ML20078N667
| ML20078N667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1995 |
| From: | Lamberski J TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Bloch P, Carpenter J, Murphy T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#195-16321 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, NUDOCS 9502160065 | |
| Download: ML20078N667 (9) | |
Text
V f, /6B 2l 8
TROUTMANSANDERS isNU e
. 7.,7..e,".t ?.7. 9... ^..I...h.^ r,
^
3-13 FEB -7 F3 #4h
~4rio~ sea ~x,LA1A 600 PFACHTAEE STREET. N E.
Suite S2OO ATLANTA. GEOAGLA30308 2216 TELEPHONE 404 885 3000 0FFlCE TJ g <;RE7,gy FACSlurLE 404 68S 3900 00CXETmG 3 : omeetp 88s 336o JOHN LAMMRs.a liRh HCti February 3,1995 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Georgia Power)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Es:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Amendment (Transfer to Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3.
Dear Sirs:
I enclose a copy of two letters which have recently been sent to the NRC in connection with the NRC's May 9,1994 notice of violation.
Very truly yours, John Lamberski cc:
Service List 4
9502160065 950203 PDR ADOCK 05000424 0
1:,outhem Nucccr Oper:teg Comoary Post Otheo Box 1293 Bermmohsm. Atbima 35201
['
TRohorw I205) 877-7437 Southem Nudear Operating Company ceo,,e B.Cu,ow General Maaager NuC'eF TeC% Cal Fervices February 1,1995 Mr. James Lieberman Director, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 RE:
Georgir. Power Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Company Units 1 and 2; NRC Drmand for Information Regarding George Bockhold, Jr. (EA 94-037)
Supplewent
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
On August 5,1994, I submitted to you my personal response to the Demand for Information sent to Georgia Power which concerned my actions on several ocuisions in April through August,1990; in providing information to the NRC. As indicated in my prior response, I met with the Senior Vice President of Georgia Power and my immediate supervisor at Southern Nuclear and we collectively reviewed my actions and responsibilities with respect to these esents. We discussed my personal performance faiiures to assure that I carried out my responsibilities. T1.ose responsibilities as a manager incluoed a responsibility to assure that I understood the factual basis of the information which is communicated to the NRC. In my personal response to the Demand for Information I did my level best to explain i
the facts and circumstances surrounding these events and to canvey to the NRC the reliance which I placed on others because of my position as General Manager. I also concluded that I did not believe that I could have reasonably been expected to have foreseen the inaccurate or incomplete information provided to the NRC. As a result of settlement discussions between counsel for the licensee and counsel for the NRC Staff I understand that the Staff, aRer additional review of my response to the Demand for Information and other information, remains concerned with a perceived unwillingness on my part to accept responsibility for my role in these events.
The events since 1990 have had a profound impact on me. Aside from the purely personal impact, the events of tise last several months have helped me identify my capabilities and weaknesses. I am more appreciative of your perspective now than I was when my DFI t
Response was filed. Indeed, that filing was my first opportunity to state my views to you in writing and it is clear to me that I did not convey my heartfelt realizations that certain of my traits - which in 1990 I viewed as only strengths - can be perceived as major weaknesses.
Why have I apparently failed once again to communicate my intended message to the NRC7 i
p-Mr. James Lieberman February 1,1995 Page,
3 Apparently by focusing in my DFI response on the sctions which I considered reasonable at the time, my perspective appears defensive, self-serving, and, to some, may border on being arrogant. let me state plainly that I accept personi Mountability and responsibility for my actions and regret any perception of arrogance. i waii the Plant Manager and both the benefits and burdens of that office are mine to shoulder. This letter emphasizes my awarenen and acceptance of my performance weak =*a= and failures which, in the context of providing information and fulfilling legitimate expectations of the NRC, contributed to Georgia Power's noncompliances in 1990. I hope that it unequivocally shows that my DFI response was not intended to justify my performance in 1990, or treat lightly the importance of accurate communications with the NRC.
