ML20059N066
| ML20059N066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/01/1990 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Duffy L ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-39 NUDOCS 9010100006 | |
| Download: ML20059N066 (1) | |
Text
'
~
~^
3 s[
5..
h*.
007 e 31990 LM'r.uLeo P. Duffy, Director-4%
q U.S. Department'of Energy
-Office of Environmental "andWasteManagement(EM.1')-
Washington, D.C.
20545 Dea'r Mr. Duffy:
}
I would like to update you on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'(NRC)
-_ quality assurance inspection activities for the fabrication of the TRUPACT.II packagings at the Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc., (NUPAC) facilities in Carlsbad, t
since rqy letter to you dated April 9,1990, NRC has reviewed and found acceptable the corrective actions proposed by NUPAC. The corrective actions were in' response to the items of nonconformance identified in the NRC inspec.
tions conducted on September 26-28,-1989, and February 13-14, 1990.
In addi..
tion, a followup inspection was conducted on August 21 22, 1990, for the fabri.
cation' of new packagings. At the time of this inspection, TRUPACT-II~ Unit 25 was essentially completed, Unit 26 was foam-filled, and components of Units 27-31 were in various stages of fabrication. The NRC inspection team performed ultrasonic _ measurements of TRUPACT.II wall thicknesses, examined fabrication i
procedures and' records including weld radiography, and. observed-shop operations during fabrication..The inspection team found that NUPAC implementation of the quality-assurance program met NRC requirements. No violations or nonconform-ances with regulatory requirements were identified for the new production of TRUPACT.II packagings.
1 A copy of the NRC' inspection re) ort is enclosed.
Please note that the previously fabricated TRUPACT-II units wit 1 the less-than. nominal wall thickness are'in a hold status. We have requested NUPAC to advise us should the status change or the units are' repaired.
If you have any questions about this inspection or about our other inspections, please contact Mr. Robert F. Burnett,) Director, Division-of Safeguards and Transportation, who can be reached on (301 492-3365.
Sincerely, t
@gned) Robert LL Bernem Robert M. Bernero, Director O334 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As' stated-
$N
' W Distribution:E.Kraus,-NMSS 09/;10/90 Reviewed by:
C
$8j'iRU;F/C PDR NMSS/SGTB r/f HMSS Ofc. Dir r/f pg EDO:(MBridgers)
CJenkins, HMSS Sward, SGTR cm RBurnett, SGTR ETen Eyck, SGTR JJankovich, SGTB 0
t bjy/r
%,#g so CMacDonald, SGTB JCook, SGTB
.m o
0FC: SGIB
- SGT p :SGT
- SGTRgp e :5G ij
' 5
- NMSS y
y D F03
. e3 o C)
NAME:JJankovich:JCo'ok :CM onald:ETefEyck' :RB nett Ar otte:RBernero
..........,.....___...__..___.............____........._[_.......__......
tl l DATE:
7/N90-:///$/90: /)//(/90: 4 AL/4n/90: k/h9 :4I/1/90: /0 / //90 7
LTR TO LEO DUFFY
' ~' '
O-R H e,0' 1*,
,,N'* a tacq*'o p
1
' ' ="a:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.- [ < 6 gl,jg
/.. t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 L'
f
)
j CONTAINER SUPPLIER INSPECTION PROGRAM
)
Insoection Reoort ORGANIZATION:
Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.
i TRUPACT Assembly Facility ADDRESS:
1010 South 336th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 CONTACT:
Mr. R. H. Smith TITLI:
Director, Corporate Quality Assurance TELEPHONE:
206-874-2235 ACTIVITY:
Fabricate radioactive material l
. packages QUALITY ASSURANCE' PROGRAM-APPROVAL NO.:
0192 INSPECTION REPORT NO.:
710192/90-10 i
Inspection Inspection Dates:
Inspection On-site
'i Location:
Person-Hrs.:
- Carlsbad, New Mexico P/21 - 22/90 48-INSPECTION BASES 7AD SCOPE:
1 A.
BASES:~ 10 CFR Part 71, 10 CFR Part'21, Certificate.
cf 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.
": ' ^ ^ '; :,e7 I9 p 99
j,8..
,q r
FINDINGS:
No violations or nonconformances were identified.
