ML20080P082

Transcript of a Mosbaugh 940722 Deposition in Atlanta,Ga. Pp 1-208.Supporting Info Encl

ML20080P082
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/22/1994
From:	Mosbaugh A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20080P058	List: ML20080P056 ML20080P082 ML20080P090 ML20080P104 ML20080P108 ML20080P117 ML20080P123
References
OLA-3, NUDOCS 9503070201
Download: ML20080P082 (246)

Text

-

T.lgp W . f;(!&; f ' ! .

f'l!*; '

4- _. ; '1 1

I il iUNITED' STATES'OF AMERICA

'N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-

,2.- ATOMIC _ SAFETY AND L I C E N S I N G .~ B O A R D .-

'3

-In the Matter.of: ) Docket Nos.

.4 ). 50-424-OLA-3.

GEORGIA POWER' COMPANY, -) 50-425-OLA-3 I Y5 et al., ')

).Re: License Amendment ~

(Vogtle. Electric Generating )' (Transfer to? Southern Plant. Units 1 and 2 )- ) Nuclear)

.7-8 9 _ DEPOSITION OF 10 ALLEN MOSBAUGH i

11 l 12 July 22, 1994 10:00 a.m.

14 15 16 5200 NationsBank Plaza 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

17 Atlanta, Georgia

[ 18

(

19 ,

20 v

21 22 Gayla White, CCR-B-1324, RPR 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC.

24. 1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 i b j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 f

'_ b j25 (404) 876-8979 4

9 ....,c

r m =

?

2

,\

i

' ~'

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 On behalf of the Intervenor:

3 MICHAEL D. KOHN, Esq.

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.

4 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 5

6 On behalf of Georgia Power:

7 ERNEST BLAKE, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 8 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 9

JOHN LAMBERSKI, Esq.

10 Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore Suite 5200, NationsBank Plaza 11 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 12 l,, )

13 Also Present:

14 Mr. Charles A. Bart, 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Mr. Darl Hood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the NRC 17 Ms. Mitzi A. Young, 18 General Counsel of the NRC 19 Mr. Ken Burr 20 21 22 - - -

23 l 1

24 25

3 (s

's 1 ALLEN MOSBAUGH, 2 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 3 testified as follows:

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. BLAKE:

6 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, my name is Ernie Blake. We 7 have met before. I'm with a law firm in Washington, 8 Shaw, Pittman; and I represent Georgia Power in this 9 proceeding. Can you identify your name, spell it, 10 please, for the record?

11 A. My name is Allen Lee Mosbaugh.

7- 12 Q. Would you spell it, please, for the

( ,S'/

13 record?

14 A. Allen is A-1-1-e-n. Lee is L-e-e.

15 Mosbaugh is M-o-s-b-a-u-g-h.

16 MR. KOHN: Before we go any further, I 17 would like to indicate that before the 18 deposition commenced, counsel had an 1

19 off-the-record discussion concerning the l

20 appearance of Mr. Kenneth Burr at this 21 deposition.

22 The intervenor's position is that 23 Mr. Burr is present as a corporate f._ 24 representative, and the intervenor demands 25 that the licensee designate at this time who

_ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ -i

i l l  !

I 1

t l

l 4

\ (~~\

l ;

. 8 1 their corporate representative will be to 2 clarify my understanding as to Mr. Burr's I

3 role here.

4 MR. BLAKE: Well, I don't know that I l 5 have an obligation to identify who the 6 corporate representative is or may be i 7 throughout the course of this deposition.

I I 8 Mr. Burr is not here as a corporate 9 representative; but rather, as we also l 10 discussed before we went on the record, as an l

l 11 expert on diesel generators. And that's why l g g 12 he is here, is because a portion of the

\-) 13 deposition today is enpected to cover that 14 topic and technical content of that topic.

15 And in order to ensure that I was not 16 misspeaking or misstating technical 17 nomenclature associated with the diesel 18 generator, in an effort to try to make this l

19 as accurate and as productive a session as i

20 possible, we had asked Mr. Burr to attend.

1 21 MR. KOHN: I note for the record that i l

22 Mr. Burr has not previously been identified {

23 as an expert, and intervenor believes they l 24 would have the right to examine Mr. Burr as

'- 25 an expert witness at this time.

I 1

I

i

5 ll t%

i l

1 MR. BLAKE: Well, certainly, you will i l

2 have to explore it and any future motions or i l

3 requests to the Board of what you think your )

l 4 rights are, Mr. Kohn.

l 5 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, would you )

j 6 describe the taping process which you used and that l 1

1 7 has been the subject of lots of questions and l l

8 answers and descriptions in this proceeding. j i 1 9 MR. KOHN: If I might inquire, I )

l 1 l 10 believe that was inquired into at '

11 Mr. Mosbaugh's first --

<-) 12 (Attorney confers with witness.)

~

13 MR. KOHN: And we object.

14 MR. BLAKE: Let me start by 15 establishing some ground rules. If you have 16 something to say during the course of the 17 deposition, Mr. Kohn, I want you to speak 18 right up and say it. I do not want you l 19 whispering to your witness or conferring with 1

20 him during the course of this examination.

1 21 So you were just whispering to him or 22 asking him a question, please do that so that j 23 all of us can observe, listen, participate. j f s 24 Now, what is your position?

il \

t '

'-' 25 MR. KOHN: It's my understanding that l

l I

l

6 (D

1 Mr. Mosbaugh was deposed about that with 2 respect to his first deposition, and I would 3 like to understand what the ground rules are 4 for this deposition. The proceedings were 5 bifurcated, and it is my understanding that 6 intervenor's discovery has been limited on 7 this round of depositions to areas related to 8 the factual bases, specifically the diesel 9 generator issue and issues directly related 10 to that. So I assume that the licensee is 11 following those same ground rules.

gg 12 MR. BLAKE: We certainly intend, and I

('

13 would appreciate your reminders of the extent 14 to which you think I am straying from the 15 scope of this proceeding, and in particular 16 for this deposition, diesel generator 17 reliability or diesel generator validity or 18 diesel generator reliability reporting.

19 I believe Mr. Mosbaugh did a 20 considerable amount of taping of ,

21 conversations which deal with that subject 22 area, and I am asking for the method that he 23 used to conduct those tapes.

7- 24 MR. KOHN: And I understand that, and I 1 (- 25 guess my specific --

there was a Board order l

l

7

\l 1 specifically with respect to Mr. Dolberg c7 2

the issue of whether I could ask Mr. Dolbstg 3 questions about taping, and it was 4 specifically determined that questions with 5

respect to taping were proper, and they were 6 proper for the first-round of deposit'ons.

'7 It's my unuerstanding Mr. Mosbaugh was 8 questioned about taping in the'first round of 9 depositions.

10 The intervenor has strenuously objected '

11 to the bifurcated deposition nature of these 12 proceedings. It has cost intervenor'an O 13 extraordinarily large sum of resources to do 14 multiple depositions. It has been licensee's 15 position that the bifurcated nature was the 16 best way to proceed, and with the bitter must 17 come the sweet.

18 And at this juncture we are going to 19 object to asking questions on the methods of 20 Mr. Mosbaugh's tape-recording inasmuch as 21 ' those areas wer'e available for discovery on 22 the'first round,.

23 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Answer the question,

_ 24 please.

L 25 A. I had a pocket or a small tape recorder,

n' ^ :* - .;

l l

, 8 g

C) 1 -and itLeses thel microcassettes. "And:I carried-that j

.1 2- tape recorder in my: pocket, and ILwould turn the'

)

3 I

tape. recorder on to tape conversations--that'I l

4. thought would document concerns'I had,. and-those l

l. '

5 ' concerns were related to' things that I was; pursuing 6' as allegations later, and they related to concerns 1 1

7 that I had of discrimination.- And I did this to: l

~

8 create a record of what I was doing and the record 'l 3

9 of the history of the allegation' material'.  ;

i 10 Q. How did you determine what conversations I

}

11- to tape and what conversations not to tape?  !

12 MR.' KOHN: Can we have a time frame?

1 O

13 MR. BLAKE: During his period-of taping.

L 14 MR. KOHN: So youLare'asking about~

15 taping prior to --

do you.have a specific

'16 date?

17 MR. BLAKE: I don't have a specific 18 date.

19 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, you are 20 free to limit your' answer to any and all 21 conversations of the time period during which the 22 diesel generator or reliability of the diesel 23 generator or the reporting of the reliability of the 24 diesel generator was in consideration ~or on your i

25 mind.

l-

9

,r\

1 A. Generally, if I knew a conversation 2 before the fact would involve the topic area of 3 diesel discussion, then I would plan to tape it. I 4 didn't always know that. And if at the point in 5 time that became apparent, sometimes I would make an 6 effort to begin tape-recording at that point.

7 Q. So there were some conversations in which 8 you would turn on or engage the tape recorder during 9 the course of the conversation?

10 A. If I had not been tape-recording and if 11 relevant material seemed to be going to come up or r3 12 was coming up, yes, I might initiate tape-recording.

~'

)

13 Q. And similarly, were there points in time 14 in conversations or meetings when you would shut the 15 tape recorder off because it didn't appear to be 16 relevant materials?

17 A. Generally, I would tend to take that 18 process to completion so as not to be reaching into 19 my pocket and initiating and not initiating the tape 20 all the time. But sometimes, of course, a 21 conversation might be long; and the tape would run 22 out. That is obviously one reason for a 23 conversation being terminated or the taping being 24 terminated. I might leave the meet'ing or I might --

O25 the meeting might be over, I might leave the l

)

10 i

. ,r'5 N) 1 meeting, and obviously at that point I-would-cut the P

2 taping off.

3 Q. Were you aware when the tape would run  !

4 out on the tape recorder?

5 A. Not necessarily.

6 Q. If the tape ran out and you were aware of 7 it or you expected that it had, were there times  ;

i -

4 8 when you would leave the meeting or the discussion 9 in order to replace the tape? l 10 A. Generally, if a meeting seemed to be very

}

11 lengthy; and I knew, for example, that the meeting,

. (~g 12 you know, would be that lengthy, I would use either i

' ()

. 13 a break in the meeting or a rest room ~ break or ,

14 something like that to put in a new tape or flip the 15 side of a tape. And in those cases the tape --

I l 16 might do that be'a ce the-tape ran to completion.

, 17 Q. You said generally that was the case.

i 18 Were there exceptions to that?

a 19 A. There is no way I possibly could recall I i

20 all of the occasions that I did those things. I 21 can't possibly recall each occasion when I did that.

22 Q. Of each occasion when you did what?

23 A. When I curtailed a tape or changed a tape or whatever.

O 2 4 i

25 Q. Were there times when the battery in the b

i l

11 '

,~,

1 tape recorder ran out?

2 A. No, no, generally not.. The batteries on 3 those types of tape recorders would last for several 4 weeks, fairly continuous taping, that was the  ;

5 capacity of the batteries, had been my experience.

6 And so what I would do is'every couple of weeks I 1

7 would just change the batteries whether they needed l 1

I 8 it or not, i 9 Q. On those occasions when you didn't have ]

10 the tape recorder on, but yca were involved in or 11 overheard conversations which were relevant, did you ,

l 73 12 make any other effort to record those conversations i I 13 or otherwise record what had taken place when your 14 recorder wasn't on?

15 A. I didn't make efforts to record,.that is, 16 record via any taping. And as far as record via 17 note taking, I would frequently take some notes.

18 Usually took notes on handouts and the like that had 19 been passed out, and so I would take notes, some 20 notes, as well as knowing that simultaneously I was 21 documenting s'rious things via the tape-recording.

22 Q. Did you have any occasions to do that 23 after you had left any meetings, that is, to record 24 what you had just heard where you knew, in 7_

25 particular, that the tape recorder had not been on?

~

l l

12 (h

\- 1 l A. Yes, there were -- I recall one 1

2 occasion -- first off, there were occasions when I 3 didn't have the tape recorder with me, for example.

4 I remember one occasion where a particularly 5 significant comment was made, and I was not taping, 6 and so I made an effort to write that comment down.

7 Q. Have you provided any and all notes or 8 recordations other than tape recordings?

9 A. The one instance I am speaking of did not l 10 relate to a diesel generator issue. It related to a 11 comment of a supervisor and a superintendent. I had 7_.

12 provided all documents that I have relative to notes I (

' ) 13 and other -- as well as the tapes, to Georgia Power.

14 Q. Have you provided all the tapes that you 25 made? l 16 A. Yes, I have. And since this is limited 17 to diesel topics, I have provided all the tapes with 18 respect to diesel topics; but I have, as well, 19 provided all of the tapes.

20 Q. In the course of your taping, did you 21 listen to the recordings contemporaneously, that is, 22 I don't mean actually contemporaneously, but in the 23 evenings, for example, on a Monday, would you listen 24 to what you had recorded during that day? On any

(~D Ys/ 25 indications did you listen?

i i

13 1 A. Not generally. There perhaps was one or  :

2 two occasions that I can recall where I, at home, 3 would verify that I had recorded what I indeed'  :

4 heard, 1" it was something that seemed to be.a 5 significant. And I wouldn't necessarily.do it --

6 but the few times that I can recall that that 7 happened I'wouldn't necessarily have done it that  !

8 evenir.g. I might have done it in the subsequent l

9 period of time, just the few times that I can recall  !

10 that that occurred, but there were a few. i 11 Q. And by that process, did you alter your i 12 technique at all of recording?

O 13 A. No, I did not. I documented that --

my j 14 purpose for listening was to verify that what I remember I heard was what was electronically i

15 16 recorded that I heard.

17 Q. There are some tapes that Georgia Power 18 has received that appear to be blank. Do you have 19 any explanation for those?

20 A. My --

and I think that's true. When I 21 was asked --

well, when I put the tapes'together to 22 turn them over, and I initially put them together to 23 turn them over to the NRC, I gathered up all the 24 tapes I had. And I think what happened is that I O 25 had some new tapes that had never been used that

F l

14 Os 1 became part of the tapes that were turned over, and ,

2 so basically a couple of blank tapes were included.

3 Q. So your explanation is that they probably ,

4 were never used and never recorded on?

5 A. Yes. ,

6 Q. What was your method of maintaining or -

7 Cataloging the tapes as you were using them? '

8 A. I would record a tape; and for those days 9 that I recorded more than one tape, I would put the '

10 recorded tape in a particular pocket; and then at 11 the end of the day I would take those tapes out of 12 those pockets; and I would number them

( 13 sequentially. And I had one pocket that would hold 14 the first tape and another pocket that would hold 15 the second tape, so forth.

16 Q. And what were those pockets? l 17 A. Well, I kept the tape recorder in my --

I 18 didn't carry my wallet, and kept the tape recorder l

19 in my right front. And I believe I went from my 1 20 left front to my back left to my back right, as one, 21 two, three. And if I would have anymore, it would 22 be left in the tape recorder. '

23 Q. So as I understand it, the first tape g~ 24 that was completed on any given day you would put in 25 your left front pocket. The second tape that was

15 7

G' 1 filled out you would put in your left rear pocket, 2 and the third, if there were one, would go to the 3 right?

4 A. If there were any of those numbers, 5 that's correct.

6 Q. Did you ever run into problems where the 7 trousers you were wearing didn't have' pockets to 8 accommodate your technique?

9 A. No. In fact, the trousers that I am 10 wearing today are similar to the trousers that I --

11 in fact, the uniform that I have on, with a white

-s., 12 shirt and blue trousers, is what I would virtually

~)

13 always wear.

14 Q. And then you would get home at night, and 15 then make what sort of indication on the tapes, 16 again, to catalog them to keep track of them?

17 A. I would put a little bitty sticker on 18 them, and I would write the date and a number.

19 Q. A date and a --

20 A. Number.

21 Q. The numbers, again, being one for any 22 tape that wound up in your left front pocket?

23 A. Indicating the order of the tapes during

- 24 the day.

~~'

25 Q. And then did you keep these tapes in one

L  !

1 i

-i

16 -;

i L 1' place throughout the periodLof time that'you were , j i

r 2 doing this taping? j l

'l 3 A. That's correct. i i

.4 Q. And did-the little stickers.that you pute j 5 on ever come off any of the' tapes?-  !

I 6 A '. Not that Il recall. They-7were pretty; i 7 tenacious'little stickies. f i

8 Q. And'so when you'provided'the tapesito;the I

i 9 NRC, did.they.still have the tenacious little~ l i

10 i stickies.on them?  ;

i 11 A. Generally, but I believe that.I was not-  !

\

12 always complete in my routine of putting the '

.O 13 ,stickies on, and perhaps-I didn't use enough  ;

14 attention to detail. But in the end some tapes, I 15 believe, had no stickies on them, j l

l 16 Q. Including, possibly, the blank tapes? ')

17 A. The blank tapes wouldn't - .I1would'never l 18 have intended to put stickies on the blank tapes.

19 Q. And not only would not have intended but l

20 probably did not?

21 A. Probably did not.

22 Q. Of the tapes that you provided to the E 23 NRC, how many do you think included the tenacious 24 stickies and how many did not?

25 A. I didn't use different kinds of '

i-l

17 O 1 stickies. I guess I will also, since we are getting i 2 into that level of detail about the tapes, some of 1 3 the tapes that I taped in the beginning, which do 4 not relate to diesel issues, were of a different  ;

l 5 kind. And I believe on some of those beginnings  !

6 before I got into a routine of putting stickies on, 1

7 there may have been direct marking on the tape,: but 8 I generally found that pencils and ballpoint pens l

9 didn't mark well'on the surface of the cassette.

l 10 As a result, I went to the stickies; so I i

i 11 think you may find there may be some in that early l 12 period, again, which probably doesn't relate to  !

13 diesel issues. There may_be none on some of those.

I 14 Once I got into the routine of using the  ;

15 stickies, I only recall that there would be a few j

16 that did not have the sticky with the date and time; 17 and that was an oversight or error on my part in not 18 being complete as to the numbering.

19 Q. Let's talk for a minute just about the 20 copies of tapes. Describe for me, if you will, your l

21 recollection now of any and all copies of tapes 22 which were made.

l l 23 MR. KOHN: I assume, are you asking him 24 to exclude his recollection of communications lO l i 25 with counsel?

l

.i

- 1 g

18'

/~i

(_j 1. MR. BLAXE:

I'm asking.for his~

J i

.2 recollection.- '

t 3 zTHE WITNESS: My. recol-lections ~are?that

~4 I1had. discussions:with'counsellabout making-

~ '

5 some copies; and based on those discussions,.

6 I proceeded to makeLsome copies.. From myf ,  ;

7 memory of the dates .andicontents of. , j

\

8 conversations and:from-listening.to:somefof 9 the' tapes on those dates I recalled, I 10 selected some portions that-I-could' remember 11 that I thought were important.to,the diesel i ',

L 12 issues and to other issues.that4 relate'to.

13 labor, which I won't' talk 1about. Having ,

14 selected and found those segments,'then.I  !

1 15

~

proceeded to make aLcopy; and I.did that d  ;

L '16 copying myself.

17 Q. (By Mr. Blake) So your recollection of 18 any and all taping or copying of any'of your tapes 19 is that you yourself made some copies of some

20 portions of tapes, and you made one copy of'those 21 portions?

22 A. Initially, that is correct.' And this 23 copying process that I am talking about, I'm 24 referring to the summer time frame of 1990; and I l 25 provided copies to my attorney.

I l

I l

l i

19 1 Q. How did you make the copies?- l

! 2 A. Well, the tape was on the microcassette .

I  :

3 player. And.the copies that I made, I didn't have a 4 second microcassette player, so I made the copies ,

5 onto standard size cassette. And I had'a stereo l . i 6 system dual cassette deck, and I fed the electrical  ;

i 7 output of the small cassette player.into the i 8 electrical input of the dual cassette player and ,

t 9 made the copy.

• 10 Q. So that the one copy that you made was on l l

l 11 a different size cassette?

l l r~s 12 A. That's correct.

Il 13 Q. Is what you are referring to what has I

14 commonly been called the'six tape --

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. --

set?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I think you said that initially that was 19 your process. Were there any other copies that had 20 been made of your tapes that you are aware of?

21 A. Yes. At a point in time, I believe, an 22 additional copy was made or' copies, that I provided 23 to my attorney. And I made those copies from the 7, 24 initial standard size cassette copy onto another b 25 standard size cassette copy. So in the sense I say l

20 0 1 the processes were different, I went from standard 2 to standard on the dual cassette deck'alone.

3 Q. What's the time frame you are talking 4 about?

5 A. I believe the time frame I am talking 6 about is somewhere in '93, .it seems like.

7 Q. And the microcassettes played no role in 8 this copying? It was, as I understand it, one 9 additional set of six tapes being made from the 10 original six-tape set which you had made in the 11 summer of '90?

12 A. It was, meaning?

13 Q. The second set.

14 A. I'm not sure if it was a full second set, l

15 but it was some portion of the original set. I'm l i

16 not sure if it was all six or not. But, yes, it was j 17 just a copy from the first copy; and the l 18 microcassettes played no role because I believe, at 19 least for some of those microcassettes, I didn't 20 have them.

21 Q. Would you say that again.

22 A. At the time I made the second set, the 23 duplicate of the standard size to standard size, I 24 no longer was in possession of the original 4O 25 microcassette. The NRC was in possession of them.

i i

i l

21 l l

1 Q. -And with respect to the six tapes, from 2 the time that you made those in 1990 until the time .

l 3 that you made this duplicate set sometime.in 1993, 4 did you retain possession of the six-tape set?

5 A. No, I sent that to my attorney.

6 Q. And you got them back at some point in i l

7 time? )

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. When would that have been? ,

1 10 A. Seems like that was sometime in '93.

11 Q. When was it that you sent them?

12 A. During the summer of '90.

13 Q. So you sent the six-tape set to your j i

14 counsel in the summer of 1990 and received them back {

l 15 sometime in 1993? j 16 A. That's when I recall making the second 17 copy set. I may have --

I made some trips to 18 Washington, and I'm having trouble remembering all l

19 the trips I made. I know I made the second set of 20 copies in '93. I have a recollection of listening 21 to tapes from the --

on the standard size cassette, 22 though, in '91; so I can't be exactly sure if I 23 didn't get some of them back from my attorney 24 in '91.

25 Q. Let's start with '93.

22

(~~N . .

N'~) 1 MR. KOHN: May I, I have a hard time 2 seeing the relevance of the --

I mean, you 3 are asking him questions with respect to --

4 and if you would like the witness to leave, )

5 we will do that. 1 6 MR. BLAKE: No, no.

7 MR. KOHN: --

with the 57 or 200 l

8 original tapes, whatever they are, now you '

9 are getting to the six tapes. I don't'really 10 see the relevance with respect to diesel )

11 generators.

g~3 12 You have a lot of questioning on the i

( '

) 13 tapes. I did object in the beginning, and I j 14 stand by that objection. But I think at some 15 point there should be a cutoff where tapes 16 related to diesel generators, I think, are 17 what's at issue here; and those are the 18 original tapes that are in the possession of 19 the NRC; and that were returned, or not 20 returned, but copies were provided to the 21 parties.

22 And to the extent that you are looking 23 into the additional tapes of which you have

- 24 full copies, I don't see the relevance, e

i- 25 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, returning

~

l .

l '

23

/ ~s i

)

~

I 1 to 1993, are you able better to identify the time l

2 frame when you made this additional set? l

3 A. I recall making an additional set in i

4 1993. l l

5 Q. And can you better identify when in 1993 i

6 that might have occurred?

7 A. I recall that that occurred --

8 MR. KOHN: Right now the diesel l

9 generator issues have nothing to do with an l

10 additional set of tapes made in 1993. 'I 11 can't see the relevance at-all.

f s* 12 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Can you answer the L

(

l 13 question, please?

14 MR. KOHN: I would like to understand 15 what the relevance is in why you are pursuing 16 this line of questioning with respect to the 17 diesel generator issue.

18 MR. BLAKE: If you want to object and 19 put your objection on the record with regard 20 to relevance, that is perfectly fine. You 21 have. I understand your objection. Now I 22 would like the witness to answer unless you 23 are instructing him not to.

i es 24 MR. KOHN: Mr. Mosbaugh, why don't you

\) 2 5 leave the room for a moment. ,

i

)

i

l l

i j

-24  ;

IN 1

1- MR. BLAKE: Mr. Mosbaugh, you can: stay.

O here.

i 3 MR. KOHN: The process has been1 4 employed in the other depositions, some-of l i

5 'which.you attended, Ernie,;when an' objection  !

l 6 of-relevance was raised, I have been asked ~to )

)

7 state my rationale, and'I would like you to  ;

1 8 state your rationale as to why you believe.  ;

l 9 the process of making' tapes in 1993 is 1 j

10 relevant to the. diesel ~ generator' issue.

]

11 MR. BLAKE: I don't'think I am f x 12 obligated to provide my rationale for.what~

13 the relevance is; but you.are free to 14 instruct him, of course, not to answer.the' 15 questions.

l l 16 MR. KOHN: Based on the fact that 17 Mr. Mosbaugh's activity with respect to 18' making tapes in 1993 to the effect they'could i

19 relate to other matters outside the diesel j l

20 generator issue, I believe makes that right 21 for a discovery in the first round.  ;

22 Mr. Mosbaugh was questioned about his  !

23 tape-recording activities in the first round; 24 and therefore, I will, at this time, instruct l

,O 25 him not to answer unless you can explain the

! i

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

l-

> -i L: i l 25. j

() :1 relevance, then I willEallow him to' respond.

2- .Q. (By-Mr. Blake), Mr. Mosbaugh,Jare7you

.2 3 able to better. recall by' reference to.any-eventsLin i 4 the 1991 time ~ frame.when'you know'you'had' copies or y

.. J 5 were listening to copies 1of those tapes?

1 6 A. What I recall is that-I received a-7 ' petition, a response to the 2.206 petiti'on~from.

8 Georgia Power. I'mfnot sure I received it, but it-

~

9 was forwarded to me at some point, and I. read 11t. I l

.10 found the response itself to contain fal'se 11 statements based on my recollection of'the facts, 12 and so at that point I did some --

I wanted to do 13 some research supporting those false statements.

14-I worked with my' attorney, and part-of- .

.15 that research was the relistening to.a: portion of 16- one of the six tapes, and'that's,what I recall. ,

d 17 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, did you vote;in Columbia' {

18 County, Georgia in'1992?

19 MR. KOHN: Objection. I instruct the 3 l

20 witness not to answer.

21 MR. BLAKE: Basis?

l 22 MR. KOHN: It's beyond the scope of 4

23 this discovery proceeding we are in.with 24 respect to the diesel generator.

l 25 MR. BLAKE: This one I will explain to I'

t

-. ~ . ,

I i

l l

=

l

. i

^

26

/~N l %)l 1 you.

1 E 2 MR.-KOHN: Would'.you.like the: witness 4

I 3 to leave?

! 4' MR. BLAKE: No, he is free to stay.

J 5 Incidentally, unless my understanding is  ;

! 6 wrong about witnesses _ leaving, it was because' ,

i l 7 you didn't want them-to hear-what: the' Georgia I

8 Power-questioners were. indicating in their 9 statements; and, therefore, you.wantedEthe B

10 Georgia Power witnesses to leave. I-don't '

1

11 have a prob 3am, by and large, with 12 Mr. Mosbaugh hearing what I have to say or i 13 what you have to say.

14 MR. KOHN: To any extent you would, 15 just please let me know.  :

16 MR. BART: Could you keep your voice a l

$ 17 little louder, Mr. Kohn, so the< rest of us t

j 18 could hear these words of --

2

19 MR. BLAKE

My reason for the question, 20 Michael, is --

because there are going to be  !

1 i 21 a series of questions here --

is because I 22 want to know about --

I want to inquire into )

23 Mr. Mosbaugh's credibility, Mr. Mosbaugh's 24 willingness to make statements based on

O 25 varying degrees of substantiation. I want to i l l

h

,w. ,, m.,,. w, .--,s3 -~r - - , . . -

w.

i 27 t

(~) 1 know Mr. Mosbaugh's views on when accurate or l

l 2 inaccurate statements are made, they l

t 3 constitute lying.

l 4 These are terms which he has used in a.

5 large number of pleadings, and which he has 6 used in a large number of statements that he 7 has made, and I think I'm entitled to an 8 explanation and a background for that 9 explanation of what he means by this term 10 when he uses it.

11 It's terribly relevant to this l f s 12 proceeding, that term, and I think his use of l

d 13 that term, not to mention his credibility 1

14 simply as a witness. '

15 So that's generally the background and  !

16 the reason for my asking that question, and I '

17 will have more.

l 18 MR. KOHN: I still object, and I will 19 instruct the witness not to answer with 20 respect to the voting questions. These 21 questions were asked at his first 22 deposition. To any effect they relate to 23 credibility, they were gone over in his first

,- s 24 deposition.

1. 25 I could tell you that I could ask every

I 28

('T, i

1 witness that I'm about to in the next week 2 questions related to the first issue on 3 license transfer, which I think would greatly j 4 help me on their credibility. Particularly 5 if I asked them on the first set, I would'be l l

6 very interested to see if they changed their  !

7 mind or had different recollections the 8 second time.

9 So there are certainly credibility l 10 questions. There's a cutoff with respect to 11 credibility that I'm under, and I expect the l

,73 12 licensee must be under that very same i

'-) 13 cutoff. ,

14 Questions concerning voting were asked 15 on the first deposition. It's my 16 understanding, Mr. Blake, you did not attend 17 his deposition and may not be aware of that 18 fact; but that is the fact.

19 MR. BLAKE: Maybe you could refresh my 20 memory on what his answer was to that 21 question.

22 MR. KOHN: I couldn't refresh your 23 recollection without seeing the transcript, 7_ 24 and I haven't.

25 MR. BLAKE: Maybe you weuld be willing 7

I 29 ,

1 to stipulate to the fact _that in 2 Mr. Mosbaugh's amendments to the petitions to 3 intervene and request for hearing dated -

4 December 9th, 1992, it was stated' 5 Mr. Mosbaugh voted in Columbia County,  !

i 6 Georgia in 1992 elections.

7 ;M R . KOHN: This is a deposition, and we ,

8 are not stipulating to anything at this  !

9 point. .You-can go forward with the i

10 deposition questions, but we object to any I

11 question concerning his. voting which were <

1 g3 12 covered in his first deposition. I U 13 MR. BLAKE: And you are unwilling to 14 stipulate that that statement was made in his 15 amendment to petition to intervene and 16 request for hearing in December 1992?

17 MR. KOHN: I'm not willing to stipulate 18 to anything. I haven't looked at that  ;

19 petition in quiet some time. That's not the 20 purpose of this proceeding. )

21 MR. BLAKE: I'm providing a copy of the 22 petition and the amendment to the petition in 23 question to counsel.

24 MR. KOHN: I_believe the question with O- 25 respect to stipulation on this issue,

l 30

'O 1 discovery is closed. There's about hundreds 2 of stipulations I would like to=get into on 3 related to license transfer, and I'm unable 4 to file them. I'm more than happy to discuss 5 . opening the first round up_to additional 6 stipulations in discovery, that would please 7 me very much.

8 MR. BLAKE: Have'you instructed the 9 witness.not to answer? ,

10 MR. KOHN: Yes.

11 MR. BLAKE: With regard to questions'et 12 all about where he voted, via in Georgia or 13 in Ohio?

14 MR. KOHN: Yes, I am. And to the 15 extent that you think you have a valid point 16 to make, I would suggest we get Judge. Block 17 on the phone because I think that might be 18 the most expeditious way to handle some of 19 these objections.

20 MR. BLAKE: We may have more, and maybe 21 we should collect them, and do'it in one fell 22 swoop, if needed.

23 MR. KOHN: Whatever you are comfortable 24 with, that's fine.

(

25 And at this point, I would also like to l

l l

I 31

("' /

1 renew my objection that Mr. Burr's presence 2 for the last hour serves no function because 3 no questions go to diesel generator or 4 factual issues which Mr. Burr may have some 5 bearing on, and I do renew my objection. )

6 MR. BLAKE: Certainly your obcervation 7 is a correct one. We have not used Mr. Burr, 8 not conferred with Mr. Burr, but I don't know l 1

I 9 that Mr. Burr has caused any distraction or l i

10 disturbance, either.

11 Do you think he has?

12 MR. KOHN: To the extent that people

% j

'.,) 13 i

from --

to some degree, yes. I mean, there's i 14 an additional person observing the proceeding 15 who is a Georgia Power manager. That has  !

I 16 always potential for some impact. But 17 besides that, I do not know of any impact.

18 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, the 19 tape-recording which you described earlier, the 20 excerpts that were made into the six tapes, what was 21 your purpose in doing that?

22 A. My purpose was the purpose I discussed 23 with my counsel.

g~ 24 Q. And therefore you can't disclose your

\

'-]25 purpose now? -

32 x

)

1 A. What I included was based on discussions 2 with my counsel.

3 Q. You mean your' counsel instructed you on 4- what you should make copies of or gave you 5 guidelines on it, and that's what you utilized?

6 A. We had a general discussion about what I i

7 was going to do.  !

8 Q. Without asking what that guidance was l

9 from your counsel, did you abide by.that?

10 A. Generally.

I 11 Q. What were the exceptions-to,it?

12 A. Because it was a general discussion, I f fls' ) 13 had to make tha decisions on the specifics; so  !

14 that's the extent of which I abided by those 15 understandings, I mean, since we didn't have  !

i 16 specific discussion.

17 Q. Are you able to tell me whether or not it 18 was done in conjunction with NRC proceedings or 19 anticipated proceedings or Department of Labor 20 proceedings or anticipated proceedings or both?-

21 A. Both. And let me clarify that to the 22 extent that my understanding of the labor proceeding 23 always involves an aspect of an allegation and a

_, 24 retaliation, that's why I answered both.

25 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, I want to show you a copy

i 33

;#~T  !

'l .of a document dated July 23, -

1993'~~ entitled ,

2  !

Intervenor's' Motion to_ Compel Production of j i

3 Affidavits in the possession of_ Georgia Power 4

4 Company. And in particular, I want' you to focus on ' i

" i 5 page 7 in this document, and I.have put a little 61 bracket around a couple.of lines on page 7. I s

7 _Can you read to me the portion of the i

l 8 document thatEI.have put brackets around?  ;

! 9 A. Not recall'Hairston ever;being on_the i c

10' call, and-five allowed Mr. Mosbaugh to physically 11 review a copy of an affidavit prepared'by --

Q. :Would you continue with the end'of that-1 (1)12 13 sentence. -

14 A. -- GPC's counsel, t

15 Q. Are you familiar with this document j I

16 before today?

17 A. Yes, I have seen this document.

? 18 Q. Did you approve this document before it 19 was filed? I

' 20 A. I had discussions with my counsel as to 21 the factual content of what would go in this 22 document. I do not recall approving this document i 23 before it was filed.

24 Q. So you don't know whether or not you saw ~

j 25 a draft of the document before it was' filed?

.-. s - .,w - - ' ~ + * " - * -

34 7%

! )

~

1 A. I may have seen a draft along the way; 2 but my discussions, I had oral discussions with my 3 counsel as to the factual information that would be 4 incorporated into --

factual information that I 5 recalled regarding the circumstances of my 6 discussions with Mr. Aufdenkampe, which then my l 7 counsel put into this document. I had both of those 8 things, and I reviewed a draft at some point along 9 the way.

10 Q. You say you did review a draft of this 11 document?

,r S 12 A. At some point along the way.

(,_)

13 Q. Do you know whether or not this statement 14 was in this draft that you reviewed?

15 A. I don't believe that it was. And the 16 reason why I say that is when I saw this final 17 document, I immediately called my counsel.

18 Q. Because?

19 A. Because I felt that No. 5's statement was 20 ambiguous, and I wanted to clarify it. I felt that 21 it could be read in more than one way, and I wanted 22 to make sure that it was stated in a way that would 23 be exactly correct.

7 s 24 Q. So you received a copy of this document

( )

\~'

25 as it was finally prepared and filed with the NRC?

5

(.

35

. C:)

1

[

A. I believe I received a copy of the final 2 after it was filed.

l 3 Q. And that prompted you to initiate a call 4 to your counsel?'

j 5 A. That's correct.

1 6 Q. Saying that this language --

.. 7- MR. KOHN: I object..

d

{ 8 Q. (By Mr. Blake) --

in particular, was i

9 ambiguous?

i 10 A. Saying that I felt that this needed to be 11 clarified because it could be interpreted'more than 12 one way. That's what I meant by ambiguous. -I 13 didn't feel it was wrong, but I felt that we needed f

l 14 to state it exactly as I would have stated it if I 15 were wording it.

16 Q. And how would you have stated it?

17 MR. KOHN: To the extent I can make any 18 after-the-fact objection just based on 19 attorney / client privilege, I object to it.

20 MR. BLAKE: ~ To.the earlier question and 21 response?

22 MR. KOHNt- Jes, 23 MR. BLAKE: But not to this.one?

24 MR. KOHN e' No . -

25 THE WITNESS: I would have stated it

i i

i l

36

<; O

! 1 that I reviewed a copy of the draft or that 2 Mrs. Aufdenkampe showed me a copy of the 3 draft. And I should not'use the word draft i

4 because I believe what I'saw was not a

)

5 draft. It was a final..

6 Q. .By

( Mr. Blake)- .Did'you regard,thisEas a

- t 4 7 lie? i 8 A. No. ,

9 Q. Do you regard this.as an ambiguous a 10 statement? '

7 11 A. Ambiguous in the sense-that it stated 12 allowed, okay, and I believe the' word' allowed --

(

\~ 13 this is the fifth paragraph under-a paragraph that .

14 begins with when Mr. Aufdenkampe up some 11 lines. "

15 earlier, is the subject of that sentence.

i 16 To that extended sense,-and when going up 4

t 17 11 lines and finding the subject of the sentence, I 18 would,. in terms of English, would have to'have said  :

19 Mr. Aufdenkampe allowed Mr. Mosbaugh,'okay. And 1

20 when I reconstructed this long sentence in that-21 manner, that aspect is --

may not be correct because 22 Mr. Aufdenkampe may not have accomplished this '

23 through his wife. I don't know whether it would 24 have been or not. I don't know if it was at her  !

25 initiative or through him or whatever.

I i

i 37 ,

V(~N1 But the facts are that I saw a final copy i

2 of the affidavit, and'that the final copy of the i 3 affidavit was provided to me by his wife, and that's 4- what I wanted to immediately state as being the 5 facts.  !

I 4

6 Q. Is the statement accurate as it appears 7 in this document? Is it specifically accurate i

8 that --

)

9 A. When I read it, I was unclear as to the '

10 intent of the word allow; and I don't really 1 11 understand the legalities of allowed with respect to

. - 12 a husband and wife situation; and because of those

13 factors, I called my counsel.

14 Q. Had Mrs. Aufdenkampe indicated to you in

' j 15 any way, shape or form that Mr. Aufdenkampe had  !

16 prompted her showing you a copy of the affidavit or 17 was even aware of it?

4 18 A. I don't know. She didn't specifically 19 say, John told me to show you this. She didn't say

20 that.

21 Q. Did she say anything else which would 22 have led you to believe that he had prompted having 23 her show you the affidavit or was even aware of it?

24 A. I don't know what her exact instructions O

kl 25 or motivation would have been. I believe she said

l l

l <

1 '

38 1 do you want to see it. I'm not sure she said she i

2 wanted to see it. She said it's there, and she got i

3 it for me, to show it to me. l 4 Q. Was there anything in the way in which l

l 5 she showed it to you which led you to believe-that  !

