ML20141J317
| ML20141J317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1986 |
| From: | Bradford L THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| CON-#286-922 CH, NUDOCS 8604280097 | |
| Download: ML20141J317 (13) | |
Text
I t-g ILD 8
Apg %%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9-gO gg Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/S v
In the Matter of
)
General Public Utilities
)
Nuclear Corporation
)
Docket No. 50-289. (CH)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
TMIA'S RESPONSE TO GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory 1(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to whether Mr. Husted solicited an answer to an exami-nation question from another operator during the April, 1981 senior reactor operator examination at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 ("TMI-1").
(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer:
(a)
It is TMIA's position that during the April 1981 SRO licensing exam, Husted attempted to solicit information which would have aided him in answering a question on the exam.
Answer:
(b)
Mr. Ward, an NRC investigator, in testimony before the Special Master, stated that during an interview of Mr.
P, that P admitted that Husted had attempted to solicit infor-mation from him (Mr. P).
Mr. Ward further testified that it was 8604280097 860423 PDR ADOCK 05000289 9
PM,
}SC 3
his opinion that P was being truthful when he recounted Husted's attempt to cheat.
Although P later denied having given NRC investigators information about Husted's attempt to solicit help in answering a question on the SRO examination, his denial was contradicted by his earlier testimony to NRC investigators and by his deposition testimony.
Interrogatory 2(a).
If you believe that Mr. Husted solicited an answer from another operator, state fully and with particularity how such a solicitation relates to Mr. Husted's attitude and per-formance as an NRC licensed operator, licensed operator instructor or training supervisor, or non-licensed training supervisor.
(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer:
(a)
It is TMIA's position that an individual who would attempt to cheat, particularly during an examination designed to test his competence to operate a nuclear power reactor, lacks the integrity necessary to maintain a position of public trust such as those enumerated in Interrogatory 2(a).
Answer:
(b)
See answer to 2(a).
i Interrogatory 3(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to whether Mr. Husted cooperated with NRC investigators during the July 29, 1981 interview.
(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position. -
i Answer:
(a)
It is TMIA's position that Husted did not cooperate with NRC investigators during the July 29, 1981 inter-view.
This position is supported by the NRC investigators' report of the interview and by their testimony before the Special Master.
f Answer:
(b)
See answer to 3(a).
Interrogatory 4 (a).
State fully and with particularity your j
position as to whether Mr. Husted cooperated 'rith NRC investi-gators during the September 18, 1981 interview.
l (b).
State fu;1y and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your positionI i
i Answer:
(a) It is TMIA's position that Husted did not cooperate I
with NRC investigators during the September 18, 1981 interview.
l Although Husted has recently denied that he was uncooperatove during the September 18, 1981-interview,~his positiod~is' contra-
~ ~ ~
~~
L dicted by the report.of the interview and the notes which formed the basis of the report.
TMIA's position is further supported by the testimony of Ward before the Special Master.
Answer:
(b)
See answer to 4 (a).
Interrogatory 5 (a).
If you contend that Mr. Husted's answers l
in the September 18, 1981 interview differed materially from his i
answers in the July 29, 1981 interview, state fully and with particularity each and every material difference.,
(b).
As to each and every material difference identified in Interrogatory No. 5(a), state fully and with particularity l
each and every reason that you believe explains why the differ-ence occurred, e.g.,14r. Husted had better recollection, reviewed L - _.. -.
documents, etc.
Answer:
(a)
Husted's answers differed materially in that during the second interview he recounted the " passing papers in the exam" comment which he had refused to divulge during his first interview.
Answer:
(b)
It is TMIA's position that at some time after the July 29, 1981 interview, Husted recognized that it was in his interest to divulge part of the information within his know-ledge concerning cheating, which he did during the September 18, 1981 interview, to prevent continued interrogation by the N2C.
Interrogatory 6 (a).
State fully and with regularity your position as to whether Mr. Husted's testimony before the Special Master on December 10, 1981 in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289, was forthright.
(b).
If you believe that Mr. Husted's testimony was not forthright, identify all statements that Mr. Husted made that you believe lacked forthrightness.
(c).
With respect to all those statements identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6(b), identify for each such statement all facts which support or refute your view that the statement was not forthright.
Answer:
(a)
It is TMIA's position that Husted's testimony before the Special Master was not forthright as demonstrated by the following facts.
(i)
Husted's failure to admit that he solicited an answer to an exam question on April 24, 1981.
~'~
(ii)Husted stated during his July 29, 1981 interview that he refused to answer NRC investigators' questions because he did not have any information.
