ML20129H120
Text
i l
s January 14, 1994
' John Lamberski Troutman Sanders The attached document documents are in response to Item No. 54 of your request.
memos, These documents consist of OI notes, telephone and other conversations documents relating to interviews, meetings and between Mosbaugh and/or his attorney and representatives of OI, through September 15, 1993, that fall within the scope of the License Amendment proceedings. These documents do~
not include the computer printed allegations, received by NRC from Mosbaugh, thatprocess.
this discovery have already been provided to your office by NRC in If you have any questions, please contact Charles Barth, Office of General Counsel, NRC.
Larry L. Robinson Office of Investigations
, 9610080016 960827 i
.. , . , ... o,. am - - .. - - _ ._. ...m n _4.- - .. - - - . --
i i
{
LISTING OP DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO GPC (TROU'! MAN, SANDERS) i IN RESPONSE 'M ITEM NO. 54 0F DOCUMENT REQUEST
{
l 1. Cover Memorandum to J. Lamberski, Troutman Sanders, dated j Ganuary 14, 1994. (1 Page) 4 l 2. Copies of Excerpts from case Chronology, OI Case No. 2-90a020.
j (6 Pages) i 3. Copy of draft, dated '8/28' of letter from GPC to NRC dated j August 30, 1990. (7 Pages)
- 4. Copy of Evidence / Property Custody Document, showing OI receipt of tapes from Mosbaugh, dated September 13, 1990. (1 Page) i 5. Memorandum to Case File, dated January 25, 1991 regarding 1
1 telephone call from Mosbaugh to Robinson. (1 Page)
! '6. Memorandum to Case File, dated Pebruary 14, 1991 regarding j
i partial return of tapes to Mosbaugh by OI. (2 Pages) l 7. Notes from August 30, 1991 telephone call from Mosbaugh to
, Robinson. (1 Page) a
- 8. Copy of computer printed letter from Mosbaugh to NRC (Uric)
- (sic), dated November 4, 1991 regarding MCDONALD and McC0Y l participation in preparation of LER 90-006. (3 Pages)
- 9. Copy of Mosbaugh's notes from Vogtle daily statue meeting on February 6,.1990. (2 Pages) i
! 10. Copy of pages 88 and 89 of Deposition cf Renneth McC0Y, dated l
September 12, 1990. (3 Pages)
) 11 Copy of notes of meeting between Robinson and Mosbaugh in NRC
- office, dated October 25. (1 Page) 1
! 2 Copy of portion of Memorandum to case File, dated July 15, i 1992, regarding telephone call from Mosbaugh to Tate regarding l Nosb ugh bas.ng interviewed by NBC. (1 Page) 1 13. Copy of notes of telephone call from Mosbaugh to Robinson, j November 15, 1993 regarding various issues in investigation.
j (2 Pages)
{ 14. Copy of computer-printed document, received by Robinson from
- Mosbaugh on August 16, 1993 regarding definition of j ' comprehensive test program". (B Pages) 4 y+d:/ /
)
vi 1
- .s. __.-
- 15. Copy of undated, regarding portion of Vo computer-versus compliance. . . .o"gtle " . . printed document from Mo l 1 Copy of notes regarding var,ious issues in investigation. undated, (3 Pages) of Mosbaugh conver 17.
Copy of Fax, dated September 13, 1990, from Rohn to Robinson ,
regarding (2 Pages) Department of Labor (DOL) grant of Motion to Compel.
18.
Copy of Fax, dated September 13, 1990, Robinson, from MGabaugh to Pages) regarding DOL Motion for Protective Order. (3 19.
Copy of Fax to Kohn from Robinson, dated Se regarding Declaration of Larry L. Robinson.ptember 13, 1990, (3 Pages) 20.
Copy of notes, Mosbaugh and dated June 27, 1990 of conversation between Robinson Mosbaugh. (3 Pages) regarding various allegations by 21 Copy of notes, dated October 14, of conversation between Mosbaugh and Robinson regarding NATORS and CRSH. (1 Page) 22.
Copy of Fax, dated March 22, 1991, and note dated March 26, 1991 McDONRLD regarding to DOL. Mosbaugh (16 Pages) allegation of falso statement by 23.
Copy of Fax, dated August 29, 1990 from WRRD to BOCKHOLD, regarding provided Summary to Robinson byof Calcon Switch Mosbaugh on June Problems at Vogtle, 13, 1991. (14 Pages) 4)
NRC office on November 15 regarding investigation. (2 Pages)
Copy o
. Copy of notes dated November 5, 1991 conversation w,ith Robinson and Tate rega arding Hosbaugh McC0Y participation on 4/19/90 phone call. ng HRIRSTON and (1 Page) 26.
Copy of July Fortuna) (1 Page)29, 1992 letter to Rohn from Hayes (signed by I
_s_-- ,,a u-,,-a--- .-.-ma -, - - - - .u - - ---
- - -e - - ----
4 I
.'I l J
l s
1 d,
J i
,1 4
a k
1 i
1 l
1 i
I i
e 4
1
.I Y
.i il 4
l l
e 8
1 4
e 4
a k
.a
.i
)
l i
i 4 .
I l
4 i 1 1
d l
k l
i l
r i i
f 2 i 4
i b
i 4' l i
1i 7
i l
?
i e
4 1
l d
- - -- - - - - . , , a _ ma, __4 , _ y , ,_
l l
i
)
i
. - . . . ~ - -. . . - . . . - . - . . - . - . _ . . _ - - . . . . - - - -
NRC Posen 404 UA NUCLEAA KEGULATORY COMMissaA &>Os NUMBED EVIDENCE / PROPERTY CUSTODY DOCUMENT
~
O ~ O!
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS tomuuteens cenanmed u In.euennene **enenwoon troost AECE8VING ACTIVITY LOCATION OffIlE Gr* TAhN 5 7/ <-, A T/.)<a 2E l0/ ///////G77M 5 7 Sil//7 ,4 '30 0 NAME, GRADE AND TITLE OF PERSON FROM WHOM RECEIVED ADDR ESS #We CoeW ,,g ff g ,~.J g.g gowhER ALL G/V 4 . /?Uh 'jdW& M /70/ K w p, b a a T*
C37HE3 l
&r<0n)E rates /, 0 N y ,,,3 LOCATION PROM WHERE OSTAINED RE ASON OST AINED T6ME/DATE OSTAINED HAmPOM ~"" Al A) $M ~L &5
=
,3 $ 7 9O
. 3 0 b0 tAln $ H/M61.Mi 4.J L*. V/ bfNd t l N % nrn. .,g y,;,7 gts o o steed No. OU Min gj,,,,,, m,gn, ,,,,D, ,E,g.,, S.CR IPT,IO,N,, , ,O,,F
, , ,AR,
, tac,L,ES, ,,4, ,,__
O$ b$Y?$ ~
hb$$ Y $N ( Oh N [
L w y ay l ccc > Lv a tn key c oulma wy l
- c? 7 7 'r'icto - u ue Mcs jvavoclec/ q ;
l ALLEN L. n w s.s u g h - 3 ~)at =/y /i?2 7 1
k 1
5 l CHAlN OF CUSTODY iT DATE RE LE ASED BY RECEIVED eV
[F CU ElGF#ATURE SIGNATURE
<5g+y /ti: . Akhm( ff,gjp_ MAM7*
NAME GRADE OR TITLE NAME. GRADE OR TITLE A-SiONATURE t"
'& E./ hs/]. mioa .07 ff EiGNATUR , -
-' 'NW s ' - ' ,
j *
, f//)] (l/'l f"t { /Y j t-* . Ii ? -j* i.s&h/Li. ,
usa -~ y{} s- w/ _ y'
.. r
,' . s,67 _
NAME GRADE OR TITLE arAME. GRADE QR TaTLE
~ A. c s t .; w :wJ
' I.. ..&
e / / /o7 fY '
. // ', * >- , A *J ' ' .N' '
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE NAME, GRADE OR TITLE NAME, GRADE OR TITLd leGNATURE &#GNATURE NAME, GRADE CR TaTLE NAME. GRADE OR TITLE SIGNATURt SIGNATURE NAME. GRADE OR TITLE NAME GR ADE OR TITLE LOCAT#0N DOCUMENT NUMBER
a n . --- , a -
4 1
i e
l l
J 4
1 J
d, d
i I
4 I
4 1
1 1
J J
t 6
J M
Y. h . ..
h,hh .
f._ y, ffffkf$
o ,;ys ev. ...;. ..~ , c.,. .e.. :.w..; 1
.; . .r. .ea < . m . .. .. .. n , c. . . ..n< .
_.y . .; 9 l g g g .y ;.. . ; ; . 4. ; - i;$
3.::
- -
- : , > ., n. . . _ !. ; . .. - <
..gyn; .9@.g-;;u.g.' 7.y
- tehQfA@WWh @hsdt.@M,. _Ud
- u. ,
g @hIf D"*
c3,,. . . . ,.9.,Q*1;,*
4 Ng;47.',M.,,.,M...Tagg. .,.
4 .
m .,y,y,g, . r ,.pqplg..
- t. , s. . .
.r.+ . .. ,, :; . . . , -
'f;,.y.5.5 g..:lf..in,; p.: ,f*.;.. ,s ?, :. v,.. ;,..c c ..'p s
>s .. , j ' ~:, ,.:l
.,- g6. . gw: > r,,f, ,g .a .s.S,4 :.. . . .p, l- ,2. ,. c. i :
< .,- ,;8.-. ,
I, . * ' ' ' *
. ,g ,.- i, ' f.',A,g..' 'i'.g , ;a.7 . . ; '!9 , e.),.-,
.* P,,7 ," , .9.- t'. . *;,
- e j . . . ,,
, ,c-._-+,,...re
- .? y. ,p, ;
- a...J . . .
- * * 'f ' ' a;, .-g 9 -.,.,' ,.
^
'.3 .'.3.,
- , 7 * . .;, J ' , , .* ;. ..3.. ;; ? ' *
- ),.. ,'.
i
- *-.. ..c..,. ,- -
, ? Q.yysg.. .. .[ .si .. ',Q. .I)- Q)., .; .,_.;:.
'; , v p:.,.A, ,
= . .
J i
, , , , , ) .' ' .is*
. =.
f- , . , .*? f4}'ig, , .* $ a' y'a ,q ,*, ".Ih,4 * ,
.. . s
,. ..j .' ... '..
1.-< .
, .t <t .,
- . * . .M ' '. 'a.;[.-', , .g .?.. * *
.,*,J
.a . .w. ae.! !
, ;. y; }y ,:..,'
,.~_s.,..
.'.e.;_ ~'.* , ;m ,
" ..\,*e. *
- I. ;.
t
~-
6' ',, i g i 7. ,' ,
- . ". *N -s ,. 2 '.;.*'[,.i's [*t,k .'e,k, ! . .'.y* e,'.* . ,
h* a.*
. . , s f
w- 9 .
6 0 m
- 9 c ra h ]
g g4 8.J lele C.w-51 4 g." :n A.. ' T : ..:
.c ....- .
hh .
.,g ,
.e ,
.o e, .e g,E . w3o:9+ ",3C 1 4 .V i c .
3 .
GVJsnB4s;
. J.
R* , c, , . . *, , L' 3
ta 5 * ,
e
~~ f.'.
- d a -
J, a
b D
e I
.. _ . . ~ . . _ . . . - . . _ _ . . . . _ - . . . - _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 1
1 I
i o
i
?
i
}
1 i
a
/
/f M
ly i i
( 4 I
6 .. , ... .
--w. .. - ...~ --
,. " ' ,A % $. ff.E . M 8,.!n ,,.. .
i MEMORANOUM . . CASE
.M. . . . . Tit!E.W . . . , 44 ,M.,. .,. .. : . .Z%* J i
j, rves.aegem(gg.,e-. p ,eg N< .. . ..
4 -marseieamrs5:f g ,.w~ g g. g y 4 ri g ,., g ; 4 M i -
$ (Q,7,,a j ,,;,;,; } -91. MDJ4>W/HJYM.ieo ffAMs4) i ensa i
M,f;;;,ywnp$p 4 p sgsgfV4iL R K ;%5 4.nWQF. ?
g g~ *; ,
j,:. 1 , ag@A .9 g ;.,,,,,,,,,,_. pg,, .4 """ % g / 7 A ,
tSahliNRY.'&f;)$$W*.M$$^$U&.Qhh'[ $&[g , Y,h f,,h?(l?,f';.1,{$!!?'$' '
& r
- . Al5KA4tf[d&h4ff[ffN$8W W$l$$kh&$~j+)tb A6/O.,52?O ~b i M HE M44r #fkVChu@U?M &py 9.TM
- ,'.&M A4a7i S - ff h $h h/hhh kkh/ -
h //h W
\. 5sVZ frserxArM:ir;4~we:Enui.nky) Mr.Z-;zwYw2xY aJ t
^
=::
' Y' .h5 $.V.5fS.5/ WWW Sh . fW ? sWS /AE ~
\
-~' s i-A > y u w v. -WE law /.m -skGm tr 4+y.c rra :mNAcY wtrH
+n%T :b,.DZ. "eAASe .sUMA / -/Esaf.s^A47Ed ~ /Yzz/f/. x/H/CH .
~3;rr seriem rusews iw.%esasse wAuM&cuurtivrA
.. " & [t) & M f jf g h y W h .">ff)yf g ' &f./f88
.. 5, s
- ,.y.m.yn.,,,y y 7pyy ggggy,ygy,ggy y W '% r//8-/9X96, .ssio 7&aGVg %d66 asses 7t> rum /1
.t.. *&f ,/g f. ,' , :n.:y '.Q'A$i& nf <,&f,'& z$'Y . W3i&::'6.Q .;-G
. - ;y, ., ,
-4W -Hf srAv2?6 Nf MAD tt:aAH2D so7~-/Ns.A4 CME 47.AnfAiiiE l \
Y $Yk $ *$ h i k k b $ $ N Y ,,Y. h 0 W ?d ? h df W i sss+ino moNtwzs.: '#1 n/n w ihrraw/A 76 w .nr
/A f W Y 'l l
- Y A h b LA E$ 0 WW- Y -Y?k$
rub?w sodiwaca saso. - woe ,zwe wsawre sow.4 007~ 9$/f TAHVt}36e/A7"' Artdd -AAJY ~ 07)%64 MU//A4/737?YM 144646 PDE#WA777D IMAM /A4 il22' /xfuGT, AAb iME;Wa'Mo 77kW l 776607~ 77/d Dr.fhcr/77eA) n'" 774*OV 6AJ We,4WY. i
, +"J.* ,, a,.
,p ..
.. . '- . g 9, ny. ,_
y .
j
- -.p ., .koM Gy ( '- . . - - 2,r. . ./; . e c ,r "-
- e. .
apagg [r0F /
peg Panggegy a i ' . ..;e. . . .1- s
.1 pagg
"- .' - k.yl Y,.f, e' phfA)g,ff f,5 0' .N.i ._. ; g ii.'. ,.:f p 1. h / h f}
-~
.Agflog .emmaman ,
. :: i '. ' * . ;.
HEvigTED8ST - MTE
. OFFICIAL USE. ONLY - ..00 NOT; DISCLOSE PORM 2K1=799 e Ass.g
I 4
64.
l k 'hh['.[ MEMORANDUM "T,0 iCASE rmdENMhiAMhl h k.
~
s
$5&'Qi d$
t
~,,,,,, 8 % A ed ht2/S N !b r. i m i fG h.
l RO &~mW &f
- t(*i n
'$w*Qd My
~id/NO'$'.'
%s.F:M , %~hw.h&AQrtweQW4 E/drEA5/d$VAddT.~s ****
A g g 4 Y .5 - " ' g El j
LE 4<dEM}t es======rv .s = : =s p.M " '. M i $ r,$ 79 M i $,.. "
i a ****.W.;ZYE4ll4DA /Ai ~.5Z SEifff77)A7tses 4$sY/NYdOM'. .rSN I & ?S ~ ^
y i :
, . . . . s .. n - ~ n.1 . , . . . . , .
~ . , , , . . ..
n7xcwo72"n izi .:AE7NeN MVAofAf66 :72> /%r/A4hFY.WW75. . .. .... ..2?t//AGQiG $.. ,
1 l
l(. ' OsMif2A?sied der .20*/ &Anwo-64.k;s;e7;n=* 9its.WE'sikIrxAm?2dus9A~) a
}!
)g "W9f%icidDbM2saw,WeesteR-na:4 yi k 2 y tri e ? y a & a e M /.'. a a k 4 Q-
- ff 5. .5A42[nM9b .ts.r
. . . . ,,n . , . , ~ . .
., mvfD ya A-a.. rs w er 2:;ptog.., sn_ co......,..
....ucM:rl,c+77x)7dd .g;.
~ WY5% gee 3045" E 14ffC/Ak6aT' /AV~d}EWANtNh?Nd40VW.W.'b l E A%9/NstW 7ar.;o ;4/ss/AD/# nner AiG seMS /.or 2;@piDW7me.Ex.40** 1 R i s7A- sMo~f 7hif JA6ff/AeOS AG//fA/.oc:yysff ypyqesyApp ts' t)to Aan c l C)"'effhY7A647~ Ad .*C7 77/2.20 /~7?b0ff //nD ABC6/1455W AAftf 469/EJU .,
l'
~
'iIciW555iFdW?' Ned/AJJ04/ A5A'/A4350 AOsd45(N."2ff/43'-FAle4/W & l l' :s7A7M'95+t~"%D.7?n5: mmc /}/s-AdBAWAM,77AGV=' MHsstA0&*WE b S
~
~.5;4AiGWAbeWkh7FAh&' iwsfi>&V.'sk 77F /A!/72WW%"ll2' 6- 9iM5450 ofk t l' n ESY Ws394Off/.4GFO.G 'o vc A&M/Vf h%f=M.4/ ? X IIM/7 M tJ7N l i
roAlfd2:7k77pA) ps/77/ H/s A77aerlsy /ES,4eo/Ay ;-Ah-A6eraos.~.2/Abf/&
af NiC%s:no7" ~. . _ . . .
- E/AAG.ct:MAfN72YJN#deVfD.BV @ Cit)Idd%dt35~/ 7~5 7/M17;WEs ',4,04 YNEA/..s/An/c;o GK . mA/&sAA5cisAeos ixfa,ieAntrax/2 -
,:......~- .,. w.
1
- e^/ m,J 4Mo 7>9NE -AC77t%*t/.A/A/AlsrW. ///.?
... .e'
- .&. . e n/:z:r ~ro,es w 7ME 7"{ ',
. .n n . . .
^Ws/ NAE 4H& A772VA6y-Ar7m= 77,Yf, affAa4= AhtiiC+77AE?" XYe66lWMNM i -
..n
.iwitD -Af6 '.u/st/40 csN7Ac7~ p/r n17a406Y. ACD JMRSR?ufM7%V OA)7?K7 Atik& Aids 2T-eEf2//r/* f/ AncAdorAM 77k? p/f,RS/776U^zGe*~7A&E rAA'=5. ' l Ao5shxfAsyn/A>456 -rs.mccs/t/J ac >>%c rit#ar AxM c444Yhd6'ZAdE6
%25W$dfril,4E/s.o ~? WEN TD *7?hG LJOMkEf A&t:M68$b'O'~If/Ek~ W/.W 5 k
.v. 4mWs%2 2 +,% . .* -o. ud.h. % as %e,12.1
. .g , .. .
. .. . r ."
- q[4 ases .7 v.a .I C
nseussehev:.:gf[ -kmf f ,t y p % l o w .r .2 f.S~'47 s
.umwasamese l
. -.g . - : +- -
~
- .; @ c" t
.s .
f ne m use,ev .
mars ;
- 0RrtCIAL;USE ONLY - 200 NOT LOISCLOSE i
-ree arz-no aw.
a ,
.. m .s
. -....~_...,,,.o. ... x~ .
- s. . . .
4,
- l<
- 5. ., ...*
. . . . . iMEMORAN. OOM M. . C. CASE. TFIEE . . .- . . . . }.. .M.N. . 1 i
,m.sment.p.g m .y 4c =me . , cews eanup
.nnwersweig2:;. y g ,gg 3 7 , g yg. _,__- 3
. , , ma,e;, sm ;e :
-71stz X) E,wesAAarn'w+ - == :.
q
( $$K.Nj@%3%(gj$'$$NyE$fygd '
"$,W S C R,9#'Ill)gN7.MI[ : ne===w- 4 6 ,.c , .. .
wj P $9.$h M '
====m>>ep9ee mmA%1hespek&MwecefAf6LWW*w ^ 4 -
l Ni9str&& ieszi ivsss44WMPMAT r/Aar AeiaeMisf: :
- A
- ~ '.hw3nseswAozr~,,;,+,1%A'._t
. , . . . . . , . . . _ , . . ,,.,_,.3
~;;wa .x24 ors,di%eEhv . . . . . . .,
4
....U/77/Mfl3 7~AOWn ,,,D/fdd$diW.Y. * . BY . ,_ Yi$50[~ yW.,W AJ~/:A t'd W *!S
%A, -'
~s Ehr We77esv.u/k%%%%va*Wwe ettAndemum i.
