ML20045A685

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Georgia Power Co Response to AL Mosbaugh First Set of Interrogatories.* W/Certificate of Svc,Supporting Affidavits & Svc List.Related Correspondence
ML20045A685
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 06/02/1993
From: Lamberski J
GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA
To: Mosbaugh A
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
CON-#293-14018 96-671-01-OLA-3, 96-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9306110200
Download: ML20045A685 (68)
v • d • e


Text

,

$/[

?

MLATED CORRESPONDENCE -.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c1

~ "r ~ -4 p *- 4 7 FUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE xdE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

  • Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 21 A1
  • 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric
  • Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, * (Transfer to Southern >

Units 1 and 2)

  • Nuclear) *
  • ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3 .

B GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH'S-FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES I. INTRODUCTION.

Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby responds to  ;

Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, dated May j 4, 1993.

GPC's responses to Intervenor's interrogatories state a number of objections, including that certain requests (1) are overbroad as requesting _information not relevant to the Factual Bases, as hereinafter defined, (2) are unduly burdensome, (3) seek information subject to the attorney- l l

client communication privilege or the attorney work product l doctrine, or (4) are incomprehensible and not capable of i

. .I l

9306110200 930602 A PDR ADOCK 05000424 V g PDR i

- _ , , , _ . - _ , _ - . - - . . _ _ __________________.__---I

4 response due to the manner in which Intervenor formulated his interrogatories.

Many of GPC's objections stem from the fact that Intervenor, for the most part, has simply taken the interrogatories which GPC served on Intervenor, scanned them into a word processor, changed the names, and then served them back on GPC. As a result, with confusing double negatives, many of Intervenor's interrogatories ask GPC to state each and every fact which does not support GPC's defenses to the broad allegations contained in the Petition and the Amended Petition, including very generalized assertions. Such recast interrogatories (e.g., nos. 22, 24,  ;

26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41 and 43) are not readily capable of response.

As an example, Intervenor's interrogatory no. 26 asks GPC to " state each and every fact which does not support l

[GPC's] claim and/or defense that The Southern Company or Southern Nuclear and its management chain does not lack character, competence, integrity, candor, or truthfulness, as alleged in the Amended Petition; identify all individuals with knowledge of each of these facts; and identify any and all documents supporting [GPC's] claim." Whereas, the original interrogatory which GPC posed to Intervenor reasonably sought to ascertain the bases for an assertion l

l

W that Intervenor made in its pleadings, the recast interrogatory now posed by Intervenor to GPC would unreasonably require GPC to attempt to identify all evidence proving a negative, without any reasonable bounds. This is impossible. The character of The Southern Company and of Southern Nuclear is indicated by the sum-total of all the acts and statements of its officers and employees, and there is no reasonable way to itemize the universe of such acts and statements in any interrogatory response unless some reasonable bounds are provided by Intervenor.

In an attempt to supply such bounds and a reasonable basis for responding, GPC has interpreted Intervenor's interrogatories as addressing those factual bases plead with reasonable specificity in the Petition and Amended Petition, and GPC's responses are so limited. GPC believes that this approach is consistent with the appropriate scope of the.

proceeding, which should be limited to Intervenor's allegations that (1) during 1988-90 GPC illegally transferred the operating licenses for Plant Vogtle, and (2)

GPC officials conspired to and knowingly submitted material false statements to the NRC with respect to the number of diesel starts reported in GPC's LER 1-90-06, dated April 19, 1990 (collectively referred to herein as the " Factual Bases").

4*

General Obiections.

As a general matter, GPC objects to Intervenor's definition of "GPC," "you," and "your," and consequently to interrogatories which request information known to "GPC" or "you" as defined by Intervenor. Intervenor defines these terms as including not only GPC but The Southern Company, Southern Nuclear, Southern Company Services, all minority owners of Plant Vogtle and all agents, employees, etc. of the foregoing. As a result, Intervenor would have GPC conduct an investigation as to the knowledge of every employee, agent or representative of each of these companies. Such an investigation of each of Intervenor's interrogatories, with their detailed subparts, is unduly burdensome and expensive as well as overbroad given the subject matter of the Factual Bases. Without waiving this objection, GPC has endeavored to respond to Intervenor's interrogatories by making a reasonable inquiry of those individuals who GPC believes have material information related to the Factual Bases.

GPC further objects to the identification of "each and every document referring or relating to" the subject of Intervenor's interrogatories. Given the nature of Intervenor's allegations, an investigation of such documents within the custody or control of GPC would be oppressive and I

l l

o unduly burdensome. Again, without waiving this objection, GPC has endeavored to respond by identifying, after a reasonable inquiry, those documents which appear relevant to I I

I the Factual Bases.

Furthermore, GPC generally objects to the identification, or disclosure, of those documents which are  !

I subject to the attorney work product doctrine or the 1 attorney-client communication privilege. GPC has been defending actions initiated by Intervenor since mid-1990.

In addition to this proceeding, such actions include (1) NRC inspections and an NRC Office of Investigations ("OI")

investigation of those allegations lodged by Intervenor in the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition related to the Factual Bases, (2) three separate actions before the Department of Labor, (3) an investigation by the Department of Justice, and (4) an inquiry by a Congressional Subcommittee. GPC's legal counsel has been heavily involved in GPC's defense of these actions and, as a result, has generated a large number of documents in preparation of such defenses. It would be oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive for GPC to identify each and every one of such documents which are subject to either or both of (1) the attorney work product doctrine (i.e., they were prepared by legal counsel in anticipation of litigation and their disclosure would reveal the mental impressions of legal counsel), or (2) the attorney-client communication privilege (i.e.,

communications from GPC to its legal counsel made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and counsel).

Finally, the addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals named herein are not provided in the cases of current employees of any of the companies within The Southern Company system. Intervenor is requested to contact GPC counsel if he or his counsel wishes to contact any such employees relative to any matter connected with this proceeding.

II. DEFINITIONS.

A. As used in Lhese responses, the terms "Intervenor", "you," or "your" and any synonym thereof and derivative therefrom refers to Intervenor Allen L. Mosbaugh ,

and counsel for Intervenor and all their respective agents, employees and representatives.

B. As used herein, the term "NRC" means the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the Federal Government.

i l

l l

l 1

1

C. As used herein, the term " Petition" means the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing, dated October 22, 1992, filed by Intervenor in tnis proceeding.

D. As used herein, the term " Amended Petition" means the Amendments to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing, dated December 9, 1992, filed by Intervenor in this proceeding.

l E. As used herein, the term "GPC" means the Georgia l Power Company, a subsidiary of The Southern Company. j As used herein, the term " Southern Nuclear" means l F.

l the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary  ;

of The Southern Company.

G. As used herein, the term "SONOPCO project" means the consolidation of GPC, Alabama Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc. personnel in Birmingham, Alabama between November 1988 and January 1991 for the management and support of the Southern system nuclear facilities.

H. As used herein, the term " Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition" means the petition filed by the Intervenor and Mr. Marvin B.

