ML20129H856
Text
~. -..
[3
^
gNgTE3 STATES
/g neep g l
NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION
. REGION 11 i7 j j
o 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
W l
U ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i
JUL e 3 Inst NOTE T0:
Files-j-
_FROM:
James L. Milhoan, Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
VISIT AND PHONE CALL WITH GEORGE HAIRSTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (GPC)
~
l On ' June 19,.1991, at approximately 4:15 p.m.,. I was visited by George Hairston.
Present during the meeting was Luis Reyes, Director.-
Division of-Reactor Projects.
I
'Mr. Hairston indicated that he was in;the area and this was a courtesy j
i call.
He provided information concerning the current operating status "of Vogtle, Hatch, and Farley.
Mr. Hairston provided the following comments with respect to recent enforcement lett3rs on Vogtle.
j U
1.-
A request for extension of. the time to respond to the _ Vogtle letters of " Notice of Enforcement Conference and Demand for l
Information" had been sent to J..Sniezek and GPC planned to pursue its request for_ extension of time.
i
.2.
The letters were in error with respect to which operators were i
involved in the event.
Mr. Hairston did not provide any details I
nor was.this further discussed.
p 3.
He was not here to discuss the letters but this would be done at the. Enforcement Conference.
Mr. Hairston also voiced the opinion that relations with Regional personnel was good and had not been affected by the recent issuance of
.the Vogtle enforcement letters or the Alabama Power Company's request for hearing on Farley EQ matterr. Mr. Reyes and I agreed with the need to maintain a professional relationship.
Following the visit, Mr. Hairston called me at approximately 5:15 p.m.
to discuss a possible meeting.concerning manning of the TSC and EOF at
/
Farley.
No other matters were discussed. Mr. Reyes was present in my
)
office during the call but could not hear Mr. Hairston's part of the conversation-because I did not hav w call on the speakerphone.
b>
L.7L mes
. Milhoan Lee:
S. Ebneter
~'
I r
/
96'11040080 960827' PDR. FotA.
i hs KOHN95-211 PDR l
W 9
JUL 0s 1gy NOTE T0:
Files FROM:
James L. Milhoan, Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
VISIT AND PHONE CALL WITH GEORGE HAIRSTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (GPC)
On June 19, 1991, at approximately 4:15 p.m., I was visited by George Hairston.
Present during the meeting was Luis Reyes, Director, Division of Reactor Projects.
Mr. Hairston indicated that he was in the area and this was a courtesy call.
He provided information concerning the current operating status of Vogtle, Hatch, and Farley.
Mr. Hairston provided the following coments with respect to recent enforcement letters on Vogtle.
1.
A request for extension of the time to respond to the Vogtle letters of " Notice of Enforcement Conference and Demand for Information" had been sent to J. Sniezek and GPC planned to pursue its request for extension of time.
2.
The letters were in error with respect to which operators were involved in the event.
Mr. Hairston did not provide any details nor was this further discus. sed.
3.
He was not here to discuss the letters but this would be done at the Enforcement Conference.
Mr. Hairston also voiced the opinion that relations with Regional personnel was good and had not been affected by the recent issuance of the Vogtle enforcement letters or the Alabama Power Company's request for hearing on Farley EQ matters. Mr. Reyes and I agreed with the need to maintain a professional relationship.
Following the visit, Mr. Hairston called me at approximately 5:15 p.m.
to discuss a possible meeting concerning manning of the TSC and E0F at Farley.
No other matters were discussed. Mr. Reyes was present in my office during the call but could not hear Mr. Hairston's part of the conversation because I did not have the call on the speakerphone.
/5 James L. Milhoan RII RP cc:
S. Ebneter
/,
eyes
/ 3 /91
P 4cFomu 103C THIS NUM E/1 MUST APPEAA ON ALL PACKAGES 7
ANo PAPERS RELATING TO THIS ORDER
'/'
PURCHASE ORDER l
POINT OF ISSUE: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AT-91-357 07/12/91
/
ATLANTA GA REQUISITION NUMBER INSTRUCTIONS See t>.Hano address lower left corner of this form II-91-834
] PURCHASE ORDER PER YOUR Ouote Or DELlYERY ORDER UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER cousicNE E A%a og sr N A riom,sn., io, RE po %
I e a R NUusER192-20-65-25-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AT-91-39, sER App..opf rioNiALhotMEN I einC20081 31X0200.19 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 2900
, o,3,,,,,,
Brcvn Reporting, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 30323 Suita 750 I,,,c,o,,,,,,c,,,,,,,,cc,,,,,c, Io,,,
o,,,,,,,,o, 1100 Spring Street, NW Destination Atirntc, GA 30309
> DE LIVERY DATE DISCOUNT PAYMENT TERM $
9 g 9/M'f6ff NET 30 PLE ASE FU32 SH THE FoLLoWING oN THE TERMS SPECIFIED oN BOTH SIDES or TES SHEET AND oN THE ATT CH'ED IF ANY ExCEPT THAT ANY SUCH TERMS WHICH MIGHT B
- NCo:2SISTENT WifM THE TERMS oF ANY EXISTING FEDERAL CoNTRACf oR AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THIS ORDER 45 PLACED WILL Noi APPLY
~5} NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF di USC 252(CI(36 ITEM No ARflCLES OR SERvlCES oVANilfT UNif UNtf PRsCE AMOUNT 1
Funds provided for Court Reporter / Stenographic Service on or about 9/16/91 to support an Enforcement Conference with Georgia Power Company for the U. S. Nulcear Regulatory, Region II Office.
2 An employee of the NRC will contact your office with the time and location of service. If there are any questions related to the service please contact Bruno Uryc at 404-331-4192.
l 2,000.00 Total Estimated Cost-----------------------------
s e
PEmSON TO CONTACT REGARDING THIS ORDER TEL E PHONE AREA CODE l NUMWER TOTAL
. Tonne t t e H. Mnnlev 404 331-5631.
$2.000.00
~
SUBMiflNvotCE lN DUPLICATE IN ACCoRDANCE WITH INSTRUCTeoNS ON REVERSE SIG N A RE A D TYPED NAM CO NUZ8El MUST BE INCLUDED 6 AND FORWARD To U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ric rrl.T. Mnla 101 Marietta St NW Suite 2900 CoNrR4CTiNG ornCER -
RAtlut,a.R GA 30323 3.,._ o i _ w.,
12ad (Nnu 8% 4%- 09309/
V M AC FOmae.'33C THis NUMBE A MUST APPE AR ON ALL PACKAGES l
q 8
4 f.NQ PAPERS RELATING TO THIS ORDE R PURCHASE ORDER
[i.h"j".yy" C',9;, f.. ;
POINT OF ISSUEgifggCLgR REGULATORY COMMISSION REOyiSiteON NuueER I l-91 -S M psicucTIONS See tulleng address legg[pjlt corner of this form
~
PUACHASE ORDER PER YOUR OF DELIVERY ORDER UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER n z: r J a MLotufNr psnr,1 l aisne+ Joe s >- a-1 PaSPgkF544fprftisiihr3rf C.c.nais e 1 o a A T 89 Fe)9ust a 101 La rte t t e s t.. 1.m..,suste 450i.,
nesonozeporting. Inc.
Atlaat.a. 64 30323 Seit3 750 1100 Spring Street, at govERv F O ni**I"***"
l PLACE Or iNSPECriON ANo ACCE Prance joATE
&c.14 to CA 30309 geg vg g afE gegtravuENTTERus PLE ASE FU"NISM THE FOLLOwiNG ON THE f f RMS SPECIFiED ON SOf M SiOES OF THIS SMEET AND ON THE ATTACMED #F ANv EXCE Pt twAf ANY SUCH TERM 5 WMcCM WIGHT BE 8NCONSiSfENT wifM IME TERMS OF ANv ExtSfiNG FEDERAL CONTRACf OR AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH fMIS ORDE R 'S PL ACED WILL NOT APPt v NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF 41 USC 252iCl131 ffE M NO ARfiCLES OR SERVICE S OUAN fif f UNif UNif PR'CE AMOUNT 1
Frado proviesd for Court Reporter / Stenographic la r vie 4 en st aheet 9/16/.11 to esppert sa E.,f arceaeut Conterance with Georgis Power Campaar for the L'.
- 3. Itsinear Rossistory,1ssiec 11 Of fice.
2 An employee of the NRC will contact y.,sr effice with the time ard location af servics. If there are any questiwas related to the service pienee contact B rut.c Ur tc a t 404-331-4192.
G4 doc-A W
Q N 09 0C)C)ll(60C w
l l
focal Est taat ed coat-----
i,000.03 e---
PE4 SON TO CONTACT REGAR0iNG fMIS ORDER ggggpwong
'84 otta k. Mcaley
^"WDE l3'3'feg9431 TOTAL 4 '. 300.or)
'I s..:..._,
0.e Es:a. ReynNG AND TRANSMITTAL SUP.r.._"...: '
/.
r-w0.
Os.
..>,: ini ne.e.
e..,
e or, a m ang Agenere st) 3
~
%voo -
I:
..s.
...... s.
.s. Y n n : Allerak; 9o-A-oosv s.o.4 S4fe. f,AK=
4.
S.
PNe Note and astum f.
Assen Per Con.e,eenen Per Clee,ance Agenwei e.e.e as,,,
,o e
. ae.,se.g.,
See Mo ForTourInso,menon Y
Chouie.e o
no,,,
os
,,e t
. nemanns k hA C^-'YY 1i rp4 MAL
,h8,tetiafLWgH<J20s g'
~
t-n9.sqto ueo pocx fo ar.,44.
gn.hlsse d&d GA AQ 6
a?
%.sc.
~ 4eJo,( d a me e,4 4ls fn is piebs4. i.eJ it ?Di?.n.wa. ;f '
~
sa4 Er44 apr aa4:44. oy a. vu Ase/2.le4).thkJ i+
7' u,,r. Q wor.J4 b.f.4. db +LPpsN.4.A es rewi
- o
- k-QTsAn.Hers. b OnsaLas*.s pe w
casse<4 &1 <-
05k
. oo nor use== e.n. as a necono.e e en me.e oteerences, and elmiter estions Floom No.-80sfD.
FROM: (Nemo. o,g. symt ol. AgencyAmt) 4 j
[
Pftone No.
OPTl006&L FORIA 41(Sev.7 78) 981-1.t e u.s. spoi tooe i.e4,ressee -
FPtIRleth 19111.308,
T E.
I w
ff "S. V-
/c-/m iflb OiSi L ou I 10 h3 ycy 'nV P060c CCLCA W KO H N. KO H N & CO LAPINTO, P.C.
ATTo R N EY S AT L AW 5 91 FLOstiDa avg Nug. Hw waSMcNGTON. DC 2000 t 4202i2344663 Falt 120214 6 2 *d i e &
- C aa E 6 D. D ah *..
c ".~..' ~c~o.' a ~ -
2l *.,. ". "
Ju1y 8, 1991
~ ' ' *
- .I5T.Ul O.
Hon. Ivan Selin, Chairman Mr. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Amendments to Petitioners Marvin Hobby's and Allen Mosbaugh's September 11, 1990 Petition; and Response to Georgia Power Company's April 1, 1991 Submission by its Executive Vice President, Mr. R.P. Mcdonald
Dear Sirs:
On September 11, 1990, Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L.
Mosbaugh filed a petition with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter " Petition").
The Petition in requested that the Commission inve.stigat.e allegations set out the Petition and determine, inter alia, whether the Georgia Power Company ("GPC" or " licensee") possessed the requisite " character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness and commitment to safety to operate a nuclear facility."
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206, the Petition was referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat' ion.
On February 28,~1991, Mr. Steven Varga of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation sent to Mr. W.
G.
Hairston, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations, a Request for Additional Information Regarding the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petition.
A copy of this letter is appended hereto as Attachment 1.
This letter h 3 h [ 8 N -~ W 97
.e _
f s
requested GPC to submit additional information concerning the Petition "under oath or affirmation" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") by April 1, 1991.
On April 1, 1991, GPC's Executive Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Mr.
R.P. Mcdonald, responded under oath.I' Unrefutable evidence demonstrates that Mcdonald's Response contains numerous verifiable material false statements.2/
Petitioners have already provided such evidence to the NRC's I'
Office of Investigations ("NRC-OI").
Inasmuch as clear and convincing evidence exists that Mr.
Mcdonald made material false statements to the NRC, the question that should be asked is why.
Petitioners hereby allege that the material false statements contained in the Response were intended to cover-up intentional wrongdoing on the part of GPC and to oth'erwise obstruct the NRC's on-going investigations into the l'
The response is entitled "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Regarding Petition of M.B.
Hobby and A.L.
Mosbaugh" and is hereinafter referred to as the " Response" or " Mcdonald's Response" 2/
Petitioners adopt the definition of a Material False Statement set out in 10 C.F.R.
Ch.1, Supplement VII, A(1),
Fn.
15
("a statement that is false by omission or commission and is relevant to the regulatory process.")
l' NRC-OI staff investigators have notified Petitioners' counsel that the public release of the evidence petitioners.have already supplied to NRC-OI would seriously compromise NRC-OI's on-going investigation into the allegation that GPC's Executive Vice President's April 1,
1991
Response
contains material false statements. Having cooperated with the NRC in its investigation of GPC and respecting this request, Petitioners, at this time, will not make public the factual basis substantiating this allegation.
Nonetheless, Petitioners respectfully request that this information be considered by the Commission when deciding whether to issue a show cause order.
2 h
e.
a 1990 allegations set forth in Petitioners' September 11, Petition.F Given the seriousness of this allegation and the potential
~
safety consequences stemming therefrom, Petitioners believe that j
the public and the NRC are entitled to a speedy investigation and i
resolution of the allegation that Mr. Mcdonald submitted material 4
false statements when responding to Petitioner's September 11,
\\
1990 Petition and that these false statements were made with the I
intent to derail on-going NRC investigations (i.e., obstruct justice).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 and 52.202, Fatitioners hereby request that the Commission issue an order to Show Cause why GPC's licenses should not be modified, suspended or revoked for
. obstructing on-going NRC-OI investigations and for intentionally submitting material false statements to the NRC made under oath by GPC's Executive Vice President.
Petitioners believe that immediate action is warranted based on the evidence and documentation already provided to the NRC by petitioners.
4 In support of Petitioners' allegations, the following information is provided:
9 Intentional obstruction of an NRC investigation by a licensee is a most serious allegation and reverts back to the initial
~
question raised by Petitioners in the September 11, 1990 Petition (i.e. whether GPC's current management has the requisite character, competence and fundamental trustworthiness needed to operate a nuclear facility in a' safe manner).
For this reason, Petitioners request that the allegations contained herein be consolidated with the allegations set out 'in Petitioners' September 11, 1990 Petition.
3
I.
GPC's Executive Vice President Bas submitted
~
material falso statements to the NRC when responding to allegations raised by Petitioners in their September 11, 1990 Petition.
1.
GPC's Senior Vice President, George Hairston, knew that LER 90-006 contained a material false statement at the time of its submission and GPC's Executive Vice President submitted a material false statement intending to cover-un Mr. Hairston's culoability (This allegation is not contained in petitioners earlier submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September 11, 1990 Petition)
Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response defends Mr. Hairston's actions in sending Licensee Event Report ("LER")90-006 to the NRC by emphatically stating Mr. Hairston did not participate in an April 19, 1990 conference call when the diesel generator start information was discussed prior to the submission of LER 90-006.
According to Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response: "The wording (of the LER) was revised by corporate and site representatives in a telephone conference call late on April 19, 1990...Mr. Hairston was not a particicant in that call."
Petitioners have recently 4
- submitted information to the NRC's Office of Investigation ("NRC-OI") demonstrating that Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response with respect to Mr. Hairston's participation in this April 19, 1990 conference call is absolutely false.
The truth is that Mr. Hairston did participate in the April i
19,'1990 conference call and he did have first hand knowledge of
- the' fact that the information regarding the start data of the diesel generators was false and inaccurate at the time LER 90-006 4
a was submitted to the NRC under Mr. Hairston's signature.
Mr.
Mcdonald's sworn statement to the contrary constitutes a material false statement made with the intended purpose of derailing on-going NRC-OI investigations into the submission of false information in LER 90-006.
This fact demonstrates that GPC's management does not possess the requisite character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness or commitment to safety to operate a nuclear facility.
2.
Mr. Mcdonald sought to cover-up GPC's culpability by blaming Mr. Mosbaugh for higher management's intentional act of submitting false information to the NRC in LER 90-006 The material false statements contained in Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response not only sought to defeat the allegations raised by Petitioners, but were crafted in an insidious manner such as to cast blame on Petitioner Mosbaugh to cover-up the improper conduct of his superiors with respect to the submission of a material false statement to the NRC when GPC submitted LER.90-006.
In particular, Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response asserts that:
Not until April 30. 1990 does it acoear that Mr. Mosbauch articulated for the benefit of his manacement that the diesel encine start count data contained in the LER was inaccurate...To the extent Mr. Mosbaugh has concerns about the substance of (LER 006)...he had the occortunity fsince Aoril
- 18. 19901 to succest corrective lanauace but, anoarentiv failed to do so.
