ML20087L993
| ML20087L993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1995 |
| From: | Kitchens W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#395-17029 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9508290107 | |
| Download: ML20087L993 (14) | |
Text
I
/7029 D0CKETED
~
WWtJtTED 00RRESg August 1NNSh95 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'95 AUG 23 P3 :07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino BoardRilHG & SERVICE BRANCH In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Re:
License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern
)
Nuclear)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF W.F.
KITCHENS 4
I eor A
voR
.. cp T
f
1 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF W.F.
KITCHENS 2
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION.
3 A.
My name is W. F.
Kitchens. I am Assistant General Manager, 4
Plant Support, Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power Company.
5 Q.
WHAT POSITION DID YOU HOLD IN 1990?
6 A.
In 1990, I was employed by Georgia Power Company as Assistant 7
General Manager, Operations at Plant Vogtle.
O Q.
WHAT ARE YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS IN THE NUCLEAR 9
FIELD?
10 A.
My professional qualifications are attached hereto as Exhibit 11 A.
12 Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NOW BEING 13 PROVIDED?
14 A.
The purpose of this rebuttal testimony is to respond to three 15 issues raised in the Prefiled Testimony of Allen L. Mosbaugh:
16 (1)
Mr. Mosbaugh's testimony concerning a January 1990 17 meeting with George Bockhold that I
attended; (2)
Mr.
18 Mosbaugh's testimony concerning alleged intimidation by Mr.
19 Bockhold of members of the Plant Review Board; and (3) issues 20 relating to dewpoint readings and air quality.
1 I
o.
0 1
JANUARY 1990 TEAM BUILDING MEETING 2
Q.
ON PAGES 8-9 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY, HE 3
DESCRIBES A MEETING THAT HE ATTENDED WITH YOU AND MR. BOCKHOLD 4
IN JANUARY 1990.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE REASON THAT THE 5
MEETING WAS CALLED AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT MEETING?
6 A.
Yes.
In January, 1990, Mr. Bockhold requested that we meet to 7
have a " team building" meeting to improve communications 8
between my organization (operations) and Mr.
Mosbaugh's 9
organization (plant support).
This meeting was requested by 10 Mr. Bockhold and scheduled in advance.
While Mr. Mosbaugh 11 says in his prefiled testimony that the meeting occurred on 12 January 19, 1990, my daytimer indicates that this meeting was 13 scheduled for January 12, 1990.
My recollection is that the 14 meeting took place on January 12.
15 Mr. Bockhold said that he had called the meeting because 16 he had received outside feedback that the operations 17 organization (which I headed) was not working well together 18 with the plant support organization (which Mr.
Mosbaugh 19 headed).
The meeting lasted 30 to 45 minutes.
Mr. Bockhold 20 asked both me and Mr. Mosbaugh to provide candid feedback 21 about each other, both positive and negative.
Mr. Mosbaugh 22 and I also provided both positive and negative feedback to Mr.
23 Bockhold.
24 l
t t
O 1
Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH SAYS, ON PAGE 8 OF HIS RET */ PED PREFILED TESTIMONY l
2 THAT DURING THAT MEETING, "BOCKHOLD PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN TO ME 3
THAT THE ORGANIZATION WOULD NOT TOLERATE BACKSTABBING."
DO 4
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THIS TESTIMONY?
5 A.
I do not recall Mr. Bockhold's use of the word "backstabbing" 6
at that meeting, although I see that Mr. Mosbaugh's notes 7
apparently taken at that meeting do include that term.
i 8
Q.
DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. MOSBAUGH'S PERCEPTION THAT COMMENTS MADE 9
AT THAT MEETING WERE IN REFERENCE TO MR.
MOSBAUGH'S 10
" CONTACTING THE NRC AND ALLEGING THAT YOU HAD WILLFULLY 11 VIOLATED THE DILUTION VALVE TECH. SPEC," AS ALLEGED Cil PAGE 8 12 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY?
13 A.
No.
I recall no mention of the dilution valve technical 14 specification issue at that meeting; Mr. Mosbaugh's notes l
1 15 confirm my recollection.
In fact, as I recall it, Mr.