Hobby with the NRC relating to allegations of violations by GPC of NRC requirements, dated September 11, 1990, as supplemented by letters from Intervenor and Mr. Hobby to the NRC, dated September 21, 1990, October 1, 1990 and July 8, j 1991.

l III. GPC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES.II

1. (Domby) GPC objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it requests information concerning any and all tape recordings ever made relating to Plant Vogtle, GPC, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Inc., Southern Nuclear, the minority owners of Plant Vogtle, and all of the employees or representatives of the foregoing. Without waiving this objection, the following are the tape recordings reviewed by GPC which are or may be related to the Factual Bases:
a. Duplications of the 201 tape recordings made by Intervenor and delivered to GPC on or about October 22, 1991 in connection with discovery in Intervenor's Department of Labor (" DOL") actions against GPC (DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-11).
b. A copy of a portion of a tape recording made by Intervenor on July 11, 1990 and delivered to GPC legal counsel on or about September 11, 1990 containing a 1/ GPC's responses are numbered to correspond to the numbers of the interrogatories in Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories to Georgia Power Company, dated May 4, 1993.

1 l

l l

i conversation between Intervenor and GPC's Mr. Ken McCoy.

c. A videotape of an NBC Nightly News broadcast of August 9, 1992 entitled "Whistleblower at Plant Vogtle."

GPC objects as unduly burdensome to providing the dates, times, participants and subject matter of each of the conversations on the foregoing tape recordings as the same are, or should be, well known to Intervenor. Intervenor recorded and is in possession of the tape recordings identified in 1.a. and b. above. The videotape identified in 1.c. above is based on an interview of the Intervenor.

2. (Domby) All of the tape recordings identified in 1.a.

above are copies. They were made by GPC on or about October 22, 1990 via a high-speed copying process from the original tape recordings which Intervenor supplied and retained immediately following the copying process. GPC made at least two and as many as four copies of each of the 201 tapes in order to facilitate the review of the tapes.

Thereafter, a small portion of a few tapes of poor quality were randomly selected and copied for analysis. Those additional copies, which contained no information which was not on the first copies, cannot be located. The additional

4 r

copies were made during 1991 and the identity of the specific tapes is unknown.

GPC also made a few copies of the audio portion of the tape identified in 1.c. above, shortly after the airing of the NBC program on August 9, 1992, for analysis.

3. (Domby) Copies of the tapes identified in 1 above were provided to various GPC lawyers, and their employees and agents, for the purpose of reviewing, transcribing, analyzing and verifying transcripts of the tapes. A number of the tapes were also reviewed by Mr. Mark Aj1 uni, an employee of Southern Nuclear, at GPC's counsel's offices on various dates in 1991 and 1992 to verify the transcripts of the tapes. All the foregoing tapes have remained and are presently in the custody of counsel to GPC, except copies of a number of the tapes which were reviewed by the Plant Vogtle security department. Of these, copies of three tapes (nos. 44, 141, 153) were retained by the Plant Vogtle security department because they contain " safeguards information" as that term is defined in 10 C.F.R. S 73.2.

Documentation of communications concerning the possession, custody or control of the tapes identified in 1 above includes (1) correspondence between GPC's legal counsel and the reporting company, hired by counsel, that transcribed

)

i

-. - _. -_ - . - . ~ . . - _ _ _ _. . . . . . _ - .

the tapes, and (2) documentation with respect to Tapes Nos.

44, 141 and 153. GPC has not identified any other.such communications. {

4. (Domby) As noted in Response No. 2, GPC has been unable to locate certain additional copies. No other tape recordings identified in 1 above have been destroyed or erased, in whole or in part.
5. (Domby) The following is a list identifying the j documents which index, transcribe (in whole or in part),

summarize, or otherwise discuss the content of each tape identified in 1 above. The substance of the transcribed l conversations are known to Intervenor who recorded and is in l possession of the originals.

a. Transcripts of portions of the following tapes i

delivered by Intervenor to Troutman Sanders on October 22, 1991. These transcripts were prepared by GPC legal counsel or their employees or agents and reviewed by same or Mr. Mark Ajluni and are in the possession of GPC's legal counsel or their agents and employees:

Taoe No. Dated 6 March 21, 1990 7 March 22, 1990 8 March 23, 1990 11 March 24, 1990 l

{

l l

l

r

~

12 March 24, 1990 13 March 25, 1990 14 March 26, 1990 15 March 26, 1990-16 March 27, 1990 17 March 27,.1990 18 March 27, 2990 19 March 28, 1990-20 March 28, 1990 21 March 28, 2990 '

22 March 29, 1990 23 March 29, 1990 24 March 30, 1990 25 March 30, 1990- ,

27 April 2, 1990 28 April 2, 1990 29 April 3, 1990 30 April 3, 1990 31 April 3, 1990 32 April 4, 1990 34 April 4, 1990 35 April 5, 1990 37 April 9, 1990 38 April 9, 1990 39 April 10, 1990 40 April 10, 1990 43 April 12, 1990 45 April 16, 1990 46 April 16, 1990 47 April 16, 1990

  • 48 April 17, 1990 49 April 17, 1990 50 April 17, 1990 52 April 18, 1990 53 April 18, 1990 54 April 18, 1990 55 April 19, 1990 59 April 20, 1990 62 April 23, 1990 65 April 25, 1990 66 April 25, 1990 67 April 25, 1990 68 April 26, 1990 69 April 26, 1990 70 April 26, 1990 71' April 27, 1990 72 April 27, 1990  :

78 May 7, 1990

- ~ . _ . , . -

79 May 7, 1990 80 May 7, 1990 86 May 1, 1990 87 May 1, 1990 89 May 2, 1990 90 May 2, 1990 91 May 3, 1990 93 May 3, 1990 96 May 4, 1990 97 May 4, 1990 102 May 9, 1990 103 May 9, 1990 104 May 9, 1990 105 May 10, 1990 106 May 10, 1990 107 May 10, 1990 111 May 11, 1990 113 May 14, 1990 114 May 15, 1990 115 May 15, 1990 116 May 15, 1990 119 May 17, 1990 120 May 17, 1990 121 May 18, 1990 122 May 18, 1990 123 May 21, 1990 ,

124 May 21, 1990 126 May 23, 1990 127 May 24, 1990 128 May 24, 1990 135 May 30, 1990 139 May 31, 1990 140 June 1, 1990 142 June 1, 1990 143 June 4, 1990 144 June 4, 1990 145 June 4, 1990 147 June 5, 1990 148 June 6, 1990 149 June 6, 1990 150 June 6, 1990 152 June 7, 1990 154 June 7, 1990 157 June 13, 1990 161 June 13, 1990 162 June 13, 1990 170 June 19, 1990 171 June 19, 1990 l

l l

l l

- . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _ __ _ _ _ __, _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ .-. _

'b

-t 172 June 19, 1990 173 June 19, 1990 174 June.20, 1990 176 June 21, 1990 177 June 21, 1990 179 June 22, 1990 180- June 25, 1990 181 June 25, 1990 ,

188 July 2, 1990 1 189 ' July 2, 1990 191 July 3, 1990 192 July 3, 1990 -

193 July 5, 1990 ,

194 July 5, 1990 196 July 9, 1990 202 July 12, 1990 203 July 12, 1990 206 July 17, 1990 207 July 17, 1990 209 July 18, 1990 221 July 26, 1990 231 Auguet 2, 1990 233 August 3, 1990 241 August 9, 1990 243 August 10, 1990 255 August 15-16, 1990 262 August 27, 1990

b. The transcript (prepared by GPC legal counsel or its agents or employees) of the tape of a July 11, 1990 conversation between Intervenor and Mr. C. Kenneth .

