ML20083C842
| ML20083C842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1995 |
| From: | Mosbaugh A, Wilmoth M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#295-16713 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9505180498 | |
| Download: ML20083C842 (30) | |
Text
7; -
p ffp7/3 4 00CKETED i b, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION '
i BEFORE THE COMMISSION 95 f1AY 15 P12:21
)
In the Matter of ) 0FFICE OF SECRETARY
) Docket Nos. 50- 7 W6 & SERVICE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-0 86NCH 3t 3L., ) ;
) Re: License Amendment f (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear) '
Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )
)
i INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY MOTION !
i FOR ORDER PRESERVING THE LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION l
\
i Stephen M. Kohn Michael D. Kohn Mary Jane Wilmoth KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 Attorneys for the Intervenor May 12, 1995 9505180498 950512 gDR ADOCK 05000424 PDR
[
n a
4 May.12, 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Commission
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 31 i , )
) 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 RESPONSE TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR ORDER PRESERVING THE LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION Comes now Allen L. Mosbaugh, Intervenor in the above entitled proceeding, and requests this honorable Commission to deny Georgia Power Company's Motion for Order Preserving the Licensing Board's Jurisdiction. From the outset, it should be noted that Georgia Power was notified by the NRC Region II Office of Investigations on May 13. 1994 about the investigation licensee now seeks to quash. Intervenor contents that raising this matter a year later waived Georgia Power's right to raise this matter before the Commission at this time. The Motion should be stricken as untimely.
I. DISCUSSION
" Phase II" concerns issues related to false and misleading statements concerning the plant Vogtle diesel generators. On April 9, 1990, licensee submitted a corrective action response letter following a March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency stemming from the failure of the plant's diesel generators to restore essential emergency power following the loss of off site power.
i
On April 19, 1990, Georgia Power submitted a Licensee Event Report ("LER") repackaging false statements contained in the April 9, 1990 confirmation of action. response letter. NRC staff subsequently determined that the LER contain material false i statements. The NRC Office of Investigations found that material false statements were willful; NRC Staff declined to issue a <
Notice of Violation with respect to willfulness. The issue of willfulness is currently before the Atomic Safety and Licensing -
Board ("ASLB"). ,
The charge of willfulness as to the material false i
statements in the April 19, 1990 LER implicates the persons whom participated in its creation. The controversy in Georgia Power's !
current motion concerns the people responsible for the material false statements. The extent of culpability of Mr. George Hairston (currently the President and CEO of Southern Nuclear) ,
and Mr. Ken McCoy (currently Vice President of Nuclear Operations for Plant Vogtle) has not been determined by the ASLB. When the April 19, 1990 LER was created the conversations pertaining to it were recorded by Mr. Allen Mosbaugh. Mr. McCoy has admitted that l Mr. Hairston was on the call, while the official Georgia Power position was that Mr. Hairston was not on the call. Furthermore, l in 1990-91, prior to Georgia Power's knowledge of the "Mosbaugh tapes," it made submissions to both the Office of Investigations j and to the NRC Staff which were alleged to contain false statements by Mr. Mosbaugh. i i
2 I
. Georgia Power's attempt to construe the Aufdenkampe affidavit issue as a discovery controversy is a complete misrepresentation of the record. In fact, this issue is directly related to the evidence of an illegal cover-up, subornation of perjury by Troutman Sanders, perjury by Georgia Power employees, and the submission of additional false statements by Georgia Power. In August 1990 prior to Georgia Power's knowledge of the taping, Georgia Power was requested by the NRC to identify the person (s) who constructed the comprehensive test program ("CTP")
language contained in the LER. On August 16, 1990, in response, Georgia Power filed what is known as the " white paper." Therein, i l
Georgia Power failed to identify both Mr. Hairston's and Mr.
McCoy's involvement.* The white paper is evidence of an additional material false statement and further represents a l
continuing cover-up by the participants to the call, all of whom i knew the white paper response was false when it was submitted.8 These same material false statements were repeated in Georgia Power's response to the 2.206 petition filed by Mr. Mosbaugh.
The Office of Investigations is therefore justified in its investigation.'
2 The exclusion of Messrs. Hairston and McCoy is particularly troubling because it was common knowledge to nearly a dozen high-level Georgia Power managers (actual participants in the April 19, 1990 conference call where the CTP language was coined) that McCoy and Hairston were, in fact, participants.
2 Mosbaugh Tape No. 58, identifies numerous participants to the April 19th conference call.
H2g Section 4, infra.
3
t e- .
a The Aufdenkampe affidavit controversy is material to the '
cover-up of the participants to the late afternoon phone call where the CTP phrase was finalized as well as to subsequent material falee statements in the white paper and the 2.206 response. Georgia Power concocted five affidavits -- presumably signed under oath -- which contain false statements and implicate l Georgia Power's counsel in the subornation of perjury and a r
concerted effort to shield Georgia Power and Messrs. Hairston and McCoy from liability. As discussed below, the creation of these !
affidavits has nothing to.do with the instant proceeding because they were drafted and signed before Georgia Power even filed to :
transfer control to Southern Nuclear.
II. ARGUMENT
- 1. The Affidavits Were Not Created in This Proceedino !
Significantly, the affidavits at issue were created and the signatures collected before Georgia Power even submitted its request to amend the Plant Vogtle license to designate Southern Nuclear as the licensed operator of the plant. The motivation and decision to create the affidavits are presumably exclusively l l
related to issue the aim of covering up the culpability of Mr. l McCoy and Mr. Hairston during the course of the OI investigation. l Thus, the creation of these affidavits has nothing to do with this proceeding;' it is however, evidence of a cover-up that NRC The relevance of the af fidavits in the discovery phase of this proceeding emerged only af ter Georgia Power erroneously f ailed to identify the existence of such affidavits when initially ;
responding to interrogatory requests submitted by Mr. Mosbaugh. !
