ML20028F647

Forwards Conclusions from Independent Investigation of Ltr Designated Individual Vv Certification in 1979.Entire Rept Provided to IE

ML20028F647
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/31/1983
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Buck J, Edles G, Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8302020350
Download: ML20028F647 (13)

Text

, __ ._ _ _ . _ .

o ..

. tj. v '

00CKETED i = -

~

- L w?;pc SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRl66k FEB-1 AiOS2 A PARTNERSMtp OF PROFESSaONAL CORPORATIONS

'~

1800 M STR ECT. N. W. .

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036 (2021 822-1000 cAseSAv D. POTTS. Pc - THOMAS A SAxTCs., P C. JOMN M. O'NCfLL JR. DAVBD LAWRENCE M8LLER STCUART L PITTMAN. Pt JAMES M SURGER. P C JAY A. EPSTIEN FREDERICR L. KLEIN c4ORGE F. TROwSRIDOC PC SMELDON J. WEISEL. P C. TELECOptER RAND L. ALLEN SMVEN P. PITLER*

OTEPMEN O. POTTS. PC JOMN A. McCULLOUGM. PA TIMOTMY S. McSRsDE RIN = J. PAmsteNO GERALD CHAftNCFF. P C. J. PATRICK McCMEY. P C. e303) 922-1099 &SEE-MSS ELISAGETM M. PENDLETON GORDO80 R MANOFSMY thMitup D SOSTWICK. P C. GEORGE P. McCMAELY. JR.. P C. PAUL A. MAPLAN - JEFFREY S. GIANCOLA C - J. THOMAS LEMMART. P C . . . .- . - - - . -- MARRY M. GLASSpa EGEL ' - MANNAM E. M. LIESERMAN S. TIMOYMY GEORSE MANLON. P,R PC M. flOGERS.. STEVEN L. MELTEER. P C- JEFFERY L. VASLON SANDRA E. FOLSOte - s Fsto A. LITTLE. P.C. DEAN O. ALLICK. pg RAP 6FAK a00 JACM McMAY JUOtTM A SANOLEst

' JOHN B. RMINELANDER. PC JOMM ENGEL P C.- 43028 SR2-8072 THOMAS H. McCORwaCM EDWAfuO O. YOUNG. Ist SRUCE W CMURCMILL PC. CHARLES 3. TEMNIN. P C- SUSAN M. FREUN3

, . . - LESut A. NICMOLSON, JR.. P C. STEPMEN S. DeUTTLER. P C. - JOHN L. CAR 84. Jft. feOSERTO.L.ELLes ANDREW WILLMORE _

~f t

• HAftTIN O. MftALL PC WINTH8 TOP N. BROWN. P C PMILIP J. MAffvtY WENDELES A. WHITE '

-* fteCMARO J. RENDALL P C. . JAMES S MAMLIN. P C. TELEA ftOSERT M. GOROON STANLEY M.'SAftG ,

JAY E.S4LSEftG.PC. -

8tANDAL S. MELL P C" SS-SSS3 tSMAWLAW WSMt SARSA A of. N KRi L. LaMSO SARBAftA H. seOSSOTTI. PC stOSCRT E.2AMLEst SONNIE S. SOTTL'E3 LES Llt eL SMITH GEORGE V. ALLEN. JR PC. RICMAstr. E. GALEN CASog *SMAWLAr . MOWARD H. SMAFFERMAN Vs stGIN4A S. RUTLEDGC1_

FRE.'8 ORASNER. PC ftOSERT S ROSSINS DESOftAM S. SAUSER ' MATHEfteME P. CMEEM . g s N p. KZNLY WESSTER. PC-- STEVEN M. LUCAS - SCOTT A. ANENBERG JAMICC LEMRER-STEsps NATMANIEL P. GREED JR P C. DAVID M. RUSENSTEIN CAMP 8 BILL KILLEFER TRAvrS T. 38 TOWN. Jft.

M ARM AUGE NGLIT M P C. LYNN WHITTLESEY WILSON ETTM ef MOOGASIAN GAIL E.CURREY ..

ERN*.,ST L. SLAKE. Jft PC, MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-OtA2, JOHN F. DEALY' SMEf t.A McC. MARVEY R'CHAftO M. KetONTMAL ( .

