ML20126A528
| ML20126A528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1992 |
| From: | Hobby M, Kohn M, Mosbaugh A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#492-13461 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9212210102 | |
| Download: ML20126A528 (22) | |
Text
c-y36/
i A n! n p y, (
a UllITED STATES OF A14EltICA NUCLEAll REGUIATORY C0!ililGSIOli "92 (17 ],j jg q j ATO!41C SAFETY AllD LICE!1SIllG BOARD
)
In the 11atter of
)
~
GEORGIA POWEll ColiPAt.
) Docket Hon. 50-424, 50-425 - d ct nie,
) (So})tomber 18, 1992 Liconno
)
Amendmont Application to (Vogtlo Electric Conorating
)
transfor licanuo to Southern Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2)
)
Nuclear)
)
AMENDMENT 8 TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST POR HEARING Petitionern Allen L. 14onbaugn and Marvin 13. Ilobby hereby amend the initial petition to intervono with ronpoct to Georgia Power Company'n ("GPC") requent to trancfor operation of tho Vogtle Electric Conorating Plant
(" plant Vogtle") to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company (" Southern Nuc2 car" or "SONOPCO.").1/
1/
Thin Board noton that, nince GPC alrondy has an operating licence, this tribunal lacks authority to revoke that liconac or interfere with GPC'n ability to operato plant Vogtic.
Petitionera have focunod on the conduct of Southern Nuclear management an it relates charactor, competence, in*.egrity, candor, truthfulnocc and willingnoun to abido by regulatory requiremonto.
Baced on those conalderations, petitioners aunort that the applicant should be prohibited from transferring authority from ono Southern Company entity, GPC, to another Southern Company entity, Southern Nuclear.
Thuc, where individual managora accociated with Southern Nuclear have functioned and/or continuo to function as GPC their role in GPC management is irrolovant to thia
- managora, Board'a concidoration an to whether Southern Nuclear has the requinito charactor, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulnoce and willingnons to abido by regulatory requirements nococcary before thin Board may replace GPC as the colo licensed operator of plant Vogtle.
9212210102 921209 PDR ADOCK 05000424 03 0
I, fdA@ LNG OF ALLQi_liOODAUGli Pursuant to $189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
22 39 (a) (1), and 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a), Allen L. Mosbaugh has standing to intervono.
Mr. Mosbaugh owns property and resides at 1701 Kings Court, Grovotown, Georgia, 30813.
Said property is within 50 miles of plant Vogtle.
Mr. Mosbaugh resides at this residence approximately one wook each month.
Said residence is a singlo family, two story structuro situated on 2 1/2 acres of property dooded in the name of petitioner.
Said property.
reproconts petitionor's primary residenco.
Indood, this residence has special value to Mr. Mosbaugh as he personally constructed caid dwelling.
Mr. Mosbaugh's desire to protect his-residence is therefore unique and transcends his monetary interests in the property.
t Moreover, Mr. Mosbaugh routinely conducts in-porson mootings with investigatoca of the llucicar Regulatory Commission's Offico of Investigation (which has boon an on-going process sinco 1990) at his Grovotown residence and other locations in the Augusta, Georgia area.
Mr. Mosbaugh maintains his Grovetown residence at all timos and he has never rented or otherwise leased any-portion of his Grovatown residence to anyone.
His automobile in registered and licensed by the state of Georgia, listing petitionor's address as stated above.. Mr. 'tosbaugh's voted in Columbia County, Georgia, in 1992 elections; continuously banks in the Augusta area, and continuously maintains a private tolophone at his Grovatown residence (Mr. Mosbaugh's name appears in the residential listings of the Augusta, Georgia phone book).
7
II.
GQ1LT_01LTIONG Petitioner submits four contentions for concidoration by the Board.
The first contention concerns the de facto creation of SONOPCo.
Contentions 2 and 3 concerno the general proposition that SONOPCO'c management otructure, in its final configuration, does not have the requisite character, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by URC requirements to receive licencing authority to operate plant Vogtle.
