ML20076K130
| ML20076K130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1994 |
| From: | Joiner J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#494-15816 93-671-01-0LA-3, 93-671-1-LA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9410270183 | |
| Download: ML20076K130 (36) | |
Text
-.
~.
./58%
October 14, %
4 S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
gD 6
s Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board; g.ggg
)
,A S 50-424-OLA M
,/
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
50-425-OLAf37 b e M(/
x
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
NMh3 '
et al.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA-POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO GEORGIA POWER'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Georgia Power Company (" Georgia Power") moves the Licensing Board to strike Intervenor Allen L.
Mosbaugh's Response to Georgia Power Company's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Illegal Transfer of License Allegation,. dated October 4, 1994 ("Intervenor's Response").
Intervenor's Response misrepresents the applicable legal standards, contains arguments which are outside the scope of the admitted contention, raises issues that have not been previously identified by Intervenor, contains assertions which are not supported by admissible evidence (including citations to depositions which have not been transcribed), in numerous instances either mischaracterizes testimony or is so selective with testimony as to be misleading, and otherwise fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749.
Yb0bh24 y9$
PDR h
l l
l Georgia Power does not believe that Intervenor's misrepresentations are simply the result of hurried work.F Georgia Power is concerned that Intervenor has demonstrated a pattern of misrepresentations in this proceeding.
Georgia Power j
has previously raised this concern with the Board.
- Sgg, e.a.,
Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's Motion to Compel Production of Affidavits, dated August 2, 1993, at 16 n.6, wherein Georgia Power requested the Board to caution Intervenor l
that further misrepresentations could result in sanctions l
including dismissal.
Although the Board did not so caution Intervenor at that time, Georgia Power requests that the Board j
now take action to address Intervenor's misrepresentations.
Georgia Power requests the Board to strike Intervenor's Response as an appropriate remedy or to take such other action as the Board deems appropriate to address Intervenor's misrepresentations.
I.
DISCUSSION.
A.
Power of the Board to Police the Proceeding.
The Licensing Board has authority to strike pleadings which do not live up to the high standards of practice expected before the Commission.
See Houston Lichtina and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-45, 22 N.R.C.
819, 828 F Intervenor was allowed twice the time permitted by NRC regulations to prepare and file his response.,
l l
i (1985) citing 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.708(c), 2.713(a), and 2.718(e).
The NRC's Rules of Practice provide that the signature of a representative of a party on a document filed in an adjudicatory proceeding subject to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 is a representation that the document has been subscribed in the capacity specified with full authority, that he has read j
it and knows the contents, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the statements made in it are true, and that it is not interposed for delay.
If a document is not signed, or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it may be stricken.
10 C.F.R. S 2.708(c).
Further, the parties to a proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and their i
representatives "are expected to conduct themselves with honor, dignity, and decorum as they should before a court of law."
10 C.F.R. S 2.713(a).
In order to enforce these requirements, Licensing Board's are empowered to " regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants." 10 C.F.R.
S 2.718(e).
B.
Intervenor's Misrepresentations.
1.
Improper Legal Standard.
Intervenor's Response alleges that Georgia Power's Motion for Summary Disposition " ignores applicable case law" and proceeds to represent that the Response " remedies this defect by setting forth applicable case law articulating the considerations and legal analysis governing transfer of control of a license."
1 Intervenor's Response at 6.
Later, Intervenor asserts "[i]t has been noted that the ' licensing provisions on (sic) the Atomic i
I Energy Act were based on those contained in the earlier enacted i
Federal Communications Act.'
Safety Licht Coro. (Bloomsburg Site), ALAB-931, 31 N.R.C.
350, 364 (1990).
Accordingly, recourse to federal case law interpreting Section 310(d) of the Federal Communications Act is appropriate."
Intervenor's Response at 39 n.36 i
Intervenor fails to inform the Licensing Board that the provision in the Federal Communications Act ("FCA") addressing i
l i
transfers of control is different from the provision in the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA").
The FCA prohibits " transfer of control of [the) corporation holding [the) license" whereas the AEA prohibits " transfer of control of [the) license."
More importantly, Intervenor failed to advise the Board that Safety Licht, ALAB-931, 31 N.R.C.
at 364, sets forth the appropriate factors to consider in determining whether a prohibited transfer of control of an-NRC license has occurred.
The licensing board's holding, in pertinent part, states:
It may well be that (as not disputed in the Staff's response) the " licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act were based on those contained in the earlier enacted Federal Communications Act" (footnote omitted).
Once again however, the legislative history of Section 184 is silent as to the reason for describing the significant event as the " transfer of control of [the) license" rather than the " transfer of control of [the) corporation holding [the) license."
[T]he absence of any concrete evidence in the legislative history to support the USR Companies' thesis necessitates that we base our decision on the plain meaning and practical application of the terms of Section 184 themselves.
Stated otherwise, the appropriate inquiry is whether, in reality, the 1982 sale of Safety Light or the 1980 restructuring of U.S.
Radium effected, either direct 1v or indirect 1v, a transfer of control of the licenses issued to U.S.
Radium, as the concept of control is generally understood.
In the instance of a corporate Part 30 2r Part 50 licensee, that control is to be found in the person or persons who, because of ownership or authority explicitly delegated by the owners, possess the power.to determine corporate policy and thus the direction of the activities under the license.
Idi at 364, 367 (emphasis in original and added) (footnote omitted).
Intervenor ignored the above holding and, instead, launched into a discussion of the holdings from Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") cases with respect to transfers of control.
Intervenor's Response at 39-40, 55-58.
Intervenor, apparently dissatisfied with the legal standard set forth in Safety Licht, went in search of another standard more suitable to his needs, when he should have applied NRC case law.
Intervenor's entire discussion of FCC and SEC case law should be stricken by the Board.
2.
Arguments Outside of Admitted Contention.
Intervenor argues that "the creation and operation of a Southern Nuclear Operating Company as a division of The Southern Company prior to incorporated (sic) violated the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935," and that the involvement of Southern Company president, Mr. Ed Addison, represents "an early rooting of improper control by The Southern Company over GPC's nuclear operations."
Intervenor's Response at 8-9 n.4, 11.
