ML20247N131

Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Existing Regulations,Codes & Stds Including Industry Procurement Improvement Activities Are Adequate

ML20247N131
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/07/1989
From:	Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-54FR9229, RULE-PR-50 54FR9229-00059, 54FR9229-59, NO-89-190, NUDOCS 8908020287
Download: ML20247N131 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

..,.,a...

. sy J

.n ARKANSAS POW =R & LIGHT COM -

CAPITOL TOWER BUILDING /P. O. 50X 551/!.!T.E RCCK, ARKANSAS 72 ...,b.F 3L.35 July 7, 1989  !

rr o'

• vN..$N[.I, DOCKET GUMBER yg $() '60C5 ~4 -

~

PROPOSED RULE u ,-

NO-89-190 cj Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137

. Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Advance Notice of Freposed Ruleraking Acceptance of Products Purchased fer use in Nu:1 car Power Plant Structures, Systems and Ccmponents 54 Fed.

Rec. 9229 - March E,1989 Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted cn behalf of the Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) in response to the rcquest of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments en the NRC's Advance Nctice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) entitled " Acceptance of Products PLrchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems and Componen s (54 Fed.

Reg. 9229 - March 6, 1989).

The Arkansas Power and Light Comoany, an Entergy Corporation operating company, operates two (2) nuclear power plants and supplies electrical energy to a service area covering southeast Missouri and a significant portion of Arkansas. AP&L, along with the irdustry 4.s a whcle, shares tne concern expressed by the NRC oser the potential for fraudulent or counterfeit components finding their way into s.ervice in commercial nuclear power plants. Recent events have served to indicate that the issue is one that clearly must be addressed to mininize the potential for such components to be installed in power plant systens and subsequently to remove the potential for an adverse impact on plant safety. In pursuing this issue, we believe that the potential regarding fraudulent or counterfeit components can best be reduced through improvements. to the procurement processes used by the  !

l l nuclear industry. We further do not believe that the issuance of a rule or modifications to existing regulations is ne:essary. There are currently l significant efforts and initiatives underway by tre industry to address l procurement issues and these actions will most likely be more timely and l more effective than woulo rulemaking in coping with the issues of frauculen*

and counterfeited material.

8[908020287890W ph9229 1/

PDR

. . _ m. . , _ m . . . . .

M /C L

i Mr. Samuel J. Chilk -E- July 7, 1989 AP&L, as a member of the Nuclear Faragement and ResoLrces Council (NUMARC),

fully supports the industry activity being pursued by NUMARC's Nuclear Plant Equipment Procurement Working Groep (NPEP). These actions are aimed at l developing long-term resolutions tt :oncerns raised by both industry and the l- NRC regarding the procurement process. Included in this initiative are measures that can be taken to protect against fraudulent activity as well as the development of guidance fer use oy the dndustry to resolve procurement

'ssues. AP&L has committed to an industry effert to upgrace the process by which commercial grade items are tscicated for use ir esfety-related applications. AP&L is further invcived witn the NPEP which has additional i activities and initiatives underway pertaining to otter aspects of procurement, these activities encenpass many areas acdressed by the ANPR.

No system of rules can be made totally unsusceptible to fraud. However, the likelihood of fraudulent or counterfeit activity entering the procuremen.

process can be effectively minimized. Such activity is best detected by vigilant, trained personnel who eiiectively implement quality-related regulations, codes, and standards in day-to-day practices. We share the industry position that the solutfer. to these issues and the reduction in the potential for fraud cannot be realized through hasty alteration of existing regulations. It has been noted by tne NRC, in Generic Letter 89-02, that some utility programs, under the extsting regulatory framework, are effective at detecting fraud. A strong case is made, therefore, that the best and most efficient solution tc this problem lies in the improved implementation of existing regulaticas and standards, as opposed to the making of new regulations. The ccrbination of existing regulations, codes, and standards, coupled with the use of trained, experienced individuals sensitive to quality, provide the test overall syster. Due to the complex,

'nterwoven nature of the procurenert process and its attendant quality assurance systems, changes mandatcc by regu ation may be counterproductive; the dynamic nature of procurement activities requires a large degree of flexibility to function in an effective manner.

AP&L has concluded that a rule to specifically address fraud is neither necessary nor appropriate. Existirg regulations, coces and standards Lsed

'n concert with the ongoing industry procurement improvement activities and

'nitiatives, provide a much more cenprehensive and timely mechanism to address concerns about fraudulent productr, n an overall context.

Our attached comments provide respcnse to the general issues raised by the ANPR. We intend to be diligent ir our pursuit of solutions to the issue.

It is neither desirable from the perspective of good business nor acceptable from the broader perspective cf pctiic safety to be Lndely susceptible to fraud and counterfeit in any forn. AP&L wi'l continte to work with the

'ndustry and the NRC to resolve our mutual concerns en this issue.

Very truly yours, A sM k T. Gene Campbell TGC:1w Attachments cc: Mr. William Cavanaug:., III

ATTACHMENT

'5PECfFIC Cor1MENTS ON ANPR e.

54FR9229 By ARKANSAS DOWER & LIGHT CO..