4 i
16 Bockhold's criticism was directed as much toward me as it was l
17 toward Mr. Mosbaugh.
I specifically recall that Mr. Bockhold 1
4 18 called me " pig-headed" at that meeting.
Mr. Bockhold said 1
l 19 that I was stubborn and that I could improve by being more i
20 willing to keep an open mind.
I left that meeting with the i
21 belief that Mr. Bockhold had raised a significant issue about 22 my performance and that it could affect my career if I failed i
23 to address that issue.
Mr. Mosbaugh's notes also indicate i
j 24 that Mr. Mosbaugh and I expressed our own criticisms of Mr.
l i
i l
4 j l
)
9 L
1 Bockhold at that meeting.
This was a very candid exchange of 2
views.
3 In addition, at the time of this meeting, I did not know t
4 that Mr. Mosbaugh had made allegations to the NRC.
I recall 5
I became aware of the OI investigation into the dilution valve 6
issue on February 7, 1990, so there was no way I could have 7
known that Mr. Mosbaugh was the alleger in January.
I did not 8
learn that Mr. Mosbaugh was the alleger on the dilution valve 9
issue until several months later.
I 10 Q.
WAS THIS PERFORMANCE ISSUE DISCUSSED AT ANY OTHER TIME?
11 A.
Yes.
I pursued this performance issue further with Mr.
12 Mosbaugh after the meeting. We discussed how we could improve 13 the communications between our organizations.
I suggested 14 that we attend each others' staff meetings.
While I attended 15 several plant support staff meetings, Mr. Mosbaugh did not 16 attend any operations staff meetings.
This effort was l
17 recognized by Mr. Bockhold in my annual Performance Appraisal I
18 later in 1990.
He 4 rote that Mr. Mosbaugh and I had achieved i
19
" peaceful coexistence" and that our organizations " worked 20 effectively together," but that more cooperation was required f
21 in this regard.
A copy of this Performance Appraisal is l
22 attached hereto as Exhibit B.
s 1
23 Q.
ON PAGES 8-9 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY, HE l
24 SAYS THAT MR. BOCKHOLD "WAS TRYING TO INTIMIDATE" HIM FROM l
I i
1
a m.
- ~
<"w aa-a a
!~
1 PURSUING HIS CONCERN ABOUT DILUTION VALVES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY 2
COMMENT ON THAT TESTIMONY?
3 A.
I perceived no attempt by anyone at that meeting to intimidate 4
Mr. Mosbaugh.
This was simply a frank and open discussion 5
with the intent of improving the communication, cooperation, 6
and performance of the nuclear organization.
7 ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF MEMBERS OF THE 8
PLANT REVIEW BOARD BY MR. BOCKHOLD 1
9 Q.
ON PAGE 9 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY, HE 10 SAYS THAT MR. BOCKHOLD INTIMIDATED AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE l
11 PLANT REVIEW BOARD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS i
12 TESTIMONY?
13 A.
Yes.
Mr. Bockhold attended a PRB meeting on March 1, 1990 at 14 which time he briefed the board on what he perceived its 15 responsibilities to be.
Mr. Bockhold told the PRB members 16 that his presence at PRB meetings should not intimidate them, 17 and that he wanted open and candid discussions by all meeting 18 attendees.
He also said that PRB recommendations were very 19 valuable, and that they would lose their value if only "yes 20 men" sat on the board.
He asked the PRB members to discuss 21 his briefing with their PRB alternate members, and to ensure 22 that these alternate members felt comfortable with speaking 23 their minds in Mr. Bockhold's presence.,
e
1 1
Q.
ON PAGE 10 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY, HE 2
ASSERTS THAT AT THAT TIME " PEOPLE WERE AFRAID TO RAISE 3
UNPOPULAR ISSUES."
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS 4
TESTIMONY?
5 A.
Yes.
There was no fear on the PRB or, to the best of my 6
knowledge, elsewhere at Plant Vogtle.
As chairman of the PRB 7
during the time at issue, I am not aware of any occasion where 8
any individual failed to make a comment or vote as he wished 9
because of any pressure or intimidation. Personnel who worked 10 for me frequently brought issues and concerns to my attention, 1
11 and I felt no hesitancy about taking such concerns to Mr.
