ML20128G303
Text
_ . _ . _._.... ._....___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _._ _..__._. __ _ _
i i
' f&W 7
l The Commissioners . . . . .
i lTC7
, e., ,m l
- ~
I i
the attached Board Not cation advises that new allegation ave been submitted, but does not provide the j allegations themselves or the details that have been provided in i this memorandum.
l t 1
d James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated 4
k infurmation in th;s r:ccrd was de'Eted in accordance w;th the freedom of Information Act, exemptions #
, FOIA- 98- U !
, WILMOTH95-81 PDR
.T.
PRESENTATION OUTLINE, "7 ,
SYNOPSIS OF ISSUES '
I e
SUMMARY
OF VIOLATIONS P I l BACKGROUND Vogtle Site Area Emergency i
~
Complainant / Alleger i
TIME FRAME / CHRONOLOGY .
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE i se.a=
.E ! 5 : t CASE THEORY / VIOLATION FLOW CHART jyl ,l I
N!! E '
MAIN PLAYERS 4 !!
x,4- aR
- I o
SUMMARY
OF VIOLATIONS VS. TIME la l35 !
DISCUSSION / QUESTIONS IE Ii iy ;;
a- .
' I:
b et .
~
SYNOPSIS OF ISSOES .
i l
0 i
l o
o NRC Must be able to Rely on Complete and Accurate Information f70m Licensees
)
VOGTLE SITE AREA EMERGENCY March 20,1990 ,
i o Vogtle in Refueling Outage o Switchyard Accident Causes Loss of Offsite Power o Offsite Power required for Core Heat Removal Systems l o Emergency Diesel Generator Fails to Perform ;
Until Manually Started After 36 Min. w/o Power l
o Diesel Generator Reliability important for Core Heat Removal in Event of Loss of Offsite Power i
i
COMPLAINANT / ALLEGER '
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH l i
- Formerly Asst. General Manager at Vogtle Employed w/GPC at Vogtle 8/84 - 10/90 Prior Nuclear experience at Plant Zimmer .
l
- Graduate of Univ. of Cincinnati, Ohio I.
- Has Made Prior allegation against Vogtle Operations i i
!i
- Was OI Confidential Source until fired by GPC for !!
- non-consensual audio taping at Vogtle without GPC or !!
NRC knowiedge, ^^'" #7 ^ks'K aM7N AMfeM. M j
= Went public with 2.206) Confidentiality terminated if Has pending Whistleblower Actions w/ DOL ji l:
- Volunteered tapes to 01 for review prior to GPC
~
Assisted Oi with many hours of tape reviewi l !
l
, _,._ .aa -- - - ~ - ' " ^ ' ^ ' ^ ~ ' '
t 4
a
%,%,s*%,% e n 16 b % b i %
- %,b % _
,% , \ 4% (;> ~
+%,,, @
%Ns ,g , * * \ '
O Nsss%.
- N,bs'%
Q~
g S
- o I
s soo> +. s . h,
(.)
s.,%.%,& e a a u
4.,,,%
aR s,, '+g, @ -
k*s b
_ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ' ~ ' ' ^ ^ ~ ~
-~
x
, / +$# '%>, *%
5 G '7, *c **>
- gl c ,
'" ,
- 0 0 'ijW
'*gi e
/ <@4 ,g
- r. .
9'+ob,,,
o r,
4/19 MOSB-STRNG LW f #,
p4
,0
/+"[A 14 COAR WRONG: STRNGF TO NOTIFY SHIPMAN 15 4/19 MOS-SHIP RE e,
Ap e a eg+9 0
0'0 */
SY POST 3/20 EDG Fall G4 4
16 4/19 STRING-SHIPM RE 1 04 POST 3/20 EDG FAILS Co, 0 f4 '
- 17 18 19 0 -hh@- @$@p S!
IDN .
if!!NS:i::SS' . ,: '[
~
MAIN PLAYERS I .
, i NAME POSITION Mar-Aug '90 POSITION Jan '92 HAIRSTON Sr. V-P, Nuc., GPC Same '
McCOY V-P, Vogtle, GPC Bame SHIPMAN GM, Nuc. Suppt., i GM, Vogtle, GPC SONOPCO BOCKHOLD GM, Vogtle, GPC EPRI CASH Ops. Supt., Vogtle, Strategic Analysis, GPC GPC, B' ham STRINGFELLOW Lic. Engr., SONOPCO Same MAJORS Lic. Engr., SONOPCO Same GREENE Asst. GM, Pint. Supp Mgr., Nuc. Suppt.,
Vogtle, GPC SONOPCO BAILEY Mgr. Lic., SONOPCO Same FREDERICKS QA Mgr., Vogtle, GPC Ops., Vogtle, GPC RUSHTON Mgr., Lic.& Engr. SON Same I
. . i O
- d
- ) ,D c_"o_n_n_ n .o .o ."} o .
r i
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY 2-90-020 ;
- /9/90 oral presentation re: Successful Starts.
