ML20070E850
| ML20070E850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1994 |
| From: | Kohn M KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#394-15372 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9407180060 | |
| Download: ML20070E850 (17) | |
Text
,
jj 2)$I MTED CORRESPONDENCE DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 74 JL 11 P6:43
)
50-42Nbh ' "gEjA R Y 0FiCE OF 3Er In the Matter of
)
'N
)
Docket Nos.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
50-425-OLA N 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 INTERVEKOR'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS I.
INTRODUCTION Intervenor hereby responds to GPC's Proposed Stipulations Concerning Alleged GPC False Statements to NRC Related To The Diesel Generators, transmitted via cover letter dated March 1, 1994.
Pursuant to an agreement memorialized in a letter dated May 27, 1994 to Michael Kohn from David Lewis, Intervenor herein responds to said Stipulations as if they were posed as admissions.
II.
GENERAL OBJECTION 1.
Intervenor objects to the admissibility by Licensee of portions of tape recordings and/or paraphrasing portions of taped transcripts for the truth of the matter asserted therein with respect to hearsay statements attributable to Licensee's managers.
and employees (Intervenor notes that, with respect to Intervenor, statements made by Licensee may be introduced as admissions by a party opponent, but License e 'may not rely merely on hearsay statements made to Mr. Mosbaugh or in the presence of Mr.
Mosbaugh to justify factual assertions contained therein).
To any extent Licensee seeks to admit a statement for the truth of 9407180060 940707 Db PDR ADOCK 05000424 7
O PDR
i the matter asserted, Intervenor objects to Licensee's use of tape transcripts as evideice of events to which Mr. Mosbaugh has no first hand knowledge.
Intervenor has no way to attest to the accuracy of the statements made to him or in his presence.
In t
this respect, Intervenor notes that part of the basis for the admitted contention is that Southern Nuclear employees (including proposed GPC employees who will become Southern Nuclear employees) have a propensity for making false and misleading j
statements when it is their interest to do so.
Based on past observations, Intervenor is unable to accept as true hearsay declarations of individuals Intervenor believes to be lacking in truthfulness and candor.
Intervenor notes that this objection pertains to all requests for admissions wherein GPC seeks to rely r
on portions of tapes and/or tape transcripts referred to or attached as exhibits to Licensee's request for stipulations.
Intervenor incorporates this objection into all requests seeking admissions based on hearsay statements made by Licensee's managers and employees.
2.
Intervenor objects to Licensee's use of tape transcripts which the parties have not stipulated to with respect to accuracy.
The parties have heretofore agreed to employ a process to reach agreement as to the accuracy of tape transcripts.
This process has not been employed with respect to most of the tapes identified in the request for admissions.
i Intervenor incorporates this objection into all requests seeking admissions based on the alleged accuracy of a tape transcript.
2
3.
Intervenor generally objects to reliance on IIT transcripts to establish facts alleged therein by Licensee for the truth of the matter asserted.
In this respect, Intervenor notes that part of the basis for the admitted contention is that Southern Nuclear employees (including proposed GPC employees who will become Southern Nuclear employees) have a propensity for making false and misleading statements and to cover-up violations of NRC Requirements when it is their interest to do so.
Based on past observations, Intervenor is unable to accept as true hearsay declarations of individuals Intervenor believes to be lacking in truthfulness and candor.
Intervenor notes that this objection pertains to all requests for admissions wherein GPC seeks to rely on statements contained in IIT tape transcripts. Intervenor incorporates this objection into all requests seeking admissions based on hearsay statements of Licensee employees contained in any IIT tape transcript.
4.
Licensee often requests that Intervenor state whether a specific transcript page contain certain language which is often paraphrased.
To the extent Intervenor admits to any such request, the admission assumes that the transcript accurately reflects the content of a tape recording.
To the extent the transcript is erroneous, Intervenor reserves entering into a final or binding admission.
II.
RESPONSES 1.
Intervenor objects to this request inasmuch as it concerns matters related to phase 1 discover (transfer of control).
Intervenor additionally denies the request inasmuch as Exhibit 1 does not show all the relevant onsite or off site organizations.
3
2.
Intervenor objects to this request inasmuch as it concerns matters related to phase 1 discover (transfer of control).
