ML20082B915
| ML20082B915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1995 |
| From: | Thomas Greene GEORGIA POWER CO., SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082B919 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#295-16577 93-671-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9504060094 | |
| Download: ML20082B915 (43) | |
Text
_
fI IELATEDCORRESPONDENCE
- - :/57?'
00CKETED i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ggggg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING BOA % APR -4 All :07 0FFICF 0F SECREIARY DOCKEilh3 & 4.VICE i
In the Matter of 1
Docket Nos. 50-424f0LA 3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 31 31 50-425-OLA-3 Re: License Amendment r
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, :
(Transfer to Units 1 and 2)
Southern Nuclear)
ASLBP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF THOMAS V. GREENE, JR.
ON l
DIESEL GENERATOR REPORTING ISSUES i
f i
9504060094 9 h5
~
(DR ADOCK O 424 PDR
g-J4 1
TESTIMOMY OF THOMAS Y. GREENE, JR.
2 Q:
PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME.
3 A:
My name is Thomas V. Greene, Jr.
4 Q:
WHAT EMPLOYMENT POSITION DO YOU HOLD CURRENTLY?
5 A:
I am currently the Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Manager 1
6 for the Plant Vogtle Project, a position which I have held for 1
7 approximately three years.
My employer is Southern Nuclear 8
Operating Company, Inc.
9 Q:
WHAT POSI?; ION DID YOU HOLD IN 19907
)
10 A:
From September, 1987 until September of 1991 I was the l
11 Assistant General Manager - Plant Support at Plant Vogtle.
12 However, at the beginning of 1990 I was on leave from my that 13 position, receiving training for my Senior Reactor Operator's 14
("SRO") license at the Plant Vogtle training facility.
After f
15 obtaining my SRO license, I reassumed my full time position as 16 Assistant General Manager in May,1990. The Assistant General 17 Manager - Plant Support reports to the General Manager of the i
18 plant, who at the time was Mr. George Bockhold.
19 Q:
DURING YOUR LEAVE FROM YOUR ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER 20 POSITION, WHO SERVED IN THAT POSITION?
21 A:
In my absence, Mr. Allen L. Mosbaugh held that position in an 22
" acting" capacity.
l 1
-4 1
p 1
. Q:-
WHAT ARE ~ YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ' IN' THE NUCLEAR-
~22 INDUSTRY?
'A summary of my qualifications'is attached hereto as Exhibit-3-
- A:
i
'4 A.
r l
S' Q:
DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE APRIL 9,1990 PRESENTATION 6
TO THE NRC, THE APRIL 9,.1990 LETTER' TO THE NRC, ' OR THE-APRIL t
7 19, 1990 LER 1-90-006?
8 A:
No.
During this period of time I was still assigned to SRO
.i i
9-license training activities.
t i
1990 LER
}7,ERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF TyfE JUNE 29, 10 Q:
I 11 90-006 AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMITTAL " COVER" LETTER?
12 A:
Yes.
The LER revision was prepared in May-June,1990, by the 13 Technical Support Department, which was headed by Mr. John 14 Aufdenkampe, and which reported to me.
Although I have some general recollection of participating in the preparation of 15 i
16 the revised LER in June, 1990 I 'have practically-no i
17 independent recollection of my participation in the cover I
18 letter to that document.
- However, I have listened to 19 conversations secretly taped by Mr. Mosbaugh in June, 1990-20 (Tape 187), which indicate that I did play a role in the cover 21 letter.
A partial transcript of Tape 187, attached hereto as 22 Exhibit B, accurately reflects these conversations.
,...___1,
-4:
-- 1
. Q:-
PLEASE DESCRIBE ' YOUR - INVOLVEMENT IN THE PREPARATION. OF THE 2:
COVER LETTER TO THE REVISED LER.
3
- A:'
The cover letter transmitting the revised LER was drafted-by 4
licensing engineers in sir.cingham' and reviewed by the Plant 5'
Technical Support group.
I, along with others, was requested 6
to address the letter's accuracy'on June 29, 1990.
An audit' 7
had been conducted by the Vogtle Safety Audit and Engineering.
8.
Review Group ("SAER") to establish the correct data for the 9
revised LER and determine why the original' April' 19, 1990 LER-10 was in error.
Due to my lack of personal knowledge concerning 11 the underlying matter, I relied heavily upon the results of 12 the SAER audit, as conveyed to me, ar,d the knowledge of those 13 individuals who had studied or been directly involved with the 14 matter, including Mr. Mosbaugh and Mr. George Frederick.
15 Q:
ON JUNE 29, 1990 WERE YOU ADVISED THAT THE DRAFT COVER LETTER 16 TO THE REVISED LER FAILED TO CLARIFY GEORGIA POWER'S APRIL 9, t
17.
1990 LETTER?
18 A:
Yes.
As indicated on the transcript of the recorded 19 conversation between Mr. Mosbaugh, me and others on June 29, 20 1990. (Exhibit B), Mr. Mosbaugh made statements concerning 21 alleged inaccuracies in the revised cover letter.
Initially, 22 he raised three areas of concern regarding the revised LER and 23 its cover letter:
(1) why his May 8, 1990 draft revised LER 4
24 had not been adopted; (2) the changed " basis" (i.e.,
" valid" 25 versus " successful") of the count start in the revised LER; 1 v
3.
.l s
.1 and (3) the cover letter was not complete.as to the cause.of 2-the prior misstatements. Later in the conversation he told me j
3 that the cover letter failed "to explai the April 9 letter.
I 4-Q:
HOW DID YOU RESOLVE HIS SEVERAL CONCERNS?
\\
5 A:
I listened to the. concerns raised by Mr.
Mosbaugh and 6
attempted to identify and to address them all.
Initially I 7
attempted to provide Mr. Mosbaugh with information which I.
8 thought might resolve his concerns.
Later, in an effort to 9
discuss the matter effectively, I requested that the involved 10 individuals (Messrs. Mosbaugh and Frederick, later joined by 11 Messrs. Tom Webb and Rick Odom) come to my office.
Everyone i
i 12 knew that I had not been personally involved in the earlier 13 events and had not reviewed the diesel start records.
I asked l
14 questions of Mr. Mosbaugh and the other participants in these 15 discussions.
What I heard was contrasting and opposing views 16 of what had happened.
On one hand, Mr. Mosbaugh gave no i
17 detailed factual basis which supported his view. On the other j
18 hand, I was convinced by Mr. Frederick's explanations because i
19 I knew that the SAER group had studied the matter in some 20 detail.
Statements by Mr. Webb and Mr. Odom supported Mr.
21 Frederick's views, and at times took issue with Mr. Mosbaugh's 22 positions. Twice I asked Mr. Mosbaugh to explain how he would 23 change the cover letter.
Egg Exhibit B at pp. 10, 27.
I was 24 soliciting any proposed resolution which he had.
None was 25 offered.
Therefore, I ultimately relied upon the statements
]
i
-3 4
P 1
made by those who clearly articulated prior events (Messrs.
-2 Webb and Odom), and by the SAER supervisor. (Mr. ' Frederick).
m.
3 Q:
WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO GIVE MR. MOSBAUGH'S ' VIEWS SUFFICIENT 4
CREDIBILITY?
5 A:
No.
I simply considered the detail and lack of clarity and.
l 6
logic.of his statements and weighed that against the detail, f
7-clarity and 'l' gic of explanations of the other involved o
8 personnel.
I gave them the credibility which I believed they 9
deserved.
I honestly do not believe that I belittled. or 10 minimized his concerns.
11 Q:
HOW DID YOU RESOLVE MR. MOSBAUGH'S SPECIFIC CONCE'i.N THAT THE l
12 COVER LETTER TO THE REVISED LER "DID NOT EXPGIN" THE APRIL 9 t
13 LETTER AT ALL?
14 A:
From my discussions with Mr. Frederick on June 29, it was 15 apparent that he held a strong view that recordkeeping 16-practices contributed to the April 19 LER's inaccuracy.
As I 17 indicated previously, other Plant Vogtle employees. who had l
18.
worked for Mr. Mosbaugh during the relevant time frame stated 19 support for Mr. Frederick's views.
The conversations between 20 Messrs. Webb, Frederick, Odom and Mosbaugh reflect that I was 21 informed that recordkeeping practices had caused the errors in 22 the April 9 letter, as well as the error in the LER, and that j
23 both statements were wrong for the same document-related 24 reasons.
