ML20205T475
| ML20205T475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-509 CH, NUDOCS 8606130228 | |
| Download: ML20205T475 (71) | |
Text
I m s.u w uMM r i,
),!p, j
~,'
k O " NE)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n'
..M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
4 N.
BEFORE TIIE ADPUNISTR/.TIVE LAW JUDGE \\N P
~l]
In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR )
Docket No. 50-289 (CH)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
NRC STAFF TRIAL PLAN In accordance with the agreement of the parties to serve each other with a listing of witnesses and subject areas of testimony through which the party's affirmative case will be presented, which agreement was accepted in the Report and Order on Final Prehearing Conference dated
?!ay 27, 1985, the Staff provides its Trial Plan as set out below:
l Witness Direct Testimony Cross-Examination Subject Area 1.
Solicitation by Mr. Husted of answer from "P" on NRC SRO exam.
X Sources of information for opinion about Mr. Husted's attitude and forthrightness at July 29,1981 and Sept. 18, 1981. interviews.
2.
Peter Baci X
Solicitation by Mr. Husted of answer from "P" on NRC SRO exam.
X Preparation of August 11, B606130228 860611 1981 Report of Investiga-PDR ADOCK 05000289 tion.
O PDR DT3ICHATED OSICI'iL Cortifim1 2:7_3)S O_.
3 L
4
4 i 3.
"P" X
Solicitation by Mr. Husted of answer from "P" on NM SRO exam.
a a
4.
R. Keith Christopher X
Interview of Mr. Husted of July 29,1981, including his forthrightness, attitude and/or coopera-tiveness.
5.
Paul C. Christman X
Interview of Mr. Husted of July 29,1981, including his forthrightness, attitude and/or coopera-tiveness.
6.
Richard A. Matakas X
Interview of Mr. Husted of September 18, 1981, includ-ing his forthrightness, attitude and/or coopera-tiveness.
7.
Samuel L. Newton X
Conversations with Mr.
Husted concerning NRC interviews and October 23, 1981 deposition.
8.
John F. Wilson X
Conversation with Mr.
Husted concerning NRC interviews.
9.
Charles E. Husted X
Solicitetion by Mr. Ilusted of answer from "P" on NRC SRO exam.
X Interviews of July 29, 1981 and September 18, 1981, Deposition of October 23,1981, and Hearing Testimony of December 10, 1981, including his forthright-ness, attitude, and/or cooperativeness.
9 r
,e s 10.
Donald R. Haverkamp X
NRC Inspection and Inspec-tion Report No. 50-289/86-04, concerning performance c
of Mr. Husted on the job as it bears on his atti
.~_
tude and integrity.
Resp (ectfully submitted,
/.
(kaaS rl.
\\
(-
Uebrge d. J nson Counsel'for 'NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of June,1986 9
'4 W "8 % Puht>yj I
0 T-t
(
\\g@eq7 y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a-g c
.~-
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR )
Docket No. 50-289 (CII)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
PITEFILED TFf""TMONY OF PETER E. BACI Q.1 Please state your name, position and business address.
A.1 Peter E. Baci, Assistant Director Defense Criminal Investigative Service 400 Army Navy Drive Arlington, VA 22202 O.2 What is your educational background and professional training?
l l
A.2 B.S.,1964, State University of N.Y. Maritime College i
r M.S.,1976, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Training Academy, Jan.-Mar.1971 A copy of my qualifications is appended hereto as Attachment 1.
Q.3 Please give the positiont you have held with the Nuclear Regu-l latory Commission, the pertinent dates, and your responsibili-i tics in those positions.
l
A.3 Senior Investigator (Office of Inspection and Enforcement sub-sequently reassigned to the new Office of Investigations) Feb-ruary 1979 through October 1983.
Q.4 What was your role in connection with the NRC investigation of cheating incidents in NRC examinations conducted at Three Mile Island in 1981?
A.4 I participated as a member of the investigation team.
I also assembled the summaries of interviews contained in the August 11, 1981 Report of Investigation, admitted as Staff Exhibit 16 in the Restart proceeding, of which page 39,is a summary of the interview conducted by R.
Keith Christopher and Raymond !!. Smith (appended hereto with the cover page, as Attachment 2).
f Q.5 Did you interview either Charles Ilusted or "P"?
If so please state the date and circumstances of the interview, i
A.5 I participated in the f aterview of "P" on Sept. 25,1981 in the NRC Office at Three Mile Island, PA.
Q.6 Please describe the circumstances of the interview, in detail, with respect to the questioning of "P", concerning his knowledge i
i l
l l
of cheating during the SRO "B" examination at TMI on April 24, 1981.
A.6 Because of allegations of improprieties on operator licensing examinations at Three Mile Island, an investigation was conduct-ed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
During the course of this investigation, "P," a shift supervisor at TMI Unit 1, was interviewed by NRC Investigators William J. Ward and me.
When interviewed, "P" denied providing assistance to anyone during the RO/SRO examinations conducted on April 23, and 24, 1981.
Further, he strongly protested the alleged absence of NRC Proctor Bruce Wilson from the examination room a~ d n
expressed concern that this absence made him vulnerable to any allegation of cheating.
While his concern was understandable, the vehemence of "P"'s protest struck both interviewing investi-gators as being somewhat unusual.
During the interview, "P" indicated he had been alone in the examination room with Charles E.
Husted, an instructor for licensed operator training.
Knowing this, and because of his protest concerning Wilson's alleged absence, Mr. Ward told "P" that we knew Husted had asked him a question during the ex-amination.
In fact Mr. Ward knew no such thing; it was merely a ploy to see how "P" would react, "P" then acknowledged that Husted had indeed asked a question, but stated that he, "P",
1 l
i s
1 O
s i
did not answer Husted and that the question may very well have been rhetorical in nature.
Q.7
' Are you familiar with the summary of the interview with "P" in the " Report of Investigation:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Gener-ating Station, ' Unit 1/ Investigation,of Alleged $mproprieties on n
O'perator Licensing Examinations"-(ROI) dated October 13, 1981?
s A.7 Yes.
0.8 Did you prepare that summary? If not, who did?
A.8
- The '. summary referred to in the previous cinestion w!as prepared by MRC Senior Investigator William J. Ward.
Q.9 Is that summary a complete and eccurate account of s the inter-view with "P"?
,i A.9 That summary and subsbquent testimony before the Special Mas-ter by William Ward (Tr. 2'5315-321; 25459-465) represent a com-plete and accurate account of the interview with "P".
f
~ '
Q.10 Is there anything which' you believe to be inaccurate in the 7-summary of the interview ofg "P" in the October 13',1981 ROI?
l A.10 No.
i s
i
o,
Q.11 Have you read the December 9,1981 hearing transcript of the testimony of "P"
regarding your interview of "P"?
(Tr.
pp. 26,689, et seq.)
A.11 Yes.
Q.12 Is Mr. "P"'s account correct?
If you believe it is not correct, state in what respects you believe it does not accurately por-tray the interview.
A.12 With respect to the testimony of "P" during the hearing on December 9,1981, I believe that certain statements made by "P"
do not accurately reflect the information he provided to investi-gator Ward and me during the interview of September 25, 1981.
"P" appears to have been confused concerning the interviewing investigators as well as their roles and locations during the subject interview.
He stated that the man he spoke to the most was me and that Mr. Ward did not ask very many questions.
In fact, just the opposite was true; Mr. Ward was the lead in-terviewer in this instance and I asked relatively few questions.
"P" also stated that I was sitting directly in front of him and that Mr. Ward was off to the side and behind. Again, just the opposite was true; Mr. Ward sat across from "P"
and I was seated off to one side.
. o "P's" response to questions concerning Mr. Husted and the question the latter is alleged to have asked during the exam do not agree with what "P" told the investigators during the inter-view of September 25, 1981.
When Mr. Ward told "P"
that we knew Mr. Ilusted had asked "P" a question, "P"
clearly ac-knowledged that this had taken place.
He clarified his re-sponse by saying that he was not sure of the nature of the question but he did in fact acknowledge that a question had been asked.
Q.13 Was it your conclusion that "P" was completely truthful in his interview answers? What was that conclusion based on?
A.13 Based upon his reat. tion to the questions, it was my opinion that "P"
was truthful in his responses during the subject interview.
Q.14 The incident you have described is not contained in the summa-ry of the interview with "P."
Please explain the circumstances which resulted in the matter not being included.
A.14 Subsequent to returning to NRC HQ, Mr. Ward wrote up the results of the interview as they appear in the investigative re-port.
Prior to writing the report and after a discussion with Victor Stello, then Director, OIE, it was decided that the
Husted "P" matter described above would not be included in the results of interview.
"P" asserted he had provided no informa-tion to Husted and claimed he was not even sure of the nature of the latter's question.
With no witness to this alleged inci-dent, it was the opinion of the investigators that including it in the results of interview would serve no useful purpose.
Q.15 Based on your interview of "P,"
is there a sufficient basis, in your opinion, to support an allegation that Charles Husted so-licited an answer to an exam question from "P"?
A.15 No.
Q.16 Do you have any other information relating to whether Charles Husted may have been involved in any cheating during the NRC examinations conducted at TMI April 1981?
A.16 No.
Q.17 Are you aware of any other information concerning Mr. Husted's attitude or integrity, including whether he cooperated with NRC investigators during interviews dated July 29, 1981 and September 18, 1981, which would lead you to question whether he ought to be employed at TMI in the role of licensed opera-4
~8-tor, licensed operator instructor or training supervisor, or supervisor of training of non-licensed personnel?
A.17 No.
Attachment OUALIFICATIONS BRIEF Peter Edward Baci Et1PLOYMENT IIISTORY 1983 - present Assistant Director, Department of Defense Inspcetor
- General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service,
Arlington, VA.
1979 - 1983 Investigator, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment / Office of Investigations, U.S.
Nuclear Regu-latory Commission.
Bethesda, Mitryland.
1976 - 1979 Special A gent / U. S.
Department of Ju stice, Drug Enforcement Administrr' tion.
Enforcement Coor-dinator,
Europe-.'Jddle East Division.
Washington, D.C.
1974 - 1976 Special Agent / U. S.
Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.
Program Manager, Latin American Operations. Washington, D.C.
197? - 1974 Special Agent / U. S.
Department of Justice, Prug Enforcement Administration.
Criminal Investigator assigned to JFK International Airport, New York, N.Y.
1971 - 1972 Special Agent / U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Dru gs.
Criminal Investigator assigned to New York Regional Office.
1969 - 1970 Management Trainee / U.S. Steel International (N.Y.)
Inc. New York, N.Y.
1964 - 1969 Licensed Deck Officer /
U.S.
Merchant Marine.
Served on various U.S. Flag merchant vessels.
EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (International Trade), State University of New York, Maritime College at Fort Schuyler.
1964.
Master of Science in Government (Criminal Justice), Southern Illinois University (Edwardsville).1976.
Specialized training courses in law enforcement,
investigations, intelligence, security and drug identification.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association; Federal Criminal Investigators Association.
LICENSES U.S.
Coast Guard License as Second Mate of Steam and Motor Vessels, Oceans, Unlimited.1979.
U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration License as Private Pilot, Single Engine, Land, i
5 e
e 1
9
__z.
y
/
,{ }
NUCLEAR REGULkiORY COMMISSION JACK R. GOLDBEfi
/
w c
wassmctou. o. c. rosss
, lq*N'l
.se.t m' AM ')
- ~ ~
\\
(w 'l
\\sl n, REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station.
Unit 1/ Investigation of Alleged Cheating on Operator Licensing Examinations CASE NUMBER:
HQS-81-003 f
SUPPLEMENTAL:
Docket Nu'ber 50-289 PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
July 24-31, 1981 STATUS OF INVESTIGATION:
Closed INVESTIGATORS:
bMC b
S /i <l ti Edward C. Gilbert, Staff Investigator Investigations Branch, EI Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement t
%N C.
Y Q f tll(a
=
Veter E. Baci, Senior Investigat'or Investigations Branch, EI Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement
~
l (b) C. db '/
9/s /g; i
Raymond H. Smith, Senior Investigator EI Staff Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement E.Aus.J C. hu.OAI q/si/gi
{EISta'ff,RegionI R. Keith Christopher, Invest'1 gator Office of Inspection and Enforcement REPORT REVIEWED BY:
/
/I JJ"/u VMiam J. War //,' Chief
~
' '/ ' /
Investigationr Branch, El Staff i
Er r.n Office of Inspection and Enforcement
. E DM dIII'O
4
~
DD J. Three Mile Island fiuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, was interviewed on July 29, 1981 by NRC Investigators R. Keith Christopher and Raymond H. Smith. Paul G. CHRISTMAN, Manager of Plant Administration for Unit 1, was present during the interview at op request.
DD stated he took the Rg0 and SRO (B) exams on April.21_and April 24, 1981, respectiVely, in the classroom designated for smokers.
He describe 3-~~
the test area as a training room containing a number of tables, eight feet in length, arranged in school fashion.
He advised that two examinees sat at each table on opposite ends.
He could not recall who proctored either of his examinations, nor could he comment en the amount of time the proctors were actually in the classroom.
He revealed that the examinations were brought into the classroom by the proctor and handed out individually to each examinee.
He also noted that no one was permitted to leave the test area with the examination, and the completed examination papers were turned into the proctor at the conclusion of the exam, pp was queried concerning the possibility of reference material being covertly brought into the classroom by examinees.
However, for unknown reasons, he
~
de1 Tined to respond to this question or explain his reluctane* fn discuss this issue.
He was also' asked whether afly rumors or comments regarding instances ~ of cheating on the exams had come to his attention.
He acknowledged th4t he had heard rumors to this effect which he labeled as " unconfirmed hearsay." However, PP refus_gd_ to_ reveal any--specifics of the rumors he had heard or to identify the individuals (if named) who were allegedly implicated.
Upon further attempted questioning, DD declared he could not recall anything concerning what he had heard.
?
l l
O m--_
__.,y__
T l
i da :su a w,:uaeringy s
~
'.,gg
'h T?.
\\
p% 1' (f['C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
)(@
In the Platter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR )
Docket No. 50-289 (CH)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF WILLI Al'1 J. WARD Q.A Please state your name, position, and business address.
A.1 William J. Ward, Assistant to the Director, Office of Investiga-tions,
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Q.2 Please summarize your educational background and professional training.
A.2 Please see attached qualifications brief.
(Attachment 1)
Q.3 What have been your responsibilities with the NRC?
)
O
+ A.3 During the early part of my tenure with NRC, I was involved in safeguards activities.
Since January, 1979, I have been involved in the management of investigations.
