ML20038B857
| ML20038B857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112090180 | |
| Download: ML20038B857 (78) | |
Text
.
D " O N II I
{h h
NCmu RIGUI.ATORI CCMMISSICN I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
a Ma & cd:
p-; ~.,
50-289M bm (Restart)[ pr.'
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NO.
/ s
,s v
'o,
{y' [
l!
(Three Mile Island Unit 1)
DECS 1937w }
t, _
[ 1 u.5,rean,n,,,,,
g\\
Niss u j
. c'.
-/.
g
y
-c\\ h j O
2x=: oecember 1, 1981
>AcI,,
2s,2se - 2s,322 l
AC:
Harrisburc, Pennsylvania i
lo3 1
s I
[l(
l O
ALDERSON ' *t REPORTLTG 400 VL.:q'~'1 A':e.,
5.X. Was&
c~ n, C.
C.
10024 Telephcne: (202) 554-2343 c112n90180 E11201 g (-. a ADOCK 0500028 t-DR 3
.o.
--.m-
,m-
---,~q
,Q.
r--
v
25,256 s
(])
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3----
x 4 In the Matter of a
s 5 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 a
(Restart) 6 (Th ree Mile Island Unit 1) s 7--
x 8
Harrisburg II Building 9
333 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10 Tuesday, December 1,
1981 11 12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened 13 a t 4: 57 p.m.,
pursuant to notice.
O 14 BEFOREs 15 GARY MILHOLLIN, S pecial Master, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 On behalf of the Licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company 17 ERNEST L.
BLAKE, JR.,
Esq.
218 Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
19 Washington, D. C.
20036 20 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias 21 ROBERT ADLER, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 22 505 Executive House Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 23
()
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,257 O
oa ten 1r or nr eaa ar nor n >
oati 2
JOHN CLEWETT, Esq.
The Christic Institute 3
1324 North Capitol Street O
Washington, D. C.
20002 4
On behalf of Three Mile Island Alerts 5
LOUISE BRADFORD 6
JOANNE DOROSHOW 1011 Green Street 7
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 8
On behalf of the Regulatory Staffs 9
DANIEL SWANSON, Esq.
JACK R. GOLDBERG, Esq.
10 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio n 11 Washington, D. C.
I 12 13 0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1
21 l
22 23 24 25 l0 l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
--,_,.-_.--......_..._._..._........_.._______.-.______..___-...___.._______..___..-_._-2345_
400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554
I 25,257-A j
$2E2EEEE 2
CROSS C) wrrsess:
- orascr caoss azorascr azcaoss Boxao on Boaan 3
William J. Ward, 4 l Peter E.
Baci and Edward C.
Gilbert
=
5 By Mr. Goldberg 25,272-0 By Ms. Bradford 25,279 i
3 6
e 5
6 7
x 3
a g g g p B I_ g g d
9 NUMBER IDENnnsD IN EVIDENCE Yg 10 Licensee #80 25,262 25,262 25 5
11 staff #26 25,275 25,276 J
12 '
staff #27 25,276 25,277 3=
13 Staff #28 25,277 25,278 l
14-t E
15 l Written Testimony of Mr. Ward, entitled " Testimony of 16 i j
William J. Ward Relating to OIE Investigations (Issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
& 7),
- and the qualifications u-j7,
I!
statements of Messrs. Ward, B aci, and Gilbe rt............. 2 5,2 7 4 E
I 2
18 '
=+
19 8
-j i
20 '
21 l
\\
22,
s s
23 !
24 25 i
l l
t 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
l
25,258 O
i zaasssa1xas 2
(4:57 p.m.)
f) 3 JUDGE MILHOLLINa The hearing will come to order.
v' 4
I first would like to apologize f or ny 5 involuntarily delay today.
6 I requested that the parties confer on a couple of 7 matters during the long period during which you were waiting 8 f or me.
Do you have any reports on that?
9 MB. BLAKE:
I do not have the laundry list of 10 items which you had assigned to us.
But we did in fact --
11 Mr. Adler reported to us the items that you had 12 recommended.
I think one of them had to do with the results 13 of the NRC exam, two versions of which have been distributed O
14 today by the NRC, one which was provided to the parties by 15 Mr. Goldberg by mail yesterday.
And he has also distributed 16 up here today a second version, being a copy of a letter to 17 the Licensee from the NRC, providing virtually the same 18 inf orm a tion.
19 I believe the package that was sent out to the 20 parties had an enclosure 2 to it which provided inf orma tion 21 by separate categories f or each of the individual 22 e xa minees.
Otherwise, I think it was a corresponding 23 package.
)
24 A second item that you asked us to talk about was 25 --
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,259
()
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have both packages, 2 apparently.
3 MR. BLAKE:
A second item which you asked us to 4 talk about was findings, and we have indeed talked about 5 findings.
And I think our talk was fruitful, but at this 6 point a couple of parties had had to check and do some more 7 thinking.
And so we do not have anything concrete to report 8 to you.
But I think it was profitable.
9 I am sorry that I do not remember the other 10 items.
11 With respect to the proposed findings and your 12 a vailability, I think we will be able to accommodate in 13 ge t ting the findings to you, but that is, in part, a O
14 function of how we come out on the findings schedule.
I 15 think we ought to be allowed to talk somewhat more, Judge 16 Milho111n, and get back to you with what I hope would be an 17 agreemen t.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Tes.
I just wanted you to begin i
i 19 thinking about it.
Perhaps during the week as we see how 20 much more testimony there is, we can decide how many days l
21 would be appropriate.
22 MB. BLAKE:
What our conversations today focused 23 on was the assumption that we would finish this Saturday and
()
24 then look at a schedule for that, taking into account the l
25 holidays as well.
But we are not there yet.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,260 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I assumed "ou would not be able 2 to come to an instant agreement on that subject.
3 NR. BLAKE4 Actually, we came quite close.
But it 4 13 just not fair to report until everybody is 5
JUDGE MILHOLLIN Are there any other matters to 6 report at this time?
7 HR. BLAKEa I have a couple of items.
You had 8 asked us to provide for the record indication of relative 9 salary impacts rela ted to VV and two other individuals, his 10 corresponding position in Unit 1 and the individual who took 11 his position at Unit 2.
We have done that.
I have provided 12 to the parties this af ternoon f or their perusal -- you do 13 not yet have a copy of what I have provided to the parties O
14 -- what I have provided is a couple of diff erent ways of 15 p resenting the information.
16 The reason I have done that is I would like to put 171n as an exhibit something which would demonstrate the 18 relative impact of salaries, the relative positions of 19 salaries with respect to the th ree that you had asked for.
20But I am not anxious to put in as an exhibit the actual 21 dollar figures of these individuals' salaries.
22 I think at the time you requested it, you 23 indicated then to the extent that you could, you would 24 regard that as a protective subject possibly, to some sort 25 of protection.
At this point I think the parties need maybe O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,261 I
()
1more than to just decide whether or not I have provided them 1
21s an accurate way to do it.
Assuming they have that time,
)
3 it may be by tomorrow we might get reports back from them, 4 and we could provide that to you.
5 Another item which you have -- I guess I could ask 6 at this point whether or not the parties are ready, but I do 7 not know, because I did not really have this information 8 until late this af ternoon.
And I assume the parties are not 9 yet ready to sign off on what I propose to put in as an 10 exhibit.
11 Is more time necessary?
Maybe by tomorrow.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
With respect to the salary 13 ques tion ?
O 14 MR. BLAKEs Yes, sir.
Another item which you 15 asked us for was attendance records over the last year.
We 16 vent back to Mr. Newton and got that chart which he did not 17 have available when he te stifie d.
The parties do not have 18 any objection to this.
It is an affidavit from Mr. Newton 19 explaining the attendance records and -- the attendance 20 records.
21 I would hae that identified as Licensee Exhibit 22 80, unless you want to mark it as your own.
We are 23 providing it at your request, but I am prepared to have it j
()
24 identified as Licensee Exhibit 80.
And I would ask that it I
25 be accepted into evidence.
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,262
()
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
Hearing no 2 objection, the document entitled " Affidavit of Samuel L.
(]}
3 Newton," dated the 30th day of November 1981, which consists 4 of three pages and contains information concerning 5 attendance at training sessions, is marked as Licensee 6 Exhibit 80 and accepted into evidence.
7 (The document referred to was 8
marked Licensee Exhibit No. 80 9
for identification and was 10 received in evidence.)
11 MR. BLAKE4 Judge Milho111n, I prepared over the 12 weekend a typed-up -- a representation of our tentative 13 witness schedule for the week.
What this does is just put 14 down for everybody as a schedule what we agreed to last week 15 and what we reported to you on the phone on Wednesday.
I do 16not plan to put that in as an exhibit; it is really just for l
17 the convenience of the parties and I think for you, too, to 18 follow the-schedule for this week.
19 With respect to the ex-employees, following our 20 conference call on Wednesday, we provided -- got out in the 21 mail by Federal Express that day to Mr. Clevett the naues 22 and addrecess of the ex-employees.
We undertook over 23 Thanksgiving Day, Friday, to contact these people.
And as
~
24 soon as we had contacted them, we ha ve provided that 25 inf ormation and the results of our contacting them to Mr.
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,263 O
i c1ewett-2 It turns out that out of ^he six, two desire to be
(])
3 represented by Licensee's counsel, by us.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I am sorry, Idid not hear.
5 MR. BLAKE:
Two desire us to represent them.
The 6 other four did not.
It is a split between, as I understand 71t, no desire for counsel and for some other counsel.
And 8 so Mr. Clevett would have to report on whether or not --
9 where he stands with respect to contacting them.
But that 101s basically the status from our end.
11 With respect to the two people th a t want us to 12 represent them, want the Compan y 's counsel, those two people 13 it appears now will be contacted by Mr. Clevett tonight in a O
14 conference call with Ms. Gottlieb from our office as well 151nvolved tonight.
16 But with respect to the others, M r. Clevett has 17 contacted them, undertaken to do that individually.
18 The parties have continued to talk about the need 19 for additiona3 -- all of the witnesses that we agreed to 201ast week, individual A, who was to have appeared in the in 21 camera session on Friday afternoon, is no longer necessary 22 to the Intervenors.
I appreciate Mr. Clewett and Ms. Aamodt 23 having reported tha t today to us.
And TMIA has also acreed
)
24 t ha t he is not necessary.
25 They continue -- Mr. Clewett reports to me that he O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L
25,264
()
1is continuing to look at the list and see whether or not 2 there is some other way, method, of holding it down.
But at
(]}
3 the moment, no others have been identified.
4 In the case of TMIA, Ms. Bradf ord has indicated 5 that there may be a way to avoid or substan tially reduce the 6 need to question some of these individuals based on their 7 statements to the NRC and reported to the NRC investigative 8 reports.
At the soment she is continuing to review those 9 and in f act get a good copy of those statements, a legible, 10 clearly legible copy, so that she can make th a t 11 determination.
So it may be that others will not have to 12 appear or the time for their appearance may be reduced.
So 13 ve are still working along those lines.
14 With respect to the in camera sessions, the 15 parties met today and talked about the arrangements for the 161n camera session.
I think we are in good shape for one of 17 the sessions.
And the other session we still need to do 18 some work on that.
But I prefer not to report in any more i
19 detail on that.
20 I think that completes my report to you.
21 MR. CLEWETT If I may very briefly add to the 22 report.
On the question of the individuals who have left l
23 Metropolitan Edison 's employ, it is true that two of them
)
24 desired to be represented b y Licensee's counsel in a 25 conference call.
Those calls will take place tonight.
One O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,265 4 ()
1 o ther individual who wanted to be represented by another 2 attorney, it has not been possible to arrange that call
{}
3 before tonight.
That will also take place tonight.
4 As to the other three, one of them indicated that 5 we could talk to him after he had talked to his attorney, 6and the earliest possible time that would be would be this 7 coming Saturday evening.
So it may be difficult to report 8 on any status for that individual before the hearings are 9 over.
10 One other individual indicated that with or 11 without an attorney he would talk to no one about anything 12 without a subpoena.
13 And one individual, the remaining individual, was 0
14 willing to speak freely about why he had left.
And his 15 reasons 1pparently were largely personal.
