ML20030D811

Board Notification 81-17E Forwarding 810828 Rept Re Investigation of Cheating on TMI Operator & Senior Operator Exams as Followup to Previous Memos

ML20030D811
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/03/1981
From:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
TASK-AS, TASK-BN-81-17 BN--81-17, BN-81-17, HQS-81-003, HQS-81-3, NUDOCS 8109160299
Download: ML20030D811 (6)

Text

.

$EPTEMBER 0 3 331 5'

g M.[' '

'k,S me

~

s.. 3 ORB #4 Rdg BSnyder le tiemo File EHughes c Wket F September 3,1981 D

L

'UR HSilver gc C

p@

TERA TNovak v.

.c NSIC DEisenhut JHard b

G

~

6

,C Docket No, 50-209 ECase MJollensten-5

'4 RJacobs JStolz 7

EHylton

\\

DDilanni TIT ltE!10RANDUM FOR: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for 1111-_1 Resta FROM:

Thomas it. Novak, _ Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICATION - _TMI-l RESTART HEARING (BN-Bl-17E)

This remorandun is a followup to theJrevious memoranda on the subject of operator examinations (BN-81-17,17A,178,17C and.17D).

Enclosed is a copy of the Au memorandum frun Dudley Thompson (0IE) to Edson G. Case (NRR) gust.28.1981 transmitting the " Opinion of Reporting Investigators" in regard to the investigation of cheating on the THI. l R0 ~and SRO examinations.

Original:!gned py 4

Thomas it. Novak, Assistant Director l

for Operating Reactors

]

Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

8/28/81 lleno cc w/ enclosure:

See last page 8109160299 e10933 DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR

~

omer).......... '.....4:DL ORB #4:DL C-AD-0R DV

.j..

. O:

SURNI.ME) v.m

,,r

.wy.8..J. w..p.

uh, 81 om, nac rosu ais oo eq Nncu cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usamm_m =

REFERENCEi ThreelffTdIslaFdTucTaar Generating Station. Unit 1/

Inv;stigation of Alleg;d. Ch;ating on Operator Licensing Examinstions; Casa Numbi:

HQS-81-003

~

OPINION OF REPORTING INVESTIGATORS This investigation was conducted.to determine whether 6 and.M i

6 had conspired to cheat on NRC administered RO and SRO examinations as indicated by conspicuous similarf ties:in their essay-style-answers _

1 i

Investigative. efforts were additionally directed.toward establishing wi.ather other examinees' had also engaged in cheating and/or been knowledgeable of-these apparent improprieties.

As a necessary adjunct to this investigation, inquiries wem also initiated. to ascertain if the classroom conditions and/or-NRC monitoring was conducive to cheating; and to resolve wheth.er there was.

I any evidence to indicate the utility had knowingly attempted to facilitate-i tha cheating or possessed suspicions of the existence of cheating in the exams prior to being apprised by the NRC..

After initial denials, M eventually admittedS had copied from M ~ '

answer sheets in-the NRC administered RO and SRO exams as well as in " mock" R0 and SRO exams which had been previously conducted. W implicated M in the conspiracy by stating they had. diset:ssed sitting together prior to v

the " mock" exams, and by attesting that Mhad deliberately madeM answer sheets available toWin all four exams by placing them face up near Salso conceded that during the NRC RO 1tnd SRO lic'ensing unaves exams, he and BEE. ve'-bally astisted each other in answering various questions,.

l and in one instanceEn passed an answer to M on a piece of scrap paper in-response to one of M' oral queries. Additionally, after initially danying-

. ~

j culoability, EM admitted being aware thatM had reached over and taken trMSc'7 answer sheets during both of the NRC administered RO and SRO exams.

i However, EQ denied actively. assisting B"!!5!! in obtaining M answer sheets, statedCC did not know whetherPNo9 copiedGD answers and main-tained that M had not cheated on any exam.

Collusion' between G and EBeg on both the " mock" and NRC administered RO and SRO exams was independently verified by numerous examples of marked 4

similarities which were identified in Sc+h series of their _ examination papers.

Further, it is inconceivable to the inv fcicators that tea involvement was 4

limited to 07"3 being passively eware tne CL%f took C3 answer sheets wf th-out figW43d actually making @ answers available 'and being fully aware that tk?iN was copying these answers.

There was sufficient space between i

the two incividuals to have precluded gaining access to answer sheets unless,, as claimed by M, ].

i had intentionally placed answer shzets face up in close proximity to um:r:.

