ML20235L253

Requests Implementation of Commission Action Re Fr Publication of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Acceptance of Products for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components, Allowing 120 Days for Comment

ML20235L253
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/16/1989
From:	Grimes B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Meyer D NRC
References
FRN-54FR9229, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8902270440
Download: ML20235L253 (58)

Text

-- _ _

g*  %, UNITED STATES j: p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 'j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

...../.  ;

i February- 16, 1989 i

i MEMORANDUM FOR: -David L. Meyer, Chief Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services-Office of Administration and Resources Management FROM: Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

' IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION ACTION: ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, " ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCTS PURCHASED FOR USE IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS" f

By memorandum dated February 10,1989 the Secretary of the Commission indicated that the Conraission (with all--Commissioners agreeing) has approved the publica-tion of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking set out in SECY-89-010 subject to attached modifications.

Please implement the Commission's action by arranging for publication of the enclosed Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register allowing for 120 days for public comment. Enclosed is a copy of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which has been changed to incorporate the Comission-requested modifications, for transmittal to the Office of the Secretary.

Also enclosed is a Congressional l_etter package for transmittal t GPA/CA and two copies of the public announcement for transmittal to GPA/CA.p.

' Brian K. Grimes, Director  !

Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

h/,60

1. Federal Register Notice l1

2. Congressional Letter Package h

iAf

3. Public Announcement jj V pF* '

22g eo" 1

7 g.. t f

David L. Meyer February 16, 1989 1

Distribution:

> Central 4 Files PDR VIB R/F ..

DRIS R/F BGrimes MClausen

'BBrach EBaker DBrinkman 5

/ft hto.

OFC -:VIB DRIS:N :D:DR,

Q:

a.....:. ef,j M --:- g-F :VIjL; 6 ------:-

p AIS:hRR :C:/BDRIS:NRR:TA:DRIS:NRR

-- 4- -----:-------------

EAME .:DSBrinkman:mgc :ETBaker :d! ra fi-p-----:------------:k(m

MJClausen  :  :

.o. __ _ - - .1

....----:-- -n_ ----------: n nat--------------:--------------:---------~~~~

nn ca ne oma c

.f - 'I D

6 i

ENCLOSURE 1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE -

7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part'50 Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in i Nuclear Power Plant Structures Systems and Components AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Comission) is proposing to develop regulations requiring enhanced acceptance procedures including, but not limited to, receipt inspection and testing of products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPR) is intended to solicit comments on the need for additional regula-tory requirements and to obtain an improved understanding of alternatives to regulatory requirements that could provide assurance that structures, systems and comportents procured for use in. nuclear power plants will perform as expected to protect public health and safety.

DATE: The comment period expires (120 days after publication). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

i Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.

and 4

15 p.m. Federal workdays.

i

( ,

7590-01 c

2 Examine copies of comments received at: The NRC Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max J. Clausen, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Telephone (301) 492-0969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations adopted in 1970 (35 FR 10498) establishes the quality assurance criteria for safety-related structures, systems and components for nuclear power plants. The purpose of the quality assurance criteria in Appendix B is to provide requirements for the design, procurement, receipt inspection and-testing, construction and operation of nuclear power plant structures, systems anc components. The criteria are generally structured to confirm the qtality of products designed, purchased, inspected, tested and installed for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. The criteria apply to all activities cc .iucted during the design, construction and operating phases of nuclear power plants that affect the safety-related functions of structures, systems and components. Procedures and actions by licensees and their representatives

~

conforming to'these criteria are expected to detect substandard and p'oor quality products but may not necessarily detect counterfeit or fraudulently marketed products. Recent cases involving apparently substandard, counterfeit and I

l 4

3 .,

r 7590-01 3-fraudulently marketed products for nuclear power plant structures, systems and components have prompted the Comission to reconsider the adequacy of current regulations for detecting substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products and for assuring that such products are not used in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components.

Criteria III, IV, VII, VIII, and XV of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 provide the criteria for the control of purchased structures, systems and components for nuclear power plants. Historically, licensees and their representatives have purchased products with certifications attesting to the quality of the products and have depended to varying degrees on the certifications as one basis for accepting the products. However, recent discoveries of substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products furnished to nuclear power plants by con-tractors and subcontractors demonstrate that current product acceptance practices, particularly those based heavily on certifications and stated catalog specifica-tions, have not been sufficient in all cases. Additional details of apparently substandard, counterfeit, and fraudulently marketed products are contained in NRC Compliance Bulletin No. 87-02 and Supplements 1 and 2, NRC Bulletin No.

88-05 and Supplements 1 and 2, NRC Bulletin No. 88-10, NRC Information Notice No. 88-19, NRC Information Notice No. 88-35, NRC Information Notice No. 88-46 and Supplement 1, NRC Information Notice No. 88-48, and NRC Infonnation Notice No. 88-97.1 l

1 These documents are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Docu-ment Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

_ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ t

(~ ".

7590-01 4

In many cases, as in part discussed in the referenced bulletins and information notices, product acceptance practices have failed to detect such substandard, counterfeit or fraudulently marketed products. Therefore, the Commission is considering the need fcr additional regulations or other methods to provide additional assurance that products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components satisfy requirements and specifications that are irrposed to provide confidence that these items will perform as required to protect the public health and safety.

The Comission's regulations provide two alternative approaches to assure that structures, systems and components satisfy requirements for safety-related appli-cations. A licensee may procure products to the requirements of the applicable code or standard for the safety-related structure, system or component. Alter-natively, the licensee may purchase a commercial grade product and then, using the appropriate procedures and satisfying the Comission's requirements, dedicate the commercial grade product for the safety-related application. The experiences that have been discussed in the bulletins and information notices previously referenced apply to products that were obtained using both of these approaches.

The Commission has concluded that significant engineering involvement is required during the procurement process for products used in nuclear power plants and during any testing of these products. It is the Commission's view that, in the past, inadequate engineering involvement has been a common weakness in licensees' procurement programs, particularly when commercial grade procurement were involved. It is the Commission's position that involvement of a licensee's engineering staff in the procurement process should include (1) selection of

l-l 7590-01 1' ,

l i

products to be used in the plant, (2) determination of the critical characteristics of the selected products that are to be verified during product acceptance, (3) determination of specific testing requirements applicable to the selected

products, and (4) evaluation of test results. This involvement should be appli- l l

cable to products initially procured as safety-related as well as comercial grade products procured for dedication and upgrading for use in safety-related .

applications. The extent of this engineering involvement will be highly dependent on the nature and use of the products involved.