He had moved to i
16an area where his wife was f rom, and tha t was essentially 17 the reason that he had left.
j 18 So the overall picture on this is that it is a 1911ttle early to report any substantial results in this l
20 inquiry.
But there remains a chance that we may be able to 21 get some idea of why these individuals lef t.
We will r
22 probably know more tomorrow.
23 (Pause.)
l
(
24 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Other reports?
25 (No response.)
}
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,266
()
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Goldberg, I have not, of 2 course been able to look at this report on the examination.
(])
3 Could you, for my benefit, just explain what the document 4 contains that you previded ?
5 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
The first document is a 6 havember 30 letter f rom me to Judge Smith.
This is a direct 7 response to the Licensing Board's November 9 order in which 81t requested the Staff to provide the results of the October 9 exam on November 16, or, if the results were not available 10 on the 16th, report the date on which the results would be 11 available.
12 The Staff on the 16th of November filed a response 13 to that order, stating that the results were then not O
14 available but would be available on November 30.
This 151etter is our response then to the Board's request that we 16 provide it and the Special Master with the results of the 17 exam given in October '81 witn grades keyed to the letter 18 designa tion of the individuals.
19 The Board, of course, asked the S ta f f to provide 20 the parties with a summary of the results based on 21 pass /f ail.
Pursuant to your direction, we have provided the 22 parties with the same information that we have provided you 23 and the Board; namely, not only is there a summary.of
(
24 pass / fail results, but also the pass / fail results for each 25 individual according to the letter designation of that
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V'RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,267
(])
1 individual.
2 And in addition to that, we have attached a 3 breakdown of the exact scores for each individual in each of
)
4 the categories on the October exam and compared them to the 5 results on the April exam.
6 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Which page is that?
7 MR. GOLDBERGa The first attachment to the 8 November 30 letter to Judge Smith is a two-page memorandum 9 f rom Mr. J. J. Kramer to Mr. H. R.
Denton, which merely 10 summarizes the results of the October exam. to 11 that meno is a pass / fail breakdown by letter designation.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLINa For the RO candidates?
13 MR. GOLDBERG:
That is correct.
And the SRO O
14 candidates are the second page of Enclosure 1.
15 to the memo from Kramer to Denton is 16 the breakdown by category of the grades of each of the 17 candida tes.
For each candidate the first line represents 18 hid score on the April '81 exam, and the second line his 19 score on the October ' 81 exam.
l 20 In order to --
l 21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I am sorry, that is not on the 22 cha rt, is it, the fact that you just gave us?
l 23 MR. GOLDBERG :
Well, it is explatned in the Kramer
, ()
24 memo tha t the first line is indeed the April '81 results and 25 the second line contains the October '81 results.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,268
()
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
2 MR. GOLDBERGs The entries on that chart which are
(])
3 circled are areas where a candidate has scored less than 80 4 percent in a particular category, so that they are 5 essen tially highlighted and can he found quite readily.
6 Okay, let me correct that.
Less t:1an 70 percent 71n a category or less than 80 percent overall would be 8 circled.
9 JUDGE MILHOLLINs That is what I thought you 10 meant.
11 MR. GOLDBERGs Okay.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Po I have the results of the 13 oral examina tion, the oral tests also?
O 14 MR. GOLDBERGs The results of the oral exam are 15 reported on that Enclosure 2 for each individual, with 16 merely a pass or f ail designation in the columns to the far 17 tight of each of the pages.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
There was a walk-through 19 examination for both R0s and SROs; is that right?
By 20 " walk-through," I mean was there an oral test for both R0s 21 a nd SB0s?
22 (Counsel for NRC Staf f conferring.)
23 MR. GOLDBERGs Yes.
That is correct.
1
(
24 MR. BLAKEs Judge Milho11in, it is my 25 understanding that with respect to -- that there would have f
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 t
25,269
()
1been some walk-through for any one individual.
If he were 2 an RO, then I think on a chart under "O,"
the two columns
(])
3 that have "Os" in them I take to be the oral results.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes, the "W " is f or "writte n. "
5 The "0"
is for " oral."
The "S"
is for " simulator."
And Mr.
6Blake is correct that there was one walk-through oral exam 7 for a candidate even though he might have been a candidate 8 for both the RO and the SRO.
9 MR. BLAKE Under those individuals who are SRos, 10 I think you will find an identical grade recorded under the 11 column for "0" for RO and "O" for SRO, it being the result 12 of one walk-through.
13 MR. CLEWETTs If I may direct your attention to O
14 candidate RR, it appears as though 15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Which page is that on?
16 MR. CLEWETT:
That would be on the 17 nex t-to-the-last page.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes, I have it.
19 MR. CLEWETTa It appears that that individual has 20 a "P" under the "0" of RO and an "S" under the "0" of SRO.
21 I do not know whether that would possibly indicate that in a 22 given single walk-through there could arise two grades, 23 whether an individual might do well enough for an RO pass
(
24 but not well enough for an SRO pass.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLINs The "S"
column again is for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,270 A)
(_
1 what?
2 MR. GOLDBERG
" Simulator."
(])
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I am sorry.
All righ t.
4 MR. GOLDBERG With respect to Mr. Clevett's 5 observation, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Boger, of course, will be 6 here tomorrow, and we can check with them.
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
Do I assume when I look at 8 this that a person who fails the oral test would be failed 9 on the examination as a whole?
That is, these are 10 independent requirements, the written and the oral; is that 11 correct?
12 MR. GOLDBERG Yes, that is 'ight.
r 13 (Counsel for NRC Staff conferring.)
O 14 MR. GOLDBERG With respect to individuals who had 15not previously -- okay, with respect to candidates who had 16not previously held an NRC license, they were and only they 17 were required to take the simulator portion of the exam.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I see.
Thank you for explaining 19 t h a t.
20 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
You are welcome.
21 And just to perhaps complete your inquiry, the 22 second document is a letter which is dated December 1 from 23 M r. Thomas M.
Novak to Mr. Henry D.
Hukill, concerning the 24 results of the October exam.
And I am informed this letter 251s being served on the Boa rd and all parties on the service O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.L 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,271 4 ()
1 list.
In addition, I have hand-delivered copies to the 2 parties here at the hearing today.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN.
Any other preliminary matters?
4 (No response.)
5 I should make one small preliminary ennouncement.
6I have been speaking to the Licensing Board about the 7 Licensing Board 's intention expressed sometime ago to 8 participate itself in the reopened proceeding.
The 9 Licensing Board at the present time prefers to have the 10 schedule we have agreed upon completed and have proposed 11 filings -- I am sorry -- have filings of proposed findings, 12 then to consult with me for the purpose of deciding whe the r 13 the Licensing Board will conduct further hearings.
(
14 The Licensing Board, as you know, is busy right 15 now with the second part of its initial decision.
I do not 16think you can assume that there will ever be a time when the 17 Licensing Board will hear further testimony in this reopened 18 proceeding.
19 From th a t, it follows that no party should 20 withhold cross-examination questions in the hope of seeing a 21 witness again at a later session.
22 The Licensing Boa rd indica ted to me that if there 23 should be an additional session, it would be a short
()
24 session, and tha t additional filings of proposed findings 25 would be limited to the evidence received in the additional O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,272
()
1 session.
2 So I think the Licensing Board anticipates *. hat
(])
3 almost all of the issues will be resolved as a result of 4 evidence which will have been received when these hearings 5 are completed.
6 Since there are no further preliminary ma tters, we 7 are ready for the Staff's next witness.
8 MR. GOLDBERGs Yes, the Staff is prepared.
9 The Staff at this time calls Mr. Williar J. Ward, 10 appearing with Mr. Ward is Peter Baci, B-a-c-i, and Edward 11 Gilbert.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
These witneses have not been 13 previously sworn.
()
14 Whereupon,
]
15 WILLIAM J. WARD, 16 PETER E. BACI and 17 EDWARD C.
GILBERT 18 called as a witnesses by counsel for the NRC Staff, having 19 first been duly sworn by the Chairman, were examined and 20 testified as f ollows:
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. GOLDBERG i
j 23 0
Mr. Ward, I have given you a document dated
()
24 11/3/81, entitled " Testimony of William J.
Wa rd Relating te 25 0IE Investigations (Issues 1,
2, 3,
5, 6,
7)."
Was this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,273
()
1 document prepared by you or under your direction?
2 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir.
3 0
Do you have any corrections or additions or 4 changes which you wish to make to this document?
5 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, I have one minor change 6 to make on page 16, I believe it is, of my testimony.
At 7 the bottom of the pace, in response to the question 8 regarding our investigation or noninvestiga tion, if you 9 will, of Mr. Williams, I use the phrase "(they)" in 10 parentheses.
That we wish to change to " proctors."
The 11 typo slipped in somehov.
12 So the correct term would be "the proctors."
That 131s the only change I wish to make.
O 14 Q
Would you now read that sentence as it is 15 corrected?
16 A
(WITNESS W AR D )
The sentence should now read:
"We 17 noted that some of the persons taking the test expressed 18 concern tha t the proctors" -- and I have in parentheses 19 "(presumably the Licensee) -
"may become suspicious if they 20 were all to hand in their answer papers at the same time."
21 Q
Do you ha ve any other additions or corrections?
22 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, sir.
23 Q
With that correction, do you adopt this as your
()
24 testimony in this proceeding?
j 25 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, I do.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,274 O
i Q
Mc. Bec1, you heve in front of you a document 2 entitled "Qualifica tions Brief:
Peter Edward Baci."
Is 3 that your qualifications statement which you wish to adopt 4 for this proceeding?
5 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes, it is.
6 Q
Mr. Gilbert, I have given you a copy of a document 7 entitled "Qualifica tions Brief s Edward C. Gilbert."
Is 8 that your qualifications statement for this proceeding?
9 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
Yes, it is.
10 MR. GOLDBERCs At this time I would like to have 11 the testimony of William J. Ward relating to OIE 12 investig ations, Issues 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 physically 13 incorporated into the record as if read.
14 JUDGE MILHOLLINs It will be so received and 15 incorporated.
16 (The document referred to, the written testimony 17 of Mr. Ward, entitled " Testimony of William J.
Ward Belating 18 to OIE Investigations (Issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7),"
and the 19 qualifications statements of Messrs. Ward, Baci, and 20 Gilbert, follows) 21 22 i
23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
11/3/81 k/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(~')
NUCLEAR REGULATDRY COMiilSSION v
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD nV In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAti J. WARD RELATING TO OIE INVESTIGATIONS (ISSUES 1,2,3,5,6,7)
Q.
State your name and describe the work you perform.
A.
My name is William J. Ward.
I am the Chief of the Investigations Branch, Enforcement and Investigations Staff, Office of Inspection o
and Enforcement.
N)
Q.
What has been your involvement to date in the investigations regarding cheating at TMI?
A.
The OIE Investigations Branch bore the primary responsibility for the investigation that the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory l
Comission requested be conducted regarding suspicions of cheating i
on the April,1981 reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) examinations administered by the NRC at Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1.
I supervised the investigators who actually (3
conducted the investigations, v) i Q.. Do you have a copy of your professional qualifications statement?
D
~ws A.
Yes. A copy is attached to this testimony.
O Q.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to Issues 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 which are included in this reopened hearing on management issues.
To the extent appropriate, I will also address the " additional mininum evidentiary presentations" which were set forth by the Special Master.
Issue 1 The extent of cheating by TMI-1 operator license candidates on the
,Q NRC license examinations in April 1981, and on any other Licensee i
or NRC-administered examinations, including but not limited to the following:
the Kelly exaninations (including Category T) in April 1980; Category T make-up examinations subsequently administered by 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-administered qualification or mock exam or NRC-administered exam since the accident at TMI-2.
Q.
To your knowledge, what was the extent of cheating by TMI-1 operator license candidates on the NRC license exanination and on any other company or NRC-administered examinations?
A.
Based on the investigations conducted by OIE, we identified only limited instances of cheating:
O 1)
The collusive cheating by 0 and W on the April 1981, NRC licensing exam,
2) the collusive cheating by 0 and W on the April 1981, " mock" i 'O exams administered by the Licensee, and O
3) the oral response given by FF to another unidentified individual while they were getting coffee during the April 1981 NRC exams.
In addition, there were two instances where STA's (KK and WW) remember receiving telephone calls during the NRC exam and during the April 1980 requalification exam in which they were asked questions they believed to be contained in the examinations.