Additionally, it is assumed thatIIl=cawould not have-been able to continually reach over to M i

side of the table to obtain @ answer sheets without attracting the attention

~

of the proctor who was reportedly present almost 100 percant of the time.

i 2

s

['

Names of swrtim and certain other identifying details have been removed in order to prevent

.g j

a clearly unwarranted invasion of the penonal g,

4 p:ivacy of the indiddu.als involved.

53 and M hav2 been fricnds of Tong-standing.

Th2refore,. th3ir :;-

initini reluctanca ttr admit culpabfifty and necessarily impTicate:cach.. i.

oth r is. und;rstandabici.

However, wh n McVentually providedM '

statement of admission, it was obvious to the investigator-thatM was interested in making a full ~:d complete confession _ At the conclusiorr of this meetingMcom.nted thatMfelt much better sinces had-toTd the entire truth and provided all the informationEncouTd recalT.m also pointed out to the-investigator thate had reluctantly implicated.

003 friendMin@ desire to.be completely truthful and. furnish alt.

the facts; and thatE3would.have had nothing-to gain by lying. about ET) invoTvement._ The_ investigates consider this a. sincere and accurate-expression: of M sentiments and attitude, and c.welude. thatM was less than candid im continuina to denyGactive participation in the cheating as detaiTed. by "".M_

It is noteworthy to point out that', -

when QT<as confronted with disclosures,Odid not appear unduly upset or personally attack

• 1 @5P3v'eracity as would. have been expected. if the information was~ false Additionally, followi the con-frontation, E was. observed by the-investigators placing F:.,unt Mshoulder in a display of~ friendship.

Obviausly, if hi.d wantea to prevent ETTB fract obtaining, and/or copyingM arswer sh there were several. actionsC3 could have takerr.

These include t kr EED answers face down and out df the reach ofdT553, admonisn.3g <14 changing @ seat,. sitting with someone else in subsequent exams r.d/or.

reporting the situation to the-p.octor.

.o Technical violations of Title 18 US Code 1001 were connitted by botn' @

andF h39 in view of their fraudulent activity and initialTy providing false info. ation to NRC.inves_tigators.

However, in the opinion of the investigators, cHminal redress should not be pursued since the situation.

wiTT be adequately resolved by the civil enforcement process; A thorough analysis and comparison of all R0 and SRO examinations by the investigators surfaced no evidence of cheating-in any examinations by the remaining 34 examinees.

However, this conclusion is based primarily on the absence of obvious similarities in-their essay answers and the interviews of il of these individuals durino the instant investigation.

Of significance, however, is that ifGEandEN@were able to cheat extensively without detection in classrooms with reportedly good practorship, other individuals -

could also have engaged in similar. activities.

cheat was much more prevalent irr other classr:0~Fu-ther, the opportunity to ahere monitors were allegedly 1

absent for extended periods.

Therefore, the ii.<estigators recognize that be surfaced through a' review of examination answers and 1.

However, the investigators concur that based upon available infomation there is no necessity to readminister the examinations.

There was no evidence to indicate the utility attempted by any means to facilitate cheating in any of the examinatinns.

Further, prior to being apprised by the NRC, there was no apparent knowledge ar suspicions by utility management p rsonnel that cheating may have occurred.

s t

details have been removed in orde toName y ng a clearly unwarranted invasion s. the pers prevent

~-

privacyof theindividualsinvolnd onal e

In the-opinion-of the. investigators,. th2 spacing _and seating' in tha cTassrooms

~

were adequate to prevent cheating.5y the examinees,if appropriate proctorship had been afforded; Howevar _ itis su~ggested that sma.ll partitions: ba considered for placement in the_ center of= these eight-feet tables in future examinations to. preclude the possibiTity of answer sheets being observed or exchanged.

It is apparent that itssuming a 'pr5ctor was present during-the ' examinations-

~

taken byMandQ there was a 1ack of attentiveness by the proctor.

for them-to have acco=plished the extensive and continual. cheating which occurred.

i The investigators reviewed. estabTished. guidelines-for thz administrationi of.' ~

recctor operator written examinations, and concluded-there_were;no apparent. -

violations. of these procedures by the-proctorse However, irr_ view of the. f.,...

investiga.tive results,. these guideTines: are considered too general in content ~

It is. recocznended that these-procedures _ be revised to specify minimum acceptabTe classroocr. conditions (seating, spacing,. etc.) and. additional monitoring respon l

sibilities.