If, as he now alleges, Mr. Mosbaugh truly had concerns related to the original LER, his inaction on April 18 (at the PRB), in the April 19 telephone conference, and his April 30 assignment from his General Manager to 5
a l
provide revised LER language, provided him numerous opportunities to direct revision or to revise the alleged ' false statements.'
This he failed to do.
Response Section iib at pp. 4-5 (emphasis added).
These assertions are patently false and libelous and GPC knew or should have known they were false and libelous when made.
The verifiable truth is that on April 19th,1990, Mr. Mosbaugh and his staff advised GPC's management that the diesel engine start count data contained in LER 90-006, if submitted, would constitute a material false statement.1/
In conclusion, Mr. Mcdonald's sworn Response makes a series of false and misleading statements calculated to shift blame for the submission of false information in LER 90-006 from GPC to Petitioner Allen Mosbaugh, and to otherwise cover-up GPC's actual culpability with respect to the submission of a material false statement made in LER 90-006.
Mr. Mcdonald's failure to state in the Response that SONOPCO's highest levels of management were put on notice prior to the submission of LER 90-006 that the start count data contained in said LER was false, and that they received said notice by Mr. Mosbaugh, demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Mcdonald intentionally submitted false and misleading information under oath to the Commission with the intent of covering up GPC's intentional wrongdoing and derailing 1/
Not only did Mr. Mosbaugh identify the fact that a material false statement was about to be submitted in LER 90-006, he and his staff further advised GPC management that the Confirmation of Action Letter (" COAL") sent out under Mr. Hairston's signature on April 9, 1990 also contained a material false statement.
6
i the NRC's investigation into the inclusion of the false diesel start data contained in LER 90-006 -- an investigation initiated by Mr. Mosbaugh.
II.
Mr. Mcdonald provided falso testimony under oath during section 210 proceedings to cover-up intimidation and retaliation against whistleblowers 1.
Mr. Mcdonald Made False Statement = Concerning His Knowledge of the Method Used to S le.ct the SONOPCO Project Vice President of Technical Services and Vice President of Administrative Services
[This information is not contained in petitioners earlier submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September.
11, 1990 Petition) 4 On December 23, 1988, Mr. Mcdonald, under oath, gave a 4
deposition in the Fuchko/Yunker Section 210 case and asserted f
therein that he was not involved in the selection of Mr. Long as the SONOPCO project Vice President of Technical Services or Mr.
McCrary as the SONOPCO project Vice President of Administrative Services.
In particular, Mr. Mcdonald testified as follows:
Q:
Who selected the administrative and technical services vice-presidents?)
MR. MILLER (Counsel to GPC):
Who, as in a person, or who as in a company?
Q:
What person selected those people, the people in those positions?
MR. MILLER:
If there is such a person and you know them you may answer.
4 A:
I don't know.
Q: '
So you did not select them.
A:
H2 4
7
Q:
Who'are the vice-presidents for those services?
A:
Charles McCrary and Lewis Long.
Q:
And Charles McCrary is Vice-President for what?
A:
McCrary?
Administrative Services.
Q:
Okay.
How about Lewis Long, is Technical Services?
A:
Yes.
Now let me cualify my statement, in savina that I don't know.
The selection of
.those people is under the authority and responsibility of the Southern Company Services.
.I imacine in the normal course of events that selection is officially made by the President of Southern Company Services.
Thera may have been other arranaements that I am not aware of. but I think that that was
.t.23dA -
December 23, 1988 Deposition of R.P Mcdonald at pp. 12-13 (Emphasis added).A/
Yet, during the course of the Hobby proceedings, Mr.
Mcdonald readily admitted that he was well aware of the arrangements used to select Messrs. Long and McCrary as SONOPCO project vice presidents, and, that it wa's he, Mr. Mcdonald, who personally made the request to the Southern company Services Board of Directors that Messrs. Long and Mr. McCrary be named as SONOPCO project vice presidents:
Q:
[By M. Kohn)
Were you involved in the selection of Mr.
Long as Vice President of Technical Services?
I' Mr. Mcdonald's false assertion that he did not know who or how the SONOPCO project vice presidents were selected goes hand-in-hand with his false testimony regarding the staffing of.the
- SONOPCO project. 133,Section II.2, suora. The fact remains that, just as Mr. Mcdonald falsely asserted that he played no role filling vacancies at the SONOPCO project, so too did he submit false testimony about his knowledge about how the Vice Presidents of. Technical Services and Administrative Services were selected.
8 4
h-
)
l A:
For that position, yms.
Q:
Were you involved in the selection of Mr. McCrary for Administrative Services?
A:
Y.ga.
- o 4
Q:
Other than the Board _of__ Directors who else are vou aware of who had a role in the selection of Mr. Lona?
A:
No one that I know of.
Q:
Just you?
A:
Well, I might have discussed it with other people but I was the one who reauested that he be considered for that oosition by the Board of Directors.
Q:
And as to Mr. McCrary --
A:
Same.
Mcdonald May 7, 1990 Deposition at pp. 7.2-13.
As such, Mr. Mcdonald's testimony during the Yunker/Fuchko proceeding to the effect that he, Mr. Mcdonald, did not select Messrs. McCrary and Long as SONOPCO vice presidents and that he could only " imagine" that they were selected by the Southern Company Services President,F stands in absolute contradiction to Mr. Mcdonald's testimony during the Hobby proceeding that it U
'What is absolutely astounding is that Mr.
Farley testified that he was not sure whether Southern Services company President, Mr. Franklin, played any role in the selection'of the Technical Services Vice President, as the following excerpt demonstrates:
Q:
Who selected Mr. Long?
A:
I would say it was a joint determination by all the people concerned...myself, Mr.
(Grady)
- Baker, Mr.
' Mcdonald and I'm not sure whether Mr.
Franklin was formally involved from the Services Company or not...
5/7/90 Farley Deposition at p. 43-44.
9 a- - -
-a--
w
l was he, Mr. Mcdonald, who personally recommended to the Southern l
Company Services Board of Directors that Messrs. Long and McCrary i
be named as SONOPCO project Vice Presidents.
l 2.
Mr. Mcdonald Made False Statements about the 1
method used to staff the SONOPCO oroiect i
When responding to Section III.4 of Petitioner's September l '
11,-1990 Petition, Mr. Mcdonald claims that his testimony 4
j regarding the selection of the SONOPCO project staff was l
" general" and " generic" in nature even though he failed to use words such as " generally" or "normally" when testifying.8' Mr.
n Any attempt, at.this i~ ate date, for Mr. Mcdonald to A/
claim that he was only describing a " general" process or a-q
" generic" process and not "the process" rings hollow in face of the actual testimony provided by Mr. Mcdonald on October 25, 1990 --
i -
after Georgia Power had received the September 11, 1990 Petition containing the allegation that Mr. Mcdonald had committed perjury with respect to his Yunker/Fuchko testimony regarding the method used to select the SONOPCO project staff. 'Indeed, even after the Petition was filed, Mr. Mcdonald testified as follows:
Q: '
I want to turn your attention to the way' people were selected for the SONOPCO
- project, and it's my understanding that the way that process was done is that the vice cresidents were selected, and then they selected the ceneral manaaers who then selected the manaaers who
. then Dicked their sunervisor some sort of tierina effect.
is that correct?
j A:
That's correct...The plan for selecting people for the various jobs was worked out ahead of time with the vice presidents and Mr. Hairston, and that plan was - - we had selected Mr. McCoy as vice president, and then vice presidents were to select the next level under them, and then they would participate and be the key person to make selections in the organizations beneath them, so that p
each of the manaaers would s31ect the caonle who worked
'for them.
Q:'
Isn't it true that people got job offers shortly after that meeting between Mr. Beckham, Mr. McCoy and Mr.
4 Hairston?
(cuntinued...)
i 10 b
o 1
e c
---.-r-
- - ~ <
~.e-v
-c-,
---4r
Mcdonald goes on to assert that he did not intend to assert that a " lock-step" method was used to fill every SONOPCO staff I
position because there was "one exception" to this normal tiering i
4 process..Mr. Mcdonald is not telling the truth.
A thorough investigation will demonstrate that the tiering process Mr.
Mcdonald testified to on four separate occasions did not I
occur.F A thorough investigation will demonstrate that there was effectively De tiering process employed when the Vogtle and Hatch SONOPCO project positions were staffed.
In this regard, i
Mr. hcHenry testified during the Hobby hearing that he had first i
hand knowledge of the selection process used to staff the SONOPCO project'and that he was given. lists of names of individuals who
- were selected not in a tiering " top down" manner, but during a i
l two day session attended by four SONOPCO project vice Presidents, 1
Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston, Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham.
Mr.
l_
McHenry's testimony is clear with respect to the fact that these i.
l F(... continued)
A:
I don't know which meeting you're referring to.
j Q:
The two-day planning session that I talked about earlier.
A:
I was not part of the detailed planning and selection process.
I don't know.
Hobby hearing Tr.-at p. 620.
5 F
The first time Mr. Mcdonald testified that the SONOPCO project' staff was selected in a tiering process occurred. when he was deposed prior to the Yunker/Fuchko hearing; the second time occurred during the Yunker/Puchko hearing itself; the third time occurred at a deposition prior to the Enkhy hearing; and the fourth time. occurred during the Hobby hearing itself. Transcript excerpts of this testimony can be found as Attachment 2.
=11 1
T r.m w
. - - -.. ~. -.-
four vice presidents met privately and filled in skeleton 7
~
' organizational charts with the names of indiv dua s t ah t they i
l decided would staff the Vogtle and Hatch portions of the SONOPCO project; and that Mr. McHenry was then personally handed lists of the individuals selected by the vice presidents with instruction I
to present them with job offers (which he did), and that-this was t
the process.used to selected essentially the entire SONOPCO staff i
[.
for the Vogtle and Hatch projects.
Hobby Hearing Transcript at pp. 284-287 (a copy of the relevant Hobby hearing transcript pages are appended hereto as Attachment 3).
Also see McHenry
~
' Affidavit ("...the decisions as to staffing were made by Messrs.
\\
I George Hairston, Tom Beckhan and Ken McCoy.
They met for two j
i' days at the 270 Peachtree Street Building, took an organization and filled in names from the top of the organization to
- chart, 1
the bottom...").3' t
F M/
GPC attempts to make much of the fact that Mr. McHenry was only present for two hours of a two day meeting and that he
' admitted that one other manager, Mr. Len Gucwa, also attended the meeting.
But, the only evidence GPC relies upon to refute the allegation is what could have happened.
GPC never admits to what l
did happen during the two day meeting of the vice presidents.
Indeed, the strongest evidence GPC offers is that "Mr.
McHenry conceded that the executives could have consulted with the
' appropriate' levels of management concerning personnel evaluation i
l either prior to or during - that meeting."
Response at p.
3, 5
III.4. -The fact remains that Mr. McHenry watched what did happen during a meeting of these four vice presidents; he observed first iL hand their filling in skeleton organizational charts and determining who would be of fered what jobs.
What "could" have In happened when he was out of the room is speculative at best.
-the face of clear and convincing evidence of what did happen, GPC
?
-was in a position to submit the best evidence to resolve this sworn statements from Messrs. Hairston, McCoy and
. allegation Beckham to refute Petitioners' ' assertion that the staffing was performed as Mr. Mcdonald testified -- but GPC failed to do so. It (continued...)
12 t
9 w -
Moreover, Mr. McHenry's testimony was corroborated by 1990 testimony given by Mr. Farley after the September 11, Petition was filed:
Mr. Farley, I'm going to show you a document if Q:
- Now, you can identify it, please.
I'm going to ask you to turn to Page 60 of that document.
Could you identify the document?
1 The document is labeled Deposition of Joseph M.
- Farley, A:
the proceeding is the Civil Action File Number 90-ERA-30, Marvin Hobby, Complainant, Versus Georgia Power Company, Respondent.
Q:
Okay.
Now, would you read the last question of Page 60 and the answer?
A:
That's the question at Line 21?
Q:
Yes.
A:
Question:
"My question is, was there a formal selection process, and whether or not they choose people under them who were already there is not my question.
The cuestion is was there a formal selection process where the heads of oraanizations were selected first, the next tier of the oraanization was selected by the orecedina tier, and so on down the line until the entire SONOPCO oroiect was staffed."
Answer:
"No, sir."
Q:
And is that a true statement?
MR. JOINER:
Your Honor, Mr. Kohn hasn't asked Mr.
Farley about this subject matter, and I don't know why he's asking him to read deposition testimony about that i
subject when he hasn't asked about it in the hearing.
d 3/(... continued) is more than appropriate for the NRC to draw an adverse inference from GPC's failure to provide these statements.
233 J. Wigmore, Evidence, 5285 (3d ed.1940), Rockinaham Machine-Lunex v. NLRB, 665 F. 2d 303, 305 (8th Cir. 1981) (if a party has relevant information within his or her control, but fails to produce it, an adverse inference that the evidence that could have been produced is unfavorable to the party who fails to produce itt.
13
JUDGE WILLIAMS:
I don't know either.
Let's see.
Q:
Is that a true statement?
A:
As I understood the cuestions you asked. ves. sir, that's a true statement.
Hobby Hearing Tr. p. 584-585.U/
j In sum, Mr. Farley's testimony demonstrates that the SONOPCO project staff stationed in the SONOPCO Birmingham, Alabama offices were ngt selected by a tiering process, but were selected by Messrs. McCoy, Hairston, Beckham and Mcdonald.E/
j It is clear by the facts on the record -- the sworn i
testimony of Messrs. Hobby, McHenry,.and Farley -- that Mr.
Mcdonald gave false testimony when he testified.that a rigid
" tiering process" was used to staff the SONOPCO project.
M/
During the hearing, GPC had an opportunity to re-question Mr. Farley and clarify the record, but failed to do so.
- Moreover, GPC failed to call Messrs. Hairston, Beckham and McCoy to refute Mr. McHenry's unequivocal testimony regarding what had occurred during the two day meeting where the staff of the SONOPOO project was chosen.
E/
Mr.
Farley's deposition testimony specifically notes that, with respect to the SONOPCO staff stationed in Birmingham, Alabama, a tiering process was not employed, as the following excerpt makes clear:
Q:
When we have been discussing staffing, we're. always talking about the staff being in place.
Well, it's my understanding that's correct at the plants themselves but everyone who is moving to Alabama, okay, on the corporate side, you... renovated a building there, correct, eid it was now being staf fed?
How were the people who were moving to Alabama selected...Who chose to make the promotions and to move them around?
A:
The appropriate level.
Primarily Mr. McCoy and Mr.
Beckham with input from Mr. Hairston and Mr. Mcdonald and from Human Resources.
Farley Depo. at pp. 75-77.
14
The key aspect behind Mr. Mcdonald's false testimony is that GPC sought to defend itself against the Section 210 complaints j
filed by Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko by asserting that they could
)
not have been discriminated against because the managers who i
would be. tasked with staffing the positions Messrs. Yunker and j
Fuchko could fill had yet to be selected, and, given the tiering i
process, Messrs. Yunker and Fuchko could not have been offered jobs.until after these managers were selected.LU III. GPC misled the Commission about the chain of command from-the Vogtle l
Project's Plant Manager to its CEO.
GPC's response'to the September'll, 1990 Petition allegation that Mr. Mcdonald misled the Commission during the Plant Vogtle licensing hearings held before the Commission boils down to two assertions:
First, that Mr. Mcdonald's response to a concern raised by then Commissioner Carr during the Plant Vogtle licensing hearings that the chain of command over Plant Vogtle had too many layers between the plant manager and the CEO, was l
- not significant enough matter to have had a material impact on i'
the licensing of Plant Vogtle.
Petitioners respectfully submit that, whether misleading the Commission about the chain of EU Whether'or not Messrs. Yunker or Fuchko were, in fact, discriminated against is irrelevant to the present matter. Rather, petitioners are concerned by the fact that GPC's' Executive Vice manufactura evidenca.in President was willing to --- and did order. fto help defeat a section 210- whistleblower case.
At a minimum, Mr.
Mcdonald's conduct would constitute a Severity Level I violation.
33310 C.F.R. Part 2,' App. C, Supplement VII Severity Categories A.4 (defining a level I violation as including " Action 50.7 or by senior corporate. management in violation of 10 C.F.R.
similar' regulations against an employee").
15 e
i.s 4
4 command ~could have had a material impact on the licensing of the 4
plant is not an answer' Georgia Power can provide and, with respect, is not a matter for Georgia Power to decide.
Second, GPC states that'the staff of the NRC already knew about.the GPC. organization.
While that may be so',
it is the and not staff, who must decide and' vote on whether Commissioners, 1
4 1
to license a plant.
'A commissioner. expressed "a management.
4 concern" over the reporting structure between the Plant Manager at'Vogtle and the.CEO."