From 1979 -
April 1982, I was in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (II:).
From 1982 to the present I have held senior management and staff positions within the Office of Investigations (OI).
Q.4 What was your role in connection with the investigation of cheating incidents in the NRC operator examinations in April 1931?
A.4 I war the Chief of the IE Investigations Branch.
As such, I had management oversight of those investigations.
Additionally, because of resource constraints, I personnally participated in some field investigation in September 1981.
Q.5 What was the purpose of the September 25, 1981 interview of the individual designated as "P"?
A.5 As near as I can recall nearly five years after the fact, it was to ascertain what information he may have possessed regarding cheating.
l
W
. i Q.6 What were the circumstances of the interview with "P"?
Who questioned "P"?
A.6 My best recollection is that "P" was interviewed in a traller at TMI, in an open area rather than an office.
Ile was questioned by Peter Baci and I.
I believe that Mr. Smith did not question him.
Q.7 Prior to the interview with "P",
were you aware that Charles
!!usted had taken an examination at the same time and place as upng A.7 I cannot recall, but I doubt it.
I did not realize that I would be required to go to TMI to conduct interviews until the day before'.
Thus, I did not have that much detailed knowledge of the case.
Q.8 Uhat prompted you to lead "P" to understand that you believed that Charles Husted had asked "P" the answer to an examina-tion question?
A.8 As I testified in 1981, "P's" demeanor led me to believe that a solicitation had taken place--or at least "P" believed that it had.
My assertion to him was an attempt to get him to
acknowledge what my investigative experience indicated was true.
I note that my instincts were correct.
Q.9 Did your awareness of the July 29, 1981 and September 18, 1981 interviews of Charles Husted or the summa-ries thereof play any role in your interview of "P"?
If so, what role?
A.9 No, not that I can remember.
Q.10 Please describe "P's" response to your assertion that you knew Mr. Ilusted had asked "P" a question during the examination.
A.10 Due to the passage of time, I can add nothing to my 1981 testi-mony before the Special Master (Tr. 25461, line 5 to 25463, line 16 and 25316, line 13 to 25317, line 11, appended as ) which I believe to be an accurate record of what transpired at the interview.
Q.11 Did you conclude at the interview that Charles Ilusted had at-tempted to obtain assistance in answering an examination question?
1
.<r,
.--,---r.
A.11 I concluded that some sort of solicitation had been made, but do not recall if I then believed it to have been an actual attempt to obtain assistance.
Q.12 Did you prepare the summary of the interview with "P"?
A.12 Yes.
O.13 Is the summary of the September 25, 1981 interview with "P" appended hereto as Attachment 3, a complete and accurate ac-count of interview?
A.13 It is complete and accurate with regard to the purpose of the investigation.
It does not contain, however, "P"'s description of liusted's cetions.
Q.14 What were the circumstances and reasons related to leaving the statements concerning Mr. Ilusted out of the summary?
A.14 My prior testimony (Tr. 25320, 25415, line 2 to 25416, line 2; and Tr. 25417, line 12 to 25418, line 21, appended hereto as ) best sums up my recollection.
As best as I can recall, I was most influenced by the fact that it was a single,
uncorroborated act of non-conspiratorial cheating developed during the course of an investigation centering on management involvement.
Q.15 In your prior testimony (Tr. 25,320, lines 3 -17), you describe i dinus ion about how to proceed based on what "P" said in his interview concerning Mr. Husted, and based on Mr. Ilusted's responses when previously interviewed. Who par-ticipated in this discussion?
A.15 I cannot recall to whom I was referring at that time.
It proba-bly was Mr. Baci and Mr. Gilbert, but I cannot be certain.
Q 16 Please recount the suitstance of those discussiens as they bear on Mr. Ilusted's conduct at the two earlier interviews.
A.16 I cannot recall other than it was pointed out to me that Mr. Ilusted had twice denied cheating during prior interviews.
i Q.17 Are you aware of any other record of the September 25, 1981 interview with "P"?
A.17 No, not that I recall.
Q.18 In your prior testimony (Tr. 25,457, lines 7-14; Tr. 25,313, lines 11-14), you said you discussed the two NRC investigative interviews of Mr. Charles Husted with the investigators who interviewed Mr. Husted.
To whom were you referring?
A.18 Mr. Baci was the source of my information regarding the prior interviews of Mr. Husted.
I cannot recall if I discussed the issue directly with the other investigators.
Q.19 What did you learn about Mr. Husted's conduct at those inter-views from the discussions and descriptions you referenced in that testimony?
A.19 I recall a general impression that he was uncooperative.
I can-not now recall any details.
Q.2()
What did you learn or otherwise come to know concerning who conducted the first interview, took notes, or wrote up an inter-view summary?
A.20 I can add nothing beyond my statements at pages 25,414 and 25,465 of the transcript of the proceeding before the Special Master (appended hereto as Attachment 5).
I just do not remember.
Q.21 Are you aware of any other information concerning Mr. Husted's attitude or integrity which would lead you to question whether Mr. Husted ought to be employed at TMI as a licensed operator, licensed operator instructor or training supervisor, or supervi-sor of training of non-licensed personnel?
A.21 No. I might add that I have never held an opinion regarding whether Mr. Ilusted should be employed at TMI in any capacity.
+
i 5
I o
1
WILLIAM JOSEPH WARD t
OVER. VIEW Over twenty years of progressively responsible experience in the conduct and management of investigations and security ope.rdtions. Responsible for the development and implementation of r,aticnal level policy for such programs.
Published author and lecturer in these general areas.'
EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in History & Political Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1963.
Master of Forensic Sciences, The George Wushington University,1976.
Specialized technical training from variety of Government training schools.
EXPERIENCE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission: Currently a senior manager in the Office of Investigations responsible for tne management and direction of a nationwide investigative program of exceedingly high internal and external visibility.
Prior NRC assignments ir,cluded the development and implementation of safeguards requirements for the nuclear industry, and the monitoring of NRC related intel-ligence activities.
U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence: As Chief of Technical Security, formulated techni-cel and physical security programs for the protection of USCG assets worldwide.
Supervised and conducted technical and physical security surveys of USCG and other Government facilities.
Naval Ship Weapen Systems Engineering Station, Port Hueneme, California: As Director et Safety and Security, was responsible for the total security and safety activities of this 1500 person activity with a 1973 budget of $135 tdllion.
Ir.ternational Association of Chiefs of Police: Developed and taught on a nation-wice basis training courses on protection of public figures, facility pro-tection, tect:nical security, and counterterrorism. Still maintain a consultant status with IACP.
U.S. Naval Investigative Service, U.S. Naval Intelligence: Conducted criminal, counterintelligence, and personnel security invest,igations worldwide. Performed technical and physical security surveys worldwide.
U.S, Air Force, Strategic Air Command: As a Security Police Officer, supervised up to 600 enlisted personnel in the conduct of law enforcement and security operations at Vandenberg AFB, California.
Participated in over 150 missile launch operations as senior security official.
MISCELLANE0US DATA Holder of various academic scholarships; participant, GE " College Bowl" TV program; graduate instructor, Antioch School of Law, Forensic Sciences Center; Board of Advisors, Assets Protection Journal; member of American Society for Industrial Security, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Association of Federal Investigators, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
Active in outreach programs of Blessed Sacrament Catholic Community and Christ Episcopal Church, Alexandria, Virginia.
4 9
., -. _, ~,,, _,, -, - - - -
25,061 1
you may have Do you recall whether or not re interested in was any Q
g 2 indicated to Mr.' P that what you we you ref erred to today as or what C. l 3 org anized' : heating 4conspiratoria17 I recall a generalized discussion (WITNESS W ARD) the investigation A
5 ting 6 explaining to him why we were conductelling him what our I,
and 7 and 0"r areas of interest, t
8 concerns were.
we interviewed were concerned Most peopl'e that 1
h r words, how far we were pursuing rumors of -- in ot e s
If somebody had, as we had 10 about 11what did constitute cheating?
d about the difficulty i
12 earlier, gave as an example excla ne Were we looking for i
ting?
13of the exam aloud, was that chea i
14 that sort of thing ?
we were interested primarily in I explained no, which is why he had some comments 15 16aanagement involvement, were concerned with We involvenent.
17 regarding management cheating.
18organired or conspiratorial type we obtained information on that To the extent follow through on it.
im we would 200pportunistic chea ting f such Do you recall whether or not in the course o 0
id you are not really 21 22a discussion you might have sa or Mr. Husted asked hin a interested in whether or not Chuck organizational or 23 24 question, but more rather in the 25 conspira torial?
9 h
ALDERSoN REPoAfiNG COMP ANY,INC.
l C. 20024 (202) $54 2345 400 VIR3INI A AVE.. S W. W ASHINGioN. D J
t 25,462 i
I J
(
1 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, I did not at a.ny point tell
)
2 him we were not interested in Mr. Husted's cheating.
3 0
Do you recall having stated or is there a 4 possibility of whether or not I as sure Chuck did ask you a 5 question?
8 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I did say that.
7 Q
Do you recall that Er, Jands said no, he didn't?
8 A
(MITNESS VASD)
No.
I remember the exset sequence 9 rather clearly.
10 0
Would you describe it to me, plears?
11 A
(HIldE$S 9ARD)
Yes, sir.
I found 3yself as wo 12 vere conversing being very fascinated w,ith the strong 13 feelings he had about 'neing in a situation where he could be I
14 the subject of eccusations.
And that is a di act quote 15 about hpv he would -- how annuyed he was at this.
And I 18 thought that his vehemence was rather strange, and'it 17 suggested to me the possibility that he had in fact been 18 solicited.
to So within that framework, by that time we had 20 established there were only two people in the room, Huhted 21and himself, that it would be worth pursuing that matter a 2211ttle bit f urther.
And I then said to him the reason why 23 rou are so upset about this is it puts you in an avkward 24 position when Husted asked you a question, and he looked 25 startled, and he started to hesitate.
And I said something e
s ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25,463 4f I to the effect that we knew he had asked the question, and he 2 said well, he only asked one question, and that was how the
{..
3information came up.
4 So I did not de-emphasize it, but I was playing Sout the thing which I assume Es. Bradford noticed when she plcoked at the statement that he seemed to be very upset 7about -- acre upset about the situation than a hypothetical I
a situation would warrant.
So it was within that context that 9the information about Nr. Hurted came to the fore.
We 10 pursued it a bit further.. He related that it was just one 11 a ttem p t.
He could not remember specifically what it was, to 12ay recollection.
It was more like what a certain concept 13 was, well, what in the hell does this mean or words to that 14 eff ect.
And we he refused to answer it, no further 15 questions were asked.
That is my recollection of how that 1eelement of information came in.
17 0
Do you not know what the subject of this question 18vss?
1a A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, sir.
2c 0
L'hether er not it was in fact related to the exam 21 or an expaination questiots.
22 A
(WT.TNESS WA3D)
I drew the inference that it was 23 definitaly off the exas.
It was related to the exam.
It k
24aar not he.ve been a direct answer to an examination 25 q uestion.
I got the feeling -- and this was also one of the k
ALDERSON REPCRhNG COMPANY,INC,
~
25,316 i
I 1 vicinity of the exam rooms to help examinees.
Did 'you ever VV 2 ask Mr. Wilson or Mr. Maynes if they had seen anyone in the f5 4 '..
3 hallway?
4 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma'am, I asked both of then in 5 anticipation of your question.
I believe the answer was no.
y 6
JUDGE MILHOLLIN*
I am sorry, that is not clear.
7 To 'what question is the answer no?
8 WITNESS WARD:
Yes, I did ask the question of Mr.
j 9 Wilson and Mr. Maynes, did they see anybody in the vicinity to of the examination rooms.
They both said that they did not k
11 see anybody in that vicinity.
BY MS. BRADFORD. (Resuming) 12 During his interview. Mr. P expressed some anger at 13 0
14 the proctor's absence, partially because it put him in a for help 15 position where he could be solicitedG presumably l
Did you ask him if he indeed was solicited 16 with the exam.
17 for such help?
18 A
(UITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma 'an.
19 Q
And his answer was?
20 A
(WITNESS WARD)
His answer was somewhat ambiguous.
a fellow 21 He indicated in response to a direct question that I
22 examinee asked him a question on one occasion, he did not and that that ended the situation at 23 provide the answer, 24 that point.
JUDGE MILHOLLINs This was during the exam.'. nation ?
25 I
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, g
400 VIAGINI A AVE., S W. W ASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) $54 2345 g
Y 250317 kd j
n.
_f 1
WITNESS WARD:
Yes, sir, it was.
"h.
I)
While he was sea ted at his table?
2 JUDGE MILHOLLINs 3
WITNESS WARD:
That is correct.
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did he tell you who the examinee 4
a 5 was?
l 6
WITNESS WARD:
Yes, sir, he did.
7 JUDGE HILHOLLIN I as sorry, Ms. Bradford.
Go ahead.
8 Perhaps you were going to ask that question.
l 9
BY MS. BRADFORD: (Resuming) 1 10 C
Who was that individual?
l l l
(WITNESS WARD)
He indicated it was Mr. Husted.
1 11 A
12 Q
Did you ssk Mr. Husted about that?
l
' l 13 A
(WITNESS W ARD)
He had been asked on two occasions 14 and replied in the negative.
We did not specifically l
15 con front him with Individual P's assertion.
JUDGE MILHOLLIN s Is that reported in your J
16 Il 1
17 documents, the f act that 2 was solicited and that P 13 identified the person who solicited him?
y I
WITNESS WARDS I am not certain if it is.
I would 19 d
20 have to check the report.
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
So your answer is you do not know?
21 WITNESS WARDa I do not know, sir.
22 f
(Pause.)
23 BY MS. BRADFORDa (Resuming) 24 took when he was 25 0
In Mr. Hukill's notes which he I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPM4Y,INC.
J
.co vmow ave s.w wasoron o c. 2co24 m2> ss..:34s
m n.GULDBERG 1
c.# "%*e,,
, bb'N Zy Fy me UNITED STATES s
Ik ;
.gi Nuct. san. sr.:t.4: cry cc.',1,'.11SSION
[O -
F
{i:ibg 3i.
'g
.u:.uscos. o. :. ncssi 00T 131981 REPORT OF IflVESTIGATION TITLE:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station.
