ML20093D608
| ML20093D608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1984 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#484-343, RTR-NUREG-0680, RTR-NUREG-680 CLI-84-18, S, SP, NUDOCS 8410110308 | |
| Download: ML20093D608 (43) | |
Text
E% n .
k
- CU d
00CHETED Jsnnc October 9, 1984
,8 00710 gg qg tr c er....
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'BEFORE THE COMMISSION
'In;.the Matter of )
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 55
) (Restart Remand
-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) on Management)
Station,fUnit No. 1) ) -
LICENSEE'S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CLI-84-18
~
By its-. Order dated September 11, 1984 (CLI-84-18) the Com-mission ~ requested comments-from the parties to the TMI-1 restart' proceeding on .the ne'ed for: further hearings on (1) the issues of the adequacy of Licensee's training program, the Dieckamp'mailgram and leak' rate practices at TMI-l previously
-remanded by the Appeal Board by ALAB-?72, (2) the issue of the
{ Hartman allegations.as to leak rate testing practices'at TMI-2 previously. remanded by t:1e Appeal Board to the Licensing ' Board by ALAB-738. and (3 ) r.atters addressed by the NRC Staff in Sup-
-plement No. 5 to NUREG-0680. In addition the Commiss" ion re-quested the' views of the-parties as to whether the Appeal Board I.
8410110308 841009
-d O
m t
'had.the legalDauthority'to impose in ALAB-772 the requirement that'Mr. Charles Husted "have no supervisory responsibilities insofar as the training of non-licensed personnel is concerned" 4
where Mr. Husted-is not a party to the proceeding and has had Lno notice:of a possible sanction or opportunity to request a
~
hearing. ~ Licensee's comments on'these matters are presented in the same-order.as they are addressed in CLI-84-18.
In brief, it is-Licensee's position that the issues re-
. manded.by the Appeal-Board in ALAB-772 and ALAB-738 need not be
,thel subject of-further hearings in the TMI-1 restart proceeding and that~the Appeal-Board's orders reopening the hearing on
.these issues were unnecessary and' incorrect. Licensee further
' believes that none of'the information addressed in Supplement
'No. 5 to NUREG-0680 requires or justifies a reopening of the
. record.
CLI-84-18 also indicates that if the Commission should de-
- cide'that'further' hearings are required, it will also decide
.whether to require completion of those hearings prior to a de-
' cision on lifting the effectiveness of-its July 2 and August 9, 1979xorders. Licensee's views'on this question are. fully set ,
forthJin Licensee's. Comments on ALAB-772 (Management Phase),
dated May 29, 1984, and in Licensee's Comments in Response to
' Commission' Order of June 1, 1984, dated July 26, 1984.
i N ALAB-772
.1. Training 1 .
In'its August, 1981 partial initial' decision, based on an extensive record, the Licensing Board found that training was
. adequate and that Licensee complied with the Commission's or-ders on training. LBP-81-32, 14 N.R.C. 381, 478-79 (1981).
This partial decision, which the Appeal Boar.d did not fault,
- was made; subject to the outcome of the Licensing Board's inqui- ,
ry into cheating. The Appeal Board does not quarrel with the record subsequently developed by the Licensing Board-on the cheating incidents, finding that "the overall inquiry (espe-cially the~ hearing) was as thorough as possible." ALAB-772, slip op. at 61. The Appeal Board's principal difficulty with the record overall, however, was that the Licensing Board, sub-sequent to development of the cheating record, did not seek from the independent experts who testified on behalf of Licens-ee,1 and who were relied on by the Board in reaching its initial findings on the substantive adequacy of Licensee's training Lprogram,I f urther testimony as to their. conclusions in the light
~
of the cheating-record. Id. at 65, 67.
The. Appeal Board's concern suggests that the Licensing
- BoardLinsufficiently appreciated the infirmities in Licensee's
.. training program-which contributed to cheating as disclosed by -
r ,- - - .
J the: reopened hearing.1/--ThisLis not the case. Indeed the Li-censing Board'took careful. stock of Licensee's substantial im-
- provemehts in test administration designed to cure the identi-
'fied problems. .LBP-82-56, 16 N'R.C. 281, 296-297, 359-360.
. In contrast,..the Appeal Board, in a footnote, simply notes it did b
1 (not? overlook Licensee's improvements. ALAB-772, slip op. at.63 1 ' n .-4' ' 7 . 1The-Appeal Board opines that the improvements.even when supplemented by additiona'l. steps required by the Licensing Board 2/:are largely ministerialJand not sufficiently convincing F( .fixestof."what may be more serious infirmities in the training program." pd. (emphasis added).
- To ensure Licensee's. examination administration improve-ments' coupled with other improvements added by Licensing Board'
- conditions.were sufficient, the Board required that Licensee-be -
subject.to,a two-year probationary period during which Licens-ee's, qualification and.requalification-testing and training _
f
- < i . . . ,
'1_/. :This view is'somewhat. surprising,.given the Appeal Board's.
/ concurrent recognitionLthat "the adequacy ofilicensee's
, ', ' training program ~ consumed an enormous, amountL of ~ hearing time 6 below " ALAB-774~(June 19,.1984),- at 8, citing ALAB-772,. slip
, lop' at 14-15.
2/-- ' Licensee tookuno issue with.the1 Licensing Board's condi-itions; requiring additional. improvements. Notwithstanding the iAppeal1 Board's'wi'llingness to take note of'" newly _ supplied, es-sentiallyf' objectiveinformation,"'see ALAB-772, slip op. at 157,.;it; ignored the~" objective" fact:that Licensee has fully
> implemented.the-Licensing Board's conditions for licensed oper-ator1 training 1and the Staff-has approved the. implementation.
c :See' Licensee's' Comments'on'the Listt of Integrity Issues (February 21,a1984), attached-Status Report-at 36, 45-46.
-4 -
~
m.
4
. a i . -. x: l_ _ - =_ . - - _-___. :-- _ . . . ____ -___ _- _- - -- . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
- r. . : -
~
b p
E J' -program shall be subjected to an in-depth audit by independent t
auditors, approved by:the' Director of NRR, such auditors to p
[.- have had no role-in the.TMI-1 restart proceedings.3/ This t-e added' assurance the Appeal Board treats in two sentences find-
[ , -ing it "necessary and desirable"; however, it is unable to de-termine whether this assurance is sufficient. ALAB-772, slip
.op. at.65-66.
.Th$ fundamental disagreement between the Licensing Board and the Appeal. Board was whether.the Licensing Board was cor-l) -rect:in concluding'that Licensee's commitments together with the additional conditions imposed by the Board constituted an adequate resolution'of admitted deficiencies in Licensee's training program.
