IR 05000289/1986004
| ML20203M856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1986 |
| From: | Blough A, Haverkamp D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203M855 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-86-04, 50-289-86-4, NUDOCS 8605020044 | |
| Download: ML20203M856 (26) | |
Text
.
- _.
-
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI^N
REGION I
Report No.
50-289/86-04 Docket No.
50-289 License No.
DPR-50 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
February 25-27, and March 5-6 and 12-13, 1986 Inspectors:
%
,
V/23/fd
-
<
D.Haverkamp,ReactorLicgingEngineer date Region I Accompanying NRC Personnel:
G. Dick, Project Manager, PWR Project Directorate #6, NRR
Approved by:
Y,
&
A.Bloftsh,~ Chief,ReactorProjectsSection date No. lA, Division of Reactor Projects Inspection Summary:
Region-based special safety inspection (38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br />) of performance of a licensee employee, Mr. Charles E. Husted, in support of the NRC staff's preparations for a hearing requested by the employee.
,
Results: The results of review of Mr. Husted's performance of his respon-sibilities with GPU Nuclear Corporation and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company, reflected favorably upon his attitude and professional integrity.
No specific indicators or characteristics of past poor performance or demeanor were identified through personal interviews or a review of the records that should cause Mr. Husted to continue being restricted from assignment to any
. positions with GPU Nuclear Corporation.
8605020044 860423 ~
DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR
.
.
., _.
.. _
_ _ - -. _ _ - _.. _..,
.., _.
_ _, _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _. ~, - - _
..
-
..
.
- -.
.
.
.
F DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted C. Adams, Special Projects Assistant, Nuclear Safety Assessment Department P. Bickford, Instructor, Maintenance Training, TMI S. Bobsack, Administrator III, Human Resources, Administration N. Brown, Senior Emergency Planner, Emergeacy Planning D. Galletly, Support Services Supervisor, Training, TMI H. Hukill, Vice President and Director, TMI-1 C. Husted, Special Projects Assistant, Nuclear Safety Assessment Department B. Leonard, Operator Training Manager, Training, TMI R. Neff, Instructor, Non-licensed Operator Training, TMI L. Noll, Shift Supervisor, TMI-1 M. Ross, Plant Operations Director, TMI-1 C. Smyth, Supervisor TMI-1 Licensing, Technical Functions D. Spath, Instructor, Non-licensed Operator Training, TMI R. Zechman, Technical Training Manager, TMI 2.
Introduction In early February 1986 the inspector was instructed by Region I management to conduct a special inspection of the performance of Mr. Charles Husted, who had been assigned to various positions at the Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station since 1974. Since Mr. Husted was not in a position where he would interact routinely with NRC personnel, and since as a result the NRC staff did not have an opportunity to observe routinely Mr. Husted's performance, this special inspection was initiated to assist the NRC staff in developing a full record for a hearing that had been requested by Mr. Husted, as ordered by the Commission in a Notice of Hearing, issued September 5,1985.
In preparation for this inspection, the inspector reviewed the Commission's Notice of Hearing and various NRC and licensee documents and correspondence related to the hearing.
In addition, the inspector attended as an observer the initial prehearing conference held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on February 19, 1986.
The Commission had directed the hearing to consider specifically four issues concerning Mr. Husted, including his (1) alleged solicitation of an answer to an exam question, (2) lack of forthrightness of his testimony before the Special Master, (3) poor attitude toward the hearing on the cheating incidents, and (4) lack of cooperation with NRC investigators.
During the prehearing conference other factual issues were discussed for potential consideration during the hearing. These other issues included:
(5) What does Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU reflect about his attitude and integrity?; (6) In light of the answers to (1) through (5), is any remedial action required with respect to Husted?;
and (7) If remedial action is required, what is it? These issues and other rulings regarding the Husted proceeding are described further in the Administrative Law Judge's (M. Margulies) Report and Order on Initial Prehearing Conference, issued February 27, 1986.
<
.
.
.
This inspection was limited to developing the staff's record regarding Issue No. 5, "What does Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU reflect about his attitude and integrity?" The inspection included a review of various personnel records and. licensee documents regarding the performance of Mr. Husted, as well as interviews with various licensee personnel who have worked with Mr. Husted, as described in the sections that follow.
3.
Document Review The inspector reviewed numerous letters, memoranda, evaluations and other records regarding Mr. Husted's performance as an employee with GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNC) and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company.
The documents were maintained in TMI-1 employee personnel files, Nuclear Assurance Division files, training department files and operations department files.
Based on his review of the data contained in TMI-1 personnel file records the inspector determined Mr. Husted's employment and license history as shown in the tables below.
Table 3.1 Met Ed/GPU Employment History of C. Husted Period Job Classification 2/26/74 - 5/20/74 Auxiliary Operator
"A" - Nuclear (Probationary)
5/20/74 - 8/15/77 Auxiliary Operator
"A" Nuclear 8/15/77 - 11/14/77 Control Room Operator - Nuclear (Probationary)
11/14/77 - 7/10/78 Control Room Operator - Nuclear 7/10/78 - 7/1/82 Administrator - Nuclear Technician Training 7/1/82 - 3/14/83 Administrator Senior - Training 3/14/83 - 6/18/84 Supervisor - Non-licensed Operator Training 6/18/84 - Present Engineering Assistant Senior III - Nuclear Table 3.2 - License History of C. Husted Operator License No. OP-4741, Docket No. 55-6398, effective 6/23/78 (TMI-1)
Senior Operator License No. SOP-3704 Docket No. 55-6398 effective 7/2/80 (TMI-1); cold shutdown
-- amended 7/1/81; cold shutdown except hot functional testing
-- amended 12/9/81; no plant operating limitations
-- renewal 7/2/82; no plant operating limitations
-- terminated 7/8/83; H. Hukill, GPU, letter to D. Beckham, NRC dated 7/8/83
.
