ML20085N535
| ML20085N535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1995 |
| From: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OLA-3-A-040, OLA-3-A-40, NUDOCS 9506300233 | |
| Download: ML20085N535 (19) | |
Text
o=
DOCKETED USNRC GPC EXHIBIT 40 AUFDENKAMPE EX. N 95 JJN -6 Pl2 *.42 1
l 0FFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETlHG & SERVICE BRANCH 2
I 3 4
5 i
7 8
9 Transcription of Audiotape No. 157 10 transcribed by Janice Walters, certified Court 11 Reporter and Notary Public.
! 12 4
( 13 14
"^
15 ,
' ' : NUCLEAR fiEGULATORY COMCSS10M i ga.q}4 0LA 3 16 DocketNoxy a425 OLA '3 Official Exh. No Gl'C 7 "'/U
- ** UI 17 !Et'iT;F ED SWf 2 18 Appkant / PICEPED /
Intervonor FIJECTED
, 19 Conto GTr Contact.t DME 5 'l ?
- S 5 2O Othct waen Av4 d m pp ,
80p01 Wf b t'A M 22 l
23 BROWN REPORTING, INC.
24 1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 y
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 25 (404) 876-8979
( l l
l l 9506300233 950517 ,
1 l
{
I 2
(APPROXIMATELY 10% THROUGH SIDE A) 1 (Phone dial tone and phone ringing.)
RUSHTON: Paul Rushton.
2 MOSBAUGH: Paul, this is Allen. I 3 understood from Theresa you wanted to talk to me.
4 RUSHTON: Yes, I did. I as trying to get l
'T 5 the background on this LER for the diesel generator
- 6 starts.
[ 7 MOSBAUGH: Uh-huh. !
8 RUSHTON: And we had originally reported 9 at least 18 and now we are going to report that was I
j in error and that it was, I think, 15 and 14 10 11 respectively was the correct numbers and Tom Greene 12 told me that you had the background on that because
[ 13 I am going to need to explain it to management up i 14 here. 1 15 MOSBAUGH: I think John Aufdenkampe has 16 been talking to Jim Bailey about that.
i 17 RUSHTON: Yeah. I got a part of that 18 story. John -- wasn't real clear in listening to 19 John about a couple of things. Like, I understand 20 that the la came from a tally of the starts logged 21 in the control room operator's log, and that when we 22 vent back and filled in the diesel generator logs 23 Jiat Er.dineering maintains, they came up and counted 24 them differently.
25 And it wasn't clear to me why one log has
( .
3 1 got 18 or more but other logs only count 15 or 14.
2 I didn't understand the difference between the two 3 logs.
4 MOSBAUGH: Yeah. Well, I guess you would 5 have to ask the Operations people about how they 6 keep their logs. (Pause.) They initiate both logs.
. 7 (Ice biting sounds.) They initiate the log in the 8 control room and they initiate the data sheets that 9 count the starts. (Pause.) So why don't you call 10 Jim Swartzwelder or somebody about that?
11 RUSHTON: So you don't know what the 12 history is on it?
- 13 MOSBAUGH
- I know some of the history 14 because I was in the PRB when we approved the 15 revision to the LER. And I can only tell you that 16 any differences between the logs that Operations i
17 generates that fills out data sheets versus the logs i
i 18 that they maintain in the main control room that 19 I -- that you would have to ask Jim Swartzwalder why s
20 there are discrepancies between their logs.
. 21 RUSHTON: Okay.
i 22 MOSBAUGH: And I am not sure that that 23 fact explains all the discrepancies. I do not 24 believe actually that that fact is a discrepancy, 25 but that fact does not explain the discrepancies and 4
4 9
. , - _ ---. . - , _ - - -- _ _ , -. - . , , . , - . . - . - - -. , _~ . . _ ~ . . - .~.r -~- ., , -
4 1 the reason why the previous numbers were incorrect.
2 I believe that mistakes were made in the 3 previous numbers and that that probably ste.rted with 4 George Bockhold and his presentation to the NRC.
5 RUSHTON: If Bockhold made a presentation 6 to the NRC, then he used numbers like 18 and 19.
7 MOSBAUGH: I believe that that is where 1
8 the mistake originated.
. 9 RUSHTON: And those got put into the LER 4
10 without verification?
11 MOSBAUGH: Uhm. No, I think there was --
12 I believe that inaccuracies in those numbers were j (
13 flagged -- were flagged in the LER, in the LER i
4 14 development. (Ice biting sounds.)
15 RUSHTON: You are telling me I need to go 16 talk to Operations and find out what the problem p
17 was?
- 18 MOSBAUGH: In terms of logs, i
the log 19 discrepancies, I can't explain why there are 20 differences in the way operators fill out logs. You 21 know, I don't work in that area.
22 RUSHTON: Okay. Well, fine.
- I will call 23 Operations then.
24 MOSBAUGH: But I think that will not 25 explain everything. i
, N i
. _ _ . . -_ .. _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . , _ . _ , . . - . _ _ . . , _ , . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . - _ - - ~ _ . . . -
5 1 RUSHTON: What else is there that I need 2 to know?
3 MOSBAUGH: I think there is whatever 4 initial mistake was made. And, as far as I know, 5 George Bockhold and maybe some of the Operations 6 people developed the initial information that George 7 used in his presentation.
8 RUSHTON: Okay. You don't know where 9 that information came from?
10 MOSBAUGH: (Biting ice sounds.) John says 11 Jimmy Paul Cash.
12 RUSHTON: Okay.
13 MOSBAUGH: Beyond that it is merely a 14 comparison between what was originally developed by 15 George and them to what the data sheets and the 16 control logs say.
', 17 RUSHTON: Okay. I will check with 18 Operations then.
19 MOSBAUGH: Okay.
( 20 RUSHTON: Bye.
21 MOSBAUGH: See ya. Bye.
22 (Movement 71cunds. )
23 MOSBAUGH: What's going on?
(Inaudible) 24 AUFDENKAMPE: Hairston's evidently on a 25 tear for misinformation.
.---. - - - - - . . , - - . . e,, - ,----r-.-- - n-- n,-- w - - - - . - -..,e ,n -
r-, , , - , , - ,~<
6 1 MOSBAUGH: He's on a what?
2 AUFDENKAMPE: We's on a-- Fe's on a--
3 He's pissed off over misinformation.
4 MOSBAUGH: On this?
5 AUFDENKAMPE: Well, he's pissed off over 6 the revised LER for a date change because Lackey 7 didn't get the stuff done on time and he's pissed 8 off over this one.
(Movement sounds) 9 MOSBAUGH: (To himself) I should htve 10 asked him. I didn't ask him why the hell are you 11 calling me. All I did was compare two sets of 12 data. That, anybody can do. Now, they have got the
(
13 experience, the responsible parties will need to 14 account.
15 (Pause in tape.)
4 16 MOSBAUGH: (Inaudible) from the middle of 4
17 May and now on Friday today is, it's finished.-- Well, 18 come on.
1 19 AUFDENKA'1PE: I can tell you why they've l 20 had it for so long.
21 MOSBAUGH: Something's going on.
1
, 22 AUFDENKAMPE: Nah, nah. (Inaudible) your stock trader's. . .
23 MOSBAUGH: Yes, my instinct.
24 AUFDENKAMPE: I will tell you why they
' 25 have had it for so long is basically they have got
7 1 it and they have been sitting on it because I talked 2 Jack Stringfellow several times, and he said he 3 hasn't had time to work on it with the other ones 4 going out that have a time clock on them.
5 MOSBAUGH: Right. (Facetious tone.]
6 AUFDENKAMPE: -- times clocks on it.
7 MOSBAUGH: Right. (Facetious tone.]
8 AUFDENKAMPE: And that is true. That is 9 true.
10 MOSBAUGH: Get out of here. I don't 11 believe that for anything.
12 AUFDENKAMPE: That's the way Bailey i
13 operates, Bailey operates the clock.
14 MOSBAUGH: I don't believe that for a 15 second.
16 AUFDENKAMPE: That is true.
17 MOSBAUGH: That is my stock trader's 18 instinct.
19 AUFDENKAMPE: The second part of it is 20 more elementary than that and that is the same thing 21 that always concerns you is that the NRC misleading 22 diesel information and Hairston gets nervous about 23 that. l 24 (Pause.)
.. 25 ****
-\
l l
1
)
l 8
1 2
3 4
5 6 :
7 1 8
9 10 l 11 12 l
(' 13 j 14 15 l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Phone rings.)