.During Husted's July 29, 1981 interview by HRC investigators, Husted admitted that he had heard rumors regarding cheating during the April 1981 NRC licensing examination.
He described these rumors as " unconfirmed hearsay."
During his September 18, 1981 interview, Husted elaborated on the " unconfirmed hearsay."
He told NRC investigators that he had heard a comment about " passing papers in the exam" during the time period of the April 1981 exam.
In his testimony before the Special Master, Husted again confirmed the fact that the " passing papers in the exam" comment and the
" unconfirmed hearsay" were one and the same.
However, when he was asked why he did not relate the " passing papers in the exam" incident to NRC investigators during the first interview, Husted changed his testimony, he said he had not recalled the " passing phpers in the exam" incident until his second OIE interview.
(iii) In his December 10, 1981 testimony before the Special Master, Husted stated that he refused to answer the NRC investi-gators' questions during his July 29, 1981 interview because he, "did not like the way the investigation was conducted."
(iv) When Husted was questioned further about his refusal to answer NRC investigators' questions, he responded with the statement.
that he refused to answer because he was, " Stupid, I think."
Answer:
(b)
See answer to 6 (a).
Answer:
(c)
See answer to 6 (a).
Interrogatorv 6 (d).
With respect to each statement identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 (h), characterize the nature of Mr. Husted's lack of forthrightness, e.g., was the statement dishcnest, vague, nonresponsive, or some other quality which you believe would indicate lack of forthrightness.
Answer:
(d)
(i)
Husted's failure to admit that he solicited an answer to an exam question on April 24, 1981 was untruthful.
(ii)
Husted's statement that he had not recalled the " passing papers in the exam" incident until his second OIE interview was dishonest.
(iii)' Husted's statement, " Stupid, I think' was nonresponsive.
Interrogatory 7(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to how the forthrightness of Mr. Husted's testimony before the Special Master on December 10, 1981 in Metropolitan
' Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
Docket No. 50-289, bears on his integrity and his performance as (i) an NRC licensed operator; (ii) a licensed operator instruc-tor or training supervisor; or (iii) a non-licensed training supervisor.
Answer:
All of the positions enumerated in Interrogatory 7(a) demand that the individual performing those responsibilities has a high degree of honesty and integrity.
As outlined in answer to Interrogatory 6 (a), ' Mr. Husted falls far short of these standards.
Interrogatory 7(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer:
See answer to 7(a).
Interrogatory 8(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to whether Mr. Husted poss_essed a poor attitude toward the hearing on December 10, 1981 in Metrocolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Muclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289.
(b)
State fully and with particularity your position as to whether Mr. Husted exhibited a poor attitude toward the hearing on December 10, 1981 in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No.
50-289.
(c).
If you belies' that Mr. Husted possessed or exhibited a poor attitude, identify all oi those statements that Mr. Husted made which you believe evidence a poor attitude.
(d).
As to all of those statements identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8(c), identify for each such statement all facts which support or refute your view that Mr. Husted possessed or exhibited a poor attitude.
(e).
With respect to each such statement identified in Interrogatory No. 8(c), characterize how the statement evidences a poor attitude, e'g.,
was the, statement flippant, insubordi-nate, etc.
Answer: (a)
It is TMIA's position that Husted exhibited a poor attitude toward the hearing process when he testified before the Special Master on December 10, 1981.
Answer: (b)
See answer to 8(a).
Answer:
(c) Husted's lack of forthrightness during the L
l hearing, as outlined in response to Interrogatory 6, was one demonstration of his poor attitude.
In addition, his demeanor when he testified before the Special Master, as summarized by the Special Master and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their
. findings, is further evidence of Husted's poor attitude.
Answer:
(d)
Special Master's Report and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board findings.
Answer:
(e)
Husted's denial of attempted cheating was not credible.
Husted's testimony that he refused to answer NRC investi-gators' questions because he did not have any information was not credible.
Husted's testimony that he retused to answer the NRC inves-tigators' questions because he was, " stupid I guess" was insolent.
The inconsistencies between answers Husted gave to NRC investigators during his two interviews and his testimony at the December 10, 1981 hearing demonstrated Husted's contempt for the regulatory process.
Interrocatory 9 (a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to how Mr. Husted's attitude toward the hearing on December 10, 1981 in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289, bears on his performance as (i) an NRC licensed operator; (ii) a licensed operator instructor or training supervisor; or (iii) a non-licensed training supervisor.
(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which l
relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or i
refute your position.,
1 Answer:
(a)
It is TMIA's position that Husted's poor
, attitude which was demonstrated during the investigation and hearing on cheating have extended to his attitude toward the performance of his responsibilities at TMI-1.