- , CARLETON S. JONE.S. PC VICTOfttA J. PERMaNS " DELISSA A. ReDGWAY ' STEPMEN 3. HE3 MAN 98. m KENNFTM J. MAUTMAN SANDAA E. SR*,fSCA*

• NOT ADemTftD see DC WRITER'S OtRECT OsAL NUMSER January 31, 1983 822-1026 ~ '

-Administrative. Judges

" ~'

Gary J. Edles, Chairman -

i ., . m John H. Buck n .- - Christine N. Kohl - -- - -- - - -

Atomic Safety & Licensing

d. A q.~ Appeal Board N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory t . = Commission.

'C =7 Washington, D.C. 20555 r

l- In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)

L_ ,f Docket No. 50-289 SP (Restart) 7 - ~ ~ . , . _ _ -

2 C-  : m ,w r ~

E - . . . , . .

Dear Chairman Edles and Drs. Buck and Kohl:

- ' 7 '"

In Licensee's comments on immediate effectiveness filed with the Commission on August 20, 1982, we reported that we had instituted an investigation of the VV certification in 1979. Pursuant to my letter of October 1, 1981, regarding notices to the Appeal Board, this is to advise you that that investigation, conducted by a qualified external professional who has not been associated with the TMI-1 restart proceed-ing, has been completed. _

We enclose for the Appeal Board's information a copy of the conclusions from the i.nvestigation. The entire five-inch thick report has been provided to NRC's Office of Inspection (302020350 830131 PDR ADOCK 05000289 PDR i

/....- '.

SHAw, PITTMAN, Po1Ts & TROWCRIDGE A PAftTNESISMIP OF PSDOFESSIONAL COstpostATIONS Administrative Judges h: Gary J. Edles, Chairman John H. Buck Christine N. Kohl January 31, 1983 Page Two 4-s

- and Enforcement and can be provided as well to the Appeal Board if desired.

Respectfully submitted,'

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS-& TROWBRIDGE' By: / ' /ffff) //

. / eorpje F. Tro'wbridge Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

s, Counsel for Licensee it

- ~ = _ - . . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , , _

ELB/t3c g;. Enclosure .

y.

'T cc: Service List

• .j 5.

l 1

W -

L s5 p.

l i

j e I i

s

D 0. ',. 5'.ET E D

. c. ,.La -

'83 FEB -1 A10:53

_ . ..~.:

,.e* em .. ey h  %

,  : M CH

~- , .

e- ,

y **j miw-.

- - . .,n-

,... < .. 2.c .  ? :. , ;.>

,a E-+8 ,

tn..

+ - .

,e

'U -

INVESTIGATION OF-.

W and O INCIDENT . ,

g3p+; . .,

yp. . . ~ .-. . . . . - . _ , . - . . - . - - - . . . - . . . . - . . . . _ _ _ . . - . . . ,

S.~ e . +  ;, .'

\

, , , ^r :. - >

_St ~ ~

. . . - , ,, ~.+ 'J.."..-.,.. .f m.tig44_ . ,.4.,

. Te.;;.(-

3., .., i r-Te.. ,

I.~~

L.

x,w. %:

~

Lc, y l

!..c

~

x . . .- - -: Respectfully submitted,

,.~ .s... . . -- . - ..- . . , . -

~-

if. .. h'

~

FRED SPEAKER Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

!w - - 10 South Market Square

' ~ '

P. O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 l

1 (717) 233-8483

c v

( , '

_.3.', T -- - . _t m

D. +

l l

l I

l CONCLUSIONS REACHED Accusations.of several mistakes have been made about events that took place in June, July, and August of n

c 1979. They are considered.in some detail in thiis . report.~

They include o's completion of a part of W's ' examination,

(

NW's submission of O's work as part of his own, Gary Miller's Q

1. 5 *7-

~.^ - -

certification of :W to the NRC without telling the full 7 < '

Ej '

.~g story, and the Company's failure to make a general announcement q

t- that W had been punished for his indiscretion.

g  ;

In considering.the seriousness,.of those mistakes,z . 9.-

Mi-p t _.

,s.; u,~

some care should be taken to view them~in the chaotic $f conte

\}"

g, The most jerious accident ever to~ .a di_ t in,which they happened.

--- _ _ _ , ~

,"3 -

have occurred to a nuclear power 'statiion 'in;the-United--

' O s Jn- .. %9 States had occurred barely three months before W submitted " :" - '

, 1.-

y.. ,_ -

MN: 'f During most of those three months,.the * - w, his test answers.

s.

g seven-days a persons involved worked on a twelve-hour a day,

[l n week basis. Myriad investigations had been conducted or were under way.

