ML20086G322
| ML20086G322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1995 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OLA-3-I-MOSBA63, NUDOCS 9507140236 | |
| Download: ML20086G322 (22) | |
Text
m
{, 00CKETED go.429l' ygg .gyy9 3 (bioSg,9 - g 3
~ 6 /7l95 g TRANSCRIPT OF CONVERSATION
" 8 8' 1990 Exhibit /O ,page ) ofk grj JUN -6 P3 :38 1 MosW@ 0(nateEEMRY: The following tape segment occurred on )
s./
2 June .the00CKETlHG 8th, EABWA & SERVICE af ter lunchtime. The location is John ,
I 3 Aufdenkampe's office in the service building. Present in that )
i 4 room are John Aufdenkampe and myself. I had been asked to place 5 a call to Paul Rushton, SONOPCO corporate and I believe also on 6 the phone with Paul Rushton in SONOPCO is Jim Bailey. A second 7 call occurs after that when they call, uh, Aufdenkampe back.
8 And, uh, let's roll tape.
9 l 10 Mosbaugh: Buttons work here?
l 11 Aufdenkampe: What buttons? Yeah.
12 Mosbaugh: Good. See what this is all about.
g 13 Operator: You have dialed an invalid location number.
14 Please verify the number and place your call again.
15 Mosbaugh: Got an eight and then, and, Rushton's ...
16 Aufdenkampe: The phone's too fast, for, to pick up the 17 microwave.
18 Mosbaugh: Didn't the first eight or so.... Shhh.
19 (Phone rings)
~
20 Rushton: Paul Rushton.
21 Mosbaugh: Yeah, Paul, this is Allen.
22 Rushton: Hey, Allen.
23 Mosbaugh: I understood from Teresa that you wanted to talk 24 to me.
25 '
Rushton: Yeah, I did. I'm trying to get the, uh, background (N '
, PLAINTIFPS EXHIBTo 3\
9507140236 950517 -
PDR ADOCK 05000424- ls -i4 - %
T PDR 4
< r. ' p : 'gg t "' ,. n
, 9 O
NUCLEAR REGLL' TORY COMMISSION l se-12 n -a s -3 Docket No. Sc-wraa-3 Official Exh. No. Ta + - 63 in the matter of Cr PC c+. al-l Staff IDENTIFIED Applicant RECEIVED 7 Intervenor - REJECTED l Cor:rg Offy
- Contractor DATE OT-lb n Other Witness C.+ h f4 4c<l Reporter C M k ,--
2 1 on that, uh, LER for the diesel generator starts.
2 Mosbaugh: Uh huh.
(}
3 Rushton: And, uh, we had originally reported at least 4 eighteen and now we're gonna report that was an error, and that 5 it was, uh, I think fifteen and fourteen, respectively, was the 6 correct numbers. And, uh, Tom Green told me that you had the 7 background on that, 'cause, uh, I'm gonna need to explain it to 8 management up here.
9 Mosbaugh: I think John Aufdenkampe has been talking to Jim 10 Bailey about that.
11 Rushton: Yeah? I got, uh, part of that story, uh, John
~
12 wasn't real clear in in listening to John about a couple of
- 13 things. Like, uh uh, I understand that the eighteen came from a 14 tally of the starts logged in the control room operator's log.
O (m / 15 And that when we went back and filled out the diesel generator 16 log that engineering maintained, they came up, counted them 17 differently, and, um, it wasn't clear to me why one log has got 18 eighteen or more but the other log only counts fifteen or l l
19 fourteen. !
20 Mosbaugh: Okay, I didn't under... l
~
21 (noise of can sliding) 22 Rushton: ....two logs.
23 Mosbaugh: Yeah, well, I guess you'd have to ask the 24 operations people about how they keep their logs. They initiate
, 25 both logs. They initiate .;he log in the control room and they 26 initiate the data sheets that count the starts. So, why don't O
3 1 you call, uh, Jim Schwartzwelder or somebody about that?
2 Rushton: So you don't know .7na. the history is on this 3 thing?
4 Mosbaugh: Uh, I know some of the history because, um, I was, 5 uh, in the PRB when we, uh, approved the revision to the LER.
6 And, uh, I can only tell you that any differences between the 7 logs that operations generate that fills out data sheets, uh, 8 versus the logs that they maintain in the main control room that 9 I, uh, that you would have to ask Jim Schwartzwelder why there 10 are discrepancies between their logs.