4/9/90 COAR letter re: EDG starts w/o failures.
- /19/90 LER re: comprehensive test program / starts.
= /29/90 letter of transmittal to the Rev to 4/19/90 L , y: esses n(w maas72ED6 (nsmarsemaasmers+m.m e m newmccqs/ro w1 & j y ,/, y - r;u o e , r s 7 p e v e
/30/90 letter correcting 4/9/90 COAR letter a$nd LER"'" * "
wo sis m. smer em#n l . 2.2 6 esponse re: HAIRSTON* participation in conference call regarding wording of LER. .
= 2.206 Response re: HAIRSTON*S belief in accuracy of
_____ __. _ ____ ____ ___-___-_________-_-_-_-__-__-_- --____._- - _____-__ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _l
).
l l
l ll l
I i
5 l6 . -
1 I l i!ai 3-
= [ p " $ u .I l av 23 t} l \
2}3 fi"2G 2 ja l l!
ji l
- 2 *a ,
8 s a l EG g2g'j 2
sis:5~e.g g
IE g R a mi s !!
- g.ss Ea=2
{
I E.: Ed2))E d: B I
g- .
llaf "j .
8l*2j8j54k as .a 5
a
=
i
\
, s i
4/9/90 C.O.A RESPONSE LETTER I
I i
i i
Georgiaibner d I
U. S. Nuclear Regulatorf Comunission 3 ,e Region 11 ELV-01516 Pace Three
- g. Since March :20,1990, GPC has performed numerous sensor cal.ibrations (includinly jacket water temperatures), extensive logic testing, special pneumatic leak testing, and multiple engine starts and runs under various conditions. Since March 20, the 1A OG has been started 18 times, and the No failures or problems have occurred 18 DG has been started 19 times.
during any of these starts. In addition, an undervoltage start test without air roll was' conducted on April 6,1990 and the 1A O/G started and loaded properly. I i
I l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .*e--
i
- g. Since March 20, 1990, GPC has performed numerous sensor cal.ibrations (including jacket water temperatures), extensive logic testing, special
. /, pneumatic leak testfrg, and multiple engine starts and runs under various
/'T conditions. Since March 20, the lANo OG has been started 18 times, and the failures or problems have occurred Me 18 DG has been started 19 tiees. In addition, an undervoltage start test during any of these starts. ;
i without air roll was conducted on April 6,1990 and the 1A D/G started and
( loaded properly. ii Numerous sensor'dalibrations (including jacket water temperatures),
special pneumatic leak testing, and multiple engine starts and runs !
.were performed under various conditions. After the 3-20-90 event, the
[g control systems of both engines have been subjected to a comprehensive test program. Subsequent to this test program. DGIA and OG1B have been
- started at least 18 times each and no fWilures or problems have occurred during any of these starts. In addition, an undervoltage start test withodt air roll was conducted on 4-6-90 and DGIA started
( and loaded properly.
I
, Il - .
l I
i i
Il
..~:
4/19/90 LF.R Numerous sensor calibrations (including jacket water temperatures).
special pneumatic leak testing, and multiple engine starts and runs i were performed under various conditions. After the 3-20-90 event, the control systems of both engines have been subjected to a comprehensive test program. Subsequent to this test program DGIA and 0G18 have been i started at least 18 times each and no failures or problems have occurred during any of these starts. In addition. an undervoltage i
start test without air roll was conducted on 4-6-90 and DGIA started and loaded properly. t l
1 l I t
1
. i wasivoacytoLtn 1
I i
' Tha number of successful starts included in the original LER included some of the starts that were part of the test program. The difference is attributed to diosol start record keeping practices and the definition of the end of the test p
program. :
i t
I l
a/nm ttTren comiter:M c.0.A RESPOWE (4/9) .
