ML20099L326
| ML20099L326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1995 |
| From: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099L325 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-3-A-187, NUDOCS 9512210177 | |
| Download: ML20099L326 (14) | |
Text
ut mmui n ___MW
,.- r
- g
- .re rur I_
< ci-i M -2 2 Kncuas Ex. s e
=
/97 Mrmance Appfsisal Page I
d4n Georgia Power ew some (um. res. u.ase; hoevoo a cM xe wtree Kitchens, William F.
51752 i
Ass't." General Manager - Operations c a w +2 ww 9 eve. Den tmeren l Operations 01/90 r' '>n P a : Nuclear Plant Yogtle m
L.
.m
_.... ft
' ' t M-m Organizational Plan - 90% of each Goal Weight Of f 4 f
} ~%r eser 1 non & %s see mswe i wie a perwmence sneuw pe oesceed ser each east See attached.
- 7 7. g,q Skip's hard work, ability, expertise, attitude and perspective directly enabled us to achieve impressive performance.
See attached for specific ratings.
> g coes c*-'r O *** "-' 'a O aa*' ""* aaaa' O a ** "'* "* *r a
= = +'
- pr e moeumyn oes,, -
r.umnea Lo.w i
6m
~
1% - Provide management leadership as Ass't. General Manager - Operations esseSEM M maa m saw semaposee newsw et ;e.c_ eneves ne oeeamme ser seen gaat i
This accountability will be rated by the General Manager based on cosununication, leadership and taanwork skills displayed.
departmental and site / corporate areas to observe these skills.Special attention will be p 1
1 i
l l
l Perew m enes esmag e s J
Skip and Allen achieved peaceful coexistence and their organizations worked effectively 9cgether.
To achieve completa synergy, more effort will be required.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N' 9512210177 950913 Doc.ket No. $M24/425-OLA-3 EXHIBITNO.
gDR ADOCK 0500 24 in the rnattw of Georala Pcwcr Co. et al, Voatte Units 1 & 2 O Staff &Kpplic,ont D intervonor O other O identifed @eived O Rejected Reporter
$,D Date9//3/#i Witness LJ. G - Oc65 f
] Goose Deerv
],w Mo.seThen
] Qome Fusy Aansend
] Geets Wee Wwmeer ] Geelo C.eie, Geste ea r
en e
r e;
- w. =e,,o ae.,,,
ew e-
- e. -
a'
- .-a-we i.e u
- 1 t r :wsr-5 :ce E,
c:;n-a -m
- r em Appraisal y 2 of 3
Ceo PO W mmeo.es. w.Mene Emo m Anm r% _
_ Kitchens, William F.
51752 01/g0 memmes
'J 4,g
' g oowe ce**
O s*u**u"n'.'e'.e'."'a o
o**'"* *a*'**
O Sa'* "* "*='*<
0aad,,*====
me..., e c>es, ee.e.e em uaron axeeced Law
- amessynesewagemoseL f4 fp
.( m /,,= & 7,r ;;. __
emessen
_J
_. 7m We achieved impressive performance 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 tasks.
Skip is a very effective manager because of hard work, ability, expertise, attitude and perspective.
Of my manager direct reports.
Skfp deserved and received my highest overall performance rating.
p..
m
_m a
Skip can improve his management style by occasionally applying broad management principles to better achieve organizational synergy.
Effective corrective action and holding subordinates fully accountable can improve our perform-j ance.
mee=%
- 1 Excellent candidate for future promotion.
1
~
r
_ '- anekses-Ad W
en u = =woowe Amen empe commenon oom sween menooneese 1.
Continued experience in his current position will improve his General Manager Skills.
2.
Complete the INPO Senior Manager course in 1990.
l l
e l
- "' ** ***" 8*8*8 7 (Dee esonen a be c m o_ _,een,_
e_ e... ens.omposeed a me topnnes et me ReWee Penod.)
ESpicyte Si n -
~
_ mee. -. _ _,s e - - -
Dese YYTO Reest (Immodese ^ ;r W, Dese
- eas_.,e _ e_,. _. _,
impomseLums, onehotw WJ_ -'
' ~ _.
m 2
z h & ch &,,
2/24/f>
~W&ii%
W6/90
%c::p name (Pseene tyse or onec Ems Na osae
[aser (immeeees ki=.M Ema Na Done
.. S.4 -.
i i
h-27 c.s r E s
'C' E p ; cer
- E
- C 06-826-3221 c271 @
l techens. Willfam F.
Ass't. General Manager - Operations opera tions Page 3 of 3 Nuclear Plant Vogtle
- 1 1989 YEAR END PERPORMANCE OCAL NO.
INDICATOG
..._........__.. __........VALUE LEVEL 4
HG-1 IMPO RATING 2
4 26 NG-2 NDCLEAR SAFETY j
$ ALP RATING 1.66 4
12 NO-3 PLANT RELIABILITY 4
SQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY 91.96%
5 26 i
l NG-4 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC, t
REACTOR TRIPS 2
5 6
NG-5 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY i
Los? TIME ACCIDErfs 0
5 6
I WG-6 RADIATION EXPOSURE COLLBCTIVE MAaut2NS 30.52 5.
