ML20128G979
| ML20128G979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1994 |
| From: | Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G660 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-81 NUDOCS 9610090198 | |
| Download: ML20128G979 (39) | |
Text
= _ _ _ _.
4 e
UNITED STATES a arcg' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,j waswenarow. o.c. acespoot
- (
[
a
%,..,...,/
fB 2 319N S. Ebneter Note to:
4 T. Murley
- 8. Hayes K. Cyr J. Lieberman a
J. Milhoan f
From:
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - V0GTLE oposed enforcement
Subject:
h Enclosed for your review, evaluation and comment is t e prb i blem. The enclosures action 4 r the Georgia Power Company's (G (1) a Com...ission paper We ask that jou submit comments to OE the licensu Penalty and a Demand for Information t include:
of Office Directors to discuss and by March 1, 1994 and plan for a meetinresolve comm 0
i 1
hYhoan As stated
(
Enclosures:
J W. Russell cc:
L. Chandler J. Goldberg (5)
D. Matthews l
l 1
i ONAL ENFORCEMENT PREDEC FOR BLI DISCLO WITH (NOT_49)ROVAL 0DIREC l
M Information in th s cord was detegeg in accordance wi D information 1
Act, eRempions W a
YDk f f 8 96 7
MLHOTH95-gg p,,,
DRAFT PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION l
NOT FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE Rev. 6:
V0GPAPER.R6 2/22/94
]
March XX. 1994 SECY-94-XXX f.QE:
The Commissioners fROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ENFORC' MENT ACTION AGAINST GEORGIA POWER COMPANY AND SOU %RN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERA 1.NG PLANT (EA 93-304, EA 94 736, and EA 94-037)
PURPOSE:
l To consult with the Commission regarding the issuance of a Notice of Violation m l
l I
\\
l L BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1990, during a refueling outage at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 1, GPC declared a Site Area Emergency (SAE) when offsite power was lost concurrent with the failure of the only Unit 1 Diesel Generator (DG) that was available (IA).
The other Unit 1 DG (IB) was unavailable due to maintenance activities.
The NRC immediately responded to the SAE at the VEGP site with an Augmented i
Inspection Team (AIT) which was subsequently upgraded to an Incident Investigation Team (IIT) on March 23, 1990.
4 On March 23, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmation of Action Letter (CAL) to GPC l
that, among other things, confirmed that GPC had agread not to return VEGP Unit I to criticality until the Regional Administrator was satisfied that appropriate corrective actions had been taken, and that the plant could safely return to power operations.
l l
l
i l
I The Commissioners !
l On April 9, 1990, GPC made a presentation to the NRC in the Region II offices j
in support of GPC's request to return VEGP Unit I to power operations.
As part of this presentation, GPC provided information on DG starts in response 4
to a specific NRC request that GPC address DG reliability in its April 9
- presentation.
GPC submitted a written summary of its April 9 presentation in 4
an April 9,1990 letter, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Confirmation of Action Letter." The NRC formally granted permission for VEGP Unit I to return to criticality and resume power operations on April 12, 1990.
On April 19, 1990, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73, GPC submitted Licensee Event Report (LER) 50-424/90-06, " Loss of Offsite Power Leads to Site Area 4
Emergency."
4 On June 29, 1990, GPC submitted a revised LER, 50-424/90-06-01. The purpose of i
the submittal was to clarify information related to successful DG starts that were discussed in the April 9, 1990 letter and the April 19, 1990 LER, and to update the status of corrective actions in the original LER.
From Aunust 6 through August 17, 1990, the NRC conducted a Special Team Inspection (STI) at VEGP, as a result of NRC concerns about, and $11egations related to, VEGP operational activities. This inspection examined the technical validity and safety significance of the allegations, but did not j
investigate alleged wrongdoing'.
The Special Team informed GPC that the 29, 1990 submittal failed to address the April 9,1990 data and requested ungGPCclarifyDGstartsreportedonApril9,1990.
On August 30, 1990, GPC submitted a letter, " Clarification of Response to j
l Confirmation of Action Letter." The purpose of the submittal was to clarify
)
the diesel start information that was addressed in the April 9, 1990 i
s0bmittal.
