ELV-02143, Forwards Addl Info Re 900911 Petition by Mb Hobby & AL Mosbaugh
| ML20064B486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Mcdonald R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064A263 | List: |
| References | |
| ELV-02143, ELV-2143, NUDOCS 9010170110 | |
| Download: ML20064B486 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, _ -.m _. . . _ _ _ _ ._. _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Georg>a Power Company - < < >
' 333 Piecmont Avenue -
Atlanta. GeofDia 30308
; Telephone 404 526 3848 Malling Address: _ ;
40 invemess Center Parkway i I: fbst Office Box 1295 Birmmgham. Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 668-5540 September 28, 1990- . g,,,,j g,,g,,, j R. P. McDoneld ' ELV-02143 ! Executwe Vice President - 0631 : l Nuclear Operations - Docket Nos. 50-424 . 425 ;
-7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
-ATTN: Kenneth Carr, Chairman :
Washington, D. C.- 20555
Dear Mr. Carr:
.V0GTLE' ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - .
REGARDING PETITION OF M. B. HOBBY AND A. L'. MOSBAUGH . Georgia Power Company ("GPC") has received a copy of-a " request for- . i proceedings," without attachments,-filed by Mr.-Marvin Hobby and Mr. Allen Mosbaugh on September 11, 1990. We consider this " request" to be-grounded _'on false, materially misleading, and' inaccurate.. statements. Attached to this-- '
, letter is additional information that is pertinent. to the matters- discussed in '
'their request. Please feel free to contact.me for any additionalLinformation related to these matters-Sincerely, l A : ,
Mr. - R. P. McDonaldt RPM / JAB /gm y Enclosure xc: Georaia Power Comoany - Mr. A. W. Dahlberg
-Mr. W. G. Hairston, III .
Mr. C. K. McCoy Mr. G.- Bockhold, Jr. Mr. P. D. Rushton , Mr. R. M. Odom NORMS < U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. D. S. Hood Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. B. R. Bonser Senior Resident Inspector
;DocGment3Controll,DesD" Counsel for Petitioners -
Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C. n m - , ,, . j84 '!85se 388;se ~ PDC gao/- '
// j;
. . - - - - _ _ _ . . ~ ._. . - . . __._ . - . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ ._
)lf Georgia Powe ENCLOSURE proceedings Mosbaugh on, September , 1990.
"r Company 11 e a ("GPC") has receiv d copy of a " request for 2.206, a regulation which" request" is being treated r Georgia Power. Marvin Hobby and Mr regardless of the underl permits y the Commission as a petiti Company . Allen understands that th consider this " request" ying merits is inaccurate statements anyone to file a request with to be grounded or the on correctness false theof NRCthe allon pursu egatio Mr. Hobby is a former GPC , materially misleading,ns. We and Mosbaugh was placed on admi iadministrative lea 15, 1990 after GPC learned n represent strative employees This taping was and initiated NRC athatives he had tleave with surreptitiou l mpeant full coogtle Electric
("VEGP") . ver Mr. or s y tapensation on September reasons and benefit and withof the NRC r by Mr. Mosbaugh many months out the knowledgeor apparently beginning recorded f his in earl fellow disregard of your for agency. the legit ; . consent of GPC or itsor his own pe and NRC representativesthe and expectations conerned that this unautho open evidences and frank co a blatantemployees i r of co, workers and employees unications Open among fellow work our paramount objective ofeffective zed management behavior will inhibit and r revelation comeswhen gulatory at a time oversight ers andand areandGPC between necessary for frank s commu employee operating this facilitye y.saf l we would benefitthatalla fullerare . concernedcommunications essential forthis strivingIndeed, achieving toe facilitate ter bt D a nght actions equest" at the UPrior exchangetooffiling observations their and "r from GPC. opinions Mr. Hobby and Mr was taken Theseagainstaction them. . S. Dep,artment s alleged that ofimpe Labor . Mosbaugh ind ependently claims May 25 1990, were t without The Department meritrmissib of Labor (le reorgan,ization, hat The Mr. Department Hobby's job seeking of Labor positi monetary on compens without know activities. " ledgeand or management's decision " DOL") co determined eir that th After consideration onncerning "was the eliminated due to mconcluded, in a s by letter dated July 24aofseparate Mr. Hobby's investigation engagement anagement reorganization was in made start-up phase e1990, of the that Mr. plant"were Mosbaugh's the result of plan,n d protected assigned to training, and no, the, planned compared to the Department o r tmanagement e of Labor co reassignments f that hi Managers annual staffperformance. employees "rmal variationsowing In a separate in thethedutie end of urn the to duty of manag activity. This (September in-Training 21 complaint alsoprogram were ievaluation complaint, ar Mr. Mosbaughand lossclaies of GPC c m of line determinations, by the was 01990nfluenced letter found by from by the his 00L00Lengaging to to upon All i assignment med to a nbe protected are currently pending. 0L have been appealed b en L. Mosbaugh, attachment 1)without meri y Mr. Hobby and Mr. Mosba . These ugh and E-1-1 a-F'~ ,ew" -
v.; E' g, . ENCLOSURE Georgia Power Company ("GPC") has received a copy of a " request for prrceedings," without attachments,_ filed by Mr.-Marvin' Hobby.and Mr. Allen Mesbaugh on September 11,-1990. Georgia Power _ Company understands that this
"'tequest" is being treated by the Commission as a petition pursuant to 10 CFR-
..206, a regulation which permits anyone to file a; request with the NRC regardless of the underlying merits or the correctness of- the' allegations. : We consider this " request" to -be grounded on false, materially misleading,!and' inaccurate statements.