Mr. Mosbaugh knew of the existence of the af fidavits from personal 4
1
. OI has a duty to investigate. The NRC has a right to question the accuracy and motivation' surrounding the submission of the white paper and the 5 2.206 response and must remain free to conduct its own investigation into such matters.
The ruling of the ASLB as to whether Georgia Power had to release the affidavits is only relevant to the admitted contention. The OI Review far exceeds the initial ruling of the ASLB because it relates to whether Georgia Power and its counsel knowingly engaged in a cover-up and were part of a conspiracy to submit false and misleading information to NRC. What ever the scope of the ASLB proceeding is, issues related to intentional and potentially criminal wrongdoing remain within the jurisdiction of the NRC's Office of Investigations.'
- 2. Office of Investications Has Jurisdiction Georgia Power Company's Motion for Order Preserving the Licensing Board's Jurisdiction asserts on page 3 that Mr.
Mosbaugh's submission of allegations to OI destroys the ability of counsel to operate with mutual respect and trust, and seriously disrupts the proceeding"' and on page 9 requests that communication he had had with Mr. and Mrs. Aufdenkampe.
5 It is significant that the ASLB recognized that the Attorney-client and work-product privileges may have been waived because of the badgering of the witnesses to sign the affidavits.
Therefore in the limited context of the licensing proceeding they may still be compelled to be produced.
Georgia Power's Motion to Strike equated using inconsistent and false statements made in discovery as an
" unseemly" tactic. The Board rejected this assertion, noting that it is permissible to impeach witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.
5
parallel investigations and proceedings be barred. The concept of concurrent jurisdiction is w'll e established. For example, a party can be held both criminally and civilly liable; jurisdiction of both the civil and criminal proceedings run concurrently.
The NRC Office of Investigations has and continues to have the legal authority and jurisdiction to investigate perjury, subornation of perjury and cover-ups. 10 C.F.R. S 1.36(a). For example, investigations into perjury allegations by NRC OI were conducted at Palo Verde. The NRC Staff can " modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or to take other action as may be proper, against any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission." 10 C.F.R. S 2.200-S 2.206. This includes the issuance of a Notice of Violation based on the findings of an OI investigation. 10 C.F.R. S 2.201.
- 3. Georaia Power's Argument to the Commission is Duolicitous Georgia Power argues in the motion at hand that the white paper and the S 2.206 response issues, regarding the credibility of and false statements contained in these documents, are before the Board and consequently beyond the scope of the Office of Invest.igations. This argument is duplicitous and frivolous. It is well settled that the grant of a 10 C.F.R. S2.206 petition is discretionary and is not conclusive as to issues before the ASLB.
Egg Washinoton Public Power Supolv System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1175-76 (1983). Indeed, in the instant proceeding, the Board specifically rejected an argument 6
i
},
. made by Georgia Power that Mr.. Mosbaugh should be denied standing :
before the ASLB because his claims vere pending before Staff pursuant to 52.206. Sag Georcia Power Comoany. 'et al. (Vogtle !
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-93-5 at Fn. 2.'
i 1
i i
i I
r o
4 Georgia Power argues from both sides of its mouth. In a ;
recent motion filed with the Board, Georgia Power asserts in its ,
that these issues are outside the scope of the Licensing proceeding. Sgg Motion to Strike Partially Intervenor's Prefiled Testimony, filed April 25, 1995, (" Motion to Strike") at page 49. I At this same time, Georgia Power argues to the Commission that :
these issues are within the scope of the proceeding. This, ,
duplicity is unacceptable and improper. It is particularly improper given that, Georgia Power Company's Answer to the October l 22, 1992 Petition of Allen L. Mosbaugh and Marvin B. Hobby to ;
Intervene in a License Amendment Proceedings, filed on November 6,
- 1992, Georgia Power, initially argued that NRC Staff alone had jurisdiction to consider issues related to wrongdoing: t Georgia Power Company submits that, in light of the prior allegations of the petitioners and the NRC Staff's !
ongoing review of those allegations, it would be inappropriate for an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to adjudicate the petitieners' allegations...While the l investicative incuiry souaht by the cetitioners miaht be i acorocriate for the NRC Staf f, it is wholly inacorooriate !
for an adiudicatory oanel. !
Id., at p. 22 (emphasis added). l 7 i h
I s l i
. 4. If Deferral is Procer. the Licensina Board Should Defer to Staff's Investication $
.l
-)
_ This proceeding has been delayed previously so that OI could ;
r conclude its investigation into the allegations surrounding the Site Area Emergency and the material false statements regarding )
the reliability of the diesel generators. On April 7, 1994, the !
Commission reversed in part an ASLB order requiring the release f of the entire OI Report prior to the outcome of the agency's i
deliberations on possible enforcement action to be taken as a result of the investigative results. Georcia Power Comoany, f i
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2) CLI-94-05, 39 l I
N.R.C. __ (1994). In doing so the Commission stated that "at j the time of the issuance of an enforcement action...related to :
the matters within the scope of the investigation, the NRC staff l shall make available to the parties for inspeccion and copying !
OI's report of [the] investigation." Id. at 22.' The Board had i
granted two earlier requests to defer production of certain tapes and documents because staff believed it would interfere with the !
ongoing investigation. Id. at 5.'
It should also be noted that in the Statement of Policv: l Investications, Insoections and Adjudicatory Proceedinos, 49 Fed. i Reg. 36032, 36033 (1984) issued by the Commission, the realization that jurisdiction would remain with NRC Staff's investigative i functions during the pendency of an adjudicatory proceeding. In this respect, the Commission observed that where there is concern with premature disclosure of investigatory information "it may be ,
possible to provide for the timely consideration of relevant materials derived from investigations and inspections through the !
deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing."
l>
San LBP-93-22, 38 NRC 189 (1993); Memorandum and Order I (Motion to Compel Production of Documents by the Staf f) , at 6-7 j (Aug. 31, 1993) (unpublished) . On December 17, 1993, the staff l 8 ;
1 I
i
- 5. It is Acainst Georcia Power's Interest to Defer this Investication Georgia Power is attempting to defer the resolution of these issues by indefinitely suspending the OI investigation. The best approach for Georgia Power is to protect its interest by allowing OI fully investigate this matter. If Georgia Power has not participated in any wrongdoing, its name would be cleared. It is in Georgia Power's best interest to clear its name as soon as possible. To resist an investigation which could clear Georgia Power of any wrongdoing serves only to further implicate the company.
