ML20032B793
| ML20032B793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Clewett J AAMODTS, CLEWETT, J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B794 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060335 | |
| Download: ML20032B793 (5) | |
Text
.
.a 8.
l EE!/.~E2COC"CO'.~T.ZE l I
AAM 11/2/81 1
00LKE7Eo 0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'4 $}hij ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD MQ Before Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin OFFICE cy ggfEh'r((.
as Special Master DOCXEIlNG &
BRANCH
~
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 m
)
(Restart)
-f (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(ReopenedProceedih rp
'/
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
AAMODT REQUEST FOR
~
NOVO 61981b T8 2
k' 'Ms'sE" h-SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY Q
. 3
-n s
The Aamodts hereby request the Special Master u' 1
v, supplemental discTvery in certain areas which are highly relevant to the reopened proceeding but which could not have been adequately addressed in the original discovery period, whichsended;on October 26, 1981.
This request covers several discrete topics as to which discovery is necessary to fully develop the issues which are before the Special Master.
I.
The first area which logically requires discovery is the NRC investigation of cheating, which has been updated twice, once too late in the discovery period to depose any additional people or propound any additional interrogatories, and a second time af ter the and of the discovery period.
Each of these additional reports discusses material highly relevant to this proceeding, l
which mus t be fully understood and evaluated in order to resolve
~
the issues in the proceeding.
t kff206 j
Ohb
$Il C
PDg
For example, there is the report dated October 13, 1981 (which was not mailed to the Aamodts until more than a week later) which includes allegations made by a former Shif t Technical Advisor, Mr.
"YY",
that Michael Ross, the Manager of Plant Operations at TMI-1, was "almost ecstatic" as he told a shift supervisor that he had gotten the NRC to broaden the answer keys and had kept the proctor out of the examination room for.a long time.
Elsewhere in that report, Mr.
"OOO" suggests that operators may have viewed the NRC exam as simply one more hurdle, to be gotten out of the way in any way possible.
In the report of October 28, 1981, there is a signed
~
- ;.'atement from a ' Senior Reactor Operator, Mr.
"FF", who stated that while he was taking the NRC examination in April of 1981 he was approached at the coffee stand by another person taking the examination, who asked him a question which he assumed was on the test, and th&t he answered it, realizing at the time that to do so was improper.
Instances such as these are potentially of grave signifi-cance to the proper resolution of these proceedings.
Since there has been no opportunity to engage in discovery on these matters, the Aamodts respectfully request the Special Master for leave to notice depositions of these individuals so as to ascertain the significance of these incidents.
As to Mr.
"YY",
if the Licensee will not agree to facilitate his appearance, the Aamodts request that a subpoena issue, with cos ts to be borne by the Licensee or' the NRC Staff, or, at a minimum, that arrangements be made. such that the Aamodts may
-t
]
4 contact Mr.
"YY" by telephone.
II.
As a separate matter, there is a new circumstance of crucial relevance to these proceedings, which is the fact that the NRb examinations have been readministered to TMI-l personnel, during the weeks of October 19 and October 26, 1981.
The ad-
- ministration of these tests may well be the single most important issue in the reopened proceedings, as suggested by the Special Master in his closing remarks at the October 16, 1981 meeting of the parties.
However, there has-been no clear and unobstructed oppor-tunity to conduct discovery on this critical matter.
Although some such questions were propounded to the Staff in the context of follow-cn interrogatories, the Staff opposed all of them, ecen going so 'far as to say at one point that only the Staff's. plan for
~
administering examinations, and not the actual administration of those examinations, was an acceptable issue in these hearings.
The Staff also noted that it would be improper to release the actual tests until af ter they were administered.
Now, however, the examinations have been given.
Rather than arguing the extent to which the previously asked interroga-tories are proper follow-on discovery, the Aamodts believe it is most important to focus on the real issue, which is that the actual circumstances under which the re-examination took place are of such critical relevance to the issues in this proceeding that discovery at this time is necessary and proper.
m
,,rw+-t-www,mw---,,,--,r,wr--w--r.,,S
,nw-.r-.w-v.*,w.we,we,w.m-te------e v.t-..--
- e,e 9
-ar-ym.<wmp---.-g-y-,
-. w g-er---er w e v
--,,y--,r--+--,-
,+--g-
e 0
_4_
Nor would this discovery need to delay the hearing schedule.
In crder to facilitate response the Aamodts have attached as Appendix A to this motion the questions they would direct to the Staf f on the subject of the readministered examination.
For these reasons the Aamodts respectfully request the Special Master to direct the Staf f to promptly respond to these interrogatories.
III.
As a third separate matter, the Aamodts request the original of the NRC's April 1981 Reactor Operator examination taken by Michael Ross, the Manager of Plant Operaticn: at TMI-1.
Although this request could conceivably have been made earlier in the discovery process, its relevance was not fully-realized until after the deposition of Mr. Ross and after the arrival of the second I&E report, which discusses Mr. Ross' role in broaden-ing the answer keys.
In any event, it is a matter of sufficient 8
l importance to these proceedings, in particular to the.ssue of l
management involvement in cheating, that the Aamodts feel it is necessary to bring this request before the Special Master.
The reason for this request is that this particular test, among the inrge number that have been analyzed, is unique in that there are a large number of answers which appear to have been amended at some time other than immediately after they were written (as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the last line of a response has been replaced with two squeezed-in lines, l
o
_s_
obviously after the next answer had been started).
A few examples of these changes are attached as Appendix B to this motion.
Especially in light of the fact that Mr. Ross was involve'd in reviewing the questions and answer keys of the NRC examinations, including those of the ones he took, the Aamodts believe that a proper examination of Mr. Ross' test would require a review of the original (to ascertain, fcr example, whether a different pen, or a dif ferent pencil, was used in the modifications).
For these reasons the Aamodt3 respectfully request that the Special Master direct the Staf f to provide them with the original of the April 1981 reactor operator examination taken by Michael Ross.
The Aamodts will agree not to damage or deface it in any way and will return it to the NRC when analysis and possible testimony are complete.
Respectfully submitted,
"(
su John Clewett Counsel for the Aamodts Dated:
November 2, 1981
,~y
._