Egg Exhibit B at pp. 27-28.
When I then asked Mr.
l
, l
y
?
- 1 Mosbaugh what the cause of.the' April 9 letter was, he said he
'2
~did not know why a personnel error h'd been made.
Given this
'3-statement and the explanations of the other participants, I 14' believe I acted reasonably in accepting their position that:
-5, recordkeeping practices had caused the error in both 6
statements.
7 Q:
DID YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD RESOLVED MR. MOSBAUGH'S CONCERNS?
8 A:-
Yes.
I thought I had reached an understanding. with him, 9
through demonstrating that others had more complete knowledge 10 than he.
However, I probably should have obtained from him a 11 direct statement that he was satisfied with the' resolution.
12 Q:
WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN JUNE, 1990 OF THE PURPOSE OF 13 THE REVISED-LER COVER LETTER?
14 The cover letter clearly informed the NRC that the LER 15 revision was necessary "to correct the LER" of April 19 and 16 the cover letter also stated that the LER revision was 17 necessary to " clarify the information related to the number of 18 successful diesel starts in Georgia Power's April 9 letter."
19 The June 29 correspondence appeared to me to achieve its 20 stated purpose.
The LER cover letter obviously addresses the 21 inaccurate statement in the April 19 LER by defining the 22 comprehensive test program and providing an accurate 23
" successful start" count.
To me this was the real importance to provide information so that the NRC 24 of the letter
-- i
r i 1.
1 understood why a revised LER was submitted.
2 Q:
WERE YOU INDIFFERENT TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE 3
REVISED LER COVER LETTER?
4 A:
Absolutely not.
I believed that I had received sufficient 5
information that I needed to assure the letter was accurate, 6
and stated so. In other words, my discussions with others had 7
assured the accuracy and completeness of the letter.
Based on 8
my prior working experiences with Mr. Mosbaugh, I knew a real 9
possibility existed that he had formulated his position based 10 on limited information.
I, therefore, did not credit his 11 statements over and above other participants in our 12 discussions who also had knowledge. Furthermore, on more than 13 one occasion I specifically asked Mr. Mosbaugh to recommend to 14 me different language for the cover letter.
TV.s he did not 15 do.
16 Q:
WAS THE JUNE 29, 1990 COVER LETTER TO THE LER REVISION 17 COMPLETE AND ACCURATE IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS?
18 A:
No.
Based on what I have been told, the letter was incomplete 19 in failing to identify the underlying error in the April 9 20 letter. The prior 1B diesel start count number of "19" in the 21 April 9 letter and the "at least 18" in the April 19 LER were 22 incorrectly viewed as being based on the same data.
23 Therefore, the correction of the original LER was erroneously 24 thought to also clarify the April 9 letter.
Second, the 4
.1 letter was incomplete in failing to identify all causes of the 2
April 19 LER's inaccuracies.. One of the reasons, for example,.
i3.
was the incomplete resolution of Mr. Mosbaugh's concerns..
4
.Q:
WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE
'FOR -- ENSURING THE ACCURACY -AND l
5
. COMPLETENESS OF THE JUNE 29 LETTER?
6 A:
Yes.
Given my position at the time and my responsibilities, 7
I was responsible for resolving this concern.
Even though I 8
had attempted to be non-judgmental and open in soliciting l
9 information related to his concerns, I failed to obtain all 10 the, relevant information. I believed an adequate investigation
[
11 had been performed by SAER.
At the same time, Mr. Mosbaugh 12 did not share with me his detailed knowledge concerning the 13 April 19 LER's verification efforts by the Technical Support 14 group and him.
In retrospect,'this is understandable, since 15 he was probably. more concerned about exposing his own 16 contribution to the error in the April 19 LER.
2.- -
GPC EXIIIBIT 43 10 GREENE EX. A-
SUMMARY
OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THOMAS V. GREENE, JR.
I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science degree in physics. I began my employment with Georgia Power in June,1970.
I worked at a Georgia Power fossil plant until April,1971, at which time I went to the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant as an instrumentation and control supervisor.
I received an SRO license at Plant Hatch in 1975. I _. Id the successive positions of Technical Supervisor, Assistant Plant Manager, and Deputy General Manager.
In September,1986, I left Plant Hatch and went to Plant Vogtle as the Plant Manager, with overall responsibility for the Unit 1 Power Ascension Program and the operation of that Unit immediately following receipt of an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). I stayed in that position until September,1987 at which time I rotated with another manager and assumed the responsibility of Plant Support Manager. In this position I was responsible for the Vogtle - Unit 2 start-up and for the continued overall Technical Support of Unit 1.
I began Vogtle's SRO licensing program in early 1989, when Unit 2 was about to receive its NRC operating license. I reassumed my duties as Assistant Plant General Manager - Support after finishing licensing training and continued in that position until September,1991. At that time, I went to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, located in Birmingham, Alabama and assumed the responsibilities which I currently hold. I currently report to Mr. William Shipman, the General Manager - Plant Support for the Vogtle Project.
4' 4
GPC EXHIBIT 44 GREENE EX. B 1
TAPE 187. PAGE is. LTWE 18 THROUGH PAGE 75. LYNE 5 2
JUNE 29, 1990 3
4 Tynan:
Hey Curtis.
What? I wish I was.
You got a copy of 5
(on phone.
that cover letter to'the site area emergency dropped 6
w/ Horton) in your hand; right? You got any comments, problems 7
with it?
I think corporate kind of wants to blame it 8
on us, if there's anything wrong.
What I'm doing is 9
the PRS telephone poll before the five o' clock meeting 10 because this can't wait until 5 o' clock.
Okay, the 11 last half of the first paragraph.
Mm-ham.
Okay, the 12 first half you disagree with.
13 14 Tynan:
(inaudible) 15 16 (Comment:
Can hear ALM in background saying "this is 17 Mairston's material falso statement.")
18 19 Tynan Right.
20
^
21 Frederick:
You can't count 18 starts afte'r the event, in a row 22 without problems.
23 24 Tynan:
You know what, I think, (inaudible) George Fredericks,
25 sent me a thing.
Allen, that --
26 27 Frederick:
I didn't give anybody any words.
28 29 jhrnan:
No, he didn't.
30 31 Frederick:
(inaudible) 32 33 Tynan:
Hey, George, did you come up with these words? (i.e.,
34 "these discrepancies can be attributed to 35
...)
36 37 Frederick:
Mr. Hairston (inaudible) 38 39 Tynan:
Mr. Horton?
40 41 Horton:
(inaudible) 42 43 Tynan:
Well, I think what Mr. Fredericks is saying is that Mr.
44 Hairston come up with the last sentence in the first 45 paragraph.
46 47 Frederick:
I just think that, my understanding from Harry Majors 48 is that Hairston may have wrote the last sentence 49 himself.
50 51 Tynan:
He disagreed with it.
52 53 Horton:
Then I withdraw my comments.
54
-~~
i.
1 Frederick:
Why?
If it's the truth, it's the truth.
2 3
Horton:
I think it's wrong, but I certainly think I'm sure 4
Hairston knows more than I do.
5 6
Frederick:
What's wrong, Mike, because I think you got it from our 7
audit report.
8 9
Horton:
Well, what was wrong with our diesel start 10 recordkeeping practices?
11 12 Frederick:
Okay.
Let me give it to you in a nutshell, okay.
On 13 the days --
14 15 Horton:
We're doing it the same way we've always done it.
16 17 Frederick:
No, no.
Wait a minute.
Let me just tell you what the 18 19 20 Horton:
Do I need to change my program?
21 22 Frederick:
Probably.
Let me tell you the facts, okay.
You ready?
23 24 Horton:
Tell ne what's wrong.
25 26 Frederick:
Your log was out of date the day we wrote the LER.
27 28 Horton:
Oh, okay.
29 30 Mosbaugh:
That's irrelevant.
31 32 Horton:
If that's the justification, I'll buy that.
33 34 Frederick:
Well, it's true.
35 36 Horton:
Is that the root cause here?
37 l
38 Frederick:
That's part of it.
39 40 Mosbaugh:
That's irrelevant.
It wasn't even used.
41 42 Frederick:
It could have been used.
43 1
44 Mosbaugh:
It wasn't used.
45 i
46 Frederick:
It could have been used.
47 48 Mosbaugh:
It doesn't matter.
49 50 Horton:
That's why I keep gettir.g comments about updating the 51 log today.
52 2
s.
1 Mosbaugh:
It doesn't matter if it wasn't used.
2 3
Frederick:
Yes, it can be.
4 5
Horton:
I understand now.
6 7
Frederick:
I can't hear you.
Allen was talking to me.
8 9
Horton:
Several people kept asking me how often I update the 10 log and have I updated it today and when am I going to 11 get off my buns and update it and things like this, and 12 I've always wondered where they were coming from with 13 those comments.
Now I know.
14 15 Frederick:
Was that before today or after? Was that before today 16 or today?-
17 18 Horton:
No, before today, long before today.
19 20 Frederick:
Okay.
He only got my results today, so those comments 21 were generated for some other reason.
22 23 Horton:
Okay.
But it's your opinion that the reason we gave 24 the NRC erroneous data was because the people that 25 gathered the data used the log and assumed it was up to 26 date and it wasn't?
27 28 Frederick:
No, that's not true.
The reason we gave the NRC 29 erroneous data is because we had no log available to 30 use.
The last time the log was updated before we wrote 31 the LER was March the 16th, which was before the event.
32 33 Horton:
Right.
34 35 Frederick:
So there was --
36 37 Horton:
It's the same issue.
A timely updating is the same 38 issue.
39 40 Frederick:
Well, but what I'm saying is they didn't use an 41 erroneous log.
There was no log to use for that 42 period.
43 44 Horton:
Right, because it hadn't been recorded yet.
45 46 Frederick:
That's right.
That's a different statement than what 47 you're saying.
48 49 Mosbaugh:
George, that's not true, okay.
50 51 Frederick:
It is true. The log is not up to.date, Allen.
It's not 52 up to date right now.
3
q s
1 Mosbaugh:
I'm not going to argue with you on that, okay.
2 3
Frederick:
I'm not arguing.
(
4 5
Mosbaugh:
I was a participant on these conversations, and I know 6
and understand why the error was made, and this is not 7
why.
8 9
Frederick:
I didn't say why the error was made.
I haven't said 10 why the error was made....
My audit.
Hey, Mike --
11 12 Mosbaugh:
I'm referring to what's written down here.
13 14 Frederick:
Hey, Mike.
15 16 Horton:
I'm listening.
17 18 Frederick:
The audit report does not say why we made an error.
19 The audit report says what the conditions were that 20 existed when we wrote the L2R.
As a matter of fact, 21 the audit report says that several of the start pages 22 that have to be forwarded to the engineer were still 23 being processed by Operations and had been processed 24 for 24 days and still hadn't been sent to them yet.
So 25 I don't know how anybody counted them because nobody 26 knew where they were.
27 28 Mosbaught Nobody counted them from your log, Mike.
29 30 Frederick:
Nobody counted them (inaudible).
31 32 Mosbaugh:
The problem is not that they counted them from your log 33 or they didn't count them from your log.
The problem 34 is that the people that counted them from the source 35 records that they counted them fros,either counted then 36 wrong or made mistakes in counting them or weren't 37 careful in their counting or whatever.
38 39 Horton:
That was my understanding.
i 40 41 Mosbaugh:
That is the cause of the event.
42 43 Frederick Yeah, but, Mike --
44 45 Horton:
I'll go with the flow here.
I won't resist.
46 47 Frederick:
Hey, Mike, if the log had been up to date, they 48 wouldn't have had to go to those sheets of paper.
49 1
50 Horton:
I don't disagree.
/
51 4
l l
l l
I 1
Frederick:
Okay.
That's all the audit report says.
The log 2
wasn't -- there was no log to go to.
3 4
Mosbaugh:
George, I'm not disputing your report and whether it i
5 was up to date.
And obviously it wasn't up to date and 6
there was a big lag, and a lot of people have 7
responsibility for that.
8 9
Horton:
Everything you're saying, George, is true.
10 11 Mosbaugh:
But what we're talking about now is the letter we're 12 going to submit to the NRC.
13 14 Horton:
But it's irrelevant.
15 16 Frederick:
I don't think it's irrelevant.
17 18 Mosbaugh:
We talking about a letter we're going to send to the 19 NRC.
20 21 Frederick:
I think, Mike, we're unwilling to face the truth if we 22 don't say that the fact that we didn't do our 23 recordkeeping right probably caused us to make the 24 mistake.
25 26 Mosbaugh:
That's not true.
27 28 Horton:
If that were true, I have no problem whatsoever with 29 saying that and going off and fixing it, but that was 30 just not my understanding.
31 32 Frederick:
Well, I --
33 34 Horton:
I thought adequate research went into this and it was 35 just poorly done.
36 1
37 Mosbaugh:
You're correct, Mike.
38 39 Frederick:
Well, Mike --
40 41 Horton:
But that's alright.
I don't have a major heartburn 42 with this, but --
43 44 Frederick:
Hey, Mike --
45 46 Horton:
What?
47 48 Frederick:
I would say right now that basically --
49 50 Horton:
Go ahead.
51 5
1 Frederick:
I would say that the people who are drawing the 2
conclusion on the root cause right now are doing it 3
from the facts they've been presented.
And the facts 4
are that the dieaal start sheets from 14980 and 13145 5
were in routing someplace.
They hadn't been processed.
6 The Shift Supervisor's log is not an accurate record of 7
what happened.
And the diesel start logs were not 8
updated until five days after we submitted the L(ER) --
9 as a matter of fact, it wasn't --
10 11 Voice:
(inaudible) 12 13 Frederick:
They weren't updated until 13 days after we submitted 14 the LER.
15 16 Horton:
I understand.
17 18 Frederick:
So if you take all those things in total, that's a 19 significant burden on the person trying to come up with 20 the number of starts.
So now what you got to do is 21 draw your root cause from all of that.
22 23 Mosbaugh:
George, I used those same source documents and came up 24 with an accurate record without much difficulty.
25 26 Frederick:
You're exceptional Allen [ laughing).
27 28 Mosbaugh:
Well, there's other information.
If we send this in 29 the way it is, we may well be submitting additional 30 false information.
31 32 Frederick:
Mike -- There's nothing false in there.
I would 33 recommend what you do is get on the phone real quick 34 with Harry Majors and, you know, discuss with him where 35 their conclusions are coming from.
I think the major 36 contibuting -- my personal opinion is the contributing 37 factors were the sloppy processing from the control 38 room to your engineers, okay.
It took something like 39 24 days to get several of those' sheets to them.
And 40 the other one was the fact that the log had never been 41 updated.
As a matter of fact, Mike, as of this 42 zorning, the 1A diesel log has not been updated since 43 May the 2nd.
That was as of this morning.
44 45 Horton:
Okay.
That, that doesn't bother me.
I mean, it would 46 be nice to have it up to date to the minute, but --
3 47 48 Frederick:
Well, it's missing about probably about 10 valid starts 49 or valid tests and one valid failure.
50 6
4 1
Mosbaugh:
If this root cause is true, then we shouldn't be 2
submitting it because his log is not up to date for 3
this information, if this is the root cause.
4 5
[ inaudible)
'6
'7
-Horton:
If there's a need to have the log updated because 8
people may run up and look at it, then I need to go fix 9
that.
But previously we report off the logs as for 10 certain intervals or certain events and we generally 11 just update it for those purposes.-
If there are other 12 purposes, then I need to go fix that, which I can do.
13 I don't disagree, but I think we're introducing a new 14 variable that's not part of the program currently, and 15 I don't consider that necessarily a problem.
It's just 16 an enhancement we need to go make to the program.
17 18 Frederick:
I don't think we're talking about a program right now, 19 Mike.
I think that we're talking about is Mr. Hairston 20 trying to explain why we made a mistake.
21 22 Horton:
I understand that, but the program in question is the 23 methodology of getting the log updated.~
24 25 Frederick:
Yeah.
26 27 Horton:
Whatever, I don't see that as a material false 28 statement Carolyn.
29 30 Tynan:
Okay.
31 32 Horton:
I disagree with it personally, but I'm not interested 33 in arguing about it right now.
34
-35 Tynan:
okay.
I'm going to pass that on to Tom.
36 37 Horton:
I'm assuming though that there's a corresponding 38 corrective action required.
For example, George, an I 39 going to get AFR?
40 41 Frederick:
No, we couldn't find where you were not in compliance 42 with your procedure.
43 44 Horton:
Make a suggested recommendation?