U41im . . *d i. % ; w .: .
.[(et had $ er n. ,g (* - [4de) . 44 i .[ ,5 k
p +n.lw V/ssBAcMH:.si?F7zib M +r72w3 -;#<B;. Mo /+ :
V '~ SirWrs o v 6 e=x V c ' e y % i.e c e r:6) /un % ddr5+Dy
'"WM./ v7MAMO 'ds.wA ' vf xpr~ A7 :9N MEA l xagysggpgey ge pg,ypratet%ywSw:+m.Msgptpgke m.. -
[.
y ~ n m;9 % s +,g g.v~OiW9 w;.c +,.g y ?pt 4 4 e w s m w w.74g qq q gs m: u.v p ~
MM As8w. rod .Asya a/sArE Ada rc R2t2%vXtr, AfM 1 5 % 2 c M sic- 77/ir'~/acsm77o,,0 s;e> hexa-f&
.i
- 4 -
y & w w . e r n . m a s:a. w - n .a- M W :s r .- [
l OAGiV/E9/; %Y 9.'/I'AN.*'Attssi .wrJAuM'24us;o (7~P, ,
ws.. _ ^2hMr Afra Ys.d. . ._nsTA77D&
A49/.<0}sh . ....
/sza toew..._...
l th'~rW %/7MsAe87~-Vr/ nc2pm rb WEr.5C. MM 72
- V rdf'7Nors. = M4="rzi4rK%Mr m A<Ar&% #E M' l k7iNNTA *0AJ / DES. ^2//9/97 7D AMP 7 *COJ78,oY. /dG*
l- sr,,qh-r.gs ~7aeoza '-cAvg ro -/w -sz .w?99ce .4Mo
- i. '
Artxor rNE rA#Es:-b -ADn%ED Ved.V~ w2Lh0S 67 TMs 77b' .
l ??zss Anwrxo -WthnwE'%imr- z7 w2.usr shewd" Nord4'M#
A es/ns.es sJrko meiasmw
- r. , -
xxx -rx+wuer. x-
- d
- 2-F ., . m ,- . . . -
- W =
i n
== .Y.< . .a .22'.. - #3 4._fl.s~a.8 M - ph. 43., . 4?'t = v= .2 /S~ f/'
ana ===== . . .
- c. . 3. . . . i. . ,
s.
a., . : /.. ..
.g ..e. 7
,i .
1 i, . . .
- ==
l e
r i
.o m c c ust.ons.y - too Nonossci.ose i
! room ozz-no .nse,a
,4 m-A., - - ' '
4 bd-~,, me-e b !
1 aI 4
' l i l o
l I I d l M
a a i I
4 s
1 2'f I
I i
e i i 4
4 l
t ,
ii k i i I i I 4 l 4
5 1 i e !
J s
i Y
0 5
e e
I a
f 4
/
m
/
fF
?
/
/
t 1
i e
i i
f 1
i 4
t i
i l
I
'I F
I l
a I
a
)
5' 4
a J
a 4
1 1
4 1
I
}
naemwiuis myzehso MES
+
r 4
h IY '?h f/Ob $N l 6 2 .ssw a s A s s e x.) wey emio Y ysi ABV73ED LEA Cw& W ?TA.T& on) #4%%9MWAJZ
- /72 6 / 99D "2 f) jyj y 1
,o% ryne)
~
W V44/Eb MOW F#4sf.crnrs, re,s y 7g/A/6 zsp v'sA v
.cA,s JEA' m g roz.s TAMA!M
- /7.2 bf9 D 2 & gg
-- . p. _ asaaam:m.a -www--_, .a..a_a. 4-. .aw J. . .gww... _-n--.4 .mam44 -.,m-w._apm--.#, m- A4m.-,h e .AmAAm_C-aam,- e amCe-.=ee_ e4m- ma.-._ 4_mw ,%Ap._ ._
i 4
i.
i.
i 4
'I i
i 4
I i
b i
4
- i f
4 s
j f
f 4
0 J
t.
a 4
I i
i r
i i
e f
i a
5 4
1 i
j J
J l
s 4
a i
i 2
e 1
t i
a a
k -
i.
4 i
P 4
m d
m
/ A Mjn*
!/
' cG^)Hm DtN mIA I L ,
A/[S, Hfff/ WW
- Tc; The United States Nuclear Raoulatorv Comminaion j (attention Bruno Uric. A11aantions Coordinator)
From Allan Mostbauch [ /N*f/
i Pr.t Mcdonald, Ken McCoy, and Georgia Power /SONOPCO )
! lie in sworn statements about " key participants" role and i whereabouts in preparing LER 90-006 rev.0 t
In a sworn statement during his deposition on 9-17-90 i for DOL proceedings (Mosbaugh vs. Georgia Power), Pat l Mcdonald %g was ask under oath:
i pg. 11 i
Q Have you ever read the LER regarding the diesel
! generator ?
A I read it, yes, I did read it.
- 'Q Prior to its submission ?
- A No.
Q You read it after it was submitted 7 A Yes.
! pg. 12 4
Q After you read it did you discuss it with anyone ?
. A Not that I recall.
i Q Did you discuss it with anyone before you read it ?
A Not that I recall.
1 pg. 13 Q So can you tell me what your role was in drafting the LER, reviewing the LER, or changing the LER other than reading it once ?
A I don't believe that I had any definable role towards activities.
In direct contradiction with the above sworn statements by Pat Mcdonald, Bill Shipman in conversations late in the day on 4-19-90 (before LER 90-006 rev.O was sent out) with site personnel discusses Pat Mcdonald's very detailed comments on the LER.
Mr. Shipman mentions Pat's name several times as the originator of the comments.
Documentation of these conversations as well as the '
contradictory deposition transcripts are in the possession of the NRC OI.
It is clear from the conversations.with Mr. Shipman that Pat Mcdonald not only read the draft of the LER 90-006 rev. O but was substantially involved in shaping and commenting on the LER prior to it's initial submittal.
- s. -
- rv 1 v u Y U r 0 7 3PP .. _
i L Urw.L DbIV I IhL ,
f i
In a sworn statement during his deposition on 9-12-90 i
' for DOL proceedings (Mosbaugh vs. Georgia Power), Ken McCoy was ask under oath:-
I pg 88 Q Did Mr. Mosbaugh tell you in April of 1990 that he i
believed there were falso statements made in the corrective action letters sent to the NRC ?
l A I do not remember him telling me that. I was told, I I
believe, by Bill Shipman that Allen Mosbaugh had expressed that concern. That's my recollection.
j Q What did you do after you learned about that concern ?
A Actually I think I was out of town of(sic) something i
at the time that was raised and that Bill Shipman
! and George Mairston responded to that including revising the LER and ordering a QA audit to be sure that it was completely accurate. )
{
, In addition to McCoy's above statement of being "out.of town", GPC/SONOPCO previously submitted written answers to 4
NRC questions posed during the NPC's OSI in August 1990. .
j GPC/SONOPCO's written answers (in the possession of the NRC
! OI) fail to identify Ken McCoy as a participant of the l " late afternoon phone call" in which the LER 90-006' wording !
- was revised and finalized.
\
The above is in direct contradiction with documentation in j the possession of the NRC OI which shows that the date that ,
- Mr. Mosbaugh raised concerns with Bil.1 Shipman over the COA letter and the LER was 4-19-90. Additional documentation l in the possession of the NRC OI clearly shows that Ken McCoy I was not "out of town" but was in the SONOPCO offices in I Birmingham on that day and a key participant on the " late I afternoon phone call". l i
The omission of McCoy's name from the white paper was not a simple mistake or clerical error. The NRC's questions were '
posed in a meeting that McCoy chaired during the OSI inspection. Answers were drafted by the group of GPC and SONOPCO managers including Ken McCoy. In McCoy's presence, j the list of participants who were on the late afternoon call was compiled and reviewed.
McCoy did not speak up or add his name to the list in any way. 1 l
Mr. McCoys statements from his deposition acknowledges {
Mosbaugh's raising concerns with Shipman over the false statements in the LER on the diesel genert tor start counts, an event which took place on 4-19-90 before the LER was submitted.
Surprisingly this contradicts Pat Mcdonald's sworn statements in GPC's 4-1-91 response to the 2.206 petition which states, on page 4 section IIB, "Not until April 30
LOW ( o t .L Vt-NTL% (-
- l 1
A 4 1990 does-it appear that Mr. Mosbaugh articulated for the I benefit of his management that the start count data j contained in the LER was inaccurate".
1 Returning'to Pat Mcdonald's sworn deposition of 9-17-90, !
f
- Pat Mcdonald's was ask: l I
- pg. 6 j Q Do you know if you were in your office on or about
- April 18th, 1990 ?
! A I don't remember.
l Ag. 7 j- Q Could you look at it and see if that helps refresh j your recollection ?
j A Okay.
l A April.the 18th I believe I was-- my calendar shows i that I was in Atlanta for a meeting in Atlanta.
[ Q On April 19, were you ?
l A April 18.
Q I know. I'm asking about April 19.
l A April 19th I believe I was in Atlaata in a meeting with Mr. Billy Klack, State Emergency Director.
l When you combine the sworn statements from the above
)
- depositions with the sworn statements of GPC/SONOPCO in j their 2.206 petition response and the~" white paper" and look at what GPC/SONOPCO is saying about
- the top 3 Vice j
Presidents in charge of Vogtle, it is not only natantiv 2 false but their claim of collective absence and DQD-i narticination demonstrataa 3 total lang gi intaarity:
4 a
Mcdonald didn't have anything to do with LER 90-006
! Mcdonald was out of town at the time, i McCoy was out of town at the time.
I Hairston was not a participant on the " late afternoon
! call" i
I The documentation in the possession of the NRC clearly '
! shows the whereabouts of the Vice Presidents as well as j their real roles, indeed intimate roles, in preparing and
- modifying LER 90-006 rev. O, roles they are now trying j (unsuccessfully) to cover up. How many lies under oath by i SONOPCO executives does it take for the NRC to conclude that i
SONOPCO aracutive management Anas not possess the intaarity, i character and fundamental trustworthiness 1D oDarata j nuclear power plants as addressed in 10 CFR2 Appx. C. VI .
- I
- I request the NRC to take the immediate, strong and
! appropriate action that is warranted and required under NRC l l regulations.
1 1.
i
} _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ . . .
Dr k M -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
- ALLEN MOSBAUGH, )
)
COMPLAINANT, ) NO. 90-ERA 58 l )
l VS. )
)
i GEOPGIA POWER COMPANY ) !
l
)
RESPONDENT. ) !
4 l
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MCCOY ,
I taken by Counsel for the Complainant )
before Judy S. Burnett, Certified Court Reporter ,
at Plant Vogtle, Waynesboro, Georgia l
on Wednesday, September 12, 1990, commencing at 1:45 p.m. l 3
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT: FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Mr. Michael D. Kohn Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr.
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO TROUTMAN, SANDERE, LOCKERMAN
& ASHMORE 577 Florida Avenue, NW 127 Peachtree Street, NE Washington, D.C. Atlanta, G:Orgia 30313-1810 i
CULPEPPER REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
551 GREENE STREET - PATIO LEVEL l AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30901 (404) 722-3746 l
l Wg \ semasow , usw wet:ce is, et .00
. _. . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ .._~ ._ _ . _ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ __
4 1 including engineering licensing folks and that sort of thing.
2 But I think it was ultimately resolved in the 3 quality concern program.
4 l 4 Q. Doesn't the quality concern program require the 5 resolution to notification to go to the person involved in
- 6 quality, concern?
7 A. Yes, that's the standard program. To see if the 8 concern, the person that expressed the concern, was satisfied.
a 9 Q. If that notice wasn't sent down, then the quality
! 10 concerns department hadn't finished their investigation.
1 11 Is that what you're saying?
h i 12 A. Either that or they've had an oversight in their 13- regular program. But that's the normal functioning of that I
j 14 program. I would not know about that notice.
- 15 Q. Did Mr. Mosbaugh tell you in April of 1990 that he
! 16 believed there were false statements made in the corrective 1
17 action letters sent to the NRC7 I do not remember him directly telling me that. I l 18 A.
19 was told, I believe, by Bill Shipman that Allen Mosbaugh had 1
! 20 expressed that concern. That's my recollection.
l 21 Q. What did you do after you learned about that
) 22 concern?
i 23 A. Actually I think I was out of town of something at s
l 24 the time that was raised and that Bill shipman and George 25 Hairston responded to that including revising the LER and h '
i l I
i CULPEPPER REPORTING SERVICE, INC. I l l 1 i l
2*d HWES0W 7 N3T101.ttT:E0 T6, BT 100 l
4
)
1 ordering a QA audit to be sure that it was completely accurate.
2 Q. I'm talking about the corrective action letter, not 4
3 the LER. There's a corrective action letter and an LER.
4 Do 4
you remember learning that there were false statements '
1 t
5 contained in the corrective action letter?
- 6 A. What I understand is that Allen brought this up to ;
7 Bill Shipman. That he felt that what was in the corrective 8
action letter was in error. And what was in the LER that was 9
being submitted was also, he thought, in error. I 10 So as a result of that, they did a QA audit to 11 verify that the LER was correct and we made a statement as I j 12 i recall in the transmittal 12at said that we wanted to clarify '
13 our position on the original letter because there was confusion 14 about the terms used and that sort of thing. And so that was' 15 attempted to be clarified by the LER. That's my recollection 16 of it.
17 Q. Was there ever an investigation as to how false 18 information got into the corrective action letter or the LER?
19 A. Yes, the QA audit reviewed all of that and 20 concluded that there were several factors that led to that.
21 Q. Where are the QA audit results? Were they turned 22 over to the NRC7 ,
23 A. Yes, and we have a QA audit report that they were 24 provided to the NRC team that investigated that allegat.
25 Q. That's quality assurance audit?
l l'
j CULPEPPER REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
E*d H000ESOW 7 )a nd WOSI:EO T6, 8T .LDO
i 1
a I
j O
I 1
N I
1 i.
9 G
4
r- .h e M mi . -.- +aM- --j L..- _m--.- -+ 4 .,
~
- N 4/7 9b ,PA d, /LA CONES 10 No g
- pour ro pur w pure ar .saec er
/AfWY
. S/fVS '77//AM'S SAWu2C E M. E
g
... . . ?
\ .
1 E e- 44 -
Aw7 MEA i 428
~ ~
I
/TLC 4 ChesssacssFAt996 >
, /
/
A SS[f YV l ro 197E SH/PNAru 3 UaKE.
CA %ff T /EF 70 N"00 gg /
am se wx au ,, n, g
enass -s aa .s .n.--.,x-- s.an .u a ...a-..+.a*-.a nu xn. -a--me -.e----a-a---s.+ms e a o,.m-owa m um=m. -eea-w.m.-saw mu . . .- m.- .--...------w--
l d
I i
l l
1 f
p, s I
a- 2 l
1 I
l i
4 1
i 1
3
.._aa a A -_..- n-,__nr a a s l
1 I
i l
i J
i i
l M
/A l
l l
l I
l
(i .j v b. ;. ;
1 y.
/,JP g,x.y'y". ..
s: .>hs i . -~n,
.,, em-: ~ ~ .ORA.
se1ME.M_ ~.
TT ND..U. M. w.O' U_llA.S.E 4 %.
T..a,
- l. -... .
, d. . se . . ~- "-: r.
4 - ~ - .
= * *
%0hS Z WNiEU*mMMMFilrkMG%W.h L ,. . -. A b m t% ; 2.g'h giay~?- $w o *i %m$- -'?.
mc - mumw u %qm.r.v n: 7w'* ?.%; ,3ar
!1 <
t -
e ? 4 $$'Y Y' $$hkY h & *' h5>$ 5 *
'
- a.
k s '%'tE2C%#2M??1tMCld2dDFA5626%'G2fi%%Th.: -
i .
I
! > >25!&
- 2 tr& M L p w . W a w.# 2 w e e d w h , w e --; - 1 . 1 l 4 mw4WC5cMwa**n m.+*e w,w w wsytammewo m + e- 4 1
Lf1DM%25%?'%eR%ist.96%K&W%Lt4%Mww wa 4:
1 -
. v.
I 71) Elk?WE'W'#i"%#dFlE%WIBGHEt.n.e c < -" d :
~ Y ?$&f&$)} -f $ E i [ f) W &~f")$ $ $ - & yptj 'fn&
< . - v ~ m y y m ;.: .> J . a.. - + 4 p : p g s u m s..a w ,=. ~ 3
- $'-$cer$ YaN.s , ) A d d 2 h ' N $ $d' Y h 5 Y b L D ~
1 ~ sam:%& Rya %m2,; ;.y2._ oag((,gc.gigg,,g ? - : ..
t t %::s X W W:WP* M W
- W @ u i Tk N E G"*.' #:M45&9%&%?MlA:y'T_ __ _ _." l l
1 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
i l
n.
i i
i I
O 4
4
+
4
+
1 1
i I
4
gc wrir- ,
'## + "* '* e a .. e me. e e .
.. .I- . . . # f f3 ..
O
- 0064 4WD4 6 m w6 h ge
~' - ... .l . l
-. .. __....-._,__.J . _.. . . - . - _ . . - - . - -
- er**m - . - . . . . . - , , , . . . - - - . . .
- M
._. - . .aaccow .6J ce"As ep,a e, ,
l... __ m pe u a assee 7
ed a w r/ w w m e m s B y af ;
o
/j sw <r re pr 4 cft' 46KE s W '
c
?o d., wror Oans V 7zBar srae i
, >2D.
JVBKB& ,
1 14fA/Fyjfir2ff8 e - .ehee N
~
.. . . . .../ffds - BW _sdE A M78 PfAB7MJE7?ra
- . Ad ...A"fEh@TA' ..- . . - . ..
1
_ .m .
hen 6-AM...AD 77JPS 7 . .
- e -
. , = =
- g. O e e e
, , e
- e-w .: pg e, en em
- - he W*e 6S 6 6 . .e e - p ge e ag. ge, e g ee-m-ee aeenh em m.- ,
e ah e num e.u= 4
a4x =- -Ai-G- - - - -L+6 --J--s>A A-br 4-6 m----- 3 --A,- Am, - - --w -~s6 + ^^~ - -*'="+m-n-m-
-- a-a---As4 -- - -- s-
. 1
- l 4 1 3
1 4
I l
i N
i I
J i
(
1 a
f 9
9 /
'l I
i i i
?
l i
i 1
4
)
1 1
j l
4 l
)
1 6
l i
I
.1 4
i h
k i
4 i
t t
i AUG 15 ' aa 23PM ALLEN L 19cQ'-VGH p F.A i,
y,y89,k . >, A 4 yn 'mhqy m n e.
y I
L- -
l THE DEFINITION OF THE "COMPRFWENSIVE TERT MrwMtAM" (CTP)
IN RELATION TO aNITHERN NUCLEAR'S MATERIAL Fataf BTATEMFNTS l
MATERIAL FALRE ETATFMENTS BY rYWYRaION i
f 4-19-90 --- CTp chrase in fi rm_t created and submitted to the
- NRC
! On 4-19-90 Bockhold stated that the 18 & 19 starts from his 4-9-90 presentation were all after the completion i of the CTP. "The were not before that time". Thus the l l , subsequent to the CTP 1anguage was applicable to the 4-9-90 presentation and the 4-9-90 COA as well as the 4-19-90 LER.
$ If the 4-9-90 presentations were falso (which southern
- gdEg 'i> Nuclear personnel acknowleged on 4-19-90), then the jdjp LER which was intended to repeat the same numbers as the 4-9-90 presentation (18 & 19), which were then consolidated to
! "at least 18 times each" was intended to be falso as well
! because it was based on information known to be fales.
i Bockhold's statements on 4-19-90 indicate his understanding i of the CTP. They can be taken one of 2 ways: ;
Either the "Special Testing" described in Bockhold's transparency constitutes the comprehensive test program t itself and the 18 and 19 starts are claimed to have occurred
! after that testing.
. OR
?
l The comprehensive test program ended before the testing j described and listed under columns "1A" and "1B" and the
- number of starts under those columns are intended to a constitute and add up to the 18 & 19 numbers of " Successful Starts" at the bottom, l
f i George Bockhold has claimed that the starts in the columns are not intended to add up to the 18 and 19 at the bottom.
l As a result one must conclude the former interpretation, that the CTP consists of those tests described in the l transparency and:
i i FOR DIESEL GENERATOR A ---- CTP ended before start 169 I
The significant problem with this is that there was only 1 start after the completion of the CTP and the 4-9-90 presentation. As this definition applies to the LER there 4
- were only 5 starts after the completion of tne CTP and the i and of the day on 4-19-90, i
i i , . , . _.-. -_ ,
FOR DIESEL GENERATOR B ------ CTP anded before start 148 The significant problem with this is that there was only 1 start after the completion of the CTP and the 4-9-90 presentation. As this definition applies to the LER there were only 7 starts after the completion of the CTP and the end of the day on 4-19-90.
1 Reconsidering the second interpretation of the CTP :
)
FOR DIESEL GENERATOR A ---- CTP anded before start 142 Using Bockhold's transparency, the CTP ended before start 142 (5 starts before the UV run, start 147, of 3-29-90).
