ML20080P090
| ML20080P090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1994 |
| From: | Mosbaugh A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080P058 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-3, NUDOCS 9503070204 | |
| Download: ML20080P090 (220) | |
Text
,
l l
7 ,1 j 208 g3 j
's A ,/ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND1 LICENSING BOARD 1
3 l 4 IN THE MATTER OF: ) '
) Docket Nos. i 5 ) 50-424-OLA-3 !
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ) 50-425-OLA-3 6 et al., ) l
) Re: License Amendment 7 ) (Transfer to
) Southern Nuclear) 8 )
(Vogtle Electric Generating ) VOLUME II 9 Plant. Units 1 and 2 )' )
10 11 ,
>i 12 i 77~ DEPOSITION OF i
'\_) '13 ;
ALLEN MOSBAUGH 14 15 >
August 23, 1994 ;
16 !
10:15 a.m.
- 17 18 I 5200 Nations Bank Plaza !
19 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia !
20 l l
21 22 Judy J. Bragg, CCR-A-521, RPR-CM 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC. )
24 1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 I
?'ss- '
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 l
( ,/ 92 5 (404) 876-8979 9503070204 950224 !
l 9 1209 ,
D V 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL' 2 On behalf of Georgia Power Company: ;
3' ERNEST BLAKE, Esq. . .
Shaw, Pittman, Potts.&-Trowbridge ;
4 2300 N Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20037 5-JAMES E. JOINER, Esq.
6 JOHN'LAMBERSKI, Esq. i Troutman Sanders
.7 5200 NationsBank Plaza-600 Peachtree Street-- N.E.
8 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 9
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission:
11 CHARLES A. BARTH, Esq. l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' ,
12 Office of the General' Counsel
[D
\~ 13 11555 Rockville Pike One White Flint North !
Rockville, Maryland 20852 14 4
15 On behalf of the Intervenor:
16 MICHAEL D. KOHN, Esq.
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto 17 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 18 19 Also Present:
20 Mr. Darl Hood 21 22 l 23 24 l
/^ !
kh/ 25 . . .
l l
1 f
e r 210 j%
Y. *
! 1 MR. BLAKE: Good morning. This is 2 the continuation of the deposition of Allen .
3 Mosbaugh.
4 (The reading and signing of the
, 5 deposition by the witness was reserved.)
- 6 ALLEN MOSBAUGH, r
7 having been previously duly sworn, was examined and j 4
8 testified as follows: 4 9 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. BLAKE:
11 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, you recall that you were s 12 placed under oath for purposes of this deposition?
13 A. Yes, I do.
.I 14 Q. And are you aware that that continues to 15 today and that you are still under oath in your 16 answers?
e 17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. I want to go back to a couple of items 19 that we discussed in the earlier portion of the
- 20 deposition. I asked you a fair amount.of questions 21 about your taping process and your indexing of the 22 tapes and your maintenance of the tapes. Did you 23 ever destroy a tape?
24 A. No. You're referring to a tape that I 4
25 made as part of the 277?
l l
I f_g 211 1 Q '. Yes, well, not as a part of the_277. .It 2 might'have been, in fact, 278.
3 A. .Well, no.
~
4 Q. Do you recall getting together.at the
- 5. Pinnacle Club on July lith, 1990?
6 A. I! remember several meetings scheduled at ,
7 the Pinnacle Club, and I'm not sure that I attended 8 all of them, but I attended some of them.
9 Q. Do you recall this particular type of 10 meeting at the Pinnacle Club'where it was talked 11= about, communications between~ corporate and1 site and 12 personnel policies, career paths being limited, ;
13 those sorts of topics?
14 A. I recall meeting at the Pinnacle Club ;
15 where the site people first got to meet Mr. ;
16 Hairston. Mr. Hairston, I think, had been in his 17 position for a year or more, and nobody.at the site :
18 really had had a chance to meet with him.
19 He wanted to meet with people at the 20 site, so that's what I remember about a Pinnacle 1
21 Club dinner meeting that Mr. Hairston, I think Mr. !
i 22 McCoy and I think Mr. Bockhold were also at the 23 meeting that I'm recalling.
24 Q. Could that have been on July 11, 1990 i
/~h !
\2 25 time frame wise, from your recollection? !
212 1 A. I couldn't tell you the specific date of 2 that meeting. I do remember that there were more 3 than one. There were several Pinnacle Club 4 meetings, I believe, in 1990, and there was one and 5 I would have said it would have been in the 6 summertime frame, morenor less spring, summertime-7 frame that I remember, but that's as much as I can 8 pin it down for you.
9 Q. Do you recall having taped that meeting?
10 A. I recall taping a portion of a Pinnacle 11 Club meeting that I attended.
12 Q. And have you ever. listened to that' tape 13 again? The tape number is 201, I believe.
14 A. The tape number doesn't mean anything to 15 me. I don't recall relistening to the portion of 16 the Pinnacle Club meeting that I did tape.
17 Q. Do you recall now that Mr. Hairston, 18 during that meeting and near the end of.that 19 meeting, said that there would be a foll'ow on 20 meeting to further discuss the concerns that were 21 being discussed by site personnel?
22 A. I do recall there being more than one 23 Pinnacle Club meeting, and whether or not there was 24 a follow on one subsequent to the one that you say 25 was in July, I can't remember, but there was more
213
, %.J 1 than one.
2 Q. Do you recall there being one at the 3 Holiday Inn?
l 4 A. The same, a Mr. Hairston meeting at the 1
5 Holiday Inn?
- 6 Q. Yes, the same type of meeting regarding 7 relationships between corporate and site and safety l
l l 8 culture, openness.
I 9 A. The only thing I remember attending at 1 10 the Holiday Inn, I think I remember attending one >
- 11 breakfast. event at a Holiday Inn in Augusta, and I
,, 12 remember a Holiday Inn meeting where it was, I think I (, l
13 it was maybe called supervisory training at the 14 Holiday Inn.
15 Q. In which these topics were discussed?
16 A. I don't recall Mr. Hairston being there, 17 if that's the nature of the meeting you're 18 describing.
19 Q. Yes. 5 20 A. I don't recall a Holiday Inn meeting 21 where Mr. Hairston was there. The one I recall at j 22 the Holiday Inn, perhaps Mr. McCoy was there, and it 23 seems like it was captioned as supervisor training.
24 Q. Do you recall these kinds of topics being
/~N
)
(_/ 25 discussed, that is, the need for openness, the need l
l i
i l
, 214 1 for candor, the need for good communications?
2 A. It seems like the one at the Holiday Inn 3 was like supervisory skills kind of discussion. It 4 seemed like that involved a cross-section, a broad 5 cross-section of' plant people and not just at the.
6 management, level. I suspect in the course of having l l
7 a meeting like that, communications probably wou'ld 8 be discussed as part of supervisors skills, but I I
9 don't have any specific recollection of all the 10 topics. l l
11 Q. These topics were important to you, I I 3 12 take it, openness, candor, good communications?
- .) 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So you would probably recall a meeting if 15 you had been there?
16 A. Recall the meeting at the Holiday Inn?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. That Mr. Hairston attended?
i 19 Q. Correct.
20 A. I don't recall a meeting at the Holiday 21 Inn that Mr. Hairston was present for. I recall a 22 meeting at the Holiday Inn that I believe Mr. McCoy.
23 was present at.
s -24 Q. Would it assist you to know that several 25 of the other individuals from the site place you at
,_s.-
215 1
L].
1 the. meeting at the Holiday Inn?
2 A. No, I don't think that would assist me at I I
3 all. Can I ask a follow-up question?
l 4 Q. Sure.
5 MR. KOHN: No, that's not necessary.
6 THE WITNESS: Did the meeting at the j 7 Holiday Inn supposedly take place after the 8 Pinnacle Club?
9 MR. BLAKE: That's correct. It was a 10 follow on meeting and one that was annour.ced 11 at the Pinnacle Club meeting.
, rw 12 THE WITNESS: I don't remember a --
13 MR. BLAKE: And one which you knew was 14 being held by virtue of language that appears 15 on transcript pages 24 and 25 of tape 214.
16 THE WITNESS: I do not recall 17 attending a meeting --
18 MR. KOHN: Tape 2147 19 THE WITNESS: I don't remember 20 attending a Holiday Inn meeting after the 21 Pinnacle Club meeting.
22 MR. KOHN: By the way, is 214 one of 23 the transcripts that's been released? '
, ,, 24 MR. BLAKE: I don't know the answer.
(k' )
25 MR. KOHN: Then we may not know that.
1 l
i l
216 !
. j} 1 1 Q. (By Mr.'Blake) During the . last~ l 2 deposition we went through a number of the ,
3 stipulations. One of those was' stipulation number !
i 4 16, and I will show you a copy of the deposition.
5 transcript here. It's page 125 from the deposition 6 transcript. .
7 MR. KOHN: We.will have to mark'this 1 1
I 8 for identification if you're going to use.
.l 9 this during the course of the deposition'. 1 10 MR. BLAKE: I'm happy.to mark it. I >
11 don't remember what the nomenclature was that -
i 12 we used for the title forLexhibits, but 13 whatever the nomenclature was, if you'could ]
f 14' make it consistent, I think there was only 15 one prior exhibit. {l 16 This would be number two. I think it' l i
17 was like Mosbaugh Deposition Exhibit whatever j 18 it is, just use the same nomenclature. This l l
19 will be two.
20 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-2 was marked l
.l 21 for identification.) l 1
22 MR. KOHN: What page is helon?
23 MR. BLAKE: 1 2 5 ..
24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Is the print too small O 25 for you? You seem-to be grimacing.
4 217
(~}
V 1 A. I can read it, but it is small. I have 2 read that portion, but I can't relate to it without 3 knowing what all these exhibit numbers are.
4 Q. Exhibit numbers or stipulations? We are 5 talking about stipulation number _16.
6 A. Yeah, but it refers to Exhibit 6, pages 7 17 and 18, 8 Q. I think that's a follov on conversation.
9 I think the conversation about 16 was really quite 10 brief.
11 A. I'm having trouble relating and
^3 12 remembering what this is without the reference (d 13 documentation.
14 Q. Let me show you two other things that 15 should help you. One would be the stipulation. Did 16 you bring your copy of the stipulation that we were 17 using from the last time?
18 A. No, I didn't.
19 MR. BLAKE: Do you have a copy there?
20 Just look at number 16.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay, I have looked over 22 stipulation 16 now, and I do remember this 23 now.
-s 24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Does it appear, then,
(
)
25 that you agree with the stipulation language?
l t L .
t
[
l 218 O 1 A. Well, I'm recalling that the stipulation 2 document here just had the one page, and what we 3 didn't have was the whole page.
4 Mr. Stokes, it seems like, wasn't l 5 identified on here. Then I think we got the pages,-
6 the whole document from you at that time.
7 Q. Are we focussed on 167 8 A. Exhibit 9, that's Exhibit 9, right?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. And that's this one page here. Then I 11 thought we got, it says soon to be pages 1 through 12 69, if you want to look at that. I'think we got the
(~)/
13 .whole thing.
, 14 Then I believe when I had the whole l
l 15 thing, it seems like once we got the whole thing, I l 16 confirmed that the stipulation number 16 was as-17 stated here.
18 Q. So basically you agreed with the 19 stipulation, that it was a fair characterization, I 20 think your. language was the characterization from 21 the transcript seems reasonable, seems to represent 22 what was in the transcript?
23 A. After we got some additional information, 24 it seemed like. That was what I read here. It's 25 referring to pages one through 69.
l' .
!=
l I
219
[ 1 'Q. .The proposed stipulation'~was on March 31, j 2 1990, Al Chaffee. stated thatothe.IIT'was present to li 3 witness the.itesting'of the'1-A diesel-and witnessed
. 4- the receipt of'the malfunction alarm which? occurred i
5 on March 30. ,
\
l' 6- A. 'R'ight. :
F .
, 7 Q. .And I asked you,ini.the. course'of:yourL ;
!. 8 ' deposition,Jdid you1 agree or not, and the depositiong i
E 9 transcript reflects;thatLyou saidJit'seems to be a 10' characterization'out_offa' transcript. I' don't '
11 recall being involved in this.
l 12' The characterization'from the transcript-j_ 13 seems reasonable, seems,to represent what'slin:the 14 transcript; and I said.so you agree.
1 15 A. Right, but then-we continued.on, I have t
4 16 obtained a copy of sa'id interview soontto be pages-17 one through.69. That's the continuation of that i
- 18 sentence.- That's what I was thinking that war hadL
! 19 got the rest of this transcript.
l 20 Q. Yes, and the end-result was that-you i
~21 agreed that.that was a fair representation and that 4
22 you agreed with the stipulation?
23 A. I think that's what I said, that after we-4
. 24 got the rest of the information, that I agreed with-I
. 25 that stipulation, again, with the understanding that
l l
l q 220 l
(~)%
k_ 1 I didn't have any firsthand knowledge of this. I
) 2 wasn't present.
l 3 Q. Now, in your response to our request for !
4 admissions which you filed earlier in this 5 proceeding, on number 16 your answer was that you i
. 6 denied it stating that the transcript indicates thac 7 the IIT did not observe all of the testing done on-3 8 March 30, 1990 and does not state which of the ,
i 9 several start attempts of March 30, 1990 were 10 witnessed.
4 ;
a
] .11 A. I think that's true, also.
i 12 Q. So do you deny or admit the stipulation? i r
(_)) 13 A. Well, if we want to split hairs --
14 Q. I'm only asking whether you admit it or 15 whether you deny it, whether you agree with it or 16 whether you don't. I don't think that's splitting 17 hairs.
18 A. Both are correct. This stipulation, the i
19 response we have is a response to this-saying that t 1
20 it was present to witness the testing of the 1-A ,
e diesel.
21 22 That's the first half of the sentence. -i 23 If you interpret that to mean the complete testing
- 24 of the 1-A diesel on March 31st, I can't ascertain
[)
s-25 that from this transcript, and that's a fact that is I
1
. I
- g 221 G
l' represented in the response.
2 Again, being very specific about the way 3 this is worded, witness the receipt of a malfunction 4 alarm, it says they observed the jacket water 5 temperature sensor and malfunction alarm.
6 MR. BLAKE: What are you pointing to on 7 this transcript to, Mr. Kohn?
8 MR. KOHN: After alarm it'says I guess 9 it was that.
10 MR. BLAKE: I would prefer to get the 11 witness' and only the witness' answers. He 12 is free to review the document as long-as he J
13 wants.
14 I have not put any limitations on him, 15 but I would prefer that you not point out to 16 him in the transcript or in the documents.
17 Fair enough?
18 MR. KOHN: The stipulation document is 19 a legal document. You're asking the person 20 for lay responses, fine, then let's leave it 21 at that. The witness' answers would then not 22 constitute stipulations.
23 MR. BLAKE: I think what I have asked.
24 him is a pure factual question. It has
\
25 nothing to do with legal intricacy.
- - . ~ .- - . , .- .- . - . .- _ - . . . . - - . _ .. . -
i .)
i i,
l E 222 1
.1 ~ MR. KOHN: Then I' object'.to couching! -
- l 1 .
I i- 2- -the question in terms.of would1you? admit this-
.le i >
1 3 with' respect to legal.impli~ cations. :i e , ;
4 You can ask the' witness.whether~, based a .
i j
1 5 on the additional information you! Provided; .)
1
! .6. him, whether the. statement appears j i
! 7 ' reasonable. That's fine. l l
- 8 If.you're asking him'for admissions,Lhe -.
d
] 9 has the'right to consult with,counselowhen
, -10 issuing admissions.on a' formal ~ document with 1
i 11 respect to a formal admissions request. ,
j 12 MR. BLAKE: All-I have pointedLoutTis I
{, 13 don't think he has the right to have you j_ 14 point out'in documents what it is he ought to '!
15 read or what it is he,ought to-then 1 16 communicate to me.. I I ,
j 17 I want his answers, not'the1 combined j i
18 answers of you and your client. ~{
19 MR. KOHN: , . Well, let the record reflect l t
20 the only' thing I'm pointing to'is a.
21 transcript attached to the stipulations.
22 MR..BLAKE: Fair e,owgh. '< .
23 Q. (By.Mr. Blake) Are you'done, M r ..
. 2 4. 'Mosbaugh? l 25 A. I'm reading this'over. I think you're, j
~I i
a i
N
l I
i a ~, 223
)
, 1 asking me, again, you're asking me to read something-
. 2 that I wasn't present for and make conclusions about' ~
3- what Mr. Chaffee.or the NRC did=or did not do based ll 4 on a portion of a transcript. i 5, Since this is my sole sourcefof' a
l 6 information for.this,'I-haveJto read 'this over, and
- 1 7 since you want to,-I will say sp.'.it hairs as to the. r 8 . response here, I needEto read it over and split' 9 -hairs,_ too,-I guess.
10 Mr. Chaffee says we were there until thel
~ '
11 first start and operation. I think this indicates.
- g$ 12 that as our response indicated, that the NRC.was not
' k-) 13 present for all of these starts. ;
14 It says that we observed.the jacket water r i 15' temperature sensor malfunction alarm, I guess it' 16 was, that went in that was' associated with one of ,
17 the sensors for the jacket water temperature not 18 working properly. j 19 So Mr. Chaffee is taking something that-1' 20- he saw that he guessed that it was the jacket water 21 temperature seisor malfunction.
22 Now, if you're asking me to read this and-
- 23 then state that I know that Mr. Chaffee was present 24 for this and observed this, I think I'm stretching 3'
_- 25 it for me, not the firsthand person here, to be F
1
224 h.
j s/
- . 1 admitting as a fact something that Mr. Chaffee says 2 he guesses he saw.
3 Q. So would you like to amend your. prior
. 4 answer that the characterization from the transcript
< 5 seems reasonable, seems to represent what's in the 6 transcript?
4 7 A. I think the response from the response to
- 8 stipulations is an accurate response..
9 Q. Listen to my question now. My' question i 10 didn't ask anything about your response to the 11 request for stipulations.
l 12 I asked you whether or not you wanted to 7-s
'# 13 amend the response you gave me in ,the last portion 14 of your deposition where you said this 15 characterization, what we are talking about, 16 stipulation 16, from the transcript seems 17 reasonable, seems to represent what's in the 18 transcript.
19 A. Well, I think it's reasonable,.but if you 20 were splitting hairs with it, I think, perhaps, it's 21 more than I can say is fact, having read this that I 22 didn't participate in.
23 Q. Again, I don't want to split hairs. I
_ 24 simply want to know whether or not you agree, will I
/ 25 you still give that answer today, the
i 225 l O 1 characterization as you read it there in proposed
-2. stipulation number 16.seems reasonable, seems.to 3 represent what's in the transcript. I 4 Are you now saying.it doesn't i
5 necessarily, you can't go'along, you simply don't j 6 have enough information, something different than 7 what you said before? ,
8 MR. KOHN: I think the! witness has 9 already answered-that. question twice. ;
10 MR. BLAKE: Maybe you could tell'me r
11 what his answer is.
12 MR. KOHN: He'said it seems. reasonable, 13 but depending on interpretation. He has no ;
14 firsthand knowledge.
15 MR. BLAKE: Does'it seem to represent ,
16 what's in the transcript, isJ that what he is 17 saying now? I 18 MR. KOHN: I t h i nk t ' '. witness is also 19 saying that additional documentation was j 20 l provided to him at that time. l I
21 MR. BLAKE: So is he saying it seems to -
22 represent what's in the transcript or it 23 doesn't? )
. 24 MR. KOHN: I think that the witness 25 already said it seems to represent and if you
_ . _ , _ _ _ - . . , _ . _ , - - - ~ . - , . . , . . , , - m--
_, ,m -' - - - +
'226 1 want to split hairs, maybe it doesn't. fI t 2 seems to represent is not necessarily --
I l 3 don't see the difference, personally. l I
4 MR. BLAKE: You don't see a difference-5 between it seems to represent what's in the i
6 transcript and it doesn't seem to represent {
7 what's in the transcript?
8 MR. KOHN: He didn't.say that. j 9 MR. BLAKE: He said it seems to 10 represent what's in the transcript.
11 MR. KOHN: And that's what he has ,
12 stated today.
13 Q. (By Mr. Blake) And that's your position ;
i 14' today, Mr. Mosbaugh, that it does seem to represent i 15 what's in the transcript?
16 A. Seems. reasonable? l 17 A. From.a lay response and being fairly l 18 loose about the language, it seems to represent l l
l 19 what's in there, but if you want to split hairs, you 1 20 know --
21 Q. I'm not splitting hairs.
22 MR. KOHN: Well, with respect to 23 admissions, I think it's important that each 24 word be taken for its full value. With 25- respect to admissions, the witness is l
l
E 6
227
[)
a i 1 . entitled to take each word at its full-value.
2 MR. BLAKE: And, therefore, you would i 3 have characterized the earlier-response to i 4 our request for admissions to be one that 5 split hairs, is that what your position is? !
6 MR. KOHN: No. I
' i 7 MR. BLAKE: When you split hairs, you ;
8 can't go along with it, when you just give a 9 lay response to it, it seems all'right; and 1
10 the difference is whether you split hairs or 11 you don't?. ,
<"5 12 MR. KOHN: The difference is in the
(
13 interpretation'of the words that were chosen 14 with respect to Exhibit --
4 15 MR. BLAKE: Stipulation,16?.
j 16 MR. KOHN: Yes. If you. quoted the 17 exact language, you would have an admit, but i
18 because you are paraphrasing language, which 19 is not fully supported by the documentation 20 provided, it is impossible to get what you 21 want.
22 Now, if you would like to simply change. ;
i 23 the wording on 16 to exactly reflect what Mr.
_ 24 Chaffee said, he would certainly admit to it.
\_ 25 (By Mr. Blake)
Q. And so today as I ask yea' ]
l 1
J 228 1 the.same question now, looking at that stipulation 2 number 16, do you agree, do you go along with that j 3 statement or not, on whatever your base of knowledge-4 is including this transcript?- !
q 1 5 A. I --
I G Q. Do you agree with it or do you not agree j 1 1 1
- 7 with it or do you just not have enough information l
8 .to say you agree or don't agree? j 9 A. I will say again, if you want to split i
10 hairs about it --
11 Q. I don't want to split hairs at all. It's l l
i j - 12 your terminology. I have nothing to do with 13 splitting hairs.
1 14 A. I would have no problem admitting to the 15 stipulation if it's stipulated to the phrase quoted 16 out of the transcript, but it's been reworded.and it '
17 seems to me that having been reworded, if I'm very r
i 18 precise about each and every word, that it's not
]
l 19 fully complete as was responded to in the response J.
20 to stipulations.
1 21 Q. So you wouldn't be able to go along with ;
22 it?
I l 23 MR. KOHN: From a legal perspective 24 with respect to a legal admission or from a i [- )
I
\%- 25 lay person's perspective?
l
,m., 229
( 1
\~J 1 MR. BLAKE: Lay person's perspective. ;
2 That's all I'm asking. I didn't ask him 3 anything about legal conclusions.
4 MR. KOHN: In other words, could a lay 5 person reasonably --
6 MR. BLAKE: Could Mr. Mosbaugh, could 7 Mr. Allen Mosbaugh today looking at 16 say 8 that's a fair statement, I could go along 9 with, that's a reasonable statement or it 10 isn't. I don't think that's splitting hairs.
11 MR. KOHN: Well, you have already
, 73 12 gotten an answer to that question, with 13 respect to an admission, he could not, and 14 you have his prior testimony.
15 MR. BLAKE: So there is a difference 16 between what I will obtain as I continue to 17 go through the stipulations that I have gone 18 through already because he views them 19 differently than he would when he was 20 responding as a legal admission; is that 21 correct? '
22 MR. KOHN: A legal response is 23 different than a lay person's response. Mr.
24 Mosbaugh is a fact witness, and he is here to
/~~N ,
i i i
, (/ 25 answer your fact questions. l
230 0 1 MR. BLAKE: Yes. Therefore, I will get 2 differentsanswers and that will be the 3 explanation?
4 MR. KOHN: Yes.
5 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Let's take a look at 6 number 11, the same document.that you have_in front 7 of you. Your response appears on transcript.pages 8 110 and 111 of the deposition.
9 A. I'm having trouble finding the beginning 10 of the section of the transcript that refers to 11 number 11. You say it's on 110?
12 Q. I gave you my only' copy. So you need to 13 give it back to me if you want to locate it.
14 It starts on page 106 where I show you 15 the transcript which is referred to in stipulation 16 number 11, but I think that the language where we 17 actually get around to talking about whether you 18 agree or don't agree with the statements is on 110 19 and 111.
20 If you notice there, there is a: lot of 21 discussion about whether or not you received copies 22 of the transcript, stipulations, that kind of 23 stuff..
24 A. Part of what's referenced here was tape 04 25 21, transcript pages two and two to four.
. , -- ~.
- t. .r :
r i P l 1
231- 't 1- Q. .Yes, welare1allEreading fromJthetsame- ]
'2 - script. 1
-i j
! 3' A. I"was.wonderinglif;ILcould/ refresh)my i- c.
'I j 4. memory with the tape. transcript:21,Jtranscriptfpages-. ' I i i b .5' two to.four. '
)
~
) 6 lQ. We:will do.that11ffit's~necessarys;but0I 1 i-4 q
'7 don't thinkLit'-will be:necessary for a myiquestions. ~ '
i L .
?j j ~8 A. A l'l D r i g h t . !
4 ;
5 9 Q. ;You ihave Thad: a l c. hance now 't'o ? take ~ a.:-look': -
y
?: .
t 0 "10: .at it? j
! 11 .A. Yes, I'have hadLaochance'to: review-'that, j
! p l'2 'Q. As 'I understood your answer: f rom the.
]
. . . . ... - i 13 -deposition, you said that.the second.andSthird Ji I
[ 14' sentences were accurate characterizations and, $
r 15 therefore, you went along with them, agreed tolthem, j t .;
16 admitted them, whatever term:you'want':to use'.- 1 i
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And with regard to the r first sentence, I 19 you-said you couldn't tell whetherlor not it was1 20 occurring at a staff meeting =and you couldh't tall -)
21 whether that staff meeting was'on the 28th of 4 l
22 March.
23 A. I think that's correct.-
24 Q. And you also weren't able to tell whether-25 or not Mr. Bockhold discussed the requirements with-
f 5
r' 232 w.
1 his, staff?
2 A. _That's essentially what I said in the 3 transcript,.that's correct.
4 Q. Now, if you will look at yourLearlier !
.5 response, written response to the admissions which I 6 also provided you, number 11, where you said that '
i 7 you contended that it wasn't an accurate 1
8 characterization of the facts and that-the ;
~.. ~
9 statements were taken-out of context.
10 A. Uh-huh. ,
l 11 Q. What were the inaccurate :
12 characterizations of the facts and what statements i C. f 13 were taken out of context?
i 14 A. Well, again, this is a characterization.
l 15 It's not like you're-just quoting a block of 16 transcript text. j l
17 It is a characterization, and part of the j 18 inaccuracy is what's stated, "could not see where 19 discussed those requirements with the staff," I 20 think was my previous response. I_think at this 21 point I would like to look at the transcript section 22 of tape 21.
23 Q. Did you bring back copies of what we gave 24 you the last time?
25 A. I didn't bring anything back.
l 1
i i
.. 233 i
- es I N_) I 1- Q. Why don't you then return'to'us at-the -j 4
i
~
2 .end of today's deposition everything-that we give~to. 1 5
-i
- 3 you rather than carrying themfoff and losing
- them. ;
4 A. All right, I have. reviewed the t 5- transcript, and my testimony as previouslyTgiven, I j 2
6 believe, is accurate. I i . . !
l '7 Q. Now, focussing on-your prior 1 written ;
- r i
8 response to the' stipulations again, do you contend t
9 that this isn't an ' accurate characterization of the .;
i l
- 4. 10 facts and the statements areLtaken out of context?
- j. 11 A. I think'there are some inaccuracies,:yes.
- 12 Q. Let's go over each of those. What is an i 13 inaccurate characterization of the facts? 7 l
14 A. Well, I think I said before'that the >
i 15 stated fact that it is in a staff meeting'is [
.i 16 something that I can't attest to, t 17 Q. I understand you can't accept it, you
? ,
t 18 don't know for sure when you look at this portion of i 1
19 the transcript, look at these few words from a staff i I 20 meeting, but that doesn't mean it wasn't from a ;
I 21 staff meeting, does it?
22 MR. KOHN: I think you're being ;
.. i 3
23 argumentative with the witness. i 1
24 MR. BLAKE: I think I'm being pretty 0 25 straightforward.
y - , , - , -- ., m , , > - - , - - - - ,, . , - , - .-r a
, ,y 234 i I
\._/
1 MR. KOHN: He said it's in a staff 2 meeting. If he can't determine that it's in 3 a staff meeting, then it's inaccurate with 4 respect to a request for admission.
5 MR. BLAKE: It doesn't make it 6 inaccurate. If he can't attest to it one way '
7 or the other, it makes it inaccurate? If I 8 said the sun came up yesterday in New 9 Orleans, he would say that's inaccurate 10 because he can't attest to it because he 11 wasn't in New Orleans, is that what you're
,f- 12 saying?
N-) 13 MR. KOHN: If the witness cannot concur 14 that it occurred in a staff meeting.
15 MR. BLAKE: I understand he can't 16 concur, but that doesn't make it inaccurate, 17 does it?
18 l
MR. KOHN: It makes the admission l l
19 inaccurate, because he was not there. How
]
20 could he accurately say that's what it said? !
21 You're splitting hairs with terminology.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the 23 legal --
24 MR. BLAKE: I understand your
/,.,h kJ 25 position.
4 !
l i
n 235 ;
1 k_ ~
1 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Is your position your f 2 counsel's position, what he just said?
3 A. If I. recall, what was responded to was '
4 that it was objected to respond or objected to admit l.
l 5 that this was true. !
l 6 Q. Yes.
7 A. It seems like if I can't ascertain that 8 it's true, then that ought to be a basis to object.
]
9 Q. .I'm not trying to get into:the legal '
10 terminology with you. I'm trying to abide'by'what !
11 we previously have agreed we would in this !
I
- 7%4 12 deposition. Are you able to go along with it or are i
(_) 13 you not? t i
14 Forget legal niceties. All I'm asking
{
i 15 you is what is inaccurate in the characterization of ,
i i 16 that sentence, and I understand your position to be, i 17 and correct me if I am wrong, it is in your view I
18 inaccurate because you can't tell-from this excerpt j l
. 19 from the transcript whether or not it occurred on 20 March 28th and whether or not it occurred in a staff i
l 21 meeting and, therefore, you regard it as 1
22 inaccurate.
, 23 MR. KOHN: I think your terminology is i
24 not regarding it as inaccurate, is regarding O 25 it as it may not be accurate. There is a I
t
t k
236 t
-- N_l
1 difference between inaccurate and may.notEbe 2 accurate. >
3 MR. BLAKE: I'm just looking at your ;
4 language. I didn't.make this up. These are
- 5 your words.
- 6 Q. (By Mr. Blake) I'm .just asking what is -
7 it thatLmakes it an inaccurate. characterization?
8 The statements are taken out of context. What are. i 9 the statements which are taken out of context?
10 A. Well, it says Mr. Bockhold said the-NRC '
11 approved-testing of the 1-A diesel under certain 12 requirements which Bockhold discussed with his: l 13 staff.
14' It's the same. thing here, to my mind if a
15
~
you would have quoted what Mr. Bockhold had said as 4
', 16 far as my saying this is a fact I'm admitting to, 17 that wouldn't have been a problem.
4 j 18 Again, the statements are paraphrased, i 19 and it seems that when they are turned into
)
20 paraphrases, there are other implications of fact 21 that are built into these sentences, that he 22 discussed it with his staff.
23 I can't determine if that's a correct.
. 24 statement from this transcript, and I don't have an
'25 independent recollection of this meeting.
i i
. I l
l 237-0_
1 Q.. So what statements are taken out 'o'f I
2 context?
3 MR. KOHN: I would also like to pose an 4 objection. First you'have a legal'-document i 5 in which. counsel who-prepared thefdocument 6 with respect to' legal matters is'not being ,
l >
l 7 deposed.
8 The witness is being deposed,'and if 9 you want to ask the witness the ~factua'l basis 10 of these, I don't see.a-problem. t 11 That's where I think we should'be
- 12 focussing, what's the factual basis for your
'~ 13 objection, are there any additional facts j 14 that you don't have, can you clarify it; but
! 15 to ask him is this an admission c; questions 16 that go to the legal intent of the response,.
17 I think it is just improper. I think l
18 we are splitting hairs. At this point'I'm.
! 19 not going to provide any more information or l
20 clarify it.
t 21 You can go on and do it how you would 22 like to do your questioning, but there is an 23 objection that answers are not merely Mr.
24 Mosbaugh's words. It's a legal pleading 25 filed by his counsel.
l
i e
238
[h G'
i 1 The factual basis is based on Mr.
L <
l 2 Mosbaugh's input and my review of the c
3' record, Now, at this. point you can't' expect-4L Mr. Mosbaugh to-tell you the entire basis of I 5 a legal document that he only provided the. l 1
l 6 factual basis for some of it, without going 7 through the record. !
l
- 8 MR. BLAKE
- Despite its, length, I, t
t 9 frankly, don't understand the objection. I ,
10 want to return to my question,'Mr. Mosbaugh. l l
11 THE WITNESS: Well, like I said,.I 12 can't tell that Mr. Bockhold' discussed
/~')
(_/
?
13 requirements with the staff.
'14 Q. -(By Mr. Blake) So it is the last clause 15 which Bockhold discussed with his staff which you j 16 would'say is a statement taken out of-context?
17 A. Well, I can't determine that, yes.
i 18 Q. So, therefore, you would say it's taken i
l 19 out of context because you can't. determine it?- ;
20 A. Well, yes.
21 MR. BLAKE: Let me mark as our Exhibit 22 No. 3 a document which was circulated to the i
L 23 parties in this proceeding-on July 13th.under' i i
24 cover letter from Mary. Jane Wilmoth of the I O(_,' 25 'ntervenor's counsel firm. It's a number of 1
i
o ,
l
! l
! l 1
- 239 )
V
!. 1: individual memoranda from'Mr. .Mosbaugh to his :
2' counsel.: I
-3. (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-3 was' marked , ;. ;
4' for identification.-) '
t 5 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you recognize this- [
- 6. document, Mr..Mosbaugh? .!
1 7 A, Not from the.; cover page. I 8 Q. .Have.you-ever~seene thencover page '!
9 'before. i 10 (Discussion ensuedLoff.the record.) !
11 THE WITNESS: ;I;think you1hadc asked a' '
12 question?
13 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Pardon? .
14 A. I think you had asked a question.
L 15 Q. And the answer?
16 A. I'm not sure that I have seen!the cover 17 page. I have seen the contents and-I knew this !
l 11 8 package was being forwarded. j 19 Q. So you're familiar with the contents? i l 20 A. The attachments, yes. ;
l- .
21 Q. Look at the first. page. ,
'I 22 A. Of the attachment?
L 23 Q. Yes, the one that has on it in large !
24 print Hairston was on the late afternoon conference ;
\ 25 call 4/19/90. What is this document? !
l i 1
t
- i l
I l
l l
l rw 240 l
l 1 A. This is a document that I prepared which ,
1 I
2 set forth facts, in other words, my understanding 3 and my concerns associated with what I perceive as t
4 violations of requirements ~that I prepared and sent 5 to Mr. Kohn.
l l 6 Q. And what you're referring to are the 7 first ten pages or so?