On December 17, 1993, an investigation of licensed activities was completed by the'NRC's Office of Investigations (01).
The investigation was initiated in I
4 response to allegations received in June 1990 by NRC Region 11 asserting, in j
part, that material false statements were made to the NRC by senior licensee i
officials regarding the reliability of the DGs at VEGP as reflected in the series of communications on the issue described above.
The 01 Report of i
Investigation (fase No. 2-90-020R) is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
Because of the nature of Ol's preliminary conclusions, 01 discussed the matter with the j
Oepartment of Justice (D0J) on January 9, 1992.
By memorandum dated April 12, 1993, D0J notified the NRC that it was closing its criminal investigation of the matter and recommended that the NRC continue its administrative proceeding.
D0J also advised the NRC to contact D0J in the event subsequent NRC investigation identified additional evidence of criminal activity. 01 1
discussed the final results of its investigation with D0J on December 16, 1993, and D0J verbally declined criminal prosecution of the matter.
a 1
i gan depWhber TB~,~1593, the staff formed _
f a special task force composed of representatives from the Office of l
Enforcement, Region II, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and the l
Office of General Counsel to conduct a detailed review of the evidence i
a, w
The Commissioners collected by 01 on the allegations.
The Vogtle Coordinating Group (Group) was also tasked with identifying any violations and developing a detailed analysis of the evidence in support of its conclusions.
In addition to this enforcement proceeding, there is an ongoing Atomic Safety
,. operating license from GPC to Southern Nuclear {'g the transfer of the and Licensing Board (ASLB) proceeding considerin
~~
DISCUSSION:
The 01 investigation concluded that evidence uncovered by 01 supports a finding of deliberate failures on the part of GPC officials to provide the NRC with information that is complete and accurate in all material respects.
01 concluded that:
(1) the VEGP General Manager'(George c ckhold, Jr.) deliberately presented incomplete and inaccurate information regarding the testing of the VEGP Unit 1 DGs during an oral preses.ation to the NRC on April 9,1990, (2)
GPC submitted inaccurate and incomplete information regarding DG test results in a letter to NRC dated April 9, 1990, as a result of deliberate actions by Mr. Bockhold, (3)
GPC submitted inaccurate and incomplete information regarding DG air quality in the April 9 letter to the NRC, as a result of deliberate actions by Mr. Bockhold, l
(4) the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations (George W. Hairston, III), with, at a minimum, careless disregard, submitted a false statement of diesel test results to the NRC in Licensee Event Report l
(LER) No.90-006, dated April 19, 1990, as a direct result of deliberate actions by a group of senior managers including Mr. Hairston, the Vice President - Vogtle Project (C. Kenneth McCoy), the Corporate General Manger of Plant Supraet (William B. Shipman), and Mr. Bockhold, l
(5)
Mr. Hairston, with, at a minimum, careless disregard, submitted a false statement to NRC in the letter of transmittal of a revision to LER 90-006, dated June 29, 1990, T
(6)
Mr. McCoy, with, at a minimum, careless disregard, submitted both a false statement and a misleading statement in the GPC clarification of Confirmati:n of Action response letter to NRC dated August 30, 1990, and
' Licensee organizational charts are included in Enclosure 2.
1 I
f The Commissioners (7)
GPC provided inaccurate information in its response to a 10 CFR 2.206 i
petition, dated April 1, 1991.
O! also concluded from the combination of the above findings, and the overall review of numerous audio tape recordings of internal GPC conversations regarding their communications with the NRC on a range of issues, that, at least in the March-August 1990 time frame, there was evidence of a closed, deceptive, adversarial attitude toward NRC on the part of GPC senior management.
i l
J
t 4
i The Commissioners Finally, the Group reviewed numerous audio tapes and other evidentiary
(
materials associated with DG testina durina the March-August 1990 time fr.ame.