6 Mr. Aufdenkampe'had prompted her to show it to you i

7 or even was aware that she was showing it to you?

8 A. I don't know. I can't answer as to what, I 9 if any,, discussions she had had with Mr. Aufdenkampe  ;

i j 10 about showing it to me.  !

11 MR. BLAKE: Can you repeat the '

- 12 question, please?

l \_) 13 (The record was read by the reporter.)

14 Q. (By Mr. Blake) I'm not asking you  :

15 whether you were aware of past dealings between 16 Mr. and Mrs. Aufdenkampe. I'm asking you whether, 17 in your dealings with Mr. Aufdenkampe, there was

! 18 anything that indicated to you that Mr. Aufdenkampe 19 had prompted this or that he was even aware of it? '

20 Do you understand the difference?

i 21 A. I think I understand the difference, 22 since we reread the question. Her actions and words l 1 23 that she --

you say the manner in which she showed i

it to me. She went and got it and said here's the I t' )24

\/ 25 l l affidavit, okay. '

l l

l

39  :

1 So from the nature of the manner in which ,

2 she got it out of the drawer and handed it to me to 3 read, there isn't very much that I could assume  !

d 4 about why she was doing it, and if John knew.she was'  !

5 doing it, because the manner was fairly limited.

6 Q. It's' fair to say you didn't ask her 7 anything that would have helped you understand that?

8 A. I didn't ask why she was doing.it. .

9 MR. KOHN: I have been patient and 10 allowed this line of questioning, to the 11 extent that you are done with the line of '

12 questioning; but if you are not, I want to 13 object for the record that the entire line '

l l

14 has nothing to do with the diesel generator i

15 issues. And I am frustrated that the l 16 deposition has gone on for an hour and 20 17 minutes or whatever, and I haven't heard .

18 anything that I think is relevant to the 19 issue at hand.

4 J

20 I mean, you must understand, I could 21 ask witzssses about matters contained in 22 Mr. Mosbaugh's petition because they may make 23 a statement ,o show they are incredible; but 24 if the question pertained to one of the 25 issues that did not relate to the factual

f 40

()\-

s 1 bases as they have been defined, I would be i

2 precluded.from asking_that question, even if l

3 it would shed light on the witness' 4 credibility.  ;

i 5 So here I'm faced with asking 6 Mr. Mosbaugh questions.about how he prepared ~ {

7 tapes for his counsel, and a whole host of: '

8 other things that have nothing to do.with the f

9 diesel issue, which is the only portion that 10 we are left with with respect to discovery.  :

11 All the other issues were supposed to'have

, 12 been done in the first,- to the earlier i

- 13 deposition. l 14 So to the effect that you wanted to .

i 15 raise these questions, you were free to do in 16 the other one; and I would not have 17 objected. .

18 Now I am objecting, and basically I 19 allowing you to raise the questions and  ;

i 20 getting your responses, but I want you to

]

21 know on the record that I think it's unfair, l 22 and I think that this line of questioning is 23 prejudicial.

l 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, do you l O 25 think that -- I earlier started to ask you a I

I I l l

J

41

('T

' 1 question, and then he interrupted me, but let me ask 2 that now, if I can. Do.you think that the statement t

3 that appears in this document, specifically, the l 4_ privileges were waived when Mr. Aufdenkampe allowed l 5 Mr. Mosbaugh to physically review a copy of-an l 6 affidavit prepared by GPC's counsel, do you think  ;

7 that is an accurate statement?

8 A. I couldn't possibly state that because I  ;

9 don't have the legal expertise to know anything 10 about privileges being waived.

11 Q. Do you believe that the clause portion of 12 when Mr. Aufdenkampe allowed Mr. Mosbaugh to O

13 physically review a copy of an affidavit prepared by I

14 Gl'C ' s counsel is accurate?

15 A. I have the same problem with that because 16 my lack of understanding of the context'of allowed i 17 with respect to a husband and wife, and that's why I 18 immediately went to my counsel to inquire as to 19 that, and a clarification was immediately issued.

20 Q. Turning to No. 1 in this paragraph, as of 21 today is it accurate, in your view, that 22 Mr. Aufdenkampe advised Mr. Mosbaugh of the 23 existence of the affidavits?

24 A. Absolutely.

25 Q. And what affidavits are you referring to? I 1

.- . -. . . - - - - . . . . . -. ~ . , .. . , - .-

I i

-l i

42 ,

,f

1. A. His-and others'.

'2' -Q. . What others?

l l.

3- A.- Thecother people _that'the lawyers j 4 obtained affidavits from with~respectLtoLthe

.5 ' participation.onithis. phone 7 call.. j 6- Qi . What~are those,--as'farJas you know?- i 7 A. 'I don' t ! understand your : ques tion'.:. >

Lj 8 'Q. What'are those-affidavits,ias far as;you.

9. .know?

10 A. .I still. don.'t understand your_' question.

11 What are those affidavits?L 12 ,Q. Yes.- -

13 A. Mr. Aufdenkampe was asked to prepare =-- l 14 an affidavit was prepared for-Mr. Aufdenkampe,xand 1

15 Mr. Aufdenkampe signed an affidavit _ discussing the '

16 April 19th, 1990 afternoon phone call. .And 17 specifically discussed in that call whether or not 18 diesel issues were discussed in that call and 19 specifically addressed.the participation of 20 Mr. Hairston, and Mr. Hairston's participation or 21 not'in those diesel discussions, and Mr. Aufdenkampe' 22 signed an affidavit to that effect, and l l

23 Mr. Aufdenkampe also advised me that the lawyers l 24 were obtaining affidavits from all of the other 25 participants to that call.

l I

l

. _ . ....L.,..;.-....~..:-;~ - -- --- JL

l l 43

1. Q. Is No. 2 accurate, as far as you know 2 today, that is, where it says advised Mr. Mosbaugh l

I 3 of the factual statements contained in the l

4 affidavit? j 1

5 A. Mr. Aufdenkampe had a discussion with me l 6 about Mr. Hairston's participation, and that he was 7 being asked to prepare an affidavit that discussed-8 Mr. Hairston's participation, and he was, I believe,  ;

i 9 trying to refresh his memory with me as to 10 Mr. Hairston's participation on the' call.

i l 11 And we discussed that, and I discussed 12 some things that Mr. Hairston said on the call with l r

O 13 him. And so, yes, absolutely, he advised me of l

14 the -- and we had a discussion of the factual 15 statements in the affidavit and whether or not ,

l 16 Mr. Hairston was on the call. I 17 Q. The answer is yes?

18 A. Yes.

l 19 Q. And by affidavits there, did you 20 understand that to be referring to more than one l

21 affidavit by Mr. Aufdenkampe, is that how you read 22 that, when you say it's accurate?

23 A. Well, there were drafts along the way.

l

- eg 24 Q. I'm only asking how you read this A- 25 sentence?

i 1

i

l~

! i 44 ,

1 A. The way I read the sentence is that 2 related to Mr. Aufdenkampe's affidavits-or versions. j 3 of Mr. Aufdenkampe's affidavit and not with respect i 4 to the content of the -- well, Mr. Aufdenkampe-5 informed me --

it's generally with respect to )

6 Mr. Aufdenkampe's affidavits or drafts of that.

7 But with respect to'the content of other 8 people's affidavits, myLknowledge of that was, what 9 I got from Mr. Aufdenkampe, was that the lawyers b 10 were seeking affidavits from the other people that 11 would contain their recollections of the 419 call i

12 and those issues. But I generally believe that that  ;

13 applies to Mr. Aufdenkampe's affidavits and drafts 14 thereof, but with the amplification I just gave.

15 Q. With respect to No. 3, the same question, l 16 do you believe that to have been accurate? Do you 17 believe today that that's an accurate statement?

18 A. Yes, I do. Mr. Aufdenkampe told me that 19 he couldn't go along with what was in the original 20 drafts, and he sent them back with corrections.

l 21 MR. KOHN: Actually, I need to consult l l

l 22 with my client. Do you mind if I do it at- 1 i

23 this point?

l 24 MR. BLAKE: Well, you know the rules as l

l 25 well as I do, so it will depend upon, l

45

, 'O l 1 obviously, wnat the consultation entails; but 2 I certainly can't stop you from consulting  !

3 with your client.

4 (A recess was taken.)

5 MR. KOHN: It'is intervenor's concern i, l 6 that the last line of questioning directly l 7 pertains to the firstfBoard notification, if l 8 I might be. referring to it. correctly, which 9 resulted in much consultation previously f

10 between intervenor's counsel: and counsel for i 11 licensee. And-the fact that a substantial.

7;, 12 portion of questioning was asked'thatL Y 13 directly pertains to the factur.1 basis of-the ,

i 14 issues contained in the first Board '

15 notification is troubling because it seems to ,

16 go into issues that intervenor has not made l 17 an issue to this. proceeding to date.

I i 18 And the second concern is it indicates I i

19 to intervenor that licensee has waived their j 20 right to contest whether the'first Board 21 notification is within the factual' basis by 22 engaging in discovery on the matter. And the.

l 23 fact that it is now close to, I think it's l 24 over an hour and a half, and we have not had  !

f' 25 one question with respect to diesel 1

1 i

,)

)

46 j

^

1

~

generators yet, it'is further troubling; and' 2 it-is my understanding that-we were here to 3 ' discuss diesel generator issues. 1 l

4 Intervenor is not^sure now that facts l 5 related to.the first Board notification.have-l 6 beenspursued.by licensee, whether they-care {

1 7 to engage in discovery on that matter as-8 well, and-I have attempted ~to make. licensee's l 9 counsel,well aware of the scope'and limit.of-10 thisl deposition.

11 And'I_have' requested that,the portion-12 I

., of the questioning up until_this point be i i

13 transcribed in a separate document because I 14 believe the questioning was outside the scope 15 of this phase II discovery. And I am 16 . requesting that the licensee move on to 1

17 material that is directly or indirectly 18 pertains to the diesel generator issues at 19 this time.

i 20 MR. BLAKE: Let me reply, but quite 21 briefly. I am not going to try to respond to 22 everything that Mr. Kohn has said; but I do-l 23 want to observe that in the course of the

- 24 break where Mr. Kohn had said already much 25 that he has put on the record and more, I

l l

$ 47 )

' () 1 told him we were moving on to a new topic; 2 'and as far as I know, there is no current  !

3 objection to a question pending'or line.to'be 4 pursued.

l 5 I want to express at least some i 6 disappointment that my desire to try to 4

7 understand what Mr. Mosbaugh views.as i

8 constituting lying is'not viewed as being >

9 within the' scope of this proceeding or that 10 questions about the affidavit by i

11 Mr. Aufdenkampe is also not within this 12 proceeding. And I earlier described to 13 Mr. Kohn on the record the purpose of what.my f 14 questioning is.  ;

15 So I would like now to move on with  :

I 16 regard to whether or not this.is a new j 17 transcript at this point on, or we understand 18 at this point in the transcript and the 19 earlier segment is to be regarded as 20 differently may be the subject of future.

21 motions by Mr. Kohn. It doesn't really I 22 matter to me whether or not the court 23 reporter puts it in two binders or in one. I es 24 think we both understand the demarcation point.

25

i 48 ,

i A

-k -) 1- MR. BART: I would'like to'make a.

2 statement in this regard on behalf;of'the '

1 3 staff to.this deposition. Mr. Kohn has l 4 raised the problem of-Board: notification 9407 q

.5 which was released 3-24-94, whether~thatLwas f l

6 within the' scope of proper. discovery _here.

7 Mr. Kohn takes the position 1that7 1t[is j 8 not, and I agree with Mr. Kohn that'it Jis i 9 not. That Board notification is.in-regard'to.  ;

10 alleged attorney wrongdoing. .

11 However, the questions so.far have j  !

12 related to the affidavit seen in  !

I 13 Mr. Aufdenkampe's residence by Mr. Mosbaugh.  !

14 This was a topic that was extensively l 15 discussed of applicant's witness,  !

16 Mr. Aufdenkampe, by Mr. Kohn. I think that 17 that is within your scope. Any kind of l

18 allegation of wrongdoing'is not. I think l 19 that is a line which is not too. difficult to 20 draw. That is our position.

l 21 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Okay' , Mr. Mosbaugh,-I 'I

\

22 want to provide you with a set of documents, and 23- counsel can look at them first. This is April. The 24 documents are entitled GPC's Proposed Stipulations 1 25 Concerning Alleged GPC False Statements To NRC j i

l

49

-s i 1 Related To The Diesel Generators. It's a document 2 comprised of some 38 pages. And'with that 38-page 3 document, I have provided you a stack of additional 4 documents which have tabs in them indicating that l

l 5 they are Exhibits 1 through 28. And I represent to  ;.

6 you that those exhibit numbers are referred to in-7 the stipulations. l

't 8 You have seen this document before, j i

9 including the exhibits?  !

10 MR. KOHN: Mr. Mosbaugh'is fighting l 11 with the exhibits here. Mr.-Lamberski had' l ga 12 previously asked, I believe, with these, that I 13 Mr. Mosbaugh submit a verification on some l

14 matters.

15 Since we have been in Georgia, I have l

t 16 not had the opportunity to do that; but if '

l 17 you would like, we could have one prepared  !

! I i 18 and signed. I didn't mean to not get to that l 19 before this deposition.

20 MR. BLAKE: We have received a document j l

21 that responds to our request. It had no I i

22 affidavit attached to it, and it's my j 23 intention today, in order to understand

, 24 Mr. Mosbaugh's position on these items,- to go l

25 through them and ask him for his position on l I

_A

b L

' 50  :

L /~'\ - i i these.

2 MR. KOHN: I have no objection to '

3 that. I just wanted to offer.you.the l

4 opportunity to get that before youlwent on l 5

5 with these questions.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 Q. (By Mr. Blake). Yes, you have seen this 8 document and the attachments _'previously; is that the  ;

9 yes?

10 A. I was answering.your question.

! 11 Q. Is that the yes?

12 A. Yes.

L 13 MR. BLAKE: Can we mark this set of

'14 documents which are, as I've described them, 15 as --

16 (Mosbaugh DG Exhibit 1 was marked for 17 identification.)

18 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Okay, Mr. Mosbaugh, I  !

19 want you to take a look at the-stipulation in this 20 document. It appears on page 1, and it'is numbered l 21 No. 1.

l 22 A. Can I ask you to do something?

23 Q. You can ask.

l 24 A. Would you pronounce my name correctly?

5-- 25 Q. What is the correct pronunciation?

- _ . - . ,,,.m.-...w. , ---r-,, , , - . - ,

i l

~51-

' ]

([) l' A. Mosbaugh.-

l l

2 Q. I'will tryfto.

3 A. Thank you. ]

1 4 Q. What.'I need you to do, Mr.-Mosbaugh', is '  !

5 to read No. 1 into the: record, ifiyou would, out- }

, l 6 loud. 1 i

7 A' . (Witnessicomplies with' request of 1 8 counsel'.)

i 9 Q. Did'you hear the question,7 Mr.~Mosbaugh? :l 10 A.- I think you asked:me.to read No. 1.

-l 11 -Q. Aloud, into the' record.- . I A. Oh, I didn't understand-it wase-to be ~ j O 12 13 aloud.

l I

14 In March and April, 1990, the> relevant' '

]

15 Plant Vogtle on site and off site organization was -l t

16 depicted as on Exhibit 1, attached hereto. In:May, i 17 1990, Mr. Tom Greene returned from the 18 Manager-in-Training program 1to assume his previously 19 held position of Assistant General Manager, Plant:

20 Support. Mr. Mosbaugh, who was acting Assistant-21 General. Manager, Plant Support, in Mr. Greene's-22 absence, reported directly to Mr. Bockhold upon i

23 Mr. Greene's return.

24 Q. Taking the first sentence, do!you. agree 25 or disagree with that sentence?

l l

l

. - . . . . , - , _ - . . -_-, .a_.-- .- - - a i

52

~

1 A. I believe I disagree with'that sentence 2 because this Exhibit 1 that supports this sentence, 3 which is the plant organization chart, does not '

4 contain all of the relevant on site and off-site 5 organization, and especially that organization as it 6 relates to the diesel generator issues.

7 Q. Do you have any objection to" Exhibit 1

, 8 and the accuracy of that sentence in the proposed ,

9 stipulation, insofar as it_goes? That 4. s , do you -'

10 have any disagreement with the accuracy of l 11 Exhibit 1?

gg 12 MR. KOHN: As I understand the V 13 question, you are not asking him whether he 14 has a legal objection, but rather 15 Mr. Mosbaugh has personal objection or .

16 factual objection?

17 MR. BLAKE: That's right. j 18 MR. KOHN: And as I understand it, the i'

19 entire line of questioning will be in that 20 order, you are not asking Mr. Mosbaugh to 21 explain any legal objections or legal 22 argument?

23 MR. BLAKE: I'm sure you will point out 24 for me if you think I am asking him for a O 25 legal objection, but I ought not to be. l l

1 l l l

l 53 j r ,

(

l l

(~))

%_ l' MR. KOHN: Well, to the. extent that i l

1 l

2 there has been a legal response' filed, I am 3 requesting a standing objection as to the 3 4 legal response filed-contains a legal' 5 objection, and you are asking Mr. Mosbaugh 6 for his opinions at this point. Can we have 7 a standing objection to that?

8 MR. BLAKE: I don't know what it means.

9 to, can,we have a standing objection, but  ;

1 10 clearly what I am asking him is the extent to 11 which he agrees,1 based on his knowledge,,with 7s 12 each of these statements, starting with this.

13 one.

l 14 MR. KOHN: That would be outside his l I l 15 counsel's knowledge. l l 16 MR. BLAKE: I don't even know the l

17 answer to that.

l 18 THE WITNESS: Well, when I scrutinize 19 this exhibit even further, I note that I'm 20 not sure that Mr. Webb is an engineer, as i

21 depicted here. I think he may be a 22 regulatory, may have been, or I recall his 23 title being a regulatory specialist.

24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Any other problems with l 25 this chart?

l

__.-._--_m_-u v g--- -

7

54 i \

# 1 A. There is some incompleteness. Mr. Odom, l 2 I think, is an inside supervisor. Based on my 3 recollection of the organization in April, 1990, and i >

l 4 with the omissions and dashed lines on this, other 5 than that, it appears to be generally representing a 6 portion of the corporate Vogtle organization.

7 Q. What's the portion that's omitted, 8 insofar as the title is called, GPC Plant Vogtle 9 Organization?

l 10 A. There is dashed lines here, little 11 zigzags, indicating that a portion is omitted; and, l

7s 12 obviously, there is major segments omitted in terms lf

\

'- 13 of it being relevant.

14 Q. Well, give me an example of that? i i

15 A. Well, Mr. Kochery isn't on here, and Mr.

16 Stokes isn't on here. Mr. Horton isn't on here.

17 Those are definite examples of people that have 18 diesel responsibilities. Maintenance personnel that 19 are involved in diesels aren't on here. The 20 eritique team leader, Mr. Holmes, isn't on here.

21 Q. This document appears correct with the 22 obvious omissions by the dashed lines, as you've 23 referred to them, other than potentially or possibly

_ 24 the title for Mr. Odom and the title of Mr. Webb?

kl 25 A. And what it doesn't show, which I have

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

-~q

.l

]

55 i

O~ il just'-- .,

l 2 Q. Which is. indicated by -- '

3 A. Well,, and'I,gave some examples'of the- i I

4 entire lines of management that it;doesn't show.- l 5 Q. Which would appear, if-fwe provided more

)

6- detail'and a complete organization, in the-places. l 7 where the. omissions are indicated?  !

i 8 A. No, not'at all..

9 Q. Different places?

I 10 A. You would have to come.off"of'the line 11 right here, off under me, and go up over'to a-whole; 1 12 other line of management, .to Mr.. Horton, to O 13 Mr. Kochery, to Mr. Stokes, to get~the diesel.

14 organization.

15 And you would have'to come'off with a 16 whole line of management underneath me, between me 17 and Mr. Aufdenkampe that line would come:off,..to go 18 to Mr. Holmes, who was the critique team: leader.

19 And off Mr. Kitchens, before the dashed 20 line down to Mr. Cash, you would have to come off 21 with a line that would go. to Mr.oHarvey Handfinger,.

22 and then it would go down to Mr. Charles.Corsey and 23 to Mike Hobbs, to instrument. technicians.that took 24 dew point. measurements, and to Mr. Corsey, who was a j 25 critique' team member; and I could go on and on. j

_ _ __ d

l l

a )

, 56 I

(~)

i 1 .Q. Have you added the principal' names to it j 2 that you think would be important here? l >

3 A. That would not be complete.-

l 4 Q. No, but have you added principal?

i 5 A. Those are some of the significant 6 examples.

7 Q. Turning to the-second sentence, do you j 8 agree or disagree with that sentence?

9 A. My best recollection is that'Mr. Greene  ;

10 returned in the late April time frame and approached 11 me to assume the position of Assistant General 4

12 Manager, Plant Support.

13 Q. If that sentence read, in late April, i 14 1990, Mr. Tom Greene returned from the s 15 Manager-in-Training program to assume his prev'ously 16 held position of Assistant General Manager, Plant ,

17 Support, would you agree with it?

18 A. I'm trying to remember, an organizational 19 change was made to establish the titles Assistant 20 General Manager, as opposed to Plant Support 1 4

21 Manager, which was the earlier title. That j 22 immediately preceded Assistant General Manager. I 23 I assume that, from my recollection, that i' 24 the Assistant General Manager title was in effect i

25 before I took over that position in an acting l

M

.- .=. -

+

l i

57 i

/~T i 1 (_) 1 1 capacity. With thatiassumption, that, I ~believe, is i

t 2 his previously held position; so I think with that i 3 uncertainty in my mind, I think that is correct.  !

4 Q. Turn to the third-sentence,1do you agree J

j 5 or disagree?

, 6 A. No, this is one that as explicitly stated i i .;

7 or only looking'at.what's stated, I believe that's; j I

8 correct; but icodoesn't state the entfre context of I

9 . what happened.

l 10 Q. Read into-the recor'd and out' loud,lif you '

i i

11 would, stipulation No. 2. i 4 i;

) + 12 A. The current Plant Vogtle.line manag.ement j

^ %_) 13 reporting relationships are as follows: The' Plant

(

t 6

14 Vogtle General Manager, Barnie Beasley, reports i i

1 15 directly to the GPC Vice President, Nuclear, Plant 16 Vogtle, C. Kenneth McCoy, who reports to the GPC i

l 17 Senior Vice President, Jackie D. Woodard, who

i 18 reports to the Executive Vice President, W. George i

j 19 Hairston, III, who reports to the GPC President, 20 Allen H. Franklin. Mr. R.P. Mcdonald is retired 21 from The Southern Company. Mr. George Bockhold 3 22 holds the position of General Manager, Nuclear 23 Technical Services, in the Southern Nuclear 24 corporate organization; and Mr. John Aufdenkampe is 25 now employed by Southern Company Services, l

l l

l

.l

.i 58 -

(~h $

1. Incorporated. I 2- Q. With respect 1to the'first sentence, do -

3 you agree or disagree?  !

4 A. I don't believe.I.have' complete -- since f

5 I'am not employed within the Southern 1 system. l 6 anymore,.I don't have firsthand knowledge'of all a 7 these reports and these people and these titles. '

8- Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with 9 that statement, any basis? I 10 A. I continue to wonder about the reporting l 11 relationship up the Southern-Nuclear-chain to the l

12 president of the company.- That's an aspect of-the-  ;

13 'first portion of this hearing and isn't related to 14 diesel generators.

l 15 Q. And would that wonderment Apply-to' [

16 whether or not W. George Hairston, III, reports-to  :

?

17 GPC president Allen H. Franklin, is that what you 6 i

18 mean? ,

i 19 A. Yes. And the relationship, perhaps, to j 20 Mr. Dolberg as.well; and those are parts of the 21 first part of this contention, anyway.

l 22 Q. Turning to the second sentence, do you 23 agree or disagree?

24 A. I don't have firsthand knowledge of all 25' these people and their titles and their reporting ,

4

} I f 59 .

1 relationship, since I no longer work for the

2 Southern Company. .j 2

I j 3 Q. Do you have;any reason to disagree with  !

4 that sentence or any portion of it?

i 5 A. Well, I have' learned more since we have 6 been proceeding with these depositions, as we've i

7 talked to the different people and get'what their  !

1 8 current positions and their titles are, and I have 9 noted that a. lot of them have changed from what I ,

I 10 remember. I have. heard that Mr. Beasley is the j 11 current general manager.  ;

a f 12 Q. I'm sorry, we were focused in the second 3 j i l 13 sentence now. '

f 14 A. Oh, starting with Mr. Mcdonald is 15 retired. I have heard that, that he is retired. We e 16 haven't deposed him yet. When we did Mr. Bockhold, l i

17 I believe he stated his title. I believe that is 18 the title he stated when we deposed him yesterday.

19 And I'm not sure if Mr. Aufdenkampe is in Southern

. 20 Company Services. I thought he was in Southern 21 Nuclear, but he may have moved to Southern Company 22 Services.

23 Like I say, because I am not - we 24 haven't completed the depositions, you know, my 1

25 knowledge of these positions and titles is related i

l l

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

1 i

l l  !

60 j

(~ l

' -1 to what I get through very indirect sources-and from  !

t

! I 2 the depositions we have taken.  !

3_ Q. Do you have a reason to question whether ~ l l

4 or not Mr. R. P. Mcdonald is retired from1the f

5 Southern Company? I see you are smiling,-but I-l 6 don't understand the basis for your smile.  !

. . I 7 A. My understanding ~is .that he,.I think, is t .

8 not holding a position; but I know that-people in-l-

t 9 his capacity usually hire back on as a' consultant.  :

4 t

10 That's not unusual to do, and I don't know if those 11 relationships exist.

12 My understanding is that Mr. Mcdonald

- 13 currently has something to do with the CEO of the >

14 Advanced Reactor Corporation, but I don't know all  !

15 of his ties back to Southern because Southern is  !

16 k

, working on Advanced Reactor projects as well. And  !

17 Mr. Bockhold stated yesterday that he has monthly 1

18 dealings with Mr. Mcdonald. i

\

19 But with those limitations and not having l

20 firsthand knowledge of all those relationships, I 21 think it's basically correct.

a 22 Q. Hire back on, you meant after they 23 retire, they hire back on as a consultant?

A. Yes.

p) k- 25 24 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 1

l 1

- _ _ i'

l i

61 .

1 Mr. R.P. Mcdonald is not retired from the Southern i 2 Company?

3 A. In a sense of not holding his previous 4 position, which I think was Executive Vice  ;

5 President, Southern Nuclear, I don't believe  ;

i 6 Mr. Mcdonald holds the position of Executive Vice ,

7 President of Southern Nuclear anymore.

8 MR. KOHN: I would also like to note 9 for the. record that I don't believe  :

10 Mr. Mcdonald was employed by the Southern 11 Company, i Q. (By Mr. Blake) Would you'like to adopt )

0 12 13 your counsel's suggestion as your answer as well?.

l 1

14 A. I will say again, I do not have firsthand 15 knowledge of these things. We have not deposed 16 Mr. Mcdonald. We will be doing that next week, and 17 I'm sure we will have an opportunity to hear from-18 him exactly what his positions are now. I view the 19 Southern Company as a --

it's a utility holding  !

20 company.

21 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, this is going.to be a long 22 deposition in any event, but it can be a little bit.

23 longer or a little bit shorter, depending upon our

,-24 ability, simply, to communicate in everyday, normal, V 25 agreeable terms. Do you recall having seen in the-

62

~' 1 course of this proceeding a Board notification made 2 by the licensee that indicated that Mr. Mcdonald had 3 retired from his position in the company?

4 MR. KOHN: Which company?

5 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Any company?

6 A. I can't recall that I saw a Board 7 notification that stated that or not.

8 Q. Do you receive from your counsel copies 9 of the pleadings and various documents which are 10 filed in this proceeding?

11 A. Generally, yes.

7s 12 Q. Not all, that you know of?

13 A. I don't know if I receive them all or how 14 close to the time they are filed that I receive 15 them. Obviously, when I have an opportunity to meet 16 firsthand with my counsel, he may bring some things 17 with him that have been filed and show them to me.

18 Q. Have you requested that you receive 19 copies of all the pleadings and documents which are l l

20 filed in this proceeding? '

21 MR. KOHN: Objection, calls for 22 attorney / client communication. Instruct him  ;

23 not to answer. l

,_ 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Would you like to receive

\- 25 copies of all the pleadings and all the filings that

/ Tg-63 (m

1 take place in this proceeding?

2 A. I would like to have access to them.

3 Q. Do you expect tc receive them?

l 4 A. I would like to.have access to them..

]

5 It's hard-to keep up with the volume of this, as 6 well as, you know, in the course of trying to 7 prepare for all the things that I'm involved with in

, 8 this case, and the things that I'm doing for my 9 counsel, as well as things that I have to do for my 10 family, it becomes difficult, given the volume of 11 everything. I don't.have a whole firm of people 12 working for me.

13 Q. Is today the first notion that you had 14 had that Mr. Mcdonald might have retired from the 15 Southern Company or any one of its subsidiaries?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You had heard this before?

18 A. I had heard --

I have already said that, 19 okay, that I had heard that Mr. Mcdonald had 20 retired; and I understand that Mr. Mcdonald is now a 21 CEO of an Advanced Reactor Consortium; and that 22 apparently, from Mr. Bockhold's testimony, he 23 continues to have a relationship with respect to gg 24 Advanced Reactors with Southern Company. And I also V 25 have past knowledge that very frequently the

i L ,

1 ,

l 64 .

~

%(-))1-executives of'the Southern-Company, when they.

2 ~ retire, become consultants to.the company.

3 Q.- Is that somehow nullifying their l

l l

4. retirement and the ' fact of whether'or nototheyiare.,

j

-5 in your. view?

~

l.

L 6 A. In a sense, certainly. I m e a n ,.: y o u ' k n o w ,.

l 7 if he.is retired, he is not working.for the. company l i 8 anymore; but if he is retained-as a consultant ! to '

l. I L 9 the company, then he still has a working i .

L 10 . relationship with the company. And I'menot sure how. '

11 black.and white those lines tend to be, especially.

~ 12 when you get to the executive level.-

13 Q. When you heard that Mr.. Mcdonald had 14 retired, did you have any reason to question that?

15 e A. My recollection about' Mcdonald's retiring l

j 16 was sometime that --

I guess'I'm not sure I heard l

! I 17 that he had retired from the Southern' Company, but 18 what I heard was that he was now the CEO of the

! 19 Advanced Reactor Consortium.

20 Q. So earlier when I asked you whether or l l

21 not you had heard that Mr. Mcdonald had retired, you 22 were incorrect when you said yes, you really had.

l 23 only heard that he had become the chairman of a 24 different entity?

25 A. No, no, because that's not the I

l l

65

.O l testimony. I have heard that he retired. What I i

2 first heard was that he was the CEO of the Advanced j 3 Reactor Consortium, and I didn't specifically know l i i 4 whether he was doing that at the same time or not. i t

5 And I have subsequently, and my recollection is,  ;

l

6 that I have, at sometime, and I believe it was in  !

1 4

7 1993, or thereabouts, heard that he had retired. l i

I 8 Again, you know, I'm not trying to pick a  :

9 point; but it seems that you are trying to pick a i l 10 point with respect to specific verbiage here about l 1

l 11 retired; and I'm telling you what my understanding l i

a s 12 of Mr. Mcdonald's position at this time may be; and 13 that io what I have stated.  !

4 14 Q. Focusing on paragraph 3, it has three  ;

l 15 sentences. Do you agree or disagree with the first i 16 sentence?

17 A. I believe the first sentence is basically  ;

4 18 correct, and a series of events happened after that, s

19 but that, I believe, is basically correct. j 20 Q. So you agree? -

21 A. I believe the first sentence is basically 22 correct.

23 Q. So you agree?

24 A. Well, the reason why I am hesitating is 25 off-site power was lost to Unit 2 --

no, excuse me,

I L 66  !

1 I agree.

l 2 Q. The second sentence, do you agree or I

3 disagree? I 4 A. I disagree with.the second' sentence.

5 Q. And the basis for your disagreement? {

6 A. The diesel generator did not fail to 7 The diesel generator did start.

~

start. It ran for j 8 80 seconds and then tripped. And with respect to i

9 the verbiage start twice, it did not fail to start  ;

l I l 10 on the second time, either. It started,.and it' ,

11 ran. The engine came.up to speed, and then it  !

f- 12 tripped after 70 seconds.

k_) 13 Q. With those corrections, would you --  :

t 14 A. I disagree. It can't say failed to 15 start.

l L 16 Q. With those corrections or modifications l

17 to the sentence, you would agree with it?

18 A. I agree with what I stated. ,

19 Q. The third sentence?  !

20 A. Generally, I would say I agree with the ,

i 21 third sentence. l 22 Q. I think I earlier misspoke and 23 characterized this paragraph No. 3 as.having just

- 24 three sentences, and I was obviously wrong, there 25 are four sentences. But you agree with the third? I r

l

___ _ - ..f.

67 1 A. I read them together as well. I-believe 1

2 that's correct.

3 Q. So you agree with the third and fourth 4 sentences in paragraph No. 3?  :

5 A. I believe the fourth sentence is correct.  :

6 -Q. And you earlier agreed with the third?

7 A. Yes. i 8 Q. Turning to paragraph No. 4, do.you agree  !

9 or disagree with that paragraph, that" sentence? j 10 A. I recall the NRC coming in earlier than f i

11 March 22nd. I believe the NRC people came on 12 the 20th. I believe Mr. Brockman came on the.20th.

13 I believe we had a meeting with Mr. Brockman on 14 the 20th.  :

i 15 Q. So would you agree with that, if the 16 change were made so that it read, in part, Mr. Ken ,

17 Brockman, from Region II, on March 20, 1990, and 18 Rick Kendall, from NRC headquarters, arrived at l 1

19 Plant Vogtle on March 22, 1990?

20 A. I don't know when Mr. Kendall arrived. ,

i 21 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that l 22 Mr. Kendall didn't arrive on March 22nd?  !

23 A. I don't recall when he arrived, so I have  :

\

24 no reason to believe that he arrived on the 22nd or 25 not on the 22nd. ,

i

)

68 s

'/ Looking at paragraph No.

i 1 Q. 5, at the bottom 2 of the first page of this document --

3 A. (Witness complies with request of 4 counsel.)

5 Q. --

do you agree or disagree with that?

6 A. I believe I agree with that sentence, 7 No. 5.

8 Q. Turning to the second page of this 9 document, paragraph No. 6 at the top, it has several l 10 sentences. Let's start with just the first 11 sentence, do you agree or disagree?

,-) 12 A. I can't recall' specifically when the

'^

~

13 transition between the AIT and the Incident 14 Inspection Team occurred.

15 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with 16 the sentence?

17 A. Other than that I don't know if it 18 happened on March 25th or the 26th.

19 Q. But you have no reason particularly to 20 disagree with it or challenge it?  !

l l 21 A. I don't know if it was on a different )

22 date.

1 23 Q. Second sentence?

I 24 A. I believe that sentence is correct.

25 Q. Third sentence?

I 1 l i

69 j (D

',/ l 1 A. I'm not sure about whether Mr. Brockman )

2 not being an IIT team leader ever --

I don't know if  !

3 he was the point of contact. That would be a NRC I 4 designation I wouldn't be aware of.

5 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Brockman was an ,

6 IIT member?

7 A. I don't believe Mr. Brockman was an IIT 8 team member.

9 Q. So it's the second aspect of that 10 sentence which gives you some pause, and you simply

• 11 don't know whether he might have been a point of

,A 12 contact or not for the IIT?

\

)13 A. My understanding of this document --

and 14 let me make sure we are communicating about this --

15 is that this is being asked for as, the legal term, 16 I think it was initially stipulations, but I think 17 was admissions, which means that I know these as a 18 fact; and so if I don't know it is a fact, then it 19 wouldn't be something I could state it was true as a 20 fact.

21 I don't know if he's --

I wouldn't be 22 privileged to the NRC agreements that he would be a 23 point of contact, the person between the region and

,_ 24 the IIT team, I wouldn't know that.

/ \

25 Q. I think what you've just stated is, in

70 1 essence, what your counsel observed at the outset of 2 this with regard to legal nomenclature and whether 3 or not these are admissions or whether or not these 4 are stipulations or anything of the sort. I'm 5 asking you today, we are going through factually 6 with these statements, and I'm asking for your 7 knowledge and your ability to agree or disagree?

8 A. I will answer your questions, then, as 9 stated.

10 Q. And with respect to this sentence, do you 11 have any reason to challenge it or disagree with the

,3 12 statement as written, the third sentence in i 4 k/ 13 paragraph No. 6?

14 A. I don't know that he was not the point of 15 contact.

16 Q. Do you have any reason to challenge 17 whether he was the point of contact?

18 MR. KOHN: I think the witness answered 19 that. He said he doesn't know. That's as 20 much of a challenge as he has. There is no 21 sense beating a dead horse.

22 MR. BLAKE: I think I can ask him 23 whether or not he knows or doesn't know, and

_ 24 I can ask him whether or not he has a basis

\/ 25 to challenge it, and I think those are two

71

,~

> 1 separate questions, and.I would like an 2 answer to my question.

3 THE WITNESS: I don't know that he 4 wasn't; and therefore, I don't have a 5 specific basis to challenge it. ,

6 Q. (By Mr. Blake) With respect to the 7 fourth sentence?

8 A. I believe that Mr. Chaffee was the IIT  ;

9 team leader.

10 Q. So you agree?

11 A. Yes. '

r Q. Paragraph 7, it has 3 subparts, A, B i7 ,) 12

13 and C, so let's take the lead-in with just A, for 14 the moment.

15 A. I would disagree with all of them. i 16 Q. All of them being , B and-C?

17 A. Especially since there is a colon after 18 the lead-in sentence. I assume that the colon )

19 applies to A, B and C7 I l

20 Q. Yes, I make the same assumption looking 21 at the sentence. What is the basis for your 22 disagreement?

23 A. The problem that's identified under A, B 24 and C occurred after the diesel came out of the I-s's '

\ -

25 maintenance overhaul.

L

i i

72.

't

1. Q. What was-the date you believe the diesel 2 came out of the maintenance overhaul?

l 3 A. I believe it's start number -I believe f 4 that by start No. 124 for emergency diesel generator 5 1B, that the diesel was out of overhaul. '

6 Q. If, in paragraph numbered 7, if.we were  ;

7 to delete the first clause or. phrase'that ~ you have 8 just been referring to so that the sentence-were to >

9 begin, the 1B diesel, rather than in the process of, 10 do you understand the change that I mean to make to s l 11 the sentence?  !

/'T 12 A. Would you read the sentence as you've f 13 reconfigured it. '

t i

14 Q. I would mean to delete in the process of 15 coming out of maintenance overhaul, comma, and begin  ;

i 16 the sentence with the 1B diesel.. Would you agree or j

, 17 disagree?

l 18 A. I would still disagree because of two 19 reasons. The phrase used is the 1B diesel 20 experienced post-maintenance difficulties, and I l 21 believe the inclusion of the phrase post-maintenance 22 still tends to imply that these are occurring as 23 part of post-maintenance activities and pre return 24 to service.

25' Secondly, I believe that since the l l

4 73

( )

i sentence says the problems associated with Calcon 2 sensors, with respect to paragraph C, I believe the 3 problem experienced on paragraph C was related to i l

4 problems in the control logic board, and possibly I 5 with P-3.

