ML20082C146

Prefiled Testimony of MW Horton on DG Reporting Issues.* Related Correspondence

ML20082C146
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/04/1995
From:	Horton M GEORGIA POWER CO., SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20082B958	List: ML20082B955 ML20082C012 ML20082C045 ML20082C092 ML20082C112 ML20082C137 ML20082C143 ML20082C146
References
93-671-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9504060185
Download: ML20082C146 (9)

Text

ETED CORRESPONDENCE DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR N OFFICE ' 'lE$E[);fC 00CKEIN *v In the Matter of Br:MJh

Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, 31 31  : 50-425-OLA-3

Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, : (Transfer to Units 1 and 2)  : Southern Nuclear)

ASLBP NO. 93-671-OLA-3 PREFILED TESTIMONY  ;

OF MICHAEL W. HORTON ON DIESEL GENERATOR REPORTING ISSUES l

I I

1 l

l l

9504060185 950404 PDR ADOCK 050004 4 1 . _.

4~

'l TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. BORTON

2 Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CURRENT POSITION?

3 A: My name is Michael W. Horton. My current position is Project 4 Manager-Nuclear Technical Services for the Southern Nuclear 5 Operating Company.

6 Q: WHAT ARE YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS?

7 A: A summary of my professional qualifications is attached hereto 8 as Exhibit A.

9 Q: WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE WITHIN THE VOGTLE PROJECT IN 1990, DURING 10 AND FOLLOWING THE SITE AREA EMERGENCY?

11 A: I was the Manager-Engineering Support at Plant Vogtle, 12 responsible for the plant Engineering Support Department.

13 During the Site Area Emergency, members of my staff worked 14 around the clock in assessing and trouble-shooting the 15 problems with Vogtle Unit i diesel generators. I was also a 16 voting member of the Plant Review Board. In that capacity, I 17 reviewed and approved the June 29, 1990 revised LER and its 18 associated cover letter (McCoy Exh. N; GPC Exh. 16). During 19 this time frame, I reported to the Vogtle Assistant General 20 Manager-Plant Support. Mr. Mosbaugh filled this position on 21 an interim " acting" basis until sometime in May 1990, when Mr.

22 Thomas Greene reassumed this position.

e '

. :.1 ,

a  !

l 3

1 Q: WHAT. ROLE DID'YOU PLAY IN THE SUBMITTAL OF THE JUNE 29, 1990  ;

2 REVISION TO LER 90-006 AND ITS ASSOCIATED TRANSMITTAL LETTER?

3. A: . As a voting member of the Plant ' Review Board ("PRB"), I {

4 reviewed and approved both the revised LER and its cover

'5 letter. .

T 6 Q: DID.YOU.HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WHERE YOU VOICED A CONCERN WITH l

7 THE DRAFT REVISED LER AND COVER LETTER PRIOR TO ITS SUBMITTAL? '

8 A: Yes. On June 29, 1990, before the revised LER and cover ,

9 letter were finalized, I participated in a telephone 10 conference . call that was secretly tape recorded by Mr.  :

11 Mosbaugh. I have listened to that taped conference call and .

12 believe that the partial Tape 187 Transcript attached to-Mr.

13 Greene's testimony as Exhibit B (GPC Exh. 44), pp. 1-8, 14 accurately reflects that discussion. The call was initiated 15 by Ms. Carolyn Tynan, who was the PRB secretary. Ms. Tynan.- ,

16 was polling PRB members regarding their views of the revised >

17 LER and cover letter prior to the formal PRB meeting. Messrs.

18- Mosbaugh and Frederick, the site QA Manager who had just 19 completed an audit on the diesel generator start numbers that 20 formed the basis for the numbers in the revised LER, were in 21 -Ms. Tynan's office when she called me. Ms. Tynan put me on l 1

~22 her speaker phone and we discussed the cover letter.  :

1 23 Q: WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN?