Moreover, Intervenor denies the request because it inaccurately asserts the reporting relationship with respect to the President of GPC, Mr. Franklin.
3.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that GPC terminology is incorrect.
The 1A Diesel started but tripped after about 70 to 80 seconds.
4.
Deny.
This request for Admission has a grammatical error and intervenor is not certain what GPC is stating, in addition NRC personnel arrived on-3-20-90.
5.
Admit in part.
Intervenor contends that the COA letter apeaks for itself and that there is no need to paraphrase it.
Intervenor admits that the COA letter is attached as Exhibit 2.
6.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
7.
Deny.
The problems and trips described occurred after the 1B diesel "came out of maintenance / overhaul."
8.
Object. Intervenor objects to paraphrasing portions of taped transcripts.
Intervenor further objects because the request seeks affirmation of hearsay statements attributable to Licensee.
Intervenor notes that, with respect to Intervenor, statements made by Licensee may be introduced as admissions against interest.
To the extent GPC seeks to introduce any portion of any tape with respect to Licensee's action, Intervenor objects.
Intervenor further objects to the extent that Licensee inadequately interprets portions of a taped conversation.
Intervenor has no way to know which "Fragnet" is being referred to in the taped conversation.
S.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny facts concerning what documents NRC received from Licensee.
The notes appear to be from Mr. Kendall but Intervenor has no way of determining such.
10.
Object.
Intervenor objects to paraphrasing portions of taped transcripts.
Intervenor further objects because the request seeks affirmation of hearsay statements attributable to Licensee.
Intervenor notes that, with respect to Intervenor, statements made by Licensee may be introduced as admissions against interest.
To the extent GPC seeks to introduce any portion of any tape with respect to Licensee's action, Intervenor objects.
Based on the documentation presented, Intervenor states that he does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
4
l 11.
Object.
Intervenor contends that this is not a accurate characterization of the facts and the statements are taken out of context.
Also see General Objection 1.
12.
Object.
Licensee has mischaracterized statements contained in the attached transcript.
j 13.
Object.
The attached Exhibit 6 does not contain sufficient information to verify the accuracy of the request.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
14.
Deny.
Attached exhibit 8 does not denote who the speakers are.
Attached exhibit 7 does not mention "special testing" and is unclear on its face.
Intervenor was unable to verify the March 27-28, 1990 dates.
Also see General Objection 3.
15.
Deny.
Intervenor did not personally make an operability determination nor was it within his authority to do so since he did not hold a Vogtle SRO license.
Intervenor was still concerned that the root cause had not been determined.
Intervenor has no first hand knowledge of whether NRC was present or not as Intervenor did not observe such testing.
16.
Deny.
The transcript indicates that the IIT did not observe all of the testing done on March 30, 1990 and does not state which of the several start attempts of March 30, 1990 were witnessed.
17.
Object on the basis of the above stated General Objection 1.
I 18.
Object. Intervenor does not have first hand knowledge of the events and the transcripts are not complete.
Intervenor will stipulate that Exhibit 10 is authentic, although not complete.
j Also see General Objection 3.
19.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that Licensee has taken the statement out of content inasmuch as NRC's understanding of the facts at the time was based on inaccurate, incomplete and prejudicial comments attributable to Licensee.
Intervenor contends that GPC was not telling the NRC the whole truth.
Also agg General Objection 3.
20.
Object on the basis of the above stated General Objection 1.
21.
Object.
Intervenor contends that his statements are taken out of context.
22.
Object on the basis of the above stated General Objection 1.
23.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that the NRC's understanding of the facts at the time was extremely prejudiced by the fact that 5
GPC was not telling the NRC the whole truth.
Furthermore, the NRC had concerns and these concerns would have been heightened if the whole truth were known or presented to NRC.
Also see General Objection 1.
24.
Object.
Intervenor contends that these statements are taken out of context and, as such, does not accurately characterize the facts.
Also see General Objection 3.
25.
Deny.
The list provided by Paul Kochery to Intervenor was hand-written and not typed.
Intervenor has no knowledge whether this document was ever provided to the IIT.
Also see General objection 3.
26.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
Furthermore, this list is incomplete as does not associate the switches with any diesel failures or problems except for 1B hi temp LO, and the list does not indicate the date or time of any failure.
