ML20136G956
| ML20136G956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1985 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SP-I-UCS-034, SP-I-UCS-34, NUDOCS 8508200107 | |
| Download: ML20136G956 (17) | |
Text
...
{~}
p
~s J
e 8
1 1
C-I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
IN THE MATTER OP:
DOCKET NO. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY 4
(THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR (RESTART-MANAGEMENT PHASE)
STATION, UNIT 1) 5 6
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7
DEPOSITION OF HENRY HUKILL, JR.
8 TAKEN BY UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 9
BEFORE SHERRY BARNES, REPORTER 10 NOTARY PUBLIC 11 DATE NOVEMBER 7, 1984, 9:30 A.M.
E PLACE EMERGENCY OFFSITE FACILITY 2574 INTERSTATE DRIVE T
13 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
-14 APPEARANCES:
15 HARMON, WEISS & JORDAN 16 BY:
WILLIAM S. JORDAN, III, ESQUIRE FOR - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 17 LOUISE BRADFORD 18 ERIC EPSTEIN FOR - TMIA 19 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR NRC 30 BY:
LOIS FINKELSTEIN, ESQUIRE FOR - NRC STAFF 21 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 22 BY:
DEBORAH BAUSER, ESQUIRE JOHN _N.
NASSIKAS, ESQUIRE 23 FOR - LICENSEE GPU NUCLEAR M
ALSO PRESENT:
25 DR. ROBERT LONG
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE,INC 1000 MARKET ST..H9G. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222 GLRS -
\\
8508200107 850 3
PDR ADOCK 0
PDR 0
1 (v'y 0,.
1 1
(
25 Q
Are the shift supervisors the individual s primaril y
- CElGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222 GLRS -
. ~ _ _ -. _,, _.
m 17 y
1 responsible for evaluating the performance of operators?
2 A
On their individual shifts, yes.
But overall, it's 3
the manager of operations who I hold directly accountable f or 4
the performance of operators.
5 Q
And that's Mr. Ross?
6 A
And that's Mr. Ross.
He bases his on personal obser-
^
7 vation as well as input from the shift supervisors.
i 8
Q Do the shift supervisors provide written evaluations 9
of the job performance of the operators on any periodic basis?
10 A
The shift supervisors under our system would provide 11 a written evaluation on their foreman, who is also exempt.
I i
f n
do not believe for the bargaining unit people there is any N
13 formal evaluation process conducted.
h.
O When you say, " exempt," you mean he's not a uniori 15 member?
16 A
He's not a union member; correct.
17 Q
Does Mr. Ross, as the ' operations manager, ' undertake IS any periodic evaluation of the operators?
19
.MS.
BAUSER:. Would you bermore specific?
l 3D BY MR. JORDAN:
21 Q
Performance on the' job.
22 A
He evaluates the operators in detail before we will m
recertify them for licensing or before we will issue.a new 21 license.
What else he does on his own to evaluate.them, I do 25 not know.
e
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC. 1000 MARKET ST HOG.'PA 17101 HUG. 234 2109 PA l.500 222 GLRS -
s f
Cs 18 C
1 Q
The recertification process, this would be an annual 2
evaluation;-correct?
3 A
No.
His license has to be renewed semiannually --
4 t I mean, excuse me, biennially; every two. years.
5 Q
Every two years.
Don't they take an annual requal-6 ification exam?
7 A
Yes; they take an annual requalification.
8 Q
LSo that's a different I
9 A
Right.
But Mr. Ross also evaluates them in simulator 10 training, and he evaluates their weekly exam grades.
He evalu-11 ates their performance with the shift supervisors.
So he's E
deeply involved in their evaluation.
j 13 Q
Are you involved-in decisions to admit people to the 11 training program to become licensed operators?
15 A
No, not really.-
That's Mr. Rosa' responsibility, 16 and he does that.
17 Q
What's your role, if any, inithat process?
18 A
He works with me and tnforms me of how many people 19 have applied when we're starting a.new class and-who they are 3) and what their qualifications are.
21 Q
-Do you review that informatton at all for the purpose 1
22 of determtning whether I hese are appropriate candidates?
