ML20128H268

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Deleted Document Re Demand for Info Re G Bockhold
ML20128H268
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 03/04/1994
From: Milhoan J
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20128F432 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-95-81 EA-94-036, EA-94-36, NUDOCS 9610090293
Download: ML20128H268 (21)
v • d • e


Text

.

DRAFT PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION DR'R ITHOUTA'HE APPRO M OF THE DIRECTOR, OE j Rev. 5: VOGDFI3.R5 3/4/94 UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) ,

(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 REGARDING GEORGE BOCKHOLD, JR.

I Georgia Power Company (Licensee) is the holder of Facility License Nos. NPF-68, and NPF-81 (Licenses) 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.

Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the fgedom of information II Act, exempti ns% 8-

-) '

F0IA-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 ::.~.0 by senior Licensee of ficials regarding the reliability of the Diesel Generators (DGs). The pertinent events involved in this matter are described below, e

f 9610090293 960827 f PDR FOIA .

WILMOTH95-81 PDR

. . _ . _ - _ _ - . . - . _ _._ _ ___=-..__. _.__ ____ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ .

i* l I l l l

. \

l i I On March 20, 1990, during a refueling outage at VEGP Unit 1, GPC l declared a Site Area Emergency (SAE) when offsite power was lost

]

concurrent with the failure of the only Unit 1 DG that was

'4 available (1A). The other Unit 1 DG (1B) was unavailable due a

! maintenance activities.

d i b

^

The NRC immediately responded to the SAE at the VEGP site with an

! Augmented Inspection Team (AIT). The NRC effort was upgraded to I an Incident Investigation Team (IIT) on March 23, 1990. The IIT l

4 was composed of NRC Headquarters technical stafr and industry 1

personnel. The results of this investigation are documented in l!

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."

l d i i 1 On March 23, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmation of Action Letter l (CAL) to GPC that, among other things, confirmed that GPC had i

agreed not to return VEGP Unit 1 to criticality until the i Regional Administrator was satisfied that appropriate corrective  ;

actions had been taken, and that the plant could safely return to power operations. l On April 9, 1990, GPC made a presentation tc the NRC in the Region II offices in support of GPC's request to return VEGP l Unit 1.to power operations. As part of this presentation, GPC provided information on DG starts in response to a specific NRC

~

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

. , l 2

I i

)

l l

3 -

1 e request'that GPC address DG reliability in its April 9 j presentation. GPC submitted a written summary of its April 9 f presentation in an April 9, 1990 letter, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Confirma*; ion of Action Letter." l J

On April 12, 1990, the NRO formally granted permission for VEGP l

1 Unit 1 to return to criticality and resume power operations. l i

l 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.eads to Site Area Emergency."

i e

1

!' -On June 29, 1990, GPC submitted a revised LER, 50-424/90-06-01.

j l The. purpose of the submittal was to clarify information related i to suecassful DG starts that were discussed in the April 9, 1990 f

l letter and the April 19, 1990 LER, and to update the status of a

corrective actions in the original LER. i l

i I

l From August 6 through August 17, 1990, the NRC conducted a i

Special Team Inspection at VEGP, as a result of NRC concerns i about, and allegations related to, VEGP operational activities. l This inspection examined the technical validity and safety significance of the allegations, but did not investigate alleged 5

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 1

. -4 -

l this inspection are documented, in part, in NRC Inspection Report e

No. 50-424,425/90-19, Supplement 1, dated November 1, 1991.

4 I

On August 30, 1990, GPC submitted a letter, " Clarification of Response to Confirmation of Action Letter." The purpose of the J submittal was to clarify the diesel start information that was  !

addressed in the April 9, 1990 submittal.

III l I

\

The NFC 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 iri .he Vogtle operating license amendment proceeding (Docket Nos. 50-424 OLA-3, 50-425 OLA-3), and other related information.

. m ._ ._._.m ._. -. . . . - . _ . . _ .- _ -- . . _ . _ . . - - . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ ._ _

? ,

l Prior to rPC briefing the Regional Administrator, Region II, on VEGP's readiness for restart, the NRC asked GPC to address DG reliability as part of its restart presentation on April 9, 1990.

For that presentation, Mr. Bockhold was personally involved in i l

the preparation of data regcrding DG laliability and tasked the Unit Superintendent with collecting the number of successful DG 7

,- startsforthe1Aand1BDGs.( l l

l 1

, i  !

i 1 b

In fact, Mr. Bockhold stated no criteria for successful starts, a terr. not formally defined, when he directed the Unit Superintendent t gather successful DG starts.,

e-.

