ML20202G665

C Husted Answers to NRC First Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20202G665
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/08/1986
From:	Maupin M GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#286-716 CH, NUDOCS 8604140458
Download: ML20202G665 (16)

Text

-

Q( 9 g COhdt D**

April 8, 198 R N APR 10 pj;g3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cpg.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DQ , .

Before the Administrative Law Judge "'"-i In the Matter of )

)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docke t No. 50-289 (CH)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, ) l Station, Unit No. 1) ) l l

MR. HUSTED'S ANSWERS TO l NRC STAFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES I AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. 1 l

Answers to Interrogatories Mr. Husted submits the following Answers to the Staff's Interrogatories:

Interrogatory 1. Please fully state your positica 1

I on the first issue admitted for litigation in this pro-l ceeding -- your " alleged solicitation of an answer to an exam question from another operator during the April 1981 NRC written examination" at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Please include each and every fact on which you base your position on this issue.

Answer: Mr. Husted's position is that he did not attempt to solicit or solicit an answer to an exam ques-tion during the April 1981 NRC written examinations at 8604140458 860400 PDR ADOCK 05000289 Q PDR

{

l

's l

! e.

j l

l l' Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, that the testimony of j P confirms that position and that the testimony of

.i Mr. Ward before the Special Master is not inconsistent l

with that position. Mr. Husted does believe that during

.! the April 24, 1981 examination, upon reviewing a ques-

! tion on that exam, he said aloud -- not to anyone else in the room but by way of exclamation -- words to the I effect "what the hell is this?" Mr. Husted will testify

{ as to these matters. He has not yet decided whether to call any other witness on this subject, but he will I

} advise the Staff if he decides to do so.

1

~

Interrogatory 2. Please fully state your position on the second issue admitted for litigation in this pro-

) ceeding -- the alleged " lack of forthrightness of [your]

1 l

testimony before the Special Master" in Metropolitan i

} Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit i t

! No. 1) , Docket No. 50-289, on December 10, 1981. Please

{ include each and every fact on which you base your posi-tion on this issue.

I

) Answer: As Mr. Husted understands it, his alleged i

! " lack of forthrightness" before the Special Master is 4

l based on one or more of the followings (a) his failure to admit that he solicited an answer to an examination

}

l 4

1 1

question on April 24, 1981, (b) his testimony before the Special Master that he "did not like the way the investigation was conducted," (c) his " generally flippant demeanor" during his testimony before the Special Master, (d) inconsistencies in his testimony at the hearing before the Special Master, and (e) inconsis-tencies between answers he gave at the hearing and answers he had given during the September 18, 1981 interview. Mr. Husted's positions on these bases are as follows.

(a) With respect to his alleged failure to admit I

! having solicited an answer during the examination, his position, for the reasons set out in the Answer to your Interrogatory 1, is that he did not attempt to solicit an answer to an examination question and that his testi-mony on the subject was true.

(b) With respect to his dislike of the.way the investigation was conducted, his position is that he respects and recognizes the need for and the importance i of the NRC investigative process. He nevertheless  ;

i believed that two of the questions asked him during the l July 29, 1981 interview by representatives of the Office 1 '

j of Inspection and Enforcement were so broad, he was uncomfortable answering them. In light of all the l

i )

i i

,- - ---n., , - - .--n-,-- --.,,-,,.n-,w - , , , - - - , - - - . - - - g n , ,

a

_4_

positions and facts stated in these Answers to Interrogatories, however, Mr. Husted believes that the Special Master was unwarranted in inferring from his-dislike of these questions that Mr. Husted was not forthright in this testimony at the hearing.

(c) With respect to his alleged " generally flippant demeanor" at the hearing, his position is set i

i out in the Answer to your Interrogatory 3. Mr. Husted believes that any negative inferences about his forth-rightness based on his perceived attitude at the hearing are unwarranted.