11 Rushton: Okay.
12 Mosbaugh: And, I-I'm not sure that that that fact, uh, 13 explains all the discrepancies. I-I do not believe actually that 14 that fla-fact - that fact is a discrepancy but that fact does not 15 explain the discrepancies and the reason why the previous, uh, 16 number: were incorrect. I believe that mistakes were made in in 17 the previous, uh, numbers. And that, uh, that probably started, 18 uh, with George Bockhold and his presentation, uh, to the imC.
19 Rushton: If Bockhold made a presentation to the NRC then he i 20 used numbers like eighteen and nineteen.
~
21 Mosbaugh: I believe that that's where the mistake 22 originated.
23 Rushton: And those got put into the LER without 24 verification.
25 ~ Mosbaugh: Um, no, I think there was, uh, I believe that, uh, 26 inaccuracies in those numbers were, uh, were flagged, uh, were 1O
o
. ; . l 4
\
, 1 flagged, uh,-in the LER, in the LER development.
2 Rushton: You - you - you're telling me I need to go talk to 3 operations and find out what the problem was.
4 Mosbaugh: In terms of the log, in terms of log 5 discrepancies, I can't explain why they're differences in the wsy That's, you know, I-I don't work in ;
6 operators fill out logs.
i 7 that area. (
8 Rushton: Okay, well, fine. I-I'll call operations then. l 9 Mosbaugh: But I think, you know, I think that will not j I
10 explain everything.
11 Rushton: So what-what e1.se is there that I-I need to know? ;
i 12 Mosbaugh: I think thera's whatever initial mistake was made. I 13 And- um, and as far as I know, uh, you know, uh, George Bockhold I
p 14 ano - and maybe some of the operations people, uh, developed the' l V 15 initial information that George used in his presentation.
l j
16 Rushton: Okay. You don't know where that information came 17 from?
18 Mosbaugh: John says Jimmy Paul Cash.
19 Rushton: Okay. I i
20 Mosbaugh: And beyond that, it's merely a comparison between )
~
21 what was, uh. origir. ally developed by-by George and them to, um, 22 to what the data sheets and the control logs say.
23 Rushton: Okay. I'll check with operations then.
24 Mosbaugh: Okay.
25 Rushton: Bye.
26 Mosbaugh We'll see ya. Bye. (Phone hangs up) What's l
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . ~ _ _
l
- l 5
- t 1 going.on? !
() 2 Aufdenkampe: What?
3 Mosbaugh: You're acting real funny.. l l
4 Aufdenkampe: I don't understand why we're giving him !
5 mis (?)information to begin with. . . . (noise), Hairston's evidently l i
6 on' a,. on a tear for udsinformation. !
- . .. . . .. . - .' Al l 7 Mosbaugh: He's on a what?
8 Aufdenkampe: He's on a, on a, he's pissed off over I
, n 9 misinformation. l 10' Mosbaugh: On this? !
11 Aufdenkampe: Well, he's pissed off over the revised, uh, i
.12 uh... j 13 Mosbaugh: LER.
14 Aufdenkampe: LER for a date change because, like, he didn't !
O 15 get stuff done on time.
- l 16 Mosbaugh: Mm-ham.
17 Aufdenkampe: And now he's pissed off over this thing.,
i 18 (pause) l 19 Mosbaugh: I should've asked him. I I didn't ask him at all, 20 why-why the hell are you calling me? Um, you know. (Background 21 noise) All I did was compare two sets of data. (Cough) That 22 anybody can do. How they got in the spirit. Responsible parties 23 will need to account. (unintelligible, break in tape?) ....From 24 the : middle of May and now going on Friday, today, is that....an 25 inch.
26 Aufdenkarper Well, they're they're....
6
. 1
- i. 6 j
- I L 1 Mosbaugh: Come on.
.2 Aufdenkampe: I'll tell you why they've had it for so long. -'
3' Mosbaugh: There's something going on. !
l 4 Aufdenkampe: No, no, no, no, your stock trader instincts.
! 5 Mosbaugh: Yes, yes, my instincts.