Mr. Mcdonald provided incorrect
'information to the' Commission by. leaving out one entire layer of management.
Even so, Commissioner Carr responded,
'I still have t
l my-concern, I guess."
Egg Transcript of March lo, 1989 hearing at pp. 33-35.
The fact remains that during the licensing of Plant Vogtle, l
Commissioner Carr expressed a management concern that the Plant Manager' was a "long way" from CEO, and when questioned about the chain of command by Commissioner Carr, Mr. Mcdonald provided
' incorrect'information in response to the Commissioner's question.
'Even if Mr. Mcdonald's incorrect response was inadvertent, the fact remains that the plant General Manager; Vogtle project Vice President, and GPC's President /CEO stood mute and did not correct the 'falseLinformation Mr. Mcdonald volunteered to the Commission.
'The fact ~ remains that GPC choose not to correct the record until After the. commission voted to license Plant.Vogtle.
Mr. Mcdonald's attempt'to~ shift-blame to Mr. Hobby by atsserting that he should have raised this matter to GPC 16
'a-e,T 4me-e-
w
. -. _ _ ~... _
i management is a decoy.
By the time-he learned of the fact that Mr. Mcdonald-had misled.the Commission about the reporting chain at Plant Vogtle, he was already pursuing kn even greater concern regarding who was the CEO responsible for plant Vogtle and the other,GPC nuclear power plants.
Specifically, Mr. Hobby had made internal allegations to his management that Mr. Mcdonald was no longer reporting to GPC's President, but had begun reporting directly to a Southern Company Services executive, Mr. Joe Indeed, Mr. Hobby raised this concern in a confidential Farley.
memo dated April 27, 1989 -- which was co-signed by a then GPC
~
Senior Vice President.
Moreover, by the time Mr. Hobby learned that Mr.
from Oglethorpe Power Corporation ("OPC or Oglethorpe")
he Mcdonald had misrepresented the chain of command to the NRC, was already being subjected to retaliation by GPC's and SONOPCO's top executives, as is evident in the contents of a July 8, 1989 lett'er Mr. Hobby wrote to Admiral E.P. Wilkinson.
This letter discusses the events occurring in'the April /May 1989 time frame i
as follows:
About this time, I was going up to George Head's office on the 24th floor and the Executive Vice President for
-External Affairs saw me and we started talking.
His name is Dwight Evans and he is pretty close to l
Dahlberg.
Dwight said that if he were me he would start looking for another job in the company because he had heard that Mcdonald and Farley were out to get me fired or out of the job I was in.
I reported to George _and he said we had to talk to Dahlberg He tried but failed.
and Grady before they met with Farley.
He then suggested that I might go to Grady and tell him what we had heard and-what our concerns were and try to get a meeting with Grady and Dahlberg.
I went to see Grady and askedifor a meeting.
He said it was not necessary.
-I said something like Grady, the rumor.is going around that 17 r
Mcdonald and Farley are after my job.
Won't you at least He jumped up from his chair, threw talk to George and me?
his arms up high, laughed and continuing to laugh said,
" Hobby, what can I say?' And he then walked out of the room."
1989 letter to Adm. Wilkinson is A copy of the June 8, appended hereto as Attachment 4 (Mr. Baker did not deny the incident when testifying at the Hobby hearing ( he rather testified that "It May have happened." Hobby Hearing Tr. at p.
689).H/
M/
Another example of the atmosphere of harassment and intimidation (and Mr. Farley's role in managing GPC's nuclear operations) is further underscored by events surrounding Mr.
Hobby's role in negotiating a resolution to Oglethorpe Power's (the negotiations were objections to the incorporation of SONOPCO aimed at getting Oglethorpe to withdraw an intervention petition it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to block the j
These negotiati.ons had been ongoing incorporation of SONOPCO).
In for years, but, by August of 1989 had come to a standstill.
getting permission from the Senior Executive Management of Georgia Power Company to restart the negotiations, Mr. Hobby was told by secret from Mr.
Baker that he had to keep the negotiations Farley and Mr. Mcdonald as the following testimony of Mr. Baker Mr.
confirms:
Hobby to the fact that he Did you alert Mr.
Q:
should not tell SONOPCO that the negotiations j
had commenced?
1 A:
Yeah, I probably did tell him that.
Q:
Why?
Well, I think because of, you know, SONOPCO's A:
reaction to Mr. Hobby and that they probably
- would, you
- know, probably would have n
complicated the matter.
i 1
(Baker. deposition, May 23, 1990, at p. 54).
Mr.
Baker's testimony demonstrates that the senior GPC management was well aware of the environment which Mr.
Hobby described earlier and would not, or could not, affect any change.
d 18 t
Mr. Hobby's reason for not immediately going to Mr. Mcdonald F
.for correction of the reporting chain at Vogtle is obvious, but why GPC's President /CEO, Plant Vogtle General Manager, and the Vogtle Project Vice President failed to do so at the hearing 1
i before-the Commission is not.
The onus was on GPC to provide the NRC with sufficient information explaining why GPC had good cause for waiting until after Plant Vogtle was licensed before advising I
the Commission that Mr. Mcdonald's statement to the Commission with respect.to a concern voiced by Commissioner Carr was in 4
~
' error. 'This GPC has failed to do.U/
a IV.
Mcdonald Made False Statements During a Transcribed
~
January 11, 1991 NRC Staff Proceeding (This information is not contained in petitioners earlier r
submissions and should be viewed as an amendment to the September 11, 1990 Petition)
F On January 11, 1991 NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, convened a proceeding to discuss the formation of
)
SONOPCO.
The transcript of this proceeding demonstrates that Mr.
Mcdonald made the following statement when pointing to an overhead projection handed out just prior to the January 11, 1991 D'
This failure is magnified by the concurrent allegations
-of Petitioners that Mr. Mcdonald provided false testimony during l
i section 210 proceedings and with respect to the events surrounding the submission of false information in LER 90-006; in particular
.the fact that GPC intentionally withheld relevant inforriation regarding the reliability of the. diesel generator until aftasr the NRC was briefed about the site area emergency.
fing September 11,
'1990 Petition at Page 11,Section III.3 (f) ("SONOPCO intentionally delayed revising the LER until after critical meetings with the NRC and Commission-Ware held on June 8,
1990 (ITT presentation to Commissioners)").
19
meeting:1V A month ago today we were sitting here, and the only difference a month ago today is we would erase that line and erase everywhere SONOPCO appears, everywhere
-SONOPCO appears you would erase it.
For all practical purposes there is no difference in the day-to-day operation of the plants... A month ago there was no line here [ referring to the red highlighted line of i
attachment 5].
Mr. Farley was performing his job as a Vice President of the Southern Company.
He-had no That i
responsibilities'for this Administrative-support.
Administrative Support that we had basically was being done, and he was part of a contract -- it was a contract to me from Southern Services for providing essentially much the same support we have here now..."
l Egg January 11, 1991 NRC Tr. at p. 42 (excerpts of which are l
appended hereto as Attachment 6).
Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that the operation of the SONOPCO i
project changed as of a month ago (i.e. December, 1990) is simply
[
Rather, since the formation of the SONOPCO project) Mr.
false.
Mcdonald has reported to Mr. Farley on administrative matters.
This fact is verified by the May 7, 1990 deposition testimony of Joseph M.
Farley.
Mr. Farley's description of a " joint office for the administrative side" of the SONOPCO project does not square with Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that Mr. Farley had "no responsibilities" in the area of administrative support prior to December, 1990.
At that time, some seven months prior to Mr. Mcdonald's appearance at the NRC meeting on January 11, 1991, Mr. Farley SU When making the above-quoted statement, Mr. Mcdonald was j
pointing to an overhead projector image of a diagram of the SONOPCO i
5.
organization, a copy of which is appended hereto as Attachment The line Mr. Mcdonald ~ was pointing at and referring to when he stated that it should be erased is highlighted in red.
20 m,
e#.,
testified that "Mr. Mcdonald and I work together and have a close working relationship.
Eg, in essence, occuev a set of icint resnonsibilities with the project with which we're involved but
...only in the sense of some administrative matters does he report to me or work with me...."
Farley Deposition at Page 11-12 (emphasis added).F/
And, the following exchange occurred during the Farley deposition at Page 13-14:
Q:
Okay.
The question was, in essence then, on paper Mr. Mcdonald does not technically report to you but he does in an informal sense?
A:
On some matters in an informal sense.
Q:
Can you tell me which matter on an informal sense?
A:
In an informal sensej he and I iointly are what we describe as an office of the chief executive of the croiect.
It is not a corporation.
It is a project.
In areas such as the selection of a candidate for an accounting job or a job in the non-operating areas.
When I say operating, I mean the operating of the power plants themselves.
He does not report to me and yet on the other areas, particularly administrative or in governmental affairs which is part of my responsibility, he would report to me in that sense...."
And, on pages 16-17 of the same deposition:
Q:
Mr. Farley when the SONOPCO organization is incorporated formally -- Will Mr. Mcdonald report directly to you?
a MR. SCHAUDIES:
Well, excuse me.
I'm going to object to the form of the question on th3 basis that is hypothetical and it's asking the witness to - -
El Excerpts of Mr. Farley's deposition are appended hereto as Attachment 7.
21
l 1
i MR. KOHN:
Let me rephrase it.
MR. SCHAUDIES:
Okay.
.Q:
Is it anticipated that Mr. Mcdonald will report directly to you?
A:
The answer is immediately he would for certain purposes but not for certain other purposes because the incorporation and, by the way,-I have to add this caveat.
.I will have mandatory retirement in approximately two years and five months.
So the way things have been moving, I may not even be there at the time it is incorporated.
But if it were incorporated tomorrow, he would report to me for administrative matters and for certain purposes of the sort I have described before.
In other words, our relationshin would not chance...."
(Emphasis added).
i And, on pages 37-38 of the same deposition:
Q:
Then there's also an administrative service?
A:
Yes.
The Vice President of Administrative Services, that's Mr. McCrary.
He is a Service Company employee.
He reports both to i
me and to Mr. Mcdonald.
He reports to what I described earlier as a kind of an office of the chief executive for the project on administrative matters,,not on technical matters.
Q:
Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report directly to Mr. Mcdonald and then through there they report directly to you?
A:
Mr. Long does not report to me.
Now, Mr.
McCrary -- because this is a technical area with which I do not exercise direct supervision, I work with that group.
They are, in essence, under me in the organizat. ion but they do not report to me.
They report to Mr. Mcdonald.
In the case of Mr. McCrary, for purposes of this project, there are many things that Mr. McCrary reports to directly to me about the others he reports jointly to me and to Mr. Mcdonald or to whichever one of 4
us happens to be there.
Mr. Mcdonald and I i
undertake to be in this transition period of sort of a joint office for the administrative 22 i
i
..e
~
y.
m
i i
side...."
4 i
Mr. Farley's description of a " joint office for the administrative side" of the SONOPCO project does not square with c
'Mr. Mcdonald's assertion that Mr. Farley had "no responsibilities" in the area of administrative support prior to December, 1990.
l As such, GPC's assertion that the management of SONOPCO
- under went a change in December of 1990 (i.e. that Mr. Mcdonald 1
began to report to Mr. Farley with respect to administrative L
matters);is not accurate.
The truth is that ever since the SONOPCO project was created in 1988, Mr. Mcdonald has reported to Mr. Farley.
I -
The fact remains that from the creation of the SONOPCO Project, GPC's president and other GPC officers had no idea of l -
4 the actual chain of command or reporting structure of GPC's r
l'j.
nuclear operations.
This is typified by the following examples:
1)
Nhile the SONOPCO Project consists of five departments (Hatch Project, Vogtle Project, Farley Project, Administrative Services and Technical Services), GPC's President, Mr. Dahlberg, j.
I was not sure as to whom the Administrative Services and Technical Services groups reported.SV EMr. Dahlberg stated under oath that he "believe[d)" the El'
~ Vice Presidents of Administrative Services and Technical Services report to Mr. Mcdonald but that he was "just not sure whether they are officers'of both [GPC and SCS) or not..I just don't know."
j.
.Dahlberg Depo.
at-p.
- 22. - (Excerpts appended as Attachment 8).
~Moreover, when asked if the VP of Administrative Services and the (continued...)
23 4
e 2
v
~
w
2)-
Mr. Farley testified that he worked with the VP -
Technical Services but did not exercise " direct supervision" over f
but that Mr.
hin- (he stated Mr. Long reported to Mr. Mcdonald)
McCrary did report'directly to both Mr. Farley.and Mr. Mcdonald.
~
(Farle- Depo., 5/7/90, p. 37-38).
3)
Mr. Dahlberg on October.24, 1990 testified that Joe Farley -- who is not an officer of GPC -
" heads up the formation of SONOPCO and that entity."
(Tr. 308 - Dahlberg);
4)
Mr. Grady Baker, GPC's former Senior Executive Vice President, stated that he thought Farley was an officer of GPC.
'Tr. 690-691 (Baker).
Also see Baker Depo. p. 16-17 ("The in that the chief appropriate oversight of SONOPCO exists, operating officer, Pat Mcdonald and the CEO or -- not the CEO because it's not a corporation -- but Farley and Mcdonald are officers of Georgia Power Company, reporting to the president, Bill Dahlberg");
5)
Messrs. Dahlberg and Baker testified that they believed Mcdonald to be an officer of Southern Company Services (Tr. 304 -
Dahlberg;'Tr. 633 - Mcdonald)
Yet, Mcdonald testified that he is not an officer of Southern Company Services (Tr. 633 - Mcdonald);
6)
Mr. Farley -- and not Mr. Dahlberg -- reports to The Southern Company Board of Directors on the performance of Georgia 3'(... continued)
VP 'of Technical Services report to Mcdonald who then reports to Dahlberg, Mr. Dahlberg stated that he just " assumed" that Mr.
Mcdonald manages Mr. McCrary and Mr. Long but that he, in fact, did not know if Messrs. McCrary and Mr. Long reported to Mr. Mcdonald.
Dahlberg Depo at p. 23 (Attachment 8).
24 i..
hower ' Company's and Alabama: Power Company's nuclear units.
Farley Depo. p. 39-40; and 7)
A GPC corporate concern filed by a Plant Hatch employee was referred-to Mr. Farley in May of 1989 -- rather than a GPC executive -- for' resolution even though Mr. Mcdonald stated under oath that-he (Mcdonald) was responsible for GPC nuclear matters and not Mr.. Parley (who Mr. Mcdonald asserted had no control over approving any policies, practices, or procedures affecting GPC nuclear employees).
Mcdonald Deposition' Continuation, pages 27-28.
Given the break down of corporate oversight at GPC, Mr.
Mcdonald could -- and did -- report directly to Mr. Farley rather than to GPC's president, Mr. Dahlberg, and a thorough investigation by the NRC into these above matters will show that.
The Petitioners stand ready to cooperate with the NRC in a this investigation.
10 C.F.R. 550.34(6)(i) requires each applicant for an operating license to submit information concerning facility operation including: "The applicant's organizational structure, allocation or responsibilities and authorities, and personnel qualification requirement."
GPC failed to notify the NRC that Mr. Mcdonald had begun to report to Mr. Farley prior to January 11, 1991.
In addition, when GPC finally got around to alerting
'the NRC to the fact that Mr. Mcdonald had begun to report to Mr.
Farley, Mr. Mcdonald falsely asserted that he began reporting to Mr. Farley'in December of 1990, when, in fact, Mr. Farley had 25
' ' ~ -
-ev
already testified that Mr. Mcdonald actually began to report to Mr. Farley with respect to administrative matters since the inception of the SONOPCO project (November, 1988).
Recuest for Relief WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
1)' review the facts in possession of NRC-OI demonstrating that GPC's Executive Vice President, Mr. Mcdonald, intentionally submitted false and misleading statements under oath to the NRC so as to obstruct the on-going NRC-OI investigation related to and GPC's submission of false diesel start data in LER 90-006, issue a show cause order as to why GPC's licenses should not be i
revoked, modified or suspended; 1
- 2) review the facts with respect to GPC's intentionally withholding information until after the Commission took action with respect to the Site. Area Emergency and with respect to incorrect statements made by Mr. Mcdonald during plant Vogtle licensing hearings held before the commission, and issue a show cause order as to why GPC's licenses should not be revoked, modified or suspended, and to otherwise take immediate steps to determine whether GPC's current management has the requisite character and competence to continue operating a nuclear facility; d
26 s
e
- 3) refer allegations that Mr. Mcdonald attempted to derail Section 210 cases by resorting to perjury to NRC-OI for further investigation; and
- 4) take all necessary action to determine whether GPC's j
current management has the requisite character and competence to j
J continue operating a nuclear facility.
l 1
Respectfully submitted,
}
^V -
Michael D.
Kohn i
KOHN,.KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 d-(202) 234-4663 Counsel to Petitioners j
i Allen Mosbaugh and Marvin Hobby cc:
Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Regulation
\\
e 4
27
- 7. 1,.::;; ;. ~
P ATTACHMENTS a
i i
'1.
