ML20202G736

Response to TMI Alert,Inc First Request for Production of Documents & First Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20202G736
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/09/1986
From:	Bauser D GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
References
CON-#286-724 CH, NUDOCS 8604140478
Download: ML20202G736 (16)

Text

e- su Aif.ocong %

M April 9, 1986

%$$[E0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jj ..

O '9 P4 :33 In the Matter of ) $pE ,

W vt ; ,

r-

)

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

NUCLEAR CORPORATION )

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

RESPDNSE OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION TO TMIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF  !

DOCUMENTS AND FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO l GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Section 2.740, 2.740b, and 2.741, GPU Nuclear Corporation hereby answers or objects to TMIA's First Request for Production of Documents and First Interrogatories to General Public Utilities Nuclear. GPU Nuclear Corporation ("GPUN") expressly reserves the rit at to i 1

add to or amend its response to each and every interrogatory l contained herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Did a member of GPU personnel or l agent of GPU accompany Charles Husted during his July 29, 1981 interview by Office of Inspection and Enforcement (OIE)? If you have answered yes, state:

a. whether Husted requested that he be accompanied.

b. the name and job title of the person who accompanied Husted.

8604140478 860409 C PDR ADOCK 05000289 Q

- w r

l c. whether or not that person took notes of the: interview.

d. provide all notes taken during the in-

terview.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: GPUN advised all of its employees who were to be interviewed by OIE that, upon the employee's request, a representative of GPUN management would

accompany the employee during his or her interview. .Mr. Husted elected to be accompanied by a management representative during i

L Mr. Husted's July 29, 1981 interview, and Paul G. Christman, q

j Manager, Plant Administration TMI-1, attended the interview.

Mr. Christman took notes of the investigation interview, and these notes are being provided to TMIA by Mr. Husted's counsel.

t l

j INTERROGATORY NO. 2: After the July 29, 1981 interview j was completed, did GPU management or its agent discuss the sub-i stance of the interview with Husted? If-you have answered yes,

! state:

a. the name'and job-title (s) of the per-son (s) who discussed'the interview with l Husted.

i

b. the substance of the discussion.

I c. provide all documentation of the discus-I sion.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Samuel Newton, then Opera-i tions Training Manager, recalls discussing'an NRC OIE-interview j with Mr. Husted sometime shortly after it took place. He re-calls that Mr. Husted told him that it was an interview at which Mr. Christman was present. The discussion. focused on Mr.

t Husted's responses during the interview. -Mr. Newton recalls I

J i 4 i

O that Mr. Husted stated that he was very nervous during the in-terview. Mr. Newton and Mr. Husted discussed how to try to ap-I pear more comfortable during this process.

After the Special Master's Report, Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (CH) (February 27, 1986), was issued, GPUN manage-ment personnel had conversaticns with Mr. Husted concerning his conduct at the July 29, 1981 interview and how such conduct re-lated to the conclusion contained in the Special Master's Report. The following GPUN management personnel participated in these discussions at various times:

Dr. Robert Long, Director of Training & Education Mr. Henry D. Hukill, VP/ Director TMI-l Mr. Samuel Newton, Operator Training Manager Dr. Ronald Knief, Manager, Plant Training TMI-1.

GPUN presently believes that no other discussions concerning the July 29, 1981 interview occurred between Mr. Husted and GPUN management.

GPUN will produce a document relating to these discus-sions. I I

l INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Did GPU management or its agent pro- .

vide Husted with a copy of the OIE report? If you have an- (

I swered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who provided Husted with a copy of the report. ,

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO._3: GPUN objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of irrelevancy. Whether GPUN management provided Mr. Husted with a copy of the OIE report is not relevant to any contention to be litigated in this proceed-ing. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and the Report and Order on Initial Prehearing Conference, General Public Utilities Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (CH) (February 27, 1986).

I Notwithstanding this objection, but without prejudice thereto, GPUN provides the following answer:

l ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: The individuals who were l in contact with Mr. Husted about this matter, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 2, do not recall providing this document to J Mr. Husted, although they believe it is probable that someone did.  ;

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Did GPU management or its agent dis-

~

l cuss the section of the OIE report which referred to Husted, with Husted? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-  !

son (s) who discussed the section of the i OIE report which referred to Husted. i

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-sion.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Mr. Husted discussed the section of the OIE report which referred to him with the GPUN management personnel listed in the Answer to Interrogatory No.