6 Q. If the sentence were to read the 1B 7 diesel experienced difficulties, including the 8 following problems associated with Calcon sensors, 9 and just had.A and B, you would agree with it?

10 A. There is still a problem of clarity with 11 that because the phrase problems associated with g s 12 Calcon sensors, to me, tends to ascribe that the

\'~Y 13 root cause of the problem is only the sensor. I 14 believe that for a number A, I believe the most 15 direct --

I believe that's correct for number A. j l

16 For number B, I am not sure that the  !

17 problem can be ascribed to as being limited to the 18 sensor, and so I still have a little problem with ,

19 that lead-in sentence because it is tending to )

20 assign a root cause.

21 I believe the information about these 22 sentences state what happened. B, for example, 23 states the date. It states the annunciation that

,ey 24 came in. When it came in, though, I'm not sure that

' 25 it came in after three minutes. My recollection of a

74 (D

V 1 the logs is it was less than three minutes. I think 2 this section needs additional technical review based 3 on a number of things that I've. identified.

4 Q. Is it your view that the problem 5 identified in 7-B was not associated with the Calcon 6 sensor?

7 A. I believe there are other problems, yes, 8 in B and C that are not associated with the Calcon 9 sensor.

10 Q. And that Calcon sensor did not play a 11 role in the following?

r~s, 12 A. There can be more than one problem 13 causing and possibly interaction.

14 Q. So is it your view that --

15 A. It's not limited. It's my view that it 16 may not be limited to the Calcon sensor.

17 Q. It's your view the Calcon sensor may have i

18 caused the problem, but it may not be limited to the i 19 Calcon sensor?

20 A. On B I am inclined to think that the 21 initial cause was not the Calcon sensor. There was 22 Calcon sensor alarm annunciation; but as far as the 23 root cause on B, I don't believe it was the Calcon fs 24 sensor. And that's something I can't be absolutely

(

\- 25 sure of, as to the root cause. I don't believe that

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

l 1

75 O 1 .a root cause analysis was ever completed for this i

2 trip, and perhaps with any of A, B or C. To my l t

3 knowledge, Georgia Power did not complete a root' j l

l 4 cause analysis for these trips. )

5 Q. Did you?

6. A. I didn't at Georgia Power. I have.beenL I

7. reviewing the documentation I have'for these  !

i 8 failures, and since I'have been at Georgia Power.

! 9 Q. And'have you completed a root cause-

\

10 analysis for each of these three identified '

i 11 problems? l 12 A. No, I have not completed afroot cause 13 analysis for these problems.

i 14 Q. Do you have one underway? )

15 A. I am reviewing these analyses for a root >

)

16 cause. Being an individual, I don't have' formal l 17 things like root cause analysis; but I am assessing.

18 these failures for their root cause..

19 Q. When do you think you will'have that 20 analysis complete?

21 A. After we get all of the discovery 22 information and I have enough time to review it 23 all.

24 MR. BLAKE: Counsel, to the extent he i i

\

25 completes an analysis or his work and it

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

t 76

! (~T i

\._) -

1 requires supplementation of any discovery i 2 requests that we've'previously made, would

]:

3 -you ensure that that supplementation _is;done,

~

4 and that we receive it?

5 MR. KOHN: To the extent that any.

6 document will be relied on in intervenor's f 7 case and achieved, we will provide it at that i 8 time. To the extent the documents in

• 9 progress are the work product.between i

10 attorney and client in preparation for the i 11 proceeding, I think we would object then to j s 12 attorney / client communications and attorney  :

l 13 work product privilege.

14 And I also note for the record that l 15 licensee has objected to being required to do  :

16 root cause analysis at intervenor's request 17 in interrogatory questions, so I think your 18 request to provide root cause analysis on the 19 basis of deposition questions is a little 4 20 contradictory.

21 MR. BLAKE: It's early in the day for 22 such a mismatch of arguments. It's not even )

23 close to the same situation. I may get to i

2{ some of those later on, but I would have )

2 5 expected them later on and not so earlier.

l l

l

[

77 I

/~T }

's_/  !

11 MR. KOHN: Maybe I misinterpreted,'but .;

2 I thought we had asked for some interrogatory  !

3. response, and you objected that it'would t I

4 -require Georgia Power to conduct further root 5 cause analysis. And to the extent intervenor 6 and counsel work on root cause analysis and i 7 have working documentation in preparation for f

8 this proceeding, I think that constitutes i

l 9 attorney / client communications and work i i

10 product documents. To the extent.we intend [

11 to develop. evidentiary material, we will  ;

g g 12 submit that.

l

'~'

13 Were you looking for more than that?

I  !

j 14 MR. BLAKE: I am just reminding'and 1 i

15 asking whether or not you would have any. ,

16 problem with abiding by the Commission's '

1 17 regulations with regard to the 18 supplementation of responses to the extent he 19 is working on an analysis which I hadn't 20 heard about previously. When he completes 21 it, I would like a copy, if, in fact, you 22 think you are obligated to under the 23 Commission's rules.

L 24 MR. KOHN: I am not aware of whether l'

25 there is an outstanding --

l l

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

l 78  !

C) 1-MR. BLAKE: And I'm not asking you to_

l i

2 do~the analysis,.that's the difference.

t 3 MR..KOHN: If youfare aware-of a:

i 4 document' request that would cover that' l 5 particular-document, off the top;of.my head, j 6 I'am not. aware of o n e .. There has been a: lot  ;

)

'7 of~ filings over many years. -I.might'be -

i 8 mistaken. But off theLtop'of my. head, Ilam 9 not aware of one. So to the' extent'you can {

o .)

10 clue me in at any' point,--I will_.certainly get  ;

11 to it as soon as I can;,but right now I',m not: l aware of o n e .- I wil'1 review.the' .j O 12 13 interrogatory request and supplement'.

]

l 14 MR. BLAKE: Even if-I didn't clue youi  !

l 15 in? I 16 MR. KOHN: That's correct. But if you  !

i I

17 clued me in quickly, I would'get to it  :

18 sooner, if you needed it right-away. j

( )

j l

19 THE WITNESS: May I say something about l 20 my root cause analysis?

I l 21 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Sure. l 1

22 A. Since it seems to be relevant. To~the l 23 extent that I have developed that already and my l 24 thoughts in that area, they are not complete. I had

) 25 written that up and provided that to the'NRC, and I

.-_--_,_.I

I 1

79 (x

! )

\/ 1 believe at this time you may have it as well. ]

2 Q. And in the future, to the extent you l

3 provide additional analysis of that type to the NRC, l

4 would you be willing to provide it to us?

5 MR. KOHN: You are asking his counsel?

6 MR. BLAKE: No, I was asking him.

7 MR. KOHN: Calls for a legal conclusion 8 whether it requires --

l l 9 MR. BLAKE: Whether he would be willing 10 to --

l 11 THE WITNESS: I would discuss that with

- 12 my counsel before I made that decision.

13 MR. KOHN: As I understand it, it is 14 related to the factual basis of this l 15 proceeding; and if it is turned over to the 16 NRC, then we would not have a privilege; and 17 we would make those available; and I think 18 that they have it. So if I can answer that 19 for you in that way, I think that might help.

20 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you adopt that as your 21 answer, your counsel's suggestion?

22 A. I would rely on his recommendation.

1 23 Q. It's your view that 7-C, the problem l 24 identified in 7-C, is not associated with the Calcon

',O

'N / 25 sensor?

l l

l 80

[

^~

1 A. First off, I will say-that'there~are many i 2 technical inadequacies to A, B and'C. An additional l

3 technical analysis to C is that the true problem 4 that occurred, and I believe that C is start 5 No. 136.

l  !

l 6 Q. That's what it says.

7 A. Correct. Is that a trip alarm -- trip i 8 alarm? It doesn't say trip alarm. A trip alarm was l l

9 received, and the diesel did not trip, which is a l 10 different and more significant problem than thh.one v l 11 written here. Furthermore, some of the components

(

that would specifically indicate that a trip should

-) 12 V 13 have occurred were physically observed by personnel; 14 and even though those components had activated to ,

i 15 cause the trip, the trip still did not occur.

16 Q. Are we focused on 7-C which says on {

17 3-24-90, a high jacket water temp. alarm was ,

18 received although the diesel kept running-and 19 temperature was normal?

20 A. Yes, we are, because a high jacket water ,

21 temperature alarm would never be expected to trip 22 the diesel. A trip alarm would be expected to trip 23 the diesel. As you approach the temperature, an

g- 24 alarm comes in and a sensor malfunction comes in if 25 you have only one of the three come in.

i i

l

c 81 l

/~T 1 So, you know, the issue here is one of 2 expecting a trip to occur, but not having a trip l 3 occur. And I will also note that the control logs, 4 as well as the diesel sheets that are filled out, 5 have the notations that a trip alarm was received, 6 yet no trip occurred. And that is not what's 7 presented here.

! 8 Q. Are you saying this is incortset because 9 it doesn't include the word trip between temperature 10 and alarm, otherwise it would be appropriate?

l I l

11 A. It needs the word trip. And like I say,

( s., 12 the other part that's missing is that it should have I V

13 tripped. There is no indication specifically, 14 although it kept running. I mean, to be accurate, 15 it should say it should have tripped but didn't.

16 Q. And it's your view that this problem 17 which is discussed here had nothing to do with l 18 Calcon sensors? - I 19 A. Calcon sensors vent to cause a trip; so 1 20 if Calcon sensors malfunction, then they vent; and 21 they cause a trip. If the Calcon sensors were 22 functioning properly, then they don't vent. You 23 don't get an alarm, and you don't get a trip alarm.

,es 24 So yes.

( )

25 Q. So yes, this event on 3/24 did not

l 82-l 1 indicate to you any problem' associated with the 2 Calcon sensor? .

3 A. I believe the root cause~ associated with 4 this problem is'most likely,to be a problem with the 5 logic board, problems in the logic board.

6 Q. And had nothing to do.with~a problem 7 associated with the Calcon sensor?

8 A. In terms of the root cause, I believe 9 that's correct.

10 Q. Root cause or non-root cause, did it have-11 anything to do, this problem as it was observed on

,f g 12 3-24-90, that would indicate any problem associated I U 13 with the Calcon sensor?

14 A. I don't believe that, you know --

I'm not i 15 done with my analysis. I have not completed 16 discovery. But at this time this problem seems to 17 be associated more with the logic board than with 18 the sensor.

l l 19 Q. As I understand your use of the more, a 20 Calcon sensor problem could have occurred, but it 21 might have been masked, to use words that I am 22 introducing, not yours, by logic board problems?

23 A. I'm not done with my review. I hesitate to say no, there was no part of this that was

' ( ) 24 25 associated with the Calcon sensor, but I believe a i

i L

83

• 1 predominant problem of this item C was associated  !

i

.' 2 with the logic board. l

3 (A' recess was taken.) 'j 4 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, when we.  ;

5 broke for lunch, we were discussing paragraph No. 7 6 on page 2. Were you aware of these three. events 7 when they occurred? -

8 A. I would not have-been aware of these i 9 exactly when,they occurred. What I mean is I 10 wasn't, as I recall, at the. diesel and, you know,  ;

i 11 having any real-time knowledge of these. I~became l g- 12 aware of at least some of these events as they were 13 reported up the management chain. i i

14 Q. Does that mean on the same day or within.

15 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, of that kind of time frame? I 16 A. Yes, within a day.or so.

17 Q. Paragraph 8, again, let's do it on a 18 sentence-by-sentence basis so it makes it easier. 1 19 With regard to the first sentence --

l 20 A. Would you like me to read it or --

21 Q. No, I don't think so. I gave up on that 22 early, and the reason that I gave up on it was 23 because you are not a terribly accurate reader, and f- 24 I was afraid we would have a more confusing record.

b 25 You didn't read them totally accurate, so therefore

> l

, 'I E i

-84

~

j 1- I was afraid we would have a less accurate than-a '

i 2 .more accurate record. Since it'is marked as an-l t '3 exhibit, .I don't think'there.is anyLdoubt. I have- j j 4 tried to be very careful about referencing-what.-

5 paragraph we'were referring to. I~gave up onLyour

j. 6 public; readings.

~l 7 So, again,fwe'are focused on'the'first l

} '

{

8 sentenceoof paragraph No. 8-of.page 2.

l 9 A. I.believe in order to answer that,- I

! 10 would have to.take a'look at tape No. 11,. . transcript i

11 pages 4 to 6.

i 12

~

Q. So that the record is clear, we have 13 provided a copy to Mr. Mosbaugh of the. transcript i

i 14 pages which he asked for.

4 15 A. I can't recall whether or-not I have seen i I i

! 16 this version of this transcript before.

i 4 j 17 MR. BLAKE: Mr.,Kohn, do you know I 1

l' 18 whether or not Mr. Mosbaugh might have'seen l

19 this, in fact, transcript before? l d

20 MR. KOHN: I don't know if I have seen

21 it before.

~

22 MR. BLAKE: If I were to tell you we j 23 had provided this, along with a number of k 24 other excerpts from transcripts of tapes and D 25 asked-for your agreement about the content of i

1

h 85 t

(~3--

\- 1 them months and-months ago, would that1 help. l 2 you?  !

l 3 MR. KOHN: I think I recall which' cover 4 letter you are referring to. Is11t'a l

5 February '94 cover letter? And I'have been 6' looking through our record, and all the  !

7 transcripts that.I had I' photocopied and sent-8 over to Mr. Mosbaugh. At this: point we are )

9 unsure exactly which transcripts we'have. j i

10 MR. LAMBERSKI: Are you saying that I

,I 11 when I sent the cover letter backfin February-  !

g- 12 of this year, you are not sure if you got-the

~

13 attachments to it?

14 MR. KOHN: At this point my 15 recollection is receiving a packaga and the i

16 transcripts with the cover letter, so I don't 17 think that's the case. What I am not sure of 18 now is which transcripts necessarily go with 19 that cover letter, and that's a filing 20 problem in my office, and --

21 MR. LAMBERSKI: I agree-with that.

22 MR. KOHN: --

and we did not go through 23 and determine which transcripts were provided 24 at the time the letter was transmitted, so I 25 do not know if we received all the

86

'~'

1 transcripts at that time.

2 MR. LAMBERSKI: Okay. I jOst wanted to 3 make sure that there wasn't any confusion i

4 about the fact that we had provided those to 5 you. l I

6 MR. KOHN: But I will note that there l 7 have been references to certain inserts in 8 the transcripts which we have no recollection 9 of ever. receiving.

10 MR. LAMBERSKI: Those are the inserts ,

11 to the NRC transcripts that the NRC prepared.

, x 12 MR. KOHN: But we have no record of

(_) 13 receiving those inserts.

14 MR. LAMBERSKI: Those came along with 15 these. There was a set of Georgia Power 16 transcripts which is similar to the one that 17 Mr. Mosbaugh is looking at here, and there 18 was a separate group of NRC transcripts with 19 NRC inserts that we marked up by hand and 20 proposed that to you by a stipulation. And 21 then there was, in addition to that, I think 22 there was one transcript of an IIT meeting 23 that was prepared by the NRC way'back when.

f- 24 MR. KOHN: I know we have the IIT ones, t

25 but I'm not sure that we have the portions,

I 87 O 1 the inserts that were marked up. That may

]

2 not have been in there. I don't know if'we, 3 at.this point, can't locate them inour .l i

4 of fice or they weren t ' transmitted at the I 5 time. I.can't place'the blame on'you or  :'

6 anyone else. I just don't know at this time. '

7 MR. BLAKE: As a routine matter of l, 8 business, however, you would have forwarded ,

9 those on, I take it, to Mr. Mosbaugh'for him

^

10 to validate or not?

11 MR. KOHN: That is correct.- .All of the t

% 12 transcripts would have been given to: _;p 13 Mr. Mosbaugh, a copy of them, to the best of i 14 my knowledge.  ;

15 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you-have a view on l 16 sentence No. 1, Mr. Mosbaugh?

17 A. Well, let me say again, I recognize some 18 of the words. I believe I was forwarded a 19 transcript of tape 11, but I do.not ever recall 20 reviewing a transcript excerpt like this of 21 tape 11. The only thing I recall'is reviewing a I

22 transcript which transcribed all of what somebody -

23 thought was relevant on tape 11.  !

-) 2 4 And my recollection is it was more than i V 25 this, and my further recollection is that the

l l

88' j l' -transcript'that-ILreceived and: read was'less: j

.i 2 > complete, with more inaudibles than this transcript 3 -is . .That's my recollection.- .IJfurther recollect-  !

4 that I don't remember these little notations oni i

t 5~ here, either.  !

6- MR. KOHN: . Referring.to' morning report, j

~7 given by: ALM,-about one third-through j 1

8 side A'.

1 9 Is there a question,pending?f t

10 MR. BLAKE: Yes. -i i

11- THE WITNESS: All right. I. note t. hat I

12 .pages 4 through 6 ' include two different O 13 excerpts. One, and then there's a star, and i

l 14 then a second excerpt.  ;

15 With respect to the first excerpt, I l

\

16

~

can't tell that Mr. McCoy ista participant to- 1 17 that conversation.

18 With respect to the second excerpt, I 19 can't tell that Mr. Shipman is a participant

'20 to that conversation. Mr. Bockhold does.say 21 that there are logic board problems, and I 22 believe we were just talking about that on 23 No. 7-C being a logic board problem-rather i

24 than Calcon sensor problems as to why the B j 25 diesel was having problems. This, I think, l

l 1

89 l ' l- confirms that.

l 2 So to that extent, there'is a 3 discussion, but not.with all these parties 4 because there is two different conversations, i

l 5 where the logic board problems on the 1B were 6 found that could be related to the: failure of 1

l 7 the A diesel during the site area emergency.

8 Q. (By Mr. Blake) When you look at both ,

i l

9 excerpts, are all four people involved in a l j 10 combination of the two different ~ excerpts, as you '

11 use the terminology?

12 A. In a combination of the two they are.

O 13 Q. And so what is your problem with the i

14 sentence?

15 A. Well, the second sentence --

I'm sorry, l

16 the second segment does not discuss --

it-doesn't 17 state specifically that the logic board problems on 18 the B diesel could have been the cause of the 1A l 19 diesel failure during this 3-20-90. That is l

l 20 discussed on the first segment, which doesn't

! 21 involve Mr. McCoy.

22 Q. And therefore, it's not clear to you from 23 reading these pages of the transcript from your I

l 24 tape-recording that Mr. McCoy was involved at all in

' \

25 a discussion on March 24th that the potential logic l

90

'^'

1 board problems on 1B could have been a cause of the 2 1A diesel failure on 3-20?

3 A. I remember Mr. McCoy being involved in 4 some of these discussions, you know, what we are 5 looking at is two sections, portions of a 6 transcript, and then saying that in some way 7 combined these applied to this group of people 8 discussing something that's not said on each one. I 9 mean, it's not fully accurate.

10 Q. What about sentence 2?

11 A. Sentence 2 is a characterization of the

('s, 12 transcript. Not in the words of the transcript, but

't/ 13 I think it basically conveys words of the 14 transcript, the meaning of the transcript.

15 Q. So you agree with sentence 2?

16 A. Basically.

17 Q. In what non-basic ways do you disagree?

18 A. Well, it's not a quote.

19 Q. It doesn't purport to be a quote.

20 A. It's a characterization. I basically .

21 agree with the characterization.

22 Q. Is there any non-basic way in which you 23 disagree?

fg 24 A. No.

t 25 Q. The third sentence?

l 91 ,

'(N 9 1  !

1 A. This.is another characterization of the

{

2 transcript. Mr. McCoy never says that the ,

6 3 commonality is with the 1A failure, and I.think it i 4 also overstates -- i 5 Q. Wait a minute. The sentence Bockhold l 6 said they would talk to the NRC at 10:30 a.m. about

} 7 their belief that that was a logic board problem, do l 8 you agree with that sentence?

r 9 A. I'm sorry, I dropped down'to the.next 10 one. We skipped -- I'm sorry, I'm lost. We skipped 11 Mosbaugh described.

12 Q. I didn't skip it. I understood.that to 13 be the second sentence, and I understood your saying l

14 that you agreed with the second sentence to have '

15 been a referral to that sentence?

16 A. Excuse me --

l 17 Q. I take it you have not been lying to me, i

18 you made a mistake?

19 A. I missed a period in here. These are l 20 long sentences, and I would hope from my response 21 you should have known that I wasn't talking about 22 the 1B diesel trip at 12:49 a.m.

23 Q. And is your answer with respect to the

.r e24 second sentence that reads Mosbaugh described the 25 problems experienced on the 1B diesel at 12:49 a.m.

l 92 1 on-3-24-90 to be agree or not agree? l l

2 A. I had spotted that one before, and I'm  !

i 3 sorry that I dropped down_a sentence, but I see no )

4 reference in this transcript to a 12:49 a.m. diesel 5 problem. I believe in order to know if that is ]

6 accurate, I would have to look at additional i

7' documentation.

P 8 Q. So you would agree with that sentence if 9 it said Mosbaugh described the problems experienced 10 on the 1B diesel on 3-24-90?

i 11 A. My recollection is that the problem being 12 discussed here is where the diesel should have 13 tripped but didn't. My recollection is that that is 14 item 7-C, which occurred on 3-24, that information 15 is not in the transcript, but I agree that we are 16 discussing the problem on the 1B diesel on the date 17 3-24.

18 Q. And you are just not able now to attest 19 to whether or not it occurred at 12:49 or didn't?

20 A. I certainly wouldn't know the time and 21 day that this problem was experienced.

22 Q. Next sentence, Bockhold said, is that the 23 one that you already said that you agreed with?

24 A. This is the one I said I basically agreed 25 with.

t 93-  !

($) 1 Q. Right. _And then we went through i

j i

2 basically disagree or you basically agree, and.you j

.i

'3 finally said that you agreed with this sentence?

4 A. Yes.  !

5 Q. You understand that the. transcript is j 6 supposed to be an aid for you in trying to help:you- l 7 to determine; but if you are.able to say'that you 8 agree with this sentence, with or without the .

9 transcript of.this particular' tape, that's a, fine- ,

10 answer. If you don't need the tape or the f

i 11 transcript to refresh your memory'or to give you  !

12 some basis for comfortably saying, but you do, in O 13 fact, recall that there was a conversation on i i

14 March 24th in which A, B, C occurred, and you are  !

15- able to agree, then just say you agree and let's try j i

16 to move a little more quickly. If you don't, then  !

I 17 fine, then say you disagree.  !

18 A. Because your sentences have some very 19 specific information in them as to dates and times l l

20 and other specificity, I will not have independent l 21 recollection of that level of detail. l i

22 Q. Well, some you may; and to the extent you i 23 do, we may be able to move more quickly. That's my 24 only purpose.

25 MR. KOHN: I may also note to the

! I 94

' ~( I 1 extent'you are looking for'moreLinformation.

U i

2- than in in our response, youlcould:also  !

^;

3 phrase' your question that~ way and 'save  !

4 everyone'a lot of time.

5 MR. BLAKE: I'm not sure that I'  !

6' understand'your point'. '

7 MR. KOHN: ThereEis;information already'  ;

-8' provided to.you withTrespect toTeach"one of.

9 these. responses. It may be?a more productive'  :

10 way would;be to get the response, have him-  !

j 11 look at the. response and the answerfandisay.I.  ;

1 12 can give you.this additional information that 13 I know, and that way.you can'maybe more 14 exhaustively get through it in a more rapid 1

15 manner. But, of course, you can dofit any 16 way you want. I'm just noting the way.-you I 17 are doing it, is going to be very slow; and 18 you are insisting that he go-sentence by 19 sentence, word by word, in minutia. That.is 20 what he'is doing.

21 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Next. sentence, 22 Mr. Mosbaugh?

23 A. So there is no confusion, I'm on the I 24 McCoy said sentence.

25 Q. Right.

95 O

V 1 A. The sentence is a characterization of a 2 portion of the transcript I see. I think it 3 somewhat overstates what was said because it says he 4 needed to make sure the NRC participated in anything '

5 that we did to the diesel. The transcript implies .

6 that the team needed to. participate in anything we 7 do in troubleshooting.

8 Q. Other than that,-do you agree with the ,

i 9 sentence?

10 A. Then it says with respect to Brockman's 11 concurrence, that's with respect to before w'e fix 12 anything, we had to get Brockman's concurrence, 13 which probably may relate specifically to the i 14 aspects of the component quarantine. l 15 Q. Anything else?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Next sentence? ,

16 A. The first, I agree with that sentence.  !

19 Q. Last sentence?

20 A. I can't attest to that or not. I don't  :

21 know if that's true, i 22 Q. Because when you look at Exhibit 3 which i

23 is attached, you don't know whether that's the 24 fragnet --

t b 25 A. They were talking about.

d '

1 l

5:

~

96- ]

I(2) ' l- Q. --

that ' . talked'about?  !

!_ 2 A. That 11 ,. rect.. '

I

" r 3 .Q. Paragraph 9, same-question.

4 A. . I have no knowledge.of the accuracyfof -

I 5' . the statements, factual 1 knowledge"ofLtheLstatements. -

! 6 in No. 9. ' '

'i

j. 7 Q. Do'you have any-reason 1to? dispute .

t- 8 - No. 9? -

I i

1 9 MR.- KOHN: With the content or'what it l 10 " purports'to be? I 1

1 .

,-( B y ~ .Mr . .Blake)

The statement!made-in

! 11- Q. '

b 4 -- -- 12 ' paragraph'No. 9?'

l

. 13 A. I have no reason to dispute those[ facts,

l 14 but I don't know any of those facts to be true.

15 Q. Returning to the last' sentence of

.i j~ 16 paragraph 8 above, did you have any-reason to  ;

+

l 17 dispute the last sentence representationthatl r

l 18 Exhibit 3 attached to the stipulations are,Jin fact,  ;

i i 19 the fragnet which is discussed there?. I' i .

1 20 A. Other than the fact that'this says it's a. .;

- i

21 very extensive fragnet, then I wouldn't I

~

l I

{ 22 necessarily --

as'fragnets go, this one is-not that 4

r 23 extensive. Other than that fact, I have no other E

l 24 reason or knowledge to dispute.

l 25 Q. No. 10?

k :.

'te++ -y .r.--,+--,.r -=-,-. , a ern- s e . . . , w .,-,-,...--...-+,..<r--.- .--,...c -

,ee ew - -e e. r w .w e e- .+s.-w

97 O l' A. I believe to answer the question I would 2 need to look at tape segment No. 17, transcript 4 3 through 5.

4 MR. BLAKE: The record should reflect-5 that made available to counsel'and 6 Mr. Mosbaugh is the excerpt from tape 17.

7 MR. KOHN: We have it here? Oh, here 8 it is, okay.

9 THE WITNESS: I don't recall seeing 10 this transcript before.

11 MR. BLAKE: Mr. Kohn, did you ever see 12 the response to these stipulations in the 13 form of admissions? Did you ever see 14 Mr. Mosbaugh's response, or did one of your 15 co-partners do that response or somebody else

~

16 in your office?

17 MR. KOHN: Which response are you 18 referring to?

19 MR. BLAKE: The response which you 20 urged me to take into consideration which

'21 might make this move a lot faster a couple of 22 moments ago? When you urged me to do that, 23 had you ever seen the document?

24 MR. KOHN: I believe so.

O 25 MR. BLAKE: You believe so. And you I

i l

)

98 (D

v 1 thought.it would be quite helpful to me in 2 terms of making a record?

3 MR. KOHN: Yes.

4 MR. BLAKE: Do you recall how many of '

5 the stipulations were admitted to?

6 MR. KOHN: Even how poorly'they.were I 7' worded, not many.

8 MR. BLAKE: Do you recall how many?

9 MR. KOHN: I didn't count. l 10 MR. BLAKE: Three.

11 MR. KOHN: I recall-I gasped at how g-' 12 poorly they were written. '

\

13 MR. BLAKE: And you think that -document  !

14 would help us a lot in this effort today?

15 MR. KOHN: Yes, because these were'a 16 lot of the reasons and, in fact, as'to why 17 they are objectionable; and to the extent you '

18 feel that you need more, it may be very 19 helpful. The witness could then'say in  !

20 addition to this, I could add this or that; 21 and the responses might go much quicker.

22 Obviously, Mr. Mosbaugh has had a 23 dif f erence with every single one' that's come l

(~ 24 up, so it's not like there is any big v 25 surprise.

I 1

99 bO 1 MR..BLAKE: Do you think there's;an

-2 explanation as to why he doesn'.tLrecognize 3 the tapes? 'l t

4 MR.~KOHN: We now have some concern;as 5- to whether we have received some of these  ;

~6 transcripts.

7 MR. BLAKE: . Are you altering your-8 response from what you told Mr'. LamberskiL20 .i 9 minutes.ago?  !

10 MR. KOHN: No, I said I;wasn't sure j 11: whether or not-they had all been; transmitted- j .

or not, and I don't know whether they have -- 5 O12 13 let's be very clear, my initial response --

]

14 MR. LAMBERSKI: Well, the record will I i

15 explain what you said. '(

16 MR. KOHN: Yes,'the record will be very.

\

17 clear as to what is said. That I was not  !

18 sure whether they are in existence in.my i 19 office currently, and'that we did not check .l 20 them, and I do not know when.they came in 21 whether or not all of them were-there. I 22- said I do know.that the :IIT one was there, 23 and I said we could not locate the~NRC l

24 inserts. I'm not sure whether or not they 25' were included in the package or not.

, ~ . . . - - .. .- - - - .

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

-l 100 >

. !'"Y l

\_): t 1: AndLat this point,fI wouldfappreciat'e '

2 it.if.you would even provide'us1with a j t

3' duplicate'setLjust to make sure.that'later.'on-- -

]

i 4 there wouldn't be any misunderstanding. j l

5- MR. LAMBERSKI: I could have done1that-

~

6- in. March. l

-i

'7

~

THE WITNESS':- Okay. .First, therefseems j i

8 to be two. separate excerpts-from,different- - -l i

'9 portivns of the-transcript that comprise:the- l j

10- common. reference-from No. 10. .

11 In addition, I can't recognize that j 12 this occurred during a plant: status meeting- J j

Og i 13 except for the notations that are on this- l I

14 transcript that were not on the. original j 1

15 transcript which has been added by.somebody l l

16 else that this occurred during a plant status. I 17 meeting.

18 It appears that Mr. Horton, in this one 19 sentence, says they pretty much finished'up 20 the logic testing last night; and it appears 21 that he said in another sentence something 22 about being in touch with them pretty l 23 closely. I can't be sure who the they've 24 been in touch with the IIT team-is.

25 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, when you l

.=

j 101 i h j

'u

[~J 1 read the sentence that starts at the bottom of 4 and j i

j 2 carries over to the top o'f 5 which reads: So we'll 3 need to talk extensively with the NRC, the IIT group 4 today and walk through everything we've done, but 5 we've been in touch with them pretty closely, and I

6 they seem to like what we're doing.

{

l 7 You are incapable of reading that ,

8 sentence and understanding'who them is referring to ,

9 in any logical way; is that what your position is? I 10 A. Well, I will note --

l .

11 Q. Is that your position, yes or no?

1 l f~s 12 MR. KOHN: Would you let him answer the i 13 question, and don't raise your voice at my I

i 14 witness.

15 Q. (By Mr. Blake) What is the answer?

16 MR. KOHN: And I take earlier exception 17 to your first comment making reference to 18 lying, and you should have a different

! 19 attitude when you are questioning the 20 witness, please.

21 MR. BLAKE: I would like an answer to 1

22 my question, not one other question that he l 23 wants to answer.

1 g g 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) What is the answer to my I'

\~) 25 question? When you read that sentence, sir, are you l i

j i

1

, , ,e - - --

)

}

102  !

() 1 incapable of determining whether them refers to IIT, 2 yes or no? I 3 A. I'm having --

1 4 Q. Yes or no, please'?'  !

5 MR. KOHN: Answer the question as you i 6 feel you need to, Mr. Mosbaugh; and if 7 Mr. Blake does not -- '

1 8 MR. BLAKE: Are you directing him not' f

9 to answer my question yes or no?

f 10 MR. KOHN:- --

and if Mr. Blake thinks  !

11 your answer does not satisfy-his needs, he I i

r~T 12 can reask the question again.

(j <

13 Q. (By Mr. Blake) I will give you an 14 opportunity to expand on your answer, but-I would 15 like an answer yes or no.

16 Are you directing him not to say yes or l 17 no?

18 MR. KOHN: I'm directing the witness to 19 answer the question if he believes he can, 20 MR. BLAKE: Are you directing him not 21 to use the words yes or no?

22 MR. KOHN: I'm not directing the l 23 witness one way or the other.

24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, I would 25 like an answer yes or no.

103

'~

1 A. Having read the question and having read 2 the transcript, which is on three separate.pages, I 3 have now put it all together and believe that the i

4 they does refer to the NRC.

5 Q. To'the IIT?

6 A. I will note, again, that you have two l

7 lines on page 4, the beginning of them on the first 8 part of page 41and the rest of it on page 5.

9 MR. KOHN: I would like to state for 10 the record, is this a complete transcript? i 11 Are there conversations occurring in 12 between?

A , i 13 MR. LAMBERSKI: No, and I can explain.

14 MR. KOHN: If that's the answer, then I i 15 object to the question because based on the 16 transcript, if it's not complete, how can the  !

17 witness give you a complete answer whether 18 who they are referring to?

19 MR. LAMBERSKI: Excuse me.

20 MR. BLAKE: Your_ question is whether or 21 not there is a break in this particular 22 sentence?

23 MR. KOHN: Well, my client'has pointed

- 24 out that page 4 has two lines. I'm a little

\

{

25 unsure of what transcripts we are looking at.  !

- - . _ y ., r -

, , . - , , - . , , , 6 - l

104 s

1 MR. BLAKE: Well, feel free to read it 2 yourself. I'm asking him when he reads the 3 one complete sentence as transcribed here, 4 quote, so we'll need to talk extensively with 3 the NRC, the IIT group today and walk through 6 everything we've done, but we've beenHin 7 touch with them pretty closely, and they seem E to like what we are doing, period, end quote, 9 a complete sentence. I asked a question 10 about that one sentence. I believe it to be i 11 a complete transcription of that sentence. I

- 12 have no reason to question it.

~

13 And I ask him whether or not when he 14 reads that sentence, he is incapable of 15 determining whether or not the pronoun them 16 and the pronoun they refer or don't refer to 17 IIT? I understood him earlier to not be able 18 to make that determination, and I was '

19 astounded. I find him to be not capable of 20 cooperating in this deposition when he takes 1

21 that position, and that's why I followed up 22 on it. Now, do you have an objection?

l 23 MR. KOHN: Yes, to the tone of your ll 24 voice and the accusational tone that you have I

\ i 25 taken in this deposition, made statements l l

I

l l

l l

105 l

O l \_/

1 about him lying. You are setting the l 2 atmosphere of the deposition; and when you 1

l 3 ' set that tone, you.get.those responses.  ;

i '

l 4 HMR . BLAKE: I think that you have  !

\  !

l 5 played a much greater role in the deposition 6 today than.we have defending depositions'for 7 this entire week. We have-applied a very r 8 high threshold of pain to the' depositions and 9 have tried to stay out of it.and.let you get 10 your questions answered. I would prefer the l 11 same treatment today.

e] 12 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh?

V 13 A. I believe, having_ read the sentence ~which  !

14 is on three pages, that they and they've applies to  ;

s 15 the NRC and to the IIT team.

l 16 Q. Thank you. So now what is your answer to 17 the question about whether or not you agree with 10 1 18 or don't?

I 19 A. Well, as I stated before, I cannot tell 20 that it occurred during a plant status meeting.

21 Q. Have you attended any plant status

! l l

22 meetings? ,

5 1

23 A. Yes. I t 24 Q. Does anything in this transcript or i

25 excerpt from a transcript which you are reading I

w . - - . . .~ , p. - -~m

106

('~

(.)) 1 strike you as inconsistent with language that might 2 occur during the course of a plant status meeting?

3 A. No, but it could be in any number of 4 other means.

5 Q. Do you have any reason to dispute that 6 this conversation took place in the course of a 7 plant status meeting?

8 A. I have no reason to dispute it.

9 Q. No. 11?

10 A. I would need to look at tape 21, 11 transcript pages 2 to 4.

r~g 12 MR. BLAKE: Let the record reflect that V

13 I am providing a copy of those pages.

14 THE WITNESS: I do not believe that I 15 have seen this transcript excerpt.

16 MR. KOHN: I'm going to state for the 17 record, also, that there are now certain 18 things on these transcripts which lead me to 19 believe that I don't ever remember seeing an 20 excerpt talking about 7 percent through a 21 side. This is absolutely not striking any 22 bell to me at all.

23 MR. LAMBERSKI: Michael, let's 3 24 understand something here, okay, about these

\-]25 transcripts. These transcripts were sent to

I i

f i

l 107

'() 1 you in February, .okay. There was a reference i

l 2 to each and every one of the transcripts in f

3 the cover letter, and there was a package  ;

4 attached to the cover letter, being the i

'5' transcripts.

6 And if they weren't in there, you would i

7 have told me then; and I'm.sure you'would j 8 have told me then because when we.sent you 9 the diesel stipulations no more than a-week I 10 after that, the stipulations contained  ;

11 references to those particular transcripts.

l

.gr~g 12 And I remember on more than one

%1 13 occasion you told me that Mr. Mosbaugh was '

14 very busy looking at our diesel stipulations, I 15 and I note that Mr. Mosbaugh is shaking his 16 head affirmatively right now.  !

17 So it's beyond me that you could take t

i 18 the position in here, which I think is 19 contradictory to what you said earlier today,  !

i 20 that you have never seen these transcripts.  !

21 THE WITNESS: I was shaking,my head ,

i 22 with respect to reviewing transcripts of 23 these numbers, but they were complete i s 24 packages, and they were not of the level of -

5' 25 detail and quality of these. They had many l

l

__ i

108 p.

v 1 more inaudibles, and they did not have any of 2 these notations.

3 .MR. LAMBERSKI:- Yes, and the 4- transcripts you are referring to, 5 Mr. Mosbaugh, .I don't dispute what you are 6 saying, are the_ transcripts that were 7 produced'and_are in the documents produced 8 that have been made available to you before.

9' We took pieces of those transcripts, 10 listened to them more carefully, upgraded 11 them for purposes of obtaining stipulations; s 12 and that's what we proposed to you on gh

\

13 February 28th of this year.

14 MR. KOHN: Are these the exact copies 15 that were provided in their entirety or are 16 these now upgraded?

17 MR. LAMBERSKI: No, these are what I 18 provided to you in February.

19 MR. BLAKE: It does appear, however, 20 from the record that Mr. Mosbaugh has not 21 seen these.

22 MR. KOHN: I have a question. On the 23 cover page it says redone by a court 24 reporter. Are you saying the ones that we f-

%/ 25 got had this redone?

4 I

. 109

1 MR. LAMBERSKI

I'm.saying this.is a

-2 copy of what you got in February.

3 MR. KOHN: Let's'save some' confusion.

i 4 I wouldn't mind calling my office and.see-if. I

5 they can find this. transcript amongst the; ,

6 ones that are there,.and I thinkithatEmight'  !

7 help clarify. things because --

l 8 MR. BLAKE: I'm sureLthere will be.some 9 more breaks where you will-have an j 10 opportunity to do it; and if we haven't taken q 11 a break before you'think people will bec

( ' 12 leaving the office, we will take one for.that-

\_ 13 purpose.

