ML20077K039
| ML20077K039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1994 |
| From: | Dahlberg A GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077K002 | List: |
| References | |
| 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9501100126 | |
| Download: ML20077K039 (19) | |
Text
6 December 27, 1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 PREFILED TESTIMONY I
OF A. WILLIAM DAHLBERG, III i
Dk kh$CK26 94 pay 0500,0,424
. T i
l 1
2 TESTIMONY OF A.W. DAELBERG 3
4 5
6 Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
7 8
A.
My name is A.W. Dahlberg.
9 i
1 1
1 10 Q.
WHAT POSITIONS HAVE YOU HELD WITHIN THE SOUTHERN SYSTEM SINCE I
11 19877 i
i 12 13 A.
From January, 1985 through May, 1988, I was President and CEO i
l 14 of Southern Company Ser% ices, Inc.
On June 1, 1988 I became l
15 President of Georgia Power Company (" Georgia Power").
When Mr.
16 Scherer resigned as Chief Executive Officer in December, 1988, I 17 also became CEO of Georgia Power.
Since January 1, 1994, I have 18 held the position of President of The Southern company.
I have 19 also been a member of The Southern Company Board of Directors 20 since January, 1985.
21 22 Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
23 24 A.
I an here to testify in response to Allen Mosbaugh's 25 contention that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
26 was misled regarding the organization responsible for operating 27 Plant Vogtle after the formation of the SONOPCO Project in 1988.
28 Specifically, I address Intervenor's assertion that Georgia Power 29 failed to advise the NRC that Mr. Pat Mcdonald, a Georgia Power 30 senior executive officer responsible for Georgia Power's nuclear
i i
i plants,-took his management direction from Mr. Joe Farley rather 2
than from Georgia Power's chief Executive Officer.
i 3
l 4
Q.
WOULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
l i
5 l
6-A.
Contrary to Intervenor's assertion, Mr. Mcdonald reported to j
i 7
se concerning the operation of Plant Vogtle.
There has never l
8 been any doubt in my mind that control over licensed activities 9
remained with Georgia Power throughout the operating life of l
10 Plant Vogtle.
Mr. Mcdonald was the individual who reported 11 directly to me and to the Georgia Power Board of Directors and l
12 its Nuclear Operations Oversight Committee on the status of the i
13 plants, and whose performance I reviewed against Georgia Power 14 corporate goals.
15 l
16 Mr. Farley, on the other hand, provided guidance concerning 17 the formation of Southern Nuclear, reported to The Southern i
18 Company Board of Directors concerning the formation of Southern
)
19 Nuclear, provided support services to Mr. Mcdonald related to the 20 anticipated transfer of operating activities from Georgia Power 21 to Southern Nuclear, provided nuclear support on an industry 22 basis, and kept abreast of developments concerning the nuclear l
23 plants as the anticipated CEO of Soutnern Nuclear, which was 24 expected to be the exclusive licensed operator of the Southern 25 system nuclear plants.
The kind of activities performed by Mr.
26 Farley were similar to the kind of centralized support activities.
(-
[
l i
1 performed by SCS, the Southern system's service company.
As far 2
as I was concerned, none of Mr. Farley's activities infringed on 3
licensed activities at Plant Vogtle.
i 4
i 5
Q.
WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE FORMATION OF A SEPARATE 6
NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY WITHIN THE SOUTHERN SYSTEM?
l l
7 l
8 A.
I was President of SCS at the time that the Southern system 9
was evaluating separate nuclear operating company.
I was on the 10 phase 2 task force steering committee with a Georgia Power l
t 11 representative, Mr. Baker, and an Alabarma Power representative, 12 Mr. Whitt.
The task force itself was comprised of Mr. Mcdonald, 13 as chairman, and Messrs. Bob Gilbert, Louis Long, Tom McHenry.and 14 John Meier.
This task force determined the "how to" of forming 15 the new operating company.
l 16 j
17 Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION OF SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES I
18 WHILE YOU WERE ITS PRESIDENT IN CONNECTION WITH GEORGIA POWER'S 19 OPERATION OF PLANT VOGTLE.
20 21 A.
As its name suggests, Southern Company Services, Inc.