Even though a general manager must delegate specific tasks in the gathering and collating of information to be provided to the NRC, he or she has an overriding obligation to i
understand the factual basis of that information. In retrospect, I failed to ensure that the data provided to me was the information which I asked for and intended to present. I did not have i
an adequate understanding of the numbers, and I cannot recall obtaining a detailed explanarian of what the numbers specifically represented. I also realize that while it was not significant to me whether there were 19 or 12 starts on the IB diesel generator, the difference of those i
two numbers, in the contert of a decision on the restart of a nuclear power plant, had the capability ofinfluencing the agency. Viewed from the NRC's perspective, while I would have been satisfied with 12, the controlling issue is whether such a number would have satisfied the NRC.
With respect to the April 19,1990 LER, I relied upon the prior count used on April 9.
Instead of reinforcing my staff to complete their verification of diesel start counts, I now realiw based upon information not available to me in 1990, my statements contributed to a lax verification effort. More significant, however, was my reliance on my own analysis that since I believed only " successful starts" were included in the April 9 data and the data reflected activities aAer overhaul and sensor calibration and logic testing, any " problem" starts would be excluded from the count. This was an extrapolation from my understanding rather than a complete reexamination of the underlying facts. As a general manager, knowing that the information was to be communicated to the NRC, I should have applied a higher standard of care. I agree with the licensee's judgment that I acted unreasonably when I allowed the term " comprehensive test program" of the control systems and the earlier start count to be included in the LER knowing that my staff had not completed th;ir verification effort.
Licensee Event Reports are important documents which must be verified correct by practices i
designed to assure that they are as accurate and complete as they possibly can be.
With respect to the June 29,1990 cover letter, I could have done more in this situation
.r i
1 Mr. James Licherman February 1,1995 Page i i
l to assure a more complete document. I reviewed and approved this letter. The cover letter as I interpreted it was eaaniatent with my personal knowledge. I do not recall a specific opportunity to step in and resolve the matter of the meaning of "comphve test program of the control systems" prior to June,1990. Nonetheless, given the normal LER approval process and the June efforts of the SAER group, I conceivably missed an opportunity to j
rectify any misunderstanding associated with that phrase. I should have told the drafters, and the cover letter should have specifically indicated, what my original amaning of the pbrase was l
at the time. Had I assured that their information was complete, we collectively mirbt have recognized that the correction ofJune 29 did not address and correct the underlying problem in the April 9 letter.
4 Finally, in my personal DFI response, I stated that the language of the August 30,1990 letter cannot reasonably be construed as identifying one of the causes of the error in the April 9,1990 letter as the counter's confusion in terminology. On reflection, it would be j
reasonable for the NRC to conclude otherwise. It is clear that I directed the modified wording in this letter. Unfortunately, the wording was subsequently interpreted by the NRC as stating that the start counter's confusion caused the error in the April 9 letter. Therefore, I, personally and solely, am responsible for this inaccuracy which the NRC has concluded is present in this letter. In this instance, I should have permitted greater care and a fuller articulation of the matter by those who had taken the time to comprehensively review the issue. I had no greater ability than they in crafting a precise, clear and understantinhle letter.
It was an important matter and my actions should have been more cautious.
I appreciate that the NRC is dependent upon I_iema~s for the accuracy and completeness ofinformation, and must have resennable assurance of my willingness to conduct my activities in accordance with all NRC requirements. Since providing you with my personal response, Georgia Power has concluded that I acted untmananahly when I allowed the term
" comprehensive test program of the control systems," to be associated with the diesel generator " start count" provided to me in early April to be included in an April 19, 1990 LER. I stated in my personal Demand for Information response that I have learned a valuable lesson from this experience; it has been underscored. I also stated that my performance over the past several years has reflected this lesson learned. My performance today, over four years after the underlying events, reflects a more mature person who is open to contrary views and cautious in formulating conclusions. I recognize that I do not know as much as I sometimes used to think I did. I would like to continue to be employed in my present position providing support to the plants until such time as I have reacquired the confidence of the licensee and my employer. Raamt upon recent events, I understand that additional assurance is also required by the NRC.
