ML20078G033
| ML20078G033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1995 |
| From: | Kohn M KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OLA-3-I-050, OLA-3-I-50, NUDOCS 9502020377 | |
| Download: ML20078G033 (26) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 s
a y
LOCKElED KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
gjsNRc
-50
[),
ATT O R N CYS AT LAW
$ 17 F
.MIDA AVENU C. NW D 7 *14 WASHINGTON, DC 2 0001 is aeU (202#234 4663 2 'It','....
N T A R y '" "' ' '" '""'
.asCw&E L O. aDwN'*
O F FICI C r @J@ M M PS s tr emi se es. aOph"'
UORY CQ/' ;;SION m, e. n s... ~, c...
l DOCKEilhNRmW"A t
Dockt No 50-W -M A -b ~: m p, - 66 I';;2*::".c 6A. d e m,q 3 q
..r-m e.
la the mnr u
..o m s,,.
October 1, 1990 Shu Apgan!
~
..~ __ W CONFIDENTIAL kbneDr
_1_
33 Carr, Chairman Contg on l' O-9 f I
Hon. Kenneth M.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,br WE l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Omer wj;ng33 Reporter C, 4. w,_
Supplemental Information to the Re:
1990 Hobby /Mosbaugh September 11, Petition Concerning the IllecJal Tra.tsfer vf Ocntrol of Georgia Power
.Ccmpany's Licenses to SONOPCO
Dear Mr. Chairman:
f p
1990, Petitioners Marvin B. Hobby and On September 11,Mosbaugh filed a petition with your office which, I
Allen L.
inter alia, alleged that Georgia Power Co. ("GPC")
. improperly transferred control of its nuclear licenses to SONOPCO and that GPC misled the Commission about the reporting structure from GPC's CEO to the line management at See Request for Proceedings and its nuclear facilities.
Imposition of Civil Penalties for Improperly transferring Control of GPC's licenses to the SONOPCO Project and for the unsafe and improper operations of GPC's licensed facilities
(" petition") at pp.
5-9.
When considering whether the corporate reporting structure over GPC's nuclear facilities violates GPC's nuclear licenses and/or whether GPC actually transferred there is some control of its nuclear licenses to SONOPCO, additional information of which petitioners believe the Commission should be made aware.
Chose the GPC Mr. Farley, SONOPCO's acting CEO, Corporate Officers which would be staffing the 1.
SONOPCO Project Even Though He is Not an Officer or Employee of GPC When providing sworn deposition testimony, Mr. Jesse P.
stated that Mr.
Schaudies, an attorney representing GPC, Farley along with Mr. Mcdonald actually chose all the GPC n\\
fV Exhibit bO f
Of-Q(p.
epa 90 9502020377 950112 PDR ADOCK 05000424 PDR C
______________________p-_-________-_________________
4.
S-Page 2 October 1, 1990 i
Letter to Chairman Carr In this regard, when Mr.
corporate officers st SONCPCC.
Schaudies was asked who initially staffed the SONOPCO he testified under oath "that positions (at
)
- project, SONOPCO) were intially filled with Mr. Farley and Mr.
Mcdonald and then they began to select the people immediately below them..."
Schaudies Deposition Transcript at p. 79 (attached as Exhibit 1).
Thus, not only was Mr. Farley placed in the SONOPCO chain of command over Mr. Mcdonald, he was responsible (along with Mr. Mcdonald) for selecting the GPC Vice Presidents associated with the SONOPCO Project.1/
1 Mr. Farley and Not GPC's CEO Controls Matters 2.
related to the Staffinq of GPC's Nuclear Facilities l
William Evans, a GPC Corporate Concerns investigator, testified that he was charged with investigating a corporate Concern regarding the transfer of GPC nuclear personnel from Mr.
the SONOPCO project to other functions within GPC.