22
("SCS") provides support services to the operating companies 23 within The Southern Company system.
In particular, SCS provided 24 those services which are common to the operating companies, such 25 as load dispatch, engineering, fuel-related services, financial 26 services, preparation of federal income tax returns and other -.
1 matters.
In the nuclear area, it was involved in the preparation l
2 of the initial design and procurement of equipment for the Hatch, 3
Farley and Vogtle Plants.
It also served as architect engineer, 4
along with Bechtel Corporation, for the construction of the three
)
5 nuclear projects.
6 7
Q.
WHAT WAS MR. MCDONALD'S POSITION AT GEORGIA POWER, AND TO 8
WHOM DID HE REPORT?
9 10 A.
From April 20, 1988 until his retirement on June 1,
- 1993, 11 Mr. Mcdonald was Executive Vice President - Nuclear of Georgia 12 Power, the senior executive dedicated to, and directly 13 responsible for, nuclear operations.
After I became CEO of 14 Georgia Power in December 1988, Mr. Mcdonald reported directly to 15 me regarding the operation of Plants Hatch and Vogtle.
While I 16 was an officer of Georgia Power, the company maintained exclusive 4
17 control over all licensed activities at these plants.
18 Specifically, Mr. Mcdonald received his management direction 19 regarding operation of Georgia Power's nuclear plants from either 20 myself or Mr. Robert Scherer, my predecessor.
At no time did I 31 or anyone else at Georgia Power relinquish control over licensed 22 activities at the plants to Mr. Farley or to anyone else.
23
-4
1 Q.
WHAT WAS THE EXTENT OF MR. FARLEY'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE 2
SONOPCO PROJECT FROM 1988 THROUGH 1990?
3 4
A.
His involvement was substantial and well known.
In the 1987-5 88 time frame, Mr. Addison asked Mr. Farley, who was President of 6
Alabama Power at the time, to be involved with, and serve, the 7
project to form Southern Nuclear.
In September of 1988, Mr.
8 Addison announced that he had asked Mr. Farley to devote a 9
portion of his time to guide the formation of the operating 10 company.
11 12 In March, 1989, Mr. Farley became Executive Vice President-13 Nuclear of The Southern Company and of Southern Company Services.
14 At the same time, it was announced that he would become President 15 and CEO of Southern Nuclear after the necessary regulatory 16 approvals had been obtained to create that company.
17 18 As an officer of The Southern Company, Mr. Farley 19 represented The Southern Company externally on the formation of 20 Southern Nuclear, which he continued to guide.
He also reported 21 to The Southern Company Board of Directors and The Southern 22 Company Management Council on matters pertaining to the formation 23 of Southern Nuclear.
In addition, he performed services for the 24 SONOPCO Project pursuant to a letter agreement between Georgia 25 Power and SCS, dated April 24, 1989.
Pursuant to that agreement, 26 he provided services relating to the planning and preparation for '
1 anticipated transfer of nuclear operating and support activities 2
from Georgia Power to Southern Nuclear, and also provided nuclear 3
support on an industry basis.
For example, Mr. Farley provided 4
recommendations to Georgia Power concerning whether certain 5
functions should or should not be transferred from Georgia Power 6
to Southern Nuclear.
He also met with NRC officials to brief 7
them on the plans for, and later the status of, the formation of 8
a separate nuclear operating company.
9 10 Q.
WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEFINITION OF LICENSED 11 ACTIVITIES?
12 1
13 A.
Basically, I understood it to mean actual day to day 14 involvement in the technical operation of the nuclear plants.
15 That is, those activities performed by the Georgia Power 16 employees located at the plents, their supervisors and managers, 17 and the plant General Manager.
Of course, the Georgia Power 18 corporate line management above the plant General Manager would 19 also be engaged in licensed activities.
That line management 20 included the Georgia Power officers located in Birmingham and the 21 CEO of Georgia Power.
22 23 Q.
IN YOUR OPINION, DID MR. FARLEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO, OR DID HE 24 IN FACT, CONTROL LICENSED ACTIVITIES AT PLANT VOGTLE?
25 26 A.
No.