- 8 MR. KOHN
- Of the attachment?
l 9 MR. BLAKE: Of the attachment.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, there are 11 additional documents.
gy 12 MR. BLAKE: Yes.
t 1 i LJ
, 13 THE WITNESS: And attachments here.
l 14 MR. BLAKE: For the moment I'm just 15 focussed on --
16 THE WITNESS: That is correct with 1
l 17 respect to this document, yes.
l
! 18 Q. (By Mr. Blake) When did you send this to l
l 19 Mr. Kohn?
! 1 20 A. I can't remember exactly when I sent this l I
21 to him. This document has gone through e - Re i i ;
j 22 revision, so Mr. Kohn has been sent more or has been l l
< 23 provided more than one revision of this, I believe. l l
- L/~N 24 This document, I think, as indicated in )
- 25 the cover letter and of other ones here is the I ,
I l
l 'I L !
l
_ i 241
- 1. latest. version of this' document, and~I' don't' 2 maintain a historical record offrevisions;' but.there l
3 .hasn't been substantial revision to this= document 4 but there mayLhave been.some, as additional-5 information. I learned additional information.
.6 Q. Would there have been a date.on=the 7 document when you sent 'tfto i Mr. Kohn?
I 8 A. I-wouldn't'have put a date on it.. These 9 documents, a lot.of thesefdocuments, I have not l 10 dated. I think some of them, I later added some 11 dates to it.
12 Q. What do you mean by later?
13 A. Well, there is a series of these 14- documents, as is in this package. I think that on 15 some of the later ones, I made a practice to date 16 them. Some of the earlier ones, it was not my 17 practice to date them.
18 Q. So in your view this probably was never 19 dated, a dated document?
20 A. This document?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. This is r.tc 16 test version of this. I 23 believe this is the latest version of it. No, I 24 don't think this document ever had a date on it.
(
25 Q. Subsequent documents in the same package 1
I g
242
,O N-] ,
1 bear the date 4/12/94. Does that mean that this 2 document predated that?
3 A. What this document is, I had prepared a ,
4 document that I gave to the NRC that I addressed ,
5 some of these issues, and it was done on a different 6 word processor. Then I had done additional --
7 Q. Let me just~stop you f or just a second.
8 About what time frame are you talking about now?
- 9 A. Well, that document was given to the NRC 10 and was received as a board notif.ication. So a 11 board notification was done on that first document
(~g 12 that was an earlier draft of some of this
_] 13 information.
14 Q. What's the time frame we are talking 15 about when you provided that for the NRC?
16 A. The board notification was done on it, it 17 seems like I provided it to the NRC and within a l 18 number of weeks, a board notification was made. So
, 19 you go back a couple of weeks before the board l l
l 20 notification was done, was the time frame that I l 21 provided to the NRC.
22 As far as trying to remember which month l
23 that was, it seemed like that was early this year, ;
p_ 24 but we can tell by just going back a couple weeks t t i k/ 25 before the board notification was done. I i
L t
243
.b v
1 Q. Do you know what the board notification 2 number was?
3 A. It was the first board notification'made 4 to the ASOB as a result of my filing and the 5 additional allegations.
6 Q. Focussing on this document, in the first 7 paragraph of text on this document under the title 8 call, colon, conference call A, you refer to a 9 number of participants who.were on'the call.
10 You refer first-to those in Mr.
11 Aufdenkampe's office. How did you know who.was in 12 Mr. Aufdenkampe's office?
13 A. Because I was in Mr. Aufdenkampe's 14 office.
15 Q. Therefore, you are confident that Mr.
16 Aufdenkampe and you nere the only two people in the 17 office and, there are, the two on the call in that 18 office?
19 A. From the time that I was in Mr.
20 Aufdenkampe's office, both Mr. Aufdenkampe and I 21 were both in there.
22 However, I believe during that period of 23 time, two other individuals came in to that office 24 for a brief period of time and left~after a brief
/
s 25 period of time. So we were not the only two people
l I
i 244 t 1 in that interval, but we were the only two that were -
i
- 2. there for the duration.
3 Q. And who were those people?
i 4 A. The other two people, I believe, Gus.
j 5 Williams came in for a brief period of time,-and I
! 6 believe Tom Webb. The period of time I'm referring ;
4 7 to is the period of time during which call A I 8 occurred. ,
,. 9 Q. And did either Mr. Williams or Mr. Webb' 10 participate in the call during the time that.they :
11 were in Mr. Aufdenkampe's office?
s 12 A. Mr. Williams participated to the-extent 13 that I believe he said one sentence on'the call, and ,
] 14 Mr. Webb's participation was that he was present for 15 a period of time, but I don't recall him saying i
'i 16 anything.
17 Q. So would people, participants in this 18 telephone call who were at other locations, have ;
j 19 known about Mr. Williams and Mr. Webb's presence in i 20 Mr. Aufdenkampe's office?
21 A. They possibly might have heard Mr.
22 Williams' voice and recognized it, but probably not 23 Mr. Webb's since I don't think'he said anything.
24 Q. Now, in Mr..McCoy's office, you indicate
(~%
i
\- 25 Messrs. Stringfellow, Shipman, McCoy, and Hairston. I l
i
)
i 245 l
('/
(.
Y 1- How did you know that?
l 2 A. Well, let'me add'that my knowledge'of who j 3 was where and . in what office and-so forthLat'the ;
'4 other' locations has been improved'in the course of i
5 the discovery here, and'we have had an opportunity. l
?
6 to'ask lots of people questions. !
7 So are you asking me that as to what-I ;
8 know today or what I knew when I wrote this, and it !
9 may be hard . for me.to-differentiate those, but I l
i 10- need to know what your question is. i
'11 Q. I asked you what the basis was for the i i
g- 12 statements that appear in this' document rather'than >
l i 13 '
today's knowledge. .
I 14 A. As far as Mr. Hairston, I think you said -
15 Hairston, McCoy? !
16 Q. Shipman, and Stringfellow. I'm just i 17 reading from your document. f i
18 A. Okay, I didn't recall you saying Shipman, 19 but Stringfellow, Shipman, McCoy and Hairston, my .
20 knowledge as to them participating on this call is 21 because they spoke on this call, I heard them and I j l
22 recognized their voices. I 23 That's my firsthand knowledge of it, and 1
24 there is additional, there was and is additional l
O- 25 supporting information to that and'beyond that that 1
i i
j
i 4
l 1 I had when'I drafted this,- as well, tapes and so '
2 forth. !
l 3 Q. Mr. Bockhold was also in the call but !
4 probably from another phone on the Vogtle site. l 5 What was your basis for that knowledge? ,
., 6 A. My basis for that was discussions with 7 Mr. Aufdenka'mpe, conversations that I had in the'
, 8 course that I remember from 1990 about tying George i 9 in or something-like that to the call.
10 Q. .Are any of these conversations that you 4
11 remember from 1990 able to be substantiated from the rS 12 tape recordings that you made in 19907 U 13 A. I don't know. They'may be. There are 14' some tape recordings that discuss how this call'was .
15 set up. {
16 I remember conversations we had during l I
17 the OSI about this call, and some of those 18 conversations are documented on tapes where this 19- group of people, most of these participants rehashed 20 how this call had been originated and occurred.
, 21 Q. But your knowledge in the early part of I 22' this year when you wrote this memorandum was-based-23 on your recollection from 1990, not on your review 24 of any tape recordings? q 25 A. No. Like I said, I had firsthand 1
a s-w a w
- c . - . - ,,,- a
i
,s 247 j
( l '
%J 1 knowledge of these facts, but these facts are also 2 substantiated by tapes. At the time I prepared i 3 this, I had reviewed tapes, as well.
4 Q. So the fact that Mr. Bockhold probably, 5 as you put it, was on the call but from another 6 office, is based -- 1 7 A. He was definitely on the call. He wasn't 8 probably on the call. He was definitely on the 9 call, but he was probably in a different location, 10 and that location, I would surmise to have been his 11 office on-site.
r 12 Q. And that was based on your recollection k._3.)13 of conversations with Mr. Aufdenkampe in 1990 or 1
14 based upon your having reviewed tape recordings of I
15 those conversations in 1990?
16 A. From my recollections of '90, I have a l
17 recollection that John told me about tying George in 18 to the call.
19 So I have that recollection, but I also, l 20 it seems to me that there is some discussion of this 21 in one of the OSI tapes, and I don't have, I can't !
1 22 remember exactly, but there is some discussion !
23 setting up this call and Mr. Bockhold's
,_ 24 participation in this call on a tape, as well.
25 Q. And his participation having been from a
J 248
(~\i
\_/
1 different office?
4 2 A. I think I was able to surmise that from 3 the tape. I'm not sure if that was directly stated 4 on there, but that was the inference I got from that 5 tape, too.
6 Q. You indicate in this memorandum that also 7 believed to have been on the call were Ward, Bailey, ,
8 and Rushton.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Why did you believe that early this year?
11 A. I believed that because of statements ,
,s 12 made by Mr. Shipman and Mr. Aufdenkampe on a number 13 of occasions which are documented on tape 14 recordings. So that's the source of my information.
15 Q. And are there others that you believe, 16 others that had that same belief that you know of, !
l 17 now, today? Are there other people, let me go i 18 back. Do you believe that today?
19 A. That those people were on the call.
20 Q. That Ward, Bailey, and Rushton were on 21 the call.
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And do you know other people who hold 24 that same belief?
I r^T i
\_/ 25 A. The other people that we asked these
249 u_/
1 questions to couldn't remember. I believe the most 2 accurate factual basis for this is the statements 3 that were made in 1990'during the OSI when people 4 remembered and asked some of these people and these 5 people apparently acknowledged that they were on a 6 call in 1990.
7 So I believe that's the most accurate 8 basis. Most of the people we have asked in 9 depositions can't remember.
10 Q. And you, therefore, believe that Mr.
11 Bailey was not in Hawaii on vacation?
g~ 12 A. Well, I have heard Mr. Bailey say that, t
\~ 13 but I guess there is a conflict. It seems to be a 14 significant conflict between what Mr. Bailey has 15 said and what other people have said about his 16 participation on more than one occasion, documented 17 on several tapes or tape segments.
18 So I can't tell. I haven't made a clear 19 conclusion. There is a conflict.
20 Q. And who were the several people who refer 21 to Mr. Bailey being on the call?
22 A. Well, I think Mr. Shipman expressed 23 that. Mr. Aufdenkampe expressed i* on a number of 24 occasions in different, in some different time k/m 25 frames and settings.
l ,
.i
?
i 250
[k
\m/
1 So it seems like he stated; Bailey was'on. ,
4
! 2 the call three different times,. Shipman, Bailey --
3 Shipman, Aufdenkampe, I believe those are the two ;
4 . people that I can recall that stated Mr. Bailey was >
- j. 5 on the call.
6 Q. Do you'know what the basis for Mr.
7 Aufdenkampe's statements might'have been?
8 A. My best guess _would be that Mr.
9 Aufdenkampe talked to Mr.' Bailey on.the portion of 10 that call before I entered Mr.'Aufdenkampe's. office.
11 Q. So do you think that Mr. Aufdenkampe 12 talked with Mr. Bailey in.the course of this 13 conference call on April ~ 19th? '
14 A. I would say that that's my best guess as- !
~
15 to Mr. Aufdeokampe's basis for his several 16 statements that Bailey was on the call.
17 Q. Would there have been any way for Mr.
l 18 Aufdenkampe or for you to determine from'Mr. ;
19 Aufdenkampe's office whether Mr. Bailey was a "
l 20 participant in the call or listened in on the call !
21 from'another location?
l 22 A. Well, if Mr. Aufdenkampe heard Mr.
23 Bailey, he would know.
1 24 Q. Have.you ever asked Mr.'Aufdenkampe that '
.(A_) 25 question?
1 l
l
4 I l 251 r"S
,b 1 A. No, I haven't.
2 Q. Did you have anLopportunity to ask.Mr.
- 3 Aufdenkampe that question when he was deposed?
' 4 A. When I responded to you then, I was not 5 thinking of the deposition: I was thinking of me' 6 asking him..
- 7 Q. ' Fair enough.
8 A. That outside of the deposition scope, l 9 since you asked if I asked him. >
10 Q. .Okay, and I appreciate the 11 clarification. I understand that you.havennever l
(-)
'(J-12 talked to him personally,'now focussing on the' l 13 deposition? I h
14' A. Never talked to him. personally about i 15 that.
16 Q. Yes.
. 17 A. Well, I will clarify that, too. Mr.
I
^
18 Aufdenkampe, we did have a personal conversation. I 19 didn't ask him who was on the call, but he 20 volunteered information about who was on the call.
21 So .I will clarify that, in a discussion.
22 we had in the fall of '91, I think. I can't recall, i 23 he.may have said Bailey at that time. He went over 24 with me a list of people that he remembered being on
/~T 25 the call, I think it was in the fall of '91 when he
d 252
( -
1 was discussing an affidavit.
2 Q. And is that a taped conversation?
.3 A. No. That conversation in '91 is not :
4 taped.
- 5 Q. And in the course of the depositioni did 6 you ask Mr. Aufdenkampe about the basis for c any-of 7' his statements about Bailey having been.on.the call?
8 A. It seems to me that we asked'Mr. 1 9 Aufdenkampe-about the call participants in.the 10 course of the deposition, I belie.ve we did. l 11 Q. And do you recall what his answer-was? I .
12 was not there. .
.O 13 A. I can't recall what he stated about Mr.
14 Bailey. I think he may have said he couldn't.
t 15 remember Bailey being on or not. The record is the 16 right place to get that from.
17 Q. What about Mr. Ward, what is the. basis --
18 let me go back to Mr. Shipman first. Did you ask. ,
19 Mr. Shipman?
20 A. As to who was participating on call A? :
21 Q. Well, what the basis for his statement 22 might have been in August of 1990 which I understand 23 to be the statement you're referring to.
24 MR. KOHN: Are you.asking did Mr.
h 25 L s Mosbaugh's counsel ask Mr. Shipman that
l l
253
< f'N )
. %) ;
1 during deposition?
]
i 2 MR. BLAKE: 'I'm asking whether Mr.
~
3 Mosbaugh has ever --
4 THE WITNESS: I have never asked Mr. ;
5 Shipman personally.
6 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do.you know whether he :
e 7 has ever been asked, what might have been the basis P
1 8 for his statement in August of 1990?
9 A. I couldn't be'sure of that, because part
! 10 of Mr. Shipman's deposition, I didn't participate 4
i 11 in. So I. don't have complete knowledge of that.
i
- f. 12 From the portions that I did-participate.in, I don't
( \ i 13 recall that we got into that subject matter.
I, 14 Q. What about Mr. Ward, what is your basis 15 for believing that Mr. Ward was a participant in the 16 call?
17 A. My basis for believing Mr. Ward was a 18 participant in the call is Mr. Shipman's statement 19 in which, during the OSI, and from his statement he 20 apparently confirmed Mr. Ward's presence or 21 participation in the call on the spot as he was 22 making that statement about Mr. Ward's participation 23 because he said something like Louis just said he
. 24 was on it or Louis, you know, so he said something
~ (~%
, \_)
4 25 in the live context indicating tha" he had confirmed 4
i 254
/~T
%s] i i that it was Louis Ward who was with him at the. time !
2 these questions were being asked and answered during 3 the OSI. l
- 4 Q. And have you ever asked Mr. Ward. that ;
i 5 question?
6 A. As to whether Mr.-Ward was'on the call, 7 yes, we did in Mr. --
I haven't, my counsel did, in 8 Mr. Ward's deposition. !
i 9 Q. And do you recall what his. answer was?.
4 10 A. I believe Mr. Ward said that he didn't 1
11 recall being on the call.
5 12 Q. Now, with respect to Mr. . Rushton?
! 13 A. With respect to Mr. Rushton, Mr. Shipman, i >
14 during the OSI, indicated that Paul, to me meaning
. 15 Paul Rushton, was on the call during an OSI 16 conversation.
t i 17 Mr. Aufdenkampe and I both had a vague
{ 18 memory of Paul being on the call, and I don't know J
l 19 exactly how I knew that or how John knew that, but i 1 20 we had a discussion and I'm referring now to the l l
21 fall of '91 where I think we debated whether or not 1 1 1 22 Paul Rushton had been on the call.
i 23 I have a vague recollection that he.was, ;
l 24 and I can't tell you how I know that.or why I have '
(~N
'%-) 25 that recollection. It must have been some facts !
1 i
4 I v
es 255
( )
t/
1 that I acquired in '90. So those are two or three 2 sources of my belief that Paul may have been on the 3 call, Rushton, 4 Q. Do Mr. Bailey's or Mr. Ward's or Mr.
5 Rushton's voices occur anywhere on the transcripts 6 of the tape recordings or on the tape recordings 7 themselves from those conversations?
8 A. For the portion of call A that is 9 recorded, I have not identified Mr. Rushton's or 10 Bailey's, Ward's voice from that portion; but, of 11 course, that's only part of the call.
i ()
12 Q. Did you have any way of determining who
't.)
13 was coming or going at other locations, participants 14 in that call? Do you understand my question? It j 15 wasn't very artfully worded, I guess.
16 A. Some announcements were made such as I 17 underetand Mr. Hairston is back or office called or, 18 at least on my end Mr. Aufdenkampe made some 19 announcement and Mr. Shipman made some statement.as 20 to people coming or going, I think, with respect to
, 21 me. So I recall some statements like that being 22 made.
23 Q. Do you recall any statements like that f_s 24 being made about Mr. Ward, Mr. Bailey, and Mr.
- \
\~J 25 Rushton?
256
,/~sa
'% 1 1 A. No, I don't.
1 2 Q. With regard to identifying the voices of I 3 the participants on the call, has it been or what 4 has been your method of identifying voices? l 5 A. Listening.
6 Q. Have you had any professionals try to do 7 voice identification?
8 A. No.
9 Q. So your method has been just to' listen to 10 the tapes and identify voices that you were familiar' 11 with from having worked with these people?
(~g 12 A. Yeah, I would say I'm fairly familiar
\)
~
13 with these people and their voices, worked with 14' them.
15 Q. And that was your method?
16 A. That is my method.
17 MR. BLAKE: We can take a break now if 18 you want to.
19 (A recess was taken.)
20 Q. (By Mr. Blake) We can continue. Turn to
.21 the second page of the same memorandum which refers l
22 to the follow-up call, follow-up call B. l 23 On this call, you indicate that you and 24 Mr. Aufdenkampe were in Mr. Aufdenkampe's office and rO
\-) 25 Swartzwelder for a portion of the call.
l
l l
257-
/,,)
><,J .
l' A. The end,. yeah. -l 2 Q. And in Mr. Shipman's' office, there is ,
t
~
3' Shipman'and Stringfellow but1notfBockhold or 4 Hairston_or:McCoy. The' individuals that-were in Mr.
'5 .Aufdenkampe's office were known, I take it, because t
6 you saw them?
7 A. That's correct.
- 8 Q. And recalled that they;were'there?
9 A. .That's correct.
I 10 Q. How is it-that you know who-was in Mr.
11 Shipman's office'and who was not?L !
r s 12 A. Mr. Shipman called Mr. Aufdenkampe back, f x'.
13 is the way this call was initiated, and --- l 14 Q. Were you there at.that time? ;
e 15 A. I believe so. .
16 Q. You believe you were there'when the call 17 came through?
?
18 A. Yes, when Mr. Shipman called back, I l 19 believe so. ;
I 20 Q. And so you were taping, also, at that 21 time? l 22 A. I believe so. I guess the best way to ,
23 clarify that point would be to look at the !
)
24 transcript, but I believe so.
>~h !
l 25 Q. So if your belief is right, then we would
. 258 y) '
1 look at the transcript and-hear Aufdenkampe saying e 2 hello, hi, Bill, how are'you, or something to' i
3 indicate that you were there at the.beginning of the-l 4 call? '
j 5 A. Right.
'6 Q. I'm sorry, continue on how you determined l 7 who was on the call and who was not at Mr.. . Shipman's i
2 8 end.
9 A. My knowledge about who was on the call on ;
10 Mr. Shipman's end is based on who I heard speaking- !
11 and the voices that I have identified from the-r- 12 transcript,.relistening to the tape of the i N-]x 13 transcript.
, 14 Q. And how are'you able to say that Messrs. i 15 Bockhold, Hairston, and McCoy were not on the call 16 either in Mr. Shipman's office or elsewhere?.
17 A. Well, because no statement was made that 18 they were on the call and no introductions or exits 19 were made, announcements were made and they did not ,
20 speak, and that would be the extent of my knowledge 21 about who was on that end.
b 22 Q. You indicate that --
23 A. One further thing, since it is my belief
,_ 24 that Mr. Bockhold was on-site, that would be an ;
( i
. \/ 25 additional supporting fact that he wasn't with Mr. ;
f i
259 O 1 . Shipman-in Birmingham.
2 Q .. I understood, that's why~I asked:the 3 question, from Mr. Shipman's office or some place 4 else.
5 A. Okay. I didn't hear some place else.
.6 Q. You;indicateLthat Mr. Shipman's purpose.
7- on this call was to get the site, do something (nr 8 think something or feel something. Where do you 9 come by'that belief?
- 10. A. Well, I.had told Mr. Shipman about some 11 specific information about trips of the diesel. Mr.
.p 12 Aufdenkampe and I had told.him that we thought the 13 statements in the LER were false.
14 I had told him that'the information of no-15 problems and failures was not true, and on call A, 16 the group of people in Birmingham had put language 17 that was essentially. synonymous and based on the 4/9 18 letter in the LER. ,
19 So having essentially decided in l l
20 Birmingham to repeat the same information that'these !
21 people had earlier in the day been told was false 22 and apparently those people had acknowledged that it 23 was false, they were going ahead and going to repeat 24 the same information.
O s I 25 So when Mr. Shipman called'back, he was .
i l
l
-l
t j
i 260 !
1 L 1. obviously aware of all those things because I had 2 talked to him earlier in the day. His calling back !
3 and wanting to talk about this again, I.think, was 4 an attempt to-get the site to buy into this 5 repeating of the 18 to 19 numbers in the LER.
6- A number of the things that he said on f
7 that call were essentially ~ arguments to the site to i 8 get us to go.along with this. So those are the I 9 facts from which I have an opinion that he was l 10 trying to get a buy in to repeating the 18 and 19 11 start count that had been used in the COA, the 4/9 12 letter in the LER.
13 Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Shipman what the 14 purpose of this call was? ;
15 A. I.didn't. I can't rechll if he was asked f 16 that in his deposition or not.
- l l 17 Q. Do you think this is important?
18 A. The purpose of his call?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. I think what's important is the people's 21 actions and what they did. I guess the purpose of ,
22 his call, if we could get an accurate statement of l 23 the purpose of his call that would be some important 24 information.
25 Q. Let me return to a couple of things that 1
l I
, I i 1 l
l
-2 6 1-
[ l' :
%_f i 1 you just indicated. You told Mr. Shipman earlier in' 2 the day that the proposed LER language 1was 1
3 inaccurate. Is.that what you just stated, or did I ;
l
' \
4 misunderstand? '
5 A. I think what I told Mr. Shipman was'that 6 d if anybody said there.ha'n't been' problems or ;
7 failures, that's just not true. 'I believe Mr.
8 Aufdenkampe and'I told Mr. Stringfellow that we 9 thought the language in the 4/9 letter was a-10 material false statement,:and I think that also j 11 included the inclusion of the current statement in l
_ 12 the LER. !
l
'13 I believe Mr. Stringfellow then'~ conveyed 14~ that information to Mr. Shipman because immediately' 15 after that Mr. Shipman called back.and-discussed the [
r 16 same thing and indicated that he knew that we'had .
17 been talking to Stringfellow. So there was some 18 communication there. t i
19 In addition, Mr. Shipman indicated that P
20 he believed, I guess he believed that the 21 information was false, also. He kept talking about 22 the problem we got, Allen, is that we already told 23 this to the NRC once before.
24 So those are several things that either 1 (D
\_/ 25 we told Mr. Shipman or I told Mr. Shipman or Mr.
i
! o N l C
262
($)
1 Shipman told us that indicate to me that he had been- l 2 told and that he believed that the statements in the i j
3 LER were false.
4 Q. Do you believe today that Mr. Shipman l i
5 believed that the statements in the LER were false ;
r 6 when the LER was submitted? Do.you want me to j 7 repeat that?
8 A. No. I believe Mr. Shipman knew that 9 statement.was inaccurate at the time it was 10 submitted. !
l l 11 Q. You today are of the belief that Mr.
12 Shipman knew that the LER was false;when it was :
13 submitted on April 19th? ,
14 A. Uh-huh. '
15 Q. Do you believe today that you-believed ;
16 the statements in the LER were false when it was ;
17 submitted? ;
I 18 A. I believed at that time that the 19 confirmation of action letter, 4/9 letter was false 20 and that the draft LER had been false.
I 21 When some new language was added to it I 22 less than an hour before it was approved, I 23 suspected it was still inaccurate, but I was of the ]
i 24 mind set that I didn't have 100 percent proof that I O 25 it was inaccurate. I believed it was suspect and I l l
I i
L i
l l o -
L 263
(~).
%/
1 believed that it had-not.been properly' verified-and= ,
2 I believed that the final language'was put in to 3' make it like the 4/9 letter.
4 Q. The language you're referring;to, the 5 reference to the comprehensive test program?
I i 6 A. Yes.
7 Q.. So when that language was added, you were.
8 no-longer sure whether the LER remained inaccurate?
9 A. My viewpoint on our obligations is to ,
10 assure that it is correct before it's sent out- -
11 rather than to say'it's okay to send it'out as long i l 7 12 as we don't know it's false. ;
L 13 So adding that reference to the 14 comprehensive test program within an hour of it-15 being signed out moved me from being fairly-certain l t
16 that it was incorrect to needing to look at that'new j 17 verbage and basis and essentially reprove that that, 18 also, was incorrect.
19 That degree of uncertainty with it being 20 correct or not existed because of'the inclusion of 21 the new language. So I went from believing that it-22 was incorrect to suspecting that it was incorrect 23 but not being able to prove it on the spot.
24 Q. Do you believe today that Mr. Aufdenkampo 25 believed the language was inaccurate when it was
1 1
! 264 N
E/~'/
\_ '
1 .submitt'ed?
i 2 A. I believe Mr. Aufdenkampe.probably was of. .
-3 the same mind set.that I was. My discussions with ,
4 Mr. Aufdenkampe.after, on the end;of that day, I 5 think, reflect'our mind sets at the time.
6 I recall Mr. Aufdenkampe saying something 7 like well, if it's incorrect, we will just submit a ,
, 8 revision. That's not indicative of somebody'that 9 says I know this is correct and I'm sending in .
10 something that's verified and accurate to the best 11 of my ability.
. 12 Somebody saying well, if it's incorrect, l \-
1 13 we will just send in a revision, that's somebody 14 that believes it may well be incorrect. <
15 Q. Now, if your opinion about the accuracy l 16 of this LER-was so affected by the addition'of the l
17 language concerning the comprehensive test program, 18 it moved you from the position of fairly confident 19 that it was inaccurate to less confident, still 1
20 believing it was inaccurate but being less confident j 21 that that was the case, I don't want to I 22 mischaracterize, I'm trying to be accurate in what I 23 understand your testimony to be, then why don't you 24 think that that same language could have had that 25 same effect on Mr. Shipman?
l l
l
, _..q 265- 1 0
1- A. Because I believe that aigroup-of i
~ '
2' ' personnel in corporate, let_me say decided'to'inserti 3 those words for a-purpose. .They decidedito put !
4 those comprehensive test program-words'in to' insert 5 an'indeterminant'into'the language"so.that it could ,
- 6. be7 argued'later asJa_ maneuver, let's say; and'Mr.
7 Shipman,-I believe, is within the group of peopleiin -l i
8 corporate that I surmise may have done that. !
9' Q. And.who.else would you place in-_that {
10 group?' !
11 A. Probably Mr. Shipman, Mr. Bockhold,.Mr. >
12 McCoy, maybe Mr. Hairston, a group _that~I suspect ;
O -
13 discussed the known inaccuracy in the confirmation i
i 14 of action letter.
i 15 The word came back to the site that Mr. !
16 McCoy, Mr. Hairston, and Mr. Mcdonald were of-the 17 opinion that there-had been a material false l 18 statement made in the~ confirmation of action' letter 19 and they were reviewing this which included the LER !
l 20 at that time that word came back to the site.
l 21 So it appears to me that a group of 22 people in Birmingham were trying to figure out how 23 to deal with this.
24 Q. So you believe that that language was 25 added in order to, these are my words, to fuzz up
r 2 6'6
('Y
~
'l 1 the statement?
2 A. . Yeah. j 3 Q. Which had previously been made;rather-than . to try to clarify 4 it?
5 A. Yes,;that. essentially the same;words as .
. 1
-6 were given to the NRC previouslyLwere' going to be 7 used, it was_18 to-19_ changed, at'least 18',
8 essentially the same' statement as toLthe numbers but: -
9 an'indeterminant and undefined point of reference- i r
10 was<added. ,
11 Q. And what is your basis,'for believing that .
?
12 this group of people got together and decided to try i
/~'N i kl 13 to add this language in order to fuzz up the f
14- understanding of that statement? l l
15 A. You would have thought.that this group-of l
16 people that preaches attention to detail.and that no l 17 detail is so small that it doesn't make a difference !
18 would have defined the point, the phraseology that l s
19 they inserted.
20 You.would have thought that.they'would !
21 have defined it, especiallyisince that's the mind 22 set that these people preach; and to have put it in' 23 with no definition and with a varietyLof-people 24 saying I.can't define it, I don't know whateit is,
( ) 25 what other conclusion am I left with?-
l 267
\/
1 Q. So you believe, in essence, there~was a 2 conspiracy. formed that understood what they were ;
3 doing when this language was put in, and-that 4 . understanding was to fuzz it up so that it couldn't 5 be tied down, intentionally?- l 6 A. I think that's. correct. I don't know if' [
7 I would use the word conspiracy since I don't fully 8 understand what all that implies, but.I think l 9 intentionally, . was put in intentionally.
10 Q. Have you indicated this belief b'efore, .
11 articulated it to anyone?
N 12 A. Well, I have come to this, I didn't have
^ 'F 13 this belief initially. It's been in the' course of ,
14 discovery and hearing all of the testimony that it .
15 has become my opinion that that's probably what was ,
16 going on, and I guess I would have indicated that 17 the Office of Investigations, I think, had from 18 their investigation a similar opinion about the i
19 inclusion of those words.
20 Q. Have you ever discussed with anybody this 21 view, other than counsel?
22 A. I think in the course, I think some of 23 these write-ups here may get into that. I think I 24 had had some discussions at some point in time with l 0s 25 Mr. Robinson as to this being a theory.
i 1
. I i
268 l
(/ 1 Q. Is that in an interview.that' has,been i
2' recorded and transcribed that you're aware of? -
3 A. I can't recall that thats in a .
4 transcribed-interview. l t
5 Q. It was just an additional' side bar'or' ;
i 6 additional discussion that you had'at'some point 7 with Mr. Robinson? .
8 A. Yes, I think we have discussed that. I ,
i 9 have. spoken to'Mr. Robinson from time ~to time on a 10' fairly regular basis. That's probably been.over.the !
11 course of time.
l 12 .Q. Who did you believe was involved.in this
() 13 intent to fuzz up the language? Let's see'if we:can 14 tie it down. I asked you the.same question J
15 earlier. I think you'said you believed it would ,
16 have been Mr. McCoy --
17 MR. KOHN: You said did believe, you 18 mean do believe currently?
19 MR. BLAKE: Do believe,.sure.
20 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. McCoy?
21 A. Mr. McCoy.
22 Q. Mr. Hairston?
23 A. 1 00. Hairston, Mr. Shipman, possibly Mr. !
24' Bockhold. Those were the people'that.we can
' :2 5 '
( identify where this phraseology was added on a tape a
, . . . . , . . - , . - - . . . , , , , , ~ . .
- - ~ . - _ . . . .- __
l l
269
(~'1 I d
(-); .
l 11 58, call'A, and there is a particular point in time !
2 where that' group of people formulate this new i 3 language, the inclusion of.this new language into 4 the LER.
5 Q. I think the terminology.first~ appears on :
~
l 6 that tape with Mr. McCoy mentioning that sort of 7 language; is that correct?
8' A. I would.want to look at it. It's in a-9 very short interval of time, so I would want to look-10 at the transcript. ;
2 . I j 11 MR. KOHN: I have the transcript here ,
- 12 if you want him to.
13 MR. BLAKE: I don't think it's 14 3ecessary.
15 Q. (By Mr. Blake) You now believe that that 16 wasn't just a coincidental thought of terminology
- i 17 used but, rather, was a purposeful. injection of this l 18 terminology based on prior discussions between these 19 people?
20 A. I would say, I would theorize that'it may i i
.' ]
21 have not.been contemporaneous 1y added. That's a !
I 22 theory.
23 Q. Later in this same discussion of 24 follow-up call B, you indicate that Mr. Shipman
- (";
(_/- 25 misrepresented Brockman's understandings to get you ;
a I
t i
t i
270 !
1 and Mr. Aufdenkampe back off their pursuit of a 2- f alse statement: being made. What'is your. basis for 3 stating that'Mr. Shipman misrepresented Brockman's- !
1 4 understandings? !
t 5 A. My_ basis is the tape 58 and Mr.
]
6- Brockman's-affidavit provided in response.to Georgia' f 7 Power questions to the NRC.
8 Q. Your basis'for saying that Mr. Shipman. !
9 misrepresented on April'19, 1990 Mr. Brockman's- ;
10 understanding _is Mr. Brockman's response.to l l
11 questions put to him in 1994? ?
12 A. I didn't have this understanding in 13 1990. I had this understanding when-I wrote this 14 document at which time I had Mr..Brockman's !
i 15 affidavit.. , j i
16 Q. Do you believe in 1990 that: Mr. Shipman 17 knew better than what he was representing'to be Mr.
18 Brockman's understandings?
19 A. I didn't know:in 1990.. I wasn't on:the 20 other side of that call and didn't know what Mr.
~21 Brockman had'been told by-Mr. McCoy,.but what Mr.
22 Brockman~ told us was that the NRC completely' 23 understood, understood exactly what tha numbers were j 24- and what the basis for_the numbers were, et cetera; l l
-( ) 25 and'it is ~ apparent to me now that the NRC didn't j I
i 271
. r'y
%d' i 1 have that understanding or.they wouldn't.have issued i 2 a violation against Georgia Power on this' issue.
~
3 'They'wouldn't have issuedLfindings in the j 4 OI report.and Mr. Brockman wouldn't~have responded '
l 5 as he did in his affidavit.
6 -Q. Is it your belief today that Mr. Shipman 7 knew better in.1990 than~what he_was representing to 8 be Mr. Brockman's understandings?
9 A. I don't know if the misrepresentation ,
10 came from Mr. Shipman or it came from Mr. McCoy.
i 11 Mr. Shipman, I don't think, called Mr. Brockman. It [
t 12 was my understanding that Mr. McCoy called Mr. l 13 Brockman.
i 14' So I can't be sure where the disconnect :
15 in understandings occurred between Mr. McCoy and 16 Shipman or Mr. Shipman and me and John-Aufdenkampe, 17 but obviously there was some misrepresentation in 18 what he was saying because what he was saying then ,
i 19 doesn't jibe with what the NRC determined later. ;
20 Q. What does misrepresent mean to you? l.
21 A. He overstated or incorrectly stated what 22 had been conveyed to the NRC. '
23 Q. It doesn't mean to incorrectly state with i
24 knowledge that you're incorrectly stating it? Does ;
O
\_/ 25 it mean with an intent to deceive to you, m
i l
l 272 i
f}
}
1 misrepresent, the verb, when you use that term, is j 2 that what you mean or not? Do you understand? I'm !