Unit 1/ Investigation of Alleged Improprieties on Operator Licensing Examinations CASE fiUMBER:
HQS-81-004' SUPPLEMENTAL:
Docket Number 50-289 PERIOD OF IfiVESTIGATION:
September 16-19, 22-26, 1981 October 2,1981 STATUS OF IllVESTIGATION:
Closed If4VESTIGATORS:
8#
eter E. Baci, Senior investigator Investigations Branch, El Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement Y
(0 14 BI 1
ARayriend H. Snitt>TSenior Investigator El Staff, Region I Office of Inspection and Enfcreement j% g[
g t.fida R. A' 3atakas, Inve3"igator EI Staf f, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement REPORT REVIEWED BY:
/d /4)
/
Wi
.L ro, C
~V m
Investigat ns Branch, El Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement O
~,f *:P 1 #
"' *
- u.t*.L $::5i s,,1:,
- r. -
..g, YOIA EXDG; ION 7(C) s D
INTERVIEW OF F 1
9
. a THI, Unit 1 Shif t Supervisor, when interviewed September 25, 1981 at the NRC office at TMI by Senior Investigators Peter E. Baci and William J.
Ward, provided the following information in substance:
He had taken both the RO and SRO "B" _ examinations on April 23 and 24,1981. He averred that at no tiine during the examination did he see anyone cheat. He further state,d that he had not assisted anyone during the examination and asserted that he took pride in hi_1Jemonstrated ability _to_da_well on examination _s.
He added that he was so determined to take those examinations that_he_. sat _for the exams even though he was bilng treated for pneumonia. He assured both investigators tfiit he' was certairlhlt IBI_Hanagement.woulinat_ tolerate, =_'ch less condene cheating on exams. He asserted that the licensee administered examinations were given under much more stringent procedures than used by the NRC. With regard to the latter, f.
exprtised_ anger about the NRC proc 1gr_IBrust.
WILSON)]eavjng _the-examination room unproctored._and exclaimed, "I'm really_
p i s;s e d_a t _t h a tjiuy_b tlDg_gont_alLday, "
P_ explained that_he_ felt.that. the absence made him vulnerable to any allegation of cheating as it removed a potential 7 tness to his hohBly uana_ad_de~d3 hit ~ ifil~so jiut him in the uncomfortable aosition where he could be solicited _by_other_exaginces_. He f'
also resented 1aving to leave the room to seek clarification of a question that he had.
P indicated that he was aware of tht_ allegation made bv f(/
by Q al;l[(gedly on the A
regaroing_the telephone _ call _made to in discuss (ing this issue w$th the investigators, e
behalf of D.
9 3
asserted that the _ questionisked of_kl,__Was_quite.5.igple and s_t_rajht-forward..one_that either (A., e r* O should have been O denied havin_g_able_tg_AnsweF with ease.
He added 1. hit he hTdleard that asked that question ahd had pointed out what a simple questi n it was ( f thought it was possible i
that he had discussed this matter with U directly, but could not recall for sure).
P could not remember when he first learned of gki assertions, but stated it was sometime during the first NRC investigation at which time kk had told him of the incident and had solicited his advice.
According to P
he told /(/( to answer any questions that were asked but to be careful not t,o speculate or traffic in rumors.
f related_that most operators viewed _theJRLexaminatiens_at_jutt_one_more_
bu_reaucratic _obstaClt_to_be_overrome and did__not ontgt ve them as having any i
rg_levanct_.o their abilities _to operate a plant safelv._._He.was very critical of t
the,quajity3 the sums _and stated that the contractor-administered'" mock exams" were much better. He complained that the operators lacked ready access to their old examinations, and.that even when they do obtain them under the Freedom of Information Act, the answer _ sheets _dp_Pnot contain any_ explanation as_,lo_wph certain-answers _were marked _ wrong.
asserted that this lack of dialogue fostered yet further resentment beyond that stemm,ing from the number and dura-tion of examinations at TMI. o
/
f wanted to go on record with his higlLORiniGILQf_._OAM__
both of Chom he described as highly capable and moral individuals. He conj ctured that W
just " lost his head" or "went a little crazy" during tne examina-tions and that O assisted.htm out of compassion'.
f concluded by averring that he had no direct or indirect knowledge of cheating by anyone ether than as described, supra.
9 9
i f
4 5
4 4
I o
f f
41 -
i
)
i r
A e
r Attachrmnt a 25,320 1 by Mr. P concerning Mr. Husted, and if so, what action did 2 you take?
3 WITNESS WARD:
We discussed at what point do we
)
4 actually have an act of cheating.
We had here, it would l
5 seem to us, at best an attempted act of cheating.
That is, 6the question was asked but an answer not provided.
We had 7 previously interviewed Mr. Husted on two occasions with ta We felt that continuing to interview him would l
8results.
9also produce no results.
We discussed the particular situation with our 10 11 aanagement upon our return from THI, and the consensus was 12 t hat it was not worth pursuing that particular issue any 13 f urther.
It was one person's word against another person's 14 with no act being culminated in.
So to answer your question, sir, we took no further 15 16 action beyond discussing and making a conscious decision not 17 to pursue it further rather than making an oversight.
18 JUDGE HILHO1LIN :
Based on the demeanor of Er. P 19 and Husted, do you think Mr. P -- well, let me ask you Do you think based on your investigation that Mr.
r 20 this.
I am not 21 Husted actually solicited M r. P for an answer?
22 asking you to a moral certainty.
I as asking you what your 23 opinion is.
24 WITNESS WARDS I would tend to believe Individual P 251n his assertion.
AL.ornsoN REPoRTWo COMPANY,INC,
~'(
l 25,415 j
l
(
1're-interview Mr. DD following Mr. P's allegation?
2 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, sir.
Now, had.the information l
(
3 been given DD, we surely would have interviewed him.
The 4 f ac.t 'tha t it was not led us to believe that it was not 5varranted.
'a Q
The P allegation is not listed on pages 2 and 3 of 77our testimony where you list instances of cheating.
8 A
(WITNESS s5AD)
Yes.
l 9
0 Yesterday you stated that you had no reason to 4
10 disbelieve Hr. P.
Why is it not included in the list?
11 A
(WITNESS W ARD )
It was our belief that this act did i
12 not constitute cheating.
13
-Q It constituted attempted cheating,;is that correct?
(
' t was not an
'14 A-(WITNESS WARD)
It was nn attempt; i
15act of cheating.
i 16 0
From the standpoint of Mr. DD 's actions,- why does 17 the f act thatehe did not receive an answer make-any 18 dif f erence ?
19 A
(WITNESS WARD)
The difference would be that he
~
20 would have cheated had he a ctually received assistance in 21 the examination.
We again -- one draws 'tfie line et sono 22 point within the investigation.
We could also speculate 23 that an individual would attempt to see:a paper next to him 24 but failing in that attempt would go on and take the 25 exa mina tion honestly.
The fact that the act did not bear s
ALDERSON REPCRTlHO COMPANY,INC,
25,416
(
1 fruition meant that we discarded it in view, again, of our 2 primary focus upon documented acts of cheating.
'3 0
With respect to the phone call between Mr. KK and 4 allegedly Mr. U, is it not also true that there was a 5 question with no answer?
6 A
(WITNESS WARD)
That one struck us as being 7 different because it involved something of a conspiratorial l
8 nature.
We were auch more concerned with the prospect of 9somebody being outside the examination room providing 10 answers.
That seemed to be stretching opportunistic 11 cheating a little bit auch.
And there we had one person 12 asking a question allegedly on behalf of a third party.
13 That also put it in a different light in our view.
14 0
How do you distinguish the FF incident where there 15 was one isolated question and a spontaneous answer?
i 16 A
(WITNESS WARD)
The answer was in fact given and 1
17 that is the distinction I make.
18 0
So asking for an answer alone does not constitute 19 che ating, but asking and receiving constitutes cheating.
20 A
(WITNESS WARD)
That was my understanding.
21 Q
Are there any other -- oh, did you find '-- you were 22 asked yesterday whether the DD-P incident was contained in 23 any of your reports, and you stated that you would have to 24 go back and look.
Did you do that?
25 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I did look.
0 -
ALDERSON REPORTING CoWPANY,INC,
25,417 I
1 Q
Was it in there?
2 4
(WITNESS WARD)
It was no t in --
(
3 0
It was not.
4 Are there any other instances of cheating or 5 potential cheating discovered by your investigation, your 6 three investigations that are not contained in your
/
7 testimony or in your reports? '
8 A
(WITNESS WARD)
None that I know of.
9 Q
Did you make a specific decision to exclude the DD 10 incident from the reports and the testimony, or was it an 11 omission ?
12 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I was trying to reconstruct my 13 p ro cess at the time.
I wrote that section of the report, 14 and the responsibility for it not being in is mine solely.
15So nobody instru'cted me to leave it out, and I cannot 16 remember why specifically I did.
I expect that I was
(
17 p ro bably concerned with making -- putting in writing an 18 allegation against an individual that is not substantiated.
19 In other words, a further impugning of DD's character, if 20you will.
I felt it was not directly relevant to the main 21 thrust of this investigation, this second investigation, 22which was management involvement, and, if you will, 23 attitudes as well.
24 So in writing that sect, ion, and perhaps this partly 25 responds to the question earlier addressed to Mr. Baci in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
25,418
(
1 the variance or slight variance between the writeup in the 2 report and the attachment.
In the writeups within the 3 report, we attempt to focus the facts upon the issue that is
{
4 under investiga tion, the primary thrust of the 5 investigation.
We attempt to condense it for te reader and 6 then, of course, refer the reader to the more detailed 7information that we take in the statement.
So there is a 8 focus normally to the writeup.
9 I saw the focus in the investigation as being the 10 management implications and wrote that section of the report 11 to reflect the information which bore upon it.
I did not 12 see this isolated incident which, as I thought more upon it, 131t appeared to be a very brief attempt -- and I could
(
14 elaborate upon that if you like -- I did not see that as 15 speaking to this larger issue of management involvement, so 16 that is probably why I did not include it in my writeup.
17 Q
Was Mr. Stello aware of your decision?
~
18 A
(EITNESS WARD)
I do not know that he was 19 specifically aware of my decision to exclude it from the 23 report.
He was aware of my -- I discussed with him that 21 element of information.
He concurred that this did not fit 22 our definition of cheating, that it was not worthy of i
23 f urther investigative effort.
But I did personally discuss
(
24 this with him.
25 Q
Uas the Licensee aware of Mr. P's allegation?
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
25,414 i
(
11ndividual states that he refuses to give you information 2 within his possession.
3 How did you follow up on that refusal?
4 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I did not participate in that 5particular interview.
You see, this is during the first 6 investigation.
7 0
I am sorry, was that Mr. Natakas?
8 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, if I aa looking at the 9 tight one. This is page 39 of our first -- yes.
Those were 10 investigators Christopher and Smith.
But I do recall 11 reacting to that when we were assembling the report.
It 12 obviously raised the question, and that was why upon 13 initiation of the second investigation, I made it a point to
(
14 ensure that DD would be interviewed to elicit some 15 explanation of that.
16 We conjectured that he was just unwilling to 17 traf fic in rumors, but we wanted to nail that one down and 18 that was one of the reasons why DD was interviewed during 19 the second investigation, to clear that up.
20 0
Did you ever specifically confront Mr. DD with Mr.
21 P 's allegation ?
22 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, sir.
Because the allegation z3 from P was srbsequent to the second interview of DD, by that
(
24 point he had already denied cheating twice.
25 0
So you did not feel that it was appropriate to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
25,465 f
Ithe time that I prepared the writeup for the report which 2 was virtually contemperaneous.
3 0
May I have you continue to direct your attention 4 to page 39 of your first investigative report, looking at 5the last paragraph on that page ?
The first two sentences in 6 the paragraph refer to apparently Mr. Christopher's notes of 7 this interview.
8 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Hight.
9 Q
Re declined to respond to questions about whether 10or not materials were brought into the classroom.
11 A
(WITNES5 WARD)
Right.
12 0
Have you ever seen the notes prepared by Licensee 13vhich were provided in the course of discovery here, their 14 notes of these interviews conducted by the investigators?
15 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, sir.
16 Q
You have never seen those?
17 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I believe yesterday we were shown 18one page of Mr. Hukill's notes, and the question was posed i
19 of Mr. Gilbert, and that one page is the only page we have 20 seen of those.
21 0
So you are not aware that Licensee's notes of that 22 very same interview indicate that in fact he responded that 23 he did not bring in any and did not know about other people?
24 A
I am not aware of that, fact.
25 MR. BLAKEs I have no more questions, Judge i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
i p i w -....-. v..Wh s
si NyL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y,s I
NUCLEAR PFGULATORY COMMISSION
'g DEFORE 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)
)
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. MATAKAS Q.1 Please state your name, position and business address.
A.1 Richard A. Matakas Senior Investigator Office of Inve:tigations, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Q.2 Please briefly describe your educational background and profes-sional experience.
A.2 I have a B.S. Degree, Political Science, Eastern Michigan Uni-versity.
My professional experience is:
Patrolman,
Dearborn,
Michigan Police Department, 4 years; Special Agent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2 years; Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service, 5 1/2 years; Investigator, NRC, 5 1/2 years.
A copy of my resume is attached to this testimony, as.
Q.3 What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.3 The purpose of my testimony is to describe the circumstances of an investigative interview of Charles Husted on September 18,
- 1981, Q.l Did you, as a member of the NRC Office of Inspection and En-forcement, interview Charles Husted on September 18, 1981?
A.4 Yes.
Q.5 Do you have any written records of that interview?
If so, please identify them.
A.5 Yes.
I have handwritten notes (3 pages).
The first page of these notes is dated "9-18-81" and my initials " RAM" are next to the date.
Based on my notes, I typed a draft report of interview titled " Charles E. Husted, Instructor for License Op-erator Training."
These documents are attached as Attachments 2 and 3.
l Q.6 Why did you conduct the interview?
l I
l
O.
)
A.6 I do not specithally recall who requested me to conduct the interview, flowever, the purpose, as I recall, was to ask Mr. Husted what he meant by " unconfirmed hearsay" during an interview with NRC investigators on July 29, 1981.
To the best of my recollection, I was told that Mr. dusted used the phrase
" unconfirmed hearsay" in response to a
question on July 29, 1981, relating to rumors of cheating on TMI RO or SRO exams.
I don't recall who told me this.
The purpose of the September 18, 1981, interview was to clarify what Mr. Ilusted meant by the phrase.
Q.7 Was anyone other than Mr. Husted and yourself present at the September 18, 1981 interview?
A.7 I do not recall anyone else being present.
Q.8 Please describe in as much detail as you can remember the cir-cumstances of the interview.
A.8 As I recall, the interview was conducted in a room inside one of the NRC trailers at TMI-2.
I believe the interview took about 30 minutes and I did take notes as I went along.
As I recall, the interview was conducted by me orally asking questions and
4-Mr. Husted answering in the same manner.
Except for my notes, the interview was not recorded in any other manner.