-- The significant problem with this is that there was no comprehensive testing before start 142 because starts numbers 139, 140, and 141 were the 3 atempts to start the diesel on 3-20-90 during the site area emergency itself.
-- Another problem is that there was an unexpected trip from a jacket water temperature switch on start 148, after the completion of the CTP.
-- Yet another inconsistency is that there were 27 starts after start 141 and 4-9-90 presentation as opposed to the J 18 shown on the slide.
1 1
FOR DIESEL GENERATOR B ------ CTP anded before start 137 Again using Bockholds transparency the CTP ended before start 137 (the E-run bubble test of 3-27-90 at 16:49 ) 1
--The significant problem with this is that there were only 12 starts after start 136 and the 4-9-90 presentation as opposed to the 19 shown on the transparency.
-- A " problem" with the Control air system (low control air pressure < 41 pai.) caused a caused a " Maintenance Lockout alarm" between start 145 and 146.
Anril 30 1990 ------named on Monhaunh'a 4-10-eO mama.
Boekhold directa Manh="ah to correct the LFN 90-008.
Bockhold directs Mosbaugh by memo to correct the LER.
,1 Mosbaugh discusses the 4-30-90 memo, that indicates the g[VtatartcountinformationintheNRCcorrespondenceisfalse, with Bockhold. Bockhold does not present his understanding (fgpP of the CTP definition. Bockhold does not argue that based on his understanding of the CTP the LER start count is correct
(that there were more than 18 starts after the CTP ).
Bockhold agrees that a revision of the start count is warranted. .
May _8-10 1990---- The PRR atruaalan with the definition of
, the CTP i
! On about May 8 the PRB reviewed the propossd revision to the i LER 90-006. There is confusion with the CTP language and no
. member, i ncluding Aufdenkampe, has a clear understanding of I
what was intended by the words. The PRB concludes that the
- earliest piont a CTP completion could be claimed was just before the UV test (start 162 and 141 respectively). The PRB approves a revision of the start information based on that definition and fowards it to Bockhold. Bockhold initials off on the revision and the revision is sent to corporate .
Bockhold never presented his claimed understanding from 4-19-90 of the CTP definition to the PRB or questioned the need to reviss the start count.
Juna-90 ----NRC atates its undaratandina of Licanama's CTP m
-12 & J- h f NUREG 1410 " Loss of vital AC Power
- yg /rI Matandtio Res cuni Heat Removal System During Mid-Loop Operations Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990 describes the licensee's g testing of " Control System Functional Testing" to include:
tests to recreate the event, tests of individual pneumatic elements, leak tests, multiple starts, logic functional test, a UV test, and " lastly., the 6-month operability testing required by the plant Technical specifications".
Nureg 1410 then states that, "The licensee believed that this series of tests, combined with the planned sensor testing, provided a comprehensive trouble shooting plan for the root cause determination that encompassed all suspect equipment involved with the incident."
FOR DIESEL GRENERATOR A ----CTP ended before start 165 FOR DIESEL GENERATOR B ----CTP ended before start 144 6-29-90 ---- Southern Nuclame radafinen the cTP In the cover letter to the revision of LER 90-006 It states "If the criteria for the completion of the
test program is understood to be the first successful test 4 in accordance with Vogtle Electric Generating Plant'(VEGP) procedure 14980-1 " Diesel Generator Operability Test".
It should be noted that this new definition is consistent with the NRC statements in the NUREG 1410 above.
The cover letter indicates the errors were made because of the "the definition of the end of the test program".
I FOR DIESEL GENERATOR A -- CTP ended before start 165 ;
i
- --The problem with this is that there were only l 4 starts of the diesel after this CTP and the 4-9-90 presentation.
--The 6m ond problem with this is that there were only 9 starts of the diesel after this CTP and the 4-19-90 LER.
! FOR DIESEL GENERATOR B -- CTP ended before start 144
-- The problem with thic is that thers were only 5 starts of the diesel after this CTP and the 4-9-90 presentation.
-- The second problem with this is that there were only 11 starts of the diesel after this CTP and the 4-19-90 LER.
A problem with the Control air system (low control air pressure < 41 pai.) caused a caused a " Maintenance Lockout alarm" between start 145 and 146.
8-9-93 ------ Southern Nuclear radafinna the CTP maain.
In its response to Interrogatories from the NRC in proceeding ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 Southern Nuclear stated in response to Question 1 " The " test program" which is referred to in the sentence from the April 19, 1990 LER and Quoted in interrogatory no. 1, was intended by Mr.
Bockhold to refer to the testing of the diesel control system which did not require diesel starts . i.e., the calibration of the Calcon sensors and the lo0ic testing of the control systems." This late date explination that Bockhold really meant on 4-19-90, that the CTP was sensor and logic testing not requiring diesel starte belius reason.
Bockhold reviewed and percont:11y signed off on the draft revision, from PRB meetint 90-66, to the LER 90-006 that clairified the point of counting starts, (" Subsequent to this test program"), to begin with start 163 for Diesel A and start 142 for Diesel generator 8.
If Bockhold had indeed belived Southern Nuclear's 6-9-93 definition of the CTP in 1990, no revision of the LER start count statements would have been warranted. Thus Bockhold
] :
l
)
did not hold in.1990 that the CTP ended before starts 148 j j and 137 and further believed that start 148 and 137 were too i
] early in the sequence to claim completion of a comprehensive
- test program. Not withstanding the above, for the 8-9-93
! definition:
FOR DIESEL GENERATOR A -----CTP ended before start 148 I l 3-30-90 e 19: 20 l
i I 1
4 1 --The first problem with this definition is that there was testing "which did not require diesel starts, ie., the )
calibration of the calcon sensors" act. performed after start 148.
i From the IIT report NUREG 1410 page J-10, the jacket water j temperature switches ITSH-19111 and 19112 caused DG1A to 1 trip on 3-30-90. Quoting from the report, "A jacket water temperature malfunction alarm was received when the :
emergency diesel generator was started"------- "the trip i i- confirmed that a problem existed in one of the other sensing
] lines or sensors". The report then states " Sensors ITSH-j 19111 and 19112 were Quarenteened by the Team and were replaced later on March, 31 1990. The leak testing on the j jacket water sensing lines was completed after the new i sensors had been installed". MWO's 19001683 and/or 19001863 are believed to document the calibration of these Calcon
- sensors. Vogtle MWO's are initiated sequentially and No's l 19001883 and /or 19001863 are after 19001576 referenced in Southern Nuclear's interrogatory response. NUREG 1410 further describes activities of the still ongoing efforts in calibrating the calcon sensors on April 2, 1990 and the discovery of a new aspect of the CALCON calibration
- problems, a loose spacer tube. According to NUREG 1410 page
! J-25 " The effect of the spacer tube loosing is to lower the trip setpoint".
It appears that the latest 8-9-93 definition of the CTP is yet another falso statement by Southern Nuclear.
--The second problem with this definition is that there were i 4 tests of the diesel before start 148 that required
- starting of the diesel.
! --The third inconsistency is that there were 21 starts l
between this CTP and the 4-9-90 presentation as opposed to I the 18 shown on the transparency.
FOR DIESEL GENERATOR B---- CTP ended before start 137
. --- The first problem with this definition is that there were 12 test of the diesel before start 137 that required starting of the diesel.
i e
~ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ -_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
--- The second problem with this definition is that the number of starts known to have occurred between 4-9-90 and 4-19-90 by the participants to the 4-19-90 conference call was 2 starts. The 2 start difference was stated to the call I participants by Aufdenkampe. Therefore with both the definition of the CTP and the knowledge of the number of
- starts between 4-9-90 and 4-19-90 know at the time on 4-19-90 was 2, Bockhold should have concluded that there were only 14 starts after the CTp and 4-19-90.
-- participants probably didn't know about the starts that i were occurring on 4-19-90 at the time they formulated the j language.
I i
! THE BASIS OE_ RELIABILITY __ EOR. DIESEL GENERAIGtS i 'The NRC requires that a plants diesel generators have a reliability of 95% per diesel. This is
! required by Generic Letter 84-15. NRC Branch technical Position EIC58 2, " Diesel Generator Reliability Qualification Testing" dated 11-24-75 of the Standard Review I I
Plan Appx 7-A of NUREG 75-087, further requires that a plant's diesel generator system have a 995 reliability at a 50% confidence level.
NRC recognizes only " Valid successful tests" The NRC only recognizes " valid successful testa" per Regulatory Guide 1.108 to establish reliability of l diesel generators. l No matter how Southern Nuclear now defines its l
" Comprehensive test program" there was only 1 valid I successful test of the A diesel and 2 valid successful tests of the B diesel after the site area emergency and 4-9-90.
This few tests only establishes a 50% and a 71% reliability at a 50s confidence level respectively as defined by NRC regulations, far too few for the NRC to grant parmission to allow resumption of power operations on 4-12-90.
By 4-19-90 diesel generator A had completed only 6 valid successful tests and diesel generator B had completed 7 valid successful tests. These few tests establishes only a 894 and a 91% reliability respectively.
It requires 14 consecuitive successful valid tests without problems of failures to achieve the 952 reliability at a 50%
confidence level on a diesel as required by NRC regulations.
Southern nuclear's " successful starts" are illegitimate Not withstanding the NRC's recognition of only " Valid successful tests", the tests that Southern Nuclear included
in tha counts of etorto without " problems or failures" is scientifically illsaitimate in attesting to reliability for Vogtle's diesel generators after the site area emergency. Southern Nuclear's tests numbers include ,
runs of the diesel for as little as 60 sec. duration as well as tests without having any load on the diesel generator. )
Because the root cause of the failure of the diesel in the site area emergency was misoperation of the Calcon jacket water temperature switches due to downward setpoint drift of .
the high temperature trip, it was scientifically essential I that the diesel tests reached the steady state and maximum jacket water temperatures to manifest the problems. In other words running a diesel unloaded for a few minutes will not cause the coolant (Jacket water) to heat up significantly ,
and thus not approach the CALCON Jacket water Hi-Temp trip setpoint (requirec to be 200 F +- 4 F), even if the setpoint has drifted dangerously low as 186 F as was found on the Quarantined D01A switch that tripped the diesel during the site area emergency. Jacket water in a stopped diesel may be as low as 150 F. Heating of only a few degrees from this point would be expected from short unloaded runs, thus never challenging and exposing the hidden safety problem.
Therefore all these short unloaded tests are meaningless in attesting to the Vogtle diesel reliability.
Fifteen (15) out of the 26 tests on DG1A occurring between Southern Nuclear's latest (8-9-93) CTP definition and 4-19-90 were unloaded and less than 10 minutes. :
Six (6) out of the 18 tests on DG1B occurring between the the latest CTP definition and 4-19-90 were unloaded and less than to minutes.
To include these tests as attesting the diesel reliability is improper and 1111gitimate from an engineering perspective.
Whatever point Southern Nuclear claims ended the comprehensive test program, reliability can not be established until the trouble shooting was complete, design changes incorporated, and the root cause corrected.
It makes no engineering sence to take credit for consecuitive successful tests to attest to reliability before the underlying problems were corrected.
The underlying problem that tripped the Diesel generator was the Calcon switches. The underlying problems with the calcons were determined to be calibration techniques, dirt and debris in the switches from instaliation techniques, loose spacer tubes, orifice sizing, and leaking pneumatic air lines.
The correction of these problems was not complete by start 148 and 137 as claimed by Southern Nuclear.
t a
According to NUREG 1410 Appendix J Section 3, the l
" Troubleshooting for root cause of the emergency diesel generators trips" did not complete until the conduct of the 6 month operability test, start 164 for diesel A and start 4 143 for diesel 9, i
MATERfAL FALRE STATFMENTS BY OMfRRIDN l
Southern Nuclear admitts they never informed the NRC that the " successful starts" in their presentations were not a i' result of " valid tests".
Southern Nuclear never informed the NRC that amoung the
" successful starts" and starts without problems and failures were a large fraction of the tests of extremely short 4 duration, unloaded, and of no real value in demor rating 1 l reliability.
i i Southern Nuclear fa' led to inform the NRC in their written
! and oral presentatic ms on 4-9-90 and 4-19-90 of the ;
continuing diesel ge erator trips and problems that were potentially associatei with the root cause of the -
Site Area emergency.
- Southern Nuclear failed to inform the NRC that the 4-9-90 presentation and COA were false promptly upon recognition of that fact by their senior management. i 1
i i
1 1
t 8
a-. .<-s - - - x.a m - a -m am.- -. - - a .m a J
h I
i i
d i
e i
J d
9 J
J l
i o
I 1
5 l
d l
J I
I s
)
1, N
.d k
1 1
J 4
f ll 4
d 4
4
.d 1,
The above examples portray the operations approach to schedule versus compliance.The following is a quote made by an operations superintendent and a OSOS on 3-22-90 at 8:00 PM EST'in theismall conference room of the Vogtle Service Building at the end of the evening OSOS meeting.
Approximately 20 personnel were in attendance.
Ops. Supt.-- "We've got a lot of work to do."
OSOS --
"It can be done - as long as you can take the LER's."
Plant Vogtle has one of the highest LER rates in the Region-but also has one of the highest capacity factors in 1989 as well as some of the shortest outages.These statistics may be related.The cost of a LER is small.The value of at power hours and critical path outage time is high.The above examples and statements from such high level operations personnel sugges' . hat this relationship is not only recognized but it practice at Vogtle.
Management rewards the non-conservative and cuestionable compliance practices with praise for meeting schedule and takes no action to. critically investigate these events, discipline the responsible personnel or reverse the dangerous' course that Vogtle is on.
These occurrances are reminisant of 1987 when the cr1ve
-for schedule overrode safety, conservatism, and regulation
- _ ,-., u _ a. 4 1
i I
)
& dwg, rrr ; war \
l I
W l ae emc -
/a m o re arie ;
4_
h i
D/ESEL J7 &273 N B ^/ 6 1 29 9scK f)$0 f CoAJf/pH Vo' uA /APO Lu,'/$f3
- 'awa ' - a,w A%WM M 7 !
i M MSE l A /9~ /90 2 / l/ 6 /54 5 l 00k bY
' M&rn5N /9 Y C -
'vfc 5 (tie /AJ U04().
<s.suco w 4,/9 Af/0 ~ QW d~60,-
LEA qlq J
[0S lE 560r 70 colp ff5 '
~
A494 Hs7 rv 95 arufD 007 O/= GM
/8% dl M CW AP _
/F A/8tx/ #4/E /AU720C773xjf h hlYf Y$kf$ \
lBQ PE46 H/+T$ 199M4 ~GwEdfrs Ly.S.
C- lEffdAISS wane <mmwz
- (E2 - m r h m ue , , ,,,,, , a j WMM MESEAJr @ Aws/uyfl,f
/I A/ M Y ef D a ss w QAnuo//(,+r?-
nam 6F OB M W LOG 5 - '
/28MJA/72 O f W 06/N'd t2wE BY TON 9688
^
l
/
$,7/24 /EL/Ad/L/7y gedB ptJ/ praggs
/ ,
&& Lu26#5 Mo
/S M/t/AE E/Hr8/73 S&fE- fyWLtJ2E 0/-bW. OF A2 7zwA J^R4ro/ES
/ W ~ sd #6W s Ac E O rzwor K )b r DECIAQED ACC d /MOR ,
00F dLD f60/7CNES A4& OA/
~
) ,
l l
1
l 9
KO H N. KO H N & CD LAPINTU. P.C.
ATTORNEYB AT LAW
! siv rLonioA Avenut.ww WASHlNSTON. DC 5000 4 I 43031334*4663 OrCou*.etu
! an Cn.E6 c. non=*. ....n ...,.v..
.5. . .... .... . .am n. ... . .. .
.a seu t....
.,.n.,,.
TELECOPY REQUEST FORM
. . n.n..
, .a. .n.. ..
]
IF YOU HAVE NOT PROPERLY RkbEIVED THIS TELECOPY I PLEASE CALL US AT (202) 234-4663
- OUR TELECOPY NUMBER IS (202) 462-4145 l l
1 Please Deliver The Following Material As Soon As Possible .
ro: [ A./Y L k a blo/* - OT FROM V)InW /
TELECOPY NUMBER:
3!' YI
- No. of Pages: C (Including cover Page)
REMARKS:
i f
DATE SENT:
.vg ..
- TIME SENT:
a.
.g
'ie. CLIENTCASEh0.
..I*
_ __.__ _ _ . _ .. _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ l Omco cf Administrative Law Juegn %
U.S. D:p;rtm:nt of Laber
\ 525 Vins Street, Suite 900 . .
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 /
IN THE MATTER OF :
ALLEN MOSBAUGR, a Complainant : Date: September 4, 1990
- i
- v. : Case No: 90-ERA-58 l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, a Respondent :
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL Respondent, on August 31, 1990, moved for an Order compelling Complainant to submit to a deposition and to produce documents on the grounds that Complain' ant's twice scheduled deposition has been postponed and that Movant has cause to believe that complainant's deposition, now scheduled for september 7, 1990, will also be postponed. .
Respondent asserts that, since approximately one-half of the time available for discovery has been dissipated by Complainant's delays, it has been prejudiced in the preparation of defenses. I agree. While the schedules of busy attorneys are not overlooked, prosecution of this expedited case should not have been accepted unless it neatly fit within Counsel's available time.
Respondent's right to depose Complainant and to obtain relevant documents is beyond question and any further attempt to hinder or interfere therewith invites the imposition of harsh sanctions.
Thusly, Repondent's Motion To Compel is well taken and must be favorably entertained.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, unless Counsel agree to the I contrary, complainant shall appear for the taking of his
' deposition ~by oial examination and he shall produce specified, relevant documents on Se?tember 7, 1990, pursuant to Notice
- issued on August 30, 1993. Complainant's failure to comply herewith and/or to cooperate fully in discovery shall constitute l sufficient grounds to dismiss this case and to institute l proceedings authorized and contemplated by 2 C.F.R. 18.29(b). )
A%2 ./
BERNARD J.'G AY, 'Jeg U LAW JUDGE
/ADMINISTRAT
,-.._..a- -a.-- an.-aw-
- - mL ..-a d- - - - - -- - = - - = + = -.almn4 * -- - - *A 6-. bA u-----+ee_-r_ #-n-CA e.
m---- .= - - - - + = .hA. -A.-.m *=*Awa f
i 4
4 0
i r
4 1
I i.
e 1
4,
(,
i d
a 4
1 1
4 l
d
)
I l
s a
b d
1 1
l e
a e
R
)
/
1
/
l
?
/
t 4
M A
4 v
i 4
0 i
l l
I d
E 4
k 1
d 1
t c
l e
J f
i a
4 d
e - u n. :.3 sev -,__c., := . . . p.1 0227 T&h
[f){ hi '
0 FFl ODiH50h NRC M!ue d Les ~a 50%
finae & . [ ? ! % .i . . ,, ,(; & Jy k
SEP 83 '9C 0"*:26414__EN L F05BnUGH P.2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Allen Mosbaugh, :
- v. : Case No. 90-ERA-58 i Georgia Power Co. :
~
i MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
- Comes now, complainant and hereby reuuests a orotective i orcer concerning the procuction of taos recorcings. l O- September 12. 1990, this Court issueo its croer to !
compel procuction of certa 1n tapw recoccings. Comolawant ,
old not find out about tnis order until late in ine cay.
when a copy was proviced oy respondent. At or atout 7pm. ,
complainant's counsel returned to his hotei room anc for the l f1rst time retrieved 3 message from a tepresentative of T.h e i Nuclear Regulatory 31ssion (NRCI Off1ce of ; est.p-; onc :
(01). Mr. Konn con * .tec the NRC official at his r c ' L :: '6.
l At that time the NRv official in?'rmed Mr. Kohn t:s. I not as of yet obta1ned or rev1ewwa a. copy of t v tr.sec ,
12, 1990 Order issueo by this Court, but tr t .no * ' s C1 w1sned to subpoena Mr. Moseaugh's tape 'wecic$ngs 'e_suse . i the NRC nad Deen aavlsed that certain portions t' .. v taDes ccqcerned on-going criminal investloaticns or inves- .4tsc 5 into alleged illegal conduct on tr+ omrt of responc The NRC further requested tnat complainant not tras.
tape recorcings of the conversations Detween Mr. Mosbaugh anc .re NRC because suen conversat1ons are covered under express grant of conficentiality granted Mr. Mosbeugh t .e I NRC and because release of sucn tapes woul6 i nte r f.. - t, I an on-going investigations of illegal conouct (inciv.i .
aaditionel aliegations which have not as of yet been disclose..i to respondent by either tne NRC or complainar. .. l The NRC OI stated that a subpoena or cther leg-cocumentation would likely De served on complaint ss 17.E oetere micnight, Sootemne- t i, 1990 or that some form of protective order might De t'in by t.he NRC W1th this Court.
The NRC requested and were g. van Mr. Mosbaugh's "bes r' number so they could immeciately notify h1m orally c. r as a subpoena would be issued and they further recuos- j that complainant honor- oral not1ce of the existence of evc.,
a subpcena es soon as voch nctice was provided to Mr.