Contention 4 concerna The Southern Company's rolo in the creation of SONOPCO and the fact that The Southern Company exercise of control over SONOPCO, together with the fact that the Southern Company doco not have the requisito character, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and willingnecc to abido by NRC 9
requiremento, demonstratos that control over the operation of plant Vogtle chould not occur until such time as The Southern Company can demonstrate the requisite character, competence and integrity.
Although those four contentions are act out separately, their similarity would appear to require that they be considered in conjunction.
In cum, the uniting issue behind these four contentions is whether the transfer of responsibility from the current licencees to the newly created Southern Company subsidiary, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,
incroaces the risk of the possibility of an accident and otherwise represents an uncafe operating condition.
3
l e
CONTENTIQH_1 i
The Southern Company (working in conjunction with ita corporato affi310 9s and officers) offectuated transfer of control of the coration of the Vogtle Electric r
Generating Plant 1.om the licensoos to a de facto corporation, known as the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, without the knowledge or consent of tbo co-owners of plant Vogtle.
The corrupt corporato-policy 1
offecting the creation of the de facto Southern Nuclear Operating Company resulted in the creation of a management chain of command so lacking in charactor, i
competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements as to i
represent a throat to the health and safoty of the public and/or represent a potential unsafe oporating condition which must be corrected before formal transfer of operating responsibility may pass to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
CONTENTION 2 4
The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., does not possess the requisito charactor, competenco and integrity, and does not have the candor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements to becomo the licensoo of the Vogtle Electric Generating;
)
Plant; CONTENTION 3 The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Southern Company, does not possess the requisite character, competence and intugrity, and.does not havo:the candor,_ truthfulness and willingness to abido by regulatory requirements to becomo the licensoo of tho Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, and as such transfer of the licenso represents an increase risk in to the health and safety of the public and/or represents a potential unsafe operating condition which must be corrected before responsibility l
i for operating plant Vogtle can be-transferred to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
l l
i.
l 4
5
--ma w
e.*
y 7
,-r-
CONTENTION 4 The Southern Company, by virtue of the corporato structure and mako-up of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Board of Directors, controls and directs the management of its wholly owned subsidiary, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Because The Southern Company does not have the requisito charactor, competence and integrity, and does not have the candor, truthfulnosa and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements required of a licansco and because The Southern Company exercisos substantial-control over management of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., transfer of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-license to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., represents a an increase risk to the health and safety of the public and/or represents a potential unsafe operating condition which must be corrected beforo said transfer can occur.
III. IlACKGROUND TO CONTENTIONS AND FACTUAL BASIS 0F CONTENTION 1 By October of 1988, The Southern Company had taken action-to place into oporation a Southern Nuclear Operating Company
("SONOPCO").
Because The Southern Company could not obtain
)
approval from the Securitics and Exchango Commission to create a now corporato entity, The Southern Company circumvented the formal incorporation process and created an unincorporated entity known throughout the Southern System as the "SONOPCO project. nl/
2/
Evidenco relating to the creation of SONOPCO'is contained in petitions filed by Allen Mosbaugh and Marvin Hobby pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
The first petition is dated September.11, 1990, and is entitled " Request for Proceeding and Imposition of Civil Penalties for Improperly transferring Control of. Georgia Power Company's Licensos to tho SONOPCO Project and for -the Uncafo and Impropor Operation of. Georgia Power Company Licensed!Facilitics, heroinafter referred to as "Potitioners' September-11, 1990 2.206 Petition.
The-second petition is dated July 8, 1991, and is entitled
" Amendments to Potitioners September 11,' 1990 Petition; and Response to Georgia Power Company;s April 1, 1991 Submission by' (continued...)
5
.L
.~
-,.-.:...--_L-
1.
M A(fing of SONOPCO The staffing of the SONOPCO project executivos woro done with the knowledge and consent of The Southern company.1/
Hr.
Parley was given the responsibility for and sorved as the d2 facto Chief Executivo Officer of SONOPCO.i/
Additionally, The Southern Company established a de facto SONOPCO board of directors, headed by Farley.
This board of directors mot regularly and operated as if the SONOPCO project had boon incorporated.
