ML20069F298

Intervenor Response to Licensee Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Documents.* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20069F298
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	06/01/1994
From:	Kohn S KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
CON-#294-15129 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9406080197
Download: ML20069F298 (24)

Text

. .- . .-

~

/ /2- HELATED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

) 94 EN -1 P2 :50 In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-42 LA -

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-42 - SECRETARY st a1 ) U S MINICL DRANCF'

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO LICENBEE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REOUEST FOR DOCUMENTS Eggponse to Interrocatory No. 1 Intervenor identifies the following additional material as supplementing the responses set out to interrogatory No. 12 of GPC's first set of interrogatories:

18) All issues identified and discussed in NRC OI Report No. 2-90-020R, the May 9, 1994 Notice of Violation and the Vogtle Coordj aat.'ng Group's Analysis which were the subjects of Board Notif. :ations '4-01 and 94-03.

a-m. See NRC OI Report No. 2-90-020R.

19) All issues pertaining to Board Notification 94-07.

a- . Ige attached memorandum to Board Notification 94-07 of Allen Mosbaugh.

20) All .ssues pertaining to Board Notification 94-08 concerning the failure to determine the real root cause of the 1A l

diesel failures associated with the Site Area Emergency. l 21). Intervenor is investigating an issue concerning 4 l

incompetence, willful deception, and integrity of Southern l

Nuclear concerning the waiver of tech specs to facilitate mode 4

9406080197 940601 PDR ADOCK 05000424 30 0 PDR l

1

change from mode 6 to mode 5 after the Site Area Emergency with both Diesels inoperable. The NRC did limited Board Notification on this issue.

22) Intentional or gross negligent omission fron May 14, 1990 letter to NRC entitled Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Corrective Actions for Site Area Emergency (ELV-01632). Said document is believed to have been signed by Hairston and prepared by Stringfellow and is false by omission based on GPC's failure to adequately identify corrective actions taken relative to primary and secondary causes of the diesel generator during the Site Area Emergency.

Intentional or gross negligence concerning the failure to properly identify all findings, root causes, and corrective actions taken related to the diesel failure during the Site Area Emergency. Said information should have been included in LER 90-006, COA, verbal presentation in the 4-9-90 Atlanta presentation of Bockhold, and failure to alert NRC that NUREG 1410 is incorrect. At this time Intervenor has identified six potential omissions and findings:

1. Water in the diesel pneumatic air lines;

2. Significant air leaks in diesel pneumatic air li r;

3. Iraproperly installed pneumatic air lines (rolled tubing) ;

4. Change in orifice sizing (in diesel pneumatic controls);

2

f. A e

i l

S. Pneumatic logic board failures;

6. P3 pressure switch reset repeatability.  ;

a. Allen Mosbaugh. Additional witnesses have not yet been identified.

b. Intervenor has not compiled any documents at this time other than the documents relied upon in the depositions of Mr. Burr, Mr. Fredericks and Mr. Majors.

c. Intervenor became aware of these matters in April of 1994 while reviewing tapes returned from NRC and transcripts provided by GPC.

d. Intervenor currently believes that participants to these events include Mr. Burr, Mr. Fredericks, and numerous other GPC/ Southern Nuclear employees. Intervenor will supplement this response after he has concluded basic discovery on this matter.

e. None,

f. Intervenor is still analyzing the events for willfulness and does not, at this time, have specific information to respond.

g-1. Intentional or gross negligence concerning the failure to properly identify all root causes of the diesel failure during the Site Area Emergency would constitute an example of a fatal character flaw, that being the inability or unwillingness to  ;

i provide the NRC with essential and required information required l l

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.9.

l l

3 l

m. Intervenor's knowledge is limited to information 1

contained in tape recordings and documents GPC filed with NRC, l and inferences drawn therefrom.

Intervenor intends to supplement this interrogatory answer.

E_esconse to Interrocatory Nos. 2-3.

a. Intervenor interprets this interrogatory to exclude communications his counsel has had with NRC employees where GPC's counsel participated.

1) Intervenor has met and/or spoken with Larry Robinson, NRC Region II Office or Investigations, 101 marietta Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323, (404) 331-6509, on the following occraions:

• 11-4-93 to review testimony;

• 4-28-94 to give testimony on new issues;

• numerous phone contacts which are so extensive Intervenor cannot recall the specifics, but which relate to Board notifications, and the OI Report and its preparation. The phone contacts occurred daily during the past week, 1-2 times a week during the previous 2 months, 1-2 times monthly in the previous year.

11) Intervenor has spoken with Dave Mullins and Lee Norbeck about the OI Report findings and the enforcement action.

iii) In April 1994, Intervenor and his counsel had discussions with Larry Robinson, Carolyn Evans, Oscar DiMiranda about logistics of providing additional information. Mr.