No operator has admitted to placing either of these calls.
Professor Edward V. Trunk, a consultant hired by the Licensee, reviewed several exams which had been adninistered by the Licensee for evidence of cheating.
The exams reviewed were:
(1) original T-section exans (Kelly exams) (2) makeup category T-exams, and (3) two of four sets of the ATTS (mock) exams.
Professor Trunk, based on his analysis, concluded that no cooperative effort on cheating between examinees occurred on the original Kelly exams or on the mock exams reviewed.
It should be noted that the two sets of ATTS exams not reviewed by Professor Trunk were those which were taken by 0 and W and which OIE had already reviewed during our investigation of cheating by 0 and W.
With respect to the makeup Category T exams reviewed, Professor Trunk s
found three instances where the responses provided could be indicative.
O x
___ _ __ _ _____________________ of cheating.
In response to questions posed by the Staff Licensee's nU counsel _ indicated that two of the answers which appeared to indicate cheating were suspicious, but not conclusive. The third instance, which O
involved one of the operators who admitted cheating on the NRC exam, could not be explained. The other operator, GG, involved could not explain how W could have had access to his answers.
Based on OIE's review of Professor Trunk's report, we find his methodology and analysis adequate.
Professor Trunk thoroughly examined the referenced tests for any detectable cheating and approached his review with the assumption that cheating had occurred.
Every answer of every test paper was read and compared with ever'y other answer.
The above cases are the only instances of cheating identified by OIE and Professor Trunk.
Based on OIE's investigative efforts and OIE's review of Professor Trunk's analysis it appears that the extent of cheating on TMI-1 exams was limited.
Issue 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.
Q.
How many investigations has OIE conducted into cheating at TMI?
A.
OIE has conducted three investigations into the issue of cheating Q
on the April 1981 NRC exams and has issued three reports.
The first report, HQS-81-003, is dated August 11, 1981. The second, HQS-81-004, is dated October 13, 1981 and contains a report of OIE's investigation into other leads which were later discovered.
I
. The third report, HQS-81-005, was issued on October 28,1981 and contains a report of investigation into other instances of cheating which the Licensee discovered through its internal processes.
OV These three reports have been served on the Board, the Special Master, and the parties to this reopened proceeding.
l Q.
What was the scope of the three investigations?
A.
All three investigations deal with the broad issue of cheating on the 1981 RO/SRO exams but differ as to specific aspects that were examined.
These three reports reflect the Staff's efforts and conclusions regarding cheating of TMI.
O Q.
What methodology did you use to conduct these investigations?
A.
OIE used its standard investigatory process.
In the typical case, allegations are received in the regional office which then sends out investigators to determine the validity of those allegations.
i i
The information discovered by the region is then forwarded to the i
headquarters office for possible further action.
When the allegation is first received by the headquarters office, it is normally sent to the appropriate regional office with the i
headquarters Staff maintaining a coordinating and supervising role.
O t
l i
l
6-In either case, OIE investigators are sent out to the field to interview
'O personne, who are, or couid be, cognizant of the matter. The
~
investigators administer oaths and take statements wbcre appropriate.
O The iavesti ators a1so examiae pertiaeat n'aat records and "ac 9
documents.
At the conclusion of the investigation, an investigatory report is prepared.
In certain cases, the infomation discovered by OIE investigators, is referred, through OIA to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. The investigations into cheating at TMI, because of the visibility of the issue, were conducted by the headquarters Investigations Branch but did in other respects, confom to OIE's standard practices as discussed above, iO Q.
Did you initiate the investigation into cheating at TMI?
A.
No. The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) began the investigation.
Under direction from Chairman Palladino, however, OIE became involved shortly after the OIA investigation began.
Q.
Explain how you proceeded after 0IE was directed to continue the investigation initiated by OIA.
A.
The original investigation was initiated because the NRC possessed
~
some physical evidence that at least two candidates had cheated.
At the time we started our field effort, we had been briefed on the O
results of the truncated OIA investigation.
Our understanding of L
those results were:
(1) the examinations were not well monitored
(~'
d or _ proctored, and (2) the proctoring fell within NRC guidelines.
Thus, in our view, the primary focus of the investigation was to be Oonthosetwopersonsaboutwhomwepossessedevidenceofcheating.
Although we planned to inquire into the extent of cheating by others, we were aware that, without additional evidence, there logically was no greater reason to suspect cheating on the part of the rest of the candidates than by candidates who have taken R0/SRO examinations at other facilities. With that in mind, we concentrated on establishing the facts concerning the two suspected individuals. The results in that regard are contained in OIE's first report discussed above.
To understand the extent of cheating on the April NRC exams, we selected individuals for interview who might be more likely to have either cheated or to have been more likely to provide information regarding cheating.
The persons seated closest to the two suspects fell into the former caterogy, and the three persons who failed the examination fell in the latter. We also interviewed persons who were rumored to possess information.
None of these efforts developed credible evidence of other cheating.
Having interviewed 13 candidates -- over a third of the total -- we felt that we had made a reasonable effort to detect any other cheating.
O O
I 0.
When did you terminate your investigation?
O
~
A.
The first investigation was terminated after 0 and W had admitted C
cheating and interviews of other examinees revealed no further evidence of cheating.
The decision to close the investigation at that point was concurred in by all of the investigators, by me, and by my management.
It was the consensus that the effort expended reflected the proper balance in application of resources and the likelihood of developing additional evidence.
Based then on these factors, which include the successful resolution of the matter involving the collusive cheating of the two original suspects, it was and still is our view that the original investigation was both adequate and responsive.
/
O Q.
Explain why ycu conducted the second investigation.
A.
As indicated in 01E's October 13, 1981 report, the Investigations Branch received further information which indicated other improprieties may have occurred during the April NRC exams. This information, received by OIE on September 15, 1981, involved allegations that EE had attempted to keep the proctor out of the j
exam room in order to facilitate cheating and had attempted to expand the model answer key to unduly favor the examinees.
Based on l
the investigation, however, OIE was unable to corroborate these lO aiiegations and had no evidence to iead to the conclusion that EE was guilty of misfeasance or r.alfeasance.
O v
_g.
During the course of this investigation, other issues were
'sq V
discovered and exanined. These were: (1) KK's claim that someone
~
who identified himself as U called him during the NRC exam for an O
answer to a question on that exem, purnortediy en behalf of 0, (2) an allegation by KK that there was a rumor that someone had been stationed in the vicinity of the exam room to provide assistance to the examinees during the NRC exam, and (3) a report that I, an SRO, had made a statement to the affect that while 0 and W had been teminated for cheating, the persons responsible were still at THI.
The investigatica was unable to corroborate, or find any evidence of, the two assertions made by KK.
The third issue was apparently I's belief that the shortcomings of management in failing to adequately prepare the candidates for the license exans were responsible for 0 and W cheating on the exams.
Operator I did state that he had no knowledge that any other cheating had occurred on the April 1981 NRC exams.
Q.
Explain how you conducted the second investigation.
A.
Upon learning of the new infomation, OIE sent investigators to the TMI site to inverview the necessary personnel.
Invesi.igators also went to another site to inverview an individual who was formerly employed by the Licensee and who possessed certain information.
O
- Q.
When was the second investigation terminated?
~
A.
The investigators interviewed all of the personnel who they O
believed had any information concerning the issues discussed above.
At the conclusion of these interviews and when there were no more logical leads available, the investigation was teminated on October 2, 1981.
Q.
Explain why you conducted the third investigation.
A.
As a result of OIE's original investigation into cheating the Licensee conducted its own investigation to determine the extent of cheating. The Licensee's senior management interviewed selected personnel, including each person who took the NRC exams.
>O These interviews yielded new information which was made immediately available to the NRC. At the conclusion of the Licensee's interviews, OIE investigators went back to the TMI site to look into the two pieces of infomation which had been obtained from the Licensee.
The infomation involved: (1) WW's recollection of a call he received during the April 1980 requalification exams in which he was asked, and answered, a question he later realized had been on the exam and (2) FF's admission that he orally provided an answer to another operator during the NRC exam while they were both O
9ettins coffee.
-, Q.
Explain how you conducted the third investigation.
A.
He interviewed WW and FF.
16 found no other personnel who had any
()
information convening the events involving WW and FF. WW could not remember who had called him and there were no other logical leads to follow.
FF provided a sworn statement in which he admitted his actions and in which he stated that he knew his behavior to be wrong.
Because he did not remember to whon he had provided the answer, no other personnel were interviewed.
The investigation was, therefore, concluded.
Q.
Do you believe that the Staff's investigations into the cheating incident and other rumors of cheating on the NRC exams were adequate?
A.
Yes. The OIE Staff interviewed almost two-thirds of all the individuals who took the April NRC exams. The people interviewed included all those who were most likely to possess infomation concerning the allegations of cheating.
Further, we obtained sworn statements from the three individuals who admitted cheating and from others whose infomation was sufficiently important to warrant testimony under oath.
We were persistent in our interviews.
OIE pursued the information regarding cheating by 0 and W until we had sworn statenents from
~
nV
--. i 4
those individuals regarding their cheating.
Each time the OIE Staff was infomed of additional leads, those leads were thoroughly investigated. We also analyzed the SR0 and RO exams and certain
- O ATTS exams for evidence of collusive cheating.
No evidence of cheating, other than by 0 and W, was four.d.
The investigations themselves were conducted in accordance with established investigatory procedures and by highly experienced criminal investigators from OIE. For these reasons, I believe the three investigations conducted by OIE to be adequate.
Issue 3 The adequacy of Licensee's investigation of, and Licensee's response to, cheating or possible cheating in the examinations
" d
'" "' ' '6 v'-
O Q.
Explain what you understand to be the Licensee's investigation of and response to cheating and possible cheating'at TMI.
A.
I understand that the Licensee took the following actions to detemine the extent of cheating at TMI-1:
l O
O
(1) Management personnel conducted meetings with their operations personnel to impress upon them their obligations to infom the
_ Licensee of any information the operators had with respect to
.O cheating.
(2) Management personnel conducted individual interviews of all operations personnel to determine whether, on an individual basis, more information could be learned. Th" ' interviews were from 45 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in duration.
(3) The Licensee hired Professor Trunk as a consultant to review the Kelly, makeup Kelly, and ATTS exams for evidence of cheating.
O (4) The Licensee was quick to provide any new information to NRC for possible investigation.
In response to the cheating incident which occurred, the Licensee acted quickly to strengthen its procedures for administering company exams.
Some of the new procedures are:
(1) requiring examinees to sign a statment that the work on the exam is their own, (2) 100% proctoring on exams, (3) re-orienting the attitude of the operators to impress upon them the importance i O O
of the NRC exam, and (4) a reminder to the training department to
/D tolerate no improprieties on the part of any one.
These new procedures are applicable to all company-administered exams.
O With respect to Licensee's response to the cheating by 0, W, and FF, I understand that 0 and W were teminated for participating in cheating and that FF was given a letter of reprimand.
Q.
Do you believe the actions described above were adequate?
A.
Yes.
I believe the actions taken by the Licensee to investigate cheating and to respond to the incidents of cheating were adequate.
The actions taken were reasonable and thorough.
Short of conducting an investigation in parallel with OIE's investigation I can think of no other reasonable action they could have taken in their internal investigation of this incident.
With respect to Licensee's response to these incidents, I believe the temination of 0 and W was the proper response.
In addition, giving FF a letter of reprimand was appropriate considering his lesser degree of involvement.
o ou t
. i l
Issue 5
'r The extent of Licensee management knowledge of, encouragement of, neglisent failure to prevent, and/or involvement in cheating in the above mentioned NRC and Licensee examinations.
- m Q.
Do you believe the Licensee's management knew about, encouraged negligently failed to prevent cheating or were in any way involved in cheating at TMI?
A.
No.
Q.
What is the basis for your belief?
A.
Our investigations revealed no evidence that management was involved in any way. The investigations were conducted in such a way as to make it highly likely that, had management been involved in any cheating incident, such involvement would have been detected.
The investigators perceived the issue of management involvement to be one of primary importance; consequently, we were quite sensitive to this concern during all three investigations.
Q.
In what way were the OIE investigations conducted so as to detect management involvement?
A.