' 23 A
I look at it, but I count on Mr. Ross to pick the 21 appropriate candidates..Because I will see them later on-in
?I) the process-tota 11y,;and-I'm deeply involved in'it Iater on; yes.
- GEIGER & t0RIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARICET ST H8G. PA 17101 ' H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222-GtRS -
O 19 m
I Q
So at that point, it would not be your role to over-2 rule Mr. Ross on-the decision --
'3 A
I certainly retain the prerogative to overrule htm,
=4' if I see someone that I just don't think meets what I would-
.5 consider even qualified to start in our program.
=6 But as I said, my real involvement is later on in
-7 the program in the certification process to the NRC.-
I am 8- ' responsible totally for that.
9
- Q I-guess as Mr. R'oss'-superior, you can pretty much s
10.
overrule him on anything,. couldn't you?
11 A.
Yes.
4 12 O
Have you ever overruled.him on the decision to. admit
,. e
]
13 someone-to-the training to become a licensed operator?
14 A
Not that'I can remember.-
T 15 Q
Are you involved in decisions to continue people in i
16 the trais.ing program?
i-17 A-To some-degree, yes.
If -- I am informed tf someone-i s 18 doing poorly and they want to pull-him out.
19
-Q Where you say, "they," who do you mean?
20
^A Mr. Ross,'primar'ly.
He 'is talking with the training 21 department, and in conjunction, they'~ decided the. candidate 22 should be-removed, I am-informed and' told that they're going 23 to remove this candidate'and~why.
1 l 24 O
In general', what would be the. basis for removing the 25 candidate?
T i
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA t 7101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1000 222-GLR 5 -
~
s
(.
O, 20 q-f 1
A His ' inability to grasp the material, his f ailure on 2
exams, for example; things 'of this nature.
He just is not goins 3
to.be able to meet our requirements for 1icensing.
'4 0
And do you have the final say on whether somebody 5
continues in the program or not?
6 A
At the end, I have the final say.
And when I say, 7
"at the end," I mean before we certify him, I have the final 8
say.
If.someone is going to go out of the program, either
~
9 because of lack of performance in training or lack of initi-10 ative, or they don't think he can make it, I wi11 be informed
. that they are gotng to take him out.
I do not usually become 1
11 j
12 deep)y involved in it.
]
13 Q
Have you ever overruled a deciston by Mr. Ross that 14 somebody should be taken out of the program?
~
1 15 A
Can you rephrase that?
Do you mean he has made the 16 decision and I said, "No, keep him in the program"?
s
-17 Q
That he has recommended that someone remain in the-1 18 program --
19 A
I have never overruled --
3' 20 Q
I,'m sorry; that he has recommended that someone be 21 removed from the program, and have you ever overturned that i
22 and said, "No, he' stays-in"?
23 A
Not to my knowledge;.no.
' ?A -
Q With respect to continuing in the training program, 25
'now, I'm not ta'lki.ng about certification for the NRC exam; have
~
( '.
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC : 1000 MARKET ST HOG. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2 809 PA'l.000 222 GLRS -
y
(
j
~
t.
.t
]
d L
-.s 21 1
.'O L
l' you ever: overturned'a recommendation by Mr. Ross that someone 2
be allowed to continue and satd, "No, this person must not i
3 continue"?,'
~ Nok to my knowledge;eno.
'We usua11y.get together 4
A 5
and ' arrive at;/a joint decision.
They give me a recommendation,
{
I have agreed wtth their 6-and to the*best of my knowledge, gv.
.7 recommendations.
Yhat'would be a joint training and operation recom-8
/
9 mendation to ine.
~ 10 0
To be clear on that, when you say -- in terms of the
- 11 peopie involved, would that essentla11y be a joint recommenda--
12 tion by'Mr. Ross and Mr. Newton?
13 k
Mr. Ross and Mr. Newton or Mr. Ross.and Mr. Leonard,
]
- 14 primarily.
I would say it could be either of those two.
I 15 -
Q Yes.
1
^
16 A
I normally deal with Mr.-Ross and Mr. Leonard.
And l
.17 then I will call Mr. Newton if I have any questtons that I think
, s.