4 14 But it does appear at this juncture f 15 that this is going to be a long deposition.

1 16 It is taking a, good deal longer than what I  :

17 had anticipated it would. I thought we would 18 make a good deal more headway than we would i

j. 19 and a good deal more quickly than we would,  ;

1

, 20 and there would be more ready agreement with  !

21 these just based on Mr. Mosbaugh's. )

22 knowledge. I hadn't anticipated the kinds.of 23 arguments that we just had on IIT and they c24 and them; and frankly, yours and my exchanges 25 as well, all of which just takes time. And

.g a

y e -

110 if 1 'therefore, it will-just overall.take longer,

~2 so'I think-we.will have. plenty'of 3 opportunities'for breaks.

4- And~1ater on,aor we can discuss now,

.5 while Mr. .Mosbaugh is reading,.whether'you.

6 just want tofgo.on straight-throughntonight s

7 or pickfit up tomorrow. :Ihm happy to-talk l 8 -with the other parties about what's more j 9 convenient; 'but if you want to.just'think 10 about that,'and maybe'we canl discuss it-at 11 the next break' .

~THE WITNESS: .Allright. With: respect-  ;

O 1213 to the first sentence, I cannot-tell from the

^!

14 tape-recording that this is occurring'in a 15 staff meeting. Furthermore,~I don't believe 16 I can tell that it occurred in r. staff 17 meeting on the 28th.

18 Mr. Bockhold has indicated that the:NRC

'19 approve testing under certain requirements, 20 but I cannot'see-where Mr. Bockhold' discussed 21 those requirements with his staff. Those are 22 my comments on the first sentence.

23 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Is there anything in this 24 transcript which strikes you as-inconsistent with a O 25 communication or conversation that might have taken

l i

111 I

^

1

/N  !

1 place in a staff meeting?

2 A. I don't see anything that would indicate 3 that it was definitely not, but it could have been  !

l 4 in a variety of other meetings.

5 Q. Second sentence? l 6 A. I believe that statement is an accurate  !

7 characterization.

8 Q. Next sentence?

9 A. I.believe the next sentence is an 10 accurate characterization.

11 Q. Paragraph 12, first sentence?

,- m 12 A. First, I cannot tell if this is IIT

~

13 Exhibit No. 46-5. Secondly, I cannot tell if 14 Mr. Kenny Stokes stated anything because there are 15 no voices identified.

16 Q. In Exhibit 5, Mr. Mosbaugh, the first 17 page of Exhibit 5 is a cover page for the interview 18 of Ken Stokes.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And then the next pages purport to be 21 excerpts out of Mr. Stokes' interview, but you are 22 saying you can't tell whether or not that is Mr.

23 Stokes because it just has Q, A, Q, A?

fs 24 A. That was what I looked at, yes. I note

!' )

25 that the next couple of pages identify Mr. Chaffee

112 1~ and the witness and so on, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Chaffee.

2 Q. But they identify no individual f

. 3 interviewee other than Mr. Stokes, do they? Don't- l 4 you recognize Mr.-Kendall's and'Mr. Chaffee's names 5 as members of the IIT?

I t

1 6 A. Yes, I'do.

. I 7 Q. And do you think, therefore, that this. f i i 8 might be, in fact, pages from Mr. Stokes' interview 9 by the IIT conducted by Mr. Kendall, Mr._Chaffee, l 10 among others?

I j 11 A. The format of the interview is quiet ,

t

. 12 different, so I'm'having trouble between~pages 17 ' l

' i l 13 and pages 62. It goes from Q and A to the witness, i

14 Mr. Kendall, Mr. Chaffee. It doesn't even look like  ;

15 it belongs to the same document. #

2 l

16 MR. KOHN: I think the witness is 17 simply stating if he had the full document, i

18 he would be able to answer your question.

r 19 MR. BLAKE: We will obtain that. I 20 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Assuming, Mr. Mosbaugh, J

21 that when we obtain the full copy of this interview, 22 as your counsel has requested, that it turns out 23 that page 17 is, indeed, from Mr. Stokes' interview l 4 24 by the IIT, then would you agree with the first 25 sentence in No. 12? ,

i

l 1

113 )

[')T

\_  :

, 1 A. With the note that the transcript seems  !

i 2 to say something general to the effect.that there j 3 were temperature calibration problems, as opposed to 4 the No. 12 saying that the temperature sensor i 5 calibrations were inaccurate. I can imagine having l j 6 problems with the temperature calibration not ,

7 related to the calibrations being accurate. ,  !

8 Q. So you are unable to agree on that basis l

} f

9 with the first sentence?

f i

j 10 A. I don't think'it is clear. i I  !

11 Q. While wo are looking at your disagreeing i 12 with this or the prospect that these pages'17 and 18 13 might not be from the same deposition or interview l 14 as pages 62 and following, was that your point ,

15 earlier?

16 A. Well, this format is certainly different.- i 1

17 Q. And if you look at the project Bates l l

18 stamp numbers at the bottom of the page, don't you 19 think it is quite a coincidence if they are from a );

20 different interview, that they are the same, if you 21 subtract 18 from 62, you wind up with the same J

22 number as if you subtract 598 from 643? i I

23 A. If the document was originally configured j 24 properly and someone numbered it sequentially, that '

Os 25 would make sense; but if there was original error,-

i l

-,e e ~ c m +

s 114' I 11 then'it wouldn't.

j!

2 Q.~ Yes~,. I'm just asking wheth'er.or notDat-  !

.3 some point.you are cooperating --L  !

4 A. I note that since you pointed.out_to"me _l

.i 5 the project numbers.. -l 6 Q. Would appear to suggest that'this might-6 7: be the same interview as'whatLthe cover sheet shows 'l t

~'

8 and that each, all four.of these pages.might.belfrom 9 the same interview?. .,

1 10 A. But I also note there's a. conflict in 11 ' format.  !

g 12 Q. Okay, second sentence?:  ;

i 13 A. Yes, I.would disagree with the l 14 characterization. The witness seems to indicate' l I

15 first that a few of the owners are considering the j 16 change-out of the existing system, which is  !

17 pneumatic, through some sort of solid state system, 18 is what it says. But he doesn't say that the 19 owners --

he does not say that the owners were 20 considering replacing it because the temperature'and l 21 pressure sensors were sometimes difficult and 22 consuming to set up.

t 23 And a separate question he seems to t

relate that that's his perception that there are I

( ) 24 25 problems with the switches, and I think that's his i i

i

- j i

1 115 t

r~w I

'k ~1 representation of his viewpoint of the'-problem, is  !

2 that these darn sensors are so timely to calibrate.  !

i 3 And I'm'not sure'he's indicating that that's'tlie.

4 reason of the other owners. I think that's=more a 5 reason that he is giving of his perception.  ;

6 Q. And that's because Mr. Stokes is not - in .

7 the owner group? l f

8 A. I think it was my understanding that.

9 Mr.-Brewer was in the owners group. '

i 10 Q. Mr. Stokes works for GPC?

-11 A. Yes- ,

f- 12 Q. But GPC was-not an owner of this f

([1 13 equipment? 1 14 A. GPC was, yes. I 15 Q. And therefore, why wouldn't his basis be l 16 an owner's basis?

17 A. I think that's broadening the content.-

18 Q. Okay. No. 13? I didn't cut you off, did j i

19 I? Is that the end of your discussion on 12, 20 Mr. Mosbaugh?

21 A. I want to look at one other aspect.

22 Q. One other aspect of 12?

23 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.)

7, 24 As further elaboration of my point that 25 that didn't represent an owners group viewpoint is

, _R

. , ... m.__._ , . ___ ._ _.._ ., . . _ _ . , _ . _ _ ~

, 1

. 1 1-p.-

r;'

r ,

]q 116 'I L . .

Li~ the w'itness': statement-on page:;65.! '

IJean'thsay_ a

- documentation': by' any' means f rom? other? companies ,- but -

2 "

p> '

'I. believe some : of f thettemperat!ure sensors, may2 have.. a.

3? -

down or~ drift ~over- itiperiod 'Of 4 tendency..,to. drift .

- q 5 '- tim'e. ,

'l 6'- I ~ believe : that.'s ' f urther.: indicathioni tha't-~ ;f 7 that's'a!viewpo' int of lM'r. . S tokesland Enoti necessaril'y ; '

il 8s 'of the' owners 1 group.- >

9 Q.. 13? '

10' ~A. W i t h ' r e s p~e c t-: t o . N o .: 13, page'8 a s '.

. 1 ]

11' referenced'from'.the' NRC InspectionfReport,.lthe a

9 0 - 0 5 ,. 'i t showsia serles of work '. orders: off whicht are '!

O 12-

'i 13' not identified as to their-date whichTany[offthese :l; i

14' activities' occurred. Yet the'Jatatement' says that: it 15 relates to' malfunctions thatloccurred<on; March-j

16. the 22nd and 23rd. .So I can't tellffrom?those.. work' 17 order numbers.

18 Mr. Milton Hunt's affidavit states that l 19 he arrived on site on the'27th. Because the l

~

20 activities are stated to have occurred on.the 22nd i i

21 and 23rd,-I don't believe that Mr. Hunt could have- -l l

22 directly observed these activities.- l 23 Mr. Taylor's affidavit indicates that'he f

arrived at the plant site on April the 6th, which  !

O 24 25 would indicate to me that he could not ~ have observed l

I i

i i

__.~.._,,,--m, ~.J-.r.~. , , , o,.-.,m,,-,-.. .,-y,y,,,,,...,m,-w_.,,mm,,-y,_,-,r, .,mm_,#.f.A...l.--_.,,,

4 1

T 1 1 7-C:). 1

'the activities on the 22nd and the 23rd'. :And1I 2 believe his affidavit-'does not indicate,that he.

3 reviewed work orders associated with theLdiesel 4' sensor malfunctions that' occurred.on the 22nd 5 and 23rd.

6 Q. -Are you finished?

7 A. Yes.

8 .Q. N o '. 14?

9 A. Mr. Horton's note does not-appearcto be

~

~ 10 dated. Mr. Horton's note also makes. reference-to 11 the mod was done, which to me would be referring to:

12 a modification, a, design change, rather:than 13 testing, and especially not.related to diesel 1B' 14 operability testing, which-would most likely1be a 15 surveillance t e s t'.

16 Having read Mr. . Milt Hunt's affidavit, I 17 cannot tell Milt Hunt was assisting the IIT team; 18 but he does appear to have come to the pl' ant and' 19 appears to have witnessed --

he came to theLplant'to 20 witness some testing of the generators prior to 21 declaring it operable. Whether or not Mr. Pete 22 Taylor, whether or not he later returned to the 23 site, referring to Milt Hunt, with Pete Taylor and 24 witnessed additional special testing'and final'

'25 operability testing of the-1A diesel as referenced

- . . = . - - -

j 118

(^T

%-) 1- in IIT transcript No. 257, transcript pages 68 and

?

2 69, attached as Exhibit 8, I would note that

3 Exhibit 8 is identified as IIT document 257, but it 4 contains no names,-just voice, voice, voice. l t

, 5 So from that document, I am unable to  ;

. l 6 determine who is speaking and whether it is Mr. Hunt 7 or Mr. Taylor.

j 8 Q. You think you would be able to make that  !

9 determination if we had the entire document in front 10 of us? i 11 A. I have never seen the entire document. I  !

wouldn't know.  !

(~) 12 >

(_/ 13 Q. I'm informed that even if I could get the 4  !

14 whole thing, it might not help you; so I don't know l 4 15 how to get you over this one. I 16 A. I couldn't tell. I 4

17 Q. I understand. No. 15?

18 If I'm able to help you by thinking about I

f 19 it more throughout the course of the deposition, I 20 will come back to it?

21 A. I would need to look at tape No. 19, 22 pages 10 and 11.

23 (A recess was taken.)

$* 1 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) We are back on the  !

O 25 record. I think when we broke, at your counsel's j i

l l

119 l t'x

( ) ,

1 request, you were going to take a look at paragraph 2 15 on page 4 of the proposed stipulations; and we 3 have provided you with the tape 19 excerpt for your 4 review during the break. You have done that now,  !

5 Mr. Mosbaugh?

6 A. Yes, I have. I will note that I can't 7 recall seeing tais particular tape with these kinds 8 of notations on it, but I have reviewed a tape of 9 probably the.whole portion of this tape that was 10 closer to what's actually here, fairly full, so I am 11 a little more familiar with the transcribed

,e 3 12 section.

i )

13 No. 15 states that as of March 28, and I 14 don't see a date on this tape, that I had concluded 15 that the 1B diesel was operable; and from reading 16 the transcript, I can't be certain that the diesel 17 has been declared operable at this point or not 18 because my statements --

there's two statements 19 made.

20 One is that has gotten to be so operable, 21 indicating that operations may have declared it j

\

22 operable. But later I say is going to be operable l 23 here, indicating the possible future declaration. i 73 24 As far as my concluding that it's

! l ,

25 operable, operable is a tech spec definition; and if i

j l

I 120 )

s 1 it's operable in the sense of a tech spec 2 definition,.then normally that is written in all 3 caps. I don't make operability decisions. I do not 1

4 hold an SRO on Vogtle. l 5 The fact that the diesel had been 6 declared operable is something that would be 7 reported to me as a condition determined by others, 6 and I would be furthering that information on to my 9 staff.

10 I guess I will also say that in this time 11 frame, whether or not the diesel had been declared f- 12 operable or not, did not necessarily mean that we

'~

13 were ready to --

that everything was fixed. Because 14 I go on in this same section on 10, I!m concerned 15 about a root cause problem that has been identified; 16 and that is the one of rolled tubes.

17 And this section indicates that I was a 18 little surprised by whac Paul said here, meaning 19 that I may be reporting from operations that it's 20 operable, but I'm surprised that here'o a finding 21 that could affect the operability, the fact that 22 pneumatic tubing was improperly installed.

23 So in that context I can't agree with the

. s 24 statement that I had concluded that it was operable

(' ) 4

'25 in sense, and for those reasons. I may be reporting I

121

[R/~i 1 that the operations department may have declared it 2 operable.

3 With respect to the second part, I do say 4 that the NRC was present through all that testing, 5 and I do know that the NRC was not, necessarily, at 6 this time, present for all of the 1B testing because 7 I think in large measure the NRC focused on diesel i

8 1A. And I'm not clear as to what that testing I'm 9 referring to.in this transcript.

10 On Page 11 I'm expressing concerns that 11 there perhaps needs to be a broadness review done.

f 3 12 That's my comment.

N.)

13 Q. Focusing in this excerpt on page 10, 14 lines 10 through 12 --

15 A. Uh-huh.

16 Q. --

what is your interpretation now of 17 your words as reported in this transcript from the l 18 tape: I --

you know, I feel that what we've done I

19 now, you know, has gotten the B diesel operable?  !

20 A. I'm speaking to a group of people. I 21 note Mr. Parton's name here. He's Mr. Chants --

22 these were engineers that worked a couple of levels l 23 down from me, and I am reporting to those people (3 24 what' I believe probably is the fact that diesel has

~

25 been declared operabic by operations; though,

i

, 122'

]

J 1L _because I;.say-'later is going to be ' operable,.I.'m? q 2 having trouble' determining.specifically[ifE it 'S s :

j ,

3' operations people have actually madeLan"operabilityl ]

~

'4 .techtspec' declaration or not, j

, 5 Q. The~second reference,yous'arecreferring1to: ,

appears . at' lines :18 t h r o u g h . 2 1 ,.~ a n d ' i t.' s ' t h e

6. -i

7. sentence that reads, ' quote, And1we'certainly have 8 gone through appropr'iate testing,.Landlit all passed ,

9 to show that'.the B diesel is~ going toLbe' operable  !

10-here.  ?

~

11 A. .Yes, is-going to be operable here. ~

\

Q. End quote'.- i O.1213 A.

i And just from reviewing thisLtranscript, 'l j

14 you know, Lone'is stating a future; Land one is 15 stating a past; and then what"happens?in'the1 middle; j!

16- of all this is that new information comes?to my i

17 attention that could affect'the' root cause.

18 Q. The new information between those two 19 sentences?

20 A. Yes,,about the rolled' tubes. I'was a 21 little surprised, okay. I'm now referring-to a 22 statement between those two sentences on 10 and 11 23 and on 19, 20 and 21 because I am referring'to a 24 statement on 12 and 13. I was a little surprised on-

'2 5 - what Paul said here, and what Paul has informed us j l

. _ .,. _. _ _ . __ _ __ _ _ ._.___._._.u.,__.__.

l 1

I i

1 -123  !

~

l' of is an installation error.with the trip lines. j 2 Q. 'I s it your sense-you were informed of l 3 that between those two, statements, 'in the period of 4 time between those two statements? ,

5 A. No, he, at some time just.previousLto  :

6 this, I believe he has informed me of it; and I'am- j

~l 7 making a statement that that fact surprised'me (

1 8 because I had gotten information that'the diesel,is j 9 going to be operable.- And I'm talking-about,. to~my l i

-10 people, that. shift supervisor is or.isLgoing.tofmake 1 i

11 an operability. declaration of this diesel. i Yet in'the.very same time frame that I'am-O 12 13 reporting, that we are going to say it isicapable-of 14 performing its intended function, information comes 15 to me that there has been an installation error in 16 rolled pneumatic tubing, which I later found to be 17 the trip lines, which tends to indicate to me that 18 there could be, you know, a serious problem with 19 operability.

20 I further add that with respect to this 21 issue --

and I'm not sure if we will-get into it 22 later --

I had made.some philosophical statements 23 early on in this process as to what the site needed

~ 24 to do to restore confidence in these diesels. And I 25 believe I said we need a test program to determine

l l

l 124 l ("%

' L) 1 root cause. We need a test program to restore 2 operability, and we need a test program to restore 3 reliability. And to me we need to go through all of 4 that.

5 'And at this point, you know, it appears i

6 that we are up to.the operability kind of point.  !

7 Yet, I am presented with new root cause information '

8 which indicates we may not even have exited the root  !

i -

! 9 cause phase..  ;

i 10 Q. Is the only use of the term. operable the [

1 i

11 tech spec definition of declared operable? Is there i a more common --

(

r-)'12

~

13 A. No, people --

I would say people at the  !

l

! 14 plant are not always suffic'iently precise in their i i

15 nomenclature. t i

16 Q. Can't you, as an engineer at the plant 17 site, in talking with others, refer simply.to the 18 diesel as being operable rather than being declared  ;

19 operable; and in that sense simply mean it's l

20 workable, it works, I think we are there; is that a i 21 possibility here?

22 A. Most people, like I said, and when you 23 get into people that have SRO training, those people '

24 are a little more precise in their usage and would i

~

25 tend to use the term operable to mean the tech spec

t i

-125-(~) -  :

LJ .'

1 terminology. Other. people that ' haven't hadiSRO .

2 training .might. be L a little more lax iri their ' usage  !

q and understanding.

3 I would try tolbe more ,

,4 restrictive in the use of.that term,- meaning: tech 5 spec, because I have SRO train'ing. [

i 6 Q. No. 16?

~

7 A. This seems to be a characterization out- l 8 of a transcript, but - I-don't recall.being, involved

-l 9 in this. -The characterization from theLtranscript' j

. .. I 10 seems reasonable, seems to represent what's inHthe:

l

'll transcript.

i 12 Q. So you agree with 16. I have_obtained a'  :

0 13 copy of Mr. Stokes' interview, soon to be pages 1 l

l 14 through 69, if you want to take a look at that and- ,

i

-15 satisfy yourself whether the pages'.we' earlier talked i 16 about when we were discussing proposed stipulation l 17 No. 12 are, in fact, transcript pages from that 18 interview? '

19 A. Yes, it l'ooks like the portion of-20 Exhibit 6 pages 17 and 18, even though they look 21 different from the full document you gave me --

1 22 Q. I think you are referring to Exhibit 5 23 rather than Exhibit 6?  !

24 A. Yes, Exhibit 5.

'l 25 Q. Okay, proposed stipulation paragraph. j

., _ .~

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

. 'i

.i .

126'  ;

1 No. 17 on page 4? i 21 A. In order to! review this,'I would need i

l 3 tape ^ transcript No. 27, pages 2 to 5. ,

[ 4' MR. BLAKE: -The transcript will reflect '!

a

.5' .that copies:of the excerptsLfrom the 1 3 1 l -}

6L transcript of tape No. 2 7: hav'e been L provided .;

i 7' to Mr. Mosbaugh. j t .

j 8 THE WITNESS: -This particular version j 1

'l l 9 of theLtranscript has a segment that I i do not-  !

j 10 recognize as a segment,.and it is part.c of~a  !

4 i

) 11 larger tape transcript that Iido recognize, .l 4

l I

12- and I do not recognize the' notations:onEthe.

i .

, 13 transcript such as morning plant status j

.i l 14 teleconference that are not recorded on the f i  !

j- 15 transcript or on the tape. I i 16 MR. BLAKE: This has been a fairly I i j 17 consistent refrain, I think~, on every one of j 18 these excerpts, unless I am wrong, to date.

l 19 Mr. Mosbaugh doesn't think he has seen-i 20 these.

i

21 Were you able to check with your office i

22 during the last break, Mr. Kohn ? :

23 MR. KOHN: No, I wasn't.

24 MR. BLAKE

Let me know if you.need d

25 time before your office closes

down this l, '

~

-127 O 1 afternoon so'you will be able to confirm that.

2 you1still have'that' document.- I'think it 3 would be helpful: toime if you were':abl~e to-4 check t.his, and I don't know what your.

51 - recordkeeping. amounts to in your! office'that 6 would indicate whether or not they.have been 7 provided to Mr.-Mosbaugh at all for' purposes-8 of responding.

9 Mr. Mosbaugh, you can:just-icontinue to 10 study 17, if you'would, and then-we will1go 11 ahead.

12 -(Discussion ensued-off the recor'd'.;)

13 Q. (By'Mr. .Blake) When,we broke, 114 Mr. Mosbaugh was going to look at' tape No. 27'and 15 compare it to the proposed stipulation.No. 17.

.16 So, Mr. Mosbaugh, we have completed your 17- break. Have you completed your review?:

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, can you tell me whetherfor not'you 20 agree or disagree with paragraph 17 as a whole or 21 with the sentences individually, if you want to.

22 break it down?

23 A. This is a characterization of.the segment' 24- of this transcript, and I don't believe that it ,

25 wholly accurately portrays the transcript.- And the

~l a

1 1

1l 128 9 1

7

1 ' reason whyLI s a y.. t h a t '.'i s ' t h i s. i n d i c a t e s J t h a t' i

'2. M r!. Bockhold said he:had spoken to the IIT team last i c

3 night and-informedithem>of1a coupl'efof> things.  !

4 It saysThe had-informed them that the'

-5 . probable:caus'e was an intermittentjprobl'em.- He had 6 informed themothat the probable causeswas ant  !

7. i'ntermittent problem onJa;high jacket water 8 temperature switch and potentially a second l

)

9' intermittent. problem;or a calibration ~ problem lof; 1 i

'10 another switch, and that;he considered.the'Calcon'  !

q 11 switches reliable and'the diesels operable.- f l And from what I have been'able-toltell l O 12 13  ;

from looking at this transcript, is-that he did' 14 those things, except for telling the NRC thatihe: i 15 considered the Calcon cwitches reliable,.heLdid  !

16 those other things except for that.

17 i

He seems at line 15 to be addressing the j 18 group of his opinions and is no longer'st'ating_what .

l 19 was contained in his discussion with the NRC. -And I' 4 1

1 20 believe that his discussion from line 15 on page 2 I 21 over to line 2'on.page 3'is not in reference to what 22 he told the NRC. The portion previous to that and-

. 23 the portion after that, I believe, is in reference 24 to what he actually~ told them. '

' O -25 Q. I'm sorry, but I think it is worth

.- . . _ . -. .. _ . . . . _ . _ - _ ,_.,._m_

+

. - _ _ . . . . ..y..

_.-__...y .

V .

.i; 129  !

1 1: interrupting yo.u at this time for:youitogfocus on- i

'I 2~ page 3,Lline13, wheresfollowinglthe'linestthat you 3 i

11 3 have referred to"and:theLdis~cussion;about  !

l, 4- ' reliability of switche'sLMr. Bockhold says:; . And'I- j a

5 told,the.NRC that, and ask.you.whether or not?you~ -

l

.6 might reconsider your' answer?- 1

)

7'- . A' . 'Yes, I'will recons'ider. I..-hadn't read ., ,

t 3

'?

8 that'next line.-

l

'9 Q. :I.~take it, then, that you.would; agree 10- with the firstLsentence. What about-thefsecond' 11 sentence? Am I rightLthat now.you agree with the j t

'first~ sentence?  !

O 12 13 A.

l With.a couple of exceptions. Thisosays  !

~

14 that this happened.on. April 2nd, which ILh'aven'!; t 15 been'able to ascertain; and I haveLnot been.-'able to l q

16 ascertain whether this' occurred duringLa morning.  :{

17 telephone conference.

18 Q. Same' question I'have asked before w'ith i

i 19 regard to the plant status, if you participated . in i 20 those, does.anything in here-strike.you as 21 ' inconsistent with a conversation'that might'have 22! taken place during that plant. status morning call?' {

i 23 A .- I don'tthave a' specific reason to dispute '

24 that, but I don't know that.

O 25 L

Q. Second' sentence?

I

~

l

-1 130 )

(~)

\/

1 A. With the clarification that I think he's i

2 no longer referring to his conversation-with the,  !

3 NRC, which was what the first sentence was about. I 4 think he appears on this transcript to have said -

5 that, but to his staff or to whoever is on this .

6 conversation. f 7 Q. Okay, you agree with the second sentence, f 8 but you want us to understand that you don't read '

9 that as referring to Mr. Bockhold reporting on a  ;

I 10 conversation with'the NRC?

l 11 A. That's correct.

I g- 12 Q. No. 18? .

i

\w 13 A. With respect to these statements, I [

14 cannot tell if Doth the NRC Region II and the IIT ,

i 15 personnel had.been advised that the plant typically i 16 had problems, et cetera, et cetera. I recognize i i

17 Mr. Chaffee as being a member of the IIT team, but I i

18 cannot tell as to Region II.

19 Q. How about Mr. Johnston? ,

20 A. I don't recognize Mr. Johnston.

21 In addition, the verbiage is different in 22 that this section refers to problems calibrating the 23 Calcon sensors during maintenance outages, and the g 24 statements made by Mr. Bockhold refer to during

/ i 25 overhaul time. Those are different. The engine is i

)

131 hL/

1 overhauled in a major maintenance manner when it t

2 might be completely torn down. The words overhaul '

3 would indicate a major tear-down of the diesel.

4 That is different than an occasion when the diesel 5 might be out for maintenance, which might be minor 6 in nature.

7 ' Overhaul is a specific title that would I 8 occur on an 18-month interval, and the owners group, 9 utilities consult for these major tear-downs. And 10 that terminology is different than a maintenance '

11 outage because a maintenance outage could be for

(^ only one shift and could occur at any time during

(_)3 1312 the year and wouldn't be a total tear-down.

14 And also it seems to be overstating 15 what's said when it refers to once the diesels had 16 been declared operable, because I didn't see the 17 words declared operable in this transcript.  :

18 Q. Paragraph 19?

i 19 A. When I turn to Exhibit 7, I see 1

20 Mr. Horton's note, which I'm having trouble relating )

l 21 to No. 19.

22 Q. I believe the appropriate exhibit 23 reference was Exhibit 8. Is that helpful?

g") 24

\

A. Exhibit 8, page 65, I see that there are J

25 no voices identified, so I'm having trouble i

i l

l' i

132 *

~

1- verifying that Mr. Al Chaffee. acknowledged to; Ken  !

2 Brockman that Bockhold's view of operabilityfhad f 3 some merit. j

4. Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, are you able to determine.

5 from your review of-transcript page.65 that the [

6 substance of what's reported in proposed stipulation.  !

7 No. 19 is accurate, even though'you question whether I i

8- or not the individuals involved on that transcript  !

9 .page are Chaffee and Brockman? j 10 A. On page 65 I cannot.  !

l  :

11 Q. Let's assume that the voice here is j

t 12 Mr. Chaffee on this page; and I have knowledge that 13 looking at this page alone, you can't'make that f t

i 14 determination. And let's assume further that I also "

15 acknowledge that looking at this page'alone, you 16 can't determine who it is he is talking to.

17 But if, as I said before, you will assume  ;

L 18 that this voice, that it's a fair representation to 19 you that this voice is Mr. Chaffee and that he is '

20 involved in a discussion with Mr. Brockman, I ask 21 you whether or not the substance that occurs in l

22 proposed stipulation No. 19 is accurate based on 23 this page?

24 A. I can't tell that this transcript section i L

25 where it --

and the only section where it says l

t l O ~ -

.j

'133 i 1

..l. George, which.I will assume is-GeorgejBockhold,'that ,j L 2 Lthis.:section is referring to?Bockhold's view of i

( '

i

1. '3 operability. I'see no way'to-determine that we are  !

'4 talking about George Bockhold's viewsof 5' . operability.- All it'says is'what Georgecis sayingl j

6. has.some merit, and nowhere do I~see what George' 7- said. 'I 8 Then.it says he'said,- and I guess ~the1he-

)

i 9 here, I'will. assume that the he'here.from No. 19 is 1

\

10 perhaps referring t o' M r.. Bockhold.again.

'AndiI j 11 cannot tell that from this transcript because.Lthe ;I voice that I have just assumed to be^Mr. Chaffeeris1 -l

' O .12'.

l

13. the one'that says that,.and he.says;it doesEseem, i

14 though,' based on history, thatfeventuallyfwhatever' -j 1

15 is causing these things to trip seem.to work i

-i 16 themselves out. 1 l

l 17 I would further note thatLthe voice, if i i

18 we assume it to be Mr. Chaffee', is, indeed, j j

19 . questioning the operability or~the previous, testing 1 1

20. because he says.there is some question of'how l 21 comprehensive their testing is in this c a s e '. 'And he l

22 later says that that does leave some doubt. The-23 past testing they.did is not fully comprehensive, l 24- and that does leave some doubt.

25s So I would'say this less than L

j .-

=. . . . .- - - - .. . . . . . . - .

t  !

3 134

(~% .

-u >. 1 acknowledges-that the--voice is' accepting the view-l 2~ that-this.is not a' problem.-

S 3 Q. Let me see:if ILunderstand.your~ answer. l 1

i 4 With respect :to the' first sentence-in 19, one,'you I

5- don't-know whether it is Chaffee; two, you~ don't.  ;

i . .  ;

6 know whether he isitalking to Brockman; and three, i

7 you can't'tell from the transcript page 65' whether  !

j 8 or not Chaffee's' reference to George is referring to i -

i 9 operability when he says has some merit , what-: George l 1

, 10 is saying has some merit or some.other subject?

l 11 A. That's' correct.

12 f i Q. And as to the second sentence.your-

! 13 position is?- f j 14 A. I think I just went over that.

j 15 Q. Yes, I just missed it. I'm not sure I i 16 understand it.

You agree except? li

17 A. The second sentence is a

! l

18 characterization, and he said --

19 Q. I understand we don't know whether that }

' i 20 is Chaffee. I'm asking you to assume that. )

i a 21 A. I. don't know-that it is Bockhold, that's  !

{ l J

22 my interpretation. And if he is Bockhold, then I l

l

[ 23 don't know if Bockhold said that, either. j 24 But in addition to that, I don't believe- I

+

25 that it is a proper characterization that whoever 4

I

i l ,

I 135 IT

(_/ 1 this is is accepting the fact that there is so much l

2 merit here because the voice is saying the past i 3 testing they did is not fully comprehensive, and I

4 that leaves some doubt.

5 And the voice is saying.there's a 6 questien in terms of how comprehensive their testing 7 is in this case. I believe the voice is expressing 8 something different than acceptance. The voice may {

9 say something 7. bout something having some merit; but  ;

I l 10 in the broader context, I believe the voice is 11 concerned about how comprehensive the testing is and

.12 was.

13 Q. Okay, No. 20?

14 A. I would need tape No. 29 of the ,

i 15 transcript. l

! 16 MR. BLAKE: Let the record reflect that 17 transcript proceeding was given to the 18 witness.

19 MR. LAMBERSKI: I asked Mr. Penland to 20 check on the letter that I sent to the staff 21 and to intervenor counsel on February 28th, 22 1994, a copy of which I am passing out here 23 now to confirm that the transcripts that were

~

24 attached to this letter are, indeed, the l

25 transcripts that Mr. Blake has been referring

. - +

i f

136

~g '

4

1. 1 .to in this deposition.

I 2 An'd Mr. Penland has confirmed that they 3 are the letters.that we sent out'that came 4 from the file in which we put this letter.

5 They are the.same. tape numbers as this' stack i

6 of tapes that we have copied and; brought here  ;

7 to_this deposition.

8 And, furthermore, to confirm with l 9 Mr. Bailey at Southern Nuclear that, yes, 10 indeed, these are the transcripts he received 11 when we sent the copy of this letter with the 12 attachments to him.

O 13 So what we are passing out to.you is 14 what we sent you in February 1994, and I have 15 no reason to believe you did not receive 16 them.

17 MR. KOHN: Okay. I would like to state 18 that I do have your February 28th letter, and 19 that the only --

and I assume that we~ only 20 received one transcript 4. f tape 17?

21 MR. LAMBERSKI: Attached to that 22 letter, yes.

23 MR. KOHN: At any time, I have no 24 recollection of being given --

25 MR. LAMBERSKI: Well, we have made 1

r 1.

l 137 '

l' other transcripts available;to you in-2 discovery here in Atlanta.

l 3 MR. KOHN: That is correct, outside --

i 4 MR. LAMBERSKI: Yes,-that's my best 5 recollection.

6 MR. KOHN: At this time,'the: search 7 that was done at'my office obtained a copy of i

8 transcript tape No. 17, what I had when I was '

9 on the phone to try to confirm it; and the 10 only one'we could locate at that time --

11 unfortunately, Mary Jane,'who is' covering the  !

l ~s 12 filing, was out of the office, was a

_)13 different tape No. 17, consisting of 20 14 pages. The pages were paginated in'25 length l 15 lines.

16 And on the document that was-given here I

17 today, the pagination goes to 23, and the '

18 next page is a continuation with the 24 and 19 25 with a big blank space after it, and that l

l 20 does not impart with the document that is in l

21 my office. I 22 Now, when the document came in, the 23 February 28th letter,was filed in my,  !

l 24 chronology files. The transcripts were then L

C 25 put with a rubberband and stuck in other file l

i

l'

, U. -

. 138 .1

(' '!

1 . cabinets. '

l 2- ' MR '. LAMBERSKI: Was: this.transcriptf17 il 3 ~ that you'are referring to'putLin th'effile  ;

I 4- cabinet with any other transcripts?; )

5 MR.-KOHN: All.the tr'anscripts;are' 6 contained in the sames filing; cabinet.

7 MR.-LAMBERSKI: -Do.you know which:ones',; j l

8 in;particular, that;you are referring'toLwhen. 3 1

9- you say all?

10 MR. KOHNi All the: transcripts:that we f 11 have available to us.

g g 12 MR. LAMBERSKI: Including the ones that-  !

U 13 you've-copied when you got. access tcr the l

14 documents that we have made available in this 15- case? ,

16 MR. KOHN: Yes. But I would also 17 I further like to indicate that I did have my 18 staff photocopy this February 28th letter l l

19 with the attached transcripts, it's my 20 recollection, and forwarded them to 21 Mr. Mosbaugh.

22 It's my understanding that'when 23 Mr. Mosbaugh and I were going through the 24 transcripts, that we were looking at the same 25 documents; so.that is why I believe that the

1 h 139

($) 1 ones.-- from my recollection right"now,':is I --  ;

2 don't remember the big blank spaces on them; '

+

R 3 and'I remember, too, the.tra'nscripts1being -i

!i l 4 larger. .

4 3

! 5 MR. LAMBERSKI: I b e l'i e v e . y o u ' h a v e-  !

l '- 6. copies of other' transcripts,.and I believe- $

e' 7 what they'are are the copies of the-4 -

j:

8 transcripts?that.we have made available that

{

9 you copied when you've been here to our  ;

10- offices an~d;taken copies away. '

11 And we can probably even confirm the 12 transcript copies that you have taken away O 13. because we have copied'them for you. I~ don't

'i l

4 14 know if we can or can't, frankly. But1I have  !

15 asked Tom to pull out transcript;17 from the '

')

16: documents that we have made available to you,  :

17 and I-have~ handed you a copy of11t here.

18 Perhaps you can confirm that, yes, this - is 19 the' copy that your office has told you is  ;

a 20 there. In fact, there's a very easy way to I i

21 confirm that. I believe the bound transcript

- 22 that I just handed you of tape 17 has Bates 23 numbers on it; is that.not correct?

MR. KOHN: Yes,-that is correct.

L()24 t

. 25 MR. LAMBERSKI: And the transcript that

-re--- g - , ,. .,,..,w , --

, ,.,on.. _ - , - - -"  %+.

, i 140

/"N' ,

1 we have;been handing out here today and that .

2 were. attached to my February 18._ letter do not 3 have Bates numbers on them. I

.i 4' MR. KOHN: That ils correct.- With that  ;

5 I think we can'go a little further-to

~6 clarify. And ultimately, tha confusion could 7 end up being the documents that Mr..Mosbaugh- 3

[

8 was using'to review.were'the entire  !

9 . transcript., And so now looking atfthe- l 10 portions, it is throwing him off a bit. I I 11- can't explain it at this point, but I-will 12 call back and,see ifwe have.the Bates' O 13 numbers on them. We can maybe try to1 resolve l

l l

14 that before my office closes. I 15 MR. LAMBERSKI: Sure.

i 16 (A recess was taken.)

17 MR. BLAKE: We took a break so that 18 Mr. Kohn could report to his office. I don't  ;

19 know if there is anything to report. l l

20 MR. KOHN: The only' thing I can 21' indicate is that the only transcript we were ,

i 22 looking at, No.  ? is the one with the~  !

23 project numbers i- it.

24 MR. LAMBERSKI: Well, that's fine; but

~O 25 I have real difficulty believing that you did 1

- - - - - . - . _ . _ _ . _ . - . - - . - - - _ _ - . _ . _ - _ , , , . . . , , , , . , , -.w, n.- g ,

141 N ']

1 not receive those things when we sent them 2 because once you received the letter, you 3 would have called me and said where's the 4 transcripts, or once you received our 5 proposed diesel stipulations a few days later 6 which refer to those transcripts, you would 7 have said the same thing. So I am absolutely 8 baffled at this position and very much 9 concerned.

10 MR. KOHN: Mr. Mosbaugh, I think, 11 reminded me at some point there were some l i

rT 12 transcripts sent directly to him in Georgia.  !

U 13 Do you remember the reason for that?  ;

14 MR. LAMBERSKI: We may have, in fact,  !

15 sent these transcripts directly to 16 Mr. Mosbaugh. I don't know that we have a 17 record of that. I think if it was done, 18 Mr. Penland would have done it. It's 19 possible that he did it for me on my 20 letterhead. I will ask him to go check that.

21 MR. BLAKE: I don't think there's a 22 need to wait for Mr. Lamberski to check on 23 that. Why don't we proceed.

fN 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, you were il'~') 25 looking, during the break, to take advantage of the l

142 f%.

