ML20065D976

Discusses Chronology of Util Denial of Cover Up W/Stated Law Firm

ML20065D976
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/18/1994
From:	Mosbaugh A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Demiranda O NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
Shared Package
ML20064L662	List: ML20065D976
References
NUDOCS 9404070311
Download: ML20065D976 (12)

Text

...

es-to-iss4 11:ss e41 ssio US NRC RO I P.22

.ea:svara/ ra Aw ce mm, TO: OSCAR naarramuna, Ugac mamme N

,f_gS, CC. LhERY 30BINSW, USNRC OI gg b

MN

1. WAN FacN: ALLEN L. EDSBhD W

, = _.

r

= _ _ - -

-.m

._,..e.

.., s

==THE CDVER DF WITH TER LaN FIRIE. M S M AgeTY. le, teen - - t a a na em - T.sh aM-- - - - 2

?r=

ca11.1 apnfaranna call *A*

On 4=19=90 a telephone conference call ocourred between Vogtle site personnel and Southern Nuclear passennel in Birmingham, Alabama, late in the afternoon. In John Aufdenkampe's office at Plant Vogtle were Jeb Aufdenkampe and Allen Moskauch and in Een Mocoy's offios at southern Nuclear, in Birmingham, were Jack stringfelles, Bill shipman, Ken McCoy and George Mairston. [See Tape #58, Tr. pg.s=17).

George Bookhold was slee on the call but probably fros another phone on the Vogtle site. All the aheve personnel spoke on the call and were clearly identifiable by voice. In-addition the names of these participants were used during the conversation including George Mairston's. Also believed to be party to the call in hocoy's office were Louis Ward, Jim Bailey, and Paul Rushton (but they were not heard speaking). (see Tape da53 Tr.pg.19 and 20]. per a brief period Gus Willisas and Tom Weht walked into Amidankaape's office during the call. Ous Williams any have sede a brief comment on the call.

George Hairston participated and spoke on the call when the diesel generator starts were discussed, indeed he participated in the following exchanges Hairston: "We got the starte-so we didn't have no, we didn't have no tripe?'

shipsan No, not, not=--

McCoy Let me explain. I'll testify to that.

shipman:

Disavow.

This call revised the wording of the LER eheut the Diesel generator starts adding the wording about the

• comprehensive j

Test Program" (CTF) in the following exchange l

l stringfellow: Let me aske sure I'm clear. De we want to say, "sinoe 3-30-90, De1A and De&S have 9404070311 940324 PDR ADOCK 05000424 O

PDR

es-to-tes4 1u 28 ~ s41 ssis us mC RO !!

P.63 I

been subjected to a osaprehensive test progras? Do we want to say that kind of stutf, or de we want to say===

Bockhold:

Yes, you can say that.

The final wording agreed to on this os11 is indeed the wording that was in the signed LaR 90-005 rev.c.

Apert. is, i = a sht = =sa wai1= = nati tm &*

renamn mall was one more call ooourred after the above os11 within is minutes. Bill shipman called John Aufdenkaape. Allen Moebaugh was still in Aufdenkaape8s office and Stringfellow was with shipman [See Tape f58, Tr. pg. 20-33). George Bookhold did not participate in this call. Emirston and Mocoy were not on the call either.

No revisions of LER wording escurred on this call, in fact no revision were discussed. shipasa road portions of the wording changes sees by the higher Vice ident level personnel on the earlier call, and they resa unchanged in the final version. Shipman's purpose on this call was to get the site, specifically Aufdenkaape, to buy into the corporate revisions that had been made on the previous call Shipsan must have had a

• gut feeling" that the site personnel were not "in the folds on repeating the falso statements. Nochmugh commented to Shipman that he believed that the comprehensive test program could nok he claimed to be completed until the Underveltage test, start #163 and

1. 142 respectively (this definition of the CTF would have proved the LER statements false) but shipman ignored Mosbaugb's definition. Aufdenkampe deferred to his boss 2 levels higher, Bookhold, and sais that George must have had some basis and must have been right. Then the call tu n ed to a discussion of pat Mcdonald's LER 90-06 segments.with Jim swertswolder who hag entares Auraenzampe's ofrios. After

" call B" ended, Auf still had reservations about the LER because he stated to ugh after tais call:

Aufdenkampe: If they interpret it differently, we're sorry. We'll send a rev. out. -----

Aufdenkaape: And I'm not talkiny wrong or right, I'm just talking practNaal.