18 should be brought to hts level.
19 Q
In deciding whether someone should be allowed to con-i 20 tinue - in the tra ining prog ram, - can.you expla tn;. what standards y
21..
dot.you apply to that. decision?
p.
22 A
The standards I would appl y are - is he. dotng ? wel1 from n
23 -
an academic standpoint in the program; does he have the requi-
~
21 s ito knowledge,. abil itiy, desire and perf ormance to be 'a qua 1 i-25 "
fied 1icensed operator, s
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC. 1000 MARKET ST..H8G. PA 17100 ' HBG. 234 2109 PA l.800 222 GLRS -
t
,?-
> r.
1
. -(m) w l
22
~y-l
'C7 1
Q' In'the situation where someone has, for example,
.l 2t f ailed a requalification exam ~in the licensed operator program, 3
-would you be involved in the decision --
4 A
Now, are you shifting to requal and not new operators?
5
_Because there's a very major difference.
6 Q
Okay.
Everything we've been discussing thus far has l
7 been new operators?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q.
Let me stay with the new operators for the moment 10 then.
11 A~
All right.
U Q
When an individual fails a weekly quiz in the, I
]
13 believe you call it the replacement' program?
11 A
Yes.
15 Q
Would you be involved in the decision as to whether 16 he should continue or not?
- 17 A
Not on the first f a ilure; no.
B-Q Would you be involved after the second failure on 19 a weekiy quiz?
m A
Probably not on just a weekly quiz.
z 21 Q
At what potgi. prior to actually taking the company's 5
mock exam would you be involved in the determination of whether 23 an tndividual should continue?
A Well, if the individual had had significant problems 31 coming through -- and this~ includes problems wtth attitude, 25
- GEIGER & LORIA REPOR11NG SERVICE. INC.. 1000 MARKET ST HOG. PA I7101 HBG. 234 2109 ' PA 1800 222-GLRS -
I L
O o
23
.(-
m 1
problems with his ability to satisf actorily complete the 2
requirements or the on-the-job requirements, including the 3
simulator -- any problems he's had in the training program that 4
the senior members of training and plar,t operations feel put 5
him in. jeopardy,.I would be involved at that point.
6 Q
So it. is the senior members of training and plant 7
operations.who would decide whether it was an appropriate case 8'
to bring to your attention; correct?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
And that would be Mr. Ross on the operations side 11 and~one of the training people, Newton or Leonard, on the train-E ing side?
]
13 A
-Yes.
But to clarify that, I would see every single i4 f inal document, not totally inclusive; but I would-see the 15 results of everything they had done in the training program 16 before they'd ever be certified.
17 Q
Now, this is M
A For replacement operators.
19 Q
When would you see that, before or after they took 20 the mock exam?
21 A
Normally, it's after they took-the~ mock exam.
It could be before if there's a question of whether we want to 23 administer.the mock exam.
Q
-And again,.whether or not you saw it before or after 31.
25 the mock exam would-essenttally be.a judgment call for Mr. Ross
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST.,H9G. PA 17101 HOG. 234 2109 PA 1800 222 GLRS -
n
("T O
24
]
~
1 and the training personnel?
2 A
Yes.
Unless it's one that they feel should be brought.
-3 to my attention.
They will let me know if they have removed
'4 someone from the training program.
I would not override their 5
decision in that case.
And I haven't that I know of.,
6 Q
Now, you mentioned one of-the concerns in reviewing
'7' someone's' performance would be lack of initiative.
Do you know 8
of any case where an individual has been removed from the train-9 ing program -- and we're still talking about the replacement 10 training program -- for lack of initiative, where the individual 11 had otherwise passed the various quizzes and examinations?
E A
I do not know of one specifically.
It seems like
]
13 I can remember recently: one happened, but I can't tell you spe-11 cifically.
I dcn't remember.
15 Q
S imil arl y, you identified attitude.as a factor to 16 be taken into. account.
Do you;know of any instances.where.a 17 candidate has been removed from the training program, replace-18 ment training program, as a result of his att ttude, despite-19 passing the vartous quizzes and examinations?
