ML20082H417

Intervenor Response to Gpc Motion for Summary Disposition & Statement of Matl Facts Re Diesel Air Quality.Requests That Util Motion Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20082H417
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/10/1995
From:	Kohn M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#295-16615 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9504170138
Download: ML20082H417 (25)

Text

-

, %r /64 /5 DOCKETED April 10lS1395 I

- _. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .D APR b $0 :19 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: g hSfCj@TARY Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter gggggf M

. Thomas D. Murphy 1 )

j In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3

~

2.t. a L. , )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear) l Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO GPC'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ,

AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED TO DIESEL AIR QUALITY  !

Intervenor, Allen L. Mosbaugh, herein files his response to I Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition concerning incomplete l and inaccurate information contained in Georgia Power's April 9, 1990 Confirmation of Action response letter ("COAR") concerning I the air quality of the plant Vogtle diesel generator air systems.

IV.

INTERVENOR'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1. The COAR incorrectly states that air quality was satisfactory when, in fact, it was not.

Factual basis Based on GPC's commitment to generic letter 88-14, which can ,

l be found in Intervenor's Prefiled Exhibits (" EXHIBIT") a's #13, l and NRC's supplemental response to Intervenor's first set of interrogatories at Response 16 (EXHIBIT 72), air quality is not

" satisfactory" or " acceptable" if the dew point is above 50 F in_ ,

the air receiver. If dew points were in excess of 50 F, then i l

i 9504170138 950410 l "l ADOCK 05000424 PDR g PDR

&" O

i 1

4

they were not satisfactory.

GPC's stated observations do not  !

L. -- defined acceptance. criteria. GPC. measured dewpoints at- system-- --- -

pressure in the air receiver and obtained readings higher that 50 4 F. These measurements do not support the assertion that air quality was acceptable. l 3

2. The COAR states that recently obtained high dewpoint a

readings were the result of faulty instrumentation.

Factual basis i

~

This represents a materially false statement because GPC's l .

1 dewpoint instruments were not faulty and the high readings were l accurate. This is demonstrates by inspection and analysis of I GPC's Maintenance Work Orders ("MWO"). To summarize, DEMONSTRATIVE AID #10 shows eight (8) bases by which the i

instruments ere not faulty including 1G high readings using_two j separate instruments which were never claimed or shown to be L faulty. Furthermore, GPC's witnesses deposed by Intervenor i confirm that GPC never tagged or documented or recalled the l

existence of a faulty instrument, and GPC refuses and/or is unable to identify the origin of the faulty instrument statement or whether it was ever verified.

3. GPC's communications with NRC concerning high dewpoints

were incomplete.

4 Factual basis As depicted in Demonstrative aid #4, there were 20 out of specification high dew points measured between 3-9-90 and 4-9-90 l

2

O for DG1A. GPC contends that it told NRC about six (6)1 of the

_hi gh.DG1A_ readings in this period..but.did so only after NRC stumbled onto high dewpoint readings on their own.2 The Board should consider three (3) different communications by GPC on 4-9-90: 1) Bockhold's oral presentation to the NRC; 2) the subsequent 4-9-90 COAR; and 3) GPC's 4-11-90 response to NRC's (Al Chaffee) 4-9-90 request to provide a detailed list of diesel 1A dewpoints (EXHIBIT 82). The oral presentation and the COAR essentially state the same thing. According to GPC's notes of the oral presentation (EXHIBIT 70) Bockhold stated that GPC "did look at air quality" and that high dewpoint readings were attributable to " bad instrument" and that " quality is good" and the plant "never had any air quality problems." Id. The COAR states that " higher than expected dewpoints were later attributed to faulty instrumentation" (EXHIBIT 23 at p. 3, 14). The third 1

communication which was to be a detailed list of dewpoint l

readings for diesel 1A, only showed two high readings subsequent to the Site Area Emergency when, in fact, there were twenty (20) .

I.

INTERVENOR'S FACTUAL BASIS REFUTING GPC'S AIR QUALITY STATEMENTS

1. On 2-17-89 GPC responded to NRC generic letter 88-14.

According to George Hairston's sworn response to the NRC, GPC 2

Intervenor basis this number on statements contained in GPC's prefiled testimony.

2 Incredibly, GPC ascribed all six high readings to faulty instrumentation. Additionally, GPC failed to tell NRC about many of the high dewpoint readings taken with respect to other diesels.