Intervenor further objects because the document is incomplete.
Also see General Objection 3.
27.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that the NRC's understanding of the facts at the time was based on misleading and incorrect statements made by GPC to NRC and that GPC did not tell the NRC the whole truth.
Furthermore, the statement is based on erroneous information.
Also see General Objection 3.
28.
Object.
Intervenor contends that this statement is incomplete and misleading; it therefore does not accurately characterize the facts.
See Appendices I and J to NUREG 1410.
29.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that Mr. Shipman's notes in Exhibit 17 are dated April 6, 1990, and therefore do not support GPC's knowledge by April 3, 1990, of Ken Brockman's desire for a presentation.
The notes attributed to Mr. McCoy indicate that the presentation would first consider Diesel Generator operability, which is not mentioned in this request.
- Moreover, the notes are silent as to other alleged issues.
30.
Object.
Intervenor contends that this statement is incomplete and therefore does not accurately characterize the facts.
Moreover, the statement fails to indicate the procedure Mr. Bockhold used; does not included the organization or personnel which had the line responsibilities for these activities; does not state with particularity what persons were involved in preparing the presentation aids; and the meaning of "Bockhold " directed the preparation of the presentation" is unclear.
Intervenor further objections on the basis that he does not have any first-hand knowledge of the events.
31.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
Furthermore, Ken Burr stated in his NRC OI 6
1 i
interview that he did not participate in providing Bockhold the information in Bockhold's transparency.
Intervenor is still conducting discovery to ascertain the facts but has reason to believe the facts as stated are incorrect.
All see the general objection 1.
j 32.
Deny.
Mr.Bockhold or Mr. Cash, when asked in_their testimony to OI, in June 1993, stated that Bockhold's instructions were to get the successful starts.
- Moreover,
" voltage and frequency" information is not logged in the control room or Shift Supervisor logs.
33.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny and is in the process of obtaining information with respect to this request by way of deposition.
34.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny and is in the process of obtaining information with respect to this request by way of deposition.
35.
Deny.
Prior to 4-9-90, Bockhold was aware of the unexpected trips and failures of the 1A and 1B diesels after March 20, 1990.
Intervenor believes that Bockhold knew that the failures and problems on March 22-24, 1990, were included in his diesel slide because he had been given Cash's list, which includes the problems and failures on those dates, Also see General Objection 1.
36.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny because the term " bugs worked out" has not been defined.
Moreover, in interrogatory responses GPC stated that Cash and Bockhold could not identify which starts were identified in the transparency.
See Response Nos. 1 and 2 to NRC's First set of Interrogatories.
Also see General Objection 1.
37.
Deny.
The sensor problems experienced on March 22-24, that tripped the 1B diesel, indicated a continuing problem with CALCON switches and expanded the Site \\ Area emergency concerns to the 1B diesel were unexpected, unanticipated, and required the analysis and repair process to be re-entered an re-initiated.
These problems and failures included ones associated with the 1A diesel failure during the Site Area Emergency as well as new ones identified in a part 21 notification.
GPC stated at this time that the cause of the diesel 1A failure in the Site \\ Area emergency was calibration drift of the CALCON switches.
GPC's opinion of the CALCON sensors was that they were a chronic calibration problem, not just during outages but at all times.
Moreover, this request infers that problems experienced between March 22-24, 1990 occurred during overhaul or maintenance troubleshooting activities but actually occurred after the diesel came out of overhaul.
7
38.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
Furthermore, as of 4-9-90, NRC personnel did not have sufficient knowledge of the numbers of start attempts on Vogtle diesels and the sequence of failures to recognize that they were being misled by GPC.
39.
Deny.
The April 9, 1990 presentation was apparently worked on by Ken Burr, who is not from the site, but rather from corporate The April 9, 1990 letter may have been exclusively prepared by corporate and was not reviewed by the PRB; the April 19, 1990 LER wording about the diesel generator starts was worded by corporate personnel without PRB approval.
40.
Object.
Intervenor objects inasmuch as other components were quarantined but are not listed in the transparency.
41.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
Intervenor was not present for the presentation to the NRC and is in the process of conducting discovery on this matter.
