ML20078P671

Intervenor Prehearing Statement of Issues.* Intervenor Identifies Issues Intended to Be Raised During Upcoming Hearing Scheduled to Commence on 950104.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20078P671
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/12/1994
From:	Kohn M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:
Shared Package
ML20078P652	List: ML20078P649 ML20078P657 ML20078P664 ML20078P671
References
93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9412190164
Download: ML20078P671 (60)

Text

5 Ih MATED 00RRESPONDENCE DOCKETED December 12, S$93C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .g4 E 12 P12 :11 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter Thomas D. Murphy

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 21 AL., )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S PREHEARING STATEMENT OF IS_SllES Pursuant to the Board's December 7, 1994 Memorandum and Order (Deferral of Statement of Issues), Intervenor identifies issues Intervenor intends to raise during the upcoming hearing, scheduled to commence on January 4, 1995.2

1. PROVIDING MISLEADING INFORMATION AND OTHERWISE OMITTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OVER PLANT DURING THE VOGTLE UNIT 2 FULL POWER LICENSE HEARING.

a. What way_said and when it was said On March 30, 1989 the Commission held hearings on full power operation of Vogtle Unit 2. During the course of the hearing Commissioner Carr stated that he "had a management concern" with the reporting structure because the plant manager seemed to be "a long way from the CEO" and specifically asked Mr. Mcdonald to explain "the hierarchy between the CEO and the plant manager."

2 Where applicable, citations relied upon in this brief reflect those used in Intervenor's Response to Summary Disposition.

DR 4 941212 oghK05000424 o

PDR

~1 'h Intervenor's Prefiled Exhibit 17 at p. 3. Mr. Mcdonald providtd a response which omitted the Senior Vice President and omitted Mr. Farley's role as the chief executive of the Southern Company's nuclear division. Mr. Mcdonald claimed that he solely reported to GPC's CEO, Mr. Dahlberg. At this point Commissioner Carr states: "I understand your organization. I still have my

~

concern...if (the plant manager has] a problem that needs the CEO's attention he goes a long way to get there, was my concern."

Mr. Dahlberg had "a personal hands on" relationship with the management at the plant site" Id., at p. 5. Mr. Mcdonald further asserts that the " entire management structure" all the way to "the tcp level of the company" is involved in personnel matters and technical matters on a routine basis; and that this included the " Board of Directors." Id., at p. 6.

b. Why the statemg_nt was inaccurgte or incomplete The statement is inaccurate because it ignored the role Mr.

Farley played as the chief executive over the Southern Company's nuclear division which commenced exercising operating responsibility over GPC's nuclear plants in November of 1988.

Moreover, it is false because Mr. Dahlberg did not have a personal hands on relationship at plant Vogtle; was not routinely involved in technical matters; failed to acknowledge that a Southern Company Management Council was pertarming the role of a board of directors over Southern Company's nuclear division; and failed to portray the actual reporting relationships within The 2

4

r -

)  : .%

Southern system (i.e., that Mcdonald' reported to Farley who reported to Addison).

c. Context of statement The statement was made to the Commission during licensing hearings in order to mislead the Commission about the adequacy of the management structure over plant Vogtle.

d. Basis for alleged omission or misrenresentation The factual basis supporting the fact that Mr. Farley was in the management structure over plant Vogtle includes, inter alia, the following:

In 1987 The Southern Company board was in the process of deciding whether to establish a nuclear operating subsidiary. At this juncture Mr. Addison met in private with Joe Farley (then President and CEO of APC). They jointly agreed that Mr. Farley would emerge as the chief executive of a Southern Company nuclear operating subsidiary. Addison Dep. at p. 71, 67, 38, 45.

In 1987, Addison and Farley made the decision as to where SONOPCO would be located. Addison Dep. at p. 80. Moreover, Mr.

Scherer, GPC's CEO at the time, was never even asked where Southern Nuclear should be located (Scherer 6/8/94 Dep at p. 48, Exhibit 3).

By 1989 the Southern Company Management Council began functioning as the SONOPCO project board of directors. Farley 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at p. 84. The first reference to a SONOPCO project board of directors meeting is noted in a February 14, l

1989 entry in Mr. Addison's appointment schedule. Therein, it I 3

1 i

l l

1 .h

1 .h states that a "SONOPCO PROJECT BD MEETING" occurred at 3:00 p.m.

Hag Addison Calendar (Exhibit 11). Reference to additional SONOPCO Project board of director meetings is noted in Mr.

Dahlberg's and Mr. Addison's appointment calendar entries for March 6, 1989, both of which indicate that the SONOPCO project board met at 1:00 p.m. that day. Sgg Addison Calendar (Exhibit

11) and Dahlberg Calendar (Exhibit 12); also see Dahlberg 5/8/90 Dep. p. 65; Addison Dep. p. 53.

Mr. Farley received verbal reports from Mcdonald, Hairston, McCoy, Long and McCrary concerning the performance of GPC's nuclear units. Farley DOL Dep, at p. 49-40; also see, Shipman Notebook (Exhibit 9)

Weekly executive staff meetings were conducted. These staff meetings are generally referred to as the "Farley Staff Meetings." In attendance were all of the SONOPCO project executive management. The only non-executive managers who routinely attended the meetings were Mr. Farley assistants.

Mr. Shipman stated that Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Hairston reported to Mr. Farley. Egg Shipman Depo.

Mr. Farley reported to The Southern Company board about the status of GPC's nuclear plants. Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 39-40 ("I report to the Southern Board quarterly on...the performance of the units...I know the information (because)...I receive reports from Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston, Mr. McCoy, Mr. Long, Mr.

McCrary.. "). Oglethorpe's management observed that Mr. Farley was the chief executive of the SONOPCO project, that Mr. Mcdonald 4

\

\ h reported to Farley who reported to Addison, and that Farley's control over nuclear operations might violate the terms of the Vogtle and Hatch nuclear licenses.

Mr. Smith attended the Full Power hearing and, in the margin of an official transcript of the proceeding, made a marginalia comment in response to Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that "I report to Dahlberg." Mr. Smith wrote:

On paper only! In actuality Mcdonald appears to report to Farley who reports to Addison!

Fact is GPC knows less about plants than we do! We provide GPC with daily reports!

. Sag Smith Notation (Exhibit 13).

On April 27, 1989, Mr. Hobby, GPC's general manager of NOCA, and his boss, senior vice president George Head, transmitted a confidential memorandum questioning the reporting relationship of Mcdonald and indicating that GPC could be in violation of the terms of its nuclear license. The memo, signed by both Hobby and George Head states:

A significant concern that a lot of people have is who does Mr. Mcdonald work for.

...Oglethorpe Power is so concerned that it has formally requested confirmation that Mr.

Mcdonald receives his management direction from and reports to Mr. Dahlberg.

...Oglethorpe is very concerned about this issue and they feel NRC is concerned. A Region II NRC employee suggested to Oglethorpe that NRC was so concerned that they might seek to put a resident inspector in Birmingham to see what was going on.

Hobby memo at p. 7 (Stip. Ex. 34). Mr. Hobby was instructed to destroy the memo by GPC vice president Fred Williams. DOL Tr.

151-152 (Hobby) (Exhibit 31); Wilkinson Let (Exhibit 14).

5

s s Mr. Farley implemented plant Vogtle changes in personnel evaluation and pay to plant Vogtle nuclear operations. Smith Dep. at pp. 50-51 (Exhibit 30); Mosbaugh Prefiled Testimony.

Key negotiations between GPC and Oglethorpe were conducted by Farley. Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 32, 97.

Mr. Farley has input to Mcdonald's annual reviews. Farley 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at p. 15.

GPC's Management Council excluded nuclear personnel from its company-wide review Egg Dahlberg 4/6/94 Dep. at pp. 70-71, 122-124. The exclusion of GPC's nuclear operations from Mr.

Dahlberg's and GPC's Management Council evidences that nuclear operations was under review elsewhere -- with Mr. Farley.

George Head reported to Dahlberg that the SONOPCO project was refusing to cooperate with NOCA, Dahlberg advised Mr. Head that he could not resolve the matter until he met "with Mr.

Farley." DOL Tr. at p. 652 (Head) (Exhibit 31) .

After the creation of the SONOPCO project, all of GPC's nuclear budgets were reviewed by Farley. Dahlberg 6/10/94 Dep.

at p. 122. In May of 1990, before SONOPCO was legally l incorporated, Mr. Farley testified "we've done the best we could in trying to manage the nuclear budget for each of the companies......" Farley DOL Dep. at p. 94-95.

In December of 1989, Hobby called GPC's budgeting office and spoke with Jeff Wallace, manager of Resource Management, who advised that Mr. Dahlberg disagreed with the final nuclear 6

l l

l

l

's us budget. This same budget had received Farley's " blessing" and was incorporated.