Intervenor cites two examples of Mr. Addison's involvement: a --
I A
Georgia Power management decision in 1986 concerning the
)
possibility of retaining Admiral Wilkinson to manage the construction of Plant Vogtle; and a closed executive session with j
INPO in early 1988 concerning Plant Hatch, attended by Messrs.
Addison and Scherer and INPO's president Mr. Zach Pate.
141 at 11, n.6.
In addition, Intervenor claims that "[Mr.] Scherer's credibility is called into question regarding [ Addison's involvement in the decision concerning Admiral Wilkinson), as he j
testified that Admiral Wilkinson merely did not want to take the position.
Scherer Dep. at 89...."
Intervenor's Response at 64.
These allegations concerning Addison have nothing to do with SONOPCO.
The events in question occurred several years before the SONOPCO Project began, while the plants were still under construction.
They have no bearing on whether Southern Nuclear improperly exercised control over the operating license.
Intervenor also contends that "Mr. Wallace told [Mr. Hobby) the [1990] budget had been approved at a meeting of the Southern Company Management Council and further that Dahlberg had disagreed with the proposed budget andNAddison had said, 'That's it.
That's the budget.'
Hobby Dep. at 73-74."
Intervenor's Response at 32, 51.
Again, this allegation has nothing to do with Southern Nuclear's alleged control over Vogtle operations.
These aspects of Intervenor's Response have nothing to do with the contention in this proceeding.
The Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Admitting a Party), LBP-93-5, 37 N.R.C. 96 (1993) admitted a single, reconstituted contention concerning the l
character, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements of Southern Nuclear Ooeratina Company.
Id at 110.
The Board expressly 2
rejected Intervenor's contention concerning the character of The Southern Company stating "[w]e find that Mr. Mosbaugh has not provided an adequate basis for questioning the character of Southern Company, its officers or directors, beyond the allegation already admitted as Contention 1."
Idi at 105 (footnote omitted).
The Board did not bar Intervenor from introducing evidence relevant to appropriate remedies involving The Southern Company if he first succeeds in demonstratina the need for remedies by establishing wrongdoing by Southern Nuclear or its organizational predecessor.
Id.
Intervenor's assertion of improper actions by Southern Company officers or directors is nothing more than an end-run ignoring the Board's prior ruling.
As such, it should be stricken by the Board.
3.
Issues Not Previously Identified.
Intervenor's statements concerning Mr. Addison, discussed in the previous section, should be stricken for a second reason.
Intervenor has not previously identified those assertions in his responses to Georgia Power discovery requests.
Intervenor's responses to Georgia Power's interrogatories concerning the illegal license transfer allegation are included in Intervenor's Response to the First Set of Interrogatories of Georgia Power ---
.,. _,.. _ _ - - _ ~
l l
Company, dated June 2, 1993.
Intervenor's interrogatory l
l responses (sgg especially the responses to interrogatories nos.
l 21-40) fail to identify any of the issues identified in Section 2 above.
4.
Assertions Not Supported by Admissible Evidence.
l The following statements in Intervenor's Response should be stricken by the Board as resting on unsupported allegations, inadmissible evidence or incompetent testimony, a.
Intervenor asserts "the decision to name Mcdonald as the chief operating officer over all The Southern Company's plants was based on discussions between Farley, Addison and Dahlberg. Farley DOL Dep. at p. 45.
Conspicuously absent from these discussions is GPC's executive management....
As such, the discussions concerning the selection of Mcdonald to head GPC's nuclear operations exclude GPC management."
Intervenor's l
Response at 13-14, n.11. (footnotes omitted).
1 Intervenor's assertion that GPC management was not involved in the decision to name Mr. Mcdonald an Executive Vice President of Georgia Power is false, and is not supported by the record.
i on the page cited by Intervenor and the following page of Mr.
Farley's May 7, 1990 DOL deposition, Mr. Farley testified as l
follows:
Q:
And Mr. Addison and Mr. Dahlberg agreed with your selection of putting [ Mcdonald and Hairston into their Georgia Power positions)
A:
No, sir.
That was not my doing.
The request came to l _
me from [ Georgia Power's] Mr. [Grady] Baker and with that, it was my giving consent to their assuming a Georgia Power Company role.
I was CEO of Alabama Power company.
I certainly did not designate them as l
that....
And [ Mcdonald and Hairston) were elected by the Georgia Power Company Board of Directors to those offices with a clear understanding that they would be sharing responsibility and that is before the SONOPCO Project existed.
Farley DOL Dep. at 45-46.
l l
b.
Intervenor's Response, at 18, states that "[n]o mention j
i of the interim formation of a SONOPCO project is discussed in the
[ June 22, 1988 Form U-1] SEC fili'eg. "'
This statement is also I
false.
The Southern Company's June 22, 1988 Form U-1 filing, l
j attached as Exhibit 6 to Georgia Power's August 1, 1994 l
l l
Stipulations Relating to Allegations of IAlegal License Transfer (hereinafter "Stip.") includes a discussion of the three phases of formation of Southern Nuclear and specifically states "[t]he initial phase will be to form a matrix organization in which key management personnel will be shared between APC and GPC pursuant i
to shared employment agreements in substantially the form j
l l
attached as Exhibit B-1 hereto....
Exhibit B-2 hereto presents i
the matrix organization structure during phase one."
Stip. Ex. 6 at 4.
While Intervenor would not stipulate to Georgia Power's l
description of the phases of formation of Southern Nuclear (Stip.
l No. 4), Intervenor did stipulate to Stip. Ex. 6 and the discussion of it in Stip. No.
9.
c.
Intervenor contends that NRC Region II was told that GPC's nuclear operations would remain in Atlanta until SEC approval for SONOPCO is obtained, and the location of SONOPCO would not be decided i
i l
i until after SEC approval.
Stip. Ex. 9 at Enclosure 1....
NRC stated that GPC's nuclear operations would not be moved until SEC approval was obtained... (GPC stated] the location of SONOPCO had not been selected....
Intervenor's Response at 19.
Intervenor has overstated the evidence he cites in support of these assertions.
Stips. Ex.