The Commission is concerned about the quality of comercial grade products that are used throughout the nuclear plant, including applications in the " balance of plant" structures, systems and components. This concern stems from a recogni-tion that structures,-systems and components utilizing substandard products may not function as designed and may challenge safety-related systems unnecessarily or complicate the response to off-normal events. Comenters are requested to consider the issues and questions in this ANPR as they may relate to the need or desirability for either more prescriptive regulations or, alternatively, a performance-based requirement. Coments are also requested on the desirability of any such requirement for safety-related applications, as well as for applica-tions throughout the plant.

A broad spectrum of issues needs to be considered before the Comission decides on j 1

the scope and content of any proposed new regulatory requirements addressing the concerns raised by the experience of licensees placing essentially complete reli- l l

ance on certificates, .such as Certificates of Compliance, and the evidence that

l ,

J 7590-01 h J

1 some contractors are misrepresenting products. This experience is discussed in ]

the referenced bulletins and information notices. The following questions are_

posed to raise the issues that the Commission has identified and are not to be considered complete nor are they intended to bound tile scope _ of public comment on this ANPR. The questions are structured in two categories: (1) Prodects Procured for Use in Safety-Related Structure, System and Component Applications, and (2) Dedication of Commercial Grade Products for Use in Safety-Related Struc-ture System and Component Applications.

Public comments are invited on each of these questions. The comment resolution process will be improved if each comment is identified to the question to which it responds.- Commenters may submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of the letter in an electronic format on IBM PC-DOS compatible 3.5 or 5.25 inch double sided double density (DS/DD) diskettes. Data files should be pro-vided in ASCII code or, if formatted text is required, data files should be pro-vided in IBM Revisable-Form Text Document Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format.

1. Products Procured for Use in Safety-Related Structure, System and Compo-nent Applications.

The questions in this section are categorized in four subsections: General, Metallic Products, Nonmetallic Products, and Components.

1

3' i .

=

7590-01

( '

1 1.1 General 1.1.la In view of the problems that have been detected with substandard, counterfeit, or fraudulently marketed products, do the Commission's current regulations provide adequate criteria for ensuring the acceptability of purchased products?

1.1.lb If the current regulations are considered to provide adequate criteria, how should they be applied to ensure that substandard, counterfeit, and fraudulently marketed products are detected and precluded from use in nuclear power plants?

1.1.1c If the current regulations do not provide adequate criteria, should the Commission establish specific requirements or per-fonnance-based requirements to ensure that products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and compo-nents satisfy the operational requirements necessary to protect public health and safety?

1.1.2a What traceability requirements should be imposed for all products to be used in safety-related structures, systems and compcnents?

1.1.2b Should material traceability through all intermediary contractors, subcontractors and processors be required?

L F 'j 7590 03

.. c 1.1.2c Should all critical characteristics, for example, materials.

operations,. functions, etc., be traceable?

1.1.2d Should there be any exceptions to the traceability requirements?

1.1.2e What should the identification requirements be for traceability, for example, uniquely marking each part whenever possible, bagging, records, etc.? -

'1.1.3 Should product acceptances be restricted to inspections and tests or should product acceptances include, on a sample basis, destruc-tive inspections'and tests to verify chemical and physical characteristics?

1.1.4 What types of inspections and tests (appropriate for the various types of products) should be required?

1.1.5 Should licensees, contractors and subcontractors be encouraged to perform joint testing?

1.1.6 If destructive _ inspections and tests are determined necessary, whatshouldbethesamplingbasis(pervendor,perpurchase order,pershipment,perlot,percontaincr,etc.)?

1.1.7 Should sample plan testing be permitted for testing or should such testing be on a 100 percent basis?

I l

7590-01 1.1.8 What sort of statistical sampling during product inspection is adequate to provide confidence that the product has the' requisite assurance of quality?

1.1.9 What criteria should be used for allowing sample plan testing during product acceptance?

1.1.10 Should the shelf life of appropriate types of structures, systems and components be inspected and verified as acceptable during product acceptances?

1.1.11 To what extent will an effective vendor audit program and main-tenance of a qualified vendor list reduce the likelihood of ques-tionable products being used in nuclear power plants?

1.1.'12 What are the essential elements, for example, team composition, depth of audits, and approach, that must be included in an effective vendor audit program?

ef+

1.1.13 What reinspection or reaudit frequency is appropriate to main-tain confidence in those vendors on a qualified vendor list?

1.1.14 How do licensees ensure that Code Certificate holders and "N" stamp vendors are current?

l I

4

s. .

7590-01

\

I 1.1.15 Is there an auditable method to demonstrate that licensees actually purchased the product from a qualified vendor, for example, the holder of an ASME Code stamp holder certification?

1.1.16a Should negative inspection, testing and audit results be shared with other parties?

1.1.16b Is a Federal requirement necessary to permit this sharing of information?

1.1.16c Should procurement contracts be required to include a provision for public release of the results of audits of the vendor?

1.1.16d Are there restraint of trade, antitrust concerns or liabilities associated with these actions?

1.1.17 Should licensees, contractors and subcontractors be encouraged to make joint procurement and to share inspection / audit results of joint procurement to enhance the effectiveness of inspections /

audits?

1.1.18 If joint procurement and inspections / audits are encouraged, should controls be imposed and, if so, what and how should these controls be imposed?

f'r e '.

p  ;. e.

7590-01 1.1.39 What audit and testing documentation should be required to provide traceability and give confidence to all participants in joint product acceptances?

1.1.20a Should the NRC establish and publish a list of approved vendors for various products?

1.1.20b If a list of approved vendors is established, how should vendors be selected?

1.1.20c If a list of approved vendors is established, who should be responsible for maintaining this list?

1.1.20d Should licensees be restricted to making procurement from this list of approved vendors?

1.1.21 Should the use of a certificate, such as a Certificate of Confor-mance, in the procurement process be prohibited or, if allowed, be restricted to issue by the original equipment manufacturer l

for items that have remained under his direct control?

1.1.I Shu,1d the furnishing of the original manufacturer's certifi-cate, such as a Certified Material Test Report, be made mandatory for procurement of materials from intermediate vendors?

l

_i_______._..____

j .j 7590-01 1.1.23 Should the transcribing of an' original manufacturer's test data:

by intermediate vendors onto the vendors certification, for i

example, Certified Material Test Report, be forbidden?

1.1.24 To what extent should licensees or their representatives be required to. inspect the implementation of contractor product acceptance programs?