1

2. GPUN presently believes that on no occasion other than l

l

• l Q

l those indicated in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 did Mr.

Husted discuss the OIE report with GPUN management personnel.

GPUN will provide a document relating to this discussion. I 1

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did GPU management or its agent dis-

- cuss that section of the Special Master's Report (SMR) which referred to Husted, with Husted? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who discussed the section of the SMR which referred to Husted,

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-slon.

l ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Mr. Husted discussed the section of the Special Master's Report with the GPUN management personnel listed in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 2. GPUN l presently believes that on no occasion other than those indi-cated in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 did GPUN management personnel and Mr. Husted discuss the Special Master's Report.

GPUN will provide a document relating to this discussion. l INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Did GPU management or its agent in-form Husted of his right to comment on the SMR7 If you have answered,yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who informed Husted of his right to comment on the SMR.

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion.

-s-

o

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-s slon.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: GPUN objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of irrelevancy. Whether GPUN man-agement personnel informed Mr. Husted of his right to comment on the SMR is not relevant to any contention to be litigated in this proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b), Report and Order on Initial Prehearing Conference, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corocration (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (CH) (February 27, 1986). Due to the irrelevancy of this interrogatory, GPUN is not required to answer.

l INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did GPU management or its agent advise Husted to submit comments on the SMR? If you have an-swered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who advised Husted to submit com-ments on the SMR. j

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-sion.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO, 7: GPUN incorporates here-a in by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Due to the irrelevancy of this interrogatory, GPUN is not required to answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Did GPU management or its agent -

advise Husted not to submit comments on the SMR? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who advised Husted not to submit comments on the SMR.

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-sion.

e. explain why he was so advised.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: GPUN incorporates here-in by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Due to the irrelevancy of this interrogatory, GPUN is not required to answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Did GPU management or its agent pro- .

vide Husted with copies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's  !

r Exceptions to the July 27, 1982 Partial Initial Decision (PID) '

and the Commonwealth's Brief in Support of its Exceptions? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who provided Husted copies of said documents.

b. when Husted was provided copies of said documents.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: GPUN incorporates here-in by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Notwith-1 standing this objection, but without prejudice thereto, GPUN provides the following answer:

O ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Upon information and be-lief, Mr. Samuel Newton, Operator Training Manager, provided to Mr. Husted copies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Excep-tions to the July 27, 1982 Partial Initial Decision and the Commonwealth's Brief in Support of Its Exceptions shortly after their issuance.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did GPU management or its agent discuss the documents referenced in No. 9 above with Husted?

If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name(s) and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who had the discussion with Husted,

b. the names and job titles of all persons present during the discussion,

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-i slon.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Due l l

to the irrelevancy of this interrogatory, GPUN in not required to answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did GPU management or its agent request Husted's input prior to making the agreement concerning Husted with the Commonwealth? If you have answered yes, state:

I

a. the name(s) and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who made the request,

b. when the request was made.

c. provide all documentation of any meeting with Husted at which the proposed agreement was discussed prior to the finalizing of the agreement.

P f

J H

d. provide all documentation of Husted's input.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Due to the irrelevancy of this interrogatory, GPUN is not required to answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Was Husted's promotion to Supervi-sor Non-Licensed Training in any way related to his concurrence with the stipulated agreement?

a. If you have answered yes, describe the relationship.

b. If. you have answered no, state the rea-son for Husted's promotion.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Not-j withstanding this objection, but without prejudice thereto, GPUN provides the following answer:

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Mr. Husted's assignment to Supervisor Non-Licensed Operator Training was not related in any way to his concurrence with the stipulated agreement. Mr. .

l Husted was assigned to Supervisor Non-Licensed Operator

Training because he was qualified for that position. Further-

) more, an extensive program designed to observe Mr. Husted's performance and attitudes indicated that he was performing very satisfactorily and that there was no evidence of undesirable attitudes or lack of respect for the training and licensing process. Based on these observations,'both Dr. Long and the l

_g_

Director of Training and Education, Dr. Coe, concurred in Mr.

