ML20059M366

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Container Supplier Insp Rept 71-0192/90-10 on 900821-22. Major Areas Inspected:Established,Documented & Executed Procedures Which Fulfill Commitments Made in Organization NRC-approved QA Program
ML20059M366
Person / Time
Site: 07100192
Issue date: 09/26/1990
From: Beth Brown, Jankovich J, Lusardi M, Macdonald C
EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059M356 List:
References
71-0192-90-10, 71-192-90-10, NUDOCS 9010040105
Download: ML20059M366 (14)
v • d • e


Text

,,,,,,

C

, -[E,4h UNITEdSTATES ro

'/ !\\

I,,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,tf Ih WASHINGTON, D. C 20555

\\., *..

  • p' n

2 CONTAINER SUPPLIER INSPECTION PROGRAM Insoection Renort GRGANIZATION:

Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.

TRUPACT Assembly Facility ADDRESS:

1010 South 336th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 CONTACT:

Mr. R. H. Smith TITLE:

Director, Corporate Quality Assurrace-TELEPHONE:

206-874-2235 ACTIVITY:

Fabricate radioactive material packages QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL NO.:

0192 INSPECTION REPORT No.:

710192/90-10 j

Inspection Inspection Dates:

Inspection On-site l

Location:

Person-Hrs.:

Carlsbad, New Mexico

-8/21 - 22/90 48 i

INSPECTION BASES-AND SCOPE:

A.

BASES:

10 CFR Part 71, 10 CPR Part 21, certificate of Compliance No. 9218 B.

SCOPE:

To determine whether the organization has established, documented and executed pro-cedures which fulfill the commitments made in the organization's NRC-approved quality assurance program.

To determine whether packages are fabricated in accordance with the design approved by the Commission.

9010040105 900926 PDR ADOCK 07100192 C

pnu d

w

fm o

e

.l FINDINGS:

No violations or nonconformances were identified.

l 1

"'1 8I O

INSPECTION TEAM LEADER:

DATE:

fohn P. Mankovich l

NMSS h ui8 M a d DATE:

925!90 Margdret E.

Lusardi

/

/

NMSS

/;-

DATE:

.&kd Charles E. MacDonald

~

NMSS CONSULTANT:

ku TDATE:

%oyd W.Lerown INEL/EG&G 44!9g7 REPORT APPROVED BY DI.22:

Charles'E. MacDonald Chief, Transportation Branch, NMSS k

e P

j 1.

SUMMARY

A special inspection of container fabrication activities at Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.'(NUPAC), TRUPACT Assembly Facility (TAF) at Carlsbad, New Mexico, was conducted on August 21-22, 1990. Th'e purpose of this inspec-tion was to follow up on the findings of previous U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) inspections (September 26-28, 1989, Inspection Report No. 710192/89-06 and February 13-14, 1990, Inspection Report No. 710192/90-04).

Inspection findings are based on data collected through observation of selected activities, ultrasonic measurements of packaging wall thickness, review of implemer.tation procedures and controls, review of selected documents and records, interviews with personnel, examination of weld radiographs, observ-ing fabrication activities in the fabrication plant, and subsequent documenta-i tion submitted by Mr. R. Howard Smith, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc., on August 6

27, 1990. The inspection team concluded that quality assurance (QA) in the fabrication of the TRUPACT-II packaging is being implemented in accordance with the commitments made in the NRC-approved quality assurance program, ho violations or nonconformances with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 71 were identified.

The team discussed their observations with the organization's representatives at the exit mee+.ing.

2.

DETAl'..i The objective of the inspection was to evaluate the implementation of the cor-rective action by NUPAC in response to the findings of the inspection conducted by NRC on February 13-14, 1990, as reported in Inspection Report No. 710192/90-04, dated April 3, 1990. Adequate corrective actions were identified in a NUPAC letter of April 24, 1990. The team found that the corrective actions are being implemented. The effectiveness of the QA Program in the areas of program l

-management and radiographic examiniations was also reviewed.

l i

,.., - - ~

t i

  • 2.1 Persons Contacted 1-l An entrance briefing was held on August 21, 1990, and an exit briefing, presenting the observations of the inspection, was held on August 22, 1990, l

The following persc s were at the entrance and/or exit meeting.

J

  • H. Smith, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.

j

  • V. Cannon, NUPAC
  • D. Dawson, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.

)

  • K. Hoedeman, Pacific Nuclear Systems,1Inc.

i

  • S. Akerman, NUPAC.
  • R. Spooner, U.S. Department of Energy (D0E)
  • B. Counterman, NUPAC
  • W. Bartlett, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico
  • S. Porter, NUPAC
    • J. Kenney, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico l
    • F. Humiston, NUPAC
    • A.

