ML20031F840
| ML20031F840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110200471 | |
| Download: ML20031F840 (7) | |
Text
r Bd 10/14/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h
6' 9
Before Administrative Judges:
b I
g Ivan W. Smith, Chairman f.
g-Dr. Walter H. Jordan g
Dr. Linda W. Little to In the Matter of
)
h METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289
[ //
/
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
(Restart)
O C T.] g IO 8 F
Station, Unit 1)
)
"* 8. %
0:
N0'Qrort y' October 14, 1981 kf
'\\ C t
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON OCTOBER 2,1981 CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES RELATIVE TO RE0PENED PROCEEDING On October 2,1981 at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania the Board conducted a special conference among the parties to reopen the proceeding en matters relating to cheating pursuant to our September 14 order on that subject.
The Licensee; NRC Staff, TMIA, the Aamodt Family, and the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania participated.
The Board received > arguments on the issues suggested by the parties and modified for discussion purposes by the Board.
Tr. 23,116-71; see ff.
Tr. 23,122 for a discussion draft of the issues. As a result of the cerference and our deliberations we adopt the following as the broad issue and particular issues for the reopened proceeding:
g C
/!/
B110290471 011014 PDR ADDCK 050002 9
l Broad Issue The broad issue to be he.ard in the reopened proceeding is the effec of the information on cheating in the NRC April examination on th ment issues considered or left open in the Partial Initial Decision
, recog-nizing that, depending on the facts, the possible nexus of the chea incident in the NRC examination goes beyond the cheating by two pa
, individuals and may involve the issues of Licensee's manageme the quality of its operating personnel, its ability to staff the facility adequately, its training and testing program, and the NRC process by the operators would be tested and licensed.
Particular Issues 1.
The extent of cheating by TMI-l operator license candidates on the NRC license examinations in April 1981, and on any other Licensee-or NRC-administered examinations, including but not limited to the fol-lowing: the Kelly examinations (including Category T) in April 1980; Category T make-up examinations subsequently administer the company; the ATTS mock examinations in early April 1981; and such other examinations as the Special Master shall deem relevant.
These latter shall include any other, Licensee-adininistered quali-fication or mock exam or NRC-administered exam sin::e the at TMI-2.
3-2.
The adequacy of the Staff's investigation of, and NRC response to, the cheating incident and rumors of cheating in the April 1981 NRC examinations.
3.
The adequacy of Licensee's investigation of, and Licensee's response to, cheating or possible cheating in the examinations listed in Issue 1 above.
4.
[ Issue 4 has been combined with Issue 3.]
5.
The extent of Licensee management knowledge of, encouragement of, negligent failure to prevent, and/or involvement in cheating in the above-mentioned NRC and Licensee examinations.
6.
The existence and extent of Licensee management involvement in cheating as alleged by the Aamodts in paragraph 7 in response to the Beard's Order of August 20, 1981.
7 The axistence and extent of Licensee management constraints on the NRC investigation of cheating and rumors of cheating in the NRC April 1981 examinations.
8.
The adequacy of Licensee management response to tie incident in July 1979 referred to.in the IE investigation report and involving one of the two onerators terminated as a result. of cheating on the NRC April 1981 examinations.
9.
The adequacy of Licensee's plans for improving the administration of future Licensee qualification examinations for licensed operators and candidates for operator licensas, including the need for independerit administration and grading of such examinations.
n
,ag-
~_,
,. < _ - ~,, -
=--
'o e
e,
10.
The adequacy of the administration of NRC licensing e for TMI-l personnel, including proctoring, grading, e nd s guarding the integrity of examination materials; the ade the Staff's review of the administration of Licensee's ry T examinations; and the adequacy of the Staff's plan f operators and monitoring its NRC examinations to assure adherence to NRC testing requirements in order to as purposes of tne NRC examinations, because of the nature of questions, cannot be defeated by cheating, the use of crib sheets, undue coaching or other evasive devices.
11.
The potential impact of NRC examinations, including retests
, and operator terminations on the adequacy of staffing of TMI-l operations.
