ML20024J305
| ML20024J305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1994 |
| From: | Allenspach F, Hood D GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024J298 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-3, NUDOCS 9410130186 | |
| Download: ML20024J305 (33) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket Nos.
F.24-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
50-425-OLA-3
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
)
Re: Licensee Amendment Units I and 2)
)
(Transfer to Southern Nuclear)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK R. ALLENSPACH AND DARL S. HOOD REGARDING GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL LICENSE TRANSFER We, Frederick R. Allenspach and Darl S. Hood, having first been duly sworn, hereby state as follows:
1.1, Frederick R. Allenspach, am a Senior Operations Engineer in the Quality Assurance and Maintenance Branch of the NRC's Division of Technical Support. My educational and professional qualifications are set forth in Appendix A of this Affidavit.
2.1, Darl S. Hood, am a Senior Project Manager within the NRC's Division of Reactor Projects for nuclear reactors located in Regions 1 and 2.
I serve as Project Manager for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (the Vogtle facility).
My educational and professional qualifications are set fonh in Appendix B of this Affidavit.
9410130186 941003 PDR ADOCK 05000424 C
- 3. The purpose of this Affidavit is to respond on behalf of the NRC Staff to
" Georgia Power Company's Motion For Summary Disposition Of Intervenor's Illegal Transfer Of Licenses Allegation," dated August 24,1994 (Motion).
4 We have read the Georgia Power Company (GPC) Motion with its attached sopporting documents which include numerous affidavits, deposition transcripts, joint-sspulations among the parties, GPC's statement of material facts as to which there is no geluine issue to be heard, and GPC's response to the Board's questions concerning the illegal license transfer issue. We find no error in the factual assertions of GPC.
I BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUES
- 5. On October 22, 1992, Messrs. Allen Lee Mosbaugh and Marvin B. Hobby fded a petition to intervene in GPC's application for amendments to the operating licenses for the Vogtle facility to transfer operating responsibility to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern Nuclear or SONOPCO). That petition alleged that Southern Nuclear lacked the character, competence and integrity to operate the Vogtle facility. On December 9,1992, Messrs. Mosbaugh and Hobby filed an amendment to that petition.
Dere they alleged, inter alia, that GPC " effectuated transfer of control of the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant from the licensees to a de facto corporation, known as Southern Nuclear or SONOPCO, without the knowledge or consent of the co-owners of plant Vogtle." LBP-93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993). The amended petition states that Messrs. Joseph M. Farley and R. Patrick Mcdonald, on behalf of SONOPCO, selected Mr. Charles Kenneth McCoy as Southern Nuclear's " plant Vogtle project vice
. president."
The allegation of Intervenor is that the Southern Company ar.4 its subsidiaries decided in the late 1980s to create a corporation whose sole purpose would be to operate the system's nuclear power facilities. Before the new corporation was chartered, the "SONOPCO Project" was formed, with Mr. Farley, then an officer of the Southern Company and later the President of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,
as the head of the SONOPCO Project. Mr. Farley is a!!eged to have given directions to Mr. Mcdonald, Executive Vice President, Nuclear, GPC, for the operation of the Vogtle facility, and, through Mr. Mcdonald, to Mr. McCoy, GPC's vice president for the Vogtle facility. This history is more fully set forth in DD-93-8,37 NRC 314 (1993).
Much of the amended petition refers to Department of Labor proceedings in which Mr.
Hobby and Mr. Mosbaugh alleged that GPC had treated them unlawfully. These same illegal transfer issues we e litigated there although in a different context.
- 6. On February 18, 1993, the Licensing Board issued an Order admitting Mr.
Mosbaugh as a party, denying Mr. Hobby leave to intervene, and admitting a contention that Southern Nuclear lacked integrity to operate Vogtle based, in part, upon the contention that " control of the operation of the Vogtle... Plant from the licensees to... Southern Nuclear" had taken place without NRC approval. LBP-93_,37 NRC _
(1993). These same allegations were made in a petition by Messrs. Mosbaugh and Hobby dated September 11,1990, treated by the NRC as a filing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206. On April 23, 1993, a Partial Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 was issued, DD-93-8,37 NRC 314 (1993). There the Staff concluded that no illegal defacto transfer of operating licensees to Southern Nuclear had occurred.
i
37 NRC at 317-22,345. On July 14, 1993, the Commission in CLI-93-15, 38 NRC 1 (1993), vacated the Partial Director's Decision upon grounds other than the Staff's position regarding the illegal transfer issue. The issue addressed in this Affidavit is the alleged illegal transfer of the operating license from the Vogtle facility to Southern Nuclear.
STAFF POSITION
- 7. The Staff concluded in DD-93-8,37 NRC 314,322,345 (1993) that no illegal transfer of the operating licenses for the Vogtle facility had occurred. That part of DD-93-8, 37 NRC 314-15, 317-22, 345, which deals with the illegal license transfer issue still remains the Staff position and is attached as Appendix C to this Affidavit. We, Frederick Allenspach and Darl Hood, performed the Staff analysis that appears in DD-93-8. Since GPC filed its Motion on August 24, 1994, we have examined the Motion and supporting papers, other evidence disclosed in discovery in this proceeding which might modify the Staff's position stated in DD-93-8. The Staff has found no information which would adversely affect our prior decision and, indeed, there is additional evidence to support it.
- 8. The GPC's Motion for Summary Deposition and Statement of Material Facts i
as to Which There is Not Genuine Issue, in g:neral, are principally directed to refuting Mr. Mosbaugh's allegation that Mr. Farley, for Southern Nuclear, controlled the operation of the Vogtle facility. The Staff's prior position supports this refutation.
37 NRC at 319,320. Since the Intervenor provided a supplement to his i 2.206 petition i
l
. on October 1,1990, to the best of our knowledge, no new substantive facts that would cause us to change our position have come to light.
- 9. On April 7,1994, GPC deposed Mr. Mosbaugh regarding the illegal transfer issue.
Some of Mr. Mosbaugh's statements made there under oath are relevant.
Although not made in response to a specific question, Mr. Mosbaugh stated, "I'm aware that Georgia Power's operating license for plant Vogtle was not transferred to Mr. Farley or to a management chain headed by Mr. Farley. I'm aware of that." Tr. 29,30.
Later in the deposition, the following exchange occurred (Tr. 86):
Q: [Mr. Lamberski, counsel for GPC] Prior to your separation from Georgia Power Company in 1990, did you have occasion to observe or were you otherwise aware of the day-to-day interaction between Mr.
Mcdonald [GPC Executive Vice President] and Mr. Dahlberg [ President of GPC)?