Mr. Farley discussed and approved the plant outage philosophy. On August 6, 1990, the Vogtle project Vice President visited the plant site. Mr. Farley specifically discussed his involvement with the establishment of a nuclear operating outage philosophy for the SONOPCO project, at which time he indicated that the philosophy was developed during a SONOPCO project retreat attended by all SONOPCO project executives. Farley Dep.

July 25, 1994 (Not transcribed).

Mr. Farley's control over GPC's nuclear operations extended to matters before the Georgia Public Service Commission ("PSC").

San Barker Prefiled Testimony. In this respect, Mr. Mcdonald met with Mr. Farley to hammer out GPC's responses to data requests coming from the PSC and the testimony to be presented to the PSC.

Sen Barker Prefiled Testimony; Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at pp.

46-47. Moreover, Mr. Farley would review all the requests to determine whether the SONOPCO project would respond. Farley DOL Dep. at p. 119. Mr. Farley was copied on rate case documentation ,

while Mr. Dahlberg was not. Sag Farley Rate Case Memos (Exhibit 32). 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. Barker Prefiled Testimony; Johnson DOL Dep. at pp. 26, 29 (Exhibit 29). The matter was finally resolved 7

L 1 a  ;

l by Farley. Johnson DOL Dep. at p. 39 (Exhibit 29); Hobby  !

Prefiled Testimony.

1 Mr. Farley was identified as the top executive to be l 1

contacted by on-call project manager of GPC's nuclear plants.

San Mosbaugh Prefiled Testimony. Mr. Mosbaugh was made aware that persons listed under Georgia Power Company Corporate Management were to be contacted in descending order from the top of the list. Mosbaugh Aff. 18, (Exhibit 22). The individual at the top of the list to be contacted was Joseph M. Farley. )

e. Materiality l

1 The information was material to the Commission's deliberation process. Additionally, it indicates a lack of candor on the part of Licensee,

f. Corrective action On May 1, 1989 Mr. Hairston submitted a letter allegedly to correct misstatements and errors made by Mr. Mcdonald and others during the course of the Full Power Licensing Hearing. However, I

this letter not only failed to correct the errors identified j above, it sets forth false and misleading statements about the  !

plant Vogite corporate structure. Sgg Issue 2.

2. FAILING TO CORRECT FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS MADE {

DURING THE VOGTLE UNIT 2 FULL POWER LICENSE HEARINGS WHEN  ;

GPC FILED HEARING TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS. l i

a. What was said and when it was said On May 1, 1989 Mr. Hairston submitted a letter correcting ,

i the Full Power Licensing Hearing transcript, which asserts that 8

1

i .o the November 23, 1988 FSAR Figure 13.1.1-1 accurately depicts the corporate management structure above plant Vogtle. With the exception of indicating that Mr. Hairston was in the chain of command, the letter failed to otherwise correct false and misleading information concerning the management structure over plant Vogtle that was actually functioning at the time of the hearing.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete At the time Mr. Hairston transmitted the letter, FSAR Figure 13.1.1-1 did not portray the actual functioning of the organization because Figure 13.1.1-1 excluding Mr. Farley's role and because it indicated that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr.

Scherer.

c. Context of statemen_t The statement was made in a letter to the Commission from Mr. Hairston transmitted for the express purpose of correcting Mr. Mcdonald's erroneous statement about the reporting relationship between the plant Manager and CEO.

d. Ratis for alleoina omission or misrepresentation At the time the letter was transmitted the FSAR, and in particular FSAR Figure 13.1.1-1, indicated that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Scherer (Chairman and CEO) rather than to Mr.

Dahlberg (President). Additionally, FSAR figure 13.1.1-1 does not identify the fact that Mr. Farley was serving as the chief executive of a newly to med Southern Company nuclear division and l 9

s >

that, while in this position, Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley on matters pertaining to the operation of GPC's nuclear plants.

e. Materiality Information pertaining to the corporate management structure over plant Vogtle was material to the Commission's deliberation process when considering to grant GPC a full power license for Vogtle Unit 2. The statement also indicates a lack of candor.

f. Corrective action None.

3. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY STATE THE CORPORATE ORGANIZATION IN CHAPTER 1 OF THE 1988 AMENDMENTS TO PLANT VOGTLE'S FSAR

a. What was said and where it was said FSAR 1.4.1.2 is headed " Description of Corporate Organization." Pursuant to this section of the FSAR, GPC is required to set forth the description of the corporate organization of the licensed operator of plant Vogtle. The description of the corporate organization set out in the FSAR reads as follows:

The GPC is a public utility incorporated under the Laws of the State of Georgia with its principal offices located at 333 Piedmont Street, Atlanta Georgia. GPC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Southern Company.

The fact that The Southern Company had newly established a nuclear division with responsibility for operating GPC's nuclear plants is omitted.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete The actual organization structure, allocations of responsibilities and allocations of authorities are inaccurately 10

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

.t- ,.

depicted. ~Mr. Parley played a key managerial role in the actual l functioning. corporate organ'zation i over plant Vogtle. The functioning organization structure is more accurately depicted in Attachment 1 to this brief,

c. Context of statement 10 C.F.R. S 50.34 (b) (6) requires that an FSAR be submitted by the licensee. Georgia Power is required to address in the plant Vogtle FSAR information concerning " (i) The applicant's organizational structure, allocations or responsibilities and i authorities, and personnel qualifications requirements.'" Id.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.71(e), the licensee must update its 4

FSAR. The FSAR represents an essential safety document.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrecresentation This statement is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading because it fails to state that The Southern Company established a a

nuclear operations division which commenced operation on November -

1, 1988. The establishment of a nuclear operations division'of The Southern Company fundamentally altered the corporate organization responsible for the operation of GPC's nuclear plants. In order to fulfill the FSAR reporting requirements, GPC had to set forth significant changes occurring within the Southern system that altered or changed GPC's corporate operating environment pertaining to the operation of plant Vogtle. The 4

formation of and the operational commencement of a functioning Southern Company division constitutes a fundamental restructuring of the functioning corporate organizational entities within The l

11 i

l

.s >

Southern Company which had direct control over GPC's nuclear operations. The corporate management structure actually operating at the time is depicted in Attachment 1.

e. Materiality GPC is required to submit and maintain an FSAR for plant Vogtle. NRC regulations require the FSAR to include a statement of the corporate organization and management structure over all aspects of the plant. Incorrectly stating the management structure over plant Vogtle constitutes a material false statement. The division of responsibility must be clearly set out to meet the Quality Assurance Criteria of 10 C.F.R. 50 App.

B, I Organization ("The authorities and duties of persons and organizations performing activities affecting the safety related functions or structures, systems, and components shall be clearly established and delineated in writing").

f. Corrective action No amendments to the plant Vogtle FSAR describing the operation of SONOPCO or depicting any management role of Mr.

Parley were filed between 1988 and 1990. After Southern Nuclear was incorporated, GPC identified Southern Nuclear under FSAR 1.4.2.

4. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY STATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE 1988 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 13 OF PLANT VOGTLE'S FSAR

a. What was said and where it was said Plant Vogtle's FSAR at 13.1.1-16 states:

12

i o The corporate organization, which provides the line responsibility for the operation of the VEGP, is shown in figure 13.1.1-1. The ultimate responsibility... rests with the chairman and CEO, who assigns responsibilities to the various organizations as described in paragraph 13.1.1.2.

Figure 13.1.1-1 identified at 13.1.1-16 depicts the following reporting relationship: Senior Vice President (Hairston), reporting to Executive Vice President (Mcdonald),

reporting to Chairman and CEO (Scherer).

b. H.hv the statement was inaccurate or incomplete The FSAR 13.1.1-16 and Figure 13.1.1-1 are false because they fail to indicate that management control over GPC's nuclear plants were reorganized such that Mr. Farley was functioning as the chief executive of a newly formed Soucnern Company nuclear division (SONOPCO proj ect) , and that in this capacity Mr. Farley exercised significant line management responsibility over plant Vogtle. The actual functioning corporate organization is more accurately depicted in Attachment 1.

The corporate organization as depicted is false in no less than three respects. First, it depicts the Executive Vice President of Nuclear Operations (R. P. Mcdonald) reporting to GPC's Chairman and CEO (Robert Scherer). This is false because, with respect to plant Vogtle, Mr. Mcdonald did not receive management direction from Mr. Scherer and did not functionally report to Mr. Scherer. In actuality, Mr. Mcdonald reported to Joseph Farley who was not affiliated with GPC. The FSAR amendment is misleading because it states that the Executive Vice President has full responsibility for " technical and 13

3 administrative support activities provided by SCS." -VEGP-FSAR-D 13 .1.1. 2 . 2 .1.. In actuality, technical and a'dministrative services reported to an executive office of.the'SONOPCO project, with Mr. Farley serving as.the chief executive officer of that office.