Q.0 t' hat was Mr. Husted's demeanor during the interview?
A.9 Due to the passage of time,
I do not specifically recall Mr. Husted's demeanor during the September 18, 1981, interview.
Q.10 Are the notes of your interview with Mr. Husted a verbatim record of what Mr. Husted said to you?
If so, which parts?
A.10 Regarding the first three paragraphs on page 1 of my notes, I would say that Mr. Husted was answering "no" to my questions.
I would say that the remaining portion of my notes are, for the most part, words and phrases used by Mr. Ilusted in response to my questions.
Q.11 Did you specifically ask Mr. Husted whether he used the term
" unconfirmed hearsay" in the first interview, or what he meant when he used the tem " unconfirmed hearsay"?
A.11 Yes.
Q 12 What were the circumstances in which Mr. Husted responded that he " heard a statement near the coffee pot..." involving
" passing papr:rs"; particularly, was it in direct response to a question as to what Mr. Husted meant when he used the phrase
" unconfirmed hearsay" in the first interview?
A.12 The response was made either in direct response to the ques-tion, what did he mean by the phrase " unconfirmed hearsay?",
or after he made the response, he acknowledged that the state-ment was the incident he was referring to when he used the phrase
" unconfirmed hearsay" during his July 29, 1981, interview.
Q.13 Did Mr. Husted characterize the statement he had heard near the coffee pot as a " rumor" about cheating?
A.13 I believe he did characterize the statement as a rumor but I do not know if the statement was voluntary or in response to a t
l related question.
Q.14 Did Mr. Husted say to you that at the first interview he asked whether he could decline to answer a question concerning either l
rumors about cheating or incidents of' cheating?
l
A.14 No.
Q.15 Your pates (page 2) state, "I couldn't identify anyone and did poi want to spread rumors."
Did Mr. Husted say this to you?
Did he explain what he meant by " spread (ing) rumors?"
A.15 He did state this to me and I do not recall any further discus-sion of his characterization of the term " spread rumors."
Q.16 Did Mr. Husted state that he did not connect the " statement at the coffee pot" with cheating at TMI until after the July 29, 1981 interview?
A.16 No.
Q.17 Did you conclude during or immediately after your interview with Mr. Husted that he was withholding any information from you?
A.17 Based on my notes, I do not believe that I concluded this.
.r
Q.18 h' hat were the circumstances of your writing "this is 'uncon-firmed hearsay' statement (see report p.
39)" in your notes?
A.18 Either I wrote it to indicate to me that the paragraph to the right of the note was a direct response to my asking him about the " unconfirmed hearsay" statement or the note to the left of the paragraph reflects his acknowledgement that this was the case after he provided me with the information in the paragraph to the right of the note.
At the outset of the interview I be-lieve that I told him that I wanted to talk to him about the "un-confirmed hearsay" statement he made to NRC investigators during a previous interview.
Q.19 Did you reach any conclusion after your interview with f.fr. Hunted as to whether he had withheld information at the July 29,1981 interview? What was it?
A.19 1 don't recall reaching any conclusions.
i l
Q.20 Was Mr. Husted cooperative and forthcoming in his answers to you?
A.20 I
do not recall Mr. Husted being uncooperative or not i
forthcoming.
f
Q.21 Did Mr. Husted display an attitude in any way hostile or nega-tive toward the NRC?
A.21 Not that I recall.
Q.22 Are there any portions of your interview with Mr. Husted which are not covered by either your notes or the draft interview summary, both of which are dated "9-18-81" with your initials
" RAM" at the top, and which are attached to this testimony?
A.22 Not that I recall.
l Q.23 Is page 16 of the October 13, 1981 Report of Investigation ad-mitted as Staff Exhibit 27 in the Restart proceeding (appended hereto with the cover page, as Attachment 4) a summary of the interview you conducted with Mr. Husted?
A.23 Yes.
Q 24 Is the summary of that interview in the October 13,1981 NRC Report of Investigation (formerly Staff Exhibit 27, in the Re-start proceeding) faithful to your draft?
1 l
A.24 Yes.
Q.25 Based on your contact with Mr. Husted, do you have any res-ervations concerning his attitude or integrity which would lead you to believe he ought not to be employed at TMI in the role of licensed operator, licensed operator instructor or training supervisor, or supervisor of training of non-licensed personnel?
A.25 No.
l 4
e
~
RICHARD A. MATAKAS
(
1rganization:
Office of Investigations, OI Field Office Region I
Title:
Investigator GS-];$il[ //[/-
Grade:
Birth Date:
September 10, 1946 Education:
B. S. Political Science, Eastern Michigan University Completed nine hours graduate work in Public Administration, Golden Gate University Experience:
1981 - Present Investigator, Office of Investigations, US NRC - Assignments include directing and planning as well as conducting sensitive and complex investigations of allegations, incidents or accidents at or related to NRC licensed facilities or activities.
1980 - 1981 Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service (NIS) - Assistant Special Agent in charge of the NIS Office, Master Jet Base, Oceana, VA.
Assigned and conducted major criminal investigations, security
(
violation investigations and counter espionage investigations as they related to the Department of the Navy.
1978 - 1980 Special Agent, NIS - Representational Special Agent in charge of a the NIS Office, Fleet Combat Training Center, Atlantic. Maintained one man Naval investigative Service office.
1977 - 1978 Special Agent, NIS - Resident Agent on board the USS Nimitz (CVN-68).
Provided investigative service to the U. S. Navy Sixth Fleet (deployed).
1975 - 1977 Special Agent, NIS - Provided investigative service to the Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS.
1973 - 1975 Special Agent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement - Conducted criminal investigations involving organized crime, public official corruption and major felonies outside the expertise and jurisdic-tional limits of local law enforcement.
1969 - 1973 Patrolman,
Dearborn,
MI Police Department - Provided general police patrol duties for two years and was a member of the cities Special Operations Unit (Plain Clothes Felony Squad) for two years.
1966 - 1969 US Army - First Lieutenant, Arti11ary s
y N, {fh 2
~
0
>7 n+ a,adjf) sw-
-y y
J J
4 srtrL
)),,
a # g' wWver s
r Wz -, ^*, A y'
_a e
.>Yh 3.s *
.s I.r f" QVf }
f(4/Y fY W " T, ggst.]
% A y ' a g e,,.,,f r,A, ~, ?
]
4-w
/
.liaisAr 1 o W
~
2%
,r
-=x- -
_.=
\\\\
ue
,4 /2 wz. -Alt'-A L.
d e Y a~'
\\
l\\ h-W% 4.
u...
1
\\ # ~
h_--
_y.x
/
A&L_ns-0
\\ W A
M ~,6A-. un )
Mi
'kro w-62
...L[t
\\_ a &,4,9 f
g y&
u ti;wg sawA4.s
%4 ft~
' :n jy gc.
uY Gnw/l!'-% f 4m. - g %n s._ w.._
spa.
f t
fe
.,CLUcp_d... J
.. h m -./M..
h.\\,v 4&
.:t... f_BCi*s.sLr
-Ki i
-/7 w _
n,;-) Hff 4%~
d&
..f+im syv d 4 e k s.-
A.
f
...JdeA-d.: Ed
+m Edw._..
.Wf jp1hy w w.. h.s -
w J W.=
-f.-...ktp s
-d>......f -
./&v f jr(J-ves../ %
L Sffi.
l t-
i-O_?L
, {t/M.. N/ LU l
V.
W.-
-hf $N 1
....3...
W g-..
... y l
[.)A4-A P h..
p f'
'A
}ej ff.4 N.
.d %'
W *.k j
Q.
$s//Y
-l pa Ylb
{y 4,s ydt J*
l h pf..&....
. f.. ff.. e -tu d*'
5
' ' ~ '
.]... -
Wy>
f2Jf./
W/ Y.-h (i e m m s/f $' N'*?
)
}
~ a 3
- j5 FAN d'
W W Uj" ' y YM 5 vn n,- x p jpect(j l I I a 1 1 e i =. f"/1" H CHARLES E. MUSTED INSTRUCTOR FOR LICENSE OPERATOR TRAINING RE - HUSTED WAS INTERVIEWED DUE TO HIS RELUCTANCE to IINraTrY ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 4 DIRECTED AT HIN DURING A PREVIOUS INTERVIEW (SEE FIRST REPORT, PP 39) MR. HUSTED STATED THAT THE REASON urvaruruuttuirstrru FOR HIS RESP 5NSF ASKED OF NIN BY THE NRC ON AN EARLIER DATE WAS BECAUSE HE FELT THAT THE QUESTIONS XEKEIXEEX DIRECTED AT HIN WERE SO BROAD THAT ME JUST COULD NOT GIVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER. MR. HUSTED STATED THAT HE DID NOT OBSERVE ANYONE CHEATING ON THE NRC EXANS, ' AND NO O'tE TOLD HIN 1 MAT THEY (IERIE0tX PERSONALLY) HAD CHEATED ON THE EXAMS. MR. HUSTED MAS ASKED TO CLARIFT MHAT HE MEANT SY " UNCONFIRMED HERESAY" IN HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT. HE STATED THAT RE DID HEAR ONE C0901ENT MACE DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE NRC RO/SRO EXANS WHERE SOMEmts (HE DID NOT RECALL WHO) SAID THEY SAW SOMEONE NN E N G PAPERS IN THE EXAM. HUSTED STATED HE HEARD THE CONNENT IN TEE AREA NEAR THE C0FFIE POT AND MEN'S ROOK IN THE TRAILER THAT WAS LOCATED BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSROOMS. HE SAID HE PERSONALLY DID NOT HAVE ANY Iwruuuurrum INOWLEDGE REGARDING EITHER REFERENCE NATERIAL OR CRI8 SHEE[BEINGTAKENINTOTHENRCEXANS. HE SAID HE DID NOT XNOW IF IME ABOVE ENTIONED CINOIENT RELATING TO " PASSING PAPERS" WAS,BEING DIRECTED AT HIM OR NOTy wuumauvtruX AND HE DID NOT RNON IF THE PERSON WAS REFERRING TO THE NRC EXANS OR SOWE OTHER EXAN. HUSTED CONCLUDED STATING THAT BE DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHATSOEVER RELATING TO CHEATING ON THE NRC, R0/SRO, EXAMS.. l I L 1 1 i i ofr4t\\ H. GOLD 8 ERG if ** "' **t,e, ff [y h } (% t> NIT 50 STATES .,. [' ( VJCLE Art. :iG'.:LJ7 CRY CC.',1 MISSION -, e,;;g c .iAkuNMcN. D. O 2C155 \\,'- xnf,E 00T 131981 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, i Unit 1/ Investigation of Alleged Improprieties on Operator Licensing Examinations CASE NUMBER: HQS-81-004 SUPPLEMENTAL: Docket Number 50-289 PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: September 16-19, 22-26, 1981 October 2,1981 STATUS OF INVESTIGATION: Closed INVESTIGATORS: 7 Peter E. Baci, Senior Investigator Investigations Branch, El Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement Y ICfl4 Si nRaymond H. Smith, Senior Investigator l EI Staff Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement f lefl4,il ' "R. A Matakas. InveW1 gator El Staff, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement REPORT REVIEWED BY: / d /g le/ 91yim'J.(fra~,ChTef V ~1 Investigations Branch, El Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement, ~ 4 I $ l [ wt*.L *ddd b,,j ] i FOIA EXDiPTION 7(C) s. } INTERVIEW OF 0 0 On September 18, 1981, ()l) , Instructor for Licensed Operator Training, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Richard A. Matakas concerning his reluctance _to answec21Lquestions. directed at him durina a previous interview (see Report of Investigation, dated 8/11/81,p 39). 0 0 was inter-viewed at the NRC Office at Three Mile Island. j)C) stated that his reluctance to answer all the questions asked by the NRC on an earlier date was because the questions were so broad that he.iust could not give specific answers. J7l7 was asked to clarify what he meant by " unconfirmed hearsay" in his previous statement. He stated that he did h. ear _one_tomment made during the time period of the NRC R0/SRO exams where someone_(he did not recall who) said they,saw someone (the unidentified persbn did not say who) passing Eoffee po papers ih' the exam. Op stated he heard the comment in the area near the and men's room in the trailer that was located between the two classrooms. He said he personally did_notJlave_any knowledge regarding either reference material or crib sheets being taken M e"NRC exams and that he did not know if the above mentioned comment relating to " passing papers" was being directed at him or not; further, he did not know if the person was referring to the NRC exams or some other exam. jp[) added that he did not observe anyone cheating on the NRC exam and that no one told him that they (personally) had cheated on the exams. He concluded stating that he aid not have any other information whatsoever relating to cneating on the hRC R0/SRO exams. i e ~ 16 - l w w w --... %. v, g g N's 'q, N .y v \\ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 y f?g \\ ' > lH 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ DEFORE Tile ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE m;,3 ,\\ \\ c, ~ In the Matter of ) ) GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-289 (CH) ) (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, ) Unit No.1) ) PP.EFILED TESTIMONY OF R. I;EITH CHRISTOPHER O.1 Please state your name and current employer and business address. A.1 R. Keith Christopher U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19405 Q.2 What is your current position? A.2 Assistant to the Regional Administrator. Q.3 Please briefly summarize your education and employment background. O, A.3 BA in Criminal Science Employment: 8 years investigative experience with the Office of Naval Intelligence and NRC; 3} years supervisory experience with the Office of Investigations. A resume of my work experi-ence is attached to this testimony. Q.4 What was your position at the time you interviewed Charles Husted in 1981? A.4 NRC Investigator, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Q.5 Do you recall interviewing Charles Husted on July 29, 1981? I A.5 No. Q.6 Have you reviewed the summary of that interview contained in the August 11,1981 " Report of Investigation: Three Mile Is-i land Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1/ Investigation of Alleged Cheating on Operator Licensing Examination"? l A.6 Yes. ( I Q.7 Based on that review, do you recall the circumstances recount-ed in that interview? A.7 No. Q.8 Have you reviewed the notes of the July 29, 1981 interview taken by Mr. Paul G. Christman, headed " Confidential" and addressed to John F. Wilson, Esquire? A8 Yes. Q.9 Based on review of those notes, do you recall any of the cir-cumstances recounted in the notes? A.9 No. l Q.10 Do you recall whether Mr. Ilusted was generally cooperative during the interview? A.10 No. Q.11 Do you recall Mr. Husted declining to answer some questions? If so, which ones? A.11 No. Q.12 Did Mr. Ilusted ask whether he could decline to answer certain questions posed to him? A.12 I have no recollection. Q.13 Did you or Raymond Smith, the other NRC investigator present at the interview, indicate that Mr. Husted could decline to an-swer any question? A.13 I have no recollection. i Q.14 In the summary of interview it indicates that Mr. Ilusted ac-knowledged hearing rumors regarding cheating on the exams; in the Christman notes, however, it simply says Mr. Husted first l refused to answer questions about whether he had heard rumors l of cheating, and, when asked again, said no. Can you explain this discrepancy? i l . =. O. A.14 No. ) ./ Q.15 When you conducted the interview with Mr. Husted, did you have any reason to believe Mr. Husted was hware of rumcrr.- about cheating? A.15 I have no recollection, l r / 4 f Q.16 Do you recall Mr. liusted showing a less than serious or other-wise poor attitude at the interview? A.16 I have no recollection. 7 I Q.17 Did you take notes or keep any record of the interview? A.17 I assume I took notes, but I have no record of the interview. l Q.18 Did Mr. Smith take notes or keep a record of the interview? r i A.18 I have no recollection. a f l
- 2. -..