12 Bockhold.
During PRB meetings, it was not unco'mmon that j
13 there would be differing points of view.
Mr. Mosbaugh's 14 assertion that people were afraid to speak up makes no sense 15 given the fact that there were many varying opinions expressed l
16 at PRB meetings.
In
- fact, sometimes when there were 17 dissenting opinions recorded at PRB meetings, I would ask Mr.
1 l
18 Bockhold to attend PRB meetings so that he could hear the 19 members' differing views first hand.
1 e
1 PROVIDING DEWPOINT DATA TO THE NRC 2
Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH ASSERTS ON PAGES 90-92 OF HIS RETYPED PREFILED 3
TESTIMONY THAT GEORGIA POWER PROVIDED INCOMPLETE AND 4
INACCURATE INFORMATION TO THE NRC IN RESPONSE TO THE NRC'S 5
REQUEST FOR A TABLE OF DEWPOINT RESULTS. SPECIFICALLY, HE 6
CONTENDS THAT INTERVENORS' EXHIBIT II-82 (GPC EXHIBIT II-57) 7 IS NOT ACCURATE AND COMPLETE.
WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN 8
RESPONDING TO THE NRC'S QUESTIONS ON AIR QUALITY FOLLOWING THE 9
MARCH 20, 1990 SITE AREA EMERGENCY?
10 A.
As the Assistant General Manager - Operations, I assisted in 11 addressing questions raised by the NRC's IIT concerning air 12 quality.
With regard to Intervenor's Exhibit II-82, I was I
13 involved in a conference call with members of the NRC's IIT on 14 April 9,
1990 (IIT Document 206).
A copy of the relevant 15 portions of the transcript of that conference' call has been 16 admitted as GPC Exhibit II-61 (Ward Ex. C).
I 17 Q.
WHAT TRANSPIRED DURING THE APRIL 9, 1990 CONFERENCE CALL 7 18 A.
During that call I advised the IIT of the latest dewpoint j
19 measurements.
I told the IIT that all of the air receivers 20 were in specification except for
- one, for which the 21 measurement was 60.9' F.
I told the IIT that I believed that 22 a possible reason why the dewpoint was high on that one air j
23 receiver was because the air dryer had been inadvertently l
4.
1 turned off.
As a follow-up, Mr. Chaffee asked about the 2
" history of these air dryers," and then asked to be provided 3
"information that addresses the air-dryer performance on" the 4
Unit 1 air dryers.
Mr. Chaffee explained that he needed "the
~5 information that shows us to what extent air poor quality 6
[ sic) might have had an impact on the operation of the Unit 1-7 A diesel."
He suggested that maybe we could just give him a 8
" table of these surveillance results over the past couple of 9
years."
I suggested that I could have somebody look up the 10 dowpoint readings over the last year of preventive maintenance 11
("PM")
work orders.
I left the conversation with the 12 understanding that this was acceptable that I was to i
13 provide to the IIT with monthly PM dawpoint measurement 14 information the year prior to the March 1990 Site Area 15 Emergency.
16 Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH HAS STATED THAT "APPARENTLY" YOU HAD COMPLETED A 17 COMPILATION OF DEWPOINT MEASUREMENTS AT THE TIME OF YOUR 18 DISCUSSIONS WITH THE IIT. (Tr. 10518)
IS HE CORRECT?
19 A.
No, I do not believe so.
The discussions with the IIT were in 20 the morning of (9:02 a.m.) Monday, April 9.
I expressly told l
21 Mr. Chaffee that I didn't have the data, but only a list of PM l
22 work orders (IIT 206, page 8, lines 6-9).
The monthly PM daw-1 t
l 23 point measurements were obtained after these discussions.
24 Q.
WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU PROVIDE TO THE IIT?
l l
l 4 I
I
1 A.
I provided the IIT with a table of dewpoint measurements for 2
the 1A diesel generator going back to March 1989 ihis table 3
has been admitted as GPC Exhibit II-57 (Bockhold K).
l 4
Q.
WHY DID THE LIST OF DATA INCLUDE DATA FROM APRIL 8, AND WHY 5
DID IT NOT INCLUDE DATA FROM APRIL 5-7?