1.1.25 Should licensees be required to' audit implementation of 10 CFR

1. ~

Part 21 by suppliers.and vendors?-

1.1.26'In addition to the requirements of 10 CFR.Part 21, should licensees be required to notify manufacturers,' suppliers and vendors of licensee-identified problems with vendor-provided nonconforming products or programs?

1.1.27.Should licensee participation in a national data system for reporting equipment / component failures by manufacturer and application be required?

1.1.28 Is there specific data that should be included in a national data

. system that would significantly enhance its usefulness in estab-

.lishing equipment performance history?

- _m_ ___.m.__

b' '

7590-01 1.1.29 What are the implications;of any new Commission requirements on the Commission's endorsement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code in 10 CFR 50.55a?

1.1.30 What is the best way to coordinate any new requirements with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code?

1.1.31 Should the new requirements that relate to areas covered by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (e.g., SA material specifi-cations) be' handled through the code conmittee system?

1.1.32 To what extent should items 1.1.la through 1.1.31 be required for other than safety-related components?

1.2 Metallic Products (e.g., fasteners, piping, pipe fittings, weld rod, castings, forgings, bar stock, plate material, stampings, wire, cable,etc.)

1.2.la Should chemical analyses of the products be required as part of product acceptances?

1.2.lb Should these analyses of the products be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

7590-01

- 14 -

'I.2.2a Should tests of mechanical properties (e.g., hardness, tensile strength, impact, etc.) of the products be required as part of product acceptances?

1.2.2b Should tests of mechanical properties of the products be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

1.2.3 When destructive tests are required, are test coupons (when applicable) an acceptable source of test materials for the tests of chemical and mechanical properties or should material samples be removed from actual products?

1.3 Nonmetallic Products (e.g., lubricants, tape, elastomers, seals, paints, filters,etc.)

1.3.la Should, chemical analyses be required for lubricants, tape, elastomers, etc., during product acceptances?

1.3.1b Should these analyses be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

i 1.3.2 Should physical property tests (e.g., viscosity for lubricants, hardness for elastomers, efficiency for filters, etc.) be required during product acceptances?

o 3 . . -

.7590 .

1.4 Components (e.g., pumps, valves, circuit breakers, controllers and electronicparts/ assemblies-andtheir.replacementparts) 1.4.1 Should components be subjected to functional tests during product

' acceptance?

{

1.4.2a Sheuld components be disassembled, if necessary 'during product a:ceptance, to verify dimensional characteristics?-

'1.4.2b If the components are not disassembled, what methods should be utilized to verify critical characteristics?

1.4.3a Should the chemical and physical properties of component materials be' analyzed during product acceptance inspections?

1.4.3b If the chemical'and physical properties of component materials are to be analyzed during product acceptance inspections, what .

means should be utilized?

2. Dedication of Commercial Grade Products for Use in Safety-Related Structure.

-System and Component Applications The questions in this section are categorized in five subsections: General,

-+

^

Metallic Products, Nonmetallic Products, Components, and Others Questions.

L_____-_-___________________________

7590-01

- J 2.1 General 2.1.1 Should the Commission establish specific requirements or per-formance-based requirements to ensure that commercial grade products being dedicated for use in safety-related nuclear power plant structures, systems and components satisfy the operational requirements necessary to protect public health and safety?

2.1.2 Should NRC regulations be revised to endorse and incorporate by reference, the industry codes, standards, or guidance documents for dedication programs of commercial grade products for use in safety-related structure, system and component applications?

2.1.3a What should the traceability requirements be for all comerc'ial products being upgraded for use in safety-related structures, systems and components?

2.1.3b If upgrading traceability provisions are necessary, what should these provisions include?

2.1.3c Should material traceability through all intermediary contractors, subcontractors and processors be required?

2.1.3d If item traceability is necessary, should there be any provisions for upgrading products whose traceability cannot be established?

l ..

7590-01 2.1.3e Should-the upgrading traceability provisions be any different if the products are heat / lot identified or not?

2.1.3f What should the identification requirements be for traceability, for example, marking, bagging'and records?

2.1.4 How should products intended for use in applications in which

. products are normally required to meet specific standards be inspected to verify tnat all critical characteristics are satisfied?

2.1.5 Should the shelf life of appropriate types of products be inspected and verif~ ed as acceptable as part of the upgrade inspection procest?

2.1.6 What types of shelf life controls should be !iposed on products that are being upgraded for use in safety-related structures, systems and components?

2.1.7 Should all upgrade inspections be restricted to inspections and tests or should they include, on a sample basis, destructive inspections and tests to verify chemical and physical characteristics? ,

l 2.1.8 What types of inspections and tests (appropriate for the various types of products) should be required?

l

I 7, 7590-01 I

i 2.1.9 How should inspections verify all critical characteristics (for example, chemistry, physical properties, dimensions, i special processes, etc.)? j 2.1.10a If destructive inspections and tests are determined to be necessary, how should samples be selected if product: are heat / lot identified?

2.1.10b How should samples be selected if products are not heat / lot

' identified?

2.1.11 Should sample plan testing be permitted for nondestructive testing or should such testing be on a 100 percent basis?

2.1.12 What criteria are appropriate for allcwing sample plan testing during upgrade inspections?

2.2 Metallic Products 2.2.la'Are chemical analys'es of the products appropriate as part of

-upgrade inspections?

2.2.lb Should these analyses be performed by destructive or by non-destructive means?

1

~

7590-01

,19 -

i 2.2.2a Are tests of mechanical properties (e.g., hardness, tensile strength, impact, etc.) appropriate as part of upgrade inspections?

i' 2.2.2b Should these tests be performed by destructive or by non-destructive means?

2.2.3 If the product is heat / lot traceable, is sample inspection (destructive and nondestructive) adequate for confirmation of critical characteristics?

2.2.4 If the product is not heat / lot traceable, is it necessary to either sample or 100 percent test, for example, hardness, to establish uniformity and then destructively analyze them (for example,chemicalanalyses,tensiletested,impacttested,etc.)

to determine acceptability?

2.2.5 Should requirements in addition to those included in industry standards (e.g., additional samples, etc.) be required?

i 2.2.6 When destructive tests are required, are test coupons (when avail-able) an acceptable source of test materials for chei;ical and mechanical properties tests or should material samples be removed from actual products?

i l

1 l 1

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _- ._ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _- -i

i

,z. . -

( t. .0 .