DiMiranda is Senior Allegations Coordinator Region II-NRC, P.O.

Box 845, Atlanta, GA 30301. Carolyn Evans is Regional Counsel, 4

.- -. - - ~ - . . . - . . . = _-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30323.

b. None

c. Intervenor spoke with Dan Berkevitz, Associate Counsel for Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.

Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510, (202) 224-4039, and other staff personnel (who's names Intervenor cannot recall) relative to Senate Subcommittee proceedings. Information was related to Mr.

Mosbaugh's tape recording.

d. 1) After the July 1993 Senate Subcommittee hearings Intervenor spoke with numerous members of the press.

Intervenor cannot recall the names of the persons to whom he spoke. The discussions centered on the information associated with the hearings.

ii) Intervenor appeared on Jack Anderson's Radio show after the Senate hearings, iii) Intervenor was interviewed by the Houston Chronicle and believes he was quoted or mentioned in that paper in an article focusing on nuclear whistleblowers.

iv) Intervenor had some general discussions with Yohan Ritter without providing specific factual information.

v) Intervenor had some general discussions with Marvin Hobby about factual information of which Intervenor has no ,

specific recollection.

iv) IntervenorwascontactedbydienCarolontwo Li occasions, once before depositions in April 1994 and once after, i

5 2

n ,

The specifics of the conversations cannot be recalled, but generally they probably centered around Intervenor's reaction to deposition testimony.

With respect to any other communications, Intervenor and his counsel have no specific recollection of other communication with the exception of communications identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3.1 Response to Interrocatory No. 3.

Intervenor objects to producing written communication to and from NRC counsel related to Intervenor's providing NRC with safety concerns on the following bases: 1) informant's privilege;

2) attorney-client and work product privileges (which Intervenor does not has not waived); 3) joint defense. Intervenor specifically notified NRC that he was providing certain information based on a concern that an unresolved safety problem may still exist at the plant and that the only documentation dddressing this matter is set out in privileged communications in intervenor's possession. Intervenor advised NRC that Intervenor was not willing to waive said privilege. Eventually Intervenor provided certain documentation by way of a confidential written request made by NRC on Intervenor. As such, all such documents, including correspondence about the submission of documentation to 1

Intervenor's counsel is currently employed as General Counsel to the National Whistleblower Center. Any possible communications by NWC employees or its counsel to Congress or any other government agency or to any other individual are outside the scope of this proceeding; not discoverable and otherwise protected pursuant privilege.

6

F NRC and the documents submitted are entitled to the informant's ,

privilege and attorney-client and work product privileges.

Response to Interrocatorv No. 4.

'Intervenor objects to providing such information based on the response to Interrogatory No. 3. Without waiving this objection, Intervenor states that he provided NRC with:

1) approximately half-dozen transcripts Intervenor obtained from GPC in discovery;

2) 4-30-94 memorandum headed with the words:

" ATTORNEY / CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS"; "To: Mike Kohn, From: Allen Mosbaugh"; "

Subject:

Preparation for ASLB stipulations, depositions, hearings on Diesel Generator related issues";

3) 4-12-94 memorandum headed with 4' ATTORNEY / CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS"; "To: Mike Kohn, From: Allen Mosbaugh"; "

Subject:

Preparation for ASLB Stipulations, Depositions, Hearings on .

Diesel issues";

4) 4-12-94 memorandum headed with " ATTORNEY / CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS"; "To: Mike Kohn, From: Allen Mosbaugh"; "

Subject:

Preparation for ASLB Stipulations, Depositions, Hearings on Diesel Generator related issues";

5) Pages 56 and 57 of a undated memorandum headed with

" ATTORNEY / CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS"; "To: Mike Kohn, From: Allen Mosbaugh": "

Subject:

Preparation for Stipulations, Depositions, Hearings on Diesel Issues"; a revision of this was gived to Larry Robinson in April 1994; 7

f

- _ . ~ - _ .- ,_ _

1

6) NRC OI investigator Larry Robinson copied documents and/or written com 'Inications GPC previously provided to NRC by GPC (Intervenor previously provided this documentation to GPC when responding to prior document requests). Intervenor did not maintain an inventory or list of documents provided to NRC OI;

7) In or about 1993, Intervenor recollects provided Larry Robinson with a copy of the testimony he provided to the U.S.

Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation on July 15, 1993.

Response to Interrocatory No. 5.

