ML20077F990
| ML20077F990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1994 |
| From: | Mosbaugh A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077F984 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-3, NUDOCS 9412160136 | |
| Download: ML20077F990 (17) | |
Text
'
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ,
INTERVENOR, ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
A: Allen Lee Mosbaugh.
Q: ARE YOU THE INTERVENOR IN THIS CASE?
A: Yes.
Q: WERE YOU EVER EMPLOYED BY THE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY?
A: I was first employed with Georgia Power in August 1984 at Plant Vogtle as Superintendent of Engineering Liaison. I was promoted to Superintendent of Engineering Services in about the summer of 1986 and then promoted to Assistant Plant Support Manager in the fall of 1986. In the capacity of Assistant Plant Support Manager I had the Vogtle plant departments of Engineering, Quality Control, Security and Administration, comprising a total of more than 400 personnel, reporting to me.
Q: WHAT POSITIONS DID YOU HOLD DURING AND AFTER 1988?
A: For all of 1938 I was the Assistant Plant Support Manager, then in January 1989 I became the Engineering Support Manager. In this capacity I had the Site Engineering, Technical and Quality Control departments and personnel reporting to me. Then, two months later, in March 1969, I ,
was promoted to Acting Assistant General Manager Plant Support. In this capacity I had the managers and the departments of Engineering Support, Quality Control, Security, Administration, Technical Support and Training, comprising a total of about 400 personnel reporting to me.
I held that position until May 11, 1990, when I was relieved of all previous responsibilities and personnel reporting to ,
me. At this time I had no one working for me and reported to the plant general manager, Mr. Bockhold. I remained in that state until August, at which time I was designated Manager-in-Training and scheduled to begin training on 9 90. Instead, on 9-15-90 I was suspended, my security badge taken away, and on 10-11-90, I was fired from Georgia Power.
)
1 9412160136 941205 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G PDR
E l
i I
i Q: WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY MANAGEMENT CHANGES THAT OCCURRED IN 1988?'
A: Yes. A new executive management team at the Vice President level and above was put in place for Nuclear. Ken McCoy became Vice President over Vogtle, George Hairston was Senior Vice President, and Pat Mcdonald was Executive Vice President. The new organization was called SONOPCO, or the SONOPCO project.
Q: IN THE TIME SINCE SONOPCO PROJECT WAS FORMED, IN YOUR VARIOUS POSITIONS, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE COMMUNICATIONS, INTERFACES AND THE WORKINGS BETWEEN THE SONOPCO PROJECT AND PLANT VOGTLE?
A: Yes, by 1988 I was at a Plant Manager level in the organization and so I was high enough in the organization to routinely be involved in meetings, conference calls and other communications that involved SONOPCO corporate personnel and executives. By 1989, I was one of four Plant Vogtle " Duty Managers" that routinely participated in the daily morning call to SONOPCO corporate. I also held the Emergency Plan position of " emergency director."
Q: DID YOU RECEIVE ANY FORMAL TRAINING FOR THE POSITION OF EMERGENCY DIRECTOR?
A: Yes. As emergency director I was part of the Vogtle Emergency Plan, as I was required to be trained by the Vogtle Training department. There were formal lesson plans, attendance sheets, and written tests that documented the training I received. Training records were required to be retained as part of the Quality Assurance program. In addition, there were periodic Emergency drills that were used for training. These drills included performing notification and call-outs found in the procedures. These drills were also formally documented, results critiqued and 3 records were kept. I remember there being formal training for all emergency plan positions and procedures for Vogtle. :
This was required by 10 C.F.R. 5 0. 4 7 (b) 15.
Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 1?
A: Yes, it is a schedule I was given showing the assigned Vogtle Duty Managers and their corporate counterparts, the ,
On-Call Project Managers. You can see in this period my assignments as Duty Manager and my corporate counterpart is identified as Paul Rushton.
I 4
Q: WAS PAUL RUSHTON ALWAYS YOUR CORPORATE COUNTERPART?
A: No. Before Rushton went to corporate -- I think that was around the summer of 1989 -- Jerry Kane was the Engineering Manager and he was my normal counterpart. Bill Shipman has also been my corporate contact on occasion.
Q: WHO PARTICIPATED ON THE CORPORATE SIDE OF THESE DAILY MORNING PHONE CALLS?
