ML20045G941

Intervenor Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Documents to Ga Power Co.* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20045G941
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	06/27/1993
From:	Kohn M JOINT INTERVENORS - VOGTLE, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	Bloch P, Carpenter J, Murphy T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#393-14078 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9307160168
Download: ML20045G941 (23)

Text

,

. /pO7f RELATED CORRESPONDENCE

. M IU!

Dated: June 27['I993

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '93 JD130 N1 :ll NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter Thomas D. Murphy

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 et al., )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

, ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10. C.F.R. 52.740b, Allen Mosbaugh hereby requests that Georgia Power Company (hereinafter referred to as 4

"GPC") answer the following interrogatories in writing and under .

cath, and produce any documents requested herein that have not i already been produced.

II. INSTRUCTIONS A. If you cannot answer a particular interrogatory in full, l

after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying and explaining you inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion.

9307160168 930627 0 PDR G ADOCK 05000424 PDR

. = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ __ _ _

B. Each interrogatory is a continuing one, and should be supplemented as required by 10 C.F.R. 52.740(e).

C. If you claim that any information which is required to be provided by you in your response to any of these interrogatories is privileged or immune from discovery:

1. Identify the portion of the interrogatory to which such information is otherwise the response;

2. If the information is a document or oral communication, identify the document's title or the oral communication and state the general subject matter of the document or oral communication;

3. If the information is a document or oral communication, state-the date of the document or oral communication.

4. If a document, identify its author (s) and the person (s) for whom it was prepared or to whom it was sent, including all persons who received copies;

5. If an oral communication, identify all persons present at the time of the oral communication;

6. State the nature of the privilege or immunity claimed; and l

7. State in detail each and every fact upon which you base your claim of privilege or immunity from discovery.

D. In each case where you are asked to identify or to state the identify of a document or where the answer to the 2

j interrogatory refers to a document, state with respect to each such document:

1. The identify of the person who prepared it; j

2. The identity of all persons who reviewed or approved it;

] 3. The identity of the person who signed it, or over whose name it was issued;

4. The identity of the addressee or addressees;

5. The nature and substance of the document with sufficient particularity to enable the same to be i

identified;

6. The date of the document; and 4

7. The present location of the document and the identity and address of each person who has custody of the i document.

E. In each case where you are required to identify an oral j i

communication, or where the answer to the interrogatory refers to l an oral communication, state with respect thereto:

1. The date and place thereof; l

2. The identity of each person who participated in or l

! heard any part of the communication;

3. If the communication was by telephone, so indicate and state who initiated the telephone call;

4. The substance of what was said by each person who participated in the communication; and 3

r m

5. The location and the identity and address of the custodian of any document (including any mechanical, magnetic, electrical or electronic recording) that recorded, summarized, reported or confirmed the oral communication.

F. In ench instance where you are asked to identify or -

state the identity of a person, or where the answer to an interrogatory refers to a person, state with respect to each such person:

1. His/her name;

2. His/her last known business and residence addresses and telephone numbers;

3. If an individual, his/her business affiliation or employment at the date of the transaction, event or matter referred to; and

4. If a corporation or association, the business or activity in which it was engaged at the date of the transaction, event or matter referred to.

G. As used herein, the term " detail" and the phrases " state in detail" and " describe in detail" shall mean that you are requested to state, with specificity, each and every fact, ultimate fact, circumstance, incident, act, omission, event and date, relating,to or otherwise pertaining to the matters inquired i

of in said interrogatory.