L) 1 time, to look at proposed stipulation paragraph 2 No. 20 which has'a reference to' tape No. 29. Are

3 you able to state whether or not you agree or

4 disagree with the language?  ;

l 5 A. Sure, from this transcript, I cannot 6 determine all the things stated in No.H20. For '

7 example, I can't determine that this occurred on  ;

8 April 3rd. I cannot determine thac this occurred in 9 a plant status meeting because unlike the other  :

10 transcripts, this doesn't even have the notation we i

11 talked about before. This one is different. So ,

12 there is no notation on this one of it beihg a plant

13 status meeting. -

L 14 I can say that Mr. Bockhold has made a i'

15 statement that we believe the calibration is correct 16 with the new switches, and if that's --

and we don't 17 have that problem today. So I believe Mr. Bockhold 18 is referring to a calibration that's been done the 19 day before or on the day of April 3rd with the 20 Calcon switches.

21 And then he does say we are going to do a 22 test that will prove or disprove this theory. And 23 that's what confuses me in the context this is 24 presented because he is making an affirmative 25 statement that the calibration is correct, and then

_ ~

d

. 143 1 he goes-on to make a statement that he is going to  !

2 have to do a test in order to determine that the l 1

, 3 theory about there being a problem is correct or 4 not. But to spite that contradiction, then, he does I 5 say that in his opinion, all the diesels are still  ;

i 6 operable. So with those --

7 Q. So you see the quote in the referenced  !

8 transcript pages, what you can't determine is

-i 9 whether or not these transcript pages come from a i 10 tape-recording of an April 3 plant status meeting; 11 is that correct?

! A. Yes, that's true.

1($)1213 Q. No. 21? i 14 A. I would need tape No. 32 to review.

(

i j 15 (Tape-recording transcript.was given to [

16 the witness.) I 1 I 17 THE WITNESS: For starters, I can't

) 18 determine immediately from pages 5 through 8 ,

19 that this is an April 4th meeting. Further, {

20 I can't tell that Mr. Kitchens is involved *

! 21 because I don't see his voiced identified.  ;

i 22 I further can't tell if Mr. McCoy and j

23 Bockhold said that NRC's Ken Brockman would' l 7s 24 be briefing the regional administrator on {

25 Friday, 4-6-90, about releasing GPC from the 4

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

Y 4

144 .l

() z 1'

' Confirmation of Action 11etter. 'WhatLI see is- .l

-a i

2 MrL McCoy: making a statementLto that effect. ] 1 3'. -Q. (By:Mr.'Blake)

CanfI;-refertyou'to the. l 1 .

l I. '4 bottom page, transcript page17, lines #24-andl25Eand l

5 the.topiofftranscript page al -,.linE.1. They say;

(- ll different things?_ l*

4 .

{

'7 A. I think they1say slightly.different. ]

,I :

8 things, but theyfare both talking about.Brockman1

~

i f

.. 4{

4 9- . talking toithefregional'administratorlaboutLgetting

}

10' a' release. One.says he's prepared,.and1I don't-l mea'n

=!

1 l

11 to be overly specific, b u'c- w i t h i t h o s e -  ;

a 12 clarifications -- <well, those are-the clarifications 1

'13 that I have with respect to-the firstLs'entence.

14 .Q. You agree with the first sentence except 15 that you can't determine whether or'noc~it was an  !

l j 16 April 4 meeting on EDG testing, and you can't:-

l 0

17 determine whether or not. Kitchens was there when you j I

18 looked at McCoy's and Bockhold's statements .in-here,.

I

19 but you see that they are talking about.NRC's-

20 Brockman briefing the regional administrator on  ;

4 .

! 21 Friday about releasing GPC from the Confirmation of I 1 Action letter?

- 22 I I

23 A. Or preparing to brief him, yes. )

Q. Next sentence?

l' 0 24 25 A. I think that characterization is

+

i

. .  ?

_J

i l

145 rm

~

1 basically correct, with the clarification that I l

2 specifically said there is certainly not satisfied l 3 yet.

4 Q. 22? ,

f l

5 A. I would need tape 34, transcript pages.14 6 and 15.

7 (Tape-recording transcript was given to I i

8 the witness.)

9 MR. LAMBERSKI: By the way, Mr. Penland [

i' 10 checked to see if there was a record of 11 transmittal of these transcripts' excerpts  ;

4 12 that Mr. Blake has b'een referring to today

{

13 sent to Mr. Mosbaugh back in February or 14 early March time frame. We don't have a f 15 letter that sends them, so --

l 16 MR. KOHN: Could I have a copy of --

i 17 MR. LAMBERSKI: These do have a way of 18 disappearing, don't they?

j 19 MR. BLAKE: The record should reflect 20 that Mr. Kohn found it in his pile of '

21 documents.

~

22 THE WITNESS: I cannot tell that this  ;

23 conversation occurred on April 4th. I cannot ,

tell that Mr. Milt Hunt of the NRC and others i

O 24 25 participated. I don't believe that I can

. .. -- - ~_ -

4 4

146  :

1 tell' Paul Kochery participated because.those j 2 voices are not. identified on the. transcript.- I 3 I see that Mr. Bockhold saysythat the l 4 sensors.or calibrations were;being done, as .

5 of this date, were being done' consistently;,

6 and he believed we had good. switches'in'the l

7 plant;; but I cannot see where Mr. Bockhold- l 8 indicated-that the calibration procedure'had ,

9 not been changed yet; .'and I could notosee  ;

10 where it was discussed that it would be 1 .

11 changed once they had decided on=the.best way 12 to do it.

13 I do see that Mr. McCoy indicates that i 14 whatever they send to Brockman, Milt needs a 15 copy of. i 16 Q. (By Mr. Blake) So to summarize my  ;

17 understanding with respect to 22, that you are 18 unable to tell whether or not this'was on s

19 April 4th. You are unable to determine from this l

20 excerpt whether Kochery, Hunt and others were 21 there. You are able to agree that Bockhold said the 22 sensor calibrations were being done in a consistent 23 fashion; and, quote, We believe we've got good 24 switches in the plant now, end quote.

25 You are unable to agree with the next

)

147

( l

\- 1 portion of the sentence that is Bockhold added that l l

2 the calibration procedure had not been changed yet 3 but will be changed once they've decided on the best 4 way to do it, but you are unable to agree with the 5 last portion of the sentence, McCoy said to make 6 sure that Milt Hunt got everything that was provided 7 to Brockman; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. No. 23?

10 (Tape-recording transcript was given to 11 the witness.)

~ 12 THE WITNESS: On No. 23, I cannot tell 13 from this documentation that this occurred in 14 an April 5th plant status meeting. It does 15 appear that Mr. Bockhold stated, We have not 16 identified the root cause of the jacket 17 order. The quote that is attributed to 18 Mr. Bockhold doesn't seem to be accurate.

19 The transcript, as I read it, says: We have l

20 not identified the root cause of the failure  !

21 of the high jacket water temperature l

22 switches, period. We believe they are 23 reliable enough for diesel operability,

_ 24 period. But we are getting some resistance K' 25 from the NRC in that particular area. And

~ . . _ _ . . _ _

J C

4 148 4

/m 1 that does not seem to be the same. wording or .

2 sentence sequence that'sl quoted. t

3. Q. (By Mr. Blake) I agree.with'you.

4 A. :In addition, it says that Mr. Bockhold 5 said that the NRC was concerned about the

6 reliability of the high jacket water switches, which 7 may have to be bypassed before the NRC would allow. j-i j 8 restart. And I don't see a quote that I.would draw ,

9 that characterization f rom.- I see Mr. Bockhold  ;

l  !

10 talking about the potential to bypass them, but he ,

11 does not seem to be referencing that:to the NRC. -

s 12- Q. No. 24?

13 A. This appears to be an --

14 Q. I see you are struggling,.Mr. Mosbaugh, 15 but go ahead, say it. ,

i

16 A. This appears to be an accurate 17 characterization, with some' minor corrections; but i

18 as far as a characterization, I will say that it is 1 i

1 19 accurate. The quote is not exact.

I 1 ,

' l 20 Q. I agree. I at least saw issues as 21 opposed to issue; but you agree'with.this statement?

22 A.. As a characterization.

23 Q. No. 25?

24 A. I cannot tell if this document was faxed O'-25 to the NRC.

L l

1 l

l 149 1 Q. Can I refer you to the top of the first 2 page in the exhibit?  ;

3 A. Yes. The fax line on the top indicates 4 this was faxed out of the technical services 5 building at Vogtle.

t 6 Q. So other than your inability-to. determine 7 whether or not it was faxed to the NRC --

8 A. I have an additional problem. You 9 referred me to the top of the document, and I can -,

10 only tell that it was faxed.out of the technical 11 services building. I really can't tell any more.

(~g 12 Q. Yes.

'%.)

13 A. But the terminology Paul Kochery list, 14 because I have used that terminology myself with 15 respect to a document that I obtained, I will state l

\

16 that this is not a Paul Kochery list that I refer to 17 as a Paul Kochery list that I will obtain. And 18 because that is used in quotes here, I consider that I r

19 to be a special reference; and I will say that this l 20 is not the Paul Kochery list that I refer to when I

)

21 have referred to a Paul Kochery list. i 22 Q. The Paul Kochery to which you refer was a 23 handwritten list rather than a typed list?

A. That's correct. But in addition, the O' 24 t

25 detailed content, it did not contain this content;

i 150 ,

1 'and I know that because it definitely did not 2 contain this detailed content.

3 Q. That is, the handwritten list that you  ;

4 saw developed by.Mr. Kochery, you.now recall 1was not 5 the.same as this typed list, andJit's not'merely 6 because this is typed, its content-was different?.

7 A. I am positive of.that. ,

, 8 -Q. 1M r . Mosbaugh, what were the dates of the'

9 starts on the. Paul Kochery list which you recall?  !

10 A. I have tried to: remember'the span of'  ;

]

11- dates, and I don't have a good recollection on' thel )

i gg 12 span of dates. I am of the belief that it ck_) 13 started -- it included starts before the 22nd, 23rd,-

j

14 24th time frame; and I believe it included some 15 after that.

4 16 And it absolutely did not contain the 17 kind of detailed information that's in the started 18 column. It contained more information like a-date 19 and a time and handwritten notation of limited 20 detail, such as, you know, received alarm or 21 tripped; but it wouldn't contain the detail such.as 22 1AA02 alternate incoming breaker closed in i

23 paralleling in DG1A, et cetera. It definitely did

< 24 not have that kind of detail.

25 Q. Have you never seen this document before?

l 4

I 151 )

4 1 A. I have seen this document in the {

2 documents produced by one or more of the people we 3 deposed. '

i 1 4 Q. And do you have any reason to believe  !

5 that this is not a list prepared by Paul Kochery?- )

6 A. I wouldn't know one'way or another. l

\

7 Q. But you have no reason to suspect it may i 8 not have been prepared by Mr. Kochery? ,

9 A. I see a note in the upper right-hand 10 corner of this document, or a date, that.seems to be  ;

11 5-30-90, perhaps indicating it was prepared some i 12 months after the site area emergency'. The list'that 13 I obtained from Paul Kochery I obtained before this l 14 date.

15 Q. Wouldn't it be a logical explanation if, 16 in fact, the handwritten numbers which you are 17 looking at represented the date 05-30-90, would s

18 there be a logical explanation for its being 19 telecopied.more than a month earlier on.4-6-90?

i 20 A. Yes, you are right about that. I see the 21 date, and I don't understand the date, but you are 22 correct, I'm sorry. I forgot that we are talking 23 about a telecopyimark at 4/6, so it looks like it r g 24 was prepared by and typed by 4/6 at least.

U 25 Q. Let me.suggest to you that those l

I 1

l

152 p,

i

) 1 handwritten numbers up there may have nothing to do 2 with the date but will be some other nomenclature 3 for one group or another gathering documents.

4 Now, let me get back. Do you have any 5 reason to suspect that this might not have been a 6 document prepared by Mr. Kochery?

7 A. I have no reason to dispute that Paul 8 Kochery might have prepared a handwritten list from 9 which this was typed, but I can envision it being 10 prepared by a lot of other people because it almost 11 seems to have been prepared from a control log. And g- 12 as I said before, the use of the Paul Kochery list i

\~')13 in quotes had a special connotation to me because I 14 have used that phraseology specifically.

15 Q. What are the dates of the starts and 16 stops which are indicated in this exhibit?

17 A. The span of 1A is from March the 12th to 18 March the 23rd, and for 1B is from March the 13th 19 through March the 23rd. And that's all.

20 MR. KOHN: I note for the record that 21 this document exhibit does not have a project 22 number on it. Do you know if an original of 23 this document is contained in the documents

?

s\ 24 produced in discovery?

\~~ 'I 25 MR. LAMBERSKI: I believe it is.

153 i

(~~)1 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you recall whether or l

i 2 not the Paul Kochery handwritten list which you 3 observed spanned a time frame of starts and stops l l

4 for 1A and 1B which differed from this, or you have 5 no recollection?  ;

6 A. My recollection is that it included some.  :

7 starts that went beyond~the.23rd time period.

8 Q. As we sit here today, is there some basis 9 for your having that recollection, something that i 10 you can tie it to?

11 A. I have a vague recollection of something, t

12 including data up into April. I just have a vague 13 recollection of that, which is beyond'the 23rd and 14 22nd time frame. i 15 Q. That is, a vague recollection of 16 observing on Mr. Kochery's handwritten list starts 17 and stops up through April?

18 A. (Witness nr's head affirmatively.)

19 Q. Is it possible that this typed list, with-20 its additional detail, is, in fact, a typed list of 21 the same Kochery handwritten list which you saw and 22 with additional detail added in the right-hand 23 column?

i

(~ 24 A. I don't think so. I don't remember, and

25 the reason is this: Is that for each' start, there l

l

-- - I

i l

154 !

! )

1 is many entries. For example, on the first page at 2 0009 it says started,-and.then at 17 minutes it says 3 output breaker' closed, and then it says at 0038 4 placed on recirc for chemistry, et cetera, et 5 cetera. The list that.I had had more or less'one >

6 and possibly two entries per start, not: all six of-7 these, all of these subsequent times. It was start 8 and stopped kind of information.

9 Q. I. understood. And that's really why I J 10 had said might it have been the same starts and 11 stops but with additional detail added after you saw  !

g3 12 the list which was typed up?

13 A. Well, I interpreted your question as 14 referring to the verbiage on the right-hand column, .

1 15 but I indicated in the middle column are these 16 additional times, okay. If what you mean is some 17 subset of this list, I have no way of saying if i 18 that's true or not. .

19 Q. Focusing, again, on paragraph No. 25 --

J l

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. --

are you able to agree with that 22 statement except for the fact that this typed 23 document is not.the same as the handwritten document 24 which you saw and it referred to as Paul Kochery 25 list?

155

) 1 A. Well, I said that I couldn't agree that I 2 can tell that it had been faxed to the NRC. I'm not 3 sure it's the same list. And I will add that I'm 4 not sure that this list --:I am not sure that the 5 handwritten list I saw was definitely prepared by 6 Kochery himself and perhaps could have been prepared 7 by' Stokes for Kochery. I can't be sure of that, 8 either, in terms of the quote Paul Kochery list. I 9 don't intend that to imply that it was necessarily 10 what Paul Kochery alone wrote. It could have been 11 somebody who worked for him.

fs 12 t

Q. You were just referring to the 13 handwritten list which you saw?

14 A. I'm referring to the handwritten list, 15 yes.

16 Q. No. 26?

17 MR. KOHN: Before we move on, Mr.

18 Blake, I would also like to note that with 19 respect to Exhibit 12, if you will look at 20 the first three pages, they-have a ringlet of 21 fax transmissions which is not too clear and 22 has a fax transmission line on the top. And 23 then when you get to another page, the second l 3 24 to the end, you will see this one is a lot

' \_) 25 clearer and does not have a fax transmission

_--_____________-______--_____---__-__-_-_------__-_-__--_-------=

l

^

156 (O '#

l-  :

line on it.

~

'l 2 MR. BLAKE: Let me make two I t 4- 3 observations for the record. In fact, the 1 .

4 last three pages do have a fax' transmission:

5 line. All the'pages in this document,--.other-6 than the next to the last, include'a fax '

7 transmission line at the top; and the i 8 difference in the type or format,'which is q

! l 9 subtle, but'nevertheless, I agree with 10 Mr. Kohn,' occurs on the last three pages 11 which refer to DG1B or1the first three refer q- 12 to DG1A.

13 MR. KOHN: I would also like to note 14 that the fax transmission times, they start j

, 15 out at 1406, the first document; and the 16 second document starts at 1401; and the last i

17 page goes to 1406.

18 MR. BLAKE: I agree. It appears to me 19 that the document was probably transmitted 4 20 beginning with the first page of DG1B at j 21 1401, page 2 of DG1B where we don't have the 22 nomenclature at the top, then page 3 on DG1B,-

23 and then the DG1A was telecopied at 1406.

g- 24 Page 2 of DG1A at 1408, and page 3 of DG1A at

% 25 1411. A fairly routine numbering system.

-r , , w

157

,O V -l' THE WITNESS: Having looked at it 2 further here, I would also like to note that 3 the page that does not have a fax 4 transmission on it includes ~the failure on 5 start 132.

6 MR. BLAKE: And, therefore----

7 MR. KOHN: I think therefore~it stands 8 that this page could have been supplemented 9 into this document.

10 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Well, since we have gone 11 back to this document, let me ask you some more f 3 12 questions, Mr. Mosbaugh, about it having to do with 13 the handwritten Paul Kochery list.

14 Do you recall discussions in your 15 characterizations or reference to the handwritten 16 Paul Kochery list, do you now recall today 17 discussion about or reference to the handwritten 18 Paul Kochery list?

19 A. In what time frame?

20 Q. April 19th, 1990?

21 A. I don't have an independent recollection 22 of my discussions in April 19th, 1990, but I do have-23 a recollection based on review of tapes of having if g 24 some or making mention of a Paul Kochery list on b 25 April 19th.

~

i i

l 158 1 Q. And'from your review of those tapes, does 2 it appear that on April 19th you were referring to  ;

3 or' relying'upon the Paul'Kochery handwritten list ,

i 4 for information about diesel starts and stops? l 5' A. I recall that I obtained specif'ic 6 information about particular. trips that'I notified 7 Mr. Shipman about from a Paul Kochery list.  ;

8 Q. And was there an abnormal running of the.  !

i 9 diesel, a problem start on March.22nd, which you j 10 referred to in your conversations on April'19th?

11 A. Well, I'think I referred to a trip --

i 12 Q. Fair enough, a trip?

13 A. --

of a diesel on April 22 in my j 14 conversation with Mr. Shipman.

15 Q. And also one on the 23rd?

16 A. Yes.

17- Q. Which you referred to in your i

18 conversation with Mr. Shipman? I 19 A. Yes. l 20 Q. And does the document that we have been 21 looking at, Exhibit No. 12, include information on l 22 those two problem starts or trips of the 1B diesel?

23 A. I believe I previously indicated that l 24 that list included the trips on 132 and 134 starts.

O-25 Q. Was there another trip or a problem start i

l l

t 159

,~

( )

1 on March 24th?

2 A. It wasn't a trip, but it was a condition 3 where the diesel should have tripped but didn't.

4 Q. And is that included on the list we have 5 in front of us?

6 A. I recall that this cut off at the 23rd.

7 Q. And in your conversation with Mr. Shipman 8 on April 19th where you were using the Paul Kochery 9 handwritten list, did you make any reference to the 10 problem with 1B diesel which occurred on March 24th?

11 A. No, I didn't. But'I do recall later

,- 12 conversations in the day about there being three  !

V 13 failures or problems, so I believe that there was  !

)

14 some knowledge of --

and I can't be sure that the 15 difference between two and three is the problem that 16 occurred on 136 from those conversations, but it's 17 possible.

18 Q. Do you recall, from your review of the 19 tapes of April 19th, that in your conversations with 20 Mr. Shipman, you referred to starts that began on 21 March 12th?

22 A. I can't recall if I did or'not.

23 Q. Assuming we are able to confirm that from fs 24 the tapes that you made, and we can determine what i )

25 date you said that the starts started on, whether it

I I

160 0 1 was the 12th or the 13th, one of these lists starts 2 on the 12th and one on the 13th, would you agree 3 that there's a coincidence in the start times of i

4 these lists and the handwritten Kochery list that i 5 you were using?  !

6 A. Would I agree that there is a_

7 coincidence?

8 Q. Yes. j 9 A. I.can't recall the specific detail you 10 are talking about as to whether it was March ---I '

i 11 mean, if it's the 12th of March, is that what you ,.

r

p. 12 are saying it refers to?

l

) 13 Q. Yes.

i

[

14 A. And not the 12th of some other month?

15 Q. No, I'm talking about March 12th or 13th, f 16 in that these two diesel start records for 1A and 1B 17 start, in one case, on the 12th and the other case 18 on the 13th, and it is my belief that in your .

19 conversation when we review it for April 19th with  !

i 20 Mr. Shipman, you, at that time, referred to the fact l 21 that the starts that you were looking at referred to 22 either on the 12th or the 13th? i 23 A. Now that you mention that, again, I'm i

24 unclear as to whether -- well, I just don't know if O 25 we are talking about March the 12th.

J

I I i

l L

, -~ .

161 l

1 Q. That's clearly what'I am talking about.

2 No. 26?

1 3 A. First, I cannot tell that this was faxed 4 to the NRC on April the 6th. I'm referring to i 5 Exhibit 13. It has no fax notation on it. It does l

l 6 appear to have an entry about a lube oil-high 7 temperature switch, and it does make reference to 8 this switch being suspected of causing a DG1B trip ~.

I 9 My knowledge would, or my reading-of this 10 would tend to make me believe!that that was ,

l l 11 associated with the trip on the 22nd.' There-is no 12 mention of a switch-causing a trip or a failure or a l

13 problem on the 24th, as No. 26 indicates. '

14 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, let's not lose track of '

i i

15 what it is we are doing here. This is not an I l 16 exercise to determine whether or not each of these 17 stipulations is a wholly appropriate summary of an l 18 exhibit which is referred to. What we are asking is 19 whether or not you can agree with this statement. '

l 20 In an attempt to try to help you with your memory, i

! 21 then we give references to items which may or may 22 not be helpful.

23 So my question to you on this one, as I

~% 24 have not intended it on all the others, is can you

25 agree with that statement that's made using, if you

i 162 0 1 will,' the referenced Exhibit 13? It might be that 2 ysu are able to. agree.with that statement withoutL 3- anyLreference to the exhibit simply because you

4. remember it or you know it to be accurate. i

.5 MR. KOHN: Well, I think probably a  ;

i 6 problem with a lot of questions is most of- I 7 them require or make reference.to facts he  :

8 does not have' firsthand knowledge of and' .

9 those.he must' completely rely on the i

10 exhibits, which I ascertain - .  :

11 ;M R . BLAKE:. That's why we, of course, )

12 put the references in, in an attempt-to help-13 him. As an example, right here he may very  !

14 well know without any reference to Exhibit 13 15 at all that on April 6th Georgia Power faxed 16 NRC a summary listing, et cetera. The fact 17 that he doesn't, hopefully this exhibit would j 18 help him. I say that only so we don't lose 19 track of what we are doing.

20 THE WITNESS: I have.been answering 21 your questions both as to what I have an 22 independent recollection of, as well as what 23 I can ascertain from the document, and I have 24 no independent --

for example, here, that

.O 25 this was faxed to NRC at any point in time,

163 i  ;

1 and I don't have an independent recollection, 2 other than the lube oil high temperature 3 switch, that these switches caused the 4 failure on March 24th.

5 But furthermore, I would say that it's 6 my independent --

from my-independent review, 7 I'm not of the opinion that the switch did 8 cause the problem or failure on March 24th.

9 Q. (By Mr. Blake) The review you are 10 referring to is the one you currently.have underway 11 but haven't yet completed?

g-) 12 1 A. That refers to the one that I have

\_

13 already written up and provided to NRC and which you 14 have. I believe there is some reference to that in 15 there.

16 Q. No. 27?

I 17 A. With respect to the first phrase, it says j

18 that NRC Region II personnel had express knowledge l 19 that, as of that date, GPC had only been able to  ;

20 identify the probable cause. l 21 And when I review this transcript 22 segment, I don't recognize any people hearing the 23 discussions that are from Region II. All I note is g3 24 the NRC person of Mr. Chaffee. So I don't know 25 who's on the call with Mr. Chaffee, if there are

i 1

1 164 j (h'

1- others'at this point in time or not.

l 2 And since it says express' knowledge, I j 3- guess I would expect to see some Region II name i l

4 . hearing what's-being said by the Georgia Power l 1

5 person. *

)

)

6 Based on what I have been able to- l 7 determine from this transcript, it doesn't appear 8 that the statement that's made that further testing 9 at Wyle Labs.was to be conducted after restart, the j i

10 reference is not made to it: being before.or after.  !

I 11 ' restart. Further testing is discussed on the 2 12 quarantine sensors, and.no reference is made to the 13 Wyle Laboratories.

I 14 I do have independent recol,ection that 1

15. Wyle Laboratories was used to do at least some.of 16 the independent testing, that I'm aware of.

17 Q. And that independent testing was going to 18 be conducted after the start-up?

19 A. I did not know if that would necessarily 20 be --

was being considered to be before or after.

21 My recollection of what happened was that it began  !

22 after, but I don't recall whether it was a condition 23 to begin before or after.

24 Q. But you did understand that it wasn't 25 going to be completed until after start-up?

m

._ y

!. l65

[([)

l' A.

I think I had that understa'nding, yes.

, 2- Q. And.the last sentence?L

)l E 3 A.- I see no-reference to'Mr.'Brockman. 1 2 -

i 4 Maybe I.misse'd..something. j i -

b 5 Q. Well, it's getting on 'in ' time n sbut: are - .

i j; 6- .you looking at 157 '

l. ,

i 7 A. No, I:have not1 moved'on-to Exhibit 15, ,

I

I'm sorry.

~

! 8 With'the clarification 1 that1this'does.  !

9 not'make' reference.to the Wyle_testingnthat i t 10

. Mr. Aufdenkampenis referring <to, it appearsJthat ,

[

L

j. 11 Mr. Brockman is saying.that the testing 'of :lth'ose' 12 switches is'not. impacting ~the releaseLof .

j, 13 criticality. i i

l 14 Q. No. 28? -

15 A. Yes, on No. 28 my understandingLof 1

h 16 Mr. Brockman's statement here is that the extent to  !

j- 17 which he is saying he was aware:that:the diese11 '

. 18 generator had not always started and operated as 1

1 19

~

expected, applied to the failure during the site -

i

- 20 area emergency and possibly to a failure during

. 4

)

i' 0

." 21 testing of-diesel 1A on about March the 30th,.Lwhere 22 a -CalconL sensor was purposely vented: and! the - diesel, 23- . tripped,.but I'do n'ot believe that Mr.-Brockman-is i

24' referring to any unexpected f ailures because he-l 25' later so states, j

i a

.i i

1

.166  ;]

() .

1 Q. What later are you1 referring?to?

1 i

1 2 A. In his affidavitJor,.I'm;sorry,-..in his: v 3 responses to interrogatoriesLthat are. contained in 4~ Exhibit'16.' 'i 1

5 .

Q. Now,= help me byfpointing out.where.you y 6 are referring.to..

7' A. .I recall l-readingL that.'in thistaffidavit'

'8. from page,: 'I'm sorry,.inothis~ response!to. ';

9 interrogatory contained on page 8.- I understood .i 10 this to'mean'there were-no'. unexpected 1 failures. And) 11 obviously,.the site area l emergency was'an unexpected _

12 failure; but I thinkreverybodyiknew-about those- l 13 failures. l l

14-(A recess was taken.):

i L 15 MR. BLAKE: Okay, we are'back on..the l l +

l 16 record after an extended. break.- During the' 17 break we have also discussed the. future 18 schedule for-this deposition; and after a 19 number of alternatives were explored,-we've '

20 determined to agree to a schedule whereby we 21 will continue with'the-same line of 22 examination of Mr. Mosbaugh this' evening for.

23 as long as he is willing and capable, and' '

24 then the deposition will be continued to 25 begin on August 23rdLat 10:00 o'clocksin the  !

i i

t

=i 167 11 morni.ng. s i

~2 And'the partiesTwillfhold August 23rd.

~

L3- and 24thtopenifor Mr..Mosbaugh's deposition 1 i

4 ~' on.each ofEthose days to'begin atl10': c LOO l o ' clock 'and not .'to-. go' : pas t _8 ': 0.0 o ' clock 1 on'

~5- >

t 1

6-

~

either evening, unlessfa different agreement l  ;

7- about extending ~it is#agreedrto atjthat- l I

8- point, but?right now that's-~the: agreement ~ . . i lt Michael, is:that.aTfair I

.1~

10

'i representation?' ii 11' MR. KOHN: ,Yes, and we williattemptito. .i

~

a

.12 reschedule Mr. Shipman,.to the best.we;can,

-t 13L to be concurrent'during that week, if l-( '14 possible. .!

l 15 MR. BLAKE: But that'is not a: condition 'I

! I l '16 - of~thefcontinuance.of Mr.'Mosbaugh's. R l

17 deposition, correct? I MR. KOHN

.No, Mr.:Mosbaugh's:

19 deposition will go.forwardLon.those' dates.-

20 It'is just'the.. parties are-generally

, '21 attempting to make the discovery. process work L

2 2 ' as' smoothly;as possible andTwill;do their' >

L 23:

k best1to~try-to get.Mr. Shipmanein there'~at.

I

.24 the same time'.

25 16R . BLAKE: And theTparties/have J' 1j l

1 E _. _ _u .. ._ - _ .- - ~ - .-

~

~ . - . -- - - JU

168 O - l- expressed.that they?are hopeful that the-2- Board willLgo along'with'our schedulel~ever 3- thoughLthe continuance of Mr. Mosbaugh's.

4. deposition 11s'beyond the' cut-offiof

[;

5 -discovery.- .The parties recognize that'that

~

,6 is not anEextension of a discoveryfschedule,

~

i

.7 but~ rather an agreement on'this/ deposition.

'8 Q. (By Mr. Blake). I'mLeorry.for the 4

9

interruption, Mr. Mosbaugh.' When weibroke, wefhad

-10 ; .just finished proposedfstipulation'28. Letime' turn' 11 to proposed stipulation 29-and ask you, again, i

12 whether.or not'you are able to agree with J that

]

i

! 13 stipulation?

i 14 A. I guess, like-many of these, I. don't.'have t

15' firsthand knowledge of these. But'I"can review the1 i i

16 exhibits, and I don't believe I ever saw either~of

{

17 these. Well, I'm sure I haven't seen the first of

} 18 composite 17 until perhaps in the discovery  ;

I i

19. process. And I may have seen the second document t I  !

l 20 prior to the discovery process, but-I had no memory  !

4 i

j. 21 of it until I saw it in the discovery process.

4-22 But at any rate, I can't tell explicitly 23 from this exhibit that this communication that -)

j i 2

Georgia Power officials learned from Ken Brockman.

-()2425-j I believe I have heard that during the course o f' i

4 1

e l 1

I I t , ,_ _ __ _ _ _. -- ~ _. .- ~.

\

i 169

(' ~i

%_J 1 depositions, though.

2 But this second page of the exhibit 3 doesn't really identify who it came from unless you 4 assume that Brockman up on the top with his phone 5 number is who provided this information. I can't 6 tell specifically from the first page of the exhibit 7 that --

I'm having trouble reading it, actually. It 8 looks like there might --

I can't read the xerox.

9 Spray valve,. thrust the problem, and then there is t 10 something here. I can make out something that looks 11 like Monday at Atlanta with NRC.

( g 12 Q. Don't be distracted, Mr. Mosbaugh. Don't 13 be weak like the others.

14 A. I can't confirm that this request is for 15 a presentation that would address access control to 16 the switch yard. I see that it talks about 17 vehicular control. I further can't see that it was 18 requested that the presentation address reactor 19 vessel water level configuration and outage 20 planning. In fact, that doesn't seem to be listed, l 21 if these are lists of something that the NRC wanted l

l 22 a presentation on.

l l 23 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh?

g- 24 A. It doesn't seem to me that part of the

!(

25 presentation is indicated that it would address i

1 i

. _ _ _ _ .~ _ _

1

'd i

s 170 l l'

k 1 emergency director actions. l 2 Q. M r ., Mosbaugh, are you able to confirm 3 that the general theme of this proposed stipulation 4 is by April 3, Georgia. Power officials had* learned 5 that the NRC wanted Georgia Power to'make.a 6 presentation regarding the' restarting'of unit one?

, 7 A. Without those phrases that refer to the 8 specific content of the presentation? <

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes,.it would be my belief'that from ,

11 these exhibits, that Georgia Power officials learned-  !

g- 12 that.the NRC wanted a presentation of_some' site area ,

! T ) 13 emergency related issues. l l

14 Q. Okay, let's go to 3 0 .- Before you dive 15 into Exhibit 18, which is referenced in proposed-16 . stipulation 30, this is a topic that we've spent a 17 fair amount of time discussing. This is.certainly a 18 topic which you have discussed, thought about, for l

l 19 years at this juncture; and I would ask.you to take l 20 a look at the language and see whether or not you 21 can agree with this statement or if you can't, the 22 aspects of it which you don't agree, without

! 23 consuming a detailed review of the exhibit which

- 24 was, as I say, there intended to try to be helpful, 25 not to try and tie you down.

I 1

171 l 1 A. Am I basing my answer based on what I 2 know now because we have yesterday and'the day l

3 before asked various witnesses these kinds of issues l 5 i 4 and got answers, some of which I didn't know before.

, 5 Q. Yes, what I'm asking is are you able to 6 agree with that statement, based on your state of-7 knowledge?  !

$ 8 A. At this time?

{

4 9 Q. Yes, at this time. i 10 A. Because that's been changing.

11 Q. I understand that.

g- 12 MR. KOHN: Are you asking the witness

< 13 to make judgments at this time whether he f

14 believes certain statements to certain I

i l 15 witnesses or whether the mention he has now 16 causes him to conclude that certain things-17 are probably correct?  !

18 MR. BLAKE: I hadn't asked for such-19 precision one way or the other. The question l

20 is, as we come to approach the hearing and I 21 try to reduce the amount of hearing time that 1

22 all of us will have to spend, and we can 23 agree or have a sense that we are able to 24 agree on a number of these factual

1. 25 statements, it is bound to make life easier,

l 172

(~T -

(_/  !

1 and'that's the spirit of which1I ask them-2 tonight. [

l .

! 3 To the extent that'he doesn't agree j l  !

4 with-this, then I will have to work harder to i 5 get evidence in. To the extent we can agree 6 -on things, it is bound to reduce the. hearing '

7 time. I i

8 THE WITNESS: I can basically agree 9 with No. 30, but I have not yet determined.if ,

10 George Bockhold alone directed all that  !

11 preparation. '

/'N 12 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Who else do you'think' U 13 might have directed it?

i 14 A. I think we will have to wait until we [

l 15 complete discovery. I believe there was corporate 16 communication and those potentialities exist. We 17 have already heard that there was corporate )

l 18 communication, j 19 " Q. Do you think the people, other than )

i 20 Mr. Bockhold, may have directed the preparation of 21 the presentation on the Friday and over the weekend?

22 A. It's a possibility.

23 Q. No. 31?

(~N, 2 4 A. The testimony relative to this is so  ;

IQ,) I 25 contradictory that I cannot deitrmine if 31 is a l i

1

l l

l l

173 1 correct. statement. j 2 Q. Okay, the statement that we are looking 3 at is the, quote, Diesel Testing, end. quote, and '

4 transparency reflects the information that Jimmy r

5 Paul Cash and Ken Burr provided to Bockhold? ,

! 6 A. That's correct.

I  !

7 Q. Do you understand what the diesel testing i

8 transparency is?

9 A. Yes, it's this page right here.

i 10 Q. This page right here being? l 11 A .. No. 10 of Enclosure 2 to Exhibit 18.

i "s 12 Q. And the difference that you have or the 13 reason that you can't agree with the' statement is 14 what?

15 A. Is that the testimony I have heard is so 16 contradictory that I can't determine who's telling l l 17 the truth as to who put this informstion on this 18 transparency. I have no independent knowledge as to i

19 who put any of this information on this i i

l 20 transparency. l 1

21 Q. To your knowledge, is anybody else vying

-22 to take credit for that transparency other than i

23 Mr. Bockhold?

3 24 MR. KOHN: Assuming he is vying to take x-) 25 -

credit for it. l l

~- -

i l

l 174 p.,

t k 1 THE WITNESS: It was not my 2 understanding that Mr. Bockhold was vying to 3 -take credit for it.

4 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Although he does accept i 5 responsibility for it, doesn't he?

6 A. He seemed to blame Mr. Cash.

7 Q. For the transparency?

8 A. For the --

9 Q. I'm not talking about the information in 10 it or how the information got into it. With regard 11 to the transparency, doesn't Mr. Bockhold take 1

-~ 12 responsibility for it?

13 A. I didn't feel he did.

14 Q. Is it your understanding that Mr. Cash 15 provided information that Mr. Bockhold used in that  !

16 transparency?

17 A. I can't determine that from the testimony l 18 and the discovery that we have done. l 19 Q. Same question with regard to Mr. Burr?

20 A. Mr. Burr stated point-blank in his 21 deposition that he did not participate in the 22 preparation of the transparency. Only to reverse )

23 himself and say that he did work with Bockhold.

gg 24 Q. Do you have a view on whether or not j

! )

25 Mr. Cash provided information to Mr. Bockhold which i

I 1

i t

?

175

( i

\_)J  !

I was used in that transparency?' i

.2 A. I can't tell. Everybody is contradicting .

3 everybody else.

4 Q. You don't have a view?

5 A. Not at this time.

6 Q. Do you have a view about whether or not  !

t 7 Mr. Burr provided information to Mr. Bockhold that 8 he used in that transparency?

9 A. In terms of.a view, I believe Mr. Burr 10 did provide some information that was used in that 11 transparency, even though he said he.never worked 12 with Mr. Bockhold on the transparency.

13 Q. And do you still not have any view.on  !

14 whether Mr. Cash provided any information to i l

l 15 Mr. Bockhold that Mr. Bockhold used11n.that j i

16 transparency?

17 A. No, I don't have a view on,that.

18 Q. Okay, No. 32?

19 A. I have no independent knowledge of the 20 facts contained in 32 and could not state that.this I 21 is accurate because of completely contradicting j 22 testimony, i

23 Q. Let's go one sentence at a time, if we 24 can, starting with the first sentence. The sentence

\

25 reads: Bockhold asked Cash to compile the number of

, a

f l

1

,176_  ;

l' successful starts on the' diesels'w'ithout significant j i

~2 .p robl ems . . .

1 1

3 A .- Mr. Bockhold has provided. differing andi ]

4 contradicting statements-as1to what-he asked  !

5 .Mr; Cash to do. Mr. Cash.has provided: differing and contradicting statements'as--to what he heard from.

6  !

7 Mr. Bockhold. I cannot determine if the'first'  !

8 sentence is infany.way the; truth.

9 .Q.- Second sentence?  !

10- A. Mr. Cash stated'that this was not the '

11 case. Mr. Bockhold basically said the same thing. f 12 LI-could not say that that. statement is-true.

13 Q. How would you' change'that sentence to i 1

14- have it represent your view?

15 A. I.have'no idea.

16 Q. You have no idea?

. 17 A. How to change a sentence that is 18 basically absolutely false compared to the 19 testimony. I think I would eliminate it.