Mr. Hobby is a former GPC1 employee and Mr.LMosbaugh is currently on: administrative leave from the Vogtle Electric, Generating Plant ("VEGP").- Mr. Mosbaugh was placed on administrative-leave with full compensation on September 15, 1990 after'GPC learned that he.had. surreptitiously tape-recorded his fellow = employees and NRC representatives over many months beginning in early_1990., This taping was initiated by Mr. Mosbaugh;apparently for hi:5 own personal reasons and benefit and without the knowledge or consentaf GPC or its employees or of the NRC-representatives. Such action, . in our vies,u evidences a' blatant disregard for the legitimate norms and expectations of coworkers and employees-of your agency. We are concerned that this. unauthorized behavior will inhibit: the open and frank communications among fellow workers and between GPC employees - q and NRC representatives. Open and frank communications are necessary for ' effective management and regulatory oversight-and are essential- for achieving; our paramount objective of operating this facility: safely.- Indeed, this revelation comes at a time when we are striving to facilitate better; _ communications in the belief that a' fuller exchange of-observations and? opinions 4 would benefit all concerned. Prior to filing their " request", Mr. Hobby-and Mr. Mosbaugh independently,- brought actions at the U. S. Department of Labor seeking-monetary compensation from GPC. These actions alleged that impermissible adverse employment action was taken against them. The Department of Labor ~(" DOL") determined that their. claims were without merit. The Department of Labor concluded, in a11etter dated May 25, 1990, that Mr. Hobby's job position "was eliminated due to' management-reorganization, and management's decision concerning the: reorganization was'made without knowledge or consideration of Mr. Hobby's engagement'in protected . activities." After a separate investigation,-_ the Department of Labor concluded, by letter dated July 24, 1990, that Mr. Mosbaugh's: changes in work' assignments "were the result of planned management reassignments following the-end of the start-up phase of the plant, the planned return to duty of managers. temporarily assigned to training, and normal . variations in the duties of line managers compared to staff employees." In a separate complaint..Mr. Mosbaugh claimed' that his annual performance evaluation and loss of GPC car upon assignment to:a Manager-in-Training program were influenced by his engaging'in protected activity. This complaint also was found by the. DOL to be without merit: (September 21, 1990 letter from D0L to Allen L. Mosbaugh, attachment 1). These determinations by the D0L have been' appealed by Mr. Hobby and Mr.-Mosbaugh and are currently pending. E-1-1
p .a ,
, I,]
,\
}
H
-J i
j ENCLOSURE (CONTINUED) . l We believe that the timing-and substance 'of the " request for proceeding" clearly 1 demonstrate that petitioners' cardinal and controlling interest is obtaining- y compensation or other relief which they contend-is due them'in the DOL ; proceeding. For example, our understanding is that Mr. Hobby-identified his i concerns to the NRC in the early Spring of 1990_ (Items 1, 2 and 4' of;the! ' 1
" request"). Relative to Mr. Mosbaugh,. the General Manager of. the' VEGP 1 affirmatively solicited concerns;from Mr. Mosbaugh in the presence of the;NRC !