A: [Mr. Mosbaugh] No, I didn't have the opportunity to observe that.
- 10. Messrs. Farley and Mcdonald were both located in Birmingham, Alabama, Mr. Mosbaugh never traveled to the Birmingham office (Mosbaugh Deposition Tr. at 87) and never was in a position to himself observe any interaction between Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald, the Southern Nuclear participants in this alleged activity.
In
- Intervenor's Response To The First Request For Documents By Georgia Power Company," dated June 2,1993, at page 44, Mr. Mosbaugh stated in a response to Interrogatory 21, "His [Mr. Mosbaugh's] opinion that the license had been transferred was based upon his personal observations of how business was conducted." At his 1
April 7,1994 deposition, Mr. Mosbaugh repudiated this interrogatory answer, stating,
i in part "but the reference here is to knowledge of the first hand...[that] knowledge at [of]
certain events is not my first hand knowledge." Tr. 93.
- 11. Based upon our reading of the transcript, we believe that no information was l
adduced at the deposition from Mr. Mosbaugh by his counsel that supported his l
r allegations.
- 12. Mr. Marvin Hobby was the sponsor of the illegal transfer matter in the
{ 2.206 petition. Mr. Hobby was deposed by GPC on April 9,1994 and his deposition, in pertinent part, reads:
Q:
And do you consider yourself to be an expert in NRC licensing matters?
A: No sir.
Q:
Do you consider yourself to be an expert with regard to NRC regulations insofar as they might affect the transfer of an operating license for a nuclear power plant?...
A: The Witness: I don't consider myself a licensed expert at all. [Tr. 20]
I Q: Mr. Hobby, I believe we had established in the Department of Labor proceeding that you do not have personal knowledge, personal knowledge of a single instance in which Mr. Mcdonald received his management direction from Mr. Farley with respect to the operation of the Hatch and Vogtle plants; is that correct?
A: That's correct. [Tr.50]
Q: Are you aware of any instances where Mr. Farley reported to the Georgia Board of Directors regarding the operations at Plant Vogtle?
A: No.
i
. Q: Are you aware of any instances where Mr. Farley reported to the nuclear operations overview committee of Georgia Power concerning the operation of Plant Vogtle?
A: No.
Q: Other than the one instance that you referenced earlier, are you aware of any instance where Mr. Farley visited a Georgia Power Nuclear Plant?
A: Ijust don't know.
Q: You can't recall any other instance?
A: No,no.
Q: Did you ever visit Plant Vogtle in 1988, '89 and 1990 time period?
A. I don't know.
Q: You don't recall doing so?
A: 1988,1989, or 1990?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: I may have. I don't know. I don't know. [Tr.150-51]
- 13. The following statements during Mr. Hobby's deposition are also illustrative:
Q: Could you identify for us the day-to-day effects in your last year at being at Georgia Power of having the two licensees at the Vogtle Facility controlled by SONOPCO as verses Georgia Power Company?
A: I don't think I can answer that question.... [Tr.168-69]
Q. Do you have personal knowle.dge of any changes in the management of the Vogtle facilities from Mr. Bochhold [the Vogtle facility's General Manager in the 1988-1990 time frame] which resulted from SONOPCO's appearance on the scene?
A. No. [Tr.169]
l 9
i
Q. Do you have any other experience in being on a nuclear site and assisting or operating the plant in any kind of way?
A. In operating a plant?
Q. Yes A: No. [Tr.170]
In sum, no new information was disclosed during the deposition of Mr. Hobby that would support the illegal transfer allegation. Mr. Hobby did not recall ever visiting the Vogtle I
facility in the time period of 1988-1990 to discuss or observe any activities related to this allegation.
- 14. The claim that the operation of the Vogtle facility was illegally transferred I
from GPC to Southern Nuclear is not supported by any evidence. Mr. Mosbaugh testified that the license was transferred (Mr. Mosbaugh's Deposition Tr. at page 14) and that the license was not transferred (Tr. 30). Mr. Mosbaugh further testified that he knew nothing of the personal interactions between the corporate officers involved that allegedly controlled the transfer of the operation of the Vogtle facility to Southern Nuclear (Mosbaugh April 7,1994 depos' :on, Tr. 87, 88), and, in effect, repudiated his interrogatory response that he had personal knowledge of the alleged license transfer.
Mr. Hobby testified that he has no expenise in licensing nuclear power plants, that he Aas no personal knowledge of any instance when Mr. Mcdonald took instruction for operation of Vogtle from Mr. Farley, that he (Mr. Hobby) does not know if he visited Vogtle, that he cannot identify changes in the operation of Vogtle with the appearance i
i
9 of SONOPCO and, lastly, that he has no experience in the operation of a nuclear power plant. See paragraphs 12-13, above.
- 15. Based upon the Staff's previous assessment, GPC's motion and supporting papers, and the lack of new facts offered by Messrs. Mosbaugh and Hobby during discovery, it is clear that no illegal transfer of the operating licenses for the Vogtle facility has taken place.
- 16. The Staff has also considered information disclosed at the depositions of Southern Nuclear and GPC employees. Intervenor deposed Mr. Farley on April 14, 1994.
1, Frederick Allenspach, have reviewed the transcript of that deposition and I, Darl Hood, was present when that deposition was taken. Intervenor's questions went to the formation of the SONOPCO project and how it was prompted by various officers of the Southern Company and its subsidiaries. Intervenor failed to show any action or activity at the Vogtle facility that was controlled, directed, or influenced by Mr. Farley himself, or through anyone subject to Mr. Farley's influence. Mr. Farley testified that he attended only one Board of Director's meeting of Georgia Power Company and this engagement was almost entirely social. Tr.107. He testified that after he left Alabama Power Company as its president and went to Southern Nuclear, he did not give directions to either Mr. Dahlberg or Mr. Mcdonald, officers of Georgia Power Company. Tr.109.
He testified he gave no directions to Mr. Mcdonald to follow for the operation of the Vogtle facility. Tr. I10.
i
- 17. Mr. Mcdonald, the former Executive Vice President of GPC for its nuclear operations, was deposed by the Intervenor on April 14, 1994. Mr. Mcdonald testified as follows:
Q: On a weekly or day-to-day basis, were you informed as to the condition of the Hatch and Vogtle Facilities?
A: We...and I use this word figuratively speaking, we religiously reported every morning to Mr. Dahlberg's [ Pres. GPC] office and frequently to him directly the status of the plants and problems involved. And I reported to him again religiously when anything worthy of note, by that I mean a feeling of the seriousness ofit or the impact, I would get in touch with him where ever he might be. Tr. 97.
