ML20129H776
Text
_ _ - _
/
UNITED STATES
[#Civ NUCLEAR HECULATORY COMMIS$10N o
j REGION il 4g
,j 101 MARlETTA STREET,N.W.
t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,o..../
OCT 2 91991 MEMORANDUM FOR: Pierce H. Skinner Team Leader Vogtle Unit 1 Augmented Inspection Team (AIT)
FROM:
Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Admu istrator
SUBJECT:
AIT CHARTER, V0GTLE UNIT 1 Enclosed is the Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) Charter to reflect the instructions you were given for the inspection of events associated with the Vogtle Unit I degradation of decay heat removal on October 26, 1991.
This Charter, prepared in accordance with the NRC Incident Investigation Manual (NUREG 1303), reflects the needs of Region II and NRR management.
The objectives of the AIT-are to communicate the facts surrounding this event te Regional and Headquarters management, to identify and communicate safety concerns related to this event to Regional and Headquarters management, and to
. document the findings and conclusions of the onsite inspection.
If you have any questions regarding these objectives or the enclosed Charter, please do not hasitate to contact me or Ellis W. Merschoff of my staff.
Stewart D. Ebneter
Enclosure:
1 AIT Charter cc w/ enc 1:
J. Sniezek, ED0 T. Murley, NRR S. Varga, NRR G. Lainas, NRR C. Rossi. NRR E. Jordan. AE00 J. Wechselberger, EDO 9
J 9611040040 960027 PDR FOIA KOHN95-211 PDR
4 #
5.
Evaluate the basis for the decision that this event was not reportable to the NRC and evaluate the adequacy of the event classification.
6.
Determine if any of the fo1~1owing played a significant role in this event:
system modifications; plant material condition; the quality of maintenance; or the responsiveness of engineering to identified problems.
~
a 7.
Evaluate the effectiveness of management involvement during the event, the post event reviews, and the subsequent recovery.
8.
For each equipment malfunction or personnel error to the extent practical, determine:
a.
Root cause.
4 b.
If the equipment was known to be deficient prior to the event.
I c.
If equipment history would indicate that the equipment had either been historically unreliable or if maintenance or modifications had been recently performed.
k N
3 d.
Pre-event status of surveillance, testing (e.g.,Section XI), and/or preventive maintenance.
9.
' Prepare a special inspection report documenting the results of the above activities within 30 days of inspection completion.
t 4
Y wo ne&
f f
w
,m
5 1
V0GTLE AUGMENTED INVESTIGATION TEAM (AIT) CHARTER (UPDATED) 1.
Develop and validate the sequence of events associated with the October 26, 1991, degradation of decay heat removal at Vogtle.
This sequence should begin with plant conditions immediately prior to this event, including known significant deficiencies in safety-related and balance of plant equipment, and extend until the plant was stable.
2.
Evaluate the significance of this event with regard to radiological consequences, safety system performance, fuel integrity and plant proximity to safety limits as defined in Technical Specifications.
3.
Identify any human factors, training or procedural deficiencies related to this event.
Evaluate operator actions during the event and subsequent equipment recovery.
Specifically, evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures for recovery from loss of decay heat removal which were used during this event, and the requirements for monitoring primary plant parameters such as reactor coolant temperature and pressure while shutdown and during changes to the shutdown cooling lineup.
4.
Evaluate the degree to which prior work planning for the outage could have 1
precluded this event.
Include the following aspects:
(a) Independent Verifications, (b) Verbal Communications, (c) Outage Control, and (d) System Engineer Involvement.
f g
~
[
(
y...a[0,
[4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION?,',g,
)
g
.f wasmuoros. o. c. nosss o
%,,,,, *f,
/
October 29, 1991 s
4/Q.'h Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366 50-424, 50-423 Ms. Yvonne Washington i
Office of Administrative Law Judges U.S. Department of Labor 111 20th Street, NW.
Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Ms. Washington:
~
SUBJECT:
RESPONSES OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY TO ALLEGATIONS OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN DOL PROCEEDINGS (10 CFR-SECTION i
2.206) 1 On December 21, 1990, I forwarded to'you a petition that had been submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 4
accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.206.
The petition contained several allegations made by Mr. Michael Kohn, Esquire, on behalf of Messrs. Marvin Hobby and Allen Mosbaugh.
One of the allega-l_
tions stated that an official of Georgia Power Company (GPC) knowingly _gave false testimony'in a proceeding before the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy j.
Reorganization Act. is GPC's reply to this allega-tion.
On August 27, 1991, I forwarded"to you a supplement to the petition which restated this allegation. is GPC's
. response to the allegation as restated.
1 I
j' Enclosures 1 and 2 contain only that portion of GPC's response that is relevant to the specific allegation regarding false testimony in the DOL proceeding.
We have placed copies of GPC's full responses in the NRC Public Document Room and, thus, they are publicly available.
_As noted in'ay letter to you of August 27, 1991,'the Director of the~ Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation will consider the t
supplement when issuing his Director's Decision for the issues 5
9 NPTi/soi31--3pp,
n.
4 Ms. Yvonne Washington October 29, 1991 raised by the petitioners.
Accordingly, we request that you keep us. informed of the consideration being given to this matter.
Si
- erely, N
l
?
b dr, actor eve Division of Reacto rojects I/II office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations
Enclosure:
As stated 4
4 4
4 4
I j
e d
I 1
Georgia Power Conpany Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:
Mr. J. A. Bailey Mr. Joe J. Tanner, Commissioner Manager - Licensing Department of Natural Resources Georgia Power Company 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 P. 0.. Box 1295 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Attorney General Mr. W. B. Shipman Law Department General Manager. Vogtle Electric 132 Judicial Building Generating Plant Atlanta, Georgia 30334 P. O. Box 1600 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Mr. Alan R. Herdt Project Branch f3 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
-Atlanta, Georgia' 30323 Mr. Dan Smith Office of the County Cornissioner Program Director of Burke County Commission Power Production Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Oglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 East Exchange Place Office of Planning and Budget
. Tucker, Georgia 30085-1349 Room 615B 270 Washington Street, SW.
Charles A. Patrizia, Esq.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 12th Floor Mr. C. K. McCoy 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Vice President - Nuclear, Vogtle Project Washington, DC 20036 Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Art Domby, Esquire Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman
& Ashmore Resident Inspector 127 Peachtree Street U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810 P. O. Box 572 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President -
Executive Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabare 35201 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 4
l i
c,e:., a e.e. : --.
123 s : :
A.e.e Iele':~fe.j'lf]$l[$U!
ENCLOSURE 1 e
5.'a *
- A:: e t t 4;
.e aess Ce e 8 'eaa.
4 61 o" ce 6:a '27!
E '- ; a-A a:a a 2!!:*
J
- e e: : e J:1666 !!a:
"v s.."--
.ir-1 R P Mcdonald Ese:.t.e
- ce # es ce.
e..: ea cera::-8 April 1, 1991 ELV-02684 1213 i
Docket Nos.- 50-424 50-425 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D. C.
20555 ATTN: Thomas E. Murley, Director-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Gentlemen:
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, REGARDING PETITION OF H. B. HOBBY AND A. L. MOSBAUGH i
28, 1991, the NRC requested Georgia Power Company By letter. dated February
("GPC" or the " Company") to provide additional information concerning a request for proceedings filed with the NRC by counsel for Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Enclosed herewith, GPC provides Allen L. Mosbaugh (the " petitioners").
additional information supplementing its September 28, 1990 letter concerning 11, 1990 request for proceedings, as well as information petitioners' September responding to the allegations contained in the petitioners' October 1,1990 supplemental letter.
The information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Sincerely,
/
[
Mr. R. P. Mcdonald RPM / JAB /cir i
Sworn.to and signed before me I, day of
, 1991.
this A f&
Notary F)blic Jjs 3 wrcommssoaxmsmumium siecoxc +$sou,3 FDR Ar.0cv o=. coo 4 4 13rf-
I Georpa Power d
^'
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
ELV-02684 Page 2 xc: Georaia Power comoany J
Mr. A. W. Dahlberg (w/o Volume II)
Mr. W. G. Hairston, III (w/o Volume II)
Mr. C. K. McCoy (w/o Volume !!)
Mr. W. B,' Shipman (w/o volume II)
Mr. P. D. Rushton (w/o Volume II)
Mr. J. T. Beckhain (w/o Volume II)
Mr. S. H. Chesnut (w/o Volume !!)
NORMS (w/o Volume II)
U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator (w/ Volume II) f Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager, NRR (w/ Volume II)
Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle (w/ Volume II) 1 Document Control Desk (w/ Volume !!)
4 i
i C
s
4 i
- a l
I EgCLosuRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MEGARDING j
l J
THE HOBBY /MOSBAUGH PETITION 4
nackaround i
i By letter dated September 11, 1990, legal counsel for the
)
petitioners submitted to the NRC a request that NRC institQte licensing proceedings (the " Petition").
The Petition contained a list of nine allegations, only some of which were supported by alleged examples.
The attachments referred to in that Petition were forwarded to the NRC on September 21, 1990.
On September l-28, 1990, GPC provided the NRC with a brief, initial response to the Petition which demonstrated, to the extent of the information available at the time, the inappropriatenese of a proceeding as l
requested by the petitioners.
The company also indicated that the petitioners were abusing the NRC process for identifying l
safety concerns and for requests for proceedings for the purpose 2
of merely improving their chances of obtaining a negotiated hadbroughtagainsttheCompany.{ abor (" DOL")caseswhichthey settlement of the Department of On October 1, 1990, the petitioners filed with the NRC a document entitled " Supplemental Information to the September 11, 3
L 1990 Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition Concerning the Illegal Transfer of (the Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to SONOPCO"
" Supplement") containing four allegations intended to support their previously-raised " illegal license transfer" allegation.
l j
On October 23, 1990, the NRC advised the petitioners' counsel it had received the Petition and the Supplement and that that
+
tney had been referred to the Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the " Director") for preparation of a decision pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206.
The NRC also concluded that no l
immediate action was necessary based on several NRC l
investiga-ans and inspections at the Vogtle Electric Generating
("VEPG" or "Vogtle") aimed at determining the facts Plant l
surrounding several allegations and the safety significance of various issues.
On February 28, 1991, the NRC requested GPC to provide additional information within 30 days concerning the allegations raised in the Petition and the Supplement.
j Because the' Petition contains allegations based on wild.
1 speculation, obvious material omissions and inaccurate statements, GPC questions whether petitioners' counsel had authority to submit the Petition to the NRC on behalf of the The NRC might inquire whether the petitioners would petitioners.
attest to'the accuracy of the statements contained in the F
Petition.
B
i i
In the attachments to this Enclosure, the company provides further information addressing each of the broad allegations raised in the Petition including information concerning the i
l alleged examples included in the Petition and the Supplement.2 l
Due to the lack of specificity of several allegations and the general nature of the February 28, 1991 request, this response i
may not address areas for which the Director desires more extensive information.
If such is the case, GPC suggests that a j
further request for information is appropriate rather than the initiation of proceedings, particularly when the petitioners have i
j j
failed to adequately identify factual bases for allegations.
The J
balance of this Enclosure (1)'provides an update of the l
j petitioners' DOL actions, (2) discusses the legal requirements j
applicable to Section 2.206 petitions as applied to the 1
petitioners, ' (3) discusses the NRC Staff evaluaticns of Vogtle operations which negate the need for the requested proceeding, j
and (4) provides the company's overall conclusions respecting the i
Petition.
Undate of Petitioners' DOL Actions S
The company's September 28, 1990 letter described three l
DOL actions filed by petitioners, one by Mr. Hobby and two by Mr. Mosbaugh, and the DOL preliminary findings in favor of GPC in j
those actions.
Both petitioners appealed those DOL decisions.
j In October and November of 1990, Mr. Hobby's appeal was heard by.
l DOL Administrative Law Judge Joel R. Williams.
Judge Williams' decision in the Hobby v. GPc proceeding is pending.
i
~
I Mr. Mosbaugh filed a third complaint against GPC with DOL i
under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 on t
September 19, 1990, which he subsequently amended on October 17, l
1990.
That complaint alleges that adverse employment action was j
tukan against him because he provided the NRC " evidence of criminal conduct" and because he filed the Petition.
On i
November 16, 1990, the DOL investigator issued a preliminary decision, in favor of Mr. Mosbaugh, which concluded that "the weight of the evidence to date" indicated that discrimination for engaging in protected activities "was a factor in the actions j
which comprise his complaint."
A full, de novo evidentiary l
i L
l 2 For the Commission's convenience, the attachments are numbered to correspond to the numbers assigned to the allegations i
i in Section III of the Petition (see the " List of Attachments" which appears at the end of th'is Enclosure).
2 i
)
m.m
[..
m.
--r
-s-
.v
+v---
\\
l hearing of that third pomplaint, consolidated with the second i
complaint, is pending.
I i
In Hobbv v. CPC, numerous depositions were taken and i
l extensive testimony (944 transcript pages) was heard before the Significant portions of that record.are relevant to certain dol.
j of the allegations raised in the Petition (333 Sections III.1, III.2 and III.4) and items 1, 2 and 3 of the Supplement.
l Likewise, but to a lesser extent, some of the deposition testimony taken in Mosbauch v. CPC is relevant to the Petition's l
(aks footnote 1 of the supplement).
As a result, the allegations i
Company's detailed responses provided herein concerning those i
allegationsgorrowfromthedepositionandtrialtestimonyin
[
A copy of the pertinent pages from the various those cases.
transcripts di'ted in the attached GPC responses is provided in a l
separately bound document enclosed herewith and entitled
" volume II - Transcript Excerpts."
I
'The Company maintains that the petitioners' primary and controlling motivation for their filings is to obtain a favorable l
result in their DOL actions against GPC.
In addition to the 1990 letter,
~
information provided in the Company's September 28, a recent order issued by DOL Administrative Law Judge Bernard J.
On Gilday, Jr. cupports the Company's position in this regard.
e 1991, Judge Gilday, who was assigned the appeal of February 19, l
Mr. Mosbaugh's first complaint, granted the NRC's motion for a partial stay of execution of an order which compelled i
Mr. Mosbaugh to produce certain documents.
Judge Gilday questioned Mr. Mosbaugh's motives and goals, as well as the l
techniques of his counsel, because it was the second time that l
relief and Mr. Mosbaugh had " trotted to the (NRC) for comfort, solace" when he was confronted with an order to produce Judge Gilday further stated that it appeared some i
docume,tation.
n l
of the documents Mr. Mosbaugh delivered to the NRC in January 1991 had not been previously disclosed to the NRC.
A copy of
?
Judge Gilday's order is attached to this Enclosure.
