ML20097H768
| ML20097H768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1995 |
| From: | Joiner J TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097H764 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9601300169 | |
| Download: ML20097H768 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ . _ __.m__. ,_ _ .. . .- - . _ . . _ ~ _ _ ___ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TROUTMANSANDERS
. . r. . . . .e .e . u. .,. . . . . . , :. .u . . .c. .=. b'1 NAf TON $&ANM PLAZA eco PE ACHinEE STREET N E SuirE 5200 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30308 2216 TELE PHONE 404 885-3000 FAcsi.nE 4o4 ses sooo JAMES E JOINER PC. DIRECT 404 885 3568 December 19, 1995 Y!A FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. James Lieberman Director Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: October 4,1995 Predecisional Enforcement Conference concerning Hobby v.
Georria Power,90-ERA-30.
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
On November 2,1995, Mr. Hobby's counsel before the Department of 1. abor, Michael D. Kohn, filed a Response to Predecisional Enforcement Conference Presentation of Georgia Power Company and Request for Imposition of Enhanced Penalties (" Response'). In that Response, Mr. Kohn argues that Georgia Power Company ("GPC") made " materially false and misleading statements" when it stated its position at an NRC Predecisional Enforcement Conference held on October 4,1995. As is shown in the Attachment, GPC made no statements at this Conference that were false or misleading and the representations attacked by Mr. Kohn are consistent with the record before the Department of Labor and the Atomic Safety and thaiag Board ("ASLB"). The Attachment addresses only Mr. Kohn's accusations that Georgia Power Company made " materially false and misleading statements" in its Predecisional Enforcement Conference presentation. It does not address his arguments with GPC's position, including that: 1) the Secretary of Labor's Decision And Remand Order dated August 4,1995 is a final i order and no longer appealable; 2) the Decision And Remand Order collaterally estops l Georgia Power Company; 3) Georgia Power Company has no legitimate basis for appeal; and 4) the Secretary of Labor did not make impermissible credibility determinations. 9601300169 960129 PDR ORG NE SEN PDR
i i TROUTMAN SANDES a.:.s.a..a:.r u..:.ywa Mr. James IJeberman December 19, 1995 Pane 2 - i i For your convenience, I am enclosing two extra copies of the Attachment. L ResgJully su itted, f .
/J E. Joiner' JEI/sbk Attachments b
a f 1 P i i h k i k B
9 l l ATTACHMENT GEORGIA POWER COMPANY DID NOT MAKE "MATERIAT T Y FAT.RE AND MISTRADING STATEMENTS" i l 1 i l l
I. The Cr**tian Of NOCA And Why It Was Fethlished In Allanla P Mr. Kohn accuses GPC of making a material false statement when it showed a slide that contained a comparison of Judge Williams' factual findings concerning the creation of the Nuclear Operations Contract Administration ("NOCA") group and the Secretary's finding concerning why NOCA was established in Atlanta. Mr. Kohn claims "The presentation of this slide stands for the proposition that the AU correctly determined that NOCA was created to give Mr. Hobby something to do in Atlanta. Making this assertion to NRC staff represents a material false statement." (Response at 19). GPC made no material false statement in presenting this side-by-side comparison. The plain fact of the matter is that both the AU and the Secretary made those differing factual conclusions and GPC's point was that Judge Williams' factual conclusion was more supportable than the Secretary's. Compare Recommended Decision and Order ("RDO") at
. 40 with Decision and Remand Order at 21-22, n.13.
To support his accusation that showing the slide constitutes a misrepresentation, Mr. Kohn quotes a portion of Bill Dahlberg's testimony before the ASLB. (Response at 19). Dahlberg's ASLB testimony is that he established the NOCA group and that it was his iden to create this organization. (Sea ASLB Tr. 1193, 1197). Mr. Dahlberg's ASLB testimony concerns his responsibility for the creation of NOCA, but it does not address the input received from others, specifically Mr. Hobby. As the Department of Labor record shows, Mr. Hobby recommended the creation of NOCA to his bosses, George Head and Grady Baker, who then presented it to Dahlberg. Mr. Baker supported the creation of NOCA because he had nothing else for Hobby to do in Atlanta.
Hobby also wrote the memorandum ultimately signed by Dahlberg that created NOCA and Hobby's General Manager position and drafted the Position Questionnaire that set out the goals of his job. (Sm RDO at 40; Decision and Remand Order at 21-22, n.13; Tr. at 85-86, 238, 659-60, 687, 700-01, CX 13; CX 22 at 3; at ahn ASLB Tr. at 2329-2330). 4 1 9 l l
U.S. Departm:nt cf Labor offee of Admin.svaWe dw Juoges , 800 K Street. N W. < T* Wasninaton. O C 20001-8002 k ,,, , .I , DATE ISSUED: NOV3MEER 8, 1991 Case No.: 90-ERA-30 ' In the Matter of i MARVIN B. HOBBY, 1 Complainant v. GEORGIA POWER COMF6Y, Respondent Michael D. Kohn, Esquire David K. Colapinto, Esc'tira Kohn, Tohn s 0: .;e.; For the Complainant James Joiner, Esquire William N. Withrow, Esquire Troutman, Sanders,.Lockerman For the Respondent Before JOEL R. WILLIAMS Administrative Law Judge arranrunED DECISION AND ORDER This case arises under the employee protection provision of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. S5851, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 29 l C.F.R. Part 24. ; j The Complainant filed his initial complaint under the Act on or about February 6, 1990. This was supplemented on February ;
- 28, 1990. On March 26, 1990, the Acting Regional Director determined that the Complainant had been discriminated against for engaging in activity protected under the ERA and called for 1 his restoration to his former position. The Respondent filed a timely request for a hearing. They also filed a complaint with tho' Secretary of Labor contending that the March 26, 1990 determination was made without their having been afforded a l reasonable opportunity to participate in the investigation.
Thereafter, the case was reconsidered by the District Director, Wage and Hour Division, based on additional information furnished by both parties. On May 25, 1990, the District Director amended the prior findings to the effect that the elimination of Complainant's job was not based on his having engaged in any
- .'...! .. ; l 1 I **231 s _______ _ _ _ ___. _ . _ . _ _ _ m._ ,-
.c -
f testify that Mr. Williams had informed him that he had talked to Mr. Adams, Mr. Baker and Mr. Boren before making the performance evaluation. (T-215) The complainant was advised on February 23 that it would not be necessary for him to report to work anymore. Findings of Fact Based on the foregoing evidence, I reach the following factual findings for the reasons stated: The Complainant had experience in the nuclear energy area. Upon the establishment of SONOPCO, Mr. Mcdonald, believing that the Complainant would be valuable to the project, was desirous of having him transfer to SONOPCO. Whether it was because he had already formed his opinion of Mr. Mcdonald as expressed in his j June 1989 letter to Admiral Wilkinson, or whether it was because ~ he did not want to relocate, he declined to transfer. Instead, he. designed a job for himself which he could perform at the Atlanta headquarters of Georgia Power, i.e. manager of a nuclear operations contract administration group. He then sold the idea
- to Mr. Head, whom he respected and with whom he apparently had a good relationship. Mr. Barker reluctantly went along with the idea because he did not have anything else for the complainant to do. Mr. Dahlberg's approval was based, in part, on his belief I that incorporation of SONOPCO would occur within a matter of months. l The meeting in preparation for the Fuchko and Yunker trial occurred six days after the memo establishing NOCA was issued. I ;
find the Complainant's testimony, in regard to his having been : told by anybody involved in the proceeding that he would have to l change any testimony that he would give in that matter to conform a to that of Mr. Mcdonald, to be totally unbelievable. I fail to see where Respondent's attorneys would even consider having the complainant testify about the SONOPCO selection process as he was not involved in the same and any testimony he would have given , relating thereto would have been nothing more than hearsay. The complainant is unable to identify the attorney who purportedly l approached him with such an incredible request. The two partner , attorneys, who conducted the two sessions which the complainant ; attended, have denied making such a statement and I consider them i to be credible witnesses. There were two other associate attorneys present at the meeting, but the Complainant made no j attempt to subpoena them to the hearing. Although he allegedly i relayed the purported conversation to Mr. McHenry the next day, ! l l l l 1 .~ 1
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR sacarrar or umon WASHINGTON. D.c. , l I DATE: August 4, 1995 l CASE NO. 90-ERA-30 , l 1 IN THE MATTER OF l l MARVIN B. HOBBY, COMPLAINANT, v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, RESPONDENT. BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR DECISION AND REMAND ORDER This proceeding arises under the whistleblower provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. S 5851 (1988), and is before me for review of a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and 0.) issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on November 8, 1991. See 29 S 24.6(b) (1994). The ALJ recommands dismissal of the
~
_ C.F.R. entire complaint. I disagree and remand for the ALT to determine a complete remedy. l BACKGROUND Complainant, who has " unsurpassed" knowledge of the nuclear industry, was employed by Respondent in 1985 as the Assistant to i the President. Complainant's Exhibits (CX) 2, 7 . l' Complainant l' The evidence adduced in this case has been summarized by the ALJ'at pages 2-40 of the R. D. and O. i c.r-., -p , . . , . . e _ .__ -- 3
i
)
i i ' ~ 21 )
~
" unsurpassed;" and indicated there was growth potential. CX 7.
i In the year before, Baker rated Complainant's performance as !
" excellent" and " commendable" and wrote that there was "no known ;
i limit" to Complainant's future growth possibilities with l Respondent. CX 4. I find no legitimate, nondiscriminatory l reason for Baker's change of opinion. Williams, who more closely observed Complainant's performance during the spring and fall of ! 1989,. had no complaints about Complainant's performance and ! admitted that Complainant and Smith went "a long way in , finalizing" the managing board agreement. T. at 464. Baker, on t the other hand, opined that nothing was accomplished by the I discussions between Complainant and Smith. T. at 685. > Even if Baker "didn's really have a strong feeling that I j [NOCA was needed) to start with," T. at 688, and even if Respondent had decided that it made a mistake in creating NOCA, these also are not bases for suddenly concluding that complainant's performance and potential were "zero." The r drastic, inadequately explained change _in Respondent's perception !
- r of Complainant's work performance is further evidence of pretext.
Nor does the delay in SONOPCO's incorporation justify Respondent's explanation of "no function." Williams testified that the incorporation and contract issues were not significant to his decision. T. at 407. Moreover, Dahlberg created NOCA to t perform work beyond contract administration. T. at 328.u' { M' The ALJ erred in finding that Complainant designed NOCA as a : means to stay in Atlanta. R. D. and O. at 40. Dahlberg ! (continued...) l; F
22 ; There is another significant reason why Respondent's ' explanation of "no function" is not credible. It is undisputed l l that on January 25, after Respondent had removed Complainant from j his job, Williams assigned another one of his managers, Bill saith, to take responsibility for Complainant's activities. I Williams ordered Complainant to turn over his files to Smith. T. at 207. Since Respondent appointed a replacement, a function necessarily existed.LL' The December 27, 1988, memo creating NOCA and naming Complainant as manager, states: It is important for us to realize that while our nuclear operations may be managed in Birmingham and ultimately will be managed by a separate Southern subsidiary, Georgia Power will be held accountable by our regulatory groups, our stockholders, and the public for the operation and performance of our nuclear units. It is essential that Georgia Power Company be involved in the operations of our units, monitor their performance and integrate nuclear operations goals, accountabilities, Power Corporate Plan. and financial planning into Georgia RX 18, Tab 2. These statements not only show that there was a ! legitimate function to be performed by_an organization separate from SONOPCO, but they reveal that Complainant's protected complaint about the reporting structure also was implicit in his complaints about Mcdonald's lack of cooperation with NOCA. Baker's criticism of Complainant's complaints about lack of M'(... continued) testified where hethat he established NOCA in Atlanta because that is is located. T. at 329. u/ ' Respondent's evidence that two other positions were eliminated during this time is also unpersuasive. Those positions resulted from voluntary resignations. T. at 394.
101d 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + ++++ i 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 HEARING 6 -------------------------------X 7 In the matter of: : 50-424-OLA-3 8 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, fa i : SC-425-OLA-3 l l 9
- Re: License Amendment 10 (Vogtle Electric Generating : (transfer to 11 Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) : Southern Nuclear) 12 : ASLBP No.
- 13 -------------------------------X 93-671-01-OLA-3 14 Wednesday, January 4, 1995 15 . Hearing Room T 3B45 16 Two White Flint North 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland
~
19 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 20 pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. 21 BEFORE: 22 PETER B. BLOCH Chairman 23 JAMES H. CARPENTER Administrative Judge 24 THOMAS D. MURPHY Administrative Judge 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS a 7 95 0/OGB E 4 == 1,333 RMODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.
--TO . o C- ===
1015 i 1 APPEARANCES: l 2 3 On behalf of the NRC: 4 5 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ. 6 JOHN HULL, ESQ. 7 MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ. 8 of: Office of the General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 11 (301) 504-1589 12 13 On behalf of the Licensee: 14 15 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR., ESQ 16 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ. j 17 of: Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 18 2300 N Street, N.W. j . l 19 Washington, D.C. 20037 l 20 l (202) 663-8474 21 1 22 23 24 1 25 l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS
- 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20m 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (208) 234m33
1016 1 APPEARANCES:(cont.)
. .A \
2 JAMES E. JOINER, ESQ. . 3 JOHN LAMBERSKI, ESQ. 4 of: Troutman Sanders 5 Nationsbank Plaza, Suite 5200 6 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 8 (404) 885-3360 9 10 On behalf of the Intervenor: 11 12 MICHAEL D. KOHN, ESQ.
- J i
13 STEPHEN M. KOHN, ESQ. i 14 MARY JANE WILMOTH, ESQ. I I 15 of: Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. 16 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington',' D.C. 20001 18 (202) 234-4663 19 l l 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 9 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 wASMWGTON. O C. 20006 (20m 2M
-1017 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS FFDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3 A.W. Dahlberg 1059 1052 1064 4 1061 1069 i
5 Prefiled Testimony 1061 1071 6 1079 ! 7 1090 [ 8 1094 9 1098 i 10 1098 l i 11 1107 l l 12 1112 13 1120 ! i 14 1131 i F 15 Patrick Mcdonald 1247 1252 1248 ! 16 Prefiled Testimony 1249 1251 f i 17 1254 l 18 1255 : l ~ 19 1256 l 20 1257 21 1260 22 1262 23 1270 24 1273 25 1277 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRGERS e 1333 RtCOE $ LAND AVENUE, N W. (300 3364433 WA96NNOTON. D C. 30005 (3Ml
- aa59
- l. 1193 ;
1 monitor th31r parformanca cnd integrnte th3 nuclocr 2 operations goal accountabilities to the financial planning 3'!; of the Georgia Power corporate plan." Do you see that? l 4 A Yes. 5 Q And that was one of your intentions for { l 6 setting up this group NOCA? l 1 1 7 A That's correct. i l 8l Q So part of the reason for setting up NOCA was I 9 to monitor the performance of your nuclear plants? 10 i A Yes. I I 11 I Q Who made the decision to set up NOCA? 12 A I did.
- 13 Q And who did you consult on that?
14 l' A Mr. Baker, Mr. Head -- I think those were the I 15 tj -- probably Mr. Scherer. i I i 'I l 16 ; Q And what position did Baker have? 17 , ' A He was a senior executive VP. i l 18 ' Q And Mr. Head? 19 A Mr. Head was senior vice president. He had 20 :he power generation department of our business. l 21 Q And Mr. Scherer? 22 A He was -- at that time, he was still chairman. 23 , Q Now in regards to Baker and Head, did either , l 24 of those individuals ever had responsibility for nuclear ; I 25 operations prior to December of 19887 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. l 4202n 2344433 wASMeNGTON. O C. 20006 (ROM 234433
1197 'I I diccucciono with thtm, thio Oglethorpa Powar, tha 2 Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton about l 3 our responsibilities to them. And I was certainly aware : 4 of our responsibilities there. 5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: But you never received any i 6 legal advice on your licensing responsibilities? ! I 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I realized that j i 8 Georgia Power still had the responsibility to operate the
; i 9 plants, and we thought we were still doing that. In fact, .
10 we were still doing that.
- 11 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: And did the legal advice i
12 suggest,that'.it's essential that you be involved in the* , i 13 operations of the units by having an oversight of this t i
'14 type?
15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: So whose idea was that? 17 Where did that come from? 18 THE WITNESS: To have this organization? It i
~
19 was-mine, f 20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: And when there was no i 21 contract, did that make it more important or less 22 important to monitor? 23 THE WITNESS: Well, I think less important. l 24 The ultimace thing that happened here is that we dissolved e i 25 the organization because I found that there was not a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REP 0mTEms AND TRANacmeERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (20m 234m33 WAsMrNGTON O C 20005 , (20m 234433 __ - __________,______________i
i l l i , i Page 1 l 1 j - BEFORE THE
- I i
i i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IABOR l k l MARVIN B. HOBBY, a f 4 Complainant, s YQLIDIE 1 vs. : Case No. 90 ERA-30 8
- GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a j
} Respondent. : l d : i .._______________ i Courtroom 901, l ! i DeKalb County Courthouse, j 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia l Tuesday, October 23, 1990 1 (' } i The above entitled matter came on.for hearing, l pursuant to Notice, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: BON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KORN, Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 9 9 e
/
Page 2 1HDEI WITNESSES: DIRECT GBQ11 REDIRECT RECROSS Marvin B. Hobby 44 219 -- -- EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: Nos. 1 thru 21 l Premarked 10 , l Nos. 23 thru 25 Premarked 10 Nos. 27 thru 35 , Premarked 10 Respondent's: Nos. 1 thru 18 Pramarked 12 No. 19 - Letter 5/1/89 254 256 ( a l l i I e i 4 9 e e e
(.. Page 273 IE21I WITNESSES: DIEECI CBQ1E REDIRECT RECROSS Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 -- Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 -- Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- -- Fred D. Williams 399 440 -- -- Thn=== G. Boren 475 501 508 -- Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- -- EZEIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: (
, Nos. 36 & 36-A - Dahlberg Calendar 350 352 Nos. 37 & 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 Joints No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398
Page 543 IH2IX ! WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS ' E. P. (Dennis) wilkinson 544 557 -- -- i Joseph M. Farley 564 579 -- -- R. P. Mcdonald 501 619 -- -- George.F. Head 643 658 -- -- H. G. Baker 678 690 705 709 EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: No. 38 - Wilkinson bio 548 548 I 4 [ t r I e l i
i
.r*
, Page 85 l 1 vice president / nuclear operations" which would be Mr.
l 2 Hairston " concurs in that rating." 1 3 Q. After you received your 1988 performance 4 evaluation, did you have any discussions about what role you l 4 5 would continue to play at Georgia Power Company? Let me 6 withdraw that. 7 Prior to receiving your 1988 perfomance 8 evaluation did you have any discussions about what, role you I 9 would have plcyed at Georgia Power Company? t 1 10 A. Ihad--asImentionedearlier,Iwasohloanso 11 to speak to nuclear operations from Mr. Baker's ofkice. 12 I had determined.that I did not want to move to 13 the SONOPCO project in Birmingham. I had discussed this 14 with Mr. Baker, and I had a conversition with Mr. Baker ' 15 about the establishment of an interface group between 16 Georgia Power Company and SONOPCO. 17 I had discussed that with Mr. Baker I guess in the 18 October-November time frame of 1988. 19 Q. And after your performance appraical, your 1988
. 20 performance evaluation, did those discussions continue?
21 A. We continued to have the discussions in late 1988. 22 I guess in December of 1988 I talked with Mr. Baker about 23 it, I also talked with Mr. Bead about it, and I was told by 24 Mr. Head that Mr. Baker and he had met with Mr. Dahlberg, 25 and they had determined to set up a Nuclear Operations
. . ~ ,
i e' Page 86 1 Contract Administration group. 2 Q. Were you asked for any input into the 3 establishment of the Nuclear Operations Contract 4 Administration, or NOCA7 5 A. Yes, sir. Mr. Head asked me what my feelings were l 6 as to what this group should do and what they should be 7 ! responsible for, and I provided that information to Mr. ; l 8 Head. 9 He reviewed it, and he finally came back and said 1 10 "Okay, how about providing to me a memo which Mr. Dahlberg 11 can sign which sets up the Nuclear Operations Contract 12- Administration group." l L 13 Q. I call your attention to Exhibit 8. i 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Is this an approximation of the memo you drafted 16 for Mr. Head? ! 17 A. Yes,'it is. 18 Q. And can you tell me what differences there are I 19 .between the memo you drafted for Mr. Head? 20 A. Yes, it is. 1 J 21 Q. And can you tell me what differences there are 22 between the memo you drafted and the one attached as Exhibit 23 87 l l 24 A. The meno that I prepared for Mr. Head did not have l 25 the carbon copies at the bottom. t 9 6 k b
I 1 Page 238 1 Birmingham, then I think it's incumbent on all the people to ' 2 support that. . 3 Q. And I believe you testified this morning that you [ 4 wrote that memo that Mr. Dahlberg signed dated December 27, 5 1988 setting up the nuclear operations contract i 6 administration group; correct? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. And so you wrote the language about how that group 9 would be interfaced with the SONOPCO project; correct? , i 10 A. ~ I wrote the language, gave it to Mr. Head who , 11 approved it and sent it to Mr. Dahlberg who signed it. 12 Q. But at least you do agree with me that there's j i 13 nothing illegal and nothing improper if Mr. Mcdonald was ' l 14 motivated by his belief that Georgia Power ' Company did not I 15 need separate nuclear expertise at 333 Piedmont? j 16 A. I don't believe there's anything illegal in that, no. 17 18 Q. Now, am I correct, Mr. Hobby, that the only 19 regulatory concern you raised in the April 27 memo relates 20 to the reporting structure at SONOPCO which you identify on 21 Page 7 of the memo? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And I t..l.teve you acknowledge, do you not, Mr. 24 Robby, that this is not an issue of plant safety? 25 A. I did not say it was, sir. l 9
_ __ ._. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . ~ - _ _ _ . 1 f Page 542 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR l NARVIN B. HOBBY, a Ccumplainant, a VOLUME in a vs. : Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, a Respondent. : Courtroosa 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 I The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. j l B2 FORE:
}
HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Mainistrative Law Judge ' 1 APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOUN,IAttorney, DAVID K. COLAPIN'f0, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, ; 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. O
l - Page 659 1 proiect formed, right after nuclear operations moved out of 2 Atlanta over to Birmingham -- right? -- and had a 3 conversation about an idea that Marvin thought up about a 4 good way to interface the two companies? 5 A. I don't know what you mean by an idea about a good 6 way to interface the two companies. I don't understand what 7 you mean. l 8 Q. Okay. Marvin came and said "You know, we have to l 9 think about how we're going to interface, and I'd like to l 10 give you a position paper on it, I'd like to look into it," 11 and he provided you a position paper, correct? 12 A. We had discussed things that we would look into 13 from when the SONOPCO was set up, yes. 14 Q. And Marvin Hobby presented you with a position 15 paper which you showed to Mr. Grady baker and then got 16 Presidenc Dahiberg to agree that that was the way the 17 interface should work? 18 A. We set out how we were going to set up our 19 organization, which consisted of two accountants and a 20 secretary and two performance engineers, and we had discussed 21 this, and I told him we only wanted to start out with one to 22 get it started, that's all, yes. 23 Q. But -- 24 A. If this is the position paper you're talking about. 25 I mean it was not, I guess not a position paper as sue,h, it r
Page 660 l' was our idea as to how we thought we should operate. 2 Q. Okay. And Marvin wrote a meno which President 3 Dahlberg signed off on establishing his job? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. Okay. And was that before -- That was signed in 6 December -- correct? -- of '887 1 7 A. December of '88,_right. 8 Q. And Mr. Hobby's job was created before -- it was 9 such a good idea that you created the job before you had the 10 position name selected, before Marvin Hobby told you what his 11 salary was going to be? 12 A. No. No, the position was not created until after 13 that happened. He was not even given a job until -- we had 14 talked about it earlier, but the position was_not created 15 until the letter created the position. 16 Q. Okay. What I'm saying is the letter created the 17 position, but when the position was created you hadn't 18 discussed with Marvin what his salary was going to be? 19 A. No, I don't thinir we had discussed it at that time. 20 We discussed it after the thing was -- in fact, we wrote a 21 position description after as far as I remember. I don't 22 remember the dates on it. ; 23 Q. Okay. And the discussion that ensued was that 24 "Look, if you want me to handle this job, I want to be a . I 25 Level 20." Isn't that what Marvin wanted? \
Page 687 1 I was surprised when I found I believe that that 2 number was five employees in the group. I' thought that was 3 probably more than were required for anything that I had in 4 mind that they might do, so I told them to not hire any more 5 people for this group until we got a better definition of 6 exactly what they were going to accomplish and what they were 7 going to contribute to the overall well-being of the company. 8 At the general office administrative groups tend to 9 grow like that unless you are alert to these sorts of things. 10 Q. When you gave the direction, Mr. Baker, to Mr. > 11 Shannon and Carey Adams that Mr. Bobby should not add any 12 people to his organization, were you attempting in any way to 13 punish Mr. Hobby for anything he had done, or retaliate 14 against him in any way for something he had done? ' 15 A. No. It was -- you know, it was my duty, it was 16 what I was supposed to do is to keep an eye on those things 17 and keep the administrative and overhead organizations from 18 growing inordinately, and Mr. Hobby was not the only one to _ 19 feel that from me. 20 Q. Okay. Let me ask you a question about the contract i 21 administration group. 22 Did you form an opinion over the course of 1989 as 1 23 to the necessity of having a separats nuclear operations 24 contract administration group and, if so, what was your 25 opinion?
Page 700 1 A. Yes, Mr. Hobby told me that a number of times that 2 he couldn't get cooperation from SONOPCO, but I considered 3 that to be Mr. Hobby's problem, and not SONOPCO's problem and 4 not my problem. 5 Mr. Hobby's job was to establish a relationship 6 with SONOPCO. It was not my job to establish Mr. Hobby's 7 relationship, and it was not anybody else's job. 8 If somebody gets into the marketing department, 9 they're supposed to establish a relationship with our 10 customers if they get into that department, that's their job. 11 Q. Admiral Wilkinson earlier today testified that ha 1 12 found Marvin to have extraordinarily good communications 13 skills. 14 A. With Admiral Wilkinson I'm sure that's the case. 15 i If you would cross-examLine some of the other people at INPO { 16 that might not be their testimony. 17 Q. Now, you put and approved Marvin in the nuclear 18 operations contract 9dministration group; correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. And that was very dependent on communication 21 skills; correct? It was interface? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So obviously you must have had a high opinion of 24 Mr. Hobby's interface abilities, or you wouldn't have chosen 25 hia'for such an important interface job. 1
Page 701 1 A. I think I testified earlier that the reason Mr. 2 Hobby was put in that job was because I had Mr. Hobby and I 3 didn't have anything else to do with him, and that was an 4 experiment to see if in fact Mr. Hobby could produce 5 something that was of value to the company. 6 Q. Now, is there any reason you would know why Mr. 7 Head would have the belief that the job was permanent? He 8 boileved that the position was created with the understanding 9 it muld be a permanent position. 10 A. There was nothing -- you know, there's no 11 documentation that this was a temporary job or anything of , 12 that sort, but I don't take the -- I don't have the 13 understanding that every time you create a job at Georgia 14 Power _ Company it's eternal. 15 It's my management opinion that you should be as 16 quick to eliminate jobs as you are to make jobs. Otherwise, 17 your administrative staff grows enormously and your expenses 18 grow enormously with them. 19 Q. But you didn't eliminate Mr. Hobby's job, did you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. So -- 22 A. But some of the people who did might have been 23 influenced by me, their philosophy might have been some of my 24 philosophy. I hope that's the case. 25 Q. Okay. Now, do you know when the final formal ( 1 l-1
;- T.
! Posi#on Questionnaire GeorgiaPower A PostT10N TITLE General Manager Nuclear Operations Contract Administration EMPLOrEE
- REPORTS TQ (PosIDON DTLE1 M. B. Hobby Senior Vice President Possil & Hydro l DEPARTMENT PERSON's NAME COMPLETING PQ Nuclear Operations DEPARTMENT NQ REVIEWED SY ( PL EO yM .. / Nutb omeAnnzATsoNAL uNtT tvks ournnrutur rnts> APPRovso er puusopre suPenvisOR) oen Possil & Hydro u 1
WORK LOCArboN APPROVED Br DATE I 14/333
- t. POSmON
SUMMARY
Descnoe ene pnmary reneson inu poestson exists in the company. To manage the contract for the operation of the Company's nuclear power plants including establishing performance goals, accountabilities, long range nuclear planning, and budgets; to be responsible to the Joint Owners for the operation of the Company's nuclear power plants.
- 11. POSITION REQUIREMENTS j
KNOWLEDGE: tney Ust are used in this tne areas of special knowledge: (e.g.. engineenng. accounting, general business theones/ practices, proceeures positson. Contractual obligations - understanding of contract law and the obligations of the contracting firm to Georgia Power Company and GPC's obligations to the Joint Owners, comprehensive knowledge of nuclear plant operations in regard to engineering principles, accounting, budgeting, etc. A detailed knowledge of joint agreement between the Joint Owners (OPC, MEAG, and the City of Dalton) and GPC regarding the operation of the nuclear plants. A detailed knowledge of the nuclear utility industry and of the operations of INPO and the NRC. 1 SKILLS: Use tne vanous swus neoced in tne posmon. incluse tecnneal, noministratrve ano ciencal skins, analytenutninking swus. communcation owna, managenal and interpersonal skins. Also, snocate how mese skins are used in the posmon. Technical and analytical skills to determine performance trends of the Company cud industry; significant managerial and interpersonal skills to maintain positive interaction with contractor (SONOPCO), other Southern Company subsidiaries ' cnd the Joint Owners of the nuclear facilities, (OPC, MEAG, and the City of Dalton). ex-13
.- _ .- . . .~ _ _ _ . - ..
I a. EMPLorEE POSITCH TITLa Goneral Manager N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobbv
- m. POSmON RSSPONSISluTIES Ust this poemon's M Responseilites in sneer oroer of importance (1.21 etc.Undicate the approstimate percentage of the total twom tsm annuany on eacn response.hty.
% OF TIME MAJOR RESPONstBILmES To manage all aspects of the contract with SONOPCO to achieve 70%
1. the safe, dependable, and cost effective operation of our nuclear power plants.
- 3. To establish reasonable goals, accountabilities, and budgets for 30%
- nuclear operations that support Georgia Power Company's Business Management Plan.
- 3. To monitor nuclear operations to ensure performance is supportive 15%
of GPC's Business Management Plan.
- 4. To serve as the primary interface between Georgia Power Company 15%
and SONOPCO and between Georgia Power and Joint Owners in nuclear operation matters.
- 5. To be the primary interface with other Company functions iaciuding 10%
top management and with the Public Service Commission on matters related to nuclear operatio'ns including budget, financial planning, prudency and performance. I f i l l . l l
L posmon tm.a Ewi. orts Gen 3ral Man!ger N.O. Centract Adsin. M. B. Hobby i IV. POSITION ACTIVITIES COMPLEXITY /DIVEMSITY: List the most difficult or challengmg asoects of tNs poesten. Also, if tNs poesten is responsele for coor6n NJ a wonely of actnntes or junciens, pease list these management tasas. The most challenging aspect of the job involves the relationship between GPC and SONOPCO. It will be most important for this position to ensure that SONOPCO management understands and incorporates the goals and the cecountabilities that CPC develops for them and that SONOPCO operates in e manner that supports the accomplishment of GPC's corporate objectives and Business Plan. i JUDGEMENTIDECISION-MAKING: List examples of the types of juogements tNs poeden reeuwee and the frecuen Budgeting Process
- Approve the Nuclear Operations annual budget - annually Monitor budget - daily ,
Plant Monitoring
- Approve annual goals - annually l Monitor goals' achievement - daily Information Resource
- PSC hearings on prudency - monthly Top management requests - daily Board of Directors - monthly RtSK: List esempen of nok talung that may be reeuwed of tNs positson. (i.e tasung acuon where tre eventual The primary risks are to ensure GPC's interests are protected while main-taining a professional and cooperative relationship with SONOPCO. -
CREMIVITYttNNOWKrlON: List examples of new methoes, procedures or concepts tre poesten may develop. Since this agreement is rather different, there will be opportunities available to develop alternative budgeting methods. The uniqueness of the agreement also offers the c. hance to develop more meaningful performance indicators. New communicative methods could be developed to disseminate information on SONOPCO to interested parties. V. RESULTS OF ACTION CONTRIBUTION: Ust the direct and/or shared responsibiWes of tNs poemon that coritnbute to the succe The ability of this position to influence the management of SONOPC0 to operate in a manner that best meets the interest of GPC would be significant. Also, this position has the responsibility for coordinating all the i administrative activities between the two Companies. Another area of concern would be the position's ability to determine the budget needs of SONOPCO based on operating goals that are established through this pnsition's direction. i h9e 3 _l
posrr mus a m orse
~
Gene al M.znamer N.O. Con 2ract Admin. M. D. Hobbv vi. scope . Provies annual statietes that comey the scope one volume of inas poonen. (Rowenue, customers, megewetts. capstal. O & M. contracts etc.) Plant Hatch 1630 MW $250 MM Operting Budget Hatch and Vogtle Plant Vogtle 2320 MW $73 MM Capital Budget Hatch and Vogtle vu. ORGANIZATMNi Compiece the organizaten chart below. leentify the two poestens aeove this positen. peer positens reporting a the immeeste super. visortmanager one suoorcinate poemens reporting oireotty to ines positen tune tities oney). Senior Executive Vice President Senior Vice President Fossil & Hydro Operations EMPLCNEE Gen. Mgr. Nuclear Operations Contract l Admin. Senior Senior Senior Secretary Plant Accountant Engineer S O EXEMM NONEXEMPT UNION CONTRACT TOTAL PERSONNEL gUPERVISED 2 1 3
""8 "" Page 4
ND June 8, 1989 Dennis: . whatI is promised going on at you in thePower. Georgia earlier letter that I would discuss a little of You have read several accounts that I have Political campaign contributions, etc. There is, FBI sent you related to the IRS investigations, investigations, to my knowledge, no progress going on for in these years.areas and I as told that these invectications w i l l 1, .- There is a lot of speculation as to whether Mr Addison will be able to weather the storm - - after all, he was the CEO at Gulf Power when many of these allegations occurred. The situation in th-company - - throughout Southern Company - - is hurrible. I will get more specific about my situation in a moment. admit that I am grateful to have worked a It u t , I must was President. He was a no nonsense guy,t Georgia when Mr. Miller Powercompetent, hard working, inquisiti.e. honorable, and he worked for the company. I!e:tsved, breathed, and exited for Georgia Power. The man could lead. He a s k ,e d questions. He asked for input. When people disagreed with him, that was fine. It seemed it was only on opportunity for him tu ask more questions and he would admit when he learned something. Even though he was President, he was not afraid to learn something or hear a new idea.
.was not afraid to say he didn't know. He wasn't afra4d to say he .i t dnHe' t understand something. He wasn't afraid to ask for advice. He didn't min!
people challenging him - - not personally but on an issue. Mr. Miller had integrity. He gave us guidance and direction and his message to us was clear performance. He also held you accountable for your As one lower level supervisor in building services said Io me him. in lamenting Mr. Miller's retirement, "We are really guing to miss alwaysYou know may not you where always are agree going."withShethe direction he gives you, ts u t ynu was right. Mr. Miller also focused his attention on where the company should be headed and what was required to get there. He reully took an emotional i interest in the 15,000 employees we had and he wanted them And, if they performed, he took care of them whether he lik to perform. not. It was not essential that Mr. Miller like you because,edhe them or judged each i employee on performance,and what they were doing for Georgia Power. Mr. Miller could make a decision. Sometimes he would make a snap judgement based upon his technical knowledge, his experience, his managerial ability, or just his hunch. that was the end. Everybody jumped. He But, when a decision was mnde, also protected the company. There were several examples where the System wanted Georgia Power t.. change what they were doing although what we were doing was t urnine out the profits. But, the bureaucrats at Southern, who wanted to inereuse their power, of rules. Mr. demanded that all operating companies abide by the same set Miller said no t. hat he was in charge of operating Georgta Power and, although some people at Southern got bent out of shape, *t e Miller's decision' ruled the day. (,X-ZZ.
____._m __ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . .
.. 7 . _
l P A lot of people remember Mr. Miller as a tough, authoritarian figure. - I remember him as a great leader, someone to be admired, a role model, and ! a loving and caring man who dedicated his life to Georgia Power and its . employees. , Yet. Mr. Miller was a strong man. Several senior execut it e : were glad j to see his retire because he ruJed firmly and would not let some of them ; put into effect their. lunacy. : am convinced that several executives { wanted their day.in the sun and made suggestions just to make themselves look good. But, their suggestion died because they did not have the- ; courage'to bring them to Mr. Miller for approval. ! What resulted-was a small group of executives who wanted so ; desparately to be in charge that they looked for every opport uni t y to ' enhance their position - - not the' company's position - t he i r pes t.una l ; position. Some of them would have sold their mother and the company i outright if they could have positioned themselves better.
- i There was one exception. George Head. George was a technically (
competent, hard headed, hard driving manager who did an exception avb. Ile had a weakness in that he did not have as broad a perspective as did Mr ! Miller and George found it hard to listen and learn. e felt he knew his business sufficiently well to do his job and listening (, learning, takine ; advice, or changing was difficult for him. George could not adapt. 1 don't mean he just didn't want to, he couldn't. After Mr. Miller left (actually before Mr. Miller lef t. ), George was ! assigned to report to Grady Baker.. The organization at the time was Mr. ! Scherer was Chairman of the Board and CEO, and Grady Baker and Elmer l Harris were the two Senior Executive Vice Presidents. Grady had planned ! his career such that when Mr. Miller retired,'he would become President. ! Elmer was brought over from Alabama Power to head External Affairs and the word was that he could become Chairman and CEO of Georgia Power. Grudy even told everyone that would listen to him that he had picked timer to be CEO-at Georgia because he (Grady) did not want the job - - he wanted to be President and C00. Mr. Addison became President of Southern and said Georgia power did not need both a President and a Chairman of the Board. He said that when < Mr. Scherer retired, we would have a President and a CEO and no Chuirman. ; That crushed Grady. He had worked to become President all*these years and ; now would not get the. job. Then a horse race began to see whether Elmer would become President o'r whether Bill Dahlberg, President vf Southern' Company Services and an ex-Senior Vice President of Georgiu Power who us.d to work for Grady, would become President of Georgia Power. friction l i developed between Grady and Elmer. Grady was obviously pushing Bill. l Bill won because, in part I think, Elmer got involved heavily in this campaign contributions fiasco. Back to George. George and Grudy did not get along. Grady is a
. Jekyll and Hyde. There are days when his thought process i t. brillant.
l There are days when he acts like an idiot. And, you never know which i person you are dealing with. I could go into a lot of examples wher. George and Grady disagreed but there is not need. I would point out ' !. a t
, for years Southern had been trying to tell Georgia how to do its busin."-
{ .. .- -. - - - . - - .
Mr. Miller would not let that happen and Mr. Miller and Georuu llend were on the same side. After Mr. Miller left, Grady tried to get un Nr. . Addison's good. side by agreeing to everything Southern Services wanted to ! do. George disagreed but Southern is gradually taking over. Now, however; we are left with another poor situation. Elmer liarric is: named President of Alabamu, Bill Dahlberg at Georgia., and Allen Franklin at Southern Company Services. Each one of them is running for : Addison's Job. It appears that it is not so important that each one of . them does his present Job properly as it is that each stays un good terms ' with Mr. Addison. Southern is now run by a management council of all the CEOs. 'It is run by consensus. There are not disagreements. As a matter of' fact. .each CEO makes it his business to agree with what they think Mr. Addison wants to do. A rumor can start that Mr. Addison wants something : done and all the CEOs break their necks-to agree to it even if Mr. Addison knows nothing about it. We are in a heavily political arena here and ' right means little. ; i Into this situation enter one R. Patrick Mcdonald. This atmosphere ic made.for him; he excels in'it. He is either 61 or 62, knows he is not going further in the Company, has retirement from the Navy, makes goo <l money, and recognizes a vacuum in the leadership of the Company, lie does i what he wants to do, regardless of what any one else says, explains it ' without sticking to the truth, and, in general, is enjoying life. !!e sets ' along very well with Mr. Farley partly because he lies to Farley and ; partly because Mr. Farley hates Georgia Power Company. Pat-can.get away with anything by badnouthing Georgia Power. Farley is Executive Vice , President of Southern for Nuclear and reports to Mr. Addison. l When the-decision was made to bring Put into Georgia Power ;he is Executive Vice President of Georgia Power and Alabama Power) and to move our nuclear operations group to Birmingham, I decided after my experiences > with him to not go. I went to Grady and told him that.1 didn't want to go : and I recommended that we establish a contract administration group to i protect Georgia Power - - not to manage SONOPC0 - - but to advise GPC's ! senior management on how our performance was. Grady agreed to that and ! said he would talk.to Dahlberg. I specifically remember him saying thnt ' whoever got the Job as General Manager of his group would have a tough ) time'trying to' deal with Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald. (Incidentally, everyone in senior management at Georgia Power that I have t alked t o: l George Head, Grady, Elmer, Dwight Evans, and I have been t*old Dahlberg 1 hates Pat Mcdonald. They think he is bordering on crur.y, and he ducan't tell the truth). .
~Grady took his proposal to Dnhlberg and at some point Grady .ind Geosd>
Head talked to Dahlberg. They decided we did need such a group and it would be reporting to George Head. Dahlberg asked George who would head the group and George told his me. He said I was the only one in the Company left with nuclear experience, except George. I was given the job on December 27. A copy of Dah11.ere'c memo announcing the promotion is enclosed. Prior to the memo going out, G e m ,,p asked me how I would structure the group. A cot'y of n.y memo to Goore- a that subject is also enclosed.
