Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Shaw Group

Poll

Shaw Group

Above Average
5 (18.5%)
Average
8 (29.6%)
Below Average
14 (51.9%)

Total Members Voted: 19

Author Topic: Shaw Group  (Read 37447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2012, 10:11 »
speaking of engineering...


Part 21 Event Number: 47923
Rep Org: SHAW GROUP INC.
Licensee: GERDAU LONG STEEL NORTH AMERICA
Region: 1
City: CHARLOTTE State: NC
County:
License #:
Agreement: Y
Docket:
NRC Notified By: EDWARD HUBNER
HQ OPS Officer: PETE SNYDER  Notification Date: 05/14/2012
Notification Time: 14:46 [ET]
Event Date: 05/14/2012
Event Time: [EDT]
Last Update Date: 05/14/2012 
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
21.21(d)(3)(i) - DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE
 Person (Organization):
SCOTT FREEMAN (R2DO)
PART 21 REACTORS GRP (EMAI)
 

Event Text

THREADING DEVIATIONS ON STEEL REINFORCING BAR SUPPLIED TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

This report was supplied for informational purposes. The threaded ends of some of the reinforcing bar supplied to the V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 and the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 nuclear projects were found to have threads too long or too short, double threaded areas, voids in threads, or an incorrect thread profile.

"The results of evaluations of this condition as documented by Shaw Nuclear and conducted in accordance with the procedure for performing evaluations required by 10 CFR 21.21, have concluded that the deviations in the rebar would not create a substantial safety hazard, if they were to remain uncorrected. Therefore, it has been determined that these deviations are not reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21. This information is being provided for industry awareness of the occurrence of these types of deviations in reinforcing steel being provided as a basic component."

Offline cheme09

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2012, 01:54 »
Who else is to blame? I can tell you for sure it isn't the workers in the field who are to blame! but you bet your ass they are they are the first to loose their jobs! Not the "white hats" Even though they are the ones who screwed up!

Your logic is a little skewed here.  The craft/trades are at the end of the line, in terms of project implementation.  Generally, a project is planned, scoped, designed, then built (read: crafts).  If during the building phase, a mistake is found and needs to be fixed, work needs to be stopped and you have to move back up the chain to assess the design and re-analyse.  In that case, no company is going to keep paying craft to be onsite when there is no work to be done; it's bad economics.  The major work becomes the re-analysis, not the construction so resources are re-allocated accordingly.  Macgator hit the nail on the head.  When the company is ready to move forward again you can expect employment to go back up. 

I don't work for Shaw, nor am I involved with the Vogtle project.  I am just sharing my experience of how projects work.


Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2012, 10:00 »
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/05/11/southern-co-faces-delays-additional-costs-for-vogtle-plant-construction-051105.aspx

I am willing to bet, that Southern Company will opt to "cut-their-losses" as soon as possible, fire The Shaw Group (yes, it'll go to court), and hire a replacement contractor (Bechtel) to complete the project. SCANA is no doubt monitoring the situation at Vogtle 3 & 4 quite carefully, and has put their Legal Department on alert to be prepared to cancel their construction contract with The Shaw Group.

In light of Fukushima, once people read about the "quality of construction" issues at Voglte 3 & 4 (and we know how the press just loves to condemn nuclear power), they'll be torch-burning mobs descending on the site. Especially when the customers of Georgia Power are told they may have to pick-up-the-tab for the project cost overrruns incurred to correct the flaws in construction.

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2012, 02:25 »
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/aiken/2012-05-16/nrc-mulls-first-vogtle-license-amendment-request

Won't be long now before the "anti-nuke" protesters descend upon Vogtle. The entire "sales pitch" for the AP1000 was that it's an NRC pre-approved and licensed design. So what's the very first roadblock Southern Company encounters at Vogtle Unit 3? Shoddy work necessitating a license amendment request to the NRC. I hope Southern Company sues the crap out of The Shaw Group for the shoddy work, the necessary repairs, and all costs associated with the license amendment request.

HeavyD

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2012, 02:46 »
The issue discussed is not necessarily due to "shoddy" work.  Settling of the engineered soil was expected, but not to the degree actually seen.  Determination as to the actual "why" is ongoing, with work by both Shaw and Westinghouse.

The rebar issue is another matter entirely, brought about mostly by WEC with some input from Shaw.  This is based on daily contact with said information at the other new construction site.

As to ditching Shaw, the legalities of that action are not worth the effort.  The "consortium" is made up of Shaw, WEC, Southern Nuclear and SCE&G.  Yes, there are page after page of legalese about performance and schedules and repercussions for missed dates and problems caused by the "customer" (Vogtle and VC Summer) and the "suppliers" (Shaw and WEC).  Financially, removing Shaw is not a viable option.

We (Vogtle and VC Summer) continue working alongside Shaw and WEC, moving forward and making what progress can be made.