- 6. Georcia Power cannot restrict Mr. Mosbauch's richts Georgia Power should not be allowed to restrict the rights of Mr. Mosbaugh to present allegations to the NRC for investigation. This attempt to do so is outrageous and illegal.
Mr. Mosbaugh has the same rights as the general public to report safety concerns or matters related thereto, to the NRC so that an inquiry can be conducted. Mr. Mosbaugh's allegations to OI are more significant than mere discovery abuses. His allegations are listed in the attachment to Board Notification 94-07 attached hereto as Attachment 1.
released some tapes and transcripts. Eg2 Letter from Charles A.
Barth, NRC Staff Counsel, to Licensing Board (Feb. 18, 1994).
(Footnote from the original).
9
. 7. Public Policy is Acainst Utilities Interfering With Oncoino Investications It would severely impugn upon the public policy to let a utility interfere with an investigation into its own wrongdoing before the investigation is completed. This interference would create a cloud over the process. Georgia Power's attempt is very abusive toward the system and insensitive to the law.
Georgia Power's request for a lower standard to be applied for material false statements that are not a part of an LER is incredible. The Vogtle Coordinating Group found Georgia Power's responses to the Notice of Violation dated July 31, 1994 to be
" shockingly deficient". Vogtle Coordinating Group Evaluation, Conclusions, and Recommendations, dated November 4, 1995.
- 8. It is Inacorooriate for Georcea Power to Arque the Accuracy of Reoresentation Mr. Mosbaugh had with the Office of Investications Between pages 4 and 9 of Georgia Power Company's Motion for Order Preserving the Licensing Board's Jurisdiction, Georgia Power argues the merits of allegations and representation Allen Mosbaugh has had with NRC's Office of Investigations. It is wholly inappropriate for the Commission to consider the accuracy of the communications until after the OI Investigation ic completed. Like Allen Mosbaugh, Georgia Power is free to l communicate its view on the adequacy of allegations or the soundness of the factual basis for such allegations. To involve the Commission at the investigative phase is inappropriate and would establish bad precedent.
10
p 3 IV. CONCLUSION It would set a bad precedent and policy to allow utilities, such as Georgia Power Company, to undermine an investigation into the wrongdoing of that particular company. If this is allowed it would defeat the purpose of the Office of Investigations and undermine Staff's regulatory function.
For the reasons stated above, Intervenor respectfully request this Honorable Commission to deny Georgi.a Power Company's Motion for Order Preserving the Licensing Boa.rd's Jurisdiction.
Respectfully submitted, Ith,awbv Stephen / M. Kohn 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
================================================================= ;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '
I hereby certify that the above document was served this 12th day of May 1995, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the persons on the attached service list.
14f jfMW Mary J456 Wilmoth c:\ FILES \301\JURIS
}
11
DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC :
- - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -1
% MY 15 P12:22 In the Matter of ) t
) Docket Nos. 50-424 0F SECRETARY - ,
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425 ING & SERVICE gt al , ) BRANCH ;
). 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 i
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 Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
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:\nu:suonctn.us
p ,.
1
)
ATTACHMENT 1
- a. .
e . .
,a ceeg g UNITED STATES f
~
- S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
%, #' March 24, 1994 Docke*t*Ilos.50-424-OLA-3 Board Notification 94- 07 50-425-OLA-3
~"
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and All Parties
. ._ .~
FROM: Steven A. Varga,' Director '
Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NEW INFORMATION POTENTIALLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO BOARD PROCEEDING IN THE MATTER"0F V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In conformance with the Commission's policy on notification of the Commission and the Licensing Boards of new, relevaiht, and material information,. this memorandum calls attention to the document discussed be. low, , ,
TheBoardhaspendingbeforeitacontentionchallengingtheapplicalbn'of Georgia Power Company (GPC) to authorize Southern Nuclear Operating Coiiipany, Inc. (Southern Nuclear), a subsidiary of The Southern Company, to operate Vogtle Electric Generatings Plant, Units 1 and 2. One of the issues involves an allegation that GPC made false statements to the NRC ab6ut diesel generator testing conducted after the March 20, 1990, Site Area Emergency. On March 18, 1994, the NRC staff received the enclosed document from intervenor Allen L.
Mosbaugh that contains allegations related to an allegation previously submitted to the NRC (See Exhibit 4 of Intervenor's Response to GPC's August 23, 1993, Filing for Reconsideration and Certification dated September 3, 1993). The allegation concerns the participan.ts in a telephone call on April 19, 1990, discussing the' Licensee Event Repgrt on diesel .
generator testing, and subsequent remarks and actions by Southe?n Nuclear, GPC and its attorneys.
This information is being brought to the attention of the Commission, the Licensing Board, and All Parties as infgrmation which may be relevant and material to issues pending before the C mmission a i
censing Board.
r a, irecto ivision of Reactor Projects - I/II !
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosure:
Allegation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
Contact:
Darl S. Hood, NRR 504-3049 l
~ ~ '
P!.i e r__
- . .. .. l
. 3 i
1 Board Notification 94-07 ' Dated: March 24, 1994 f
cc: , .-- ..
J. Taylor, EDO . ;
J. Milhoan, DEDR :
~,
H. Thompson, DEDS L. Plisco, EDO ;
T. Murley, NRR W. Russell, NRR L.-Reyes, NRR ,, .. .
i A. Thadani, NRR T. Martin, RI l S. Ebneter, RII '
J. Martin, RIII L. J. Callan, RIV K. Perkins, RV L. Chandler, OGC 2, i
OGC (3) 4:m C. Cater, SECY (3) " ,. - :. .
