ML20032C264
| ML20032C264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Ross M METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C214 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8111090567 | |
| Download: ML20032C264 (10) | |
Text
LIC 11-03-81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J.
ROSS 8111090567 811102 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
I.
Na?.ure of Testimony My name is Michael J.
Ross.
I am the Manager of Plant Operations at TMI-1.
I testified on a number of previous occasions in the TMI-l restart proceedings, as reflected in the August 27, 1981 Partial Initial Decision (PID) at 1 155.
My professiona3 qualifications are summarized at PID 1 154.
Today, I am here to testify on several subjects.
First, I will discuss my participation in the April, 1981 NRC examinations, and my involvement with the NRC examiners during the administration of those examinations.
I will also describe my first awareness of the NRC's concern that cheating may have taken place on the April exams, and my views on the attitude of the operators on my r.aff.
Finally, I will review my role in the operator certification process, and my views as to the best criteria and procedure to utilize to assess the integrity of operator candidates.
II.
April, 1981 NRC Examinations The April, 1981 NRC written examinations were administered over a four day period (April 21-24).
" Set A" of exams, RO and SRO, were given on the first two days, followed by " set B" of exams, RO and SRO, on the next two days.
I took the " set A" exams, RO and SRO.
During the time I took the exams I was not aware of any cheating taking place in the non-smokers room in which I sat; nor did I subsequently hear rumors of cheating until the NRC investigation began in July.
I have read the NRC's investigative reports on cheating and rumors of cheating.
I have no independent knowledge of the incidents of' cheating and rumors described in these reports.
In order for the NRC to be sure that their exam questions utilize the terminology in use at the particular facility for which the examinees are seeking a license, and that procedures and hardware have not recently been modified, i.e.,
after the exam was written, it is necessary for an individual very familiar with the facility to review the NRC examinations.
In my experience, this means that a senior licensed individual spends a number of hours with an NRC examiner (or examiners) reading and discussing the examinations and the examination keys.
This review ordinarily takes place at the time the exams are given, to ensure proper safeguarding of the exam questions and answers.
In April, 1981, every individual with a detailed technical familiarity of the materials covered by the examina-tions was taking the exams.
This is very unusual.
Ordinarily, when an individual or a group of individuals takes the NRC license exams, there are other individuals in Training and in Operations who already have an NRC license.
However, because everyone at TMI-l was required to be re-licensed, no " extra" personnel were available upon whom the NRC examiners could most legitimately rely to review the exam questions and answers.
As a result, after I took the exams on the first two days they were administered, I spent approximately three to four hours on the following two days reviewing with an NRC examiner, Mr. Bruce Wilson, both sets of RO and SRO exams, i.e.,
the four different exams given.
Mr. Wilson and I,
along with two operator training instructors who had also taken the first set of exams, met in an instructor's office on both of the days that we reviewed the exams.
The office was located immediately next to the smoker's examinatioi. room.
OtPer NRC personnel may have been present at times during these review sessions, although I do not recall anybody else being continuously present.
I do not believe that the practice of NRC staff meeting with Licensee senior technical people during the NRC examinations in any manner compromises the exam process; to the contrary, failing to review the exams with individuals intima-tely familiar with the facility could lead to incorrect answer keys, and improperly phrased questions.
While I agree that in the future NRC (and Company-administered) exams should be 100%
proctored, I also believe that NRC staff should continue to meet with Company person,01 to review the exam'..
Preferably, this process should occur in time for the examiners to inform eFaminees if questions are improperly phrased.
This was of course not possible with respect to " set A" of the April exams, because no Company person with sufficient detailed knowledge was available.
III.
First Knowledge of Cheating The first awarer.ess that I had that there was a potential problem, of some unknown kind, with regard to the NRC examinations was when Mr. Donald Haverkamp, one of the onsite regional I&E inspectors, called me and asked me who, among the Operations staff, smoked.
I cannot recall when this conversa-tion took place, although it was before the information regarding operators O and W was discussed with GPU Nuclear personnel on July 27.
Because Mr. Haverkamp's question was rather unusual, and of seemingly no importance, I asked him why he was asking me this question.
Mr. Haverkamp informed me that there could be a potential problem with the April NRC exams, although he di.d not know the details.
He asked me not to discuss his call with anyone.
I did not discuss it.
The first knowledge I had of the specific allegations of cheating by operators O and W occurred on July 27 when I had a brief conversation with Mr. Hukill and operator W concerning the allegations.
On July 28, I was interviewed by the I&E investigators at their site office.
At that time, I examined the suspect examinations.
While it was possible, in my mind, that examination answers cculd be developed in study sessions, and that individuals O and W conceivably could have memorized a great deal of material, I was skeptical in my own mind that the number of identical answers on these exams could be the product of anything but cheating.
I was shocked and demoralized by this realization.
n r-
+--u
,r--.
IV.
Attitude of Operators In my 11 years of experience at TMI, and in working with licensed operators, I have over time heard rumors con-cerning just about every subject affecting our lives, from work-related tales to rumors about individuals' personal lives.
I cannot say that I have never hedrd rumors about cheating, although I can say that a story must have made so little sense, by itself, that it seemed most reasonable to ignore it.