~
MI O
INSPECTION TEAM LEADER:
DATE:
fohn P. (Bankovich NMSS 925!90 hd[ Med DATE:
M'Argdret E. Lusardi
/
/
NMSS 4fdt/hp.
f3 DATE:
Charles E. MacDonald
.NMSS y
fDATE:=
ku CONSULTANT:
@oyd W.Wrown INEL/EG&G 44 !90 REPORT APPROVED BY:
I DATE:
Charlss'E. MacDonald Chief, Transportation Branch, NMSS e
4 1
5 1
-i i
1.
SUMMARY
r i
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. The purpose-of this inspec-tion.was to follow up on the findings of previous U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Comission (NRC) inspections (September 26-28, 1989, Inspection Report No. 710192/89-06 and February 13-14,.1990, Inspection Report No. 710192/90-0_4).
Inspection findings are based on data collected through observation of selected.
activities,-ultrasonic measurements of packaging wall thickness, review of l
implementation procedures'and controls, rev.iew of selected' documents and records, interviews with personnel, examination of weld radiographs, obsery-ing fabrication activities in the fabrication plant, and subsequent documenta-1 tion submitted by Mr. R. Howard Smith,. Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc., on August 27, 1990. The inspection team concluded that quality assurance (QA) in the fabrication of the TRUPACT-II packaging is being implemented in accoriance 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.
l The team discusse6'their observations with the organization's' representatives 1
at[theexitmeeting.
2.
DETAILS 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 management and radiographic examiniations was also reviewed.
L
'i
~.
3 i
2.1 Persons Contacted
.An er. trance briefing'was held on August 21, 1990, snd an exit briefing, presenting the observations of the inspection, was held on August 22, 1990.
lThe following persons were at the entrance and/or exit meeting.
- H. Smith, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.
'*V.
Cannon, NUPAC
- D. Dawson, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.
i
- J. Atchenson, Westinghouse
- K. Hoedeman, Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.
- S. Akerman, NUPAC
- R.Spooner,U.S.'DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)
- P. Gregory, Westinghouse i
- B. Counterman, NUPAC
- W. Bartlett, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico
- T.'Stroud, Westinghouse V.. Caviness, Westinghouse
- S. Porter, HUPAC
'l
- J. Kenney, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico
- P. Vercolen, Westinghouse
'**W. Poirier, Westinghouse
- T. Halverson, Westinghouse
- F. Humiston, NUPAC
- L. Patrick, Westinghouse
- A. Underwood, NUPAC
~***J. Channel, Environmental Evaluation Group, State of New Mexico
- Attended exit and entrance meeting.
l:
- 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-I*
mentation of the QA Program: (a) review of the QA activities for the fabrication 2
f j
.=.
process as a whole (i.e.,-from generating purchase orders for materials through-completionofthefabricationprocess),and(b)independentassessments.(i.e.,
ultrasonic wall-thickness measurements,. review of weld radiographs, observation of fabricating operations). At the time of the inspection Trupact-II Unit 25 was essentially completed, Unit 26 was foam-fi1*.ed, and components for Units 27-31 were in various stages of machining and welding. The wide range in the r
status of completeness of the individual units enabled the inspection team to observe the implementation of the QA program for the entire fabrication process.
2 '. 2.1 Control of the Fabrication Process The inspection team reviewed a broad range of activities-in the implementation of the QA program throughout the fabrication process. Quality assurance records were randomly sampled for each phase of the fabrication. The inspection team reviewed the purchase orders to Northland Stainless, Inc., Tomahawk, WI, for the i
domes; the purchase orders to Metal Goods, Inc., Seattle, W/ (warehouse), and:
to Eastern Stainless Corp. (manufacturer) for the plates; '.nd the purchase orders, as well as.the vendor cualifications/ audit records, for 'adiography services to Qua11 tex Industrial X-rays, Odessa, TX. Upon receiving the orders, NUPAC con-ducts. receipt inspection of the materials. The inspection team reviewed QA I
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.-
1
-The inspection team also reviewed the foam specification, QA inspection reports, purchase orders, as well as audit reports and: findings'for the foam supplier (Genera 1' Plastics). NUPAChasperformedtwo(annual)in-depthaudits j
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
'S m,
/
The materials specification developed by NUPAC was found to be exacting:
the specification details the requirements for testing, installation, and QA. The i
inspection team also reviewed the QA acceptance records for foam fabrication.
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 cuality discrepancy reports (QDRs) were reviewed
' for technical content and resoluthn. It was evident that the regulatory re-quirements were met in the aforementioned activities.