J i
i
~~
1 j
e i
1 k
i
\\
\\
\\
\\
i
^
Based on the staff's review and conclusions, in this matter, the staff is nennncinn the enclosed Notice of Violation l
l
.. _ ~. -. -.-
?
a
'l L
i 4-j i
a I
i l
I 4
^a I
i l
i 1
- i 1
l l
I Mr. Bockhold is currently working for Southern Nuclear as the General Manager of Nuclear Technical Services.C ~~~
]
i r
e E
F l
1 i
i l
k
?
l e
a 1
b-u f
\\
l t
I
{
The staff rgcognizes that considerable time has passed since the violations y
occurred 1 j
4 N
}
'l l
1 NQII:
This paper and its issues should not be publicly disclosed because the matter invv..es sensitive as well as predecisional enforcement issues.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
01 Report 2-90-020R 2.
Licensee Organization Charts 3.
Vogtle Coordinating
. Notice of ViolatQ, Group Analysis 4.
f,
l 4
DRAFT i
EDROI M ORMATION sN RELE ITHOUT THE APP E
Rev. 7:
VOGCOVER.R7 2/22/94 Docket No.
50-424 License No.
NPF-68 EA 93-304, and EA 94-036 Georgia Power Company ATTN:
Mr.
C. K. McCoy Vice President -
Vogtle Project Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201
SUBJECT:
NOTICE DI_ VIOLATION i
(NRC 3 AND DEMAND FOR INFORMATION DFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 2-90-020 AND NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-424,425/90-19, SUPPLEMENT 1)
This refers to the investigation conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Investigations (OI) at Georgia Power Company's (GPC) Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) which was completed on December 17, 1993.
The investigation was initiated as a result of information received in June 1990 by Region II alleging, in part, that material false statements were made to the NRC by senior officials of GPC regarding the reliability of the Diesel Generators (DGs).
The pertinent events involved in this matter are described below.
On March 20, 1990, during a refueling outage at VEGP Unit 1, GPC declared a Site Area Emergency (SAE) when offsite power was lost concurrent with the failure of the only Unit 1 DG that was available (1A).
The other Unit 1 DG (1B) was unavailable due to maintenance activities.
The NRC immediately responded to the SAE at the VEGP site with an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT).
The NRC effort was upgraded to an Incident Investigation Team (IIT) on March 23, 1990.
The IIT was composed of NRC Headquarters technical staff and industry personnel.
The results of this investigation are documented in NUREG-1410, " Loss of Vital AC Power and the Residual Heat Removal System During Mid-Loop Operations at Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990."
On March 23, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmatian of Action Letter (CAL) to GPC that, among other things, confirmed that GPC had agreed not to return VEGP Unit 1 to criticality until the Regional Administrator was satisfied that appropriate corrective actions had been taken, and that the plant could safely return to power operations.
i Georgia Power Company On April 9, 1990, GPC made a presentation to the NRC in the Region II offices in support of GPC's request to return VEGP Unit 1 to power operations.
As part of this presentation, GPC provided information on DG starts in response to a specific NRC request that GPC address DG reliability in its April 9 presentation.
GPC submitted a written summary of its April 9 presentation in an April 9, 1990 letter, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Confirmation of Action Letter."
On April 12, 1990, the NRC formally granted permission for VEGP Unit 1 to return to criticality and resume power operations.
On April 19, 1990, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73, GPC submitted Licensee Event Report (LER) 50f424/90-06, " Loss of Offsite Power Leads to Site Area Emergency."
On June 29, 1990, GPC submitted a revised LER, 50-424/90-06-01.
The purpose of the submittal was to clarify information related to successful DG starts that were discussed in the April 9, 1990 letter and the April 19, 1990 LER, and to update the status of corrective actions in the original LER.
From August 6 through August 17, 1990, the NRC conducted a Special Team Inspection at VEGP, as a result of NRC concerns about, and allegations related to, VEGP operational activities.
This inspection examined the technical validity and safety significance of the allegations, but did not investigate alleged wrongdoing.
The Special Team informed GPC that the June 29, 1990 submittal failed to address the April 9, 1990 data and requested that GPC clarify DG starts reported on April 9, 1990.
Results of this inspection are documented, in part, in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-424,425/90-19, Supplement I, dated November 1991.
On August 30, 1990, GPC submitted a letter, " Clarification of Response to Confirmation of Action Letter."