.S. Burns, OCAA ,o , .uv ASLBP ..
~_.4 i Office of the General Counsel ' '
NRR Division Directors NRR Project Directors .u.
NRR Branch Chiefs - -
t ACRS (3)
I l
+, i O
0 e
- l
^
e 1
~
3.; _ ~,/L ,
y#. .:
BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. ~07 i
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
(Vogtle Electric Ger.erating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
- Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3,50-425-OLA-3 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Michael D. Kohn', Esq.
Administrative Judge Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kohn, Kohn and Calapinto, P.C.
Mail Stop: EW-439 - -
-w 517 Florida Avenue, N. W U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi'ngton, D.-C. 20001 i Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate James H. Carpenter Adjudication l 933 Green Point Drive - Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 -
Oyster Point e. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Washington, D.. C. 2055S" "
Thomas D. Murphy Adjudicatory File (2)
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - . Panel j Mail Stop: EW-439 Mail Stop: EW-439 '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- -
U S.-Nuclear Regulatort Commis'sion Washington, D. C. 20555 p Washington,' D. C. 20555' 1 John Lamberski, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Arthur H. Domby, Esq. '
Panel Trautman Sanders Mail Stop: EW-439 Nationsbank Building, Suite 5200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 600 Peachtree Street, N. E. -
Washington, D. C."2JS$5 ;
- Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Office of the Secretary (2)
David R. Lewis, Esq. Attn: Docketing and Service Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 -
2300 N Street, N. W. .
U.S. Nuclear Regulator Comnii'sion s
Washington, D. C. 20037 Washington, D. C. 20555 Director, Environmental Protection 1 Division Department of Natural Resources
~~
205 Butler Street, SE Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334
. -- . . ~ . .
- . c.
l i
- Georgia Power Company- Vogtle' Electric. Generating Plant -
s cc: l
-Mr. J. A. Bailey
, , Harold Reheir, Director' }
. Manager - Licensing- Department of Natural Resources ~ j Georgia Power Company 205 Butler. Street, SE. Suite 1252 '
P. O. Box 1295 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 ~
Attorney General Mr. J. B. Beasley Law Department
. General Manager, Vogtle Electric 132 Judicial Building Generating Plant ,,. ._ a . . .;_ AtlantapGeorgia. 3033+ T- i P. O. Box 1600 ""W
- 4-Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 4 Mr. Pierce Skinner, Section Chief !
Project Branch #3 '
Regional Administrator, Region II. U. S. Nucleam Regulatory Commission i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 >
101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 1
_ Atlanta, Georgia 30323
. . Mr DanL Smith,.Vice President * :
Office of Planning and Budget Power Supply Operatio#T. '-=
Room 6158 Oglethorpe Power Corporation ;
270 Washington' Street,.SW. . 2100 East Exchange Plae~e -
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Tucker,-Georgia 30085-1349-Office of the County Commissioner Charles A.. Patrizia, Esquire -
Burke County Commission Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 12th Floor '
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW. ,
Mr. J. D. Woodard Washington, DC120036 Senior Vice President - i Nuclear Operations Arthur H. Domby, Esquire * !
Georgia Power Company Troutman Sanders t P. O. Box 1295 . .. NationsBank Plaza '
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 600 Peachtree Street, NE. '
.. Suite 5200 Mr. C. K. McCoy Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 l Vice President - Nuclear i Vogtle Project Resident Inspector ,
Georgia Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 1295 P. 0.' Box 572 ,
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 '
l i
)
l l
- }j . . . . . . . . . . .
gg/i ANS cd um' :
.gygg'
'so oseAm n-arr=munn, usmac u.fma,zons =====me 8 CC. IARRY 30sINSON, USNRC O! i PEtat ALLEN L. N083403 hb .h4*ff * ,-
rf i m - o. - - ,.- ri,, m ,-o - - mi .-o-..
{
l
-- M R cunoWQ1 ant -, . . .. , . . . . . ~ ..
4
> ' . e ~
--THE COVER UP WTTN TEE TAN FIEM. N m APs77. le , leta mS- ;t a a 88 = --fmQaM-- - - --- m#a-em11n m eeranam enti ele On 4-19-90 a telephon> conference call occurred between Vogtle site personnel and southern Nuclear personnel in Birmingham, Alabama, late in the afternoon. In John Aufdenkampe's office at Plant Vogtle were Jetm Aufdankaape and Allen Mosbaugh and in Kan McCoy's offios et Southern Nuclear, in Birmingham, were Jack stringfellowa . Bill Shipman, Ken McCoy and George Mairston. [See TGpe #B.8, .
Tr. Pg.5-17]. '
George Rockhold was also on the call but probably from another phone on the vogtle sita. All the above personnel spoke on the call and were clearly identifishle Dy voice. In-addition the names of these participants were used during the conversation including George Mairston's. Also believed to be party to the call in McCoy's office were Imuis Ward, Jim Bailey, and Paul Rushton (but they were not heard
, speaking). [See Tape #252 Tr.Pg.19 and 20]. For a brief period aus williams and Tom Webb walked into Amidankaape's offica during the call. aus Williams may,have ande a brief comment on the call. I l
George Mairston participated and spoke,on call'when the ,
diesel generator starts were discussed, i he l participated in the following exchanges :
Hairston: "We got the starts-- so we didn't have no, we didn't have no trips?'
Shipman: No, not, not---
Macoys Let me amplain. I'll testify to that.
Shipman Disavow.
This call revised the wording of the LER"'about the Diesel generator starta adding the wording about the acomprehensive Test Program" (CTP) in the following exchanges stringfellow: Let as make sure I'm clear. De we want to say, "sinoe 3-20-90, De1A and DG15 have
, 1
. . C3-88-1094 aa:1o e41 ssie us Nac go 4 i pg been subjected to a comprehensive test prwram? Do we want to say that kind of stuff, or de we want to say-- '
Beckhold Yes, you can say that.