Additionally, on February 14, 1991, when the NRC offered to j
i return to Mr. Mosbaugh many of the tape recordings which he delivered to the NRC, Mr. Mosbaugh refused to accept them.
At j'
3 i
Any one or more of the DOL proceedings brought by Mr.
3 Mosbaugh are hereinafter referred to as Mombauch v. GPC.
i
' References in the attached GpC responses to the depositions
'taken in Hobby
"(name of deponent) (dato of deposition) Dep. at XX."
References herein to the transcript of the H2hhg trial appear as " Trial Tr.
l f
at XX."
i 5
1
i J'
the time, Mr. Mosbaugh was under a dol order to deliver the tapes i
to GPC when he received them from the NRC.
On February 19, 1991, which Mr. Mosbaugh withdrew his first DOL complaint against GPC, negated the DOL order in that case requiring him to deliver the GPC contends that this information calls into tapes to GPC.
j question the foundation of the petitioners' allegations and is a
{
proper consideration of the Director in reaching a decision.
}
1 l
The Leaal Reauirements For Section 2.206 Peti %i2RE I
In response to a petition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $
the Director must reach the conclusion that substantial 2.206, j
health or saf,ety issues have been raised before granting requested relief, including the initiation of a proceeding.
consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3),
i 176 (1975).
A mere dispute over factual f
CLI-75-s, 2 NRC 173, j
issues will not suffice to support such a conclusion and the Director ~is required to make an " inquiry appropriate to the facts asserted."
142 at 175-76.
The Director "is not required to l
accord presumptive validity to every assertion of fact, irrespective of its degree of substantiation, or to convene an adjudicatory proceeding in order to determine whether an adjudic,atory proceeding is warranted.
Rather, his role at this j
preliminary stage is to obtain and assess the information he believes necessary to make that determination.
Provided he does not abuse his discretion, he is free to rely on a variety of including staff analyses of generic sources of information, issues, documents issued by other agencies, and the comments of Northern Indiana 4-the licensee on the factual allegations."
CLI-l Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1),
78-7, 7 NRC 429, 432-33 (1978).
B In the case of the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition, the Director's
!~
is to first determine whether the Petition task, therefore, l-raises any substantial health or safety issues based on credible and probative evidenca.
The Consolidated Edison case dictates that mere allegations such as those submitted by the petitioners do not establish a basis for granting relief pursuant to Section the Director must conduct an appropriate inquiry.
A 2.206; careful inquiry is especially appropriate where the licensee, as l
in this case, disputes the factual allegations of the petitioners.
And, in the course of his inquiry into the it is appropriate for the Director to Petition's allegations, rely on (1) the NRC Staff's inspections.and evaluations which are (2) the testimony taken in the relevant to the allegations, related DOL cases, and (3) the information provided by GPC in l
this response, in the Company's Septamber 28, 1990 letter, during NRC inspections, and, if requested, further responses.
l Previous Director's Decisions which illustrate application t
of the substantial health or safety issue standard to section 4
l l'
l 1
4 LIST OF ATTACEMENTS GPC Response to Section III.1 of the Petition and the October 1, 1990 Supplement.
GPC Response to Section III.2 of tho' Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.3 of the Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.4 of the Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.5 of the Petition.
GPC Response to. Sections III.6(a) and (a)~& (b)
(b) of the Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.6(c) of the (c)
Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.6(d) of the (d)
Petition.
j i
GPC Response to Sections III.6(e) (i),
I (e)
(e) (ii) and (e)(iii) of the Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.7 of the Petition.
GPC Response to Section III.8 of the Petition.
a GPC Response to Section III.9 of the Petition.
a
I 0.
O1 OO 04 AM
.$. Department of Labor eftse af Amenswasve Law Judges
{
J) ses w. e.e,suae soo chsmnas, code desse ss ss ees sssa: :
e IN TEE NATTER OF
, ALLEN M05BAUGH, s
Complainant e
one.
FEB191991 v.
Case No: 90-2RA-58 g
GEORGIA POWER COMPANT, s
s Respondent es a
ss aa s ORDBR GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAT OF EXECUTION OF ORDER GRANTING NOTJUN 10 COMPIL IS5UED JANUARY 22, Ipph The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has moved for a partial stay of r
l esecution of the Order Granting Notion To Compel, issued on l
January 22, 1991, en the ground that disclosure of seventeen documents could seriously compromise the investigation of Respondent for alleged violations of health and safety requistions.
Respondent's stout opposition to this action, including, but not limited to, assertions of Novant's absence of an articulated privilege, prejudice in the preparation of defenses and the questionable tactics and practices of Complainant is spread upon the record.
For a second time, when confronted with an Order To Produce and hia
' tsck literally against the wall, complainant has trotted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for comfod relief and solace. On l
September 12, 1990, two hundred seventy-seven tape recordings, the l
existence of which was hidden until be was deposed by Respondent, were delivered to the Euclear Regulatory Commission. To protect an on-going investigation, the Consission had no choice but to intervene, seek and obtain, on september 13, 1990, a stay of execution of an Order Compelling Production. On January 29, 1991, the date when Complainant faced compliance with another Order to Produce, he delivered approximately twenty boxes of decaments, which were subject to this Order, to Region XI OI Eeadquarters.
It appears that some of the delivered documents had not even been disclosed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, though Complainant well knew of and had contributed to the Commission's investigation, complaimant's actions raise serious questions, not only about his t motives and goals, but also about the quality of the techniques wh l
have been employed. If early on had any semblence of openness and fair play been exhibited, substantial effort, esponse and time, on the part of manP, would have been saved. As Respondent appears to l_
suggest, complaanant has affixed to his case a brand be personally l
! l I
designed, as that as it any, the merits of the cosaission's action must be addressed.
Novant maintains that release of seventeen documents delivered by Complainant to WRC Investigator Robinson could seriously sospromise the investigation of alleged violations of MRC regulations, some of which could or may be criminal in natu.e. It is also appropriately noted that a Memorandum of pnderstanding between the Nuclear Reguistory Commission and the Department of Isabor provides for cooperation so that administrative efficiency and sound enforcement policies will be nazimised. Respondent's absence of delay privilege argument, thusly, is non-persuasive. Additionally,thholding in providing discovery to Respondent is not tantamount to wi discovery. novever, mespondent's right, hereafter, to claim and establish prejudice because of Complainant's actions is fully reserved. I find, therefore, that the Motion For Partial stay Of Execution of the January 22, 1991 Order Compelling Production is well taken and must be granted.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that each and all of the documents numbered 1 through 17 and described in Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto, made a part bereof and incorporated herein as fully and completely-as if rewritten, be and they are hereby esempt from the January 22, 1991 order compelling Production until the Nuclear Negulatory commission notifies the parties and this Tribunal that release of said documents would not compromise the Eclear Regulatory Commission investigation and/or possible referral to the Department of Justice.
Upon rolesse of any or all of said documents to Complainant, an exact copy of every document returned to complainant shall, forthwith, be delivered by Complainant to Respondent.
Aser~
J Y.
BERNARD J GILD 7 wNV ADMINIST IVB EAN JUDGE l
l-
~
l l
l.
l RESPONSE TO HOBBY /MOSBAUGH PETITION. SECTION III.4 t
I.
Petitioners' Allecations o
Petitioners assert that GPC's Executive Vice President, Mr. R. Patrick Mcdonald, knowingly submitted falso testimony in a Department of Labor (" DOL") proceeding commenced under Section-210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
(" ERA") by Messrs.
Gary Yunker and John Fuchko (hereinafter "Yunker/Fuchko").
Additionally, petitioners assert that Mr. Hobby advised GPC's counsel that Mr. Mcdonald's proposed testimony was false prior to the DOL hearing and that, when so informed, GPC's counsel advised Hobby that his testimony would have to be changed.
Petitioners further assert that Mr. Thomas McHenry, a former GPC employee, confirmed Mr. Hobby's assertion that Mr. Mcdonald's testimony was falso based on first hand knowledge.
Finally, petitioners assert that Mr. Mcdonald falsely testified in an attempt to demonstrate that Messrs. Yunker and.Fuchko were not improperly kept out of a GPC position that would participate in the SONOPCO Project.
II.
GPC Resnonse to. Petitioners' Allecations.
The petitioners' allegations are without merit.
The Petition paraphrases Mr. Mcdonald's testimony in Yunker/Fuchko as. stating that the support staffs for Plants Hatch and Vogtle which would participate in the SONOPCO Project were
~
chosen "from the top down."
By characterizing the staffing procedure as "from the top down," Mr. Mcdonald clearly indicated that'aenerally the staffs were selected one tier at a time with the vice presidents being selected initially and the vice presidents then selecting the general managers, who then selected the managers, who then selected the supervisors, etc., and that the selections by the lower and middle level management required the review and approval of the' higher levels of management.
It should be noted that, during his deposition, Mr. Mcdonald did not state that staffing was selected in a lock-step, tiered, l
" top down" manner without exception.
Rather, his first response was to a " general, generic" question concerning.how the personnel were generally selected:
Q.
I maan, in general, do you know what the process was, the evaluation process?
MR. MILLER:
A general generic question?
Q.
Yes.
The generic question was starting at the top of the A.
organization in each one of those, the persons that head the organizations were selected first.
In that And then case they were Tom Beckham, and Ken McCoy.
/
they toaather in manaaement teams, and in their individual organizations selected the next tier of management based upon knowledge, training, experience and demonstrated performance in the area required for the new realigned job.
And that continued down to each layer; they reviewed, and then tihe selection was proposed hy let's say a middle level manager; reviewed by 3 hiaher level manager; And apnroYed hg the Vice-President in charge of that project.
Mcdonald's Yunker/Fuchko Dep. at 43-44 (emphasis supplied).
His second response indicated that the selection process he described was the " normal process":
Q.
Do you know why my clients weren't offered positions in the nuclear, in the Corporate Security Department?
Not in the nuclear, in the Corporate Security Department.
I as talking about --
A.
So you are talking about the Southern Company Services Administrative Department, why they warenft offered jobs?
Q.
Right.
i A.
I know this:
That the normal process which I have described to you for the selection of people.
started always at the top.
You pick the man in charge, and he is the one responsible for selecting the people who works for him.
Because you don't assign people to work for somebody.
That is not the practice anywhere within our business.
The person who works for somebody selects the people he works for.
O.
So, is what you are saying that because there is no corporate Security manager that is why?
A.
I am saying that that is a logical reason why no one has been selected for any jobs within that department.
Mcdonald's Yunker/Fuchko Dep. at 61-61.
At the trial, Mr. Mcdonald did not use the words " generally" or "normally," but described a selection process which is not the lock-step fashion which petitioners-ascribe to his testimony l
without exception.
Yunker/Fuchko Trial Tr. at 428-29 (e.g. "the vice president would get with the managers, and the managers L
Magld narticinate in the selection of the supervisors," (emphasis L
supplied)).
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how, during a complex reorganization of a large enterprise, such a lock-step 2-L
_____4
I i'
approach to personnel selection could be carried out without exception.
With one exception,1 Mr. Hobby has admitted during his DOL proceeding ther he possesses no independent or direct personal knowledge concerning the staffing.
Trial Tr. at 98, 227.
Mr.
l.
Hobby's only source of information, other than his own j
rpaculation, is Mr. Tom McHenry, and Mr. McHenry's limited J
personal knowledge of the staffing process actually supports Mr.
i Mcdonald's characterization.
Mr. Hobby also acknowledged that i
the lock-step fashion might well have applied to Messrs. Yunker l
and Fuchko, and he would not have reason to dispute that characterization.
Trial Tr. at 228.
\\
During the Hobby proceeding, Mr. McHenry testified that the j
l personnel selection process for the new organization was i
conducted in a two-day session by Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. George l
Trial Tr. at 284.
Hairston, Mr. Tom Beckham and Mr. Ken McCoy.
l Mr. McHenry claims that these executives selected personnel j
without any substantial consultation with lower levels of Trial Tr. at 287, 300.
Mr. McHenry concludes, i
management.
i therefore, that personnel were not selected from the " top down".
f 133 McHenry affidavit, Exhibit G to tis Petition.
J However, Mr. McHenry ndmitted at trial that his only i
l personal knowledge of the two-day meeting is derived from a two-hour period during which he advised the executives concerning l
certain candidates.
Trial Tr. at 295.
Mr. McHenry further cknowledged that, other than his two-hour involvement in the l
,weting, he did nat participate in tho actual selection of ydrsonnel.
133 Trial Tr. at 285.
I furthermore, Mr. McHenry's testimony at trial supports First, Mr. McHenry conceded that the Mr, hcDonald's statement.
executives could have consulted with the appropriate lower levels of management concerning personnel selections either prior to or i
i during the seating.
Trial Tr. at'296-97.
Second,'Mr. McHenry stated that, during his two-hour exposure to the meeting, the uxacutives contacted Mr. Len Gueva, the then manager of licensing i
and engineering for Plant Hatch, concerni:n the selection of 1
l personnel for his organization.
Trial Tr. at 287, 297<
i i
l Mr. Hobby alleged that he knew of some people who "wcze I
l l
picked.for particular slots, and those people were picked without Trial Tr. at 227.
But, Mr. Hobby knowing who their boss was."
admitted that he could only point to one specific example of this l
Trial Tr. at 228.
Mr. Hobby's statement, at most, only process.
evidences that there were some necessary exceptions to the " top l
down" approach.
---3_
i 1
e.
s
Mr. Hobby never informed GPC's counsel prior to the Yunker/ruchko hearing that Mr. Mcdonald's explanation of Mr. Hobby alleges that he personnel selection was incorrect.
1989 made such a statement to GPC attorneys during a January 2, j
The meeting convened to prepare for the Yunker/Fuchko hearing.
'GPC attorneys at that meeting were led by Mr. Jay Schaudies and l
j Mr. Don Janney, partners at Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman &
The January 2nd meeting commenced with a general i
Ashmore.
Trial Tr. at 718-session involving about 20-30 GPC employees.
During this general session Mr. Mcdonald briefly 19, 766.
Trial Tr. at 736.
discussed the personnel selection process.
l After the general session, the attorneys divided the employees j
into two groups, with Mr. Mcdonald participating in Mr.
Schaudies' group and Mr. Hobby participating in Mr. Janney's j
l group.
Trial Tr. at 723, 756,.766, 768.
Mr. Schaudies and Mr. Janney have stated that Mr. Hobby did l
not contradict Mr. Mcdonald's description of the selection process during either the general session, the breakout session j
j or after such sessions.
Trial Tr. at 724 758, 768, 769, 771.
Mr. Schaudics and Mr. Janney have both al o stated that they did i
not tell Mr. Hobby that he would have to change his testimony in l
the Yunker/ruchko hearing to coincide with Mr. Mcdonald's i
)
testimony.
Trial Tr. at 724, 772.
