ML20129H040

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:25, 6 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Minutes of 900510 Plant Review Board Meeting 90-67.Submits List of Items That Were Unanimously Recommended for Approval W/Comments
ML20129H040
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 05/10/1990
From:
GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
GEORGIA POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20128F432 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-95-81 NUDOCS 9610070410
Download: ML20129H040 (8)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ _ _._.._._._ ___ _.__ .__ _ _ _

VEGP PLANT REVIEW BOARD MEETINt, MINUTES  ;

MEETING NO. 90-67 DATE 5/10/90 PAGE 1 OF 3 NEETING CONVENED 1:20 AM/PMt MEETING ADJOURNED 2:05 AM/PM

( o VIA TELECON) j THIS MEETING CNAIRED BY: l

() CHAIRMAN (x) VICE CHAIRNAN A. L. Mosbaugh VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: J. G. Aufdenkampe M. N. Horten J. E. Swartzwalder H. M. Handfinger ,

PRR SECRETARY C. Cross Tynan NIN-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENTt M. B. Lackey E. M. Danneallier G. R. Frederick VOTING ALTERNATES PRESENT:

P. A. Cure FOR R. L. LeGrand FOR NON-VOTING ALTERNATES PRESENT:

FOR

. FOR FOR FOR -

FOR GUESTS / TECHNICAL ADVISORS:

A. G. Rickman _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - . . -.

I T. E. Webb PRB ACTION ITEMS OPENED: NONE l

PRB ACTION ITEMS CIDSED: NONE PRD MINUTES APPROVED  : 90-65 PRR SECRETARY PRB CHAIRMAN

, 9610070410 960827 '

PDR FOIA (FORM NAME=PRBAGEND)

WILMOTH95-81 PDR

lv

! PR8 90-67 Page 2 of 3 i

i j PRB MEETING MI WTES CONT! W ATION SHEET j A. Meeting Minutes 90-65 were unanimously approved as presented.

j B.

The following items were unanimously recommended for approval. No unreviewed

safety question involved.
19212-C, Rev. 2 "FR-S.2 Response to Loss of Core Shutdown"

! 19222-C, Rev. 5 "FR-C.2 Response to Degraded Core Cooling" i

19235-C, Rev. 4, "FR-H.5 Response to Steam Generator Low Level" i

00057-C, Rev. 5 " Event Investigation" 18007-C, Rev. 5, " Chemical and Volume Control System Malfunction" i LDCR FS 90 023, Revise FSAR Section 13.1.2.2.2 page 13.1.2-4 to add i

Assistant General Manager - Plant Support to the line

{. of succession of responsibility for plant operation.

l l Transmittal Letter - Emergency Plan Revision 12 (ELV-01591) iJ Transmittal Letter - Emergency Plan Revision 13 (ELV-01592) ii LDCR SP 90-03, (SAFEGUARDS)

,3 1

,t 00656-C, Rev. 1, " Vehicle Control" l C. The following items were unanimously recommended for approval with comment.

! No unreviewed safety question involved.

l l 00262-C, Rev. 8, " Control of Chemicals / Fluids" Section 2.1.2 -

) Clarify and use exception listi . Section 2.6 -

{ include Domin. Water Building. ection 4.5.2.2 -

1 Include writeup / reference of HP signoff acceptance i

of contaminated chemicals. Generic cosmient - Delete i

"I" from Nuclear Specialist title. Include ensuring MSDS on file prior to entering PA in Receipt -

Inspect. ion,precadura - J. E. Aufdenkampe to take action.

l l 00260-C, Rev. 6, " Hazardous Substance and Waste Control". Section 2.22 j - Definition of critical areas should be modified to address this specific procedure. Section 9.1.3 -

correctreference(8.9.1shouldbe8.8.1).

) Letter to NRC - Site Area Emergency Corrective Actions (ELV-01632). Ensure

Corrective Actions are completed as stated prior to this letter being issued.
General Manager needs to determine if clarification provided in LER should j also be included in this letter (Diesel starts).

]

k

PRB 90-67

' Page 3 of 3

0. The board unanimously concurred with the reportability determination for the following Deficiency Cards.

4 1-90-0149 1-90-0242 1-90-0243 2-90-0046 2-90-0048 2-90-0049 Meeting Adjourned l

l b

i.

m.

h aum ao -

1 R EC 'D i To: Ken Brockman #87 From: John Rogge i

Subject:

GPC Heeting with Alan Hosbaugh i

On June 19, 1990 at 9:30 am I met with George Bockhold and

~

[ Alan Hosbaugh to discuss the technical issues of his recent quality

! concerns. Mr. Mosbaugh has filed a complaint with the Department i of Labor. The meeting was called by Mr. Bockhold to solicit all

the technical quality concerne so GPC could verify that appropriate i action had been taken. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that his lawer had i advised him not to discuss information pertaining to the filing, j but he would discuss technical issues. The technical issues 1 identified by Mr. Mosbaugh were the FAVA Quality Concern, Diesel Air Quality, and Diesel Realibility. The meeting concluded with l

, Mr. Hosbaugh stating that he was reviewing previous concerns and

! would be identifing them to GPC by the normal methods established I for handling them.