O.19 Who wrcte up the draft summary of interview for inclusion in 4 the report of Investigation? ? A.1'9 I have no recollection. Q.30 Co you recall any question arising during the interview regard-ing cheating by either Mr. Husted or Mr. P during the Aptil 24, IPM SRO exam? A.20 I have no recollection. t I l l r l l e ( 3 3 ~ / di s RESUME OF R. KEITH CHRISTOPIIER .o s CURRENT PO'SITION x (Detailed) Assistant to the Regional Administrator ,(f.farch 1986 - Present) Performs a variety of tasks as assigned by the Regional Administrator in arcar.' of personnel, policy planning, internal procedure review = and t au-dits. Currently working with the Lesson ~-Learned Task Force reviewing ' the UF cylinder rupture and resultant facility at the Sequoyah Fuels Cor ~ poration, in Gore, Oklahoma. ~ PREVIOUS POSITIONS Director, NRC Office of Investigalions, Field Office Region I (OI:RI), (November 1982 - March,1986) Incumbent served as Director of a Commission,avel Field Office supervis-ing four professional investigators and one administrative assistant. The office is responsible for the planning and conduct of coniplex investiga-tions concerning alleged or suspected violations of NRCcrogulations and/or Federal laws which occur at or are related to NRC licensed facilities; ven-dors and associated activities. Investigations are conducted under'the l authority of Section 161C of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as' amended. The investigations directed from this office are controversial and sensitive j in nature and usually stem from Commission' directives, Congressional re-quests and NRC' inquiries into accidents, incidents, theft, fraud or un-usual circumstances involving licensed facilities. The incumbent routinely briefed the Commissioners on significant issues affecting licensing and testifies before such bodies as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and at various Congressional: Subcommittee hearings. The incumbent had extensive interface with senior NRC man-agement; including Regional Administrator, Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg-ulation (NRR), Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) and others, and was routinely consulted with regard to proper resolution of sensitive matters. As Director of the Region-based Field Offics, the incumbent was responsi-ble for' the analysis and development of information and/or allegations received sby O! Regional and Headquarters senior management pertaining to over 30. nuclear power plants in order to identify the issues involved and to establish the scope, timing, and direction of activities performed by the investigative staff. ~. ~ The incumbent was required Jto have a sound knowledge of NRC regula-tions,' policy guides and inspection / enforcement techniques in the diverse 1 F, areas _ of NRC responsibilities of reactor operations, health physics, mate-rials, security and construction, particularly as it pertains to Appendix B of 10 CFE Part 50 (Quality ' Assurance for Nuclear Power Plants). m.. ^ Investigator, Office of Investigations, Field Office Region I (July 1982 - November 1982) Until promoted to the position of Director, OI:RI, the incumbent, utilizing the full range of investigative and technical skills, planned and conducted sensitive and complex investigations of allegations, incidents, or accidents related to NRC licensed facilities. The incumbent had extensive interface with NRC Regional and NRC Headquarters management in the development of the Region I Technical Inspection Program as well as the applicable NRC regulations and policies. The incumbent was required to establish a sound technical understanding of reactor operations, plant constructions, radiation safety, security and quality assurance. Investigations Specialist, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (February 1980 - July 1982) Uhile assigned to the Office of the Regional Administrator, the incumbent advised Regional Management as to the proper courses of action in re-sponse to allegations, incidents and/or accidents and then conducted in-quiries and investigations in order to provide senior management with objective facts and findings in order to enable them to make informed decisions as to appropriate enforcement or licensing actions. The majority of these investigations focused on a variety of technical concerns raised by senior NRC staff, congressional oversight committees and/or organized intervenor groups. Special Agent, Office of Naval Intelligence (August 1975 - February 1980) The incumbent conducted, managed, and directed investigations of a felo-ny natvre, including but not limited to homicide, theft, fraud, and secu-rity. Also conducted security / threat assessments for the movement of nuclear / conventional weapons systems. In conducting these investiga-tions, the incumbent interviewed witnesses, interrogated suspects, and collected pertinent evidence. Results of these investigations were provid-ed to appropriate authorities in the form of comprehensive written re-ports. Incumbent also supervised four to six ship investigators while asstgned as an Afloat Special Agent aboard the aircraft carriers USS Amenca and USS John F. Kennedy. ADDITIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Narcotics Investigator, Virginia Beach, VA, Police Department, July 1974 - July 1975 Summer Maintenance Helper, flatfield Power Station, West Penn Power Company, Masontown, PA, 1970 - 1974 EDUCATION 1974 - Bachelor's Degree, Criminal Science, Graduated Cum Laude Indi-ana State University, Indiana, Pennsylvania l o, 1978 - Nine (9) credits towards Masters Degree in Finance. Completion precluded by job assignment outside of continental United States ADDITIONAL RELEVANT TRAINING 1. Boiling Water Reactor Technology (BWR/4), NRC Reactor Training Center 2. Boiling Water Reactor Technology (BWR/6), NRC Reactor Training Center 3. Pressurized Water Reactor Technology (PWR) (Westinghouse Four Loop), NRC Reactor Training Center This training focused on the mechanical and instrumentation systems of the DWR/4, BWR/6 and PWR (Westinghouse) designs including functions and flow paths of major systems, instrumentation and equipment locations. Emphasis is placed on the Nuclear Steam Sup-ply System and Engineered Safety Features. I i O L A veQ 3 mn,,. + Y j- -'37 $ g.5,L y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5 ? NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 'l !% )L / / In the Matter of ) ) GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-289 (CH) ) (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, ) Unit No. 1) ) PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DONALD R. HAVERKAMP Q.1 Please state your name, position and business address. A.1 My name is Donald R. Haverkamp, my position is Reactor Licensing Engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects within the Region I Office of the NRC, and my business address is USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406. 0.2 Please briefly describe your educational and professional background. A.2 I graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1965 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering. I completed extensive nuclear submarine officer training programs and had a broad range of supervisory responsibilities aboard one conventional and three nuclear submarines. During this period, I , I I qualified as nuclear submarine Chief Engineer. Since August
- 1975, I
have been an employee of USNRC, Region I. My assignments have included principal (project) inspector for Yankee
- Rowe, Maine Yankee and R.E.
Ginna (concurrently), Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 and Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2, and Senior Resident Inspector for TMI-1. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached. Q.3
- What, if any, was your involvement in the TMI cheating investigation and events which occurred in 1981 concerning or involving Charles Husted?
A.3 None Q.4 Are you the author of Inspection Report Number 50-289/86-04, dated April 23, 1986? A.4' Yes. Q.5 Does that report have 22 pages, plus a table of two pages and an attachment of two pages? A.5 Yes. 4 Q.6 Did you prepare all of these materials? A.6 Yes. Q.7 Are the contents thereof a true and correct account of your understanding of the facts and documents you reviewed concerning Charles Husted's performance on the job as an employee at Three Mile Island? A.7 Yes. Q.8 Do you adopt that report and incorporate it as part of your testimony in this proceeding? A.8 Yes. Q.9 Please briefly describe the process you used to conduct the inspection and write the report. A.9 I conducted the inspection during three separate periods between February 25, 1986 and March 11, 1986. I reviewed various letters, memoranda, evaluations and other records regarding Mr. Husted's performance as an employee with GPU Nuclear . l' Corporation and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company.' I also interviewed ten GPU Nuclear Corporation employees who had worked with Mr. Husted in various supervisor / employee /co-worker relationships. This process - is described in greater detail in the report. Following the inspection I wrote the report in the NRC Region I Office. Q.10 Would you please summarize your findings and conclusion? 2 A.10 My findings are as described in Inspection Report 50-289/86-04. Based on my review of documents and personnel interviews, I concluded that Mr. Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU Nuclear Corporation and Metropolitan Edison Company reflected favorably upon his attitude and professional integrity. No specific indicators or characteristics of past poor performance or demeanor were identified through personnel interviews or a review of the 4 records that should cause Mr. Husted to continue being restricted from assignment to any positions with GPU Nuclear Corporation. 1 O e PROFF.*SICNAL SIALIFICATKNS of \\ IXNALD R. HAVERK#.P 1 graduated from the thited Stated Naval Academy in 1965 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering. Following a three-month tenporary duty assignment with the Submarine Developnent Group Staff in Groton, Connecticut, I ccmpleted the six-month subnarine officers training course at Groton, the six-month nuclear power school officer course at Vallejo, California, and the six-month DIG prototype qualification program at West Milton, New York. It additional training included the three-month Polaris Missile officer course at the Guided Missile School, Dam Neck, Virginia. htv eight years of military service following the extensive nuclear submarine officer training programs included a broad range of supervisory responsibilities aboard one conventional and three nuclear sutmarines. My principal assignments, duties, responsibilities and acccmplishnents during that period are sunmarized below. (- May 1967 - October 1968: Assistant Engineer (8 months) and Supply Officer (9 months) aboard the conventional sutenrine USS Pcmfret (SS-391). As Assistant Engineer, responsible for supervision, maintenance, and operation of all diesel propulsion, electrical and supporting systens. As Supply Officer, responsible for shipboard food service and repair parts managunent. Supervised 1 officer and 19 enlisted personnel. Canpleted one extended deployment and one regular shipyard overhaul. Qualified in Submarines. February 1969 - October 1971: Assistant Weapons Officer (17 months) and Weapons Officer (15 months) aboard the Nuclear Polaris submarine USS Nathan Hale (SSBli 623 (Blue)). Responsible for supervision, maintenance, and operation of missile and torpedo fire control, launching and supporting mechanical, electrical and electronic systens. Supervised two officer and 37 enlisted personnel. Coupleted final phase of shipyard overhaul, post overhaul shakedown trials and four deterrent patrols. Received Meritorious thit Cemendation Medal. Conpleted Basic Engineering Qualification (systens) portion of Engineering Officer of the Watch (EDOW) watch station. October 1971 - Novenber 1973: Main Propulsion Assistant and Acting Ehgineer Officer (3 months) aboard the nuclear attack subnarine USS Flasher (SSN 613). Responsible for supervision, maintenance, and operation of mechanical reactor plant and engine roan systens, including reactor fluid primary systens, main engines, turbine generators and associated secondary syntans. Supervised 21 enlisted personnel. Ccmpleted two dxtended deployments. Received Navy Achievenent Medal. Qualified as Engineering Officer of the watch and as nuclear submarine Oilef Engineer. i l t l February 1974 - June 1975: Navigator / Operations Officer aboard the nuclear attack submarine USS Billfish (SSN 676). Responsible for swervision, maintenance, and operation of inertial, celestial and radio electronic navigation systens. Supervised 1 officer and 16 enlisted personnel. Coordineted departmental and shipboard training, including nuclear operator training, while in operation and overhaul status. Planned and conducted several extensive developnents. Since August 1975, I have been an a@loyee of the thited States Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission, Region I. Prior to the DTI-2 Accident, I 'as the principal (project) reactor inspector assigned to inspect reactors in operation, including Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, and R.E. Ginna (concurrently), Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, and 'Ihree Mile Island Units 1 and 2. Following the 311-2 Accident, I was initially involved with the Region I incident response activities at the regional office. Fran March 29, 1979 until January 31, 1980, I was assigned to perfoun various functions primarily at the Ell site. My initial duties were 31I-2 shift surveillance inspection; liaison support for NRC Cmmissioners, Congressnen, investigating groups and ecnmissions, and foreign representatives; providing testimony for investigations; and, 311-2 reactive site inspection. From February 1, 1980 until May 29, 1982, I was assigned as the Senior Resident Inspector for 311-1. k From ?!ay 30, 1982, until present, I have been assigned as the Reactor Licensing Engineer, Division of Reactor Projects, Region I. l l l 0 l l A I UNITED ST ATES g,, { o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON R EGloN I h 631 P AR K AVFN:'t 63 f MING OF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 \\...../ 2 3 APR 1986 Docket No. 50-289 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill Vice President and Director of TMI-1 P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection No.
50-289/86-04 This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. Haverkamp of this office on February 25-27, March 5-6 and 12-13,1986 at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Middletown, Pennsylvania of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-50.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of representative records and interviews with personnel.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.
No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/
arry er, hief Projects anch No. 1 Division of Reactor Projects l
t
Enclosure:
NRC Region 1 Inspection Report Number 50-289/86-04 cc w/ encl:
R. J. Toole, Operations and Maintenance Director, TMI-1 C. W. Smyth, Manager, TMI-l Licensing l
R. J. McGoey, Manager, PWR Licensing G. F. Trowbridge,- Esquire l
TMI-1 Hearing Service List Public Document Room (PDR) 1 Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector l
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania O w, W J W 4 V'W M i
.pp l
l
+
2 3 APR 1986 GPU Nuclear Corporation 2
bec w/ enc 1:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
W. D. Travers, Director, TMI-2 Cleanup Project Directorate J. Goldberg, OELD: HQ Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
DRP Section Chief John Thoma, PM, NRR K. Abraham, PA0 J. Gutierrez, RC
~
D. Haverkamp, DRP H. Kister, DRP W. Kane, DRP R. Blough, DRP 0
l 2
l l
i
,._,,..,,-n.,
~
\\
i TMI-1 Hearing Service List Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing
. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Michael W. Maupin, Esquire John H. Buck Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board 707 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, VA 23212 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Christine N. Kohl Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sheldon J. Wolfe Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
(
Docketing & Service Section (3)
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President Fox, Farr & Cunningham GPJ Nuclear Corporation 2320 North Second Street Post Office Box 480 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Middletown, PA 17057 Michael F. McBride, Esquire Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire (1)
LeBouef, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
2001 S. Street, N.W.
Suite 1100 Suite 340 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20009 Ms. Louise Bradford Mr. Steven C. Sholly TMI ALERT Union of Concerned Scientists 1011 Green Street 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17102 Dupont Circle Bldg., Suite 1101 Washington, D.C.
