ML20112J866
| ML20112J866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1996 |
| From: | Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Bloch P, Carpenter J, Murphy T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#296-17689 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9606210122 | |
| Download: ML20112J866 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l /7O9 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP cm 1 7."..T,2...^.7...' ^ "'
"YSERC
^
NATIONSBANK PLAZA -
400 PEACMTREE STREET. N E Suit,i 5200
'9E JUN 17 ~ P1 :39
.Tt*NT4. oEonoi4 30308 2=
TELEPHONE, 404 885 3000 FACSMILE 404 886 3900 1
360 JOHN LAMDERSKl 00CKEilNG & SERVICE N
June 13,1996 VIA FEDERAL EXPRFRM
- 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 l
j Re:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Amendment (Transfer to Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3.
Dear Sirs:
I am writing in response to the June 5,1996 letter sent to you by Intervenor's counsel
- with respect to the NRC's May 29, 1996 Notice of Violation, transmitted to you by Board Notification No. 9603, dated June 5,1996. Georgia Power Company objects to Intervenor's letter as an improper attempt to influence your decision on the license amendment proceeding.
For the reasons given below, the letter is highly inappropriate and should be given no consideration by the Licensing Board.
Of most concern to Georgia Power is Intervenor's blatant misrepresentation of the action taken by the NRC in its May 29, 1996 Notice of Violation ("NOV"). His letter made the following representations:
[t]he NRC staff has now clarified in its most recent NOV that, in its view, Mr.
i Mosbaugh did not commit misconduct. [ citing the NOV at 2.] The NRC staff l
a!m found that all of the issues raised by Georgia Power's " Motion to Reopen" l
the record in this case, which alleged that Mr. Mosbaugh deliberately violated '
l NRC regulations, are without merit.... After reviewing Georgia Power's voluminous " Motion to Reopen" and all of the allegations contained therein, the
}.
NRC noted that it "did not... find that Mr. Mosbaugh deliberately violated any requirement."
Intervenor's June 5,1996 letter at 2 (citing May 29,1996 NRC NOV at 2) (emphasis in letter).
These statements are not true and Intervenor and his counsel either knew or should have known j
they were false. In contrast to the Intervenor's letter, the NRC's NOV states:
9606210122 960613 PDR ADOCK 05000424 O
PDR 36Db
TROUTMAN SANDERS
]
na.JJa.".a m, s.J u.=
~ The NRC recognizes'that it found that Mr. Mosbaugh was involved in some of the performance failures that resulted in the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information to the NRC -- see Modified Notice of Violation C.3 (EA 93-304, o
NRC letter dated March 13, 1995)... However, the NRC did not thgIg find that Mr. Mosbaugh deliberately violated any requirement....
[
NRC May 29 NOV at 2 n.1 (emphasis added). In a fashion that has become a hallmark of Intervenor and his counsel, the language of the NRC's NOV was selectively misquoted for the l
1 apparent purpose of misleading the Board. The purposeful omission of the qualifying word "there" from the above quoted language in the NOV is an obvious attempt to inaccurately convey that the NRC reached a br,ader conclusion than it had concerning Mr. Mosbaugh's culpability.
' Contrary to Intervenor's representation, the NRC did DQL find that "all issues raised by l
' [ Georgia Power's] Motion to Reopen... are without merit." To the best of Georgia Power's
. knowledge, the NRC has never conducted a formal review of Georgia Power's Motion to' Reopen and certainly has not issued any findings or." ruling" with respect thereto.' As you i
..know, when the Vogtle Coordinating Group concluded its deliberations in November 1994, the NRC did not have the benefit of a so-called "Webb list," which Mr. Mosbaugh had concealed from Georgia Power and failed to identify.to the NRC. The NRC Staff also_did not have 5
available to it the additional evidence adduced during the subsequent hearing before the
)
Licensing Board, including the cross-examination of Mr. Mosbaugh. This subsequently adduced
{
evidence, in Georgia Power's estimation, demonstrated that Mr. Mosbaugh willfully permitted a false statement to be made to the NRC. Because the NRC did not consider this evidence l
_ reaching the conclusions in the March 13,1995 Modified NOV, its statement in footnote 1 of l
the May 29 NOV must be read very. carefully. The word "there" (referring to the March 13, 1995 Modified NOV) is critical to understanding that the NRC has not considered Georgia Power's contention regarding Mr. Mosbaugh's culpability. Based on their representation of Intervenor in this proceeding, Intervenor's counsel is in a position to know that the statements 4'
)
- in the June 5 letter are inaccurate.