, At the start of ~the meeting I was allowed to read the two page

! complaint filed. The complaint was to establish that Mr. Mosbaugh

was performing protected activities and had been removed from his i current assignment and responsibilities. It did not identify i specific concerns, but indicated that concerns had been submitted, i Three concerns were discussed at the meeting in brief as

! follows: )

i 1. FAVA Quality Concern. Mr. Hoobaugh stated that this was 1

) one of the issues. He had an additional concern that when he tried to access the file last Friday that he could not. I asked if he '

! had been denied access and learned that the file was removed from

the site and was in the GPC lawers office. His concern was with  !

! the ability of the file to remain intact. At the end of the 1 meeting Mr. Bockhold clarified that the quality concern program included legal review and advise, but did not include access by the alleger due to confidente.lity of those interviewed in resolving the 4

concern. The FAVA concern also involves part 21, 50.72 and 50.73 potential reporting violations. Mr. Mosbaugh was also concerned

! that the investigation was not independent because Mr. Bockhold i took over the investigation. Mr. Bockhold prompted his memory that i Paul Rushton performed the technical part and he made dicisions on 4 i the management of the investigation.

l 2. Diesel Realibility. Mr. Mosbaugh abated that he had i concerns with the starts and failures of the 1A & IB from March 20 I to now and how the issue was resolved. He asked way for instance

! a revised LER had not been sent in. Mr. Bockhold stated that a

! decision was made to submit a complete revision and not just a 4 count change. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that the revision had been in l corporate for over a month with no action.

j NOTE 1: In the afternoon of June 19, Mr. Hosbaugh met with me j in my office to convey additional information that he was not at 1 ease with in stating in front of Mr. Bockhold. He told me that the i material was falso and significant. The falseness could be

' considered careless and possibly careless disregard. Documents i that are false are the LER regarding the site area emergency, COA

M

/

1

t j

3 response and the slides used in a presentation to the NRC. These documents stated that they had 18 starts without failures when the number was more like 11. The LER revision will be misleading in that the new numbers will include successful starts up to the time l of revision. The original error can be attributed to carelessness in allowing an inexperienced person count the starts when the '

information was necessary to support a release from a COA. The

verbal presentation to the region to release the plant for criticality contained this wrong information. The written response i

to the COA was more misleading by not revealing that a problem i existed. He felt that the delays in submitting a revised LER where I related to completing the IIT hearing before the Commissioners and that the slowness could be construed to be willful.  :

i NOTE 2: On the morning of June 20, Mr. Bockhold came by to i clarify the GPC action that I may not be aware of. While the error i in the counting was evident the resolution of how to count diesel starts and testa results was not. The operators who collected the data were counting successive starts when the diesel started and a

ready to load light came on. In order to determine to a Valid or i Invalid test result the procedures were not clear regarding a 4 Safety Injection or Black Out condition for the diesel. The issue
e how to properly evaluate the data was the issue and not just a
simple recount. Corporate decided that a entire revision was necessary to properly present the information. Mr. Bockhold said that their were no residents onsite to inform last week, but Ken L

McCoy had talked to Ken Brockman and George Hairston had talked to )

Mr. Ebneter.

4'

3. Diesel Air Quality. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that he had a concern with diesel air quality regarding the humidity or dew point. Mr. Bockhold stated that Mike Horton who worked for him at

} the time got the information from Cooper Industries. Mr. Mosbaugh

replied that he had met with him (Bockhold) and expressed the concern that since we did not know the air quality history that the effect on sensors and equipment could not be determined.

Note: The meeting did not discuss what Cooper Industries had advised the plant of or any other details of the issue.

The last subject was directed at determining if any other .

concerns existed. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that he was not prepared to l

discuss any new concerns. He stated that he was reviewing the past i

i and would raise any new concerns through the GPC channels, j' 4

, On June 20, when Mr. Bockhold met with me he stated that Lee  !

Glenn was now assigned to do a independent review and that Mr.

Mosbaugh was now assigned the primary task of identifying any j further concerns he has.

i John Rogge l

4 I

1 To: Ken Brockman ty C from: Jonn Rogge

Subject:

GPC Meeting wi th Alan Moscaugn

~ . .