45 46 Frederick:
Yeah.
We recommended we change the way we do business 47 or either that your procedure have more specific 48 guidance in it.
49 50 Horton:
Okay.
Well, there's your corrective action then.
51 Bottom line is let's send it.
52 7
4 a
m 1
Tynan:
I'm going to pass that on to Tom.
2 3
Horton:
Tell him I loved it.
4 5
Mosbaugh:
I just loved it.
6 7
Tynan:
You'd be the only one.
Okay, thanks, Mike, and I guess a
five o' clock is still on.
9 10 Horton:
Bye.
11 12 Tynan:
All right.
13 14 Tynan:
Let me call Tom.
Ya'll should be in here too.
15 16 Mosbaugh:
We're digging a deeper hole.
17 18
[ Comment:
dialing tones) 19 20 Tynan:
Ester, I need to talk to Tom.
21 22 Dixon:
Hold on.
He's on another line, Carolyn.
Hold on.
23 24 Tynan:
Okay.
25 26 Mosbaugh:
I mean, this is not false but you attribute it to 27 something false.
28 29
.Tynan:
Is that the only problem, Allen, that last line?
30 i
31 Mosbaugh:
It's the only thing that's false.
32 33 Tynan:
What's false?
34 35 Mosbaugh:
It says the discrepancy is attributed to these causes, 36 okay, and I would contend that those are really not the 37 causes.
Now, it may be true that we're attributing to 38 those things that are wrong, okay, and I'm not sure if 39 that's false or not.
Is it wrong when you say you 40 attribute it to something that is wrong?
41 42 (Comment: Starting here, the transcript may be hard to 43 follow because Tynan is having a conversation with 44 Dixon and then Greene while at the same time Mosbaugh 45 argues with Frederick.)
46 47 Tynan:
Yeah?
48 49 Dixon:
He's talking to Bill Shipman.
Let me get him to call 50 you right back.
51 52 Frederick:
Opinion's not fact.
8
. (
4-1 Mosbaugh:
I think I would have to be a lawyer to determine that.
2 All I'm saying is that if you were involved you would 3
know..
4 5
Greene:
Hello?
6 7
Tynan:
Say, Tom?
8
'9 Greene:
Yes, ma'am.
10 11 Voices (inaudible) 12 13 Frederick:
It's true.
14 15 Tynan:
I've got Allen Mosbaugh and Tom Webb and George 16 Fredericks in here.
I just got off the phone.with Mike 17 Horton.
18 19 Frederick:
The person that had to come up with a number had no 20 data to go to.
He did it by the seat of his pants.
21 22 Greene:
(inaudible) 23 24 Tynan:
There is a concern on the last line of the.first 25 paragraph.
26 27 Frederick:
Why did he do it by the seat of his pants? He was 28 forced to.
Why was he forced to? The logs were not 29 available.
Records were not available.
The records 30 weren't in the vault; ops still had them.
31 32 Greene:
The number of (inaudible).
33 34 Mosbaugh:
You didn't listen to what I said.
35 36 Fredericks I did too.
I've been listening to the whole thing.
37 I
38 Tynan:
That's not the one.
39 40 Frederick:
I'm the guy that put comments in the PRB minutes the i
41 time we tried to write it wrong the last time and you 42 rewrote it for me.
It was still wrong.
43 44 Mosbaugh:
It was not wrong when I rewrote it.
45 46 Tynan:
okay, so the first part of that sentence is 47 (inaudible).
48 49 Frederick:
The note I got is.
50 51 Mosbaugh:
What note have you got?
52 9
,--n-e -
4 :.
l n.
1 Frederick:
I've got an updated copy of the LER.
2 t
3-Tynan:
(inaudible) there seems to be a little problem with 4
that.
5 6
Greens:
Where are you at now?
7 8
Tynan:
In my office.
9 10 Greene:
In your office, okay.
Do I need to walk over there?
11 12 Voice:
Well, I mean, they can talk to you right now in here.
13 14 Greene:
Okay, go ahead.
15 16
[ Comment: All parties are now involved in the same 17 conversation.)
18 19 Tynan:
Okay, George and Allen.
I think Allen may have some 20 other questions.
21 22 Greene:
All right.
23 24 Mosbaught I guess, Tom, you know, the thing that seems rather 25 funny to me about this is that the PRS approved the 26 revision to that LER on the 8th of May, and that 27 revision approved on the 8th of May was correct then 28 and remains correct now.
And all of what we've done 29 has not changed anything.
And now we're going to send 30 a letter forward that, you know, it's protably -- most i
31 of what's in this cover letter is probably true, and i
32 the new basis that's being presented in the LER is 33 probably true too.
But then what was in the rev.
34 approved by the PRB on the 8th of May was also true.
35 36 Greenes Mm-hma..
37 38 Mosbaugh:
And I think some explanation is owed for all that.
In 39 addition, this particular cover letter assigns a --
40 attributes a reason to the errors, and whereas ths; 41 statement may be correct, it is certainly not complete 42 as to the cause of our making these mistakes and 43 providing inaccurate information.
44 45 Greene Ma-ham.
46 47 Mosbaugh:
We can send a half-truth out, but, you know, it seems 48 to me at this point we ought to be coming clean.
49 50 Greene:
How would you change the letter?
(pause) 51 10
.-. ~.
.6-1 k
1 Mosbaugh:
Well, it would seem to me that somebody ought to 2
explain the truth relative to the mistakes.
3 4.
Greene:-
George, have you gone through how you arrived at these
'5 numbers with them?
6 7
Frederick:
Is this Tom Greene?
8 9
Greene:
Yes.
10 11 Frederick:
Okay.
I didn't recognize your voice on the speaker.
12
-You sound different.
13 14 Greene:
I got here at five.this morning.
15 16 Frederick:
Yeah, me too.
The problem -- what Allen is talking 17 about is where someone down at corporate has looked at 18 the audit report and made a decision on attributing a 19 root cause to why we made the mistake.
That's what.--
20 21 Greene:
Ma-ham.
22 23 Frederick:
And Allen feels that that's not a true statement or 24 it's not completely true.
I don't know what Allen's 25 talking about.
I don't know what other root cause he 26 means.
Allen's going to have to tell you what it is.
27 I den't know what root cause we're talking about 28 otherwise.
29 30 Greene Ma-ham.
Have you explained to him exactly how you 31 arrived at the 10 and 12, George?
32 33 Frederick:
Yeah.
That's not an issue.
34 35 Greene:
Okay.
36 37 Frederick:
Tom Webb is here with me and he's gone over the same 38 numbers from his own records.
He agrees with those 39 numbers.
i 40 41 Mosbaught You know, Tom, the revision approved by the PRB on the j
42 8th of May stated that the completion, in that 43 particular meeting, stated that the completion of the 44 comprehensive test program, that the program was over 45 just prior to doing the -- and the comprehensive test 46 program as referenced in the LER was a comprehensive 47 test program testing the controls and logic.
So that 48 test program completed just prior to doing the 49 undervoltage test, and that was the definition that the 50 PRB agreed to when it approved that revision and indeed 51 that notation is reflected in th9 revision of 5/8.
52 Now, this goes ahead and assuncs a different basis for l
11 6
}
e 1
that point, and that's fine.
We all can assume 2
different bases, but I don't know why we're changing 3
our bases.
4 5
Greene Ma-ham.
6 7
Frederick:
Hey, Tom?
8 9
Greens:
Yes.
10 11 Frederick:
The reason the first successful surveillance test was 12 picked was because it removes any fuzziness on whether 13 it was a valid start attempt and whether.it was 14 successful.
And if you use the criteria that Allen is 15 talking about, I believe you gain two starts.
That 16 still doesn't --
17 18 Mosbaugh:
Nobody's trying to gain or lose starts here.
I'm just 19 saying that --
20 21 Frederick:
I have --
22 23 Mosbaught Just a second.
This brings into question, you know, 24 whether or not we had a definition of the end of the 25 test program.
And all I'm saying is the PRB on the 8th 26 of May established the definition for that.
27 28 Greene:
Why don't ya'll come on over to Skip's office and let's 29 talk about it.
30 31 Frederick:
Sure.
32 33 Greene:
I don't think we can do it over the phone.
See ya'll 34 in a few minutes.
35 36 Frederick:
You're there right now?
37 38 Greene:
I'm in Skip's office, now.
39 40 Frederick:
Okay.
41 42 Greene:
All right.
Bye.
43
{
44 12
4 1
TAPE 137, SIDE 2 2
-3 Voice:.
(inaudible) 4 5
Voice:
(inaudible) the log (inaudible).
6 7
Frederick:
There were no logs is (inaudible).
8 9
Williams:
When I say logs I'm talking about the supervisor's log 10 or (inaudible) logs.
11 12 Voice:
It's (inaudible).
You can't --
13 14 Voice:
What I'm saying is we're not missing that log 15 (inaudible).
16 17 Frederick:
I couldn't agree (inaudible).
18 19 Voice:
What we (inaudible).
Err on the side of conservatism.
20 21 Voice:
(inaudible).
Jimmy Paul Cash and George Bockhold 22 got information.
They used the logs from the control 23 room.
24 25 Voice:
(inaudible) the log.
26
)
27 Voice:
Well, (inaudible).
28 i
29
. Voice:
Can I borrow (inaudible)?
30 31 voice:
(inaudible) 32 33 (pause in tape) 34 35 Voice:
I guess (inaudible) the core (inaudible).
36 37 Voice:
(inaudible) 38 39 Voice:
As I was saying (inaudible) divided by (inaudible).
40 41 Voice:
(inaudible) 42 43 Greene:
I don't like speaker phones.
44 45 Voice:
I don't either.
46 47 Greene:
They cut in and out on'you and you can't (inaudible).
48 49 Greene:
Okay.
50 13
]
-i
- s.
1 Voice:
.Let me interrupt before you start.
Did you understand 2
that we're supposed to get (inaudible) back to Ken 3
McCoy immediately if not sooner on this?
4 5
Voice:
Well, (inaudible).
I can tell you that right now.
6 7
Greene:
Really?
(inaudible)
If Ken is expecting this to go to 8
the PRS at five (inaudible) at five.
It can't wait 9
till five.
10 11 Webb:
That was the phone call.
12 13 Voice:
It can't wait till five.
14 15 Voice:
This is a phone call.
(inaudible) the PRB.
i 16 j
17 Voice:
Okay.
Now, (inaudible) about the letter (inaudible).
la i
19 Voice:
(inaudible) 20 21 V'oice:
Just the substance.
22 23 Voice:
Right.
24 25 Voice:
Let's do that.
26 27 Greene What's the concern about that statement in the letter 2a (inaudible)?
29 30 Voices (inaudible) 31 32 Mosbaugh:
Well, what you're trying to do is, you know, somebody 33 else is going to have to answer for. changing everything 34 all around to a new basis.
I mean, first we're going 35 to a basis of valid versus any old start which was all 36 of our other documents.
Then we're going to go to a 37 new basis of where we count the starting of the 38 comprehensive, the completion of the comprehensive test 39 program, okay.
So we've established two new bases, and 40 we said, okay, with these two new b&ses, these are the 41 start numbers now, okay.
Now, if somebody wants to 42 establish new bases, fine, and those numbers for those 43 new bases, I will assume somebody's done a review and 44 those are correct.
You know, I think that in itself is t
45 questionable establishing these new bases, especially 46 when previous revisions exist that use the old bases 47 and compared apples to apples instead of apples to 48 oranges.
But, notwithstanding all that, the last 49 sentence then goes and draws a conclusion as to why the 4
50 error was made.
51 52 Greene:
Ma-ham.
14 i
i m
l
^
- 4.
~.;
1 Mosbaugh:
And it says the error was made because of diesel start 2
recordkeeping practices and the-definition of the end 3
of the test program.
Well, I say that is not true,~and 4
I participated in the calls and the discussion and the 5
PRB meetings and so forth, in preparation of the LER.
6 I assume this error is 2D1X referencing why the error 7~
was made in the LER.
I don't know.
8 9
Greene:
This information is also (inaudible) -- these numbers 10 are also (inaudible).
11 12 Mosbaugh:
No, not these numbers.
The only thing that's gone in 13 the LER is valid start numbers.
14 15 Voice:
(inaudible) 16 17 Mosbaugh:
No.
18 19 Webb:
The LER is (inaudible).
20 21 Mosbaugh:
The 10 and 12 are not going in the LER.
22 23 Greene:
What makes you~think that?
24 3
25 Mosbaugh:
Because I've seen the approved LER.
26 27 Voices (inaudible) 28 29
.Mosbaugh:
The PRB approved the LER at the last PRB meeting.
l 30 31 Greene:
What did the PRB approve yesterday?
(inaudible) 32 33 Odom:
It changed five times in the last (inaudible).
34 35 Mosbaugh:
Well, somebody else is changing the PRB other than --
36 the LER, other than the PRB.
37 38 Greene:
This is what the PRS looked at yesterday.
I have this 39 (inaudible).
40 41 Mosbaugh:
Oh, the LER's been changed by corporate again? Okay.
42 43 Webb:
(inaudible) changed that and (inaudible) the cover 4*
letter, yes, but the LER itself, no.
45 46 Greene:
These numbers, this makes no sense to me to write a 47 letter like this when the LER hasn't got the numbers in 48 it because they're updating the LER.
What I believe is 49 (inaudible) the updated LER and for you to have numbers 50 like this and then can't use them, they won't 51 (inaudible).
Whatever is sent will most likely and up 52 in the LER.
I certainly would never send this letter j
15
(
1l off, attach the LER, and than have a letter.
I believe 2
we're talking about numbers that we'll see in the LER.
3 I'll be glad to put clarify (inaudible).
4 5
Mosbaught Well, the basis.in the LER is different, Tom.
The LER 6
states valid starts through today's date.
This letter 7
states successful starts, not valid starts,.through 8
April 19th, so you have totally different bases.
9 10 Webb:
Yes,'the letter was making a correction from the first 11 LER, but the LER itself is updated to the current time
' 12 or approximatly the current time.
So they are talking 13 apples and oranges here.
(inaudible) put those numbers 14 in there.
15 1
16 Greener Well, I think the whole argument comes down to are you 17 implying that the previous work was some way in error?
18 And what I think I hear you saying is may changed 19 around a little bit (inaudible).
We all know how to 20 count.
We are counted 6orrectly and (inaudible).
21 22 Mosbaugh:
No, we did not count correctly, and that's basically my 23 bottom line when you start to talk about the cause for 24 the LER being submitted with incorrect information in 25 it.
I believe that that -- if I were to state the 26 cause of that, is due to personnel error, carelessness, 27 and negligence.
Those are pretty strong words, but l
28 that's what I think happened.
29 30 Greene:
That's how we go through 19 and 11 and got what? Which 31 number are you referring to?
32 33 Mosbaugh:
The original revision of the LER.
34 35 Greene:
That's the one that was done on May 8th?
36 37 Mosbaugh:
No, that was the one that was submitted on the 19th of 38 April.
i 39 40 Greene:
That's the original version of the LER.
41 42 Mosbaugh:
That's the only one that's false.
I mean, that's the 43 only LER that's false.
It's the only LER we've 44 submitted.
45 46 Webb:
The original version (inaudible) the PRB approved on 47 May the 14th or May the 8th, excuse me, i
48 49 Greene:
We said no failure occurred in any of these tests. If I 50 change that last line, have I said something wrong in 51 the rest of the letter?
52 16
.....m
4 1
Mosbaugh:
I think the rest of the --
2 3
Voice:
(inaudible) 4 5
Frederick:
In the course of our audit, we found that on the date 6
we submitted the LER, the diesel start log had not been 7
updated since March the 15th (inaudible) we submitted 8
the LER on April the 19th.
The diesel logs were not 9
updated until May the 2nd, so when we submitted the 10 LER, there were no diesel, none of these starts wars in 11 the log.
There were no diesel logs to go to.
12 13 Mosbaugh:
When he's saying the diesel log, he means the 14 engineering diesel log.
so it was not available and 15 was not used.
16 17 Frederick:
The second thing we found was that some of the diesel 18 start sheets (inaudible) surveillance (inaudible) 19 diesel starts (inaudible).
Some of those had been in 20 process for up to 24 days in the control room before 21 being sent to the engineers, not to the engineer until 22 April the 24th, which is five days after we sent the 23 LER.
It hadn't even been processed.
24 25 Greene:
So that makes (inaudible).
26 27 Frederick:
So it was a significant processing problem with the 28 sheets (inaudible) out of the control room.