20 Q. Next sentence? 1 i

21 A. Mr. Bockhold had the'same understanding.

22 I believe that to be false. I 23' Q. I'm sorry, the next sentence we are 24 focused on is Mr. Cash interpreted significant 25- problems? d

177

(

• ^s ,) '

~1 A. I'm sorry, I jumped.

r l t

2 Decause of the contradicting testimony, I .

3 3 can't be sure that Mr. Cash's instructions were 1 -

4' significant problems or not. .Furthermore, if  ;

l 5 Mr. Cash's instructions were significant problems, 6 he has stated'in this time frame that-his-7 understanding of that was' problems that prevented 5 8 the diesel from operating in an emergency; however, ,

9 he'has stated in other time frames facts that would

~

5 10 indicate that was not his understanding. I'm sorry,  !

11 he has not stated, but other people have stated that  !

i 1

s 12 he stated.  ;

t 13 Q. Who were those-other people?

14 A. Mark Ajluni, A-j-1-u-n-i.

/ ,

15 Q. So while Mr. Cash's position, as far as '

f 16 you know it, would support this, Mr.'Ajluni's would 17 not; and therefore, you don't think you coul'd go 18 along with it?

19 A. My initial problem is that it's used the 20 word significant problems; and I cannot tell, _due to  !

21 the contradicting testimony if Mr. Cash,-his 22 instructions were, indeed, significant problems, and 23 not sequential starts or some other, many.other l em 24 things that have been stated.

I 25 Q. Stated by?

i r

, 178

1. A. Various witnesses that have been deposed.

5  ;

. 2 Q. Is this witnesses other: than  :

3 Mr. Bockhold, Cash and Ajluni?  !

4 A. No, but they have made more than one 5 statement in more than~one. time frame.  ;

6- Q. Mr. Cash, as you indicated', had been 7 consistent. Did you indicate Mr. Cash's had been'

{

i

. 8 consistent, but'Mr..A'jluni's inconsistent that- f j 9 didn't allow.you to go along with this statement?.  !

i l 10 A. That is part of the problem, and I can't

(

4 11' recall all the consistency of Mr. Cash's' statement i a l 4 g 12 from the '90. time frame to the '94 time frame.

i n

_) 13 Q. Do you remember if any of it were i

4 14 inconsistent now?

t i 15 A. I would want to look at the documents l l

16 before answering that.

1 17' Q. But do you remember'aaly that were 1

18 inconsistent?

, 19 A. I can't remember any right off.

20 Q. And I understand it is 9:00 o' clock at 21 night.

)

22 Now, Mr. Dockhold had the same  !

23 understanding, was one that you had already 24 indicated you could not go along with, correct?

O 25 A. Yes, and I can't tell -- well, I am

179 f~3 l }

1 assuming that that sentence refers to the above, 2 more than one above sentence. Especially, since the 4

3 reference is a set of interrogatories which does 4 relate Mr. Bockhold's understanding to the voltage 5 and frequency statement, the Georgia Power response 6 to NRC staff set of interrogatories. -

I 7 Q. I think for purposes of my questions, 8 Mr. Mosbaugh, you should assume that that last 9 sentence refers to just the preceding sentence?

10 A. Because the next sentence refers me to 11 Exhibit 19, page 12, last item B, Mr. Cash recalls

/~]12 NJ that he understood Mr. Bockhold wanted him to count 13 starts without significant problems, where the 14 diesel had started properly and reached the required 15 voltage and frequency.

16 Mr. Cash interpreted significant problems 17 to be anything which would have prevented the diesel l 18 from operating in an emergency. Mr. Bockhold, who i

19 directed the preparation of the transparency used in l 20 the April 9th, 1990 presentation, had the same 21 understanding.

+

22 Because the first sentence says Mr. Cash 23 recalls that he understood Mr. Bockhold wanted, and

, (~} 24 since the last sentence says that Mr. Bockhold had V

25 the same understanding, I read that as relating to

180 LO 1

l.

both because this is a --

and'this is part of Vogtle .{

i l-2 positive' communications where people' communicate'and- ];

i 3 repeat back, and this would be consistent with that. l; l

l' 4 Q. Let's, for the moment,: ' talk just~about {

i

j. 5 the sentence immediately preceding,-which is l l

~

'6 Mr. Cash interpreted significant problems to be j i  !

j .7 anything which would'have prevented the diesel from' j

'i 1 8 operating in an emergency.  !

! .l

{ 9 And my question to you is:- Do you agree-

} 10 with the next statement, Mr. Bockhold had'the same

' I 11 understanding?' -  !

i j

~

l 12 A. My recollection.from.Mr.:Bockhold's 3

~}

1, 13 testimony is that he did not have exactly _ that'-- he j 1

i l;- 14 'did not'have that same understanding. 'l '

1 15

'i Q. And that's what you' base your view on '

3 16 today, is Mr. Bockhold's recent testimony?

1

. 17 A. I have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever i 18 of the communications between Mr. Cash and i

} 19 Mr. Bockhold. I have acquired this through a 1

j 20 discovery in the depositions and the responses.

i

21 Q. Okay, No. 33?

i 22 A. From this exhibit I cannot make'any 23 deteriination of whether or not Mr. Cash prepared it 24 from the control log and the shift supervisor log.

j ;25 Q. Let's just take the first sentence, if we i

J j'

l

. 181 1 can. The sentence is, Cash reviewed the operators'

1. . 1 2 logs, consisting of Unit Control Log and Shift ,

3 Supervisor Log. Do you agree with that sentence? '

1 4 A. I believe there is contradicting '

{ ,

5 testimony about that statement, and I cannot i i 6 determine if Mr. Cash reviewed botn the Control Log  ;

. 7 and the Shift Supervisor Log. or just the_ Control I 8 Log. My review of the list that he obtair.ed tends ,

8 9 to indicate co me that it came from the Control Log. ,

l

{ 10 -Q. Only?

J 11 A. Yes.

4 Q. Next sentence?  !

' N{g 12 13 A. I have no firsthand knowledge other than ,

i 14 what Mr. Cash has stated, and I can't determine that

} 15 from the exhibit or anything. I believe that

16 Mr. Cash, from the deposition testimony we have l

, 17 obtained, I believe that Mr. Cash did prepare a 18 handwritten list. I cannot determine the manner in 19 which he gave, used or conveyed that information to 20 Mr. Bockhold.

h 21 Q. Next sentence?

22 A. I have no independent knowledge of 23 whether that's correct or not. And from the recent 1

24 testimony, I can't determine if that statement is 25 correct.

i

.i 182 1

Q. Is there any question in your mind about 2 whether.or not Cash has been able to locate his 3 handwritten list?

r 4 A. Whether he has been unable to or --

I 5 guess that's the same question. I-have no 6 information other'than what Mr. Cash has said about 7 being able to locate his handwritten list.

8 Q. And did'he say that he had not been able ,

9 to?

10 A. He indicated that he had not been able 11 to.

- 12 Q. And do you have any information other 13 than that or any reason not to believe that?:

14 MR. KOHN: If I could note for the 15 record, Mr. Cash also testified he gave his 16 handwritten list to Mr. Burr.

17 THE WITNESS: Which might explain why 18 he couldn't locate it.

19 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Well, it might. Do you 20 recall the same testimony that your counsel has --

21 A. Yes, I recall that.

22 Q. -- advanced? And is that inconsistent 23 with the fact that he can't locate his handwritten 24 list?

,O 25 A. My problem with the last sentence, it was

l 183 y

,q

-tg i

1 not related to his being able to locate his.

2 handwritten list, but relative.to what he had when

.3 he provided whatever he.did to Mr.-Bockhold-and in i 4 what time frame that occurred and what he had. .And l 5 if he had the. handwritten list or the. typed. list, -

6 the testimony is sufficiently inconsistent that.I 7 can't determine that.

t 8 Q. So you are able to' agree with.the portion ,

9 of the sentence that says, Although Cash has not 10 been able to locate that handwritten list, Cash j il believes that a typed document,. attached as

(~] 12 Exhibit 20, was prepared from his handwritten l'ist. ,

V 13

~

If I were to stop at that, the last part,.the 14 portion beyond that is where you were unable to 15 agree?

16 A. At this time that would be my.best - my 17 assessments of the testimony would be that that 18 ending there could be accurate or may be accurate.

19 Q. 34?

i 20 A. I have no firsthand knowledge of this, 21 and I do not believe it to be correct.

22 Q. You don't believe the statement that Cash 23 believes he provided Bockhold with the numbers 18

(~x 24 and 19 for the 1A and 1B diesels which appear v: the-V 25 bottom of the diesel' testing transparency?

i i

i

__. _ _ . . ~ ~_ . . . _ - _ . . _ - . . _ ~. _ .. . . , . - , .. . _ . . . . .

.j i, i j

184 ~

l:

i 0 .11 ' A .: That's' correct.-

1 1

2 -Q. And is.it because.-- I just. don't--

-l I

3" ' understand. .Is-;it because'you: don't1think Cash.. -j 4 believes'thel rest.of--thatistatement?L -

i

^

. . i L 5 -A.- IJsayfthat's: incorrect.because1Mr'.1 Cash ~ -j L

d 6- Tsaid that.was incorrect.. 1 7' Q. Because your understandingLof;Mr. Cash's-8 testimony;is that he doesn't1believe~heEprovided'  !

9 BockholdLwith'the numbers 18 and-19 f or'the: 1A and 10 1B' diesels? i 11 A. I believe in'this case theyfare,probably f

contradictingftestimony',7but I;believe the T testimony  !

O .12 13 at this time is t h a t M r . Cash did not provide-

'4 1' Mr.' Bockhold 18 and 19 numbers which appear'at"the  :)

15 . bottom of the' diesel transparency.

16 Q. And was that Mr.' Cash's testimony;that i

'17 you are relying on here in his deposition?

18 A. Yes. l 1

19 Q. Okay, No. 35? Mr. Mosbaugh, I'm going to f 20 need, to the extent you want-to rely on.the exhibits 21 or read through them, I'm going to ask Mr. Lamberski- '

h 22 to help you, at least with tape 58 and the reference.

23 there.

24 A. Yes, I don't see inserted there.

25- (Tape-recording transcript was given I

i r

185

/~'5 ,

. 1 to the witness.)

2 MR. LAMBERSKI: There isn't in the  :

3 transcript I handed you, Mr. Mosbaugh, and '

4 this is a retype, as you and your. counsel {

5 know, of the NRC' transcript. And'I believe 6 the reference here is to the discussion on r 7 this retyped transcript thac you see running- l l

8 from about the middle of page '7 through to  !

9 the end.of page'9 or thereabouts. #

10 THE WITNESS: I can't attest to the  !

i 11 accuracy of this section 35, again, because. [

gg 12 of contradictory testimony between Mr. Cash 7 13 and Mr. Bockhold; and I have no specific j 14 knowledge of what Mr. Bockhold knew;.and I'm l 15 not sure that an exact number was beyond his 16 specific knowledge. And I'm not sure that he 17 didn't know more specifics about how the IB 18 diesel problems fit in to the count numbers.

19 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you disagree with-the 20 first sentence of that paragraph?

?

21 A. I was speaking for the whole paragraph.

22 Q. I understood.

23 A. Okay, we will go sentence by sentence.  !

,g 24 With the first sentence, except for the fact that

(_~'l 25 the conferences with the IIT have been thrown in,-

-l 186  !

r~ i k_)g- '

l' .

'Mr. Bockhold-'would have known.about the,. testing 2' activities from his normal chain of command,-and I i 3- . don't think whether it'was'IIT is not what gave him l

} 4- that knowledge.

i 5 You want to go sentence byssentence? ~*

6 . Q. No,'I understood your position, I.think, 7 to cover the-next couple of' sentences. Is there any.

8 evidence, that you are aware of, or suggestion'by  ;

J; 9 any witness that you have heard, that he had  :

i

,' 10 specific knowledge of the exact number of starts? '

i

11 A. Yes.

i 12 Q. And what's that testimony or. evidence?.

e t 13 A. Mr. Cash's testimony.

14 Q. And focusing on the last. sentence, is  !

i 15 there evidence or testimony which suggests that j

! 16 Mr. Bockhold was aware that the numbers that i  !

, 17 Mr. Cash provided to him included any other problems

i 18 or failures-which occurred on the 1B diesel on  :

19 March 22nd, 23rd or 24th? i i

20 A. I believe there has been contradictory 3 21 testimony as to whether or not -- Mr. Cash's 22 contradictory testimony, perhaps evidence --

as to 23 whether or not specific count lists were given to Mr. Bockhold.

. [ \ ;24 l

\

\#'25- Q. Number 36?

l l

)

l 187 )

i i

\.J 1 MR. BLAKE: Mr. Kohn, any conversations 1

2 that take place during the course of the 3 deposition, let's all be a party to.

4 THE WITNESS: He asked me if I'm 5 getting tired.

6 MR. BLAKE: That's a fair question, and 7 we all appreciate that question, but let's 8 just not be whispering.

9 (Tape-recording transcript was.given to 10 the witness.)

11 MR. LAMBERSKI: Okay, I need to give f3 12 you, on No. 36, I need to give you some help, t' ') 13 again, on this transcript reference to 14 tape 58. It says transcript insert at four 15 to seven, and that converts to the retyped.

16 transcript to pages 21 through 26. Actually, 17 line 20 of 26, and I said page 21. To be 18 precise, it would be line 9 on page 21.

19 THE WITNESS: I have no independent 20 knowledge of what Mr. Bockhold understood, a 21 but with respect to the first sentence on 36,  ;

22 I am unsure that Mr. Bockhold understood that j l

23 the 18 or 19 at the bottom were consecutive.

7-~3 24 He appears to have said that, but there i

( / l 25 are also indications that he may,have had the I

1'

)

188

/~ -

l N ); '

l 1 list, and the way this.information was  ;

2 translated into the Confirmation of Action  ;

3 and the way it's worded, I can't conclude i 4' that that's necessarily true.or not. l, 5 'Q. (By Mr. Blake) 'Next sentence?  ;

, 6 A. I have no independent knowledge as to l 7 what the NRC understood. I have read their l 8 response. It would be logical that they would have 9 understood they were consecutive. I believe they  ;

l 10 would have expected that they were~ consecutive, and f

11 so I tend to, even though I have no independent '

~

12 knowledge, would tend to' agree with that sentence.  !

13 Q. Last sentence? .

14 MR. LAMBERSKI: Again, the reference ,

15 there happens to be ident'ical to the j

16 reference in stipulation No. 35, so it would 17 be line 9 of page 21 of the new transcript 18 through line 20 of page 26.

19 THE WITNESS: I have no independent 20 knowledge of what Mr. Bockhold understood, 21 and I find contradictory statements in the 22 transcript and in ones that I remember, and 23 in statements that Mr. Bockhold has made 24 since that further the term " bugs worked out" 25 is one that I can't define.

l l

189 t 1 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Have you not heard that .

I 2 terminology used before? -

I 3 A. Oh --

4 Q. In this context?  !

5 A. I have heard the terminology before, and. [

6 I understand what it means, but it's not defined.in i 7 terms of which problems would constitute bugs or 8 not.

i 9 Q. And you don't believe that Mr. Bockhold's i

t, 10 testimony, as you understand it now, supports that? j 11 A. I've heard Mr. Bockhold testify, say or i 12 testify that he started his count after the sensors  :

13 were calibrated, as one starting point. I have i

14 heard him say that it was after the comprehensive 15 tests of the control system. There has been 16 multiple bases presented as to when he understood 17 the starting point was.

18 Q. While we are focused on this portion of l 19 the transcript, let me ask you to look at page 22, 20 at lines 8, 9, 10. There's a reference to data, and 21 you are quoted there as saying that we have the 22 data. The question is: What was the date and 23 time? Do you see that language?

g- 24 A. That's correct. Yes, I see that. l t

(s 25 Q. Do you know what data is referred to  ;

l

190

/^';

\ I 1 there?

2 A. Which data I am referring to? I believe 3 I am referring to the data that would be contained 4 in the Control Logs.

5 Q. Is that'the data that you would have ,

6 received from the Odom and Webb review?

7 A. I can't determine and have no 8 recollection specifically as to whether my reference 9 to data is that the data exists on site, and that 10 the logs that I know are on site, and they've been 11 out trying to gather them or if they have summarized t

rx ) 12 any of that data at that p'oint. I can't tell what

~

13 my reference is. Obviously, the data was on site.

14 Q. You believe that the data that is 15 referred to there by you could have been the Odom 16 and Webb data?

17 A. I don't know, and I can't say if I know, 18 or I can't say that they had completed any data 19 gathering at this point or not. I don't know. I 20 believe my reference there is in a general sense to 21 data, but I know the data is on site, obviously.

22 Q. This data is being discussed by you and 23 Mr. Aufdenkampe here?

s. 24 A. I think I am discussing something with 25 Mr. Shipman.

1 1

i 191- l

(^

b) 1 MR. KOHN: I have a question. We are 2 now turning to discussions in this tape 50?

3 MR. BLAKE: Yes, I'did solely because i

4 this was the way the reference was; and while.  ;

1

}

5 he was looking at it, I thought it was an 6 opportunity. .

7 MR. KOHN

My observations of the i

8 witness is he physically looks tired; so if j 9 you are. going to start going into this area, I l

j 10 I think it would be a good point to break. )

11 MR. BLAKE: Okay, I will stop asking

, 7 g 12 questions about that tape. I may come back.

\_) 13 to it at a later time. -

< 14 MR. KOHN: To the effect you wanted him 15 to look at it to respond to questions, that's f

16 fine.

17 Q. (By Mr. Blake) You may also look, when 1

18 we come back to this, Mr. Mosbaugh, at page 26 where  ;

1 19 there's a further reference to data and elsewhere 1

20 right around in this area I will.probably be asking~

21 again.

l 4

22 Okay, No. 37?

23 A. I disagree with 37. I do not.believe

,- 24 it's accurate. '

d 25- MR. BART: I'm sorry, I didn't hear

i a

192 r~y 1 t 1.

U-you,

.l g 2. THE WITNESS: I disagree with No. 37. l

.3 I don't believe it's accurate.

4 Q. -(By'Mr.~Blake) The first sentence?

5 A. I disagree with the first sentence. . lt 6 . don't believe it's. accurate.

1 7' Q.- Do you agree that there were-sensor ,

8 problems experienced on March 22, 23 and 24?

9 A. Not necessarily, no. 'I think we have i 10 covered that ground before.

' 11 - Q. Do you believe that if there were sensor-i f- g 12 problems, they were associated with~ overhaul or

(

]

) 13 maintenance troubleshooting activities?

14 A. No, I don't.

15 Q. Is that true with regard to each of 4

l 16 those, the 22nd, 23rd and 24th; that is, is the 17 sentence all right before March 22?

18 A. I believe it would be false with respect

. 19 to all of it.

20 Q. For the same reason?

4 21 A. For different reasons. First, I don't

) 22 believe that any of the problems on the 22nd, 23rd 23 or 24th were associated with the activities of the

, g s 24 overhaul. I believe they were associated with the 25 fundamental problems with either the sensors.

i- .

a

i 193 l

.u(~d' .1- -

themselves or other issues that had caused and 2 continued to cause failures of the diesel while in 3 normal operation. j 4 Q. There were other problems?

4 5 A. Other factors.

6 6 Q. Other factors, is that water, dew point, j '7 types of factors?

8 A. That would include water. ,

9 Q. Anything else?

i ,

10 A. It would include inadequacies of the 11 sensor, unrelated to overhaul or maintenance. It ,

(-} 12 might include logic board problems, valve problems. .

,  %) .

13 Q. Logic board problems. Other than logic 14 board problems associated with moisture? The reason  !

15 I ask is I have not heard any references to such 16 things before this. I am aware of the moisture 17 problems that you've alluded to before, and I'm sure. 1 I

18 we will discuss more later in your deposition. But l 19 I'm not aware of any other kinds of logic board or l

, 20 control board problems?

21 A. Well, I believe there were additional 22 problems because Georgia Power, in the course of the 23 remainder of the year, took a number of corrective

- 24 actions and made design modifications to the logic

( 25, board, including orifice changes and other' internal I

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -1

s 4

194 f")

\_

, 1 -typeiproblems.

i 2 So I believe there may_well'have been j 3 other problems under the logic board, also internal 4 misoperating components within the logic board'were 5 things'I have learned about during the course of 6 discovery.

_ 7- Q. Same. thing with respect to. March 23?

8 A. I believe this statement is inaccurate  ;

e i 9 with respect.to all of these starts, and the  !

10 different starts may have different problems.

1 1' Q. Next sentence? ,

12 A. I think we reviewed a statement somewhere O

i 13 like that before, that --

t 14 Q. We did, and my recollection of your .

15- problem was that there ought to be a distinction 4  ;

16 between outages and overhauls and the degree of work i 1 17 that was done to the diesel under either one of l 1

18 those?

I

19 A. Yes, this is worded differently than 20 what --

slightly differently than what we looked at 21 before.

)

22 Q. Uh-huh.

23 A. My recollection is that this seems to be

> - 24 more like what I remember in the transcript. You 2 25 know, my understanding of this reference to No. 18, l

i i

195 i

1 which references to Exhibit 10, is that the '

2- statements made by Mr. Bockhold informing the NRC j 3 related to overhauls and not outages; and to that 4

4 degree, I think that statement is not fully ,

5 reflective of what Mr. Bockhold told the NRC. l 6 Q. I want to make a prediction that you are  !

I 7 not able to agree with the.next sentence?

, 8 A. I have no independent knowledgeHof what~

9 Mr. Bockhold.or whoever else at GPC intended, but I -

10 disagree with that sentence. ,

11 MR. BLAKE: Michael, I see you are

g- 12 looking at me. -

• 13 MR. KOHN: I believe the witness is --

4 14 I'm getting too many physical indications of  ;

15 exhaustion. .

16 MR. BLAKE: So you would like to stop 17 here?

1' 18 MR. KOHN: I'm concerned, yes. We are ,

19 going on 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. My watch says six to 3 20 10:00.

1 21 MR. BLAKE: Do you want to wrap it up 22 at 10:00?

23 MR. KOHN: Yes.

24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, my next

-O 25 one, No. 38?

i

h

+ l l

i 196  !

1- JA. I'have'no independent knowledgefas.to.  !

i

'2 what the.NRC Regionsand.IIT were1 aware of asjof ';

t 3 April 9th.

].

'4~ Q. Based lon your> understanding of'the

• l .t t

5 . various pieces;of-evidenceLin,this~ proceeding, j l 6 including testimony, statements,' documents, are you'  !

i.  ?

l 7. able to agree 1or not agree.with that?'  ;!

8 A. There has been aEvariety of exhibits; j 9 presented-to-say;they were faxed to.the NRC., .I 10 can't tell.if Region II or'the:IIT got'.them or  ;

11- b o t h'. I have no' independent knowledge as-toLwhether -

l 12 ' they were: faxed. .I don't know. l 13 Q. If the NRC were able to agree with that, j 14 would that help you? ]

i 15 A. From what I'haveJread from the NRC  !

i 16 evidence, the NRC does not agree with that. I l

17 Q. Is that a general statement or in some- d 18 particular aspect of-this statement?

y 19 A. It's with respect to their knowledge as 20 of April 9th of failures on starts.132, 134 and 21 136. What I have seen from affidavits of the NRC 22 region, which I believe included Region II people 23 which are referenced here, were that-they were not aware of unanticipated failures or unexpected

' O 24 25 failures.

9 a-.r - - . , = e- .-<,: - + * . - - -ie,

I I

l 197

'[\_/

D -

i i

1 Q. Which is the same to you as they were not t i

! 2: aware of the diesel problem starts on' )

3 March 22nd and 23rd? l 4 A. It was not anticipated that the diesel I i

5 would trip on start 132 or 134, or that.it would 6 receive a trip alarm and not trip on start 136.

7 Nobody expected those eventa to happen ~.

8 Q. And so the answer to my question is.yes?

9 A. It inclitdes those, yes. _

i 10 Q. Let's see if we can wrap up this l 11 section. It would be the next four. It would'be a t

^) 12 record-setting pace, but let's try. The next one, a 13 No. 39?

l 14 A. I could not agree with that.

15 Q. Is the reason that you are unable to i

16 agree because you think that the corporate office 17 personnel had access to information independent of 18 the site that would allow them to compile data 19 themselves?

20 A. Yes, and corporate personnel were present  !

21 also.

22 Q. And what are the sources of data that's 23 independent that corporate has which they don't have to rely on the site for?

O' 2425 A. Since they had people on site, and those i

r l

l t

198

(

A.J l

1 people communicated with their bosses in corporate, 2 obviously they would have access to any information

[

3 on site, independent of the site personnel.

4 Q. I see. Who were those corporate people  :

5 who were on site that would have provided this ,

l 6 information for purposes of the April 9 7 presentation? '

8 A. I'm not aware of all the people because -

9 people would.come and go from corporate. Mr. McCoy-10 came to the site. Mr. Hairston came to the site.

11 Miller came to the site. Mr. Lisenby came to the l

12 site. Mr. Burr came to the site. I believe some j 13 other additional design people whose names I can't j 14 remember came to'the site.  ;

15 Q. Do you have any basis for ever believing  !

16 that Mr. Hairston or Mr. McCoy, Mr. Lisenby, 17 Mr. Miller, the other individuals that you have-just 18 named, were at the site and collected data which was  !

19 used in the April 9 presentation or the April 9 20 letter or the April 19th LER? j 21 A. Well, I don't have any independent l 22 knowledge of that, but from the testimony it is 23 clear and from documents it is clear that Mr. Burr 24 provided information to corporate.

25 Q. With respect to the April 9 presentation j l

l

l l

l 199

("]N

\_ 1

~

or the April 9 letter or the April 19 LER?

2 A. Well, since Mr. Burr was specifically L 3 working on the diesel and was the one that ,

! 4 Mr. Bockhold says he relied ~on as his 5 minute-to-minute diesel man, and since Mr. Burr-had- ,

.6 a boss in corporate, I'm sure he communicated with

-7 both. And as far as Mr. Miller, I have independent 8 recollection that Mr. Miller called back to the l

9 office in corporate when he was on site.

l 10 Q. In this time frame?

11 A. I can't specifically say that Mr. Miller

'g- 12 was on site before April 9th, but I think he was. '

13 You know, there were a number of corporate people i

14 that came to the site, came and went; and it would l

15 not --

it would be unreasonable to assume that those 16 corporate people did not place calls back to 17 corporate. It would be unreasonable'to assume 18 that.

19 So I believe that corporate people came 20 to the site, and corporate people called back to 21 corporate, and the corporate people took information 22 in their heads and perhaps physical information back '

23 to corporate in the time frame prior to April 9th.

e 24 And I have no independent knowledge as to

'25 what they might have taken back that was used in

, a vw F*

200 l ('N

!()

1 aspects of the April 9th presentation or the 2 April 9th letter or the April 19th LER.

3 Q. With respect to detailed information, 4 including the number of consecutive succeasful l 5 starts at each diesel and when they occurred?

6 A. It may have happened. I have no 7 independent knowledge of it.

! 8 Q. Do you think it is equally likely that l

l 9 corporate relied upon site personnel to gather this '

l

10' data?

11 A. Corporate personnel had access to and i gg 12 could call anybody on site to get information. So 13 when you say relied upon, I read an inference of 14 corporate trying to, let me say, distance themselves 15 from responsibility. And I believe corporate people 16 had access to all the information on site, either by 17 coming to the site, calling the site, getting l 18 information from the site.

19 Q. My question was: Do you think it equally  ;

20 likely that the source of information for corporate 21 for this detailed information, including the number 1 22 of consecutive successful starts at each diesel and 23 when they had occurred, was corporate people who l 7~ 24 were on site or site personnel? l

<! 25 A. Since you limit it to the start 1

I 201

( )

1 information, one of the early drafts of the 2 April 9th letter seems to include the start i 3 information and was sent --

one of the earliest 4 drafts that I have seen that includes the start 5 information was sent from corporate to the site. I 6 think both happened.

7 MR. BLAKE: And maybe we can pick up on 8 that particular topic when we start again 9 rather than lodging into it. I see we have 10 come to your deadline that you wanted to 11 establish of 10:00. We didn't make it r^3 12 through the number that I had hoped; but

\' )

13 nonetheless, I will abide by your request.

14 So that would end Mr. Mosbaugh's 15 deposition for this evening, to be continued 16 at 10:00 o' clock on August 23.

17 (Deposition adjourned at 10:00 p.m.)

18 19 20 1

21 '

22 23 73 t

24 U l 25

~ '

, i I - ,

l-

i. ,

\;

.202 j

J..

l-  :

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

~

2 .: ~I

'3 ._Mosbaugh '

Exhibit Descriotion Page 4' -!

5 DG-1 GPC's Proposed Stipulat' ions! '^L#

3- 6 , .l L 7 .- -. -z 8 .. . ( O ri g i nal'- E x h i b i t.-l'- h a s' b e e n . a t t a c h e d :.t o t h e original transcript.)  !

-9 ..

10 -

~11 '

12  !

, t.

l

-13 6

i t-14 ,

i 15 - 6 i

16 ,

17 i i

18 I i

19 l

-i 20 -

21

'22 23 24

.- 2 5

, ~.

v . ' - - - _ _ ,, w , - -

203 O

V 1- STATE OF GEORGIA: '

COUNTY OF FULTON:

2~

3 I hereby certify-that the foregoing 4 transcript was reported, au stated in the caption, 5 and the questions and answers thereto were reduced 6 to typewriting under my direction; that the 7 foregoing pages 1 throughL202 represent a true,.

8 complete, and correct transcript of the evidence 9 given upon said hearing, and I'further~ certify'that 10 I am not of kin or counsel to the parties in~the 11 case; am not in the employlof counsel for any of.

12 said parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 13 result of said case.

)

14 Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-28 (d):

15 The party taking this deposition will receive 16 the original and.one copy based on our. standard'and 17 customary per page charges. Copies to other parties 18 will be furnished at one half that per page rate. '

19 Incidental direct expenses of production may be 20 added to either party where applicable.

21 Our-customary appearance fee will be charged to I 22 the party taking this deposition.

23 This, the 2nd day of Aug .

l

-(f 25 GAYLA WHITE, CCR-B-1324, RPR My commission expires on the )

26th day of August, 1996.

2 I' I l

204' I-

.1 . DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/GLW  ;

I do hereby certify that: I.have read all l 2 questions propounded to me and all answers i given by me on March 17, 1994, taken before 3 Gayla White, and_that:

1 4 1) There are no changes noted.  :

2) The following changes.are.noted:

5 Pursuant to Rule 3 0 - (7) (e) of-the Federal Rules' '!

6' of-Civil Procedure 1and/or the Official ~ Code'of i I Georgia Annotated 9 3 0 (e) , both of which read in l

7 part

.Any: changes _infform'or substance which you  !

i desire to make shall be entered upon the  !

j 8 deposition...with a statement of the reasons j i  : given'...for making them. Accordingly, to assist.yous '

9 - in effecting. corrections,'please use the. form below:

s i

l 10 Page No. Line No.__ should read: i-4 h 11

?

And the reason for the change is:  !

(2)12 13 1

. Page No. Line No.__ should read:

j' 14

15 i

And the reason.for the change is:

16 4

17 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

l 18 i

19 And the reason for the change is: )

j 20 j Page No. Line No.__ should read:

1 21 .

J 22 And the reason for the change is:

23 i

- 24 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

f 25 i

i 1

e v. e- x- --w---t- < - - *+ ++- a -- -- ,-*.ww-- ~ +r-+ r-+r- r--v -= . -

l l 205 l- O

'V 1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/GLW And the reason for the change is:

l 2 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

3 4

l And the reason for the change is:

l l 6 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

! 7 l 8 And the reason for the change is:

9 l Page No. Line No.__ should read:

10 11 And the reason for the change is: )

13 Page No. Line No.__. should read:

14 15 And the reason for the change is:

16 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

17 18 And the reason for the change is:

19 20 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

21 22 And the reason for the change is:

23 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

g- g 24 U 25

l l

l 206 l 1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/GLW And the reason for the change is:

2 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

3 4 ,_  ;

And the reason for the change is:

5 l 6 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

7  !

8 And the reason for the change is:

9  :

Page No. Line No.__ should read:

10 11 And the reason for the change is:

13 Page No. Line No.__ should read:  !

i 14 15 And the reason for the change is:  !

16 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

17 18 __

l And the reason for the change is. ,

19 l

20 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

21

-l 22 And the reason for the change is:

23 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

,- 24 V 25

• 207

/~N

~'

1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/GLW And the reason for the change is:

2 Page No. Line No.__ should read:

3 4

End the reason for the change is:

5 6

If supplemental or additional pages are necessary, 7 please furnish same in typewriting annexed to this deposition.

8 9 ALLEN MOSBAUGH 10 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the day of , 1994.

11 Notary Public.

O, 12 My commission expires:

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 f

25 1

.. . . .. . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~..

j .

f l .-

t 1

-208 1

~

^

O l l'

9

AMENDED CERTIFICATE. l

-2'~ i i

3- - i

{

5: ,

t 6

f 7:: . STATE OF' GEORGIA:. -

.i 3

p 8 COUNTY lOF'FULTON:- )

i-9 "I.hereby certify.=that in addition'to'the. -i y

10, ' certification made on Page 203'-'ofLthe-transcript, I 11 more.than-the 30 days provided'the?deponentY/to--read .

j l

12 and sign'the original' transcript have': expired .

i

j. 13 Therefore, the original is'being filed without'the-t -

l 14 signature of the witness. -

15 ~ This, the b day ofL ~

/L L R Il h A ,. 1 9 9 ._

16 h y -) .

18 l GAYLA WHITE, CCR-B-1324, RPR  !

19 Certified Court Reporter and ')

Notary Public.  ;

20 i

21 22 23 24 LO 25-

~

L i

l

. .....__a.-..-. . , . . . . _

1 l

~

i GPC's Proposed Stipulations concerning Alleged GPC False l Statements To MRC Related To The Diesel Generators. j i

i 1. In March and April, 1990, the relevant Plant Vogtle i

on site and off site organization was as depicted i' on Fvhibit 1, attached hereto. In May, 1990, Mr.

[ Tom Greene returned from the Manager-in-Training program to nasume his previously held position of Assistant General Manager, Plant' Support. Mr.

4 Mosbaugh, who was acting Assistant General Manager, 3

Plant Support in Mr. Greene's absence, reported ,

directly to Mr. Bockhold upon Mr. Greene's return.

1

- 2. The current Plant Vogtle line management reporting j relationships are as follows: The Plant Vogtle

! General Manager, Barnie Beasley, reports directly l l to the GPC Vice President - Nuclear, Plant Vogtle, j l C. Kenneth McCoy, who reports to the GPC Senior J l Vice President, Jackie D. Woodard, who reports to  !

the GPC Executive Vice President, W. George

}

-Hairston, III, who reports to the GPC President, j Mr. R. P. Mcdonald is retired j Allen H. Franklin.

from The Southern Company; Mr. George Bockhold holds the position of General Manager, L Nuclear .

Technical Services, in the Southern Nuclear  !

corporate organization; and Mr. John Aufdenkampe is 1 i s now employed by Southern company Services,.Inc.

Summarv of Events Followina the March 20. 1990 Site Area

Emercency.

t

3. On March 20, 1990, a Plant Vogtle _ worker accidentally backed a truck into a switchyard support column causing a loss of off site power to Unit 1. While attempting to start the only i available diesel generator (1A), the diesel failed to start twice. On the third attempt the diesel started and power was restored to the plant 36 j minutes after the loss of off' site power. The 1B i diesel was out of service at the time in maintenance / overhaul.

1 4. Following the Marc! <0, 1990 site area emergincy at

~

Plant Vogtle, the NIM an Augmented Inspection Team

("AIT"), including, among others, Messrs. Ken ,

i Brockman from Region II and Rick Kendall from NRC 1 headquarters, arrived at Plant Vogtle on March 22, l i 1990. 3

5. On March 23, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmation of Action (" COA") letter to GPC, attached as Exhibit 2, which, among other things, provided that GPC was i not to restart Vogtle Unit 1 without NRC approval.

EEXHIBlT

, , $$MA6H Mk b 4l26

4 1

6. ' The' AIT' was replaced with an Incident' Inspection i- Team ' ("IIT") on March 25-26,'.1990. Mr. Kendall. i 4 carried over from the'AIT to work'on the IIT. Mr.

I ,Brockman, while not ' an . IIT. member, became the j' . Region II Point of Contact for the IIT.t .Mr. Al ,

i Chaffee was the-IIT team leader.

1; j 7. In the process of coming out' of l maintenance / overhaul, the 18 diesel - experienced ,

t post-maintenance difficulties, including - the  ;

}<

following problems associated-.with_Calcon sensors - >

i i a. .On 22-90, _a high lube oil: temp. sensor  ;

j caused a trip after.about an~ hour and a: half,' ,

t although temperature was normal '

(Start . No.

j 132).  :

1 On 3-23-90,'.~a low pressure jacket water / turbo i~

b.

i lube oil. pressure _ , low. condition was  ;

j annunciated ~- with a - trip after .three mins. , . -

although pressure was normal:(Start No. 134). -

l

[ c. On . 3-2 4-90', a high jacket. water ' temp. alarm

}

was received although the diesel kept running and temperature was normal:(Start No. 136). .

j 8. In a March 24, 1990 conversation at . Plant Vogtle  :

4 which .was tape recorded- by Mr. Mosbaugh. (Tape No. ,

i 11, Tr. 4-6) Mosbaugh, Bockhold,: McCoy and Shipman 1 discussed potential logic board problems on the 1B i diesel which could have been - the cause of the '1A '

j diesel failure on 3-20-90. Mosbaugh described the problems experienced on the 1B diesel at 12:49 a.m. l

on 3-24-90. Bockhold said they would talk to the i NRC at 10:30 a.m. about their belief that there was  !

3 a logic board problem. McCoy said that, because ,

j the 1B avant might have . commonality with the 1A '

l failure, they needed' to be sure that the NRC participated'in anything they did to the diesel and'

]

that they get Ken Brockman's concurrence. Bockhold l 4

1 said he would go over the diesel' testing "fragnet"

with Brockman at 10:30 a.m. A copy of that fragnet

is attached as.Rvhibit 3. -

j I 9. On March 24 and 2 5 ', - 1990, NRC's ' Rick Kendall I i prepared hand-written notes, a copy of which is attached as Rvhibit 4, which were provided to NRC's Al Chaffee and Ken Brockman.

10. During a March 27, 1990 plant status meeting which was taped by Mr. Mosbaugh (Tape No. 17, Tr. 4-5), -

j

- Mike Horton said the EDG 1B ' logic testing _ was i '

l

!\

L Y

a 4

.~, _ . - .. r. ., . . _ - , . , , _ , . . , .

i b

" pretty much finished" last night and that.they've C been in touch with the IIT " pretty closely and they seem to like what we're doing."

i 7

11. In a March 28, 1990 staff meeting which was taped.

by Mr. Mosbaugh - (Tape No. 21,.Tr. 2-4), Bockhold 1

said the NRC approved testing of the 1A diesel l under. certain.. requirements, . which Bockhold i discussed with his staff. Bockhold also said to i l

notify.NRC'O Rick Kendall or the IIT team. leader if 'I

something -unexpected occurred during testing.

'- Bockhold further directed his staff to preserve all root cause evidence; Bockhold said: "if we find a bad switch, we get on the phone and ' wa talk to j them, ' Hey, we found this bad switch, describe the i problem and we . say we're going ' ' to go ahead and j change it out unless you have objection."

j

! 12. In a March 28, 1990 ' interview with the IIT. team .