III. DEFINITIONS A. As used herein, the terms "NRC," "you," or "your" and any synonym thereof and derivative therefrom are intended to, and 4

shall, embrace and include any and all offices within the Nuclear l 1

Regulatory Commission, including NRC Staff, NRC Office of l l

Investigations, and all their respective attorneys, agents, l l

servants, associates, employees, representatives, investigators, and others who are or have been in possession of or may have obtained information for or on behalf of the NRC in any manner with respect to any matter pertaining to information responsive to any interrogatory question set out below as well as any and 1

document requested below. i B. As used herein, the term " documents" includes any I

written, recorded or graphic matter, however produced or i 1

reproduced, of every kind and regardless of where located, including but not limited to any summary, schedule, memorandum, i

note , statement, letter, telegram, interoffice communication, I I

report, diary, desk or pocket calendar or notebook, daybook, i appointment book, pamphlet, periodical, work sheet, cost sheet, list, graph, chart, index, tape, record, partial or complete report of telephone or oral conversation, compilation, ,

tabulation, study, analysis, transcript, minutes, and all other memorials of any conversations, meetings, and conferences by telephone or otherwise, and any other writing or recording which is in the possession, custody or control of the Intervenor or any employees, representatives, attorneys, investigators, or others acting on his behalf.

C. As used herein, the terms "and" and "or" shall each mean and/or.

5

_ , _ - _ _ . . - . - . . _ . - _ _ _ . ,.---_--~z ,

1

D. As used herein, the " Allen Mosbaugh" and the term

" petitioner" or "intervenor" shall mean Allen Mosbaugh, the Intervenor in this proceeding.

E. As used herein, the term "SONOPCO," " Southern Nuclear" s i and " Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.," shall include an

entity formerly known as the "SONOPCO project" as well as a the current corporate entity now generally referred to as " Southern Nuclear."

F. As used herein, the term "date" shall mean the exact  ;

day, month, and year, if ascertainable, or if not, the best approximation thereof, including relationship to other events.

G. As used herein, the term " person" shall mean any i I

individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or other I

government, legal or business entity.

j H. As used herein, the term " detail" and the phrases " state

{

i in detail" and " describe in detail" shall mean that you are 4

requested to state, with specificity, each and every fact, ultimate fact, circumstance, incident, act, omission, event and date, relating to or otherwise pertaining to the matters inquired of in said interrogatory.

I. As used herein, the term " COA" shall refer to a

, confirmation of action letter sent by or on behalf of Georgia Power Company to the NRC in response to the March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency.

J. As used herein, the term "LER" or "LER 90-006" shall refer to any draft or actual licensee event report, or revision 6

1 to any such report received or known to have existed by NRC that in any way pertains to the March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency.

IV. INTERROGATORIES Below. petitioner sets forth interrogatory questions, which l have been divided into various categories for the convenience of GPC.

l

A. Interroaatories related to the Diesel Generators l

1. What communications, either written or oral, did any )

l l

GPC/SONOPCO personnel make to or receive from any NRC personnel 1

concerning any inaccuracy or potential inaccuracy in the Confirmation of Action letter (" COA") concerning the March, 1990 Site Area Emergency?

a. For each such communication, state the time, date,

name of individual communicating the information, and the sum and substance of the communication.

b. For each such communication, produce any and all l 4

j l documents relating to any such communication. '

2. What communications, either written or oral, did any i

GPC/SONOPCO personnel make to or receive from any NRC personnel l concerning any inaccuracy or potential inaccuracy in LER 90-006 I or any draft or contemplated revision to LER 90-006 or with respect to LER 90-006-Rev.l?

a. For each such communication, state the time, date, name of individual communicating the information, and the sum and substance of the communication.

7

i l j

$ b. For each such communication, produce any and all l

5 documents relating to any such communication.  !

l 3. State in detail any knowledge or involvement Ken Brockman, Stewart Ebnetter, the. resident inspectors, and any l l

1 other NRC employee or GPC/SONOPCO employee had with respect to  !

4 I

inaccurate or potentially inaccurate information contained in the

COA or LER 90-006.

i l a. For each describe in detail:

l 1. The nature of each communication.

ii. The date of each communication.

l iii. All personnel involved.

t iv. Any notes or records from each communication.

l l j v. From whom each communication was received.

t j b. For each such communication, produce any and all i

documents related to said involvement.