17590-01 2.3 . Nonmetallic Products 2.3.la Are' chemical analyses necessary to establish critical character-istics for lubricants, tape, elastomers, etc., proposed for

. upgrading for use in safety-related systems?

2.3.1b Should:these analyses be' performed by destructive or by non -

destructive'means?

2.3.2 Are. physical property tests -(e.g., viscosity for lubricants, hardness for elastomers, efficiency for filters, etc.) necessary-for upgrading these products?

2.3.3 May critical characteristics be inspected by samples.or is 100 percent inspection' necessary to verify these characteristics?

i 2.4 Components l

2.4.1 Must each critical characteristic be inspected before-the com-ponent is acceptable for use in safety-related systems?

2.4.2 How should the chemical and physical properties of component materials be analyzed during upgrade inspections?

l 1

L L- . ___________ _________ ____--- -

g .. w/

7590-01 I  ;

i 2.4.3 If critical characteristics cannot be inspected on each component piece, should it be acceptable to establish heat /

lot traceability, establish uniformity of lot by sample inspection and thereby accept the lot?

2.4.4a Must components be 100 percent functionally tested or may they be subjected to functional tests on a sampling basis?

2.4.4b If inspected by sample, what is the basis for performing only sample inspection?

2.4.5a Should disassembly of components be required to verify critical characteristics?

2.4.5b May verification of critical characteristics be done on a sampling basis or are 100 percent inspections necessary?

l l

2.4.5c What is the basis for performing only sample inspections?

2.4.5d If components are not disassembled to verify dimensions, what methods can be utilized to verify dimensions?

2.5 Other Questions ,

2.5.la Are there any other agency / organization standards or programs that l

l should be adopted for use in upgrading commercial grade products for use in safety-related systems?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

.. .s j

. .. 8 7590-01 2.5.Ib Should.these standards or programs be endorsed by NRC regulations?

1' 2.5.2 Are there other alternatives that could provide the necessary assurances?

2.5.3 To what er, tent should any existing controls or any additional controls being contemplated in the ANPR be extended to nonsafety-related applications in " balance of plant" st'ructures, systems and components?

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radia-tion protection, Reactor siting criteria, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citations for this document are Sec. 161, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat.

948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); and Sec. 201, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).

' 7590-01 Dated at Rockvills, Ma_ryland, this day of. 1989.

FCB THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk..

Secretary of the Comission 4

4 l,.

1 f'

o__-_

t- D 6 ' 'O o l 4

ENCLOSURE 2 CONGRESSIONAL LETTER PACVAGE i

i l

l j j

i i s gmog

.f .  % UNITED STATES y ' ,g - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, . ,

% g f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g

f . .%...

The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation  ;

Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for pubitcation the enclosed Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Comission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50. Recent cases involving substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products for nuclear power plant structures, systems and components have pro;npted the Comission to reconsider the adequacy of current regulations for detecting substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products and for assuring that such products are not used in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is intended to solicit public coments on the need for additional regulatory requirements concerning enhanced product acceptance methods and to obtain an improved under-standing of alternatives to additional regulatory requirements that could provide assurance that structures, systems and components procured for use in nuclear power plants will perform as expected to protect public health and safety.

Sincerely,

=

g Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

AhPR cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson

, p *'*% s f

f, * . ..

'kg .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,, .G j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\.**... }'

l The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Conmittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the'0ffice of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50. Recent cases involving substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products for. nuclear power plant structures, systems and components have orompted the Commission to reconsider the adequacy of current regulations for detecting substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products and for assuring that such products are not used in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is intended to solicit public comments on the need for additional regul.ator;/ requirements concerning enhanced product acceptance methods and to obtain an improveI under-standing of alternatives to additional regulatory requirements that could provide assurance.that structures, systems and components procured for use in nuclear power plants will perform as expected to protect public health and safety, Sincerely,

(&ThomasE.Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

ANPR cc: Ranking Minority Leader i

f i

{

)

L i ga arov, l/

g -. '

'g UNITED STATES

.g- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-5'-  !=.j- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -

y .

w. l' The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman

. Subcommittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr.' Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Comission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50. Recent cases involving substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently-;

marketed products for nuclear power plant structures, systems and components.

have prompted the Commission to reconsider the adequacy of current regulations for detecting substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products and .i for assuring that such products are not used in nuclear power plant' structures, systems and components. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is intended to solicit public coments on the need for additional regulatory requirements concerning enhanced product acceptance. methods and to obtain an improved under-

. standing of alternatives to additional regulatory requirements that could provide assurance that structures, systems and components procured for use in nuclear power plants will' perform as expected to protect public health and safety.

Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director 6E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

ANPR ,

'cc: Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead

January 17, 1989 SECY-89-010 For: The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, " ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCTS PURCHASED FOR USE IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMP 0NENTS"

Purpose:

To obtain approval to publish the enclosed Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (Enclosure 1) for public comment.

The purpose of the notice is to solicit public comment addressing whether regulatory actions may be necessary and appropriate to assure that products purchased for use in nuclear power plants will perform the functions necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Background:

Recent experience has shown that some products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components are substandard, have falsified records, or have been otherwise mis-represented. The recognition of the potential safety significance of these circumstances has led to the issuance of several NRC bulletins.and information notices (Enclosure 2). These bulletins and information notices were issued to assure that licensees, including Construction Permit holders, were informed and that they were prepared to take actions to prevent inadequate products

' from being installed in nuclear power plants.

A generic letter is being prepared to inform licensees that an effective receipt inspection and testing program is considered appropriate to enhance the probability that any product installed will perform as expected. The generic letter will also describe processes that licensees may use to dedicate commercial grade products for use in safety-related applications. The generic letter will request licensees to inform the Commission of the status of the implementation of such processes and the date of implementation.

The Chairman notified Congressman Dingell in the response to the Congressional Subconraittee on Oversight and Investigations report "The Threat From Substandard Fasteners: Is America Losing It's Grip?" that the Commission was considering publishing an ANPR to CONTACTS: Max J. Clausen, NRR X20969 Donald S. Brinkman, NRR x23216

t ,

-The Commissioners obtain comments on enhanced receipt testing requirements at nuclear power plants. This ANPR satisfies that commitment.

' Discussion: This ANPR solicits public comment on a list of issues related to the procurement of products for use at. nuclear. power plants. The issues'are posed in the form of questions to solicit views on what regulatory action, if any, is necessary to enhance the probability that structures, systems and components installed in nuclear power plants will perform as expected; that is, perform their intended safety functions or perform their normal functions in a manner that will avoid challenges to the plant safety systems.

