ML20214F391

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Ltr Confirming Understanding of Concerns Re Deficiencies Concerning Case RII-84-A-0094.Notification If Concerns Not Completely or Accurately Reflected Requested.Records of 860531,0601 & 0608 Telcons Encl
ML20214F391
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 06/12/1984
From: Lankford J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20214F174 List:
References
FOIA-85-221 NUDOCS 8611250288
Download: ML20214F391 (13)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED ST ATES

[ . nog \ JCLEAR CEGULATCY COMMIS$10N y "

C E:@h ll

  • 101 c'A2tETTa STRE ET.C.C.
  • ATLANTA,0EDAGIA 30303

%, s ee

  • JUN 121984 IDENTITYING DATA OMITTED

SUBJECT:

RII-84-A-OO94 This refers to our telephone conversations in which you expressed concerns related to construction deficiencies at the Vogtle Nuclear Power Flant.

An enclosure to this letter documents your concerns as I understano them based on our conversations. We have initiated actions to develop and examine the facts and circumstances of your concerne; therefore, if the -

enclosure does not completely and accurately reflect all of your concerns, please contact me collect as soon as possible at (404) 221-4193 so we can assure that they are adequately addressed during our review. If you should call and I am not available, please ask to speak to my associate, Mr. Bruno Uryc or, if you prefer, leave a message so that I can return your call.

You indicated that you would like tc send us copies of documentation relating to your concerns. I have enclosed an envelope for your use in mailing this information to us.

Regarding your request for confidentiality, let me assure you that we will make every effort to handle this matter in such a way so as to maintain your anonymity. Sone of our procedures to ensure anonymity include limiting access to documents which contain your identity, preparing documentation in which your identity is concealed, and other internal procedures which limit the dissemination of your identity on a strict need-to-know basis. I would like to point out however, that licensees can and do sometimes correctly guess the identity of individuals who provide infornation to us because of the nature of the information, or other factors beyond our control. In such cases our policy is to neither confirm or deny the accuracy of their guess.

In closing, let me assure you that every effort will be made to resolve these issues. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for the protection of the public health and safety and the environment in the uses of nuclear facilities and materials, and assuring industry conformance to regulatory requirements. We engage in major efforts on a daily basis to ensure that we fulfill our mandate. It is concerned citizens such as yourself, who in bringing concerns to our attention, help us to meet these demanding responsibilities. We appre late your bringing your concerns to hojl2 0 88 861120 FOWLFHgS-221 PDR (1 .

______t___-_-_-

D JUN 12 1984 our attention and should you have additional questions, or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

. Sincerely, 8 M J. B. Lank ord Investigative Coordinator

Enclosure:

Statement of Concerns 9

e

e o

RII-84-A-OO94 JUN 1 2 WE' STATEMENT OF CONCERNS

1. The co crete pipe portion of the intake structure had hairline cracks which were to be chisled out for repair. The workers used 10 to 12 pound chipping machines to remove the cracks. These machines created excessive vibration which may have resulted in additional damage to the pipe.
2. Three areas were identified where concrete had been poured prior to the removal of all trash. These areas were as follows: *

- Around the reactor where neutron detectors are located

- Embed area of the reactor where #18 rebar came out of the reactor cavity and tied into the shield wall

- Blockouts for the placement of equipment such as HVAC units on Level 3 of the Control Building .

The failure to remove all trash prior to the concrete pours resulted because some OC inspectors were more lenient than others.

3. The containment shell wall may contain voids. A GPC employee was obstaved po*Jnding on the containment shell wall. In some places, the wall sounded different, as if there was no concrete against the metal linte.

4 When the walls were poured for the control building, abcut a 5 inch gap between the control building and the fuel handling building was filled with ether fotm for an expansion joint. After the walls lad been poured to a height c~ about 60 feet, it wa? determined that the ether foam was supposed to have been removed. In about March 1903, work began to remove the foam but it was very difficult to do. Later, at was observed that the walls were charred. Apparently sonicone had set the foam afire in an attempt to burn it out.

5. In about May 1983, a fire occurred next to the north face of the containment building near the penetration area. Some bundleb of lumber which were to be used for building scaffolding caught fire from welding.

The concrete on the side of the containment building got very hot and pieces of concrete approximately 2 inches in diameter flaked off.

6. There was a pipe in the control building from which water runs continuously. It was rumored that there was an underground spring at the plant site and hac caused problems with backfill sinking when the construction began. It was not known whether the water from the control building was associated with tie underground spring.

l l

t UNITED ST ATES

, /,gna aseg'g ..JCLEAR CECULATGY COMMIS&lON 4 [ 3 ,, o CE260N II

{ f 101 MAalETTA STREET.N.W.