_.
_
.
....
_
_
.
.
. - _.
.
.
.
'
,
The specific documents reviewed by the inspector are listed below. The h
inspector's comments and summary of information' discussed within each document, as applicable to the performance or attitude of Mr. Husted, follow the listed document, where appropriate.
TMI-1 Personnel File Miscellaneous Records
Application for Employment for Charles Husted dated January 15, 1974.
--
'
--
Letter from Charles E. Husted (undated) to Mr. E. Zubey Director of Personnel, Met Ed (received January 17, 1974) re: employment interview
-
Resume of Charles Husted (undated) received January 18, 1974 by
--
Met Ed
-
NOTE: Resume included the following information.
,
i Previous Employment Aug 72 - Present Zausner Food Corporation, New Holland Project Director - R&D Asceptic Production Jan 67 - Aug 72 U.S. Navy /USS Sam Houston SSBN 609 Engineering Watch Supervisor
.
Assistant Leading Mcchinist Oct 66 - Jan 67 Defoe Shipbuilding Co.
Bay City, Michigan Electrician
,
.
Sep 65 - Sep 66 Granzo's Standard Service Midland, Michigan Mechanic
--
Interview Report of Mr. Charles Husted dated February 5,1974 (report stated possible position: Mechanical Maintenance)
--
Various initial employment records / forms
'
Met Ed letter dated February 19, 1974 from E. M. Zubey, Division
--
Director of Personnel to Mr. Charles Husted re: offer of employment as an Auxiliary Operator
"A" - Nuclear
--
Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) letter dated August 27, 1974 from R. C. Arnold, Vice President - Generation and W. M. Creitz, President, to employees listed on August 30, 1974 re: appreciation for contribution toward TMI Unit No.1 commencement of commercial
operation (form letter).
- -
,. _... - -. _ _ -
.
-
...
,..
_,. _.. - _ -....
_ - _ _..
. _ _ _.. _ _ _ - _..., _ - - _....
_..
_
_.. -.
_
- --~
_ _
__
_.._
_
_
_
__
.
e
.
'
--
Operator License No. 0P-4741, Docket No. 55-6398 effective June 23, 1978; licenses Mr. Charles E. Husted to manipulate control of TMI-1.
,
GPU Nuclear letter dated August 21, 1981 from R. C. Arnold, Chief
--
Operating Executive, to Mr. Charles E. Husted re: re-examination of
.
all those operators who were examined in April 1981.
-
.
GPU Nuclear memorandum dated August 4,1982 from Art Brinkmann, Human
--
'
Resources Department, to C. E. Husted re: congratulations on promotion to position of Administrator Senior - Training.
Report of Absence records for 1974 - 1982 i
--
--
Corporate Stress Control Services, Inc. Employment Screening Report dated November 18, 1982 from William W. Jenkins, Ph.D., Director, Middletown Office, to Personnel Department, GPU Service Corporation re: Employee Recommendation for Charles Husted.
The report stated the following regarding Mr. Husted:
'
xx Acceptable for nuclear plant employment at this time.
Employee was, at the time of examination, mentally alert and coherent and without gross aberrant behavior. Our best
.
.
Judgement based upon the information available to us, is
that this applicant is acceptable for nuclear plant-
employment.
l
--
Resume of Charles Husted dated May 7,1984
NOTE: Resume included the following information.
!
Education:
Graduated from Midland High School, Midland, Michigan 6/8/66
!
Navy Nuclear Power Schools 1967 - 1968 Elizabethtown College - 27 credits l
Certificate of Management Program Job-related courses:
Auxiliary Operator training program - 9 mo. 1975
!
Reactor Operator License Training Program - 9 mo.1978 Sr. Reactor Operator License Training Program - 3 mo. 1980 Certificates / Licenses:
,
Present: N/A
Past:
Senior Reactor Operator License i
j Reactor Operator License, replaced by SR0 license
}
i
[
,
e
'v---
e m r-eme-wm e,
.,
ee.w.--9 g,--,
,-,-6
,.w-cw...ep,.
,,,m,,,-..~-m.,-y,
,,.,m.w,,n,ww.,-rem.,
+r p-mm r,y-- e,,
,--.w.-.w m y-yw-+.y.w
,
,--,r---,
. _. -
.
.
.
-
Metropolitan Edison Company Employee Appraisal Reports for Charles-E. Husted-Date o'f Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator)
3/28/74 2/26 - 3/27/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 1 Inspector Comments:
Average (satisfactory) marks; no written comments by supervisor.
4/25/74 3/28 - 4/27/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 2 Inspector Comments:
Good marks (improvement since initial evaluation); no written comments by supervisor.
5/17/74 4/28 - 5/17/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 3 Inspector Comments:
Good marks (minor improvement since last evaluation);
Supervisor recommended that Husted be taken off probation.
Undated 8/15 - 9/13/77 Control Rm. 0per. - Nuclear L. G. Noll (Probationary) - Eval. 1 Inspector Comments:
Above average to good marks; supervisor stated that Husted met standards of job.
Undated 9/14 - 10/13/77 Control Rm. Oper. - Nuclear M. L. Beers (Probationary) - Eval. 2 Inspector Comments:
Good marks (improved since initial evaluation);
Supervisor stated that Husted was progressing well in qualification, no apparent problems.