Evans testified that transfers of GPC employees from the Os' SONOPCO project (located in Birmingham) to GPC's corporate headquarters in Atlanta would be decided by Mr. Farley even See, Evans though he is not an employee or officer of GPC.
Deposition Transcript
")
at pp. 17-18 ("my understanding would be ae [Farley) would decide what to Clearly, Mr. Farley controls do with the transfer... j.
O issues related to the staffing of GPC's nuclear-related 1
positions even though he testified under oath that he was not an officer of GPC.
See,, Petition at p.
6, (exhibit D thereto).
l l
j The positions staffed by Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald 1.
include Mr. C.K. McCoy as the Vogtle Project Vice The Commission may wish to independently I
President.
review internal NRC documentation concerning apparent possible prior material false statements made to the Upon information and belief, commission by Mr. McCoy.
these allegations directly resulted in Mr. McCoy's removal from the Grand Gulf nuclear station.
Mr.
Mcdonald admitted during the course of a deposition (not yet transcribed) that he was aware of Mr. McCoy's reputation of making incorrect statements and false representations to the NRC.
7g
%-)
i Exhioit50 2-d(p
, pap
-e 4
Ok/
page 3 October 1, 1990 Letter to Chairman Carr i
Thus, Mr. Farley controls GPC's nuclear facilities by t
e Virtue of the fact that he acts as.SONOPCO's Chief Execu ivHe does thi I
Officer ("CEO") ions as a project of GPC and as such is not i
currently funct As a supposed to have any independent corporate powers.the reporting stru result, indicate that Mr. Farley currently acts, and hasas SONOPCO's CEO even thl should acted since November of 1988, Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")has not approved The Southern Company's request to create the the U. S.
SONOPCO corporation.
GPC's Concern Over Whether SONOPCO was Operating GPC's Nuclear Plants Without A License Continued'Well After 3.
1989 Memo Mr. Hobby Raised the Issue in His April 27, GPC's counsel advised Mr. Hobby On October 25, 1989, that language in certain contractual matters should bereword When was operating GPC's nuclear plants without a license.
GPC was confronted with this document at the Deposition O
firm), the document was physically confiscated from Mr.See Edwards Deposit Hobby and his counsel.
Moreover, Mr. Hobby was 28-33 (attached as Exhibit 2).
denied the right to even ask the witness any questionsHad this document concerning the contents of the document.
l it would not been confiscated and questions permitted, demonstrate that GPC's counsel had a continuing concern over anyone filing an accusation about who was controlling GPC's This memo followed Mr. Hobby's April nuclear facilities.
1989 over a half of a year later.
(See Exhibit A to the 27,ition for a copy of Mr. Hoby's April 27th memo).
Pet In this same regard, both the manager and investigator of GPC's Cogorate Concerns program has testified that Mr.
Hobby had raised with them "a concern regarding thesee Glenn Deposition Tr.
reporting structure at SONOPCO,"
as well as
...whether or (attached as Exhibit 3),
not Mr. Mcdonald was indeed independent from Georgia Powera subordinate officer to at p. 25 in fact, Company or whether he was,See Evans Deposition at "le.nn dad not~
19 Cattached as Mr. Dahlberg..."
Exhibit 4).
AlthougH Messrs. Evans and G investigate these concerns, they nonetheless did investigate a related concern raised by Mr. Hobby that SONOPCO management was improperly interferring with Mr. Hobby's management of the GPC Nuclear Operations Contract Administration group of which Mr. Hobby was the General l
(This concern is related in number 2 above.)
N Manager.
3 orQ Exhibit
,page
4
/~x t
i
\\
\\_/
Page 4 October 1, 1990 Letter to Chairman Carr At first, Mr. !!nbby was That concern was never resolved.Farley would be making the advised by Mr. Evans that Mr.
as to whether Mr. Hobby would be allowed to interview cal 3 can11 dates from SONOPCO for a GPC nuclear performance ent;ineer position.