(d) With respect to the inconsistency in his testimony before the Special Master, Mr. Husted's posi-tion is that, for the reasons described in the Answer to your Interrogatory 3, he was under extraordinary stress durir:3 his testimony at the hearing. He incorrectly conceded the accuracy of the reports of both NRC inter-views. He mistakenly stated at one point that the t " passing papers" comment was the same as the "uncon-firmed hearsay" he is said to have mentioned during his first interview, but he subsequently corrected that

testimony to reflect that he did not intend by any reference to " unconfirmed hearsay" that he may have made on July 29, 1981 to refer to the " passing papers"

)

remark. Mr. Husted's position is that taken in its l entirety this testimony does not support an inference l

that he was not forthright.

l (e) With respect to the inconsistency bitween his j testimony at the hearing and the report of his September i

18, 1981 interview, he is not certain that the interview report accurately sets out the statements he made during the interview. He requested at the outset of the second interview that the interviewer, Mr. Matakas, record in handwriting each question and each answer, and he recalls that Mr. Matakas did so. Mr. Husted has never seen those notes. In any event, Mr. Husted believes that he did not recall the " passing papers" remark until after the July 19, 1981 interview. His position is that the inconsistency between his testimony and the OIE report of the September 18, 1981 interview does not warrant the conclusion that he was not " forthright" at l

the hearing.

Mr. Husted will testify as to these matters. He has not yet decided whether to call any other witness, but he will advise the Staff if he decides to do so.

i Interrogatory 3. Please fully state your position on the third issue admitted for litigation in this i

. a i proceeding -- the question as to whether you exhibited a

" poor attitude toward the hearing [before the special Master] on the cheating incidents." Please include each and every fact on which you base your position on this' issue.

Answer: Mr. Husted recognizes that his testimony at the hearing was in some respects regrettable. He regrets having given the answer " stupid, I think." He understands that this answer could be viewed as having been " flippant." He recognizes as well that his testi-mcny in response to questions by Mr.LAdler was internally inconsistent. He did not carefully think through the questions or the answers; and he understands how he gave the impression, to use the terms of the ASLB, that "he didn't care whether he was believe.d or not." Mr. Husted's position, however, is that he took the hearing very seriously and testified forthrightly.

Mr. Husted was under extraordinary stress at the hearing. Because of the cheating episode, the fact that it reflected badly on the training department of which Mr. Husted was a part, and the unusual demands that the re-examination effort put on that department, Mr. Husted

( had been for about five months under far greater strain at work than usual and had been working much longer than i'

was customary. . He had never testified before in such a proceeding. He believed until shortly before the hearing unat he was simply "another witness" scheduled to appear at the hearing. Shortly before the hearing, .

however, he learned that, through Mr. Ward's testimony, he had been effectively accused of having attempted to cheat on the April 24, 1981 SRO examination. .He thus felt himself in extreme jeopardy when he made his appearance before the Special Master. He had not had the benefit of the careful attention of counsel in '

preparation for his appearance. He had not, for example, undertaken the close scrutiny of the NRC i.7ter-view reports that Mr. Adler carried out during cross-examination at the hearing, and Mr. Husted conceded their accuracy too readily. He had not care-fully compared Mr. Christman's notes of the July 29, 1981 OIE interview with the Staff's report'of that-interview. He quickly became frustrated and confused.

He simply wanted to get the testimony over with and leave the stand as quickly as possible. In short, what appeared to be his " flippant demeanor" did not reflect a biase or uncaring attitude toward the hearing at all.

It was instead a reflection of his apprehensiveness

toward the hearing. Mr. Husted will testify as to these matters.

Interrogatory 4. Please fully state your position on the fourth issue admitted for litigation in this pro-ceeding -- your alleged " lack of cooperation with NRC investigators" in interviews conducted on July 29, 1981, and September 18, 1981. Please include each and every fact on which you base your position on this issue.

Answer: Mr. Husted's position is that while he I

declined to answer two questions during the July 29,  !

1981 interview, his overall conduct and responsiveness during the two interviews do not reflect a significant failure to cooperate. Mr. Christman's notes of the first Husted interview reveal that the session lasted 28 minutes. Those notes also indicate that the interview involved a good deal of discussion that w.is not reflected in the Staff's report of the interview and that Mr. Husted answered the questions that were not discussed in the OIE Report. With respect to the unanswered questions, prior to appearing at the July 29, 1981 interview, Mr. Husted had heard a good deal of

" scuttlebutt" at Three Mile Island about the NRC inter-viewing process, principally from TMI-2 employees who

_g_

had been through the post-accident NRC investigations.

These reports caused him to be wary about broad, ill-defined questions. He believes that the two questions he declined to answer during tha first inter-view. fitted that description. He recalls that at least with respect to the second question, which dealt with rumors he might have heard about cheating on the NRC examinations, he asked the NRC interviewers if he could l decline to answer that question. He recalls that he was t

i told that if OIE wanted to pursue that issue further, it would call him back for further interviews. In fact, that happened; he was interviewed a second time, the subject matter of the two questions was explored during the second interview, the questions were precise and he l answered those questions. It did not occur to Mr. Husted until he read the Special Master's report that his conduct at the NRC interviews would be used as a basis for the conclusion that he was uncooperative.