Resident Inspector. The General Manager also ordered Mr. Mosbaugh toisubmit hie concerns to the NRC after Mr. Mosbaugh. indicated that- he'was withholding- 1 concerns (letter of July 6,1990 from George Bockhold, Jr. to A.c L. Mosbaugh, ; L attachment 2). 1 Georgia Power Company has -kept the NRC: fully, informed about the. claims of Mrn Hobby. Attached are copies of letters dated Mayc17,1990:(attachment 3) and- a June 22, 1990 (attachment 4) from the licensee;and June 21,--1990L(attachment 5) a from Region II which reflect the NRC's timely and' detailed monitoringLof. this - , matter. Information. previously provided to the NRC' included- theLallegations of : i Mr. Hobby that the license to operate GPC nuclear. plants '.had been '." illegally. : transferred" and that Georgia Power allegedly had misled the NRC:about the.line !; management " chain of command" at the VEGP.; These allegations; appear toibe at pretext and are without merit. As _early as March,1988L GPC representatives ; ; briefed the NRC on the project organization contemplated for theithree nuclear: 1 plants on the Southern Company system (attachment- 6 correspondence. dated March 9' ; and attachment 7 correspondence dated March 25, -1988). JThe VEGP Final: Safety. ; i Analysis Report revision for November, ~1988 (attachment 8,- applicable: portions) : spelled out this project organization, prior to the Unit.2- ful1: power hearing on ; l- March 30, 1989. We believe that.the petitioners' allegations.of " perjured testimony" stem from Mr. Hobby's personal animus towards GPC's Executive Vice- ; President, including Mr. Hobby's misperception :that.the Executive Vice President a eliminated Mr. Hobby's position within GPC. This is' simply:not: correct. 1 With respect to Mr. Mosbaugh's allegations that GPC made ."known false-statements" to the NRC and that GPC consciously or willfully;took-actions which ; violated NRC requirements, with few exceptions these matters have either been; - investigated extensively and thoroughly by the NRC'and/or arerthe subject of. ! ongoing NRC review. For many of these items (such as.6(e)(1), '(ii), and (iii)- 1 and 8), the NRC has already expressed a preliminary determination that no; f ' :
" wrongdoing" was involved, although technical deficiencies 'may.have occurred. 4 Mr. Mosbaugh was well aware of these preliminary determinations-prior to.the -
filing of the " request". (letter dated August 21,.1990 from George Bockhold, i Jr. to plant employees attachment 9). We can only conclude that' the petitioners ! consciously disregarded this knowledge in an attempt to_ color their'" request." j A brief review of other technical . items _ demonstrates that petitioners have .no , basis and indeed rely upon incomplete'or inaccurate facts. With regard to item 3, dealing with " successful starts" of the diesel generators following.the March i 20, 1990 event at the VEGP, the NRC's Operational-. Safety Inspection ("051")- t l team, during an intensive review over several weeks.in mid-August, 1990, E-1-2 :
=
1 i j 1
- - . , , , ,e..me .-- -,,.. .- , 4. ,, y... . . . . . .,_.-,%o.. - -
_I__
/, y. .
l
,c y[
l ENCLOSURE'(CONTINUED). . l l . - l L addressed this issue. As a- result, the " independent . investigation" requested by; j the petitioners- (page 10 of'the " request"), had already been undertaken by . ' technical representatives of the NRC assisted by.01-personnel. Furthermore, GPC l l had supplied the team with detailed-information concerning;the matter, including the apparent basis of conflicting data used:in submittals (attachment 10 dated , 8/22/90). Also, prior to'the' filing:of:the " request", the NRC had been provided _ 1 additional information by GPC to clarify any remaining ambiguities which may: 1 have arisen. in. technical discussions of- the " successful: starts," " valid:and- . l non-valid failures" and " valid ~ and non-valid tests." (August 30','1990l letter to l Region II Regional Administrator.from W. G. Hairston, III,-attachment.11).e In addition, the augmented inspection team-(AIT)'and the incident investigating ~ team (IIT) were aware of the-diesel generator test starts during this. period and : were performing an independent investigation of this. issue. .Also, GPC personnel -! had numerous discussions with the NRC Resident Inspector as well as the:NRC-Regional personnel concerning the diesel start issue. Item 5 was also reviewed by the OSI team ~during August,: .1990. Although.a final: ; report has not been issued by the team, our understanding is(that.the petitioners' allegation was' determined to be unfounded. : In addition to items 6(e)(1),-(ii), and'(iii) and item'8, several other-items- . identified in the " request" are the subject of' pending NRC review or prior enforcement action. First, item 6(a) is substantially the same as .an anonymous -! allegation received by the NRC on or about early January,11990 and was .. investigated by 'the Region II' 01- Field Office through- numerous' sworn: Interviews ' and exhaustive document review. GPC has cooperated fully withLthis effort,. _ . including the facilitation of scheduling interviews of GPC employees. ETo:the ! extent that the " request" alleges .that' the public safety is. endangered by the - opening of the " dilution valves," we note that on February 20, 1990-the'NRC i issued Technical Specification changes to expressly authorize:such opening. ' This authorization, based on a review of GPC's' analysis and other i considerations, concluded that the changes "willl not have any adverse effect on-safety. " ' Second, item 6(b) was cited as a non-compliance on April- 26,.1990-(VEGP .. i u Inspection Report 90-05) after a . technical non-compliance was discovered by the L NRC Resident Inspector. The petitioner's " request" appears to criticize VEGP l management for discussing GPC's long-held 'and reasonable interpretation of this
- surveillance related Technical. Specification with the NRC representatives.