Shortly after Mr. Hobby was advised that it was Mr. Farley's call Mr. Hobby was advised that he was teing permanently prohibi,ted from hiring any additional employees although GPC management had authorized the nuclear performance engineer position.
As such, the question Mr. Hobby raised in his April 27, 1989 memo and raised with Corporate Concerns (i.e. whetherin Mr. Mcdonald was independent of GPC because he reported, reality, to Mr. Farley) was answered when Mr. Hobby was advised that GPC's nuclear employees were subordinate to Mr.
Farley inasmuch as it was Mr. Farley who would be making the call about the staffing of all GPC nuclear positions, including those not even associated with the SONOPCO project GPC nuclear performance engineer position within the (i.e.
Nuclear Operations Contract Administration Group in Atlanta).
O Vogtle Project Management Assumes that Mr. Farley i\\
4.
and Not Mr. Dahlberg Controls Vogtle's operation Two specific facts demonstrate that Vogtle Project Farley rather than Mr.
Management generally considers Mr.during a taped meeting prior
- First, Dahlberg as their CEO.
to the scheduling of the current on-going outage at the Vogtle station, Mr. C.K. McCoy stated at a meeting that the outage philosophy was created by Mr. Farley, Mr. Mcdonald, This Mr. Hairston and three other SONOPCO vice presidents.
statement is believed to have been tape recorded by Mr.
Allen Mosbaugh.
This tape recording is currently in the possession of the NRC.
See NRC Motion and Order of U.S.
Department of Labor attached as Exhibit 5).
Second, in or about August of 1990, Mr. McCoy addressed Vogtle management about the reporting structure of the plant At that meeting, which upon information and duty managers. belief may have been tape recorded (see Exhibit 5),
Mr.
McCoy stated that the site duty manager is to call the corporate duty manecer and is to advise the corporate duty Mr. McCoy then stated manager of any signIficant event.
that the corporate duty manager is to call the pro $ect vice president (Mr. McCoy in the case of the Vogtle progect), who in turn calls the president of the company.
O O
01 b Exhibit
,page
~
(_j-Page 5
=
October 1, 1990 Letter to Chairman Carr After the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Mosbaugh asked for clarification from a former SONOPCO manager, Mr. Steve (currently Mr. Chestnut is the Manager of Technical Chestnut Mr. Chestnut advised Mr. Mosbaugh Support at Plant Vogtle).
that the actual president of GPC, Mr. Dahlberg, would never be called; rather he believed Mr. McCoy's reference to in fact,
" president" was a reference to Mr. Farley whc is, actually contacted.
The conversation between Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Mosbaugh is, upon information and belief, also included in the tape recordings now in the possession of the NRC.
See attached Exhibit 5.
The above facts as well as those set out in the Petition are not nearly exhaustive.. Petitioners &ce willing to provide the Commission with additional examples and faccs should the Commission deem it necessary before ruling on petitioners' requested relief.
Once again, thank you for your consideration.
()
Respectfully submitted,
/~
/~
Michael D. Kohn, Counsel to Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L. Mosbaugh l
()
6 of3 Exhibit
,page
O l
y ls i i
O D,page h of g Exhibit
4 N
I j
J
- r:.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i
1 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)) FILE NO.
5 vs.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 9
10 11 12 13 DEPOSITION OF 14 JESSE PIKE SCHAUDIES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BULL & ASSOCIATES 23 COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 Atlanta Georgia 30342 (404) 256-2886 25 J
BULL & ASSOCIATES Exhibit N,page 7 Of1
-,-,. +-
... ~.....
.s...--...
i 79 I
t
,J 1
with that definition I have a great deal of 2
difficulty answering your question.
a Q
Did Georgia Power Company employees 4
assigned to the SONOPCO project in Birmingham?
5 A
All right.
And then your question, i
6 again, is what?
7 Q
What's your understanding of how 8
that process and how those employees were 9
selected?