A: Generally Ken McCoy, his direct reports and other managers which, in the 1990 time frame, included Bill Shipman, Louis Ward, Paul Rushton, Cliff Miller, Mark Ajuluni, and other SONOPCO Vogtle Project managers. During 1990 these calls were conducted over a speaker phone at the plant and the SONOPCO project. It was difficult to know who was on the call in addition to these who spoke.
Q: AS DUTY MANAGER DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONTACTS WITH SONOPCO CORPORATE? ,
A: Yes. Part of the Duty Manager function was the reporting of emergency and operational events. The Duty Manager had to be prepared to call his corporate counterpart on a 24-hour-a-day basis if significant operational or emergency events occurred at Plant Vogtle which would-include any emergency declaration, reactor trip, any emergency safety features actuation, security threats, significant reductions in power, serious injuries, etc.
Q: WHO INFORMED YOU OF THESE EMERGENCY AND OPERATIONAL EVENTS?
A: Usually the on-duty Unit Superintendent or the Shift Supervisor in the control room. In sum, the communication went from the on-shift personnel at Plant Vogtle to me, and then I would contact the SONOPCO project on call Project manager.
Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE TO REPORT EMERGENCY OR SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL EVENTS?
A: Yes, on many occasione. For example, I was on the Vogtle Duty Manager on 3-20-90 at the time the Site Area Emergency was declared. I placed the call to the On-Call Project Manager on that one.
r:
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE COMMUNICATION WENT BEYOND THE CORPORATE PROJECT OFFICER?
A: Yes. In the course of the duty conversations with the On-Call Project Manager and others there would be comments like, "I'm going to call McCoy" or "Hairston said for you to do this" or " Pat ic going to call the executive at this company to get the part," and on more than one occasion I recall Joseph Farley's name being mentioned including the fact that some ideas were brought directly to Farley. So I knew that what I was reporting was going up the chain of command at SONOPCO in Birmingham, and I concluded that the chain in Birmingham included Mr. Farley.
l l
I l
Q: WHERE DID MR. DAHLBERG FIT INTO YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTACTS MAKING UP THE DUTY REPORTING CHAIN?
A: I do not ever recall that Bill Dahlberg's name was mentioned )
on any duty conversation.
I Q: WERE YOU EVER INSTRUCTED OF WHAT TO DO IN ANY EMERGENCY IF YOU COULDN'T REACH THE ON-CALL CORPORATE PROJECT MANAGER?
A: Yes. That came up and I was given the phone lists that were used by the On-Call Project Manager in corporate.
Q: DO YOU IDENTIFY INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 2?
A: Yes. This is the On-Call Duty Managers' Phone List that I was given. It is dated the 4th quarter of 1989. You can see someone has marked my initials in the upper right-hand corner when it was distributed to me.
Q: WHAT WERE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THIS LIST?
A: I was instructed that if I could not reach the On-Call Project Manager, I was to call the personnel that would have been contacted by the on-Call Project Manager beginning at the top of the list in each category. For Georgia Power Company corporate management I would have called the person at the top of the prepared list, Joseph Farley.
Q: WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INSTRUCTIONS FROM RELATED TO YOUR DUTY MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES?
A: From George Bockhold, the Plant Vogtle General Manager, my boss.
Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE DUTY COMMUNICATIONS BEYOND THE ON-CALL PROJECT MANAGER?
A: Yes, I was told by the Vogtle Vice President Ken McCoy in August of 1990 that the Duty Manager called the Executive Vice President and the Executive Vice President calls the President of the company. Apparently McCoy told that to the NRC's Operational Safety Inspection ("OSI") team when they were on site in August 1990 in an effort to explain what actions Plant Vogtle took when it was faced with a shutdown requirement under Technical Specification 3.0.3, the so-called " motherhood" Tech Spec. Tech Spec 3.0.3 comes into play when the margin of safety or the operability of safety i
__ a
systems falls below that addressed by normal Tech Spec action statements. In those events initiation of plant shut down is required within one hour. Ken McCoy told the NRC that communication was routine practice and everybody knew that.
Q: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PORTION OF A TRANSCRIPT OF ONE OF YOUR TAPE RECORDINGS -- TAPE NO. 259, SIDE A, DATED 8-17-90, MARKED AS INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 3. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONVERSATION?