3 l

1 i

j. '

committed to a."maximumLdewpoint. acceptance criteria" for the s

i_ _ _ ,_ _..vogtle. diesel air. system of.50. degrees _farenheight.at. system._. a . I pressure of 225 to 250 psig to assure diesel air quality. GPC I l

committed to periodically perform a Preventative Maintenance (PM).

{

I

procedure SCL'00166 to assure compliance with'theH50 F dewpoint j requirement. Dewpoint measured greater than'50 F by procedure l SCL 00166 would make air quality unsatisfactory. Egg Mosbaugh i Prefiled testimony ("MOSBAUGH") at pp. 105-6;.also'see' EXHIBITS -

l

1. 13 & #72.

i

). 2. Dewpoint readings higher than 50. degrees F would be i

i " higher than' expected" and would make air. quality unsatisfactory.

)

j Sag NRC Staff supplemental response to intervenors first set of I

i Interrogatories, question 16 attached as. Exhibit #2. I

3. On 4-9-90 GPC made a verbal ~ presentation to'the NRC and j 1

submitted its COAR. The'COAR, signed by George Hairston, states:

!- GPC has reviewed air quality of the D/G air

system including dewpoint control and has

{- concluded that air quality is. satisfactory.

Initial reports of higher than expected l dewpoints were later attributed to faulty

instrumentation..This was confirmed by .

i internal inspection of one air receiver on j April 6, 1990, the periodic replacement of  ;

the control air filters last done in March, i

{ 1990 which showed no indication of corrosion and daily air receiver blowdowns with no

significant water discharge.

4 i

! 4. During discovery in this proceeding GPC provided what I

) it claims to be the complete package of the diesel air dewpoint l i I i readings from Maintenance Work Orders (MWO's) in 1989 and 1990 for all 4 Vogtle diesels. These MWO's provide the results of Preventative Maintenance (PM) procedure SCL 166 dewpoint  ;

! 4 4

. .- - .-- = _ _ . _. .

measurements. This package of MWO's is identified as EXHIBIT #35.

._ . These_ dewpoint measurements were taken to establish compliance -. _

with the 50 degrees F dewpoint requirement at the system pressure of the' air receiver. Egg MOSBAUGH pp. 106-7.

5. A tabulation of dewpoint data from the MWos in a more ,

usable fashion can be found as DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4, which contains a chronological tabulation for each diesel. Egg MOSBAUGH p. 107

6. For Diesel 1A, EXHIBITS #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 identify 20 out of specification high (OOS) dewpoint measurements, exceeding the 50 F acceptance criteria, taken-between 3-20-90 and 4-9-90, inclusive. These 20 OOS measurements j l

were taken with 2 different Vogtle Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) program instruments. Vogtle M&TE instruments.were maintained under a special quality assurance program and were required traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Egg MOSBAUGH pp. 107, 109.3

7. For Diesel.1B, EXHIBITS #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 identify 6 out of specification high (OOS) dewpoint measurements, exceeding the 50 F acceptance criteria, taken between 3-20-90 and 4-9-90, inclusive. These 6 OOS measurements were taken with 2 different Vogtle Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) program instruments. Egg MOSBAUGH p. 108.

2 The testimony addresses 3-9-90 to 4-9-90, during which time there were 22 OOS high readings. There were two OOS high readings on DG1A between 3-9 and 3-20.

5

k

8. For Diesel 2A, EXHIBITS #35'and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 2

_ _ identify 11 out_of_ specification high (OOS) dewpoint . -

t i measurements, exceeding the 50 F acceptance criteria, taken between 3-20-90 and 4-9-90, inclusive. These 11 OOS measurements were taken with 2 different Vogtle Measuring and Test. Equipment (M&TE)' program instruments and 1 borrowed instrument'which is

indicated as being from the VC Summer Plant. Sgg MOSBAUGH p.

I 108.

j 9. For Diesel 2B, EXHIBIT #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #:4 1

! identify 4 out of specification high (OOS) _ dewpoint measurements, exceeding the 50 F acceptance criteria, taken between 3-20-90 and~

{ 4-9-90, inclusive. These 4 OOS measurements were taken with two (2) different Vogtle Measuring and Test Equipment-(M&TE) program 1 instruments. Sag MOSBAUGH p. 108.

10. GPC did not claim that Vogtle M&TE instrument VP-1114' was faulty or suspected of being faulty. See EXHIBIT 36 (GPC Responses to Intervenors 7th set of interrogatories); MOSBAUGH

pp. 115-16.