Moseaugh.
SE.P 13 '90 DN Z74M ALLCr4 L l1055;W.G-. P.3 i-1 l
Complainant notes that tapes related to the truth or verac1ty of Mr. MosDaugh's allegations are altogether ,
3 tr. relevant to this proceed 1ng. Moreover, the conversations ;
many or all of the conversations with the NRC occurred after the above-capt1oned case was filed w1th the Department of Labor. As such, respondent is not entitled to taos recording related to the verac1ty of the allegations OI is currently investigating, particularly inasmuch as a conf 1dentiality agreement exists between complainant.and tne i NRC. l 1 Moreover, responcent stated on the record ,, '1ng the course of Mr. Mosbaugh's deposition that the t -c, date on discoverable matters in this case (because it . . . . . .O L consolidated with a subsequent complaint pending .;to the Wage and Hour D1vis1on) would be the date of the compla1nt filed in tne aoove-captioneo case (inosec after that fact was d1scusseo. Mr. konn agreed to cancel a croo3 4 tion of.Mr.
Lee Glenn after Mr. Schs.Mies cossrved tnat ,_ vement in this case oegan after te,e compla$nt was v.iec, lhus, tapes createo after the filing of tne complaint on.ch are !
1rrelevant to the allegations contained in tne complaint I snould oe excluded 3 rom the orcereo procu: tion. l Moreover. tapes oetween Mr. Mosnaugh and n- A 1:rneys ;
are also inciuaea in the taoes ordered to De : .
These tapes have not.oeen toentified ano proc .. . .' ai' c' the tapes woula result in tne inadvertent ciaciosure of atterrey-client cunser:ations.
WHEREFORE, comclainant reauests that production of the
- t. - olaceo 10 aceyance until Moncay, Sestember 17, 1990 so coma sinant can: 1) physically locate and exclude the taos recordings of conversations between him and the NRC and between him and h1s counsel; 2) so tnat tne NRC can Intervent or otherwise seek a protective order 1n this proceedings'before c1sclosure of critical facts related to the on-going investigation would occur by the 1mmediate '
transmission of the tapes to responcent.
Respectfally Submitted, A L ~
M1chael D. Kohn 517 Florica Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Cert 1ficate of Serv 1ce I certify that a copy of the foregoing was hand-deliverec on Jesse Schaudies th1s 13th day of September 9 1990. j A/ ~
1 i
i
4 4
9 l
4 l
4
I ;
2 FACSIMILE TRAXSMITTAL
- U.S. IRC -
RII ATIETAs GA I
b EVE YOWN i
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX:
l INP0 MNBB PH E PS I l 9/952-6728 492-7142 492-8110 i
) WHITE RN WOODMONT PAYROLL i; 492-0260 492-7056 492-4371 j 1RApelG CIR. RI RE 615/855-6543 346-5324 388-5691
]
4 Imf El M STE 728-8210 463-3804 (SEE REME)
Adkswwv' c rn' DC N o,ny.
OmcE/toca0N ra no./bs.2) 442-4/+5' mm No. W PAGES M + TRMSVSTAL. SHET FROM: O FAX: 841-4479 / VERIF. - 5510 #[
9ek
-- _- - -. .__ __ - . _- - - _- . _ - - - -.- - - -. . - = - _ - - . - -- - _ . .
I DECLARATION OF LARRY L. ROBINSON 1, Larry L. Robinson, do hereby declare that the following is true and correct, under penalty of perjury, to the best of my ability.
- 1. My name is Larry L. Robinson. I as employed as an Investigator with the Office of Investigations, United States Nuclear Regulatory Consission. My duties include the conduct of investigations of licensees, applicants, their contractors or vendors, including the investigrtion of all allegations of wrongdoing by other than NRC employees and contractors.
2.
I make these statements based upon my own personal knowledge, or upon knowledge obtained by se during the course of my employsent, and is relied upon by se in the performance of my official duties.
3.
The Of fice of Investigations (0!), Region II (RII), NRC, currently has two pending investigations regarding allegations of intentional wrongdoing on the -
part of(VESP).
Plant 8eorgia Power Company (BPC) Managers at the Vogtle Electric Benerating These investigations basically involve allegations of deliberate Violations of Technical Specifications, and Material False Statements. If these allegations are substantiated, they could constitute violations of NRC regulations enacted to protect the public health and safety.
In addition, a recent Special Inspection, conducted by NRC at VESP during the period August 6-17, 1990, addressed additional related allegations of wrongdoing by 8PC Management at VESP that will, in all likelihood, be referred to O! in the egar future.
4.
On September 12, 1990, Stephen Kohn, of the Law Offices of Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto, telephened me and advised as that their client, Allen L. Mosbaugh, a BPC employee at VE8P, was in possession of audio tape recordings that he, Mosbaugh, had made of conversations with VESP Managers that may be pertinent to the ongoing NRC investigations /Special Inspection. Kohn advised as that Mosbaugh had been officially ordered to turn these tapes over to the Law Offices of Troutaan. Sanders, Lockeraan, and Ashmore, representatives of SPC in a Department of Labor (DDL) Case, No. 90-ERA-58, initiated by Mosbaugh. !
Kehn stated that his understanding was that Mosbaugh was going to have to over these tapes on Sept. 13, 1990.
5.
Allen L. Mosbaugh had been interviewed by se on February 8,1990, during the course of my investigation of one of the aforementioned allegations.
6.
On September 12, 1990, I telephoned Mosbaugh, and he verified that he did sake such tape recordings, that he was in possession of then, that he had been ordered by a DDL Administrative Law Judge to turn them over to the Troutman, Sanders Law Fire. Mosbaugh told as that, in his opinion, some of these tapes show evidence of intentional wrongdoing on the part of 8PC Management at VEBP, and SPC Management at the offices of SONOPCO Project Birmingham Alabama, in .
connection with the allegations in the ongoing O! investigations and the Special Inspection..
7.
Also on September 12, 1990, in response to my sessage, Michael Kohn, also with the Law Fire of Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto, telephoned as at my residence and advised se that his client, Mosbaugh, per an order free DOL Administrative Law Judge Bernard J. Bilday, Jr., was required to turn over the tapes to the
i 6PC attorneys by eidnight, September 13, 1990. Michael Kohn said that he had not been able to personally review all the tapes, but that it was his understanding free conversations with his client that there was evidence of wrongdoing on the part of BPC Management, pertaining to the ongoing investigation /Special Inspection issues, contained in the conversations on the tapes. Kohn stated that his client would be willing to turn the tapes over to NRC for review for evidentiary purposes. Kohn stated that he would prefer to have the NRC subpoena the tapes.
S. The Office of Investigations has reasonabir cause to believe that these tapes contain direct evidence of intentional violations of regulatory requirements by SPC personnel that pertains to ongoing NRC investigations / inspections.
- 9. 01 has reasonable cause to believe that the review of these tapes by SPC personnel, or their representatives, prior to the completion of the aforesentioned investigations, would severely compromise the integrity of these investigations.
Further, declarant sayeth naught.
Dated this 13th day of September, 1990 at Atlanta, Georgia.
Larry . Robinson l
6
- - - - _ _ - -- - ,o _--,_ - _ , _ . . -.a _. - a e a A.-_ .s u 4 J s- ea,.-
- A -a,_ s 1
s l
i ,
)
? l 1 1 4
1
)
1 l
)
I l
1
)
O /
/
- .__%, am_..a ,.__gn ,a -- A. .m,. au % - J a - a 4 - Eeem =ea m ..m . -m.ea4 m4-e-4.- .--4 N
&Z7fo
. Mreneas in eu neer us yR evauc concm a f per.
Ocen.se esn srum cosas mo pop 'T Ibobu) lF EB ToUD l}M .croNff004 r
0 g /
Yh hhb, Y Y$$ >
l l hY$$ 7 $0C//8A 70 AOFDEDg&NA={k cH's araos u n e n a r i M0t9^]4 tuery u+wEs 5v5AJ WE/6, _.
--e
^
am Fosa, un- o s
I k 8 N '6 o r ..rf/ M
, 96Et.kmc TD Ghen'='4 rY of Ar droS@ex o e '"nua=_ msA * -
~
f /f egm t$
i
[ l' M W 6 8 78 4'BA fp7,f4) Q& ma s' n
&y?p usao, w uo wer <w -
s ma
%vNA,& < 7%&~ Y OAWAd6W[
=_ $w&Acam /
.sMipnes)' sca/sisF' aisa) M'c-W' '
WgRMM;6#
hf.
fpM L26 6+(L.'
OF Dr.52;dBr#
ABfoAE
/4 AwV f of gfA / McCoy ~
sc// /77BAJ *W A4&
owa esn s m R& CVWAdour 4knst e <
MeoM JscgHota As
~
SPHf 19 98 pga5 L
g"/ .l,,/hy .
/ /' spy' .e
7zg5 -p=opecap Hasr to' Bock e AdWK
/
//- @
- fA lc> u 'd/ M -PA I 77/&'AS Of~ LACT' tub 2/d LEE CLEAl, 6pp GC froc l fra. i vo m , swe ac ~
NS' al, t+t&Hssr psiex , s psc. Accies). l
~~
u)AS 7D ujoxx u.//rze & AwJ
&c
- erwee. cwcaws
- 6eemzom sw
/36S.) l
~
f i
K6
~ ~
Talk 250 Abtrur A-TAG 40y
.. SWs774
? . 7 A ll U -.- POB. rgt6d Ho/26 Adoor
- .. Ef(Kr(AM 7DE conch / 90 r W <u--
~
1~E&L di4^/ 11tkr ffE
"/LMdS " trZ? 90450E 670SA jff//BS /u/7M AM C.
-ea.,- N- -AAI-
- 4 = 4e,S-m-~-om-a- +aW- In a---=44e0 -~4M um +
Ae-a m A-- -= "" =A-maam - + -an-----=m<- - u-w'm-- A A--en mian-w I
3 4
1 5
9 e
E i l
'l l
8 1
i n
I
< l 4
l l
'I I
l l
1 1
I Mosaews a+ as /vsaes t .
BMM Le.sa -snm
. + l k A tJ F (1rO26 A/mf w
i
/Mn MosY coo w r I
l 758 '
SME/_tA2 S FADS 4' S wo AavdNce) I DF/fM n.,
/
Moss wf4 9N*& ,
h O
w me W __
W N eum W mw'r 6
_m,__w. Ja a. wem___ma.-a._ ma e w _ m- z u 4m.4by-aL. _mmm.m . , - .mm_._ame_. _sm wrmm_meh.m-ms-._.w,. ,.-a,_ w-_. w_u_w_a _ _- ,a -m__ - . - --- ---- - -----
t e
4 i
i d
i 4
4 9
4 4
8
]
i .
d n
I i
1 e
s 6
l 4
.e s
t d
n 6
i
/
1 1
i i
1 d e i
i t
E I
t J
l 1 e
i I
i f
a d
0 1
1
)
1 .
1 7
i 1
.s 9
1
^
J-91 FRI 103e1 . P.
l 1
\
KDHN. KOHN & CDLAPINTD, P.C. '
ATTORNEY 3 AT LAW S 1'F FLS AIDA AVtN W C. NW WASMINGTON. DC 30001 83 033 334 4 663 Mt *;.*:.": :.. '
. U."."." L .. ;
cawn. seas..es. . *== trc a. s o~erAov.
- 3%""20 CONFIDENTIAL Via Facsimile Larry Robinson office of Investigations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dear Mr. Robinson:
While reviewing depositions taken earlier during Mr.
Allen Mosbough's Section 210 case, I have found evidence demonstrating, at a minimum, that Mr. R.P. Mcdonald made a falso statement regarding his knowledge about the NRC-OI investigation into the "mid loop" issue.
Attached hereto, are excerpts of deposition transcripts of Mr. Arthur Domby and Mr. R.P. Mcdonald. The depositions wre taken under oath. See, Mcdonald Depo. Tr. at p. 4 and Domby Depo. Tr. at p. 4.
Mr. Domby testified that he first learned of the NRC-OI "a few days prior to... January 30th when the first interviews were held," and that he learned of it from "Mr.
R. Patrick Mcdonald." Domby Depo. Tr. at p. 6. Mr.
Mcdonald apparently testified falsely when he stated that the first he learned about the NRC-0I investigation was-
"when the OI investigator came to Plant Vogtle." Mcdonald Depo. at 19. Mr. Mcdonald stated that his " starting knowledge" of the investigation commenced when the "0I inspector came on site." Id., at p. 22.
My clients, Mr. Allen L. Mosbaugh and Mr. Marvin B.
Hobby, request that NRC-0I investigate whether Mr. Mcdonald knowingly made a false statement under oath (i.e. whether he, in fact, had knowledge of NRC-OI's investigation prior to NRC-OI's arrival on site).
On behalf of Masrs. Mosbaugh and Hobby, I remain sincerely, MW Michael D. Kohn 65b/ rob RL: 2:212 -lS fp
t i
1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
3 ALLEN MOSBAUGH, )
)
i 4 Complainant, ) CASE NUMBER:
)
j
- 5 vs. ) 90-ERA-58
)
i 6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )
)
7 Respondent. )
i 8
i 9 1
10
. 11
! 12 i '
! 13 - - -
14 DEPOSITION OF
)
! 15 ARTHUR H. DOMBY 16 - - -
17 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E., Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 BULL & ASSOCIATES
___ - _____ _ _ . .- . .- - - - _ - - . . - - - - = - . - - - - - -
t 8 2 6
i
'?
1 Deposition of ARTHUR H. DOMBY, i 2 taken on behalf of the Complainant, 3
before Susan E. Reynolds, Registered 4 Professional Reporter, Certified 4
5 Court Reporter and Notary Public,.at 6 127 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, 7
Georgia, commencing at approximately 8 10:15 a.m.,
Monday, September 17, I 1
, 9 1990.
10 J
11
. 12 3
13 14 15 l
16 17 18
- i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i BULL & ASSOCIATES
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2 FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
3 By: Michael D. Kohn Attorney at Law 4 '517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
i Washington, D.C. 20001 5 and Sandra Michaels 6 Attorney at Law 40 Marietta Street 7 Suite 1720 First Federal Building 8 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 9
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
10 TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN & ASHMORE By: Jesse P. Schaudies 11 Attorney at Law 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.
12 Atlanta, GA 30303-1810 13 14 -
15 - . _
16 17 ARTHUR H. DOMBY, 18 being first duly sworn, was deposed and 19 testified as follows:
20 EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. KOHN:
22 Q Mr. Domby, could you please state 23 your full name for the record?
24 A Arthur Howard Domby.
25 Q Who is your current employer?
BULL & ASSOCIATES l'
li
i i
1 A I am currently self-employed as a ;
2 partner at Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman and 3 Ashmore. 1 4 Q Mr. Domby, did you represent Mr. l 5 Mosbaugh personally during an NRC Office of 6 Investigation investigation? ,
7 A I did.
8 Q When did you commence representing 9 Mr. Mosbaugh?
10 A Relative to what? ,
11 Q When was the first time you ever 12 represented Mr. Mosbaugh?
13 A It was sometime in 1987.
14 Q And what representation was that?
15 A Mr. Mosbaugh was interviewed in an 16 NRC office of investigations matter concerning 17 security events. I think the matter you're 18 referring to is a February 8th, 1990 interview 19 with Mr. Mosbaugh by the NRC Office of 20 Investigations.
21 Q And you represented Mr. Mosbaugh at 22 that time also?
23 A Individually that's correct.
24 They're two separate matters.
25 Q Other than OI investigations have BULL & ASSOCIATES i
l l
6 l
l 1
you represented Mr. Mosbaugh in any other 2 matters?
3 A No, I have not. 1 4 >
Q Whan did you learn OI was coming on 5
site to do an investigatioA?
6 MR. SCHAUDIES: Are you 7 referring to 19907 8 MR. KOHN: Yes. The February 9 1990 investigation.
10 A The specific date I am not exactly 11 ture of. It was a few days prior to, I 12 believe, January 30th when the first interviews 13 were held. - - - -
14 Q (By Mr. Kohn) How did you learn of i
15 the investigation? !:
16 A My client, Georgia Power, called me.
17 Q Who in particular? '
18 l A Mr. R. Patrick Mcdonald. He's :
I 4
19 executive vice president of Georgia Power. s 20 0 And prior to speaking with Mr.
3 21 Mcdonald had you heard of any possibility of a j
22 there being an OI investigation?
-i 23 A No, I h a,d not. i 24 Q Prior to your conversation with Mr. l 25 ycDonald did anyone at Georgia Power Company 9 g
I L
. t BULL & ASSOCIATES
?
1 anticipate an investigation?
2 MR. SCHAUDIES: I'm going to 3 object to the form of the question.
4 MR. KOHN: I'll withdraw that.
5 Q (By Mr. Kohn) When did you first 6 meet Mr. Mosbaugh with relation to the February 7 1990 OI investigation?
8 A I_t began January 30th or thereabouts 9 in terms of my knowledge. The manner?
10 Q Right.
11 A I believe it was February 8th.
12 Q Do you recall where you met with Mr.
13 Mosbaugh?
14 A Yes. It was on the second floor of 15 the administrative building at Plant Vogtle 16 near Waynesboro, Georgia.
17 Q All right. Was this prior to Mr.
18 Mosbaugh's giving a statement to the NRC?
i 19 A Yes, it was.
20 Q How long did that meeting last?
21 A Somewhere in the order of 15 minutes 22 to a half an hour.
23 Q Is there any place in particular on 24 the second floor of the administration 25 building -- or where did you meet there?
BULL & ASSOCIATES l
. 1
d i 1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i, ,
2 i
i 3 .
i ALLEN MOSBAUGH, . )
i 4 )
i Complainant, ) CASE NUMBER:
5 )
l vs. ) 90-ERA-58 j
6 )
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )
ji )
7
! Respondent. )
! t i 8 11 l 9 '
1
! 10 1
l.
11 f 12 l
- - - l 13 l
t 14 DEPOSITION OF l
-' i 15 ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD f
16' 17 l
j 18
! 19
,I l) t 20 21 22 l
i 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E., Suite F-504
! Atlanta, Georgia 30342 l 25 (404) 256-2886 l
J f
BULL & ASSOCIATES ,
l i
I i ..
2 i !
i l 1 '
Deposition of KOBERT PATRICK i 2
MCDONALD,'taken on behalf of the l' 3
Complainant, before Susan E.
4 ,
Reynolds, Registered Professional ,
5 Reporter, Certified Court Reporter 6
and Notary Public, at 127 Peachtree 7 Street, N.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia, 9
commencing at approximately 2:30 :
9 P.m.,
Monday, september 17, 1990.
10 11 '
12 13 ,
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BULL & ASSOCIATES h
4 I i l
i l
I 1 I APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: '
2 FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
KOHN, KOHN & CCLAPINT., P.C. t 1
3 By: Michael P. Echn Attorney at Law )
i 4 517 Floric: Avenue, N.W.
Washingtet., D.C. 20001 Sandre Michaels '
6 Attorney at Law 40 Marietta Street i 7 Suite 1720 First Federa] Eu_lding 8 Atlanta, Georgi- 30303 9
FOR THE B r ! . O u r r ::' .
10 i TR "'MA:' .4 A N ; d . . , . : : ;. : . . ASHnCRE sy: Jeste P. Schauales 11 Attorney at Law i i l 127 Feachtree Street, N.E.
12 Atlanta, GA 30303-1810
. I 13 t
14 - - -
.. 15
+
16 a c f.E R T F A T R I C ;- M C D O S . . ". D ,
17 having been fi::: duly v.: c.
l
- d. esec and i j 18 testified as cliows:
19 4 .
EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. KOHN: l 21 O hr. McDensid, .:uld you ccate your 22 full nam. fo: the r :Ord?
23 A Rcbert Patrick Mcdonald.
j 24 >
Q A n t! you're currently employed by
. 25 Georgia Power C o : .p a ny ?
h l
2 BULL & ASSOCIATES j
bm_
- , ,_rn.= ~
. - h* . '
$1. hg ,k.
n ,. . . . ., .. - .. - -
n
= , . ,
M. der -
-d'h - bb
- h. -
l .e . .
... y
.i . . .
g .- at . .
i .1 C omp a n,y '.s nu c l e ar .p owe r -plants?"
s _ , -t -c.g 2.y: _ -
2 <A .7 am no.t the chief operat.ing
- 23 officer.. . , ..
a.. ,... s s
- 44 ;Q. Who.would that be?
- 3. .
. ?5 .;A There isn't such a position.
( 16 ;Q. Who is ultimately responsible for
?
} 7 -the da.y-to-day operation of the nuc. lear power
{ 18 . plants of Georgia Power Company? k
'9 A I'm responsible to Bill Dahlberg who 10 is the chief executive officer and he has not i
s 1.1 designated a chief operating officer with q
, [ r2 functions so defined.
p 1'3 Q Mr. Mcdonald, you are aware that d
14 there was an OI investigation in January,
- i i
IS February of 1990; is that correct?
j
.1.6 .A. There was an OI investigation. I am f> r7 n o.t certain of the dates.