Licensee submits that they were. The
' ~
cheating incidents and poor administration of training tests Ldisclosed in the reopened cheating hearing were matters suscep-tible to' correction and they have been corrected. They have 4 little bearing on the substantive adequacy of the t: Lining
?:
p which the TMI-1 operators received, which'the Licensing Board endorsed-on the. basis of extensive hearings and which-the Ap-
~
J. peal Board would'now have the Licensing Board re-examine.
L . 3/ ~Again, Licensee took no issue with this requirement. And again, although the' Appeal Board took no notice under its "ob-
.jective" evidence standard, Licensee nominated an-independent F auditor:on Mayf3, 1983, and the Staff on' April 9, 1984, ap-
- p. -proved Licensee's nominee.
b i-p l
):
v
~
i- s T
e -
... L -
~ Ly ,.The Commission.has ample evidenceoof the correctness and 5 ,- a
.effic'cy'of-the Licensing Board's conclusion. The Commission 9
o ;
. has available~to it from independent < reviewers substantial information on' Licensee's training 1 program. These independent judgments are. subsequent t'o, disclosure of the cheating inci-dents'and'the' deficiencies in Licensing's administration of training:noted in the. reopened hearing record. Thus, Licens-ee's training program has been the subject of NRC reviews and g ,
'nspections.
i ~See,.for example, NRC Inspection Reports 82-19,
'83-02,f83-10, 83-22, 83-29, _84-04; 1982 SALP (January 20,
.1983);-1983 SALP'(May-7, 1984); NUREG-0680,_Supp. 4 (October, 1983); Operational' Readiness-Evaluation'84-05 (April 13, 1984);
.- ELicensed Operator Rediew.and-Summary (March 30, 1984). The Itraining programIhas been the subject of an independent review p
byfDesign D'ata' Laboratories (provided by Board Notification to f
- AppealEBoard on: October-5,.1982), the very firm which has been
( endorsed by'Mr. Denton to conduct:a two-year independent audit
~
- E ofl Licensee training ~as required-by the Licensing Board.
~
Licensee's training program has also been the subject of INPO f ~ evaluations ~in: October, 1981 and May, 1983, which included as-ses'sments-of' training.
SThese-reports have all been provided and are available for
. Commission consideration. Together they provide a solid basis
- for concluding.that a sound training program has been in effect
- atxTMI-1. -The program specifically protects-against cheating e w
ri a
- I and corrects the deficiencies found'by the Licensing Board, 9
' ~
.noted:by the Appeal Board, and acknowledged by Licensee to have existed in'the earl'y post-accident training period.
.In the area of licensed operator training, the Appeal
- Board has'sim ly displaced the Licensing Board's determination
,with its own, despite the Licensing Board's first hand observa-
. tion of Licensee's program and the people who administer it.
The' Appeal Board has ordered reopening to explore what even it Jonly postulates "may be" more serious infirmities in the training. program. Licensee submits'that the Licensing Board's s
decision, based on its extraordinarily thorough review of Licensee's. training programs, procedures and managers, was ade-s .quate. The Appeal-Board's substituted , judgment, which would apply a perfection.to the record that is:-unnecessary, is erro-neous. 1The Commission should reinstate the Licensing Board's
- decision on licensed operator training.
- 2. Dieckamp Mailgram The second area.where the Appeal Board.found the record is-not as complete as-it should be concerns the circumstances.sur-
.rcunding a mailgram'sent by GPU President Herman Dieckamp to n,
Congressman Morris-Udall in May, 1979.
The Dieckamp mailgram was sent on May 9, 1979, to correct what Mr. Dieckamp viewed as an inaccurate news account which a
followed'a tour of TMI two' days earlier by Congressman Udall
, ~~
~
o- 'and'others. In pertinent:part the mailgram stated, "
j [t]here is no evidence 1that anyone interpreted the pressure spike' and i
y the spray initiation in terms of reactor core damage at the
. time of'the spike nor that anyone withheld any information."
Today,'more.than'five years after the mailgram, after reviews of this subject by MRC's Special Inquiry GroupLand a special I
- and-E investigative-team which reported its findings in NUREG-0760 and indeed, after, questioning of Mr. Dieckamp by the Commission itself, it is; clear Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram was
_ accurate. Mr. Dieckamp1 spoke from a considerable awareness of the information available at the time by virtue of his personal
-reviews'of interviews. conducted following the accident and his
'pe'rsonalfinvolvement,in review sessions with GPU's team which
,was then trying to recreate the accident events at the TMI.
Whilelit is arguable now thats one operator may:have
~
' site.
. gleaned more' understanding of the pressure spike thanLanyone else who'was aware'of it when it occurred, even that operator's views were not expressed or known to Mr. Dieckamp in May, 1979.
.In. fact, this operator's first real. indication of a--link be-tween the pressure spike and core damage came a year and a half
~ '
.later.during an~' interview by the NUREG-0760 investigative team.
3 That-team subsequently determined:
The investigators conclude that hydrogen
. was not believed to be the cause of the
~
pressure spike. The testimony reviewed leads the-investigators to further conclude that hydrogen was not discussed'on March
.28,:.1979. This conclusion concerning 8-4 c
J S -- , .,, mg m. - ,%-,- , #m .- . ,w. _
cw.-. , r--, ,
b' hydrogen not being identified as the cause yof the pressure spike on March 28, 1979, is based on the testimony of operators and a review of the engineered safety systems.
- (NUREG-0760, " Investigation into Informa-tion Flow-during the Accident at Three Mile E
Island" (Jan. 1981) at 24.)
- The-Appeal Board believes the Licensing. Board should have inquired more deeply into this matter on its own,4/ and should notlhave relied on an I&E report on the subject and the testi-mony of-the head of the I&E team that investigated the subject and issued the report.
As.with the training issue, the Appeal Board unjustifiably
~
, rejects the L'icensing Board's belief that it had enough infor-
[
Jmation and more-information was not necessary on this matter.
While admitting that_the additional hearing it orders "may not be particularly fruitful," ALAB-772,. slip op. at 133, the Ap-
-peal Board believes it's " worth some additional effort," par-ticularly since it is remanding in any event on the training issue. Id. at 134.
..The Appeal Board. erred in applying a lower-threshold for reopening this' issue because_it was remanding in any event an-other matter'.- .The test for. reopening on each issue should be -
'4/ .This is the same Licensing Board about which the Appeal
. Board states" "Ouri canvas of the record reveals a board well aware oflits responsibility to the public and the Commission to
~ ensure that;it receives all information necessary to a thorough
' investigation.and resolution of the questions.before it."
ALAB-772, slip'op. at 94 (citations omitted).
9 b! T _ --
=
- ei s
- -v
- g ~ independently! applied.5/[
- Although'on:thetrainingissuethe
- ' ppeal Board finds
- that'the test for reopening is met,p/ see id.Lat.66 n.' 50, itidoes not even make-such a determination as to'the'Dieckamp mailgram,~1et alone support it.
Th'e' Appeal.Boardfregarded it as particularly important .
that Mr. Dieckamp be questioned on-the subject of the mailgram.
It: faults (the Licensing Board for not doing so on its own, de-
' spite the fact lthat no party sought.to question Mr. Dieckamp-on
- the subject when he appeared as a witness. With their interest Lin this. subject so keen as to require a reopening, we believe 1the Appeal Board; erred-in not pursuing-whether Mr. Dieckamp_was questioned'on this, subject. It is a matter of fact that he was .
~
questioned,- and by the'very I&E team that the Licensing Board 1
= relied on for:its'determina' tion in the Dieckamp matter.7/ No partyLchallenges that fact,-nor could it.
5 5/: See'Pa'cific Gas and El'ectric Co.-(Diablo Canyon Nuclear-Power Plant,-Units 1 and 2),-ALAB-756, 18 N.R.C. 1340, J'344-46 (1983).
p/- l Licensee disputes-this determination. See ' discussion of-training record, supra.
17/; Licensee explicitly pointed in its'brief to the-Appeal Board to-the' fact that Mr. Dieckamp sp'ecifically was questioned ron this-subject. Licensee's1Brief at 58 n. 60. Moreover, lLicensee's-Comments.to the Commission on Immediate Effective-
' ~
L ' ness--in which this subject was further addressed were provided
- toEthe Appeal' Board in September 1 1981. The Commission itself
- ;hasfquestioned Mr. Dieckamp. See Public Meeting, Presentation son TMI-l' Restart, October. 14, 1981,_at 10, 91-95: (morning ses-
. sion): and ' at 6 (cf ternoon session) .