Husted's appointment to Supervisor Non-Licensed Operator Training.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did GPU management or its agent discuss the sections of the July 27, 1982 PID which referred to Husted, with Husted? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name(s) and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who discussed the sections of the PID which referred to Husted with him.

b. when these discussions took place.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-sion.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Not-withstanding this objection, but without prejudice thereto, GPUN provides the following answer.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: The individuals who were in contact with Mr. Husted, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 2, i

do not recall discussing the July 27, 1982 PID with Mr. Husted, although they believe it is probable that someone did.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did GPU management or its agent discuss with Husted the relevant portions of ALAB-772? If you have answered yes, state:

a. the name(s) and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who discussed the relevant sec-tions of ALAB-772 with Husted.

b. when these discussions took place.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-slon.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Not-withstanding this objection, but without prejudice thereto, GPUN offers the following answer:

! ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Upon information and be-lief, Dr. Long and Mr. Newton discussed the relevant portion of ALAB-772 with Mr. Husted. Dr. Long and Mr. Newton informed Mr.

Husted that as a result of ALAB-772, Mr. Husted would be trans-ferred to the Nuclear Safety Assessment Department to work on the TMI-1 probabilistic risk assessment project.

i l

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Did GPU management or its agent advise Husted to request a hearing? If you have answered yes, j state:

a. the name(s) and job title (s) of the per-son (s) who advised Husted to request a hearing.

b. when these discussions took place.

c. the substance of the discussion.

d. provide all documentation of the discus-sion.

OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: GPUN incorporates herein by reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 6. Due to the irrelevancy of the interrogatory, GPUN is not required to answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Is GPU management or its agent pro-viding any part of Husted's legal fees, whether by direct pay-ment to Husted or to his counsel, or by any other arrangements?

l ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: GPUN is providing Mr.

Husted's legal fees.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17

Identify every witness who will testify at the hearing in this proceeding on your behalf or who has been requested to testify, will be requested to testify or is likely to be requested to testify, regardless of whether the nature of the appearance be by summons or voluntary, and fur-

! ther state the subject area and substance upon which each wit-ness is expected to testify.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: GPUN presently has not determined the witnesses who it will request to testify at the hearing in this proceeding. Such information will be provided f

to TMIA once it has been determined.

l PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO. 1: Evaluations of Husted's job performance from the time of his employment at TMI through the time of his promotion to Supervisor Non-Licensed Training. ,

l RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Counsel for Charles E. Husted is providing some of the documents sought in Request No. 1, and GPUN will provide additional documents relevant to this Re-quest.

REQUEST NO. 2: Documentation of GPU's promotional policy as it existed at the time of Husted's promotion to Supervisor Non-Licensed Training.

I i

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: GPUN has not yet located any documentation responsive to Request No. 2. If such documenta-tion is available, it will be provided to TMIA upon its identi-fication.

REQUEST NO. 3: Copies of all of Husted's NRC and company-administered licensing examinations and quizzes since his employment at TMI.

OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 3: GPUN objects to this Request on the grounds of irrelevancy. The documents in the Request relate solely to Mr. Husted's competency, and Mr. Husted's com-petency is not an issue which is to be litigated in this pro-ceeding. Thus, the documents sought in this Request are irrel-evant. Because of this irrelevancy, GPUN is not required to produce the requested documents.

REQUEST NO. 4: All documents GPU intends to introduce during the course of the Husted hearing.

1 l

i

l l

l RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: GPU presently has not deter-  ;

mined the documents it will introduce at the hearing. Such documents will be provided to TMIA as soon as they are identi-fied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: bM -

h Deborah B. Bauser Scott E. Barat Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation ~

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: April 9, 1986 I

i l

i l l

1 April 9, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE l

In the Matter of )

)

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

NUCLEAR CORPORATION )

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify that copies of " Response of GPU Nuclear Corporation to TMIA's First Request for Production of Documents and First Interrogatories to General Public Utilities Nuclear,"

i dated April 9, 1986, were served on the following by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, or, as indicated I

by one asterisk, by hand delivery, or as indicated by two as-l 5

terisks, by Federal Express, this 9th day of April, 1986.

i

)

1

{

• Morton B. Margulies, Esquire i

. Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 1

• George E. Johnson, Esquire i

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555'

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

• Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Ms. Louis Bradford Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17102

• • Michael Maupin, Esquire Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 su /3. bat.-

Deborah B. Bauser I