In order for FSAR 13.1.1-16 to be accurate and complete, Figure 13.1.1-1 would have needed to depict a reporting relationship between Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Farley.

c. Context of statement The statement is contained in a critical safety-related document, the plant's FSAR.

d. Easis for alleaed omission or misrepresentation The actual reporting relationship within.the then existing "SONOPCO Project Organization" included Mr. Farley with line management responsibilities over administrative and technical services and the project's Executive Vice President-Nuclear Operations,

e. Materiality Omissions from the November, 1988 FSAR should have been.

reported to NRC staff during a December 19-21, 1988 inspection of the GPC's " Corporate Office in Birmingham Alabama." JE 10, Inspection Report at p. 1. The purpose of this inspection was to review " areas of corporate organization, responsibilities, and functions." Id. Omissions from the FSAR should have been i reported and corrected. In this respect, NRC specifically told GPC that NRC had detected omissions in the plant Vogtle FSAR and ]

14

s o advised GPC that the omission detected by Staff "needed to be revised" to reflect changes in organizational philosophy. Id.

Therefore these omissions are material.

f. Corrective ac_tiip_q The omission as to the actual reporting relationship was exacerbated during the actual inspection by providing NRC with charts, including a chart entitled "SONOPCO PROJECT ORGANIZATION," which altogether failed to identify Mr. Farley.8 Moreover, GPC alleged that the changes reflected in this FSAR

" amendment included the Phase I changes to the GPC organization."

GPC's Brief In Response to the Board's January 15, 1993 Request for Information and Briefs at Appendix A, p . 4. Chapter 13 was subsequently amended on March 28, 1990, but this amendment did not accurately state the organizational structure.

5. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY STATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE WHEN FILING THE MARCH 28, 1990 FSAR AMENDMENT

a. What was said and when it was said On March 28, 1990 GPC filed an amendment to the plant Vogtle FSAR revising Figure 13.1.1-1. Sag JE 15. Figure 13.1.1-1 indicates that Mr. Mcdonald reports to Mr. Dahlberg. The Vice President of Technical Services and the Vice President of

This chart differs from the organizational chart Figure 13.1.1-2 as it reflects a dotted line reporting relationship from the Vice President of Technical Services (Long) and from the Vice President of Administrative Services (McCrary) to Executive Vice President (Mcdonald) rather than a solid line as depicted in FSAR Figure 13.1.1-2.

15

a >

w.

Administrative Services are depicted as reporting to Mr. Mcdonald and-then to Mr. Dahlberg.

m b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete Figure 13.1.1-1 is false by omission as it fails to designate Mr. Farley with respect to Mr. Mcdonald's reporting relationship. It is also false because both the Administrative Services and Technical Services Vice Presidents reported to Mr.

Farley and Mr. Mcdonald.' The actual reporting relationships are more accurately depicted in Attachment 1.

c. Context of statement The statement is contained in a critical safety-related document, the plant's FSAR.

d. Basis for alleoed omission or miprenresentation No reporting relationship to Mr. Farley is depicted. Mr.

Dahlberg was not in line management over technical services or administrative services.

e. Materiality The FSAR is a key safety document that must be submitted to the NRC and the public. False statements concerning_the actual a

corporate organization are material,

f. Corrective action The error was never corrected.

2 Figure 13.1.1-1 differs from the chart provided to NRC during the December, 1988 inspection. The chart provided during the December, 1988 inspection indicates a dotted line relationship between Mcdonald and the Administrative Services and Technical Services Vice Presidents; Figure 13.1.1-1 shows a solid line reporting relationship. Both are false be omission because the reporting relationship to Mr. Farley's is omitted.

16

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

L u s l

l

6. FALSELY ASSERTING IN A MARCH 28, 1991 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 13 OF PLANT VOGTLE'S FSAR THAT GPC'S CEO RETAINED CONTROL OVER MATTERS PERTAINING TO GPC'S NUCLEAR BUDGET AND PERSONNEL

a. What was said and when it was said On March 28, 1991, GPC filed an amendment to Chapter 13 of its FSAR asserting that the executive vice president-nuclear reports to GPC's CEO and president with respect to all matters concerning budoet and personnel and that Southern Nuclear matters are currently limited to operational support activities. JE 20, FSAR at 13.1.1.2.1.1.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement is inaccurate because it fails to indicate that Southern Nuclear had control over matters pertaining to GPC's Nuclear budget and personnel and misleads the NRC regarding to whom Mr. Farley reported.

c. Context of statement The statement is contained in a critical safety-related document, the plant's FSAR.

d. Factual support of omission or misrepresentation After Southern Nuclear was incorporated it continued to control matters pertaining to GPC's nuclear budget and personnel.

In actuality, Georgia Power's budget had been under the control of Southern Nuclear since November of 1988, at which point GPC lost effective control of its nuclear operations, including matters pertaining to budget and personnel. Mr. Farley implemented changes in personnel evaluations and pay for plant 17

e ,

f 4' Vogtle nuclear operations personnel and selected and. approved GPC's nuclear management staff.

e. Kateriality The FSAR is a required submittal to the NRC and the public and must include, inter alia, the corporate organization and

. management structure over all aspects of'the plant. False

~

statements contained in FSAR are material to the safe operation of the plant.

f. Corrective action None.

I l

7. GPC CONTINUED TO FALSELY ASSERT IN ITS MARCH 28, 1991 AMENDMENT TO 776XCHAPTEROF PLANT VOGTLE'S FSAR THAT MCDONALD REPORTED TO GPC'S CEO (DAHLBERG)  :

a. What was said and when it was said The March 1991 FSAR Amendment of Figure 13.1.1-1 continues to denote that the Executive Vice President-Nuclear (Mcdonald) reported to the President and CEO of Southern Nuclear (Farley) with respect to Southern Nuclear matters only.and reported'to GPC's CEO and President on matters pertaining to GPC.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete-Figure 13.1.1-1 inaccurately misstates the reporting <

relationship over GPC's nuclear operations. Mr. Mcdonald reporting to Mr. Farley on matters pertaining to plant Vogtle and .

they both reported to Southern Nuclear's Board of directors on matters pertaining to Georgia Power's nuclear operations.

18

• .o.

c. Context of statement The statement is contained in a critical safety-related document, the plant's FSAR.

'd. Basis for alleaed omission or misrenresentation The SONOPCO project chief executive (Farley) reported to The Southern Company's CEO (Addison) and to the Southern Company Management Council, consisting of Mr. Farley, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr.

Addison and the CEOs of GPC, APC and SCS. Egg Issue 1 above for additional factual basis.

e. Materiality The FSAR is a required submittal to the NRC and the public and must include, inter alia, the corporate organization and management structure over all aspects of the plant. False statements contained in FSAR are material to the safe operation-of the plant,

f. Corrective action None.

8. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY NOCA AS AN OVERSIGHT < ORGANIZATION IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2 OF THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDSR, LBP-94916, 39 N.R.C. 257 (MAY 25, 1994)

c. What was said and when it was said On August 24, 1994, GPC filed its Response to the Board's Questions Concerning Illegal License Transfer Issue to questions posed by the Board in its May 25, 1994 Memorandum and Order

("M&O"). Question 2 of the M&O states:

What organizational units or executive personnel of Georgia Power had any form of oversight activity...with 19 y he +  %-, & q

l.

, .e o respect to SONOPCO? What were the activities [of the organization]?...

In response to this question, GPC states that "Outside of the SONOPCO project, oversight existed in the CEO of GPC" and with "GPC's Management Council."

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete The assertion is inaccurate because GPC failed to advise NRC-about the existence of NOCA; its oversight function; the fact that SONOPCO refused to cooperate with NOCA; and that SONOPCO personnel, including Mr. Farley, interfered with its operation, staffing and, ultimately, its existence,

c. Context of statement The statement was made in response to a question from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

d. Basis for alleaed omission or misrecresentation On December 27, 1988 GPC's president and CEO (Dahlberg) established Nuclear Operations Contract Administration group

("NOCA") to monitor GPC's nuclear plants and to analyze the performance of GPC's nuclear units and to review the nuclear operating b'udget. DOL. Tr. 328 (Dahlberg); 671 (Head) (Exhibit

31) Baker Dep. at p. 64 (Exhibit 1). Addison, Farley and Mcdonald were notified of the establishment of NOCA. Exhibit 10. Mr.

Dahlberg created NOCA on the recommendation of GPC's senior Executive vice president (Baker) and senior vice president (Head). Mr. Dahlberg approved Marvin Hobby as general manager of NOCA. Mr. Dahlberg had NOCA's general manager report to senior vice president George Head. Mr. Farley opposed NOCA and believed 20

+ - _ . s . m 2

'e' ',

that effort to monitor the performance of GPC's nuclear plants was SONOPCO's responsibility and GPC should not duplicate SONOPCO's efforts. In defiance of GPC's effort to establish NOCA, SONOPCO personnel ';re instructed not to cooperate with NOCA. Mr. Barker was instructed to stop all direct communication with NOCA and Mr. Hobby. He was further instructed that any communication he needed to have with NOCA or Hobby had to be filtered through SONOPCO's administrative services branch --

managers who were not GPC employees. The prohibition against contacting NOCA and Hobby caused delays in answering PSC data requests. Sag Barker Prefiled Testimony.