There was - '

extraordinary media interest x in x .

{i "

MM- i Q' the accident and the efforts to bring theistation unde -

ya _,

x .

There was general public distrust of the Company control. Great y$ - and of the individuals who worked for the Company.

W- " and efforts were under way to achieve a " cold shutdown begin the exacting processes of clean-up of Unit 2 and start-up of Unit 1.

/

• 3 i-I: .

w--

L.c_

~

hh.h e.~: w AQ d -w s7 . ,

h& VL U j:i p .vt '

64 :-

• l1-1 1;;

m.- .. -

H." -

-i ' It was in this situation that VV believed he was t.

[g required to take an examination before July 1, 1979, or lose 1.

s.~ - 1 o

g,M -

his license by the NRC as.a Senior Reactor Operator.

s N. ~ ' ~

~It'also should not be forgotten that,-although w (Y.S,N

.= -Q I employees who worked at Three Mile Island knew;that their W

dy i [c. 3[ ,

• • 93-3 . ,

training was of absolute importane_e, e.

many felt that-they-. z.2, . H w kp[qbh;:

$5 Q were trained for two separate and distinct purposes.- One t

. :3.W .

pJ'~ ' "WfQygg, purpose was to learn how to operate the reactor controls in

%". o:

-  ;~

M - W;,!.u a competent and safe manner. The other purpose'was to pass

'e2it..l 6

{'%__

n ., .a . .,y an examination testing the operator's understanding of %et

@v[.,,@ld Y facility design and familiarity with the controls and operating

,ow W..y~n agn a . v' Those individuals felt that the first purpose

~ .

r procedures.

&e.WT.d4'#9pMa v- -

=..

er e

~"

was of utmost'~importance ? They-likewise feltmthat -the -seconds -

m. . . . . . . , -

saw .. .

M{ e.s , purpose was of importanceTonly to get or. keep an NRCilicensei

~ ?w.

h- This view could be compared with the general

h. %;%p " -

'M

@y%We . feeling about driving a car and getting a driver's license.

W rw ?.i n : . ;.

If one trains another to. drive, there are two purposes. One

$1WG.%m f@N .is to have the student learn to drive competent}y and safely.

MMNM<4p - u g ~,

. c:

= M . .

.a .. -

1. The other is to learn how'.to pass the driving test..;Many

%g ~ T a ta, V

' ..

[6 f ~ %q ^

feel that-there~is no relationship between the two purposes 4.

k-WN:nxk?.:

- 1.x

~

and that the first is of prime importance.

muw .a.sg As a matter of legal fact, both purposes are vital

~

kNN s** ,, W d for reactor operators and automobile drivers; but one who r.. s:.a

> ; views the circumstances in the summer of 1979 should not

(

lL . . .',i ignore the feelings of the people who were involved.

V .

- j'r

=

,e

- - 60 -

1 A

,..- a.

2. l D-Keeping in mind the foregoing background, it is nsw appropriate to set forth our conclusions.

e.

Wrongdoing of O -

~;,

As has been stated on several occasions during p

-.c

'~"thic reports - we do not believe that O was wrong .in his .

l  ?

"'~

completion of part .of the examination that W was to submit.. ._ .f:

.w q

~ '

He .was asked by W, his super-  ;,

...;..o'was quite training-minded. ,~

e; W didn' t say what the  !

vicor, to complete some questions.

cnswers were to be used for. O didn't ask'. The examination 3

did not 'say that it was an examination - dere..was nothing

{.todistinguishitfrommyriad,othersuchpaperswhichwere

~rcutinely-circulated end completed at Three Mile Island.

a _ - _.. . . _. _ . . . _ _ _ , ,_, _ ~~

All of these facts lead to the reasonable conclusion that o 9 g_ .

x: m..g ~ ...

3F '

was not knowingly a part of any scheme to cheat the Nuclear I cw

' ' Rsgulatory Commission. .

But that conclusion is made certain by the fact that O completed the first two questions on the examination '

for Category A ( A,H) . and those. questions were not to be- -

, 3 .;

' ,5-

, i answered by W, a senior reactor operator but should be .

enswered by a rea,ctor operator. If O was knowingly doing two VV's work, he simply would not have answered the first questions.