Rumors about an individual's inability to do something usually sounds like someone is poking fun at another individual's shortcom-ings, a kind cf teasing which I believe goes on in every work and home environment.
I can say without equivocation that I do not and have not in the past condoned cheating; nor did I ever suspect that cheating had actually taken place on any exam.
In retrospect, I feel responsible for not stating my views on this subject more expressly to niy staff.
However, I can honestly say that it never even occurred to me that this basic principle needed to be specifically focused upon by me, or by upper management.
At this juncture, it is clear to me that the TMI-l operators are bitter about the requirement imposed on them to I
repeatedly take the NRC exams.
In addition, having been previously licensed and operated the plant, some of the operators question the exam's ability to test their actual, extensive capabilities.
There is no question in my mind that TMI-l management, including myself, must emphasize and re-emphasize to the operators the importance the Company places
on the NP.C examination process.
While che NRC written exams are only one part of the licensing process, which is itself one part of the process TMI-1 management uses to determine the qualification of operators from both a competency and attitude standpoint, it is a necessary and ititegral part of the process.
Moreover, I believe that perhaps the most valuable benefit derived from the NRC examination (or re-examination) process is the enormous amount of studying which such a comprehensive written (and oral) examination causes every operator candidate to undertake.
Thus, even though it may seem unfair for individuals who did not cheat to take comprehensive exams three times, rather than once as others are required to do, there is an obvious educational tenefit in this process.
But I do think that it is difficult for anyone who is repeatedly subject to complete comprehensive exams to recognize, at the time he is studying for the exams, that he is really profiting from that process.
Nevertheless, I believe that the TMI-l operators cannot help but recognize this fact when the very difficult, rigorous process is over, and the pressure of exam-taking has passed.
While I must acknowledge, then, that many of the TMI-l operators feel unfairly subject to very imposing require-ments in order for them to maintain licenses which, in their minds, they had already successfully obtained, I do not believe that the operators think that this justifies misconduct, such as cheating, in order to satisfy these requirements.
I believe that it is clear in their ruinds, from my discussions with them, t
from the actions taken by management in response to the cheating by operators o and W, and from meetings and correspon-dence with senior management, such as Mr. Hukill. that cheating on NRC and Company administered exams is unacceptable behavior.
I also bel'ieve that the TMI-l operators are competent and ethical individuals.
They recognize that I have always emphasized proper conduct on the job.
My emphasis has always been on on-line duties; perhaps for this reason I have focused insufficient atten_ ion on operators' conduct in other aspects of their job, such as in training and testing.
To the extent that my focus has been too narrow, I recognize that on-line responsibilities and conduct can no longer be my only focus.
V.
Operator Certification While Mr. Hukill's testimony describes the certifi-cation process generally, I would like to focus on my input to Mr. Hukill's decision to certify licensed operators to take the NRC examinations, or to be relicensed pursuant to the NRC's regulations on requalification of licensed operators.
We do not have a specific written procedure to I
certify' licensed operators and candidates, although I under-stand that Mr. Hukill intends to institute such a procedure in the near future.
Without regard, however, to whether the procedure is written down, I think it is fair to say that the factors which go into certifying an operator are (i) the i
individual's performance on the last comprehensive examina-l tions; (ii) the individual's performance overall while in training over the past year; (iii) en-the-job performance,.. _ _
i.e.,
competence while on shift; (iv) the degree to which the individual is applying himself; and (v) the individual's attitude in general towards his job and his responsibilities as a licensed operator.
I participate in the certification process by monitoring the performance of each individual on my staff, and relaying to Mr. Hukill my views with regard to each individual's on-the-job performance, the degree to which I believe that individual is applying himself, and my conclusions about each individual's attitude.
(While I do nct believe I have ever consciously looked at each person's " integrity",
wnether an individual is honest, admits his mistakes, and generally appears to have a sense of pride about doing his job right are factors which I evaluate.)
My office is located in the plant, near tha control room.
I work with all of these individuals on a regular basis.
In the course of a year, I get a fairly clear picture of the capabilities and weaknesses of my staff.
Competency can be determined fairly objectively.
In addition to an individtal's performance on exams and in
' raining, I can observe, along with my shift supervisors, each individual's performance on-shift, intluding an ope rator 's willingness to seek assistance when needed, his ;bility te do more than one thing at a time -- an absolutely necessary capability for an operator to have, his ability to deal with stress (e.g., multiple demands), ts r. ort out priorities and to work with the auxiliary operators and individuals senior to him.
Thic is the kind of information which I evaluate and report to Mr. Hukill during the cer tification process. t
4 I also very subjectively evaluate each operator's behavior, and the attitude the individual appears to display about his work.
Included in this evaluation is the degree to which I believe the' person acts responsibly and maturely, his ability to act independently when necessary, but to seek assistance when appropriate, and his honesty and conscientious-ness.
I discuss with Mr. Hukill my personal views on these, more impressionistic, questions.
In addition, the Training Department discusses with Mr. Hukill its views of operators' competency, attitude and integrity, based on their work with the operators.
I believe that both the objective and subjective input I give, and Training gives, to senior management in the certification process are important.
While I support for-malization of this process by adoption of a certification procedure, I do not believe that the subjective evaluation I make can or should be reduced to a rote procedure.
i l
_g_
...