Underwood, NUPAC

      • J. Channel, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico-l
  • Attended exit and entrance meeting.-
    • Attended exit meeting only.
      • Attended entrance meeting only.

l 2.2 Quality Assurance in TRUPACT-II Fabrication l

The inspection team used two methods to assess the effectiveness of the imple-mentation of the QA Program: (a) review of the QA activities for the fabrication 2

i process as a whole (i.e., from generating purchase orders fo* materials through conpletionofthefabricationprocess),and(b)independentassessments(i.e.,

ultrasonic wall-thickness measurements, review of weld radiographs, observation of fabricating operations). At the time of the inspection Trupact-il Unit 25 was essentially completed, Unit 26 was foam-filled, and components for Units 27-31 were in var'aus stages of machining and welding. The wide range in the status of completeness of the individual units enabled the inspection team to observe the implenantation of the QA program for the entire fabrication process, 1

2.2.1 Control of the Fabrication Process The inspection team reviewed a broad range of sctivities in the implementation of the QA program throughout the fabrication pw. ass. Quality assurance records were randomly sampled for each phase of tM fabrication. The inspection team reviewed the purchase orders to Northland Shir.less, Inc., Tomahawk, WI, for the dones; the purchase orders to Metal Goods, Inc., Seattle, WA (warehouse), and to Eastern Stainless Corp. (manufacturer) for the plates; and the purchase orders, as well as the vendor cualifications/ audit records, for r0diography services to Qualitex Industrial X-rays, Odessa, TX. Upon receiving the erders, NUPAC con-ducts receipt inspection of the materials.

The inspection teah' reviewed QA inspection procedures and a large number of the receipt inspection reports.

The QA requirements were met in all the cases reviewed by the inspection team.

The inspection team also reviewed the foam specification, QA inspection reports, purchase orders, as well as audit reports and findings for the foam supplier (GeneralPlastics). NUPAC has performed two (annual) in-depth audits of the foam supplier. An audit plan was used by NUPAC to ensure that the supplier meets all the QA requirements. Audit findings were documented and the implementation of corrective actions was verified during follow-on audits.

It was noted that there were no corrective actions required as a result of the second annual audit. Personnel training and qualification for the supplier were also reviewed and verified by NUPAC.

3

The materials specification developed by NUPAC was found to be exacting:

the specification details the requirements for testing, installation, and QA. The inspection team also reviewed the QA acceptance records for foam fabrication, l

The foam testing results, production records, and installation procedures for two units were reviewed. NUPAC QA hold points were established in accordance with their specification and were properly verified for each hold point.

The inspection team reviewed the traveler system for the fabrication process.

The record keeping and tracking of the specific operations in the process have been refined since the inspection conducted in February 1990 and is a strong point of the QA program. A review of the Integrated Manufacturing / Test Plan indicated that the witness points and hold points for Westinghouse, the pur-chaser, are clearly delineated in addition to the QA activities performed by NUPAC. A large number of the quality discrepancy reports (QDRs) were reviewed for technical content and resolution. It was evident that the regulatory re-quirements were met in the aforementioned activities.

It is noted that NUPAC follows a cautious approach in the QDR system.

For example, QDRs were prepared for components where dimensions were found to be near. but still above the mini-mum values; in such cases, the original reading was verified by an extensive series of further measurements and these measurements were taken by an indepen-dentmethod(e.g.,ultrasoundaswellasmicrometers).-

Storage and tagging of quality-related items, such as welding rods and seals, were inspected in the warehouse. QA with regard to purchase orders, receipt inspections, and shelf life was found to be satisfactory.

Personnel certification records were reviewed for the Level-II radiographer l

currently reviewing the TRUPACT-II cask weld radiographs for final acceptance.

This Level II radiographer is employed and certified by United Engineers and Constructors of Philadelphia, PA. The certification records, including the-visual acuity examination results, were on file at TAF and were found to be in order.

I 4

l j;j.

Personnel training and certification records were also reviewed for TAF personnel J

performing digital ultrasonic thickness measuremen 9 the TRUPACT-II packaging.

All of the training and certification records reviewed. meet the intent of ASNT Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A.

2.2.2 Verification Reviey Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurements on TRUPACT-II Packaging Several hundred ultrasonic wall thickness measurements were taken by the NRC inspection team during the 2 day audit using a Krautkramer Branson DME-DL 1

Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge. Measurements were generally taken at selected areas showing evidence of repairs and/or surface conditioning. Table 1 shows the areas on the TRUPACT-II casks selected for ultrasonic neasurements.