- 61 -

,a , , . . .

.g . .

Qiy

~ ~

w-

, W's submission of O's work -

There is no doubt, nor has there ever been any y ,

doubt, that W was wrong in submitting some of O's answers as part of his own. W did aot submit 'O's ' answers in an_

g?Wd 3

attempt to fool the Company or the Nuclear-Regulatory Commis -

NL ,

sion. If that were the intention of the. submission, someone

%??.:?o

.x .' .

y.#4 . much less intelligent than W sure'ly would have copied o's

{jfj;[c

,pu  ; answers and submitted them in his own handwriting.

l'

[*,I W intended, however, only to buy time. He was 1... .-

. familiar with the training and testing processes and believed g

w. ",,{ a g- Q  ;

that the only way he could not lose his senior reacte VMey*e , -

M license and meet his obligations to his- family (to take his

$@9 :. ..

OY.!i' "-teenage son to Ithaca-for- a course -at- Cornell) -was to submit--~--

~

. ,'his answers with O's-work included. He. knew he would have.

~

?gr.;..].Y m

. g .. ..

-;.0.h.

pgg s ew-ep

[

to go into full-time training, and he did.

He knew he would wfai: F have to take a new examination, and he did. He knew he

95% -

3(QJy I would get into trouble with the Company, and he did.

y;rm .

.hy _ . f, But he did, in fact, keep his license.

m m  :. -

2 m #f E MJ11er's recertification of VV using the 89.1 percent figure.-

59.:c - .

1979, . letter to Paul Collins,

~l

.  ! Miller's August 3,

,s 5 cahid - which stated that W had received a test result in Category A

% :p-L'~ %.~ g [ of 89.1 percent was an error, and should not have been

_~ stated. It was a gratuitous statement, since it was not 4

I N.

r I

4 L'.

62 -

_.._,t_.._

p .

3 a

h 4: -

de 4 essential for W's recertification. It was the result of I'S negligence in that it was due to the mistake of someone who g supplied the figure for Category A(A,H) and due to the We think-that

~-

3 - failure of Miller to check that figure'.

~

~ negligence was understandable - the failure to note.that a 1 ,

phrase was in O's handwriting and the failure of a busy

%- .'.~ , .g

~'

executive to check the figures given him. But it was not

~

l' ,; %

• the result of a conspiracy to defraud or delude the' Nuclear .

7 ap 7 Regulatory Commission. It was not an act that resulted in 1A I criminal culpability. It was a mistake. -

m d .,

,-( Miller's f ailure to mention the O handwhiting incident - '

X ,

j;-

Esi Miller's letter to Collins made no mention of the h4 ~

fact that a part of W's examinaton answers were in O's W .,

?g;~ . ,ma

handwriting.

p ~ - a.4 . . .We do not, however, believe.that this omission-was -~ '

Q.

jh the result of any criminal conspiracy or, in fact, constituted-

$j : any serious wrongdoing on Miller's part. The letter 2

-" was not in the same format as other requalification letters.2

n. - - . .

7~

Miller stated that the letter about W did not involve- a _

~~

[;

e renewal of his license and that he ". . . was not submitting

$. in my mind this letter for any other purpose other than s.

I 2 Exhibit 1.

2 Exhibits 19, 20, and 21.

@E , , ., ,

k 7.y . '

D T; s, .:

Ni.l..

section 2.6 of admin. 1006. . . . That section provides

ig7.f.,

p'- as follows:

y Accelerated Requalification Program 2.6 glj"i. An operator who does not clear deficiencias 9 assigned due to performance.below standards g - - - ._

N'G

$% on either the annual written or oral .

^ evaluations will be relieved of'responsi-

. a.

)

. bilities and enter a full time. accelerated W ~

• requalification program.

+5 , , .

c.d-

-- ~

The program duration and content will.be

~

@j3{ - dictated by the nature of the deficiency.

g3g ' Program duration will be determined by-Fp.m individual performance. When the license

@y holder is (1) able to satisfactorily pass an equivalent written or oral examination hPl Ey g and (2) certification'of his satisfactory gj rating is1sent to the NRC, he shall resume -

.ME his on-shift responsibilities. . During the period of accelerated requalification,

[5]

5 ed W:

u attendance at the OR lecture series is required....If the, license holder is off-h gyu p v;g.- ' - shift for more than .,4_ months,- Section:2.7 dealing with lengthy absences applies ~.-~~

wp.3; . -. ,

s.g.; e

$1' s "..m .

