ML20091H790

Corrected Applicant Exhibit A-125 Consisting of 900823 Memo Re NRC Aresa of Concern

ML20091H790
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/19/1995
From:	Ajluni M GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
References
OLA-3-A-125, NUDOCS 9508140183
Download: ML20091H790 (6)

Text

_

.. l f

-l 2 6 (CsHaG)lu

- zs Y[

NCKETED

/

GeorgiaPbner d USNRC InteroHlos Correspondence i

D Jiji. 4 ( F4 40 l

D4TE:

August 23, 1990 0FFICE CF SECRETARY 4

DOCKETSG & SERVICEg '.W RE:

Vaat' e Electric ceneratina Plant

.E OHAMH i

NRC Areas of Concern

, g.,., fp9 j

Log:

SR85-00044 Security code: NC sf;,3

./

[

FROM:

M. J. Aj1 uni T0:

Distribution Attached for your information is a copy of the recent NRC Operational Safety Inspection areas of concern and VEGP's position.

i a

f f-

M. J Aj1 uni i

]

MJA/ghj 3

cc:

W. B. Shi n

G. Bockho Jr./

S. C. Ewald j

L. K. Mathews i

C. C. Miller W. C. Ramsey i

P. D. Rushton l

NORMS i

SRB File 1

I g

1

.k COPY

' ruitT 4

)

r' l

l 4; l

4 tr 9508140183 950719 0 : l.h, .,

%j j

PDR ADOCK 05000424 O

PDR 1::o:?

ll NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION @C

%g*

Dockst No. $0-424/4?5-OLA 3 EXHIBIT NO.

E ~ 11I in the matter of Geornia Power Co. et al.. Voatle Units t & 2 N

'~

% Applicant O intervenor O other O statt I.,,N

'N f identified $ Received O Rejected Reporter KHW t,

O CI b%k Date 7 l 19 li$ Witness

x.

4 s

AMEMST 17, Ig90 N

d AMAS OF CINCE MS MC VEW CETACT CMIE CMTRCT o

D/G Records Starts / Failures Pete Taylor G. Frederick l

0 3/1/90 S R Monitor Inop Mode Change Neal Nuneauller JES/D. Carter i

0 Missed Surv. Cont. Isol.

Neal Huneauller JES/S. Sunnson o March 15 RHR Train B Ron Aiello JES/J. Gasser P. O. Rushton o Temp. Change Notice to AOP Robert Carrol JES/J. Cash 18028-C-7-90-1 ESFA Sequencer Out of Service Robert Carrol JES/Herton J. A. Bailey o

Alternate Radweste Building Ron Aiello Ron LeGrand/JES P. D. Rushton o

• Snubber Reduction /

Larry Garner Gus Williams Ward /Stringfellom LCO Action Statement

• Cent. Integrity Hydrogen Monitor Morris Branch Dean Gustafson man /Stringfellos Volve Opened

• Precision Heat Balance Morris Branch Gus Williams B. Florian

• Personnel Accountability C. VanDenburgh JES/GB I

Methodology for Reporting Tsch. Spec. 3.0.3 Philosophy J. D. Wilcox J. E. Smartzwalder J. Stringfellow f

o J. D. Wilcox R. M. Odon J. A. Bailey ESFAS Beportability o

Plant Soview Board (PRB) Composition C. VanDenburgh

6. Osckhold l

o Tech. Specs. Interpretation Morris Branch J. E. Smartzwelder J. Stringfellow l

Ovartime/ Training & Qualification Larry Garner J. E. Smartzweider Electrical Separation Zone 80 Larry Garner M. Norton P. D. Rushton T. S. 3.4.7.3 CCW J. D. Wilcox J. E. Swartruelder i

s 4

i

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

x;[

o Training Department Consents air OSTI o Shift Emperience

~o Plant Equipment W reter flers!e o Shift Cennunications-0 Analyzer Operation Following SI i

o Chil11ag Affect /Intleidstlen of P M Itsabers o Quality Concern Program o Confilcting Statements

• While Containment Cooler is Inoperable' DGlB is llendered Inoperable o Exit of Diesel Generator LCO I

t l

i I

i i

l l

I I

-l i

1 l

l I

i i

)

DIESEL STARTS AND FAIWRE REPORTING 8/22/90

/

4 Time:

13:00 Page 1 of 2 i

)

NRC Cancern 1.

The NRC is concerned about the incorrect number of diesel starts reported j-in LER 1-90-06 and the number of starts presented to the NRC on April 9, i

1990 and in the confirmation response letter of April 9,1990.