Undated 10/14 - 11/12/77 Control Rm. Oper. - Nuclear M. L. Beers (Probationary) - Eval. 3 Inspector Comments:
Very good marks (improved since last evaluation);
Supervisor stated that Husted progressed at above average rate in qualification, recommended that Husted be taken off of probatio.
.
General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles E. Husted Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor-Evaluation
. Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator)
10/20/78 7/10 - 9/30/78 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Trng.
Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
, te (sligntly below average) marks; Supervisor
..t Husted was competent overall.
8/13/79 10/1/78 - 8/13/79 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Trng.
Salary Adjustment
'
Inspector Comments:
Acceptable (slightly above average) marks; Supervisor noted that Husted's performance inproved noticeably, also noted his development and accomplishment of.
recent post-accident change modifications training program for TMI-2 operators and his logic, sincerity and candid assertiveness.
10/29/79 8/13 - 9/30/79 Admin. - Nuclear Technician F.A. McCormick Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Acceptable (slightly above average) marks; Supervisor noted Husted's performance continues to be more than satisfactory, his dedication and pride in work, and that he worked many extra hours to prepare for TMI operator retraining program.
10/22/80 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Training (also undated draft evaluation)
Inspector Comments:
Good (high competent) marks; Supervisor noted Husted was involved and competent in all areas of operator-training, honest and direct in personal interactions.
Draft evaluation noted that he was a competent instructor, also noted his weaknesses in areas of accepting criticism and sticking to a job even if he doesn't like it or in adverse condition (not very tactful)
w
.
-
- -
. -
-
-
-
- -.
.
- -
-
- - -
. - -
_
.
.
.
-
General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation
_ Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator)
11/4/81 10/1/80 - 9/30/81 Administrator - Nuclear N. D. Brown (also undated Technician Training draftevaluation)
Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Slight downward trend compared to previous evaluation; Supervisor noted that Husted was a competent instructor. on the way to becoming' an excellent instructor; draft evaluation noted that adverse conditions of last year had their effect (projected attitude), but this was overcome by NRC exam preparation, pursuit of college credits and turbine generator training arrangements.
6/29/82 10/1/81 - 6/29/82 Administrator - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Promotion (review)
Inspector Comments:
Substantial improvement since last evaluation; Supervisor noted that Husted was more effective as an instructor, diligent and professional to prepare for classroom, and showed initiative in completing courses, also noted that since restart hearings there was noticeable improvement in enthusiasm and morale.
11/2/82 7/1/82 - 9/30/82 Admin. Senior - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Average to good marks overall; Supervisor noted attitude of " quality", positive feedback from requalification participation.
3/11/83 10/1/82 - 3/11/83 Admin. Senior - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Promotion (reassign / reclassify)
Inspector Comments:
Good to very good marks overall; Supervisor noted ongoing improvement in his abilities
-
,
.
~
General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator)
7/13/83 3/14/83 - 7/13/83 Supervisor - Non-licensed B. Leonard Operator Training Merit Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Very good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted rapidly took charge, replacement /
retraining programs were effective, classroom performance was excellent and attitude was
-
professional.
10/28/83 7/13/83 - 9/30/83 Supervisor - Non-licensed B. Leonard Operator Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Excellent marks overall; supervisor noted that Husted maintained excellent morale even though SR0 license was terminated; good attitude noted by Husted in his acknowledgement of areas for improvement.
6/26/84 10/1/83 - 6/18/84 Supervisor - Non-licensed'
B. Leonard Operator Training (reason not specified)
Inspector Comments:
Evaluation not reviewed by C. Husted; excellent to outstanding marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted was an excellent example for subordinates, he maintained an excellent attitude; exhibited dedication to maintain and improve quality of classroom instruc-tion, had positive attitude and professional approach to training programs, and he maintained high morale in the section.
10/29/84 6/18/84 - 9/30/84 Engineering Assistant
- K.R. Goodard Senior III - Nuclear Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted was a valuable member of the TMI-1 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) team, showed good
_ progress learning risk and reliability analysis techniques, showed very positive enthusiastic attitude about project, and does more than asked.
- Manager Risk Analysis, Technical Functions
.
~
General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator)
10/14/85 10/1/84 - 9/30/85 Engineering Assistant K. R. Goodard Senior III - Nuclear Annual Evaluation Inspector Conments:
Good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted Husted's excellent performance in support of simulator development (input by D. Boltz)
Instructor Performance Monitoring Reports for Charles E. Husted Date of Evaluation Lesson Title Evaluator 12/16/81 Low Power Natural Circulation Testing R. Knief Evaluator Comment:
Good interaction with trainees 9/8/82 Operating Procedure (OP) 1102-1 R. Harbin Plant Heatup Evaluator Comments:
Got operators involved, productive lecture, well prepared, good job 9/14/82 OP 1102-1 Plant Heatup S. Newton Evaluator Comment:
High professional attitude (good to outstanding marks)
10/11/82 Unit 1 Requalification - Thermo-R. Knief dynamics Problem Session Evaluator Comments:
Regarding attitude, noted that Husted handled himself well in discussion on quality of NRC exam questions, provided reasonable guidance on how to answer vague questions.
3/30/83 Unit 1 Licensed Operator Requalifi-S. Newton cation - Annual Requalification Exam Review Evaluator Comments:
Good content
-
. _
-
.