Finally, it is clear that Mr. Mcdonald did not improperly l
exclude Yunker and Fuchko from positions as a result of Yunker l
Mr. Hobby a'nd Fuchko raising safety concerns to management.
1 i
testified that he recommended several times that Yunker t Fuchko be terminated a'nd that Mr. Mcdonald had refused to do so.
i Mr. Hobby admitted that Mr. Mcdonald's 298.
Trial Tr. at 222-23, persistent refusal to fire Yunker and Fuchko was inconsistent i
with Yunker's and Fuchko's claim that GPC had retaliated against i
i Trial Tr. at 224.
Dispositive of this issue are the them.
results of an NRC Office of Investigations ("0I") investigation l
of tha'Yunker and Fuchko allegations including the alleged i
j violation of 10 C.F.R. S 50.7 and alleged willful violations of The NRC notified GPC on safeguards reporting requirements.that the OI investigation had revealed no October 16, 1989, substantive evidence of a violation of Section 50.7 and that the allegations of willful violation of safeguards reporting requireronts were unsubstantiated.
233 Exhibit 1.
III. conclusion.
i Based on the foregoing, the Company concludes that the without merit.
petitioners' allegations art; i
- l 4
j
~.
...... ~,
l 4
I p
i l
[..-
h l
UNITED ST ATES
[ a age NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
e,*
REGION il I
101 MARIETTA ST AEET,N W.
3r 1b19hh I
bu I
f ATLANT A, GEORGI A 34323
/
OCT 18 BGB J.e.a.
"~"
Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425 License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81 EA 89-37 i
l Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President -
i Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 1295 Struingham, AL 35201 I
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED WRONGDOING 1
13, 1989, you were requested to provide information regarding On February employment actions relating to two fonner employees who had filed a complaint with U.S. Department of Labor WL) on November 2,1988, alleging discrimina-tion in violation of 10 CFR 50.
Our request for information was based on a letter dated December 2,1988, from DOL to your legal representative which reported the results of D0L's fact-find-ing investigation.
The DOL investigation concluded that those individuals "were protected employees engaging in a protected activity within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprise [d] their This initial finding was appealed by Georgfa Power Company and on compl aint. "
January 3, 1989, a hearing was conducted before a D0L Administrative Law Judge.
c Prior to the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
In addition to the alleged violation of 10 CFR 50.7, our concern in this matter I
J also involved whether or not a possible chilling effect resulted which could have discouraged other licensee and contractor employees from reporting safety In addressing this concern, we have reviewed your March 14, 1989 concerns.
response to our request, as well as other available information, and conclude that this matter did not have such a chilling effect. Further, the results of an NRC investigation concerning thic matter did not reveal any substantive
. evidence to support a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
The investigation also addressed allegations that seciarity violations were concealed and disguised to avoid compliance with 10 CFR 73 reportability requirements. Those allegations were not substantiated.
YU at
Georgia Power Company-2 OCT 161989 i,
Based on the results of our review, we plan no further action. A copy of the investigation synopsis is enclosed for your infonnation.
Sincerely, p
(~
g nel A n s rator
Enclosure:
'0! Synopsis
)
cc.w/ enc 1:
R. P. Mcdonald
]
Executive Vice President-Nuclear Operations-5 Georgia Power Company ic
.P. O. Box 1295
-.Binningham, AL 35201 C. K. McCoy Vice President-Nuclear Georgia Power Company P. O. 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 G. Bockhold, Jr.
General-Manager, Nuclear Operetions Georgia Power Company P. O. 1600 Waynesboro, GA 30830.
J. A. Bailey Manager-Licensing Georgia' Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Bimingham, AL 35201 B. W. Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittsnan, Potts, and Trowbridge
~
2300 N. Street, NW Washington, D. C.'
20037_
J. E. Joiner,' Esquire Troutman, Sanders, Lockennan, and Ashmore
.1400 Candler Building 127 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA.'30303 3
Georgia Power Company 3
00718 at D. Kirkland, III, Counsel Office of the Consumer's Utility Council i-Suite 225, 32 Peachtree Street, NE
- Atlanta, GA 30302 Office of Planning and Budget Room 6158 270 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Office of the County Commissioner Burke County Commission Waynesboro, GA 30830 J. Leonard Ledbetter, Director Environmental Protection Division Department of' Natural Resources 205 Butler Street SE, Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334
(
i Attorney General Law Department 132 Judicial Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Gary A. Yunker i
John M. Fuchko State of Georgia i
i 1
1 1
,J s
4
1 i
j
$YNOPS!$
j This investigation was requested by the Region !!. Office of the Regional Administrator. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission (NRC) to determine whether management and corporate officials of Georgia Power Company (GPC), the licensee. intentionally disregarded regulatory requirements by concealing security and safeguards incident matters and by harassing and intimidating individuals who reported these alleged violations. Specifically,two l
individuals, who were then Security Department employees in the licensee's i
Puclear Operations Division.. alleged that the Itcensee failed to address.
review, and resolve nuclear security and safeguards issues and. furthermore, these alleged violations were concealed and disguised so the Itcensee would not have to comply with 10 CFR 73 reportability requirements. Further, these 1
1 former employees were reportedly harassed intimidated, and threatened and l
were not selected for nuclear security or other desirable employment positions in a newly created organization of the parent company because they reported l
these nuclear safety concerns to the NRC.
The two allegers were subsequently interviewed separately in November 1988 by the Office of Investigations (01), assisted by NRC Re ion !! staff officials.
l to obtain information regarding the alleged reportabi ity violations. Simul-taneous with early 0! activities, the two allegers were also pursuing the d
i alleged harassment and intimidation behavior by licensee officials in a U.S.
i Department of Labor (00L) Wage and Hour Division matter, pursuant to a l
Section 210. Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection) violation. Documentation prepared by the allegers and provided to the NRC and the D0L identified 29 separate incidents of al eged nuclear security and safeguards violations impacting 10 CFR 73 requirements either at the licensee's Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) the Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), or at the corporate office. A concurrent NRC Region !! staff inspection regarding these allegations, in support of the 01 activities, revealed eight security-type violations, but none were deemed to be directly the result of the allegations submitted by the two allegers. Further, none of the nuclear security violations identified during the NRC inspection appeared to inspection officials to have willful, deliberate implications.
4 The allegers, during their interviews, reiterated their concerns that licensee officials had intentionally failed, since May 1988, to address and resolve their nuclear safety allegations and had in fact. deliberately concealed issues of this nature to avoid compliance with regulatory requirements. They further expressed their beliefs that licensee officials harassed and intimi-dated them for reporting nuclear safety concerns and stated that in their opinion, they were not selected for security or other positions in a newly created nuclear operations organization because they had engaged in protected activity.
Investigation activities regarding the licensee's alleged failure to address, resolve and report nuclear security and safeguards violations included the interview of licensee officials, employees, and representatives and the review of voluminous Itcensee audit and quality concerns documents. All interviewees carefully and systematically described licensee practices and activities relating to the review and resolution of allegations reported by the two allegers. Each steadfastly and unequivocally denied that Itcensee management s
Case No. 2-88-00g '
1
I l
4.
4 I
officials had failed to address their concerns and each advised candidly that l
they were not aware of any licensee improprieties or regulatory violations concerning this matter. One interviewee, who claimed intimate professional knowledge of both allegers, reported t?.ese two individuals devoted many of p
their employment hours attempting to portray licensee employees in a negative This interviewee also advised that the two allegers sensationalized manner.
1 issues in which they were involved and personally attacked the character and integrity of those who disagreed with them. Licensee records ar.4 reports relating to nuclear and qua ity concerns strongly support the testimony of interviewees that'the concerns of the two allegert were, reviewed and resolved 1
appropriately by management personnel.
j Inasmuch as the DOL matter involving the two allegers was settled by mutual agreement and dismissed with prejudice prior to a conclusion regarding a 10 CFR 50.7 violation. 01 investigative activities were expanded in an attempt to resolve this issue. A review of D0L documents disclosed that the two l
allegers agreed to a xnetary settlement and to the dismissal of any further
. actions against the licensee regarding this matter. The agreement document, j
signed by both allegers, states these individuals "have no evidence and know of no evidence" that the licensee intentionally discriminated against them.
Interviews, under oath, of numerous former and current licensee officials who i
associated professionally with the allegers, revealed no substantive evidence l
cf any conduct or behavior by licensee employees that impacts or relates to the 10 CFR 50.7 provision. Contacts with the attorneys for the two allegers also failed to produce any evidence that they were harassed ~ intimidated, or i
threatened pursuant to pertinent statutes and regulations.
A review of licensee documentation associated with the reorganization of the licensee's Nuclear Operations Division was conducted. This activity revealed i
that the allegers were retained as licensee employees in non-nuclear positions and that they were not selected for retention in the new organization because l
no comparable positions were available.
In conclusion, the investigation revealed that the licensee apparently I
pursued, with a significant degree of vigor, the nuclear security and safeguards concerns reported by the allegers and addressed and resolved thes according to regulatory requirements.
Further., the investigation failed to li reveal any substantive evidence that the allegers were harassed, intimidated, i
or threatened by licensee officials for reporting nuclear safety concerns or l
engaging in protected activities.
i e
l n
l Case No. 2 88 00g 2
) %. '... 1 Geeta Power Comcaay j
337 P earront Annue
)
j $:
Auris Geo se 3030s -
ENCLOSURE 2 Towea.one.804 526 3648 1
Ma:eg Adsess' i'
40 i%emets Center Paraway P:st O'fice Bos 1295 84-r;eam Atacama 25201 4
j Te'ectone 205 868 55J0 1i:
s the soanern enctre system R. P. W0ensid i
Esec teve Vce President Nuctest Ocoratior.s 4
.ELV-03114 1124
' Docket-Nos. 50-424 j.
50-425 i.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
. Washington, DC 20555 l
ATTN:
Thomas E. Murley, Director j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
Gentlemen:
1 VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT REGARDING PETITI N OF M.
B.
HOBBY AND A.
L.
MOSBAUGH By letter dated August 22, 1991, the NRC requested Georgia Power Company ("GPC" or the " Company") to provide a response to each of the allegations contained in a July 8, 1991 supplement to the September 11, 1990 petition of Messrs. Marvin Nobby and Allen Mosbaugh (the " Additional Supplement").
Enclosed herewith the 4
l Company provides the requested responses to Sections I, II, III and IV of the Additional Supplement (Attachments I, II, III and IV, respectively).
i Mr. R. P. Mcdonald states that he is an Executive Vice President of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath t
on behalf of Georgia Power Company and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts set forth in this letter are true.
GEORGIA POWZR COMPANY 7
~By:
'I __
f
(,M i
R. P. Mcdonald Sworn to and subscribed'before me this 8_ Aday of October, 1991.
4 M% !d
~
Notary)Public Wcon!rsst0N DPetSJANUARY12.1983 4
4 T
e.
+
' e Georgia Power d U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connaission e'
ELV-03114 Page 2 1
xc:
Georcria Power connany Mr. A. W. Dahlberg Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Mr. C. K. McCoy Mr. W. B. Shipman Mr. P. D. Rushton Mr. J. T. Beckham Mr. M. Sheibani NORMS U.
S.
Nuclear Ram 11atory commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator
)
/Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle Document Control Desk e
1 C
I s
e 4
i 9
1
' ^ = ~
(
e 4~
ATTACEMENT II
(
GPC Response to section II of the Additional Sunnlement to the Bobbv/Mosbauch
(
I.
Petitioners' Alleantion.
Petitioners claim that Mr. Mcdonald supplied false testimony in the Department of Labor (" DOL") proceedings concerning Messrs.
Yunker and Fuchko and Mr. Hobby (hereinafter referred to as "Yunker/Fuchko" and "B;thhy," respectively).
II.
GPU Resnonse to Petitioners' Alleantion.
The Petitioners' allegation is without merit.
Furthermore, the disputed points of testimony concern either irrelevant or peripheral points unrelated to the issues of retaliation or intimidation.
j 1.
Mr. Mcdonald Sunolled Truthful Testimony Renardina His i
j Knowledae Of The Method Used To Select Certain SONOPCO O
Proiact Vice Presidents.
4 I
In the Additional Supplement to the Petition, Petitioners state that Mr. Mcdonald gave contradictory testimony in the Fuchko/Yunker and Hobby proceedings regarding the selection of Mr. McCrary as the Southern Company Services, Inc. ("SCSI") Vice President of Administrative Services for the SONOPCO Project.
In asserting this position, Petitioners ignore the differences in i-the questions asked in the two proceedings.
In Fuchko/Yunker, the question asked Mr. Mcdonald was whether he knew who selected Messrs. McCrary and Long for their positions.
Mr. Mcdonald, who was not an officer in SCSI and did not have the authority to make such a decision, said he did not know and th n qualified his answer further by saying that he assumed the President of SCSI was responsible for making the selections.
Clearly, Mr. Mcdonald F
understood the question as referring to the person who had i
ultimate responsibility for making the selections.
l In contrast, in Enkhr the question asked of Mr. Mcdonald was.
}
whether he was " involved in the selection" of Messrs. Long and McCrary.
In response, Mr. Mcdonald discussed the nature of his input into the selection process and, again, emphasized the distinction between ultimate responsibility for " selecting" the l
candidate and being " involved" in the selection process.
The i
following colloquy illustrates that distinction:
I i
Q.
Did you. select Mr. Hairston as Senior Vice President of Nuclear Projects?
i 4
O A.
When I say " select" I use that word to mean I was involved in having them elected by the Board of 4
Directors; (the) Boards of Directors of their respective companies selected and was I involved in having the Board of Directors select George Hairston?
Y 113 Deposition testimony of
..r. Mcdonald, dated May 7, I
- p. 12, attached as Exhibit 1.
1990, at In the Eg.hby proceeding, Mr. Mcdonald also emphasized this distinction:
Q.
And did you select Mr. McCrary?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
Did you play any role in selecting Mr. McCrary?
A.
I had an advisory role in it.
Yes.
Q.
And did you select Mr. Long?
A.
No.
I had an advisory role.
Q.
You had an advisory role in both situations.
A.
Correct.
l(
SAA Hobby Trial Transcript at pp. 626-27, attached as Exhibit 2.
In conclusion, there is no inconsistency in Mr. Mcdonald's testimony.
Petitioners simply fail to note the differences in j
the two questions which were asked of Mr. Mcdonald.
l 2.
Mr. Mcdonald Sunolled Truthful Testimony Renardina The Method Used To Staff The SONOPCO Proiect.
s I
Please see the Companys April 1, 1991 Response, Attachment 4, for a detailed response to Section III.4 of the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition.
Additionally, the company provides the following information.