93-15-1994 11819 841 B519=

US PRC RG II p,e4 l

antsDs? 1990- une Mr and Tum sunTTE.maanno.

1 In August of 1990, during the NRC's OSI at plant Vogtle, the NRC requested answers in writing to several written questions. Southern Nuclear responded in a ' White paper" which was given to the NBC on about $=32-90. Later the

" White" paper was also issued internal 1 under oever letter of Mark Ajuluni of Southern Ndolear

. Southern Nuclear's lawyer, Art Domby, of Troutman sanders partisipated in the GPC\\ southern Nuclear meetings the week of 8=13-90 where the osI issues were discussed and is believed to have assisted in the preparation of the " White paper.

At this time s

southern Nuclear did not know that Mosbaugh had made tape recordings.

NRC QUESTION #3 (with regard to LER 90-06, revision 0, dated 4/19/90) ?

Who prepared the LER 7 Answer: "Several draf to------

. 'The 11331 E3Eigion of LER 90-04, revision 0 was prepared by a phonacon between site management and serparate management. Those participating are believed to be G. Bes2hald Jr., A.L. Noskaugh, J. G.

Aufdenkampe, W. shipman."

NRC QUESTION #5-Who in corporate added the words

" subsequent to the test pungram" in LER 90-06, revision 07 Answar:

" Corporate licensing personnel in conjunction with the phone conversation described above made editorist changes se directed. Those present during the phone conversation are thought to be W. shipman, G. maneihn).d Jr.,

A.L. Mosbaugh, J. G. Aufdenkampe, and 3.

Stringtallow With these responses, southern Nuclear twice identifies the call as being the one in which Rockhold participated.

With these responses Southern Nuclear has clearly identified the call in which the draft LER was erevised' and the " final l

revision prepared" as ennferaman gall "Am,,,

southern Nuclear makes no mention whatsoever of the later call "B" in the above White paper reply to the NRC in describing how the LER was prepared revised and finalised.

Southern Nuclear intentionally failed to identify in their responses to the NRC, the "emacutives" (Vice President level and up) who participated on that call. Een Neosy was present during the meeting in August 1990 when these " White paper" w

f' j

es-to-iso 4.tinae 841 5510 US PRC RG II P.95 i

i l

responses were prepared but did not correct the osiasion of his participation. In so doing Southern Nuclear sought to i

1 distance the executives from involvement and to attempt to cover up their role. specifically omitted were Een Nocoy and George Mairston.

8 Also omitted were the other corporate staff listening in Nocoy's office in Birmingham even though they were j

identified by shipman at the time of the respemme l

preparation as participants (See Tape #252 Tr.pg.19-30).

I f

APRIL 1. 1991.--notFFEERE utE!LE&R am 90 M.1.2AE

{

=

r7 a,a l

At this time, Southern Nuclear did not know that there were tapes of the 4-19-90 centarance call or what was on any tape retained by the NRC. The NRC opacifically required Southern Nuclear to respond under oath and affirmation to Neshaugh's 2.206 petition in early 1991. pet NoDonald, Southern Nuclear's executive vice president, signed the response and outright denied that Hairston was on the late afternoon conference call "Aw.

Quoting from southern Nuclear's 2.20s reopease Bootion II.b page 3, last paragraph footnote St l

Footnote 3 "The unediaqr gag ESM by site and corporate representatives in a telephone conference l

os11 late on April 19, 1990. Although Mr.

Mairston was not a participant in that call, he had every reason to belisee that the final

~

i draft LER presented to his after the os11 was accurate and complete."

of calls "A" and "B", only during call "A* (the conference l

call in which Nairston participated) was % amediaqr 33g188d".

l clearly southern Nuclear's own worda describe call "A".

i y

,.4 i

MITTM RESEEMBE In June 1991 Mombaugh filed two documents of allegations, one 11 and the other is pages, with Bruno Uriak of the Mac j

alleging that Southern Nuolear had made nuasessa fslae statements in the 2.206 petition response.

