IR 05000424/1987025

Insp Repts 50-424/87-25 & 50-425/87-17 on 870317-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: post-tensioning & Employees Concerns in Concrete & Coatings

ML20209C505
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/07/1987
From:	Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20209C504	List: IR 05000424/1987025 ML20209C499
References
50-424-87-25, 50-425-87-17, NUDOCS 8704280695
Download: ML20209C505 (13)

Text

• . .

UNITE] STATES

- /pME4 4 9 NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSIEN

-

-

y :- - ' 4,

_ ggg,og ,,

3 $ 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 -

• 2 o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 v...../

Report Nos.: 50-424 N.-25 and 50-425/87-17 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545

'

Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: CPPR -108 and CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 17-20, 1987 Inspector: hk h-3 9/ 7/f7 ~

J. R.(/ arris Date Signed Approved by: ###

T. Conlon, Chief, Plant Systems Section

/ ["Date7-Signed T7 Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of post-tensioning, and employee concerns in concrete and coating Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

1 8704280695 DR

ADOCK 050 24 PDR l

., w , . , ..,p.m . ,-- .- , - - _ . - .

- er - - ,--.-4- ,..-.--

. - ,..,,_m --3 9 .,,,__,,_7

. .

e

EPORT DETAILS

..

- Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• W. C. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist

• L. R. Glenn, Manager, Quality Concern Program

• E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager, Construction

• C. W. Hayes, Vogtle QA Manager .

• G. A. McCarley, Project Compliance Coordinator

• R. H. Pinson, Vice President, Construction

• C. W. Whitney, General Manager, Project Support Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers and technician NRC Resident Inspector

• H. Livermore

• Attended exit interview

Exit Interview

'

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 20, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The inspector

'

_

described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio i

- Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

!

This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

, Unresolved Items

!

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio !

a

-,

-, --c . . , . , , .

- _ _ _ _ - _

. .

.

-5. Containment (Post-Tensioning) - Review of Quality Records (47055) Unit 2 The inspector examined quality records relating to post-tensioning activities for the Unit 2 containmen Records examined included installation, stressing and greasing reports for the following vertical tendons:

Tendon 3-109- Tendon 13-99 Tendon 4-108 Tendon 14-98 Tendon 5-107 Tendon 15-97 Tendon 6-106 Tendon 17-95 Tendon 7-105 Tendon 18-94 Tendon 8-104 Tendon 19-93

, Tendon 9-103 Tendon 20-92

'

Tendon 10-102 Tendon 21-91 Tendon 11-101 Tendon 22-90 Tendon 12-100 Tendon 1-111 Examination of records for the above tendons showed that the tendons were installed in accordance with applicable specifications and drawings and that the installations were witnessed and documented by QC inspector Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie . Employee Concerns, Discussions and Findings (RII Case Nos. 86-A-0200, Damage to Wall Due to Improper Use of Concrete Buster and 85-A-0200, Request for Technical Review of Coating Issues)

The following employee concerns were reviewed: Damage To Wall Due to Improper Use of Concrete Buster (1) Concern The alleger indicated that during the summer of 1983, while using a rock splitter in holes drilled in a concrete block, that the rock splitter twisted in the hole. The alleger stated that the rock splitter was used to chip concrete. He said that his concern was where the pressure went when the rock splitter twisted. The alleger indicated that the area of concern was between the turbine and control building across from the "five way restraint area" and that he thought the concrete block was part of the basemat. He indicated that 50 to 60 holes were drilled in the concrete and that the holes were filled with

, water to determine if there were leaks. He indicated that the block of concrete he drilled was eventually broken out anc that

'

the concrete was poured over the area where the old concrete was l removed.

!

-

.- . ~ . - -.. . -- .