W's submission of: answers in O's handwriting ~w y -, + r_.-

should not lead one.to conclude that W.was an incompetent .

1. c senior reactor operator. On the contrary, it has been j$

"Yi p'.i stated again and again that W was. highly qualified and as m "

- mcy -~

Parker -stated, "he bordered very close .-to being a genius".* .

M... s .

The letter.cfrom Milfer to Collins was. certifying;the competency

.3 $m0-- ~

?

N:,:, of W which was unquestioned and, in fact, proven by his

~

4 Mbk . 99.8 overall score on the accelerated requalification exam

[W W' which did in fact cover all four categories.

N9 ..

• c:.n

• Miller Interrogation, p. 37 (September 27, 1982).

v.s..

e 1.

• Parker Interrogation, p. 17 (September 22, 1982).

u I'0ll:.

l S.,

p.:ly

- - . - . . . - . - + - , - , , - ,.,.m -

e - - , - -

lA ..

=

%ym ,-

c .492 l R.:. ..

, .:ms -

t:3. ;

( .. u..s,;;

The purpose of the letter was not to inform the l

~

NRC of W',s incompetent supervisory capacity and therefore, d..o

-N, . ; 3 .

there was no need to mention the handwriting incident.

l , 7.:y .

.Instead, the company.took it upon itself to deal vith that b.y. g .

v

%% problem and removed ~W from his supervisor position.

D'M w

%k ...-

We believe that the first paragraph of the August 3, A 4. (;T

,2 .

• ~ 1979 letter' would have been sufficient' in certifying W/ tom > '

4,p.3 ,.A r the NRC. However, in view of the fact that the. letter.. -

gs.fE y..

\ y.v.

fhi}%;di.i.

continued with a descriptivn of W's training history, it n, .: ~ m  ;

@;fg

,e ,j.

v.s.

g. logically should have continued with an explanation of the

$!i.s.gt handwriting inci' dent. Again, we do not believe that this g.}((

Nh$NN.<- omission'was deliberate or frauduIent.. .

x. m. : .

%.i

a ..

_ There is no . doubt that W satisfactorily passedh.

[M$.$1 cy -

ht M- .'

>- "an equivalent written or oral examination" - having w scored.

w .w. ...

...2.~-

v. ,. . ~

99.8 percent on a combined written and oral examination.

j64g%..e.

Vjf%7 ..

YDC s But, once the training and testing history was' included,-iwe "

w.:m,w.

my

% Pf.. :> .

believe it would have been better for Miller to have included Q' <Nr**

in his letter the handwriting incident and the. fact that W

%:&. !.O.:ish

$b.::c7 5k.0 was being disciplined for his part in that incident. ;(,fJ:-

T ,m

%,.' sv M. m. g._ y

'7, r :

Failure to make the disciplining of W public within the Compan There is no doubt that W was disciplined, at a ;.aq/,.

%w I ,-

~

least partially as a result of his using O's work as part of W's submission of answers to his examination. W was removed from direct line responsibility. His income subsequently L

1

~

^' '

'y .

j increased at a lesser rate than other comparable employees. l Neither can'there be any doubt that other employees knew of ,

the fact that W had been disciplined.

But there ws: no public statement within the

~

Company that W had been disciplined - or what constituted.

' the reasons for that disciplining. 'This failure-to make--a.

A public announcement within the Company was a conscious decision.;

E It was consistent with:the policy of the Company to take disciplinary action when such action was indicated but not to make such action public. Had the Company made the 1979 R

~~

W/o incident public (and we use the term "public" as meaning b ' .,i;. within the Company), the 1981 cheating incidents may not:

E have' occurred. Although we do not believe that W needed to .

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

70 ~

be identified in public, we do believe the employees should "-  ;

y&  : ._

f - Q ' have been made aware of the happening and what-actions were

%.  ;&Qj , taken by the Company.

Using W's and- O's names would or}1y have r'esulted in unnecessary humiliation on the part of c 'thoseItwo. But making the incident known, without the use i

l-C.Gz.

of their names, would-have' strengthened the Company's position _ ,

Tii. . ~

E

• regarding the importance of training.andL the requirements.

- involved in the process.

1 l

l l

l l V

.:  %:3 - . . .

, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~.