6 Aufdenkampe: I-I-I'll tell you why they've had-they've had 1
7 it for so long is they clearly got it and they've been sitting on 1 8 it, because I talked to Jack Stringfellow several times and he 9 says he just hasn't had time to work on it with the other ones ,
10 going out that have...
11 Mosbaugh: Right. ,
12 Aufdenkampe: ... time clock on it. i 13 Mosbaugh: Right.
14 Aufdenkampe: And that's true.
15 Mosbaugh: Get out of here.
16 Aufdenkampe: That's true.
17 Mosbaugh: Get out of here. ):
18 Aufdenkampe: That's what they allow for. Okay. l 19 Mosbaugh: I don't believe that for a ..
20 Aufdenkampe: Bailey operates on a clock.
21 Mosbaugh: I don't believe that for a second.
22 Aufdenkampe: That's true.
I 23 Mosbaugh: That's my stock trader's instinct.
24 Aufdenkampe: Now, now, the second part of it is...
25 Mosbaugh: More elementary than that, and th that that 26 that they said it always concerns you.
O 1 l
l
. _- ~ _ - _. _. - _ - . _ - . - - . - . . . - - - .
. 1 7
l' 'Aufdenkampe: Is that ...the NRC misleading the the
() .3 2 information...
Mosbaugh: Umhmmm. f 4 Aufdenkampe: ...and Hairston's getting nervous about that. ;
Mosbaugh: And OI's back.
t 5 l i
6 Aufdenkampe: What? i i
l 7 Mosbaugh: OI's back. l L i 8 Aufdenkampe: What do you mean, OI's back?
9' Mosbaugh: They're baaaack. ,
i 10 Aufdenkampe: They called somebody at home, but is it more l 11 than that?
i 12 Mosbaugh: They're supposed to be here next week.
13 Aufdenkampe: Oooh. Who'd they call at home? Did George put 14 this out at the staff meeting? ;
. O- 15 Mosbaugh: George put out in-in the staff meeting, that...
I 16 Aufdenkampe: Not staff meeting, must have been the 7:40 17 meeting, 'cause I didn't hear it, so it must have been...
18 Mosbaugh: You're right. It was when you were gone. It was 19 Wednesday. It wasn't yesterday.
7 20 And then he put out in the 7:40 meeting that they had 21 contacted somebody at home and he was reminding everybody of the',
22 uh, company, uh, advice on that and referenced the old letter 23 tha't we developed for him. Uh, I tried to find out who it was 24 and wasn't able to, so I conclude that it was obviously in Skip's 25 organization.
26 (Intercom rings)
V
= . - - - . . -. - - _ - ..
8 :
1 Aufdenkampe: John Aufdenkampe.
) 2 Bailey: John, how are you doing?
3 Aufdenkampe: Wonderful.
4 Bailey: Are we still having, uh, uh, some difficulty telling i i
th'o.dicsol generator
[
I 5 our (unintelligible) ... story on, uh, ...
6 starts, the numbers? Who is supposed to have their, the exact' ,
7- story on that issue. Do you have it?
j' 8 Mosbaugh: No.
9 Aufdenkampe: Jim, I don't think, is Paul in there with you, 10 with you? ,.
11 Bailey: Yeah.
12 Aufdenkampe: Okay. Well, Allen's in here with me. I don't 13 think anybody has it, and I didn't-didn't say anything to them
.s 14 (?). I'm not really sure what you're looking for with respect to 15 the whole story. But I'm not sure anybody has a whole story as 16 to why we got the misinformation in there. Okay?
17 Bailey: That's why. . . . (unintelligible) 18 Aufdenkampe: The-the real bottom line on why we got the 19 misinformation in there is, if you want to point at one thing, is 20 because we made the decision, we as management made the decision, 21 and the Shipman, Bockhold, uh, Bailey, Aufdenkampe, Mosbaugh, who 22 else was on that...
23 Mosbaugh: Yeah.
24 Aufdenkampe: ... phone call to put those numbers in based on 25 the fact that George told us that they were good numbers because 26 they used as the start point completion of, I think it was the
/G V
9 1 under-voltage testing. Okay? And when we went back, what was it O 2 that we, he said, that we...
( ,/
3 Mosbaugh: When George is?
4 Aufdenkanpe: Yeah, when George? He said....
5 Mosbaugh: I don't, I have no idea, 6 Aufdenkampe: I'll test it...
7 Mosbaugh: I have no idea what George's basis was for the ,
8 data he presented to the Commission.