9,,
only states "the corporate office location will be decided once approval for tha company is obtained."
Intervenor's Response, at 19, also claims that "NRC was not l
advised that a 'SONOPCO project' would be formed...."
This too is false. of Stip. Ex.
9, a stipulation with which l
Intervenor agre'ed, evidences that, during the July 25, 1988 meeting (1) Southern system representatives advised the NRC that j
"(a) project organization has been established for each plant,"
l and (2) a " Nuclear Operations - Transition Organization" Org.
Chart was provided to NRC.
f d.
Intervenor's Response asserts, at 26-27, that Dan Smith's " observations led him to conclude that Mr. Mcdonald is reporting to Mr. Farley and that Farley's control over nuclear operations might violate the terms of the Vogtle and Hatch nuclear licenses."
See also Intervenor's Response at 71-72 (co-l owner statements support the inference that, "from an organization prospective (sic), GPC lost control of its nuclear plants.")
There is no evidentiary support for Intervenor's assertions.
To the contrary, Mr. Smith, a witness called by Mr.
Hobby in the Hobby DOL case, admitted on cross-examination that his concerns were resolved once he received a copy of a l
t
(
l memorandum from Mr. Williams to Mr. Hobby, dated May 15, 1989 l
(see Stip. 37 and Stip. Ex. 35).
DOL Trial Tr. 886-87.
- Further, Mr. Smith made clear in his deposition that he had only raised a question about the reporting relationship -- not that he had made i
any conclusions.
In commenting on his own handwritten notations l
(which are referenced at page 27), Mr. Smith explained:
l l
You noticed that I requested in the April l
1989 subcommittee meeting for power generation an organization chart to clarify this issue, because according to this document [his handwritten notes), it acoeared that maybe we had a problem.
My job was to i
look after Oglethorpe and our compliance with the licensing condition, and I said that it appears that there could be a conflict.
And I went to Georgia Power, and I asked them to j
clarify that, and they did, with that organization chart, which didn't answer all the questions I asked, but it really out to bed the cuestion that I had of what the j
reportina chain was.
Smith Dep. at 36-37 (emphasis added).
e.
A particularly egregious example of selective citing concerns Mr. Johnson's testimony.
Intervenor's Response, at 32, states "Mr. Johnson testified that from talking to the GPC budgeting people he learned that the 1990 nuclear budget was approved by 'the Board out of the Southern Company,' that included all the operating company presidents....
Johnson DOL Dep. at pp. 41-42 (Exhibit 29)."
Mr. Johnson's complete testimony in this respect makes clear that he lacked any first-hand knowledge; it reads: "well, it was -- and this is basically rumor because I don't know for a fact -- but it was a rumor that the budget was approved.
I guess the Board out of Southern i
J J
Company that included all of the operating company's presidents."
Johnson DOL Dep. at 41.
j f.
Intervenor alleges that "[i]t also appears that Mr.
Farley oversaw the introduction of GPC's nuclear operating philosophy."
Intervenor's Response at 32 citing Mr. Mosbaugh's tape of a statement by Mr. McCoy on August 6, 1990 at Plant Vogtle.
See also Intervenor's Response at 13 n.8, 51.
]
Intervenor grossly distorts the evidence.
Mr. McCoy's merely stated that "we had some discussion at the highest levels including Mr. Farley, Mcdonald, Hairston and the three VPs about our scheduling philosophy for outages...."
There is not indication that Mr. Farley introduced or." oversaw the introduction" of anything.
He was merely one of a number of people with whom outage philosophy was discussed.
There is also no basis for Intervenor's recharacterization of this discussion as relating to an " introduction of GPC's nuclear operating philosophy."
This type of extrapolation speaks volumes with respect to Intervenor's case and the accuracy of his representations.F g.
Intervenor's Response, at 33, claims that "[a]t the end of 1989, the SONOPCO project issued its official 'On-Call Project Manager' telephone list, proclaiming Farley as the head of GPC's-nuclear management.
See Corp. Mgt. List at p. 1 (Exhibit 15)."
F Ironically, Intervenor's own Response, at 70, admits that the statement simply reflects Mr.
Farley was
" involved in discussions." --
1 See also Intervenor's Response at 53-54.
Contrary to Intervenor's claim, the " telephone list" does not proclaim Mr.
Farley as the head of GPC's nuclear management.
He is simply listed in the GPC Corporate Maaagement section of the telephone list with his correct title at the time. " Executive Vice President - Nuclear, The Southern Company."
See Exhibit 15 to Intervenor's Response.
h.
Intervenor asserts that "[i)f Mcdonald and Scherer were not invvived in the decision to move GPC's nuclear operations, the decision apparently rested with Farley and Addison."
Intervenor's Response at 41.
Intervenor's assertion selectively omits key testimony on this subject.
Mr. Dahlberg testified that Georgia Power management was involved in the decision to move Georgia Power's nuclear operations to Birmingham.
Mr. Dahlberg stated in his April 6, 1994 deposition that "I would have been a j
member of the Georgia Power Company senior management and as such would have been involved in the decision to [ relocate nuclear j
operations to Birmingham)....
We did some analysis about the location of the organization.
I was involved as part of the task force or as part of the management structure that did the review....
[B]ut the question was reviewed by both....
[I)t would have been a joint decision.
Georgia Power Company l
l certainly would have played a key role in that decision.
[ Power Company) would have been involved in the decision and Southern Company would have been involved in the decision."
Dahlberg April 6, 1994 Dep. at 58-59. I
i i.
Entervenor's Response, at 44, contends that "Mr. Farley made the selection (of the vice president of administrative services for the SONOPCO project)."
Intervenor fails to mention that this position was part of Southern Company Services, not Georgia Power Company.
Intervenor also fails to mention the undisputed evidence that the Southern Company Services Board of i
l l
Directors ultimately selected the individual to fill this l
position.
Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at 12-13.
j.
Intervenor maintains that "GPC's former manager of NOCA, Marvin Hobby, identified Mr. Farley as head of GPC's nuclear operations.
This concern was shared, in part, by Mr.
Hobby's supervisor, senior vice president George Head, who cosigned [ sic] a confidential letter to GPC regarding this I
issue."