,.w-o , , - . - . - , . . , . . . . . _ . . , - . , - . + - - - .
_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ .___________._.m_. i Early in January , Pat Mcdonald came over to Georgin Power and told mu , to do something. I told him I would be glad to but that I needed to inform George' Head since I now worked for him. Pat went livid. He asked , what I was talking about and I went and got a copy of the meno for him.- He got very made and said he opposed the creation of such'a group. He said when the time'came for such a group, he would set up .the group, .; decide what it would do, and he would pick the head of-it. !!e said he would not have any of this. I reported this to George, j From January until the end of April when George retired, I worked as well as I could to do the job assigned to me.by the President. l Unfortunately, Pat Mcdonald would not cooperate and would not let his . People in Birminghan cooperate. I'will not go into details'except to say that Pat has refused to let his people in Birmingham even talk to me. During this period, I told George we needed help from Dahlberg. I must have requested a meeting with Dahlberg 50 times. George asked for ! many, many meetings. He had maybe 4 or 5. Each time, Dahlberg would say ; he supported us, wanted us to do our job, and was behind us. But, hu did ! nothing. Pat still would not cooperate. Finally, George asked me to call l Mcdonald and set up.a meeting between Mcdonald, Head, and me. Mcdonald l would not set up the meeting, j i Then George announced he was retiring. Dahlberg asked him-to j reconsider and remain with GPC but George refused. One of the reasons l
-George refused was that he felt we did not have a leader at Georgia Power i and that Bill would not make a decision and would not stand up for Georgia l Power. t
- Throughout all of this, I have continued to remind people that Pat Mcdonald reported to Bill Dahlberg and,-by NRC regulations, had better. I !
told Grady, George, Dwight Evans (EVP of External Affairu .ind a gomi l friend of Dahlberg's), Chuck Whitney (Asst to Dahlberg;, F rini Wi11iamn 'YP , of Bulk Power), and the attorneys that I thought'we had a probica. I told , them that, in ny. opinion, Pat Mcdonald worked-only for Joe Farley, now EVp ! of The Southern Company, and if that were true we were in violation of our ~ license and'the NRC could shut our plants down. Several people shared my i concern but would not agree or disagree. George llend agreed. Fred Williams said all we had to do was show the NRC the organization chart. I said Fred that won't cut it. ; I talked to the lawyers. They were concerned and even went so far as to tell Hairston that if he were ever asked who he reported to he was to say Mcdonald who reports to Dahlberg. For the license on 1:n i t 2 at Vogtle, the people were coached as to how to answer that question. Finally, George has decided to retire and he went to Dahlberc :ind it , there was one matter he wanted to get settled before he retired and that t was our relationship with SONOPCO. Dahlberg respondeil t hat he knew ther" < was a problem and he was going to meet with Farley and see if Ihey coul ' - straighten it out. . When George told me that, I said something l i li e if Mcdonald report to Dahlberg why in the hell can't Bill just tell him what to do and why does Bill have to go and straighten it out with Joe Farley' George said, "Well, I guess we have just got the answer as to who Me!No.i < really reports to." George also said that Dahlberg i.d it wau . .m s " ,
- af +4 . far nnblhara in talk to Mcdonald.
r y _ . - - - - - -. __ -- .
.- - . . ~ . . - - -
i i i ~ When we learned that Grady and Dahlberg were coing to meet with j Farley, I told George that they shouldn't go talk to Farley without j talking to him and me first about what problems we were huving. He aareed and tried to set up a meeting with Dahlberg. Dahlberg wouldn't meet with i l l
- us . -
j About this time, I was going up to George Head's office on the 21th
- floor and the Executive Vice President for External Affairs saw me and we j starting talking. His name is Dwight Evens and he is pretty close to i Dahlberg. Dwight said that if he were me he would start looking for l another job in the company because he had heard'that Mcdonald and Farley were out to get me fired or out of the job i was in.
! I reported this to George and he said we had to talk to Dahlberg and- ! Grady before they met with Farley. He tried but failed. He then l suggested that I might go to Grady and tell him what we had heard and what . our concerns were and try to get a meeting with Grady and Dahlberg. I ! went to see Grady and asked for a meeting. He said it was not necessary.
- I said something like Grady, the rumor is going around that Mcdonald and
- Farley are after my job. Won't you at least talk to George and me? Ile 1
jumped up from his chair, threw his arms up high, laughed and continuing i to laugh said, " Hobby, what can I say?" And, he then walked out of the
- - room.
i ! I told George. He got mad and said he was leaving the Company, wanteel ! to get away from those people, and he basically apologized that the } Company did not have a backbone and would not stand up for what was right. i He said we did not have anyone in senior management at GPC " worth a shit" ! . and that Mcdonald would win because no one at GPC would dare tackle I Farley. i j About the same time. I got a call from Fred Williams, VP uf Dulk . Power. He is the guy that really deals with most with the joint owners. ! He said he had been asked by Dahlberg and Grady to go to Birmingham to s.". l if we could work out the problems between SONOPCO, GPC, and the joint owners. 'He asked me to write down the major problems I had in dealing l with Mcdonald. He said he would not show it to Mcdonald but he would gise it to Grady and Dahlberg for their meeting with Farley. I wrote the meno (which is enclosed) and before giving it to Fred I showed it George Head.' George agreed with the meno and felt so strongly about what I had said, he said he wanted to sign the meno with me. I have. the original meno at home with my and George's signature. I took the memo to Fred Williams. He read it. He told me to destroy the memo because we did not want something like that in our files. He said the joint owners ! . had been fussing about Mcdonald and who Mcdonald reported tu and he r. aid
'that my meno showed that Mcdonald reported to Farley and we cueld not have i this meno in our files because it would prove Oglethorpe's argument.
I told Fred that this was a regulatory concern. 7 told him that the j 4 - way he reacted indicated that we did have a problem and that we ought to fix the problem before we got into trouble with the NRC. I told him we ~ ought to concentrate on fixing the problem not worrying about some memo. I further said.if he did not have a problem, then the memo meant nothing. l
9 It only meant something if Mcdonald did not actually report to Dahlberg but to Farley. I told him I thought we were going to get in trouble with the NRC. 'He said there was not a probles that if the NRC ever asked about the issue we would.Just show them an organization chart. Then he r. aid. , you must destroy this meno. He also said he was going to keep a copy of ) the meno but he would not keep it and he would not let Grady and Dahlberu ' see it. It was because of that that I went to see George and later to s.. Grady. I talked to George and we agreed that I would not destroy the memo. I ! do not have a copy at the office. I do elsewhere. ; In my conversation with Fred Williams, I asked his why Dahlberg just didn't tell Pat Mcdonald what to do and the whole issue would be behind us. He said Bill did not have the clout to do that. He suid Mcdonald was very close to Farley and if Bill gave Pat Mcdonald an order and Parley did , not' agree with it, the matter could wind up before Fd Addison. I asked l well, doesn't Dahlberg have enough clout with Addison to win the argument. Fred said that wasn't the issue. He said Addison did not hate ; enough clout to tell Farley what to do. He said the Southern Board was ! divided and that Addison did not have enough votes to do something if l Farley disagreed and that Farley did not have enough votes if Addison ! disagreed. He said the Southern Board is at a stalemate and.we have tu ! aske do the best we can. And, the one thin's Dahlberg could not afford to ; do was raise an issue between Dahlberg and Farley that would require r Addison to make a decision because, if push came to shove, Addison was not ! guaranteed that the Board would support him over Farley. Therefore, nu ; major disagreements were to be brought to Addison. [ Bottom line: Dahlberg wants to replace Addison. Dahlberg is not f going to make something an issue that will require Addison to decide ; between Dahlberg and Farley. No one is ig control at Southern - .it is a l shared responsibility. Farley can do what he likes. Farley lets Mcdonald do what he likes. And,'nobody can stop him. I shared what Fred told me with Paul Rice and Paul said that was ! pretty such the truth. He said Addison is working to gain a majority of l
. the Board's support but he does not have it now. ;
After George retired, Kerry Adams, who knows nothing about nuclear, was named to replace him. Grady told him he was not sure who I would i eventually wind up reporting to, but that I was to hire no' new people. I believe that.the outcome will be that my Job will be greatly reduced including a reduction in pay and I will be asked to report to Frod . Williams. Or, I could be asked to resign. I don't know. But, I do know ! this, I have tried to do a good job and have been prohibited from duang my job by Pat Mcdonald. I got excellent support from George H*ad. I have received no support - - except lip service - - from Grady or Dahlberg. 1 Everybody is protecting their own position in the company.
- r I don't know what will happen. It is my opinion that GPC and Alab.m Power Company are in violation of our NRC licenses. Mcdonald repur's Joe Farley, I don't care what the organlaation chart nays. I have poin' l out over and over to aunagement that I w u a. .ancerned that we we r<-
?
. 1 6L i
violating Federal law. But, the answer is time and time again. "We'll ; show them an organization chert." Maybe you and I can talk about this on Sunday, i i l i l 4 l
'l i
6 T
i 2268 ! 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t 3 ++ +++ ; 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ; 5 HEARING 6 -------------------------------X 7 In the matter of: : 50-424-OLA-3 , i 8 GEORGIA POWER. COMPANY, 31 i : 50-425-OLA-3 , 9 : Re: License Amendment ; i 10 (Vogtle Electric. Generating : (transfer to , 11 Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) : Southern Nuclear) ! 12 : ASLBP No. l t 13 -------------------------------X 93-671-01-OLA-3 14 Wednesday, January 11, 1995 ; 15 Hearing Room T 3B45 ! i 16 Two White Flint North : i 17 11545 Rockville Pike {
?
18' Rockville, Maryland
~
19 The'above-entitled matter came on for hearing, i 20' pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. 21 BEFORE: 22- PETER B. BLOCH Chairman ~ ; 1 23 JAMES'H. CARPENTER Administrative Judge 1 24 THOMAS D. MURPHY Administrative Judge ' 25 NEAL R. GROSS COUnf MEPORTERS AND TRANSCRSEm3 1333 mM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W (30W 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (308 N
226d , 1 APPEARANCES: 2 t 3 On behalf of the NRC: 4 5 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ. 6 JOHN HULL, ESQ. 7 MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ. 8 of: Office of the General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 l 11 (301) 504-1589 12 13 On behalf of the Licensee: 14 l l l 15 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR., ESQ ' 16 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ. 17 of: Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 18 2300 N Street, N.W. l 19 Washington, D.C. 20037 i 20 (202) 663-8474 21 22 l l 23 I 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCASERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234 4433 WASN6NGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234 6433
227C 1 APPEARANCES:(cont.) 2 JAMES E. JOINER, ESO. 3 JOHN LAMBERSKI, ESQ. 4 of: Troutman Sanders 5 Nationsbank Plaza, Suite 5200 6 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 8 (404) 885-3360 9 10 On behalf of the Intervenor: 11 12 MICHAEL D. KOHN, ESQ. 13 STEPHEN M. KOHN, ESQ. 14 MARY JANE WILMOTH, ESQ. 15 of: Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. 16 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington, D.C. 20001 18 (202) 234-4663 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS , COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENtK. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
2273 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3 Marvin Hobby 2273 2317 2388 2374 2273 ; 4 2274 2321 2392 2378 2275 ; 5 2276 2328 2393 2275 I 6 2281 2331 228C : 7 2288 2334 2283 8 2306 2336 2284 9 2340 229C . 10 2350 2295 11 2353 2303 ' 12 2359 231C 13 2365 2321 14 2327
)
15 2330 16 .2333 17 2339 18 2352 19 2353 20 2357 21 237? 22 2382 23 2392 24' ! 25 NEAL R. GROSS ; , COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS l t323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (204 2344433 j
- - - - . . . - - . - - . - _. - .. ~- -- - - .. - . - - .-
2325 1 as to whether it's a few words or a whole sentence, or 2 anything like that? 3 THE WITNESS: I think it's -- I think it's- ; 4 pretty close to what was written, because I was told , 5 basically what-to write. j 6 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) I 7 BY MR. WITHROW: l 8 Q Maybe I can refresh your recollection on this, 9 Mr. Hobby, by referring to your Department of Labor 10 testimony. 11 Do you want to see this, Michael? 12 You remember testifying in'your case, I'm 13 sure, and being examined by Mr. Joiner? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And do you recall this question by Mr. Joiner, 16 "And I believe you testified this morning that you wrote 17 that memo that Mr. Dahlberg signed dated December 27, i 18 1988, setting up the Nuclear Operations Contract 19 Administration group, correct?" And you answered, "I 20 did." 21 A Yeah. 22 Q And the next question, "And so you wrote the 23 language about how that group would be interfaced with the 24 SONOPCO project, correct?" And you answered, "I wrote the 25 language, gave it to Mr. Head, who approved it, and sent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRaSERS 8333 RMODE JSLAND AVENUE. N W. (som 2344e33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (205 2344433
l 233C 1 it to Mr. Dahlbarg, who signsd it." .W20.that your 2 testimony, sir?
)
3 A I -- you've got it in front of you. -I accept ] 4 that. 5 Q Okay. And that was accurate and truthful 6 testimony at the time you gave it, was it not? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And, Mr. Hobby,,if I understand your testimony l 9 in the proceeding, it is your position that Mr. Mcdonald : 10 was receiving management direction from Mr. Farley with 11 respect to the operation of Plant Vogtle. Is that ; 12 . correct? 13 A I hate to -- would you -- wculd you ask that l 14 again? { l 15 Q Sure. 16 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: I missed it, so please do. 17 BY MR. WITHROW: ' 18 Q Okay. Your position is that Mr. Mcdonald 19 received management direction from Mr. Farley with respect i 20 to the operation of Plant Vogtle. Is that correct? i 21 A I would -- I would state it a little 22 differently. I believe that Mr. Mcdonald was receiving 23 management direction. As Executive Vice President of 24 Georgia Power Company, he was receiving management 25 direction from people other than Mr. Dahlberg. NEAL R.' GROSS
, COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(3 4 3444433 WASMNGTON D C. 20006 (3 4 3344433
i
+
I II. The Timing Of The Decision To Eliminate Hobby's Job And Who Made That l Decision I Mr. Kohn accuses GPC of making a material false statement when George Hairston ! stated the following: l Fred Williams, after reviewing Mr. Hobby's organization, recommended to his boss, Mr. Dwight Evans, that the position of Mr. Hobby be eliminated because it was unnecessary. Mr. Evans agreed, and on December the 29th, l 1989, the proposed elimination of the position was presented to the l management council. No one disagreed with Mr. Williams' recommendation. l
. (Conference Tr. at 19-20). From this statement, Mr. Kohn accuses GPC of misrepresenting the timing of the decision to eliminate Hobby's position and who made that decision. Mr.
~ Kohn also accuses GPC of misleading NRC staff regarding Grady Baker's testimony on the timing of and basis for that decision. (Response at 20-21). Contrary to Mr. Kohn's
- accusations, GPC made no such misrepresentations or misleading statements. l l
- 1. The Timine Of The Decision
[ Significantly, Mr. Kohn's selective quotation from the Enforcement Conference I ignores the description by Williams of how the decision evolved to eliminate Mr. Hobby's j position. (Response at 20-23). Mr. Williams' description occurs immediately following Mr. Hairston's statement and makes clear that during the fall of 1989, Williams spoke to Hobby, l the entire NOCA group and Dwight Evans regarding the condnued need for NOCA. (Conference Tr. at 21-22). Williams' description of the timing of the recommendation he made to Dwight Evans is consistent with his DOL testimony as well as the testimony of Dwight Evans. (Tr. at 369, 372, 388-89, 411-12, 467-68). Moreover, both Tom Boren and Dwight Evans testified that
. . .m. ._ . _m -.-, .__ _ - . - . ,-
i I l f the decision to eliminate Hobby's General Manager position was communicated to the i Management Council on December 29,1989. (Tr. at 389-91,482-83). I Although Dahlberg and Baker repeatedly testified they could not recall the specific I date of the Management Council meeting in which the elimination of Hobby's job was discussed, both testified that Hobby was discussed in two separate Management Council meetings, the first in which Hobby's potential for future advancement was discussed and the second when the elimination of Hobby's position was discussed.' (Tr. at 312-13, 344, 346-47, 354-55, 482-83, 491-92, 679-80, 701-05, 710). l i 4 t
'/ In quoting Baker's testimony at page 22 of the Response, Mr. Kohn supplies in j brackets the date of November 7,1989, creating the impression that Baker testified the decision to eliminate Hobby's position was communicated to the Management Council on that date. Baker's entire testimony reveals that Baker had no recollection of the specific date of ;
either Management Council meeting. At page 680 of the DOL hearing transcript, Baker was ! asked if he remembered the date of the meetmg where the announcement that Hobby's job l
.m to be eliminated was made, and Baker testified: "I don't remember the date . . . ;
[p]robably late last year, November or December somewhere around there." At pages 701
. and 702, Baker was asked if he knew when the " final formal decision was made to eliminate
. . . Hobby's job," and he testifed that while he was at the meeting where that decision was ,
announced," I don't remember the date of that meeting." At page 704, when confronted with Evans' testimony that the elimination decision was announced at a meeting on December { 29, Baker again stated: " . . . I've testifed several times that I don't remember the date of j this meeting" and disagreed with Kohn's attempt to assert that this announcement " happened l a lot earlier than that December 29th meeting." Indeed, Baker stated, "I do not have an l independent recollection of the date of the meeting, period." There can be no question, after i a complete review of Baker's testimony, that he simply did not know when the meeting in ! which the announcement that Hobby's job was to be eliminated was made. Mr. Kohn's l attempt to insert a definite date in connection with Baker's testimony is a mischaracterization ( of the record. i i
)
. i
- 2. Who Made The Decision Based upon his accusations regarding the timing of the decision to eliminate Hobby's position, Mr. Kohn accuses CPC of misrepresenting who made that decision. In this regard, the DOL record is abundantly clear that the decision was made by Williams and Evans. (Tr.
at 312, 369, 372, 388-89, 411-12, 467-68, 485). Consequently, Mr. Kohn's suggestion that Hairston's statement (that Williams and Evans made the decision to eliminate Hobby's position) is a misrepresentation, is unfounded. e 0
i I i l l In The Matter Of: \ ! IN THE MATTER OFMARVIN B. HOBBY v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
~
I l ! PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE October 4,1995 i BROWN REPCRTING, INC. ATIANTA, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON ROME 1100 SPRING STREET ' SUITE 750 ATIANTA, GA USA 30309 (404) 876-8979 or (800) 637-0293 OrtmalFile 1004bobb.asc. $2 Pager Mks-U.Senpt@ File ID:1456496487 Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripte O nrsngnnt 2
1- i ' IN THE MATI'ER OF MARVIN B. HOBBY v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY PREDECISIONAL ENFO. CEMENT CONFERENCE - h c.1M5 i MR. HAIR 5tcN (cent'd.y The chrono ogy which I'd like to go e.,.a P.,. n r through hns the masor events covered by the in illegally chmmated his posioon as the results of r Department of Labor record.These events occurred m concerns that he raised in an April the 2*th 1989. m memorandum to Fred Wilhamt c over five years ago.and a bnef review is helptut pi r In transrernns the Georgia Power nuclear 1 would like us to review that memo or e employees to Birmmgham m 1988.Mr. Hobby turned m parts of that memo today because it s arnportam to
- i down an opporturuty to be considered for a m actually see the sr=*=== :::ade in the lettar to
;si posioon.In late 1933.Mr. Grady FM of Georgia ' m understand its tone and content.
ini On page 7 is the concern which as the m Power Company outade the nucleu : nam of command om for the prenous six months. performed an armual pi baans of Mr. Hobby's acason against Georgia Power p9 evaluauon of Mr. Hobby.A copy is mcluded m the ing Company.1 have an overlay of that and if you en handout supphed to you. ipq would.1 would ask you to read the em Mr. Baker noted that Mr. Hobby's !ng nem to<he bottom paragraph.the one that starts sq strengths were m the nucleararea.Marvm's
.ps wah "a **y"'Ae" concern."
og psi knowledge of the - and this is in quotes, in May and June of 1999. Bill Dahlberg, nei "Marvm s knowledge of the nanonal nuclear ing tt's then presidem and CIO of Georgis Power Company, on mdustry is unsurpassed?The evaluation also noted !pe was reconsiderms the need for Mr. Hobby's NOC "et Mr. Hobby had developrneness needs to broaden his 'pM group. He met with Joe Farley and Grady Baker to '
- + knowledge m Georgia Power s general operatzons.Of om discuss the ongoms negousuons wuh Oglethorpe re course.by thu time.the corporate nucicar om Power.At this mecang. Concern was expressed that
- rn orynnivanan was m Bi'-M que NOCA was unnecessary.A request was made at that mm On Decemberthe 27th.1988,oniv a few los tune forthe SONOPCO protect to employ Mr. Hobby i
ran weeks after nucacar operanons began to report to me Mr.Dahlberg concurred wah a freeze on the NOCA rag him.Mr. Bill Dahlberg approved the formauon of a un 3 oup hiring any further employees.The need for ras Nuclear Operanons ContractW lise NOCA was uncertam. _=nen group.A lpe I Fred Wiuisens was in charge of contracts i i page 17
- i in copy of Mr.Dahlberg s memo of that date is metoded Pass is !
m m your package.Marvm Hobby became the general i in ;,gr.ae the coewners.meluding Oglethorpe and { m managerof this NOCA get up.as et was called.He m Georgia Power at this ume. He Icarned dunns 1999 w received a two. level meresse m posioon.He had m that Mr. Hobby's group would begm repomas to him - ' m three employees.two serving as financial annivsts ' pi effecuve January the ist.1990.He began a review o and one secretsrv. reporting to harra when the group m process to determme how Mr. Hobby s group would fit
- was tirst started. m into his exisung cryanaranan.What otd NOCA do?
i m Oglethorpe Power comorsoon.as most of m What was the level of acuvuv? These are some of y you know.is a co owner of a mapor poruon of Plant i ni the quesuons he began to ask Mr. Hobby and his
. I pi staff. j na Vogtie and Plant Hatch.In addnion.Oslethorpe an owns a poruon of some of the coAred plants on the jpg ladependem of these actry nes.Georges em Georgia system.Dunns late 1988 and into 1989. og Power smanagememcouncilmembersmetonNovember '
psi Georgia Powerand Oglethorpe were *= E-3 pg the 7th.1999,to evaluate the p..A,ia-oce and og funare advanetenear potennal of many highlevel l pq negouatmg the relauonship which the planned I ps Southern NucicarOpenmng Company would have wnh
- og managers and oiscers. includes Mr. Hobby. Fred na the coowners pg WBussos was not in merendance nor was Mr. Pat on On Apnt the 26th.1999.Mr. Hobby pg M,_rw.u Mr.Grady Baker, who had last reviewed 4
pa forwarded a request of Oglethorpe to Fred Wilhams on Mr. Hobby in late 1908, was present.So was pa to explam the repomag structure of Georgia Power pg Mr.D-W,. ' og la terms of p A . ia.three of the ten Company and how Mr. joe Farley, an officer of i an Southern Company m Barmingham. As into the as reviewers gave Mr. Hobby the lowest poemble og raung.Four rated him about average.and onc ma picture.Mr.Wilhams parvided that explananon on ! su May the 15th.1939.Copees of the request and the as person rated hism below everage.In terms of Anure tag response of Mr.Wuliams are taetaded in your as potennalforadynacennent everyonerasedhimas ran package.Mr. Hobby claims that Georgia Power se having no further pa**=nal iss FredWlutama,after;.. . , BROWN REPORI1NG,INC (404) 376 8979 BElm.rng (1) Page 16 - Page 19 l
! PREDEC2SIONAL ENFORNRNT CONFERENCE IN TIIE MATER OF MARVINIL HOBBY v. I October 4.1995 GEORGIA POM CNN 5 Pege ao i i Pege 22 ry Mr. Hobby s organizauon. recommended to his boss. l . in tasks.There was no opesacons contract ki-.a m Mr. Dwight Evans.that the posanon of Mr. Hobby be ' ) i m Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power to admeanmer ! pi chmmated because it was unnecessary.Mr. Evans l : p1 viewed my co owner responsibilaues as includag any ; wi agreed.ano on December the 29th.1989.the proposed i pl such contract.In fact.1 am the Cher of the ' isi chmmanon of the possuon was presented to the j m management couned.No one disagreed with ; ist nuclear manasms board of the co owners today.The
- i m oPeranons conunct between Geossas Power and m Mr. Williams recommeridation-
! m i m Southern Nuclear isn't in place even yet.and that' I would like to have Mr.Wilhams expiam , ! m to you the reasons for his recommendanan. Fred? m would have been the conunct that the NOCA group l pm MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.Geoege. m would have.been adme==*rsag when at was set up. pg in the fallof1989.1 made my views of l pq I think 1*ll read this statement.and - j pn Marvm's group known to Marvm himself and to any pn maybe we can answer quesuons later.That wdl make l l los boss. Dwight Evans.In addition.1 could not see pa sure I've covered everything l l pai ina any reason in pamcular at the time we wese From 1984 through the present.1 have l [ ipe downssaang the company for a general manager pe been the Georgia Power Company ofacer responsible l } pe for ademrustranon of contracts Ms-;s Georgia tog posmon to oversee the smup a respoa==h l pn Power Company and other tomt owners of Plants lusi in snaking my decision to absorb the group
- pn uno my area and to recommend the ehmmatian of ioi Vogtle and Hatch.These contracts also include I ,pm Marem's generalmanagers possuon.has performance ne Cofired Plant Scherer and CoAred Plant Wansley and f . psi was not a factor m that deliberanon.In fact.!
2m a gomtly owned transmission system here in the } iro state of Georgia.so the relanonship Li- sthe se discussed vnth Marem whether he would consider ! ipn other job prospects within two levels of his current
- co. owners m 1989 was much broader than gust whether j !an position of the 20 and the possibility of izsi the co owners would agree to the formanon of the iam tra;.L.
- to Georgsa Power's nuclest smup in pq Southern Nuclear Company and the transfer of ing Birmagham if he wanted to stay m the nuclear l psi operaung license authorny to Southern Nuclear.
ins area.Marvm's background was in nuclear,and his i Pega 21 l Page 23 ni There were many commeraalissues at the time.such ! i ni best opportun nes would be there.1 should m as the agreement between Georgia Power and ) rsi Oglethorpe Power which govemed Georgia's sale of i m mention.too.that at the time, when an employee j . m took a lowet level posmon.his or her salary was m partial requirements for electricav to Oglethorpe i :si and the Murucapal Group. si not automaucally cut.1: would be red circled and ; l s Because of my responsibihtaes m these m maintamed.He would sust move sto a different pay l j m scale at that ume.but hts current salary would be
; areas and Mr. Hobby s assagaments in 1989.1 had I m mamtamed.
m contact with Marvin throughout that year.meluding ia Marvin was not truerested in other m negousuons on a draft nuclear managing board
,e agreement between the co. owners m posanons within the company outside of nuclear or ut- 'Mamn began repomag to me effectree . poi m the Southern Nucicar protect m Birmmgham, so at pg that ume.we began discusems voluntary
,ri january 1.1990. Even before that date.1 began to
- pa outplacement packages.These packages were not isi review the need for Marvin's contract admmiarracon in group.In my review. ! rnet wnh Mamn and his insi uncommon for impacted - and that's the word we gave ing to employees whose jobs were ehmmated at that ist staff to determme what tasks they were performing.
$pe time - we had a considevable amount of these -
im The group consisted at that time of Mamn and two ipe unpacted = mangers and ofScers.Although I had en much lower level posioons filled by employees with jpn never desh with negonating one.Mamn was very im an accountmg or Anancial type background and a
'e secretary ipe recepave to this idea.and we began to talk soi :pe Anancial Agures.When I gave him speciAc After talking with Mamn's group for w hours and so..iw. the tasks which they were nam approved figures,he was dissatisAed and called the za peimi .pq former ;,; 4.wi of Georgia Power.Mr. jim Miller.
g and a November 1989 memo which set out n their actmacs that I had requested be prepared.1 inn At that ume.1 beheve Mr. Miller was still on the ao concluded that there was not a legemata need for a ipsi board of directors of Georgan Power Company. tog h was at that point that Mr. Tom Boren, asi separate group wuhin Georgis Power to pa*m these ina our SennorVP of Human Resources, got involved wah Page 20 Page 25 (s). BEin U 4cripes BROWN REPOR11NG,INC. (404) 8%897
4 4e4 4$+., h n A es 46.ms. >4maok m4--4 man 4 am- .-Ai--e 4,6e M 4ko- = A-,-~~ 16W4M sA. - A Gdew - Ahs &4A-,es-'- e a-- $44-^-J M 4- AA A .,6 A4 1 2
\
e l
Page 272 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARVIN B. HOBBY, a Complainant, a 2DLHHK H vs. Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent. : I Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournannt, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WIIIIANS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney,. DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainart. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashoore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810 i Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. l
Page 2 1 EDEX r WITNESSES: DIRECT fjE11 REDIRECT RECROSS Marvin B. Hobby 44 219 -- -- EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant'st i Nos. 1 thru 21 l Premarked 10 I Nos. 23 thru 25 Premarked 10 Nos. 27 thru 35 , Premarked 10 Respondent's: Nos. 1 thru 10 Premarked 12 No. 19 - Letter 5/1/89 254 256 ( e er 8 1 I l l ! 1 9 e 9 e
7. Page 273 1ERIX WITNESSES: DIEECI CJE2E1 REDIRECT RECROSS Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 - Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 - Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- - Fred D. Williams 399 440 -- - Thomas G. Boren 475 501 508 - Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- - EZEIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Ccumplainant's : ' ( Nos. 36 & 36-A - Dahlberg Calendar 350 352 Nos. 37 & 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 Joint No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398 e i i
.. . . - . - - = . -__ .
Page 543 IE21X WITNESSES: DIRECT CRQSE REDIRECT RECROSS ' E. P. (Dennis) Wilkinson 544 557 -- -- Joseph M. Farley 564 579 -- - R. P. Mcdonald 601 619 -- - George F. Head 643 658 -- -- > H. G. Baker 678 690 705 709 EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: No. 38 - Wilkinson bio 548 548 I ' i i I
- l
i I i, i Page 312
- l' type things, and in effect the SONOPCO project does that l
2 themselves, and it would have been a duplication of that i 3 function that they now perform. i 4 Q. At the time you issued this memorandum at Tab 2 of i 5 Exhibit R-18, when did you expect to receive SEC approval and ' 6 to incorporate SONOPCO7 4 i i 7 A. Well, again I thought it n uld be a matter of ! 8 months. 1 4 9 } Q. Going now, Mr. Dahlberg, to a point in time in 10 1989, who was responsible for recosusending that the position. i l 11 of general manager of nuclear operations contract i 12 adatinistration be eliminated?
- 13 A.
! I would think it would have been Mr. Evans or i t 14 perhaps Mr. Williams. 15 Q. Okay. { Do you know the reasons for the decision and l 16 recommendat' ion that the position of general manager be 17 eliminated? 18 A. Yes. There was not a function to be performed. 19 There was no contract, and I had determined that the other 20 things that I saw could be performed by that group, that is a 21 monitoring of performance wean't necessary and that SONOP00 22 did that themselves. 23 ! The same thing happens in the fossil and hydro. I 24 don't have, for example, a separate organization that looks 25 at the performance of,that group, they do it themselves, and
! i i , i, i
- Page 313 1
there just wasn't a need for that position because there were ) 2 no functions to perform. 3 Q. Was a recosamendation to eliminate the position of 4 general manager discussed in any of the management council l 4 5 meetings in the latter part of 19897
- 6 A. I'm not sure the position itself was discussed. We i i
j 7
- discussed on several occasions the overall structure of the 8
organization, we looked more at the people that we had in 9 jobs and their performance, their potential and so forth, but { 10 I don't think we had specific discussions about altnination , 11 of positions. 12 Q. The meeting that you just referenced where i 13 particular individuals were discussed and evaluated, was that 14 meeting November 7th of 19897 15 A. I believe that's correct. i It was late in that 16 year.
~
17 We had had an earlier meeting that had only talked 18 about the senior levels in the organization, about those
. 19 people and about ourselves. This was our management council 20 group.
21 I think at the meeting you referenced we talked ( 22 about the entire organizational structure. 23 Q. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Pat Mcdonald was 24 at that meeting? . 25 A. He was not. ' i t e f
i l 1 l 1 1 Page 344 ) 1 7th? 2 A. I may have, Mr. Kohn. I really don't know if it i 3 was the 7th, 8th, 9th. i I didn't know that until I looked at 1 4 documents conting to this litigation. 5 t If you tell me it was the 7th, I'll agree to the 6 7th. It was early November of 1989. 7
)
Q. And if we told you it was the 17th, you would agree ! 8 it was the 17th? 'I' 9 MR. JOINER: Tour Honor, I don't know what the 10 relevance of this is. 11 MR. KOHN: Your Honor, the relevance is that one of 12 our contentions is that the management council -- the date 13 the management council decided to reorganize Mr. Marvin 14 Hobby's job is an essential fact to the case. 15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Why? 16 MR. KOHN Because -- 17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I mean there's been some business 18 about it being the 14th, the 17th, that these guys' calendars 19 don't show it, that this man was on vacation, that's all come 20 out in the discovery situation. I mean why does three days 21 matter? 22 MR. KOHN Well, your Honor -- 23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: There was nothing in Mr. Hobby's 24 testimony yesterday which leads me to believe that three or { 25 four days is important. a
Page 346 1 because you felt Marvin Hobby had poor performance; isn't 2 that correct? l 3 A. That is inaccurate. We did not make a i 4 determination to eliminate Mr. Hobby's job at the meeting. 5 Q. And when was that decision made? 6 A. It would have been made in -- as best I recall now 7 in early 1990. I can't tell you precisely. ! l 8 Q.
\
And during this first management council meeting, l 9 the one you now contend occurred on the 7th of November, Mr. 10 Hobby was rated as having poor performance - right? -- that l 11 was your opinion of him? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And what did you base your opinion on? 14 A. Just my overall observation about his performance 15 in those jobs that I had some knowledge about. 16 I will say this too, it wasn't a review of'Mr. I 17 Hobby, it was a review of all those personnel on the* 18 organizational structure, and we rated not only the 19 performance, but the pctential of that employee to ac te to 20 other areas of the comparty, to move up, and we rated all of 21 the officers and general managers of the company, not just 22 Mr. Hobby. 23 Q. And on November 7th you came to the conclusion that 24 by this time Marvin Hobby had poor performance and no 25 possibilities of moving up in the corporate structure; right? e
1 l Page 347 l 1 A. That's correct. 1 2 Q. And there was a May 5th meeting that you had with 3 Mr. Farley and Mr. Grady Baker; is that correct? i 4 A. I said I had a meeting with them, and I can't be 5 certain of the date, but I will accept that. 6 Q. Okay. Now, did you have a look at your calendar to 7 see if that meeting is recorded in your calendar? ; 8 A. No, sir. ! 9 Q. Okay. To this date you have not looked at your 10 calendar? 11 A. No, sir. I 12 Q. And I'm going to show you a document turned over in 13 the ecurse of discovery, it's excerpts of your calendar, and ! 14 can you tell me.what the entry is for November 7th? j 15 A. No. It's blank on mine. i 16 Q. Now -- 17 MR. JOINER: Your Honor, this -- 18 JUDGE WII.LIAMS: What do we have here? 19 MR. JOINER: I don't know exactly what this is, and 20 okryiously it doesn't have any entries on it. 21 BY MR. KOIDI: 22 Q. Now I'm going to show you another document, and I 23 have it open to the same page, and if you can tell me if 24 that's your calendar. 25 A. Let'me make sure I understood what you asked. You I
, , . , . . _ . . , , - _ . __ ~ _ - , .,
I l j i Page 354 j 1 general interest. i {
- 2 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a document that was 3
referred to earlier as the second responses to
- 4 interrogatories, and I ask you to look at interrogatory 5 Answer Number 2 which requests a list of members of the
~ !- 6 management council.
7 It doesn't list Mr. Mcdonald as a member of the 8 management council, does it? 9 A. No, it doesn't. 10 So you're telling me that the answer to this f Q. l 11 incorrogatory is incorrect? 12 A. That is correct, that is what I'm telling you, i, 13 MR. JOINER: Excuse me. 2 14 Your Honor, may I have just a moment to look at j 15 this? i 16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Do you have a copy for me? 1 17 MR. KOHN: I'n sorry, your Honor (passing 3 18 document). 1 {
, 19 BY MR. KOHN j 20 Q. I Now, during the management council meeting where 21 you knew you were going to be discussing -- Let me rephrase 22 that.
23 Did you know during the management council meeting 24 that you were going to be discussing the elimination of 25 Marvin Hobby's job?
4 l I Page 355 i i 1 A. We did not discuss the elimination of Marvin i 2 Hobby's job. I've testified to that about three times 3 already. 4 Q. No time in the management council meeting was the 5 elimination of Marvin Hobby's job or the -- 1 6 Was Marvin Hobby's job, or the elimination of 7 Marvin Hobby's job discussed in a management council meeting? t e A. m. j 9 Q. Ever? 1 10 A. I don't know if -- you know, since this litigation 11 we've probably talked about it, and we may have had scan i j 12 1 conversation about it, but at the November the 7th meeting 13 which was the subject of your inquiry we did not discuss 14 elimination of jobs. < We discussed the performance of people l l 15 in the organization. 1 1 16 Q. And was there another meeting in December, December i 17 29th of the management council? l. ! 18 A. I don't know, Mr. Kohn. You have my calendar. i 19 As I said before, we meet almost every week. One 20 week we meet for an hour just to talk about things that are j 21 going on in the company, one week we meet for roughly three 1 , 22 hours on matters of policy, the next week we meet on matters i ; ] 23 of financial consequence. 24 Occasionally we move away from the building and we l 25 discuss personnel, personnel matters, organizational 1 o
l l
'l Page 369 I i
1 with Mr. Fred Williams? g 2 A. I did later in the year. Due to a retirement of an n 3 executive I knew that there would be reorganization and Mr. d 4 Williams would begin reporting to me at the and of the year, ': 5 and there would be changes taking place, so that in late 1989 I 6 after the rate case, probably in the late October-November l 7 time frame, we began having discussions as to how we should 8 organize and proceed. 9 Q. And as of January 1, 1990 Mr. Williams would start 10 reporting to you? 11 A. That is correct.
; 12 Q. Okay. So that's the reason you were having these ;
. 13 discussions in late 1999 about the contract administration !
14 group? i ; 15 A. Yes. I i 16 Q. What was Mr. Williams' recomunendation regarding the 17 contract administration group, and in particular Mr. Hobby's , 18 position? 19 A. He concurred with my feeling that we did not need a ' 20 high level position, and that was a position that could be 21 eliminated. , 22 Q. What were his reasons for making that 23 recommendation to you as you understood 7 24 A. That in proceeding through the 1989 rate case it 25 was obvious that we were not getting information timely to l 6
1 i i } ! i i s i 1 Page 372 ; j i 1 Mcdonald's testimony in any of your meetings with Mr.
- 2 Williams or Mr. Boren?
? 3 A. No, there were not. j 4 Q. Was that proceeding, or Mr. Hobby's involvement ' in I t l 5 that proceeding a factor in the elimination of his position? !, 4 t
- 6 A. No, it was not. . I
)
- 7 Q. Now, did you relay the decision, or relate the fact I
i ] 8 i that a decision had been made about Mr. Hobby's position to } 9 the management council? l 10 1 4 A.. Yes, I did. I falt the need to eliminate three ' i il positions in my organization, two vice presidents and Mr. j 4 12 Hobby's position, and I related that information that I
- . 13 i planned to do that to the management council.
14 Q. And do you recall when that management council j 15 meeting was?
- 16 A. It was in late 1989, I believe December of 1989, or i
17 possibly early January of 1990. 1 18- Q. 1 i All right. And was there any formal vote taken by
- _ 19 the management council on this decision, or was this just 20 being provided for information?
. 21 A. It was provided for information. 22 Q. . Was there any discussion in that management council 23 meeting about this April 27th memo? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Was there any discussion about the subjects that F
Page 388 1 Q. But isn't it true that it was your understanding 2 that Mr. Hobby had contacted ~Mr. Williams about an early out 3 package and that's what initiated the conversations between 4 you and Mr. Williams to restructure the nuclear operations 5 contract administration? 6 A. That was discussed in one of our conversations. I 7- don't recall.if it was the first conversation or not, but 8 that was discussed in one of the conversations. 9 Q. Could you just read into the record from Line 11 to 10 Line 23 on Page 84 of your deposition? 11 A. Line 117 Line 11 is an answer 12 " November of '89 is when we mentioned that we would 13 begin restructuring to do some changes in the company, and , 14 when we restructure how do we need to be organized. That was , 15 the tone of the overall conversation." 16 Q. Thank you. Where did you stop reading? 17 A. (Indicates.) 18 Q. Continue to read all the way down to the end of the
, 19 page.