The interviewees were questioned regarding posssible management i
involvement and all responses were negative.
In fact, some interviewees volunteered that in their experience management would not tolerate cheating. Management personnel were also interviewed.
O
- They denied any knowledge of cheating at THI prior to the NRC inv_estigation.
After discussions with management personnel, the NRC
~
investigators were convinced that these officia'ls were sincerely Q
concerned with the safe operation of the plant and would not condone cheating.
Issue 6 The existence and extent of Licensee management involvement in cheating as alleged by the Aamodts in paragraph 7 in response to the Board's Order of August 20, 1981.
Q.
What is your understanding of Intervenor Aamodt's allegations regarding cheating on a Radiation Worker Permit test in April 1979?
A.
The Aamodts have produced a witness, Mr. Harry Williams, who asserts that he observed cheating during a Radiation Work Pemit test in 1979.
The Aamodts assert that Mr. William's observations substantiate Licensee management involvement in the cheating.
~
Q.
Has OIE investigated these allegations?
A.
No. We have elected not to investigate this incident for the following reasons.,The first is that the testimony offered by Mr.
Williams in his deposition does not necessarily point to Licensee involvement in the cheating.
We noted that some of the persons p eccdoAS l
takirg the test expressed concern that the/g(presumablythe O
ticensee) may become suspicious if they were all to hand in their
~
answer papers at the same time. This suggests that they did not O
i l
L believe the Licensee to' be involved.
Secondly, we do not find the use_of Met Ed letterhead to be particularly compelling evidence of A
management collusion. Thirdly, Mr. Williams has attempted to O
provide information to the NRC in the gest which turned out to be of little value or significance.
This, coupled with his work history, tends to cast sone doubt as to his reliability as a witness.
The fourth reason is that the test in question is not an NRC requirement, but rather a licensee procedure in furtherance of their radiation safety program.
Although no one of these reasons may in itself be compelling, the total weight leads us to conclude that we cannot devote our limited resources to conducting an active investigation of these assertions.
We will review the Licensee's response to this assertion and be prepared to conduct an investigation if information presented during the hearing counterbalances the reasons stated above.
At the same time, we will ensure that Region I includes this matter within their routine inspection program.
Issue 7 The existence and extent of Licensee management constraints on the NRC investigation of cheating and rumors of cheating in the NRC April 1981 examinations, o
o i
Q.
Under what type of conditions did you conduct your first O
inve_stigation?
O A.
During the first investigation, Mr. Robert Arnold wanted the investigators to agree to advise each interviewee of their right to have a management official present during their interviews by NRC, and to accede to the employee's request to have management present if the employee so requested. The investigators refused to agree to these conditions noting that they had no legal requirement to provide such advice to interviewees.
Mr. Arnold then arranged to have each of the employees that we requested be made available for interview to be first advised of the foregoing information by a Licensee supervisor.
As a result, each of the persons who were
"" "' '" """"'"' '"" '"'" '" ' "'"' "'"'S***"'
t CD official present. The investigators were instructed by Victor Stello to proceed with the inteviews under these conditions because of the need to obtain the information in a timely fashion in light of its obvious interest to this Board.
As a result, only one interview, which took place offsite, was conducted without Licensee management present. All of the investigators, including me, felt that the i
presence of management did inhibit the free flow of information, i
l although we cannot quantify the extent of this.
Nonetheless, it was i
our belief that the information that we did obtain was sufficient to I
resolve the issues that we were investigating.
It is important to
~
note that although we disagreed with the Licensee's positio,n l O L
regarding nanagement presence during interviews, none of us felt 1
. b tha_t the purpose of this constraint was to hinder or interfere with
[
this investigation.
Rather, we felt that Mr. Arnold's position was a product of his understanding of his and his employees' rights during NRC interviews, and his concern in protecting these employees' interests during these interviews.
He appeared particularly sensitive to the anxiety level of his staff stemming from the considerable public interest focussed upon them for the past two years.
In short, none of us perceived Mr. Arnold's constraints as being malevolently motivated, notwithstanding the fact that they could have adversely affected our ability to obtain all of the information that we felt we needed.
(]~
Q.
Do you believe the presence of Licensee's management personnel during OIE's first investigation had an adverse effect on the adequacy of that investigation?
A.
No.
As noted above, the investigators felt that the management presence impeded the free flow of information.
The information we did obtain, however, was sufficient to resolve the questions we had. The presence of management officials at interviews during the l
first investigation did not prevent 0IE from conducting a thorough and complete investigation.
O O
l QUALIFICATIONS BRIEF William Joseph Ward EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1975 - present:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a variety of staff O
Pe itie 1===ctear afeseare aea inve tisatie
. c=rre=t1F assigned as Chief, Investigations Branch, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
1974 - 1975:
Chief, Technical Security, U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters.
1973 - 1974:
Director of Security and Safety, Naval Ship Weapons Systems Engineering Station, Port Hueneme, California.
1973 - present: Associate Consultant. International Association of Chiefs of
- Police, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
1966 - 1972:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service, U.S. Naval Intelligence.
1963 - 1965:
Security Police Officer, United States Air Force EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Science, State University of New York at Buffalo (1963).
Master of Forensic Science, The George Washington University (1976)
Speciali::ed training courses in law enforcement, investigations, intelligence, and security.
i PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS International Association of Chiefs of Police; American Society for Industrial Security (former i7 ice Chairman, Investigations Committee); IEEE; Advisory Board, Assets Protection Journal; Chair:c.an, Academic Standards Committee, Forensic Science Center, Antioch School of Law.
Adjunct Professor of Forensic Science, Antioch School of Law.
O
h OUALIFICATIONS BRIEF l
Peter Edward Baci p
V EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
.O 979 - present:
Seni r Investigat r, ffice f Inspecti n and Enforcement,'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bethesda, Maryland.
1976 - 1979:
Special Agent / U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
~
Administration.
Enforcement Coordinator, Europe-Middle East Division.' Washington, D.C.
1974 - 1976:
Special Agent / U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.
Program Manager, Latin American Operations.
Washington, D.C.
1972 - 1974:
Special Agent / U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.
Criminal Investigator assigned to JFK Inter-national Airport, New York, N.Y.
1971 - 1972:
Special Agent / U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Criminal Investigator assigned to New York Regional Office.
1969 - 1970:
Management Trainee / U.S. Steel International (N.Y.) Inc.
New York, N.Y.
1964 - 1969:
Licensed Deck Officer / U.S. Merchant Marine.
Served on various U.S. Flag merchant vessels.
EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (International Trade), State Univer-sity of New York, Maritime College at Fort Schuyler. 1964.
Master of Science in Government (Criminal Justice), Southern Illinois University (Edwardsville). 1976.
Specialized training courses in law enforcement, investigations, intelligence, security and drug identification.
Q PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association; c deral Criminal Investigators Association.
e O
LICENSES U.S. Coast Guard License as Second Mate of Steam and Motor Vessels, Oceans, Un-limited. 1979.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration License as Private Pilot, Single Engine, Land.
M l2/t OUALIFICATIONS BRIEF Edward C. Gilbert cC ENPLOYMENT HISTORY c1980 - present:
Investigator, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear V
Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD 1979 - 1980:
Assistant Senior Special Agent In Charge, Washington Field Office, Naval Investigative Service, Washington, DC 1978 - 1979:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service. Criminal Investigator assigned to Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alexandria, VA.
for participation in White Collar Crime / Fraud Investigation.
1977 - 1978:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service.
Criminal Investigator assigned to USS John F. KENNEDY during Mediterranean area deployment.
1974 - 1977:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service. Criminal Investigator assigned to Norfolk, VA Field Office.
1971 - 1974:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service.
Criminal Investigator /
Branch Chief, assigned to Naval Investigative Service Headquarters, Alexandria, VA.
pU 964 - 1971:
Special Agent, Naval Investigative Service.
Criminal Investigator assigned to various field offices in New York State.
1961 - 1964:
Assistant Manager, wholesale and' retail store, Syracuse, NY 1960 - 1961:
Park Ranger, Yellowstone National Park EDUCATION B.A. (Business Administ:ation), University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.1960 Sp:cialized training courses in law enforcement, investigations, intelligence, security, terrorism and criminal fraud.
i l
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Federal Law Enforcement Association; Federal Criminal Investigators Association; ssociation of Retired Naval Investigative Service Special Agents.
I
\\
l
~
25,275
(])
1 BY MR. GOLDBERGs (Resuming) 2 0
Mr. Ward, do you have in front of you a copy of a 3 letter?
4 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, I do.
5 0
Mr. Ward, I have given you a copy of a document 6 dated August 11, 1981, entitled " Report of Investiga tion."
7 Is this the August 11 report to which you refer in your 8 testimony on page 47 9
A (WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, it is.
10 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Mr. Goldberg, perhaps you could 11 identify which office of the Commission prepared the 12 document so we all know which office it was.
13 MR. GOLDBERGs Yes.
14 BY MR. GOL'DBERGs (Resuming) 15 0
Is the August 11, 1981, report of investigation 16 which was issued by the Office of Inspection and 17 Enf orcement?
18 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, it is.
19 MR. GOLDBERGs At this time I would like to have 20 marked for identification as Staff Exhibit 26 the August 11, 21 1981, report of investigation from the Office of Inspection 22 a nd Enforcement.
23 (The document referred to was
()
24 marked Staff Exhibit No. 26 25 for identification.)
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,276 l
(])
1 MR. GOLDBERG At this time I would like to move 2 Staff Exhibit 26 into evidence.
3 JUDGE MILL!OLLIN It shall be so marked and 4 received in evidence.
5 (The document referred to, 6
previously marked for 7
identification as Staff 8
Exhibit No. 2 6, was received 9
in evidence.)
10 BY MB. GOLDBERGs (Resuming) 11 Q
Mr. Ward, I have also give you a copy of a 12 document dated October 13, 1981, entitled " Report of 13 Investigation."
And I would like to know if this is the O
14 0ctober 12, 1981, report of investigation of the Office of 15 Inspection and Enforcement to which you refer on page 4 of 16your testimony?
17 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, it is.
18 MR. GOLDBERGs I would like to have this document 19 marked as Staff Exhibit 27.
20 (The document referred to wa s 21 marked Staff Exhibit No. 27 22 for identification.)
23 MR. GOLDBERG:
And I would move that into evidence
()
24 a t this time.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Hearing no objection, it will be O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,277
()
1 so marked and received in evidence.
2 (The document referred to, 3
previously marked for
[}
4 identification as Staff 5
Exhibit No. 27, was received 6
in evidence.)
7 BY HR. GOLDdERGa (Resuming) 8 Q
I have also given you, Mr. Ward, a copy of a 9 document entitled -- dated October 28, 1981, entitled 10 " Report of Investigation."
And I ask you whether this is 11 the October 13, 1981, report of investigation of the Office 12 of Inspection and Enforcement to which you refer on page 4 13 of your testimony?
O 14 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, sir, it is.
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I believe you meant to say 16 " October 28," Mr. Goldberg?
17 MR. GOLDBERG Yes, that is correct.
I mistakenly 18 said " October 13."
And this is the October 28 report.
19 And I would have this marked as Staff Exhibit 28.
20 (The document referred to was 21 marked Staff Exhibit No. 28 22 for identification.)
23 MR. GOLDBERG:
And I would move this document into
}
24 evidence at this time.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Hearing no objection, it shall
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,278 O
i be so marked end received in evidence.
2 (The document referred to, 3
previously marked for 4
identification as Staff 5
Exhibit No. 28, was received 6
in evidence.)
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN4 All of these reports are reports 8 by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement; are they not?
9 WITNESS WARD:
Yes, sir, they are.
10 HR. GOLDBEBGs Judge Milho111n, it was my intent 11 to have the qualifications statements of Mr. Baci and Mr.
12 Gilbert incorporated into the record along with the 13 testimony of Mr. Ward and the attached qualifications O
14 statements of Mr. Ward.
Is tha t satisf actory?
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
They will be so 16 incorporated and bound together with the prepared testimony 17 of Mr. Ward.
Those qualifications statements consist of two 18 pages, do they not?
19 MR. GOLDBERG:
Each qualification sta tement is a 20one-page document.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
22 MR. GOLDBERG:
M r. Ward and Messrs. Baci and 23 Gilbert are available for cross examination.
