ML20129H706
Text
.
~
.-. _. ~... -.......
/
. b. k s.o o a %,c: o y i,,,
333 P 00rr4T Annue -
~j
. Aserne. Genrom 36300 f
%eorene 404 S26 3195 Menne Adoress.
ao wwa.m cerer eerw i
3130s teconow 30s ase assi W. S. Meisease. IE
!sener vee Pseeeern l
Nuceer Opershons a
Docket No. 50-424 U. S. Nuclear ulatory Ceaunission ATTN: Document trol Desk Washington, D. C.
20555 Gentlemen:
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT LICENSEE EVENT REPORT Less 0F 0FFSITE POWER LEADS TO SITE AREA EMERGENCY j
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.73, Georyta Power Company hereby submits the enclosed revised report related to an event which occurred on March 20, 1990.
This revision is necessary to correct the information related to the number of successful Diesel Generator starts subsequent to the comprehensive test p ram 1
as discussed in the original report and our April 9,1990 letter (ELV-01516,.
J Sincerely, l
W. G. Hairston, !!!
l; WGH,111/NJ5/gm I
Enclosure:
LER_50-424/1990-006-01 j
xc:, aanrata ammaqr cannaan
'Mr. C. K.
Mr. R. M. od
, Jr.
Mr. G. Bockhol Mr. P. D. Rushton NORMS I
U. S. N selaar "-late w r---1ssion
~ Mr. $. ). Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. T. A. Reed, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. 8. R. Bonsor Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle l..
L 9611040011 960827 i
_ ____ __.___~
f u,,umaannuur.c o.,-=
~
UCENSEE EVENT REPORT H.ER)
O"' '" *"g'**
- b. 'mim
",." g** f" 7,4 Q"
{
TEXT CONTINUATION 3l'.,1.,aa u.n.n.Mn,= 2,.'.
$'%. 1 e
no w rac e mams m mn
- u. m
. ear. %
- p. m; VEGP - UNIT 1 o is l o j e l o l4 l 2 l4 91 0 01 Q 6 D l1 0 l6 or 0 18
== -
-. = -
.m, m,w im During the subsequent test run of the DG on 3-30-90, one.of the switches (TS-19111) lure secause it subsequently mechanically reset.
trip >ed and would not reset. This appeared to be an inters:ttent fai This switch and the leaking switch (TS-19112) were replaced with new switches. All subsequent testing was conducted with no additional problems.
A test of the jacket water system temperature transient during engine starts was conducted. The purpose of this test was to dt W:atne the actual jacket water temperature at the switch locations with the engine in a normal standby lineup, and then followed by a series of starts without air rolling the engine to replicate the starts of 3-20-90. The test showed that jacket water temperature at the switch location decreased from a standby temperature of 183 degrees F to approximately 154 degrees F and remained steady.
Numerous sensor calibrations (including jacket water temperatures),
i special pneumatic leak testing, and au tiple ins starts and runs 1
were performed under various conditions. In ition, the control j
systems of both engines were subjected to a comprehensive test program.
After completion of the control logic test sequence, an undervoltage test was performed.
Including the undervoltage tests, DGIA has been successfully itarted 15 times and DG18 has been successfully started 14 times as of 5-14-90, with no start failures.
i Based on the above facts, it is concluded that the jacket water high temperature switches were the most probable cause of both trips on l
3-20-90.
E.
ANALYS!$ 0F EVENT The loss of offsite gewer to Class IE bus 15A03 and the failure of DGIA to start aneroperate successfully, coupled with DGIS and RAT 15 being out of l
service for maintenance, resulted in Unit 1 being without AC power to both l
Class IE busses. Ifith both Class IE busses deenergized, the IDEL System could not perfors its required safety function. Based on a noted rate of i
rise in the RC3 temperature of 46 degrees F in 34 minutues, the RCS water would not have been expected to begin boiling until approximately I hour and l
36 minutes after the beginning of the event.
i l
Restoretten of RMR and closure of the contalament equipment hatch were completed well within the estimated I hour and 38 minutes for the projected l
onset of boiling in the RCS. A review of information obtained from the l
Process and Effluent Radiation Monitoring System (PEIDts) and grab sample l
analysis indicated all normal values. As a result of this event, no l
increase in radioactive releases to either the containment or the environment occurred.
l 6,-%
te
\\
7 s
memPONSE TO EOBBY/MO8BAUGH PETITION. SECTION III.4 I.
Petitioners' Alleaations.