20 A. The question: "Okay. Was it at your request that 21 Mr. Williams was going to engage in a fact-finding mission to 22 determine whether the position was needed?" 23 Answer: "It was my understanding Mr. Hobby had 24 contacted Mr. Williams about an early out package, and that's 25 what initiated the conversation." 4
_ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . ___ ._ j i i i j Page 389 1 Q. At the time of the reorganization of SONOPCO, the 2 concept of creating the nuclear operations contract j 3 administration was so that everything could be put in place 4 in anticipation of incorporation, and the idea was'that the ] , 5 nuclear operations contract administration group would be 6 fully. functional as soon as possible? - i j 7 A. That was my understanding, but I was at Southern 8 Company Services at that time and was not involved in any of p 9 those discussions. 1 l 10 Q. And you began speaking, or when did your l l 11 conversations about allainating Mr. Hobby's job begin with l 12 Mr. Williams? 13 A. My discussions I believe began in November of 1989 14 about eliminating the position. I believe it was in that 15 time frame. I know it was after the 1989 rate case which 16 ended in October. 17 Q. So the discussions began after the rate casa ended. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And could it have been in December? 20 A. It could have. 11 Q. After Mr. Hobby asked for an outpackage? 22 A. I believe that it was before, but I'm not -- you 23 know, I have to go back and look at my calendar and look at 24 other things. 25 I don't recall specific dates, but the time frame e '
. .. . _ . . - . . - - . . . - .-. - - --~..-.- .-.-.--
i l Page 390 1 1 was November-December time frame. ;
.2 Q. See if this helps refresh your recollection as l 1
3 to whether it was November or December, if you would read i 4 your deposition on Page 43, the last question and your ; 5 response. 6 A. Question: "When did you start discussing with Mr. 7 Williams the fact that Mr. Hobby's positiran might not be
.s needed?" i l
9 Answer: "I remember correctly it was in December l 10 of '89, in the several weeks and days leading up to Mr. l 1 11 Williams, to the reorganization that took place." 12 A. And that reorganization took place on December 29th
. 13 during a management council meeting?
14 A. I believe during the deposition you showed me a 15 calendar that had some information on it. 16 Q. And you had an' independent recollection of the.29th 17 because you were on vacation and you were specifically called 18 into that meeting? 19 A. I recall that it was in the last week of December, 20 I believe you showed me a calendar and I agreed that the 29th 21 was the date, but I could recall it was the last week of 22 December. t 23 Q. Well, in your deposition didn't the conversation go 24 more to the fact that "Do you know what day it was in 25 December?" and didn't you say "Well, I believe it was on the I 4 I
I Page 391 1 29th, because I was on vacation and I had to be called in 2 specifically to the meeting"? Did you provide me that 3 information? 4 A. The infornation I provided you was that the meeting 5 was scheduled for the last weak of December, it was scheduled 6
, two or three weeks in advance, and it was scheduled on the 7
week that I was to take vacation. 8 I was not called back in from vacation, I was 9 actually on vacation the day prior to that, and that's why I 10 recall it was the last week of December. 11 , I couldn't recall if I remembered correctly whether 12 it was the 27th, 28th or 29th, but I knew it was one of those 13 three dates. 14 Q. And then I showed you Nr. Dahlberg's calendar -- 15 A. And that's when I remembered it when you showed it 16 to me, that's when I remembered it was the 29th. 17 Q. And when Mr. Williams told you that Marvin Hobby . 18 was looking for an outpackage, or when you had other l 19 conversations with Mr. Williams about reorganizing the 20 nuclear operations contract administration, you were also 21 under the impression that there were pending job offers for 22 Hr. Hobby at the SONOPCO project? 23 A. I was under the impression that he had potential 24 jobs at SONOPCO, yes. That was my understanding. I had not 25 been directly involved.
Page 411 1 staff to consider the information that was placed in this . 2 mesm? 3 A. Yes, sir, they came to my office and we discussed
- 4 it. i t
5 Q. And can you tell the court generally what was 6 discussed in that meeting? ! 7 A. In that meeting the staff -- and Mr. Hobby was late
.8 as he said coming to the meeting -- defended essentially, I ,
9 really pressed them on "Why are you needed? If we've got l3 10 accountants already talking, and budget people already ! 11 talking to each other between here and SONOPCO, and SONOPCO 12 has staff to do this, tell me the real reason," and I really , 13 pressed as I said playing the devil's advocate as to "why are ' 14 you needed? I'm not here to eliminate you, I just need to i 15 know, I need to get in my mind fixed why this function is 16 necessary and would be necessary with SONOPCO set up," and we 17 went through these various areas explaining why they thought 18 they were necessary. i 19 Q. At what point did you make a formal recommendation 20 to your superiors about the elimination of Mr. Hobby's ' i 21 position? i 22 A. I would guess the formal recommendation, though I i 23 had had discussions before and I had given my thoughts on the 24 idea, was probably -- well, they didn't report to me until 25 January 1st, and I gave my formal reemimendation then, i 1
I i ! f I ):
- Page 412 ;
b- , l j actually went through with the process, but prior to that in ' 2 December and early November I was already informing Mr. Evans ! 3 that I did not see the need for a high level manager, or did l . 4 I see the need for a separate organization to exist to ! l 5 administer a contract if we ever got a contract. l l 6 Q. Did Mr. Evans agree or disagree with your , n { 7 conclusion? '!' 9 : l 8 A. He agreed with it.
- 9 Q. In making your decision about the elimination of i 10 Mr. Hobby's position, did you ever discuss the need for the 1
4 l 11 contract administration group or Mr. Hobby's position with a j 12 Mr. McDonaid? 1 j 13 A. No, sir. j 14 Q. Did you ever discuss those issues with Mr. Farley? 1 15 A. No, sir. 4 16 Q. Did Mr. Mcdonald or Mr. Farley ever state to you q 17 that they wanted to see Mr.. Hobby's position eliminated? 4 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. Did they ever tell you that they wanted to see Mr. 20 Hobby fired? 21 A. No, sir. 1 22 Q. Did they ever say that they wanted to see him leave 23 the company? 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. Did they ever express any opinion to you on his e
4 Page 467 1 yes. l 2 Q. And they were reporting to Mr. hdams until the 3 management council reorganized and instructed you on the 4 first of 1990, the beginning of 1990 that Mr. Hobby would 5 start reporting to you at that point? 6 A. I don't know the management council. Mr. Evans 7 called and said that he and Mr. Adams had met and talked to 8 Mr. Dahlberg and that beginning January 1st that the nuclear 9 operating contract administration group would report directly : 10 to me. 11 Q. And at the time you got that information, you had 12 already determined that you were going to eliminate Marvin 13 Hobby's job the day he started to report to you?
- 14 A. I think I had already told him that that was my 15 leaning, yes, and going to be my recosatendation. He was 16 '
aware of that. l 17 Q. Okay. So it was just a matter of needing to 18 formally transfer Mr. Hobby to you so you personally could 19 eliminste the job? Why didn't Mr. Adams just eliminate it?
' 20 A. I was not a party to that decision. I had already ,
21 been making my recommendations as to what I thought was 22 needed. , 23 I think Mr. Baker before his retirement and Mr. 24 Adams now in a discussion had all been saying at some point 25 down the road that this function, the more information that ,l
!l
)
l
Page 468 1 we were finding in these fact-finding missions and what was 2 going on in the negotiations more properly belonged in the 3 bulk power markets organization and not where it was over in 4 the povar generation area, so I think we had all been l 5 anticipating this, and Mr. Hobby knew that I thought at some 6 point, and I told him that, and he believed that too, that ha 1 7 would be reporting to me, or the nuclear operating contract 8 administration section would, yes. l] 9 Q. And you were playing an informal role about what I 10 you were going to do with nuclear operations contract 11 administration group, and you were not advising Mr. Hobby of 1 12 what you were going to do during -- 13 A. I'was being very candid with Mr. Hobby. I wasn't t 14 pulling any punches, I was telling him what I believed, and I 15 think that was the only fair thing to do, that I wasn't going ! 16 to have this, this is what I believed, and I was going to let 17 him know about it. ! 18 That's how I asked him about "Would you be ! 19 interested in a SONOPCO job or scos other job?" 20 I might point out that when it moved over, it's a 21 20 Level job now, but when it moved over it was no longer. l 22 I think probably the 20 came because as you mentioned 23 yesterday in your own direct testimony that part of that was 24 the fact that it was an assistant to a senior VP. 25 I am not a senior VP, so when it moved over there
I i i 1 4 i i ! Page 482 l t - j 1 Q. Did you do anything, Mr.'Boren, to ensure that Mr. f 2 Hobby received support in performing the duties assigned to ! 3
- 3 him in this memorandum?
i j 4 A. Yes, sir, I sure did. About this time I went down i 1 1 5 and met with one of our vice presidents, Rick Pershing. l 6 . Mr. Hobby was in the process of trying to, hire some
- j. 7 additional staff, and I approached Rick to make sure that we ,
l 8 gave Marvin one of the best people we had, because I had i j 9 concerns that Marvin was not.the kind of guy to roll up his ; j 10 sleeves and get involved in it, and I wanted to make sure we : i s j 11 did everything we could to give him the kind of person that 12 could do it that could get in there and get the job done. l 13 And Rick responded very positively with that. He e , j 14 had recommended Gerald Johnson, and that's who Mr. Hobby J 15 hired. I 16 Q. Let me direct your attention now, Mr. Baron, to the .! I l 17 management council meeting on November 7th, 1989. Did you l 18 attend that meeting? I f 19 A. I sure did. i : i 20 Q. Who else attended that meeting? 21 A. The other three senior vice presidents, Carey 1 22 Adams, Wayne Dahlke, Gene liodges; 23 Three of the four executives, Warren Jobe, Dwight : 24 Evans, John Hendrick; 25 mill Dahlberg attended, as well as the company's
Page 483 1 industrial psychologist consultant that we used, Dr. Jim l 2 Tanner. 3 Q. What was the purpose of the November 7th management 4 council meeting, Mr. Boren? { 5 A. The purpose was several things, but the primary ' 6 purpose was to look at leadership. . 7 The Southern system, of which Georgia Power is a 8 big part, was going throurth the process of looking at how do 9 we ensure that we have the right number and quantity and type 10- of leaders in the pipeline so to speak for the next decade, 11 and one of the challenges they had issued to Mr. Dahlberg was 12 to look at people that we had coming up through the ranks and 13 make sure we identified those leaders,' looked at their I 14 potential and were basically trying to develop that. I 15 I Also at that same time Mr. Dahlberg was doing some a 16 team building with us as well. 17 Q. Mr. Boren, what were the performance and potential 18 evaluations of Mr. Hobby? 19 A. Let me describe the process we went through on that 20 if you would. 21 Each of us stood up before the rest of the members 22 of the management council, and we would list the individuals 23 that reported directly to us, and then before anybody else 24 casumented on them we would sit down and identify what we 25 thought their performance was from a rating of zero to four, 1 __ __ . _ . _ 4
. . _ _ . .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ ~ . _ . _ ____.__._
Page 485 1 referring to, your Honor. 2 THE WITNESS: I can still tell you from memory. 3 JUDGE WILIIAMS: A witness is entitled to testify 4 based on his own personal memorandums or notes. I mean l 5 you're entitled to look at it if you want to look at it. l 6 If he's using something to help him recall, that's 7 permissible except that you do have the right to look at what ! 8 he's using to help him recall. 9 MR. KOMM: All right, sir. i 10 JUDGE WIIIIAMS: Continue. 11 BY MR. JOINER: l 12 Q. I believe, Mr. Boren, my pending question was 13 whether you had an occasion to discuss the decision to 14 eliminate the position of general manager of nuclear : 15 operations contract administration with Fred Williams and 16 Dwight Evans in the fall of 1989. 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Who was responsible for making that decision, Mr. I 19 Boren? ! 20 A. ! Mr. Williams was, i 21 Q. And what were the reasons as you understood them 22 for the decision to eliminate the position? 23 A. When we established the position back at the end of 24 1988 -- I believe it was the end of '88, it may have been the i 25 beginning -- we did that on the assumption that we would have i I t i i y
. . _ ~ ___._.__. _. - _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ . _ . _ _ . _
i i 1 Page 491
} 1 ! Mr. Williams was willing to keep Mr. Hobby on board as an ! 2 1
employee and assign him miscellaneous projects as he had them
- 3 for him to do between then and the end of September, so Mr.
4
. Hobby was getting basically nine months' pay plus the year's l 5 j pay spread over four years, plus the benefits. That's the i 6 1,
kind of package that we got down to then. j 7 Q.
- And how did that package compare with outplacement j 8 proposals that had been made to other similarly situated 4 9 employees?
a j 10 A. Very, very favorable. 11 Q. And what was Mr. Hobby's reaction to that proposal? 12 A. i Again, he rejected it.
; 13 Q.
t When Mr. Hobby became an impacted employee, how j 14 many other employees of the company were also on the impacted
- 15 employee list?
i j 16 A. ! During the February to April time period of this 17 year there were approximately thirteen people on the impacted 18 employee list, and during that period of time five people f 19 were placed, five people were outplaced outside the company, k- 20 ) and there are three still people on that impacted list. 21 Q. Mr. Boren, did you attend the December 29th, 1989 22 I , management council meeting? 1 23
- A. I did.
1 1 24 Q. 4 Was the decision to' eliminate the position of i 25
- gen. oral manager of nuclear contract administration discussed
, r
Page 492 1 at that management council' meeting? 2 A. Let me respond a little bit about that meeting. ' 3 The focus of that meeting, the thrust of that meeting was to 4 address, number one, this division reorganization that we 5 were talking about, over 5,200 employees that we were dealing ' 6 with and what's happening with those staffs. 7 In addition to that, we also talked a lot about our 8 union relationships and the fact that I needed a vice 9 president of labor relations, and we had never had one of 10 those before, to come in and help rebuild our relationship I i 11 with the union. 12 There were a number of other items that we had I 13 previously asked people to look at. 14 The general manager position that Mr. Hobby had 15 was on that list, and as I remember it was briefly discussed, l 16 but there was no extended discussion on it. 17 Q. And who was it that brought that information to the 18 attention of the management council if you remember? 19 A. Mr. Evans would have briefly discussed it. ! 20 Q. Okay. Let me get you to refer to the book of ; 21 documents again. ! 22 If you would look under Tab 3, that's an April 27th l 23 memorandum from Mr. Hobby to Mr. Fred Williams. Have you 24 over seen that document, Mr. Boren? 25 A. Only after Mr. Hobby left the company did I see t
__ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ . . . _ _ . O t Pago 542 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR l
- l MARVIN B. HOBBT, a Complainant, i EEDIE III vs. : Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a 1 1
Respondent. : l Courtroca 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: 1 HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN,IAttorney, DAVID K. COLAPINK , Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, i 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., i Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOIN 2R, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Trcutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. i y
! 1 i l i I l 4 i
- . Page 679 1 reporting to me.
4 1 l 2 Q. Okay. If you would, also explain how your duties 3 changed during the period of time that you held the position 4 of senior executive vice president. 5 A. Well, I had various operating functions of the ! 6 ccompany reporting to me during this period of time. I had 7 the divi.sion operations, the nuclear operations, nuclear 8 construction, generating plant construction reporting to me 9 at various times while I was the senior executive vice 10 president also. i 11 Q. When did you relinquish control over the nuclear ' 12 operations area? 1 13 A. l I don't m hr the date, but it was the date that 14 Pat Mcdonald was elected executive vice president of Georgia 15 Power Company. 16 Q. Okay. Mr. Baker, were you involved in the decision l 17 to eliminate the position of general manager of nuci. Jar 18 operations contract administration? 19 A.
- Not directly involved in the decision to eliminate 20 it.
It was reviewed with the management council, and I was
. 21 involved in that review and I concurred at that time.
22 Q. Who had the primary responsibility for that 23 decision? 24 A. I didn't inquire as to who made that decision at 25 that time. I think Fred Wi'lliams or someone else had the e 3
) Page 680 1 responsibility for that operation at that time. 2 Q. Okay. You mentioned that this decision or l 3 recommendation was discussed in a management council meeting. l 4 Do you remember when that meeting was? 5 A. I don't remember the date. It was a management 6 council meeting we held at Evergreen Conference Center in 7 Stone Mountain. 8 Q. Late in -- i 9 A. Probably late last N ar, November or December or j 10 somewhere around there. 11 Q. Do you remember what was discussed about the 12 elimination of the position? 13 A. We discussed a number of positions at that time, 14 and the major issue was whether or not the individual 15 involved could contribute to the company, as whether they had 16 the abilities and management abilities that we needed and 17 required, and those were the issues that were discussed. l 18 Q. Okay. When the recommendation to eliminate the 19 position of general manager / nuclear operations contract 20 ad=inistration was discussed, were there any discussions 21 about Mr. Hobby's April 27th, 1989 memorandum to Fred i 22 Willians? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Was there any discussion about Mr. Hobby's 25 involvement in the Fuchko/Tunker proceedings before the F 4
l Page 701 1 A. I think I testified earlier that the reason Mr. 2 Hobby was put in that job was because I had Mr. Hobby and I 3 didn't have anything else to do with him, and that was an 4 experiment to see if in fact Mr. Hobby could produce 5 something that was of value to the company. 6 Q. Now, is there any reason you would know why Mr. 7 Head would have the belief that the job was permanent? He 8 believed that the position was created with the understanding 9 it would be a permanent position. 10 A. There was nothing -- you now, there's no 11 documentation that this was a temporary job or anything of 12 that sort, but I don't take the -- I don't have the 13 understanding thTt every time you create a job at Georgia l 14 Power Company it's e'.,arnal. 15 i It's my management opinion that you should be as 16 quick to eliminate jobs as you are to make jobs. Otherwise, 17 your administrativo staff grows enormously and your expenses 18 grow enormously with them. 19 Q. But you didn't eliminate Mr, nobby's job, did you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. so -- 22 A. But some of the people who did might have been 23 influenced by me, their philosophy might have been some of my 24 philosophy. I hope that's the case. 25 Q. Okay. Now, do you know when the final formal i
Page 702 1 decision was made to eliminate Mr. Hobby's job? 2 A. No. 3 Q. You don't know? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You weren't at a meeting where that occurred? 6 A. I was at the meeting at Evergreen when the 7 situation was reviewed, as I just testified a few minutes 8 ago, but I don't remember the date of the meeting or anything 9 that -- I don't know of anything that occurred after that 10 meeting, personally directly anything that occurred after 11 that meeting. 12 Q. Now, at your deposition you were shown a document 13 that had a date on it 11/17/89; correct? 14 A. Uh-huh. - 15 Q. And from those notes you said those notes at least i 16 came from the meeting where that occurred; right? 17 A. Yes. I 18 Q. So if you assume that the document was created on 19 the17ththenthatwasthedateofthemanagemenkcouncil I ! 20 meeting? ! 21 A. I would assume that's the case. 22 Q. So it was about that time frame. Now, there's been 23 some later testimony saying that that meeting occurred on the 24 7th of November. Do you know if it occurred on the 7th or 25 the'17th7 1 1 . i r . 1
1 j' Page 703 1 A. I've testified several times that I don't remember ., 2 the date of the meeting. 3 Q. All right. Now, was it your understanding that the 4 , decision made in that management council meeting was the 5 final formal decision to remove Marvin Hobby's job? 6 A. These things are not -- ;'ou know, there is no , 7 procedure, there is no written documented procedure that says 8 how these things will be handled. 9 They're handled on a more informal basis than your 10 questions would seem to indicate that you believe. 11 We do not have a procedure that says that this 12 number of people will meet and talk and agree, and this 13 percentage will agree before this thing is done. 14 We agreed that this position as well as a number of 15 others were not contributing materially to the company an 16 that they should be eliminated. ' \ 17 Now, the people who were directly over these 18 particular positions, all of them, were the ones who had a 4 19 rearnsibility for implemen _ing the decision. They brought 1 20 the thing to us for our concurrence and agreement; if we 21 agreed, then they implemented it. 22 Q. Now, it was your understanding, or it's my 23 understanding from your deposition that at this management 24 council meeting there was the final formal decision to 25 eliminate Marvin Hobby's job was made at that management e 9
.--.-s, . _ . , , - . . _ _ _ _ _ , , , - .-, ,
1 i Page 704 l l 1 council meeting. I l 2 A. To the extent there was nobody higher to go to, you ' I; 3 know, that's the case. 4 Q. So it's your testimony that on the date of that l 5 management council meeting Marvin Hobby was eliminated from 6 Georgia Power Company, the final decision? 7 A. Not eliminated. We concurred with a recommendation I 8 that had been made, yes, and that was the final concurrence. 9 There was nobody else to get concurrence from, because all 10 the senior officers of the company were there. 11 Q. Now, Mr. Dwight Evans testified earlier that his g 12 recollection of it, and that he had a specific recollection, ; 13 was that the decision was made much later on December 29th, 14 1990. I 15 A. I have no idea what Mr. Evans has in mind. 16 Q. So it's your understanding that happened a lot ; 17 earlier than that December 29th meeting? ' i 18 No. A. I've testified several times that I don't 19 remember the date of this meeting. 20 Q. But the notes -- 21 A. ant, you know, both counsel and you have showed me 22 things, and you've asked me if this makes sense, and I have 23 agreed with you that it does make sense, but I do not have an 24 independent recollection of the date of the meeting, period. ! 25 Q. i And it's your recollection that on the management l l l o l e - + - - , e ne_..,
i l i \ Page 705 ) ! I council meeting the elimination of Marvin Hobby's job was an l 2 2 agenda item? ! 3 A. There was an agenda item to consider a number of l 4 jobs, I holieve, and his was one of those on the list to be 5 considered. 6 Q. So it had already been determined by that 7
- management council meeting that there was no place in Georgia s
8 Power for Marvin Hobby? 9 A. l I believe that's it. 10 JUDGE WIILIAMS: Wait a minute. Let me clarify 11 something here. . 12 The questions and the testimony relate to 13 eliminating the job. You're asking not eliminating the job, 14 but eliminating Mr. Hobby. I mean I'm confused. Which was 15 discussed and which decisions were made? 16 TEE WITNESS: As I recall, your Honor, the decision 17 was that Mr. Hobby could not make a significant contribution 18 to Georgia Power Company, and that we would separate Mr. 19 Hobby. 20 JUDGE WIILIAMS: All right. 21 MR. KDEN: I have no further questions, your Honor. 22 JUDGE WIILIAMS: Any redirect? 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. JOINER: 25 Q. Let me see if I can get a little clarification
~
e
Page 710 1 independent recollection of separate meetings, or is it all 2 just -- it could be one meeting? 3 A. I'm sure it was discussed at two meetings, yce 4 know, and that's all I have any recollection on. 5 I'm sorry, you know, that my answers are not useful 6 to you, but I am retired and just, you know, other than the l 7 fact that you subpoenaed me it's not a matter of a lot of 8 interest and I have not tried to r -
- it. >
9 Q. Mr. Baker, I didn't subpoena you. Did someone 10 else? 11 JUDGE WII.LIAMS: That's acadentic. 12 MR. KOHN: Okay.
)
13 BY MR. KOHN: 14 Q. Now, Mr. Baker, I'm a little confused freut the 15 testimony you've been giving, and it's my understanding.at 16 your deposition that it's your testimony that Mr. Williams 17 placed on the agenda of the management council meeting the ! 18 termination of Mr. Hobby's job front Georgia Power Company. , 19 A. You know, that may -- You know, like I said, I 20 don't reemmber. t 21 I knaw -- you know, I as testifying beyond any , , 22 shadow of a doubt that Marvin was discharged from Georgia 23 Power Company because he didn't have the ability to make any ; 24 significant contribution to Georgia Power Company, and that , 25 is the only reason he was discharged. That is my testimony. 4 9
j i. M 4
. l 4
l III. Mr. Hobby's Role Was Ill-Defined And There Was No Job Descrintion j i l Mr. Kohn characterizes Williams' statements at the Enforcement Conference l concerning Hobby's role and responsibilities as being misrepresentations. Williams' i complete statement at the Enforcement Conference on the pages excerpted by Mr. Kohn, in l response to a question from Ms. Watson, was as follows,: Sure. As far as this particular memo, I didn't tell him not to write any memo. What I explained to him was, when he brought me the memo and I read it, it was replete with errors. It was not what I had asked him to bring me, in the first place. I was trying to get an idea ofjust what they thought their role , was going to be. They're the ones that created this job. : They're the ones that were pushing and saying they were having i problems getting people to ceegi.te with them. I said, what are your defined responsibilitics? All we had was a one-sheet, Bill Dahlberg, essentially, memo saying, we're creating NOCA. ; So we asked him to say, all right Mr. Hobby, tell me what you think your functions are. Bring those to me and let me { understand what you think your role is going to be because I i think your role already exists, and so he was putting that together. l Instead, what he brought me was this, and he starts off with the first I sentence in here, there is clearly no defined person responsible acting for the l agent and joint owners. I had been doing that since 1984. I had been acting i as agent for the joint owners and all the joint-owned facilities, so that's the ; first line in the memo. He goes on to say it's his understanding, when we negotiate a new contract i with GPC and SONOPCO, that he would be the one negotiating that and act as i their agent. That was not going to happen, either. I had been the lead i negotiator negotiating Southern Nuclear and all these other contract changes we've been talking about since early '88, a year before, so here he was in an ) ill-defined role that really did not have a definitive job description. ! Other people were continuing to meet Georgia Power employees, whether ; they were in Birmingham now in the Southem Nuclear project or still in : Atlanta, meeting, talking about budget, exchange of information, accounting information, GPC's memos. He was getting concerned about that. , I i
That was what I was telling him. Marvin, there's not a defined role yet. These people, even in their memos, mentioned what do you think Mr. Hobby's position and his group should be in this? So they were even asking as to what was the purpose for this. (Conference Tr. at 44-46). As the above-quoted statement shows, Williams was describing his thought processes and reactions to Hobby's April 27,1989 memo.2 Thus, _ Williams was describing the
)
inaccuracies contained in Hobby's memo in relation to what Hobby's role was at that time. As made clear in his statement, it was Williams' view that Hobby's position was, as of April 27, 1989, ill-defined and with no definitive job description. Kohn challenges two aspects of Williams' statement as misrepresentations: 1) that ! Hobby's position had no " definitive job description"; and 2) that Hobby's role was "ill- j dermed." Although Mr. Kohn has taken Williams' words out of context, both points are well-supported by the DOL record. l i 1
- 1. No Definitive Job Descrintion i Contrary to Mr. Kohn's assertion, in April 27,1989 there was no definitive job ,
description for Mr. Hobby's position. Mr. Kohn suppons his assertion by pointing to the
]
1 l 2/ Ms. Watson's question was: In the Secretary of Labor's decision, he states that Mr. Williams admitted that he had counseled Mr. Hobby about writing memos such as the April 27th memo, and I'm just wondering if you have some comment about whether or not you told him not to write such memos or what you comments were in that regard. (Conference Tr. at 44). 2- ? l
i V { Position Questionnaire Hobby drafted. However, the Position Questionnaire was not, even j in Hobby's view, a job description. Hobby testified that the Position Questionnaire "is what l you use to determine the [ pay] level in the company, yes, sir." (Tr. at 115-16; gg CX 13).
- In addition, while the Position Questionnaire listed Hobby's job goals, a review of that j document shows that those goals for Hobby's position centered on administering a contract !
l between GPC and SONOPCO and being the liaison between two separa'.c corporations I
' i j regarding GPC's nuclear plants. (Sg CX 13). Of course, in April of 1989, there was no i contract to administer and no separate corporation to liaison with, so that the Position '
- Questionnaire had no real application to what Hobby's job or role was at that time. !
! I j The issue is not whether Hobby's job was ever described as it was theoretically
- envisioned. To Williams, the issue was whether there was anything that described Hobby's 4
l role as it had actually evolved given that SONOPCO had not been incorporated and that there a ! was no contract between GPC and SONOPCO. Thus, as Williams explained at the i j Enforcement Conference, he was trying to get Hobby's assistance in determining what Hobby's role was and perhaps should be. In that regard, Williams was explaining that there *
- was no documentation that assisted him. While Mr. Kohn does not show that Williams even i
knew about the Position Questionnaire at the time he was having these discussions with Hobby,8 the existence of the Position Questionnaire does not make Williams' point any less
'/ As Hobby explained at the DOL hearing, he worked with the personnel and salary administration departments at GPC in creating the Position Questionnaire and then provided it to George Head for approval. (Tr. at 115-16, 117). Hobby never testifed that he subsequently showed the Position Questionnaire to Williams even when Williams was asking for information on Hobby's true role. Mr. Kohn claims that Williams was present when the Position Questionnaire was introduced as an exhibit in the DOL heanng, but even if that is (continued...)
r
valid or add any clarification on what Hobby's real role in April of 1989 was or should be. (San Tr. 406-411, 414-15, 425-27, 441-47, 451, 467-69). h i I i i i r s(... continued) true, Williams' statement at the Enforcement Conference related to his conversations with Hobby in the April,1989 time frame and to Williams' knowledge at that time. ' t
._, . , _ _ . . . . . _ . , _ ~
? i 1 l. ! 2. Hobbv's Role Was Ill-Defimed l There is no doubt when NOCA was first created, contemporaneously with the , l creation of SONOPCO, there was a pretty good idea what the role of NOCA and Hobby's i I job was expected to be. However, by April of 1989, SONOPCO's incorporation had been i. j delayed, there was no contract to be administered, SONOPCO was a project and in effect a { l division of GPC, and ether organizations within GPC were doing the things that NOCA'was , j envisioned to do. This was the point Williams was making at the Enforcement Conference, !: and it is ' supported by the DOL testimony of Dahlberg, Baker, Joe Farley, Pat Mcdonald, ; Evans, Williams and Boren. (Tr. at 305, 307-08, 311-13, 315-17, 330-32, 368-70, 387-88, I i- 403, 406-12, 415, 425-27, 441-44, 446, 452-53, 467-68, 485-86, 570-71, 587-88, 597-98, ; 4 605, 609, 682). Even Hobby admitted that s'affing ) t was delayed while it was determined 0 1 how the NOCA/SONOPCO interface was going to be established. (Tr. at 119-21, 161), i { Likewise, George Head and Don Proctor testifed that, without a contract between SONOPCO a 4 and GPC there was nothing for NOCA to do, and that NOCA essentially duplicated the functions being performed by the SONOPCO project. (Tr.. at 645, 784). Of course, Judge Williams also found that, as time progressed, Hobby's role was essentially ill-defined. (Sm RDO at 43-44). a
i r In The Matter Of: INTHEMATTER OFMARVINB. HOBBY v. GEORGIA POWER COMPAhY PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE October 4,1995 BROWNREPORTING, INC. ATLANTA, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON ROME ' 1100 SPRING STREET SUITE 750 ATLANTA, GA USA 30309 (404] 876-8979 or (800) 637-0293 Ortmat File 1004bobb.asc. $2 J')nges Mbe414crspre fileID:1456496487 Word Index included with this Min-U-Shlyk nurstunnu 2
__ _. _ _ _ _ . _ ~ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. _ . _ . _ _ _ A*tur. usa.AMOl%AA. AAruna mA A Luneeste.m m an ~Aans aAAA Aask va asamm an. sam *- l October 4.1995 GEORGIA N CNM 1 Page 44 Page 46
- 1 perfected for appeal to the !Ith Circust.and that l ni dcEwive tob desenpuon.
a has taken over a year 1 don't know the czact time 6 g; (.xher people were contmumg to meet I a frame.So there is some time mvolved in perfectag ni Georgia Power employees,whether they were m
!q the appeat si B g- 9:m now in the Southern Nuclear pioiect or
;t: MR.HAIRSTON: And we re probably lookmg m stillin Atlama.meetmg.talkmg about budget. !
m at four months for tne ASLB's, msnde prubably a
, p1 exchange of informatson,accounung informauon.
m .~ o . of three to fourmonths. i m GC's memos.He was genas concerned about that. m MR.REYES:1.mda! Ipi That was what I was teuing hun.Marvm.
;si Mt. WATSON: In the Secretary oflabor's pi there's not a deAned role yet.These people, even
,a decisen.he states that Mr.Wulaams d=ned that ,
. lpg in their r'semos. meananed, what do you think
,n he had counseled Mr. Hobby about writing memos such l inn Mr. Hobby's posuson and his group should be m
,a as the April 27th memo,and I'm lust 7-=- N if inn thW So they were even asking as to what was the
,a you have some commem about whether or not you told ;pg pg.sose forthis.
19 him not to wrne such memos or what your co""*"" l nui As faras the . mi issue 7 where he )
,si were m that regard.
- ps said.1 hear at all these ddferent levels,well, se MR.Wil.LIAMS: Sure.As faras this l
, psi l'm an nNet of the company, and I haven't heard n parucular memo.1 didn't tell him not to write any {
.pn anybody say,we don't think Pat Mcdonald reports to
*si memo.What i explamed to him was.when he brought poi Biu Dahlberg.He says he hears that.1 said, si me the memo and I read it.it was replete wuh i
.pe Marym.(s just not the case.He's an ofacer of !
zm errors.it was not what I had asked him to bnns to iam Georgia Power and reports to Bill Dahlberg.The I en me.m the first place.1 was trymg to get an ides
.pn rneneyement council of the board of directors
= of just what they thought their role was going to imei appeoved the budget psocedures, and also. it's ra be.They re the ones that created this job.
;ma working the way it is.Well.1 hear Oglethorpe says me They're the ones that were pushing st and sayms
,mq that.Marvm. HM-y.you asked me about that.
ran they were havmg problems getung people to iam I gave him an orynnwenanal chart.1 said what Page 45 Pops 47 pi cooperate with them.1 sand.what are your deAned ty Oglethorpe had told me before was that they lust a responsibihues? All we had was a one-sheet.Blu
. m wanted to make sure NRC was comfortable with the mi Dahlberg, essentially, memo saymg.we're creatmg pi dual hat rule bems an ofacer of Southern Nuclear
- q NOCA.So we asked him to say.all nght.Mr. Hobby.
pi and Georgia Power and Alabama Power at that ume. T tell me what you thmk your funcuons are.Brmg
- I said.Marvm.a lot of these problems si those to me and let me understand what you thmk m vou vc got in your memo gust are not true:they re 9 your role ts gonna to be because I thank your role m not factual.1 sand. if we sned to get an si stready emsts.ana so he was pumns that
, si together. m orgamasuon hke yours off the ground.there would m be an interface between a new protect and the rest ci instead.what he brought me was this.and poi of the co. owners and us. an he starts off with the first sentence in here,there
, p ,: You know, the snemo.one. as not factual.
tri is clearty no deAned person responsable actmg for pr. I can tell you some of the things in there that are tai the agent and joint owners.1 had been doing that inn wrong now.You're complanning and you re whenmg a m smcc 1984.1 had been actag as agent for the
;pe not in the memo.Marvm.my manager stvie would be si post owners and all the pointowned facilities.so
,pm that you need to sit down wah these people and try
'ei that's the Arzt hne m the memo in .pei to work things out and not rust Are a snerno off He goes on to say it's his undeFM on accusms people and sayms thmss are amt wo king
*si when we negouste a new contract with GPC and ipe nght.You need to consider that before you send im SONOPCO. that he would be the one negouatmg that
.po this memo out.And that was my discussion wuh to and act as their agent.That was not going to 23 Marvm m a nutshell.
24 happen. enher.1 had been the lead negoussor in.; MR.URYC: So what you te saymg as that a negountang Southern Nuclear and all these other tam in reshty,the Apn! 27th memo from Mr. Hobby was. ra contract changes we ve been talking about sace ima in fact.a work product you had directed him to do. eg early '88,a year before.so here he was in an ra ill< leaned role that really did not have a ime that ben 13. Mr. Hobby, picase deAne what yotar view inn of NOCA is and what ses responema are soms Page 44. Page 47 (14) BEim.U Seripes BROWN REPORTDIG,INC. (404) 876 8979
PosiCon Questionnaire Georgia Power d POSITION TITLE General Manager Nuclear Operations Contract Administration EMPLCP(EE
- REPORT 3 TQ (POSITION TITLE)
M. B. Hobby Senior Vice President Fossil & Hydro 1 DEPARTMENT PERSON'S NAME COMPLETING PQ Nuclear Operations DEPARTMENT NQ l REVIEWED SY ( PL EE) DAT 1 oRGANLtATDONAL UNIT (VWS DERAMTMENT TITLE) AfE'. ./ l. lib 0 l APPROVED BY (IMMEDfTE SUPEMVISOM) DME Fossil & Hydro u WORK LOCATION APPROVEo BY DATE 14/333
- 1. Posmca sumuAny Descnoe the pnmary reason this poesten exists in the company. I To manage the contract for the operation of the Company's nuclear power plants including establishing performance goals, accountabilities, long range nuclear planning, and budgets; to be responsible to the Joint Owners for the operation of the Company's nuclear power plants.
- 11. POSITION REQUIREuENTS KNOWLEDGE: Ust the areas of special knowledge:(e.g.. engineenng accounting, general business theones/ practices, procedures). Indicate how they are used in this position.
Contractual obligations - understanding of contract law and the obligations of the contracting firm to Georgia Power Company and GPC's obligations to the Joint Owners, comprehensive knowledge of nuclear plant operations in regard to engineering principles, accounting, budgeting, etc. A detailed knowledge of joint agreement between the Joint Owners (OPC, MEAG, and the City of Dalton) and GPC regarding the operation of the nuclear plants. A detailed knowledge of the nuclear utility industry and of the operations of INPO and the NRC. i i l SKILLS: Ust the vanous skills needed in the position. Include technical, administrative and cloneal skills, analytical / thinking skills, wntten and oral i communication skills, managenal and interpersonal skills Also, indicate how inese skills are used in the positen. { Technical and analytical skills to determine performance trends of the C'mpany o and industry; significant managerial and interpersonal skills to maintain positive interaction with contractor (SONOPCO), other Southern Company subsidiaries and the Joint Owners of the nuclear facilities, (OPC, MEAG, and the City of Dalton). l 1 C)(- /3 1
- . . - . -_~ .-_. . - - . . - - . _ . - - . . . _ ...-_- - _ - . . . . .- .-- ..- - .
- o. .
l POsITICH TITLs EMPLCNEE General Manager N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobbv
- m. POSm0N RESPON8888UTIES List this poemon's M Responsmues in their oroer of imponance 0,2,3, etc.) indicate tne approximate percentage of tne total worn time speru annually on each . ~ : : "j.
% OF TIME MAJom RESPONSIBILmES
- 1. To manage all aspects of the contract with SONOPCO to achieve 70% .
the safe, dependable, and cost effective operation of our ! nuclear power plants.
- 2. To establish reasonable goals, accountabilities, and budgets for 30%
nuclear operations that support Georgia Power Company's Business Management Plan. l
- 3. To monitor nuclear operations to ensure performance is supportive 15% l of GPC's Business Management Plan.
l
- 4. To serve as the primary interface between Georgia Power Company 15%
and SONOPCO and between Georgia Power and Joint Owners in nuclear operation matters.
- 5. To be the primary interface with other Company functions including 10%
' top management and with the Public Service Commission on matters related to nuclear operations including budget, financial planning, prudency and performance.
0 9
Poemon rm.a EMPLOfEE Gen rcl Man:ger N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobby IV. POSITION ACfWITIES COMPLEXITY / DIVERSITY: Ust the most difficult or challenging aspects of this position. Also, if this managing a venery of setnnties or ,funcuens, p6 ease isst these management tasas. The most challenging aspect of the job involves the relationship between GPC and SONOPCO. It will be most important for this position to ensure that SON 0PCO management understands and incorporates the goals and the 1 accountabilities that GPC develops for them and that SONOPCO operates in a manner that supports the accomplishment of GPC's corporate objectives and Business Plan. ; h JUDGEMENT Budgeting Process/ DECISION-MAKING:
- Ust examp6es of the types of juegements tNs poemon toG , . .
- Approve the Nuclear Operations annual budget - annually Monitor budget - daily Plant Monitoring
- Approve annual goals - annually Monitor goals' achievement - daily information Resource
- PSC hearings on prudency - monthly Top management requests - daily Board of Directors - monthly RISK: Ust smampios of r'ek taking that may be required of this positen. (i.e., tak6ng acton w .
The primary risks are to ensure GPC's interests are protected while main-taining a professic,nal and cooperative relationship with SONOPCO. ' CREMIVITY/ INNOVATION: Ust examples of new methoes, procedures or concepts the posmon may deve Since this agreement is rather different, there will be opportunities cvailable to develop alternative budgeting methods. The uniqueness of the agreement performance also offers the chance to develop more meaningful indicators. New communicative methods could be developed to disseminate information on SONOPCO to interested parties. ; V. RESULTS OF ACTION CONTRISUT!ON: Ust the direct and/or shared responsibilities of this posson that cor(tribute The ability of this position to influence the management of SONOPCO to cperate in a manner that best meets the interest of CPC would be significant. Also, this position has the responsibility for coordinating all the cdministrative activities between the two Companies. Another area of concern would be the position's ability to determine the budget needs of SONOPCO based on operating goals _that are established through this position's direction. F MM - -- - --,
M i , . PostTioN TITLE EMPLQrEE i
- i
, General Mananer N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobbv i vi. scope , 3 Prones annu.d satietes that comer the scope one volume of inis posten. (Revenue, cusiomers, megewens. capital. O a M. contracia sic.: j , Plant Hatch 1630 MW $250 MM Operting Budget Hatch and Vogtle ,
- Plant Vogtle 2320 MW $7't MM Capital Budget Hatch and Vogtle l 1
Vit. ORGANIZATION 3 Comp 6eie the organtasten chart below. leentify the two pondens above inis positen, peer :wsnens reporting to tne immosese super. i
- voorwnager and sueoroinate poemons reporting airecify to this soonen (use tales orny).