Directly under Farley was Mr. R.P. Mcdonald, who served on the SONOPCO project board.
According to Farley, he and Mcdonald F(... continued) it Exocutive Vice President, Mr.
R.
P. Mcdonald," hereinafter referred to as "Potitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition.
3 Because both of those petitions'contain significant factual information relating to all four-contentions, petitioners horeby incorporate by reference these two petitions into the body of this amendment.
1/
At the time' Joseph M.
Paricy left.his position as president of Alabama Power Company and was named as-the Executive Vice President of The Southern Company and was-given responsibility over nuclear matters, particularly with respect to the formation of SONOPCO.(Farley was eventually named as the SONOPCO's President).
In this respect, Mr. Dahlberg testified during the course of the Hobby v. GPC, caso No. 90-ERA-30, proceedings that Joe Farley was not an officer of GPC and that he
" heads up the formation of SONOPCO and that entity."
Bobby v.
ftEg, case No.-90-ERA-30, Hearing Tr...at p.
308.
il Mr. Parley was' responsible for reporting to-the Southern Company Board on the status of the SONOPCO-organization.
Additionally, The. Southern Company Board apparently received-all of its information concerning the performance of GPC's nuclear plants directly from Farley as well.
See Hobby v. GPC, Case No.
90-ERA-30, May 7, 1990 deposition of Joseph - Farley at pp. 39-40 (attachment 7 to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 Petition).
6 8
c_-;
.m.-
_ - -..-...-.i,-. -. _. -, _.,..
,.4-
4 worked very closely: "Mr. Mcdonald and I work together and have a closo working relationship.
Eg, in essence, occunv a set of ioint rennonsibilities with the (SONOPCO) project" and, with respect to SONOPCO "administrativo matters," Mr. Mcdonald reported directly to Mr. Farley.
Farley Doposition at Page 11-12 (cmphasis added).
Excerpts of Mr. Farley's deposition are appended horoto as Attachment 7.
Mr. Farley went on-to explain:
In an informal conso, ho and I iointiv are what we dercribe as an of fice of the chief oxecutivo of the Droiect.
It is not a corporation.
It is a project.
In areas such as the selection of a candidate for an accounting job or a job in the non-operating areas.
When I say operating, I mean tho operating of the power plants themselvos.
Ho does not report to no and yet on the other areas, particularly administrative or in governmental affairs which is part of my responsibility, he would report to me in that conso....
Hobbv v. GPC, Case No. 90-ERA-30, May 7, 1990 deposition of Joseph Farley at pp. 13-14 (emphasis added) (attachment 7 to
)
Petitioners' July 8, 1991 Potition).
Indood, the reporting structure of the SONOPCo-project was set into place and Mcdonald's reporting relationship to the CEO of SONOPCO would remain unchanged.
As Farley testified, upon the incorporation of SONOPCO, the reporting relationship betwoon Parley and Mcdonald "would not chango" Farley Dopo. Tr. at pp.
16-17.
Indood, according to Farley:
The Vico President of Administrativo Services (1s] Mr.
McCrary.
He is a Servico Company employce.
Ho reports
-both to.mo and to Mr. Mcdonald.
He reports to what_I-described carlier as a kind of an offico of the chief oxocutivo for_tho. project on administrative' matters, not-on technical matters...(Mr.-Long and Mr.;McCrary)-
arc,-in-essence,zunder me in the organization but they-do not--report to me.
They report ta) Mr. Mcdonald._ In the case of Mr. McCrary, for purposes of this project, 7
..-..-___-,._.a.-....----,-----~a..-
v,.---
.- t
~,-
thora aro many things that Mr. McCrary reporto directly to no about the others he reports jointly to no and to Mr. Mcdonald or to whichever one of un happens to bo there.
Mr. Mcdonald and I undertake to bo in this J
transition period of sort of a joint offico for_the administrativo sido....
Hobby v. GPC, Case No. 90-ERA-30, May 7, 1990 dopoultion of Jocoph Parley at pp. 37-38 (attachment 7 to Petitionors' July 8, 1991 Potition).