, 4. Who did the NRC interview regarding the alleged false J

) statements in the COA and the LER?

i j a. For any such interview conducted, describe in I

i detail:

1 l i. The identity of each person interviewed.

4 i 11. The date each interview took place.

J l

-111. What was discussed in each interview.

l iv. Any notes or records from the interview.

5. Who prepared the material related to the oral presentation of George Bockhold, to Region II on April 9,1990, 1 l l l 8  !

l 1,

4 4

- --- w rv- r.._-,,.g-g.mww- w-

--.m.--

, - - _ , , , ,.__n -.- ,,, .. , , . ,- , , , . . ,, ,y,._,.,s.~.,wu .,..,7,,,,,mn..., ,.

=

1 l

l regarding the number of successful starts of the Vogtle diesel 1 generators A and B? l I i 1 a. For any individual identified, please state in j detail the role played and how the errors in the counting H j

occurred.

b. Identify who was responsible for including the false information related to the number of starts i and/or the reliability of the diesels, and provide a l detailed statement as to how this information was j included in the material presented.

c. If GPC or SONOPCO has ever indicated or presented i any documents to NRC or U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")

concerning how the false information regarding the number of successful starts was included in the oral presentation, please identify:

1. the documents in which this information is contained; ii. who was responsible for including in this documentation the identity of the individuals; l

iii. every manager and/or corporate office.of GPC/SONOPCO who reviewed or saw this document prior to its release to NRC or DOJ; iv. produce all drafts, written statements or other documentation that in any way relates 9

1 l

J d

to or describes events concerning the April 3

j 9, 1990 oral presentation.

6. With respect to the oral presentation of George Bockhold, to Region II on April 9,1990, describe in detail:

i a. Who was present at the oral presentation. l 1

, b. Any recollection of comments mado during the )

l presentation.

c. Produce any and all documents and notes prepared

with respect to or which relate to said presentation.

7. Identify any and every statement contained in the April

.; 9, 1990 Confirmation of Action letter signed by George Hairston

) that GPC concedes is inaccurate, unclear, false or misleading,

a. For each such statement state whether GPC 1 considers or considered it to be inaccurate, etc., and 1 provide a detailed statement why it is inaccurate, etc., and state when and how the inaccuracy was detected and when it was reported to NRC.

w

8. State whether any of the following knew or suspected I

that, prior to the submission of LER 90-006, information regarding the number of successful starts of the diesel i

generators or any other information contained in LER 90-006 was inaccurate:

1. George Bockhold

11. John Aufdenkampe lii. William Shipman iv. R. P. Mcdonald 10 a

1

. v. George Hairston vi. Ken McCoy

] vii. Stringfellow i viii. Bailey l ix. Allen Mosbaugh

! x. Any other managers of either SONOPCO, GPC, or Southern i

i Company Services,

a. For any person or persons who GPC admits to suspecting or knowing that information contained in LER 90-j 006 was inaccurate prior to its submission, please state who j they told this information to and what steps they took to i

] make sure that false information would not be released in LER 90-006.

! b.- For anyone identified, state how that individual i

j came to know or suspect that false information was contained

! in the LER.

9. State whether R.P. Mcdonald reviewed any draft version I .

1 of LER 90-006 before it was signed out by George Hairston. .

i j a. If the answer is yes, state who provided Mcdonald j 4

i with a copy and the date(s) Mcdonald received it.

! 10. State whether R.P. Mcdonald played any role in l reviewing the LER or whether he provided anyone with comments

, about the LER or otherwise had input to or requested information i

! -l I

about the LER.

a. If the answer is yes, provide a detailed statement l of Mr. Mcdonald's role.

