ML20117L769

Forwards Draft Comments for Review of Section 10 to NUREG-0680

ML20117L769
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/08/1984
From:	Goldberg J NRC
To:	Harold Denton, Gitierre J, Bill Russell NRC
Shared Package
ML20115A397	List: ML20115A395 ML20117L495 ML20117L592 ML20117L639 ML20117L721 ML20117L769
References
FOIA-84-633, RTR-NUREG-0680, RTR-NUREG-680 NUDOCS 8505160384
Download: ML20117L769 (11)

Text

- l.~..$gg&n-Q-. W...M&. MMMMMMM&

Q v

. ~ g+[mw.v-:b e

~..

• f.

• • b

• • b l'*J T.

. ~ -

if.Y*.v.-Did".*,e 1*J-2.P. -:

p.**.

UNITED STATES t.t3*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[

h[y'\\

y[J.E-3 / i d i E N. E N M N S mmu T n.

.t 2osss M/

gEdT June 8, 1984

- sfC?..Spt W.

~

t

=

i yg, w

g I'

'?9

• I Note to: Harold Denton 4

Bill Russel 7y-t Jay Gutierrez

' jr

? 1 Jim Van Vliet y

FL~F

~

T:t.' M Walt Haas

. /i..

! ?I*,.

r

.s

,3-1

.~

2*

i 5.4 From:

Jack Goldberg g

e T.. s.)

4 ihM

+.

> r.

"5hgQ

Subject:

TMI-1 COMMENTS TO COMMISSION N5

.na.5,

,. M 'y::S w. m ::v w.w @ Q;.et;?g. ~.,y..-v. G.,.g Q.M #

w

> ; - k:...;:...:-

3

.y W.EC.5fy.4'9ly h d 4

The attached draft is fo'r your review.

Absent a i,

M 'Mffg

@j~f.!

change in the schedule, we must file comments by y

-b.@ Mis.p$ p'i4 M M,Qd i

w eh1 c.o.b. June 18th.

I will be out of the office i

g uy c,

. 4 :. j - w.fE Monday - Thursday of next week.

Please call Z

s 4.%... p Mary Wagner (x28659) with your comments.

.M!

.'.M.%p..:..

-.s; s,

x.

...,.n > ~

J Thank you.

,.('

p 1

-t'.,',Gd[.h:fM.'.;.c-j :if..

nwvy, t

T h 'st ;*. 9.a s. ; ;I;*.,.3.,l%y;i},sT:.. _;. '. '. :(.*.h W t'"4@EN';a* phi 5%4

-f ***n p: "'-

i m

1 7

.h\\,.M.-

2. ' L,yM,4.yy.ir c., f ye:."

[*

c.

---*-- M-:pe;,,,4 #g.,,

ev.*y~-

A

\\

- +s -

g

.W3

{

e y 'h a :

r

. Q, j.

w

^,.... Q,,p -. *.WE *ffw;k..P't;;. %

I 24

.h

..,.. P,' :

Y

- /5.

JS 'y Jack Goldberg

.g.

b JNI.

k#f N

.. }...

s..,;,. t.e.. %...,,

i,.

-,..! +.

.e~

~f

.. t'a

. :s..e..+.a

^^ s w

s

.. o.s. ~..m c. :f.'y.-

..s g *.

,s.

g-u

• t {*.E '.

. Yh!'hh

!h

n r s.' w' *w m..~.Qo

e Ph

.? "..r.

• f.n',,"* %", Q}M-

'"E,..

1~y#

.Q.

',.3 -

Y..e. hJ

<,-I L

i ; ;.

ef I

. g.-c.h3 L

'2'

.o E

g i * ",I,2,'.p

7 g

1

.:.] ' ',.,* i.*f T,.". }yQ;4].T * ~,.6':Q.J. ~

,. : l* ' : e

.1.*. a C'. M.h

,;}' A' l'

' [ ;..*f

.,au -w.. t: -h

N l bl.--

, '. ' *;; ykg lb.

~

-h fh.

s...gN. f'.*y. ~ r K,, '.,,y:.=.. a.et

s. ;.(

~.

• • e s

+..

.p., -,., i.... s

.,,.. v,. : y. -. 's.f.aQ;.r.~e. v.

r n

. i. ;;.'. m.~ -[v c,.~;,.3. a.'; W:ia.,.n.

