IR 05000363/1979006
| ML19249E573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1979 |
| From: | Ehneter S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249E572 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-363-79-06, 50-363-79-6, NUDOCS 7910020002 | |
| Download: ML19249E573 (4) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-363/79-06 Docket No. 50-363 License No. CPPR-96 Priority: --
Category:
A Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light 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:
J 1 -14, 1979 Inspector:
C 7-7- 77
.
AT A. Varela, Reactor Inspector date signed Approved by:
adM h7 8-7-77 S. W. Ebneter, Ctf'ef date signed Engineering Support Section No. 2 RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 13-14, 1979 (Report No. 50-363/79-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine,. unannounced inspection by a regional Based inspector of installation of Class I backfill and structural fill and testing under a special contract to provide permanent and temporary backfill within the dewatered excavation for completed and incomplete substructures.
This work was necessitated at this time by work suspen-sion of the project to facilitate dewatering and to ensure the integrity of the excavation and structures during the shutdown period.
The inspection involved 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
Q 7910 0 2 000.L
36
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPU)
- J. W. Griest, Project Construction Manager
- D. R. Rees, Project Manager G. Raychak, Quality Assurance Engineer Burns and Roe, Inc. (B&R)
A. Marathe, Project Engineer, Home Office S. Lazorchak, Site Field Engineer E. Zisman, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W)
- D. T. Bodkin, Senior Site Representative
'
- S. H. Deyo, Superintendent of Construction (Acting)
- S. H. Salowitz, Senior Field Quality Control Inspector Hess Brothers, Inc. (HB)
R. Hess, Superintendent R. Pushkal, Quality Control Inspector C. Rowe, Soils Testing Engineer (U.S. Testing Company)
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Plant Tour The inspector made e tour of the construction site to observe limited work activities for installation of Class I backfill, structural fill, and testing.
As identified in Report 50-363/
79-04, work was suspended on all contracts starting April 3,1979.
Except that maintenance and monitoring of dewatering operations continue, the inspector observed tilat only miscellaneous mainte-nance and preservative work was underway in addition to the Class I bat %1ill and structural fill installation.
The latter work was observed to be supervised and quality controlled.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
061 346
-
.
3.
Plans to Ensure Integrity of Excavation and Structures During Plant Shutdown The backfill and structural fill work'is contracted to HB, who performed the original excavation, stockpiling, compaction and testing as reported in 78-01, 78-02 and 78-03.
The inspector was informed that this work, identified as Deactivation Backfill to Elevation Zero from Minus Five, was one of three engineering alternatives presented to licensee by B&R to eliminate the pres-sure relief-temporary dewatering wells in the Kirkwood formation.
Continuous dewatering, to piezometric elevation minus seven,during the shutdown,of the Cohansey formation within the slurry cut-off wall, will be established after completion of the fill under B&R's Procedure for Geotechnical Monitoring of Main Plant Excavation During Plant Shutdown.
The intent of this procedure is to provide guidelines for monitoring the dewatering of the Cohansey and Kirkwood formations together with monitoring slope stability to
.
ensure the integrity of the excavation and structures located within the excavation backfill to elevation zero.
The inspector's review of this procedure disclosed no rioncompliance.
4.
Deactiviation Backfill - Requirements, Work, Records and Audits The inspector ascertained that Quality Assurance plans, instruc-tions and procedures for backfill and structural fill placement and testing have been established and conform to the HB QA manual and Forked River Nuclear Station SAR,Section V, Appendix SD.
Requirements are identified in Engineering Specification No. 203, Revision 7, Excavation and Backfilling; Specification 206, Section 2A, Filling and Backfilling; and Drawing FSK-484, Revision 2, entitled, " Deactivation Backfill." Criteria for quality control of work are identified in HB Procedure SP-1, Revision 1, Special Process Procedure for Back Filling and Compaction, which identi-fies the following ASTM Standards:
-
D 2167.
Density of Soils in Place by the Rubter Balloon Method
-
D 2049-69.
Relative Density of Cohensionless Soils (Exceptions were approved by B&R for codifications as identified in Woodward-Clyde procedures)
-
-
D 2216.
Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soil.
The control of lift thickness, moisture, suitability of vibrating roller and hand-operated vibratory plate compacter, as well as l
bl Uh[
.
..
frequency and depth for in-site density tests are identified.
For
'
computation of relative density, the soil removed from each (not less than 0.1 cubic feet) in place test of compacted soil is sent to the laboratory for moisture content, in place density, and determination of maximum and minimum densities.
It is required that average of all tests have a minimum value of 90 percent and none fall below 75 percent.
The inspector observed adequately supervised and controlled Class I backfill and structural fill placement, using qualified material, moisture application, rolling and testing for determination of in place density.
The work observed was independently evaluated by the inspector.
At this time, about 70 percent of an estimated total of 26,000 cubic yards of permanent backfill had been placed, and the remaining lifts to elevation zero were being placed for Containment, Fuel Handling, Auxiliary Building, and Turbine Build-ing areas.
The inspector also reviewed records of previous fill placed and tested for determination of relative density.
Laboratory tests on work completed up to June 5, 1979 were available for review.
These records disclosed all relative densities were above 90 percent and some values exceeded 100 percent.
Survtillance of HB field work and in place testing is the responsi-bility of GPU/S&W.
The inspector reviewed daily backfill placement, compaction and testing reports generated by HB QC personnel and biweekly surveillance reports by GPU/S&W for all Deactivation Backfill, which commenced May 29, 1979.
An independent field test and laboratory maximum-minimum per ASTM D-2049 were performed on site by GPU/S&W.
Additionally, the inspector reviewed qualifica-tions of inspection personnel, calibration of equipment, and a surveillance report by B&R of laboratory testing for maximum-minimum soil densities, which testing is performed off-site sub-contracted by HB to Woodward-Ciyde Consultants at Clifton, New Jersey.
On-site field tests and moisture content for in place density is performed by U.S. Testing Company, also subcontracted to HB.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on June 14, 1979, a meeting was held at the Forked River site with representatives of the licensee and construction manager organization.
The inspector summarized the results of the inspection as described in this report.
1061 348