4 11 i

i

i

11. Does GPC and/or SONOPCO contend that it permissible for ,

l a licensee to establish Diesel Generator reliability through

, 1 i "non-valid tests" under any provisions set out in the code of ,

federal regulations; Branch Technical Position EICSB 2 Diesel  ;

I l

. Generator Reliability Qualification Testing; Regulatory Guide 1.106; Generic Letter 84-15; or any other NRC regulations and

guidance?

a. If the answer is yes (or a qualified yes) with respect to any source stated above:

i

i. identify any and all specific provision (s) f relied upon; and ii. provide a detailed statement setting forth

~

the reason (s) why.

12. At the time that the hold on Vogtle Unit 1 was lifted after the Site Area Emergency, was it GPC's understanding that the diesel start data presented in the oral presentation and stated in the COA was based on " valid tests"?

a. State in detail exactly what was the GPC's understanding with respect to whether the COA and oral i

presentation was or was not based on " valid tests" when it l

reviewed LER 90-006 on April 19, 1990. i

13. Was it GPC's intent to lead the NRC to conclude that the " successful start" and " starts without problems or failures" data contained in the April 9, 1990 presentation, the COA and the j LER 90-006, referred to consecutive starts?

12 1

)

l

i 0

14. After the failure of the diesel generator system caused the March 20, 1990 Vogtle Site Area Emergency, did anyone within  !

GPC or SONOPCO question the reliability of the diesel generators?

a. If the answer is yes, identify everyone who a

i questioned this and provide the date the question was raised and to whom it was raised.

15. Does GPC content that it was not required to "requalify" the diesel generators per Regulatory Guide 1.106 after the site area emergency?

i. If GPC asserts that it was not required to requalify the diesels, please provide a detailed statement as to why not.

j 16. Did GPC and/or SONOPCO ever re-establish to the NRC 4

] that the diesel generators had a 95% reliability goal before the NRC gave permission to resume power operations?

17. Under NRC regulations, how many consecutive successful starts of Vogtle's Diesel generators were required to re-i .

establish the necessary reliability and to grant permission to resume power operations?

a. Please state the basis for your response.

18. How many valid tests of each of the plant Vogtle diesels were conducted by GPC prior to GPC's requesting permission to resume power operations have effected the NRC's decision to grant that request?

19. Was the NRC promptly informed by GPC that Vogtle's Unit 1 diesel generator tripped seven (7) times on May 23, 1990 by the 13 r

R same CALCON switches that were suspected of causing the March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency?

a. If yes, please state:

i. the date;

11. the time of the contact; iii. the individual (s) within the NRC who were contacted.

20. Does GPC and/or SONOPCO consider diesel control air quality to be " satisfactory" for plant Vogtle where the dew point is above 50 degrees F, as described in GPC's response to Generic Letter 84-15 issued by NRC?

21. Did GPC and/or SONOPCO understand that the information contained in the COA letter regarding diesel control air dew point would become part of the factual basis the NRC would base its decision to lift the hold on power operations imposed after the March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency?

22. Does GPC consider operational history of the Vogtle diesel generators which includes prolonged periods where the air system dryers are out of service to be satisfactory?

a. Produce all documents NRC has concerning the operational history of the Vogtle diesel generators.

19. Did GPC ever advise the NRC that diesel control air dew I point was above the limit of acceptable operation (pre-GPC

]

response to the Generic Letter) because the dryers were again out of service during the days proceeding and following the 4-9-90 presentation by GPC in response to the Site Area Emergency?

14  ;

I 1

a. If GPC did advise the NRC, please identify:

1. who at the NRC was advised; ii. whom from GPC/SONOPCO contacted the NRC; iii. the date, time and place of the contact.

l 23. Did GPC or SONOPCO intend the following statement made ,

to NRC prior to the resumption of power operation after the Site Area Emergency: " Initial reports of higher than expected dewpoints were later attributed to faulty instrumentation" to mean that the unaccepthbly high dewpoints reported in the days prior to and on 4-9-90 resulted from readings of faulty measuring device (s) and that the actual control air dewpoints were within specification (i.e., less than 50 degrees F) ? I

a. If the answer is no, state what the intended meaning of this wording at the time it was made to NRC.