The purpose of the submittal was to clarify the diesel start information that was addressed in the April 9, 1990 submittal.
The NRC has carefully reviewed the evidence associated with these events, submittals, and representations to the NRC.
Specifically, the NRC reviewed information gathered as part of the OI investigation, information gathered during the IIT, NUREG-1410, Supplement 1 of NRC Inspection Report 90-19, discovery responses in the Vogtle operating license amendment proceeding (Docket Nos. 50-424 OLA-3. 50-425 OLA-3), and other related information.{
}
l j
I
~
e-n -... co.n. m, 3_
l I
r nrormation was 1990 oral
'tNen presentea to tnE NRC in an April 9, presentation by the VEGP General Manager and in an April 9, s
1990 letter that there were 18 and 19 successful consecutive without ornhlpms starts on the,1A and IB DGE _respectively, or failures.L l
f tarts for the 1B DGthEY~UPCreporte~a]phe19troube-reesin the presentation and letter incl three starts with problems that occurred during DG overhaul / maintenance cetivities (a high lube oil temperature trip on March 22, 1990; a low jacket water pressure / turbo lube oil pressure low trip on March 23, 1990; and a failure to trip on a high jacket water temperature alarm occurring on March 24, 1990).
The correct number of consecutive successful starts was 12 for the 1B DG--a number less than that reported by GPC to the NRC on 1990}.
i
' April 9, m
l l
I
~
Jfhe air for starting a DG and operating its instruments and controls is derived from the starting air t
Georgia Power Company sfstem.
The starting air system contains dryers designed to maintai.Episture content (i.e.
daw nnint) at accentable
-l levels J
a J A review of maintenance records and deficiency cards associated with Unit I would have revealed that high dew points were also attributable to system air dryers occasionally being out of service for extended periods and to system repressurization following maintenance, as documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-424.425/90-19. Sucolement 1, dated November 1,
,1991.(_
e I
'l During the preparation of the LER, the Acting VEGP Assistant General Manager questioned the accuracy of the April 9 letter given thaJ there were trips on the 1B DG after March 20, 1990.L
-j Q
In later discussions regarding the dratt LER, the Generar~hanager, Technical Support Manager and Acting VEGP Assistant General Manager acknowledged that.they could not identify the specific DG start that represented the starting point for the count presented to the NRC, i.e.,
the
Gcorgia Power Company first start following completion of the CTP.
There were also different interpretations about what testing the term CTP encompassed.
The General Manager - Plant Support (Vogtle Project), the VEGP Technical Support Manager, and the Acting VEGP Assistant General Manager were aware that
+
the VEGP General Manager had earlier stated that his April 9 count began after instrument recalibration.
The Acting VEGP Assistant General Manager stated that his understanding of the CTP was that it would be a test pr_ogram to determine root causes and restore operability. ;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
une unAL superintencent wno
)
acquired the data advised Mr.~~Mosbaugh and Mr. Aufdenkampe that he started his counts on March 20. orio.r_.to_the timp when a CTP._pould have been_completad {
3
~
'fEEe 1A and 1B DG start counts reportea on April 19, 1990 7 nd earlier on April 9),
~
~
overstated the actual counts by including starts that were part of the test program.
E
1 Georgia Power Company ~~.
e-l
^
N
_ 7n April 30, 1990,
~
t the Acting vrGP Assistant GeneraA Manager - Plant Support aave the VEGP General Manager a listing of 1B DG starts..-
~]
1 1
- -L 4
L_
After being informed that the April 19 DG start counts were in error, the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations informed the Regional Administrator that a revision to the April 19 LER would be submitted, in part, to correct the DG start counts.
After being provided conflicting data for the second time, the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations again notified the Regional Administrator.
He also requested that an audit be conducted to establish the correct data and to determine why the errors were made.
The audit, completed June 29, narrowly focused on a review of diesel records (Test Data Sheets, Shift Supervisor's Log, and Diesel Generator Start Log) to verify the number of DG i
starts.
The audit did not identify any specific cause for the error in the number reported in the LER.
The audit stated, however, that the error appeared to result from incomplete documentation.
