ML20071G951

Ga Power Company Response to Intervenor First Request for Admissions.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List.Related Correspondence

ML20071G951
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/07/1994
From:	Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
CON-#394-15366 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9407130177
Download: ML20071G951 (94)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

1

' 5364 REUTED CORRESPONDENCE 00CKETED UBlf'41994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 94 n -8 M2 50 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFlM Gr tR yTg,

, M Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board 00CKEl!g g

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos 50-424-OLA-3

) 50-425-0LA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )

etal. ) Re: License Amendment

) (Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating ) Nuclear) j Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S RRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS I. INTRC OUCTION.

Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby responds to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions to Georgia Power Company, dated May 17,1994 ("Pequest for Admissions"). ,

During the May 26,1994 status conference in the Licensing Board's offices, the parties agreed, with the Board's approval, that GPC's response to the Request for Admissions (1) would be due by June 30,1994, and (2) would respond only to the numbered factual statements under each allegation of the December 20,1993 Office of Investigations Report (Case No. 2-90-020R) (the "OI Report"). Tr. 400-01,407. On June 29,1994, GPC requested an extension of time within which to file its response to July 7,1994, which the Board granted in its June 30,1994 Order.

Consistent w:th the May 26,1994 status conference discussions, GPC has endeavored to address every one of the 657 evidentiary findings of the 01 Report, exclusive of the Investigator's Notes, 1

9407130177 940707 d PDR 0

ADOCK 05000424 PDR  %

r subject to the objections stated herein. GPC has not endeavored to respond to the "Investi-gator's Notes" included in certain evidentiary findings since those notes were apparently not intended as factual evidentiary findings, but rather were intended to be the surmises of the OI investigator.

II. GENERAL OBJECTIONS.

GPC objects to Intervenor's definition of " Licensee," " Georgia Power Company," "The Southern Company," "SONOPCO," "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 every agent or employee of GPC, The Southern Company, and/or SONOPCO, past or present, their counsel and all their respective agents, servants, associates, employees, and others who have information with respect to any matter referred to in Intervenor's Request. As a result, Intervenor would have GPC conduct an investigation as to the knowledge of every employce, agent or representative of each of these companies and individuals. Such an investigation would be unduly burdensome and expensive as well as oppressive and overbroad given the fact that the evidentiary findings, for the most part, involve statements by individuals which were recorded on a tape or a transcript. Without waiving this objection, GPC has endeavored to restor.J to Intervenor's Request by making a reasonable inquiry of those individuals who are identified in each evidentiary finding.

GPC objects to Instructions E and F of Intervenor's Request which require detailed information concerning every oral communication and person referred to in each of GPC's re-sponses. Compliance with such instructions would be unduly burdensome and oppressive given 2

L

that most of the 648 responses refer to persons having oral communications. Furthennore, Inter-venor is intimately familiar w th these communications and the persons and involved.

GPC also generally objects to Intervenor's Request to the extent that it requires GPC to identify and produce every do7 ment which supports GPC's answer to each request for admission. Compliance with this request would be unduly burdensome and oppressive given the large number of evidentiary findings. Moreover, Intervenor is well acqur.inted with the documents relevant to such evidentiary findings and it is unlikely that any such documents have not already been produced to Intervenor among the nearly 60,000 pages of documentation made available to Intervenor in 1993. Nonetheless, without waiving this objection, in connection with any denial of an admission herein, GPC has endeavored to identify and produce any documents which it reasonably believes is not among the documents previously produced to intervenor. No such documents were identified.

Furthermore, GPC generally objects to the identification, or disclosure, of those communications and doct.ments which are subject to the attorney work product doctrine or the 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, an NR .) Office of Investigations ("OI") investigation, and an NRC enforcement action respecting those, allegations lodged by Intervenor in the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition related to the diesel generator statements issue, (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 the defense of these actions and, as a result, has generated a large number of documents in preparation of such defenses. It would be oppres-3 C __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

sive 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 oflitigation 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).

111. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS.

A. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. I

1. Mmit.

2. Deny. GPC disagrees with the characterization of Mr. Cash's count in that Mr. Cash has stated that he counted all starts, not just those considered successful by Mr. Mosbaugh. Tape 58, Tr. 35-37.

3. Dmy. GPC interprets the reference to Mr. Mosbaugh's " master list" in this evidentiary finding as referring to the list of EDG IB starts included in his allegation submitted on or about June 14, 1990. Mr. Mosbaugh's

" master list" shows inconsistencies between the control log and the data sheets but makes no mention of the shift supervisor log. Furthermore, Mr. Mosbaugh's master list makes no mention of Diesel Generator data sheets that would have been generated by site procedure SOP-13145-1

" Diesel Generators."

4. Deny. GPC disagrees with the characterization of Mr. Cash's count in 4

L

that Mr. Cash has stated that he counted all starts, not just those considered successful by Mr. Mosbaugh. Tape 58, Tr. 35-37.

5. Deny. Mr. Mosbaugh's lack of involvement in the preparation of presentation materials was not " extremely unusual." Presentations made to the NRC typically involve only those personnel responsible for the presentation. Mr. Mosbaugh had no responsibility for the presentation.

6. Deny. GPC agrees that the PRB normally reviews written correspondence from GPC to the NRC regarding Plant Vogtle. However, GPC denies that verbal communications or presentations made by site personnel are "normally reviewed" by the PRB. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.157. GPC agrees that the April 9,1990 letter is the type of correspondence normally reviewed by the PRB. However, even though the letter was not forma .eviewed by the PRB, it was reviewed and commented on by many of the Vogtle managers who are also PRB members. See GPC's response to Allegation No. 2, evidentiary finding No. 60,

7. Deny. Mr. Mosbaugh did not have any reason to suspect that diesel start numbers were incorrectly stated in the April 9,1990 letter to the NRC.

On April 19, 1900, Mr. Mosbaugh stated to Messrs. Odom and Aufdenkampe that he did not know if the number of successful diesel starts was correctly stated and that it may, in fact, be correct. Tape 57, Tr.121.

5 l

8. Deny. GPC believes that Mr. Kochery's list was given to the Incident Investigation Team and has been labeled IIT Document No. 05-180-90. .

This document only lists starts through March 23,1990.

9. Deny. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 8 above.

10. Deny. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 7 above.  ;

11. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or - >

truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

12. Neither admit nor deny. De interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

13. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the- accuracy or-truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

14. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the 01 investigator are

- an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or-truthfulness of this evidentiary _ finding.

15. Neither admit nor deny. De interview notes of the OI investigator are -

an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either. the accuracy or -

truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.-

.16. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are-anfinsufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or 6

O _ . _ - . _ _ _

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

truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.  ;

17. Neither admit nor deny. 'Ihe interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or tmthfulness of this evidentiary finding. Furthermore, GPC believes that ,

the "special Tech Spec amendment" referred to in this evidentiary finding .

was approved on' May 25,1990 (not the end of April 1990).

18. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determir.e either the accuracy or tmthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

19. Admit.

20. Admit.

21. Admit.

22. Admit.

23. Admit.

24. Admit.

25. Neither admit nor deny. GPC admits that this evidentiary f'mding ,

accurately summarizes this portion . of the OI interview transcript.

However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of this statement because of the differing recollections of Messrs. Bockhold -.

and Burr.

26. Admit with the clarificatioa that successful starts did have engineering .

value to demonstrate that the diesels were capable of performing their 7

b

intended function.- Exh.13, pp,11-12,

27. Neither admit nor deny. GPC admits that this evidentiary finding accurately summarizes this portion of the O! interview transcript.

However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of this statement because of the differing recollections of Messrs. Bockhold and Burr.

28. Neither admit nor deny. GPC admits that this evidentiary finding accurately summarizes the- portior. of the OI interview transcript.

However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of this statement because of the. differing recollections of Messrs. Bockhold and Burr.

29. Admit.

30. Neither admit nor deny. GPC admits that this evidentiary finding -

accurately summarizes this portion of' the OI interview -transcript.

However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of these statements because of the differing recollections of Messrs. Cash and -

Burr.

31. Deny. GPC admits that the evidentiary finding accurately summarizes this portion of the OI interview transcript. However, GPC believes Mr. Burt assisted Mr. Bockhold in developing the Diesel Testing overhead.

32. Deny. GPC admits that the evidentiary finding accurately summarizes this

- portion of the OI interview transcript. - However, GPC believes Mr. Burr 8

L

assisted Mr. Bockhold in developing the Diesel Testing overhead.

33. - Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold, later in this OI interview, recalls that his definition of a successful stan was one "that didn't show a significant pdlem that would have caused the engine to trip _or cause -

the engine not to meet its intended purpose," (Exh.13, p.18) and Mr.

Cash understood the term to mean essentially the'same thing. See GPC's .

u Response to the NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, August 9,- 1993, 1 Responses 7a and b., at 12. I

34. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold, later in his August 1990 interview, recalls that Mr. Cash started his count after the overhaul period on EDG 1B. Exh.12, p,18.

1'

35. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold's testimony was that Mr. 1 l

L Cash started his count "sometime about that time or after that time" and l i i L that Mr. Bockhold, later in his August 1990 interview, recalls that Mr.

Cash started his count after the overhaul period on EDG 1B. Exh.12, p.

18.

36. Admit.

37. Deny. - The evidentiary finding mischaracterizes Mr. - Bockhold's .

testimony. The question posed to Mr. Bockhold differs from the summary L

. in the evidentiary finding in that the summaiy adds the words-."with'no i

further instructions." Those wras were not included'in the question i.

posed to Mr. Bockhold in his interview.

9 l

l

.M 38, Admit.

