ML20129H961
Text
-,
{f a
L 6
j PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - FOR INT 5RNAL_DISTRIB3 ION ONE 9/16/91' l
2 j
.Egr:
lThe Commissioners l'
l Ergm:
James M. Taylor j-Executive Director for. Operations Subiect:
-PROPOSED DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING-A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT DURING A COMMISSION ' MEETING ON '
VOGTLE UNIT 2 p
l Purnose:
To inform the' Commission of inaccurate'information provided by an official of Georgia Power Company-l (GPC) during a March 30, 1989 Commission meeting to~
consider issuance of the full ' power. operating D
license for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant --(VEGP)
Unit 2,. and of. -NRC's proposed course. of action which includes discussion of the issue 'in : a Director's :. Decision issued in accordance with 10.
CFR Section 2.206.
Discussion:
On March 30, 1989, the Commissioners met to discuss and possibly vote on the full power ' operating j
license for VEGP Unit 2.
.The transcript (Enclosure
- 1) reflects that then Commissioner Carr expressed concern about the ~ hierarchy '. between the Vogtle plant manager (i.e.,
the general manager), and the l1 Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
noting :that. it.
" looked to me like he was a long way from the CEO."
Mr. R. P. Mcdonald, GPC Executive Vice President -
I Nuclear Operations, responded that (1) he (Mr.
1 Mcdonald) reported to Mr. - Bill Dahlberg, the GPC l
- CEO, (2) that' Mr. Ken McCoy, ' Vice President of Vogtle, reported to him (Mr. Mcdonald), and (3) that Mr.
George Bockhold, then Vogtle-general manager, reported directly to Mr. McCoy.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commissioners voted unanimously in. favor of the license, and the j
license was issued the following day.
On May 1,
1989, Mr.
W.
G.'Hairston, III, Senior Vice President for Nuclear Operation, forwarded to j
the NRC a letter-of correction of the transcript (Enclosure 2),
noting that Mr.
Mcdonald had i
" inadvertently left out the Senior Vice President of Nuclear Operations.
The organization is as described on figures 13.1.1-1 and 13.1.1-2 of the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report."
Contact:
David Matthews, NRR j
4 i
s 4'
9611040141 960827 PDR F01A KOHN95-211.. PDR
l a
492-1490' l
2'-
l On September 11, 1990, a Petition for initiation of proceedings and imposition of civil penalties was i
filed by. Michael D.
-Kohn, Esq.
on behalf. of.
Petitioners Marvin B.
Hobby and Allen L. Mosbaugh l
(Enclosure 3).
The Petition claimed that Mr.
. Mcdonald knowingly made false. statements to the NRC Commissioners'in the presence of Messrs. Dahlberg, McCoy, and. Bockhold during his response - to. then I
Commissioner Carr in that he " eliminated. one entire level.of management between the plaat manager and i
the CEO."
.Moreover, the - Petition asserts. that
[
" Messrs. Dahlberg,_McCoy and Bockhold should have l-known that Mr. Mcdonald's statements were false and L
should have brought this to the immediate attention l
of.the Commission and otherwise corrected the record before the Commission acted on the Vogtle full power license request."
By letter dated September 21, 1990, Mr..Kohn forwarded Exhibits in support of the Petition, including relevant pages of the transcript of the March.30, 1989. meeting.
The_ issue was renewed 'in a Supplement to the Petition dated July 8, 1991 (Enclosure 4),
In the, Supplement, the Petitioners noted that, even though i
Mr. Mcdonald's reply contained.an omission, it still did not satify the concern of -Commissioner Carr who subsequently replied, "I
still ' have my concern, I guess."
Mr. Mcdonald responded to the Petition on April 1 1991 (Enclosure 5).
The.. response noted that the Commission had been apprised-of the Company's i-organization _ prior to the March 30th proceeding,
+
l including the Senior Vice President position,- by an amendment to the VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that. was ~ submitted November 23, 1988.
The amendment _ described the reporting chain from Mr._,
McCoy to Mr.
Hairston to Mr.
Mcdonald.
Mr.
Mcdonald's response also stated'that the NRC had l
reviewed the organizational structure in December,
- 1988, and issued an inspection report.
The inspection report stated that-the Vice Presidents 1
i of the Farley, Hatch and Vogtle projects reported j
to the' Senior Vice President who, in turn, reported to the Executive Vice. President, and that the organization was consistent with the VEGP FSAR amendment submitted in November, 1988.
The reply 'by Mr. Mcdonald also noted that during l
the March 30th proceeding, Commissioner Rogers referred to the fact that he' had reviewed the l~
Company's organizational chart during a visit he
1 V
O made to the plant site.
1 1
1 i
4 1
i I
1 I
l l
I 1
l
3~-
The written response by Mr.
Mcdonald to the Petition also notes that the letter of' correction
~
of the transcript was made'approximately two. weeks after receiving the NRC transcript.
5 The. NRC staff has reviewed this issue and has concluded that the omission was likely significant i
in-that the reply was in direct response to the Commissioner's stated concern for an organizational r
-structure in which the plant manager appeared to be "a -long - way from the CEO."
The staff has also concluded that-Mr.
Mcdonald's reply to then 1
,0 Commissioner-Carr was inaccurate in that the transcribed record was clearly in - contradiction j
witn other documents of record, including the FSAR 4
and NRC Inspection Reports.
In view'of the prior i
knowledge of those present regarding the documents i
and NRC reviews of record, the staff concluded'that i-Mr.
Mcdonald's omission was obvious to many licensee representatives and NRC personnel'present during the meeting.
Because the omission of Mr.
IIairston was considered by those present to be obvious, it was not corrected at the time.
Under l
the' circumstances, a deliberate attempt to mislead the Commissioners seems highly unlikely and the i
staff concludes, therefore, that the omission was j
unintentional.
An appropriate reply is being prepared-by the Director of NRR to the Petition which, with respect j
i to this
- issue, will conclude-that inaccurate j
information was given to the Commissioners, but disagree that it was a deliberate misrepresencation of the organization.
The response will. also reflect that no enforcement action'is appropriate.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
Note the staff's conclusion that inaccurate information was given to the Commissioners during the meeting, and that the inaccurate information was unintentional and does not warrant enforcement action.
This position will be reflected in a response by the Director of NRR to the a
t e
i.
w w
~
-e1
I i
l Petition and issued October 25,
- 1991, unless instructed otherwise by the Commission.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
I 1.
Transcript of Commission Meeting on March 30, 1989 2.
May~1, 1989 Letter of Correction 3.
September 11, 1990 Petition 4.
July 8, 1991 Supplement to Petition 5.
R.
P. Mcdonald's April 1~,
1991 Response to Petition 1
am+==
. ~ - ~..
..~
\\
i i
DISTRIBUTION:
~
Commissioners OGC Region.II' EDO SECY.
l i
l' i
l-LA:PDII-3 PM:PDII-3 D:PDII-3 D:DRIC D:OI LBerry DHood DMatthews BGrimes
'BHayes
/
/91'
-/
/91
/
/91
/
/91
-/
/91 l
D:OE OGC APR2_
D:DRP-I/II ADP:NRR JLieberman LChandler GLainas SVarga JPartlow j
/
/91
/
/91
/ /91
/
/91
/ /91 i
DIR:NRR EDO Tech Editor TMurley JTaylor JMain
-/. /91
/
/91
/
/91 OFFICIAL' RECORD COPY PC Document Name: CommPapr l
1 1
.