20 A
I'm really;not positive,s but-I think I remember one 21 operator in the recent' program thatLwas removed.because of his 22 attitude, that he couldn't~ devote enough time to=it because 23 of other outside personal considerations.
31-O And tio your knowledge --
25 A
And.I think that happened, but I'm-not posttive.
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222 GtRS -
q b
P U
25
~T-1 Q
Do you recall, was thts a recommendation made by Mr.
2 Ross?
3 A
1 think it was jointly Mr. Ross and training depart-4 ment, to the best-of my recol1ection.
5 Q
And again, to th'e best of ypur recol1ection, is this 6
individual, does he hold a reactor operator or senior reactor 7
operatorJlicense?
8 A.
You're getting off the track again.
We're talking 9
about replacement operators..They do not-hold 1icenses, i
10 Q
Okay; that's fine.
I'm just 11 A
Wel1 now, I want to make sure that's clear; we are 12 talktng about replacement operators --
}
13 Q
That 's right.
Up to now, we have been talking about it the replacement program.
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
Let me ask you this:'if someone -- this may explain 17 to you the source of my. confusion, or apparent confusion -- if 18 someone is a reactor operator and is taking. training to become 19 a senior reactor operator, is that person constdered to be in 20 the replacement program or the requa1ification program?
21 A
!!e's-considered to be in the SRO training program
~
22 to become an SRO.
I-don't remember-the name of,it.
But he's 23 in'a trailitng program.
Ile retains hts reactor. operator 11teense, 21-~
but he's.in training for a sentor reactor operator under our
~ 25
.t ra i n i ng ~. p rog ram.
I don't remember the.name of'tt.
s-f.
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA 87101 HBG. 234 2109 PA l.800 222 GLRS -
O 0~
26 t
.v' 7
in the category that you have 1
Q
'He would not then be
-2 just been discusstng?
i 3.
A No.
He is not in a replacement' operator training i
1 4
program.
i 15 Q _
If someone-is --
6 --
A' To the best of my knowledge, that~i.s, under that 7-program.-
l 8
Q If--someone holds'a license-as a reactor operator at 9
Unit 2 and i.s working to get a 1icense as a reactor operator 10 at Un it 1, would that -person be -in ' the replacement program for 11 Unit I?
u A
I.would certainly think so.
I don't think we've had N
13 a candidate of that nature at all recent]y.:
It Q
Okay,-fine --
15 A
And I'm talking reactor. operator; I'm not. talking
(
16 senior reactor operator.
17 Q
That's right.
At any rate, that's where the source
~
l
^
18 :
of what may have seemed. confusion to you.
19 Let's go now to the requali.fication program.
Are 20 -
you tnvolvedJin decistons to allow operators.to continue in 21 the requalificatton program?-
22 A
Yes, directly.'
23 Q-And:how so?' What-i.s your involvement?
21 A'
Upon compietton-of the'requa1iftcatton program,.I 25 am given the results of -the total-requalif icat ton program, the.
- s.. '
dc
- GElGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2109 ' PA 1800 222-GtRS -
t I
t
l p
NI 1
27 y
- %5 1
results on the exam, the-results at the. simulator.
I review
.2 those results.
If there are any candidates that are recommendec.
3.
to me to be -- that they have failed a part of it or are not 4
at the standards in a part of it, or any that I see that I 5
don't think have,_ I remove them from licensing duty and put 6
them in a retraining program.
7 O'
Have you ever' removed from licensing duty'and put 8
in a' retraining program someone who had passed all of the 9-requalification program' examinations and assessments?
10 A
Not that.I can recall, but I.wouldn't be sure.
11 Q
With respect to individuals who have failed at least E
one of the examinations or assessments involved in the requal-13 ification program, are you involved in the decision as to what N
action should be taken with respect to that individual?
15 A
Yes, sir.
I 16 Q
~Who is responstble for. developing the initial recom-17 mendation as to what to do about someone who has failed an
~
18 aspect of the requalification program?
19 A-I'd say it was a joint responsibil ity of operations 30 and training.
21 Q
And by, "operatt'ons and training," you mean Mr.
22 noss Z1 A
And Mr. Leonard or Newton.
