ML20093J583
| ML20093J583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1984 |
| From: | Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| CON-#484-502 SP, NUDOCS 8410160700 | |
| Download: ML20093J583 (8) | |
Text
Mb RELATED CCTmESPONDENCE c.
October 15, 1984 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCHETfD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' U$iMC N03 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA Uflnc y ~ 9.:
CO
%w.
va s cy, d;are -
)
In the Matter of
)
.)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
.)
(Restart - Management Phase (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
._)
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES TO:
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION-Pursuant to 10 C. F. R. SS 2.740 (b) and 2.741, the Union of Concerned Scientists hereby requests General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation ("GPU" or " licensee") to answer the following interrogatories separately, fully, in writing and under oath.
All persons who answered or assisted in answering the interrogatories should be identified and the answers to which' (s) he contributed indicated.
These interrogatories are deemed to be continuing.
Any-additional information relating in any way to these interrogatories that GPU acquires subsequent to the date of answering them, up to and including the time'of hearing, should be furnished to UCS promptly after such information is. acquired.-
8410160700 841015
{DRADOCK 05000289 POR
~
s
.. The instructions and definitions to be used in answering these. interrogatories and document requests are the same as those stated in Union of Concerned Scientists' First Set of Interrogatories to General Public Utilities.
7-1 Identify all current TMI training instructors who have completed the GPUN Instructor Development Program mentioned in the Special Report of the Reconstituted OARP Review Committee and state the date when the individual completed the program.
7-2 Describe in detail the oral examination given at the end of the operator training program.
Include in your description how the oral examination is given, the number of people involved in giving the examination, the time that each examination takes, the number of questions, and any guidelines used for constructing the examination, such as the subjects that must be covered and the methods used for formulating questions 7-3 Provide the grading criteria, if any, used to evaluate performance on the oral examination, including the minimum 4
t passing grade on the examination.
List the grounds for failure on the oral exam., and state who has final authority to determine i
whether an operator has passed or failed the oral exame.
Describe the process used by GPU to determine the grade to be given on the oral examination, including all possibilition for review or alteration of the initial grades.
7-4 Describe all screening process used by GPU for the evaluation of candidates going through the training program, 1
't
.m
.m
.m.
Q
'ys i.
t* -
w m.
s
-3
>>.n including any evaluations of the adequacy of the operator *M,
candidates during -the course of the training program.
7-5 Have any. operator candidates been removed from GPU's
~
training program as a. result of a-nuch screening process.
If 1
.yes, list the number of candidates removed:and thd reasons why
- ., \\
the candidate was eliminated.
7-6 Identify and describe all GPU evaldations on operators licensed since January 1983, including, but' not limited to, evaluations by the Supervisor of Licensed Operator Training cited on page 13 of the Replacement Operator Training Program Descr'iptions.
7-7 Describe GPU's procedure to be followed if a candidate fails the Replacement Operator Training Program, 7-8 Does GPU consider failure"of an=NFC mock exam equivalent to failure in the Replacement Operator Training'Progtsm?
If not, what are GuU's procedures in ths case of, fa} ure on a mock".
examination?
State the criteria by which GPU decides what additional training a candidate should rec 3eive'af ter f'alling a
_t-mock NRC examination,and whether the candida'te ;.sh$uld t1ke ir
.q another mock NRC examination.. Describe. any retraining' that a m
e candidate must undergo before retaking the exam; In a,ddition, list the maximum number of times that ra Jcondidate_ mavirenke a Q
mock NRC examination.
If there;is no. naximum, wtate the -criteria A g by which GPU determines,af ter one' or mohe f ailures by[tpe some y.'
s o
to 1-,.
individual,whether the individua1'should be all' owed to remainE in
,c~
g
-i" the training program.
2,.
t 7-9 Describe the capabilities Af the sim, ulatoc' in" use-at: the my y TMI-1 training program, including'in your,descr.iption Whither N.
r..~,;
,9 r
c.
4 t.,.,
o
.. the simulator has the capability of adaptive variation to adjust
'to an operator's weaknesses, and whether the simulator has the ability to record and to. store data on transactions between the operator and the. control room.such as the operator'stime of reaction and the number of errors made' by the operator.
7-10 Describe what GPU considers satisfactory performance in the simulator portion of its replacement' operator training program, and describe the system of grading operator's performance on the simulator, including all guidelines for grading an operator's performance.
7-11 GPU has provided copies of drafts of the Special Report of the Reconstituted OARP Committee Special Report under cover pages that state " Memo - Richard P. Coe, J.
Duncan 9/7/84, Rev. O Uhrig Report" and " Memo - Richard P. Coe, J.
Duncan 9/7/84, Rev.
1 Uhrig Report."
Please provide the following information with respect to these documents:
a.
Who is J. Duncan, what were his/her responsibilities, and what actions did he/she take with respect to the Special Report?
-b.
Why do the memoranda that accompany these drafts refer to J. Duncan?
c.
Who wrote each of the handwritten notations on each of the documents, Rev. O and Rev. 1 of the "Uhrig Report?"
7-12 Identify every. individual who draf ted all or part of the conclusion to the Special Report.
For each individual, identify
-the part of the conclusion to the Special Report that he/she drafted.
N
-~
5-
[
7-13 -Identify every individual who reviewed any draft of the I'
conclusion to the Special Report.
For each individual, identify the-changes suggested by that individual-and the changes made to
^
li
{
the conclusion as a result of or consistent with his/her review.
Submitted by id
)A. i.
['T Ellyn R.
Weiss Generar Counsel-Union of Concerned Scientists 9
1 4
q y
v-w 7
qvy--
f-9 g-
T s
.=
October 15, 1984 a
i.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
e-In the Matter of
)
3
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart Remand on (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Management)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, October 15, 1984, were served on the following by deposit in The United States mail, first class, postage _ prepaid, on October 15, 1984.
William S.
Jordan
. 4
--, W ) 9 M /
~
,.._s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
1
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart Remand on (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Management)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
J
)
~
.j SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge
' Gary J.
Edles, Chairman Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
M. Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 8d.
Office of the Executive Legal Dir.
.i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission SWasnington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Jonn H.
Buck Ernest L.
Blake, Jr. Esquire Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Appeal Bd.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
'U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
Wasnington, D.C.
20555 washington, D.C.
20036 Administrative Judge Christine N.
Kohl Mr. Louise-Bradford Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Appeal Bd.
TMI Alert U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1011 Green Street Wasnington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Joanne Doroshaw, Esquire Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Board The Christic Institute U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1324 North Capitol Street Wadhington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20002 Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Bd.
R.D.
5 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Government Accountability Project Atomic Safety & Licensing Poard 1555 Connecticut Ave.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Michael F.
McBride, Esq.
Office of the Secretary LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1333 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.
- 1100 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036
_ *,@*R a (
'T4 Wg vg a
n
~
Michiol.(W. Maupin, Esq.
~-
. ~ 'Hunton'&.Willicms 7071Eest Main Street P.O. Box 1535.
Richmond, VA 23212 Thomas Y. Au, Esq.
Office'of Chief Counsel Department of Environmental Resources
~
.I' 505 Executive Houses 1(
P.O. Box 2357
'l Harrisburg, PA 17120
- ' Hand delivered-
.g e
i 9
s a
rm". ~ '
.v'r$i.M*
p,
-