._ _ - _ _

i ,

s

k,

(2) Discussion The inspector addressed a similar- concern expressed by the

. alleger in Inspection Report Number 50-424/86-114 and

, 50-425/86-52. Information provided by the alleger at that time indicated that the area of concern was in an area between the control and turbine building in the floor where Tower Crane 2 was located. In' that concern, .he indicated that he drilled holes one foot apart in an area approximately- 20 feet by 100 feet with a rock bit. After he drilled the holes, he used a

" concrete buster" to remove the concrete and that it slipped and turned sideways hitting the north and south walls. In following up. on this item, 'the inspector- discussed with craftsmen, the

'

various tools used for drilling and removing concrete and performed a walkdown inspection of concrete walls and. slabs in the control building. Discussions with engineers and craftsmen and examination of equipment -used for- drilling and removing concrete ~ showed that rock bits were.used for drilling concrete and that jack-hammers-and rock splitter.were used for removing concrete and that chipping guns were used to roughen concrete surfaces. Examination of.the rock splitter showed that a wedg shape object activated by hydraulic pressure slides-down a shaft and expands in the hole and causes the concrete to crack and break. Examination of jack hammers showed that they were hand held pneumaticLmachines used to remove concrete. A walkdown o the control building disclosed no evidence of any damage to the concret After receiving the results of'this inspection, the alleger indicated that he realized .that he did not provide sufficient information when he initially reported the matter an provided the additional information provided in paragraph 6 a(1)

abov In following up on this information, the inspector examined the areas referenced as across from the five way restraint are Examination of this area.showed that it is between the control and turbine building'and that there'is one on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 side. Examination of these areas showed that it was part of the basemat for the turbine building ~and that holes were drilled in the basemat and that part of the concrete basemat was removed and that concrete was poured on top of the basemat. The holes were drilled to allow for steel reinforcing dowels to be inserted in 'them to. allow for attachment of reinforcing steel inserted in the concrete column that was placed on top of the basemat. Water was placed in the holes so that when the grout was placed around the dowels that_ the water in the grout mix would not be absorbed by the concrete' and thus' allow the grout time to cure. Discussions with craft and engineering personnel indicated that'a jack. hammer was used to remove the upper layer

- . . .. . . _ - - .- - .

l

- . l V -

.

.4 i

of the basemat before the. dowels were placed'and the concrete column was poured over the basemat. Examination of the basemat and column on the Units 1 and 2 side of _ the turbine- building

, showed no evidence of any damage to the concrete.

l (3) Findings c The inspector was unable to find any evidence of damage to walls basemat or columns which could have resulted from improper use of a rock splitter or jack hammer.

b. . Use of Amerlock 400 (1) Concern Specification X1AJ07 (Field Coating) allows the use of Amerlock

400; however, the determination as to accessibility is not

-

proceduralized. Production is_using Amerlock 400 in accessible areas. It is being applied over all bolt pattern .in both' unit (2) Discussion The inspector reviewed specification X1AJ07, (Field Coatings),

'

procedure WC-104 (Unqualified Coatings) and discussed use of f Amerlock 400 with QC supervisors and QC inspectors. Review of Specification X1AJ07 showed the Amerlock 400 is an unqualifie epoxy primer / finish for bare steel in confined areas and ' ha ;

,

requirements for inspection shall be at the discretion of the

'

field engineer. Review of the specification also showed that

its use-is permissible on bolts, nuts and miscellaneous festen-l ers. Review of procedure WC-014, " Unqualified Coatings" showed -

that identification, inspection, approval and documentation of

'

unqualified coatings such as Amerlock 400 are adequately

addresse (3) Findings Discussions with QC inspectors and review of procedures and I specifications indicated that Amerlock is considered an un-i qualified coating and that its use was being controlled in i accordance with requirements. Review of records showed that the

! amount of unqualified coatings were being tracked and documented and that the amount used to date has not exceeded the allowable  :

i amount of unqualified coatings (15,000 sq. ft.).

i S

'

i l

l l

l

. _ _ _ _ . _ -,_ _ _ _ ... __ _ ,_ ,

. .

f 5 c. Surface Preparation Standards (1) Concern Surface preparation to Standard SB-10 (sand ' blasting) was required by some of the specifications. However the Bechtel Power -Corporation indicated: that SB-3 (power tool) surface preparation was an acceptable alternative to SB-10. This allowance was questione (2) Discussion The inspector reviewed specification requirements for surface preparation in Specification X1AJ07 and discussed surface preparation methods and inspections with QC inspectors and engineer Review of the specification 'showed that SSPC-SP-10

"near white blast cleaning" with a profile of 1.5 to 3.0 mils was the desired method of surface preparation. The specifica-tion also allows power tool cleaning per SSPC-3 as an alternate-surface preparation for inorganic zinc and epoxy on carbon steel surfaces. The s1ecification also indicates that when the power tool cleaning met'tod is used on a surface which inorganic zinc is applied the su face is to be toughened with a roto peen or needle gun to obtain a surface profile similar to visual l