11. EXHIBIT #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 identify 12 out of

, specification high (OOS) dewpoint measurements taken with Vogtle i

i M&TE instrument VP-1114; 3 on DG1A, 2 on DG 1B, 5 on DG2A, and 2 j on DG2B, taken between 3-29-90 and 4-9-90 inclusive.

CROSS COMPARISON OF THE DEWPOINT READINGS

12. A cross comparison of the dewpoint data from EXHIBIT

1. 35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 show eight (8) different examples of

Vogtle M&TE instrument dewpoint readings demonstrating that the 6

i

instruments were not faulty and their readings in March and April

.1990 were valid OOS.high readings.and should have been believed.

The comparisons are presented in DEMONSTRATIVE AID #10. Sag ,

1 MOSBAUGH pp. 109-10. The eight examples in DEMONSTRATIVE AID #10 l a

are set out below:

! a) Example #1 is the fact that on 3-9-90 instrument

VP-2466 was used to measure the dewpoints on diesel 1B as

' l l

! well as diesel 1A. VP-2466 obtained an in-specification -

I

l

! reading for DG1B of 45 F which indicates that the instrument was responding and capable of measuring in-specification j

dewpoints, if in fact the air dewpoints were in

-specification. It is not credible to me that this 4

instrument was faulty when it was being used to measure DG1A i

i l but accurate when used to verify in-specification dewpoints for DG1B on the same day. See MOSBAUGH pp. 111-12.

b) Example #2 is the fact that on 3-29-90 instrument VP-2466 was used to measure the dewpoints on diesel 1B as j well as diesel 1A. VP-2466 obtained'in-specification readings for DG1B of 37 F and 34 F which indicates-that the l l

l instrument was responding and capable of measuring 2

in-specification values down to.near the lower theoretical

limit of performance for the Vogtle air dryers (32 F) . It is not credible to me that this instrument was faulty when it was being used to measure DG1A but accurate when used to verify in-specification dewpoints for DG1B on the same day.

Egg MOSBAUGH p. 111. j 7

- l l

1 l

c) Example #3 is the fact that on the 7 different

_ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ occasions on 4-6-90 through 4-7-90 when instruments VP-2466- '

and VP-1114 were used at the same time to measure the same air, they agreed very well, one to the other, with a mean

, difference of approximately ( .7) degrees F and a standard deviation of approximately (5.7) degrees F. It is not credible to me that these two different types of M&TE instruments were both in error but consistently giving ..

similar readings. High readings on DG1A of 75 to 80 F from VP-2466 and VP-1114 on 4-6-90 and 4-7-90 were also consistent with the last set of readings obtained from DG1A on 3-29-90 of 60 and 80 F. Egg MOSBAUGH pp. 116-17.

d) Example #4 is the fact that instrument VP-1114 was used over a span of 4 consecutive days; 4-6-90, 4-7-90, 4-8-90 and 4-9-90 on all 4 diesels. On 4-6-90 and 4-7-90 it measured OOS high values on 3 different diesels, on 4-8-90 i it measured in-specification readings on 2 diesels, then on 4-9-90 it measured OOS readings 5 times on DG2A. The data

from 4-8-90 shows that during this short time span the instrument was responding and capable of measuring in-specification values down to near the theoretical lower limit of dryer performance, 32 degrees F. It is not credible to me that instrument readings in this time span from VP-1114 were faulty when the instrument was obtaining in-specification dewpoints for DG1B and DG2B. Egg MOSBAUGH

p. 117, 8

I

e) Example #5 is the fact that on the 9 different

. . . _ . - - ~ - - - - -

-occasions-on 4-8-90 through 4-9-90 when-instruments-VP-1114 and borrowed instrument FS3529 were used at the same time to measure the same air they agreed well one to the other, with a mean difference of approximately (4.6) degrees F and a

! standard deviation of approximately (7.4) degrees F. It is i

not credible to me that GPC believed that instrument VP-1114 was in error when it was giving consistently similar _

readings to FS3529. GPC has not questioned the validity of FS3529. Egg MOSBAUGH p. 117.