42.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny.
Intervenor was not present for the presentation to the NRC and is in the process of conducting discovery on this matter.
43.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that GPC exhibit 24 was sent from corporate to the site around noin on 4-5-90, and was faxed back to corporate by Bockhold the afternoon on 4-6-90.
Therefore, the site provided draft could not have been used by corporate for the fax from McCoy to Brockman on 4-5-90.
Furthermore, the quoted language from GPC in this request for admission is not contained in exhibit 24.
44.
Admit in part and Deny in part.
To the extent the request implies that Exhibit 25 is a revised draft of Exhibit 24, Intervenor denies this assertion.
Exhibit 25 is a different letter with a different title than GPC exhibit 24.
Intervenor admits that the letter contains the quoted language.
?
45.
Admit in part and Object in part.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny the request.
Intervenor admits that Exhibit 26 is the final signed letter.
46.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that Corporate prepared a draft of the diesel start paragraph including the 18 and 19 starts wording by close of business on 4-6-90.
Intervenor does not believe that Mr. Bockhold's diesel start transparency was i
prepared at that point.
47.
Admit.
j i
l 8
l l
1
48.
Admit in part.
Intervenor admits that the transcript attached as Exhibit 27 is authentic, but does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny the remainder of the request.
Also ggg General Objection 3.
49.
Object.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny. Furthermore, Intervenor is not in the position to attest to Mr. Bockhold belief.
Also see General objections 1 and 2.
50.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that exhibit 12 is not the same list which Intervenor reviewed with Paul Kochery.
51.
Deny.
The document does not indicate that it was actually transmitted to or received by NRC.
Intervenor does not have sufficient facts to admit at this time.
52.
Admit in part.
Intervenor admits that the transcript attached as Exhibit 15 is authentic, but does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit or Deny the remainder of the request.
Also ggg General Objection 3.
53.
Admit.
54.
Deny.
Intervenor believes the number of starts were material to the re-start decision.
55.
Deny.
NRC did not state that it verified GPC's activities.
56.
Deny.
The decision was based on a false or faulty analysis of the root cause of diesel by Licensee.
57.
Deny.
This request has factual basis.
The fact that GPC misrepresented facts to NRC during the April 9th presentation indicates to Intervenor that NRC would have questioned the operability of the diesel generators once NRC learned of this misrepresentation before restart had been achieved.
58.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that the initial draft of the LER 90-06 prepared by Mr. Webb did not address a specific number of diesels starts as did the 4-9-90 COA response.
59.
Admit.
60.
Deny.
Egg response to No. 58 above.
61.
Deny.
Intervenor recalls that the 4-18-90 PRB voted to approve the LER with a comment to add a specific number of starts (yet to be determined at that time) to the wording that had previously stated "several".
Intervenor does not recall ever approving the statement "more than 20" quoted by GPC.
The 9
e documentation supporting this request contradicts GPC's assertion as well.
62.
Deny.
Intervenor recalls that Shipman's request did not have to do with the diesel start statements in the disputed section [D.2] of the LER, but rather with reporting " valid" diesel failures to NRC pursuant to Reg. Guide 1.108.
- Moreover, Shipman agreed that the status of the logs did.not effect the reporting requirement.
63.
Deny.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to Admit to this request.
There is no fax transmission information contained anywhere within the documentation provided.
64.
Admit in part, deny in part and object.
The parties are in the process of stipulating to a transcript of Tape 57 and admits to the portion of the tape transcript when the parties reach final agreement.
Intervenor denies the request as he contends that this is not an accurate characterization of the facts.
Further, Intervenor did not attend the entire meeting and cannot state when the meeting began.
Intervenor objects to commentary concerning the "Six Tapes" as it ignores and misstates the factual bases with respect to Intervenor's providing tape segments to hir, counsel.
65.
Admit in part.
The parties are in the process of stipulating to a transcript of Tape 57 and admits to the portion of the tape transcript when the parties reach final agreement with respect to this stipulation.
Intervenor denies the request as he contends that this is not an accurate characterization of the discussion.
j 66.
Deny.
GPC is incorrect in asserting that the list Mr.
