ML20031G497
| ML20031G497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1981 |
| From: | Milhollin G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110220485 | |
| Download: ML20031G497 (9) | |
Text
_
SM 10/8/81 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA K
- "Q/ 3 ],3
- Ui NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0K4ISSION d
,)
f
{I I) 5 AT0!ilC SAFETY AND LICEilSING BOARD I
d ENI kre Ad.ninistrative Je ', Gary L. Milhollin T
J.! OCz 3 0,.*k e (C
as Special Master DN
- yI J
A 6,s.@.#
A u
/Q'?
A Xx
. q, 40//Tgr p/
%gs In the ia ter of
)
)
ETROPOLITAft EDIS0:1 COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Reopened Proceeding)
Station, Unit 1)
)
October 8, 1981 aidk e l 6c Lbi MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOLLOWING A CONFERENCE AMONG THE PARTIES A conference among the par;ias to this proceeding was held on October 2 and 3_,1931, in liarrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The conference was convened pursuant to a f*aorandun and Order of September 14, 1031 by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
In its Memorandum and Order, the Board took the following actions:
(a) it reopened the record for the purpose of receiving additional evidence on the questien of the extent to which the discovery of cheating on examinations for reactor operators and senior reac-l tor operators -- and the circuastances surrounding the cheating should affect the issues lef t open or considered in the Board's Partial Initial Decision of August 27, 1981; 0ot's) 9 o
go2jogefo$$h g
g I
G
(b) it appointed me as Special Master, technical interrogator and informal assistant, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.722; (c) it scheduled a conference of parties before the Board on October 2,1981; and (d) it scheduled a conference of parties before me, the Special Mastar, on October 2,1981, intnediately following the conference before the Board.
At the conference before the Board, the parties discussed the ques-tion of which issues should be the subject of the reopened proceeding be-fore the Special Master.
After considering the parties' argument's, the Board established the specific language of those issues by a ruling from the bench.
The Board then concluded the conference before it.
Af ter the Board concluded the conference before it, the Special Mas-ter convened a conference of the parties to the reopened proceeding.
These parties are the following:
Licensee; tho Office of Executive Legal Director, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Staff); Three Mile Is' land Alert (TMIA), represented by Ms. Louise Bradford; Mr. Norman i
cod Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt.
The Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania also partici-pated as an interested state under 10 CFR 2.715(c).
Parties who appeared before the Licensing Board in the restart proceeding, but who did not par-ticipate in this conference before the Special Master, will not be parties to the reopened proceeding.
Those parties will be retained on the service list for ordinary filings, but will not be furnished with discovery responses, with bulky documents, or contacted for matters requiring rapid communication. With respect to service of these ordinary filings on mem-bers of the Licensing Board, Chairman Smith will receive two copies; the other members will receive one copy.
I
/
The items of business for this conference were the following:
(a) consol11ation of the parties, (b) discovery, (c) confidentiality of names of examinees, (d) a schedule for closing discovery, filing testi-many, and beginning the evidentiary hearing.
(A) Consolidatinn Mr. John Clewett, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Aamodt, was selected as the person who will receive rapid communications on behalf of Mr. and Mrs.
Aamodt and TMI A.
(8)
Discovery At the conference the parties exchanged ~ requests for discovery of documents.
They also exchanged other discovery requests.
The conference was adjourned for several hours during the af ternoon of October second for the purpose of allowing the parties to negotiate with each other on the i
permissible scope of their discovery and to reduce their disagreements to a minimum.
During th.is time the parties cooperated in a diligent effort to facilitate compliance with their mutual requests. The parties also met in the evening of October second, and for two hours in the morning of October third.
The parties are to be conmended for their diligence and i
j cooperation.
At the conclusion of these meetings, the parties presented a specific l
list of disagreements over discovery, which were disposed of by a ruling from the bench.
L
l
_4_
i (C) Confidentiality of Names of Examinees The parties presented arguments, both orally and in ariting, on the question whether the identitied of persons who took various examinations should be withheld from disclosure to the public or the parties.
Mr. Michael F. McBride, attorney for two individuals who may have been in-volved in cheating, and Mr. David E. Cole, attorney for another indi-vidual, made special appearances to argue in favor of confidentiality.
The question was taken under advisement.
Pending a ruling, the parties were instructed to designate examinees by using the lettering system which was used in the restart proceeding before the Licensing Board.
(0) A Schedule for the Balance of the Proceeding At the conference the parties were furnished with a schedule which the Special Master proposed for the balance of the hearing.
After a discussion, the parties agreed with the schedule except for some minor modifi' cations, which were then adopted. The schedule is as follows:
l l
By October 15
- Receipt of documenti requested Oct. 2.
- Receipt of responses to interrogatories.
1 l
On October 16
- Conference among the parties beginning at 9:00 a.m.
in the Honor Suite (Room 41) of the Harristown II Building at 333 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The conference will continue, if necessary, on October 17.
By October 26
- Receipt of all esponses to discovery requests.
By November 3
- Receipt of all written testimony except by the Staff, which shall be received on November 4.
- Receipt of trial plan outlines, which shall accompany written testimony, and will summarize the testimony of each witness and state what that testimony will seek to prove. Where a party seeks to prove its case-in-chief by examining an adverse witness, a trial plan outline, as above, is also required.
