Text

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Issues Raised in Reopened Hearing on Operator Cheating.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20040B993
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/14/1982
From:	Adler R; PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 8201270146
	Download: ML20040B993 (51)
	v • d • e

t s

UNITED STA'IES OF AMERICA UW PjUET NUCIIAR REGULAIORY 02 MISSION BEFORE WE ATOMIC SAFM AND LICEBEHU BOARD

'82 JAN 21 All:53 In the Matter of

)

0Frici - a cTJ DOCht iiNG 1 SEn,

)

U

~

METROPOLITAN EDISON CT!PANY,

)

Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

(Restart)

Station, thit Ib.1)

)

CatONWEALTH OF PEIESYLVMiIA'S PROPOSED FINDDUS OF FACT AND CDtK1USIO'E OF IAW ON ISSUES RAISED IN REOPENED HEAR'20 ON OPERATOR GEATING s

A l'

RGcggyg.y E 619826 n

U

+

s 3

950 ROBERT W. AIHR 5

Assistant Counsel Cocm:mealth of Pennsylvania II 505 Executive Fouse P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Telephone:

(717) 787-7060 C201270146 820114 PDR ADOCK 05000289 PDR o

1 e

TABLE OF CONIEN'IS Page I.

Dmowerrm...................................................

1 II. 'IHE EKIENI 0F QEATHE BY M-1 OPERA'IOR UCENSE CANDIIKIES....

2 III. 'IEE ADEQUAN OF HIE NRC STAFF'S INVESTIGATION OF CHEATDU BY 'IMI-1 OPERATOR UCENSE CANDIIWIES...........................

39 IV. 'IHE ADEQUAW OF UCENSEE'S INVESTIGATION OF CHEATDU BY

'IMI-l OPERATOR UCENSE CANDIDNIES..............................

43 V.

CONCLUSIONS OF IK.............................................

47

Y f

I.

INIRODUCTION 1.

h Cormonwealth elects to exercise its right to " advise the Cocmission" by proposing findings of fact and conclusions of law only with respect to certain discrete issues. 42 U.S.C. 52021(1); 10 C.F.R.

52. 715(c)_. h Connemealth has reviewed the entire reopened record carefully, and subnits proposed findings and conclusions only where it seeks a particular remedy. This is similar to the approach adopted by the Coccomealth in earlier phases of the proceeding. The Cocmx1 wealth does not adopt specific findings and conclusions proposed by any other party. Moreover, the Connemealth reserves its right to participate as a full party on all issues on appeal. Gulf State Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2) AIAB-317, March 4,1976, 2 IUC. REG. REP.

(CCH).130,053. Except where specifically noted, these findings are not intended to alter any position previously adopted by the Cocronwealth in this proceeding.

1 I

II. M EXIENT OF GEATItG BY M-1 OPERATOR LICENSE CANDIDATES 2.

Issue 1 in the reopened proceeding states:

1.

The extent of cheating by M -1 operator license candidates on the IEC license exminations in April 1981, and on any other Licensee or NRC-acmdnistered exminations, including but not limited to the following: the Kelly ex minations (including Category T) in April 1980; Category T make-up examinations subsequently administered by the cmpany; the ATIS neck examinations in early April 1981; and such other examinations as the Special Master shall deen relevant. These latter shall include any other Licensee-administered qualification or neck exan or NRC-administered exan since the accident at M -2.

Memorandum and Order on October 2,1981 Conference of Parties Relative to Reopened Proceeding (October 14,1981) [ hereinafter October 14 Menorandum and Order], at 2.

3.

The Staff's testimony concludes that only limited instances of cheating occurred on the April,1981 NRC license examination and on any other company or NRC-administered examinations. The Staff investigation identified only the following instances of cheating:

1) the collusive cheating by 0 and W on the April,1981 NRC lir.ensing exam; 2) the collusive cheating by 0 and W on the April, 1981

" mock" exams administered by the Licensee; and 3).

the oral response given by FF to another unidentified individual while they were getting coffee during the April,1981 NRC exams.

Ward, ff. Tr. 25, 274, at 2-3.

'Ihe Staff testimony also referenced two instances where STA's (KK and W) received telephone calls during the April,1981 NRC exam and the April,1980 cocpany-administered requalification exam (Kelly exam)_ respectively, where operators allegedly asked for.

information per ning to the exams, id. at 3; and a number of instances where Professor fMad V. Trunk, a consultant hired by the Licensee, discovered mtential cheating on cocpany-administered exams and quizzes.

Id. at 3-4.

These same instances of cheating and potential cheating are discussed in Licensee's prefiled testimony. See, e.g., Arnold, ff. Tr.

23, 590, at 5-11.

4.

Based on the evidentiary record coupiled by the Special Master and the parties, the Board is not satisfied with the conclusions reached by the Staff and the Licensee with respect to a number of the instances of " potential" cheating described above, as well as other potential incidents uncovered for the first time during the reopened hearing.

The Board finds that there is strong evidence that the following individuals participated in some form of cheating on either NRC or Licensee-administered exams or quizzes, in addition to the two individuals (0 and W) who admitted cheating and were subsequently permitted to resign:

(a) DD; (b) FF and one other individual; (c) U; (d) GG; and (e) G and H.

The evidence with respect to these individuals is discussed below.

5.

It should be noted that, in a number of instances, evidence of cheating on company-administered training quizzes is discussed. Such scrutiny was clearly encompassed by Issue 1 where the training quiz format was used to administer Category T make-up examinations, since the successful completion of the Category T exams is a restart requirement imposed by the Conmission in short-term iten 1(e) of the August 9,1979 Order and Notice of Hearing.

In addition, the Board granted the Special Master discretion to admit evidence on "such other examinations as the Special Master shall deem relevant." October 14 Memorandum and Order, at 2.

tb party objected to the adnission of evidence regarding cheating on quizzes other than Categorj T make-up quizzes. The Board agrees that such scrutiny is appwpriate where there is evidence of clear, blatant, or repeated instances of cheating on quizzes. Both &, Arnold and Mr.

Hukill testified that operator integrity is essential to the safe operation of the plant. Tr. 23, 611-12,16 (Arnold); Tr. 23, 983; Tr. 24, 082 Olukill). Evidence of extreme lack of integrity on quizzes is only marginally less relevant than evidence of lack of integrity on major exams.

DD (Charles E. Husted)

(a)

D 6.

Mr. Husted is an instructor in the 'IMI-l licensed operator training department. Tr. 26, 909 (Husted).

Based solely on the reports of the NRC Staff investigations, there was 'little evidence that Mr.