McCoy, which transcript was used as an exhibit in I Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11. .

c. A transcript of the NBC Nightly News broadcast of August 8, 1992 entitled "Whistleblower at Plant Vogtle."

i

d. GPC's letter to NRC dated December 10, 1991 prepared by legal counsel and reviewed and approved by )

)

l 1

GPC management, including Mr. Ken McCoy who signed the letter.

e. GPC's legal counsel's letter to Sally Yates, Esq.

of the U.S. Attorneys office in Atlanta, dated December 18, 1992, which was prepared, reviewed and approved by legal counsel.

f. Transcripts of three tape recordings provided by NRC to GPC in March, 1992 pursuant to FOIA Request No.92-150.
g. NRC document entitled " Listing of Audio Tapes Provided by Mosbaugh" provided to GPC on April 7, 1992 pursuant to FOIA No. 92-A-4 (FOIA-91-459).
6. (Domby) GPC objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requires GPC to identify what specific tapes were provided to whom  !

and on what dates. Without waiving such objection, the following information is provided:

a. Some or all of the documents identified in 5.a. I above have been distributed as follows:

(1) To GPC's lawyers and their employees and agents for the purpose of reviewing, correcting, f 1

analyzing and/or verifying transcripts. See l Response No. 3 above with respect to f communications, and documentation thereof, referring or relating to the provision of such documents to such persons; (2) To P. Bruce Kirwan, Esq. (Atlanta, Ga., (404) 688-1000), Bruce H. Morris, Esq. (Atlanta, Ga.,

(404) 262-2500), Steven A. Westby, Esq. (Atlanta, Ga., (404) 681-2600), Richard W. Hendrix, Esq.

(Atlanta, Ga., (404) 658-9070), counsel for GPC and/or Southern Nuclear employees, for purposes of legal representation.

(3) To Mark Aj1 uni for the purpose of verifying such transcripts. Mr. Ajluni has not retained any copies of such transcripts.

b. Transcripts of portions of Tape Nos. 19, 69 and 71 provided to the U.S. Attorneys Office in Atlanta on September 24, 1992.

I

c. The transcript identified in Response No. 5.b.  ;

above was introduced as an exhibit in Mosbauch v. GPQ, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.

d. The transcript identified in Response 5.c. above was widely distributed among GPC and Southern Nuclear personnel.
e. The document identified in Response No. 5.d. above has been widely distributed and is available in the NRC's Public Document Room.
7. and 8. (Domby) Communications and documents in response to this request include:
a. those in connection with the Mosbauch v. GP_G, DOL Case Nos 91-ERA-1 and 11, to which Intervenor's counsel was a party or copies of which were provided to Intervenor, and
b. a meeting between counsel for GPC and Mr. Roger Fortuna, of the NRC, in early 1991 to discuss whether the NRC could release any portions of 76 of the tape i

recordings made by Intervenor.

I I

9. (McCoy) GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests information concerning any recording of any employee of GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Compar , Southern Company Services,  !

I Inc., or the minority owners of Plant Vogtle. Without j waiving this objection, GPC has not made any tape recordings involving the NRC (including OI), any employee of GPC, Intervenor or the Department of Justice which refer or I

relate to the Factual Bases.

10. (Bockhold/Lavine/ Wright) GPC interprets this interrogatory as requesting information concerning communications which relate to the Factual Bases. GPC also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome.

Intervenor's allegations related to the Factual Bases were first asserted in 1990 and such allegations have been discussed among a large number of GPC and Southern Nuclear employees. Without waiving such objection, the following communications are identified:I/

a. Pleadings and correspondence with the NRC in connection with this proceeding, copies of which have been provided to Intervenor.
b. The following communications with the NRC:

(1) GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition dated September 28, 1990, April 1, 1991 and 1 October 3, 1991, and the documents attached thereto, copies of which were provided to Intervenor, GPC legal counsel and GPC management; (2) NRC's Partial Director'a Decision, DD-93-08, <

l dated April 23, 1993, addressed to Intervenor, copies A/GPC assumes that Intervenor's reference to "91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-1" in Intervenor's Interrogatory 10.d. should be "91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-11."

1 j

of which were provided to GPC legal counsel and GPC management; (3) GPC position papers provided to the NRC during the Operational Safety Inspection ("OSI") held at Plant Vogtle from August 6, 1990 to August 17, 1990, which papers were distributed widely to all plant managers, their management and GPC legal counsel. The portions of such papers which address " Diesel Starts and Failure Reporting" were prepared by George R.

Frederick, reviewed by GPC management, including l Intervenor, and approved by George Bockhold. Several drafts of these papers were prepared from August 14, l

1990 to August 22, 1990 and addressed NRC's concern l I

with the number of diesel starts reported in LER 1 .l 06; (4) Undocumented discussions between Plant Vogtle personnel (including George Frederick, Intervenor and/or George Bockhold, Jr.) with NRC personnel (including Chris Vandenburg, Pete Taylor, Larry L.

Robinson and/or Craig T. Tate) during the OSI referred to in item b.(3) above concerning NRC's review of the number of diesel starts reported in LER 1-90-06, one conversation of which involved George Frederick and Messrs. Vandenburg and Taylor of the NRC and which 1

conversation was referred to in a Plant Vogtle meeting held on August 15, 1990 that was tape recorded by Intervenor (Tape No. 255);

(5) NRC-OI interview of George Bockhold, Jr. on August 14, 1990 which interview was transcribed by the NRC and cop.ies of which were provided to the interviewee who also provided copies to legal counsel; (6) NRC-OI interview of Jimmy Paul Cash on August 14, 1990 which interview was transcribed by the NRC and copies of which were provided to the interviewee who also provided copies to legal counsel; (7) GPC's letter to NRC dated August 30, 1990 which provided clarification concerning the April 9, 1990 diesel starts data, copies of which letter have been widely distributed including the NRC's Public Document Room; (8) Troutman Sanders letter to Jim Vorse, NRC Region II OI Field Office, dated November 7, 1991 and a follow-up November 8, 1991 memorandum providing NRC with documentation in connection with correspondence to NRC and a special audit, dated June 29, 1990, related to diesel starts information provided to NRC, a copy of which was retained by GPC legal counsel; and

(9) GPC's letter to NRC dated December 10, 1991 which provided additional information to NRC concerning the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition, and copies of which letter have been widely distributed including the NRC's Public Document Room.

c. Communications with "Se Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce as follows:

(1) Troutman Sanders letter to Mr. James Pitrezzi, counsel to the Subcommittee, dated November 13, 1992, transmitting a copy of Administrative Law Judge Glennon's recommended decision in DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-11.