It is noted that NUPAC o
follows a cautious approach in the QDR system. For example, QDRs were prepared fo* components where dimensions were found to be near, but still above the mini-muu values; in such cases, the original reading was verified by an extensive series of further measurements and these measurements were taken by an indepen-dentmethoo(e.g.,ultrasoundaswellasmicrometers).
i i
Storage-and tagging of quality-related items, such as weld'.ig 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 currently reviewing the TRUPACT-II cask weld radiographs.for final acceptance.
This Level 11 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 q
order.
1
)
i l
4
lt ;
4 T Ig.-
w
- le e ~
[PersonneltrainingandcertificationrecordswerealsoreviewedforTAFpersonnel performing digital ultrasonic thickness measurements on the TRUPACT-II packaging.
'All of the training 1and certification records reviewed meet the intent of ASNT'
.'Recommendef Practice SNT-TC-1A.
2.2.2 Verification Reviews'
[
r Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Measurements on TRUPACT-II.P6ckaging 1
Several hundred ultrasonic well thickness measurements were taken by the NRC inspection team during:the 2 day audit using a Krautkramer Branson DME-DL Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge. Measurements were generally taken'at selected areas showin'g evidence of repairs and/or surface conditioning. Table.1 shows-the areas on the TRUPACT-II casks selected for ultrasonic measurements.
Numerous' ultrasonic thickness measurements were also taken on Domed Head S/N 4
8022-10-03. (not yet assigned to a TRUPACT-II cask). These' thickness measurements
.were taken for comparison with the thickness measurements reported en the TAF y
E data sheets. The domed head has~a nominal wall thickness of 0.250 inch with a minimum al.lowable thickness of 0.240. inch. TableL2 presents the summary of the ll measurerr.ents taken at the "B" and '"C" axes, as recorded by both the TAF inspec-j tors and the NRC audit' team, for Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03 in general. Table'3
.s L'
lists the minimum thickness measurements taken in the' knuckle area,.as recorded l
by both the TAF inspectors and the NRC audit team, for D med Head S/N 8022-10-03.
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 i
g 0.500-inch diameter probe. This can account for the' slight differences between-p the TAF and NRC thickness measurements.
5 o
TRUPACT-II Radiograph Review
-l NUPAC has a contract with X-Ray, Inc. of Seattle, Washington to provide non-destructive examination (NDE) Level III services for surveillance of the 1
4 5
L
'I l
Q,.,
q radiographic filn interpretations by NUPAC of the TRUPACT-II cask welds. The
-i 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 summary report showed that, before final Level Ill acceptance, several welds were required to receive additional radiography because of radiograph artifacts 4
TE and/or unacceptable. radiographic techniques, and that four welds were required.
to receive repairs and additional radiography, t.
The audit team reviewed a san 4pling of weld radiographs for Units 25 and 27.
Unit 25 was selected because it was nearest to completion and Unit 27 was c
selected because the welds were the most recently radiographed.
For these l
unitstheinnercontainmentvessels(ICV)andtheoutercontainmentvessels 1
(OCV) were selected because these components are_important elements of the container. Table 4 lists the welds for which' radiographs were reviewed.-
Approximately:200 radiographs were reviewed during the inspection, i
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 ;:ceptable 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 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 thr.t'the verification tests have been performed by the QA inspectors as specified.