i Moreover, as the NRC's press release on this matter makes clear (scc copy attached),
the NRC's NOV follows the NRC's policy of taking enforcement action based on Department j
2 of Labor (" DOL") decisions when the NRC has no independent investigatory findings. In those i
instances, the NRC simply adopts the DOL determination. In this case the DOL determination is a non-final, remand order of the Secretary of Labor. If, after the remand hearings in the two cases, a ruling on Georgia Power's Motion to Reopen in Mr. Mosbaugh's case, and all other I
appeals, final determinations in these matters are favorable to Georgia Power, we understand that the NRC's NOV will be withdrawn, consistent with the NRC's past practice.
r i
8 Georgia Power acknowledges that, to the uninformed, the NRC's May 29 NOV gives the.
impression that the NRC has considered and reached a conclusion with respect to Georgia j
Power's Motion to Reopen. Georgia Power is confident that this is not the impression that the j
i NRC intended.
I
T TROUTMAN SANDERS u.:.w:.~ m..c m a Further, although outside the scope of the license amendment proceeding before the Board, Intervenor's letter takes Georgia Power to task for not reinstating Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh on the basis of the Secretary of Labor's remand orders in their respective DOL cases.
Intervenor conveniently omits reference to the recent decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta 2'_'. 4 holding that the Secretary of Labor's remand order in the Hobby case is not final and,' therefore, not enforceable. A copy of that decision is attached to Board Notification 96-03. We expect a similar order in the near future l
with respect to Mr. Mosbaugh. Moreover, significant administrative, and possibly judicial,
. proceedings have yet to be completed concerning those two DOL cases. Both cases have been remanded to the Administrative Law Judges to determine the appropriate remedy due each complainant. It is Georgia Power's position in each of those remand hearings that the respective complainants are not entitled to reinstatement. In addition, Georgia Power's December 13,1995 Motion to Reopen the Record in Mr. Mosbaugh'a case has yet to be decided. Unless these administrative proceedings produce a result favorable to Georgia Power, it will appeal the final DOL orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Intervenor also points to the Staff's concern that delay in reinstating Mr. Hobby and Mr.
Mosbaugh may have a " chilling" effect on other employees. Georgia Power understands this concern and, therefore, as Georgia Power explained in its January 19,1996 letter to the NRC l
(copy attached), the Company has taken affirmative steps to ensure that its employees feel free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Sen letter from W.G. Hairston to S.D. FAneter, dated January 19,1996, at 3-7, a copy of which is attached.'
Because -Intervenor's June 5,1996 letter contains gross misrepresentations and is unauthorized, Georgia Power strongly objects to the letter and requests that the Licensing Board
. give it no consideration.
1 Very truly yours,.
John Lamberski Enclosures -
. cc:. Service List -
1 j,
2 Due to their volume, the enclosures to the January 19,1996 letter are not attached.
1
L.
\\
i.