A: Yes.
Q: DID YOU PREPARE EXHIBIT 3?
A: I did, my Counsel typed it, but the content reflects my recollection of what was said and what is audible on the tape.
Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE PORTION OF THE TAPE TRANSCRIPT REPRESENTS?
A: Yes. On Tape 259 I recorded the conversation I referred to earlier where Ken McCoy told us what the chain of communication was above the Corporate Duty Manager and about calling the President of the company.
Q: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS MR. MCCOY'S STATEMENT AS TO WHO HE WAS REFERRING TO AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY IN THE DUTY REPORTING CHAIN?
A: Yes. A few hours after Ken McCoy made those comments about the duty communications, I was speaking to John Aufdenkampe and Steve Chestnut who were Vogtle managers. I knew that Steve Chestnut had been a manager in SONOPCO corporate, an Engineering Manager, up until April of 1989, when he was selected by SONOPCO project management to attend SRO training at the Vogtle site. He finished his SRO training around April 1990 and had been working the control room as a Shift Supervisor for additional training. So Steve had the opportunity to see both sides of the duty chain, in corporate and in the main control room. I made a comment to Aufdenkampe and Chestnut about McCoy's statement about the duty chain and calling the President of the company. I stated to Chestnut that I was a Duty Manager and that if my duty communications went to Shipman he would sometimes talk to McCoy or Hairston but that was the extent of what I was typically aware of. In response Chestnut said that he knew
-6 -
that there were a lot of calls to Farley (meaning Joe Farley), that he knew that they called Farley a' lot and that he could not imagine them calling Dahlberg. He stated that the previous GPC president Jim Miller paid attention to his plants and which ones were running but that Dahlberg was not involved. Chestnut stated that Dahlberg's interest was the market and power sales.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 4?
A: Yes. This is a transcript of the conversation that I was referring to involving Steve Chestnut, Mr. Aufdenkampe and myself. This particular conversation is contained in Tape No. 260, Side A.
Q: DID YOU PREPARE THIS EXHIBIT?
A: No. This transcript is a typed version of a deposition exhibit given to Mr. Chestnut at his deposition. Mr.
Chestnut was asked to review the tape and make hand-written corrections to a transcript. My counsel prepared Intervenor's Exhibit 4. It reflects Mr. Chestnut's version of what was said concerning the conversation I just described.
Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT STEVE CHESTNUT WAS LYING, EXAGGERATING OR NOT INFORMED AS TO WHAT HE WAS DESCRIBING TO YOU CONCERNING THE DUTY REPORTING CHAIN?
A: No. Not at all. Chestnut was not the kind to joke around.
He was generally serious. In fact, he had corrected my i paraphrasing of the McCoy duty statement earlier in the l conversation and seemed to be well informed about the duty '
chain as well as the strengths and differences between GPC's past president, Jim Miller, and the current President, Bill l Dahlberg. !
)
Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY FACTORS WHICH WOULD CAUSE MR. CHESTNUT TO MISSTATE HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPORTING CHAIN?
A: Chestnut had no reason to try to exaggerate for the benefit of anyone in the room. There was only Aufdenkampe and myself. He was assuming Aufdenkampe's job and in no way reported to me.
-7 -
4
t -
Q: WHAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEMS LIST?
A: The term, " major problems list," was introduced as part of the new SONOPCO operating philosophy after SONOPCO project management took over in 1988. The philosophy was termed, as I recall, " managing by problems." My understanding is that the philosophy came from Farley and Alabama Power. Vogtle had to compile a major problems list that was updated and reviewed routinely as part of the new management operating philosophy. The major problems list contained matters considered to be most important to operations, maintenance, hardware and personnel issues at the plant.
Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT MR. JOE FARLEY EXERCISED EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER PLANT VOGTLE OR THAT MR. FARLEY WAS EXERCISING CONTROL OVER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT PLANT VOGTLE?
A: Yes. On August 6, 1990, SONOPCO project Vice President Ken McCoy was addressing the managers at Plant Vogtle during George Bockhold's staff meeting that I attended. The discussion had come around to the next refueling outage schedule and McCoy spoke up to inform the managers of a new outage philosophy for all the SONOPCO plants including Plant ,
Vogtle. Mr. McCoy informed the group that the new outage philosophy came from the highest levels including Mr.
