ML20032E363
| ML20032E363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032E364 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111200467 | |
| Download: ML20032E363 (4) | |
Text
.'
.g;9 cL%i7CDI'M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC y
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO 8.\\
. l'Q
)
OfflCE Or sicq
'atter of
)
f}, k( J J 13 Pdg AN EDISON COMPANY
-)
Dockep0pfg g 3gQgg n
NOV1 9: M
- a. e Island, i
- (
Unit 1) u.s. wasas aeoutAroes
\\
conwinese 7
}
7,4f g
FOLLOW-ON INTERROGATORIES p
OF NRC RE REOPENED HEARING 4
g ON CHEATING INCIDENT l
t 1.
Provide copies of new licensing examination used in Octcber, 1981 examination of TMI-1. operators.
2.
Provide names and relevant experience of proctors used in above named examination.
3.
Provi-de written and verbal instructions given to proctors i
for above named examination.
k 4.
Provide seating charts, including size of room, position of proctors, placement of operators and other candidates, indicating individuals by name or letters.
5.
How ma:.,
roctors were in the testing room at all times?
Were there any times when r.v proctor was in the room?
Provide these times, if any.
6.
Did the proctors keep a list of who left the room, the time an individual left and the time he returned?
Previde such a list if it exists.
7.
Did the proctors admonish the candidates re cheating?
If so, provide what the proctors said.
8.
Were the candidates asked ';o sign a pledge on their examination to indicate that the rc.sponses on their examinations I
were solely their own work?
If not, why not?
9.
Did the operators bring their own lunches into the testing 9
8111200467 811021
[6 2
l PDR ADOCK 05000289 Ogf O
2 room?
If so, were the lunches inspected?
By whom?
10.
Was there a designated time for eating lunches?
If so, when was that time?
Was conversation allowed among the candidates at lunch time or at any other time?
11.
Were candidates allowed to leave the room more than one time?
How many times?
Was there any limitation on the amount of time an individual could remain out of the room?
12.
Did the proctors report any irregularities observed during the examination?
If so, what were they?
Did anyone interview the proctors following the examinations?
13.
Where were the proctors' positions within the testing room?
When an opera-tor had a question, did the proctor attend to it at the operator's table?
Did the proctors keep a list of questions?
If so, provide this list and name of questioner, if known, and time of questivning.
14.
What Licensee personnel were present in the testing room at any time during the administration of the licensing examinations?
Describe the purpose of each such person's presence, the times present and any conversations engaged 2n.
15.
Provide the name of each proctor during the licensing examinations on each day of the examination, indicating the times each individual was in the testing room and the reason and times of any absences from the testing room.
16.
Provide the time each day of examination began and the time scheduled tu complete the examination.
Provide a list of times when each candidate turned in his examination responses for each day of the examination.
3 17.
List any and all materials provided to the candidates.
18.
List any and all materials carried into the testing room by the candidates.
19.
Were there any materials, other than those included in questions 17 and 18, that were available to the operators within or outside the testing room?
20.
Describe the testing rocm.
What is Licensee's normal use of this room?
Did Staff inspect it prior to the examination?
If so, when?
21.
What individual had possession of the examinations prior to the; commencement of the testing?
Were any Licensee personnel allowed to view any form of the examinations prior to its use?
If so, indicate who and when and what forms.
22.
What individual collected the examinations after each testing day?
If more than one individual, indicate by name and day.
23.
Provide names of persons who will grade the examinations, indicating relevant experience and categories to be graded.
When is the grading expected to be completed?
24.
Provide the grading ^ key for each form of the licensing examination.
How was each grading key developed?
Did Licsnsee personnel have any inputs re grading?
Indicate what those inputs were?
i 25.
What NRC licensing examinations, if any, were made available to Licensee since the April 1981 licensing examination?
Indicate facility where used and date.
26.
Indicate where Staff's administration of the October 1981 licensing examinations differed from the standards of ES-201 of 2/15/69.
Provide the same comparison, including Revision 3 to ES-201.
27.
Had Staff planned to review the Category T-rctests prior to
the cheating incident?
When had that review been planned to take place?
Does Staff consider
"',.ake home" tests, as in Category T second retest, an acceptable administration of the Category T test?
Why does Staff consider the Trunk review a suitable sLbstitute for an IE review?
Does Staff consider the Trunk review to have the same purp oses as the Staff review was originally intended to have?
28.
Consultant Davis refers to " slides and screens" which may have been available to the candidates in the April 1981 licensing examinations?
Has Staff determined what Mr. Davis meant by this and his basis or bases for such a statement?
29.
Staf f replTud that NRC has conducted no analysees e n 'the TMI examinations since the discovery of cheating.
How does that square with the IE report of August 11, 1981, page 1, paragraph 3?
30.
To be answered by William J.
Dircks, Executive Director for Operations re his Memorandum of September 1, 1981 to J.
J.
Cummings, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor.
Re Mr. Dircks'
)
Recommendation 3:
Since the ES-201 Standards in effect at the time of the administration of the April 1981 licensing examinations at TMI-l included stringent requirements for proctorship.which were not met, what can a recommendation that reaches no further than a prior standard ef fectuate?
This is a question of policy and is therfore appropriately answered by Mr. Dircks.
31.
To be answered by Mr. Dircks as a chief administrative of ficer:
Do you believe that the proctoring that took place during the TMI April 1981 licensing examinations was consistent with the practices of the NRC over the past eight years, as stated by Bruce Wilson in an OIA interview (OIA inves tigation, July 31, 1981, Wilson interview)?
/
~
& L Ltj;t a, v lt. l % t' s &
October 21, 1981
()