Husted was directly involved in any instances of cheating at 2II.

Similarly, Mr. Husted was not identified in the Staff's written testimony as a cheating suspect. Ward, ff. Tr. 23, 274, at 2-4.

Informatien brought out during the evidentiary hearing, bamver, points to thrm areas in which Mr. Husted's integrity is in question:

(1) The alleged solicitation by Mr. Husted of information from Mr. P during the April, 1981 NRC exam; (2) Mr. Husted's apparent withholding of information relevant to potential cheating on the April, 1981 NRC exam; and (3)_ Mr. Husted's potential knowledge of or involvment in Mr.

U'-s alleged use of Mr. Husted's office to facilitate cheating on the April, 1981 NRC exam.

(1) The alleged solicitation by Mr. Husted of information from Mr. P during the April, 1981 NRC exam 7.

Information regarding this incident was revealed for the first time during cross-examination of NRC Staff investigators Ward, Baci, and Gilbert.* In the surmary of the interview of &. P in the Staff's October 13, 1981 Report of Irr<estigation [ hereinafter Second I & E Report], it-is stated that:

P expressed anger about the NRC proctor leaving the examination room unproctored... P explained that he felt that the absence made him vulnerable to any allegation of cheating as it removed a potential witness to his honesty, and added that it also put him in the uncomfortable position where he could be solicited by other examinees.

Staff Ex. 27, at 40 (mphasis added). Du-ing cross-examination, Mr.

Ward testified that W. P, in response to a direct question, stated that Mr. Husted asked &. P a question on one occasion during the SRO-B examination. Tr. 25, 316-17 (Ward). According~ to Mr. Ward, &. P testified that he refused to provide the answer.

Id. Mr. Ward further' testified that, based on Mr. P's demeanor, he tends to believe Mr. P's assertion that &. Husted solicited an answer. Tr. 25, 320 (Ward).

8.

Mr. Husted and Mr. P were the only ex=Mes who took the SRO-B exam.in the snoker's room. Tr. 26, 916 (Husted).

Therefore, Mr. Husted and Mr, P were alone together whenever the proctor was out of the room.

Moreover, Mr. Husted testified that the room was unproctored roughly 50 percent of the time on the day in question, and that he could see whenever the proctor entered or left the room.

Tr. 26, 933-35 (Husted). Yet, 4

Mr. Husted categorically denied asking Mr. P a question during the exam. Tr. 26, 937 (Husted).

Messrs. Ward, Baci, and Gilbert are all investigators in the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforement. Ward, ff. Tr. 25,274 (attached statements of professional qualifications). i i

9.

More curiously, when Mr. P testified at the hearing, he denied not only being solicited by W. Husted, but also ever having made such an allegation to the NRC investigators. In fact, Mr. P came to the hearing armed with an explanation for why he might have been misunderstood by the NRC investigators. Tr. 26, 691-92 (P). W. P explained that he was not concerned while he was taking the exam about the possibility of being solicited. Father, he became concerned after the NRC investigation that the absence of a proctor left him without a witness that he was not in fact, solicited by someone. According to &. P, the solicitation was purely hypothetical. Tr. 26, 724, 29-30 (P).

10. The Board has difficulty with the credibility of &. P's testimony for a number of reasons. First, the Special Master, who observed the demeanor of both Mr. Ward and &. P, reports no reason to question the credibility of the NRC witnesses. &. Ward aniMr. Baci were both present during the interview of &. P.

Tr. 25, 460 (Ward).

Yet there was no disagreement between the two witnesses regarding what occurred during &. P's interview. &. Ward recalled clearly the specifics of the conversation with Mr. P, and in fact testified that the issue was pursued somewhat further with &. P (Mr. P stated the extent and the nature of the question). Tr. 25, 462-65 (Ward). Finally, the Board can think of no possible motive for the NRC investigators to fabricate such a story. On the contrary, throughout the investigation, the investigators appear to have been exceedingly cautious in not making any accusations without sufficient basis in fact.

11. On the other hand, the Special Master reports considerable grounds for disbelieving Mr. P's testimony. Mr. P uould have us believe that the NRC investigarcra suggested to &. P that Mr. Husted asked

&. P a question during the exam, and then 4=adiately indicated that they were not really interested in pursuing this matter.

Tr. 26, 691-93 (P). In fact, &. P testified that the investigators' ranarks during the interview were " irrelevant", and were then simply left hanging.

Tr. 26, 762 (P). 'Ihe Board finds this explanat. ion to be somewhat incredible and contradicted by the Staff testimony. Tr. 25, 461-65 (Ward). More importantly, the Board finds W. P's story to be internally inconsistent.

&. P states that he thought &. Ward's actions during the interview (i.e. raising the DD question and then 4=adintely dropping it) were

" odd", but that he simply dismissed the issue, proceeded with the interview, and forgot about the matter until the issue arose in the proceedings.

Tr. 26, 760 (P). Yet a key pranise underlying &. P's testimony is his extrane fear that the lack of a proctor left him without a witness to

'his-innocence.

See 19, supra. Given these feelings, the Board believes it to be unlikely that &. P would allow such an accusation to go unchallenged.

12.

The Board also tends not to believe &. P's explanation that he only became worried about the possibility of being solicited after the NRC investigation was initiated. During W. P's deposition prior to the reopened hearing, & P was asked a series of questions regarding how he felt during the April,1981 examination.

W. P cordimad during i

l the hearing that he interpreted these questions as focusing on the time of the examination. Tr. 26, 745-46 (P). During this sequence of questions in the deposition, &. P was asked "Did you feel there was a potential for that (being solicited] happening when the proctor was out of the room?" Tr. 26, 746.

&. P confirmed that his response to this question was "yes".

Tr. 26, 748 (P).

W. P explained that he interpreted.-

the question to mean "Do you [now] feel that there was a potential..."

Tr. 26, 746 (P),.

"le Board has examined the basis for &. P's changed interpretation in the midst of his deposition (Tr. 26, 746-51), and finds that it lacks credibility. The Special Master reports that &.

P's deeanor during this series of questions further supports the theory that &. P was not being completely candid.

13. There is one additional basis on the record to challenge Mr P's credibility, unrelated to the specific testimony at hand. Mr. P testified that he had never observed cooperation between operators during weekly quizzes, except for clarification of questions. Tr.

26, 702 (P). This statement is directly contradicted by the testimony of Mr. 00, who personally observed and participated in cooperation with Mr. P and &. Q on a weekly quiz. Tr. 25, 975-76; Tr. 25, 996 (00).

Mr. 00 was extremely careful not to make any accusations without adequate support. Although Mr. 00 testified that cooperation occurred on a number of occasions, only in this case was he confident enough to name specific individuals. Therefore, it is not likely that &. 00's testimony is unreliable.

14. On balance, the Board finds it likely that the testimony of the NRC investigators is core accurate than that of Mr. P.

Unlike the Staff witnesses, Mr. P does have a motive not to be truthful.

In fact, i

Mr. P stated that "when you deal with someone who you have known for years and years, I felt it would be a very hard decision to blow the whistle on one of your friends." Tr. 26, 731 (P). For similar reasons, the Board finds it unlikely that Mr. P lied about Mr. Husted during the NRC interview.

If so, he would not have been likely to alter his story later. Consequently, the evidence appears to indicate that Mr. Husted

~

in fact solicited information from Mr. P during the April,1981 NRC examinations.

(2) Mr. Husted's aparent withholding of information from Mr. P during tae April,19811RC exam

15. h Board is also concerned about &. Husted's apparent withholding from the NRC investigators of information relevant to cheating on the April, 1981 IRC examinations. Although this issue technically falls under Issue 5* in the reopened hearing, &. Husted testified that he did not relate his knowledge to anyone else in GPU managm ent.

Tr. 26, 933 (Husted).

hrefore, the Board feels that this incident reflects more on the integrity of &. Husted than on the integrity of GPU management.

16. Mr. Husted, as a training instruccor, is clearly a mmber of cmpany managment. Mr. Husted testified that it was " absolutely" part of his job as a meber of the training departrdit to ensure that 'IMI-l operators do not cheat on exams.

17. h su: mary of &. Husted's interview in the NRC Staff's August 11, 1981 Report of Investigation { hereinafter First I & E Report]

indicates that Mr. Husted heard runors of cheating on the NRC exam, which he labeled as "unconRmvl heresay". 'Ibe report indicates further that Mr. Husted " refused to reveal any specifics of the rumors he had heard or to identify the individuals (.if named) who were allegedly implicated. Upon further questioning, [he] declared he could not recall anything concerning what he had heard." Staff Ex. 26, at 39.**

Issue 5 involves:

"'Ihe extent of Licensee manageent knowledge of, encouragment of, negligent failure to prevent, and/or involvement in cheating in the above-mentioned NRC and Licensee examinations."

October 14 Memorandum and Order, at 3.

Mr. Husted adopted this su: mary for the rest part as his testimony.

Although Mr. Husted disagreed with an earlier portion of this paragraph, he did not deny the accuracy of the above-quoted statement.

Tr. 26, 912-14 (Husted).

18.

&. Husted was subsequently reinterviewed due to his reluctance to answer all questions in the previous interview. Staff. Ex. 27, at 16.

'Ihe Sumary of &. Husted's second interview states:

DD was asked to clarify what he meant by "unconf4W hearsay" in his previous statenent.

He stated that he did hear one coment made during the time period of the IRC RO/SRO exams where someone (he did not recall who) said they saw someone (the unf %Hfled person did not say who) passing papers in the exam. DD stated he heard the conment in the area near the coffee pot and men's room in the trailer that was located between the two classrooms. He said he personally did not have any knowledge regarding eithar reference material or crib sheets being taken into the tRC exams and that he did not know if the above mentioned coment relating to " passing papers" was being directed at him or not; further, he did not know if the person was referring to the IRC exams or some other exam.

Staff Ex. 27, at 16.

&. Husted adopted this statement as his testimony.

Tr. 26, 914, 15 (Husted).

'Ihis information, if true, would confirm &.

Wards opinion that it is highly likely that other people in the room tuuld have noticed the passing of papers between &. O and Mr. W.

Tr.

25, 386-86 (Ward).

If so, other individuals may have withheld information from the IEC investigation.

(Mr. Ward speculated that extrane peer loyalty at 'IME may have resulted in the withholding of information.

Id.

There is evidence on the record that this led to &. W's initial denial of cheatiig in order to protect &. O.

Tr. 26, 116 (W).)

19. Mr. Husted's explanation of his behavior in this incident is entirely unsatisfactory, and particularly disturbing for a menber of managenent and the training department. First, &. Husted testified that the only two words he rmvmbered were " passing papers".

Tr.

26, 924-25 (Husted). This is contradicted by the text of the IRC report quoted above. See also Tr. 25, 459 (Ward).

'Ibe full account of W.

Husted's knowledge should have led &. Husted to believe that something was amiss. Rather, &. Husted testified that the conversation he overheard "did not mean anything, but for some reason I renembered it."

Tr.

26, 924 (Husted).

20. Next, the Board finds it somewhat incredible that &. Husted can recall with a high degree of precision where the conversation occurred

("in the area of the water cooler, which is between the coffee pot and the men's room." Tr. 26, 9251, but cannot recall anything about who was involved. Either W. Husted is withholding the Iwnes of the individuals involved, or he callously disregarded potential evidence of cheating at the time he overheard the conversation. later, &. Husted testified that he assuned where the conversation occurred.

Tr. 26, 926 (Husted).

This is contradicted, however, by both his prior and subsequent testit:ony.

Tr. 26, 925; Tr. 26, 927 (Husted).

21. Mr. Husted's explanation for why he did not reveal this information during his earlier interview is even more inconsistent:

Q On Staff Exhibit 26, page 29, you also refer to unconf W hearsay. Are you referring to a different instance there or the same instance?

A That is the same instance.

l Q In the last paragraph on paga 39, it states that you refused to reveal any specifics l

of the rumors you heard or identify the individuals who were allegedly implicated? hhy did you refuse to answer that question?

A I do not know. Stupid, I thirA.

Q You were being interrogated by IRC l

investigators regarding cheating at 31I. You are a member of the training department. You have stated it is part of your responsibilities to help prevent cheating at 'IMI.

And you are telling me that you refused to answer a question regarding runors of cheating at DII because you were stupid?

A I did not like the way the investigation was conducted.

I did not like the questions that were being asked. They were so broad and vague that I could not give a specific answer.

And I think out of lack of anything other to say, I just told the that I did not want to answer the question.

I could not resnber any specific instances of reors that were told me specifically concerning any specific things that could have gone on during the examination.

Q So you did not provide information available to you concerning potential cheating because you did not agree with the manner in which the investigation was being conducted by the investigators?

A No.

I did not provide any information because I did not have any information.

Q Well, this says that you refused to reveal any specifics.

A 1 hat is his interpretation of me saying that I did not have anything to say.

Q Well, didn't you provide more specifics

.later, on September 18?

A i had a little bit more time to think about it between this conversation in Exhibit 26 and 27.

Q So between July 29 and September 18, which are the two dates of your interviews, you recalled-with greater detail the specifics of the rumor you had heard? Is that your testimony?

A Not exactly, no. At the interview in July I did not remher any specific runors of cheating.

)uring the July interview and the Septeber interview, I determined that it is possible or that it had been possible that the two words that I had heard, " passing papers," could have been referring to passing papers during the exam.

Tr. 26, 928-30 (Adler, Hustedl.

In addition to being internally inconsistent, this somewhat confusing explanation is inconsistent with Mr. Husted's earlier testimony that he realized that the conversation he overheard was pertinent after the NRC initiated its investigation regarding the._

passing of papers. Tr. 26, 926.*

22. Even if Mr. Husted's explanation is accurate, Mr. Husted was unable to explain why he failed to report his recollection of the conversation before the Septaber 18, 1981 interview. Tr. 26, 931 (Husted). Mr. Husted's explanation that what he heard was only a vague, unexplainable conversation is again inconsistent with his earlier testimony that he related the conversation to his knowledge that the NPE investigation involved " passing papers".

Conpare Tr. 26, 926 (lines 3-8) with Tr. 26, 932 (lines 6-9) (Husted).

23.

&. Husted's testimony is so inconsistent that it is difficult to determine what his natives were. 'Ihe Board can discern three reasonable possibilities:

(1) Mr. Husted was simply insensitive to what he should have recognized as a potential indication of cheating at IME-1; (2) Mr.

Husted was trying to protect Mr. O and &. W during his first IRC interview; or (3) Mr. Husted was and still is protecting the individuals he overheard at the water cooler.

(3) Mr. Husted's potential knowledge of or involvment in Mr. U's alleged use of &. Husted's office to facilitate cheating on the April, 1981 NRC exam

24. Mr. Husted's potential involvment in this incident is discussed at 133-34, infra.

In fact; W. Husted revealed the conversation only after Mr. O and Mr.

W admitted cheating. 15. Husted's first interview was on July 29, 1981. Staff Ex. 26, at 39. Mr. O and Mr. W confessed on August 3, 1981. 3MIA Ex. 51, at 2; 7MIA Ex. 52, at 2.

Mr. Husted revealed his knowledge of the overheard conversation during his second interview, on Septaber 18, 1981.

Staff Ex. 27, at 16.

It is pomible that Mr. Husted uns, in actuality, trying to protect Mr.

O and Mr. W..-

(b) FF (Henry Shipman)

25. &. Shipman is an assistant to the Supervisor of Operations of

'HiI-1.

Tr. 26, 350-51 (Shipman). Mr. Shipman is clearly a umber of managment.

26. 'Ihere is no question or disagreement on the record that Mr.

Shipman was guilty of misconduct on the April, 1981 tRC exam. Mr.

Shipman was approached while he was getting a cup of coffee during the NRC exam, and was asked a question that W. Shipman believes was relevant to the ongoing exam. &. Shipman spontaneously responded.

Staff Ex.

28, at 1, 2, 5-7, Encl.

3.*

27. Licensee's handling of this incident is described in Licmsee's prepared testimony. Arnold, ff. Tr. 23, 590, at 9-10; Hukill, ff. Tr. 23, 913, at 14-15. Essentially, Licensee accepts Mr. Shipman's statement that the incident consisted of a brief, spontaneous encounter, and that there was no intent to cheat on his part. A runber of witnesses testified that at various time they had trouble believing &. Shipman's story, including his inability to rember anything about the initiator of the conversation. Tr. 23, 696 (Arnold); Tr. 24, 066-67 (Hukill); Tr. 25, 368-70; Tr. 25, 453-56 (Baci). However, the Board can find no hard evidence that Mr. Shipman is being untruthful. Although the Board has sme difficulty accepting &. Shipman's statement that he did not appreciate the severity of the matter, see, e.g. Mr. Shipman's sworn statment at 2, on the whole, the Board cannot find fault with Licensee's judgment regarding Mr. Shipman. 'Iherefore, there is no evidence at this time that Mr. Shipman's licenses should be suspended.

28. 'Ihe Board is considerably more disturbed with the realization

is Mr. Shipman's signed testimony describing the incident.

Mr. Shipman adopted this testimony as his testimony in the proceeding.

Tr.

26,350 (Shipman).

that, based en this incident, there appears to be an uncaught cheater acong the M-1 operating staff. 'Ihis person is more culpable than &.

Shipman for two reasons:

(1) &. Shipman admitted his participation; and (.2) & Shipman merely responded to the inquiry, while the uncaught person was the initiator, indicating at least some preneditation.

29. The Board recognizes the possibility that no actual cheating event occurred, for exanple if the question was asked by scxneone who sus 1

not taking the exam. The record does not appear to point in this direction for a tunber of reasons. tRC investigator Ward assunes that there is at least one uncaught cheater based on the Shipman account. Tr. 25, 375-76 (Ward).

&. Hukill agrees with this logic. Tr. 23, 990-91 (Hukill).

&. Shipman believes both that the question involved the ongoing exam, Tr. 26, 395 (Shipman), and that the questioner was taking the exam.

Tr.

26, 361-62 (Shipman).

&. Shipman testified that the only people in that area of the training complex at the time were those individuals who a re taking the exam. Tr. 26, 361-62 (Shipman).

30. Manbers of the M-1 operating staff testified at the hearing that some operators may have taken advantage of the opportuntry to obtain information at the coffee nachine.

A r. 25, 714-15 (GG); Tr.

E T

l 26, 861-63 (U).

In fact, one operator heard a rumor that such activity actually occurred during previous exams. Tr. 25, 986-87; Tr. 26, 001 (00).

In light of this information, the information provided by Mr.

l Shipman should have been investigated to the fullest extent possible.

The adequacy of both the Staff's and the Licensee's investigation of l

this incident are discussed in Parts II and III, infra.

l t

(c) U 31.

&. U has by far been the subject of more rtrors and other indicators of cheating than any other operator at M-1.

In fact, the frequency of these nmors led &. U to speculate that someone at M was deliberately snreading nuors about him.

Staff Ex. 27, at 36; Tr. 26, 818 (U). 'Ihe frequency of these runers alone is alarming. Unfortunately, however, the evidence that &. U in fact has been involved in cheating at M is not limited to rumors. Allegations against &. U fall into the following categories:

(1) Allegations that Mr. U was stationed near the exam rooms during the April,19811RC exam in order to facilitate cheating; (2) Related allegations that &. U called Mr. KK during one of the April,1981 IRC exams and claim =1 to be helping W. O take his exam; (3). Rtrors that &. U used crib sheets on various exams at M;

(4) Rucers that &. U reportedly spread about cheating during the April, 1981 tRC exam, but later denied; and (5) Evidence that &. U participated in cheating on quizzes.

These itens are discussed sequentially below.

l (1). Allegations that Mr. U was stationed near the exam rooms during the April, 1981 1RC exam in order to facilitate cheating l

l

32. The nest serious allegation of cheating at M is that someone l

was stationed near the exam room'during the April,1981 IRC exam for the purpose of assisting examinees by researching answers. & st of these l

runors and allegations focus on Mr. U.

The Board views this rumor as particularly serious due to the potentially ecmpiratorial nature of 1

this type of cheating, arddue to the potential for manageaent knowledge of or involvenent in this type of cbeating...

33. A number of operators testified that they heard someone was stationed near the exam room for the purpose of facilitating cheating.

Tr. 26, 534 (I); Tr. 26, 486-87 (KK); Tr. 26, 217-19 (0) (&. O himself heard the runor from unitiple sources.); Tr. 26, 168-69 (W); Tr. 25, 986-87 (00).

In nest cases, this ru:or was specifically linked to &.

U.

Initially, Mr. I denied that a name was attached to the rumor. But when Mr. U was mentioned, W. I admitted that the rumor involved &. U.

Tr. 26, 534. Both Mr. O and &. W knew that the rumor involved U.

Tr.

26, 217-19. (0); Tr. 26,168-69 (W). Mr. KK did not specifically hear that &. U was involved, but later made the connection betmen the phone call he received in the shift supervisor's office during the exam (see 1135-38, infra) and the nuer that someone was stationed near the exam room. Tr. 26, 486-87 (KK); Staff Ex. 27, Encl. 8, at 11-12.

The nest specific testfrony comes from Mr. 00. First, Mr. 00 is the only operator who actually admitted that he knew of the rtmor prior to the exam. Tr.

25, 988-89.

Second, Mr. 00 specifically heard that the person would be posted in Mr. Husted's office, id., the office which was in fact occupied

^

by &. U during the days in question. See 134.1, infra. Finally, &.

00 was actually approached by &. U at the coffee machine during the exam, and Mr. 00 "jtmped to the conclusion" that Mr. U was making an,

inplied offer of assistance. Tr, 25, 988-89; Tr. 25, 998 (00).* Mr. U testified that he had no reason to believe that Mr. 00 would lie about him. Tr. 26, 848; Tr. 26, 850 (U).

34. The cultiplicity of sources indicating the sane information nicme, however, does not, absent corroborative evidence, justify a

& P also testified that he thinks he saw Mr. U at the coffee machine on one or both of the days on which Mr. P took the exam.

Tr. 26, 703 (P). Howver, Mr. P did not believe that Ft. U was offering assistance. Mr. U does not remenber seeing either Mr. 00 or Mr. P.

Tr. 26, 827-29 (U)....

conclusion that the information is true.

The Board believes that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, in combination with the repeated oral testimony, at least to have substantial doubts about &. U's guilt.

Tne salient points of circumstantial evidence are outlined below:

1.

As noted above, &. 00 heard that someone would be stationed in &. Husted's office.

&. U spent almost all of the two days in question in &. Husted's office. Tr. 26, 825-27; Tr. 26, 881 (U).

Husted's office is approximately equidistant from the two exam roocs.

See 'H4IA Ex. 61.

&. U testified that he selected Mr. Husted's office to study in because it was close to the coffee pot, soda machine, and rest room, and because it contains a large amount of reference material.

Tr. 26, 876 (U).

Ironically, all of these characteristics make &.

Husted's office an ideal location to engage in the type of activity of which &. U is accused. S e also Tr. 25, 423 (Ward).

2.

&. U arranged to use &. Husted's office prior to the exam on Thursday morning. Tr. 26, 855'(U). Althatgh &. U did not rmmber precisely where thie arrangement was made, &. Husted recalled that it was in &. Husted's office. Tr. 26, 916 (Husted).

&. U also went. to one of the exam rooms before the exam, and had a discussion with the operators who were waiting to take the exam, including &. O.

Tr.

26, 889-90 (U).

&. U did not leave the exam room until after W. Bruce Wilson, the proctor, arrived.

Id. Oddly, neither &. U nor Mr. Husted testified that they renembered seeing the other in the exam room prior to the exam. Tr. 26, 887 (U).; Tr. 26, 919 (Husted).

But &. Husted is certain that he arrived in the exam room before &. Wilson. Tr. 26, 919 (Husted), Therefore, the agreenent that W. U could use W. Husted's office nust have occurred before W. U went to the exam room to " chat" with the operators. Thus, &. U would have had an opportunity to tell the operators where he would be located. This conforms to &. KK's statement that mst or all of the operators supposedly knew the location of the person stationed near the exam room. Tr. 26, 489 (KK).

3.

&. U also stated that he was studying in &. Husted's office because the room he was normally assigned to study in was being used for the exam. Tr. 26, 876-77 (U). At the time, however, there were 7 classrooms in the training complex, only one of which may have been in use for classes. Tr. 26, 917-18 (Husted). Thus, there were four supty classrooms that Mr. U could have used to study in.

4.

W. U had taken both the RO and the SRO exams on the previous two days. Licensee Ex. 83, at 1-2.

Yet &. U testified that he spent the following two days studying for the upcoming oral exams, which &. U thoughc were scheduled for around August. Tr. 26, 829-31 (U). Both &. Ross and &. Hukill testified that the oral exams were not scheduled for another half a year, in approximately the September to October time frame. Tr. 24, 209-10 (Ross); Tr. 24, 076 (Hukill).

Moreover, the operators were apparently aware of this fact.

Id. With all due respect to &. U's diligence, it somewhat stretches the Board's credibility that iwintely following two grueling exam days, an operator would 4Mintely begin studying for another exam a half a year off.

In l

l fact, other operators testified during the hearing that they could not imagine studying i M intely after the NRC exam.

E.g. Tr. 25, 713 (GG);

Tr. 25, 771 (G).

5~.

&. U's method of studying for the oral exams appeared

~ dd at best. That far in advance of the oral exams, one might expect o

l

&. U to work on a better general understanding of the material necessary i

to pass the oral exam. See, e.g. Tr. 26, 921 (DD).* Yet &. U spent the two days in question reviewing old written exams, both from 'IMI and other facilities, since they were a good source of specific questions.

Tr. 26, 831-32 (U).