10 A
My general understanding is that 11 Georgia Power employees who came to be 12 assigned to the SONOPCO, project in Birmingham i
(
f 13 were selected by the people who had been 14 selected to be their superiors.
15 Q
Who made all the selections?
Were
\\
.16 there just a few individuals who made all the 17 selections?
18 A
My understanding is that is not 19 correct.
20 Q
Okay.
What is your understanding?
21 A
That positions were initially 22 filled with Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald and 23 then they began to select the people 24 immediately below them who, in turn, began to 25 select the people immediately below them for i
O i
BULL & ASSOCIATES Exhibit @, page of j
4 O
3 t
f r
i EXHIBIT 2 4
O 3
I i
1 1
O
- 1
,page 1 ol d b?
Exhibit
WWU U
,/
\\
)
- J
\\
1 11N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
) 90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
B 9
10 11 12 l
13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 DWIGHT EVANS 16 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 O
BULL & ASSOCIATES
,page IO ofb Exhibit 4
17
)
/~%
As 1
Q-Are you aware of whether Mr.
2 Mcdonald would review some of these data 3
requests and write comments on them to his 4
employees saying:
Why do they want this piece 5
of information?
s 6
A I personally was not aware of that.
7 Q
Were.you ever aware of anyone from 8
SONOPCO contacting people in your department or 9
elsewhere in Atlanta sayingt Why do you want 10 this information?
r 11 A
No.
I was not aware of that.
12 Q
Are you aware of any problems-with O
13 support of the rate case?
f I
i 14 A
But now let me go a little bit l
15 further than that.
I personally *had some i
16 conversations with people in SONOPCO when the l
17 question that came from the PSC staff, or the 18 consultant, was not clear to them and they 19 called to ask questions:
What do you think 20 they meant by this?
What do they really want?
21 So there was discussion and that discussion did 22 occur in between regulatory affairs and the 23 SONOPCO project to determine what was intended 24.
by a particular data request, and can you get 25 clarification on this?
So several of those 2
BULL & ASSOCIATES Q
{l g
3
=-
3 18 D &<
~'( /
1 discussions didotake. place and I.was aware of 2
those.
3 Q
Was Mr. Hobby very supportive of 4
your efforts with the. rate case?
5 A
I felt that he was.
6 Q
Was Mr. Mcdonald always very 7
supportive of your efforts with the rate case?
8 A
On a couple of occasions Mr.
9 Mcdonald and I had differences of opinion as 10 to how we should respond, but he was 11 responsive.
12 Q
Is the rate case part of Mr.
(
13 Mcdonald's responsibility?
14 A
Well, no.
He was responsible for
.15 operating the plants and I had the overall 16 responsibility for th.e._r. ate case.
17 Q
Mr. Evans, are you aware that the-18 Public Service Commission was interested in 19 performance indicators back in 19877 20 A
I was not involved with the rate 21 case in 1987.
I was aware in 1989, early 1989, 22 that they were interested in performance 23 indicators.
24 Q
But you were aware that the request, 25 or interest, stemmed back from 1987?
O BULL & ASSOCIATES Exhibit
,page b of N
i Q
B l r <
?
(~y L) i
{l 1
A Yes.
I had heard that it did.
i 2
Q Can you tell me what was Georgia
[
3 Power Company's strategy going to be to respond 4
to the Public Service Commission's interest R
a h
5 with performance indicators?
N 6
A We felt that performance indicators
{l 7
were not good for the overall performance of L
(
8 the plant.
We were aware the NRC in our
?
c 9
industry generally felt that performance 10 indicators resulted in the company's operating f
11 the plant to focus more on plant performance l
12 and NRC and others within the industry felt O) 13 that it distracted from safety.
So we felt I
14 that performance indicators would not result in 15 the desired results that the Commission i
16 wanted.
However, there came a time in the case 17 when it was obvious that the Public Service l
18 Commission was going to impose performa ce i
19 standards whether we thought it was a good idea 20 or not.