Petitioners again assert that Mr. Mcdonald testified untruthfully in the Hobby proceeding regarding the method used to staff the SONOPCO Project organization.
Mr.-Mcdonald did state that his understanding was that generally a tiering process was i
used, whereby superiors selected the subordinates who were to j
work under them.
Petitioners now disagree with this 2
l-1 l
i*
1 l.
I i
characterization, and claim that the entire organization was staffed, top-to-botton, during a two-day meeting in Atlanta, 1
j Georgia, attended only by top executives of the SONOPCO Project 4-(Petitioners' clain "[a] thorough investigation will demonstrate that there was effectively R2 tiering process employed when the Vogtle and Hatch SONOPCO project positions were staffed."
l Additional Supplement at p.11.)
The sole source of Petitioners' views of SONOPCO staffing is Mr. McHenry, who admittedly was i
present for only two hours of that two-day meeting.
Monetheless,
)i on the basis of this limited information, the Petitioners boldly j
assert that "Mr. Mcdonald is not telling the truth."
Petitioners 1
reach this conclusion only by distorting the gist of Mr.
Mcdonald's testimony.
First, the selection process was not completed during the il two-day meeting of the SONOPCO Project executives.
The process took several weeks or so and involved follow-up meetings to i
select lower-level employees.
Even then, some positions, such as j
General Manager - Nyclear Support (Hatch), remained unfilled for an extended period 1
i' Second, contrary to their contentions, Mr. Mcdonald did use i
or incorporate the words " general" and " generic" in describing i
his understanding of the staffing of the SONOPCO Project.
He l
never purported to give an unqualified or rigid " top down" characterization of how the organization was staffed.
I
\\
Third, Mr. Mcdonald stated repeatedly in the Fuchko/Yunker and Hobby proceedings that his testimony regarding the selection process was based on what he understood the process was to be and D21 based on his personal involvement in the selection process.
For example, in the H2hhz trial Mr. Mcdonald explicitly testified that the ElAD for selecting the SONOPCO Project staff (the tiering process) was worked out.in advance and that he received
[
reports from his subordinates indicating that that process had l
been utilized.
At the same time, he emphasized that he was "not 1
The Petitioners, themselves, have no personal knowledge l
of the actual selection process which was implemented.
Rather i
they simply suas that the two hour participation of Mr. Meheary
[
in a two day meeting is sufficient information to demonstrate l
"the" process.
Their assumption is wrong.
Not only were some positions not filled in the selection process for an extended i
time, but also the work product of the two day meeting was not i
"the" selection.
Mr. McCoy and Mr. Hairston (both new to the GPC
{
nuclear organization) and Mr. Beckham obtained.information in this meeting relative to the personnel resources available and did utilize organization charts which depicted several " tiers."
4 While this facilitated the " tiered" efforts which followed the
- (
meeting, the meeting was merely one aspect to a significant reorganization, effort.
i 3
)
e
- _ _ =
4 Mr
.bw O
part of the detailed planning and selection process" and, therefore, had no personal knowledge as to how it was accomplished.
Rag Hahby Trial Transcript at pp. 625-26 (Exhibit i
2).
Petitioners chide the Company for not providing affidavits of Messrs. Hairston, Beckham and McCoy regarding the precise method of selectiog which was used, implying that the Company had something to hide.
Given Mr. Mcdonald's actual testimony of his I
understanding and his involvement in.the process, the precise method of selection actually utilized is irrelevant to truthfulness of his statements.
Moreover, the issue in the Eghby DOL proceeding was not whether Mr. Mcdonald or Mr. McHenry was correct about the method used to staff the SONOPCO Project organization.
Rather, Mr. Hobby had alleged that his I
contradiction of Mr. Mcdonald's testimony regarding SONOPCO Project' staffing caused Mr. Mcdonald to retaliate against him.
The evidence was undisputed that Mr. Mcdonald was never made aware of any such discrepancy between his testimony and Mr.
Hobby's.
In fact, Mr. Hobby himself admitted that his contention I
of retaliation by Mr. Mcdonald in that respect was sheer t
" speculation."
333 Hobby Trial Transcript at pp. 231-35, attached as Exhibit 4.
Further, the lawyers who prepared the Puchko/Yunker case for trial, and who allegedly were told by Mr.
Hobby of this contradiction in testimony, testified without j
equivocation that Mr. Hobby never raised such a contention with them.
Mr. Mcdonald also testified that he was never advised of
[
any conflict between his testimony and that of Mr. Hobby in this regard.
The recollections of Messrs. McCoy, Beckham and Hairston as to how the SONOPCO Project was staffed were, therefore, not only irrelevant in the DOL proceeding, but completely unnecessary i-in view of the undisputed testimony that Mr. Mcdonald was never j
aware that his testimony had been contradicted by Mr. Hobby.
i l
h l
2Petitioners claim that Mr. Farley, then Executive Vice President of both SCSI and The Southern Company, supports their view of hn7 the SONOPCO Project was staffed.
Yet Petitioners 7
cite only elected portions of Mr. Farley's deposition in Enkhz l
on this reaject.
Mr. Farley testified at length on this subject
[
at pp. "7>84 of his deposition.
Copies of those pages are sttached as Exhibit 3 for review by the Commission.
Dispositive j
of this issue is that Mr. Farley specifically refused to adopt Mr. McHenry's version as to the method used to select the SONOPCO j
Project personnel.
L 4
EXHlBIT 1 0
9
/
I 1
1 1
i I
f 4
o 4
e e
C W-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E
BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR l
2 3
MARVIN B.
- ROBBY,
)
)
g 4
Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA PONER COMPANY,
) 90-BRA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 ROBERT PATRICK NCDONALD -5/*Ff 90 16 i
17 1
l c.
18 l
19 l
2b l
l 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATE 8 COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTER 8 24 4651 Roswell Road, W.E.,
Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 j'
25 (404) 256-2886 l
i BULL & ASSOCIATES 4
f*;.y
[
o I
[1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Were you involved in the selection C
3 of Mr. Long as Vice President of Technical 4
Services?
5 A
For that position, g
. yes.
6 Q
Were you involved in the selection 7
of Mr. McCrary for Administrative Services?
)
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Did you select Mr. Bairston as 10 Senior Vice President of Nuclear Projects?
11 A
when I say " select" I use that word 12 to mean I was involved in having them elected 13 by the Board of Directors; Boards of Directors 14 of their reapactive companies selected and was 15 I involved in having the Board of Directors 16 select George Emirston?
Yes.
17 Q
Other than'the Board of Directors 18 who else are you aware of who had a role in the
,l l
19 selection of Mr. Long?
i l
20 A
No one that I know of.
i l
21 Q
Just you?
l 1 l l 22 A
Well, I might have discussed it with 23 other people but'I was the one who requested 24 that he be considered for that position by the l
25 Board of Directors.
k BULL & ASSOCIATES
j64 O
EXHIBIT 2 e
e i
1 4
6 3
s 4
e a
J
L que:
a._4a..
.aw e ar oJ4s=1=-
X sa.-
ma
-_A
-.,Ms-.-
4+E_*m--.,--.
ma m
,i 5="4A;-
m-
=*m.a+4 O
Page 542
(
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARVIN B. BOBBY, s
a complainant, a
VOLUME III vs.
s Case No. 90. ERA-30 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, e
a Respondent.
Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Thursday, October 25, 1990 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.
i BEFORE:
)
RON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge I
APPEARANCES:
i MICHAEL D. KOHN,iAttorney, DAVID E. COLAPIN'tc, Attorney, Rohn, Rohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20001; 4
Appearing on behalf of the Ccesplainant.
1 JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
I
~~
g l
=
Page 625 1
starting the process.
The process had been turned over to
(
2 Mr. Hairston and the vice presidents, and they made the 3
detailed reviews and selections.
4 Q.
And do you recall Mr..McHenry coming into the, room I
5 where you were meeting with Mr. Bairston and Mr. Beckham and 6
Mr. McCoy?
7 A.
I don't remember it, but he might have.
8 Q.
And were the meeting participants in the process of 9
filling out organization charts?
10 A.
Not part of the meeting that I was in, no.
11 Q.
But you're aware that the other individuals were 12 going to do that, fill out organization charts?
y 13 A.
The plan for selecting people for the various jobs k
14 was worked out ahead of time with the vice presidents and Mr.
15 Hairston, and that plan was -- we had selected Mr. McCoy as a i
i 16 vice president, and then vicel presidents were to select the l
17 next level under them, and then they would. participate and be i
18 the key person to make selections in the organizations
-19 beneath them, so that each of the managers would select the i
40 people who worked for them.
j i
21 Q.
Isn't it true that people got job offers shortly i
1 afterthatmeetingbek:weenMr.Beckham,Mr.McCoyandMr.
22 i
23 Nairston?
24 A.
I don't'know which meeting you're referring to, i'
25 Q.
The two-day planning session that I talked about i
4
O Page 626 6
1 earlier.
2 A.
I was not part of the detailed planning and 3
selection process.
I don't know.
(
4 Q.
But you did have knowledge of how the selections 5
were going to occur, didn't you?
6 A.
As I stated before,'the process was to take place 7
and we goi: it started by selecting the vice presidents. then 8
they would select the people who reported to thee going down 9
the tier, so that each level would have a hand in selecting 10 the people what was to work for.him directly.
11 Q.
And do you have firsthand knowledge of that, sir?
12 A.
I gave the directions, and I had the reports back 13 that that's what was done.
14 Q.
Who is the vice president of administrative 15 services at SONOPCO?
16 A.
Charles McCreary.
17 Q.
And did you select Mr. McCreary?
I j
la A.
No, I did not.
l 19 Q.
Did you play any role in selecting Mr. McCreary?
20 A.
I had an advisory role in it, yes.
21 Q.
And who is the vice president of technical-
[
22 services?
23 A.
Mr. Long.
4 24 Q.
And did you select Mr. Long?
25 A.
No.
I had an advisory role.
s
. - _ ~
i i s._ -
1 lO
}
{
Page 627 1
Q.
You had'an advisory role.in both situations?
i 2
A.
Correct.
3 Q.
I want to show you again your deposition testimony
/
4 from the Fuchko/Yunker proceedings, and if you could start j
5 actually on the prior page, on Page 12 at the bottom, the 1
j 6
last line, and just read on to the next page.
p 7
A.
How far?
{
8 Q.
Right down to here.
l 1
9 A.
Okay.
Line 23, Page 12, question:
"What persons 1
f 10 selected those people, the people in those positions?"
f 11 "Mr. Miller:
If there is such a person and you 12 know them, you may answer."
13 Answer:
"I don't know."
l 14 Question:
"So you did not select them?"
i 15 Answer:
"No.*
16 Question:
"Who are the vice presidents of those
(
17 services?"
l-l 18 Answer:
" Charles McCreary and Louis Long."
1 1
19
' uestion:
"And Charles McCreary is the vice 4
4 20 president for what?"
-21 Answer:
"McCreary, administrative services."
i j
22 Question:
"Okay.
How about I4uis Long, he's 23 technical services?"
l 24 Answer:
"Yes.
Now let me qualify my statement in j
25 saying that I don't know.
The selection of those people is i
,e+-
n
e-EXHIBIT 3 e
a i
4 l
l 9
5 a
-==#
^
YY?$
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B E F.O R E THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
1 3
MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
) 90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 1
10 l
11 12 i
13 i
i 14 DEPOSITION OF 15-JOSEPH M.
FARLEY - r/9 0
t l
16 l
17 l
18 l
19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AUD DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, M.E.,
Suite F-504 At;;nts, Georgia 30342 25
<io4) 256-2886
' '.1 1 ASSOCIATES
l
-O 57 i
i i.
i 4
I i
1 Q
Did you or Mr. Mcdonald take notes l4
{
2 at that meeting?
l l
jl 3
A No, sir.
i
?
4 Q
Do you know when the SONOPCO 3
5 Project organization was defined, the time I
i l
6 frame that occurred?
i l
7 MR. SCRAUDIES:
I'm going to j
8 ask you'to clarify what you mean by
'1 s
9 the question.
What do you mean i
I 10 SONOPCO Project defined?
/
j 11 MR. KORN:
I will withdraw i
l 12 I
that.
1 i
13 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
Do you know the date i
c e
14 l or time frame in which the salary c
j 15
' administration and compensation levels of the i
16 lSONOPCO organization were provided to you?
l l
17 i
A They evolved over a period of many l
I j.
18 Imonths from the spring of 1988 after the Board i
f l(.
19 of Directors approval until -- well, it's still !
20 going on for that matter.
We have staffed on a l i
l 21 gradual basis some of the functions and we've l
22 added, for example, a procurement, a nuclear 23 procurement group within the,last six months or I-24 so that was we were not certain we would do i
25 to'begin with.
So it has been a changing e
4
+
t R I'L L & ASSOCIATES t
i r
I..g 58 1
1 i
i process but it was more or less in place by tho' 1
fall of
'88.
The initial skeleton organization i
3 was in place and the documents of salary I
4 structure and s c.
forth.
of course, in the case 5
of many of the people'at Georgia Power and 6
Alabama Power employees, there was not a l
1 7
preparation.
There was simply a moving of 4
8 those people..
We did look to see, again as we a
j 9
do with all functions in the southern system, 10
, at the correlation of jobs to be sure we were
-11 not out of line with other companies within the i
12
' system.
But the only jobs that really had to 13 he structured were the new caos such as those i
l 14 in administration or the comptroller or those 15 that were not already existing jobs.
The vice i
16 president of administration didn't exist l
I 17 prev-
.aly.
Mr. Long, on the other hand, 18' i existed and, in fact,- his people are still on l
i l
[
19 lthe same floor of the same building they were i
20 in before this ever got started.
So there was i
21 no great change in that regard; some 22 adjustments but not starting from scratch.
l 23 Q
The heads of the different 24 organizations I assume were selected first?
I t
f 25 A
Well, the different organizations.
l l
i
~. 5 ASSOCIATES I
.g 59 i
1 Mr. Beckham, for example, was already in
.i 2
place.
Mr. Nicks who was General Manager of 3
Batch was already in place.
Mr. Bockhold, the 4
4 General Manager for Vogtle was already in i
~
5 place.
Mr. McCoy was hired during the summer 1
j 6
of 1988 or spring or summer because we felt, 7
(all of us collectively looking at this) that 8-someone, the equivalent of Mr. Beckham or Mr.
i i
9 IWoodard at Alabama was needed for the vogtle 10
. Project.
So he was hired from the outside
]
I j
11 after a lot of deliberation, but most of the 12
! jobs were already in place except for I
13 dministrative.
i,' a l
14 Q
Now, after Mr. Beckham and Mr.
t 4
15 jMcCrary were selected for their position a-i l
16 A
Mr. McCoy.
i t
17 Q
Excuse me -- Mr. McCoy were selected i
l 18
'for their positions, who then chose the next i
I 19 layer of management or how would'that have i
20 went?