February 29, 1991 letterProperty "Letter" (as page type) with input value "Unable to interpret the "February 29, 1991" input value as valid date or time component with "Month 2 in year 1991 did not have 29 days in this calendar model." being reported." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. from Steven Varga to W. G. Hairston, i
Request for Additional Information Regarding the 10 C.F.R.
re:
l 2.206 Petition t
d 2.
Excerpts of Mcdonald's Deposition and hearing testimony in f.
Yunkar/Fuchko and Hobby:
a) Mcdonald 12/23/88 Fuchko/Yunker Depo. Tr. pp. 12-14, 38-44, 61-62, 70, 75-76; i
427-429; b) Mcdonald 1/4/89 Fuchko/Yunker hearing Tr. pp.
'c) Mcdonald 5/7/90 Hobby Depo. Tr. pp. 31-35; d) Mcdonald 10/23/90 Hobby. hearing Tr. pp. 620-628, 640.
3..
Hobby Hearing Transcript pp. 284-287.
1 1989 letter from M. Hobby to Adm. Wilkinson.
4.
June 8, i
1 5.
January 11, 1991 Meeting Handout of SONOPCO organization.
l-6.
January-11, 1991 Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission Meeting j
Transcript excerpts, pp. 42-43.
7.
Excerpts of 5/7/90 Farley Deposition pp. 11-17, 37-40 d
i 8.
Excerpts of Dahlberg Deposition, pp. 22-23 i
4 s
i-i l
l
+
8 4
e e
e
be ssh,b f
'y y'
?
UNITED STATES
'2-1' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^%
/
- WASHINGTON, o.C. 20086
% ~.
y.
'DockU*do's.50'-424
'and 50-425
'Mr. W.'G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President -
- Nuclear Operations Gecrgia Power Company
~P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham,LAlabama' 35201
Dear Mr. Hairston:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATI0h REGAD. DING 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION (TACS 79206/79207) iBy letter of September 11, 1990,. attorney for Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and (Allen L. Mosbaugh-submitted to the NRC Chairman a " Request for Proceedings and Imposition of Civil Penalties for Improperly Transferring Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to the 50NOPC0 Project and for the Unsafe and Improper Operation of Georgia Power Company Licensed Facilities" (Petition).
Mr. Rc P. Mcdonald of Georgia Power Company (GPC) responded to the Petition September 28,'1990, but noted that GPC's copy of the Petition had been received without attachnents. The attachments were forwarded to the NRC Chairman September 21, 1990, and subsequently placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
-On October _1, 1990, Petitioner's attorney forwarded " Supplemental Information to the September 11, 1990 Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition Concerning the Illegal Transfer of Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to SONOPC0" which has also been placed in the Public Document Room. We have confirmed with Mr. Jim i
' Bailey-that you have these documents available to you.
The Petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ~for the preparation'of a Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
Accordingly,..we request that you provide, within 30 days from the date of this letter, a response to each of the allegations in the Petition and its supplements.
It'is not necessary to repeat a prict response where the subsequent information does. not aff ect the validity or completeness of your prior response; a mere statement to this effect will suffice.
Your response should be submitted under l:
oath'or affirmation.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance
[
.is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sipcerely,
\\
ven A.
ar'g tor ivision of Reactor
'ects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
"~
cca' See next.page 4
=
a
puf.
4 A
a G
5 e- -
Y Y\\
L, A
C-i 4
4 4
C35 PIOCT ALAO AMA S ANK GUILOING SIEMINGHAM, ALAOAMA 35203 322 C220 1
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 2
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION EMPLOYEE STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION 4
i l
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i
6 i
7 i
JOHN M. FUCHKO, GARY ALLEN YUNKER, )
8
)
PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
VS.
)
89-ERA-9 10
)
89-ERA-10 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
11
)
DEFENDANT.
)
12 13 STIPULATIONS 14 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 15 the parties through their respective counsel, that 16 the deposition of ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD may be 17 taken before Charles S. Barrington, Commissioner 18 and Certified Shorthand Reporter, at the law offices 19 of Balch & Bingham, Financial Center Office, 20 Sutie 700, 505 North 20th Street, Birmingham, 21 Alabama, on the 23rd day of December,1988, commencing 22 at 9:00 a.m., Central Standard Time.
23 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the DEPOSITION OF ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD
.~-. _.
~-.
.~.
6 AL ABAMA COUf4T REPORTINu SERVICt.
935 FIRST ALASAM A SAhn BUILD 894G SIT.MINGHAM, ALACAMA 33203 322 CAOS As 1
Department of Southern Comp'any Services.
2 Q
Do'you have any authority over those 3
departments?
What is your relationship with those?
MR. MILLER:
Which ouestion do you want him 5
to answer?
6 MS. FOWLER:
What was my first question?
7 (First question read.)
s.
A I am in a position of authority over the l
9 Hatch, Vogtle and Farley Projects.
10 Q
What is your position of authority regarding it the other two projects?
j 12 A
The other two projects are.each headed up by officers of the-Southern Company Services.
]
14 Southern Company Services is providing services to 15 Georgia Power Company and Alabama Power Company 16 individually,for those projects.
So those two 17 departments are providing us services for the is support groups.
Q Who. selected the administrative and technical 19 20 services vice-presidents?
21~
MR. MILLER:
Who, as in a person, or who 22-
.as in a company?
23 Q:
. What person selected those people, the people
=is e
/L
e ALAo AM A COUNT R3 PORTING SENveC,t t
g35 P8%ST ALARAM A SANK BulLDiNG
- clMMIN2 HAM. ALAQ.MA 3S203 322 0103 l'
i i
i-in those positions?
2 1-2. MILLER:
If there is such a person and 3
you know them you may answer.
4 A
I don't know.
Ml 5
1 Q
So you did not select them?
/
6 A
No.
7 Q
Who are the vice-presidents for those services?
9 A
Charles McCrary and Lewis Long.
1o And Charles McCrary is the Vice-President for Q
11 what?
12 A
McCrary?
Administrative Services.
12 Q
Okay.
How about Lewis Long, is Technical 14 Services?
15 A
Yes.
Now let me qualify my statement, in 16 i
saying that I don't know.
The selection of those 17 people is under the authority and responsibility Is of the Southern Company Services.
_I imagine in 19 the normal course of events that selection is officially made by the President of Southern Company 21 Services,.
There may have been other arrangement,s
~22 that I am not aware of. but I think that that was, 23 true.
l
/)
~
~
, ~ -
~,.
e e
AL,ASAMA COURT REPORTING cEftVICE E3S FIRST ALA$AM A R A%en GUILDiNG CIIMINGHAM. ALAQAM A 3S203 322 0203 I
Q Who is the President of Southern Company 2
~
Services?
3 A
Alan Franklin.
4 Q
And so the Administrative Department and 5
the Technical Services Department provide services 6
to your projects, the Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle 7
Projects?
s A
Correct.
9 Q
Okay.
You are the Executive Vice-President j
10 of Georgia Power Company for Nuclear Operations.
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
What does that title entail in the way of 13 dutics?
14 A
It essentially involves responsibilities for 15 all the plant operations.
And the support that 16 it recuires, which may be performed by other entities 17 on an agreement or a contract basis, it involves is the corporate support for the plant.
I will stop 19 there.
20 Q
Are there any other things?
21 A
Well, to exercise direct line responsibilities 22 for the operation and the associated activities 23 of-the plants.
O
At.AG AM A court C2PonTfNG CERVIC E 93S FIRST ALASAMA G ann OL.LO:NG l
Gl~ MIN 3 HAM, ALAO AM A 35203 322-O*O9 3
.....7..-
lN
'l MR. MILLER:
You want to take a break?
2-l l
THE DEPONENT:
Well I am not --
3 l
MS. F0WLER:
Well, I have a lot to find out, 4
it.
and I am goin's to 'take it how I can get MR. MILLER:
You are the master of the questions.
5 l
We can't give an answer until you ask the questions.
6 I,
Q Okay.
Explain to me, would you, sir, the 7
8
.l concept for staffing SONOPCO.
i is The concept for staffing SONOPCO?
The 0
l l
concept was and is that these -- one, when I 10 i
11 l say SONOPCO, and let me understand when you say j
i SONOPCO you don't mean the final company, you mean 12 these five organizations which we are talking about?
i Q
Yes, sir.
A The concept for staffing those was that
'8 each organization was to be staffed by the people in charge of them from resources available within
'7 the Southern system, and in as much as possible
'8 within the originating company.
Now that i
20 okay, that is the concept.
21 Q
And which would be the originating company in case of the Administrative Department?
22 23 A
Southern Compey Services.
36 J
8 4
AL.AOAMA COUGT REPORTING SERVICE 93b FIRST ALAbe AV A S A*ek D UILD AG SIRMINGHAM. ALA3 AMA 35203
{
322 0502
___.__.___.3, i
Q And how about in the area of Technical 2
Services Department?
3 A
Southern Company Services.
a Q
Now when you say Southern Company Services --
5.
j A
Yes.
6 i
Q
-- does that include Georgia Power and I
}l 7
Alabama Power?
I A
No.
i 9
'I Q
-Okay.
10 A
Now the question you asked, does Southern 11 Company Services include Georgia and Alabama; 12 Southern Company Services is a separate company 13 and entity within itself.
Now what is the question j
14 about Southern Company Services that you asked?
15 Q
Okay.
You said that an effort was made to 16 staff each of these departments, as I understand, 17 from the results available in the Southern system.
is i
Right?
19 A
Yes.
Southern system.
I misstated it; 20' I misstated it to some degree.
The concept was 21 to staff one of these five organizations to the 22 maximum extent possible from within the Southern systems and for Alabama and Georgia, those three e
39
(
AL,Ae AMA COU AT R1POR1tNG 56,649 86 L es.
1 gJS FIRST ALAS AMA E ann D UsLCt%G SSAMINGHAM, ALA9AM A 35203 322 0209 I
l.
h e
i 1
for each.of them to the maximum extent possible I
from the originating company.
That is, Alabama l
3 from Alabama,'and Georgia'from Georgia.. For 4
Southern Company Services, that organization, 5
technical organization, was, most of the people I
.6-in it were already established as service organi-7 zations-with Southern Company Services.
That is, 1
1 i
s i
i the nuclear fuels, some. testing, and quality i
9 N i
assurance, they were already existing organizations 10 in almost the same form previously in Southern
/
11 Company Services, but not collected together in 12.
one department.
13 Q
So they fall under the Technical Services 14 Department?
A Yes.
16 Q
okay.
11 A
They were taken and put into a department, is which had not existed before.
And you might say 19 as postulated would become a part of SONOPCO.
to Some of them never moved, they stayed in the same 21 offices.
And some of them maintained the same 22 managerial relationships, like the nuclear fuel, p-23 and so they were merely a, basically relocating A0
n.
- s-e ALAo AM A COURT R3 PORTING SE Rv60.t.
I-23S P4357 ALAt$AM A BAhh 06 e.O \\ (,
GlEMtNGHAM. ALADAMA 35203 l
8 322 0209 4
i.
I 1
from one building in some cases to another 2
building, and in some cases staying there.
3 The Administrative Services Department was 4
a new organization, that essentially had no 5
basis.
That was to be formed from a candidate 6
in the Southern system, not merely from Southern l
f Company Services.
Okay.
I' s
l
]-
Q So the S'outhern. system includes Georgia I
9 Power Company and Alabama Power Company.
to A
Yes.
11 Q
Okay.
12 (Whereupon, at this time the proceedings were in recess
)
is from 10:00 a.m. until 10:03 a.mq j
at which time proceedings f
14 were resumed as follows:)
is MR. MILLER:
All right.
Let's press here.
16 17 EXAMINATION BY MS. FOWLER: (Resumed) is Q
Do you know my clients, John Fuchko and l
19 Gary Yunker?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
When did you first meet them?
22 A
The first time that I met them face to
-23
. face in an individual situation other than as l
L j
. ~..
..... ~ - -. - -....
6
- e H w sw e.
AL,AS AM A COURT C%EPOM1 NG :ne:
333 F sR57 ALAB Ard A B ANh 094D!%
28KMINGHAM. ALA3AMA 33203 l
3220309 i
a group was when they came to see me in the 2
May-June tirne frame.
i Do you know why the petitioners weren't'
.Q t
i
.i 4
' offered a-job at any of these five projects that hopefully will eventually become SONOPCO?'
s MR. MILLER:
Petitioners, who is that?
'I l
7 Q
My clients,Mr. Fuchko, and Mr. Yunker.
i s
A Yes.
I.:.
MR. MILLER:
Wait.
10 A
Now I want to back up.
I know why they 11' weren't offered a job in any of these'three nuclear 12 projects.
Why weren't they offered a job at any of 13 Q
14 the nuclear projects?
Because each job was being filled by individuals 15 A
4 16 particularly qualified for that job based upon education, training, experience and demonstrated 17 la performance in that area of expertise.
The three projects, the two Georgia projects (9
that were being restructured and realigned, in 20 the restructured and realignment configuration,
.21 there were no_ jobs that included their special
'22 i
3 areas'of qualification.
e L g
ALAG AM A COURT KEPORTING cerv 6CE 935 8'4AST ALAB AM A G Ahh SL:1LC AG cGMIN2 HAM. AL A3 AM A 35203 l
322 0609 i
1 Q
What are their areas of special qualifications?
A Their areas of special qualification involves the nuclear security functions as characterized l
4 1
by.the installations and operations and procedures of a nuclear plant on site.
6 Q
Do you know how candidates.for jobs in those 7
three projects were evaluated for the jobs?
e l
MR. MILLER:
Excose me, but I guess I ought 1
l to object to that, because how candidaces for to 4
those jobs in those three projects could literally 11 mean hundreds of candidates, hundreds of jobs.
12 Q
I mean, in general, do you know what the 13 process was, the evaluation process?
14 MR. MILLER:
A general generic question?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
The generic question was starting at the 17 top of the organization in each one of those, i
is the persons that head the organizations,were 19 selected first.
In that case they were Tom Beckham, '-
20 and Ken McCoy.
And then they together in management '
.21 teams, and in their individual organizations 1
22
~
~
selected the next tier of management based upon 23 knowl. edge, training, experience and demonstrated
/
..y
~
ALAOAM A COURT REPORTING SERVICE
'J35 FINST A4 Als AV A 3 AN A (26 CthG SIRMINGHAM, ALA3 AMA 33203 322 0:03
. 1, i
performance in the area required for the new l
realigned job.
And that continued down to each
- J ll layers they reviewed, and then the selection was 4.
proposed by let's say a middle level manager; i
t' 5
reviewed by a' higher level managers and approved 6
by the Vice-President in charge of that project.
7 Q
Do you know if Morris Howard has been on - -
a is he a part of the Vogtle Project?
,.s l
A No.
to i
Q Is he a part of any project?
It A
No.
12 l
Q Do you know what his position is?
13 A
He is no longer with the company.
Q Was he asked to join the project?
is j
j A
No.
16 Q
Was he offered a job?
17 A
No.
is Q
Why wasn't he offered a job?
19 A
He resigned.
2o Q
When did he resign?
21 j
A Last summer.
22 Q
Was he asked to resign?
23-A No.
L L i
a ALA2AM A COU T GEPORTING cERVICE 7
l
$35 FlEST ALADAMA QANA CUILQiNG SIRMINGHAM. ALAOAMA 35203 322-0603 l
l l
t i
~A Yes.
2 Q
Do you know if he was asked to evaluate 3
on potential nominees?
I d
A' No.
5 Q
You don't know whether he was?
6 A-No.
7 Q
Do you know why my clients weren't offered
.s positions in the nuclear, in the Corporate 9
Sec6rity Department?
Not.in the nuclear, in the 10 Corporate Security Department.
I am talking 11 about 12 MR. MILLER:
You see, now I am really 13 confused, because I thought that your guys did sa work for Corporate Security.
15 MS. FOWLER:
No.
From what I understand --
j 0
16 MR. MILLER:
Isn't that right --
MS. FOWLER:--there is no Corporate Security 17 18 Department.
They work in Georgia. Power Corporate 19
..ccurity D. par met.t.
20 MR. MILLER:
Oh, okay.
All right.
21 A
So you are talking about the Southern Company 22 Services Administrative Department, why they 23 weren't offered jobs?
E (D
1
4-4 ALACAMA COURT Q2 PORTING cERVICE 935 FIR 2,7 ALAGAMA cANK SuiLDihG BIRMINGH AM. ALAB AM A 33203 322 0609 j
1 Q
Right.
2 A
I know this:
That the normal process which 3
I have described t.o you for the selection of 4
people --
5 Q
Uh-huh.
6 A
-- started always at the top.
You 7
pick the man in charge, and he is the one 8
responsible for selecting the people who works 9
for him.
10 Q
.Uh-huh.
11 A
Because you don't assign people to work 12 for somebody.
That is not the practice anywhere 13 within our business.
The. person who works for 14 somebody selects the people he works for.