'This ANPR poses questions with respect to actions necessary to assure the quality of both products procured to be installed in safety-related applications and commercial grade products to be dedicated for subsequent installation in safety-related applica-tions. The ANPR states that it is the Commission's position that the licensee's engineering staff should be involved in the pro-curement process of products procured as safety-related as well as commercial grade products dedicated and upgraded for use in cafety-related applications. This involvement should include (1) selection of products to be used in the plant, (2) deter-mination of the critical characteristics of the selected pro-ducts- that are to be verified during product acceptance, (3) determination of specific testing requirements applicable to the selected products, and (4) evaluation of test results.

The ANPR solicits comments on the efficacy of other agency /

organization standards or programs and on the extent to which the additional controls being contemplated should be extended to non-safety-related applications in the " balance of plant" structures, systems and components. The questions solicit descriptions of alternative approaches that may effectively provide the assurances needed for the Commission to find that the products purchased for use in nuclear power plants will perform to protect the public health and safety.

Conclusions /

Recommendations: That the Commission approve publication of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for comment in the Federal Register.

Coordination: The Committee to Review of Generic Requirements has been briefed on this ANPR and has no objections. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objections.

. / -

Vi tor Stell , Jr ecutive Direct r for Operations

Enclosures:

1. ANPR

2. NRC Information Notices and Bulletins

I Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, February 3, 1989.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, January 25, 1989, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper.

is of such a. nature that it requires additional time for analytical. review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

DISTRIBL, TION:

Commissioners OGC OI OIA GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP

.SECY ,

-4 4

,e '.'

Enclosure 1 l

1 i j ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING l

l i

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . -__ _ _ _ _ - . k

1. .. l 7590-01 l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 ,

Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuc, lear Power Plant Structures, Systems and Components

< AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I l

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

i

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Comission) is proposing to develop regulations requiring enhanced acceptance procedures including, but not limited to, receipt inspection and testing of products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPR) is intended to solicit comments on the need for additional regula-tory requirements and to obtain an improved understanding of alternatives to regulatory requirements that could provide assurance that structures, systems and components procured for use in nuclear power plants will perform as expected to protect public health and safety. ,

DATE: The. comment period expires (120 days after publication). Comments received ef ter this date will be c.onsidered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to" comments received after this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

o -- .

,. ' 5 ,-

g*c s';

.7590-01 Examine copies of comments received at: The NRC.Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,lNW, Washington .D.C.

)

FOR FURTHER'INFORMATION CONTACT: Max J. Clausen. 0ffice..of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory' Comission, Washington',: D.C. 20555.

Telephone (301)492-0969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background-

-Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations adopted in 1970' (35 FR 10498) establishes-the quality assurance criteria for safety-related structures, systems and components for nuclear power plants. The purpose of the quality, assurance criteria in Appendix B is to provide requirements for- l the design, procurement, receipt inspection and testing, construction and-

. operation of nuclear. power plant structures, systems and components. .The criteria are generally structured to confirm the quality of products designed, purchased, inspected,-tested and installed for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components. The criteria apply to all activities conducted during the~ design, construction and operating phases of nuclear power plants that affect the safety-related functions of structures, systems and. comp'onents. Procedures and actions by licensees and their representatives

. conforming to'these criteria are expected to detect substandard and p'oor quality products but may not necessarily detect counterfeit or fraudulently marketed ,

e products. Recent' cases involving apparently substandard, counterfeit and

l

. 4 7590-01 I

fraudulently marketed products for nuclear power plant structures, systems and )

components have prompted the Commission to reconsider the adequacy of current regulations for detecting substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products and for'asturing that such products are not used in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components.

Criteria III, IV, VII, VIII, and XV of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 provide the criteria for the control of purchased structures, systems and components for nuclear power plants. Historically, licensees and their representatives have purchased products with certifications attesting to the quality of the products and have depended to varying degrees on the certifications as one basis for accepting the products. However, recent discoveries of substandard, counterfeit and fraudulently marketed products furnished to nuclear power plants by con-tractors and subcontractors demonstrate that current product acceptance practices, particularly those based heavily on certifications and stated catalog specifica-tions, have not been sufficient in all cases. Additional details of apparently l substandard, counterfeit, and fraudulently mar?: feted products are contained in NRC Compliance Bulletin No. 87-02 and Supplements 1 and 2, NRC Bulletin No.

88-05 and Supplements 1 and 2, NRC Bulletin No. 88-10, NRC Information Notice No. 88-19, NRC Information Notice No. 88-35, NPC Information Notice No. 88-46 and Supplement 1, NRC Information Notice No. 88-48, and NRC Information Notice No. 88-97.I I These documents are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Docu-ment Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

7590-01 4-

.In many cases, as in part discussed in the referenced bulletins and information

. notices, product acceptance practices have failed to detect such substandard, counterfeit or fraudulently marketed products. Therefore, the Commission is considering the need for additional regulations or other methods to provide additional assurance that products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components satisfy requirements and specifications that are inposed to provide confidence that these items will perfonn as required to protect the public health and safety.

The Comission's regulations provide two alternative approaches to assure that structures, systems and components satisfy requirements for safety-related appli-cations. -A licensee may procure products to the requirements of the applicable code or standard for the safety-related structure, system or component. Alter-natively, the licensee may purchase a commercial grade product and then, using the appropriate procedures and satisfying the Comission's requirements, dedicate the commercial grade product for the safety-related application. The experiences that have been discussed in the bulletins and information notices previously referenced apply es f roducts that were obtained using both of these approaches.

l The Comission has concluded that significant engineering involvement is required during the procurement process for products used in nuclear power plants and during any testing of these products. It is the Commission's view that, in the l: past, inadequate engineering involvement has been a comon weakness in licensees' procurement programs, particularly when commercial grade procurement were involved. It is the Comission's position that involvement of a licensee's engineering staff in the procurement process should include (1) selection of t

7590-01 i

products to be used in the plant, (2) determination of the critical characteristics {

1 of the selected products that are to be verified during product acceptance, (3) determination of specific testing requirements applicable to the selected ,

products, and (4) evaluation of test results. This involvement should be appli-cable to products initially procured as safety-related as well as comercial grade products procured for dedication and upgrading for use in safety-related applications. The extent of this engineering involvement will be highly dependent on the nature and use of the products involved.