At that point in time Mr. Mcdonald and 21 I had a disagreement as to whether we should 22 provide certain data and responses to the 23 commission.
I felt that the commission was 24 going to come forward.
Mr. Mcdonald felt that 25 we'should continue our argument.
Since we were BULL & ASSOCIATES b,page b of N Exhibit
- O f
4 c.:
1 time while I agreed with his arguments I felt 2
it was time is move forward.
So there was a 3
difference of opinion between he and I.
4 Q
Prior to learning of this difference 5
of opinion I assume then you were in charge of 6
the rate case but you felt everything was going 7
on to prepare the type of testimony you wanted 8
for that rate case?
9 A
That's correct.
And then all the t
10 homework was being done and people were looking l 11 at various 12 Q
And then Mr. Mcdonald and you had a 13 conversation and you then realized that that rm,
(._)
14 was not the case?
15 A
I realized that at that point in 16 time that there was a difference of opinion and t
17 when two executive vice presidents don't agree, 18 then, you know, you take it to the president 19 and he makes a decision, which is what 20 happened.
21 Q
And the normal procedure is that if 22 two VP's don't agree you go to the president of 23 Georgia Power Company and he would make the
\\
24 determination?
25 a
1 don't understand the first part of
(~T U
BULL & ASSOCIATES Exhibit
,page N of N
)
. vf *. P O
submitted?
1 Fitzpatrick's testimony was 2
A I think that's the case, but I'm not 3
sure.
4 Q
Okay.
It would be either the 5
rebuttal testimony?
6 A
Yes.
I would have to refresh my 7
memory but that's the way I recall it.
8 Q
Did you talk to Mr. Hobby about the 9
broken chair incident?
10 A
It's possible.
I don't recall.
We 11 all thought it was a little bit humorous.
So 12 it's-possible I did.
I don't recall whether I
()
13 did or not.
recollection of a 14 0
Do you have any f
15 conversation with Mr. Hobby regarding the indicators?
16
' meeting on performance 17 A
I don't recall the discussion.
18 Q
And you were aware that Mr. Hobby 4
19 was involved in creating or working on the 20 performance indicator issue?
~~
21 A
I knew that he had been involved of the details.
22 early on but I didn't know any.
23 0
... D..o.. y.o.u. k.n. o w how
.h. i..s.._i.n v o l v e m e n t 24 e,nded,,
p e r f o rm a,n_c,e _ i n d ic a t o r s ?
on 25 A
No.
O]
BULL & ASSOCIATES Exhibit 9,pageN oiN
..7
- T -. '. d.
a 4
t J
EXHIBIT 3 4
A
\\
i Exhibit
,page Nof db
l
$de$1h CUFY I
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
i 3
MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
f
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)) FILE NO.
5 vs.
l
)
l 6
GEORGIA POWER COHPANY,
)
90-ERA-30 l
)
l 7
Respondent.
)
l 8
1 9
10 11 12 f-13 DEPOSITION OF 14 15 LEE BROWN GLENN 16 17 18 l
1 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITICN REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886
~g Q,
BULL & ASSOCIATES
{D
{
25 l
.e4 i
1 not a nuclear safety issue.
2 Q
Okay.
So personnel issues h a'r e no 3
concern to nuclear safety?
l 4
A Not necessarily.
5 O
Not necessarily?
6 A
Some may, some may not.
This one 7
does not, in my mind, based on the limited 8
information I have, have nuclear implications, f
9 Q
So you would make a determination 10 whether it had nuclear implications or not if r
11 you get a concern. dealing in the nuclear area?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Okay.
Now, are you aware that Mr.
14 Hobby had a concern regarding the reporting 15 structure at SONOPCO?
16 A
I recall that he I,do recall I 17 think he hLd mentioned that at breakfast, again 18 that type of scenario before.
19 Q
Okay.
What did you do with that 20 information?