Numerous ultrasonic thickness ~ measurements were also taken on. Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03 (not yet assigned to a TRUPACT-II cask). These thickness measurements were taken for comparison with the thickness measurements icported on the TAF data sheets. The domed head has a nominal. wall thickness o' O.250 inch with a minimum allowable thickness of 0.240 inch. Table 2 presents the summary of-the measurements taken at the "B" and "C" axes, as recorded by both the.TAF inspec-tors and the NRC audit-team, for Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03 in general. Table 3 lists the minimum thickness measurements taken.in the knuckle area,'as recorded by both the TAF inspectors and the NRC audit team, for Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03.

l l

It should be noted that the NRC audit team used a 0.250 inch diameter ultrasonic probe for thickness measurements, whereas the TAF readings were recorded using a 0.500 inch diameter probe. This can account for the slight differences between the TAF and NRC thickness measurements.

L TRUPACT-II Radiograph Review 1

1 NUPAC has a contract with X-Ray, Inc. of Seattle, Washington to provide non-t destructive examination (NDE) Level III services for surveillance of the L

i 5

I

radiographic filn interpretations by NUPAC of the TRUPACT-II cask welds. The most current surveillance, performed during the period of August 7, 1990, through August 14, 1990, involved review of:100 percent of the weld radiographs of TRUPACT Units 25 through-30 at.their current stages of fabrication. The sumary report showed that, before final Level III acceptance, several welds were required to receive additional radiography because of radiograph artifacts and/or unacceptable radiographic techniques, and,that four welds were required-to receive rerairs and additional radiography.

The audit-team reviewed a sanipling of weld radiographs for Units 25 and 27.

Unit 25 was selected because it was nearest to' completion and Unit 27 was selected because the welds were the most-recently radiographed.

For these i

unitstheinnercontainmentvessels(ICV)and.theoutercontainmentvessels-(OCV)wereselectedbecausethesecomponentsareimportantelementsofthe container. Table 4 lists the welds for which radiographs were reviewed.

i Approxitaately 200 radiographs were reviewed during the inspection.

The inspection team noted on the basis of the review of the aforementioned radiographs that additional steps are being taken by NUPAC in the weld radio-graph review. Conditions acceptable by the applicable ASME Code are reported, reviewed, and formally dispositioned.

Unacceptable conditions are reported and dispositioned accordingly. NUPAC's radiograph review process is thorough and I

complete, and no nonconformances were identified in this area.

Review of Shop Operations The inspection team reviewed shop operations underway during the time of the inspection. Six operations were being performed including rough and final machining of flanges and subassemblies, and tack welding of various components for Units 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. The inspection team found that QA hold points were clearly delineated in the travelers and that the verificatio.1 tests have been performed by the QA inspectors as specified.

6

3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Purchase Orders:

7897-2077, re first batch of domes CB412, re radiography services-8120-2077, re plates 8042-2077, re stainless steel plates 8022 2077, re domes 8022-2077, change No. 3, re domes CD472, re welding wire CB410, re welding wire CB312, re foaming-CB312 Chg. #1, ce foaming CB312 Chg. #2, re foaming i

Supplier Audits:

Vendor Audit, Quality Industrial X-ray, 10/17/89-Quality Department Evaluation of Supplier Quality, dated 6/15/90 Quality Department Evaluation of Supplier Quality,; dated 8/29/90 Audit 085-89 Finding Report GPMC-001, issued 6/21/89 Audit 085-89 Finding Report GPMC-002, issued 6/21/89 Audit GSS-89 Finding Report GPMC-003, issued 6/21/89 NUPAC Memorandum to File QANPI.0305, GPMC9006, dated 6/15/90 General Plastics Approved Suppliers Listing, dated 8/07/89 NUPAC Audit Report QANPI.0305.GPMC8906, dated 6/22/89 NUPAC Audit Plan QANPI.0305.GPMC8906, dated 6/16/89 i

Acceptance Inspection Reports:

8022-09-02, OCV Lower 8022-01-02 ICV Lower 8022-02-01, ICV Upper I

8022-01-01, ICV Lower 8022-01-03, ICV Lower 7

i l.

.=c,,,

i e

8022-01-03, ICV Upper-i 8022-11-03, OCA Lower p,.

2077-288/2/8-20-90/B, foaming 2077-288/1/7-25-89/2, foaming for S/N 2077-o o and S/N 2077-02C c

Procedures:

b FS-0011-N0 (Rev. 0), " Receipt Inspection of Domed and Flanged Heads for-Use in the TRUPACT-II Fabrication," June 1, 1990, s

FS-0012-NP(Rev.1),"ReceiptInspectionRequirementsforPlateMaterial tobeUsedatTRUPACT-IIAssemblyFaci_lity(TAF)," July 26, 1990.