Mosbaugh obtained from Mr. Kochery only went through the 23rd.
i GPC is also incorrect in asserting Mr. Mosbaugh was incorrect in stating that the start information was not in the previous draft LER.
67.
Deny.
The requested admission constitutes an incorrect characterization of the statements contained in Tape 57.
The parties are in the process of stipulating to a transcript of Tape j
57 and admits to the portion of the tape transcript when the parties reach final agreement with respect to this stipulation.
68.
Deny.
The requested admission constitutes an incorrect characterization of the statements contained in Tape 58.
The parties are in the process of stipulating to a transcript of Tape 58 and admits to the portion of the tape transcript when the parties reach final agreement with respect to this stipulation.
10
i I
69.
Deny.
The draft LER was modified to cover-up false statements in the COA letter.
See page 76 of NRC OI Report, Conclusion of Allegation No.
3.
70.
Deny.
Intervenor believed the LER draft contained false statements and was unable to subsequently determine how adding the phrase " subsequent to this test program" corrected the false statements.
Intervenor attempted to define the end of the comprehensive test program so it could accurately be determined whether the final LER language contained false statements and in the process he was precluded from doing so as a result of comments made by Mr. Shipman asserting that the NRC (Ken Brockman, the IIT Team and Region II) and Ken McCoy had an exact understanding of this definition and this was no longer an issue.
7A.
Deny.
This request mischaracterizes the content of Tape 58.
The parties are in the process of stipulating to a transcript of Tape 58 and admits to the portion of the tape transcript when the parties reach final agreement with respect to this stipulation.
72.
Deny.
The request does not include everyone on the call; mischaracterizes Intervenor's position inasmuch as Intervenor did object to using the term comprehensive test program without defining it in the LER.
73.
Deny.
Licensee refers to " maintenance starts" where this term was not used in the tape segment identified and the paraphrasing is not precise.
The entire tape is the subject of an agreement between the parties to reach a stipulation as to the content of the tape.
74.
Deny.
Mr. Aufdenkampe and Intervenor did not have authority to give or deny site approval (Site approval was not required at that time and, if it is given, it can only be given by the General Manager).
The responsibility for the LER at the time in question had already transferred to Corporate; prior to this point in time, Mr. Mosbaugh had articulated to Corporate management that the COA response was false and that the LER failed to define " comprehensive test program.
Additionally, Corporate was aware that the final wording was based on language contained in the COA response letter previously identified by Mr.
r Mosbaugh as constituting a material false statement.
75.
Deny.
The underlying documentation is mischaracterized.
For the actual events as they should be characterized, please refer to the identified tape recordings.
Also see General objection 1.
76.
Deny.
Mr. Mosbaugh's review was not limited to between 4-25-90 and 4-30-90.
11
77.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
Also see General Objection 1.
78.
Object.
Intervenor believes the paraphrase does not accurately or precisely reflect the tape recorded segments.
also see General Objection 1.
79.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
Also see General Objection 1.
80.
Object.
Intervenor contends that GPC has mischaracterized the statements of Exhibit # 33.
Furthermore, markings on this document were not in the original provided to Mr. Bockhold.
81.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
Also see General Objection 1.
82.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that these statements are taken out of context.
Also see General Objection 1.
83.
Object.
Intervenor contends that this is not an accurate characterization of the facts.
Furthermore, GPC exhibit # 34 is not dated and unsigned.
Intervenor cannot identify the document, and a different draft revision to LER with cover page signatures dated 5-4-90 was the one approved by Mr. Mosbaugh as PRB chairman for meeting 90-66.
Intervenor did not have the authority to
" direct" Tom Webb to approve the revision of the LER.
84.
Deny.
The revisions were done through Mr. Mosbaugh's staff who were members of the PRB.
The " ALM" rewrite is not done in Mr. Mosbaugh's handwriting; Intervenor was involved in the re-write process and was involved in PRB approval, but cannot state that the attached exhibit reflects exactly the language Intervenor suggested or prepared.
85.
Deny.
Intervenor contends that this is not an accurate characterization of the facts.
Intervenor did not assign action items to determine how the April 9th letter would be corrected.
86.
Deny.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to accept this request as true.
Exhibit 38 is undated and ambiguously worded.