George Head reported to Dahlberg that the SONOPCO project was refusing to cooperate with NOCA, Dahlberg advised Mr. Head that he could not resolve the matter until he met "with Mr.

Parley." DOL Tr. at p. 652 (Head) (Exhibit 31). On May 8, 1990, Mr. Hobby was notified by William Evans, GPC's Corporate Concerns Coordinator, that "Farley was going to make the call" concerning the staffing of NOCA. DOL Tr. 160-162 (Hobby); Hobby Log; Evans DOL Dep at pp. 17-18. NRC had no knowledge that Farley was i controlling staffing decisions related to nuclear operations, j including decisions concerning the staffing of NOCA. Oglethorpe j reported its observation to GPC's general manager of NOCA, Marvin 1

DOL Tr. 850-854 (Smith).

Hobby. Dahlberg knew of Oglethorpe's concern over the reporting relationship over GPC's nuclear i

plants. Dahlberg 6/10/94 Dep. at p. 110 and pp. 95-99, 102, 109. l l

l l

I 21

i

e. Materiality l

The omission is material because it portrayed a false l

picture of how GPC intended to monitor the performance of 1 l

SONOPCO.

f. Corrective actiqn None.

9. GPC FALSELY ASSERTED TO THE NRC IN THE 2.206 RESPONSE THAT THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE BETWEEN DAHLBERG AND MCDONALD REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO THE GEORGIA PSC WAS EVIDENCE OF THE REPORTING RELATIONSHIP AND WHO WAS IN CONTROL OF NUCLEAR OPERATIONS.

a. What was said and where it was said In its 2.206 Response, GPC states:

A specific example demonstrating that Mr. Dahlberg is, indeed, responsible for and in control of GPC matters concerning Plants Hatch and.Vogtle is reflected in Hobby v. GPC. In August 1989, Mr.

Mcdonald had a disagreement with Mr. Dwight Evans concerning testimony to be filed with the Georgia Public Service Commission on the subject of nuclear plant performance standards. Trial Tr.

365-68, 380-81. That disagreement was resolved by Mr. Dahlberg in an August 10, 1989 meeting during which Mr. Dahlberg directed Mr. Mcdonald to take certain actions. Egg Trial Tr. at 336-39, 365-68, 606-08; see also NRC Mtg. Tr. at 20-21.4 GPC's Answer to the December 9, 1992 Amended Petition of Allen L. Mosbaugh at pp. 23-24, fn. 11, filed on December 22, 1992, relies on and quotes to the Recommended Decision anc Order Mr. Mcdonald asserted before the NRC during a transcribed meeting held on January 11, 1991 NRC that the performance indicator disagreement was resolved within hours after he met with Mr.

Dahlberg. Egg JE 19 at pp. 20-21, 22

i l

l l

l

("RD&O") in Hobbv v. GPC. Specifically, GPC reproduced the following quotation from the RD&O: )

Perhaps (Hobby] had become, as convinced as I am that Mr. Mcdonald did, in fact, take his management direction from Mr. Dahlberg in regard to the two nuclear plants owned, in part, by Georgia Power. Certainly, any doubts in his mind concerning the same should have been dispelled by.the August 1989 meeting in reference to the Public Service Commission case. The evidence referable ~to what transpired.at this meeting clearly established that Mr. Dahlberg exercised control over Mr. Mcdonald regarding Georgia Power's nuclear operations.  :

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete t This statement is materially false because'Mr. Mcdonald did not follow Mr. Dahlberg's instruction after the August 10, 1989 meeting and because Mr. Farley reviewed and approved the testimony to be submitted which did not include alternative performance indicators.

c. Context of statement .1 The statement was made-in an effort to persuade NRC that Mr.

Mcdonald reported to Mr. Dahlberg on all matters concerning nuclear operations,

d. Basis for alleoed omission or misrepresentation i The assertion is false based on.the prefiled' testimony of Michael D. Barker. HMr. Barker, stationed at the SONOPCO project between November 1, 1988 and April 1990, observed that the dispute was not resolved by Mr. Dahlberg. Specifically, Mr.

Barker knew no later than on July 5, 1989 that Mr. Mcdonald and  :

Mr. Dahlberg did not agree philosophically on whether GPC should 23

file an alternative performance indicator to the PSC. Knowing Mr. Dahlberg's position, Mr. Mcdonald instructed SONOPCO project personnel to do the opposite. It is undisputed that on August 10, 1989, Mr. Mcdonald net with Mr. Dahlberg and that Mr.

Dahlberg unequivocally stated his position. But, within days after this meeting, Mr. Mcdonald announced that the SONOPCO project would not prepare performance indicators. At this point Mr. Farley advised Mr. Mcdonald that they need not decide the matter now and that they should consider it further. Mr. Barker complied with his instruction. In this respect, Mr. Barker specifically recalls that on August 26, 1989 Mr. Mcdonald instructed Mr. Barker not to include information on alternative performance indicators.

e. Materiality This statement is material because it represents the single most significant factual basis presented by GPC to NRC in its 2.206 Response to demonstrate that Mr. Mcdonald did not report to Mr. Farley on matters concerning GPC's nuclear operations,

f. Corrective action As of this date, the false assertion concerning performance indicators hac never been corrected, and GPC still relies on this false assertion in pleadings filed with the US. Department of labor and in response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

24

e ,

10. GPC FALSELY STATED TO THE NRC IN ITS 2.206 RESPONSE THAT PHASE I DEPICTED IN THE U-1 FILING REFLECTS THE ACTUAL MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION OF THE SONOPCO PROJECT AND THAT THE APRIL 26, 1989 MEMORANDUM FROM WILLIAMS LIKEWISE DEPICTED THE PHASE I ORGANIZATION

a. What was said and when it was said In its April 1, 1991 Response to the 2.206 Petition at Attachment 1, pp. 2-3, GPC asserts that the November 23, 1988 FSAR accurately depicted the " Phase I" organization that functioning prior to the incorporation of Southern Nuclear, and that " Exhibit B-2 of [the SEC U-1 filing] is a copy of the Phase I organizational structure," i.e., the organization in place prior to and until incorporation of Southern Nuclear was achieved. GPC further states on page 6 of Attachment 1:

A Phase I organizational chart was provided to Mr.

Hobby on May 15, 1989 attached to a memorandum from Mr.

Fred Williams in response to an April 26, 1989 memorandum from Mr. Hobby. Egg Exhibit 17. Thus, as early as April 1989, the role of Mr. Farley had been explained to Mr. Hobby (a manager) by Mr. Williams (an officer of the Company).

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomnlete These assertions are false because the Phase I organization depicted in the U-1 filing was in place in May of l 1988 -- before the SONOPCO project was formed in November of 1988. GPC's assertion that Exhibit B-2 depicted the organization i

after GPC's nuclear operations were moved to Birmingham until l i

Southern Nuclear was incorporated at the end of December of 1990 1 (i.e., between November, 1988 and December 1990) is false.

Rather, the organization depicted in Exhibit B-3 or B-4 to the U- j 1 filing (i.e., with Farley as SONOPCO's CEO; Mcdonald as its I

25 I

1 l

l COO; Long as the technical services officer; McCrary as its i

administrative services officer; McCoy as the Vogtle project of ficer; Beckham the Hatch project of ficer; and Woodard as the Farley project officer) more. accurately depicts the functioning of the Southern Company's nuclear division. The assertion that

~

the memorandum provided to Mr. Hobby on May 15, 1989 constitutes the Phase.I organization is also false for the reasons stated above.

c. Context of statement The statements were made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrecresentation Sgg basis stated in Section (d) of Issue 1.

e. Materiality '

The false statements are material because GPC knew that NRC would rely on these statements to analyze Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

f. Corrective action None. GPC has not amended or corrected its 2.206 response.

11. GPC FALSELY STATES IN ITS 2.206 RESPONSE THAT MR. FARLEY DID NOT HAVE ANY MANAGEMENT CONTROL OVER GPC'S NUCLEAR OPERATIONS OR GPC PERSONNEL

a. What was said and when it was said In its April 1, 1991 Response to the 2.206 Petition at Attachment 1, p. 6, GPC asserts that Mr. Farley did not exercise "any management control over GPC licensed activities at Plants 26

. . . . . - . . ~ .

Hatch or Vogtle.or, .for that matter,. over GPC personnel matters."

On'Page 10 of Attachment 1 GPC reiterates that Mr. Farley had "no management control over staffing decisions.made with respect to GPC personnel."

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomnlete This assertion is false because Mr. Farley exercised management control over GPC's nuclear operations and over GPC personnel matters. It is also misleading because it fails to provide NRC with an accurate picture of Mr. Farley's management function and authority over plant Vcgtle.

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition which the NRC required to be submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Basis for allecina omission or misrecresentati.En Egg basis stated in Section (d) of Issue 1.

e. Materiality The false statement is material because GPC knew that NRC would rely on the statement to analyze Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

f. Corrective action None.