Intervenor's Response at 47.
Intervenor's assertion is not supported by an affidavit or any reference to prior testimony.
Further, the record of the Hobby DOL case does not support this statement.
In early 1989, Mr. Hobby told Oglethorpe that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Dahlberg and that he had no i
reason to believe otherwise.
DOL Trial Tr. 246-248.
He further l
testified that he had no nersonal knowledae of a single instance I
l in which Mr. Mcdonald received his management direction from Mr.
l Farley with respect to the Hatch and Vogtle nuclear plants.
DOL Trial Tr. 239.
This testimony by Mr. Hobby has been stipulated to by Intervenor.
See Stip. 41.
Because Mr. Hobby has no l
personal knowledge of the matters he alleges, he is not competent I
to testify to these matters.
See 10 C.F.R. S 2.749 (b).
Further,.
i the record of the DOL case does not support Interv.:or's claim that Mr. Head shared, in part, Mr. Hobby's concern that Mr.
Farley headed-up Georgia Power's nuclear operations.
Mr. Head testified that "in (Mr. Hobby's April 27, 1989 memorandum) we were talking about who Pat Mcdonald reported to, and I was very well aware that he reported to the president of the company."
DOL Trial Tr. 648.
This testimony of Mr. Head has been stipulated to by Intervenor.
See Stip. 41.
k.
Citing the Hobby DOL proceeding, Intervenor's Response, at 53, states: " Finally, Mr. Mcdonald reached a point where he flatly refused to follow Mr. Dahlberg's instructions concerning a nuclear performance indicator the PSC was considering imposing on GPC's nuclear plants.
DOL Transcript 927-928, 936 (Baker) (Ex.
31); Johnson DOL Dep. at 26, 29 (Ex. 29).
The matter was finally resolved by Farley.
Johnson DOL Dep. at 39 (Ex. 29)."
The record of the DOL case does not support Intervenor's claim.
The DOL Administrative Law Judge found that ic was indeed Mr.
Dahlberg who exercised control over Mr. Mcdonald and directed him to prepare rebuttal testimony.
Recommended Decision and Order at 28, 42.
Further, it was Mt. Hobby's testimony that this is an example of how Mr. Mcdonald received management direction from Mr. Dahlberg.
Hobby Dep. at 62-63.
1.
Intervenor contends that "GPC's failure to identify all its nuclear officers (in the annual Southern Company 10-K report filed with the SEC] demonstrates that it is neither in control of its nuclear operations or in touch with its nuclear operations." - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
4 1
J Intervenor's Response at 54.
This is precisely the kind of fanciful response that is insufficient to defeat a valid motion l
for summary disposition.
See Texas Utilities Generatina Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-17, 15 N.R.C.
593, 595-96 (1982) ("[t]he asserted facts must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful or merely suspicious.")
Further, Intervenor's assertion is highly misleading.
SEC's filing requirements regarding 10-K reports do not require The Ceuthern Company to identify all officers of its subsidiaries.
Only executive officers, as determined to be within the specific definition of " officers," in SEC regulations,F are required to be listed.
17 C.F.R.
S 240.16a-1(f).
Second, the only nuclear officer currently considered to be an " officer" for purposes of such reporting is the Executive Vice President - Nuclear Operations.
Third, for calendar years 1988 through 1991, Georgia Power identified in its annual 10-K reports its Executive Vice President - Nuclear Operations.F For calendar years 1992-1993, Georgia Power's Executive Vice President - Nuclear Operations was incorrectly omitted from the 10-K report.
Intervenor has no idea why such officer is not listed, did not inquire about such omission in any deposition, F Overly simplified, the term " executive officers" as defined I
by these regulations relates to insider trading disclosure r0gairements based on the position and authority of the officer.
f F For calendar years 1988 through 1990, the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations was also listed.
However, for calendar years 1991 and later, such of ficer has not been considered an " officer" required to be identified in the annual 10-K report. -
i and has provided no affidavit or other evidence in support of his wild allegation, based on the 10-K report alone, that the Company "is neither in control of its nuclear operations or in touch with its nuclear operations."
m.
Intervenor contends that "GPC sought to include language in documents it intended to forward to Oglethorpe so as to ' avoid accusation of license transfer.'
Eee Edwards Memo l
(Exhibit 20). "
Intervenor's Response at 56 n.42.
Intervenor's I
statement is based on an attorney-client communication document l
which was excluded from evidence in the Hobby DOL case.
DOL Trial Tr.
7-8.
Georgia Power affirms the privileged status of l
that memorandum, which is inadmissible to support Intervenor's statement.
Georgia Power specifically objects to Intervenor's i
attempt to introduce a document which has been previously ruled l
by a DOL Administrative Law Judge as privileged.
n.
Intervenor alleges that "[Mr. Farley] prepared testimony to the Georgia Public Service Commission with respect to matters pertaining to GPC's rate case...."
Intervenor's Response at 57.
Intervenor provides no support for this statement and Georgia Power is aware of no evidence that Mr'.
Farley prepared testimony to the Georgia PSC.
1 o.
Intervenor claims that "Mr.
Farley's deposition testimony establishes that he advised Mr. Dahlberg to terminate Mr. Mosbaugh."
Intervenor's Response at 58.
Intervenor has cited no support for this statement and Georgia Power is aware of none.
p.
Intervenor asserts that "Mr.
Evans advised (Hobby) that
'[Mr.) Farley was going to make the call' concerning matters 4
related to the staffing of [ Nuclear Operations Contract Administration group)...."
Intervenor's Response at 49 auotinc i
Hobby's DOL Trial testimony, Tr. 160-62; see also Intervenor's Response at 58.
Intervenor's statement is based solely on a conversation with an individual not involved in the decision.F Further, Intervenor conveniently omits that Mr. Barker, a witness called by Mr. Hobby, testified in the Hobby DOL case, based on his discussion with Dahlberg, that it was Mr. Dahlberg who i
determined that the NOCA group would be disbanded and not be staffed with transferees.
DOL Trial Transcript at 910-12.
q.
Intervenor's Response asserts, at 65, that "[i]n his i
April 6, 1994 deposition, Mr. Dahlberg exhibits a near total lack of knowledge regarding GPC's nuclear operations."