24 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have a question.
Is it Baci 25 or Bacci?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
25,279 1
WITNESS BACI:
Baci.
2 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Thank you.
{])
3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4
BY MS. BRADFORD:
5 0
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
My name is Louise 6Bradford, and I represent Three Mile Island Alert.
7 M r. Ward, did Chairman Palladino contact you to 8 request that IE take over the investigation of cheating at 9 TMI?
10 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, ma'am.
11 Q
Who did contact you?
12 A
(WITNESS W ARD)
To put it in perspective, when the 13 initial investigation began, I was on leave status, and Mr.
O 14 Baci was acting in my absence.
The direct sequence by which 15 he was informed of the need for investigation I think would 16 best be answered by Mr. Baci.
17 0
Mr. Baci?
18 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I was told by our supervisor, Mr.
19 Dudley Thompson, that Mr. Stello had been present at a 20 mee ting with Chairman Palladino in which the issue of 21 cheating among the operators during the license examination 22 had been discussed.
And present during that meeting were 23 the Director of Office of Inspector and Audit, M r. Cummings,
()
24 and M r. Stello.
And Mr. Cummings had initially been given 25 the matter to investigate.
O v
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,280 O
aaa art r the etiao ita ca ir a >=11 ataa, ta-2 Chairman advised, or rather instructed Mr. Stello to take 3 over the investigation.
And from that point on we were to 4 con tact Mr. Cummings and find out what preliminary work he 5 had done.
And then from there we were to proceed with our 6own investigation.
i 7
s 8
9 10 11 1
12 13 i O i
14 i
15 16 s
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 j
O 24 25
! O r
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 554-2345
25,281
()
1 Q
Was it your understanding that Chairman Palladino 2 had asked for a full investigation of the cheating?
(])
3 A
(WITNESS BACI)
That was my understanding, yes.
4 Q
What was your understanding of the term " full S inv estigation" ?
6 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Well, I was not present at the 7 meetina with the Chairman.
My instructions came from Mr.
8 Victor Stello, the Office Director, Inspection and 9 Enf orcement, and I can only tell you what Mr. Stello's 10 instructions to me were.
11 Q
And what were they?
12 A
(WITNESS BACI)
He provided us with the background 13 on what had been uncovered, namely that two individuals who 14 had taken the examination had results on the examination or 15 answers that were virtually identical in some parts and very 16 similar in others, and that there appea red to be there 17 a ppeared to be some cheating; and that we were to go up 18 there and find out basically what took place, find out if 191nd eed there was cheating on the examination and the extent 20of it.
21 Q
Were you also told that proctors had been absent Z2 from the room or there was a possibility that that had 23 ocr urred ?
(
24 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Wnen Mr. Stello gave us our 2Sinstructions on how to proceed with the investigation, he O
ALDERSON RCDoRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554 2345
25,282
()
1 told us to go see Mr. Cummings, who would provide us with a 2 briefing on what had been done up to that point.
Mr.
(}
3 Cummings in his briefing for Mr. Gilbert and myself told us, 4 you know, told us to describe the conditions under which the 5 examination had been proctored, and that was when we had our 6 initial briefing on that subject.
7 Q
Before you came on site, did you prepare an 8 investigative plan?
9 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We did not have an investigative 10 plan.
We found out about the matter on Friday afternoon.
11 He were briefed late Friday afternoon, and on Monday we were 12 en route to Three Mile Island to begin our investigation.
13 0
Were you given any particular direction on how to O
14 conduct your investigation?
15 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No.
But it is not common practice 16 f or people to give us instructions on how to conduct an l
17 investig a tion.
We are usually given the subject or the 18 matter to be considered and it is up to us to conduct the 19 investigation as we see fit.
20 0
Have you ever conducted an investigation on 21 cheating or a similar investigation?
22 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Me personally, no.
23 0
Has one been conducted by the Office of IE that
()
24 you are aware of ?
25 A
(WITNESS B ACI)
I do not know.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,283
()
1 0
Were you requested to make reports back to the 2 0ffice of IE on any regular basis?
How were you told to 3 proceed?
4 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes, we were told to keep Mr.
5 Stello informed as to the progress of the investigation.
6 0
And did he then give you guidance as to how to 7 proceed further?
8 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes.
9 0
When you scheduled the interviews of the 10 operators, were they instructed not to talk with other 11 operators about interviews?
12 MR. GOLDBERG4 Excuse me.
Instruction by whom?
I 13 do not understand that question.
O 14 MS. BBADFORDs By the investigators.
15 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 16 0
Did you intruct that the operators not discuss the 17 investigation with other operators?
18 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No, ma'am, because quite f rankly, 19 even if we had given those instructions I did not believe 20 tha t tha t would have taken place.
I believe they most l
2111kely would have discussed it.
So I did not give any 22 instructions to anybody we interviewed to that effect, no.
23 0
When you completed each interview, did you and Mr.
()
24 Gilbert compare notes on the --
25 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,284 h
1 Q
Did you notice any contradictions in the responses 2 of the opera tors as a result of that -- of your g
3 discussions ?
4 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Not that I can recall offhand.
5 0
All of the individuals you interviewed in the 6 initial investigation reported almost 100 percent proctoring 71n the non-smoking room on April 23 and 24.
This was 8 contradicted by Mr. Mainz in his July 23 statemen t.
9 Did you question the operators on that point?
10 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We were asking each individual 11 operator who was interviewed what his recollection was of 12 the proctoring which took place, and we recorded what each 13 one of them told us.
And we realized, of course, that there 9
14 are some contradictions.
However, the perceptions of the 15 individuals who were taking the examinations did vary 16 depending on their involvement in the test and depending on 17 their recollection.
18 So we recorded what -- we asked them the questions 19 and we recorded their answers.
Beyond that, I really cannot 20 say much more about it.
21 Q
You -- many of the statements are, in regards to 22 the proctoring --
23 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yc'.
24 0
-- are very r' '~ : de
- mean, all of the operators 25 recalled the absence o..
tia vetor to be about three to O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPAh. 'NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,285
()
1five minutes.
But you were awm;e that Mr. Mainz had already 2 made a statement that he had had an extended absence from
({}
3 the room.
4 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We were aware that there had been 5 extended periods of absence by some of the procto rs.
We 6 were briefed on that before we came up, so we were aware of 7 that, yes.
8 However, at the point when we started our initial 9 interviews we were not quite certain as to which -- which 10 rooms were -- had almost complete coverage and which rooms 11 had gaps in the coverage.
12 0
Did you at any time attempt to talk to Mr. Wilson 13 and Mr. Mainz?
14 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Are you talking about on the first 15 inve stiga tion?
16 0
Yes, sir.
17 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We -- no, Mr. Wilson I believe was 18 out of town that Friday before we went up.
I only had one 19 af ternoon, really, to prepare before we came up.
I spoke 20 briefly to Mr. Collins, who provided us with the 21 examinations.
And beyond chat I did not have a chance to 22 speak to either of the proc to rs.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mainz 231f I am not mistaken were both out of town.
They were
(
24 conducting examinations elsewhere and I did not -- no, after 25 I came back, no, we did not.
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,286
()
1 Q
Were you able to verify W's statement that he made 2 several answers available to 0?
(])
3 (Panel of witnesses' conferring.)
4 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No.
That was a one-on-one 5 allegation.
Mr. W made the allegation.
Mr. O denied it.
6 0
In his signed statement, Mr. W states that the 7 trailer was noisy during the examinations.
Did you e
8 investigate that any further?
9 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We visited the trailer where the 10 examinations were given and it is like a construction 11 trailer, so it is conceivable that it could have been 12 noisy.
There are people going in and out.
Hence it is not 13 the quietest place on the site.
O 14 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have a question, if I might 15 break in.
Did you specifically confront 0 with W's 16 statement to the effect that W helped 0?
17 WITNESS BACI:
0 was confronted with W's 18 statemen t, yes.
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did you specifically ask 0 20 whether W was telling the truth when W said he helped 0 ?
21 WITNESS BACI:
I myself did not.
22 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did anyone?
23 WITNESS BACI:
Yes.
(
WITNESS WARDS Yes, I think I might be able to 24 25 respond to that.
There was a direct confrontation between O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,287
()
Ithem arranged by Mr. Stello and, if you will, on the last 2 active day of the investigation.
The response, of course,
')
3 on the part of 0 was to deny having received aid from W.
W 4 persisted in his statement, his original statement.
So 5thete is that contradiction.
But they were in fact 6 confronted.
7 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 8 0
In the interview with Mr. S, he remembered sitting 9 next to Mike Ross during the RO portion of the B exam.
Did 10 you point out to him the f act that Mike Ross had taken the A 11 exams?
12 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Who was that question directed 13 to ?
O 14 0
Either you or Mr. Gilbert.
15 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I will answer that question and 16 then it can go to Mr. Gilbert or Mr. Baci, whoever conducted 17 tha t particular in terview.
18 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Would you please repeat the 19 question ?
Was it pointed out to Mr. S?
20 0
Mr. S.
21 A
(WITNESS BACI)
That what?
22 0
He talked a great deal about -- he mentioned that 23 he sa t next to Mike Ross during his RO examination.
He took
()
24 the B exams, and Mr. Ross had taken the A exams.
25 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I do not recall that particular ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,288 O
i tatement on the vert of nr. S.
novever, durino the course 2 of the interviews there were a lot of conflicts between the A
3 recollections of individuals concerning where they sat, who L) 4 they sat next to, and even in some cases which room they may 5 have used.
6 Hany of them explained to us that they were 7 confused between the examinations they took given by the NRC 8 and the earlier ones which were given I believe by ATTS 9 earlier in the month.
And they said -- the y would very 10 of ten pref ace their statements by saying, I cannot remember 11 which examination it was, I think I sat next to Mike Ross on 12 tha t exam.
13 0
Okay.
You just identified the area of my concern, O
14 because Mr. S had extensive memory of -- recollection of 15 sitting with Mr. Ross.
He remembered looking at his paper 16 when he was going to the bathroom at one time, and he 17 remembered seeing an answer which he at the time thought was 18 w rong.
l 19 The reason I point this out was that if he was --
20 his total recollection was a different exam, possibly the 21 ATTS or the Kelly exam, then th at interview would not be 22 particularly useful.
23 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I do not recall personally what GV 24 M r.
S' statement was concerning sitting next to Mr. Ross.
I 25 would have to look at the statement.
But it is possible l
O-ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i I
25,289
)
1
()
1 tha t he was confusing it with another examinatica.
2 Q
You had interviewed Mr. Ross prior to interviewing
{])
3 Mr. S and it would seem to me that you were aware and that 4 you would make this -
point this out to Mr. 5, so that your 5 interview would be meaningful.
6 MR. GOLDBERGa Excuse me.
I do not hear a 7 question there.
Is there a question for the witness?
8 BY MS.'BRADFORD (Resuming) 9 Q
I am askino you, I suppose, why you did not point 10out to Mr. S that indeed he -- Mr. A -- I mean Mr. Ross, had 11 taken a different set of exams and therefore it probably was 12 not possible that he sat next to him?
13 A
(WITNESS BACI)
In many cases when information was D
14 provided, it was contradictory.
However, it was not -- it 151s not practical to point out to an individual until we have 16 interviewed a number of individuals.
It may be that at a 171ater time af ter interviewing, let's say, a number of other 18 individuals -- excuse me -- we may want to go back and 19 con f ron t them if there is a need for such a confrontation or 20 if the ic!o rmation seems important enough.
21 (Counsel for THIA conferring.)
22 0
And I take it you did not see a need?
23 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I do not recall confronting or
()
24 telling Mr. Ross that individual S recalled sitting next to 25 him or anything of that nature.
r(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,290 (O
.s 1
0 On page 7 of your testimony you state that you 2 selected individuals seated closest to the two suspects.
()
3 Could you explain to me why you did not question Messrs. I 4 and C?
5 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)?
6 A
(WITNESS WARD)
We are having some difficulty 7 finding the le tters.
8 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do you recall where these 10 individuals were sitting or do you need help in that 11 regard?
12 WITNESS WARD:
I think we would need to refer to 13 the report, Judge Hilhollin.
Obviously, we are talking two 14 examination periods and to recall which people were seated 15 where is difficult to recall off the top of my head.