(2) Undocumented oral discussions between Mr. R.

Harris, a former Southern Nuclear Employee (now an employee of Southern Electric International) and Messrs. James Pitrezzi and Bruce Chapin, members of the Subcommittee staff. The oral communications took place approximately in the August-September 1992 time frame in Washington, D.C. in person as well as by telephone and concerned the Plant Vogtle March 20, 1990 site area emergency and Intervenor's allegations.

d. During the pendency of the Department of Justice Investigation, which was conducted by the United States Attorneys Office in Atlanta, Georgia, counsel for GPC had conversations with members of the United States Attorneys office. GPC also responded to subpoenas duces tecum issued by the United States District Court.

On July 20, 1992, Sally Quillian Yates, Assistant United States Attorney, forwarded a letter to GPC legal counsel, which letter GPC objects to disclosure on the grounds that the contents are subject to Rule 6(e),

Fed. R. Crim. P and its disclosure would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. On December 18, 1992, counsel for GPC submitted a written statement to the United States Attorneys office. On March 31, 1992, Sally Quillian Yates, Assistant United States Attorney forwarded a letter to counsel for GPC, a copy of which has been provided to Intervenor and the Board.

e. Communications with the news media as follows:

(1) Todd Terrell's communication with McGraw-Hill as documented in the GPC Media Journal dated August 21, 1990.

(2) Tal Wright's (GPC employee) communication with the Aucusta Chronicle as documented in the September 18, 1990 Aucusta Chronicle article entitled, l 1

" Utility lied about Vogtle, employee says."

l l

l l

l l

l

(3) Christy Terrell's (GPC employee) communication with the Atomic Enerav as documented in the GPC Media Journal dated October 5, 1990.

(4) Tal Wright's communication with the Atlanta Business Chronicle as documented in the October 1, 1990 Atlanta Business Chronicle article entitled, "NRC Is Investigating Vogtle Safety Again."

(5) Todd Terrell's (GPC employee) communication with the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the October 30, 1990 Aunusta Chronicle article entitled,

" Georgia Power mislead agency on generators, documents show."

(6) Todd Terrell's communication with the AunvEta Herald as documented in the October 30, 1990 Auausta Herald article entitled, "Vogtle reports put in question."

(7) Tal Wright's communication with the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the November 20, 1990 Auausta Chronicle article, entitled, "Vogtle must rehire whistle-blower."

(8) Tal Wright's communication with the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the July 10, 1991 Aunusta Chronicle article entitled " Utility executive accused of lying under oath."

- . _ . . . ~. .. .- ._ - - - . - - _ - . .- -_ . . . - . - . = . . . ..

)

(9) Tal Wright's communication with NBC Nightly I News as documented in a videotape, audiotape and transcript of the broadcast which aired Sunday, August 9, 1992 at 6:30 p.m.

(10) GPC's communication with NBC Nightly News as documented in a GPC statement concerning Intervenor, and GPC's policy which was used forgthe 8-9-92 broadcast.

(11) Todd Terrell's communication with True ,

Citizen documented in the January 7, 1993 True Citizen article entitled, "Vogtle change proposed." .

(12) GPC's communication with NUCLEONICS WEEK as documented in the January 14, 1993 HQgLEONICS WEEK-article entitled, " Grand jury probes charges of lies, cover-up following Vogtle incident."

(13) GPC's statement issued to the Atlanta Journal / Constitution as documented in January 21, 1993 Atlanta Journal / Constitution article entitled, " Georgia Power probed by feds." i (14) GPC's statement issued to the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the January 22, 1993 Auausta l Chronicle article entitled, " Georgia Power denies it i lied to NRC about Plant Vogtle." l

(15) Southern Nuclear Public Affairs' internal communication as documented in the February 23, 1993 News Uodate entitled, " Georgia Power to appeal NRC board ruling."

(16) Tal Wright's communication with the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the February 24, 1993 Auausta Chronicle article entitled, "NRC board agrees to hear Whistle-blower's petition."

(17) Tal Wright's communication with the Atlanta Journal / Constitution as documented in the February 25, 1993 Atlanta Journal / Constitution article entitled,

" Whistle-blower to air Plant Vogtle complaints."

(18) Tal Wright's communication with the ,

Associated Press as documented in the February 25, 1993 Dothan Eaale article entitled, "Farley could be affected by case involving Georgia plant."

(19) Tal Wright's communication with the Auausta Chronicle as documented in the January 13, 1993 Auausta Chronicle.

(20) Todd Terrell's communication with Morris News documented in the GPC Media Journal dated April 2, 1993.

(21) GPC's communication with the Aunusta Chronicle as documented in the April 3, 1993 Auausta

. i l

i Chronicle article entitled, " Plant Vogtle criminal probe dropped."

f. Depositions, pleadings and documents produced in Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58, copies of which were prepared by or provided to Intervenor.
g. Communications between Intervenor and the GPC Quality Concerns Program ("QCP") coordinator which were documents in QCP file no. 90V0015 and a copy of which was provided to GPC legal counsel and to Intervenor in connection with discovery in DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and ,

91-ERA-11.

h. A memorandum from Mr. Mark Ajluni to Mr..Kenneth McCoy, dated December 19, 1990, concerning Mr. Ajluni's discussions with Jimmy Paul Cash related to diesel starts, a copy of which was provided to GPC legal counsel.
11. GPC's Response No. 10 explains the extent to which copies of each document identified therein have been disseminated.
12. (Domby) GPC does not intend to " raise" any " incident" )

at the hearing. The scope of GPC's defenses will depend on issues which Intervenor raises. With regard to the Factual

l l

Bases for the Board-admitted contention, GPC may address the following acts or events:

(1) The established practice of informing the NRC of anticipated changes in the GPC nuclear operations organization prior to the implementation of such changes, including meetings with the NRC in March, 1988, July, 1988, and July, 1989 as well as a December 6, 1990 GPC letter to NRC regarding anticipated incorporation of Southern Nuclear and the beginning of " Phase II" of the formation of Southern Nuclear; (2) The NRC's receipt of Mr. Hobby's allegation in late 1989 or early 1990 relative to an alleged illegal license transfer and the NRC's subsequent reviews related to that allegation; (3) The NRC's receipt of the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition and subsequent review, including but not limited to the NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993, and the bases therein, including Mr. Hobby's testimony and the depositions and testimony of other witnesses in Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30, relative to GPC's ongoing and continuous control over licensed activities at Vogtle;

- 27 -

(4) GPC's Nuclear Operations Oversight Committee meetings and associated monitoring of activities at GPC's nuclear plants; (5) The responsibility of Mr. W. George Hairston for decisions affecting the operation of GPC's nuclear plants as an officer of GPC since 1988; (6) The November 23, 1988 GPC submission of Amendment No. 39 to the Plant Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report and associated analyses; (7) The December, 1988 NRC inspection of the SONOPCO Project offices, and subsequent Inspection Report dated February 7, 1989 issued by the NRC; (8) The April 24, 1989 letter of Mr. R. P.

