and take corrective action.
Your letter states that you do not agree with the report's generalization that
the c"ality verification organizations were not very effective in their
identification and prompt resolution of problems. To the contrary, we believe
that there were a sufficient number of indicators to support this conclusion.
These included the general operations inexperience of your QA staff, the
3300420 9903g9
A
G
DCK 05000A13
'
,-
>
Duke Power Company
-2-
programmatic nature of QA audits and surveillances, and a number of important
plant problems in which the QV organizations were either not involved or did
not contribute meaningfully to the final resolution.
Also discussed in your letter is your management philosophy regarding
responsibility for achieving and verifying quality. We endorse your
emphasizing quality achievement in the line organization. We also encourage
the line organization to identify problems and take corrective action.
But,
when they take these actions, we see them acting in a quality verification
role. We disagree that the QA organization should not be involved in the tech-
nical resolution of identified problems.
If the QA organization is technically
credible, it can and should help define the problem, provide insight into root
cause, and approve and confirm the resolution of the problem in a technically
meaningful way. This approval and confirmation should go beyond the classical
0A paper-oriented review and address the technical merits of the corrective
action. We do not agree that this presents a conflict of interest for any QV
organization or that it in any way diminishes the effectiveness of any QV
organization.
To the contrary, we believe it enhances their effectiveness and
usefulness to plant management. Although we support your initiatives to improve
the QA organization's effectiveness, we continue to be concerned that your QA
organization is not meaningfully contributing to plant safety and reliability
as long as audits and surveillances are primarily programmatic in nature.
If we can answer any questions regarding either specific technical issues
discussed in the inspection report or the matters discussed in this letter,
please contact Mr. Frank Hawkins at (301) 492-1009.
Sincerely,
'
n A . Va r g a', W' A
irec c r
Division of Reactor P ,
cts I/II
Office of Nuclear Reac
Regulation
cc:
J. W. Hampton, Station Manager
-_
_
-
.
' ,/
Duke Power Company
-3-
Distribution:
QAB Reading
TMurley, NRR
FMiraglia,-NRR
JPartlow, NRR
RLSpessard, AE0D
Glainas, NRR
SVarga, HRR
WTroskoski, ED0
JARoe, NRR
JAZwelinski, NRR
SHWeiss, NRR
FCHawkins, NRR
WHill, SECY
KJabbour, NRR
CHaughney, NRR
JSmith, NRR
Reaien II Distribution:
LReyes, DRP
AGibson, DRS
VBrownlee, DRP
CJulian, DRS
ABelisle, DRS
PVanDoorn, SRI, Catawba
RII Docket Room
PQ:NRR
C:QAB:D
R
DD:
i
D:
.
FCHaWkins:nkp SHWe s
JAZwolinski
JARoe
02
88
02/1 /88
03/ / /88
@/ [ /88
v[R
psH
PDI19:
PDII/3:NR
J.I RR
- N
KJabbour
DHood
G ain i
a
03/pt/88
,02/cg/88 t/[
CJP/)3/88
88
yd
'A
$VI
.