Intervenor's statement is largely based on selected answers concerning the details of events which occurred in 1990.
Not only has i
Intervenor misstated a number of Mr. Dahlberg's anLwers,F a full F Intervenor quarrels with Georgia Power's characterization of the conversation as inadmissible hearsay.
While the statement is 1
clearly hearsay, the more important point is that remarks by an individual not involved in the decision lack sufficient probative value to raise a genuine, material issue.
F For example, Mr. Dahlberg did know what the acronym "LER" meant (Dep. Tr. 54); and while at Georgia Power Mr. Dahlberg was aware of an allegation that a material false statement had made although he did not know to whom it related (Dep, Tr, 53).
Further, contrary to Intervenor's claim, Mr.
Dahlberg was B21
" ignorant of whether NRC violations are broken into levels."
Mr.
Dahlberg only said he didn't know "from memory" h2w the NRC categorizes violation levels. i
I and fair reading of Mr. Dahlberg's deposition testimony demonstrates he was well versed in the responsibilities of a nuclear utility CEO.
5.
Mischaracterizations of Testimony.
In addition to incorrectly citing transcripts throughout his l
Response, Intervenor has taken great liberties with the testimony of individuals.
His characterizations of testimony are inappropriate based on the full and fair reading of transcript.
Often, Intervenor selectively edits the testimony in order to contort the meaning of the unedited transcript.
In some cases, l
Intervenor misrepresents testimony by omitting whole portions of testimony which are critical.
The following inappropriate l
characterizations of testimony should be stricken by the Board.
l l
a.
Intervenor asserts that GPC's then CEO, Mr. Scherer was I
not told of the decision to locate Southern Nuclear in Birmingham, Alabama.
Intervenor's Response at 12.
This misrepresents Mr. Scherer's testimony, which was to the effect
[
that he was informed.
Mr. Scherer testified in his June 8, 1994 l
deposition that "[ijt was more a suggestion that they were going, and I guess it was an opportunity to object if I wanted to, but they didn't ask me, 'Can we move them to Birmingham.'
I guess if I had said, 'Oh no,'
they might have changed their minds."
Scherer Dep, at 77-78.
b.
Intervenor's Response, at 15, states "Mr. Scherer's hold over nuclear operations was so remote that Mr. Addison, --
- - _ _ ~, _
.., _ ~ _ _ _
l
'los[t] track of whether Scherer or Mcdonald was (GPC's] CEO.'
Addison Dep. at p.
83."
This misrepresents Mr. Addison's testimony, corrections for which were provided to Intervenor's counsel by letter from the court reporter, dated September 6, 1994.
Mr. Addison's testimony reads:
"I lose track of whether Scherer or Dahlberg was CEO at the time.
Whoever was the CEO would have been involved in it and Mcdonald certainly would have been involved in it."
Addison Dep. at 83.
c.
Intervenor's Response, at 16, states "GPC further knew that Oglethorpe would intervene before the SEC unless they came to agreement about the organization of SONOPCO.
Long Dep. at pp.
31-32 (Exhibit 4)."
Intervenor grossly misstates Mr. Long's testimony.
He made no mention of possible SEC intervention by Oglethorpe in his deposition as cited by Intervenor.
d.
Intervenor contends that:
Mr. Farley's management over GPC's and APC's nuclear operations was so complete that Mr. Farley would not only attend, but he would initiate weekly SONOPCO project staff meetings.
Long Dep. at pp. 48, 55 ("Mr.
Farley would initiate it, and the first thing he would do is call on the presiding VP who had projects reporting to him and ask for plant status.") (Ex. 4).
These weekly staff meetings constitute the pivotal management oversight mechanism over the nuclear plants where all emerging and existing developments concerning the management, operation, and administration of GPC's and APC's nuclear plants were discussed.
Intervenor's response at 20 citing Farley's 4/14/94 Dep, at pp.
70-71 (Exhibit 5); ggg also Intervenor's Response at 43, 71.
Intervenor has mischaracterized the testimony of Messrs. Long and l
Farley.
Whereas Intervenor quotes Mr. Long's deposition transcript as "Mr.
Farley would initiate it
" Mr. Long actually testified that " Pat [ Mcdonald] or Mr. Farley would initiate it...."
Long Dep. at p.
55.
The full text of Mr.
Farley's deposition testimony is as follows:
j We had a staff meeting each Monday and occasionally would be scheduled some other day, but that was for the purpose of l
exchanging information and being sure that everybody was aware of what was going on in all of the various departments and organizations.... [B]ut I do not recall any i
specific meeting about either Hatch or Vogtle or Farley, for any matter.
It was really an information exchange relating to i
matters that would be of common interest ta the entire l
group....
But it was not a called meeting to review a particular decision or to make management decisions.
i Farley 4/14/94 Dep. at p. 70-71, 73.
l e.
Intervenor asserts that "[b]y 1989 a SONOPCO project dg facto board of directors was functioning, with Mr. Farley, Mr.
Mcdonald, Mr. Addison and the CEOs of GPC, APC and SCS constituting the Board.
See Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at p. 69; Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep. at pp. 66-67."
Intervenor's Response at l
25; see also Intervenor's Response at 42.
Intervenor also asserts that "[t]he configuration of the SONOPCO project Board came about 'as a consensus of Mr. Addison, Mr. Dahlberg, Mr.
Harris and [Mr. Farley].'
Farley DOL Dep. at p.
85."
Idz at n.24.
Intervenor's assertion that there was a functioning board of directors grossly mischaracterizes the testimony of these i
l )
i i
I t
i l
l l
l individuals.
Mr. Mcdonald testified that "there is not an informal Board," but there were informal meetings of individuals who would, in the future, become the Board of Directors.
The meetings were in conjunction with Southern system management council meetings.
Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at 69-70.
Mr.
Dahlberg testified that "there is not a Board of Directors."
Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep. at 66.
Mr. Farley's testimony also made l
l clear that there was not yet a board of directors but they "have l
talked tantatively about a Board and have had meetings of a group
... that would probably be the Board...."
