ML20010E024
| ML20010E024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1981 |
| From: | Phelps G ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E025 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109020341 | |
| Download: ML20010E024 (2) | |
Text
.
~
iTNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCWISSICN In the Matter of
)
Metropolitan Edison Co.
)
Docket 50-289 (G.P.U. Nuclear)
)
Three Mile Island Unit One ca
.c.
Of
( $b Qgo[ '[~5
$NUC Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman v
g 6
Victor Gilinsky a
D NO OMh
{6/
T 3f f
~
Peter Bradford
~.
0///
A -3 John F. Ahearne O
Nary Thomas M. Roberts 6#
($'/
W)(.hg(Ji b
7
Dear Chairman Palladino,
v g
~-
We request
.at the Commission uphold Mr. Harold Denton's decision to require retesting of all reactor operator license and senior reactor operator license candidates for Three MP., Island Unit Cne, and that the Commission deny Mr. Herman Dieckamp's request on behalf of the Licensee to set aside Mr. Denton's requirement.
As a party to the TMI-1 hearing we have listened with great interest to the extensive Iitigation on the questions of operator training and shift manning for,TMI-1, and have read the CIE inspection report on the a11 edged cheating during the April, 1981, operator examinations.
We point out several facts from the OIE inspection report for y.our consideration:
- 1) About half of the SRO examinees are manager:ent personnel, (of the 18 who passed,11 are management, 7 are shift supervisors, including the two suspect individuals). Licensee would have us believe that no other examinees in the room noticed that the two suspected individuals were passing papers back and forth duiing an eight-hour test, and that the management personnel present did not see fit to ascertain that there were no go3 improprieties as a matter of course, s
Ifb
- 2) The CIE report contains interviews with numerous persons who had heard rumors or had thought there might have been ADDI cheating (and many of these persons took the exam in a "non-smoking" room, perhaps with the suspected individuals),gp SW 6W 8109020341 810925 PDR ADOCK 0500028 G
and yet, the Licensee failed to explore these rumors or to report them to the NRC until after the NRC had started on its own to investigate. This three-month wait to investigate rumors of cheating does not speak well of th9 management of the utility.
- 3) One of the two suspected individuals had assisted another operator in cheating on an earlier exam, and the r.anagement failed to take any disciplinary action against him, although the other operator was fired.
In the OIE interview the suspected individual apparently felt he had done no wrong earlier. Although the company judged his actions "unaccept,able" this was not clear encugh to the suspect individual, which does not spaak well for the Licensee's management.
We feel that the NRC cannot be seen as the principh1 guardian of any Licensee's employees' integrity and honesty. Any renagenent which so blatently refuses to police its own employees, whether asked to or' not, and refuses to accept primary responsiblities* for its employee's integrity raises serious questions by its own attitude of whether that management can be allowed to operate a nuclear power plant.
It is our opinion that this Licensee in particular places far too much burden on the lac to catch problems which should be noticed and corrected by the Licensee's own management.
We cite as an example their suit against the lac for the costs of the accident,' which we find about as reasonable as trying to hold the Motor Vehicle License Bureau liable a
for an accident caused by poor maintainance and driving habits.
i We urge you to require that this Licensee assume a responsible attitude, which it consistently fails to do, if it is to operate at all.
Res ectfully submitted, a
)
Ips, leg'l rerresentative ff/
/
j( 1 B.
a j
i,h, L4 /
/
b A4nti-Nuclear Group Representing York, Inc.
245 West Philadelphia St. York, Pa, 17404
' ' = ' ' ~ ~ ~ '
-sc
_ __,