1

f) Example #6 is the fact that after GPC identified ,

i to the NRC on the morning of 4-6-90 that a faulty instrument l 1

was the reason for the OOS high dewpoints, GPC did not I remove the faulty instrument from service. VP-2466 was used at least 6 times after that point. Maintenance personnel would have followed their procedures and removed the ,

1 instrument from service if they suspected it of being 1

faulty. It is not credible to me that maintenance

] technicians believed that VP-2466 was faulty and'yet continue to use it, in violation of procedure. Egg MOSBAUGH

p. 118.

g) Example #7 is the fact that VP-1114 was maintained in service for many months after April 1990 until its l calibration due date (CDD) on 9-3-90 when it was removed from service. This indicates to me that the readings from 9

1

VP-1114 were valid and not faulty for the'same reasons as I

..-- stated with VP-2466.- Sag-MOSBAUGH p..118. - - - - - - -.

h) . Example #8 is the-fact that-FS-3529 measured 4 OOS high readings on DG2A on 4-9-90. GPC has<not questioned the validity of FS3529 readings. Both dryers that were in 4

separate systems were high.-It.is not credible to me that more than one set of high readings.was used to by GPC to claim faulty readings on unit DG1A* while multiple high

. readings on in separate systems on DG2A were assumed as-valid. Egg MOSBAUGH p. 118.

THE FAULTY INSTRUMENTATION

13. Depositions t.aken in-this proceeding of' responsible GPC maintenance personnel who were responsible for~the use of the dewpoint measuring equipment demonstrate that no reports of faulty dewpoint instrumentation were made'in the March-April, 1990 time frame. Eag MOSBAUGH p. 118.

14. The logical reason why VP-2466 would be removed from service after 4-6-90 was that 4-7-90 was the calibration'due'date (CDD) for VP- 2466. The calibration due date was the end of the interval in'which an instrument's calibration was deemed valid by the M&TE procedures. Thus VP-2466 was scheduled to be removed from service that day. The calibration due dates are shown on Exhibit #3 and #4. Egg MOSBAUGH p. 119.

• Egg GPC's motion at p. 22; McCoy aff., at item 15; McCoy aff., at 11.

10

" t 7 t

i

~

d 1

THE OUT OF SERVICE DRYERS l- - -

15. -Af ter-the Site - Area Emergency Intervenor was told- by--

I l

engineers that the dryers had been found out of service on at '

I j least two (2) diesels, either DG1A or DG1B when the engineers l went out to do the under voltage test and DG2A. Egg MOSBAUGH p.

26.

i

> 16. Operation of the diesel air system without the dryers 1

will cause OOS high dewpoint conditions because the compression l

of air will cause a dramatic raise in relative humidity.

Compressed air can hold far less water vapor than ambient air.

Compressing ambient air found at Vogtle, to between 225-250 psi without drying, would result in 100% relative humidity air i

entering the receiver. The dewpoint in the receiver would rise toward receiver temperature. The receivers are usually warm to the touch. Sgg MOSBAUGH pp. 24-25.

17. After the OOS high dewpoint readings.were obtained, GPC l took actions to correct the high dewpoints by returning the j dryers to service, draining, and blowing dcwn the air receivers.

l These corrective actions eventually restored the dewpoints to  ;

i i in-specification limits. From EXHIBIT #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID i

l #4 you can see that by 4-11-90 DG1A was back in specification, by l 4-8-90 DG1B was back in-specification, by 4-14-90 DG2A was back )

i in-specification, and by 4-8-90 DG2B was back in specification.

Egg MOSBAUGH p. 119.

18. A review of EXHIBIT #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 reveals that the instrument FS3529 (which was borrowed from V. C.

11 4

4 l

1

Summer) was used only after dewpoints were back in specification

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _for diesels.1A,_1B, and 2B. When FS3529 was used to take _ - - ~ - -

measurements on an air system not yet back in specification, >

DG2A, the V. C. Summer instrument FS-3529 produced OOS high readings.

GPC's SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS

19. GPC's statements about inspecting the diesel air system internal filters is immaterial. Unsatisfactory quality caused by -

OOS high dewpoints would not cause an internal diesel air system filter to become " dirty." Humidity is colorless. The air flow rate in the large air piping that supplies the control air system would be too low to entrain corrosion products and deposit them on the control air filter. Egg MOSBAUGH pp. 120-21.

20. GPC's statement about the visual observation of the Diesel pneumatic lines are irrelevant because the tubing is made of stainless steel. Unsatisfactory air quality by reason of OOS high dewpoints would not cause corrosion in stainless steel tubing. Sg2 MOSBAUGH p. 121.

I

21. GPC's observation during the visual inspection of one I

air receiver during which time light rust and rust on welds l l

within the air receiver were observed would tend to confirm that  ;

1 dewpoints had been high and were not always in specification. ,

Hag MOSBAUGH p. 121.