21 A
I do not do anything unless an 22 individual indicates that they are not getting 23 where they want to get to with their own 24 management and they desire corporate concerns 25 intervention involvement.
As long as the OG BULL & ASSOCIATES i
Exhibit
,pageI3oh
6 EXHIBIT 4 O
i i
O N,page Ii ofOQ Exhibit
COPY c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMEPT OF LABOR 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
)
FILE NO.
5 vs.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
90-ERA-30
)
7 Re ondent.
)
8 9
10 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 WILLIAM RUSSELL EVANS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 O
Atlanta, Georgia 30342 l
25 (404) 256-2886 i
Oh BULL & ASSCCIATES u
l e
19
- rp?
g 1
Q (By Mr. Kohn)
Mr. Hobby raised, I 2
think you vafarred to it as a " generic cencern-3 regarding whether Mr. McDona' as reporting to 4
Mr.
Farley or Mr.
Dahlberg.
you recall 5
that?
6 A
I didn't take it to be a concern per t,here 7
se.
I know we talked about, you know 8
- was, I guess, an understanding that was still 9
to be reached as to whether or not Mr. Mcdonald
~ -..-.
10 was indeed independent from Georgia Power 11 Company or whether he_Ratu_in fact, a
()
12 subordinate officer to Mr. Dahlberg.
My 13 feeling was is that this was speculation about 14 what's going on in the politics of the two 15 groups.
I did not perceive it to be a concern 16 that we were being asked to look into.
17 Q
And those type of politics and stuff 18 like that, often, in my circles, makes good 19 gossip.
Who else was talking about this stuff?
20 A
I don't know specifically who.
21 0
Who else did you talk about it with?
22 A
About that particular one?
23 Q
Yeah.
24 A
Only Lee.
/~N t )
25 Q
Did Lee indicate that he was ExhibitF~ 'page M 0 BULL & ASSOCIATES
G-e i
l EXHIBIT 5 I
t Exhibit S,pageMofb y
i v
Pe -. -.-
s
(
u
. I-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES i
Allen Mosbaugh, Case No. 90-ERA-58 V.
Georgia Power Co.
MOTION To STAY DISCOVERY The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or HCommission"),
hereby moves to stay discovery in the above captioned proceeding, The NRC has information that the to the extent described herein.
complainant has in his possession various tape recordings
()involvingconversationsbetweenhimselfandothersincluding,but As more not limited to, employees and officers of Respondent.
fully set out in the Declaration of Larry L. Robinson, A filed this day with this Tribunal, the NRC has just learned of the Th essonable cause_
existence of these tapo recordings.
to believe that these recordings may contain material which is evidence in an ongoing NRC investigation into possible Violations of HR0 Regulations which are enacted to protect the public health The NRC also has reasonable cause to believe that and safety _.
release of any or all of these tapa recordings to the Respondent could compromise the NRC's investigation.
The Complainant has agreed to provide these recordings to
(}
5 y/;
of Mr. Robinson is an Investigator with the NRC8s Office I
E, paged ofM
, Investigations (noia).
Exhibit tQ' i
.r. ; ;,
or-,-,
.g ~,
The NRC will expeditiously review
)
(v;ihe NRC in their entirety.
, these materials and provide this Tribunal with a detailed if ctatement describing the number and nature of the recordings, cny, which it wishes this Tribunal to protect from discovery.
'Accordingly, the NRC respectfully requests this Tribunal to stay
?
'Cny orders compell'ing discovery to the extent that the 71 complainant not be compelled to produce for discovery to Respondent various tape recordings of conversations regarding incidents involving the Voegle Electric Power Station, owned by the Georgia Power Company.
Respectfully submitted, b
d Y F. CORDES, WR.
O olicitor V
CHARLES E.
LLINS Attorney office of he General counsel U.S. Nuc1 ar Regulatory commission Washingtn ',
D.C.
20555 DATE0:
S c o t. 13, 1990 (301) 492-1606 cc Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
Jesse Shaudies, Esq.