12.
The sufficiency of management criteria and procedures fo fication of operator license candidates to the NRC with re to the integrity of such candidates and the sufficiency of the procedures with respect to the competence of such candidates.
The broad issue provides the general scope fer the reopened ceeding.
The particular issues are only examples.
Judge Milhollin has the authority to add additional issues under the bicao issue and g conform the issues to the evidence within the scope of the broad is This authority stends to adding issues specifically rejected in who in part by the Board (proposed issues 13 through 17) if, within the issue, the evidence" so ju tifi s
es.
The Board has modified issue 10 from the version discussed at the con-ference in response to the recomendation by counsel for Licensee that the language of the issue itself contain the Board-imposed limitations. Tr.
23,144.
This modification does not affect the limitations on that issue announced by the Board at the conference. See, e.g Tr. 23.127-29; 23,144; 23,146-47. The Board will not permit a relitigation as to whether the sub-4 stance of the NRC operators' license examinations are technically adequate to assure that operators are qualified to. operate the plant without endan-gering the health and safety of the public.
We will consider me substance of the examination only in the context of whether the tests, because of their content, are amenable to defeat by some artifice or evasive device which would enable the tested candidate to pass the test without mastering the subject matter, sucn as cheating, crib sheets, coaching or memorization of preidentified examination questions.
The Board has not changed the language of issue 12 as requested by l
counsel for Licensee (Tr. 23,153) to incorporate the limitations imposed by the Board at the conference. We believe the language as it stands appro-priately describes the issue as it was explained at the conference. Tr.
23,129-30; 23,150-52.
In sum, the Board will not permit another litigation of the technical adequacy of the Licensee's examinations to measure the competence of its operating license candidates. We will permit a limited inquiry into the certification procedures to determine whether evasive devices can defeat the purpose of Licensee-administered examinations (com-parable to the limitations on the inquiry into the NRC examinations under
o issue 10), or can defeat other Licensee certificetion procedures -- for example, whether a candidate for NRC examinations can deceive the Licen-
\\
see's management into certifying the cand,idate to the NRC as being eligib l
for the NRC examination by the use of chsating, crib sheets, undue c on pre. identified questions, etc. on Licensee-administered examinations.
Issues numbered 13 through 15 proposed by the intervenors (ff. Tr.
23,122 at 3) were rejected as independent issues by the Board becaus are too remote in subject matter and/or time to the scope of the reopened proceeding.
They can be appropriate evidentiary considerations, but the Board and Judge Milhollin will not require an affirmative showing by Lic see or the Staff on these issues, nor will we permit a general discovery effort without an initial showing, probably by evidence in hand, that the proposed discovery can reasonably be; expected to produce evidence falli
.mJ' within the scope of the broad issue.
Tr. 23,130-32; 23,157-59.
The ade-quacy of any threshold showing to justify discovery on intervenor-proposed issues 13-15 must be made to the satisfaction of Judge Milhollin.
Tr.
23,159..
Proposed issues 16 and 17 were subsumed in part by issues 12 and 10
- /
respectively, and are not accepted as sep'arate issues.~
- /
We indicated at the conference that proposed issue 16 was rejected but
~
portions were accepted in issue 12 and that issue 17 was accepted but limited in issue 10.
The results are the same; only the portions of proposed issues 16 and 17 surviving in the accepted issues will be litigated.
Tr. 23,149.
i l
7-The Board ruled that the issue of confidentiality of the identity of personnel directly or indirectly assnciated with the cheating instances would first be addressed by Judge Milho111n.
If he rules against confi-dentiality, the Board will entertain an imediate request for review.
If we sustain an order denying confidentiality we will consider facilitating an interlocutory review by the Appeal Board.
Tr. 23,119-20.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Chairman Ivan W. '5mith ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland October 14, 1981 J
...,,,-,,.,.,,-,,,,,,,,,,.-..,,,m,
,,,----g-.-,
---,,,,,n.-
.---.-y.
,,-am,.
,