24 A: As recorded by Mr. Mosbaugh, I initially had a concern with- ,

1 I

u

,g 1 the last sentence of the first paragraph of the cover letter, 2 which stated as follows: "The discrepancy (in the diesel start

'3 numbers reported in the original LER and the revised LER) is 4 attributed to diesel. start record keeping practices. . . . ". This 5 statement both surprised and agitated me because my department 6 was responsible for maintaining the Diesel Start Log and the 7 statement implied that the log was being maintained in a

-8 deficient manner. Although I had no first-hand knowledge as 9 to how the start count had been performed for either the April 10 9 presentation and letter or the original LER, I had 11 understood that this log was not consulted in arriving at the 12 start numbers. I understood that those diesel-start counts 13 had been compiled from control room logs (not the Diesel Start 14 Log) and that the individual performing the counts had simply-15 counted wrong. I was familiar with the regulatory guidance 16 associated with the maintenance of the Diesel Start Log and 17 believed my department to be in full compliance with our-18 commitment to that guidance. Under these circumstances, I 19 wanted an explanation as to how someone could say such a-20 program was deficient and responsible for inaccurate 21 information being submitted to'the NRC.

22 Q: HOW DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERN?

23 A: I initially told Ms. Tynan that I disagreed with that sentence

, 24 in the cover letter. I had pride in the practices of my 25 department. Ms. Tynan put me on her speaker phone and Mr.

m >

_- 4 ;

1- Frederick, whom I knew had supervised the diesel start audit, 't 2 explained that he understood Mr. Hairston had written that 3 sentence. This lessened my concern because I believed Mr.

i

'4 Hairston probably understood the facts better'than I._ I had 5 only second-hand information regarding how the original start 6 count was performed.

7 Q: DID YOU SIMPLY DROP THE MATTER AT THAT POINT? ,

8 A: No. I knew that Mr. Frederick's audit of-the various logs 9 containing ' diesel- start information had included my

~10 department's Diesel Start Log, and I asked him what was wrong 11 with my department's record keeping practices. The tape 12 recording of our discussion reflects the agitation I felt ,

13 because, as I testified earlier, I felt my department was 14 being blamed for the inaccurate information based on poor 15 record keeping practices but no one had identified any 16 evidence of failing to meet our regulatory commitments. Mr.

17 Frederick explained that the Diesel Start Log.was not up to 18 date when the LER was prepared and, as a result, could not be 19 used by those preparing the LER. At this point, I began to 20 understand the point Mr. Frederick was making. The diesel 21 record keeping practices being faulted was not related to the 22 quality or accuracy of the Diesel Start Log but rather with 23 the timing of the updates. The Operations Department was 24 responsible for completing diesel start data sheets (known as 25 Completion Sheets) that were used by my department to update l

1

. . = .. _ . _- - _. .

g,. .

, t S.

1~ the Diesel Start' Log and the delay was associated with the

-2 processing of these. data sheets.

-3 Q: WERE YOU PERSUADED BY-MR. FREDERICK'S EXPLANATIONS THAT.THE I

4 REVISED LER COVER LETTER WAS INDEED ACCURATE?

5 A: Yes. I had to agree with Mr. Frederick's' logic that had the 6 Diesel Start Log been up to date, the likelihood of a counting 7 error would have been far less. As Mr. Frederick explained, 8 there was no error in the Diesel Start Log that caused the 9 error in the original LER. Rather, that log was not used 10 because it was not up to date. Thus,.those performing the 11 count were forced to go to secondary information sources, 12 which turned out to be a difficult task. Mr. Frederick's 13 analysis went beyond the obvious " human error" explanation and 14 identified an underlying cause for the error. I agreed with 15 his logic, but my initial irritation at being the " scape goat"  ;

16 for the LER inaccuracy would not allow me to give a stronger i 17 endorsement of Mr. Frederick's logic than "I don't disagree."

l 18 Q: WHY DID YOU NOT PAY SPECIAL HEED TO MR. MOSBAUGH'S STATEMENTS 19 ON JUNE 29, 1990 THAT RECORD KEEPING PRACTICES DID NOT CAUSE i

20 THE ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL LER?

l 21 A: As I testified earlier, Mr. Mosbaugh had been my boss until 22 May 1990 and I believed that I had a good understanding of the j l 23 scope and limitations of his knowledge of Vogtle operations.