6 A.
We omitted the April 5-7 data for two reasons.
We did not 7
believe the dewpoint readings taken on April 5-7 because the 8
readings for all eight air receivers were outside the 9
acceptable range at the same time.
We did not believe these 10 readings were accurate.
There was some concern whether the 11 instruments were giving accurate readings, and whether we were 12 using the measurement instrumentation correctly. There was no 13 point to giving the NRC dewpoint information that we did not 14 believe to be correct.
15 Moreover, I believed at the time that the NRC was fully 16 aware of the out-of-specification readings for the air 17 receivers, and also that NRC knew that we questioned our 18 measurement equipment. This is confirmed by the transcript of 19 the April 9, 1990 conference call with the IIT. (GPC Exhibit 20 II-61)
During that call, Mr. Chaffee of NRC, apparently 21 referring to a phone call he received on Saturday, April 7, 22 said that what he " heard later that day (Saturday) was that 23 you had gotten a new instrument, but when you did testing with 24 it, you got negative numbers, which didn't make any sense.
25 So, you were going to go get another instrument for measuring -.
s l
1 the air quality from Hatch, and I don't know have you 2
gotten that instrument and used it, or are you still waiting 3
for it?" Tr. 3-4.
To me, this shows that Mr. Chaffee knew of 4
the high readings obtained prior to the first new instrument.
5 Mr. Ward replied that we had received another instrument from 6
the V.C.
Summer plant that was " identical or similar to the l
7 (instrument] we originally had and all of the numbers that 8
were reported Sunday were in the range of 36 to 45 degrees."
9 Id. at 4.
This exchange illustrates that Mr. Chaffee had been 10 informed about the out-of-specification numbers and knew about 11 our concern with the instrumentation.
12 Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS SOME IMPROPER " PICKING 13 AND CHOOSING" OF DATA TO BE INCLUDED IN DEWPOINT MEASUREMENTS 14 PROVIDED TO THE NRC, RESULTING IN A LESS THAN COMPLETE AND i
15 ACCURATE SET OF DATA.
(TR. 10520)
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS i
16 ON HIS VIEW?
17 A.
Mr. Mosbaugh is incorrect.
I explained to Mr. Chaffee that I 18 would endeavor to provide the NRC with the monthly PM results 19 that show dowpoints (IIT 206, Tr. 7-9) for the last year.
To j
20 me, the results showed the dewpoints over the requested period 21 of time and was responsive.
4 4,
l s
m m ucu u __ _
l
. KITCllENS EX. A William F.
Kitchens Professional Qualifications EDUCATION Bachelor of Engineering Science, Georgia Tech, 1974 1
Master of Engineering (Nuclear), University of Virginia, 1976 CERTIFICATIONS Senior Operator's License from USNRC, Plant Vogtle Unit 1, 1986 Senior Operator Instructor Certification from USNRC, Plant Vogtle, 1983 Registered Professional Engineer, State of Georgia, 1979 EXPERIENCE 20 Years Nuclear Power Plant Experience:
Assistant Engineer, Virginia Electric & Power Compahy,
- Richmond, VA.,
1974-75 Plant Engineer, Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Plant, 1976-79 Plant Engineer, Georgia Power Co;, Plant Hatch, 1979 Sr. Plant Engineer / Plant Engineering Supervisor, Georgia Power Co.,
Plant Vogtle, 1979-83 Operations Superintendent / Operations Manager, Georgia Power Co.,
Plant Vogtle, 1983-89 Assistant General Manager - Operations, Georgia Power Co.,
Plant Vogtle, 1989-91 Assistant General Manager - Support, Georgia Power Co.,
Plant Vogtle, 1991-Present i
bit t.Xit!!ill 11
,- r
.- 2
'.3
'..~f I~M ~
"I C 706-526-C '.
KITCllESS EX. B-i i
z
~-
l-Perfonnance Appraisal Page 1
d4 GeorgiaPower 2 t e Name u m. mre. u mse;
'eroeve Na Cums Joe %./73g Kitchens, William F.