21 A
Well, the next layer of management I
22 was basically in place because that was the j
23 existing organization at Plant Vogtle and Plant 24 Eatch which are still there.
Now, there have 25 been changes but there was not a start'ing fron BULL & ASSOCIATES
l r
I 4 i
60 g
l l
1 scratch position.
2 Q
So McCoy and Beckham didn't get to l
3 select who the next tier of management would 4
' be ?
5 A
well, Mr. Beckham was already in l
f 6
place and the people at. Plant Batchweremostlyl j
7 people he had been working with and who were
]
8 already in a line of authority reporting to 9
ham.
So there was essentially no change.
10 There has been little change there.
At vogtle 11 there has been more change because construction I l
12 finished and a lot of people left.
Some 13 perhaps not satisfied with working where there l
4 14 wasn't a construction project; that's not an j
15 unusual event.
There have been some other i
i 16 changes.
Some people have left and some people 17 have been hired mostly from promotions from i
c 18 within and certainly Mr. McCoy and Mr. Rockhold !
2 t
19 have been the appropriate ones in making those I
20
. oscisions.
t I
{
21 Q
My question is:
Was there a formal 22 selection proces's and whether or not they chose i
23 people under them who were already there is not
{
24 my question.
The question is:
Was there a 25
~ formal selection process where the heads of J
l I
L ASSOCIATES
61
'e I
d' 1
organizations were selected first, the next l
4 (
2 tier of the organization was selected by the 3
preceding tier and so on down the line until j
4 ithe entire SONOPCO Project was staffed?
I j
5 A
No, sir.
t' 6
MR. SCEAUDIES:
Can you clarify 7
in your question when you' refer to 8
organizations what organizations 9
you're referring to?
You're using a i
10 generic term.
11 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
The three; the J
12 Technical Services the Nuclear organization and 4
13 the Administrative Services.
Was it a formal g
i 14 tiering process?
j l
15 l
A No, sir, we do not on jobs that are I
16
,' already filled.
Someone may be moved out or j
17
'may quit or may retire but neither we nor l
i 18 ianyone else in the Southern system goes through ;,
i 19 a formal selection process on a job that's j
i 20 already filed.
That's the manager's if 21 dissatisfied, they can take appropriate l
i jt 22 managerial action but there was no, as far as j
4 23 we were concerned, in the SONOPCO 24 organization, the structure at Plant ?ctch, I
!I 25 Plant Farley and Plant Vogtle were in place and 4
BULL & ASSOCIATES P
i I
62 1
as in the case of all organizations there is m j
2
- continuing review but those were moved, so to 3
speak, into the general periphery of the l
4 SONOPCO Project without change.
j 5
Q well, who made the decision on i
3 6
whether, let's say, in the project there was i
f 7
someone you were looking not to promote but you 8
weren't particularly satisfied with the job but i
i l
9
- it waLn't the type of situation where you a
10 wanted to fire them immediately but given the 11 opportunity the next time around in a i
12
- reorganization and what not you would prefer ll 13 that they no longer be with the company.
4 i
14 Obviously you're reorganizing SONOPCO 15 A
Yes.
l t
16 Q
who made the decisions on whether i
17 or not to retain marginal people or other l
I l
18
' people ?
l there was no magic about i
19 A
That is i
j 20 the transition into the sONOPCO 21 organization.
Plants Batch, vogtle and Farley l
22 and the Technical Services group remained as l essentially they were within the periphery l
23 as t
24 of this project.
With that there were some I
25 changes in functions and there continue to be i
I
~~
& ASSOCIATES
63 9
i l'
I I
and will continue to be but there was no formal' il l
2 change or re-evaluation of the Vogtle, Eatch or I i
l
}
3 Farley projects or Mr. Longs project just l
4 because of the SOBOPCO decision.
In the case l
5 of the Technical Services people there were i
1 i
6 some changes to coordinate them a bit better 7
with the project engineering and services in j
l 8
Vogtle, Batch and Farley as against what was t
9 being done in their engineering support 10 previously from the Service Company.
Those 11 were relatively minor and were worked out over
)
12 a period of the last two years but it continues
)
!g 33 to be the responsibility of the Georgia Power i
14 Company and the Alabama Power Company 4
15 management structure to determine if a change t
16 needs to be made in an assistant manager or 17 superintendent at one of those plants.
That 18 decision is made just the way it has always 3
l 19 been through the managerial level and on up the 20 line but there has been no change in that
~1 21 function.
I' 22 Q
Well,' the initial 6taffing?
23 A
The initial staffing was simply a 24 transfer except it wasn't really a transfer.
I 25 It was just an absorption of the Vogtle, match BULL & ASSOCIATES
~ _ _.. _
9%
l ().
I 1
t 1
and Farley projects within the periphery of s
i 2
.this project with the view that some day.they 3
would become SONOPCO employees rather than i
4 l Georgia / Alabama employees or Service Company 4
~I
}
5 employees.
l 6
Q So there ve c r.o formal situation
'i l
7
,where Ar. Mcdonald and you or whoever else 8
(I don't recall the testimony) selected the 9
individuals in charge of three divisions of f
10 SONOPCO and then s r. i d, Gentlemen, choose your i
11 staff?
12 M R.. SCHAUDIES:
.I'm going to 13 object to the characterization of 14 the use of the word " formal".
15 The witness has described what the j
16 process was repeatedly and to 17 characterize it as formal or any 18 other adjective, you're free'to do i
19 however you choose to do so.
But 20 let's not ask the witness to say l
21 what it was or wasn't other than to 22 describe it and then you put the 23 tera.you like on it.
24 l
MR. KCEN:
Okay.
j t
i 25 l
Q (By Mr. Kohn) were the gentlemen in l l
3
. ' ". ; & ASSOCIATES
65 q
1 charge of the Nuclear, Administrative and 2
Technical organizations given carte blanche to
,I I
3
, fill the next layer of management?
4 A
There was no change in their 1
i 5
responsibility from what it had been the day j
6 before or the month bef. ore.
Mr. Woodard, as l
7 Vice President for Plant Farley, Mr. Woodard l
4 8
already had participated and largely decided f
9 who was to be his successor as the general 10 manager at Farley.
There was no change.
Be 1
11 continued the same with the next level below.
12 The same with Mr. Beckham.
In the case of 13 Vogtle, it was somewhat different because there f
14 was no equivalent and Mr. McC8y was hired l
15
- through a formal seiwetion proce'ss.
But Mr.
i 16
!McCoy, like all people who are brought into a I
17 job, was given the best information that he i
18 could be given to him about the Georgia Power l Company employees lf 19 at Plant Vogtle.
Be was 1
20 aware that as construction wound down there 21 were a great many people there and there would
,f
~l 22 have to be a reduction process and a big part 23 of the last 18 months at Vogtle there had been i
L 24 a reduction in forces because of a lot of j
lI 25 contractors and others who were there that are j
1 BULL & ASSOCIATES
.. _. _ _ ~.....
. - ~... _.... -, ~. _.
.. ~... - ~. ~ ~.. _..... -.. ~
i 66
!O l-
{
1 no longer needed but Mr. McCoy was certainly
!8 2
left with the same authority that Mr. Woodard i
=
I 1
l 3
and Mr. Beckham has which is if you're l-4 dissatisfied, let's go on and make some changes
!(
5 j but that's up to you.
That's your i
6
- responsibility.
That's. why you're hired.
- Now, 7
there were good people ah Vogtle and good j
8 people at Eatch and good people at Farley and I
1 9
most of the turnover has been from people who j
10 have left, not from people who have been 11 terminated.
There has been a reduction in 12 forces but that's that has nothing to do
(
}
13 with this process.
There were some vacancies, 4
l 14 of course, that have occurred in the case of i
j 15 the Georgia Power Company or corporate office
- g 16 or in the moving of some functions that were at i
17 the plant to the corporate support headquarters l
18 in Birmingham.
Some people don't.like to move some wou'id not make the move.
Well, that's !
g 19
,and L
20 their prerogative.
But there has been no i
21 dramatic change.
These are still Georgia Power i
22 Company and/or Alabama Company employees'in an 23 existing structure.
24 Q
Who made the decision to fill the
}
25 vacancies?
Was it a tiering process where if i
2 ".1 E ASSOCIATES
l
(-
g 67 t
l l
[g 1
a vacancy was five levels down that manager i
2 said, I want X to be my assistant and what not l
3
,and got the approval on up?
Or was it the g
4 other way around where the decision making was i
5 from the top down?
6 MR. SCRAUDIts:
Which positions l
7 are you asking him about?
i 8
MR. KOHN I'm asking him about 9
the positions that were vacant when 1
10 the SONOPCO Project was formed.
i 11 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
There were vacancies i
12 because some people didn't want to leave their 13 homes.
Who filled those vacancies?
14 MR. SCHAUDIES:
- Well,
'I'm going i
15 to object to the question as asked 16 and answered.
I think the witness g
17 has answered and told you the process 18 and the processes that were used a i
19 number of different times and I don't 20 think you're asking anything new 21 here.
You have had him for almost an 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> and a' half here and, you know, I 23 have withheld my objections and let 24 you go as far as you would like but I f
25 don't think we're covering anything.
I BULL & ASSOCIATES
66 b
i-1-
new at all.
It
]
2 MR. KOEN Well, I think it is j
i 3
new and are you instructing him not I
i 4
to answer?
it I
i; 5
MR..SCBAUDIES:
No, I am not.
i i
i 6
I'm putting my obj. action _on the l
i, 7
record though.
8 A
It's just the way I ricacribed it to
['you.
i
]
9 The e
managers select the people who
- g 10 l report to them just as in any other part of l
11 l Georgia Power Company or Alabama Power Company I
ffor 12 Mr. Mcdonald or Mr. Bairston to try and i
i 13 pick a shift supervisor would not be the way'we 3
I 14 would go at it and it's the plant manager ar.d i
l 15-how Mr. Bockhold or the other plant managers do I t 16 their selection process down below there.
I i
17
- really don't know.
I don't think it's my 4
i I
i 18 l business or Mr. Mcdonald's business really to I,
1 j(
19 know all the ways that they fill jobs down in l
i i
20 their organization but it is a corporate j
{
21 organization that has undergone no structural
's
- l 22 change as far as its basic organization i
23 concerned including the right to hire and move l
L s
24 people around.
l-i il 25 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
The SONOPCO Project j
1
-".; & ASSOCIATES
69 i O 4
1-l 1
had'different titles and different salary 2
structures than the previous organization?
i 3
A Not b a s ic ally.-
There has been some 4
substantial differences between titling between 5
Batch and Vogtle, for example, and we spent two 6
years trying to get a bit of commonality l
7 between those two projects on titles, but l
8 they're not the same and never will be the 1
9 same.
But there has been some adjustment but 10 that's an evolving process and I can tell you
'g 11 from my 20 years of CEO job at Alabama that l
12 that was s' continuing problem throughout our lg 13-company to continue to try to limit the number 14 of variations in job titles and descriptions 15 and levels throughout the company.
There is i
peculiar about the nuclear structure as
{g 16 l,nothing i
17 against the rest of either Georgia or Alabama 18 l in that regard and will continue to undergo i
19 that.
l 20 Q
Let me just state something.
You 1
21 tell me if I am right or wrong.
There was a j
22 pool of employees working for Georgia Power 23 Company, working for Alabama Power and southern 24 company services and when SONOPCO was formed 4
f 25 were the individua.s who were placed in the 4
1 BULL & ASSOCIATES 9
4, w- -,,
-w
e 70 S
i 1
SONOPCO, organization, they were chose from i
I 2
those pools; is that correct?
4 3
A No, sir.
That's not right.
You l
4 make it sound as though there's a sea of i
)
j 5
disorganized humanity out there at each of 6
those plants and that was simply not the case.
i
'7 MR. SCHAUDIES:
You have i
8 answered.his question repeatedly.
1 j'
9 Let's just stop right there.
2 i
10 l
Q (By Mr. Kohn)
There was going to be i
4 11 a reduction in force because_there were too 4
l 12 jmany people to fill the same slot?
l I
13 A
Not tne same slot.
Construction j
i 1
j 14
' and beginning of operation is very different I,
15
,'from nature operation.
It's a gradual l
i t
16 finishing.
It doesn't change from May the 13th f
17 to May 14.
It's a gradual process Lnd as 18 construction is finished and work vinds down, 19 the usual task at a major construction site i
I 20 like that is to get the number of people down l
21 to the number that you need for regular i
22 operation and that always takes a while.
23 Vogtle 2 came on line in May of last year and i
24 ithat process has been underway and is just 25 about complete now.
i 2 ". ; i ASSOCIATES i
4 e
f 71
!O l
l' 1
Q so there were more people in the 3
2 Southern System qualified for some of the jobs 3
offered at SONOPCO then there were positions at l
[
4 SONOPCO?-
H 5
A well, you're getting into j
{
6 qualifications.
That's a somewhat broader 4
t j
7 question.
Many of the people who work in i
l 8
construction are neither happy with nor i
{
9 particularly well. qualified for the more
humdrum type of constant operation after 10 G
j 11 construction is over.
Their qualifications 4
12 vary.
.The vogtle Number 2 organization had to Y
13 assemble, as it did over a period of time, to f
14 staff up four operations and there was some 15 shifting back and forth just like with any l
16 other power plant.
Bow their various 4
l 17 qualifications were is a natter of judgment 4
18 that the line organization at Plant Vogtle has i
4 I
i 19 had to deal with.
That's a normal process but
]
20 there were basically (as of last r y) there d
21 were more people perhaps as many on the full i
e 22 site as 2000; something like that.
A more 2
23 reasonable number down the road is more like j
24.
1200 or 1150 or even 1050 and it's a process of 25 shakedown among other things ta find out how BULL & ASSOCIATES
l 72 s
i i
i 1
many people you need because each plant is 3
it 2
,different and you're not even sure the day you i
i 3
go into commercial operation how many people i
lit's going to take to do certain functions.
4 il 5
SONOPCO had nothing to do with that problem.
6 That was the problem of. finishing 7
construction.
l I
8 MR. KOHN:
Let's go off the 9
record for one second.
10 (Discussion w'as held off the record.)
a.
1 11 (short recess.)
l 12 MR. SCHAUDIES:
Can you give me jg-13 an estimate of how long you're going l
14 to he?
We have agreed to stay in the 15 6:00 or 7:00 range tonight.
t 16 MR. KOHN:
I'd say we're 17 looking at another hour.
C 18 MR. SCHAUDIES:
For Mr.
lI 19 Farley?