9 s e J m
m -
.Under its " objective" standard,Jsee n. 2, supra, the Ap-4 (n
~
' peal Board:certainly could:have determined conclusively that Mr. Dieckamp was' questioned.
Its finding that the transcript
^ - " suggests";he was questioned is unfathomable under the circum-Lstances.8/ . Undoubtedly,_however, .the Commission knows Mr.
Dieckamp'was questioned. To ignore this~ fact, to therefore U'
fault'the adequacy of the I&E investigation effort upon which the Licensing-Board relied, and to consequently fault the Li-censing Board and the adequacy of the record on this count is-erroneous. The Commission should reverse the Appeal Board's
' reopening-on this' matter, and avoid a costly additional pro-
-cee' ding which the' Appeal-Board itself admits "may not be par-ticularly fruitful."
~
'3.
'TMI-1 Leak Rate Testing-The third area where.the Appeal Board would reopen and re-mand She proceeding for further hearing concerns leak rate testing practices at TMI-1.
This subject was not specifically
. addressed in the. restart hearings _nor was it the subject of ex-ceptions'or related appellate briefs before the Appeal Board.
Rather, it.was raised inLa motion to reopen in January, 1984, owhich is grantedfin ALAB-772. The Appeal Board has erred in s
8/- The remand on this basis is particularly disturbing given 1the: factthat the. Appeal Board never asked-a question on this subject during somel30 months when the appeal lay before them
~
, or during a full' day's oral argument on this appeal.
-2 m
- v7 -
gn . . . . -1 bm . ,
- l
,7 -
, I
.e 4 , idetermining'thatithis matter is so significant that a different cresultlwould have been-reached by'the Licensing Board if this subject had been considered in the_ hearing.
The' Appeal. Board in its/ discussion of leak rate practice Lfirst~ clarifies ALA.B-738 by stating that all.that it reopened T: lin that dec'ision was preaccident leak rate' practices at TMI-2
.and :that- there .was noibasis at the time to _ explore leak rate
-practices at both-units. ALAB-772,-slip op. at 151-152. It
, then'goesion.to cite the-Board. notifications by the staff of.
J'ndications i of practices at TMI-l "similar to" (not, as'incor-
- " Lrectly' stated by the Appeal Board, the "same" as) those at Unit
- .2. :The. Appeal Board reasons that if the-allegations at Unit 2
_ .which1were the' subject of a. Justice Department investigation
~
(and ultimatelyfa criminal proceeding)'wereLso'significant.that-
.;the Licensing Board-made its decision subjectEto the outcome'of that investigation, then "[t]he'same neces'sarily follows'for the;new1 allegations ~concerning leak' rate practices +?c TMI-1."
_Id..at 152.
Looking'only to the_ cryptic Board Notifications by the Staff, lone ~can understand how-the Appeal Board. jumped to the
~
conclusion ~-that leak rate. practices at_TMI-1'could be equated with_ leak rate practices at TMI-2. -But by the time _the Appeal
~
1 Board: issued.its decision in ALAB-772 it had before it the com-ipleted: reports of..the10I investigation of the subject
- a. ,
- (#1-83-028'and supplement). Those-reports found none of the F ,
t 'I_
d'
- l'eak l ratefdata.-falsifications or teet manipulations alleged to
~
'have: occurred at TMI-2 nor any other deficiencies of enough 1 significance!to' warrant. reopening the record for further. hear-
~
'ings. .The Staff's; position'has now been~ confirmed in' Supple-ment-No'.E 5. iEarlier_distOrbing references to Unit 1 practices P
as:similarito Unit 2 have been dispelled.
- H -
Having_already'made~up its mind on the basis of the Board
- N:tifications,1however,'the Appeal Board concluded that the OI
- report"" reinforced" its? decision, but for reasons having noth-ting-to dofwith leak rate: falsification or manipulation. It ar-
-rived at:this conclusion notwithstanding its acknowledgement that "the+over&ll. conclusion of the report'is favorable to.
Licensee.'" 'Specifically the Appeal Board found.that the re -
ports " disclosed ~(1) a lack'of understanding concerning record
-keeping requirements; (2) ignorance (over a_ period of several years) by.both operating stafffand management =of the existence-
- and significance.for' leak rate-calculations:of a " loop seal" in
, the instrumentation system;Jand (3) inattention during the
= pre-accident period'to work requests:that'would have high--
, -lightedithe loop seal. problem." -It then c'oncludes, without ex-planation,'that the reports are "the type of material that is
~
'best scrutinized by.the Licensing Board as part of its review Jof"all'of the circumstances surrounding the leak rate testing
-l practices at Unitzl" - (emphasis in original). -Nowhere does the
- Appeal Board.suggest that.the additional information derived
~
. i
- r
- from'the reports would in itself, meet the test for reopening the record.
m .
- 4. Mr. Husted
- 'o Licensee-believes that NRC adjudicatory boards in an ongoing-hearing do not_have the legal authority to impose a
~
condition on.a. licensee which in effect operates as a sanction against an individual, when that individual is not a party to the proceeding and has no notice of a possible sanction or op-
.portunity'to request a hearing. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S.
474-(1959); Birkenfield v. nited States, 369 F.2d 491 (3d Cir. .
1966). In Birkenfield the court stated succinctly the consti-p tutional' due process requirement involved:
Due process demands that an individual whose livelihood is. threatened by adminis-trative action be given notice and a'. hear-
-ing to fairly rebut the evidence against him. Particularly should this be so in
~
cases where the-action of an. administrative body, as the regulator of' qualifications.
for an entire field of private employment,'
may entirely foreclose.an individual from employment-opportunities." Id. at 493-94.
Whatever inroads the Supreme Court's decision in Board of
-Regents v. Roth,.408 U.S.. 564 (1972) may have made on the due
- process rights of Government employees, we believe that Greene cand:Birkenfield remain the law with respect to private i- employees.
4
.4-'
9
a f:
's- _ ALAB-738-21 . .TMI-2 Leak Rate Testing 1
. Licensee does not suggest that further investigation and public' airing of' leak rate testing practices at TMI-2 should notjtake place. On the contrary,-as discussed under the next
. subheading,_there needs to be a resolution of allegations and suspicions which now prevent Licensee from making full use of
< individuals associated with41eak rate testing at TMI-2. There is no. reason, however, why the further investigations and any
.public proceedings which may grow out of them need take place .
in the co'ntext of-the TMI-1 restart hearing.
1 Licensee has commissioned its own independent investiga-tion of leak rate testing at TMI-2. The investigation began after the TMI-2 operators were no longer-threatened with crimi-nal indictments and therefore available for interview. The re-sults of that investigation will be made publicly available.
Licensee also understands that NRC has underway investigations
. aimed at determining the role'of selected TMI-2 personnel in
~1eakl rate testing. Presumably the results of those investiga-tions and any enforcement actions.concerning those individuals
~will be made public. Meanwhile, pending the outcome of these investigations, Licensee has agreed that, except for Mr. Ross
-who has been cleared of involvement, no TMI-2 licensed ~ operator (who therefore could have.been involved in leak rate testing at A .
g L
- E -
TMI-2) would operate TMI-l'and'has taken other steps described in Mr.:Dieckamp's letter of June 10, 1983.
As the NRC-Staff concluded in NUREG-0680 Supplement No. 5:
"The' evidence presented t'o the grand jury and developed by the U.S. Attorney did not indicate that-any of the directors or offi-cers of;GPUN, from_the time _of its organi-zation in 1982 to the date of th'e indict-
. ment, or any:of the directors of Met-Ed, during the period covered-by the indict-ment, participated in, directed, condoned, or were aware'of the acts or omissions that were contained-in the indictment." (Sup-plement No. 5, p. 5-4).