There was 29 no diesel log to look at and (inaudible) the 30 supervisor's log you counting significant (inaudible) 31 was significant omission.
So the person who was tasked 32 with trying to deve10p the numbers of starts 33 (inaudible).
I don't know where they were located.
34 There was no need for the (inaudible).
I don't know.
35 how you can know you had a complete set if you had a 36 whole stack of them laying in front of you.
37 (Inaudible) what the audit documented was what the 38 situation was, (inaudible) person was, (inaudible).
39 Corporate f.s attributing the error made to those same 40 problems.
41 42 Mosbaugh:
The log was not available and was not used to compile 43 the information.
That's the facts.
44 45 Frederick:
I agree with him.
It wasn't.
46 47 Greene:
Okay, so let's forget the fact that we're talking about 48 the log and let's go back to the statement.
(Reading) 49 "The discrepancy was attributed to diesel start 50 recordkeeping practices." All right, the recordkeeping 51 we're referring to se is not just the log, but the fact 52 that we wrote things down, the information was 17
. _ ~
yl -
- O 1
incomplete; that we had a method of reporting,.even 2
though it's not part of the log, it was (inaudible).
3 And then we start to (inaudible).
4 5
Mosbaugh:
We didn't use that.
You know, Tom, this information 6
started with Jimmy Paul Cash.
7 i
8 Greene:
Ma-ham.
9 10 Mosbaugh:
okay.
So you ask yourself why did Jimmy Paul cash make l
11 a mistake?
I mean, If you want to ask yourself why the 12 error was made, that's where the error started.
And 13 the error propagated through Tom and NSAC (inaudible) 14 because they assumed that information was correct, and 15 then just added on to it for' extra days.
Is that not 16 correct?
17 18 Odon:
That's net correct.
We went through and we personally 19 took the control room logs and everything else and 20 tried to verify the (inaudible).
21 22 Mosbaugh:
That was after, that was after, that was after l
23 questions relative to the accuracy of the data were 24 brought up.
25 j
26 Webb:
Right.
We didn't put numbers in (inaudible).
27 28 Mosbaught Prior to that, you merely extended on Jimmy Paul cash's 29 information.
Then questions were brought up as to the 30 accuracy of the data, and you went out and did a review 31 of the log.
32 33 Webb:
That's not true.
34 35 Mosbaugh:
Well, if any of it isn't true, let me know.
36 37 Webb:
When we originally drafted the LER, we didn't put those 38 numbers in there at all.
Corporate came back and 39 wanted to put numbers in, so in the last day cr two 40 before the LER was ready to go to the NRC, we started 41 scrambling trying to find numbers that we could rely 42 on.
We went through the control room logs and started 43 to add up the (inaudible).
44 45 Frederick:
Any reason we didn't use the engineering log?
46 47 Mosbaugh:
It wasn't available.
It wasn't complete and it wasn't 48 available.
There was nothing in it.
49 50 Voice:
It wasn't a usable source.
51 52 Mosbaugh:
There was nothing in it.
i 18
w 1
Odon:
Usually more accurate and (inaudible) started up.
2 3
Creene:
Ma-ham.
4 5
Odon:
We couldn't tell in a lot of cases what was going on.
6 The control room (inaudible).
7 8
Greene Based on that, why is the statement incorrect then that 9
the discrepancy was attributed to diesel start 10 recordkeeping practices? If we don't send the stuff to 11 the engineering people in a timely fashion, don't you 12 think we've got a poor practice?
13 14 odom:
I can tell you from the past that in doing diesel 15 special Reports we always had a hard time getting the 16 material.
17 18 Greenes I think that's all we're trying to say in this letter 19 is they're not blaming the log per se.
They're saying 20 our practice of keeping the log up, but (inaudible) 21 records (inaudible) log.
It's the way we keep our 22 records.
(Phone ringing.)
The definition of the and 23 of test program.
Tell me the definition of, we used on 24 May 8th and (inaudible).
25 26 Mosbaugh:
The LER states numerous sensor and logic testing was 27 performed prior... after.
. subsequent to the 28 completion of the comprehensive test program.
29 30 Voices (inaudible) 31 32 Mosbaught It's in reference to logic, control logic testing.
33 34 Voice Harry's holding.
35 36 Greene:
Harry, here I am with a unit down and you hand me this 37 hot potato.
38 39 Voice:
Is (inaudible) reasons (inaudible)?
40 41 Greene:
Where did the last line....I'm going to put you on 42 speaker.
You have to understand you're right in the 43 middle of a heated argument, so you just let the water 44 roll off your back.
45 46 Msjors:
This is (inaudible).
47 48 Greene:
Okay.
49 50 Majors:
All right.
51 19
1 Greene:
This is the author of the letter.
Is that a fair 2
statement, Harry, that you're the author of this 3
letter?
4 5
Majors:
I will accept it, but I'll reserve the right to make a 6
disclaimer at a later point.
7 8
Greene:
Let me see if I can establish some facts here.
9 10 Majors:
All right.
11 12 Greene:
All right.
Number one, the information that is in this 13 letter, " Loss of Off-Site Power Leads to site Area 14 Emergency" is to be a cover letter to the LER?
15 16 Majors:
That's right.
17 18 Greene:
That's the same information that is also being put into 19 the LER?
l 20 21 Majors:
The only thing that changed in the LER since the PRB 22 saw it last is we changed that number of starts from 11 23 to 12 because the, when they did the QA audit report, 24 they found another valid test that hadn't been checked 25 in the column there.
26 27 Greene:
All right.
So the 11 and 16 is now 12 and 16?
28 29
. Majors:
That's right.
30 31 Greene:
All right.
So this letter then -- okay.
Okay, that's 32 a fact.
Let's see if I understand it based on that.
33 34 Majors:
Okay, now, I can explain further, if you want me to.
35 36 Greene:
Go ahead.
37 38 Majors:
Okay.
The audit report, if you look at Page 3 of the 39 audit report where it talks about the number of-40 successful starts subsequent to the completion of the 41 test program.
42 43 Greene:
Yes.
44 45 Majors:
okay.
What we were trying to do is be consistent with 46 the audit report with the letter.
47 48 Greene:
Okay.
49 50 Majors:
So what we're trying to do to the LER is change it to 51 not mention the number of starts subsequent to the test 52 program.
20
1 Greene:
Okay.
We're going to let the LER talk about valid 2
starts, and we're going to let the cover letter talk 3
about successful starts subsequent to the test program?
4 5
Majora:
Right.
In other words, the letter is going to 6
basically address the question of the probina with the 7
previous LER.
8 9
Greene:
Okay.
The number of successful starts included in the 10 original LER included some of the starts that were part 11 of the test program.
12 13 Majors:
Right.
Now, that's a Ken McCoy additional sentence 14 that has been blessed by George (Hairston).
So 15 obviously if there's a problem with it, George would 16 want to know about it.
17 18 Greene:
Sure.
The discrepancy is attributed to diesel start 19 recordkeeping practices.
What did you mean by that?
20 21 Majors:
Okay.
That's another George and Ken McCoy designed 22 sentence, and they're referring there to this audit 23 report, trying to summarise... I'm trying to find...
24 the thing the section of, especially in the audit 25 report where it says no specific cause for the error in 26 the LER, a number of 18 starts was identified other 27 than it (inaudible) appears this problem existed when 28 the LER was prepared, based on the review of the log no l
29 entries were made in the Unit 1 diesel log between 30 March 15th (inaudible).
It says "there is no single 31 source document readily available for determining the 32 results of diesel starts."
33 34 Greene:
Let me ask you something.
The word discrepancy implies 35 that there was mistakes and errors made previously.
36 The only thing that I believe everybody agreed to is i
37 that the original LER had some mistakes in it.
38 39 Majors:
Right.
40 41 Greene:
The LERs written after that were based on how do you 42 want to count these things.
43 44 Majors:
That's right.
j 45 46 Greene:
All right.
So why don't you say instead of 47 discrepancy, why don't you just say the difference, 45 meaning you're talking about what's in this letter 49 versus what's in the LER.
i 50 51 Majors:
I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think 52 they will either.
i 21
1 I
1 Greene:
"The difference is attributed to the diesel start 2
recordkeeping practices..."
3 4
Majors:
Right.
I don't think anybody will have any problems 5
with that.
6 7
Greene:
"...and the definition at the end of the test program."
8 That's how you explain the difference in the LER and 9
what's in this letter?