39. Admit.

40. Admit.

41. Deny. Mr. Cash begni his review of the control room logs for successful starts by reviewing entries beginning before the March 20,- 1990 event, and ending sometime shortly befoie April 9,1990. Mr. Cash reported to Mr. Bockhold that there were 19 suceeuful starts on EbG 1B during this a

time period. - Mr. Cash's data included more than 19 starts, therefore, Mr.

, Cash must have excluded some of the starts as not being successful. Sec -

Exh.11 and Tape 58, Tr. 35.

42. Deny. The evidentiary finding accurately reflects the interview transcript of Mr. Cash but GPC believes Mr. Cash provided Mr. Bockhold with only the summary of the diesel start information (i.e., the total starts for -

each diesel) and assisted the secretary with more than just format changes (Exh.10, p. 26).E See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 43 and Tape 58,' Tr. 35.

43. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Cash gave only the; total number of successful starts for each diesel to Mr.' Backhold.-

44. -Neither admit nor deny. GPC: admits that this evidentiary. finding -

accurately summarizes this portion of the OI interview transcript.

L However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of

!- these statements because of the differing recollections of Messrs. Cash and 10 1

4

-E. , , .._.[ , -v.-

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

Burr.

45. Deny. The evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony of Mr. Cash.- However, GPC does not believe Mr. Cash ,

supplied Mr. Bockhold with the sequence of testing activities shown on the April 9,1990 diesel testing transparency. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding Nos. 23 and 24, and Exh.13, p.16.

46. Admit.

47. Admit.

48. Admit with the clarification that the 01 interview transcript shows that Mr. Cash's response meant that the successful starts showTi on the transparency were all the successful starts of which he was aware.

49. Deny. GPC believes this evidentiary finding accurately. reflects Mr.-

Cash's OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes Mr. Cash gave -

Mr. Bockhold the successful diesel start numbers of 18 and 19. Exh.12, pp. 7, 8.

50. Deny. GPC believes this evidentiary finding accurately reflects Mr.-

Cash's OI interview testiinony. However, GPC believes Mr. Cash gave Mr. Bockhold the successful diesel start numbers of 18 and 19. Exh.12, pp. 7, 8.-

51. Admit.

52. Admit.

53. Admit with the clarification that GPC observes that the numbers above the 11

line appear to add up to the numbers below the line.

54. Admit.

55. Admit.

56.- Admit.

57, Admit with the clarif~ication that Mr. Cash's- testimony was that he obtained his count from the Unit 1 Control leg and the Shift Supervisor's leg. Exh. 9, p. 4.

58. Admit.

59. Admit.

60. Admit with the clarification that while neither Mr. Bockhold nor Mr.' Cash can recall such discussion, Mr. Cash does recall that he understood Mr.

Bockhold wanted him to count starts without significant problems, where the diesel had started properly and-reached the-required voltage and frequency. See GPC's Response to NRC's First Set of Interrogatories, t

August 9,1993, at 12.

'61.- Neither admit nor deny. UPCf admits that the- evidentiary - findings accurately summarize. this portion; of _ Mr. Bockhold's ' OI _ interview transcript. However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit o.' deny _

the truth of this statement because of the differing recollections of Messrs.

Bockhold and Burr.

62. Admit.

63. Admit.

12

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

64. Admit

65. Neither admit nor ceny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately summarizes Mr. Cash's testimony. However, reference to Mr.

Cash's computer-generated list shows more starts are included than Mr.

Cash reported to Mr. Bockhold.

66. Admit.

67. Admit with the clarification that the statement regarding the beginning of Mr. Cash's start count relates directly to EDG 1 A and nel EDG 1B.

68. Admit.

69. Admit.

70. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the question of how successful starts compared to valid tests came up during the presentation.

See NRC Staff's Supplemental Response to Intervenor's Fir::t Set of -

. Interrogatories, September 15,1993, at 6.

71. Admit.

72. - Admit.

73. Admit.

74. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash's .estimony was that he did not recall such discussions.

l

75. Admit.

p

76. Admit.

i l

13 l

l 1

l

77. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Cash understood his task was to count starts without significant problems. See GPC's response to evidentiary findings Nes. 38,69 and 75.

'78. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Cash understood his task was to count starts without significant problems. See GPC's response l to evidentiary findings Nos, 38, 69 and 75.

79. Admit.

80. Admit.

81. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI

-interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the NRC asked GPC to explain how successful starts compared to valid tests during the presentation. See NRC Staff's Supplemental Response _ to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories, September 15,1993, at 6.

-82. Admit.

83. Admit with the clarification that " successful starts associated with operability" does not mean starts that were completed in accordance with -

Technical Specification operability requirements.

84. Admit.

85. Neither admit nor deny. ' GPC does not know the manner in which the information was conveyed from Mr. Cash to Mr. Bockhold, but GPC beheves the information consisted of only the total number of succe"ful starts for each diesel. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 42.

14 -

= .

86. Admit.

87. Admit.

88. Admit.

89. Neither admit nor deny. GPC admits that this evidentiary finding accurately summarizes this portion of the OI interview transcript.

However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of-the statement because of the differing recollections of Messrs. Bockhold, Burr and Cash.

90. Admit.

91. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the NRC asked GPC to explain how successful starts compared to valid tests during the presentation. See NRC Staff's Supplemental Response to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories, September 15,1993, at 6.

92. Admit.

93. Admit.

94. Admit.

95. Admit.

96. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold's testimony was not intended to imply that Messrs. Odom and Aufdenkampe sh uld have seen the transparencies prior to the presentation to the NRC.

97. Admit.

l 15 l

98. Neither admit not deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or t:uthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

99. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

100. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

101. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

102. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

103. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

104. Admit.

105. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

16

l 106. Admit.

107. Admit.

108. Admit.

109. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

110. Admit.

111. Admit.

112. Neither admit nor deny. The imerview notes of the OI investigator are an inse.fficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

113. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

I14. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy. or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding. However, GPC denies the assertion that Mr. Bockhold was nonresponsive and had a disdain for NRC involvement.

115. Neither admit nor deny.. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accumey or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

17

116. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy. or  !

- t.uthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

117. Admit.

118. Admit.

119. Neither S.it nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are -

an insufficient--basis fca GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

120. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are e,

~

an insufficient. basis for GPC - to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

121. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis- for GN' . to determine either the accuracy or

- truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.-

122. ' Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an -insufficient- basis- for - GPC to Ldetermine either the accuracy or-1 truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.-

l 123. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the 01 investigator are i

l- an insufficient basis for GPC to determine ~ either the accuracy;or -

L truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.- However, GPC denies that Mr.-

l - .

L Bockhold and his Engineering Department staff lacked initiative or basic l

engineering inquisitiveness.

18 l

l-t

124. Admit.

125. Admit.

126. Admit.

, 127. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the Of investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

128. Admit.

129. Admit.

130. Admit.

131. Admit.

132. Admit.

133. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine ei'.her the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding.

134. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the OI investigator are an insufficieat basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding. However, GPC denies that the NRC Staff was not aware of the troubleshooting problems as of April 9, 1990. See Interrogatory Response of Kenneth E. Brockman to GPC's First Set of Interrogatories, December 23,1993, at 2, 7, and 8.

135. Admit.

136. Admit.

19

137. Admit.

138. Admit.

139. Admit.

140. Admit.

141. Admit.

142. Admit.

143. Admit with the clarification that Mr. McCoy recalled. reviewing the presentation material prior to the presentation.- See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.168, 144. Admit.  ;

145. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes Mr.- Burr, whose principal place of employment was Birmingham, assisted .Mr. Bockhold . in developing presentation material. See GPC's responses to evidentiary 6nding Nos. 23 and 24.

-146. Admit.

147. Admit.

148. Admit.

149. Admit.

150. Admit.

151. Admit.

152. Admit.

l 20 l

153. Admit.

154. - Admit with the clarification that there were 18 consecutive starts of EDG 1B following the comprehensive test program as that term was defined by Mr. Aufdenkampe on April 19, 1990. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 5, Tr.

4-7.

155. - Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash also used the Shift Supervisor's14-156. Admit with the clarification that the meeting did occur and ccpies of the presentation were distributed. See Tape 40, April 10,1990. -

157. Admit.

158. Admit.

159. Admit.

160. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agries that the evidentiary - finding accurately reflects the OI interview tr.. mony. However, GPC lacks'_

sefficient information to determine whether Mr. Kochery provided diesel testing information to Mr. Bockhold because recollections have faded.-

161. ' Admit. .

162. Deny. This evidentiary finding inaccurately describesIMr. McCoy's '

^

testimony in that Mr. McCoy indicated that one purpose'of the April 9 presentation was to address all of the issues in the Confirmation of Action letter including restart aooroval and nel "the resert issue."

163. Admit.

21 f

1

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

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

l 164. Admit.

165. Admit.

166. Admit.

l 167. - Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash's only involvement after the l l

April 9 presentation was in verifying a list of diesel starts developed by j Mr. Mosbaugh on or about April 30,1990.

168. Admit. -

169. Admit.

170. Admit.

171. Admit.

172. Admit.

173. Admit.

174. Admit.

~ 175. Admit.

176. Admit with the clarification that Mr. McCoy's testimony is that he did not IcGall having any questions.

177. ' Admit.

178. Admit with the clarificatiori that Messrs. Cash and Burr did attend the meeting.

p ~

179. Admit.

-180- Admit.

181. Admit.

22

/

4 T f -tm" ~

r mLtc m er fa m 4 ar *

• J l

182. Admit.

_183. Admit. _

184. Admit.

185.' Admit.

186. Admit.

187. Deny. The first sentence of this evidentiary finding- inaccurately-summarizes Mr. McCoy's testimony. Mr. McCoy's testimony was that he had no knowledge of Mr. Bockhold's instruction "tojust get successful ~

starts" prior to the April 9 presentation. (Ext.19, p. 25.)