3 happy to ask the question again, because this is 4 pretty important.
5 A. What I'm saying as far as Mr. Shipman >
6 misrepresenting, he misrepresented to John 7 Aufdenkampe and me whac I believe to have been 8 conveyed or understood by the NRC.
9 Q. And do you understand that the common 10 understanding, the common acceptance of the verb to 11 misrepresent is to give a false representation with fs 12 an intent to deceive?
N' 'b 13 A. I would say it's to give a false 14 representation. I wouldn't consider myself a legal 15 expert to discuss the intent.
16 Q. And I'm not talking about legal 17 anything. I just want to know what you mean when i
18 you say -- l 19 A. I just stated that. I said Mr. Shipman i
20 misrepresented to us what I have later found to have 21 been conveyed to the NRC, at least based on the 22 NRC's statements.
23 Q. And as I understand now what you mean by p_ 24 misrepresent, it could have been a perfectly
- 25 innocent misunderstanding on Mr. Shipman's part?
..g.
i i-273- ,
g
- 1 A. 'Well, if Mr. McCoy.had~ told him.one' thing t 2 and he just conveyed.what Mr..McCoy told-him to us, l 3 it could have been innocent onohis part,.but then '!
f 4 Mr. McCoy would have been part, of, the:
i ,
, 5
-~
misrepresentation.
! 6 Q. Again, it could have~been,fby your use of. 'I 7 the term misrepresentation, that Mr.1McCoy simply.
t 8 misunderstood, was misunderstanding?: j 9' A. ~Well, I would say - - -
r l .10 Q. And you would still use the term i 3
.i
- 11 misrepresented? [
I j 12 A. It was stated so emphatically that the j i
i 13 NRC understood exactly and understood the basis and j 4
14 so forth, that I doubt that there was - that a t' i
i 15 least some point in that chain of communication, it i
- i g- 16 was totally innocent. ;
r
, 17 The sides are too different. I doubt ;
- 18 that that would be the nature of it, that it was j 4 i e
f 19 just a misunderstanding with complete, completely' l 1 .
1 20 understandable innocent error. The stories are too .!
1 i s :
i 21 different. It's like black and white. j 22 Q. And so today ---
t i
4 23 A. Let me add one more thing. Mr. Shipman ]
i
- -24 is telling us, Mr. Shipman is telling me that the l 1- ]
25 NRC completely understood the basis, Mr. Shipman i
274
/")\
'u 1 told me, he said the NRC completely, Ken Brockman 2 completely understands the numbers and the basis for 3 the numbers; yet when I asked Mr. Shipman or when 4 Mr. Shipman stated to me a statement about the 5 basis, that is, the definitions of comprehensive 6 test program, he told me he didn't know what it 7 was.
8 So here are people that' don't know what I 9 the bases are telling me that they h' ave had !
10 communications with the NRC and the basis has been ,
11 completely explained. That's another little 12 disconnect.
f-13 Q. Does that lead you to believe today that j 14 either Mr. Shipman or Mr. McCoy knew better than 15 what it was they passed along, that is, that they 16 intentionally deceived the person to whom they were 17 providing the information?
18 A. I think, yeah, that's my belief because 19 the stories are too black and white and they are too 20 different,- and it would surprise me that Mr. McCoy 21 or Mr. Shipman were that inaccurate in their 22 communications with the NRC as to have such a 23 differing opinion as to what was conveyed.
24 Furthermore, I can't believe that they so clearly 25 stated to the NRC the basis when they themselves
f l
275 1 couldn't articulate the basis.
2 Q. And do you'today know which-of the two or 3- do you attribute to both?
4 A. No, I don't specifically know,which of 5 the two, because it was a chain communication.
6 Obviously Mr. McCoy must have told Mr. Shipman and 7 Mr. Shipman told us.
8 Q. And in your' view could it have been both?
9 A. It could have, I don't know.
10 Q. And the black and white difference-is the 11 difference between what the tapes will reflect'Mr.
12 Shipman represented to you and Mr. Aufdenkampe about' 7-13 the Brockman telephone call and what Mr. Brockman in 14 his affidavit has, in-1994, has stated was the 15 subject of that telephone conversation? ,
16 A. And the fact that Mr. Shipman and, I 17 believe, Mr. McCoy, also, couldn't define the basis 18 and they stated that they had explained the basis.
19 I don't know how they could so clearly explain the 20 basis to the NRC when they themselves didn't know.
21 MR. KOHN: For the record, I think Mr.
22- Brockman's affidavit may be December '93.
23 MR. BLAKE: Thank you.
24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) The statement now that
(^)% 25 xm Mr. Shipman misrepresented Brockman's
w 276 j s ,
'J 1 understandings, I want one more time to go-back'.to i
~2 what I previously asked you, by that statement, J
3 Shipman misrepresented Brockman's understandings,'
4 you mean to convey that it_was an inaccurateLaccount 4
5 of what took place in the. conversation with Mr. 1
-6 Brockman, but'you do not necessarily mean_that he 7 intended to' deceive? That's what you mean by 8 misrepresentation?
9 A. Brockman's understandings'were j
, 10 misrepresented or my belief currently is that-i 11 Brockman's understandings were misrepresented'to me i i ,
12 and Mr. Aufdenkampe, as to where the exact failure l
- 'l},
13 of communication or intent to deceive' originated, ]
i 14- whether it was with Mr. Shipman or Mr. McCoy, I 15 don't know that. Is that the question.you're i l
16 asking?
! 17 Q. Yes. I'm just trying to determine l 18 whether in your use, because you use this term a i
19 fair _ amount in your written memorandum and in1your j 20 statements and various pieces of testimony, you-use 4 21 the verb misrepresented. Do you mean when you use 22 that to convey an intention to deceive as well as-23 providing inaccurate information?
24 MR. KOHN: Well, I object to that
/~)
(_/ 25 question because people can use the same verb i a
4
.277 ;j L(_) :
i 1 .in different meanings. So' I don't think you,- j 2 I think you have to point out ~which'ones.
3 you're referring to. He has now' testified
! 4 with respect to Mr. McCoy and Mr. Shipman, l
5- ' communications with the NRC. To the extent.
6 you have a question on another one,-.'I think 7 we have-to:do eachione, individually.
8 MR. BLAKE: I'm prepared to just stick 9 with this one for the moment in order to get.
~
.10 'his understanding of what he. meant here.
- 11 THE WITNESS
- I have statediit l (^g 12 already. I can state it again for you, but I ;
! V 13 can't, in making'that sentence here,' I can't ;
14 specifically conclude whether the intent, if I 15 there was intent, originated with Mr. Shipman
- 16. or Mr. McCoy or both.
17 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Turning to the.next page 18 in the same memorandum which has at the top of it 19 Responses to NRC Questions Concerning Diesel Starts, l 20 et cetera, in the third from the last paragraph on 21 that page, you state, Southern' Nuclear intentionally l 22 failed to identify in their responses t o t h e N R C ,: et' 23 cetera. Do you see that paragraph? !
l f- 24 A. Uh-huh. l
'ds1 25 Q. Who are you charging with intentionally l
l
I I
l 278 l
! /~N l l N_,
i failing to identify?
2 A. Well, we haven't found exactly from our j 3 discovery ~who is taking-responsibility.for the White.
4 Paper which'is where these lack of identifications' 5 or inaccuracies occurred, but Mr. McCcy, I guess I 6 can start-with him and name a few others who were .
7 involved and, I guess, to some ~ degree responsible
~ '
l j 8 for preparing that White Paper,,Mr. McCoy was '
9 present in the meeting where the participants of 10 that' call were being discussed.
11 Q. Let me fus t , get an answer to my first .
12 question and then I will go on and try to talk about ;
O's 13 each of the people.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. Who are you charg'ing with intentionally 16 failing to identify?
17 A. Mr. McCoy, Mr._ Frederick, and there may l l 18 be others that were responsible.for'that White Paper !
19 that participated in the meeting, but as far as who !
i 20 had all that. responsibility, we haven't been able to 21 determine, anybody else who had responsibility for 22 that White Paper that also participated in the 23 discussions.
24 Q. Are there any other people that you think j r~T l
- k. 25 intentionally failed to identify?
i
, - e e e
i l
279 .
1 A. You have to understand theJreason1why I 2 can't specifically state others. When you'say 3 intentionally. failed to identify, I would think it ,
4 would have to be-somebody that was responsible for 5 issuing that White Paper.
6 Q. I'm just using your language,_ -
t 7 intentionally failed to identify?
8 A. I know, but what I'm saying is in order 9 to determine who is responsible'and who would have~
10 intentionally excluded somebody, we would have to 11 find the individual that was responsible for
_ 12 preparing or issuing the White Paper and.then~at the :
13 same time somebody that knew or should have known 14 that those people should have been on the list. .
15 So far I have identified Mr. Frederick i 16 and Mr. McCoy, but there could be other people that 17 had review or issue responsibility over that White i 18 Paper that I haven't identified.
19 So I guess I would add that Georgia ,
20 Power's counsel may have had some involvement. We j l
21 haven't been able to determine this from discovery, i 22 but Georgia Power's counsel may have had some 23 involvement in the White Paper.
24 I believe they did have some involvement l
('T (m) 25 in the White Paper, but I don't know the extent of i
l 1
280 l
[N
~
-1 that.
2 Q. By that statement do you_mean that'these 3 people, McCoy,_ Frederick, possibly Georgia Power's 4 counsel, knew better than what it was they were i
5 _providing?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. _ What do'you think Mr. McCoy_ knew better 8 than?
9 A. He knew he was on that' call. ,
10 Q. And he.saw'this response, chis White-11 Paper? I 12 A. He was present while this response was
(' ,
13 being prepared, and I'm sure would have seen-it 14 subsequently, as well, but he was in a meeting where 15 this verbage.and this listing was being prepared. ;
i 16 Q. Do you know in that meeting whether or q 17 not he acknowledged that he was there or not-there?
18 A. Yeah, he did. l l
19 Q. He acknowledged what?
i 20 A. That he was there. '
21 Q. And do you know that he thereafter 22 recognized his name~as not being included in this 23 White Paper?
24 A. Well, the list was discussed, this
() 25 listing that doesn't have his name was discussed
i-l l
l l 281 r^x-
, k_Y
- i. 1 verbally in front of him. I would think he would 2- have known. !
l 4 3 Q. And Mr. Frederick?
4' A. He was there, too. lie heard all the-same i
5 discussion Mr. McCoy did..
6 .Q. Do you know why Mr. McCoy or Mr.
7 Frederick i'ntentionally failed to identify people? ,
8 A. No, I don't. C 9 Q. 'Have you ever asked that?
10 A. I believe in the depositions we asked ,
11 some questions about the preparation of this 12 listing, and I believe Mr. Frederick made.some O
13 mention and he didn't state it exactly or directly, 14' but I think he made some mention that he was told to 15 take some people off the list that he had put on the L 16 list based on the discussion in the meeting. ,
17 Q. That is your understanding of Mr. ,
l 1 18 Frederick's current position, is that he had starced l 19 to draft this White Paper, had a large number, a 20 larger listing of people than ultimately appeared in 21 it because he received an instruction to delete some ;
22 people's names?
23 A. I think that's my understanding. He was l 24 present and he heard all the listing of'all the
! [~T l (-) 25 people, and then in his deposition he made some J
i i
l i
282 i O
V 1 statement about deleting, later deleting some people 2- from the list based on,- and he was not clear as to 3 how and from who he got that instruction, but'he 4 indicated, I believe, that he later deleted some -
5 names. ;
e 6 Q. Do you believe, then,-that these~
7 individuals, McCoy, Frederick,-possibly Georgia 8 Power counsel, possibly others, discussed deletions v 9 of names?
10 A. They may have, I don't.know. ,
11 Q. Do you believe that that's the case?- Do gg 12 you believe there was some discussion? ,
d 13 A. Mr. Frederick indicated he got 14 communication from somebody to delete. That's as j 15 much as I know from our discovery. It's clear the 16 list is incomplete. It's also clear to me that a 17 complete list should have been able to be.obtained, 18 because the full scope of people was discussed.
19 Q. The full scope of people being discussed '
i 20 was Mr. Shipman's recollection; is that what you're '
21 referring to?
22 A. Well, there was a complete discussion of 23 this, Bockhold, McCoy, Aufdenkampe, Shipman, all 24 added their two cents worth in the discussion and
(")/
\- 25 the enumeration of who was on this call.
es n e ce
I i-283
- O 1 Q. Was there any conversation at that point l
2 in time about whetheroor not there were two calls or .
only one?
3 )
l 4 A. No. There was never a discussion of I 4
5 anything but call.A.
6 Q. 'And it*s your belief that they.all 7 understood what telephone conversation they were 8 referring to?
v i 9 A. Yes. The NRC had asked specific ,
10 questions and I believe everybody.in the OSI '
i 11 understood that~the responses were in-response to !
, 12 what I refer to as call A. 1 i ;
4 13 The NRC's questions were very specific as ,
14 to when was this subsequent to the test program l 15 added. I think everybody in that meeting understood ;
16 and subsequently from the depositions, I think the i
- 17 people have the same understanding from the. '
i 18 depositions we have taken.
l 19 Q. And in the course of that-meeting, who ;
, 20 suggested Mr. McCoy was on the conversation? ,
t !
i 21 A. I think Mr. McCoy acknowledged that he 1
22 had participated in the discussion. !
23 Q. You subsequently state in that same l 24 paragraph that Southern Nuclear sought to distance
$.O
" (,/ 25 the executives from involvement in attempt to cover )
1 l
k I
i 284 '
CE) up their role.
i 1 What do1you mean by.that?
~
2 A. Well, when you'look at the list'of1 people ,
3~ here, the highest level people are_'the_ people that l i
'are;omitted.
~
4 Mr. Hairston isinot on the call. Mr. 1 i
5 McCoy is not on the' call. l 6' From a variety:of responses that weJhave.
7 obtained over time, it seems like everybody at the.
q 8 vice-president level and up has'been; has-either- '!
?
'9 testified to:us or been deleted or, you know, the ;
JL(P story has come that these people are either-not.on.
t 11 the. call or they.were out of town. !
-12 There has been this attempt to indicate I i I j 13 that they weren't there, they weren't party, they j
- l l
14 weren't involved. That's what I mean by' distance !
- 15 themselves from involvement. i 1
16 Q. By the highest levels that weren't i
{ 17 enumerated in this list, would you also include
.I j 18 Messrs. Rushton, Bailey, and Ward?
4-j 19 A. No.
20: Q. There is.aLdifferent explanation for why.
(
- 21 they.weren't included on this list'even1though you_ i l
. 22 believe they were on the call?
23 A. Well, the speaking participants should L:24 have been obvious to everybody.
25 Q. .Why is that?
4
285
.p 1 A. Well, because they were the active 2- participants. Mr. Hairston spoke on this call. Mr.
3 McCoy spoke on this call.
4 The people that didn't say anything,.you 5 know, .I think it's, perhaps, more understandable 6 that, at least to Mr. Bockhold, perhaps, and to me 7 and Mr. Aufdenkampe and the people that maybe 8 weren't in the room in corporate, it's.a little more 9 understandable that those people wouldn't have had 10 as clear a memory of the nonspeaking participants, 11 but the speaking participants, I think, would have 12 been more likely to have been remembered, yet Mr.
/ i
\l 13 Hairston and Mr. McCoy, who spoke extensively on the 14 call, aren't on here, the two top guys.
15 Q. How long did this call take, by your 16 recollection or reconstruction?
17 A. It's hard for me to answer that because I 18 didn't have an opportunity to record the whole 19 call. It seems like the portion of the call that's 20 recorded may have been, I don't know, 20, 30 21 'e.inutes.
22 Q. So the call would have been more than a 23 half hour in length? !
24 A. Total, perhaps, b)
(, 25 Q. And how many sentences did Mr. Hairston
l
,- 286
.(
i
.; 1 have in the course of that call referred to as 2- ' extensive participation?
3 A. I need to look at the transcript to I i
- 4 decide that, but I remember, I have firsthand !
, o 5- recollection of a variety of things that Mr.
6 .Hairston.said about the operator, not leading the l 7 operator. i 8 You'know, there was some memorable 9 discussion-on that call by Mr. Hairston that was 4
10 apart from any. discussion of diesel starts. There 11 are several pages, I believe, of Mr. Hairston's g- 12 comments'that are recorded.
(. 13 Q. Who do you think was involved in;the
)
t j 14 - attempt to cover up the Southern Nuclear executives'
, 15 involvement?
16 A. I can't state a full scope of people. I
~
17 have been able to tell you-that I think Mr.
18 Frederick and Mr. McCoy had involvement in the list ,
19 not being, not accurately describing everybody that [
20 was identified but beyond that, I haven't been able 21 to tell from our discovery.
22 Q. But you think that by that, by cover up,
'23 by use of that term, that Mr. Frederick knew better 24 than what it.was he was listing was the participants i
- 25 in that call? '
)
l i
i
287
.f '
, s_/
1 A. We?l, Mr. Frederick heard, he heard 2 everything. He heard everybody state 1who~they 3 remembered was on the. call. He was-in the meeting.
4 He heard it. I heard it. It's documented'on the 5 tape.
l 6 He was tasked with writing.that down, and
- 7 he was asked at the time George, did you get.all
, 8 that, and he says yes. So he acknowledged thatLhe i
9 had heard and understood-the discussion, and he was 10 tasked with preparing the list a n.d then the other i j 11 piece of information that we have from our discovery I
12 is that he told us that later he was told to delete 13 some names.
14 Q. So was Mr. Bailey one of those that Mr.
- 15 Shipman enumerated as having been on the call?
l 16 A. Yes, he said Jim. I'm not sure he said 17 Bailey, but yes, I believe he enumerated Mr. Bailey, i
) 18 Q. And do you know whether Mr. Frederick l
- 19 then talked with Mr. Bailey and Mr. Bailey indicated 4 20 to them I was on vacation on April 19th?
21 A. I don't know that, no. j 22 Q. If such a conversation took' place, would !
23 it have been reasonable for Mr. Frederick to have 24 taken Mr. Bailey's name off the list?
I 'l
- () 25 A. If Mr. Bailey came to Mr. Frederick and i 4
1
l l
288 f~x. .
N-1 explained that that was an inaccuracy on it, yeah, 2 that would be reasonable.
3 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Frederick spoke 4 with any of the other individuals, Mr. Ward, Mr.
5 Rushton, Mr. McCoy or anyone else who said gee, I 6 wasn't there, I don't recall being there?
~
7 A. I don't, and we asked those specific 8 questions of Mr. Frederick hoping to get that 9 information, and he couldn't remember.
10 Q. What I'm asking, because it's a major 11 difference, is whether or not there could be equally g_ 12 plausible innocent mistakes being made here rather
\J 13 than misrepresentations or intentional deceit or 14 covar up, to use your terminology?
15 A. To answer that question, if a pattern did 16 not exist, that might be a plausible conclusion, 17 that this was innocent, but there'has developed a 18 pattern. In light of that pattern, I'm not --
19 that's part of my belief that it may not be 20 innocent.
21 Q. And you believe today that a fairly large 22 number of people intentionally misrepresented to the 23 NRC their knowledge of the facts?
24 A. With respect to this response?
(_/ 25 Q. Yes.
l 4
i 289 l
()
\_/ !
1 A. I don't know how.large a number. ,
2 Q. With respect to this and the other that 3 we have already discussed that we are going to 4 discuss more that you would include in that group, 5 Mr. McCoy, M r .. Frederick?
l
-6 A. Mr. McCoy probably.had involvement here.
- 7 Mr.-Frederick didn't really have'an involvement /in' l 8 the other.
9 Q. But with regard to this one he did?
10 A. With regard to this one, he had a 11 responsibility with regard to preparing'this 12 response or these responses to these questions.
13 Q. Mr. Bockhold, you would include in that 14 group?
15 A. That had responsibility for this, I don't 16 know what --
1 17 Q. No, not responsibility. I'm trying to 18 build the number of people who you believe in this 19 instance or in other instances all connected here, 20 knew better than what they were. telling the NRC, 21 that is, that they were a party to an intentional !
22 misrepresentation, an intentional inaccurate answer l 1
23 being given to the NRC.
24 A. Yeah, Mr. Bockhold may have had a role.
. A_) 25 Q. And while we are just on this question so l
290
/ \
V.
-1 that we understand it, who_else would'you list, Mr. l 2' Hairston?
3 A. I believe Mr. Hairston may have had a i
~
4 role, as well. .You.know, you're asking me to list 5 people based on a theory based on the discovery that 6 we have done.
7 Q. Mr. Mosbaugh, I'm asking you about the t
8 central theme of this case. .The case is all about 9 whether or not these people -- !
10 MR. KOHN: It's.about whether or not 11 Georgia. Power.
_ 12 MR. BLAKE: Sure, and Georgia Power 13 only speaks through people. It cannot speak 14 as a corporate entity. It must be based on 15 the people.
16 All of the issues in this case revolve 17 around your allegations of intentionally 18 deceiving the NRC, misrepresenting to the 19 NRC, lying, to use all these terms, and they 20 are tough questions, I understand, but it's 21 most tough for the people who are charged 22 with this.
23 THE WITNESS: The NRC had an i
24 opportunity to do their investigation of 25 these same issues, and the office of
6 i f
.291 l 1 ("~) . "
l \ /' 1 investigation has come t'o-some similar!
4
[ 2- conclusions independently from their 3 investigation as I believe to be true. j
- 4 So~it'.s notfjust revolving around me. ,
i.
l 5' Others have had an~ opportunity to1 j
' independently review'the.same occurrences.
j 6 r
j 7 Q. -( By Mr . Blake)- .Asfyou may know, we.are. 3
! 8 seeking to talk with'OI individuals and hopefully we 9 .will_get that opportunity; but for.the moment, we j 10 want to know what your views are'of these people and: I
{'
1 1' . how many people you think were. involved'in this
^
12 intentional knowing,- inaccurate information 13 providing to the NRC. l t
4 14 That's what we are seeking, and I would
(
15 like to have your information. You worked with .
16 these people. You know these people. YouLhave a-17 sense. You spent as much time on these facts and i 18 circumstances as anyone involved in this case.
19 A. That's fine.
20 Q. You are, after all, the reason that there 21 is a proceeding. So I-think I deserve to have your 22 view.
23- A. That's fine.
'24 MR. BLAKE: Any problems, Michael?
() 25 MR. KOHN: Other than the fact that I
i l
l I
292 f - ~1
- .1' think it is the actions of Georgia Power l 2' company that is the reason there-is~a 3 proceeding. With that clarification, that's f
4 fine.
S' MR. BLAKE: You will-agree,.however, l 1
6 that Georgia Power speaks throughLthe people 7 who were involved and that's how you come by L 8 that characterization.
l l
9 MR. KOHN: .I think it's a corporate 10' culture. So I do disagree. Georgia. Power is '
11 a wholly-owned. subsidiary of Southern ,
12 Company, and our allegat' ion'is that the 13 corruption runs all the way up to the 14 Southern Company. So I think Georgia Power 15 as an entire entity is suspect, as well, if 16 you're asking for my opinion.
l 17 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Now, the list that we i
18 were developing included Mr. McCoy, Mr. Frederick, 19 Mr. Hairston?
20 A. I would state with respect :to Mr.
21 Frederick, Mr. Frederick, I think, should have 22 developed an accurate list. He had access to.the ;
- )
I l
23 information. I i
24 He was told the information, and the list
(])25 he put out was inaccurate. Whether or not-he was l
l a . . . .
l I
293 1 part of a conspiracy, I don't know if he was in on 2- it, to use the word conspiracy, but I think Mr.
3 Frederick, I know Mr. Frederick had responsibility 4 for this being an accurate statement. .
5 He heard the facts and what he put out 6 wasn't accurate. Now, if he was directed, as he
{ 7 indicated, to eliminate names, then I don't know the 8 full extent of what he was directed to do, you know, .
9 I don't know what level of. conspiracy _or~ guilt that' t
10 assigns Mr. Frederick.
11 Some peo'ple, as part of'their
> 12 involvement, are doing the wishes of management. .
4 13 They think that they are doing the right thing-14 because they are doing what their management tells
{ 15 them to.
16 I think that gets into being part of a j 17 corporate culture, since we touched on those words, 18 but let's continue with the list.
! l l 19 Q. You mean that some of these people 20 believe it would be all right for them to provide 21 inaccurate information to the NRC because they had !
22 been directed to do so by their management?
23 MR. KOHN: Or Georgia Power attorneys.
4 24 MR. BLAKE: I'm just following his j O 25 information.
294
..M 4
t i
(/ 1 THE WITNESS: I think most employees, 2 and I have managed a good number of 3 employees, try to do what-their: management 4 asks them to do, and'it becomes a difficult 5 situation for an employee when his. management 6 is asking or implying or expecting him-to do 7 one thing and he has a different belief or 8 viewpoint, it becomes very difficult for. the 9 employee, and that's part of an atmosphere, 10 and that's part of a culture.
11 The employee ends.up with a fairly 12 difficult choice thatEhe has to make
( 13 sometimes in that environment, but I believe 14 there is a great deal of pressure on 15 employees to do what management wants them to 16 do, and I think some employees sometimes evenL 17 rationalize in their mind that it's okay even 18 though they may not be fully and 19 wholeheartedly in agreement; but it takes a 20 great deal of courage to put their foot down 21 and say.no, because they have seen what's 22 happened to some other people that have done 23 that, and it takes a lot of courage and I 24 think,- in a lot of cases, employees go along,
( 25 and I think that's part of an environment and
,- ., .- ~.. - - - . - - . . . . . . ...
i l
1..-
'295-1- part of a culture that existsiand existed, at l
2 least when I was there.at Vogtle"..
3 'Q. '(By? Mr.1 Blake) ~- Was there~ever an- ;
4 . instance where'you wereidirectedito say A whereLyou ,
u ..
- i. 5 . knew that A'wasn't correct? J 6 A. My experiences-were not, management is; ;
~
7 more subtle and more indirect,. the under' standings 8 are not so' direct'thatsomebody is just told to do j
- i 9 something.
- 10' It's an atmosphere ratherfthan black.and 11 white, like you say, told to do.something that's not
' 12 correct. It's more subtle, and that's.the way I j 13 perceive the atmosphere to exist. '
1
- 14 As far as that what you said right there, l 15 it was recommended to me, for example, by.a Georgia
) 16 Power attorney that I not divulge certain i
17 information that I knew in an OI interview. It <
18 wasn't you shall not divulge this. It's we don't 19 have to tell them about, he hasn't asked, so we I 20 don't have to tell him about that, .okay.
- 21. When you receive that type of instruction i-2 22 from an attorney or a high level manager, people are'_
i 23 sensitive to the level of position of these people i
j 24 that you're getting guidance from, and they don't
! 25 have to push real hard for you to get the picture of i
i
~ . - . .
. ~. _. - .-. . - - . .
1 J
1 i
296
/y -
' \ ): .
i 1 what they want, ,
i 2 Q. Let me go back to the list 1and when that l
- 3 . list was. developed and how this works and what you ;
4 understand to have been the culture.
5- It's your view that Frederick' published a 6 list with less names on it than what he understood 7- to have bee'n the information that he received?
i . . .
- 8 A. I don't know who published the list. .I i '
9 know that he was tasked with. preparing a response.
10 Q. It's your belief that Frederick generated j 11 a list in the end that had less people'on it than 1
- 12 the information he had' received.
13- A. That's my belief. l 14' Q. And, in fact, that the information he had !
- 15 received was accurate information?
16 A. That's more accurate, yes.
- _ 17 Q. But you see, the world can have a 1 18 difference like take Mr. Bailey alone, you would 19 fault Mr. Frederick for not having included Mr.
20 Bailey on this list even though you don't'know j 21 whether or not he talked with Mr. Bailey.and you I
- 22. don't even know whether Mr. Bailey was, in fact, .on i 23 vacation at that time in Hawaii, thousands of miles 24 away?
'25 A. I think you make a good point with that.
, . . , . , . s .,
1 g 297 i :
Gl.
1 The addition, the eroneous addition of extra people 2 on this list is not particularly substantive.
3 This list was prepared in response to 4 specific questions the NRC was asking in a very 5 special inspection, the operational safety 6 inspection which there had been five done in the 7 history of the nuclear power industry.
8 I believe the NRC was interested, they l, 9 posed written questions, which was unusual; and they 10 wanted an answer as to who are the witnesses, who 11 are the participants, who should we go to, who are r""Nl 12 the sources of information to put an extra, to
(
%-)
13 inadvertently put an extra person on here that may 14 have innocently been added to the list by error only 15 results in the NRC going to that person and saying :
16 hey, I was in Hawaii and here are the pictures or a 17 here are my tickets, but to omit people f rom t'J '
18 list means that the NRC doesn't get a complete l 19 picture as to who they should talk to, who they !
20 should interview, and who is a witness to the 21 activity.
22 So youz example in Mr. Bailey, the l 23 significance of an eroneous addition hers isn't that
,3
, 24 important, and I have yet to determine if Mr. Bailey l r i i
\- 25 should or should not be included on the list.
l l
l i
-R 298
=
lo f 1 The fact that the two top guys, Mr.
as we get to the corporate officers, I
2 McCoy, as soon f corporate officers, Mr.
I 3
as soon as we get to the 4
McCoy, Mr. Hairston, and I will add Mr. Mcdonaldwe testimony, Mcdonald's DOL 5 because when we did Mr.
in the office on this very same 6 asked him if he was l
7 day, and he said no, he was out of town.
So the picture we get is that with Mr.
8 the whole chain of command, 9
McCoy, Mr. Hairston, That's the pattern.
They are gone.
they are out.
10 And it's' your belief that that pattern is 11 Q. rather, not just a matter of error or mistake but 12 there and 13 then, intentional concoction of who was l
14 who was not? and this isn't just A.
The three top guys, 15 l 16 from the same document, this has to do with of Mr.
Labor /
17 Mcdonald's sworn testimony in a Department he stated he was not in the office.
18 deposition, that he was.
'9 Later we found out and he had 1 He was, indeed, in the office, 20 not on call eight, to my knowledge, 21 participation, 22 but in the review to this LER. for a MR. KOHN:
Is this a good time 23 24 lunch break?
MR. BLAKE: Sure.
25 1
- - - - - - _ ~~
299_ ;
A l'~'\ i q ,J.
l' (A luncheon recess was taken.) -!
2 Q. (By-Mr. Blake) Focussing on the same 3 memorandum, at the top ofLthe page which includes 4 headings' April 1, 1991, Southern' Nuclear Response, 5 I think it's the next page'from the one we were f
- 6. discussing, at the top of that page you indicate 7 that Ken McCoy failed'to correct the omission of 8 three s *ff personnel in the White Paper, in- j 9 essence. ,
10 Do you see that' portion of-it where.you 11 fault Mr. McCoy for that?
l 12 A. Yes. '
13 Q. Assuming that Mr. Bailey was in Hawaii 14 during this time period, do you think it's fair to 15 fault Mr. McCoy for not inserting his name in the i 16 list of participants if he, in fact, knew that M r .-
17 Bailey was in Hawaii?
18 A. I think the sentence that you're talking 19 about, I make reference saying most importantly 20 failed to correct the omission of himself, but if 21 Mr. Bailey wasn't present, no, I would not fault Mr.
22 McCoy because that would be accurate.
23 Like I said, I haven't determined if 24 there is contradictory evidence as to Mr. Bailey.
(.) 25 So I think that's something that needs further
P l
300 )
( )
\_/ 1- investigation.
2 Q. Do you think it would be equally unfair i
3 to criticize Mr. McCoy for failing to correct the ,
4 omission of his three staff. personnel if, .in fact, 5 he believed all three were not there? :
6 A. Well, he was present when Mr. Shipman ;
7 identified them as being'present. So he would have 8 heard that and he would have heard Mr. Shipman say i 9 Louis just said he was involved, too, or there, 10 too.
11 So it would seem that Mr. McCoy would i
12 have had that' firsthand. knowledge that those people .
I 13 were there.
14 Q. Do you know whether or not he actually 15 asked Mr. Rushton or Mr. Bailey or Mr. Ward.whether i
16 or not they were there?
17 A. No, I don't. I don't know what 18 additional investigation'Mr. McCoy did. In j i
19 depositions when we have asked, what we have gotten ;
20 is most of the people don't remember all the 21 people.
22 So the best evidence I feel we have-is 23 the statem, ts actually made in 1990.
24 Q. What if, in fact, the factual statement
(~) 25 in 1990 is the list which excludes these people V
I l
l l
.,. , .I
l l
301
/N 1 because that shows Mr. Frederick having discussed it 2 with these people, whether or not they were there?
3 MR. KOHN: Object, it assumes facts not 4 in evidence and contrary to the testimony.
5 THE WITNESS: I didn't hear your whole 6 question.
7 Q. ~(By Mr. Blake) I said the fact is not 8 necessarily what you believe but whether or not the 9 people were, in fact, on the call and what if the 10 list, in omitting those three people, is based on 11 these three people's input to Mr. Frederick or 7- 12 someone else at that point in time?
13 A. It would be contradictory to what the 14' people said during the OSI. So again --
15 Q. No, it would be consistent.
16 A. Mr. Ward said that he was involved in 17 call A.
18 Q. Mr. Shipman reported that h understood 19 Mr. Ward to have said that.
20 A. That was a live --
Mr. Ward, based on my 21 review of the transcript, was in the room with Mr.
22 Shipman and he turned aside to him and asked him 23 something cnd Mr. Ward indicated back to Shipman and 24 Mr. Shipman said Louis just said he was involved.
\
(~~/
(_ 25 So there was a live discussion of Mr.
I J
l 302 )
() 1 Ward's involvement during the 0SI conference call ;
2 and meeting. So that seems to be good evidence to l 3 me. >
4 Q. And your good evidence-on Mr. Bailey and ,
1 5 Mr. Rushton is independent of whether or not any 6 conversations other than that'one comment by Mr. --
7 A. I.think Mr. Aufdenkampe indicated Rushton I 8 as a participant and Mr. Shipman also did. Like I 9 said, I also have a remembrance of Rushton's i
10 participation on the call. l 11 Q. Did you provide that input-to Mr.
12 Frederick or to the White Paper response? {
13 A. All the necessary people identified, were 14 identified and were discussed in the meeting. So l 15 Mr. Frederick had the input he needed.
16 He did not come to me and ask for i
17 additional input from me. Apparently in the meeting 18 he said he had everything he needed and he i
i 19 acknowledged that with that input, he could prepare ;
20 the response.
21 Q. So is the answer to my question no? l 22 A. I didn't provide input to Mr. Frederick.
23 Q. Shifting to the next page which is 24 entitled at the top Fall / Winter 1991, in the next.
O 25 to the last paragraph on the page, the one sentence
. -. 1
s
, 303
(
%./-l 1 paragraph, you indicate that Mosbaugh recognized '
2 that.Aufdenkampe has errored in stating that 3 Hairston had not participated in the diesel start 4 portions of the call.