Syy y:-(cr 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

'83 FEB -1 A10 :53 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l - arkbrO"

v. .~. w.a s E EBV;C;.".

BRANCH ,

In the Matter of. .)

j.y . __

} 7 -

) Docket.No. 50-289 SP METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY . :_q

ps

a y (Restart)- , .

)

'(Three Mile Island Nuclear

-Station, Unit No. 1)

)

N.+T/> i

~ _,_

^ ~~r- :22l ;

g' *:.<

.~

l Ebb , mym-

-SERVICE LIST _' ,

{'

(- Administrative Judge + '_ _

Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman L,g . Gary J. Edles, Chairman Atomic' Safety.& Licensing Board

' Atomic Safety-& Licensing U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Ng Appeal Board Commission 7- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. 20555 '

Was'hington, D.C.

e- C Commission . '.'" " z. ,

~ Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge E- 49<

%' iHs_,c__ _ Administrative Judge--

m ----Walter 3. Jordan i Atomic Safety & ficeirising^ Board ~

-John H. Buck ~

1 % e<~ i . ' Atomic Safety & Licensing- 881 West Outer Drive .. ..

' D? N ' Oak Ridge,,TN 37830 fn P ('

~

Appeal Board

, g,if'. 4.;

~

~U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge. 9  ;

Commission Linda W. Little L' ' Washington, D.C. 20555 . Atomic Safety & Licensing. Board

,J'-

h 5000 Hermitage Drive 9

Administrative Judge Raleigh, NC 27612

• Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety &' Licensing yN g Appeal Board- Board Panel w&N. ,

M7

?" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1,;4_J "

M 71-

'" Commission Commission- .

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555' N Jack R. Goldberg, Esquire (4) Atomic Safety & Licensing;e P Office of the Executive Appeal Board Panel-Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555- <

Washington, D.C. 20555 l Robert Adler, Esquire

' Docketing & Service Section (3) Karin W. Carter, Esquire Office of the Secretary Assistant Attorneys General r

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 505 Executive House h Commission .

20555 Post Office Box 2357 17120 l~

' Washington, D.C. Harrisburg, PA l

.. . .<+ * . ,

4 John A. Levin, Esquire- Ms. Gail Phelps Assistant Counsel ANGRY /TMI PIRC Pennsylvania Public Utility 1037 Maclay Street i Commission Harrisburg, PA 17103

% -Post 10ffice Box 73265..

~ - -

,- s ._

, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire-

.. Fox, Farr & Cunningham i

~

Mr. Henry D. Hukill 2320 North Second J5treet Vice President .

Harrisburg, PA 17110

'* GPU~ Nuclear Corporation g  ;# . .

W -

: m. , .

^. ~

Post Office Box 480 Ellyn R.~ Weiss , . Esquire.- (1)~

p Middletown, PA u17057. William- S. Jordan, .III, Esquire.(1)

' Harmon'& Weiss /- -C ~~^",s. .

g Michael F. McBride, Esquire 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite'~ 506

~. LeBouef, Lamb, Leiby

&.MacRae . Washington, D.C. 20006 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1100 -Mr. Steven C. Sholly. . .

~ Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, D.C. 20036 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W; Ms.. Louise Bradford Dupont. Circle. Bldg.,. Suite 1101

• . TMI ALERT ', Washington,.D.C.7 20036. w

,g m1011. Green Street .

..Chauncey.Kepford-

~ ~;42 , - Harr3sburg, PA 17102 . .

~

Judith H. Johnsrud h y f.s..i;.Mr.- Norman Aamodt _ , . Environmental-Coalition '

onw

-'* ~ -

.. ._~.

'R. Di 5 -

Nuclear Powers A_ _ m. Coatesville, PA 19320 433 Orlando Avenue F - - ' State-College,-PA- 16801 ~ . . <

John Clewett, Esquire The Christic Institute David E. Cole, Esquire

- 1324 North Capitol Street Smith & Smith, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20002 2931 Front Street-Harrisburg, PA 17110 6 -

c i . Michael W. Maupin, Esquire >- -

kf? j ' .Hunton & Williams. ' Administrative: Judge' [

@T. . c" .7072 East Main. Street: - '

~

' ' Gary' L. Milhollin z Atomic Safety & Licensing-Board 1

~

Post Office Box 1535, -

Richmond, VA 23212 4412 Greenwich Parkway, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20007

(- ,.

l l

L i

1

..- . . _-.