Onco FaM oy and Mcdonald woro placed in chargo, the SONOPCO project vico prooidents of administration and technical services woro selected.
Mcdonald and Parley then celected Kon McCoy to corvo as the now SONOPCO plant Vogtle project vico president.F j
By this point, GPC had lost touch with the operation of plant Vogtle, and was generally unable to datormino the management structure ove,r its nuclear power facilities.
This gonoral confusion in typified by the following examplos:
)
1)
GPC's President, Mr. Dahlborg, did not know the managomont structuro governing SONOPCO's Administrativo and Technical Services groups.F Mr. Farley, on the other hand, F
The remainder of the SONOPCO project managomont team over plant Vogtle was carried out_over.a two-day period._ The entiro management team was selectod-by Mcdonald, McCoy and two other SONOPCO project vico Presidents, liairston and Dockham.
Hobby v. GPC, caso No. 90-ERA-30, lloaring Transcript at pp. 284-287 (Attachmont 3 to Petitionors' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition).
Also neo McHonry Affidavit ("...the decisions as to staffing Woro mado by Monaro. Georgo Hairston, Tom Bockham and Ken McCoy.
They not for two days at the 270 Peachtroo Stroot Building, took an organization chart, and filled in.namos from tho' top of_the organization to the bottom...") (Exhibit G.to Potitionors' September 11, 1990 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition).
F Scr Hobby v. GPC, Caso No. 90-ERA-30, deposition of Dahlberg at pp. 22-23 (Attachment 8 to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 i
10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition) ("I just don't know").
8 t_
~-.. -.
l toctified that he worked with closely with the SONOPCO project Technical Servicco vice prooident, Mr. Long, and that the SONOPCO project Administrativo Services vice president, Mr. McCrary, reported directly to him and Mcdonald.
Hobby V.
GPC,_ Case No.
90-ERA-30, May 7, 1990 deposition of Jonoph Farley at pp. 37-38 (attachment 7 te Petitioners' July 8, 1991 Potition).
- Moreover, on January 11, 1991, during a transcribed NRC Staff proceeding, Mcdonald claimed that Farley had no responalbility for the SONOPCO project's Administrativo group Farley was performing hic job as a Vice President of the Southern Company.
He had no responsibilitico for thio Administrativo Support.
That Administrative Support that wo had basically was being dono, and he was part of a contract -- it was a contract to no from Southern Services for providing encontially much the came support we have here now...
See (Attachment 6 to Petitionors' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Potition at D. 42).
This accortion directly contradicts Farley's doucription of his role with respect to SONOPCO administrativo mattora prior to December of 1991.
Ege Attachment 7 to Potitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition) (May 7, 1990.
i deposition testimony of Joseph M. Farley at p. - 14, 37-38).;
i l
2)
Mr. H. Grady Baker,-GPC8 0 then Senior Executivo Vice President, stated-that he thought Farley was an officor of GPC.
llobby v. GPC, caso No. 90-ERA-30, Hoaring Tr. at pp. 690-691.
Also see Exhibit C to Petitioners' September 11, 1990 Potition
-(Hobby v. GPC, caso No. 90-ERA-30, deposition Dakor Dopo. pp. -
16-17) ("Farloy and Mcdonald are officers of Georgia Power Company, reporting to the president, Bill Dahlborg") ;
4 9
-,e+
c y
- - ~,,, -+rw - 99 wg-95,yw
--,gny,9e r-p y-
- -*1*T'-TC'1,e-uJ-e im n 3,m-
_-ae-ir~-us-ry eyei-+M-v+---m4'-rem'-em wwr v+m--y++mgyu-vusum,16mrper+t-m.--w-a-e Wmqquetogi-*g p
yty-myyi 7*pr ? t-9"
-TTp--
T'
4 3)
Messrs. Dahlberg and Dakor testified that they believed Mcdonald to be an of ficer of Southern Company Services.
Hobby v.
GPC, caso No. 90-ERA-30, Hearing Tr. at p. 304 (Dahlborg).