Intervenor has identified persons previously, in deposition and witness lists, whom he contends possess information or knowledge relating to this proceeding. Intervenor now identifies Bob Birch and Mark Ajoluni as persons whom Intervenor contends possess information or knowledge relating to this proceeding. At this time Intervenor is not aware of any additional persons, other than those persons previously identified in responses to interrogatories filed in this proceeding that related to allegations made in the Amended Petition. Nonetheless, Intervenor notes that he has received NRC OI Report 2-90-020R and exhibits thereto which do set forth additional facts of which he was previously unaware. Intervenor incorporates these additional facts by reference.

i i

l

Response to Interrocatory No. 6.

None.

Respect ully ubmitted, Stephen M. Kohn Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 301\interr3.res l

I 9

[ ,, ,

.s w ich

$NJ C mm' i

tot oscam n.arrusunk, Ussac ALT am&TIoss 'w'"ma'tm CC. LMutY 305INSON, USNRC OI f/ M ' .

l FRON: ALLEN L. MOSBADIEE h #4*ff jtp off e - - ---

C MT T- 4-le=e8 MAThM was Def 'PIEM f.E'FE h -- s

--TEE N OF BN 'WDCLEhE'S ==

~ ~ cmrum tfp - m sun T2= F w .

M~"- z APeTT,19. leen ahnwet 4: 00 eum -Tata aM- h#mensenem ca111 % fererwt* em11 818 , ,

on 4-19-90 a telephone conference call coeurred between Vogtle site personnel and southern Nuclear personnel in Birmingham, Alabama, late in the afternoon. In John Aufdenkumpa's office at Plant Vogtle were John Aufdankaape and Allen Moabeugh and in Kan McCoy's office at Southern Nuclear, in Birmingham, were Jack Stringfel19w Bill shipman, Ken McCoy and George Mairston. (See '3rupo ist, ,

l Tr. Pg.5-17).

George sockhold was also on the call but probably from another phone on the vogtle site. All the above onnel spoke on the call and were clearly identifiable voice. In-addition the names of these participants were used during l the conversation including George Mairston's'. Also believed  !

to be party to the call in McCoy's office worm Imuis Ward, Jim Bailey, and Paul Rushton (but they were not heard speaking). (see Tape #253 Tr.Pg.19 and 20]. For a brief period aus williams and Tom Webb walked into Antdankampe's office during the call. aus williamo may have made a brief '

commant on the call.  :  :

George Mairston participated and spoke on call'when the l diesel generator starte were discussed', i he i participated in the following exchanges Hairston: "We got the starts-- so we didn't have no, we '

didn't have no tripe?'

shipman: No, not, not--- l Mocoy Let me explain. I'll testify to that.  ;

shipman: Disavow.

I This call revised the wording of the LER'about the Diesel generator starts adding the wording about the scomprehensive Test Program" (C"I'P) in the following exchanges stringtallow: Let as make sure I'm clear. De we want to 1 may, "Sinoe 3-20-90, DG1A and DG1B have

03-18-1994 1131th 641 5510 US MiC RO 11 p,g been subjected to a comprehernsive test progran? Do we want to say that kind of stuff, or do we want to say-- '

Bockhold: Yes, you can say- that. .- -

. . .o The final wording agreed to on this call is indeed the ' "'

wording that was in the signed LER 90-005 rev.0.~

AP9TL 19, 1990 - shi--- ri's Fallaer un mil ta Mmf'4--- t Fellame-un nall mas one more call occurred after the above call within 15 minutes. Bill Shipman called John Aufdenkaape. Allen Mosbaugh was still in Aufdenkampe's office and Stringfellow was with shipman [see Tape #5s, Tr. Pg. 20-32]. George Bockhold did not participate in this call. Emiraten and Mocoy were not on the ca21 either.

No revisions of LER wording occurred on this call, in fact no revision were discussed, shipman read portions of the wording changes made by the higherfilos sident Ievel unchanged personnel on the earlier call, and-they resa in the final version. shipman's purpose on this call was to get the site, specifically Aufdenkampe, to buy into the corporate revisions that had been made on the previous call.

Shipman must have had a " gut feeling" that the site personnel were not "in the fold" on reposting the falso stater. ants. Mosbaugh cosaanted to Shipman that he believed that the comprehensive test program could not be claimed to be completed until the Undervoltage test, start #183 and

1. 142 respectively (this definition of the CTP would have proved the LER statements false) but Shipman ignored Mosbaugh's definition. Aufdenkampe deferred to his boss 2 levels higher, Boekhold, and said that George sust have had some basis and must have been right. Then the call turned to a discussion of Pat Mcdonald's LER 90-06 oosments with Jim swertswolder who had entered Aufdankampe's office. After I " call B" ended, Aufdenkampe still had reservations about the LER because he stated to Mosbaugh after the call Aufdenkampe If they interpret it differently, we're sorry We'll send a rev. out. ---- -

Aufdenkampe: And I'm not talking wrong or right, I'm just talking practical.

ne,-

j 1.

mr--ae+ isen- wue est and nra swamen artarume In August of 1990, during the NRC's OSI at Flant Vogtle, the NRC requested answers in writing to several written .

questions. Southern Nuclear responded.in a $212e Paper",

which was given to the NRC on- about 8=22-96. Later the ..