After those discussions, GPC acceded to the NRC's interpretation'(attachment 12 ; E is GPC's Response to the Inspection Report dated May.24, 1990). l l E-1-3
- $'r
- - , . , - - , , --.--i -<.a....- ~ . - , . . r
, 1 R
ENCLOSUREL(CONTINUED)' ! Third,'while item 6(d) lacks sufficient specificity to allow clear - identification of the alleged event, we categorically deny the allegation:thct i on March 22, 1990 GPC employees were instructed to violateL Technical' Specifications in order to improve the schedule. Furthermore, the OSI generally 1 reviewed -operational practicesi and policies relative to "taking":LERs and. - entrance into Limiting Conditions of.0perations-(LCO). i Item 6(c) claimed that Vogtle Unit I came close to having= an inadvertent 1 .i criticality while shutdown and that attempts' were made to concealf these facts. GPC acknowledges that the calculated shutdown margin was in error due to a ' :; procedural misapplication. However, this error neverlresulted-in the unit being. close to criticality. <This error was identified by reactor engineering: . personnel. Numerous operating log entr.iescand shutdown: margin calculations. ; document the fact that no attempt was made to conceal this event and that no L ' violation of the Technical Specification shutdown margin requirments-occurred;. - At the time, the NRC-Senior Resident Inspector was informed of this situation. Adequate technical specification shutdown margin was always maintained despite-the initial calculation error. Additionally, the shut down margin procedure was revised shortly following this incident to correct the cause of.the calculation: ' error. Item 7 addresses the control of " safeguards" information atLoffices of GPC'and-Southern Company Services employees:in Birmingham,. Alabama. GPC identified the failure to properly handle this-information and previouslyl reported the - : non-compliances to the NRC under 10 CFR 73.71(c) (see attachment 13, Reply to ! NOV 50-424/90-11, page 3, dated July 27, 1990 and attachment'14 LER _ 50-424/1990-03S-1 dated August 22e 1990). With respect to information provided i to the NRC at a May 22, 1990 Enforcement Conference, one of the petitioners (Mr. ! Mosbaugh) was directly responsible, as one of his specifically assigned-tasks, to prepare GPC's presentation to'the NRC: staff and thereafter attended the , Conference. We find it-incredible that now, months 'after_ the Conference and- t l after numerous opportunities for Mr. Mosbaugh to raise the issue with NRC ! ! representatives, Mr. Mosbaugh holds a bona-fide concern associated with GPC's i presentation. Item 9 states in an extremely-vague fashion that GPC's n'uclear facilities. are l operated through non-conservative and questionable management practices. Apparently this item is based on the previous eight allegations._ As the foregoing discussions demonstrate, the allegations are simply not true.-- ' Georgia Power Company maintains full and-open communication with the NRC, _ including reporting of events as-required by the NRC's' regulations. We stand ready to provide you with any further information which you may need in youri ; review of the " request" and will. respond fully, as provided by Commission practice, upon formal receipt of the request. l E-1-4 4 i
a y"- .
^
qy c, B f.l' ..