.I 18 .O And that OI investigatier. concerned (i
19 the opening of certain valves, dilution valves, p}
j;. 2.0 during mid-loop of the facility?
j r;,. 2.1 IA
.e Tha.t's correct.
- t 4 22 'O How did you first learn about the_0I n' '
j 23 investigation?
.t
.f. 24 A When the OI investigator came to m
2.5 Plant Vogtle. ,
J
., BULL & ASSOCIATES *
..Iw . . . . .- - . .
l g-a .
yy
- u. 4:
'r *.u.;
n
-%:pQ **[z{ytg e ..ay? t _. 3lf. 3 g ,
I :
1 l
^ '
l
< T E
- 1
- Q When was that?
g j 2 iA . I don't remember, whenever-the fin t l
' 3 day he came and announced that he was looking
- s. . "
i 4 into.it. ##'
- 1
{ .5 Q There was no prior notice? No phone -
\
a t
1 16 call'? i
- i. ..
s 1 '7 A No. i i \
i -8 O One day an OI investigator showed up )
s . ._ n ;
.I
/
9 ' at Gearti P ew' r O r m p a r. s :' : O r s t e p ?
e l i -- -
-, 10 A Correct. '
( --
'4 11 Q Did they show up at the F. .te?
l 12 A Correct.
I 4 1"3 Q Were you at the site at that time?
d.
? 14 .A No.
l
. .' l'5 - Q You were i n y o u -- effice?
( 16 A I don't renenher where I was.
':1
.h
~j 17 Q Mcll, who t:1. . '; h . :] sh
. . n up
.e 4... .18 on site?
. s y 19 A Well, I don, r a men:b e r specifically c .
'.$ 20 who told me.
.y; T 21 Q Did tney conduct interviews the
- 1. l H l y 22 -
first day - 'ey s h : '. e d up on site?
d 23 A : _on't know. If I did know it 24 : r. r e , I de: t emember.
3 25 Q Ycu were aware of the -
..ng of the O
^
BULL & ASSOCIATES b , , , , , , _ , .,
, . w, . _ . . .
- W ,W A
.' ^T ?..,".7.$
- x. , !
-+ .- .. . - :
.- ca. **. = , 4- ?..C.. ':7T .,... . . . . n y
. , n. ,4 . .s-
, ,. :~ , .- ., ., .'.o 5- 1 ii
...-.,.r;; ,,-53
- . ~ . $:.,.v,4 g: g
- .z .
k ,
~.
}-. - ,- 3., .: .
, l c. .-v ..ee; c.w, . . r-5 l .
- ;.-f%.
i i
i dilution valves' prior '
, to the O I 't.s 2 investigatioW7J- '
n.
3 ! .TA NN.#' .
N 4
.:h . . . .. u..i- .
.Q
, Th..;v... e '.~ f ir s t time that .
you - learned that there was .a ny *.1s s u e relating to .any possible 5
3.. .. , a 6 violation o'f' t ec hni: a1 2pe ficatione regarding
.. .. s
~7 opening.of the.~ dilution vel.es.was whs.n fou s
. 8 e learned of the 01 investiention?
\.'
9 A That's ccrrert.
10 L And you i
l -
.: "c.,n;er %now whc, to1A}you 11
. about it or t h's date that occurred?
~
i -=-
12 A I don't remember. '
~ .
l'3 , Q If you looked :. : your c a l e r.d a r 14 1
'would that refresh v:ur rec =11ections . -
1 15 A It would n .:
s I
l 16 Q What did y:
, -: : e. ; . : : yee l e t : r. e d
! 17 about t .*. e OI invert.,g - i
. 1
'1 B ER. SOEAUD1 .- _ . 'm going to
. ,.19 object'to the f o r:- :i l he :;u e s t i o n .
20 Whc did you do a f -: you l e a r n e- d 21 I with regard to hat?
22 . R . Y. O U ' s ' he OI inv e s t i g a t :. : n .
23 A *; hat c-d I do?
24 Q Ey "r. Kohn) What was your 25 . :. : se t: _ e c r :. ing of the OI inve- iation?
BULL & ASSOCIA4.E6
, _ . . . . - ~ . . . . . . . e-- ~~- -=*~ ~'
.m> . ,y ~. .
. :.:- .e nyt. =.Q .-KjP -w .
- w I .. .
e.
,22 -
j.
s r
} W.'
i t I t
t, g 1 A .I became awar.m of 1- t .
2 Q Excuse me?
3 .A I b e c e. e aware of it l.
f 6 4 i .Q. cid you tell>Mr. Reir. sten about it? '
5 A r:a probably knew about it :.1 re a dy . ;
1 6 , Q Old you hate a nesting about the OI ,
. 7 investigatt n?
8 g.\
- 7. *.: n c. : I remember.
.. . ..'k
... . ' -. " . .c .- ..r-2n .
-..". i I
e
. ... , g . , .. ._.. e_ . a g
1 1
l 11 i A . don remember.
I
- 12 0 .d ycu speak :. c Mr.
Eltehens about i 13 - ne ..
.. .nvestigation?
14 A Uc. the. I n.e : h e r . -
i 15 : 0 "ere 2 0_ avare : h m t. "r. ':chen: eas
)
- j. 16 suspected of pe r - .g -he
..:.t.n .t' e?
.. _ , . .u,
. . . . u. .
r
. 8 ire. .
.e .
.... . .n. i 19 _..am e t
... ._.c_ . _..__. : s .. .__ __ _ T h a_t was a v. -
_- e w .n. ..
r a.
. . .... _,. . .c ..e .. tsue.
-. ~ __
21 Q ; _1, ::(.
i yc-. learned c. t :: t : it did
-20 -
al. -
.. .: ..rne :r meet wi . ::r Skip
~
." . ans -
- . OI investige- .?
2-did not.
3 tate to "r. . Sk- . c ;. s i
9 1
BULL 6 As s us i .. . a.
b' k
h .
_,e, + , , , _.au- g,- ,m-- s .es--- --a.a. --- - -.-wap , n- p __enmua am,a a-..a e, a-.----m.- --.am..u,s__,--aam -----.r,,a -,,.maxvm.----n sa.aw.aa m -e-an.s_e---aew-4-y_a.m.
I I
1 l
i i
J l
1 9
J' 4
I 1
_- _. . - _ ~ .
i 1
a AG-29 ' 90 14: 17 lC:50t0PCO-VCGTLE TEL NO:1-205-5??-7995 2716 F01 l
i AEiCD 6 B 9/
- ALW M.
/M2S'AW, l
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Inverness Building 40 4
7.0. Box 1295 i
Birmingham, Alabama 35242 i
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
}
SONOFCD-VOGTLE - 4TE FLOOR
! Telecopiert (205)-877-7885 verf17 (205)-877-7897 August 29,1990 l g, 1
NUMBER OF FAGES:
(Excluding Cover Page) i h RECIPIENT Please notify us if you have problems recaiving this calesopy.
i FROM:
Toa i Lewis Ward George Bockhold EAME:
i NAME:
7802 ErrEN5 tog: 3118 EXTENSION:
Inverness 1.0 CATION: Admin Bldg.
LOCATION:
I
' Plant Vogtle .
i
- HLl811R 1 1 l f
g Should this document be returned to you after it has been sent! !
! SYIs _No i CorecNT3 4 4
e
- 716 F02 '
4 AJG-29 '90 14: 17 IO 5CeOPCO-VOGTLE TEL NO:1-205-577-7905 -
I, l
1
SUMMARY
OF DIESEL GENERATOR I
- PRES $URESENSOR(CALCON)PR08LENSATV0GTLE i i
- A. Statement of Problem
- NUREG-1410 lists Calcon pressure switch
- problems, which far exceeded industry experience. This precursor indicator !
j ,
to the 3/20/90 event had not been adequately addressed.
- 1. Pressure Switch Out-of-calibration orablems ;
. 12 DG pressure switches have been out-of-calibration and have required readjustment over the lifetime history of Vogtle from i i NUREG-1410.
.l
. This covers a population of 24 sensors each of 4 engines), .
over a lifetime of about 92 sensor-years! (6 on l
! . Typical out-of-calibration values range from to _ _ psig. l
~
. This data does not reveal r.ny unexpected results based on the device 1 4 type (hydraulic-pneumatic), setpoint drift amount, or frequency.
! Thus, a formal root cause evaluation would not be warranted. !
l l
- 2. Pressure Switch (Defective) croblems: )
. 5 pressure switches were replaced (prior to 3/26/90) due to being j termed " defective" by the technician.
i j . For 4 of these sensors, no reason for the failure was determined.
l . After the 5th " failure" (P-3 relay removed from DG 1A on 3/25/90 as 4
part of post-event troubleshooting), the switch was sent to Cooper Industries for failure root cause determination. The sensor was determined to be operating properly.
i j . Subsequent to the 3/20/90 event, ali 3 low lube oil pressure 4
switches were removed from the 1A DG to investigate a sensor malfunction alarm that had occurred during the event. The switches d
were tested by Cooper Industries on May 30 and 31, 1990 with the following results:
A. The 'B" and "C" switches were operating properly and were set correctly.
B. The "A" switch was stuck in the tripped condition. This condition was stated by Cooper to be the same as reported by l Cooper's 10CFR21 report addendum ef May 12, 1988. The Part 21 states " Devices that are already installed and operating after several hours between tests have demonstrated their reliability.
IM0 Delaval recommends that all devices not installed, or that are installed but have not operated for several hours between tests, be returned to IMO Delaval for remachining, inspection !
and testing." '
1-
- - --. . -. . . . . . - - - . - . . - . - - - . . - , _ - - ~ . - . - - - . -
44-29 '90 11: 18 :D:5CNOPCO-VOGTLE TE.to: 1-205-977 ??E5 "?i6 803 I C. In 1988 YEGP reviewed this Part 21 and returned all spare sensors for rework. Installed sensors were not returned since they were believed to have met the reliability conditions stated in the Part 21.
D. Following the May 31, 1990 testing results from Cooper, modified switches were ordered to replace all installed Calcon pressure switches. These switches (6 per engine) were received, calibrated E.nd installed; with the last DG completed on June 15, '
1990.
E. Cooper was requested by Georgia Power Company to clarify the original Part 21 notification. On June 8, 1990, Aodendum 3 was issued stating:
"Our recommendation of May 12, 1988 may have been confusing and i in light of this failure after 9 years, it is appropriate to '
restate our recommendation. Cooper Industries recommends that all pressure sensor devices, Cooper P/N F-573-156, be modified
, or replaced by devices identified .as Calcon P/N B44006."
O. Root causa
. A design deficiency existed in the Calcon pressure switches.
Replacement switches had not been installed due to mis-interpretation on the May 1988 Part 21 notice.
C. Corrective Action All Calcon pressure switches have been replaced with the improved model within the last 6 months.
The Part 21 was reissued for clarification.
D. Sionificance of Problem None in fact. Multiple simultaneous failures were unlikely, but could have rendered one or more DG inoperable.
E.
Conclusion:
. Georgia Power Company took prompt actions to identify and correct the observed switch failure in 1990.
I
~
i l
- e -19 '?a 14
- 1e m:scecPco-voGTLE TEL No: 1-zes-e77-vees =716 Pe4 "
- J l
l
SUMMARY
0F DIESEL GENERATOR f TEMPERATURE SENSOR (CALC 0N) PROBLEMS AT V0GTLE l A. Statement of Problam- NUREG-1410 lists Calcon temperature switch 3 problems, which far exceeded industry experrence. This precursor indicator
! to the 3/20/90 event had not been adequately addressed.
i . Following the 3/20/90 event, all 3 Jacket Water Temperature Switches j were removed from the 1A DG for testing.
i
! . A test program to determine the as-found condition and failure mechanism j of these switches was developed. The purposes of the test were:
1 l 1. Determine the reliability and potential failure mechanisms of two
- new sensors.
- 2. Determine the cause of failure of the installed switches.
l . This ' test program was conducted at Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville, i Alabama from 4/23/90 to 5/4/90. Copies of the report were furnished to i
the NRC and all TDI Owners through the Owners Group. Pertinent l conclusions from this test program include: i
- 1. Insufficient temperature stabilization period prior to calibration -
The sensor exhibits a setpoint shift as the sensor body and internal ;
j components change temperature. Note: Failure to recognize this phenomena and properly compensate for it duringswitchcalibration was a contributing cause of one switch trip on D. IA on 3/20/90, and subsequently on DG IB on 5/22/90 during switch replacement. Note:
i This phenomena is undesirable in a sensor that is designed to sense temperature.
- 2. Contaminants on the temperature sensor (tip) - Direct immersion of l the sensor tip in a calibration bath can result in residue buildup that can affect the setpoint. Although this is not a standard !
practice, isolated cases may have occurred during previous calibrations, which could have contributed to the numbers on the chart.
- 3. Water bath heatup rate - A slow, controlled bath heatup rate is necessary to allow the sensor temperature and bath temperature to be approximately the same, while avoiding excessive sensor- heatup.
Previous calibration procedures did not recognize this affect. This affect could have produced some of the previous setpoint adjustments that contributed to the numbers on the chart.
- 4. Thermowell setscrew tightness - This produced a to setpoint shift.
Although .not large, in relation to the tolerance band cf 140, it could have been a factor in making previous setpoint adjustments that contributed to the numbers on the chart.
~ ^
-- : .:.; .. . : .T: / -. . .. 7~Q_T;. 27; ;-X ~ . ..X ^ '--~ ^ ~~ - ~ ~
1 i
l 5. Spacer-tube tightness - The spacer tube can self-loosen when not locked with thread-sealant, which produces a setpoint shift of about
- 800 per turn. This could have been a direct contributor to some of
- the past failures or setpoint shifts. The vendor has stated that
- all.new switches are supplied with sealant; however, this deficiency i has continued to be observed.
i
- 6. laternal contaminants - Several switches had internal contaminants i
14 the poppet valve area, consisting of thread sealant material and
- metal slivers apparently from the inlet air port threads.
Subsequent examination of new switches at the plant site revealed i similar contamination, concluding that the manufacturer or vendor can be introducing contaminants during calibration. Internal
- contamination was the direct cause of one switch failing on DG 1A on
! 3/20/90, and was a contributor to the second failure. ,
. Upon completion of the above Wyle testing program, a calibration procedure was written specifically for these switches to include:
, 1. 0,isassembly of the switch, internal cleaning, and provisions to
! prevent re-contamination.
j 2. Inspection and application of thread-sealant to the spacer tube.
3
- 3. Requirements for the sensor to be calibrated in a thermowell.
- 4. Temperature stabilization prior to calibration.
j . The new procedure was used to calibrate . 3 new Jacket water temperature i sensors, which were insta1 W on DG 1B on 5/22/90. During the i subsequent maintenance start of the engine, these sensors tripped. They ;
1 were then removed and carried to Wyle Laboratories where as-found !
l setpoint testing showed all 3 to trip between 1600 - 1660F.
I
! . Subsequent evaluation of the differences between Wyle and plant test j techniques led to the following conclusions:
4 l 1. The plant bath had internal flow blockage that did not permit a :
uniform temperature or heatup rate in the bath. This produced 1 several degrees difference at the reference vs. test specimen l locations.
< 2. The soak temperature requirement was poorly worded. Although the
. minimum soak times from the Wyle report had been observed, the sensors had been soaked too long (up to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />)at near the setpoint (2000F). This resulted in further adjustments, longer soak, and more adjustment; producing switches that were far out of i adjustment when subsequently returned to their normal ambient 1 operating condition.
. Upon correction of the above bath and procedural deficiencies,
- consistent settings were obtained at the site on the same switches that
- had been reset at Wyle Labs.
i 1
- I 4G-29 '90 11820 1D:SONOPCO-VOGTLE "
W NO:1-205 c77-7685 2716 P06 l
1
. All . jacket water temperature switches on all DG's were removed, cleaned and recalibrated per the latest procedure in early June 1990.
e
. A copy of the latest procedure, with lessons learned, was provided to the TDI owners Group in June 1990.
- 8. Root cause i
. Internal contamination can cause a properly calibrated switch to trip. !
l
, calibration of the switches was inadequate to ensure the desired setpoints.
C. Corrective Action '
. A calibration procedure that cleans and properly calibration requirements has been written and implemented.
controls the )
. Reliability of the basic switch component was established at an
- independent laboratory.
l
. Switches have been defeated in the emergency start mode. l
. Currently evaluating replacement of pneumatic sensors with the vendor. !
D. $1anificance of Problem
. Trip of DG 1A on 3/20/90, and trip of DG 18 on 5/22/90.
1 E. conclusion )
. Georgia Power Company took prompt action to identify the cause of temperature switch malfunctions, following the 3/20/90 event.
. Prior to the 3/ao/po event, in retrospect, the previous ' calibration drift and failure history should have been recognized as a problem to be resolved. However, discussions with the switch manufacturer did not produce any clues that the switch has to be inspected, cleaned and calibrated under the conditions that- Georgia Power subsequently developed. In fact, the 10CFR21, Addendum 3. June 8, 1990 update to the NRC states: 'While no specific component failures have occurred, the setting and verification of same, is procedure sensitive." Note that this was afitt VEGP had resolved the issue internally.
_ _ ~ _
A.s-29 se 24:20 ID:5CtOPCO-VOCTLE "
7EL to:1-205-S77-7885 u?16 F07 4
i i
DIESEL GENERATOR AIR START VALVE FAILURE AND ROOT CAUSE EVALUATION l
l A. History of problemt i .
1/24/90 - DG 2A rolled but failed to start during routine surveillance i testing. One air receiver had been isolated to test independent i starting on the other bank. The operator noticed an air leak on one of i the air start valves solenoids, unisolated the second bank, and j successfully started the engine.
2
. 1/25/90 (a) DG 2A start was attempted to satisfy Tech spec action requirements. The en ine slow rolled but did not start. A second start attempt was successfu .
(b) In order to isolate the cause of the start failure, troubleshooting was conducted including: replace air start distributor filters, l check.ing operation of the governor, fuel racks, fuel system and cylinder air start valves. No apparent problems were found.
I (c) The engine was started 3 more times with no problems.
4/12/90 - DG 2A rolled but did not start during normal surveillance.
Operators decided that the start pushbutton had not been depressed long enough and reran the test. The engine successfully started, which seemed to confirm the operator's decision. The first attempt was not considered to have been valid, and was not reported. l 7/5/90 - A similar event occurred on DG 18 during surveillance testing.
Again, the operator attributes this to short pushbutton action, and did i not. log or report the start attempt or failure.
. 7/11/90 - DG 2A again slow rolled and failed to start. The system engineer had developed a test plan for troubleshooting the start pushbutton and seal-in circuit root cause of the previous observed problems on 2A. This investigation led to the following conclusion:
(a) The seal-in circuit for the start pushbutton seals in any attempted start. Operator belief that the start pushbutton had to be depressed for a certain minimum time period stemmed from a simulator phenomena, and does not exist in the plant.
(b) Discussions with Cooper Industries resulted in parallel investigations in the air start solenoid valves, distributors, air line routing, and individual cylinderair start air start valves.
(c) Several individual cylinder air start valves were determined to be sticking. in the open position. If the engine crankshaft position was such that a particular combination of stuck valves also occurred, then certain cylinders would be opposing each other and
ALG-29 '90 44:21 ID:SONOPCO-VOGTLE TE., NO:1-203-577-?S85 2716 POG '
4
- the engine would not start. This likelihood would be increased f
- half the cylinders were isolated, as in done during the surveillance test.
l (d) During disassembly cf the cylinder air start valves for
. troubleshooting, some of the pistons had to be removed with air pressure or excessive physical force, indicati,ng that the pistons j were binding in the valve caps.
(e) Detailed measurements of the pistons and caps were made for vendor
- review. These concluded that several caps were machined with the bore slightly eval-shaped and tapered by several mils. this distortion was subsequently observed in several new caps in the warehouse. .
(f) Vendor direction to correct the binding was to polish each piston to provide at least I mil clearance with its matched cylinder cap, followed by an engine run to heat the assemblies to normal engine temperatures, followed by a pop test of each valve to ensure that
..it was cycling freely.
(g) This corrective action was taken on all 4 DG's.
7-13-90 DG 2A completed 7-18-90 DG 15 completed 7-21-90 DG1A completed
- 7-23-90 DG 2B completed.
(h) Based on this problem, cooper Industries issued a Part 21 report to the NRC on July 1990. Long term corrective actions have not been finalized buy ~Tn,clude areas such as:
(1) Factory QC check of cap dimensions.
(2) Possible material changes in the piston or cap.
(3) Expanded testing during routine overhauls.
(i) An Event Critique Team reviewed the July 11, 1990 start failure.
This team concluded that the April 12, 1990 start failure should have been critiqued, but was not. Additional conclusions from the review process include:
(1) Clarification of plant vs. simulator pushbutton delay times for Itcensed operators.
) (2) Instructions to operators to consider and log all attempted DG i
starts.
l B. Root Cause of Events
. Manufacturing defect in individual air start valves, resulting in occasional binding in the open position.
AJG-29 '90 1!:21 l0:52CPCC '.0GTLE TEL PO 1-205-877-7295 ?i6 P09 8 d
C. Corrective Action
. Increase clearance in valves to prevent binding, and verify.