20036 s
_s
\\
{
e
/
Three Mile Island ALERT Chauncy Kepford j
315 Peffer Street Judith H. Johnsrud Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Joanne Doroshow William S. Jordan, III, Esquire 1324 N. Capitol Street Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Washington, D.C.
20002 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Fower Plant Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Judge Reginald L. Gotchy Bureau of Radiation Protection Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Environmental Resources Appeal Board P.O. Box 2063 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Fensyhania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555
~
Theras Y. Au, Escuire Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Office of Chief Counsel Atomic Safety and-Licensing Depart ent of Environmental Resources Appeal Board P.O. Box 2063 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ftrmmission
~-
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Ms. Jane Lee 6504 Bradford Terrace RD 3, Box 3521 Philadelphia, Pennsylvar.ia 19149 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Mr. C d Smyth, Manager Allen R. Carter, Chairman Licensing, TMI-1 Joint Legislative Committee on Energy Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Post Office Box 142 P.O. Box 480 Suite 513 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Senate Gressette Building Columbia, South Carolina 29202
(
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No.
50-289/86-04 l
Docket No.
50-289 License No.
OPR-50 Priority Category C
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
February 25-27, and March 5-6 and 12:13, 1986 V/23/Pd Inspectors:
Aw 4.---
D.Haverkamp,ReactorLiegingEngineer date Region I 1
Accompanying NRC Personnel:
G. Dick, Project Manager, PWR Project Directorate #6, NRR Approved by:
Y 23 f(e A.Blofish,' Chief,ReactorProjectsSection date No lA, Division of Reactor Projects Inspection Summary: Region-based special safety inspection (38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br />) of performance of a licensee employee, Mr. Charles E. Husted, in support of the NRC staff's preparations for a hearing requested by the employee.
Results: The results of review of Mr. Husted's performance of his respon-sibilities with GPU Nuclear Corporation and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company, reflected favorably upon his attitude and professional integrity.
No specific indicators or characteristics of past poor performance or demeanor were identified through personal interviews or a review of the records that should cause Mr. Husted to continue being restricted from assignment to any positions with GPU Nuclear Corporation.
i
e DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted C. Adams, Special Projects Assistant, Nuclear Safety Assessment Department P. Bickford, Instructor, Maintenance Training, TMI S. Bobsack, Administrator III, Human Resources, Administration N. Brown, Senior Emergency Planner, Emergency Planning D. Galletly, Support Services Supervisor, Training, TMI H. Hukill, Vice President and Director, TMI-1 C. Husted, Special Projects Assistant, Nuclear Safety Assessment Department B. Leonard, Operator Training Manager, Training, TMI R. Neff, Instructor, Non-licensed Operator Training, TMI L. Noll, Shift Supervisor, TMI-I M. Ross, Plant Operations Director, TMI-1 C. Smyth, Supervisor TMI-I Licensing, Technical Functions D. Spath, Instructor, Non-licensed Operator Training, TMI R. Zechman, Technical Training Manager, TMI 2.
Introduction In early February 1986 the inspector was instructed by Region 1 managenient to conduct a special inspection of the performance of Mr. Charles Husted, who had been assigned to various positions at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station since 1974.
Since Mr. Husted was not in a position where he would interact routinely with NRC personnel, and since as a result the NRC staff did not have an opportunity to observe routinely Mr. Husted's performance, this special inspection was initiated to assist the NRC staff in developing a full record for a hearing that had been requested by Mr. Husted, as ordered by the Commission in a Notice of Hearing, issued September 5, 1985.
In preparation for this inspection, the inspector reviewed the Commission's Notice of Hearing and various NRC and licensee documents and correspondence related to the hearing.
In addition, the inspector attended as an observer the initial prehearing conference held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on February 19, 1986.
The Commission had directed the hearing to consider specifically four issues concerning Mr. Husted, including his (1) alleged solicitation of an answer to an exam question, (2) lack of forthrightness of his testimony before the Special Master, (3) poor attitude toward the hearing on the cheating incidents, and (4) lack of cooperation with NRC investigators.
During the prehearing conference other factual issues were discussed for potential consideration during the hearing. These other issues included:
(5) What does Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU reflect about his attitude and integrity?; (6) In light of the answers to (1) through (5), is any remedial action required with respect to Husted?;
and(7)Ifremedialactionisrequired,whatisit? These issues and other rulings regarding the Husted proceeding are described further in the Administrative Law Judge's (M. Margulies) Report and Order on Initial Prehearing Conference, issued February 27, 1986.
t 3
k This inspection was limited to developing the staff's record regarding Issue No. 5, "What does Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU reflect about his attitude and integrity?" The inspection included a review of various personnel records and licensee documents regarding the performance of Mr. Husted, as well as interviews with various licensee personnel who have worked with Mr. Husted, as described in the sections that follow.
3.
Document Review The inspector reviewed numerous letters, memoranda, evaluations and other records regarding Mr. Husted's performance as an employee with GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNC) and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company. The documents were maintained in TMI-1 employee personnel files, Nuclear Assurance Division files, training department files and operations department files.
Based on his review of the data contained in TMI-1 personnel file records the inspector determined Mr. Husted's employment and license history as shonn in the tables below.
Table 3.1 Met Ed/GPU Employment History of C. Husted Period Job Classification 2/26/74 - 5/20/74 Auxiliary Operator "A" - Nuclear (Probationary) 5/20/74 - 8/15/77 Auxiliary Operator "A" Nuclear 8/15/77 - 11/14/77 Control Room Operator - Nuclear (Probationary) 11/14/77 - 7/10/78 Control Room Operator - Nuclear 7/10/78 - 7/1/82 Administrator - Nuclear Technician Training 7/1/82 - 3/14/83 Administrator Senior - Training 3/14/83 - 6/18/84 Supervisor - Non-licensed Operator Training 6/18/84 - Present Engineering Assistant Senior III - Nuclear Table 3.2 - License History of C. Husted Operator License No. OP-4741, Docket No. 55-6398, effective 6/23/78 (TMI-1)
Senior Operator License No. SOP-3704 Docket No. 55-6398 effective 7/2/80 (TMI-1); cold shutdown
-- amended 7/1/81; cold shutdown except hot functional testing
-- amended 12/9/81; no plant operating limitations
-- renewal 7/2/82; no plant operating limitations
-- terminated 7/8/83; H. Hukill, GPU, letter to D. Beckham, NRC dated 7/8/83
4 The specific documents reviewed by the inspector are listed below. The inspector's comments and summary of information discussed within each document, as applicable to the performance or attitude of Mr. Husted, follow the listed document, where appropriate.
TMI-1 Personnel File Miscellaneous Records Application for Employment for Charles Husted dated January 15, 1974.
Letter from Charles E. Husted (undated) to Mr. E. Zubey Director of Personnel, Met Ed (received January 17, 1974) re: employment interview Resume of Charles Husted (undated) received January 18, 1974 by Met Ed NOTE: Resume included the following information.
Previcus Employment Aug 72 - Present Zausner Food Corporation, New Holland Project Director - R&D Asceptic Production Jan 67 - Aug 72 U.S. Navy /USS Sam Houston SSBN 609 Engineering Watch Supervisor Assistant Leading Machinist Oct 66 - Jan 67 Defoe Shipbuilding Co.
Bay City, Michigan Electrician Sep 65 - Sep 66 Granzo's Standard Service Midland, Michigan Mechanic Interview Report of Mr. Charles Husted dated February 5,1974 (report stated possible position: MechanicalM.[intenance)
Various initial employment records / forms Met Ed letter dated February 19, 1974 from E. M. Zubey, Division Director of Personnel to Mr. Charles Husted re: offer of employment as an Auxiliary Operator "A" - Nuclear Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) letter dated August 27, 1974 from R. C. Arnold, Vice President - Generation and W. M. Creitz, President, to employees listed on August 30, 1974 re: appreciation for contribution toward TMI Unit No. 1 commencement of commercial operation (form letter).
5 Operator License No. OP-4741, Docket No. 55-6398 effective June 23, 1978; licenses Mr. Charles E. Husted to manipulate control of TMI-1.
GPU Nuclear letter dated August 21, 1981 from R. C. Arnold, Chief Operating Executive, to Mr. Charles E. Husted re: re-examination of all those operators who were examined in April 1981.
GPU Nuclear memorandum dated August 4,1982 from Art Brinkmann, Human Resources Department, to C. E. Husted re: congratulations on promotion to position of Administrator Senior - Training.
Report of Absence records for 1974 - 1982 Corporate Stress Control Services, Inc. Employment Screening Report dated November 18, 1982 from William W. Jenkins, Ph.D., Director, Middletown Office, to Personnel Department, GPU Service Corporation re: Employee Recommendation for Charles Husted.
The report stated the following regarding Mr. Husted:
1x Acceptable for nuclear plant employment at this time.
Employee was, at the time of examination, mentally alert and coherent and without gross aberrant behavior. Our best judgement based upon the information available to us, is that this applicant is acctptable for nuclear plant employment.
Resume of Charles Husted dated May 7, 1984 NOTE: Resume included the following information.
Education:
Graduated from Midland High School, Midland, Michigan 6/8/66 Navy Nuclear Power Schools 1967 - 1968 Elizabethtown College - 27 credits Certificate of Management Program l
l Job-related courses:
Auxiliary Operator training program - 9 mo.1975 Reactor Operator License Training Program - 9 mo. 1978 Sr. Reactor Operator License Training Program - 3 mo. 1980 Certificates / Licenses:
Present: N/A Past:
Senior Reactor Operator License Reactor Operator License, replaced by SRO license l
l l
__,U
6 Metropolitan Edison Company Employee Appraisal Reports for Charles E. Husted Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator) 3/28/74 2/26 - 3/27/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 1 Inspector Comments:
Average (satisfactory) marks; no written comments by supervisor.
4/25/74 3/28 - 4/27/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 2 Inspector Com ents:
Good marks (improvement since initial evaluation); no written comments by supervisor.
5/17/74 4/28 - 5/17/74 Aux. Oper. "A" - Nuclear N. E. Derks (Probationary) - Eval. 3 Impector Com.ents:
Gocd marks (minor improvement since last evaluation);
Supervisor recommended that Husted be taken off probation.
Undated 8/15 - 9/13/77 Control Rm. Oper. - Nuclear L. G. Noll (Probationary) - Eval. 1 Inspector Comments:
Above average to good marks; supervisor stated that Husted met standards of job.
Undated 9/14 - 10/13/77 Control Rm. Oper. - Nuclear M. L. Beers (Probationary) - Eval. 2 Inspector Comments:
Good marks (improved since initial evaluation);
Supervisor stated that Husted was progressing well in qualification, no apparent problems.
Undated 10/14 - 11/12/77 Control Rm. Oper. - Nuclear M. L. Beers (Probationary) - Eval. 3 Inspector Comments:
Very good marks (improved since last evaluation);
l Supervisor stated that Husted progressed at above average rate in qualification, recommended that Husted be taken off of probation.
b I
i 7
General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles E. Husted Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator) 10/20/78 7/10 - 9/30/78 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Trng.
Annual Evaluation Inspector Conments:
Acceptable (slightly below average) marks; Supervisor noted that Husted was competent overall.
8/13/79 10/1/78 - 8/13/79 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Trng.
Salary Adjustment Inspector Ccements:
Acceptable (slightly above average) marks; Supervisor noted that Husted's performance improved noticeably, also noted his development and accomplishment of recent post-accident change modifications training program for TMI-2 operators and his logic, sincerity and candid assertiveness.
10/29/79 8/13 - 9/30/79 Admin. - Nuclear Technician F.A. McCormick Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Acceptable (slightly above average) marks; Supervisor noted Husted's performance continues to be more than satisfactory, his dedication and pride in work, and that he worked many extra hours to prepare for TMI operator retraining program.
10/22/80 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Admin. - Nuclear F. A. McCormick Technician Training (also undated draft evaluation)
Inspector Comments:
Good (high competent) marks; Supervisor noted Husted was involved and competent in all areas of operator training, honest and direct in personal interactions.
Oraft evaluation noted that he was a competent instructor, also noted his weaknesses in areas of accepting criticism and gticking to a job even if he doesn't like it or in adverse condition (not very tactful) s
8 General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations for Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator) 11/4/81 10/1/80 - 9/30/81 Administrator - Nuclear N. D. Brown (also undated Technician Training draft evaluation)
Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Slight downward trend compared to previous evaluation; Supervisor noted that Husted was a competent instructor on the way to becoming an excellent instructor; draft evaluation noted that adverse conditions of last year had their effect (projected attitude), but this was overcome by NRC exam preparation, pursuit of college credits and turbine generator training arrangements.
6/29/82 10/1/81 - 6/29/82 Administrator - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Promotion (review)
Inspector Comments:
Substantial improvement since last evaluation; Supervisor noted that Husted was more effective as an instructor, diligent and professional to prepare for classroom, and showed initiative in completing courses, also noted that since restart hearings there was noticeable improvement in enthusiasm and morale.
11/2/82 7/1/82 - 9/30/82 Admin. Senior - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Average to good marks overall; Supervisor noted attitude of " quality", positive feedback from requalification participation.
3/11/83 10/1/82 - 3/11/83 Admin. Senior - Nuclear N. D. Brown Technician Training Promotion (reassign / reclassify)
Inspector Comments:
Good to very good marks overall; Supervisor noted ongoing improvement in his abilities
9 General public Utilities Employee performance Evaluations for Charles Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator) 7/13/83 3/14/83 - 7/13/83 Supervisor - Non-licensed B. Leonard Operator Training Merit Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Very good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted rapidly took charge, replacement /
retraining programs were effective, classroom performance was excellent and attitude was professional.
10/28/83 7/13/83 - 9/30/83 Supervisor - Non-licensed B. Leonard Operator Training Annual Evaluation Inspector Ccmments:
Excellent marks overall; supervisor noted that Husted maintained excellent morale even though SRO license was terminated; good attitude noted by Husted in his acknowledgement of areas for improvement.
6/26/84 10/1/83 - 6/18/84 Supervisor - Non-licensed B. Leonard Operator Training (reason not specified)
Inspector Comments:
Evaluation not reviewed by C. Husted; excellent to outstanding marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted was an excellent example for subordinates, he maintained an excellent attitude; exhibited dedication to maintain and improve quality of classroom instruc-tion, had positive attitude and professional approach to training programs, and he maintained high morale in the section.