These outlines shall be served on all parties.
November 10-14
- Hearing Tuesday through Saturday.
Nove nber 17-21
- Hearing Tuesday through Saturday.
- Receipt of cross-examination plans.
Dacember 1-5
- Additional hearing days as necessary.
- Receipt of cross-examination plans.
From close of hearina:
+ 13 days
- Receipt of proposed findings.
+ 20 days -
- Receipt of rep 1v findings.
+ 50 days
- Receipt o'f report by Special Master (est h.>ted).
Frca Master's Report:
+ 10 days
- Receipt of comnents on Master's Report.
+ 17 days
- Receipt of replies to comments on Master's Report.
+ 31 days
- Licensing Board's decision on reopened proceeding (estimated).
NOTE:
The word " receipt" as used above means delivered in hand on the date specified.
It is assumed that the Staff will furni h the results of s
any relevant investigations to the parties and the Special Master as soon as those results are available.
It is also assumed that the Staff will initiate arrangements as soon as possible with respect to providing the i
bank of NRC examination questions to the Special Master. Finally, all parties are required to submit proposed findings.
If a party does not submit proposed findings on a particular issue, that party will be in default, and will thereby forfeit the right to have its position con-4 sidered on that issue.
(E)
Specific evidentiary presentations required by the Special Master At the conference, the parties were furnished a list of specific evi-dentiary presentations which the Special Master proposed to require.
After argument from the parties concerning the proper scope of these re-quirements, objections to the requirements were disposed of by rulings from the bench. As modified by these rulings, the presentations are re-quired to cover the following questions:
(1)
In general, is the Licensee's examination and certification pro-gram adequate to insure that qualified personnel sit for the NRC exams?
l' ~
4 (a) Why didn't the Licensee dscover the cheating on the mock exams?
(b) Why didn't other persons who sat for the examination en which cheating occurred, and who were in a position to ob-serve the cheating, report it? Were management-level i
employees in a position to observe the cheating? Did they learn of it later and fail to report it? For example, the instructor for licensed operator training is reported to have refused to answer queetions by investigators concern-
)
ing whether reference material was covertly brought into 4
the examination room, or to reveal the details of rumors of cheating which he may have heard.
(c) What is the practice of allowing re-examinations of those who fail initially on the various examinations which the Licensee gives? What is the purpose of this practice?
(d)
How does the Licensee administer its examinations so as to prevent cheating or other devices which defeat the purpose of the examinations?
l (2)
In general, are the NRC examinations administered in such a way j
as to insure that operating personnel are qualified for their positions?
(a)
Proctoring.
flas it been adequate in the past? Will it be adequate in the future? When were proctors present during the TMI examinations? What did they do while present and absent? What arrangements for proc (oring did they make during their absence? Wi'at instructions were they given by l
their superiors? What instructions did they give to the examinees?
]
(b) Grading.
Has it lean adequate in the past? Will it be adequate in the future? Who graded the TMI exams? Why wasn't the cheating detected?
(c)
Other monitoring.
To what extent does NRC evaluate or monitor the Licensee's testing program?
Is NRC's interest confined to its own exainination? NRC was to have evaluated 4
the " Category T" examination. What is NRC's procedure for doing so? Would NRC have detected cheating on the "Cate-gory T" examination?
(d)
Integrity of the examination.
What has been NRC's proce-dure for preventing examinees or their instructors from discovering what questions will be asked on examinations?
4 i
Are the same questions repeated from one examination to the next? Do responses to the questions require fresh analysis
]
by the examinee, or can the responses be memorized? To what extent are candidates " coached"? Mock and actual ex-
]-
aminations are to be compared.
The bank of questions main-tained by NRC is to be furnished, together with the exami-nations mentioned in issue (1) above.
(c)
Oral tests. How will the oral test be given and graded?
(f)
Attitude of the NRC Staff.
The Kemeny Comnission found that operator training was greatly deficient: that the depth of understandir.g was far too shallow.
It also found that the branch of NRC that monitored operator training was l
" weak and understaffed" and that NRC limited itself to I
"giving routine exams".
It concluded that no quantity of
4 9_
" fixes" would cure the basic problem, which it found to be the attitude of the people who were involved. Because the cheating incident occurred af ter the Staff had responded to i
the Komeny Conmission and promised to improve, what does the possibility of laxity in the Staff's procedures indi-cate about the Staff's attitude?
4 At the conference the parties were also furnished a list of specific witnesses whom the Licensing Board wishes to question, and a list of addi-tional witnesses who will be asked to appear before me.
The former are Messrs. Arnold, Boger, Davis, ilukill, Kelly, Newton, and M. Ross.
The latter are Mr. Husted, the persons who administered the Licensee's " mock" examination, all NRC proctors at the TMI examinations, all the SR0 exami-nees, the persons who took the NRC and Licensee' examinations in rooms where cheating occurred, the person whose work appears to have been copied from on the make-up " Category T" examination, and any other persons who u rv to have cheated on this latter examination.
'4$lW b
b lfj ));
' Gary V. Milhollin
/
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/
By Doris M. Moran Clerk to the Atomic Safety Bethesda, Maryland and Licensing Board October 8, 1981
-