I l
The confusion in the April 9th letter and the original LUt appear to be the result of two factors. First, there was conteston in the distinction between a successful start and a valid test. For the purpose of this letirer, a start was !
considered successful when the DC was started and either ran or was intentlen-ally shut down due to testing in progress, as identified on the attached tables. (
Our use of the term " successful" was never intended to taply a " valid successful test' in the centext of Regulatory Guide 1.108. Many start attempts were made ,
l to test the OG's 1A and 18 using applicable operating proc res. These '
l procedures and data sheets do not contain criteria for det ining if a start is '
successful which resulted in determinations of success which were inconsistent with the above definition. Second,lan error was made by the individual who !,
performed the count of DG starts for the NRC April 9th letter. !
I i ;
I .
a
4/1/91 GPC RESPONSE TO 2.206 !
l -
i i
'The wording was reviewed by corporate and site ,
representatives in a telephone conference call late on April 19, 1990. Although Mr. Hairston was not a participant in that call, '
he had every reason to believelthe final draft LER presented to him after the call was accurate and complete.
3 I
~
4/1/91 GPC RESPONSE TO 2.206 I
l
' =
I The June 29,1996 0755 (Exhibit 18) draft and 1142 draft (Exhibit 19) of the same date are each longer than the preceding draft, accurately describe the substance of the April 9, 1990 lotter and focus on the wording " subsequent to the test program" in the original LER. In both instances, the draft transmittal i lotter explains that if the report had stated " subsequent to the .
cvent," rather than " subsequent to the test program," the LER would have been consistent with the April 9 COAR and the "18" and "19" nuambers included in the transparencies provided by GPC to ,
the NRC on April 9. This is a correct statemnt of fact.
s t
.a
/ i
/ /h$'/
./ */ </,/ /s /,/ }/
//;/S
- jr / *'/ / t+"
tr st./ /
, / / / t' e/*/ o/ s s /
/p/
s.
/. /4/'/ / / 4'/ / / 4
-4Hi> --
e e4D 18&19 Successful Starts (oral).
Started 18&19 times. No problems or failures assoc. with any of these starts (COA Responso Ltr).
Confusion th succ vs valid starts.
l .
After complet of comprehen test prograrn,at least ]
18 starts on each diesel. No protWemo or failures. (LER) Mistake by individual who d u .c ont..
Th. .n.r.nc. (n.t.o.n coan ur and Lan) i. aurimoted to som start record keeping practices p defin of end of test program.
(cover Letter to Rev to LEn)
PRESENTATION OUTLINE i INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE BACKGROUND Vogtle Site Area Emergency Complainant / Alleger TIME FRAME / CHRONOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CASE THEORY / VIOLATION FLOW CHART
SUMMARY
OF VIOLATIONS -
aasE Ph!!
MAIN PLAYERS d E
%i ~! F
SUMMARY
OF VIOLATIONS VS. TIME k![ 2'H DISCUSSION / QUESTIONS <
l!
i m
$"m p i =E xgs t mm. ___-_._.____---___.__.-_.___.______m__.__._..-m__;._ _ _.-.___ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ __-__m._-m._-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-_._____.____._._---w- -
-we r--- ____ -_ *__-- - - - -- -__ ___=m----- - -*_- w- v
SYNOPSIS OF ISSUES -
O l
1
! o NRC Must be able to Rely on Complete and Accurate i
information from Licensees
g ;
VOGTLE SITE AREA EMERGENCY -
March 20,1990 -
o Vogtle in Refueling Outage o Switchyard Accident Causes Loss of Offsite Power o Offsite Power required for Core Heat Removal Systems o Emergency Diesel Generator Fails to Perform Until Manually Started After 36 Min. w/o Power o Diesel Generator Reliability important for Core Heat Removalin Event of Loss of Offsite Power
COMPLAINANT / ALLEGER .
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH j
. Formerly Asst. General Manager at Vagtle 4
Employed w/GPC at Vogtle 8/84 - 10/90 Prior Nuclear experience at Plant Zimmer
. Graduate of Univ. of Cincinnati, Ohio
. Has Made Prior allegation against Vogtle Operations
- Was 01 Confidential Source until fired by GPC for non-consensual audio taping at Vogtle without GPC or NRC knowledge -
- Went public with 2.206, Confidentiality terminated i
Has pending Whistleblower Actions w/ DOL
- e Volunteered tapes to 01 for review prior to GPC Assisted Ol with many hours of tape review
3/23 iM/ CASH D FAIL ' '
'S 3V %,, %l, C f 9 ,
L i 4Q 09, &
4 Q (11 $ %lo %
\ -
'@5 46 4+
/ o,::;
o o,
+l'%Q Me
- q. 4/19 MOSB-STRNG LW #q
+[D 14 COAR WRONG; STRNGF f
& '.A g TO NOTIFY SHIPMAN e, eo p4 15 4/19 MOS-SHIP RE A Oo O,/
d POST 3/20 EDG Fall p% 0
{ 4 16 4/19 STRING-SHIPM RE 1 Og POST 3/20 EDG FAILS 0o, (7
48 4e 4e
':\$fi$No, o-e&@-pp@
- [
4(
/
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY 2-90-020
. /9/90 oral presentation re: Successful Starts. ,
. /9/90 COAR letter re: EDG starts w/o failures.