Farley, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston and the three VPs, meaning himself for Plant Vogtle, Tom Beckham, for Plant Hatch and Jack Woodard for Plant Farley. McCoy's listing of e.ecutives was an exact description of line management from the highest level down of the SONOPCO organization if Farley functions as the president or chief executive of the organization.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 5?
A: Yes. This is a transcript of the McCoy conversation during that staff meeting I just described. It reflects a ,
conversation contained in Tape No. 236, Side A. '
Q: DID YOU PREPARE THIS EXHIBIT?
A: I did not type it but the content reflects my recollection of what was said and what is audible on the tape.
)
Q: IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU HAVE AS TO A CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CREATION OF SONOPCO?
A: Yes. Perhaps the single most troubling example concerns the philosophy announced by Mr. McCoy during the NRC's Operational Safety Inspection ("OSI") conducted in August of 1990. In my presence Mr. McCoy explained that the desired SONOPCO corporate culture was one of deception. Management was to be two faced: we were directed to mislead external organizations, which would include the NRC, about our real feelings and the actual conditions and circumstances existing in our organization. We were to communicate externally that our organization was problem-free.
Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 6?
A: Yes. It is a transcript of a conversation contained in Tape No. 259, Side A, about 75% through the tape. This tape was recorded on August 17, 1990 at.approximately 10:45 by me, during a meeting held on the 2nd floor of the Plant Vogtle administration building, where management was holding OSI damage control meetings. It reflects the conversation I discussed above.
Q: ARE YOU DISTURBED BY ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS TAPE SEGMENT?
A: Very much so. During the course of a NRC inspection, Mr.
McCoy, who snickers or laughs while making these statements, explains that the philosophy management was to employ was one of deception. Mr. McCoy states that "we need to grow to the point that we're just like a family and we may fight among ourselves" but when " external" organizations are involved, i.e., NRC, "we stand up for our reputation and we all pull together" and that management "would not encourage" communicating our actual " feel [ings) about our policies" externally. "We can talk to each other about our problems and that sort of thing" but if an external organization were to ask you a specific questions like "what do you thing about those corporate guys?" we were to respond "you got the best corporate organization in the world" even if this were not true.
Q: HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS COMMENT?
A: As a green-light to everyone at the plant that it was okay to lie, exaggerate, omit and not be truthful or candid in our NRC communications in order to make us look good.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THIS PHILOSOPHY HAD, IN FACT, FILTERED DOWN THE MANAGEMENT TREE?
A: Yes. It is evident to me that it had. For example, the transcript identified as Intervenor's Exhibit 3, documents a conversation between senior management between Ken McCoy and George Bockhold. The conversation concerns incomplete information Mr. Bockhold had reported to a NRC inspector about whether Vogtle was complying with Tech Spec 3.0.3 shut-down requirements. The transcript demonstrates that the NRC inspector questioned McCoy's and Bockhold's explanation about initiating shut-down within one hour.
According to McCoy, the NRC told him that his claims were not true. The recording demonstrates how Bockhold was following the company philosophy by not providing the NRC with the full picture. Mr. Bockhold admitted that he had not been candid with the NRC about being able to do a controlled reactor shutdown within the time limitations imposed under Tech Spec 3.0.3 because Bockhold intentionally did not tell the inspector that he would have to trip the reactor at 20% power to meet Tech Spec 3.0.3 requirements, and Bockhold was concerned that this course of action would be questioned and viewed by the inspector as non-conservative.
Other examples I was able to observe include comments made by a shift supervisor about "taking LERs" in order to meet schedule; a comment by the plant general manager to take violations to enhance profitability, and comments by the general manager that contacting the NRC was viewed in a negative way, as "back-stabbing."
Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT MR. JOE FARLEY WAS IN CHARGE IN SOME CAPACITY OVER PLANT VOGTLE OR THAT MR. FARLEY WAS EXERCISING CONTROL OVER ACTIVITIFS AT PLANT VOGTLE?
A: Yes. At t'.1e end of 1989 or early 1990 Joseph Farley came to l the Vogtle site and held meetings with groups of site personnel to explain the Performance Pay Plan, sometimes referred to as the Pay for Performance Program (or "PPP").