10 i
11 Majors:
Yes.
12 13 Greene:
All right. We're all standing behind what's in the 14 LER, the 11 and the 16.
15 i
16 Majors:
Right.
We had the QA report, we cuunted off, and show 17 exactly what we're saying, 12 and 16.
18 19 Greene The 12 and 16, okay.
But we used the engineering log 20 for that number, didn't we?
t 21 l
22 Majors:
That's right.
We used the engineering log.
If you 23 turn over to Page 4 of the audit report,' Section B.
24 25 Greene:
Ms-ham.
26 1
27 Majors:
It says -- it discusses the fact that they go to the 28 engineering log and then it talks about the fact that 29 there have been additional tests performed ac7ording to 30 procedure 14980, diesel generator operability test, 31 that were done since the last time that the engineer's 32 log was updated, these tests have been done.
If you 33 add those to the ones on the engineering log, you come 34 up with 16 and 12.
35 36 Greene:
Right.
37 38 Majors:
And that's how I came up with 16 and 12.
39 40 Greene:
But that's based on the engineering log that we keep?
41 42 Majors:
That's based on the engineering log that we keep which 43 was last updated on -- I'm not sure -- 5/2 or sosething 44 like that, plus the additional successful cospletion of 45 tests according to that procedure, since the last time 46 the log was updated.
47 48 Greene:
Okay.
Allen, can you... you know, basically what 49 we're saying here is that the LER was indeed accurate.
50 so --
51 22
.-.~
s.
.p.
1 Mosbaugh:
I haven't contested that the new LER is inaccurate or i
2 accurate.
I haven't looked at the data.
I don't know 3
that it is inaccurate.
You've just changed to apples 4
and oranges.
i 5
6 Majors:
That's right.
He's right about that.
7 8
Greene:
Yeah.
9 10 Majors:
What we've done is because we have so much difficulty 11 discussing and getting our hands around the number of 12 starts subsequent to the test program, particular if 13 you try to count the number of starts subsequent to the 14 test program and prior to our submittal of the original 15 LER -- it really gets more difficult there because wo 16 don't have a good -- you know, you can argue whether
-17 something is a successful start or not.
So that's why 18 we chose to go with the valid starts.
You can now tie 19 it down to the Reg Guide 108 definition and that sort 20 of thing.
21 22 Mosbaugh:
But, you know, with what Tom just said about the 23 difference, you know, that makes the end of that 24 sentence read better, but it makes the beginning of 25 that sentence read in a funny way as far as I'm 26 concerned.
"The difference is attributed to diesel 27 start recordkeeping practices."
28 29
. Majors:
Yeah.
30 7
31 Mosbaught We didn't change our recordkeeping practices.
32 33 Majors:
George personally zerood in on' those words.
34 35 Greene Well, what he's saying is we haven't changed our 36 recordkeeping practices.
37 38 Majors:
Right.
39 40 Mosbaugh:
We didn't get different numbers because we changed our 41 recordkeeping practices.
We got different numbers 42 because we failed to accurately count in the beginning 43 as compared to now.
44 45 Majors:
Right.
And what the QA audit report says is that part 46 of that was apparently due to the fact that, you know, 47 you do tests but you keep separate logs, different 48 kinds of logs for different kinds of tests, and'you 49 collect data sheets and they're transferred over to the 50 diesel generator log.
So a person that went out and 51 tried to count, you know, could have been misled by 52 counting from the wrong log or a combination of logs.
23
=
- L' l
4 1
The way they worded it wse that there's no single 2
source document== Enat's [ reading from the audit 3
report) "therefore, no single source document was 4
readily.available for determining the results of the 5
diesel start attempts following the site Area Emergency 6
and prior to the submittal of the LER."
It also is 7
that there is the " confusion about the specific point 8
at which the test program was completed".
And they 6
9 start that paragraph out by saying "no specific cause 10 for the error in the LER in the LER number of 18 starts 11 was identified." So this sentence is consistent with l
12 the QA audit report, and that's what they were trying 13 to attempt because they anticipate that.the QA audit 14 report will have to be explained to the NRC.
They want 15 to make sure this letter, you know, (inaudible).
i 16 17 Mosbaugh:
I got - -
18 19 Greene I've got to step out of the room for a minute.
20 (Comment: Greene apparently leaves the room.)
i 21 1
27 Mosbaugh t I've got one other comment about the. letter, Marry.
In 23 the second sentence you state that this letter is 24 explaining the discrepancies in two different 25 documents, yet you do not proceed to explain the 26 difference in the second document.
You only address 27 the difference in one document.
28 29
. Majors:
Yeah.
Originally the letter did not refer to the April 30 9th letter, but George was afraid that if we didn't 1
31 mention the April 9th letter, the NRC might interpret 32 it as trying to avoid discussing it.
And we think wer 33 can defend the April the 9th letter, but we don't want 34 the NRC to think we're trying to avoid discussing it.
j 35 36 Mosbaugh:
Well, I'll read it again.
"This revision is necessary 31 to clarify the information about the diesel starts in 38 the letter and the LER."
And then it only proceeds to 39 clarify the information as stated and referred to in 40 the LER.
41 42 Majors:
That's right.
43 44 Webb:
(inaudible) letter makes the same statement about the j
45 number of starts.
i 46 i
47 Mosbaugh:
No.
The errors in counting in the original -- in the 48 COA response letter are different errors than the 49 errors that were made in counting that went into the 1
50 LER.
51 24
\\
[
1 Majors:
Yeah, I'm not sure that I would say that there were 2
errors in the April the 9th letter.
1 4
Mosbaught Why would that be?
6 Majors:
Because the April the 9th letter was based on George 7
Bockhold's presentation.
In George Bockhold's 8
presentation he identified each individual start, and
)
9 so on that basis I think you can say that the letter on 10 April the 9th was consistent with what he had in slides 11 in terms of numbers of starts anyway.
12 13 Mosbaugh:
Yeah, I think it's probably consistent, but I think 14 it's also false.
15 16 Greene:
It seems to me its reasonable to leave the last line in 17 there to say the difference is attributed to the diesel 18 start recordkeeping practices and the definition of the 19 and of test program, and it's referring to the original 20 LER, not the revised LER, not any of the updated LER's 21 but it makes specific reference to the original LER.
22 23 Majors:
Right.
24 25 Greene:
There is a difference between what the attached LER 26 that we're going to give to them (inaudible), what this 27 letter has, and what the original one had.
And you 28 have to explain that difference.
And it seems to me 29 these are acceptable ways to explain that difference.
30 some of these should not have been counted. We made 31 log entries that didn't take the adequate information, 32 or we went froa information that was probably a poor 33 way to get (inaudible), and the bottom line was we 34 ended up with a false count.
35 36 Majors:
Right.
I don't have any problem with changing 37 discrepancy to difference.
38 39 Greene:
I really feel like we've got to put something in here 40 that's usable.
(inaudible) 41 42 Greene:
Let's change the word to difference, and let me find 43 out if any of the other PRB members have a problem with 44 it.
45 46 Majors:
Okay.
47 48 Greene:
We did this by phone poll because I couldn't get 49 everybody together.
50 51 Majors:
Okay.
52 25 l
-. _. _,. ~
1 Greene:
I had to have a PRB at five o' clock to get the plant 2
started up.
3 4
Majors:
Yeah.
5 6
Greene:
And we we got (inaudible) a phone call.
So I'll get 7
back to you in a few minutes and let you know.
8 9
Majors:
Okay.
10 11 Greene:
Thank you.
12 13 Majors:
All right.
You'll get back to me or you're going to 14 call Ken McCoy?
15 16 Groes.a r Tell me your extension.
17 18 Majors:
My extension is 7079.
19 20 Greene:
I'm going to get back to you.
21 22 Majors:
Okay.
23 24 Greene:
All right.
25 26 Majors:
All right.
27 28 Greene:
You go talk to Ken and see if he's got any problems 29 with that word, if you would.
30 31 Majors:
I will in the meantime, 32 i
l 33 Greene:
Thank you.
34 35 Majors:
Okay.
36 37 Greene:
Good bye.
38 i
39 Voice:
(inaudible) 40 41 Greene:
Allen I don't know any -- you know, I wasn't involved 42 in the original LER and I don't know all the sources.
43 I do know that we have revised the LER several times.
44 Most PRB members are getting tired of looking at this I
45 (inaudible) the LER.