" White" paper was also issued internally under oever letter of Mark Ajuluni of Southern Nuclear SAIR. Southern Nuclear's lawyer, Art Domby, of Troutman senders participated in the GPC\ Southern Nuolear eastings the week of 4=13-90 whers t.he o8I issues were discussed and is believed to have assisted in the preparation of the " White Paper". At this time southern Nuclear did not kr.ow that Mosbaugh had nede t p recordings.

NRC QUESTION #3 (with regard to LER 90-04, revision 0, dated 4/1p/94).? ,. . _. ., . .:

Who prepared the LER ? -

.: , e s.

Answer: "several drafts----------... . 'The 11331 ravinian of LER 90-04 , revision 0 was prepared by a phonacon between sits management and serporate l nanagement. Those participating are believed to be G. Aggkhald Jr., A.L. Mosbaugh, 4. G..

Aufdenkampe, W. shipman."

NRC QUESTION #5-- Who in corporate added the-Derde .

" subsequent to the test program" in..

LER 90-04, revision 07 Answer: " corporate licensing personnel in conjunction with the phone conversation described above made editorial changes as directed. Those  ;

present during the phone conversation are i thought to be W. shipean, c. mankhald Jr.,

A.L. Mosbaugh, J. G. Aufdenkaape,. and J. - -

Stringtallow .a ,

With these responses, southern Nuclear twice identifies the call as being the one in which Sockhold participated.

With these responses southern Nuclear ham olearly identified the call in which the draft LER was #revisade and the.* final revision prepared" as confarance gg11 "&n,,,,

southern Nuclear makes no mantion whatsoever of the later call "B" in the above White paper reply to the NRC in describing how the LER was prepared revised and finalised.

Southern Nuclear intentionally fmiled to identify in their responses to the NRC, the " executives" (vios President level and up) who participated on that call. Ken Nocoy was present during the meeting ln August 1990 when thens

• White paper" c

c3-18-1994 11:20 841 5510 US MIC RO !! P.05 i

responses were prepared but did not correct the omission of his participation. In so doing southern Nuclear sought to distance the executives from involvement and to attempt to cover up their role. Specifically omitted were Ken NoCoy and George Hairston. l Also omitted were the other corporate staff listaning in l McCoy's office in Birmingham even N 'nh they weree  !

identified by shipman at the time.of the resposee preparation as participants (see Tape #253 Tr.pg.19-20).

APRIL 1. 1991-edtFfREeN MDcLEAR E.MMEDS 10 M 2.208 imanrvnnunaev pwmrrur At this time, Southern Nucisar did not know that there were tapes of the 4-19-90 conference call or what was on any tape retained by the NRC. The NRC specifically required Southern Nuclear to respond under oath and affirmation to Noobaugh's 2.206 petition in early.1991. Pat Mcdonald, Southern Nuclear's executive vice president, signed the response and outright denied that Hairston was on the lata afternoon conference call *A". .

Quoting from Southern Nuclear's 2.20s response section II.b page 3, last paragraph footnote 3: -

Footnote 3-- "The msgding Maa revised by site and corporate representatives in a telephone conference call late on April 19, 1970. Although Mr.

Hairston was not a participant in that call, he had every reason to believe that the final draft LER presented to him after the call was accurate and complete."

of calls "A" and "B", only during call "A" (the conference call in which Hairston participated) was 'M usediner >

revisada. .

clearly Southern Nuclear's own words describe Call "A*T au.. insi imanmx ewm mar me erwatur=== arew ==w's 2. sea prmrent mamannan In June 1991 Mombaugh flied two documents of- allegatione, one 11 and the other is pages, with Bruno Urick of the NRC alleging that Southern Nuclear had made numerose fales statementa in the 2.206 petition respones.