Farley DOL Dep. at 84; see also Addison Dep. at 53 ("we didn't have a board at that time.").
Intervenor further maintains that in his June 10, 1994 testimony, Mr. Dahlberg " flatly stated that: 'there was a Board l
of Directors for the SONOPCO project.'
Later during the same deposition, Mr. Dahlberg again testified to the existence of a SONOPCO project Board of Directors...."
Intervenor's Response at 61, 69.
Intervenor's statement consciously disregards the corrections made by Mr. Dahlberg to his June 10, 1994 deposition testimony provided to Intervenor's counsel by letter from the court reporter, dated August 25, 1994.
Mr. Dahlberg's testimony at p.
132 of his deposition transcript reads: "there was not a l
board of directors for the SONOPCO project.
At one time a task l
l force looked at creating SONOPCO.
Once SONOPCO was formed as a legal entity it had to have a board, I was a member of that."
f.
Intervenor claims that "[Mr.] Mcdonald's evaluation was prepared by Mr. Harris, APC's president, and (Mr.) Dahlberg was only asked if he wanted input into this evaluation.
Farley DOL Dep. at p. 15 (Exhibit 5).
Moreover, the final evaluation was i
reviewed by Mr. Farley before it was approved.
Id "
t l
j Intervenor's Response at 30.
Intervenor's Response, at 58, also states "Mr.
Farley was involved in preparing the performance evaluation of Mr. Mcdonald."
Intervenor misrepresents the l
testimony.
Mr. Farley flatly stated in his deposition that he did not prepare the performance evaluation of Mr. Mcdonald.
Mr.
Farley said Messrs. Harris and Dahlberg prepared it, that one of them called Farley and asked if he had comments, and that he had l
l no comments.
Farley DOL Dep. at 15.
g.
Intervenor's selective editing of Mr. Farley's deposition testimony concerning his review of budgets is remarkable.
Intervenor's Response, at 31 and 50, states "Mr.
Farley testified 'we've done the best we could in trying to manage the nuclear budget for each of the companies....
If you l
ask, did I approve (the nuclear budgets)?
Yes, it has my blessing....
Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 94-95."
Hgg also Intervenor's Response at 57.
Intervenor edited out the following underscored testimony by Mr. Farley: "Yes, it has my blessing, but I did not make the decision.
That's a matter for Georcia Power Company and for Alabama Power Company."
Farley DOL Dep. at 95 (emphasis added).
h.
Intervenor's Response, at 36, states "[n]ost troubling is the recent disclosure by Mr. Franklin that the Southern i l
t l
I
Nuclear board met to approve GPC's recent response to the NRC's NOV."
This is flatly false.
Mr. Franklin stated in his August 3,
1994 deposition that "we had a -- a Southern Nuclear board meeting Monday, in Birmingham.
The draft response was not reviewed.
For our information only, George Hairston gave a very short status report as to procedurally where we were in the process.
But no -- nothing of substance regarding the draft report."
Franklin Dep. at 80-81.
i.
Intervenor asserts that the 1990 nuclear budget was not put before GPC's management counsel (sic) as were all of the other GPC departmental budgets.
Wallace Dep. 13 (' nuclear itself, I'm unaware of it being put specifically in front of the management counsel (sic)').
Moreover, Mr.
Wallace testified that he never saw Mcdonald at a GPC management counsel (sic) meeting ' talking about the budget.'
Wallace Dep.
17."
Intervenor's Response at 31.
Intervenor's characterization of Mr. Wallace's testimony is very misleading.
Mr. Wallace's actual testimony reflects that the nuclear budget was presented to the Georgia Power Management Council as part of " final tally" with all other budgets, and that he was not sure if Mr. Mcdonald was in attendance at that Management Council meeting.
Mr. Wallace stated:
Q:
Now, looking back at the 1990 budget process, at some point was the nuclear portion of the budget voted on as an entire entity by the management counsel?
A:
Not that I'm aware of.
If it was, it didn't come through my office.
It may have, but I'm not aware of it.
I mean, it may have come through someone else on the counsel, it wouldn't surprise me.
Now, it was reviewed as part of the final tally, when we got all the budgets in hand and looked for all final target adherence or compliance going into 1990.
At some point we had nuclear in hand, and we presented it here in front of the management counsel.
But nuclear itself, I'm unaware of it being put specifically in front of the management counsel.
Q:
Was Mr. Mcdonald in the 1990 meeting?
A:
I can't remember specifically.
His piece of the budget was there, whether he was in attendance in the meeting during final review, I'm not sure.
Q:
Do you recall Mr. Mcdonald attending any management counsel sessions that you were in?
A-There were some where he was in attendance.
O:
Which ones do you recall him attending?
A:
Early on, after he became an officer, he was there for some, and subsequent to that didn't seem to attend many.
But I remember early on he attended counsel meetings and by verse [ sic) of the fact I had never seen him there talking about the budget.
Wallace Dep. at 13, 17.
j.
Intervenor's Response, at 44, asserts that "[t]he selection of [Vice Presidents of Administrative Services and Technical Services) occurred without the knowledge of GPC's then CEO, Mr. Scherer.
Scherer 6/18/94 Dep. at p. 81 (Exhibit 3)."
Intervenor mischaracterizes the testimony of Mr. Scherer, who, having been in retirement for nearly six years, simply could not recall the events of 1988.
Scherer's June, 1994 deposition testimony states that he did not know Mr. Long, he did not know if there was a technical services branch for the SONOPCO project, he did not know if Mr. McCrary ever became involved in a SONOPCO project, and he could not remember whether any individual in Georgia Power Company's nuclear operations management was..
promoted after Mr. Mcdonald became Executive Vice President.
Scherer Dep. at 81.
It should also be noted that positions for which Messrs. Long and McCrary were selected were in Southern Company Services, not Georgia Power Company k.
Intervenor claims that "[t]he key negotiations between GPC and Oglethorpe were conducted by Farley.
Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 32, 97."
Intervenor's Response at 45.
A close examination of Mr. Farley's deposition testimony demonstrates that Mr. Farley was acting at the behest of Georgia Power's CEO, was not the chief negotiator, and many others were involved.