'
Instructor Performance Monitoring for Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Date of Evaluation Lesson Title Evaluator 4/25/83 Licensed Operator Requalification -
B. Leonard Unit 1 CRDM (Control Rod Drive Mechanism) Mechanical Evaluator Comment:
Well presented 5/9/83 Unit 1 Licensed Requalification CRD S. Newton (Control Rod Orive) Mechanical Evaluator Comments:
None (good evaluation of instruction, no significant weaknesses)
7/19/83 Auxiliary Operator Requalification S. Newton ESAS (Emergency Safeguards Actuation System)
Evaluator Comments:
Outstanding delivery, enthusiasm,
'
mannerisms (good to outstanding marks)
11/30/83 Plant Tour Instruction R. Knief Evaluator Comments:
All areas satisfactory, very professional attitude and demeanor, excellent organization, solid presentation, generated significant student interest 11/30/83 Plant Tours B. Leonard Evaluator Comments:
Good attitude toward subject and class, good lecture, able to convey valuable information, one area (questioning students) needs improvement, all other areas satisfactory.
3/20/84 Auxiliary Operator Requalification -
B. Leonard Unit 1 Reactor Protection and Safety Systems Evaluator Comments:
None 4/18/84 System Functions (Spent Fuel)
J. McAllister Evaluator Comments:
None
..
.
.
.
_
. _ _
r
.
'
Documents Prepared / Authored by C. Husted
--
Paper for college course Expository Writing (EN 102) dated December 5, 1983 for Professor L. Van Valkenburgh; Subject:
" Motivation" (9 pages)
Inspector Comment: Thoughtful and intelligently written Training Content Record for Lesson Plan Title "ATP 1210-1 Reactor Turbine
--
Trip" Number 11.2.01.210, dated January 12, 1984 Training Content Record for Lesson Plan Title "ATP 1210-2 Loss of
--
Subcooled Margin," Number 11.2.01.211 dated January 12, 1984 Inspector Comment:
Lesson plans logical and clearly written Training Department Personnel File Records GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum dated January 8,1981 (incorrectly
--
dated, actual date was January 8,1982) from R. A. Knief (Manager Plant Training) to C. E. Husted; Subject:
Tour of TMI-1 for Senior Management (regarding commendation for efforts in conducting tour of TMI-1 for members of GPU Nuclear senior management on January 4,1982; noted Husted's professional manner)
--
Various employee performance evaluations for Charles E. Husted (see comments above)
--
Miscellaneous correspondence regarding initial and renewal licensing applications for C. Husted.
--
GPU Nuclear Employee Performance Evaluation for Charles E. Husted -
Accountabilities Review for Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training, dated May 3, 1983.
t Nuclear Assurance Division Personnel File Records
--
Various hearing-related and Commission briefing / meeting documents (docketed correspondence)
.
Confidential draft memorandum prepared by R. L. Long and R. A. Knief
--
dated August 30, 1982; Subject:
C. Husted Evaluation (regarding June 4,
,
1982 meeting between Messrs. Long, Knief and Newton to develop plan of action for ongoing assessment of Husted's attitude and performance as a licensed operator instructor)
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-0ffice Memorandum from M. J. Ross l'
(Manager, Plant Operations TMI-1) to H. D. Hukill (Director, TMI-1) dated October 8, 1982; Subject:
Evaluation of C. Husted (regarding Mr. Husted's performance as an Operator Training Instructor during the
period July - September 1982)
.
.,
-. _
-
_ -_
_.
m m.
. _ _
_ _ _
-. - -
'
,
Memorandum states that Mr. Husted presented a more professional and thorough approach to his training participation than he had demonstrated previously, he appears interested and cooperative; no signs of a e
deterioration in his attitude and his desire as a training instrisctor.
.
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. A. Knief (Manager Plant Training) to R. L. Long (Vice President Nuclear Assurance)
and H. D. Hukill (Vice President TMI-1) dated October 27, 1982;
'
Subject: Evaluation of C. E. Husted (regarding formal classroom
evaluation on October 11,1982)
Memorandum states that Husted handled session in a very professional
'
manner in terms of both technical ability and attitude, also positive attitude in post-evaluation discussion; during informal observations actions and words reinforced classroom observations. The author also talked with Husted on October 20, 1982 and October 22, 1982 before and
!
after a session with E. Blake of Shaw Pittman and stated "he (Husted)
t appreciated and learned from the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the ASLB's perceptions of his attitudes toward training and NRC requirements."
!
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-office Memorandum from S. L. Newton (Operator Training Manager) to R. L. Long (Vice President Nuclear d
'
Assurance) and H. D. Hukill (Vice President TMI-1) dated October 27, 1982; subject: Evaluation of C. E. Husted (regarding instructor i
'
evaluations in September and October).
'
Memorandum stated there were no problems pertaining to his (Husted's)
attitude and demeanor and that he acted in a professional manner. The author of the memorandum was present in the classroom area during breaks when Husted was teaching and gave special attention to conversations in Husted's cubicle (work space) and at no time overheard anything out of line.
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-office Memorandum from M. J. Ross to H. D.
Hukill dated January 7, 1983; subject: Evaluation of C. Husted (regarding his performance during the period October - December 1982).
Memorandum states that Mr. Husted continues to present a professional and thorough approach to his training participation; he continues to be interested and cooperative; no signs of a deterioriation in his attitude and desire as an instructor.
<
Operator Training Instructor Qualification Card (TMI Training Department
--
Administrative Manual Procedure No.
6210-ADM-1340.05, Attachment 1) for Charles Husted started December 12, 1982 with following Manager Plant Training (R. A. Knief) certification dated March 22, 1983:
'
"I have interviewed this instructor and hereby certify that the importance of the instructor's role in affecting student's attitudes and behavior towards rules, regulations and regulatory bodies is understood and that this individual is ready in all respects to commence instruction."
l.
+-+=esV ew-r-epe
--eo*
9 -mapw--
-eg9+-w-wy--T-
-.