22. GPC's statement about observing water discharge during l f

the air receiver blowdowns which GPC termed " insignificant" tends to confirm that dewpoints were OSS high. The presence of any 12 1

)

i water during air receiver blowdowns indicates that.the air

_ _. _ . quality was~ unsatisfactory. 'The presence of any water shows that~~

i the water vapor in the air within the receiver was likely in 1

l equilibrium with the vapor pressure of the water within. Thus, j the air was saturated with water vapor. In this condition the

dewpoint would be approximately that of the room temperature i

l which generally ranged from-50 to 90 degrees F. Dewpoints of 50 i to 90 F would be OOS high. This range is remarkably similar to _

j the OOS high readings measured during late March and April 1990

) which ranged from 50.9 to 95 degrees F on EXHIBIT #35 and l DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4.

i j THE FINDING OF WATER

(

j 23. Dewpoints within the diesel air system above the room ambient temperatures will condense water in the diesel system air lines. Intervenor observed the forced ventilation flow of-4 outside air into the diesel room, and concluded that local 4

l cooling below the minimum diesel room _ design air temperature of i

! 50 F is likely when the outside air temperature is below 50 F.

I

{ Egg MOSBAUGH P. 25. l I

l 24. On 3-30-90 Intervenor observed Ken Burr of SONOPCO '

j corporate sitting by a table in Paul Kochery's office. In the office with him was Bill Chenault and Ken Stokes. Stokes was on j the telephone. All three of these engineers were working on l diesel testing. Stokes was the diesel system engineer; Burr was Corporate's diesel specialist who had been dispatched from Corporate to the plant site after the site area emergency to i

1 13

assist with diesel testing. Chenault was a diesel engineer

- - _ _ _ _ - - - contracted.by Burr,to-assist him.. The conversation that followed -

is documented in EXHIBIT #8 (Tape #24, at p. 6). Burr had on the table next to him or in his hands, a jar of water. The jar was 16 ounces or so and about half full of fluid. Intervonor saw the jar and,immediately asked Burr "Was that in the tubing that was disassembled?" Intervenor was referring to the diesel pneumatic control system tubing which he knew had been worked on. Burr .

response to Intervenor's question was: " Poured out of it," "out of the end" of the tubing. Bill Chenault confirmed where the fluid had come from. Chenault stated to Intervenor that the fluid "was in the line, in the trip line where the leaksraa.r."

The trip lines were the long 3/8 inch stainless steel diesel pneumatic tubing lines that:went from the centrol cabinet to the CALCON sensors. Chenault's comment about the " trip line where the leaks was" was referring to the testing' conducted the previous night 3-29-90 of the pneumatic lines on DG1A looking for air leaks with a soapy solution " Snoop." This leak testing is described in NUREG 1410. Egg appendix J at p. 11. The discovery of water in the diesel trip lines confirmed the OOS high dewpoints measured on che diesels in that time frame. 322 MOSBAUGH pp. 130-132.

OTHER DEWPOINT DATA LISTS

25. Intervenor reviewed dewpoint readings contained in Exhibit #3 to the Hunt Affidavit, and concludes that, based on the interrelationships addressed in DEMONSTRATIVE AID #10, all of 14 i

the readings from the GE rental Alnor are invalid because seven

_ _ __ _(7}aog .the-eight- (8) - readings- are-below theoretical dewpoint--

limits obtainable with the vogtle air dryers. The one (1) remaining reading from the GE rental Alnor is below the design capability of the dryer. The rest of the readings from Vogtle 1 M&TE, VP-2466 and VP-1114 are valid for the reasons addressed in DEMONSTRATIVE AID #10. Egg MOSBUAGH p. 116.

26. On 4-9-90_NRC Chaffee' requested a table of dewpoint. _

results for Unit l's diesels for the last couple of years. Egg Ward notebook (EXHTBIT #117). IIT document 05-202-90.(EXHIBIT

1. 82) was provided to the NRC by GPC on 4-11-90. A comparison of the dewpoint readings from EXHIBIT #35 and DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4 shows that the information provided-for DG1A is incomplete.

Dewpoint readings between 3-16-89_and 4-8-90 contained in IIT document 05-202-90 (EXHIBIT #82) excluded 18 OOS high readings.

l 1994 NRC INSPECTION j i

27. In 1994 the NRC performed an inspection of diesel i system air quality and dewpoint control at Vogtle. According to NRC inspection report 50-424/94-12 and 50-425/94-12 at page 8 and 9, on 1-19-94 the-dewpoints on 6 of 8 air receivers at Vogtle were OOS high. GPC took no action on the OOS condition for 17

days. When GPC performed additional dewpoint checks after 17 days, the KO2 dryer on DG 1A'was still~OOS high. The NRC issued

a violation against this event. GPC again responded to the NRC that it believed that the "M&TE had yielded improper data because it was unlikely for all eight (sic) dewpoints to be out of 15 l

4

specification given the performance history of the equipment."