The Comission is concerned about the quality of commercial grade products that are used throughout the nuclear plant, including applications in the " balance of plant" structures, systems and components. This concern stems from a recogni-tion that structures, systems and components utilizing substandard products may not function as designed and may challenge safety-related systems unnecessarily or complicate the response to off-normal events. Comenters are requested to consider the issues and questions in this ANPR as they may relate to the need or desirability for either more prescriptive regulations or, alternatively, a performance-based requirement. Comments are also requested on the desirability of any such requirement for safety-related applications, as well as for applica-tions throughout the plant.

A broad spectrum of issues needs to be considered before the Commission decides on the scope and content of any proposed new regulatory requirements addressing the concerns raised by the experience of licensees placing essentially complete reli-ance on certificates, such as Certificates of Compliance, and the evidence that

E-

/ . .

l

. 7590-01 l

4 I

i some contractors are misrepresenting products. This experience is discussed in the referenced bulletins and information notices. The following questions are l posed to raise the issues that the Commission has identified and are not to be  !

considered complete nor are they intended to bound the scope of public comment on this ANPR. The questions are structured in two categories: (1) Products Procured for Use in Safety-Related Structure, System and Component Applications, and (2) Dedi' cation of Commercial Grade Products for Use in Safety-Related Struc-ture, System and Component Applications.

Public comments are invited on each of these questions. The comment resolution process will be improved if each comment is identified to the question to which it responds. Commenters may submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of the letter in an electronic format on IBM PC-DOS compatible 3.5 or 5.25 i

inch double sided double density (DS/DD) diskettes. Data files should be pro- l vided in ASCII code or, if formatted text is required, data files should be pro-vided in IBM Revisable-Form Text Document Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format.

1. Products Procured for Use in Safety-Related Structure, System and Compo-  !

nent Applications.

l The questions in this section are categorized in four subsections: General, Metallic Products, Nonmetallic Products, and Components. ,

i

)

)

7590-01 1.1 General 1.1.la In view of the problems that have been detected with substandard, counterfeit, or fraudulently marketed products, do the Commission's current regulations provide adequate criteria for ensuring the acceptability of purchased products?

1.1.1b If the current regulations are considered to provide adequate criteria, how should they be applied to ensure that substandard, counterfeit, and fraudulently marketed products are detected and precluded from use in nuclear power plants?

3 1.1.1c If the current regulations do not provide adequate criteria, should the Commission establish specific requirements or per-formance-based requirements to ensure that products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and compo-nents satisfy the operational requirements necessary to protect public health and safety?

1.1.2a What traceability requirements should be imposed for all products l

to be used in safety-related structures, systems and components?

l 1.1.2b Should material traceability through all intermediary contractors, subcontractors and processors be required?

r

[. _g . ' *'e 7590-01  ;

.i 1.1.2c Should all critical characteristics, for example, materials,.

operations, functions, etc. . be traceable?

1.1.2d.Should' there be any exceptions to the traceability requirements?

1.1.2e What should the identification requirements be for traceability,

.for example, uniquely marking each part whenever possible, bagging, records, etc.?

1.1.3 Should product acceptances be restricted to inspections and tests or should product acceptances include, on a sample basis, destruc-tive inspections and tests to verify chemical'and physical characteristics?

' 1.4 What. types of. inspections and tests (appropriate for the various types of products) should be required?

1.1.6.Should licensees, contractors and subcontractors be encouraged to perform joint testing?

1.1.6 If destructive inspections and tests are determined necessary, what should be the sampling basis (per vendor, per purchase order,pershipment,parlot,percontainer,etc.)?

1.1.7 Should sample plan testing be permitted for testing or should such testing be on a 100 percent bLsis?

i

_m_._.______.._____ . _ _ _ _ . .

7590-01 1.1.8 What sort of' statistical sampling during product inspection is adequate to provide confidence that the product has the requisite assurance of quality?

1.1.9 What criteria should be used for allowing sample plan testing during product acceptance?

1.1.10 Should the shelf life of appropriate types of structures, systems i

and components be inspected and verified as acceptable during i product acceptances?  :

1.1.11 To what extent will an effective vendor aud'tiprogram and main-tenance of a qualified vendor list reduce the likelihood of ques-tionable products being used in nuclear power plants?

1.1.12 What are the essential elements, for exampie, team composition, depth of audits, and approach, that must be included in an  ;

l effective vendor audit program?

1.1.13 What reinspection or reaudit frequency is appropriate to main-tain confidence in those vendors on a qualified vendor list? 1 1

1.1.14 How do licensees ensure that Code Certificate holders and "N" i

stamp vendors are current?

l r

^y p ,

7590-01 y .

_ 10 _

1.1.15'Is there an auditable method to demonstrate that licensees l actually purchased the product .from a qualified vendor, for.

example,'the holder of an ASME Code stamp holder certification?

1.1.16a Shouldinegative inspection, testing,and audit;results be shared ,

.with other. parties?

i i L1 .1.16bLIs.a Federal requirement necessary to permit.this sharing of information?

1 1.1.16c Should. procurement contracts be required to include a provision 1 for p'u'b lic; release of t'he results of audits of the vendor?

l 1.1.16d 'Are there restraint of trade, antitrust concerns or liabilities associated with these actions?

1.1.17 Should licensees, contractors and subcontractors be encouraged to make joint procurement and to share inspection / audit results of joint procurement to enhance the effectiveness of inspections /-

audits?

1.1.18 If joint procurement and inspections / audits are encouraged, should controls be imposed and, if so, what and how should these controls be imposed?

o,.

a ,. ,..-

.7590-01 1.1.19 What audit and testing documentation should be required to provide traceability and give confidence to all participants in 1 joint product acceptances?

1.1.20a Should the NRC establish and publish a list of approved vendors for various products? 4 1.1.20b If a list of approved vendors is established, how should vendors be selected?

1.1.20c If a list of approved vendors is established, who should be responsible for maintaining this list?

'1.1.20d Should licensees be restricted to making procurement from this list of approv C vendors?

1.1.21 Should the use of a certificate, such as a Certificate of Confor-marice, in the procurement process be prohibited or, if allowed, be restricted to issue by the original equipment manufacturer for items that have remained under his direct control?

1.1.22 Should the furnishing of the original manufacturer's certifi-cate, such as a Certified Material Test Report, be made mandatory for procurement of materials from intermediate vendors?

7590-01 1

1.1.23 Should the transcribing of an original manufacturer's test data by intermediate vendors onto the vendors certification, for example, Certified Material Test Report, be forbidden?

1.1.24 To what extent should licensees or their representatives be required to inspect the implementation of contractor product acceptance programs?