~
St Q
yes.
25
.A But again, I would see the entire-package.
So I have
- GEIGER & LORf A REPORTING SERVICE. INC., 1000 MARKET ST..H8G. PA 17108 HBG. 234 2l09 PA 1800 222-GLRS -
~ h:
V O
1 v
28 Y
T 1
an overvtew of the entire package in that case.
2 Q
Have you ever reversed a recommendat. ion that an ind L-3 vidual who -had failed an aspect of the requalification program 4
be allowed to continue with training and to retake the aspect 5
that had been failed?
.6 MS. BAUSER:
Could you repeat the question?
I'm 7
sorry, I missed that.
8 MR. JORDAN:
Can you read back?
9 (Whereupon, the reported read back the quest-ion as 10 requested.)
11 A
l'm not stilI sure I understand the question.
12 MS. BAUSER:
I don't either.
What's an aspect?
T 13
.MR. JORDAN:
There are various assessments made of 11 indi.viduals who are in the requalificatton program; such as 15 written examinations, oral examinations.-- let me limit it to 16 written examinations, oral examinations and t.he-assessment of 17 performance on the stmulator.
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 BY MR. JORDAN:
20 Q
Are there any other significant assessments?
21 A
~ We continual 1y monitor-our operators' attLtude and 22 performance.
And that certainly is taken into account when Zl we decide whether-or not we wilI continue him i.. the. training 24 program.
' 25 If-he' f ail's any of those spectf te aspects that you
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA ; 17101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222 GLRS --
i J
.---.,n p
4 g
p) j~
u 29 i
o -4 1
mentioned,'and in very specific, the oral exam or any part of
-2 the written exam, he is removed from-licensed duties, under 3
my-signature.
4
-Q
'And when that happens, Mr._Ross and his counterparts i'
5_
in the training program would make a recommendatior. to you as 6
to whether the individual should be continued in the requali-7 fication program; is that correct?
8 A
That's correct.
But in_my method of' dealing with 9
them, we discuss -- they come to me and we discuss each indi-I 10 vidual.
So it's not just a recommendation, it's a joing dis-11 cussion at which I participate.
And we try and reach agreement.
u If we don't, I make the decision.
i l
13 Q.
Do they generally come_to you with an initial recom-11 mendation, subject to the discussion that-you're about to have?
u 15 _
A Yes.
They did generally come with an in it i'a i recom-16 mendation.
17 0
Can you recall whether you.have ever_ reversed an c
.18 intia1 recommendat ton that someone be a11 owed to continue in 19 the requalification program?
I m
A Not that I can remember; no.
21 Q
Can you recall whether you have ever reversed an 5
tn tt ia l ret smmendation that someone be removed f rom the requal-J 23 1fication' program?
21 A
By that do you mean that they recommend to me.he-be 25 removed and I overruled that?
- GEIGER & LORIA REPORTING SERVICE. INC 1000 MARKET ST H8G. PA 17101 H8G. 234 2109 PA 1800 222-GLRS -
6.'
(,
/'g
(
,f
- x. -
s g
30 1
Q Yes.
2 A
No.
To my knowledge, I have never done that.
3 Q
wtth respect to t.he requal t f teat ton program now, do 4
you know if anyone who was in the requalificatton program has 5
over been removed from licensedduties as a result of attitude 6
and performance as opposed to -- although the indtvtdual had 7
passed all of the examinations, the orals, the simulators that 8
are part of the requalification program?
9 Do you have the question?
10 A
As I understand the question, have we over removed 11 anybody just f or attitude and not because he fatled a part of U
the requaliftcation program?
])
13 Q
Right.
14 A
Not to my knowledge.
1 i
O y -+
N w.,
p\\
/
DOCL W
.9
- r AtJG 71985*
h.66655 TIM &
,7r; BRANG 4-.
M:tmC
/,
IluCLIM MGMAIDH COIIGNS$10ll w use-see.sr mwra.m // dS W in the matter of YNl Staff IMMIFIED Appkant RECElVfD latmener MJECit0 Cent's Offr
/
3-sr c,,,,,,,,
on kl.$
Other Witness S ILO se,,ier