_ _ _ - . . _ S_qg. EXHIBIT #11 (NRC Notice of Violation and.GPC response at p.

2).

28. The full factual basis supporting Intervenor's opposition to summary disposition are contained in: 1) Prefiled Testimony of Allen L. Mosbaugh; 2) exhibits to said prefiled testimony; and 3) demonstrative aids to said prefiled testimony.

Portions of the prefiled testimony that specifically address air quality are set forth at: i

1) Pages 20-24 and 33 (which address air quality standards and requirements and early measurements)

2) Pages 91 (line 32) - 96 (line 34). These pages address  ;

OI's findings with respect to air quality; l

3) Pages 103-126, under the heading:

i

8. PROVIDING MISLEADING, INCOMPLETE AND '

INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VOGTLE DIESEL GENERATOR AIR QUALITY AND DEWPOINTS READINGS IN THE LETTER OF RESPONSE TO THE NRC'S CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER DATED 4- )

9-90, l

4) Pages 127-129, under the heading:

l

9. PROVIDING INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE l INFORMATION TO THE NRC'S IIT TEAM LEADER I PURSUANT TO HIS REQUEST ON 4-9-90, TO PROVIDE l THE IIT WITH A " TABLE OF DEWPOINT RESULTS ON UNIT 1 FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS".

5) Pages 129-137 under the heading:

10. WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM THE NRC ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF WATER IN THE VOGTLE DIESEL AIR SYSTEM;

6) Pages 162-165, under the heading:

16

20. MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS IN GPC'S JULY 31, 1994 RESPONSE TO THE NRC'S NOTICE OF

. _ _ . . ___ VIOLATION AND PROPOSED. IMPOSITION OF. CIVIL.

PENALTIES ABOUT " POST EVENT MEASUREMENTS" OF DEWPOINTS;

7) Pages 177-181, under the heading:

26. PROVIDING THE NRC IIT TEAM MISLEADING, INCOMPLETE, AND INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR FAILURE DURING THE VOGTLE SITE AREA EMERGENCY OF 3-20-90;

8) Pages 181-189, under the heading:

27. FAILING TO RECOGNIZE CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO

, QUALITY AND FAILING TO TAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE DIESEL FAILURES DURING THE SITE AREA EMERGENCY;

9) Pages 189-193, under the heading:

28. OPERATING PLANT VOGTLE FOR OVER 4 YEARS IN AN UNSAFE CONDITION AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING PROPERLY ADDRESSED OR TAKEN ADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF THE DIESEL FAILURES.

Intervenor incorporates the above portions of his prefiled testimony as if set out herein.

III.

GPC'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ARE EITHER CONTESTED AND/OR IMMATERIAL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.749(a), Intervenor files a short and concise statement objecting to facts Licensee claims to be material and otherwise asserts are not subject to dispute.

GPC's Material fact #1:

Intervenor asserts that this factual statement is-very-misleading and out of context. It cannot be conclude that "th sre were no rust particles or other evidence of moisture in the 17

control air system" from the filter inspection. The filter is upstream from the control air system. The sensitive components are downstream. High humidity passes through the filter with no evidence left on the filter. Rust particles on the filter would only indicate corrosion upstream of the filter not downstream.

Even so, flow rates to the control air are so low that they are unlikely to entrain corrosion debris in the direction of the filter. GPC has identified no inspection actually performed within the control air system. Moreover, water was found in the control air system on about 3-29-90. You have to inspect within the system to make a statement about what is in there. When GPC opened it up, water " poured out" of the " trip line." Mosbaugh at p. 130-131; EXHIBITS #84 & #85.

GPC's Material Fact #2.

This is an inaccurate characterization of Intervenor's statement. It is also not presented in context. GPC has this tape transcript. GPC characterized this finding differently and more accurately in McCoy's affidavit were the words "at some i 1

point" in the phrase, "at some point he thought the IIT would be satisfied" is included but leaves this out in the findings of i l

fact. GPC also left out the previous words from the same l i

sentence, "they're certainly not satisfied yet." In full and l

proper context this segment has no significance. The context of l Intervenor's statements were not with respect to air quality, it was with respect to the conduct of the diesel test procedures such, as the UV test, etc.

18

GPC's Material Fact #3.