10/29/84 6/18/84 - 9/30/84 Engineering Assistant "K.R. Goodard Senior III - Nuclear Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted that Husted was a valuable member of the TMI-1 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) team, showed good progress learning risk and reliability analysis techniques, showed very positive enthusiastic attitude about project, and does more than asked.
- Manager Risk Analysis, Technical Functions
l 10 General Public Utilities Employee Performance Evaluations fer Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Approximate Date of Period of Purpose of Supervisor Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation (Evaluator) 10/14/85 10/1/84 - 9/30/85 Engineering Assistant K. R. Goodard Senior III - Nuclear Annual Evaluation Inspector Comments:
Good to excellent marks overall; Supervisor noted Husted's excellent performance in support of simulator development (input by D. Boltz)
Instructor Performance Monitoring Reports for Charles E. Husted Date of Evcleation Lesson Title Evaluator 12/16/81 Low Power Natural Circulation Testing R. Knief Evaluator Cee. ment:
Good interaction with trainees 9/8/82 Operating Procedure (0P) 1102-1 R. Harbin Plant Heatup Evaluator Comments:
Got operators involved, productive lecture, well prepared, good job 9/14/82 OP 1102-1 Plant Heatup S. Newton Evaluator Com ent:
High professional attitude (good to outstanding marks) 10/11/82 Unit 1 Requalification - Thermo-R. Knief dynamics Problem Session Evaluator Comments:
Regarding attitude, noted that Husted handled himself well in discussion on quality of NRC exam questions, provided reasonable guidance on how to answer vague questions.
3/30/83 Unit 1 Licensed Operator Requalifi-S. Newton cation - Annual Requalification Exam Review Evaluator Comments:
Good content a
J
t ui 11
' instructor Performance Monitoring for Charles E. Husted (Continued)
Date of Evaluatten lesson Title Evaluator 4/25/83 Licensed Operator Requalification -
B. Leonard Unit 1 CRDM (Control Rod Drive Mechanism) Mechanical Eva*tuator Comment:
Well presented 5/9/S3 Unit.1 Liceesed Requalification CRD S. Newton (Control Rod Drive) Mechanical Evaluator Cont.ents:
None (good evaluation of instruction, no significant weaknesses) 7/19/53 Auxili.ary Operator Requalificaticn S. Newton ESAS (E.T.argency Safeguards Actuation System)
Evaluator CcT. Tents:
Catstanding delivery, enthusiasm, mannerisms (good to outstanding marks) 11/30/83 Plant Tour Instruction R. Khief Evaluator Com.ments:
All areas satisfactory, very professional attitude and demeanor, excellent organization, solid presentation, generated significant student interest 11/30/63 Plant Tours B. Leonard Evaluater (v,Ts nts:
Good attitude towArd subject and class, good lecture,
^
able to convey valuable information, one area (questioning students) needs imprevement, all other areas satisfactory.
3/20/84 Auxiliary Operator Requalification -
E. Leonard Unit 1 Reacter Protection and Safety S.vstems Evaluster Cotaents:
None 4/18/84 System Functions (Spent Fuel)
J, McAllister Evaluttor Comments:
None l
+
4
-.s
-e y
12 Documents Prepartd/Authnred by C. Husted Paper for college course Expository Writing (EN 102) dated December 5, 1983 for Professor L. Van Vanenburgh;
Subject:
" Motivation" (9 pages)
Inspector Comment: Thoughtful and intelligently written Training Content Record for Lessoo Plan litle "ATP 1210-1 Reactor Turbine Trip" Nunber 11.2.01.210, dated January 12. 1984 Training Content Record for Lesson Plan Title "ATP 1210-2 Loss of Svbcooled Margin," Nex.ber 11.2.01.211 dated January 12, 1984 Inspector Co mant:
Lesson plans legical and clearly written
, Training Department Personnel File Records r
GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Menorandum dated January 8, 1981 (incorrectly dated, actual date was January 8,1982) from R. A. Knief (Manager Plant Training) to C. E. Husted;
Subject:
Tour of TMI-1 for Senior Manegement (regarding coerendation for efforts in conducting tour of TMI-1 for members of GPU Nuclear senior management on January 4, 1982; noted Husted's professional manner)
Various employee performance evaluations for Charles E. H oted (see coments above)
Miscellaneous correspondence regarding initial and renewal licensing applications for C. Husted.
GPU Nuclear Employee Performance Evaluation for Charles E. Husted -
Acccuntabilities Review for Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training, dated May 3, 1983.
Nuclear Assurance Division Personnel File Records Various hearing-related and Commission briefing / meeting documents (docketed correspondence)
Confidential draf t meecrandum prepared by R. L. Long and R. A. Knief dated August 30, 1982;
Subject:
C. Husted Evaluation (regarding June 4, 1982 meeting between Messrs.
Long, Knief and Newton to (levelop plan of action for ongoing assessment of Husted's attitude and performs.nce as a licensed operator instructor)
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from M. J. Ross (Manager, Plant Operations TMI-1) to H. D. Hukill (Ofrector, TMI-1) dated October 8, 1982;
Subject:
EvaluationofC.Mosted(regarding Mr. Husted's perforeance as an Operator Training Instructor during the period July - September 1982)
13 Memorandum states that Mr. Husted presented a more professional and thorough approach to his training participation than he had demonstrated previously, he appears inter 6sted and cooperative; no signs of a deterioration in his attitude and his desire as a training instructor.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. A. Knief (Manager Plant Training) to R. L. Long (Vice President Nuclear Assurance) and H. D. Hukill (Vice President TMI-1) dated October 27, 1982;
Subject:
Evaluation of C. E. Husted (regarding formal classroom evaluation on October 11,1932)
Memorandum states that Husted handled session in a very professional manner in terms of both technical ability and attitude, also positive attitude in post evaluation discussion; during informal observations actions and words reinforced classroom observations. The author also talked with Husted on October 20, 1982 and October 22, 1982 before and after a session with E. Blake of Shaw Pittman and stated "he (Husted) appreciated and learned from the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the ASLB's perceptions of his attitudes toward training and NRC requirements."
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-office Memorandum from S. L. Newton (Operator Training Manager) to R. L. Long (Vice President Nuclear Assurance) and H. D. Hukill (Vice President TMI-1) dated October 27, 1982; subject: Evaluation of C. E. Husted (regarding instructor evaluations in September and October).
Memorandum stated there were no problems pertaining to his (Husted's) attitude and demeanor and that he acted in a professional manner. The author of the memorandum was present in the classroom area during breaks when Husted was teaching and gave special attention to conversations in Husted's cubicle (work space) and at no time overheard anything out of line.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-office Memorandum from M. J. Ross to H. D.
Hukill dated January 7, 1983; subject:
Evaluation of C. Husted (regarding his performance during the period October - December 1982).
Memorandua states that Mr. Husted continues to present a professional and thorough approach to his training participation; he continues to be interested and cooperative; no signs of a deterioriation in his attitude and desire as an instructor.
Operator Training Instructor Qualification Card (TM1 Training Department Administrative Manual Procedure No. 6210-ADM-1340.05, Attachment 1) for Charles Husted started December 12, 1982 with following Manager Plant Training (R. A. Knief) certification dated March 22, 1983:
"Ihaveinterviewedthisinstructorandherebycertifythattheimportance of the instructor's role in affecting student's attitudes and behavior towards rules, regulations and regulatory bodies is understood and that this individual is ready in all respects to commence instruction."
/
6 14 t
Inspector comment: Above discussion was coincident to Husted's
(
assignment as Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training t
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-0f fice Memorandum from M. J.
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated April 13, 1983; subject: Evaluation, of C. Husted (regarding performance duri.1g t% period January -
March 1983)
Memorandum stated the same commens, as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated January 7, 1983.
The author also stated that since Mr. Husted's recent promotier. to Supervhor Non-Licensed Training Mr. Ross had many opportunities to deal with him on the A.O. (auxiliary operator) Training Progran and he has been most cooperative.
Handwritten notes by R. A. Knief dated Arril 25'/1983 after meeting with S. Newton, E. Frederick and C. Husted re: status of operator training for restart; subject:
C. E. Husted The notes stated that Mr. Husted was cbserved to be confident in describing programs, take justifiable pride in the quality of the activities included in current and planned A.O. Requal Training cycles, and be concerned about supporting the plant as much as possible (as opposed to doing what is most convenient for the training department) in moving toward restart.
Dr. Knief discussed approaches for A.O. Requal Training and stated that, overall, he was very pleased with the positive attitude Mr. Husted exhibited toward doing all jobs well and in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
GPU Nuclear Inter-of fice Memorandum froln S. L. Newton to Dr. R.
L. Long cated June 3, 1983; subject:
C. E. Husted Evaluation (regarding special evaluations during the' period from November 1982 to January 1983).
Memorandum stated that although there were no formal classroom evaluations of Mr. Husted during the above period, his performance was still closely evaluated.
In Husted',s involvement in the preparation of sections of the written requalification examination he did a superb job. Also noted was his good performance during his simulator requalification training.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from M. J.
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated July 18, 1983; subject:
Evaluation of Mr. C. Husted (regarding performance during the period April - June 1983) e
15 Memorar.dum stated the same conments as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated April 13, 1983.
In addition, the author stated that Mr. Husted seems better versed as an Auxiliary Operator Instructor than a Licensed Operator Instructor, and that he (Husted) continues to be cooperative and shows great interest in the Auxiliary Operator Program.
GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from Robert L. Long (Vice President - Nuclear Assurance) to John Stolz (NRC) dated December 2, 1983; subject: GPUN Evaluation of Mr. DD's Performance (regarding summary of evaluations conducted).
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Of fice Memorandum from M. J.
Ross to H. D. Hukill dated December 15, 1983; suoject:
Evaluation of Mr. C. Husted (regarding performance during the period July - November 1983)
Memorandum stated similar comments as the M. J. Ross memorandum dated July 18, 1983.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. L.
Long (Vice President - Nuclear Assurance) to H. D. Hukill (Vice President & Director TMI-1) dated December 20, 1983; subject:
Special Performance Monitoring of C. E. Husted (regarding intent to discontinue special performance monitoring)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge letter from D. Bauser to R. L.
Long (GPU Nuclear) dated January 17, 1984, with draft supplement to December 20, 1983 memorandum to H. Hukill on performance monitoring of Mr. C. E. Husted.
Confidential GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from R. L.
Long to H. D. Hukill dated January 20, 1984; subject:
Special Performance Monitoring of C. E. Husted.
Memorandum states that the instructor evaluation program permits continued monitoring of attitude and performance of Mr. Husted.
GPU Nuclear Inter-Office Memorandum from B.P. Leonard (Operator Training Manager) to C.E. Husted dated January 3, 1984; subject:
Quality Assurance Shift Engineer Training Program (regarding appreciation for support in implementing and presenting training program recently provided for QA Shift Engineers).
GPU Nuclear memorandum from B. P. Leonard (Operator Training Manager) to C. E. Husted (Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training) dated January 24, 1984; subject: ATOG Training Program (regarding commendation for contributions to Unit 1 ATOG training program)
~
s_
16
~
e GPU Nuclear (H. D. Hukill. letter to NRC (. Stoiz) dated March 7, 1984; subje:t:
" Training Observation" (regarding 1983 monitorings of DD performdnce) 6 GPU Nuclear memorandum from R. N. Whitesel (NSAD Director) to C. E. Husted (Engineering Asst. Sr. III - Nuclear Safety) dated July 18,1984; subject: Tempcra'ry Assignment to TMI-1 PRA.
Project (regaraing assignment, administration, arrangements hnd position accountabilities)
The inspector concluded, based on a review ofi.he documents listed above, that Mr. Husted's performance as an employee of GPU Nuclear Corporation, or its predecessor Metropolitan Edison Company, was maintained at an.
' acceptable or satisfactory level. During most of his employmant, particularly while assigned as an operator instructor or supervisor of instructors, his performance appeared to be good to excellent. The many documents regarding Mr. Husted's performance reflected favorably on his i
attitude and integt ty.
,e s
s 4.
Personnel Intervien The inspector interviewed ten GPU Nuclear Corporation emploDees.who had worked with Mr. Husted in various supervi e r/ employee /co-drker.
relationships.
The purpose of these inter. views w'as todetermine.whether any of these individuals had concerns regarding Mr. Huned's. attitude, integrity or forthrightness, bared w their observations of his performance and demeanor. The questions asked of these'indivjduals.are listed in Attachment A.
The perons interviewed, their Met-Ed/GPU employment history and information regarding their knowledge of and past relationships with Mr. Husted are identified in Table 4.1.
Based on these interviews, the inspector deter;..ined the foll' wing information:
o 4.1 All but one person was aware of the NRC hearing requested by Mr. Husted. Most of these individuals were made aware of the l
hearing during conversatior.s generally with co-workers and in some cases with Mr. Husted. Two individuals had become aware of the hearing by reading docket correspondence that had been routed to them. All of these individuals were aware generally of the issues that led to the hearing requested by Mr. Husted.
4.2 None of the individuals had been interviewed either formally or l
informally interviewed by GPU Nuclear or other organization / person regarding their knowledge of Mr. Husted.
4.3 None of the individuals had ever observed any actions or heard of any incidents (other than the incidents that led to tne Husted hearing) that would lead them to believe that Mr. Husted has a bad, negative, indifferent or otherwise improper attitude toward the NRC or toward reactor stfety.
l l
l l
r
17 9
4.4 The individuals stated the following opinions of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude toward the NRC.
Mr. Husted tries to interact professionally with the NRC.
There was a brief slump (following the Nis exam cheating incident) but afterwards there has been a marked improvement in his overall attitude toward the NRC.
Mr. Husted has always demonstrated a p sitive attitude toward the NRC in the work place.
Mr. Husted is cooperative toward the NRC and does not have a bad attitude.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC is normal; nothing adverse.
Mr. Hasted's attitude toward the NRC is very positive.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC was not significantly different from the norm following the NRC exam cheating incident, although he is more outspoken than most persons.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC is not negative, but also he is not a firm supporter.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC indicated a natural animosity when he was removed from the job as supervisor, non-licensed operator training.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC was not observed.
The inspector determined that the opinions regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward the NRC were mixed. Although no specific examples or instances had been identified which indicate Mr. Husted had a bad or negative attitude, one individual had mentioned a brief slump (followed by marked improvement) and another individual mentioned a " natural animosity" (when removed from a job).
However, the majority opinion was that Mr. Husted had demonstrated an attitude toward the NRC that ranged from normal to very positive.
4.5 The individuals stated the following opinions of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety is very good.
Mr. Husted has had a generally continuing positive attitude toward reactor safety; he has provided constructive criticism on lesson plans.