1
3:
Mr. James Lieberman February 1,1995 Page I To provide this additional assurance, I have requested my employer to provide me with l
an opportunity for intensive training in two areas: a manager's obligations and responsibilities in the nuclear industry and as a communicator with co-workers and regulatory agencies. I wdl 1
notify you aAer I have completed this effort. I have also requested that my immediate i
supervisor meet quarterly with me to review my performance in the areas of communication effectiveness, anention to detail, accountability for actions, and any other standard which my employer identifies. I will not seek a line management position over licensed activities at any nuclear plant leansad by you until aAer satisfactory completion of this training. ThereaAer, ifI am nominated for a position in line management within three (3) years of this letter, I will inform you of that nomination at least sixty (60) days prior to assuming the position. With these additional steps on improving my management style, and reinforcement of my current I
sensitivity to the very high standard legitimately required of the NRC in communications, the NRC can have confidence in my involvement in licensed activities in the future.
I Very truly yours, t
kis {
George Boekhold, Jr.
l l
xc:
U.S. Nuclear Rerulstarv Commiccian Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Admmintrator
{
Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement i
xc:
Georria Power Com=nv Mr. H. A. Franklin Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Mr. J. D. Woodard xc:
Southern Nuclear
[
Mr. L. B. Long i
i i
~..
I
4 Geory a pone
- Cna~i 40 Weress Ceme Pa aay E
Post O*ce Bos '295 B,rm nge.a-Aiata-a M201 Te,eenone 205 277 7122 GeorSlaPower
- c. x. ucco m c enem um sog e Pse:
"Y southem ews ;,-;gm Docket No. 50-424 License No. NBF-68 Mr. James Lieberman Director, Office of Enforcement i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docket Control Clark Washington, D.C.
20555 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Supplemental Reply to Notice of Violation and Pronosed Innosition of Civil Penalties; EA93-304
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Georgia Power Company
("GPC")
submits this letter as a supplement to GPC's July 31, 1994 Reply to the NRC's Notice of Violation ("NOV")
issued May 9,
1994 in the above-referenced matter.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this supplement.
At the outset, Georgia Power recognizes your view that this is a
significant enforcement action.
We also recognize that sufficient care was not exercised in 1990 by the Company to ensure the accuracy of certain statements.
As a result of recent settlement discussions between counsel, the Company has a better understanding of your concerns and a fuller appreciation of them.
All individuals associated with this enforcement action have learned a great deal about the attention to detail required when making formal communications to the NRC Staff.
We respect your views and stand ready to address them.
We understand that the facts associated with these events are viewed essentially the same by the NRC Staff and Georgia Power. We also understand that our July 31, 1994 response to the NOV has not persuaded the Staff of the appropriateness of actions of George Bockhold, who was at the time the General Manager of Vogtle. The
)
- Staff, we further understand, remains concerned with the unwillingness of Mr. Bockhold to accept responsibility for his role in the 1990 events and needs assurance that such events would not be repeated by him if he were allowed to continue in responsible management roles in the nuclear industry.
1 l
g Mr. James Lieberman j
February 1, 1995 1
Page 2 With respect to Violation A of the NOV, we have already admitted that the April 9,1990 letter was inaccurate, and withdraw our request for the NRC to reexamine the " materiality" of the j
inaccuracy.
Even though some NRC representatives have indicated that the " start count" of diesel starts did not influence their views of the diesels' operability and could not reconcile the
" count" number with the NRC's, the NRC reasonably could conclude that the April 9 letter had the capacity to be misconstrued by other representatives in the performance of their responsibilities.
With respect to violation C, we previously acknowledged that the i
April 19, 1990 LER was inaccurate.
As with Violation A,
we withdraw the request for reconsideration of the materiality of the inaccuracy.
The LER statement was reasonably subject to different interpretations which would result in significantly different messages (i.e., the number of starts af ter completion of all diesel testing following the Site Area Emergency as compared to the number after sensor recalibration and logic testing).
With respect to Violation D, we have admitted that the June 29, 1990 cover letter for the revised LER failed to correct the April 9 letter 8
explicitly, and was materially incomplete in not identifying additional personnel error as a cause of the April communication errors. With respect to Violation E, we are prepared to admit that the August 30 letter could have been reasonably misinterpreted by the NRC as stating that underlying error in prior statements was caused by confusion lg.the counter about start terminology.
Therefore, it was inaccurate.
Regarding Mr. Bockhold's personal actions, Georgia Power has
]
previously acknowledged that he did not perform up to its standards or expectations with respect to these issues in light of his l
position as General Manager. After submission of our NOV reply, we concluded that, with respect to violation C, Mr. Bockhold failed to j
use reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of communications to the j
NRC. As our prior NOV response indicates, Mr. Bockhold has already
)
been disciplined and counseled, including emphasis on his personal responsibility for delegated tasks.
j To summarize: In preparing for the April 9 presentation to the
]
- NRC, although Mr.