27

m c ,

t

12. GPC MISSTATED THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES MR. FARLEY EXERCISED AS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR a .1 What was said and when it was said In its April 1, 1991 Response to the 2.206 Petition at Attachment 1, p. 4, GPC states that, effective March 1, 1989, Mr. ,

Farley was formally. elected Executive Vice President-Nuclear of The. Southern Company's and SCS's board of directors, and Mr.

Farley's duties were described as follows:

(1) overseeing the formation of Southern Nuclear, (2) acting as spokesman for Southern Nuclear among the chief executive officers of the other Southern Company affiliates, and .(3) representing the Southern Company on the national scheme concerning generic nuclear power issues,

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or in~omolete The description of Mr. Farley's role is false by omission.

In actuality, Mr. Farley had overall responsibility.for the management of GPC's nuclear plants, including technical and administrative matters. The description is also misleading because it fails to provide NRC with an accurate picture of Mr.

Farley's management function over GPC's nuclear plants,

c. C_ontext Q of statement The statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition which the NRC required to be submitted under oath and affirmation,

d. pasis for allecina omission or misrepreseptati2D Mr. Farley had and exercised control of GPC's nuclear operations (i.e. he controlled personnel and staffing, budget, and philosophy) Sag basis sated in Section (d) of Issue 1.

28

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

,e ,

e. Materiality The statement represents a material omission because GPC knew that NRC would rely on the statement when analyzing Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

f. Corrective action None. GPC has not submitted a correction to its 2.206 response.

13. FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN GPC'S 2.206 RESPONSE CONCERNING THE MAKEUP OF GPC'S MANAGEMENT COUNCIL.

a. What was said and when it was said GPC asserts in its 2.206 Response in Attachment 1 at p. 7, that the "GPC Management Council is made up of all the Executive and Senior Vice Presidents of GPC."

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement is false as Mr. Hairston, who at the time of the 2.206 Response was a GPC Senior Vice President and who had been such since May of 1988, was never a member of GPC's Management Council,

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. R_alis for alleged omission or mis.Jenresent411gn Intervenor learned this during the course of discovery. l l

e. Materiality l

The assertion that all Senior Vice Presidents are members of the Executive Council is false and would cause NRC to think that i Mr. Hairston was a member of GPC's Management Council.

29

I' q l

l

? *

, l l

f. Corrective action I

None. GPC has not corrected the. statement, i

14. GPC FALSELY ASSERTED IN ITS APRIL'1, 1991 RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S 2.206 PETITION THAT, WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR '

MATTERS, GPC'S MANAGEMENT COUNCIL FUNCTIONED AS A POLICY l SETTING BODY AND MADE CORPORATE RESOURCES ALLOCATION l DECISION. l

a. What was said and when it was said  :

GPC asserts in its 2.206 Response in Attachment 1 at p. 7, ]

that its Management council " functions as a policy-setting body (and) makes cor.porate resource allocation decisions..."

b. Why the statsmant is inaccurate or incomplete With respect to nuclear matters, GPC's Management Council did not function as a policy-setting body; and did not make resource allocations decisions.  ;

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Basis for alleaed omission or misreoresentation  :

The Management Council did not review nuclear management l reporting to Mr. Mcdonald when it met to review the performance of GPC's management. Sgg Dahlberg 4/6/94 Dep. at pp. 70-71. The j Management Council did not participate in the finalization of GPC's nuclear budget. Additionally, Mr. Hobby and another NOCA employee (Johnson) were advised that GPC's nuclear budget was approved by The Southern Company's management council and that l Dahlberg disagreed with the final budget Hobby Dep. at 73-74.

Johnson DOL Dep. at pp. 41-42 (Exhibit 29).

i 30

. . -r---- -, .--.o .n re e

l o s l

l

e. Materiality I The statement is material because GPC knew that NRC would rely on these statements to analyze Intervenor's'2.206 Petition.  ;

1

f. Corrective action I None. I 14 GPC MISREPRESENTED IN ITS APRIL 1, 1991 2.206 PETITION

. RESPONSE THAT MR. MCDONALD PERIODICALLY REPORTED TO GPC'S MANAGEMENT COUNSEL ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO BUDGET AND ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS.

a. What was said and when it was said On page 7 of Attachment 1 to GPC's April 1, 1991 2.206 Petition Response, it stater:

Between April 1988 and Lacember 1990, Mr. Mcdonald reported periodically to the GPC Management Council with Mr. Dahlberg presiding, on nuclear operating matters, including budget matters and organizational goals.

b. Mby the statement was inaccurate or incomplete The statement is false because GPC's Management Council excluded review of nuclear operations personnel and did not review the final nuclear budget.

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrepresentation After the creation of the SONOPCO project, all of GPC's nuclear budgets were reviewed by Farley and Addison. Dahlberg 6/10/94 Dep. at p. 122. As Mr. Farley explained: "the SONOPCO project and later on Southern Nuclear for Georgia Power, we generated our recommendations on the budgets and sent thec. to 31 ,

s i

o 3 l

I Georgia Power Company." Farley DOL Dep. at p. 56-57. In May of 1990, before SONOPCO was legally incorporated, Mr. Farley i

testified "we've done the best we could in trying to manage the l nuclear budget for each of the companies...If you ask, did I approve [the nuclear budgets] ? Yes, it has my blessing..."

Farley DOL Dep. at p. 94-95.

Mr. Farley advised GPC's president and CEO (Dahlberg), in 1989, that SONOPCO project's administrative services branch had been set up to analyze GPC's nuclear budgets and monitor the performance of GPC's plants. DOL Tr. 588, 594 (Farley). The Southern Company determined that GPC's nuclear budget would be prepared as if SONOPCO was a separate company. SONOPCO prepared the nuclear budgets for all of the plants and they were approved by The Southern Company. GPC effectively lost control of its nuclear budget. Over Mr. Dahlberg's objection and without GPC's Management Council's approval, the plant Vogtle nuclear budget was finalized. The Plant Vogtle nuclear budget and other operational matters concerning the scheduling of outages, were discussed during Southern Company Management Council meetings.

Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep. at p. 69.

Significantly, Mr. Jeff Wallace, GPC's Manager of planning and budgeting, Wallace Dep. p. 5, testified that, with the exception of nuclear, his office issued budget guidelines to all of the other GPC departments. Wallace Dep p. 11-12 (budget direction "not from the budget department as was the rest of the company" and that nuclear "did not receive the same direction as 32

i I

did the rest of Georgia Power"). Moreover, the 1990 nuclear budget was not put before GPC's management counsel 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"). Moreover, Mr. Wallace testified that he never saw Mcdonald at a GPC management counsel meeting " talking about the budget." Wallace Dep. at p. 17.

With respect to the 1990 nuclear operating budget, Mr. Hobby received calls from Oglethorpe as to whether the budget had been approved. In December of 1989, Hobby called Mr. Jeff Wallace, Manager of Resource Management, and asked him the status of the nuclear budget. Mr. Wallace told him the budget had been approved at a meeting of The Southern Company management council and further that Dahlberg had disagreed with the proposed budget and Addison had said, "That's it. That's the budget." Hobby Dep. at 73-74. A NOCA employee, Mr. Gerald Johnson, had come out of GPC's budgeting department. 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 and that the only GPC budget not approved by the GPC management council was the nuclear budget. Johnson DOL Dep. at pp. 41-42 (Exhibit 29).

The August 5, 1991 Southern Nuclear board minutes reflect that the Southern Nuclear board discussed the preparation of P

GPC's nuclear budget, specifically GPC's preliminary Operation 33

I' and Maintenance ("O&M") budget for Hatch and Vogtle.

Additionally, at the November 11, 1991 Southern Nuclear board meeting the board reviewed a summary of proposed Hatch and Vogtle budgets and discussed what procedures should be employed for formal budget approval. The Southern Company Management Council, functioning as a board of directors of Southern Nuclear met to discuss budget and operational matters pertaining to GPC's and APC's nuclear plants. In particular, Mr. Dahlberg recalled discussing "the budget process." Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep, at p.

69.

e. Materiality These statements are material because GPC knew that NRC would rely on these statements to analyze Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

f. Cpr_r_qstive r action None.

15. FAILURE TO ADVISE AND MISLEADING THE CHIEF PLANT VOGTLE RESIDENT INSPECTOR (JOHN ROGGE) ABOUT MR. FARLEY'S MANAGEMENT ROLE AND THE FUNCTIONING REPORTING STRUCTURE EXISTING WITHIN THE SONOPCO PROJECT.

a. What was said and when it was said Between December 19-21, 1988, NRC conducted an announced inspection of GPC's Birmingham, Alabama corporate offices. Mr.

Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, plant Vogtle, participated in the inspection. A meeting was held between NRC and GPC, APC and SCS personnel to specifically discuss " nuclear plant oversight responsibilities, technical support responsibilities, and l 34 l

l 1

activities of the corporate organization." During the course of the inspection GPC presented handouts to NRC. The handout and discussion failed to identify Mr. Farely. The inspection report states that the " corporate organization which is referred to as the SONOPCO Project is headed by the Executive Vice President."