5 With particular reference to the use of 6 your word errored, to you was that the same as 7 misrepresented or lied or intentionally deceived or 8 covered up or something different?
9 A. Well, I really don't have enough facts to 10 do that differentiation for you.
11 My knowledge of how Mr. Aufdenkampe's rN 12 affidavit was arrived at is fairly limited and is i )
%J 13 based on a couple of conversations with Mr.
14 Aufdenkampe.
15 I believe that his affidavit was modified 16 over time because he couldn't -- or that he didn't 17 disagree with its original content.
18 So I don't know what degree of persuasion.
19 or changes, persuasion that might have been involved i l
20 with the subsequent revisions to his affidavit, so I I 21 would have to know a lot more about that before I j 22 could state that his affidavit was a 23 misrepresentation or a cover up or the other terms
,~ 24 you used. ;
25 It's possible that Mr. Aufdenkampe had no
304 1 1
s 1 memory of Mr. Hairston being on that portion of the 2 call, but I just don't know enough facts and we I
3 haven't been able to do discovery in this area. So !
4 it's hard for me to answer that.
5 Q. So what you do know is that it was 6 incorrect but you can't ascribe to him any motive?
7 A. I would-think additional investigation 8 which we have been unable to do would be.necessary 9 to ascribe motive and how, and that would include 10 looking at all the drafts, seeing how it changed 11 over time and having an explanation from him as to 12 how it changed; but it was my understanding based on mi 13 my conversation with Mr. Aufdenkampe that the 14 original affidavit and what he was told by lawyers i
15 was that he was the only one that recalled Mr.
16 Hairston had been on that call, meaning any portion ,
17 of that call.
18 It appeared to me that maybe he was being 19 persuaded by those statements to go along wi'th that, 20 but apparently he wouldn't go clong with it and then l 21 he remembered that Hairston was on the call. i
]
22 Then it looks like maybe it was changed )
23 to say that Hairston was on the call but maybe was 24 on some limited portion of the call and-attempted to
,.-s) 25 state that Mr. Hairston wasn't involved in diesel
-(' )
305
(~3 1 discussions which was, I think, a key element of 2 Hairston's participation.
3 Q. On the next page, the October 3, 1991 4 portion, what was footnote three that you referred 5 to there?
6 A. Footnote three is the footnote from 7 Georgia Power's original response to the 2.206 8 petition that I believe was dated April 1st, 1991.
9 ,
Q. And what did it state?
10 A. It said, I think I wrote it down 11 somewhere. Basically it said that Hairston was not 12 a participant in the late afternoon phone call.
(~h x_/ 13 Those were the key words out of it. It was longer 14 than that.
15 I,think it was contained in here 16 somewhere. It's contained a couple pages before and 17 is identified as footnote three.
18 Q. Go ahead and read it.
19 A. The wording was reviewed by site and 20 corporate representatives in a telephone conference 21 call late on April 19, 1990. Although Mr. Hairston 22 was not a participant in that call, he had every 23 reason to believe that the final draft LER presented 24 to him after the call was accurate and complete.
r)\
( 25 Q. Now, you state here in this portion of 1
306 O
V .1 your memorandum that includes the tit October 3, i
2 1991 that footnote three was a material false 3 statement intended to obstruct justice. Do you see !
4 that' statement?
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. Who was involved in this material false 7 statement intended to obstruct justice? ;
8 A. Well, I don't know. The response to the 9 2.206 petition was developed after I left the 10 employment of Georgia Power Company, and I don't I 11 know all that much about who prepared it. I know i 12 that Mr. Mcdonald signed it.
A
(_) 13 Q. And what's your basis for saying it was a 14 material false statement intended'to obstruct 15 justice?
16 A. Well, it denies that Mr. Hairston was on 17 the call. It also states that Mr. Hairston had 18 every reason to believe that the LER was accurate.
19 Knowing that Mr. Hairston was on the call 20 and Mr. Hairston participated in diesel discussions l l
21 and Mr. Hairston participated in a discussion where I i
22 he asked about starts and trips and that he 23 participated in a discussion where it was told or i 24 responded to that we just disavow, I would say Mr.
() 25 Hairston had good reason to believe that there was a i
I
l
-11 307 1 Q#'s '
i) ' 1 false statement'being made'in the LER and apparently l f
2 went.along with it. t l
3 This footnote attempts to distance Mr.
4 Hairston from' involvement by denying-that he f 5 participated in that call and by saying that he had i 6 no reason to believe that there was any incorrect i 7 i information.
8 Q. What was the date of this footnote three, 9 'about? What ~ was the date of this statement ~being
-10 made in footnote'-three? j 11 MR. KOHN: The date of Mr. Mcdonald's ;
i 12 2.206 response. j 1
13 THE WITNESS: I already responded to i
~14 that but the 2.206 petition response was 15 given April 1st of 1991, I believe. i l
16 Q. (By Mr. Blake) And it's your' belief that-17 as of April 1st, 1991, Mr. Hairston knew better-than 18 what was stated in that footnote?
19 A. Well, I would think so. Mr. Mcdonald, I 20 believe, subsequently indicated that he asked Mr. ,
i 21 Hairston about it. l 5
22 So apparently Mr. Hairston had input into '
23 this, to the 2.206 response. I would say surely Mr.
24 Hairston would have remembered his participation in d ) 25 that call. So he was asked about it. He had input
l j- 308' i j-f 1 into it, and nonetheless the footnote states that he I . ,
- i. -2 wasn't involved. .
3 Q. Do you think Mr. Mcdonald knew better-I i .
. in?that footnote?
4 than what was being stated ;
i 5 A. I. don't know. To my knowledge Mr. {
.- .6 Mcdonald wasn't on the late afternoon call, call A, !
i 7 but I think Mr. Mcdonald,'let me say Mr. Mcdonald l 8 knew or should have known better, yes. [
9 Q. Is there anybody else that you think' '
} 10 recognized this to be inaccurate information and, l 11 nevertheless, was a. party to i t s - s u b m i s s'i o n ? ' '
i 12 A. Georgia Power had all the witnesses 13 necessary to determine-who was on that call in their '
14 employ, and I can't understand why.Mr. McDonal'd and.
- j. 15 Mr. Hairston, with all their resources, couldn't '
16 have written an accurate footnote.
17 I don't know who else was involved in the ;
- - 18 preparation and review of footnote three. I know I 19 Mr. Hairston was asked and must have been involved 20 and Mr. Mcdonald obviously must have been involved.
21 He signed it, and he asked Mr. Hairston, 22 apparently.
23 That's everybody I can remember from our
- 24 discovery that said they were involved ~ in this 25 section of the response.
L\ [Jb
. . - -- ~ ~ . . . . . . . - - - . . . . , -
i' 4
309 Y i
. \_/
{"} 1 Q. But this, in your mind, is not just a i"
2 matter of not1 remembering,' this is a matterJof
'3 remembering and yet putting down different i 4 information other than what they remembered? _;
] 5 A. Mr. Hairston and Mcdonald knew orJshould l 3
6- have known enough information-.to give an accurate j i
7 response here. i
'l
. 8 Q. And, in fact, they didn't.know better and l
- 9 that's why you say it was intended to obstruct' f t
10 justice; is that your position? ,
I 11 A. I certainly believe Mr. Hairston'would !
t t
, 12. have known he was on the call. It was'a memorable !
13 call. i
! 14 Q. And what did you-mean by intended to J
l
! 15 obstruct justice?
- 16 A. Well, I had submitted with'Mr. Hobby a j 17 2.206 petition to the NRC asking for the review of i t
18 these issues and appropriate action taken against !
.i .
j 19 Georgia Power's license, and this was anothe'r
[
20 example of Georgia Power trying to distance their l 4
i 21 executives from the involvement in the making of the l s 22 false statement. ,
J 23 Here by Mr. Hairston saying that he i 24 wasn't involved, he wasn't on the call or by Mr.
[~h 25 Mcdonald, rather, saying Mr. Hairston wasn't on the
(_)
f
. i i
l 1
310 1 call, they were trying to mislead the NRC'as to the j . 2 appropriate witnesses'and as to the appropriate -
1 3 involvement of Mr. Hairston. I 4- 1 4
4 Q. And you're not able to identify anyone 5 else who was involved in this other than'Mr. .;
j 6 Mcdonald knowing better or should'have known1better? [
. - l' 7 A. _Well, I will add that apparently'some 8 lawyers were involved _because from.the testimony we-9 have obtained, affidavits were obtained from a
- 10 variety of people and it seems to me that that
- 11 included Mr. Hairston.
12 I think from our discovery, that's pretty
< /~T
(_) 13 much the people we found had been involved in 14 preparing this. Mr. Bailey indicated he had been 15 involved in some of the 2.206 petition response, but t
16 I don't recall us hearing from Mr.JBailey's :
17 involvement in this portion. I think his statements 18 were fairly general, that he was involved in general 19 with the 2.206 response. ,
20 Q. In the call A, as you use that term, did 21 Mr. Hairston participate in conversations-with 22 people on the other end of'the conference call or 23 simply with the people-who were in the room near his 24 office?
() 25 A. You said near his office. I didn't-think l i
- , _ . . . _ , .- , , .. -m. m
311 1 it was near Mr. Hairston's. office, but which end are-2 you. referring to?
3 Q. He stepped into a room-in'which.the 4 . participant, the people in that room were 5 participants to a conference call.
'6 A. Right.
7 MR. KOHN: That assumed that he stepped 8 .in, that'he wasn't there from1the beginning.
9 We don't know that.
10 MR. BLAKE: That'C fair.
11 Q. (By Mr. Blake) He was in theiroom for a 12 portion of the time in the room with participants O
\_) 13 who were at one end'of the conference call?
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. Is it your belief that he communicated 16 with people at the other end of that conference 17 call? Did he know that there was a conference call 18 going on?
19 A. I believe they were on a speaker phone in 20 corporate, so yes.
21 Q. Because he was in the roomLwhile 22 conversation was coming over the speaker phone?
23 A. He would have been hearing'my voice or 24 John Aufdenkampe's voice or Mr. Bockhold's voice.
() 25 Q. Interspersed with his own comments to
312
,\
i,
)
1 people, that is, he would have, from your listening 2 to the transcript, you can determine --
3 A. I guess to answer your question, it would 4 be best to look at the portion of the transcript.
S Q. Have you thought about this before? Have 6 you thought of the question of whether or not he 7 knew that there was an ongoing conference call?
8 A. I'm fairly certain he knew there was an 9 ongoing conference call. He participated actively 10 in it.
11 Q. And he talked actively with people at the 12 other end in another location on the conference
/~
(_h) 13 call?
14 A. Well, I said the best way to look at 15 that, review that, would be to look at tha 16 transcript.
, 17 Q. I'm trying to ask you now whether or not j l
18 you thought about this before or whether or not he !
19 thought he was just stepping into a room and talking 20 with people --
21 A. I don't believe --
I-believe Mr. Hairston 22 knew that there was a conference call going on.
23 (Discussion ensued off the record.)
24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Turn, Mr. Mosbaugh, if n
(x, ) 25 you would, a couple more pages to the section
J l
313 -]
rx 1 b- -
1 entitled GPC's Fails to Disclose Existence of 2- Affidavits'During Discovery in ASLB Proceeding; ]
3 In that section in the first paragraph, i i
,- 4 you say that GPC failed to' identify the affidavits -;
5 in their response to question number 54. Did you ;
6 mean to say by that that GPC did something-wrong or.
7 intentionally wrong?
4 8 What do you mean by failed'to disclose or 9 are you simply pointing out that we didn't identify-10 the affidavits?
11 A. My understanding and my basis for this, I 4
12 believe, comes from a filing of- a motion from my 13 counsel, and my understanding was that those 14 documents should have been identified in this i 15 interrogatory response, and they weren't.
16 Q. So you mean not only were'they not i 17 identified, but something wrong was done in not 18 identifying them? .
I 19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Going to the next paragraph'there, Even 21 More Telling is Southern Nuclear's Current Stance on j 22 the Affidavits.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. The last paragraph of that section, you 25 state furthermore, in filings with the ASLB,
- . , , , ,, , ---.e,- #
i
.1 l
l J
314 }
i O- 1 Southern Nuclear's. lawyers admitted ~that.Aufdenkampe 2' had conversations about the affidavits with Mosbaugh l 3 but denied that Mosbaugh had been shown .l
-4 Aufdenkampe's affidavit. This is false?
5 A. Uh-huh. l I
6 Q. What is it-that'gives you a basis'for j 7 stating that Southern Nuclear's lawyers denied that- ]
i 8 Mosbaugh had'been shown Aufdenkampe's' affidavit? !
9 A. I think it'sayslin filings, that: the 10 structure of the sentence is in filings'with~the 11 ASLB, and my recollection is that in the filing with 12 the ASLB, that came 'f rom Southern Nuclear's lawyers ,
() 13 it was stated t.h a t I had not.been~shown the 14 affidavit, and that's false. I was shown'the 15 affidavit.
16 Q. Let me give you a copy of some filings, 17 and if you would take a section, working with Mr.
18 Kohn on this one if you want to, and tell me what it 19 is you're relying on for that statement.
20 A. Let me just tell you what I-remember 21 about the filings. I believe the filing was made 22 with the ASLB that said that I had had conversations 23 with Aufdenkampe, as this states here.
24 Then I believe the filing said something-j ). 2 5 about that Aufdenkampe either was saying or was
r
't l -315 {
UC:) ;
21 saying.that' his. wife said-that I'had not been : shown !
l . . .
1 2 the affidavit, and'that's?not true. 'I was shown-the i 14 3 affidavit. ,
l
{' 4 .So"the filint .t was madeEto the ASLB, a 5 was presenting facts that claimed'I didinot, was not:
6 shown the affidavit. -Those facts'.being presented 7 are false. I was shown the affidavit, there is:no ;
8 question abou't that. l 9 Q. .Did you.think that;the. lawyers 'i
)
10 ' misrepresented something?- !
11 A. I don't know wheie the error, l 1
12 misrepresentation, whatever, came from!because, one, i 1 13 we are not allowed discovery in this; area and LI" i
14 don't know who told what to whom and where the 15 problem is. ,
16 The information presented to the board 17 was a factual picture that I had not been shown it, 1
18 and that's false. That's exactly what this says. ;
i 19 Q. It's false because you recall having.been 20 shown it by Mrs. Aufdenkampe?
21 A. That's correct. I have seen it, and I 22 was shown it. That's what the next sentence says.
23 Q. The next sentence being?
24 A. Mrs. Aufdenkampe provided to Mosbaugh her
() 25 husband's affidavit to read and witnessedi meaning
I I
316
~ i
)
{%s}. 1 she witnessed, Mosbaugh reading the affidavit.
2 Mosbau'gh also had follow-up conversations, that 3 sentence is exactly what~ happened. I 4 Q. Is it the same instance that was stated' 5 at one point by you or your counseling that Mr.
6 Aufdenkampe hadLshown you the affidavit?
.i 7 A. There was a statement made in a. filing
~
i 8 that I think we have discussed before which' after'I ,
9 read, went back to my counsel and made sure.that a 10 complete clarification was immediately made; that 11' when I read it, the inference.was that I-had 12 possibly been permitted or allowe'd to-be shown it, 13 and the inference was that that came from
- f 14 Aufdenkampe and that was wrong:and that it was his. ,
15 wife, and I immediately tried to get.that and did .
16 get that clarified.
17 Yeah, that's what we are talking about.
18 We are not talking about.two different showings, if.
i 19 that's your question.
- i. l l 20 Q. Yes, that's my question. So the answer '
i 21 "is yes, it was the same instance?
'i i.
.. 22 A. There~has only been one instance where I:
23 saw it, that's-correct. 'I 24 Q. Turn a couple pages later to the ,
4
( ) 25 Executive Summary Vogtle. Diesel Operabil'ity. It's
- i e
l
_ , , , , . , .. .. -...J.,,.,_.. , , , . , , , .,r. _ _ .
317 .
l l
L(:)L 'l-in the sameipackage of' documents which has been 1 o
2- identified as Mosbaugh Exhibit 1DG-3. ,
3 Up in the background section'of this i
-4 document, it states that onc4/1/90, George-Bockhold 5 went directly to'an1 1ndividual'two. levels down to 6- assign that' individual a-task. Did'you think Mr.. -
7 Bockhold'did something wrong'in doing.this? l 8 A. Wrong in the senseL that it was not-proper-l 9 use.of blind management'and reporting-and in:a j 10 management. structure, doing.somethingLlike this can. ,
11 often lead to problems and confusion. ,
12 Q. .But'there is not.some ill-motive, some- l 13 evil intent here, it's simply that'he did not use:
14 proper management technique? I
^
15 A. I don't know. That is another 16 interpretation on that action. To-go~directly to 17 'somebody without telling the people in'between would i 18 be unusual, I think, and the individual involved 19 here had some, I will say negative feelings about i 20 that, as well, about being given an assignment 21 directly by his bosses, boss' boss. I don't have 22 enough facts to know if there was any improper 23 intent by Mr. Bockhold or not.
24 Q. .Why do you think he did dc t?
f) 25 A. Well, I believe he went to this
318
,,.~.
f A
'- 1 individual to get certain data that he wanted for a 2 certain executive summary of diesel operability, 3 White Paper that he wanted to give to Ken Brockman 4 and he wanted it to go to Mr. Ebneter to further 5 support and further convince the NRC that'Vogtle's 6 diesels were reliable and ready for restart.
7 Q. Do you know whether he attempted to reach 8 either you or Mr. Aufdenkampe'to get this 9 informati.c?
10 A. Well, I don't recall him attempting to 11 reach me.
12 Q. Do you know whether he attempted to reach
( \
(,,) 13 you or Mr. Aufdenkampe to get this information?
14 A. With regard to Mr. Aufdenkampe, I don't 15 believe he did from our discovery that we have done, 16 as far as reaching. I would have no knowledge as to 17 what he may have attempted.
18 Q. If Mr. Bockhold wanted information and i 19 attempted to reach you or Mr. Aufdenkampe, should he 20 just wait until he is able to contact you all?
21 A. Well, Mr. Aufdenkampe and I had beepers, 22 and Mr. Bockhold made it a habit, if he wanted to 23 reach us, to reach us at any time including calling 24 us at home.
/s I) 25 So the mechanisms were all set up for our
319 O
\~/ 1' access to Mr. Bockhold at any time andLhe frequently 2 would access us. So it was there and he normally 3 used it, and he didn't in this case.
4 Q. But you don't know what-his reasoning 5 was, and you don't know whether or not he attempted' 6 to reach the two of you?
7 A. I don't know what' attempts he made.and I 8 don't know what his reason was.
9 Q. Down lower on that page under the title 10 The omission,'you state what Bockhold excluded-from 11 the ESVDO was the data for 1990, the most recent 12 data, the most representative, et cetera.
O(_/ 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What do you mean by the most 15 representative data?
16 A. Well, when this data is used for trending 17 and due to various effects, age, wear, temperature, 18 weather, quality of maintenance, quality of 19 operations, whatever may affect the diesel' in its 20 operability and its reliability, I would say that in 21 Jeneral the most recent data is the best indicator 22 of the future because it represents the conditions 23 that the diesel, of all tha different things that' 24 affect reliability, it represents what environment,
() 25 quality of maintenance and operation the diesel has
320 0 1 been seeing most recently.
2 That's why I believe the 1990-is the most 3 representative. It would be the data that would be 4 first to show a negative trend or an adverse trend 5 and to indicate just from pure statistical reasons, 6 what had been happening in the most recent term.
7 Q. What about the day before's data?
8 A. This data isn't compiled on a day-by-day 9 basis. It's compiled on a month-by-month basis.
10 Q. And how-long does it'take to compile the 11 data?
12 A. It's compiled monthly.
13 Q. On the first day of each subsequent 14 month, this data is available for the preceding 15 month?
16 A. I don't know what exactly the engineer 17 that does this, what his cut off dates are, but it's 18 put out monthly. I know that.
19 Q. Do you know whether or not the data for 20 March was available on 4/1/90?
21 A. I know that the data that was available 22 on 4/1/90 or thereabouts when Mr. Bockhold went to 23 get this was .08, because that's what the engineer 24 that prepared the data for'Mr. Bockhold told me and, f 25 I believe, also had told Mr. Bockhold.
l 321
- A'~ ~h
'J 1 So the most recent data was a safety
- 2 system performance indicator of .08 which is far l
3 worse, is worse than --
far~ worse than the '89 data 4 and it's worse than either the '87 or the '88 data.
5 Q. And when did'the engineer tell you that?
6 A. He told me that the day I talked to him.
7 That is on a. tape recording.
8 Q. Do you remember about what that date was?
9 A. Around 4/2 maybe, in that vicinity, the 10 first couple days in April.
11 Q. And the .08 was a comprehensive figure 12 for the first three months of 1990?
O)
(_ 13 A. Yeah, I believe that was the summary that 14 was the current. I believe this data is prepared on 15 a rolling average, a 12-month rolling average, and 16 that was the current value.
17 Q. For the preceding 12 months?
18 A. However it's compiled. INPO, I think, 19 requires this to be a 12-month rolling average. It 20 may have been a trailing 12 or it may have been the 21 12 months of the year, and I'm not sure. The 22 engineer that compiled-it thought that .08 was a bad 23 number.
24 Q. On the next page where you refer in the
() 25 middle of the paragraph entitled Bockhold
322
(~b 1 Intentionally Omitted the 1990 Data, to the fact 2 that monthly reports were provided to all executives 3 up through Hairston and Farley, what's your basis 4 for that?
5 A. That the monthly reports, that he 6 intentionally omitted it or the second statement?
7 Q. The second statement.
8 A. The distribution on these performance 9 reports.
10 Q. It included Mr. Hairston and Mr. Farley 11 at that point in time?
12 A. I believe the people I indicate here are fs
()
_ 13 based on a copies list from such a performance 14 report, and I believe that Mr. McCoy, Hairston, and 15 Farley are all accurate.
16 Q. As being on the copies list.
17 Q. The next paragraph, the next sentence 18 after that, Bockhold also knew of the intended use 19 of the ESVDO?
20 A. Right. l 21 Q. To give to Brockman and Ebneter of the l l
22 NRC as part of the 4/9/90 presentation.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. What is your basis for that? ,
tN \
( ,) 25 A. He told me that.
323
/~'T O 1 Q. That that's what the purpose of this was, 2 Mr. Bockhold?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And you recall him telling you or it 5 appears on a tape?
6 A. I don't believe I have an independent 7 recollection of him telling me that, but it is on a 8 tape that I reviewed, and that is what he said.
9 Q. And at the bottom of that page under 10 ESVDO is provided to the NRC, the last sentence, it 11 appears that P.h e ESVDO diesel reliability data may 12 have been included in the COA draft information f~)%
(_ 13 provided to the NRC by corporate?
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. What's your basis for that?
16 A. Well, when we reviewed as part of 17 discovery the blue folders, we found a draft of the 18 COA that had this table, which is on the top of the 19 page that we have been talking about that has 1987, 20 '88, '89 data on it, we found a copy of that table 21 in a draft of the COA, the April 9th letter.
22 We saw, also, in the same section of the
, 23 blue folder were some faxes to the NRC. It appeared 24 that a draft like that may have been part of that (n) 25 faxing. It was hard to tell e.cactly what had been
324 6
L \- 1 faxed.
2 Like it says, it appears that it may have 3 been included because it was part of'the blue-folder 4- and it was right in back of some fax sheets to NRC 5 personnal.
6 Q. Have you ever asked the NRC?
7 A. Well, it has come to our attention that' 8 this was provided to the NRC, to the IIT.
9 Q. That's not what you're referring to here, 10 to the IIT.
11 A. No. I believe-that what I'm referring to 12 may have been included, I don't believe that would 13 have been the same transmission to the NRC as the 14 IIT, and I don't believe we have --
I think'I have 15 at some point discussed with the NRC whether or not 16 they ever received this, and I think they were going 17 to look into it, but I haven't gotten word back from 18 the NRC other than what we learned about the IIT 19 document.
20 Q. Next page, Materiality, the first 21 statement at the top, NRC used the ESVDO 22 information, et cetera. What is the basis for that?
~
23 A. Well, my belief is that based on the 24 document we found in discovery, it has very similar 25
) to this, and it has this table of safety system
325
\- 1 performance indicator data on it, and ~ it has it 2 written at the top presented 4/2/90 and gives a 3 particular time.
4 That indicated to me ~ and my belief is 5 that it must have been presented at the IIT exit 6 meeting which occurred on that date at approximately 7 that time. If that's correct, that document we have-8 got in discovery,'it would appear that some 9 presentation of this material occurred at the IIT' 10 exit, and the IIT exit at that time was all part of 11 the NRC's process to wrap up their work on the site 12 and then turn over the decision to restart from the m
13 IIT to the region.
14 So this was all part of the NRC's ,
15 activity to, let me say this, predecessor activities i 16 to the' actual granting of permission to restart. i I
17 So that's why I make that statement is it {
18 looks like this document was provided to the NRC 19 right at the exit and was part of the whole process 20 by which the NRC evaluated this and a lot of other 21 information and gave permission to restart.
1 22 Q. Have you ever asked the NRC whether or 23 not this document or this table played a role?
F 24 A. Well, like I say, I asked the NRC if they L
() 25 could identify that this had been provided to them.
326
/T V 1 Like I say, I haven't heard back from the NRC as to 2 how and where it was provided and what use was made 3 of it by them.
4 That would be valuable information to get 5 that back and I'm sure we will get that in the 6 course of the NRC's looking into this.
7 Q. What is the basis for your statement 8 here?
9 A. The basis for my statement is this was 10 part of a formal presentation, it is my belief that 11 this document and this table was part of a formal
,_ 12 presentation at the IIT exit, why the licensee to 13 the NRC.
- 14. Q. And I understand why that would sustain 15 the statement it was provided to the NRC, but the 16 missing link to me, what I'm missing is how do you 17 say that the NRC used the information in its 18 decision-making process to grant release on 4/12/90?
19 A. I say it was used in its overall 20 decision-making process to grant release. The NRC 21 has stated that it evaluated a broad spectrum or 22 broad, large number of aspects, and I would have 23 thought this would have been one of them, especially 24 if it's correct that it was presented, I believe, at O
(,) 25 the exit meeting.
l
i 327 A
1 The NRC exiting with the IIT, you know, 2 is based in part that they were getting enough 3 information to believe that the problems had been 4 properly diagnosed and the diesels were reliable and 5 there was no major problem. This would seem to me 6 to have been an important piece of information in 7 their assessment.
8 Furthermore, Mr. Bockhold had told me 9 that he intended this to be given to Brockman to be 10 given to Ebneter. Ebneter and Brockman were both 11 key players in the decision-making process, and I 12 haven't yet confirmed that what Mr. Bockhold told me 13 had occurred.
14 All we have identified so far is this IIT 15 exit and an IIT document number. I'm hoping to get 16 some additional information if it was given to the 17 NRC through other channels.
18 Q. You see, what I'm trying to seek is what 19 level of information that you require before you 20 make a statement of fact, and this one doesn't say 21 anything about --
22 MR. KOHN: First I would like to --
23 MR. BLAKE: Let me just finish and then 24 you may speak. You see the statement doesn't O)
(, 25 say anything about I surmise or because I
328 1 know it was provided or I think it was 2 provided, the IIT exit, that it's'likely that 3 the NRC used it.
4 I don't see any of that language like 5 you just referred to here. That's why I'm 6 asking you what the basis is for your making 7 the very straightforward statemen 8 affirmative statement like you did.
9 I'm trying to get some sense for your 10 willingness to make these kinds of 11 statements. Now, before you answer, I know 12 Mr. Kohn wants to speak.
rs k_ 13 MR. KOHN: I will let him respond and 14 if I think anything is needed, I will add it.
15 THE WITNESS: I prepared these 16 write-ups to Mr. Kohn, and the subject of 17 these write-ups is stated on the first page, 18 attorney client communication to Michael D.
19 Cone from Allen Mosbaugh, subject, for 20 preparation for ASLB deposition, 21 stipulations, hearings on diesel generator 22 issues.
23 All these documents are captions like
! 24 that at the top, and so I was attempting to
/~T
'( )
25 put the best information and my best beliefs
329 k_- - 1 down-to my lawyer and in the course of 2 discovery, I'have made modifications.to these 3 as more has been learned.
4 These statements are accurate based on 5 my-best' belief and the information we have 6 obtained through. discovery.. That's the 7 purpose of the document. These are. subject 8 to change if we get additionalLinformation
'9 through additional discovery to modification i
10 and' correction and to incorporate new facts.-
11 MR. KOHN: I might summarize what I was 12 going to say, I. note for the record that I O
('_) 13 believe we provided these, I may be mistaken 14 but if I'm not mistaken, we were providing 15 these not before we formally waived'our 16 privilege but we were given the documents.
17 The intent of the document is attorney-client 18 communication and to the extent that that 19 communication was waived by-providing t' hem to 20 the NRC to assist them, they were turned over 21 to you.
22 The purpose, the underlying purpose and-23 intent of the document was to communicate 24 with counsel.
I' MR. BLAKE: When they were provided to D) 25 -
l 1
330
/~ '
it :the NRC,.were-those sorts of caveats provided j
- 2. along with it to the.NRC, .that they.were in ;
}
3 some cases. surmise or theory evenithough they l 4 were stated.as fact? j 5- MR. KOHN: Certainly Mr. Robinson? 1
~
6 communicated in person with respect to these l i
7 documents and repeatedly over the' phone. So= !
8 I don't think there'is any'-- there is i 9 certainly nothing in my mind which would !
'10 indicate that would-not be.the . case. !
'll MR. BLAKE: We have yourrcounsel's j 12 answer. -What about yours, Mr. Mosbaugh. Li
! 13 THE WITNESS: I'have'had discussions .!
l l
14 with the NRC about this. Surely the NRC is 1
15 in the best position to know, in this-16 example, the use they made-of..this document.
l l 17 My first question or'one:of my.
18 questions to the NRC on this was did you guys i 19 get this. So that's part of my fact finding
- 20 effort here, and initially I believe when I f
P 21 drafted this, I had it written up in such a 22 manner to say that I wasn't'sure that it had l 23 ever been provided to the NRC.
24 Then as I got some additional
( 25 information, that it had been provided at the o ,
n l
t..
331
-O k' ./ 1 exit because.we found that document in 2 discovery and'then I think we gotosome 3 additional information out after that as to a 4 specific IIT number that was on'that,.and I 5 have communicated those things with the NRC, 6 with Mr. Robinson, so that he could determine 7 within the agency where this document"had 8 gone, who had used it, and for what purpose.. ,
9 It was clear to me that Mr. Bockhold's i
- 10. intended purpose was, given the time frame in i
11 this, you have to put this in perspective. i 12 Communication was made with Georgia Power in 13 the first week of April that.they were. going 14 to need to make a restart presentation.
15 So when I look at'this and see in that 16 time frame what Mr. Bockhold is y,oviding and 17 he tells me from that time frame that this 18 was for Brockman to give to Ebneter and 19 Ebneter, of course, would be a decision-maker 20 in the restart, you know, this s e etu s to be 21 part of an overall court effort to give the 22 NRC certain pieces of information that will 23 support its restart effort.
24 This seems to be something that's being 25 prepared right in that same time frame.
~ .--
I I
i 332 1 Q. (By Mr. Blake) You have referred several !
)
2 times to amending these statements or memoranda. l 4
3 Was more than one version of these provided to the 1
4 NRC? :
5 A. I believe that I may have given an l 6 updated version of one or more of these to the NRC, i f I 7 and I don't specifically know, I can't recall which :
8 ones and what time, but I think I may have given I 9 some revision or a revision to the NRC.
10 The ones that'are provided to you as part j 11 of this package are the very latest.
12 Q. Because, as you have said before,'those I 13 were the only copies that you have available?-
14 A. That's correct, the only copy I get, to 15 go into the computer and ask for the current J
16 revision on it 17 Q. Since it has now been determined this 18 proceeding by this licensing board that whatever was 19 provided to the NRC should be provided to us, to the 20 extent you or your counsel have copies of these, I 21 take it we would have gotten them?
l l 22 MR. KOHN: That's correct, but my !
23 office did not maintain any copies but the ;
24 most recent ones, i
( 25 THE WITNESS: Let me just add for your.
w ww + e mm.- --,w e n* e-
l i
333 ,
'(~h ks/ 1' information there, there haven't been --
it's !
2 not like it's, you know,- a.whole new change. . l 3 The. changes I'm talking about were, for
{
I 4 example, like a sentence here about provided i
5 at.the IIT exit, that sentence got added once !
6 we found that document in discovery.-
7 These copies are close, very.close with l f
8 a few exceptions like we are'in discovery and ;
j 3'
9 new'information was found to the earlier i
10 ~ drafts, but that's the extent of the !
i i 11 difference. !
12 MR. KOHN: We certainly do not object ,
13 to the NRC providing you with'the exact f i
14 copies that Mr. Mosbaugh gave them. These !
15 are the only ones that we have.available. l t
i 16 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Focussing on the last. l
, i
) 17 ' sentence on that same, under that same topic, l 18 materiality, which reads, GPC specifically: prepared [
l
. 19 the COA drafts and the ESVDO paper for that j i
20 presentation; and knowing that it looked bad, chose i 21 not to provide the information. Who is it.who chose 22 not to provide the information?
J 23 A. Choosing not to provide the information 24 here is relative to the 1990 data, and that's Mr.
( 25 Bockhold, as far as I know. I don't know if others 4
_ ,..w,g-.. g. ,
l l-l l
334 1 were involved, but the only person I know that knew i
2 about the bad data for 1990, knew it was bad, was 3 told it was bad and. chose not to include it in a 1 4 full tabulation was Mr. Bockhold.
5 Q. Was there anyone'else who knew about this 6 choice but Mr. Bockhold not to disclose it?
7 A. I think Mr. Gus Williams, I got my !
8 information from Mr. Gus Williams and~Mr. Gus
-9 Williams was the one that told Mr. Bockhold that the !
10 1990 data looked shitty, to use his words, and he l 11 cold me what the number was and that he told Mr.
12 Bockhold. I believe Mr. Aufdenkampe heard this same !
( 13 conversation as I did.
I I
l 14 Q. Do you know when this choice was_made by 1 15 Mr. Bockhold? ,
- 16 A. In this time frame, in the first few days 17 of April time frame. I 18 Q. When did you learn about this?
)
19 A. When did I learn about it? I l
20 Q. When did you learn that Mr. Bockhold l 21 chose not to provide what you regard as totally 22 accurate information?
23 A. Well, I heard the conversation about this-24 at the time, a little bit after the time, I think,
) 25 say a couple days later from 4/1, 4/2, maybe it was I
I 335 ,
l (~)
! 1 4/4, the date that's documented on a tape 2 recording. j I
3 I-had forgotten about'this issue and had i 1
i I 4 really not reviewed it in the light of being another i 5 false statement or another attempt to convince the l
6 NRC that the diesels were more reliable than they '
7 were until I started reviewing tapes as part of the 1 i
8 preparations for stipulations, _ depositions, and l
9 hearings on diesel generator issues. ]
i i 10 Q. In the spring of 19947 ;
11 A. Yes. l 12 Q. What did you do about it in the first
/~N
(_) 13 week of April, 1990 when you came to understand that 14 Mr. Bockhold was choosing not to provide information l
15 because it looked shitty?
l l
16 A. I don't believe I did anything about it '
17 in that time frame.