25 AUFDENKAMPE: John Aufdenkampe.
t m
r_ _
L l I
9 1 BAILEY: John, how are you doing?
2 AUFDENKAMPE: Wenderful.
3 BAILEY: I don't think we've had the full 4 story on the generator starts, the numbering, who 5 is supposed to have the exact story on that.
6 AUFDENKAMPE: Jim, I don't think -- is l 7 Paul in there with you?
8 BAILEY: Yes.
9 AUFDENKAMPE: Okay. Allen is in here with '
10 me. I don't think anybody has and I didn't say 11 because I am not really sure what you are looking 12 for with respect to the whole story, but I am not j 13 sure anybody has the whole story as to why we've 14 got misinformation in there, okay.
I 15 RUSHTON: That's the --
16 AUFDENKAMPE: The real bottom line on why 17 we have the misinformation in there, if you want to 18 point at one thing, is because we made the decision 19 -- we as management made the decision and the 20 shipmans, Bockholds, Bailey, Aufdenkampe, Mosbaugh,
- 21 who else was on that phone call -- to put those j 22 numbers in based on the fact that George (Bockhold) 23 told us that they were good numbers because they 24 used as the start point,-completions of, I t
j 25 think it was, the undervoltage testing, okay.
t i
i
10 1
1 And when we went back, what was it he 2 said? I 3 MOSBAUGH: For George's?
4 AUFDENKAMPE: Yeah, George.
5 MOSBAUGH: I have no idea. I have no 6 idea what George's basis was for the data he 1
7 presented to the Commission.
8 BAILEY: You're talking about George 9 Bockhold?
10 Yes.
MOSBAUGH: But I have no idea what 11 the basis was.
12 AUFDENKAMPE: It is based on --
( 13 MOSBAUGH: It was not based on 14 undervoltage. It couldn't be.
15 AUFDENKAMPE: It was based on George's
)
j 16 comment that that, that he had used this point, 17 whatever the point was, whatever the point was, i
i 18 that's exactly what he said as the start point. And 19 we have completed the critical testing associated i
2 20 with declaration of or with (operability?).
21 MOSBAUGH: George never presented what 22 his basis wr,s.
23 AUFDENKAMPE: And I know those numbers 24 were counted by Jimmy Paul Cash.
25 MOSBAUGH: The final numbers are based on
(
l 4
1 l
l 11 1 starting with the UV test as the first test. 1 But 1 2 What George's basis was, only George knows. )
i 3 RUSHTON: When was the UV test in the 1 4 sequence of events?
5 AUFDENKAMPE: Pretty far down the line. i 6 Right before we declared them operable, I think.
7 MOSBAUGH: Yes.
8 RUSHTON: So we may have done 18 or 19 9 successful starts, but it just depends on where you 10 start counting.
11 BAILEY: Yeah.
12 AUFDENKAMPE: No, that is not true.
( 13 BAILEY: That's what it looks like.
14 AUFDENKAMPE: No, that is not true.
15 There were not 18 or 19 successful starts, 16 continuous starts, regardless of where you started 17 counting when we reviewed the detailed data, not 18 consecutive.
19 RUSHTON: Starting from March 20th?
1 i
20 AUFDENKAMPE: Starting from March 20th.
21 There were not 18 or 19 consecutive, which is the 22 LER implies to consecutive starts without a failure 23 of some type or another.
- 24. BAILEY: Here is what George has got 25 listed on his chart that he presented in Atlanta.
12 ;
l 1 BAILEY / RUSHTON: He said five starts in l 2 troubleshooting, there is a UV run test, sensor I 3 calibration, logic testing, E-run bubble testing, 4 multiple starts five more, UV test, six months' 5 surveillance, high jacket water runs three times and 6 the UV ran test. That adds up to 18. t 7 MOSBAUGH: In amongst 18 are numerous 8 failures, l
9 AUFDENKAMPE: Failures. i 10 BAILEY: What was that, Allen?
11 AUFDENKAMPE: There are failures in !
12 amongst those, mixed in with.
( 13 BAILEY: Yes. Okay. He just says 18 14 successful starts. He didn't say there were 15 consecutive successful starts.
16 AUFDENKAMPE: What we put in there was 18 17 starts without a failure.
18 BAILEY: I as talking about on the chart, 19 it doesn't say consecutive.
20 AUFDENKAMPE: That is what we put in the 21 April 9th letter was 18 starts without a failure. ;
22 BAILEY: This chart implies that, that he-23 didn't mention any failure.
24 MOSBAUGH: You have to check the data but 25 you may find that some of those five ones mentioned k.
1 l
1
4 1 .