-99-M'-e
T'7-+-
wTW-e*'-p
~*N-M-t
"7---77 N' Mp"'z'9
""'-'r"*-
w"'
T*~
' ~ '
"--*'-"""t'"fY K *
"
.
.
- - _ _ _ _
.
'
.
'
Inspector comment: Above discussion was coincident to Husted's assignment as Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator I
Training Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-0ffice Memorandum from M. J.
--
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated April 13, 1983; subject: Evaluation of C. Husted (regarding performance during the period January -
March 1983)
Memorandum stated the same comments as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated January 7, 1983. The author also stated that since Mr. Husted's recent promotion to Supervisor Non-Licensed Training Mr. Ross had many opportunities to deal with him on the A.O. (auxiliary operator) Training Program and he has been most cooperative.
--
Handwritten notes by R. A. Knief dated April 25, 1983 after meeting with S. Newton, E. Frederick and C. Husted re: status of operator training for restart; subject:
C. E. Husted lhe notes stated that Mr. Husted was observed to be confident in describing programs, take justifiable pride in the quality of the activities included in current and planned A.O. Requal Training cycles, and be concerned about supporting the plant as much as possible (as opposed to doing.what is most convenient for the training department) in moving toward restart.
Dr. Knief discussed approaches for A.O. Requal Training and stated that, overall, he was very pleased with the positive attitude Mr. Husted exhibited toward doing all jobs well and in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
GPU Nuclear Inter-office Memorandum from S. L. Newton to Dr. R.
--
L. Long dated June 3, 1983; subject:
C. E. Husted Evaluation (regarding special evaluations during the period from November 1982 to January 1983).
Memorandum stated that although there were no formal classroom evaluations of Mr. Husted during the above period, his performance was still closely evaluated.
In Husted's involvement in the preparation of sections of the written requalification examination he did a superb job. Also noted was his good performance during his simulator requalification training.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from M. J.
--
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated July 18, 1983; subject:
Evaluation of Mr. C. Husted (regarding performance during the period April - June 1983)
>
_-__
' '
Memorandum stated the same comments as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated April 13, 1983.
In addition, the author stated that Mr. Husted seems better versed as an Auxiliary Operator Instructor than a Licensed Operator Instructor, and that he (Husted) continues to be cooperative and shows great interest in the Auxiliary Operator Program.
--
GPU Nuclear Inter-0ffice Memorandum from Robert L. Long (Vice President - Nuclear Assurance) to John Stolz (NRC) dated December 2, 1983; subject: GPUN Evaluation of Mr. DD's Performance (regarding summary of evaluations conducted).
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from M. J.
--
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated December 15, 1983; subject:
Evaluation of Mr. C. Husted (regarding performance during the
,
period July - November 1983)
Memorandum stated similar comments as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated July 18, 1983.
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. L.
Long (Vice President - Nuclear Assurance) to H. D. Hukill (Vice President & Director TMI-1) dated December 20, 1983; subject:
Special Performance Monitoring of C. E. Husted (regarding intent to discontinue special performance monitoring)
--
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge letter from D. Bauser to R. L.
Long (GPU Nuclear) dated January 17, 1984, with draft supplement to December 20, 1983 memorandum to H. Hukill on performance monitoring of Mr. C. E. Husted.
--
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. L.
Long to H. O. Hukill dated January 20, 1984; subject: Special Performance Monitoring of C. E. Husted.
Memorandum states that the instructor evaluation program permits continued monitoring of attitude and performance of Mr. Husted.
--
GPU Nuclear Inter-0ffice Memorandum from B.P. Leonard (Operator Training Manager) to C.E. Husted dated January 3,1984; subject:
Quality Assurance Shift Engineer Training Program (regarding appreciation for support in implementing and presenting training program recently provided for QA Shift Engineers).
--
GPU Nuclear memorandum from B. P. Leonard (Operator Training I
Manager) to C. E. Husted (Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training) dated January 24, 1984; subject: ATOG Training
Program (regm ding commendation for contributions to Unit 1 ATOG training program)
.
>
V
~
.
--
GPU Nuclear (H. D. Hukill) letter to NRC (J. Stolz) dated March 7, 1984; subject:
" Training Observation" (regarding 1983 monitorings of DD performance)
GPU Nuclear memorandum from R. N. Whitesel (NSAD Director) to
--
C. E. Husted (Engineering Asst. Sr. III - Nuclear Safety) dated July 18, 1984; subject: Temporary Assignment, to TMI-1 PRA Project (regarding assignment, administration, arrangements and position accountabilities)
The inspector concluded, based on a review of the documents listed above, that Mr. Husted's performance as an employee of GPU Nuclear Corporation, or its predecessor Metropolitan Edison Company, was maintained at an acceptable or satisfactory level.
During most of his employment,
.particularly while assigned as an operator instructor or supervisor of instructors, his performance appeared to be good to excellent. The many documents regarding Mr. Husted's performance reflected favorably on his attitude and integrity.
4.
Personnel Interviews The inspector interviewed ten GPU Nuclear Corporation employees who had worked with Mr. Husted in various supervisor / employee /co worker relationships. The purpose of these interviews was to determine whether any of these individuals had concerns regarding Mr. Husted's attitude, integrity or forthrightress, based on their observations of his performance and demeanor. The questions asked of these individuals are listed in Attachment A.
The persons interviewed, their Met-Ed/GPU employment history and information regarding their knowledge of and past relationships with Mr. Husted are identified in Table 4.1.
Based on these interviews, the inspector determined the following information:
4.1 All but one person was aware of the NRC hearing requested by
'
Mr. Husted. Most of these individuals were made aware of the hearing during conversations generally with co-workers and in some cases with Mr. Husted. Two individuals had become aware of the hearing by reading docket correspondence that had been routed to i
them. All of these individuals were aware generally of the issues that led to the hearing requested by Mr. Husted.