188. Admit.

189. Admit.

190.- Admit with the clarification that Messrs. Hairston or-McCoy would typically be involved in setting up such a meeting. While Mr. Hairston does not recall giving instructions to anyone regarding preparation for the meeting, it is possible that he had discussions with Mr. McCoy during the .

week prior to the meeting. (Exh. 31, p.18.)f 191. - Admit in substance with the clarification that Mr. Hairston has no specific -

reollection of any particular goal.for this. meeting. .He was there to

' discuss all relevant issues and answer any questions. (Exh. 31, pp. 21-22.)

192. Admit.

193. Admit.

73

194. Admit.

195. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Hairston's testimony was that the meeting could have been longer.

196. Admit vth the clarification th. GPC believes Mr. Burr assisted Mr.

Dockhold in developing the Diesel Testing overhead. See GPC's responses to evidentiary finding Nos. 23 and 24.

197, Admit with the clarification that the meeting was to give an overall view of the event and discuss all of the issues that related to it including what GPC had done and what GPC would be doing in the futur ..

198, Admit.

199. Admit.

200. Admit.

201. Admit.

202. Admit.

203. Admit.

204. Admit.

205. Admit.

206. Admit.

207. Admit with the clarification that conversations among Vogtle plant staff regarding the performance of the Calcon sensors occurred shortly after the Site Area Emergency.

208. Admit.

24 I

I i __ .. _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ - - . _ - _ . _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - _

i 209. Admit.

210. Admit.

211. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes it would be inaccurate to say that "most' of the meeting was spent discussing diesels.

212. Admit. -

213. Admit.

214. Admit with the clarification : hat Mr. Majors did have general knowledge that the March 20,1990, event involved diesel generator problems.

215. Admit.

216. Admit.

217. Admit. l 218. Admit.

219. Admit.

220. Admit. ,

B. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. 2

1. Admit. *

2. Admit.

3. Admit.

4. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash provided Mr. Bockhold with the EDG start count numbers which were used in the April 9,1990

{

presenntion and letter.

5. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the O!

i 25

. ._-~- . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ ~ - _ _ . . . _ . . . ._____._J

i interview testimony. However, see GPC's response to Allegation No.1, evidentiary finding No. 41,

6. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, diesel start information in the April 19, 1990 LER resulted from review of operator logs in addition to the review performed for the April 9,1990 presentation and letter. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 4, Tr.1, and Tape 57, Tr.121-125.

7. Neither admit nor deny. GPC notes that the 01 interview transcript citation for this evidentiary finding thould have been Exhibit 12, p.16.

GPC believes the evidentiary finding mischaracterizes Mr. Bockhold's testimony in that it implies Mr. McCoy drafted the referenced Statement while Mr. Bockhold does not actually state who drafted the statement.

GPC lacks sufficient information to determine who drafted the statement, but notes Mr. McCoy does not believe he drafted it. See GPC's responses to evidentiary finding Nos. 36-37.

8. Admit.

9. Admit.

10. Admit.

11. Admit.

12. Admit.

13. Admit.

14. Admit.

26

15. Admit.

16. Deny. GPC believes the April 9 letter had been drafted prior to the April 9 presentation and was revised by meeting participants while retuming to their offices. See GPC's responses t evidentiary finding Nos. 50-60.

17. Admit.

18. Admit.

19. Admit with the c!arification that it was primarily Mr. Bailey rather than Mr. Stringfellow that worked with Mr. Aufdenkampe and Mr.

Aufdenkampe's people in drafting the April 9 letter prior to the presentation. See GPC's responses to evidentiary finding Nos. 50,51, 54,57 and 60.

20. Deny. This evideritlary finding inaccurately summarizes Mr.

Aufdenkampe's testimony. Mr. Aufdenkampe actually states that the first time he saw a signed copy of the April 9 letter was sometime after 2:43 p.m. (central time) on April 9,1990. GPC believes Mr. Aufdenkampe had probably reviewed draft versions of this letter prior to April 9. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.19.

21. Admit.

22. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Stringfellow's testiinony ivas not that Mr. Hairston "just wanted to get the letter out" but rather that Mr.

Hairston wanted to get the letter out because Mr. Hairston "just wanted to go ahead and get it on the record." (Ex.h. 30, p.13.)

27

23. Admit.

24. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes the enor in the April 9 letter was not the result of imprecision in the logs with respect to valid starts or successful starts. See Exh.11.

25. Admit.

26. Admit.

27. Adtnit with the clarification that the April 9 letter was not formally reviewed by the PRB.

28. Admit.

29. Admit.

30. Admit.

31. Deny GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the accuracy of the statement referenced does not depend on the criteris used by the person obtaining the data.

32. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the April 9 letter implies that the starts were consecutive.

33. Admit.

34. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI i

interview testimony. However, GPC believes Mr. Bockhold's direct l involvement was not a determinative factor in not obtaining PRB review l

28 l

l l

and approval of this letter.

35. Admit.

36. Neither admit nor deny. See GPC's responses to evidentiary finding Nos.

7 and 54,

37. Admit.

38. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding ar.curately reflec's

. tL 01 interview testimony. However, GPC believes that more than one start occurred that calls into question the wording in the April 9,1990 letter (i.e., "No failures or problems have occurred").

39. Admit with the clarification provided in GPC's response to Allegation No.

1, evidentiary finding No. 6.

40. Admit.

41. Admit.

42. Admit.

43. Admit.

44. Admit.

45. Admit.

46. Admit.

47. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes more than one start occurred that calls into question the wording in the April 9,1990 letter (i.e., "No failures or problems have occurred").

48. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold did not intend for i

29

successful to mean the diesel did not trip within one minute. See git's response to Allegation No.1, evidentiary finding No. 75.

49. Admit.

50. Admit.

5. Admit.

52. Admit.

53. Admit.

54. Admit.

55. Admit.

56. Admit with the clarificatior that the April 9,1990 letter (paragraph C, page 2) describes an event on FAO 1 A where one of the Calcon sensors vented and would not reset during a diesel run.

57. Admit.

58. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Burr may have been on the plane also.

59. Admit.

60. Admit.

61. Admit.

l l 62. Admit.

l

63. Dcay. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes more than one start occurred that calls into question the wording in the April 9,1990 letter 30 4

.= -.

(i.e., 'No failures or problems have occurred").

64. Admit.

l

65. Admit.

66. Admit.

67. Admit.

68. Admit.

69. Admit.

70. Admit.

C. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. 3

1. Admit

2. Admit.

3. Admit.

4. Admit.

5. Admit.

6. Admit.

7. Admit.

8. Admit.

9. Admit.

10. Admit.

11. Admit.

12. Admit.

13. Admit.

31 l

14 Admit.

15. Admit.

16. Admit.

17. Admit.

18. Admit.

19. Deny. Mr. Stringfellow actually asks the question, "Can you [Mosbaugh) detennine if those were valid tests or valid failures?" (Exh. 34, NRC Insert 3, p. 3).

20. Admit.

21. Admit.

22. Admit.

23. Admit.

24. Neither admit nor deny. GPC lacks sufficient infonnation to determine whether this is "new" terminology being introduced by Mr. McCoy.

However, based on the discussions recorded on Tape 58, GPC suspects that the terminology was discussed by the participants on the call prior to Mr. Mosbaugh's entry into the discussion. The tape recording does not l capture the entire conversation. See also GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.133.

25. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash did not perform a separate verification other than his original review of the control room logs.

1 26. Admit.

32

i t

27. Deny. This evidentiary finding inaccurately reflects the conversation in that Mr. McCoy's statement was in the form of a question rather than an j i

imperative.

28. Admit. ,

29. Admit.

I

30. Admit. '

31. Admit.

32. Admit.

33. Admit.

34. Deny. GPC's position is that these words are not audible on Tape 58, i Counsel for GPC, NRC and Intervenor have discussed their. respective versions on this portion of Tape 58 and are preparing a revised transcript i

, for stipulation that includes each party's position.

35. Deny. GPC's position is that these words are not audible on Tape 58.

Counsel for GPC, NRC and Intervenor have discussed their respective ' -i versions on this portion of Tape 58 and are preparing a revised transcript for stipulation that includes each party's position.  ;

36. - Admit.

37. Admit. +

38. Admit. - ',

39. Admit.

40. - Admit, t

33

41. Admit with the clarification that the use of the adjective " suddenly" to describe Mr. Aufdenkampe's discussion on this portion of the tape is inaccurate and that Mr. Aufdenkampe's ' guess" is based on a list of diesel starts provided by Messrs. Odom and Webb. See Tape 58, Tr. 37.

42. Deny. GPC agrees that the quoted portion of the evidentiary finding is accurate. However, GPC denies that Mr. Aufdenkampe (a) had not defined the end of the comprehensive test program, and (b) did not have a rational basis for this conclusion. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 5, Tr. 4-7.

43. Admit.

44. Admit.

45. Admit.

46. Admit.

47. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC does not believe the substance of the finding to be an accurate reficction of what was said and when it was said.

The more accurate record is the Tape 57 transcri pt, recorded on April 19, 1990.

48. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC denies that Mr. Mosbaugh accurately describes the events or participants. See Tape 58 Tr. at NRC Insert 4, p.1.

49. Admit with the clarification that the more accurate record is the Tape 58 l

l l

34 l

l l

transcript, recorded on April 19, 1990.

50. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC denies (a) the characterization of the process in which the LER was reviewed, and (b) that the LER was inaccurate because there were failures on the EDO IB identified by Mr.

Mosbaugh on April 19, 1990. See generally, Tape 57 and 58.

51. Admit.

52. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary fmding accurately reflects the O!

interview testimony. However, GPC does not believe the substance of the finding to be an accurate reflection of what was said and when it was said.

The more accurate records are the Tapes 57 and 58 transcripts, recorded on April 19, 1990.

53. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI w interview testimony. However, GPC denies that the LER drafts did not contain any specific statemou of diesel starts.

54. Deny. Mr. Moshaugh should have been aware of everything

55. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC denies that Mr. Mosbaugh and others " realized" the diesel start statements in the April 9 letter and draft

~

LER were false. See Tape 57, Tr. at 120121.

56. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary. finding accurately reflects the OI interview transcript. However, GPC lacks 35 9

m__ __._.. _ __-_.___. .__

sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of Mr. Mosbaugh's statements.

57. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview transcript. However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of the finding.

58. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC denies that Mr. Mosbaugh heard Mr. McCoy make such a statement. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 49.

59. Admit.

60. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes the puticipants on the call are identified in the NRC's Tape 58 transcript.

61. Admit.

62. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Aufdenkampe was a participant to a conversation where Mr. Stringfellow was so put on notice. See Tape 57 transcript, insert 1, at 1.

63. Admit with the clarification that there were not more than 18 consecutive starts using the definition of comprehensive test program described in the June 29,1990 LER revision cover letter.

64. Admit.

l

65. Admit.

66. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes that Messrs. Odom and l

l 36

Webb did p. ovide Messrs. Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh with a list of starts before the LER was issued on April 19, 1590. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 67 and Tape 58, Tr. at 37,

67. Admit.

68. Admit.

69. Admit.

70. Admit.

71.

Admit with the clarification that there was a conversation on April 19, 1990, in which the comprehensive test program language was selected to clarify when the diesel start count began. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 4, Tr.

1, and GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 24.

72.

Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Messrs. Aufdenkampe and Shipman had a discussion on this subject with Mr. Bockhold on April 19, 1990 which was not taped. See Tape 58, NRC Insett 5, Tr. 4-7.

73. Admit.

74. Admit.

75.

Admit with the clarification that Mr. Aufdenkampe did make that statement to Mr. Stringfellow. See Tape 57, NRC Insert 1, Tr.1.

76.

Admit with the clarification that GPC believes the site did confirm the accuracy of 'at least 18" diesel starts.

77. Admit.

78. Admit.

37

i

79. Admit. ,

80. Admit.

81. Admit.

82. Admit.

83. Admit.

84. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Stringfellow was a 4

party to the telephone conference call involving Messrs. Mosbaugh, Auf6mkampe and Shipman on April 19, 1990 where the participants discussed the meaning of the comprehensive test program. See Tape 58, .

Tr. NRC Insert 5, at pp. 4-7.

85. Admit.

86. Admit with the same clarification as in GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 84.

87. Admit. .

88. Admit with the clarification that GPC interprets "other that" to mean ,

t "other than."

89. Admit.

90.- Admit.

91. Admit.

92. Admit.

93. Admit.

94. Adtnit.

38 L

95. Admit.

96. Admit with the chrification that based on Tape 58, GPC believes Mr.

Shipman did participate on a telephone conference call with Mr. McCoy which included discussion of that term.

97. Admit.

98. Admit.

99. Admit.

100. Admit.

101. Admit.

102. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 inteview testimony. However, GPC lacks sufficient information to adtru. or deny that the conversation occurred in the conference reom between the offices of Messrs. Shipman and McCoy.

103. Admit.

104. Admit.

105. Admit.

106. Admit.

107. Admit.

l 108. Admit with the clarification that GPC does not believe that Mr. Bailey i.

l participated on the call. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.

1 l

194.

109. Admit.

! 39

i i

110. Admit.

l 111. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes that multiple, simultaneous conver9tions took place on this portion of Tape 58.

112. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes there was a fair amount of discussion regarding the meaning of the term comprehensive test program.

See Tape 58.

f 113. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Cash counted starts as -

successful which occurred before the point in time Mr. Bockhold believed  ;

the start count to begin (See Exh.11.)

114 Neither admit nor deny GPC agrees this evidentiary finding accurately  !

reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC lacks sufficient i information to admit or deny the truth.

I15. Deny. GPC agrees this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the Ol' i interview testimony. However, GPC denies that Mr. Ikekhold could not have identified a definitive ending point for the-comprehensive test

! program if he had been provided with sufficient information. See GPC's  ;

Response to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, dated August 9, 1993, at 3.

116. Admit.

-117. Admit, 118. Admit.

119. Admit. -

40 ,

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

120. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Bockhold did have knowledge on April 19, 1990, of how the comprehensive test program language was inserted into the LER. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 4, Tr.1.

121. Admit.

122. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold participated in the April 19,1990, conference call where it was decided to insert this language into the LER. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 4, Tr.1.

123. Deny. On April 19, 1990, although the specific point in time was not identified, Messrs. Bockhold, Aufdenkampe and Shipman had a working definition of the end of the comprehensive test program and on June 29, 1990, a new definition was assigned to the term in the cover letter for the revised LER.

124. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Bockhold advised Messrs. Aufdenkampe and Shipman on April 19, 1990, that the comprehensive test program ended right after the calibration of the rensors. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 5, Tr. 4 7.

125. Deny. GPC does not bclieve that this evidentiary finding is an accurate reflection of Mr. Bockhold's testimony. The evidentiary finding mischaracterizes Mr. Bockhold's response as an attempt to " absolve himself of any responsibility." See also GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.114.

126. Admit with the clarification that use of the adjective "just" incorrectly 41

characterizes the testimony of Mr. Dockhold.

127. Admit.

128. Admit.

129. Admit.

130. Admit.

131. Admit.

132. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrecs that this evidentiary finding accurately summarizes the testimony. However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny its truth. Based on the discussions recorded on Tape 58, GPC suspects that the participants to the April 19, 1990 conference call discussed the term comprehensive test program before Mr.

Mosbaugh entered the conversation and began his taping. GPC also believes there may have been other conversations regardinr, this subject on the same day that were not recorded. See GPC's respon*,e to evidentiary finding No.133.

133. Admit.

134. Admit with the clarification as in GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.124.

l 135. Deny. This evidentiary finding does not accurately reflect the testimony l

of Mr. Bockhold. Mr. Bockhold's testimony is that he does not remember the conference call because the 01 investigator is jumping from one section of the tape to another without allowing Mr. Dockhold to hear the 42

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

l l

tape recording in a continuous uninterrupted fashion.

136. Admit.

137. Admit.

i 138. Admit.

139. Admit.

140. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the O! interview testimony. However, GPC lacks-sufficient information to admit or deny its truth.  ;

141. Neither admit nor deny. 'Ihe interview notes of the O! investigator are I

an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulness of this evidentiary finding. However, GPC denies that (a)

Mr. McCoy told Mr. Brockman thtf GPC was only going to count EDG .

test failures as they were defined in the Reg. Guide and (b) Mr. McCoy

did not mention that there had been EDG troubleshooting failures after the l

March 20,1990 event. See Tape 58, Tr. 27, 38.

142. Neither admit nor deny. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.

141.

143. Admit.

144. Admit.

145. Admit. ,

146. Admit. .

-147. Admit.  ;

43

-.,.,,m., . . - , s . .,-m. _. w .v. ,.wa.,- gQ , , , ~ , . , , . , , . , .w.,,. , , , , , , , , - . ~,,.,-,.,,_-,,-.----,m..,,_,--gv --

-+meeg

148. Admit with the clarification that GIC believes there may have been other converutions on the same subject as the group conversation which are not recorded on Tape 58. See GPC's responses to evidentiary finding Nos.

132 and 133.

149. Neither admit nor deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny its truth.

150. Admit with the clarification that the language in thc * ' was a change from the language in the April 9 letter.

151. Admit.

152. Admit.

153. Admit.

154. Admit.

155. Admit.

156. Admit.

157. Admit.

158. Admit.

159. Admit.

160. Admit.

161. Admit.

162. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Hairston's question was answered in one of the inaudible simultaneous, multiple conversations 44

recorded on Tape 58.

163. Admit.

164. Admit.

165. Admit with the clarification that Mr. McCoy said the phrase " sounded similat to" not " sounded familiar to.'

166. Admit with the clarificath i that GPC believes Mr. Italtston's question was answered in one of the inaudible simultaneou- iultiple conversations recorded on Tape 58.

167. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. IIairston's question was answered in one of the inaudible simultaneous, multiple conversations recorded on Tape 58.

168. Admit.

169. Admit.

170. Admit.

171. Admit.

172. Admit.

173. Admit.

174. Admit.

175. Admit.

176. Admit.

177. Admit.

l 178. Admit.

45

179. Admit.

180. Admit.

181. Admit.

182. Admit.

183. Deny. GPC denies that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the conversation recorded on- Tape 58. Counsel for GPC, NRC and

- Intervenor have discussed their respective versions of this portion of Tape 58 and are preparing a revised transcript for stipulation.

184. Admit.

185. Admit.

186. Admit.

187. Admit. i

188. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes the. participants on the i i

l referenced section of Tape 58 are identified in the associated NRC l

transcript.

189. Admit.

190. - Admit with the clarificaton that Mr. Hairston did not state that he was

+

" speculating" during this portion of his OI testimony.

191. Admit.

192. Admit. -

193. Admit.

194.- Admit.

p

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

D 195. Admit with the clarification that, based on PRB meeting minutes and portions of Tapes 57 and 58, GPC knows the PRB addressed the LER a number of times before it was signed on April 19, 1990.

1%. Admit.

197. Admit.

198. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes that the comprehensive test program had been defined on April 19,1990, before the LER was issued.

See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.124.

199. Admit.

200. Admit with the clarification that, based on GPC's review of Tape 58, GPC believes Mr. Mcdonald did review and comment on the LER before it was issued.

201. Admit with the same clarification as in GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 200.

202. Admit.

203. Admit.

204. Admit.

205. Admit.

~'

.106. Admit.