1.1.25 Should licensees be required to audit implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 by suppliers and vendors?

1.1.26 In addition to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21, should licensees be required to notify manufacturers, suppliers and vendors of licensee-identified problems with vendor-provided nonconforming products or programs?

1.1.27 Should licensee participation in a national data system for reporting equipment / component failures by manufacturer and application be required?

1.1.28 Is there specific data that should be included in a national data system that would significantly enhance its usefulness in estab-lishing equipment performance history?

^*

.4' 7590-01

- 13 .

(

~1.1.29 What are the implications of any new Commission requirements on the Commission's endorsement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler ano "ressure Vessel Code in 10 CFR 50.55a?

I'1.30 What is the best way to coordinate any new requirements with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code?

1.1.31 Should the new requirements that' relate to areas covered by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (e.g., SA material specifi-cations) be handled through the code committee system?

1.1.32 To what extent should items 1.1.la through 1.1.31 be required for other than safety-related components?

1.2 Metallic Products (e.g., fasteners, piping, pipe fittings, weld rod, castings, forgings, bar stock, plate material, stampings, wire, cable,etc.)

1.2.la Should chemical analyses of the products be required as part of product acceptances?

1.2.lb Should these analyses of the products be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

l

t- .

+

7590-01 1.2.2a Should tests of mechanical properties (e.g., hardness tensile strength, impact, etc.) of the products be required as part of product acceptances?

1.2.2b Should tests of mechanical properties of the products be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

1.2.3 When destructive. tests are required, are test coupons (when applicable) an acceptable source of test materials for the tests of chemical and mechanical properties or should material samples be removed from actual products?

1.3 Nonmetallic Products (e.g., lubricants, tape, elastomers, seals, paints, filters,etc.)

1.3.la Should, chemical analyses be required for lubricants, tape, elastomers, etc., during product acceptances?

1.3.lb Should these analyses be performed by destructive or by nondestructive means?

1.3.2 Should physical property tests (e.g., viscosity for lubricants, hardness for elastomers, efficiency for filters, etc.) be required during product acceptances?

~

l

^

$  ?.'.

, .. , 1 .7590-01 15 -

1.4 Components (e.g., pumps, valves, circuit breakers, controllers and electronic parts / assemblies and their replacement' parts) 1.4.1 Should components be subjected to functiona'l tests during product-acceptance?

.1.4.2a Should components be disassembled, if ne'cessary during product' acceptance, to verify dimensional characteristics?

1.4.2b If-the components are not disassembled, what methods-should be utilized to verify critical characteristics?

1.4.3a Should the chemical and physical properties of component materials be analyzed during product acceptance inspections?

1.4.3b If the chemical and physical properties of component materials are to be analyzed during product acceptance inspections, what means should be utilized?

. 2. Dedication of Commercial Grade Products for Use in Safety-Related Structure, System and Component Applications The questions'in-this section are categorized in five subsections: General, Metallic Products, Nonmetallic Products, Components, and Others Questions.

---

uh ___m__m_u__. m__ ______n__ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

p .: -.

7590-01 l-2.1 General 2.1.1 Should the Commission esteblish specific requirements or per-formance-based requirements to' ensure that commercial grade products being dedicated for use in safety-related nuclear power i

plant structures, systems and components satisfy the operational requirements necessary to protect public health and safety?

2.1.2 Should NRC regulations be revised to endorse and incorporate by reference, the industry codes, standards, or guidance documents for dedication programs of commercial grade products for use in safety-related structure, system and component applications?-

1 i

2.1.3a What should the traceability requirements be for all commercial products being upgraded for use in safety-related structures, systems and components?

2.1.3b If upgrading traceability provisions are necessary, what should these provisions include?

2.1.3c Should material traceability through all intermediary contractors, subcontractors and processors be required?

2.1.3d If item traceability is necessary, should there be any provisions for upgrading products whose traceability cannot be established?

4 l

)

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ___ _ i

1/ . .

r ,

, 7590-01 1'

2.1.3e.Should'the upgrading traceability provisions be any different 1f

~

the products are heat / lot identified or not?

~

2.1.3f What should the identification requirements be for traceability, for example, marking, begging and records?

2.1.4 How ~should products intended for use in applications in which products are normally required to meet specific standards be inspected to verify that all critical characteristics are satisfied?

2.1.5 Should the shelf life of appropriate types bf Lproducts be inspected and verified as acceptable as part of the upgrade inspection process?

2.1.6 What types of shelf life controls should be imposed on products that are being upgraded for use in safety-related structures, systems and components?

2.1.7 Should all upgrade inspections be restricted to inspections and tests or should they include, on a sample basis, destructive inspections and tests to verify chemical and physical characteristics?

2.1.8 What types of inspections and tests (appropriate for the various types of products) should be required?

r, - .

1 ,

7590-01 5

4 q

2.1.9 How should inspections verify all critical characteristics l -- (for example, chemistry, physical properties, dimensions, special processes, etc.)?

2.1.10a If destructive inspections and tests are' determined to be necessary, how should samples be selected if products are heat / lot identified?

2.1.10b How should samples.be selected if products are not heat / lot identified?

2.1.11 Should sample plan testing be permitted for nondestructive testing or should such testing be on a 100 percent basis?

2.1.12-What criteria are appropriate for al'10 wing sample plan testing during upgrade inspections?

2.2. Metallic Products 2.2.la Are chemical analyses of the products appropriate as part of-upgrade inspections?

S. 2.lb Should these analyses be performed by destructive or by non-destructive means?

I l

e , . ;- i

+, .

.7590-01~

?2.2.2a Are tests of mechanica1' properties (e.g., hardness, tensile strength,. impact, etc.) appropriate as.part of upgrade inspections?.

i \

- 2.2.2b Should' these tests be performed by destructive or by. non--

destructive means?

2.2.3 If the product is heat / lot traceable, is sample inspection

~

(destructive and nondestructive) adequate for confirmation of' critical' characteristics?

4

.2.2.4 If the product is not heat / lot traceable, is it necessary'to either. sample or 100 percent test, forfexam'ple, hardness,'to-establish uniformity and then destructively analyze them (for E example,' chemical analyses, tensile tested, impact tested, etc.) .

to determine acceptability?-

.2.2.5 Should requirements in addition to.those~ included in industry.

standards.(e.g., additional samples, etc.)_be' required?

2.2.6 When destructive tests are required, are test coupons (when avail-able) an acceptable source of test materials for chemical and mechanical properties tests or should material samples be removed (

l from actual products?

