ML20086G379

Intervenor Exhibit I-MOSBA-74,consisting of Re Petition of Mb Hobby & AL Mosbaugh

ML20086G379
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/17/1995
From:	Mcdonald R GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
References
OLA-3-I-MOSBA74, NUDOCS 9507140280
Download: ML20086G379 (9)

Text

_ ___

433 Pieomont Avenue

• ^'l:Li' W L

. T- MD36 o ' 71' us...n ,aao,. o so immets ceni , e...y Exhibit qt[page l ngyETED

, l Post Of!>ce Box 1295 @g '

sm am ^ $

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 o I 5ew 2 4 cd. A - 3 Docket No. Sodas-c t ^4 OfficialExh.4No._ g T^4.

g 13)2 W R. P. Mcdonald in the thatter of O OC ## # '

IDENTIFIED Io'c',"7*o$i$n', '"' statt -0FFICE OF SECRETARY RECEIVED Appicant 00CKETiliG & SERVICE Intervenor _ _

/ REJECTED ggy Contg Ott r g 7, g gy 1124 Contractor _.

e ness h e,g ,,4 Docket Nos. 50-424 Other 50-425 Reporter oM U. S'. Nucisar Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 j ATTN: Thomas. E. Murley, Director office of NuclearReactor-Regulation-Gentle. men:

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT  !

REGARDING PETITION OF M. B. HOBBY AND A. L. MOSBAUGH By letter dated August 22, 1991, the NRC requested Georgia Power f Company ("GPC" or the " Company") to provide a response to each of O the allegations contained in a July 8, 1991 supplement to the September 11, 1990 petition of Messrs. Marvin Hobby and Allen Mosbaugh (the " Additional Supplement"). Enclosed herewith the Company provides the requested responses to Sections I, II, III  !

and IV of the Additional Supplement (Attachments I, II, III and IV, respectively).

Mr. R. P. Mcdonald states that he is an Executive Vice President-of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath ~

on behalf of Georgia Power Company and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts set forth in this letter are true.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY A

/ 'f \

By: ~) 1 M f \

R. P. Mcdonald i Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8_ dayAof October, 1991.

Notary ( Public -

' Tff: M MYCOMMISSION EIMRESJUUUtY111m

..N 9507140280 950517 ' / ' b' I

{DR ADOCK 05000424 PDR

~-

Georgia Power z\..

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission EXbbIi1,pageh Ofi ELV-03114 Page 2 xc: Georcria Power Connany Mr. A. Ws Dahlberg Mr. W. G. Hairston, III )

Mr. C. K.. McCoy 1 Mr. W. B. Shipman Mr.. P. D;. Rushton-Mr. J. T; Beckham.

Mr. M: Sheibani NORMS U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle Document Control Desk O

l i-l i i

I i

l.

f i

O

ExhibitN,pageb of1 ATTACEMENT I O GPC Response to Section I.1 of the Additional ausslement to the Bobbv/Mosbauch Petition I. Petitioners' Alleaation.

~

Petitioners assert that Georgia Power Company's April 1, 1991 Response with respect to Mr. Hairston's participation in as- 4 telephone conference call late on April 19, 1990 which finalized. l' Licensee Event Report 90-006 is false. Specifically, the Petitioners state that Mr. Hairston participated in the telephones l conference call which finalized the Licensee Event Report l

("LER"). The Petitioners further allege that Mr. Mcdonald's.

l sworn statement with respect to Mr. Hairston's participation-in' the April 19, 1990 telephone conference call constitutes a

" material false statement" made with the intended purpose of deceiving the NRC.

II. GPC Resoonse to Petitieners' A11ecation.

The Petitioners' allegation of knowingly submitting false O information to the NRC is without merit. Mr. Mcdonald's statement was based upon verified written information previously provided to the NRC in August, 1990 and was corroborated by GPC's' further review of the matter in preparation of the April 1, 1991 Response.

The Petitioners selectively quote (and misquote one word in)

Georgia Power's April 1, 1991 Response. The actual statement made in the response was a footnote reproduced here with its' associated textual reference:

More specifically, Mr. Hairston, the Senior Vice President, i requested the corporate LER coordinator to ' verify >20 i' starts.' Retained copies of the LER drafts confirm other efforts by corporate representatives to verify other information and assure the accuracy of the LER (Exhibit 6) .

Additional diesel generator starts had occurred

. subsequent to April 9, 1990 (the date of the GPC meeting in l

Atlanta with NRC representatives), and the final April 19th i LER wording stated that egch diesel engine had been started i 'at least 18 times each.'