This-finding-is very misleading. It was-NRC~who first-informed GPC management about the OOS high dewpoint numbers; GPC's operations personnel rejected the deficiency Card (DC)' that had been initiated to document this non-coriforming condition.

Mosbaugh pp. 112-114. Most troubling, GPC made a false statement to the NRC when it asserted that the cause of the oos high dewpoint was attributed to "a bad dewpoint sensor instrument."

Id., p. 125, lines 18-31.

GPC's Material Fact #4.

'The issue is GPC's false and misleading statements.in the 4-9-90 oral presentation and'the COAR. In the oral presentation, GPC states that " air quality is satisfactory" and that "We never had any air' quality problems." During the site area emergency, one air receiver was inspected; there is no evidence of any prior )

inspections. There is no factual or. logical basis to assert that finding rust and oil found would not be " unusual" for two obvious reasons: 1) there is no. knowledge of.what the air receiver looked like prior to the Site Area Emergency. If there was no oil or rust in the air receiver short before the Site Area Emergency occurred, then finding oil-and rust in an inspection occurring shortly after the Site Area Emergency would be unusual; and 2) there are eight (8) air receivers on all of the plant-Vogtle diesels and the sample was insufficient to conclude that the rust was not unusual. Indeed, if none of the other air receivers had rust, then it would be unusual. If anything, finding rust:and' 19 R

doing nothing further represents a lack of sensitivity to the indicators of poor air quality. Finally, GPC's and NRC's observations of rust and oil in the air receiver are not GPC's acceptance criteria for air quality that GPC committed to in the response to Generic Letter 88-14.

GPC's Material Fact #5.

The issue is GPC's false and misleading statements in the 4-9-90 oral presentation and the COAR. According to Jim Bailey's l

notes, EXHIBIT #70, p.5, during GPC's 4-9-90 oral presentation it j was NRC's Al Chaffee who brought up the OOS high 60.9 F reading j after GPC stated "We never had any air quality problems."

GPC's Material Fact #6.

GPC fails to state or identify the nature of the NRC contact. Intervenor concludes GPC is referring to the list that Skip Kitchens prepared, EXHIBIT #82. This list is incomplete. It is missing 18 OOS high dewpoint readings on DG1A. McCoy stated that this list was sent after GPC's 4-9-90 presentations. It is improper to characterize the 2 " post event" (3-31-90) OOS high readings from this list on DG1A as " historic." The same comment applies to the 2 OOS high readings from 3-9-90 because these should properly be categorized as Site Area Emergency precursor indicators.

GPC's Material Fact #7 The issue is GPC's false and misleading statements in the 4-9-90 oral presentation and the COAR. Bockhold was told point blank by the engineers that GPC did not meet the committed 20

acceptance criteria numbers. When you are in violation of the l one and only acceptance criteria, you can't make engineering judgments to the contrary based on generalities and supposition.

There could not have been a " consensus" because Mr. Mosbaugh did not agree. Moreover, as demonstrated in EXHIBIT #27 (Tape #41),

the " consensus" was the product of Bockhold forcefully presenting leading questions to lower level personnel to get a predetermined result. When lower level engineers saw where he was going they followed. He ignored requirements and facts that contradicted his position. Eeg Mosbaugh Prefiled Testimony at p. 37.

GPC's Material Fact #8.

The factual assertion that Cooper advised GPC about air quality is not supported by IIT Document 203, which is the only factual source GPC provides for the assertion. Egg McCoy Aff. at

$11. Cooper's statements are not documented in writing; the identity of the Cooper person who made the statement remains unknown; and, even if a statement was made, there is nothing to determine the factual basis or the context of the alleged statement. The only factual support for this assertion that Intervenor is aware is found on Tape 41.5 As demonstrated by tape 41, Beckhold's supposed knowledge is, at best, based on triple hearsay. Bockhold explains on Tape 41 that, his " guess" was based on a conversation he had with Mike Horton, who spoke  :

with an unidentified Cooper individual who supposedly told Horton 5

Indeed, GPC does not, in its prefiled testimony, provide testimony from any Cooper representative to confirm or deny this alleged statement.

21

_ - .. - . . ~ . - - - .--

0 1

. that'you don't have to worry about air quality unless the air receiver-is " full of. water."- In-full context,-the only thing Tape 41 establishes is that Bockhold knew about high dewpoint j readings. Egg Mosbaugh Prefiled Testimony at p. 110. Bockhold's credibility is questionable and a tertiary hearsay statement from i

Bockhold is not reliable.