From the very beginning of the phased formation of i
i 1
Southern Nuclear we were very aware of our obligations under the t
2 NRC operating licenses.
Pursuant to those obligations, we were i
i 3
careful to ensure that no entity or individual other than Georgia l
l 4
Power and its officers and employees were in control of licensed I
5 activities at its nuclear plants.
I had to be sensitive to this i
6 not only because of the NRC operating licenses but also because 7
Georgia Power was responsible to the other owners of those plants l
1 8
as their operating agent for the safe and efficient operation of 9
the plants.
10 i
11 I was never concerned that Mr. Farley's activities might be i
i 12 construed as him being in control of licensed activities at Plant l
l 13 Vogtle.
I knew I had control over the actions of Mr. Mcdonald
{
14 concerning the operation of Plant Vogtle.
I received daily l
15 reports from Mr. Mcdonald concerning the operation of Plant 16 Vogtle.
He reported to me concerning his performance relative to i
17 Georgia Power's corporate goals.
He reported to the Georgia l
18 Power Board of Directors and to the Board's Nuclear Operations 19 Oversight Committee on the performance of the nuclear plants.
20 j
21 As for Mr. Farley, as an Executive Vice President of SCS,
{
t 22 the Southern system service company, it was totally appropriate f
23 for him to perform support services for Georgia Power.
24 Furthermore, because Mr. Farley was to be the CEO of Southern f
25 Nuclear, he needed to keep abreast of the developments concerning 26 the system's nuclear plants, which would be operated by Southern i
l t i
i 1
Nuclear once the NRC approved the necessary operating license I
2 amendments.
1 3
I 4
Q.
WAS THERE A BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING 5
COMPANY PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION?
l 6
7 A.
No.
However, on several occasions senior executives of the i
8 operating companies and the service company of The Southern 9
Company met to discuss the status of efforts to form Southern 10 Nuclear.
That subject was discussed on several occasions and in 11 many differing contexts, including during meetings of The 12 Southern Company Board of Directors and The Southern Company 13 Management Council, and in more informal gatherings.
Some of 7
14 these informal meetings had been referred to in my appointment 15 calendar by_my secretary, and sometimes by me, as SONOPCO project 16
" board" meetings.
However, there was no SONOPCO Project Board of 17 Directors and there were no Board of Directors meetings until l
18 after Southern Nuclear's incorporation.
19
)
20 Purthermore, contrary to Intervenor's assertion in this 21 proceeding, control over licensed activities at Plants Hatch and 22 Vogtle has never been turned over, or relinquished, to Southern 23 Nuclear, either before or after it was incorporated.
Rather, all 24 decisions concerning the operation of Plants Hatch and Vogtle 25 during the relevant time period were at all times made by 26 executives of Georgia Power who reported to me or to Mr. Scherer...
l 1
Q.
DID MR. FARLEY AND MR. ADDISON REVIEW THE GEORGIA POWER 2
NUCLEAR BUDGETS FOR 1990 AND LATER YEARS?
3 4
A.
Yes.
The budgeting process employed by Georgia Power, for 5
the 1990 nuclear budgets and later, included a review of the 6
proposed budget by the Presidents of Alabama Power (Mr. Harris),
7 Georgia Power (myself), SCS (Mr. Franklin), The Southern Company 8
(Mr. Addison), The Southern Company Executive Vice President -
9 Nuclear (Mr. Farley), the Executive Vice President - Nuclear of 10 Georgia and Alabama Power (Mr. Mcdonald), probably the Senior 11 Vice President - Nuclear of Georgia and Alabama Power (Mr.
12 Hairston), probably the nuclear plant project Vice Presidents 13 (Messrs. McCoy, Beckham, and Woodard), and I believe the SONOPCO 14 Project Assistant Comptroller Mr. Gilbert.
During this review, i
15 the proposed budget for the three Southern system nuclear plants 16 would have been approved for recommendation to the operating i
17 companies, Georgia Power and Alabama Power.
The portion 18 reflecting Georgia Power's nuclear plants was then forwarded to 19 the Georgia Power Management Council for approval and 20 incorporation into the overall Georgia Power budget.
Once 21 Georgia Power's CEO approves Gecrgia Power's capital and 22 operating budgets, the Georgia Power capital budget is then 23 submitted to the Georgia Power Board of Directors for approval.