}r.

.,. s ;,

n,..*v.;

,d,,...

.e

, g.),y.r. p

.,.y p ;.s_.,%y**

.....y m,

• C..y,./; "y.q.

3,.

.g

.... ~ )...

,v

.n

.\\. p.

a:

L,,

y

..w

,. i. i e g... -..

s.

4 u,

,1

.s..

.. :r.. r e

7y %p -

. s.. &&g)w.j.-g, : '...s.

. N.

2

'u..,*

.. p..~.e r.3

. n.u,,.-

..... :.~,.,.

,4 y:

t *4M;;;*-PW '. *. 8 'p. i~r.3. tq-w g.

r 8505160384 840912

- c.N &,,.

6.'t.t 2

.u i new. -yv N W/@89*^S.'*

t

{ j l '.% T. "

. - M t.sy. e;

.. i,rp"e! '.N.'.d' P -

PDR FOIA

, DETJEN 4-633 PDR 7.-

, ~..a.,'

8

r...

...;. s.....-

vs

~

....,...... e

• - ?

.I,.-

. A

.s p.

U.

i, e

.g

8 h[. _*

3,

- ~

• ...'.~,.."e..

',.- # *. 1

"' !s,* w ~ ' _, ~ ~ - -_. -

.,.t.-.. -...a

.,,:~.,...r."

r g

b h

R Abb t March 23, 1983,~after Parks had' filed his D0L complaint and publicly g

stated his concerns about the polar crane, Arnold called a meeting attended by Kanga, Barton, Bechtel people,-- and the entire senior staff--about 25 to 30 people..During his meeting, Barton became angry and recommended firing Parks.

A. discussion was held about restricting Parks' activities; they decided, during the meeting, to suspend Parks with pay.

Id. at 9; Id. Ex.

.B-2 at 5.

On the basis of its investigation, the DOL recommended that Parks be granted relief and that Bechtel take remedial action consisting of the following:

1.

Refraining from taking any. actions which prevent fir. Parks from engaging in activities. protected by the law.

2.

Reinstatement of Mr. Parks to his position and duties as they existed prior to February 23, 1983.

3.

Expunging from all Bechtel records and files of any references characterizing Mr. Parks' actions or behavior as being inappropriate in this matter.

4.

The payment of all costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) reasonably incurred by Mr. Parks in connection with the bringing of his complaint.

Id. at 13.

h 10.2.2 L. King Investigation Results L. King was employed at GPUN as the Plant Operations Director beginning in 1980. On July 23, 1981, King and associates (B. J. Slone, J. M. Hoade, and G. King who is J. King's wife) incorporated in Virginia a corporation called Quiltec Inc.

At the time of incorporation, Slone and King worked at Tf11 for GPU; however, on June 7, 1982, Slone began working for Quiltec.

Later in

'NUREG-0680 10-10 06/15/84 L _

1982, two other GPUf1 employees went to work for Quiltec, on October 4 and 11, 1982, M. Herlihy and T. Rekartyrespectively, began employment with Quiltec (ftay 18, 1983, 01 Report Ex. 60Adi-)

Quiltec provided engineering services to nuclear power plants.

Its initial contract was with Long Island Lighting at the Shoreham fiuclear Station (I_d.

Ex. 62 at 4-/).

On October 28 and 29, 1982, Chwastyk, Manager of Plant Operations at THI-2, went to the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant as a representative with Hoade of available Quiltec services (Id. Ex. 61 at I

35-40).

M K. Lionarons on fiavember 12, 1982, told King that he was sick of working at TMI and wanted to get out.

During that conversation, king indicated the possibility of working for Quiltec either with Slone at Shoreham or at Beaver

,t o Valley (H. Ex. 65 at 19). During this conversation, King outlined M Lionaronsbhevariousbenefits,pensionplans,andotheraspectsof employment with Quiltec.

King additionally told Lionarons that there was much overtime at Shoreham and there was also the possibility of working in a coal plant in Florida for Quiltec (_Id. at 21).

In December 1982, r,ing called Lionarons--who then was working directly for V,ing--into his office and asked if he was still interested in doing some work in Louisiana.