QI-6.2 (Rev.1), " Inspection of Temporary Attachments (TAF),"

July 6, 1990.

QI-11.5 (Rev. 1), " Ultrasonic Thickness Gau9e Calibration," July 1, 1990.

-l QI-11.6 (Rev.1), " Ultrasonic Thickness Inspection (TAF)," July 23, 1990.

l

l QI-14.1 (Rev.1), ' Qualification of Inspection', Examination and Test i

Personnel," March 13, 1990.

j l

NPI.F-0022-NP,. Rev. 5, "Urethane Foam Specification," July 11, 1989.

Travelers:

I l

2077-166, Rev. O, Lockpins 2077-328-27, ICY /0CY Assembly 2077-217-25, Rev. 0/CIV, Upper Dished Head j

2077-217-27, Rev. 1/ ICV, Upper Dished Head 2077-222-25, Rev. 1, Conical Section 2077-218-28, ICV Lower Head i

2077-314-26, OCA Body Assembly 8

2077-264-25, ICV Locking Ring Final Machining 2077-264-27,- ICV Locking Ring Final Machining 2077-202-28, Rev. 3, ICV Upper Body 2077-262-29, Rev. - 3, ICV Upper Body Interpreted Manufacturing / Test Plan, August ~4, 1990.

i.

Quality Discrepancy Reports:

i Nos. 1264, 1281, 1335, 1516, 1525, 1537, 1548,-1556, 1557, 1570, 1572, 1587, 1606, 1619, 1621, 1622,,1623 4

4 NONCONFORMANCES No nonconformances or violations were identified during the-inspection.

1 i

l-Y i

l t

i l

I 9

i

Table 1.

Wall Thickness Measurements E

Measurement Nominal Minimum Range of Area Thickness Allowable Measurements UNIT 25 OCA Lid Weld 10 0.250" 0.240" 0.240 to 0.247" Weld 9 0.375"-

0.365" 0.426-to 0.438" l

Knuckle 0.250" 0.240"-

all > 0.250" OCA Body Weld 57 0.375" 0.365" 0.365 to 0.372" j

ICV Cody Weld 79 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.240" Weld 80-0.250" 0.240" all > 0.240" UNIT 28 OCV Lid Knuckle.

0.250" 0.240" 0.275-to.0.277" OCV Body Weld-24 0.188"

-0.178" 0.214 to 0.220" OCV Body

'W' axis Lower Done 0.250" 0.240" 0.272 to 0.278" UNIT 29 l

OCY Body Knuckle 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.280" l

UNIT 30 l

OCV Body Weld 24 0.250" 0.240" 0.277 to'0.280" l

t n

10

V Table 2.

Comparative Measurements Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03 TAF NRC i

Axis Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

B~

0.291" 0.298" 0.284" ' O.2 98" C

0.287" 0.293"

'O.284" 0.293" Table 3.

Comparative Minimum Thickness Readings in the Knuckle Area, Domed Head-S/N 8022-10-03 Knuckle-TAF~

NRC Location Min.-

Min.

4

.0.277"

-0.274" 6

0.280" 0.273" 10 0.275" 0.269" 14 0.274" 0.272" 18 0.274" 0.277" 22 0.275" 0.275" 26 0.278" 0.278" l

30 0.278"

.0.277" 34 0.274" 0.274" 37 0.274" 0.273" 38 0.272" 0.271" 40

-0.264" 0.265" 4?

0.262" 0.262" 4 L' O.263"

'0.264" 43

.0.264" 0.264" 44.

0.264" 0.262" 45 0.267" 0.267" 48 0.267" 0.265" 50 0.268" 0.264" 52 0.270" 0.268" l

54 0.275" 0.273" L

56 0.275" 0.273" 60

~0.281" 0.277" t

r l

1.

l L

i 11

+~

~, -. -.. _

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

0-1 Table'4. List of Weld Radiographs Reviewed During the Inspection i

Weld Cask Location Weld' Numbers t

25 OCA Lid W-10 25 OCV Body W-21, W-22, W-23, W-24, W-25, W-27 t

25 ICV Body W-79, W-80, W-01, W-82 27 ICV Body. W-79 W-SO, W-81, W i i

Note: Approximately 200 radiographs were reviewed for the above welds.

5 i

l 5

I f

]

e 12 t

.,,. -. - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20059M366&oldid=4460334"