Among the falso statements alleged was the one about Maf rston's participation on the 4-19-90 late afternoon conference call.

m

i f

83-18-1994 11 23 841 5510 US PRC RG II P.06 i

i m -- mun - --w

=====*==="a n mae sm.v n. seet

..._,A 1991 Noebaugh supplements his 3.30s petition, on July 8, incorporating portions of the allegations provided to Bruno Urich from June.1991. Among the supplements are the i

allegations about Mairston's participation on the 4-19-90 l

late afternoon conference call as well as the allegation of a cover-up.

i 8

m r_u_

ss, semi-

= _ _ _ r_ x = =_ _

l

..n uma go car r= me - -. _ _ _,1, s engyr manning l

i l

on 9-22-90 the NRC requested that Opc respond in writing l

to the Noabaugh\\Mohby amended petition.

I 4**"

amenTIE AfrTa&Tres Fanar l

F1LL/RIETER.1991 -- - - - - - - -

en em a.ne.ee a= art.

• '"*fe

~

19 2.

rra l

l In the fall / winter time frame of 1991 John Amfdenkamps was ask by lawyers from the Troutman= sanders Les Fira 4

representing Southern Nuclear and OpC, probably #0ha I

Lamberski, to aien an affidavit saying that George Emirston-l was not a participant on the 4-19-90 conferenos call *A".

i Aufdenkaape told the Southern Huolear lawyers that contrary remembered George Rairsten-being on to their assertions he a the call". He went 'Dack and forth" with the lawyers several-times on his affidavit. The lawyers vers

• hounding 8 l

i Aufdenkaape for the affidavit. The lawyers told Aufdenkaape l

that they were obtaining affidavits from all the gall j

partieinanta and Aufdenkampe was "the only ens who remembered that Hairston was on the calla. [the lawyers used this same tactic on Mosbaugh during the NRC's 01

• dilution i

valves" investigation to try to dissuade Moskaugh from his j

recollections about skip Kitchens statements about opening l

f the dilution valves when Art Domby, the Troutman Sanders j

inwyer, said "I have privileged information from my interviews with other personnel",-

"I can tell you that you are ISO degrees out".)

l Before Aufdenkampe signed his affidavit he discussed all l

the above with Allen Nosbaugh. During these eenversations which took place in Aufdenkampe's residence in Augusta, J

oeorgia, Aufdankampo named all the personnel that he romaabered that participated on the call that the lawyers l

were seeking the affidavit for. AuR9nkampe statedg himself, Mosbaugh, stringfellow, Shipman, Beskhgid, h and MaiEstan. Nosbaugh centirmed his recollection of the ease i

i

~

l E3-18-1994 11:21 841 5510 US MtC RQ !!

P.07 j

personnel. There was some question whether paul Rushton was 1

on the call but no one remembered him speaking.

i t

Mosbaugh then quoted to Aufdenkamps, simioking Bairston's voice, one thing that Mairston had said on the catl-i

'That's just what the shift supervisor told me to de".

l Nith that, Aufdenkaape responded that he guessed that he

{

{

shouldn't be talkiny with Mosbaugh about this and that there i

was a " conflict of :,nteresta.

The Lawyers were se pressuring Aufdenkamps to sifs the l

affidavit that they were frequently sailing at his home. His wife boosse concerned shout this pressure l

and mentioned it to Nosbaugh. When Aufdenkamps eventually i

eigned the effidavit, Aufdenkaape's wife was esfficiently l

concerned about what her husband may have.been persuaded to sign that she shoemd the affidavit to Nashau $. She opened the top drawer in a small table loosted agatast the east j

j wall in between the kitchen and dining room and handed the

}

affidavit to Nashaugh. Nesbaugh handled the desument by the edges but should have left some fingerprints.

Moebeugh read the entire affidavit. It was about one page in length and stated that Aufdenkaape areese ered that l

Mairston was on the os11 but he was on an earlier ton of j

i the call and not on the portion of the call uhen diesels were discussed",

f Mosbaugh rooognised that Aufdenkampe has errored in stating that Hairston had not participated in the diesel start portions of the call.

l The information stated to Nesbaugh by Aufdenkespe about his conversations with the lawyers, the inforastien he stated about the content of his affidavit and the eatsal affidavit e

that Mosbaugh read, conclusively shoes that gestborn Nuclear sought to support (via employee effidavits) its denial in i

i their 2.206 petition response that Hairston uns en call

'A".

i It shows conclusively that the lawyers and the effiants l

understood that the call referred to in the 2.306 petition l

response, the call of interest, was Call "A*, bessess only 4

i on call "As were Bockhold, Necoy, and Emireten participants.