18 Q. Did you regard that at the time as I 19 providing inaccurate information or misleading 20 information?
21 A. Well, at the time I didn't know it had 22 been provided.
23 Q. At the time what did you know?
24 A. At the time I knew that Mr. Bockhold was
/~N
() 25 preparing this document and he or Gus or John had
336 V 1 been involved in preparing a document, but I had, at 2 tha. time did not have knowledge that the document 3 was provided to the NRC.
4 Q. And is that the reason that you didn't do 5 anything about it?
6 A. Well, I really can't recall if I didn't 7 follow up on it or if I had some basis back then for 8 not following up on it because I didn't know it had 9 been provided.
10 I can't remember what my thinking was at 11 the time, but I do know that I never at the time
,. 12 became aware that it had actually been provided.
(N' 13 Q. What do you understand now to have been 14 provided, information for the preceding years but 15 not for 19907 16 A. Well, the copy that we obtained in 17 discovery that has noted at the top of it presented ;
18 4/2 and date and time is what I believe was 19 provided.
20 Q. And did that include 1990 data?
21 A. No, it did not.
22 Q. Is that the reason that you believe it to 23 have been improperly provided to the NRC, because it 24 provided the preceding year's data but not the 1990
(~T
's_) 25 portion of data available to the company?
- 337 l
('Y i
\2 1 A. Yeah,La chart like the one on the first !
l 2 page here is what'I believe was provided.to the NRC.
3 Q. The first page being the first:page.of l 4 this particular memorandum entitled Executive p 5 Summary Vogtle Diesel Operability?
6 A. That's correct,- and that's in one of our l l l 7 exhibits. It had a table that's essentially.the !
8 same as this table, and that was part of a couple ;
l 9 page document that.was provided,-that I believe was i l
l 10 provided, and what is wrong with-that, as.I' stated i
l 11 earlier, is that the data that looks bad- that makes ,
i 12 the current diesel reliability look questionable and i 13 raises eyebrows because it's a lot: worse than the 14 U.S. median is four times worse than the' general 15 U.S. median in that time frame, was the .08: data for 16 1990. ,
17 Q. And when did Bockhold'tell you this was 18 going to be provided to the NRC?
19 A. Same time frame. He told me what his
- 20 intended use of it is. He said this is for'Brockman 21 to give co Ebneter.
22 Q. Like 4/2, somewhere in that time frame?
23 A. 4/2, 4/4, in that time frame.
N 24 Q. And when did you understand that Bockhold j l
i
._ -,8 -. - - --a ~ ~ - - -
.______q l
338 l O 1 A. The draft I saw'in that, time frame, I got 2' a draft from, I think, Aufdenkampe or. Williams 3 handed me a draft.
4 Q. This is a draft of?
5 A. The Executive Summary Vogtle-Diesel j 6 Operability.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. They handed me a draft that had this 9 table in it.
10 Q. This table being the table without 1990-11 data?
12 A. Right,'and my first question'.was where is 13 the 1990 data. That was my very first. question to 14 them about it. They responded, and they responded 15 that it's not in there, it looks shitty.
16 Then the question was asked does George 17 know, and the response was yes, he knows, I' told 18 him, by Mr. Williams. j l
19 Then Mr. Aufdenkampo made some fairly l 20 lengthy moans as if he was recognizing that the bad 21 data was being omitted from that draft. That's how 22 I came to first see the copy of this executive 23 summary of Vogtle diesel operability. I 24 Q. And what do you think the time frame was 25 of this, about?
- ,.-.1 .- ,
I T
- "i .339 -
E I 11 : A. u Abo't"4/4', ther'eabout.
n -
, 2) . Q. Andlyour-understanding-as.of. that time- '
-l L '3 frame, then, wasLthere2wasLan intentionfof.the f :
s
- '4 . company',.I will-put it, .that probably meansi l i
j 5 Bockhold, to present_information to the'NRC?on' -
l 6 diesel reliability whichididinot1 include'the 1990- .
1 - a
- . 7- data;.is that0 correct?.
L l
~
l 8 A.. I don't'recallLwhat my feeling was then.
- 9 I don't have a firsthand recollection:of that. I i k i
- 10 have reviewed the tape;where thisfoccurred, and;I j l
I
- 11 was told this, and it appears that_.there was a !
i L!
I' 12 recognition'by Mr._ Williams, Mr. Aufdenkampei and! l 13 myself that the 1990fdata was' bad.-
' 14 It was obviously relevant, and.it was }'
l F 15 missing from that. draft. The:date:of.that,Jand at j 1 . .
i
- 16 that point I didn't know that-it had been submitted 1
-I
-i 17 to the NRC, if it's correct thatIit was--submitted-to i 4 .
L .
l
- 18 the NRC on 4/2, I believe we are talking about ]
19 things that occurred on 4/4. l i ;
i . 1
- 20 The draft that I had gotten from Mr.
- l i
21 Williams or Mr. Aufdenkampe doesn't appear to be'the' l l
- 22 draft that was given to the NRC. The data had been ]
j 23 further reformatted, but the chart remained the'same t ,
l 24 and it had been added to some other information about some Calcon switches.
-( ) 25 t i r
+ -- g.-rw4y - em%eem=u qy= r +-- -- -,m -+ 3 w O ' w cey-+- 9
l l
l
! 340 :
l 1 Q. What do you now believe was.provided to t 2- 'the NRC on-April April 9th, 1990 with regard'to '!
3 diesel reliability data? l 4 A. This particular chart wasn't in the 4/9, '
5 the signed out 4/9 Confirmation of Action Response.
6 Q. What about in the presentation.to the 7 NRC?
8 A. In the'4/9 presentation in Atlanta, I do !
9 not believe that this document was presented at t
10 that. I believe it was presented before that. I 11 Q. Let's go to the next page which is !
12 actually another new memorandum, this one dated l O 13 4/12/94 entitled The Real Cause of the Diesel 1-A i
14 Failure During The Site Area Emergency.. ,
15 This document overall provides your j t
16 theory of what was wrong with the diesels in-March f
\
l 17 of 1990 and why they didn't perform correctly, is i
l 18 that right? -
i 19 A. This provides a theory. At the time I [
20 wrote this, this was my best theory. I have gained 21 through discovery some additional information, but '
l 22 generally I believe this is still a good theory. !
l 23 Q. It is your theory? ;
l 24 A. And this is my theory.
25 Q. Are there others who agree with your
! l l I
l 1 1
I l
l 341 l rN l
! ( l )
'# i 1 theory? Is there anyone at the company or at NRC or j 2 at INPO or, indeed, anywhere who you can point me to l l- 3 who subscribes, also, to this theory? ;
l :
l 4 A. I don't know the opinions of that set of :
t !
r 5 people. I haven't talked to anybody at INPO, 6 haven't really talked to people at the NRC that have 7 reviewed this theory.
l 8 From the depositions we have taken, I 9 don't believe that anybody that we deposed [
10 completely subscribes to this theory, but some of ;
11 those people have provided information, some l 12 information that supports this theory.
p
(_) 13 Q. Does it bother you at all that there is 14 no one else who subscribes to your theory on this?
l 15 MR. K011N : That assumes a fact not in 16 evidence.
17 MR, BLAKE: I just got the fact. He is 18 unable to identify a single person who i
19 subscribes to his theory.
20 MR. KOHN: He doesn't know anyone that 21 I'm aware of and he doesn't know the 3,000 22 employees at the NRC.
23 He knows the NRC has received this and l 24 they are reviewing it. I don't know what two
,~
,() 25 NRC's position is on it personally.
l i
i 1
1 342 '
("'T 4
(_) I 1 MR. BLAKE: I am less interested in 2 your knowledge than I am in his. I want to 3 know from Mr. Mosbaugh and I thought I had i
4 the answer. Does he know of anyone else j 5 anywhere who accepts his theory of the real 6 cause.
7 MR. KOHN: I also object to the fact 8 that I don't know who within those agencies 9 knows besides one or two people.
i 10 MR. BLAKE: I'm not asking all the 11 people in the agency or the agency itself.
,_ 12 I'm simply asking whether he is aware of 13 anybody else who holds the same theory. If 14 the answer is no which I thought the answer 15 already was, fine.
16 THE WITNESS: As of right now, I don't 17 know of anybody that fully subscribes to 18 this. Like I said, some Georgia Power 19 witnesses have given testimony that supports 20 parts of this theory.
21 Georgia Power's theory or assigned 22 reason for the failure is inconsistent from 23 one person to another, inconsistent with the 24 NUREG that was issued. So it doesn't appear f(> 25 to me that there is --
it appears to me that
l 343
, n 1 the other theories and reasons that are out 2 there are not unanimously supported either.
l 3 I think what is missing ~is a I
l 4 determination of the true root cause, and I i
5 believe that at the completion-of discovery
! 6 and at the completion of NRC review of this, 7 hopefully we can get there because that's l 8 what's important from a safety standpoint.
l 9 We have to fix the problem, and I'm l
10 afraid that the problem may not be fixed.
11 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Let me return to the i 12 question I asked before. Does it bother you that b)
's / 13 there is no one else who subscribes to your theory?
14 A. No, it doesn't bother me, and I believe 15 that once I have completed my review and assessment 16 of this, there will be additional people that will .
17 come to agree with the theory because the facts will 18 speak for themselves.
! 19 Q. Do you think there is some unwillingness 20 on the part of everyone who has been exposed to your 1
21 theory not to accept it?
1 l 22 A. I think there is an unwillingness on the 23 part of people that have assigned a root cause 24 previously to deviate from what they have gone on (3
i q,) 25 record saying before, because that is reliability i
I i
l
I s
.I i
3'4 4
- .) 4
,[ -\)
I' fI 1; for'them. ]
~
1 2 Q. Do.you think the same might be true for 3 - you?
l t
- 4 A. I don't understand that ques' tion. !
- . t 5- Q '. You're on record as, describing..your..d'ewT .l j
6 point theory as being the cause of th'e problems.in.
D
- 7 March of 1990, 'do-you~;think'it would~be difficult .!
8 for you to accept that you might be wrongfand that !
~
9 the theories advanced by every othe'r. person who has: !
l 10 looked at this'might be . correct?- ,
l l
- 11. A. No, I believe that'if IJwas' presented !
12 conclusive evidence andithat this theory.waslshown? !
13 to be' incorrect, and that the other theories held 1
14 water,-didn't have contradictory or conflicting !
15 reasons, that-I would adoptithe theoryfthat I' 16 believe to be most accurate.
t 17 One of the things _that we-.have learned ~ 'l q
18 through discovery is that Georgia Powerthasino't.made ]
19 an attempt to take a second look ati.the.issu'e. I 20 >There apparently has.been no new effort ,
21 to consider other causes. So we are left with -
22 improper intermittent operation, is the Georgia _ !
I 23 Power root cause.
24 Q. The reason I asked that, whether or not j( . 25 you would be willing to accept it,. is because of
---g. , ,-r-- 7w.- - , ,..,,e---.,.- - . - - . .- = w-,-e ,
l 345
-('~') 1 your hanging onto things like Mr. Bailey's coming i
2 here in the deposition and telling you he was in 3 Hawaii on vacation at that period of time and you 4 are still being unwilling to accept it.
l 5 I just want to know whether or not you 6 felt you really could accept'something different 1
7 from the theory that you put out in this instance.
l 8 MR. KOHN: First, I object to.the 9 question as being argumentative.
10 MR. BLAKE: It.wasn't even a question.
l 11 It was simply an explanation to him of why I 12 asked.
(
s_/ 13 MR. KOHN: Well, I think that the 14 explanation was argumentative. Why you asked 15 the ques, tion is not relevant to us.
16 MR. BLAKE: It may be because he was 17 about to respond before you cut him off.
i 18 MR. KOHN: Well, I object to the form l 19 of the question because it assumes that Mr. j 20 Bailey told the truth, and we don't really 21 know that.
22 THE WITNESS: That you --
23 MR. KOHN: There is no question pending.
24 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Did you want to make a m
25 comment, Mr. Mosbaugh?
346 .
/N i> 1 A. I would say that Mr. Kohn's statement i J
1 2 about Mr. Bailey's statement, Mr. Bailey's statement 3 is the only piece of evidence that has been 4 presented relative to the lack of Mr. Bailey's 5 participation.
i 6 Perhaps if there was more, you know, in i
7 every case there is what's referred to as objective 8 evidence and except for Mr. Bailey's statement, 9 that's all that was presented.
l 10 MR. KOHN: We are really looking ;
i 11 forward to his Hawaii an vacation pictures, 12 but we didn't have a chance to do that. :
j f')
(_ 13 MR. BLAKE: It is fairly telling '
I 14 evidence, isn't it, the fellow says he was on j l
15 vacation in Hawaii? !
l 16 MR. KOHN: Note for the record that Mr.
17 Mcdonald says he was out of town and did not 18 review the LER. In the tape transcript, it 19 says these are Pat's comments.
20 Mr. Mcdonald apparently made a false 21 statement in that deposition testimony. We 22 do not know if Mr. Bailey is making a false 23 statement or not. Do you want us to accept 24 Mr. Bailey's statement on face value?
rb l _)
s 25 MR. BLAKE: Yes.
347 1 MR. KOHN: I'm sure you do.
2 Unfortunately, given what we perceive to be 1
3 character flaws of the company, we are unable i l
4 to do that at this time. !
5 Q. (By Mr. Blake) What did the dew point 6 need to be to generate a problem under your theory?
7 A. That's not a simple and straightforward 8 answer. The requirement that the company committed
]
9 to was a dew point of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in their 10 response.
11 So I believe that's what the company felt 12 was the necessary dew point for safe operation, and f.s\
k -) 13 additionally, I believe the NRC has come back and 14 stated that operation above 50 degrees would be 15 unacceptable. So that's the criteria that's in the 16 FSAR.
17 Q. And how many readings to your knowledge 18 exceeded that?
19 A. Dozens.
20 Q. And in the March 1990 time frame?
21 A. In the March, April time frame, yes.
22 Q ., And what about subsequent to that, May, 23 June, July, August?
24 A. That's a good must be. There are various
(
(_) 25 spikes and so forth, high dew points.
l 1
348 r~S1-5 l
i 1 Q. And what has been the performance of the 2 diesels in that subsequent time frame when these 3 same conditions existed?
4 A. Well, I believe that in general when the-5 dew points have been high, and what's high and 6 enough to cause a problem is dependent on a variety 7 of circumstances which would include environmental 8 conditions, may relate to leakage, may relate to the 9 time that the diesel has been out of service and how 10 frequently it's been running for how long.
11 So what's high is not necessarily always-12 the same and enough to cause a performance problem,
("
(_)T 13 but in general when the dew points have been high or 14 very high, there have been diesel performance 15 problems.
16 Q. At Vogtle?
17 A. At Vogtle. Diesel performance problems i
18 would be alarm tripping, failure to start, those l
19 kinds of problems. As that relates to reliability, 20 to the extent that a diesel is then out of service 21 as a result of those problems or the diagnosis of 22 those problems, that would affected reliability but 23 not directly, depending on how long it took to 24 return the diesel to service or assume that the
,/~5
(_) 25 diesel was capable of being returned to service.
349 :
1- Q. And it's your basis for this study or ;
L 2 ' analysis.that you have done of environmental .
l l
3 conditions or maintenance conditions er problems 4 associated.with the diesel, these dew point readings 5 since March of 1990? j 6 MR. KOHN: I object on the grounds chat f
[
l 7 the information seeks to obtain ;
'8 attorney-client work product.
l 9 MR. BLAKE: What? Are you serious? I +
10 asked him whether or not he had his answer 11 .about reliability of the diesels at Vogtle ;
l 12 since March of 1990 is based on some analysis ,
13 or evaluation he had done of environmental --
{
l i 14 MR. KOHN: On his own or of his
~
j 15 attorney? ,
j 16 MR. BLAKE: For environmental 17 conditions or.
l
-18 MR. KOHN: My question to you, does [
I 19 your question go to.
20 MR. BLAKE: Is that based on the l i
21 attorney client privilege?
22 MR. KOHN: My question is are you !
l 23 asking whether Mr. Mosbaugh has done it on 24 his own or has provided information to his bk/
m 25 counsel?
l !
su e e n -, --g
I l !
i 350
!p
,t'~~/
1 MR. BLAKE: I didn't ask him anything ;
2 of the sort.
3 MR. KOHN: That's my question, if you l
4 want to -- because I believe if you're l 5 looking for information provided to counsel, 6 that that would be the privilege.
l 7 MR. BLAKE: If he has done an analysis j 8 or an evaluation of diesel data which had I
i 9 formed the basis for his preceding answer, he 10 could have provided it to anybody he wanted 11 and it wouldn't shield it. You can't shield 12 analyses or evaluations simply by handing it rh l km/
t 13 over to you afterwards.
14 MR. KOHN: It's not been handed over to 15 me after, wards. It's been prepared at my 16 insistance and at my instruction, and that is 17 our worn product.
18 You have your tape recordings, we have !
19 documentation that we are apparently not l l
20 required to turn over, as well.
21 MR. BLAKE: Certainly if he had done i
22 some analysis or evaluation at your request 23 in preparation for this, there could be an 24 argument that it were some sort of privilege r'~N
(_) 25 or work product item, and presumably the i
i i~
l l
351' ;
1 outcome of1that might b e ', but certainlycnot l 2 -the underlying facts, the: data.
]
3 MR. KOHN: I.do not mind you asking. thel .]
i
<4 underlying-facts. Now you're asking whether .j
'5 he_has, in_ fact, done such and..I'think that's 6 . intruding on the privilege.
i 7 MR..BLAKE: And' clearly it would be a' :;
. i 8 problem forlhimsto say there was such an j 9 a'nalysis_or evaluation. The factLof-whether; 10 or not he ~ has.done such a thing-would1not.be' [
l 11 privileged eit'her. [
. ~
12 MR. KOHN: Let's start overland ask ;
13 your question. -
l i L
14 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Was your preceding answer 15 based on an analysis or an evaluation of. data which 16 included environmental conditions, m a i n t e n a n c e',_ and- i 17 other operational data of Vogtle diesel'~ generators I 18 since March of 1990? l 19
~
A. I guess the' answer is no, because'I-l >
20 haven't looked at all those things yet. . I plan to i
-i 21 include the things that you reference such as the
- . i 22 .. environmental conditions andLthe durations, the i L !
23 maintenance, and so forth. ;
24 I have attempted to get information and
( 25 discovery that we have obtained, and I plan to L
l
J 352 1
(~h
~
1 include the factors and do the analysis that I'm 2 talking about that you're asking me about. l 3 Q. So at this juncture is it a surmise or a ;
4 theory?
l 2 5 A. Is what a theory? This is a theory that ]
6 I believe is a correct and right. theory at.this )
7 point, and I have begun'to work on an analysis o f.
4 8 data that supports this theory. :
1 !
- i. 9 There is information that I remember and j 10 facts that we have obtained through depositions and l
11 so forth that supports this theory, but the j
- 12 completion of an sysis or the conduct of analysis 13 formally is something that I have not completed and 14 plan to complete for this proceeding.
I 15 O. Is it your belief that that is a safety i i
16 concern today for the Vogtle plant? I I
17 A. I expressed that fact to the NRC, that I )
18 believe that the failure to determine a real root-19 cause of the diesel failure in 1990 could be a 20 current safety concern, and I expressed that to the {
21 NRC some number of months ago. !
22 Q. And do you believe it to be a safety j 23 concern to a number of other plants in the country?
24 A. I don't know. I guess I would have to C
(_j\ 25 have a lot more specific knowledge and I would think' l
l 1
353
\'/ 1 that would be something the NRC would want to look i
2 at. Perhaps the other plants maintain or have 3 properly maintained their dew points, and it i
4 wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps they have different 5 equipment. Perhaps their equipment is susceptible 6 to those things, I don't know.
7 Q. Do you know overall what the performance i 8 has been of the Vogtle diesel ~ generators in terms of 9- reliability since the summer of 1990?
10 A. Through discovery we have obtained some 11 information about diesel history after the time that 12 I left, but I don't believe we were provided in
(_) 13 discovery all of the history up to the current point 14 in time.
15 So I don't have knowledge of all that. I 16 think the information we were provided generally was 17 limited to 1990 and perhaps a little into 1991. ;
l 18 Q. Given the extent of the problem in 1990 '
19 and the amount of the NRC inspection and evaluation 20 through an IIT and AIT that went into this problem, !
21 do you think if there had been subsequent 22 reliability problems associated with Vogtle's diesel 1
23 generators, it would have been a matter of some 24 concern both to Georgia Power and to the NRC?
()
tm 25 A. There were subsequent problems, that they
_ i 354
-O 1 occurred in May when the failure sequence that had j 2 occurred during the site area emergency virtually !
3 repeated itself. l l
4 Q. I had asked you since summer of 1990. !
5 Are you aware of'any range of concernsoor problems?
l 6 A. I can't speak to that period of time, -
7 because I don't believe we obtained that information 8 in discovery. I do know that of'recent as a result :
l I j
9 of NRC inspection, the failure of Vogtle to maintain !
10 proper operation of the dryers and high dew points 11 has continued to be a problem at the plant in 1994, i
12 and I believe there is a pending violation at ;
13 issue. So I do know that, as to the current time l 1
14 frame. j 15 O. Assuming that reliability of the Vogtle 16 diesel generators has been adequate since the summer 17 of 1990, that is, for four years --
18 MR. KOHN: We are assuming it has been j 19 adequate'r l l
20 MR. BLAKE: Yes, because of my i 21 preceding explanation which is if it hadn't_
22 been with this plant in generators, I think ;
l 23 there would have been plenty of knowledge of 24 it, but assuming that that's the case, do you
() 25 have an explanation for why your' dew point l
{
t
l 355 b
' As/'
.1 theory-would not have causedia problem for ,
2 four years.
3 THE WITNESS: W e l l',- I don't.believe-l 4 .that the reliability, and I will ask you, 5 when you say reliability, arenyou referring j 6 to SSPI? 'i 7 Q. (By Mr.'Blake) -Whatever term you want to: l 8 assign. I'm just.using a-laymen's definition'of ,
9 reliability, the fact that they have operated l
10 successfully, the fact that the plant had not been ,
11 viewed as a safety concern,- the. fact.that the plant -
12 has not shut'down because of insecurity or concern !
[
\ 13 about the reliability, operability of the' diesels, '
14 the kinds of things that occurred in March of 1990 15 which, apparently, have not occurred in the last- ;
16 four years. That's what I mean.
17 A. The Vogtle diesel generators operated ,
l 18 from 1986 to 1990 without a site arca emergency, l
19 without a failure that caused a significant problem 20 for four years. ,
21 The problem took four years to manifest' l
l 22 itself. The right set of circumstances came l-23 together to manifest the problem. The fact that 24 three years has elapsed since the end of 1990 or '91 25 and the problem hasn't manifested itself again may
356 ,
O 1 not be all that significant.
2 Q. So you think it was a coincidence of 3 environmental conditions and history of the diesel 4 generators including maintenance and start up 5 periods, et cetera in March of.1990 which has not 6 repeated itself and that's the reason we haven't 7 seen subsequent problems caused'by your dew-point 8 theory?
9 A. To answer that, I'would be purely 10 speculating. The diesel history and the factual 11 basis that I would need to make a statement like -;
12 that is not part of what we-have reviewed in '
/'%
kl 13 discovery. The diesel history up to the current 14 date is information I have not reviewed, was not 15 provided.
16- Q. But it doesn't bother you that it has not 17 repeated itself either at Vogtle nor did it seem to 18 be a problem at any other plant in the country?
19 A. The Vogtle problems are similar to those 20 that occurred at Catawba. Catawba made a decision 21 to get rid of its pneumatic control system because 22 they believed it was a long' term problem. I don't 23 know what their status is.
24 Prior to that I was not aware of other 25 '
plants except for Catawba having this1 kind of
l 357 r~~X 4
( ) l 1 problem. So there must be something different in 2 some of these different installations, and I will 3 repeat my answer.
4 It took four years from 1986 when the 5 diesels were first started up to 1990 to manifest a 6 problem that resulted in a failure at an important 7 point in time.
8 A four-year interval for the first 9 failure and it's been roughly four years at this 10 point, so that doesn't say anything of itself 11 particularly that we can say well, because there has 12 not been a reliability problem or this problem in
/ \
\-) 13 the last year or so, that it's obvious this is not 14 an accurate theory. It's just not that simple. j 15 Q. Would your answer be the same if Catawba 16 had not changed out its system? i 17 A. I don't know if Catawba has completed its 18 bank out or not. I just said that Catawba was, of l
19 the other plants based on a review from the NUREG 20 and from the various reported diesel failures, 21 Catawba was the other plant that was experiencing 22 problems somewhat similar to what Vogtle was 23 experiencing.
24 I believe that catawba's problems were
/~'
(N) 25 attributed to water. So I merely said that Catawba
L 358 1 is another example where similar. problems were ;
2 occurring and water was a reason. ;
i 3 Q. Are you' aware of the NRC's.taking a'hard j 4 look at'this question, that is, your' theory?
1 5 A. I hope the NRC is taking a hardilook.at' l 6 this. I know that the NRC has' conducted an- l n ~
r j 7 inspection and I would hope that the'NRC's- (
l 8 continuing to analyze these events. .I hope they- 3 1
L 9 continue. i 10 Q. Do you know.whether or not'their ~
i i
11 inspection is completed? !
12 A. I don't know the status of the NRC'
- s/fi l.
13 inspection. I know.that they issued a notice of f
l i
14 violation for failure, continuing failure.to' keep. j i
15 dew points at the prescribed level and having dryer 16 equipment out of service. ;
l 17 Q. How do you know that? I 18 A. Because I believe a notice of violation 19 was issued. ,
1 20 Q. Did youlsee it?
21' A. Yes, I did.
22 (A recess was taken.)
23- Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, are you 24 aware of any determinations of corrosion in this
() 25 pneumatic control system?
r i
l' 1
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _. . _ , _ . _ _ . . _ ,_ __ _ ,, m . _ , ., 1
I h . ,
359 ;
[~}
\' 1 'A. Yes. .;
j 2. Q. .When were those determinations made that .
l 3 there was a corrosion system? l l
4 A. There is some discussion.of corrosion on j l 5 some Calcon components'. There were some problems l' l 6 experienced with fouling of some sort'which may have ;
7 been related to corrosion on both diesel and 1-A or 8 perhaps 1-A or 1-B. I I
9 Q. 'How did you determine that, just l l
10 following which-may be related to corrosion?
- 11 A. That was information that was conveyed to l l I 12 me by the engineers that worked on the diesels in ;
N !
! (_) 13 1990 and I believe is documented on some tape l 14 recordings. In addition, corrosion was found in the 15 diesel air receivers.
16 Q. What were the Calcon instruments that you 17 were referring to?
18 A. Calcon sensors, I believe. I believe 19 these were pressure sensors that some corrosion was 20 found in.
21 Q. Pressure sensors on the pneumatic control 22 port?
23 A. These are Calcon sensors that are part of 24 the diesel pneumatic system.
() 25 Q. And what is the corrosion that you're
l 360 l Il 1 referring to?. To what cause is the corrosion i 2 attributed?
1 3 A. In the NUREG there is a statement that ;
4 the corrosion was found on the spring _of a j 5 malfunctioning pressure sensors, and I believe there j 6 was a statement in there'that ascribed that to 7 possibly-something that happened.early on in the. ;
8 construction interval, but it certainly could:have 9- happened at any point in time if there was.. moisture 10 in the system.
11 Q. Isn't it true, though, that it could have 12 had nothing, in fact, to d'o with your dew point l 13 moisture in the system theory, could well have been l 14 when the instrument was being produced, could well ;
i 15 have been in ,the course of construction, could well i 16 have been a variety of other factors?
17 A. It could have been then and.it could have 18 been both and it could have been one or the other.
19 I didn't do a specific review of that, but it was a 20 case of corrosion found.
21 Q. Does the lack of corrosion or greater 22 instances of corrosion cause you any pause with'your 23 theory?
24' A. No, not particularly, because the sensing
() 25 lines are all stainless steel, and one wouldn't
1, i
361 >
(:
(' '
1 expect-to find much corrosion.inside of stainless !
1 2 steel lines. ,
3 Q. Is it only.in the lines or other- .
i 4 components of the system where you would expect to ,
o i l
l 5- find the moisture that'you.believe resided in there? l; 6 A. The' carbon steel portions of t'hefsystem )
.)
7 such as the air receiver, corrosion-was-found in. !
8 So the bulk of the system in terms of surface area I 1
9 and so forth 'is stainless steel lines. l i
J 10 Q. And the reason for the receiver l
'11 potentially'having corrosion found in it might well' 12 be attributable t'o the difference in~ pressure from j
[l
(> I 13 the rest of the system; is that not true?
14 A. No. The corrosion found in the receiver l
15 would probably be attributed to the. fact that the 16 receiver is carbon steel.
l l
17 Q. Isn't it true, however, that the pressure l 18 in the receiver was different from the' pressure in l l
19 the rest of the system and, in fact, the dew point 20 was different?
21 A. That's correct. The pressure in.the 22 receiver is somewhere around 240 PSI and the 23 pressure in the stainless lines is around 60 PSI.
24 Q. Would you expect to find any indication O)
(_ 25 of water in the chrome board lines or the control
362 .
i7 s) .
\_ / ,
1 board components if, in fact, it had. resided there,
- 2. as your theory would suggest it had?- F t 3 A. I would suspect that water.was;found and 4 based on. system and evidence that we.have. gained, l 5 .indeed, water was found in the control lines.
i 6 Q. What is that evidence.and.what'is that
- 7 testimony?
l 8 A. Statements of a good number of people. j
< 1 9 that water was found in the pneumatic lines and was' '
10' found in other parts of the air system and tape i 11 recorded conversation where engineers that were r' 12 doing the testing including the system engineer and I k_S / !
13 some other corporate personnel including.. Ken. Burr t
14 and Ken Stokes and Bill Chennault were involved.in a 15 conversation where they described the water pouring 16- out of the pneumatic lines. l 17 Q. And what was the time frame of-this?- '
18 A. That-conversation occurred in March,. late.
, 19 March 1990, right after the site area emergency.
20 Q. And what was the time frame.that they .
4 i
21 were discussing and talking about when water poured 22 out?
23 A. Just a day before, what they.had just ;
- 24 found. l 25 Q. Shifting to your next to last page in-
4
.- +
l
'3 6 3 1 this package'of memoranda entitled concerns.
[ 1
- 2 A. Talking.about' the last document.now, not-j -3 the-last.page,lor the~second=to last' document?. i 2
-4 . Q. Under this title,-this portion offyour; 'i e i 5' memorandum. entitled. concerns, does.this: series of-6 one through ten concerns summarize todayL'your. belief 1
} 7- about.why the diesel generators had problems in- d 4
8 March of 1990?
{
9 A. TheseEconcerns'here aren't related. f
, 10 exactly to the theory document. 'Theselare related: ;
i 'i i 11 to the last documentt in this package which: discusses i 12 the factthat Georgia Power didn't do-an adequate
?
- 13 root cause evaluation. l 14 Q. Well, let's start with' number one. I a
15 A. Th'at's fine. Yes, that's something that-
- 16 I currently believe is a current concern of mine, I
- 17 yes. l 18 Q. That the primary causeLof diesel j
j' 19 generator failure as' stated by the NRC in'its NUREG j i
20 1410 is probably incorrect? l
.i 21 A. Yeah, and I will add that what's statedi l; 1
22~ in the NUREG 1410 was derived and worded'almost ;
23 directly from what they were told by Georgia. Power. l l
24 It's' interesting now that we have completed most.of-25 'the depositions that Georgia' Power is no longer l
l
'364. .I
['\ :
(_/ .
1 saying or personnel from~ Georgia Power are no' longer- [
J 2 saying the cause is exactly or is the same as what
{
- 3. the NUREG iss now -- or'did say. ;
4 That-is, the-NUREG' talks about improper f 5 intermittent operation of the'Calcon sensor as'being !
6 the cause,.and what we have. heard recently is l 7 different'causes. i
- 8. Q. What have you heard? ,
i 9 A. Calibration errors, inadequate i 10 calibration procedures.
11 Q. And you believe those are correct?
12 A. Well, if Georgia' Power:can't come'up with .
O' 13 a root cause -- no, I don't believe either of-those 14 are correct. !
i 15 Q. Why do you think the NRC_is in error in.
16 NUREG 1410?
l 17 A. Excuse me, are we on number one? f 18 Q. Yes.
19 A. The NRC has reported the cause that they l 20 obtained from Georgia Power in.the course of the 21 evolution of the identification of the root cause of 22 the diesel failure during the. site area _ emergency, i
23 Mr. Bockhold and others conveyed to the NRC that the -i 24 determination of Georgia Power that it had been l 25 improper intermittent operation and that it appears b
- - , - - , , , ..-----a.y -.,-,m g-,,,-....m-.n ,----qq m w y 4 --m- .- ,y
- 365 O
1 to me that when the NRC then wrote this NUREG, they. ,
2 restated the licensees identified cause.
-3 As far as the NRC-being in error, I would 4 have to reread that and understand if the NRC is 5 stating that from their point of view as a 6 conclusion or stating that the licensee has.
7 concluded that this, and I-don't remember exactly 8 how it's worded, but what I'm saying is the cause in 9 the NUREG is probably incorrect.
10 Q. And number two, is that still your belief 11 today?
f~'3 . 12 A. Yes, that is my belief, that that is also Q ,)
13 incorrect.
14 Q. And the reason for your belief is because 15 you continue to subscribe to the theory that we '
16 talked about earlier?
17 A. I believe that air quality was a factor 18 in the failures, and the NRC was told at the time 19 that no water had been found, and now we have 20 testimony that contradicts what the NRC was told. ;
l 21 I believe if the NRC knew that water had '
I 22 been found, that their investigation would have j 23 taken a different direction. i 1
75 24 Q. And was this the water that was pouring j
( ) !
25 out of the system that you referred to earlier?
i l
1 i
g 366 U
1 A. That's part of the finding of the water, ,
2 right, out of the pneumatic lines.
3 Q. On number three, do you believe that-as ;
4 of today, there is a continuing safety risk at 1 5' Vogtle?
6 A. I believe that.is a correct statement as 7 of today. '
i 8 Q. What would be the corrective action that ,
9 you think should be taken that was not?
i 10 A. Well, if'it is true that the'high dew 1 1' points or occurrences of high dew points result-in'
(~5 12 water forming within the pneumatic system which l C) 13 results in malfunctions of the pneumatic system and i 14 diesel failures, then I would think that Georgia 15 Power should have implemented a number of corrective !
\
16 actions to better control dew points, moisture, and :
17 so forth.
18 Those corrective actions apparently.
19 haven't been taken because Georgia Power has 20 recently received a violation for the continuation 21 to have dryers out of service and high dew points.-
22 Georgia Power needs tc fully address the 23 maintenance of adequate dew points within the' diesel g~ 24 pneumatic system. I might' include different t
'"# 25 procedures or operations methods or different
)
l
367
- . (~N C
1 equipment or'different monitoring.
i
- 2. Q. With respect to' number four,. is this i 3 still your: belief today?
i 4 A .- Yes. It says at least some of the six j;
- l. 5 findings. [
- 6 Q. And who were the individuals.that you're L .
j 7 referring to.there? '
I
( 8 A. Well, Mr. Burr, Mr. Stokes, perhaps some j l
l 9 people in the maintenance department that had l 11 0 firsthand knowledge of this, but I have not f l
- 11 identified those people by name. !