6
l J,{
u.;
4 3s DOCUMENTS REVIEWE0
' Purchase ~ Orders:
17897-2077,:re first batch cf domes CB412, re radiography services
,l L8120-2077, re plates 8042-2077, re stainless' steel plates j
8022-2077, re domes "l
p
- 8022-2077,; change No. 3, re ~ domes
'l J
E CB472, re welding wire
,1 L
CB410, re welding' wire
'CB312, re foaming CB312.Chg. #1, re foaming CB312 Chg. t2,~re foaming Supplier Audits:
L
.j
. Vendor Audit, Quality Industrial X-ray, 10/17/89
- Qual _ity. Department Evaluation of Supplier Quality, date'd 6/15/90 Quality Department Evaluation of Supplier Quality, dated 8/29/90
- /c A0dit 085-89 Finding-Report GPMC-001, issued 6/21/89
./
. Audit 085-89 Finding Report GPMC-002, issued 6/21/89
-Audit 085-89 Finding Report GPMC-003, issued 6/21/89' R
NUPAC Memorandum to File QANPI.0305, GPMC9006, dated 6/15/90 ll General Plastics Approved Suppliers Listing, dated 8/07/89 NUPAC Audit Report QANPI.0305.GPMC8906, dtua 6/22/89 NUPAC Audit Plan QANPl.0305.GPMC8906, dated 6/16/89-L 1
L, l;
Acceptance Inspection Reports:
l q
l 8022-09-02, OCV Lower
]
8022-01-02, ICV Lower 8022-02-01, ICV Upper i,
8022-01-01, ICV Lower j
l 8022-01-03, ICV Lower l
l-7 L
1
~
r 1',
i i
8022-01-03, ICY Upper 8022-11-03, OCA Lower 1
2077-288/2/f-20-90/B, foaming 2077-288/1/7.15-89/2, foaming for S/N 2077-02$ and S/N 2077-026 l
Procedures:
FS-0011-NP(Rev.0),'ReceiptInspectionof'DomedandFlan9edHeadsfor
[
Use in the TRUPACT-II Fabrication," June 1,1990.
FS-0012-NP(Rev.1),"ReceiptinspectionPequirementsforPlateMaterial tobeUsedatTRUPACT-IIAssemblyFacility(TAF)," July 26, 1990.
QI-6.2 (Rev.1), Inspection of Temporary Attachments (TAF),"
July 6, 1990.
QI-11.5 (Rev. 1), " Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge Calibration," July 1, 1990.
QI-11.6 (Rev.1), Ultrasonic Thickness Inspection (TAF)," July 23, 1990.
QI-14.1 (Rev.1), " Qualification of Inspect'on, Examination and Test
{
Personnei,9 March 13, 1990.
NPI.F-0022-NP, Rev. 5, "Urethane Foam Specification," July 11, 1989.
Travelers:
2077-166. Rev.- 0. Lockpins 2077-328-27,1CV/0CV Assembly 2077-217-25 Rev. 0/CIV, Upper Dished Head 2077-217-27, Rev. 1/ ICV, Upper Dished Head 2077-222-25, Rev. 1, Conical Section 2077-218-28 ICV Lower Head 2077-314-26, OCA Body Assembly 8
t' 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. 3,1CV Upper Body Interpreted Manufacturing / Test Plan, August 4,1990.
Quality Discrepancy Reports:
Nos. 1264, 1281, 1335, 1516, 1525, 1537, 1548, 1556, 1557, 1570, 1572, 1587, 1606, 1619, 1621, 1622, 1623 j
4 NONCONFORMANCES No nonconformances or violations were identified during the inspection.
)
P i
r
e-Table 1.
Wall Thickness Measurements 1
Measurenent 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" Knuckle 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.250" l
OCA Body Weld 57 0.375" 0.365" 0.365 to 0.372
i ICV Cody Weld 79 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.240" Weld 80 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.240"
.i j
UNIT 28 OCV Lid Knuckle 0.250" 0.240" 0.275 to 0.277" OCV Body Wtid 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 OCV Body Knuckle 0.250" 0.240" all > 0.280" UNIT 30 OCV Body Weld 24 0.250" 0.240" 0.277 to 0.280" 9
i
)
10
7 i
~
Table 2.
Comparative Measurements Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03 TAF NRC Axis Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
B 0.291" 0.298" 0.284" 0.2 98" C
0.287" 0.293" 0.284" 0.293" i
i Table 3.
Comparative Minimum Thickness Readings in the Knuckle Area, Domed Head S/N 8022-10-03
+
l Knuckle TAF NRC Location Min.
Min.
t 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" 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" l
41 0.262" 0.262" 42 0.263" 0.264"
- t 43 0.264" 0.264" 44 0.264" 0.262" 45 0.267" 0.267" t
48 0.267"'
O.265" 50 0.268" 0.264" l
52-0.270" 0.268" 54 0.275" 0.273" 56 0.275" 0.273" 60 0.281" 0.277" 11
r
., a Table 4.
List of Weld Radiographs Reviewed During the Inspection Weld Cask Location Weld Numbers 25 OCA Lid W-10 25 OCV Body W-21 W-22, W-23, W-24, W-25, W-27 25 ICV Body W-79, W-80, W-81, W-82 27 ICY Body W-79, W-80, W-81 W-82 Note: Approximately 200 radiographs were reviewed for the above welds.
I l
j 12 4
--