Farley.
testified that Between September and December of '897 I think the most important part was between me and Mr. Stacey, but there have been many, many others involved.
It is a multi-leveled negotiation....
I was discussing with Mr. Stacey the barriers to the creation of the atmosphere in which we could go forward with the project and I was conducting them really on Mr. Dahlberg's blessing on behalf of Georgia Power i
Company and the Southern company....
I was not the chief negotiator but I was the one that I think as far as I can tell -- Mr. Stacey prefers to have some of the substantive l
matters negotiated at a higher level when we do that than otherwise, Farley May 7, 1990 DOL Dep. at 97-98.
Intervenor's mischaracterization of Mr. Farley's testimony is confirmed by Mr.
j Hobby's DOL testimony that most of the discussions of "important l
issues" involved Georgia Power's Mr. Williams and Mr. Baker.
DOL j
Trial Tr. 175-76.
l 1.
Intervenor alleges that "Mr.
Farley would review all the (PSC data] requests to determine whether the SONOPCO project would respond.
Farley DOL Dep. at 119."
Intervenor's Response I l l
l l
l 1
,,w m
r v,r,.
- ~, -
at 53.
This statement is very misleading.
The full context of Mr. Farley's statement is Mr. Mcdonald and I would both see all requests and a part of that is to make sure that the requests are things that we can in fact supply.
Some things we can't.
If we have a question about it, then someone is to discuss that with the Rate Case group to be sure that we are able to supply what j
they want in a form that's acceptable.
But as far as saying we won't supplied (sic), he is the Georgia Power Company official.
He is obligated to uphold the undertaking.
Farley DOL Dep. at 119-20.
Intervenor quotes deposition testimony of Mr. Mcdonald m.
in two separate Department of Labor cases and concludes that "Mr.
Mcdonald's contradictory testimony calls his credibility into question."
Intervenor's Response at 66-67 anotina Mcdonald's DOL Dep. at 12-13.
Intervenor's characterization of Mr. Mcdonald's testimony is severely strained.
A reasonable reading of Mr.
Mcdonald's testimony indicates that it is consistent with his understanding that he did not " select" Messrs. McCrary and Long, but that he was " involved" with their selection. Mcdonald's DOL Dep. at 12-13.
n.
Intervenor's Response, at 62-64, insists that the deposition testimony of Mr. Dahlberg in this proceeding on June 10, 1994 is opposite his testimony in response to the same question on April 6, 1994.
Intervenor then asserts that "Mr.
Dahlberg's flip-flop testimony raises serious questions about his credibility."
141 at 64.
Again, Intervenor's selective editing of deposition testimony twists the truth.
Contrary to Intervenor's claim, Mr. Dahlberg's testimony reflects different l l
t i
j l
l responses to different questions.
On June 10, 1994 Mr. Dahlberg testified concerning an overall concern which Oglethorpe had about how the project would operate, and not that Oglethorpe had f
told him about a concern Mr. Hobby had:
l Q:
Were you aware that Oglethorpe wanted to know how Mr. Farleay fit into the picture?
3 A:
They wanted to know how the whole project operated, not Mr. Farley specifically.
C:
Do you remember in the course of their discussions about how the whole project -- were they concerned not necessarily a concern, a request for some information 1
about Mr. Farley fitting in?
A:
Mr. Kohn, I am sure they asked for information about j
(how] the whole project operated.
And if I had been them I would have asked the same question.
If you name j
the person at the head of that project, I would want to i
know how he fit in.
I would want to know how the j
entire project operated.
In fact, I think we've gone through a process to satisfy that.
They now agree that i
the organization was reasonable and [they] concurred in j
the license transfer.
1 Q:
Do you know a Dan Smith over at Oglethorpe?
~
A:
Yes.
l A
1 Q:
Were you aware of a concern that he had about the
{
reporting relationship at the SONOPCO project?
A:
Yes.
Q:
What was that?
1 l
A:
I think again, it's an overt.ll concern about how the i
project would operate, what the reporting relationships i
were, what information would be provided to Oglethorpe j
and its relationship to the existing contracts for Georgia Power Company.
l Q:
How did you learn of his concern?
j A:
I don't remember specifically.
I suspect it would have 1
a }t 1
)
been in the discussion with Oglethorpe management about concerns that were raised.
A:
I never knew from Oglethorpe that Mr. Hobby was concerned about it.
I knew from Oglethorpe that there was a concern about the reporting relationship which I had some obligation to explain to them and did.
There was a follow-up as you have already shown me of another person in Oglethorpe, Mr. Smith, and you showed me that we responded to it.
Dahlberg 6/10/94 Dep. at 95-96, 110.
In contrast to his June 10 testimony, Mr. Dahlberg's April 6, 1994 deposition testimony, quoted below, addressed the question of whether Mr. Dahlberg had been aware that Oglethorpe had expressed a concern that Georgia i
Power had transferred control of its NRC operating licenses.
i Q:
Were you aware that Oglethorpe Power raised concern to the nuclear operation contract administration group that there was a concern about the reporting structure and who was in control of Georgia Power Company's l
plants?
I A:
No.
Q:
You were never aware of that?
A:
No.
Q:
Now, did you at some point become aware of this?
A:
That Oglethorpe had expressed a concern to --
l Q:
To Georgia --
A:
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Q:
That Oglethorpe had expressed concern to nuclear operation contract administration group that Georgia Power may have illegally transferred control of its license?
A:
No.
Oglethorpe never expressed concern to me, as best I can recall with that concern.,
e t
Q:
Did your management people reporting to you ever come and tell you that?
A:
Mr. Kohn, in the proceedings that we're now in I became aware that that issue was raised, but I never was aware of it prior to that time.
Q:
Prior to the time that Mr. Hobby was removed from Georgia Power Company, had you heard that Oglethorpe i
had a concern -- had you heard that Oglethorpe at any time had had a concern about the control of Georgia's nuclear plants?
A:
Certainly none of the management at Oglethorpe ever expressed that to me.
Dahlberg 4/6/94 Dep. at 38-40.
l 6.
Reliance on Depositions not Transcribed.
In a number of places, Intervenor relies on statements which he alleges were made by Georgia Power witnesses in depositions for which Intervenor has not requested a transcript.