1 3

The wording was resLewed by corporate and site

!()

j 4

representatives in e telephone conference call late on l

}

i i_... _ _ _ .. _ _____________ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ ______

Exhbit M , paged ot_$_

j 1

! April 19, 1990. Although Mr. Hairston was not a participant i

in that call, he had every reason to believe the final draft i

LER presented to him atter the call was accurate and

complete.

As is apparent to even a casual reader, the independent

clause and principal message of the second sentence of footnote 3 is that as a result of the telephone conference call and efforts  ;

of his staff and plant site representatives, Mr. Hairston

justifiably relied upon the LER wording finalized by site and l corporate office representatives after he had tasked his corporate representatives to vedfy the number of diesel

generator starts.

I Georgia Power based the footnote on its review of the j underlying event without the benefit of tape recordings j -surreptitiously made by Mr. Mosbaugh. What Georgia Power- did.

possess, however, were documents prepared.in August, 1990 and.

! provided to the NRC Operational Safety Inspection team-l (Exhibits 1 and 2). These documents, specifically responses to l NRC questions #3 and #5, as well as Mr. Hairston's own i recollection, were the foundation for the footnote's statement that Mr. Hairston did not participate in the telephone conference call which finalized the LER late on April 19, 1990. Moreover, this documentation, which expressly identified the participants of the telephone conference call which finalized the LER, was reviewed on or about August 16, 1990 at a meeting of VEGP O. managers, including Mr. Mosbaugh, at the plant. At this review meeting, which also involved review of other'similar documents prepared by VEGP staff to be provided to NRC OSI representatives, the accuracy of the document was verified.

Mr. Hairston did not recall participation in the late afternoon telephone conference call. He does recall an earlier call that day in which he instructed the participants to verify the diesel generator start count; that instruction is rpcalled by the corporate LER coordinator and site representatives Furthermore, as indicated in the April 1, 1991 Response, he recalls instructing the Vice President for Vogtle to contact Mr.

Brockman, an NRC manager, and to discuss the diesel generator start count in the LER, which differed from the April 9th 1

At least two attempts to confirm the accuracy of the diesel counts were made by site representatives, one on April 18th and one on April 19th. The first attempt consisted of counting the number of starts since April 9, 1990 and adding that number to the number of starts reported in the April 9, 1990 Confirmation of Action letter. The second attempt, prompted by Mr. Hairston's instructions, involved reviewing the operations logs from and after March 20, 1990 to derive a number of starts without problems or failurer.

• 2

! Exhibit Y ,page F of9

)

{ transparency. If a tape recording of the late afternoon telephone conference call demonstrates that Mr. Hairston did

, participate in it, the collective recollection of VEGP managers i in August, 1990, including Mr. Mosbaugh, and of Mr. H j

simply was not as accurate as contemporaneous taping.girston i

Until GPC is presented with credible evidence to the i

contrary, GPC continues to believe, based upon its best knowledge, that the footnote on page 3 of Attachment 3 of its i April 1,.1990 Response is accurate.  !

1 i l

\ l O

l i

2 The LER addressed the March 20, 1990 site area emergency at-the VEGP. The Company believes that multiple telephone calls between the VEGP site and the corporate office in Birmingham i preceded the transmittal of the finalized LER to the NRC.

Whatever " evidence" Mr. Mosbaugh may have supplied to the NRC associated with this latest assertion may well reflect a ,

telephone conference call different, and earlier, than the one e

addressed in the April 1, 1991 Response.

3 e

=-**- - -e....er,,. w. __,,,n.m,,,m. , , , , _ , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ExhN 14,page$ of d o

8 b

l te ^

4 e

I I

i 4

l

}

f 4

1 s

I 1

4 r w -y- -r--wwv= s wr- se p +a*yey-+ +--7ewm---w wwr-v m,- -

w er w---r- o-ws-?r---

' u,.... l Response t3 NRC Questien Concerning Time: 16:00 Diesel Starts Reported cn April 9,1990 and in LER 90-06 Revisions 0 and 1 Exhibit M ,page I of 3 Question #1 s

2 1. Who prepared the slide for the 4/9/90 presentation?

Answer: G. Bockhold, Jr., J. P. Cash, and K. Burr working as a group.

2. Who approved use.of the. slide?

Answer: G. Bockhold, Jr.

Question #2

1. Who prepared the confirmatory letter of April 9, 19907 Answer: C. K. McCoy, J. A. Bailey, H. G. Hairston, III as a group.