12 I haven't had.a chance to review all'.the 13 deposition testimony we got, but we got testimony ,
14 from a number of people all the way up to Mr.
15 Mcdonald that knew about water in the diesel 16 pneumatic lines. >
17 So we have some new information obtained ;
i l 18 through discovery, and I guess I would need to do ;
l j 19 more review before I could tell you that I had a 20 list that was completed to the best of my knowledge 21 as to what testimony has been given.
22 Q. Why do you think these individuals didn't 23 disclose this information?
l L 24 A. I don't know. I think it was recognized l 25 that a finding of water problem in the diesel, I L __ _ _
368
~/.
1 don't know what the impact at Catawba was, but.I 2 think a finding of a water problem'in the diesel 3 -could have resulted in a much more' extensive shut 4 down and corrective actions. I'know that the NRC i i
5 was very concerned about water.
6 Q. You know that from what? ,
7 A. From discussions in 1990 that the NRC was !
8 interested, I believe a lot of their. interest came !
i 9 from their knowledge of Catawba problems.and were 10 wondering if that was not something that was common l 11 with the Vogtle problem.
12 Q. Who at the NRC expressed that to you?
13 A. I heard it over the course of time from 14 IIT, perhaps not directly from IIT people but from 15 engineers tha't may have talked to me that had talked l 1
16 to IIT people, j 17 Q. This was Georgia Power engineers?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you remember any of the individuals?
20 A. No, not specifically who would have told 21 me that.- I can't remember.
22 Q. And is it your view that these people had 23 knowledge about a water problem or water in the f"N 24 system problem but intentionally opted not to
(_) 25 disclose this?
l
i 369 r~s N- ' i 1- A. When you say these people,. I'm not '
2 referring.to the people that told me.about the NRC ,
.3 concern. i 4 Q. Right.
5 A. Because I don't ~know if they know. The 6 people that told me that --
the people that-knew. !
7 about the water pouring out'of the lines, the people 8 that are down'there that saw water pour out of the 9 lines, the people that' collected the water in a jar, 10 et cetera, yeah, those people testified to the NRC I 11 or I know were interviewed by the IIT, at least some t 12 of them. 5 13 From what I know, they didn't disclose i
14 these facts to the NRC, and I have been told that l
15 some people were specifically asked if water had 16 been found. I have only been told that more ;
i 17 recently as part of this proceeding, that people had 18 been specifically asked about water.
19 I think that included, perhaps, Mr.
20 Stokes and Mr. Burr and had said that no-water had 21 been found. So yeah, those people that knew but had 22 testified or were asked and didn't tell that water 23' had been found is who I'm talking about. l l
24 Q. And who told you this recently?
25 A. Recently? 3 l
l
i t
370
'% J
'l Q. Yes.
2 A. When I say recently, in the coursecof.
3 this proceeding; 4 Q. Yes. i 5 A. I believe that at one point in time, Mr.
- i 6 Robinson said ? to me'that Georgia Power people had:
7 been asked if water had:been found and the answer'
! '8 had been provided that no, that water had'not1been l
$ l 9 found.
10 Q. And it is your belief'that that would !
. 11 have included Burr.and Stokes? '
i l <~T 12 A. Yes.
%] 13 And it's your' belief, also, that Burr and Q.
14 Stokes that observed the water flowing out of the l~
. 15 pneumatic lines and collecting it in a jug? ,
i 16 A. I believe the people that were involved
- 17 with that were Burr, Stokes,-and Chennault, and I 18 would have to add that some maintenance people or 19 some Cooper technicians, some technicianDwould have l 20 been involved in that activity, too.
21 So as a minimum, those people, and I 22 don't.know who they told. When we deposed those 23 people for the most part, they couldn't_ remember
' ~ 24 denying that water had been found.
, 25 Q. Number five is a repeat of what we have
^
i L l t
3 7 1" l
! \_/ '
1 talkedJabout, I think, several times over, that is, 2 that licensee'should have known that the improper.
I 3 intermittent operation was not the primary.cause'but.
l l 4 rather it was1 your dew point' theory, air quality?
l 5 A. Well, this is not.-- yes, that's correct, l I !
and also I'm saying that the identification of 6
l l -
! 7 improper intermittent' operation represented an 8 inaccuracy in the' determination of the : root cause f 9 because-itLwas incomplete. i l 10 There.were a total of six different 11 findings that I identified here that may have had an '
l .
12 impact on the overall failure and'may have 13 contributed to the root cause. ?
14 I guess just to update my knowledge at !
l 15 this time, the finding number three relative'to the -
16 roll tubing, at least at this point.in time from our.
l 17 discovery is that that finding may'not be an 18 important finding. That may not have had a 19 significant affect.
l 20 Q. Number six in your list of concerns, this 21 refers to the-May 1990 problems?
l 22 A. .That's correct.
l I 23 Q. And how many times did that occur in May !
! I 24 of 1990? j lO 25 A. There were seven diesel failures I recall' i i
1 u
372 I Q-
-C/
1 in the May 23rd, 24th time frame.
2 Q. All attributable, in your' view, to this.
3_ condition? l 4 A. All attributable to, well, at least one 5 for certain proven not attributable to improper l 6 intermittent operation, but having similarities with- i i
) .
7 the failure during the site area emergency, i 8 particularly the first three runs and related to 9 some other cause or causes beyond improper i 10 intermittent operation.
l 11 Q. How many of the causes in May 1990 do you 12 attribute to the theory that you have advanced?
(~}
%J 13 A. With respect to the water?
14 Q. Yes. )
i j 15 A. I think it's likely that, I think it's 16 highly likely that the first two or so and beyond
- 17 that, it gets a little harder to specifically l
18 ascribe the reason.
19 If I recall, one of those may have been 20 related to something else. I would have to look j 21 over the list of the seven to detail each one. P-3 ;
22 may have played a role in some of those failures in i 23 May, as well. l 1
fs 24 Q. So what is your answer? How many of the e t 25 failures in May of 1990 would you now attribute to !
I
. --, , . - . ~ - ._.
i g- 373-5 i
1 the water-problem or concern? )
f i
2 A. I think trying to attribute'aispecific
)
3 cause.on-each one on an hour'by hourfbasis is.a :
4 little' difficult. I guess it would be.my belief-5 that the first two or so were probably.related or -
6 may have been'related to water causes and' subsequent l l
l 7 ones may'have been related to P - 3~. P-3 mayLwell. 1 1.
] 8 'have played'a role with the first two,=as well. .
9 Q. It's'your. view.that the failures in.the :
10-course of the site area emergency in Marchof 1990 11- were due to water problems,-right?. ,
, /~ 12 A. Yes. -l k_)T- '
13 Q. The site area --
14 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
l 15 Q. A n'd , therefore, in six when'you.say when 16 failures, virtually identical to those.in the site l 17 area emergency, occurred to DG1-B on 5/23/90, the l i 18 licensee again failed to fully notify NRC, failed to 19 identify and correct the problem and continued 4
20 operation in an unsafe configuration.- I 1
j 21 I guess I expected you to say based on i
22 this language, that the failures that occurred on
~
23 5/23 were due to water.
24 A. Those that are identical and which is the 25 way this sentence starts, the first three starts are !
1 j
i
~
t.- ,
l l <
l
'374
('T ';
X_)
1 those that are identical to the site area: i 2 emergency.
j 3 I believe that those are most likely ,
l l 4 ascribed to water, moisture, dew point problem. The l' 5 ones after that are not identical to the site area .
6 emergency, and there is a continuation of some five i 7 failures after that. f
- 8 Some more specific data was taken-by the l
l 9 INC text about those, and there are other weird _j l i l 10 things that happened such as fluctuations in the E-3 11 pressures and so the ascribing of a root cause to ,
j 12 the rest of those is a little.more1 complicated,-and
-}
G 13 I think some uncertainty exists about those.
14 Q. What did you mean by number seven, the 15 next concern? Is this something different or; the 16 same thing we have talked about? 1 17 A. This is the same thing in terms of the i
18 six findings not being adequately.or properly 19 identified at NRC as ' root causes or involved with
- 20 the root cause but the additional aspect here is l 21 that the process is that this information is 22 supposed to go to the NRC so that the industry can:
23 benefit from lessons learned.
- 7. 24 When it doesn't go to the NRC, it's not 25 just a problem between a nuclear power plant and the
i i
l .
375
(~i
! (-)
1 NRC, it becomes.a problem.of the industry.
2 So it's a broadening.of1the/ concern 3 -because of a breakdown in adequately identifying a .
'4 root cause.
5 Q. And is it your view as a result of that 6- that.there~are other plants now in the.' industry
~
7 which are in an unsafe condition because they; 8 haven't.been adequately alerted to what occurred ati l 9 Vogtle? i 10 A. The process of, sharing information~to the ,
t -
11 industry, everybody suffers.if.the induscry doer,il't
.s 12 have access to accurate.information. I couldn't
~
l 13 state that specific plants and so'forth, but'its 14 important that the lessons learned be conveyed to l 15 the industry.
16 It's important that the NUREG that was l i
17 written be accurate and that everybody that read,it l 18 and responded to certain notifications.by the NRC 19 have accurate in f o rina t ion . If there.are problems !
20 with P-3 devices or if moisture is a problem in l l
21 systems like Vogtle's, the industry should know 22 about it. That's what number seven says. Th'ere is ;
23 the problem and a potential risk because accurate 24 information hasn't gotten out.
/'%
- 25 Q. Now number eight which starts off the L
. . , , . , , ,.- , - - . . . - - .. ~- ~. , -. . - .
376 i
,m l l )
I 1 withholding of the information. By that terminology 2 do you mean --
i t
3 A. The fact that aspects of the six findings l 4 were not conveyed to the-NRC. The NRC was left with I
l 5 improper intermittent operation. That's what they I 6 were told.
i 7 I think because of some of that and, for i
8 example, not being told about water, I think the NRC l 9 and the NUREG, I think the team on-site would have l 10- investigated differently, maybe done more, a lot ,
i !
11 more in that area.
12 If they had known that water poured out
(~T
(-) 13 of the trip lines, I'm sure the IIT members would l
14 have been down there real quick assessing that.
15 I think the NRC investigation would have 16 gone in a different direction and, likewise, I think 17 the NUREG conclusions wouldn't have been so willing ;
18 to adopt improper intermittent operation as the 19 cause, in the absence of other reasons.
i 20 Q. And by withholding opted information, you 21 mean that people were aware of it and opted not to 22 tell the NRC, made a conscious decision not to tell 23 the NRC about it?
24 A. It appears that way, yes.
g
() 25 Q. And those people were at least Burr and
I 377 p.:
V'
.1- Stokes?-
- '2 A. Well, . problems.with P - 3 ',- there were other-3 people that were.awnre ~of reset problems.with P-3~ .
4 -Q. Whofwere-those people?
5 A. I believe Mr'. Hanfinger, for example, and u 6 some other people,in maintenance.hadosome concerns.
7 about the operation ofLthe P-3.
8 -I'm.sure a~ number of.:. people-were' involved 9 with'the' replacement of the logicLboards and1what.
1 01 was found there. You said Burr and Stokes and I 11 'will add Chennault who was the:contractJengineer.:
12 -Q. Now,;Hanfinger'and otherfpeople in- l
~
m/ 13- maintenance knew about. problems with P-3.but ehose-1
- 14 not to tell the NRC about'them,- in your view, during~
15 their interviews?
- 16. A. I know that Hanfinger had' concerns and
! 17 was aware of problems with P-3, and I guess I would' 18 say, also, that from our discovery, we found that 19 some of the people on the critique _ team knew about l
20- some of these problems, too.
l 21 Q. You would include those people in the 22 group who withheld information?
23 A. Well, I don't have a complete knowledge r 24. of all those people and what questions they were
[f(_ 25' asked by the NRC and what they were --
what p
)
f 378 j
'k3)- j 1 information they.provided to the IIT and what they' 'l l
2 didn't provide'to the IIT, but when you read the 3 product of the.IIT and the'NUREG and.when~you look j 4 at allLof the correspondence that Georgia Power sent.
5 out such as these letters that are referenced right 6 above the concerns section here, there is no mention 7 of any of these problems occurring or-being 8 investigated.
9 So it appears to me that we had.a number 10 of people that knew about things related-to these 11 findings, and yet these findings were not
' l')
12 investigated and don't appear to make their waylinto
\~)
13 the NRC's hands. Instead, an improper intermittent 14 actuation of a Calcon switch was ascribed,-the 15 failure was a' scribed to that.
16 Q. Why did these people who had other. pieces 17 of information to provide to the NRC not provide it 18 to them, in your view? Why did Hanfinger note tell 19 them-of problems, E-3 problems,.if he was aware of l 20 them and if he was asked?
21 A. I don't know enough to answer the 22 question, because I don't know the extent of what 23 Mr. Hanfinger had conversations with the NRC about, I
! . M. 24 root cause issues.
l
_] 25. Q.
Well, when you refer to information being L
)
p 379 l U-l' withheld, do you mean it simply wasn't. told to the 2- NRC or when they were asked, that they'didn't-
-3 divulge it? -
l 4 A. I think both. I'think it's clear that it i
5 wasn't told. It doesn't:seem to have'gotten into i 6' the pipeline. In other cases, I think the people "
l 7 were asked and didn't tell. It appears that there i l ;
8 is definitely a breakdown here of this clear and i 9 open communication that has been so often stated. ,
i l 10 Q. And with a large number of people, you !
l '
! 11 have identified some but there are a number of. ,
l 1 12 others, you think?
i(/~*)
i 13 A. You say large number. I think I have 14 identified maybe four or five people that were ,
involved here.
15 l [
16
~
Q. And do you think they all had a common i 17 motivation? -
l l 18 A. I don't know and I really haven't gotten 19 into their motivation and so forth. In the course j 20 of the depositions, the extent of information we I l'
21 have been able to get was that they don't remember. j j 22 Q. Did you attribute it to some evil motive? l
)
23 A. I believe that the providing the NRC with
(- 24 an ascribed root cause of improper or. intermittent
(>} 25 operation of the Calcon switch was a case where the I
1 4 i
380
/ l
, (- '
1 people that provided that to the NRC knew or should l have known that that was not a primary root.cause 2
i ;
l 3 and that was not adequately determined,'butfit'was i
-4 given to NRC as a reason because of a desire to get 5 the plant back on line to get the IIT team off-site, l
. 6 to give them a root cause that they could put in the 7 NUREG so that Georgia Power could get back to the
{
8 business of generating electricity.
9 Q. Did you have a sense then or do you now i 10 believe that someone or some group concocted this ,
11 Calcon intermittent problem explanation'and that -- ,
t j fg 12 A. Mr. Bockhold and Mr. --
(_) 13 Q. Let me just finish just so you understand 2
i v
14 where I'm coming from, and then disclose to others l l
15 what they t hen collectively undertook to tell the ,
l 16 NRC? l 4
4 17 A. The only thing I know in that. regard is i i 18 it appears to me that Mr. Bockhold, from transcripts 4
19 that Mr. Bockhold and Mr. Burr sold the NRC on or 20 provided to the NRC a cause of improper intermittent
, 21 operation as the root cause, and as far as the 22 involvement of additional people, I don't know.
23' As far as other people being asked and i
- 24 not providing information, I believe that Mr. l I
25 Stokes, Chennault, and Burr knew about, the most I L I
! 1 i
i 1
l l 7_ 381
()
1 important thing here being the finding of water and l 2 at least some of them were asked and stated that l
l l 3 none had been found.
l 4 That's the extent of what I have been
! 5 able to determine as to people that may have i
! 6 knowingly provided incorrect information as to root
- 7 cause.
8 Q. And do you believe that Mr. Bockhold and 9 Mr. Burr, in 1990, knew better than what they were l 10 telling the NRC, that they really didn't believe 11 that the true root cause was this intermittent
- r3 12 improper operation of the Calcon sensors?
U 13 A. I think they knew or should have known, 14 yes. Mr. Bockhold made the statement to the effect 15 that we are going to blame it on this, which is an 16 interesting statement. To me that statement 17 indicates that he knew or should have known better.
18 Q. And when was this statement made?
19 A. About the time that they were coming up 20 with the root cause to give to the IIT team.
21 Q. So early April?
i 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what about Mr. Burr, do you know why
,_ 24 he would have subscribed to a root cause other than
/ 25 what he believed to be the root cause?
i
382 f^x ).
t U
1 A. I don't know about Mr. Burr. He denied 2 that any water had been found. So Mr. Burr's 3 testimony in discovery to us was very, very i 4 contradictory on a large number of issues. So I 5 don't know what to say about him.
6 Q. Contradictory to what you understood to 7 have been his testimony previously?
8 A. Contradictory to his testimony in the 9 same deposition, contradictory to what other people 10 testified to. It was very contradictory.
11 Q. Number nine, I would like to get an 12 enumeration of the false statements that you're
13 referring to there. I can provide you with a copy 14 of a couple of pages of slides from the 4/9/90 oral 15 presentation.
16 A. All statements in the oral 17 presentation --
18 MR. KOHN: Are you referring to his 19 knowledge at the time he wrote it or his 20 current knowledge?
21 MR. BLAKE: His knowledge at the time 22 he wrote it.
23 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Is it different, Mr.
24 Mosbaugh?
\/ 25 A. I would have to consider each item. I l
1
I l-383
[^ .
l \- l L :
.1 Q. Let's do that. Let's start with just the j L
2 4/9/90 oral presentation. What were the false i 1 t j 3 statements made in that and what is your basis for i
i L 4 saying so? :
l 5 A. In the oral presentation, the false l i !
l 6 statements or. false or-inaccurate information is >
7 related to the slide about the diesel starts and is- i 8 also related to the statements made in the oral ;
9 presentation about air quality and dew points.
i
- 10. Q. Let's be very precise. What were'the -
i 11 statements regarding' diesel reliability which you 12
(} believed when you wrote this or believe.today, if 13 those are different to have been false statements.
14 A. The slide that shows the diesel testing l 15 that shows 18'and 19 successful starts. I I
16 (Discussion ensued off the. record.)
l 17 MR. BLAKE: You can mark this as four. 4 I
18 MR. KOHN: If you want to note for the !
l 19 record, we marked that as ours, to the extent 20 you're concerned about the hieroglyphics.
21 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-4 was marked 22 for identification.)
23 Q. (By Mr. Blake) We have marked as Exhibit i l 24 4 to this deposition the May 14, 1990 NRC summary of 25 the 4/9/90 meeting conducted at Region II.
l l
l
7.
i i
i i
i 384 l e
r"% !
- l' In particul'ar we are lookingLat page ten, 2 enclosure two to that document which-is the diesel i
l 3 testing slide used by Georgia Power during its l
! i 4 presentation to the NRC. f l
5 Mr. Mosbaugh, if you would tell me on i
6 this slide what are the false statements, in your _
7 view? I i
8 A. Well, the numbers at the bottom, which I [
9 believe represent the summation of the entries 10 above, of the start entries above, and which has !
i 11 been stated by Mr. Bockhold and presented this slide t j 12 to represent successful starts is incorrect for ,
13 diesel 1-B.
14 I believe the A total is incorrect in the i
- i l '
15 sense that the total number is, I believe, larger
{
16 than 18 and there are inaccuracies by omission !
17 because of some information that starts are 1 l
18 missing. B is inaccurate because it's less than l
l 19 19. '
l 20 So the significant false statement, there-21 are a number of errors and omissions and.
22 inaccuracies in this slide, but what I think is the l I
l 23 significant error is that it overstates the number j i
24 of successful starts of 1-B, and it was implied that
_ ( ) 25 it was consecutive.
l l-I
W !
1- 1 1
. i 4
i 385 m./ -
, i 1 So that's the nature of the false ;
6 2 statements in'this slide, and this slide was ;
3 presented at the 4/9 oral presentation. l 4 Q. I understand.that the 19 successful r
5 starts as it appears on the slide and the 4
i 6 representation which you believe was made during 7 that presentation that these were consecutive i
8 starts.
}
9 A. I don't know'if that was a :
4 10 representation, but Mr. Bockhold 's aid that and'the 11 NRC said that they had interpreted it-that way.
12 Q. What were the other false statements, if 13 any were made in the 4/9/90 oral presentation?
14 A. In the oral presentation, apparently some 15 discussion occurred on air quality and dew points, a .
16 and in the oral presentation, I believe assertions.
4 17 were made that there had not been any air quality i
18 problems; that the high values of dew point, the 19 unacceptably high values of dew points were a result 20 of taking inaccurate measurements with faulty 21 instrumentation. 1 22 That is a false statement that I believe !
23 was made in the 4/9 oral presentation, as well. j s 24 Q. What is your basis for that belief, that 25 is, that those statementn were made?
1
~
l
i i
1 386' l C) !
1 A. Mr. Bailey's notes that he took during );
i 2 that presentation.which he attended.-
j 3 Q. 'Anything else?
l 4 JL. Anything else that's my basis or other i 5 false statements? i 6 Q. Any other false statements made in the 3 1
7 4/9/90 oral presentation? .
8 A. Those are the main ones that I remember 9 from the 4/9 oral presentation. .
10 Q. Who made those' statements?
11 A. Well, Mr. ~Bockhold made this -presentation. .
about the diesel testing slide and.Mr.-Bockhold -
CE)12 13 apparently made the statements about air quality, f
14 but I am not absolutely sure because my knowledge' i 15 that those were made are from Mr.' Bailey's notes. l 16
~
l I don't know who all participated in l 17 that, but my current belief is that Mr. Bockhold I i
18 made both of those.
19 Q. And do you believe that Mr. Bockhold knew 20 better than what he represented with respect to 21 those false statements?
l 22 A. Yes.
L i
i 23 Q. Did other people in the room know better, l
24 in your view, when Mr. Bockhold was making those L
L s- 25- false statements?
1 1 l j l
1 i
i i
387.
q]
-1 A. Well, other Georgia Power, people, is that '
t 2 what you mean?
3 Q. Anybody.
4 A. I would think Mr. Cash, who assisted in i S the counting of the diesel starts, should have known f 4
3 6 better. I'm trying to think of all the people,that ,
7 were there, t 8 That's as much as I can recall as to who ;
i -
9 I think should.have known that these statements were 10 incorrect. I guess that doesn't say it's limited t o.
I 11 them, but that's as much as I know.
1 12 Q. If necessary to assist you because you i
- 13 don't know who was there, there is a list of 14 attendees in this package. Do you need to look and 15 see who else was there in order to determine whether 16 or not any other-people knew better than what;was 17 being stated? It's enclosure one of this exhibit.
18 A. Yeah, that does help. I would believe 19 that Mr. Burr should have known better as well as 20 Mr. Cash, because I believe he was involved in the 21 preparation of that slide.
22 Also, the' dew point information was j 23 conveyed up to corporate, high dew point values was '
1 24 conveyed up to corporate before this presentation r'%
(_) 25 and, I believe, was discussed in some calls and 4
4 1 I l 388 i 1 staff meetings in court which may have included Mr.
2 McCoy and his staff. Mr. Bockhold knew about the a
3 high dew point values, as well.
l 4 Q. Is the import of what you're saying that 5 Mr. McCoy, Mr. Bockhold, knew better than what.was ,
?
6 being' told to the NRC with regard to air quality or l l
7 dew points in the course of that presentation?
8 A. I would say yes, I think they knew or !
9 should have known better. They had been involved in 1 10 some discussions of high dew points prior to
{
11 attending, and Mr. Bockhold definitely knew better 12 because Mr. Bockhold discussed with me his knowledge I ID
(-) 13 of high dew points and his knowledge of h'igh '
14 readings that he became aware of'right before he 15 went into the, meeting with the NRC.
16 Q. Right, I think you previously had said I 17 that Mr. Bockhold knew better. He was the one that )
18 with regard both to air quality and to the diesel
{
19 generator start information, he made the statements l 20 and he knew better?
\
1 21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. And it's your belief, as well, that Mr.
23 McCoy recognized, understood that Mr. Bockhold was 24 putting out false information to the.NRC? ;
- 25. A. I think Mr. McCoy knew or should have i
1
i 389 O\
lQJ l 1 known because I think from our discovery, we found l
l 2 some discussion of that at Mr. McCoy's staff 3 meetings of high dew points. :
4 Q. And what do you attribute Mr. McCoy's 5 sitting there and allowing Mr. Bockhold to give 6 false information to?
7 A. I don't know, I guess not wanting to rock 8 the boat and wanting to get restart.
L 9 Q. But you think that he knew or should have 10 known that it was false information and said ,
! 11 nothing?
i
'g% 12 A. I think that may have been the case.
\'-) 13 Q. Any of the others?
l l 14 A. From our discovery, I don't think I could 15 say other specific people.
16 Q. Let's go to the response to the COA. In 17 the COA, basically the same two areas, the statement 18 about the number of starts.
19 Q. Let's take a look specifically at the 20 document. Let me return for a minute because Mr.
21 Lamberski has pointed out to me that we may not be 22 clear on the record.
23 Is it your view that any of the other 24 people at that meeting, all of whom were NRC people
[\-.) 25 and Georgia Power Company people, that anybody else
l l
l -
1 1
I
,- S 390 (v I 1 knew better than what was being put out in the way l 2 of information? We focussed on Georgia Power people l
l 3 only.
4 A. Of the rest of the people with respect to l
5 the statements about the starts, I'm not aware that l
i
! 6 any of these other people had knowledge, sufficient 7 knowledge about the starts to determine the errors 8 in fact slide. With respect to whatever statements 9 were made about the air quality?
l l 10 A. I believe that perhaps~Mr. Hunt or Mr.
11 Cathey may have had some knowledge about high dew
(~) 12 points, and I really don't know what the extent of
'(/
l 13 their knowledge was and if that extent was 14 sufficient to determine that the statements were 15 incorrect.
16 I certainly don't knov 2 f any of them 17 held a belief that the statements were incorrect.
1 18 Q. If they had recognized those statements 19 to be false, do you know of any reason why they ,
1 20 wouldn't have spoken up and said so?
21 A. No. I recall in some notes I saw some 22 indication that somebody may have spoken up from the 23 NRC.
r~s 24 Q. What notes are you referring to?
( )
l 25 A. Some that we saw in discovery. Maybe 4
l l
L 391" l' its part of Bailey's notes.
s n 2 Q. And.your recollection, andLI; don't.have 1 I
.3 those notes in front of mei but.your recollectionsis ;
4 that Bailey's notes may-reflect that NRC' personnel I 5 questioned the. veracity 1or the accuracy of 6 ~information provided by, presumably _Mr..Bockhold?
7 A. Yeah. !
8 -Q. And.do you'know whether or not those !
- \
9 questions were answered or responded to? l
.i 10 A. No, I don't. I don't know anything more l 11 than what'was contained in the notes. 'I didn't I i
12 attend the meeting. .
13 Q. Did the NRC people, some of the NRC i 14 people who attended this meeting know about ~ problems f
\
15 or failures associated with the diesel?. j P
16 A. I'm not aware of anybody in that list l 17 ~ that knew enough about diesel problems to determine i 18 that the slide information that was being presented )
19 to them was incorrect and inaccurate. 1 20 Q. Did they know about problems.or failures I 21 associated with diesel?
22 A. It's possible that some of those people 23 may have had knowledge of some of the diesel 24 problems. I believe the NUREG 1410 indicates L ' 2 5. knowledge of the people of an A diesel trip on March
l
- ' i e !
392 !
l l 1 30th. ;
i 2- Q. And'do you know whether or,not any of the. -!
+
^
3 people in . that room from the NRC were aware of high l i
4 dew point readings? !
l- 5 A.. I think we just' talked about(that. The_-
)
6 person I identified in that regard was-Mr. Milt Hunt' !
J- i 7 and possibly Al Chaffee.
l l
l 8 Q. The March 30 problem, is that on 1-A or 9 1-B?
l 10 A. That was on 1-A. I think I said that. !
11 Q. What about any 1-B diesel problems o r. !
FN l 12 failures?
] .
l 13 A. I don't know who in that list knew what 14 about the B diesel problems. l I
15- Q. 'Looking at the April 9 COA letter, what I i
16 false statements'about air quality dew points, 1 I
17 faulty instruments --
18 A. On page three, statement number four.- Do.
19 you have another question? l i
20 Q. Is that it?
21 A. With respect to air quality.
22 Q. And diesel reliability?
23 A. On page three, statement number G.
,es 24 Q. Starting with G, are there others? Are
- ~ 25- there other false statements that are made in this
j 393 t~b l 1 document?
I l 2' A. Those are the two.that jumped out at me 3 when I saw this and that.I focussed on throughout i 4 this proceeding. I'm not aware of others. !
5 Q. Focussing on-G, what. specific aspects or i i
6 sentences in G do you regard as' false' statements?
7 A. Since. March.20th, the 1-A. diesel has been f
8 started 18 times and the 1-B diesel'has been started l 9 19 times, period. No failures or problems have-10 occurred during any of these starts. Those l 11 sentences are false and inaccurate. !
I 12 Q. When taken together or-separately?.
O(_) 13 A. The first statement taken alone is false ;
14 because 18 and 19 times are not the correct number !
\
15 of starts t h a,t either A or'B had been started since !
l 16 March 20 and as of the date of issue.of this 17 letter, j 18 The second sentence, no failures or !
l 19 problems have occurred during any of these starts.
20 If these refers to all the starts of the A diesel '
i 21 and the B diesel between March 20th and the date of !
i l 22 this letter, that statement is false. !
l I l 23 If taken together and these only refers 24 to the 18 and 19 times and assuming the number of
) 25 times to be consecutive, that is false when taken l ,
l
, i I
I fs 394 l i
f 1 togetherlbecause there were not 19 consecutive l
l 2 starts of the B diesel without problems or failures l l
3 at any point in the interval. l.
4 Q. Do you believe that Mr. .Hairston, who 5 signed this letter, knew better than what these !
r i
6 statements say?
7 A. I wish I could answer that question, but !
8 in the entire course of our discovery, we have not 9 been able to determine who drafted, discussed, and -
?
I 10 created this paragraph. So with the complete lack l l i 11 of being able to discover how this paragraph came.to i
/~' 12 be, I can't answer. !
q-) :
13 Q. You do not know whether Mr. Hairston knew ,
- i 14 better than this factual information?
15 A. I don't know. Our discovery has failed t l 16 to identify how this statement came to be and who f l
17 may have been involved with the creation. l l
18 Q. Are there others that you believe knew l 19 better than the information that was put in this 20 letter at the time it was submitted? l j 21 A. I think Mr. Bockhold, Mr. Cash, Mr. Burr, i 22 because of the similarity of this to the slide, and 23 since those people were involved in the slide, I ;
! gw 24 would think those people knew or should have known !
25 better. :
i
! 1 t 1 l 395 1 .Q. And is it your understanding.that those ;
2 people knew that this letter with this language was i E I l 3 being submitted to the NRC? l L
l 4 A. Mr. Bockhold reviewed this letter.before !
S it was submitted, I believe. I don't know the i I
6 review, if any, that occurred with Mr. Cash and Mr.
7 Burr except this letter was worked on on the plane ~ l 8 returning from the April 9th presentation and Mr. l I
9 Burr was on the plane, corporate plane.
10 Q. Does.Mr. Burr recall-being on the l
j t
l 11 corporate plane?
t 12 A. At first he didn't and then he did. j i(%[) 13 Q. Is that the basis for your saying he was I 14 on the plane?' l t
15 A. His final statement was that he was~on f i
16 the plane. That's my basis. I 17 Q. And is it his final statement on each of i l 18 these which you now believe to be his best 19 recollection, on each of the points on which he has 20 testified? You said there was quite inconsistent 21 testimony previously for Mr. Burr.
l 22 A. I wouldn't draw a general conclusion on 23 that. I think I would have to consider each one )
24 separately.
O)
(, 25 MR. KOHN: For the record, I think i
1
396 !
l f')
'(_/L ,1 i
other people identified Mr. Burr as'being on~ ;
2 the plane.
, 3 Q. (By Mr. Blake) The second item in here ;
l t
4 that you have identified as including false !
5 statements, item number four on page three?. .
6 A. EPC has reviewed air quality of the [
L 7 diesel generator and has concluded'that air quality f
8 is satisfactory. j 9 Q. That's a false statement? !
! l l 10 A. I believe that is an inaccurate
{
11 statement. !
l !
f_ 12 Q. Is that as distinct from false?'
13 A. Well, a review of air quality of the f 14 diesel system should have revealed that the air !
15 quality was unsatisfactory, because a review of the [
16 air quality, including dew point,. should'have' f l 17 revealed that at the time this letter was written, 18 immediately. prior to this letter being written, that ,
t 19 the state of air quality was that the values were ,
20 out of specification high. .
-r 21 So I think that's, I don't know if I :
i 22 would say, I guess there is a number of different 23 kinds of inaccuracies, inaccurate by omission. I 24 feel it's inaccurate.
f).
P(m/ 25 Q. I'm simply going back to your language l
l'
r~'S 397 L) 1 and trying to determine what it was you are [
2 referring to in your concern number nine. You said 3 false statements made in the COA about air quality, 4 dew points, et cetera, and I'm asking which ones 5 you're talking about.
6 A. Continue with number four.
7 Q. Is the first sentence?
8 A. I believe that is a false statement.
9 Q. Because?
10 A. Air quality was not satisfactory.
11 Q. Because the company didn't conclude that
(^ 12 it was satisfactory?
V) 13 A. Now you're splitting hairs about, you 14 know, if somebody is going to split hairs with the 15 statement and say that it was unsatisfactory but we 16 concluded that it was satisfactory, that that makes 17 the statement correct, I don't buy that because 18 you're left with the impression, having read this 19 statement, that the dew point controlled and the air 20 quality is satisfactory and I would expect that the 21 review was an adequate review and the review drew 22 adequate conclusions.
23 So the review, the facts do not support gs 24 the fact that the air quality was satisfactory. Yet
( 'l
~
25 this says the air quality is satisfactory.
, J es.. e + - +
4 Jb k4 .,s J a-i i
398 i
O .
i 1 0 Let's just stop with that sentence for a !
2 moment. Do you believe Mr. Hairston, the signatory l
3 of this letter,-knew better than what that statement
-4 says? {
l 5 A. I wish I could answer your question here- !
6 again, because in the course of our discovery, we >
7 have not been able to determine who wrote, drafted, ;
8 reviewed this sentence. I J
9 Q. Do you believe that Georgia Power people ,
10 have concluded that the air quality was i
11 unsatisfactory and yet allowed this language to be 12 sent to the NRC?
13 A. Either Georgia Power knew or should have !
i 14 known that the air quality was unsatisfactory.
15 People knew the values were high. l l
16 The documentation existed on the work 17 orders of all the high readings. Whether you :
18 diagnose this and say the review was wholly T 19 inadequate and came up with a wrong conclusion or 20 whether or not the air quality is here stated as 21 being satisfactory when they knew or should have 22 known that it wasn't, I don't have enough
! 23 information to answer all those things.
24 The bottom line is that at the time this-O 25 was written and-given to the NRC, the air quality in j
1 I
i i ,
l l I
l 1 399 O
1 the.immediate past had not'been satisfactoryJand air l
l .
b l 2- quality was unsatisfactory at the.very time this was
! e
-3 being given.
4 Q. Now,._who is it that knew . t h a t ?.
1, 5 , A. Mr. Bockhold knew that.
- 6 Q. Who.else? [
l !