15 Q
So, is what you are saying that because 16 there is no Corporate Security manager that is 17 why?
Is A
I am saying that that is a logical, reason 19 why no one has been selected for any jobs within 20 that department.
21 Q-Okay.
Do you know why Mr. Fuchko has 22 not been considered for the position of Corporate 23 Security manager 1 hk
e AL.ACAMA COURT RE70RTING SERVICE C35 FIRST ALAO AM A CANn EviLDiNG
{
GERMINGHAM. ALAD AM A 35203 322 0609
- 7 l
1 I
Q What jobs did you all talk about?
2 A
We had no jobs that they.could go into 3
1 within those, Hatch and Vogtle Projects.
So l
4 i
we talked about the possibility of going into 5
Corporate Security jobs from where they had 6
been.
7 Q
Corporate Security in Georgia Power Company?
8 A
Yes.
Q Did you discuss whether they were qualified 10 for any jobs in the Administrative. Services 11' Department?
12 A
No.
13 Q
Why didn't you?
sa A
At the time that we were trying to realign 15 people in the organization,.the Administrative 16 Services organization had not been staffed.
It 17 had no manager of security.
When in essence there 18 was no way to select people for those~ jobs.
19 Q
But aren' t there other jobs in Administrative 20 support besides in the Corporate Security 21 Department?
22-
'A Certainly.
23.
Q Okay.
The Corporate, Security Department, I 70 c
o a
ALAEAMA COURT REPO% TING CERVICE 93b F425T ALAcAMA DANX Swin. DING SIEMINGHAM. ALAG AMA 35203 322 0609 7
~
i were trying to ask were specifically about Georgia Power Company.
O Okay.
4 A
Now, if you could state that again maybe I can get it related.
6 Q
Okay.
In your efforts to reorganize were 7
you trying to place Georgia Power folks in the 8
nuclear operating department, or division?
I A
I was trying to place the. Georgia Power 4
10 Company employees within the nuclear department ll organization, into a realigned organizations which consists of the Hatch Project.a d the Vogtle Project.
12 13 Q
Okay.
If you.were not able to put them in j
14 to one of those two areas was there any attempt 15 put them in the Administrative Services Department,
~
16 if they had the qualifications?
17 MR. MILLER:
The Administrative Services 18 Department of Southern Company Services?
19 Q
Yes.
20 MR. MILLER:
All right.
21 A
In this case it never came up, because at 22 that time the top jobs had not been selected by 23 Southern Company Services.
And as far as I know
- s a
ALAEAMA COURT M2 PORTING SERVICE l
83S FiRST ALACAMA cANn ouiLotNG.
l St%MINGHAM ALACAMA 35203 322 0609
-7 b
i Southern Comoany Services had not reauested from a
s the nuclear organization, no nuclear organisation, j
t 3
any nominees for those top tier jobs.
If they had i
of requested nominees for those top tier jobs, l
5 controllers, and resources and security, they would j
6 have gone to those similar organizati.ons in other companies.
Nuc1 car organizations did not contain that type of experienced expertise that they would s
9 be looking for.
Q Okay.
You said that you discussed with 10 11 Mr. Hairston whether or not to allow my clients to change jobs into the Administrative Services 12 13 Department.
A Negative.
I didn't say that.
I said I 14 discussed with Mr. Hairston and Mr. McHenry and U'
15 possibly others, the change of jobs by your i
16
- clients, Q-Okay.
What did you-discuss with Mr. Hairston, is 1-what.was your conversation regarding?
I discussed -- I discussed with'him the fact
(
20 N
l:
that he had not found, and no one had found comparable type jobs in the Hatch or Vogtle Project for your 22 clients.. I discussed that fact.
E 7&
-.n.-
1 3
rAD 9
. :;,==.a.::
c I
{,
Page 390
'I I
BEFORE THE
=
h ((
2 U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AN 0 9 Gag In the Matter of:
}
4
)
5 JOHN M. FUCHKO and
)
ADMINISTRATI w JUDGs3 GARY A. YUNKER
)
HAMPTON. YlRGINIA
)
6 Complainants
)
)
)
Case No. 89-ERA-9 7
versus
)
89-ERA-10 s
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
l
)
9 Respondent
)
)
10 11 j
Room 118 1373 Peachtree Street l
12 Atlanta, Georgia Wednesday, January 4, 1989 i3 The above-entitled matter convened for hearing 14 at 9:00 a.m.
pursuant to adjournment, is 16 BEFORE:
DANIEL SARNO, Administrative Law Judge i
il i
18 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the complainant 19 LAURIE F0WLER, Attorney 20 Route 2, Box 186 Alto, Georgia 30510 21 SANDRA MICHAELS, Attorney 22 Suite 1720,-40 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 23 BRIAN SPEARS, Attorney 24 Suite 400, 233 Mitchell Street
+
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 25
'W i
Q-
/L i
Page 427 is to co-locate the done in anticipation of that concept 1
corporate nuclear organizations of three of the Southern 2
same building.
Those three companies together in the 3
companies are Georgf a Power Company, Alabama Power Compan 4
Southern Company Services.
5 there are They are co-located in the same building, l
6 two of them Georgia Power manned by five different divisions, 7
Georgia Power employees totally; two of them by Southern s
Company Services by Southern Company Services; and one by 9
So Alabama Power with all Alabama Power Company employees.
to they are co-located in the same building.
11 What.is the area that has the security department, 12 Q
the corporate secu?ity department?
13 is not yet a corporate security department 14 A
There It is scheduled to be a part. of the 35 among those.
which is a part at this time of administrative division, 16 Southern Company Services.
17 In the future we expect a corporate security 18 organization, a small corporate security organization.
19 And the individuals in that administrative division 1
20 Q
are employees of Southern Company Services?.
21 If they were at this time they would be.
22 A
Do you know how decisions were made to man 23 Q
positions, those positions that have been manned within the i
24 administrative division?
25
(-
t e
0 0
I Page 428 however, I would In order to answer that,
- - 1 A
Yes.
i by describing how the divisions
\\
it probably need to preface 2
for the Hatch and Vogtle plants have been made.
3 Q
All right, if that's necessary.
4 When the Georgia Power nuclear operations 5
A first as organization was reconfigured as_a precursor -- well, t
6 then as a part of the a stand-alone reorganization in Atlanta, 7
reconfigured from a single combined SONOPCO concept, s
organization which covered both Plant Match and Plant Vogtle 9
one specifically for Plant Hatch headed I
to two organizations, to and one specifically for Plant Vogtle up by a vice president, headed up by a vice president.
12 He did that in order to promote this concept of 33 support and to provide identity to each of those plants, so 14 but it has a each plant not only has its plant management, 15 corporate support group that supports it.
16 When we moved into the SONOPCO configuration from l
n Atlanta we underwent an organizational change to the two 18 so the people who were in the combined nuclear organizations, ig 0
organization were then placed in each one of those two 20 organizations, principally all of thea.
2)
~
And then the people who were not a part of those two 22 organizations were placed as possible in other places.
23 So what were the criteria that were utilf. zed for Q
24 trying to determine who to select?
23 7!;
f
i Page 429 Well, in terms of who to select for the two, the A
Hatch organization, Plant Vogtle organization and the Plant 2
the criteria that we took for each job as we selected people 3
4
. was really were they qualified to do that job, and the qualification being they had the necessary education, 5
training, experience and demonstrated performance in that i
6 in those jobs -- the f
position, and they were selected and put 7
l best people were selected and we filled them from the top a
9 down.
That is you filled the vice presidential positions, 10 Q
11 then --
and after We filled the vice presidential positions, 12 A
that the vice president would then get with the managers, and 33 the managers would participate in the selection of the sj and the supervisors would participate in the f
15 supervisors, so that they selection of the people that worked for them, 16 were all a part of the management selection process for doing 17
}
18 this.
What do you envision to be the future role of the 4
19 Q
security department in the administrative division?
20 In order to answer that I think I-have to go back to 2
A the concept of security in the nuclear operations organization 22 i
in Georgia Power.
I -
23 When I came to Georgia Power, and the day I came and 24 announced that we were going to shift from an oversight role 25 i
4 r
w w
,-n
F 1
f O
d t
COPY 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
) 90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 ROBERT PATRICK MCDONALD lt 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BULL & ASSOCIATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 BULL & ASSOCIATES I. ~
'A 4
31 at the Georgia Hatch plant.
1 Georgia Power 2
Mr. McCoy was made Vice President by the Board 3
of Directors of Georgia Power Company to be in 4
charge of the vogtle plant for Georgia Power.
5 Q
There was a move of the Georgia 6
Power Company employees from Atlanta to 7
Birmingham; correct?
8 A
Right.
9 Q
And what was the purpose of that 10 move?
11 A
The purpose of that move was to 12 co-locate all Southern Company organizations 13 directly involved in the direct support and 14 operation of its plants to learn its essential 15 location.
)
16 Q
When it was decided that the 17 co-location would occur, were there changes in 18 title and staffing?
l 19 A
Prior to the time that the l
20
.co-location took place there was in process a l
21 reorganization of the Georgia corporate staff i
22' and it went through several stages.
Some of 23 them are not clearly defined.
So one final 24 stage that exists today that it~ went to was at 25 the time that the move was made because there j
A I.
I BULL & ASSOCIATES
1 32 e
~
)
i 1
were some people that didn't want to make the 2
move and so we arranged for people to say 1
3 whether they wanted to make the move or whether job and so forth in an j
4 they wanted to take a 5
organization that was concurrent with the move.
6 Q
Okay.
Who determined which i
7 individuals would ultimately be moved to the l
I 8
building where the SONOPCO Project is located?
individuals the as far as 9
A It was 10 structural organization was separated by the 11 Hatch and Vogtle Projects and in those projects j
12 the vice presidents were the key people in 13 making decisions of who would be in their 14 project and in the general sense they started i
-~
15 with the top level ~of management selections and
~
16 then it involved them in the selections beneath 17 them and all the p e o,p l e _ w h_ g _ w e r e on the staff 18 at that time had been offered a job and had to 19 decide whether they would move or not move and 20 so forth.
l 21 Q
I'm trying to figure out the best 22 way to explain this.
Was it like a tiering where the managers 23 process where the top 24 were selected by l
25 A
Let me go over it again.
The e
4 BULL & ASSOCIATES 1
4 33 I
1 reorganization of the individuals and the 1 2
organization for those two projects was the 3
responsibility of the vice presidents working 4
with their Senior Vice President, George 5
Hairston.
The general approach they had was to 6
select the top managers first and after those 7
top managers were selected then'they selected 8
their staffs in the jobs they thought who they 9
wanted.
10 Q
You were not involved in selecting 11 the staffs?
4 12 A
No.
13 Q
Were you involved in selecting the 14 staffs in the technical services area?
15 A
No.
16 Q
In the administrative services 17 area?
18 A
I was involved in an advisory way.
19 In the projects, for example, people kep't me 20 informed of what they had in mind and gave me a 21 chance to say something about it.
It was not 22 submitted to me for approval or disapproval and 23 I did not approve or disapprove any of those 24 selections.
25 Q
I don't recall if I asked.
Did you BULL & ASSOCIATES i
4
4 J'
34 s
)
1 select Mr. McCoy and Mr.
Beckham?
2 A
Mr. McCoy and Mr. Beckham were 3
selected as officers by Georgia Power Company.
4 I recommended that Mr. McCoy be elected for 5
Vice President.
I recommended that to Mr.
6 Dahlberg who brought it up before to Mr.
Sheer 7
who brought it before the Board of Directors.
8 I believe it was Mr. Sheer.
9 Q
And then di'd Mr. McCoy and Beckham 10 select the next lower level of management?
11 A
They did that in working with their 12 Senior Vice President, George Hairston.
13 Q
And then did the next level of management select the middle level management?
14 15 A
They did that in conjunction with 16 their Vice President; again Mr. Hairston.
17 Q
But it wasn't a fait accompli.
You 18 didn't sit down in the offices of 270 Peachtree -
s 19 with Mr. Beckham and Mr. McCoy and Mr. McHenry 20 and fill the entire SONOPCO Project 21 organization?
22 A
I did not.
23 Q
Are you aware that certain 24 individuals at Georgia Power Company believed 25 that that's what happened?
That you sat down 4
I BULL & ASSOCIATES I
l
4 35 4
1 at 270 Peachtree with Mr. Beckham, Mr.
McCoy 2
and McHenry to some degree and filled the 3
entire SONOPCO Project staff?
4 A
I'm not aware of that.
5 Q
Do you recall a meeting held on 6
January 2nd, 19897 7
A No.
8 Q
Do you recall preparing for the 9
Yunker and Fuchko proc'eedings?
10 A
In general?
11 Q
Do you recall a large meeting where, 12 say, 30 individuals got together?
13 A
30 individuals got together?
14 0
Yeah.
15 A
For what purpose?
16 Q
To discuss the defense Georgia Power 17 Company would use to defend itself against Mr.
18 Yunker's and Mr. Fuchko's Section 210 case?
19 A
I don't believe any meeting of 30 20 individuals ever got together on that.
21 Q
20 individuals?
22 A
I don't remember any meeting at all 23 of any sizable proportions.
24 Q
Do you remember any meeting in 25 preparing for the Yunker and Fuchko proceeding?
e BULL & ASSOCIATES 4
I
au O
e
)
7 O
t M.
I I
1 4
Page 542 BEFORE THE 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARVIN B. HOBBY, Complainant, VOLUME LU, f
vs.
a Case No. 90-ERA-30 I
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, i
i Respondent.
j Courtroom.901, DeKalb County Courthouse, l
556 N. McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia l
Thursday, October-25, 1990
]
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.
n c
BEFORE:
l HON. JOEL R. WIIIIAMS, Administrative Law Judge 4
l-I APPEARANCES:
1 MICHAEL D. KOHN,l Attorney, DAVID K. COLAPINTO, Attorney, Kohn, Kohn & Coldpinto, 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.,
(
~ Washington, D.C.
20001; Appearing on behalf of the Complainant.
JAMES JOINER, Attorney, WILLIAM N. WITHROW, Attorney, 4
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1810; Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
J 1
}
5 Page 620
[
1 Q.
Did you have a meeting with Mr. Bob Edwards around 2
that time frame?
3 A.
I might have.
4 Q.
And what would the purpose have been for that 5
meeting?
6 A.
The purpose of that would be to work upon the 7
wording of the proposed contract for SONOPCO's relationship 8
with the co-owners-of the nuclear power plants.
9 Q.
And do you recall also meeting with Mr. Williams 10 around that time?
11 A.
I might have, I don't recall.
.g $
12 Q.'
But that's something that might have happened in 13 that time period?
)
14 A.
It might have.
15 Q.
I want to turn yout attention to the way people 16 were selected for the SONOPCO project, and it's my 17 understanding that the way that process was done is that the 18 vice presidents were selected, and then they selected the 19 general managers who then selected the managers who then 20 picked their supervisor in some sort of tiering ef fect r is 21 that correct?
22 A.
That's correct.
23 Q.
And you also gave similar testimony in the s
24 Fuchko/Yunker proceedings when you were asked how the SONOPCO 25 project' personnel were picked?
,o l
F d
Page 621 1
A.
I don't recall.
2 Q.
I want to show you a document, and can you tell me 3
if this is your deposition in the Fuchko and Yunker case.
4 A.
Yes.
5 Q.
And I'd like to turn your attention to Page 43, and 6
can you read from Line either 12 or 13, it appears to be in 7
the middle, and can you read from there to the bottom of --
8 well, on the next page over to the bottom of Line 77 9
A.
Line 12, questiorii "I mean in general do you know 10 what the process was, the evaluation process?"
11 "Mr. Miller:
A general generic question.
g g 12 Question:
"Yes."
13 Answer:
"A generic question, well, starting at the 14 top of the organization and each one of those, the person to 15 head the organizations were selected first.
In that case j
16 they were Tom Beckham and Ken McCoy, and then they together 17 with management teams in t.1eir individual organizations 18 selected the next tier of manage = tnt based upon knowledge, 19 training, experience, demonstrated performance in the area 20 required for the new realigned job, and that continued down f
21 to each layer, and they reviewed and then the selection was 22 proposed by let's say a mid level manager reviewed by a high 23 level manager and approved by the vice president in charge of 24 that project."
/
25 Q.
Do you recall giving that testimony in.the --
t V-
(
i jf
$ (I Page 622 1
A.
I do now, yes.
2 Q.
Okay.
And did that involve the selection of 3
personnel for the SONOPCO project?
4 A.
That involved'the selection of personnel for i
5 Georgia Power's realigned staff organization that was part of 6
the SONOPCO project.
7 Q.
Now, do you know Mr. Tom McHenry?
8 A.
Yes, I do.
i 9
Q.
And who is Mr. McHenry?
10 A.
Mr. McHenry was a part of the staff' organization at 11 the time that the selections in question were being made.
I )
12 Q.
And would Mr. McHenry have provided valuable
~
13 information to the selection process?
A.
He might have provided some informatior..