UNITED STATES [
1-
/... " "..,,'-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
i i
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II
'5
/
101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323 Tel. 404-331-5503 or 78,78
{
l 4
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE J
No.L 11-06 48 (Friday, May 31, igg 6) l Contactst Ken Clerk 404-331 5603 l
Roger Hannah 404-331-7878 NRC STAFF 188UES NOTICES OF VIOLATION TO 080RGIA P I
FOLLOWING PERSONNSL DISCRIMINATION RULINGS SY SEC il The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stafI has cited Georgia Power Company for tw of NRC requirements for discrimination against empfoyees engaged in protec i
l to safety concems at nuclear power plants.NRC officiais sold the vio two former company employees, were each determined to be Severity Level 1, th of four NRC violation levels forwhich enforcement actions are taken. However, n pensity la proposed in either case because the five-year Statute of Limitet cxpired while the employees were pursuing complai l
i independent investi0 story findings.In one case, the Georetary of Labor which overtumed en Administrative Law Judge's finding of Novernber 8,1991, that co ections taken against Mr. Marvin B. Hobby were not motlo'ed by his engaging in p i
activity. Specifloally involved was the rulsing of safety concems in 1909 in th j
Vogtle nuoleer power plant near Waynesboro, Georgia. Mr. Hobby express l
organizational structure goveming the company's operation of its nuclear fac j
requirements.
In the other case, the Secretary of Labor tasucd a Decision and Romand Order on N l
20,1995, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's finding of October 30, ig92, that th did not discriminate against Mr. Allen L Mgr.oacgh for engaging in protected activitie j
Secretary concluded that Mr. Mosbaugh was engaged j
employees' potential unwillingness to communiste with him was not a legitima l
discharge him.
The NRC adopted the Secretary of Labor's determination that the firings were ac discrimination boosuse the two were engaged in protected actMiles.
NRC ofRolais said employees who raise real or percieved safety concems may not be discriminated against for raising such concems and that holders of license must provide an environment in which all employees may free!y raise safety issu The company has 30 days from May 30 to respond.
eew
~ _..
j l
~
/
- Georgia Psaer Cc-
>ta. -
.N 1
333 Pisement Avne Atttnts. G:orgis 3C308 -
l
_. Teleonoce4Ca 526 3195 Masling Address.-
' 40 inverness center earkway i
4 -
Post Offce Box 1295 j
l-Birmingham. Alabama 35201 Telephr'ne 205 868 5561-January. 19, 1996.
.../,., :, w.
)
W. G. Hairaton. lit LCV 0725-A execui,v. vce erei ee,:
Nuclear Operations l
-l Docket No. 50 424 and 50-425
. Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323-0199 Rei Department of Labor Case No. 91-ERA-01 and 91-ERA-11 Mosb=ah v. Geornia Power Comoany (EA 95-277)
Dear Mr. Ebneter:
This letter is in further response to your letters of D& - 12,1995 and January 12,1996 h
and supplements our December 21,1995 letter concerning the U. S. Department of Labor Secretary's Decision and Remand Order ofNovember 20,1995. This letter addressesin detail
. your concern about the potential " chilling effect" associated with the termination of Mr. Allen Mosbaugh and the issuance of the Secretary of Labor's findings. Our views of the apparent violation and a root cause evaluation are also presented. Based on the discussion below,-
Georgia Power Company denies this apparent violation.
The Secretarv's Decision Georgia Power believes that the Secretary of Labor's decision holding that Mr. Mosbaugh's surreptitious tape recording was lawful and constituted evidence gathering in support of a nuclear safety complaint is legally and factually incorrect. Therefore, Georgia Power will appeal the Secretary's fmal decision (after the required remand (s) for further determinations),
ifit is unfavorable to Georgia Power. Moreover, Georgia Power has moved to reopen the Depastment of Labor record on the basis of r.ew and material information which was not available prior to the close of the hearing recurd in 1992. The new infonnation includes portions of tape recordings withheld from disclosure by the NRC in the normal course ofits invesugative efforts and documentation provided to the NRC by Mr. Mosbaugh. As more fully explained in its Motion to Reopen the Record (Attachment 1), Georgia Power contends
~ hat Mr. Mosbaugh willfully caused violations ofNRC regulations and the Atomic Energy t
f
1 i
GeorgiaPower A f
j ~
-Stewart D. Ebneter f
. January 19,1996 j
Page 2 0
l Act, that he falsely testi6ed at the Department of Labor hearings, and that his taping was i
indiscriminate, unreasonable and, in some instances, unlawful.
i It is ironic that the Secretary of Labor has deemed Mr. Mosbaugh's extensive tapmg over j
l approximately eight months, including his conversations with NRC investigators and.