+
l Senior Executive Vice President ) .i l Senior Vice President Fossil & Hydro j Operations 1 4
- EMPLOYEE 2
Gen. Mgr. Nuclear j Operations i" Contract Admin. l 1 1 i Senior Senior Senior . Secretary Plant Accountant f Engineer l 1 l l EXEMPT NONEXEMPT UNION CONTRACT TOTAL PERSONNEL. SUPERVISED 'l 1 3
Page 1 BEFORE THE
- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR I
MARVIN B. HOBBY, a Costplainant, a VOLUME I vs. Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent. : Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia ( Tuesday, October 23, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on.for hearing, pursuant to Notice, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney,
- Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; l Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. e l
Page 2 1EAEl WJTHESSES: DIRECT GBQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS Marvin B. Hobby 44 219 -- -- EIHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's Nos. 1 thru 21 Premarked 10 Nos. 23 thru 25 Premarked 10 i 1 Nos. 27 thru 35 g Premarked 10 i Respondent's: Nos. 1 thru 18 Prannarked 12 No. 19 - Letter 5/1/89 254 256
/ ,
i-l e
. l F
- e
J J i (' Page 273 i IERIX j WITNESSES: EIBECT CEQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS
- Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 -
- Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 --
Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- -- l Fred D. Williams 393 440 -- -- ! Thomas G. Boren 475 501 508 - t i Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- ~ i l EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED q complainant *s: ( Nos. 36 & 36-A - Dahlberg Calendar 350 352 Nos. 37 & 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 Joint: No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398
)
i 1 1 0
l l l Page 543 IE21X WITNESSES: DIRECT CEQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS E. P. (Dennis) Wilkinson 544 557 -- -- Joseph M. Farley 564 579 -- -. R. P. Mcdonald 601 619 -- -- George F. Head 643 658 - -- . H. G. Baker 678 690 705 709 EXEIBITSt IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Comtplainant's : No. 38 - Wilkinson bio 548 548 l i l I l
Page 715 1ED11 WITNESSES: DIRECT GBQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. 716 725 -- -- Marvi.n B. Hobby 764 -- -- - Donald W. Janney 765 772 -- - Robert P. Edwards, Jr. 776 779 780 - 1 Carey Don Proctor 781 785 - - l l l 4 O-i I l T
f-Page 115 1 Q. And is that normal'to receive a two-level 2 increase? 3 A. It happens, but it would not be the norm I would 4 not think. 5 Q. And prior to becoming the general manager of 6 Nuclear Operations Contract Administration, did you have 7 discussions about what level you would be placed at in that 8 job? 9 A. Yes. .Mr. Head talked to me about the level that I 10 would be, and as a matter of fact he named me as his
; 11 assistant, assistant to the senior vice. president and 12 general manager of Nuclear Operations Contract i
r 13 Administration, and he told me that it would be a Leveel 20. l 14 Q. Was a position description writte'n for your new 15 job? 16 A. Yes, sir, it was.
- 17 Q. And who drafted that position description?
18 A. I worked with the personnel and salary 19 administration in writing the position description, and I
. 20 submitted it to Mr. Head for his approval.
l 21 Q. Did Mr. Head approve it? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I call your attention to Exhibit Number 13. Is l 24 this the position description, a copy of the position 23 description that Mr. Head approved? e y .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ ~ _ . - . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..___. Page 116
~
1~ A. This was a questionnaire, the position ' 2 questionnaire which is what you use to determine the level ! 3 in the company, yes, sir. 4 Q. And what was your salary at this time? i i 5 A. In January of 19907 i 6 Q. Yes. i 7 A. After being named to a Level 20 job? ! 8 Q. That's correct. 9 A. $103,104 a year, plus I was in the PIP program , 10 which allowed me I think it was a 20 percent bonus. 11 Q. Do you recall what your salary was prior to your 12 two-level promotion? ' 13 A. I.believe it was around $95,000. 14 Q. And does Exhibit 13 outline the r'esponsibilities : 15 you would have? ' 16 A. Yes, sir, it does. 17 Q. And in order to have been named in that position, l 18 did you need formal approval from whom at Georgia Power 19 Company? 20 A. Well, to be named to that position my l 21 understanding frost Mr. Head was that he was asked by Mr. 22 Dahlberg -- Mr. Head said that he and Mr. Dahlberg and Mr. ; 23 Baker had gotten together, discussed the creation of this ! 24 position, decided to form the Nuclear Operations Contract I 25 group, Mr. Dahlberg decided they would be under Mr. Head, j l l I l l
l i e Page 117 ! I and Mr. Head asked -- excuse me -- Mr. Dahlberg asked Mr.
~
h 2 Head who he would put in that position, Mr. Head said Marvin i i 3 Hobby, and that was okay with Mr. Dahlberg. 4 Q. And to receive your salary increase, did that have 5 to be approved by anyone? j 6 i A. I believe it just had to be approved by Mr. George j 7 Head. 8 Q. I call your attention to Exhibit 14. Can you i 9 describe what this docu ent is? i 10 A. This is a history of nuclear operations contract l i 11 administration. It really is a description of how the 12 salary administration group got to the Level 20. 13 Q. And to the best of your understanding is the 14 content set out in Exhibit 14 correct? ' 15 A. Yes. ! 16 Q. Can you sumanarise what occurred? ; 17 A. The salary administration group worked with me on i 18 the position questionnaire, we discussed it with Mr. Head, 19 he approved it; salary administration talked with Mr. Head, :
. 20 and Mr. Head named me to the additional position of his 21 i assistant and established the level at a Level 20. '
22 Q. Now I'd like to discuss a little bit about how the 23 Nuclear Operations Contract Administration group was l 24 staffed. 25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Before we get into another area, 1 S 4
. 5
?
(~ Page 119
. 1 AFTERNOON ELSEIQE' 2
JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Kohn, do you want to proceed 3 with this witness? 4 MR. KOHN Thank you, your Honor. > 5 WHEREUPON, l 6 MhRVIN B. HOBBY 7 resumed the witness stand as a witness in his orn behalf, s 8 and being previously duly sworn, was armnined and testified 9 further as follows: 10 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 1.1 BY MR. KOHN 12 Q. Mr. Hobby, I believe we were going.to begin with 13 the staffing of the nuclear operations contract 14 administration. Do you recall discussions during the time ; 15 the nuclear operations contract administration was being 16 formed about what the staff would be for the group? 17 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, as I recall, in December of , 18 I 1988 Mr. Head asked me to write up for him a white paper 19 which specified what and how the nuclear operations contract 20 l me*=4nistration group was supposed to interact with the l 21 SONOPCO project.and then the SONOPCO corporation when it was , 22 oventually formed. 23 He asked me to tell him how I would set up such a 24 group, and he asked me what level of staffing would be 25 required to perform the functions that he had assigned to e
4 j i j i ; 4 Page 120 l
- j. 1 us, i !
2 Q. And after you developed your -- did you refer to it
- 3 as a white paper?-
4 A. Yes, it was a position paper that I wrote to Mr. l 5 Head. 6 Q. After you did your position paper, did you have. ;
- . 7 i
further conversations with Mr. Head? 8 A. i { Yes, I did. 1 9 Q. And would you tell me what those conversations l 10 were? I e ) i 11 A. In my white paper I suggested to Mr. Head that I 4
- 12 !
thought in addition to the general manager's job we ought -- l 13 we.of course needed a senior secretary, two performance 14 engineers and two' nuclear financial administrators. t j 15 Q. Did Mr. Head agree with your proposal? i
- 16 A. Mr. Head did agree with my proposal. However, he
- 17 suggested that until -- as we were beginning to work out our 18 policies and our procedures and how we were going to do
~
19 business with SONOPCO he said that what he would like to do j 20 is start with one performance. engineer and one nuclear l 21 financial administrator, and the other two positions, the 22 extra, the second performance engineer and the second 23 financial administrator would be put in what's called 24-Level 2 funding, which means that the positions are approved
- 25 but the money has not been officially released so that a i
I Page 121 1 manager could spend it at that time. , 2 Mr. Head said that as we developed our program an 3 as we established the interface with SONOPCO, and as 4 additional needs -- as the need for additional employees 5 grew he would release that money from the Level 2 funding. 6 Excuss me.
~ He would release it as the need dictated.
7 Q. And did you begin to fill the positions? 3 A. Yes, sir. I interviewed a young man for a 9 nuclear performance administrator. He was in our budgeting in group, and he came on board in late February of 1989, his 11 name is Gerald Johnson, J-o-h-n-s-o-n. 12 And as far as the performance engineer's position,, 13 which I was in nuclear operators as manager of nuclear
, 14 support we had a young man working for us who was very good,
. 15 and he was doing that type of work for me in 1988. He had 16 indicated an interest to me in caming to work for us in 17 nuclear operations contract administration.
18 I talked to his boss who was the vice president of 19 the Vogtle projeet in Birmingham, Mr. Ken McCoy, and I asked 20 Mr. McCoy if I could have Mike Barker as a nuclear 21 performance engineer. ' i 22 Mr. McCoy told me that the procedure was that if 23 the job that I was interested in Mike filling, if that job 24 were a promotion for Mike then SONOPCO would approve it, but 25 that they did not want him to transfer unless it were a 4
e Page 161 1 They had talked with Mr. Baker, and the note says 4 2 "H.G.B. talked to Lee Glenn, warm and congenial" meaning 3 they had a nice talk, "no answer yet, Farley to provide, 4 Farley makes call." 5 Q. What does that refer to in your notes, Farley 6 makes call? 7 A. As to whether or not I could hire a nuclear . 3 performance engineer in my organisation. 9 Q. And did you ever learn whether you could hire that 10 performance engineer? _ 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And? 13 A. In late May, I believe the date was May 23rd -- as 14 ~ I mentioned, Mr. Head retired effective May ist, and Mr. 15 Carey Adams was named senior vice president of fossil and 16 hydro power. 17 Mr. Adams and his assistant, Mr. Shannon, came 18 down to my office on May 23rd to meet with me and talk with 19 me, and Mr. Adams said on the way down here Grady came out 20 of his office on the 24th floor and said "You are to hire no ' 21 more people in your organisation." i 22 Q. Did Mr. Adams call you before coming down to visit 23 you? 24 A. His assistant did. 25 Q. Would you happen to know the May 23rd entry in 9
Page 272 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARVIN B. HOBBY, a Complainant, a yoLugg n vs. : Case No. 90_ ERA-30 j : GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, , a Respondent. : 8 Courtroce 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia I Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The above_ entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOIDI, Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Echa, Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, ; WILLIAM N. WITIDtON, Attorney, j Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810t i Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Page 305 1 Power Company, you indicated that Mr. Mcdonald reports to 2 you. Does Mr. Mcdonald take all of his management direction 3 from you with respect to the operation of Georgia Power 4 Company's nuclear plants? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Now, Mr. Dahlberg, I would like to ask you to 7 describe the SONOPCO project. 8 A. The SONOPCO project was originally envisioned as-a l 9 separate corporation. However, now it operates without a 10 corporate identity and operates in offact as a division of 11 the company, or a division of the Southern Company. 12 It is divided now so that it has specific l 13 responsibilities for Georgia Power Company as we've indicated 14 for the operation of the Georgia units, and also has a i 15 separate responsibility for Alabama's units. 16 It is not yet a corporate entity and does as I say 17 operate as in effect a division of The Southern Company. 18 Q. And with respect to the operation of Georgia Power ~ 19 Company's nuclear plants, Plant Hatch and Plant vogtle, does l 20 SONOPCO function as a division if you will or department of 21 Georgia Power Company? i 22 A. Yes. It's very similar to our fossil and hydro l 23 plants which are the other type plants we have. We have a 24 senior officer responsible for the operation of those plants, 25 and the nuclear organization works basically the same way. l
Page 307 l 1
, When the SONOPCO project was initially being l 2 discussed, was there an idea that there would be several !
3 phases in implementing the SONOPCO organization? l 4 A. Yes and no. The original concept was that SONOPCO 5 would be a separate corporate entity, a subsidiary approvec 6 by the Securities and Exchange Comunission, and there probably l 7 would not have been the need for going through several ' 8 phases. 9 when we ran into a delay in the formation of the 10 corporate entity, we proposed a structure that, yes, would go 11 through several phases before the organization was completed. 12 Q. And just briefly,_Nr. Dahlberg, what are the three ;
. 13 phases of implementing the SONOPCO idea? i 14 A. Well, the first phase is the phase that we are now !
15 in, and that is that we would form the entity as a division, 16 we would begin to put the structure together, but that the j 17 officers of that corporation would be both officers of 18 Georgia and Alabama, would maintain a position in this 19 organization, we would maintain the license as part of 20 Georgia's operation, the operation of course would report 21 directly to me and we would operate it in that fashion. i 22 The subsequent phases would be when the corporation 23 is formed and it could become its own entity, and would begin 24 to shift to that organization, and then finally once the 25 organization was formed, up and running, a third phase was
I l 1 Page 308 i
- 1 l' that all operations could move to that separate subsidiary.
l 2 Q. 4 Would the licenses be transferred to SONOPCO as j 3 i part of the third phase of the implementation? i 4 A. That's correct. I 5 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, who is Mr. Joe Farley? ) 6 A. Mr. Farley is senior I guess executive vice 7 i president of The Southern Company, former chief executive
- 8 officer of Alabama Power Company, and he heads up the 9
formation of the SONOPCO project and that entity. 10 Q. Is Mr. Farley an officer of Georgia Power Company? 11 A. No, he's not. 12 Q. Is it expected that Mr. Farley would become an 13 officer of SONOPCO once SONOPCO is incorporated? 14 A. Yes, it's anticipated that he would be the chief 15 executive officer. 16 Q. Who is expected to be on the board of directors of 17 SONOPCO once SONOPCO is incorporated? 18 A. Final decisions have not been made. The 19 discussions at this point were that Mr. Farley would be, I 20 would be as chief executive officer of Georgia Power Company, 21 the chief executive officer of Alabama Power Company which 22 would be the owne,e of the Farley units, Mr. Ed Addison who is 23 the chief exe.cutive officer of The Southern Company which is 24 the holding company, probably the chief executive officer of 25 Southern Company Services, and perhaps a couple of other l
Page 311 1 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, what was the purpose.of establishing 2 the nuclear operations contract administration group? ; 3 A. I had talked to Mr. Head about heading up a group l 4 to review what was happening in the nuclear organization. At l l 5 that point in time I thought that there would be a contract 6 in effect between the SONOPCO project and -- or between 7 SONOPCO and Georgia Power Costpany, and there would be some 8 need to administer that contract, to check the performance 9 under that contract with SONOPCO. 10 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, the contract which you referenced, 11 that's a contract that would have been executed between 12 Georgia Power and SONOPCO once SONOPCO was incorporated; is
, 13 that right?
14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. In your mind, Mr. Dahlberg, was there any function 16 for the nuclear operations contract administration group to 17 perform if SONOPCO had not been approved, had not been 18 incorporated, and there had been no contract executed between 19 SONOPCO and Georgia Power Company? 20 A. Well, certainly if there.was no contract there 21 would have been no administration of that contract. In fact, 22 we don't have a contract today. 23 There could have been some other duties, and that 24
. is just to monitor the performance of nuclear operations and 25 look at how well the plants are running, costs, and those {
l e e
l - i i Page 312
- 1 type thi.ngs, and in effect the SONOPCO project does that j 2
- thesselves, and it would have been a duplication of that 3 function that they now perform. .
t i 4 Q. At the time you issuec this memorandum at Tab 2 of '
- 5 i
> Exhibit R-18, when did you expect to receive SEC approval and ) 6 to incorporate SONOPC07
- i 7 A. Well, again I thought it would be a matter of 8 months.
l 9 Q. Going now, Mr. Dahlberg, to a point in time in !
, 10 1989, who was responsible for recosmiending that the position
'll of general manager of nuclear operations contract 12 administration be eliminated? j I
13 A. l I would think it would have been Mr. Evans or ' 14 perhaps Mr. Williams. 15 Q. Okay. Do you know the reasons for the decision and 16 recomunendation that the position of general manager be 17 eliminated? , 18 A. Yes. There was not a function to be performed. 19 There was no contract, and I had determined that the other 20 things that I saw could be performed by that group, that is a 21 monitoring of performance wasn't necessary and that SONOPCO 22 did that themselves. 23 The same thing happens in the fossil and hydro. I 24 don't have, for example, a separate organisation that looks 25 at the performance of,that group, they do it themselves, and 9
Page 313 1 there just wasn't a need for that position because there were 2 no functions to perform. 3 Q. Was a recosamendation to eliminate the position of 4 general manager discussed in any of the management council 5 meetings in the latter part of 19897 6 A. I'm not sure the position itself was discussed. We 7 discussed on several occasions the overall struc'..are of the 8 organization, wo looked more at the people that we had in 9 jobs and their performance, their potential and so forth, but 10 I don't think we had spectific discussions about elimination i 11 of positions. i i 12 Q. The meeting that you just referenced where i 13 ! particular individuals were discussed and evaluated, was that I i 14 meeting November.7th of 19897 15 A. I believe that's correct. It was late in that ! 16 year. 17 We had had an earlier meeting that had only talked 18 about the senior levels in the organization, about those
. 19 people and about ourselves. This was our management council 20 group.
21 I think at the meeting you referenced we talked 22 about the entire organizational structure. 23 Q. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Pat Mcdonald was 24 at that meeting? - 25 A. He was not.
)
i \ j ' i i Page 315 i 1 A. No, not in detail. l 2 Q. Do you know generally what concerns are expressed 3 in the memorandum?
- 4 A. I would have to read it again.
! I'm not that j 5 familiar with it, i ! 6 Q. 4 If you would, Mr. Dahlberg, let me refer you to g 7 Page 7 of the memorandum. Half way down the page do you see
- 8 a paragraph "A significant concern...*7 i 9 A. Yes.
J j 10 Q. Just take a moment and read that to yourself. 11 4 Mr. Dahlberg, was the April 27th memorandum or the 12 concern expressed there on Page 7 that I asked you to take a 13 i look at discussed in the management council meeting of j 14 November 7th, 19897 i } 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Dahlberg,.was the April 27th 17 l 3 memorandum, or the concern expressed on Page 7 a factor in ! 18 l i any way in the decision to eliminate the position of general 19 manager / nuclear operations contract administration? 4 1 20 A. No, sir.
- 21 Q. And did you, Mr. Dahlberg, discuss with Mr. Evans, j 22 Mr. Tom Boren and Mr. Williams the reasoning behind the 23
- recommendation to eliminate this general manager position?
24 A.
; I don't recall specific discussions other than it } 25 1
was just an unneeded job, there wasn't a function there. I i 1 s
l l l Page 316 1 don't remember having a lengthy discussion about it. ! 2 Q. Did anyone ever tell you, Mr. Dahlberg, that Mr. l 3 ! Hobby believed that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley ) 4 instead of to you? i 5 A. Not until these litigations began. 6 Q. Was that issue ever discussed in management council 7 meetings? 8 A. No, sir. 9 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Boren or Mr. Williams 10 or Mr. Evans? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, let me direct your attention now to a
. 13 proceeding brought by Mr. Fuchko and Mr. Yunker under the 14 Energy Reorganization Act.
15 Are you familiar at all with that proceeding? 16 A. I knew that it occurred. It occurred as I came 17 back to Georgia Power Company, but the details and the i l 18 subject of it I was not familiar with, no, sir. ! 19 Q. Did anyone ever tell you, Mr. Dahlberg, that Mr. 20 Hobby contended that Mr. Pat Mcdonald gave falso or i 21 inaccurate testimony in the Fuchko and Tunker proceeding? 22 A. No, sir. 23 Q. Was Mr. Hobby's involvement in the Fuchko and 24 Tunker proceeding discussed in any of the management council 25 meetings? '
i I Page 317 1 1 A. No, I didn't know he was involved. l 2 Q. i Did you discuss that with Mr. Evans, Mr. Boren or 3 Mr. Williams? I 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Dahlberg, was that 6 contention of Mr. Hobby's a factor in any way in the decision 7 to eliminate the position of general manager / nuclear t 8 operations contract administration? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, did Mr. Pat Mcdonald or Mr. Joe 11 Farley ever state to you that they wanted Mr. Hobby , 12 terminated? I 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. Did they ever tell you that they wished to see Mr. 15 Hobby leave the employment of Georgia Power Company? 16 A. No, sir. I 17 Q. i Were you ever advised that Mr. Hobby or Mr. Head, ; 18 George Head, felt that the nuclear operations contract 19 administration group was not getting sufficient cooperation 20 from SONOPCO? 21 A. No. The only thing I was aware of is that there 22 wasn't much information to be worked on, and I think that's
)
23 one of the things that led to the elimination of the job, 24 there just wasn't a function there. That's the only thing I 25 recall. e
Page 330 1 administration. In your mind that contract between Georgia
, 2 l Power and SONOPCO was going to come right around the corner; 3 right?
4 A. I don't know whether months is right around the 5 corner, but I did anticipate that SONOPCO would be formed in l 6 a matter of months, yes. ! 7 Q. All right. So you set up the nuclear operations j 8 contract administration group to do all the functions that ! 9
-- budgeting, oversight, interface and a host of other things 10 ,
-- right? -- and the reason you did that was so nuclear 1 11 operations contract administration could start functioning l 12 immediately because a contract was instinent; right?
13 A. That's part of the reason. The other reason was 14 the SONOPCO organization was now. I don't think any of us 15 knew exactly how it would operate and exactly what would be 16 required. 17 I anticipated that, yes, it would be formed; yes, I
. 18 anticipated there would be a contract and there would be 19 something to administer; yes, I anticipated that we would 20 need somebody to be involved in gathering information about 21 the performance of the units, about the budget, about safety 22 factors.
23 As it turned out, one, there is no contract; 24 secondly, those things that I thought would be required in 25 terms of monitoring performance, we're monitoring i l
i Page 331 1 performance, but I get that information directly from the 2 3 SONOPCO organization, just like I get information directly 4 from the fossil information group, I get information directl from our marketing group, and there was no need for a 5 separate organization to do basically the same thing. 6 You mentioned budgeting. 7 SONOPCO does the budget, they review it directly with me. 8 There's not a function in the middle. 9 Q. And SONOPCO was new, and nuclear operations 10 t contract administration was new. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Almost simultaneously news right? 13 I A. Of course. 14 Q. Okay. And so now you're setting up nuclear 15 operations contract administration, and you don't want to 16 duplicate efforts; right? ; 17 A. Correct. { 18 Q. ! And so you wanted to set up nuclear operations i 19 contract administration to do certain things; right7 20 A. Yeah, I've just described that. 21 A. All right. But.it ends up now that SONOPCO is 22 doing those things, and not nuclear operations contract 23 administration group; isn't that correct? 24 A. That's absolutely correct. 25 Q. All right. So you set up nuclear operations j 9 4
Page 332 1 contract to do certain things, at the same time you set up 2 the SONOPCO project, but somehow along the way your whole 3 concept of why you created SONOPCO has fallen apart, and 4 you've got all those functions, and you started to stick then 5 in the SONOPCO organization; right? 6 A. No, you made a -- one thing you said was wrong. 7 You said my expectations for SONOPCO fell apart, and that was 8 not correct. 9 Q. Your contract. 10 A. Those things that I thought the contract group 11 would do did not materialize because I got the information 12 from another source, there was no contract to administer. 13 There really wasn't a function to perform. ! 14 -Q. i But when you set up nuclear operations you thought l 15 there was going to be this contract, so it only made local l 16 sense to allow nuclear operations to start doing those 17 functions -- right? -- you have a new SONOPCO project forming i 18 with a whole headache and a host of problems associated with 19 moving offices, with hiring staff, with ten thousand new I 20 things to do with every new najor corporation creation, and 21 you had nuclear operations contract administration group 22 already established, there are offices at Georgia Power 23 Company, the space was there, you could relieve this whole 24 burden off of SONOPCO's back by allowing Marvin Hobby's 25 nuclear operations contract administration group just to pick
l 1 I i , ! i' Page 368 l' i' . 1 responsibilities he may have had with respect to performance i 2 indicators? 1 -{, 3 A. I did not, and to my knowledge Mr. Mcdonald did 4 not. i j 5 i Q. You mentioned that you came back to the company I l
- 6 think the late part of '88. !l 1
i '
- 7 After returning to the company,'did you develop an j i
l 8 opinion about the necessity for the nuclear operations 9 contract administration? 4
- 10 A. Yes, I did.
- 11 Q. And what was your opinion?
, 12 A. I believed that we should have multiple points of 2
. 13 interface with the new company, that as an example I was 14 responsible among other things for interfacing with the 1
15 Public Service Commission. J 2 16 I felt like that the accounting organization at 17 Georgia Power that presented testimony, presented information 3 18 to the Public Service Commission should have direct access to
. 19 people at SONOPCO, and all across the board.
20 I felt like we did not need a high level position 21 to interface with SONOPCO, that we should interface with them 22 in many ways similar that we do with the service company 23 where we have many people dealing and more liens of l 24 coessunication. 25 Q. And did you discuss your opinions on that subject e.
Page 369 1 with Mr. Fred Williams? 2 A. I did later in the year. Due to a retirement of an 3 executive I knew that there would be reorganization and Mr. i 4 Williams would begin reporting to me at the and of the year, i 5 and there would be changes taking place, so that in late 1989 , 6 after the rate case, probably in the late October-November ; 7 time frame, we began having discussions as to how we should 8 organize and proceed. ~ 9 Q. And as of January 1, 1990 Mr. Williams would start ' 10 reporting to you? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. Okay. So that's the reason you were having these 13 discussions in late 1999 about the contract administration 14 group? 15 A. Yes. ' 16 Q. What was Mr. Williams' recommendation regarding the 17 contract administration group, and in particular Mr. Hobby's 18 position? 19 A. He concurred with my feeling that we did not need a 20 high level position, and that was a position that could be 21 eliminated. 22 Q. What were his reasons for making that 23 recommendation to you as you understood 7 24 A. That in proceeding through the 1989 rate case it 25 was obvious that we were not getting information timely to 1 l l
I i Page 370 i 1 l respond to the data requests, and that the position, it was 2 more of a bottleneck and did not allow for the type og l 3 i communications we needed, and that we could abolish the 4 position, and that other officers and other employees of L i 5 ; Georgia Power Company could perform those duties rather than I 6 having them consolidated in a single position. i 7 Q. Now, did you discuss Mr. Williams' recommendation j 8 with Mr. Boren? 3 i i 9 A. Yes, I did. i 10 Q. Okay. And did Mr. Boren agree with the 11 recommendation of Mr. Willians? 12 A. He agreed with our recommendation, yes. 13 Q. Was Mr. Hobby's job performance a reason for 14 recommending the elimination of his position? 15 A. No, his performance was not the reason. It was the 16 fact we did not need the position. 17 Q. Let me get you to turn to Tab 3 in Exhibit R-18 1 18 which is an April 27, 1989 memo from Mr. Hobby.to Mr. l 19 Williams. 20 Have you ever seen or heard of that document 21 before? 22 A. I have in the course of this case. I had not seen 23 or heard of it prior to this case. 24- Q. Was this memo ever mentioned in any of your 25 conversations with Mr. Williams and Mr. Boren regarding the s
Page 387
'l MR. KOHN: That would definitely shorten things.
2 JUDGE WILLIAMS 3 All right. Let's do it, then. 3 MR. COIAPINTO: Do you have a copy with you? 4 MR. WITHROW: Yes, I do.
-i 5
(Pause.) ' 6 MR. KOHN: Your Honor, we can read this into the 3 7 record after the witness. 8 MR. JOINER: The object of the stipulation, your 9 Honor, is to eliminate a need for all these questions. t 10 MR. KOHN I'm off that subject. 11 MR. WITHROW ' We'll get it in later. , 12 BY MR. KOHN 13 Q.- Now, what prontpted you to begin looking into the 14 elimination of Mr. Hobby's job was the fact that Fred 15 Williams told you that Mr. Hobby was leaving the company, had 16 requested an early out package? ' 17 A. No, I had begun thinking about it prior to that. 18 Mr. Williams did make me aware that Mr. Hobby had approached . 19 him late in the year and that in fact Mr. Hobby had raised 20 that issue. I didn't recall any of the details. 21 The first conversation I had with Mr. Williams on 22 the topic was at that point in time. I had thought about the 23 subject prior to that in looking over positions to streamline 24 the senior management of the company, looking at positions 25 that could be eliminated.
1 Page 388 1 Q. But isn't it true that it was your understanding 2 that Mr. Hobby had contacted Mr. Williams about an early out
,3 package and that's what initiated the conversations between !
4 you and Mr. Williams to restructure the nuclear operations 5 contract administration? 6 A. That was discussed in one of our conversations. I 7 don't recall if it was the first conversation or not, but 8 that was discussed in one of the conversations. 9 Q. Could you just read into the record from Line 11 to 10 Line 23 on Page 84 of your deposition? 11 A. Line 117 Line 11 is an answer: 12 I
" November of '89 is when we mentioned that we would 13 begin restructuring to do some changes in the company, and 14 when we restructure how do we need to be organized. That was 15 the tone of the overall conversation."
16 Q. Thank you. Where did you stop reading? 17 A. (Indicates.) 18 Q. Continue to read all the way down to the end of the _ 19 page. 20 A. The question: "Okay. Was it at your request that 21 Mr. Williams was going to engage in a fact-finding mission to 22 determine whether the position was needed?" 23 Answer: "It was my understanding Mr. Hobby had 24 contacted Mr. Williams about an early out package, and that's l 25 what initiated the conversation." F
Page 403 1 agreement, a revision to the transmission agreement, a 2 revision to the OEM agreement. 3 They had raised the possibility of opening up our ) 4 l nuclear contracts to change the ownership and operating 5 contracts to give them more control in those contracts, and I 6 since SONOPCO, the formulation of that became an issue, that ) 7 was rolled into our overall negotiations. 8 Q. Now, in the fall of 1988 following the intervention ,
'i 9
of Oglethorpe before the SEC, what was the anticipated 10 timetable for incorporating SONOPCO and getting underway with-11 that contract between Georgia Power and SONOPCO?
, 12 A. In the fall of 1988 we were very optimistic in i 13 these other negotiations, the power supply agreement and ;
14 transmission agreement, that-were very close we thought to a 15 new arrangement which would satisfy these conditions that I 16 mentioned before in the nuclear license conditions. 17 With that, since the whole SONOPCO intervention to . 18 me was just to tie all these issues together -- in fact, they 19 made that statement to us in negotiations that all these j I 20 issues were linked, the formation of SONOPCO, the creation of l i 21 a new power supply agreement and arrangement with thest were 22 all linked -- in fact, they were linking all.the agreements 23 that we needed to get them all done, but where we thought we 24 were in the power supply and transmission negotiations in the 25 September-October-November time frame of 1988, we were
I i l s Page 406 : 1 supervise Mr. Hobby or to work with him in his capacity as i 2 general manager of that group? l 3 Yes, sir. A. In the negotiations that were ongoing at 4 that time we were developing or toying with the concept in 5 negotiations of what we called a managing board agreement i 6 concept, and we invited Mr. -- I invited Mr. Hobby to_ start l 7 attending those negotiations with us in his new capacity as 8 manager of this nuclear operations contract administration 9 group since he would be directly involved if we were 10 successful in getting the contract negotiated and a 11 corporation set up. 12 Q. And did you have continuing contact with Mr. Hobby
, 13 throughout 19897 14 A. Yes, sir. As the negotiations continued, even when 15 the negotiations somewhat halted because of other reasons 16 than SONOPCO, I continued meeting with Y.r. Hobby because Mr.
17 Robby saw, and I was given the responsibility of negotiating 18 those contracts, and he was directly involved in what I was
, 19 doing, so we had continual contact throughout 1989.
20 Q. Did there come a point in time when it was decided 21 that Mr. Hobby would begin reporting directly to you? 22 A. Yes, it did. 23 Q. Okay. And when was that, and tell the judge if you 24 would, please, why that decision was made. ! t 25 A. On January 1, 1990 was the official transfer of Mr.
s Page 407 1 Hobby's reporting to me. 2 Prior to that time we had been -- in fact, I had 3 been as part of my negotiations reviewing the need for not 4 just Mr. Hobby's job, but the total organization and how it 5 would be fitted in with the new relationship that we were 6 negotiating, and I had conversations with Mr. Baker before 7 his retirement about the need for the organization and my 8 thoughts on it as I was doing that review, and then on into 9 the late fall when I reported to Mr. I: vans then, and I also 10 gave his my impressions and my thoughts on whether the 11 organization was needed and what structure it should take. 12 We did not have a contract, and we had been going 13 on for some period of time, it did not appear we were going 14 to get a contract any time soon even though we'were 15 negotiating again, but my decisions were being made on what I ' 16 e or not we had an incorporated entity or not, \ saw, wheth'r ! 17 what would be the role of that area. 18 Q. Okay. i You mentioned that you were going through )
. 19 this ongoing process of review. Did you ever talk to Mr.
20 Hobby about the necessity for the contract administration i 21 group? 22 A. Yes, sir, I did. 23 Q. Tell the court if you would about those 24 discussions. 25 A. Those discussions, some of thest I guess the first 4
i i i Page 408 j 1 impression I had was probably in the spring. By then I was 2 still very open-minded because we were still in the very 4 3 early stages of negotiations at that point
- as to what we 4
would need, and we were also starting to run into problems 5 with negotiations with Oglethorpe, but later in the year when 6 we started negotiations up in earnest again I gave it more of 7 a review, and I was -- you know, we had a Southern Services 8 setup, we didn't have that role there -- I was already 9 responsible, I being bulk power markets, responsible for the 10 interface with the co-owners, to how it was going to fit in, 11 this whole organization, with this relationship which we were 12 already responsible for. 13 We were already administering as I said some thirty 14 or forty contracts with the co-owners and other entities, so 15 I had expressed all these to Mr. Hobby, and I was playing 16 somewhat a devil's advocate with him and his staff at times 17 as to " Explain to me, I want to hear you, I want to be 18 objective why you are needed? What is your function? What 19 should your function be?, but let's not duplicate things. Be 20 fair and come in objectively." 21 A. Did you think there was a need to have a separate 22 1 interface between Georgia Power and the co-owners in addition 23 to the interface that your group already had at that time? 24 A. Not a separate total interface as that's the only
;t5 interface they should have. The way we functioned in my role l
e
Page 409 : 1 as administrator of these contracts and as the joint 2 cassaittee member, and we had Mike Harrell who was also in the 3 accounting officer, the chief accounting officer, was another t 4 rep. I 5 We needed those contacts to occur where the work 6 was being done for informational purposes and coessunication, 7 but the official path had to be through the joint constittee 8 assber, which was myself. That needed to be the path. ' 9 If we had set up another one now, we were 10 separating that outside, and that was going to give unitiple ' 11 paths and some confusion I think that would come down the 12 road, 13 Q. You mentioned that you had several contracts that i 14 your organization was responsible for administering. Did you 15 have within bulk power or -- I'm sorry, was there in the 16 company a separate group to administer contracts that you 17 were responsible for under bulk power? j 18 A. No, sir. l We had the administration. Accounting 19 had a fixed joint asset accounting where they did the 20 accounting function there for the joint-owed units, but there 21 was no separate entity set up anywhere that had the overall 22 responsibility other than the responsibility given us to make 23 sure things happened that were supposed to happen in the 24 contract time-wise and that type thing. 25 Q. In your opinion in 1989 as you developed your
I i Page 410 1 thinking did you see a need for there to be separate group in 2 the company to administer a contract between Georgia Power 3 and SONOPCO if that contract ever came into existence? 4 A. No, sir, I didn't. My determination after hours of 5 talking with Mr. Hobby and his people, and accounting staffs 1 6 and in fact SONOPCO people, I did not see a need for a 7 separate organization. 8 I did possibly see a need for some of the staff, 9 not all the staff he was talking about, to be included as 10 part of the bulk power market services area which already 11 existed for administration of the contracts, and this could 12 be easily picked up by them, which was.really understaffed 13 already, and we could take on this additional responsibility 14 in that area and use some of the staff there. 15 Q. You said that you received some input from people 16 in Mr. Hobby's. organization. Let me get you to turn.to Tab'7 17 of Respondent's Exhibit 18 and ask you to identify that
.18 document for the record, please.
19 A. Yes. This was provided to me by Mr. Hobby and his 20 staff in either late November or early December in response 21 to my request again that I wanted to make sure I nattarstood 22 where all of the possible interfaces were that existed, who 23 needed to be interfacing between SONOPCO and Georgia Power 24 Company. 25 Q. And did you have a meeting with Mr. Hobby and his
4 i t Page 411 i staff to consider the information that was placed in this 2 memo? 3 A. Yes, sir, they came to my office and we discussed 4 Lt. 5 Q. And can you tell the court generally what was 6 discw.a ad in that meeting? 7 A. In that meeting the staff -- and Mr. Hobby was late i 8 as he said coming to the meeting -- defended essentially, I ! 9 really pressed them on "Why are you needed? If we've got 10 accountants already talking, and budget people already , 11 . talking to each other between here and SONOPCO, and SONOPCO I 1 12 has staff to do this, tell me the real reason," and I really 13 pressed as I said playing the devil's advocate as tc, "Why are 14 you needed? I'm not here to eliminate you, I just need to 15 know, I need to get in my mind fixed why this function is 16 necessary and would be necessary with SONOPCO set up," and we { 17 went through these various areas explaining why they thought ! 18 they were necessary. I
, 19 Q. At what point did you make a formal recommendation 20 to your superiors about the elimination of Mr. Hobby's 21 position?
22 A. I would guess the formal recommendation, though I 23 had had discussions before and I had given my thoughts on the 24 idea, was probably -- well, they didn't report to me until 25 January 1st, and I gave my formal recomunendation then,
l 4 Page 412
, i 1 .actually went through with the process, but prior to that in 2 December and early November I was'already informing Mr. Evans ]
3 that I did not see the need for a high level manager, or did 4 I see the need for a separate organization to exist'to . 5 administer a contract if we ever got a contract. 6 Q. Did Mr. Evans agree or disagree with your 1 7 conclusion? l 1 8 A. He agreed with it. ' 9 Q. In making your decision about the elimination of 10 Mr. Hobby's position, did you ever discuss the need for the l 11 contract administration group or Mr. Hobby's position with 12 Mr. Mcdonald? i1 13 A. No, sir. l 14 Q. Did you ever discuss those issues with Mr. Farley? 15 A. No,. sir. 16 Q. Did Mr. Mcdonald or Mr. Farley ever state to you 17 that they wanted to see Mr. Hobby's position' eliminated?' 18 A. No, sir. y 19 Q. Did they ever tell you that they wanted to see Mr. 20 Hobby fired? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Did they ever say that they wanted to see him leave ; 23 the company? 24 A. No, sir. I 25 Q. Did they ever express any opinion to you on his I 1
l I t Page 414 l 1 Q. Okay. Did you read the memorandum when Mr. Hobby 2 gave it to you that daf? l 3 A. Yes, stei . & brought it to me, and I quickly read 4 through the meno. 5 Q. Can you tell the court about your comments to Mr. 6 Robby about the memo on April 27th? 7 A. Yes, sir. First, this was not responsive to what I 8 had asked Mr. Hobby to do. 9 What I had asked Mr. Hobby to do as I explained to 10 Mr. Hobby is I was wanting to get a better feel of the 11 relationship between Georgia Power and SONOPCO as we started 12 to formulate this relationship, and was very similar to what 13 I. finally got something similar in November from his staff 14 where he actually gave me who contacted who, which 15 departments interfaced, so the memo was not responsive in i 16 what I was asking for. 17 However,; reading through the memo I pointed out to 18 Mr. Hobby at that point in time there were several problems 19 in the meno that I saw with the memo itself, such as 20 responsibility as agent. 21 As I explained earlier, Georgia Power had already 22 made bulk power markets the interface with the co-owners, 23 that was our role, but what he pointed out in here of not 24 knowing about some things going on such as the executive 25 quarterly review meeting I was aware of, so this wa not i
i i i } l Page 415 1 3 i something_ secret or anything, I was aware of that. i 2 i He was concerned because his organization was not 4 3 involved in it, but the re was not a SONOPCO. Pat Mcdonald 4 4 still was a Georgia Power employee, most everybody at SONOPCO 5 that worked on Georgia units was Georgia employees, so there 6 was not a specific relationship or reporting position to . 7 bring this through Mr. Hobby and his group. 8 I was aware of it, though, as the-joint committee member and 9 being the negotiator with the co-owners. 10 t There were some other areas in here that I had told 11 him that was just incorrect, and Dan Smith had mentioned to 7 12 me. In fact we had written a mano back to Dan Smith I think 13 we talked about, or he mentioned or raised that they inquired 14 in the joint comunittee subcossaittee meeting about the 15 reporting relationship. We had responded, but I had never 16 heard that from Mr. Kilgore who was Mr. Smith's superior at i 17 Oglethorpe in our negotiations. He had never raised that ' 18 issue with me as to who Mr. Mcdonald reported to, so I had 19 seen a lot of things in the meno that I thought I addressed 20 . at that time with him that were inaccuracies, besides the 21 memo not being responsive to what I needed to help formulate 22 in my mind what the relationship organizational 1y and 23 interface should be between Georgia Power and SONOPCO. 24 Q. Let's back up to that point just a second, the , 25 reason for asking for the meno. Did you tell Mr. Hobby that ! t
l l 1 Page 425 l 1 porition resulted in his employment becoming an impacted 2 employee. 3 Mr.-Hobby was quite familiar with that, as he had . 4 eliminated several positions himself and part of 5 reorganization had gone through the same process where he had : 6 found other employment-for the people in those jobs or 7 offered outplacerant packages. 8 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Tom Kilgore at Oglethorpe 9 Fower that you were going to ellainate Mr. Hobby's position 10 in advance of telling that to Mr. Hobby? 11 A. No, sir, I did not. r
; 12 Q. Did Mr. Hobby ever confront you with the accusation 13 'that he had learned indirectly through Mr. Kilgore or Mr. Dan i 14 Smith that he was going to have his job removed or l 15 eliminated 7 !
16 A. Yes, sir, he inquired from a conversation he'had r 17 with Dan Smith about something to that effect, and I don't ! 18 remember exactly how he phrase it, but what I explained to 19 Mr. Hobby in a meeting with Mr. Kilgore in our negotiating , 20 sessions, SONOPCO was one of those issues that we were 21 discussing at the time, and I had told him that where I had 22 come down to as far as staffing at Georgia Power is I did not 23 believe we needed expertise in the nuclear operating area on 24 staff at Georgia Power Company, that was what we centralized 25 , the function for at SONOPCO, and it would 'be redundant to
- i. -
l l 1 i i i i j Page 426 1 staff at Georgia Power and to set up this organization and i 2 contract with an organization for the nuclear expertise. j 3 The way I explained that to Mr. Hobby is I had just 4 i gone through a reorganization of a system planning function 5 t where we centralized the system planning function in l
- . 6 Birmingham, and if I had kept system planning expertise, one
! 7 i or two on the staff and moved the rest of them to Bimingham 8 where the planners are going to plan, so you would have had 9 planners looking for something to do and they would have' 10 created work, and then we would have had the same issue 11 again, a turf issue, and it just didn't make sense and it 12
, didn't seem the most efficient way to do.