The final wording agreed to en this call is indeed the ' ^
wording that was in the signed LER 90-006 rev.0.-
1 Apart is , inse-. shi--nsa yellaw-un c'm11 ta w ' n panen -un amii ese one more call occurred after the above call within 15 mincces. Bill Shipman called John Aufdenkaape. Allen Mosbaugh was still in Aufdenkampe's office and stringfellow was with shipman [See Tape #58, Tr. Pg. 20=32]. George l Bockhold did not participate in this call. Emiraten and '
Mocoy were not on the ca21 either.
No revisions of LIR wording occurred on this call, in fact no revision were discussed. shipman read portions of the wording changes made by the higherfrios aident Ievel personnel on the earlier" call, and-they reas unehanged in the final version. shipman's purpose on this call was to get the site, specifically Aufdenkampe, to buy into the corporate revisions that had been made on the previous call.
Shipman must have had a " gut feeling" that the site personnel were not "in the fold" on repeating the false statements. Mosbaugh commanted to shipman that he believed that the corprehensive test program could not be claimed to be cor.pleted until the Undervoltage test, start #163 and
- 142 respectively (this definition of the CTF would have proved the LER statements false) but Shipman igneasd Mosbaugh's definition. Aufdenkampe deferred to his boss 2 levels higher, Bockhold, and said that George sust have had some basis and must have been right. Then the call turned to a discussion of Pat MoDonald's LER 90-06 commaats with Jim svartswolder who ned enterne Auraankaape's office. After
" call B" ended, Aufdenkampe still had reservatione about the LER because he stated to Mosbaugh after the callt i
Aufdenkampe If they interpret it differently, we're l 1
sorry. We'll send a rev. out. ------
Aufdenkampe And I'm not talking wrong or right, I'm just talking practical.
o
wu-to-2.we 21u. ..s.., .,m~ ,,
e a --an teen- wee osY and vwn einrren supony In August of 5990, during the NRC's osI at Plant Vogtle, the NRC requested answers in writing to several written a questions. Southern Nuclear responded .in e 8Ikit.e Paper -
which was given to the NRC on-about 8-22-90. Eater the .
" White" paper was also issued internally under oever letter of Mark Ajuluni of Southern Nuclear SAER. Southern Nuolaar's lawyer, Art Domby, of Troutman sanders participated in the OPC\ southern Nuclear meetings the week of 8=13-90 where the OSI issues were discussed and is believed to have seeisted in the preparation of the " White Paper". At this time
&wuthern Nuclear did not know that Mosbaugh had ande t.eps recordinge.
I MRC QUESTICK #3 (with regard to LER 90-06, revision 0, dated 4/1S/90).7 .
s , , s Who prepared the LER 7 e. -
.. ffu l l
Answer: "Several draf ts--------- . . 'The h revimien l cf LER 90-06 , revision 0 was prepared by a i i
phonacon between site management and serporate nanagement. Those participating are believed .
to be G. Beskhald Jr., A.L. Noskeugh, J. G.
Aufdenkampe, W. Shipman."
NRC QUESTION #5-- Who in corporate added the .Werde .
" subsequent to the test prograe a in. '
LER 90-06, revision 07 Answer: " Corporate licansing personnel in conjunction with the phone conversation described above made editorini changes as directed. Rose present during the phone converestion are thought to be M. shipsan, g. neektnid Jr.,
A.L. Nosbaugh, J. G. Aufdenkamps, and J.,, .
Stringiallow .4 ,
With these responses, southern Nuclear twice identifies the call as being the one in which Bockhold participated.
With these responses southern Nuclear has clearly identified the call in which the draft LER was " revised
- and the afinal revision prepared" as confaranen asil "AL.
Southern Nuclear makes no mention whatsoever of the later ,
call "B" in the above White paper reply to the Nac in J
describing how the LIR was prepared revised and finalised.
Southern Nuclear intentionally failed to identify in their '
responses to the NRC, the s executives" (Vice President level and up) who participated on that call. Ken Nocoy was present during the meeting in August 1990 when these " White paper" s
C3-18-1994 11:23 841 5510 US MC RG !! P.05 l* responses were prepared but did not correct the omission of his participation. In so doing southern Nuolaar sought to distance the executives from involvement and to attempt to cover up their role. specifically omitted were Ken Mocoy and George Haireton.
Also caitted were the other corporate staff listaning in McCoy's office in Birmingham avan -though' they weree identified by shipman at the time.of the response preparation as participants (see Tape #253 Tr.Pg.19-20).
APRIL 1. 1991-acMmrEEN MOcLEAR REEstarDB TO M 2.208
. . _ _ . . . . Estan&Ixpr\132 pay PETITIM At this time, Southern Nuclear did not know that there were tapes of the 4-19-90 conference call or what was on any tape retained by the NRC. The NRC specifically required Southern Nuclear to respond under oath and affirmation to Moebaugh's 2.206 petition in early 1991. Pet Mcdonald, Southern Nuclear's executive vice president, signed the response and outright denied that Hairston was on the late aftornoon conference Call "A". -
Quoting from southern Nuclear's 2.208 respones section II.b page 3, last paragraph footnote 3: -
Footnote 3-- "The wordina Man revised by site and corporate representatives in a telephone conference .
call late on April 19, 1990. Althoush Mr.
Hairston was not a participant in that call, he had every reason to believe that the final draft LER presented to him after the call was accurate and complete."
of calls "A" and "B", only during call "A" (the conference call in which Hairston participated) was " M umrdingr rayland". -
clearly Southern Nuclear's own words describe Call "A*.
JtnrE 1esi-- Ik3anarkar cE4g.3mcas acIffEEEE m'E.2.205 pnement umaneeran In June 1991 Mombaugh flied two documents of-allegatione, one 11 and the other 15 pages, with Bruno Urick of the NRC 1 alleging that southern Nuclear had made numerous false i statements in the 2.204 petition respones.