(b)
The November 4, 1981 evaluation of Husted indicate that he demonstrated a poor attitude on the job.
Although other evaluations of Husted appear to be favorable to his position, there is no assurance that under similar circumstances, e.g.,
another investigation involvLng Husted, that Husted will not exhibit the same poor attitude toward the performance of his responsibilities.
Interrocatory 10 (a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to how Mr. Husted's performance of his responsi-bilities as an employee of GPUN reflects upon his attitude and I
integrity.
(b).
State fully and with particularity all facts which relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer:
(a)
See answer to 9 (b).
Answer:
(b)
See answer to 9(b).
Interrogatory ll(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to what standards should be applied in deter-mining whether Mr. Husted should be barred from serving as (i) an NRC licensed operator; (ii) a licensed operator / instructors or training supervisor; or (iii) a non-licensed training supervisor.
(b).
S ta ce i e and with particularity all facts which n-
relate to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer:
(a)
The public trust demands that persons serving in the positions, enumerated in Interrogatory ll(a) should be held to an extremely high standard of honesty and integrity in the performance of their responsibilities and in their conformance I
to the regulatory process.
Answer:
(b)
See answer to ll(a).
Interrogatory 12(a).
State fully and with particularity your position as to whether any remedial action is required with respect to Mr. Husted.
(b)
State fully and with particularity all facts relating to your position, whether or not such facts support or refute your position.
Answer: (a)
It is TMIA's position that remedial action is required with respect to Husted.
Husted's poor attitude and lack of integrity, as discussed in answers to Interrogatories 1 through 10 require that such action be taken.
Answer:
(b) See answer to 12(a).
Interrogatory 13.
If you contend that Mr. Husted should be the subject of remedial action, state fully and with particular-ity the remedial action which ought to be undertaken.
Answer:
For the reasons discussed in answers to Interrog-atories 1 through 10:
(i)
Husted should be barred from instructing or super-vising the instruction of licensed operators or licensed operator trainees.
t (ii)
Husted should be barred from holding a license to operate a nuclear power plant.
Interrogatory 14 (a).
Identify every witness who will testify in this proceeding on your behalf or who had been requested to testify,will be requested to testify, or is likely to be requested to testify, regardless of whether the matter of the appearance be by subpoena or voluntary.
(b).
State fully and with particularity the subject area and substance on which each witness identified in Interrogatory No. 14 (a) is expected to testify.
Answer:
(a) and (b)
TMIA intends to rely on the testimony of the following individuals:
Individual P - with regard to his allegation made during his interview with NRC investigators, that Husted attempted to solicit an answer to an exam question during the April 1981 SRO exam.
Peter E. Baci and William J.
Ward - with regard to their i
I interview of Individual P.
f Keith Christopher and Raymond H.
Smith - with regard to Husted's refusal to cooperate during the July 29, 1981 interview.
Richard A. Matakas - with regard to Husted's refusal to fully respond to questions during the September 18, 1981 interview with NRC investigators.
II.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The documents other than the Special Master's Report of April 28, 1982, the Licensing Board July 27, 1982 decision and the hearing transcript pages, which TMIA has relied upon in answering these interrogatories are:
I 11_
NRC investigators' report of July 29, 1981 interview; NRC investigators' report of September 18, 1981 interview.
These' documents are part of the public record and are available in the'NRC public document room.
The November 4, 1981 evaluation of Charles Husted which was provided by GPUN in response to TMIA's request for production of documents.
Attachments to NRC Staff's Answers to Aamodt Motion to Compel Staff and Licensee to Provide All Documents Related to I&E Interview of C. Husted of September 18, 1981, which have been provided to the parties in this-proceeding.
TMIA has not yet determined what documents it intends to introduce during the course of the Husted hearing.
It is probable that the documents mentioned above, in addition to portion of the record of the cheating hearing, will be introduced.
Respectfully submitted, et Louise Bradford i
for Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
April 23, 1986 I
l
_---m,.-__m_
m
(T c) ass.ATED C0KHES s
v
'^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
~
gpg25B F NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI y"i_nW
=
~
cy.wac In the Matter of
)
q f
)
U N
General Public Utilities Nuclear
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 (CH)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "TMIA'S RESPONSE TO GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 23rd day of April, 1986:
^[
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Morton B. Margulies Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bd Administrative Law Judge U.S.* Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nwashington, D.C.20555 George E.-Johnson Office of the Executive Legal Dir.
Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maria C. Hensley, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams Docketing and Service Section (3)
P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deborah B. Bauser, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 N'
-tc tku Louise Bradford for Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
.