24 Following approval by Georgia Power, the total Georgia Power i
25 budget is submitted to The Southern Company.
26 I
t 1
Contrary to Intervenor's clain, the Georgia Power Management 2
Council did review the 1990 Georgia Power nuclear budgets, as 3
part of the total Georgia Power budget, before they were approved 4
by me.
In the case of the capital budget, it was also approved 5
by the Georgia Power Board of Directors.
6 7
Q.
DID MR. FARLEY APPROVE THE GEORGIA POWER NUCLEAR BUDGETS?
8 9
A.
No.
His involvement was limited to reviewing the budgets as 10 an Executive Vice President of The Southern Company and advising 11 Mr. Addison, who was responsible to review all operating company 12 budgets.
13 14 Q.
DID THE SOUTHERN COMPANY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL REVIEW AND 15 APPROVE THE GEORGIA POWER NUCLEAR BUDGETS?
16 17 A.
No.
18 19 Q.
WHY IS MR. ADDISON INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF GEORGIA POWER'S 20 BUDGETS?
21 22 A.
Mr. Addison was, cud still is, the CEO of The Southern 23 Company, which is the owner of the Southern system subsidiaries.
24 Therefore, he has a responsibility to review and scrutinize the 25 budgets of the operating companies.
Mr. Addison, as the 26 representative of the common stockholders of The Southern 1
Company, must ensure that the budgets of the operating companies 2
are reasonable and appropriate and must hold the subsidiaries 3
accountable for their performance.
4 5
Q.
DID MR. ADDISON EVER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE GEORGIA POWER'S 6
BUDGET OVER YOUR OBJECTION?
7 8
A.
NO.
9 10 Q.
AFTER THE INCORPORATION OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR, DID SOUTHERN 11 NUCLEAR APPROVE THE NUCLEAR BUDGETS FOR PLANT VOGTLE?
12 i
13 A.
Southern Nuclear only approved its own budget 14 recommendations to be forwarded to Georgia Power for approval a:e 15 I have described above.
16 17 Q.
WHY WAS MR. FARLEY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH 18 OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF SOUTHERN 19 NUCLEAR?
20 21 A.
As I explained earlier, Mr. Addison had asked Mr. Farley to 22 devote a portion of his time to guiding the formation of Southern 23 Nuclear; he was expected to be, and later became, the CEO of 24 Southern Nuclear when it was incorporated.
In March 1989, Mr.
25 Farley was elected Executive Vice President - Nuclear of The 26 Southern Company.
I expected and requested Mr. Farley to assist -
1 Georgia Power in its negotiations with Oglethorpe on the issue of 2
formation of Southern Nuclear, which was the subject of 3
Oglethorpe's intervention at the SEC.
Both Mr. Farley and I 4
worked to resolve issues of interest to Oglethorpe Power.
5 6
Q.
DID MR. FARLEY MAKE THE DECISION TO DISBAND THE NUCLEAR 7
OPERATIONS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ("NOCA") GROUP?
8 9
A.
No.
That decision was mine and I did not delegate it to Mr.
10 Farley or anyone else.
I decided to disband the group because, 11 among other reasons, there was no operating contract to 12 administer and the same function was already being performed by 13 one of my direct reports, Mr. Mcdonald.
The primary purpose for 14
- NOCA, i.e.,
the administration of the operating contract between i
15 Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear, never materialized.
But even 16 more fundamental than that was my progressive realization that 17 SONOPCO Project personnel could provide the services and data 18 needed by Georgia Power executive management to oversee and 19 manage the operations of Georgia Power's nuclear plants.
As a 20 result, the NOCA group became duplicative and unnecessary.
21 22 Georgia Power experienced a period of rapid change when the 23 Georgia Power nuclear support staff was relocated to Birmingham 24 and the SONOPCO project began taking shape.
During the initial 25 stages of this transformation, I envisioned the need for a small 26 group in Georgia Power's general office to provide an interface -
1 between Georgia Power and, ultimately, a new Southern subsidiary.
2 The group was to perform certain planning, performance monitoring 3
and data gathering / reporting functions.