24 In this regard, I believed Mr. Mosbaugh to be unfamiliar with t

l l

L--__.- _ _ , . - _ _

4. .

'l the inner workings of the Operations Department, including the 2 processing of the diesel start data sheets. I understood and 3 followed the explanation provided by Mr. Frederick but noted 4 that Mr. Mosbaugh appeared to be more interested in arguing 5 with Mr. Frederick than with refuting the basis for Mr.

6 Frederick's position. l 7 Q: WHY DID YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THE COVER LETTER EVEN THOUGH YOU 8 STATED THAT YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREED WITH IT?

9 A: My statement to Ms. Tynan and Messrs. Mosbaugh and Frederick 10 that "I disagree with it (i.e., the record keeping practices 11 explanation in the cover letter) personally, but I'm not 12 interested in arguing about it right now," was, admittedly, a 13 poor attempt on my part to express frustration with the 14 negative reflection on my department created by the cover 15 letter statement. However, it was not intended to indicate l

16 disagreement with the logic supporting the statement. I i 17 believed it to be unfair that the Diesel Start Log was being 18 blamed for the inaccuracy in the original LER since it was 19 being kept in accordance with regulatory guidance but I could 20 not refute Mr. Frederick's logic. Just as I concluded then, 21 and I continue to believe today, the timing problem associated 22 with the updating of the Diesel Start Log was a cause for the 23 inaccuracy in the original LER.

1 1

I

1 4

1 Q: ~ MR. HORTON, DID YOU KNOWINGLY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION TO .THE ,

2 NRC BY APPROVING THIS COVER LETTER LANGUAGE?

3 A: Absolutely not. In my opinion,.the conversation. recorded by 4- Mr.'Mosbaugh.on June 29, 1990 (333 Greene Exh. B; GPC Exh.

5- 44), demonstrates conclusively. that I did not knowingly

-6 provide false information to the'NRC. The tape reflects that 7 Mr. Frederick provided a reasoned basis for the explanation of 8 the cause of the error in the original LER. I resisted this  ;

1 9 explanation because it reflected negatively on my department i i

10 but could not refute the logic of Mr. Frederick's conclusion.

I 11 When I ended my participation on the June 29 conference call, l I

12 I believed the cover letter to be accurate. My practice has  !

13 always been and will continue to be to provide complete and I i

14 accurate information to the NRC to the best of my ability even 15 when such information might reflect negatively on me or my 16 subordinates.

)

l i

w w-r - - r -W1- v w- + w -

--r r- e:

4

• GPC EXHIBIT 45 HORTON EX. A

SUMMARY

OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS MICHAEL W. HORTON EDUCATION l 1979 Bachelor of Science, Nuclear Engineering i University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida WORK HISTORY:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company  ;

Birmingham, Alabama 1993-Present Project Manager; responsible for projects designed to re-engineer operations and support functions in order to reduce costs associated with the operation of nuclear power plants within the Southern Corapany electric utility system  :

Georgia Power Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant i Waynesboro, Georgia i 1992 Manager-in-Training; received Senior Reactor Operator License 1990-1991 Manager of Engineering Support; responsible for all on-site nuclear plant engineering functions 1987-1989 Superintendent of Test Engineering; responsible for managing all testing activities associated with the initial start-up and commercial operation of Vogtle, Unit 2 ,

1984-1986 Test Engineering Supervisor; responsible for supervising Test i Engineers performing initial test program activities for both Balance of Plant and Nuclear Steam Supply Systems on Vogtle, UnitI  ;

I 1979-1983 Test Engineer; responsible for preparation of Initial Test Program procedures ,

PROFESSIONAL  :

LICENSES:

1992 Senior Reactor Operator License  !

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant j i

. - . ,.