13 That was what discussion I had with Mr. Kilgore, he I 14 was inquiring as to what we were thinking, and that was my 15 thoughts on the subject that I had shared with him, because 16 he was looking at his own staffing as to what he was going to l 17 .have at Oglethorpe. i 18 Q. And when you made that comment to Mr. Kilgore about I 19 not retaining in Atlanta expertise in the operation of 20 4 nuclear plants, were you referring to Mr. Hobby? a 21 A. No, sir, I wasn't even thinking of Mr. Hobby at 22 that time 23 In fact, I informed Mr. Hobby at that meeting that 24 I had no problem with his performance and what he was doing, 25 and at that point even though I was looking at the whole P
- w. -. ..-_.n., . . - , . - , , - ,
e i i i 1 Page 427 ; i 1 organization and I had shared with him already the concern I ; i 2 i had with the high level job such as that in a separate i i 3 organization, he was aware of that already, that I had ' 4 already raised that issue with him. j 5 j Q. Let's talk for a minute about your discussion with j 6 Mr. Hobby on his outplacement package. - 2 j 7 Now, when generally speaking was the first time i f 8 that you began to have those discussions? 1 [ 9 A. It was either late November or early December, in
- j. 10 that time frame. A lot of that discussion runs together I
- 11 right there.
12 In talking, I think it might have been one of these
- 13 very meetings we were talking about that I was suggesting 14 maybe that we didn't need a high level position, and 15
} questioned as I said whether we needed a separate ! . 16 organization. 17 4 I asked Mr. Hobby would he be interested in 18 employment at SONOPCO, and the immediate reply was no, that , _ 19 he wasn't interested.
- 20 I said "Would you be interested maybe in another
! 21 i position within one or two levels somewhere else in the power 22 generation or another area of Georgia Power Company?" "No." 4 23 I said, i
"Mr. Hobby, you're limiting my options in
- 24 what I'm looking at in this," and I think I mentioned to him j
t 25 "Would you be interested in some kind of outplacement b 4 e I
2
- i i
! i l 2 l ) Page 441 t 1 BY MR. KOHN: i 2 ! Q '. Mr. Williams, let's cover the April 1989 time frame ' j 3 when Mr. Hobby and you were discussing his mano. Had you { { 4 begun the process of considering to eliminate Marvin Hobby's ! 5 job by that time?
- 6 Q. No, sir, I had not. What I had begun by that time j 7 i was to review the relationship that needed to exist, or 8
actually investigate the relationship that needed to be in 9 place between Georgia Power Company and SONOPCO. 10 The areas I wanted to look at was what should we -- 11 should we just have one central contract that Mr. Hobby 12 understood should be their contact, or should we have 13 multiple contacts, should we continue the accounting 14 contacts, the budgeting contacts. 15 I wanted to look at that in more detail since I had 16 been assigned the responsibility to negotiate the 17 relationship between us and the co-owners, and the co-owners ! 18 were very interested in our relationship with SONOPCO since 19 !
. they owned a large portion of the nuclear facilities, and so !
20 wanted to comfort myself on what that relationship should be. 21 Q. And had you engaged in a fact-finding process so 22 you could make a recommendation as to what or how the nuclear i 23 : operations contract administration should be reorganized at 24 the time Mr. Hobby submitted his April 27th memo? 25 A. I didn't look at how that should be reorganized. I I I i
l l l Page 442 1 was looking at what their organization and function -- in ) 2 fact, that was what I was asking from Mr. Hobby is "What do i 3 you see is your function? Where are these interfaces? What ! 4 should they be? Give se information there, what problems you
- 5. saw, whether there was dual setups, or you were not involved 6 in the loop, why were you not involved?" .
7 I was asking SONOPCO and a lot of people there the ! i 8 same questions. I was asking the accounting organization the 9 same type things as to what they were doing. 10 I was trying to get a feel myself of what was going : 11 on, what should be going on there. As a negotiator I needed 12 to understand what the relationship was going to be. j i 13 Q. So you were not -- you were trying to figure out 14 how to resolve the interface problem, or were you trying to 15 figure out how to reorganize that area? ; 16 A. Trying to figure out what the interface should be i 17 in my own mind. 18 Q. And you were engaging in a fact-finding mission; _ 19 correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And you were not considering what the problems, the 22 breakdown in communications problems were; is that correct? 23 A. The breakdown in cosununications problem? What 24 breakdown in communications problem? 25 Q. Between SONOPCO and the nuclear operations contract F
_ . ~ . . _ . . .-.. _ __ _._._. _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . , i 1 4 1, Page 443 1 administration group. '
- 2 A. I didn't know there was a breakdown in i
3 comanunications because there -- how could there be a i
- 4
! breakdown when I'm not sure what their function was at that
- 5 point as far as I was concerned, because we did not have a i
i 6 nuclear contract to administer. f . 7 What we were administering was a project which most l 8 of the employees in that, or all the employees in that i 9 project were still Georgia Power employees with the exception l .i
- 10 of Services, southern Services' employees, and if we were 11 going to go forward and have a nuclear operating contract 12 administration group at Georgia Power Company I wanted to 13 make that I understood how it would function and what its 14 responsibilities should be in context with what SONOPCO's 15 organization was going to be, and how that all fit together 16 with what we were negotiating with the co-owners.
17 Q. And Mr. Hobby then presented you with a memo -- 18 Can you tell me what your conversation was to Mr. Hobby that _ 19 led him to give you this April 27th memo? 20 A. Yes, sir. I asked him to tali me where you saw 21 what interfaces there should be between SONOPCO and Georgia 22 Power Company, who should be talking to who, what channels of ! 23 constunication should there be there, whose responsibility was 24 it to initiate things, give se some kind of flow background. 25 He was reluctant to ever giving that to me. In O
Page 444 r i fact, I had to pull it out of him in November, and I still 2 didn't get everything I wanted done, and.for some reason they 3 didn't want to give me that. 4 I finally got it in November, or at least got some part of it, so I was actually having to do a lot of this 5 6 investigation myself talking to the accounting area and all. 7 As I said, this memo didn't give sE who in 8 accounting reports to who or talks to who at SONOPCO. I know 9 I've got an accounting group over at SONOPCO, and I've got > 10 one here. Who's supposed to be doing what? Who's talking to 11 who there? What should that be? 12 All I got out of Mr. Hobby was that "Everything 13 ought to come through me", and I don't think that's right. I 14 don't think we can function that way, there's no way we can 15 function that way. 16 So I was doing the -- it was more of an 17 investigation on my own part as to what it should be set up, 18 and I'm not saying he was the only culprit. You've got a new , 19 organization in Bizmingham that thought they should have a 20 lot of things. 21 I was looking at the whole organization in the 22 hopes that when we get a contract, at the time we got a 23 contract it was ready to go and SONOPCO was incorporated we ; 24 would be ready to go too. I 4 25 Q. So you were engaging in a fact-finding mission to t
l i Page 445 l 1 l find out what the interface was, and Mr. Hobby was not being , l j 2 responsive to that? j 3 A. No, sir, he did not, not with that mano, t
- 4 -Q.
i And you say eventually around November he finally ! j 5 got more responsive? ; 4 j 6 A. He or his staff did. I thought he told me the a 7 staff, Gerald Johnson and Don Proctor prepared this exhibit, ' 8 whatever the exhibit number was that they provided me a note 9 on which actually got detailed into the joint accounting ! 10 areas, the finance areas and the operating areas. 11 Q. Now, prior to this April time frame when you were i 12 trying to find out what the actual line reporting structures 13 were, hadn't Marvin Hobby expressed tremendous concern that 14 he was not getting cooperation from the SONOPCO project? 15 A. Mr. Kohn, I continued to get concerns from Mr. ! 16 Hobby, and frustrations as to his concerns that he was not 17 involved in certain things. 18 That was what I was trying to find out, was he :
, 19 supposed to be involved in those things. I don't know l 20 whether he should have been or not. That's what I wanted to 21 find out.
22 I was assisting him trying to help him and his 23 organization through a review process. I think we could 24 clear up all those issues. He had some ideas, some other. 25 people had some ideas, that was very evident, and through all 4
Page 446 1 this testimony we've had today. 2 My effort was to resolve a lot of those areas by. 3 looking at the organization, the interfaces; what they should 4 be, and let's make a decision on what should be there. 5 Q. Well, why were you doing that, and not George Head? 6 A. I was doing that because I was responsible for the 7 interface with the co-owners which had intervened into the 3 8 SONOPCO proceeding. 9 I was responsible for administering as I said some 10 forty contracts already in ary area. I took it on aryself as a 11 negotiator to look at and see if I could assist in that. area. 12 I_ had talked with Mr. Head. In fact, Mr. Hobby and 13 I sat down with Mr. Head and he agreed that since I was 14 responsible for-the negotiations of this and that Mr. Hobby , 15 was serving on my negotiating team and the managing board 16 group and all that I could pursue of this. 17 Q. Well, you had responsibility -- there were two 18 contracts that the contract administration group was , 19 administering or would be administering. One was between 20 SONOPCO and Georgia Power Company, and the other one was 21 between the joint owners and Georgia Power Company; is that 22 right?. 23 A. No, sir, that's wrong. The contract administration 24 group would not be administering the managing board 25 agreement. That would be administered with my department.
Page 447 1 He would have no -- he wouldn't be on the board. I 2 would probably be the representative on the board, or Mr. 3 Dahlberg would decide who was going to be representing on the 4 managing board. That's with the co-owners. He wouldn't 5 administer that. 6 The contract with SONOPCO, I think that's what we 7 were looking at his group administering between Georgia Power 8 Company and SONOPCO. In the negotiations we had with the co-9 owners it was quite obvious that we were not going to get a 10 nuclear services agreement or a nuclear operating agreement 11 if we could ever get to Phase 3 between Georgia Power Company i 12 and SONOPCO without the co-owners agreeing to that i 13 arrangement. 14 Therefore, I was going to be involved in the 15 negotiations due to my responsibilities at Gecrgia Power 16 Company. 17 I might point out that was one of the problems in l 18 the memo, the very first point in there was his 19 misunderstanding of the agency role as to what his role would 20 be with the co-owners. He was not being delegated that role. -l 21 Q. Now, Mr. Hobby gives you this April 27th memo; 22 correct? 23 A. That's correct. ! 24 Q. Okay. And what did you do with it after that? 25 A. After I had my discussion with him? r
~
I l l Page 451-1 that was going to be Marvin Hobby's job, wasn't it, to do 2 just what you said? 3 A. To manage SONOPCO? 4 Q. To approve the budget? 5 A. No, sir, I did not understand that. 6 Q. Did you ever read his job description? 7 A. Yes, I read his job description, but it's a very 8 brief description, and I don't think Mr. Dahlberg expected 9 Mr. Hobby to be the approval of the nuclear budget of Georgia 10 Power Company. I just don't believe he intended to delegate 11 that down to Mr. Hobby. 12 Q. But when SONOPCO became incorporated, at some point
, 13 Mr. Mcdonald could not directly report to Mr. Dahlberg; 14 right? He would then be with SONOPCO and Mr. Dahlberg would 15 be with Georgia Power Company.
16 A. Mr. Dahlberg would be on the board of directors of 17 SONOPCO, and I would expect that SONOPCO would submit their l 18 budget to the annagement council and Mr. Dahlberg as they do 19 now, and Mr. Dahlberg wouldn't sit there and expect Mr. Hobby 20 to be the approval of the nuclear budget for Georgia Power 21 Company even if SONOPCO was incorporated. No, sir, I just 22 don't believe that was going to happen. 23 Q. So other than SONOPCO writing the budget, there 24 would be -- Mr. Dahlberg would just say "All right, Mr. 25 Mcdonald, you wrote the budget for SONOPCO and I approve it,"
4 Page 452 1 there would be no accounting of the budget, or all the 2 accounting.would just happen at SONOPCO? 3 A. I believe that's a different question than what you 4 were asking me. That would be maybe looking.at a review of 5 the budget and helping present the budget to management 6 council. -That's not approving the budget. 7 Q. Well,' wasn't that the role of nuclear operations 8 contract administration to review the budget and then tell { 9 management council to give to management council knowledge 10 and guidance as to whether the SONOPCO budget was prudent? 11 A. I think we can go back to your words because you 12 told me in the statement we go back and look at the 13 announcement that came out and it said approve the budget, 14 and we already have a difference of opinion what we think 15 that meant. 16 I think that's what I was trying to determina just 17 what was going to be NOCA as you refer to its 18 responsibilities. 19 Q. Well, then -- 20 A. There was some already -- we had set up this 21 central organization with this expertiae there which had a 22 budgeting function with it. Now, if you go set the same 23 thing back up et Georgia Power Company you start scratching 24 ! your head again what have you done, who's in charge, who's ; 25 doing what? O
Page 453 1 I think we had to work that out. That's what I was 2 attempting to do on my fact-finding as you referred to it. 3 Q. And did you fact-finding -- then you deter =4n=d 4 that the problem was a conflict between Mr. Hobby and Mr. 5 Mcdonald? 6 A. No, sir, I never said that.
- 7 Q. Well, I sort of inferred it from your statement q
8 that Mr. Hobby wanted to run SONOPCO that I guess Mr. 9 Mcdonald would take exception to,that. 10 A. No. I think what we were talking about is that he 11 kept raising the concern of whether Mr. Dahlberg was in 12 charge or Mr. Mcdonald was in charge, and Mr. Hobby seems to 13 be the only one that keeps raising that issue about Mr. 14 Mcdonald. 15 Q. Okay. But after Mr. Hobby raised that issue with 16 you, you went to President Dahlberg and discussed Marvin 17 Hobby's regulatory concern; isn't that correct? 18 A. No, sir. What I discussed with Mr. Dahlberg was 19 what I was seeing as far as our relationship with SONOPCO 20 that I was looking into, what was going on in our 21 negotiations with the co-owners. That's what I discussed 22 with Mr. Dahlberg. 23 Now, as far as the meno went, I didn't go through 24 the meno in detail with Mr. Dahlberg. In fact, I'm not sure l 25 whether I showed him the mano.
Page 467 1 yes. 2 Q. And they were reporting to Mr. Adams until the 3 management council reorganized and instructed you on the 4 first of 1990, the beginning of 1990 that Mr. Hobby would 5 start reporting to you at that point? ' 6 A. I don't know the management council. Mr. Evans 7 called and said that he and Mr. Adams had met and talked to 8 Mr. Dahlberg and that beginning January lat..that the nuclear 9 operating contract administration group would report directly 10 to me. 11 Q. And at the time you got that information, you had 12 already determined that you were going to eliminate Marvin 13 Hobby's job the day he started to report to you? 14 .A. I think I had already told him that that was my 15 leaning, yes, and going to be my reconsnandation. He was 16 aware of that. l 17 Q. Okay. So it was just a matter of needing to ' 18 formally transfer Mr. Hobby to you so you personally could
, 19 eliminate the job? Why didn't Mr. Adams just eliminate it?
20 A. I was not a party to that decision. I had already 21 been making my recommendations as'to what I thought was 22 needed. l 23 I think Mr. Baker before his retirement and Mr. 24 Adams now in a discussion had all been saying at some point 25 down the road that this function, the more information that 1
I N l i
- Page 468 1 we were finding in these fact-finding missions and what was 2 going on in the negotiations more properly belonged in the 3 bulk power markets organization and not where it was over in 4 the power generation area, so I think we had all been 5 anticipating this, and Mr. Hobby knew that I thought at some 6
~ point, and I told him that, and he believed that too, that ha 7
would be reporting to me, or the nuclear operating contract 8 administration section would, yes. 9 Q. And you were playing an informal role about what 10 you were going to do with nuclear operations contract 11 administration group, and you were not advising Mr. Hobby of 12 what you were going to do during -- 13 A. I was being very candid with Mr. Hobby. I wasn't 14 pulling any punches, I was telling him what I believed, and I 15 think that was the only fair thing to do, that I wasn't going 16 to have this, this is what I believed, and I was going to let 17 him know about it. 18 That's how I asked him about "Would you be 19 interested in a SONOPCO job or some other job?" 20 I might point out that when it moved over, it's a l 21 20 Level job now, bat when it moved over it was no longer. 1 22 I think probably the 20 came because as you mentioned 23 yesterday in your own direct testimony that part of that was 24 the fact that it was an assistant to a senior VP. 25 I am not a senior VP, so when it moved over there F c-
a Page 469 1 I'm not sure it carried that weight any more, and whether it 2 would stay at the 20 Level even if I kept the job, so there 3 was a lot of issues being looked at. 4 Q. ! And did you feel when you discussed the April 27th 5 meno with Mr. Hobby that he was accusing SONOPCO of I 6 something? i 7 A. Accusing? 8 Q. Teah. I 9 A. No, I don't think -- I don't believe I used the ; 10 word " accusing." I think he had some frustrations as he i j 11 would in an organization that wasn't quite clear what the 12 organization's role was. There was conflicting ideas on the 1! 13 role. I think he was frustrated in some ' areas, yes.
)l 14 Q.
But didn't you think Mr. Hobby wrote this memo to l 15 accuse SONOPCO of wrongdoing in that they wouldn't cooperate 16 with him? 17 A. No, sir, I never saw it as an accusation. 18 Q. Let me show you your deposition, and if you would 19 read the question and answer beginning on Line 18 on Page 32 20 up until Line 5 on the fallowing page. 21 A.
"Did you think this memo could adversely affect 22 future -- if it had gotten into the hands of Oglethorpe did 23 you think the eeno could adversely affect perhaps SEC 1 j
24 regulation should the SONOPCO organization not be formed, or i 25 j the SONOPCO corporation not be formed? ; l
_ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ ~ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ Page 485 1 referring to, your Honor. l 2 THE WITNESS: I can still tell you from memory. ; 3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: A witness is entitled to testify ; based on his own personal norsorandums or notes. 4 I mean 5 you're entitled to look at it if you want to look at it. 6 - If he's.using something to help him recall, that's 7 permissible except that you do have the right to look at what 8 he's using to help him recall. 1 9 MR. KOHN: All right, sir. 10 JtIDGE WILLIAMS: Continue. 11 BY MR. JOINER: 12 Q. I believe, Mr. Boren, my pending question was 1 13 whether you had an occasion to discuss the decision to 14 eliminate the position of general manager of nuclear 1 15 operations contract administration with Fred Williams and 16 Dwight Evans in the fall of 1989. ; 17 A. Yes, sir. i i 18 Q. Who was responsible for making that decision, Mr. l 19 Boren? ! 20 A. Mr. Williams was. 21 Q. And what were the reasons as you understood them i 22 for the decision to eliminate the position? l 23 A. When we established the position back at the end of 24 1988 -- I believe it was the end of '88, it may have been the 25 beginning -- we did that en the assumption that we would have , W F
s ] I { Page 486 + i 1 a contract for this manager to administer. ) 2 Here we are almost'1990, the contract has not come ) 3 about, and ..'ve realized that the reason we established the 4 job just wasn't there, and that's the primary reason that we l 5 were looking at eliminating the job, and the other 6
. miscellaneous requirements for the job were kind of being 7
handled through the other normal functions of the company. j 8 Q. Mr. Boren, why was it that you were being involved 9 i in those discussions and in the consideration of whether hits 10 position should be eliminated? 11 A.
- We had kind of a standard policy that when we get j 12 down to those types of jobs, the major areas or whatever,
! 13 that I would work with whoever the vice president and the 14 management council member is making sure we all understood 15 the guidelines we used to address eliminating jobs, making
- 16 sure that Fred knew what type of alternatives he had
- 17 available and so-forth.
18 Q. You mentioned the type of alternatives that would 4 j_ 19 be available. What were the alternatives as you understand 20 them that were presented to Mr. Hobby? 21 A. Mr. Williams as I understood it presented three f 22 different alternatives to Mr. Hobby. { 23 The first alternative was to help him locate a j 24 comparable level job at SONOPCO, which he rejected. ) 25 The second alternative was to help him find another i I Io - l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _- - e., ,-- ., . - -w.- - -
\
l t Page 542 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR t NARVIN B. HOBBY, i Consplainant, l VQLDME HI ' vs. : Case No.'90_ ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent. :
-_.____ . . .. t Courtroom 901, DeKaib County Courthouse, !
556 N. McDonough Street, ! Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 : The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, i pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. ; BEFORE: i l HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge i APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN,iAttorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., i Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, t WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
.- - .= .
4 , i j 4 l
- i Page 570 i
. 1 progressing with regard to the co-owners of Plants Hatch and [ t 2 Vogtle, and one of those co-owners' objection at the SEC is 3 why we have not yet gotten approval for the formation of the P 4 subsidiary, and that ongoing negotiation and what to do about l 5 that was a major part of it, and it was my understanding that 6 and just a general "How is it going?" were the purposes of ! 7 the get-together. J 8 Q. At that May 5 meeting, Mr. Farley, was there any ) 9 discussion of the nuclear operations contract administration ! 10 group or of the need for having such a group? ! 11 A. ! There was some discussion. It was not a major part 12 of the dialogue, but there was some discussion of it. 13 Q. And if you will, Mr. Parley, tell the court what 14 that discussion was. 1,5 A. The major aspect of it had to do with the proposal 16 for adding -- and I've forgotten whether one, two, three -- 17 but adding some job authorizations for that group who would 18 be nuclear engineers or people of that level, and I was asked 19 what I thought about that, and I expressed my opinion of what 20 I thought about the desirability or the lack of desirability 21 of doing that.
)
22 Q. What was your opinion, Mr. Farley? 23 A. It was my opinion then, and still is that if the 24 i Southern system is to achieve the economies and the ' 25 management approach that was desired in the formation of a { l r
4
\
j . i i l Page 571 ' i 1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company group that it would be an i 2 l unnecessary expense and a duplication to set up a group that
- 3 would oversee and overview the decisions that were being made 4 by the nuclear operating group.
5 j This is a problem that The Southern Company,'and I'
- 6 presume other organizations tend to have in that if you 7
assign responsibility to a group, and then you set up another
- I 8
group to oversee whether that group is doing it properly, 9 then you wind up with duplication, you wind up with an 10 adversarial relationship, and if you don't like the way that 11 the group is doing its work you ought to get another group, {
, 12 but don't set up competing groups.
l 13 We have had experience with this within the ! 14 Southern system on other areas, and I expressed the view that 15 we would simply be adding people in a duplicative role, and I 16 that if Georgia Power or Alabama Power for that matter were ) 1 17 not satisfied with the staffing, then we ought to change the 18 staffing, but let's not duplicate it. I 19 ThatwasingeneraltheopinionthdtIexpressed. ) 20 ) Q. Mr. Farley, was there any discussion in that 21 meeting of any costplaint or concern of Mr. Marvin Hobby to t 1 22 the effect that his group was not getting sufficient 23 cooperation from the SONOPCO projoct? 24 A. No, sir, I recall no such discussion. 25 Q. Mr. Farley, let me show you a group of documents 9
i i 4 i Page 587 !. 1 nuclear organization. 2 2 Q. And that's because Mr. Dahlberg was just about to i l 3 increase Mr. Hobby's-staff I think you testified by three 4 individuals or something, and you had learned about this? ? { 5 A. It was not my understanding that Mr. Dahlberg was I 6 about to increase the staff. It was my understanding that 7 that was under consideration. 8 I didn't know what.Mr. Dahlberg was going to do or j 9- not do, and he didn't indicate to me what he would do or not 1 j 10 do. 1 11 Q. Okay. So basically the sum.and substance of the 12 discussion was Bill Dahlberg saying to you, Mr. Farley, " Hey, 1 13 I'm about to consider expending a lot of resources to get i l 14 this contract administration group up and operating,* and you 15 respond saying " Hey, wait, we could do that just as well over ) 16 at our side, so why don't we just transfer,the function over { 17 to SONOPCO?" 18 A. No, sir, that was not the way the conversation went l 19 at all. 20 Mr. Dahlberg had before him as I understood it a I 21 request from Mr. Hobby for some additional personnel, and Mr. i
)
22 Dahlberg just asked me what did I think about increasing some 23 personnel for a group that would interface with scuthern
. 24 Nuclear, and sort of translate what Southern Nuclear would be 25 doing to other parts of Georgia Power Company, and my
Page 588 ' 1 response was that I thought that would lead to -- either be 2 or would lead to duplication, and if there was a p chlem we 3 ought to address the problem rather than just adding more 4 personnel. 5 Q. And what was the problem? ! 6 A. I was not aware that there was a problem, and to my
.i 7 knowledge there wasn't a problem, except I thought there 8 would be a problem if we set up a duplicating staff to ,
9 oversee what another group was doing. 10 Q. So it was basically a duplication of efforts, and 11 the meeting was to decide either whether SONOPCO was going to : 12 do that or Georgia Power Company, being they were duplicating 13 each other? i 14 A. That was not what the meeting was about. This 15 subject came up during the course of the discussion, but as I 16 said earlier I don't think that was the reason for the ' 17 meeting. ! i 18 I can't tell you why Mr. Dahlberg asked me to come r 19 by his office for a sandwich. That's some thing he'd have to i 20 tell you, but that was not my understanding of the purpose of < 21 the meeting. ' 22 Q. Now, you're involved with negotiating contracts on 23 behalf of SONOPCO, is that correct? 24 A., I an involved among others with some contract 25 negotiations, including the undertaking to try to work out an
i ' i ? l i ! Page 597 1 l dealing with Alabama or Georgia in terms of his role as j 2 l an officer of those companies, which I'm not an officer of. j 3 Q. And the nuclear operations contract administration j 4
- group, or a similar group that would be in SONOPCO would be 5
in the administrative area?
- 6 A. We don't have a similar group to what I understood l 7 j
the contract administration group was to be'.
- 8
! We don't have quite that kind of group, because I ' 9 understand they were to be almost a general group to oversee 10 what it was we were doing in most every function. 11 Q. And the group that's at SONOPCO which co.rently 12 oversees what you're doing, preparing budr,ets and monitoring 13 performance, that's all the administrative group; correct? 14 A. Well, no, sir. I don't want to leave it that wo 15 have what I understood Mr. Hobby was proposing. That's not a 16 contract administration group. 17 There is no contract to administer in that regard 18 because we are not yet a corporation, we don't have a ; 19 contract, so in the sense of monitoring everything that the ! 20 Southern Nuclear group does as a group with Hatch and Vogtle ; 21 we don't have that. I a 22 We are a line management organization at those 23 plants with support from technical and administrative sides, 24 and there isn't a contract administration group like that, 25 there just isn't. 9
._.z_._______..__ _ . - . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ .
Page 598 1 Q. Now, at the May 5th meeting did you hear that a Mr. 2 Mike Barker wanted to leave your side and go over to work 3 with Mr. Hobby? 4 A. I don't recall hearing that. 5 Q. Do you know who Mr. Mike Barker 127 6 A. Yes, and I do understand that Mr Barker would have 7 preferred to be in Atlanta rather than in Birmingham, so it 8 would not surprise me, but I did not hear that at the May 5th 9 meeting. 10 I did know he would have liked to have had a 11 transfer to Georgia. 12- Q. I j And Mr. Mcdonald played an active role in stopping ' 13 Mr. Barker from transferring over to Mr. Hobby's group; 14 correct? 15 A. Not to my knowledge. He may have, but not to my 16 knowledge. I
- 17. Q. Do you know who made the final decision as to v
18 whether Mr. Barker would be allowed to transfer from the 19 SONOPCO project over to Mr. Hobby's group? 20 A. I assume Mr. Dahlberg made the decision on Mr. 21 Baker, but you're asking me about an area in which I'm not 22 familiar because I don't know whether Mr. Barker applied for 23 a transfer or not. 24 I don't even know whether there was a job for him 25 to' transfer to.
s Page 605 1 the' issues would be resolved and SONOPCO would be formed in a 2 relatively short period of time?- 3 A. That's correct. { 4 Q. Mr. Mcdonald, did you play any role at'all in the ! 5 formation of the nuclear operations contract acininistration ) 6 group at Georgia Power Company?
- 7 A. No. I I
8 Q. Were you consulted in any way about.the formation 9 of that group? 10 A. No. 11 Q. As you later came to understand it, Mr. Mcdonald, l 12 what function was that group to perform? ' 13 A. My understanding was that when we formed SONOPCO l j 14 and established a contract with the co-okners that that group 15 would represent Georgia Power Company's administration of the
)
16 contract for the services which we performed, would perform. 1 17 Q. With that in mind, Mr. Mcdonald ~, would the nuclear l , 18 operations contract administration group have had any ; r 19 function to perform if it turned out that SONOPCO was not l i i 20 incorporated and there was no operating contract that was ! 21 ! entered into among SONOPCO, the power company and the co-22 owners? 23 A. Not that I know of. 24 Q. Okay. Mr. Mcdonald, there's a set of documents up 25 here. Let me direct your attention to -- Mr. Mcdonald, I'm i j l
)
i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ "'
i Page 609 1 was Mr. Hobby ever excluded from any meeting because of a 2 request,you made? l I 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you ever request that he be excluded from l 5 quarterly review meetings with the joint owners? : 6 A. No. 7 Q. Let me direct your attention now, Mr. Mcdonald, to 8 the SONOPCO budget. 9 Did Mr. Hobby or the nuclear operations contract 10 administration group have any responsibility for the SONOPCO 11 budget? ' g 12 A. There is not such a thing as a SONOPCO budget. You 13 may.be referring to the Georgia Power budget being developed 14 by the Georgia Power staff in the SONOPCO project building, 15 and in that case -- Please state the question again. 16 Q. Well, with that correction to my question, did the 17 nuclear operations contract administration group, Mr. Hobby's 18 group, did they have a responsibility for the Georgia Power
- 19 Company's nuclear operations budget which was developed and 20 presumably submitted to you for approval and then presumably 21 submitted by you to Mr. Dahlberg for approval?
22 A. No. 23 Q. They didn't have any responsibility for that. 24 A. No. 25 Q. Nr. Mcdonald, did you at some point establish a
.Q
i l 1 i I ! Page 645 j 1 expect that SONOPCO would be incorporated? f 2 A. We expected it was going tn be incorporated j 3 momentarily, some time in January. ! 4 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Head, if SONOPCO couldn't be 1 j 5 incorporated and if there was no operating contract between 1-
- 6 Georgia Power and the SONOPCC corporation, would there have j 7 been anything for the nuclear operations contract t 8 administration group to do?
9 A. This was never really discussed, but I would see no 10 reason there would be anything because we had no contract to 11 administer, so we didn't have anything to operate. ( 12 Q. Okay. Mr. Head, I want to direct your attention to 13 a document which is Tab 3 of Exhibit R-18, a memorandum dated 14 April 27th from Mr. Hobby to Mr. Williams, then I want to ask 15 you some questions about the memorandum. 16' ! First let me ask you, Mr. Head, when was the first 17 time you saw this memorandum? 18 A. I saw this memorandum on April the 27th. 19 Q. All right, sir. And when was your last day in the 20 office at Georgia Power Company? i l 21 A. April 28th. 22 Q. Approximately what time of day, if you remember, on 23 the 27th of April did Mr. Hobby show you the memorandum? 24 A. As I recall, it was early in the morning, somewhere 25 around 7:30 I would think.
s Page 682 1 doing for us directly. 2 Q. Okay. j 3 A. And of course his opinion was that we didn't need 4 that function.- 5 Q. Was there any proposal or suggestion made at that 6 meeting to the effect that Mr. Hobby and his group should be 7 incorporated into the SONOPCO project? 8 A. Yeah, Mr. Dahlberg's response to Mr. Farlay was 9 that, you know, that "We really don't need that, and why 10 don't you take these people in SONOPCO." 11 Q. Okay. Was there any decision on that subject? j 12 A. No, there was no decision. It was a matter that 13 was put on the table for future discussion. 14 Q. Okay. Now, in that May 5th meeting, or whenever i 15 the meeting occurred, but the meeting with Mr. Dahlberg and i 16 Nr. Farley at which you discussed these matters, was there ' 17 any discussion there about the April 27th memorandum from Mr. 18 Hobby to Mr. Willians? i . 19 A. No. I never -- I was not aware of the April 27th 20 memorandum at the time of that meeting, and in fact -- 21 Q. When did you become aware of it? 22 A. Fred Williams some times later mentioned the 23 memorandum to me, but he was unable to show me a copy of it
. 24 because he didn't have a copy, and the only time that I ever 25 saw the memorandum was in your office when you showed me a l
.- -.- . . = . - - . _ . - . - - . . - - - . . . - - - . - . . . - . . - . . - . . . . - - - . . - -. - .
1 j Page 714 f BEFORE THE i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IABOR i 8 MARVIN B. HOBBY, a Complainant, a 2DLIIME 23[ I vs. : Case No. 90_ ERA _30 . l
\
GEORGIA' POWER COMPANY, t ! Respondent. ! 8 l Courtroom 901, l DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia ! i Friday, October 26, 1990' The above_ entitled matter came on for hearing, Pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: i HON. JOEL R. WIIIIANS, Meinistrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KDEN, Attorney, DAVID K. COIAPINTO, Attorney, Eohn, Kohn & Colapinto, i 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., . i Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WII.LIAK N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 1 l l l c I
Page 784 1 versus the SONOPCO project. 2 Q. All right. Now, you gave Mr. Williams this memo 3 expressing all the problems that you had. Did Mr. Williams 4 go over those problems with you in that asmo? 5-A. We went down the list of itsas, but again the 6 discussion was mainly on the interface issue, not so snach the 7 individual items. 8 Q. Was the discussion centered around the reason why 9 Mr. Williams couldn't perform the nuclear operations contract 10 s hinistration function at SONOPCO? 11 A. I really don't understand the question. 12 Q.
. Was the focus of Mr. Williams' statements in the 13 beginning of the meeting why is it that nuclear operations 14 contract administration function couldn't be perfonsed in 15 Bi -iagham?
16 A. It was not whether why it could be performed there 17 or at Georgia Power, it was he was more or less asking us to
, 18 justify why it should be performed at Georgia Power versus in 19 Bi miagham at the SONOPCO project.
20 Q. And that was not the understanding of why you 21 entered that meeting?
~
22 A. No, it was not. - l 23 Q. And Mr. Williams' statement to you to justify the 24 existence of your organization took ,you aff g~usrif7 25 A. Initially, yes, butsit was a good point he mags <
i s j U.S. Departm:nt cf Labor omee of Aamentstrawe Law suoges 1 800 K Street. N W. Wasninaton. O C 20001 8002 DATE ISSUED: NousMBER 8, 1991 Case No.: 90-ERA-30 l 4 In the Matter of i MARVIN B. HOBBY, Costplainant v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Respondent Michael D. Kohn, Esquire ' David K. Colapinto, Esetire Kohn, Eohn 4 :: : . . a . .: For the Complainant James Joiner, Esquire William N. Withrow, Esquire Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman For the Respondent
- Before: JOEL R. WILLIAMS Administrative Law Judge survunrwunED DECISION AMD ORDER This case arises under the employee protection provision of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. S5851, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 29 C.F.R. Part 24.
The Complainant filed his initial complaint under the Act on or about February 6, 1990. This was supplemented on February 28, 1990. On March 26, 1990, the Acting Regional Director detezzined that the Complainant had been discriminated against for engaging in activity protected under the ERA and called for his rbstoration to his former position. The Respondent filed a timely request for a hearing. They also filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor contending that the March 26, 1990 determination was made without their having been affmded a reasonable opportunity to participate in the investigation. Thereafter, the case was reconsidered by the District Director, Wage and Hour Division, based on additional information furnished by both parties. On May 25, 1990, the District Director amended the prior findings to the effect that the elimination of Complainant's job was not based on his having engaged in any
. .'.. . : :.;; 1 ' 0 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _ _ _ - - s .
A i It was not until some six months after the April 27 memo that the Management Council determined that the Complainant had 4 no potential with the Respondent. The witnesses who participated at this meeting have denied knowing of the memo at that time and have denied that anything stated therein influenced their evaluation. I hsve no reason to doubt their testimony in this regard. That their evaluation of the Complainant's abilities may i have differed from earlier performance evaluations comes as no great surprise. Mr. Miller and Mr. Head, for, whom he had earlier worked, had retired from the company. The complainant did not hold Mr. Miller's successor, Mr. Dahlberg, in sigh regard and the feeling may well have been mutual. Furthermore, the , evaluation was based on his performance in a different position. Mr. Baker was concerned that the Complainant had not fulfilled his responsibility in this job of gaining cooperation from SONOPCO. Neither Mr. Mcdonald, who is the only company executive to have been identified as having attended the January 2, 1989 meeting, nor Mr. Williams, who is the only executive to have acknowledged seeing the April 27, 1989 memo, participated in this management council meeting.
~
The decision to terminate the position of manager of NOCA, which Messrs. Evans and Williams had considered for some time, was finalized in the November / December 1989 time frame. The
. exact date is unimportant. The complainant knew that the decision had been made or was in the making when he met with Mr.
Williams in late November. This should not have come to any
" great surprise" to him in light of the predictions he had made to Admiral Wilkinson in his June letter. Considering (1) that Mr. Head, who had. sponsored the formation of NOCA, had retired; (2) that Mr. Baker, was not. totally convinced as to the necessity for NOCA from its origination but went along with it in order to give the Complainant something to dor (3) Mr. Farley expressed an opinion to Mr. Dahlberg in May 1989 that NOCA was a needless expense and at odds with the purpose for which SONOPCO was formed (4) that the following month, Mr. Dahlberg expressed doubts to Mr. Barker as to the continued need for NOCA; (5) that Dwight Evans, who had not been involved in the decision to form the NOCA group, felt that they did not need a high-level position to interface with SONOPCO but should interface with them at multiple points in a manner similar to what is done in other areas; (6) that after several months of considering the matter, Mr.
Williams, who also had no input into NOCA's formation, decided that there was no need for a high level manager or separate organization to administer a contract if it over came to fruition; (7) that the incorporation of SONOPCO had been delayed beyond expectations; and (8) that there was a general reorganization of the company at the time with other executive i
. - - - , - . - . . , - - ,,..-.,w..., , _ , , . - -, - , - -
J s and/or managerial positions being eliminated as cost-saving measures, I find tLat the decision to eliminate the position of manager of NOCA was in no way related to the Complainant's i participation in the January 2, 1989 meeting or the concern
- raised in his April 27, 1989 memorandum as to from whom Mr.
Mcdonald receives his management direction for operation of the Georgia Power nuclear plants. I find that, instead, the decision to eliminate the position was fully justified as a measure to operate the Respondent's nuclear program more economically and I officiently.. I find further that the change of the Complainant's office, the revocation of his executive parking privileges and badge and his restriction to certain floors of the headquarters building was not in retaliation for his having filed the instant complaint but was a justified security measure. As his position had been officially terminated and as he had rejected the possibility of a transfer to another position at SONOPCO or Georgia Power's headquarters, his ultimate departure from the company was a forgone conclusion at the time. He had been notified by Mr. Williams on February 2, 1989, four days before his complaint was i filed, that his office would be moved. He had been transferred I to Mr. Williams' supervision and his_new office was on the same l He had been observed with floor as his new supervisor. unidentified and apparently unauthorized persons in the executive parking area. That Mr. Williams' concern over the Complainant's shredding of documents may have later been proven to him to be unjustified does not mean that it was not a genuine concern when he first learned of the same. The February 6, 1989 initial complaint indicated that the Complainant had a copy of the April 27 confidential" memo in his possession which demonstrates to me that concern over his possibly compromising other confidential company documents was well founded. Conclusions of Law As a preliminary matter, I note that the Respondent raised an issue as to the timeliness of the filing of the complaint in this case for the first time in its post-hearing brief. Pursuant 4 to 29 C.F.R. $18.1, in the absence of any contrary provisions in the ERA, its implementing regulations and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Bearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to the instant proceedings. gg Cooper v. Bechtel Power Corooration, 88-ERA-2, (Decision,.and Order of the Secretary, October 3, 1989). Rule 8(c) provides that statutes of limitations are affirmative defenses. Failure to assert such a defense in a Respondent's pleadings is considered a waiver of the e
, , , - - , - r -n-- n ,, , - + - - - - - - - , - - - - - ~ - - - - , -
f-i. 1 IV. NOCA's Function i Mr. Kohn accuses Williams of misrepresenting NOCA's function, selectively quoting i excerpts of Williams' response to a question raised by Mr. Merschoff. What Williams really
- said is as follows
4 l MR. MERSCHOFF: I have two questions on that. One, you said the purpose , of NOCA was to oversee a contract between Southem Nuclear and Georgia Power. Was that the sole purpose of it? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. MR. MERSCHOFF: And you say that contract isn't in place yet. At what point was NOCA dissolved as an organization? MR. WILLIAMS: NOCA was dissolved when I eliminated the job in the beginning of 1990. I absorbed the other positions within the existing bulk power contracts administration area that was already at that point in time administering and managing all the joint owner contracts, our operating agreement already at that. time. MR. MERSCHOFF: When I read the decision, I thought there was a manager put in place in that position after Mr. Hobby. MR. WILLIAMS: No. Let me straighten that out, too. What I did was essentially put the function underneath an existing manager, a manager level 17, three levels below, who was administering at that point in time some 40 contracts between us and the joint owners. A level 17 manager took over. In fact, it was just moved in his area, which is where I determined it should have been in the first place. l MR. MERSCHOFF: Was it then subsequently dissolvad? ; 1 MR. WILLIAMS: NOCA was dissolved? MR. MERSCHOFF: Is there a NOCA function under this manager today? MR. WILLIAMS: No. The staff under this manager today essentially was understaffed, anyway, because of all the contracts we had and that we were administering between us and the joint owners. As I said, it was not just the ! Vogtle plant. Hatch, Wansey, Scherer. We have a pump storage hydrofacility that is being managed in the same group. We have three new power supply
agreements, and all of those have multiple contracts in them. That was a department that existed before NOCA was ever formed. We were already billing the co-owners, doing the budgeting with the co-owners on the Vogtle a Nuclear Plant well before NOCA was even thought about. I was already - ) negotiating a new arrangement between us, the nuclear managing board i concept and all. i
'Ihe only responsibility NOCA could possibly have would then be to t administer the contract between Southern Nuclear when it became Southern !