14 15 Q.
Would Mr. McHenry have known how the selection 16 process was done?
17 A.
He might have.
He might not have known the 18 definite because he was not one of the managers who was going 19 to be a part of that team, and therefore involved in the 20 actual selection process itself.
4 21 Q.
Do you recall --
Well, tell me a little bit more 22 about Mr. McHenry.
He reported to you on a regular basis?
23 A.
Yes.
24 Q.
And what was.his position?
$Y 25 A.
I can't recall his exact position, but he provided 1k
e+ 1 '
k Page 623 1
administrative help.
2 Q.
Was he at one time your assistant?
3 A.
I don't think I ever had a position that was called 4
my assistant.
4 5
Q.
Isn't it true that Mr. McHenry assisted you on a j
6 regular basis during the Phase 2 planning sessions?
j 7
The Phase 2 task force, does that make'it any 8
easier?
9 A.
I don't know what you mean by Phase 2 planning 10 session.
11 Q.
What'about Phase 2 task force or planning group.
I I
12 A.
I now recall.
Separate and apart from the SONOPCO 13 phased formation, the steps which I described earlier, there 14 was a planning stage called a Phase 1 and a Phase 2, and Mr.
I 15 McHenry did work with me during that period of time.
He was 16 an' employee of Georgia Power Company, at th'at time I was 17 solely an employee of Alabama Power Company.
18 Q.
Just so the record is clear, Mr. McHenry worked 19 with yo'u during Phase 2, the Phase 2 planning stage?
20 A.
That was Phase 2 planning of the planning prior to 21 the Phase 1 of the movement toward the SONOPCO organization.
22 Q.
Now, Mr. McHenry worked with you quite extensively 23-on that, didn't he?
24 A.
Yes, he did.
I y
25 Q.
And he continued to work extensively with you until 5
o-ed k
t Nl
?
I i Page 624
\\
l 1
he left the company some time in the fall of 1988; isn't that 2
correct?
l 3
A.
Yes, he did.
4 Q.
And in fact Mr. McHenry was one of the most i
5 knowledgeable people at Georgia Power Company regarding this 6
transition into the SONOPCO project; isn't that true?
7 A.
He was up to a certain time, but when he chose not i
8 to be a part of the final group he was not part of the 9
management structure that made the selections in the 10 selection process.
11 Q.
Do you recall in a meeting at the 270 Peachtree I I 12 Street building that you met with Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckham 13 and Mr. McCoy regarding staffing SONOPCO positions?
14 A.
I remember meeting with them in that building on 15 some other matters, and we might have included som'e 16 discussions about staffing at that time.
17 Q.
Do you recall whether that meeting that you're 18 referring to ineolved a two-day session to look over 19 personnel decisions for filling the SONOPCO project 20 organization chart?
21 A.
No.
22 Q.
Did you ever meet with Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckham or 23 Mr. McCoy regarding organization charts or filling staff 24 positions in SONOPCO at 270 Feachtree Street?
g' 25 A.
I met with them I believe at some time about k
/
k
r Page 625 g
l i
starting the process.
The process had been turned over to 2
Mr. Hairston and the vice presidents, and they made the i
i 3
detailed reviews and selections.
I 4
Q.
And do you recall Mr. McHenry coming into the room l
5 where you were meeting with Mr. Hairston and Mr. Beckham and l
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 f
I' l l 12 going to do that, fill out organization charts?
13 A.
The plan for selecting people for the various jobs i
14 was worked out ahead of time with the vice presidents and Mr.
j 15 Hairston, and that plan was -- we had selected Mr. McCoy as a l
16 vice president, and then vice presidents were to select the 17 next level under them, and then they would participate and be 18 the key person to make selections in the organizations l
19 beneath them, so that each of the managers would select the 20 people who worked for them.
21 Q.
Isn't it true that people got job offers shortly 22 after that meeting between Mr. Beckham, Mr. McCoy and Mr.
I 23 Hairston?
1 24 A.
I don't know which meeting you're referring to.
.h 1
25 Q.
The two-day planning session that I talked about i
i l
JF1 r l
l 10P 4
l P
Page 626 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 S
were going to occur, didn't you?
6 A.
As I stated before, the process was to take place 7
and we got it started by selecting the vice presidents. then 8
they would select the people who reported to them 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?
i I
I 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?
18 A.
No, I did not.
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.
-24 Q.
And did you select Mr. Long?
g I
e 25 A.
No.
I had an advisory role.
n
PP
?,
J Y Page 627 You had an advisory role in both situations?
1 Q.
l 2
A.
- Correct, I want to show you again your deposition testimony 3
Q.
from the Fuchko/Yunker proceedings, and if you could start j
4 actually on the prior page, on Page 12 at the bottom, the l
5 6
last line, and just read on to the next page.
j 7
A.
How far?
8 Q.
Right down to here.
9 A.
Okay.
Line 23, Page 12, question:
"What persons 10 selected those people, the people in those positions?"
11 "Mr. Miller:
If there is such a person and you I
12 know them, you may answer."
'13 Answer:
"I don't know."
14 Question:
"So you did not select them?"
I 15 Answer:
"No."
I 16 Question:
"Who are the vice presidents of those i
17 services?"
18 Answer:
" Charles McCreary and Louis Long."
"And Charles McCreary is thql vice 19 Question:
20 president for what?"
21 Answer:
"McCreary, administrative services."
22 Question:
"Okay.
How about Louis Long, he's 23 technical. services?"
24 Answer:
"Yes.
Now let me qualify my statement in
)
J 25 saying that I don't know.
The selection of those people is
- p
p'r f
Page 628
}
1 under the authority and responsibility of Southern Company 2
Services.
I imagine in th'e normal course of events that 1
3 selection is officially made by the president of Southern 4
Company Services.
There may have been other arrangements 5
that I'm not aware of, but I think that was true."
6 MR. WITHROW:
Is there a question?
7 BY MR. COLAPINTO:
j 8
Q.
That was your testimony in the Fuchko/Yunker 9
proceeding?
10 A.
Correct.
l 11' O.
Mow, you knew Mr. Hobby when he was at Georgia I
12 Power Company?
13 A.
Yes.
14 Q.
Now, I believe you stated when Mr. Joiner was 15 asking you questions that you remembered meeting in January 16 of 1989 regarding the Fuchko/Yunker case, the preparatica 17 meeting?
18 A.
Yes.
19
. Q.
Can you tell me what your recollection is of that 20 meeting?
21 A.
There was only two things that I clearly remember.
22 One that I now remember there was a meeting; the other one I 23 remember a man who sat with us in the meeting named Lukehart, 24 I remember the lawyers being there, but I remember very I
25 little else about th;e meeting.
i i
I l
J L
t '
M
\\
1
' h d Page 640 1
an advisory one?
I am not an officer or a member of the Southern 2
A.
I 3
Company Services organization.
Therefore, I have no position 4
to make a selection.
5 Q.
Does anyone at Georgia Power Company think that you 6
are a member of that group?
7 A.
Not that I know of.
8 Q.
Do you know if there's any confusion that people 9
would believe that you are employed by that group?
10 A.
Not that I know of.
11 Q.
Isn't it true that you requested the board of I
I 12 directors to consider Mr. McCreary for the position?
13 A.
I advised the presidents, the CEO of Alabama, the 14 CEO of Georgia and the CEO of Southern Company Services that 15 I thought those individuals would be good and could I
16 adequately fill those positions.
17 Q.
Isn't it true that you were the only one who 18 requested that Mr. McCreary be selected to that position?
19
'A.
I don't know.
l 20 Q.
How about Mr. Long's position?
21 A.
I don't know.
22 MR. COLAPINTO:
Thank you.
23 We have no'further questions, your Honor.
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS:
Any redirect?
g
)
25 MR. JOINER:
No, your Honor.
t T t
- ll.
~
+, _ _ _
.~
wa-4 l
k h
/\\
3 4
...,e
1 UNITED STATES
' ~
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CFFICE OF A9MDifSTItATIVE LAW JUDGES 1
1 i
e sf s ca ss an ss an se nm an sn am ar an am - se ss am as am as am am es m as sm a In the Matter of:
)
)
j MARVIN B.
H O B F,Y,
)
Case No. 90-ERA-30 i
)
complainant,
)
)
{
vs.
)
I
)
GEORGIA POWi'.R COMPANY,
)
I Respondent.
)
1 i
i i
Pages:
272 through 541
?
A F
Place:
Decatur, Georgia Date:
October 24, 1990 i
f i
}
i T
i ((
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION onkwRurarm i
1229 L Street, N.W., Sehe det Washington D.C.20005 s
(292) 628 4888 l
r
'I }
Page 284 l
i
)
1 made for staffing corporate positions in the SONOPCO project 7
k i
b 2
for the Hatch and Vogtle sites?
1 2
3 A.
Yes.
4 Q.
.And what was your role in that?
4 5
A.
Well, as part of the Phase 2 task force that I was 6
on there were organizations, stiuctures created for what the 7
new organization would look like.
8 Once those structures were created, then there was 9
a process of -- there was a series of phases I guess as we 10 referred to them, transitional phases to get from two f
11 companies to one company, and toward the end of 1988 that L
12 process had proceeded to the point where it actually came 13 down to filling jobs, to selecting people to fill the 14 organization that had been designed.
15 Q.
And do you know'how the positions were actually j
16 filled?
y 17 A.
Well, the process was, the decisionmaking process I
i y
18 as I recall it was done over a period of a couple of days.
s 19 There was a meeting of senior management consisting of Mr.
{,
20 Mcdonald, Mr. McCoy, Mr. Hairston, Mr. Beckham -- that's the 21 group -- and that group of individuals met privately in a
. j 22 separate, in fact in a separate building for a couple of days l
23 and worked out the selection, and sort of working through the
~
24 organization picking the people that wou1d go into various 25 slots in the new organization.
4
i h
Page 285 l
1 Q.
And at some point during those two days were you 2
called into that meeting?
I
)
3 A.
Yes.
jl 4
Q.
And can you tell us how they were filling the slots n
5 when you were in the meeting?
6 A.
Well, my involvement in the meeting was to -- you 7
know, I was asked to come into the meeting to provide some 8
insight I guess on some individuals that people in the room 9
were not familiar with, you know, about their qualifications, I
10 about their background, about their performance.
11 You know, basically there were organization charts, 12 and there were names.
You know, these were blank 13 organization charts that were skeletons showing titles, and 14 the organization charts were being filled out, you know, 15 names were being put in these slots.
16 Q.
And how soon --
Well, after this two-day period 17 where this meeting was taking place with the senior 18 manegement, did you have any further involvement in the 19 selection process?
20 A.
Well, I was heavily involved in the, not 21 necessarily the selection process, but the continuation of g
C 22 the selection process in terms of actually ' working with 23 salary administration developing the work sheets or whatever 24 they were called to come up with the offers basically, the 25 job offers.
i
l 31 4
Page 286 i
l 1
Then I was involved in ensuring that those job 2
offers got disseminated to the right people and the job n
3 offers were made, and tracking whether people accepted the 4
job offers or whether they declined those job offers.
5 Q.
Were you provided the. names of the individuals who 6
we e Put into those slots?
j 7
A.
iss.
8 7
6:ad who provided you those names?
Was it from the f
9 9n -
It was from the group.
Specifically I don't know 10 u.
g f
11 who actually handed me the documents.
I think it may have O
I )
12 been Mr. Hairston that handed me the documents.
13 Q.
And how soon after this two-day meeting that you've e
14 described did you receive that information from the senior 15 management?
4 F
16 A.
Essentially immediately.
17 Q.
Now, do you know if people were selected at the
+
18 Hatich site who were placed in positions without supervisors 19 being chosen yet?
4 20 A.
Well, there were holes in the organization, so, 3
21 yes, there were vacancies in the organization.
There were 22 cases where supervisors or managers had not been picked, and e
23 necessarily they had to go down and fill out the rest of the 24 organization.
1' 25 Q.
Okay.
And who had selected the people who were O
C 2
i i
)
?
Page 287 f.
underneath the vacant spots?
1 i
d 2
A.
Well, essentially this committee selected everyone.
n I mean this committee I referred to, this group of executives 3
4 selected everyone.
I was brought in for. advice on some individuals, and I oelieve maybe Len Casewa was brought in
.N 5
n 6
for advice but, you know, by and large it was a small group
' f 7
of people.
8 Q.
Now I want to direct your attention to the 9
Fuchko/Yunker case.
Do you know what I'm talking about when if 10 I say the Fuchko/Yunker case?
11 A.
Yes.
12 Q.
And do you recall what that was, just briefly what 13 is was?
14 A.
It's hard to brief on the Fuchko/Yunker case, but I 15 guess briefly they eventually alleged that there were 16 problems identified at, that they identified at Plant Vogtle 17 that management was not responsive to, and ultimately they 18 were terminated because of that identification.
That is the l
19 crux of it, I guess.
20 Q.
Did there come a point in time when you became 21 aware that Mr. Fuchko and Mr. Yunker were about to go trial 22 against the company?
4 f*
23 A.
Oh, yes, because I was asked to provide a statement l
24 to the Georgia Power attorneys.
That was after I left the 25 company.
-O O b & M9., M e
1 4
.~
V, i
-r I:
4 D.
b i
l I
i
~
idne'8 1989 j
1Dennist l
ILpromis'ed you in'the earlier 1ctter that 1.would discuns.u littte of j
~
that r 1
~
~
You have read several accounts Lwhat'is going:onLat Georgia Power. investigations, TBI' investigations, ihave sent you related to.the,IHS etc...There is, to my knowledge, n o.-
i political'campaignLeontributions, am told?that these investigntions will.t.'
progress)in.these areas.und I of speculatiun as-to whether M:.
going'on for years.. There is ailot after all, he was th, cro at
- Addison:will.be able.to weather the storm -occurred.
The situation-in t h e-Gulf: Power when many of;these allegations j
is' horrible.
-company'- -;throughout: Southern Company - -
-1
-I;will get more specific about my situation in a moment.
Dut. J'must i
p miler i
"edmit1that'I:am grateful to have worked at Georgia Power when Mr.hard working,-col i
wasl President.
He was a-no nonsense guy, lie lived,
~ inquisitive, honorable, and he: worked.f_o_t the company, The man.could: lead.
He asked breathed, and exited'for Georgia Power.When.peopleidisagreed with hisu, thut was j
.He:ssked for input.
to'ask more quoctions
-questions.
was.only an opportunity for.him fine.
- It.seemed;it Even though he was and he would" admit when he learned something.
new idea.
Ho afraid to' learn somethina or hear a o
.was L not: afraid to-say he didn't know.
He wasn't a f ra,td to sny.ho.tidn't l
' President, he was not Ito didn't m i n 1.
Lunderstandisomething. He wasn't afraid.to.ask for udvice.
' people challenging him - - not personally but on an issue.
gave us guidance and directfun and his
'Mr. Millerz had integrity.
He He:also held you accountable for your
. message to us was clear.As.onellower. level supervisor in building services said to o
1 "We are really going to miss performance.
in lamenting Mr. Miller'r retirement, direction he gives.you, liut you me You may not always agree with-the
- him.
She was right.
falways.know where.you are going."-
e
-Mr. Miller also focused his attention on where ihe compan> nhould im was required to get there. lic really took an.emutson.il
' headed and what interest in;thet 15,000 employees we had and he want ed t hem t o pe r i o rn.'.
took1 care of.them whnther he 1 i k..1 :- t hem or "And.if'they'. performed, hewas rot > essential that'Mr-.. Miller like you because he Judg for Georgiu Powbr.
- not. 'It
- employeelon performance andLwhat.they were doing
~
4.
Somet imes he would muhe.n sune
...Mr. Miller could make a1 decision.
exptrionce, hi..
$r jjudgementibasedLupon-hisctechniculiknowledge, his
- managerial ~ ability,:or1just his-hunche- 'But, when n decinion was moda.
. He also'prbtected-the
.mpan>.
"that;wasLthe end.-
Everybody jumped.
where the' System. wanted tieurgiu pow r to There;were'several? examples we wbre d..ing was turning out changelwhatithey-were?doing al_though what who wanted to increase-the' bureaucrats atisouthern,
-by Ihe i..i m e set the profits;.Litut, their = power ' demanded that" ai1" opurnt ing compnnies. al.ide
~
- f r.
l ot rules'.' Mr. KMiller: amid no; that het was ;in charge of-opernt i ng -Georg ia LPower; and,..although; some Lpeople; at Southern got ben 1 out of shape,.
'I 1*4.11*r?srdecision1ruledithefday.
n m
h
'A 1ot of people remember Mr. Miller as a tough, authoritaiian finure.
I remember him as a great leader, someone to be admired,.a role model, and loving and caring man who dedicated-his life to Georgia Power and it, 1
a employe'es.
Several senior executaves wei e g l a.1 Yet, Mr. Miller'was n strong man.
to see his retire because he ruled firmly and would not let some of t hem i
I am convinced that several executives l
put into effect their lunacy.
just to make themselves-wanted their day in the sen and made suggestions they did not have the look good.