Aufdenkamps identified to Mosbaugh that both Seokhold and j

Mocoy were participante on the call addressed in the affidavit the lawyers were seek l

Further Aufdenkamps remembered Ha raton being a participant j

on the call of interest, " Call A". Mairsten uma not on the later " call Ba.

q l

l 1

1 e

C3-15-1994 11:21 841 5519 US MtC RQ 11 P.98 m,uess. s inet-- r-c n_.

c__ s:-

-Te - 43E&gi

_' : *d

• • 'e' B&g o.

pit s.

TE arveyr marament. ___m-r r on 10-3-91 southern Nuclear responded to the 100ShS9th\\Mobby supplemente. Southern puolear states that the basis for Footnote #3 which denied that Nairston was an the 4-19-90 conference call that revised LIR 90-06 was :

1. The collective recollection of 09C\\Seethern Nuclear personnel as dooumonted in the 8-14-90 and 8-22-90

• White paper".

2. Hairston's persons 1 recollections The response notes that Southern Nuclear did not have a tape of the call and until there is credible evidense to the contrary, Southern Nuclear believes Footnote #3 is correct.

nk:ElBER 10.1991---epe naaras ERTRetM Mh3 m EEE 1 ATE A,

.v_

._ ear r.==

- m ease #71 On December 10, 1991 GPC wrote a letter (ELV=03293) providing additional information to Thomas alurley (NRC NRR)'

responeing to the Hobby \\Meehaugh 3.808 petities. In this letter (section IV) 09c transcribes a portion of Tape #71.

GPC uses this transcript to identify the late afternoon conferunos call that was referred to in the 2.205 petition response. GPc refers to the referensed osal aos "the April 19, 1990 telephone conference on11 when the language concerning the emergency diesel generator start count was finalised in the LER."

i And states that Tape #71:

4

" indicates that Nairston was 591 a partici t during the April it, 1990 telephone conference call the

)

language conoarning the energency diesel generator start count was finalised in the LER".

This is a new and different statement than that which had been made in Feetnote 3 et the April 1, 1991 3.304 petition response, because nos the denial is not the whole call, but only a specifio portion of the call, "shan the language"

- 8vas finalist'i'e This statement is similar to the statement that had been put in Aufdenkaape's affidavit.

-.-,,m.-

'83-1.5-1994 its22 841 5519 US PRC RG II p.es In this tape sequence Mosbaugh and Aufdenkespe (when G7c only identifies as "F"[ participant)) are discussing

" call A". Aufdenkampe identifies osores sookhold 5 times in GPC's transcript segment as participating in the call.

By submitting this letter to Thomas Nur in December of 1991, GPC has providea the 13333333313 of shish i

call Mcdonald and SPC\\5outhern Nuclear meant a their 2.206 j

petition rasponse, a g e. Only on " Call As was Bookhold a l

participant.

Further GPC states that this is "consistant with ce11estive f

i recollection of participants during the August 1990 08Z".

l As of the August 1990 OSI, GPC\\ Southern Nuclear's stated collective recollection was that, Moshaugh, Aufdankaape, Stringfallow, Bookhold, and Shipman were en tbs " Call A".

In their letter dated 12-15-92 to Asst. U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, Southern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutman Sanders, again uses same tape segment as above from tape #1 to identify "the conference call when the 1 5 language.was finalised".

But this time they claim that M was not l

a participant. [see letter Pg.11 itas 3.6.]

"We do not believe that Allen Mosbaugh was a participant during the finsi stages of the telephone conference call when the LER' language was finalised.

See e.g., Moshaugh Tape 71. John Auf had to explain to Allen Mosbaugh what had ha during the conference call on April 19th." -

ty suhaitting this letter to Asst. U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, on Deosaber it, 1991, 07c has provided the irrefutahia aEdans of which os11 Mcdonald and SPC\\ Southern i

Nuclear meant hn their 2.206 petition response, " W ".

Only on " Call A" was Beckhold a participant.

amarum me.v. ines - _ _ - _ -. _ -

user,===, =m-euer mees, or WWE A-ita wh9mMn en e

_ __: - men.--

-1 In.7uly 1993, Southern Nuclear obtained possession of the "six tapes" which included the " Call A".