- Yet, Mcdonald testified that he was not an officer of Southern Company Se rvices.
Id., at p. 633 (Mcdonald);
4)
Mr. Parley (not Dahlberg) reported to The Southern Company Board of Directors on the performance of GPC's nuclear units.
Hobby v. GPC, Case No. 90-ERA-30, May 7, 1990 deposition of Joseph Parley at pp. 39-40 (attachment 7 to Pctitioners' July 8,
1991 Petition) ;
5)
A GPC corporate concern filed by a GPC cmployco was referred to Mr. Farley for resolution in May of 1989 -- rather than a GPC executive.
Sen Hobby v. GP.C, Case No. 90-ERA-30, Hearing Transcript at p. __;
6)
At the time of the staffing of the SONOPCO project Mr.
Mcdonald routinely mado misleading statements about the method used to staff the project as well as the role he played in chvosing the SONoPCo project Vice President of Technical Services and Vice President of Administrative Services.
For example, in December of 1988,Il Mr. Mcdonald testified that he was not II The transcript of December, 1988 Deposition testimony of Mr. Mcdonald contains the following dialogue:
Who selected the administrative and technical services Q:
vice-presidents?
A:
I don't know.
Q:
So you did not select them.
(continued...)
10
I Involved in the selection of Mr. Long as the SONOPCO project Vico President of Technical Servicou or Mr. McCrary as the SONOPCO I
project Vico President of Administrative Services.
But this testimony was wholly contradicted at a later date by Mcdonald himself. El F(... continued)
A:
H2 Q:
Who are the vice-presidents for those services?
A:
Charlos McCrary and Lewis Long.
Q:
And Charles McCrary is Vico-President for what?
A:
McCrary?
Administrativo ' Se rvices.
Q:
Okay.
How about Lewis Long, is Technical Servicos?
As Yes.
Now let no qualify my statement, in saying that I 3
don't know.
The selection of those people is under tho authority and responsibility of the Southern company Services.
I imagino in the normal courso of events that selection is officially made by the President of Southern Company Sorvices.
Thoro may havo boon other arrangements that I am not aware of, but I think that-that was true.
See (Attachment 2a to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition, at pp. 12-13) 8/
In may of 1990, Mcdonald testified that ho norsonally chose Long -for the SONOPCO project position of Technical Services vico president and Mr. McCrary as the SONOPCO project vice president of administrative services, and that ho personally mot with the Southern Company Services Board of Directors to obtained the SCS's Board's approval:
Q:
Woro you involved.in the selection of'Mr. Long as Vico
. President of Technical Services?
-A:
For that position, yng.
Q:
Woro.you involved in the selection of Mr. McCrary for.
. Administrativo Sorvicos?
(continued...)
-11 a
,s
,.,---.~,.----,.;.-_.---......-...---,.--,.-,.....,--;,-.--.-.,.
mm _ _.. _. _ - _.. _.. _ _ _. _ _.. _. -.. _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
e 4
7)
Mcdonald mado mioloading statomonto about the prococo used-to ataff tho-outtro SoffoPCO management structuro.
Whoro Mcdonald tontified that oncn level of management helped colected the managara under tnom, in fact this did not occur.
- Rathor, the entiro management team over plant Vogtle was chonon over a two-day period by Mcdonald and throo'other SONOPCO project vice prooidento.
Theco four executivos filled in blank cholotal Thoco namon organi::ational charts with tho na'uos of managora.
woro then given to Tom Mc!!cnry (then functioning as a special acciatant to Mcdonald) who immediately contacted thono individuals to extended job offors. Ecc flobby lloaring Tranocript at pp. 284-287 (Attachment 3 to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. '4. 206 Petition)
Alno neo McIlonry Affidavit (Exhibit G to Petitioncrc' September 31, 1990 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition);-and F(... continued)
A:
Eqn.
Other than the Board of_ Directors who olne are vou anre of Q:
yjio had a role in-the nelection-of Mr. Lono?_
t A:
llo one that I know of.
1:
l
-Q:
Just you?