.The audit also noted that there apparently was some confusion about the_ specific point at 3
which the test program was completed.(
'}
c,
\\
9 L_
~
On June 29, 1990, the draft cover letter for the LER revision was being reviewed at the site.
The draft had originated in GPC corporate headquarters and included language personally developed by the Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Operations and the Vice President - Vogtle Project.
During the site review, a VEGP Technical Assistant (TA)
(formerly the Acting VEGP Assistant General Manager - Plant Support) noted that the letter was incomplete and challenged the accuracy of the reasons stated in the draft cover letter
]
in conversations with the Supervisor - Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER), the VEGP Assistant General i
Manager - Plant Support, the VEGP Manager - Engineering Support, and a Licensing Engineer - Vogtle Project.
The
Georgia Power Company
-7 VEGP TA stated that: (1) the letter failed to clarify the DG starts reported on April 9, (2) DG record keeping practices were not a cause of the difference in the DG starts reported in the April 19 LER because adequate information was available when the counting errors were made, and (3) the developing the count.(ted from personnel errors in erroneous counts resul
~
r L
r 1
1
~~
, The Vice President - Vogtle Project and the
(~- Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations were actively involved in the preparation of the June 29 cover letter.
The VEGP General Manager and Vice President - Vogtle Project reviewed, and the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations l
signed, the June 29 cover letter which stated that its purpose was, in to clarify information provided to the NRC on April 9.(part, 7
i i
--. i J
')
1 Jcne aprit w,
Avuu letter.
The letter
-- statea tnat tne errors in the April 9 letter and by presentation and the April 19 LER were caused, in part, confusion in the, distinction between a successful start and a valid test.
l
,' During tha August 29, 1990 Plant Review Board meeting, the VEGP Manager - Technical Support questioned if the Unit Superintendent (the individual who originally collected the DG start data) was confused in the distinction between a successful start and a l
valid test.
The VEGP General Manager admitted that the Unit l
-~
)
~
Georgia Power Company
-8 Superintendent was not confused about the distinction when he collected the data which was used to prepare the April 9 letter, but stated that the sentence was not in error because other people were confused.
The VEGP General Manager acknowledged that there was confusion among 2
individuals after April 9, but admitted that the Unit Superintendent,was not confused when he developed.the.
information.
~}
J l
i 1
L TThe j
August 30 Tetter states that the error in tne Apr1 A v letter and presentation and the April 19 LER were caused, in part, by an error madA.by the individual who merformed the. count of DG starts.C
(
a I
a L.
_ ) hile GPC undertook efforts to correct the April 19 LER, it narrowly focused only on that submittal.
For example,'GPC conducted an audit, the scope of which was limited to review of DG records, in an attempt to correct the start count reported in the April 19 LER.
Furthermore, in its June 29 submittal, while GPC referred to both the April 9 letter and the April 19 LER, it attempted to explain only the reasons for the error in the April 19 LER.
The Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations and the Vice President - Vogtle Project were directly involved in the development of the June 29 letter.(*
f 7 Subsequently,
~'tne NRC requested that GPC make a submitt1T addressing the April 9 letter.
As of August 17, 1990, the VEGP General Manager and the Vice President - Vogtle Project were aware of NRC concerns regarding the errors in, and the misleading nature of, the April 9 letter.
The Vice President - Vogtle Project committed during the August 17 meeting with the NRC special inspection te m to provide clarification to the NRC regarding the April 9 letter.('
~~l I
s I
u
l Georgia power Company
~9~
t r
l l
C jnorootcause i
evaliiition was initiated.~ Rather, GPC f'>rVsEded a submittal i
regarding the April 9 letter on August 70 that was drafted at corporate headquarters under the direction of the Vice President - Vogtle P l
8 i
1 I
I e
i 2
i l
i l
l I
1
4 1
j i
.i Georgia Power Company {
i s
t e
1 l
l 0
1 l
u I
l l
t is our understanding that Mr. Bocknold is currently working ror Southern Ngclear as the
^
General Manager of Nuclear Technical Servicest~
L 4
)
I i
v
,.-,-,e-,
~
I
[
Georgia Power Company. r l
\\,
\\
u U
]AlEhoughOI's
'~
investigation primarily focused on actTons and communications involving the DGs, OI also reviewed other communications within a particular time-frame and made a general observation that,RPC
, exhibited a closed, adversarial attitude toward the NRC.