inspectors, as " protected activity that constituted evidence gathering in support of a nuc safety complaint." (Decisicn and Remand Order at 13.) As further explained in this letter validity of this decision is, in fact, the crux of our legal dispute with the Secretary of Labo order. Our evidence clearly demonstrates that during this 1990 time frame Georgie Power was emphasizing its policy of open, honest communication with the NRC and encourag
- employces to cooperate fully with NRC's investigations, while recogmzing their persona i
rights in the investigative process. In fact, Vogtle Project personnel were informed that t' i
may request that the NRC tape record investigative interviews. (April 5,1990 "OI Interv Guidelines," pg. 2, (Attachment 2)). Mr. Mosbaugh, on the other hand, decided to make hI own tape (Tape 251) of his 01 interview on August 15,1990, without informing the NRC.
l Similarly, he tape recorded NRC Resident Inspectors (Tape 107; Tape 172) and NRC l
l Regional Inspectors (Tape 87). Furthennore, Mr. Mosbaugh did not limit his taping to l
documenting evidence of safety violations. Rather, when his tape recorder was "on", it l
captured those conversations within its range; even those in which Mr. Mosbaugh was no i
active participant. This is not the kind of tape recording that can be reasonably characl 1
as evidence gathering in support of a nuclear safety complaint. It also clearly is not the kind of taping which the NRC would have contemplated or asked Mr. Mosbaugh to do, as i
l suggested by the Secretary (Decision and Remand Order at 14, footnote 4). To the contrary it is the type of taping which breeds distrust and chills open communications.
The narrow issue of secret tape recording of conversations in the nuclear work place and when such tape recording is " protected activity" was addressed by former Chairman Selin i his July 14,1993 letters to the irs.bers of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air Nuclear Regulation. Chairman Selin observed that " lawful taping ofconversations to which the employee is a party to obtain safety information, carried out in a limited and reasonab manner, for the purpose of promptly bringing such material to the attention of the licensee or the NRC, should not be a valid basis for terminating an employee." As the NRC knows from its own review of the tape recordings, Mr. Mosbaugh simply taped daily events over the course of many months as they unfolded. The tape recording was not limited in either duration or scope, nor was it selective. Mr. Mosbaugh did not promptly disclose the existence of the tapes to the NRC; only when ordered to compel the release of the tapes to Georgia Power did he inform the NRC of their relevance to ongoing regulatory reviews.
d r
Geortia Power ma Stewan D. Ebneter January 19,19% -
Page 3 In our view, the Secretary hed an inadequate and incomplete factual basis for evaluating Mr.
Mo:.baugh's tape recording, even against the standards set out in Chairman Selin's guidance.
With the bene 6t of the whole story, including the facts set fonh in our Motion to Reopen, the Secretary should find that Mr. Mosbaugh's taping did not meet the criteria set forth by Chairman Selin; it was not carried out in a limited and reasonable manner, nor did he piumyh advise the NRC of his taping or the information on his tapes Funhermore, the tape recordings do not suppon Mr. Mosbaugh's Department ofLabor claims and demonstrate his
- own signi6 cant contribution to the violation of NRC regulations,' which was the subject of one of his major allegations, i.e. the April 19,1990 Licensee Event Repon. These facts, Georgia Power submits, are reasons why Mr. Mosbaugh did not promptly disclose the existence of his -
tape recordings to either the licensee or the NRC, and why his actions were not " protected."
A copy of former Chairman Selin's letter is enclosed (Attachment 3). Georgia Power notes that Chairman's Selin letter does not rise to the standard of a rule, regulation, or order as contemplated by Section 161b of the Atomic Energy Act. Funher, Georgia Power questions
. hether the criteria set fonh in Chairman Selin's letter would be judicially upheld as w
adequately protecting the rights of employers in similar situations.