ArthurRyan

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2012, 03:29 »
Would the individuals or company responsible for the initial geotechnical survey be at fault? 

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2012, 10:28 »
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2012-05-17/nrc-inspectors-find-3-minor-violations-mox-plant?v=1337272442

Hmm....another Shaw Group project under NRC scrutiny, and just across the Savannah River from Vogtle. As a SCANA shareholder, I would have these "issues" brought up at the shareholders' meeting and ask that the board of directors address them. Perhaps that's why Santee Cooper has put their 45% share of VC Summer Units 2 & 3 up for sale; they were skeptical of The Shaw Groups' ability to manage the project.  In either case, as I stated earlier, The Shaw Group has only given the "anti-nuke" protesters more to feed upon.

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2012, 03:47 »
In case any of my fellow nukeworkers were unaware; The Shaw Group is now staffing at Wolf Creek. In what capacity, is somewhat undecided at this point. It does not sound like they will be the sole suppliers for craft workers, but they will have a large portion of it. There are many rumors which I will refrain from sharing.
http://www.4-traders.com/THE-SHAW-GROUP-INC-5529548/news/The-Shaw-Group-Inc-Shaw-Wins-Multiple-Year-Nuclear-Maintenance-Contract-with-Wolf-Creek-14331712/
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 03:51 by ksheed12 »

Offline ironcross

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2012, 02:32 »
Hey heavy d,  :D
you sure that psych 101 you took wasn't a book on how to build your ego to the sky?

It sure does seem as though Shaw is going down hill. Both here and across the river.......... This place is a joke .......period!

HeavyD

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2012, 07:21 »
I'm not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean or reference.

I can't, and don't attempt to, speak for the Shaw situation at Vogtle.  I also don't work for Shaw.  I work for the "other" new construction facility. 

There have been no cutbacks of Shaw workers here, nor have there been boneheaded moves or anything else that ironcross has described at this facility.

Continuing a debate when one side has already decided that nothing will change their mind is pointless.  The feel I am getting is that "Shaw sucks, they will never be any better, everyone else is a Shaw fanboy".  This attitude will never lead to anything productive.

Both projects MUST succeed, either because of or in spite of Shaw and WEC's involvement.  These two builds are vital to new growth for OUR industry.  And no, this isn't about ego or kissing up to Shaw.  As a sailor in the Navy, every single one of us played a role in a larger entity that made everything run smoothly.  Again, we (everyone on these forums) find ourselves in that same position, playing our part in something bigger that will have a far reaching effect for the nation's nuclear industry.

Best of luck to our brothers and sisters over at Vogtle, the world is watching us ;D
 

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2012, 01:04 »
Best of luck to our brothers and sisters over at Vogtle, the world is watching us ;D

And so is the NRC...

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2012/12-038.ii.pdf

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #36 on: Jun 01, 2012, 11:48 »
Part 21 Event Number: 47981
Rep Org: SHAW NUCLEAR SERVICES
Licensee: JOSEPH OAT CORPORATION
Region: 1
City: CHARLOTTE State: NC
County:
License #:
Agreement: Y
Docket:
NRC Notified By: DAVID BARRY
HQ OPS Officer: JOHN KNOKE  Notification Date: 05/31/2012
Notification Time: 16:17 [ET]
Event Date: 05/31/2012
Event Time: [EDT]
Last Update Date: 05/31/2012 
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
21.21(d)(3)(i) - DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE
 Person (Organization):
STEVEN VIAS (R2DO)
PART 21 GROUP ()
 

Event Text

PART 21 - DUCTILITY OF REINFORCING STEEL FOR EMBEDMENTS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENT

"The reporting organization provided information pertaining to the identification of a noncompliance associated with the steel reinforcing material (rebar) attached to embedments being supplied as basic components for the Vogtle Units 3 and 4, nuclear project, based on reinforcing bar that exceeded the limit for yield strength.

"The results of the evaluation of this condition as documented by Shaw Nuclear and conducted in accordance with the procedure for performing evaluations required by 10 CFR 21.21, has concluded that the noncompliance could potentially create a substantial safety hazard, if it were to remain uncorrected. Therefore, it has been determined that this noncompliance is reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21."

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #37 on: Jun 04, 2012, 08:54 »
PART 21 - DUCTILITY OF REINFORCING STEEL FOR EMBEDMENTS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENT  ::)

I imagine that the lawyers for "The Shaw Group", "Southern Company" and the "Joseph Oat Company" have already gathered in their respective conference rooms so as to begin fashioning a lawsuit as to who is going to "pick-up-the-tab" for the removal and replacement of the sub-standard rebar, and re-pouring of the concrete.

Heads-should-roll for this debacle.