207. Admit.

47

D. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. 4

1. Neither admit nor deny. GPC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this evidentiary finding. No PRB meeting minutes or NRC tapes Mdress this matter.

2. Admit.

3. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurztely reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC denies that this testimony accurately describes the conversation between Messrs. Bockhold and Mosbaugh.

Mr. Bockhold was first to question how Mr. Mosbaugh's validated information would effect the April 9,1990 letter. Mr. Bockhold did not state he would address this issue in the May 15, 1990 proposed letter.

Rather, he suggested this might be an appropriate means for addressing the April 9,1990 letter and Mr. Mosbaugh was tasked with making the appropriate corrections by working with his subordinate, Mr. Odom. See GPC transcript of Tape 90, Tr.1-3.

4. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC denies that this testimony accurately describes the timing of the QA audit. Mr. Hairston requested the audit on or about June 8,1990. See Exh. 31, pp. 79-80.

5. Admit.

6. Admit.

7. Admit with the clarification that on April 19,1990 start count verification 48

efforts were conducted, in addition to those performed by Mr. Cash, and that several ' start counts' were made between April 19 and June 29, 1990.

8. Admit.

9. Neither adutit nor deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary findiO2 accurately summsrires the OI interview testimony, liowever, GPC lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny its tmth.

10. Admit.

11. Admit.

12. Deny. GPC denies that this evidentiary finding accarately reflects Mr.

Bockhold's testimony. Further, GPC does not bejleve tha!

• interpretation of the data" is part of what GPC meant by diesel generator record keeping practicea as that term was used its the June 29,1990 LER revision cover letter. Sec Tape 187.

13. Admit.

14. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Majors prepared the June 29,1990 cover letter.

15. Admit.

16. Admit with the clanfication that Mr. Bockhold did have a discussion with Mr. McCoy and other members of the plant staff on August 15, 1990, regarding how Mr. Cash developed the start count for Mr. Dockhold.

17. Admit.

49

l I

18. Admit.

19. Admit.

29 Admit.

21. Admit.

22. Adntit.

23. Admit.

24. Admit.

25. Admit.

26. Admit.

27. Admit.

28. Deny. GPC denies that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects Mr.

Aufdenkampe's testimony. Mr. Aufdenkampe could not recall with certainty what the time period was between the issuance of the LER and the site transmittal of a draft-revised LER to the Corporate offices. 'Ihis transmittal did not occur until about May 15,1990. See Mr. Mosbaugh's testimony Exhibit 5, pp. 232-240.

29. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Aufdenkampe did review the June 29,1990 cover retter, in his capacity as a member of the PRB. Sen I'RB Meeting Minutes, Meeting No. 90-91.

30. Ad. nit.

31. Admit.

32. Admit.

$0

33. Neither admit nor deny. The interview notes of the 01 investigator are an insufficient basis for GPC to determine either the accuracy or truthfulac ss of this evidentiary finding. However, GPC bei! eves that Mr.

Aufdenkau pc spoke to Ms. Trocine sometime during the week of June 11-15,1990, regardiri the mistake in the diesel start count and requested that Ms. Trocine pass the iriarmation along to Mr. Brockman. See GPC transcript of Tapc 172, Tr. 31.

34. Admit.

l

35. Admit.

36. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes that the comprehensive test program was defined in the June 29,1990 cover letter.

37. Deny. GPC agrees that this evide.rLay finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC d n 's that the June 29,1990 SAER audit report accurately identified the causer i'r the error in the April 19, 1990 LER.

38. Admit.

39. Admit.

40. Admit.

41. Adrift with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Frederick ta'kcd to Me.tsrs. Wkheid and Cash during the courre of the SAER audit.

42. dmi!.

U. Admit.

51

=

44. Admit

45. Admit.

46. Admit.

47. Admit. ,

48. Admit.

49. Admit.

50. Admit with the clarification that the evidentiary finding reflects Mr. _

Hairston's opinion.

51. Admit.

52. Admit.

53. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Frederick's knowledge of Mr.

Mosbaugh's " concern about the diesel start numbers in the April 9,1990, letter and the April 19, 1990, LER," was limited to the information he learned through his membership on the PRB.

54. Admit.

55. Admit.

56. Admit with clarification that Mr. Frederick told Mr. Mosbaugh that he was also supposal to determine why the discrepancy exists, See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 62 and Tape 160, Tr. 23-29.

57. Admit.

58. Admit.

59. Admit.

52 I

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

60. Admit.

61. Admit.

62. Admit with the clarification that where the evidentiary finding indicates that Mr. Frederick "is suppose to find why the discrepancy exists," the discrepancy Mr. Frederick is referring to is the various diesel start counts reported to the PRB during the May to June,1990 time frame.

63. Admit.

64. Admit. ,

65. Admit.

66. Admit with the clarification that GPC is aware, based on a review of Tape -

187, Mr. Majors stated that he believed Mr. Hairston assisted Mr. McCoy -

in drafting portions of the June 29, 1990 cover letter. -See GPC's response evidentiary finding to No. 70.

67. Admit.

68. Admit.

69. Admit.

70. Admit.

71. Admit.

72. - Admit.

73. Admit.

74. Admit.

75. Admit.

f.

53

76. Admit with the clarification that, bad on review of Tape 187, GPC is aware that Mr. Mosbaugh did express such concerns to Mr. Greenee.

77. Deny. GPC believes that Mr. Greene was aware on June 29,1990, that Mr. Cash made the diesel start count for the April 9 presentation. See Tape 187.

78. Admit.

79. Deny. This evidentiary finding takes a quote attributed to Mr. Greene out of context and thus creates a mischaracterization of the portion of Tape 187 that the evidentiary finding purports to summarize. Mr. Greene does recommend changing the word " discrepancy" to " difference" in the June 29,1990 cover letter. However, his reason for suggesting this change, as reflected at Tr. 56, is his view that the cover letter is intended to explain the difference between what is being reported in thc *evised LER and the cover letter. See Exh. 47, pp. 34, 35.

80. Admit.

81. Admit.

82. Admit.

E. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Albgation No.-5

1. Deny. This evidentiary finding inaccurately reflects the GI interview testimony in that Mr. Bockhold stated that he did not recall if he assisted in drafting the August 30,1990 letter. GPC is aware, based on review of Tape 184, that Mr. Bockhold did assist in the drafting of that letter.

54

u

2. Deny. See GPC's response to evidentiary finding No.1.

3. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes Mr. Bockhold reviewed the August 30,1990 letter. See Tape 184.

4. - Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold's testimony was that he e

personally was not confused about the distinction between successful start and valid test.

5. Admit with-the clarification tha' Mr. Bockhold's testimony refers to _

individuals, other tnan Mr. Cash, who attended the April 9 prese.ntation.

See Exh. 23, p.1.

6. Admit with the clarification that confusion arose among GPC personnel,-

other than Mr. Cash, who tried to count successful starts after April 9, 1990.

7. Admit.

8. Admit.

- 9. Admit.

10. Admit. <

11. - Admit.

12. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes that Mr.~ Cash did make mistakes in performing his count. See GPC's response to Allegation No.

1, evidentiary finding No. 66.

13. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the O1-55

interview testimony. However, GPC believes that Mr. Ajiuni discussed mistakes in Mr. Cash's count in a December 1990, note to Mr. McCoy.

(Bates No. 044750-51.)

14. Admit.

15. Admit.

16. Admit.

17. Admit.

18. Admit.

19. Admit.

20. Admit.

21. Deny. This evidentiary finding does not accurately reflect the OI interview testimony. Mr. Stringfellow stated that there were "a couple of differences" between his tables and the tables returned to him from the site "in the area of diesel starts 132,134, and 136."

22. Admit.

l 23. Admit.

24 Admit.

( 25. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI l

l interview testimony. However, this does act accurately reflect the criteria l

used by Mr. Cash to count successfui starts. See GPC's response to l

Allegation No.1, evidentiary finding Nos. 40 and 69.

26. Admit.

56

27. Admit.

28. Deny. GPC agrees that the evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC believes that Mr. Cash counted more than one problem start as successful.

29. Admit.

30. . Admit with the clarification that Mr. Cash counted more than one problem start as successful.

31. Admit. .

32. Admit.

33. Admit.

34. Admit.

35. - Admit.

36. Admit.

37. Admit with the same clarification as in GPC's response to evidentiary finding No. 30.

38. Admit.

39. Admit.

40. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Mcdonald's testimony reflects he:

was talking about calls to the NRC regarding the same subject matter as was being addressed in the-August 3^,1990 letter and mg calls to the .

NRC regarding the August 30,1990 letter in particular. .

i

- 41, Admit. I I

57 i i

42. Admit with the clarification that GPC interprets " April 9,1991' to mean

" April 9,1990."

43. Admit.

44. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Greene's testimony was that the August 30,1990 letter was prepared using the same process as that used for preparing all correspondence with the NRC (i.e., there was no special process employed for drafting this letter).

45. Admit.

46. Admit with the clarification that Mr. Bockhold was present at the PRB meeting where the August 30,1990 letter was discussed. ,

47. Admit with the clarification that GPC interprets "that the number reported" to mean "1han the number reported."

48. Admit.

49. - Deny. ' This evidentiary finding does not accurately reflect Mr. Greene's testimony.

F. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. 6

1. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the OI interview testimony. However, GPC does not believe it accurately I

describes or characterizes the control air quality during the relevant time i frame. See Tape 41.

2. Admit.

l

~

3. Admit with the clarification that GPC believes the air quality was 58

I satisfactory at the controls. See Tape 41, Tr. 49-50.