Bockhold took reasonable steps to task a i
subordinate and to receive information, Mr. Bockhold was ultimately l
responsible for ensuring that he fully understood the information j
he received, that it was what he intended and that it was totally accurate and complete.
It is obvious that he did not do so.
His strong assurances voiced to others thereafter on April 19 concerning the accuracy of the April 9 data and the validity of
" comprehensive test program" phraseology contributed to a lax verification of the LER statement by his staff.
The assurances were greater than justified in that he did not have a detailed
- s I
Mr. James Lieberman l
February 1, 1995 l
Page 3
)
I knowledge of the start count's data base.
He should have urged his staff to reverify the number.
On June 29, he should have assured that the drafters of the cover letter for the revised LER knew I
about, and the letter reflected, his historic understanding of the i
" comprehensive test program" phrase. For the August 30 letter, Mr.
Bockhold changed the wording and actively reviewed the information in the letter.
He was responsible for the language chosen, L.a.,
" confusion."
We have reviewed Mr. Bockhold's letter of February 1, 1995 to the Director of the Office of Enforcement, and consider its j
conclusions and perspective as an important factor in our continued confidence that Mr. Bockhold may continue in his present position outside of line management of operations.
Mr.
Bockhold has requested, and his current employer, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, has agreed, to implement a personal training opportunity which focuses upon, and develops, his abilities to perform any 1
future line management role in licensed activities commensurate with the standard of care reflected in the Notice of Violation. To impress on all concerned the seriousness of his performance failures, Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power are prepared to commit to maintain Mr. Bockhold in his present position in The Southern company system (subject, of course, to an employer's rights to terminate, transfer, and the like), and to prohibit him from holding a line management position in Georgia Power plants until the satisfactory completion of that training. We would provide you with sixty (60) days notice prior to his assumption of.such a position.
This also would apply to Southern Nuclear relative to these plants upon assumption of operating authority.
j
~
We note that the NOV and associated Demands for-Information (EA94-036, EA94-037, and EA94-052) did not assert that there was willful (e.g., deliberate or intentional, or careless or reckless disregard) misrepresentation or omission by the company or any officer or employee in 1990 concerning statements about the diesel generators.
We request that the NRC acknowledge that the NOV reply was detailed, helpful in providing additional information for consideration of this matter, and, to the extent of the staff's knowledge, accurate.
- Also, we request that Violation B be withdrawn.
We believe that Violation B simply reflects a misunderstanding of the context and import of the statement in the April 9 letter concerning dew point measurements.
In addition, with respect to Violation D, we ask that the NRC recognize our strongly held belief that, beginning with the April j
9 presentation and the April 19 LER development and continuing through August, 1990, recordkeeping practices were a contributing factor of increasing significance to Georgia Power's inability to i
Q.
Mr. James Lieberman February 1, 1995 Page 4 provide accurate and complete data to the NRC.
This belief is not offered to excuse any involved individual, but the document's absence clearly hindered Georgia Power from quickly providing the data to the NRC in March and from timely reverification of the numbers.
For this reason, we do not believe that we should be faulted in Violation D for our identification of recordkeeping as one of the factors that contributed to the inaccuracy of the LER.
Finally, we ask that the NRC acknowledge, with the commitments of Mr. Bockhold and the Company, (1) the involved individuals' actions do not warrant any enforcement sanctions, including a letter of reprimand, and (2) they will receive closure letters. We understand that the NRC agrees, subject to the commitments of the licensee and Mr. Bockhold, that this matter does not call into any question the character or integrity of any employee or officer of Southern Nuclear or Georgia Power Company.
Our resolution of this matter, we believe, sends a strong message to our mutual employees that fair and just settlement of these matters is possible to the satisfaction of all affected parties.
I We hope this supplemental reply is constructive.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Yours very truly, C. Kenneth McCoy.
xc:
Georaia Power Connany Mr. J. Beasley, Jr.
Mr. M. Sheibani NORMS xc:
U.S.
Nuclear Reculatory Commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project, WRR Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector