ML20039E113
| ML20039E113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1981 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201060542 | |
| Download: ML20039E113 (8) | |
Text
,
LIC 12/30/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00tKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UTSI s
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 2 DEC 30 P4 50 U2U I 0FilIE OIE'& @H In the Matter of
)
000EI*I' ERtsNC
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
ff%'fSib1I/ /
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
\\
[
' t ca'* e 9
n
/
'l4 LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO AAMODT MOTION. D,//
~
~
%. WOgA THAT THE HEARING BE REOPENED TO RECEIVE O
p AND EXAMINE THE RESPONSES OF LICENSING CANDIDATES TO THE HPI QUESTION
\\'
Gd4 -
\\2f7G[<\\[@
Ki..
By motion served on December 21, 1981, the Ahmodts state that "the record of the hearing on the restart of TMI-l should be reopened to enter and examine the responses of.the candidates for licensing-to the questions on the October licensing examination, including and specifically examining the responses to the HPI question."
Aamodt Motion, at 3.
The Aamodts' broad request is that the record in this. proceeding.
be reopened generally to consider the " relevance to the data on the HPI question to cheating, training, attitude and management."
Id.
Licensee regards the Aamodt pleading as their comments, due on December 24, 1981, pursuant to the Board's December-16 Memorandum and order.
In accordance with the schedule adopted in that Memorandum and Order, Licensee is responding to the Aamodt motion by the date set for replies to comments --
December 30, 1981.
Licensee opposas the Aamodt motion.
13502 2
I /
gl1060542gll ADOCK 03OOhhh9 PDR L
, The Aamodts first appear to concede that it would have been inappropriate to consider the HPI data in the re-
- opened, hearing, Aamodt Motion, at.l..They then go on to claim that statistical analysis suggests that there is evidence rele-vant tc the reopened hearing on cheating, as well.as:to the broader aspects of the hearing which is the ' thrust of their request.
Id.
The statistical analysis that in their view ties the HPI question and responses to the reopened hearing' consists of their observation that eight operators failed the HPI question on the A examination.which was given the first day of the exam and that only three failed the question on the B examination which was given the'second day.
The logical ex-planation, according to the Aamodts, is that a. form of~ cheating-took place which resulted in improved scores on the second test.
This is, of course, mere speculation on the Aamodts' part.
There was no evidence whatsoever during the four weeks of reopened hearing that any cheating occurred during the October, 1981 NRC exams.
All the evidence, in fact, was that with more rigid procedures implemented by NRC exam administrators and outright fear experienced by the examinees, no cheating took place.
Nor is the Aamodts' statistical analysis dispositive of this question.
Licensee concedes that under the Staff's grading of the HPI question alone, the results indicate more l
I i
.-4
~
- operators obtained greater than 70% on the B exam than on the A exam.
Yet, other analyses (similarly quick and similarly subject to dispute) of the results on the A and B exams indicate no collusion of the type envisioned by the Aamodts occurred.
Thus, the highcst grade on the Category E section where the HPI question appeared was attained on the A exam, not on the later B exam.
Overall, four examinees failed the RO A test and four, the RO B.
(On the SRO test, five failed the B exam and four-the A exam).
In short, Licensee regards as pure happenstance that under NRC's after-the-fact grading of this one question, candidates appear to have done better on the second exam than on the first exam.
We regard as mere speculation the Aamodts' assertion that this result is due to some form of collusion between operators, particularly where the pass-fail results on the two days of exams are virtually identical.
The thrust of the Aamodt motion, however, is that the HPI question and responses are important, and that the
" main hearing" record, not merely the cheating phase, should be reopened to consider them.
The Aamodts see this as an occasion for the Board to reconsider the subject areas of training, attitude and management.
In support, they argue that shortcomings in the operators' answers to the HPI question are
" attributable to the TMI Training Departnent."
Aamodt Motion, at 2.
Training's failure, the Aamodts submit, is due either
M' "a
4 --
to,an; inadequate training program or operator attitudes.
1 I
'Moreover,.they want now to relitigate their l00%-proficiency standard.(Aamodt Motion, at - 2) and training. generally,Jbased'
.on-the results'of the Kelly exams in April",J1980, the OARP in.
-1979-80,.andLthe ATTS, audit exams in Aprile, ~1981.*-
Licensee has already in'its comments of December 24,-
addressed the significance of the operators' responses to.the
.HPI question.
In: contrast,'the Aamodts have paid.no attention to the substance of the HPI answers or the NRC's grading. LAs to the Aamodts' other cited grounds for the need to reopen, we observe that the Aamodts never participated in the hearing-r on the HPI question or operator actions to throttle or terminate HPI once it is initiated.
Their views.cn1 the import of this particular question and-the operators'~ responses'to it should-be' weighed-accordingly.
Further,-the 100% testing criterion and the adequacy of' training generally, including the Kelly exams, the OARP and the ATTS exam, were the subject of weeks of hearing time, extensive findings and Board determinations in the The Aamodts also refer to' training documents.which were admitted into evidence for limited purposesLintthe reopened hearing.
Aamodt Motion, at 3.
See Licensee Exhibits 60-62 (admitted at Tr. 24,641) and Tr. 24,638 (Licensee. counsel explanation of limited purpose).
We are at a loss to'under-stand'the relevancy of this portion of the Aamodt pleading to-their motion.
8.
N r
un
.se
.......-.---a
.n
_~
5-Management PID.. Mere reiteration by the Aamodts in their instant motion of-the same arguments advanced, considered and' decided.previously does not provide a basis to reopen and reconsider these same subjects again.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE~
1800 M S treet, ' N.W., Ste. 900S Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 By b e r /' I I / h h Ernest L.
Blake Counsel for Licensee Dated:
December 30, 1981 f
f f
S 2
r 1
m.
E Liccnsco 12/30/81' w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CO iP BEFORE THE ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T1
[EC 30 P4:50 In the Matter of
)
gygg ;p g7g
)
D00Xf. TUG & SEE.
METROPOLITAN ~ EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nd.RA$dL289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to UCS Response to Board Order on HPI Questions and Answers," and
" Licensee's' Response to Aamodt Motion That the Hearing be Reopened to Receive and Examine the Responses of Licensing Candidates to' the HPI Question," both dated December 30, 1981, were served by hand delivery on those persons on the attached Service List des-ignated by one asterisk (*) ; by deposit with Federal Express or Express Mail for delivery on those persons on the attached Service List designated by two asterisks ( * *) ; and by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on all other persons on the attached Service List, this 30th day of December, 1981.
Since the Chairman of the Licensing Board has granted UCS' oral request for an extension of time for its response to the comments of other parties until Monday, January-4, 1982, service of the above docu-ments will not be hand-delivered to UCS until that date.
h/
h
/J
~
Y GdrgeF. Trowbridg[
Dated: December 30, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AME3ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)'
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Robert Adler, Esquire Ivan W. Smith (2)
Karin. W.
Carter, Esquire Chair an, Atomic Safety and Assistant Attorney General Licensing Board 505 Exebutive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Post Office Box 2357 Washington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Administrative Judge Attorney General of New Jersey Walter H. Jordan Attn: Thomas J. Ge mine, Esquire Carib Terrace Motel Deputy Attorney General 552 North Ocean Blvd.
Division of Law - Rocm 316 Pcrpano Beach, Florida 33062 1100 Raymond Boulevard' Newark, New Jersey 07102 Administrative Judge
- I Linda W. Little John A. Levin, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Assistant Counsel 5000 Hermitage Drive Pennsylvania Public Utility
- Ralcigh, North Carolina 27612 Commission Post Office Box 3265 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, PA 17120~
Gary L. Milhollin c/o Ivan W.
Smith John E. Minnich U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory' Commission Chaiman, Dauphin County Board Washington, D.C.
20555 of Commissioners Dauphin County Courthouse James R. Tourtellotte, Esq. (4)
Front and Market' Streets Office of' Executive Legal Harrisburg, PA 17101 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Decketing & Service Section (3) 1425 Strawberry Square Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, PA 17127 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing:cn, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety &
Licensing Board Panel Robert Q. Pollard U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmaission 609 Montpelier Street.
Washington, D.C.
20555 3altimore, MD 21218 Chairman, Atemic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear rec 4ulatory _ Ccrmissica-
2-Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esquire William S.. Jordan, III, Esquire Fox, Farr & Cunningham Harmon & Weiss 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye-Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Washington, D_.C.
20006
Suite 50(
Marvin I. Lewis-Washington, D.C.
20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Philad~elphia, PA 19149 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY
- Mr. Norman Aamodt 245 West Philadelphia Street R.
D.
5 York, PA 17404 Coatesville, PA 19320 Mr. Steven C.
Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 601 Washington, D.C.
20006 9
6