Nuclear instead of a project and us at Georgia Power Company, and that : would have been my department then, so it didn't make sense to put all this : money and department in place just between us and Southern Nuclear when it could be done directly with the existing manager and his staff that were there. We did absorb these two positions, and they're still there and we're managing [ those contracts. ; l t
. . . . Here was Georgia Power employees doing Georgia Power work, and 2
here was a new group called NOCA that was being set up to administer a contract that didn't exist yet, trying to force themselves into something that .
.was already functioning. l I think if you look at some of the things even raised by Mr. Hobby, we tried 1 to include them. We tried to make sure, when it did happen, we would have them ifit made sense; but during that year of my review, it just didn't make sense that this separate project needed to be there with a hundred thousand dollar a year boss and with two accountants and a secretary when for one or two of those people we could have just added them to the existing department !
that was already there. In fact, we didn't have to. We could have taken on the function without them, but since those people were in the position, it was e good. Since I was already understaffed in that area,'they picked up actually , other duties, not just this project. (Conference Tr. at 25-30). - When placed in context, it is clear that when Williams was saying that administration l of the contract between SONOPCO and GPC was NOCA's " sole purpose," he was talking about the time period after he had reviewed the need for NOCA and determined that many of NOCA's intended functions were being performed by other existing GPC departments. Thus, Williams' statement is not a misrepresentation at all. Moreover, even when not placed ,
- i l
2- !
?
l
in the correct context, Williams' statement is consistent with Dahlberg's ASLB testimony and I the testimony of GPC's witnesses at the DOL hearing in that: 1) all of Hobby's intended functions were intertwined with the existence of a contract between SONOPCO and GPC; and 2) without a contract, NOCA did nothing more than duplicate the functions of the SONOPCO project and other GPC departments. (ASLB Tr. at 1194,1196,1199; Tr. at 305, 311-13, 315-17, 330-32, 368-70, 387-88, 406-12, 415, 425-27, 441-44, 446, 452-53, 467-68, 485-86, 570-71, 587-88, 597, 645, 682, 784). Hobby also corroborated this testimony when he created the Position Questionnaire, which assumed the incorporation of SONOPCO and a contract between SONOPCO and GPC, (CX.13), and in his ASLB l testimony. (ASLB tr. at 2306,2315,2385). 1 f
, l 3
In The Matter Of: IN THEMA7TER OFMARVINB. HOBBY v. \ GEORGIA POWER COMPAhY PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE October 4,1995 BROWNREPORTING, INC. ATIANTA, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON ROME 1100 SPRING STREET l SUITE 750 ATLANTA, GA USA 30309 (404) 876-8979 or (800) 637-0293 Odgmat File 1004bobb.asc. $2 ?ngst Mhe414cnpre FileID:1456496487 Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripte O arsrunnK 2
l IN THE MATTER OF MARVIN B. HOBBY v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENC GEORGIA POWER COMPANY October 9.199 j Pege 24 Page ai negouatmg terms. Tom had been mvolved m stmdar tg Georgia Power.Was that the sole purpose of h? x outplacement agreemems.Marnn said he beheved m MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. T that Pat Mcdonald and Joe Farley wanted to get him pi MR.MERSCHOFF: And you say that contract . e out of the company and I understood that it was si isn't in place yet.At what pomt was NOCA si Mcdonald's view that NOCA nuclear expemse in (si dissolved as an orgamamuon' ! tal Atlanta dedicated solely to overseems nucicar sq MR. WILLIAMS: NOCA was dissolved when ! m expemse in BL-- --5 h == was not needed.What I said { gn ch==ed the pob m the beganmg of 1990.1 ' isi there was that a smup in Atlanta overscetog nuclear in absorbed the other posmons wahm the casung rei experuse m BL= 7== at the Sotahem Nuclear pi bulk power contracts aden ar-nan area that was i pq psotect was not needed.that that would be the role og already at that point in une ad==renns and pq of line management at the Southern Nuclear pmpect. pq managingautheionatownercontracts our ) pri it was a view that was shared by me and others. na operstag agreements already at that tune, na mcludes Mr. Evans.my boss. 'ps: 1st. MERSCW1FF: When I rend the decision, pq Marna was told that if an o 9== = lpg I thought there wt a manager put m place m that nsi package could not be negousted.his posson would gig posmonafterMr. Hobby. om be cimunsted and he would be an employee impacted 64 MR. WILLIAMS: No.l.et me straighten sn by the cornpany's downssaang.What that means is.1 sq that out,too.What ! did was essennally put the "si tned to negouste somethms wnh him because 1 told poi funcuon underneath an enstag manager.a manger "vi him that his positaon was soms to be cimunsted and poi icvei 17. three levels below, who was ad-anaraing
;ra if it was ehmmated, he would be then under the ::a at that point in ame some 40 contracts between us try normal procedure for inTaned employees and whatever tag and the joint owners.A level 17 managertook ira severance package that went wah that. _as over.in fact.a was just moved in his arts,which as He said in his Department of Labor case 'pu is wherc ! deteranned it should have been in the n that on January 10th.1990.1 told him that he would 'pq ikrst place, asi get no support in the company from sensor rnanagemem .pq MR. MERSCHOFF: Was it then subsequemly Page as ' Page to because of the Apn! 27th memo.This is sunply not tu dissolved?
m true. His memo was not a factor m cimunaung the si MR. WILLIAMS: NOCA was dissolved.
;m posioon. In fact.untd it was raised with the pi MR. MERSCHOFF: Is there a NOCA funcuan w Department of Labor.1 had forsonen about the Apnl si under this manager today?
si 27th memo at that ume. m MR. WILLIAMS: No.The staff under this s: Let me iust summanze to vou what I told Isi manager today essenually was understaffed.anyway, m the Department of Labor judge dtuing the heanng. gn because of au the contracts we had and that we were ; m The mernorandum and the assues in it had nothms to les admmastenns between us and the pomt owners. As !
- si do wnh the decision to chmmate Marnn's si said.it was not sust the Vogtle plant. Hatch.
om possuon.Marnn's posaaon of s100.000 plue a-year pa Wansley.Scherer.We have a pump storage p9 general manager was just not pusufled by this job. {
!!ig hydrofacihty that is being managed in that same !
pri and I believe that everyone mvolved. including ins smup.We have an meestated transmission system na Dwight Evans.Marnn,and those repomns to him lpa agreement.We have three new power supply p., t.aderstood that.and the posmon cannot be ing agreements,and all of those have multiple comracts psi lusufted today. {pa in them.That was a dqs m that existed before ' pm Thank you. ipei NOCA was everformed.We were already bilEng the on MR.MERSCHOFF: Do you need access to a jun co owners, doms the b= ;- --g wnh the co. owners on poiphone? pg the Vogde Nuclear Plant well before NOCA was even pm MR. REYES: let's so off the record for a og thought about.! was already negouatmg a new am mmute. pg arrang== 6. us the nucacar managog board 39 (Discussion ensued off the record.) pq conceptandall me MR.REYES:We're back on. as '!1 e only. ' 5-3 NOCA could sa MR.MERSCHOFF:I have two quespons on me possibly have would then be to adammster the og that.One.you said the purpose of NOCA was to og conuset between Southern Nacicar when a became on oversee a consract between Southern Nuclear and mm Southern Nucime astead of a psopect and us at f713i3
- - - . . -.- - ._ - -- . - . - - _ . - - - - - - - _ . - - - _ . - - . - - - - - =
\
PREDECISIONAI. ENFORCE 3ENT CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF MARVIN B. HOBBY v. October 4,1995 {
) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY t l
Page as i Page 30 pi Geortua Power Company,and that would have had to vi department that was already there.in fact we ! m have been my department then.so it didn't rnake m didn't have to.We could have taken on the functon pi sense to put all this money and department m place mi without thern. but smce those people were m the si pust between us and Southern Nuclear when a could 81 possuon.it was good.Since I was already m be done directly with the existmg manager and his ist understaffed m that area.anyway.they picked up m naff that were there.We did absorb those two , isi actually other duties.not pust this project. m possuons.and they re still there.and we're ' ,m MR. HAIRgTON: Thank you. Fred. I've got m managms those contracts.In fact.one of the l i is about ten more minutes,and then 1 may answer some j m possons has now been einmnared. and that has been i pi of your quesuons that remam m part of my pg transferred to the county. l pq lpg prearamaaa l do want to clanfyone thing about the inq Georgia Power and Mr. Hobby litigated pq ofacer chain m Southern Nuclear. Pat Mcdonald at ! inn this manerin late 1990 before one of the og the time. George Hairston. Ken McCoy andTom ing c,.,,,,. i oflaborad====auve law pudges. Judge og Beckham were all er..iAv. . of Georgia Power stiu jpg Wuhams.Mr. Hobby tesuSed.as did Mr. Baker. pg during this whole ume.They were not removed from ing Mr.Dahlberg.Mr.withams.Mr. Evans.Mr. Tom og the Georgia Power payroll.In fact.all the ing Boren.and others.Mr.Boren was an ofScer who en employees workmg on Georgia protects m the
,pn attended the November 7th performance review meetmg og Southern Nuclear operating protect at that time were pq as well as the December 29th.1989. management poi sull Georgia Power employees.so.you know,they on council meeung where the recommendataon to um were suit performmg their funcuans.The only inq clammate Mr. Hobby's possaon was made.A totalof
;ry thmg different.mstead of movmg from the
;mg about 15 witnesses tesuSed over severs! full na thuteemh floor to the fourteemh floor.they had inn days.
og moved from Georgia Power s budding to BL = =" ins Why was Mr. Hobby ~s posmon climianced.' og Nothms else had changed at that poet in time, ing The A1J. which is on the left. sand.1 Sad the as There was no Southern Nuclear Company,if you inn decimen to chmmate the posanon of manager of Page as Page 31 pl would.It was still Georgia Power employees
, pi NOCA was m no way related to the concern raised m m funcuonmg the same way they had.They were gust
. m the April 27th.1989. memorandum. And you can read m over the protect.
. pi on.
si We did put officers that had dual
, ei Almost four years later- that's
'st hatung which was this whole tasue about reportmg.
Ist right - altnost four years later.the Secretary of si m my optmon.That s the only concern that m labor rejected the recommendauon.the recommended m Oglethorpe ever raised with me, whether y all would m dectsson of his own adrainistrauve law sudge.His m accept dual hatung, which ! beheve you would. pi order, decision m this area is on the nght of that
. m because you ve had that presented to you before m pi overhead.
pq other areas.and it was under my understandmg that la doing so,the Secretary basically saad 99 that was not a problem.Here was Georgsa Power ing
,pg that Mr. Hobby's testamony was to be beheved and g
na employees doms Georgia Power work,and here was a
;pa that the tesumony of the Georgia Power witnesses og new group caued NOCA that was bems set up to
.pg should be dascredned.This is the exact opposite og admmister a conuset that didn't exist yet.tryms inq of what judge Wuhams had recommended. Time after ne to force themselves into some'Ma= that was already psi funcuomas. inn time,the Secretary,who was reviewmg a cold pq ing transcnpt without actually seems and hearing l think if you look at some of the things
- pn wunesses.repected the credibdity determmauon of j nei even raised by Mr. Hobby we tned to include them.
ing judge Wuhams ! pg We sned to make sure,when it did happen.we would ing Georgia Power comends that underthe
- re have them af it made sense: but durms that year of inq circumstances presented here.this is unproper.and i 29 my review. st pust didn't make sense that this ing we win appeal this decesson of the Secretary ran sepasste protect needed to be there with a hundred jun As an assde.it minst Srst be re==adedto j na thousand douar a year boss and with two accountants iira an ad====nstrve law pudge to deterame the amount ne and a secretary when for one or two of those peopic ing of compensstaan of Mr. Hobby '
og we could have lust added them to the emanng Insi 1.et me tust bnefly go 'h===-h some Page 28 - Page 51 00) BROWN REPOMNG,INC. MOO 87WS I num3'M r
1014 . 4 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i i 2 f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j 3 +++++ I <. e 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- r i 5 HEARING ,
, 6 -------------------------------X 7 In the matter of: : 50-424-OLA-3 i 8 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 25 AL. : 50-425-OLA-3 -
9
- Re: License Amendment I
10 (Vogtle Electric Generating : (transfer to l 11 Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) : Southern Nuclear) 12 : ASLBP No.
- 13 -------------------------------X 93-671-01-OLA-3 ,
14 Wednesday, January 4, 1995 15 .- Hearing Room T 3B45 16 Two White Flint North 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 20 pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. 21 BEFORE: 22 PETER B. BLOCH Chairman 23 JAMES H. CARPENTER Administrative Judge 24 THOMMi D. MURPHY Administrative Judge 25 NEAL R. GROSS
. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
iace 2 M u ss WASHINGTON. OC 2000g (som 2Muu
1015 t i APPEARANCES
- 2 3 On behalf of the NRC: l 4
5 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ. l 6 JOIN HULL, ESQ. 7 MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ. 8 of: Office of the General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 11 (301) 504-1589 12
- 13 On behalf of the Licensee:
14 15 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR., ESQ 16 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ. 17 of: Shaw, Pittman, Potts &'Trowbridge 18 2300 N Street. N.W. 19 Washington, D.C. 20037 20 (202) 663-8474 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REpomTERS ANO TRANSCASEAS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W E80E RMA WASHtNGTON. O C. 20000 (30E 2346
- -_- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x _-
1016 1 APPEARANCES:(cont.) 2 JAMES E. JOINER, ESQ. 1 3 JOHN LAMBERSKI, ESQ. 1 4 of: Troutman Sanders 5 Nationsbank Plaza, Suite 5200 l 6 l 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 1 8 (404) 885-3360 ' 9 10 on behalf of the Intervenor: 11 12 MICHAEL D. KOHN, ESQ.
- 13 STEPHEN M. KOHN, ESQ.
14 MARY JANE WILMOTH, ESQ. 15 of: Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. 16 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington, D.C. 20001 18 (202) 234-4663 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (205 23 N WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (200 M
1017 1 - INDEX 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3 A.W. Dahlberg 1059 1052 1064 , l 4 1061 1069 I I 5 Prefiled Testimony 1061 1071 I 6 1079 l l 7 1090 8 1094 9 1098 10 1098 11 1107 12 1112 13 1120 14 1131 15 Patrick Mcdonald 1247 1252 1248 16 Prefiled Testimony 1249 1251 17 1254 18 1255 ~ 19 1256 20 1257 21 1260 22 1262 23 1270 24 1273 25 1277 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RHODE ICLAND AVENUE. N.W. (200 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (300 2344433
102.8 ) 1 I N D E X(CONT) 1 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD i 3 Patrick Mcdonald 1279 4 1280 5 1283 6 1290 7 1295 8 1296 9 1302 10 1306 11 1307 12 EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 13 Mcdonald A-D 1250 1252 14 GPC-1 1250 1252 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCfuSERS f 1323 MMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. M 2364433 WASHINGTON. OC 20005 (Sep 3344433
U 1194 1 A Mr. Baker did, yes.
.2 Q And what about Mr. Head? Do you know if he i
3 ' ever did?
, 4 ;j A Not -- no, sir, he did not.
l 5 Q And when did Mr. Baker stop having any I t 6 responsibility for nuclear operations? l 7l A I believe it was in -- I'd have to go back and 8 look, but I believe it was in April of 1988 when Mr. d 9 l Mcdonald was elected executive VP of Georgia Power I 10 Company, he reported directly to Mr. Scherer. 11 ' Q And was one of the reasons for setting up NOCA 12 to keep an eye on the nuclear projects?
- 13 . A Yes. At that time, it was a new organization i
14 for us. We were transferring our general staff to l 15 .i Birmingham, and I think all of us had a concern about li 16 exactly how it was going to work. And I thought it would 17 be necessary to set up a contract group to look at the 1 l 18 performance of that organization.
'9 We anticipated at that time that we would have 20 an operating contract between Georgia Power Company and ;
21 the nuclear organization. The contract never 22 materialized. They in effect were another department -- 23 -
-l just a department of Georgia Power Company.
I 24 BOARD EXAMINATION 25 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: The department of who? NEAL R. GROSS 7 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!SERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. { GOEl 234433 WASHINGTON O CQ (308) 234 4433
1196
- 'l to me, the next step down would be what I would consider 2 the management, and that was Mr. Mcdonald.
I j 3 il CHAIRMAN BLOCH: You used the word essential 4l ;
"It is essential that Georgia Power Company be involved j 5 in the operations of our units."
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- 7 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Had you thought about that a I
8 , good deal before you wrote that part of the letter? 9 9 THE WITNESS: Probably not that particular , 10 word. You know, we were going through a change -- a 11 change in the organization. We were moving some of our 12 people from Atlanta to Birmingham. That was a new
- 13 situation for us. I wanted to make sure that we knew
! 14 exactly what was going on with the plants.
15 , . I thought there would be a contract that ll 16 spelled out how they would operate, and I thought this 17 organization would be appropriate to monitor performance 4 18 against that contract. And so I set up the organization' 19 to do that. t 20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Were you familiar with any 21 legal advice at that time about what your responsibilities 22 would be? 23 . THE WITNESS: Not on this particular issue. 24 We did have a responsibility to the other owners of the 25 plants, and I was well aware of that. We were in NEAL R. GROSS l' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RMOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N W. I20h 234*33 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000s (200 M
i i 1199 1 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 2 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Did you oversight ever take { l 3 effect at all? I
*t 4j THE WITNESS: There was some oversight. There 1
5 ,; was a collection of information. There was some i 6ii information that was gathered, but I don't recall ever 7 receiving any reports that were unique or something that ;
.l . I 8l added value to the process, l i
9 ;l CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Please continue. I i i 10 ', CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 11 l BY MR. STEPHEN KOHN: I 12 ' Q And, isn't it a fact that in setting up the
- l l
13! NOCA organization, that it wasn't tied just to the ' I 14 + administration of the contract, but the real task was to 15 , look at the performance of the nuclear operations?
- \
16 A That's correct, that was one of the purposes. 17 But again, if I got performance reports directly from the 18 organization, I didn't need somebody else to do that same 19 function. It would be the same as in the power generation
- organization. You know, for the fossil plants, I didn't 21 have a separate organization to look at their performance 22 because that organization reported directly to me also.
23 Q And when you sat it up, part of their function 24 i was to gather information not just about their performance 1 25 Id of the units, but also about safety factors? l NEAL R. GROSS 9 j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS l 1323 RMOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W j (20m 234*33 wASHeNGTON. D.C. 20006 (20e 234*33
e Page 272 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 4 MARVIN B. HOBBY, a 2 Ccumplainant, a Eg&HE H , a vs. : Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent. : Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia I Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810 i Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
?
.. . . - - . . . ._ ._.-~ . - - . . - . . . . - - . . .
Page 2 IERXX WITNESSES: DIRECT fJLQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS I Marvin B. Hobby 44 219 -- --
)
EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Contplainant's: Nos. 1 thru 21 l Premiarked 10 l Nos. 23 thru 25 Premarked 10 Nos. 27 thru 35 , Premarked 10 Respondent's: Nos. 1 thru 18 Premarked 12 No. 19 - Letter 5/1/89 254 256 ( t g 8 D e e O
1 l l f i 1 Page 273 11211 l WITNESSES: QIBEGI CEQSS REDIRECT RECROSS Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 -- Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 -- ! l Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- - , Fred D. Williams 399 440 -- - . Thomas G. Boren 475 501 508 - Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- - l s EIRIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: , Nos. 36 & 36-A - Dahlberg Calendar 350 352 Nos. 37 & 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 Joints No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398 l e e ~
Page 543 I H D. K X WITNESSES: DIRECT CBQ11 REDIRECT RECROSS E. P. (Dennis) Wilkinson 544 557 -- -- Joseph M. Farley 564 579 -- -- R. P. Mcdonald 601 619 -- -- George F. Head 643 658 -- -- H. G. Baker 678 690 705 709 EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: No. 38 - Wilkinson bio 548 548 i P e 4 t
+ T i i . Page 715 j IHREX l WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT ]74;gggg
- Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. 716 725 -- --
l Manin B. Hobby 764 -- -- -- 1
- Donald W. Janney 765 772 -- ,-
l i - Robert P. Edwards, Jr. 776 779 780 - l i Carey Don Proctor 781 785 -- - i O e e e I
Page 305 1 Power Company, you indicated that Mr. Mcdonald reports to i 2 you. Does Mr. Mcdonald take all of his management direction 3 from you with respect to the operation of Georgia Power , 4 Company's nuclear plants? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Now, Mr. Dahlberg, I would like to ask you to 7 describe the SONOPCO project. I 8 A. The SONOPCO project was originally envisioned as a , 9 separate corporation. However, now it operates without a i 10 corporate identity and operates in effect as a division of i 11 the company, or a division of the Southern Company. 12 It is divided now so that it has specific
. 13 responsibilities for Georgia Power Company as we've indicated 14 for the operation of the Georgia units, and also has a 15 separate responsibility for Alabama's units.
i t 16 It is not yet a corporate entity and does as I say 17 operate as in effect a division of The Southern Company. 18 Q. And with respect to the operation of Georgia Power
~
19 Company's nuclear plants, Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle, dc:a 20 SONOPCO function as a division if you will or department of 21 Georgia Power Company? 22 A. Yes. It's very similar to our fossil and hydro 23 plants which are the other type plants we have. We have a 24 senior officer responsible for the operation of those plants, { 25 and the nuclear organization works basically the same way. O
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ . _ ~ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
Page 311 1 -Q. Mr. Dahlberg, what was the purpose of establishing 2 the nuclear operations contract administration group? 3 A. I had talked to Mr. Head about heading up a group 4 to review what was happening in the nuclear organization. At
~
5 that point in time.I thought that there would be a contract I 6 in effect between the SONOPCO project and -- or between ' 7 SONOPCO and Georgia Power Ccespany, and there would be some 8 need to administer that contract, to check the performance 9 under that contract with SONOPCO. 10 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, the contract which you referenced, i 11 that's a contract that would have been executed between l 12 Georgia Power and SONOPCO once SONOPCO was incorporated; is 13 that right? l 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. In your mind, Mr. Dahlberg, was there any function i 16 l for the nuclear operations contract administration group to 17 perfora if SONOPCO had not been approved, had not been 18 incorporated, and there had been no contract executed between 19 SONOPCO and Georgia Power Contpany? 20 A. Well, certainly if there was no contract there 21 would have been no administration of that contract. In fact, 22 we don't have a contract today. 23 There could have been some other duties, and that 24
. is just to monitor the performance of nuclear operations and 25 look at how w'll e the plants are running, costs, and those s
Page 312 1 type things, and in effect the SONOPCO project does that 2 themselves, and it would have been a duplication of that 3 function that they now perform. 4 Q. At the time you issued this memorandum at Tab 2 of 5 Exhibit R-18, when did you expect to receive SEC approval and 6 to incorporate SONOPCO? 7 A. Well, again I thought it would be a matter of 8 months. l 9 Q. Going now, Mr. Dahlberg, to a point in time in 10 1989, who was responsible for recomunending that the position 11 of general manager of nuclear operations contract i i 12 administration be ellainated? 13 A. I would think it would have been Mr. Evans or 14 perhaps Mr. Williams. 1 15 Q. Okay. Do you know the reasons for the decision and 16 recommendation that the position of general manager be 17 eliminated? 18 A. Yes. There was stot a function to be performed. 19 m There was no centract, and I had determined that the other 20 things that I saw could be performed by that group, that is a 21 monitoring of performance wasn't necessary and that SONOPCO 22 did that themselves. 23 The same thing happens in the fossil and hydro. I 24 don't have, for example, a separate organization that looks 25 at the performance of,that group, they do it themselves, And i i
l l Page 313 1 l there just wasn't a need for that position because there were 2 no functions to perform. 3 Q. l Was a recommendation to eliminate the position of j 4 general manager discussed in any of the management council 5 meetings in the latter part of 19897 6 A. I'm not sure the position itself was discussed. We 7 discussed on several occasions the overall structure of the 8 organization, we looked more at the people that we had in 9 jobs and their performance, their potential and so forth, but 10 I don't think we had specific discussions about elimination 11 of positions. 12 Q. The meeting that you just referenced where 13 particular individuals were discussed and evaluated, was that 14 meeting November 7th of 19897 15 A. I believe that's correct. It was late in that i 16 year. 17 We had had an earlier meeting that had only talked 18 about the senior levels in the organization, about those ! 19 people and about ourselves. This was our management council 20 group. i 21 I think at the meeting you referenced we talked ' 22 about the entire organizational structure. 23 Q. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Pat Mcdonald was 1 24 at that meeting? . 25 A. He was not. 5
l i Page 315 : 1 A. No, not in detail. I 2 Q. Do you know generally what concerns are expressed i 3 in the memorandum? i 4 A. I would have to read it again. I I'm not that i 5 familiar with it. 6 Q. If you would, Mr. Dahlberg, let me refer you to 7 Page 7 of the memorandum. Half way down the page do you see 8 a paragraph A significant concern..."? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Just take a moment and read that to yourself. 11 Mr. Dahlberg, vss~the April 27th memorandum or the 12 concern expressed there on Page 7 that I asked you to take a 13 look at discussed in the management council meeting of 14 November 7th, 19897 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Dahlberg, was the April 27th 17 memorandum, or the concern expressed on Page 7 a factor in 18 any way in the decision to eliminate the position of general
. 19 manager / nuclear operations contract administration?
20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. I And did you, Mr. Dahlberg, discuss with Mr. Evans, 22 Mr. Tom Boren and Mr. Williams the reasoning behind the ( 23 recommendation to eliminate this general manager position? 24 A. I don't recall specific discussions other than it 25 i was just an unneeded job, there wasn't a function there. I
I : 1 i 0 + i > a 4
- Page 316 t I don't remember having a lengthy discussion about it.
F 2 Q. Did anyone ever tell you, Mr. Dahlberg, that Mr. i ; j 3 Hobby believed that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley
- 4 instead of to you?
l 5 l a A. Not until these litigations began. i
- 6 Q.
Was that issue ever discussed in management council l 7 meetings? ' i j 8 A. No, sir. { 9 Q. ! Did you discuss that with Mr. Boren or Mr. Williams , ) 10 or Mr. Evans? 1 i 11 A. No, sir. ! 12 Q. l Mr. Dahlberg, let me direct your attention now to a 13 proceeding brought by Mr. Fuchko and Mr. Yunker under the 1 3 i 14 Energy Reorganization Act.
- 15 Are you familiar at all with that proceeding?
16 A. I knew that it occurred. It occurred as I came I 17 back to Georgia Power Company, but the details and the i 18 subject of it I was not familiar with, no, sir, !- 19 Q. L Did anyone ever tell you, Mr. Dahlberg, that Mr.
- 20 Hobby contended that Mr. Pat Mcdonald gave falso or 21 inaccurate testimony in the Mehko and Yunker proceeding?
22 A. No, sir. 23 Q. l Was Mr. Hobby's involvement in the Fuchko and ~
- 24 Yunker proceeding discussed in any of the management council
- 25 meetings? .
F
- . ~ _ _ . .. -. - -._-.___ . __________ _ _________
I Page 317 1 A. No, I didn't know he was involved. 2 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Evans, Mr. Boren or 3 Mr. Williams? . 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Dahlberg, was that , 6 contention of Mr. Hobby's a factor in any way in the decision 7 to eliminate the position of general manager / nuclear 8 operations contract administration? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, did Mr. Pat Mcdonald or Mr. Joe 11 Farley ever, state to you that they wanted Mr. Hobby 12 terminated? 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. Did they ever tell you that they wished to see Mr. 15 Hobby leave the employment of Georgia Power Company? 16 A. No, sir. 17 Q. Were you ever advised that Mr. Hobby or Mr. Head, l 18 George Head, felt that the nuclear operations contract 19 administration group was not getting sufficient cooperation ; 20 from SONOPC07 21 A. No. The only thing I was aware of is that there 22 wasn't much information to be worked on, and I think that's 23 one of the things that led to the elimination of the job, 24 there just wasn't a function there. That's the only thing I 25 recall. 9 8 F
Page 330
- 1. administration. In your mind that contract between Georgia 2
Power and SONOPCO was going to come right around the corner; 3 right? 4 A. I don't know whether months is right around the 5 corner, but I did anticipate that SONOPCO would be formed in 6 a matter of months, yes. 7 Q. All right. So you set up the nuclear operations 8 contract administration group to do all the functions that
- 9
-- budgeting, oversight, interface and a host of other things 10
-- right? -- and the reason you did that was so nuclear 11 operations contract administration could start functioning 12 isusediately because a contract was imminent; right?
13 A. That's part of the reason. The other reason was 14 the SONOPCO organization was new. I don't think any of us 15 knew exactly how it would operate and exactly what would be 16 required. 17 I anticipated that, yes, it would be formed; yes, I I 18 anticipated there would be a contract and there would be 19 scenthing to administer; yes, I anticipated that we would 20 need somebody to'be involved in gathering information about 21 the performance of the units, about the budget, about safety 22 factors. 23 As it turned out, one, there is no contract; 24 secondly, those things that I thought would be required in 25 terms of monitoring performance, we're monitoring
r Page 331 y 1 performance, but I get that information directly from the 2 SONOPCO organization, just like I get information directly 3 , from the fossil information group, I get information directly 4 from our marketing group, and there was no need for a 5 j separate organization to do basically the same thing. 6 , You mentioned budgeting. SONOPCO does the budget, 7 they review it directly with me. i There's not a function in 8 the middle. 9 Q. And SONOPCO was new, and nuclear operations 10 contract administration was now. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Almost simultaneously new; right? 13 A.
. Of course.
14 Q. Okay. And so now you're setting up nuclear !
, 15 operations contract administration, and you don't want to 16 duplicate offorts; right?
17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And so you wanted to set up nuclear operations
, 19 contract administration to do certain things; right?
20 A. Yeah, I've just described that. 21 A. All right. But.it ends up now that SONOPCO is 22 doing those things, and not nuclear operations contract t 23 administration group; isn't that correct? 24 A. That's absolutely correct. 25 Q. All right. So you set up nuclear operations
. i l i l Page 332 1 contract to do certain things, at the same time you-set up 2 the SONOPCO project, but somehow along the way your whole I 3 concept of why you created SONOPCO has fallen apart, and 4 4 you've got all those functions, and you started to stick them j 5 in the SONOPCO organization; right? i i t
- 6 A.
. No, you made a -- one thing you said was wrong. I 7 You said my expectations for SONOPCO fell apart, and that was 8 not correct. 9 Q. Your contract. 10 A. Those things that I f.hought the contract group 11 would do did not materialize because I got the information 12 from another source, there was no contract to administer. 13 There really wasn't a function to perform. 14 Q. But when you set up nuclear operations you thought
. 15 there was going to be this contract, so it only made local 16 sense to allow nuclear operations to start doing those 17 functions -- right? -- you have a new SONOPCO project forming 18 with a whole headache and a host of problems associated with
_ 19 moving offices, with hiring staff, with ten thousand new 20 things to do with every new major corporation creation, and 21 you had nuclear operations contract administration group 22 already established, there are offices at Georgia Power 23 Company, the space was there, you could relieve this whole l 24 burden off of SONOPCO's back by allowing Marvin Hobby's 1 l 25 nuclear operations contract administration group just to pick I e . ; 1
s Page 368 1 responsibilities he may have had with respect to performance 2 indicators? 3 A. I did not, and to my knowledge Mzi. Mcdonald did 4 not. 5 Q. You mentioned that you came back to the costpany I 6 think the late part of '88. - 7 After returning to the company, did you develop an 8 opinion about the necessity for the nuclear operations 9 contract administration? 10 A. Yes, I did. 11 Q. And what was your opinion? 12 A. I believed that we should have multiple points of 13 interface with the new company, that as an example I was 14 responsible among other things for interfacing with the 15 Public Service Cossaission. 16 I felt like that the accounting organization at I 17 Georgia Power that presented testimony, presented information ! 18 to the Public Service Cossaission should have direct access to 19 people at SONOPCO, and all across the board. 20 I felt like we did not need a high level position 21 to interface with SONOPCO, that we should interface with them 22 in many ways similar that we do with the service company 23 where we have many people dealing and more liens of 24 communication. 25 Q. And did-you discuss your opinions on that subject 4
i Page 369 1 with Mr. Fred Williams? 2 A. I did later in the year. Due to a retirement of an 3 executive I knew that there would be reorganization and Mr. 4 Williams would begin reporting to me at the end of the year, 5- and there nuld be changes taking place, so that in late 1989 6 after the rate case, probably in the late October-November 7 time frame, we began having discussions as to how we should 8 organize and proceed. ~ 9 Q. And as of January 1, 1990 Mr. Williams would start 10 reporting to you? I 11 A. That is correct. 12 Okay. i Q. So that's the reason you were having these i j 13 discussions in late 1989 about the contract administration 14 group? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What was Mr. Williams' recommendation regarding the 17 contract administration group, and in particular Mr. Hobby's 18 position?
, 19 A. He concurred with my feeling that we did not need a 20 high level position, and that was a position that could be 21 eliminated.
22 Q. What were his reasons for making that 23 recommendation to you as you understood? 24 A. That in proceeding through the 1989 rate case it 25 was obvious that we were not getting information timely to 7 _.,-.-y.
Page 370 1 respond to the data requests, and that the position, it was 2 more of a bottleneck and did not allow for the type of 3 cosasunications we needed, and that we could abolish the 4 position, and that other officers and other employees of 5 . Georgia Power Company could perform those duties rather than 6 having them consolidated in a single position., 7 Q. Now, did you discuss Mr. Williams' reconumendation . 8 with Mr. Boren? 9 A. Yes, I did. 10 Q. Okay. And did Mr. Boren agree with the 11 recomunendation of Mr. Williams? 12 A. He agreed with our recomunendation, yes. 13 Q. Was Mr. Hobby's job performance a reason for 14 reconumending the elimination of his position? 15 A. No, his performance was not the reason. It was the 16 fact we did not need the position. 17 Q. Let me get you to turn to Tab 3 in Exhibit R-18 18 which is an April 27, 1989 meno from Mr. Hobby to Mr.
. 19 Williams.
20 Have you ever seen or heard of that document 21 before? 22 A. I have in the course of this case. I had not seen j 23 or heard of it prior to this case. l i 24- Q. Was this memo ever mentioned in any of your i 1 25 conversations with Mr. Williams and Mr. Boren regarding the
Page 387 j 1 MR. KOHN That would definitely shorten things. j 2 JUDGE WIIIIAMS: All right. Let's do it, then. 3 4 MR. COLAPINTO: Do you have a copy with you?
- 4 MR. WITHROW
- Yes, I do.
- 5 (Pause.)
6 MR. KOHN Tour Honor, we can read this into the I 7 record after the witness. 8 MR. JOINER: The object of the stipulation, your i 9 Honor, is to eliminate a need for all these questions. 10 MR. KOHN I'm off that subject. 11 MR. WITHROW: We'll get it in later. i. 12 BY MR. KOHN i
! . 13 Q. Now, what prompted you to begin looking into the i,
14 elimination of Mr. Hobby's job was the fact that Fred 15 Williams told you that Mr. Hobby was leaving the company, had
! 16 requested an early out package?
i j 17 A. No, I had begun thinking about it prior to that . 18 Mr. Williams did make me aware that Mr. Hobby had approached I
- j. 19 him late in the year and that in fact Mr. Hobby had raised
! 20 that issue. I didn't recall any of the details. l j 21 The first conversation I had with Mr. Williams on 1
22 the topic was at that point in time. I had thought about the 23 subject prior to that in looking over positions to streamline t 24 the senior management of the company, looking at positions 4 25 tha't could be eliminated. I l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - . - - - -- > - - - . - --.-,--w - - - - w,,, v
I l l l J l i i l 4 Page 388 i 1 Q. But isn't it true that it was your understanding i j 2 that Mr.-Hobby had contacted Mr. Williams about an early out > , 3 package and that's.what initiated the conversations between l l 4 you and Mr. Williams to restructure the nuclear operations
- 5 contract administration? -
6 A. That was discussed in one of our conversations. I 7 don't recall if it was the first conversation or not, but 8 that was discussed in one of the conversations. - 9 Q. Could you just read into the record from Line 11 to 10 Line 23 on Page 84 of your deposition? 11 A. Line 117 Line 11 is an answer: 12 " November of '89 is when we sentioned that we would 13 - begin restructuring to do some. changes in the company, and f 14 when we restructure how do we need to be organized. That was 15 the tone of the overall conversation." 16 Q. Thank you. Where did you stop reading? ! 17 A. (Indicates ) 18 Q. Continue to read all the way down to the end of the r 19 page. 20 A. The question: "Okay. Was it at your request that y 21 Mr. Williams was going to engage in a fact-finding mission to ! 22 determine whether the position was needed?" 23 Answer: "It was my understanding Mr. Hobby had 24 contacted Mr. Williams about an early out package, and that's 25 what initiated the conversation." r _ ---. _ . - - - _. ~.
i 1 5 i ) Page 406 1 supervise Mr. Hobby or to work with him in his capacity as {- 2 general manager of that group? 4 j 3 A. Yes, sir. In the negotiations that were ongoing at l 4 that time we were developing or toying with the concept in 1 5 negotiations of what we called a managing board agreement l 6 concept, and we invited Mr. -- I invited Mr. Hobby to start
- 7 attending those negotiations with us in his new capacity as i
- 8 manager of this nuclear operations contract administration l
9 group since he would be directly involved if we were t
- 10 successful in getting the contract negotiated and a 11 corporation set up.
! 12 Q. And did you have continuing contact with Mr. Hobby 13 throughout 19897 i 14 A. Yes, sir. As the negotiations continued, even when 15 the negotiations somewhat halted because of other reasons. 16 than SONOPCO, I continued meeting with Mr. Hobby because Mr. 17 Hobby saw, and I was given the responsibility of negotiating i 18 those contracts, and he was directly involved in what I was 19 doing, so we had continual contact throughout 1989. 20 Q. Did there come a point in time when it was decided 21 that Mr. Hobby would begin reporting directly to you? 22 A. Yes, it did. 23 Q. Okay. And when was that, and tell the judge if you 24 would, please, why that decision was made. 25 A. On January 1, 1990 was the official transfer of Mr. e
1 l 1 l l Page 407 1 Hobby's reporting to me. 2 Prior to that time we had been -- in fact, I had 3 been as part of my negotiations reviewing the need for not l 1 4 just Mr. Hobby's job, but the total organization and how it l 5 would be fitted in with the new relationship that we were 6 negotiating, and I had conversations with Mr. Baker before 7 his retirement about the need for the organization and my 8 thoughts on it as I was doing that review, and then on into ! i 9 the late fall when I reported to Mr. Evans then, and I also 10 gave his my hupressions and my thoughts on whether the i 11 organization was needed and what structure it should take. l 12 4 We did not have a contract, and we had been going
, 13 on for some period of time, it did not appear we were going 14 to get a contract any time soon even though we were 15 negotiating again, but my decisions were being made on what I
~
16 saw, whether or not we had an incorporated entity or not, 17 what would be the role of that area. 18 Q. Okay. You mentioned that you were going through 19 this ongoing process of review. Did you ever talk to Mr. 20 Robby about the necessity for the contract administration 21 group? 22 A. Yes, sir, I did. 23 Q. Tell the court if you would about those 24 discussions. 25 A. Those discussions, some of then I guess the first I F
Page 408 1 impression I had was probably in the spring. By then I was 2 still very open-minded because we were still in the very 3 early stages of negotiations at that point as to what we 4 would need, and we were also starting to run into problems 5 with negotiations with oglethorpe, but later in the year when 6 we started .tegotiations up in earnest again I gave it more of 7 a review, and I was -- you know, we had a Southern Services 8 setup, we didn't have that role there -- I was already 9 responsible, I being bulk power markets, responsible for the 10 interface with the co-owners, to how it was going to fit in, l 11 this whole organization, with this relationship which we were 12 already responsible for. 13 We were already administering as I said some thirty 14 or forty contracts with the co-owners and other entities, so 15 I had expressed all these to Mr. Hobby, and I was playing 16 somewhat a devil's advocate with him and his staff at times 17 as to " Explain to me, I want to hear you, I want to be 18 objective why you are needed? What is your function? What 19 should your function be?, but let's not duplicate things. Be 20 fair and come in objectively.* 21 A. Did you think there was a need to have a separate 22 interface between Georgia Power and tho'co-owners in addition 23 to the interface that your group already had at that time? 24 A. Not a separate total interface as that's the only 25 interface they should have. The way we functioned in my role a
I Page 409 1 as administrator of these contracts and as the joint 2 committee member, and we had Mike Harrell who was also in the 3 accounting officer, the chief accounting officer, was another ! 4 rep. 5 We needed those contacts to occur where the work 6 was being done for informational purposes and cosununication, 7 but the official path had to be through the joint cosmaittee 8 member, which was myself. That needed to be the path. 9 If we had set up another one now, we were 10 separating that outside, and that was going to give multiple 11 paths and some confusion I think that would come down the 12 road. 13 Q. You mentioned that you had several contracts that 14 your organization was responsible for administering. Did you 15 have within bulk power or -- I'm sorry, was there in the 16 company a separate group to administer contracts that you 17 were re.sponsible for under bulk power? 18 A. No, sir. We had the administration. Accounting 19 had a fixed joint asset accounting where they did the 20 accounting function there for the joint-owed units, but there i 21 was no separate entity set up anywhere that had the overall 22 responsibility other than the responsibility given us to make 23 sure things happened that were supposed to happen in the 24 contract time-wise and that type thing. 25 Q. In your opinion in 1989 as you developed your l
Page 410 1 thinking did you see a need for there to be separate group in 2 the company to administer a contract between Georgia Power 3 and SONOPCO if that contract ever came into existence? ! 4 A. No, sir, I didn't. l Mw determination after hours of - 5 talking with Mr. Hobby and his people, and accounting staffs ' 6 and in fact SONOPCO people, I did not see a need for a . 7 separate organization. 8 I did possibly see a need for some of the staff, 9 not all the staff he was talking about, to be included as 10 part of the bulk power market services area which already 11 existed for administration of the contracts, and this could 12 be easily picked up by them, which was really understaffed 13 already, and we could take on this additional responsibility 14 in that area and use some of the staff there. 15 Q. You said that you received some input from people 16 in Mr. Hobby's organization. Let me get you to turn to Tab 7 17 of Respondent's Exhibit 18 and ask you to identify that 18 document for the record, please. 19 A. Yes. This was provided to me by Mr. Hobby and his ! 20 staff in either late November or early December in response 21 to my request again that I wanted to make sure I understood 22 where all of the possible interfaces were that existed, who 23 needed to be interfacing between SONOPCO and Georgia Power 24 Company. 25 Q. And did you have a meeting with Mr. Hobby and his
.l...-..-.. - - - . - . . , . , _ , .- - . _ _ _ .