This conclusion is also supported by the-Statement of FactsLsubmitted by the Department of Justice in support of the plea, agreement'in the criminal proceeding:
"[T]he evidence presented to-the grand jury and. developed by the United States Attorney does not. indicate that any,of the following persons participated in, directed,' condoned or was' aware of the acts or omissions that are'the subject of the indictment:
William G. Kuhns Frederick D. Hafer Herman M. Dieckamp_ Richard Heward '
q Robert C. Arnold Henry D. Hukill James S. Bartman Edwin E. Kintner Shepard Bartnoff James R. Leva Bernard H. Cherry Robert L~ Long Phillip R. Clark Frank Manganaro Verner H. Condon Ernest M. Schleicher Walter'M. Creitz Floyd J. Smith Robert Fasulo William A. Verrochi Ivan R. Finfrock , Raymond Werts William L. Gifford Richard F. Wilson The above list of : individuals includes all directors and officers of GPU Nuclear Cor-poration from its organization-in 1982 to-the-date of the indictment and all direc-tors of the defendant company during the period covered byt the indictment." (OI Report No. 1-83-010, Ex. 48, pp. 1-2).
p .
Thus, the NRC. Staff and the Department of Justice found
'that' current GPU management and directors had no involvement in-this matter. In addition, the Commission, in its September 11, 1984 Order.(CLI-84-18) relating to the Hartman allegations, concluded.that the current GPU. Board of Directors "had no con-nection to'or responsibility for the actions taken in 1978 and 1979 that led to the criminal convictions." (p. 7). The Com-
~
' mission also. pointed out that none "of the individuals who may have been directly responsible for the falsifications [are}
currently employed in operational positions at TMI-1." (Id.,
pp. 7-8). Indeed, all but one of the TMI-2 management person-
- nel whose conduct the Staff' questioned in connection with this 1 matter are no longer employed.by GPUN, and the remaining indi-vidual is not assigned to activities pertaining to the restart of operation of TMI-1.
'In this regard, it should be emphasized that the Depart-mentiof. Justice specifically contrasted the problems encoun-
- tered at TMI-2 on leak rate testing, with the absence of any such problems in other surveillance testing at TMI-2.
"None of the. Operations Department employees could identify any other surveil-lance test conducted at TMI Unit 2 that was treated in the same manner; that is, acceptable ^ test results filed, unacceptable ones discarded, without other documentation created or: notification to the NRC supplied. ~ Nor could any employee point to any surveillance test that was functionally inoperable without corrective' action being taken." (OI. Report No. 1-83-010, Ex. 48, ,
pp. 9-10).
4 1; .- . __
tt; '
i Moreover, the NRC Staff also:found that none of the TMI-1 operation or management personnel were involved in or had knowledge of~the' falsification of TMI-2 leak rates:
"On the. bas'is of its subsequent review of the TMI-1 leak rate-investigation...NRR concluded that.none of the operational or ,
management personnel at TMI-1 were-involved in culpable activities .or :had knowledge of -
falsification of TMI-2 leak rate-data."
(Supplement No. 5, p. 5-5).
Certainly,.given these uncontroverted and favorable deter-minations-relating-to the absence of any involvement with the Hartman allegations by current TMI-1 management, there is no need to reopen.the restart hearings on the Hartman allegations.
- 2. Reassignment of' Personnel
- Footnote 3 (second paragraph) to Section II of CLI-84-18 states:
"...The Commission also recognizes that
- licensee, until.the open issues-(including 4 the Hartman allegations) are resolved,.has temporarily reassigned personnel in such 2 manner that those' functions which provide an overview assessment, analysis, or audit of plant activities, contain only personnel who, prior to the accident, had not been in a management, supervisory, or professional position at TMI-l or -2. The parties in their. comments should address whether or not further evidentiary hearings are re-quired to determine the-final d.sposition of the status of these individuals and whether any such hearings can be separated from the restart proceeding. Licensee in this connection should provide a list cf the individuals who have been temporarily reassigned and who licensee may wish to re-1- turn to TMI-1 at any time in the future."
(Emphasis added)
+
rc ,
Licensee notes that this is not. exactly as stated in Mr.
Dieckamp's letter of June 10, 1983 and thus committed to by licensee. Specifically, the June 10, 1983 letter states:
"In order to provide added assurance; We will reassign personnel such that those functions which provide an overview assess-ment, analysis, or audit of plant activi-ties specifically; General Office Review Board Independent On-Site Safety Group Shift Technical Advisors Q/A Audit Q/A and Q/C Site Staff Licensing Radiation Control Emergency Preparedness will contain only personnel with no pre-accident involvement as Met Ed exempt employees at TMI-1 or 2. We will continue this constraint until the open issues are effectively resolved." (Emphasis added)
Licensee does not consider that any further evidentiary hearings are needed to determine the final disposition of the status of these individuals. We believe the investigations completed to date by NRC and Licensee and those underway, nota-bly the NRC and Stier investigations of TMI-2 leak rate testing practices, will provide ample basis for decisions by Licensee and NRC for any further action.
If evidentiary hearings are determined to be required, they clearly should be separate from the restart proceeding.
The premise of Licensee's actions described in Mr. Dieckamp's letter of June 10, 1983, was precisely to permit and ensure such separation.
re _. - < -
R , ,, ,
e '
.: ' : /-
- h. 4,(
K
~
%M ' . .
JR , , . (With~ regard to. reassignment of those. employees' temporarily n - ~
1[
FJ
.reassignedaor; barred:from certain. future assignments by Licens-
!/'
f eeyuntilithe open?issuesc;were resolved,' Licensee desires to-hav Lthefibilityfto use each of them within its nuclear.activi-n' ,:. ..
ties without" restriction at 'the l earliest date/ possible. We would" expect that completion of the investigations now u'nderway 3 r _.
- Jr ,and'any NRCdassessment~of the results would result in an over-
+. ,
a,ll conclusion that anyone not specificall'y identi5ied as.
having~ behave'd improperly would noflonger need to be: restricted
-by'us organyone else with regard to. nuclear activities. We be-lieveJthat',these employees'are, in fairness,. entitled to no t ie s's .
j7 TheEgreat majority.of:the GPU System employees who have
'been~ temporarily reassigned or barred-from certain future as-isignments.until'the open' issues are resolved ~have invested a
.:e f 1significant part of=their lives in acquiring their. nuclear.
Y' ,
. .idainingland skills'. They should;not be deprived of the oppor--
B :tunity toLutilize that training and-these; skills as an employee
-of'the Licensee or'any other organization with which they may
. be" associated'in the future, unless there:is substantial evi-danceLto establish that this is required-by the;public interest or by violation of the employment and corporate policies of
- their employer. - Moreover, the Licensee believes that it is in-
'cumbent upon it, before> imposing a sanction upon any employee, to afford ~to-that employee'an opportunity to know-the reason i
/ -20 '-
s L
l
's !
- s l
- 1for thefproposed sanction and to give him an opportunity to
.present any' rebuttal or exculpatory evidence. As the Licensee
, understands-the Commission's regulations and policies, the Com-mission does nottexpect a Licensee to do otherwise.