'

comparator standard GPC-SP1 On surfaces where epoxy is used, power tool cleaning to visual comparator standard GPC-SP16 using a "3M clean strip" is allowed as an alternate surface preparation. Use of the roto peen to obtain a surface profile i is not necessary where epoxy is used because they have better i adhesion propertie '

(3) Findings Discussions with QC inspectors and review of- procedures indicat-ed that power tool cleaning (SSPC-SP3) is an acceptable al.terna-tive to near while blast cleaning (SSPC-SP10) for surface preparation of carbon steel. Cleanliness and surface profile requirements for power tool cleaning are inspected by QC to visual standards GPC-SP15 and GPC-SP16 which have been-approved'

by Bechtel Power Corporation Coating engineer d. Tardy Corrective Action to Application Foreman-(1) Concern Tardy corrective actions to an application foreman who continued to work past QC hold points may have caused some work not to have been properly inspecte J

. ..- . . . - .. . . . ... . . -. . - - . . .

i

-

,

. (2) Discussion

{ The inspector discussed this - concern with the Williams- QC -

]- supervisor and an investigator with the GPC quality concern program. Discussions with the GPC quality concern investigator -

disclosed this issue was identified to them and that they had done a thorough investigation of this concern. Discussions and review of the Quality concern file on this issue disclosed that the foreman in question was a General Foreman and that Williams

management had written a Corrective Action Request (CAR-85-003)

to address this issu In' following up on this item, the

. Quality Concern investigator interviewed all foremen and -QC inspectors involved with work authorized by this General Forema ,

, .

Results of these interviews disclosed that the foremen stated

that the referenced individual never gave them direction to l paint over unqualified surfaces or to violate procedures in i anyway and that they felt the individual knew specifications and

! procedures as well as other general foremen. 'The QC inspectors that were interviewed stated that the individual . was not as

'

qualified as some other general foremen but indicated the individual knew the specification and procedures well enough to

perform the jo Discussion with the Williams QC ~ manager disclosed that the .

problem was identified by QC and that the individual was verbal- '

ly reprimanded for poor performance and notified that future

poor perfomance would not.be tolerated. - He also indicated that i the individual was demoted from General Foreman to Foreman.

Discussions also indicated that no safety problems with coatings

,

occurred. Final acceptance of the coatings is determined by QC inspectors and not the foremen or craf (3) Findings

, Discussions with Williams QC and a GPC quality concern investi-

, gator indicated that the referenced individual ~ was given a

, reprimand and demotion for poor work performanc Review of the quality concern file on this issue which contained results

! of interviews of foremen and QC inspectors associated with I

work supervised by the referenced individual indicated that-l the individual never gave' direction to violate procedures or i specifications and that the individual knew the specification j and procedures well enough to perform their job. Final approval 4 of work is determined by QC inspectors and not the referenced

! individual. Thus, quality or safety of the coatings was not i- compromised.

I i

i

. .

'7

.

e. Personnel Were Concerned for Their Jobs (1) Concern Personnel are very much afraid for their jobs and are reluctant to tal The QC inspectors were informed that an evaluation team would be monitoring construction personnel. When they were questioned about this, the inspectors were informed, " don't go out there and be naive because what was bought off on is what Williams Company was paid for."

(2) Discussions with the GPC quality concern investigator disclosed that this same concern had been reported to the quality concern group. In following up on this item, they interviewed all QC inspectors and numerous craft personnel. Review of the quality concern files on this matter disclosed no evidence that QC inspector or craft were afraid of their jobs or were reluctant to tal Interviews with QC inspectors and craft personnel by this inspector during previcus inspections disclosed no evidence of personnel being reluctant to talk or being told to bypass inspection requirement (3) Findings Discussions with QC inspectors and craft personnel and review of investigation records of the quality concern files showed no evidence of individuals being afraid of their jobs or being reluctant to tal f. Improper Changes to Specifications (1) Concern Changes / clarifications to the specifications were handled by a three part memo in lieu of a document such as a FCR (Field Change Request).