)
I I
j i
1 s
k 1
l
/.5
]
Sincerely, i
James L. Milhoan
~
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research i
Enclosures:
(
1.
Notice of Violatio E 2.
Ueman&7or Information
(
DRAFT PREDECISION
/,AI'#
VoGNOVCP.R4 2/22/94 j
q NOTICE OF VIOLATION Georgia Power Company Docket No. 50-424 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant License No. NPF-68 EA 93-304 During an NRC inspection conducted from August 6, 1990 to August 17, 1990 and an NRC investigation completed on December 17, 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, j
Appendix C, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act ci 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.
2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The tc r violations are set 10 CFR 50.9(a) requires that information provided to the NRC by a licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
~
sa s that:
Since March 20, the 1A DG has been started times, and the 1B DG has been started 19 times.
No failures or problems have occurred during any of these starts."
}
art 132 tripped on high temperature lube oi Start 134 tripped on low pressure jacket water and Start 136 had a high temperature jacket water trip alarm.
As of April 9, 1990, the 1B DG had only 12 consecutive successful starts without problems or failures rather than the 19 represented by GPC.
The same inaccuracy was presented to the NRC at its Region II Office during an oral presentation by GPC on April 9, 1990.
\\
d I
Notice an Apr 1 9, 1990 letter states, when discussing the air 11ty of the DG starting air system at the Vogtle facility, that:
"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 dewpoints were later attributed to faulty instrumentation."
actual high dew points "ad occurred at the Vogtle facility.
~
the causes of those high dew points included fallu to use air dryers for extended periods of time and repressurization of the DG air start system receivers following maintenance.
The NRC reld-d, in part, upon this informa a presented by GDC in its letter of April 9, 1990 in reaching the decision to allow Vogtle Unit j
1 to return to power operation.
i 3LER, dated April 19, 1990,
. states:
" Numerous
(
L_
sensor calibration (including jacket w er 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, DG1A and DG1B have bewn started at least 18 times each and no failures or problems have occurred during any of these starts.".
l 1
I e
e L-
Notice
.b
~
a u N ent Report'(.ER)'
cover" letter dated June 29, 1990[~
(
L.
The letter states that:
"In accordance with 10 CFR 50.73, Georgia Power Comt.s (GPC) hereby submits the enclosed revised report rel.c..d to an event which occurred on March 20, 1990.
This rey,ision is necessary to clarify the information related fB*tFe number of successful diesel generator starts as discussed in the GPC letter dated April 9, 1990...."
O
.s i
J The letter states that:
"If the criteria for the completion of the test program is understood to be the first successful test in accordance with Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) procedure 14980-1 " Diesel Generator Operability Test," then there were 10 successful starts of Diesel Generator 1A and 12 successful starts of Diesel Generator 1B between the completion of the test program and the end of April 19, 1990, the date the LER-424/1990-06 was submitted to the NRC.
The number of successful starts included in the original LER (at least 18) included some of the starts that were part of the test program.
The difference is attributed to diesel start record keeping practices and the definition of the end of the test program."
\\
J
m. _ _ _
i i
i 1
1-l Notice l
~
i l
I l
1 r
l
^,l
~
hetterdatedAugust30, 1990 The letter states that:
"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...
Second, an l
error was made by the individual who performed the count of DG starts for the NRC April 9th letter."
.m 1
l I
l-1 4
i I
ie.