7 A. Well, let me add one additional fact to- ,
f 8 my consideration of that statement. 'ITthink it ,
9 would be misleading and inaccurate to be so narrow 10 in your view of this statement that this only meant ,
11 that it was okay the day this lette'r was written. l 12 This is a broader statement'and this i 13 issue was a broader issue than being accurate the l t .
l 11 4 day the letter was given. So'I think that a i 15 statement like this is saying more than.being 16 applicable the day this was written.
17 Air quality isn't that kind of thing t'at h ;
i 18 you can tell the NRC air quality is satisfactory and l 19 it's been bad up to that day but it's been good that i
20 day. So you tell the NRC that it's satisfactory. I ,
21 think that in itself would be misleading. ;
22 Q. Is there some reason -- f 23 A. So what I'm saying is there is an fs 24 historical aspect to the accuracy of this statement, 25 and there are a number of people, you know, when you ,
_ _. . - - - __ _ _ _ . . . _ m .
l l
_ 400 RJ 1 consider.that that knew about a number of the recent
! 2 and current unsatisfactory air qualityoreadings. I 3 Those.were. discussed at Mr. McCoy's staff 4 meetings, had been forwarded up into the corporate 5 office and obviously there must have.been site- :
i 6 people that knew about them, too. I don't know.who- !
l I :
7 on-site reviewed'this letter before it went out. !
8 I didn't have an opportunity to see it, i
( 9 and I'm not sure that many people did because'it ;
l 10 didn't go through the PRB. I know Mr. Bockhold il reviewed it. I.think Mr. McCoy reviewed it . . I i
12 think Mr. Bailey had involvement in it. 1 1 !
13 Q. Didn't you see an earlier draft of this l 14 letter? ,
15 A. No. i 1
16- Q. Did you see an earlier draft'at all of l
17 this letter in the first week in April? ]
18 A. I don't recall seeing a previous. draft of 19 this letter. I believe I recall some assertion that 20 that had occurred, and I think more than one letter 21 was being involved in that time frame. I'think 22 there is some confusion as to which letter was this 23 letter.
24 There was a letter that was ultimately O 25- submitted on the 14th of May that I may have ]
l
..,e . .
~ 4 01i
~
! 1' ~ LreviewedJan;early draft of, but that-. letter isl.not 2: thisyletter.
l:
+ ~ Whofother.than Mr c3 .Q.. Bockhold do"you'
-4 .believe,'now, today, was aware or;shouldLhave been-- -
5 ' aware that-this statement w a s Li n a c c u r a t'e J w h'e n - i t was L6 'being provided-'to the~NRC?. Thatfis, they knew-7 -substantively aboutlthis topicfandLthe'y saw a draft 1
-8 of this letter.
9 A. 'The peopl'e?that knew'about some of: the 10 bad" dew point readings included'some'of the/ people l
11' in Mr. McCoy's staff meeting,'but.the only1 people.
i=
( 12 that I'know of that. reviewed this' letter wererMr.
13 Bockhold and Mr. .McCoy and, I believe, .Mr' . Bailey.
14 So that yields'to' additional people.
15 Q. Because in your view, neither Mr.:McCoy; 16 nor Mr. Bailey would have known enough'about: it-to 17 have~said gee, this is an inaccurate statement o r -.
18 false statement?
19 A. No. The people that thatfyields'were 20 Bockhold and McCoy. I'm not sure that Mr. Bailey 21' would have --
I don't know if he was involved in 22 those staff meetings where that was discussed, and 23 I'm not sure Mr. Bailey would have picked'up on the 24 error, I don't know.
12 5 Q. So you believe today that Mr. Bockhold.
.I 402- l
() 1. and Mr.-McCoy --
2 A. Mr. Bockhold,.'I think, definitely.and Mr. l 3 McCoy possibly.should.have had'enough-information to.
4 know about the~ bad air qualityEreadings and reviewed. ;
I .;
l 5 this before it1was issued. >
l >
6 Q. And do you-attribute this to some' evil '!
j 7 motive on either Mr. Bockhold or Mr.-McCoy's part?' i 8 A. Again, I'wish'we could haveLobtained' 9 through discovery enough information to determine !
E .
i 10 that, but since we were unable.to determine who- !
11 wrote this, I can't answer that.
I 12 I'mean in. order to look at motive,-we- t I
- 13 would have to know a history of development.of-this 14 sentence. We failed to identify who wrote this 15 sentence. We were unable to identify who' wrote this 16 sentence of this. paragraph.
17 I will add one other thing.that I_just 18 thought'of when I was thinking about trying.,to 19 determine who wrote this. As'part of the blue-20 folder, it appeared that there were concerns about 21 this statement, based'on notations that have been 22 made on blue folder draft revisions.
23 There was concern about air quality and
'24 there were-some statements in there, something about 9
25- needing to explain based on recent information,
I (N 403
! > 1
( \/
j 1 things like that which indicates to me that somebody l 2 that was involved in that process knew about recent l l
3 revelations of high dew p c,i n t s ,
i l l 4 So that's one additional fact that we l l 5 were able to obtain through a review of the blue i
( 6 folder about people writing this letter knowing 7 about dew points.
8 Q. Even if you were unable in the course of 9 discovery to determine who specifically wrote this l 10 sentence, aren't you still able to determine if you ,
11 assume that both Mr. Bockhold and Mr. McCoy or any
(~} 12 others had an opportunity to review this or did
%j 13 review it before it went out?
14 Aren't you able still to determine 15 whether or no't, in your mind, they knew that this 16 was inaccurate information being provided to the 17 NRC?
18 A. I believe Mr. Bockhold knew this was l
19 inaccurate. I think I have stated that. With l
20 respect to Mr. McCoy, I don't know enough to say 21 that with certainty. ,
22 It appears that he knew or should have 23 known about the high dew points, and I believe he
(~% 24 reviewed the letter. Whether or not he connected
('~' )
25 the two and let this go out anyway, I don *t know.
.._. .__ _. - _._ . . . _ . - . . . _ . . . ~ ._. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ ___ . .
I U
y 404' iL f^x.
N 'l Q. What:about the next sentence?.
2 A. ' Initial reports of higher:than expected-3 dew points wereLlater attributed-to-faulty-i
.4- instrumentation. I believe that'to.be a: false j
5 statement.
6 Q. And who do you believeLknewth'is to have' J 7- -been a false statement _.and, nevertheless,. allowed it i '
8 to be sent:to=the!NRC?~ j 9 A. Well, if I-knew'who wroteLit, itisure l 10 would have helped'. We were~unableLin discovery to i
11 identify who came up with theifaulty instrumen'tation j 12 explanation. All'of the people that actuallyfmade-.
) 13' these measurements knew nothing about an instrument ~ !
14 being-bad. 1 15 L The INC technicians that usedfthe?
16 , instruments themselves knew nothinglabout aJfaulty' l
17- . instrument. So I have. grade difficulty with.that..
r 18 I know it's incorrect because I don't 19 believe the instrumentation was faulty,:but'the l g 20 technicians that'were responsible and used the dew L 21 point' instruments didn't know that'it.was faulty.
22 Somebody put this in here, and I don't know who.
23 Q. Are you able to say today whether anybody. l i
24 who reviewedJthis letter before it went out;kneu j i
j 25 better than what was being said there? L A r e .-' y o u a b 1 e :
~
) --
s
~
405 1 to identify any person? -
2 A. I would think everybody.should:have known 3 better, because.I can't determine where.the.. concept l i
J4 that the problem was'. faulty instrumentation 5- ~ originated at. If I knew who ori'ginated'that -
t 15 concept,- that would help a lot in knowing;thatJa !
~
7 person. intentionally put an inaccurate reason in- l 8 this response. !
9 Q. But'not knowing that, are"you able to' f 10
~
determine in your mind, do you1believe you are able-i :
I 11 to identify anyone who knew that this was false 12 information being'-provided to the NRC? '
13 A. There are definitely people that knew or-E i 14 should have known this was false information, and- j
- 15- that's whoever put this in here. Without that, I'm 16 at a dead end.
a j 17 )h Q. Do you attribute this'to some evil motive
! 18 on someone's part?
19 A. I believe that whoever put this in here 20 most'likely did so' knowingly.that-knewlor should 21 have known that that was not correct.because merely 22 going to the INC people-that did these measurements, l .
23 where would they have gotten this.information from?
24 They would have gotten the information from the
() 25 INC. There is a whole program to-take faulty b ","[,
L'
t 406 t
(~~h .
~~
1 instrumentation out of service. There is a whole 2 quality program associated with that.
3 The people that did that and were !
I 4 responsible for that, they themselves never knew .
5 that there was a problem with faulty l 1
6 instrumentation. '
l ;
E 7' Q. Sc you believe today that someone just l t
8 concocted this reasoning and put it into the letter? i 9 A. In the absence of any other information j 10 that we have been able to obtain that's the only :
11 explanation I'm left with.
12 Q. And what would be the logic for someone lO l
13 concocting this?
I 14 A. Well, the NRC had picked up on some high 15 dew points, namely, Milt Hunt. He-had been i
16 reviewing a work order, and in early April right i 17 before this presentation on 4/9, just a couple days 18 before, had found high dew points. .
19 I suspect that had the NRC spun up on 20 water as a potential problem, as a potential cause 21 of the site area emergency. There would seem to be ;
i 22 a motive for somebody to supress that by coming-back 23 to the NRC and saying oh, yeah, the numbero you i
24 reviewed in the work order, they are high, but they i es l (,) 25 were due to a bad instrument.
{
1
F
-C ) ;
.1 The dew points really aren't high. That !
2 certainly would, I think, alleviate the~NRC concern.
~
3 Q. So when you earlier said that.the company 1 4 really steered, I don't know that you said this
- 5. phrase, but this is my summary and you tell me if j i
6 I'm inaccurate, when the company steered the NRC,.
{
7 knowingly steered the NRC'away from water problems 8 as having been'a potential cause, that at least Milt 9- Hunt, in your' view, was aware of potential water' i i
10 problems having played a role? -
t 11 A. Milt Hunt reviewed a work order, to my t 12 understanding, that revealed that the dew points 13 were out of spec high. He flagged that to i 14 management as a concern, and I suspect the company 15 needed to respond to his concern.
16 I believe there was a sensitivity to !
17 water as a concern and this statement and the f 18 statements made orally in the meeting attributed the 19 high dew points to bad instrumentation. ;
i 20 Our discovery has shown that not to be j i
21 the case, that the values were, indeed, high and i 22 that an instrumentation in accuracy was not tne ;
i 23 cause. Like I said, having not been able to gg 24 identify anything more as to who drafted this, I'm
~
25 left with the assumption that this was concocted to i
408
(~
V) \
1 explain that away.
1 2 Q. Given your understanding of at least Mr.
3 Hunt that's appreciation for water problems or air >
4 quality problems or potential for water or air l i
5 quality problems, do you think that the'NRC, at 6 least in the person of Mr. H u n t', would have. viewed 7 the first statement as inaccurate when.they read.it? .
8 A. If Milt Hunt was told that the reading 9 wasn't really high --
10 Q. The first sentence. I'm back on air 11 quality is satisfactory.
12 A. But if he was told the reading wasn't 13 really high and if he didn't know of other values 14 greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit, he may have said 15 oh, okay, satisfactory, yeah, I don't know of any '
16 values greater than 50 degrees, since the high (
17 reading that he knew about had been explained away l 18 as being inaccurate by-faulty instrumentation. [
19 (A recess was taken.)
20 MR. KOHN: I would like to know that' ,
21 the three-minute break was. extended to a half '
22 hour. People in this room had wished that we 23 had known it was going to be so long. l 24 MR. BLAKE: Who said it was three !
=\ 25 minutes?
- .. ... . - - . . -. . - - - - ~ . -._ ~
i l
I i
l 409 1- MR. BARTH: I asked for afthree-minute ,
.l 2 . time out to go useithe men's room.. l i
'3 MR. BLAKE: I never heard any reference.
l 4 to three minutes.
l
'S MR.RKOHN: We didn't know it1was. going 6 to be a half hour ~or we would have af f orded: ]
t
'7 the opportunity-to_get.something to eat.. :
i 8 MR.'BLAKE:. 'I'didn't'know,-although I l
9 established ~quite'al precise. time for :
f' 10 . restarting.the interview at' lunch'as 20.
11 minutes of the. hour that anybody was; going toi j
12 be late coming back from that. Why don't'we l 13 move on.
i 14 Q. (By Mr. Blake) With respect to-number -j 15 four on page three of.the COA, Mr. N o s b a.u g h , we have i 16 discussed the first sentence and we'have discussed 'i 17 the second sentence. Are there any additional. false 18 statements in that paragraph? j l
19 A. Well, I think that there may be's'ome l 1
i 20 inaccuracy in the last sentence relative to the air J 21 receiver if the sentence is indicating that the air 22 receiver ever showed no indication of corrosion, if 23 that's the correct way to read this sentence.
24 Q. I'm scrry. How do you read the sentence?
() 25 A. I read it the way it's stated, thic was
i 1
410 !
t l' confirmed by internal inspection of: one air j 2' receiver, the periodic replacement of.theffilter, l 3 and then it says which showed no indication of l 4 corrosion, i
5 ILbelieve thatfone way of reading 7that i 6 sentence is that it showed'no-indication of I 7 corrosion applies to the air receiver'and-th'e filter ~
4 8 inspection or,: filter replacement. Actually -
l i
9 replacement of the filter ~is'not.something that- _
j 10 would show indication of corrosion.
i 11 So I guess it does-refer.to the air i 12 receiver, the inspection would'show indication of 13 corrosion. If that is what is intended by this-l- 14 sentence, from our discovery it appears that there- :
I l
15 was corrosion'found in the air' receiver, contrary to -l i
l 16 this, indicating that there was no indication of 17 corrosion. So I think that's some extent of l l l 18 inaccuracy, if that's the proper way to. read that.
l
! 19 Q. I'm sorry, answer, if you would, by l
L 20 reading the sentence as follows, this'was confirmed-21 by three things, one, internal inspection of one air l
22 receiver on April 6, 1990; two, the periodic' l 23 replacement'of the control air filters last done in L
~ 24 March 1990 which showed no indication of . corrosion;: l l 25 and, three, daily air receiver blowdowns with no l l
i i
s, 411 i 1 significant water discharge. I assume that that's- l 2 what that sentence says.
3 A. Well, you are linking the showed no- j 4 indication of corrosion to the filter replacement.
5 Q. Yes, I am. j
) 6 A. Replacing a filter isn't'the kind of j' 3
7 thing that would show corrosion. I meanLinspection i
- 8. of a carbon steel receiver would show corrosion.
9 Q. Wouldn't, 'n.
i fact, filters show up !
10 corrosion particles if, in fact, there had been [
- t 11 corrosion in the system and there were filters put i
' (^T 12 in the system to collect particles?
'%)
13 A. Not necessarily, because the particles ;
i 14 may not have entrained down to the filter. The flow !
} 15 rates in the system are not that great, and there 16 would be some tendency for the corrosion to remain j 17 in place, generally. The pneumatic supply tubing a >
l 18 little three-eighths inch tubing and I believe it's ,
19 fed by almost a four-inch main. So the flow down l 20 that big pipe is not going to be very'much. l t
21 Q. Reading the sentence as I said it which, '
22 I think, is consistent with the commas and the 23 structure of the sentence, would you believe it 1
g 24 could be anything false?
2 k 25 A. Then we come to the issue of omission.
m - s -e-- r . - = , - -
I i
412
- )
+
\/ 1 Relevant'here is the inspection since'it's l
{
2 mentioned. Good air-quality is stated as being 3 confirmed by the inspection when, in fact, evidence .:
l 4 we obtained through discovery indicates that there 5 was corrosion and debris found in the air receiver.-
6 So those facts aren't in evidence here, l
7 and the receiver inspection is being held out as a 8 positive indicator of no problems, from this ,
9 sentence. I 10 I think the NRC requirements are' accurate ,
11 and completed in-all material respects. -I bring i
12 that up as something that we found in discovery j
() 13 about the receiver.
i 14 Q. So do you believe this last statement'to !
l 15 be a false statement by virtue of it's not including L
16 or disclosing that corrosion was found in an~ air ,
i l 17 receiver, is thr.t what you have said?.
I l 18 A. Yes, and the fact that the air receiver I
19 is being identified as an indicator of good air i I
l 20 quality when, in fact, evidence is present from'its ;
t l 21 inspection that indicated internal rust and debris l
22 or residue, I believe.
23 Q. And do you equate corrosion being found j l
l 24 in an air filter with the type of problem that you
() 25 believe existed in this system due to dew points?
I
L
- 413
('T
(_) 1 A. I believe the kind of problem and effect 2 that I theorize may have caused diesel problems and 3 failures could exist without corrosion, without any 4 significant indication of corrosion products on the
.5 filter.
~
6 I believe you would find some. evidence of ;
7 moisture in the receiver, but I do not equate 8 finding nothing on the' filter.as indicating that 9 there isn't the moisture problem.
i 10 Q. But you do equate finding corrosion in an 11 air receiver with the kind of problem that you 12 believe existed in the system?
O 13
(_) A. With there being a moisture problem, yes.
14 Q. And one that caused problems with the j 15 diesel generators starting --
16 A. The presence of the corrosion in the
- 17 receiver would not in and of itself indicate a 5
18 sufficient problem to cause a malfunction in the 19 control system, but it would be an indicator of 4
- 20 unsatisfactory dew points.
21 Q. And who is it that you believe recognized 22 that this was inaccurate information being provided 23 to the NRC?
24 A. With all of the sentences in section 4
25 four, again, we could not find who had drafted these (d9 Y
l !
414 O
i l
1 and how this had come up the chain.and.had been l 1
l 2 reviewed. So-that's very difficult to answer your 1
3 question because of nobody acknowledging that they I 4 had written or knew how this sentence, this 5 paragraph came to be. '
6- The people that drafted this, that wrote 7 this, reviewed this, and signed this had an l 8 obligation to make sure that this key piece of 9 correspondence, which was' requesting a restart, , was-10' accurate and complete in all respects.
11 These people had the resources and should i
12 have verified that this information was accurate and
) 13 met all requirements for submission to the-NRC and, 14 'in my opinion, they did not do that. I put some i 15 considerable significance of the responsibility on ,
16 the individual that signs the document like this, 17 especially as important a document.
18 Q. And that's why we are going through and i 19 trying --
l 20 A. They knew --
l 21 Q. Excuse me,. and that's why we are going 22 through and determining now what aspects of this 23 document you believe constitute false statements'and 24 who you believe were involved, should have known,
) 25 did recognize them as being false and yet allowed
L l-1 415 1
J
! 1 them--to be sent to the NRC.
L .
2 A. But there is more than just this 3 . consideration that I know he knew and lua allowed it-4 to go=out anyway.
5 There is the responsibility to' institute ,
6 the necessary review to drawfupon the-resources and :
7' .the knowledge of the organization to verify'this 8 information beforeLit comes out, not merely to be :
! 9 content that I.didn't know it1was inaccurate and I-10 signed it anyway.
11 Therefore, there is no. wrongdoing. I see l 12 your question as being of.that_ nature rather than L
13 looking at the responsibility of the signer ~to ;
I 14 assure that the information is accurate and verified J l
15 before it's s'ent out.
16 Q. And did you think Georgia Power had an 17 inadequate mechanism in place in March of 1990 to l 18 determine that information that they were providing i 19 to the NRC was accurate?
20 A. They didn't send this document through 21 the plant review board which would have been part of 22 an adequate process. From our discovery, we have
'23 not been able to find very much out about the extent 24 of verification that occurred. In fact, it seems
,O 25 that in several instances, verifications didn't 1
i
- , .. , - - - -,1
I i-1 occur. So there was somtching wrong.
2 Q. I'm responding to your generalized 3 statement that what you're talking about here;is not 4 specifics on this letter but rather more generally 5- the obligation of a company to insure that they have l 6 mechanisms in place.that will lead to the NRC being 7 provided accurate information, and I'm asking you in 8 March of 1990, did you think that Georgia Power did 9 not have those mechanisms in place?
l 10 A. In March of.1990, I didn't know about, I 11 didn't have knowledge of the extent and nature of-l 12 the mechanisms being used in corporate.
13 Q. That is, you did not know how the company 14 verified or sought to provide accurate information 15 to the NRC and communications with the NRC?
l 16 A. In a correspondence like this,.I knew 17 what that process was on-site when a PRiV was L 18 reviewed, was used; out I was not aware in March of l
- 19 1990 what corporate processes were.
20 Q. And.were you satisfied with the process 21 that you knew insofar as you knew the process?
i l 22 A. I think a PRB review would have been an 23 important part of that process.
24 Q. And the PRB reviews was not utilized on 25 this letter?
i 1
417 s
- \_ 1 A. That's correct.
I 2 Q. Is that, in your view, what l' i this 3 being inaccurate?
4 A. No, I believe that what led to this being 5 inaccurate is the people that put these paragraphs 6 that we have been talking about in here and the 7 intent or lack of verification of these, intent to l
i 8 include them or the lack of verification of these 9
9 paragraphs is what resulted in this being 10 inaccurate.
11 If this document had been PRB reviewed, i 12 perhaps some of these errors would have been caught (a_)13 and hopefully correct before it went out.
14 Q. And for the individuals on the PRB who 15 you feel would have caught these couple of 16 statements in here which you believe to be false 17 statements?
18 A. There are individuals on the PRB that 19 should have been knowledgeable about these and 20 hopefully would have caught the inaccuracies.
21 Q. Who were those?
22 A. Most all the PRB members would generally 23 have had some knowledge of these. Skip kitchens, I 24 mean obviously on the PRB is the maintenance rx 25 manager.
(A -)
7- 418 Au _/ ~
1 They have the quality assurance personnel 2 and some quality control personnel and engineering !
3 personnel and technical personnel and operations j 4 personnel, plant management personnel are all.PRB 5 members. i 6 Q. Is that all the false statements in this {
7 letter?
8 A. Those are the ones that I have 9 identified. }
l 10 Q. Let's turn to the LER, same' questions. l The April 9 letter should
~
11 MR. BLAKE:
12 be number five.
f (O
t 13 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-5 was marked ,
t 14 for identification.) f 1
l 15 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Do you have a copy of the 16 LER, Mr. Mosbaugh? !
17 A. Not with me. .!
! 18 Q. The April 19th LER will be Exhibit 6 l i
19 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-6 was marked L 20 for identification.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Same questions on this 22 document.
23 A. I would-like to make a statement about s 24 some of your questions about identifying all of the ,
I'l j 25 false statements. I'm focussing on this second to
)
.. l L
s l
o r
419 !
1: last'page that we have been talking about, number- f 2 nine; relative to this write up. !
3 N o w ', I have not re-reviewed ~ther
'I 4 confirmation of action letter and the LERLwith; -
5 respect to areas outside of the dew?pointistatements f
-6 and theidieselistart' statements for other areas and 7 things that'we may haveLpicked upLin:the1 course of [
.?
8- discovery. l 9 So when'you're.saying any-other j 10 statements in here, I haven't done that1 review., I_
i 11' . don't know if that's part of-thecquestion youfre- l 12 asking, but I am focussing _on.those' aspects of the -
13 confirmation of action? letter and the'LER-that I
l 14 relate to the air quality and the, diesel? start !
l l 15 statements.and not other areas. l j 16 In the course of discovery, we.have ;
17 gained some information in other areas, and I.
!" 18 haven't reviewed any of these documents outside of' I i
l 19 the areas I just: mentioned. For example',. I do note 20 that mention is.made in some of these documents 21 about the cause of the failure being the improper' 22 ' intermittent operation, as an example. I 23 On page six of the LER, the paragraph ff s 24 that begins numerous sensor calibrations contains
\) 25 the sentences that I identify in the LER that relate 1
l \
! i
l 420 j O1 to false statements about. diesel Starts, and_it 2 -starts with after the 3/20' event, the control i
3 systems of both engines.have-beenLsubjected to a i I t
! 4 comprehensive. test program.
5 Q. You believe that.to be inaccurate?- .
l
'6 A. Well, that sentence alone,7I'm not saying -
7 is inaccurate, but.the next sentence refers to1that ,
I j
8 sentence, subsequent to this test program.- So I'm 9 just starting at that point..
10 Subsequent to this test program, 11- referring to the early portion of.the. paragraph, j
?
12 diesel 1-A and diesel 1-B have been. started at least i t
() 13 18 times each and no failures or problems have i
occurred during any of these starts.-
15 That is the sentence that I believe is ;
16 false and the. reason why is that diesel ~1-BLhad-not 17 been started at least 18 times subsequent-to the )
L 18 test program without failures or problems.
19 Q. And who do you believe knew better than
, 20 this language which was included in the LER on April i
l 21 19th?
22 A. I believe that Mr. Bockhold, Mr. McCoy, 23 Mr. Hairston, Mr. Shipman, Mr. Stringfellow, I l
l 24 believe those people knew about it.
f
() 25 Q. You do not include in that list yourself?
.r g 421 Y l
.1 A. Well, I believe that this stat'ement.was a !
2 suspect statement at that time, but I -- 1 3 Q. Are you distinguishing yourself.regarding l l
4 it as a suspect statement from Messrs. Bockhold, l 5 McCoy, Hairston, Shipman, and Stringfellow, youfgive G them some different characterization of their 7 understanding of'the statement?'
i 8 A. I believe that this was inaccurate. At 9 the time I believed that this statement was probably 10 not correct. I hadn't determined-that absolutely, 4
11 but I believe it was probably not correct.
/~ 12 Q. And what about Mr..Aufdenkampe?
I k_)T 13 A. I believe Mr. Aufdenkampe probably.was in l 1
14 about the same position I was in, believed this was 15 suspect and had not been verified to be correct.
16 Q. And you distinguish yourself from the 4
17 other five, Bockhold, McCoy, Hairston, Shipman, and i 18 Stringfellow, in your state of knowledge about the l l 19 possible inaccuracy of this statement?
20 A. I would only distinguish myself or 21 perhaps Mr. Aufdenkampe in the respect that I was 22 told that the meaning or the understanding of this 23 sentence had been clarified by verbal communication l
fs 24 to the NRC by Mr. McCoy, and that my concern
( )
25 relative to this or any other statement would be i
I l
422 I
-r' :
i 4 1 that the NRC had a clear understanding and be l t
2 provided the accurate and complete information, and
{
3 Mr. Shipman told me that that had occurred, i 4 verbally. :
5 So in that respect, I distinguish myself !
, t 6 in terms of my concern about this statement. I was ,
l 7 concerned about the accuracy of this statement, but l I i 8 it was told to me that this had been explained, the 9 basis and the meaning of this statement had been 10 explained orally to the NRC by the vice-president, l -
i l 11 and with that, said to me, combined with my concern, i l !
12 is that well, okay, if they have explained it to the t l /~'N [
(_) 13 NRC, then they must have provided the NRC what the l 14 NRC requires. That is complete and accurate I 15 information.
I 16 Q. And what about Mr. Stringfellow, what do e i
17 you think his state of knowledge was? ;
18 A. I don't know who in corporate knew about 19 this additional communication, was told about this i
20 additional communication with the NRC. l 21 Q. If Mr. Stringfellow had been told about i t
22 this, would you put him in your class or Mr. !
23 Aufdenkampe?
l t
24 A. Probably. [
b)
\~s 25 Q. What about Mr. Hairston, same question.
i
l r
i 423 I j
j i
1 Didn't you list Mr. Hairston as'being one_who knew i -
l 2- 'better?
3 A. Yes, I'did. I'believe Mr. Hairston, and- i
. i
]
2 4 I don't know if we'have discussed this before,'Mr.
- r
! 5 Hairston, perhaps Mr. Shipman, Mr.'McCoy, and'some i .
l 6 others added this sentence _.of comprehensive test' l
- 7 program.to, I'm trying to think.of the word _you
- 8. used, muck it_up. .;
9 'Q. I:used fuzz,up.- f t
10 A. Fuzz up, okay. So that puts those' people :
i 11_ in a class by .themselves because if they did that ]
[
12 for that purpose, then they were trying to mislead 4
13 the NRC. i 14 Q. And just to refresh me, that was-f i
15 Bockhold, McCoy, and Hairston who you.believe may ;
(
16 have been involved in the generation or the i i 17 concoction of this test program language? {
18 A. Since I wasn't party to any of those- l 19 discussions, if they occurred, I know that from a~ ;
20 review of the transcript that the people that added i 21- this phrase, that that discussion involved Mr. l 22 McCoy, Bockhold, Shipman, and Stringfellow; and that i
23 I believe that Mr. Hairston had involvement in that ;
1 24 because of the earlier interaction between Mr. ;
3 25 Shipman, Mr. Stringfellow, and me and their going t
i
i
! i l
b f
i 3 424 g 4 1- down to Mr. Hairston's office and the feedback to 2 the site about the material false statement in the 3 confirmation of action letter and so forth. i i
4 Q. So you believe Mr. Shipman"and Mr. ,
5 Stringfellow may well have been involved in this, as. ,
i 6 well, this concoction?'
l 7 A. They may have. I don't have the '!
8 necessary information~.to,say which ones of them ,
i 9 were. My best assumption would be that a group of i i
10 management, the higher management is more likely,:
l
\
11 and the other people may have not been involved or 12 may have just written the words for them.- I don't 13 really have enough information to know that. ;
1 -
14 Q. Was it your view that at this point in l
15 time when this'LER went out, that corporate had the 16 same amount of information about this topic that the 17 site people did?
1 18 A. I think the corporate people, yes,, had 19 essentially the same information that the cited -
20 had.
~
l Mr. Aufdenkampe and myself had tried to make 21 corporate aware of'the same, of all the information L 22 that we had. Corporate had access to and could have 23 gotten at a moment's notice any information the site
/~ 24 had via fax and so forth. ;
- N_)) 25 Mr. Cash's list of diesel starts, for i
l.
1 425 E
- 1 example, was testified to have been given to Mr.
2 Burr who went back to corporate, .the original j l ,
3 -handwritten list. Corporate had access to or'should [
1 4 have had all the information.
t 5 As far as knowing and' acknowledging the
- 6 errors before the fact, it appears that they knew i i
7 and acknowledged the inaccuracies before this was ,
L i
! 8 signed. !
9 Q. Did they have access, corporate, to the 10 Odom Webb data? ),
11 A. The Odom Webb data was not completed j i 12 until some point in time after the conversations j 13 with corporate ended. In addition, with the Odom i
l 14 data, the Odom data alone, the problem here is the !
P 15 addition of the phrase that I have been talking 16 about, the comprehensive test program phrase. l 17 When the corporate people put that'in ,
l 18 here without a definition, it's hard to verify that ;
j 19 this statement is true when you don't have an -
)
20 accounting basis for it. It's impossible.
{
21 Q. Are there any other portions of the LER 22 that you regard now as false statements within the 23 meaning of concern number nine? While we are 24 talking about the Webb Odom, did corporate have
() 25 available to them the information from the Kochery
-- m ~
i I
i 426 1 list?
2 A. I don't know. I don't know that they 3 did. U 4- Q. What about the NRC? '
.j 5 A. At what point in time?
l e
6 Q. At this point in time. . l i
7 A. I was told by'somebody, it may'have.been 8 Aufdenkampe, that the Chaffee' team had'been provided-9 some information.- I don't know if they had been' 10 provided the Kochery list and the, quote, Kochery l 11 list was a compilation of several handwritten.pages, !
l
- s. 12 when I use the term Kochery list.
%J i 13 I believe I was told by Aufdenkampe that j 14 the NRC had been provided some start information, 15 and I don't have a clear recollection of the fact 16 nature and kind that that was. Is your current 17 question is there anything else in here?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Well, because it's mentioned.in number )
l 20 nine, the improper or intermittent. operation is j i
21 mentioned in the LER, on page five, number two, it i 22 says the most likely cause of.the diesel trips was' 23 intermittent actuation of the jacket water 24- temperature switches. i 25 Number two states that the cause has not ,
l l
l !
f j
l !
l' !
l 427. .
l A_/ !
1 been conclusively determined and this states the
! 2 most likely cause. So that's being presented as, ;
l 3 -perhaps, not complete or final information.
! . l l 4 So I don't know if1I would say that that >
l 5 is a false statement until the point in' time that.it l
6 was presented as complete and final information, but l 7 obviously I currently believe'that the intermittent
?
l 8 actuation of the temperature switch was not the -
- 9 . appropriate root cause.
10 Q. Any other statements?
11 A. No, I believe that's the ones I would 12 identify.
13 Q. Let me shift to the basis for statements ,
i 14 that you have made in other contexts. Let me refer i
15 to the Hearing before the Subcommittee on' Clean Air
-f 16 and Nuclear Regulation that occurred last summer, in !
17 July of '93.
~
I will be referring to this, so we can i 1
18 mark this as Exhibit 7. l 19 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-7 was marked 20 for identification.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Blake) This is a transcript of 22 the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Clean Air l 23 and Nuclear Regulation on Thursday, July 15th, 24 1993. Let me refer you to page 51 in'this O
V 25 transcript.
I l
428
(.
(_,I 1 At that point, Mr. Mosbaugh, you are 1
1 2 discussing the LER, and you characterize the Georgia 3 Power action as going ahead, they went ahead and l 4 signed up the second written correspondence just 5 like the first one with the same words. Do you see 6 that language?
7 Take your time and read before or after l 8 to insure that I'm not misrepresenting the portion.
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. Did you make any reference and tell the 11 committee about the introduction, in fact, of the 12 additional language referring to comprehensive test
/
(3) 13 program?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When you were responding to the i
16 questions?
17 A. I had discussions with committee members I 18 before this and gave the committee members, I i 19 believe, some of the detailed allegations that I had 20 given the NRC which addressed my written account of )
21 what had happened.
22 Q. You met with Senator Lieberman or other 23 committee members before this testimony?
24 A. Yes.
[s-] 25 Q. What other Senators did you meet with?
1 l
l
- ]
429
,r].
a
(~/ i J
1 A. Not Senator, some staff -- ,
-l 2- Q. We are talking about committee members 'l 3 that'you --
f 4 A. Some staff people. '
5 Q. I understood you to have-said:you met 6 with committee members prior to this and' talked with 7 them. I
. \
8 A. I'm talking about: staff people, people j 9 that would have worked for the Senators. i 10 'Q. And I'm talking about the Senators j 11 themselves, the committee members. i l
12 A. I didn't understand that distinction. I l 13 didn't meet with any committee members before this , )
'1 14 testimony, if committee members.means Senators. )
15 Q. That's what it means.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. And I'm saying did you describe to them 18 in responding to Senator Lieberman's questions or 19 elsewhere in this testimony that you can show me 20 that, in fact, the language was different in thelLER l 21 from what had been provided in the April 9th letter?. l 22 A. No, I believe I stated what I stated 23 here. I think my discussion of this part of it was-s, 24 brief, and I probably limited it to what's here and A
25 I stated what I said.
I I L . 1 i
'430
. [~h
's / 1 It was signed out- like the same,-signed 2 out the second correspondence just like the first ;
y 3 with the same words, no problems or failures had ]
4 occurred in any of these starts, and I believe 5 that's an accurate statement of what's contained in 4
6 the LER.
7 14R . KOHN: I would also like'to'notet an ;
8 objection for the record that this document .
9 was.not. produced in discovery. I believe it l 10 falls within the document request in !
i 11 discovery and I'm wondering why at this late i
12 date it's now being produced for the first
(~h V 13 time.
14 MR. BLAKE: Is the objection to a i
15 question? ,
1 16 MR. KOHN: Yes, I think questioning the !