Among the falso statements alleged was the one about Hairston's participation on the 4-19-90 late efternoon conference call.

l

~

es48 3 1994 11i2'O ^ ~ 841 5516 ' ~ ~ 'US HEC RG !! P 06

. 1 mrr.Y s . S eei-- - aa -- mun mesmer arrepr emrumse aumere 2 sna

irriest on July 8, 1991 Mosbaugh supplements his 2.206 petition, incorporating portions of the allegations provided to Brune Urich from June 1991. Aacng the supplements are,the allegations about Hairston's participation on the 4-19-90 late afternoon conference call as well as the allegation of a cover-up.

h umr_ 22. insi- m u s r a-; a m ma erure n , _ .-- -

_ 1+ina

... mme 'm euru _ m.-- - ,

""' N on 5-22-90 the NRC requested that Opc respond in writing l to the Nosbaugh\ Hobby amended petition. . _. ; .c,

. , l l

l riv5.rw inei -- % --- utren win amears Arrrnavres yerer af f. ITs --Im -a car enum a=le=en c'1t r. ,

l In.the fall / winter time frame of 1991 John Aufdenkaape was ask by lawyers from the Troutman-sanders Law Fira  !

representing southern Nuclear and Opc, probably John 4

Lamberski, to sign an affidavit saying that. George Mairston was not a participant on the 4-19-90 conference call "A".

l Aufdenkampe told the Southern Huolear lawyers that contrary to their assertions he " remembered George Hairston being on the call". He went "back and forth" with the lawyers several times on his affidavit. The lawyers were

• hounding" Aufdenkampe for the affidavit. The lawyers told Aufdenkampe that they were obtaining affidavita from an the sa d partfeitante and Aufdenkampe was athe only one who rescabered that Hairston was on the call". (Se lawyers used i this same tactic.on Hoobaugh during the NRc's cI " dilution valves" investigation to try to dissuade Noshangh from his recollections about Skip Xitchens statements about opening the dilution valves when Art Douby, the Troutman Sanders lawyer, said "I have privileged information from my interviews with other personnel",... mI can tell you that you are 180 degrees out".] ,

Before Aufdenkampe signed his affidavit he discussed all the above with Allen Mosbaugh. During these eenversations which took place in Aufdenkampe's residence in Augusta, Georgia, Aufdenkampe named all the personnel that he renambered that participated on the call that the lawyers were seeking the affidavit for. Aufdenkampe stated; himself, Mombaugh, Stringfellow, shipman, 30ekhald, M and Maivaten. Noabaugh confirmed his recollection of tas ease i

03-18-1994 11:21 841 5510 US MC RO !! pg personnel. There was some question whether Paul Rushton was on the call but no one remembered him speaking.

Mosbaugh than quoted to Aufdenkampe, simicking Rairston's voice, one thing that Hairston had said on the call-

"That's just what the Shitt Supervisor told as to do".

With that, Aufdenkaape responded that he quassed that he shouldn't be talking with Nombaugh about this and that there was a " conflict of interest".

The Lawyers were so pressuring Aufdenkamps to sign the ,

affidavit that they were frequently calling at his i home. His wifa became concerned about this pressure and mentioned it to Mosbaugh. When Aufdenkampe eventually i signed the affidavit, Aufdenkampe's wife was omfficiently j conostned about what her husband may have' beast persuaded to sign that she showed the affidavit to Mosbaud. She opened the top drawer in a small table located against the east ,

wall in between the kitchen and dining room and handed the  :

affidavit to Mosbaugh. Mosbaugh handled the document by the  !

edges but should have left some fingerprints.

Mosbaugh read the entire affidavit. It was about one page  :

in length and stated that Aufdenkampe 'rementered that Hairston was on the call but he was on an earlier portion of the call and not on the portion of the call tdben the diesels were discussed". ,

Mosbaugh recognised that Aufdenkampe has errored in stating that Hairston had not participated in the diesel start i portions of the call. l i

The inforsation stated to Mosbaugh by Aufdankespo about his j conversations with the lawyers, the information he stated about the contant of his affidavit and the actual affidavit that Hoabaugh read, conclusively shows that Westhorn Huolear sought to support (via employee affidavits) its denial in their 2.206 petition response that'Mairston was on tall "A".

It shows conclusively that the lawyers and the affiants understood that the call referred to in the 2.206 petition boosuse only response, the call of intarest, was Call "A',

were Rockhold, McCoy, and Esirstan participants.

on call "A" Aufdenkampe identified to Mombaugh that both Beckhold and Mocoy were participants on the call addressed in the affidavit the lawyers were seeking.

Further Aufdankamps remembered Hairston being a participant on the call of interest, " Call A". Mairston uns not on thts l

l l

l later " call B". l l

w s m sa n <s m n --w .. <.m l

L anEn 3 i n ei-- dye nwinsi,u -i.e.u maa n team =amerar.

natumemar === og uen A_ .---__c=

ear r. Tu .u,,. unnement. ,_ mier ;- - - __;

i-on 10-3-91 southern Nuclear responded to the Noobaugh\Mobby supplemente. Southern Nuclear states that the beste for Footnote #3 which denied that Mairston was on the 4-19-90 conference call that revised LIR 90-06 was : .,

1. The collective recollection of GDC\Southerm Nuclear personnel as doousented in the 8-16-90 and 8-22-90 -

" White paper".