The revision signed by Bockhold contains
+
only one set of numbers, indicating that he may have requested only one set of numbers.
87.
Deny.
There is no factual basis to predicate the assertion.
88.
Deny.
The conversation identified includes additional information necessary to understand the full meaning of the statements and important comments are deleted.
12 J
N
89a. Deny.
Intervenor did have a conversation with Rushton on June 8, 1990 (Tape No. 157), but the paraphrasing of the conversation is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
89b. Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
39c. Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
89d. Deny.
Intervenor is not talking about a " review."
90.
Object in part, Admit in part.
The request is not supported and rests on hearsay assertions of the licensee.
Ege General objection 1.
Intervenor nonetheless admits that Mr. Aufdenkampe did admit that the record keeping practices was not the cause for the error.
91.
Deny.
The discussion refers to the COA response and the slide presentation not the LER.
Mr. Hairston's distress stems from the fact that he was caught making material false statements rather than over the fact that the numbers were changing.
Also see General Objection 1.
92.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
93.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
94.
Object.
The correct transcript was not provided by GPC and is not otherwise available (although the cover page indicates that a transcript of tape 172 is within, but the following pages appear to be that of tape 176.
95.
Deny.
The paraphrasing is inaccurate, incomplete and ignores essential information.
Also see General objection 1.
96.
Object.
Intervenor contends that GPC's quotations contain certain notations, errors and omissions from the original OI testimony.
Intervenor will stipulate that the transcript portions attached as Exhibit 37 is authentic.
97.
Object.
Intervenor cannot locate " Insert 3" and believes it may not have been provided to him.
Additionally, the paraphrasing appears to be inaccurate, incomplete and to ignore essential information based on a review of the NRC original transcript.
Also see General Objection 1.
98.
Object.
Intervenor cannot locate "Tr.
Insert" and believes it may not have been provided to him.
Additionally, the 13
paraphrasing appears to be inaccurate, incomplete and to ignore essential information based on a review of the NRC original transcript.
Also see General Objection 1.
99.
Object.
Intervenor cannot locate "Tr.
Insert" and believes-it may not have been provided to him.
Additionally, the paraphrasing appears to be inaccurate, incomplete and to ignore essential information based on a review of the NRC original transcript.
Also see General Objection 1.
100.
Deny.
Mr. Bockhold's statements do not carry sufficient weight to have them admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.
Moreover, the taped conversation does not say
" consecutive" and it does not state the beginning date; and represented second or third hand hearsay from Mr. Bockhold.
Also see General Objection 1.
101.
Deny.
Intervenor reviewed the tapes on more than one i
occasion.
The handwritten comments are not necessarily based on Mr. Mosbaugh's initial review.
Intervenor does not have sufficient knowledge to respond tho when NRC inserts were prepared and what changes thereto reflect.
Respectfully submitted, fij c(ll lash 0. $ClL&t frbl Michael D.
Kohn a
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
517 Florida Ave.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 (202) 234-4663 This 7th day of July 1994 301\\ Response f
Y 14 1
.-e-
DOCKETED UbfIRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B g g
)
0FF,E OF SFrRETARY It the Matter of Docket No00C 91gyg6LAgtt
)
0-g25nOLA-3
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
License Amendment
- esaL,
)
Re:
(transfer to Southern Nuclear)
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2)
)
_ )
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Intervenor's Response to Licensee's I hereby certify that for Admissions has been served this 7th day of July, by first class mail upon the persons listed in the attached Request
- 1994, Service List.
NW /fSD h lM
/
By:
Mary Jpnd Wilmoth, Esq.
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 (202) 234-4663 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
License Amendment (transfer to Southern Nuclear)
Re:
l e_1
- a_L__,
)
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2)
)
93-671-01-OLA-3
__)
ASLBP No.
_S_ERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter 933 Green Point Drive Oyster Point 28468 Sunset Beach, NC Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
20555 Washington, D.C.
Barth, Esq.
Charles A.
Office of General CounselNuclear Regulatory Commission t
U.S.
Washington, D.C.
20555 John Lamberski, Esq.
Troutman Sanders Suite 5200 N.E.
600 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 2
Office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S.
Nuclear F gulatory Commission Washington, D.
20555 301\\ cert.lis l
1 3
.