. Notify vendor for Part 21 issue.
. Long-term correction not yet completed by vendor.
, D. 51onificance of Problem i
. DG would not start if a particular crankshaft alignment and stuck air valve combination existed. This condition was ex during l surveillance testing when half of the cylinders were isolated from '
i
- starting air.
i 1
l i
l 4
l 1
AUG-29 '90 14:22 :D SOrCPCD-VCGTLE TE_ NO:1-205-877-7885 5716 Pia
- W i
\
} AIR START VALVE !
kD 9,,,_,,,M,,, E == .
.-.g.
)
~
, , . / ,
ke 3
I;; " ""
i, s , _
,.. y
_. ~
M, 7
y k.. ._.
7 e.
l
, i. ;
[,%
-ammes==en i
l \ / \ / - ..m. l
! s., .. / '
- - I
~
=ams ;
CYLMOEM HEAD : ~
i
- g 3M8EB i
i! '
e t
. G.=
==,3:= - l t
.. s i
j
-- VALVE
) ., ,. , / -
1 s"
/ 's ==
) ( / _ GAMET maammmmm.W n.. .. /
n -25 '90 14:22 IDab0r G CO-v0GTLE TEL to: 1-205-577-ieco r<.c r.. s CALCON TEMPERATURE SENSOR MODEL A3500-W3 TOP PLATE e
O 0-RING 5 CALIBRATION RING DISK SHAFT e POPPET DISK e POPPET AIR IN.ET , 6 - possET rnRIwc BASE GASKET ,
sN b SPRING RETAINER A ! SENSOR TENSION SPRING BASE SENSOR DISKS EXPAND AS TEMPERATURE INCREASES. THEREBY SPACER TUBE PULLING THE POPPET DISK DOWN ONTO THE POPPET. AS THE POPPET IS PUSHED '
DOWNWARD, THE AIR ESCAPES THROUGH THE VENT.
A5 THE TEMPERATURE DECREASES.
THE SENSOR DISKS CONTRACT. THE d SENSOR DISK 5 SENSOR TENSION SPRING PUSHES 8 UPWARD AGAINST THE SPRING RETAINER, WHICH PUSHES THE POPPET DISK UPWARD OFF THE POPPET. THE AIR SUPPLY AND POPPET SPRING PUSH THE POPPET BACK INTO THE POPPET HOL E.
AIG-29 '9A 141P?. !T! SntrF(n-UntiTi F TR Nn 1-PPL9-R77-7RR5 271A PIP O TOP PLATE e o TOP PLATE GASKET
- O y 0* RING CALIBRATION RING
/
7 POPPET O!5K
] BODY y VENT PORT ET SPRING l
BASE GASKET i
O f
l 4
BASE O
I i
M l
DISK SHAFT SPRING RETAINER f
SENSOR TENSION SPRING SPACER TUDE SENSOR DISKS 5f 5
5 3
-+a - ,a -
M O
~- -
-g=f[
r_
N W -
Egil e.g sgg . _ .
= .. a Ek se :
A u-
~
EE.
e:=s 4 u - _ m -
Ette.
5:,
a s_g .
,~_$ m_
Eiks E E
~
?.
5 5 h W
E 5:
4:
3 4
e :
s
$5 ? 5 5 as a a a it
.ii En r .e. .t. -
t t &
i BC - 5 Im it 3 I
~
j ."4
., j % I
. 4 c -
l*
SINWtY OF BIE5EL EEMittigt PRE 551111E SDISSIL (GIECEII) PltNLBt1 AT TESTLE 11sitraME 131tli I UIIIT 2 gEIT 1 ligIT I ?
COIISTWCTIoll/5Taove" COII511tutilGII/STJut1UP 1RI ret -
~
(S/85r-1? (I/88-12/88) (9/38-10; agAGE POST- T-81UltEC l gggggggy (MtE-EVEIII) EVDri 3/ 90 - r RSICTICII PflegtER y)
'e Oil Pressere out-of-calibratten 4 2 ( to B e Cl3 Pressere Defective I (1) rire G egeset f*s , g be Oil Pressure Out-of-calibration 1 I O
-be Oil Pressure Defective I
-i sal Pressure (P-3) Out-of-calibration 1 k
mal Pressure (P-3) Defective 3 1 t:t water Pressure Out-of-calibration 1 1 1
-4 P
5 E
. 8 -
a, 3
5 8
- i rn 3
a m
z.-_...-. _ ..,..- . -...-.- ---- - .-.... . . . . -.. - . - .. .. . ......__-. - - -. - - ..------- --_- - _ __-
i E
I i
1 1
l l
f, I
k, i
8 l I
i J
i 4
a b
h 4
4 4
4 5,
a i
4 i
4
s -
,f' 7ENf FYE00 casso f9 i9ea9 (sewp)w mewAwawr Mcx0 eause wsrma J/H. M p72 5 % 9mlEyG
,s9gy,9pp,
- froY .
A L ,aca "slGrr l
- cw- w- '
l sad. J6' M E $ //Nd 77M7 /&hO 73 AE D6VUE DiJA/AJS AAJ 8MN8
~
dea) V 4tDc0 /P IW ps+s ;$YnzM 7D l
[ $ f / $
007ME cr,g Ahr ccxNeAPW7Y W ZOSS eF A//d
.cwrzwa40 re&/A4 2 VBA)TS~
- N/D LOCf {
- 30r46s (wr pan sarace)
- .--,. m .La . .L a - a - - - - . a e a sarwn w gjom Cf1-L . .
)
/ wM' /P2=
Msy A4r 2;lexET AD7 5:4Y on ae westow .
GAwL l
h /b a towres Ae/o &oevrz pacA ,
Aen/'
I
es I
1 f
b ,
1 1
1 i
l l
A uA 4 4 , _ _a. - - . + - - # % 4_ J - <~=
// 3; l
/'
i l
D56sp c p,t !
i
!C & C "' e'E t' C !" M2 s secos ~ ropea p pse Lo
,,a n. s . ).
Mff ckls &W h -r'
- W s.s wYf l q & ~kdfp,es ,
- - . m r v x -~., ,~ , n s w p '
l "
- p c w .. # a 4 .. ?& y,a L om er D (a_.- L m c . 1 6 2 ' a f . d - } ~/ / % & W , 2 7 L : & ., ----/p c $ & -a_ a ,
h;r, 1
s + p e A (.Q/ & )<z:;<~ f. - ad!' g Ed n.. if $4A- WsK,9n- sfy,~,n -e A ,x , + + - l y' /q;M en -
<.a.x -6.A-,-L x m .- ~ zx daw, y
.?>C I -
-w '
Ay b n,. 4&Lf269}AL & u.J, l l t
1 i
i l
l l
I
..-.. _ .A .- - . . , 4 m h.. ...u.,,. .- # ,_._,, ,a --- _, - , - ,---- - - ---,.- - - - - - - - ---___
6
i
/
f %,
UNITED STATES .
l g- , NUCLEAR REZULATGRY COMMISSION wAeHMSTON, D.d. asEE j ,
July 29, 1992 l
1 4
via Faaminila and First class Mail
! Mr. Michast D. Kohn
! Kohn, Rohn & Colapinto, p.C.
! 517 Florida Ave., NW j washington, D.C. 20001 >
4 Re womhaumh v. amersia power t'a-nany l
l Dear Mr. Xohns i This letter responds to your July 28, 1992, facsimile to Daryl M.
1 Shapiro of the office of the General Counsel concerning your
! release of certain documentation pertaining to an Office of It Investigations (OI) investigation of Georg;,a power Company.
l is our balist that your letter inaccurately represents earlier conversations with OI. This office would prefer that all j
i information concerning this investigation remain in strist confidence in order to protect the integrity of the investigative process. Nonetheless, it is not our intention to interfere with l
i Our discussions should
! eny official congressional investigation.
i not be construed as giving any ty.pe of instructions to you' l concerning any official congressional inquiries.
- sincerely, 1
. AP Ben . Hayes, Director Office of Investigations 0
e T
vmm.r -, -a 4 - .m.sa a,J,, s ---a as e--- -..--,-a- eu>-6. 6J Am.A J m A- m e__, 4 , , _ _- __,-
_n a l
1 4 J
f 4
1 I
4 1
J d ,
I 1
1.
a
)
i 1
J
+
a
,1 1
i i
I 777'E Rll6W/AM AAE EA/72/ES FAoN 7~Md' CASE C/MaVMacy ac dZ 09 sc #. 2-96 -626 i, 7NA7~ AEFZ2=C7~ dZ~ 60NN4&&&97764JS W/7//
l 7'?/E /A/725eV.64/d4 77/A7~ Pf5G7k~ /A/ 7~D D/BG"/'
SEN M'72W /SCl/ES, GA 70 7?/E C6 WE M ,
l .
d//AWAC7EA, c/ /AM~fA/7Y of. 6sO C .2W6K6 EKECO77i/ES.
. - _uu _ ,., , _
.. ..- y,,,. . ,......, .
. f.h E %~762 W A hvn c..i..... c '
.c4iq['y_
i
~j . .
_"4,. PMetAL.ust:0Nty.
.. v .., -.
i,
~'
l1 '.','. ICKSE_7 CHRONOLOGY .
, nn.s,.masa urs.eessse... , . .
i .2 020 5 ,
.// 90 -
At:MP/AJSt>d j~
_ ,e e _a+ ,
. .. opy3 ' ,,,, .. .
.a g ,
//b#Alf6 //4-} M nw$}swi_rY7J9pfe'[st//AS,WtcM1/93".).
- r i , ,. ,
- n)/7A ht2fAHfAW/ AM? d4Abe/ACQ77eA/pp
- -(tt,n)M*
l A&t40 /Ad54WFA04-776U t:sc spas 49cgges' , wAryppgire;;o
- M/MAML 43 ?
- ?s4ES of Atusvr7x averws:aneyvstus'.
l l
HCIAAlbssfH >46VMR9 EWM W Anar7Mr.ii,v7' VE6f theb'r /
l'
' ^
}/A/7At94 4044Asthr44WA/6 AscIN M%.,es.
, 1 bl ""k/ . Wr HofL4fACH ---/LA AC W. ~7p_.7ZAQA) 6LJEA 7D li I' ' 764 Awi A:wAnsvis Actarrat 7c 1kiSP !
i 2-/S$fi / t )?-} C 7 7 ~ r4771!!WAW~Ai9 AtV7/AfAl b/ M_^7O~ -
- o.W i hee' fat.8//. H0J~fAf4liW A9%%GO M Sd4GiW '
2 -ff.:q/ ! 7/C //dJ"AA14// *)v AMNtLfeiU '~ '}/eJA~ 4f4W 3 VD /^6 1 umit.s, sr-nse esa<uara wrwmaraear. me Mrs 7Mff.S.
@ ^
O P A7 :.w a e m =>_ w
_==
1 I
- - M P A w s f. a e x > --2 3 / s
4
.S~TF4/5 **7'h $$fdk4b9/CNNY/VeQ54CT'fV54NZ3f4i.&A/4429d=; ' '
- ^ *E ' E 7D Afr/s/~. @ & }p -f f p/ W A 2 / 7"' u.M$@if.
.~,.w.... x. - .-
.S~ 724/ 4 i~ . . ./DcA)77/~fA s#A4LA;oC=AMD ~. - .ct.A&//zu M MAc 7:;ggd. = ....sy m ox51
~
i
~W I wr79/ AsE5b23s5IliEt'J.hfDcE.s;i?4 ES'.
9 :,'_??$5f6 ?7CD)Ni15t? .24 S ~24~-9/ '/c NeffMMsp.7D .AM/A.2.reA.X. ". N eff A4 W. f ,A CA D M L..m. .. . .
o /AJ %!P"'
t p -JW 3 .
AmrYW72:#>M47 W?/M srsgr&7/si. gat:yznc4 l
)
' :P - f n AigfM%^; O2^p3MMJ4W$5AnengpfiBr nu.ngh42;%
l i
S";-2840
' M7Wi'.*No49MAiY/ ,'*Asf/A.WAAC %se .~ ~.k2w)Xy sww40,swje
-m. ;eo M u st:;;e 77a u s ?s >. .-~. w V f .c h, w & .A. C ;zy~ y . . g.. e d se~ '
I! 1 .
' .AV.fo AlepVdEY.rsseAU W//MED i.
7AV3*201/- 7AE.4GV97;90
~
l A
l + -~~~- *
- Cox/F69th St/trH 4B;"#r/rf Arde S&t/Opko /s;erovnLrl. <s<J./.25 l *s S=.259-9/ ".7~/d is.MMWkAsiidfaC Afo#A'.lW/Z Ai=%*sosGd*" s
$ .,M .
- ", , QNg f ..... ... . - . .... .
V*f&f'MA,,l..W$$lfN/$/
& hob _
- < .- w ~- 1 = yp3pp.'1/M'g.Tgg/gy)7.A9
- 3-?j"f_fg;;fgjpg
,, .,t(g,y,L{ gary:a;o
~~ , , . . . . .
., ,.~n . . . .
-rv s&dou) t?=7?wGe6 14eSee :4W oWetwaEr A;ene*/ 7?nt~"
~ ' '
77/A".is 5A7~?W.4VEW94N5t?7'~i5??C7D da" S:^ " dM z row w/M,x,+rrb.rsv mwksnio.Wrxe aws.
g g;.; y t Q fn .psy/ssegg y;snaes .u.vrW . //tt5#AU.kW ? /124f&-M3B.N
- l. % 4pilt.7,x;r/ t
- Wox/Ac.sc//.snsis=.4fiW ": rfenideM^4~ Tc'M5YW5_'Oo' <JJ ,
%~~ M i4 "?s;n: .2/R!tibi aty diWC~/Z/ kliWE - ._. . '
j _ ~ -
- ' " W ,3 =- ' '
h .~ & / $ ~.)t96Y/f J$ ~ 7?93 0 4CW~~h/Y WdI - *F
- r;3?'*;/s ~4ty&W /n,es.s- wrrn Wa42ii#.MInhPr.r3NS 21 '
l { %#Tyg/4 Yp"gg/Wp_p 'rynync.i~$. A49fB4J4Ai'*YW~$-$ W ? **
i
{ y p p p 9 ,; ~pgy/sjiew ,pe,etr is#rn .wsselw?Vs=&55-@rsihW"*
l l "'~7E2 - 9/ 7~/& H. Afd44,4)- Lf -k'dHAl He /4/AJ6. DotvNEW7' '
k1 W ALL4~/ED4Y r//eltMAfr- A'A 494tWME DA) JAbe7~ &'~
1 d}V- > .
y .r/-A } di@( 77AnP7";%/</A4t/79,". A/t:AC..dAS. .rsyH=7Ai0 hs' .50
- -4
~729. $~CU5A2ACO PAlVOG ?7D d'i>#f& Y o*7EAMb" M &#*J/ W j .g $ ....e..
, . /
- sp.w ., s.r. . . . , -
Ar**T!EN-ADVT 9Go ':t/4 escyay .
~
t / Mew _TrD ZZA - .s s- r;aduMW3!wM I
t M% *~, ii~ SZr -kr t!Cc77ic '
^
Nac/ M K H C+ n'A I'* inr* S 5l f41
.. ... . . .. n ..
Y ~&$$ =.' f " f '
& h l M'u. t u ,silIiip Auiietersr ses r ' nevx4v-race >weli(E%ws;r7/sermisr sumih 1i eNmea .
- su xaner.xrcausepatr-erzy anernisitiW.vaMW7Xan5-7.rm A
4 bi kl'M t&EfsWfe ~& 1&GS $77/4 ff#4 /M;40 J>' AM'C /Af /43~ IJet~7A' fel l
+
Y N*i ~ * -
f/f( &'/7~ $/{ l.41/7"Affff$. % ' O C D M / N o A le M M O 4,1 5*" ,
. , . .- , - . . . -r '
-44e-4--L4+J4--WLa-. ---AAAa.*-Am.-4 _-.-m7-.am._A--eih4 Je w--S.#d.--.4.-.m a hsa4 6m-ma--e.MA>4*mh* * * -4'** ha A-e- u--A.hea- - * - d.iA aha w - _a Y~Wl Y/* '
N JA6M// ~ //A . //b A ,66"WF/2I/b M C M '
l 7D N/N. TAJE /A/ s/or-A. 69so71 rasos#. AumanukAwAW j rm.s ro AM. Moor s+wiwressus hams'asur xw7 .
WJWYb' WS. NA U??0 WAWM N&* &f /& , el"/8!fy'
\ f6//9/W) NssdMW// nsu,s A'oc2 Msn* A;+4se IM& .e.) Ase mii sz,a moin:6 ?s sawe iner. '68w-t*%n ein n r- 4 /
xrt: m ar,y,ns c~rr w a = =. 2 &~~K4a n
! ,. .a w m avs rn(so?mr*rr i
^~ '
Y "
, f i
M] I?':sMEJ77 mrad /Arra kis'M 7M5}sc7ze s?&diL==n i * '
bAA / e fb *ff 9 ,
" ^^ _ e ' '
l ---$ f W -s u q s . /A / ,4 c rf/1* s . '
- 6. A ..> =.'.'. W. fJ b M A 2 i -
i
. 2-i-r2 5h. .n o s a h w / - m /s i. e s.L asrekns NiewwAs AsessgrEt l
a WJ/M/W Il WREt% Tk 'asecekr /so. neu mo & M 2, h w g M hk./C =
- \ M '! & m.s;17mra me airem ;w.w
- azya 5+
l1, VW Ww Absorns xxxr om Arm w ix:.:,-= why,og
)!
i
, M/I N M MM f 'g(,/ Nh J,Jdd MM h . m - are.-- . . . - - -
- A~Y $ N/ l S // &W Mj/f& Te, [
'sa
?
1 e r = ,xise w edscw w r is / m m i* rn so A .crnsv w n~- ac/h./ wacerrsmod
. /N7~e Gof/sau M K d. AdM40 'st/N &%/ arvintr~ 1.s i
Aura jar.a' 4rrs. OS.4yry.'r mg. ,4ng6s' _
,. - = -w-
i-- - . _ - - - . - _.-.-..-.-. . - . - . -l l Wa-91 ' .v/c 'N Es'ndr"Wd'~7A#a scuo:c/> :nisr Xike Mr o ~ .
y, ,yg,,,,) wsj ag,,,g s,,.,, g ,2 y;- m 4 7:4Act ia W5r Aecm#ssai Aas4-7744 % rnic A/ACkm7/&
~' ~
l l
T -
'//4 YAce Ksan' nor-70 Ak/rAff *+NY..src1;sGe Duos ^
l W" I sEsAnwys-77 ym scceAq kihQt7rWatlWnspAnusA-i.
SVk%W * ,Wi a.e ser beivix ser ,edisse,,oNyask,iiaZTGiknewsrs-2.ancr, l W.? A t 2tX ewr Mow) c7xeso roser m. ms .44eesh,orkrde ba3m: "= ' 24. t:ersrrET 79h,9r d>t.V?W^}l JEFE /fA.5:5' ora 05h5EN5 8* '
n{c. 17)pnn0 yar-hse- DA0 Avrunswr^ro l
tT 's. -% v 4 adscsx)9t 7;precr t ;yy,e4 7,yrsg pipses snile:yr AMc pa..,,perg 9Anr.sery-seene o 4 .. . .
- w. . m..
l ti;>- 3'r &
'r,m ,, g= yyyggee p/us,gs~,y ige-~g7ey_,.my
. 4. y. ._, _*
- y. /E smaco rAwr Ad eue;o sersAse:YF/6wly /stH/77py uws.av.'eZ r-
- Y^' 'rsAE At'AeGses (A/Ac Axmeier) 77tc.baelio.skccieAr.Y. !M l fron, sur Hf /Alf THE 4f' h4 QSUMGtCM7&#ff);MiEA)M.Q'l W*' -
- - - . '"! 4 pgy-bc.4/M4Hof g ,4ssD $7X/ASAiktLAW AS ApL)EDG4H(#E6i.t*C../,66~AMS ii T *. i.: 2 -. 4 sons Ext /A P73 ARepst rih 4Gr >>w 9 r a T s,s & 44lE 7A rA4ce ;;e c e .
, .m .
Et//ASA>ae tw 7N/s cess. Mey4 s7ArAic rwd~ anc.ser.; pao z
r .. . , .. _.
t
- atEAo sx/ iMW Adl" KAJE;tt/ A46 /Mo 7)YSEXQ!HW5ndor-7?Aers7 j i b.a 1 1ssdAdty OM<E actr tw M 6sese9G'477eA/ swr?/'176.me.
i L ~~FB- 82 Yk Ar.;d- Nss/ACcf : A,ers/ALU# Ad5 Asi' E Z7242asic srinstet
. >>smes axws re b.aar ro se <xraevensy4=mc j
SDAV, NJ.SPAtMW AdVAGG$ ./Y /ZA FA647 ANY /ffct)t-rs/W i .
wr7N 1/f.n:me Msur oW wid Nor 9614Als;,ctemt 72 irs sesrswr7w, ser 7mr Axe <:,was7 nesaswrs<x.
pfiss wnseu/em /p,,aesesmarre so e a s soco a
- "%v ' uya 'se g772yrifry4E-%i
- nj;24%mm:w . u. . -
k 5 W 'f 2 ~ (6li'/0 ~57A& ~)e60A&U5"sAHto:C"W/AP/R. .