But, their suggestions died because courage to bring them to<Mr. Miller for approval.
resulted was a small group of executives who wanted so desparately to be in charge that they looked for every. opportunity to What I
th"ir personal the com'pany's positioni l
enhance their posi' ion - - not sold their mother and t he company Some of'them would have position. if-they could have positioned.themselves bei t ur.
outright George Head.
George was a technical!y There-was one exception.
hard driving manager who did an except ion sub.
Ib as d 21 M;.
- competent, hard headed, have as broad a perspective had a weakness in that he did not hard to listen and Icarn.
Ile felt he knew his Miller and George found it learning, taking business.sufficiently well to do his job and listening, advice, or changing was difficult'for him.
George could not adapt.
I don't mean he just didn't want to, he couldn't.
After Mr. Miller left (actually before Mr. Miller lef t Courge was assigned to report to Grady Baker.
The organization at the tim" was Mr.
Scherer was' Chairman of the Donrd and CEO, and Grady linker and 1:Imer
. Harris were the two Senior Executive Vice Presidents.
Grady had planned when Mr. Miller retired, he would becomo Prow ).len i.
Affairs and t h.
his career such that over from Alabama Power to head External Grady Elmer was brought he could become Chairman and CEO of Georgia Power.
even told everyone that would listen to him that he had picked Elmer to b.
word was that
'CEO at Georgia because he (Grady) did not want the job - - he wanted to b.
President and C00.
did Mr.. Addison became President of Southern nnd said,Georgin Pow"r not need both a President and a Chairman of the Board.
He said t hat when n.
Chairman.
Mr. Scherer retired, we would have a President, and a CEO and all'then y.srs an-He had worked to become President That crushed Giady.
wheth.r F1mer now would not get the job.
Then a horse ' race began to see President of Southern would become President or whether Bill Dahlberg, Company = Services and an ex-Senior Vice President of Georgia Pow"r i.ho J..
.to work for Grady, would become President o f G e o rg-i-a Pow"r.
Prictinn Grndy was obviously pushing. Bill.
developed'between'Grady and Elmer.
invol ed heavily in this, Bill won because, in part.I think, Elmer got v
campaign contributions fiasco.
tBack to George.
George and Grady didanot got along.
Grady is a i t, b i-i l l a n t.
JekyllLand-Hyde.
There.are days when his thought-processnever know whi.b There are' days when he acts like an idiot.
And, you:
I could'go into a~ lot of examples whos.
. person you.are dealing with.
George and.Grndyl disagreed but there is not need.
I would poisit.ut t h e. '
..<4-i.,,...
..,,.n hu:ii.-
t Q..
W I
I Mr. Miller would not let that happen and Mr. Miller and George ll ad were After Mr. Miller left, Grady.tried to get on Nr.
wanted Io
.on the same side.
Addison's good side by agreeing to everything Southern Servtces do.
George disagreed but Southern is gradually taking over Now, however,.we are left with another poor siiuntion.
!: I me r H a n,..
is named President of Alabama, Bill Dahlberg at Georgia, and Allen Each one of them is running l'o r Franklin at Southern Company Services.
Addison's job.
It appears that it is not so important that each one of 4
as it is that each stays on good terms them does his present job properly with-Mr. Addison.
Southern is now run by a management council of all the There are not disagreements.
As a matter CEOs.
It is run by consensus.
ofLfact, each CEO makes it his business to agree with what they think.Nr.
to do.
A rumor can start that Mr. Addison wants something done.and all the CEOs break their necks to agree to it even if Mr. Addison
. Addison wants in a heavily political arena here and knows nothing about it.
We are right means little.
Into this situation enter one R. Patrick Mcdonald.
This atmosphere it made for him; he excels in it.
He is reither 61 or 62, knows he is not has retirement from the Navy, makes good going further in the Company, money, and recognizes a vacuum in the leadership of the Company.
11" d o e s what he wants to do, regardless of what.any ohe else says, explains it without sticking to the truth, and, in general, is enjoying life.
Ile gets along very well with Mr. Farley partly because he lies to Farley and Pat can get away i
~ partly because Mr. Farley hates Georgia Power Company.
Farley is Executive Vice with anything by badnouthing Georgia Power.
i President of Southern for Nuclear and reports to Mr. Addison.
)
I When the decision was made to bring Put into Georgio Power : h.-
i.e Executive Vice President of Georgia Power and Alabama Power) nnd to novo our nuclear operations group'to Birmingham, I decided after my experience-with him to not go.
I went to Grady and told him that 1.didn't want io e-j establish a contract adminis t ra t i.,o grous. to 4
but to advise GPC's and I recommended that we protect' Georgia Power
- not to manage SONOPCO senior' management on how our performance war.
Grady agreed to that and 4'
I specifically remember him saying that said he would talk to Dahlberg.
a tough the job 3s General Manager of his group would hnve
-whoever got time ~trying to deal with Mr. Farley and Mr. Mcdonald.
(Incidentally, everyone in senior management at Georgia Power that J have talked to:
l' George Head, Grady. Elmer. Dwight Evans, and I have been told Dahlberg hates-Pat' Mcdonald.
They think he is bordering on crazy, and he doesn't 4
-tell the truth).
Grady took his' proposal to Dahlberg and at some point Grady an! U"u r.
Head talked to.Dahlberg.
.They decided we did need such a group and it would be reporting to George' Head.
Dahlberg asked George i.ho wo u l.1 hvad He said I was the only one in iIm the" group and George told his me.
George.
Company left'with nuclear experience, except I-was.given the job.on' December 27.
A copy of DahIleerg'c mamo announcing the promotion is: enclosed.
Prior to Ihe memo going.out, Gear:
Grov " m Laskiedimel.how I'would structure the group.
A copy of my memo to e
that: subject.is;also enclosed.
l 1
1 l
Early in January, Pat Mcdonald came over to G -u r y, i a Power a nil told me to do something.
I told him I would be glad to but that I needed to inform George liend since I now worked for him.
Pat went I t v i ii.
lie asiwd what I was talking about and I went and got a copy of the memo for him, He got very made und said he opposed the creution of such a v. r o u ti.
!!e said when the time came for such a group, he would set up iho grout.,
decide what it would do, and he would pick the head of it.
!!c said he 1
-would not have any of this.
I reported this to George.
retired, I worked. :.
From January until the end of April when George the President.
I could to do the job assigned to me by let his Pat Mcdonald would not cooperate and would not well as I will not go into details except to say Unfortunately, people in Birmingham cooperate.
talk to me.
that Pat has refused to let his people in Birmingham even period, I told George"we needed help from Dahlbern.
I J
times.
Gourge asked foi During this request.ed a meeting with Dahlberg 50 many, many meetings.
He had maybe 4 or S.
Each time, Dahlberg would sa3 must have he supported us, wanted us to do our job, and was behind us.
it u t, he did nothing.
Pat still would not cooperate.
Finally, George asked me to ca!
Mcdonald and set up a meeting between Mcdonald, Ilead, and me.
McDonale!
would not set up the meeting.
Then George announced he was retiring.
Dahlberg asked him to reconsider and remain with GPC but George refused.
One of the r e a r. o n s George r'efused was that he felt we did not have a leader at Georgia Power and that Bill would not make a decision and would not stand up for Georgi Power.
Throughout all of this, I have continued to remind peop1.: Ihat l'a t Mcdonald reported to Bill Dahlberg and, by NHC regulations, had le. t t e r,
u..uif told Grady, George, Dwight Evans (EVP of External Affairs anel a
friend of.Dahlberg's), Chuck Whitney (Asst to Dahlberg), Fred Williumr of Bulk Power), and the attorneys that ?
,sught we had a 1 rotil em.
I iof them that, in my opinion, Pat Mcdonald wonxed only for Joe-Parley, now Fi of The Southern Company, and if that were true we were in violatiun o f
.o.
license and the NRC could shut our plants down.
Several lieople v. hared m>
concern but would not agree or disagree.
George llend agreed.
Fr..d the NRC the organizntion chart.
Williams said all we had to do was show said Fred that won't cut it.
so rar a:
I talked to the lawyers.
They were concerned and even went to-tell Hairston that if he were ever asked who be reported to be was to say Mcdonald who reports to Dahlberg.
For the license on "ait 2 at Vogtle, the people were coached as to how to answer that question.
Finally, George has decided to retire and he went tu Dahlimre and La that there was one matter he wanted to get settled before he retired und Dahlberg responded that he knew t lam was our relationship with SONOPCO.
i f t hey c o u l.!
a problem and he was going to meet with Farley and see told me that, I said something like if was straighten it out., When Georgeto.Dahlberg why in the hell can't !<ill just tell him wha to do and why does Bill have to go and straighton il out with Jo..
Fa r l e.,
' Mcdonald report George said, "Well, I guess we have just got the answer as tu who Mc! Den i hum -
really reports to."
George also said that Dahlberd said it w.iG i
A.
When we learned that Grady and Dahlberg were coing to meot with Tarley, I told George that they shouldn't go talk io Farley witheet talking to him and me first about what problems we were having.
He agreed Dahlberg wouldn't m~t with and tried to set up a meeting with Dahlberg.
us.
About this time, I was going up to George Head's office on the Nth for E.ternal Affairs saw me and we floor and the Executive Vice President s
starting talking.
His name is Dwight Evans and he is pretty clos.
to l
he would start looking r.o Dahlberg.
Dwight said that.if he were me another job in the company because he had heard that Me!)onald,ind Fu r :-
were out to get me fired or out of the job i was in.
I reported this to George and he said we had to talk to thsh J b. re and Grady before they met with Farley.
He tried but failed.
Ile then suggested that I might go to Grady and tell him what we had h. a rd. i n.t w h.. '
j I
a meeting with Grady and Dahlberg.
our concerns were and try to get He said it was. not necessary.
to see Grady and asked for a meeting.
I said something like Grady, the rumor is going around that Mcdonald and went Farley are after my job.
Won't you at least talk to Georeo and me' 11..
Jumped up from his chair, threw his arms up.high, laughed and enntinuing to laugh said, " Hobby, what can I r.ay?"
And, he then walleei out of th..
Toom.
I told George.
He got mad and said he was leaving th.. rompan., wante to get away from those people, and.he basically apologized that tic Company did not have a backbone and would not stand up for what was right in senior management at GPC " worth a shit" have anyone He said we did not tackle Mcdonald would win because no one at GPC would dare and that Farley.
About the same time, I got a call from Fred Williams, VP o r !: u l k Power.
He is the guy that really deals with most with the joint o w n e r t..
He said he had been asked by Dahlberg and Grady to go to li i rm i n gh am to...
if we could work out the problems between SONOPCO, GPC, and Ihe joint He asked me to write down the major problems I had in.lenting He said he would not show it to Mcdonald but ho would eli owners.
with Mcdonald.
to Grady and Dahlberg for their meeting with Furley, it I wrote the memo (which is enclosed) and before giving ii to Fi ed I showed it George head.
George agreed with the memo and felt so utrongly I had said, he said.he wanted to sign the memo w it h me.
I has the original memo at home with my and George's signature.
I took the men i
about what to Fred Williams.
He read it.
He told me to destroy the memo because n.
did not want.something like that in our files.
He said the joint owners to and he said
-had been fussing about Mcdonald and who Mcdonald reported cou i.I not ha.
that my meno showed that Mcdonald reported to Farley and we this memo in our files because it.would prove oglethortur's arenment.
I tol.
him that the I told' Fred that this was a regulatory concern.
and that we ought li.
way he reacted-indicated that we did have a problem fix the problem before we got into trouble,with the NHC.
- ot.l him u.
e ought to concentrate on fixing the--problem not worrying about some memo.
.t..
.c v.. a4a,,,,, y.,,,.., n,. n h 1.... thon t b.-
n.:m o
- m. an t n..' h i n a
~
}
..s h
It only. meant something if Mcdonald did not actually report to Dahlt.ere 1
but to Farley.
I told him I thought we-were noing to cet in tionbie aith
.the NRC.
He said there was not a problem that if t he Nite es en a.. I,.. d.
h...
.the-issue we'would just show them an organi/.ation chart Then h,.
ui'.
you must: destroy this memo.
He a1so said ho was going io Is ". p a
>p) the nemo but he would not keep it and he would not let u r a.ly and liaht!...
j see it.
It was.because of that that I went to see George and later to..
\\
Grady.
I~ talke'd.to George and we agreed that I would not destroy the memo, t
.do not-have a copy at the office.
I do elsewhere.
I asked him why Dnhlberg just In my conversation with Fred Williams,
=didn't tell Pat Mcdonald what to do and the whole issue would he liehind u s'.
He said Bill did not have the clout $9 do that.
Ile e, aid Mcdonald was McDona d an~ order and failey d,.
l very closetto Farley and if Bill gave Pat not agree with it, the. mutter could wind up before LI Add i son.
I a 3. h e d well, doesn't Dahlberg have enough clout with Addison tu win the argument.
Fred said that wasn't the issue.
He said Addison dtd n.t hm.
enough clout to tell Farley what to do.
He said the Southern board war, divided and that Addison did not have enough votes to do something if Farley-disagreed and that Farley did not have enough votes if Addison disagreed.
He said the Southern Board is at a stalemate and we have to thing Dahlberg could not a f f~ord t..
make do-the best'~we can.
And, the one
~
issue between Dahlberg and Farley that would require Addison to make a decision because, if push came to shove, Addison was no do was raise an guaranteed th'at the-Board would support him over Farley.
T.hurefor no j
major disagreements were to be brought to Addison.
)
i Bottom line:
Dahlberg wants to replace Addison.
Dah] berg ~in not going to make something an issue that will require Addison to docide between Dahlberg and Farley.
No one is,ip_ control at Southern it is shared responsibility.
Farley can do what he likes.
Parley lets McDonal do'what he likes.
And, nobody can stop him.
was Fred told me with Paul Rice and Paul said that I shared what a mnjority of pretty much the truth.
He said Addison is working to gain the Board's support but he does not have it now.
After George retired, Kerry Adams, who knows nothing about nuclear,
'wasEnamed to replace him.
Grady told him he was not sure who I would eventually wind up reporting to, but that I was to hire n o' new peopte.
.I'believe that the outcome will be. that my job will be greatly' reduc.
~
report to Fred including a reduction in pay'and I will be asked to I don't know.
It u t, I do knm Or,..I could be asked to resign.
do a. good job and have been prohibit"d from doinu 3 Williams..
this; l'have tried to job ~byLPat Mcdonald.
I.got excellent support from George Head.
I have r'
from Grady or unhlberg.
F received _' no support - - except ' lip service' - - the company.
-Everybody is protecting their own position'in 1' don't know what. will happen.
It is my opinion that Gt"* and Alabara licenses.
Mcdonald repo
'.s 1
. Power Companyj are-in violation ~o f our NRC Joe Farley, 1' don't care whatLthe organi ntion chart unis.
I ha v.. roiut l
.+rned ihai :..
- 0.. -
u... -... w,,4 : n o...,,,,,. w a d e m e n 1 ibnt.I w..
t Y
violating Federal law.
But, the answer is time and time aca r si, "h
~
show them an organization chart."
this on Sunday.
Maybe you and I can talk about 9
1 l
t
0
+
f
.s-5 4
e m
9 4
m.w*
I ATTACHMENT SONOPCO ORGANIZATION r-APC SONOPCO OPC A&A M asa SONOPCO OsenOIA POWSR POESIASNT ANO POWSR CSO CSO CSO
~
SONOPCotaPCJOPC SMSCUTWS VICS,RSSaDSNT 7____
CORPORA 1T i
OROANGATON I SONOPCO SONOPCOMPCJGPC SONOpCO
_=s -
,,CS.P S.S.
,,CS,RSS.SNT ADhlINISTRATWS TSCNonCAL SSfWICSS S$8WICES OPSRATIONS I
SONOPCO SONOPCOsAPC SONOptXWOPC SONOptxWOPC SONOPCO
-,/
v CS.PRSS.SNT vCS = S.SNT vies S.S.<T escourtamv PARLSY MATCH WOSTLS 888*Tuouda PetOJSCT PetOJECT PEDOJSCT SONOPCO SONOPCO SONOPCO SONOPCO SONOPCO SONOPCO SUPPORT SASR SUPPORT SASR SUPPORT SASR 1
~
~~
g __
g g
Snr OPC OpC ORGAN 2ATM 5
E X
APC
,0G m e
e ATC 4
5
,t m
m
-)
.......... SS.eOTSS ADeAINISTRATWE IWPORTING
- S0000P00 N
- GRAMASSft SASR WILL ALSO 88 AN APC,SasPLOVSS g
. e
.e
(
l i
I J
~
I 0 1 G \\'A OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 1
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meng.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations
Title:
Implementation of Southern Nuclear operating Company Docket No.
