ML19322A616
| ML19322A616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1971 |
| From: | Reinmuth G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Henderson J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A617 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210690 | |
| Download: ML19322A616 (2) | |
Text
__
I p 5' c%
l g'Qf UNM ED STATES
- r. Aj^ m *,
I ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AV
.p-W ASHINGToN. D.C. 20545
%e
]
R.'U D 3 o *g7)
J. B. Henderson, Chief, Reactor Construction Branch, CO VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT - BABCOCK & WIILOX FUEL FABRICATION (B&W FUEL 71/1)
The enclosed report of an inspection of the Babcock & Wilcox Company's (B&W) fuel fabrication facility in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 25-26, 1971.is forwarded for information. The purpose af the inspection was to examine fuel for the Cconee 1 reactor and B&W's gaality assur-ance program for fuel manufacture.
Compliance found that B&W was utilizing a systematic quality assurance program which was based upon experience in manufacturing fuel for the U. S. Navy.
In general, the program appeared to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, although we found several items where upgrading and clarification was needed. B&W indicated that our com-ments would be considered in continuing efforts to improve their system.
Our greatest concern was the finding that B&W accepts all tubing from its supplier, the Scndvik Ccmpany in Kennewick, Washin3 ton, without further nondestructive testing. Other than visual examinations and a very low frequency of destructive testing, no B&W verification of tube quality is performed. We believe this practice represents an unusually high risk. Since the Sandvik Company also supplies tubing for other fuel fabricators, we are planning an inspection of the Sandvik plant later in the year to determine their capabilities.
In comparing manufacturing practices between B&W and General Electric (see CO Report GE 70/1, dated December 15,1970) it is interesting to note the relative attention given to tube testing and end welding between the two companies. GE thoroughly tested the tubing (two ultra-sonic and one eddy current test) but only sample tested the end welds.
B&W performs essentially no tube testing but examines welds on a 100% basis.
It will be interesting to observe fuel perfor=ance to determine which approach appears to be the better one.
Surface scratching during final bundle assembly was observed at both companies. Neither considered the scratching to be significant as measurements by both companies have shown them to be on the order of I
$911219frfg t
%Mh
~
3 e
-s J. B. Henderson 0.001" in depth.
Scratching appears to be unavoidable because of the inherent design of the bundle. To prevent tube vibration, supporting spacer grids mus* be provided. These spacers provide a spring loaded fit which in then causes a rubbing action between the tube and grid as each tube is inserted into the assembly.
A problem with " shoulder cracking" of the fuel pellets was reported by a member of the Division of Reactor Licensing during a visit to B&W in December,1970 (see memorandum, L.P. Crocker to J. P. O'Reilly, dated December 11, 1970). According to B&W, the problem had been resolved. This position was supported by a low reject rate and an acceptable completion schedule since that time.
) )
L%
G. W. Reinmuth Senior Reactor Inspector Division of Compliance
Enclosure:
Report of B&W Fuel 71/1 cc:w/ enclosures E. G. Case, DRS(3)
P. A. Morris, DRL R. S. Boyd, DRL(2)
R. C. DeYoung, DRL(2)
D. J. Skovholt DRL(3)
P. W. Howe, DRL(2)
A. Giambusso, CO L. Kornblith, Jr., CO R. H. Engelken, CO R. W. Kirkman, CO:I J. G. Davis, CO:II B. H. Grier, CO:III J. W. Fim.a. CO:IV R. W. Smith, CO:V F. Long, 00:11(2) y/kEGFiles 9
_