4. Admit.

5. Admit.

6. Admit.

G. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Allegation No. 7

1. Deny. The final revisions to the LER were not made on this particular-conference call. See Tape 58,

2. Deny. The diesel starts language was finally approved by site personnel (Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh) on this call and other portions of the LER were finalized with the additional participation of Mr. Swartzwelder. See Tupe 58, Tr. 27-32,

3. Admit with the clarification that GPC did not have the benefit of Mr.

Mosbaugh's tapes at that time.

4. Deny. The final revisions to the LER were not made on this particular conference call. See Tape 58.

5. Deny. See GPC's response to Allegation No. 3, evidentiary findings Nos.

34 and 35.

6. Deny. GPC's statements have been made in good faith based on the knowledge passessed by.GPC at the time.

7. Admit.

8. Admit with the clarification that GPC interprets " April 1,1990" as " April 1, 1991."

59 1

w- y

9. Deny. GPC agrees that this evidentiary finding accurately reflects the 01 interview testimony. However, GPC denies that the individuals identified were the ones on the call. See Tape 58, NRC Insert 5, Tr. 4-7, and Tr.

27-32 for proper identification of the participants.

10. Admit.

H. Response to Evidentiary Findings for Investigative Conclusion from Review of Audio Tapes

1. Deny. This evidentiary finding mischaracterizes the portion of Tape 42 it references. Mr. Aufdenkampe, at Tr.14, indicates that GPC's obligation to tell the NRC about diesel control air problems would not arise until such problems had been confirmed. Mr. Aufdenkampe's views, when reviewed in context, clearly demonstrate that his comment regarding not telling the NRC about diesel control air matters was aimed at the timing of providing confirmed information and not whether such information should be provided.

2. Deny. This evidentiary finding mischaracterizes the portions of Tapes 269 and 184 it purports to summarize. The referenced portion of Tape 269 is a discussion between Messrs. Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh regarding the PRB meeting earlier that' day in which the August 30, 1990 letter was reviewed. Mr. Aufdenkampe states that he was " glad George [Bockhold]

left because I v.a going to call point of order that we [the PRB] couldn't advise George [Bockhold] on something when he was there trying to, 60

trying to." At that point Mr. Aufdenkampe is cut off by Mr. Mosbaugh who finishes the sentence by stating, " advise the Board when he's telling -

the Board what statements to take out of a letter." Tape 269, Tr.12.

Mr. Bockhold was suggesting revisions to a prior draft of the August 30, 1990 letter. The referenced portien of Tape 184 is a portion of the PRB meeting where the August 30,1990 letter is discussed. 'Ihe evidentiary fmding indicates that Mr. Aufdenkampe's " frustration shows" on this part of the Tape because Mr. Bockhold "ran" the meeting. 'Ihe word "ran,"

which according to the evidentiary finding is a quote from the Tape, cannot be found on the cited portion of the Tape or on the NRC's transcript of the Tape. Mr. Greene, as PRB chairman, chaired the meeting and, as reflected in the PRB meeting minutes, Mr. Bockhold participated as a guest / technical advisor. GPC also notes that Mr. Brian Bonzer, NRC resident inspector, attended the meeting. Nothing on the cited portion of the Tape supports the conclusion that Mr. Bockhold "ran" the meeting.

3. Deny. GPC believes this evidentiary finding inaccurately characterizes the referenced portion of the tape transcript. Mr. Horton is expressing his preference for using the phraseology "the errors ... wnts the result" as opposed to "the errors ... appear to be the result." Mr. Horton expresses his belief that using the word " appear" suggests that GPC does not know the reason for the errors. (Tr. at 33.) Later in the conversation, Mr.

61

Bockhold suggests changing the word " errors" to " confusion" because he believes the NRC was confused by GPC's use of th: term " successful' start" as opposed to " valid start." (Tr. at 33-34.)

4. Admit with the clarification that it was Mr. Bockhold's firm belief that no GPC or SNC employee intentionally provided false information to the NRC. Furthermore, the evidentiary finding's observation that Mr.

Bockhold " speaks in terms of what other people believe, as opposed to what the situation actually is," is conclusory and not substantiated by this portion of Tape 258.

5. Admit.

6. Deny. Mr. Coursey denies this evidentiary finding for two reasons.

First, Mr. Coursey's question regarding how many failures had occurred once the diesels _were "up and running" does not indicate a "_ history of diesel problems." Rather, it is simply a question posed as a part of the investigation of diesel problems associated with the March 20,1990 event.

Second, contrary to the evidentiary finding, Mr. Coursey is not a participant to any conversations surreptitiously recorded by Mr. Mosbaugh -

on Tape 258.

- 7. _ Deny. GPC does not agree that this evidentiary finding eccurately' reflects the taped conversation. Mr. Freder. . does not say "that burns you up."

Based on review of the tape, GPC believes that someone else makes that -

statement but is unable to identify the speaker.

62  :

i i

8. Deny. This evidentiary finding inaccurately characterizes the referenced portion of the tape in that it implies that the revised LER will dictate language in the QA audit report. The tr. ped conversetion actually discusses a potential wording chant,e in the LER revision that would change the reference point for the diesel starts count in the audit report from " completion of the comprehensive test program" to " subsequent to the event." The audit report was complete at this time and a change in _

the reference point would require a revision to that report. This is why in the conversation Mr. Frederick states "I may have to put some words in the audit report based on that."

9. Deny. This evidentiary finding inaccurately characterizes this portion of the tape transcript. Mr. Horton is providing his own independent, (technical) evaluation. of diesel generator I A, start number 148 as part of the PRB's effort to develop a tabular summzry of diesel starts during the relevant time frame. Mr. Horton had independently collected his own data in preparation for this meeting (Tape 184, Insert, Tr. 3). His statements are that start 148 resulted in an unplanned trip of DG 1A, _

however, the start should be declared successful because of the circumstances involved. The diesel had been started for bubble testing.

GPC received a malfunction alarm signal associated with a group of three sensors. This alarm indicated that one of the three sensors was venting, but not specifically which one. GPC decided to continue with the bubble 63 l

1 o

test knowing that disconnection of either of the non-venting sensors would result in a trip. This was the basis for declaring the start as a success while at the same time acknowledging that the trip was unplanned. Mr.

Horton's statements, when understood in this context, are clear on their face, i.e., he is filling out the tabular summary that was attached to the August 30,1990 letter.

12. Deny. GPC denies this evidentiary finding. Mr. Odom has no specific recollecti=- (f this conversation other than his review of the audio tape, ho ecs., maed on his review he denies the OI investigator's characterization that he was " frustrated." Mr. Odom did not believe that GPC was trying to attribute the error in the LER to a typographical mistake and does not believe either the tone or the content of his response reflect frustration on this point.

13. Deny. Ms. Tynan denies this finding on two grounds. First, the language quoted is an inaccurate transcription of the taped statement of Ms. Tynan on June 29, 1990. The statement made by Ms. Tynan should read as follows: "Why can't we get through what we keep approving? Sending off-site." Second, the investigator's characterization of Ms. Tynan's statement is inaccurate. Ms. Tynan believes she was frustrated at the time, but not for the reason stated by the investigator (i.e., she is not

" expressing frustration about corporate always changing what is approved by the site"). Her frustration stemmed from changes being made by the 64

n corporate office to the particular document which is being discussed on this portion of the tape. Based on her review of the tape, Ms. Tynan believes the document being discussed is the revision to LER 9(M06 which was under review by the site and corporate office on June 29, 1990,

14. /,dmit.

15. Deny. GPC denies both the accuracy and truthfulness of this OI -

evidentiary summary. 'Ihe summary inaccurately quotes language from the tape and mischaracterizes Mr. Bockhold's conversation with his plant staff. A more accurate summary of this conversation is that Mr.

Bockhold informs his plant staff that each of them will be provided with legal counsel, if they so choose, to assist them in any OI interviews. Mr.

Bockhold indicated that assistance by legal counsel is often helpful in that legal counsel can help in organizing facts aial clarifying ambiguous questions on the part of the OI investigator. Mr. Bockhold indicated that- ,

he had been interviewed in other contexts previously, and 'as a result, would not need to be briefed by legal counsel regarding preparation for and participation in an interview of this type. Finally, Mr. Beckhold indicated- that these are consensual interviews and should the OI interviewer express concern over the consensual conditions then the _ <

employee may decline the interview and require the OI investigator to subpoena his or her presence.

65

GPC objects to responding to Intervenor's request for admissions for evidentiary fmding Nos.10,11, and 16-26 because the subject matter of these findings is outside the scope of this l proceeding as defined by the Board's June 2,1994, Order, AL n'LambersB *

/ ~

TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Ernest L. Blake David R. Iewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20337 (202) 663-8084 Counsel for Georgia Power Company Dated: July 7,1994 66 1-l

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 94 JJL -8 62 b0

) 0F FID. cf cccolla?Y S "'

Docket Nos. 50-#24DOEAE3 b k e gyncE In the Matter of )

) 50-4. -OLA-3 B W"I' GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )

et al. ) Re: License Amendment

) (Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating ) Nuclear)

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 _

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions," dated July 7, 1994, were served by deposit with Airborne Express mail service, upon the persons listed on the attached service list, this 7th day of July, 1994.

/

~ hn Ladberski

/

I Dated: July 7, 1994 3 E

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY tohMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,

• Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 at al.

• 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric

• Rei License Amendment Generating Plant, *

(Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)

• Nuclear)

• ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Peter B. Bloch, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ATTN: Dockating and Commission Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 charles Barth,.Esq.

Administrative Judge Office of General Counsel James H. Carpenter One White Flint North Atomic Safety and Licensing Stop 15B18 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 933 Green Point Drive Commission Oyster Point Washington, D. C. 20555 Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Director, Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Thomas D. Murphy Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of-Natural Board Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 205 Butler Street, S.E.

Commission Suite 1252 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Michael D. Kohn, Esq.

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.

517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 office.of Commission Appellate

-Adjudication One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Stewart D. Ebneter-Regional Administrator USNRC, Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

SENT BY:479h tVP i 7- 0-94 i 5:07PM i 40488585 5 87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY 4MSSION 33ront TER Atomic aAFETY AND LICrumTMG BOM In the Matter of I GRORGIA POWER COMPANY, 8 A1. Dookot Mos. 50-424-OLA-3 t 50-425-OLA-3 8

t Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, I (Transfar to Units 1 and 2) t Southern Nuclear) t i

ASLBP MO. 93-571-OLA-3 AFFIDATTT OF 3OHN Q. AUPDENYkWDR I, John G. Aufdankampe, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1.

Itan currently employed by southern company Services as Design Team Leader, Vogtle Project.

2.

I an duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Corepany's Response to Intervonor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated Decenner 17, '

1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

Allegation No. 1 Nos. 154, 155 Allegation No. 3 Nos. 41-42 Investigative Conclusion from No. 1, 2 Review of Audio Tapes

= . -

_ = , , , , ~~ *=

t_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

SENT BY:47th d/P i 7 .0-94 1 5:07PM i 494085*500* 1 205 877 788518 8 m I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such response are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

lL Kddt.A _a sworn to and subscribed befora me this'g day of July. 1994.

M0 (ki)>-1h Lotary Public . l 1 A k.,

~

My commission expires LA'Yl n ., /61 T

'/

I e

, g , ,, 16 , ~*

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEliSING._B_QARD In the Matter of  :

• Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,.31 A1 t 50-425-OLA-3 a Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, t (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)

ASLBP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF MARK J. AJLUNI _

I, Mark J. Ajluni, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am currently employed by Southern Nuclear Operating company as Senior Project Engineer, Vogtle Project.

2. I have been expressly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions. Specifically I am duly authorized to respond on behalf on the Company to the First Request for Admissions for evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report Case No. 2-90-20R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny requested Admissions not otherwise addressed by individual attestations.

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

b h 0{,.,

Sworn to and subsje ibed before me this j_ day of July, 1994.

Yia(WAJ N4/ &

Notary Public V My commission expires:

Oh! N_ Ad,19G S l

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

JLA.-07-1994 14 07 FR31 SNC-L,03TLE EtG4.lC TO- TELA P.02 l l

UNITBD STAT 35 0F AM5m!O& l woct, man masosaeaar Ooensassrom  !

karoma Tax 1Tourc airgfr AMD LxnEMADfG IO&aD l l

Ta the Matter of a k

a Booket 30s. 50-434-014-3 .

63ORGIA POWER COMP &WY,.31 M. I 89 43 5=OIA-3 l s Ret Lisease Asenessat (Vogtle Blestria Samarating Plant, t (Transfer to Units 1 ame 2)  : southern Neelear) e t &SL37 NO. 9 3-671-0EA-3 AFFIn&v2T of emogen scaxxoLn, 31.

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

1. I am currently employed by Southern Nuclear operating company as General Manager, Nuclear Tech Support.

2. I an duly authorised to verify Georgia power Campany's Responu to Intervenor's First Request for Admissione, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory commission office of Investigations Report, case No. 3-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarifloation, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

Allegation No. 1 Nos. 26, 33-35, 37, 40, 77, 7_8, 83, 96 Allegation No. 2 _ N_o. 4 Allegation No. 3 Wos. 35, 115, 125-126, 135 Allegation No. 6 No . 3

' ' Investigative Conclusion from. Nos. 4, 15 R4 View of_ Audio Tapes E

3

JUL-07-1994 14:08 FRCri SNC-VO37.E EN34.!C TO TSLA P,03 2 h:rchy c:rtify thnt the ctatements cnd opinicns in cuch -

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

H __

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1 day of July, 1994.

A 4/x- - - -

we.rygbu.

% %, A sseW"'

i I

10 P.e3 i

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

SENT !!Y:47th WP i 7- 6-94 112:57PM i 40488535894 1 205 877 7885 4 4 -

ITNITED STATES OF ANZ12CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICFNSIMO BOARL In the Xatter of -

a GEORGIA POWER COXPANY, gf,,11 Docket Nos. 50-424*0LA-3 50-425-OLA-3 I Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electrio Generating Plant, t (Transfer to Unita 1 and 2) Southern Nuclear)

I

ASLBP NO. 93-571-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF JIMMY PAUL CASE I, Jinmy Paul Cash, being duly sworn, state as follows

1. I am currently employed by Southern Kuolear Operating Company as strategic Analyst.

2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Responso to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nucitar Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

i Allegation No. 1 Nos. 57, 64, 67, 74 I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such response are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

6

- * = = - en

, ,, , . , _ . -e *. = = = + =

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

SENT BY:47th tVP i 7 6-94 112:58PM i 4948853581H 1 205 877 7885is 5 _

3, .

Sworn to and subscribed @/P/7297 44 //

befora me this _ day of quly, 1994. (Jin y Pau 'cL F

/I k- AuW Retragy ~Public ~'~

My eggni'es(ion expires: -

/ 9'-fWr</

e

~ "'

SDT BY:WPC 48/l  ; 7- 6-84 ; 12:19 ; 4048853948- 7LV 826 8889;# 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY i J LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 3 Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 31 al. t 50-425-OLA-3 8

Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, t (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Bouthern Nuclear) s ABLBP No. 93-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES L. COURSEY I, Charles L. Coursey, being duly sworn, state as follows;

1. I an currently employed by Georgia Power Company as superintendent, Maintenance, vogtle Electric Generating Plant.

2. I ar. duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Roquest for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated Docenber 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

Investigativa Conclusion from No. 6 Review of Audio Tapes I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such responso are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

IET BY:WPC 48/l  : 7- 6-94 : '12:18 i 4048853348+ 706 826 0688;* e -;

/- n1 AMS Charlas.L. Coursey Sworn to And subscribed before me-this M day of July, 1994.

[/ ,

& 0 0-Notary Public My commission expires:-

M1004C CLARKL NOTARY Pumtc grframmmw prmt _N_.

d fr- - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - - . * .

E NT BY:47%a W P 1 7- 5-94 1 3:54PM i 40663035894 700 685 30891# 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAX REGULATORY CORMISSION DIZOy M E ATOMTo BAFETY AND L1QEEUEG B01R_D In ths Matter or i t Docket Mos. 50-424=OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, M 31, s 50-425=CLA-3 (Vogtle Elsotrio uanerating Plante Ret License Amendment Units 1 and 2) (Transfer to

Southern Nuclear) t

\

• AELBP WJ. 93-671-JLA-2 grrreivIT_fr a. 2. PR2nr1ICK I, G. R. Frederick, being duly sworn, state as f311owa:

1.

I am currently employed by Georgia Pwer Company ao Manager, Maintenance, Vogtle Electrac Generating Plant.

2.

I am duly authorized to verf.fy Gaorgia Power company's Rosponsa to Intervenor's First Esquest for Actaisaicns, specifically the responsu to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Coranission office of Inynstigations Report, Case llo. 2-90-020R; dated December 17, 1

1993, which deny, admit with clarificatiot, or neither hdmit nor dany ar, follows:

Allegation No. 4 Nos. 53, 62 Investigative conclusion from Nos. 7, 4 l Review of Audio Tapes e...

,.=ap, _ - .

me -

SENT BYt47th W/P i 7" 5-94 ; 935/.PM 1 40%885,3894 706 826 3609181 4 _

I hereby certify that t# ntateente and opinions in such Cmponse are trur and corrtat to tn. best of my personal ye : ledge and belietf.

~

t '1

- 'd G. R. Frederick i !iworn to and subscribed D betere ne this (f day of

+

July, AD94 ha.$01_J 0. $AAAA>--

Notary Public My comruission expires -

NNA C CLARXL tactARY PUTElO Q

WY C'wt - t d '

i y

I i<

h q

4 -e m W -

M9 ' . 9e* 854WWEDW** * -** *

$US DY:4ith O/P I 7- 644 li2t67PW I 4940053689* 1 208 877 700 bis 2 UNIT $D WTATES OF AMRXtCA WUCLEAM RkGULATORY COMMIs2 ION BEfonk Wi ATOMTD E172TY kn_(!CRMAIMG. RQ11D In the Matter of I

Decket Nos. 50-424-OL&=3 esonsIA towan COMPANY, At 41 I SC-4RS-OLk=3 8

Re License Asentment (Vogtle E16strio eenerating Plasts I (Trt.asfer to

<Jaits 1 ama t)  : Southern Wuolear) e e Aa!4P WO. 93=671-OLA-3 1FFIh1VIT OF TEOM&S Ya REEEME I, Thomme V. Greene, being duly sworn, stkte as follove

1. I am currently employed by 3outhern Nuclear company operatihg as Manager-Nuclear Engineering & Licensing, Vogtle project.

2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Admissione, specifically the responeen to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory commission Office of Investigations Report, Casa No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

__ Allegation No. 4 N,os . 79, 31 Allegation-No. 5 Nos. 44, 47, 49 i-I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such response are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and bed ief.

, . . = = . . - .. - -

.*r** wa=+- w- **=*'

SENT SYt47th. tt'P l 7- 6-94 112157PM-! 40480535894 1 205 077 786518 3 {

L.UWASd a M ,

i sworn to and su ribed Romas v'7 4reene '

before me this day of i July, 1994. 1 (LN f4 i Notary Public 3 i

Ny copsission expires:

M 'Vt2 / 9 9_T Ii ,

h I

t f

1 E

a f

Y l

l l. t r

T 1-h

-.m a e... _ . . - < - - e~+

- ~,-,.-,w_. . -.m .--,........,m,,. ..

.w_.,,v,. .%.,-o ,m., s.%.,,,,y, .-._.-, ..w..., .w.. .r..r . , , . 7 ,y-, .. , ,.f...s,, . ,,,5..,,

SENT h" bY 9( 'te:37(et so NxtfnR *1 W5 ~@fd "df t.5 4048153589- 1 285 F:2?$651# 2 UNITED starsa CF AMERICA l' NUCLRhk EBSUL& TORY ODIOtISSION l

marons Taa.InstIc aAraTY aunliczustys annan 2a the Matter of a Doaket Nos. so-434-OLn=3 esoteIA PcWER ocKPANY, at al. I 50-435=OLA-3 8

Re License ameaament (Vogtle Riestria seaarattag Plant, a Nransfar to Units 1 and 3) southern Nuclear) ,

. s j AsLEP NO. 93=671-OLh-3 t

arf 2nav2T nr v. s. nattaros. Irr  !

I, W. G. Hairsten, III, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am currently employed by southern Nuclear operating Company as President and chief kneoutive Offloor and by Georgia Power Company as Executive Vice President.

2. I am duly authorised to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Midssions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings containedinthehiuolearRegulatorycommissionofficecf Investigations Report, casa No. 2-90-0201, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor Cany as followst Allegation No. 1 No. 190, 191,- 195, 197 Allegation No. 3 _No_. _19 0 Allegation No. 4 No. 50

_ -m. ,- +.-,-,.,,--,----y

,,,-,.~c :,,,--..-., . - , . - - - - - . , - , , , - . , _ m__.___.._--_s_mm_mm -- . --m_----

SENT Id. 0L '94 .tmJ7m so ttxLtm 1 tus 070~6165 40415535th 1 20$ Br.3*455 t # 3 I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such i response are true and correct to the bent of my personal knowledge and belief,

. it]..

. Ynh sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of ul ,"1194.

t y $ l '_ f

' Jrup1Ic

My/c 'arion expires

>1'. _

_ _ f-M-74 *

.j-I i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS8 ION RIZ9RE THE ATOMIC 8AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of a Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 11 11 t 50-425-OLA-3 Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, t (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)

ASLBP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL N _HORIQH .,

1 I, Michael W. Horton, being duly sworn, state as followst

1. I am currently employed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company as Project Manager - Nuclear Technical Services.

2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which dery, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows Investigative Conclusion from Nos. 3, 9 Review cf Audio Tapes s

-- - \

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

ha. e f.b . 0]

Michael W. Horton ._

Sworn to and sub cribed before me this-- ~7%ay of July, 1994.,',

3

,/

( , ; e, / L t ., , <* , , .w//

Notary Publib /g-My. commission expiresi Notary PubLt. Cm L;.: ,, e...,

My hon Expres .afnuar,12,10; .

n.

SENT BY!47th WP 1 7- 6-94 112:50PM i 4040053589* i 205 077 7805ts 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFoRB TME ArQMic maw 2TY AND LICIMEING 20AgD In the Matter of esoRoth PowsR c0MPANY, at al.

1 Dosket Nos. so-42 4-OLA-3 i i so-4as-oLA-3 8

Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Blestric Generating Plant, I (Transfer to Units 1 an4 2) s Southern Nuclear)

ASL3P No. 93=671-OLA-3 arrinavrT or c revumer accoy I, C. Kenneth McCoy, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am currently employed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company as Vios President-Vogtle Prtijset and by Georgia Power Company as Vice President-Vogtle.

2. I am duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's -

Response to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions, i specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated Decamber 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor ,

denyas follows:

w -w ,

Allegation No. 1 Nos. 162; 176, 187 LAllegationNo.2 No. 39 j Allegation No. 3 Nos. 27, 165 l

i

, .p , , , . . , , at** -

• SENT SY:41*.i WP 1 1- 6-94 tittSBPW I =048653599* i 205 877 78051s 7 I hereby certify that the statercents and opinions in suvh FMponse are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and balist.

G Ka'nneth McCoy (

Sworn to and subscribed before me this g day of .

July, 1994 dAH Y}.

Notary Public~

bf b._ '

My commission expires Wh 1995 l'

)

)

, .~ *m.- . 4.

- . . . . . . . . - - ._._-,..s., , . - _ , . - ,___.--,..,,.._.._,,J__,,,,v

_ . , . - . - _ . ~ ~ _,.l..,.,m-. , - - - - -

SL%I bi alt 91/1 7- t- u4 ; 1 : vvi'X - Ikel lY.4% >\\DLR3- 205 002 vait>;: 20 UNITED DTATES OF AMERICA NUOLEAR PEGULATORY CoRMISSION BEF0EU___THE_ ATOMIC DAECTY AND LisEMING BOAgp In the Hatter of I

Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, it al. t 50-425-OLA-3 8

Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electrio Generating blant, I (Transfer to Unita 1 thd 2)  : Southern Nuclear) 1 ASLDP No. 93-671-OLA-3 AEIJDAVIT OF R. P. MCDONALD I, R. P. Mcdonald, boing duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am currently employed by Adv4nced Reactor Corp. as Exocutive Director.

2. I am duly nuthoriiod to verify Georgia Power Company's Responno to Ir.tervonor'c First Roquent for Admisolona, specifically the responses to evidentiary findingo contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as follows:

! Allegation No. 5 Non. 40, 42 Allegation No. 7 No. 8 I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such response are true and correct to the bor.t of my personal knowledge and belief.

A (fttf4

/*[62^-

I

SDT BY:EPC 51/1

7- 6-81 :12:095T : TROLTMAN SANI)Dts-205 802 0376:: 3/ :

bo

' I AB d y of July, 1gg4, au. c '[q ""~ -

C':y.i:ut:

- ~ , , ,;. ;

Gv >q z k

SDT BY:WC 48/l i 7- 6-84 : 12:18 i 40488533184 706 826 3689:* 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE,_AT_QMIC SAFETY AND LICEF5IMG... BOARD In the Matter of a

Docket Nos. so-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 11 A1. 50-425-OLA-3 Re License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Ornerating Plant, I (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuolear) a

ABLBP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 AFPIDAVIT O m q3ARD H. ODOM I, Richard M. Odom, boing duly sworn, stato as follows:

1. I am currently neployed by Georgia power company as Engineering Supervisor, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.

2. I an duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervonor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offico of Investigations Report, caso No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which den,, admlt with clarification, or neither admit nor

dony as follows:

Investigative Conclusion fro" No. 12 Review of Audio Tapes hereby cortify that the statements and opinions in such responso aro true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and beliof.

I

SEh7 BY:EK 48/l  : 7- 6-94 : 12:18 : 4048853318- 706 826 3689:* 5

- N liichard M. Odorn 1r ~

sworn to and subscribed before an this [g day of July, 1994.

0%duv G. GlaAA Notary Public Hy * *04 commission expires:

C Cunt Non.*r p..e. .e L *N h f__

I

SENT BYt47th WP 1 1- 6-96 19215SW 1 494886368b i 206 877 788638 I UNITED STAT 28 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR RBGULATORY CobO(ISSION REZQRLZEL11oute sawmer ivn Liemusive annan 2n the Natter of esonGIA 70NRR COMPANY, At al. Dooket Wes. 50-4tt-OLA-3 t 5 0-4354Ln-3 '

I

Rei Liosase Amendment (vogtle sleetrio Generating Plant, I (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Wuolear)

I I ASLSP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 -

M rInivfT OF M. 3. armfueFELLow I, H. J. Stringfellow, being duly sworn, state we fol3cvoi 1.

I am currently employed by southern Nuclear Operating Company as Project Engineer, Nuclear Licensing, Vogtle Project.

2. I an duly authorized to verify Georgia Power Company's ,

Response to Intervonor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the responses to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17,_

1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as followst lAllegationNo.2 No. 22 '

Allegation No. 3 Nos. 19, 88

_ Allegation No. 5 No. 21 i

• • ~ ~

g , y g a L; ,1 g . - - ' ' '

• m - - - ~ < e,,, -

SENT SYt47th WP I 1- 6-94 112:59PM i 40488535eb 12058'?78854 9 I hereby certify that the statements and opinions in such response are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

A_

. Y Sworn to and a scribed before me this day of July, 1994. v vnnau-n 8t,d r Notary Public My commission expires MO% / 9 'r 3 1'

i I

e l

l-l l

a g l l1 i 44 llj h g i& i J l N f F 8 '"'w ' N

, _ . _ , ..w-~-

SLhT BY:Mt 48/l  ; 7- 6-04 1 12 17 1 40480l>30484 706 826 068918 2 UNITED STATES OF AMBRICA NUCLEAR REGULRTORY C0KKISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC.EAFETY AND LICENSING BQARD In the Matter of a Docket Mos. 50-434-OLA-3 GBORGIA POWER COMPANY, 31 11 t 50-425-OLA-3 I Ret License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, I (Transfer to Units 1 and 3)  : southern Nuclear) t ABLDP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 AFFIDAVIT OF CAROLYN C. TYg&M I, Carolyn C. Tynan, being duly sworn, state as followet

1. I am currently employed by Georgia Power Company at Plant Vogtle as a supervisor assigned to the Perforance Improvement Team.

2. I an duly authorir.ed to verify Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervanor's First Request for Admissions, specifically the response to evidentiary findings contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Report, Case No. 2-90-020R, dated December 17, 1993, which deny, admit with clarification, or neither admit nor deny as followat Investigative Concluulon from No. 13 Review of Audio Tapes ,,_

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

SDT BY:RFC 48/l 1 7- 6-01 12318 i 404885031 6 706 826 3682 s 3 yP *

'7 M Carolyn X Tynan Dworn to and subocribod C, before no this[gf day of cci g[g/7 July, 1994 h& 23-)

Notary Public

0. -

My commincion expires mucac nAnt.tourt rauc Khepfl(4m HTr CI'W w cro,,s . . , - 7, l,&- f 7_

l l

_ _