16 MS. BRADFORDs I have the sea ting chart.
17 (Counsel handing document to witnesses.)
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Ms. Bradford is now providing 19 you with a seating chart.
20 (Pause.)
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIR:
The seating chart which she has 22 given you was attached to a letter dated September 18, 1981, 23 from Lucinda Low Swartz to the Licensing Board and myself.
24 (Witnesses reviewing document.)
25 WITNESS WARD:
Sir, I would like to comment before O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,291 0
'we terer to the en rt it e1r en t tne t1ao ca rt w-2 prepared subsequent to our interviews.
To the best of my 3 knowledge, it was prepared by the Operator Licensing Branch, 4 not us.
So we did not rely on this seating chart during the 5 course of our investigation.
6 It could well be our perceptions as to who sa t 7 where were colored more on the testimony given us during the 8 investiga tion.
9 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 10 0
Mr. Baci or Mr. Gilbert, you did however interview 11 Mr. A; is that correct?
12 (Witnesses reviewing document.)
13 A
( WITNESS B ACI)
Yes.
O 14 Q
And did he tell you who sat next to him on the 15 various exams?
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. A's interview notes are on 17 page 27, I believe, of th e report of October the 13th, is 18 that r2ght?
19 MR. GOLDBERG August 11.
20
-JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I'm sorry, it is August 11, 21 y es.
22 I do not have that with me, but my recollection is 23 1t was on page 27.
24 MR. GOLDBERG Bemarkable recollection.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
My notes tell me it was on page O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,292
()
1 27.
2 WITNESS BACI:
What was the question, please?
3 BY MS. BRADFORD:
(Resuming)
)
4 0
I had asked that you did interview Mr.
A, I see, 5 and he recalled that he sat next to Mr. C.
He does not 6 recall sitting next to Mr. I.
And since --
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Does Mr. A 's interview indicate 8where 0 and W sat with respect to Mr. A?
9 MS. BRADFORD:
Mr. O and W, according to Mr.
A, 10 sat in f ront of him.
11 BY MS. BRADFORD:
(Resuming) 12 Q
My question was why you did not call Mr.
C, since 13 he also would have been in a very good position to see Mr. O O
14 and M r. W?
15 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Well, in the first place this was 16Mr. A's recollection that Mr. C sat next to him.
I am not 17 really sure tha t that in fact was the case.
But we tried to 18 interview people who we were able to identify who were in 19 the proximity of 0 and W who might have been able to have 20 observed anything.
In some cases everybody was not 21 a vailable.
We got the people who we had identified and who 22 were immediately available.
23 And based on what we were -- those people w e did
()
24 interview and the fact that subcequently we obtained 25 admissions of guilt on the part of the two individuals, we O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,293
()
1did not feel it was necessary to go back and interview, I 2 believe it was, C.
3 0
Was -- when you came on site, was your -- was the
(]}
4 intention of this initial investigation just to decide the 5 guilt of Mr. O and Mr. W7 6
A (WITNESS BACI)
The initial allegation was that
- 7 there had been indications of collusion on the examination 8 between two individuals, O and W.
There were not any 9 indications when we got there that there had been any 10 collusion between anybody else.
11 0
But there were indications that proctors were 12 absent f rom the room?
13 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes.
O 14 0
Were you concerned that there might have been 15 cheating in the room that.was unproctored for any length of 16 tim e?
17 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Was I concerned?
Yes.
18 0
Were you concerned that there might have been more 19 extensive cheating in the room in which Mr. O and Mr. W took 20 their exams?
21 A
(WITNESS BACI)
It was a possibility, yes.
22 Q
Did anyone report seeing M r. O or Mr. W passing 23 papers?
(
24 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No.
25 0
Did you ask anybody that question, if they sa w M r.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGT JN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2045
25,294
()
10 or Mr. W passing papers?
2 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We asked each individual we
(])
3 intervie wed whether they had observed any conduct of that 4 nature, the passing of papers, speaking to one another, 5 things of that nature.
We did not home in on the two 6 individuals.
7 We, at the time we were conducting the 8 investigation, we did not mention the two individuals by 9 name.
We wanted to see if there was perhaps any -- any 10 additional cheating or to see if the individuals would 11 report any information that they had observed.
We did not 12 mention the individuals by name.
13 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did you ask Mr. A whether Mr. A 14 saw Mr. O or Mr. W passing papers?
15 WITNESS BACI:
We did not.
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. A sat behind M r. O and Mr. W 17 on both days of the examina tion?
18 WITNESS BACI That is correct.
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You did not ask Mr. A?
20 WITNESS BACI:
We asked Mr. A if he had observed 21 any cheating in the room, if he had observed any passing 22 papers.
Now, if Mr. A sat behind Mr. O and Mr. W and had 23 observed tha t, we did ask him the question.
We did not ask l
24 him the individuals ' names or provide the individ ua ls '
25 names.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, C.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,295 i
O 3uocz attuottr**
ooe= thet aue tio===d ea wer 2 appear in the interview notes of Mr. A on page 277 3
(Pause.)
4 WITNESS BACIa That specific question, I do not 5 see it, no.
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN4 I did not see it either when I 71ooked at that interview.
I did not notice any question or 8 answer to Mr. A whether Mr. A had seen any cheating, either 9 by Mr. O or Mr. W or by anyone else.
10 And my question to you is, did you ask Mr. A?
11 WITNESS BACI:
That question was asked of each of 12 the operators who took the examination.
13 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do you know what Mr. A's answer 14 was ?
15 WITNESS BACI:
The answer of Mr. A and all the 16 other individuals we interviewed was that he did not.
17 JUDOE MILHOLLIN:
Did you just omit to put that 18 1n, that particular interview note ?
By " th a t " I mean the 19 question and answer.
20 WITNESS BACI:
We might have left that particular j
s 21 question out, but that question was asked of each 22 individ ual.
23 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
For sched uling purposes, I would O
2411xe to edd Mr. A.
ret Mr. A heck on the 11st.
I think it 25important to ask Mr. A whether Mr. A saw 0 and W passing O
AQERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,296 1 papers, since Mr. A sat behind those two pa rticular
)
2 individuals on those two days.
3 BY-MS. BRADFORD:
(Resuming)
O 4
0 And on page 9 of the August 11 in terview --
5 investigation report, Mr. O indicated that Mr. I did 6 possibly sit behind him.
Did you attempt to reach Mr. I?
7 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I do not recall at this time 8whether he was one of the individuals that we attempted to 9 contact.
We did try to contact a number of individuals who 10 wer e off shift or on leave or for one reason were not 11 availabe, and we interviewed everyone that we could identify 12 and locate at that time was in that area.
13 I cannot tell you yes, we tried to interview -- we
(
14 asked specifically for him.
If he had been there and was 15 available, we most likely would have interviewed him.
16 0
You did subsequently, the second investigation, 17 int erview Mr. I.
Did you ever ask him that question about 18 --
19 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma'am, I can respond to 20 tha t.
I interviewed individual I personally.
I asked him 21 the general statement, was he a ware of any cheating on any 22 o f the NRC examinations and he stated no.
So that question 23 was asked in its broadest context.
24 He during the course of the interview had
()
25 specifically spoken with great surprise of the conduct of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,297 7x(,)
1 Messrs. O and W,. and it was clear from his comments to me 2 that he had no knowledge of their cheating.
(])
3 0
At that point you did indeed know, since you had 4 Mr. W and Mr. O's signed statements, that they had passed 5 papers, tha t they had talked.
Did you make that question 8 specific to Mr. I about W and 0?
7 A
(WITNESS W ARD)
To the best of my recollection, I 8 did.
I however was more concerned in interviewing him in 9 another context, inasmuch as remarks he had made were 10 suggestive of some knowledge of some cheating.
I am 11 absolutely positive I addressed it in its largest scope.
I 12 believe I asked him specifically of his knowledge of 0 and 13 W.
14 To my recollection, he also volunteered that he 15 was unaware, he was totally surprised at the fact that ther 16 had chea ted.
I certainly drew the firm impression from tha t 17 that he was unaware of any cheating on their part.
18 0
Both Mr. T and Mr. U admit that it was possible 19 for two individuals to exchange and compare answers if they 20 were so inclined.
Did you follow up on this possibility 21 with other interviewees?
22 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I believe our original response 23 that the question, are you aware of any cheating on the 24 exams, which was asked of every individual, encompassed 25 tha t.
We took tha t as a given, tha t in view of what we knev ALDERSoN.'<.fCdTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,298
()
1 of the proctoring that it was possible to do such a thing.
2 So what we were limited to and what we could do was simply
(}
3 ask the question of each interviewee, were they aware of 4 cheating.
And in each case, as Mr. Baci testified, the 5 answer has been no.
6 Q
But you did not specify the type of --
7 A
(WITNESS WARD)
In some instances we 9tve a 8 shopping list of possible actions which would constitute 9 cheating.
We did not give the same, if you will, shopping 10 list to everybody.
But it was clear from the way the 11 questions were being asked what constituted cheating, and 12 tha t exchanging the papers, looking at another one's paper, 13 would be of course cheating.
O 14 0
Durig the initial investigation were you able to 15 definitely establish the proctor coverage for both rooms for 16 all four days?
17 A
(WITNESS WARD)
The word that I would balk at is 18 " definitely. "
We came up with a version of what the 19 proctoring coverage was.
We were aware at the time tha t it 20 was at variance with that which OIE had obtained from the 21 people doing the proctoring.
22 We thought we had, if you will, a band of error.
23 We felt that the general characteri=r tions we made of
()
24 relatively complete proctoring in the examination rooms 25 where 0 and W were was a fairly accura te statemen t, but we O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 MRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,299
()
1 recognized that due to the passage of time and the 2 inattentiveness to that particular aspect from the people we
(}
31nt e r vie we, that there was a great deal of variance in 4 truth.
5 So I would balk at " definitely."
We had a general 6 f eel for proctoring.
7 Q
Mr. H said it was possible to see your neighbor's 8 papers; since most had them turned face-down, you could not 9 copy; and also, the proctor was facing them.
Now, Mr. H was 10 in the exam room which was being proctored by Mr. Wilson, 11 and who reported that he was absent for one and a half hours 12 af ter distributing the exams.
13 Did you question Mr. H on the possibility of O
14 cheating in the proctor's absence?
15 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I will eventually give the 16 microphone to Mr. Eaci, but again our statement is that we 17 have asked every person, were they aware of any cheating and l
18 all the subsets of cheating, and the answer has always been 19 no.
I do not know if Mr. Baci can elaborate further on 20 tha t.
21 A
(WITNESS BACI)
My response is basically the same Z2 a s M r. W a rd 's.
We did approach each interview in that j
23 f as hion.
We asked them if they were aware of any cheating,
()
24 had participated in any cheating, had facilitated any 25 cheating.
And the answer was negative.
(:)
l ALDERSON REPoR11NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,300
()
1 0
While you were on site, did you speak with the 2 resident inspectors to discover how much coverage ther 3 provided?
s 4
A (WITNESS WARD)
My understanding is yes.
5 0
Could either Mr. Baci or M r. Gilbert --
6 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
Ms. Bradford, I did have 7 occasion to talk to both resident inspectors in regard to 8 their participation in the monitoring.
9 0
When was that?
10 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
That was on the 28th of July, 11 the second day that we were at the site.
12 0
And at that time what was their recollection of 13 the coverage that ther were able to provide?
O 14 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
We can identif y them by name, I 15 assume?
16 rs Yes.
17 (WITNESS GILBERT)
Mr. Young explained that he 18 participated in the proctoring on each of the four days 19 between the hours of 11:00 in the morning and 1:00 in the 20 afternoon, while the primary proctors were taking their 211unch hours.
He said this time period varied on the days 22 f rom half an hour, 45 minutes, to an hour or so.
He could 23 not recall which days he was there for the given times.
()
24 However, he did say that while he wa s proctoring 25 1n the classrooms he did not leave.
You know, he could only O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,301
(}
1 attest to the time he was there.
2 I also spoke to the other resident inspector.
He 3 could not recall participating in the monitoring, other than 4 possibly sticking his head in the classroom on occasion.
5 0
3r. Wilson and Mr. Mainz have indicated that ther 6were out of the room beyond the lunch hour.
Did you ask Er.