2. Who approved.the letter?

Answer: H: G. Hairston, III -

Question er (with regard to LER 90-06, revision 0; dated 4/19/90)  !

1. Who prepared'the LER7 Answer: Several draft revisions of the LER weree prepared:by TosuHebbrand.

others of- the NSAC. group. of- the:Vogtlee Siten TechnicaE F;;+A These drafts were reviewed and commented on by the Plant-Reviewr Board. The final revision of LER 90-06, revision 0 was. prepared by a phonacon between site management and corporate management.

Those participating are believed to be G. Bockhold, Jr., A. L.

Hosbaugh, J. G. Aufdenkampe, H. Shipman.

2. Who reviewed the LER7 Answer: All revisions of the LER were reviewed by the PRB and the General Hanager-Plant Vogtle.

3. Who approved the LER7 Answer: The LER was approved by H. G. Hairston, III Ouestign_H

1. Whc prepared the cover letter for LER 90-06, revision I?

Answer: The cover letter was prepared by H. H. Majors of thr corporate 4 staff. This letter was prepared under the guidance of H. G.

Hairston.

2. What was the purpose (intent) in the wording of the cover letter with  !

regard to the number of diesel starts?

4 Answer: The cover letter was intended to document discussions, with NRC l Region II to clarify the starts documented in LER 90-06, i revision 0. By picking a well defined point to specify i " subsequent to the test program" it was possible to identify a i substantial number of successful diesel starts. This was j intended to remove any additional ambiguity.

Question #5 l 1. Who in corporate added 'the words " subsequent to the test program" in LER

90-06, revision of Answer

J. Stringfellow of corporate added these words in conjunction

! with the phone conversation described above. Those, present are i thought to-be Mr Shipman, G. Bockhold, Jr , A:. L.. Mosbaugh7 and J..G.1Aufdenkampe.

l

e

,page _ of 1

6 4

]

1 I

1 5

E 1

i 4

i 4

+

_ .. . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ .

' ' ' 8/22/90 l Response to NRC Questica Concerning Time: 13:00 -

Diesel Starts Reported cn April 9.1990 i and in LER 90-06 Revisions 0 and 1 '

oue,tio, m Exhibit T ,page 9 of 7

1. Mho prepared the slide for the 4/9/90 presentation?

O Answer: G. Bockhold, Jr., J. P. Cash, and K. Burr working as a group.

2. Who approved use of.the slide?

Answer: G. Bockhold, Jr.

Duestion #2

1. Who prepared the confirmatory letter of April 9, 19907 Answer:- C; K; McCoy, J. A. Bailey, M. G. Hairston; III' as a. group; 2 Who. approved.the:1stter?

Answer: H. G. Hairston, III ,

Dunstion #3 (with regard to LER 90-06, revision 0, dated 4/19/90)

1. mo prepared the LERT -

1 Answer:- Several draft revisions:of-the.LER wereeprepared:by;76ssNebb:at others of' the - NSAC: group: of'the-Vogtle-Site- Tichnictit SDpport These drafts were reviewed and commented on by the Plant-Revis Board. The final revision of LER 90-06, revision 0 was:prepart by a phonecon between site management and corporate management Those participating are believed to be G. Bockhold, Jr;, A. L Nosbaugh, J. G. Aufdenkampe N. Shipman.

2. Who reviewed the LER?

Answer: All revisions of the LER were reviewed by the PR8 a::# tr O a r i a r-ai

• v *i -

! 3. Who approved the LER7 j Answer: The LER was approved by H. G. Hairston, III i

l Ouestion #4

1. Who prepared the cover letter for lek 90-06.- revision 17 - -

Answer: The cover letter was prepared by H. H. Majors of the corporat i staff. This letter was prepared under the guidance of H. G l

Hairston.

! 2. What was the purpose (intent) in the wording of the cover letter wit

! regard to the number of diesel starts?

i Answer:

j The cover letter was intended to document discussions with NR Region II to clarify the starts documented in LER 90-0E i revision 0. By picking a well defined point- to: specif i " subsequent to the test prograa' it was possible to-identify j substantial number of successful diesel starts. This wa i

intended to remove any additional ambiguity.

j Question #5 i 1. Who in corporate added the words " subsequent to the test program" in LE i 90-06, revision of iO

^ r: car r * 'ic i o a r conversation- described above mades editorial. changes- a i iac $ c*i i**=*a>**-

! directed. Those present- during- the phone, conversation ar thought - to be N. Shipman, G. Bockhold, Jr., A. L. Mosbaugh l J. GL Aufdenkampe, and J. Stringfellow.

i

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