4 l
20 MR. KOHN:
- Yeah, 21 MR. SCHAUDIES:
It's your call.
22 Let me clarify this though It's 23 24 1 '
i 25
'f 2".;
& ASSOCIATES
~
73 0
1 About six or seven minutes after 4:00 8
2 o' clock and I think we started up 3
around 2:30.
Mr. Kohn, you told me l
i 4
you anticipated about an hour with E
5 Mr. Farley and for that reason we 6
were certainly willing to put his 7
ahead of Mr. Mcdonald than to run i
j 8
later in the evening with Mr.
9 Mcdonald and your estimate that you 10 just told no was about another hour 11 or so with Mr. Farley and if you want 12 to kind of rado the time that you
, 13 l
have of these two days, Monday *and 14 Tuesday, that's fine but I d'on't 15 expect you to be trying to take the 16 position on Wednesday that we are not 17 entitled to begin Mr. Bobby's 18 deposition at 10:00 o' clock as we 1
19 have agreed.
20 MR. KOEN:
Mr. Bobby's i
i 21 deposition was (at your request) r 22 scheduled for Monday and I advised 23 you that I had a lot of depositions 24 of your witnesses to do and you 25 said t
I.
F BULL & ASSOCIATES
^
g 74 1
1 I
l i
t 1
MR. SCEAUDIES:
For Monday?
8 i
l 2
Excuse me.
What Monday?
I would 5
3 have preferred it today in advance.of i
4 g.
our witnesses certainly.but you l
5 refused that.
I l
6 MR. KOEN:
That's right.
l 7
And you held out, when during the negotiation process of the schedule 8
i i
)
-9 of the depositions Monday, you left ig 10 it open until Friday, I believe it i
l 11 i
was, before I left to come down or 12 the. day we came for the final il 13 resolution you told me our s
i 14 depositions were going --
[
MR. SCBAUDIEE:
Excuse me.
I i
l 15 1
16 don't see any point in arguing and l
17 taking up more time.
I just wanted i
i 18 to know where we stood so there was l
lI 19 no surprises when we got to l
I 20 Wednesday.
i 21 MRs KOHN:
And on the record I l
22 just want t'o state that it was my l
23 understanding and your request that l
1 24 at the convenience of your witnesses d
25 your depositions would go forward 2 ~ ~.1
& ASSOCIATES
] a an. %
4 75 j
' O-i 1
Tuesday and Wednesday.
When it
!t
]
2 became apparent that Mr.~Eobby's l
i j-3 deposition was not going forward j
l 4
l
- (
you then~ changed it to Monday.
We i
{
5 will --
6 MR. SCEAUDIES:
I am not 7
following you but anyway --
8-MR. KOEN:
We will allow Mr.
J 4
9 Robby to go forward when we're done a
l 10 with our depositions.
Absolutely.
l 11 MR. SCEAUDIES:
I don't think l
12 that's responsive but I think my 13 position is clear.
j 14 MR. KOEN:
Back on the record.
[.
15 Q
(my Mr. Kohn)
When we have boon 1
16 discussing staffing, were always talking about 17 the staff being in place.
Well, it's my t
I j
18 understanding that's correct at the plants j
j 19 themselves but everyone who is moving to 20 Alabama, okay, on the corporate side, you just 21 built a new building or are renovating a
-22 building or renovated a building there, 23 correct, and it was now being' staffed?
How 24 were the people who were moving to Alabama i
25 selected?
I BULL & ASSOCIATES 1
j
m u.
4 l0 76 l
1 A
The people who were to~be at the 5
2 three project staffs were in the case of Vogtle l 4
3 and Batch and Farley which are'all a little bit '
1 4
different.
The Farley people were essentially j
5 in place and moved simply across town and there.'
I 6
was very little change.in personnel or faces o r,'
7 structure.
In the case of Batch and Vogtle i
8 there was a somewhat different structure 9
because the previous chief nuclear officer at 10 Georgia had somewhat different views on the l
11 size and location of corporate staff.
I have 12 not been very involved in that because that has i
13
,been Mr. Mcdonald's working with the Georgia i
l 14
' Power and with staff, Euman Resources, Mr.
'i l
1 15 iBaker and so on and with Mr. McCoy, Mr. Beckham I 16 i a'n d Mr. Emirston on the structure of that i
17 jcorporate support. organization which now l
18
! consists (in each case) of about 75 people each I 19 I for each of the three plants.
Some of the
(
20 those are moved in place.
A lot of people did l
21 not want to move.
They were the selections l
l 22 were made within the framework that would have think li 23 pre-existed for Georgia Power Company.
I 24 if Georgia Power Company had remained by l
25 itself in charge of its nuclear programs -- Mr. j 3"_-
& ASSOCIATES
lO 77 i
1 Mcdonald, Mr. Emirston and those two people
'l 2
with Georgia Eusan Resources have worked on the 1
l 3
filling of those jobs and as people didn't want 4
to move, how to fill it was something they~
5 worked out with which I have not much 6
familiarity.
Mr. McCrary, from our point of 7
view, was involved to some extent because he 8
had to oversee moving expenses, administrative 9
matters of that type.
But they were filled in 10 the norm'al process of filling vacancies, and in 11 some cases, at the upper level with searches 12 and with other cases with a promotion of 13 existing people o: moving people a bit around.
14 Q
Who chose to make the promotions and 15 to move them ar.ound?
7 16 A
The appropriate level.
Primarily 17 Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham with input f' rom Mr.
18 Hairston and Mr. Mcdonald and from Euman y
19 Resources.
20 Q
And they essentially had an 21 organization chart in front of them and with
}
22 the available ren' u'rce s they filled in that o
23 organization chart?
24 A
well, the organization chart may 25 have come after the fact because it wa's to get BULL & ASSOCIATES
r 78 j.
)
I I
a working organization along the lines that the
- I 2
two people felt was appropriate.
Mr. McCoy was 1
i
{
3 new and the Southern System had come from I
4 elsewhere and he had some ideas of his own that 5
weren't necessarily the same as Mr. Beckham's l
6 but there was just a normal filling of jobs by l
7 the appropriate supervisor with input from the 8
appropriate staff and appropriate from his own i
9 supervisor.
10 Q
So if there was a vacancy -- I mean 11 I want to just get it very clear.
We've been J
t 12 discussing this for a long. time and I'm still 2
j.
13 not clear exactly where we're at right now.
14 I
A well, let, se say this'--
15 MR. SCHAUDIES:
Let him ask the 4
(
16 question and if it's a question where l
17 f
you already provided the answer you l
18 l
may say you have provided that answer 19 aud you don't need to repeat yourself l
20 time and time again.
But let his c.sk 21 the question.
22 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
If essentially'the L
23 staffing was getting an organization chart and 24 filling in the names that would be individuals 25 you mentioned:
Mr. Bairston, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr.
I 2 :_; & ASSOCIATES s
j e
79 l
. O-1 1
4 1
McCoy and Mr. Beckham and your response was ilI 2
that you didn't know if there was an 3
organization chart created at that time but 4
assuming j
5 A
No, sir.
I didn't say that.
I 6
Q Okay.
But assuming there was some i
j 7
form of organization chart whether it he hand 8
drawn on a blackboard or formally on a piece of l
9 paper was the staffing of the SONOPCO corporate 10 people at 40 Inverness' Place done by the 11 individuals I just mentioned?
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 MR. SCEAUDIES:
Well, excuse i
14 me.
There's a question there?
9 15 You'll have to break it down.
i 16 MR. KDEN:
Sure.
I'll redo i
17 it.
It's a little long-winded and I 1
j 18 apologize.
r 19 MR..SCEAUDIES:
I t,hink it's 20 repeating what we've done also 21 b,ut let's see if we can do something
- r 22 new.
1 23 Q
(By'Mr. Kohn)
Was the staffing of 24 the SONOPCO Project in Alabama simply a matter ji 25 of getting an organization chart and having a 1
BULL & ASSOCIATES
(4 6u l0 1
1 1
certain select group of individuals filling in
- I
]
2 the names of that organization chart?
{
3 A
That's an oversimplistic way in.
4 stating that and I have tried to answer it in 5
about 15 different ways and I really have very l
6 little to add except that what you described is 7
very simplistic and it's not that simple with 8
any organization.
But I don't know what I 9
lcould add to what I've said.
There are three 10 or four different ways I've tried to make it 1
11 clear.
j 12 Q
Well, here is the confusion I have.
l 13
'Okay.
'We have been talking about whether there I
l j
14 was a formal process where the vice president
{
15
! chose the managers who chose their next level 16
' of management down the line.
That's one 17 method.
We'll call that Method A; and the i
l 18
!other method I have been trying to talk about
{
19 is where you get an organization chart and a i
)
20 group of individuals sit together, not the l
21 managers, but a group of individuals sit 22 together and fili in the names on the 23 organization chart and say:
This is how our 24 project will be staffed.
Was the SONOPCO I
i 25
' organization and we'll call that Method 3 4
4 3 *.* 11 & ASSOCIATES
_==.
1 o,
si l3-l.
4 e
l 1
was the SONOPCO organisation staffed using I
2 Method A or using Method 37 1
3 A
I wish the corporate world was as i
4 simple as you try to make it but it is not a 2 1 5
matter of A or B.
I have tried to go over with i
6 you the problems that were inherent.
McCoy's i
i 7
new on the job just to begin with.
Eatch is lI i
8 not new.
Mr. Beckham has been there in place.
9 It's just simply not that difficult -- let me l
10 add further to you as I've tried -- not that il 11 simple.
It's not as though I as the chief j
12 project officer because I am not.
I would not
}
13 know the names of the people or their
.I 14 qualifications without having to read them from 15 a resume.
I did not participate in that.
)
16 Q
I understand that you did not t
i 17 participats in that.
i 18 A
s r> I told you all that I know.
But 19 it is not ta matter of A or B.
There's some j
20 jobs that don't fit within that.
You couldn't 1
21 get four people together and necessarily find 22 the zight person'for a job.
There are many 4
23 problems that come up that make it where it's
.[
24 not that simple.
25 Q
was that process used to fill some i
s BULL & ASSOCIATES i
- -. - =..
l l=
O 82 1
of the positions at SONOPC07 i t 2
MR. SCHAUDIES:
Excuse me.
I 3
object to the form of the question.
}
4 What process are you referring to?
4 41 5
The witness just said that the 6
company did not do either A or 3.
I 7
MR. KORN That's not my i
i 8
understanding of his testimony.
My 9
understanding of his testimony is 10 that 11 MR. SCRAUDIES:
Let's not argue j
12 over what it.is.
k 13 MR. KOHN:
I'm asking him --
j' 14 MR. SCBAUDIES:
Ask him a j
15 question, please.
16 Q
(By Mr. Kohn) were any of the 17 positions at the SONOPCO Project filled by Mr.
18 Emirston, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. McCoy and Mr.
)
19 Beckham sitting in a room by themselves and 20 putting a name associated with a specific title 21 at SONOPC07
)
22 A
I don't know the answer to that.
23 Q
So essentially you don't know how 24 the SONOPCO Project was staffed?
l 25 A
No, sir.
That's not correct.
3CLL & ASSOCIATES
83 1
Q Then other than what you told me I
2 during this deposition do you have any other 3
knowledge as to how the SONOPCO Project was 4
staffed?
11 j
5 MR. SCEAUDIES:
I'm going to j
6 object to the ques. tion.
It's overly
)
7 broad.
There is no way the witness i
8 can answer a question such as 9
that.
If you have questions about
}l 10 particular areas of his knowledge, t
j 11 particular subjects of inquiry, 12 particular positions, feel free to 13 ask the witness but to says Do you l
14 have any other knowledge about the 15 staffing of the organization such as 1ji 16 that is completely inappropriate.
17 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
Were there any other i
18 formal documents prepared as to the guidelines 19 of staffing of the SONOPCO Project?
20 A
No, because the guidelines of the i
21 SONOPCO Project consist of filling the 22 guidelines that' apply to Georgia Power Company, 23 to Alabama Power Company and to southern 4
24 Company services and filling -- and in one part 25 of that organization you go by one set of BULL & ASSOCIATES E
e un u i
l*
\\
'O 84 j(
1 requirements or procedures, if any, and the i
2 other by another.
3 Q
Is there an informal Board of j
4 Directors of SONOPC07 LI i
5 A
We have talked ~ tentatively about 1
j a
j 6
Board and have had meetings of a group 7
consisting of Mr. Addison, Mr. Barris, Mr.
l
\\
t 8
Dahlberg, Mr. Franklin and Mr. Mcdonald and 9
myself and if we were to incorporate today, I i
g-10 think that would probably be the Board but I lt i
11 would not have the proxy so therefore I i
j 12 would I am not the one to make the final i
13 decision but we have discussed that tentatively
)
14 and have so advised others.
j 15 Q
Are there minutes kept of these 16 informal meetings?
17 A
Mo, sir.
c 18 Q
Other than the individuals you have i
19 listed does anyone else attend?
s' 20 A
We have had several in which case 21 there may have been someone else present.
I 4
22 don't recall.
23 Q
Who selected the Board or this
/
24 informal who made the determination of these 25 six individuals including yourself that would 4
e l
BULL & ASSOCIATES
W..
. 4 EXHIBIT 4 l
i j
'l 1
e i
i e
4 e
(7 Page 1 BEFORE TEE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IABOR
.t s
MARVIN B. 50RBY, a
Contplainant, a
REEdINE I vs.
Case No. 90-ERA-30
}
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
's Respondent.
8 3
\\
i Courtroom 901, DeKalb County Courthouse, 1
1 556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia Tuesday, October 23, 1990 j/
The above-entitled matter came on.for hearing, pursuant' to Notice, at 9:00 a.m.
SEFORE:
1 BON. JOEL R. WILLIAMS, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES:
i MICHAEL D. KDEN, Attorney, i
i DAVID K. COIAPINTO, Attorney, i
Kohn, Kohn a colapinto, l
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20001; i
Appearing on behalf of the ccamplainant.
JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM M. WITERON, Attorney, 4
Troutman, Sanders, Lo;::==an & Ashmore, i
1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810p 1
Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
1 1
i 3
...m
l g
l Page 231 Ij experience with the law firm, and I do not believe that I
2 Troutman Sanders would go into a case where there was a L
3 potential for people within Georgia Power '* 7 ey to be 4.
telling two different stories.
I 5
Q.
But going back to ary question, Mr. hiobby, you l
6 would agree with me, wouldn't you, that you're just 7
i speculating when you say the Troutman Sanders l attorney told I
8 Mcdonald of the inconsistencies of testimony that you had l
9 raised?
You don't know that for a fact, do you?
i 10 A.
I was not there when they told him,.no, sir.
11 Q.
I And you don't have any direct evidence of that 12 :
fact, do you?
i 13 A.