JE 11, Inspection Report at p. 3. Mr. Farley's involvement with the SONOPCO project and the reporting relationship between Mr.

Farley and Mr. Mcdonald was excluded, as was the fact that Mr.

Farley headed up the SONOPCO project et the time of the inspection.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete Information provided during the inspection caused NRC to have a false impression of the actual functioning of the SONOPCO project. Mr. Farley's role as the CEO of the project was withheld.

c. Context of statement NRC inspection, as documented in an inspection report. The statements occurred during an announced inapection. Omission of Mr. Farley's involvement is based on the content of the inspection report itself.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrepresentation Commencing in 1987, Mr. Farley had implicit authority from Addison to staff SONOPCO. Mr. Addison met in private with Mr.

Farley and reached an understanding that Mr. Farley would serve as the chief executive of the Southern Company's nuclear division. Addison Dep. at pp. 71, 67, 38, 45. It was further j I

35

e

• decided in 1987 between Addison and Farley that the newly forming nuclear division would be located in Birmingham, Alabama.

Addison Dep. at p. 80. GPC's CEO and chairman of the board (Scherer) , GPC's president (Miller) and senior executive vice president (Baker) were not party to these discussions and were

_ not privy to the fact that Addison had select Mr. Farley to function as the CEO of a nuclear operating company nor were they told of the decision to locate Southern Nuclear in Birmingham.

Scherer 6/8/94 Dep. at pp. 47-48, 77 (Exhibit 3). Farley the SONOPCO project chief executive reported to The Southern Company's CEO (Addison) and to the Southern Company Management Council, consisting of Mr. Farley, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Addison and the CEOG of GPC, APC and SCS. Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at p. 69; Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep. at pp. 66-67. The Southern Company Management Council served as a board of directors for the SONOPCO project.

All senior officers of the SONOPCO project were selected or approved by Mr Farley, including SONOPCO's executive vice president (Mcdonald) ; senior vice president (Hairston); vice president of Technical Services (Long); and the vice president of Administrative Services (McCrary); Vogtle project vice president (McCoy). Mcdonald 5/7/90 DOL Dep, at pp. 12-13; Farley DOL Dep.

at pp. 42-43, 59.

NRC had no knowledge that Mr. Farley selected or approved the staffing of GPC's nuclear operations. Mr. Farley's involvement with the staffing of GPC's nuclear operations was not 3G

discussed during a March 2, 1988 meeting with the NRC. Stip. Ex.

1. NRC Staff was advised that The Southern Company implementation of SONOPCO would only commence after SONOPCO was incorporation. Long Dep. at pp. 25, 30 (Exhibit 4).

GPC's nuclear operations management was reconfigured to conform to the SONOPCO organizational structure. GPC's nuclear management were selected and approved by Mr. Farley (who was at the time functioning as the CEO of the Southern Company's nuclear division). Farley DOL Dep. at p. 45. Mr. Farley was directly involved with the operation and management of Southern Company's nuclear plants. Weekly executive staff meetings were designated as "Farley Staff meeting." Mr. Farley presided over these weekly staff meetings and had numerous personal staff members attend.

Long Dep. at pp. 4 8, 55. In addition, Egg response to Issue 1.

e. Materiality The omission is material because NRC specifically sought to conduct an inspection to learn the corporate functioning of the SONOPCO project. The NRC Senior Resident Inspector was never advised of Mr. Farley's involve, and based on his ability to observe the corporate functioning of executive management, had no way of determining Mr. Farley's role.

f. Corrective action None. Nonetheless, on December 29, 1988, Mr. Hairston, Senior Vice President at the SONOPCO project transmitted a letter to NRC in response to questions raised by NRC inspectors about deficiencies in the plant Vogtle FSAR during the December 19-21 37

a

• Birmingham office inspection. The letter states that, "as shown on FSAR Figures 13.1.1-2 and 13.1.1-3, the Executive Vice President, the Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations and the Vice President-Nuclear, do provide line management direction for the operation of the Plant." This response continued to mislead the NRC about Mr. Farley's role in the operation of plant Vogtle.

16. LICENSEE MISLED OR FAILED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SONOPCO ORGANIZATION DURING A JULY 25, 1989 MEETING BY CONCEALING MR. FARLEY'S INVOLVEMENT.

a. What was said and when it was said On page 5 of Attachment 1 to GPC's Response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition, GPC states:

On July 25, 1989, GPC and SCSI personnel met with NRC personnel to discuss the Southern Nuclear /GPC organizations and generic activities. An overview of the then-current organizational status was provided to NRC, including corporate structure, responsibilities and interface with the plants.

The meeting was attended by NRC resident inspectors, including Mr. Rogge. On August 3, 1989, NRC issued a summary of the meeting. Egg JE 14. As demonstrated in JE 14, the corporate structure and responsibilities outlined during the July 25, 1989 meeting were false and misleading by omission. Mr. Farley did not attend the meeting and the organization preseated excluded Mr. Farley's involvement and otherwise did not daclude an organizational chart depicting the reporting relationships above Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham, the plant Vice Prr,sidents.

38

'. . c'

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement is inaccurate because Mr. Farley had.

management responsibility over plant Vogtle and NRC was not advised.

c. Context of statement Formal meetings with NRC inspectors to explain the functioning of the SONOPCO/GPC corporate organization. l

d. Basis for alleoed omission or misrecresentation Egg basis stated in section (d) of Issue 1.

e. Materiality The omission is material because it failed to explain the actual functioning of the SONOPCO project in a meeting established by'the NRC to learn how SONOPCO was functioning.

f. Corrective action None.

17. GPC FAILED TO ADVISE NRC ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTHERN COMPANY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AND ITS FUNCTIONING AS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR MATTERS PERTAINING TO NUCLEAR OPERATIONS.

l

a. What was said and when it was said On page 4, footnote 1 of Attachment l'to GPC's Response to P Intervenor's 2.206 Petition, GPC asserts that the Southern System Management Council was not involved in operating issues pertaining to GPC's nuclear plants. Additionally, the existence of the Management Council was omitted from the plant Vogtle FSAR.

39

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete The statement is false because the Southern Company Management Council acted as the SONOPCO project board of directors until the project _was formally incorporated.

c. Context of statement The functioning of the Management Council was omitted from the 2.206 petition response and from che FSAR.

d. Basis for alleaed omission or misrepresentation Mr. Dahlberg testified that the Southern Company Management Council functioned as the board or directors for Southern's nuclear division. Also see deposition testimony of Messrs.

Farley and Addison.

e. Materiality Changes to the management structure that effects the corporate reporting relationships is material information that must be provided to NRC.

f. Corrective action NRC was notified about the incorporation of SONOPCO and presumably was aware that The Southern Company had established a board or directors.

18. FALSELY STATING THE REPORTING RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE SONOPCO PROJECT DURING A TRANSCRIBED JANUARY 11, 1991 MEETING WITH THE NRC AND FAILING TO CORRECT THE FALSE REPORTING RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE SONOPCO PROJECT WHEN SUBMITTING CORRECTIONS TO THE JANUARY 11, 1991 TRANSCRIPT TO THE NRC.

40

.c

'4

a. What was said and when it ons said On January 11, 1991, Mr. Mcdonald asserted'that as of December 1990, Mr. Farley had "no responsibilities" for the administrative matters related to the SONOPCO project.

JE 19 at p. 42.

J

_ b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete Egg July 8, 1991 2.206 Amendment at Section IV, p. 20,

c. Context of statement This statement was made at a transcribed meeting before NRC.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrenresentation Eng July 8, 1991 2.206 Amendment at Section IV, p. 20-25.

e. Materiality The statement was material to NRC's understanding of the changes in the management structure over plant Vogite.

i

f. ggrrective action None.

19. FALSELY ASSERTING IN THE APRIL 1, 1991 2.206 PETITION RESPONSE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION AND STAFFING OF SONOPCO.

a. What was said and when it was said In its October 3, 1991 response to the 2.206 petition Georgia Power stated that the selection process for the staffing of SONOPCO was not completed during the two-day meeting of the SONOPCO Project executives; Mr. Mcdonald did use or incorporate the words " general" and " generic" in describing his understanding of the staffing of the SONOPCO Project. And that Mr. Mcdonald 41

. o l

never purported to give an unqualified or rigid " top down" characterization of how the organization was staffed. Mr.

Mcdonald stated repeatedly in the Fuchko/Yunker and Hobby l

proceedings that his testimony regarding the selection process l was based on what he understood the process was to be and not based on his personal involvement in the selection process.

l

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement is inaccurate because the selection process did occur in the two day planning session. Messr. Mcdonald, Hairston, McCoy and Beckham met and filled in skeleton organizational charts with the names of individuals that they decided would staff the Vogtle and hatch portions of the SONOPCO Project.

c. Context of statement This statement was made to the NRC in Georgia Power Company's October 3, 1991 response to the 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation,

d. Factual support of omission or misrepresentation Mr. McHenry was personally handed lists of the individuals selected by these vice presidents with instruction to present the individuals with job offers. Furthermore, Mr. Mcdonald testified on four separate occasions that a tiering process was used, indicating the top-down approach,

e. Materiality The statement is material because GPC knew that NRC would rely on these statements to analyze Intervenor's 2.206 Petition.