! (333 IIT #'46-5, attached as Exhibit 5), Ken Stokes.. j j stated that. some diesel generator 1B temperature  ;

] sensor calibrations .wore . inaccurate. Tr. 17. l Stokes also said that diesel generator owners were  !

considering replacing the pneumatic ' instrument  !

systems because the temperature and pressure j  ;

sensors were sometimes difficult and time consuming i

to set up and that 'the sensor .setpoints had ' a l ndency to drift over a period of time. Tr. 62,

13. Between March 23 and March ' 30, 1990i Region II  ;

Inspectors either observed maintenance or reviewed

- work packages associated with troubleshooting of IB

diesel sensor malfunctions which occurred on March i 22nd and 23rd. Egg NRC Inspection Report 90-05, j dated April 26, 1990, p.8 and Milton D.-Hunt's and

' Peter A. Taylor's December 13 ,and 14, 1993 Interrogatory Responses - to GPC's October ~ 8, 1993 discovery request, Interrogatory No. 1, attached as composite Rvhibit 6.

)

l 14. On March 27 and 28, 1990, Milt Hunt, NRC Region II-inspector, witnessed special testing for a 3

l determination of diesel.1B operability ' and Mike Horton said the NRC'. was u happy with . the testing results.- 133 Exhibit 6 and Handwritten note..from 1 Mike Horton to G. Bockhold (Exhibit 7). Milt Hunt  !

l- was assisting the IIT' in observation' of the l

' testing.- He later returned to the site with NRC j 4

inspector Peter Taylor . and witnessed additional ,

i special testing and final operability testing of 2

the 1A diesel. 333 IIT #257,'Tr. 68-69, attached-4

O j

I

1 J

as uvhibit 8.

(

[j 15. - As.of March 28, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh' had concluded (1) that the 1B . diesel was ~ operable,-  :

1 notwithstanding the problems experienced on that' -

l diesel of which he was aware,'and (2) that the NRC i

~

was ' present through all of _ the .1B di=sel testing l

}-

' and should be - satistled ' that - the 1B' diesel was j operable. Aga Tape No. 19', Tr.'10-11. _

i .

16 . - On March 31, 1990, Al Chaffee' stated that the IIT j was present'to witness the testing of the 1A diesel 1 1

and witnessed the receipt of a' malfunction. alarm  !

which occurred on March 30. 133 IIT #150,'Tr. 2, I

attached as Exhibit 9.

j 17. During the April' 2, 1990 plant status morning <l telephone conference .which was taped .by Mr.  !

Mosbaugh (Tape No. 27, Tr. 2-5) , - Bockhold .said he

{ had' spoken'to the IIT-last-night and informed.them i i that the . probable cause of . the March 20, 1990 : 1A d diesel failure was "an -intermittent problem ' on a -  ;

high. jacket _ water. temperature switch and:

j' potentially a second intermittent problem' 'or - a

calibration problem. on another' Lone- of those ..

switches" and_-that he -considered the .Calcon switches reliable and the EDGs operable.' Bockhold  ;

j also said that they needed'to determine why they. -

~

were_ having-trouble. calibrating the switches during '

refueling outages.

18. As of -April 2, 1990, NRC ' Region II and IIT

personnel had been , advised by GPC personnel that--

the plant typically had problems calibrating the Calcon sensors during maintenance outages but, once i

I the diesels had been declared operable, they did j not have problems in between overhauls._ 333, e.gm, IIT #168-2, Tr. 14, 18, attached as Fvhibit 10.

19. On April 3,-1990, NRC's Al Chaffee acknowledged to l

l Ken Brockman that Bockhold's' view of operability of-E the diesels "has some merit." He said " based on history, whatever causes trips, work themselves out i so that diesel is able to perform its function."

333 IIT #257 (Exhibit 7), Tr. 65.

e i

. .- i During an April 3, 1990 plant status meeting which j 20.

was taped by Mr. Mosbaugh (Tape No. 29, Tr. 11-12),

2 Bockhold said "[t)oday we believe that the l

calibration is correct with the new switches, .we

! don't have that problem today. We are going to do a test that will prove or disprove'this theory....

!O a i l

i

i (and) all four diesels are still operable."

J During an April 4,1990 meeting on EDG testing with i - 21.

McCoy, Bockhold, Norton, Kitchens and others which'

[ was taped by Mr. Mosbaugh (Tape No. 32), McCoy.and i Bockhold said that NRC's Ken ' Brockman would be

]

briefing the Regional Administrator on Friday (4-6-- '

90) about releasing GPC from the Confirmation.of Action letter. Tr. 5-8. Later that day, Mosbaugh ,

and Horton- praised' Engineering personnel for the f work they did on the . diesels and~.how. theyL ,

4 interfaced with the IIT and Mosbaugh said'that at some point he thought the IIT would be satisfied on l> the. diesel issues sufficiently to release the CAL-hold. Tr. 31-36.

)

! 22. In ~ an April . 4, 1990 discussion recorded ' by Mr. ~

!- Mosbaugh (Tape No. 34, Tr. 14-15) among McCoy, l Mosbaugh, ' Kochery, Milt Hunt (NRC) 'and others,' ,

! Bockhold said that ' the sensor calibrations - were '

j being done in a very consistent fashion and. "we 4

believe we've got good switches'in the plant.now;"

i Bockhold added that the calibration procedure had  !

l not been changed yet but- will be changed once ,

i they've decided - on - the ' best way to do. it; : McCoy l

{ said to make -sure ; that . Milt Hunt got everything that was provided to'Brockman. <

23. During an April 5, '1990 plant status meeting which j was taped by Mr. Mosbaugh (Tape No. 35, Tr. 15-16),

i Bockhold said, "we have not identified the ' root L >

j cause of the HJWT sensor failures, we;believe they l are reliable enough for diesel operability but we i l are getting some resistance. from NRC in that

, particular area;" .Bockhold said ~the NRC was concerned about-'the reliability of- the HJWT l switches which may have to be bypassed before NRC i would allow restart.

l 24. On April 5, 1990, Ken Brockman advised Chaffee-and

! Bockhold that he didn't have any comments or

!' questions, and that."we are fully on board and have

been talking with them (GPC) with respect to diesel i

generator operability issue." Esa IIT #200, Tr.

j 34, attached as Pvhibit 11.

25. On April 6, 1990, GPC faxed to NRC the ' " Paul l

Kochery list" which identified. starts and stops of the 1A and 1B ' diesels between March 13 and March 23, 1990,-and which included the. problem' starts.of the IB diesel on March.22nd and 23rd (Start Nos.

132 and 134 ) . 333 IIT #180, attached as Exhibit ,

-i q

O l

, - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . ...m _

i n

i- n.-

'26. On April 6, 1990, GPC faxed to NRC a summary

listing of certain Calcon temperature switches- .

i which had experienced problems,' including the switches associated with the 1B trip on March 22nd' l

1 and the March 24th failure. 33a IIT #178, attached

as Rvhibit 13.

27. As of April 7', 1990, ,NRC Region II .. personnell had j- express knowledge that, as of-that date,LGPC/had; 2'

only been able to identify the nrobable cause of the March 20th trip of 1A diesel, and that further examination and testing at Wyle . Labs was : to ' be conducted after restart, which testing might reveal

[. relevant information.. Esa IIT #205, Tr. 8-13,1 l attached as Fvhibit- 14. Ken Brockman's express!

j understanding was.that the Wyle testing of switches 1 -was not a restraint on rel' ease'of.the plant.to go I

to criticality. -33a IIT-#245, Tr. 17, ' attached as j' Rvhibit 15.

l 28. As of April 9, 1990, Ken Brockman was aware thati

~

j j the diesels "had not always. started and operated as  !

j expected." 233 Ken Brockman's December 23, 1993 October 1993 discovery j Response' to GPC's 8, s request, ~ Interrogatory No.

1, attached as Exhibit M.

GPC's Anril 9. 1990 Presentation'to NRC.

l j 29. By April 3, 1990, Georgia Power officials had

' learned from Ken Brockman that NRC wanted GPC to make a presentation to the NRC in support of GPC's

! request to restart Unit. 1 covering the issues raised as a result of the March 20, 1990 Site Area Emergency and corrective actions proposed by GPC.

The presentation would address a variety .of issues, including: access control .to switch yard area; reactor vessel water level configuration and outage planning; Emergency Notification System performance; Emergency. . Director actions; accountability. of personnel- during the emergency and the diesel generators. 333 notes of . Bill Shipman (4/6/90) and Ken McCoy (4/3/90), attached as composite Pvhibit 17.

30. On Friday, April 6, 1990, and over the weekend of April 7 and 8, George Bockhold directed .the preparation of the presentation, including the diesel generator transparencies, attached as Enclosure 2 to NRC Meeting Summary of the April 9,

J j: 1990 Management Meeting, . Dated May 14, 1990-

(wvhibit 18).

31. The " Diesel Testing" transparency (Exhibit 18, Enclosure 2, p. 10) reflects the information.that' Jimmy Paul Cash and Ken Burr provided to Bockhold.

i i 133 Tape No. 253, Tr. Insert at 4.-

b 32. Bockhold asked Cash to compile the number . of I

successful starts- on the diesels; without  !

significant problems. .

Cash,- applying- his j j operator's experience, ' understood that to mean, 1

review the log books and determine how_many starts i had occurred where the diesels had started properly (I and reached the required voltage and frequency. ,

4 Mr. Cash interpreted "significant problems" to be'- -

anything which would have prevented the diesel-from ,

operating in an emergency. Mr. Bockhold had the l

• same understanding. 133 GPC Response.to NRC-Staff -l l First Set of Interrogatories; dated August 9, 1993, }

attached as Rvhibit 19, p. 12, iten- b, last- i paragraph.

1 33. Cash reviewed . the operators' logs, consisting ; of j

Unit control. Log and' Shift Supervisor Log. Cash  ;

i developed a handwritten . table which 'he used to'  !

i provide information to Bockhold. Although' Cash has'  ;

i not been able to-locate that handwritten list, Cash l believes that a typed document, attached as Exhibit l 2&, was prepared from his handwritten list, but .l 1 that he only had the ' handwritten list. when he  :

provided information to Bockhold.  !

l . i'

34. From the starts on his list, cash believes he provided Bockhold with the numbers 18 and 19.for

! the 1A and 1B diesels, respectively, which. appear at the bottom of the " Diesel Testing" transparency.

l 133 GPC Response to NRC Staff First Set of 3

! Interrogatories, dated August 9,1993 (Exhibit 19), ,

at 3. l l

35. Prior to April 9, 1990, Bockhold was aware of the l l

general activities-of testing, since he was briefed on the status of the diesels contemporaneous ' to those events .and was involved ~ in various 5 conferences with the IIT when - the ' diesels and sensors were discussed. He also knew there had I been a lot of diesel starts, but an exact number l was beyond his ' specific knowledge. However, {

Bockhold was not aware that the numbers J.P. Cash ,

provided to him included any of problems or -l 4

failures which occurred on the 1B' diesel'on March 2-

~'~

O J

ji ,

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

t

(~ t l.

22nd, 23rd or 24th. Sam Tape No. 58, Th Insert at.

i i 1, 4-7;. Tape No. 253,-Tr.. Insert at 7.-8;.and Tape .t

. O No. 258, Tr. Insert at 8-10.

! 36. Bockhold understood that the number of successful i starts on the transp(rency were consecutive. 333-  ;

!. GPC Response to .NRC Staff ,First .1 Set' of I Interrogatories, dated August 9, - 1993 '(Exhibit 19) , '

j- at 4, 1 1.c. On April 9, 1990, the NRC Staff also L understood the numbers to-be consecutive.- 333 NRC ,

j. Staff supplemental Response- to Intervenor's First-l Set of Interrogatories, dated. September'15,.1993, l i attached as tvhibit ~ 21, at 6,- item 9. Bockhold  !

I also understood that the starts occurred after all' a the bugs had been worked out of the 18 diesel. -333 I.

l 3A, Aufdenkampe's : comments : on : Tape ' No. 58, Tr. l

j. Insert at 4-7 and Tape No. 76, Tr. 9' l 37. The sensor problems experienced on' March 22, 23 and-  !

24 were associated with overhaul ~ or maintenance i troubleshooting ~ activities. . . Bockhold also; had 1- informed the NRC that GPC had' experienced problems. .,

! with the sensors during-outages:but not in between v i outages. 333 Stipulation No. = 18 above. The

numbers of'18 and 19'were intended'to represent the ,

number of consecutive successful starts just prior l to April.9, 1990. i )

l

38. As of April 9, 1990,- NRC Region II and IIT 1 personnel-were aware of the problem starts-that had j occurred on the Vogtle 1A and.1B diesel generators  :

l since March 20, -1990, including without limitation, l' t the IB diesel problem starts on March 22nd, 23rd  ;

! and 24th (Start Nos. 132, 134;and 136).

l

! 39. For purposes of the April 9 presentation-(as well -l

! as the April 9 . letter and April 19 LER), the GPC l

{ corporate office personnel relied on the Vogtle l site personnel to provide . detailed information, i including the number of consecutive successful i starts of each diesel and when they had occurred.

l 40. A second transparency relevant to' the diesel' t generators, entitled " Quarantine Components," was.

, used during the April 9 presentation (333 Exhibit 18, Enclosure 2, p. 11) and it identified 1A and 1B j temperature snd pressure switches . which .had

] experienced problems since March 20, 1990 and, as a result, were placed in quarantine for further

evaluation.

l  !

4 2

-- ,.4,--e.-.-------.r.--a= -.r - ,-m , - . , - _ , .

, , . , , , . _ , . . - . , , - - . . . . . ..-...m.,m..w,.,e-,,, .c-

41. The April 9, 1990 meeting at . NRC's . Region II offices in Atlanta was attended-by a large number of people. The GPC representatives included George Hairston, McCoy, Bockhold,- Jim Bailey, Ken Burr and J.P. Cash. Mr. Mosbaugh did not attend.the April 9, 1990 meeting. Numerous ~ NRC employees were present, including Ken Brockman, Milt Hunt, the 2- Resident Inspectors and the Regional Administrator, Stewart Ebneter. The IIT members, including . Al 1 Chaffee and- Harvey Wykoff participated via telephone conferencing.. Unlike the numerous meetings and conference calls conducted by the'IIT, the April 9 meeting was not transcribed.. During j the meeting the ~ GPC ~ Event Review Team Critique, i

Diesel Testing / Operability, Quarantine Components and the Unit 2 trip were discussed. Ana notes of Jim Bailey, attached as Exhibit 22.. The GPC and NRC- participants do not have a specific '

recollection of what was discussed in connection with the Diesel Testing ' or . Quarantine Components transparencies. However, there was some discussion-concerning those transparencies during the meeting because copies .of those transparencies used by a number of.GPC and NRC participants contain hand-written notes in the margins.1 Egg NRC Staff hand--

written notes on the " Diesel. Testing" transparency (included in the response to FOIA 91-468, dated 12-O 4-91) , attached as Rvhibit 23. Egg A152'NRC Staff-Supplemental Response to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories, dated September'15, 1993 (Exhibit 21), at 6 ("during the GPC's ' presentation on April 9, 1990, the NRC asked GPC to explain how

' successful starts' compared to valid tests.")

42. The NRC Staff understood that ' GPC's reference to

" successful starts" on its April 9th presentation transparency was not' intended to mean " valid successful tests," as defined by Reg. Guide 1.108A.

Also, a specific number of consecutive successful diesel starts was not required before the NRC could allow restart of Vogtle Unit 1 on April 12, 1990.

NRC Staff Supplemental Response to Intervanor's First Set of Interrogatories, dated September 15, 1993 (Exhibit 21), at 6, 8. Stated differently, there was no requirement for GPC to meet any I reliability goal before the NRC could allow GPC to l restart Vogtle Unit 1. I i

l

I  !

i.  !

}'

The Anril 9. '1990 GPC Letter to NRC and NRC's Annroval to .t Restart Unit 1.

j' 43. Parallel.to the preparation for the April 9, 1990 '

j meeting with the NRC, GPC prepared a " Status of -  ;

! Corrective Action"' write-up which addressed. the 4 Site Area Emergency. . By April 5,. early in the ~

i morning, a draft had been prepared by.. site.  :'

i personnel (Rvhibit 24) which included the following

( language:

GPC has implemented the following actions'to

-ensure a high state of ~ diesel .~ reliability  !

i prior to declaring these engines , operable:- a. l i Since March 20, 1990, GPC has'proformed sensor  !

i calibration 'and replacement, extensive logic -

j testing, . special pneumatic . leak testing and i air quality reverificatiren,. and multiple ,

engine starts and ru ss under. .various

l. conditions....

i- .

1

) on April 5th . - and 6th, ' GPC faxed copies . of this ]

j document to' Ken Brockman and David Matthews'(NRR,  !

' j l Wash. D.C.), respectively. .

l 44. By early April .7,- 1990, the draft -letter was

! revised (wvhibit 25) and included the following statements:-

! Since March 20, the-1ADG has been started 18 l

times, and the 1BDG has been started 19 times.

L No failures or problems have occurred during i

' any of these starts. In addition, an I undervoltage start test.without air roll was

! conducted on April .6, 1990 and the 1A D/G started and. loaded properly. Completion of -

l l these corrective actions justify. GPC's i determination that the DG's are operable.

1

! 45. Before the April 9th letter was finalized, GPC j moved the subject paragraph to an earlier paragraph j in support of the proposition that jacket .' water f

high temperature switches were the most probable '

i cause of the March 20th 1A diesel failure. The l diesel starts statement was not a stand-alone j justification for operability of the diesels.- The  ;

j final signed letter is attached as Rvhibit 26.

!- 46. The corporate office relied upon the site-supplied' information, specifically the draft " Diesel.

Testing" transparency, in the development of the j diesel start paragraph of the April 9 letter.

j- ,

--ire e .g. ,,e . , .

., ,,,,_.m _..,_,,,,,,.e.,,,,,t. .__,,,m_, , , _ . , . . ,_,___,.._y_ - . , , _ , , , ...,~,..,mm. ,..,, .,m, i

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

i l

47. A 1A diesel-related problem,, which occurred on March 30, was discussed in the April-9 letter on

O- page two, immediately preceding the page containing i

the diesel starts statement.

48. On April 10, 1990, during . a - telephone - conference among Vogtle site ~ personnel, the IIT and Ken'

Brockman of Region _II, which was transcribed by the l NRC (333 IIT #212, attached as hhibit 27), Rick

~

Kendall (IIT) said "one of the problems we were having was that we were listening on yesterday's call (GPC's April 9 presentation to'NRC) where we understand there has been something like 16 successful starts in a row of tho' 1-At diesel-generator. And we go back, and we try to count them up, and we don't get that many. .So somewhere

.along the.line we are missing a-few'and we want to complete the picture." Tr., 5. Kendall said." Paul Kochery prepared a table (IIT #180, Exhibit :12) that discussed the starts between starting with the 20th, starting on March 20th, and going through, I guess, the first phase of troubleshooting. But it does not go beyond that point." Tr. 6.

49. During an April 10, 1990 plant. status meeting which was taped by Mr. Mosbaugh (Tape No. 39, Tr.-2-4),.

Bockhold said that the staff needed to work harder on the instrumentation. matrix which was to be O provided to the IIT and that it was important'to go slow and be methodical and not make any mistakes.

Mark Briney said he thought . he . could have the matrix completed by April 11, 1990. Later, in Bockhold's staff meeting which Mosbaugh taped (Tape No. 40, Tr. 15-16), Bockhold discussed the . April 9th meeting with Region'II (and.provided his staff with a copy of the 4-9-90 letter)'and he said that he told the NRC that the EDGs were operable and he believed the NRC accepted that fact; Bockhold said.

they discussed the quarantined sensors and that he told the NRC the sensor calibration' procedure would be revised after the Wyle test results were received.

50. During an April 11, 1990 conversation taped by Mr.

Mosbaugh (Tape No. 42, Tr. 20-34), Paul Kochery and-Mosbaugh discussed the ' accuracy of- the diesel l starts statement in the 4-9-90 letter. They examined the list of starts which Kochery prepared showing that the 1B diesel tripped twice, once on 3-22-90 and once on 3-23-90 (IIT #180, Exhibit 12);

beenuse tTe list did not go beyond 3-23-90, ALM said he needed to find out the rest of the story j

__ __ _ _ _. _ __ __ _ ~ _. . _

5 j before he .could be sure the4 9 90 statement. was accurate; Kochery told Mosbaugh that J.P. Cash had the rest of the starts.

51. .On April 12, 1990, . at 8 : 00. a.m. , GPC faxed a ,

document to NRC's Ken,Brockman entitled " Failures

! of Calcon Temperature and Pressure Sensors at

. Vogtle Units 1 and 2"- (ARR IIT #210 attached ' as  ;

Rvhibit 28) . which was ~a - matrix compiled by. GPC's Mark Briney at NRC's~.. request'.containing~ more i detailed information concerning the sensor problems identified- on. IIT '#178 (Exhibit.113).:and. the i " Quarantine Components": transparency.

On April 12, 1990,' John Aufdenkampe, confirmed with

~

52.

NRC's Brockman> that. entering Mode 2 ..was not ,

+

contingent upon completion of Wyle testing of the sensors. ERR IIT #245, Tr. 17'(Exhibit 115).

53. On, April'- 12; 1990, = NRC - Region II releasedi GPC to

• restart Unit'1. 'On April 15, 1990, Unit 1 entered' Mode 2.

54. The NRC~ Staff would have-considered the Vogtle Unit 1 diesels operable and would haveiapproved Unit.1-for restart even if GPC.had informed the Staff.on' ,

April 9, 1990 that there were 14 .(as opposed to 19) consecutive successful starts of. . the .' 1B diesel 4

I O counting backward from April 9.

4 55. The NRC Region II staff independently verified through inspection and oversight the effectiveness of the Vogtle diesel ' generator- activities undertaken by GPC following the March 20, 1990. site area emergency. NRC Staff-Supplemental Response to Intervenor's First Set ~ of Interrogatories,' dated September 15, 1993 (Exhibit 21), at 4.

56. The NRC Staff's decision to allow restart of Vogtle Unit 1 on April 12, 1990 was based on an analysis of root cause of the diesel generator' failures and upon the licensee's corrective actions in response to such failures and not performance 1of a specific number of valid tests. 16. at 9.

57. The NRC' Staff would have' considered the Vogtle Unit i diesels operable and would have approved Unit 1 for restart even if 'GPC 'had included in its presentation and its letter to NRC on April 9, 1990 an explicit statement of the 1B diesel problems or failures - which occurred on March 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 1990.

i

] The Anril 19. 1990 Licensee ' Event Reort ("tRR 90-006") .

58. The initial draft of LER 90-006 was prepared by Tom -

Webb and adopted the same diesel starts . language as l was included in the April Sc.1990 letter.  ;

59. On April 12,.1990 the Plant . Review Board ("PRB") )

reviewed a draft of . LER '90-006 ' and discussed at-some length what information should~be included in I 1 the LER;.the PRB sent the LER back for further work l 1 to-reduce its length to 'about eight pages. Egg

Tape No. 43, Tr. 24-38.

j 60. On or. about April 13, 1990 the diesel starts l 4 statement in the draft LER was revised by Tom Webb at.the direction of John Aufdenkamps to replace the reference to 18 -and -19 starts with ' a _ general l reference to "several" starts.. l L 61. On April 18, 1990, the Plant Review Board - ("PRB")-

reviewed thel draft LER and voted unanimously to - ,

- approve the LER 'with .certain . comments.. As '

approved, the diesel starts. statement read: "Since 3-20-90, DG 1A and DG 1B have - been started more than . 20. times each and no - f ailures or. probleas' have occurred during any of these starts."- The voting.

members of, the PRB were Mosbaugh, Aufdenkampe, i Swartzwalder, Horton and Handfinger. A comment was s made by Mike Lackey that: the draf t - LER language '

referring to "several starts" of the diesels should be changed to " state the number of ' starts rather than several." 133 PRB Meeting Minutes, Mtg. No.

90-59, and Comment Review Sheet, attached- as composite Rvhibit 29. The "more than twenty times each" language which was then inserted into the ,

draft LER was based on - a ~ review of the RO log performed by John Aufdenkampe's group in which the number of diesel starts occurring after April 9 was l

added to the 18 and 19 numbers from the' April 9 ~

letter. Egg comments of J.G. Aufdenkampe on Tape.

No. 58, Tr. Insert at 1. Mr. Mosbaugh did' not raise a concern to the PRB that the 1B diesel had experienced two failures, on March-22nd and 23rd.  !

62. Mosbaugh taped a telephone conversation on . April 1 18, 1990 with Bill Shipman (Tape No. 53, Tr.-7-9) .

about ~ diesel information ' to be included in the draft LER 90-006 during- which. Shipman asked Mosbaugh to assist the corporate office-in order to meet ~ NRC reporting requirements. Diesel starts-information after 3-13-90, which had not'yet been incorporated into the Diesel Start Log was needed; ]

O - ~

I 4

l

,v~~ r - , , .n, . , . . , - . - - - - , ~ . - . . . - - ~ ~ - - n

j 4 Mosbaugh said he didn't.see a problem with getting ,

the data up through 3-20-90 but that getting it up j

' v(m) through today (4-18-90) might be a problem.

i

63. 'On the morning of April 19, 1990, the corporate i office sent a facsimile to the-site containing the  !

corporate office's comments- on the draft LER. I 2 Those comments. included a request from Mr. Hairston l' to " verify > 20 starts." A copy of that facsimile is attached as Rvhibit 30.

i

64. On April 19, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh taped the PRB 4 I

meeting (Tape No. 57), which took place from 1

25 j p.m. to 2 : 45 p.m. , during which the PRB reviewed i the corporate comments;on the draft LER. The draft  ;

LER with corporate comments was approved by the 4

PRB. Sag PRB Meeting Minutes, Mtg. 90-60,. attached l as Evhibit 31. Those voting to approve the LER i included Messrs. Kitchens, Handfinger, Swartzwalder i and Aufdenkampe. Mosbaugh abstained "due to insufficient review time." During the meeting, John Aufdenkampe was tasked with verifying the number of diesel starts. During the meeting George Frederick stated that he thought . the . number . of starts was being questioned by the corporate office 1 because GPC personnel had counted the diesel starts j in front of the.NRC and'a number different than^18

( or 19 was counted. Egg Tape 57, Tr. 62-64. On the NRC's transcript of Tape 57, at p. 62, Mr. Mosbaugh 3

wrote the following note

Chaffee team had questioned the start data in the (4-9-90) COA (response letter) and couldn't figure how we counted starts.

4 Mr. Mosbaugh did not include this portion of Tape No. 57 among the excerpts which he included on the ,

"Six Tapes" which he compiled in 1990 in j preparation for his Section 2.206 petition and I which he provided to Congress in 1992.

65. On April 19, 1990, after the PRB meeting, Messrs.

Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh articulated to Mr.

Stringfellow of the corporate office that the draf t 1 i

- LER statement (as approved by the PRB) was in question because there had been two failures of the 18 diesel on March 22nd and March -23rd.

Aufdenkampe stated that the draft LER language would have to change and may need to come out I depending on the results of a review of the control I I

Log by Tom Webb, Aufdenkampa's subordinate. After checking with Rick Odom, Tom Webb's supervisor,

i

). Aufdenkampe told Stringfellow that - Webb was ' not

, p finished with his review yet. Then they discussed the fact that the 4/9/90 letter also appeared to be-i false because there were failures of the 18 diesel.

after March 20th. The telephone call ended with-

Aufdenkampe stating that he was." working on that."

Ras Tape 57, Tr. Insert - . #1, Tr. '92-96 and Tr.

Insert #2.

)

66. On April 19, '1990, after ' Messrs. Mosbaugh , and Aufdenkampe spoke with Mr. Stringfellow, Mr.

! Mosbaugh spoke with Mr. Shipman. .Mosbaugh told him there was a problem with the LER statement because there were failures and, with respect.to the. April

9th presentation and letter, "if anybody'saidlthat' there weren't any failures, you know,. that's;just not true." Mosbaugh identified the.two failures of-

< the IB diesel on March 22nd and 23rd referring to Paul Kochery's list-of-starts (IIT.' #180, Exhibit

12) and said that the list had been provided to the

NRC's Al Chaffee. Mosbaugh did not inform Shipman that the Kochery list only I covered the , period through March 23rd or that Tom Webb was reviewing.

the RO log to verify the . number'.of starts.

Mr. Shipman said that the draft LER had' been' approved by the PRB but Mosbaugh incorrectly.said he . did not think the dieselL starts . language. was- in the LER wh'en the PRB approved it. Shipman stated'

" (A j that the LER statement needed to'be correct or it' should be deleted and he asked Mr. Mosbaugh to get .

the. correct information. Kaa' Tape ~ 57, Tr.

Insert #3.

4

67. On April 19, 1990, after Mr. Mosbaugh's discussion with Mr. Shipman, Mr. Mosbaugh spoke ~with Messrs..

Aufdenkampe, Odon'and Webb about the? accuracy.of the April 9 letter and the draft LER. Mr.-Mosbaugh said the April 9 letter was true if.there were 19 starts of the la diesel after March 23rd at 1731 hours0.02 days <br />0.481 hours <br />0.00286 weeks <br />6.586455e-4 months <br />'(Start No. 134).- ~ Rich. Odon land Tom Webb did not yet have the data from the RO' logs to. verify the 19 starts. With respect to tho'LER statement, Odom said it could be deleted but Mosbaugh'said "we need to know in the LER what we can say,or can say safely." Mosbaugh said they had-to quickly get the diesel starts information- from the RO log.~- 7133 Tape 57, Tr. 118-25. Mr. Mosbaugh did not include this taped. conversation among the excerpts.which he included on the "Six Tapes."

c 68. .On April 19, 1990, after Mr. Mosbaugh's discussion with Messrs. Aufdenkampe Odom- and Webb, Mr.

I Mosbaugh participated Jin a conference , call?among-4 Messrs. :Bockhold Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh at .. the-l site and Messrs. Shipman', Stringfallow, McCoy andf 1 -later Hairston at the: corporate office. .When thel i conversation began, Messrs..-Hairston and Mosbaugh-

were not listening because they were' involved in a simultaneous discussion with Jim Swartzwalder and a~

i plant equipment :' operator. -. Mosbaugh entered the.

1 conversation some time after 'it had been .in.

E progress.- Aufdenkampe said that , his staff

initially came up with the "at. least. 20 times each" l language in the .' draft

.LER by adding starts

occurring after April.9th'to the 18 and 19l numbers-

in the April .9th . letter. Bockhold. indicated his agreement with the greater than 20 number. McCoy stated that they . needed to know the number of starts after the completion of the comprehensive 1

test program of the control systems. Bockhold'said'

{

the 18 and 19 numbers were' verified-correct by J.

3- P.' Cash. McCoy asked if those. numbers.were after

] the completion of'the comprehensive test program.

i Bockhold stated.that they were. Shipman proposed i that they use the words." greater than.18"_ but McCoy, interjected that it would not be , greater than;.18 l for one of the diesels, "it would ha'.18." 333 Tape 3

i 58, Tr. Insert at 1-2. In the latter part of the l group conversation, there is a short exchange about.

! the diesels during which Mr. Hairston, apparently l entering the conversation' for 'the first time,

stated "We got the starts, so we didn't have no ...

j didn't have no trips." Mr. Shipman, in apparent j- reply, said "No, not not...." h. at 3. This

statement apparently is a reference to the fact

- that there~were no trips of the dieselisubsequent

{ to the concletion of the concrehanniva test nrocrram i of the control syst===. The group conversation j ended with McCoy telling 'Aufdenkampe that the corporate office would call him back in about 30 minutes to let him know whether there were'any other changes to the LER which might have to be reviewed by the PRB.

69. On April 19, 1990, the draft LER 90-006 language-was modified as a result of Mr. Hairston and of Messrs. Mosbaugh and Aufdenkampe seeking confirmation of the accuracy of the draft LER statement (Exhibit 30).

O. On April 19, 1990, once the draft LER was revised-to include the language " subsequent to this test program," Mr. Mosbaugh was satistied that the two failures (on March 22nd and 23rd) no longer were O

4

included among the ' "at least . 18" diesel starts

referenced'in the LER. i l

j

! 71. On April 19, 1990,-the next discussion between the

corporate office and the plant site concerning the

diesel starts language to be used~in the 11 ngl LER

,90-006'was a telephone' call involving Mr. Shipman at the corporate office and Messrs.. Mosbaugh and Aufdenkampe at the site. In ' that. conversation Messrs. Aufdenkampe and Shipman' explained to Mr.

t Mosbaugh that Mr. Bockhold had-said the 18 and 19' l starts, reported to the NRC on April 9,> occurred

{

after all the sensors had'been recalibrated,' i.e.,

! after all the bugs-had-been worked out. Mosbaugh-

)

said he had-the diesel starts data but didn't know

the date_ and time of. the completion

of the q instrument recalibrations. Shipman said they could )

begin the count at the point at which the diasels- l l

l were declared operable but,-he added, j the problem'with that is'that'that number is j going to ' be significantly less, than what 2 George (Bockhold) told Mr. Ebneter (NRC Region i II Administrator) and, you know, its going to

< create a selling job.for me, I think -- but if j l

-that's the'only way we can tell'a valid story (

that, you know, we can defend if 'somebody j j calls Allen Mosbaugh, Bill 1 Shipman and John .

U Aufdenkampe to testify, that's the story I l vant to tell. 1 Aufdenkampe proposed to use- the ' diesel starts ,

language which appears in the final LER based on  ;

j the fact that "somebody has gone and validated that l l

data, and that's what George presented.' The data' i

! that's been offered- to us (by Messrs. Webb and l

' I Odom) does not bring into question that data ... it tends to support that data. Would you take exception to that Allen?" Mosbaugh did not respond

!. and Aufdenkampe continued:-"The only issue is, we i can't let people be mislead to think that there i were not failures until we started doing that

! count." 133 Tape No. 58, Tr. Insert at 4-7.

i j After the final languags was read,by Mr. Shipman, .

Mr. Mosbaugh said that the statement suggested the j diesel count began after the UV testing. Shipman said'"Let me add one more additional fact in here that I think will help us as we struggle with this to make sure that we're not trying to mislead, at

least the people we most want not to mislead and o -

that's the Region II folks and IIT team." He s0id j p !U i,

4 d

e- e v =-= ~ - , --m,..,v-. ..h.-.-.,,, ,--,..--..-,_m-_---, .-.E....w...r-,--.r,

- -- -. ,.n. .,

-m . . . - - - . - . . ~ - ~ - < . . - - - - - . . ~ . . ~.-., . ,--- --- --w -

I -

l

• 1 j

that Mr. McCoy had spoken with :the NRC's Ken Brockman "and talked to . him about, you know, the l numbers and what the basis of the. number was as -

i j- . George- Bockhold described it, 'and~ asked Ken

- (Brockman) if he~ understood that in Atlanta on that ,

i basis, and Ken said, 'Yes,' absolutely we did, and.  :

)

also the IIT team understands that.'" - Aufdenkampe j said:."There's.no question,.I think, that the IIT :i i

! team. understands that." Shipman added: "Which is. l l the basis as.well. .So from that sense, you know, the people < we're trying! to tell' understand the  ;

, basis for..the number . George ' presented, and we - J really.aren't changing George's number." 333 Tape i No. 58, Tr. 26-27. .

j Mr.. Mosbaugh did. . ncit include this . taped:  !

! conversation with Mr. 4alpe .:mong ' the excerpts 1 i

which he included on.the "Six TNms." j i

f 72. On April- 19, '1990, Messrs . Mosbatge and Aufdenkampe l 1 had one further discussion vii.h - Mr. . Shipman- )

l concerning the diesel-starts language in.the final LER, attached as hhibit 32, during which Shipman ~

I can be~ heard reading the final LER diese1 starts-I statement. Shipman then thanked them for their i efforts in getting the LER issues resolved.

! Aufdenkampe said that as' far as he ' was. concerned

! the PRB members could go home~since there weren't l any substantive-changes in. the LER. that required j their review and Shipman agreed. Egg Tape No. 58,.

l Tr. 30-32. As far as.we know, this is the, final ,

[ discussion between the site and the corporate -

office concerning the LER. Throughout. this discussion, Mosbaugh voiced no'. objection to the final LER diesel starts statement.

Mr. Mosbaugh did not include this . taped i conversation among the excerpts which he included on the "Six Tap'es."

i

73. On April 19, 1990,- following their final j conversation with Mr. Shipman concerning the diesel I starts statement in the LER, Mr. Mosbaugh taped a discussion that he had with Aufdenkampe (Tape No.

58, Tr. 33-38).- Mosbaugh complained. that he '

couldn't find 18 starts, referring to a . list - of

- starts. Aufdenkampe said "Odom got this," l referring to the data which Odom, . Webb's supervisor, provided to Aufdenkampe. Then they discussed what was meant by " subsequent to the ,

comprehensive test program;" Mosbaugh said it. was l after the UV test and Aufdenkampe said it was after '

l

4

i

- r the third trip, according to Bockhold.

reasonable basis for the Aufdenka l l

~

they had a effect, i statement. f i i j

1

.' They then spoke with J.P.(b)Cash ~

he counted who indicate >

maintenance starts on March 20th, l all the starts on 1B..beginning af ter tho' machine j

was back . inand service, (d)

(c) he didn't think he foundhe - -gl ,

any f ailures, numbers.

Mosbaugh was., concerned l total 18 and 19 that he.didn't know what was done but Aufdenkampe l

! was satisfied to rely on Bockhold's representation. -:

l l Then the following exchange took place:

l- Where do you want to go with this?- l j Aufdenkampe: g We l- Mosbaugh:

There's no place:to go has Hairston with'it. already I

f have already - ter stating the same j submitted a let Right?

thing the LER states. I 2

.s i

Aufdenkampe: Yeah.

l Mosbaugh:

All we'did is state.the same thing -

in this LER that Hairston' already. -

l stated in the letter.  !

'- l I

~

has an

! Aufdenkampe: And George .[Bockhold) l argument on why that's correct. t f that the- same thing l Mosbaugh: And that's l George presented at the meeting.

i l ,

Aufdenkampe:

George has an argument on why that

' 'is correct, and Ken McCoy called and said, you know, called'Brockman and l

i.

Brockman understood what that meant.

l Aufdenkampe:

Do you need anything from me before l l

' I leave?

<. Mosbaugh: No.

j Messrs.. Mosbaugh and Following this discussion j'

l Aufdenkampe took ' no further action on Mosbaugh did not include - these i final LER. Mr.

taped conversations among the excerpts which he included on the "Six Tapes."