Q: Who gave you this information sir?
A: What information?
Q: The information about the status of the Vogtle and Hatch facilities.
A: The information would generally come from one of two sources. It would come from George Hairston who was basically a senior vice president in charge of those two projects or if George Hairston was not present, then it would come from the so called duty manager from either of the two projects.
Q: And you on a daily basis informed Mr. Dahlberg of this information?
A: Yes, yes. It was a ritual, a daily ritual. Tr. 98.
Q: Did Mr. Dahlberg report to the Board of Directors regarding the operations of the nuclear facilities at Hatch and Vogtle?
A: He generally had me report to the Board of Directors... And ifI were not present, Mr. Hairston would report to the Board of Directors. Tr.100.
- 18. Mr. Mcdonald testified that he took his directions for the operation of the GPC facilities from Mr. Scherer and then Mr. Dahlberg, Chief Executive Officers of GPC.
i
Q: Did you [Mr. Mcdonald] ever receive any directions regarding the actual operation of the Vogtle facilities from anyone except Mr. Dahlberg or the board of directors of Georgia Power Company?
A: I don't recall the nature of that. I did receive some direction which would be called direction from Bob Scherer who I reported to before Mr. Dahlberg became CEO. But subsequent to Mr. Dahlberg becoming CEO, I never took any direction nor, as far as I know, my organization from anyone other than Mr. Dahlberg.
The board of directors did not give general -- or specific directions and bypass Mr. Dahlberg. Mcdonald Tr.100.
19.
Mr. Mcdonald testified that Mr. Hairston reported to him and, in Mr. Hairston's absence, Mr. McCoy, Vice President-Nuclear of GPC for the Vogtle facility, reported to him.
Q: Mr. Hairston reported to you?
A: Yes i
Q: And if he was on the road or traveling, I assume Mr. McCoy took his place, reported to you?
A: That's correct. If Mr. McCoy wasn't there for some reason, the so-called duty project manager would report to me. Tr.101
- 20. Mr. McCoy was deposed by Intervenor on April 6,1994. He testified that in 1990 Southern Nuclear employees were at the Vogtle site and that they performed their work subject to Mr. McCoy's approval. Tr. 81.
- 21. Mr. Hairston, the former Senior Vice President of GPC was deposed by Intervenor on July 27, 1994. I, Darl Hood, was present during this deposition. Mr.
Hairston described the reporting structure during the 1988,1989, and 1990 time frames.
He confirmed that Mr. McCoy reported to him and he [Mr. Hairston] reported to Mr.
Mcdonald. All three were officers of GPC.
- 22. Mr. A.W. Dahlberg, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GPC in the 1990s time period, was deposed by Intervenor on April 6,1994. Mr. Dahlberg testified that SONOPCO personnel were at the Vogtle site in 1989 and 1990 and that they functioned subject to the control of GPC. Tr.108. Mr. Dahlberg further testified that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Robert Scherer, CEO of GPC, until June 1988 and then reported to Mr. Dahlberg when he became GPC's CEO in June 1988 [Tr. I11] and further testified that the operation of the Vogtle facility is [1994] subject to the control and direction of GPC officials. Tr.115. He also testified that the corporate officers of GPC responded to the general direction and constraints of the Board of Directors of GPC and that the GPC Board of Directors, of which Mr. Dahlberg is a member, has not in any way suggested that the Vogtle facility be controlled by Southern Nuclear. Tr.116.
- 23. Summarizing the depositions taken by Intervenor and cited above, the officers of GPC (Messrs. McCoy, Hairston, Mcdonald, and Dahlberg) uniformly testified that the operation of the Vogtle facility is, and has been, subject to the control and direction of GPC.
Intervenor did not impeach this testimony. The depositions of Messrs.
Mosbaugh and Hobby make clear that they have no personal knowledge of any significant 1
facts that demonstrate that GPC did not control the operation of the Vogtle facility.
Thus, no information or evidence proffered by Mr. Mosbaugh in anyway impugns or contradicts this testimony.
- 24. Chapter 13 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) sets forth l
the organizational structure and responsibilities for the operation of the Vogtle facility, including organizational charts (Figures 13.1.1-1, 13.1.1-2, and 13.1.2-1) See
~_ _
. d Appendix D. It has been updated through April 1994 (Rev. 4). I, Frederick Allenspach, have reviewed Chapter 13 of the UFSAR, Rev. 4.
Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of Southern Company, and Southern Nuclear are identified in Chapter 13 and their roles are defined. All reporting and activity is made subject to approvals of the General Manager Nuclear Plant and Vice President Nuclear, both of whom are employees of GPC (Figure 13.1.1-2 and 13.1.2-1). Section 13.1.2.2.1 states:
"The GPC general manager-nuclear plant (Vogtle) (GMNP) is responsible for the direct management of the plant, including industrial relations, planning, coordination, direction of operation, training, maintenance, r
refueling, and technical activities.
The GMNP is responsible for t
compliance with the requirements of the operating license, Technical 3
Specifications, and quality assurance program."
- 25. This describes GPC's responsibility with respect to day-to-day operations.
No information or evidence has been provided by Intervenor or anyone else that would suggest that this is not correct.
26.
In addition to reviewing information revealed in discovery, on September 28,1994, we visited the Vogtle site and, on September 29,1994, we visited the corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama. The purpose of our visit was to verify personally the paper descriptions set forth in the UFSAR and determine if GPC continues to be in charge of the operation of the Vogtle facility. At both locations, we met with numerous managers of GPC, Southern Nuclear, and Southern Company Services and discussed their organizational responsibilities and structure, including details of their respective employments and their involvements with respect to the Vogtle facility.
While at the Vogtle site, we also met with the NRC's Resident Inspectors stationed full
-.e,
time at the Vogtle facility and discussed their observations of the day-to-day control of the facility by GPC managers and the support provided to the facility by Southern Nuclear and Southern Company Services employees. Our review at these sites convinces us that the positior s described in UFSAR Chapter 13, Figures 13.1.1-1,13.1.1-2 and 13.1.2-1 do exist at the Vogtle facility, that they are occupied (except for the position of Assistant General Manager, Plant Operations), that the reporting chain of command is as set forth in the cited UFSAR figures, and that control of the operation of the Vogtle facility is by GPC employees. We found no evidence that anyone other than GPC controls the operation of die Vogtle facility.