However, once the 4
SONOPCO project organization was fully in_ place, I determined 5
that NOCA was not needed.
Mr. Mcdonald reported directly to me, 6
providing this information, and there was no operating contract 7
to administer.
Thus, there was no need for the group.
8 9
Q.
TO WHAT EXTENT DID MR. FARLEY'S INPUT' INFLUENCE THE DECISION 10 TO DISBAND THE NOCA GROUP?
11 12 A.
Mr. Farley and I discussed the role of NOCA at some point in 13 time but I do not specifically recall when such a discussion took 14 place.
I recall that Mr. Farley basically felt that NOCA was 15 performing an unnecessary, duplicative function in that the 16 SONOPCO Project was performing the same functions and providing 17 the same information as NOCA.
In any event, the determinative 18 factors in my decision to disband the group were my own 19 progressive realization that I already had a direct report, Mr.
20 Mcdonald, providing the same information, as well as the fact 21 that there was no operating contract to administer.
22
- l l
I 1
Q.
DID MR. FARLEY MAKE DECISIONS CONCERNING THE STAFFING OF 2
NOCA?
3 I
4 A.
No.
As in the case with the decision to disband NOCA, 5
staffing decisions concerning NOCA were mine to make and I 6
exercised them exclusively.
7 8
Q.
DID YOU ADVISE MR. HEAD THAT, UNTIL YOU MET WITH MR. FARLEY, 9
YOU COULD NOT RESOLVE MR. HEAD'S CONCERN ABOUT SONOPCO PROJECT'S
{
10 LACK OF COOPERATION WITH NOCA?
i 11 12 A.
I do not recall so advising Mr. Head.
13 14 Q.
WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF OGLETHORPE'S CONCERN OVER THE 15 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS OF GEORGIA POWER'S NUCLEAR PLANTS.
16 17 A.
An overall concern was expressed by Oglethorpe management 18 regarding how the project would operate, what the reporting 19 relationships were, what.i nformation would be provided to 20 Oglethorpe, and the SONOPCO Project's relationship to the f
21 existing contracts between Georgia Power and Oglethorpe.
I do i
22 not believe Oglethorpe management expressed concern to me that 23 Mr. Mcdonald appeared to receive his management direction from i
24 Mr. Farley, but we did discuss Mr. Mcdonald's and Mr. Farley's 25 role in the SONOPCO Project and, ultimately, in the incorporated 26 entity.
I do recall advising oglethorpe management that Mr.
1 1
Mcdonald received his management direction from me with regard to 2
the operation of Plant Vogtle.
3 4
Q.
WAS THE APRIL 1, 1991 RESPONSE TO THE 2.206 PETITION 5
ACCURATE IN STATING THAT THE GEORGIA POWER MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 7
6 FUNCTIONS AS A POLICY-SETTING BODY, MAKES CORPORATE RESOURCE 7
ALLOCATION DECISIONS, AND FACILITATES COMMUNICATIONS AND 8
COORDINATION BETWEEN GEORGIA POWER DEPARTMENTS?
9 10 A.
Yes.
11 12 Q.
WHY DIDN'T THE GEORGIA POWER MANAGEMENT COUNCIL REVIEW 13 NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT WHEN IT MET TO REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF 14 GEORGIA POWER MANAGEMENT IN DECEMBER 1989?
15 16 A.
The Management Council met in late 1989, at my direction, to 17 perform a general review of the performance and qualifications of 18 Georgia Power's officers and certain key managers.
Except for 19 the Georgia Power personnel working within the SONOPCO Project, 20 it had been a number of years since Georgia Power officers and 21 key managers S 'd been reviewed.
This review assessed the 22 potential fur advancement as well as general managerial 23 capabilities of every Georgia Power officer and general manger,
)
24 except those associated with the SONOPCO Project.
This was a 25 special review, separate and distinct from the annual performance i
26 appraisal procese.
I 1
Georgia. Power's nuclear staff had been reviewed in 1988 as 2
part of the first phase of formation of Southern Nuclear.
3 Further, Mr. Mcdonald was better equipped than I to assess the
[
4 officers and managers of our nuclear organization.