Shortly after 1

/

this conversation, King arranged for Lionarons to travel as a representative j

4 of Cuiltec and to go to a meeting with representatives of various fims in G

fiew Jersey (M. E 5 at 22, 23).

Shortly after returning from the meeting in flew Jersey, Lionarons subnitted his resignation to GPUN (Id. at 24).

Af ter submitting his resignation and giving his 2-week notice, Lionarons fiUREG-0680 10-11 06/15/84 m

4 performed work-for Quiltec while remaining on the GPU payroll at TMI (M. at 25j.

LionaronsalsosubmittederthisworkfnisexpensesjtoQuilte$at

-s-King'.sinstruction(H.at27).

$h * ' ' ' '

On November 15, 1982, 11. Austin, a senior engineer at TMI-2, happened to hear that Slone, Rekart, and Herlihy were working at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. At that time however, Austin had no knowledge that these three p-tImen were associated with Quiltec. When Austin returned to TMI, he cas.ed this information on to his boss Buchan M (M. Ex. 63 at 8,.9).

Dur'ng a New Years Eve party at Reckart's home (December 31,198 Buchannon ^^

s "e sd --

(TMI-2 Manager of Site Engineering).was -told by Reckart that he, King, Slone, and'Herlihy were all involved with Quiltec (M. Ex. 64 at 34).

BuchanSG said nothing to his supervisor Thiesing, and even after the New Years Eve party, Buchanr@ made a conscious decision not to pass the information on to M

n.

Thiesing because Buchanre, felt the working relationship between Site g

M Operations and, Recovery Program people was difficult enough and he did not want to make matters vorse. ( M. Ex. 64 at 36).

During the second half of 1982, Thiesing heard rumors that Slone, when he left GPUN, was going to take a job associated with King in some sort of business arrangement (M. Ex. 66 at 4). When Herlihy left GPU and refused to say where he was going, it was rumored that he was going to join Slone in a business venture that frvolved King. H. at 4, 5[ Shortly af ter Herlihy lef t, T. Rekart was trcnsferred at King's request from Site Engineering working for Thiesing to Plant Engineering working for King.

About a r:onth later, Rekart resigned from GPUN (M. at 5).

At about this same point in

/

NUREG-0680 10 06/15/84 1.

tirhe, King requested the transfer 1e, K. Lionarons from Site Engineering to LPlant' Engineering.

Shortly after his reassignment, Lionarons submitted his resignation:to GPUN.

Rumors existed that Lionarons also might be going to work for Slone and Herlihy in the business that King allegedly had an interest in (Id. at 5, 6).

On February 2 or 3, 1983, Thiesing went on a business trip with W. Austin.

During this. trip, Austin expressed his concern that Rekart had taken a: job in ustin felt this presented an organization in which King had an interest 4 a serious problem because GPUN was loosing engineering talent to an

organization'that King may be involved with Austin felt management should~take some action (Id. R. 5-5 at 6, 7)..Thiesing, however, still felt the stories about King were rumor ( ~Id. at 7).

Nonetheless, he promised V

/

Austin he would look into the situation and get back to him (Id. 8).

3 On February 7,1983, King wrote Clark a handwritten note asking for a meeting to discuss King's concerns about operations at TMI-2 (M. Ex. 67).. Clark had already met with King several times during the previous 6 months on various matters of concern to King, including a meeting during the middle of 1982 in which King. explored other job possibilities for himself within the GPUN organization (M.Ex.68at31).

Before calling King to determine what it was specifically that he wanted to talk about, Clark checked with R. C.

Arnold and B. Kanga and became aware of the fact that some of the staff at TMI-2 were raising issues regarding the polar crane and its lead testing (M.

Sb 1

at fr7-).

l? hen Clark taled to King, shortly af ter receiving his note, King did not raise any safety issues.

Primarily King was interested in discussing NUREG-0680 10-13 06/15/84 s

c

'other positions within GPUN because he was unhappy with the way things were going 'at TMI-2 and he felt he might want to take another job-(M. at 38).

. About the middle of February.1983, Thiesing requested that the Bechtel procurement office in Gaithersburg, run a vendor information and qualification survey on an engineering organization.

At that point in time, however, Thiesing did not have the correct name of King's company and the procurement office was unable to produce any information for Thiesing (Id.

