IR 05000363/1978013
| ML19270F223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1978 |
| From: | Ehneter S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270F209 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-363-78-13, NUDOCS 7902050067 | |
| Download: ML19270F223 (7) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-363/78-13 Docket No.
50-363 License No.
CPPR-96 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central power and Licht Company 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Facility Name:
Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection conducted:
October 10-13, 1978 Inspectors:
jf $kl$w
.L gyZ,-,,, j y jg77 A. A. Varela, Reacto/ Inspector date signed S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch date signed date signed Approved by: /I 6[d%.
M1-9 % /M/977 S.D.Ebneter, Chief (EngineeringSupport date ' signed Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch Inspection Sumary:
Inspection on October 10-13, 1978 (Report No. 50-363/18-13)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of concrete preparations and concrete placement activities for two containment basemat interior lower blocks and rebar cadweld splicing for the reactor well upper block; concrete curing of previous basemat placements. Additionally, the inspector reviewed procedures for QC records and records of previous concrete placements.
The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector and 16 inspector-hours at the site by a supervisor, October 11-12, 1978.
Results: Of the 3 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were indentified in two areas; one apparent item of noncompliance (infraction-failure to provide
' appropriate acceptance criteria for concrete placement activities. - para. 3)
was identified in one area.
.
t 790205 0067 Regior, I Form' 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPU)
- R. Fenti, Senior Site QA Auditor
- J. Griest, Project Construction Manager
- S. Levin, Supervisor Site Engineering
- S. D. Morris, Senior Field Quality Control Engineer
- J. C. Thompson, Site Quality Control Supervisor
- J. E. Wright, Site Quality Assurance Manager T. R. Block, Site QA Auditor A. Pinter, Field Quality Control Engineer F. Spencer, Quality Control, Concrete Testing R. Drummond, Construction Engineer K. Cnyder, Quality Control, Concrete Testing Stone and We_bjjfer Engineering Corporation (S&W)
- K. J. Platte, Resident Engineer
- W. M. Sweetser, Project Manager
- R. L. Wagner, Superintendent of Construction S. Deyo, Construction Engineer G. Dick, Area Superintendent Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
- J. A. Heasley, Project Manager
- D. Kovisto, Project Engineer
- J. R. Lemley, Vice President, North American Operations
- R. Stauber, Quality Assurance Manager D. Richards, Quality Control Engineer D. Vickery, Quality Control Engineer L. Grandpre, Construction Superintendent H. Herrin, Area Superintendent R. Love, Quality Assurance Manager, Home Office Burns and Roe, Incorporated (B&R)
M. Giannini, Structural Engineer T. Hayes, Geotechnical Engineer S. Lazorchak, Site Field Engineer
.
/
Eastern Shore Transit Mix (EST)
R. Johnson, Quality Control Manager V. Carpentier, Vice President A. Vendrasco, Vice President V. Nagee, Quality Control Engineer F. DeCessaro, Batch Plant Operator K. Hubach, Batch Plant Inspector (PTL)
denotes those present at the exit interview.
- The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor em-ployees during the inspection, including quality control and con-struction crafts.
2.
Construction Site Walk-Through Inspection The inspector made a tour of the construction site to observe work activities in-progress. The inspector examined work items * r any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requiremen.
and for evidence of quality control of the work.
Specific activities observed by the inspector included installation of reinforcing steel and cadwelding for containment basemat reactor well, curing of pre-vious basemat concrete placements, placement / composition / testing of structural backfill on southeast containment area, construction of north and south auxiliary building sumps including waterproof mem-brane installation and testing and installation of protective con-
'
crete over membrane.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Containment Building Basemat -
Preparation for Concrete Placement a.
Morrison-Knudsen Quality Control / Construction Procedures Do Not Provide Acceptance Criteria Licensee PSAR, Quality Assurance Program, Section 1.6.4.4, Control of Special Processes, Tests and Inspections, commits to procedures which include acceptance / rejection criteria for inspections. The GPU Quality Assurance Plan for Forked River states in Section 5, major contractors are required to assure that appropriate qualita-tive and quantitative acceptance criteria shall be provided to (
'
.
ascertain that quality related activities are properly performed.
Section 5 additionally states that procedures and instructions shall identify applicable prerequisites and be sufficiently clear and definitive to describe the activity or operation to be performed and type of characteristics to be measured or ob-served.
MK Construction Procedures CP-04-FR, Revision 4, August 30, 1978, Construction and Containment Building, and CP-ll-FR, Revision 2, July 21,1978, Placement and Curing of Concrete do not provide details in the inspection report forms nor specifically describe that the Concrete Placement Checklist is to be augmented by the Inspaction Report identifying applicable prerequisites.
Instruct-ions are lacking in the procedure that explain to the QC inspector his responsibility in documenting on the Inspection Report his observation / verification of applicable prerequisites.
For in-stance, the Concrete Placement Checklist is a fonn with the gen-eral item " Construction Joints" which QC must verify for adequacy of preparation / installation after craft supervision signs-off on the item.
The procedures enumerate requirements, extracted from B&R specifications, on vertical special surfaced construction joints, and different requirements for concrete surface con-struction joints, both horizontal and vertical.