-Attachment I is a list of the Met Ed exempt employees at TMI'in March,-1979, showing those specifically addressed and those reassigned in accordance with Mr. Dieckamp's letter of J u n e ' 1 0 ,-- 1 9 8 3 . The current assignment of those individuals
-(i.e. with GPU Nuclear, . with other GPU system companies, or no
-longer with the GPU-system) is identified. GPUNC is interested in resolving any open questions so as to permit unrestricted use of all of these employees now employed by GPU Nuclear, including use in. overview assessment, analysis or audit of TMI-1 plant activities.
NUREG-0680, SUPPLEMENT NO. 5
- 1. TMI-l Leak Rate Practices
.See discussion of ALAB-772 above.
- 2. Hartman Allegations As to Hartman's allegations concerning leak rate practic-
.es,.see discussion of ALAB-738 above. There are four addition-al Hartman allegations addressed in Supplement No. S to
.NUREG-0680. Three of these relate to pre-accident activities lat1TMI-2'and'the fourth to Mr.-Hartman's termination. In
.~ .- - . . . _ . - - . .-
a ,
w y $
lii #0 1
- igeneral,iLicensee concurs in the. Staff's evaluation of these 1$11eg'ations. In1any. event,~ we~see no. link between the allega-
'F _ j itions andithe restart of:TMI-1.
J
.In connection'with!the Hartman-allegationsisupplement No.
-r: -
~
- _ SEalsos-discusses the -Faegre & Benson report: and repeats, with-F
'outffurthsr: inquiry,+ the conclusion ^ contained in the EDO memo-trandum to the= Commission on-June 29,'1983,. that Licensee should
- ' ~
'have.made'a1 Board Notification of the report and associated .
Hartman' deposition. Based precisely on the information ,
contained in the EDO memorandum, Licensee disagrees. 'Thus the
, memorandum informed the Commission:
"The' Report'is primarily an' investigation a- '
Hof plant records and other. technical-data related to ways the. leak rate. data could'
- have been' manipulated....The. Report and
' depositions doEnotfadd substantially.to.-the informationEof which the.NRC was aware at.
- the. time'those documents were pre-
! pared....While the Hartman allegations are
. analyzed 1 technically,..and a further exten-sive voluntary statement.was taken to aid ithe investigation,.the Report does not-
- fevaluate the role or knowledge of any other
-individuals.in the acts alleged....The-sub-
? stance of the Hartman allegations remain (sic)-virtually unchanged as a consequence of theiReport."
' Bearing inLmind thatithe Staff had advised the Licensing LBoard in Supplement No.-2 to its Safety' Evaluation Report that "the11eak rateimat'er t Was?only1of historical significance" and
- that the. Licensing Board made only'a.brief reference to the I
l subject-infits management decision,'it is pure hindsight to
.. V
[' -
Y I w
('-
p
- assert.that Licensee should have assumed a Board interest in the Faegre &.Benson report. Further,.with respect to the
< . timing:of'any report to the Board, the report by itself could not have been of any1use to the Board at a time when, because
'ofEthe restraints'placed by'the Department of Justice investi-gations:en the availability of those individuals who partici-pated in. leak rate testing, it was' impossible for the Board to
_ explore the substance of the Hartman allegations.
- 3. Reportability of BETA /RHR Reports CLI-84-18 instructs the parties not to " address matters .
where motions to' reopen have already been granted or denied on theJsame information cited by staff, but rather should specify what,~if any,-new information.has not yet been passed on by a Board warrants reopening of th'e record." In ALAB-774 the Ap-
-peal Board denied the Aamodt's motion, based on the same OI in-
'veetigative report referenced in Supplement No. 5 (1-83-013),
Lto reopen the' hearing with respect to Licensee's alleged fail-ure to provide _the BETA /RHR reports in a timely fashion.
x Licensee is unawareaof any new information on this issue.
t
.4. Training As'to post-accident training at TMI-1, see discussion of ALAB-772 above. With respect to alleged pre-accident training (y irregularities addressed in Supplement No. 5, the Appeal Board in ALAB-774 denied the Aamodts' motion, based on the same OI Y
I b
en ,
"*? ' report referenced inLSupplement No. 5 (Q-1-84-004), to reopen the hearing with respect to pre-accident training irregu-larities. -Licensee-is unaware of any_new information on this issue.
- 5. Keaton' Report Supplement No. 5 addresses five subtopics under the head-Ling of Keaton Report and summarizes the Staff's conclusions at
. ~p . 8-36. . Licensee concurs in conclusions (1), (3), (4) and (5),;none of which provide a basis for reopening the hearing.
,With respect to conclusion'(2), relating to the accuracy of .
information contained in Met-Ed's response to the October 25, 1979 Notice of Violation,'two GPU individuals are implicated by Supplement No. 5. Neither of these individuals is involved with restart of TMI-1, and_there is thus no reason to reopen the restart hearing even if the Staff's questions regarding the two-individuals are valid.9/
'6. Changes to the'Lucien-Report Supplement No. 5 addresses the question whether improper influence'by management or by individuals from Licensee's startup'and test organization had been exerted on a contractor 9/ 'As to questions regarding these individuals, it is Licens-ee's1 belief that these two individuals deserve an appropriate opportunity to air:the questions.in an individual forum so as
'to' remove any cloud _on their actions.
3
s whose 1980 report on pre-accident practices at TMI-2 was criti-
-cal of Licensee. Even prior to the issuance of Supplement No.
5 NRR concluded that the information developed by OI concerning the contractor report did not raise questions concerning the integrity of management or the Licensee employees involved, and further determined that th'e individual employees have been con-tributors to important changes in the present startup and test program at TMI-1-which Region I characterized as exceptional.
Memorandum from the Deputy Director, Division of Human Factors Safety, to the Director, Office of Investigations, Region I, Field Office, dated April 24, 1984, at 4-5 (Exhibit 6 to OI In-vestigation Report Q-1-84-006). Supplement No. 5 reinforces this conclusion and provides no basis for reopening the hear-ing. .
- 7. Parks, King, Gischel In early 1983, allegations were made by three L3censee employees and one Bechtel employee at TMI-2 that they were ha-rassed or discriminated against for raising safety concerns.
There have been two major investigations of these allegations, one by OI and one commissioned by Licensee and performed by Edwin Stier, former Director of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. After reviewing in excess of 1000 documents and obtaining sworn statements from approximately 80 witnesses, Mr. Stier found that none of Licensee's employees had harassed these individuals as they alleged:
w
T
~
0-
~
The! allegations.that accuse management of
~following a policytof ignoring problems brought-to'its attention and~of punishing
-employees who.. raised the issues are untrue.
'Stier_ Report,-("TMI-2 Report.: ~ Management and Safety Allega-
~ ~
- tions")', dated November 16, i983, Volume'I at 13.
Supplement No. 5 and the-corresponding OI report did not givelLiSensee. management the same clean bill of health. How-ever,1they raise'no question regarding any Licensee' management
. personnel;who--'are involved with restart and operation of TMI-1 and.thds1 provide no' basis for reopening the restart deci-
~
~
~
s'ioni10/ .
- 18. Change of Operator Testimony
. OI reports no evidence that Licensee management influenced or'mado;any attempt to-influence the testimony of the operators in.the' 3&W. litigation. OI reported-that the operators' testi-mony'was based on their recollection'of events during the acci-dent'and their. review of technical data compiled anc'provided
- 10/ ; The'one individual.whose actions ~were questioned by OI and
-who had any responsibilities for TMI-1 was the then' President of GPUN, Robert Arnold. Mr. Arnold has provided~his views on
-the OI Report to Chairman Palladino in a letter dated' June 8,
'~1984. Since Mr.- Arnold has removed himself from-the management.