Root C-Evaluation If there is a violation, then its apparent root cause is the diference between the legal positions of Georgia Power (with which the Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge agreed in 1992) and of the Secretary of Labor in 1995 regarding " protected activity" under the Energy Reorganization Act. A contributor to this difference of positions is the lack of a complete and accurate record before the Secretary of Labor resulting, to a signi6 cant degree, from the lack of relevant evidence available to Georgia Power prior to the close of the Department of Labor record.
Potential "Chillina Effect" on Safety Concems From the outset, Georgia Power has been careful to separate Mr. Mosbaugh's taping actions from various courses of action available to Vogtle employees who may want to raise safety-
.. related concems. Georgia Power contends that Mr. Mosbaugh's taping, under the circumstances, was inappropriate. However, Georgia Power also recognizes that the voicing of concerns is not only appropriate, but should be encouraged. Georgia Power has encouraged its employees to maintain open anc frank communications within its organization and with the NRC and to promptly repon safety or operational issues. As funher explained in our letter of January 10,1991, Georgia Power recognized that its employees might associate Mr. Mosbaugh's administrative leave and termination of employment with his identification of safety concems. Early Georgia Power initiatives were designed to preclude possible
. misunderstandings and to make clear that Mr. Mosbaugh's discipline was associated with
.' surreptitious taping of conversations and was not the result of his raising concerns. A copy of
?.;
l
}
t
[
GeorgiaPower1 T* ~
Stewart D. Ebneter
{
January 19,1996
)-
2 Page 4 4
~
Ge6rgia Power's January 10,1991 letter is' attached hereto as Attachment 4 for your j
i' convenience.-
i Georgia Power has repeatedly stressed that no adverse action was taken against Mr.
l Mosbaugh as a result of submission of his concems to his employer or to the NRC.
i SS--?=
'y, the Secretary ofLabor did not find any retaliation for raising ofconcerns and p
speci6cally e bded Mr. Mosbaugh's average interim performance rating in August 1990
(
' and removal of his company car when maaigned to SRO school were not retaliatory for raising l
concerns. (Decision and Remand Order at 15-16.) In our prior January 1991 letter to you we
~
[
pointed out that at the time Mr. Mosbaugh was placed on administrative leave, he had be
[
l:
previously selected and assigned to SRO training and the Manager-in-Training program ;
training had been listed as his first choice on his list of career options developed on Aprd 30, 1990. These facts were emphasized to our employees in a January 2,1991, letter from Mr.
j l
Bill Shipman. (Attachment E to Georgia Power's January 10,1991 letter).
J Georgia Power disclosed the existence of Mr. Mosbaugh's massive tape recordings to its i
j-
- employees on September 19,1990, shortly after learning of the tap' g (see Attachment A to j:
m Georgia Power's January 10,1991 letter). This was consistent with Georgia Power's attcmpts O
to foster better intemal communications during this time frame. In a similar manner, Georgia Power's Plant General Manager issued a memorandum to employees in August 1990 (prior to knowledge of Mr. Mosbaugh's taping activity) which informed them that all allegations of l7 f
wrongdoing reviewed by a special NRC inspection team had been found to be unsubstantiated. The General Manager also emphasized Georgia Power's policy of cooperation and openness with the NRC:
i I
b The NRC appropriately investigates allegations of wrongdoing which bear on matters of safety or public health in a thorough and deliberate manner. While a formal interview (of an employee] may be disconcerting or stressful, these reviews t
l are sometimes necessary. Georgia Power encourages cooperation in these investigations and views it as essential that the NRC obtain the relevant and matcrial facts.
_ (A*+=h 5, Augusul,1990 letter from G. Bockhold, Jr. to plant employees). Such factual disclosures to employees, we believe, foster a more trusting woric environment.
Indeed, the Southern System's nuclear plants have common principles for nuclear operations, including the principle that "we maintain open and candid relationships with each other, 7
2 regulatory agencies and others with which we interact"(Attachment 6).
r i
-f I.
t' GeorgiaPowerA Stewart D. Ebneter January 19,1996 f.