(2) Discussion The inspector reviewed specifications, changes to specifica-tions, and discussed methods of changes and clarifications to specificathns with responsible GPC engineers and QC inspectors and Williams QC managemen Discussions with GPC engineers and QC inspectors indicated that changes to specifications were made by FCRs and were approved by Bechtel project engineerin Dicussions with Williams QC management disclosed that Williams did not make changes to specifications. However, the QC manager stated that if the specifications were not clear or were confus-ing, they would ask for a clarification through an' form Request for Clarification of Information (RCI). This was submitted to GPC who would review the request and provide an answer to the reques __ . . _ , . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ .

__

. ,

(3) Finding Changes to specifications are made by an FCR which are approved by Bechtel project engineering. Clarifications are sometimes made to the specifications through an RCI by Williams when specifications are confusing or not clear. These are reviewed by GPC and clarifications are provided when necessary. However, these are not changes to the specification. Changes to specifi-cation are only allowed and made by Bechtel Project Engineering, g. Williams Engineer Changed the Temperature Specification Requirements for Epoxy Coating (1) Concern The engineer for Williams Contracting changed the specification requirements for application of the epoxy from "the temperature must not be within 5 of the dew point temperature to 2 F of the dew point temperature." The engineer later was told to change the temperature requirement back to 5 F as the specification originally required, and the engineer was reprimande (2) Discussion This concern was identified by the Vogtle Readiness Review Program during their review of the coatings program. During this review, it was discovered that paragraphs 7.2 and 7.6 of specification X1AJ07 contained conflicting requirenents regard-ing ambient conditions during coating application. Para-graph 7.6.1D prohibited the application of coating materials below 50 F. Paragraph 7.2.1 allowed organic zine to be applied down to 35 F. Paragraph 7.6.1F required that the surface tempera-ture be at least 5 F above the dew point during coating appli-cation. Paragraph 7.2.6 required the surface temperature to be at least 2*F above the dew point during coating applicatio Review of the response to this finding showed that Para-graph 7.6.1.0 was a general statement for all . coatings while Paragraph 7.2.1 referred specifically to organic zinc which can be applied at a lower temperature. The requirnment in paragraph 7.2.6 that the surface temperature be at least c F above the dew point only applied to inorganic zin Review of the Williams application procedures which were used by QC inspectors showed that the procedure required that the application not be per-formed less than 5 F above the dew point. As a result, specifi-cation X1AJ07 was revised to clarify the discrepancies and now recuires that application of coating not be applied at tempera-tures less than 5'F above the dew poin _ -. - _ _

_. - -

_

. .

,

The NRC inspector reviewed the procedures and changes made in the specification to clarify the confusion between specification and procedure. The inspector also reviewed coating inspection reports and deviation reports written against improper applica-tion of coatin Review of inspection reports and deviation reports verified that, for the most part, the correct tempera-ture requirements were adhered to and that where temperature

'

requirements did not meet specification requirements, they were reported and addressed in deviation report (3) Findings There was a conflict in the specifications regarding temperature requirement This was discovered during the Readiness Review Program conducted by GPC to verify that their program met licensing requirements. As a result, the specification was revised by GPC and Bechtel Engineers to clarify requirement Review of records indicated that the more stringent Williams procedure requirements had been followed and that where violations of procedure requirements occurred, these were identified and correc ted. No evidence of any Williams engineer changing the specifications was identifie Changes to specifications by Williams' personnel were not permitte Open Item List for Coatings Kept Getting Longer and Longer (1) Concern Touch-up open items list for coatings kept getting longer and longer without any QC inspections taking place. When the alleger departed the inspections had not yet taken plac (2) Discussion Discussions with Williams' QC personnel indicated that there was a problem with a long open items lis These items were identified because of incomplete inspection, unacceptable coatings, work not complete, and inspections incomplete. To resolve this problem production, people were instructed to go out and rework defective areas, complete the work and inspections and when their inspections were complete to notify QC that the areas were ready for inspectio In further followup of this item, the NRC inspector reviewed coating records and examined completed coatinas. Review of the records j showed that the open items identified by Williams viera being properly addressed and that QC inspectors were performing inspections of these items and unacceptable work was being identifie Examination of completed coatings showed no evidence of defective coating __

I

'

. .

l l

l 10 -

!