42

1 I

l l

l Furthermore, the statement is material in that it bringo Mr.

Mcdonald's credibility into question and it indicatua a lack of I

candor toward the NRC.

f. Corrective action None.

20. GPC INCORRECTLY STATES IN ITS APRIL 1, 1991 RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S 2.206 PETITION THE ROLE MR. FARLEY PLAYED IN ESTABLISHING THE PLANT VOGTLE OUTAGE PHILOSOPHY.

a. What was said and when it was said On page 12 of Attachment 1 to GPC's Response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition, GPC states:

Mr. Farley did not create the oucage philosophy of Vogtle. Furthermore, as described above, Mr. Farley did not, and does not, have management control over the outage philosophy respecting Vogtle. Mr. McCoy does not recall any statement he mad with reference to Mr.

Farley. However, Mr. McCoy believes that any statement he would have made referring to Mr. Farley was not suggestive that Mr. Farley had management authority over Vogtle operations.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete The statement is incorrect because Mr. Farley was involved with the establishment of the plant Vogtle outage philosophy and because Mr. McCoy did, in fact, make statements referring to Mr.

Farley's role in establishing plant Vogtle's outage philosophy,

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submittet under oath and affirmation.

43

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrepresentation On August 6, 1990, the Vogtle project Vice President Ken McCoy visited the Vogtle plant site. At that time Mr. McCoy made the following statement:

Let me make a comment again and be sure that everybody understand this because uh, there's been some discussion in some of the other plants in SONOPCO that we're not adhering to this and uh, so we had some discussions at the highest levels includino Mr. Farley, Mcdonald, Hairston and uh, the three VP's about our scheduling philosophy for outages. There was some discussion about what was meant by " optimum" you know, we say that we schedule everything to an optimum schedule and there was not a common understanding of what " optimum" means uh, and that was, that was the thrust of the discussion. And we all have to have confidence in each other that that's not going to be used against us or whatever and everybody understand what that means and so the conclusion of that discussion was that " optimum" means the basically the shortest schedule that you are able to do something in.

Everything goes right. everything falls into place right. That you do no t put any contingency or extra time in there and uh, after lots of discussion everybody agreed that that was he right way to do the scheduling.

Egg Intervenor's Prefiled Exhibit 5.

During a deposition, Mr. Farley discussed his involvement with the establishment of a nuclear operating outage philosophy for the SONOPCO project, stating that the philosophy was developed during a SONOPCO project " retreat." Mr. Farley's involvement in directing the operating philosophy and other executive matters is also established by the fact that "Farley Staff meeting" were held every monday. Mr. Farley and numerous staff persons reporting directly to Mr. Farley attended these meetings. Long Dep. at pp. 48, 55. Moreover, SONOPCO project managers observed that Farley rather than Dahlberg was l 44  ;

O 6 controlling GPC's nuclear operations. ER2, e.g., Intervenor's Prefiled Exhibit 4 (Tape transcript of Chestnut conversation);

and Intervenor's Prefiled Exhibit 10 (Shipman deposition).

e. Materiality Mr. Farley's involvement with the nuclear operating philosophy is material to NRC's evaluation of GPC's claim that Mr. Farley was not in control of GPC's nuclear operations.

f. Corrective ac_t;_iarl GPC has not corrected its S.206 Petition Respop"e. a

21. FALSELY. ASSERTING IN THE APRIL 1, 1991 2.206 PETITION RESPONSE THAT VOGTLE PROJECT MANAGEMENT DOES NOT ASSUME THAT MR. FARLEY AND NOT MR. DAHLBERG CONTROL'S VOGTLE'S OPERATION.

a. What was said and when it was said On page 11 of Attachment 1 to GPC's Response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition, GPC asserts that Intervenor's claim that "Vogtle project management assumes that Mr. Farley and not Mr. Dahlberg controls Vogtle's operation" is "without merit." On page 2 of Attachment 2, GPC further asserts that "Mr. Mcdonald does, in fact, report to Mr. Dahlberg, the CEO of GPC, on all matters concerning the operation of the company's nuclear facilities."

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement is false because it was assumed that Mr.

Farley was not functioning in the capacity of a chief executive  ;

over The Southern Company's nuclear division. It is also false because Vogtle project management did assume that Mr. Farley controlled nuclear operations.

1 45 )

l l

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrepresentation Egg Prefiled testimony of Allen Mosbaugh at pp. 7-8, 10-11,

14. In addition, SONOPCO project staff referred to the executive staff meetings conducted at the SONOPCO project as "Farley staff meetings."

e. Materiality Whether Mr. Farley was perceived and was functioning as the chief executive with respect to nuclear operations is material to NRC's evaluation of Intervenor's 2.206 petition.

f. Correstive action GPC has not taken any corrective action.

22. GPC FALSELY ASSERTED IN ITS APRIL 1, 1991 2.206 PETITION RESPONSE THAT DURING " PHASE II" (AFTER INCORPORATION OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR) ALL SOUTHERN NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT IN THE REPORTING CHAIN ABOVE THE PLANT VOGTLE GENERAL MANAGER WERE OFFICERS OF GPC.

a. What was said and when it was said On page 25 to GPC's Response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition, GPC states that after Southern Nuclear was incorporated, during phase II, "[a]ll Southern Nuclear management personnel in the reporting chain above the plant managers are officers of Southern Nuclear and GPC..."

46

.o. .c.

b. Eby.the statement was inaccurate or incomolete

. Mr. Farley was in the management chain over plant Vogtle but was not an officer or employee of GPC.

c. C_ontext of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Resis for alleaed omission or misrenresentation.  ;

Mr. Farley stated during his deposition that he was never an officer of GPC.

e. Materiality The statement was material to evaluating Intervenor's 2.206 petition.  ;

f. Corrective action None.  !

.i

23. FALSELY STATING IN THE APRIL 1, 1991 2.206 PETITION RESPONSE THE FREQUENCY IN WHICH MR. DAHLBERG WAS CONTACTED BY  :

MCDONALD AND/OR HAIRSTON.

a. What was said and when it was said GPC states on page 12 to Attachment 1 of GPC's Response to Intervenor's 2.206 Petition that "Mr. Dahlberg is contacted on a daily basis by the GPC nuclear operating officers concerning the status of GPC nuclear plants." j l

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete '

Mr. Dahlberg was not contacted on a daily basis between 1988 l

and 1990. l 47 l

I r- , m , --

.* s

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition submitted under oath and affirmation,

d. Basis for alleced omission or misrepresentation Phone records,

e. Materiality The statement is material because it was made to NRC knowing that it would be relied upon to review Intervenor's 2.206 Petition. It is also material because it would lead NRC to believe that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Dahlberg rather than Mr. Farley,

f. Corrective action None. GPC has not amended its response to the 2.206 petition.

24. OMISSION OF MR. FARLEY'S MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN APPENDIX 7 (REVISION 12, 4-90)

" CORPORATE EMERGENCY PLAN FOR VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT" OF THE VOGTLE EMERGENCY PLAN

a. What was said and when it was said Nothing is presented in section F.1 Georgia Power Company, F.2, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS) or in any other section of Appendix 7 (Rev. 12, 4-90) Corporate Emergency Plan that describes a role for Mr. Farley either as an employee of SCS or The Southern Company in the Corporate Emergency Plan. Neither does tha plan state that SCS or The Southern Company provided management services or support.

48

b. Why the st3tement was inaccurate or incomplete Mr. Farley had a role and responsibility in the corporate emergency organization. This role was that of " Senior Corporate Management" which is identified in the Corporate Emergency Organization Notification Tree. Exhibit (Figure C-1). Farley was the most senior corporate management individual over the SONOPCO corporate staff comprising the corporate emergency organization in Birmingham. Mcdonald, Hairston, McCoy and the rest of the corporate emergency organization in Birmingham were controlled, at least from a practical standpoint, by Farley.

c. Context of Statement 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (1) requires that an emergency plan be submitted by a licensee and that " Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee have been established" and that "the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have been specifically established." The Emergency Plan is also an appendix to the FSAR and in that context is required to update its FSAR and submit revisions to the Commission. The FSAR constitutes an essential safety document.

d. Basis for alleged omission or misrepresentation The emergency procedures that implement the emergency plan clearly demonstrate that Mr. Farley had an emergency plan responsibility and that his responsibility was that of Senior Corporate Management and more specifically that of Georgia Power Corporate Management. In Accordance with the Corporate Emergency 49 l

1 1

1 1

l Plan, Mr. Farley was required to be notified by the On Cal'. i l

Project Manager as part of the Emergency Call-out procedures,

e. Materiality )

The omission of Mr. Farley from the Emergency plan is highly l 1

material as his involvement in an emergency leads to serious I l

questions of who was in charge. Additionally, to the extent dual lines of reporting and authority existed it created concerns as to what was the division of authority and responsibility and in l the event of a conflict, how would it be resolved. These organizational and management issues take on special safety l

significance during an emergency when prompt and decisive  ;

decision making may be required to protect the public health and safety.

l

f. Corrective action The omission in the FSAR was never corrected relative to the time frame that the SONOPCO Project existed. It is noteworthy that once Mr. Farley formally became the President of Southern Nuclear, the management support role was identified for Southern Nuclear in the Corporate Emergency Plan and eliminated under the plan of Georgia Power Company.