,
.
4.2 None of the individuals had been interviewed either formally or informally interviewed by GPU Nuclear or other organization / person regarding their knowledge of Mr. Husted.
l 4.3 None of the individuals had ever observed any actions or heard of any incidents (other than the incidents that led to the Husted hearing) that would lead them to believe that Mr. Husted has a bad, negative, indifferent or otherwise improper attitude toward the NRC
,
or toward reactor safety.
,
~
4.4 The individuals stated the following opinicns of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude toward the NRC.
--
Mr. Husted tries to interact professionally with the NRC.
--
There was a brief slump (following the NRC exam cheating incident) but afterwards there has been a marked improvement in his overall attitude toward the NRC.
--
Mr. Husted has always demonstrated a positive attitude toward the NRC in the work place.
--
Mr. Husted is cooperative toward the NRC and does not have a bad attitude.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC is normal; nothing adverse.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC is very positive.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC was not significantly different from the norm following the NRC exam cheating incident, although he is more outspoken than most persons.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC is not negative, but also he is not a firm supporter.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC indicated a natural animosity when he was removed from the job as supervisor, non-licensed operator training.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC was not observed.
The inspector determined that the opinions regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC were mixed. Although no specific examples or instances had been identified which indicate Mr. Husted had a bad or negative attitude, one individual had mentioned a brief slump (followed by marked improvement) and another individual mentioned a " natural animosity" (when removed from a job).
awever, the majority opinion was that Mr. Husted had demon n ated an attitude toward the NRC that ranged from normal to very positive.
4.5 The individuals stated the following opinions of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude toward reactor safety.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety is very good.
--
Mr. Husted has had a generally continuing positive attitude toward reactor safety; he has provided constructive criticism on lesson plan *
.
Mr. Husted has always had a positive attitude toward reactor
--
safety; he studied hard for exams.
--
Mr. Husted has a good attitude toward reactor safety.
--
Mr. Husted has a very positive attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety is very positive.
--
--
One individual stated that he had never observed a problem regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety.
--
Mr. Husted has a good attitude toward reactor safety.
--
Mr. Husted emphasized the importance of reactor safety and never downplayed safety.
--
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety was not observed.
The inspector determined that the opinions regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety were consistently favorable; his attitude was described as good or positive to very good or very positive.
4.6 Mr. Husted's professional competence as a reactor operator was described as: (1) high knowledge level, (2) worked hard preparing for exams and conscientious on duty (based on limited observation),
or (3) above average (stated by two individuals).
Mr. Husted's overall performance as a reactor operator was described as:
(1) above average or (2) no problems noted based on very limited (one week) observation.
[0ne individual stated that Mr. Husted's professional competence as an auxiliary operator was excellent and that his overall performance as an auxiliary operator was above average].
Seven of the individuals had not observed, or had observed only on a limited basis, Mr. Husted's professional competence as a reactor operator; and nine individuals had not observed, or had observed only on a limited basis, Mr. Husted's performance as a reactor operator.
The inspector determined, based on the limited comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as an operator were acceptable; no adverse opinions were stated.
4.7 Mr. Husted's professional competence as an instructor was described as:
T
'
.
.
extremely competei:t, concerned about presentation getting
--
through to students; i
--
detail was thorough, concerned that students understood, priority was given to quality vs. quantity;
.
--
very competent, work done well;
--
very high competence;
--
very competent;
--
very good with systems topics; very good;
--
very competent and knowledgeable;
--
--
good to excellent; and
--
no comments from one individual (not observed).
Mr. Husted's overall performance as an instructor was described as:
--
thorough, concerned, good;
--
good rapport with class;
,
--
worked hard on theory lessons (mostly not observed);
very good, among the best at TMI;
--
--
adequately prepared, eager to help students learn; responsive to students needs and questions, very adequate
--
lectures when given advance notice of assignment, not happy about unplanned or prompt assignments; very good;
--
very thorough;
--
--
good to excellent; and no comments from one individual (not observed).
--
The inspector determined, based on the many positive comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as an instructor was very good, or better; no adverse opinions were state _. _ _ _ _. __
'
.
.
4.8 Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as a supervisor of instructors was described as:
--
very good supervisor, best ever had by the individual;
--
handled people well;
--
good administrator, reliable; performed very well, concerned for quality of instruction, used
--
constructive criticism;
--
very good; instructor evaluations were done properly and were
--
constructive; and
--
no comments from four individuals (not observed / limited observation).
e The inspector determined, based on the several positive comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as a supervisor of instructors was very good; no adverse opinions were stated.
4.9 None of the individuals was aware of any abarrant behavior displayed by Mr. Husted either on or off the job.
4.10 Four of the individuals had officially evaluated Mr. Husted's per-formance. These evaluations were for various reasons, including control room operator probationary review, annual performance reviews as an instructor / supervisor of instructors, instructor evaluation monitoring, and special quarterly performance monitoring. The individuals stated that these performance evaluations were generally positive, favorable and complimentary. The inspector reviewed all of these evaluations, and others, as discussed in paragraph 3.
4.11 The individual's opinions of Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness and demeanor were described as:
--
very trustworthy, mature;
--
very good integrity, forthright, demeanor professional and was maintained steady as he matured in his job (slight improving trend);
normal, nothing adverse;
--
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
average, no specific faults or strengths;
--
very analytical and straightforward, average integrity, no
--
problems as an operator, outspoken demeanor, takes job seriously; honest, sometimes shows bad judgement in what he says in oral
--
discussions; high integrity, forthright, on first appearance may appear to
--
be flippant but was truly serious;
,
in any relationship always had good integrity, forthrightness
--
and demeanor; and
--
high integrity (stated by two individuals).