Once Southern Nuclear and its I,aw Fira Troutama Sanders was aware of the content of these tapes, they knew that contrary to the April 1, 1991 2.206 petition response as well as the october 3, 1991 supplemental petition response, as well as the December 10, 1991 additional information response letter-i from Ken McCoy, Nairston was on " Call A". Within 2 days a

t j

es-is-tes4 11:23 a41 ssie us me no 11 p.to i,

5 i

correction of the falso information was required to be made to the Regional Administrator under 10 CFR 50.9.

Also requiring correction under 50.9 was the " White Paper" from the August 1990 CSI which failed to correctly identify I

all the " Call A" participants. They also knew that the.

12-is-91 Dos response was incorrect at that time as well.

1 When the NRC conducted it's oZ interviews of ourrent and i

former southern Nuclear personnel, the NRC utilised partions j

of various 4-19-90 tape recordings during the interviews.

i Depanding of the dates of these interviews Sesthern Nuclear i

any have learned that their previous statements were false j

first from the of intervices rather than the 'Siu Tapes,

a once southern Nuclear learned of the existenes and content.

(

of portions of these tapes, including the inter Call "5",

i their story changed.

i l

3. -

In testimony to the NRC or and in response to the NBC, Pat NoDonald and Southern Nuciaar changed their story to clain that the telephone cell they were referr to in Pat Mcdonald's sworn response to the 2.206 pet ties was call "B", the os11 after call "A". The obvious need to do this i

was Nairston's clear veios and extensive

' isipation on j

onli "A" including his participation in diesel discussions.

l By switching to call "S" they could "makes teenald's sworn statementa "come true" because indeed Emirsten waia not on j

call "sa, i

l l

The problem is that southern Nuclear wee not referring to l

call "B" when it responded to the 2.208 petition as exhaustively demonstrated above. They lied them, to oever up the involvement of the executives in the falso statements of 4-19-90 and they are lying now because with the proof offered by the tape it's their way out.

)

,.o s.

~..

.. ~..

nramamer zu mara.wanenunzma 1

1 In the course of discovery in the current V e Lisense

,i transfer proceedings before the ASLB, ve discovery i

requests were filed. Specifically in Moskaugh's first set of interrogatories, Question #54 (f) required arc to sidentify all documente" that

• relate in any manner

• to conversations i

held on April 19, 1990 concerning LER 90-006 Spc failed to j

identify the affidavita in their response to gnostion #94.

a t

ia

G3-16-1994 82 23 841 5510 US PRC RG 11 P. 8 !,

Having failed to disclose the existence of the affidavits Mosbaugh's lawyers pressed the issue.

A discovery meeting was held between

's iswyers and GpC\\ Southern Nuclear's lawyers in

, July, 1993. GPC's lawyers were ask about the res to Question

1. 53 and were ask wh they didn't identify affidavita.

Their response was how'd you find out about these*.

subsequent to this meeting GPC filed a supplemert to its response, stating that signed statementa more attained from John Aufdenkampe, Thomas Webb, Jeok stringfelles, and esorge Mairston but refused to turn over the documsuts. [te, Orc's See Intervener motion to compel production of affidavi reply and CPC suppismental response to interrogatories).

Noabaugh's lawyers then sought to obtain the affidavits thru the ASL5 but the ocurt upheld CPC's claim of Attorney-Client privilege.

a, e.,

TEE AFFIBLVITs southern Nuclear failure to disclose the esistance of their employees' affidavits, during discovery in this current ASLR proceeding is most surprising. This senters around admitted contentions that V la's liesase was illegally transferred and that Southern Nuclear does not have the character, oespotence and trustworthiaeas to hold a" nuolear operating license. Meehaugh's allegations that George Hairston knowingly made material false statements to the NRC in LER 90=006 about Vogtle's diesel generaters and specifically that Southern Nuclear lied in its s.308 petition response about Hairston not being on the 4-19-90 conference call are central issues to the oestantions.

i After southern Nuclear's lawyers finally identified to the court that affidavits were obtained from Asideakampe, stringfellow, Wahh, and Mairston they refused to turn them over. Why would southern Nuclear want to hold book this supporting evidence? OPC8s filings to the ASta, the courts and the NRC, to previous Mosbaugh allegations, are filled with GPC's employees affidavits.

According to John Aufdenkaape's statements to Allen l

Nombaugh, GPc's list of affiants is amt Aufdenkampe had stated to Mombaugh that the re told him that they were getting affidavita from everyone en the os11 and that he was the only one who remosbered Emirston was on the call.