We need to go ahead and just 46 decide what we're going to submit.
And that the 47 original LER, everybody agrees, has some problems with 48 it.
This is as reasonable a way of explaining how the 49 differences are that I can think of.
You have to admit 50 that.
51 52 Mosbaugh:
It's incomplete.
26
l 1
Greene:
Tell me how you would change the letter then.
2 3
Mosbaugh:
We said this was going to explain the April 9th letter.
4 This doesn't explain the April 9th letter at all.
5 6
Greene:
All right.
j 7
i 8
Mosbaught This only explains references to the comprehensive test 9
program.
The April 9th letter doesn't use any words i
10 like comprehensive test program.
So how did we make 11 that mistake?
12 13 Webb:
That April 9th letter also referred to 18 starts, 14 without problems or failures.
15 i
16 Mosbaugh:
Yeah, from the time of the event.
How was that false?
17 Why was that false?
18 19 Webb
.Because there wasn't is starts with no problems or 20 failures.
There were starts with problems on that 21 basis.
22 23 Mosbaugh:
Well, okay, is that because we counted starts that were 24 included in the test program?
No.
It's a different 25 reason.
26 27 Webbt I don't know where the 18 came from either, but I know 28 that 18 --
29 30 Mosbaught It came from George's presentation.
31 32 Webb:
We argued and argued over it until this time of day on 33 April 19th and finally corporate said we believe what 34 we said on April 15 okay, we're going to put that in 35 the LER.
36 37 Mosbaugh:
You're correct.
That is what George Bockhold said.
38 39 Webbs (inaudible.)
Now we have two letters, the LER letter 40 on April 19th and the April 9th letter which are both 41 wrong.
42 43 Frederick:
(inaudible) that paragraph.
44 45 Webb:
I agree.
46 47 Frederick:
And that is on that date that letter was wrong and we 48 still didn't have documents (inaudible).
49 50 Mosbaugh:
Well, sure, but is that the cause?
51 l
l 27 i
l l
l 1
Frederick:
Most likely.
If you gave a person (inaudible) the odds 2
are (inaudible).
3 4
Greene You think if we had kept the engineering log up like we.
5 should have, we wouldn't have this problem?
6 7
Mosbaugh:
Yes.
Certainly.
Definitely.
8 9
Greene:
What do you think the cause was?
10 11 Mosbaugh:
The information was all available, okay.
12 13
-Odon:
You say the information was available, then how does it 14 fit that the (inaudible) was it easily...?
15 16 Mosbaught I don't know.
You know, you're trying to ask me to 17 state why somebody else made mistakes, okay, and I 18 don't know how to do that.
I took the same set of 19 information and got right numbers.
20 21 Frederick:
Well, two weeks ago (inaudible).
22 23 Mosbaugh:
George, I understand that.
I understand that, okay, 24 but I took source data.
I took the S[hift) 25 s[upervisor's] log, I took the control log, and I took 26 the data sheets filled out for the machine operation, r
27 and I got a right set of -- I got right numbers.
28 29
-Frederick:
Well --
30 31 Mosbaught In addition, those right numbers were put into an LER 32 revision over six weeks ago.
In addition, we defined 33 in that revision what the comprehensive test program 34 was, and it was perfectly clear, but we didn't submit 35 that LER.
That leads me to wonder what's going on.
36 37 Greene:
I think I've got the information I need.
I've got to 38 find out what the (inaudible).
I appreciate ya'11's l
39 time.
Rick, you got a minute?
40 41 Odon:
Sure.
42 43 Voice:
(inaudible) 44 45 (ALM walking).
(Break in taping.)
46 47 Webb:
And so after about two or three weeks I call up and 48 said, " Hey, you guys working that thing or what are you 49 doing with this?" He says, "I don't know.
I'll find 50 out" and Any Streatman (inaudible).
She calls back and 51 says, "I found it.
It was put up on a shelf.
It 52 wasn't being looked at."
28 i
i I
e 1
Mosbaught Why didn't we submit that? Why didn't we jump on that?
2 3
Webb:
And then it started again three weeks ago.
4 5
Mosbaught so why didn't we jump on that one?
6 i
7 Webb:
Well we did.
They they started to (inaudible).
8 l
9 Mosbaught No. No.
I know.
10 11 Webb:
They worked on it for a week or two and then they sent 12 something back here, "How do ya'll like this," and wo 13 said, "That's fine," and they sent it back again with 14 more major changes.
And we said this is going to have 15 to go to the PRB.
16 17 Mosbaugh:
Then why did they want a complete rewrite?
18 19 Webb:
That was kind of strange too.
I was wondering where 20 that was coming from.
21 22 Mosbaugh:
There's more than one thing strange (inaudible).
23 24 Webb:
Instead of just fixing the one error, "We want to get a 25 complete rewrite." We went, " Huh? What?
Why?"
26 27 Frederick:
That was part of our (inaudible) wanted it updated for 28 all the corrective action.
29 30 Webb:
I heard that was Hairston's mandate.
31 32 Voice:
(inaudible) 33 34 Webb:
Yeah.
I heard that from a couple of people.
)
35 36 Frederick:
(inaudible) changed their mind on that.
37 38 Webb:
Well, they didn't exactly change their mind because wt 39 did update the information that was in there 40 originally.
We didn't add in the information we said 41 we were going to.
42 43 Frederick:
But I understood the reason we did that was because 44 it's taking so long to correct the original LER that we 45 felt if we're going to do that, we (inaudible)
.46 47 Webb:
I know we couldn't, on the original we send that we'll 48 send the complete update in five months.
49 50 Frederick:
Yeah.
51 29 i
O 1
Webb And here we are halfway through the five months and nov 2
we're going to change plans and do something else.
I 3
thought that was kind of weird.
4 5
Frederick:
That was because of an identified error in the LER.
6 7
Webb:
(inaudible) 8 9
Frederick:
I guess we waited long enough to correct the error that 10 they decided we'd better go (inaudible).
11 12 Webb:
But we were right in the middle of all the action.
We 13 (inaudible).
These are all done; here's what we did.
14 15 Frederick:
(inaudible) 16 17 Webb:
We're still in the middle of everything now.
It is 18 real strange how they handled this at the Corporate 19 level.
I don't know why.
20 21 Frederick:
Well, there were at least two revs of that thing today 22 that I know of, that I don't believe ever crossed 23 anybody's desk.
24 25 Mosbaugh:
Let me ask you about one other thing.
When was 26 Hairston going to sign the revision?
27 28 Frederick:
He's got to sign it before twelve o' clock because 29 (inaudible) 30 31 Mosbaugh:
No, no, no, the revision that we processed on the 8th 32 of May.
33 34 Frederick:
I don't know, (inaudible) 35 36 Webb:
I called all the past couple of week and said where's 37 that.
Oh, its in the office up on a shelf.
It's not 38 being looked at.
So we've got to get it going again.
39 (inaudible) That's real strange because I can't recall 40 when that's happened before (inaudible).
41 42 Voice:
What?
43 44 Webb:
That we sent them up to them and it just got dropped.
45 46 Mosbaugh:
Mm-hmm.
47 48 Voice:
This happened before, but very (inaudible).
49 50 Mosbaugh:
Especially one like this.
51 30
,, 0 0 %'
1 Voice:
(inaudible) especially when it's had so much attention 2
(inaudible).
3 4-Mosbaught (inaudible) 5 6
Frederick:
I recall sitting in the war room the night of the event 7
recommending that we keep a detailed log of everything 8
we do, then we can reconstruct it.
And it worked for 9
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and they decided that -- somebody decided it's 10 too cumbersome, too much work.
And I do see many of 11 these events, when they get big and take more than 24 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, you don't keep a record, you are doomed for 13 diaster.
Because "who shot John" becomes more of an 14 issue than what really happened.
You just continually 15 spin your wheels on what you did and who said what and 16 what was the real test that was performed; what were 17 the portibations put on the system and under what 18 conditions was it done, and everybody forgets.
People 19 get tired and they don't have notes.
20 21 Webb:
(inaudible) get tired.
22 23 Voice:
(inaudible) 24 25 Voice:
Yeah.
26 27 Voice:
(inaudible) 28 i
29
.Mosbaugh:
one LER 30 31 Voice:
(inaudible) 32 33 Voice:
(inaudible) 34 35 36 37 38
<,-h.dn.,4 w,w w w.=
l 31
...