J Page 5 On a more general level, Georgia Power has taken several measures over the years which aswre that safety and compliance-related issues are raised and addressed by our employees Foremost, Georgia Power has a well-publicized and practiced management philosophy of openly and frankly identifying and communicating potential problems in order to :=imite awareness and to facilitate resolutions at the earliest possible stage. The internal procedures for soliciting, addressing, and resolving concerns over nuclear safety and compliance, as well as other work place concerns, are found at both the plant and corporate ofEce. We described these procedures in a Sape har 30,1993 letter from the Vice President-Vogtle, Mr. C. Ken l
McCoy, to the NRC (Attachment 7).
Plant Vogtle maintains a " Deficiency Card" system through which Vogtle employees or managers can document and notify their supervision of a potential quality or safety concern, which requires that the concem be formally addressed and, if necessary, resolved by appropriate management. Literally hundreds of De6ciency Cards are developed and resolved each year. The identification of these potential issues also is reinforced by Vogtle's " Major -
Problems List" which speci6cally identi6es the most signi6 cant problems which the Plant faces and the steps designed to resolve the problems. In other words, management sets an example -
I by self-identifying matters ofconcern Vogtle also maintains a Quality Concems program; a very similar program is available to nuclear employees in the corporate ofEce in Birmingham These programs are designed to allow any employee to raise any concem, including anonymous concerns. The program at Vogtle provides for employees to take safety concerns to the Birmingham program if they are uncomfortable using Vogtle's program. In Atlanta, Georgia Power maintains a " Corporate Concerns" program, which allows any employee to file a concern at a level repos.g directly to the Company's executive ofEcers. This is yet another avenue available to employees in 1990 and today to express opinions, including non-nuclear matters, to upper management and demonstrates a management philosophy of openness and receptivity. At Vogtle,611ed-out concern forms including anonymous ones, can be placed in any of several " drop boxes" located in the Plant. With respect to those quality-related concerns that are not submitted anonymously, there is an acknowledgment section on the form which seeks feedback on the satisfaction of the submitter as to the resolution of the concern. A high percentage of those individual; returning this acknowledgment resect such' satisfaction.
- We are con 6 dent that Vogtle's Quar:y Concerns program is effective and viewed as a legitimate vehicle for raising concerns by our employees. The NRC staff shares our view. In May 1995 the NRC reviewed Vogtle's Quality Concern program (Inspection Report No. 50-424/425 95-14,' dated June 22,1995). The NRC Inspectors concluded that Vo'gtle's Quality Concerns program was effective in handling and resolving employee safety concerns. The Inspectors found the Vogtle Concerns program files to be notably well organized and
i t
GeorgiaPoiver A
. Stewart D. Ebneter l
4 January 19,1996 L
. Page 6 i
h information related to the concerns was very thoroughly documented. Concerns were clearly i -
identified and addressed. Closeout letters to the concerned individuals were well written and timely. The Inspectors also interviewed approximately 20 employees from various levels at Vogtle. The NRC Inspectors observed:
The... employees interviewed all stated that they would report safety concerns. AR said they would report such concerns first to their supervisor / management, and would have confidence that the supervisor / manager would adequately resolve the concerns. Most said that all such concerns in the past have been adequately resolved
}-
by the supervisor / management. All said that they had not been intimidated or i
i harassed by management for raising safety concerns. Most said that management was very receptive to safety concerns.
(
i (Inspection Report 95-14, Report Details, page 6 (emphasis supplied)).
In addition, Vogtle employees are trained as part of their orientation on their right to raise concerns with the NRC. The NRC-prescribed forms are posted around the plant as are notices signed by the General Manager of Vogtle providing information concerning the reporting ofquality concerns.