-+e - --. . , . . , , -a-crew-wv.-~,.w,-w ,,-*.-ne

.l

-74. On April'19, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh did.not know, and j j did not. articulate to GPC management, that' the. .

t final LER language - (Exhibit '32) was falso and ha  !

did not direct Mr. Aufdenkampe, who was ~his {

subordinate at tho ' time, to L withhold the site's j capproval of, or'to further modify or correct, such' .

final LER language. .l

} 'I i 75. OnJApril 19,.1990,'GPC's Ken McCoy had a telephone. j conversation with NRC's Ken Brockman (Region II) at. i approximately 5:00 p.m. .EST which lasted about 7 i minutes. During this conversation, Mr. McCoy  ;

confirmed, and Mr. Brockman said he understood, j that the Vogtle 15 diesel had. experienced problems .;

i and failures in the process of . coming .out of  :

i maintenance. 332, 32&,, Bill Shipman's comments ~on

! Tape No. 58, Tr. at 27;. and Tape.Nos. 69 and 89  !

discussed in Stipulation Nos. 77 and 81 below. Mr.,'

!' Brockman also knew of these difficulties because'of ,

l his position as the Regional' Point of Contact'for

- the Vogtle IIT. Aan Ken Brockman's' December =. 23,-

1993 Response to GPC's October ~ 8, 1993 discovery i{ request (Exhibit 16), at 7. Mr. McCoy. discussed j with Mr. Brockman that, to the extent the-April 9' '

letter was imprecise, the NRC understood'there had. ,

j been failures of the 18 dieself after March 20, l 1990. Additionally, Brockman understood GPC's 4

diesel start statements to NRC meant that "after  ;

j repairs had been made' all starts were successful and no failures were experienced that required the

{ analysis and repair process to be re-entered or re-i initiated ... [and that) at no time; during -the

verification process were' any-. failures -J

experienced." ' & at 8. Stated differently, Brockman understood the LER diesel starts statement

! to say there .ware at least 18 consecutive i successful starts of the la diesel after it'had  :

I

! been brought.out of maintenance and the bugs had

been worked out. Furthermore, McCoy confirmed that Brockman and the IIT understood the LER's reference to the completion.of the comprehensive test program i of the control' systems meant the completion of the j j sensor calibrations as part , of the process of

! coming out of maintenance (i.e., immediately

preceding the period of investigating the root j cause of the-March 20th failure).

l I  !

'.} '

l 1

l

_ _ __ ~ _ ,_ _ _

- . -. . . ..~ - - . . . . ... - - .. - - .

4 Events Followina Anril- 19,'1990.

! 76. Not until further factual review by Mr. Mosbaugh between April 25 and ' 3 0, 1990 did ' Mr. Mosbaugh -

conclude that the diesel. generator-related'

statement in the final LER (Exhibit 32) was inaccurate.

j 77. On April 26, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh recorded -the following conversations:-

a. Rick Odom informed - Mosbaugh that Al Chaffee

said he heard "a couple of-weeks ago" that the statement on diesel starts was incorrect.and that . Ken Brockman: told Chaffee, in Odon's .

presence, that Chaffee had: heard .it from

, Region II; Mosbaugh said he started reviewing the logs- [for diesel starts _ information)

! yesterday with K. Stokes. 333 Tape No. 69, l Tr. 2-3.

} b. In a conversation.with Mosbaugh and odom, -Herb

Beacher said that Al Chaffee asked questions

about the.LER. Chaffee said he didn't think the statement about 18 starts was - true and

. Brockman caid "you. heard it. from us" and Chaffee .said they would. look into it.

Mosbaugh said he-had previouslyitold Shipman the statement was not true, that "you guys j better check your facts," that ' he ~ and had

given Shipman specific. dates and times ' of known EDG failures; Mosbaugh.also said "I was on the phone with the wholeLthing. They blew  ;

it off....McCoy came back on the. conversation .j on the phone and said, ' yeah, I just talked to Ken Brockman, and he understands that there were failures in the process of coming out of the maintenance on the machine.'"- Isb. at 8-11.

c. Mosbaugh, odom, Tom Webb and perhaps~another person discussed the diesel starts statement

- in the LER. Someone'said the statement was technically correct as written. but was misleading. Webb said "I thought Brockman was going to explain (the meaning of) it to them;"

odos said that Brockman told Chaffee."What you

- heard where the problem was is from the i Region." Someone said "I thought'we explained that to them" and odom' replied " Yeah, McCoy )

talked to him; that's what I heard;" Webb caid j "and these fellows observed - that the jacket l

- l

,,----n- ,, , - , - - . - - -.w+,,, a,,- .,- . , , , , , _..-.__e,--w.w-.. - ----- - -.

- . . - . ~ - . ~ - . . - . . -

.I 4

8 j

4:

water pressure ' was 12 to . 13 : pounds.. 'They. 1 asked if that was when tho' diesel was running l

! or after a trip. I said,Well, the way,it )

reads, I think it's ' af ter_ .the trip. ' . . . . He . ,

i said, 'Okay.' 'That's the way:he understood. .

it, too. So he understands." E ,.at 15-17.

( 1 1990 ' conversation between

~

78. In- an April 27,- ~

Aufdenkampe and Mosbaugh which Mr. Mosbaugh taped ,

. (Tape No. 71, Tr. 3-9), Aufdenkampe,said he knew  ;

I there were 2 failures on the' diesels, maybe:3,.and

Mosbaugh asked what was the third failure; Mosbaugh l

' said he thought ~there was a high probability that  ;

i* .there' . was a- problem with the diesel starts  :

' statement- in the LER; Aufdenkampe- said .that i i Bockhold told him and Shipman 'over the phone (on' -!

j. April.19, 1990) before the LER was issued'that the  ;

! Region was aware of the failures but that~once the  ;

troubleshooting mode was cleared, there were that1  ;

}

many successful starts; Mosbaugh said that was not- .i j true and Aufdenkampe said that's what he was told  !

j and that Bockhold had all the information before he  ;

i made the. 4-9-90 presentation 'to .the NRC;- l t Aufdenkampe said that the more appropriate way;to -

i word the LER statement would have been to say "we  ;

i have had 18 consecutive starts without a' trip from i i this date going back," but he did' net believe.that. ')

i the words in the ~ LER were : meant to be "weasely;" -  !

i= Mosbaugh said "we need to decide what we missed,  !

i then we need to review the data.and see'if what we  :

j- meant is true or not, but I have yet to'be able to figure out, among the various ways of-interpreting i

it, I find a flaw with each method of interpreting  ;

l the words."  :

i .

]

79. On April 30, 1990, Mosbaugh . taped the following l' conversations:

! a. Mosbaugh went to Tom Webb's office and j inquired about Webb's progress in getting the diesel start count data .together; Webb j explained that he had copied all the control

l. logs and that the 1B diesel had tripped'two times and had one failure to start. 333 Tape j No. 74, Tr. 44-45.

b. Mosbaugh provided Aufdenkampe his tabulation i of diesel starts and said "I think I got them

all. It's hard to know with records like they are. Some of them aren't logged in the control-4 log." Later Mosbaugh also said to Aufdenkampe l

that "the data is good" and'that it is "the j O

i 4

i f

best data there is;" Aufdenkampe' stated that j "it sounds like a material. false statement hasi O been made in the LER;" both Mosbaugh and~

Aufdenkampe expressed concern' that the.  ;

operator logs were not complete; Mosbaugh said  !

"Maybe I'll make.a copy of that for George. _I ,

t think somebody needs to do something about it." Mosbaugh and Kitchens agreed to have

~

i Cash and Stokes go over the: list and Mosbaugh.

~ informed Cash that he was to work with Ken  !

Stokes to confirm the. tabulation.. 333 Tape  ;

No. 75, Tr. 6-7, 31-32, 53, 56.

i

c. Aufdenkampe ' informed.'Mosbaugh that ~ he had.

spoken'with Bockhold and that Bockhold said he .  !

thought the problem-starts occurred prior to j the 18 consecutive starts referred to in the  ;

LER.. Egg Tape No. 76, Tr. 9.

d. Later, Mosbaugh informed'Bockhold that he had arranged for Cash and Stokes to review - the

' diesel' start tabulation.and that he believed

there were . not enough starts for the ' NRC :

. communications to be: accurate. Bockhold said:

"we have to'obviously revise the LER" and'he "l instructed Mosbaugh to "get the revision.in"' l and to inform Bockhold if there were any other . l concerns- which Mosbaugh had.- Bockhold ,

O. explained to Mosbaugh.that the basis for the numbers:in the April 9 presentation was Cash's j

information. and, he thought, Ken- Burr's concurrence with that infornation; Bockhold .'

said "I think maybe Jimmy: Paul 1was-thinking 'l something different than ... what-I would have i gotten out of-that. slide;" he also said "if it is wrong, we've got to correct.it'.... or we need to at least provide some : clarifying-information that we had this number- of successful starts, . we had these problems. Our conclusion is still the same, the diesel is operable." Isk at 30-31. .

80. On April 30, 1990 Mr. Mosbaugh provided a memorandum to Mr. Bockhold,. stating his opinion of the inaccuracy of prior statements made to the'NRC concerning diesel generator information. .By' reply ,

memorandum, Mr. Bockhold directed Messrs. Mosbaugh and Kitchens to have the Engineering and Operations Departments agree on-the diesel start numbers and-then have the Technical Support Department propose i changes to'the 4-9-90 letter. and the 4-19-90 LER as required. A copy of both memoranda are attached as l

l l

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

l i

. composite Rvhibit 33'  ;

81. .On. May 2, 1990, Mosbaugh taped the following ]

conversations:  ;

l' a. .Mosbaugh conversation with R.'Odom and T. Webb i in which Mosbaugh said . Stokes had validated- l the EDG 1A and 1B . lists and there 'was a l

j

-problem with the LER statement for both the.lA  !

i and 1B diesels; : 0 dom said.'"it's - not like we

~

l didn't know this statement was questionable to [

begin with;." odon said the statement could be  !

' true but was " misleading as hell;" odos said' l l "didn't . McCoy ; call' Brockman, though, and go i through. that (4-9-90) letter 1with him?" and  !

Mosbaugh said "I heard something - like : that, j i too." Mosbaugh read the 4-9-90. letter statement .and said they were : falso because 1 "they were started more than:that;" Mosbaugh '

said he had "no idea" how P.he statement got

! written but thought it was decided by Bockhold .  !

i and corporate based on J. Cash's review; they  !

i reviewed . the- LER draft : language approved by the PRB on 4-18-90 and Mosbaugh said "20.

That's-what's in . there, - huh?: God, where:did ,

that come from?" Webb-said "Well, because l 3

that was the extension from operable that was  ;

! going all the way up to.the_18th'and'19th'of April.'You go that far, you get like 32' times l for 1A and 27 times ~ for 18. "" Mosbaugh said l

"Oh, .I know why I didn't- remember this,

i because I came to that (PRB) meeting ' late. " - l l

Odom said he was. told that McCoy has already 1 told Brockman about the (4-9-90) letter; ALM-  ;

i i said the IIT was "on to it,-too ...'Chaffee

! has got all the same data we have." Aga Tape No. 89, Tr. 2-19.-

l .

b. Mosbaugh conversation with Aufdenkampe about i the EDG starts and the' inaccuracies in the 4-9-90 letter and LER 90-006 during which Mosbaugh said there was a problem with both the 1A and 1B statements.and that odom needs to correct the statements and could do so by simply changing the numbers to 11 starts in the LER. & at 21 .2. l 4

c. Mosbaugh informed Bockhold that the ~ diesel start data had been validated, Bockhold told Mosbaugh "You need to change the LER," and Mosbaugh replied "We're working on that. . . . We  ;

can either change the number or we can change l 4  :

1

f i

l the statement of completion or success. or whatever. You could keep the words,the same

O and change the number or you could change what?

you were claiming." Bockhold asked.about the

4-9-90 ' letter and Mosbaugh said 'it .had a'-

problem' also because it' had an incorrect'

number and he said "Again,. you got the same i problem.

You can either. change tho' number or

! you can change the clain." Bockhold said

! "Maybe we should try to on the (4-9-90] letter .

to work the correction into the (May) 15th

' letter. That.would probably be the best and most appropriate way." Mosbaugh,taplied "I

. -don't know." gag Tape No.:90, Tr. 2-3.

j d. Later, Mosbaugh discussed- the necessary'

! corrections with Odom and Webb, that the LER i' could be revised by simply changing the i i ~ numbers and he said "I like the LER words.

The LER words 'aren't bad. 'The diesel ' was j subjected to a ... comprehensive test program j was done, at

d subsequent to that . . . there had been X successful ~ starts without problems;...

1 And just put whatever.the right number is..'..

I think it's about eleven, wasn't too'many."

IL, at 4-10.

l

. 82. During a May 7, 1990 conversation with1 Mike ~ Chance' l which Mosbaugh taped (Tape ' No. 79, -Tr. 14-15) j Mosbaugh said "The Wyle testing has borne out.that

+

there's problems with debris in the switches. Some

~

of it may be at the point of manufacture, some'of

it is induced here on site, and.they're ...-we're l going to have to look at the way we calibrated thes

because the Wyle testing is saying now that, okay, i if they're clean ; and there's no debris L and if j they're calibrated right, . they're operable. Or i they're satisfactory."

l 83. During a May 8, 1990 PRB meeting which Mosbaugh

! taped (Tape No. 98, Tr. 68-74), Mosbaugh was the

< acting Chairman and he asked ~ the. members- to l determine what was the completion of the i

comprehensive test program of the diesels; Mosbaugh j explained what the " eleven" number was based on; and the PRB voted-to approve a revision to LER 90-

! 006 which stated:

After the-3-20-90 event, the control systems of both engines were', subjected t'o a comprehensive test program which culminated in

control logic tests on 3-31 for DG1A and 3-e

(

i e

i i

$ I 1

~

l i

27-90 for DG18. .. Subsequent to - this test .!

,~ ' program, DG1A and DG1B have been started 11- -l' times each (through 4-19-90) and no failures or problems have occurred-during any of these 3

starts. These included.an'undervoltage start

, test without air roll ~.which.was conducted on

~4-6-90 and DG1A started,and loaded properly.

. 333 Rvhibit 34. After the PRB meeting,.Mosbaugh directed Tom Webb to approve the. revision to-the i LER with' a comment "to clarify what .the comprehensive tast program is, sol that .it is

! factually correct." Tr. 74. I i . J

! 84. On or about May 9, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh ' proposed ' l l revised language for the revision to LER ;90-006 - 1 l which stated:

l Numerous sensor, calibrations (including jacket j l.

water temperatures), special pneumaticL leak -

< testing, and' multiple engine starts and runs i were performed under various conditions. In ]

addition, the control systems for both engines j vere subjected to .a- comprehensive. test j program. . After completion of the ' control' .j logic test sequence,' an under voltage test. was  !

! performed. Including'the under voltage' test  !

j aach engine has been successfully started - }

eleven times with no start failures.

} .

. Egg " ALM rewrite" attached as Rvhibit 35.

85. On May 10, _1990, - because a draft of the May -.14,  ;

l 1990 letter to NRC did not include a correction of the April 9th letter, Mosbaugh assigned an action  !

l item to Bockhold to determine how the ' April' 9 l letter would be corrected. See PRB Meeting l

Minutes, Mtg. No. 90-67, attached as Rvhibit 36.

] On May 24, 1990, the General Manager signed the e action item off as complete and attached a note I -instructing the Technical Support Manager to use the cover letter for the revised LER to correct the-l April 9 letter. Egg transcript of July 18-19, 1990 i OI interview of Allen Mosbaugh at 195, attached as i Rvhibit 37.

! 86. On May 14, 1990, George Bockhold instructed Tom i Greene to include in the revision of LER 90-006 two sets of successful diesel start numbers: one with an end date of 4-19-90 and a second with an end

! date of 5-14-90. 33.3 hand-written note 'from- ,

Bockhold to Greene, attached as Rvhibit 38. j i

?

l i

87. GPC notified the NRC orally of the ' error 1in the O diesel start language no later than~May 24, 1990, when Mr. Hairston informed Mr. Stewart Ebneter that-the diesel starts count in LER 90-006.was in error, and what the correct numbers were (as he understood them at the time), and that a revision to the LER.

would be forthcoming. On or,about the same date, 1 Mr. McCoy informed NRC's Ken Brockman'of the-error in LER 90-006.. In addition, . when Mr. 'Hairston -

-learned in June;that the diesel start numbers had

-changed, he called Mr. Ebneter on' June 14,'1990, to inform him of the changed numbers. .At that' time,.

Mr. Hairston also told Mr.s Ebneter that he: had directed the site quality assurance' organization to perform an audit of the diesel start numbers.

88. On June 4, 1990, Mosbaugh had a conversation with l

Aufdenkampe which he taped '(Tape'No. 143, Tr. 2-6)

I about the status of the revision to LER 90-006 and.

the correction of L the 4-9-90 letter; Aufdenkampe said that the letter would be corrected with a .!

statement.in the cover letter for the LER revision;  ;

Aufdenkampe added: "You know, on all . this NRC  ;

stuff, what it really boils down to is ... did you-report this? Provided you can'show that, that's i all that matters.... I really think on.this diesel 'l thing we should write a separate letter.but-to the '

O region. . . . But it doesn't matter. . AllLwe need to be able to do is show we~ made. (an) incorrect:

Mosbaugh said: "The' requirements are.

,j i

j statement."

stricter than that, John.... .the requirements i

require a timely notification;" Aufdenkampe-said-all he was talking about was the ~ "how to" ' and

.Mosbaugh acknowledged that Aufdenkampe was correct about the "how to" and he added: "but '. if - you'll read ' Section 2, - Enforcement L . . .. ' on this , type of issue ... we'are in deep shit, okay?" Aufdenkampe agreed' with Mosbaugh's conclusion' and' Mosbaugh -

continued: "We haven't done a' timely - we've known about it, and we didn't ... we did it with careless disregard or willfulness ... you read that section, and it sounds real,.real bad." -

89. On June 8, 1990, Mr.'Mosbaugh-taped the following.

conversations (Tape No. 157):

a. Mosbaugh telephone conversation-with Rushton about the error in the LER; Mosbaugh said he thought'the error originated with the 4-9-90 presentation and .was- flagged. in the ]

development of the original LER and he tJ1d )

O I

___ _ _ . _ . _. _ _. __ _ _. ___ . _ _ . . ~ . .

i Rushton to talk to Operations'(Tr. 2-5)..

b. Aufdenkampe told Mosbaugh that ' Hairston- was i "on a-tear" about the EDG starts count data '!

and'they. discussed the delay in the revision to LER 90-006 and Aufdenkampe said it was true-

'that Stringfellow - was - to. busy too' ~get to it-(Tr. 5-7).

c. Telephone discussion . among Mosbaugh,-

Aufdenkampe, Bailey .and ! Rushton: Aufdenkampe said. that management (Shipman, Mosbaugh, Bailey, Bockhold and Aufdenkampe), 'made.-the decision in the telephone conference-(on 4 90) to include 7 those- numbers basedi on-Bockhold's representation that. the ' numbers were good, counting from completion of the W . l test and Mosbaugh said he had no idea of what^ j

~

was Bockhold's basis for the numbers but that ]

f- it wasn't based on the W ' test ' (Tr. 8-10);  ;

Aufdenkampe' said there were not 18' or 19- i successful consecutive ~ starts and:BaileyLand J Aufdenkampe said they believe-they led the NRC  :

in' Atlanta (4-9-90) ~ to believe that.the 18_ and;

-19 starts were " successful consecutive starts" .i (Tr. 10-13); Aufdenkampe 1said ' he guarantees that the;IIT knows exactly what happened (Tr. i 14);; Bailey said maybe?they shouldn't-send in  ;

q the revised LER until after they,saw the IIT i report in case there might be a conflict (Tr.

. 16); Aufdenkampe said his people used the 4 l 90 letter (to prepare the LER) (Tr. 17).  !

l

d. Mosbaugh told Horton - that NSAC ' based' their review-of the EDG starts (on 4/18-19/90) on l the information in the 4-9-90; CAL response (Tr. 25).  ;

i

90. On June 11, 1990, certain site. personnel discussed the fact that Hairston did not have confidence in the LER revision, that he would not sign it, and that he tasked QA personnel to audit the data. Sam Tape No. 159, Tr. 5-6. In r:mpcase to a comment from Mosbaugh that the logs had.nothing to do with the inaccuracy in the LER, Aufdenkampe said: "I would argue, though, that if we kept the log better it would have prevented that type of incident....

It wasn't the cause of it, but it was the cure for it." 1 . at'11. Mosbaugh told Tynan and Frederick that "the issue of how that information got wrong and then in the letter'and then in the LER,.it can only be answered by George (Bockhold) and Jimmy l 0

I i

Paul Cash...." .Id at 29.- j

91. On June 12, 1990, Mosbaugh taped a discussion with G. Frederick concerning the er~r in the original ~

LER during which Mosbaugh said: "we made mistakes l for some reason. I don't know if we tried to i stretch the information ... or if we counted then >

! wrong or whatever, but we . used the-control. room  :

information and we made mistakes." 1331 Tape No. i

160, Tr. 27. -Later that day, in a~ discussion with l

M. Horton, M. Aj1 uni and G. Frederick ~ , which Mr. Mosbaugh taped, Ajluni .said .Mr. Hairston was - i

> "real upset" and couldn't understand why they could-I not get the diesel start numbers right.- Tr. 38. I f

f 92. On June 13, 199'0, Mosbaugh taped a discussion with I

?

Aufdenkampe and Gus Williams. (Tape No. 161) in'  ;

I which Aufdenkampe informed ALM that 'the-.LER i revision was going to be rewritten based'on then-

current knowledge. Mosbaugh . complained that it j would take a lot longer but Aufdenkampe said he

thought it was a good idea and that he would inform

the NRC Resident Inspector of the mistake in the ,

original LER.- Tr.-2-3. They also discussed the l 3

LER diesel . starts statement and Aufdenkampe;said {

l i

that the 18 starts could be correct - depending on what. you define as "after the. test program. ',

~

1- Because that's what caused the whole argument.

When we had George on the phone he said after the  !

test program was at this . point. . . . - I can't ,

l l

remember - what he said after that. ... But Jimmy Paul had admitted that he screwed up anyway, because the one trip that we had,'ha counted that  :

Because the as a successful' start on 'B' diesel. l shift log says there was a successful start;" Tr. ~!

! 4-6.

1990, Mosbaugh . taped a conversation

93. On June 15, with Aufdenkampe (Tape No. 167, Tr. 23-24) during l

which Mosbaugh asked Aufdenkampe about the status of the LER revision; Aufdenkampe said, "I briefed the residents and they talked to-Brockman and;they said that was fine.... I told them that we had an incorrect. statement in the LER.... They asked what l the right numbers were. . . . Depends on what you want to start counting as the right numbers. I think-the latest numbers I've heard are ~ sixteen and I eleven."

)

i

__ _ _j

4 i

b i

5. -

l

94. On June 19, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh taped the following i discussions (Tape No.-172)

I

! a.- Mosbaugh . meeting with .Bockhold~ and_ NRC Resident Inspector John Rogge ~to discuss Mosbaugh's concerns (alleged ,in 'his : DOL-complaint) . during which Mosbaugh said the starts and failures of'EDG 1A and 18:between'

3-20-90 and 4-19-90 were a concern to him and Bockhold acknowledged .that- Mosbaugh'

had- ,

notified him of that-(after 4-19-90]'but that j

he gave the issue back to Mosbaugh to have the  !

' LER corrected: (Tr. 6); Mosbaugh said his. )

i technical concern was that the EDGs had-  !

additional . failures (although he said he: I

j. thought the' EDGs were - reliable inow); and his -  !

management concern was that the LERl revision .

t had not been submitted; - Bockhold said they '

were working on obtaining the correct numbers

- and he thought that Aufdenkampe ' had . spoken

. with the NRC Resident Inspector (Tr. 7-8).'

S

! b. .Later, Mosbaugh~ met privately- 'with ~NRC '

. Resident ' John Rogge and told him GPC had q

provided material false information to the NRC -

j concerning diesel starts information which was

[ significant to the regulatory- process and which Mosbaugh believed. fell within " careless iO l

disregard." Tr. 26-28. Mosbaugh said the April 9 ~ letter was the -basis. for NRC's i

1 l

l decision that the Vogtle diesels were reliable

' and he faulted the reference to "no problems" in the letter. Tr. at 33-39. .-Mosbaughisaid-the April 19 , - 1990 LER. did' not count the  ;

starts correctly from. the completion of the comprehensive test program.- Tr. at 38-39. $

Rogge asked how the LER was careless disregard i

! and Mosbaugh said that counting starts without

! problems was a fairly simple matter and when made incorrectly by a competent professional careless disregard and there was i

it is j evidence that it was willful'in the Company's

handling of the revision to the LER.- Tr. at l 46-49.

i i 95. On June 29, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh taped the following i conversations:

! I

' a. Mosbaugh conversation with Odom and Frederick, j Frederick stated: - "This is a fact: When we I wrote the LER, the diesel logs had not been updated since March the 15th.- And, the l

l

1 (completion) sheets.-that were _ written up on A the logs by . operations were still < sitting somewhere between the control- room and the -

(document) vault. They hadn't- even been.

forwarded to Kenny Stokes. I' don't have the slightest idea where'they were. They weren't signed.off until April the 24th.... There was no single source. document available, on. fact to ~ write that LER." 333 -. Tape No. : 18 6, . Tr .

Insert at-2. ,

b. On' June 29, 1990, Mosbaugh taped a' discussion with Horton and Frederick (Tape No.187)' about the cover letter for the revised LER; Frederick said that a.cause of the LER error the- Diesel Start Log was not '

was that available- as a single source document that could have been used to count starts; Mosbaugh said "I was a participant on (the April 19 s telephone) convers,ations, and I know and i understand why the error was made.in the LER, '

and this is not why.... The problem.isEthat.

the people that counted them from the source .

records that: they c o u n t e d -_ t h e m from either counted them wrong or made mistakes in a '

counting them or weren't- careful in j their counting or. whatever." ' , Frederick said that his audit report was simply saying-that if the O Diesel Start Log were up to date, the person counting _ starts would not have had to go the other several source documents. Tr.' Insert at 3-4. They then discussed the issue with Tom  ;

Greene and Mosbaugh stated that (1) it was  ;

questionable going to a different basis (valid starts) than was used in the original LER, (2)

that the cause for the error in the LER was personnel error, carelessness and negligence. l

! & at 13-15. Mosbaugh claimed that NSAC had

[ propagated the error made in the 4-9-90 letter l i but Tom Webb said that wasn't true and that i i

! "in the last day or two before the LER was ready to- (go) to the NRC, we started  !

scrambling trying . to find numbers that we

could rely on. They went through the control-room logs and started to add up the...."~ &

at 17. Next they spoke.with Harry Majors who i explained that they went with successful valid

! tests because "you can argue whether something i is a successful start or not" and Harry i explained that the letter'was consistent with-the QA audit report so far as explaining what the cause of the error was. & at 21-22.

l I

i .!

i i

l J

Mosbaugh further complained that T the revised LER didn't explain the difference between the O

4-9-90 letter and the revised LER and Majors said that they. felt the 4-9-90' letter'could be' defended based on the. fact -that < George Bockhold identified'each. individual' start.in his (4-9-90) presentation-to.the NRC. & at 22-23. When questioned by Greene, . Mosbaugh' maintained that the letter. was incomplete; after some additional discussion Greene.said-he thought he had the information he needed and he dismissed the meeting. & at.25-26.

96.- On July 18-19,.-1990, Mosbaugh 'was -' interviewed by NRC-OI under oath (333' transcript excerpts, attached l

as Exhibit 37) and.made'the following statements-

a. "When I saw: the draft of 'the LER'that was making those. statements, I was clearly. aware from some of tho'early lists of' diesel _ starts of these failures that had happened, and I.--

As this LER-was being-prepared, you know, we' i were aware that there had beenLfailures,.but j until we had the whole list of all the starts, j you know, .you couldn't say that the j information was wrong. . . ." Tr. at 218-219. ,

~

b. (In reference to the 4-19-90 conference call O between the site . and the corporate - office:)

"In the. room.is Aufdenkampe and myself. ~Also on the phone is Bockhold, Bailey, I. think Stringfellow, McCoy, and later, and I don't know how much later, Hairston. 'And in - the course of that conversation, there's discussions about the accuracy of the diesel information,- and 'at that point, the wording gets changed to say, 'Since the compre -'

something about, 'Since the comprehensive test program.So, the wording in the LER ands up a little bit different than in the coa. COA says, 'Since the event, there have'been'18 or 19 starts,' and the wording in the~LER says,

'After the event, a comprehensive test of the logic of the diesels was conducted.- Since the  ;

comprehensive test program, there have been 18 l or 19 starts on each engine.' So,'that was'the  ;

way that wording came out, and ' again, more  !

- concern was-expressed about that, and.at that  !

point, George Bochhold jumps in and says, l That's right,' you know. .'I had this

' Yeah.

!- data reviewed,' and really kind of took control at that point and convinced everybody O

r

j that that was good information.' Tr. at 225.

c. (In reference between the siteto and the the 4-19-Jo conference corporate office:] "Icall j remember hearing something in the background l about that (McCoy calling Brockman on 4 It was not,

! 90), and that's all I remember. It was l

you know, primary in the conversation.something I kind l

l Also, during that conversation, (Hairston)

I came in, and I'm not sure exactly when, but he

'So, there weren't-any said something about, And I heard McCoy say failures.' Okay.

him and, again, in the something to background. I didn't catch, you know, on the Tr. 226.

phone what was being said."

d. (In reference to the 4-19-90 conference corporate of fice:] call between "So, at thethatsite and theyou know, the concern was point, raised on the phone. The failures were stated stated to and they were to Shipman, Stringfellow realized that it Stringfellow.

l meant the other information was false and then j again stated in the with concerns raised inlevel the higher this big conversation Bochhold, you know, executives, and then assuring everybody that the data is good, and at that point, it's essentially sold, and, you O know, that was on the 18th, and I guess that was -- it was the next day The thatLER the was lettersigned was signed out by Hairston.

out by Hairston the day -- I think the day --

the next day." Tr. at 226-227.

e. [After receiving diesel start data from odom on 4-19-90:] "So, we started looking into that because mixed in,we and knew there were it started these clear, becoming failuresI think, that there was kind of -- there were a couple of failures kind of right smack in thecenter the failure right in the center of all the starts, it was looking fairly unlikely that there was 18 successful starts after the failure that had been right about in the center, and I know -- I talked to Jimmy Paul about it, and Aufdenkampe howtalked did to you Jimmy Paul conclude and asked him, 'Well, this?' and eventually what it appeared all of that the he f he had counted had done is He might've had a failure successful starts.

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

l

. -l t .

- and two good starts 'and ~ then.. a failure 'and' 1

~ then! more successful' starts, and: I ~ believe O

i

, that what he did is he counted.all the starts-

, even though they were interspersed -with; ,

failures.. The wording, as it finally came. i

! out, says, '18 or 19 successful starts without' l _ problems or failures.' Very strongly implies .;

i: that those . were successive starts without problems or fmilures." Tr. at.219-220.

i

f. "So, the'LER was~ signed out on the 19th, and' it had the nomenclature, you know, with the_181 4- successful' starts or' 19' successful .' starts a without problems or failures. -In my mind, you.

know, there was f-: in my ' mind, an adequate j review of the-starts had yet to be done, you l

-know. We had questions about -- We had known.- l I

1 failures. We-didn't_have an accurate tally.-

! The verbiage 1 had been changed. A. new basis  ;

j was introduced subsequent to the test program. 1 j ~In addition, the nomenclature said, 'Without 3

.l j- failures _ < or problems, ' ' you _ know. ' The ' only . i thing - that ' was brought up specifically wasi

~

)

i failures, the worst of your' problems. Well, because of-that, I was uncomfortable with it, e .and I -- on the 18th or 19th,.. I asked Gus Williams,- people for copies of the shift j supervisor logs and the control logs = which j they keep and review daily. So, I got copies j j of the -logs from them, and I . went to - Kenny -  ;

Stokes and got copies of the diesel start data-

sheets, and I took those, and by April 30th, I had had a chance on .the weekend to null i

through all those and create a tabulation of all the starts. Tr. 227-28. . j i I

! g. "The 1A diesel generator's starting history l had been better, and there had not been  !

failures (as of 4-19-90)." Tr. 228-29.> l

h. (In reference to Mosbaugh's counting diesel starts after 4-19-90:) "You ' have the shift You have a control _ log, and supervisor log.

you have data sheets that are filled out for-each start.- So there's three different source documents. So. I started researching that to confirm or disprove the statements that were in the (4-9-90) COA letter, and it wasn't until April 30th that I had mulled over all the logs to get what I was comfortable with as an accurate list." Tr. 217.

O

, . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .. _ _. _ _ ._ . _ . ._ m

)

i. "So, (on or about May 9, 1990,) I ,had 1 Aufdenkampe, Tom Webb,.prepara a revisionLto the (4-19-90) LER [90-006) based on what . I 4

think was a good' list, and so, they prepared a  ;

. revision, and that revision'kept the wording'-

I essentially ~ the same 'as . it had ' been. " .Tr. ]

230.

l l

j. "We'd: revised the (4-19-90) LER (90-006) and j j gotten the LER PRB' approved within nine days, '

I i roughly. So, that LER then was . sent to l SONOPCO, and it was in- SONOPCO by May 15th...." Tr. 232. -;

l

97. .On August 15, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh taped a. meeting. 'j i convened to discuss GPC's written' response to NRC l questions concerning the diesel.' starts infornation

{

in the 4-19-90 LER;90-006'(Tape No. 253) including-1 the following' statements: '

l a. McCoy, Bockhold and Shipman discussed revising -

j the. response to state that the NRC residents, i Region II, Ken Brockman and Stewart . Ebneter  ;

i were notified and after that notification, the- l l revised LER was prepared;. .McCoy said he  !

thought that the revised LER had already been

~

f in some form of . - preparation when. the l notifications were made. Tr. Insert at 3.  ;

b. Frederick said there was a question as'to who

! prepared .the slides for the. April 9  !

l presentation and Bockhold said that he, Cash I and. Burr worked on them together, and that l

! Burr may have just confirmed the. sequence of-j the activities listed. ' & at 4'.

! c. Frederick said the NRC also. wanted to know who j prepared the April 9 letter and who approved i it; Bailey and McCoy said that they prepared I it together and Hairston signed'it. & l

(. . . .

d. Frederick said the NRC also wanted to know who prepared the April 19 LER, and who approved it at corporate and'on the PRB. They agreed that L

they would get that-information from the blue 4

routing sheet and-from the PRB minutes. &

t f~ e. Frederick said the NRC also wanted to know who prepared the cover letter for the revised.LER, and what was meant by the language clarifying the original LER.- They agreed that corporate .l i would pull the correspondence and Frederick i

~ ~

4 4

o

_ . _ . . . - , _ . . _ , _ , . _ , _ . . _ . . , - , . _ , , _ . ,--.___,-_..I

l i'

would talk with Hatrry Majors and/or

j. stringfellow. & at 4-5.

I' l

f. Frederick said the NRC also wanted to know who 'I 2 put the words " subsequent to the test program" into ~ the LER. after. it had 'been approved.'

c without those words by ' the ~ PRB. - Bockhold

. explained that the change was initiated in-corporate but that he-agreed with it because l-

!' .he believed the presentation slides were correct and that 'the lLER language 'was l

!- clarifying words that didn't materially change i ' the . facts. McCoy and Shipman agreed wM.n

Bockhold's account. & at 5..-

h

g. Bockhold recounted the sequence of events from -

i

.the weekend before April 9 to April 19th. He said: Cash counted the numbers; they put the l

i information together in general terms; the l numbers waren s t discussed at all ' at the

conference; on the 18th or 19th the PRB l

changed the number to 20, which Bockhold

approved; in order to keep the LER consistent 4 with the presentation, they lowered the number to 18;~they didn't want toluse 18 and 19 and break the diesels apart. McCoy said that the 3'

number of 20 was not inaccurate. Bockhold

.said 20 was~ based on additional diesel-starts.

O Aufdenkampe said the " Friday night" phone call

.(probably 4-19-90, which was. a Thursday) occurred because the PRB raised ' a question l '

about the number 20 and.that'everyone agreed on the number 18 because Bockhold represented "that'the 18 and 19 were based on completion j

of the comprehensive test program;"' Bockhold l added " associated with the logic;" Aufdenkampe i

said he did not remember that, .and Bockhold ,

I said "that's basically what the transparency said." Isb. at 6-7.

i

{ .h. Bockhold explained that he believed the 18 1 number in the LER to be correct because he

}

believed the transparency to ' be correct and j that the words subsequent to the completion of the test program were associated with the i

logic and control testing which didn't involve

any diesel starts. shipman said that Hairston asked whether the 21 or 22 numbers were correct and in coming out of the conference l

! call, it was decided that we. would be

completely safe with " greater than 18." &

i at 7-8.

.:...--.~_-._____-._- - . - - . - - - - .

4 4 .

, i. In response to a question concerning who was i d

on the 4-19-90 ' telephone conference call,.

Aufdenkampe said it was definitely himself, 2 i ALM, Bockhold and Shipman.- Shipman said he I didn't' remember but he knew that "several of

us" were involved. Frederick said-he thought i he could describe that one. & at 8.

1

. 98. On August'17,.1990,-Mr. Mosbaugh taped a meeting

- ~(Tape No. 258) convened to discuss GPC's written i position papers in response to NRC concerns

. including the issue of diesel starts information in i the 4-19-90 LER 90-006 during.which the following statements were made:

( .

a. Bockhold said ' one. of the failures broke the 1 string of 19 starts and they didn't pick that

.up in their original counting, Tr. Insert at ')

! 8. j

-b. Bockhold said the key thing to NRC was the j April 9 presentation. But, he said, nothing i was said about the slide in the presentation; i l the NRC inferred sequential successful starts, l j which Bockhold said was what was in his mind.

He said he thought Cash had counted that number. They agreed that they needed .to i j address with the NRC that morning (1) what was f 1 on the April 9 transparency, (2) what did' .i

! those numbers mean, and (3) what was the l l correct number of sequential starts? & at j t

9-10.

, i

c. McCoy said he thought having George Frederick,  !

an independent QA Manager, respond to the  !

diesel starts was a good idea given Bockhold's t l

involvement in the presentation. Tr. 46. .

1 .

! 99. On August 29, 1990, Mr. Mosbaugh taped the l following discussion with Mike Horton (Tape No.  ;

4 267) concerning Horton's refusal to vote in the PRB i i meeting on the draft August 30th letter until he {

i has reviewed all the information: '

i t

f a. Horton said he just "wants to get it right." 1 i He was concerned with saying something wrong

to the NRC. Tr. Insert at 1.

b. Horton and Mosbaugh agreed that Jimmy Paul "went forward with very little" when he-j- counted diesel starts prior to 4-9-90. &

)~ .'

! l t

i

.i l

i i

i i l 4

l

c. Horton said that GPC was fully admitting to

' the two trips of the 1B diesel, Start Nos. 132 b and 134. "But after the second trip, there 4 were 14 problem-free runs. . . . We missed those" l i two trips. & at 2. j i

d. Horton said that GPC was admitting that they

" messed that (COA response l'atter) up. We missed starts 132, 134." & at 3.

I 100. As of August 30, 1990, the NRC's Pete . Taylor l l

4 believed that there were 14 consecutive successful i

starts of the 1B diesel counting backward from 1 April 9, 1990. Egg Tape No. 184, Tr. Insert at 24.

i 101. Sometime between the Fall of 1990 and the Summer of j 1991, Mr. Mosbaugh reviewed-the transcripts which  !

the NRC made of certain of his tape recordings.

1 Mr. Mosbaugh's first review of the transcript of Tape No. 58 is reflected by his hand-written comments on pages 1-44 of that transcript. The two  !

single-spaced NRC' inserts (numbered pp. 1-3 and 4- j

7) to that transcript were prepared, and reflect 1 changes made, subsequent to Mr. Mosbaugh's first j review of that transcript .

O i

4 l

l

! l l

4 i

t

\

l l

l 1

4