- 27. The Staffis sa:isfied that the separation of responsibility is maintained and that neither Southern Nucletr nor Southern Company Services control the day-to-day operation of the Vogtle facility. The contract for services at the Vogtle facility between GPC and Southern Nuclear har been reviewed. This contract adequately provides that GPC officials shall direct and control work performed at the Vogtle facility.
- 28. The Staff concludes, based upon GPC's Motion, the supporting papers, and other information available to the NRC, that there has been no transfer of the operation of the Vogtle facility to SONOPCO.
The foregoing and attached statements of professional qualifications are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.
FALn L L
' Frederick R. Allenspach '
L asf f
Darl S. Hood Subscribed and sworn to bpre me in Rockville, Maryland this v_ day of October 1994
,)
ha l, f,,;
,(R*W W T'oury Pcblic. /
f My commission expires: M/v'/ / Of[
i
~
_ = _ - =..
l Appendix A
)
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF FREDERICK ALLENSPACH June 1952
- Graduate of Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Degree in l
Bachelor of M.chanical Engineering September 1956 to June 1968
- Employed by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Reactor Division. Approximately two years as operating shift supervisor in charge of an operating shift on the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR).
Approximately three years as BGRR day shift supervisor responsible for various reactor support activities.
}
- Approximately six years as BGRR Assistant Operations Group Leader primarily responsible for the temperature monitoring and reactor fuel management programs.
June 1968 Employed by the' Atomic Energy Commission, to June 1974 Directorate of Licensing, Operational Safety Branch.
My responsibilities include (as assigned); review and l
evaluation of applicants organizational structure, l
technical and administrative qualifications of applicants proposed reactor operating organization, including
+
emergency plans and industrial security plans; development of guides and codification of present and proposed practices with respect to administrative procedures for the operation of licensed reactors; the review of operating reports from licensed reactors for safety related items; and the preparation of reports l
relative to operating experiences at licensed reactors.
June 1974 to May 1980
- Employed by the AEC/NRC, Division of Project Management, Quality Assurance Branch.
My responsibilities include review and evaluation of applicants organizational structure, technical and
?
administrative qualifications of applicants proposed reactor operating organization, development of standards, codes and guides with respect to administrative procedures for the operation oflicensed reactors; and the development of uniform acceptance criteria for subjects 1
4
i required to be addressed by license applicants relating to operational safety matters.
May 1980 Employed by the NRC, Division of Human Factors to November 1985
- Safety, Licensee Qualifications Branch.
My responsibilities include establishing requirements and qualification stand vds for licensee management and plant personnel; review and evaluate the technical and managerial qualifications of applicants and licensees; and the development and review of administrative controls for the operation of licensed reactors.
November 1985 to April 1987
- Employed by NRC, Division of PWR-B Facilities Operations Branch. My responsibilities include review and evaluation of the Administrative Controls aspects of Technical Specifications, and evaluated performance data and SALP input for licensed reactors.
April 1987 to Present
- Employed by NRC, Division of Licensee Performances and Quality Evaluation, Performance and Quality Evaluation Branch.
My responsibilities include the review and evaluation of Administrative Controls to Technical Specification with respect to management organization and staffing (since transferred to HFEB) and operational safety reviews, and review and evaluation of quality assurance programs for advanced reactors.
In 1987-1989 time frame, provided support in the area of management, technical support and plant staffing for the Operating License review for Vogtle Unit 2.
This included support for the review of the Administrative Controls of the Vogtle Plant Technical Specifications. In the 1969-1975 time frame, I reviewed the management, organization and staffing to support the licensing of Edwin I. Hatch Units 1 & 2.
' Appendix B EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DARL S. HOOD June 1962 Graduated from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering June 1962 to November 1963 Design Engineer with Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia Signal Corps, U.S. Army.
Began as a Second Lieutenant and finished as a Captain.
November 1963 to February 1965 Aeronautical Engineer, Nuclear Propulsion and Power, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Huntsville, Alabama.
Analyze radiation hazards to crew during planned space flights using nuclear propulsion and radioisotopic power sources.
February 1965
)
to August 1966 Nuclear Quality Control Engineer, Electric Boat Division -
of General Dynamics, Groton, Connecticut s
August 1966 to June 1969 Nuclear Safety and Radiation Analysis Engineer, Nuclear.
Division of Martin Marietta Corporation, Baltimore, l
Analyze the hazard potential of nuclear systems for space applications.
June 1969 to August 1976 Assistant Project Manager, Nuclear Power Systems Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc., Windsor, t
Connecticut. Responsible for licensing support for Duke l
Power Company's proposed Cherokee Units 1,2, and 3 and Thomas L. Perkins Units 1,2, and 3.
Project Engineer, Safety and Licensing Department, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Windsor, Connecticut.
7 Responsible for licensing support of nuclear power E
plants.
i s
r
August 1976 to present Project Manager, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Principal plant assignments in this capacity have been for Westinghouse's standard reference design RESAR-414; Midland Plant. Units I and 2; McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (from late December 1984 to August 1990); and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (from August 1990 to present).
f
APPENDIX C
~
Cte as 37 NRC 314 (1993)
DD pS4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFMCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATM)N Prank J. Miraglia, Acting Diraetor Docket Nos. 90 321 ti the Matter of W 366 90-424 30-425 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, of st.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unhs 1 and 2; Match Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
April 23,1993 The Acung Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concludes that the pection filed by Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L. Mossbaugh (Pe-uuoners) rused no substanual health or safety concern to call imo quescon the conunued safe operauon of the Vogtle and Hatch nuclear facibties operated by Georgia Power Company (GPC) and the Southern Nuclear Opasting Company (50NOPCO). In addiuon. the Acung Director concluded that no unauthorned transfer of the Vogtle operaung licenses occurred, and that, based on the NRC Staff's review of informauon available to date, none of the issues decided ca!)
into quesuon GPC's character, cornpetence, fundamental trustwwJiiness, and commitment and safety with respect to the operation of iu nuclear facilities.
Cermn concerns raised by Petitioners were partially substantiated. Violations of regulatory requiremenu have occurred in the operations of the Vogue and Hatch facihues. Nocces of Violation as>d a civil penalty have been issued to GPC for certain of these violations.
Cermn other issues have not yet been additssed by the Acting Director and will be the subject of a Final Director's Decisices.