No, sir.
14 Q.
It's an assumption on your part, "sn't it?
i 15 A.
Yes, sir.
t 16 '
Q.
And it's speculation, isn't it?
I 17 A.
Yes, sir.
18 ;
Q.
All right.
Thank you.
1 19 As a matter of fact, Mr. Bobby, Mr. Mcdonald never
).
20 said anything to you about this issue of inconsistent 21 testimony, did he?
l 22 A.
He did not.
23 Q.
He never raised that subject with you at any time; j
24 correct?
4 j
25 A.
That is correct.
l i
4 y
j'O i
Page 232 1
Q.
As a matter *of fact, Mr. Nobby, =% over raised 2
that subject with you, did they?
3 A.
Yes.
l j
4 Q.
Someone in Georgia Power C 7 _ay?
i 5
A.
I mentioned the attorney did.
j 6
Q.
No, I mean after this meeting broke up, after it 4
7 was over, did anybody at Georgia Power C7=y ever raise I
8 this subject with you again?
j 9
A.
Not that I recall, no.
l.
i 10 Q.
In fact they didn't, did they?
l i
h-11 A.
No.
The case was over.
4 l
12 Q.
When you had your discussions with Mr. Williams
}
i i
13 regarding the eli*'.ination of your position, Mr. Williams i
2 M
14 never mentioned to you the Fuchko/Tunker proceeding as I
i 15 having anything whatsoever to do with the e14=4== tion of i
l 16 your position, did he?
17 A.
That's correct.
4
~
j 18 Q.
And Mr. Williams wasn't at the January 2nd 19 preparation session in Fuchko/Tunker, was he?
i 20 A.
Did you say he was or wasn't?
4 21 A.
Was not.
4 i
22 A.
Es was not to my knowledge.
i 23 Q.
Let me leave the Fuchko/Tunkar subject, Mr. Bobby, 24 and turn now to the April 27th memorandum that you wrote to 25 Mr. Williams.
i
\\
I k
i
. l
1 i
1D Page 233 j
1 Now, you clain'in that memorandum, do you not, l
j 2,
that Mr. Mcdonald had you excluded framt meetings and
- q l
j 3i relieved of various responsibilities; is that correct?
4 A.
Yes, sir.
4 J
j 5
Q.
For example, you allege that Mr. Mcdonald delayed
)(
6.
the latplementation of the E-mail systent; correct?
i i
7 A.
Again, I know that Mr. Mcdonald had told me to i
8 contact his telecommunications person.
His 9
telecommunications person told me 'The systemi is ready, I
]
10 we're ready to do a test on it."
This was prior to April 4
l 11 27th.
j 12 I talked to Mr. Mcdonald, he said it wasn't ready.
13 Thinking that Mr. Mcdonald had not heazd frasi Mr. Barrons, I 1'
14 told him that Mr. Barrons had told me it wais ready.
1 1
15 Mcdonald said "It's not."
16 Q.
Mr. Bobby, we were all here for your direct l
17 testimony, and I'm really not asklag you to repeat all of 18 that direct testimony.
l 19 I'm trying to ask you a question that you can 4
l
' 20 answer yes or no, and I'm asking simply that in the April j
21 27th memo you claimed that Mr. Mcdonald did a number of 22 things to retaiiate against you, including excluding you 1
23 freet meetings and relieving you of various responsibilities, 24 and you say that Mr. Mcdonald delayed the implementation of 4
25-the E-mail system; isn't that right?
l 1
_ _ _ _ _ _. ~ _. _
J Page 234 i'
1 A.
I believe that to be true.
1 2
Q.
And you also say that Mr. Mcdonald limited your 1
- I i
3 group to em1H ag to only one person at SONOPCO; right?
i 4
A.
Yes, sir.
i
]
5 Q.
That Mr. Mcdonald told the vice presidents of t
j' 6
SONOPCO that they couldn't talk to yon; right?
i l
7 A.
I was told that.
1 8
Q.
Okay.
You were excluded fzum meetings, we talked j
p about that.
1
]
10 Your request to interview Mike Barker was denied; 11 correct?
1 12 A.
Yes, sir.
1 1
13 Q.
And you were taken off the TAC report; correct?
{
14 A.
Yes, sir.
15 Q.
And you claim, do you not, Mr. Bobby, that Mr.
16 Mcdonald did all these things because you had pointed out y
17 the two inconsistencies between your testimony and his i
18 testimony in the Fuchko end Yunker case; correct?
19 A.
We went through this in detail at the deposition 20 unfortunately.
21 When I wrote this aseo I was not trying to point 4
22 j
out any kind of retaliatory activity on the part of Mr.
23 Mcdonald.
Titis was a meno that was requested by my i
24 management, and I wrote this meno to tell my management the l
25 problems we were hairing with SONOPCO.
1 i
i
l, o
i P:ge 235
)i 1
Q.
Well, ary only point here is that it is your 4
l 2
belief that Mr. Mcdonald did these various things because I
3 you pointed out the inconsistency between your testimony and
]
4 his testimony in the Fuchko and Yunker case.
l 5
A.
Yes, sir.
l 6
Q.
And yet you have agreed with me, have you not, Mr.
I 7
Bobby, that you don't have any factual evidence to adyport 8
that claim, do you?
J 9
A.
I do not have any direct knowledge.
i 10 Q.
And that claim is based again on sheer 11 speculation, isn't it, Mr. Bobby?
It's an assumption on i
j 12 your part?
13 A.
Yes.
j 14 Q.
Fine, and it's speculation, and tinat's just like 15 your claim that the attorneys even told Mr. Mcdonald in the l
16 first place that you had raised the issue of the j
17 '
inconsistencies in the testimony.
That likewise is a
18 speculation, isn't it?
l 19 A.
It is speculation.
I'd be surprised if they did 20 not contact Mr. Mcdonald.
l 21 Q.
Mr. Bobby, you also admit, do you not, that Mr.
j 22 Mcdonald was motivated in his actions at least in part 4
(
23 because he did not believe that Georgia Power Company needed l
24 to have anyone with nuclear expertise, is that right, at the
~
25 333 Piedmont building?
l l
b 1
,n
-,n.....-.,
i
- e... pmr\\'
r UNIT 8D STATE 8 i
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$ ION
's id E
WASHINGTON, D, c. seses
- \\,.....
j 4
i j
FAX N0'S 301 - FTS - 492-0259, 492-0260. 492-1137
). I. U..
VERIFICATION NO. 301 - FTS - 492-0262
,l.[ll
^
LOCAL (
) LONG DISTANCE lNE
{
PLEASE CHECK ONE PLEASE TYPE OR USE BOLD FELT TIP PIN. TELECOPIES WILL NOT BE RETURNED.
j To LOCATION L E ff W M o# Ass es.,
ST -07 l
1.
v j
FAX # _9-s9 5-4W9 VERIFICATION a 64t-551o 2.
IIRLM kW,
G GTL.E Mlb4AT* Mt(4~
FAX # % TSYa 4T46 VERIFICATION YoV"T54-990) 3 l
FAX #
VERIFICATION 4
- o FAX #
3 VERIFICATION j
E l
-5.
R FAX #
VERIFICATION 1
-V 6.
i FAX #
,JERIFICATION
- OF PAGES L
AND COVER SHEET OFFICE SYMBOL FROM I NIAS PHONE EXT.
S* 99h btI4
,f7 l
l n/
g
!r 18 2.5 Air Quality of Emeroency Diesel Generator Starting Air System An allegation indicated that VESP had no basis for its conclusions regarding the air quality of the EDG starting air system and misrepresented the air quality in the licensee's written response to the Confirmation of Action Letter (CAL) dated March 23,1990.
1 d
i Discussion The inspection team reviewed the maintenance records and deficiency cards associated with Unit 1 EDG starting air system.
The team noted that the maximum dowpoint reading of 50 degrees Fahrenheit was established when preoperational tests were initially performed on Unit 1 in November 1986.
i Dewpoint measurements were taken after this date, but not on a scheduled During the latter part of 1988, a monthly preventive maintenance 4
l frequency.
(PM) schedule was established to measure the EDG starting air system dowpoint.
The current PM program required checking the dowpoint monthly, cleaning the air 4
In addition. Operating dryer condensing units, and cleaning the fan motors.
Procedure 11882-1, "Outside Area Rounds," required that the EDG starting air i
system air receivers and air dryers.be blown down on a daily basis untif they The inspection team verified that the plant equipment were free of moisture.
operators blew down the air systems on each shift during the performance of i
their rounds, i
A review of the Unit 1 EDG maintenance history records indicated that the l
majority of the dowpoint measurements taken were within specifications. There however, when the dowpoint measurements were above specifica-4 i
were instances, These conditions were primarily attributed to problems with (1) the tions.
dowpoint measuring instruments,((2) system air dryers being out of s l
extended periods of time, and 3) repressurizing the EDG air start system l
following maintenance, The ins >ection taasi reviewed maintenance records associated with an internal i
)
inspect 1on of the EDG sir start system air receiver 5-micron control air system filter inspection and replacement, and the replacement of the dowpoint Following the loss of offsite measuring instrument with an EG&G analyzer.the control air system instrument lines were power event of March 20. 1990, disconnected for maintenance troubleshooting and functional tests of Calcon i
The system engineers associated with this work stated that no sensors.
evidence of internal moisture or corrosion was noted during inspection and calibration of the Calcon sensors or the control air system instrument lines when this equipment was disconnected for insintenance troubleshooting and testing.
Conclusion The inspection team concluded that the licensee did have an adequate basis to assess the quality of the EDG starting air system.
This was based primarily.
Upon the records of the visusi inspection of EDG air start system components for degradation. In addition. the PM program dowpoint readings have shown more consistency since the licensee changed over to an EGAG analyzer. & M;tr
i
/,,1.
$ c Allo p t e n *f cPe u A u F w. c M s. f w K o.'i i'
.')
l Sr*hm*Ys cM N'af'84*"N W'8-19 A 9% ia 4 wsm w. we-sc s w*t.,m n.rc~ ~
! f' tM t "!?" d'd rt h:v: : 5::i: f;r th:'r :t:t =.t: ;; = r-'-- ED: ;fr strt
== rr :-- >-- :t ----" ga;ne, s ep ;;;-- r e me
.; ;f 0; ;tg__
'-C= : t.,
' - M.' :: t te 7.7. ^..... T.0.
t';-' *.
/
s 2.6 Reoortability of Previous system outaces
/
An allefation indicated that VEGP failed to immediate[ notify the NRC a req 1re by 10 CFR 50.72 when VEGP identified that/both trains of the conta nt fan coolers (CFCs) had been previously tioperable at the same time on Unit Discussion The inspection team's review of plant records ndicated that this condition occurred when EDS #1A was declared inoperable hantape(usedwhentheEDGwas beingpainted)was ound on the EDG fuel rack The tape kept the fuel injector piston from moving and injecting fuel 1,nto e EDG.
With EDG #1A inoperable, the equipment associated with the Train A s also inoperable.
In the process of investigating the i tallation of the tape, VEGP identified that this condition existed durin period when the Train B containment fan coolers were also in a degraded cond on for maintenehce.
\\
During the performance of Surveillance rocedure 14623-1 Train B containment fancooler(CFC)1-1501-A7-004 failed start in slow speed. LC0 1-90-560 was initiated at 1:15 a.m. on June 19, /op[erable status on Ju 1990, and maintenance on the CFC was initiated.
The CFC was return'ad to 19,1990, at 2:15
).m.
A roximately 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> \\1a er on June 19, 1990, at 11:59 p.m. (LCO 1-90-562)),
- 1A was detennined o be inoperable because the tape had been installed on the fuel rack.
On ly 17, 1990, VEGP issued LER 90-014 to identify the previously unrecogni ed ' violation of the LCO in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73.
Conclusion l
Based upon the fact that VEGP id not become aware that both trains of CFCs were simultaneously inoperable until after the Train B CFC fan had been returned to service, the immed ate notification requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 were not applicable. The allegation that VEGP failed to immediately notify the NRC upon discovery of the pre iously degraded condition of the CFCs was not confirmed.
2.7 Intimidation of Plant Re iew Board Members I
An allegation indicated that PRB members were allegedly intimidated and pressured by the general manager in a PRB meeting.
The meeting occurred in February 1990, to determine the acceptability of the safety analysis for the installation of the FAYA microfiltration system.
19 that VEGP did not have a basis for their statements concerning EDG air start system. quality was not confirmed. Licensee representation to the hRC of DG air
. quality is subject to further NRC investigation.
2.6 Reportability of Previous System Outages
- An allegation indicated that VEGP failed Eto immediately notify the NRC as required by.10 CFR 50.72 when VEGP identified that both trains of the containment fan coolers (CFCs) had been previously inoperable at the same time on. Unit 1.
Discussion The inspection team's review of plant records indicated that this condition occurred when EDG #1A was declared inoperable when tape (used when the EDG was being painted) was;found on the EDG fuel rack. The tape kept the fuel injector piston from moving and injecting fuel into the EDG. With EDG #1A inoperable, the equipment associated with the Train A was also inoperable. In the process of investigating the installation of the tape, VEGP identified that this condition existed during a period when the Train B containment fan coolers were also in a degraded condition for maintenance.
During the performance of Surveillance Procedure 14623-1, Train B containment fan cooler (CFC).1-1501-A7-003 failed to start in slow speed. LCO 1-90-560 was initiated at 1:15 a.m.
on June 19, 1990, and maintenance on the CFC was initiated.
The CFC was returned to operable status on June 19, 1990, at 2:15 p.m.
Approximately 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> later [on June 19,1990, at 11:59 p.m. (LCO 1-90-562)], EDG #1A was determined to be inoperable because the tape had been installed on the fuel rack.
On July 17, 1990, VEGP issued LER 90-014 to identify the previously unrecognized violation of the LCO in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73.
Conclusion Based upon the fact that V'EGP did not become aware that both trains of CFCs were simultaneously inoperable until af ter the Train B CFC fan had been returned to service, the immediate notification requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 were not applicable. The allegation that VEGP failed to immediately notify the NRC upon discovery of the previously degraded condition of the CFCs was not confirmed.
2.7 Intimidation of Plant Review Board Members An allegation indicated that : PRB members were allegedly intimidated and pressured by the general. manager in a PRB meeting.
The meeting occurred in February 1990, to determine the acceptability of the safety analysis for the installation of the FAVA microfiltration system.
i 20 i
1 Discussion i
As discussed in Section 2.1. of this inspection report, several safety evaluations were performed for the installation of a temporary modification which installed the FAVA microfiltration system. Discussions with PRB members j
' indicated.that during the review of these safety evaluations, various PRB members had expressed reservations on several occasions concerning the acceptability of the installation of the FAVA system.