'of..GPU Nuclear' operations, resolution of his role, if any, in
,the! alleged harassment -- or in any.of the other. issues in this proceeding - isLno longer necessary to resolution'of'the man-
- agement: integrity issues connected with-the restart decision..
~
JAgain it is Licensee's-belief that Mr. Arnold deserves an indi-
'vidual forum in which to pursue and set. straight.the propriety of:his actions. Licensee encourages the Commission to extend Mr.LArnold that opportunity.
s
to;the. operators'during-the course of the litigation. Supple-ment No. 5 reaches the same conclusion and provides no basis
.for'reop?.ning the restart hearing.M /
4 Respectfully submitted, r SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS'& TROWBRIDGE
~! 'Y.
h,en N ',
George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Ernest L. Blake, P.C.
Counsel for Licensee Dated: October 9, 1984 e-I e
'M/ Once again, the actions of at least one indivi' dual remain in, doubt. Licensee believes that this individual deserves an individual. forum to set the record, straight.
t 9
W4 mets '
a t . . . .:.
s PAGE 1 0F 13 PAGES 10/04/84 1
~ ATTAD9ENT' I- ( A) '
GPU NUCLEAR-
_ THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT I DIVISION
, EXEWT METED POSITION HELO AT TMI, MARCH 1979 l PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION.
Plant Chem. Ngr. 3230 Fuhrer, E. C. Eng. III-Nuc.
Chemistry Foreman 10/01/78 3230' Houser, E. W. Chemistry Foreman 03/06/78,
- Technical Analyst Sr. I l
3200 Harbin, R. S. -Eng. Asst. II-Nuc. 06/14/76-l Mgr. Plant Operations. 3210 Ross, M. J.. Supvr. Station Opers. 04/01/78 l Engineer Sr. I 3210 Seitz, C. C. Engr. II - Noc.
- Engineer Sr.11 10/01/78 l
3210 Shipman, H. B. Eng. III-Nuc..
12/01/78 l Engineer Asst. Sr. II 3210 Desh, W. R. Tech. Analyst-Sr. I 04/01/78L
- Shift Foreman 3211 Paules, J. R. Eng. I-Nuc. 11/28/77 l
Shift Supervisor 3211 Noll, L. G. Shift Foreman-Nuc. 07/14/75
- Shift Supervisor 3211 Crouse, T. L. Shift Foreman-Nuc. 03/01/78 -
- Shift Supervisor 3211 Janes, D. C. Shift Foreman-Nuc.- 05/15/78
- Radwaste Oper. Mgr. 3212 Mehler, B. A. Shift Supvr. 04/01/78 Group Supvr.-Radweste 3212 Hydrick, L. D. . Foreman-Radwaste Oper.
Group Supvr.-Radwaste 08/01/77 l 3212 McCann, R. D. Foreman-Rad Protection 02/02/74
- Control Room Operator BU 3211 Bezilla, M. B. Eng. Assoc. II 06/01/78 Mgr riant Maint. 3220 Showlin, D. M. Supt. Maintenance Plann. & Sched. Mgr. 12/01/77 l 3220 Troutman,.R. C. . Unit Supvr. Mget. Control 01 / 01 /79 Maintenance Planner III 3220 Daniels, E. W. 0.C. Spec.-Nuc. 04/01/75 Preventative Maint. Mgr. 3220 Snyder, M. G. _ Supvr.ISC Maint. 12/01/78-Supvr. Prevent. Maint. 3220 Wilson, H. L. Foreman-Maint. 01/01/74 Elec. Maint. Sr. Foreman 3227 Bowman, J. R. Foreman-Maint. 10/06/75 i
Tech. Analyst III 3220 Eich, R. A. Tech. Analyst II-Nuc. 09/18/78 Supvr. Welding 3220 Leonard. C. F. Foreman-Maint. 09/01/74 -
Lead ISC Maint. Foreman 3221 Lawrence, E. G. Foreman-Maint. 03/14/77 ISC Maint. Foreman 3221 Kalenevitch, B. R. Foreman-Maint. 06/21/78 l Mech. Maint. Foreman 3222 Snow, R. A.. Foreman-Maint. 07/07/75 Lead Elec. Maint. Foreman 3223 Rippon, C.E. Foreman-Maint. 04/05/76 Elec. Maint. Sr. Foreman 3223 Light, G. R. Foreman-Maint. 10/16/78
~
PAGE 2 0F.13 PAGES 10/04/84-ATTAC) MENT I ( A)
GPU NUCLEAR
- THREE MILE. ISLAND UNIT 1 DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979
~
PRESENT POSITION' TITLE' DATE INTO POSITION
/
Lead Util. Maint. Foreman 3224 Grim, T. L. Utility Foreman 06/01/78
' ShifL Maint...Forepan 3220 Herneisey, N. S. Foreman-Maint. 09/01/74 4
- . Eng3 111 Mech. 3310 Bashista,'J. R. Eng. I-Nuc. 01 /01 /79 3 , f Lead Mech. Eng. 3310- ,
Barley, R. O. Eng. Sr. I-Nuc. 09/01/78.
-' t Eng. Sr. I. , 3310 Summers, R..L. Engr. III-Nuc. , 12/01/77 Eng. Sr. 1.
~
. . 3310 , Pearce, J. R. Eng. III-Nuc. 05/15/78
~,
Engineer III 3310 Shatto, M. A. Eng. Assoc. II-Nuc. 01 /01 /76 f
- Elead_ Nuclear Eng. 3320 . Wilkerson, W. S. ., Eng. II_-Nuc. 01 /01 /78
- Lead Elec. Eng.
3330_- Hartman, C. E. Eng. Sr. I-Huc. 04/01/78
- Chemist Sr. II '
3360 _.- Reed, J. G. Chem.-Foreman-Nuc. _ -
06/01/76 Lead Fire Prot. Eng. - -
3370 0' Conner, T. A. Tech. Aiialyst Sr. I- 10/01/78 Chec Tech A BU , -
3230 Busansky, W. J. Site Protection. Sergeant 07/01/78
~
y ..
~
j _
- SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 01ECKAMP LETTER SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER AND REASSIGNED TO PRESENT POSITION b P' e' q
'~ '
. e >
'%' , l ~
g ,
f
,,5'
' ~~
/ , . ,
~
'h s N z
c ,
ll a
-g -
~
r-p r ,m.
A
' PAGE 3 0F 13 PAGES- _ ~10/04/84'
. ATTACHMENT I (A).