A:
Well, I might have discussed it with other peoplo but L_wan
,the one whn_Icauented thqt he be connidored for thati i.
position by the B,Qard of Directors.
Q:
And as to Mr. McCrary --
L-At Sape.
i Hobby v_,_GEQ, May:7, 1990 Doposition tontimony of~ Mcdonald at pp.
l:
12-13.
12 i
r
--.,..ma
,,w
.,w i,,h---
$w e-e-u 4,
-e y,
m.. w w - -- -
,+,--s1
--.-,,-,y-.,..
- --rr-+<
~.
r 8)
The_ control over-SONOPCO was unclear even to the GPC manager charged with overseeing GPC's role in the formation of the SONOPCO project.
According to an internal confidential memorandum signed by a then Senior Vice President, George Head, GPC's General Manager, Nuclear Contract Administratir.n, was confused as to the reporting structure and as to who e s in charge of GPC's nuclear facilities (Exhibit A to Petitioners' September 11, 1990 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition).
Indeed, the memorandum noted that Oglethorpe Power "very concerned about this issue."
Id.
This internal memorandum further alerted GPC to the fact that the confusion over who was in charge of GPC's nuclear facilities indicated that GPC was "in violation of (GPC's]
license and could experience some significant repercussions from the NRC -- including the revocation of the license."
Id.
Also f
pee Attachment 4 to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition.
2.
The Southern Company's establishment of the SONOPCO proicot resulted in the violation of NRC recuirements.
The creation of the SONOPCO project and its staffing violated 10 C.F.R. 550.34(6)(1), which require the plant Vogtle licensees to keep the NRC informed about: "The applicant's organizational structure, allocation or responsibilities and authorities, and personnel qualification requirement."
In this respect, GPC failed to notify the NRC that Mr. Mcdonald had begun to report to Mr. Farley for an extended period of time, from November, 1988 until December of 19t%
In' December of 1990, Mcdonald presented NRC staff with a presentation regarding the-13
~
. -. ~
-=
'i structure of SONOPCO.
At that time ho falsely asserted that he did-not begin to report directly to Mr. Farley until'Docember of 1990.
But, as Farley had already testified, Mcdonald actually began to report-to Mr. Pericy with respect to. administrative matters back in November of 1908.
IV.
FACTUAL BASIS OF CONTENTICt!S 2, 3 and 4 SONOPCO's and The Southern company's corporato ethic which resulted in the current alignment of management over plant Vogtle is a critical area of inquiry in light of the fact that the Commission is heavily dependent on a licensee to provide accurate and timely information about its facility.
- E22, e.g.,
Louisiana Power & Ljaht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
ALAD-812, 22 NRC 5, 48, 51 (1985).
The issues presented by the contentions petitioner socks admission turns on whether SONOPCO's
[
management has, in the past, exhibited behavior which bears a rational connection to the safe operation of the facility or which tends to demonstrate that SONOPCO's management.does not I
have the candor, truthfulness and willingness'to abide by regulatory requirements necessary to operate a nuclear facility, Metropolitan Edison Co.-(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, see Unit 1), ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1193, 1227 (1984), rev'd in part on other grounds, 21 NRC 282 (1985).
The factors demonstrating that SONOPCO management does not have the cLndor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements necessary to operate a nuclear. facility follows.
14 l
.-~
.m m
1.
CONOPCO's highest levels of management conspired to submit and did submit materially falso information to the NRC concerning critical safety-related information portaininQ to a March, 1990 Site Area EmerQ0ncy.
In March of 1990 a nuclear disaster at plant Vogtle was averted when electrical power was restored following a station blackout to Unit 1 when the back-up diesel generator (DG 1B) failed to start.
At the time, the configuration of the plant was such that the Reactor Coolant System was drained to half volume (i.e., the reactor was at "midloop") and containment integrity was breached as a result of the containment equipment access hatch have been opened.
Pursuant to licensing requirements, the newly aligned SONOPCO management team drafted and submitted a Confirmation of Action Response letter and thereaf ter a Licensee Event Report (" LER"), No.90-006, to NRC Staf f.
