ML19296D744
| ML19296D744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Mcneill W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D735 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900081 99900081-79-2, NUDOCS 8003130099 | |
| Download: ML19296D744 (7) | |
Text
U. S. NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900081/79-02 Program No. 51500 Company:
Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
Nuclear Fuels Department 2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352 Inspection Conducted:
December 10-13, 1979 Inspector:
i(.
h
(??( [
80 W. M. McNeill, Contractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch
?
/[ '/d'a Approved b
(
C D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on December 10-13, 1979 (99900081/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of Topical Report including nonconformances and corrective action; control of special processes; fuel rod fabrication controls, and review of manufacturing activities. The inspection involved twenty-eight (28) inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified in three (3) of these areas. The following one (1) deviation was identified in the remaining area.
Deviation:
Nonconformances and Corrective Action preventn ive action was not documented on the DMRs or their attachments as required by the Topical Report 15.1.g and Criterion V of Appendix B (Notice of Deviation).
80031800 Mi
4 2
DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted PB. R. Black, Supervisor QC Engineering R. R. Brinkerhoff, Supervisor Manufacturing
- T. L. Davis, QA Manager, Nuclear Fuels K. P. Galibraith, Fuel Design Engineering Manager D. W. Ham, Welding Engineer
- E. N. Harbinson, Supervisor Inspection D. J. Hill, Chemist P. P. King, Process Engineer I. J. Miller, Supervisor Manufacturing kJ. A. Perry, Quality Assurance Manager R. D. Reid, Welding Engineer M. R. Schwab, Process Engineering and Development Manager
- C. J. Volmer, QC Manager N. S. Wing, Analytical Laboratories Manager
- K. N. Woods, Fuel Performance and Process Engineering Manager
- Denotes those attending the Exit Interview.
B.
Nonconformances and Corrective Actions 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
The manufacturer's system contains sufficient measures a.
to provide reasonable assurance that nonconforming materials, parts, or components are not inadvertently utilized and that prompt corrective actions are taken.
b.
The manufacturer's system meets the requirements of Criteria XV and XVI, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of the Exxon Topical Report, XN-NF-1A, Revision 2, a.
Sections 15.0, Nonconforming, Material, Parts, or Components and 16.0 Corrective Action which established the general requirements for nonconformance and corrective actions.
3 b.
Review of the following Quality Assurance Procedure which established specific requirements:
Deviating Material Control, QA Procedure 15, Revision 6, and Corrective Action Systems, QA Procedure 16, Revision 1.
c.
Inspection of hardware in process in various areas of the shop, i.e., rod fabrication, pellet fabrication machine shop, skeleton assembly, etc.
In this inspection status of hardware fuel rods, pellets, etc., was verified and sample of nonconforming material established.
This inspection verified the nonconforming materials to be identified, segregated, and dispositioned in accordance with the above procedures.
d.
Examination of the above sample of nonconforming material and others to verify that appropriate corrective action, follow-up, and analysis as required by the above procedures.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation See Notice of Deviation.
b.
Unresolved Items None c.
Comments A review of the 90 DMRs issued and dispositioned in the last 2 months found only 4 had some preventative action indicated.
An example of a DMR dispositioned without some preventative action indicated was DMR 9322 on chemical contamination of a pellet lot.
The statistic used above is not to be construed as a quota or the failure to meet a quota.
It only exemplifies the degree to which the procedure is not followed.
This problem is particularly noteable when such a significant nonconformance as chemical contamination is not identified on the DMR as requiring preventative action.
4 C.
Control of Special Processes 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that special processes are properly qualified and controlled in accordance with Criterion IX, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50 and the Quality Assurance Manual.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of Exxon Topical Report, SN-NF-1A, Revisica 2, a.
Section 9, Control of Special Processes which established the general requirements for control of special processes.
b.