314 l
APPENDIX C 1
PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 L DERODUCTION 11,1990, Machael D. Kahn, Esqare, Aled wish die U.S. Nu-On $spiember clear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a " Request for Proceedmgs and Imposinon of Civil Penalties for Improperly Transferring Consol of Osasta Ptmer Com-pony's !.acmses to the SONOPCO project and for the Umsafe and lapmper Opersbon of Georgia Ptmer Company Licensed 7tcilasas" (Petition) on bahalf of Messrs. Marvin B. Nothy and Allen L. Mosbaugh (Petitioners). line Passaan-ers are foriner ernployees of the George Power Company (OPC or I.Joensee),
which ocernies and is part owner of the VogGe Electnc Generating Plant and the l
Hat:h Nuclear Plant. The Petition was referred to the Of5cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for the Director of NRR to prepare a Duector's Decision in accordance with secoon 2.206 of Tale 10 of the_ Code of federal Aegulo-rev (10 CJ.R. I 2.206). The NRC received exhibiu to suppon the Petition on l
September 21,1990, and a supplement to the Petition on October 1.1990.
The Peudoners made a number of allegauons about the management of the GPC nuclear facibties. Speci5cally. the Petitioners alleged that (1) GPC illegally t
transferred its operndng licenses to Southern Nuclear Opersong Company (SONOPCO)2; (2) GPC imowingly included misrtpresemations in tu response to concems of a Cornmissioner about the chain of command for the Vogde facihty; (3) OPC made tmennonal false slaiements to the NRC about the reliability of a diesel generator t hose failure had resulted in a Site Area Emergency at Vogtle; (O a GPC execurJve submitted perjured lesumony during a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proceeding under section 210 of the Energy Reorganizauon Act: (5) GPC repe.itedly abused Technical Speci6 cation (TS) 3.0.3 at the Vogtle fa:thry; (6) GPC repeatedly and willfully violated Technical Speci5 cations (TSs) a: the Vogde facili*y; (7) GPC repeatedly concealed safeguards problems drorn the NRC; (8) OPC operated radioactive wasic systems and facilities at Vogde in gross violauon of NRC reqmrements; (9) GPC routinely used noncenservsove and questionable management practices at its nuclear facilities; and (10) OPC retahated against rnar. agers who made their regulatory concerns known to GPC or SONOPCO management. The Peutioners requested the NRC to institute proceedings and take swift and immediate action based on these allegaians.
On Ociober 23,1990, I acknowledged receiving the Petition and concluded that no immediate action was necessary regarding these snaners. I made I
I saae, N.siast operenna Caripne a more emurusaly knoe, tedes a "Senshern MarJuar
- sisuses, a bs morases we es Pasuan."so**oPCtr em he esmW hp is eas hrma! Dwamar's Dammes 315 I
APPENDIX C with regard to those issues that are capable of Aral resolusion now. Por all issues not addressed bassin, I keend to issue a suppierness so this Decision when the considerauons by the NRC Staff and DOL are complete My discussion and decision regardang issues for wtuch anal conclusions have been reached follow.
D.
DISCUSSION A.
Alleged IBegal Transfer of Ucenses (Petitios lID.1 with Supplemental FBing of October 1,1990; July 8,1991 Supplement iIV)
The Petitioners allege an IDegal transfer to SONOPCO of the NRC licenses currendy held by OPC shot authorne operanon of OPC nuclear facihdes.
Speci6cally, she Petitioners aDege ihat OPC im;roperly transferred control of its nuclear beanses to SONOPCO. The Petitioners contend that Mr. Joseph M.
Ihrley - who was an of5cer of GPC's parent company, The Southern Company, and its subsidiary, Southern Company Services - was really the Chief Execuuve Of6cer (CEO) of SONOPCO and was, in fact, responsible for operaung the GPC nuclear facihues, beginning with the Erst of three phases in the planned transiuon to SONOPCO.
A review of the hittory and backgand of the formation of SONOPCO is necessary to understand this issue.
The Southern Company is the parent 6rm of fve electnc udbDes: Alabama Power Company (APC): GPC, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Savannah Electnc. Two of these utihues are associated with nuclear faciboes at three different sites GPC is ihe principal owmr and the holder of licertses from the NRC to operate the Vogtle nuclear facibry near Augusta, Georgia, and the Hatch nuclear facihty near Baxley, Georgia. APC owns the Parley nuclear facibry near Dothan, Alabama The Southern Company also includes Southern Company Services, Incorporated, a whoU) owned service organizauon.
In 1988, The Southern Cornpany estabhshed the SONOPCO project for the long term purpose of estabbshing an operating company to eventually operate the nuclear power generating plants that were then operated by OPC and APC.
The estabbshment of a single operating company was to be accomphshed in ihree phases. Dunng Phase 1 SONOPCO - which had not yet received the appron! of the Secundes and Exchange Commission (SEC) - was formed by The Southern Company as a " project" to provide support services to the opersung compames (GPC and APC). In Phase 2, which is now in effect for the Vogtle and Hatch facDiues, SONOPCO contmues to provide support services to the operating companies, but has become a legal entity, having obuuned the approval of the SEC, arvJ thereafier being incwporied by The Southern Cornpany. Phase 3 will begin for the Vogt!c and Hatch facDities (and is curreritly 317
l APPENDIX C in effect for the 1%riey facility), once SONOPCO acqarts NRC licenses no operate the nuclear facilities.
Because of delsys, die transition occurred sacre slowly shen erst anticipened, l
and Phase 1 of the proyect lassed for.,y.e=f=2y 2 3 ears (1989 and 1990).
During this phase, Mr. Joseph M. Phriey was responsible for the administrative aspects of forsning the new opereung company. Os Phbruary 24.1989, Mr.
Phriey was elected Executive Vics Prendens-Nuclear, of The Southern Compan and Executive Vice President of Southern Company $smees, Incorporated Befort this appointment, he had been Prendent and Chief Executive Of6cer (GO) of APC for almost 20 years.
Until SONOPCO acquired the NRC bcsanes, die OPC auclear facilines sert to remain under the direcuan of OPC President, Mr. A.W. Dahlberg, with a reporting chain downward of Executive Vice President-Nuclear Operations R.P. Mcdonald), Saruar Vice Presidern-Nuclear Operanons (Mr. W.O. Hairston.
IU), and the vice presidents for the Vogtle ad Hatch facihties (Messrs. C.K.
McCoy and TJ Becsham, respectively).1hc APC plants were to remain under the direcDon of the APC President, with a similar chain downward of Mr.
Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston, and the vice president for the Phrley facilary. Mr.
Mcdonald and Mr. Hairston wre of5cers of both APC and GPC.