While stationed at the plant site, petitioner Allen Mosbaugh
)
had engaged in one-party tape recording during the Site Area Emergency and thereafter up until he advised GpC of his recording activity on or about September 11, 1990.
In sum and substance, the conversations Mr. Mosbaugh captured on tape irrefutably demonstrate that SONOPCO management responsible for submitting LER 90-006 knew that said LER contained material false statements and that said management conspired to and did submit materially false information to the NRC that was significant to the regulatory process.F Based on tape recorded evidence and c.tner F
Petitioners adopt the definition of a. Material False Statement set out in 10 C.F.R. Ch.1, Supplement VII, A(1), Fn. 15
("a statement that is falso by omission or commission and is relevant to the regulatory process.")
15 a
documentation in the poccocnion of NRC OI, managera directly partaking in the cover-up and cubmicsion of material faloc information to the NRC include the entire management chain currently in place, from the Executive Vice President, R.
P.
Mcdonald, to the current plant manager, Bill Shipman.E/
SONOPCO's highest level management conspired to submit 2.
and did submit materially falso information to NRC Staf LiA order to derajl on-coing_ NRC-OT investig nij2qq On September 11, 1990, Mccara. Marvin D. Hobby and Allen L.
Mosbaugh filed a petition with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion (hereinafter " Petition").
The Petition requested that the Commiccion investigate allegations cet out in the Petition and datormino, inter alia, whether the Georgia Power Company ("GPC" or "licensco") posscaced the requisite " character, fundamental trustworthinces and commitment to safety compctonce, to operate a nuclear facility." 1U 3
E' The actual tape recorded evidence is currently in the hands of NRC's Office of Investigationc.
Upon information and belief, as a result of allegations of criminal wrongdoing on the part of SONOPCO management initiated by petitioner with the Office of Investigation, NRC-OI has innued a report finding intentional criminal misconduct on the part of the highest levels of the SONOPCO management.
Petitioner has requested a copy of said OI Report pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act Roquest, but said report in currently unavailable, until auch time as potential criminal prosecution of SONOPCO management is complete.
Petitioner requests that a copy of the IG report be cent, under scal, to the Board and that the entire IG report, together with all exhibits thereto (including tape recordings made by Mr.
Mosbaugh) be considered as apart of the record in thic matter.
IV Petitioner incorporatcc this petition and attached exhibits thereto as an exhibit horcto.
16 e
On February 28, 1991, Mr. Steven Varga of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation sent to Mr. W. G.
Hairston, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations, a Roquest for Additional Information Regarding the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition.
EAR to Petitioners' July 8, 1991 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition.
Therein, NRC requested additional information concerning information contained in the September 11, 1990 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition, and required that this additional information be submitted "under oath or affirmation."
On April 1, 1991, Mcdonald submitted additional information under oath.H/
Unrefutable evidence demonstrates that Mcdonald's Response contains numerous varifiable material false statements,11/ and further demonstrates that SONOPCO management intentionally made
)
R/
The response submitted by Mcdonald is entitled "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Regarding Petition of M.B.
Hobby and A.L. Mosbaugh" and is hereinafter referred to as the
" Response" or " Mcdonald's Response" UI Petitioner provided extensive evidence to NRC-OI, including numerous tape recordings, demonstrating the-intentional and material falsity of the statements contained in Mcdonald's-NRC-OI subsequently advised petitioner's counsel that response.
the public_ release of the evidence petitioners nave already.
supplied to NRC-OI would seriously compromise'NRC-OI's on-going-investigation into_the: allegation that GPC's Executive Vice President's April 1, 1991 Response-contains material-false statements.
Having cooperated with the NRC in its investigation of GPC and respecting this request, Petitioners refrain from citing and identifying this documentation. ' Petitioners nonetheless respectfully request that this information be release
'{
to the-Board under seal, including.a final NRC-OI_ investigative-report.concerning these allegations, and that the information provided by NRC-OI be incorporated as part of the factual basis to the contentions petitioners seek admission.