17 witness about a document that should have ,
18 been produced in discovery is in bad faith if 19 you withheld the document intentionally. '
l 20 Q. (By.Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh --
21 MR. KOHN: Do you agree that this 22 document should have been produced-in 23 discovery? ]
I 24 MR. BLAKE: I don't have a view. I )
1
, K-
[) 25 don't know. I haven't focur, sed on that f
i
! l l \
l 1- r
d 431' l.
. 1 question, and I don't have a view. j
'2 MR.'KOHN: Well, we are very concerned' 3 because welhave.to rely.on the document 4 ' production 1offthe= licensee, and.if j i
d l
5 significant documentation is beingEwithheld, '
. . i j 6 I think.we have the right to.know that. !
j 7 MR. BLAKE: ItLis, indeed', curious to' ;
8 me.'that you would' find it ~ surprising that1Mr.
~
- 9- .Mosbaugh' testified to Congress for- that..Lthere. .
4 ,
10 ~ was a transcript 1of that-testimony.
- l. 11 I, frankly, can't understand for'the ,
- p-)
12 life of me how you.could be surprised by
' ~
13 this. Why don't you explain that to me.
14 MR. KOHN: It's a matter of what 15 documentation you have that we requested-in. ,
! 16 discovery. Obviously if we had it, we:would '
i-
. 17 have produced it.
18 The fact that we'didn't produce it, I 19 think, is. clear indication that we would have
} 20 a reason to be surprised of its existence.
l 21 Frankly, we didn't.know that the subcommittee
- . 22 had even transcribed the, final testimony. i 23 So I think it was called for.in 24 discovery and you did not produce it, and'
(
25 that is my concern. As far as I'm concerned, n
- I
~
_. m __ > . _ . . . . _ . .__ _ _ . _ _ ___
432 O
Ass / this could be a systemic problem.
1'
- 2: MR. BARTH: Are you sayings that.the 3 subcommittee did-notipresent a copy of this' _
- 4. transcript to Mr. Mosbaugh to review? 1
. I 5 MR._LAMBERSKI: .They provided his' ;
.. l 6 testimony, and'I'believe that copy.was. turned ~
7 over to you.in discovery.. 5 8 HMR.'KOHN: As was'all our ,
9 correspondence with the1subcommictee-as was 10 everything we received from the' subcommittee; . l 11 and'now' documentation 1that you;have was~not 12 turned over, and I' suspect that individuals ,
() 13 who I have deposed have reviewed this.
14 documentation and'it should have been i
15 produced, and I'm, frankly,. concerned about i 16 that. 1 17 MR. BLAKE: And 'this is the first time l 18 you have seen a transcript of this? ;
19 MR. KOHN: That's correct.
l 20 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, same j 21 answer?
l 22 A '. . No, I haven'tiseen this' transcript 23 before. The subcommittee provided tofme a copyfof, 24 my testimony.which: I sent back to them, but not this j [ 25 document which contains: everybody's1 testimony.
_ . . _ . _ . . _ . . - . . . . . , . , _ _ L ,. . a J
l l
l <
1 l rs., 433 ~!
1 Q. We are looking at a portion of this !
j 2 document which is focussed on your testimony.
i 3 That's the portion that your counsel claims surprise t .
4 about. I i !
5 MR. KOHN: No, the entire document.
6 I'm complaining about not. producing the 7 document, because, frankly, I would have 8 liked to have known of its existence so I
( 9 could have questioned other people, l 10 particularly Mr. Dolberg about it.
11 MR. BLAKE: Did you ever ask the )
12 committee?
l r-]
%^^~1 13 MR. KOHN: I don't do discovery against 14 the committee. I do discovery against the 15 licensee.
16 MR. BLAKE: So your answer is you never 17 asked?
18 MR. KOHN: My communications with the 19 committee are not germane. The fact of the 20 matter is discovery is to learn what the 21 other party has by way of information.
22 MR. BLAKE: Your client admits that he 23 has seen a copy of this transcript that we
,s 24 are asking him about.
(' )
'/ 25 MR. KOHN: No, he said he hasn't seen
r 434 q
.] I 1 it.
2 MR. BLAKE: Let me rephrase that, that ,
3 he has seen a copy of the testimony that he 4 provided to the committee that I am now 5 asking him about.
6 MR. KOHN: He was asked to review that, 7 and he did. Now, I don't know what this is.
8 This does not look like it comes from the
- 9 subcommittee.
i 10 It looks like it comes from a court 11 reporting service. This does not look like 7 .s 12 it's an official committee publication, as
( )
13 far as I know.
14 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Mr. Mosbaugh, are you 7 15 surprised by this language that we are focussing on 16 now and asking you about? ,
17 A. No. This language is an accurate )
18 statement as I have described. The second i
19 correspondence was signed out like the first with 20 the same words, no problems or failures occurred in 21 any of these starts.
22 Furthermore, that shouldn't surprise 23 anybody, because virtually every Georgia Pnwer 24 witness that we have talked to has stated to us that
('S
(_) 25 the statements in the LER were intended by them to
435 f'N 1 be synonymous with these statements in the first 2 correspondence, the COA.
3 So from our discovery, that would be 1
! 4 consistent with what the Georgia Power people have 5 said. They considered those two statements, the 6 presentation, the COA, the LER, to be conveying the 7 same information to the NRC. They have said that 8 o.ver and over again.
1 9 All of the Georgia Power witnesses have 10 said that or many of the Georgia Power witnesses l 11 have said that same thing, and it's no different 12 than what I'm saying.
,/^%
i (_) 13 Q. And in your testimony were you referring 14 to the sentence that begins subsequent to this test 15 program, DG 1-A and DG 1-B have been started at 16 least 18 times each, et cetera?
17 A. I would like to look at the LER.
18 Q. Please.
19 A. I'm referring to the sentence subsequent 20 to this test program, that sentence ends, and no !
21 problems or failures have occurred during any of l
l 22 these starts, and I will read from my testimony, no l l
23 problems or failures have occurred on any of these l 24 starts, r~s
() 25 Q. And my question to you is is that the
\
l i
i l
1
I
.i
'436 l' same statement that appears in the COA? Doesn't, in . ';
2 fact, the introduction of " subsequent to this test I
)
3 program" provide new information? '
4 A. The introduction of." subsequent to the .
I 5 test program" was added to fuzz up the statement, '
l 6 the intent of the Georgia Power people who' reviewed ;
7 and signed this out was stated to be to provide the 8 same information as did the 4/9 letter.
9 That's what they have told us'is the ]
10 intent of that. So it is the same'as the first. It i
11 is just like the first. !
12 Q. Did you describe to the Senators who were '
O 2 13 questioning you that the statement sent.out in th'e l i
14 LER differed from the earlier statements.by !
15 introducing that language? l l
16 A. I wish I would have had enough time to I 17 have explained many, many things to the Senators 18 about the making of false statements by the Georgia' 19 Power Company, but my time was limited, and I stated 20 these statements as accurately and as succintly as I-21 could within the limitations of the clock that was 22 running.
23 I wanted to convey a lot of information 24 about a number of different things and what I said-g.
( 25 about these first and second correspondences. It's 1
1 i
i l !
l .
437 i i
1 an accurate characterization of both the'way I see
! 2 them and the way that the Georgia Power people have ;
i 3 said they view them.-
4 Q. Is it your view that the addition of that 5 language was not material? .
6 A. Well, the intent of the people that added L
7 it, I believe, was not that, was that.their intent i
8 was to convey the-same information. Like I said, I l
9 believe it~was put in there to, like you say, fuzz 10 it up; but not knowing all that and i'f you just read j 11 the words here, it introduces a new undefined basis !
12 to the statement. i l
13 Q. And did you disclose that to the i ,
l 14 committee members? !
l 15 A. I didn't have a chance to_go into all i i 16 that detail. I wish I could have.
17 MR. BLAKE: We are fairly close to the ,
18 stop time tonight, but I want to give you a ,
- 19 copy if you don't have it of your prefile -
20 testimony.
- 21 MR. KOHN
- We don't have it with us.
1 i l 22 MR. BLAKE: I understand. I want to I l
23 give you a copy of it to review overnight, if !
l l 24 you would, and you can tell me tommorrow i
() 25 whether or not you made this sort of 1
l i
l l
-438 i f'T U Ns[ ~
. i
- 1 disclosure in your prefile' system which, I 2 take it, you didn't.havefany' time limitation ,
3 on.
4 -Q. (By Mr. .Blake). Haven'tlyou1just' j 5 testified that you would like :to haver said a . iot to 6- .them including, I understood, identifying this L 7 difference'in=the language introduction of .!
(
8 comprehensive test program, but you felt pressed by j 9 time and didn't.have an-opportunity to? l 110 A. I don't think that's exactly =what-I ,
11 said.. I think I had-five minutes to speak, and 1I' <
12 touched'on a large number'of topics.and.went over- l 13 this topic in limited detail,.and they had;a i I
14 stopwatch running. _ - I 15 MR. KOHN: I would like to1 note'it was -
t I
16 l
not unlimited time with respect to his i j
l 17 written testimony. It.was a substantial time" )
l 18 trying to produce that in time.-
19 MR. BLAKE: And presumably tommorrow, i l
20 you tell me whether or not this'-was --
y l' 21 identified to the-committee in your prefile 22 testimony, that is, the distinction-between 23 the languages in the COA and the,LER in the 24 introduction of this clause; and if it
! 25 wasn't, whether or not you felt you didn't i
l
! 1 i-- . . - - . . . . _.m.,
I 439 l 1 have time in developing the prefile testimony-1
! -2 to put it in. Yes? 1 3 THE WITNESS: We will review what you i l 4 give us overnight.
5 MR. BLAKE: Let me at this pointfgive' :
L r 6 you a. copy of your prefile-testimony'so that
-7 you can review it overnight and let's mark it. ;
8- as eight. '
9 (Mosbaugh Exhibit DG-8 was marked l 10- for identification.),
11 Q. (By Mr. Blake) Let me refer you-to page 12 ten. At the top of page ten, do youthave:the
13 t language after the accident I was able to report 14 evidence demonstrated that management had' engaged in !
l 15 a criminal conspiracy to conceal safety related i 16 information pertaining to the site area emergency 5 17 and intentionally submitted materially false )
18 statements to the NRC with the respect to the 19 Saturday area emergency, is this your language?
20 A. This is my testimony,-yes, a
21 Q. Who do you believe engaged in a criminal' 22 conspiracy? i 23 A. Mr. Hairston, Mr. McCoy, Mr. Shipman, I i
24 guess I would say those are the key people.
25 Q. Hairston, McCoy, and Shipman?
L
/m. 440 O,
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what was the nature of the criminal 3 conspiracy?
4 A. Well, what's recorded on the tape 5 recording is their discussion about the wording in 6 the LER, the trips, their discussion'and advice and, 7 I believe, taking of the advice to Mr. Hairston to 8 disavow the knowledge they have of the failures of 9 the diesel generator that make the LER statement 10 false.
11 Q. Is it those statements that we have all
/~'s 12 referred to at one time or another from the time N]
13 regarding just disavow and I will testify to that, 14 those couple of sentences?
15 A. Rela t ed to the, quote, disputed section 16 of tape 58?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you take those couple of sentences )
20 and attribute to these individuals that there was a i
21 criminal conspiracy? I 22 A. Well, combined with the events earlier in 23 the day and the final products, combined with the 73 24 documentation, the underlying documentation, yes,
\ ')
25 combined with the underlying documentation and some
441
' 1 of the-events earlier in the day.
2 The group of them had a-little discussion 3 where they, where it was stated-disavow, disavow,.
4 where they stated the advice, and the advice 5 apparently was. accepted, that they disavow their 6 knowledge and the product that they put out is an-7 LER that had false information in it that they 8 subsequently received an NRC violation on.
4 9 Q. Is this language which appears-on page 10 one, the first page of the. memoranda that you 11 provided to counsel and the attachments that we 12 discussed earlier today, is that your best 13 understanding of that portion of the tape from April 14 19th? Look at that, .i f you would. Look at that 15 first page. '
16 A. There is a stipulated version of that, 17 too.
18 MR. KOHN: Are you looking for tape 19 58?
20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm looking for the 21 document he is referring. I think the 22 stipulated version is a little.different than 23 this, has a few more things there. This is 24 the section of that tape.
/s
()
' 25 Q. (By Mr. Blake) And you attribute to Mr.
442 m
S- 1 Hairston the statement about we didn't have no 2 trips, that language?
3 A. Yes, I attributed that to Mr. Hairston.
4 Q. And you attribute to Mr. McCoy, let me 5 explain, I will testify to that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you attribute to Mr. Shipman, disavow 8 or just disavow?
9 A. Or a stutter, dis disavow, but yes.
10 Q. When did you come to this understanding 11 of that tape?
12 A. The summer of 1991, around June time rm
(_) 13 frame.
14 Q. And how did you come by this 15 understanding of that tape?
16 A. When I reviewed Georgia Power's response 17 to the 2.206 petition which was issued in April of 18 1991, I read footnote three that we have talked 19 about earlier that said Mr. Hairston was not on the 20 late afternoon call, the one I referred to as call 21 A.
22 I felt that was yet another false 23 statement being made by Georgia Power, by Mr.
24 Mcdonald in the response that was to be signed under
/~
( ), 25 oath and affirmation. So I went and listened to a
=!
t
-443 ,
- 1 copy.of a portion,-I think it:was, a copy of-part-~of 2 Ltape.58. . ]
3 Q. When, where? .]
4 A. I.had sent tape'58, had'made copies;and ;
5 'sent a set of the tapes to..my counsel-i'nEthe summer- ;
6 of 1990, and I'm trying.to recall if it got a copy 7 back when I made trips up;there.
'j 8 -Where'I listened to'it was.in my-house,- ;
i 9 I'm trying to think where.I'was, in Georgia, in my !
I 10' residence in~ Georgia is where'I. listened to it", and :
11 it was in June, aroun'd' June, a'little.before June- l
?
12 maybe, time frame of'1991, 13 Q. Where you111stened'to'these:words-and-
! 14 ~ discerned that.this is what people were saying? l 15 A. I re-listened to.this portionJof the tape ,
l
. l 16 because of footnote three. I had firsthand memory l t ;
i 17 that Mr. Hairston was on that' call'.- So I, wanted to ;
18 verify it from the tape itsel~f.
l I i
19 So I re-l'istened to what now is the :
l 20 portion of the copy that I had of tape 58 and l
l 21 verified that Mr. Hairston was on the call, that he 22 did participate; and in the course'of listening.to 23 that, I heard things that I had not recognized 24 before.
i 25- So I listened to that section repeatedly i
l
i 444 !
i tb l
\ N-)
! 1 until I had this accurate transcript as I could get, I 2 and I wrote that up as an allegation, and I provided !
3 .that allegation to the NRC shortly after that.
4 Q. And what is your interpretation of these ]
)
5 couple of statements? '
i i 6 A. My interpretation is that Mr. Hairston i
! 7 hears some, I guess I need to look at this section ,
! 1
( 8 four, but Mr. Hairston hears, I.think it was Mr.
9 Shipman say we got the start thing straightened out j 10 and obviously Mr. Hairston is very concerned about l
11 that, indicating he knows that there is a problem 12 with that.
( $q) 13 So he interrupts the conversation at that 14 point, and he says we got the starts, we didn't have 15 no, we didn't have no trips which indicates to me 16 that he also k'new about the trips which indicates to 17 me that the information that I, that Mr. Aufdenkampe 18 had provided to Mr. Stringfellow which I had 19 provided to Mr. Shipman had made its way up the 20 chain to Mr. Hairston. We didn't have no trips.
21 Mr. Shipman attempts to respond to him, and he kind 22 of stutters, stammers. Mr. McCoy, who is Mr.
23 Shipman's boss, interjects himself.
,, 24 These people are responding to their, Mr.
IA/ )
25 Shipman is responding to a boss one level up and Mr.
I i
.f , 445 '
N$ l 1 .McCoy is-responding.to his_ boss. Mr. Hairston is l
2 the highest level person in this conversation, and I
3 Mr. McCoy~tries to explain.the' situation and !
l 4 Hairston says let me explain. l l 5 5 Then he says something about, he says I i 6 will testify to that, and I believe that M r .- McCoy i 7 is essentially indicating to Mr. Hairston that.he 8 w'ould testify'that they didn't have or that they 4 9 didn't know about the trips. Aufdenkampe's and my :
i 10 communication had been with Mr. McCoy. It had been l I 11 with Mr. Shipman. !
(~ 12 So I' guess Mr. McCoy may have felt that l 's ;
13 he didn't, that he had some distance here because he ,
I i
14 hadn't specifically been told, at least by me or l 15 Aufdenkampe.* !
i 16 So he tries to explain to Mr. Hairston l
17 that he would handle it, that he would testify about l 18 this matter, and Mr. Shipman advises Mr. Hairston l
19 that the way to handle it is to just disavow, just l
20 deny that we know about this thing.
21 Then it seems to me that I think the 22 group of them realized or Mr. Shipman, at least, 23 realizes that what's just transpired and tries to 24 move the conversation rapidly off of that topic onto 25 other things and says oh, what else do we have,
l l
l l l 446 t )
'/ 1 Jack.
2 Incredibly, Mr. Hairston doesn't express 3 total outrage at the suggestion that we will handle
! 4 this by testifying in some way or by disavowing.
l 5 You would think that if Mr. Hairston i 6 weren't part of this and somebody suggested to me 7 that we were going to handle this by disavowin,g, so 8 I conclude that Mr. Hairston is accepting the l
9 advice. He certainly doesn't express outrage, and l
10 apparently this discussion answers Mr. Hairston's 11 questions because there is no further discussion 12 with Mr. Hairston about this.
'(,/ 13 Q. You think that the conspiracy was hatched 14 right there in this exchange of words?
15 A. Well, this part.of the conspiracy. Like 16 I said, the inclusion of the comprehensive test l
17 program language may be another part of a conspiracy 18 or of an intentional inclusion of false information. !
l 19 to fuzz it up, i 20 Q. Is it your interpretation of this 21 language that at this point in time, Hairston, 22 Shipman, and McCoy conspired through these words not 23 to tell the NRC about problem starts with the diesel 24 generator, is that what you mean?
- O)
U 25 A. What I mean is that this is their
?
i i
'447 l Ib ) l
~1' ' discussion of how.they will handle.this issue. l i 2 -Q. And ' they _ will ' handle :ite- _
j 3 A. They'will~ handle it:by. denying.: i 4 .
Q. By denyingthat.there were'any-problems:
l 11
,5 with theydieseligenerator?
j
.t 6 A '. .ByldenyingLtheir prior knowledge'. l i
7- -Q. By, denying;their priorlknowledge'of what? q 1
8 A. . By' denying their prior knowledgefbefore~ ')
i l 9 the LER was sent out that the-COA'hadsbeen> -
i I.
10 recognized as being affalse' statement)and-that.the. l l
11 language'being: included in'the'LER.was a' i 12' continuation of the false statement'.
13 Q. You get.that all out of these' couple'of. j 14 words? :
15 A. No, -I get that out of the context ~o f.
16 everything that happened thatoday culminated ~bythis l
17 exchange.
18 Q. What's your interpretation of what Mr.
19 McCoy was going to testifyfto?
20 A. I can't be certain of the intent-behind l
21 that, but it seems to me that he is going to 22 testify,.perhaps'maybe testify'that they didn't' 23 know.
l
, j s; 24 Q. That they didn't know what?
i.h l- 25 A. Before the fact that the COA hadLbeen a'
~
i I
i !
l
_ , _ . _ _ . _ . _. .J
O 448 lY L 1 false statement and that they were incorporating the 2 same language into the LER, maybe testify as was 3 being testified now, that'these were just innocent 4 errors, because that's what the testimony has-been.
5 Q. And what did Mr. Shipman mean, we would
- 6. disavow what?
7 A. Disavow the knowledge of the trips and 8 disavow the knowledge that the COA had been a fal'se 9 statement and that -- disavow that they had prior 10 knowledge that this language was false.
I 11 Q. .Now, you're surprised that Mr. Hairston l
12 l
r~} didn't register shock, dismay, anger, something at k_/ 13 the intent, as you interpret these words, of Mr.
t
.14 McCoy and Shipman? Did you and Mr. Aufdenkampe hear 15 these words?
16- A. No. Well, I don't know'what Mr.
l 17 .Aufdenkampe heard. At the time this occurred live l 18 on 4/19, I didn't pick up on this. conversation, but 19 you have to realize that I was in Mr. Aufdenkampe's 20 office on his speaker phone and Mr. Hairston and Mr.
21 Shipman and Mr. McCoy were apparently face to face-22 in a room in Birmingham.
23 Q. And you believe that as a result of these l
24 words, Messrs. Hairston and Shipman and McCoy
\ 25 conspired not to tell the NRC that they were aware I
l l
)
-A 449 i 1 of plant trips?' .
2- A .' ' Plant trips?-
L i 3 Q. Diesel"' generator' trips. -j
-i'
) 4 A. No, I think I saidfthat they~were 1 i 5 conspiring.as to how theyfwere going *toghandle their
, i 4
6 prior knowledge before the LER was' signed-out' how ,
7 they were goingeto. handle their prior' knowledge of 8 the number of things, of thezfalse. statement in the. '
- 9 LCOA, .about continuing that false statement in
- the !
10 LER, .and obviously this had to do'with their-
- 11 knowledge thatothere were' trips that'made.those
12~ statements false.- )
- k_)N i l 13 Q. Hadn't you told Mr. Shipman that the !
j 14 Kochery list'with the two failures was provided to~
15 Al Chaffee? i a
1 16 A.. I made a statement like.thatito Mr. !
17 Shipman based on some second hand information that.I 18 had from Mr. Aufdenkampe.
1
, 19 Q. And you think that Mr. Shipman would l 20 still have believed that he was in a position 1to 21 just say I didn't know anything1about the failures?
22 A. The failures themselves, it's the i
23 knowledge that the failures made the statements i I 24 false, and it's the knowledge that COA was false and .
- 25 that they were continuing the same false statement 1
~ . . ..
~
1 in the LER. That's what I believe to have been 2 their liability or their biggest liability.
3 Q. What was the safety related.-information j 4 that they were concealing? '
5 A. Safety related information that they were :
i 6 concealing, they were concealing the status of the j I
7 diesel generators, the reliability status of the '
8 g'e n e r a t o r , the fact that they were overstating or i i
9 misstating the reliability of the diesel generator 10 in order to gain and continue with the restarted, 11 gain the permission to and continue with the restart 3 12 of the plant. l
\-) -
13 Q. I thought you indicated that the
! 14 conspiracy was to conceal their knowledge of the l l l 15 plant trips but not, in fact, whether or not there l 16 had been plant trips, i 17 A. Conceal their prior knowledge and the 18 fact that there were trips that made these i
19 statements false.
20 Q. You mean you feel that they were l l 21 conspiring not to tell the NRC about the trips, that I
22 the NRC wouldn't learn about these trips?
23 A. Well, they had successfully, as of 4/19, 24 they had successfully sold the NRC, fooled the NRC l (~'g >
l kl 25 in the 4/9 presentation which said there had been no l
l
! l i
I
1 J
451 1- trips since 3/20. They had gained permission to 1
2 restart under'that false premise. !
3 It had worked up until then, and I ,
i 4 .believe that as of 4/19, they viewed it as a '
5 liability that if this got exposed or was 6 recognized, that it would interrupt the restart of l 7 the plant.
8 Q. So it's your view that on the 19th, as j 9 exposed by this exchange between these three ,
'l 10 individuals, that they knew about the trips, they 11 knew the numbers were wrong, but they'were '
(~} 12 conspiring at that point not to tell~the NRC about N_J !
13 the trips, not to admit that the numbers,' admit that i 14 the numbers were wrong and, in fact, they believed 15 that the NRC wouldn't learn about them?
16 A. I believe that they-thought they could 17 continue to get away with it. I believe that they 18 also figured that if they got the plant up to a ;
i 19 hundred percent power, the chances of an i
20 interruption that would effect power operations 21 would be minimal, and I think it's been kind of an 22 historical thing that if you're down, the NRC may l 23 keep you down; but if you're back at power, it's
- '24 less likely that the NRC will shut you down.
~
25 Q. So also you read into this that while the m- w we- ** vm
l I I t o ,
i l fs 452- !
k_
' f
( 1 NRC might find out, it might be later and it l l ;
2 wouldn't have as great an impact? l t
3 A. I think-that's a-possible thought on- ,
l :
l 4 their part because they are fairly knowledgeable j 5 people about the way the industry operates.
6 Q. Have you shared that belief with others l 7 prior to today? i 8 A. No. Your questions led me down that path- l 9 just today, and I - mean that only with respect to the-10 philosophy of once you're down, you stay down-and l 11 once you're up, you're-less apt to be shut down. i i
12 Q. And do you believe'that these threeLfelt' j 13 .that they could carry this off? l 14 A. They did.
i 15 Q. That they could carry this off.even l
)
l 16 though there were other people on this very 17 conference call in which this conspiracy was l 18 discussed?
l 19 A. Well, because they didn't know it was l 20 being tape recorded and if it wasn't tape recorded, 1
l 21 they would have gotten away with it and.it would 1
22 never have been questioned. l L
23 Q. Because no one heard them when they said I i
, 24 it, only the three of them heard each other? !
L 25 A. No, because if it ever became an issue, !
l l
i
. . , . . . . . . - . - . . - . - ~.- - -, - - -- -- . .
453 i i
1- ~they could just say it never' happened and there:~'
[
- 2 'wouldn't be a~ tape recording and'there-wouldn't be a j i
3 transcript and'they would have'been able to 4 successfully dismissLanybodyi that claimed t'his !
5 happened by. collectively saying it'didn't. !
6 -Q. Do you believe that the three of them l 7 ever discussed these kinds.of things that we are -
8 talking'about that you attribute to.them'now? l 9 ..A . I don't-know, but since you mentioned, l i
10 you know, since you find it incredible that they .,
l i
11- thought'they could'get away.with it, . we merely-need _
.l; 12 to look at what has actually happened. They did get !
) 13 away_with it.
14' The' plant was returnedIto power, andiif l
~i 15 it hadn't been for my filings with theLNRC, I do not; j
, .16 believe that this.would be an issue.
l 17 Q. Has it occurred to you :that they may not :
l :
18 have gotten away with anything that, intfact,.there 19 is quite a different explanation for these words and-1
- 20 what was their intention at'the time?
l 21 A. We have asked all of these witnesses 22 about these words and the explanation we have gotten' 23 from these witnesses is they can't remember any of.
24 this.
.25 Q. Do you think that if they had hatched a-I
l J
e i conspiracy and really had these thoughts about l i
2 trying-to mislead the NRC and the other individuals' :
3 on this phone, that they might, in-fact,' recall.it? !
4 A. Since none of them have recalled any of
-5 this, it's hard for'me to believe that_they would be j
! 6 able to ascribe a different explanation, since they ,
7 have all said they had no knowledge, no '
8 recollection. i 9 MR. BLAKE: I would like to take just ;
10 one or two more minutes. I 11 MR. KOHN: I would note'it's a little i
R 12 after 8:00, but please go ahead.
j- 13 Q. (By Mr. Blake) If-these words indicate :
I 14 an intention on these individual's parts that you !
15 ascribe to them, do you think that's a big deal? ,
16 A. Yes, I think it's a big deal with the'NRC 17 people that reviewed these same words. The NRC 18 people that I have discussed with here and that have; 19 reviewed these same words think it's a big deal.
20 Q. Do you think it would have been a big 21 deal to them?
22 A. To whom?
'23 Q. To the individuals.- I 24 A. I don't think I fully understand your l f-s
'(_ 25 question.
i l
- f 455 ,
~s
]' 1 Q. Do you think if these. individuals reall'y l 2 were conspiring to mislead the NRC in the.way in l 3 which you have interpreted.their words, that-it L -
4 would have been a big deal to them at.the time, i
5 important, significant? .
l l 6- A. I thinkuit would have been important and ,
1 7 I find the fact that none of them can hear or-l ;
1 l
8 remember any of this to be disturbing. !
I 9 Q. And if it were a big deal'to them at that l 10 time, you think that today they should remember it?
j 11 A. Other people that have listened to the l l
12 tapes listened to sections of the tape and have-been l k_) 13 able to hear things that are much less audible than 14 this, and a lot of people that I believe genuinely !
15 listened and hear the tapes say this is great, this l 16 really brings it back; but the witnesses that were ;
1 17 involved in this activity collectively say I can't )
l 18 hear, I don't remember, and do not respond like some l
19 of the other witnesses have to other portions of 20 other tapes.
21 Q. And do you think that equally plausible ,
l 22 explanation for their not recognizing this now or-i 23 not remembering it now is that it was a far more !
l 24 innocent interpretation at that time, whatever it 1
( 25 was they were saying?
_ > er e e
l !
l l l
l l
456
[
1 G 1 A. No. I think the extreme seriousness of 2 it and the fact that it was documented by me is what 3 is causing those people to continue to disavow, to 4 continue to deny that this occurred.
5 MR. BLAKE: Thank you. We will see you t
i l 6 in the morning at 10:00 0 elock.
l
) 7 (Deposition adjourned at 8:05 p.m.)
8 9
l 10 11 I
, (N 12
!\
u-) 13
! 14 15 16 17 18 19 ;
l 20 21 22 23 24 I)
'~ 25 ;
i t
"457 4-(~$ t 1
2-3 INDEX TO EXHIBITS' I l 4. .l I I 5 Mosbaugh .
![
l .
Exhibit Description Page -
l 6 r
.i 7 DG-2 ' Deposition Transcript Copy. .
Allen Mosbaugh, July 22, 1994' . 216 ,
8-I DG-3 Letter, Wilmoth to'Lamberski .
l -9 and Blake, July 13, 1994 - 239-
- l l .10' DG-4 Letter, Reyesi to. Hairston- f l May 14, 1990 383- t 11 DG-5' Confirmation of Action i 12 Letter, April 9, 1990 --418 i 13 DG Licensee Event' Report-April 19~ 1990'
, 418: t 14 DG'-7 Transcript of Hearings before- l
^
15 the' Senate Subcommittee 427 16 DG-8 Testimony of! Allen Lee Mosbaugh {
July 15, 1993 439 ,
17 '
~
18 (Original Exhibits DG-2 through DG-8lhave been j attached toLthe original transcript.) I 19 20 l
21 22 - - -
23 i
24
([t25
_. >.sw -
"s'M""
l j
458 1 STATE.0F GEORGIA:
COUNTY OF FULTON: ;
'2 l i
3 I hereby certify that the foregoing
]
4 transcript was reported, as stated in the' caption, 5 and the questions and answers thereto were. reduced
'6 to typewriting'under my direction; that1the l 7 foregoing pages 208 through. 457: represent a~true,.
L i
8 complete, and correct transcript of the evidence 9 given upon said hearing, and I further certify thati
- 10 I am not of kin or counsel-to the parties in the. 1 L
l 11 case; am not in the employ of counsel for_any of 12 said parties; nor am~I.in anywise interested intthe
- O(_j 13 result of said case.
14 Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-28'(d): l 15 The party taking this deposition will' receive t 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.
l 19 Incidental direct expenses of production may be !
l 20 added to either party where applicable. i l
21' Our customary appearance fee will be charged to l 22 the party taking this deposition.
- 23 This, the 25th day of August, 994.- l 24~
JU'DY J. BRAGG, CCR-A-521 My commission expires on the.
l
[/} 25
% 9th day of December, 1994.
l l
4:
,- 459 .
4
-t g
_1 . DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/JJB
-2 I do hereby certify that I have read all .
questions propounded to me and all' answers given .
J 3 by me on the 23rd day of August,. 1994, taken before Judy J. Bragg, and that:
4
- 1) There are no changes noted. ,
5 2) The following changes are'noted: !
6 Pursuant to Rule 3 0 (7),(e) of the Feteral Rules of Civil Procedure and/or-the Official Code of 7 Georgia Annotated 9-11-30(e), both of which read in part: Any' changes in form or substance.which you 8 desire to make'shall be entered'upon-the deposition...with a statement of.the reasons.
. 9 given...for making them. Accordingly, to assist you j in effecting corrections,.please use the form below:
10 4
11 Page No. Line No. should read:
l /~ 12 1_,} And the reason for the change is: ,
13 -
DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/JJB i 14 Page No. Line No, should read:
15 16 .And the reason for the change is:
~
17 l
Page No. Line No. should read:
18 19 And the reason for the change is:
20 Page No. Line No. should read:
21 22 And the reason for the change is:
23 Page No. Line No. should read:
25 And the reason for the change is:
4
- y- w ,
l l
l f
460 t ,,,T O '
l 1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/JJB l 2 Page No. Line No. should read:
l 3
j And the reason for the change is:
l 4 5 Page No. Line No. should read: ,
6 l
And the reason for the change is:
7 8 Page No. Line No. should read:
9 And the reason for the change is:
10 11 Page No. Line No. should read:
12 p)
( 13 And the reason for the change is:
l 14 Page No. Line No. should read:
15 -
And the reason for the change is:
16 17 Page No. Line No. should read:
18 And the reason for the change is:
19 20 Page No. Line No. should read:
21 And the reason for the change is:
22 23 Page No. Line No. should read:
24 f) And the reason for the change is:
kJ 25
l 1
461 f) v 1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/JJB 2 Page No. Line No. should read:
3 And the reason for the change is:
4 5 Pcge No. Line No. should read:
6 And the reason for the change is:
7 P
8 Page No. Line No. should read:
9 And the reason for the change is:
10 11 Page No. Line No. should read:_
- 12 l And the reason for the change is:
\ -) 13 14 Page No. Line No. should read:
15 And the reason for the change is:
16 17 Page No. Line No. should read:
18 And the reason for the change is:
19 20 Page No. Line No. should read:
21 And the reason for the change is:
22 .
23 Page No. Line No. should read:
24
(' And the reason for the change is:
( 25
=
hm
1 J
-i>
462
(N !
\,_): ;
1 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN MOSBAUGH/JJB l
- 2. Page No. Line No. should read:
l 3 i And the reason for the change is:
4 ;
5 Page No. Line'No. should read:
1 6 !
P And the reason for the change is: '
' ti ;
8 Page No. Line No. should read: i t
9 !
And the reason for the change is: I 10 _ , _ .
11 Page No. Line No. should read:
l g+g 12 I
() And the reason for the change is: j 13 ,
i 14 Page No. Line No. should read:
i 15 ~
And the reason for the change is: I 16 '
17 If supplemental or additional pages are necessary, please furnish same in typewriting annexed to this 18 deposition.
19 20 ALLEN MOSBAUGH 21 Sworn to and. subscribed before me, this the day of , 1994.
22 23 Notary'Public 1 My commission expires: 1 24 25 i
I i
1 r~w 463 ;
U i j
1 2 i l 3 ,
4
.5 AMENDED CERTIFICATE' .
6 ,
'7 STATE OF GEORGIA: i l
8 COUNTY OF FULTON: ~ -
'I 9
10 I hereby certify that in addition to l l !
11 the certification made on'Page 458 of the ;
\\(~) 12 transcript, more than 30 days provided the ;
I . i l 13 deponent to read and sign the original l l 14 transcript have expired. Therefore, the j t
15 original is being filed without the signature 16 of the witness. !
Og 5 l 17 This, the I day of t]Ter)roi o m , 1994 ;
.h 19
- JUDY J. BRAGG, CCR-A-521' l l 20 Certified Court Reporter ,
and Notary Public. ,
21 f i !
l 22 23 l
24 J\/ 25 i
i
- . . - , ,. ,,