Petitioners assert that GPC's Executive Vice President, Mr. R. Patrick Mcdonald, knowingly submitted false testimony in a Department of Labor (" DOL") proceeding commenced under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
(" ERA") by Messrs.
Gary Yunker and John Fuchko (hereinafter "Yunker/Fuchko").
Additionally, petitioners assert that Mr. Hobby advised GPC's counsel that Mr. Mcdonald's proposed testimony was false prior to the DOL hearing and that, when so informed, GPC's counsel advised i
Hobby that his testimony would have to be changed.
Petitioners i
further assert that Mr. Thomas McHenry, a former GPC employee, confirmed Mr. Hobby's assertion that Mr. Mcdonald's testimony was falso based on first hand knowledge.
Finally, petitioners' assert that Mr. Mcdonald falsely testified in an attempt to demonstrate that Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko were not improperly kept out of a GPC position that would participate in the SONOPCO Project.
II.
GPC Response to Petitioners' Alleantions.
The petitioners' allegations are without merit.
1 The Petition paraphrases Mr. Mcdonald's testimony in Yunker/Fuchko as stating that the support _ staffs for Plants Hatch 1
and Vogtle which would participate in the SONOPCO Project were chosen "from the top down."
By characterizing the staffing procedure as "from the top down," Mr. Mcdonald clearly indicated that aanerally the staffs were selected one tier at a time with the vice presidents being selected initially and the vice presidents then selecting the ge~neral managers, who then selected i
the managers, who then selected the supervisors, etc., and that the selections'by the lower and middle level management required the review and approval of the higher levels of management.
It should be noted that, during his deposition, Mr. Mcdonald did not state that staffing was selected in a lock-step, tiered, l
" top down" manner without exception.
Rather, his first response was to a " general, generic" question concerning how the personnel were generally selected:
Q.
I maan, in general, do you know what the process was,
{
the evaluation process?
MR. MILLER:
A general generic question?
Q.
Yes.
A.
The generic question was st..-ting at the top of the organization in each one of those, the persons that head the organizations were selected first.
In that j
case they were Tom Beckham, and Ken McCoy.
And than i
-...- _ ~. - - -...... _ -... -..
d b
they.together in manaaement teams, and in their
' individual organizations selected the next tier of management based upon knowledge, training, experience and demonstrated performance in the area required for the new realigned job.
And that continued down to each layer; they reviewed, and then the selection was proposed hg let's say a middle level manager; reviewed by A higher level manager; And aoproved by the Vice-President in charge of that project.
Mcdonald's Yunker/Puchko Dep. at 43-44'(amphasis supplied).
His second response, indicated that the selection process he described was the " normal process":
Q.
Do you know why my clients weren't offered positions in the nuclear, in the Corporate Security Department?
Not in the nuclear, in tho' Corporate Security Department.
I am talking about --
A.
So you are talking about the Southern Company Services Administrative Department, why they weren't offered i
jobs?
Q.
Right.
A.
I know.this:
That the normal process which I have described to you for the selection of people.
started always at the top.
You pick the man in charge, and he is the one responsible for selecting the people Because you don't assign who works for him.
people to work for somebody.
That is not the practice anywhere within our business.
The person who works for somebody selects the people he works for.
Q.
So, is what you are saying that because there is no Corporate Security manager that is why?
A.
I am saying that that is a logical reason why no one has been selected for any jobs within that department.
l Mcdonald's Yunker/Puchko Dep. at 61-61.
At the trial, Mr. Mcdonald did not use the words " generally" or "normally," but described'a selection procouw which is not the lock-step fashion which petitioners ascribe to his testimony without' exception.
Yunker/Puchko Trial Tr. at 428-29 (e.g. "the
.vice president would get'with the managers, and the managers vould particinate in the selection of the supervisors," (emphasis
- supplied)).
Indeed,-it-is difficult to imagine how, during a
[
complex reorganization of a large enterprise, such a lock-step r
- l. 1 e.
4 g
y w
w
-.n m.,
c p
3 4
' approach to personnel selection could be carried out without exception.
With ona exception,1 Mr. Hobby has admitted during his DOL proceeding that he possesses no independent or. direct personal knowledge.concerning the staffing.
Trial Tr. at 98,'227.
Mr.
j Hobby's only source of information, other than his own i
speculation, is Mr. Tom McHenry, and Mr. McHenry's limited I
personal knowledge of the staffing process actually supports Mr.
Mcdonald's characterization.
Mr. Hobby also acknowledged that the lock-step fashion might well have applied to Messrs. Yunker q
and Fuchho, and he would not have reason to disputa-that characterization.