ATLANTA.OEDA0lA So3o3

\ Seee*

.. JUN 121984

> 0

~ '

Dear ~ "

  • SL'BJECT : RII-84-A-OO94 This refers to our telephone conversations in which you expressed concerns I related to construction deficiencies at the Vogtle Nuclear Power Flant.

An enclosure to this letter documents your concerns as I understand them based on our conversations. We have initiated actions to develop and examine the facts and circumstances of your concerns; theref ore, if the '

enclosure does not completely and accurately reflect all af your concerns, please contact me collect as soon as possible et (404) 221-4193 so we can assure that they are adequately addressed during our review. If you should

  • call and I am not available, please ask to speak to my associate, Mr. Bruno Uryc or, if you prefer, leave a message so that I can return your call.

You indicated that you would like to send us copies of documentation relating to your concerns. I have enclosed an envelope for your use in mailing this information to us.

Regarding your request for confidentiality, let me assure you that we will make every effort to handle this matter in such a way so as to maintain your anonymity. Some of our procedures to ensure anonymity include limiting access to documents which contain your identity, preparing documentation in which your identity is concealed, and other internal procedures which limit l

the dissemination of your identity on a strict need-to-know basis. I would like to point out however, that licensees can and do sometimes correctly guess the identity of individuals who provide information to us because of the nature of the information, or other factors beyond our control. In such cases our policy is to neither confirm or deny the accuracy of their guess.

In closing, let me assure you that every effort will be made to resolve these issues. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for the protection of the public health and safety and the environment in the uses of nuclear facilities and materials, and assuring industry conformar.te to regulatory requirements. We engage in najor efforts on a daily basis to ensure that we fulfill our mandate. It is concerned citizens such as yourself, who in bringing concerns to our attention, help us to meet these demanding responsibilities. We appreciate your bringing your concerns to

, - - - - - - - - , - - w_ - . - y , _ _,n.y,- , - _ _ . - . , , - , - . , , - . _ - . - , , . - -

A JUN 2 - i':: '

cur, atteettee aa c s ec.,; yo., have accatie al questi:-s, er :' I car ca of further' assistance 1 *. this matter, pleas.e c: r.c t hetstate to certact me.

Sincerely,

^

Qb J. 8. Lank c r .1

!cwestigative Cocrd:nator d

Enclosure:

Statemer.t of Concerns b

t

((gT/f /E D $0.

De q ,p ,

Y,

o RIl-84-A-OO94 JUN12 EF!

STATEMENT OF CONCERNS

1. The concrete pipe portion of the intake structure had hairline cracks which were to be chisled out for repair. The workers used 10 to 12 pound chipping machines to remove tt.e cracks. These machines created excessive vibration which may have resulted in additional damage to the pipe.

l

2. Three areas were identified where concrete had been poured prior to l the removal of all trash. These areas were as follows:

- Around the reactor where neutron detectors are located

- Embed area of the reactor where #iB rebar came out of the, reactor cavity and tied into the Shield wall

- Blockouts for the placement of equipment such as HVAC units on Level 3 of the Control Duilding The failure to remove all trash prior to the concrete pours resulted because some OC inspectors were more ler.ient than others. ,

3. The containment shell wall may contain voids. A GPC employee was observed pounding on the containment shell wall. In some places, the wall sounded different, as if there was no concrete against the metal liner.

4 When the walls were poured for the control building, about a $ inch gap between the co9 trol building and the fuel handling building was filled with ether foam for an, expansion joint. Af ter the walls had been poured to a height of about 60 feet, it was determined that the etner foam was supposed to have been removed. In about March 1983, work began to remove the foam but it was very difficult to do. Later, it was observed that tne walls were charred. Apparently someone had set the foam afire in an attempt to burn it out.

l 5. In about May 1983, a fire occurred next to the north face of the containment building near the penetration area. Some bundles of lumber I which were to be used for building scaffolding caught fire from welding.

The concrete on the side of the containment building got very hot and pieces of concrete approximately 2 irches in diameter flaked off.

I l

6. There was a pipe in the control building from which water runs continuously. It was rumored that there was an underground spring at the plant site and had caused problems with backfill sinking when the construction began. It was not known w5 ether the water from the control building was associated with the underground spring.

\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o i

(

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE .

(x) Telecon i

Participants:

Fales RII-84-A-OO94

( ) Mtg i J. E. Lantford  ! Date: 06/08/84

( ) Review V. W. Panciers  ! Times 3:30 pm Confidentiality Reg: Yes ALGR was contacted to obtain clarif ying inf ormation regarding his concerns. He provided the following:

CONCRETE POURS - ALGR identified 3 areas where he had seen trash which was not removed praor to concrete pours. One area was around the reactor shell where neutron detector slots are located.

He ss1d there was a lot of #18 rebar which made it difficult to get to the trash. He also, indicated that there was a communication problem between the different crews to ensure that I the trash was removed. ALGR could not specify how much trash there was. Another arer, was around the embed around the reactor.

He described this area to consist of 4 foot pieces of #18 rebar -

wh1ch came out from the reactor and tied into the shield wall.

The third area was the blockouts in the control building. ALGR dad not know the amount of trash in the blockouts. He stated that he doubted that there was enough trash to cause equipment sitting on the blockouts to shift. ALGR had difficulty describing the specific areas of the pours which contained trash. He explained '

that the primary reason he had mentioned the trash in the pours was to describe how some DC inspector were more lenient than others. He again' described how one DC inspector might come by in the morning and not sign off on a pour because of trash. That

. afternoon a different DC inspector would come by and sign off to allow the pour, al though the tr ash had not been removed.

EyF ANSION JOINTS - ALGR stated that when walls were poured for the control building. there was about a L inch gap be: ween the control building and the fuel handling building. This gap was filled with ether foam for an expansion joint. ALGR had heard that the foam 1 allowed for enpansion in case of aa parthquate. He said the pours

for the control building wall were made in about 20 foot lifts.

1 After about 3 sections had been poured (about 60 feet high), it 3

was decided that the etner foam was supposed to have been removed.

i ALGR said that Mr. McCarty, the Walsh Project Manager put out a paper regarding this issue. In about February or March 1983 they began trying to remove the foam but it was very difficult to do.

. One day the ALGR came to work and noticed the wall was charred.

Apparently someone had set the foam on fire and tried to burn it j out. ALGR said some of the foam may still be there.

i lC)

'a COrJT Al rJME NT WJ._' L FIRE - A fare oc urred ne:: t to the north 4 ace of the ccntainment building near the penetration ers3, gem, j

bundles of lutcGr which were to be used for building staffegegng caught fare from some welding. The concrete on the side of the

. containment building got very hot and pieces of concrete about the sace of silver dollars popped off. This occurred about May 19E7, A cimallar fire oct*urred on the Unit I side but ALGR doesn 't inc.

If any damage occurred.

WATER IN COrJTFOL BUILDING - ALGR said there was a pipe an the '

control buil:1ng with water running from it all the time. He did not Inow whe'e the water was coming from. ALGR said he had heard that there was an underground spring at the plant site and had caused problems with the bacif111 sin!Ing when the construct 1on began.

ALGR'S - ALGR discussed the information he had previousl y prcvided regarding the circumstances surrounding his N He said his primary concern.is the way he was treated after he identified concerns to GPC Ovality Concerns Program. He said he felt he had been betrayed by GPC.

Frepared By: J. Lantford Date: 06/08/04

+ .~.-

z. , , , _ _

, **m, ,

f

y MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE (x) Teleqon

Participants:

Files RII-84-A-OO94

( ) Mtg l J. B. Lankford  : Date: 06/08/84

( ) Review  ! V. W. Panciera  : Time: 3:30 pm Confidentiality Reg: Yes ALG,R was contacted to obtain clarifying information.regarding his concerns. He provided the followings CONCRETE POURS - ALGR identified 3 areas *where he had seen trash which was not removed prior to concrete pours. One area was around the reactor shell where neutron detector slots are located.

He said there was a lot of #18 rebar which made it difficult to get to the trash. He also indicated that there was a communication problem between the different crews to ensure that the trash was removed. ALGR could not specify how much trash there was. Another area was around the embed around the reactor.

He described this area to consist of 4 foot pieces of #18 rebar which came out from the reactor and tied into the shie J wall.

The third area was the blockouts in the control building. ALGR did not know the amount of trash in the blockouts. He stated that he doubted that there was enough trash to cause equipment sitting on the bloclouts to shift. ALGR had difficulty describing the spectfac areas of the pours which contained trash. He explained that the primary reason he haa mentioned the trash in the pours was to describe how some OC inspector were more lentent than others. He again described how one DC inspector might come by in the morning and not sign off on a pour because of trash. That afternoon a different DC inspector would come by ano sign off to allow the pour. although the trash had not been removed.