9 Bailey: You're talking about George, uh, Bockhold?
10 Mosbaugh: Yes.
11 Bailey: Yeah.
12 Mosbaugh: But, anyway, I have no idea what that basis was.
I 13 Aufdenkampe: It was, it was based on, on his...
14 Mosbaugh: And it is not based on under-voltage.
15 Aufdenkampe: It...
l 16 Mosbaugh: It couldn't be.
~
17 Aufdenkampe: It-it was based on George's comments that, that 18 he had used this point...
j 19 Mosbaugh: Nope.
2G Aufdenkarpe: ...whenever the point was, whatever the point i .
- 21 was, that's exactly what he said, as the start time and we've l
- 22 completed the critical testing associated with, declare, er, 23 which ... (noises). Got it?
24 Mosbaugh: Note, George never presented what his basis was.
25 Aufdenkampe: And I know those numbers were counted by Jimmy 26 Paul Cash.
I a6-
.Q I
__ _ _ _ _ . . ,,_ _ ~ . , -
10 t .
( 1. Mosbaugh: The final numbers are based on starting with the
) .2 UV test.
3 Aufdenkampe: Yes - the final number.
4 Mosbaugh: As the first test.
5 Aufdenkampe: Yes.
t i 6 Mosbaugh: But what George's basis was, only George knows.
7 Aufdenkampe: That's right. You're right.
j 8 Bailey: When was the UV test in the sequence of events?
9 Mosbaugh(?): Pretty far down the line.
10 Aufdenkampe: Right before we declare them operable, I think. ,
11 Wasn't it?
12 Mosbaugh: Yes.
13 Bailey (?) : No, we-we may have done eighteen or nineteen g-~g 14 successful starts, it just depends on where you start counting, G 15 Jim (?).
16 Aufdenkampe: No, that's not true.
17 Bailey: That's what it looks like.
18 Aufdenkampe: No, that's not true. There were not eighteen 19 or nineteen successful starts cumulative starts regardless of 20 where you started counting, when we reviewed the detailed data.
21 Not consecutive.
22 Bailey: Starting from March 20th?
23 Aufdenkampe: Starting from March 20th. There were not 24 eighteen or nineteen consecutive, which the LER implies 25 consecutive, starts without a failure of some type or another.
26 Bailey: Here's why George got his done in, uh, on his, uh,
11
~
1 chart that he's presented at Atlanta. Said five starts for
) 2 troubleshooting. His, uh, UV run test, sensor calibration, logic 3 testing, E-run double testing, multiple starts, five more UV run
[
4 tests, six months surveillance (unintelligible) high eject water 5 runs three times (unintelligible) UV run tests. That adds up to 6 eighteen.
7 Mosbaugh: Yeah. In amongst the eighteen are numerous 8 failures.
9 Aufdenkampe: ...are failures.
10 ' Bailey: There's what Joh , what was that Allen?
11 Mosbaugh: There are failures in amongst those, mixed in 12 there.
13 Bailey: Yeah, okay, he just said its eighteen successful 14 starts, he didn't say they were consecutive successful starts.
15 Aufdenkampe: Well, what if what we put in there was an 16 eighteen starts without a failure?
17 ,
Bailey: Yeah,...
18 Aufdenkampe: Well, 19 Bailey: ...I'm talking about on this chart. It doesn't say 20 consecutive.
21 Aufdenkampe: Well, that's-that's what we put in the April 22 9th letter was eighteen starts without a f ailure.
23 Bailey: The-the this-this chart implies that that you didn't ,
24 mention any failures.
25 Aufdenkampe: Well, I think Allen...
26 Mosbaugh: You'd have to check the date of it. You may find
(/
_ . _ . _ . - - . _ , . - . _,..,.-,-m....._..._._o-. --
, , - , , ,-..-m, ,.-x---,
I 12 1 that some of those five one's mentioned' failed, for example.
2 .. Bailey: Five troubleshooting?
1 3 Mosbaugh: Mmhmmm.
4 Bailey: Yeah.
5 Mosbaugh: Yeah, I don't think you have any gua-guarantee 6 that-that those were all successful. _
7 Bailey: No, I-I-I, like'I said, it doesn't say that, but it 8 implies that. And it-this is why...
9 Mosbaugh: What? It says that, because at the bottom it says 10 eighteen successful starts. l 11 Bailey: Yeah, but I mean it implies that they're consecutive l
12 successful starts. , j l
13 Mosbaugh:lIt may imply that. :
l l
LBailey: Yeah.