r Georgia Power has responded to matters associated with Mr. Mosbaugh's concerns and allegations in a manner designed to avoid any " chilling effect." For example, in May 1994 the NRC issued a Notice of Violation associated with one of Mr. Mosbaugh's principal allegations. I issued a memorandum to nuclear employees which reinforced Georgia Power's policy of openly communicating their concerns to supervisors or through the Quality Concems program. Employees were reminded that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an alternate avenue, and numerous bulletin boards throughout the work areas provide information about that avenue. The memorandum assures employees that they may raise concerns "without any fear of penalty or retaliation." The Senior Vice President, Mr. Jack Woodard, made a presentation to nuclear employees at Vogtle (and Plants Hatch and Farley) to underscore my message. Similarly, in October 1995 the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision in the Hobbv v. Geornia Power matter. Shortly thereaAer, in order to assure the Decision was not misconstmed, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia Power, Mr. H. Allen Franklin, issued a memorandum re-emphasizing our policies on raising safety and regulatory compliance concerns. Mr. Franklin's letter included the following statement:
No retaliation for raising a compliance concern will be tolerated. Any employee, including a supervisor, manager or officer, who retaliates or pe=H= an individual for submission or voicing of a concern will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
.~
i
- Georgia Power d
. Stewart D. Ebneter -
j
. January 19,1996 q
Page 7 1
Copies of my May 11,1994 memorandum and Mr. Franklin's October 3,1995 memorandum L
are includedin Attachment 8.
]
4
-l We have continued to keep our employees informed of developments in the Department of Labor proceeding. Enclosed is a general News Update made available to Birmingham and j
Plant Vogtle employees shortly after the Secretary of Labor's November 20,1995 decision j
(AM4=ent 9).~
Conclusion d
i 1
i In summary, Georgia Power disagrees that Mr. Mosbaugh's taping was protected activity
]
based, in part, on evidence not in the Department of Labor record and currently known to the NRC, and based in part on the NRC Chairman's letter of July 14,1993. No finding was made -
)
by the Secretary that Georgia Power illegally discriminated against Mr. Mosbaugh because he raised safety concerns; instead, this matter is primarily a legal dispute about the meaning of the
)
law and its application to controverted facts. Consequently, Georgia Power respectfully l
disagrees that it violated ERA Section 211 or NRC regulations. Even if ultimately proven wrong, history reveals that Georgia Power acted reasonably and in good faith in 1990 without the benefit of any clear NRC precedence. In 1992, the Administrative Law Judge agreed, 4
i thereby confirming the reasonableness of Georgia Power's position.
l hj' As discussed above, the Secretary had an inadequate record to determine the nature ofMr.
Mosbaugh's taping activities or, as addressed in the Motion to Reopen, to determine whether 1
i Mr. Mosbaugh willfully violated NRC regulations. Georgia Power has repeatedly stressed
[
that it never discriminated against Mr. Mosbaugh for raising or pursuing safety or compliance concerns, and continues to emphasize the need to raise such concerns through its established i.
policies and procedures.
As discussed above, Georgia Power believes the Secretary ofLabor's November 20,1995 decision is in error and will appeal the final order of the Secretary ifit is unfavorable to
. Georgia Power. Georgia Power also has moved to reopen the record to admit evidence which was not available to it at the close of the 1992 Department of Labor hearing. Georgia Power prohibits retaliation for the submission or voicing of concerns, and has attempted to keep its
- employees informed of developments in these matters. We believe that these efforts have avoided, or minimized to the extent practical, any employee perception that Mr. Mosbaugh 2
was retaliated against for voicing concerns.
This letter was reviewed by me and others familiar with these historical events. While I do not l
have personal knowledge of all the matters addressed, the foregoing information'and opinions are true'and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. We are available to provide any i
i o
m e
umr gy-,
,---.---m--,
4
4 GeorgiaPower A Stewart D. Ebneter January 19,1996
- Page 8 clarification, expansion, or verification which you should desire. As the Executive Vice President - Nuclear of Georgia Power, I am authorized to execute this letter on behalf of Georgia Power.
Yours very truly, s.4A-i W. George Hairston,III B
Sworn to and subscribed before
~
me this /9d ay ofJanuary,1996.
d h-$$bf Notary PuBlic My Commission Expires:
/>ll5l9 &
xc:
Geornia Power Cgpylcy Mr. J. Beasley, Jr.
Mr. M. Sheibani NORMS' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement Mr. L. L. Wheeler, Licensing Project Manager Mr. C. R. Ogle, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle Document Control Desk I
I