ML20246H279

Ack Receipt of 890601 Response to NRC & Notice of Violation.Informs That Basis for Violation Denial Not Substantiated Based on NRC Review of Okonite Co Audit. Comments on Licensee Procurement Provided

ML20246H279
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	08/29/1989
From:	Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Campbell G ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8909010203
Download: ML20246H279 (3)

Text

_

,y b n, 7 % [

AUG 2 91989

.In Reply Pefer To:-

l Dockets: 50-313/89-16 l 50-368/89-16 l

l Arkansas Power & Light Company ATTN: Mr. Gene Campbell Vice President, Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter of June 1,1989, in response to our letter and Notice of Violation dated April 18, 1989. As a result of our review of Okonite Company audit information' furnished by you at our request subsequent to your written response, we find that the basis for the violation denial is not substantiated. This matter was discussed with Messrs. H. Green, W. Butzlaff, and D. Lomax of your staff during a-telephone call on August 2, 1989, and with l Mr. H. Green during a telephone call on August 3, 1989.

In your June 1,'1989, response you have stated that your procurement of l

Okonite T-95 tape met the spirit of Appendix F and dedication Method 2 of NCIG-07. Dedication for both instances was indicated to be based on:

.(1) procurement requirements that the tape conforms to the. description contained in the product catalog, (2) receipt inspections of the tape, (3) audit (commercial grade survey) of the supplier, and (4) knowledge of the product and its performance throughout industry. For the sake of clarity, our comments on your earlier and latter procurement are addressed separately below. 1

a. 1984 - 1986 Procurement These procurement identified that the tape was to be commercial grade and imposed no technical c. documentation requirements. As stated in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/89-16, 50 'J68/89-16, paragraph 5.2.2 of the

'" Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental' Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors," November 1979 (DDR Guidelines) requires that materials used be traceable to the type tested. Method 2 of NCIG-07 (which was not issued until March 1988) requires that the purchaser confirm that the selected commercial grade item's critical characteristics are controlled under the scope of commercial quality system activities.

I, The purchaser must also reasonably assure that the commercial supplier's activities adequately control the consercial grade items supplied.

From review of the audit information supplied to us and as a result of discussions with your staff, it would appear that the technical basis used to dedicate these commercial grade items was audits performed at Okonite RIV:C:MQPS* AD:DRS* D:[ h IBarnes/cjg JJaudon JLF hoan

-/ /89 / /89 ( /89

• previously concurred i g 1

890901GkO3 890829 PDR ADOCK 05000313 0 __ L--__ ____-__

t

[m .

Arkansas Power & Light Company ,

Company by organizations external to Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L).

The audits performed prior to your procurement of Okonite T-95 tape were conducted by a utility (January 1982) and an architect-engineer (September 1983). The audits, which were programmatic in nature, addressed cable manufacture and did not reference T-95 tape manufacture in the audit Ecope. Accordingly, we cannot give credit to these audits to verify either traceability of tape manufacture to the materials that were tested in Okonite Report NQRN-3 or that the procurement met the spirit of NCIG-07.

We no u that one audit report furnished to us from this timeframe did address splicing kits. This audit, which was performed by a utility in March 1986, identified an open item with respect to inability to firmly establish the effects of material changes on environmental qualification (EQ).

Utility internal correspondence on the audit indicated that the issue had been technically resolved based on data received from another utility and that the Quality Assurance group would be required to validate the Okonite Certificates of Conformance during tri-annual surveys. The basis for this resolution was not included in the information furnished by AP&L. It was additionally noted that a different qualification to NORN-3 was referenced in this audit report. In November 1988, AP&L performed an audit of the quality system used for manufacture of T-95 tape. Review of this audit report showed no specific identification that consideration had been'given to the traceability of current product-to-product that was used for the NQRN-3 qualification.

In summary, AP&L has not provided an appropriate basis to support denial of the part of the violation addressing earlier procurement of Okonite T-95 tepe. Accordingly, we request that you either provide an additional technical basis to support dedication of these procurement or inform us of the actions that will be taken to resolve this matter.

b. Procurement Since 1987 These procurement identified that 10 CFR Part 21 was not applicable, but they required the tape to "be equivalent to the item tested per Okonite Report No. NQRN-3, Revision 3, which qualifies the item for nuclear service both inside and outside containment per IEEE 383-1974 and IEEE 323-1974." This technical requirement reficcts an understanding of an attempt to resolve the basic concern discussed above with respect to your earlier procurement. The regulations (10 CFR Part 21) define a commercial grade item, in part, as an item tnat is not subject to design or specification requirements that are unique to facilities or activities licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, or 72. You have indicated in your response that the vendor catalog identifies that the product is " nuclear qualified to IEEE 383," and that referencing nuclear qualification in your purchase orders was not a specification requirement but a reaffirmation of a " product feature" described in the catalog. We conclude that the technical requirement noted above, which both exceecs

~ _-

w y m. . ..y . . .