50-348, 50-364, 50-425, 50-321, so-ass i
i 1DCADON:
Rockville, Maryland dam Friday, January 11, 1991 PAGES:
1 - 49 d
i e
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1612 K SL N.W., Suke 300 Mshington, D.C 20006 (202) 293-3950
42 1
meetings and timing of reviews.
It has nothing to do at 2
this time that I know of, of anything --
3 MR.-VARGA:
Are you experiencing resistance from 4
the other owners?
5 MR. MCDONALD:
.We have experienced encouragement 6
from others.
Dan's company for example, has encouraged us
]
7 to proceed on as efficiently as we can.
i 8
MS. ADENSAM:
Do you have any contingency if these j
9.
issues don't get resolved and you are not in a position to 10 transfer licenses?
11 MR. MCDONALD:
Well, any contingency if they don't 12
'get resolved?
.3 MS. ADENSAM:
Would.you --
1 14 MR. MCDONALD:
A month ago today we were sitting 15 here, and the only difference a month ago today is we would l
16 erase that line and erase everywhere SONOPCO appears, 17' everywhere SONOPCO appears you would erase it.
For all 18 practical purposes there is no difference in the day-to-day 19 operation of the plants.
20 MS. ADENSAM:
You are continuing as of a month ago 21 then?
22 MR.' MCDONALD:
Yes.
A month ago there was no line 23 here.
.Mr. Farley was performing his job as a Vice President 24 of the Southern Company.
He had no responsibilities for 25" this administrative support.
That~ administrative support 4
A
e
=
~
43 1
that we had basically was being~done, and he was a part of a
.2 contract -- it was a contract to me from Southern Services J
for providing essentially much the same support we have here 4
now.
5 This group, for example, was a Southern Company 6
services organization that was under contract -- inter-7 company Contract essentially by me -- providing the same 8
thing that they are doing after the company is formed.
It 9
is no different.
10 MS. ADENSAM:
I have one other question, a little 11 different shift.
I heard you earlier say that Mr.
12
,Garlington in the support organizatier was working with the 13-same procedures and practices and so forth that he did 14 before.
15 MR. MCDONALD:
Yes.
16 MS. ADENSAM:
Now, I would assume that the 17 gentlemen for the Hatch Project -- or ladies, as the case 18 may be -- for the Hatch Project and Vogtle project are doing 19 the same thing.
My question is, are they working with the 20 same procedures as each other, or the same procedures as 21-they'had before?
'2 2 '
MR. MCDONALD:
The business in each of these 23 projects is being carried on under the name of Georgia or 24 Alabama Power Company.
The communications that you will
!25 see, the internal and external, will be in the name of
as g
m a
A a
...a,
_,A,,
p g.-,,,
.,,,e am.2.s,
,_a 4
9 8
4 4 4
I 4
i a
b 4
f i
1 i
i
)
f J
b j
l 1
d 4
9 9
4 4
4 s
e e
5 4
4 1
t a
j
.m
?
J 4
4 s.
4
4 COPY 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
) 90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 JOSEPH M.
FARLEY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
23 BULL & ASSOCTATES COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 8
BULL & ASSOCIATES
2 1
Deposition of JOSEPH M.
- FARLEY, i
2 taken on behalf of the Complainant, 3
for the purpose of discovery, upon l
1 4
cross-examination, before Susan E.
[
5 Reynolds, Registered Professional 6
Reporter, Certified Court Reporter 7
and Notary Public, at the Candler d
-I 8
- Building, 127 Peachtree Street, 9
N.E.,
Suite 1400, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 commencing at approximately 11 2:30 p.m.,
May 7,
1990.
12 13 14 15 16 1
l 17 18 19 4
i j
20 j
21 22 l
23 24 35 BULL & ASSOCIATES
-E
4 i
11 4, 'i 1
any executive on any of those?
l 2-A No.
I do not believe they are.
3 Q
Who do you report to?
- Well, first 4
there's the Southern Company Services; is that f
5 correct?
l e
6 A
Yes.
I 7
Q Who do you report to there?
I 2
8 A
The President and the Chief t'at company, Mr. Alan 9
Executive Officer of h
10 Franklin, and for certain purposes I report to 11 him.
Basically, however, my reporting is to L
12 Mr. Edward L.
Addison who is President and CEO 4
13 of the Southern Company.
As I mentioned, I am I
14 an officer of the Southern Company but both Mr. j i
15 Addison and I are paid by Southern Company i
16
- Services.
.The SEC does not basically allow 17 Jthe holding company to maintain a separate i
18 ipayroll.
So we are employees of the Service 19 Company for pay purposes but my basic reporting 20 responsibility is to Mr. Addison.
21 Q
At S o u t h e r r. Company you report to
^
1 22 Mr. Addison?
i 23 A
Yes.
t 24' Q
Does Mr. Mcdonald report to you?
1 4
25' A
Mr. Mcdonald and I worn together and l'
1 l
BULL & ASSOCIATES
.. ~
l J.-
12
,i i
1' have-a close working relationship.
We, in
.]
2 essence, occupy a set of joint responsibilities j 3
with the project with which we're involved but 4
he does not, for most purposes, report to me.
5 Q
But he does' for some purposes?
i i
6 A
We have a close relationship as we l
j 7
have had for many years but our.
f i
8 responsibilities are different and only in the 9
. sense'of some a d min i s t ra tiv e matters does he j
10' report to me or work with me.
Our relationship 11
'is more informal than simply reporting.
12 Q
So on paper he.does not necessarily 13 report to you but informally he does report to 14 you?
15 I
A He does not I
16 MR. SCHAUDIES:
Excuse me, l
17 i
Mr. Farley.
Let me just register an 18 objection here and that is to the.
19 extent that this deposition isn't 20 trying to inquire into the reporting 21 relationship between Mr. McDonaid or 22' Mr. Farley or whoever else which was 23 part of the allegations I realize l
l 1
Mr.
i Hobby.
I e
24 that'were raised by j
l 25 don't'believe-that that is relevant
...._ _ l BULL & ASSOCIATES i
13 1
to the issue of whether he was 2
retaliated against for raising those 2
3 allegations.
I would like to make a 4
standing objection to this line of 5
inquiry and allow the witness to go 6
ahead and proceed in the interests of 7
full disclosure and toward expediting 8
the deposition but, if I may, it will i
9 just be a standing objection to the 10 entire line of inquiry.
i 11 MR. KOHN:
You may certainly 12 have that.
13 MR.
SCHAUDIES:
So if you can 14 remember the question, which I'm 15 afraid I can't, y.ou can answer it.
16 THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
I J
17 can't.
18 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
Okay.
The question 19 was, in essence then, on paper Mr. Mcdonald 20 does not technically report to you but he does 21 in an informal sense?
i 22-A On some matters in an informal I
23 gense.
24 Q
Can you tell me which matters on an 25 informal sense?
BULL & ASSOCIATES
f
}
1 A
In an informal sense, he and I 4
i 2
jointly are what we describe as an office of 3
the chief executive of the project.
It is not f
4 a corporation.
It is a project.
In areas such 5
as the selection of a candidate for an 6
accounting job or a job in the non-operating 7
areas.
When I say operating, I mean the 8
operating of the power plants themselves.
He 9
does not report to me and yet on the other 10 areas, particularly administrative or in
.j
~
11 governmental affairs which is part of my
\\
y?
II responsibility, he would report to me in that
.*ij 13 sense.
If he were asked about volunteering to C
14 be a witness in a congressional proceeding f
15 having to do with advanced ~ light water t
16 reactors, he would ask me about it before he 9
17 would accept that.
That relationship, however, 18 does not apply when it comes to Plant Vogtle, 19 Plant Hatch or Plant Farley where he does not i
20 report to me but reports to the chief executive I
21
! officer of Georgia Power Company or Alabama i
l 22 I
Power Company respectively.
23 Q
He reports to those individuals?
,,w 24 A
Yes.
25 Q
But does he discuss the operation of BULL & ASSOCIATES
16
/
1 maybe three days week and I would usually see 2
.him during those days.
3 0
When the SONOPCO organization is 4
incorporated formal'ly 5
A Yes.
will Mr. Mcdonald report 6
Q 7
directly to you?
8 MR. SCHAUDIES:
Well, excuse 9
me.
I'm going to object to the form 10 of the question on the basi ~s that it i
is hypothetical and it's asking the 11 12 l
witness to j
l' MR.
KOHN:
Let me rephrase it.
13 14 MR.
SCHAUDIES:
Okay.
15 i
Q (By Mr. Kohn)
Is it anticipated 16 that Mr. Mcdonald will report directly to you?
17 i
A The answer is immediately he would 18 for certain purposes but not for certain.other 19 i purposes because the incorporation and, by the i
20 way, I have to add this caveat.
I will have 21
- mandatory retirement in approximately two years 1
22 and five months.
So the way things have been 23 moving, I may not even be there at the time it 24 is incorporated.
But if it were incorporated 25 tomorrow, he would report to me for BULL & ASSOCIATES
l 17 1
administrative matters and for certain purposes 2
l of the sort I have described before.
In other l
3
- words, our relationship would not change but he 4
'would still remain an officer of both Georgia
~
)
5 Power Company and Alabama Power Company and 6
report as Executive Vice President of both 7
those companies to their Chief Executive j
8 Officers and through that to those Boards of I
9 jDirectors.
Ultimately," there would be another i
10
. stage we would hope to pass through in which
]
l 11 the licenses might be transferred but that may i
12 l or may not ever take place.
So I would be i
13 sheer speculating on that.
j i
14 Q
It's my understanding at some point l
15 the transfer from the SONOPCO Project to e
i 16 SODOPCO Incorporated was anticipated to take 17
!120 days; is that correct?
l 18 l
A I am not sure anticipated is the 19 correct word.
It was hoped that it would take 20
- a relatively short time for the first phase of lthe~ incorporation 21 and the getting underway to 22 take place.
23 Q
Are you aware of whether or not 24 0ethorpe Power has asked any questions of 25 anyone of the Southern System as to whom Mr.
j i
~
.. _J BULL & ASSOCIATES
e 37 f
1 they operate under contract to sup. port to 2
report to him.
3 Q
Is that a Mr. Long?
4 A
Yes, Mr. Lou Long; Louis Long.
.., }
?A-'
5 Q
And he is the Vice President of p,[
6 Technical Services?
9 7
A Yes; and he is a Southern Company 8
Services employee.
9 Q
Then there's also an administrative 10 services?
11 A
Yes.
The Vice President of 12 Administrative Services, that's Mr. M'cCrary.
I 13 He is a Service Company employee.
He reports 14 both to me and to Mr. Mcdonald.
He reports to l
15 what I described earlier as a kind of an office 16 of the chief executive for the project on
!k 17 administrative matters, not on technical
]f 18 matters.
19 Q
Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report
,.f 20 directly to Mr. Mcdonald and then through there 21 they report directly to you?
22 A
Mr. Long does not report to me.
j 23 Now, Mr. McCrary because this is a technical J,
24 area with which I do not exercise direct ti 25 supervision, I work with that group.
They are, a
BULL & ASSOCIATES
~
38 1
in essence, under me in the organization but 2
they do not report to me.
They report to Mr.
l 3
Mcdonald.
In the case of Mr. McCrary, for 4
purposes of this project, there are many things l
5 that Mr. McCrary reports to directly to me 6
about and others he reports jointly to.me and 7
to Mr. Mcdonald or to whichever one of us 8
happens to be there.
Mr. Mcdonald and I 9
undertake _to be in thi's transition period of 10
. sort of a joint office far *he edministrative 11 side.
I can furnish you that organization 12 chart if you want it.
It's the same chart 13 that's a record with the SK.C that we have 14 furnished.
15 Q
I would appreciate that.
16 A
Fine.
17 (Brief pause.)
18 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
Is there a document 19 which sets up the structure and function of the 20 SONOPCO Project?
21 MR. SCHAUDIES:
At what point 22 in_ time?
l 23 MR. KOHN:
Currently or one 24 that is still in effect.
25 A
The initial filing with the SEC BULL & ASSOCIATES
o e
f 9
39 i
1 1
describes this to some extent.
We have I
j l
2 will be honest with you, I am not sure that we 3
have such a single document that describes 4
this.
As you may know, we had anticipated that 5
we would arrive at a corporate stage fairly 6
soon which it has turned out not to be the I
7 case.
We have had many descriptions given of 8
what we are doing but as to a single document, 9
,I would have to review it to find out if we f
10
,have such a document.
11 Q
(By Mr. Kohn)
Was there a document 12 presented to the Southern Company Board of I
13 Directors regarding the structure of SONOPCO
-14 and/or the SONOPCO Project?
15 A
I report to the-Southern Board l
l 16 quarterly on the status of the organization in j
17 1what we're doing.
Again, when we received or i
18
- when they approved the concept they did not j
I 19
.actually give they have no authority to 20 lactually approve anything other than the filing l i
21 l with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
l i
22 The structure is that that filing has to I
23 precede their approval.
But since that time I l
24 do not think they have received a document i
25 other than just the current report from me BULL & ASSOCIATES
t I
40 on the progress and performance.
1
! quarterly 2
0 Quarterly report on the progress of 3
, formation of the SONOPCO Corporation?
4 A
Of the performance of the units and 5
the progress toward our ultimate organization 6
and that's a verbal report.
7 Q
And where do you obtain your 8
information to advise the Board of the status?
i l
A I know the information.
I receive 9
10
,of course (as everyone else does) reports from i
11 the people with whom I work.
I receive reports
,from Mr. Mcdonald, Mr. Hairston, Mr. McCoy, Mr.
12 13 Long, Mr. McCrary and I have put together a 14 format, in my own mind, of what I think is 15 important which always includes "where are we" 16 in our negotiations toward the creation of the 17 l corporate entity which then would be much 18 l easier for everyone to understand.
19 j
Q And these are oral?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Are the meetings transcribed?
22 A
The usual minutes simply include Mr.
23 Farley reporting on nuclear performance and the 24 status of SONOPCO.
I 25 Q
Were you apprised of the BULL & ASSOCIATES n
- ^-b k
L o.4_,
W+l Lew - -
a w
J
+
4 4
i t
b hfADN i
8 t
t 1
I 0
1 J
COPY l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2
3 MARVIN B.
- HOBBY,
)
)
4 Complainant,
) CIVIL ACTION
)
5 vs.
) FILE NO.
)
6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
) 90-ERA-30
)
7 Respondent.
)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 ALFRED WILLIAM DAHLBERG l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
)
23 BULL & ASSOCIATES f
COURT AND DEPOSITION REPORTERS 24 4651 Roswell Road, N.E.,
Suite F-504 1
Atlanta, Georgia 30342 25 (404) 256-2886 l
l BULL & ASSOCIATES i
l
4; e
22
}
1 Q
Who administers that contract?
2 A
It's really not administered.
It's 3
a contract.and it's just a service contract.
4 It's similar to SONOPCO.
If t h.e r e is a 5
department that provides a function for 6
Georgia, you know, it's just provided just like 7
another department of Georgia.
There is not-8 really a contract when you sit down and you say 9
you're suppose to do tNis, your suppose to do 10.
this.
I'm not familiar with that kind of a 11 contract.
The one that I'm familiar with
-12 describes what the Service Company is to do and 13 gives some formulas for allocating costs but 14
.that's about the extent of it.
15 Q
Mr. Long and Mr. McCrary report to 16 M r'.
Mcdonald; is that correct?
17 A
I believe so.
18 Q
Did they report to Mr. Mcdonald as a 19 Georgia Power Company employee or as an Alabama i
20 Power Company employee or as both?
21 A
I am not.sure.
I am just not sure i
22 whether they're officers of both companies or 23 not.
They"may have.
I just don't know.
24 Q
So there are.no clear lines of 25 reporting from Mr. McCrary'to Mr. Mcdonald to 3
' BULL & ASSOCIATES R
...~.
L
~, -
23 E
1 you?
2 A-There is a clear line for Mcdonald r
3 to me, yes.
4 Q.
Well, then does it then go Mr.
5 McCrary, Mr. Mcdonald,;Mr. Dahlberg?
We've 6
already establisheU'that Mr. McCrary reports to 7
Mr. Mcdonald.
Therefore, I assume because Mr.
8 Mcdonald reports directly to you then that's 9
the chain of command; is that correct?
10 A
I think that would be correct if it and I 11 is true that Mr. McCrary and Mr. Long report to Mr.
12 said I thought that was true 13 Mcdonald and he reported to me, yes, that would 14 be the chain of command.
What I'm also saying
~
15 though is for the.Kdministrative part of the
\\
16 business, for the Technical Service part of the J
j 17 business I assume Mr. Mcdonald manages that.
18 The things that he talks to me about are the
-19 budget, the performance, the operation of the 20 plant which would be in the operating side of l
21 the business.
I'm more familiar with that.
- 22 Q
So you have seated to Mr. Mcdonald 23 all control of-Administrative Services and e
24 Technical-Services. and only expect Mr. Mcdonald e
25 to bring problems to your attention that he p
BULL & ' ASSOCIATES a
-g-
-r
--a4 w-me w
u--
v 3+
e P7'
'