Dunng Phase 1, which began on or about November I,1988, technica! sup-pon wss provided to all three nuclear facilities by a common Tbchnical Serv group under a Vse President of Southern Cornpany Services,incorpornied, w reported to the Execudve Vice President, Mr. Mcdonald. Administraove sup-pon to allihree facilaues was provided by a common Administradve Services Gror; under another Vee President of Southern Company Services Incorpo-rr.ted, who also reponed to Mr. Mcdonald. This phase was to be effecuve until the SEC approved the creauon of SONOPCO. Mr. Phriey was not identi-6ed as having any respomibibt) for operating the GPC nuclear facilities during ttus phase. He was responsibic fce providing administrative services through Southern Company Services, Incorporated, md was also respnsible for the formauon of SONOPCO. Although not effective dunng Phase 1, Mr. Phrley had beta designated to become the President and 30 of SONOPCO when it wss established.
Phase 2 began near the end of 1990 with the approval of SONOPCO as a legal '
entity by the SEC. Speci$cally, on December 14,1990, the SEC approved The Southern Company's request of June 22,1988, to form SONOPCO. SONOPCO
,as incorporated on December 17,1990, and its of6cers were elected Decembe 18,1990. As pan of Phase 2, GPC's Executive Vice President and Senior Vxe President, Nuclear Operations (Messrs. Mcdonald and Hairston) became of6cers of SONOPCO and reponed administrativt!y to the President and CEO of SONOPCO, Mr. 7tricy. The Vice Presidents of each nuclear fineility also became of$cers of SONOPCO.The Vice President of Tbchnical Servic 318 1
i
APPENDIX C l
Vace Presidens of Adminisrative Services, suspectively, for Southern Company Services, incorpwalad, became of5cers of SONOPCO, rather lhan of5cers of Southern Company Services,lacorporused During this phase OPC and APC l
reuuned their NRC bcanoes and the responsibility for operedng their respeenvc nuclear faciblies.
Phase 3, deng which SONOPCO was no have operasang responsibuiry, was planned so begin for OPC nuclear facnisses when die NRC hcanses had l
been transferred to SONOPCO. De NRC appriwed hcanae amendments on 22, 1991, tint authanzad die tensfer of boenses for die Phrtey l
November facilary frorn APC to SONOPCO. De amendmeos for the 7hriey facility was irnplemented withm 90 days lhemaher. OPC aled M7 for smalar amendments to transfer the lacenses for opersoon of the Vogde and Hatch facihues on September 18, 1992, and the NRC is currently reviewing these appbcadons.
The Peutioners contend that dunng Phase 1 of the sensition to SONOPCO, GPC, in effect, transferred control of its NRC boenses to the SONOPCO project.
l They base their claim, in part on their having witnessed et daily opersbon i
of GPC's nuclear faciliues at the site and at GPC's corporate of6ces. The Peunoners siste that o
ce ura eu ar sorrwe.a c rs Plans M neser o.orge mod).w (v.s e) e Pr.deru Mecay. Mcce> w soNOPco, sen.or v Pr 4mru. Omarse f
sosoPco V,a Haw. Haw w SONOPCO's Eaeanne Vum Presieses and Gef Opersuoru Or6cer.
R PsmeA McDedd. McDonaW w sONOPCO's One.f Esecum arnaar. Mr Ferie in the supplementary 6bng of October 1,1990, the Petinoners funher contend t
tha: Mr. Farley " chose the GPC Corporate Of6ces which would be staf6ng the SONOPCO project even though he is not an of6 car or employee of GPC " In the July 8,1991, Supplement (at 20), the Peticoners assert that Mr. Mcdonald has reponed to Mr. Parley on administrouve manen since the formaban of the SONOPCO project.
In March 1988, GPC and APC met with NRC to discuss their plans to form a sepante operaung company, SONOPCO. On July 25,1988, NRC met with GPC to discuss the corporate organtzauon of SONOPCO and GPC, including the genene acutiues and inidauves involving the Vogtle and Hatch facibues. to the moeung summary prepared by NRC Region !!, August II,1985. a Nuclear Operadons-Transidon Organizauon chart shows the %ce Prendent-Nuclear (Hatch), and the Vice President-Nuclear (Vogtle) reporting to Mr. W.G. Huston, the Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operauons and Mr. W.G.
Hairston reparung to Mr. R.P. Mcdonald, the Executive Vice President-Nuclear Operadons. On March 1,1988, Mr. Mcdonald was elected a senior of6cer o GPC and named Executive %ce President-Nuclear, effective April 25, 1988 I
319 i
i
APPEND 1X C On May 4.1984, Mr. W.O. Hairsion was elecand Semor Vice Presidem-Neca Operauons of OPC and Mr. C.K. McCoy was elacied Vice President-Nuc of OPC (OPC Subminal AprB 1,1991, Ansch.1. Esh. 4).
Dunng Deosmber 19 ihmugh 21.198g, with Phase 1 of she SONOPCO transition in effect, she NRC conducted an faspectim of the w T~.a organi.
sanon. responsibilities, and funesaans of SONOPCO a Birmingham, Alabam (Inspection Report Nos. 54321/08 41,54366/58 41 $4424/5660,50 425/
77,54348/58-33, and $4364/58-33). Part 3 of this report setes:
In piparsham fa amnbeag she mannesemos of Vagtis. Hand, and Padry tmo ens es man, GPC has ressmiand and steel Iba ansperse andar aparabes to Saunashern omunh. es Eaammin we hendes and samer We hesieses far Nedmar Oppuuans we d5seri af hee opc ed APC... The We houdens for and ofihs sheen popau O'as0s HanA. and Fairy) myon w sh: Smar Vase handse af Nudest Oppunens The trartscript of the DOL pmceedmg' on the discriminauon complaints o Mr. Hobby indicates that OPC President, Mr. Dahlberg. samed that she o of GPC's nuclear facilities is his direct responsiblity; that Mr. Mcdonald takes ha management dtraction from Mr. Dahlberg regarding the operation of nuclear plants. and that Mr. Mcdonald repons to Mr. Dalhberg for managemen 305, 307, and operatons dealms with GPC plants (Proceedmg Thnscript at 309). Mt. Tsriey stated that he does not have any responsibility for operaung GPC's nuclear faciliues and that Mr. Mcdonald does not report to hirn with respect to the opersuon of Hatch and Vogtle (id. 567 and 568). Mr. Mcd stated tha: he repons to Mr. Dahlberg regating the operation of GPC's nucle facihues (id at 613 and 614).
In a deposioon of May 5,1990, taken in the same Hobby DOL procee6ng.
pages 13 and 14, Mr. Mcdonald stated that he has no reporung twpons 15,1989, Mr.
to Mr. Parley. In a Memorandum, to Mr. H.B. Hobby of May Fred D. Wdhams, the GPC Vice President for Bulk Power Martets, stated.