.i 9 Arkansas Power & Light' Company r- the vendor catalog ~ description and ties the proe:M to a specific EQ report, is a" specification requirement that is. unique to a licensed facility. Accordingly, we maintain-that inclusion of this requirement in the purchase orders,-made this item a basic component.:for which the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 are required by Section 21.31 of 10 CFR Part 21 to be specified as applicable.

Ir. summary, AP&L has not provided an appropriate basis to support denial of the part of_the violation dealing with failure to impose the provisions of 10'CFR-Part 21 in purchase orders: issued since-1987 to the Okonite Company. Accordingly,

~

we would request that you. provide an additional response in accordance with the criteria contained in the Notice of Violation. The issue is whether or not AP&L has a program which can procure commercial grade parts and then upgrade or dedicate these parts for use in a safety system or component.

Please provide the supplemental information within 30 days ,of the date of this letter. 7 Sincerely, l-Original Signed 113 l 3.1. Milboan James L. Milhoan, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc:

Arkansas Nuclear One

' ATTN: N. S. Carns, Director Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801

. Arkansas Radiation Control Program Director bec to DMB (IE01)  ;

bec distrib. by RIV: {

RRI R. D. Martin, RA j RPB-DRSS SectionChief(DRP/A)~ j Lisa Shea, RM/ALF RIV File DRP MIS System RSTS Operater ProjectEngineer(DRP/A)

DRS-(2)

C. Harbuck NRR Project Manager (MS: 13-D-18)

C. Poslusny, NRR Project Manager (MS: 13-D-18) l

)

1.'Barnes

1. Barnes Reading File j l

i

e

,- n

.=

ARKANSASF .ER S LIGHT COMPANY CAPITOL TOWER BUILDING /P. O. BOX 551/LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203/(501) 377 3525 June 1, 1989 T. GENE CAMPBELL Vice President Nuclear

,,$ d

• ~ ~ ~

OCAN068902 L. J. Callan, Director Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-313/50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Response to Inspection Report 50-313/69-16 and 50-368/89-16

Dear.Mr. Callan:

.ursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, AP&L's re',ponse to the violation identified in the subject inspection repcrt is attached.

This document was scheduled to be filed May 18, 19L9. AP&L requested and received an extension to the filing schedule until June 1, 1989.

Very truly yours,

/

/ sf 24 /

T. Gene Campbell TGC: sgw enclosure cc w/ encl: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555 l

MEMBEA MCOLE SOUTH UTILITIES SYSTEM

• 4 Enclosure to OCAN068902

• 'l* a June'1, 1989 e Pagt 1 of13

-AP&L's Response to Notice of Violation 313-368/8916-01

~

I. Statement of Violation Inadequate Procurement Requirements for Materials Used in Environmental Qualification Applications Criterion IV of Appendix B _to 10. CFR Part 50 states, in part, " Measures shall be established to assure'that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements which are necessary to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced-in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services . . . ."

Paragraph 4.2.2 of the licensee's approved quality assurance program description states, in part, " Procurement documents are to include' or reference specific design specifications for the items or services to be procured which define specific codes, standards, tests, inspections, environmental qualifications, and records'to be applied and/or furnished . ...

Contrary to the above:

1. The' provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 were not imposed in three purchase orders issued since 1987 to the Okonite Company for the supply of a basic component; i.e., electrical tape with specified environmental qualification requirements.

2. Three purchase' orders issued between 1984 and 1986 to the Company for commercial grade electrical . tape failed to include appropriate quality requirements to provide' assurance of suitability for planned environmental qualification applications.

This is a Severity Level.IV violation. (Supplement I) (313/8916-01; 368/8916-01)

II. A?&L's Response to Violation 313/8916-01; 368/8916-01 AP&L denies the violation.

This alleged violation relates to procurement of Okonite T-95 tape. The tape is used in both nuclear and non-nuclear applications throughout the nation.

The vendor does not now produce the tape in accordance with a 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B QA program. However, Okonite adheres to a commercial grade quality assurance program which has been audited by many nuclear licensees, including AP&L, to assist in providing reasonable assurance that the tape will perform as expected.

L.

E_ ____1--_-_---____ _ _- -- a

. y

[ :.fJ9ne nclosure to OCAN068902' 1, 1989:

.Page-2 of 3 p .As the Staff is aware, the tape is used in many nuclear facilities in harsh

' environments requiring qualification pursuant to 10.C.F.R. 9 50.49. The '

1 product.has been analyzed, tested and reviewed on many occasions for acceptable y  ; qualification by both the nuclear industry and the NRC Staff with positive  !

L results. In short, Okonite T-95 tape is a very reliable product with an

l. outstanding track record. 3 1

1 l- The vendor sells the product from a catalog description that lists " specification" ]'

requirements as well as " application" and " product features." Several of the

" product features" are that'the tape has " outstanding moisture. resistance," has

" excellent ozone and corrosion resistance," and is " nuclear qualified to IEEE  ;

383." respective of who purchases the tape or for what purposes, these features apply to the tape supplied.