Furthermore, in filings with the AELB Seethern Nuclear's lawyers admitted that Aufdenkamps had conversations about l

1

e SF10-iSG4,11:D4 841 5519 US MtC RG II P.12 o

the affidavits with Mosbaugh, but denied that Itssbaugh had been shown Aufdankampe's affidavit. This is false. Mrs.

Aufdenkampe provided to Nosbaugh, her husband's affidavit to read, and witnessed Mosbaugh reading the affidavit. Mosbaugh also had follow-up conversations with Mrs. Aufdenkampe about what her husband could do to retract the affidavit.

A.stmrP ar..utstre Aufdenkaape's affidavita and others were intended to support the fact that Hairston was not a partisipant to diesel discussions on Call "A8 or even presume for a sement, call "B". surely southern Nuclear lawyers would have ehtained affidavits from all the sall's participants but southern Nuclear only claimed to the AEL5 that statoesnts were obtained from 4 personnel:

For " Call A"

1. Two of the 8 " White Paper" identifiod participants

2. Two non=" White papara identified personnel

3. Altogether 4 of the total 12 known partisipmata For " Call 5"

1. One of four speaking participants.

Regardlaas of their completeness, the statements were inteuded to bolster southern Nuclear's case that Emirston did not knowingly submit false information to the ERC, then.

why is southern Nuolsar refusing to turn this evidence over to the court?

or is the scope and the content of these affidavits now so danning that southern Nuclear can not afford to reveal thes?

Aufdenkampe's affidavit alone shows that os11 ene was the

. call referred to in the 2.20s petition respeams.

i But additionally if (ss Aufdenkaape stated to Neshaugh) southern Nuclear obtained affidavits similar to Aufdenkampe's from Boekhold, McC:'i or any participant not on call "S",

that act alone would prove that call "A* was what NoDonald and the law firas originally intended in the 1991 l

2.206 petition response avern under oath and affirmation, and the recent statements of southern Nuclear, pat NoDonald and Troutman sanders are more lies to the NRC and ASLS.

Southern Nuclear is caught in their own' web of lies. Now Southern Nuclear is cla;aing that the call that Pat NeDonald was referring to in his 2.206 petition roopsees was call "B". These recent events constitute a aaa* W h onwar-up and wrongdoing by southern Nuclear and its Law fira Troutman sanders.

j, es-is-too4 11:24 841 ssie us me no 11 p.is i

l I request that the NRC investigate all the issues addressed above and specifically address the allegations stated below l

which are based on those facts.

i ALLEGATION 18 Southern Nuclear and its Law FirB Troutman have anyaged in a cover-up sinos 1990 and have ande fahse statsaants, withheld information, i

failed to report information, and failed to correct information known to be inoceplete I

and\\or inaccurate to the NRC, Olh7, and ASLB.

This applies to the information sad events surrounding the 4-19-90 oonferesse os11 including the participation of serporate staff and executives on the 4-19-90 conference call.

ALLEGATION 2: Pat Mcdonald knowingly made false statements in sworn testimony to NRC O! in 1993 when he falsely identified conversation 838 as the conversation he was referring to in his sworn response to Noahaugh's 2.306 petition.

ALLEGATICK 3 Southern Nuolear and its Law Firs Trentaan Sanders faksely denied in 1993 that Allen Moshaugh had been shown John Anteenkampe's affidavit, in its reply brief to the ASLB.

ALLEGATION 4: Southern Nuclear and its 14w Firm, Troutman Sanders failed to identify to the ASLB in 1993 all the personnel from whom si W statements or affidavits were obtained, that relate to the conversations on 4-19-SO, semeerning LER 90-06 and the aca11 A and\\or 38 participants.

ALLEGATION St In the "Nhite Paper

• responses to the NRC in August 1990, OPC\\ Southern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutman Banders, knowingly omitted identifying key personnel who had participated on the conference calls identified in NRC Questions #3 and #S..

ALLaGATION 5 When Southern Nuclear und it's ImW fira had in their peesession Troutmansanderslonneoessarytorecognise all the informat that their 2.208 petition responses and 'Nkite Paper' oentained false statements about the 4-19-90 call, they ftiled to report this to the NRC as required by regulations 10 CFR 50.9.

+-------~

v--

--