Page 411 1 1 staff to consider the information that was placed in this 2 memo? ! , 3 A. Yes, sir, they came to my office and we discussed 4 Lt. 5 Q. And can you tell the court generally what was 6 discussed in that meeting? 7 A. In that meeting the staff -- and Mr. Hobby was late 8 as he said coming to the meeting -- defended essentially, I 9 really pressed them on "Why are you needed? If we've got 10 accountants already talking, and budget people already , 11 talking to each other between here and SONOPCO, and SONOPCO 12 has staff to do this, tell me the.real reason," and I really
, 13 pressed as I said playing the devil's advocate as to "Why are 14 you needed? I_'m not here to eliminate you, I just need to 15 know, I need to get in my mind fixed why this function is i
16 necessary and would be necessary with SONOPCO set up," and we 17 went through these various areas explaining why they thought 18 they were necessary. , 19 Q. At what point did you make a formal recommendation . 20 to your superiors about the elimination of Mr. Hobby's 21 position? I 22 A. I would guess the formal recommendation, though I 23 had had discussions before and I had given my thoughts on the ; 24 idea, was probably -- well, they didn't report to me until 1 25 January 1st, and I gave my formal recommendation then, 1 r ) l 1 1
_~ _ . - _- --. - - . _ . - - - . - . - - . - . . - . - . . . . . - - - . - _ - - - . _ _ _ - - -
\
4 I, i i i i Page 412 1 actually went through with the process, but prior to that in l 2 December and early November I was already informing Mr. Evans ! 3 that I did not see the need for a high level manager, or did l 4 I see the need for a separate organization to exist to 5 administer a contract if we ever got a contract. 6 Q. Did Mr. Evans agree or disagree with your 7 conclusion? I 8 A. He agreed with it. 9 Q. In making your decision about the elimination of i 10 Mr. Hobby's position, did you ever discuss the need for the 11 contract administration group or Mr. Hobby's position with 12 Mr. Mcdonald? 13 A. No, sir. r t 14 Q. Did you ever discuss those issues with Mr. Farley? l 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. Did Mr. Mcdonald or Mr. Farley ever state to you 17 that they wanted-to see Mr. Hobby's position eliminated? ' 18 A. No, sir. i _ 19 Q. Did they ever tell you that they wanted to see Mr. 20 Hobby fired? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Did they ever say that they wanted to see him leave 23 the company? 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. Did they ever express any opinion to you on his
_-__ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . ~ . _ . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ 1 Page 415 1 something secret or anything, I was aware of that. 2 He was concerned because his organization was not , 3 involved in it, but there was not a SONOPCO. Pat Mcdonald 4 still was a Georgia Power employee, mos+ everybody at SONOPCO 5 that worked on Georgia units was Georgia employees, so there 6 was not a specific relationship or reporting position to 7 bring this through Mr. Hobby and his group. ! 8 t I was aware of it, though, as the joint casemittee member and 9 being the negotiator with the co-owners. 10 There were some other areas in here that I had told 11 him that was just incorrect, and Dan Smith had mentioned to 7 12 me. In fact we had written a memo back to Dan Smith I think 13 we talked about, or he mentioned or raised that they inquired 14 in the joint cossaittee subconstittee meeting about the 15 reporting relationship. We had responded, but I had never 16 heard that from Mr. Kilgore who was Mr. Smith's superior at 17 Oglethorpe in our negotiations. He had never raised that 18 issue with me as to who Mr. Mcdonald reported to, so I had 19 seen a lot of things in the memo that I thought I addressed 20 at that time with him that were inaccuracies, besides the
)
21 memo not being responsive to what I needed to help formulate l
. 22 in my mind what the relationship organizationally and 23 interface should be between Georgia Power and SONOPCO.
24 Q. Let's back up to that point just a second, .The 25 reason for asking for the meno. Did you tell Mr. Hobby that
l I i Page 425 l l 1 position resulted in his employment becoming an impacted l 2 employee. 3 Mr. Hobby was quite familiar with that, as he had 4 eliminated several positions himself and part of 5 reorganization had gone through the same process where he had i 6 found other employment for the people in those jobs or l 7 offered outplacement packages. l 8 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Tom Kilgore at Oglethorpe I 9 Power that you were going to eliminate Mr. Hobby's position l 10 in advance of telling that to Mr. Hobby? 11 A. No, sir, I did not.
, 12 Q. Did Mr. Hobby ever confront you with the accusation 13 that he had learned indirectly through Mr. Kilgore or Mr. Dan 14 Smith that he was going to have his job removed or 15 eliminated?
16 A. Yes, sir, he inquired from a conversation he had 17 with Dan Smith about something to that effect, and I don't 18 remember exactly how he phrase it, but what I explained to 19 Mr. Hobby in a meeting with Mr. Kilgore in our negotiating 20 sessions, SONOPCO was one of those issues that we were 21 discussing at the time, and I had told him that whers I had 22 come down to as far as staffing at Georgia Power is I did not 23 believe we needed expertise in the nuclear operating area on-24 staff at Georgia Power Company, that was what we centralized 25 , the function for at SONOPCO, and it would 'be redundant to
Page 4.26 t 1 staff at Georgia Power and to set up this organization and 2 contract with an organization for the nuclear expertise. ! 3 The way I explained that to Mr. Hobby is I had just ! 4 gone through a reorganization of a system planning function l 5 where we centralized the system planning. function in 1 6 Birmingham, and if I had kept system planning expertise, one 7 or two on the staff and moved the rest of them to Birmingham l 1 8 where the planners are going to plan, so you would have had [ 9 planners looking for something to do and they would.have 10 created work, and then we would have had the same issue 11 again, a turf issue, and it just didn't make sense and it 12 didn't seem the most efficient way to do. 13 That was what discussion I had with Mr. Kilgore, ha 14 was inquiring as to what we were thinking, and that was my 15 thoughts on the subject that I had shared with him, because 16 he was looking at his own staffing as to what he was going to 17 have at Oglethorpe. 18 Q. And when you made that comment to Mr. Kilgore about 19 not retaining in Atlanta expertise in the operation of 20 nuclear plants, were you referring to Mr. Hobby? 21 A. No, sir, I wasn't even thinking of Mr. Hobby at 22 that time. 23 In fact, I informed Mr. Hobby at that meeting that 24 I had no problem with his performance and what he was doing, .! 25 and at that point even though I was looking at the whole
i '5 i i Page 427 1 l organization and I had shared with him already the concern I
- 2 had with the high level job such as that in a separate 3
organization, he was aware of that already,' that I had ' i 4 already raised that issue with him. 5 Q. Let's talk for a minute about your discussion with
- 6.
i Mr. Hobby on his outplacement package. ! 7 i Now, when generally speaking was the first time j 3 8 that you began to have those discussions? 4 9 A. 2 It was either late November or early December, in
- 10 that time frame. A lot of that discussion runs together i
j 11 right there. i 12 . In talking, I think it might have been one of these I ) 13 very meetings we were talking about that I was suggesting i 14 maybe that we didn't need a high level position, and
- 15 i
questioned as I said whether we needed a separate j 16 organization. ~ i 17 I asked Mr. Hobby would he be interested in i 18 employment at SONOPCO, and the immediate reply was no, that 19 he wasn't interested. }_ i
- 20 I said "Would you be interested maybe in another 21 i position within one or two levels somewhere else in the power
- 22 generation or another area of Georgia Power Company?" "No."
23 I said, a
"Mr. Hobby, you're limiting my options in 24 what I'm looking at in this," and I think I mentioned to him 25 "Would you be interested in some kind of outplacement 1
1 W
i Page 441 1 BY MR. KOHN: 2 Q. Mr. Williams, let's cover the April 1989 time frame 3 when Mr. Hobby and you were discussing his meno. Had you 4 i begun the process of considering to eliminate Marvin Hobby's ! 5 job by that time? I 6 Q. : No, sir, I had not. What I had begun by that time 7 was to review the relationship that needed to exist, or 8 actually investigate the relationship that needed to be in , 9 place between Georgia Power Company and SONOPCO. 10 i The areas I wanted to look at was what should we --' j 11 should we just have one central contract that Mr. Hobby ! 12 understood should be their contact, or should we have 13 multiple contacts, should we continue the accounting 14 contacts, the budgeting contacts. 15 I wanted to look at that in more detail since I had t 16 been assigned the responsibility to negotiate the 17 relationship between us and the co-owners, and the co-owners 18 were very interested in our relationship with SONOPCO since 19-they owned a large portion of the nuclear facilities, and so !
~
20 wanted to comfort myself on what that relationship should be. 1 21 Q. i And had.you engaged in a fact-finding process so l 22 , you could make a recommendation as to what or how the nuclear l 23 i operations contract administration should be reorganized at J 24 the time Mr. Hobby substitted his April 27th memo? : 25 A. I didn't look at how that should be reorganized. I r ' - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ~ . - - _ _ - - - - - - - -
l e
- Page 442 I
was looking at what their organization and function - in F 2 3 fact, that was what I was asking from Mr. Hobby is "What do 3 you see is your function?
- Where are these interfaces? What 1
4 should they be? Give me information there, what problems you
- 5. saw, whether there was dual setups, or you were not involved 6 in the loop, why were you not involved?"
l 7 I was asking SONOPCO and a lot of people there the 8 same questions. I was asking the accounting organization the 9
- same type things as to what they were doing.
10
- 4. I was trying to get a feel myself of what was going
! 11 on, what should be going on there. As a negotiator I needed i 12 ! to understand what the relationship was going to be. 13 Q. i So you were not -- you were trying to figure out { 14 how to resolve the interface problem, or were you trying to j 15 figure out how to reorganize that area? 16 A. Trying to figure out what the interface should be 17 in my own mind. 18 Q. And you were engaging in a fact-finding mission; 19 correct? 4-20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And you were not considering what the problems, the 22 breakdown in communications problems were; is that correct? 23 A. The breakdown in cometunications problem? What 24 breakdown in cosaunications problem? 25 Q. Between SONOPCO and the nuclear operations contract O
- -- . +
l l, Page 443 1 administration group. 2 A. I didn't know there was a breakdown in 3 comununications because there -- how could there be a 4 breakdown when I'm not sure what their function was at that 5 point as far as I was concerned, because we did not have a 6 nuclear contract to administer. . I 7 What we were at 1.nistering was a project which most I i 8 of the employees in that, or all the employees in that 9 project were still Georgia Power employees with the exception 10 of services, Southern services < employees, and if we were 11 going to go forward and have a nuclear operating contract ; 12 administration group at Georgia Power Company I wanted to { 13 make that I understood how it would function and what its . 14 responsibilities should be in context with what SONOPCO's 15 organization was going to be, and how that all fit together 16 with what we were negotiating with the co-owners. 17 Q. And Mr. Hobby then presented you with a memo -- 18 Can you tell me what your cowersation was to Mr. Hobby that 19 led him to give you this April 27th memo? 20 A. Yes, sir. I asked him to tell me where you saw 21 what interfaces there should be between SONOPCO and Georgia 22 Power Company, who should.be talking to who, what channels of 23 casununication should there be there, whose responsibility was 24 it to initiate things, give me some kind of flow background. 25 He was reluctant to ever giving that to me. In v
j 1 l . Page 444 1 I fact, I had to pull it out of him in November, and I still 2 didn't get everything I wanted done, and for some reason they 3 didn't want to give me that. 4 I finally got it in November, or at least got some 5 part of it, so I was actually having to do a lot of this 6 investigation myself talking to the accounting area and all. 7 As I said, this memo didn't give me who in 8 accounting reports to who or talks to who at SONOPCO. I know
- - 9 I've got an accounting group over at SONOPCO, and I've got 10 one here. Who's supposed to be doing what? Who's talking to l l 11 who there? What should that be?
1 12 All I got out of Mr. Hobby was that "Everything j 13 ought to come through me", and I don't think that's right. I i 1 14 don't think we can function that way, there's no way we can ! 4 15 function that way. 16 So I was doing the -- it was more of an 17 f investigation on my own part as to what.it should be set up, j 18 and I'm not saying he was the only culprit. You've got a new 19 ), organization in Bfruingham that thought they should have a 20 lot of things. 21 I was looking at the whole organization in the 22 hopes that when we get a contract, at the time we got a
- . _ 23 contract it was ready to go and SONOPCO was incorporated we 24- would be ready to go too.
25 Q. So you were engaging in a fact-finding mission to 4 e
l 1 i l l i Page 446 1 this testimony we've.had today. : 2 My effort was to resolve a lot of those areas by
.3 looking at the organization, the interfaces, what they should :
4 be, and let's make a decision on what should be there. 5 Q. Well, why were you doing that, and not George Head? 'I 6 A. I was doing that because I was responsible for the l 7 interface with the co-owners which had intervened into the ! 8 SONOPCO proceeding. 9 I was responsible for administering as I said some i 10 forty contracts already in my area. I took it on myself as a ! 11 negotiator to look at and see if I could assist in that. area. ;
)
12 I had talked with Mr. Head. In fact, Mr. Hobby and 13 I sat down with Mr. Head and he agreed that since I was 14 responsible for the negotiations of this and that Mr. Hobby 15 was serving on my negotiating team and the managing board 16 group and all that I could pursue of this. 17 Q. well, you had responsibility -- there were two 18 contracts that the contract administration group was-19 y administering or would be administering. One was between. 20 SCNOPCO and Georgia Power Company, and the other one was 21 between the joint owners and Georgia Power Company; is that 22 right? 23 A. No, sir, that's wrong. The contract administration 24 t t group would not be administering the managing board ; 25 agreement. i That would be administered with my department. I S
I Page 452 l 1 there would be no accounting of the budget, or all the 1 2 accounting would just happen at SONOPCO? I 3 A. I believe that's a different question than what you 4 were asking me. h e would be maybe looking at a review of 5 the budget and helping present the budget to management 6 council. That's not approving the budget. 7 Q. Well, wasn't that the role of nuclear operations 8 contract administration to review the budget and then tell 9 management council to give to management council knowledge 10 and guidance as to whether the SONOPCO budget was prudent? 11 A. I think we can go back to your words because you 12 told me in the statement we go back and look at the 13 announcement that came out and it said approve the budget, 14 and we already have a difference of opinion what we think l 15 that meant. i 16 I think ta't's what I was trying to determina just 17 what was going to be NOCA as you refer to its 18 responsibilities. . 19 Q. Well, then -- 20 A. There was some already -- we had set up this l 21 central organization with this expertise there which had a 22 budgeting function with it. Now, if you go set the same 23 thing back up at Georgia Power Company you start scratching 24 your head again what have you done, who's in charge, who's ; 25 doing what?
. . .-_ .__ _ . _ . . _. - _ , . _ . ~ . . _
i i Page 453 ! 1 i I think we had to work that out. That's what I was - 2 attempting to do on my fact-finding as you referred to it. ! 3 Q. And did you fact-finding -- then you determined 4 that the problem was a conflict between Mr. Hobby and Mr. 5 Mcdonald? i 6 'A. No, sir, I never said that. 7 Q. Well, I sort of inferred it from your statement 8 that Mr. Hobby wanted to run SONOPCO that I guess Mr. 9 Mcdonald would take exception to that. 10 A. No. I think what we were talking about is that he ; 11 kept raising the concern of whether Mr. Dahlberg was in 12 charge or Mr. Mcdonald was in charge, and Mr. Hobby seems to 13 be the only one that keeps raising that issue about Mr. 14 Mcdonald. 15 Q. Okay. But after Mr. Hobby raised that issue with 16 you, you went to President Dahlberg and discussed Marvin 17 Hobby's regulatory concern; isn't that correct? 18 A. No', sir. What I discussed with Mr. Dahlberg was 19 what I was seeing as far as our relationship with SONOPCO 20 that I was looking into, what was going on in our 21 negotiations with the co-owners. That's what I discussed 22 with Mr. Dahlberg. 23 I Now, as far as the memo went, I didn't go through 24 { the memo in detail with Mr. Dahlberg. In fact, I'm not sure I 25 whether I showed him the meno. l i l
Page 467 1 yes. 2 Q. And they were reporting to Mr. Adams until the 3 management council reorganized and instructed you on the 4 first of 1990, the beginning of 1990 that Mr. Hobby would 5 start reporting to you at that point? 6 A. I don't know the management council. Mr. Ehrans 7 called and said that he and Mr. Adams had met and talked to 8 Mr. Dahlberg and that beginning January 1st that the nuclear 9 operating contract administration group would report directly 10 to me. 11 Q. And at the time you got that information, you had 12 already determined that you were going to eliminate Maririn 13 Hobby's job the day he started to report to you? 14 A. I think I had already told him that that was my 15 leaning, yes, and going to be my recommendation. He was 16 aware of that. 17 Q. Okay. l So it was just a matter of needing to 18 formally transfer Mr. Hobby to you so you personally could { , 19 eliminate the job? Why didn't Mr. Adams just eliminate it? 20 A. I was not a party to that decision. I had already i 21 been making my reconsnandations as to what I thought was 22 needed. 23 I think Mr. Baker before his retirement and Mr. 24 Adams now in a discussion had all been saying at some point 25 down the road that this function, the more information that
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Page 468 1
. we were finding in these fact-finding missions and what was 2
going on in the negotiations more properly belonged in the 3 bulk power markets organization and not where it was over in 4 the power generation area, so I think we had all been 5 anticipating this, and Mr. Hobby knew that I thought at some 6 point, and I told him that, and he believed that too, that he 7 would be reporting to me, or the nuclear operating contract 8 administration section would, yes. 9 Q. And you were playing an informal role about what 10 you were going to do with nuclear operations contract 11 administration group, and you were not advising Mr. Hobby of 12 what you were going to do during -- 13 A. I was being very candid with Mr. Hobby. I wasn't 14 pulling any punches, I was telling him what I believed, and I 15 think that was the only fair thing to do, that I wasn't going ' 16 to have this, this is what I believed, and I was going to let 17 him know about it. 18 That's how I asked him about "Would you be 19 interested in a SONOPCO job or some other job?" 20 I might point out that when it moved over, it's a 21 20 Level job now, but when it moved over it was no longer. 22 1 think probably the 20 came because as you mentioned 23 yesterday in your own direct testimony that part of that was 24 the fact that it was an assistant to a senior VP. 25 I am not a senior VP, so when it moved over there
Page 485 1 referring to, your Honor. 2 THE WITNESS: I can still tell you from memory. 3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: A witness is entitled to testify 4 based on his own personal memorandums or notes. I mean 5 you're entitled to look at it if you want to look at it. 6 If he's using something to help him recall, that's 7 permissible except that you do have the right to look at what 8 he's using to help him recall. 9 MR. KOHN All right, sir. 10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Continue. 11 BY MR. JOIMER: 12 Q. I believe, Mr. Boren, my pending question was 13 whether you had an occasion to discuss the decision to 14 eliminate the position of general manager of nuclear 15 operations contract administration with Fred Williams and 16 Dwight Evans in the fall of 1989. 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Who was responsible for making that decision, Mr. , 19 Boren? 20 A. Mr. Williams was. 21 Q. And what were the reasons as you understood them 22 for the decision to eliminate the position? 23 A. When we established the position back at the end of 24 1988 -- I believe it was the end of '88, it may have been the 25 beginning -- we did that on the assumption that we would have
l l l Page 486 1 a contract for this manager to administer.
. j 1
2 Here we are almost 1990, the contract has not come ; 3 about, and we've realized that the reason we established the 4 job just wasn't there, and that's the primary reason that we I i 5 were looking at eliminating the job, and the other j 6 miscellaneous requirements for the job were kind of being 7 handled through the other normal functions of the company. 8 Q. Mr. Boren, why was it that you were being involved 9 in those discussions and in the consideration of whether hits 10 position should-be eliminated? l 11 A. We had kind of a standard policy that when we get , 12 down to those types of jobs, the major areas or whatever, 13 that I would work with whoever the vice president and the 14 management council member is making sure we all understood 15 the guidelines we used to address eliminating jobs, amirtng 16 sure that Fred knew what type of alternatives he had 17 available and so forth. 18 Q. You mentioned the type of alternatives that would ;
, 19 be available. What were the alternatives as you understand :
i 20 them that were presented to Mr. Hobby? 21 A. Mr. Williams as I understood it presented three 22 different alternatives to Mr. Hobby. - 23 The first alternative was to help him locate a 24 ! comparable level job at SONOPCO, which he rejected. 25 ; The second alternative was to help him find another > P h
1
. i Page 542 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF, LABOR NARVIN B. HOBBY, s -
Consplainant, a EERMK In J vs. : Case No. 90_ ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, s ) Respondent. : Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
, Pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
}
HON. JOEL R. WILLIANS, Administrative Law Judge i i APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN,iAttorney, DAVID K..COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WII.LIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, 1 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810- ' Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. ! 1 i
k i Page 570 1 progressing with regard to the co-owners of Plants Hatch and 2 Vogtle, and one of those co-owners' objection at the SEC is 3 why we have not yet gotten approval for tho' formation of the' 4 subsidiary, and that ongoing negotiation and what to do about 5 that was a major part of it, and it was.my understanding that i 6 and just a general "How is it going?" were the purposes of l 7 the get-together. 8 Q. At that May 5 meeting, Mr. Farley, was there any { 9 discussion of the nuclear operations contract administration a 10 group or of the need for having such a group? l 11 A. There was some discussion. It was not a major part i 12 of the dialogue, but there was some discussion of it.
- 13 Q. And if you will, Mr. Farley, tell the court what 14 that discussion ~was.
15 A. The major aspect of it had to do with the proposal 16 for adding -- and I've forgotten whether one, two, three -- ; 17 but adding some job authorizations for that group who would 18 be nuclear engineers or people of that level, and I was asked ' 19 what I thought about that, and I expressed my opinion of what 20 I thought about the desirability or the lack of desirability 21 of doing that. 22 Q. What was your opinion, Mr. Farley? 23 A. It was my opinion then, and still is that if the 24 Southern system is to achieve the economies and the 25 management approach that was desired in the formation of a l
?
r
Page 571 1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company group that it would.be an 2 unnecessary expense and a duplication to set up a group that i 3 would oversee and overview the decisions that were being made 4 by the nuclear operating group. ! 5 This is a problem that The Southern Company, and I . 6 presume other organizations tend to have in that if you j 7 assign responsibility to a group, and then you set up another ' 8 group to oversee whether that group is doing it properly, ; 9 then you wind up with duplication, you wind up with an 10 adversarial relationship, and if you don't like the way that 11 the group is doing its work you ought to get another group, 12 but don't set up competing groups. J 13 We have had experience with this within the 14 Southern system'on other areas, and I expressed the view that 15 we would simply be adding people in a duplicative role, and 16 that if Georgia Power or Alabama Power for t at matter were 17 not satisfied with the staffing, then we ought to change the 18 staffing, but let's not duplicate it. j i 19 That was in general the opinion that I expressed. 1 20 Q. Mr. Farley, was there any discussion in that 21 ) meeting of any complaint or concern of Mr. Marvin Hobby to 22 the effect that his group was not getting sufficient 23 cooperation from the SONOPCO project? i
~
24 A. No, sir, I recall no such discussion. 25 Q. 'Mr. Farley, let me show you a group of documents O
, ,. ,-...,,s, - .n... - ..
Page 587 ! 1 71 ear organization. 2 .Q. And that's because Mr. Dahlberg was just about to 3 increase Mr. Hobby's staff I think you testified by three 4 individuals or something, and you had learned about this? 5 A. It was not my understanding that Mr. Dahlberg was l 6 about to increase the staff. It was my understanding that 7 that was under consideration. 8 I didn't know what.Mr. Dahlberg was going to do or ; 9 not do, and he didn't indicate to me what he would do or not 10 do. 11 Q. Okay. So basically the sun.and. substance of the 12 discussion was Bill Dahlberg saying to you, Mr. Farley, " Hey, i 13 I'm about to consider expending a lot of resources to get 14 this contract administration group up and opc ating," and you , 15 respond saying " Hey,. wait, we could do that just as well over
.6 at our side, so why don't we just transfer the function over l 17 to SONOPC07" 18 A. No, sir, that was not the way the conversation went 19 at all.
20 Mr. Dahlberg had before him as I understood it a 21 i request from Mr. Hobby for some additional personnel, and Mr. 22 Dahlberg just asked me what did I think about increasing some 23 personnel for a group that would interface with Southern
. 24 Nuclear, and sort of translate what Southern Nuclear would be 25 doing to other parts of Georgia Power Company, and my 9
, 1 J
4 i Page 588 l 1 response was that I thought that would lead to -- either be i , 2 or would lead to duplication, and if there was a problem wo 1 3 ought to address the problem rather than just adding more 4 personnel. ] 5 Q. And what was the problem? j 6 A. I was not aware that there was a problem, and to my i knowledge there wasn't a problem, except I thought there 7 j would be a problem if we set up a duplicating staff to 8 9 oversee what another group was doing. i 10 Q. So it was basically a duplication of efforts, and 11 the meeting was to decide either whether SONOPCO was going to I 1' i 12 do that or Georgia Power Company, being they were duplicating
- 13 each other?
14 A. That was not what the meeting was about. This 15 subject came up during the course of the discussion, but as I 1
- 16 said earlier I don't think that was the reason for the i
17 meeting. i 18 I can't tell you why Mr. Dahlberg asked me to come
- l - 19 by his office for a sandwich. That's some thing he'd have to 20 tell you, but that was not my understanding of the purpose of 21 the meeting.
22 Q. Now, you're involved with negotiating contracts on 23 behalf of SONOPCO; is that correct? ) ) . 24 A. I an involved among others with some contract 25 negotiations, including the undertaking to try to work out 4 an
,r
_ . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ ___ ___ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 1 l I i i Page 597 l 1 dealing with Alabama or Georgia in terms of his role as 2 an officer of those companies, which I'm not an officer of. 3 Q. And the nuclear operations contract administration 4 group, or a similar group that would be in SONOPCO would be 5 in the administrative area? 6 A. We don't have a similar group to what I understood 7 the contract administration group was to be. " 8 We don't have quite that kind of group, because I 9 . understand they were to be almost a general group to oversee 10 , what it was we were doing in most every function. 11 Q. And the group that's at SONOPCO which currently 12 oversees what you're doing, preparing budgets and monitoring 13 performance, that's all the administrative group; correct? 14 A. Well,.no, sir. I don't want to leave it that wo 15 have what I understood Mr. Hobby was proposing. That's not a ' 16 contract administration group. 17 There is no contract to administer in that regard . 18 because we are not yet a corporation, we don't have a 19 contract, so in the sense of monitoring everything that the 20 Southern Nuclear group does as a group with Hatch and Vogtle , 21 we don't have that. 22 We are a line management organization at those 23 plants with support from technical and administrative sides, ! 24 and there isn't a contract administration group like that, 25 there just isn't.
- -- .. - . . . ... . . . . - . . . . . .. . . - ~ . _ . - - . _ - - . . .
Page 645
- 1 expect that SONOPCO would be incorporated?
i 2 A. We expected it was going to be incorporated 3 somentarily, some time in January. l . 4~ Q. Okay. And, Mr. Head, if SONOPCO couldn't be 5 incorporated and if there was no operating contract between t 6 Georgia Power and the SONOPCO corporation, would there have
- 7 been anything for the nuclear operations contract l
. \
- 8 administ 2 tion group to do?
9 A. This was never really discussed, but I would see no
- 10 reason there would be anything because we had no contract to 11 administer, so we didn't have anything to operate.
12 Q. Okay. Mr. Head, I want to direct your attention to l ( 13 a document which is Tab 3 of Exhibit R-18, a memorandum dated l 14 April 27th from Mr. Hobby to Mr. Williams, then I want to ask 15 you some questions about the memorandum. 16 First let me ask you, Mr. Head, when was the first l 1 17 time you saw this memorandum? l 18 A. I saw this memorandum on April the 27th.
- - 19 Q. All right, sir. And when was your last day in the i
, 20 office at Georgia Power Company? 4
- 21 A. April 28th.
- 22 -Q. Approximately what time of day, if you remember, on
- 23 the 27th of April did Mr. Hobby show you the memorandum?
q 24 A. As I recall, it was early in the morning, somewhere 25 around 7:30 I would think. 4
i Page 682 1 doing for us directly. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. And of course his opinion was that we didn't need l 4 that function. 5 Q. Was there any proposal or suggestion made at that i 6 meeting to the effect that Mr. Hobby and his group should be 7 incorporated into the SONOPCO project? 8 A. Teah, Mr. Dahlberg's response to Mr. Farley was , 9 that, you know, that "We really don't need that, and why j 10 don't you take these people in SONOPCO." i 11 Q. Okay. Was there any decision on that subject? i 12 A. No, there was no decision. It was a matter that 13 was put on the table for future discussion.
)
14 Q. Okay. Now, in that May 5th meeting, or whenever 15 the meeting occurred, but the meeting with Mr. Dahlberg and 16 Mr. Farley at which you discussed these matters, was there i 17 any discussion there about the April 27th memorandum from Mr. 18 Hobby to Mr. W1111ama?
. 19 A. No. I never -- I was not aware of the April 27th 20 memorandum at the time of that meeting, and in fact --
21 Q. When did you become aware of it? 22 A. Fred Williams some times later mentioned the 23 memorandum to me, but he was unable to show me a copy of it l 24 because he didn't have a copy, and the only time that I ever 25 saw the memorandum was in your office when you showed me a 1 _.- _ . _ __ _ _ -- _ - - - , ,,s , - . - -
- . . _ ~ - . . - . . . - . - _ - . -.- - _ . - . - . - . .
4 I 4 I Page 714 BEFORE THE j UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ' 1 ?- ' l . MARVIN B. HOBBY, I t
- Complainant, a 2QLUME II vs. : Case No. 90_ ERA _30 i GEORGIA' POWER COMPANY, a
, 8 j Respondent. :
. 1 Courtroom 901, !
DeKalb County Courthouse, j ' 556 N. McDonough Street, ! Decatur, Georgia 1 1 Friday, October 26, 1990-The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. i BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES:
?
MICHAEL D. KDEN, Attorney, t DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, 1 Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, i 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., l Washington, D.C. 20001; i i Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. i l 4 JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, i Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, 3 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810;
- Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
l f tx
Page 784 1 versus the SONOPCO project. 2 Q. All right. Now, you gave Mr. Williams this memo 3 expressing all the problems that you had. Did Mr. Williams 4 go over those problems with you in that memo? 5 A. We went down the list of items, but again the 6 discussion was mainly on the interface issue, not so much the 7 individual items. 8 Q. Was the discussion centered around the reason why-9 Mr. Williams couldn't perform the nuclear operations contract 10 administration function at SONOPCO? 11 A. I really don't understand the question. 12 Q. Was the focus of Mr. Williams' statements in the 13 beginning of the meeting why is it that nuclear operations 14 contract administration. function couldn't be performed in 15 Birmingham? 16 A. It was not whether why it could be performed there 17-or at Georgia Power, it was he was'more or less asking us to 18 justify why it should be performed at Georgia Power versus in 19 Bi -ingham at the SONOPCO project. 20 Q. And that was not the understanding of why you 21 entered that meeting? 22 A. No, it was not. 23 Q. And Mr. Williams' statement to you'to justify the 24 eximience of your organization took p aff giLiriPT 25 A. Initially, yes, butsit was a good point he mago< y-
s (* ?. PosiMon Questionnaire GeorgiaPower d PostTION TITLE General Manager Nuclear Operations Contract Administration EMPLOrEE
- REPORTS TQ (PostnON TTTLE)
M. 5. Hobby Senior Vice President Fossil & Hydro DEPANTMENT PERSON's NAME cQMPLETING PQ Nuclear Operations oEPARTMENT NCL REVIEWEo sY ( PL EE)
$fE .
I,lbbi oneANszAnoNAL uNsT tvks ounsnrusur nTLE) A99RcWEo sY (IMMEDfTE suPEMVISOM) DME Fossil & Hydro U wonn LocanoN ApenovEo sY oen 14/333
- 1. PosmON
SUMMARY
Descnoe ene pnmary reason trus poemon extets in the company. To manage the contract for the operation of the Company's nuclear power plants including establishing performance goals, accountabilities, long range nuclear planning, and budgets; to be responsible to the Joint Owners for the operation , of the Company's nuclear power plants. ! l
- 11. POSm0N REQUIREMENTS KNOWLEDGE: Ust the areas of special knowledge: (e g engmeenng, accounamg, general busmess theonestprseuces. proceeures). Insc they are used in this posson.
Contractual obligations - understanding of contract law and the obligations of the contracting firm to Georgia Power Company and CPC's obligations to the Joint Owners, comprehensive knowledge of nuclear plant operations in regard to engineering principles, accounting,-budgeting, etc. A detailed knowledge of joint agreement between the Joint Owners (OPC, MEAG, and the City of Dalton) and GPC regarding the operation of the nuclear plants. A detailed knowledge of the nuclear utility industry.and of the operations of INPO and the NRC. l l SiOLLS: Ust the vanous skills neeced 6n the postuon. Inctuce techrucal. tammistratrve ano ciencal skills, anaryucal/ thinking skills, wn communacation skills, managenal and interpersonal skills. Also, andscale now these slutts are used in the posmen. Technical and analytical skills to determine performance trends of the Company and industry; significant managerial and interpersonal skills to maintain positive interaction with contractor (SONOPCO), other Southern Company subsidiaries , and the Joint Owners of the nuclear facilities. (OPC, MEAG and the City of Dalton). l 1 dx- IS
?. . -
PogrTCH TITLa EMPLCFrEE General Manager N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobbv
- m. POSmON RESPONSIStuTIES Last this poemon's M Resoonsedetees in their oroer of imponance (1.2.1 etc.i inceste tne sportunnaie percentage of the total mom time spent annuany on eacn responseety.
p RESPONSISluTIES % OF TIME
- 1. To manage all aspects of the contract with SONOPCO to achieve 70%
the safe, dependable, and cost effective operation of our nuclear power plants.
- 2. To establish reasonable goals, accountabilities, and budgets for 30% ,
nuclear operations that support Georgia Power Company's Business Management Plan.
- 3. To monitor nuclear operations to ensure performance is supportive 15%
of GPC's Business Management Plan.
- 4. To serve as the primary interface between Georgia Power Company 15%
and SONOPCO and between Georgia Power and Joint Owners in nuclear operation matters. I
- 5. To be the primary interface with other Company functions including 10% !
top management and with the Public Service Commission on matters I related to nuclear operations including budget, financial l planning, prudency and performance. l l w 4 d F
Poemon Tma twu:wsE Gen r:1 Manager N.O. Centract Admin. M. B. Hobby IV. POSm0N ACTIVmES COMPLEXITYlDIVERSITY: Use the most cifficult or challengmg aspects of tnis position. Also,if this poonen is manapeg a venery of actnntes or ,tunctens, psease bst these managemers tasas. The most challenging aspect of the job involves the relationship between GPC and SONOPCO. It will be most i=portant for this position to ensure that SONOPCO management understands and incorporates the goals and the accountabilities that GPC develops for them and that SONOPCO operates in a manner that supports the accomplishment of CPC's corporate objectives and Business Plan.
)
JUDGEMENTIDECISION-MAKING: Budgeting Process
- Ust examples of the types of judgements this position requires an i
- Approve the Nuclear Operations annual budget - annually Monitor budget - daily ,
Plant Monitoring
- Approve annual goals - annually Monitor goals' achievement - daily Information Resource
- PSC hearings on prudency - monthly i
I Top management requests - daily Board of Directors - monthly RISK: Ust saamples of risk talung that may be recuired of this posnen,(i.e taking accon wnere the even The primary riska are to ensure GPC's interests are protected while main-taining a professional and cooperative relationship with SONOPCO. - CREATIVITY /1NNOVAT10N: Ust examples of new metnoos, proceeures or concepts the posason may coveeoo. Since this agreement is rather different, there vill be opportunities cvailable to develop alternative budgeting methods. The uniqueness of the agreement also offers the chance to develop more meaningful performance indicators. New communicative methods could be developed to disseminate information on SONOPCO to interested parties. V. RESULTS OF ACflON CONTRIBUTION: Um we airecs ene/or snarea responsibinties of stus poortson that codtribute to the The ability of this position to influence the management of SONOPCO to cperate in a manner that best meets the interest of GPC would be significant. Also, this position has the responsibility for coordinating all the cdministrative activities between the two Companies. Another area of concern would be the position's ability to determine the budget needs of SONOPCO based on operating goals that are established through this position's direction. a
l FOsiid TITLE EMPLorEE
~
Gene-al Mananer N.O. Contract Admin. M. B. Hobbv VI. SCOPE Provice annual maimaea snat corwey the scope and volume of this posthon. (Revenue, customers, megewerts. capital. O & M. contracts etcJ l Plant Hatch 1630 MW $250 MM Operting Budget Hatch and Vogtle Plant Vogtle 2320 MW $73 MM Capital Budget Hatch and Vogtle l vu. SRGANIZATION '
. ernpiete tne Organization chart Delow. Identity the two positions soove this position peer positions reporting to the immediate super.
vAlmanaget and suoorcinate posihons reporting oirectly '.0 this position (use titles only). f 1 l Senior Executive Vice President ! Senior Vice President Fossil & Hydro Operations EMPLOYEE Gen. Hgr. Nuclear Operations Contract Admin. l Senior Senior Senior Secretary Plant Accountant Engineer l l Exsun NONEXEMM UNON CONTRACT TODu. I PERSONNEL SUPERVISED 2 1 3 i l i muss - Page 4 I
2268 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++ l l 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l 5 HEARING 6 -------------------------------X 7 In the matter of: : 50-424-OLA-3 8 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 31 AL, : 50-425-OLA-3 9 : Re: License Amendment 10 (Vogtle Electric Generating : (transfer to I 11 Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) : Southern Nuclear) , 12 : ASLBP No. 13 -------------------------------X 93-671-01-OLA-3 l 14 Wednesday, January 11, 1995 15 Hearing Room T 3B45 i 16 Two White Flint North r 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 20 pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. 21 BEFORE: 22 PETER B. BLOCH Chairman 23 JAMES H. CARPENTER Administrative Judge l 24 THOMAS D. MURPHY Administrative Judge I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRGERS
.t 1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(3081 N WASHINGTON, O C. 30006 (313 334 4433 l
2265 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 On behalf of the NRC: 4 5 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ. 6 JOHN HULL, ESQ. 7 MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ. 8 of: Office of the General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 11 (301) 504-1589 12 13 on behalf of the Licensee: 14 15 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR.. ESQ 16 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ. 17 of: Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 18 2300 N Street, N.W. 19 Washington, D.C. 20037 20 (202) 663-8474 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(20m 2344433 wAgnp4 TON. O C. 20005 (20m 2344a33
227C 1 APPEARANCES:(cont.) 2 JAMES E. JOINER, ESQ. 1 3 JOHN LAMBERSKI, ESQ. 4 of: Troutman Sanders ' 5 Nationsbank Plaza, Suite 5200 6 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 8 (404) 885-3360 9 10 On behalf of the Intervenor: 1 11 < 12 MICHAEL D. KOHN, ESQ. 13 STEPHEN M. KOHN, ESQ. 14 MARY JANE WILMOTH, ESQ. 15 of: Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. j 16- 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington, D.C. 20001 18 (202) 234-4663 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 { 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT MPORitRS AND TRANSCRaetRS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENut, N W. l (302 N WASHeNGTON. D.C. 20005 (30S M33 l
2273 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3 Marvin Hobby 2273 2317 2388 2374 2273 4 2274 2321 2392 2378 2275 5 2276 2328 2393 2275 6 2281 2331 228C 7 2288 2334 2281 8 2306 2336 2284 9 2340 229C . 10 2350 2295 11 2353 2303 12 2359 2310 13 2365 2321 14 232~) 15 2330 16 2333 17 2339 18 2352 19 2353 , 1 20 2357 l 21 2377 22 2382 23 2392 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS
, COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
GOD N WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (200 2344433
2306 1 number one, our nuclear operations personnel are in ' 2 Birmingham, and while ultimately there may be.a contract, . 3 our job was to start in December of 1988. In my 4 discussions with Mr. Head -- 5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: That's enough. We'll take 6 another recess. 1 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. i 8 (Whereupon, the proceedings were off the 9 record from 8:00 p.m. until 8:13 p.m.) i 10 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Back on the record. 11 The Licensing Board is concerned that it l 12 really is unfair to Georgia Power to using these documents 13 in this way after their principal witnesses have left. On : 14 the other hand, we also consider the information in the 15 documents relevant to important issues before us, and we 16 need it for our purpose. 17 So the resolution we wish to order is that we 18 will receive these documents in evidence, and Licensee 19 will have the opportunity to file whatever affidavits they 20 i want to without any further cross examination by Mr. Kohn, 21 and those affidavits will be received just as if they were 22 live testimony. 23 Let's continue. 24 (Whereupon, the above-referred to 25 documents, marked as Intervenor's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOmitRS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (200 N wASMcNGTON. 0.C. 20005 N
231! I wait until there is a contract signed, and then the next i 2 day say, "We have this group to monitor the performance of 3 our contractor, basically." -You had to start back before 4 then.- 5 So, in 1989, we were, at that time, getting 6 our people, our procedures in place so we could perform 7. our function ~for Georgia Power Company, whether or not we 8 had a contract. 9 F ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MURPHY: However, I'm 10 trying to understand whether or not it was your 11 understanding that the reason for the establishment of 12 NOCA'was the eventual -- the eventuality that there would ! i 13 be a contract, and that there would be another company - 14 operating your plants, and that NOCA was put in place to 15 monitor that contract. 16 THE WITNESS: I think that is correct. And
-17 also, I think -- I was told specifically that NOCA was put j 18
- in place, not only because of what you said, which is i 19 i true, but also because our nuclear operations personnel 20 had been relocated to Birmingham. All of our nuclear 21 operations personnel relocated to Birmingham, and it was 22 anticipated that a separate organization would eventually ' 23 operate the nuclear power plants for the company. 24 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Mr. Hobby, at the outset, 25 everyone was flush with the excitement of getting this i NEAL R. GROSS I Comt REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRWERS 1333 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. 130m M WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 N '
2385 1 to provide information to Mr. Dahlberg on nuclear safety 2 performance indicators, such things as trip counts, SALP 3 reports, INPO reports, etc. To your knowledge, was 4 anybody else in Georgia Power doing that at the time your 5 group was formed? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. When the nuclear 7 operations personnel were transferred to Birmingham, there 8 was a group of people who did such things. 9 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CARPENTER: Who did they 10 report to? 11 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I know the 12 individuals, but I'm not sure exactly who they reported to 13 and their operational structure over at SONOPCO. In the 14 case of the Vogtle performance group, they would have 15 reported up to Mr. McCoy, but I'm not -- I'm sure I don't 16 believe they reported directly to Mr. McCoy, they would 17 have reported down the line. 18 However, it was anticipated that these Georgia e 19 Power nuclear personnel -- when SONOPCO was incorporated, 20 that they would no longer be Georgia Power Company 21 personnel, they would become SONOPCO personnel down the 22 line, and our group was set up for the purpose of -- in 23 effect, monitoring the contractor to ensure that the 24 contractor was running the operation the way Georgia Power 25 Company determined it should. NEAL R. GROSS , count nEroarEns AnoimuscneEns 1323 nH00E ISUWO AVENUE N W. A 2344433 WASHWGTON D.C. 2000s M 2364433
l V. Williams' A==artion That He Had Forrotten About The Anril 27 Memo Williams asserted at the Enforcement Conference that, he had forgotten about i Hobby's April 27 memo when he decirled to eliminate Hobby's position. Mr. Kohn's argument that Williams' assertion is not credible is just that - argument. The fact of the matter is Williams also testifed at the DOL hearing that he had forgotten about the memo. (Tr. at 417). Mr. Kohn's attack on Williams' credibility ignores the disputed nature of the evidence and mischaracterizes the DOL record. (San Tr. at 314, 345, 417-18, 453-54, 470-i 72, 682-83, 778-80). That Mr. Kohn believes the evidence supports his argument does not make Williams' assertion either materially false or misleading. r
- l Page 272 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 8
MARVIN B. HOBBT, t ! Complainant, a VOLUME H 8 j vs. * ! Case No. 90-ERA i GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, a Respondent. i I Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia ( , Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The above-entitled matter csaa on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: i HON. JOEL R. WILLIANS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney, I DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, ) 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., i Washington, D.C. 20001; i Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. I t JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; i Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. i t
1 Page 273 IEREI WITNESSES: DIBEGI CBQE1 REDIRECT RECROSS Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 -- Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 -- Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- -- Fred D. Williams 399 440 -- -- Thomas G. Boren 475 501 508 -- Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- - EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: (
. Nos. 36 E 36-A - cahlberg Calendar 350 352 Nos. 37 s 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 .