1.1 ' 1.1.1. a Yes - Current regulations provide adequate criteria 1.1.1.b More performance-based audits and witness or hold points to verify venoor activities 1.1.1.c Any added criteria should be performance based 1.1.2.a An itsm'shoulc ce traceable to whatever is used to justify its suitability for its intenced use 1.1.2.b That would depend en the item and the processes 1.1.2.c Only if the resJ1t cannot te verified at future points in processing 1.1.2.d Yes - When critical characteristics can be verified by other means 1.1.2.e As prescribed in current regulations 1.1.3 Product acceptance should ce geared to the product being accepted. Regulations should neither require or exclude

. destruct.ive testing.

1.1. 4 Those necessary to provide reasonable assurance that critical cherectaristics are such that a product will perform its intended design function.

1.1.5 Should not be addresssd 1.1.6 Should be based on history and praduct 1.1.7 Sample testing should be permitted 1.1.8 Recognized sample plan such as tilL-STD-105-D 1.1.9 Type of product, vendor history

.1.1.10 Yes 1.1.11 Very effective 11 audits are product oriented and performance based 1.1.12 Both technical and programmatic expertise is required.

- Audits should be performance oriented and product oriented.

1.1.13 Evaluation at least annually 1.1.14 Review of ASME Publications, Licensee representation on ASME asdits. Apply the same verification / surveillance activities as with non-ASME vendors. -

1.1.15 Yes 1.1.16a Yes 1.1.16b Yes 1.1 16c No 1.1.16d Yes 1.1.17 Yes 1.1.18 Cor.!rols to ensure that the requirements of all participants are met.

1.1.19 Should Le tailored to the situation and specified before performance 1.1.20.a No 1.1.20.b Similar to ASME 1.1.20.c The organization establishing the list 1.1.20.d No 1.1.21 No

, Lv 1.1.22 Would depend on the materini cna the application 1.1.23- No 1.1.24 To the extent necessary to verify comp 1'ance within the pregran as approved by the Licensee.

1.1.25 No 1.1.26 Yes 1.1.27 Yes - if information is gathered and distributed in a reliable and usable manner 1.1.28 Yes 1.1.29' Could be significant depending on the nature of the requirements 1.1.30 Through joint efforts 1.1.31 Yes 1.1.32 .Should not

. 1.2.1.a Depends.on other means available for verification and critical characteristics 1.2.1.b Either 1.2.2.a Same as 1.2.1.a 1.2.2.b Either, if available 1.2.3 Actual product would be preferred  !

1. 3.1. a Same as 1.2.1.a 1.3.1.b Same as 1.2.2.b 1.3.2 Same as 1.2.1.a 1.4.1 Yes 1.4.2.a Only if those dimensions are critical to the component's function and cannot be verified qy cther means 1.4.2 b Functional tests and process control monitoring 1.4.3.a Same as 1.2.1.0 1.4.3.b No 2.1.1 Any requirements snould be performance based 2.1.2 No 2.1.3.a Traceability should be adequate to ensure that criti:a1 characteristics have been verified 2.1.3.b Depends on ther product 2.1.3.c Only if critical characteristics cannot be verified sy other means 2.1.3.d Yes 2.1.3.e Would depend on the proeuct 2.1.3.f Would depend on the proeuct 2.1.4 This woulc cepena on the stancards and tne critical characteristic to be inspected 2.1.5 If an item is poing to be stored after Lpgrading, shelf j life should be considerec j 2.1.6 Adequate to ensure that products ao not degrace oefore use  !

2.1. 7 Should includo inspections necessary to verify critical characteristics t

5 .

. c-2.1.8 Same as 2.1.7 2.1.9 Through performance-baseo audits ano vendor surveillance combined with acceptanco inspection 2.1.10.a Witness manufacturer tests on selected sample ' rom the lot for testirg 2.1.10.b Same as 2.1.10.a. except sample from the available population 2.1.11 Sample plan stcLid be adeqLate in most instances 2.1.12 Things such as vencor history, methoc of manufacturing..

type of product, etc.

2.2.1.a This would deperd en the critica' characteristics of the product arc means available to verify them 2.2.1.b Either 2.2.2.a Same as 2.2.1.a 2.2.2.b 5ame as 2.2.1.b 2.2.3 Yes, providing information is available verifying control of the ganLfacturirg process 2.2.4 This would depend en the criti:a' characteristics of the product ard 'nf orma;ior, avai'abic acout manufacturing controls-2.2.5 No 2.2.6 Actual product should be used when the size of the proouct permits 2.3.1.a Only if a review of manufacturing controis and vendor history indicate a need 2.3.16 Either 2.3.2 Same as 2.3.1.a 2.3.3 Sample 2.4.1 Yes 2.4,2 By taking sanples cf actual materials er verifying the manufacturing program for :erf:rming the tests if tney are critical to performance of the product.

2.4.3 Yes 2.4.4.a Sampling bases should bs a:ceptable providing the manufacturing process is reliaole 2.4.4.b Vencor history, manufacturing process, type of material, etc.

2.4.5.a Only if they ca,not be verified by other means 2.4.5.b Same as 2.4.4.a 2.4.5.c Same as 2.4.4.b 2.4.5.d Vencer surveilitnce to verify in process centrois; i

functional testing

2. 5.1. a Upgrade requirements should be determinec en a case by case basis througn engineering review of critical characterist'es 2.5.1.b No 2.5.2 Yes 2.5.3 None

( _ _ _ _ _ .

i