l B. Interrocatories related to FAVA l 24. Did GPC\SONOPCO complied with any of the four stipulations stated on page 49 of the Partial Director's Decision to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-93-08)?

a. If yes, identify which stipulations GPC complied with and:

1. identify and produce all documents, interviews, and communications upon which GPC based its determination that GPC complied l with this verification; 1

1 ii. state whether GPC considered the verification process to be adequate or inadequate; 15

k' '

j 4

i

) lii. state the factual basis GPC relied upon for 1

I each such determination.

j b. If GPC/SONOPCO asserts that it complied with l

{ stipulation 2 (i.e., that the hoses from the FAVA system i

j conform with Reg. Guide 1.143), state how such a j l 1 determination was reached in light of the hose

l manufacturer's statement that it could not verify i

i conformance of the hoses with Reg. Guide 1.143. l i l j

c. Did GPC/SONOPCO ever determine that the auxiliary 1

i radwaste building would or would not leak; and if it was j determined that it could leak:

! 1. were any design changes ever contemplated, and if so, what changes were contemplated to i reduce the risk of leakage against spays from i  !

a hose hitting the walls?

l

d. Did GPC or SONOPCO ever determine where off-site i leakage would run in the event of leakage from the FAVA l system, and if so, what was the licensee's determination.

2 ,

1 I

l i. If yes, state whether the licensee '

1

! evaluated the leakage path to Little Beaver l Creek in the FSAR and whether it was ever i l determined that the leakage path did lead to f

l Little Beaver Creek.

e. Produce all documents GPC and/or SONOPCO reviewed i

concerning FAVA, including all notes or other materials i

l, 16 i

j . .

I i

I u

! prepared by GPC in response to any communication received a

j from NRC and/or the intervenor. j

! 25. Does GPC content that its safety evaluation of FAVA 1

adequately justified an exemption from all 10 C.F.R. 50, App. B, l

Quality Assurance requirements for a safety related system?

i a. If the answer is yes, state in detail the basis-l for reaching this conclusion.

j 26. Does GPC/SONOPCO content that NRC requirements and i i

! regulations permit the use of a 10 C.F.R. 50.59 safety evaluation 1

to exempt safety related systems, structures, and components from 1

4 l the 17 Quality Assurance criteria of 10 CFR 50 App. B?

1

a. If the answer is yes

1

] 1. delineate those requirements and regulations; 1

J  !

11. state how those requireme~nts are applied to 1

j the Quality Assurance criteria through a j 50.59 Safety evaluation.

I j 27. Describe in detail the safety evaluation GPC performed 3 on FAVA.

a. State whether this safety evaluation complied with ASME requirements and explain why it did or did not.

28. Does GPC/SONOPCO contend that NRC requirements and i

regulations permit the use of a 10 C.F.R.-50.59 safety evaluation i

l to exempt safety related systems, structures, and components from j all ASME code requirements?

i i

j 17 1

1 1

1 3

j . .

4 i +

j 29. Did Ron LeGrand ever notify any GPC employee that the i FAVA system violated NRC requirements before it was initially l

j installed?

I a. If so, identify the individual (s) so notified and h describe in detail what was said.

30. State whether 10 CFR part 21 reporting requirements and

] ,

, procedures were violated with respect to GPC's decision to j i  !

install and/or reinstate the FAVA system.  ;

31. Did GPC and/or SONOPCO fail to apply 10 C.F.R. Part 21

! requirements to procurement activities related to security, l

l radwaste and fire protection systems as required under NUREG 302 a

j and Plant Procedure 81010-C?

3 C. Interroaatories related to Safeauards b

32. Has GPC identified the root cause for the failure to i

] adequately protect and secure the Safeguards materials in the l

, " Unlocked File Cabinet" of Mr. Prestifillipo which resulted in a i j

Level III violation and .$50,000' civil. penalty issued in 1990? j

a. If yes, what was the identified root cause.  !

h 33. State whether GPC ever advised NRC of the failure to i

j make the one hour red phone for the "second event" identified on page 45 of the Director's Partial Decision before GPC was first

]

alerted to this fact by the NRC?

a. If yes, state the individual (s) contacted, who made the contact, and the date and place of each contact.

a. Produce any and all documents related to said contact.