GPU NUCLEAR THREE: MILE ISLAND UNIT II DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD'AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE'INTO POSITION Lead System Eng. Supvr. 4241 . Warren, R. P. Eng. Sr. I - Nuc. 01 /01 /79 GMS Coordinator 4220 Beeman, R. P. Tech. Analyst III - Nuc. 07/18/79 Lead Elec. Eng. 4241 Lawton, J. D.. Eng. II'- Nuc. 10/30/78
- Lead Mech. Eng. 4241 Ream, W. C. -Eng.'II - Nuc. 03/01/78 Safety Review Eng. 4420 .Benson, M. L. Eng. II - Nuc. 04/01/77-Utility Lead Foreman 4224 Abromitis, J. C. Utility Foreman - Nuc. 05/01/73-Utility Foreman .4224 McKinney, C. F. Utility Foreman - Nuc. 08/01/77
, Mgr. Plant Maint. 4220 Sieglitz, R. E. Supvr. Unit Maint. 11/01/78
- . Mech. Eng. 4241 Jenkins, D. B. Eng.-III - Nuc. 11/01/78 p Operations Eng. 4200 Marshall, W. J. Eng. III - Nuc. 02/01/77 j Shift Foreman 4211- Acker, T. H. Shift Foreman - Nuc. 06/13/77
- Radwaste Support Manager 4214 Conaway, W. T. Shift Foreman - Nuc. 03/01/78 i Foreman'Radwaste Oper. 4215 Guthrie, C. L. Shift Foreman - Nuc. 03/01 /73 Rad. Field Eng. Superv. 4374 Hoy t , K . R . Shift Foreman - Nuc. 05/09/77 Mgr. Plant Operations - 4210 Miller, A. .W. Shift Foreman - Nuc. 08/01/78 i Chem. Lab. Service Mgr. 4212 Harner, K. L. Chem. Foreman - Nuc. 01 /01/77 i Mgr. - Special Proj. II 4400 Potts, W. E. Unit Supt. Tech. Sup. - Nuc. 01/15/79
! Mgr. - Safety Review 4420 Kunder, G. A. Unit Supt. Tech. Sup. - Nuc. 12/01/77
- Lead DeCon Eng. 4374 McGarry, J. J. Supvr. Mech. Maint. - Nuc. 07/07/73
, Radwaste Oper. Mgr. 4215 Smith, B. G. Shift Supvr. 09/01/74
- Mech. Lead Foreman 4222 Jules, S. E. Foreman, Maint.-Nuc. 09/28/73 Mech. Foreman Sr. 4222 Games, J. N. Foreman, Maint. - Nuc. 08/01/69 I&C Eng. Asst. Sr. I 4221 Beare, M. F. Foreman, Maint. - Nuc. 09/15/77 Elec. Lead Foreman 4223 Rittle, B. J. Foreman, Maint. - Nuc. 08/01/73 Proj. Parts Coord. 4220 Crawfoot, E. R. Foreman, Maint. - Nuc. 05/06/74 I&C Foreman Sr. 4221 Knoche, A. J. Foreman, Maint. - Nuc. 10/24/77
- Plant Chem./ Rad. Chemist 4212 Chevalier, G. E. Chem. II - Nuc. 02/12/79
- Budget & Cost Analyst Sr. 4361- Knoll, J. R. Adm. - Nuc. Bud. and Rep. 06/01/78 Project Coord. Sr. III - Nuc. 4220 Stambaugh, G. E. Foreman - Maint. - Nuc. 07/01/72 Fire Prot. Eng. 4241 Quinnette, J. W. O. C. Assistant 12/05/77
- PAGE 4 0F 13 PAGES 10/04/84 ATTACHMENT I'(A)-
GPU NUCLEAR -
TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT L
TMI, MARCH 1979' PRESENT POSITION TITLE' DATE INTO POSITION
! Eng. Sr. I -TMI 5351 McGettrick, D. Eng. II-Nuc. 01 / 01 /77 Eng. Comp. Applications 5421 Fels, W. J. Eng. III-Nuc.- '01/08/76
- Eng. Comp. Applications 5421 Geiger, R.-C. Eng. II-Nuc. 06/01/77
- Eng. ' TMI Fuel s Parsip. 5412 Crawford, H. C. Eng. I - Nuc. 06/01/77
, Manager, Startup' & Test 5620 Hawkins, T. Eng. Sr. I - Nuc. 07/01/78 Startup & Test Manager 5620 Porter, I. D. Eng. Sr. I - Nuc.
Eng. Startup & Test 06/01/78-5620 Garrison, J.W. Shift Foreman-Nuc. 08/01/78 Project Coordinator 5620 Mitchell, H. M. Supvr. Elect. Maint.
Technical Analyst 09/01/74 5620 Shaffer, M. _ R. Tech. Analyst III-Nuc. 10/18/76 i
1
- SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER j
- SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER AND REASSIGNED TO PRESENT POSITION i
1
=
i
s ,
lPAGESOF13PAGES . . _
'10/04/84"-
ATTACIMENT I (A):
~
GPU' NUCLEAR NUCLEAR ASSURANCE. DIVISION 4
j EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 l PRESENT POSITION TITLE- DATE INTO' POSITION
, ** QA Systems Eng. Mgr. '6111 'Fornicola, J. E. Eng.~II - Nuc. 08/01/77'
- QA/QC Systems Eng. Supv.
6111 Potter, ' J. J. QC Spec. Nuc. 09/01/77
. ** Unit II Project QA Eng. 6112 Hosking, D. L. QC Spec. Nuc. 05/01/78 l ** QA Systems Eng.- .
6111- Tremblay, K. M. QC Asst. Nuc. 01/29/79
, ** QA/QC Trng/ Admin. Prog. Supvr. 6111 Deiter, D. R. Shift Foreman - Nuc. 07/01/78 ~
! Welding Doc. Coordinator . 61 51 McConnell, D. K. QA Spec. - Nuc. 09/25/78-
, ** QA Audit Supvr. - Unit II 61 61 Heysek, W. G. QC Spec. - Nuc. 03/01/76 Protection Trng. Instr. 6211 Finicle, S. R. Site Prot. Sergeant 10/13/78 ,
- . Supvr. - Simulator Trng.
6211 Boltz, D. J. Admin. - Nuc. Tech.Trng. 01 /01 /77
. Simulator Instructor 6211 Showalter, E. Eng.II-Nuc. 06/01/77-Technician Training Mgr.
- 6211 Zechman, R. W. Supvr. Trng. Nuc.
-11/14/77 .
Instructor - Elec'. 6211 Randolph, C. E.- Tech. Analyst III - Nuc. 02/01/78 Instructor - Mech. 6211 Conrad, A.D. Foreman - Maint. Nuc. .01 /01 /79
+
Instructor - Rad Con 6211 Deman, J. H. Foreman - Rad. Prot. 10/01/79
- Safety Review Eng. 6301 Adams, C. D. Shift' Foreman 10/06/75 l *** Safety Review Eng. 6301 Husted, C. E. Admin.,Nuc. Tech. Trng. 07/10/78
- Sr. Emergency Planner Unit II 6412 Brown, N..D. Admin. Nuc. Tech. Trng. 06/01/75 n
I SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER AND REASSIGNED TO PRESENT POSITION j
- SPECIFICALLY AND IDENTIFIED: ALAB - 772 05/24/84 AND JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTERS TO j GOV. THORNBURGH AND CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. REASSIGNED TO PRESENT POSITION l
l 1
i J .
PAGE 6 0F- 13 PAGES 10/04/84.
ATTACHMENT -I ( A)
GPU-NUCLEAR.
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION Supervisor Record Services 7132 Stowe, A. Admin. Asst. 08/01/77 Coord. Gen.-Date Mgmt. 7132 Herman, W. D. Tech. Analyst III 03/01/79 Staff Specialist 7250 Baney , K. L. Supvr. Stores-Nuc. 01 /01 /78 j Supervisor - Issue' 7231 Reuter, G. Foreman-Stores 07/02/73
{ Security-Supv. Unit II 7412 Stintzcum, R. D. Site Prot. Sgt. 06/14/76
+
I l
}
PAGE 7 0F 13 PAGES' 10/04/84' ATTAC MENT I'(A)' ,
GPU NUCLEAR
. HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION Administrator III 7320 Nixdorf, C. A. Office Supvr.-Nuc. 05/15/74 e
4 9
D 0
4
~
., 31
- PAGE '8 0F 13 ' PAGES 510/04/84 ATTACIMENT I (A)
GPU NUCLEAR CO M NICATIONS DIVISION EXEMPT HETED POSITION. HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION Public Affairs' Manager 8100 Gross, W. R. Coord.-Public Affairs 06/28/78 Communications Specialist 8200 Neidig, Jr. R. E. QC Spec.-Nuc. 04/01/76 "w
=
n 4 -
PAGE 9 0F 13 PAGES .
j'0/04/84 ATTACINENT I (A)
~
GPU NUCLEAR RADIOLOGICAL'& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS DIVISION EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PR_ESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION-Respirator Prot. Supvr. 9240 Gee, E. F. Rep.' Safety-Nuc. 03/01/77 Admin. Health Services 9710 - Hengeveld, P. J. Admin. Safety-Nuc. 08/01/78 Rad. Eng. Unit II 9242 Velez, P. P. Foreman-Rad Protec.-Nuc. 06/13/77 Rad Eng. Unit II 9242 Mulleavy, T. L. Supvr. Rad Prot. Nuc. 07/01/77 9 %
=,
+%
--m .__
- s. y PAGE 10 0F 13 PAGES .