Among the falso statements alleged was the one about Hairston's participation on the 4-19-90 late aftarnoon conference call.
C3-18-1994 11820 B41 551e US PRC RG !! P.e6
.mtv a , i s e i _-- - 21. -- mrn un=nv emryrunnusy enreen 2. mas a;1+;tur on July 8, 1991 Moebaugh supplements his 2.20s petition, incorporating portions of the allegations provided to Bruno Urich from June 1991. Among the supplemente are,the allegations about Mairston's participation on the 4-19-90 late afternoon conference call as well as the allegation of a cover-up.
En, r 22. le s 1 -- --=-- a-_==ma a --- -
kr17=&B 'FD 8 Pen -
- ---1+ifM i effWyrunnmer on 8-22-90 the NRC requested that GPC respond in writing to the Mosbaugh\Mohby amended petition. . . .. 3.; , ,,
I rirvf. _ seei _ %.._--- unrw === amears arrmarres yeamr it s. 1 r= --im - 2 ear - a.se.en earr.
In..yte fall / winter time frame of 1991 John Aufdenkamps was ask'try lawyers from the Troutman-sanders Law Fira representing southern Nuclear and GPC, probably John f==harski, to sign an affidavit saying that George Nairsten was not e participant on the 4-19-90 conference call "A".
Aufdenkampe told the Southern Nuclear lawyers that contrary to their assertions he " remembered George Hairston bring on the call". He went "back and forth" with the lawyers several times on his affidavit. The lawyers were " hounding" Aufdankampe for the affidavit. The lawyers told Aufdenkaape that they were obtaining affidavits from all the gall enrefeinants and Aufdenkampe was "the only one who remembered that Hairston was on the call". ['ths lawyers, used this same tactio.on Hoebaugh during the NRc's 01 "dalution valves" investigation to try to dissuade Noahangt from his recollections about Skip Kitchens statements about opening the dilution valves when Art Domby, the Troutman Sandera j lawyer, said "I have privileged information from my interviews with other personnel",-- "I can tell you that you are 180 degrees out".)
Before Aufdenkam a signed his affidavit he dinoussed all f the above with Al en Mosbaugh. During these osaversations i which took place in Aufdenkampe's residence in Augusta, Georgia, Aufdankampe named all the personnel that he raammbered that participated on the call that the lawyers were seeking the affidavit for. Aufdenkampe stateds himself, ,
Nosbaugh, Stringfellow, Shipman, Eenkhald, m and l Ha h-st en . Mosbaugh confirmed his recollection of the ease l
f I
es-is-iss4 11:21 841 ssie U3 NRC RO !! P.97
. personnel. There was some question whether paul Rushton was
- on the call but no one remembered him speaking.
Mosbaugh than quoted to Aufdenkampe, mimicking Rairston's voice, one thing that Mairston had said on the call-
"That's just what the shift Supervisor told as to de'.
Mith that, Aufdenkaape responded that he guessed that he shouldn't be talking with Mosbaugh about this and that there was a " conflict of interest".
The Lawyers were se pressuring Aufdenkamps to sign the affidavit that they were frequently calling at his home. His wifa became concerned aboAt this pressure and mentioned it to Mosbau h. When Aufdankampe eventually signed the affidavit, Auf nkaape's wife was safficiently )
concerned about what her husband may have'been persuaded to sign that she showed the affidavit to Mosbaug. She opened the top drawer in a small table located against the east wall in between the kitchen and dining room and handed the affidavit to Mosbaugh. Moebaugh handled the doomment by the edges but should have left some fingerprints. i Mosbaugh read the entire affidavit. It was about one page l in length and stated that Aufdenkaape areamsbered that l Hairston was on the call but he was on an earlier portion of the call and not on the portion of the call tdben the diesels were discussed". ,
Mosbaugh recognised that Aufdenkampe has errored in stating f that Hairston had not participated in the diesel start ;
portions of the call.
I S
The information stated to Mosbaugh by Aufdankespo about his l conversations with the lawyers, the information he stated ;
about the contant of his affidavit and the actual affidavit that Mosbaugh read, conclusively shows that Southern Nuclear sought to support (via employee affidavits) its denial in l their 2.206 petition response that Mairston was on Call
'A". t It shows conclusively that the lawyers and the effiants understood that the call referred to in the 2.206 petition response, the call of interest, was Call "A', booause only on call "A" were Rockhold, McCoy, and Mairston participants.
Aufdankampe identified to Mosbaugh that both Sockhold and Mocoy were participante on the call addressed in the l affidavit the lawyers were seeking.
Further Aufdankamps r-hared Mairston being a participant l on the call of interest, " Call A". Mairston uma not on the later " call Ba.
l l
l 9 O j
- J
- e 4 =a-' **=c4 ea. . so6s .a.m % .. f 1
l l
. . i JsuUAA " TE " AT-
&r16BRE. 3 1991- M B--1ME\ _ __
uiTam tema c3 7A8PR A - - - - - - - - -
Pif f. TEmu -- er sEi -
on 10-3-91 southern Nuclear responded to the Nesbaugh\Mobby supplemente. Southern Nuclear states that the basis for Footnote #3 which denied that Nairston was on the 4-19-90 conference call that revised LER 90-06 was t .
l
- 1. The collective recollection of Opc\Seethern Nuclear l personnel as documented in the 8-14-90 and 8-22-90 -
l
" White paper". l
- 2. Hairston's personal recollections s .
The response notes that southern Nuclear did not have a tape l of the call and until there is credible evidense to the !
contrary, Southern Nuclear believes Footnote #3 is correct. l l
% un in , i ggi. ope . __ _ i is wmT;_ M - e een TAM A p r es -----.= c , - ,- _ _ -
r Ar_T. = m etwE d71 on December 10, 1991 GPC wrote a letter (ELV-02292) providing additional information to Thomas Werley (NRC NRR) responding to the Mobby\Moebaugh 2.304 petition. In this letter (section IV) GPc transcribes a portion of Tape #71.