17 e
material false statements to the NRC and conspir.. to cover-up wrongdoing on the part of SONOPCO management l' erder to obstruct the NRC's on-going investigations into allegations set forth in Petitioners' September 11, 1990 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition (i.e.,
obstruct justice).
In addition to the documentation in the possession of NRC-OI (which pctitioner incorporates by reference herein), petitioners 1991 10 incorporates by reference the entirety of their July 8, C.F.R. 2.206 petition, in particular: Section I.1 (relating to Mcdonald's submissian of material false statements to the NRC when responding to allegations raised by Petitioners in their September 11, 1990 Petition) ;E/ and Section I.2 (relating to false statement as to when Mr. Mosbaugh alerted SONOPCO management about falso statements contained in LER 90-006) U/
Specifically, Mcdonald's sworn statement that Hairston U/
did not participate in a key April 19, 1990 conference call when the diesel generator start infornation was discussed prior to the submission of LER 90-006 ("Mr. Hairston was not a participant in that call"); when, in fact, Mcdonald knew or should have known that Hairston did participate in the April 19, 1990 conference call and that he dus! have first hand knowledge of the fact that the information regarding the start data of the diesel generators was falso and inaccurate at the time LER 90-006 was submitted to the NRC under Mr. Hairston's signature.
U/
In particular, Mcdonald's sworn Response asserts that:
Not until April 30, 1990 does it appear that Mr. Mosbaugh articulated for the benefit of his management that the diesel engine start count data contained in the LER was inaccurate...
This response as false and libelous.
SONOPCO management had first-hand knowledge that this assertion is false.
In this respect, NRC-OI is in possession of tape recordings made by Mr.
(continued...)
18
The totality of documentation in the possession of NRC-OI relating to the conspiracy to submit and the ultimate submission of material falso information to the NRC in LER 90-006-demonatrates that SONOPCO's management does not have the requisite character, competence, integrity, candor, truthfulness and willingness to abide by regulatory requirements'needed before an amendment to the plant Vogtle license listing SONOPCO as t c licensed operator of plant Vogtle may be granted.
}
%U(... continued)
Mosbaugh which establish that prior.to the submission of LER 90-06, Mr. Mosbaugh and'a member of his staff advised GPC's management that_the diesel engine start count data contained in LER 90-006 constitute a material false statement.
In essence, SONOPCO's response was calculated to misleading _
the NRC about SONOPCO management's intentional' wrongdoing and was further calculated to derail an on-going.NRC-OI investigation into the inclusion of the false diesel start data contained in LER 90-006.
19 o
.-m.,
i O'
conclusion Petitioners request that Contentions 1 through-4 lua admitted and that they be allowed to appear as parties before this licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted, b
Michael D. Kohn KOHN, KOHN & COIAPINTO, P.C.
517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 (202) 234-4663 Counsel to Allen Mosbaugh and Marvin Hobby Dated:
December 9, 1992 053\\amond. pet
).
3..
4 4
20 n.
a
~ ~
4 -,.
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[*i 'L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
'92 DEC 14 L :41 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPLNY.
)
50-425-OLA +
/;
91 Al_t.,
)
License Amendment','1
)
Re:
(Vogtle Electric G( 7t rating
)
(transfer to Plant, Unit 1 and l'.it 2)
)
Southern Nuclear)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 9, 1992 copics of Amendments to Petitioner to Intervene and Request for Hearing was served in the above-captioned proceeding, by facsimile upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter B.
Blocn, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
Administrative Judge Y
Dr. James H.
Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board o
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Arthur Domby, Esq.
Troutman Sanders Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 And, by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of December, 1992, upon the persons listed on the following page:
1 a
1 aufrice of the Secretary
(* Original and two copies)
Attn: Docheting and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Peter B.
Bloch, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Dr. James H.
Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Thomas D.
Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Charles A.
Barth Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John Lamberski, Esq.
Troutman Sanders 1
Suite 5200 N
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 C.K.
McCoy V.P., Vogtle Project Georgia Power Co.
Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Michael D. Kohn Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 (202) 234-4663 Dated: December 10, 1992 2
a c