However, I f
5 kept a close watch on the nuclear organization and frequently i
6 discussed that organisation with Mr. Mcdonald, Also, in the l
7 annual performance appraisal context, Mr. Mcdonald's performance
[
8 was assessed just like every other Georgia Power executive.
[
9 i
10 Q.
DID MR. MCDONALD REPORT PERIODICALLY TO THE GEORGIA POWER 11 MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON NUCLEAR OPERATING MATTERS INCLUDING BUDGET 12 MATTERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS?
i 13 14 A.
Yes.
l i
15 I
16 Q.
NAS THE APRIL 1, 1991 RESPONSE TO THE 2.206 PETITION
{
t 17 ACCURATE IN STATING THAT "MR. DAHLBERG IS CONTACTED ON A DAILY 18 BASIS BY THE GPC NUCLEAR OPERATING OFFICERS CONCERNING THE STATU'3 19 OF GPC NUCLEAR PLANTS."
f f
20 21 A.
Yes.
Each weekday, I received a report from a Georgia Power l
22 nuclear officer concerning the status of Georgia Power's nuclear 23 plants.
In my absence, the report was received by a member of my i
24 staff and passed on to me.
Also, in instances where some unusual 25 or unexpected operational event occurred, for example an j '
.t.u--.
a ha 1-=
m
~-,
t a
.iams-
_m_i h
-.2
-w L
l 5
1 unplanned reactor trip, Mr. Mcdonald would contact me at the l
2 earliest practical time, including over the weekend at my home.
3-l 4
Q.
FOLIDWING YOUR MEETING WITH NR. MCDONALD IN ATIANTA IN s
5 AUGUST 1989, DID GEORGIA POWER SUBNIT TESTIMONY TO THE GEORGIA i
6 PSC WHICH ADDRESSED ALTERNATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS?
7 i
8 A.
Yes.
Performance standards were proposed in the testimony f
9 of the PSC Staff consultant in the 1989 rate case.
I believed it
[
i 10 was in Georgia Power's best interest to prepara rebuttal 11 testimony that opposed the imposition of performance standards 12 but nonetheless incorporated alternative performance standards, 13 more reflective of good plant performance, in the event their i
14 adoption by the PSC proved inevitable.
Mr. Mcdonald opposed the j
15 inclusion of alternative performance standards in the rebuttal 16 testimony, preferring to just oppose them without providing for 17 an alternative.
When he drove to Atlanta to meet with me on the 18 topic, I told his Georgia Power would file such testimony, even 19 though he disagreed with the strategy.
To my knowledge, he never 20 sought to countermand my decision.
After my meeting with Mr.
21 Mcdonald, the PSC consultant filed its recommended performance 22 standard.
Thereafter, Georgia Power's rebuttal testimony did 23 address major flaws in, and suggested changes to, the performance 24 standard proposed by the PSC consultant.
25 17 -
i r
e
[
1 Q.
DID THE GEORGIA POWER BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXERCISE OVERSIGHT i
2 OF GEORGIA POWER'S NUCLEAR PLANTS?
l 3
4 A:
Yes, the Georgia Power Board of Directors monitored and 5
reviewed the various issues which affected the operations of 6
Georgia Power's nuclear plants.
All reports on the status of 7
nuclear plant operations made to the Georgia Power Board from May 8
18, 1988 through 1990 were made by me, Mr. Mcdonald, Mr.
9 Hairston, Mr. McCoy, or Mr. Beckham, who were all Georgia Power 10 officers.
l 11 12 The Georgia Power Board also exercised oversight through its 13 Nuclear Operations Overview Committee, a subcommittee of five 14 Board members.
From May 1988 through December 1990, the 15 Oversight Committee reported to the full Board on ten occasions.
16 Prior to each report to the Board, the Oversight committee held a 17 meeting at either the Georgia Power general office or at one of 18 the Georgia Power nuclear sites.
Topics which the Oversight 19 Committee reported on to the full Board included operational 20 status of the plants, organizational changes, NRC Systematic 21 Assessment of Licensee Performance ("SALP") reports, INPO 22 performance evaluations, and major problems at the plants which 23 were continuously tracked on a " Major Problems List."
l 24 25 i --
_.