Pay for Performance was a new system by which our performance evaluations and pay increases would be determined. Some of the personnel that worked for me were invited to these meetings.
l Q: HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT MR. FARLEY WAS GOING TO VISIT THE VOGTLE SITE? '
A: It was announced by Mr. Bockhold during staff meetings. It j was described to me and site management as an opportunity to !
meet Mr. Farley and that the purpose would be to discuss pay ,
for performance. Prior to his arrival, there was a list !
distributed at the plant site stating the time of various meetings and who from the site had been selected to attend. I I remember Robert Moye, an Engineering Supervisor, telling ,
me that he attended one of these meetings and discussing I with me the questions and comments made in the meeting with (
Mr. Farley. I also remember seeing Mr. Farley on site at the time of that visit. )
l Q: WERE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MR. FARLEY'S INVOLVEMENT? l 1
A: Yes. Around April 1990, after we got our first evaluations 1 and raises under Pay for Performance, Mr. Farley sent all Vogtle personnel a letter with a 74-question survey attached. Mr. Farley's letter asked us to fill out the survey and make comments on how we felt about the Performance Pay Plan and other issues such as communications, intimidation, management effectiveness, trust and team work.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 7?
A: Yes, this is the letter from Joe Farley with the survey form I just described. It is addressed to Southern Company Nuclear Employees and was distributed to the Vogtle plant site.
Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION INDICATING THAT MR. FARLEY WAS FUNCTIONING AS AN EXECUTIVE OVER PAT MCDONALD, GEORGE HAIRSTON OR KEN MCCOY AND THE SONOPCO PROJECT?
A: Yes. I was able to learn during the deposition process in this proceeding that the SONOPCO project organization was l structured around a series of management meetings collectively described by Mr. Farley, Cliff Miller, Paul Rushton and Bill Shipman. The project was structured as follows:
- 1) At 7:00 A.M. (Birmingham time) a daily morning call was initiated by the Vogtle Plant Duty Manger to Mr. McCoy and a group of managers reporting to him wherein the daily operating status of the plant was provided in detail.
l
- 2) At 8:45 A.M. (Birmingham time), Mr. Farley held-his Monday staff meeting. In attendance were Messrs. Mcdonald, Hairston, Woodard, McCoy, Beckham, Long, Spenser, McCrary, Averet, Crosby, and Meier. During this staff meeting Mr. McCoy provided the Vogtle plant status and would' report on events occurring at Vogtle. Mr. Farley stated that he held these staff meetings to dispense information with the intent that it filter down.
- 3) After Mr. Farley's staff meeting ended, Mr. McCoy held a Vogtle project staff meeting with his direct reports and other senior managers, generally the same group as attended the morning call. Since plant information had already been dispensed, this meeting served the opportunity for Mr. McCoy to brief his staff on the information and instructions he received at the Parley staff meeting.
This routine of Monday morning meetings provided the framework for the plant status to be reported to Mr. Farley and provided Mr. Farley the information he needed to provide executive guidance to the SONOPCO organization (including the entire plant Vogtle organization) . The practice of management over plant Vogtle was to hold weekly staff meetings. These staff meetings were key to management oversight.
Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SONOPCO PROJECT WAS FUNCTIONING AS A STAND-ALONE SUBSIDIARY BEFORE SOUTHERN NUCLEAR WAS INCORPORATED?
A: Yes. With the survey that I was referring to previously, there was a printed sheet for optional comments and blocks to check your Company and Job Group. All the operating companies under the Southern Company are listed -- Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, Savannah Electric, Southern Services and the seventh company listed is SONOPCO project. At that time SONOPCO was not approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission as a subsidiary or operating company of The Southern Company.
There would be no need to designate SONOPCO project as a company, since we were supposed to be organized and to operate at that time as Georgia Power employees and Georgia Power was separately listed on the form.
1 l
l 1
1
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 8?
A: Yes, this is the optional comment form that I was referring to. At the top are blocks listing the various companies and the employee is to check off the company for which he works.
"SONOPCO project" is identified as one of these companies.
Q: WERE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF SONOPCO PROJECT FUNCTIONING AS A STAND-ALONE SUBSIDIARY BEFORE INCORPORATION?