The difficulty with this, of course, is that Georgia Power and the Board are unable to confirm the accuracy of Intervenor's representations.
The Board has previously warned Intervenor about the difficulty of relying on discussions which have not been transcribed.
Tr. 350.
Absent appropriate citations to a deposition transcript, Intervenor should not be permitted to make assertions supported only by a citation to a deposition "not transcribed."
Further, Georgia Power's counsel does not believe the transcript for such depositions will support Intervenor's assertions.
Each of the assertions should be stricken by the Board because Intervenor failed to have the deposition transcribed: -
a.
"According to Mr. Shipman, the last entry in his daily notebook for April 19, 1990 indicates that Mr. Hairston advised him that Mr. Farley was ' briefed.'"
Intervenor's Response at 20 n.19 citing Shipman Notebook (Exhibit 9).
b.
"Mr. Farley specifically discussed his involvement with the establishment of a nuclear operating outage philosophy for the SONOPCO project, stating that the philosophy was developed l
during a SONOPCO project ' retreat' headed by Farley that was attended by all SONOPCO project executives (Dahlberg was excluded). "
Intervenor's Response at 32-33, 51-52 citing July 25, 1994 Deposition of Parley (not transcribed).
i
"[0]ne of the highest level GPC employees within the
)
l c.
i SONOPCO project, Mr. Shipman (Plant Vogtle's General Manager of l
Nuclear Support) testified that it was his belief that on April 19, 1990, Mcdonald reported to Farley and that Hairston briefed Farley on April 19, 1990 as well."
Intervenor's Response at 33 I
citing Deposition of Shipman (not transcribed).
d.
"On August 5, 1994, counsel to Intervenor deposed William Shipman.
At that time Mr. Shipman testified that Mr.
Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley.
Mr. Shipman testifica then that he had been in a position to observe the reporting relationship between Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald for a number of years.
The fact that Plant Vogtle's General Manager of Nuclear Support testified that Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley is dispositive evidence of the reporting relationship in place at the SONOPCO l
project."
Intervenor's Response at 46. I l
i
"[A]fter GPC realized how ignorant their CEO was on e.
nuclear matters, Mr. Dahlberg admitted that he was coached by GPC's counsel with respect to every detail concerning the Site Area Emergency (footnote omitted).
When asked to explain how he a
came to learn so much about the issuance of LER 90-006 and other facts concerning the knowledge of nuclear operations, Mr.
Dahlberg testified that he had been ' briefed' [by] GPC's counsel."
Intervenor's Response at 65-66 referring to Mr.
Dahlberg's July, 1994 deposition testimony, i
7.
Noncompliance with 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749.
Responses to motions for summary disposition are governed by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 which prescribes the requirements for a party responding to a motion for summary disposition, as follows:
(a)
(a party] shall annex to any answer opposing the motion a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists a j
genuine issue to be heard.
All material facts set forth in l
the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party.
(b)
Affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to the matters stated therein....
a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
Intervenor's Response fails to comply with the foregoing requirements.
The discussion above demonstrates numerous instances where Intervenor has failed to support his assertions
with admissible evidence, including his proffer of incompetent testimony.
Further, Intervenor's Response is a collection of allegations set forth independent of, and without reference to, Georgia Power's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard Regarding Intervenor's Illegal Transfer of Licenses Allegation, dated August 24, 1994.
Therefore,-all material facts set forth in Georgia Power's Statement of Material Facts should be deemed admitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a).
See Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696, 16 N.R.C.
- 1245, 1259 (1982).
II.
CONCLUSION.
Based on the foregoing, Georgia Power moves the Board to strike Intervenor Allen L. Mosbaugh's Response to Georgia Power Company's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Illegal Transfer of License Allegation, dated October 4, 1994.
Intervenor's Response contains numerous unsupported statements, misrepresentations of law and fact and procedural deficiencies.
This remedy is called for in this case where Intervenor has demonstrated a propensity for misrepresentation and where he either knew or should have known of the unsupported statements, misrepresentations and procedural deficiencies contained in Intervenor's Response at the time of its filing.
In the alternative, Georgia Power requests that the Board take such 1 I
)
I l
other action as the Board' deems appropriate to address l
Intervenor's nisrepresentations.
Respectfully submitted, f
x ames E. J51ne~r John Lamberski l
l TROUTMAN SANDERS 600 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885 3360 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
David R.
Lewis SHAW PITTMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i
2300 N Street, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20037-(202) 663 8000 I
Counsel for Georgia Power Company l
l Dated:
October 14, 1994 l
f l
[
i'
'b
/s
~
4 4
Y-3 OCT 14 @
DOctETWO 3
/'I c4 SEgylCEBPAMCH N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEGY-NBC l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board l
l
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 l
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERV _LCE G
l l
I hereby certify that copies of " Georgia Power Company's Motion to Strike Intervenor's Response to Georgia Power's Motion for Summary Disposition," dated October 14, 1994, were served by deposit with an express mail delivery service, or by facsimile where indicated with an asterisk, upon the persons listed on the attached service list, this 1 ay 1
4.
al Lambefskf~
l
! l
-.4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3 et al.
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric (Transfer to Southern Generating Plant, Nuclear)
Units 1 and 2)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST
- Administrative Judge Stewart D.
Ebneter Peter B.
Bloch, Chairman Regional Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing USNRC, Region II Board 101 Marietta Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 2900 Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Office of the Secretary Rockville, MD 20852 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory
-Commission
- Administrative Judge' Washington, D.
C.
20555 James H. Carpenter ATTN:
Docketing and Atomic Safety and Licensing Services Branch Board 933 Green Point Drive
- Charles Barth, Esq.
Oyster Point Mitzi Young, Esq.
Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Office of General Counsel One White Flint North
- Administrative Judge Stop 15B18-Thomas D. Murphy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.G.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Director, Two White Flint North Environmental Protection 11545 Rockville Pike Division Rockville, MD 20852 Department of Natural Resources
- Michael D.
Kohn, Esq.
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
Suite 1252 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Washington, D.C.
20001 office of Commission Appellate Adjudication One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852