- i =i-4-ei rk sarikso -wrel,u. '" ice >eaceM,w-7mr AMc l
,4 '+ ww 4 ' essmer ,serzwr n,xrMaar:se ose.wr ,s:ut ,1
.l t: - :GT ~;
y ppsg::,qag:c .ye yy.gc ,<,ge.jpg p,cs,z,9 fr4 ppmgg '
i *~
EfAW 77Mr 2ffri.dCf/'DAlf 111/77/ >;5&Cr e hkRMEGA4 Asset /,r issiacr useacA /Als/Acr7sAfrad u6eos6 N6r.ats&c.2,,,opers ,
. 1Lw N
=
ss ranc eecs*s taxer 77ssr?wD.. a. u.
~
J
- 7- 2/J -92 ist' NOSAk/>dM-//D~' Nd34>iV5H Cg/D 7 HAY AdC Yl/ s/97 d'as tse sw #EYr rAr s'p6(7/zs). #E.fAfD HE ,cyD AbrTJEd.
1i '#GR > ez: 6@rk) set se;os (t/sa,e ><e.ciae) ;4,,,,yr,,,g, =g,.,. ,,,,.
4 SM!NIR"' * %einov asexvN rneswias.
. - , . - - _ g-.a,,--e a--------..e w-. s,.,,m. maw.-,mrm.me,#..44u ms waw- ,so_.,.m. mat.. .m.f.J-,+J+-.-._4a2,-s___s.74,su.aa...m _a p' semu.. J.&m_w,esi.A h.4AmEa m..+.,____ .J JaaJr_,J.4.i.,L3 d
A Y
- fff ljf fh*
\ WN
- 5KM/f3YNAN NMG srAcf 4/// ,~rsia gps 4,,,-yy E
y ,
WW
- Mf9%' ~60APN:.rocAWA rswa.m,a) ay;g 7a ysyj,3,pgo.h.~ l
, i s e s.rm o x. w r a re. !
e
[
5'5N I yq.s -- < 14t'/A7 /4C 7D40 Gr74~ E4 7?ht" N/~ ara sse QM//Mrm.pu cry !
5 CAradS ~jgsy _9,,o ypsg c,yarg,,,xi
\
lk%* rNpF.r77tA7zWs WA4/72E6 DCCf.) MEN 73" 6 VAT) AlGe77MW7At (hll[ff/$Aff[k & & $/O 8lO Y l/ht N N Y W Y Y Y Y $ '
i
\
l* Aweenev Diwxern ex wat onwice ravase nacxr os to i l
.0/A/ GELL E S77We, 4 4 4 p ; p 7 4 7 a s es S A u e 7 N A r / W 6 W h C HA t
ff f *"*
Y && OfaOh $h$& ff$
i:
~'
'stxrA5cAsirfwrp7fss) oc see coucBar47/ow' Act.mNAM:,
i: AftEAG~sw' A(spy-k 73 aptwH .saqc /A:/ pHkr /_AD75.AE' 78
- i -32' '
~ C//>44 A' D. f_/L rat:o AtnM) ra essdrAcr.raniq/m Mr7A porosas. _
lt .
AMAu _ _ _ _ _
' ' 'r,ox ra dA Aeos e.md - w>v asesaw-sw Aerssoiv ro /wrzeisoe in sp& marmo e r2:cf JJeSNSE rp . roAJD/w.
n/z4/92 Y k h s. sat M )f H - / 1 A : MesdALMAlM(#ffb 7Mt1~ /SC
/ '
' etnows J.smaaows i us7av me asw xso e o W ?oW Y N A) Y Y tr N $ N W W ll r l
/W1/9z'
' -r,/e MPs'JA/3//- 4L.A : AerBAt.MH 44%MED A%M1eG& l ;
, Of W S$ A M / S AY $$. . SA0Yl S N/W$ $ '
t ///S~/97 r/C MarA4t## - LLA : NOS8400t').rdfD ax*f Ar AMarM^A'Ab j bswararr <xi Aewrra a ac mv. rmr ro ee
/t44 d4e77/b .rQYettsa?, NA23E 7)%6" STMEEAd6Wr 77Mr 'AMc i iMAJNor SM LUMErMGE GiO C /S (A) CNrP4/AN6C wr7?/ /75 AkfA/SE (s/A672E), i /OJBALK/t 5" Q>u760776d /s M /,c ir if i
l
/NAC7ER/t/A/A7)r'ks ra w/fErdtSe se Awr A 4/Gs)sEE/S Ad esMAunNaE, 7?/FAC AAE REstMA77MC 77MrFAV MEP4M'r
a,.4.E, m.- .. e +=a w aw.m_me. ..--=.ema,s.p.. .,e&.- m .s;-A ,.J.
..-~ +4o -.
.ma..F_.w__m E
i
( '
/.
ADY/dVO. HlM SA/O NS CA4WM $5 & /A) W
- cnv/2Det oc rzse /NAwry# 77AE Aw[ 7D mkE 4 ASCAVIE i ctMM/ZM/& AM%9)uGOH4 7?h t" 6 % n eidn C ra! a' 60VM, M /^4!GC
- W GAC//Aud CD M6A' cts
- W'*/r3 Sk kaawn-zu ,,ga,, ,
_ _ g,, ,, , _, , .
a m W e r.
! r J.
4 i
4 d
i I 1
i i
i i
J 4
i d
i 1
i I
_ _ __~.__. ___.__ ._ .._ _ . - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
Standard Breakout Schedule ;
Purpose:
Improve plant material condition by working together to complete open work items. f
} Tuesday " Info Only" LCO's - Operations
' i Wednessy - Control Room Instruments 005 - Maintenance
- i Thursday - Temp. Mods. - Engineering I Friday - Fire Protection LCO's - Operations qf s$
g, u ,
pl - C % ,S hGc Ar"7 M5f'll we& 6& %
Tout 4 y #
g w pwf da% k 985-dbly - cd hh o
N / 74/> ;> os 4Id qp g.;g,4
% if eds of dn \
gr. cd * ~ G J n ! > y~ ~4+ xsd d n;B w h % e.sy dy /nk Ac..c 66
- gd p ~
W '
n y. w h y + <,.e.,
ey na,9 ws n a .v -En hy ,- ] }p() flug ,k) d 6 56 YW Y.V$r $ $ it feni &0 \
y.s c . nm- m.$ayeieda<;4l ,
< ov, he.% a ahafe o*3 d2b%
m h a. 4 ef k 3 Enacs tpy Ths4 my be- Lr fo- Sn% mek sa 'l"># 5ske Y kl Ac 9d*, ik w([f] oge 6 m[v(u, i
)
c i. , /
' ~
!j1 6/CS' __
i:
February 4. '994 1
1
! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .^
j , , . ; A B '.
- J ;
i 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 10ARD !
i l In the Matter of ) l
! ) Docket Nos. 50 424-OLA-3 !
1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) 50-425-OLA-3 f ) i j ' (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ) Re: Licensee Amendment :
! Units 1 and 2) ) (Transferto Southern Nuclear) i )
) NRC BRIEF ON RELEASE OF OI REPORT
! REQUESTED IN LICENSING BOARD ORDER l 1
OF FFRRUARY 1.1994 l
\
1 !
! Following a prehearing conference on January 27,1994, this Licensing Board i
! issued a Memorandum and Order, dated February 1,1994, which provides in part:
- 2. By COB Friday, February 4,1994, the Board and parties will.
- receive any briefs that the parties may submit concerning Intervenor's l
request that the Board should release the entire OI Report, with or without i protective orders, and whether the Board should conduct an in camera
. status briefing by the Staff (including the presentation of documents in j camera) prior to determining whether to release allegedly privileged Staff j documents.
I
- This brief and the attached affidavit of James M. Taylor is submitted in response l j to that Order.
! DISCUSSION i
The Intervenor has requested that the Board order the release of an Office of l
j Investigation (OI) Report No. 2-90-020R, that is presently being evaluated to determine i
whether an enforcement action should be commenced with respect to matters associated j
l with the reporting of diesel generator starts by Georgia Power Company (GPC). 7 l
! 0) :
1 4
, , , ,_c. ,. _ . _ ,
. - - - -=.. .- - . . _ - . . . - --- - . - . - - - - . - - - - -
. 2-Although it is a report on investigation into facts relevant to this prMag, it is also a predecisional document upon which the NRC will, in part, determine whether to take enforcement actions. . See attached Affidavit of James M. Taylor.
Predecisional documents upon which government decisions are formulated are ,
privileged. See NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S.132,150 (1975); Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Y.E.R. Earl Zeiss, Jana, 40 F.R.D. 318 (D.D.C.1966), q$'d 384 F.2d 979 (D.C. cir.), cen. denied, 389 U.S. 952 (1967). It has long been recognized that this privilege can prevent the release of documents sought in discovery in NRC proceedings.
See Long Island Power Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-773, 19 NRC 1333,1341 (1984); see also Virginia sectric Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-16,7 AEC 313 (1974); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-33,4 AEC 701 (1971).
The privilege on release of predecisional documents is a qualified privilege which l can be overcome by a showing of an overriding need for the documents. Shoreham, supra. Once the privilege is properly invoked, the party seeking the documents has the i burden of showing that overriding need. Id. See also 10 C.F.R. 5 2.744(c)(3).
l At the Prehearing Conference on January 27,1994, the Staffindicated that the OI report rdecu.d the views of only one NRC office. It was not the Staff position, Tr.169, and it was made clear that the report may not ultimately reflect the Staff position. Id.
The OI report is under Staff review, Tr.171, and along with all the evidence collected by the Office of Investigations, the discovery that has occurred in this proceeding, and other information, will all be weighed together in arriving at an enforcement decision
2 t l
Id. The OI report is an integral part of the material upon which the Executive Director l for Operations will make his (the Staff's) recommendation as to whether an enforceraent j
action is warranted. Thus, the report and the other materials sought are predecisional material, see Affidavit of James M. Taylor, attached, subject to the deliberative process privilege.
In addition, the Intervenor has not established an overriding need for the OI report. Mr. Mosbaugh, as a basis for his contentions, claimed he was privy to the misrepresentation on which his contentions are based. He has not introduced any evidence to show there is the " overriding" need for the report at this stage of the proceeding, before the Staff has determined whether to recommend to the Commission the initiation of enforcement actions. All we presently have are bare statements, which lack any support concerning the present need for the OI report. Plainly, the Intervenor has not sustained his burden.
Where the Staff objects to the production of a document in discovery upon a claim that it is exempt from disclosure as 'a predecisional document or for other reasons, 10 C.F.R. { 2.744(c) provides the procedure to be followed in determining if the document should be released:
If the Executive Director for Operations objects to producing a record or document, the requesting party may apply to the presiding officer, in 8
Similarly, GPC has not sustained a burden of showing an " overriding" need for the factual attachment or exhibits to the report. The letters between GPC and the Staff are in the possession of GPC. To the extent copies of interviews with GPC employees and officers are sought, the matters sought are within the knowledge of such individuals, who can be contacted by GPC. Moreover, GPC had an attorney present at most of those interviews and, thus, cannot claim any lack of knowledge of the matters there discussed.
--- . --~---.- - -..._-._---- ...---.-_
i
\
l l wnting, to compel pmduction of that mcord or document. The application shall set forth the relevancy of the acord or document to the issues in the proceeding. The application shall be pr* as a motion in accordance I with 6 2.730 (a) through (d). 'Ihe record or document covered by the application shall be pmduced by the "in camera" iner=* ion of the l presiding officer, exclusively, if requested by the presiding officer and
- only to the extent necessary to determine
l (1) The relevancy of that record or hunaat; ,
(2) Whether the document is ===at from disclosure under i 2.790;2 (
(3) Whether the disclosure is necessary.to a proper decision in the piding; ,
(A) Whether the document or the information therein is reasonably obtainsle from another source.
1 Therefore, before any documents which the Staff has objected to pmducing are j i
ordered produced in discovery, the documents must be examined erparte in comem by the Board to determine if the documents should be released under the' standards set out l
in that regulation. The Staff already has offered to provide the documents for such an l
i examination. See Board Notification No. 94-1, January 3,1994. Further, the Commission has indicated that should the Staff and Licensing Board disagree on the l release or the disclosure of such investigative material after the material is presented by O1 or the Staff to the Licensing Board in a transcribed er parte, in camera session, the j Board is to certify the record of that session to the Commission for a determination of 2 The matters to which o'ojection has been made fall under 10 C.F.R. I 2.790(a)(5) being interagency memoranda relevant to the deliberative pivcss. See Shoreham, 19 NRC at 1341. The exemptions in 10 C.F.R. I 2.790(a) to the release ofinformation, are the same as in section 552(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
I 552(b). l l
A whether the investigative material is to be released. See Commission's Statement of l
Policy: Investigations, Inspections and Adjudicatory Fre:Mings 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032, 36,033-34 (September 13,1984); qf 10 C.F.R. I 2.744(d). 'Ihe policy statement l
etablishes procedures to be followed which would allow a Ucensing Board to be apprised of investigatory matters which might affect a proceeding, and yet not cause those matters to be revealed in a premature manner so as to compromise the investigation.
Those procedures are applicable here to guard against the premature disclosure of 1
investigatory material so as not to compromise possible enforcement actions. Therefore, j should the Board determine that there is a present need for the release of the documents sought in this proceeding, it should re&r the record to the Commission for final !
resolution.
Further, as indicated in the attached affidavit of James M. Taylor, this predecisional material should not be made available to the other parties under a protective order. GPC is the subject of the possible enforcement action and release of the report to GPC would be contrary to the entire purpose of the privilege. I e Mosbaugh is a principal involved in the incidents covered in the report, and the report should not be released to him either at this time. Further, it would be unfair and without purpose to i release the report to Mr. Mosbaugh, but not GPC. l Notwithstanding the foregoing, much can be accomplished now even before the !
OI report is released. Tr.179. GPC has proposed that they submit their corrections to the transcript of Mosbaugh tapes numbered 57 and 58 to the other parties and that these parties review these corrections to see if a transcript of tapes 57 and 58 can be stipulated
I
- i. 6-i
! to by the parties. Staff counsel agreed to this. Tr.158. Mr. Mosbaugh has six tapes
! which allegedly highlight wrongdoing. Again, the Staffis willing to review transcripts of those six tapes, to see if a twMyi of those tapes can be agreed upon. Other tapes j
,. 1 may be relevant. There is a very large number of documents that will be relevant in addition to the OI Report. Staff counsel has suggested that the parties prepare lists of the j documents and stipulate as to their authenticity. Tr. 201. 'Ihe Board has suggested
} depositions be taken regarding the issues involving the alleged illegal take-over by i i i Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Tr. 219), and that discovery proceed on that )
i i
i
! issue. Tr. 215. The Staff has no objections to these actions. The Staff has further
! suggested that GPC and Intervenor proceed with their case prior to the Staff setting forth i
its position. Tr. 222.
CONCLUSION The OI report contains opinions and recornmendations which are now being reviewed by the Staff as but one element, albeit an important element, in the Staff's l
deliberative process by where it will reach a position on whether an enforcement action is warranted. It is exempt from disclosure. See Shoreham, AL4B-773, supra. No party has established a need for the report at this time. Discovery between GPC and Mr. Mosbaugh may proceed without the OI report. Some evidentiary. stipulations (tapes 57 and 58, Mosbaugh's six tapes of highlights, and documents) may proceed now among all three parties. The Staff reiterates its offer to provide an ex parte in camera
O 7
presentation regarding the OI report by to the Licensing Board. Should the Board then >
i determine the OI Report should now be released, it should refer the in camera record to the Commission.
RWy submitted, ,
V,/~ $ -- y Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of February 1994
)
I 4
- - - . . - . ~ . - - . -.- -. - . _ _ - . - - - - . - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
l.
i February 4,1994 i
i
! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IXENSING BOARD l In the Matter of )
. )
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
) 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant )
Units 1 and 2) ) Re: Licensee Amendment
) (Transfer toSouthern Nuclear)
AEEIDAVIT_QF JAMES M. TAYLOR James M. Taylor, having first been duly sworn, hereby states:
- 1. I am the Executive Director for Opemtions, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am responsible to the Commission for the operation of its Staff, which is under my direction and control.
- 2. I submit this affidavit to set forth the reasons why the NRC Staff cannot l
release the Office of Investigation Report on case No. 2-90-020R, or certain of the ;
exhibits to that report until a determination has been made on whether any enforcement l actions should be instituted concerning the matters subject to that investigation. The investigation documented in the OI Report No. 2-90-020R concerns the reporting of diesel generator starts by Georgia Power Company following a March 20,1990, incident :
at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. I am aware that the matter concerning the reporting of the generator starts is germane to this proceeding. I have been informed that n '!: :: " c:% S pp
. counsel for Allen Mosbaugh has sought the entire report and that counsel for the Georgia Power Company has sought the factual attachments or exhibits to that report.
- 3. I have directed the NRC Staff not to release this material, absent direction .
of the Commission, because, in my opinion, to do so at this time would not only prejudice consideration of any enforcement action which may be appropriate regarding this matter, but would have a deleterious effect on the Commission's deliberative processes concerning possible enforcement actions. Although neither party hp.s objected to the release of this predecisional material, its release prior to a decision on possible enforcement actions would comprise the Commission's ability to free.y deliberate and consider possible enforcement actions prior to the release of these materials. The materials, at this point, are predecisional materials which should not be released before an enforcement decision is made, in order to protect this agency's regulatory functions under the Atomic Energy Act.
- 4. The release of the predecisional materials here involved to the parties, even under a protective order which would prevent their further dissemination, would not serve the pbrpose of having predecisional material withheld prior to a decision on possible i
enforcement actions. Both other parties are deeply involved in this matter and releasing ;
4 I
the predecisional material to them would not insulate the Commission or me while ;
making an enforcement decision. On the other hand, revelation of these matters to the Board in an erparte manner, as provided in 10 C.F.R. I 2.744(c) and the Commission's ;
Statement of Policy: Investigations, Inspections and Adjudicatory Proceedings,49 Fed. l l
s i-
{. .
1 Reg. 36,032 (September 13,1984), would protect the Commission's deliberative process, 4
and the NRC Staff has offered to reveal the material to the Board as provided in that I regulation and policy statement. See also Board Notification No. 94-1, January 3,1994.
i 5. I recognize that this prMing has been delayed by the Staff's inability j to set forth a position or take part in discovery until it determines if an enforcement a
j action is appropriate, and that the Staff had represented that it would be able to move forward with this proceeding some time ago. The Staff has released the tapes and the i i,
i transcripts of those tapes which were sought in discovery. The Office of Investigation )
l !
a i report was only issued on December 17, 1993. This matter is complex, and the final i review and development of recommendations on possible enforcement actions are being completed expeditiously. It is estimated that the Staff will make its recommendations to l the Commission on possible enforcement actions concerning this matter by the end of l March 1994.
! The foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. l i
- /
biYJA M. Taylor [/
! J Executive Director for Operations Subscribed and sworn to before me 4
this 4th day of February 1994 l
q K (,"CbH
. otary Public
! My commission expires: /A//,/95 1
,i -
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50 424-OLA-3 1
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) .50-425-OLA-3
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ) Re: License Amendment I Units 1 and 2) ) (Transfer to Southem Nuclear) 4
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
, I hereby certify that copies of "NRC BRIEF ON RELEASE OF OI REPORT REQUESTED IN LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF FEBRUARY 1,1994" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by i facsimile this 4th day of February 1994.
- Peter B. Bloch,= Chairman" Thomas D. Murphy *
! Administrative Judge Administrative Judge j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Mail Stop: EW-439 Mail Stop: EW-439 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 (301) 492-7285 .(301) 492-7285 Judge James H. Carpenter John I.amberski, Esq."
l
!- 933 Green Point Drive Arthur H. Domby, Esq.
! Oyster Point Trootman Sanders Sunset Beach, North Carolina 28468 NationsBank Building, Suite 5200 i 600 Peachtree Street, N. E.
l Atlanta, Georgia 30308 l (404) 885-3949 t
)
j l
i i-l t
i
- David R.12wis, Esq. Adjudicatory File
- Q)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2300 N Street, N. W. Panel Washington, D. C. 20037 Mail Stop: EW-439 G02) 663-S007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael D. Kohn, Esq.**
Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C. Panel
- 517 Florida Avenue, N. W. _
Mail Stop: EW-439 Washington, D. C. 20001
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G02) 462-4145 Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Se.miary* Q)
Adjudication
- Attn: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 dL- .M. >
l Edwin J. 's Dep Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing l
l r e, _
_,_ . . - . . _ _- - - - . - - - - - = . - --- - -- --
..: a -1 01 50 4 ;i :;:, =:.5 .:::.;=5 . . - .: :::c: 0;;
- s. El-,4,
/sa ~:ml0,, _
=,-%4
! ,, o UNITED STATES y
{,
c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. M V u d ; ,v
). /'
s % ,.w Office of Public Affairs z. gc-x ~ >
DATE 3~ ~ 74 ,
~
~
'e s /~f~T-~~
To: Cl+rV
(
We 45 5 Ahs e Of FAX NUMBER: ~
VERITY: 8c' - 5 r- < c//
NUMBER OF PAGES: IO PLUS COVER SHEET COMMENTS:
- FROM 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of Public Affairs 301/504-2240 Fax Number 301/tiO43716
\
)\
k
1
- 01 E4 .;;;i -; ::: YO4 :T;5 r.:-: : :E . iw 1-::3 0.57; =002 0;;
4 l
I i
i i
?
l 1
j 4 March 3, 1994 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
l>
Before Administrative Judges:
l Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter l{ Thomas D. Murphy l
i; .