1.-
{ 13 i .
j 1 failed, for example.
i 2 BAILEY: Five troubleshooting?
4 3 MOSBAUGH: Uh-huh.
- 4 BAILEY
- Yes.
1
} 5 MOSBAUGH: I don't think you have any l
6 guarantee that those were all successful.
l j 7 BAILEY: Like I said, it doesn't say 1
8 that, but it implies that. And this is --
9 MOSBAUGH: It says that, because at the l 10 botton it says 18 successful starts.
1 11 BAILEY: I mean, it implies that they 12 were consecutive successful starts.
4
( 13 MOSBAUGH: It may imply that. Yeah. It l 14 probably implies that. ,
t 15 BAILEY: I think that that's what we led
['
f j 16 the NRC to believe that in Atlanta.
17 AUPDENKAMPE: I think that's what people t
i 18 thought at the time. You know, Paul, when you go to i
j 19 Hairston, you have got to tell him that we just 20 plain old screwed up; that we had data based on what 21 we thought -- we had data that we felt supported the
- 22- statements that were made in the LER and the, what 8
23 George presented in Atlanta; that upon further i
24 scrutiny that it did not support that and at the 25
- time we issued the LER we were more concerned about 1
-(-
9 i !
y e - - - 'sw-=
, - - -----egtw trP-t-,- e am e -, p.p,-g=,vgog er yqg-y W-----t-+- g wgeq ,y-g ve+-We W i gg g-ww-7-~-ggg M -r gp 1m ty ,9 gTV
i- ;
- j. l l
14 1 whether those numbers were right or wren 9 2 BAILEY: The ir. formation was supplied to 3 IIT. Did we ever correct what we told them or do 4 you know?
5 AUFDENKAMPE: We have not corrected the 6 April 9th letter. The IIT, I guattantee you, knows 7 exactly what happened.
8 BAILEY: They had to get the information 9 from us somehow, but we don't know what they are 10 going to present today in Washington?
11 AUFDENKAMPE: I doubt they will get into 12 those kind of specifics. But we have --
g 13 BAILEY: I mean, in the report.
14 AUFDENKAMPE: But these lists that we put 15 together, this gave the summary of the start 16 sequences as failures and what happened and stuff 17 like that we wrote the revised LER on, the IIT was 18 given that.
19 BAILEY: In the revised numbers that we 20 are presenting now, where did these numbers come 21 from?
22 AUFDENKAMPE: Kenny Stokes took all the 23 diesel starts, put that down, wrote the diesel log, 24 and I guess -- did he review the operator's logs,
?S too? He, reviewed the operator's logs to make sure that
(
l
= _ . _ _ .
d 4
15 l
i 1 we had picked up everything, that we had the big
' l 2 picture. '
l l 3 BAILEY: Doesn't look like there is a
]
4 good story other than we were just in the process of 5 all the confusion and stuff that we just screwed up. l l 6 AUFDENKAMPE: You know, you might would 7 argue that if there was a good story, we could i
- 8 probably arg e ,notj revising the LER. If we had some
,G <w ,
9 good sound basis for what is in the LER, we could
, 10 get around revising it.
1 q 11 BAILEY: Yeah.
12 AUFDENKAMPE: Paul, is that what you are t
j 13 looking for?
1
{
14 RUSHTON: Yes. I was looking for a 15 good story that, you know, we could use to explain 4 16 how this error had been made and not make us all j 17 look like a bunch of dummies, but sounds like we la were a bunch of dummies.
) 19 AUFDENKAMPE: That is my perspective 4 (chuckling).
! 20 RUSHTON: We did the best we could at 21 the time and we went so fast through everything that 22 we didn't have adequate checks and balances to make 23 sure that every single piece of data was absolutely
- 24 correct and now that we have been through the IIT 25 investigation and done a whole lot more
l l
16 1 documentation, probably with further review and 2 study we found that we were in error, you know.
3 And that's the best story we got to go 4 with.
5 BAILEY: You know, based on that it >
6 seemed to me like that we ought not to send in this 7 dann LER or revised LER until the IIT report.
8 otherwise we may have a damn conflict in there, [in the l 9 revised LER).
10 AUFDENKAMPE: Well, I would only make the l t
11 warning -- and throw it up to you guys. We felt 12 compelled down here as soon as we identified the 13 problem to correct it as expeditiously as possible.
{
14 BAILEY: And I agree with that, but I an !
l 15 saying now that that report may be coming out next {
. 16 week or today that we give them (inaudible).
17 AUFDENKAMPE: Well, anyway.
i j 18 BAILEY: We still are confused about 19 these numbers.
[.
20 AUFDENKAMPE: I understand.
21 RUSHTON: I think that, you know,
- 22 Hairston feels that we have -- he's gone on the 23 record attesting to the information in the LER and
, 24 now we come back and say it's wrong.
25
- And based on past precedent, I think he's going to
(
1 1
<...,.-n, , , - . . . - . , , - - , . - - - , ,n., ., ,.n.., -.,..,,.,.-,..,.,,..e. ,e,- , , , , . , n_ ..,.....,n,,,., .
l 17 1 probably either document it in the cover letter on 2 the LER or somewhere in the record why it was wrong 3 and what corrective action we have taken to make 4 sure we don't report wrong information in the 5 future.
j 6 AUFDENKAMPE: Okay. Let me, I will tell you 7 what, Paul, let me bring that up with Tom Greene.
8 Now, I will tell you what, generally the LER
! 9 information is verified by my people, okay, up to a 10 point. '
, 11 BAILEY: Yes.
12 AUFDENKAMPE: We can't verify everything, 1 13 but generally it is verified by my people. Now, my l 14 people started with the original April 9th letter as
- 15 their bases.
, 16 RUSHTON: Yes.
17 AUFDENKAMPE: Now, I don't think -- I 18 think -- I am not trying to dump this back in your
- 19 lap, Jim. I just really don't recall. I think you 20 guys generated the April 9th letter up there.
{
21 BAILEY: We did.
22 AUFDENKAMPE: We may have verified this 23 stuff on the April 9th letter. I do not know 24 whether I did that on-site or how we did the j 25 verification of that information.
18 1 MR. RUSHTON: The PRB reviewed it.
2 AUFDENKAMPE: Yes, the PRB reviewed it, 3 but they won't always go back and verify that kind a
4 of -- huh? heApril9thle 5 MOSBAUGH: ! I'm not sure we PRBed that --
4 6 It was sent before.
7 AUFDENKAMPE: The PRB did after it went j 8 out.
9 BAILEY: Well, the PRB had it prior to 10 that time. We made some revisions.
11 AUFDENKAMPE: I am getting a vicious s 12 shaking of a "no" by a head here, who will remain g 13 nameless. I 14 But anyway regardless, regardless. I i
15 don't know who did verification of that and I 16 suspect that the majority of that verification was 17 done through hearsay (inaudible) . !
4 18 MR. RUSKTON: Probably was.
! 19 AUFDENKAMPE: And that's where we erred.
20 If you want to point out where we erred on that, 21 that's where we erred and -- as far as written l 22 communications. 4 l
J j_ 23 And George probably erred in his l 24 presentation because a lot of that presentation was j 25 made on hearsay because of the time frame involved
!(
l
}
)
I J
19 1 in putting the presentation together.
2 So, if Mr. Hairston wants to do something
) 3 different, we certainly can, but all we can do is
! 4 say that we will verify ,verything before we send it 5 out and I will-p=r- Aa nalgdo that and it will -- I
)
6 don't mean this in a threatening nature at all. It 7 just takes longer sometimes. Sometimes we won't be
! 8 able to make the dates that we want to meet.
]
9 BAILEY: I agree with you.
1 l 10 RUSHTON: All right.
11 AUFDENKAMPE: Do you guys feel better now
! 12 that you understand the whole story?
13 BAILEY: (Laughter.)
Ik 14 RUSHTON: Yeah. Yeah. I am a little 15 better equipped now.
16 AUFDENKAMPE: Paul --
17 RUSHTON: Yeah.
18 AUFDENKAMPE: -- this is my recollection 19 and Allen's recollection of how things went. We are 20 about to go to the PRB. I will recount this 21 conversation and concerns that you guys have to the 22 PRB and specifically Tom Greene to see if he wants 23 to do anything else.
24 ****
25 i
~ _- . . -.- _ . . , . . - . .- - , , _ - . . - -