Despite these reservations, the inspection team's review of the PRB Meeting minutes associated with this temporary modification identified few instances of 1
the PRB members documenting their dissenting opinions.
Specifically, PRB meeting. 90-15 (dated February 8,1990) documented one PRB member's negative vote. and dissenting. opinions regarding the acceptability of exempting the temporary modification from regulatory requirements and the adequacy of the
-system's safety. evaluation. PRB Meeting 90-28 (dated Merch 1, 1990) indicated
. that information and issues regarding the FAVA system's safety analysis were
.-presented to the PRB and that the general manager solicited written comments and questions from other members for resolution.
The only other example was in PRB meeting 90-32 (dated March 6,1990) which identified a dissenting opinion related to the acceptability of voting on the FAVA system installation j
when. the PRB member who raised the initial questions and concerns on the operation of the FAVA system was not present.
Discussions with the PRB members indicated that during the various PRB meetings 1
concerning the installation of the FAVA system, the PRB members felt intimidated and pressured by the presence of the general manager at the PRB meeting.
The sworn testimony confirmed that on one occasion an alternate voting member felt intimidated and feared retribution or retaliation because the general manager was present at the meeting and the PRB member knew the general manager wanted to have the temporary modification approved. However, the testimony also indicated that the PRB member did not alter his vote and felt comfortable with how he had voted.
In addition, the PRB member was not awar
~' any occasions on which he or any other PRB member had succumbed to int? - _ation or feared retribution.
The inspection team verified that the general manager was informed following
-this meeting that several PRB members viewed his presence as intimidating. As a - rc: ult,. on March 1,1990, the general manager met with all PRB members to reiterate the member's duties and responsibilities. He specifically told the nembers that his presence at PRB meetings must not influence them and that 11ternates should be selected who would feel comfortable with this responsi-
'tility. He~ also addressed the difference between professional differences of opinion and safety. or quality concerns, and their respective methods for
(
' resolution.
mee
O 21 Conclusion The inspection team concluded that in one case a PRB voting member felt intimidated and feared retribution because the general manager was present at the PRB meeting. However, this member stated that he did not change his vote in response to this pressure and the general manager met with the PRB to allay fears.
Based on the testimony, the inspection team concluded that retribution did not occur.
Nevertheless, this confirmed event and the absence of dissenting opinions in the PRB meeting minutes indicate that there was a potential for an adverse affect on open discussions at the meeting.
The licensee needs to ensure that PRB members freely and openly express their technical opinions and safety concerns.
2.8 Personnel Accountability 3
As a result of several comments and questions by the licenfed operators to the inspection team, the team reviewed the method used to rate the performance of the shift superintendents (SS) and unit shift supervisors.
Discussion The operations manager stated that the SS reported directly to the operations j
manager and that he personally prepared their performance appraisals.
The i
inspection identified that the SS reported to the Unit Superintendent (US), and that the US personally prepared the performance appraisals of the SS.
The personnel accountability
- system, first used in
- 1989, was a
pay-for performance methodology. Annual pay increases and a percentage of the Operations Department bonus were dependent on their ratings in accountability categories.
Each accountability category was subdivided into performance categories.
Most of the performance categories were based upon group performance. Once these are eliminated, any differential in pay will result from eight performance categories. Implementation of the plan in 1989 could result in up to an $8,000-a year difference in bonus pay to a SS.
The performance categories and their relative weights are:
Personnel safety 4.1%
Regulatory compliance 10.2%
ESFAS actuation 12.2%
Reactor trips 10.2%
MWO performance 4.1%
Special projects 8.2%
Personnel development 30.6%
Training 20.4%
Therefore, 51 percent will be associated with personnel development and training and 32.6 percent will be associated with the number of LERs, and violations [i.e., regulatory compliance (10.2 percent), ESFAS actuation (12.2 percent) and reactor trips (10.2 percent)].
YH Y ntu [
J
_(printcd ct 10/31/91 17:20).
To:
TAIN.J (1048:WES4029)
Cc:
GREENWOOD.G.L (1038 WTX3496)
]
Cc:
HACKMANN.E.K (1038:WTX3581)
J Cc:
COLVIN.E.R (1048:WES2759)
Cc:
MAGEE.R.D (WST2160)
.From:
WALKER.L.I (WST6274) Delivered:
Thu 31-Oct-91 16:38 EST Sys 1049 (41) 4 Subjcct:.RHR PUMP OPERATION WITH DRY SUCTION 4
lMailId:
IPM-1049-911031-149770371 4
- MED-AEE-6409***
j CC:
File Room STC-701, 106:
GAE/205/2'
}Th3 Vogtle RHR pump was inadvertently operated with an' apparent suction ivortex condition that resulted in loss of the pump discharge pressure.
The
- loac of-discharge pressure indicates that the pump suction experienced either dry or 2 phase conditions. _ operation of_a centrifugal pump under these 4
conditions is not advisable due to the potential for mechanical seal damage, baaring damage and wear ring contacting.
} Thoro is:no way to determine how long a pump can run with these adverse
!cuction conditions before pump damage will occur.
Westinghouse is aware of
- csvarol events of this type that have occurred-with RHR pumps that are very
- cimilar in design to the Vogtle RHR pumps.
At least one of these events jroculted-in pump seizure, while other events caused no damage to the pumps, iTho isvel of pump damage incurred, if any, is likely dependent on the length
!of op3 rating-time and the amount of water that is available at the pump i cuction.
lWhnapumpisoperatedundertheadvarseauctionconditions,thelevelof
- pump damage and the continued pump operability is best determined by
.inrpaction and testing of the pump.* It is advisable to rotate the pump shaft i
- by hand and to vent the pump casing prior to operation.
During the lcubacquent operation, visual observation for leakage can confirm that the ipump coal has not been damaged.
The pump should be operated while monitoring
!tha vibration levels, pump developed head and motor amperage.
If these j
- paramste.ra meet the Vogtle surveillance test requirements, it will confirm
'that the pump suffered no internal damage that will affect the pump hydraulic
'parformance or operability.
lWastinghouse recommends that observation and testing as described be used to
!accces_the operability of the Vogtle RHR pump.
l
- R2gards,-
!J., G. Dudiak, Engineer,
! Auxiliary Equipment Engineering l
--e-.--
\\
a.
I of 2 L
I ~
Georg. Power mA ia
< ; Meeting Attendance Record piie Mwting Purpose Alf L,7 Date Conoucted By Nov. l. I 99I P Skinner PHcWE Name iprmt)
Title (Print)
'y"f',','
DeDartment/ Company w
- ERBERT BEAeHER SR.. ENS,R.
3741 "TeJ,,%,,,, d / GPC i MHDi 6 H C l> A M,'
oo.s he 6 vPa.
h.o *? %.LJ-as/dpe_
fG*a) h-b V f
Yt YoG Y
I i
$1lllllv V, %,:4 S+, Gw, nu 40cJs ku,,Wf g
t i
JT (,assv 0
OsH Sust onS 353s ra(@L sAE/ua,ma i C. L.c pi r ri a r es j sureav.ron___s_[e__n_____
32z 8 een 4
j I
6 f.
M64eE Cyae. &.
329I Ogenn' ens l6fcs i GA_/./f/cCar4,,
I W r G h a.
3239 rsm/s*
? /,i3 h - m as$$
by Zh 99 h *49' u.SMg(
AAAnarsE de d}s:.17O d449 a;r/ M u b.
. b/2.s uMA kub4 G < w. m.= 4 L i/ S Afr< C
{'
kG> TIA<EfV
$ES 1*rv3/
4/e2W U S<dA'c.
I C.
L/AAICr SR. A<..fs sysks 67 <
crs NA'c /stA'8 v
h Y1 awne-/m G. s. anard s.n 1;,,,.a w,,,,,,
i ' bidh$4kesc>iko Ms< L/ A/wia at/3 cPr 1XSalutA44bil-N h!r#r!b#sks M 0IPM av. A br
- h. m wau sw Se,0l>enll.Dochuh 11612 7" b &
sr/
5400 7^b' huisd e
.laF kiM as -.
Assi.(mt. M -su m d 3/40 Md / GPc.
hs /4o ol'>
NRc (m'.
- r2 3*4s i
'S N1'# / M M c-
~
Y Y.hE $1w' Ofs 4201 6W W b arb,u
$,L-]7GA>an
$Ic-E de >>>mm 3%n Dl's /GPC.
$3 8cou A>
b
&L:m., vesaw not:i?. 59o 7-GfC s
M Hot-,cis rus< L Vw ssso ts / c -
Jo#
p
.w 4
)
~. _ _
~.
\\.
z o r 2.
) Meeting Attendance Record GeorgiaPower A e
w
..no ur..
, o.
j AIT Extr Oste conoucted Sy Nov. l, l R9 I R SKonnu-PNewE M
o...nm.nucomo.n, n.m.. non r.u.<enan l
T /b</<
d.3 +
MM Sec.6y/f,k lAfDw$leadu t%b4W Qs.
.84os Ahdllaw RA i xMEr<Ne 04 Nst L
/Nsf N 4w i
a,- a-o> Ja m- -
~
,o,,
...-,x, o u..
i WL6 w omw @
meu,eunsow
- 32n, cumazu suer /Gec
! tMVPJ L, w..
3nV A-r>wt 1
l $l.lh6$
E 4 E S09h.
Ai74-W/AM7'/GPC l 3 A. Idsh Sem h"E 8-821-wt.
5 N c.
i l
4 1
I I.
J 4p $o-k'/9'
// AM t
'p 4,r 4
l
& GA O lW h
(M N s
u
'I -
als anJ s+
L w 3 ng
+ 1N~-
N &
J:s,4.
\\
C$
w La es 4 apac a.cn-u k
w & Mad a
n+
a yJw Ja &c-pe+t. f L2a4~+&
-u
)
a N b-jd4 4 $ *~s'C 4-O%AA 2
M W-i j.
2 s
of ab A
j n
n7w 24-ue aLsd pu+-
4~
.J n
ea s dao L et nl s-n~rLArs/L un t y s..= uw J.
J-f k O,s W hY W N
A'
/
l
.i.
.d J
A k
- S ocw.
M 4~
ms wy 4 /s y 4 LJ A al(-p/ y ~y).a %.
3ln 4
we
% ya J un
~
v-pm s.
en
~?
a w
e,a
" ' b.o ' TE) s.ld si~ h M
Gn'42.v
~
p k se wl d 9 nkss.
y
, n 9 y
a t ni..
s a a - w.
~ $p & f*/
kW DY C/
he J
a w Es,e 4
toene. rs.n (4) &Gu ) (8 )
- r d<u p h s 4 /,/l,a; Jaf y&y sqQfl J L gr.2/
e 6
a k
At. O/
f lu-Y<f m e./.a $
y "
Wwef z s
kJ.
1
-h<
=
.m
,g
T e
b ['
W b
M A
hyaq n~ & ga LJ 44=
wdu uM:
k rud&GLA M
- u. C,
N' MA
[ 4.-
A-M-
1 h M
V w%bA 4E m a s.
m At d
46-Sc gh L
7 tl+
L
& p..... +
LJ J w
Q um
&%s pu+
\\
n w
hdf % k. %d 5.sdnxsftw fl n
AJ.owa f s
\\
~
puda s.
4iy _% gbA &
\\
.o
.e gha j p A
~
o.
a.
-sp a
@ d&
Aed s
p pv/
A go.gc Sc u vu 4
t &
~ aAA 6
- de s12 Qs
% +8 fL p
mm am
~s 4 & a7~o.7 w g
.. ~
&-Aa9&
D d-ys A p Ac.,y pc Ncc,
<lA uww e vs d *& L f
&yno
a m
.-.A e
)
9 W
/\\
Q
'n '
&,4 y+ o u w u-d % p&
.r.g-m 4.a (A'eus so d'y&
e a um=
L u &
~
h
~
" PM f V;d pf -
a p,
/.
MM a Ana.
delAs (4.A.,_
46-g
- m. % A 8A A
f~ k.q k-qwk.a -
l a.
. v&&
%,cu i &f ^%. AM "N
j- ~y w
J
, g ej~ ~- u xa p4 sa, v h J~_
,l w J n a, A ce ~
a u n.
&c G
yq M h. w a4ees.af(4 k
e
)
e 5
'^
Q pw w 2 ww-Mu) n; Q 4r n
- 6) -rwa 5 w i4 tL AgA A
+%
^
ep x
Ja 4
+%~s G
~
&f b.
avg 4 g w%A._
%>a;u s,~ m L
ny u
ecs 2,,-
a
~s ML.
at.~e Ms
~
sp lL -
s p k u:
~
o a ms w-c A
pS
%w 3
J A wu n&&
\\
L
,a Modus yn v~
A'M y #da saarn pe o
1L L
.cy&kd d L
B y.u s ~ia/ L 4
J~
w -J L
w a n-- s Sd bk-s.ac.,w L w J
& 'y Ww%
g
%. h ~ d f
-fdd n t
&n D'
AM'wT-m-A d
l
.O EXIT COMMENTS t
The operations procedures provide adequate guidance that should level be lost or becomes sunrect, to suspend draining operations and to resolve
- problems, if necessary, raise level to restore level.
However, no directions were provided directing operations-to verify a correct tygon tube lineup existed, and to ensure an adequate vent path was established.
i f
Neither shif t questioned about sightglass/tygon tube RCS level indication being turned over to operations.
Operation's ownership should have been questioned after the sight glass was noted as being empty and fully isolated -
with a tygon tube watch stationed t
No walkdown or procedure used prior to use of sightglass for commencing the-RCS draining evolution.
1 Procedure 13005-1, REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM DRAINING requires installation of sightglass installation per i
54840-1.
Which does not include guidance concerning establishment or verification of an adequate vent path t
Numerous references were made (in training materials) concerning the importance of preventing excessive flow rates, preventing kinked hoses, collapsed lines due to vacuum, improper valve lineups, air bubbles, debris in e
lines, improper routing, temperature of the fluids, surge line uncovery, and improper system flow rates which can l
cause inaccurate level indication.
Evgphough the. operators received extensive training i
concerning the importance of RCS level indication and all i
^
the conditions that can affect-RCS level indications, operator interviews revealed that the operators did not related the RCS 1cvel indication ~ problems encountered to a possible pressurizer collapsed vent duct.
e'
~
- +-
a 4
al.
/
BQ M
Gaar' wA&. son
&._avn med a _
s2 o&
A
.mdvA
+
' ' A&Am_
i M
w w 489
^
M em -
4.qs
\\
~
~ ~ h~/
- Ask, f! m-p>r 7' e a.
.A v l s t?_ M
,,g
~...
63 6 U
/0 hk 7 I
l