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #38 on: Jun 04, 2012, 09:56 »
PART 21 - DUCTILITY OF REINFORCING STEEL FOR EMBEDMENTS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENT  ::)

I imagine that the lawyers for "The Shaw Group", "Southern Company" and the "Joseph Oat Company" have already gathered in their respective conference rooms so as to begin fashioning a lawsuit as to who is going to "pick-up-the-tab" for the removal and replacement of the sub-standard rebar, and re-pouring of the concrete.
Heads-should-roll for this debacle.

I think I found the concrete molds for the repour....


HeavyD

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #39 on: Jun 04, 2012, 10:57 »
Haven't heard anything definitive yet, but I am speculating that this may have been discovered while bending rebar.  This would be necessary to correct the previous issue with rebar being installed in a manner not consistent with the NRC approved DCD.

Anyway you look at it, major issue, for both them and potentially us as well >:(

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #40 on: Jun 05, 2012, 12:16 »
I love the concrete molds! ;D

There's no doubt that the "anti-nukes" will feed upon the errors in construction that The Shaw Group h made at both Vogtle and the MOX Facility at SRS. I'm surprised they haven't amassed their torch-burning mob already.

I love this article! :) Evidently EEI hadn't heard of the ongoing construction issues  at Vogtle Units '3' & '4'  prior to granting Southern Company this award.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/southern-company-receives-eei-edison-award-for-leading-nuclear-renaissance-2012-06-04

Pearlhurl

  • Guest
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #41 on: Jun 08, 2012, 11:47 »
After reading these points I would like to make a few points already discussed... the mox project also had problems with rebarb (cheap poor grade).There was a management change 2 + yrs ago for the worst the cost sky rocketed and construction mgnt turned into a good ol'buddy fuster cluck! The electrical Sup.(mother FLE) brought in "construction field engineers"! right out of book 2 of the LU IBEW which consisted of his fellow band of FLE followings. FLE' are a subversive organization within the IBEW that lookout for each other,milk jobs to death and F@@k Local Electricians holding the bag! The Mox Project just got cut $17million for y2013... a token amount in fed money but a warning. Shaw Group needs to wake up and send some professional fixers to both projects and clean up their project managers incompency or pay for all the over buget and state penilties for not finishing on time.

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #42 on: Jun 12, 2012, 07:32 »
Sadly, it appears that the MOX Project will be another waste of taxpayers' (OUR) money. As it stands now, Watts Barr would be the only reactor using the fuel. Once the contract option with Duke Energy/Catawba expired, Duke Energy opted not to renew.

Offline macgator

Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #43 on: Jun 12, 2012, 09:13 »
I want to assure RP Instructor that his tax dollars are being well spent paying the working men and women of the CSRA. I don't understand why a Duke employee would harbor such a grudge against Shaw unless it had something to do with losing the MOX project contract when it was run by Duke Cogema Stone and Webster? The MOX project will safely turn weapons into fuel thereby reducing the nuclear stockpile and providing clean energy. You obviously have no idea regarding fuel purchase agreements so I would ask that you concentrate on keeping your RP department qualified while the professionals at MOX and Vogtle work to safely complete their projects.

Offline RP Instructor

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 189
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who "can", "do", and go on to teach others.
Re: Shaw Group
« Reply #44 on: Jun 13, 2012, 12:19 »
I want to assure RP Instructor that his tax dollars are being well spent paying the working men and women of the CSRA. I don't understand why a Duke employee would harbor such a grudge against Shaw unless it had something to do with losing the MOX project contract when it was run by Duke Cogema Stone and Webster? The MOX project will safely turn weapons into fuel thereby reducing the nuclear stockpile and providing clean energy. You obviously have no idea regarding fuel purchase agreements so I would ask that you concentrate on keeping your RP department qualified while the professionals at MOX and Vogtle work to safely complete their projects.
Ah...spoken like a true politician! True, OUR federal tax dollars are being used to pay citizens living in the Central Savannah River Area, but WHAT have we gotten in return? The MOX Facility is WELL BEHIND schedule for completion, and true, I'm not privy to fuel purchase agreements, however, to the best of my knowledge, Duke Energy let their contract expire, and no other nuclear utility has been "lined-up" to use the MOX Fuel other than TVA, and that was communicated by the DOE. It is NOT I questioning the quality of the work being done at the MOX Facility and Vogtle 3 & 4; it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it has become a matter of public record. Southern Company has requested revision to their Combined Operating License, due to the sub-standard rebar used in the concrete "nuclear island", that did not meet Westinghouses' specifications, which is now subject to additional  engineering analyses. As an RP Specialist, I have witnessed individuals who were not qualified to do the job (RADCON support) that they were doing,  and thus as an instructor counsel my students to be absolutely certain that they are trained and qualified to the task they're about to perform, and that they are confident in their ability to do the job properly and safely, BEFORE they do it, and if the task requires a continuous use procedure, to it "in hand". "Integrity is how you act/behave when no one is watching".

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?