In particular, it appears odd that &. U would use written exams from other facilities to prepare for the reletively site-specific oral exam. See Tr. 26, 833 (U). 'Ibere is no direct evidence to disprove &. U's explanation for his review process. 'Ibe Board must also note, however, that in view of the fact that questions are often repeated from exam to exan, see, e.g. Boger, ff. Tr. 25, 480, at 5; Collins, ff. Tr. 25,113, at 5, a series of past exams would be extremely useful to someone engaged in the type of activity of which &. U is accused.

6.

Although &. U denies any memory of assisting anyone who was taking the exam, he also testified that he may have "unkowingly" provided answers to exam candidates through a chance meeting in the hall, at the coffee machine, etc. Tr. 26, 837-39 (U).

&. U testified that this method of obtaining information would not be unlikely, and that prior to the April,1981 tRC exam he would not have considered it cheating. Tr. 26, 861-63 (U).

In &. U's signed statenent to the IEC investigators, he inserted the words " knowingly" throughout the statenent to account for the possibility of such occurrences. Staff Ex. 27, Encl.

8, at 2, 3.

'Ihe Board finds &. U's spontaneous indication of the possibility of a chance encounter at the coffee machire extremely odd, since noone had suggested such a possibility prior to &. U's statement.

It should be noted that W. U's statement is dated September 25, 1981.

W. Shipman's first admission regarding his cM nce encounter at the coffee machine was to W. Hukill on October 7, 1981. Staff Ex. 28, at 5.

By contrast, one might expect a review of specific exam questions at some point in time considerably closer to the actual oral exam.

7.

&. U testified that &. T was also in training during this time, and that &. T studied in W. Husted's office part of the time as well.

Staff Ex. 27, at 37. Mr. T's testimony appears to confirm this point. Tr. 26, 599-602 (T). Yet Licensee's exhibit describing shift schedules during the exam days indicates that &. T was on the 7 to 3 shift on 'Ihursday. Licensee Ex. 84.

If Mr. T was on shift, it is not clear what he was doing noving around the training complex, and why he spent approximately two hours in &. Husted's office. Tr. 26, 617 (T). Both Mr. U and Mr. T testified that they renembered seeing each other in Mr. Husted's office. Tr. 26, 836 (U); Tr. 26, 601-02 (T).

Both also testified that a large number of individuals are in and out all day, but they could not renanber who (except that &. T remancers seeing Mr. Husted on some occasions). Tr. 26, 827-29 (U); Tr. 26, 604 (T). Yet Mr. U testifies that he cannot remember whether he and Mr. T studied together: Tr. 26, 836 (U). Mr. T relates that he had to move around between various offices in order to find a free place to study.

Tr. 26, 501-02. Yet, as discussed earlier, there were at least four open classrooms in the training couplex at the time. Moreover, Mr.

Husted related that there was an extra table in his office.

Tr. 26, 920 (Husted). 'Ihere appears to be no reason why both Mr. T and &. U could not have studied in &. Husted's office on both days.

If someone else was in Mr. Husted's office for an extended period of time, we can presume Mr. U would have renanbered him, as he remenbered &. T.

'Ihe Board finds all of this ccnflicting information extremely confusing. and does not believe that it contributes to the credibility of either Mr. T's or Mr. U's account of what transpired on April 23 and 24,1981.

. t

(2) Related allegations that &. U called Mr. KK during one of the A)ril, 1981 NRC exams and claimed to be helping Mr. O ta<e his exam

35. Mr. KK, an STA, reported to the NRC investigators that he received a phone call while he was in the shift supervisor's office about mid-morning on Thursday, April 23, 1981. The caller identified himself as &. U, and asked a question that &. KK suspected might be on the NRC exam. When Mr. KK asked the caller if he was taking the exam, the caller responded "No, I'm helping 0 teke his." Mr. KK refused to provide the requested information.

Staff Ex. 27, at 29.* Apparently, no party questions the accuracy of the information provided by Mr. KK.

Mr. KK's testimony at the proceeding is empletely consistent with the transcript of the NRC Staff interview.

See, e.g., Tr. 26, 474 (KK).

Moreover, Mr. U thought that there was no reason to believe that W. KK would lie about him. Tr. 26, 844-45 (U). Therefore, the Board accepts Mr. KK's testimony as accurate.

36. Certain facts regarding this incident favor the conclusion that this incident does not represent a cheating event. For exanple, s

the question asked of Mr. KK was not on the April,1981 NRC exam.

Staff Ex. 27, at 31.

In fact, it was discovered that the question asked was on the ATIS mock exam given in early April,1981. Id. at 44, Encl. 11.

Mr. U denied raking a phone call for the purpose of asking the particular question indicated by &. KK, since he felt that it was an easy question l

that he could clearly answer.

Tr. 26, 844-45 (U). Mr. U acknowledged, however, that in the course of his studying he could have called Mr. KK for the purpose of asking a question involving heat transfer, since Mr.

l KK was extranely knowledgeable in that area.

Staff Ex. 27, at 37-38; Tr. 26, 844-45 (U)_.

In fact, Mr. U took 2 or 3 courses from Mr. KK on A complete transcript of the information provided by Mr. KK is included in the Second I & E Report. Staff Ex. 27, Encl. 8.

heat transfer. Tr. 26, 805 (U).

37. Other facts, however, tend to cast doubt on this incident.

First, the incident fits remarkably well with the allegations outlined above that &. U was stationed near the exam rooms for the purpose of assisting operators taking the exam. Second, &. U's statenents on the issue are somewhat inconsistent.

&. Ward was puzzled by &. U's refusal to cocpletely admit or deny making the phone call. Tr. 25, 381-82 (Ward).

W. Ward expressed the personal opinion that &. U in fact made the phone call. Tr. 25, 359-60 (Ward). Yet &. Hukill testified that

&. U reacted very violently when &. Hukill mentioned the call, and erphatically denied having placed it.

Tr. 23, 970-71 (Hukill). Third

&. KK expressed doubt as to whether W. U actually placed the call.

But &. KK did not doubt the identity of the caller at the time of the call. Tr. 26, 508 (KK). Rather, &. KK began to doubt the caller's credibility when &. O, a personal friend of his, denied any involvement in the incident.

Tr. 26, 474-75 (KK).

'ihe Board has no basis to share

&. KK's conclusion, particularly in light of &. O's history.

38. Once again, the Board can find no conclusive evidence that &.

U placed a phone call for the purpose of assisting an operator take the NRC exam. 'lhe Board also cannot view this evidence independently of the other evidence involving &. U, and believes that &. KK's testinony adds considerable weight to the total evidence against W. U.