)
i l
\\
1 Notice
[
g 4
a 1
i*
b I
i i
I
_~
I 1
q i
1 1
I i
J l
i 1
i 4
a l
4 4
k i
4 1
4 I
4 4<. - -,, - -,... --,--
r,
- - - - - - - -. - - - - - =,
a.-__www.aw.-a-
-ws.Nm'.#a um
.a.M..u-MM' W. M hNMd e-4 hX 5 Ane' -WM M* 44 s4A h a id %M 8
i 4
i s
4 i
a Notice
)
1 i
4 8
1 4
i i
I I
i 1
4 i
I i
i i
1 i
i q
tt 4
3 4
6-
,t i
d
-..... - -.. - ~
I 1
J u me 4,-m l
Dated at (City, State) this day of (Month) 19(XX) 1 i
i a
t l
I I.
i s -
i DRAFT PREDECISIONAL I TION NOTJOR REL WI TEE ROV GF ras l
Rev. 4:
VOGDFI.R4 2/22/94 I
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
i (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Docket Nos. 50-425/50-425 Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
License Nos. NPF-68/NPF-81
)
EA 94-036 DEMAND FOR INFORMATION I
Georgia Power Company (Licensee) is the holder of Facility License Nos. NPF-68, and NPF-81 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.
The licenses authorize the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2, in accordance with conditions specified therein.
II On December 17, 1993, an investigation of licensed activities was completed by the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI; at Licensee's VEGP facility.
The investigation was initiated in response to information received in June 1990 by NRC Region II alleging, in part, that material false statements were made to the NRC by senior Licensee officials regarding the reliability of 1
l the Diesel Generators (DGs).
The pertinent events involved in this matter are described below.
.m._._..____..
1 On March 20, 1990, during a refueling outage at VEGP Unit 1, GPC declared a Site Area Emergency (SAE) when offsite power was lost concurrent with the failure of the only Unit 1 PG that was v
available (1A).
The other Unit 1 DG (1B) was unavailable due to maintenance activities.
The NRC immediately responded to the SAE at the VEGP site with an I
Augmented Inspection Team (AIT).
The NRC effort was upgraded to an Incident Investigation Team (IIT) on March 23, 1990.
The IIT i
was composed of NRC Headquarters technical staff and industry The results of this investigation are documented in personnel.
NUREG-1410, " Loss of Vital AC Power and the Residual Heat Removal System During Mid-Loop Operations at Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990."
On March 23, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmation of Action Letter i
(CAL) to GPC that, among other things, confirmed that GPC had agreed not to return VEGP Unit 1 to criticality until the Regional Administrator was satisfied that appropriate corrective actions had been taken, and that the plant could safely return to power operations.
On April 9, 1990, GPC made a presentation to the NRC in the j
Region II offices in support of GPC's request to return VEGP Unit 1 to power operations.
As part of this presentation, GPC provided information on DG starts in response to a specific NRC 4
i 1
2.
i i
4 3-t request that GPC address DG reliability in its April 9 l
. presentation.
GPC submitted a written summary of its April 9 presentation in an April 9, 1990 letter, "Vogtle Electric f
Generating Plant Confirmation of Action Letter."
7 l
On April 12, 1990, the NRC formally granted permission for VEGP Unit 1 to return to criticality and resume power operations.
1 On April 19, 1990, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73, GPC submitted Licensee Event Report (LER) 50-424/90-06, " Loss of Offsite Power i
)
Leads to Site Area Emergency."
i
{
On June 9, 1990, GPC submitted a revised LER, 50-424/90-06-01.
f i
j The, purpose of the submittal was to clarify information related to successful DG starts that were discussed in the April 9, 1990 t
letter and the April 19, 1990 LER, and to update the status of corrective actions in the original LER.
4 i
From August 6 through August 17, 1990, the NRC conducted a
[
Special Team Inspection at VEGP, as a result of NRC concerns i
about, and allegations related to, VEGP operational activities.
This inspection examined the technical validity and safety significance of the allegations, but did not investigate alleged wrongdoing.
The Special Team informed GPC that the June 29, 1990 submittal failed to address the Aprii 9,
1990 data and requested i
that GPC clarify DG starts reported on April 9, 1990.
Results of i
T l
4 i
_ ~ _
-4 this inspection are documented, in part, in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-424,425/90-19, Supplement 1, dated Novemberl1991.
)
On August 30, 1990, GPC submitted a letter, " Clarification of Response to Confirmation of Action Letter."
The purpose of the submittal was to clarify the diesel start information that was addressed in the April 9, 1990 submittal.