Mcdonald requesting sc +. .fic support services from Southern Company Services, Inc. and its implementation; (9) The March 28, 1990 Plant Vogtle updated Final Safety Analysis Report submission to the NRC and associated analyses; (10) A January 11, 1991 meeting, and associated transcript, between the NRC and GPC to discuss implementation of " Phase II" of the formation of Southern Nuclear; (11) The established practice of LER development, review and approval, including Plant Vogtle site l

l

responsibility for confirmation of LER-related statements; (12) The specific request of corporate office representatives to site representatives to verify the draft LER prior to its submission to the NRC and circumstances surrounding that request; (13) The extensive efforts of GPC personnel to provide the NRC's Augmented Inspection Team ("AIT") and Incident Investigation Team ("IIT"), commencing on or about March 23, 1990, with complete and accurate information requested by the AIT or IIT, including but not limited to, detailed information concerning specific diesel generator starts; (14) GPC's knowledge that, at the time of LER 1-90-06 submittal, NRC inspectors had closely followed the Company's efforts in restoring the diesel generators to an operable and reliable status following March 20, 1990 and before NRC granted approval for GPC to restart Vogtle Unit 1 on April 12, 1990; (15) The revisions made to the draft LER prior to its submission in final form to the NRC on April 19, 1990; (16) The manner, method and timing of Intervenor's development of a list of diesel generator starts and 4

his notification to his management of a perceived inaccuracy in the LER which had been submitted to the NRC, including but not limited to audiotapes made by Intervenor and transcripts thereof; (17) Oral notification by GPC to the NRC on April 19, 1990 and thereafter concerning the accuracy of the LER, and the timing of such notifications relative to Intervenor's submission of an allegation to the NRC concerning the LER:

(18) Audiotape recordings, made by Intervenor, and transcripts thereof, which reflect conversations relevant to the diesel generator statements contained in the LER, including but not limited to conversations of Intervenor with the NRC Resident Inspector, with subordinates, and with GPC management; (19) GPC-initiated reviews of diesel generator start counts conducted in 1990 after submission of the LER; (20) Other acts or events which are included in GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition and which are related to the Factual Bases.

a. The following are potential witnesses relative to aspects of the Factual Bases for the Board-admitted contention:

Mr. R. Patrick Mcdonald (relating to Items 1, 4, 5, 8 and 10 of this Response No. 12);

Mr. W. George Hairston, III-(Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19);

Mr. C. Kenneth McCoy (Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19);

Mr. George Bockhold (Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19);

Mr. A. William Dahlberg (items 4 and 5)

Mr. James A. Bailey (Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14);

Mr. Ben George (Items 5, 6, 9);

Mr. N. Jackson Stringfellow (Item 15) ;

Mr. George Fredericks (Item 19);

I Mr. Norm Mosley (Item 19); i i

Any of the other individuals identified in Response No. 18.

GPC intends to propose stipulations to the parties as to the accuracy of transcripts of Intervenor's audiotapes. To the extent such stipulations cannot be reached, GPC may call witnesses to testify as to the accuracy of 1

transcripts, including all individuals whose i statements are recorded or referred to on the I

I

audiotapes for the purposes of authentication, verification and clarification.

b. GPC will not be able to determine which documents will be relied on at the hearing until it learns what incidents Intervenor intends to raise at the hearing. Documents which GPC or its witnesses may rely on at the hearing include, but are not limited to, GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition, and the documents attached thereto or referred to therein; the NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993; transcripts, depositions, exhibits and other documents identified, produced in i

discovery, introduced or referred to in the l l

Hobby proceeding, (DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30);

documents and transcripts of meetings and interviews of the AIT and IIT, including those available in the NRC's Public Document Room. GPC witnecses also may utilize documents to refresh their recollections, including those identified in this response.

l

c. GPC personnel participated in the acts and events associated with the Factual Bases.

Consequently, GPC personnel became aware of aspects of the incidents identified above contemporaneously with those incidents.

d. and 4 GPC objects to these interrogatories as vague, because the " incidents" to which this interrogatory refers have not been defined, and unduly burdensome, because even with respect to the Factual Bases, there are a large number of people involved with the underlying events.

f.-l. GPC does not believe that any of the allegations made by Intervenor and related to the Factual Bases establish that (1) GPC has willfully violated any law, rule, regulation or order, or (2) GPC or Southern Nuclear does not have the requisite character, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and/or willingness to abide by regulatory requirements to operate a nuclear power plant.

m. See Response No. 12.c. above.
13. (Stringfellow) Communications responsive to this interrogatory include the following:
a. A telecopy from N. Jackson Stringfellow, a Southern Nuclear employee, to John G. Aufdenkampe, a former GPC Plant Vogtle employee (now a Southern Company Services employee) sent at 6:29 a.m. Central Time and providing "Hairston's comments / questions" concerning the draft LER 90-06.
b. A telecopy from Tom Webb, a GPC Plant Vogtle employee, to N. Jackson Stringfellow sent at 7:20 a.m.

Central Time and providing a copy of the approval sheet for the April 18, 1990 draft of LER 90-06.

c. One or more telephone conversations between the plant and the corporate office involving the following individuals who may or may not have participated in the entirety of the telephone call (s):

Plant Staff: George Bockhold, Jr.

John G. Aufdenkampe Allen Mosbaugh Corporate Office: W. George Hairston, III C. Kenneth McCoy William B. Shipman Paul Rushton N. Jackson Stringfellow GPC did not tape record these conversation (s) and, therefore, cannot recreate the specific statements made by each participant. The above telephone call (s) are 1

- 34 - l I

l l

l l

described in GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh  ;

1 Petition, copies of which were provided r; 'wervenor. j Other documents of which GPC is aware includa: the  !

videotape, audiotapes and transcripts of the NBC Nightly News broadcast of August 8, 1990 and tape recordings made by Intervenor (Nos. 69, 71 and 89) and the transcripts thereof.

14. (Domby) GPC interprets this interrogatory as requesting information concerning diesel generator start

" problems" or " failures" related to the Factual Bases.

During the period between March 20, 1990 and April 19, 1990, virtually all GPC and Southern Nuclear managers were notified of the two failures of the 1A diesel on March 20, 1990. Additionally, during the same period certain of GPC and/or Southern Nuclear managers were notified of certain of the following " problems" or " failures" of the Vogtle Unit i diesel generators:

(1) March 30, 1990 trip of 1A diesel caused by bubble  ;

testing procedure; (2) March 21, 1990 start failures (two) of the 1B diesel due to lack of fuel priming; (3) March 21, 1990 manual stop of 1B diesel to adjust governor;

)

i l

(4) March 21, 1990 manual stops (two) of the 1B diesel due to receipt of alarms for high fuel oil filter differential pressure; (5) March 22, 1990 high temperature lube oil trip of 1B diesel; (6) March 23, 1990 low pressure jacket water trip of 1B diesel; and (7) March 24, 1990 high temperature jacket water alarm without a trip of 1B diesel.