GPC uses this transcript to identify the late afternoon conference call that was referred to in the 2.205 petition response. GPc refers to the refsrenced call est "the April 19, 1990 telephone conference amil when the language concerning the emergency diesel generater start count was finalized in the LER."
And states that Tspe #71:
" indicates that Hairston was nah a participant during the April 19, 1990 telephone conference os11 utlen the language concarning the esorgency diesel generator start count was finalised in the LER".
This is a new and different statement than that which had been made in Footnote 3 of the April 1, 1991 2.204 petition response, because now the denial is not the atuole call, but only a specific portion of the call, "when the language"
- "was finalised". This statement is similar to the statement that had been put in Aufdenkampe's affidevit.
i l
~
as-ic-issa 11:22 841 sste US NRC RG !! p,gg 9
In thin tape sequence Mosbaugh and Aufdenkamps (whom GpC only identifies as "P"(participant)) are discusmug
" Call A". Aufdenkampe identifies George Sockhold 5 times in GPC's transcript segnant as partionpating in the call.
By submitting this letter to Thomas Murle in December of 1991, GPC has provided the 13333333813 av of which call Mcdonald and CPC\ southern Nuolear meant a their 2.206 petition response, " W ". Only on " Call As was Bookhold a participant.
Further GPC states that this is " consistent with collective reacilection of participants during the August 1990 OSI".
As of the August 1990 osI, GPC\ Southern Nuclear's stated collective recollection was that, Mosbaugh, Aufdenkampe, stringfellow, Bockhold, and Shipman were on the " Call A*.
nacumann is ine:q amtemer amcLamm massenna En sum o- m- meawma n=====" sum"e er annover In their letter dated 12-18-92 to Asst. U.S. Attorney sally Quillian Yates, southern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutman Sanders, again uses same tape segment as above from tapa #71 to identify "the conference call when the I X language was finalised". But this time they claim that menhanah was not a participant. (See letter pg.11 itan 3.6.]
-- "We do not believe that Allen Mosbaugh was a participant during the finsi stages of the telephone conference call when the In language was finalised.
see e.g., Mosbaugh Tape 71. John Aufdankampe had to explain to Allen Mosbaugh what had happaned during the conference call on April 19th."--
By submitting this letter to Asst. U.S. Attorney Bally Quillian Yates, on December 12, 1991, GPC has provided the irrefutahim avidanna of which call Mcdonald ana SPC\ Southern Nuclear meant in their 2.20s petition response, "m il A".
Only on " Call As was Bookhold a participant.
atnoma/ FALL 1993 ---acmunur mucLaan Laaana e esmesur or e a-le.en __ waWm_-pa i1 m tem s.neweek
_ _ ;i-- men - am.
In July 1993, southern Nuclear obtained possession of the "six tapes" which included the " Call As, once southern Nuclear and its Law Fira Troutama Sanders was aware of the content of these tapes, they kaar that contrary to the April 1, 1991 2.206 petition response as well as the october 3, 1991 supplemental petition respones, as well as the December 10, 1991 additional information response letter-from Ken McCoy, Nairston was on " Call A". Within 2 days a i
l l
'l
- - ,- cs-to-tes4 11:2s e41 sste us mC RO !! P.10 l l
- , l l ,
correction of the false information was required to be made to the Regional Administrator under 10 CFR 50.9.
Also requiring correction under 50.9 was the " White Paper" from the August 1990 CSI which failed to correstly identify j all the " Call A" participants. They also knew that the l 12-18-91 DCJ response was incorrect at that time as well. j When the NRC conducted it's CI interviews of ourrent and former southern Nuclear personnel, the NRC utilised portions i of various 4-19-90 tape recordings during the interviews. l Depending of the dates of these interviews Southern Nuclear may have learned that their previous statements were falso a first from the 01 interviews rather than the 'Sim Tapes ,
once southern Nuclear learned of the existance and content i
of portions of these tapes, including the later Call "B", I l
their story changed.
)
SOUTHEEK NtM1E&E CEAMGES TTS ETTIRY In testimony to the NRC CI and in response to the NRC, Pat Mcdonald and Southern Nuclear changed their story to clain l that the telephone call they were referritur to in Pat Mcdonald's sworn response to the 2.204 pet:, tion was Call l "B", the call after call "A". The obvious need to do this was Nairston's clear voice and extensive partisipation on call "A" including his participation in the diesel discussions.
By switching to call "B" they could "make" tencenald's sworn '
statements "come true" because indeed Rairsten was not on Call "B".
i The problem is that southern Nuclear was not referring to call "B" when it responded to the 2.204 petition as l
- exhaustively demonstrated above. They lied them, to cover up !
the involvement of the executives in the fales statements of l 4-19-90 and they are lying now because with the proof l' offered by the tape it's their way out.
GPC#2 FAIIJ TO DIacIARE EMIETEuc2 nF AFFIB&IIME 2EIRIES nra w ru amen n - - .1nma In the course of discovery in the current V e License transfer proceedings before the ASLB, we disoevery requests were filed. Specifically in Moebaugh's first set of interrogatories, Question #54 (t) required Src to " identify all documents" that " relate in any manner" to conversations held on April 19, 1990 concerning LER 90-005. GPC failed to 1 identify the affidavits in their response to syneation #54.
d
.i. ea-2.-2. m a o . ==.o v. % ~ ,, 31 e,
Having failed to disclose the existence of the affidavits
. r Mosbaugh's lawyers pressed the issue.
A discovery meeting was held betvean Mosbaugh's lawyers and GPC\ Southern Nuclear's lawyers in Nashington, July, 1993. CPC's lawyers were ask about the response to Question
- 53 and were ask why they didn't identify the affidavits.