A: Yes. Another occasion I recall was on August 6, 1990, when Vogtle Vice President Ken McCoy was discussing the results of the Pay for Performance survey during one of George Bockhold's staff meetings at Vogtle. The survey results were back in from the latest survey and Plant Vogtle had what was considered "the worst responses" in all the Southern Company. McCoy told the group that Mr. Addison, the President of the Southern Company himself, was looking at the survey results for each of Southern's operating companies and that SONOPCO was one of the operating companies. McCoy also said that the CEOs of each operating company were going to have to answer personally to Addison on two different areas of the survey results.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 9?
A: Yes. This is a transcript of the comments by Ken McCoy that I was referring to. This conversation is contained in Tape No. 236, Side A.
'l Q: DID YOU PREPARE THIS EXHIBIT?
A: I did, my Counsel typed it, but the content reflects my recollection of what was said and what is audible to me on the tape.
Q: EARLIER YOU SAID THAT MR. FARLEY HAD COME TO THE VOGTLE SITE AND MET WITH EMPLOYEES ON THE PPP PROGRAM. DID MR. DAHLBERG EVER COME TO PLANT VOGTLE AND MEET WITH EMPLOYEES ON THE )
PPP?
A: No, he did not. Had he done so I'm certain I would have I known.
i l
Q: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER FACTS THAT INDICATE THAT SOUTHERN NUCLEAR AND NOT GEORGIA POWER FUNCTIONED AS THE EMPLOYER AND OPERATOR OF PLANT VOGTLE AND ITS PERSONNEL BEFORE INCORPORATION?
~
A: Yes. In July of 1994, James Bailey stated,.under oath, in my presence, that he was employed for two years with Georgia Power prior to October 1988 and that since October of 1988 he has worked for Southern Nuclear. Similarly, Paul Rushton stated under oath in my presence that he had been employed for 12 years by Georgia Power or Southern Nuclear and that his employment with Southern Nuclear began in 1988 or 1989.
Q: DO YOU BELIEVE THE STATEMENTS BY MESSRS. BAILEY AND RUSHTON ,
ARE SIGNIFICANT?
A: Yes. Of all of the SONOPCO personnel, Bailey and Rushton both were managers over licensing and were in the.best position to understand the issues. They were responsible for licensing, updating the FSAR, for NRC correspondence and they both were involved with responding to the Mosbaugh\ Hobby 2.206 petition. The fact that they both identified themselves as working for SONOPCO and not Georgia Power is very significant. Although I did not attend Mr.
Shipman's deposition, I have had the opportunity to review his deposition testimony. Mr. Shipman stated under oath at his deposition that the SONOPCO project was organized such that executive officers would meet each Monday morning. Mr.
Shipman referred to this meeting as "a monday morning staff meeting of the vice-presidents and the senior executive officers" which "Mr. Farley holds" (transcript pages 12, 183) and that on April 19, 1990 and during that time frame, Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Hairston reported to Mr. Farley (transcript page 181)
Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 10?
A: Yes, it is the portions of Mr. Shipman's deposition to which I just referred.
Q: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A PUBLICATION KNOWN AS SYNOPSIS?
A: Yes. After the SONOPCO project was formed, Synoosis was a new bi-monthly publication issued out of the SONOPCO project Public Affairs Department which was located in Birmingham.
It was a publication for nuclear employees in the Southern Electric system, as a group. This represents a departure from the past.
Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT ll?
A: Yes, it is a copy of one edition of the Synoosis, Vol. II, No. 7, dated April 6, 1990. If you look on the first page, is states that it is published for " nuclear employees in the Southern electric system. On the last page it states that
" Synopsis is published twice monthly by the Public Affairs Department of the SONOPCO Project.
Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION WHICH LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE WHETHER SONOPCO PROJECT WAS FUNCTIONING AS A SEPARATE SUBSIDIARY?
A: Yes. The fact that the publication itself states that it is published out of the Pubic Affairs Department of the SONOPCO project. It is my understanding that this Public Affairs Department reported to Mr. Farley. On the other hand, I know that Georgia Power had its own public affairs department and its own publishing service company that did not report to Mr. Farley. How can a non-existing entity operate a public affairs department? It demonstrates that SONOPCO project was independent of Georgia Power's public affairs department. Secondly, the coverage itself indicates Mr. Addison would travel to Birmingham to address "SONOPCO Project managers and supervisors." The picture on the front cover shows Mr. Farley sitting next to Mr. Addison (Mr. Farley is somewhat cropped from the picture and appears at the right side of the photo) and is entitled "Ed Addison, president of The Southern Company, prepared to address SONOPCO project managers and supervisors during a recent visit to Birmingham."
Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE CONTAINED IN INTERVENOR'S EXHIBIT 11 YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION?
A: Yes. Page four of the Synoosis publication states that the Southern Company Management Council established environmental policy for The Southern System. The article states that the Management Council's statement would be
" officially approved at the April meeting of The Southern Company's board of directors," but goes on to note that the policy had already been placed into effect by distributing it to all Southern Company employees. This would indicate that policy established by the Management Council could be 4 implemented without formal board approval. From a practical I standpoint, once a policy statement is distributed to all I employees it has been implemented.
l l
l l
i
Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE TYPE OF COMMUNICATION GEORGIA POWER'S CORPORATE OFFICES HAD WITH THE SONOPCO PROJECT RELATIVE TO GPC'S NUCLEAR PLANTS?
A: On May 22, 1990, I traveled to Atlanta, Georgia for a-meeting scheduled in NRC's regional headquarters. Prior to the meeting, I and another site manager went into Georgia Power's corporate office building to use a conference room to prepare our presentation. The conference room we used was on the executive floor where Mr. Dahlberg's office was located. I was waiting .4n a small conference room off an the office which had Mr. Mcdonald's name on the door. Mr.
Mcdonald's office was completely empty. I mean it had nothing in it, no books, no papers, no office supplies, nothing. Jerry Kane, who had previously served as the SONOPCO project engineering manager and was my duty counterpart, had transferred to Georgia Power's executive offices and was working on the executive floor, I believe, for Mr. Dahlberg. He spotted me and wanted to know what was happening at Vogtle and why we were on the executive floor of the Georgia Power building. Mr. Kane stated that "we never hear anything about Vogtle anymore." If daily communication was taking place between the SONOPCO project's Birmingham offices and Mr. Dahlberg's office, I do not believe that Mr. Kane would have expressed that there was a vacuum of information concerning plant Vogtle in GPC's executive office.
Q: DID YOU KNOW THE NRC RESIDENT INSPECTORS AT VOGTLE?
A: Yes. I knew John Rogge and Dough Starkey since the time that Vogtle Unit 1 was under construction and in start-up.
Ron Aiello came later. I knew these three resident inspectors fairly well. I also knew Brian Bonser, who arrived in 1990. I spoke with the NRC residents frequently, met with them occasionally, attended their exits, and participated in most meetings that they attended. I also knew of their inspection activities through reports I received from my staff.
% .- o i
Q: BASED ON YOUR XNOWLEDGE OF SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITY OF 'mE )
PLANT VOGTLE NRC RESIDENT INSPECTORS, WOULD THEY HAVE MAD l THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNICATIONS, MEETINGS OR ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO EVALUATE THE ROLE MR.
l FARLEY HAD IN THE ORGANIZATION?
l A: No. The NRC residents routinely attended site plant status meetings but were not normally invited to higher level '
meetings and more intimate company communications, meetings and discussions. For example, the NRC residents did not attend the morning call and were not invited to the OSI damage control meetings. Also, the SONOPCO " family' philosophy would exclude NRC residents from controversial issues. Controversial issues were not aired in thd presence of NRC. The communication Mr. Farley had with 50NOPCO management occurred 300 miles away in Birmingham, and would occur at three to four levels of management above the highest level managers the residents routinely came into contact with or were exposed to at the site. Corporate the direction fact that to itthe site waswith originated filtered Mr. through Farley would Mr. McCoy,letely be comp hidden except for the few occasions when McCoy held meetings or communicated with high-level managers at the plant site.
The NRC residents were never present when these co"munications occurred.
Q: BASED CN YOUR OBSERVATIONS, WOULD IT HAVE BREN POSSIBLE FOR
"'HE SITE RESIDENT INSPECTORS TO GAIN ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS ABOVE MR. McCOY7 A: No.
Allen L. MosbaWgh civiansseum.tn I
i 1
1
- 17 -
)
1 1
l l
- -------. .