]

I 1

. - - . _ _ _ _ - _ , _ _ - . . ~ . . _ _ . . _ _ - - _ . _ . . - - - . - . _ . -_ - _ -_

7590-01 2.3 Nonmetallic Products 2.3.la Are chemical analyses necessary to establish critical character-istics for lubricants, tape, elastomers, etc., proposed for'  ;

upgrading for use in safety-related systems?

2.3.lb Should these analyses be performed by destructive or by non-destructive means?

2.3.2 Are physical property tests (e.g., viscosity for lubricants, hardness for elastomers, eff'ciency for filters, etc.) necessary.

for' upgrading these products?

2.3.3 May critical characteristics be inspected by samples or is 100 percent inspection necessary to verify these characteristics?

2.4 Components 2.4.1 Must each critical characteristic be inspected before the com-ponent is acceptable for use in safety-related systems?

l 2.4.2 How should the chemical and physical properties of component {

materials 'be analyzed during upgrade inspections?

2 i E

7590-01.

.2.4.3 If critical characteristics cannot be inspected on each component piece, should it be ac,ceptable to establish heat /

lot traceability, establish uniformity of lot'by sample inspection and thereby accept the lot?

2.4.4a Must components be 100 percent functionally tested or may they.

be subjected to functional tests on a sampling basis?

2.4.4b If inspected by sample, what is the basis for performing only J

sample inspection?  !

- 2.4.5a Should disassembly of components be . required to verify critical .

characteristics?

l

'i 2.4.5b May verification of critical characteristics be done on a sampling basis or are 100 percent inspections necessary?

. 2.4.5c What is the basis for performing only sample inspections?

2.4.5d If components are not disassembled to verify dimensions, what methods can be utilized to verify dimensions?

2.5 Other Questions 2.5.la Are there any other agency / organization standards or programs that should be adopted for use in upgrading commercial grade products for use in safety-related systems?

. ' 92. -f "

' :.; /*:

N: -

7590-01  !

4 . ,

l l < 2.5.1b Should these' standards or programs be endorsed by NRC regulations? j 2.5.2 Are-there other alternatives'that could. provide.the necessary.

assurances?

2.5.3 To what extent should.'any existing' controls or any additional controls being contemplated in the ANPR'be extended to nonsafety-related applications in " balance of plant" structures,: systems and. components?

- LIST OF SUBJECTS. IN '10, CFR-PART 50

.i Antitrust ~, . Classified information, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference,

. Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radia-tion protection,-Reactor siting criteria' and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(

The authority citations for.this document are Sec. 161, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat.

948, asLamended (42 U.S.C. 2201); and'Sec. 201, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended-(42 U.S.C. 5841).

a3

$ .- 8 . ',O'.

.7590-01.

Dated'at Rockville, Maryland, this, day of 1989.

1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 3

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the. Comission

.J-l' I

a_ .. .

Enclosure 2 LIST OF REFERENCED NRC BULLETINS AND INFORMATION NOTICES 1

1. NRC Compliance Bulletin No. 87-02 and Supplements 1 and 2: " Fastener Testing to Determine Conformance With Applicable Material Specifications."

2. NRC Bulletin No. 88-05 and Supplements 1 and 2: " Nonconforming Materials Supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc. at Folsom, New Jersey and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown, New Jersey."

3. NRC Bulletin No. 88-10: " Nonconforming Molded-Case Circuit Breakers."

4. NRC Information Notice No. 88-19: " Questionable Certification of Class IE Components."

5. NRC Information Notice No. 88-35: " Inadequate Licensee Performed Vendor Audits."

I

6. NRC Information Notice No. 88-46 and Supplement 1: " Licensee Report of l

Defective Refurbished Circuit Breakers."

7. NRC Information Notice No. 88-48: " Licensee Report of Defective Refurbished Valves."

8. NRC Information Notice No. 88-95: " Inadequate P'ocurement Requirements i Imposed by Licensees on Vendors."

9. NRC Information Notice No. 88 C' "Potentially Substandard Valve Replacement Parts."

PLEASE NOTE: THESE DOCUMEFiS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN THE PUBLIC 4 EdM:;lT ROOM AND DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED.

7- 7 - - - - - , ..: -

g I e y d e e

e ENCLOSURE 3

)

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT f

i, 1

i 's DRAFT NRC INTENDS TO AMEND REGULATIONS TO FURTHER ASSURE THAT PRODUCTS USED IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PERFORM FUNCTIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is giving advance notice of its intent to amend its regulations or take other steps to provide further assurance that products used in nuclear power plants will perform the functions necessary to protect the public health and safety.

This action is being taken because of recent experience showing that some products purchased for use in nuclear power plants are substandard, have falsified records or otherwise have been misrepresented. i f

Any new requirements would be in addition to those existing quality assurance requirements which are included in Appendix B to Part 50 of the Commission's regulations and are intended to confirm the quality of products j

' designed, purchased, inspected, tested and installed for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems and components.

Under the regulations, one of two methods can be used to assure that products satisfy requirements for safety-related applications. They may be specifically procured to meet the requirements of the applicable code or standard for the safety-related structure, system or component, or a commercial-grade product may be purchased and dedicated to meet the Commission's requirements.

p;

. DRAFT.

L

'g,

- - ,. av The Commission had determined that inadequate engineering involvement has been a common' weakness in licensee's procurement programs, particularly when commercial-grade' procurement are concerned, and that,_ in order to assu're that a product will perform the functions necessary to protect the public health and safety, a licensee's engineering staff generally should be involved in:

(1) the selection of the products; (2) the determination of the critical characteristics of the selected products that are to be_ verified during product acceptance; (3) the determination of specific testing requirements applicable to the selected products; and 1

(4) the evaluation of the test results.

The Commission also is concerned about the quality of commercial-grade products that are used in non-safety-related or balance-of-plant structures, systems and components b'ecause they might not function as designed, resulting in unnecessary challenges to safety-related systems or complicate the response to off-normal events.

Accordingly, the Commission is requesting public comments on a series of specific questions posed .in the Advance Notice or Proposed Rulemaking, as well as more general comments related to the Commission's proposed action, as a basis for determining what additional requirements may be necessary to further assure that substandard products are not installed in licensed nuclear power plants.

a=____

7f'-[f; DRAFT

~, , - . - .

Written comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should be received by- (date)'. They should be addressed.to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:

. Docketing and Service Branch.

s i

i l

l l

1

_ - -