EYPANSION JOINTS - ALGR stated that when walls were poured for the control building. there was about a 5 inch gap between the control building and the fuel handling building. This gap was filled with ether foam for an expansion joint. ALGR had heard that the foam allowed for e,pansion in case of an earthqual e. He said the pours for the control building wall were made In about 20 foot lifts.

After about 3 sections had been poured (about 60 feet high). it was decided that the ether foam was supposed to have been removed.

ALGR said that Mr. McCarty, the Walsh Project Manager put out a paper regarding this issue. In about February or March 1983 they began trying to remove the foam but it was very difficult to do.

One day the ALGR came to wort: and noticed the wall was charred.

Apparuntly someone had set the foam on fire and tried to burn it out. ALGR said some of the foam may still be there.

It

CONTAINMENT WALL FIRE - A f i re occurred ne): t to the north face of the containment building near the penetration area. Some bundles Qf lumber which were to be used for building scaffolding caught fire from some welding. The concrete on the side of the containment bu11 ding got very hot and pieces of concrete about the size of silver dollars popped off. This occurred about May 198!. .

A similiar fire occurred on the Unit 1 side but ALGR doesn't 6now if any damage occurred.

WATER IN CONTROL BUILDING - ALGR sand there was a pipe an the control building with water running from at all the time. He did not lnow where the water was coming from. ALGR said he had heard that there was an underg<ound sprang at the plant site and had caused problems with the bact.f111 sa nl ing when the construction began.

ALGR'S DISMISSAL - ALGR discussed the information he had revi ousl y provided regarding the circumstances surrounding llh He said has primary concern is the way he was treated after he identified concerns to GFC Ouality Concerns Program. He said he felt he had been betrayed by GFC.

Prepared By: J. Laniford Date: 06/08/84

t b

  • (:: ) Tolocon : Ferticipants:  : Filot RII-E4-A-OO94 k ( ) Mtg ,,

i J. B. Loniford l Dstet 05/!1/E4

( ) Review  :  : 06/01/84

T 1,ne : 5/01 11:30 am Confidentiality Reg: YES  : 6/1 2:00 pm led to discuss the ~

circumstances surrcunding his from ~ - ~ ,

at Vogtle. ALGR had been a for about "*

years. His primary concern regarded his being ~

identifying construction concerns to GPC. His description of the construction discrepancies follow. The information regarding his does not appear to warrant NRC action. I did provide him the tele no of the Atlanta DOL office and suggested that he discuss this matter with them.

Intale Structure - ALGR described the intal e structure as a metar and concrete pipe (about 10' high) which runs from the turbine ~ ~ ~ " ~

building to the cooling tower. In ALGN uas ,

transferred to the intal e structure assigned to the.

While assigned to this area. he observed that the concrete pipe portion of the intal e structure had hairline cracts. The cracts were most prominent near the Joints of the pipe. Worters were in the process of chipping out the hairline cracts to mal e rep airs. The worlers were using 10 to 12 pound chipping machines with a bit about 1 inch in diameter. ALGR euplained that these chipping machines were too big and may have resulted in more damage to the pipe. The chippers caused pieces of concrete about one foot in diameter to fall from the pipes.

ALGR said there was so much vibration that concrete would fall from sections of the pipe which were 5 or 6 joints away from where the actuel chipping was being done. ALGR f elt the wori:ers were using the big chippers to create more work which was inefficient and were also doing more damage to the pipe by using the big chippers. ALGP said he e:rpressed his concern to a GPC engineer e and then tool his concern to the GPC OC Concerns Frogram. ALGR said the worlers eventually began using smaller chipping machines (1 to 2 pound with a small bit). The small chippers were used on the last 50 to 75 yards of the pipe.

but the large chippers had been used on the first 15Q yards.