In November 1984, March 1985 and November 1986, AP&L procured the tape in P.O.

Nos. 22223, 29083, and 05792,.respectively. Each of-the commercial grade procurement requested that the catalog description tape be supplied. Quality was verified (dedicated) by, among other things, receipt inspections, discussions with the vendor, audits of the vendor's- comn.ercial grade quality assurance-program,'and knowledge of the product's performance. The tape was qualified by.

an Okonite test report which was reviewed and accepted by AP&L (as well as the ,

Staff in numerous EQ audits).

As industry'and the Staff.became more sensitive to environmental qualification issues and after' general discussions with the Staff, AP&L modified its next three Okonite commercial grade procurement to not only reference the

'" specification" requirements listed in the catalog, but also the " product

' feature" regarding nuclear qualification.

Against this background, the Staff states that the first three commercial' grade purchases should have contained. specific references to nuclear qualification of the tape. However, the Staff also states that the last three purchases should not have contained those specific references if the purchases were to be called

" commercial grade" -- the only purchase-type accepted by the vendor.

.As the legal basis for a violation, the NRC Staff alleges that AP&L violated Criterion IV of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 in that AP&L's procurement documents relating to Okonite T-95 tape used in EQ harsh environments did not

" include.or reference specific design specifications for the items . . . which define environmental qualification . . ." in conflict with AP&L's p N curement procedures. The alleged violation is apparently premised on the position that procurement documents for equipment used in EQ harsh applications must include specific ~ design requirements related to environmental qualification, i o., no EQ harsh environment equipment can be procured commercial grade. This postion is in direct conflict with Staff guidance that equipment used in EQ harsh applications may be procured commercial grade and dedicated by the licensee.

See Generic Letter 89-02 (March 21, 1989) which endorses Appendix F to NCIG-07 (June 1988).

_ _ . . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _..l.______._._.____ .__.__.____,,_____.______.___m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

b

. Y '[ Enclosure'tol0CAN068902 1

' ,' W ne 1, 1989 Page'3 of 3

< Turning from the legal violation, t'he concept'of commercial grade dedication is

, Lat-the heart of the Staff's concern. The Staff andiindustry recognize that this.is an evolving issue. 'Until recently there was little firm guidance concerning what constituted an acceptable dedication program. In June 1988,

-EPRI published, " Guideline for Utilization of Commercial Grade Items in Nuclear

Safety Related Applications (NCIG-07)" which provided detailed guidance on dedication of commercial grade products. This guidance was conditionally endorsed by the Staff in' Generic Letter 89-02 (March 21, 19.89).

AP&L maintains that its earlier and latter procurement actions met the spirit of Appendix F and dedication Method 2 of HCIG-07.- (See pp. 3-4 to 3-9 )

Specifically, dedication in both instances was based on, among other things, (1) procurement requirements that the tape conforms to the description contained in the product catalog, (2) receipt inspections of the tape, (3) audit (commercial grade survey) of the supplier and (4) knowledge of the product and its performance throughout industry. In this regard, even though the tape is used at many plants and has been widely inspected by NRC Staff, AP&L is unaware of any.

instances of concern raised by the Staff or industry regarding use or qualification of the tape. '(As the Staff is aware, tnere have been a number of successful environmental qualification tests conducted of the tape.) In short, AP&L believes that it has appropriately dedicated the commercial grade procurement of Okonite T-95 tape for. use in the various safety-related applications at ANO. .j In the alleged violation, the Staff also stated that the latter three purchases should'have imposed 10 C.F.R. Part 21 requirements because the procurement documents referenced nuclear specific '.' design or specification" requirements, i.e., nuclear qualified. (See 10 C.F.R. 21.3 (a-1) AP&L maintains, however, that referencing nuclear qualification in its request in the last three purchase orders was not a " specification requirement" noted in the catalog, but rather a reaffirmation of the " product feature" as described in the catalog. The snuclear qualified designation did not impact the specifications for design or manufacture of the tape. AP&L is unaware of any change to the manufacture process or material used in the tape to make it " nuclear qualified." It was a condition incident to those specifications. Further, reference to previous test data to-insure that components procured to be dedicated for use as basic components are if ke-for-like is established as acceptable practice in NRC documents. (See e.g., NRC Inspection Manual, Inspection Procedure 38703,

" Commercial Grade Procurement Inspection," at Section 03.02.d). In short, the l latter three purchases did not require " nuclear specific specifications" and, accordingly, were appropriately categorized as " commercial grade" and appropriately

- dedicated (as noted above) for safety-related application.

In conclusion, for the reasons noted above, AP&L denies the alleged violation.

AP&L correctly procured the Okonite T-95 tape as commercial grade and appropriately dedicated it for safety-related applications at ANO. In this regard, AP&L l

notes that the Staff concurs that the Okonite T-95 tape installed in the plant is now appropriately dedicated and raise:, no safety concerns.

1l

l. l o <

l