1 i

l

.3

i i

l 9 l l

l 1

I in the i'

ynformationwasthenpresentedtotheNRC

' April 9, 1990 oral presentation by Mr. Bockhold and the April 9,

  • 1990 letter submitted by GPC-that there were 18 and 19 consecutive successful starts on the 1A and IB DGs, respectively, i l

' without problems or failures.

~7 pPC's.

1 report .f starts in the presentation and letter included three IB l l

DG starts with problems that occurred during DG overhaul and j

maintenance activities (a high lube oil temperature trip on i

5 March 22, 1990; a low jacket watcr pressure / turbo lube oil pressure low trip on March 23, 1990; and a failure to trip on a i high jacket water temperature alarm occurring on March 24, 1990).

1 The. correct number of consecutive successful starts without -

j problems or failures was 12 for 1B DG--a number ..

less than that reported by GPC to the NRC on April 9, 1990.

f 4

I.

.i a t

a LER 90-006, submitted to the NRC on April 19, 1990, was based, in on information presented to the NRC on April 9, 199

[ e part, -

A L-i

1

-7 -

During review of the draft LER, site J

L personnel questioned its accuracy. Given that there were trips in the 1B DG after March 20, 1990, they did not think that the

[

statement concerning "no problems or failures" was correct. A teleconfer.ence was subsequently held between site and corporate q

] personnel

l l

l I l

(' \

l

-r \

the 1A and L 1B DG start counts reported on April 19, 1990 overstated the actual counts by including starts that were part of the CTP.

9

)

i l

i 1

l l

i

l

. 1

_9-i 1

l l

i l

-- l The Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations I

also stated that he thought the April 19, 1990 data had been checked.

I On May 2, 1990, Mr. Bockhold was given a lirt of DG starts that l

showed that the start counts reported in the April 9, 1990 presentation, the April 9, 1990 CAL response letter, and the April 19, 1990 LER were incorrect. Mr. Bockhold agreed that the LER needed to be revised to reflect the correct number of starts.

Mr. Bockhold also agreed that the April 9, 1990 letter needed to be corrected because he asked and was informed that th' **ril 9 1990 error was cifferent than the April 19, 1990 error. It was also agreed that uniferm language would be used to cortect both documents, i

)

I

,5 During the NRC's Special Tean Inspection exit interview on August 17, 1990, GPC was specifically notified by the NRC that the revised LER did not adequately clarify the DG start information contained in the April 9, 1990 letter, and NRC reauested GPC to provide clarification of this submittal. GPC forwarded a submittal to the NRC on August 30, 1990 regarding the April 9, 1990 letter. A draft of the August 30, 1990 letter, sent to the site for review, suggested that one of the reasons for the error in the April 9, 1990 letter was

" confusion in the distinction between a successful start and a valid test" by the individuals who prepared the DG start information for the April 9, 1990 letter. During an August 29, 1990 Plant Review Board (PRB) meeting which, amc.cg other things, reviewed the proposed August 30, 1990 submittal to the NRC, the VEGP Manager - Technical Support raised concerns about the accuracy of that statement. Mr. Bockhold admitted to the PRB that the Unit Superintendent (who origi nally collected the DG start data at Mr. Bockhold's direction) was not confused about the distinction between successful starts and valid tests when the start data was collected for the April 9, 1990 letter, but stated that the sentence was not in error because other people ,

l were confused. Mr. Bockhold acknowledged that there was l l

I I

-u- i l

confusion among individuals after April 9, 1990, but admitted l that the Unit Superintendent was not confused when he developed the information.[

1 t

L-k J Mr. Bockhold was aware of the NRC's interest in DG reliability in the context _

F of an NRC decision on restart b -

m mM au .

Mmma,p m , Sway umW.he m,m m er -

m4 Ame.d 4.am._.&e -mesd s dehz44lta m.h & d .had 44J. $ As M h E Am 4 4. A h-"

. -W4 A.3 2 9

b O

r h

12 -

i l

i i

l l

t F

I I

l 1

l l

1

u a

l C

l i

13 -

1 I

1 1

+

a -- - __. 4 -.-. u 4 A - m4a b a --e+ + - - &a .. M u i.-.. a b

i 1

l l

0 i

i 1

14 -

1 4

J

\

l 1

i i

1 I

i

l l

i I

1 l

I I

l l

l l

i  ;

l s

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION James L. Milhoan Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of (Month) 19(XX)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20128H268&oldid=3463552"