18 Mr. Husted has always had a positive attitude toward reactor safety; he studied hard for exams.
Mr. Husted has a good attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted has a very positive attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety is very positive.
One individual stated that he had never observed a problem regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted has a good attitude toward reactor safety.
Mr. Husted emphasized the importance of reactor safety and never downplayed safety.
Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety was not observed.
The inspector determined that the opinions regarding Mr. Husted's attitude toward reactor safety were consistently favorable; his attitude was described as good or positive to very good or very positive.
4.6 Mr. Husted's professional competence as a reactor operator was described as: (1) high knowledge level, (2) worked hard preparing for exams and conscientious on duty (based on limited observation),
or (3) above average (stated by two individuals).
Mr. Husted's overall performance as a reactor operator was described as:
(1) above average or (2) no problems noted based on very limited (one week) observation.
[One individual stated that Mr. Husted's professional competence as an auxiliary operator was excellent and that his overall performance as an auxiliary operator was above average].
Seven of the individuals had not observed, or had observed only on a limited basis, Mr. Husted's professional competence as a reactor l
operator; and nine individuals had not observed, or had observed l
only on a limited basis, Mr. Husted's performance as a reactor operator.
l l
The inspector determined, based on the limited comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as an operator were acceptable; no adverse l
opinions were stated.
4.7 Mr. Husted's professional competence as,an instructor was described as:
l l
I I
19 extremely competent, concerned about presentation getting through to students; detail was thorough, concerned that students understood, priority was given to quality vs.,uantity; very competent, work done well; very high competence; very competent; very good with systems topics; very good; very competent and knowledgeable; good to excellent; and no comments from one individual (not observed).
Mr. Husted's overall performance as an instructor was described as:
thorough, concerned, good; good rapport with class; worked hard on theory lessons (mostly not observed);
very good, among the best at TMI; adequately prepared, eager to help students learn; responsive to students needs and questions, very adequate lectures when given advance notice of assignment, not happy about unplanned or prompt assignments; very good; very thorough; good to excellent; and no comments from one individual (not observed).
The inspector determined, based on the many positive comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as sn instructor was very good, or better; no adverse opinions were stated.
20 4.8 Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as a supervisor of instructors was described as:
very good supervisor, best ever had by the individual; handled people well; good administrator, reliable; performed very well, concerned for quality of inst'ruction, used constructive criticism; very good; instructor evaluations were done properly and were constructive; and no comments from four individuals (not observed / limited observation).
The inspector determined, based on the several positive comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's professional competence and overall performance as a supervisor of instructors was very good; no adverse opinions were stated.
4.9 None of the. individuals was aware of any aberrant behavior displayed by Mr. Husted either on or off the job.
4.10 Four of the individuals had officially evaluated Mr. Hurted's per-formance. These evaluations were for various reason 3, i.icluding control room operator probationary review, annual performance reviews as an instructor / supervisor of instructors, instructor evaluation monitoring, and special quarterly performance monitoring. The individuals stated that these performance evaluations were generally i
positive, favorable and complimentary. The inspector reviewed all of these evaluations, and others, as discussed in paragraph 3.
4.11 The individual's opinions of Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness and demeanor were described as:
very trustworthy, mature; very good integrity, forthright, demeanor professional and was l
maintained steady as he matured in his job (slight improving I~
trend);
normal, nothing adverse;
21 average, no specific faults or strengths; very analytical and straightforward, average integrity, no problems as an operator, outspoken demeanor, takes job seriously; honest, sometimes shows bad judgement in what he says in oral discussions; high integrity, forthright, on first appearance may appear to be flippant but was truly serious; in any relationship always had good integrity, forthrightness and demeanor; and high integrity (stated by two individuals).
The inspector determined, based on the generally positive or favorable comments from individuals interviewed, that Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness and demeanor were normal to very good. A few comments regarding his demeanor expressed a view that Mr. Husted may be outspoken or unusually candid in his discussions. This willingness to express himself freely was perceived differently by the individuals interviewed as either a positive or negative characteristic. None of the individuals stated that this trait adversely affected Mr. Husted's overall performance.
4.12 None of the individuals were aware of any performance awards or disciplinary actions regarding Mr. Husted, except the transfer from assignment as supervisor of non-licensed operator training due to the stipulation between the licensee and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
4.13 Other comments or opinions regarding Mr. Husted included:
l extremely valuable asset to organization, would like to see him back in training, a real profassional; seemed very accommodating to training requests from plant operations personnel; as an operator was one of the better individuals for performing l
on-the-job training; I
very competent individual, extremely knowledgeable, removal was l
loss to the training department; and l
l
22 comments from his supervisors regarding Mr. Husted's cerformance as an instructor were very positive.
Five individuals declined to state any other comments or opinions. No individuals expressed unfavorable or adverse comments or opinions regarding Mr. Husted when asked by the inspector at the conclusion of each interview. The inspector determined, based on the generally positive nature of the comments that were offered, that training department personnel would like to have Mr. Husted back as an instructor or supervisor of instructors.
4.14 The inspector concluded, based on the results of these interviews, that none of the individuals had concerns regarding Mr. Husted's attitude, integrity or forthrightness.
Rather, positive statement's from these individuals regarding their past observations of Mr. Husted's performance and demeanor indicated a consensus opinion that Mr. Husted was above average, or better, as an operator instructor and supervisor of instructors.
5.
Conclusion The inspector concluded, based on a review of documents and personnel interviews as described above, that Mr. Husted's performance of his responsibilities with GPU Nuclear Corporation and with its predecessor, Metropolitan Edison Company, reflected favorably upon his attitude and professional integrity.
No specific indicators or characteristics of past poor performance or demeanor were identified through personnel interviews or a review of the records that should cause Mr. Husted to continue being restricted from assignment to any positions with GPU Nuclear Corporation.
[
6.
Exit Interview During the entrance interview with licensee representatives on February 25, 1986 and during an interview with Mr. H. Hukill, Vice President and Director of TMI-1, during the course of the inspection, the inspector stated that no exit interview was planned regarding the staff's position on Mr. Husted's performance as it reflects on his attitude and integrity, due to the soecial nature of this inspection and its relationship to a pending hearing requested by Mr. Husted. The inspector stated, however, that any safety concerns or potential enforcement matters that may be discovered during the course of this inspection would l
be identified immediately to appropriate licensee representatives.
No such safety concerns or enforcement matters were identified.
The numerous documents identified in this report were reviewed in GPUNC offices. The inspector received working copi,es of certain of these documents as an aid to preparing this report, however, all of the l
documents identified (except for docketed correspondence with the NRC) remain in the custody of GPUNC.
1
Table 4.1 - Personnel Interviewed Het-rd/GPU reployment H i s to ry lias known llusted's Positions Relationship N'me Postion/ Title,
Period liusted Since I)urena Time known with ffusted Charles D. Adams Shirt Foreman, TH1-2 10/75 - 4/80 1976 Auxiliary Oper.
Close co-worker Qua lity Assurance is /80 - 7/8?
I ns t ruc to r (no classes)
Auditor Special Projects Assist.
Safety Engineer,
//82 - 9/83 NSAD fndependent Onsite Sarcty Review Group Special Projects 9/83 - 3/86 Assistant, Nuclear Sarcty Assessment Dept.
Paul S. B ickfo rd Instructor, Non-Licensed 4/81 - 4/83 1981 Licensed nperator Close co-worker Operator Training Instructor instructor, Maintenance 4/83 - 3/86 Non-Licensed Operator T ra in ing Instructor Supv., Non-Licensed Employee /supv.
Training Nelson D. Brown Auxi l ia ry Ope ra tor "A"-
7/70 - 6/74 1977 Control Room Operator Personal friend Nuclear Instructor Supv/cmployce Control Rm. Ope ra to r-6/74 - 6/75 Nuclear Administrator - Nuclea r 6/75 - 9/80
& Technical Training Supe rv i so r, Licensed 9/80 - 3/83 Operator Tra ining Senior Emergency 3/83 - 3/86 Planner Donna R. Calletly Clerical Se rvices, 8/74 - 4/78 1978 I ns t ruc to r Close co-worker Va rious Depa rtments Supv., Non-Licensed Clerk Junior, T ra ining " 4/18 - 11/79 Ope ra to r T ra i n ing Administrative Clerk A 11/79 - 3/82 Training Special Projects Assist.
Administrative Assist.
3/82 - 4/65 NSAD Operator Tra ining Support Services 4/85 - 3/86 Supe rv i so r, Training Bruce P. Leona rd Technical Prog ram 11/82 - 5/83 1982 Licensed Operator close co-worker Specialist, T ra i n i ng i ns t ruc to r Ope ra to r T ra i n i ng 5/83 - 3/86 Supv., Non-Licensed Supv./ employee Manager Operator Tra ining Robert E. Nerr Securi ty Cua rd 1/77 - 3/78 1978 Control Room Ope ra to r Co-worker Aux i l i a ry Ope ra to r, 3/78 - 1/84 I ns t ructo r Student TMl-1 I ns t ructo r, Non-licensed 1/84 - 3/86 Supervisor, Non-Licensed Employee /supv.
Operator Tra ining Ope ra to r T ra in ir.g
d dr r
ne e
ne.
e e ee e
ekv k
e p
iy y
irp r y he fl o
rou o
lo id ro lpr
/
p FwS w
st p
ns l m me l oe o a iou ac ck acc c c r
n y
/.
l n/
/. o tl o.
oeo e
ah sv vw ssl s v l t rp p-rop l
u o
p ei eu uo el m Rw PS SC pct C S r
r r
o dg o dg dg o dg s
rt en rt en r en t
en nn oa si oa si o
si a
si ow t r nn tr nn t
nn r nn io
- e. e es ae ei a
ei
,e ei tn rp ca rp ca r ca rp ca r
e ir eO ir ik eO ir eO iLT p LT p
LT s
p LT p
o -
O oe O C
Pm mrnr mrnr rnr ernr i yRooo yRooo yooo yRooo sT r
tnt r
tHt rtNt r
tnt s
ac,a al c a
'd g c
,r al a
al c a r
r iou.e ioi
.,r iu.e i o u., e l rr l rr l rr e l r en ti ittvp ittvp itvp ittvp sr
<nspO vnspO xspO xnspO iuu uonu nonu unu uonu l D ACI S ACIS AI S ACIS de we i
vr e
e c
t n
n ni I
wS 4
4 4
4 o
7 7
7 1
nl 9
9 9
9 l
km e
1 1
1 1
n t
n.
s e.
o p au s
HH re P
2 7
7's96 86 6 7 806
/718 0
78 3
6 7
/ 788 1///
1
//
8 8
/
1
///
1 1'; 6 3 9
03
/ /
1 1
983 y
1 1
3 3
1 4
r o d gi 9P 8
6 780 6 I 7's 9 ic o
7 8
01 4
3 9 7 778 b
i r
////
6 7/
7 8
6 / ///
a H
e 0?67 9
90 9 /
/
1 198 T
P 1I 1
11 1
3 9
1 1
t d
r n
"A e
r e
e m
s s
a g
g y
n 1
n e
i n n a o
- r o
I cg c.
gnga
- e l
l o
r i
H in u
ninM p
rt o
ty
)
m oa t
al 1
T li Mg iai f
tr r
c rrts-n n
nrn.
ni r niTi g ae o u
oennI U
rp s r
speoM r oa Toa an G
l eOni t
ioriT e Nr r Nr
,r r P
e
,T on,T p av s
v rt p
.T T ta v
d i
O.mr n
rtua O
/
t encrr rr ai v d pI n mee I) f T
yHrp
/n pa(eo y2oo rcpeuMa
/
r ou ro ul pt r
tt tiusSTi t
n alFS ot SP1oc aI ca snSn c
M i
io tx
- e iMur ih eg,i e
o l rtt aa t
.l tr lTre imTol tpc ncpcn.n t
itrf rS fvMni ix&sO tp euiivh s
xnii e( ipTaD P
ACSS O
SS Pl A
I d r cue o
uohh p
hu u n A G AST na h
m s
t h
s a
c i
o p
e l
l R
S Z
o N
J F
W G
l s
d e
a r
y a
l a
e r
h g
h m
r c
u ic o
a 1
i D
R M
N f
l'
Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Pages
~
Interview with:
Date:
Time:
Met Ed/GPU Employment History Position / Title Years 1.
Are you aware of the NRC hearing requested by Charles Husted?
(If yes, how were you made aware?)
2.
Have you been either formally or informally interviewed by GPU Nuclear or other organization / person regarding your knowledge of Mr. Husted?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
3.
How long have you known Mr. Husted?
4.
What positions has Mr. Husted had during the time you have known him?
l l
l I
5.
How would you describe your relationship with Mr. Husted?
Close personal friend?
Close co-worker?
Employee / supervisor?
l Professional acquaintance?
l Other?
6.
Have you ever observed any actions or heard of any incidents that would lead you to believe Mr. Husted has a bad, negative, indifferent, or similar attitude toward the NRC7 toward reactor safety?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
Attachment A 2
Page 2 of 2 Pages 7.
How would you describe your opinion of Mr. Husted's current and past attitude toward the NRC7 toward reactor safety?
8.
How would you describe Mr. Husted's professional competence as a reactor operator?
as an instructor?
as a supervisor of instructors?
9.
How would you describe Mr. Husted's overall performance as a reactor operator?
as an instructor?
as a supervisor of instructors?
10.
Are you aware of any aberrant behavior displayed by Mr. Husted either on or off the job 7 (If yes, please elaborate.)
11.
Have you ever officially evaluated Mr. Husted's performance?
(If yes, how would you summarize this/those evaluation (s), and what were the reasons for your evaluation (s)?)
12.
What are your opinions of Mr. Husted's integrity, forthrightness, demeanor?
l r
13.
Are you aware of any performance awards or disciplinary actions regarding Mr. Husted?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
i 14.
Do you want to state any other comments or opinions regarding Mr. Husted?
(If yes, please elaborate.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
-7 In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
)
Docket No. 50-289 (CH)
NUCLEAR
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "PREFILED TESTIMONY OF PETER E. BACI,"
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. WARD," "PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RICH ARD A. MATAKAS," "PREFILED TESTIMONY OF R. KEITH CHRISTOPHER," "PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DONALD R. HAVERKAMP,"
and "NRC STAFF TRIAL PLAN" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by express mail or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this lith day of June,1986:
- Morton B. Margulies
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Law Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Louise Bradford Washington, DC 20555 Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street
- Docketing and Service Section Harrisburg, PA 17120 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Maria C. Hensley, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond _, VA 23212 Deborah B. Bauser, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW 4
Washington, DC 20036 0.a il v George E. fohnson dounsel for NRC4taff
.