' 1
>:i The Chief' Administrative Law! Judge:
U.S. Department of-Labor- , i L Suite 700 Vanguard Building 1111 - 30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC- 80036-Unless a telegram is received-by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within' the. five-day periodi this; notice; of determination 1will become the final order. of , the 8eeretary of Labeef dismissing' your complaint. By copy of this letterif 0eorgia Power' Company is being m 1 advised of' the determination in this: case and ~ the x right to e? . hearing. A copyf of this letter has; also' been .sent to: the Chief' l Administrative -Law Judge with: your complaint. If you -decide to i request a hearing, it.will be necessary for you.to send copiesiefj the telegram to Soorgia Power Company and to me-at the following; address: 1 Suite 668 > 1876 Peachtree 8t. , N.E. l Atlanta, Georgia 30387, Af ter I receive- a copy of your request,- gHbreprf.te' preparations : for the hearing can' be made. It you havelany questionsi deinot- 3 hesitate to call me. } lt should be made elear to all parties l thatsthe U.Si DepartmentI of l i The
~
Labor does not represent any: of the -parties <in a hearing.- hearing is an adversarial proceeding:-in which the parties willEbo ; allowed an opportunity to presentl their evidence for the! record. 1 The Administrative Law Judge who- conducts the hearing wil1~ issue a-recommended decisien to the Secretary based Don' the J evidepos, - testimony, and arguments presented.by the parties'at1the: hearing. ' The final order of . the 8eeretary will- then be issued after consideration of 'the Administrative ~ Law. Judge.'s recoamended decision and the record developed at the- hearing and1will' aither- . provide for_ appropriate relief or dismiss the complaint. - 81 ly i an el . Bremer District Director : CC: A. William Dahlberg President & CEO Georgia Power Company 333 piedmont Ave., N.E. Atlanta, Ga. 30308 . 3
h&7 o ATTACHMENT 1: g 8"PF"'8 8'd" "'"" l U.S.DepedmontofLabor Wege and How CNem 1NI PeachtrM StrHt, NJ.
, Aserea, Osorgia' 8esef l
1 1
-I CERTIFIED MAIL' - RETURN - RECEIPT REQUESTED.
21 8eptesbar 19901
+
Wr.: Allen Mosbaugh y 1701 Kings Court m l Grovetown . Georgia _ 30813 ret Allen L. Mosbaugh vs Georgin Power Company Dear Mr. Mosbaugh-I This letter is to notift you of the . resultsiof - our compliance In a previousLletter-from this. office,. l action in the above case. i Fou were advised that your complaint. was received > on August 28i ' 1990. We enclosed copies ofEnergyRegulations _,? 89 CPR Part 34; and the ReorganizationE Act with that-pertinent section of the letter. Our initial of forts to conciliate the t matter didinvestigation A fact-finding' not result in was
= a-autually agreeable settlement. investigation did- not verify that I then conducted. Our actions- comprising your. t was a factorit-in-istheour-- conclusion- that discriminationConsequently, your complaint.
allegations cannot be substantiated for the following reasons: Your performance evaluation was! based on your supervisor's '! assessment of your work and was'not; influenced'by Four protected activitt. This' evaluation.coveredLtwo quarters-t k of the current year and'aar change in either: direction prior.
~
to the year-end evaluation. This evaluation had no effect on- J your pay or employment status. - . 1 s The loss of your company: car was directly Youdue weretoassigned your assign a = l ment to Hanager in Training school. category I car. All other employees. assigned category I- -l cars also gave up-those cars upon entering Manager in-Train-ing school. l This letter is notification to you that, if, you wish to. appeal the above findings, you have a right to a formal hearing-on the record.< To exercise this right you must, within five-(5) ' calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by telegram to:
. I
.t '
o
7- <
~
~~
f ATTACHMENT 2: !
' LInterofflee Correspondence ' Georgia $1wer k I -
i l is l OATE:- July 6, 1990 J RE: QualityConcerns ! FROM: George.Rockhold, Jr. ' T0:' A. L. Mosbaugh .[
. On. July; 3, :1990.. you completed identifying your quality; concerns to Lee Glenn.< but you stated- that you .had other concerns that you would? 4 only identify to the NRC.~ . Geor s
- of its nuclear plants: as it.'s;gia .highest Power-l1priority.31!f Company: t.considers i the safety' anyl individual 4 has'eny'1egitimate concerns regarding safety, we require that this concern 1 be immediatelyL identified in order' to permit: appropriate .and timelyf :
corrective: action. -If: you choose' not' to . report themLto. management.~or: 0 the Quality concern Program, they must be reported to the-NRC. Consistent; 1 with' this policy (which you; acknowledged understanding i off on . Aug.- 1.- 1 1984), we require that you immediately -notify the NRC' of: any legitimate; concern that you may~not have identified to us. fi With NRC residents, I have discussed the fact that you have concerns i that you are only willing to discuss withe them.- NRC residentsihave ' always 'been willing ,to innediately . Addressilegitimate safety concerns with any member of our-- staff. - Please immediately.Laddress 'your -concerns to the NRC. I expect- this assignment: to receive nyour immediate1 and- ' l', highest attention. Please let me know your progress. . including -your completion of this-task. N[ , o G8:gww , I l xc: C. K McCoy. , Ron Aiello ' L Doug Starkey o l Lee Glenn
.I i
I l
-{
i m._ _ -.. -- ____m . _ _ _ _ _ -}}