6 NG-7 0 a M BUDGET
-19.6%
5 16, NO-8 CAPITAL BUDGBT
-12.38 5
2 1
l i
i i
1 9
$4
o August 18, 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 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 l
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.
8 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.
i 1
m
r' y
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
MEET.ING 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
erganization (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 meet.; rag 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.
j 23 Bockhold.
24
~
a 1
Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH SAYS, ON PAGE 8 OF HIS RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY 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.
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 ON PAGE 8 12 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY?
13 A.
No.
I recall no mention of the dilution valve technical i
14 specification issue at that meeting; Mr. Mosbaugh's notes 15 confirm my recollection.
In fact, as I recall it, Mr.
l 16 Bockhold's criticism was directed as much toward me as it was 17 toward Mr. Mosbaugh.
I specifically recall that Mr. Bockhold 18 called me " pig-headed" at that meeting.
Mr. Bockhold said 19 that I was stubborn and that I could improve by being more 20 willing to keep :n open mind.
I left that meeting with the 1
l 21 belief that Mr. Bockhold had raised a significant issue about 22 my performance and that it could affect my career if I failed 23 to address that issue.
Mr. Mosbaugh's notes also indicate 24 that Mr. Mosbaugh and I expressed our own criticisms of Mr.
ll 8
w
i 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 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.
10 Q.
WAS THIS PERFORMANCE ISSUE DISCUSSED AT ANY OTHER TIME?
11 A.
Yes.
I pursued this performance issue further with Mr.
13 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 l
16 attend any operations staff meetings.
This. effort was j
17 recognized by Mr. Bockhold in my annual Performance Appraisal 18 later in 1990.
He wrote that Mr. Mosbaugh and I had achieved 19
" peaceful coexistence" and that our organizations " worked 1
20 effectively together," but that more cooperation was required 21 in this regard, A copy of this Performance Appraisal is i
22 attached hereto au Exhibit B.
23 Q.
ON PAGES 8-9 OF MR. MOSBAUGH'S RETYPED PREFILED TESTIMONY, HE 24 SAYS THAT MR. BOCKHOLD "WAS TRYING TO INTIMIDATE" HIM FROM e
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 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 11 PLANT REVIEW BOARD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS 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 is 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. l 6
4
4 4
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 1
10 for me frequently brought issues and concerns to nty attention, 11 and I fcit no hesitancy about taking such concerns to Mr.
12 Bockhold.
During PRB meetings, it was not uncommon that
't 13 there would be differing points of view.
Mr. Mosbaugh's I
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.
l 18 Bockhold to attend PRB meetings so that he could hear the 19 members' differing views first hand.
j
, j
1 PROVIDING DEWPOINT DATA TO T H 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?
i 10 A.
As the Assistant General Manager - Operations, I assisted in 11 addressing questions raised by the NRC's IIT concerning air 1
12 quality.
With regard to Intervenor's Exhibit II-82, I was involved in a conference call with members of the NRC's IIT on 13 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).
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 19 measurements.
I told the IIT that all of the air receivers l
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 deupoint was high on that one air j
23 receiver was because the air dryer had been inadvertently 1
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 dewpoint 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 13 provide to the IIT with monthly PM dewpoint measurement 14 information the year !n'i 2: cc the March 1990 Site Area 15 Emergency.
l i
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, J. 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 21 Mr. Chaffee that I didn't have the data, but only a list of PM 22 work orders (IIT 206, page 8, lines 6-9).
The monthly PM dew-23 point measurements were obtained after these discussions.
24 Q.
WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU PROVIDE TO THE IIT?
y, P
1 A.
I provided the IIT with a table of dewpoint measurements for 2
the 1A diesel generator going back to March 1989.
This table
?
has been admitted as GPC Exhibit II-57 (Bockhold K).
1 1
4 Q.
WHY DID THE LIST OF DATA INCLUDE DATA FROM APRIL 8, AND WHY l
i 5
DID IT NOT INCLUDE DATA FROM APRIL 5-77 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 l
11 instruments were giving accurate readings, and whether we were f
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 i
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.
4
-25.
So, you were going to go get another instrument for measuring
, 1-j 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 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.
4 i
12 Q.
MR. MOSBAUGH IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS SOME IMPROPER " PICKING l
13 AND CHOOSING" OF DATA TO BE INCLUDED IN DEWPOINT MEASUREMENTS 14 PROVIDED TO THE NRC, RESULTING IN A LESS THAN COMPLETE AND 15 ACCURATE SET OF DATA.
(TR. 10520)
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS 16 ON HIS VIEW?
17 A.
Mr. Mosbaugh is incorrect.
I explained to Mr. Chaffee that I 4
18 would endeavor to provide the NRC with the monthly PM results l
19 that show dewpoints (IIT 206, Tr. 7-9) for the last year.
To i
20 me, the results showed the dewpoints over the requested period j
21 of time and was responsive.
4 4 j l
i
-