2. Hairston's persons 1 recollections, f The response notes that southern Nuclear did not have a tape of the call and until there is credible evidense to the contrary, Southern Nuclear believes Footnote #3 is corraat.

nea-mun in ines. ope newres wan_a === ast warm uom -

w _ _ ;. .= .s , __ _ _ _ cu r. ==

- as wasm #71 On December 10, 1991 GPC wrote a letter (ELV-03293) providing additional information to Thomas Warley (WRc NRR) responding to the Mobby\Moebaugh 2 206 petition. In this letter (section IV) GPC transcribes a portion of Tape #71.

GPC uses this transcript to identify the late afternoon conference call that was referred to in the 2.206 petition response. GPc refore to the referenced call est "the April 19, 1990 telephone conference call when the language concerning the amargency diesel generator start count was finalized in the LER."

- .. n.

And states that Tape #71

" indicates that Hairston was net a participant during the April 19, 1990 telephone conference call when the-language concerning the emergency diesel generator start count was finalised in the LER".

This is a new and ditfarent statament than that which had been made in Feetnote 3 et the April 1, 1991 2.204 petition response, because now the denial is not the etnole call, but only a specifio portion of the call, "when the language"

- "was finalisoda. This statement is similar to the statement that had been put in Aufdenkaape's affidavit.

S6 1

- _ - . - - . _ . . .._ . - .._ . _ = _ - ., _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

G3-18-1994 11:32 641 5510 US 75tC RG 11 p,gg 1

In this tape sequence Nosbaugh and Aufdenkampe (when GPC only identifies as "P"(participant)) are discussing

" Call A". Aufdenkampe identifies George Bookhold 5 times in GPC's transcript segnant as partio;,pating in the call.

By submitting this letter to Thomas Nurle in December of 1991, GPC has provided the irrefutphie av of which call Mcdonald and GPC\5outhern Nuclear meant a their 2.206 petition response, "ca114". Only on " Call A" was Bookhold a participant.

Further GPC states that this is " consistent with collective recollection of participants during the August 1990 OsI".

As of the August 1990 OSI, GPC\ Southern Nuclear 8s stated collective recollection was that, Moabaugh, Aufdenkaape, stringfallow, Bookhold, and Shipman were on the " Call A*.

i nacEIRER 1B 1993 30P MEEf MDC1E&R RESBGEDE_fD.TER un - eewas nusamenname er .mmerce In their latter dated 12-18-92 to Asst. U.S. Attorney sally Quillian Yates, southern Nuclear and its Iaw Fira Troutman Sanders, again uses same tape segment as above from tape #71 to identify "the conference call when the I m language was finalised". But this time they claim that Ennhpngh was not a participant. (see letter Pg.11 itsu B.6.]

-- "We do not believe that Allen Mosbaugh was a participant during the finsi stages of the telephone conference call when the LER language was finalised. )

see e.g., Mosbaugh Tape 71. John Aufdenkage had to l explain to Allen Mosbaugh what had happaned during the l

l conference call on April 19th."- -

by submitting this letter to Amst. U.S. Attorney Bally Quillian Yates, on December 12, 1991, GPC has provided the irrefutable aridenes of which call Mcdonald and SPC\ southern Nuclear meant in their 2.20s petition response, " Call A".

Only on " Call A" was Bookhold a participant.

nU - == /F17.7- 1993 ---m..,____ ggruf. min fummere eau .- ___, ey WWW 4-le-en . 8 FAD'a -Pa t i n ta --- _ _ '

_ _ cl ame s sta* -- A I

In July 1993, Southern Nuclear obtained possession of the i "six tapes" which included the " call A".

Once Southern Nuclear and its Iaw Fira Troutman Sanders was  !

aware of the content of these tapes, they knew that contrary l to the April 1, 1991 2.206 petition response es well as the october 3, 1991 supplemental petition response, so well as the December 10, 1991 additional information response letter-from Ken McCoy, Nairston was en " Call A". Within 2 days a

g41 @sie~

- ~ ~ ^

G@-gFims 11:8:9 US' mC'RO II" "

~Ig(9 p j a 1 correction of the false information was required to be made i

to the Regional Administrator under 10 CFR 50.9.

Also requiring correction under 50.9 was the " White Paper" from the August 1990 ost which failed to correctly identify all the " call A" participants. They also knew that the 12-1s-91 DCJ response was incorrect at that time as well.