1 C 14 15 Mosbaugh: Yeah, it-it probably implies that. I l
16 Bailey: I think that why we led-we led the NRC to believe l l
17 that in Atlanta.
18 Mosbaugh: I think that's what people thought at the time.
l 19 Aufdenkampe: You know, Paul, when you go to Hairston, you've 20 got to tell him we just plain old screwed up. We had data, they i 21 felt what we thought, or we had data that we felt reported would 22 think that we made in the LER and the, uh, and what George
)
23 presented in Atlanta, and thought that upon further scrutiny that 24 it did not support that. And there were, and at the time we 25 issued the LER, there were concerns about whether those numbers !
- I 26 were right or wrong. l 1
O b.
.,_..-..m __.. ... .. -,.. -.... _ .. ,,._,._ - _.. .----. ,. ..~. ,. . ... . ,..,=.-... _. ~ ,- --_ ,._, - . ..;.,_.,r -, ....,m-...r,., , _ . , - - . . ~
l . .
l 13 ,
p .
'l Bailey: And the, uh, the information supplied IIT. Do we ;
() 2 ever correct what we told them or do do you know?
The 3 Mosbaugh: We have not corrected the April 9th letter.
'4 IIT, I guarantee you, knows exactly what happened. !
5 (unintelligible) 6 (?): They should...
l '7- Bailey: ....They had to get the information from us somehow, p
8 but we...
9 (?): Well... l 10 Bailey: ... don't know what they gonna present today in ;
11 Washington?
12 _Mosbaugh: I doubt if they'll get into that kind of 13 specifics, but we, we have, uh...
14 Bailey: I-I mean in the report.
O' 15 Mosbaugh: These lists that we put together to-gave the 16 summary of the start sequences and failures and what happened, 17 stuff like that, that we wrote the revised LER on, the IIT was
.18 given that.
19 (unintelligible) 20 Bailey: In the revised numbers that we're presenting now, 21 where do they-these numbers come from?
22 Aufdenkanpe: (unintelligible) . . . .took all the deisel start 23 sheets, sat down, wrote the deisel logs, and, I guess, did he 24 review the operators logs too? Reviewed the operators logs to 25 make sure that we had picked up everything, that we had the big 26 picture.
O
1 14 1 Bailey: Doesn't look like it, that there is a good story,
( 2- other than we just, you know, we're in-in the process of all this 3 confusion and stuff, that we just screwed up there.
l 4 Mosbaugh: Well, I guess, you know, Jim, you might argue that 5 if there was a good story we could probably argue not revising 6 the LER.
7 Aufdenkampe: Well, if we have some good sound technical i
8 basis for what's in the LER we could-could go around revising it.
9 Bailey: Yeah.
10 Mosbaugh: Is that, Paul, is that what you're looking for?
11 Rushton: Yeah. I was looking for a good story that, uh, you 12 know, we could use to explain how this error had been made and 13 not make us all look like a bunch of dummies but sounds like we fg 14 were a bunch of dummies.
15 Mosbaugh: That's my perspective.
16 Rushton: Now, we did the best we could at the time, but, and 17 we went so fast through everything that we didn't have adequate, 18 uh, checks and balances to make sure that every single piece of 19 data was, uh, absolutely correct and now that we've been through 1
20 the IIT investigation and, uh, a lot more documentation of the l 1
21 problem and further review and study we found that we were in 22 error. And you know, and that's-that's the best story we've got T to go with. ,
24 Bailey: You know, it may sound bad, but it seem to me that 25 like it if we ought not to send in this damn LER, revised LER, 26 until the IIT reports, because otherwise we may have a damn fT G
. . _ _ . . . - , - _ _ ,. .- 7...___ ,. _ . . , - . . .
15
. l' conflict in there.
()2 Aufdenkampe(?): Well, the I-I would I would only make the 3- warning and-and it's really up to you guys. Uh, we felt. j l
4 compelled down here as soon as we identified the problem to
~
5 correct it as expeditiously as possible. .