Trial Tr. at 228.
During the Eghhg proceeding, Mr. McHenry testified that the i
ipersonnel selection process for the new organization was
, conducted in a two-day session by.Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. George Hairston, Mr. Tom Beckham and Mr. Ken McCoy.- Trial Tr. at 284.
Mr. McHenry claims that these executives selected personnel without any substantial consultation with lower levels of l management.
Trial Tr. at 287, 300.
Mr. McHenry concludes, therefore, that personnel were not selected from the " top down".
i ESA McHenry affidavit, Exhibit G to.the Petition.
However, Mr. McHenry admitted at trial that his only lj.
hour period during which he advised the executives concerning personal knowledge of the two-day meeting is derived from a two-j certain candidates.
Trial Tr. at 295.
Mr. McHenry further acknowledged that, other than his two-hour involvement in the a
meeting, he did DEI Participate in the actual selection of personnel.
SAA Trial Tr. at'285.
i j
Furthermore, Mr. McHenry's' testimony at trial supports Mr. Mcdonald's statement.
First, Mr. McHenry conceded that the i
executives'could have consulted with the appropriate lower levels of management concerning personnel selections either prior to or during the meeting.
Trial Tr. at 296-97.
Second, Mr. McHenry l
stated that, during his two-hour exposure to the meeting, the executives contacted Mr. Len Gucwa, the then manager of licensing and engineering for Plant Hatch, concerning the selection of personnel for his organization.
Trial Tr. at 287, 297.
I i
i IMr. Hobby alleged that he knew of some people who "were picked for particular slots, and those people were picked without knowing who their boss'was."
Trial Tr. at 227.
But, Mr. Hobby admitted that he could only point to one specific example of this process.
Trial Tr. at 228.
Mr. Hobby's statement-at most, only evidences that there were some necessary exceptioni to the " top l
down" approach.
i-A
4 1
Mr. Hobby never informed GPC's counsel prior ~to the Yunker/Fuchko hearing that Mr. Mcdonald's explanation of personnel selection was incorrect.
Mr. Hobby alleges that he made such a statement to GPC attorneys during a January 2, 1989 meeting convened to prepare for the Yunker/Puchko hearing.
The GPC attorneys at that meeting were led by Mr. Jay Schaudies and Mr. Don Janney, partners at Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman &
Ashmore. 'The January 2nd meeting commenced with a general session involving about 20-30 GPC employees.
Trial Tr. at 718-19, 766.
During this general session Mr. Mcdonald briefly
. discussed the personnel selection process.
Trial Tr. at 736.
After the general session, the attorn'ays divided the employees into two groups, with Mr. Mcdonald participating in Mr.
Schaudies' group and Mr. Hobby participating in Mr. Janney's group.
Trial Tr. at 723, 756, 766, 768.
Mr. Schaudies and Mr. Janney have stated that Mr. Hobby did not contradict Mr. Mcdonald's description of the selection
. process during either the general session, the breakout session or after such sessions.
Trial Tr. at 724, 758, 768, 769, 771.
Mr. Schaudies and Mr. Janney have both also stated that they did not.tell Mr. Hobby that he would have to change his testimony in the Yunker/Puchko hearing to coincide with Mr. Mcdonald's i
testimony.
Trial Tr. at 724, 772.
Finally, it is clear that Mr. Mcdonald did not improperly J
exclude Yunker and Fuchko from positions as a result of Yunker and Fuchko raising safety. concerns to management.
Mr. Hobby
. testified that he recommended several times that Yunker and Fuchko be terminated and that Mr. Mcdonald had refused to do so.
Trial Tr. at 222-23, 298.
Mr. Hobby admitted that Mr. Mcdonald's persistent refusal to fire Yunker and Fuchko was inconsistent l
with Yunker's and Fuchko's claim that GPC had retaliated against them.
Trial Tr. at 224.
Dispositive of this issue are the results of an NRC Office of Investigations ("OI") investigation j
of the Yunker and Fuchko allegations including the alleged
)
violation of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.7 and alleged willful violations of safeguards reporting requirements.
The NRC notified GPC on i
October 16, 1989, that the OI investigation had revealed no substantive evidence of a violation of Section 50.7 and that the
)
allegations of willful violation of safeguards raporting i
requirements were unsubstantiated.
Egg Exhibit 1.
i III. Conclusion 2 i
Based.on the foregoing, the company concludes that the petitioners' allegations are without merit.
4 4.
i.
j.
i
-n
,,. - -.