On June 19, 1990, at 01:0 am I met with George Bockhold and Alan Moscaugn to discuss the tecnni cal issues of his recent Quality con cern s . Mr. Moscaugn has fileo a complain t with the Departmen t o f Labor. The mee ting was called by Mr. Backhold to solici t all the technical quality concerns so GPC could verify that appropriate action had been taken. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that his lawer had advised him not to discuss in forma tion pertaining to the filing, but he would discuss technical issues. The technical issues iden ti fied by Mr. Mosbaugh were the FAVA Quality Concern. Diesel Air Quality, and Diesel Realibility. The meeting concluded wi th Mr. Mosbaugh s ta ting that he was reviewing previous concerns and would be iden ti fing them to GPC cv the normal m_ethods established for handling them.

At the start of the meeting I was allowed to read the two page complaint filed. The complaint was to establish that Mr.

Mosbaugh was performing protected activi ties and had been removed from his current assignmen t and responsibili ties, it aid not iden ti fy speci fic concerns, but indicated that concerns had been submi t ted.

Three concerns were discussed a t the meeting in orief as follows:

1. FAVA Quality Concern. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that this was one of the issues. He had an addi tional concern that when he tried to access the file last Friday that he could not. I asked if he had been denied access and learned that the file was .

removed from the site and was in the GPC lawers office. His concern was with the ability of the file to remain intact. At the end of the meeting Mr. Bockhold clari fied that the quality concern program included legal review and advise, but did not inc'Jude access by the alleger due to con fiden tali ty of'those interviewed in resolving the concern. The FAVA concern also involves part 21, 50. 72 and 50. 73 poten tial reporting viola tions.

Mr. Mosbaugh was also concerneo that the inves tiga tion was not independent because Mr. Bockhold took over the inves tiga tion.

Mr. Bockhold prompted his memory that Paul Rushton performed the technical part and he made dicisions on the management of the in ves tiga tion .

2. Diesel Realibility. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that he had concerns with the starts and failures of the 1A & 2B from March 20 to now and how the issue was rekolved. He asked why for instance a revised LER had not been sent in. Mr. Bockhold stated that a decision was made to submi t a complete revision and not just a count change. Mr. Mosbaugh stated that the revision had been in corporate for over a month wi th no action.

NOTE 1: In the a f ternoon of June 19, Mr. Mosbaugh met with

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

i i

I '

2 .

me in my office to convey adoi tional in f orma tion that he was not a t ' ease wi th in stating :n fronc of Mr. Bockholc. He told me l nat the material was f alse anc signi ficant. The falseness could 2

ce conszoerea careless and poss2bly careless cisregaro.

Documents that are false are the LER regarcing the site area j emergency, CCA response and the slides used in a presentation to i che NRC. These documents stated that they nao le starts without i' failures unen the numoer was more like 11. The LER revision will be misleading in that the new numbers w111 2nclude successful ,

l starts up to the time of rev2 52 cn. The original error can be i

attributed to carelessness in allowing an inexperienced person \

l count the Starts when the informa tion was necessary to support a release from a COA. The verbal presentation to the region to i

release the plant for criticality contained this wrong in forma tion . The wri t ten response to the CDA was more misleading by not revealing that a problem existed. He felt that the delays i

in submi t ting a revised LER where rela ted to completing the IIT 1

hearing before the Commissioners and that the sl~owness could be II construed to De willful.

l NOTE :: On the morning of June 20, Mr. Bockhold came by to

clari fy the GPC action that I may not be aware of. While the
  • error in the counting was eviden t the resolution of how to count The operators who diesel starts and tests results was not.

collected the data were counting successive starts when the diesel started and a ready to load light came on.- In order to detas'mine a Valid or Invalid test result the procedures were not clear u~egarding a Safety Injection or Black Out condition for the diesel. The issue of how to properly evaluate the data'was the issue and not just a simple recoun t. < Corpora te decided tha t an entire revision was necessary to properly present the in forma tion . Mr. Backhold said tha t no residents were onsite to inform last week, but Ken McCoy had talked to Ken Brockman and George Hairston had talked to Mr. Ebneter.

3. Diesel Air Quality. Mr..Mosbaugh stated that he had a concern with diesel air quality regarding the humidi ty or dew point. Mr. Bockhold stated that Mike Horton who worked for him at the time got the information from Cooper Industries. Mr. .

Mosbaugh replied that he had met with him (Backhold) and \

expressed the concern that since we did not know the air quality history that the effect on sensors and equipment could not be l i

determined.

Ndte: The meeting did not discuss what Cooper Industries j had advised the plant of or any other details of the issue. l 1

The last subject was directed at determining if any other concerns existed. Mr. Musbaugh He stated that he was not prepared s'ta ted that he was reviewing the to discuss any new concerns. I past and would raise any new conierns through the GPC channels.

On June 20 -when Mr. Bockhold met with me he stated tha t Lee i

Glenn was now assigned to ao a independent review and tha t Mr.

Mosbaugh was now asrigned the primary task of identifying any l

l

n a

~

furiner Concern 5 he naS.

<l/ A

/ . _

c.

A John Rogge i

l i

i l

l l

1 j

  1. it U

i l

l l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20129H040&oldid=2887958"