Without conducting an unduly burdensome inquiry, to which GPC objects, GPC is unable to conclude which managers were notified of which of the above listed problems or failures on what dates. Without waiving such objection, the following documented information is identified:

DocumentationII (1) Allen Mosbaugh - Item 5 Mosbaugh Tape No. 7 Item 7 Mosbaugh Tape No. 11 Item 1 IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No. 27 Item 2 Mosbaugh Tape Nos.

69 and 89 II All IIT (" Incident Investigation Team") documents are available in the NRC's Public Document Room.

l l

(2) William B. Shipman Item 5 Mosbaugh Tape Hos. 7 and 8 Item 7 Mosbaugh Tape No. 11 Item 2 Mosbaugh Tape Nos.

69 and 89 (3) W.F. Kitchens Item 5 Mosbaugh Tape No. 8 )

(4) George Bockhold Item 7 IIT April 3, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No. 11 ,

Item 5  !

or 6 IIT March 28, 1990 meeting transcript 1 Item 2 Mosbaugh Tape Nos.

69 and 89 Item 1 April 9, 1990 GPC letter to NRC Items 1

-6 IIT Document No. 180 (5) Ken McCoy Item 7 Mosbaugh Tape No. 11 Item 1 IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No.

27; April 9, 1990 GPC letter to NRC (6) Ken Holmes Item 7 Mosbaugh Tape No. 11 Item 5 or 6 IIT March 28, 1990 meeting transcript Item 1 IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No.

27; April 9, 1990 GPC letter to NRC (7) Mike Lackey Item 5 or 6 IIT March 28, 1990 meeting transcript Item 1 IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No. 27 l

1

- 37 -

l 1

I i

(8) Mike Horton Item 1 IIT March 31, 1990 meeting transcript; IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No. 27 (9) W. George Hairston Item 1 April 9, 1990 GPC letter t o NRC (10) George Frederick Item 1 IIT April 2, 1990 meeting transcript; Mosbaugh Tape No. 27 (11) John Aufdenkampe Item 1 April 9, 1990 GPC letter to NRC Item 2 Mosbaugh Tape Nos.

69 and 89 (12) Jim Bailey Item 2 Mosbaugh Tape Nos.

69 and 89

15. (McCoy/Bockhold) GPC objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it requests information related to an April 9, 1990 GPC letter to the NRC which has not been raised in the Factual Bases.

With respect to LER 1-90-06, GPC concluded in May, 1990 that the following statement was not " fully accurate" when made:

Subsequent to this test program (of the control systems), DG1A and DG1B have been started at least 18 times each and no failures or problems have occurred '

during any of these starts.

a. GPC has concluded that the inaccuracy was not willful based on the intent of those GPC employees who drafted and finalized the LER;

l l

b. GPC site management became aware of the potential .

I for an inaccuracy in the LER on or about April 30, l 1990, and was advised on or about May 2, 1990 that an inaccuracy had been verified. GPC corporate management was advised of the need to revise the original LER in May, 1990;

c. GPC identified the statement as not " fully l

accurate," advised NRC representatives orally on a number of occasions of the LER inaccuracy and, on June 29, 1990, submitted a revised LER to the NRC which was based on an independent review of diesel generator start information conducted by the Safety Analysis and Engineering Review (SAER) group;

d. Draft LER 1-90-06 documents; an April 19, 1990 fax from N. J. Stringfellow to John Aufdenkampe; PRB i l

Meeting Minutes, including but not limited to Meeting Minutes Nos. 90-59, 90-60, 90-66, 90-81, 90-82, 90-84; tape recordings made by Intervenor and provided to GPC, including, but not limited to, Tape Nos. 53, 59, 71, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 102,

  • 103, 106, 110, 143, 157, 161, 162, 172, 176, 188, 192 and 255; the SAER Audit Report of June 29, 1990 and associated files; the June 29, 1990 LER

90-006, Rev. 1, its associated transmittal letter, and preliminary drafts of both documents; documents identified in Response Nos. 10.b(3)-(7) and 10.h, hereof; a June 11, 1990 entry in a l personal notebook of W. Shipman; testimony, depositions and pleadings in Hasbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11; the Hobby /Mosbaugh-

)

Petition, GPC's Responses thereto and the  !

i documents attached to or referred to therein; l l

depositions and pleadings in Mosbauch v. GPC DOL l Case No. 90-ERA-58.

16. (Domby) Definitions of these terms, as they relate to this proceeding, are quoted by the Licensing Board in its February 18, 1993 Order at 7-9.
17. (Domby) GPC does not know which tape recordings will be relied upon by GPC or its witnesses at the hearing.

Portions of the following tape recordings, among others, may be relied upon by witnesses or for the purpose of cross-examination relative to the Factual Bases: Tape 53 (Side B), 66, 69 (Side A), 71 (Sides A and B), 86 (Side A), 87 (Side A and Side B), 88, 89, 90 (Side A), 102 (Side A), 103, 106, 107, 108 (Side B), 110 (Side B), 113 (Side A), 122, 126 (Side B), 127, 128, 143, 149, 150 (Side A), 157, 161, 162, 172, 176, 188, 192, 209, 255 (side A).

18. (Domby) GPC interprets this interrogatory as requesting information concerning matters within the Factual Bases.

(a) The following individuals either have or claim to have some knowledge of facts related directly or indirectly to Intervenor's allegations that GPC illegally transferred the Vogtle operating licenses and/or that Mr.

Mcdonald made certain misleading or false statements:

Marvin Hobby Dan Smith (Oglethorpe Power Corporation, (404) 270-7838)

Michael Barker (INPO, (404) 644-8000)

Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr.

Donald W. Janney i Robert P. Edwards, Jr.  !

Carey D. Proctor E. P. Wilkinson Joseph M. Farley R. Patrick Mcdonald W. George Hairston, III I

)

C. Kenneth McCoy J. Thomas Beckham, Jr.

George F. Head H. Grady Baker ,

Thomas J. McHenry A. William Dahlberg Dwight H. Evans Fred D. Williams Charles D. McCrary Allen H. Franklin Thomas G. Boren Lee Glenn William R. Evans Some of the above individuals testified as to their knowledge in Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30.

Additionally, Mr. Hairston has knowledge of day to day management control of licensed activities at Plant Vogtle since 1988, and Messrs. Hairston, McCoy, Beckham, Mcdonald, Franklin, Dahlberg, Farley and McCrary have' general knowledge with respect to Intervenor's allegations of misleading and/or false statements of Mr. Mcdonald.

(b) The following individuals may have some knowledge concerning facts which relate directly or indirectly to Intervenors allegation that GPC submitted false information to NRC in LER 1-90-06 concerning the number of diesel starts:

R. Patrick Mcdonald, W. George Hairston, C. Kenneth McCoy, William B. Shipman, Allen L. Mosbaugh, N.

Jackson Stringfellow, Tom Webb, Rick Odom, John Aufdenkampe, George Bockhold, Paul Rushton, Ken Holmes, Lewis Ward, Ken Burr, Jim Bailey, George Frederick, Mark Ajluni, Norm Mosely, Mike Horton, Herb Beacher, Ester Dixon, Gloria Walker, Medhi Sheibani, Anthony Parton, Harry Majors, Jimmy Paul Cash, Ken Stokes, Paul Kochery, W. F. Kitchens, Stewart Ebneter (NRC Region II), Ken Brockman (NRC) , Rick Kendall (DOE) , Al Chaffee (NRC), Harvey Wykoff (EPRI), Milt Hunt (NRC), Pete Taylor (NRC), Chris Vandenburg (NRC), Ron Aiello (NRC),

Doug Starkey (NRC), Lee Trocine (NRC), Larry Robinson (NRC), Craig Tate (NRC) , Richard Hoefling (NRC) , David Matthews (NRC), and other members of the NRC, AIT or IIT.