O 4
.c';p.
Exhibit 9, pag ofh
-l
a D'-'o
-~
G.-
DECLARATION OF LARRY L. ROBINSON l re that the following is true and
., Larry L. Tsobinnen, do hereby dec a:orrect, under t of sy abflity.
My name is 1.arry L. Robinson.
l t ry Cosatssion.
My Office of Investigations, United States Nuclear Regu a of licensees, app!! can 1.
of all allegations of duties include the conduct of investigations oi contracture or vendors, including the investigat oncrong t rs.
upon I sake these statements based upon */ own personal kneeledge, or t
and is re!!sd kno:: ledge obtained by se during ths Gurse of my esploymen,
2.
upon, by se in the performance of my of ficial duties, NRC, currently has two The 088!ce of Investigation.' (01), Region !! iRI!!,
l wrongdoing on the i
pending investigations regarding allegations of intent onat the Vogtle 3.
part of Georgia Power Company (6PC) Managers aThese investigation t
ial False deliberate Violations of Technical Specifications, and Ma erIf Plant (VESP).
tt lth and saf ety.
ations of NRC regulations enacted to protect the public heaNRC at VES enants.
addition, a recent Special Inspection, conducted byl t d allegations of addressed additional re a e lihood, be referred 6*17, 1990, period Augustcrongdo.ing by SPC Managesent at VEBP that wi!!, in all like to 01 in the near future.
h Kohn, and Stephen Kohn, of the Law Offices of Ko n,llen L. Mosbaugh, 4.
On September 12, 1990 Colapinto, telephoned se and advised se that their clie dings that he, Mosbaugh, had made of conversatiens with VESP Managers tha Kohn advissd me that to the ongoing NRC investigations /Special Inspection.
the Law J
Mosbaugh had been officially ordered to turn these tapes over to tives of SPC Offices of Troutaan Banders, Lockersan, and Ashaore, representaCa i
to have to turn in a Department of Labor IDDL)
Xohn stated that his understanding was that Mosbaugh was go ng 13, 1990.
oyer these tapes on Sept.
the ecurse of sy investigation of one of the afore t
d that he did k
f 5.
I I telephoned Mosbaugh, and he verifiethat he had been v
- 6..On Septesber 12, 1990, aske such tape recordings, that he was in possession of thes,
'is the Troutsan, ordered by a DDL Adainistrative tan Judge to turn thes over 6
rg (chow evidence of intentional Wrchgdoing
$anders Law Firs.
g
)d 6PC Management at the of fices of SONOPCO Project 01 investigations and the g
i
, connection with the silegations in the ongo ng
,Special inspection, in response to ay sessage Michael Kohn, also d se at sy residence Also on Septenbar 12, 1990,
[ 7.'eith the Law Firs of Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto, telephone i i t ative and advised se that his client, Mosbaugh, per an order f on
'~da*
4
\\
a-
\\
/b I*
U Michael Kohn said that he had 13, 1990.
his GPC attorneys by eldnight, Septesber
,not been able to personally review all the tapes, but that it understanding froa conversations with his clientecent pertaining to the ongoin t:rongdoing on tne p., t of U. C *eaag investigation /Special Inspection issues, centained sn theK over to NRC f or review (pr evidentiary purposes.
tapes.
have the NRC subpoena the tapes.
t these The Oflice of Investigations has reasonable cause to believe tha lt y tapes contain direct evidence of intentional violations of regu a or 8.
equiresents by GPC personnel that pertains to ongoing HRC Q estigations/inspecticas.
tapes by GPC OI has reasonable cause to believe that the review of thes
~l tion of the perconnel, or their representativesi prior to the conp eafo the integrity of l
9.
)O ne investigations.
i Further, declarant sayeth naught.
Dated this 13th day of September,1990 at Atlanta, 6eorgia.
cV aos Larry
. Robinse
\\
t i
1 O
N,pageb of M Exhibit
-