ML20005B942
| ML20005B942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1981 |
| From: | Phelps G ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109160157 | |
| Download: ML20005B942 (2) | |
Text
,
ANGRY 9 /0 8/81
!! ELATED CORRESPONDENCF p
4 qr UNITED STATES OF AF.iRICA T
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMIS3ICN p
oogy BEFORE TFE ATCMIC SAFETV AND LICENSING M ARI 3 2l
%]f%%l > -)
~
lod 9j g -
\\
pigue In the Matter of
& )
4 g
ket 50-289 Metropolitan Edison Co.
g (G.P.U. liuclear)
'Q gg,
v.Q,7 T
Three Mile Island Unit On o C>, A l <>g IMuvrNCR ANTI NUCLEAR GRCUP REPRESENTING YORK SUEMISSION CF VTE'JS ON THE INVESTIGATION OF CHEATING AT TMI We request that the Board d.irect the Staff to further investigate the policies or attitude cf Licenseo's management which may appear to condone cheating, and which have allowed cheating to occur on exams on several occasions. This investigation should focus on management response to earlier incidents and to the present incident, and en management policies and operator attitudes towards cheating.
We are not'asking the Board to reopen the record on our behalf, but do note that this is an especially important issue which has bearing not only on the qualifications and training of the operators, but which reveals the Licensee's "new" management in action, and we think it proper. for the Board and the Commission to probe deeper than the Staff did for the limited purpose of an enforcement action.
The " mock" exams of early April,1981, were administered and o om O **
"O graded by the Licensee; the OIE report states that the two suspect
$go individuals admitted cheating on that exam also. Has the Staff reviewed 0
ph o"
those test papers to see if answers were rensrlably similar? We 8*
9!l go, understand that the Staff might normally not review mock exams, but in ouo
@$m this case, if the exams were similar and the Licensce's graders failed to detect similarities, we feel this would reveal fault in the Licensee's
F management snd administration of License exams.
Has the Staff interviewed all of the management personnel who sat for the mock and IiRC exams, and if not why not. End arg of them heafd the rumors of cheating?
Which management personnel sat with the suspected individuals for as many as four days all day without noting that the persons in the front were exchanging papers?
When did Mr. Arnold become aware of cheating rumors, and from whom?
Hov vece the mock exams proctored?
What code of honor, if any, does the Licensee specifically expect its students in training programs to adhere to, and how is this expressed to students or monitored?
Why was not more action taken against 'the operator who assisted cheating in July,19797 The Licensee's request to the Commission that its operators not be retested is in our view the single most damning piece of the entire epist.e other than the fact of cheating itself. This Licensee persi,ently attempts to hold the NRC responsible for failures committed by the Licensee and its e=ployees.
(For example, their 4 billion dollar suit against the NRC) And they would like to retain to themselves the decisions on the adequacy of nuclear safety. We think they have it backwards.
The NRC cannot hope to regulate nuclear safety effecti'vely in the role that this Licensee would have it assume. Until GPU Nuclear reforms its atj;itude, it is not a fit candidate for a license.
The Board should enquire ;of Mr. Deickamp what he views as the, propeI management role of a nuclear utility and judge whether that attitude can support the re-issuance of the suspended license.
%hd KRAf3 t
- - -.