ML20045G932
| ML20045G932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#393-14109 2.206, CLI-93-15, NUDOCS 9307160157 | |
| Download: ML20045G932 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _.
i MM I
v l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'93 JUL 14 l,
- q commissioners:
Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C.
Rogers Forrest J.
Remick E.
Gail de Planque l
)
d $4 In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-321 e_t al.
)
50-366
)
50-424 (Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units
)
50-425 1 & 2; Vogtle Electric
)
Generating Plant, Units
)
(10 C.F.R. 5 2.206) 1 & 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-9 3 - 15 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's partial 1
decision under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206, DD-93-08, 37 NRC (Apr. 26, 1993), is pending before the commission for possible review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.206(c).
For the reasons stated in this order, the Commission is vacating the staff's partial decision and remanding the matters decided therein to the staff for further consideration.
The staff's partial decision responds to a petition filed by Allen L.
Mosbaugh and Marvin B. Hobby in September 1990, and further supplemented in October 1990 and July 1991, which asked for initiation of proceedings and other enforcement action against Georgia Power Company (GPC).
The petitioners based their 9307160157 930714 7/
}MO PDR ADOCK 05000321 G
PDR m
i 8
4
)
2 i
petition on various allegations of false statements, willful violations of NRC requirements, and other misconduct.
In DD 1
[
08, the staff denied the petition with respect to certain of the i
j petitioners' allegations which the staff believed were capable of I
i final resolution.
However, the staff declined to reach a i
determination with respect to allegations of unlawful discrimination against Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh which are related to pending proceedings before the United States j
Department of Labor and to other allegations of wrongdoing which are still under consideration by the NRC staff.
In addition to his filing of the section 2.206 petition, Mr.
j Mosbaugh has been admitted as an intervenor in a proceeding on i
i the transfer of operating authority over the Vogtle Electric 1
j Generating Plant from GPC to Southern Nuclear Operating Company 4
j (Southern Nuclear).'
Among the bases for his admitted I
consolidated contention in the adjudicatory proceeding are the allegations also contained in the section 2.206 petition that GPC l
and Southern Nuclear had consummated an unlawful de facto i
transfer of control to Southern Nuclear of the operating licenses i
1 for the Vogtle and 4.auch facilities, and that GPC's executive 1
vice president in a meeting with NRC staff on January 11, 1991, made material false statements about the formation of Southern j
Nuclear.
The staff denied the petition on the merits with 1 LBP-93-5, 37 NRC 96 (1993)(appeal pending before the Conmission).
Mr. Hobby also petitioned to intervene in the transfer proceeding, but was denied standing to intervene.
He has not appealed the denial of his intervention.
~-.-.-
i J-3 I
t
]
respect to these matters in DD-93-08.
See slip op. at 5-17 and i
53.
4 The Commission has generally discouraged use of section I
2.206 procedures as an avenue for deciding matters that are under consideration in a pending adjudication.
Thus, the Commission l
ordinarily would expect the staff to deny a section 2.206 i
petition that raises the same issues that are being considered in
}
a pending adjudication on the basis of the pendency of the
)
identical matters in a proceeding involving the same licensee or 1
i facility.2 This general rule is not intended to bar petitioners from seeking immediate enforcement action from the staff in circumstances in which the presi' ding officer in a proceeding'is i
not empowered to grant such relief.
Moreover, we recognize here
]
that Mr. Mosbaugh has not invoked section 2.206 to avoid a pending adjudication and that his section 2.206 petition seeks relief with respect to issues and facilities that are not before j
the Licensing Board in the pending transfer proceeding.
- However,
]
in view of the overlap and similarity of some issues between the l
section 2.206 petition and the transfer proceeding (particularly j
those addressed in sections II.A. and II.B. of DD-93-08), the staff's final determination of the common issues should take into-4 i
i i
2 See General Pub. Utils. Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island i:
Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
}
Station), CLI-85-4, 21 NRC 561, 563-65 (1985); Pacific Gas &
Elec. Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-3 81-6, 13 NRC 443 (1981).
4
-...,,,m,,.
-4
..-..,e,,.,_.,._,..,.,,.,_y,,-m,,,
,,...m,
,.,.e-,,.y...
,y
i 4
j account the Licensing Board's findings and the outcome of the transfer proceeding.3 Apart from the commonality of some issues decided in DD 08 with pending issues in the adjudicatory proceeding, a common l
thread runs throughout the allegations raised in the section f
2.206 petition.
The issues raised in the petition generally
)
concern the integrity of GPC or Southern Nuclear officers and the corporate organization responsible for operation of the Hatch and Vogtle plants.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, rather than address the issues in the section 2.206 petition in a piecemeal fashion, the staff should reach a determination of all issues in an integrated manner after consideration of the remaining matters raised in the section 2.206 petition and the outcome of the transfer proceeding.
We therefore vacate DD-93-08 and remand to the staff those portions of the section 2.206 petition decided therein for the staff's further evaluation and final decision in conjunction with the staff's resolution of the other remaining matters in the petition and in light of the outcome of the transfer proceeding.
In taking these actions, we intimate no view on the soundness of the staff's analysis of the issues in DD-93-08.
We also do not 3 We recognize that GPC has appealed the Licensing Board's admission of Mr. Mosbaugh as a party and of the consolidated contention.
We expect to render a decision on the appeal in the near future.
Nonetheless, at least pending a further Commission order on appeal, Mr. Mosbaugh is entitled to party status and his contention is deemed admitted.
5 bar the staff from taking prompt enforcement action at any time during its ongoing review of the matters raised in the petition.
It is so ORDERED.'
For the Commission fh h>O f
0
.?&
qw
_ r9 L*
a Ja y
'd,
SAMUEL J.'CHILK
' A @.g O','
q c
0 gi Secretary of mhe Commission gD e,,r c Dated atjRcckville, Maryland, this / N.oay of July 1993.
' Commissioner de Planque did not participate in the Commission's consideration of this order.
i.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No.(s) 50-321, ET AL.-(2.206) i (Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 &
Vogtle Electric Generating,1 & 2) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMM M&O (CLI-93-15) - 7/14/93
)
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except j
as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
i Thomas E. Murley, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P. C.
2300 N Street, N.W.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
4 Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 20001 Arthur Domby, Esq.
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore Candler Building, Suite 1400 127 Peachtree Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30303 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 14 day of July 1993
/w LA([j Office of the Secretary of the Commission i
. _ _.