1 18 J

34 To the best of GPC's knowledge, did the NRC's discovery that GPC violated the NRC's one hour red phone reporting requirement for the "second event" identified on page 45 of the Director's Partial Decision come about as a result of GPC corrective action to a previous violation or did it come about as a result of allegations raised by Allen Mosbaugh to the NRC?

35. Is there a regulatory difference between a licensee's management passively, as opposed to actively, impeding the making of a report where the impeding causes the violation of NRC requirements?

a. If the answer is yes or a qualified yes, did GPC's management ever " passively" impede conformance with the one hour reporting requirement?

36. State the identities of the individuals associated with the licensee who attended the enforcement conference at NRC regional headquarters on May 22, 1990.

b. For any participant who is or was an employee of GPC/SONOPCO or a co-owner of plant Vogtle, state whether that participant to the enforcement conference can recollect whether Ken McCoy attended the enforcement conference and whether he made a statement about the kind and status of the safeguard controls in GPC's corporate office?

1. If so, state the best recollection of any employee's recollection as to what Ken McCoy stated about the kind and status of safeguard controls in GPC's corporate office.

19

i Specifically, state whether any individual recalls Ken McCoy stating anything to the effect that: "We have reviewed the controls ,

in corporate--Birmingham and safeguards 3 documents there are all controlled by document control under a sound program."

i ii . If anyone recalls Ken McCoy making such a statement, would this statement be accurate in light of the subsequent finding of i

numerous uncontrolled and unsecured i safeguards documents in Birmingham?

E. Interroaatories Related to Dilution Valves

37. How many valves, normally required be Technical Specifications to be locked closed, did GPC claim were locked closed with paper hold tags?

38. Has Gpc/SONOPCO determined within how much time must a -i licensee take actions required by Technical Specifications that

• specifically state that the licensee must take "immediate action"? l

39. How much time elapsed before GPC complied with the Technical Specification Immediate Action Statement after they were informed by the NRC of their failure to comply with Technical Specifications?

i 20 e - - - - - -c -- c- % n.. e.-- vr--.%,,.r.. -- ,-e.e-,,ew..e , , , . , . ,weg.w.

F. Miscellaneous Interroaatory

40. Did George Hairston or Pat Mcdonald ever " walk out" of a meeting of the NRC RER team at Plant Farley?

a. If the answer is yes, state in detail the events leading to this occurrence.

Respectfully submitted, e

Michael D. Kohn KOHN, KOHN AND COLAPINTO 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001-1850 (202) 234-4663 Attorney for Intervenor Dated: June 24, 1993 054\ inter 2.gpc l

l w

21

i. : i l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' M"d' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

g y 3}

Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chair  ;; , t6, Dr. James H. Carpenter . 1. m t o 4f Thomas D. Murphy

)

In tha Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 e_t; al . , )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 27, 1993 Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and request for Documents to GPC was served by first class mail upon the following:

Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

[ continued on next page)

I John Lamberski, Esq.

l Troutman Sanders j Suite 5200 1 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

l Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 i

!

• Office of the Secretary (* Original and two copies) l Attn: Docketing and Service j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Washington, D.C. 20555 i

l Office of Commission Appellate j Adjudication i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

i David R. Lewis '

j SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

4 TROWBRIDGE 1 2300 N Street, N.W.

j Washington, D.C. 20037 i

3 By:

& i Michael D. Kohn '

j Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.

j 517 Florida Ave., N.W.

l Washington, D.C. 20001 1

(202) 234-4663 i

I j 054\ cert.gpc 1

i i

i -

)

I 1

4 4

s l

1

}

- - - . _ . - - - _