The main factor in &. U's favor is the fact that the question asked of &. KK was not on the exam. The Board can only speculate that the question asked was simply a trial question to see if &. KK would cooperate. No other esplanation seems to fit with the other circumstances surrounding the call.

(3) Rtznors that &. U used crib sheets on various exams at IMI

+

39.

In addition to the information discussed above, a number of witnesses testified that &. U himself cheated on' the April,1981 NRC exam as well as prior exams.

E.g. Tr. 23, 680 (Arnold); Tr. 26, 274-76 (0); Tr. 26, 305 (V); Tr. 24, 560 (Wilson). Again, there is no direct evidence to substantiate these rumots. See Tr. 23, 682 (Arnold).

However, the Board is once again alar =1 at the number of " rumors" surrounding the same individual. 'Ibe Board also womkrs why &. U spontaneously reported to the NRC investigators that it would have been very difficult to cheat on the April,'1981 NRC exam because they were very complex and different from previous exams. Staff Ex. 26, at 33.

&. U knew that the &. O and &. W incident involved copying rather than the use of crib sheets. Yet he explained at the hearing that he meant that it would have been difficult to cheat by using cards".or

" crib sheets".

Tr. 26, 842-44 (U).

(4). Rers that &. U reportedly spread about cheating dunng the April,1981 NRC exam, but later denied

40. T=*Hntely after the initiation of the NRC investigations, Mr. Arnold learned of nrnors by &. U that cheating occurred during the April, 19.81 NRC exams. Staff.Ex. 26, at 8.

Tr. 23, 663-65 (Arnold).

&. U denied knowledge of any specific instances of cheating. Tr. 26, 822-25 (U)_.

While a number of other operators also reported general knowledge of rumors without providing any specifics, &. U once again appears to be the focus of the nxnor activity.

(51 Evidence that &. U participated in cheating on quizzes 41,

&. U openly admitted that he cooperated with otbar operators

)

-24..

on weekly training quizzes.

&. U testified that this practice was understood to be acceptable, since they were. striving for a " crew concept".

Tr. 26, 807 (U).

&. U also admitted that he used textbcoks and training materials to assist him on quizzes. Tr. 26, 814 (U).

See also Tr. 24, 561 (J. Wilson); Oxmonwealth Ex. 8 and 9.

42. Other operators admitted some cheating on weekly quizzes, but not to the extent admitted by &. U.

A

r. 25, 975-76 (00); Tr. 26, E

T 306 (V). The Board can conclude either that &. U is being more open than other operators about the extent of cheating on weekly quizzes, or that &. U cheated more frequently than other operators on weekly quizzes.

(d) GG

43. The Licensee employed a consultant, Professor Edward Trunk, to conduct an independent analysis of several sets of Licensee-administered exams to ascertain whether there were any indications of cheating.

See generally Trunk, ff. Tr. 24, 831; J. Wilson, ff. Tr. 24, 478. Ultimately, Professor Trunk conducted several sets of cocparisons on various sets of exams.

Id.

44. Professor Trunk's first investigation detected strong parallelisms between answers to two questions by operators GG and W.*

&. FM's answers to the same questions were labelled "very close to those of W and GG but

... not exact." Trunk, ff. Tr. 24, 831, at 6.

See also Trunk, ff. Tr. 24, 831, at 11.

53. Licensee's follow-up investigation of these parallels is described in &. Wilson's prefiled testimony. Wilson, ff. Tr. 24, 478, at 4.

The Board's views on the. adequacy of this investigation are at 1172-73, infra.

Briefly, the irriestigation was conducted by &. John Wilson, a conpany lawyer, rather than by Professor Trunk. h investigation consisted of interviews of Mr. G and &. H, during which cheating was categorically denied, and a search for training materials (such as handouts) that might explain why Mr. G and W. H had identical or similar answers (i.e. due to memrization).

Id. Materials that explained some of the parallel answers were, in fact, discovered.

Based on this evidence, Mr. Wilson and his associate, &. Lloyd, found "no reason to disbelieve" Mr. G's and Mr. P.'s denials of cheating.

Id.

Professor Trunk agreed that scxne of the materials uncovered during &.

Wilson's investigation diminished the weight of evidence against Mr. G and Mr. H.

Professor Trunk was not, however, able to dismiss all of the parallelisms. Licensee Ex. 70d.

54. h Board has strong doubts about the conclusions reached by Messrs. Wilson and Lloyd regarding operators G and H.

thlike Mr. Wilson, the Board finds quite a few reasons, based on record evidence, to doubt Mr. G's and &. H's denials of cheating. The bases for this conclusion are detailed below.

1.

The sheer number of parallelisms dise;vered in answers by Mr. G and &. H, particularly in light of the relatively small nunber of total parallelisms by all of the operators discovered by Professor Trunk, increase the likelihood that &. G and W. H cheated. Although Professor Trunk and his associate reviewed a large number of exams, a relatively small number of total parallels was discovered. Trunk, ff.

Tr. 24, 831, at 11-12. This tends to increase the significance of the large number of parallels involving Mr. G and &. H.

Both &. Wilson and Professor Trunk agree with this conclusion. Tr. 24, 854-55 (Trunk);

Tr. 24, 566 (Wilson).

In fact, Professor Trunk was asked whether, if parallel answers sdch as those found for Mr. G and Mr. H are explainable, he would have expected a larger number of total parallels, randomly distributed over the population of operators? Tr. 24, 870 (Adler). Professor Trunk responded that he would expect to find a lot of parallelisms once or twice for various operators, but that he did not find such a pattern.

Tr. 24, 872 (Trunkl. The Board views this as evidence of a statistical nature that increases the likelihood that all of &. G's and Mr. H's are not explainable by some factor other than cheating.

The Board can perceive two possible explanations for why Mr. G and &. H might be unique in the number of parallelisms attributable to then. First, it is possible that Mr. G and Mr. H studied together to a unique degree.

In fact, Mr. G testified that he studied frequently with Mr. H while on shift. Tr. 25, 727-28 (G). Mr. H testified, _ _ _.

however, that he also studied a lot on his own and with other people on shift, as did &. G.

Tr. 25, 867; Tr. 25, 948-49 (H). Moreover, there is substantial evidence throughout the record that most operators studied in groups. E A Staff Ex. 26, at 10, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29.

Second, it is possible that &. G and &. H were unique in their tendency to umorize. In fact, &. G did testify that he encourages himself to m aorize certain types of ites, e A efinitions.

d Tr. 25, 736 (G). Again, however, quite a few operators testified that they also tended to memorize certain types of information.