Finally, the statement would be irrelevant even if made.

i i Cooper cannot waive GPC's air quality commitments to the NRC.

i GPC's Material Fact #9.

j On April 11, 1990 dewpoints on DG2A had not yet come in 4 .

specification, _and a MWO was initiated on 4-12-90 because the air 1 .

1

! dryer was not working properly. In-specification readings were

]

j' not obtained until 4-14-90. Egg DEMONSTRATIVE AID #4. l 1

GPC's Material Fact #10.

l Georgia Power's 4-9-90 COAR does not state that the air j quality statements only address the current status of the diesel i

i instrument air quality as it existed on 4-9-90. To the l l contrary, GPC states in its NOV response and elsewhere, that

l these air quality statements refer to " post event" measurements 1

j between 3-20 and 4-9-90. GPC's factual assertion appears to constitute a materially false statement. Finally, even if true, the assertion is irrelevant because the issue is whether OOs high dewpoints and unsatisfactory air quality on or prior to 3-20-90 played a role in the diesel failure, and were any of the other diesels violating the air quality and dewpoint standards to which 22

i =

t I Vogtle is committed. If GPC did not intend to address these points then- the 4-9-90 ' letter-represents a material omission ~. - - -

j GPC's Material Fact #11.

{ This factual assertion is misleading and_ based on a false l premise. NRC was misled by GPC to conclude that diesel air

quality, as of 4-9-90 was acceptable because GPC provided false, j misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information.

1 GPC's Material-Fact #12.

l l' This fact is irrelevant because OSI's conclusion was based i

i

)

on misleading, inaccurate,.and incomplete information. NRC Staff's conclusions must be evaluated by the Board to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the OSI evaluation.

! GPC's Material Fact #13.

I 1

4 NRC's 1994 inspection was based on misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information and further resulted from an i

l- ineffective evaluation. Work performed by a vendor may not be i

j- included or documented in Vogtle maintenance records; in which i

j- case there would be no records to review. If the discovery of water in the diesel control air system would not necessarily be t

i logged by the worker and, once again, there would be no records

to review. The dewpoint reduction (approx. 30 'F) due to' pressure 1

reduction is not sufficient to prevent water formation at diesel l

j room minimum design' temperature (50 F) let alone if col'd outside I >

air chills the' lines. GPC also fails-to mention that, during.

this samel inspection, the NRC found. records of-continuing OOS l high dewpoints on 3 of 4 diesels in January, 1994, but took no 1

23 1

1 1

5

)

i

- - --. . - - -,. - + - - - . . . . . , . - . ,,,,-~,n ,, ., -

a .

action until February, 94. The NRC issued a violation to GPC for

..------f ailure -to - identify -conditions adverse- to quality. - - -

I a

GPC's Material Fact #14.

I j NRC's conclusions reached on February 13, 1995 are based on i

misleading, inaccurate and' incomplete information being provided i

by GPC and because NRC failed to conduct'an adequate evaluation.

However by this' point the NRC had part cipated.in the GPC l.

j depositions from the Summer of 1994. By 1995 NRC staff should i

have detected that GPC was not being truthful.

CONCLUSION GPC's seeks summary disposition with respect to air quality statements contained in the COAR. For the reasons set forth

! above, Intervenor demonstrates that a factual dicpute exists with respect air quality statements set forth therein. GPC's motion should be denied in all respects.

Respectfully submitted, 2

M

' Michael D. Kohn Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C.

j 517 Florida Ave., N.W.

j Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 l f Attorneys for the complainant

I t

j C:\ FILES \301\SUMM l

l k

24 l

2 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CHETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION llSNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)  % Af'R 11 A10

19 i In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-4M7QLA-p grrpg gpy l

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-4

UEt9hAn33 a SERYlCE

! R.C. al.i., ) b'H A NC!! l

) Re: License Amendment I (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear) I Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

, ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j _

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing response to

summary disposition was filed by hand delivery this loth day of

April, 1995

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 933 Green Point Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oyster Point j Washington, D.C. 20555 Sunset Beach, NC 28468 I Administrative Judge Charles A. Barth, Esq. ,

j Thomas D. Murphy Office of General Ccunsel l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. N.R.C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 )

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Office of the Secretary David R. Lewis Attn: Docketing & Service SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & U.S. NRC TROWBRIDGE Washington, D.C. 20005 2300 N Street, N.W.

i Washington, D.C. 20037 Office of Commicsion Appellate 1 Adjudication U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s Michael D. Kohn C:\ FILES \301\ LIST 1

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