ML20137C238
| ML20137C238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1997 |
| From: | Miraglia F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137C029 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9703240190 | |
| Download: ML20137C238 (4) | |
Text
.. . _ _ _ _ _ ._ . _
e . i 7590-01-P ,l
- \
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RMULATORY CopMISSION GEORGIA POWER CONPANY. ET AL.
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has taken action with regard to a Petition dated September 11, 1990, by Michael D. Kohn, Esquire, on behalf of Messrs.
Marvin Hobby and Allen Mosbaugh (Petitioners), pursuant to Section 2.206 of i
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR 2.206). The Petition was supplemented by submittals made on September 21 and October 1,1990, and July 8, 1991. The Petition pertains the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. %^ j The Petition contained allegations regarding: the manrgement of the [
Georgia Power Company (GPC) nuclear facilities; illegal transfer of GPC operating licenses to Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SONOPCO);
intentional false statements to the NRC regarding GPC's organizational chain l
' of command and the reliability of a diesel generator; perjured testimony submitted by a GPC executive during a DOL proceeding under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act; repeated abuse at the Vogtle facility of Technical Specification 3.0.3; repeated willful technical specification violations at j the Vogtle facility; repeated concealment of safeguards problems from.the NRC; operation of radioactive waste systems and facilities at Vogtle in gross violation of NRC requirements; routine nonconservative and questionable management practices; and retaliation by GPC against managers who make their regulatory concerns known to GPC or SONOPC0 management. The supplements to the Petition of September 21 and October 1, 1990, forwarded exhibits and N[2gggg gg 4 s
provided additional information regarding the alleged illegal transfer of operating licenses. Based on these allegations, Petitioners requested that the NRC institute proceedings and take swift and immediate action.
- The July 8,1991, supplement to the Petition repeated several of the
. earlier allegations, and also alleged that GPC's Executive Vice President made material false statements in GPC's April 1,1991, submittal to the NRC that responded to allegations in the original Petition. The supplement also j alleged that false statements had been made to the NRC by the same individual !
during a trarsthbed meeting on January 11, 1991, to discuss the formation and 4
i operation of SON 0PCO. Based on these allegations, Petitioners requested the NRC to take immediate steps to determine if GPC's current management has the l requisite character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness, and commitment
, to safety to continue operating a nuclear facility.
4 Several issues in the Petition were further defined and reviewed in 4
connection with the licensing proceeding before the Atomic Safety and I
Licensing Board (Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3; 50-425-OLA-3) regarding GPC's
\
application for license amendments to transfer operating authority of the Vogtle facility to Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SON 0PCO), and
- proceedings before the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) as a result of separate l discrimination suites filed by Messrs. Hobby (DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30) and
- Mosbaugh (DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-001 and 91-ER-A-011). Although the licensing proceeding concluded without a final Board decision when the parties settled and Mr. Mosbaugh withdrew as sole intervenor, the NRC staff has considered the j evidence for the common issues in reaching decisions on the 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. The NRC staff recognizes that Mr. Mosbaugh has withdrawn his interest in the Petition. Nevertheless, the interest of Mr. Hobby in the joint Petition remains and is the purpose for the Acting Director's action to i
v . ;
address the Petition. The decisions of the Secretary of Labor regarding the discrimination suites of Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh have been addressed by the NRC by means of enforcement action.
As discussed in the Director's Decision, certain concerns raised by the Petitioners are partially substantiated. Violations of regulatory requirements have occurred in the operation of the Vogtle facility. A number of violations were identified and three civil penalties have been issued to GPC for certain of these violations. The three civil penalties resulted from (1) opening a valve when it was required to be closed by the Vogtle Technical Specifications to protect against a potential " boron dilution" event (2) providing inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC regarding diesel generator testing, and (3) violating 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection," by discriminating against Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh for engaging in protected activities. The NRC has issued letters to GPC and to several GPC and SON 0PC0 individuals reminding them of their obligations to provide information to the NRC that is complete and accurate in all material respects, and of the need to ensure a proper environment in which employees can express regulatory concerns without fear of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. The licensee has committed to provide special training and notify the NRC before the individual who in 1990 was the Vogtle General Manager will be permitted to participate in licensed activities. As previously mentioned, Petitioners' request for proceedings has been accomplished in large measure through the licensing transfer proceeding and through separate actions before DOL, the ,
results of which are recognized by the NRC. To this extent, Petitioners' request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is granted.
However, it has been determined that no unauthorized transfer of the i Vogtle operating licenses has occurred, and that the GPC nuclear facilities i
t
_4_
are being operated-in accordance with NRC regulations and do not endanger the
! health and safety of the public. Additionally, based on the staff's review of i extensive information available to date, including the results of relevant enforcement actions, it is concluded that none of the issues call into j question the licensee's character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness, or l commitment to safety in the operation of its nuclear facilities. Therefore, y the Acting Director for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation declines to 1
j take any further action with respect to the issues raised in the Petition. To f this extent, the Petitioners' request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied.
The reasons for this denial are explained in the " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-97-06 ), a summary of which follows this notice. The a complete text of DD 06 is available for public inspection at the l Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
- Washington, DC, and at the local public document room at the Burke County Library, 412 Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 1997.
- FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION M h.
l FrankJ.N}rM11a, MctingDrector Office of NQclear Reactor Regulation l
t i
i -
l