Ex. 66 at 19, 20).

Thiesing then went and asked Buchan M if he had any additional information; Buchan M told Thiesing the name of the company was Ouiltec and that it was incorporated in Virginia (_Id. at 20).

Thiesing

. passed this information on to the Bechtel procurement office and on February j

22, they informed Thiesing that they had located a company named Quiltec, Inc., in Virginia:

the president'of the company was L. King, the vice-president was B. Slone, the business agent and treasurer was J. Hoade, and[

Ia Mrs. Kingyan officer of the corporation.

_Id. at 20, Q'gef fAUud'h!'f 0 M,

J.Buh1'said he did not feel it was appropriate for Bechtel procurement to do a background investigation on a firm for determining a conflict of interest

( H. Ex. 72 at 24, 25).

H. Bruner, Thiesing's supervisor within Bechtel, did not, feel Thiesing had violated any Bechtel policy or procedure since in the r.ormal course of events in Thiesing's position in the integrated crganization, he would have been the bes person to have transmitted the information discovered about King to GPUN (M. at 12-15).

EXW hUREG-0680 10-14 06/15/84 c

i

~

M Thiesing subsequently. informed Barton about King's involvement with Quiltec.

Id. Ex. 40 at 14.

On February 24, Barton and Thiesing had a discussion with

[

Kanga about the Kin Quiltec situation.

Thiesing then had no further involvement _ with the King [Quiltec affair (Id. Ex. 66 at 26, 27).

A Barton contacted.GPUN's attorney, J. Wilsonj o discuss King's possible t

conflict of interest (Id. Ex. 40 at 15).

Kanga instructed Barton to notify either Arnold or Clark of the Quiltec issue (M. Ex.18 at 6).

R. C. Arnold became aware of King's connection with Quiltec on February 24th when Clark told him about the information that he had received from Barton.

Arnold then called Barton and directed;him to meet with King ang, Acting Manager-ofResourcesh.Troebligd[_Id.Ex.15at5-7).

Barton and

)

- Troebliger met with King late on the afternoon of February 24.

In response to Barton's questions, King said tha't he was involved with an outside hW4 engineeringconsultingcompanyItha ad hired people previously employed with GPUN.

As a result of answering in the affirmative to both of these questions, King was immediately placed on suspension without pay.

Barton asked King to surrer. der his badge and escorted him to the north gate off the TMI site.

I_d. Ex. 40 at 6, 7; see also H. Ex. 15 at 7, 8.

Arnold felt that King's suspension, on,the spot, was appropriate because of-the seriousness of the offense in which he had violated the most fundamental tobligation he had to the company [..

';'+"

" " 7 protecting of the resources given to King's care.

As a result of violating this trust, Arnold felt King should be immediately suspended. M. Ex. 16 at 111, 112.

NUREG-0680 10-15 06/15/84

W b

7..

b Arnold based-the accountability of King on three main points:

(1) the GPUN. conflict-of-interest policy statement (which has subsequently been made more explicit as.a result'of the King incident), (2) King's responsibility to develop staff and make productive utilization of the resources available to him,and(3)Kingk

;ri: [ he importance of GPUN d having e.

highly trained, technically competent staff

Myed b; TY(Id. Ex.16 at m9 WU King said that M rd r m 2'[ Barton told himfhe in %

vestigation 115-118).

of Quiltec would be handled separately from any safety concerns King was raising (Id. Ex. 84 at 28).

On February 25, 1983, Arnold and Clark decided that King's suspension would be with pay-to make certain that King would

~~

bring any safety concerns he had to.GPUN's attention.

King initially expressed an unwillingness to meet with Clark o'f February 25th because he was 1 WW44, 1

suspended without pay (Id. Ex. 68 at 48, 49).gfie meeting on King's safety d

concerns took place on February 25th between himself and Clark (Id. at 50).

s e

s On Fetiruary 28, Arnold sent a letter to King inquiring why he did not inform 1

GPUN of his association with Quiltec and asking further about Quiltec employment of former GPUN employees.

King, in a. letter dated March 9, 1983, stated:

"As QuiltecjInc.;was set up it specifically did not solicit engagements which could. :reate a conflict of interest for me, nor did h

Quiltec, Inc. solicit 'the= employment of G.P.U. Nuclear Corporation employees.