7 Young who then relieved him, or did he just leave the room 8 unprocto red ?
9 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
I do not recall asking him 10 about those time periods, Ms. Bradford.
It was only during 11 the lunch hours that he recalled having taken over the 12 proctoring responsibilities.
13 0
Did he indicate to you when he came into the roor 141f he actually relieved a proctor or when he came into the 15 room if the room was already unproctored?
16 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
No, he did relieve a proctor 17 upon entering the room.
18 0
With regard to the 1979 incident, Mr. VV stated in 19 his telephone interview tha t 0 had the same questions and 20 answers.
Did he further explain that statement?
21 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Could you repeat the question, 22 please?
23 0
Mr. VV in his telephone interview stated that 0
()
24 had the same questions and answers.
I am wondering, did he 25 f urther explain that statement?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,302
)
1 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Is that BB a s in bravo-bravo?
2 Q
VV as in Victor-Victor.
()
3 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Where is that?
You said in the 4 --
5 MR. GOLDBERG:
Ms. Bradford, could you perhaps 6 direct the witness' attention to an interview report?
7 BY 55. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 8 0
It is page 40 of the August 11 investigation.
9 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Would you repeat the question, 10 please?
11 Q
Mr. VV in his interview indicated that O had the 1
12 same questions and answers.
Would you explain that 13 statemen t, or did he further explain that statement?
14 (Witness reviewing document.)
15 A
(WITNESS BACI)
If I recall, his explanation was 16 that 0 -- these were questions and answers which had been 17 done.
He explained that the operatorn f requently exchanged l
l 18 practice questions and answers, and that he indicated that 19 to the best of his recollection 0 had the same questions and l
20 s ns we rs.
In other words, he already had them.
21 O
Was O asked to comment on VV's telephone 22 statemen t?
I mean, did you discuss that with 0?
23 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No, I did not.
24 0
Did you ask Mr. O if he was also preparing for an l
l 25 e xa m a t the time?
O 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COW WY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,303
(])
1 A
(WITNESS BACI)
No, I did not.
2 0
Was Mr. O aware to your knowledge that VV was long 3 overdue on his makeup assignments?
4 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I do not know.
5 If I might make one point, during the question 6concerning Mr. VV ve had discussed some other situations 7 concerning Mr. VV with Mr.
O.
However, during the 8 interview, which was prior to our leaving the site, Mr. 0 9 indicated that he did not want to discuss that with us at 10 that time.
And I believe that appears in the statement, or 11 1t is in the report at least.
12 JUDGE MI1HOLLINs When you say that, what do you 13 mean by that?
14 WITNESS BACIa The situation described in the 15 report concerning Mr. VY and Mr.
O, we had brought that up 16 to Mr. O during our last interview with him before leaving 17 the site and he indicated that he did not want to discuss 18 that with us until he had an opportunity to speak to his l
19 attorney.
20 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) i l
21 0
Did you question the operators about management 22 involvement during the initial investigations?
23 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma'am.
I might add that we
()
24 were very sensitive to that particular issue throughout all l
l 25 the investigations, because it appeared to us to be the most O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 k
25,304
(])
1 crucial element, the most crucial indication of cheating.
2 So we were alert to it.
We did ask that question certainly 3 very much in the second one.
4 I will check with my colleagues here to make sure 5 the question was asked of everybody during the initial 6 investigation.
7 A
(WITNESS BACI)
To the best of my recollection --
l 8 to the best of my recollection, that question was asked.
If 9 not directly, it was encompassed in the other questions we 10 asked about anybody providing any assistance to. them or 11 f acilitating cheating in any way or if any outside j
12 assistance was provided.
13 Q
And you understood that to mean management?
14 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We understood that to mean 15 anybody.
16 0
Are you sure that the operators understood that 17 also to mean managemen t?
18 A
(WITNESS BACI)
Yes.
That is my feeling.
We made 19 our meaning quite clea r.
20 0
When Mr. Hukill was here, he told us that he could 21 conceive that an individual employed at the company might 22 f eel constrained with management present in an interview by 23 the NRC and that he might not say something for fear of
()
24 retribution by the company.
25 MR. BLAKE4 I am sorry.
Could we have a reference O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,305
(])
1 to Mr. Hukill's testimony that you are referring to?
2 MS. BR ADFORD:
Yes.
It is at transcript page 2300 g
3 -- 23,931.
%J 4
MR. BLAKE:
And could you read that, please?
5 MS. BRADFORD:
Mr. Hukill said:
"I can conceive 6 that an individual employed at the company might feel 7 constrained with management present in an interview by the 8 NRC and that he might not say something for fear of 9 retribution by the company."
to MR. BLAKE4 Thank you.
11 BY MS. BRADFORD:
(Resuming) 12 0
Would you agree with Mr. Hukill's statement?
13 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I would have to agree.
It sounds O
14 on its f aca to be a logical sta tement.
15 Q
Would you say, then, that your investigation into 16 management involvement was not as thorough as it could have 17 been?
18 A
(WITNESS WARD)
To the extent that the three 19 inv estigations tend to blur into one and that many of the 20 people are interviewed over and over again, I would say tha t 211t was a thorough investigation into possible management l
l 22 involvem ent.
23 We also rely heavily upon our subjective
()
24 impressions during interviews.
I know no indications of 25 people holding back information reported to me, as the O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,306
()
1first-level supervisor of the investigators.
Either Mr.
2 Gilbert or Mr. Baci can comment on whether they felt
(])
3 somebody was holding back informa tion, particula rly with 4 respect to that question.
5 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I thought that the possibility my impression was that the 6 existed.
However, I do not 7 people we interviewed were forthright, that they were not 8 tha t we obtained all the information, you know, we were 9 seeking.
10 0
When management insisted on being present during 11 the interviews, had you considered administering oaths to --
12 swearing in the operators?
Do you think that would have 13 possibly --
14 A
(WITNESS WARD) - No, it would not.
Perhaps it 15 would be wise for me to give some background on the use of l
16 sworn testimony by our investigators.
The Commission has, i
17 a t least up until subsequent to this investigation, wished 18 to limit our use of taking of sworn testimony to a case by 19 case basis with a specific delegation f rom the Office 20 Director, Mr. Stello, who has the authority to confer this l
i 21 -- redelega te this authority to us.
22 We have found in practice that putting people 23 under oath tends to inhibit the flow of testimony even 24 f urther.
We use sworn testimony sparingly normally, 25 spa ringly, and relegate it to circumstances where we feel we O
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,307 1 may have conflicting information where we vish to pin down 2 people a little further.
3 So within the confines of this particular 4 investigation, especially the first investigation, we view 5it.as inappropriate to use sworn testimony, except for the 6 people that we considered, if you will, our prime suspects.
7 0
D uring the first investigation you interviewed 11 8 exam candidates in addition to Mr. O and Mr. W.
Yet only 9 one of these individuals took the B exam in the smokers 10 room, which was reported to have been virtually unproctored, 11 and he declined to talk about possible chea ting in that 12 room.
13 Can you explain why you did not interview other O
14 examinees from that room?
15 A
(W7TNESS WARD)
I am not certain I< understand your 16 question.
Is the premise of your question that only one of 17 the people that we interviewed was f rom the B group?
18 Q
Yes.
19 A
(WITNESS BACI)
We, within the time f rame of the 20 initial investigation, we attempted to interview people who 21 were in the proximity of the primary suspects.
We attempted 22 to interview people who had failed the examination and that 23 ve thought might have a good incentive to tell us about O
24enrthine thet was imorever thet occurred durine the exem-25 And we interviewed, you indicated, a total of 13 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,308 O
1 peo ple.
Now, this was from a period of Monday evening, late V
2 Monday evening through Thursday, and that does not include 3 people we spoke to from management and the NRC.
4 So basically my answer is that we might 5 conceivably have interviewed more people, however time did 6 not permit it.
7 A
(WITNESS WABD)
I would like to add a little to 8 the bottom of that two.
The selection was not primarily 9 based on geography, with a need, in other words, to get a 10 spread across all the sessions and rooms.
The figures are 11 skewed by the fact that it was the individual's proximity to 12 -- again, I use this term advisedly -- prim e suspects; 13 people who had failed the exam and therefore might be 14 expected to have bitter feelings and perhaps be more 15 inclined to cooperate with us; and other such 16 considerations.
17 So it was not an attempt to go across all four 18 sessions, if you will.
19 20 21 l
22 23 O
24 25 O
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,309
()
1 0
Can you tell me, then, wh y you interviewed Mr.
2 Husted at all since he was not in the same room as the prime 3 suspects?
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is that individual in the public 5 domain?
6 MS. BRADFORD:
Yes.
7 JUDGE MILHCLLINa All right, go ahead.
8 WITNESS BACIs That individual was interviewed 9 because he was a repre sen ta tive of Training, and he also 10 happened to take the examination -- was an examinee, so all 11 ve were interviewing him or had him interviewed for --
12 concerning his relationship with Training.
We were also 13 interviewing him concerning his participation in the O
14 examina tion.
15 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 16 0
When you concluded the first investiga tion, did you 17 make a recommendation that the exam not be readministered?
18 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I would not characterize it as a 19 recommendation.
Mr. Stello asked our opinion as to whether 20 we believed the examination should be readministered.
We 21 told him we did not feel that it need be.
22 0
On what did you base that opinion?
23 A
(WITNESS WARD)
We based it primarily on the fact
(
24 tha t with the exception of 0 and W, we had not uncovered any 25 credible evidence of additional cheating.
We had entered O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
25,310 1 into this investigation with the understanding that the 2 proctoring conditions, such as they were, were not unlike 3 those of other ticense examinations administered elsewhere.
4 We saw no great differentiation, then, between this-5 particular site and other sites.
So the absence of any 6 credible information to the contrary, we felt there was no 7 reason to readminister the examinations.
That was the 8 basis, I believe, at the time.
9 0
Have you had many allegations of cheating at other 10 utilities, other f acilities ?
11 A
(WITNESS WARD)
In the time that I have been with 12 the Commission I can recall no allegations whatsoever.
13 Q
So that this, then, was different from other exams O
14 given and other conditions; wou1d you say that?
15 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I cannot say that the examination 16 was different.
17 Q
But the conditions of the possibility of cheating 18 were then diff erent since there was a very strong 19 p os sibility that cheating had been identified at this 20 f acility ; is that correct?
21 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, ma'am.
The only 22 dif ferentiation I make is that cheating was in fact 23 ide n tified. I do not then draw any inference that the O
2 11ke11 hood of eeditione1 cheeting wes eny greeter et this 25 than any other set of examinations administered under O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,311 O
' =i=11 r circ== =t* a ce -
2 (Counsel for THIA conf 7tring.)
3 0
When you re-interviewed Mr. Husted during the qV 4 second investigation, were you concerned about his 5 allegations that your questions on the prior interviews had 6 been too broad to allow specific answers?
7 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I am not sure I understand the 8 question.
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think you should refer the 10 witness to specific background information.
11 I notice from my watch and from the 12 cross-examination plan that this cross-examination probably 13 will end around 6:35.
Would you say that is a good estimate?
O 14 MS. BBADFORD:
Yes.
Since we are working on the 15 last page, that is a good estimate.
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is that a good estima te?
17 MS. BRADFORD:
Maybe 6:40.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Does everyone agree to stay until 19 then?
Shall we go ahead and complete this before we break 20 this evening ?
21 (No response.)
22 JUDGE MILHOLLIN All right.
23 (Pause.)
O 24 MS. BRADr0RD.
That is on page 16 of the second 25 report.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,312
()
1 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Okay.
If you ask the question 2 again, I think.we etn respond to it.
3 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 4 Q
The second paragraph on that page, Mr. DD stated 5 that his reluctance to answer all questions asked by the NRC 6at an earlier date was because the questions were so broad 7 that he just could not give specific answers.
Now, my 8 question is were you concerned about those allegations in 9 regards to your earlier investigation that possibly other 10 interviewees had f,ound your questions too broad?
11 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, ma'am.
12 0
Did you question Mr. Husted as to which room the 13 alleged paper passing occurred?
14 (Pause.)
15 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I do not recall.
The investigator 16 who questioned Mr. Husted is not here today.
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
This is the interview in which 18 Mr. Husted says that he heard someone, but he could not say 19 who, say that someone, he cannot say who, saw papers being 20 passed in the exams is that righ t?