Mi u McDonaJd repra w A w. D.h:ters to operiwe and wppon servams of No Yog-Je and Hase I have nr.aeed a copy of the snoe escuru phhshed ershni8huan showrg the reprung Mr Gems: Heimon repans so Mr Mcdonald The Pecuon (at 5 and 6) states that Mr. Hobby's claims regar&ng control of opersong the nucles facibnes art based upon his having witnessed the d day opersoon at GPC's corporate of5ces. Other than Mr. Hobby's observauo of day to<1sy opernoon, no direct evidence oss offered to support the clai that Mr. Mcdonald reponed to Mr. Tsriey regarding the operation of the Hatch or Vogtle nuclear facDities. Mr. Hobby acknowledged that he had no pen i
l Wuwt s.NaMy e osees,a Fe ar Co Cam No 90h30
{
I 320
APPENDIX C knowledge shat Mr. Mcdonald received his direc6an Dom Mr. hetey (Hobby DO!. Proceeding Tiranscript at 139). He does, however, relate observasions or assernons that he believes strongly suggest that SONOPCO was la consrol:
la his Memorandum of Agril 27,1989 (Exh. A of te September (1) 21,1990 Supplemem to the Petition), Mr. Hobby refers to a spectic concern wish sogard m conrol that was capressed by one of the joint owners of the Vogde facitry, she Oglesharpe Ptwr Corporsuon Page 4 of Mr. Hobby's letaer of June 8,1999, en Mr. D. Wilkmson Q)
(Atanch. 4 m the July 8,1991 Supplement to she Pedtior) refers to ccaching of the OPC corporale stan regardans the organizaponal g
reporsing and control issue.
Mr. Hobby stasas that on Ociober 25,1989, OPC's counsel advised (3) him that statements in cannin contractual documents should be re-worded to avoid any accusadon that SONOPCO was in consrol (Oc-tober 1,1990 Supplement e Petition at 3).
la the Ociober 1,1990 Supplement (at 1 and 2), the Petitionen state (d) that Mr. Phrley was responsible for selecting OPC vice presidents associated with the SONOPCO project and also decided whether to transfer GPC employees from the SONOPCO project located in Bumingham. Alabama.10 GPC Headquaners, in Atlanta. Georgia.
even though he was not a GPC employce.
Mr. Hobby was advised that *'[i]t was Mr. Arley who would be (5) mahng the call about the staf6ng of all GPC nuclear positions...."
(October 1,1990 Supplement to Petidon at 4).
The Prudoners state that Vogde project management assumed that l
(6)
Mr. Parley, and not Mr. Dahlberg controlled Vogde's operadon, csung two reasons for this asserbon: a statement by Mr. McCoy dunng a meeung on Vogtle Urut l's Cycle 4 refueling outage that the outage philosophy was created by Mr. Farley and ashers and a taped comment by a former SONOPCO manager stating his belief that. in case of a signi6 cant event at a GPC facility the corporate duty manager would call Mr. Nrley rather than Mr. Dahlberg (October 1.
1990 Supplement to Peduon at 4 and 5).
The Peudoners assert that Mr. Mcdonald has reponed to Mr. hriey G) on administradve matters since the SONOPCO project was formed (July B.1991 Supplement to the Petition at 20).
The NRC Staff has revkwed the matenals subminad by the Peddoners to sup; ort theu claims. Wah regard to items (1). Q), and (3) previously described.
the Peuuon contams expressions of concern that, bosh within and outside of GPC. SONOPCO might be perceived as being in control of GPC nuclear operadons. Such concerns would not necessarily be unusual during a transition phase when, by necessity, the responsibilities of GPC and SONOPCO could:
l 321 f
APPENDIX C closely omncade. As O discussed in the following paragraphs, the NRC Saff has concluded that OPC ressaned conrol of iss nuclear facihues dunng his arensnaceal phase.
Wish regard e loms (4) and (5) above, she DOL deposioons and instunony do provide sorne suppon for she comanuon that Mr. Phrley perucipated to some degree in personnel decisions affocang both SONOPCO and OPC -- jc,_,
including some who were elected as OPC corporaae oftcars Mr. 7triey was Executive Vice Presidens-Nuclear of De Southern Company (parent company of APC, OPC, and Southern Company Services) and was expecnad to become Presiders and 30 of the SONOPCO project upon its formacon. Derefore, his favolvement in personnel decisions for employees transfarnas kuo or out of the SONOPCO peoject is not unreasonable. Phrther, Mr. Phrley's consukatson with OPC on other OPC employees does not con 8ict with any NRC requirements.
Both Mr. Phrtey and OPC have primded sworn sessaments and depositions that the altimate responsibility regenhag decisions on assignmmt of GPC employees rested with the autherued OPC maagement structure (14, Dahlberg.
Mcdonald, er al.). In fact. OPC vice presidents, as of5cers of GPC, were approved by the OPC Scard of Dirsceors. On the basis of this informadon, the NRC Staff concludes that the Pttitioners' asseruans about Mr. Ihricy's decisionmaking with respect to OPC employees consdtute an insuf6cient basis for NRC medan in this maner.
With regard to items (6) and (7), above, the Peduoners express a speci6c concern that the Execuuve Vice President-Nuclear Operauons was taking guid.
ance and direedon from the SONOPCO organization, as opposed to taking this guidance and direction from the GPC GO.
he NRC Staff has reviewed the Vogde Ptnal Safety Analysis Repon, the Vogtle beenses, records of an NRC Special Inspection conducted to review the SONOPCO management organizauon, and nesumony of key of6cials taken under oath. De NRC Staff concludes that this snformadon estabbshed that the responsibiht) for decisions affecting the opertuon of the GPC plants rests with the GPC's Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operssons, Mr. Hairston. While Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh express concerns in this area, these concerns do not warrant a conclusion that SONOPCO was in control. Rather, the NRC Staff 6nds that throughout Phases I and 2 of the SONOPCO project, the cham of command was from the respective vice presidents for the Vogde and Hatch facibues to Mr. Hairston. Mr. Hairston reponed to Mr. Mcdonald, who reponed to Mr. Dah! berg, President of OPC. Each of these individuals is an elected of6cer of GPC, and the reponing chain progresses up to the President of GPC.
i Derefore, the NRC StafT concludes that there has been no illegal transfer of responsibihty from GPC to SONOPCO for the Vogde or Hatch facibues.