10/04/84" .
ATTACHMENT I (A):
GPU NUCLEAR MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
. EXEMPT METED-POSITION HELD'AT TMI, MARCH 1979 PRESENT POSITION TITLE DATE INTO POSITION Manager Facilities (Pars.) A050 Parker, W. H. Supvr. Admin. 01 /01 /79 l Supvr. of Services A250 Wealand, J. Admin. Safety TMI 11/01/77 -
Area Supvr. Rep. & Maint.
A250 Trautman,_R. Utility Foreman-Nuc. 03/22/76 Manager, M&C Planning ~ A210 Faulkner, J. T. : Unit ' Supvr. Mgmt. Const. 03/01/79
- Mgr. M&C Tech Supp. A230 -Bensel, R. W. Eng. III-Nuc. -11/01/78 l
l ** SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP, LETTER AND REASSIGNED TO PRESENT POSITION.
i '
1
.i a
4 i
i i
}
k
., s PAGE 11 0F ,13 PAGES '10/04/84
. ATTACHMENT I (B)
EMPLOYEES OF GPU SYSTEM COMPANIES OTHER THAN GPU NUCLEAR WHO WERE EXEMPT METED EMPLOYEES MARCH 1979 EXEMPT METED POSITION HELD AT TMI, MARCH.1979:
PRESENT POSITION (f) NAME TITLE Coord.- Comec Date Flow (TMI) GPU Service Corp Gee, D. K. Admin. Asst.
2 Foreman Utility (Titus) Meted Campbell, R. R. Tech. Analyst III - Nuc Tech. Eng. - Gen. II' Meted .
Brummer, J. A. Eng. II - Nuc.
Coord. - COMEC II GPU Service Corp Good, D. L. Tech. Analyst Sr. I - Nuc
- Supt. Gen. Station (Titus) Meted Zewe, W. H. Shift Supvr l- Nuc
- Di r. - Gen. Opers. Meted Miller, G. P. Mgr. - Gen. Station - Nuc Supvr. - Station Maint. (Titus) Meted. Weaver, D. E. Foreman - Maint. - Nuc Foreman - Maint. Station (York Haven) Meted Leakway, M. N. Foreman - Maint. - Nuc
- SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER 4
i i
)
i
~
e.J ~ ,
PAGE 12 0F 13 PAGES-
.10/04/84 .
ATTACHMENTLI (C)
EXEMPT EMPLOYEES OF METED MARCH 1979 NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY GPU SYSTEM.
EXEMPT METED POSITIONS HELD AT TMI,' MARCH 1979 NAME TITLE-Morck, T. E. Eng. II-Nuc.
Landry, L. J. Eng. II-Nuc.
Berry, D. J. Eng. III-Nuc.
Pilsitz, D. L. Shift Foreman-Nuc.
Parnell III, R. L. Shift Foreman-Nuc.
Scheimann, Jr. F. J. Shift Foreman-Nuc.
Huwe, F. -Foreman-Rad Prot.
Seelinger, J. L. Unit Supt.-Nuc.
Logan, J. B. Unit Supt.-Nuc.
Floyd, J. R. Supvr.-Station Oper.Nuc.
Dubiel, R. W. Supvr.-Rad Prot. & Chem. Nuc.
Mackey , T. A. Supvr.-Q/C Nuc.
Limroth, D. F. Supt. Adm. Tech. Supp. Nuc.
Bryan, K. P. Shift Supvr.-Nuc.
Chwastyk, J. J. Shift Supvr.-Nuc.
Hitz, G. R. Shift Supvr.-Nuc.
Hutchison, R. Shift Supvr.-Nuc.
James, J. Site Prot. Sergeant Cor1, David Site Prot. Sergeant St. Pierre, R. L. Q/C Spec.-Nuc.
Powell, J. C. Q/C Spec.-Nuc.
- Rowe, C. D. Q/C Asst.-Nuc.
Orwig, E. W. Admin.-Nuc. Tech. Trng.
McCormick, F. A. Group Supvr. Tech. Trng.
Beers, M. L. Group Supvr. Tech. Trn j.
Woska, L. D. Foreman-Stores-Nuc.
Smith, J. R. Foreman-Rad. Waste Opers.
Metzger, W. M. Foreman-Maint. N: :.
Meck, E. A. Foreman-Maint. Nuc.
- SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN JUNE 1983 DIECKAMP LETTER
PAGE 13 0F.13 PAGES 10/04/84 ATTACHMENT I (C)
EXEMPT-EMPLOYEES OF. METED MARCH 1979 NO LONGER EMPLOYED.BY GPU SYSTEM-EXEMPT METED POSITIONS HELD AT TMI, MARCH 1979 NAME- TITLE Gilbert, J. R. Foreman-Maint. Nuc.
- Bennett, N. K. Foreman-Maint. Nuc.
Toole, M. F. Foreman-Maint. Nuc.
Donahey, W. M. Foreman-Maint. Nuc.
Dunlap, K. L. Coord.-Public Info.
Daise, S. Admin. Asst.-Nuc. Budget Harris, E. W. Suprv. - Comp. Appl.
Tennis, K. M. Admin. Asst. Tech. Trng.
Mackey, T. A. Supvr. QC Kline, K. S. Utility Foreman
7 . _ _.
- October 9, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
. ) (Restart Remand
-(Three-Mile Island Nuclear. ) on Management) .
Station, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Comments in Response to CLI-84-18," dated October 9, 1984, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of October, 1984.
lYs $bh.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
Dated: October 9, 1984
't o 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON CDMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 SP
) (Restart Romand on Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
John H. Buck 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appea-Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commis s Washington, b.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 20555 JamesHK. Asselstine, Commissioner Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appear Washington , - D.C. 20555 -3 card Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=iss:
Washington, 0.C. 20555' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Lando W. Zeck, Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 4
~
, Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill !
Gustave A. : Linenberger, Jr. Vice President
' Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear . Regulatory Commission
~
P.O. Box 480 Washingtonf D.C. 20555 Middletown, PA 17057
~
Docketing and Service Section (3) Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt
- Office of the Secretary R.D. 5
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville,-PA 19320 i
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety &' Licensing Board Ms. Louise Bradford TMI ALERT Panel' 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C. 20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute
. Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq. '
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4) t Accountability
{*r
-Office of.the Executive Legal c 1555 Connecticut Avenue U.S u ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036
-Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y. Au, Esq. 2001 S Street, N.N., Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington,'O.C. 20009 capartment of Environmental Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 William T. Russell Deputy Director, Division Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
- of Human Factors Safety Hunton & Williams Of fice of NRR~ 707 East Main Street Mail Stop AR5200 P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rich =cnd, VA 23212 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
.