The inspector determined, based on the generally positive or favorable comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness and demeanor were normal to very good. A few comments regarding his demeanor expressed a view that Mr. Husted may be outspoken or unusually candid in his discussions.
This willingness to express himself freely was perceived differently by the individuals interviewed as either a positive or negative characteristic. None of the individuals stated that this trait adversely affected Mr. Husted's overall performance.
'4.12 None of the individuals were aware of any performance awards or
disciplinary actions regarding Mr. Husted, except the transfee from
'
assignment as supervisor of non-licensed operator training due to the stipulation between the licensee and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I
4.13 Other comments or opinions regardin] Mr. Husted included:
)
extremely valuable asset to organizat*sn, would like to see him
--
back in training, a real professional; l
--
seemed very accommodating to training requests from plant operations personnel;
--
as an operator was one of the better individuals for performing on-the-job training;
--
very competent individual, extremely knowledgeable, removal was loss to the train;ng departmer.t; and
,
.
_
. _ _ _
'
.
.
!
--
comments from his supervisors regarding Mr. Husted's
- _
performance as an instructor were very positive.
Five individuals declined to state any other comments or opinions. No individuals expressed unfavorable or adverse comments or opinions regarding Mr. Husted when asked by the inspector at the conclusion of each interview. The inspector determined, based on the generally positive nature of the comments that were offered, that training department personnel
'
would like to have Mr. Husted back as an instructor or supervisor of instructors.
4.14 The inspector concluded, based on the results of these interviews,
that none of the individuals had concerns regarding Mr. Husted's attitude, integrity or forthrightness. Rather, positive statement's from these individuals regarding their past observations of Mr. Husted's performance and demeanor indicated a consensus opinion
>
that Mr. Husted was above average, or better, as an operator instructor and supervisor of instructors.
5.
Conclusion
'
i The inspector concluded, based on a review of documents and personnel interviews as described above, that Mr. Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU Nuclear Corporation and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company, reflected favorably upon his attitude and professional integrity. No specific indicators or characteristics of past poor performance or demeanor were identified through personnel-interviews or a review of the records that should cause Mr. Husted to continue being restricted from assignment to any positions with GPU Nuclear Corporation.
.
6.
Exit Interview During the entrance interview with licensee representatives on February 25, 1986 and during an interview with Mr. H. Hukill, Vice
,
President and Director of TMI-1, during the course of the inspection, the
,
!
inspector stated that no exit interview was planned regarding the staff's position on Mr. Husted's performance as it reflects on his attitude and j
integrity, due to the special nature of this inspection and its relationship to a pending hearing requested by Mr. Husted.
The inspector stated, however, that any safety concerns or potential enforcement matters that may be discovered during the course of this inspection would
,
be identified immediately to appropriate licensee representatives. No such safety concerns or enforcement matters were identified.
The numerous documents identified in this report were reviewed in GPUNC offices. The inspector received working copies of certain of these
'
documents as an aid to preparing this report, however, all of the documents identified (except for docketed correspondence with the NRC)
<
remain in the custody of GPUNC.
.
.-.. - -.
-
. -
.
.-
.... -.. -....
-.. - -...,. - - - -
. -.. -
.
Tabic 4.1 - Personnel I nte rviewed
'
Met-Ed/GPU Emoloyment Historv Has Known Husted's Positions Reletionship NYme Postion/ Title Pe riod Hosted Since Durino Time known with Husted
.
Cha rles D. Adams Shift foreman, TMI-2 10/75 - 4/80 19?6 Auxi l ia ry Ope r.
Close co-worker Qua l i ty Assurance 4/80 - 7/82 instructor (no classes)
Auditor Special Projects Assist.
Sa fety Eng inee r, 7/82 - 9/83 NSAD Independent Onsite Safety Review Group Special P roj ec t s 9/83 - 3/86 Assistant, Nuclesr Safety Assessment Dept.
Pa u l S. B i ckfo rd i n s t ruc to r, Non-Licensed 4/81 - 4/83 1981 Licensed operator Close co-worker Ope ra to r T ra i n i ng I ns t ructo r i nst ruc to r, Maintenance 4/83 - 3/86 Non-Licensed Operator T ra in ing Instructor Supv., Non-Licensed Employee /supv.
T ra i n i ng Nelson D. Brown Aux i l ia ry Ope ra to r "A"-
7/70 - 6/74 1977 Control Room Operator Personal friend Nuclear i ns t ructo r Supv/ employee Control Rm. Ope ra to r-6/74 - 6/75 Nuc i ca.-
Administrator - Nuclear 6/75 - 9/80
& Technical T ra i n i ng Supervisor, Licensed 9/80 - 3/83 Ope ra to r T ra i n i ng Senior Emergency 3/83 - 3/86 Planner Donna R. Galletly Clerical Se rv ice s, 8/74 - 4/78 1978 i nst ructo r Close co-worker Va rious Depa rtments Supv., Non-Licensed Clerk Junior, Training " 4/78 - 11/79 Operator Tra ining Administrative Clerk A 11/79 - 3/82 T ra i n i ng Special Projects Assist.
Administrative Assist.
3/82 - 4/85 NSAD Oprrator Tra ining Support Services 4/85 - 3/86 Supe rv i sc e, T ra i n i ng Bruce P.