. /19/90 LER re: comprehensive test program / starts.
. /29/90 letter of transmittal to the Rev to 4/19/90 l LE '
l
/30/90 letter correcting 4/9/90 COAR letter and LER.
.(
l
. .206 Response re: HAIRSTON'S participation in nf noe call regarding wording of LER.
i
.206 Response re: HAIRSTON'S belief in accuracy of
(_
i
4/1/91 GPC RESPONSE TO 2.206 l
t l
i i
i The June 29, 1990 0755 (Exhibit 18) draft and 1142 draft (Exhibit 19) of the same date are each longer than the preceding draft, accurately describe the substance of the April 9, 1990
! lotter and focus on the wording " subsequent to the test program" I in the original LER. In both instances, the draft transmittal ,
l lotter explains that if the report had stated " subsequent to the 1 ovent," rather than " subsequent to the test program," the LER ,
vould have been consistent with the April 9 COAR and the "18" and l "19" numbers included in the transparencies provided by GPC to i
the NRC on April 9. This is a correct statement of fact.
I
_ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ ___ _____ __ _ J
i 4/1/91 GPC RESPONSE TO 2.206 .
i l,
t 3
The wording was reviewed by corporate and site representatives in a telephone conference call late on April 19, 1990. Although Mr. Hairston was not a participant in that call, he had every reason to believe the final draft LER presented to him after the call was accurate and complete.
3
. . _ - _ . . . _ _ . . , . _ . _ - . _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ - . - . _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ .-.-,n - -e-.- -
VEGP Event Review Team Path
[ Site Area
\
Confirmation of Action Letter Path Emergency
) Licensee Event Report Path (3/20/90) 2.206 GPC Response (4/1/91)
Filing (9 /11/ 9 0)
l' i
>>00 es i1 uods J
p Od e 8
48 en 18 ss O g y s t 0 00 ugl 6/o 0C/ c 3 10 o 8 n OW I!p No l^*W #
n tp nV 0 &'
en Y 6/ #
O s O 68/
9 O / x si Od g N BYS O 0 gp
\
dO 6/6 d e
y pe 8t&/
i nso A ep 9 s
o lg o
us er p
3 :e> B1 W #
g>;a o 0 <
nl8 ginY 6/6 \
W /
1>
! dO OW O
W 3A N0 NO 0 '
oWN 0 p
n e 6/B x 1 lop &/t '
nuJel es le e
e yO nue J le S se d 06
\ 0 suo a J /0t 00 0318J dseW d '
/t s O Y e 3 l*JO O OO
\ ige de dO 0 Od e
Je d J d 6/D6/t N op dO e 3A Jego e 06 #
90 /8-4/
p en 03 u ng d.9 0 03 t
ss 0 e i4 An Ings 6/
.B. d p 41 98 i s yo se /C se g:A co @
p J n tule 90 d J Hiw S 0 I 0 6/
p w 3dW Mofip D 43 C,
1d io r 0s /c
- Jo;a no we mpo loy T l d 4 l;;O 0 OW '
.g.:s o
6/ N *A t gn 08/
ie;0 C i '#
0 lH 0 p 3,y 0 4
,gy 6/38 /C g
~
o,g
/
/ .< . / / / p
/ //.<
p/./s/*/pA's/
~" /
/ M
/ ! / /
/e, t./ */ <t #/
/ // +
/s / $
1
//hh/ 3 4 5
//$ /6 7 8 9
,///./$
10 11 12 13 18&19 Successful Starts (oral). !
Strrted 18&I9 times. No problems or failures -
cssoc. with any of these starts (COA Response Ltr). Confusion between succ vs valid starts.
After complet of comprehen test program at least 18 starts on each diesel. No problems '
or failures. (LER) Mistake by individual who did counts.
The difference (between COAR Ltr and LER) is attributed to EDG start record keeping practices and defin of end of test program. !