A Several employees of G.P'.U. Nuclear Corporation, knowing Mr. Slone was a consultant. to the nuclear industry, contacted him for employment, including fir. Rekart and Mr. Herl Hy.

Under these circurstances I saw no conflict of interest."

Id. Ex. 60 at 3.

\\

NUREG-0680 10-16 06/15/84 ti _

1-n-

King did'not feel he was improperly recruiting GPUN employees because the individuals in question approached either him or Slone about employment

• Y therefore, King _did not feel he had done any improper recruiting (H. Ex.

i at ~112). ^ Both Herlihy and Rekart confirmed that they sought out employment with Quiltec by contacting Slone themselves (I_d. Ex. 85 Attachments B-2, B-4).

Also Lionarons approached King (November of 1982) to complain about what he viewed as lack of progress on TMI and the fact that he was sick of i

working there.

Lionarons told King he would like to get out. According to Lionarons, it was not until this point in time that he was aware of how much

-involvement King had with Quiltec (M. Ex. 65 at 19). After receiving King's March 9 response to his ' questions on Quiltecj rnold, in an attempt to A

dstermine.who within the THI-2 organization man'agement structure was aware of

King's association with Quiltec, talked to Austin, Buchan k and Chwastyk.

Chwastyk did not disclose to Arnold that he had traveled to Beaver Valley Plant as a representative of Quiltec (Id. Ex. 89 at 68, 69).

Arnold contacted Pollack, Vice-President with the Long Island Lighting Company at the Shoreham Nuclear Station and discussed the situation involving j

Quiltec.

It became clear to Arnold that at least two GPUN enployees had employment by. Quiltec arranged for them at Shoreham before telling GPUN that

.they were going to resign (H. Ex. 16 at 121).

On Itarch 16,.1983, Arnold wrote to King:

f (Src As a result of your failure to inform GPUN of your position as President;of Quiltec, Inc. and the fact that Quilte has hired

.at least two GPUN enployees from GPUN your employment with GPUN j

1

/.

NUREG-0680 10-17 06/15/84

~

'\\

D.

~'

.' 7/

^(FOOTNOTELCONTINUED) 6.

-The licensee shall demonstrate his managerial capability and resources to operate Unit I while maintaining Unit 2 in a. safe configuration and carrying out planned decontamination and/or l

' restoration activities....

7.

The licensee shall demonstrate his financial

. qualifications to the extent relevant to his

-ability to operate TMI-1 safely.

CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141, 145 (1979).

Neither of these issues supports the Commonwealth's position that TMI-1 should not be restarted.

Short-term item 6 was litigated and resolved by the Licensing Board in favor of restart. The Comonwealth did not appeal the Licensing Board's resolution of that' item..With the exception of the Licensee's training and testing program, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's resolution of the issues related to short-term item 6.

ALA8-772, sl_ip op. at 134-142.

For the reasons stated above in these coments, the Appeal Board's concerns regarding the

-record on Licensee's training and testing program do not provide a basis for deferring a restart decision.

. ith respect.to short-term item 7,~ the Comission removed the W

financial. qualification need issue from the restart proceeding

("

j.

with' the support of the Commonwealth.

CLI-81-3, 13 NRC 291 296-97.. Consequently, the financial qualification issue cannot be used to support the Comonwealth's position that the Comission should.not vote on' restart.

In conclusion, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not provided any basis for the Comission to defer a restart decision.

IV.

CONCLUSION

'In conclusion, the Staff believes that there is an adequate record

' to support a Comission decision on whether the concerns which were the F

basis for the immediately effective suspension of the TMI-1 operating

' license;have.been sufficiently resolved to permit restart, in accordance with the limitations and conditions. stated in Staff's. January 3,1984 memorandum, prior to 'a completion of review of any appeals from ALAB-772.

X.

. /.

.=

15 -

Nothing-in ALAB-772 or the completed OI investigations to date prevent

- the Commission from concluding, on the basis of_the immediate effective-ness record, that TMI-1 can be restarted as discussed above.

Respectfully submitted, Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for.NRC Staff 1

Date'at Bethesda, Maryland this day of June, 1984.

D k

, C Os mN s+

c-e k

(