In respect to. the. Tacter, it is reccarnended that proctors. preface.

alt examinations with admonishments against cheating, ensure there.is'100. percent 1

proctor coverage, be attentive to the demeanor of the examinees,. periodically..x i

circulite throughout the. classroom and regularly check to ensure answer sheets...

are. fai e dowrr and examinatf ort papers are properly segregated betweert examineer; As noted irr the report of investigation, Gpu management felt obliged to apprise.

all interviewees prior to their interviews of their right to have someone present during their interviews with the.NRC investigators.. Accordingly, with only one pxception,.all interviews were conducted in the presence of a management representative _ Although these individuals. did. not interferewith the questioning..

their presence was considered-as a definite hinderance to the free flow of information Traditionally,. meaningful information can best be soTicited in witness and. suspect interviews-in a. "one-ori-one" situation without the deterrent ' -

effect of a. third party - particularly a representative of management - being -

present.

In this regard,. it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to.

have afforded someone confidentiality since he sculd have presumably had to c:=mit himself in front of the managent representative.

h'a:ses of parties and certain other identif i decads have been removed in onier to p y ng j

a clearly unwarranted invasion of the perso revent privacy of theindividualsinvolved.

i nal.

O

\\

~

MM9M!f.?

y

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C011 MISSION

(

1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _

In th'e Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAii EDIS0N COMPANY,

)

Docket No. 50-289 ET AL.

(Three 11ile Island, Unit 1)

)

t f

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/

Mr. Henry D. Hukill, Vice President and Director - TMI-l' l

Metropolitan Edison Company 4

l P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

~

• Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Administrative Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. #5 l

Judge Coatesville, PA 19320 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Bureau of Radiation Protection

/

Dr. Walter. H. Jordan, Administrative Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2053' Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge Tennessee 37P7 5b4 a

od te f

Dr. Linda W. Little, Administrative Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Judge 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN:

.J.G. Herbein, Vice President P.O. Box 542 Geor.te F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Reading, Pennsylvania 19603,-

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.,

20006 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. 3; Dox 3521

'Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Karin W. Carter, Esq.

505 Executive, House Walter W. Cohe'n, Consumer Advocate P. O. Box 2357 -

-Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Department of Justice Strawberry Square,14th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Honorable Mark Cohen 512 D-3 Main' Capital Building

.t -

- - m,.w.

Harrisburg, Penn~sylvania 17120

-/

l 5'

Thomas J. Germine John Levin Esq.

-[

Deputy Attorney General Pennsylvania Public Utilities Com.

! /

Division of Law - Ruom 316 Box 3265

'/

1100 Raym.ond Boulevard b

Newark, Hew. Jersey 07102 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

l Allen R. Carter, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Joint Legislative Committ'ee on Energy 2320 florth 2nd Street l

Post Office Bc,x 142 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 i

Suite 513 Senate Gressette Building Louise Bradford Columbia, South Carolina 29202 1011 Green Street Ha;risburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Robert Q. Dol' lard l

609 Hontpelier. Street l

Baltipore, Maryland 21218 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss I

Harmon & Weiss Chii ncey Kepford 17a5 I. Street, N.W.

Juuith H. Johnsrud Suite 506 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Washington, D.C.

20005 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Steven C. Sholly I

!!s.i Frieda Serryhill, Chaiman I St ee

• W' Co'alition for Nuclear Power Plant Suite 601 i

. Postponement.

Washington, D.C.

20006 2610 Grendon Drive Wilmington, Delaware 1980.8 ACRS liembers Gail P). Bradford ANGRY Mr. Myer Bender 245 W. Philadelphia St.

Dr. Max W. Carbon York,rPennsylvania 17401 Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole r

Mr. Harold Etherington

• Atomic Safety and Licen n ng Appeal Board Dr. William Kerr U.S. ppciear Regulatory Commission Dr. Harold W. Lewis Washington, D.C, 20555 Dr. J. Carson liark is Mr. Uilliam M. Mathis

• Atomie: Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Dade W. Moeller U.S. flutlear Regulatory Comission Dr. David Okrent Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Milton S. Ples~ set l

~

Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray p

Dr. Paul G. Shewmon i

• Secretary l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Dr. Chester.P. Siess l

ATTH:a Chief, Docketing & Service Br.

Mr. Dav's A. Ward Washincton, D.C.

20555 i

William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Harmoh & Weiss 17251 Str, set, N.W.

g

'a n

n, D.C.

20006 6

d f

,((

re, 1.ucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff

[e 9

.