51752
% mnu Ass't. General Manager - Operations i
Au m mee.one (menen l Operations 01/90 Nuclear Plant Vogtle i
t;37,2 m.'p-
?-t? M Organizational Plan - 90% of each Goal Weight l
ener I when peamme, her se orums we a poormenee enevu ne oenness ser seen 4
See attached.
l i
I l
^^
^2 2 C **. g 4. 5 Sktp's hard work, ability, expertise, attitude and perspective directly enabled us to i
l achieve inipressive perfoManace.
See attached for specific ratings.
i i
I
' @ oeele %
O osam une then esem Pwr memes assie um unenes, amme mes.mem e-eems or e r., m ee.e.
WW W os.,r.een.
aseemst w w
10% - Provide management leadership as Ass't. General Manager - Operations esse %W9E wnma seammam een seassuse seuses a peeenamnes eneuse se emnernes a This accountability will be rated by the General Manager based on cosumunicatfon.
)
i leadership and taamerk skills displayed.
departmental and site / cord 0 rete areas to observe these skills.Special attention will 1
I 3
I I
i I
l I
I i
i i
m emmens J
Skip and Allen achieved peaceful coexistence and their organizations worked effect i
9egether. To achieve completa synergye more effort will be required.
O lll".2ll's C'A"'"
O ** ~
Opr w=
G
~
. - - -. ;#-o e, _e a u
.e # s w-
- t. c es-m -: t
=r: e Appraisal 2
et 3 GeorgiaPower ca.am.Fnt.MeeH EngDM M AnnuW M Kitchens, Williar F.
51752 01/90.
- eemmenemenene J
4,g g ooem cioney oeen Mars Then Goek NW kne a
]ooseeumuwmew
] ooede m.e e._me.., a se, ua.,e.
ese ueron amoecese Le w j
+ secessee-
- 1. p V n L"A n rc;--
t; e I
We achieved iLipressive perfomance and record-setting startup.
Skip is the key manager who's mindset kept our attention on all the details enabling us to manage our complex tasts.
Skip is a very effective manager because of hard work, ability, expertise, attitude and perspective.
Of my manager direct reports.
Skip deserved and received my highest over 11 perfor1 nance rating.
~%
y Skip can improve his management style by occasionally applying broad management principles to better achieve organizational synergy.
Effective i
I corrective action and holding subordinates fully accountable can improve our perforsk l
I
- ance, l
Minsah
~ e1 Excellent candidate for future promotion.
. mg.
er- -
o.we 1Mm a emp, wo,
,,,,,n n.,,,,,,,,,
l 1.
Continued experience in his current position will improve his General Manager Skills.
i i
2.
Complete the INP0 Sanfor Manager course in 1990.
i l
The empovee hee been omeerned seats ear the ewww pense ens esse ones roe been oleewaned emciom sm. --
%b oss nos r pmme
,w, os, YY90 NNMMaNM 4
Y.
O**
W WL~~
__^_ -
~~%ibTJW
- hcehe 2
'"' ~ ~' W Q iti E r
- 1/4/90
~ = ~ -e___e-me _ __
e
.e_,_.t<ee_a _
'mpe *e Name (Pweee tHe or pare) s Em M DIAS taner (Immeeses & = rr' Nh oMe
,._ pe.. g
.g....
e
,,:. i.q j ; ;,rr
.g_.c eg_g3_32
- m.,
reeneas. William F.
Ass't. General Manager - Operations operations Page 3 of 3 O
O Muclear Plant Yogtle 1989 YEAR END PERFORMANCE GQAL NO.___.. -
INDICATOR
._....... _...._-. ___.._VALUE LEVEL t
NG-1 INFO RATING 2'
4-24 M-2 NDCLEAR SAFETY SALP RATING 1.gg 4,
12 M~3 PLANT RELIABILITY 200ZYALsNT AVAILABILITY 91.956 5'
26 M"4 UNP M AUTOMATIC REACTOR TR2Ps 2
5~
g NG.5 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY LOST TIME ACCIDENTS 0
5 4
NG-6 RADIATION EIPOSURE COLLaCTIVE MauRams 30.52 5
g MG-7 0 a M 30003T 19.6%
5' 15, M-8 CAPITAL BUDGET 12.38 5
2 l
l t
i i
t l
l e
- + -
- - - - -