The major j

issue remaining is to try and determine through personal interviews, how the number of 19 for diesel 18 was arrived at in the April 9 letter to the i

NRC.

The NRC believes the intent of the April 9 letter and the presentation discussed consecutive successful starts.

The revised

~

l response to LER 90-06 did not clarify the number of starts reported to the t

i NRC April 9, and did not clarify that the 19 starts were not consecutive.

i 2.

The inspector noted that documentation provided by Operations to support diesel trending (14980-C and 13145-C data does not contain an adequate description of what happens during'. sheets)

+

the start attempt.

The plant is not interpreting Reg Guide 1.108 properly with regard to reporting valid and non-valid failures.

There may be valid and non-valid failures i

i that were not reported.

The NRC does not consider the current status of reporting diesel failures to be in compliance with commitments made to the i

NRC in Violation 50-424/87-57.

I I

NRC Documentation l

The NRC has reviewed the diesel start log and supporting documentation l

(14980-C and 13145-C data sheets).

The NRC currently believes some problems i

identified on 14900's and 13145's should be classified as non-valid failures j

and reported to the NRC.

The NRC has requested and received written analysis to explain the disposition of the following 18 diesel starts:

1. 's 123, 124, 132, 133, 134, 136, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, and 190.

LER 1-90-06, revision 1; QA Audit Report OP26-90/33; 04 Audit Report OP09-90/31; and Special Report 1-90-05, dated August 7,1990; GPC confirmatory action letter dated April 9 l

1990.

VEGP Position i

,s-0 1.

The error made in the number of diesel starts reported to the NRC on April l

(9d990,andinLER1-90-06is.attributedtotwofactors:

l a.

The testing as described in LER 90-06, revision 0, was in the l

" context of" and "in reference to" the diesel control systems.

The i

first two sentences of the 5th paragraph explain actions taken with retard to sensor calibrations and control system testing.

In this i

context, the test nrogram correlates to testing discussed with the NRC on April 9,1990, and reported in the April 9,1990, confirmatory letter.

The LER 90-06 comment of " subsequent to the test program" was not intended to exclude successful diesel starts before declaring the diesel operable.

As a result, diesel starts after testing of the control

systems, but before a

declaration of operability were j

counted.

The transmittal letter for LER 90-06, revision 1, describes

~

the confusion and attempts to clarify the concern by redefining the types of starts and the point of counting.

]

./.

DIESEL STARTS AND FAILURE REPORTING l

Page 2 of 2 b.

LER 90-06, revision 1 was intended to clarify any inadvertent

" misleading" of the NK. on. successful operation of the diesel control

@ u90,stemg./ men Vogtle Management was aware of the problem in sy

-os. revision 0 management notified the NK Residents.' Also' at the corporate ornes bn 5/11/90 M. shipman c6ntacted Ken Brockman and on about 6/11/90, M. G. Hairston. III. contacted Mr. S. Ebneter i

of NRC Region II.

The revised LER was submitted on 6/29/90.

The 19 starts discussed on April 9 were based on operator assessments of the starts as successful,.using VEGP procedures? Additional rev.ifw

~

~

of these starts by. both.the NRC and'Vogtle~pefionnel indicates starts

1. 134) performed on March 23. 1990, could be counted as unsuccessful.

Yf ' start #134)is not counted, only 14 successful starts occurred

,v t

W before AprT1. 9.1990. "This~itirt~ ~wil1 ~be reviewed in detail and an appropriate report 76", clarify the number of starts reported April 9 1990 will be made.

.}

2.

After a thorough review of Reg Guide 1.108 Engineering Support (Mike Norton) agreed that all diesel start nroblems have not been reported as failures.

GPC's response to NRC Violation 424/87-57 committed to report such equipment problems as failures;

however, due to internal administrative problems, the commitment was not implemented.

Engineering Su;gort intends to review diesel start records for any unreported failures.

VEGP Documentation i

o LER 1-90-06, revision 1: QA Audit Report OP26-90/33; QA Audit Report OP09-90/31; and Special Report 1-90-05, dated August 7,

1990; GPC j

confirmatory action letter dated April 9.1990.

i o

18 diesel start analysis available 8/15/90 and Reg Guide 1.108 position i

from Engineering Support.

I a.,J :acPt %ymk

'(J; Vcf h,~.ps,6 wit > mde awe cf k -fi,l.nvs cm.>4aA Y IM o [132 l

('E :r c,,,,;5.h ->; hk ) ih e L.E R.