When the NRC conducted it's or interviews of current and 1 former Southern Nuclear personnel, the NRC utilised portions of various 4-19-90 tape recordings during the interviews.

Depending of the dates of these interviews Southern Nuclear may have learned that their previous statements were false l first from the OI interviews rather than the 'Six Tapes".  ;

once southern Nuclear learned of the existanos and content of portions of these tapes, including the later call "B",

their story changed. l

. sot 7MEEN NUCLEAR CEAMGES ITS STORY In testimony to the NRc or and in response to the NRc, Pat Mcdonald and Southern Nuclear changed their story to claim that the telephone call they were ref arrintf to in Pat Mcdonald's sworn response to the 2.206 pet:. tion was call "B", the eall after call "A". The obvious need to do this was Nairston's clear voice and extensive participation on call "A" including his participation in the diesel discussions.

By switching to call "B" they could "make" IInDanald's sworn l statements "come true" because indeed Hairsten was not on call "B".

The problem is that southern Nuclear was not referring to I call "B" when it responded to the 2.208 petition as exhaustively demonstrated above. They lied them, to cover up t

the involvement of the executives in the falso statements of 4-19-90 and they are lying now because with the proof offered by the tape it's their way out.

ape's yrtta m nTee rner urt-x- ar Ayrenavrem nnnens nrasmunv rv anem .=- - mes In the course of discovery in the current Voirtle License transfer proceedinge before the ASLB, extensave discovery requests were filed. specifically in Moebeugh's first set of interrogatories, Question d54 (2) required SPc to

• identify all documents" that " relate in any manner" to conversations held on April 19, 1990 concerning LER 90-004. GPC failed to identify the affidavits in their response to question #54.

- - -_ _m,. -

war =x .-- . . u -. e e o.~~ o g. u t

Having failed to disclose the existence of the affidavits Mosbaugh's lawyers pressed the issue.

A discovery meeting was held between Noahaugh's lawyers and Gpc\ Southern Nuclear's lawyers in Washington, July, 1993.'GPC's lawyers were ask about the response to Question

1. 53 and were ask why they didn't identify the affidevita.

Their response was "how'd you find out about those'.

Subsequent to this meeting GPC filed a supplement to its response, stating that signed statements were obtained from John Aufgenkampe, Thomas webb, Jack stringfelles, and George Hairston but refused to turn over the docuasste. (See Intervener motion to compel production of affidavits, 07C's reply and CPC supplemental response to interrogatories).

Mosbaugh's lawyers then sought to obtain the artidavita thru the AsLa but the court upheld CPC's claim of Attorney-client privilege.

EVEM Bs2RE TELLTMG TS sDUTEEEN EUCLEAR'E CM ftfAM2 0E TWE AFFIn&YITS Southern Nuclear failure to disclose the eEistance of their employees' affidavits, during discovery in this current ASLB proceeding is most surprising. This proceeding centers around admitted contentions that Vogtle's license was illegally tranaferred and that Southern Nuclear does not have the character, competence and trustworthiness to hold a nuclear operating license. Moebaugh's allegations that George Hairston knowingly made material ft:,se statements to the NRC in LIR 90-006 about Vogtle's diesel gamerators and specifically that southern Nuclear lied in its 2 206 petition response about Hairston not being on the 4-19-90 conference call are central issues to the contentions.

After Southern Nuclear's lawyers finally identified to the court that affidavita were obtained from Asidenkampe, stringfellow, Webb, and Hairston they refused am turn them over. Why would Southern Nuclear want to hold back this supporting evidence? CPC's filings to the Asta, the courts and the NRC, to previous Mosbaugh allagstions, are filled with GPC's employees affidavits.

According to John Aufdenkaape's statements to Allen Mosbaugh, OPC's list of af fiants is agg neum1mita.

Aufdankampe had stated to Moebaugh that the lawyers told him that they were getting affidavits from everyone on the call and that he was the only one who reassbered Emirston was on the call.

Furthermore, in filings'with the ASLB Southern Ruelear's lawyers admitted that Aufdenkampe had conversations about 4

, - - , - ,a

~. - .

• e3-16-1994 11:24 841 5510 US MC RO ! ! p.12

1 the affidavits with Mosbaugh , but denied that'Nesbaugh had i been shown Aufdenkampe's affidavit. This is false. Mrs.

Aufdenkampe provided to Mosbaugh, her husband's affidavit to read, and witnessed Mosbaugh reading the affidavit. Mosbaugh also had follow-up conversations with Mrs. Aufdenkampe about what her husband could do to retract the affidavit.