Concrete Fours - ALGR stated that he had seen concrete pours for bloclouts without all trash being removed prior to the pour. He described a blocl.out as a space in a slab for setting equipment on such as HVAC equipment. He enplained that some OC inspectors were more strict than others. He described how one OC inspector

. l M h h b h } h k N N M k h h h EI$ M b

r ., 1 e

might come by an the morning to do a precour inspection fc" a k bloclout and not epprove it beccuse the blocl out was dir <. Later in the day a different DC Inspector might com2 by cnd a;;-ove the pour although the bloclout had not been cleaned. ALGR said cf he thewas involved in several pours for for blocd outs eni control building. He said he did nct want to mal e a big deal out of this issue. he was only using this as an enample ALGR to shew saidthat there some OC Inspectors were more lensent than others.

were 2 or 3 OC inspectors that were more lenient than other He could not remember their nemes. thought che was inspectors.

named Containment Shell Wall Concrete Four - ALGR stated thet when the initial pours were made for the shell wall for containment building one. he observed a GPC employee pounding on t7e outside of thethere shellwas wall. In some places. the wall sounded different.

as if no concr ete against the metal. . butALGR mentioned he said it was*

this to has superintendent, not a void. to Just forget it. This occurred the end of 1981 or early 1982. ALGR said there could have been a 1/4 inch gap or there might be a big gap. Algr said he had heard that radiation travels left to right. instead of up and down. and he was concerned that the concrete might not be thicl. enough to stop the radiation, bed the f ollowing circumstances r s ,,

After discussing his concerns with the GFC engineer abcet the wcel being performed on the intal.e structure. ALGR was approached by the General Foreman of the finishers who told ALGR te leep his mouth shut and to not give out any informatten. In Decercer 1987 ALGR e.:oressed his concerns about the worn. being perforced on the int al e structure to the head of the GFC OA Department. In

. he was called in to discuss his concern with the head of the OA Concerns Frogram. Mr. Miles. About the end of Januery he t ool' one of the large bats and a small bit and showed them to the head of the CA Department. and eupounced on what being he started was

  • going on.

After ALGR had reported his concerns. cursed harassed by his coworlers. One individual. ALGF felt him. ALGR was then transferred to the the transfer was made to try and get rid of him, he enc'ained that there was always a good chance of being l aid of f 3 rom the On January 20. 1984. ALGR wroteand a mem:

beang to document his complaints about being transferred

  • harassed on the job. He gave a copy of the letter toread the, the letter and t'old ALGR the the problem was rot stated in the letter. Apparantly. ALGA had only discussed his perscnal problems in the letter and had not discussed theatproblem got very mad him. The withnent the intal e structure. ALGR said day. ALGR tool a copy of the letter to Mr. Miles. Heac ci CC Concern Frogram. Mllet wouldn't read the l etter (ALGA 4elt Miles i et i4 e

i f f .

a

g had elreads been briefed by. but t all ed about getting h : c.

cnothcr job. MILES then called Manager cnd discussed the pcssibility of getting ALGR enother

  • job. end asled him cbout c new Job.

Later ALGR caw

~~' said it was out of the Question now. Onf ALGR had another meeting with MILES at which time ALGR wes Osled to sign a memo which stated that ALGR had expressed his .

concerns and the concerns had been adequately addressed, etc.

ALGR said he signed the memo but later had second thoughts and decided to write another memo. This memo referenced the February ,

29 memo and e :pl ained thet he could not sign the memo because he had not worled in the intal e structure area for the past 1 and 1/2 n.onth and therefore could not inow whether or not the corrective action was adequate. He also stated that he was still apprehensive about his future. He requested that this letter be appended to the memo which he had stgned and stated that his signeture on that memo would only be valid if this letter was attached. He also requested a copy of the memo he had signed. On about March 1. ALGR was called to MILES office and the GFC -

Attorney. Mr. WHITNEY was present. WHITNEY wanted to know who ALGRs attorney was.

. ALGR said he did ,

not have an attorney. During March and April there were no new ,

developments. A few days ago ALGR saw a dumping concrete. ALGR went and got a union steward and filed a grievance. There was a big meeting about this and apparantly caused some hard feelings. On Wednesday.. ALGR requested to see Mr. MILEE. A few ntnutes later a co-worter.

called ALGR ALGR refused and ALGR said ALGR went to about this incident. McCARTY talled to the other woriers who were witnesses and later told ALGR that the woriers said that . ALGR but had not[

ALGR went to the and got a report which indicated that he hed some . On 5/!1/84 ALGF went in to wor 6 and went to see ALGR told that he wanted to get the nemet of the . refused mad '"--

cave ALGR has termination ollp which = ' '

he y[ggg[gf ALGR asled what was the but.he,was not told.

ALGR asled that the NRC net act on his cencerns for a weel or so.

Ho sold he planned to mal e one more phone call to see if he might get his job bocl .

JEFFRd C. uwx WVESTIGATIVE COORDINATOR

.,. . , , - , ,. ..- - v . . - . ~.. ,.. c .. x 3..,. . .

( f  : f ik jf f( *

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214F391&oldid=3274921"