Their response was "how'd you find out about theses ,
subsequent to this meeting GPC filed a supplement i ats response, stating that signed statements were obtaaned from John Aufdenkampe, Thomas Webb, Jack stringfellow, and George Hairston but refused to turn over the doounsets. (See Intervener action to compel production of affidavita, OPC's reply and CPC supplemental response to interrogatories).
Mosbaugh's lawyers than sought to obtain the arfidavita thru the AsLB but the court upheld GPC's claim of Attorney-Client privilege.
EVES MME TEr1ING TB sotmrEMf EDCUfan's M HE&ECE DE TER AFFIDAVITS southern Nuclear failure to disclose the existance of their employees' affidavits, during discovery in this current ASLR proceeding is most surprising. This proceeding menters around admitted contentions that vogtle's liosase was illegally tranaferred and that Southern Nuclear does not have the character, campetence and trustworthiness to hold a nuclear operating license. Mosbaugh's allerrations that coorge Hairston knowingly made material fshee statements to the NRC in LDt 90-006 about Vogtle's diesel gaaerators and specifically that Southern Nuclear lied in its 2 206 petition response about Hairston not being on the 4-19-90 conference call are central issues to the contentions.
After southern Nuclear's lawyers finally identified to the court that affidavita were obtained from Asidenkampe, stringfellow, Webb, and Hairston they refused to turn them over. Why would southern Nuclear want to hold back this supporting evidence? CPC's filings to the Asia, the courts and the NRC, to previous Mosbaugh allegations, are filled with GPC's amployees affidavits.
According to John Aufdenkaape's statsmants to Allen Mosbaugh, GPC's list of affiants is EEER 6 .
Aufdankaape had stated to Moebaugh that the leuryers told him that they were getting affidavita from everyone on the call and that he was the only one who remembered mairston was on the call.
Furthermore, in filings with the ASLB Southern Nuclear's lawyers admitted that Aufdenkampe had conversations about 4
i
93-18-1C94 11:24 841 5510 US PRC RO II , P.12 e,
- l the affidavits with Mosbaugh , but denied that Itsebaugh had been shown Aufdenkampe's affidavit. This is falas. Mrs.
Aufdenkampe provided to Mosbaugh, her husband's affidavit to read, and witnessed Mosbaugh reading the affidavit. Nombaugh also had follow-up conversations with Mrs. Aufdenkampe about what her husband could do to retract the affidavit.
LDnINT nF IMIC Aufdenkaape's affidavits and others were intended to support the fact that Mairston was not a participant to diesel I discussions on Call "A" or even presume for a sament, Call "B". surely southern Nuclear lawyers would have obtained affidavits from all the call's participants but Southern !
Nuclear only claimed to the AsLE that statements vers l obtained from 4 personnelt For " Call A*
- 1. Two of the S " White Paper" identified participants
- 2. No non " White Paper" identified personnel
- 2. Altogether 4 of the total 12 known participants For " Call 38
- 1. One of four speaking participants.
Regardless of their completeness, the statements were intended to bolster southern Nuclear's case that Esirston did not knowingly submit false information to the NRC, then why is southern Nuclear refusing to turn this evidenes over to the court?
or is the scope and the content of these affidavits now so damning that southern Nuclear can not afford ta reveal them?
Aufdenkampe's affidavit alone shows thst call "A* was the i cal. referred to in the 2.20s petition reapanes.
sut additionally if (as Aufdenkampe stated to Noebeugh) southern Nuclear obtained effidavits similar to Aufdenkampe's from Bookhold, McCoy or any participant not on call "s", that act alone would prove that call "At was what NoDonald and the law firza originally intended in the 1991 2.206 petition response sworn under oath and affirmation, and the recent statements of southern Nuclear, pat NoDonald and Troutman sanders are more lies to the NRC and ASLB.
southern Nuclear is caught in their own web of lies. Now Southern Nuclear is claiming that the call that pat Mcdonald was referring to in his 2.20s petition response was call "B". These recent events constitute a =a*1==<== never-up and wrongdoing by fouthern Nuclear and its Iaw fira Troutman
, sanders.
l
. - - . - - - - . .- . . ~. - - - _ _ _ . _.__ _ _ _ -
I5 93-15-1994 11 24 841 5510 US MIC RG II p.13
.o.
M I request that the NRC investigate all the issues addressed above and specifically address the allegations stated below which are based on those facts.
ALLEGATION la Southern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutuan have engaged in a oever-up sinos 1990 and have made falso statements, withheld information, failed to report information, and failed to correct information known to be inoceplete and\or inaoourate to the NRC, DOF, and ASLB.
This applies to the information and events surrounding the 4-19-90 conferemos call including the participation of corporate staff and executives on the 4-19-90 emnference cell.
ALI2*iATION 2: Pat Mcdonald knowingly made false statements in sworn testimony to NRC 01 in 1993 when he falsely identified conversation 'B' as the conversation he was referring to in his sworm response to Nosbaugh's 2.208 petition.
ALLEGATION 3: Southern Nuclear and its Law Firm'Troutman sanders faisely denied in 1993 that Allen Moshaugh had been shown John Aufdenkaape's affidavit, in its reply brief to the ASLB.
ALLEGATION 4: Southern Nuclear and its Law Firs, Troutman Sanders failed to identify to the ASLB in 1993 all the personnel from whom siped statements or affidavits were obtained, that relate to the conversations on 4-19-90, cesserning LER 90-06 and the
- Call A and\or 38 participants.
ALLEGATION S: In the " White Paper
- responses to the NRC in August 1990, OPC\ southern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutman Banders, knowingly omitted identifying key personnel who had participated on the conference calls identified in NRC Questions #3 and #5.
ALLEGATION 6: When southern Nuclear and it's Law fits Troutman sandere, had in their peesession all the information necessary to resegnise that their 2.206 petition responses sad *Nkite Papera contained false statements sheet the 4-19-90 call, they fsiled to report this to the NRC as required by regulations 10 CFR 50.9.
1 i
O
)