21 MS. BRADFORD:
Yes.
I wondered if he could have at 221 east identified which room this --
23 A
(WITNEES WARD)
I would expect, and this is in the
()
24 realm of speculation on my part, tha t given the background 25 and experience of Investigator Matakas, that he would have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., $.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,313 O
' Wi=aed ai dova to tae exteat oossiate-It is t taer c1e r 2 from the writeup that Mr. Husted was not to be pinned down.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
While we are on that point, I l
4 would like to ask a question.
Do you believe Mr. Husted is 5being truthful when he says that his refusal to be -- well, 6 his refusal to answer questions at the first interview was 7 because the questions were too broad?
8 WITNESS WARD:
My opinion, and it is strictly that, 9 is no, he is not being.
10 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Truthful?
11 WITNESS WARDS He is not being truthful.
It is 12 strictly the impression I have from discussing his first 13 interview with the investigator who interviewed him and his gV 14 discussing the interview that Mr. Matakas did.
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did Mr. Matakas do both 16 interviews of Mr. Husted?
17 WITNESS W ARD:
No, sir.
The first interview was 18 done by investigator Christopher, Region 1 office.
19 (Peuse.)
20 JUDGE MILHOLLIN All right.
21 BY MS. BR ADFORD: (Resuming) 22 0
Mr. Ward, if you were concerned that Mr. Husted was 23 not being truthful, were you concerned that cheating did go 24 on in that room?
25 A
(WITNESS WARD)
No, ma'am, I do not get there from ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,314
(])
1 a belief that one interviewee is not perhaps being totally 2 candid.
I do not then draw the conclusion that they were 3 cheating because of this.
4 Q
Did any of the licensee personnel who reviewed the 5 exams with Mr. Wilson on April 23 and 24 remember how long 6 Mr. Wilson spent in the classroom on his periodic visits?
7 A
(WITNESS WARD)
I do not recall anyone making 8' specific reference to that.
I believe neither of these 9 gentlemen recall either.
10 0
Did BB identify the individuals who expressed 11 concern about the proctor's absence?
12 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Again, you will have to have a 13 ref erence for that.
Is BB 's name in the public domain?
O 14 MB. BLAKE:
Is that Victor Victor you are asking?
15 MS. BRADFORD:
No.
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
No.
Boy Boy.
What is the name?
17 MR. BLAKE4 Mr. Boltz, Training.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Boltz.
All righ t.
19 (Pause.)
20 BY MS. BRADFORD: (Resuming) 21 Q
On page 22, gentlemen.
22 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Of which report?
23 0
Of the second report.
()
24 A
(WITNESS WARD)
And the question again, please?
25 0
In the last paragraph on that page, Mr. 3B talks O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
I 25,315
( )'
1 about individuals who expressed concern that the proctors 2 were away f rom the test room for too long a period of time.
{)
3 My question is did he identify the individuals who expressed 4 that concern?
5 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Again, I cannot answer that one.
6The interview was done by someone else.
I might add, 7 however, that his comments do track with information that 8 was provided during one of the oth'er interviews that I 9 conducted.
So I believe I know at least one of the 1
10 examinees who was of that opinion who volunteered during the 11 course of an interview with me.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLINa Was that the examinee who said he i
13 was upset at being open to solicitation?
O 14 WITNESS WARDa Yes, sir, the same one.
2 i
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do you recall the letter 16 designation of tha t examinee?
17 MS. BRADFORD:
It was Mr. P.
]
18 JUDGE MILHOLLINs All right. Mr. P.
19 WITNESS WARD:
That is correct, it is "P"
as in 20 P ap a.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Thank you.
I 22 BY MS. BRADFORD: (Resuming) 23 0
The second pa rt of Mr. KK 's allega tion, which you
()
24 can find on page 29 of the second report, that second part 25 concerns an individual who was supposedly stationed in the O
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,316 1 vicinity of the exam rooms to help examinees.
Did you ever
{)
2 ask Mr. Wilson or Mr. Maynes if they had seen anyone in the 3 hallway?
O 4
A (WITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma'am, I asked both of them in 5 anticipation of your question.
I believe the answer was no.
8 JUDGE MILHOLLIN I am sorry, that is not clear.
7 To what question is the answer no?
8 WITNESS WARD:
Yes, I did ask the question of Mr.
9 Wilson and Mr. Maynes, did they see anybody in the vicinity 10 of the examination rooms.
They both said that they did not 11 see anybody in that vicinity.
12 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 13 0
During his interview Mr. P expressed some anger at
()
14 the proctor's absence, partially because it put him in a 15 position where he could be solicited, presumably for help 18with the exam.
Did you ask him if he indeed was solicited 17 for such help?
18 A
(WITNESS WARD)
Yes, ma 'am.
19 Q
And his answer was?
20 A
(WITNESS WARD)
His answer was somewhat ambiguous.
21 He indicated in response to a direct question that a fellow l
l 22 examinee asked him a question on one occasion, he did not 23 provide the answer, and that that ended the situation at
()
24 that point.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
This was during the examination?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINLA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,317
()
1 WITNESS WARDS Yes, sir, it was.
2 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
While he was sea ted at his table?
(])
3 WITNESS WARD:
That is correct.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Did he tell you who the examinee 5 was?
6 WITNESS WARDS Yes, sir, he did.
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN I am sorry, Ms. Bradford.
8 Perhaps you were going to ask that question.
Go ahead.
9 BY MS. BRADFORD: (Resuming) 10 0
Who was that individual?
11 A
(WITNESS WARD)
He indicated it was Mr. Husted.
12 0
Did you ask Mr. Husted about that?
13 A
(WITNESS HARD)
He had been asked on two occasions 14 and replied in the negative.
We did not specifically 15 con front him with Individual P's assertion.
16 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Is that reported in your 17 documents, the fact that P was solicited and that P 18 iden tified the person who solicited him?
19 WITNESS WARDS I am not certain if it is.
I would 20 have to check th e re po rt.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
So your answer is you do not know?
22 WITNESS WARDa I do not know, sir.
f 23 (Pause.)
24 BY MS. BRADFORDa (Resuming) i 25 Q
In Mr. Hukill's notes which he took when he was
/~x ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,318
()
1present during Mr. W's interview on July 29 -- excuse me, 2 July 27, he indicates that -- and I am not sure who, whether
("}
31t was M r. Bachi or Mr. Gilbert who-asked the question --
4 that one of the investigators made a statement that we would 5 prefer to handle this at our level and. not let it get any 6 higher out of our hands.
7 Could either one of you explain to me what that 8 sta temen t --
9 A
(WITNESS BACI)
I think I can answer that question 10 for both Mr. Gilbert and myself.
I do not recall making 11 that statement and I believe Mr. Gilbert did not make it 12 either.
That does not sound familiar to me at all.
I am 13 not not even quite sure if I understand, you know, what it O
14 ref ers to.
15 MR. GOLDBERG Excuse me.
Could we have an 16 indication here as to Mr. H ukill's notes and whether or not 17 you are referring to an exhibit?
18 MS. BRADFORD:
Yes.
I am referring to TMIA 55.
I 19 provided you with a copy of that, Mr. Goldberg.
i 20 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLINa I am trying to follow this also.
22 You are asking the witness whether, based on TMIA No. --
23 MS. BRADFORDs Exhibit No. 55.
)
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
-- TMIA 55, which are Mr.
24 25 Hukill's notes.
O ALDERSON PEPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,319
()
1 MS. BRADFORDs Yes, which he took during the NRC 2 interview of Mr. W.
And that statement appears in Mr.
[}
3 Hukill's notes.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Well, perhaps you should provide 5 the witness with a copy so the witness can know --
6 MS. BRADFORDs I have provided his c ounsel with 7 copies.
8 JUDGE MILHOLLINs All right.
9 (Counsel handing document to witnesses.)
10 (Witness reviewing document.)
11 BY MS. BRADFORDs (Resuming) 12 0
On page 4 of that document, about two-thirds of the 13 way down, the question and answer series which appears af ter O
14 the word " note."
I would add tha t the following question is 15 "Let Ted explain," and there is a note after that which says 16 there was no answer from Ted.
17 A
(WITNESS GILBERT)
Ms. Bradford, my nickname is 18 Ted, and I have no more explanation now than apparently I 19 did at the time.
I do not understand -- I do not recall the 20 question and I certainly do not recall any response to it.
21 MS. FRADFORD4 Thank you.
22 I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE MILHOLLINs I only have one based on what you
()
24 have asked the witnesses.
25 Did you take any action to follow up the allegation O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIROiW A AVE., S.W., WASHING TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25,320 i
()
1 by Mr. P concerning Mr. Husted, and if so, what action did 2 you take ?
3 WITNESS WARD:
We discussed at what point do we
{)
4 actually have an act of cheating.
We had here, it would 5 seem to us, at best an attempted act of cheating.
That is, 6 the question was asked but an answer not provided.
We had 7 previously interviewed Mr. Husted on two occasions with no 8 results.
We felt that continuing to interview him would 9 also produce no results.
10 We discussed the particular situation with our 11 management upon our return from THI, and the consensus was 12 that it was not worth pursuing that particular issue any 13 f urther.
It was one person's word against another person's O
14 with no act being culminated in.
15 So to answer your' question, sir, we took no further 16 action beyond discussing and making a conscious decision not 17 to pursue it further rather than making an oversicht.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Based on the demeanor of Mr. P 19and Husted, do you think Mr. P -- well, let me ask you 20 t his.
Do you think based on your investigation that Mr.
21 Husted actually solicited M r. P for an answer?
I am not 22 asking you to a moral certainty.
I am asking you what your 23 opinion is.
()
24 WITNESS WARD:
I would tend to believe Individual P l
l 251n his assertion.
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 Vd.
AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20074 (202) 554-2345
25,321
()
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Did you -- M r. P said that 2 solicitation was the only one?
(]}
3 WITNESS WABD:
Yes, sir.
We pressed him on it.
4 This was obviously an area that he was reluctant to talk 5 about, peer group loyalty being what it is and a strong 6 company commitment.
It took, if you will, quite a bit of 7 interviewing to drag the information out of him at this 8 point.
I played off of, as a matter of f act, his expressed 3 concern for having been left alone, being left in a position 10 where he could be jeopardized, and - that is how I elicited 11 this information about Husted from him.
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Were you able to understand 13 whether other solicitation occurred in. hat room?
O 14 WITNESS WARD:
During tne one in question, there 15 was only one person.
There were just Husted and Individual 16P in that examination room.
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Oh.
18 WITNESS WARD:
It was a rather limited universe.
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Are there any other matters 20 bef ore we adjourn this evening?
21 (No response.)
22 Then in that event we shall adjourn until 9 o' clock 23 1n the morning, and we will meet again in this room.
(
24 MR. GOLDBERG:
Excuse me.
Perhaps there is one 25 thing.
Is it possible to get <t this time an estimate on O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25,322
()
1the remainder of the cross-examination as far as scheduling 2 Staff's other witnesses tomorrow morning ?
(]}
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Adler certainly has questions 4 for these witnesses, I notice.
5 MR. ADLERs I would estimate 15 or 20 minutes at 6 most.
7 MR. CLEWETTs And I would estimate perhaps 45 8 minutes to an hour.
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I would estimate 20 minutes.
10 MR. GOLDBERC Thank you.
11 Does Licensee have any estimate?
12 MR. BLAKE I had not anticipated any, but I will 13 consider some of the answers that I have heard.
I may have 14 som e.
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
16 At this time we shall adjourn until 9 o ' clock in 17 the morning.
18 (Whereupon, at 6:41 p.m.
the hearing was recessed, 19 to raconvena at 9:00 a.m. the following day, Wednesday, 20 December 2, 1981.)
l l
21 l
22 23 24 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
D NUCLEAR REGUIATORE COMMISSICT This..is. Oc certi.fy that the:-attacheCgecoeedings before-the O,
ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
irr the natter of: METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MIIE ISLAND UNIT' 1)
Date cc Freceeding:
December 1, 1981 Docket llumber 50-289 (Restart)
Place of Proceeding:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commissicrr.
David S Parker Official Reporter (Typed) c a,=.
(SIGNATURI. OF RE70RTER) 9 D
O O
l l
n-
. -.... -, ~. - -
-