25. GPC WILLFULLY VIOLATED 10 C.F.R. S 50.54 (c) BY ALLOWING ITS NUCLEAR OPERATIONS TO SUBCOME TO THE DOMINION AND CONTROL OF A SOUTHERN COMPANY NUCLEAR OPERATING DIVISION BETWEEN 1988 AND 1991.

Intervenor intends to demonstrate that Southern Company management, including actions on behalf of subsidiary executives, demonstrate that Southern Company intentionally created a 50 l

j

I 1

Southern nuclear division, the creation of which violated 10 C.F.R. S 50.54 (c) .

26. OMITTING FACTS PERTAINING TO ACTUAL CONFIGURATION AND OPERATION OF PLANT VOGTLE WHEN FILING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANT VOGTLE NUCLEAR OPERATING LICENSE.

a. What was said and when it was said On September 4, 1992 Georgia Power Company submitted its Application to amend its operating license for Plant Vogtle to the NRC. In this application GPC stated that " [t] he purpose of incorporating Southern Nuclear was to establish an organization which would consolidate personnel within the Southern electric system. . Application to Amend Facility Operating License Nos.

NPF-68 and NPF-81. Georgia Power further stated in this application:

In January 1991, Southern Nuclear, under Georgia Power Company direction and approval, began to provide nuclear support services, technical services, and administrative services associated with Georgia Power Company's operation of VEGP.

Id. The application also stated that at the same time Southern Nuclear " began to provide nuclear support services, technical services, and administrative services" to plants Hatch and Farley. Id.

b. Why th_e statement was inaccurate or incomplete This statement was inaccurate because Southern Nuclear's control over the nuclear operations of plants Vogtle, Hatch and Farley began in November 1988 with the creation of the SONOPCO 51

e w Project and continued through the unincorporated phase of Southern Nuclear.

c. Cpntext of statement This statement was made in an application to the NRC for the amendment of GPC's nuclear operating license. This application signed under oath that the statements therein were true and correct.

d. Basis for alleced omission or migrepresentation When the SONOPCO Project was created for the purpose of providing provide nuclear support services, technical services, and administrative services for the operation of the plants in the Southern electric system. The SONOPCO Project, now Southern Nuclear, controlled nuclear operations prior to its incorporation.

e. Materiality This misrepresentation is material in that it is made in an application to amend a nuclear operating license upon which the NRC is to rely in making its determination to grant the amendment,

f. Corrective action None.

52

l l

s w s.  ;

I l

27. MR. MCDONALD MISLEAD THE NRC AS TO WHETHER HE SUPPLIED TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY REGARDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE METHOD USED TO SELECT CERTAIN SONOPCO PROJECT VICE i PRESIDENTS.

a. What was said and when it was said In its October 3, 1991 response to the 2.206 petition, GPC stated that there was no inconsistency in Mr. Mcdonald's testimony concerning the selection of Messrs. McCrary and Long, j given in the Fuchko/Yunker and Hobby DOL proceedings. Georgia  ;

Power attempts to cloak the inconsistency by stating that his answer only appears to be inconsistent because the language of the questions asked in the two proceedings are dissimilar.

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomplete .;

This statement is inaccurate because there is an inconsistency in the testimony that was given, its not just a j matter of difference in language. Mr. Mcdonald claimed to have  ;

no knowledge of who was involved in the selection.McCrary and P

Long in the Fuchko/Yunker proceeding. Then in the Hobby proceeding he stated that he had an advisory role.

c. Context of statement This statement was made to the NRC in' Georgia Powe Company's October 3, 1991 response to the 2.206 petition.

d. Factual succort of omission or misrepresentation Mcdonald's 5/7/90 Hobby deposition testimony contradicted his testimony in the Fuchko/Yunker DOL proceeding. In the  ;

Fuchko/Yunker proceeding Mcdonald testified that he did not select the vice president of administrative services; that he'did not know who made that selection; that he did not make this L 53 l

l

5.m a

]

selection; and that he could only speculate as to how McCrary was selected. Mcdonald 12/21/88 DOL Dep. at pp. 12-13. Mcdonald's testimony in the two proceedings cannot be reconciled. If he selected McCrary and was personally involved with the Southern Company Services vote, then his testimony in the Yunker and Fuchko proceeding is false.

e. Materiality The statement is material in that the NRC relied on it in making a determination on the 2.206 petition. Furthermore, the statement is material in that it brings Mr. Mcdonald's credibility into question and it indicates a lack of candor toward the NRC.

f. Corrective action None.

28. GPC MISSTATES MR. FARLEY'S DUTIES TO ASSIST GPC MANAGEMENT IN MAKING PERSONNEL DECISIONS IN THE APRIL 1, 1991 RESPONSE TO THE 2.206 PETITION.

a. What was said and when it was said In its April 1, 1991 response to the 2.206 petition at Attachment 1, p. 9, GPC states that Mr. Farley's role in the selection of personnel who would work within the SONOPCO Project was proper in that "Mr. Addison requested such assistance from Mr. Farley and such assistance fell within his duties as Executive Vice President-Nuclear of The Southern Company.

54

, < e, .

b. Why the statement was inaccurate or incomolete This statement is inaccurate in that the staffing of SONOPCO occurred in 1988 and Mr. Farley did not hold the position of Executive Vice President-Nuclear until March 1, 1989.

c. Context of statement This statement was made in a formal response to a 2.206 petition which the NRC required to be submitted under oath and affirmation.

d. Eactual supnort of omission or misrepresentation This statement was in response to one of GPC's attorneys, Jesse P. Schaudies, comment as to how the positions in the SONOPCO Project were Initially filled (i.e., Mr. Farley and Mr.

Mcdonald were selected and then they selected the positions under them). The initial selection of personnel to staff the SONOPCO Project occurred before November 1, 1988. At that time Mr.

Farley was the President and CEO of Alabama Power and therefore the staffing of the SONOPCO Project was not among his duties.

e. Materiality The false statement is mattirial because GPC knew that NRC would rely on the statement to analyze Intervenor's 2.206 Petition. Additionally, it indicates a lack of candor on the part of Licensee.

I 1

1 55

.<i-

f. Corrective action None.

Respectfully submitted, Michael D. Kohn Mary Jane Wilmoth KOHN, KOHN AND COLAPINTO, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 Attorneys for Intervenor Dated: December 12, 1994 C.\ FILES \301\lSSUES1.BRF l

l l

l l

56

p s,, ,

SOUTHERN COMPANY NUCLEAR DMS10N l Sotthern Company Mana0ernent Council

..e-SCS CEO Joint omce of the Execultive GPC CEO (FrankHn) CEO (Farley) COO (Mcdonald) (Dehlberg)

VP Technical ~ Senior Vl> WP Admin.

Services Nuclear operationi Services i (Long) (Hairston) (McCrory) i l

I VP Farley VP Vogtle WP Hetch j (Wooderd) (McCoy) (Sockham)

~

GM Vogtle j l

(Bockhold)

I  ;

I --

1 AGM Ops. AGM Support l (KNchens) (Mosbeugh) l l

l l

1 I

a bTfdI4hienll

)

i DOCKFTED DecembeIUld3C1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '94 DEC 12 P12:10 l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j

)

Of flLE OF Si_ Chi.L uiY l In the Matter of ) DOCKETING 45FimC-

) Docket Nos. 50-424bbd k GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 l el al., )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear) l P1  ;, Unit 1 and Unit 2) ) j l ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 )

! I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l

I hereby certify that INTERVENOR'S " PHASE I" WITNESS LIST, INTERVENOR'S LIST OF EXHIBITS FOR THE " PHASE I" HEARING ON

> LICENSE TRANSFER ISSUES and INTERVENOR'S PREHEARING STATEMENT OF ISSUES have been served via hand delivery, this December 12, 1994, upon the persons listed in the attached Service List.

By: i ,9 fyt /1//)h Midhael' D. Kofin '/ l KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 i (202) 234-4663

(

l l

l I

l 1

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 g.t a l_,_, )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 933 Green Point Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oyster Point Washington, D.C. 20555 Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Administrative Judge Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Thomas D. Murphy Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. N.R.C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 C:\ FILES \301\ CERT.LIS A