Review of Product Specification SN-S30, 216, Revision 20, PWR Fuel Rod Assembly Process Specifications SN-NF-P20, 203, Revision 11, SN-NF-P20, 206, Revision 1, and drawing Fuel Rod Assembly SN-302,881, Revision 0, which established specific requirements.
Witnessed fuel rod welding and verified compliance with the c.
welding procedure (i.e. XN-NF-PQ-250, Revision 8).
Also the qualification of the personnel and process was reviewed and verified to be current. The equipment was verified to be currently calibrated.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations None b.
Unresolved Items None D.
Fuel Rod Fabrication Controls 1.
Objectives Objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
The fuel rod assembly and quality controt _
cices and procedures are sufficient to give reasonabia assurance that manufactured fuel rods meet specifications and contractual requirements.
5 b.
The manufacturer's system is capable of producing quality fuel rods.
2.
Method of Accomplishment Review of the Exxon Topical Report, SN-NF-1A, Revision 2, a.
Sections 5, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings; 10, Inspection; 14, Inspection, Test, and Operating Status which established the general requirements for fuel rod fabrication controls.
b.
Review of Product Specification SN-S30, 216, Revision 20, PWR Fuel Rod Assembly, and Process Specifications XN-NF-P20, 171, Revision 2, Fuel Rod and Fuel Assembly Components; SN-NF-P20, 204, Revision 6, Final Etching and Cleaning; SN-NF-P20, 204, Revision 6, Final Etching and Cleaning; XN-NF-P20, 207, Revision 12, Final Etching and Cleaning; SN-NF-P20, 208, Revision 13, Autoclave Rods which established specific requirements.
Witness of fuel rod loading, cleaning and etching, and auto-c.
claving and verified compliance with the above requirements.
Witness inspection of fuel rod and verified use of approved visual standards and calibrated equipment.
Verified inspection to be in compliance with Quality Control Standards SN-NF-ALL-09, Revision 20, SN-NF-P68162, Revision 10, and SN-NF-P69030, Revision 2.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations None b.
Unresolved Items None E.
Review of Manufacturing Activities 1.
Objectives The objectives of this areas of the inspection were to review the work load in terms of existing capacity, identification of principal contracts and unique differences between contracts in fuel assembly design, manufacture, and QC/QA requirements.
In addition, the objectives were to identify any systematic or generic problems
6 with fuel fabricated by the manufacturer.
And, the objectives were to identify anticipated changes in fuel manufacturing and processing or in scope of supply.
2.
Method of Accomplishment Discussion with management and technical personnel on the a.
above subjects.
b.
Observation of shop manufacturing activities on the above subjects.
3.
Findings a.
Some organizational changes have occurred at Exxon.
No significant changes have occurred in the work load nor are any changes anticipated in the scope of supply.
b.
Yankee Rowe had reported to the NRC that a recent reload of fuel supplied by Exxon was pressurized above specification requirements.
Exxon began verification of fuel rod pressurization by destructive testing in January of 1979.
T'iis testing identified that one of Exxon's processes of pressurization had a positive bias.
This process had been particularly used in Yankee Rowe fabrication.
This positive bias of approximately 10% coupled with a tighter than normal tolerance on Yankee Rowe fuel rod resulted in rods being over specified limits.
Exxon has replaced the pressure gaging and added an ambient adjustment as corrective action.
In addition Exxon accelerted its program of verification of pressurization by destructive testing.
As a result of the destructive testing program it was identified that the other process used for pressurization had a negative bias of about 5%.
This process was used for all other reloads of pressurized fuel rods.
As corrective action, Exxon has changed its controls to add a compensation for a resultant effect of the welding process.
Exxon's engineers in an Incident Review Board meeting reviewed both of these conditions of negative and positive basis which could result in out of specification fuel rods and concluded no significant safety problem exists at the magnitudes found to date.
7 F.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph A) at the conclusion of tbe inspection on December 13, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The management representatives had no comment in response to each item discussed by the inspector.