GPC objects as unduly burdensome to identifying for each of these individual the knowledge they possess.

19. (Domby) At this time, GPC does not expect to call any witnesses purely as experts at the hearing in this proceeding. Many of GPC's potential witnesses identified in Response No. 18 are qualified to and may provide expert opinion testimony relating to nuclear power plant operation and regulation.
20. (Domby) The following were retained or employed by GPC in anticipation of a hearing concerning the Factual Bases and are not expected at this time to be called as an expert witness at the hearing in this proceeding:

Larry Stavis of Tech Rentals, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia; (404) 457-0966.

Brown Reporting Company, Atlanta, Georgia; (404) 876-8979.

Henry Howard of Audio Craft, Atlanta, Georgia; (404) 892-9282.

l

21. (McCoy) GPC objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent that it seeks information as to matters beyond the Factual Bases. The issue of whether any transfer was made with co-owner consent was found irrelevant by the Licensing Board in its Memorandum and order Admitting a Party, LBP-93-5, dated February 18, 1993, slip op. at 10.

Further, GPC objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that GPC is asked to rebut Intervenor's contention which has not been explained, proven or supported l

\

by facts or documents. GPC objects to being requested to prove a negative and to respond to this Interrogatory in a factual vacuum.

Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it did not illegally or improperly transfer control over I

licensed activit2es at Plant Vogtle. Egg, e.a., NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.  !

i

22. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving such objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to l Interrogatory No. 22.
23. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
24. (McCoy) (3PC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 24.
25. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
26. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 26.
27. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
28. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 28.
29. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
30. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 3C.
31. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC contends that Southern Nuclear was not improperly l

I l

l formed. As to facts which support GPC's claim and individuals who have knowledge of these facts, see Response Nos. 12 and 18.

32. (McCoy) GPC incorporatas its objections and response made in Response No. 31. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 32.
33. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
34. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 34.

l

35. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response l made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, l GPC states that it is unaware of any misleading statements l l

I made by Mr. Mcdonald about the issues identified in Interrogatory No. 35.

I I

I

- 47 -

l t

l 1

l l

36. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 36.
37. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it kept the NRC informed about the creation of the SONOPCO Project and Southern Nuclear. As to facts which support GPC's claim and individuals who have knowledge of these facts, see Response Nos. 12 and 18.
38. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21.
39. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 39.
40. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response Nos. 21 and 41. Without waiving these l objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts supporting the claim identified in Interrogatory No. 40. l l

\

l l

l

l i

41. (McCoy) GPC objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent that it seeks information as to 1

matters beyond the Factual Bases. Further, GPC objects to )

this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that GPC is asked to rebut Intervenor's contention which has not been explained, proven or supported by facts or documents. GPC objects to being requested to prove a negative and to respond to this Interrogatory in a factual vacuum. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any documents which do not support its claim and/or defense that GPC did not wilfully submit materially false information to NRC as alleged in the Amended Petition.

42. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 41.
43. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response ,

made in Response No. 41. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts responsive to Interrogatory No. 43.

44. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 41. Without waiving these objections,

GPC states that it is unaware of any facts supporting Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 44.

45. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response Nos. 21 and 41. Without waiving these objections, GPC is unaware of any facts supporting Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 45.
46. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it does not know what "de facto Chief Executive Officer" means. If it is defined as "having control over the licensed activities at Plant Vogtle," GPC is not aware of any facts which may be construed to support Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 46.

l

47. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it does not know what "de facto Board of Directors" means. If this term is defined as "having control over the operations of Plant Vogtle," GPC is unaware of any facts which may be construed to support Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 47.

I

48. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and responne made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC is unaware of any facts which may be construed to support Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No.

48.

49. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC is unaware of any facts supporting Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 49. 1 l
50. (Mcdonald) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that Mr. Mcdonald participated in the selection of Mr. Ken McCoy to serve as the Plant Vogtle Vice President; ultimately, the GPC Board of Directors selected l Mr. McCoy to serve as the Plant Vogtle Vice President. GPC is not aware of any facts which may be appropriately construed to support Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 50.

l 1

51. (Mcdonald) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response No. 21. Without waiving these objections,

GPC states that it is unaware of any facts which support Intervenor's claim identified in Interrogatory No. 51.

52. (McCoy) GPC incorporates its objections and response made in Response Nos. 21 and 41. Without waiving these objections, GPC states that it is unaware of any facts supporting Intervenor's claims identified in Interrogatory No. 52.
53. (Mcdonald /Hairston/McCoy)
a. (1) W. George Hairston, III departed Birmingham, Alabama at approximately 7:00 a.m. CST and drove to Atlanta, Georgia arriving at Georgia Power Corporate headquarters at

, approximately 9:30 a.m. CST. Mr. Hairston departed Atlanta and drove back to Birmingham, Alabama arriving at the Birmingham offices at approximately 12:30 p.m. CST, where he remained for the remainder of the day.

(2) R. Patrick Mcdonald departed Birmingham, Alabama at approximately 7:45 a.m. CST and travelled by air to Atlanta, Georgia and proceeded to the offices of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. He departed Atlanta and arrived at the Birmingham offices at approximately 3:00 p.m.

CST. Mr. Mcdonald remained in the Birmingham offices for the remainder of the day.

(3) C. Kenneth McCoy departed Birmingham, Alabama at approximately 7:45 a.m. CST and traveled by air to Atlanta, Georgia and proceeded to the offices of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. He departed Atlanta arriving '

in Birmingham, Alabama at approximately 2:15 p.m. CST.

b. Personal calendars of each of the above individuals, as well as travel records and schedule plans  ;

l for Mr. Mcdonald. i l

l

54. (Stringfellow/Aufdenkampe/Webb) GPC interprets this I interrogatory as requesting information on matters within the Factual Bases. As to communications between the Plant Vogtle site staff and the GPC corporate office staff, see j Response No. 13. GPC is aware of the following i

conversations:

a. Conversations in connection with PRB Meeting No.

90-60 (1) Participants - W. F. Kitchens, H. M.

Handfinger, J. G. Aufdenkampe, A. L.

Mosbaugh, J. E. Swartzwelder, C. Cross Tynan, M. B. Lackey, G. R. Frederick, C. P.

Stinespring, I. A. Kochery, R. L. LeGrand.

(2) Time - between 1:25 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.

(3) Unknown at present time.

- 53 -

(4) In person.