In the matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3 4
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, i
! et al- Res License Amendment
- (Tranafer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating Nuclear)
- Plant, Units 1 and 2) 1 l ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 '
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Related to Office of Investigation Report) l Before us is the "NRC Staff Motion to Defer certain Prehearing Activities Until the Staff Mas Formulated a Position,a January 24, 1994 (Statf Motion). The principal question is whether we should order the Staff of the Nuclear l-j Regulatory Commission (Staff) - before it has decided
+
! whether to take possible enforceaant action - to produce
! for discovery all or part of a report of the Office of J
i j Investigation concerning the Mosbaugh allegations that are i the kernal of this case.
The Statf of the Nuclear Regulatory Cosaission claims that the document sought is a privileged pre-decisional D . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _
i j.
- T 04 9; .;:20
-; !01 YOJ r;i o:: : S a ::1:5 .:. 57J 2005 0;;
l 1
4 i
\
i !
document. Tr. 172; Staff Motion at 1; see 10 CTR S l
2.790 (a) (5) i i
(Exemption 5 to the Freedom of Information Act) .
I It does not claim that the document is exempt pursuant to 10
{
l CFR $ 2.790(a) (7) (Exemption 7 to the FOIA) , which protects 1
information compiled for law enforcement purposes .
{
On January 3, 1994, ~
j the Office of Nuclear Reactor i
Regulation issued Board Notification No. 94-01 , stating that the investigation of j completed.
the Mosbaugh Allegations had been The statf stated that on December 17, 1993; , the t NRC office of Investigation (01) issued its report on OI Case No. 2-90-020R.
l In addition, the Staff withheld the j
report from public release, citing ' consistency with the 1 commission's Statement of Policy on Investigations.
Staff argues i
1 The Staff is i Investigations still reviewing office of oI) Report, Case No. 2-90-020R.
i The Staff reques(ts that the proceeding be delayed
- l thatdatarnine the Statf, withtothe advice of the commissionan may whether ,
i proceedings without the premature institute disclosureenforcement of i
the OI report Public or other disciosure of the 01 Report aspects of the matter.
and its -
cupporting disclosure of contemporary documentation, at this time, and any predecisional views eenu advmemmiv affnetStatf internal tha c's==i mmien 's del Warative E-_ n=ma in daens=minine si whether em institute an ane erece= u action.
1 The commission's the stay requested by the Statf here.8 rules do not directly apply to 4 added.] [ Emphasis The claim of a pre-decisional privilege in this case is affected by the
- t staff's representation to us that the or S
Statt Motion at 1-2.
l*
1 i :: 02. N .;:10 -; ::: =04 : :: .:c :U: v=1:5 .:. 3 2 :004,01:
4 1
i 4
3 -
l l Report (Case No. 2-90-020R) has been produced by the office of Investigations after extensive investigative work. Based on our knowledge of similar reports, we are confident that j this office of Investigation report is carefully prepared and is extensive in its documentation. :t is a report that l the statf has already decided is destined to be released.
) Tr. 169.
1 l The Law 3 i
4 Under the NRC* s Rules of Practice, if a document is relevant and not covered by an exemption under 10 CFR S 2.790 and is not otherwise privileged, it must be produced.
Further, even if the document is covered by an exemption, it must be produced if necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.744(d). Thus, the applicability of an exemption must be weighed against a litigant's need, and is equivalent to traditional privilege in civil pro-coedings. CRneumers Power ca. (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility), AIJ-8 0-1, 12 NRC 117, 119-20 (1980).
In our Rules, there is a deliberative process examp-tion, which protects from disclosure intragency memoranda "which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the commission." 333 Lane )
a we have borrowed language for this section from Georsia Power _ _ ca===ny ' s Brief canc me-niner wac genff Raiamma of certain_Jpvaatinatory Material, February 4,1994 (Gp Brief),
at 2-5.
. :: ;; N ..:1; . ::: 504 !~" E ' :: :UE 17:01:5 0.5~4 2005 0--
-4 -
Island Li erheine ca. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, U .:
1), ALAB-773, 19 NRC 1333, 1341 (1984). The U.S. Supr is court has observed the purposes of the exemption.
The point, plainly made in the senate Report, is that the " frank discussion of legal or polic matters" discussion inwere writing might be inhibited if th made public; and that the "poorer decision" and "
as a result, policies formulated" would be the
Ct. 837 (1973) .
Asincentives lower courts have pointed out. "there are e)nougn as it is for playing it safe and listing with the wind," Ackpriv v Ley,, 137 US App DC 133, 138, 420 F2d 1336, 1341 (1969), and as we have said in an analogous context, "(h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances .
g deelmien ma nr iner a -r == , a. to the detrimant af, United semena v HiggL 418 US 683, 705, 41 L Ed 2d 1039, 94 S Ct 3090 (1974)(emphasis added).
The deliberative process privilege is not absolute:
The (deliberative process) privilege may be invoked in NRC proceedings. It is a qualified privilege, however, which need. can be overcome by an appropriate showing of whether a A balancing test must be applied to determine litigant's demonstrated need for the documents outweighs the asserted interest centidentiality. in In this respect, the government agency bears the burden of demonstrating that the privilege is properly invoked, but the party seeking the withheld intornation has the burden of showing that there is an overriding need for its release.
Shnrgham, SMBER, ALAB-773, 19 NRC at 1341 (citations omitted).
It is settled law that factual material "must be segregated and released unless ' inextricably intertwined' with privileged communications, or the disclosure of such factual material would reveal the agency's decision making
i l .
-i !!! YO ! !?16 l#: :: 'S ATTM 5 * ! . 5~ ~
- 006'011
""" C4 :2 .':12 .
i i
4 I i 1
4 process." 1 at 1342 (citations omitted).
t j In determining the need of a litigant seeking the j
production of documents covered by the (deliber-e ative process) privilege, an objective balancing l
test is employed, weighing the importance of the documents to the party seeking their production
! and the availability elsewhere of the information contained in the documents against the government interest in secrecy.
Lena Tsiand tiahtina cc (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), L5P-82-82, 16 NRC 1144, 1164-65 (1982) citing 4
l United Staten v. taneett & Platt. Tne , 542 F.2d 655, 655-59 i
f (6th Cir. 1976), cert. deniad, 430 U.S. 945 (1977). ,
e The Staff seems to think that the " Statement of Policy; Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings,"
l 49 Fed. Reg. 36032-34 (1984) provides some support for its 1
l position. However, the relevant portion of that document i.
states, at p. 36033:
When staff or oI believes that it has a duty in a
- particular case to provide an adjudicatory board inspection or j with information concerning an i investigation, or when a board requests such ;
' information, staff or oI should provide the j
information to the board and parties uniasm it would believan that un-amerietad dimelemura j
srsindice an onsGin's innamaeten er invenciantion, l t or reveal confidential sources 3 (Emphasis added. ]
1 1
%e cited text appears near the bottom of the Statement Policy, following a paragraph that begins: "Until i of i completion of the rulemaking (that the Commission directed the staff to commence), the following vill control the j
procedure to be followed . . . ." The quoted language l differs somewhat from the fallowing earlier language -
! which appears to be in the nature of a preamble and not to be operative language - in the statement of Policy l However, the need to protect information developedthe in investigations or 4,,. inspections usually ends once 4
l 4-....*4 .*4,- -- .-*4-n in comeJeted and evaluated
i j.
i
- 1.
- I i
i
- .572 =00 011 i
j .a E2 ..:n . = 5:2 5 :: :'.? 3 .I:5 '
4 i
l 1
I 4 !
5 l cenelumiens i The OI Report is central to the resolution of this case l l ht ,
i 1 because it ref.'.ects the most exhaustive investigation t a h I i
l h t
{ has been cranducted and is highly likely to help to bring t e <
l This report, and the l I light of truth into our deliberations.
{ is important to this l f actual information contained in it, l
each of the parties Board. It is likewise essential that l
use it in discovery activities, and see this document, i
J l
' ascertain its relevance to their cases.
There is no privilege covering factual information i d j l a !
contained in this document and not inextricably intertw ne l This principle is settled 1
with privileged consunications.
l i
law, we expected that the Staff would voluntarily release j If this had been a
- this factual, unprivileged information.
rather than a discovery Freedom of Infornation Act case, l
l case, the Staff would have been ope' rating under statutory
{
Its delay in l
deadlines to release this f actual information.
1 not releasing this information seems to have delayed the !
l i litigation of this case unnecessarily.'
i
! We also would not follow the Staff's suggestion that we j exemption to the intra-agency ccnssunication 4
apply the Tr.
l opinions found in the office of Investigation Report.
i 172.
The opinions of the people who wrote the of Report Releasing l already are destined to see the light of day.
I 4
i d
se i
0, 5 .: : rg ci
. :1! . ::: 50.: !H .:: =v5 ::::.;c; l
!! 0; Ea i
3 0
l -7 -
l them now to the parties, under protective order, would have l in the impact on discussion no additional detrimental agency. Senior officials such as direct the Office of performing a public function and Investigation are work will be understand, from the outset, that their carefully scrutinized by their superiors and the public.
Scrutiny of their work is highly unlikely to embarrass anyone or to interfare with agency deliberative processes.
What the Statf is really asserting here seems to us to be a privilege not covered by the FOIA or by the Statement of Policy. Staff does not claim that disclosure "would prejudice en ongoing inspection or investigation, or reveni confidential sources." There is no ongoing investigation.
Staff is asking for a delay in publicity to permit it to make its decision before this matter reaches the press, Tr. 171. The Staff, in short, the public or the Congress.
is asking to be able to deliberate privately about this l
important enforcement matter. i l
Since the Starf seeks this privilege and it is consis- !
tant with a f air trial of this case, we need not deny its l l
claim. In this instance, we are able to offer some protec- l l
tion from public influence by requiring the production of That order f the OI Report subject to a protective order.
will require the parties to hold the information in confi-from dance and will shelter the Staff (and the commission)
4 i
l .a i
t i :: .N 92 . . G2 i
1
. :: = 4 - ;5 n:: :.E .rre.;:5 .:. 3 2 =00:+ 01; b
4, i i
that each of the parties is trustworthy and that the protec .
i i
tive order is highly likely to be observed. -
1 We have weighed the factors set forth in our Memorandum
( -
1
' and Order (Motion to compel Production of Documents by the i
Staff), August 31, 1993.5 At this point, j the Statf is 1 requesting about one month in which to determine whether or i
not to take an enforcement action. After that, there is an i
indeterminate period of time within which the commission may act on this same question.
i The reason for the delay at this time stems from the extended time consumed in a complex i
investigation that has been ongoing for almost four years.
i i on the other side of the ledger, there is a need for a prompt determination of this proceeding. Intervenor is prepared to conduct depositions during the first week of b April. '
i q
The Report of the office of Investigation could be
{
4 relevant to those depositions.
~
3 i' After balancing these factors, we have determined that the harm to Mr. Allen L. Mosbaugh and to Georgia Power from i
delaying the release of the requested information is tangible.
! On the other hand, the harm to the Statt has
) never been estplicitly stated so that we can understand it
- i. and can consider it to be tangible. In consequence, we have i
decided that, on balance, the requested information should ha be released.
i The factual information in the OI Report should 5= ~~1a--ad
i, .u - ..;_- . ... .. . .. . __
i i
!, -9 -
l order. The release of the allegedly privileged opinion portions of the OI Report shall be required by the April 4, 1994,6 thus giving the staff an opportunity f or internal
- deliberations before production (subject to protective order) shall occur.
b
! ORDER l
4 For all the f oregoing reasons and upon consideration of
!, the entire record in this matter, it is this 2nd day of l
March, 1993, ORDERED, that:
i 1
- 1. The Statf of the Nuclear Regulatory
! promptly release to
! Commission (Staff) shall I Georgia Power and Allen L. Mosbaugh all of the
' easy-to-separate' factual information that is l l contained in the Office of Investigation's Report 1 l
l in Case No. 2-90-020R and that is not inextricably l intertwined with privileged material.
h
- 2. On April 4,1994, the Staf f shall release the
' remainder of the office of Investigation's Report,
! sue 3dct to protective order, j
- 3. .The Staff shall promptly serve a proposed l
fora of protective order on the parties and the i Board./
l L
' James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations of l the NRC, in his affidavit of February 4, 1994, attached to
- "NRC Brief on Release of OI Report Requested in Licensing j Board nMar of February 1, 1994," (at p. 3) estimated that 1
the Staff would aske its recommendations to the Commission l by the end of March 1994. Our Order accommodates this
! estimate. If the Staff schedule is delayed, it may show I cause why the estimate has been exceeded and a further i extension should be granted.
i
'since the whole report will be released, the staff they can should review it and release portions that i
reasonably determine to be factual, without extensive
- editing and redacting.
4
'l
.a j 0! 04 94 ..:15 -
ci 50.: r u ,,;:. er_:3 g,7; ;;;:3 l
, 3-. . _g n l
1 l -
10 -
l The parties 'shall sign the protective order, either as drafted by the Staff or as amended by this Board. The i
release provided for in paragraph 2 shall not occ:::
until the signed protective orders have been served.
! THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
c, a./W
..e N. Ca pa. -
- Administrative Judge i
j f
Thomas D. Murphy
>Dnds /
')
- Admin strative Judge y'
i Peter B. Bloch
- Chair i
Bethesda, Maryland 1
i 4
t 4
i 4
4
- 3
- I l
l l
The parties shall sign the protective order, either as I drafted by the Staff or as amended by this Board. ""h a raiseen provided for in paragraph 2 shall not occ::
until the. signed protective orders have been served.
THE ATOMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O-
- ames H. Carpentar Administrative Judge W 0.0f Thomas D. Murphy 'V W -
f Admin strative Judge
- /b i Peter 8. Bloch
! Chair l Bethesda, Maryland 1
j l
l i
l I
a i
- ' MAR 29 '94 10
- 40AM CGC/MAILROOM P.5 iV
- i pse aae i 3. F UNfftD STATES '
.A
- NUCL, EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION ,
! WAeMINGTON. o.c.M '
O\ Doc W hos. 50-414-0LA-3 March 24, 1994 Board Notification 94- 07
]
1 j 50-425-0LA-3 i MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers
! Commissioner Remick i Commissioner de Planque j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and All Parties d
i FROM: Steven A. Varga, Director
- Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l
Office of Nuclear Reactsr Regulation i
SUBJECT:
NEW INFORMATION P0TENTIALLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO BOARD
! PROCEEDING IN THE MATTER OF V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING e i PLANT, UNITS I AND 2 l In confomance with the commission's policy on notification of the Commission
- and the Licensing Boards of new, relevant, and material information, this i memorandum calls attention to the document discussed below.
I
! The Board has pending before it a contention challenging the application of i Georgia Power Company (GPC) to authorize southern Nuclear Operating Company,
- p Inc. Southsrn Nuclear), a subsidiary of The southern Cor.pany, to operate i Vogt1 Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. One of the issues involves
- an allegation that GPC made false statements to the NRC about diesel generator j 'testin conducted after the March to 1990, site Area Ese ncy. On March 18, i 1994, he NRC staff received the enc osed document from in arvenor Allen L.
l Mosbaugh that contains allegations relate,d to an allegation previously j submitted to the NRC (see Exhibit 4 of Interve,9r's Lesponse to GPC's
- August 23, 1993, Filing for Reconsideration and Cefi,jfication dated .
September 3 1993). Tte allegation concerns the participants in a telephone !
call on April 19, 1990, discussing the Licensee Event Report on diesel generator testing, and subsequent remarks and actions by Southern Nuclear, GPC and its attorneys.
This information is being brought to the attention of the Commission, the Licensing Board, and All Parties as information which may be relevant and material to issues pending before the emissio censing Board.
a, irecto Obvision of Reactor Projects - I !!
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula ion i
Enclosure:
Allegation r, cc w/ enclosure:
see next page .
Contact:
Darl 5. Hood, NRR d 504-3049 )
m .
M 29 '94 10:41Af1 OGC/t1AILR00M P.6
,i :
1 l
^ March 24, 1994
. Board Notification 94-07 Dated: i l
cc: l J. Taylor, ED0 )
J. N11hoan, DEDR '
H. Thompson, DEDS {
L. P11sco, E00 l l
T.
L. Reyes, NRR A. Thadani, NRR T. Nartin, RI S. Ebneter, RI!
J. Martin, RIII L. J. Callan, RIV K. Perkins, RV L. Chandler, 0GC OGC (3)
C. Cater, SECY (3)
- 5. Burns, OCAA ASL8P Office of the General. Counsel i NRR Division Directors- )
e, NRR Project Directors '
i NRR Branch Chiefs -
l ACRS (3) l L
l 1
, M 29 'S4 10342AN OGC/MAILRCOM p.7 i3 l 1
!, BOARD _NCEPT ATION NO. "h) 1
!r
! I
- aBOmaIA POWBR COMPANY, W al. '
i (Vogtle Blaetdc Generadng Plant, Units 1 and 2) i Dookat Nos. 50 424-OLA-3,50425-OLA-3
)
! Peter B. Bloch, Chainnan Michael D. Icia, Esq.
- Adminimmeve Judge stephen M. Eohn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and ih*: Board Kohn, Eohn and NW, P.C.
Ma!!Stop: BW439 517 Plorida Avenus, N. W.
! U.S. Naciser Regulatory Comminian Washington, D. C. 20001
, Washlageon, D. C. 20555 l Office of raaminalan Appellats James H. Carpentar A4udication
! 933 Gmen Point Drive Mall Stop: OWPN-16/G15 Oyster Point U.S. Nuciant Regulatory Commission Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Washington, D. C. 20555
'Blomas D. Murphy A4udicatory Pils (2) i Ad=iale*=*ive Judas Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i Atomic Safbty and f ha Board Panel MailStop: BW439 Mall Stop: BW439 lP l U.S. Nuolaar Bagulasory emn=lesian Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nucisar Regulatory Commission ,,
Washington, D. C. 20555 John I.ambersid, Baq. . Atomic Safety and IJoensing Board l
- Arthur H. Domby, Esq. Panel
! Tran*mma Sanders Mail Stop: BW-439 i N=danhak Building, Subs 5200 UJ. Nuclear Regulatory ramml=lan 1 600 Peachtree Street, N. E. Washington, D. C. 20555 l Atlanta, Georgia 30308
! Of5cs of the Secremry (2) l David 1. Imris, Beq. Atta: Docketing and Servios i Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge MallStop: OWPN-16/015 l 2300 N Street, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulasary emamlulaa j Washington, D. C. 20037 Washington, D. C. 20555 nireneur, navironmental Proimadan !
Division l Department of Natural Resources l 205 Bader simet, ss
! subs 1252 !
Adane, GA 30334
! e 1
1
.1AR 29 '94 80842AM OGC41AILR00M P.8 l'
i i le .
A Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
, cc:
Mr. J. A. Bailey Harold Reheis, Director
! Manager - Licensing Department of Natural Resources l Georgia Power Company 205 Butler Street, SE. Suite 1251 i P. O. Box 12g5 Atlanta, Georgia 30334
{ Birmingham, Alabama 35201
- Attorney General-i Mr. J. B. Beasisy Law Department General Manager. Vogtle Electric _
132 Judicial Building a senerating Plant -
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 i P. 0. Box 1500 l Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Mr. Pierce Skinner Section Chief
! Pro.iect Branch #3 i Re U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
! U.gional Administrator, S. Nuclear Regulatory Region Commission !! 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 1g00 i 101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 1g00 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i
Mr. Dan H. Smith, Vice President
- Office of Planning and Budget Power Supply Operations i Room 6158 Oglethorpe Power Corporation j 270 Washington Street, SW. 2100 East Exchange Place j Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Tucker, Georgia 30085-134g i e' Office of the County Commissioner Esquire -
J Burke County Commission Charles A. Patrizia,fsky Paul, Hastings, Jano & Walker Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 lith Floor 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
, Mr. J. D. Woodard Washington, DC 20036 i Senior Vice President - -
l Nuclear operations Arthur H. Domby, Esquiro
- Georgia Power company Troutman Sanders
- P. O. Box 12g5 NationsBank Plata l Birmingham, Alabama 35201 400 Peachtree Street, NE.
I Suite 5200
! Mr. C. K. McCoy Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2215 Vice President - Nuclear VS9tle Project Resident Inspector Georgia Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comeission P. 0. Box 12g5 P. O. Box 572 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 m
.