Instructions do not exist in the MK QC procedures to provide inspection plans and reports or checklists including inspection / rejection criteria of the characteristics measured or observed.
b.
Inadequate Preparation of Construction Joints
Containment building basemat interior block pour number LSK-lli, scheduled for concrete placement on afternoon of October 10, 1978, was observed by the inspector to be prepared for concrete place-ment at about 2:00 p.m., October 10, 1978.
The area had been for-mally released for concrete placement by MK QC sign-off of the prescribed form identified in procedure CP-11-FR, as Concrete Placement Checlist.
The inspector observed and discussed with S&W 3.nd MK QC and construction personnel the following details regarding inadequate preparation of two vertical construction joints.
The inspector cited three unacceptable conditions with regard to criteria identified in B&R Specification 206, Section 3A, Paragraph 6.1.4 and MK Construction Procedure CP-ll-FR, Section V1.D:
L
.
"... construction joints not fonned by the use of corrugated metal sheets shall be cleaned of laitance and foreign matter."
The north and south vertical construction joints of the
--
10' deep block are surfaces of previously placed blocks formed by expanded metal at bottom 24" of the pour.
Here an eight layer grid pattern of #12 rebar extends through the basemat blocks.
Expanded metal used to form the pre-vious construction joint was observed to have excess material and/or material not in contact with concrete that had not been removed.
The excess expanded metal would have prevented flow of concrete around rebar and against the vertical joint.
--
The above joints have a 10" barbell horizontal waterstop which had not been cleaned of laitance covered mortar that leaked through the form over the top surface of the waterstop in the new pour.
This fins of laitance covered mortar which leaked between
--
wooden form supports below the waterstop had been left in place after removal of the forms.
As a consequence of the inspector identification of the above, concrete pour number LSK-lll was delayed by Construction Mana-ger until the north and south construction joints were prepared by MK conforming to requirements of the specifications.
The lack of quantitative and qualitative acceptance criteria in the MK construction / quality control procedures & as a result the acceptance by QC of an inadequately prepared construction joint,is con-sidered to be in noncompliance with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (78-13-01).
4.
Containment Building Basemat - Observation of Concrete Placement The inspector observed preparation for and concrete placement of two containment basemat lower blocks containing an estimated volume of 500 cubic yards of 3,000 ps ! concrete.
Pour number LSK-lll, on October 10, 1978, and number LSK-110 on October 13, were observed accomplished in accordance with NRC requirements and as identified in the following criteria:
Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit 1, PSAR Section V and
--
Appendix 5 D B&R Specification 2700-206, Revision 6, " Substructure"
--
B&R Specification 2700-202, Revision 8, " Production and
--
Delivery of Concrete" GPU Specification 202-003, Revision 3, " Specification for
--
Performance of Owner's Site Civil Testing"
--
GPU QC Procedure FR-1-10-04, Revision 0, " Site QA/QC Surveillance Procedure" MK Construction Procedure CP-ll-FR, Revision 2, " Placement and
--
Curing of Concrete" The inspector determined the following activities were accomplished to anplicable specifications, codes, standards and procedures:
a.
Placement Preparation b
Delivery and Placement c.
Aggregate and Cement Storage d.
Rebar Installation and Cadwelding e.
Batch Plant Operation f.
Concrete Curing g.
In Process Inspection of Above Activities No items of noncompliance were identified.
-
5.
Unresolved Item a.
Engineering Safety Features Compartment Interior Concrete Wall -
Nonconformance Due to Rock Pockets and Honeycombing In accordance with the GPU QA Plan, a nonconforming condition was reported October 5,1978, for the north wall of the ESFC interior pit.
NCR Number 0016, states that, after some of the
forms were removed, rock pockets and honeycombing were found.
The inspector observed manual chipping of loose pockets of concrete beneath and surrounding five pipe penetrations in the three foot thick 5000 psi (90 day) concrete wall. Chipping to sound concrete from both sides of the wall had not been com-pleted.
This is an unresolved item (78-13-02).
b.
MK Documentary Records of Completed Basemat Concrete Placements Found Not Acceptable by Construction Manager Concrete Construction QC records by MK for completed containment building basemat blocks were transmitted to the construction manager for filing in the GPUSC document center.
S&W Procedure FR-1-17-1 requires no specific time after completion of the 14 day cure period for QC record transfer, but the intention is that, where completed work impacts on the quality of succeedin9 work the records must be received prior to start of affected work.
S&W in their capacity of planning, controlling and directing site activities has returned to MK for correction all the concrete records on containment basemat blocks that have been completed.
The NRC inspector reviewed copies of some of the MK records and the SSW comments on the corrections needed.
Additionally, the inspector found the records incorrectly identified that MK per-formed " surveillance" whereas first level inspection actually was performed by QC on in-process inspection of concrete place-ments.
This is an unresolved item (78-13-03).
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3 and 5.
7.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on October 13, 1978, a meeting was held at the site with representatives of the licensee, construction manager and contractor organization.
The inspector summarized the results of the inspection, as described in this report.
In telephone conversation, on October 20, 1978, the inspector informed licensee representatives that the October 13 findings would be combined in this report to show one noncompliance item.