III The NRC has reviewed the evidence associated with these events, submittals, and representations to the NRC.
Specifically, the NRC reviewed information gathered as part of the OI investigation, information gathered during the IIT, NUREG-1410, Supplement 1 of NRC Inspection Report 90-19, discovery responses in the Vogtle operating license amendment proceeding (Docket Nos. 50-424 OLA-3, 50-425 OLA-3), and other related information.
/
I 1
- l l
l l
l I
On June 29, 1990, the draft cover letter for the LER revision was being reviewed at the VEGP site.
The draft had originated in GPC corporate headquarters and included language personally developed by 'we Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations (Ceorge W.
1 1
Hairston, III) and the Vice President - Vogtle Project,(C.
Kenneth McCoy).
During this review, a VEGP Technical Assistant (TA) (formerly the Acting VEGP Assistant' General Manager - Plant Support) (Alan L. Mosbaugh) noted that the letter was incomplete and challenged the accuracy of the reasons stated in the draft cover letter in conversations with the Supervisor - Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER) (Georgic R.
Frederick), the VEGP Assistant General Manager - Plant Support (Thomas V. Greene), the VEGP Manager - Engineering Support (Michael W. Horton), and a Licensing Engineer - Vogtle Project (Harry W. Majors).
Mr. Mosbaugh stated that: (1) the letter failed to clarify the DG starts reported on April 9, (2) DG record keeping practices were not a cause of the difference in the DG starts reported in the April 19 LER because adequate information to formulate an accurate count was available when the counting errors were made, and (3) the erroneous counts resulted from personnel errors in
l
. developing the count.
l l
l Mr. Majors had staff responsibility for preparing the cover letter for the LER revision and was specifically instructed by the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations to work closely with the site to ensure that the submittal was accurate and com},lete.
~
l
\\~
L, Mr. Horton was responsible for the Diesel Start Logs and agreed with the audit report findings regarding deficiencies in their condition.
Given that his logs had not been used to collect the DG start data, he pointed out that it was wrong to state that the condition of his logs caused errors in the information initially D
providedtotheNRC(
t 1
L
=
-7
_q k
- Also, Mr. Frederick was made aware by Mr. Mosbaugh on June 12 that, to identify the root cause of the error in the April 19 LER (i.e.,
personnel errors), the audit scope would need to include an assessment of the performance of the Unit Superintendent and the i
VEGP General Manager, the individuals that developed the initial the audit report did not include either of these count.
t-individuals in the list of persons contacted during the audit.
Mr. Frederick was again made aware by Mr. Mosbaugh that the root causeforthedifferencewaspersonnelerror.(
l f
t
-8 Mr. Greene was apprised of concerns regarding the June 29 letter by Mr. Mosbaugh (an individual who had been involved in preparing the April 19 LER and had been involved in developing an accurate DG start count).
Mr. Mosbaugh identified to him the failure of the June 29 letter to address the inaccuracies in the April 9 letter that it referenced and Mr. Mosbaugh pointed out the erroneous causes stated for the reasons for the difference in the June 29 DG start counts.
,]Mr.McCoywasactivelyinvolvedinthepreparation of the June 29 cover letter and reviewed it prior to forwarding it to the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations for signature and issuance.
The June 29 cover letter stated that its purpose was, in part, to clarify information provided to the NRC on April 9.
f I
the April 9 letter.
Mr. McCoy committed during the August 17 meeting with the NRC special inspection team to provide c3.arification to the NRC regarding the
l I*
s I {
April 9 letter L IV f
1 i
l I
-22 us
.s _su2.4.__i_s a s._
mm., me a.
_u-ua,=a4-.c-4-A m..
4.
um._,4
. m m.
4 2w.
A m.
.4.m J_m,.--.._._A O
l l
I 10 -
i I
i
- i t
1 4
i i
0
)
--tel 1
4 11 -
t i
)
l
. l i
1 f
L Copies of the response also shall be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional-Administrator, NRC Region II, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323.
i After reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether further action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION James L. Milhoan Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research l
l
\\
Dated at Rockville, Maryland i
this day of (Month) 19(XX) l l
l a
l i
T k;
.\\