Mr. Husted respects the regulatory process, including the need for NRC investigative procedures. He also recognizes the importance of cooperation by nuclear l

licensees and personnel with OIE when it carries out its regulatory investigations. He does not believe, however, that his reluctance to' answer particular OIE

questions was inconsistent with his overall respect for the process.

Mr. Husted will provide testimony on this subject.

He will also rely on Mr. Christman's notes. He has not yet decided whether to call other witnesses on this sub-ject, but he will advise the Staff if he decides to do so.

Interrogatory 5. With regard to the two admitted contentions of TMIA and the admitted contention of GPU, please fully state your position as to how your perfor-mance of your responsibilities with GPU and Metropolitan Edison Company reflect on your attitude and integrity.

l l Please include each and every fact on which you base your position.

Answer: Mr. Husted's position is that his perfor-mance of his responsibilities with GPU and Metropolitan Edison Company reflects favorably on his attitude and integrity and on his teaching and supervisory skills.

This is true of his performance both before the cheating episode and resulting hearing and afterward. Mr. Husted relies in this connection on the evaluations of his work that have been done by personnel at Metropolitan Edison and at GPU Nuclear over the years in question.

11- )

l l

Mr. Husted will testify on this subject and rely on documents that he will produce pursuant to your request.

He has not yet decided whether to call other witnesses on this subject, but he will advise the Staff if he decides to do so.

Interrogatory 6. With regard to the two admitted contentions of TMIA and the admitted contention of GPU, please state your position as to whether any remedial action with respect to you is required. Please include each and every fact on which you base your position.

Answer: Mr. Husted's position is that no remedial action is required. The facts on which he bases his position are set out in the other Answers to your Inter-rogatories.

Interrogatory 7. If, in response to Interrogatory 6, you believe that remedial action is warranted, please state the remedial action, and each and every fact on which you base your position.

Answer: See the Answer to Interrogatory 6.

Interrogatory 8. With regard to the two admitted contentions of TMIA and the admitted contention of GPU,

- n

l please described any other information concerning your attitude, honesty, integrity, character, personality traits, activities, habits or reputation on which you i

intend to rely in addressing how considerations as to

. your attitude or integrity bear on your employment as an NRC-licensed operator, licensed-operator instructor or training supervisor, or supervisor of training of non-licensed personnel.

Answer: Mr. Husted presently expects that the information he will introduce by way of evidence at the hearing concerning his attitude, honesty, integrity, character, personality traits, activities, habits or reputation will deal with his performance of his work assignments for Metropolitan Edison Company or GPU Nuclear during the 1980's. He does not presently con-template introducing any information that is unrelated to his work with those companies.

]

I l

l l

, II.

Documents Request The documents responsive to your requests are enclosed with this pleading.

Respectfully submitted, CHARLES HUSTED 4

By bM Michael W. Maupin, Counsel-Of Counsel Michael W. Maupin Maria C. Hensley HUNTON & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 1535

. Richmond, VA 23212 I

Dated: April 8, 1986 N-

_ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____-_m____ _____________.___--__m__________ __.

i

, O AFFIRMATION Charles Husted, being first duly sworn, affirms that the above Answers to Interrogatories are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Dated: April 8, 1986 ~-~

h  ;/ Iud.

Charles Husted I, M//f4 M2aprt , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction of Virginia, hereby certify that Charles Husted, whose name is signed to the foregoing Affirmation dated April 8, 1986 has personally sworn to me that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Notary Public  !

My Commission expires J-2}88 .

1 l

1 n--. e - <-

a April 8, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of )

)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-289(CH)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)

Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copics of Mr. Husted's Answers to NRC Staff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated April 8, 1986, were served upon the following persons today by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage pre-paid, addressed to them at the following addresses:

i The Honorable Morton B. Margulies Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Chief, Docketing and Service Section

t George E. Johnson, Esquire 1 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Three Mile Island Alert .,

1011 Green Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Deborah B. Bauser, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1

Michael W. Maupin, Counsel for Charles Husted Dated: April 8, 1986 i

.o-. , _. .- - -- , m . - , -,-, w .