(Cover Letter to Rev to LER)
MAIN PLAYERS NAME POSITION Mar-Aua '90 POSITION Current HAIRSTON Sr. V-P, Nuc., GPC Same McCOY V-P, Vogtle, GPC Same SHIPMAN GM, Nuc Suprt, SNPCO GM, Vogtle, GPC BOCKHOLD GM, Vogtle, GPC EPRI
\
CASH Ops. Supt., Vogtle, Strategic Analysis, l
GPC GPC, B' ham STRINGFELLOW Lic. Engr., SONOPCO Same MAJORS Lic. Engr., SONOPCO Same GREENE Asst. GM, Pint. Supp Mgr., Nuc. Suppt.,
Vogtle, GPC SONOPCO !
BAILEY Mgr. Lic., SONOPCO Same FREDERICKS QA Mgr., Vogtle, GPC Ops., Vogtle, GPC !
RUSHTON Mgr, Lic/ Engr SNOPCO Same l BURR Sr Proj Engr SONOPCO Same
~
I h
n - . _- __ - _ _ - . - _ _ . . _ _ - - - - _ - . . . _ - - . - . . - . _ - . . . - .
l 8/30/90 LETTER CORRECTING C.O.A RESPONSE (4/9) , ,
The confusion in the April 9th letter and the original LER appear to be the result of two factors. First, there was confusion in the distinction between a
, successful start and a valid test. For the purpose of this letter considered successful when the OG was started a:ed either ran or was, intention- a start was ally shut down due to testing in progress, as identified on the attached tables. (
Our use of the term " successful" was never intended to laply a " valid successful test' in the context of Regulatory Guide 1.108. Man start attem i to test the OG's IA and IB using applicable operedag procedures. These pts were made procedures and data sheets do not contain criteria for determining if a start is successful which resulted in determinations of success which were inconsistent
! with the above definition. Second, an error was made by the individual who performed the count of DG starts for the NRC April 9th letter.
t I
r 1
r 6/29/90 REV TO LER t
l The number of successful starts included in the original LER included some of the starts that were part of the test program. The difference is attributed to i diesel start record keeping practices and the definition of the end of the test program.
f
{
l I
i l
l
4/19/90 LER l Numerous sensor calibrations (including jacket water temperatures).
special pneumatic leak testing, and multiple engine starts and runs '
were performed under various conditions. After the 3-20-90 event, the control systems of both engines have been subjected to a comprehensive test program. Subsequent to this test program, DGIA and DGlB have been started at le.ast 18 times each and no failures or problems have occurred during any of these starts. In addition, an undervoltage start test without air roll was conducted on 4-6-90 and DGIA started and loaded properi.v.
i
4/9/90 C.O.A RESPONSE LETTER i
Georgia Pones d 1
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ELV-01516 Pace Three
- g. Since March 20, 1990, GPC has performed numerous sensor cal.ibrations (including jacket water temperatures), extensive logic testing, special pneumatic leak testing, and multiple engine starts and runs under various conditions. Since March 20, the 1A DG has been started 18 times, and the IB DG has been started 19 times. No failures or problems have occurred i during any of these starts. In addition, an undervoltage start test without air roll was conducted on April 6,1990 and the 1A D/G started and loaded properly.
_ =
4/9/90 ORAL PRE 5 tat. '
BIESEL TEsillis
- NORML 36 MONTN OVERHAR. AND INSPECTION
- SPECIAL TESTING i
E i H
32 Evtur in OvtanA n 5 Staars, TRoustesnoorins Season CAtisaArron toesc itsrans E-Run Busste itsiins Plutteett Staats (14) ,
W Run Test 6 Monru Run Suavesttance Datset Ortaaste W Run Test senson Catrination toete itsrins E-Run Busett Testine Lust Ort DCP Run Pluttarts STAars (5) DCP W Run FuncytonAt W Run itst 6 Plonin SuavaittAnce Datset CPERAste N Jacuar VAfta IvNs (3)
DCP W Run Test 18 SUCCESSFIL STARTS 19 SUCCES$FE. STARTS 10
h.- g t
Key Management Structure Early-Mid 1990
.v. , .
l
.,v,.....
. .e ., i
,v. ... ,,.i
.v... ..,...
i I ,
I I I i *
.....,t ..
.e vs ..,. .... ....
i I I !
.L ..... .... .L .....
e . .. . .L . ... . . , .A.
3 FG l
i 1
h
_ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _