ML20076C905

Discusses Amends to Petitioners M Hobby & a Mosbaugh 900911 Petition & Response to Licensee 910401 Submission.Requests That NRC Take All Necessary Action to Determine Whether Util Current Mgt Has Competence to Continue Operation of Plants

ML20076C905
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Vogtle
Issue date:	07/08/1991
From:	Kohn M KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	Selin I, Taylor J NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20076C903	List: ML20076C905
References
NUDOCS 9107250082
Download: ML20076C905 (108)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:e e o KO H N, K O H N & CO LA PINTO, P.C. ATTO RN EYS AT LAW 61 *, f'LO RID A AVE N U C, NW

• AIG HIN GTON. DC 2 0001

} f g 2o2 3344.a e -=>=4". 4.n ,g .. m.m _...

m. _,,.

y o.~ m, u -,.... ......o y E{\\l,tU Q jy w ir's = n oser.ov-como. em.m ,e... M ~0

• ((:[ L' July 8, 1991 "h

. C',',' C '.; Ottico 01 the -N SecremfY,g Hon. Ivan Selin, Chairman Mr. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations United Etates Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Amendments to Petitioners Marvin Hobby's and Allen Mosbaugh's September 11, 1990 Petition; and Response to Georgia Power Company's April 1, 1991 Submission by its Executive Vice President, Mr. R.P. Mcdonald

Dear Si.rs:

On September 11, 1990, Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L. Mosbaugh filed a petition with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter " Petition"). The Petition requested that the Commission investigate allegations set out in the Petition and determine, ipter alia, whether"the Georgia Power Company ("GPC" or " licensee") possessed the requisite " character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness and commitment to safety to operate a nuclear facility." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206, the Petition was referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. On February 28, 1991, Mr. Steven Varga of the Office of Nuclear-Reactor Regulation sent to Mr W. G. Hairston, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations, a Request for Additional Information Regarding the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition. A copy of this lette. is appended hereto as Attachment 1. This letter K P 1.D -

r 6-C requested GPC to submit additional information concerning the Petition "under oath or affirmation" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") by April 1, 1991. On April 1, 1991, GPC's Executive Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Mr. R.P.

Mcdonald, responded under oath.I' Unrefutable evidence demonstrates that Mcdonald's Response contains numerous verifiable material falso statements.2/

Petitioners have already provided such evidence to the NRC's Office of Investigations ("NRC-OI"). l/ Inasmuch as clear and convincing evidence exists that Mr. Mcdonald made material false statements to the NRC, the question that should be asked is why. Petitioners hereby allege that the material false statements contained in the Response were intended to cover-up intentional wrongdoing on the part of GPC and to otherwise obstruct the NRC's on-going investigations into the l' The response is entitled "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Regarding Petition of M.D. Hobby and A.L. Mosbaugh" and is hereinafter referred to as the " Response" or " Mcdonald's Response" 2/ petitioners adopt the definition of a Material False Statement set out in 10 C.F.R. Ch.1, Supplement VII, A(1), Fn. 15 ("a statement that is falso by omission or commission and is relevant to the regulatory process.") 3/ NRC-OI staf f investigators have notified Petitioners' counsel that the public release of the evidence petitioners have already supplied to NRC-OI would seriously compromise NRC-OI's on-going investigation into the allegation that GPC's Executive Vice President's Apri' 1, 1991

Response

contains material false statements. Having cooperated with the NRC in its investigation of GPC and respecting this request, Petitioners,. at this time, will not make public the factual basis substantiating this allegation. Nonetheless, Petitioners respectfully request that this information be considered by the Commission when deciding whether to issue a show cause order. 2

l e i 11egations set forth in Petitioners' September 11, 1990 Petition.9 Given the seriousness of this allegation and the potential safety consequences stemming therefrom, Petitioners believe that the public and the NRC are entitled to a speedy investigation and resolution of the allegation that Mr. Mcdonald submitted material false statements when responding to Petitioner's September 11, 1990 Petition and that these falso statements were made with the intent to derail on-going NRC investigations (i.e., obstruct justice). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 and 52.202, Petitioners hereby request that the Commission issue an Order to Show Cause why GPC's licenses should not be modified, suspended or revoked for obstructing on-going NRC-OI investigations and for intentionally submitting material false statements to the NRC made under oath by GPC's Executive Vice President. Petitioners believe that immediate action is warranted based on the evidence and documentation already provided to the NRC by petitioners. In support of Petitioners' allegations, the following ~information is provided: 9 Intentional obstruction of an NRC investigation by a licensee is a most serious allegation and reverts back to the initial question raised Dy Petitioners in the September 11, 1990 Petition (i.e. whether GPC's current management haA the requisite character, competence. and fundamental trustworthiress needed to operate a nuclear facility in a safe manner). For this reason, Petitioners request that the allegations contained herein be consolidated with the allegations set out in Petitioners' September 11, 1990 Petition. 3

_e 'a I. 'GPC's Executive Vice President Has submitted materialLfalse statements to the-NRC when responding to allegations raised by, Petitioners in their September 11, 1990 Petition. 1. GPC's Senior Vice President, George Hairston, knew that LER 90-006 contained a material falso statement at-the time of its submission and GPC's Executive Vice President submitted a material false statement intending to cover-go Mr. Hairston's culoability [This-allegation is not contained in-petitioners earlier submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September 11,:1990 Petition) Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response defends Mr. Hairston's actions in sending Licensee Event Report ( " LER" ) 90-006-to the NRC by emphatically stating Mr. Hairston did not participate in an April l19, 1990 conference call when the diesel generator start information was discussed prior to the submission of-LER 90-006. AccordingLto Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response: "The wording (of the LER)_was revised by corporate and site representatives in a _ telephone conference call-late on April 19, 1990...Mr. Hairston was not a carticipant in that call." Petitioners have recently submitted information to the NRC's Office of Investigation ("NRC-OI") demonstrating that Mr. Mcdonald's-sworn Response with respect to Mr. Hairston's participation _in this April 19, 1990 conference call is absolutely false. -The truth is'that Mr. Hairston d_id participate in the April 19, 1990 conference call and he did have first hand knowledge of -the_ fact that the information regarding the start data of the diesel generators was false and inaccurate at the time LER 90-006 4

was submitted to the NRC under Mr. Hairston's signature. Mr. Mcdonald's sworn' statement to the contrary constitutes a material false statement made with the intended purpose of derailing on-going NRC-OI investigations into the submission of false information in LER 90-006. This fact demonstrates that GPC's management does not possess the requisite character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness or commitment to safety to operate a nuclear facility. 2. Mr. Mcdonald sought to cover-up GPC's culpability by blaming Mr. Mosbaugh for higher management's intentional act of submitting false information to the NRC in LER 90-006 The material false statements contained in Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response not only sought to defeat the allegations raised by Petitioners, but were crafted in an insidious manner such as to cast blame on Petitioner Mosbaugh to cover-up the improper conduct of his superiors with respect to the submission of a material falso statement to the NRC when GPC submitted LER 90-006. In particular, Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response asserts that-Not until April 30, 1990 does it appear that Mr. Mosbauch articulated for the benefit of his manacement that the diesel ennine start count data contained in the LER was inaccurate...To the extent Mr. Mosbaugh has concerns about the substance of [LER 006)...he had the conortunity Tsince April 18, 19901 to succest corrective lancuace but, apoarentiv failed to do so. l If, as he now alleges, Mr. Mosbaugh truly had concerns related to the original LER, his inaction on April 18 (at the PRB), in the April 19 telephone conference, and his April 30 assignment from his General Manager to S l l

1 e .o provide revised LER language, provided him numerous opportunities to direct revision or to revise the alleged ' false statements.' This he failed to do. Response Section iib at pp. 4-5 (emphasis added). These assertions are patently falso and libelous and GPC knew or should have known they were falso and libelous when made. The verifiable truth is that on April 19th, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh and his staff advised GPC's management that the diesel engine start count data contained in LER 90-006, if submitted, would constitute a material false statement.E' In conclusion, Mr. Mcdonald's sword Response makes a series of false and misleading statements calculated to shift blame for the submission of false information in LER 90-006 from GPC to Petitioner Allen Mosbaugh, and to otherwise cover-up GPC's actual culpability with respect to the submission of a material false statement made in LER 90-006. Mr. Mcdonald's failure to state in the Response that SONOPCO's highest levels of management were put on notice prior to the submission of LER 90-006 that-the start count data contained in said LER was false, and that they received said notice by Mr. Mosbaugh, demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Mcdonald intentionally submitted false and misleading information under oath to the Commission with the intent of covering up GPC's intentional wrongdoing and derailing l' Not only did Mr. Mosbaugh identify the f act that a material false statement was about to be submitted in LER 90-006, he and his - . staff further advised GPC management that the Confirmation of Action Letter (" COAL") sent out under Mr. Hairston's signature on April 9, 1990 also contained a material false statement. 6

the NRC's investigation into the inclusion of the false diesel start-data contained in LER 90-006 -- an investigation initiated by Mr. Mosbaugh. II. Mr. Mcdonald provided false testimony under oath during section 210 proceedings to cover-up intimidation and retaliation against whistleblowers 1. Mr. Mcdonald Made False Statements Concerning His Knowledge of the Method Used to Select the SONOPCO Project Vice President of Technical Services and Vice President of Administrative Services (This information is not contained in petitioners earlier submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September 11, 1990 Petition] On December 23, 1988, Mr. Mcdonald, under oath, gave a deposition in the Fuchko/Yuaker Section 210 case and asserted therein that he was not involved in the selection of Mr. Long as the SONOPCO project Vice President of Technical Services or Mr. McCrary as the SONOPCO project Vice President of Administrative Services. In particular, Mr. Mcdonald testified as follows: Q: Who selected the administrative and technical services vice-presidents?) MR. MILLER [ Counsel to GPC]: Who, as in a person, or who as in a company? Q: What person selected those people, the people in those positions? MR. MILLER: If there is such a person and you know them you may answer. A: I don't know. Q: So you did not select them. A: Ho. I I 7

e Q: Who are the vice-presidents for those services? A: Charles McCrary and Lewis Long. Q: And Charles McCrary is Vice-President for what? A: McCrary? Administrative Services. Q: Okay. How about Lewis Long, is Technical Services? A: Yes. Now l e c mg_gual i fy my statement, in savina that I don't know. The selection of those people is under the authority and responsibility of the Southern Company Services. I imacine in the normal course of events that selection is officially made by the President of Southern Company Serviggs. There may have been other arranaements that I am not aware of. but I think that that was true. December 23, 1988 Deposition of R.P Mcdonald at pp. 12-13 (Emphasis added).e' Yet, during the course of the Hobby proceedings, Mr. Mcdonald readily admitted that he was well aware of the arrangements used to select Messrs. Long and McCrary as SONOPCO project vice presidents, and, that it was he, Mr. Mcdonald, who personally made the request to the Southern Company Services Board of Directors that Messrs. Long and Mr. McCrary be named as SONOPCO project vice presidents: Q: (By M. Kohn) Were you involved in the selection of Mr. Long as Vice President of Technical Services? s/ Mr. Mcdonald's false assertica that he did not know who or how the SONOPCO project vice presidents were selected goes hand-in-hand with his false testimony regarding the staffing of the SONOPCO proj ect. See, Section II.2, supra. The f act remains that, just as Mr. Mcdonald falsely asserted that he played no role filling vacancies at the SONOPCO project, so too did he submit false testimony about his knowledge about how the Vice Presidents of Technical Services and Administrative Services were selected. 8

~. At For that position, y.gg. Q: Were you involved in the selection of Mr. McCrary for Administrative Services? A: 11g. Q: Other than the Board of Directors-who else are vou aware of who had a role in the selection of Mr. Long? A: No one that I know of. Q: Just you? A: Well, I might have discussed it with other people but I was the one who reauested that he be considered for that o.qnition by the Board of Directors. Q: And as to Mr. McCrary -- A: Same. Mcdonald May 7,.1990 Deposition at pp. 12-13. As such, Mr. Mcdonald's testimony during the Yunker/Fuchko proceeding to the effect that he, Mr. Mcdonald, did not select Messrs. McCrary and Long as SONOPCO vice presidents and that he .could only " imagine" that they were selected by the Southern Company Services President,I' stands in absolute ' contradiction to Mr. Mcdonald's testimony during the Hobby proceeding that it I/ What is absolutely astounding is that Mr. Farley testified that he was not sure whether Southern Services Company President, Mr. Franklin, played any role in the selection of the Technical Services Vice President, as the following excerpt demonstrates: Q: Who selected Mr. Long? A: I would say it was a joint determination by all the people concerned...myself, Mr. [Grady]

Baker, Mr.

Mcdonald and I'm not sure whether Mr. Franklin was formally involved from the Services Company or not... 5/7/90 Farley Deposition at p. 43-44. 9

e was he, Mr. Mcdonald, who personally recommended to the Southern Company Services Board of Directors that Messrs. Long and McCrary be named as SONOPCO project Vice Presidents. 2. Mr. Mcdonald Made False Statements about the method used to staff the SONOPCO projpct When responding to Section III.4 of Petitioner's September 11, 1990 Petition, Mr. Mcdonald claims that his testimony regarding the selection of the SONOPCO project staff was " general" and " generic" in nature even though he failed to use words such as " generally" or "normally" when testifying.E' Mr. E' Any attempt, at this late date, for Mr. Mcdonald to claim that he was only describing a " general" process or a " generic" process and not "the process" rings hollow in f ace of the actual testimony provided by Mr. Mcdonald on October 25, 1990 after Georgia Power had received the September 11, 1990 Petition containing the allegation that Mr. Mcdonald had committed perjury with respect to his Yunker/Fuchko testimony regarding the.nothod used to select the SONOPCO project staff. Indeed, even after the Petition was filed, Mr. Mcdonald testified as follows: Q; I want to turn your attention to the way people were selected for the SONOPCO

project, and it's my understanding that the way that process was done is that the vice nresidents were selected, and then they selected the General manaaers who then selected the manaaers who then nicked their supervisor some sort of tierina ef fect, is that correct?

A: That's correct...The p] an for selecting people for the various jobs was worked out ahead of time with the vice presidents and Mr. Hairston, and that plan was - - we had selected Mr. McCoy as vice pre:ident, and then vice presidents were to select the next level under them, and then they would participate and be the key person to make selections in the organizations beneath them, so that each of the manaaers would select the neople who worked _for them. Q: Isn't it true that people got job offers shortly after that meeting between Mr.

Beckham, Mr.

McCoy and Mr. Hairston? (continued...) 10

s a Mcdonald goes on to assert that he did not intend to assert that a " lock-step" method was used to fill overy SONOPCO staff position because there was "one exception" to this normal tiering process. Mr. Mcdonald is not telling the truth. A thorough investigation will demonstrate that the tiering process Mr. Mcdonald testified to on four separate occasions did not occur.2/ A thorough investigation will demonstrate that there was effectively Do tiering process employed when the Vogtle and Hatch SONOPCO project positions were staffed. In this regard, Mr. McHenry testified during the Hobby hearing that he had first hand knowledge of the selection process used to staff the SONOPCO project and that he was given lists of names of individuals who were selected not in a tiering " top down" manner, but during a two day session attended by four SONOPCO project vice Presidents, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston, Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham. Mr. McHenry's testimony is clear with respect to the fact that these I/(... continued) A: I-don't know which meeting you're referring to. Q: The two-day planning session that I-talked about earlier. A: I was not part of the detailed planning and selection process. I don't know. Hobby hearing Tr. at p. 620. 2/ The first time Mr. Mcdonald testified that the SONOPCO project staf f was selected in a tiering process occurred when he was deposed prior to the Yunker/Fuchko hearing; the second time occurred during the Yunker/Fuchko hearing itself; the third time occurred at a deposition prior to the Hobby hearing; and the fourth time occurred during the Hobby hearing itself. Transcript excerpts of this testimony can be found as Attachment 2. 11

4 four vice presidents met privately and filled in skeleton organizational charts with the names of individuals that they -decided would staff the Vogtle and Hatch portions of the SONOPCO project; and that Mr. McHenry was then personally handed lists of the individuals selected by the vice presidents with instruction to present them with job offers (which he did), and that this was the process naed to selected essentially the entire SONOPCO staff for the Vogtle and Hatch projects. Hobby Hearing Transcript at pp. 284-287 (a copy of the relevant Hobby hearing transcript pages are appended hereto as Attachment 3). Also see McHenry Affidavit ("...the decisions as to staffing were made by Messrs. George Hairston, Tom Beckhan and Ken McCoy. They met for two days at the 270 Peachtree Street Building, took an organization chart, and filled in names from the top of the organization to the bottom...").E' 3/ GPC attempts to make much of the fact that Mr. McHenry was only present for two hours of a two day meeting and that he admitted that one other manager, Mr. Len Gucwa, also attended the meeting. But, the only evidence GPC relies upon to refute the allegation is what could have happened. GPC never admits to what d,_id happen during the two day meeting of the vice presidents. Indeed, the strongest evidence GPC offers is that "Mr. McHenry conceded that the executives paulsi have consulted with the appropriate levels of management conce:,aing personnel evaluation either prior to or during that meeting." Response at p. 3, 5 III.4. The fact remains that Mr. McHenry watched what dJA happen during a meeting of these four vice presidents; he observed first hand their filling in skeleton organizational charts and determining who would be offered what jobs. What "could" have happened when he was out of the room is speculative at best. In the face of clear and convincing evidence of what did happen, GPC was in a position to submit the best evidence to resolve this sworn statements from Messrs. Hairston, McCoy and allegation Beckham to refute Petitioners' assertion that the staffing was performed as Mr. Mcdonald testified -- but GPC f ailed to do so. It (continued...) 12

e Moreover, Mr. McHenry's testimony was corroborated by testimony given by Mr. Farley after the September 11, 1990 Petition was filed: -Q: Now, Mr. Farley, I'm going to show you a document if you can identify it, please. I'm going to ask you to turn to Page 60 of that document. Could you identify the document? A: The document is labeled Deposition of Joseph M.

Farley, the proceeding is the Civil Action File Number 90-ERA-30, Marvin Hobby, Complainant, Versus Georgia Power Company, Respondent.

Q: Okay. Now, would you read the last question of Page 60 and the answer? A: That's the question at Line 21? Q: Yes. A: Question: "My question is, was there a formal selection process, and whether or not they choose people under them who were already there is not my question. The cuestion is was there a formal selection process where the heads of orcanizations were selected first. the next tier of the orcanization was selected by the orecedina tier, and so on down the line until the entire SONOPCO proiect was staffed." Answer: "No, sir." 4 Q: 'And is.that a true statement? MR. JOINER: Your Honor', Mr, Kohn hasn't asked Mr. Farley about this subject matter, and I don't know why he's asking him to read deposition testimony about that subject when he hasn't asked about it in the hearing. E/(... continued) is more than appropriate for the NRC to draw an adverse inference from GPC's failure to provide these statements. See J. Wigmore, -Evidence, 9285 (3d ed.1940) ; Roc};incham Machine-Lunex v. NLRB, 665 F. 2d.303, 305 (8th Cir. 1981) (if a party has relevant information within his or her control, but fails to produce it, an adverse . inference that - the evidence that could have been produced is unfavorable to the party who fails to produce it). 13

2 JUDGE' WILLIAMS: I don't know either. Let's see. Q: Is that a true t.tatement? A: As I understood the cuestions you asked. Yes, sir, that's a true _gLti{Ltement. Hobby Hearing Tr. p. 584-085.9 In sum, Mr. Farley's testimony demonstrates that the SONOPCO project staff stationed in the SONOPCO Birmingham, Alabama offices were Dg1 selected by a tiering process, but were selected by Messrs. McCoy, Hairston, acckham and Mcdonald.W It is clear by the facts on the record -- the sworn testimony of Messrs. Hobby, McHenry, and Farley -- that Mr. Mcdonald gave falso testimony when he testified that a rigid " tiering process" was used to staff the SONOPCO project. During the hearing, GPC had an opportunity to re-question Mr.-Farley and clarify the record, but failed to do so.

Moreover, GPC failed to call Messrs. Hairston, Beckham and McCoy to refute

-Mr. McHenry's unequivocal testimony regarding what had occurred during the two day meeting where the staff of the SONOPCO project was chosen. W Mr. Farley's deposition testimony specifically notes that, with respect to the SONOPCO staff stationed in Birmingham, Alabama, a tiering process was not employed, as the following -excerpt makes clear: Q: When we have been discussing staffing, we're always talking about the staff being in place. Well, it's my understanding that's correct at the plants themselves but everyone who is moving to Alabama, okay, on the corporate side, you... renovated a be!lding there, correct, aid'it was now being staffed? How were the people who were moving to Alabama selected...Who chose to make the promotions and to move them around? A: The -appropriate level. Primarily Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham with input f rom Mr. Hairston and Mr. Mcdonald and from Human Resources. Farley Dero. at pp. 75-77. 14

J' c The key aspect behind Mr. Mcdonald's falso testimony is that GPC sought to defend itself against the Section 210 complaints filed by Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko by asserting that they could not have been discriminated against because the managers who would be tasked with staffing the positions Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko could fill had yet to be selected, and, given the tiering process, Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko could not have been offered jobs until after these managers were selected.U/ III. GPC misled the Commission about the chain of command from the Vogtle Project's Plant Manager to its CEO. GPC's response to the September 11, 1990 Petition allegation that Mr. Mcdonald misled the Commission during the Plant Vogtle licensing hearings held before the Commission boils down to two assertions: First, that Mr. Mcdonald's response to a concern raised by then Commissioner Carr during the Plant Vogtle licensing hearings that the chain of command over Plant Vogtle had too many layers between the plant manager and the CEO, was not significant enough matter to have had a material impact on the licensing of Plant Vogtle. Petitioners respectfully submit that, whether misleading the Commission about the chain of l U/ Whether or not Messrs. Yunker or Fuchko were, in fact, t i-discriminated against is irrelevant to the present matter.

Rather, petitioners are concerned by the fact that GPC's Executive Vice and did -- manufacture evidence in President was willing to order to - help defeat a Section 210 whistleblower case.

At a minimum, Mr. Mcdonald's conduct would constitute a Severity Level I violation. See 10 C. F. R. Part 2, App. C, Supplement VII Severity Categories A.4 (defining a level I violation as including " Action by senior corporate management in violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee"). 15

6 e command could have had a material impact on the licensing of the plant is not an answer Georgia Power can provide and, with respect, is not a matter for Georgia Power to decide. Second, GPC states that the staff of the NRC already knew about the GPC organization. While that may be so, it is the Commissioners, and not staff, who must decide and vote on whether to license a plant. A Commissioner expressed "a management concern" over the reporting structure between the Plant Manager at Vogtle and the CEO." Mr. Mcdonald provided incorrect information to the Commission by leaving out one entire layer of management. Even so, Commissioner Carr responded, 'I still have my concern, I guess." See Transcript of March 10, 1989 hearing at pp. 33-35. The fact remains that during the licensing of Plant Vogtle, Commissioner Carr expressed a management concern that the Plant Manager was a "long way" from CEO, and when questioned about the chain of command by Commissioner Carr, Mr. Mcdonald provided incorrect information in response to the Commissioner's question. Even if Mr. Mcdonald's incorrect response was inadvertent, the fact romains that the plant General Manager; Vogtle project Vice President, and GPC's President /CEO stood mute and did not correct the false information Mr. Mcdonald volunteered to the Commission. The fact remains that GPC choose not to correct the record until after the Commission voted to license Plant Vogtle. Mr. Mcdonald's attempt to shift blame to Mr. Ilobby by asserting that he should have raised this matter to GPC 16

t 9 management is a decoy. By the time he learned of the fact that Mr. Mcdonald had misled the Commission about the reporting chain at 'nt Vogtle, he was already pursuing an even greater concern re _cding who was the CEO responsible for plant Vogtle and the y other GPC nuclear power plants. Specifically, Mr. Hobby had made internal allegations to his management that Mr. Mcdonald was no longer reporting to GPC's President, but had begun reporting directly to a Southern company Services executive, Mr. Joe Farley. Indeed, Mr. Hobby raised this concern in a confidential memo dated April 27, 1989 ~~ which was co-signed by a then GPC Senior Vico President. Moreover, by the time Mr. Hobby learned from Oglethorpe Power Corporation ("OPC or Oglethorpe") that Mr. Mcdonald had misrepresented the chain of command to the NRC, he was already being subjected to retaliation by GPC's and SONOPCO's top executives, as is evident in the contents of a July 8, 1989 letter Mr. Hobby wrote to Admiral E.P. Wilkinson. This letter discusses the events occurring in the April /May.1989 time frame as follows: About this time, I was going up to George Head's office on the 24th floor and the Executive Vice President for External Affairs saw me and we started talking. His name is Dwight Evans and he is pretty close to Dahlberg. Dwight said that if he were me he would l start looking for another job in the company because he l had heard that Mcdonald and Farley were out to get me fired or out of the job I was in. l l I reported to George and he said we had to talk t' Dahlberg l and Grady before they met with Farley. He tried but failed. He then suggested that I might go to Grady and tell him what we had heard and what our concerns were and try to get a meeting with Grady and Dahlberg. I went to see Grady and asked for a meeting. He said it was not necessary. I said something like Grady, the rumor is going around that l 17 l

e v Mcdonald and Farley are after my job. Won't you at least talk to George and me? He jumped up from his chair, threw his arms up high, laughed and continuing to laugh said, "llobby, what can I say?' And he then walked out of the room." A copy of the June 8, 1989 letter to Adm. Wilkinson is appended hereto as Attachment 4 (Mr. Baker did not deny the incident when testifying at the Hobby hearing ( he rather testified that "It May have happened." Hobby liearing Tr. at p. 689).M/ El Another example of the atmosphere of harassment and intimidation (and Mr. Farley's role in managing GPC's nuclear operations) is further underscored by events surrounding Mr. liobby's role in negotiating a resolution to Oglethorpe Power's objections to the incorporation of SONOPCO (the negotiations were aimed at getting Oglethorpe to withdraw an intervention petition it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to block the incorporation of SONOPCO). These negotiations had been ongoing for fears, but, by August of 1989 had come to a standstill. In getting permission from the Senior Executive Management of Georgia Power Company to restart the negotiations, Mr. Ilobby was told by Mr. Baker that he had to keep the negotiations secret from Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald as the following testimony of Mr. Baker confirms: Q: Did you alert Mr. liobby to the fact that he should not tell SONOPCO that the negotiations had commenced? A: Yeah, - probably did tell him that. Q: Why? A: Well, I think because of, you know, SONOPCO's reaction to Mr. Ilobby and that they probably

would, you

know, probably would have complicated the matter.

(Baker deposition, May 23, 199C, at p. 54). Mr. Baker's testimony demonstrates that the senior GPC management was well aware of the environment which Mr. Ilobby described earlier and would not, or could not, affeet any change. 18

c Mr. Hobby's reason for not immediately going to Mr. Mcdonald for correction of the reporting chain at Vogtle is obvious, but why GPC's President /CEO, Plant Vogtle General Manager, and the Vogtle Project Vice President failed to do so at the hearing before the Commission is not. The onus was on GPC to provide the NRC with sufficient information explaining why GPC had good cause for waiting until after Plant Vogtle was licensed before advising the Commission that Mr. Mcdonald's statement to the Commission with respect to a concern voiced by Commissioner Carr was in error. This GPC has failed to do.H' IV. Mcdonald Made False Statements During a Transcribed January 11, 1991 NRC Staff Proceeding [This information is not contained in petitioners earlier submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September 11, 1990 Petition] On January 11, 1991 NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, convened a proceeding to discuss the formation of SONOPCO. The transcript of this proceeding demonstrates that Mr. Mcdonald made the following statement when pointing to an overhead projection handed out just prior to the January 11, 1991 H/ This failure is magnified by the concurrent allegations of Petitioners that Mr. Mcdonald provided falso testimony during Section 210 proceedings and with respect to the events surrounding the submission of false information in LER 90-006; in particular the fact that GPC intentionally withheld relevant information regarding the reliability of the diesel generator until after the NRC was briefed about the site area emergency. See September 11, 1990 Petition at Page 11, Section III.3(f) ("SONOPCO intentionally delayed revising the LER until af ter critical meetings with the NRC and Commission were held on June 8, 1990 (ITT presentation to Commissioners)"). 19 1

o A meeting:1F A month ago.today we were sitting here, and the only difference a month ago today is we would erase that line and erase everywhere SONOPCO appears, everywhere SONOPCO appears you would erase it. For all practical purposes there is no difference in the day-to-day operation of the plants... A month age there was no line here (referring to the red highlighted 'ine of attachment 5]. Mr. Farley was performing his job as a Vice President of the Southern Company. He had no responsibilities for this Administrative Support. That i Administrative-Support that we had basically was being done, and he was part of a contract -- it was a contract to me from Southern Services for providing essentially much the same support we have here now..." See January 11, 1991 NRC Tr. at p. 42 (excerpts of which are appended hereto as Attachment 6). Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that the operation of the SONOPCO project changed as of a month ago (i.e. December, 1990) is simply false. Rather, since the formation of the SONOPCO project, Mr. Mcdonald has reported to Mr. Farley on administrative matters. This fact is verified by the May 7, 1990 deposition testimony of Josepn M. Farley. Mr. Farley's description of a " joint office for the administrative side" of the SONOPCO project does not square with Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that Mr. Farley had "no responsibilities" in the area of administrative support prior to December, 1990. At that time, some seven months prior to Mr. Mcdonald's appearance at the NRC meeting on January 11, 1991, Mr. Farley IF-When making the above-quoted statement, Mr. Mcdonald was pointing to an overhead projector image of a diagram of the SONOPCO organization, a copy of which is appended hereto as Attachment 5. The line Mr. Mcdonald was pointing at and referring to when he stated that it should be erased is highlighted in red. 3 20

s e e testified that "Mr. Mcdonald and I work together and have a olose I working relationship. Hg, in essence, o_ccupy a_get of ioVit responsibilitiga with the project with which we're involvad but ...only'in the sense of some administrative matters does he report to me or work with me...." Farley Deposition at Page 11-12 (emphasis added).H/ And, the following exchange occurred i during the Parley deposition at Page 13-14: Q: Okay. The question was, in essence then, on paper Mr. Mcdonald does not technically report to you but he does in an informal sense? l A: On some matters in an informal sense. Q: Can you tell me which matter on an informal sense? A: In an' informal sense, he and I icintiv are what we-describe as an office of the chief pxecutive of the proiect. It is not a corporation. It is a project. In areas such as the-selection of a candidate for an accounting job or a job in the non-operating areas. When I say operating,-I mean the operating of the power plants themselves. He does not report to me and yet on the other areas, partic.11arly administrative or in governmental affairs which is part of my responsibility, he would report to me in that sense...." l And, on pages 16-17 of the same deposition: Q: Mr. Farley when the 3ONOPCO organization is incorporated formally -- Will Mr. Mcdonald report directly to you? MR. SCHAUDIES: Well, excuse me. I'm going to object to the form of the question _on the basis that is hypothetical and it's asking the witness to - - E/ Excerpts of Mr. Farley's deposition are appended hereto as Attachment 7. 21

MR. KOHN: Let me rephrase it. MR. SCHAUDIES: Oka/. Q: Is it anticipated that Mr. Mcdonald will report directly to you? A: The answer ic immediately he would for certain purposes but not for certain other purposes because the incorporation ard, by the way, I have to add this caveat. I will have mandatory retirement in approximately two years and five months. So the way things have been moving, I may not even be there at the time it is incorporated. But it it were incorporated tomorrow, he would repart to me for administrative matters and for certain purposes of the sort I have described before. In ot her wn}-ds, our relationship would not RhdIElp.... " (Emphasis added). And, on pages 37-38 of the same deposition: Q: Then there's also un administrative servicci As Yes. The Vice President of Administrative S e rvices., that's Mr. McCrary. He is a S*rvice Company employee. He reports both to me and to Mr. Mcdonald. He reports to what I doucribed earlier en a kind of an office of the chief executive for the project on administrative matters, not on technical matters. Q: Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report directly to Mr. Mcdonald and then through there they report directly to you? i A: Mr. Long does not report to me. Now, Mr. McCrary -- because thin is a technical area with which I do not exercise direct supervision, I work with that group. They are, in essence, under me in the organization but they do not report to me. They report to Mr. Mcdonald. In the case of Mr. McCrary. for purposes of this project, there are many things that Mr. McCrary reports to directly to me about the others he reports jointly to me and to Mr. Mcdonald or to whichever one of us happens to be there. Mr. Mcdonald and I undertake to be in this transition period of sort of a joint office for the administrative 22

_____._.________-.-.___.m 0 e I sido...." Mr. Parley's description of a " joint offico for the administrative oldo" of the SO110PCO project does not square with Mr. Mcdonald's assortion that Mr. Parley had "no i responsibilition" in the area of administrativo support prior to December, 1990. As such, GPC's assertion that the management of Sol 10PCO under went a chango in December of 1990 (i.o. that Mr. Mcdonald began to report to Mr. Farley with respo0t tv 7dministrativo matters) is not accurato. The truth in th e ever since the S0!J0PCO project was created in 1988, Mr. Mcdonald has reported to Mr. Parley. l The fact romains that from the creation of the So!10PCO Project, GPC's proaldent and other GPC of ficera had no idea of the actual chain of command or raporting structure of GPC's nuclear operations. This 10 typified by the following examplos: 1) While the S0110PCO Project consists of five departments (llatch Project, Vogtle Project, Farley Project, Adminintrativo Servicon and Technical Servicen), GPC's President, Mr. Dahlberg, was not sure as to whom the Administrative Services and Technical Service groups reported.ll' W Mr. Oahlberg stated under oath that he "bolievo(d)" the Vice President 4 of Administrativo Services and Technical Services report to Mr. Mcdonald but that he was "just not sure whether they are officers of both [GPC and SCS) or not..I just don't know." Dr.hlberg Dopo, at p. 22. (Excerpts appended as Attachment 8). Moreover, when acked if the VP of Administrative Services and the (continued...) 23 ,...e_,....-_.--- .--._,,,,-.y.....,..,n-..,-.--.r,.r,,,wc,..- w.,.-.,,,-.,,y,.w.-mm-_,g--,---w.-g e ,v-,,,,,.....--m,,,-,,,,-w.w.,..,

~ _ _ _. ~. - o 2) Mr. Parley testified that he worked with the VP - Technical Servic.os b't,,id not exercise " direct supervision" over him (he stated Mr. Long reported to Mr. Mcdonald) but that Mr. McCrary did report directly to both Mr. Parley and Mr. Mcdonald. (Farley Dopo., 5/7/90, p. 37-38). 3) Mr. Dahlberg on october 24, 1990 testified that Joo Farley -- who is not an officer of GPC - " heads up the formation \\ of SONoPCo and that entity." (Tr. 308 - Dahlborg); 4) Mr. Grady Bakor, GPC's former Sonior Exocutive Vico I President, stated that he thought Farley was an officer of GPC. Tr. 690-691 (Baker). [tlpo see Baker Dopo. p. 16-17 ("The approprie.to overnight of SONoPCo exists, in that the chief operating officer,-Pat Mcdonald and the CEO or -- not the CEO bactuso it's not a corporation -- but Farley and Mcdonald are of ficers of Georgia Power Company, reporting to the president, Dill Dahlberg"); 5) Mossrs. Dahlberg and Baker testified that they belloved Mcdonald to be an of ficer of Southern Company Services (Tr. 304 - Dahlberg; Tr. 633 - Mcdonald) Yot, Mcdonald testified that ho is not an of'ficer of Southern Company Services (Tr. 633 - Mcdonald); 6) Mr. Parley -- and not-Mr. Dahlberg -- reports to The Southern Company Board of Directors on the performance of-Georgia W(... continued) -VP of Technical Services report to Mcdonald who then reports to-. Dahlberg, Mr. Dahlberg stated that he just '!a ssumed" that-Mr. . Mcdonald manages Mr. McCrary and Mr. Long but that he, in f act, did not know if Mosars. McCrary and Mr. Long reported to Mr. Mcdonald. Dahlberg Dopo, at p. 23 (Attachment 8). 24 i

Power Company's and Alabama Power company's nuclear unita. Parley Dopo, p. 39-40; and 7) A CPC corporato concern filed by a Plant Hatch employee was referred to Mr. Parley in May of 1989 -- rathor than a GPC oxocutivo -- for rocolution even though Mr. Mcdonald stated under oath that ho (Mcdonald) was rouponsible for GPC nuclear mattora and not Mr. arley (who Mr. Mcdonald assorted had no control over approving any policios, practicos, or proceduren affecting GPC nuclear employoos). Mcdonald Deposition Continuation, pagos 27-28. Given the break down of corporato oversight at GPC, Mr. Mcdonald could -- and did -- report directly to Mr. Furley rather than to GPC's president, Mr. Dahlborg, and a thorough investigation by the NRC into those above matters will show that. The Petitioners utand ready to cooperate with the NRC in a this -investigation. 10 C.F.R. 550.34(6)(1) requires each applicant for an operating licenso to submit information concerning facility operation including: "The applica'nt's organizational-structure, allocation or responsibilities and authorities, and personnel qualification requirement." GPC failed to notify the NRC that Mr. Mcdonald had begun to report to Mr. Parley-prior to January 11, 1991. In addition, when GPC finally got around to alorting the NRC to the fact that Mr. Mcdonald had begun to report to Mr. Farley, Mr. Mcdonald falsoly assorted that he began reporting-to Mr. Parley in December of 1990, when, in fact, Mr. Farley had 25

. _.. _. _ _ _. _ _. ~.. _. _ - _ _ e s already tontified that Mr. Mcdonald actually bogan to report to Mr. Parley with respect to administrativo mattora cince tho inception of the SON 0pCO project (November, 1988). RequeLt._f E_Eclipl l WHEREFORE, Petitionera roupoctfully requod chat the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

1) review the facts in pousosuion of HRC-01 demonstrating that UPC's Executive Vice President, Mr. Mcdonald, intentionally

-submitted falso and misleading statomonta under oath to the NRC no as to obstruct the on-going NRC-OI investigation related to CPC'n cubmission of falso diocol start data in LER 90-006, and inoue a show cauno order an to why GPC's 11connes should not be t revoked, Inodified or suoponded;

2) review the facts with respect to GPC'n intentionally withholtiing information until af ter the Commicsion took action with rappoct to the Sito Area Emergency and with respect to incorrect statomonta mado by Mr. Mcdonald during plant Vogtle licensing hearings hold before the Commission, and lanuo a show cause order as to why GPC's licensos should not be revoked, modified or suspended, and to otherwise tako immediate steps to dotormino whether GPC's current management has the requisite charactor and competence to continuo operating a nuclear facility; I

l 26 1 - -, - -. -., - - -..,.., ~, - - - - -.. -.. ~.,

e e

3) refer allegations that Mr. Mcdonald attempted to dorail Section 210 cases by resorting to perjury to 11RC-OI for further inventigation; and

4) take all necessary action to datormine whether GPC's current management has the requisite charactor and competence to continuo operating a nuclear facility.

Respectfully submitted, A L Michael D. Kohn KOllti, KOll!1 & COLAPI!1TO, P.C. 517 Florida Ave., !J. W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 Counsel to Petitionero Allen Mosbaugh and Marvin llobby cc: Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of tiuclear Regulation 27

-- = e 6 ATTACIIME!1TS 1. February 29, 1991 Ictter from Steven Varga to W. G. Ilairston, rot Roquest f or Additional Information Regarding the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition 2. Excerpts of Mcdonald's Deposition and hearing testimony in Yunker/Fuchko and llobby: a) Mcdonald 12/23/88 Euch};p4Yunker Dopo. Tr. pp.12-14, 38-44, 61-62, 70, 75-76; b) Mcdonald 1/4/09 Fuchko/Yunker hearing Tr. pp. 427-429; c) Mcdonald 5/7/90 lipbby Dopo. Tr. pp. 31-35; d) Mcdonald 10/23/90 }{phby hearing Tr. pp. 620-628, 640. 3. }]phby licaring Transcript pp. 284-287. 4. June 8, 1989 letter from M. Hobby to Adm. Wilkinson. 5. January 11, 1991 Mocting llandout of S0110PCO organization. 6. January 11, 1991 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monting Transcript excorpts, pp. 42-43. 7. Excerpts of 5/7/90 Farley Deposition pp. 11-17, 37-40 8. Excerpts of Dahlberg Deposition, pp. 22-23

_____.__.___---_-,--.___.--s-y- s.; !\\.

• 4c L

1 0 9 s u 6 f

o e N l' s p; UNITED STATEC 3 W-Q i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j 'Q@h,f f wAsnmotos o c..w4 "#U Do Lef 'llu's 50 4P4 and 50-425 Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President - Nuclear Optrations Gecrgia Power Company P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201

SUBJECT:

REQUEST F0k ADD 111(MAL INFORMATION REGARDlhC 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION (TACS 79206/79207) By 1ttter of September 11, 1990, atterney for Hessrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L. hosbaugh submitted tu the NRC Chairman a

• Request for Proceedings and Imposition of Civil Penalties icr Improperly Transferring Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to the 50NOPC0 Project and for the Unsafe and improper Operation of Georgia Power Company Licensed Facilities" (Petition).

Mr. R. P. Mcdonald of Georgia Power Company (GPC) responded to the Petition September 28, 1990, but noted that GPC's copy of the Petition had been received without attachments. The attachments were forwarded to the NRC Chairman September 21, 1990, and subsequently placed in the hRC's Public Document Room. On October 1,1990, Petitioner's attorney forwarded *Suppicmental Information to the September 11, 1990 Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition Ccncerning thc Illegal Transfer of Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to SON 0PC0" which has also been placed in the Public Document Room. We have confirmed with kr. Jim Bailey that you have these documents available to you. The Petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation for the preparation of a Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CfR 2.206. Accordingly, we request that you provice, within 30 days from the date of this letter, a response to each uf the allegations in the Petition and its supplements, it is not necessary to repat e pricr response whare the subsequent information dues not affect the validity or compicteness of your prior response; a mere statement to this effect will suffice. Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation. The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under P.L. 96-511. Sipcerely, p / I f L h,(P3 N,F, i 1 Ok _ /[: \\(- [ J e ven A. arg i . tor ivision of Reactor 'ects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page

'?. s [ 'N+f. h \\,.q", a e -a-r ,1g <" U,,fr. ' J % 3.. 6 b =(. [-., g*f[h ' k + - >4 if .= l 3 s-3 og x1 '4 i e. a eno. 4. id R, -t-r A.- N'.f ' ' ($ " ( r ) s j, 4 { if. = L N~,.

• y a.

( 4.. p - z, N ? If g?' ,f r,. 'y })m?, i f, -. 4' ,. ' A' f 'tx '1 ( j t N,. ' h , A[yh b If9 W f,.. ,a. ~ D ) \\. .)ip h4qt ,f I s 4w .n-% ,,j>;;, /t sew 8 O L .NW i -.. s,,5-9 a ?f4

s, ( s. r [ '4, s s. ',

i'h?y 'r - (- : s c' )..j s e., n. - v i. ' '. m' k. t"A' + v h^3 'g ',1 ;.~. 4 9 g-n,,, a + t 4> t e-t' t e Q _ _tn J. 't.,,h p 1 ,, l= fy t[i,,.f..f_'p_[ty ), .. s y s" t,, " . s..

yy, a t '=

Vte.g. . 4,5 p e i i 7 k -: 3 h 't 6 3_i .'I 9 ~ } l4a^! l', f' M.3s.i -.('* e 4 .- r*...-I g,, f* , 1, . f y) p

4. g '. J

- b i'.k- ...,#....d 4 m f YsC t

(;.w ggly%,-'. f s

Sd 3r 4,',, g., 4 e <v , :? l ^ ^m n' %~ + , s ,,ly.?hl% 'fj l f y/[.s).y. h,y = t I, Y, f U P" id." r n 3*? J, ' v 1, 4.. +._. $ h \\ $.'i[ h., h. -_ J, a4.i U- ',. { i 1 @+ >s , c'..4 :. .vk~ 3[:.e 's {b[$ 'r[, fh 4 .3L 4. p; f .k' J :. l .., ~ -,. ,,c 7,_,...._...w.m..., ..y. v.-, c-, ,._,,_m.,,, ,r,-.._,.,

ALAOAMA COUNT HtiPOHilNu tat:Hvect-. ) e J 9)$ Fil4ST AL AD AM A fl ANK llVit DING Ulf4MINGH AM, ALAD AM A 3S203 377 0609 - ~ - - - 7 p Lj 0FFICE OF Tile ADMINISTRATOR 2 WAGE AND 110VR DIVISION 3 1 EMPLOYEE STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION d U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 5 6 7 Joll!! M. FUCllRO, GARY ALLEN YUNRER, ) a ) PIAINTIFFS, ) ) VS, ) 89-ERA-9 to ) 89-EIM-10 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ) 11 ) 'N DEFENDANT. ) ) 12 J 13 STIPULATIONS 14 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 15 the parties through their respective counsel, that 16 the deposition of ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD may be 17 taken before Charles S. Barrington, comissioner 18 and Certified Shorthand Reporter, at the law offices 19 of Balch & Bingham, Financial Center Office. 20 Sutie 700, 505 North 20th Street, Birmingham, 21 l Alabama, on the 23rd day of December, 1988, comencing 22 at 9:00 a.m., Central Standard Time. D 23 IT IS FURTilER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the l l DEPOSITION OF ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD 1 l l ~ ~

ALAtl AM A COUlti fit'.f'OfttifdG !,t_l4VICl. g e e ,e t'. e a< s t A t A tt a M A D Ata ti m L: M. li tle M Pm et A M A t A D A M A.* S /O l i / / (; f O '.J .~. _y 1 1 1 ! t Department of Southern Company Servicca. ? j q Do you have any authority over thoue aq h departmentu? What is your relationship with thone? 4 q MR. MILLER: Which question do vou want hita q 5 i to ano"er? [ 6 liS. F0WLER: What wan my firut question? 7 ! [ (Pirnt question read.) e p' A 1 an in a ponition of aut.hority over the i o fla t ch, Vogtle and Parley Projects, g io I 9 What in your position of authority regardiny, I 11 the other two projects? 12 l A The other two projects are each headed up l 13 by of ficern of the Southern Company Services. 14 Southern Company Servicen in providing nervices t.o is Georgia Power Company and Alabama Power Company 16 individually for those projects. So those two 11 departmento are providing un nervices for the 18 Support groupD. 19 0 Who nelected the adminiat.rative and technical v services vice-preal.dento? 21 l MR. MILlJ;R: Who, an in a person, or who 22 \\\\ i as in a company? 23 l (( Q Wh a t. person celected t. hone people, t.h e people i a q__..,______. i! H /L l

ALAll AM A COLJHf Hl:POHTING lititVici; 0 f 14 35 t 1441:1 Al All Af 4 A fl A f de; l'Uit Di d. le t f 4 M ild(.it A M AL All AM A 30/03 l $?/ Ot 09 ~. - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ - - i i i ! 2 in those ponitiona? i 7l l l l '!R. MILIZR: If there fu r,uch a pernon and 3 you know them you mny annwer. 4 l A 1 don't know, f(l f Q So you did not nelect them? a no. ? Q '!h o a re the vice-presidenta for thone 8 l nerviceu? 9 + A Charleu !4cCrary and Leulu Lone,. 10 Q And Charlen McCrnry in the Vice-Preuident for 11 what? 12 A McCrnry? Administrative Services. 13 Q Okay. Itow about Lewin Lony,, in Technical 14 Hervices? 15 A Yen. Now let me qualify my ntatement, in 16 anyiny, that I don't know. The nelection of thone 17 people in under the authorit.y and reanoncibility 18 of the Southern Company Services. J imagine _in 19 the normal courne of eventa that selection la officially unde by the President of Sout.hern Company Services.. There may have been or' r arrangementu 12 thnt I arl not aware of but I think that that una a 73 'i true. I .. -.,... _. - -. - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - /3 i

AL.AH AM A COURT REPORTING SEHVICE 9Jb f litBT ALAll AV A U ANk fl VILDif 4 G DINMINGHAM AL All&M A 3f>E03 377 0009 .-..~_--------_----a-- -_,~.._~.-.~._7,_.~----____..-..- I s Q Who is the President of Southern Company Services? 3 A Alan Franklin. 4 Q And so the Administrative Department and the Technical Services Department provide services 6 t.o your projects, the Farley,llatch, and Vogtle l Projects? a A Correct. 9 i Q Okay. You are the F.xecutive Vice-President to-of Georgia Power Company for Nuclear Operations. 11 A Yeo. 12 Q What does that title entail in the way of 13 duties? 14 A lt essentially involtes responaibilities for 15 all the plant operations. And the support that it requires, which may be nerformed by other entities 17 on an agreement or a contract basisi it involves 18 the corporate support. for the plant. I will stop 19 there. 20 Q Are there any other things? 21 A Well, to exercise direct line responsibilities i for-the operation and the associated activities 23 l of the plants. l .._. _._ _. ___. _ L L f --.~ -

Al At1AMA COUNT Hl;f'OHTING GI HVICl: l h] e e et; t im.14( A H AM A I4 ann uvit t uNn j n,,,,s u,, A..A...oA m u ne ot.ow _~ ~ . ~ - - - - -.. -. - -,. - _ _ - ,_] tl t 1 H ll MR. MI LLI.'R t You want to take a brenh? 4 l !i Tilt DEPO!1E!1T: Well I am not. 3 U"l MS. FOWLER: Well, I have a lot to find out, 4 1 avid I am going to take it how I can not it. 5 1 MR. MILLER: You are the manter of the quentions. j b We can't give an answer until you ask the questions. q Okay. Explain to me, would you, sir, tho 8 N concept for staffing 80t10PCO. o 9 A-The concept for staffin); SONOPCO? The q to l' d concept was and in that these -- one, when 1 I ti 1 say S0!;0PCO.-and let me understand when you say 17 S0110PC0 you don't mean the final company, you mean 13 those five organizations which we are talking about? 14 e Q You, sir, A The concept for ataffing thone was that each organination van to be staffed by the peopic in charge of them from resourceu availabic within the Southern system, and in as much as ponnibic l 28 within the originating company.

ow that 20 okay, that in the concept.

Q And which would be the originating company 21 22 in case of the Administrative Department? 23 A Southern Compuiiy Services. _ _ _ Je _ _ 38

-. -. _.-.. _... m _. _ m _m____. e er ALAll AMA COUNT Hrf'OH14NG Dtif tVICC [ un & Utsi ALAD AMA li ann isulLDN. {1 HiMIN G H A M AL Alt AM A 3ti?O) J FF 0 6I'W ..__s. - -._. - ~. _ -. _< t i 1l ~ q And how about in the area of Technien1 2 l Serviceu Department? { J A Southern company Services. i 4 I Q Now when you say Southern Company Services -- 5 A Yeu. l 6 Q -- doca that includu Georgin Power and 1 Alabama-Power? -a A 11 0. 9 .Okay. Q-10 A llow the question you asked, does Southern 11 Company Services include Georgin and Alabama 12 Southern Company Servicen is a separate company 13 -and entity within itself. Now uhat to the question 14 about Southern Company Services that you anked? is - Okay.- You anid that an-effort was made to Q 'l6 staff each of thcoe departmento, as I understand, 17 from the resulto available in the Southern ayutem. IB Right? 19 A Yes. Southern.syntem. I minatated its I misstated it-to como denreu. The concept was 21 to staff one of these five organizations to the 22 maximum extent possible from within the Southern 23 systemi and for Alabama and Georgia, thoan threc -+ 39 ~

ALAD AM A COURT Hi"POHitNG SE HVICI' O 4 935 Fif451 AL Ats AM A IJ ann D UILUiNG filf4 M IN G H A M AL At4 AM A 3BPO3 322 OC0Y p J l i 1 j for each of them to the maxirium extent possible i from the originating company. That 10, Alabama l 3 from Alabama, and Georgia from Georgia. For i 4, l l Southern Company Services, that organization, l 5 technical organization, was, most of the people 6 in it were aircady established as service organi-cations with Southern Company Services. That is, j 8 [ the nuclear fuels, some testing, and quality 9 !I i assurance, they were already existing organizations 10 in almost the same form previously in Southern 11 Company Services, but not coliected together in 12 one department. 13 Q So they fall under the Technical Services 14 Department? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. 17 A They were taken and put into a department, 18 which had not existed before. And you might say 19 as postulated would becomo a part of SONOPCO. 20 Some cf them never moved, they stayed in the same 21 offices. And some of them maintained the same 22 mcnagerial relationships, like the nuclear fuel, 23 m,d so they were merely a, basically relocating ._ _4 40

~. _.________m.__ 8 I QLAD AM A CouHT Hr POHilNG Sf'MVIC t. j 93b 8 IHb1 AL Al6 AM A tt AN A (t v 4. [h % tilftMINGHAM. AL A H AM A 3b?D3 3 22> 0(=O9 l .~.-c_~.. . ~ - _ _ ~.......,._.. I from one building in cono cases to another 2 building, and in some casen utaying there, a The Administrat.ive Services Department was 4 a new organization, that essentially had no 1 5 basis. That was to be formed from a candidate 6 in the Southern system, not merely from Southern 7 i Company Services. Okay. 8 36 Q So the S'outhern system includes Georgia 9 !I Power Company and Alabama Power Company. 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. 12 (Whereupon, at this time the 13 proceedings were in recess from 10:00 a.m. until 10:03 a.m. at which time proceedings 14 were resumed as followns) is MR. MILLER: All right. Let's presa here. 16 17 EXAMI:lATION BY MS. FOWLER: (Resumed) 18 Q Do you know my clients, John Fuchko and 19 Cary Yunker? 70 A Yec. 21 Q When did you first meet them? 22 A The first time that I met them face to i 23 face in an indivi. dual situation other than as L-}

OLAH AM A COUfti fil;f'Of4fifdG filif tVICl-W)b 8 def*1 A6.AD AM A l' ANK hutL Dt% Otf4MINGH A M. AL AH AM A 3b203 ,.....~._.-.--h ~-- I a group was when they came to noe me in the May-June time frame. 3 Q Do fou know why the petitionere weren't 4-offered a job at any of theue five projects that 5 o hopefully will eventually become SONOPC07 e s MR, HIL121h Petitioners, who in that? 7 Q My clients,Mr. Fuchko, and Mr. Yunker, e i A Yen. 9 I MR. MILLER: Wait. to A Now I want to back up. I know why they .l it weren't offered a job in any of thene three nucionr 12 projects. 13 0 Why weren't they offered a job at any of 14 the nuclear projects? 15 A Because cach job was being filled by individuals 16. particularly qualified for that job based upon. 17 education, training, experience and demonstrated j is perforuumce in that area of expertine. 19 The three projects, the two Georgia projects to _that were being restructured and realigned, in 21 the restructured and realignment configuration, there were no jobs that included their special 23 areno of qualification. O.mI

ALAD AY A COUNT HEPoHTING SC HvlCL Q )

• F 4 H 8,7 A L A Ls A M A [* AN A () ( 4 "; A (a lilHMING,t A M AL A(4 AM A %20 4 12 4' C t'.0 9 ff l

il i ,l, q What are their areas of special qualifications? A Their areas of special qualification involves u h the nuclear security functiona as characterized l d H i ,ha by the installations and operations and procedures of a nuclear plant on site. I Q Do you know how candidates for jobs in those 7 i three projects were evaluated for the jobs? l j h MR. MILLER: Excuse me, but I r,uess I ought I I o to object to that, because how candidates for i 10 those john in those three projects could literally 11 i mean hundreds of candidates, hundreds of jobs. 12 Q I mean, in general, do you know what the 13 process was, the evaluation process? 14 MR. MILLER: A general generic question? 15 Q Yes. 16 A The generic question was starting at the 17 top of the organization in each one of those, 18 the persons that head the organi::ations were 19 selected first. In that case the/ were Tom Beckham,'~~ - 20 ;I and Ken McCoy. And then they together in rannagement ' 21 teams, and in their individual organizations 22 selected-the next tier of management based upon ~ ~ 23 l knowledge, training, experience and demonstrated l 'i I j '3 l

.. - ~.. - -. _. -.,... _ -. - - -. - -. - ~, -,. _ _ _ ~. -.. .-__~.a j 2 At.An AMA count r<trontmo senvice '3 3h F tk%T Al Als AV A iT ANK (s ulL DING (UNMING H A M, AL All AM A 3bP03 JP2-0009 . ~ - - - _ _,... -.... _... _... _. ~.. . -,.,. _ _ _ _ ~. _ _.. _,._ _ 2d i ( i performance in the area required for the new 2 l realigned job. And that continuec' down to each j 3 I layers they reviewed, and then the selection was l 4 i proposed by let's say a middle level managers s reviewed by a higher level managers and approved s by the Vice-president in charge of that project. 7 Q Do you know if Morris lloward has been on -- 8 is he a part of the Vogtle Troject? A 11 o. ) 10-Q Is he a part of any project? 11 A Mo. 12 Q Do you know what hia position is? -13 A' lie io no longer with the company. 14 Q Was he asked to join the project? 15 A No. 16 Q Was he offered a job? 11 A No. is Q-Why wasn't he offered a job? 19 A-He resigned. 20 Q When did he resign? 21-A Last summer. 22 - Q Was he asked to resign? 23 A Ilo. _ _.. _.,. ~,. - - - - + - - hh .I

e ALA2 AM A COURT REPORTING SE ftVICE l W 3 L F li4 thi A L A ll A M A (J Af 4 6 D ull D W :. lH f1 M IN G H A M ALAD AM A 3b703 322 OfiO9 J _____-q,_.._._ .J. \\ l I A Yes. 2 Q Do you know if he was asked to evaluate 0 l on potential nominees? A A 11 0. Q You don't know whether he was? 6 A 11 0. 7 Q Do you know why my clients waren't offered 8 positions in the nuclear, in the Cornorate 9 j Security Department? !(ot in the nuclear, in the 10 Corporate Security Department. I am talking 11 about 12 MR. MILLER: You see, now I am really 13 confused, because I thought that your guys did 14 work for Corporate Security. 15 MS F0WLER: No. From what I understand -- 16 MR. MILLER: Isn't that right -- 17 MS. F0WLER :-- t he re is no Corporate Security 18 Depar t'aen t. They work in Georgia. Power Corporate 19 ..ecurity D. par tmet.t. 20 MR. MILLER: Oh, okay. All right. 21 A So you are talking about the Southern Company 22 i Services Administrative Department, why they I ( 23 weren' t of f ered jobs ? l +-

e AL.All AMA COUlti fit:P'OHTING fiL HVICI 4_tb i el4 %1 ALA D A M A ls Atte llV41)lbu 14 t h M it4 (s H A M Al All AM A 31.?O3 .J. .. -... g i Q R i l',ll t. 1 A I know t.hin That the normal proccan which 3 l 1 have der:cribed to you for the nelection of 4 i i peoplo -- o 5 Q Uh-huh. 6 A -- ntarted alunyn at the top. You 7 pick the man in charge, and he in the one e responnible for nelect_ing the people who worku 4 I for him. to Q Uh-huh. n A Ilocaune you don' t nunign people t o work 17 for somebody. That in not.the practico anywhetc 13 within our buninesa. The peruon who works for 14 nomebody nelects the people he worku for, is q So, in what you are anying that beenune 16 there in no Corporate Security manager that in 11 why? is A I am anying that that in a logical reonon 19 '6y no one han been selected for any jobu wit.hin 70 that department. 71 j Q Okay. Do you know why Mr. Fuchko han l 72 not been cannidered for the position of Corporate 73 I security manae,er? - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - l ..... - -... - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - O

...~_.m _ _. -. - - _.... -.. _ ~ - _. _.. -.. - - - _. - _ _ - ~.... _.. _ _ ALACAMA COUHT HEPoH1tNG StiHVICE 936 iIH5T ALAH AMA D ANK DUfLDING OtttMINGH AM, ALAD AM A 357C9 377-0609 1 Q What jobs did you all talk about? A We had no jobs that they coul.d go into i 3 i within those, lintch and Vog_ tle Projects. So we talked about the post.ibility of r.oing into Corporate Security jobs from where they had been. 7 Q Corporate Security in Georgia power Company? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Did you discuss whether they were qualified to for any jobs in the Administrative Services 11 Department? 12 A Ho. 13 Q Why didn't you? 14-A At the time that we were try'ing to realign is people in the organis.ation,.the Administrative-16 Services organization had not been staffed. It 11 had no manager of security. When in essence there 3, ~ was no way to select people for those jobs, iv Q But ' aren' t there other jobs in Administrative 20 support besides in the Corporate Security 21 Department? 22 A Certainly. 23. Q Okay. The Corporate Security Department, 1 '70

8 l ALAoAMA COUNT Hl! PORTING CERVICC i 93b FINST ALAD AMA D ANM DVILDING DlHMINGHAM, ALADAMA 3S203 322 0609 i were trying to ask were specifically about Georgia Power Company. Q Okay. A Now, if you could state that again maybe I can get it related. Q Okay. In your efforts to reorganize were 7 you trying to place Georgia Power folks in the a nuclear operating department, or division? 9 A 1 was trying to place the. Georgia Power 10 Company c:nployees within the nuclear department 11 organization, into a realigned organizations which 12 consists of the Hatch Project.and the Vogtle Project. 13 Q Okay. If you were not able to put them in 14 one of those two areas was there any attempt to is put them in the Administrative Services Department. 16 if they had the qualifications? 17 MR. MILLER: The Administrative Services is Department of Southern Company Services? 19 Q

Yes, 20 1

[ MR. MILLER: All right. 21 l A in this case it never came up, because at 22 that time the top jobs had not been selected by 23 Southern Company Services. And as far as I know

.8 AL.ACAM A COU*iT RE PoHTING SLHVICL 9)$ FIHf41 A4.AH AM A D AP/M DUlt. DING HIHMINGHAM. ALADAMA 35P03 , _7g i Southern Company Services had not requested from 2 the nuclear organication, no nuclear organization, 3 any nominees for those top tier jobs. If they had 4 of requested nominees for those top tier jobs, s controllers, and resources and security, they would 6 have gone to those similar organizations in other 1 companies. 11uclear organizations did not contain a that type of experienced expertine that they would 9 be looking for. 10 Q Okay. You said that you discussed with 6 11 Mr. Hairston whether or not to allow my clients 12 to change jobs into the Administrative tiervices 13 Department. 14 A Negative. I didn't say that. I said 1 15 discussed with Mr. Hairston and Mr. McHenry and 16 possibly others, the change of jobs by your 17

clients, is Q

Okay. What did you discuss with Mr. Hairston, 19 what was your conversation regarding? 1 discussed -- I discussed with him the fact A that he had not found, and no one had found comparable type jobs in the Hatch or Vogtle Project for your dients. I discussed that fact.

4,_ ._AL. A A w L- -u a--,, -a.G- -__J S.m4sdA. sas. L A ,,,,w_W, w~x, - + w es a-_a - k y}; w m< q=,*; gra ,., 3 1.y. 3 Q i, < 4. s, g j 3 p,4;r n.; c, q ~;m + 63 r< 4.. 4 h' lR,t - ,6. > >-. 4(* < h. 4

• J p ?yy 1

$*_ *h ~ y Ag 3 - us .1% .., s e V: .v-ht (I If 6M k4 n't, kbf I' )'va D^% n x.g y {_l9 s f r +' ^ 4 !L 'W' 'Y' 4 ys .k .? 9 + c .t t ti>, y _ ' n' ' ' ' i if( 4 g. I.? l l ~,h ) $ 4 .i ([Iv di 5

• ', ' f1f y g,,

j ,e 6 N. 6 4 _a,y y, 3 s 9k h{ } t t s 'T yr s l ... ;u r

q) 4p..' s f, e 4-

_ '); a_ b. ( ( {g pl ;'y tp j'a [, 9 , f.t, kkRh._s it _l %,'.d%% &n e - y ji x s 6 4 y M,y 9,.,,,'g( x -% j jj, c, ., q -?w ' i> t j' > q ( a p ;1 7 6,'t.. ' 4t8.n r :iM , y n <oi {; E p "; germ y07 q,,f ., m.: ,m A f. ..N i i tynt K, 4+ V .,y ja .h4 2 P0. 2 f; , Ms; ' ;,.on t-M, u( - t s pa.gv.;k. c.,, e i ~ \\, A sa gg;,,g,hk" ~

- g f [h}

.o .. o eoe' g N. 7M. ~S m i

c.,,- n ;,

v 4 w

q?

b~ * /_ h y4 ] 1 O ' ~ Y ( (_., g, , y -.y 3I- -e u m'- ' et i t C W. f .l5 ..; p 7 ; t Yl% c w> w. SJ s-t a $,~ y ~ t' a, ay% .ga. y s

g'

p g q p.

j, j y ,, > _ g..,t 1 i*d 2 - 4 gly g.. "DN W '[p. tif, 4 ; 4 ^ 4 hilp t b 4 j i W +'t).' A% b % \\*

• \\

~ 1p 9 r .5, } iyh g,-}as, i A.. [';.., = 4 s 't-, y^ ' p

(",

f, # , ff. 11 %i. ~ \\j y n-w e. Y ,.., _oj

• f'

'[ i+ [ 9,- '~ ,V ~ 'I M.- j .g 1 3 b .o. _ edrh jd O.1HD4' i 01 5 'I$ k ,, w. 4y%.,,., *,. m4$, a ,,e 4. Y i 1.h o.t, e, -. <.,s. u, mj +, - s y s .s w 1 .g f' y J . c l;4 -!t; f,?$ $ h 4? Y T!'0* W h!" Y^W2 M D ,Y e. f Y-* xd.. t a _ 4 y 3 n. w% &, o ? a. a ' l w p .g ~ . y;%me,. - p v-N ,e i,.;,4-p- +gyw, 4 s4-J. , 4 t ( "A v 51 1 l 4 Y': 1 j_b i [O a , d& . i t_. ,,,..w,___,y ,__-_~_.-,~,....-,-m.-.m....._,

u. Page 390 I BEFORE THE [I 2 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 3 WN09 m 4 In the Matter of: ) ) JOHN M. FUCHKO and ) N$tp m GARY A. YUNKER ) gg, m. ) 6 Complainante ) ) 7 ) Case No. 89-ERA-9 vereue ) 89-ERA-10 8 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) ) 9 Respondent ) ) 10 11 Room 118 1371 Peachtree Street 12 iAtlanta, Georgia Wednesday, January 4,_1989-33 The above-entitled matter convened for hearing; 14 is pursuant to-adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. 16 BEFORE: 17 DANIEL SARNO, Administrative Law Judge is APPEARANCES: pn behalf gf. the Complainant 19 20 LAURIE FOMLER, Attorney Route 2, Box 186 Alto, Georgia 30610 21 22 SANDRA MICHAELS, Attorney Suite 1720, 40-Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 23 24 BRIAN SPEARS, Attorney Suite 400, 233 Mitchell Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 25 l - L l -. _..._._,._..._.._._._~....__.;,_..-.,_ ....___...._._...u._,_,..-.....,._..__.._,-_,_,.-

Page 427 s:o co-locate the done in anticipativa of that con;.pt ,y 1 corporate nuclear organizations of three of the Southern 2 Those three f companies together in the same building. 3 companies are Georgia Power Company, Alabama Power Company and 4 Southern Company Services. 5 there are They are co-located in the same building, 6 two of them Georgia Power manned by five different divisions, 7 Georgia Power employees totally; two cf them by Southern e and one by g Company Services by Southern Company Services; 9 So Alabama Power with all Alabama Power Company employees. 10 they are co-located in the same building. 11 iu the area that has the security department, 12 Q What the corporate security department? 13 is not yet a corporate security department 14 A There 15 among those. It is scheduled to be e part of the this time of administrative division, which is a part at 16 17 Southern Company Services. In the future we expect a corporate security 18 organization, a small corporate security organization. 19 And the individuals in that administrative division 20 Q are employees of Southern Company Services?- 21 If they were at this time they would be. 22 A Do you know how decisions were made to man 23 Q those positions that have been manned within the 24 posjiions, administrative division? 25 ( W

.o f Pega 428 1 A

Yes, In order to answer that, however, I would 2

probably need to preface it by describing how the divisions for the Hatch and Vogtle plants have been aade. 3 4 Q All right, if that's necessarV. When the Georgia Power nuclear operations 5 A first as organization was reconfigured as a precursor -- well, 6 then as a part of the a stand-alone reorganization in Atlanta, 7 reconfigured f rom a single combined SONOPCO concept, 8 organization which covered both Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle 9 one specifically for Plant Hatch headed to two organ 2zations, io 11 up by a vice president, and one specifically for Plant Vogtle headed up by a vice president. 12 in order to promote this concept of He did that i3 ! l support and to provide identity to each of those plants, i so u but it has a each plant not only has its plant management, 33 i corporate supprrt group that supports it, a When we moved into the SONOPCO configuration from 17 to the two Atlanta we underwent an organizational change is so the people who were in the combined nuclear 19. organizations, those two organization were then placed in each one of 20 21 organizations, principally all'of them. And then the people who were not a part of those two 22 organizations were placed as possible in other places. 23 the criteria that were utilized for Q So what were 24 trying to determine who to select? 25 __ q !f

. ~ 9 s Page-429 A Well, in terms of who to select for the two, the Plant Vogtle organization and the Plant Hatch organization. 2 the criteria that we took for each job as we selected people 3 .was really were they qualffled to do that job, and the 4 d i . qualification being they had the necessary e ucat on, 5 training, experience and demonstrated performance in that 6 position, and they were selected and put in those jobs -- the best people were selected and we filled them from the top a 9 doWD. That is you filled the vice presidential positions, 10 Q 11 then -- and after We filled the vice presidential positions, 12 A that the vice president would then get with the managers, -and i3 the managers would participate in the selection of the 14 and the supervisors would participate in the n supervisors, so that they selection of the people that uorked for them, 16 were all a-part of the-management selection process for doing u is this. What do you envision to be the future role of the 19 Q 20 security department in the administrative division? 21 A In order to answer that I think I.have to go back to 22. the concept of security in the nuclear operations organization 23 in Georgia Power. When I came to Georgia Power, and the day I came and 24 announced that we-were going to shift from an oversight role 25 -f

mymptnavampmauc gpgqwplg Ng n v (ytnpememp. p& ] ~ .) ~$$ '^ QMWMO%dTTJW h ?g y gp gg y^pg Q g 4 w1%w. m A,9g? J q4.wgpw% g@%ggg,,g,nm g%jp.,yg m a.. ,,y ww u a e s a s g a y w, 393, m

4. y

. <. a; sm. s y _Q-y y yy %.! y Q,QM? p # s m m{ $ y:m.Q%ly,r:gmwLa 'y . -J ;, 9 m, n w%rL pj mu_f.QQ,fGWla@w: L a f i q < 4 ee ' > ' a mg[.c %, wq .n ww m w,w 4 f g q~; m,A-*$,~n w,p 4>*; h w wt3 f y y w. w ra p E;p.,jf,y's'- Q}Q4s ?J," _:s +WI, _v u. .o E _ 5g - ,kg }m,9 -y

. - V.%4 % s.M -l g - -,

. M. _ylUM-S R>

w y N ..p,4..p +;s$ 1** w a q, < :p,

• W en

\\ . y um.+.,. -~ c J .M - ' . <1. 1 j f+6V Mt6st6v' W ,i =, e, ' i 6-n. ~ (( -,.[,ic, #, i, h.,, 9$. N.,; W4 + ' i^ ~ h [- [k~6/.' w [,, YAM 3 4,3 v,.t y[pNd dNf 'Q s, w h eq ;b - g e+ $u s q e;- -v4 - +& .,,1 i =ogrv. ,+g M >9, < s 4'. y. t, .,j, 4 n e 1 -, 4.: p{ Qf ,Q } w -WM ' 5 u. J e. '3 9, y.y f* w $; +, J +- g ^ y:g e,y, R id +. s

s; v

p n W m ~ ' Ah.gy ~ wwC&.\\ T

w a.

. u- ~ 4

y-

w n w y. g 94,,. 9.m

9 sw, 0

497;.> 4 7, y u m;" 4 n w, y,p + ^ t g ~, t t, gj yf <,eC m,ver.- e y jQ ,,, a ' w .. x a. 3 4 - p ~ ;w,.~k[/$f. Nk*M gQy N $k5hM%d y yi. ,a u v w.. u + ~ s ~

h%r /$k/

n. ,./. g. y gy:pgggy)I q{q[$ .t. r.. w-c , a e ,~~4 n j?\\f s 'O . y e< ; r.gom N^ ^1 %..i 4,. '~ i 1 - e ', s ' p[, ' iP i l' gn: e 3 $91,-.

• +

1 % ..*(, sj[ ,[ o e. m a.. y ,.~. w (. c g,. ,c Y- ' ,,"m. qd f $4 p*"""'** I L:. ),,,. e_NA^ [4 l -U +x l L .g. 9% van. s 9.hh W X Qyn, h sg;p,q z, m.w. A ~ ] h. h 9 }l* ;'t dNNM j d0 %g g e n }{a an . r ~, yk.s n J - ; -. U.sm#%pm i; we=w.h'g; <y @f % % My ma ' -i . f f ;j.m,[ - m. 1'L* e ,_ o 7.. + s 4 a 3 7 W ~.2 4.; MS. .e-y,1 }. % h t l ',., _. 4 .f..gW $.j p 'z 1 w 5-d , L: w .% = 2 4 1 $_ sc -- e f i g 'q, f y y4 3 $f v'y + r%.w ! %D J-y c+,8 :,- a y P ' Y O- 'gh $ 7 Y 'jI} I.E

• s

('[. 4'.'3 " Q.w

• i ' '

~ {. e 1th.W ;CV 7 g4p.9%, j .a 4 m s,- 'ji g,g' T% $( [ JJ. af,, s [ ,. +}', -r m e Agp% ,14 g .e-q 1 s. ,e, M j ["

• /

it h[ ed N (j '3 -rj - 8 %wy, y ,,.4 .1 & 4 sq wQ g gvj,p 9, 9 gg

• W r7 i L.n ;.

3y pp + p Q Qy -

• y w,* <

2347 w woww w % Y q

• .m y ';.,
• f f Y ',l:, i }4 -

l ' R T :. [h k 7 j I 1

f' COPY l= 1 UNITED STATES OF At4 ERICA f. BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR l 2 3 MARVIN B.

HOBBY,

) ) 4 Complainant, ) CIVIL ACTION ) 5 vs. ) FILE NO. ) 6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ) 90-ERA-30 ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD lt 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E., Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 BULL & ASSOCIATES

- ~. ~ _ -. m. 4 -31 9 1 Goorgia Power at the Georgia Hatcli plant. g 2 Mr. McCoy was mado Vice President by the Doard 3 of Directors of Georgia Power Company to be in 4 charge of the Vogtle plant for Georgia Power, 5 Q There was a move of the Georgia -6 Power Company employees from Atlanta to 7 Birmingham; correct? 8 A-Right. 9 Q And what was the purpose of that 10 move? 11 A The purpose of that move was to 12 co-locate all Southern Company organizations 13 directly involved in the direct support and 14 operation of.its plants to learn its essential 15 location. ~ 16-Q When it was decided that the 37 -co-location-would, occur, were there changes in 18 -title and staffing? 19 -A Prior to the time that the 20 co-location took place there was in process a 21 reorganization of the Georgia corporate staff 22 and it went through-several stages. Some of 23-them are not-clearly defined. So one final l -24 stage that' exists today that it went to was at 25 the time that the move was made because there J f + -e BULL & ASSOCIATES h_

$f' of 32 I were - nome people that didn't want to make the 2 move and so we arranged for people to any 3 whether they wanted to make the move or whether 4 they wanted to take a job and no forth in an 5 organization that was concurrent with the move. 6 Q okay. Who determined which 7 individuals would ultimately be moved to the 3 building where the SONOPCO Project in located? 9 A It was as far as individuala the 10 structural organization was separated by the 11 Ita t c h and Vogtle=Projecta and in those projects 12 the vice proaidents were the key people in '13 making decisions of who would be in their 14 project and in the general nonne they atarted .15 with the top level of management nelectiona_nnd 16 then it involved them in the nelectiona beneath l 't t h cIn and all the people who were on the staff 18-at thet time had been offered a job and had to 19 decide whether they would move or not move and 20 no forth. 21 0 I'm trying to figure out the best 22 way to explain this. Wan it like a tiering 23 process where the top where the managera 24 were nelected by 25 A Let me go over it again. The DULL & ASSOCIATES Sk

l [, 33 g 1 reorganization of the individuals and the i 2 organization for those two projects was the 3 responsibility of the vice presidents working 4 with their Senior vice President, George 5 Hairston. The general approach they had was to 6 select the top managers first and after those 7 top managers were selected then'they selected 8 their staffs in the jobs they thought who they 9 wanted. 10 Q You were not involved in selecting 11 the staffs? 12 A No. 13 Q W e t.e you involved in selecting the 14 staffs in the technical services area? 15 A No. 16 Q In the administrative services 17 area? 18 A I was involved in an advisory way. 19 In the projects, for example, people kept me 20 informed of what they had in mind and gave me a ~ [44$$hething about it. It was not 21 chance to s p 22 submitted t 'me for approval or disapproval and 23 I did not approve or disapprove any of those 24 selections. 25 Q I don't recall if I asked. Did you BULL & ASSOCIATES itw-

.g F 5 34 i i select Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham? 2 A Mr. McCoy and Mr. Deckham were 3 selected as officers by Georgia Power Company. 4 I recommended that Mr. McCoy be elected for 5 Vice President. I recommended that to Mr. 6 Dahlberg who brought it up before to Mr. Sheer 7 who brcught it before the Board of Directors. 8 I believe it was.Mr. Sheer. 9 Q And then did Mr. McCoy and Deckham 10 select the next lower level of management? 11 A They did that in working with their 12 Senior Vice President, George Hairston. 13 Q And then did the next level of 14 management select the middle level management? 15 A They did that in conjunction with 16 their Vice President; again Mr. Hairston. 17 Q But it wasn't a fait accompli. You ~~ 18 didn't sit down in the offices of 270 Peachtree s 19 with Mr. Deckham and Mr. McCoy and Mr. McHenry 20 and fill the entire SONOPCO Project 21 organization? 22 A -I did not. 23 Q Are you aware that certain 24 individuals at Georgia Power Company believed 25 that that's what happened? That you nat down l l A L t BULL & ASSOCIATES 8 t

I 35 1 at 270 Peachtree with Mr. Beckham, Mr. McCoy 2 and Mc lie n r y to some degree and filled the 3 entire SONOPCO Project staff? 4-A l'm not aware of that. S Q Do you recall a meeting held on 6 January 2nd, 19897 7 A No. 8 Q Do you recall preparing for the 9 Yunker and Fuchko proceedings? 10 A In general? 11 Q Do you recall a large meeting where, 12

say, 30 individuals got together?

13 A 30 individuals got together? 14 Q Yeah. 15 A For what purpose? 16 Q To discuss the defense Georgia Power 17 Company would use to defend itself against Mr. 18 Yunker's and Mr. Fuchko's-Section-210 case? 19 A I don't believe any meeting of 30 20 individuals over got together on that. 21 Q 20 individuals? 22 A I don't remember any meeting at all 23 of any sizable proportions. 24 Q Do you remember any .coting in 25 ' preparing for the Yunker and Fuchko proceeding? BULL & ASSOCIATES A. u ;

W

• ' s y' !

h,q 'yg V.7 4 ..a..7-a.;.A.y.$ g, y'*kg4. 44"- .,,.., a 1 g.y .~y >9.g'*Q>- ,.s yg up t'c. v 4-y, W e..g;u.3.nf ' A (q MpJ -4+ r ,, y p.

i

?' /,..e,,.s e m,4.., h yw -f w.

)' d I.

~ 1, m q .5,., e 4 p f 7 4, -.t . - - p, #. > l -k \\ ' V-g +

fw d --.

09, e b~ g , q-s s R_ ' /W 4 -', :,. O , gh$y 5.g t Or

m. t,.e; g s+M -.

n,-,.d : .,.. 1 1 i 'ur.- ,s .7.u. - ,,/.- G4: ' ,._j,:- 4

% }if,f. Ap

-s 4 . d (- t-5

h "3 g.

'; ~i . f%$$y

t.

e. e, LWO

, o o;wuye I 7 5, %') :7 < j - {' 4 4' 5' % p wg r . s ( t w4.,u .f.., o ':?.a :4. '% f-

• t-k.'E ;)N.f.'?.

c .d. A , mm'3 s 6i? t-u,,r jb,= MA m_

, s, i-E

~q,,_.n+h-( gs y.y e 7.g > (A C a ~ _ [ ' kv A,,yv' < e ,3 4t :nff% N. s . <. -.,4? ( yd,H..M.+ Q\\ . 4,. y - s -m

f. h ' f

,, ;), &q *,e$ -. i {, A. 3:pf4: ( ..g i., ,. T '  ? e N , h q' Ws :w.di'.<:-,% h l g ( w&s. c.'$g,v,w,9@k-q... - 4 ; m.. 4..nJ-.. ' :g y;9, q. _ v, g m.m.,y' ' + Q% es s, = [f ' '.3'.:,-t ,.,e : g %-4. ,,f.,k g ?? fih'-: L,Nq.ay'n %. .l . ll z hA ^: g ' M W, JAC'l1. ~ s*yw 'e.p f Nht . ym 3 ') . 1 d gp

-w

(.. 4. 5. e

.,J r s +..

.aas + : g' jhy]fPy(1 - k gp,d>M . ; N4hMM

g. w s

nw{~Q hM%jd.n$ ii'S 1TI. n 4y %. t. r. v ;' t .~d .,,..;4 e 3 f' t - r;N-vc,.w . a.> p. 5 s '. i-U': s!.4 .E I,-= y 4 1 4 5 ..A4-- ,, - - - - -,.. ~, ,.. < -.. i~. -.4.

,1 oj o I Page 542 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARVIN B.

HOBBY, Complainant, VOLUME III vs.

Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent. 1 Courtroom _901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 I The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: l HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge i APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN,jAttorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Atborney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 1

Po P 'a Page 620 g-n; h 1 Q. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Bob Edwards around ai 2 that time frame? 3 A. I might hava. 4 Q. And what would the purpose have been for that 3 5 meeting? A 6 A. The purpose of that would be to work upon the 7 wording of the proposed contract for SONOPCO's relationship 8 with the co-owners of the nuclear power plants. 9 Q. And do you recall also meeting with Mr. Williams 10 around that time? 11 A. I might have, I don't recall. 12 Q. But that's something that might have happened in e, 13 that time period? 14 A. It might have. 15 Q. I want to turn your attention to the way people 16 were selected for the SONOPCO project, and it's my 17 understanding that the way that process was done is that the 18 vice presidents were selected, and then they selected the 19 general managers who then selected the managers who then 20 picked their supervisor in some sort of tiering effect; is 21 that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And you also gave similar testimony in the 24 Fuchko/Yunker proceedings when you were asked how the SONOPCO 25 project' personnel were picked? 1

?' P" 1 4 I c; k nd Page 621 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. I want to show you a document, and can you tell me 3 if this is your deposition in the Fuchko and Yunker case. i 4 A. Yes. I 5 Q. And I'd like to turn your attention to Page 43, and 6 can you read from Line either 12 or 13, it appears to be in 7 the middle, and can you read from there to the bottom of -- well, on the next page over to the bottom of Line 7? c 9 A. Line 12, question: "I mean in genernl do you know 10 what the process was, the evaluation process?" 11 "Mr. Miller: A general generic question. gglg 12 Question: "Yes." 13 Answer: "A generic question, well, starting at the I 14 top of the organization and each one of those, the person to l t 15 head the organizations were selected first. In that case 16 they were Tom Beckham and Ken McCoy, and then they together i 17 with management teans in,their individual organizations j i 18 selected the next tier of management based upon knowledge, 19 training, experience, demonstrated performance in the area 20 required for the new realigned,ob, and that continued down 21 to each layer, and they reviewed and then the selection was 22-proposed by let's say a mid level manager reviewed by a high 23 level manager and approved by the vice president in charge of l 24 that project." 25 Q. Do you recall giving that testimony in the -- i I lb 6_

1 'M F -c + 5 (\\ Page 622 1 A. I do now, yes. 2 Q. Okay. And did that involve the selection of 3 personnel for the SONOPCO project? 4 A. That involved the selection of personnel for 5 Georgia Power's realigned staff organization that was part of 6 the SONOPCO project. 7 Q. Now, do you know Mr. Tom McHenry? 8 A. Yes, I do. 9 Q. And who is Mr. McHenry? 10 A. Mr. McHenry was a part of the staff organization at 11 the time that the selections in question were being made. I ) 12 Q. And would Mr. McHenry have provided valuable 13 information to the selection process? 14 A. He might have provided some information. 15 Q. Would Mr. McHenry have known how the selection 16 process was done? 17 A. He might have. He might not have known the 18 definite because he was not one of the managers who was going 19 to be a part of that team, and therefore involved in the 20 actual selection process itself. 21 Q. Do you recall -- Well, tell me a little bit more 22 about Mr. McHenry. He reported to you on a regular basis? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And what was.his position? ..q t 25 A. I can't recall his exact position, but he provided R2 k 1 i 1 \\

y, 9 t q ,= Page 623 1 administrative help. 2 Q. Was he at one time your assistant? 3 A. I don't think I ever had a position that was called 4 my assistant. 5 Q. Isn't it true that Mr. McHenry assisted you on a 6 regular lasis during the Phase 2 planning sessions? 7 The Phase 2 task force, does that make it any 8 easier? 9 A. I don't know what you mean by Phase 2 planning 10 session. 11 Q. What~about Phase 2 task force or planning group. II I 12 A. I now recall. Separate and apart from the SONOPCO 13 phased formation, the steps which I described earlier, there 14 was a planning stage called a Phase 1 and a Phase 2, and Mr. 15 McHenry did work with me during that period of time. He was 16 an employee of Georgia Power Company, at that time I was 17 solely an employee of Alabama Power Company. 18 Q. Just so the record is clear, Mr. McHenry worked 19 with you during Phase 2, the Phase 2 planning stage? 20 A. That was Phase 2 planning of the planning prior to 21 the Phase 1 of the movement toward the SONOPCO organization. 22 Q. Now, Mr. McHenry worked with you quite extensively 23 on that, didn't he? 24 A. Yes, he did. 25 Q. And he continued to work extensively with you until k

y V e 1 i I Page 624 1 he left the company some time in the fall of 1988; isn't that 2 correct? 3 A. Yes, he did. 4 Q. And in fact Mr. McHenry was one of the most 5 knowledgeable people at Georgia Power Company regarding this 6 transition into the SONOPCO project; isn't that true? 7 A. He was up to a certain time, but when he chose not 8 to be a part of the final group he was not part of the 9 management structure that made the selections in the 10 solaction process. 11 Q. Do you recall in a meeting at the 270 Peachtree I > 12 Street building that you met with Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckham 13 and Mr. McCoy regarding staffing SONOPCO positions? 14 A. I remember meeting with them in that building on l 15 some other matters, and we might have included some 16 discussions about staffing at that time. 17 Q. Do you recall whether that meeting that you're 18 referring to involved a two-day session to look over 19 personnel decisions for filling the SONOPCO project 20 organization chart? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you ever meet with Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckham or 23 Mr. McCoy regarding organization charts or filling staff 24 positions in SONOPCO at 270 Peachtree Street? g I vi 25 A. I met with them I believe at some time about i k N

O-t ~l 1 t i l t Page 625 1 starting the process. The process had been turned over to 2 Mr. Hairston and the vice presidents, and they made the j 3 detailed reviews and selections. 4 Q. And do you recall Mr. McHenry coming into the room 5 where you were meeting with Mr. Hairston and Mr. Beckham and 6 Mr. McCoy? 7 A. Y don't remember it, but he might have. 8 Q. And were the meeting participants in the process of 9 filling out organization charts? 10 A. Not part of the meeting that I was in, no. 11 Q.- But you're aware that the other individuals were I l 12 going to do that, fill out organization charts? 13 A. The plan for selecting people for the various jobs 14 was worked out ahead of time with the vice presidents and Mr. I 15 Hairston, and that plan was -- we had selected Mr. McCoy as a i l 16 vice president, and then vice presidents were to select the i 17 next level under them, and then they would participate and be 18 the key person to make selections in the organizations 19 beneath them, so that each o the managers would select the 20 people who worked for them. 21 Q. Isn't it true that people got job offers shortly 22 after that meeting between Mr. Beckham, Mr. McCoy and Mr. l 23 Hairston? 24 A. I don't know which meeting you're referring to. 25 Q. The two-day planning session that I talked about k

I g) -4 I F Page 626 1 carlier. 2 A. I was not part of the detailed planning and 3 selection process. I don't know. 4 Q. But you did have knowledge of how the selections 3 were going to occur, didn't you? 6' A.. As I stated before, the process was to take place 7 and we got it started by selecting the vice presidents. then 8 they would select the people who reported to them going down 9 the tier, so that each level would have a hand in selecting 10 the people what was to work for him directly. 11 Q. And do you have firsthand knowledge of that, sir? I I 12 A. I gave the directions, and I had the reports back 13 that that's what was done. 14 Q. Who is the vice president of administrative 15 services at SONOPCO? 16 A. Charles McCreary, 17 Q. And did you select Mr. McCreary? 18 A. No, I did not. 19 Q. Did you play any role in selecting Mr. McCreary? 20 A. I had an advisory role in it, yes. 21 Q. And who is the vice president of technical 22 services? 23 A. Mr. Long. 24 Q. And did you select Mr. Long? 6 I g-25 A. No. I had an advisory role. L

a i it ')y Page 627 You had an advisory role in both situationc? 1 Q. 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. I want to show you again your deposition testimony from the Fuchko/Yunker proceedings, and if you could start 4 5 actually on the prior page, on Page 12 at the bottom, the 6 last line, and just read on to the next page. 7 A. How far? 8 Q. Right down to here. 9 A. Okay. Line 21, Page 12, quertion: "What persons 10 selected those people, the people in those positions?" 11 "Mr. Miller: If there is such a person and you i 12 know them, you may answer. 13 Answer: "I don't know." 14 Question: "So you did not select them?" 15 Answer: "No." i i l 16 Question: "Who are the vice presidents of those 17 servicec?" 18 Answer: " Charles McCreary and Louis Long." I 19 Question: "And Charles McCreary is the, vice 20 president for what?" 21 Answer: "McCreary, administrative services. " 22 Question: "Okay. How about Louis Long, he's 23 technical services?" 24 Answer: "Yes. Now let me qualify my statement in 25 saying that I don't know. The selection of those people is ig

s f Page 628 1 under the authority and responsibility of Southern Company 2 Services. I imagine in the normal course of events that 3 selection is officially made by the president of Southern 4 Company Services. There may have been other arrangements 5 that I'm not aware of, but I think that was true." 6 HR. WITHROW: In there a question? 7 BY MR. COLAPINTO: 8 Q. That was your testimony in the Fuchko/Yunker 9 proceeding? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Mow, you knew Mr. Hobby when he was at Georgia I-12 Power Company? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, I believe you stated when Mr. Joiner was 15 asking you questions that you remembered meeting in January i 16 l of 1989 regarding the Fuchko/Yunker case, the preparation 17 meeting? l 18 A. Yes. l 19 Q. Can you tell me what your recollection is of that 20 meeting? 21. A. There was only two things that I clearly remember, 22 One that I now remember there was a meeting; the other one I 23 remember a man who sat with us in the meeting named Lukehart, 24 I remember the lawyers being there, but I remember very 25 little else about the meeting. l l k

[EY C) h[ Page 640 i 1 an advisory one? 2 A. I am not an officer or a member of the Southern 3 Company Services organization. Therefore, I have no position l 4 to make a selection. 5 Q. Does anyone at Georgia Power Company think that you 6 are a member of that group? 7 A. Not that I know of. 8 Q. Do you know if there's any confusion that people 9 would believe that you are employed by that group? 10 A. Not that I know of. 11 0 Ian't it true that you requested the board of I I 12 directorr, to consider Mr. McCreary for the position? 13 A. I advised the presidents, the CEO of Alabama, the 14 CEO of Georgia and the CEO of Southern Company Services that i 15 I thought those individuals would be good and could 16 adequately fill those position. 17 Q. Isn't it true that you were the only one who 18 requested that Mr. McCreary be selected to that position? 19 'A. I don't know. 20 Q. How about Mr. Long's position? 21 A. I don't know. l 22-MR. COLAPINTO: Thank you. 23 We have no further questions, your Honor. 24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Any redirect? 9 25 MR. JOINER: No, your Honor, f s-k

d ._A-.- a.~.A .ad a_.- 2,__A a -A J=AS= m A 3 4 -Awea aA.4_ JaE._ m .a 3 'f_ b". ! I i(; , ' c.. l' 0! / bT } y. 'f $+ y _, / ' 5 i e E 4 '1's f p ': '. Y;[ 'n[ s,ir.{. - f-h 1,f\\l1,:c, A;, ,e.. .s. hbA + 4 - ) : .,k u;e.., r_ s. 14 3-. .76 4[ 3 ' / t, k f - f s., * *, g cc-s lss, y.1 - y "( 4# ffrM ;.i- .a4

.j.

1 a f k, - y T- -,. 4 {. T.8 '_. y '26'46 . r e.v., - f: '. s 'T.' . f, ' 4 f y )1 g -. ---. $,,. '} g(..< > e g l 1 i l l I [ f I I

l b 6 I UNITED STATES ~ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR omes or Aounnsmrm awmeans t I ac a.-=============== -= i In the Matter of: ) i ) MARVIN B.

HOBBY,

) Case No. 90-ERA-30 i ) Complainant, ) ) vs. ) ) GEORGIA POWdR COMPANY, ) I ) Respondent. ) { Pages: 272 through 541 Place: Decatur, Georgia Date: October 24, 1990 3. u== --====.. . - = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - - = = = = = HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OfidelRmorters 1220 L Stnet, N.W., Suke 644 Washinston, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888

a Page 284 3 p 1 made for staffing r,rporate positions in the SONOPCO project h 2 for the IIntch d Vogtle sites? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what was your role in that? 4 5 A. Well, as part of the Phase 2 task force that I was 6 on there were organizations, structures created for what the i 7 new organization would look like. 8 Once those structures we e created, then there was 9 a process of -- there was a series of phases I guess as wo 10 referred to them, transitional phases to get from two 11 companies to one company, and toward the end of 1988 that l,, 12 process had proceeded to the point where it actually came 13 down to filling jobs, to selecting people to fill the 14 organization that had been designed. 15 Q. And do you know how the positions were actually 16 filled? 17 A. Well, the process was, the decisionmaking process 18 as I recall it was done over a period of a couple of days, 19 There was a meeting of senior management consisting of Mr. 20 Mcdonald, Mr. McCoy, Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckhan. -- that's the 1 21 group -- and that group of individuals met privately in a 4 ij 22 separate, in fact in a separate building for a couple of days 23 and worked out the selection, and sort of working through the 24 organization picking the people that would go into various 25 slots in the new organization.

4 Page 205 1 Q. And at some pcint during those two days were you j 2 called into that meeting? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And can you tell us how they were filling the slots 5 when you were in the meeting? 6 A. Well, my involvement in the meeting was to -- you 7 know, I was asked to come into the meeting to provide some 8 insight I guess on some individuals that people in the room 9 were not familiar with, you know, about their qualifications, 10 about their background, about their performance. 11 You know, basically there were organization charts, 12 and there were names. You know, these were blank 13 organization charts that were skeletons showing titles, and 14 the organization charts were being filled out, you know, 15 names were being put in these slots. 16 Q. And how soon -- Well, after this two-day period 17 where this meeting as taking place with the senior 18 management, did you have any further involvement in the { 19 selection process? 20 A. Well, I was heavily involved in the, not k-21 necessarily the selection process, but the continuation of i 22 the selection process in terms of actually working with 23 salary administration developing the work sheets or whatever f 24 they were called to como up with the offers basically, the 25 job offers.

s } J Page 286 f 1 Then I was involved in ensuring that those job i offers got disseminated to the right people and the job 4 3 offers were made, and tracking whether people accepted the 4 job offers or whether they declined those job offors, j 5 Q. Were you provided the names of the individuals who 6 we e put into those slots? 3 7 A. Yes. Q. And who provided you those names? Was it from the 8 fj 9 group? 10 A. It was from the group. Specifically I don't know 4 11 who actually handed me the documents. I think it may have h g been Mr. Hairston that handed me the documents. 12 f 13 Q. And how soon after this two-day meeting that you've / 14 described did you receive that information from the senior ~ 's 15 management? 9 16 A. Essentially immediately. 17 Q. Now, do you know if people were selected at the p 18-Hatch site who were placed in positions without supervisors 19 being chosen yet? 4 20 A. Well, there were holes in the organization, so, 1 21 yes, there were vacancies in the organization. There were 22 cases where supervisors or managers had not been picked, and y 23 necessarily they had to go down and fill out the rest of the ); 24 organization, 25 Q. Okay. And who had selected the people who were C.

4 4 l' Page 287 1 %j 1 underneath the vacant spots? 2 A. Well, essentially this committee selected everyone. 3 I mean this committee I referred to, this group of executives 4 selected everyone. I was brought in for advice on some N 5 individuals, and I believe maybe Len Casewa was brought in 6 for advice but, you know, by and large it was a small group e 7 of people. 0 Q. Now I want to direct your attention to the 5 9 Puchko/Yunker case. Do you know what I'm talking about when 10 I say the Fuchko/Yunker case? I 11 A.

Yes, ti 12 Q.

And do you reca]l what that was, just briefly what 13 is was? 14 A. It's hard to brief on the Fuchko/Yunker case, but I 15 guess briefly they eventually alleged that there were 16 problems identified at, that they identified at Plant Vogtle l 'i that management was not responsive to, and ultimately they 18 were terminated because of that identification. That is the 19 crux of it, I guess. i 20 Q. Did there come a point in time when you became 21 aware that Mr. Fuchko and Mr. Yunker were about to go trial ij 22 against the company? I g 23 A. Oh, yes, because I was asked to provide a statement 24 to the Georgia Power attorneys. That was after I left the 25 company.

a t" b _

1. I ii $

'f y-

• 4',

4 3f _[y _:_' ' $( ' ,%;;C r _ >;fp ff, t ,p .b 5 g g he 4 ? t, Y l. 'k, * ? 6 -. i . z 'h.,, ~P . 'J' ..9'.,~4 p, %g is % p jisl:!* Ii -4 t y t y nfn,- ~n+;; s*% ,bdIY ,e.- h, h. E t k .f, t l$ F- ,,4 s 1.n E' k' h ' a. s a .,3 4 / j,4 3 + e ? i }C y, 'Y ,i. s 7 ,l h? s t. kb 'l- ...f, [' pi 1 f t ,* > $T 7, t ,1 2 j'; f - -.,...e .s g

• ,i.t..i,Sp c$o s--d i,a,; ' 31 _ e t
• 24 s.

+ r r-4 ' i'],. '. ' f + \\ C I f

I ( h l l June 8, 1989 Dennis: 1 promised you in the earlier letter t ivi t I would dineunn a 1.ittle of what is going on ut Georgio Power. You have read several attounto that ! have uent you selated to the l ilS invoutigationn, Fit ! inventAgutions, f polit ical coinpaign cont ribut t ono, etc. There in, to my k n o w l.. d g e, na f progress in thene atens nad 1 am told that thene ineestinntsina will L. as to whether going on for yours. There tu a lot of speculatson Addiuun will be able to wea t her t he st or m of'ter all, he was t hi cEO at Gulf Power when many of these allegations occur red. 1ho s i t uat ion-in th" 4 - throughout Southern Company - - in horrihje. company I will get more specific about my situation in a nm m e n t. Dut, I murt udmit that 1 am g r rit e f ul to have worked at Georgio Power when ftr. 'tillar was President. lie was n no nonsense guy, hard working, competen(, -inquisitive, honorable, and he wurhed for the C o lu p a n y, lie lived, -brentbed, and exited for Georgia Power. The man could lead. lie asked questions.. lie auked for-input. hhen people disagreed with him, that hou fine. It seemed it was only an opportunity for him to ask mere qu"utions and he would admit when he l e a r n ed s o:.m t h i n g. Even though he wun i President, he was not afraid to learn something or hear a new idea. lir .was not afraid to say he didn't know. lie-wasn't a t r a i.1 to eny he.t i d n ' t j understand something. lie wasn't afraid to ank for advice. He undn't mind people challenging him - - not personally but on trn i n n t.e. - Mr.- M111 e r 'ind - i n t e g r i t y. - lie gave us guidance and direction and his monunge to us was clear. lie also held you accountable for your performance. As one lower level supervisor in buildinu servites said to me in lamenting Mr. Miller's retirement, "We are renlly coing to misu him. You may not always agree with the direction he gives you, but you alwafs know where you are going." She was icht. l Mr. Miller also focused his attention on where the compan) obould be headed and what wan requireti to get there, ll e ieally tuoh an emotaonal intercat in the 15,000 employees we had and he unnt ed them to perfortu. And, if they performed, he took core of them wh"ther he lik"d them or 5 not. It was not essential that Mr. Miller like you becauce he' judged carh employee un performance _nnd what they were doing j'or Georgta Power Mr. Miller could make a decision. Sometime r. he would male a snap Judgement b a s mi upon his techrient 1.nowledge, hit e,. p e r t e r n., his managerial ability, or jut.t his hunch, but, whi n a M inton wa. m a d.. that was the end. Everybody jumped, lie alon protm ted Ihe mpon3 4 There were several examples where the System wanted Georgia power to change what they were doing althouah what ne <ete d. an was t u r n i n t< out I the profits.. Put,.the bureaucrath at Southern, who wanted to 4 twreuse their power, demanded that all opernt ing compunten abide by I h.- como set l of rules. Mr. Miller said no that he was in charco of operaling Georgia Power and, although some people at Southern got bent out of shape, Mr Miller's decision ruled the day.

( f j 1 i tough, authoritarian figure. i A lot of people resuember Mr. Miller as a I remember hir, an a creat leader, nomeone to be admired, a role model, atol a loving and eartan man who dedicated hin life to Geoanta power and its ern p l o y e e s. Yet, Mr. Miller was a ationg mon. Several s en n o t-m eutsves wese glad to sue him retire because he ruled firmly and would not let some of them put into effect their lunacy. I am convinced that neveral esecutives wanted their day in the sun and made suggestions just ta make themselven 4 look good. Dut, their ouggentions died beenuse they did not have the courage to bring them to Mr. Miller for approval. What resulted was a tuu a l l group of executives who wanted so denparately to be in charge that they looked for every opportunity to enhance thuir position - not the c o n p a u v ' e. ponition - th"tr p"<nonal posttton. Some of them wou1d have nold thei: mot he t unl the con +any outright-if they could have positioned themnelves hetter. There was one exception. George li e u d. George was a technic. ally competent, hard headed, hard driving manager who did an exception p.h. Ib had a weakness in that he did not have as broad a perspective as did M4 Miller and Grorge found it hard_to listen und Icaro. lie felt he hoew his business sufficiently well to do his job and listening, learning. tubing advice, or changion was_ difficult for him. George could not adapt.. 1 don't mean he just didn't want to, he couldn't. After Mr. Miller left tactually before Mr. Miller lef t Georg" has assigned to report to G r a d y-li n k e r. The organizotion at the timo was Mr. l Schurer was Chairman of the lio n r d and CEO, and Grady li a h e r and U l aw r !forris were the two Senior Executive Vice presidents.. Grad 3 had planned hiu career such that when Nr. Miller retired, he would hocome Pres > dent-Elmer was brought over from Alabama Pcwer to head External Affairs and the -word was that he could become Chairman and CEO of Georgia Powet. Gradi even told everyone that would listen to-him that he had picked Elmer to b. CEO at Georgia because he-(Grady) did not want the Joh - he wanted to be President and C00, Mr. Addison becumo President of Southern and said'deorgin Power did not need-both a President and a Chairman of the !!o a r d. Ife said that when e Mr. Scherer retired, we would have a President and a CEO and no Chairman. -That crushed Grady. lie had worhud to become Fresident all (hese yearc and hugan to see whether rlmer now:would-not get the job. Then a horne rat e would-become President or whether_Itill Dahlberg, President af southern Company Services and an ex-Senior Vice Prentdont of Georgia Power who w>d l to work for Grady, would becomer President of Georgia Powor ITittion devoluped between Grady and Elmer. Grady was obviously punhann. Mill. l_ 11111 won because, in part-1 think, Elmer got involved heavily in fhis [ campaign contributions fiasco. Back to George. Geo ce and Grady did not get along. Grady is y Jekyll and Ilyde. There are days when his thoucht p r o c e s. n it brillant. There are days when he acte lihu an idiot. .i n d, you never know whi.L person-you are d eal i n g _w i t h'. 1-could go into a lot of examples uhrs e k George and Grady disagreed but - _t het e is not need. I would point o t - i h :.1 Leon t r wjf ' o Ie11 Georgta how- -.. , _., _, _ _,huesto" _ fa do (-

e 3 Mr. Miller would not let that happen and Mr. Miller and Georgo Houd were on the same side. After Mr. Miller left, Grady trted to get on Mr. Addison's good side by agreeing to everything South"en S e r v i c e s. wanted to do. George disagreed but S o u t h e t n.i n gradualJy tahing over. Now, however, we are left with unother povi oituation. r lmer thir e 2, is named President of Alubama, Dill Dahlberg at Geoscia, and Allen Franklin at Southern Company Services. Each one of them is running for Addison's job. It appears that at is not so important t hat each one of theta does his'present Job properly as it is that each ata>n on good termi. with Mr. A d d i s o n_. Southern is now run by a management council of all the CEOs. It is run by_conuensus. There are not dinngreementa. An o mattes of fact, ur.ch CEO makes it his busineFS to agree with what they think Mt. Addison wants to do. A rumor can utart tbut Mr. Addison wanta somethina done and all the CEOs break their necks to agree to it even if Mr. Addison known nothing about it. We are in a heavily politteul arena here and-right menno 1iitle. Into thin situution enter one H. Patrick Mcdonald, Thin atmosphese it made for him; he excels-in it. He is either G1 or G2, knows hu is not going further in the ecmpany, han retirement from the 'J a v y, mnken good money, and _recognizou n vacuum in the leadership of the Company. He does what he wants to do, regardless of what any one else uays, explains it without sticking to the truth, and, in general, is enjoying li fe. He gets along very well with Mr. Parley partly beenuse he lies to Farloy and partly because Mr. Farley hates Georgin Power Company, put can get away with anything by badmov, thing Georgin powur. Farley la Executive Vice president of Southern for Nuclear and reporta to Mr, Addison. When the decision was made to bring put into Georgin power ;he is Executive Vice president of-Georgin power and Alabama power 1 and Io more our nuclear operations group to itirmingham,.I decided -a f t er my experieneve with him to..st go. I went to_Grady and told him'that 1 d2dn't want 1o :D - and I recommended that we establish a contract administrarson group to protect Geor gia Power ~ - not t o manage SONOpCO - but to advloe GpC'n senior management on how our performance wnu. Grady agreed Io i lin t and said'he would talk to Dahlberg. I specifically-remember him naying that whoever got the job as General Manager of his group would have a-tough time trying to deal with Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald, . (Incidentally, everyonc_in senior management at Georgin powet that I have talked to: George Head, Grady, Elmer, Dwight Evans, and I-have been tbld Dahlberg hates Pat Mcdonald. They think he is burdering on ciazy, and he doesn't toll the truth). Grady tuok his proposal'to Dahlberg and al n o s" e point Grady and Geo_in !!eadstalked to Dahlberg. They decided we did need such a crooli and it would-be reporting to George lie u d. Dahlberg asked G"otge who would head the group and George told-him me, lie said I was the only one in th" _ Company left with nuclear experience, except George. I was given the job on December 37. A copy of Dah!h"rg'c memo announcing the p rom o t. i o n is enclosed, prior to the m e nio coing out, G. o cn asked me -how 1.would-structure the group. A copy of my memo to Geoi ce on thnt subject is also_enclused.. __, _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.

9 t 1 i i Early in January, put Mcdonald came over to Geoinia power and told me to do something. I told him 1 would be glad to but that I needed to inform George lle n d since 1 now worked for him. put went 1ivid, lie asked what I was talking about and I went and got a copy of the memo for him. He got verv made and unid he opponed ihe creution of

• .uch a group.

lie said when the time came for such a group, he would not up the group, docide whnt it would do, and he would-pick the hend of it. he s,id he inuld not hnve any of this. I reported this to George, From January until the end of April when Geome rettred, I worked no well as I could to do the job assigned to me by tne prenadent. Unfortunately, Pat Mcdonald would not cooperate and would not let his j . people in Birmingham cooperate. I will not co into details except to say r that Pat hns refused to let his people in Dirmingham even talk to me. During this period, I told George we needed help fr om Dahlbern. 1 must have requested a meeting with Dublberg 60 timea. George unked for many..many meetings.- Ile hnd maybe 4 or 5. Each 1ime, Dahlberg would say he supported ut,, wanted un to do our job, and wnn hehind u t;. Dut. he did nothing. Pat still would not cooperate. Finally, George as.hed me to call Mcdonald und set up a meeting between Mcdonald, lle n d, and me. Mcdonald l would not set up the meeting. l Then George announced he was retiring. Dahlbert ut.hed him to reconsidec and remain with Gpc but George r e f u r. e d. One of t he reanons George refused was that he felt we did not have a leader at Georgia Powirr and that Bill would not make a decision and would not ntand up for Georgic power. Throughout ull of t his, I have continued to remind people that put McDorald~ reported to Dill Dahlberg and, by Nhc regulations, had bu t t er. told Grady, George, Dwight Evano (1:VP of External A f f a i s., and a good friend of Dahlberg's), Chuck Whitney (Asut to Dahlbein,, Fred Williumn tY' of Bulk power), and the attorneys that I thought we had a problem. I fo!. them that -in ny opinion, Pat Mcdonald worked only for Joe Parley, now EV of: The Southern Compnny, and if that were true we were .n violattun of iui license and.the NHC could shut our plants down. Several people shared m3 concern but would not ngree or disagree. George Head agreed. Fred Williams said nll we had to do was show the NHC the organization chart. said Fred that won't cut it. 4 w -far as I talked-to the lawyers. They were concerned and even went 4. t o '~ toll Iloi rs t on that if he were ever asked who he reported to he was to-say Mcdonald who' reports to Dahlberg. For the !itenne on-Uni (-? at Vogtle, the' people were' coached as to how to answer that questfon. Finally, George'has decided to r.ttire and he went to Dnhib.nu and wi L there was one matter he wanted to get settled before he retired and that was our relationship with SONOPCO. Dahlberg responded that he knew thm-was a problem and he was going to meet with Parley and see i f t he> rou!d str,:.ighten it out.. When George told me that, i snid somethinu 1ihe i( Mcdonald report to'Dahlberg why in the h v} l enn't Dill just tell him what t to do and why does Dill have to go and stcaichten it out with Joe Uncley George said, "Well, I guess we have just got the annwer as to who Me!!on e : wast. -roully reports Io._" George. aluo said that U n k l h e s u. a. 41 i! mm.. q ,, _3_e ._ u g_ m -m

~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - O e r 6 let. rned t hat Grady and Dahlbe g wei o noing to meot with When we larley, I told George that they shouldn't go inik to farley wi t hout 1 tulking to him und me first about what prob l etnu we were having, lie agreel l and tried to set up a meet ing wi t h Dahlberg. Dahlberg wouldn't tw e t witb us. About this time, I war going up to acorne llend ' c office on the 21th floor and the Executive Vice preuident for External Affairs saw me and we ntarting talking. lil a name is Dwight Evans and he in pretty clour to Dahlberr. _ Dwight *. aid that i f he were me he would stast luol<ing for another job in the company becauae he had hen: d 'haf 'h Dona ld and hrt.> were out to get me fired or out of ihe job i u m. in. I reported this to George and ho said we had to talk t Dahlberg ind Grady before they met with Parley. lie t ried but failed, lle then I suggested that I might go to Grady and tell him who' oc had

h. ii d md u h.:

our concerns were and try-to get a meeting with Grady and_ Dahlberg.

l went to-nee Grady and asked for a meeting.

lie said it was not necosaary. I said something like Grady, the rumor in going around that Mcdonald and. Farley are rifter my job. Won't you at leant talk to George and me-lie jumped up from his chair. threw his arms up high, lauched and coutinuinn to laudh staid, "ll ob b y, what can 1- .ay?" And, he then walled out o f t h" room. I told'Gourge. lie got mad and uaid he wan leavine ihe Nmpoo3. wantm to get away from.those people, and he basically apolontr.ed Ihat the Company did not have n backbone and would not stand up for what wan icht lie said we did not have nnyone i n s e n i o r '.n a n a g e na-n t at GpC "wurt h a shit" and that Mcdonald would win because no one at GpC would done tathie Farley. About the same time, 1 got u call from Fred Williams, Vp of bulk . Power _ lie is the guy that really deals with most w i. t h the joint owners. lie said he had been asked by Dahlberg and Grady to no.to itirminghnm to s c. If we could work out the problems between SON 0pCO, GPC, and the joint

owners, lie asked me to writo down the major problemn I had in dealing with McDonal'd.

lie said he would not show it to Mcdonald but he would-gio it to Grady and Dahlberg-for their meeting with I'arley. I wrote the memo (which is enclosed) and before d ivind it to Fied I showed-it George lle a d. Georgo agroed w1th the memo and felI no nIrongly about what I had said, he-nuld he wanted to.sien the memo wita me. I-has the original memo at home with m) and George'a signature. I look the mes .to Fred Williams.. lle read it. lie told me to destroy

f. h e memo becaune we did not want something like that in our files.

lie said the Joint owners had been. fussing-about Mcdonald und who Mcdonald report ed to and he naid unid not has -that my memo showed that Mcdonald reported to Farley and we e this memo in our files because it would prove Oglethorpe's argument I told } red Ihat thir, was a regulatory contern. I t il d bim that the way he reacted indicated that we did have a pr obl em and that we ought 14 fix the. problem before we got into trouble with the NUC. 'old him u. ought to concentrate en fixing the problem not worryinn about some memo. I!further said'if he did not have.n. problem, then the wmo meant om hina_ -. _ _. ~. _. _ _. _. _ _, _. _ _

___ _ - _. _ _ _ m 1.

• s

( 4 i I lt only meant something if Mcdonald did not actually report to Dahlberg but to Fncley. 1 told him I thought we wele ip. i n g !o net io tionhle ai(h problem that i f t he Nim m er a% Led abom' the N I(C. lie naid there was not a the ihnue we would Juni show them on organi mtson < hart. then he

aid, you must doctroy this memo.

lie also said he was guire to trop a < op3 .f the memo but he would not keep it and he would not let 'irads.uol D a h llo 4 l see i t.- It was because of that that I went ta see George and Iater io Grudy. i I talked to George and we agreed that I would not destroy the memo. I I do not have n' copy at the office. I do n]sewhere. In my conversation with Fred Williams, I nsked him why Dahlberg just didn't-tell pat Mcdonald what to do and the whole issue would be behind un. lle uaid Bill did not have the clout to do that. !! r said m Donald oa, very close ta Farley and if 11 : 11 nave pat Mcdonald an ofdor and Farley di not agree with it, the matter could wind up b" fore N iddi on, i eked wel1, doesn't Dahlberg have enue,h c1out with Addason io oan tlo-argument. Fred said that wasn't the isnue. H" said Addits n did not hass enough clout to tell farley what to do, llo said the S o u t h.? r n board was divided and that Addison-did not have enough voten to do someth!ng if Farley disagreed and that Farley did not have enough votes if Addison disagreed. lie said the Southern Board is at a utulemnte and we have t make do the best w" can. And, the one thlug Dahlberg could not afford #o do was raise an issut between Dahlberg and Farley.that would require Addison to make a decision because, if push cace to 3, h o v e, Addison was ow guaranteed that the Dourd would cupport him over Fa:Jey. ihorefore, nu major disagreements were to be brought to Addison. Dottom line: Dahlberg wants to replace Addison. Hahlbera is not going to make something an-Issue-Ihut will re<luire Addison to decide l between Dahlberg and Farley. No one is,ig control at ' iou l he rn it is shared responsibility. Farley can do what he likes. Farle3 lets McDonal do what hu likes. -And, nobody can stop him. .I shared what Fred told me with paul flice and paul said.that was pretty much the truth, lie said Addison tu working to gain n majority of the.Doord's support but he does not have it now. After George retired, Kerry Adams, who known nothing about nuclenr, was' named to replace him. Grady told him he was not sure,who I would eventually wind up reporting to, but that I was to hiro no new people. I believe that-the-outcome-will-be--that-my--job will be greatly redun_ including a reduction in pay and I will be asked to report.to Fred -Williams. Or, I could be asked to resign. 1 don't know. But, I do hoon this, I have tried to do a good job and have been prohibit"d'from donnu u Job by pat Mcdonald. I got excellent support from George llead, I have received no support - - exc<at lip service from Crndy or Dahlberg. L Everybody is protecting the r own position in the company. I 1 don't know what wil' h a li p e n. It is my opinion that G!"'.uol Alah.on Power Company are in violation of our NRC licensus. .1cDonald repos's 1 don't-care what-the organ.ivatzou chart ,ap,. I hau point-j Joe.Farley, out.over and over to management that 'l w. -rn"d tha' no b"c" ~ 4

e< s t Y I tt - I { t violating Federal law. 13 u t, the notwer in t i sc e m.s 1 i nne a spi i n, We' ll i show theta an. organization chart." Maybo you tind 1 can talk cluut this on Sunnlay. i e i i s 1 I i 4 [ 4 L P 9 E + t i s -e mcw w e--e s w-+ -w-e -er-veme==,-eeaw= e gm,ar m-_ -,-e rww ey m e ar-, = w w-w w ev- '; m se a-wws ww+m wew +c-w ' rte er - --~e we, wrtst ee ---

4 F h e ;, i 4 i*

g..,.

N a d 5 W'. j', [p sj.,~ f' $ ggTg'; e I 9 9 A P 1 p-- f h 4 .t n f.- k,;-

• ...' (,4 s

.k. e 4 I l I i I l l

e A b ATTACHMENT SONOPCO ORGANIZATION 7........._.-... ~ APC waco oPC ALAaAWA DOce0PCO Stomoa POWSR 991E6404NT d.No POWS 4 ~ Cao CIO CEO l 60NOPCO APCoPC ExtCVTTYE 1 i YtCl#RE6404NT I I i f CO8tPOfuTE OR1AN# TON tONOPCO ter Pv0PCO/APCOPC - SO*pCO M NCR VICE.Pm6&lDENT YlCE#ME&sD4NT YtCE #A864 DENT T5CHNICAL NOCLAAR LIRVICES MRVICES OPSRATios,g l m 60NOPCO. APC DONOPCOOPC SONOPCOCPC EONOPCO e e e o e go,onaq VtCd.PMSS406NT YhC4.PmSte0$NT VtCE.PRESi(1MT 6ecasume PAAL2Y HATCH YOOTL3 ocase m a Pm0J8CT P90 JECT Pm0J6CT l tcNOPCO SONOPCO &ONOPCO g,0NOPCO SONOPCO SONOPCO puPPORT SAER SUPPORT SAER SUPPORT SAAR STTE NN 8 OPC OPC APC PLANT PLANT PLANT PA4Lgy MATCH YOOTLE l m m m I a-_ . -~ -- D&NQTES AWINISThativt REPORTING , SONOPCO NERS i-

• • WANAMR bAER WILL ALSO St AN APC EMPLOYtf l

l l l t I

,.. s

• [I i4' f-h.f h

h rJC P "; + v p q l' ,,,u a i ', g f,7 e.*wrt/1,# 9... v,.. a y,.a 1 [* 1 8 id' 'h k a f 3 i -

s. i J

~ n w 2'i n4 h! h '.34 - } p. '. 'l ' 4. tC '- e: E

)

1 e s.

-,. _ " b

% kl 9, m.'( f e 4 i p{; Jh4.c-j Jf A. 'A 1 i i , $ a 4 s g- - dj% m. _4!p, 9 -m 4 i y! .OA ?. 2 t 6: J %n,, ) ', e ! b g k( = 2.4 s

J.

vg} 'c' h 7f f oc hI t .y b NMO 8 p,,. x;;, g.. - ?, t .. + ,g-e?sy m 4, a 4-c ,irr m.-.Y. o,2-H- .4,r' h4 4..Fy @ L. o. s. .. + N;' , m ry u ;,. %. h h. - . 'o-.yg' p's,,. (. h.I bY W. g 1 g '. g i. j.0 4., $ =,r e m' 3 er ;

3. g -

'44 'p'g - -;>J y 4 de ,{ y ...k i i Ew,. _ :.,.,, _ I;. <. j,n -\\'.- 4 Nod 3' u j g h. 4d^ V b. 4,N. ft. w. ' gse..,j[,. 1kd -T- [h:- {i,' ? l&g; gy... m W I? 4

c

- n, "f_,Y3?* "h' ', ' ' ' > e . w...,f4, 3 y '.'[v , [v = 03-s ,i. s'.?Yf$.i f' ?- $yfff [k,1,!Q +- cusA - 50' -s' 2 %;'.f ? :i. eo w i '. ' n, ,'_s#a 54'. j h tj ]-('[.-, - t -,, e ? - [' _m._,._ .__-__.,.__,,.._,c .m__,.___.__.

J R G \\'A e 2 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIIrr OF PROCEEDINGS Ageng'- liuclear Regulatory commiscion Office of liuclear Reactor Regulations

Title:

Implementatien of southern rauclear operating Co'.npany Docket No. 50-348, 50 364, 50-425, 50-321, so-3cs tocmON: Rockville, Maryland dam Friday, January 11, 1991 PAGIE 1 - 49 N ..io ~< yf g, 7 - a f - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1612 K St. N.W, SuJte 300 Wtshington, D.C 20006 l (202) 293-3950 t -~

i o s i I 42 ( 1 mootings and timing of reviews. It has nothing to do at l 2 this time that I know of, of anything -- i i 3 MR. VARGA: Are you experiencing resistance from f 4 the other owners? i 5 MR. MCDONALD: We have experienced encouragement t 6 from others. Dan's company for example, has encouraged us 7 to proceed on as officiently as we can. 3 MS. ADENSAM: Do you have any contingency if those 9 issues don't got resolved and you are not in a position to 10 transfer liconses? 11 MR. MCDONALD: Well, any contingency if they don't 12 got resolved? 13 MS. ADENSAM: Would you -- -14 MR. MCDONALD: A month ago today we woto sitting 1 ' 15 ' here, and.the only difference a month ago today is wo would I 16 orace that lino.and erase overywhere SONOP00 appears, 17 overywhero SONOPCO appears you would crase it. For all 18 practical purposes there is no difference in the day-to-day { 19 operation of the-plants. 20 MS. ADENSAM: You are continuing as of a month ago i 21 -then? 22' MR. MCDONALD: Yes. A month ago there was ne lino 23 here. Mr. Parley was performing _his job as a Vice President 24 of the Southern company. He had no responsibilition for I r 25 this administrative support. That administrativo support . _. _., - ~. _. ~ - _, _

t 9 2 i ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - - ' ' ~ ~ - - ' - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ' r i l 1 any executive on any of thoso? l l 2 A No. I do not believe they are. I l 3 Q dho do you report to?

Well, first 4

thoro's the Southern company Services; is that 5 correct? 6 A

Yes, I~

7 Q Who do you report to thoro? 8 A The Prooident and the chief 9 Exocutive Officer of that company, Mr. Alan l 10 Franklin, and for certain purposes I report to j 11 him. Basically, however, my reporting is to 12 Mr. Edward L. Addison who is President and CEO 13 of the Southern company. As I mentioned, I am l '. an officer of the Southern company but both Mr. 15 Addison and I are paid by Southern company i 16 Servicoc. The SEC does not basically allow i 17 lthe holding company,to maintain a separato l l 18 payroll. So we are employees o '1 the Servico-1 19 ' Company for_ pay purposes but my basic reporting l 20 responsibility is to Mr. Addison, i 21 Q At Southern Company you report to j 22 Mr. Addison? } 23 A' 'Yos. 24 Q Does-Mr. Mcdonald report to you? 25 A Mr. Mcdonald and I work together and. a F' DULL & ASSOCIATES

o I 12 1 have a clone working relationship. Wo, in 2 osuonce, occupy a act of joint responsibilition 3 iwith the project with which we're involved but 4 ho~doon not,. Ior most purposon, report to me. 5 Q But ho does for some purposon? 6 A Wo have a clone relationship an wo 7 jhavo had for many yearn but our 9 responsibilition are difforent and only.in the 9 nonso of some administrative mattern doon ha 10 report to me or work with me. Our relationship 11 l in more informal than simply reporting. i 12 l Q so on paper ho does not n e e r.; n a r i,1 y 1 .13 report to you but informally ho does report to 14' you? 15 A lie doen not 16 l MR. S C ll A U D I E S Excuse m0. i 17 l Mr. Parley. Lot me just regiator an ( j objection here and that is to the 18 f extent that this deposition isn't 19 20 trying to inquire into the reporting 21 relationship betwoon Mr. Mcdonald or 22

i _

Mr. Parley or whoever also which wan 23 part of the allegationo I realize 1 i l 24 that woro rained by Mr. Il o b b y. I i 25 don't bellove that that is rolovant .._.. _ _ _ _ -. _ J BULL F. ASSOCIATES

Co 13 1 to the luouo of whether he wan 2 r u t. a l i a t. e d againnt for raining thono 3 allogations. I would like to make a f 4 standing objection to thin 11no of 5 3nquiry and allow the witnous

t. o go 6

ahead and procond in the interontu of 7 full disclonuro and toward e x p e d t t. i n g 8 the deponition but, 11 I may, it will 9 just be a ntanding objection to the 10 ontire line of inquiry. 11 MR. K oll!1 - You may certainly 12 havo that. 13 MR. S C II A U D I E S : So if you can l 14 remember the q u e <,t i o n, which I'm 1 15 afraid I can't, you e n annwer it. J 16 Tile W I T !! E S S : I'm norry. J 17 can't. l 18 0 (By Mr. Kohn) Okay. The question 19 was, in onoonce then, on paper Mr. Mcdonald 5 fdoon 20 not technically report to you but, he doon 21 in an informal sense? 22 A On some matters in an informal l 23 q.o n s e. 24 Q Can you toll me which mattern on an 1 25 informal annuo? BULL & ASSOCIATES ll w i

1 14 g (- f i i L l l i) 1 A In an informal nenne, he and I i j 2 l jointly are what we doncribe an an office of 1 3 ' the chief executive of the project. It in not 4 fa corpor tion. It in a project. In areau auch j; i 5 +an the nelection of a candidate for an il I t 6

accounting job or a job in the non-operating 7

arean. When I nay operating, 7 mean the 8 ) operating of the power planta themnelven. lie 9 doca not report to me and yet on the other w f 10

lareno, particularly adminintrative or in

) I 11 l governmental affaira which lo part of my t l 1 12 l responsibility, he would report to me in that >h 13 sense. If he were asked about volunteering to )- ! be a witneun in a concreacional proceeding 14 7 l 15 having to do with advanced light water 1 16

reactora, he would ask me about it before he 0

l 17 would accept that. That r e l a t. i o n s h i p,

however,

\\ 18 , doca not apply when it comes to Plant Vogtle, 3 i 19 Plant fl a t c h or Plant Farlc' hare he doen not j 9 20 report to me but reports t, the coief executivo 21 officer of Georgia Power Company or Alabama 22 ! Power Company respectively. 23 Q He reportn to those individualn? 24 A Yes. 25 l 0 But doen he discuns the operation of f I il ~. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ BULL & ASSOCIATES k I

. r h 16 1 !maybe three days week and I would unually nuo 2 him during those days. 3 Q When the S O ll O P C O organization la I 4 i incorporated iormally r 5 A You. 6 Q will fi r. Mcdonald report l d i r e c t. l y 7 to you? 8 MR. S C ll A U D I E S :

Well, excuso 9

me. I'm going to object to the form 10 of the question on the basic that it 11' la hypothetical and i t ' r. naking tho 12 l witnana to 1 13 MR. K O llli s Lot me rephrano it. l \\ 14 MR. SCllAUDIES: Okay. i 15 Q (Dy Mr. Kohn) In it anticipated i 16 j thht Mr. Mcdonald will report directly to you? l 17 A The annwor la immediately he would 18 !for cortain purposes but not for cortain other i 19 purponos because the incorporation and, by the t 20 i vay, I have to add this caveat. I will have i 21

mandatory retiroment in approximately two years 22 land five months.

So the way thingn have been 23

moving, I may not even be there at the time it l

24 la incorporated. But if it worn incorporated 25 tomorrow. he would report to me for L._. BULL 1. ASSOCIATES

A o l 17 i l l 1 . a d m i n i n t. r a t i v e mattern and for certain purpoacu t 2 of the en o r t I have dascribed before. In other 3

Iworon, our relationship would not change but he i i

1 4 jwould utill remain an officer of both Georgia i i 4 j i 5 Power Company and Alabama Power Company and 6 report an Executive Vice Prealdent of both ) 7 thone companien to their Chief Er.ecutive l 8 Officero and through that to thone Hoardu of 9 Directorn. Ultimately, there would be another l 10 stage we would hope to paus through in which 1 11 ,the licensas it. ! 9 ht be transferred but that may 1 12 j or may not ever take place. So I would be 13 nheer speculating on that. I 14 l 0 It's my understanding at nome point I 15 the transfer from the S O t1 0 P C O Project to j l i 16 S O !1 0 P C O Incorporated was anticipated to take l

'120 days; is that. correct?

I t 17 18 i A I am not sure anticipated in the j i 19 correct word. It was hoped that it would take t 20 <a relatively abort timo for the first phane of l 21 the incorporation and the getting underway to i j 22 i take place. i i i 23 Q Are you aware of whether or not 24 Oglethorpe Power has aaked any questions of 25 lanyone cf the Southern S y s t. e m as to whom ti r, j i i BULL & ASSOCIATES k

37 ) l. 3 they operato under contract to nupport to report to him. 4 3 Q In that a Mr. Long? 4 A Yes, Mr. Lou Long; Louin Long. ~ t r, O And he in the Vice President of i 6 iTechnical Servicoo? i v i 7 A Yon; and ho la a Southern c~npany i 8 Servicoh employee. () Q Then there's also an administrative 10 acrvicos? i 11 A Yes. The vico President of 12 Administrativo Servicen, that's Mr. McCrary. 13 He la a Service Company employee. lle reporto 14 both to me and to Mr. Mcdonald. Ito reports to i 15 what I doacribed earlier as a kind of an office 16 of the chief executivo for the project on eh 17 administrative matters, not on teihnical A. 18 mattoru. f; g 15 O Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report A 7 20 directly to Mr. Mcdonald and then through there t 21 they report directly to you? 22 A Mr. Long does not report to me. 23 Now, Mr. McCrary because th 9 in a technical 24 area with which I do not exercise direct ') 25 supervision, I work with that group. They are, f $a BULL & ASSOCIATES

-. - -. - -..- - - -- ~. -. - i)> 38 1 in canonce, under me in the organization but 2 they do not report to me. They report to Mr. 3 Mcdonald. In the case of Mr. McCrary, for 4 purposes of this project, there are many thingo S that Mr. McCrary reports to directly to me 6 about and others he reporta jointly to me and 7 to Mr. Mcdonald or to whichover one of un 8 happens to be there. Mr. Mcdonald and I 9 undertake to be in this transition p e r j.o d of 10 sort of a joint office fnr t4te-ndanin.1 n_tf a t-Q o 11 side. I can furnish you that organization 12 chart if you want it. It's the same chart 13 that's a record with the SJC that we have 14 furnished. 15 Q I would appreciate that. 16 A Fino. 17 (Brief pause.) 18 Q (Dy Mr. Kohn) In there a document 19 which nota up the structure and function of the 20 SONOPCO Project? 21 MR. SCilAUDIES: At what point 22 in time? 23 MR. K OllN : Currently or one 24 that la still in offect. 25 A The initial f111ng with the SFC .) a DULL & ASSOCIATES L: i ~., _.. -

y. p 39 1 1 describen thin to nome extent. We have I 2 will be honest with you, I am not nure that we 3 have nuch a uingle documen+ that deacribea 4 ithis. An you may know, we h a c' anticipated that 5 do would arrive at a corporate stage fairly 6 noon which it han turned out not to be the i 1 7 case. We have had many descriptiono given of j i 8 what we are doing but as to a uingle document, i 9 I would have to review it to find out if we 10 have such a document. i 11 Q (By Mr. Kohn) Wan there a document 12 ipresented to the Southern Company Doard of 1 13 ! Directora regardir.g the structure of S O !1 0 P C O 14 and/or the S011oPCO Project? 15 A I report to the Southern Board 16

quarterly on the status of the organization in 4

17 iwhat we're doing. Again, when we received or 1 18 , when they approved the concept they did not 19

actually give they have no authority to i

l 20 actually approve anything other than the filing { 21 'with the Secu11 ties and Exchange Commianion. 22 .The structure is that that filing has to 23 precede their approval, 1s u t since that time I 24 do not think they have received a document 25 iother than just the current report from me i ____a

y.,,

DULL & ASSOCIATES w

( 3 40 l ')b 1[.; unrterly on the progress and performance. 2 Q Quarterly report on the progress of l i 3 , formation of the dONOPCO Corporation? l. I 4 A Of the performance of the units and i 5 the progress toward our ultimate organization 6 and that's a verbal report. i 7 0 And where do you obtain your l 8 information to advise the Board of the status? l I 9 A I know the information. I receive ( 10 of course (as everyone else does) reports from j 11 the people with whom I work. I receive reports 12 from Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Ilairston, Mr. McCoy, Mr. 13 Long, Mr. McCrary and I have put together a I 14 format, in my own mind, of

r. a t I think is 15 important which always includes "where are we" l

16 in our negotiations toward the creation of the 17 corporate entity which then would be much 18 easier for everyone to understand. 19 l Q And these are oral? I 20 i A

Yes, i

l 21 Q Are the meetings transcribed? i 22 A The usual minutes simply include Mr. 23 Farley reporting on nuclear performance and the 24 status of SONOPCO. 25 0 Were you apprised of the l l l l BULL & ASSOCIATES l -f bw

1. 1 g --

,b "** g,'Y ? p,g + i=. ~ -4 e f, e - 1,3 . 1-l ,,s i ~. d 4f m ,,4 f. m, 2 s 9 g, (? { g ,a d- + [M;$( T 18 q e hJ g. - - N*fp%d .P 1 r M6/ s n . 6 4., r* . cgQ Np. > \\. O

4. s

.. m w. ge u em e m M, 3 7,x. g, h? {hY "Ky fh W {.hfWj q %.. g i ', wk'Y 9 { m g s.+4 +; k n GM > g ) u,;j g y ~s 3: y w ~: 5 a .s 1 nxp 'u 4 b 5 d $hlh [ (s[3, N il rh ' 4 %u _ (%,h[ h,m.Nyk. nim j m m y g-3,g pc 1-of .J *> N, O a a. in lg y m Dy ' e g,.. 'k n, ;Q _r %m'. EM 3 Q, o. c 6-c s. e 1+ , 7. a x',,m .t.. ~, v y i, { T J Pr 5d i. ' w*y tP. -4 m +; r'c a7 < u< i 39 -Dw' c ( :- r'9 e l 9ji l d z*

• _ ML [(l.

$.^ 4

b y

j 6 P.-- .ys.g:- N, Qt, jOu, 3. J ' G e Qg ' Qi et_ , 3 < P.' J' + -gy;N-c . 3 x,gi 4

• 3 s,w' j9 t'N *f (,, h, @

1. A na

.f. 4 ,5 l g^ r ,g"3 f,p, s,. j

• f f. y h,, i Q,_

II. ~ j pl, { ) a Oc (?) p ' x e _ -,y + v ' k } _4 m j y 9 b ]g, g 'f s 4 _k :' f q U [ 'l v s.Ml u j p h 4 4 s - ,, s t jr p pWs' 5 % +/p h d $} 4 -~ o.tg 4 _ t-

,r 4 AiMQ/P

+ [4 (}q$18)R' % h Sv3 %u v ~ m g.4 os 1 NY Qif f 3 A p&1 4. er 644 , s; < a wm m%,tsf. 'TQ .'4y g We g-s yp = - l '[f 'q ., e r. 3 h hk j - J W,t 3 ; .q. 'q g >.bf ,y,r 1 r + 6 9 4. , a

q.

%1, i5 e gf f p " id' 's K ' 7-j y f. ? 4 f-i,, Np-M_ r ' s ]7* '. 4 ; j - ,, q'e H M,' N,3 - g a 4 3 m> .). %, y,a . j e; q. ^r.3 M e > = 1 l cq <4,5 g-s, s>< g f,' 3 ,o 1*a .J op-4p' l 4 ; * % (2( k..a 4,

• _, %(

+ lp! % ;,,1 A, 4 -! ,w p (, g r L; g. %l i s - m y t.i .g c ft a)- y er. q ,2 ,.,g.. = V y' - e t. ',7 ' - t o '4mi , ;L .ia A I y 9 ., 9, y, -y,c/* l 5 - n {' > p <m m, o u y- $4j* q,,4 3; (f Yt bh, i g j 3 gg. 4%gy,t s e(y u ,/ , q.n y e t, ," g, 4,, 4 e, ) t" .A .r, 9 p. ,y s 9,. i " j,. N 4 gj 4 ,=.'- O ' s &,' *%c g .{i #' l^ 3Ag# 8 y ,%)lg .j4 < ' ' d p l., * $t f-v /

1'

'ej 5 * ,,7 'b .. Q ' '<Q)i'N}x.f.' ,q.. e{l ll1 4~l}! \\ % 4 f$~ 6 * * + ni,s *+:

• c, a

  ,., 1 4 1

' c. ', " [ j), g t (i u ;,g, 9 A gi, .'g E'J, g. s . I n d.,;,. i ,( 7 5 s k. s.) J,d J"y'T' f ;-y'! U [ ,g* a,, ; Yy+ F-t' y A y,>fd):l' - v. - .( 3 4y-s 4 s y -> -,c; n .L w i -i .t g ; <, \\. f%3e A s ,,A,. m = , ;.,%,i,f ,4 t.e <.i s s + 3, sg+ b t y - y,, < 'j. -y,t, e > w. s} q. \\; 3 g p'g g,g q$, y: = .p 3 i : t-

W 3%

n 7 ; y.p% i n.'_f 4t ;. t - ! :M?t g' 4 pg; M *"m ~ ;#.3 m. e g t,. h -qj 3%

V

't y

• i.

i ts K 4, s ' y{ - y a ' f.. *~ ;(g l..a'.*ma]l.',-.'s4,1 ,,a.w ,41 , }*3[ . f..,. 34 4 i , y. %,f,, .. w. m 4 %.. g g, g. y +< o,

1. ,ae

,mr i;, 4 t w .3 q I I K y. l . ([ @% y g g.t h([. 9/ j.w w Nw % cae g}% a m./ mus q Wg g g KQp.7 q * > ?g:9 ;; g m p_

• ib;'jg.O m g-M(qq g -

gn J. p s w (l,, > j u y 3 A W,- p h a #[% \\y-{ ~. +. pg q.g .4e h bl k M4 4 y h I lk

• [

. ~% d.4 g.- q, N~yym.a ,~m g l;;;,a y g o gg.gg <n,gg + m, 3 g3 q . q,w .o-yg1 g 4 .. q ,7 @ c he i 4 +q + 1 V t. %a 4 4 M," ?,, ) y. l ,e< m i^ _

h 4 ggpy 1 U ll I T E D STATES OF AMERICA IlEFORE T il E U.S. D E P A RT H E llT OF L A llO R I 2 3 MARVIll D. Il O D B Y, ) ) 4 Complainant, ) CIVIL ACTIOli ) 5 vs. ) FILE 11 0. ) 6 GEORGIA POWER C O M P A ll Y, ) 90-ERA-30 ) 7 Roupondent. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITIOli OF 15 ALFRED WILLIAH DAHLDERG 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT A11D D E P O S I T I O11 REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road,

11. E., Suite P-504 g

Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 BULL & ASSOCIATES L.

h'.t l 8 8 & r I 22 1 Q Who administern that contract? 2 A It's really not administered. It'a 3 a contract and it's just a service contract. 4 It's similar to S O !1 0 P C O. If there in a 5 departmant that provides a function for 6 Georgia, you know, it's just provided just like 7 another department of Georgia. There la not 8 really a contract when you oit down and you say 9 you're suppose to do thin, your suppose to do 10 thin. I'm not f a r.. i l i a r with that kind of a 11 contract. The one that I'm familiar with 12 describen what the Service Company in to do and 13 gives some formulas for allocating costa but 14 that's about the extent of it. 15 0 Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report to 16 Mr. Mcdonald; is that correct? 17 A I believ,e so. 18 Q Did they report to Mr. Mcdonald an a 19 Georgia Power Company employee or as an Alabama 20 Power Company employee or as both? 21 A I am not sure. I am just not sure 22 whether they're officern of both companies or 23 not. They may have. I just don't know. 24 Q So there are no clear lines of 25 reporting from Mr. McCrary to Mr. Mcdonald to i BULL & ASSOCIATES j. mm

k, f! 23 i 1 1 you? 2 A There in a clear line for Mcdonald 3 to me, yes. 4 Q

Well, then doen it then go Mr.

5 McCrary, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Dahlberg? We've 6 already established that Mr. McCrary reports to 7 Mr. Mcdonald. Therefore, I assume because Mr. 8 Mcdonald reporta directly to you then that's 9 the chain of command; is that correct? 10 A I think that would be correct if it 11 is true that Mr. McCrary and Mr. Long and 1 12 said I thought that was true report to Mr. 13 Mcdonald and he repor.tod to me,

yea, that would 14 be the chain of command.

What I'm also saying 15 though is for the Administrative part of the 16

business, for the Technical Service part of the 17 businens I assume Mr. Mcdonald manages that.

18 The things that he talks to me about are the 19

budget, the performance, the operation of the 20 plant which would be in the operating side of 21 the business.

I'm more familiar with that. 22 Q So you have seated to Mr. Mcdonald 23 all control of Administrative Services and 24 Technical Services and only expect Mr. Mcdonald 25 to bring problems to your attention that he i BULL & ASSOCIATES

i o l 43 1 that we had basically was being done, and he was a part of a 2 contract it wan a contract to no f rom Southern Services for providing encentially much the name cupport we have here 4 now. 5 This group, for example, was a Southern Cornpt ny 6 nervicen organization that was under contract inter-7 company contract oncentially by me -- providing the came a thing that they are doing after the company is f o rrned. It 9 in no difforent. 10 MS, ADE!1 SAM: I have one other question, a little 11 different shift. I heard you carlier cay that Mr. 12 Carlington in the support organization was working with the 13 came procedures and practicen and so forth that he did 14 before. 15 MR. MCDollALD: Yes. 16 MS. ADE!1S AM : tiow, I would assume that the 17 gentlemen for the Hatch Project -- car ladies, as the case la may be -- for the Hatch Project and Vogtle project are doing 19 the same thing. My question is, are they working with the 20 same procedures as each other, or the came procedures as 21 they had before? 22 MR. MCDoll ALD: The business in each of these 23 projects is being carried on under the name of Georgia or 24 Alabama Power Company. The communications that you will 25 coe, the internal and external, will be in the name of

1 J#l\\ --. - ( 1 3, ? I 'n% r- .:t 3..,'y t'

• Y :sy,, p 3

z g ~,' #

4 7 f? '.i

• g,,_,.,e

..,e-I 4 m'^ f-e.

• L Y

s . py - i v.k 2

• J A.

A e n 3 .,y k hr . ywa ;. .f a dif.' ? im

+i.

4. )

y,p g,i ';fa.3. I. 4.m . g

j e a-a m-

... 4n 4g A ./ - du s te ..e.v %8 .k n l e.- .t ,,4' ' *t-o - Ig h,.', v.:,*: e tI d 4, si i _e ,p ' 4'e P.. .'t.*. .g ' :j.,1, i. '? g, < w k t' - e. - - % 3,t 4 s .s ...., f Sy? +- cay t :,t.,. + -s Lj %'L-*'3'%- ,U W' * [ .,#14 .t- . r I

d. k A t','.) _ s 4m+g -.,,c

?- g + s , - 4 hp t(w g a i$. 't 'h b ,,r[. 3, 6 t 4 " e ) 4 - --

L" COPY 1 U ll I T E D STATES OF AMEHICA BEFO"E Tile U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2 3 r4 A R V I ll B. Il O B B Y, ) ) 4 Complainant, ) CIVIL ACTIO!1 ) 5 vs. ) FILE 11 0. ) 6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ) 90-ERA-30 ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 JOSEPil M. FARLEY 16 17 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITIOli REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road,

11. E., Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2806 I

BULL & ASSOCIATES

. -. ~. -. _ _. - -.. - - - - - _. - - - -..... -. -.. -. _. _. _. _. 4 T e s + ) 2 1 d 1 Deposition af JOSEPil 14. FARLEY, 2 taken on behalf of the complainant, 3 for the purpose of discovery, upon 4 cross-examination, before Susan E. J E 5

Reynolds, Registered Professional 6

Reporter, Certified Court Reporter 7 and flotary Public, at the Candler 8 Building, 127 Peachtree Street, 9 li. E., Suite 1400, Atlanta, Georgia, m 10 commencin, at approximately 11 2:30 p.m., 14 a y 7, 1990. 12 L3 P 14 !5 16 i 17 i 18

^

19 J b 20 21 1 I 22 I 23 i 24 i 25 f f ._. __ J BULL & ASSOCIATES i l 1 .}}