(5) The PRB meeting minutes indicate that LER 1-90-06 was returned to PRB - Board recommended approval with A. L. Mosbaugh abstaining.

(6) PRB Minutes No. 90-60.

b. Conversations among Tom Webb, Rick Odom, and/or Herb Beacher and between Rick Odom and John Aufdenkampe concerning the number of 1A and 1B diesel starts between 3-20-90 and 4-19-90.
c. Conversations among N. Jackson Stringfellow, W.

George Hairston, William B. Shipman and possibly others for the purpose of obtaining comments on the draft LER 1-90-06.

Dated: June 2, 1993.

AM l '

66n' LanibeFski' ThvUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.

David R. Lewis, Esq.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 663-8084 Counsel for Georgia Power Company l

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEERING BOARD In the Matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF ARTHUR H. DOMBY I, Arthur H. Domby, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am a partner with Troutman Sanders law firm, legal counsel to Georgia Power Company.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, l I

served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the f l

answer. )

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

Arthur H. Dodby' C/

Sworn to and subscribed bAfore me this /_S' day of Llae , 1993.

V l W_ . At m l Notary gbbldc U commission expires: l My'htascL

' ad,199 7 1 i

l

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

BJFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

l In the Matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, _e_.j; al.  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ABLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE BOCKHOLD, JR.

I, George Bockhold, Jr., being duly sworn, state as follows: l

1. I am employed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. as the General Manager - Nuclear Technical Services.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's Final Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

,g m i pcrht> W George Bockhold, J rf .

Sworn to and subscribed before me this d day of d'77 M . , 1993.

)

fNothry PJ1blicGYj

< c4x '

My commission expires:

0... .c4:;:wr.m ...,ar n s

. ~ _ .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIWG BOARD In the Matter of  : *

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, el gl. 50-425-OLA-3
Re License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 .

AFFIDAVIT OF N. JACKSON STRINGFELLOW I, N. Jackson Stringfellow, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am employed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. as a project licensing engineer in the Vogtle Project.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, ,

served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the i

answer. ,

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such

< Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

  • I f YYY & 1/~

N. J kson Stringfello j Sworn to and subscribed before me thisJJ'May of Mau , 1993.

m11 W. &A Notary Public '

idu 4

a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ,e_t_ M .  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorization for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF BRYAN B. LAVINE I, Bryan B. Lavine, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am a partner with Troutman Sanders law firm, legal counsel to Georgia Power Company,
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

g ,.y l

' /% n n - sA Bryap'B. Lavine' Sworn to and subscribed be ore me this A day of am,_ , 1993.

V

( Arun t .Ihms a NotaryPtplic [

My commission expires:

) % ef A :, i ? / -?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of a

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, e_t al. 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, = (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF W. TAL WRIGHT I, W. Tal Wright, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am employed by Georgia Power Company in the Corporate Communications Department.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such i I

Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal I knowledge and belief.

t I. -

W.7al Wright

]N\

Sworn to and subscribed before me this Jk4 day of d2mv 7 1993.

($)d' Noydry Public' +

My commission expires:

Ln - 2 2-9 V

/

)

I l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l

DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

l In the Matter of a

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, g a_1  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3  ;

AFFIDAVIT OF C. Kr;NNdrH McCOY I, C. Kenneth McCoy, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am employed by Georgia Power Company as the Vice President - Vogtle Project.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

1 D ,

)

C. Kenneth McCoy ,/

Sworn to and subscribed before me this.J4 day of

__/// w - 7 1993.

6 (3 46A '2cde Not.ary $b]ic hcoEN b Es Ma049pfres.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, p_t A1  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, t (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-571-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF W. GEORGE HAIRSTON, III I, W. George Hairston, III, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am employed by Georgia Power Company as the Executive Vice President - Nuclear Operations.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such responses are true and correct to the best of my personal ,

knowledge and belief.

-l atl .

W.

<no kh5 George Hairston, III l

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of June, 1993.

n ob &

Notary @blic Hy commission expires:

WY CC'.MI55tDN DPRES WPJARY 12,1977

1 i

i i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COtMISSION BEEDRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I l

)

In the matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 1 Georgia Power Company, et al_.  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating P1 ant,  : (Authorization for Units 3 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP No. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF R. PATRICK MCDONALD l

I, R. Patrick Mcdonald, being duly sworn, state as follows: l

1. I am employed by Georgia Power Company as the Executive i Vice President - Nuclear Operations. As of June 1, 1993, I will have retired from employment with Georgia Power Company.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen 7.. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

1 of 2

4 I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

N R. ' Patrick Mcdonald (

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of May, 1993.

LtA M W W , w 'c b h h Notary Public ,

My commission expires:

/A!/5f94 l

l l

l i

l 2 of 2 f 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION plFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of a

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.  : 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorization for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN G. AUFDENKAMPE I, John G. Aufdenkampe, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am employed by Southern Company Services, Inc., in Birmingham, Alabama.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

I b

Gohn G.

Mut_

Aufdenkampd Sworn to and subscribed before me this;TL9 day of

>t,<- , 1993.

i r

c ~~3

'M. aa g [,

Notary Public '-

My commission expires:

~.;4-fg

. l l

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

BEFORE THE ATOMI_C BAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  :

Docket No. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, el al. 50-425-OLA-3
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Authorisation for Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)
ASLJJ NO. 96-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF THOKAS E. WEBB I, Thomas E. Webb, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am employed by Georgia Power Company at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responses to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, served June 2, 1993, to which my name has been appended to the answer.

I hereby certify that the stateme:.ts and opinions in such Responses are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

fu & lA[U Thomas E. Webb Sworn to and subscribed before me this @gfday of

_tWon 0

, 1993.

(?/2L ll. (]!.M cfw IN Notary Public / l { ,'

My commission expires: g'h [

+ r- u .c; -

- l BELATED CORRESPONDENCE f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,93 JU'l -4 P/ :27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD , ,

i In the Matter of

  • Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 '

at gl.

  • 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric
  • Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, * (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
  • Nuclear)
  • ASLBP No. 9 6-671-O'. -OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the within and fore-going " Georgia Power Company's Response to Allen L.

Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories" and the affidavits ,

appended thereto were served on all those listed on the attached service list by depositing same with the U.S.

Postal Service affixed with sufficient postage to ensure delivery.

This is the 2nd day of June, 1993.

AsM / Af

. hn' Lamb 6rski t TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360

5 e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

  • Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 at al.
  • 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric
  • Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, * (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
  • Nuclear)
  • ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Stewart D. Ebneter Peter B. Block, Chairman Regional Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing USNRC, Region II Board 101 Marietta Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 2900 Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D.C. 20555 office of the Secretary Administrative Juf, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James H. Carpente. Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Board ATTN: Docketing and Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Branch Commission Wa shing',on , D.C. 20555 Charles Barth, Esq.

Office of General Counsel Administrative Judge One White Flint North Thomas D. Murphy Stop 15B18 Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Director, Environmental Protection Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Division Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. Department of Natur 1 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. Resources Washington, D.C. 20001 205 Butler Street 4.E.

Suite 1252 Office of Commission Appellate Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Adjudication One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20045A685&oldid=2557634"