Joint: No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398 9 p 9
Page 543 1E2IK WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS E. P. (Dennis) Wilkinson 544 557 -- -- Joseph M. Farley 564 579 -- -- R. P. Mcdonald 601 619 -- -- George F. Head 643 658 -- -- H. G. Baker 678 690 705 709 EZHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: No. 38 - Wilkinson bio 548 548 ) 1 i l l i l 7
= - - - . . . . - - . . . - _ _ - . .. . . . . - . . . . - - _ . . _ - -
Page 715 I. H 12 I I WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. 716 725 -- -- Marvin B. Hobby 764 - -- -- , i Donald W. Janney 765 772 -- Robert P. Edwards, Jr. 776 779 780 -- Carey Don Proctor 781 785 - -- l i l l l O 4 4 F
t Page 314 1 Q. And why not? ' I 2 A. I didn't think it was necessary that he be there > 1 3 when we were talking about the entire organization in terms i 4 of the people. !' l 5 Pat was not familiar with the other people in terms l 6 of their performance and potential, ar.d I didn't think it was 7 necessary and didn't ask him to come to Atlanta, I asked him 8 to continue to do what he was doing. ! 9 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention now, Mr. 10 Dahlberg, to Tab 3 of Exhibit R-18. This is a memorandum
- 11 dated April 27, 1983 to Mr. Fred Williams from Mr. Marvin d
12 Hobby marked confidential. 13 Have you ever seen this memorandum, Mr. Dahlberg? 14 A. I saw it once at the time I gave a deposition in 15 this case, but not prior to that time. 16 Q. So you had not seen the memorandum prior to the 17 initiation of this litigation? 18 A. That's correct.
- 19 Q. When did you first become aware of the existence of 20 this April 27th memorandum? j i
21 A. During this litigation. 22 Q. Was this memorandum -- Well, let me strike that 23 and ask you, in the deposition where you were questioned 24 about this memorandum, did you at that time have an 25 opportunity to review the memo?
Page 345 1 MR. KOHN Well, Mr. Dwight Evans testified that it
~
2 was on December 29th during his deposition, so I think we're ' 3 trying to pinpoint was it November 7th or nearly two months 4 later, and that's a big discrepancy. ' 5 MR. JOINER: That's a different meeting, your 6 Honor. i 7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Nove on, please. 8 BY MR. KOHN: f 9 Q. Mr. Dahlberg, you testified today that you never '
'10 saw an April 27th memo?
11 A. Not that I can recall, no, sir. 12' Q. Okay. And that is the one that Mr. Hobby drafted; 13 right? 14 A. I assume so. 15 Okay. Q. And at your deposition you said it's 16 possible you could have seen it; correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. So it's possible you may have seen that 19 memo? 20 A. Mr. Kohn, I said I don't recall seeing the meno. I 21 see thousands and thousands and thousands of memos. I may 22 have seen it, but I didn't~see it long enough to recall it if 23 I ever saw it at all. I do not recall the document. 24 Q. And you decided that you were going to eliminate 25 Mr. Marvin Hobby's job during this management council meeting
t a
?
i 4 1 i* Page 417 1 A. No, sir, I never told him not to send the meno. I ] 2 just asked him to consider whether he really wanted to send , j 3 it out. 4 Q. Did you ever tell him to destroy the memo,.or 5 destroy the original or the copies of the memo? 6 A. No, sir, I never did. I was trying to help Mr. 7 Eobby some in management style and how we can -- being a l 8 negotiator and having been involved in many negotiations with 9 the company and all some of the best approaches to take at 10 working things out and resolving issues. 11 Q. Mr. Williams, was this memo or any of the subjects
, . 12 that are addressed in the memo a factor in your decision to
. 13 eliminate Mr. Hobby's position? '
14 A. No, sir. In fact, until he raised the issue here 15 with the Department of Labor I had even completely forgotten 16 the memo was ever written. 17 Q. Now, did you ever have an occasion to show the memo 18 to anyone in the company?
, 19 A. As I recall, I did keep a copy of the memo because 20 I wanted to read it in more detail, because I read it quickly 21 at the meeting and responded. I was going to return that 22 copy, and I did to Mr. Hobby though after I read it because I 23 wanted him to have the ability to do as I suggested if ha 24 wanted to do that.
25 I think I showed it to my assistant, he remembers
. . . - - . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . . , _ _ . . -_ . --. - . - . - ..-. - .. ~ _ _ _ - _ -
Page 418 1 me showing it to'him, because a lot of the areas were more as 2 I saw personal concerns of Mr. Hobby, or frustrations or 3 gripes that he wasn't included on some menos and all, or 4 invited to some meetings, or wasn't informed or had 5 communications go through him to co-owners. 6 I think I showed it to him at -- I had a meeting 7 with Mr. Dahlberg a day or two after that, and it was a ' 8 routine meeting I was having with him as part of our t 9 negotiations keeping him apprised of what was going on in the 1~0 negotiations. 11 I don't know whether I showed him that copy of the
/ 12 memo or just talked to him about some of the concerns Mr.
13 Hobby was raising, whether I told him Mr. Hobby was raising 14 them or just his nuclear organization group he felt like was 15 having problems with. 16 I informed Mr. Dahlberg I thought we could work 17 those things out through the negotiations and through the 18 structuring of the company. I don't think Mr. Dahlberg was . 19 concerned with that. 20 Q. Did you ever discuss the memo with anyone besides 21 the two individuals you've just identified? 22 A. Not that I remember. 23 Q. Did you ever show the memo to or discuss it with 24 Mr. Mcdonald? 25 A. No, sir. 9
l 1 l l Page 453 1 I think we had to work that out. That's what I was 2 attempting to do on my fact-finding as you referred to it. 3 Q. And did you fact-finding -- then you determinand 4 that the problem was a conflict between Mr. Hobby and Mr. 5 Mcdonald? 6 A. No, sir, I never said that. I 7 Q. Well, I sort of inferred it fron,your statement 8 that Mr. Hobby wanted to run SONOPCO that I guess Mr. 9 Mcdonald would take exception to,that. 10 No. A. I think what we were talking about is that he l 11 kept raising the concern of whether Mr. Dahlberg was in 12 charge or Mr. Mcdonald was in charge, and Mr. Hobby seems to 13 be the only one that keeps raising that issue about Mr. 14 Mcdonald. 15 Q. Okay. But after Mr. Hobby raised that issue with 16 you, you went to President Dahlberg and discussed Marvin' 17 Hobby's regulatory concern, isn't that correct? 18 A. No', sir. What I discussed with Mr. Dahlberg was 19 what I was seeing as far as our relationship with SONOPCO 20 that I was looking into, what was going on in our 21 negotiations with the co-owners. That's what I discussed 22 with Mr. Dahlberg. 23 Now, as far as the memo went, I didn't go through 24 the meno in detail with Mr. Dahlberg. In fact, .I'm not sure 25 f whether I showed him the memo. 1 4 t
_____.___.__._._.._____.y l1 t ll Page 454 :l 1 I may have mentioned to him, in fact I think I did, f:, t 2 that Mr. Hobby and the NOCA group was concerned about being ! 3 left out of some meetings and some lines of comununication, l 4 and Mr. Hobby had a concern with Mr. Mcdonald's support. I ! 5 think that's about as far in detail, and I informed Mr. l 6 Dahlberg that I was looking into this and working with - 7 SONOPCO, the joint owners and Mr. Hobby, and that hopefully
- 8 we would get all this stuff worked out. !
9 Q. Now, you were testifying earlier to the date you
~
10 met with Mr. Dahlberg about Mr. Hobby's memo; correct 7 1 11 A. Well, I didn't meet with Mr. Dahlberg about Mr. ! 12 Hobby's meno. I had a routine scheduled meeting with Mr. l's Dahlberg as part of the overall negotiations that were going 14 on. 15 Q. And that -- ! l ! 16 A. As I said,.a day or -- it may have been the next j 17 day or day or two after that. I just don't remember. 18 They were pretty -- I think we were having them 19 about once a week or once every other' week I was meeting with 6 20 Mr. Dahlberg. t 21 Q. Okay. Then I'm going to show you an excerpt from 22 your calendar beginning on April 27th and running through to 23 May 7th. i 24 Mr. Hobby gave you the memo on the 27th; correct? 25 A. That's correct.
Page 470 1
"I don't think I said it would be used to not form '!
2 it. What it would make it look like is here we are just 3 writing off a bunch of memos to each other over there and 4 accusing each other of things and all this and not helping 5 each other and not being responsive to each other." ! 6 Q. So you were afraid that Mr. Hobby's memo would be ! 7 viewed by SONOPCO as some form of accusation? 8 A. I think not from SONOPCO. I think from somebody 9 just looking in the files that we have all these menos saying ' 10 "I wasn't invited here, I wasn't invited there, " yes, I 11 thought it looks like there's a bunch of accusations that 12 you're not doing your job, I'm supposed to be doing that, 13 when in fact some of the stuff he had in the memo was not 14 even factual and that, and people at Georgia Power were 15 aware. He just felt like he should be the one aware, not me 16 or not somebody else. 17 Q. I Now, do you remember discussing Mr. Hobby's memo ! 18 with Mr. Edwards on the 28th? ) 19 A. _ No, not specifically. I may have, mentioned that 20 t Marvin had written me something, and I just don't recollect 21 whether I did or not. i 22 Q. Well, do you have a vague recollection of it now? ; 23 A. No, I don't recall at all speaking with Mr. Edwards 24 on that subject. 25 It's hard to distinguish, because I was on an l ?
Page 471 1 investigative trip if you understand, I'm looking at the 2 relationship, what's going on, what are some of the problems, , 3 how can we make it work out? - 4 I probably discussed that with Mr. Edwards, not t 5 specifically the mano. 6 Q Well, didn't you also talk with Mr. Grady Baker . 7 about Mr. Hobby's April 27th memo? , 8 A. I' don't remember talking to Mr. Baker about it. I l 9 may have, I just don't remember it. 10 Q. All right. If you'd look at your deposition, Page - 11 59 beginning at Line 5', if you'll read through Line 10. 12 A. 5 through 107 13 C .. Tes. f 14 A. "You talked with Mr. Dahlberg and Mr. Baker about 15 Mr. Hobby's memo, is that correct, specifically what was in 16 the memo, some of the issues? 17 "Some of the issues probably, yes.- 18 Is that it? I may have not -- as I said, that 19 doesn't mean I referred specifically to the memo, the issues 20 being there is confusion between what NOCA as you refer its - 21 role is and what's SONOPCO and what's accounting. 22 That was the point that I was out looking trying to 23 find how to resolve those issues.
'4 Q. I think you're misunderstanding my question. My 25 question was did you talk to Mr. Baker about it? Does this 6
i I Page 472 1 refresh your recollection that you spoke to Mr. Baker about , 2 Mr. Hobby's memo? 3 A. Mr. Kohn, as I just said, you asked me specifically 4 about the mano. I do not remember specifically saying "Mr. l 5 Baker, Mr. Hobby wrote me a meno on April 27th that said s 6 this." 7 I was meeting with my boss, Mr. Baker, periodically 8 since he and I were a negotiating team ,on all these issues. 9 Now, one of these issues was how was our relationship with ; 10 SONOPCO and Georgia Power and the co-owners and going to be l 11 satisfied, formulated, negotiated? 12 I may have spoke to him about some of the issues, 13 some of the issues being about the agency and not having you 1 14 in some of the budget loops. I may have talked about some of 15 that. 16 I About Mr. Hobby writing a memo of his concerns, no,' 17 sir, I don't r====hr saying that. ; I i 18 Q. But you do remember telling.Mr. Dahlberg -- 19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: All right,!come on. Let's move on l 20 to scenething else. He's talked about this for the last ten 21 minutes. 22 BY MR. KOEN: 23 Q. Mr. Williams, you talked about a concern that 24 Marvin Hobby started shredding documents? 25 A. That's correct. o . l
I Page 542 ; BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
................. i
- i MARVIN B. HOBBY, * '
Complainant, M III. vs. : Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, a Respondent. : , Courtrocal 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, - Decatur, Georgia i Thursday, October 25, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, Pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: l HON. JOEL R. WILLIANS, Administrative Law Judge i l i APPEARANCES:
} i MICHAEL D. KOEN,iAttorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, ' 1400 Candler Building, i Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; ; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 9 e , - . . . - . . n - -- --
1 Page 682 !! I doing for us directly. 2 Q. Okay. l 3 A. And of course his opinion was that we didn't need 4 that function. l 5 Q. Was there any proposal or suggestion made at that 6 meeting to the effect that Mr. Hobby and his group should be i 7 incorporated into the SONOPCO project? 8 A. Teah, Mr. Dahlberg's response to Mr. Farley was 9 that, you know, that "We really don't need that, and why 10 don't you take these people in SONOPCO." 11 Q. Okay. Was there any decision on that subject? 12 A. No, there was no decision. It was a matter that 13 was put on the table for future discussion. 14 Q. Okay. Now, in that May 5th meeting, or whenever 15 the meeting occurred, but the meeting with Mr. Dahlberg and 16 Mr. Farley'at which you discussed these matters, was there 17 any discussion there about the April 27th memorandum from Mr. 18 Hobby to Mr. Williams? 19 No. _ A. I never -- I was not aware of the April 27th 20 memorandum at the time of that meeting, and in fact -- l 21 Q. When did you become aware of it? 22 A. Fred Williams some times later mentioned the 23 memorandum to me, but he was unable to show me a copy of it 24 because he didn't have a' copy, and the only time that I ever 25 saw the memorandum was in your office when you showed me a
. .. _ _ . - . . . - _ _ . =- .. . . _ . - - . - - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _
Page 683 1 copy after this proceeding had been initiated. 2 Q. And that was around'the time your deposition was 3 going to be taken in this case? 4 A. Just a couple weeks before the deposition was 5 takc4. 6 Q. Okay. There was no dis ussion of that memorandum 7 or the subjects in that memorandum at this May 5 meeting? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Was there any discussion in the May 5 meeting of { 10 the Fuchko/Tunker proceeding or Mr. Hobby's involvement in 11 that proceeding? l 12 A. I don't remember that being brought up. t, 13 Q. Mr. Baker, did Mr. Farley ever indicate to you that 14 he wanted to see Mr. Hobby terminated? 15 A. Mo. 16 Q. Did Mr. Mcdonald ever say to you that he wanted to 17 see Mr. Hobby terminated? 18 A. No. , 19 Q. Did anyone ever mention to you a concern of Mr. 20 Hobby's that Georgia Power's nuclear operating licenses were 21 in jeopardy because Pat Mcdonald received his management 22 direction from Joe Farley and not from Bill Dahlberg? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Based on your observation, Mr. Baker, the position 25 that you held, who in your opinion did Mr. Mcdonald report
j i i ? . 2 Page 714 , ) BEFORE THE
- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR s'
- . MARVIN B. HOBBY, a Complainant, a VOLUME II ,
i
- vs.
- Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA' POWER COMPANT, i : ,
Respondent. f Courtroca 901, 3-DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, ! Decatur, Georgia i l Friday, October 26, 1990* l i l
- The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9
- 00 a.m.- l t
- BEFORE:
i l l HON. JOEL R. WII.LIAMS, Administrative Law Judge
+
APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Xohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., i ' Washington, D.C. 20001; ' Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITERON, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Page 778 1 Q. And at that meeting Mr. Williams did tell you that 2 Mr. Hobby had shown him a. memo? 3 A. No, he did not tell me that at that meeting. The 4 meeting had nothing to do with Mr. Hobby whatsoever. 5 My recollection of his telling me about the memo is 6 while we were getting ready to get on a plane either going to 7 or from that meeting. 8 Q. Okay. Then going to or from that meeting Mr. 9 Williams aientioned to you that Mr. Hobby had shown him a meno 10 and had taken it back; isn't that correct? : 11 A. . Yes. 12 Q. And Mr. Williams described to you his counseling of l l 13 Mr. Hobby in conjunction with Mr. Hobby showing him the mano; isn't that correct?
. 14 15 A. I would say yes.
l To the best of your recollection, could this 1 16 Q. l 17 conversation you had with Mr. Williams about Mr. Hobby's meno _ 18 have taken placo -- Well, let me withdraw that. 19 To the best of your recollection it occurred on l l 20 April 28th? 21 A. My recollection doesn't give it that particular 72 date, but it certainly occurred on the way to and from a l l 23 meeting in Birmingham is my best recollection, and I don't 24 \ doubt April 28th if that was the date of that meeting. 25 Q. And if you would look -- there should be a set of e
1 l. l ) - l Page 779 i 1 documents in front of you Respondent's Exhibit 3. From your l 2 discussions with Mr. Williams this appears to be the meno j 3 i that Mr. Williams was discussing with you? 4 A. Mr. Williams mentioned the meno. i I was shown this j 5 during my deposition which was the first time I had ever seen i 6 it, and just from its subject matter I assume this is what he 7 was talking about, but I -- it appears to have some 8 attachments that I don't know were attached even during my 9 deposition, I'm not sure. ' 10 MR. KOHNs No further questions, your Honor. j 11 JUDGE WIIIIAMS: Any cross-enmination? 12 MR. WITHRON: Yes, your Honor. 13 CROSS-EZAMINATION ! l'4 BY MR. WITHRON: i 15 Q. Mr. Edwards, during the time while you were 16 discussing this memo with Mr. Williams, did you tell Mr. { 17 Williams that you were concerned about the memo? 18 A. No.
~
19 Q. Did Mr. Williams tell you he was concerned about 20 it? 21 A. No, he did not. 22 Q. Did you tell Mr. Williams to have that memo 23 destroyed? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And is that the only conversation you ever had with ! 1 o 1
i e Page 780 1 Mr. Williams about an April 27th meno from Mr. Hobby? 2 A. Yes, and the conversation really wasn't about the 3 meno. He wasn't describing, going into detail about the 4 meno. It was very a offhand conversation about the scene of 5 Marvin Hobby showing him this thing and kind of -- it was -- 6 he was kind of disappointed with Marvin Hobby, but it wasn't 7 the details of the mano. t 8 MR. WITERON: That's all I have. l 9 REDIRECT EIAMINATION I 10 BY MR. KOHN: 11 Q. But'the thrust of Mr. Williams' conversation would I 12 be centered around the fact that Marvin Hobby had shown him, i
)
13 given Mr. Williams a memo and that Mr. Williams somshow gave l 14 it back to Mr. Hobby, and that was pretty much the sua and 15 substance of your conversation? I 16 A. It wa like he showed him this mano, like he was mad 17 at Mr. Williams or something. It was just not a -- it was a 18 "He showed me this memo and he took it back" was , sort of the 19 substance of it. 20 Q. And did Mr. Williams indicate that he thought ha 21 should go back and have Mr. Hobby rewrite the memo? - 22 A. No. 23 MR. KOHN: No further questions. 24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you for your time, sir. You 25 may be excused. ~
l VI. Relocation Of Hobby's Office, Restriction Of His Access And Revocation Of His j Parkine Privilenes Mr. Kohn contends that GPC misled the NRC staff regarding the reasons for moving l t Hobby's office and revoking his Company badge and executive parking privileges. Mr.
)
Kohn accuses Williams of misrepresenting his reason for relocating Hobby's office and the timing of that decision and the decision to revoke Hobby's parking privileges and access.d ! l Ironically, Mr. Kohn does not specify exactly those statements by Mr. Williams that he l contends were false. l The fact of the matter is Mr. Kohn ignores Williams' complete statement on this subject at the Enforcement Conference, which was as follows: ! MS. WATSON: On another topic, the Secretary of Labor also found that there was discrimination in changing Mr. Hobby's parking privileges and his
- building access. Can you briefly tell us what your reasons behind those were?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Actually, it's a concem from the standpoint of ' nuclear safety because we were already informed, one, Mr. Hobby was : eliminating his job. We had the discussions of trying to find a meaningful : ' separation or anotherjob. I had already moved Mr. Hobby's people up to the ! bulk-power market floor and absorbed those into the existing department that was already doing this job and left him in his office. l One day he came up, though, as we frequently were still rnecting after that; and I might say the pipeline issue and all of this was even after the April 27th memo. Up to this time, I still had Mr. Hobby meeting with the joint owners working on these contracts, at least the technical portions of them, so I had no problem with Mr. Hobby continuing to function in those areas. It was just we ! didn't need a general manager's job at this level. It just was too expensive for the company to have that, and it was confusing from a reporting standpoint. But he had come up to my office and said he was tired. I said, why are you tired? And he said, because I've been down shredding nuclear documents, d/ The rest of this portion of Mr. Kohn's Response merely argues with GPC's rationale for taking these actions. These arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with alleged misrepresentations at the Enforcement Conference. C
~ _ - .- __ .. . -. _ . . _ . _ __
I Having told Mr.' Hobby we're going to eliminate his job and not being able to come to a reasonable settlement, that gave me some concern that a man was~ ! down there shredding some documents that I was unaware, so after that, and then a day or two later, I think, Mr. Boten, the Senior VP who had been part t of our negotiations on separation, had seen Mr. Hobby come in through our l executive garage and had somebody that we didn't know with him or he did ; not recognize. The way our executive garage is set up is, you came in with just a car access through one of these wooden doors and you'didn't have to , pass the guard to go inside, so you didn't have to sign anybody in. You could ; bring anybody in. ! The combination of those two things and the fact'that we had eliminated his ! job, I suggested to Mr. Hobby, you need to move on up to the floor where I ! was so I would know what's going on. I needed him to sign in every day just l in my area for what I considered security reasons from the standpoint of the j company and our nuclear program and other programs, and all I'd asked him i to do during that period of time was to find arne.er job, and I had offered eight or ten thousand dollars help to him from a consultant to help him find another job. I had to continually work with the personnel department to work with Mr. Hobby on looking for another job in the company. He never took l any kind of opportunity to do any of that, and he just sat out his time. I said, - there's no reason, then for you to be going anywhere else in the building. With my concern of safety, I want to know what you're doing, so be on my floor. Sign in. You only need to be on the first through the third floor, - which is the human resources that does this type thing, and the nineteenth l floor. In reality, once you're inside the Georgia Power building - you may have been there - you can go to any floor you want to, so that was not a big constraint. l i As far as the parking place, we moved him from a covered garage on one side l
, of the building to right outside the front door on the other side, still in the i manager's level. We had a parking place for him. It wasn't like we told him :
to go find some place to park. We moved him from a free access area where . we were concerned about him to one where he had to come by the guard. - MS. WATSON: That's all I have. ! MR. WHEFLER: Did other people on your floor also have to sign in? [ MR. WILLIAMS: No. l MR. WHEELER: But he did? , l t
I 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Again, the reason I was doing that was that I was corsir.ed about the position and what went on. It was not because of any retaliatory. I was just concerned and would like to know what he was doing. MR. REYES: Thank you for answering all our questions. We have no 1 further questions at this time, and we want to close the meeting. Thanks. i (Conference Tr. at 48-51). l l Mr. Kohn specifically claims that Williams made a mi yiwtation in claiming that Hobby's shredding of nuclear documents was a reason for relocating Hobby's office. l Relying on Williams' DOL testimony, Mr. Kohn claims, "Mr. Williams already knew that the shredding of safeguards materials did not provide a basis for action taken." (Response at i 33-34). Mr. Kohn once again ignores the totality of Williams' DOL testimony - To support his position, Mr. Kohn claims that Williams somehow admitted at the DOL hearing he had talked to John Lukehart about Hobby's shredding activities before he relocated Hobby's office, and learned that Hobby was authorized to engage in those activities. (Response at 33). That is not what Williams said. At the hearing, Williams testified he had acyst spoken to Lukehart, and therefore, did not learn before he relocated Hobby's office that Hobby's shredding activities were authorized. (Tr. at 474). Second, Williams testified that he only "lalar found and that [ Hobby] had the right to, or . . . the responsibility" to shred the documents. (Tr. at 473). Thus, nothing Williams said at the Enforcement Conference is either misrepresentative or inconsistent with his DOL testimony.
- 2. 'Ihe Timine 1
Further, Mr. Kohn specifically claims: "[D]uring the Conference Mr. Williams l asserted that the taking of Mr. Hobby's executive parking privilege occurred at the same time his office was moved . . . . 'Ihis assertion is falm; removing him from his office and
I taking his executive parking privilege and employee badge represented two separate acts." i i (Response at 35). As Williams statement at the Enforcement Conference shows (Conference Tr. at 48-51), he was explaining his reasons for taking these actions and was not describing the timing of the two decisions. Nowhere in his statement did Williams say anything to the effect that he made those decisions at the same time. Rather, Williams merged discussion of the two decisions together merely to explain his reasoning. Williams testified in a similar manner at the DOL hearing. (Tr. at 434-37). Mr. Kohn's claim of misrepresen+ation is no misrepresentation at all. 9
- - - ~ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
i l In The Matter Of: i INTHEMATTER OFMARVINB. HOBBY v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY i i l i i
- PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 1
\
- October 4,1995
} \ i 4 BROWNREPORTING, INC. ATIANTA, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON,' ROME 1100 SPRING STREET SUITE 750 ATIANTA, GA USA 30309 ' (404) 876-8979 or (800) 637-0293 0%nalFile 1004bobb.asc. $22'Inges Ann 414crspt@ FileID:1456496487 Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripta l marsnqrmy. 2 I 9 l
- - - . - - - . . _ _ - - . _. _ , .__~ -. .--_.. -. - - - - - - -
i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Ocsober g.1995 ' Page es pi to be? page so pi m. i m MR.WlLLIAMS: That's correct. m The combinanon of those two thmes and m MR. URYC: You were smns him that j m the fact that we had elimmated his job.1 suggested p1 direcuon and this is the work product that he si to Mr. Hobby you need to move on up to the floor m brought to you m response to your direcuon of j m Apn!27th? m where I was so I would know what s soms on.1 m needed him to sign m every day just m my area for { ri MR.Wls iaus: That's cortect. in what I considered secunty reasons from the
- m MS WA(SON
- On anothertopic.the t m Secretary of Labor also found that there was , m standpoint of the company and our nucicar program i m and other programs.and all I'd asked him to do
) poi disenrnmatson m changmg Mr. Hobby's parking jpg dunng that penod of time was to find another pb. ! pu prmleges and his budding access.Can you briefly su and I had offered eight or ten thousand dollars help j pri tell us what your reasons behind those were! pg pg to himimm a consultant to help him find another i ! MR.WILLIAMg: Yes.Actually.it's a psi job.! had to consmually work wah the personnel pq concern from the standpoint of nucicar safety M Ap ) ^ a.4 to work with Mr. Hobby on looidag for og because we were already informed,one.Mr. Hobby was pq another job in the company. He never took any kind j pq clinunstmg his job.We had the discussions of l pai of oppotuansty to do any of that,and he jum sat i pn trymg to find a nwoningM separanon or another inn o.ut his ame.I said,there's no reason,then.for { pq job.1 had already moved Mr. Hobby's people up to 'pg you to be going anywhere else in the buddang.With
- j. psi the bulk power market floor and absorbed those into
; psi my concern of safety,I want to know what you're am the exisung department that was already doms this j
'ise doing.so be on my floor. Sign m.You only need try lob and left him m his ofSec. i
!m to be on the first through the third flo0r.which is ;
tesi One day he came up.though.as we og the human resources that does this type thing.and tre frequently were stdl mecans aAer that: and I og the ameteenth floor.In reakty,once you're , rse nusht say the pipeline issue and all of this was m inade the Georgsa Power building - you may been , ing even after the Apnl 27th memo.Up to this ume.I p there - you can go to say floor you want to,so Page 4s Pege st tu stdl had Mr. Hobby rnecting with the joint owners l p that was am a big conaraant. m working on these contracts,at least the technical m As far as the parking place, we moved him m poruons of them.so I had no problem wuh Mr. Hobby m from a covered garage on one side of the budding to pj contmums to funcuon in those areas.It was just m nght oM the fmm dow on the othe%.
- s1 we didn't need a general manager's job at this '" * * "'"*8*# * *
;si level. It just was too expensive for the company to i, m place for him.It wasn't like we told him to go a have that.and it was confusing from a reportmg g g tot standpomt. { ,
m But he had come up to myof8cc and said m where he had to come by the guard. og he was ured.1 said,why are you tired? And he og Ms. WATSON:"Ihat's aD I have, pu said,because I've been down shredding nuclear pq MR. WHEELER: Did other people on your og documents. Havmg told Mr. Hobby we're going to g,gy, ,,3 g ,, ,g ,g,7 og WLWs.LIAMg: No. pg climinate his job and not being able to come to a rue WI. WHEELER: But he did? pas reasonable senw= ar that gave me some concern pg WI.WILLIAMg: Agnan.the reason I was og that a man was down there shredding some doc ===== og that I was unaware.w aAer that.and then a day or pg doing that was that I was concerned about the ' pn two later.1 think.Mr.Boeta,the semorVP who had un posmon and what went on.It was not bemuse of og been part of our negonanons on separanon.had pq any retahmeory.1 was just concerned and would , og hke to know what he was doing og seen Mr. Hobby come in through our execuave garage m MR.REYES:Thasnt you for answenng au pas and had somebody that we didn't know with him or he og our quesnons.We have no further quesuons at this og did not recosmae.The way our executree garage is i pg set up is,you came in wuh just a cant access og tanne.and we want to close the meeung.Thanks em (Pioceedags concluded at 5:30 p.mJ ing through one of these wooden doors and you didn't en m have to pass the guard to go inskie.so you didn't gg
- q have to sign anybody in.You could bras anybody BROWN REPOR11NG,INC. (404) 8%&iUy
, Asia-r % 1- (15) Page 48 - Page 51
4 d i
'- j i >
i i Page 272 BEFORE THE i' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i [ MARVIN B. HOBBT, a Complainant, a HIEJDIE II vs. : Case No. 90-ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, a Respondent. Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia ( Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: HON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: MICHAEL D. KOHN, Attorney, ,
- DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, {
Kohn,.Kohn & Colapinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant. i JAMES JOINER, Attorney, l WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810;
, Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. ,
l l 9
. ~. - . . - - - . - . . _ . - - . -.
Page 273 IH2IX 1 WITNESSES: DIRECT C3QS1 REDIRECT RECROSS j l Thomas J. McHenry 279 293 298 -- i i Alfred W. Dahlberg 302 321 361 -- Dwight H. Evans 363 376 -- -- 1 Fred D. Williams 399 440 -- -- l Thomas G. Boren 475 501 508 - Lee Glenn 509 520 523 -- William R. Evans 525 539 -- -- I EZHILITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED Complainant's: I Nos. 36 & 36-A - Dahlberg Calendar 350 3S2 Noa. 37 & 37-A - Williams Calendar 460 460 Joints No. 1 - Stipulation 398 398 ;
1 :
~!
l
!1 1
4
- _ Page 434
! 1 Q. To your knowledge did Mr. Hobby avail himself of i 2 any of these outplacement services that he had.been offered? 3 A. No, sir, i 4 Q. was there any requirement set forth in this letter i { 5 or in any other of your conversations with Mr. Hobby that he { 4 6 execute a release in favor of the company as a condition to 7 receiving this outplacement service? i { 8 A. No, sir, I don't think we ever got to a discussion. 9 He just flat refused it and we didn't get to discuss any of 10 the issues that went with it. 4 l 11 Q. Do you recall Mr. Hobby submitting you a bill for a 4 1 12 physical of him? 4 / , 13 A. Yes, sir, I got it in just a month or so ago. i . 14 Q. Okay. And was that physical after the date of 1 15 elimination of his position?
)
16 A. Yes, sir, I think it was in May of this year. I 17 had told him -- he had inquired if he could go ahead and get 18 him a physical, a complete physical, that he hadn't had one 19 that year, and I said "Go ahead, sure." We were trying to
. 20 make this amenable separation, there was nothing harsh about 21 it or retaliatory or anything like that, I wanted to work 22 things out with him.
23 -Q. Did the company pay for that physical? 24 A. Yes, they did. i 25 Q. After the termination of Mr. Hobby's position, did i l
Page 435 l' he continue to have his executive employment privileges, ,t 2 executive parking privileges? 3 A. Lenediately after the notice of this, yes, he did. 4 Shortly after that several things happened, I guess a couple 5 things. 6 . He was still down -- I moved his -- the rest of the 7 staff we moved up to the 19th floor where I'm located, i 8 incorporated the personnel to analysts or performance people ' 9 and his secretary within to the bulk power marketing services
.10 group that already existed.
11 Was going to. leave Mr. Hobby on the 14th floor in { 12 his location down there. He came up one day and wanted 13 discussions or a meeting to talk with me, and he said he was-14 tired, and I asked him why he was tired, and he said because 15 he had been downstairs shredding a lot of documents, nuclear 16 documents out of the safe, which gave me some concern in the 1 17 situation we were in, "Why were you shredding these l 18 documents?" 19 "Well, that's all right, you didn't know about it, i 20 they were nuclear safeguard documents which, Fred, you didn't I 21 have the right to see because you weren't cleared or ' 22 anything." 23 Well, I got a little concerned with Mr. Hobby being 24 down there, plus somebody had seen him one day in the garage 25 with somebody -- and.you've got to understand with the I
)
o l
l L Page 436 4 l' executive garage you come in through a lifting arm, and you 2 get inside the building and you do not have to pass the quard 3 desk, you're in the building there and you can go on up -- 4 who was with Mr. Hobby, they didn't recognize him. 5 So it was those two issues right there, I got 6 concerned and I told Mr. Hobby I think it would be better if 7 he moved on up to the 19th floor where we were, and that I 8 would give him parking privileges in the manager's lot which I 9 was right outside the front door, but you had to go past the 10 guard desk there, and not park in the executive garage any 11 more.
, 12 And also since that what your job,'I had no 13 assignments for you or anything to do, all I wanted you to do 14 is find another job in the company or whatever, I wanted you 15 to be free to do that, that you only needed to actually come 16 to the 19th floor or the personnel offices on the first, l 17 second and third floor where they do this impacted employees 18 looking for jobs. If he wanted to go to another floor, he 19 had just to pick up the phone and call somebody, or in fact 20 probably could walk once you're in the building, "I want you 21 to sign in every day so I'll know when you're in the building I 22 and who's with you down there,_" and so I took his badge up 23 also.
24 Those all happened I think within that same time 25 frame right there about a wee 5c or so after the official e i
i
- i
?
Page 437 1 ^ notice of his job being eliminated. ' 2 Q. After you sent Mr. Hobby this February 2nd letter,- l 3 did you advise the personnel department of his situation as ; 4 an impacted employee? ' 5 A. Yes, sir. t 6 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge did Mr. Hobby ever [ 7 make any effort to work with the personnel department to find 8 another job? 9 A. No, sir. I touched base with them occasionally 10 just to see how things were going, because I wanted them to 11 make sure they understood Mr. Hobby was an. impacted employee 12
, and was available for other employment, and to my knowledge 13 they never knew that he contacted them.
14 Q. Did you ever do anything, Mr. Williams, to prevent 15 Mr. Hobby from finding another job? I 16 A. No, sir. I tried to go out of my way to. help him. 17 A. Mr. Williams, you've seen us do thik before. I 18 want to get you to turn with me to Exhibit 22 which is Mr. 19 Hobby's letter to Admiral Wilkinson, and the first thing I 20 ..want you to do is to look at the fifth page, to look at some 1 21 statements that are attributed to you at the bottom of that 22 page and extending on to the top of Page 6. 23 Let me get you just to read that into the record if 24 you could. 25 A. "I told Fred that this was a regulatory concern, I
l i i Page 473 1 Q. And that really concerned you, didn't it? j l 2 A. Did it concern me?. ! 3 Q. Yeah. l 4 A. Yes, I had some -- well, really it concerned me l 5 that Mr. Hobby came in my office and said he had been 6 shredding documents. He didn't say anything to me about that 7 before. 8 This was after the February 2nd meeting where I had 9 eliminated his position, had he's down shredding document. 10 Q. Okay. And as a result of shredding those 11 documents, you took away his employment badge and moved his 12 office -- correct? -- so you could keep closer contact, 13 closer observation on Mr. Hobby? 14 A. That*s correct. 15 Q. Now, before you did those drastic steps, Mr. 16 Williams, hadn't you already spoken with a Mr. Lukahart and 17 Mr. Hobby, and didn't both of them tell you that the 18 documents that were being shredded were specific safeguards ; l 19 documents which the NRC by regulation states that only Marvin j 20 Hobby and Mr. Lukehart could shred, and that every document 21 which was shredded had to be logged in before it was shredded ! 22 and had to be logged out after it was shredded? Isn't that i' 23 the truth? 24 A. Yes, sir, it was later found out that he had the 25 right to, or he had the responsibility to do that. 9
Page 474 1 As far as his position with the company, however, 2 we eliminated the position. That still gave me concerns, and 3 I thought maybe I should have more control over his everyday 4 functioning, and I think that's only natural on my part. 5 Q. And you told Mr. Hobby or Mr. Lukahart at that time 6 that "I don't want Marvin shredding those documents, I want 7 to shred thesa"7 8 A. I didn't even talk to Mr. Lukehart. 9 Q. What did you tell -- 10 A. And I did not tell Mr. Hobby that at all. To be 11 honest with you, I had never talked to him about that other 12 than I wanted him to move up to the 19th floor. 13 I never went and told him not to shred those 14 documents. I asked him how come I wasn't inforred. He 15 informed me that he was the only that had a right to do it, 16 that I didn't. I think I testified to that before. 17 I inquired about that, I had an investigation ; 18 performed to find that out. I was given a report back on the f 19 investigation. I didn't go back and talk to them. i t 20 t MR. KOHN No further quostions, your Honor. 21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Any redirect? 22 MR. WITHRON: No redirect, your Honor. 23 (Witness excused.) 24 FM WILLIAMS: Why don't we take ten minutes at 25 this time. f a o
$}}