'

(3) Findings l

' - There was a long open items lis This was because of incom-plete work, unacceptable work, work not complete and incomplete ~

inspections. To resolve the problem, production personnel were

instructed to inspect the work, rework where necessary and turn i' the work over to QC for inspection when work was acceptabl Review of records and inspection of completed work by the NRC

+

inspector showed that the coatings were being properly applied and inspecte : 1. Coatings On Containment Two Spray Ringer Hangers Out of Millage and j Full of Trash (1) Concern l

Containment No. 2 spray ring hanger coatings are out of millage and full of tras The supervisor only looked at one or two

hangers and said he would look at the remainder later. The

alleger believes there never was a later,

,

i (2) Discussion

'

The inspector investigated this same concern during an inspec-tion conducted April 14 to July 3, 198 During that

inspection, the inspector discussed inspection of the Unit 2

'

dome brackets with QC inspectors and coating engineer Results of this discussion disclosed that there was a concern regarding improper coating and inspection of these hangers. The discus-sion also disclosed that a' quality concern on this . issue was

, reported to the Vogtle Quality Concern Grou As a result of these concerns, an investigation of' all the

, hangers in the Unit 2 dome was conducted. This investigation was performed by an inspection team consisting of- technical representatives from Bechtel, Ameron Corporation (Coating manufacturer), GPC engineers and QC inspectors, and Williams QC ,

i personnel. Every hanger in the dome that had been coated wa i reinspected for visual defects and dry film thickness. Pull i tests were also performed on five hangers that were reported by j a crew member as the worst case of painting over flash rustin l The pull tests exceeded the 250 PSI minimum and no rusting was

! visible. As a result of this investigation, the inspection team

'

identified the following problems:

! Contaminants in coating

i Delamination

] Improper surface preparation

!

Light millage Runs or sags l ,

-

.. .

Holidays

.

Improper feathering Mechanical' damage

-

Total millage exceeding specification limits Discussions with QC inspectors . indicated that correction of _

these problems are still going on and that the item will not be closed until all problems are corrected. Review of the closure of this item will be examined during subsequent' NRC inspections. -

(3) Findings Investigation of this concern disclosed that there were some problems with improper application of coatings on the Unit 2 dome bracket. This items was investigated by representatives from the Willams Coating Company, Ameron Corporation, Bechtel Power Corporation, and GPC. These were reported in Deviation Report SQ-007 and measures are being taken. to correct these deficiencies. Review of these corrective measures 'will be examined in subsequent NRC inspections of coating j. Pipe Support Hangers in Unit 1 Containment Not Cleaned Property (1) Concern Some of the pipe support hangers in Unit 1 containment were not cleaned property. Chips of Ameron contaminants were present, thereby, preventing further coating work.-

(2) Discussion Review of this concern by the alleger indicated that the indivi-duals responsible for cleaning the hangers did not want to 90 back and clean them properly. Because of this the QC inspectors would not sign off the hold point The . alleger indicated because the QC inspectors refused to sign off the hold points, the craft did go back and clean the hangers and that there.was not a hardware proble ;

(3) Findings Review of this concern.by the alleger indicated that this was not a hardware problem since- the craft did go back and clean the'

hangers because the QC inspector would not sign off until the hangers were properly cleaned.

e

.

l l

o

. .

12 k. Williams Company is Full of Nepotism i (1) Concern The Williams coating organization is full of nepotism, thereby, stifling all natural dissen The Bell family members are -all ,

in key position (2). Discussion-The inspector investigated this same concern during an inspec-tion conducted April 14 - July 3, 1986. During that inspection, the inspector examined the personnel files and certification records of 21 management and supervision personnel. Examination of these records showed that almost all of them had prior commercial coating experience. Those that did not were hired as apprentices and were given on-the-job training.- Review of the records showed that all except one had taken and passed a ;

written painting exam .given to new hires. Review of records showed that the painter who failed the written test did have six years of prior experience and that he had been certified through a painting application test. Discussions with the Williams Site Project Manager disclosed that the company was a family owned business and that some of the management and supervisors were related. However, he indicated he was not related to anybody in the company. Review of interviews of QC inspectors and craft personnel conducted by the quality concern group showed no evidence of QC or craft being reluctant to give a dissenting opinio I (3) Findings Some of the management and supervision are relate Review of personnel records indicated that they had previous coating experience, were certified by painting applicat.fon tests, or given on-the-job training if hired as an apprentice, and thus were qualified for the work they were doing. This inspector's experience in the job market has shown that it is not unusual for companies to hire employees on the basis of recommendations from other company employees. Review of records of interviews of Williams' personnel conducted by the GPC Quality Concern Group showed no evidence of employees being reluctant to give dissenting opinio _