TWey wcer,*nformecf if fhe fdlvras em aba1 i

4 r.

4,dIf

% 11c t%yn,e d wo>p r a ge awort cEhe in otwecAv kEce.nahen % AER-fN

_9

.m c cn 4~30-Y&

hy meme h hc Smral ma.,ayr~.

7thn 4v- %.Aa E tenfodecl 10

/Mc ryg,"a d 40 c.yn [nd rei $8f.

. Y.m t

e

(

j

c. s:d G

- fo.

A r v..w LER hed k n y.,,,.Lf w,$ k.d -Ic.bMYC.by ik fRB ny sys.

r }c..-] *I3 2 o.d

• ry M/k re kl a.,cvcnf.).

As c.

r,

,;, m et+ me 4 c4a.,1,.sw n.os sec./. 6

.sL. F vc ~ x a

t. i...

z, cc.=. tu.

l t

j-

)

[

e/22/90 Reseonsa to Nac Question concerning Time: 13:00 Olesel Starts Reported on April 9,1990 and in LER 90 06. Revisions 0 and 1 duentjas '#1 1.

Who prepared the sites for the 4/9/90 presentation?

.l Answer:

G. Dockhold. Jr...J. p. Cash, and K. Surr working as a group M M "* f#

Answer:

G. Bockhold. Jr.

fhal >hd "W

]'

2. Who approved use of the slide?

n,, he codnl he.Shrik h

• • • Q b#] 4 ht 4 e-/+vfyD. * (**fJ9. 19907 :5 23**Pr Quantina m 8h Who prepared the confirmatory letter of p.rilHatrston. !!! g g i

1.

1 Answer:

C. K. McCoy, J. A. Bailey W.

}

2.

S o approved the letter?

Answer:

H. G. Nairston. I!!

l Quentina #1 (with regard to LER 90-06, revision 0 dated 4/19/90) 1 1.

Who prepared the LER?

1 Answer:

Several draft revisions of the LER were prepared by Tom Webb and i

others of the NSAC groep of the Vogtle Site Technical Support.

These drafts were reviewed and commented on by the Plant Review 4

Whm %. 9 deng wa5 Board. The fIsal reviston of LER 9M. revisten 0 was prepared 4.g.,3, A a ce b Ity a phonecon between site management and. corporate. management.

i g,,g,f g.p.vo p WM ohose participati are believed t's be G. Dockhold Jr., A._.L. '

{

l nc(q re><d, hehv N "O N**b**Eh O. G.

H.

InsIX M

6h IM.1w ewed the car

._,, &}w*+ kips ~loit whcCog:d un h

i Answer:

All revisions Ef>' WEsE and the l

j General Manager-Plant Vogtle. All re.iste.vi, e rv.dsie NW

.tn*hdJWge 4

66) weA*

r m er.og_. Fee esa vit 'the

3. 20 approved the LERT

.5 4 afiel, ne b't l

Answer:

The LER was approved by H. G. Hairston. !!!

Jims*e/ ** *f"'t'a5 h

wy n.

be e c, Mr# D'M b Quantian N Sw4.. o + a h i

1.

20 prepared-the cover letter'for LER 96 06, revision 17 Answer:

"The cover letter was prepared.by H..W. Najors of the corporate staff. 'This letter was : prepared under the guidance of -N.'.G.

Hairsten.

2., What was.the e (intent) in the wording of the cover letter with i

- regard to'the of diesel starts?

l Answer:

The cover letter was intended to document discussions with MRC j

R ton II -to clarify the starta

-t--MG4 in Lgg op y alan ?O. '~ By pic M nell defined point to spectfy segeant to the test program" it was possible to identify.a j

.c @

ubstantial.numer of successful diesel starts.

This was i

tended to remove any addltional ashigstty. F

~-

Quegtion A5 l

1.

Nbe in corporate added the words " subsequent to the test program" in LER 90 06, revision.07 l

Answer:

Corporate Licensing personnel in conjunctice with the phone j

,-y g'#" 8A ( g;,

conversation described above made editorial changes as directed.

Those present during the phone conversation are 4

i fh m ea % # *"r thought to be.N.

. Shipman.

.G.

Bockhold. Jr., sA. L. Hosbaugh.

oh.

J. G. Aufdenkampe, and J. Stringfellow.

1

% m e}% r>,pae % )<.t> 44.** I dfd I,d fsp L

s i

A re,<.4 A,-e1*++ e =/ Ja'A Sk 44

-