I 6- Bailey: And I-and I agree with that but I'm saying now that f 7 that report is supposed to be coming out next week or did or did - !
i 8 that even may ....give em another copy of it? l l
_9 Aufdenkampe: Well, anyway. !
10 Bailey: And we're still confused about these numbers.
11 Aufdenkampe: I-I understand.
12 Bailey:_I think that, you know, Ha-Hairston feels that, uh, 13 = you know, we've gone on-on, he's gone on the record as attesting 14 to this information this LER the NRC and we're going to come back 15 and say it's wrong. And, uh, and they thought 16 (unintelligible).... I think he's probably gonna... either i
i- 17 document in a cover letter on the LER or somewhere in the record '
$ 18 why it was wrong and what corrective action we've taken to nake i
19 sure we don't report wrong information in the future.
20 Aufdenkampe: Okay. Well, let me, I'll tell you what, Paul,
. ~
L 21 let me bring that up with, uh, uh, Tom Green. Now, I'll tell you i
f 22 what generally the LER information is verified by my people.
23 Okay? Up to a point.
r
- . lI4 ' Bailey
- Yeah.
0
, 25' Aufdenkampe: Uh, you know,-they can't verify everything, but
-26 generally it's verified by my people. And my people started with I
e t
16 I the ori nal April 9th letter as their bases.
3 Aufdenkampe: Now, I don't, I-I think that, and I'm not 4 trying to dump this back in you lap, Jim, I just really don't 5 recall, I think you guys generated the April 9th letter up there.
6 Bailey: Yeah.
7 Aufdenkampe: Okay, and-and now, we may have verified the 8 stuff on the April 9th letter, I do not know whether I did that 9 on site or how we did the verification of that information...
10 Bailey: The PRB reviewed it.
11 Aufdenkampe: Yeah, the PRB reviewed it, but they won't 12 always go back and verify that kind of... Huh? (whisper in 13 background) . . . The April 9th letter? ... It was sent before we 14 ... I'm not sure we PRB'd that. Oh, we PRB'd it. We PRB'd it 15 did after it went out.
16 Bailey: No, PRB had it prior to that, now we made some 17 revisions, uh...
18 Aufdenkampe: But-but I'm getting, uh, uh, a vicious shaking 19 of the a-a no by a head here, who will remain nameless... But j l
20 anyway, regardless, regardless, uh, I don't know who did 21 verification of that and I have said that the majority of that 22 verification was done via heresay.
23 Bailey: i was7 24 Aufdenkampe: And that's-and that's where we erred, if you 25 want to point out where we erred on that, that's where we erred 26 and because written communications in George, a colleague, erred !
1
I .
17
- 1 in his presentation because a lot of that presentation was made
- ()2 on heresay because of the time frame involved in putting the 3 presentation together!
. 4 Bailey: So.. -
5 Aufdenkampe: And, and if Mr. Hairston wants to do something <
f
$ different we certainly can,-but all we can do is-is say that we 6
7 will verify everything before we send it out and I will certainly 8 do that. It will just, an-and I don't mean this in a threatened i 9 nature at all, it'll just take longer sometimes. Sometimes we ;
i 10 won't be able to make the dates that he wants to meet.
I
! 11 Bailey: Yeah, I agree with you. All right. -
I
! 12 Aufdenkampe: So do you guys feel better now that you can 13 understand the whole story?
- 14 (Laughter)
\
\
15 (?): Yeah. l 16 Bailey: Yeah, I'm a little better equipped now that...
l Aufdenkampe: Okay, I, hey-uh, Paul?
17 18 Rushton: Yeah?
l 19 Aufdenkampe: This-this is my recollection and Allen's l
20 recollection of-of how things went. We're about to go to the l .
21 PRB. I will recount this conversation and the concerns that you ;
i L 22 guys have to the PRB and, uh, specifically, Tom Green, to see if l
23 he wants to do anything else.
l 24 Bailey: So th-the other one is on that-this, we've got two l
25 of 'em going on down here this afternoon where we're correcting 26 information in LER that was wrong.
I r
_ _ _ . ~ . ._- - . . . -m.-. ._ , . - - _ , , . _ _ - _ . _ _ . - , . - - , - .
TAPE #157 Page #18 Rushton: The other one is where we said we would do something by April the 8th
[x and we haveni got it done yet.
Aufdenkampe: Yeah. That one is p2 tty simple.