322 l
t
APPENDIX C the openness of discussions a PRB moeungs However, further &acus PRB members in&cated the reason for the lack of &asenung opinions wa inerns are ^"~aad and reviewed until a!! memben mere co NRC resident inspectors at Vogde frequently amend PRB meetings and decisions.
found that the subjecu are canddy se aad and the issues resolved witho inurnidation or fear of retribution. Consequently, the allegation Ost Vogt Genera! Manager imimidated mernben of she PRB when they enempied deactmme wtnether the une of the waste system should be resumed, cou be substannated
- 51. CONCLUSION As dacussed above, certain concerns raised by the Peddoners were paru Violadons of regulatory requiremenu have occurred in the oper:6ons of the Vogtle and Hatch facilities. Noticas of Violauon a substantiated.
penaJty have been issued to the Licensee for cenain of these viol this extent, the Peutionen* request for acuan punuant to 10 C.F.R. (2.20 grantedHowever, on the basis of the NRC Staff's review, I conclude that no thonzed transfer of the Vogtle operanns Ikenses occurred, and that the nu:Icar facibdes are now being operated in accordance with NRC regula6:
and do not endanger the health and safety of the public. Additionally, base f
the NRC Staff's review of mformation available to date,I conclude that none o Li-the issues decided in this Partal Director's Decision call into quesnan the censee's character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness, and commitm to safety with respect to the operauon of iu nuclear facihues.
The msututaon of proceedmgs in accordance with secuan 2.206, as req by the Peuuonen, ts appropnate only where substantial health and saf has e been raised. See Consohdated Eduon Co. of New Yo 1,2 and 3), CLI 75 8,2 NRC 173,175 (1975\\, and Washington rubhc Powe Supply SyJicm (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD 84 7,19 NRC As previously discussed, there is reasonable assurance that the V and Hat:h facihues now operate with adequate protecdon of the pub!k hea (195 t) and safety. Therefore,I dechne to take any funher action with respect to issues decided in this Parnal Director's Decision. To this extent, the Pe request fcr accon punuant to 10 C.F.R.12.206 is denied As provid 345
W l
l'lti $ffil N1 AHil pogggg y
( fHff f att littyg pgggg g yggjg (if f 94 1 II t ~ t't '.
T,NC e
e s
e a
!JK; l'8If 58111 N1M,5 O F MI r,tlltVf VICI PHf Sillf NT NtfCll AH Ol'1 II AllONS GI'C VICE PRESIDENT
_Y- -
VICE PRESIDENT SNNI TEcleeuCAL ADMWetSTRATIVE VICE Pnf St0ENT SERVICES SERVICES MUCt E An Of't f1 AIKW4S GPC SMC sesC VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE 'MESIDENT NUCLEAR HUCLE AR NtiCLEAR (FAntIY) l HATCH)
(VOGTLE)
SNC OPC#5NC OPC,sseC REV 4 4/94 REV1 3/91 GPC NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION,
- - - - - SNC MATTERS ONLY VOGTLE AND SNC SUPPORT ORGANIZATION y
ELEcisseC OEseEnatisec.rtANT VEGP UNITS 1 AND 2 3 P() WET uswT t ANo vent 2 FIGURE 13.1.1-1 j
a
!iI\\jjrfIll flJ l
!l>
>@gh
- NO I
G T
N A
I TRE Z
NETI I
E ES oENN N
NGO A2 ENP G
2 l
cEU RD EoVO ON 1
TR A
MEG T
1 W
FA R1 W
VE S
O 3
t TI 3
t E V PS 1
V E)
D F
1 R A R.E PT F
A S
L UI 1
GT SN E
V1 R NG U
R l
T M I
E E0 L
t F
n G &v J
t A
AP G
t A
t S
o NT CG
~
I I
n AD R
IE F
~
rA MU O
NV 5
v A
S eTW l
4i i
moE t
9 C
4m I
E EUV rAE T
l 1
uV1 sT 4i C
E E G vFN Vv N
15 iAE EE S
ET S S g
GN N
Rn T
2 N
AAy O
N.t 1
4t S
T l
)
g Ag,
t1 N
3
- f. A t
M n,;
l f
t A
I I.
g x, S E f I L
t t
I u
Ag y
M P
f l'
it t
TI g 8
W Nm I
G t
V gg G
NQ f
f e
F w
I t
V G
An2 G
tvi NN tu o o cM s
EnA Lt i n
Yct AN G ta E)
Otn K
VEi ICT
)
U AF N Rt i
T i
1 1 Sx 5
t T Ntv G M(
A M N(
r AA e
M w
S o
Pa ig I
r F l nI Ai o
I N
TN t
e G
IM)
N G
AI Cf' E i
UN N N' L
t At t NL T S
MSi R & G LR G E
.O AA0 GT V v
RF(
AN(
fL NA I
NC A
T U M M GN s.
G s
R AG EN L I C Sl U NE m g.,
Et H Ci RI G I
L E
O G SV o3 I
AG N N A
f M
5 llh!ll!
lIll' l!ltlt I!l)ll;'l 1i
APPENDIX D l
p b
1I
,5 8-2 5m3 11l$
g
!! ~=
l8
==
l o m
=
h la llll j I
-gl
- == e" s;,!
r E
i r
r E2e g
il le n!!
lg lii
..i ap 8_,
is vgg
- 2 i
s
$ 8 ll li k
m.-
l$!
Erg j[m3
<,El lll sEs
!g
DOCKETED US4RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '94 DCT -3 P5 :08 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ;.
,m.
NPU ' 1,y DOCXL1Um z 7,
~
In the Matter of
)
ER
) Docket Nos.
50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
50-425-OLA-3
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
) Re: License Amendment Units 1 and 2)
)
(Transfer to Southern Nuclear)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMM ARY DISPOSITION OF THE ILLEGAL LICENSE TRANSFER ISSUE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, c: as indicated by a double asterisk by facsimile this 3rd day of October 1994.
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
- Thomas D. Murphy
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Fax: 301-492-7285 Fax: 301-492-7285 Judge James H. Carpenter James E. Joiner 933 Green Point Drive John Lamberski, Esq."
Oyster Point Arthur H. Domby, Esq.
Sunset Beach, North Carolina 28468 Troutman Sanders Fax: 910-579-3466 NationsBank Building, Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Fax: 404-885-3900 4
David R. Lewis, Esq.
Adjudicatory File * (2)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2300 N Street, N. W.
Panel Washington, D. C. 20037 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Fax: 202-663-8007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael D. Kohn, Esq."
Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C.
Panel
- 517 Florida Avenue, N. W.
Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D. C. 20001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fax 202-462-4145 Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Secretary" (16)
Adjudication" Attn: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 M
Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff
_