Leona rd Technical P rog ra m 11/82 - 5/83 1982 Licensed Operator Close co-wo rke r Specialist, T ra i n ing i n st ruc to r Ope ra to r T ra i n ing 5/83 - 3/86 Supv., Non-Licensed Supv./ employee Ma nage r Operator Tra ining Robert E.
Neff Securi ty Gua rd 1/77 - 3/78 1978 Cont ro l Room Operator Co-worker Auxi l ia ry Ope ra to r, 3/78 - 1/84 instructor Student i
TMI-1 I n s t ruc to r, Non-licensed 1/84 - 3/86 Supe rv i so r, Non-Licensed Employee /supv.
Operator Tra ining Operator Tra ining
m
.
.
d dr r
ne o
ne.
e e ee e
ekv k
e p
i y y
i rp r y id ro o
rou o o he Fl lpr
/
-
p FwS w
l st p
ns l
m me l oe o m ou ae ek ace c c iH n /.
/. o r
n y
/.
t o
oeo e
ah sv vw ssl s v l t rp p-rop o
p ei eu uo el m l
u Rw PS SC PCE C S r
r r
o dg o dg dg o
dg s
rt en rt en r en t
en nn oa si oa si o
si a
si ow tr nn tr nn t
nn r nn io ae ei ae ei a
ei
.e ei tn rp ca rp ca r ca rp ca iK eO ir eO ir e
ir eO ir s
p LT p
LT p LT p
LT oe O. -
O
. -
O
-
O
. -
mrnr mrnr rnr mrnr Pmi yRooo yRooo yooo yR o o o.
sT r
tnt r
tnt rtNt r
tnt
'd o c,a c
,r ac,r al al a
a al c a r iou iou.e l rr.e l r. e iu i o u., er l rr en l rr ti ittvp ittvp itvp ittvp sr xnspO x n s pO x s pO x n s pO uu uonu uonu unu uonu HD ACIS ACiS AIS ACIS de we ivr e
e c
t n
n ni i
wS
4
4 o
7
7 t
nd
9
9 o
Ke
1
1 n
t n -
ss o 2 au s
-
HH re P
7 7596
6 7 806
-
/778
78
6 7 / 788 1///
//
8 8
/
///
1563
03
/ /
1 983 y
1
3
.
r
-
-
-
-
-
o d
-
-
-
-
-
e t
l
s io 9259
6 780 6777
07
3 9 7 778 b
i r
////
7/
8 6 / ///
a H
e 0267
90 9 /
/
198 T
P
1
1
9
1 tn d
r
"A e
r e
e
,
m
"
s s
a g
g y
n
n e
n a o
r o
- e l
i n l
o r
ity I
cg c.
gnga p
rt o
)
M in u
ninM m
oa t
al
T li Ng iai E
tr r
c rrts-n n
nrn.
ae o u
oennl
.
ni rniTig U
rp s r
speoM r oa Toa an P
e eOni t
iOriT e Nr r Nr
,r r C
l p
av s
v rt p
T on,T
.TT d
i O.mr n
rtua v
/
t
,
O
,
ta encrr rr ai v d pI n mee i)
E T
yRrp
/n pa(eo y2oo rcpeuMa
-
/
r ou ro ul pt r
tt tiusSTi t
n alFS ot SP1Oc aI ca snSn c
e o
io tx
- e iMur ih eg,i M
i l rtt aa t
,I tr lTre ncpcn.n t
itfr rS fvMni ix&sC mTol tpc tp ieuiivh s
xnii e( i p7 a D o
uohh p
hu l
u n d
r cue P
ACSS O
SS P
A I
A G AST na h
m s
t h
s a
c l
o p
e l
R S
Z o
N J
F W.
.
.
.
G l
s d
e a
r y
a l
a e
r h
g h
m r
c u
a a
i o
ic N
L M
D R
i'll t'
(
i:
l:
IlI
!l 1!
!ll
,, i ll
,
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ __
r Attachment A
.,
Page 1 of 2 Pages s
Interview with:
Date:
Time:
Met Ed/GPU Employment History Position / Title Years 1.
Are yoo aware of the NRC hearing requested by Charles Husted?
(If yes, how were you made aware?)
l l
l i
2.
Have you been either formally or informally interviewed by GPU Nuclear or other organization / person regarding your knowledge of Mr. Husted?
l (If yes, please elaborate.)
3.
How long have you known Mr. Husted?
4.
What positions has Mr. Husted had during the time you have known him?
I l
i 5.
How would you describe your relatienship with Mr. Husted?
Close personal friend?
Close co-worker?
Employee / supervisor?
Professional acquaintance?
Other?
,
I 6.
Have you ever observed any actions or heard of any incidents that would lead you to believe Mr. Husted has a bad, negative, indifferent, or similar attitude toward the NRC7 toward reactor safety?
-
(If yes, please elaborate.)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e Attachment A
a
Page 2 of 2 Pages o
7.
How would you describe your opinion of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude tovard the NRC7
--
toward reactor safety?
8.
How would you describe Mr. Husted's professional competence
--
as a reactor operator?
--
as an instructor?
--
as a supervisor of instructors?
9.
How would you describe Mr. Husted's overall performance
--
as a reactor operator?
--
as an instructor?
--
as a supervisor of instructors?
10.
Are you aware of any aberrant behavior displayed by Mr. Husted either on or off the job?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
11.
Have you ever officially evaluated Mr. Husted's performance?
(If yes, how would you summarize this/those evaluation (s), and what were the reasons for your evaluation (s)?)
12.
What are your opinions of Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness, demeanor?
13.
Are you aware of any performance awards or disciplinary actions regarding Mr. Husted?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
14.
Do you want to state any other comments or opinions regarding Mr. Husted?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
)