A DOINT or_IACIc Aufdenkampe's affidavita and others were intended to support the fnot that Nairston was not a participant to diesel discussions on Call "An or even presuas for a mensat, Call "B". Surely southern Nuclear lawyers would have obtained affidavits from all the call's participants but Bouthern Nuclear only claimed to the AsLB that statements were ,

obtained from 4 personnels j For " Call A*

1. Two of the 5 "Nhite Paper" identifiod participants ]

2. Two non "Nhite Paper" identified personnel 1

3. Altogether 4 of the total 12 known participants i For " Call B"

1. One of four speaking participants.

Regardless of their sospleteness, the statements were ]

intended to bolster southern Nuclear's case that Eairston  :

did not knowingly submit false info mation to the NRC, then why is southern Nuclear refusing to turn this evidence over to the court?

or is the scope and the content of these affidavits now so damning that southern Nuclear can not afford to reveal them?

Aufdenkampeda affidavit alone shows that call "A* was the call referred to in the 2.206 petition respamme.

But additionally if (as Aufdenhampe stated to Rosbaugh) southern Nuclear obtained affidavits sintilar to Aufdenkaape's from Bookhold, McCoy or any participant not on call "a", that act alone would prove that call "A* was what Mcdonald and the law fins originally intended in the 1991 2.206 petition response sworn under oath and affirmation, and the recent statements of southern Nuolaar, Pat Mcdonald and Troutman sanders are more lies to the Nac and ASLB.

southern Nuclear is caught in their own web of lies. Now southern Nuclear is clalaing that the call that Pat Mcdonald was referring to in his 2.204 petition response was call "B". These recent events constitute a ana*1==4== mover-up and wrongdoing by southern Nuclear and its Law fira Troutman sandere.

i

os-is-iss4 11:24 e41 ssie us me na r i p.23 1

• l mIM I request that the NRC investigata all the inaues addressed above and specifically address the allegations stated below ,

which are based on those facts.  !

ALLEGATION is Southern Nuclear and its Law Fira Troutman  !

have engaged in a cover-up since 1990 and have '

made false statements, withheld information, failed to report information, and failed to correct information known to be incomplete ,

and\or inaccurate to the NRC, DOF, and ASLB. I This applies to the information and events surrounding the 4-19-90 confarunge call including the participation of corporate staff and executives on the 4-19-90 conference cell.

ALLEGATION 2 Pat Mcdonald knowingly made false statements in sworn testimony to NRC 01 in 1993 when he faisely identified conversation 838 as the conversation he was referring to in his sworn response to Mosbaugh's 2.208 petition.

ALLEGATICM 3: Southern Nuclear and its Law Fira Troutman Sanders falsely denied in 1993 that Allen Moshaugh had been shown John Aufdenkaape's affidavit, in its reply brief to the ASLB.

ALLEGATION 4: Southern Nuclear and its Law Firm, Troutman  !

Sanders fsiled to idantify to the ASLB in 1993 '

all the personnel from whom siped statementa ,

or affidavits were obtained, that relate to I the conversations on 4-19-90, comoarning LER 90-06 and the " Call A and\or 38 participanta.

ALLEGATION St In the " White Paper" responses to the NRC in August 1990, OPC\aouthern Nuclear and its Law Firs Troutman sanders, knowingly omitted identifying key personnel who had participated i on the conference calls identified in NRC l Questions #3 and #5.

ALLEGATION 6: When southern Nuclear and it's seu firm Troutman sanders, had in their rp session all the information necessary to recognise that their 2.208 petition respanses and "Nkite Paper" contained false statements'about the 4-19-90 call, they f ailed to report this to the NRC as required by regulations

( 10 CFR 50.9.

l l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION US!1RC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

) 94 JLN -1 P2 :51 In the Matter of ) '

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OIDF4dCE OF SECRETARY gt C, ) 00CKETING & SERVICE ,

Re: License Amendment BRANCH

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the attached document has been served this 25th day of May, 1994, by first class mail upon the persons listed in the attached Service List (additional service by facsimile designated by "*").

l l

By: l% /No bl /WO J

Steph6n M. Kohn /

KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

517. Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 1

i

. . - . - - - . . . - - ~. - - - _ _ - - - .

. o l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ]

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICBNSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 gt AL., )

) Re: License Amendment ,

(Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant,. Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge l James H. Carpenter 933 Green Point Drive Oyster Point Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 q John Lamberski, Esq.

Troutman Sanders Suite 5200 i 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 l I

• Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

David R. Lewis l SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & l l

TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20037 l

2 l

l

Office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.

washington, D.C. 20555 office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

/

By: i

(> .

p(

Michael D. Kohn ' S t> y k>#

KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 301\ cert. list 3

1 l