Rushton: Yeah.
Aufdenkampe: They didnt do it. They committed to it and didnt do it.
Rushton: Yeah, but again, it, it's, uh , you know when l-Aufdenkampe: Why didnt they do it?
Rushton: Yeah, Why didni they do it? Why didnt we report it? You know what happened to the system, and how are we going to make sure that that doesnt happen again and make sure that that's all documented in the record. Those are Doing to be the questions. You know because he's got an exposure. This is the way he feels about it. He told the NRC that he was going to get something done by Apri! 8th and he didn19et it done.
Aufdenkampe: Okay Rushton : You know he's subject and liable to them coming back and ,uh, citing us for a violation at some point in the future.
Aufdenkampe: Let me tell you how we work that and this is what we told Tom Green.
Uh, LER's are reviewed and closed out by the residents.
l Rushton : Okay.
Aufdenkampe:
~
So our residents have not been very pickey in , and this is just a fact, not an excuse, about getting I
4 i
t i
1 i
1 i
i I
l 1
l
\
f '
19-1 .
~1 things done exactly on the due date or before the due date. And
() 2 we've closed out numerous packages when we have gotten.them done Provided we show good faith.and progress on 3 after the due date.
4 it, they usually don't say anything. And that's from_ John Roggy ,
i 5 on down.
6 Bailey: And I also talked the same subject to, uh, to Marvin 7 Sin: lair when he was in Atlanta, and he said the same thing, l
8 but .
9 Aufdenkampe: Okay, now...
I 10 Bailey: That's not the way George said it. j 11 Aufdenkampe: Okay, now, so let me let me tell you how, based :
l 12 on that fact, this is how I handle the program, or have been to )
13 date. They, generally, I'll give the department managers a week j 14 or two-two beyond the due date before I get nervous. Okay? And tO 15 I'll allow them to move the due date, even though it'll start ,
I 16 showing up overdue, I'll allow them to move the due date for a ,
17 couple weeks.
18 Bailey: Yeah. I 19 Aufdenkampe: Beyond that, then I go force them to give me a 20 firm commitment, a date when they can get it done, uh, usually 21 asking for it in the next couple weeks. So if they give me a !
22 firm date and I feel confident that I will go greet the resident 23 and get their verbal agreement that that's okay. Beyond that, 24 when it goes beyond that time frame, I then revise the LER. And 25- those time frames aren't exactly fixed, but they're very close to l
26 fixed.
20 1 Bailey: Yeah, I-I-I'm aware of that, and I-I know that the
()
2 3
way we've operated in the past.
Aufdenkampe: And, and...
4 Bailey: ...It's only when you go back and revise one that it 5 brings this attention to everything.
6 Aufdenkampe: Yeah. So anyway, that's how, that's how I have 7 been handling it. Uh, I've sent stuff to Tom Green today and-and 8 I'm not going to slip any overdue LER commitments as far as 9 putting them on the main for attention list. But that's the only 10 real change I'm gonna make. I imagine that that they come before 11 George, he'll still allow them to slide a week or two. Unless 12 there's a mandated change in philosophy.
13 Bailey: Okay. It doesn't make sense to write a revision of 14 LER's and process it if-if you're gonna get it done before the 15 LER gets...
16 Aufdenkampe: Well, an-and we went over this too, when we 17 talked about it some other times. 10-22 really doesn't require 18 you to revise the LER unless it will-it changes the perceptions 19 of the reviewer on what you actually did to, uh, how the events 20 developed and what corrective actions you took to mitigate the 21 consequences and when you start, if you miss your date by a 22 couple weeks, we can argue that doesn't change the perception, 23 but when you're missing it by three, four, five months, then what 24 you're doing is actually different than what you said because 25 it's taking a lot longer, it's obviously either a lower priority
/
26 or harder to implement corrective action or-or something.
Exhibitb , page IM ;
1 Bailey: That's true.
() 2 Aufdenkampe: So your perception changes as to what the...
(unintelligible). That's my thought process on it, or has been.
3 4 Okay.
5 Bailey: All right, John, appreciate it.
6 Aufdenkampe: Bye.
l
)
I 1
3 i
i 1
I j
i 4
i
- ' ~ ~
___ . _ _ _ - , _ . _ . - _ ~ . , , , ,- .i - _