A taff E

S Ex. 26, at 10, 21, 26, 31, 34. Thus, &. G and Mr. H are not unique in this respect. For example, &. H testified that during the 3 to 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> review session that preceded the Round 3 Category T exam, instructor Brown encouraged the trainees to memorize. Tr. 25, 905 (H). Yet the only parallelisms discovered on this exam involved Mr. G and Mr. H.

Licensee Ex. 70a, App. B.

2.

Maorization from lesson materials in actuality provides a satisfactory explanation for only a small nuntar of total parallelisms.

Mr. Wilson's mmorandum on parallels by &. G and &. H attaches lesson l

materials that explain only two of the exam parallels (natural circulation and radiation monitor questions ] 1MIA Ex. 75. For most of the questions, no lesson materials were available. Mr. Wilson testified that all such

(

lesson materials supportive of his conclusions are in the record. Tr.

24, 624 (Wilson).

An additional proble with the lesson meterial explanation l

is that there is no way, aside from Mr. G's and E:. H's denials, to preclude the possibility that Mr. G and Mr. H used the lesson materials while they wre taking the quizzes. Tr. 24, 851 (Trunk); Tr. 24, 591-94 !

~

i (Wilson).

&. Wilson suggested that &. G and &. H would have passed if they used crib sheets. This would only be true, however, if they had 4

all of the appwpriate materials needed for the exam. Tr. 24, 591-94 (Wilson). As noted above, only two handouts were actually discovered.

j 3.

Both &. G and &. H testified that training qidma were well-proctored, a factor that would decrease the probability that Mr. G and &. H would be able to cheat extensively.

&. G's and &. H's statements, however, are contradicted by the testimony of other operators that quizzes were poorly proctored and conducive to cooperation. EA Comomealth Ex. 9, at 2; Tr. 25, 971-72 (00); Tr. 26, 807-11 (U).

Additionally, one of the quizzes on which parallelisms were discovered was a "take-home" quiz, which W. G and &. H apparently took on shift.

Tr. 25, 895 (H). Licensee Ex. 66e, 66f. The Board is particularly 1

suspicious of the events surrounding the take-home exam. The cover sheet instruc.ts the operators to review their old handout materials.

Licensee Ex. 66e, 66f. The operators did not receive new materials in between Category T Round 1 and 2.

Tr. 24, 784-85 (Brown). Mr. G testified that he usually throws all of his training materials away after the training week. Tr. 25, 817 (G). Therefore, if cmorization is an appropriate answer to the Round 2 parallclisms, Mr. G would have had to manorize from someone else's materials. Alternatively, &. G could have l

cooperated with Mr. H during this exam.

4.

'Ihe above argunents in general tend to increase slightly

?

the Board's opinion that Mr. G and &. H probably engaged in some l

cooperation on quizzes. The Board is most convinced, however, by several l

strong contradictions between the testimony of Mr. G and Mr. H with respect to specific parallelisms.

In some cases, Mr. G's and &. H's' j

testimony also conflicts with explanations provided by Mr. Wilson.

These exanples are sumarized below. -

]

a.

Bernoulli's' Equation h strongest conflict involves the exam question on Bernoulli's equation.

(Cycle 7-5, Week 2, Fluid Flow Question No. 2.

See Licensee Ex. 70e, at 2). Professor Trunk indicated that this parallel was a particularly strong case.

Id. ; Trunk, ff. Tr. 24, 831, at 11; Tr. 24, 883 (Trunk). The actual parallelisms are documented on the record.

Licensee Ex. 66a, 66b.

&. G testified at first that he definitely memorized this answer, although he couldn't rammber from what. He also testified that he

" forgot to answer the second part of the question." Tr. 25, 738-39 (G). Mr. G also testified that he no longer had the equation manorized, and gave on the witness stand an answer that was only vaguely connected to the answer he provided on the quiz.

Tr. 25, 773-74 (G). Mr. G testified at first that he only assumad that Mr. H manorized this response as well. Tr. 25, 813-15 (G).

Then, Mr. G mysteriously changed his story to indicate that he and &. H together found a better' definition of Bernoulli's equation than the definition supplied by the training i

department.

Id. Mr. G further shifted his testimony to indicate that he and Mr. H learned that Bernoulli's equation was going to come up the following week in training, and consequently they. memorized the equation out of one of Mr. H's textbooks in anticipation of the training. Tr.

25, 816-19 (G).

This was despite the fact that Bernoul.ii's equation had never before arisen in training and despite the fact that the equation is not used routinely in plant operation. Tr. 25, 818 (G). The Board finds Mr. G's continually shifting explanation of this answer to be l

, highly incredible. The Special Master reports that Mr. G's demeanor on the witness stand supports this conclusion.

\\

j L

l Mr. H provided a cocpletely different explanation for the menorization of Bernoulli's equation. According to Mr. H, the version he used on the exam tras written on the blackboard, by the instructor, during the training week.

&. H became increasingly certain of this fact as his testimony i

progressed. Tr. 25, 883-86; Tr. 25, 919; Tr. 25, 944-45 (H). Mr. H also testified that he did not know that Bernoulli's equation was coming up before the training w ek. Tr. 25, 938 (H).

The Board believes that Mr. H's version is probably most accurate.

First, W. H provided an essentially correct ans w r to the question on the witness stand. In fact, the response was reasonably close to the written answer on the quiz itself. Tr. 25, 881 (H). Moreover, Mr. H's story was fairly consistent, while Mr. G's changed considerably throughout his testinony. Finally, Mr. H answered both parts of the question, while Mr. G anitted the second part.

This might indicate that Mr. G did not copy the answer from Mr. H, since he probably would have copied the complete answer. However, both operators could have copied the first part from the outside source, while only Mr. H answered part two on his own. Alternatively, Mr. G could have copied the answer before Mr. H added part two.

In stra, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence indicates that one (Mr. G) or both operators probab'y engaged in cheating on this question.

b.

. Natural Circulation (11/26/80 quiz, ATOG Qnestion 3.

See TMIA Ex. 75, at 1-2; Licensee Ex. 66g, 66h).

Mr. Wilson explained this case as meccrization from handouts.,

r

According to &. Wilson, both &. G and Mr. H indicated that they marorized this response. Licensee Fx. 75, at 2-3; Wilson, ff. Tr. 24, 478, at 5-6.

Interestingly, however, Mr. G testified on the stand that he did not manorize the conditions necessary for natural circulation. Rather, Mr.

G indicated that the conditions are "connon sense". Tr. 25, 746-49 (G).

Furthernere, Mr. Brown agrees that these conditions should be understood ratber than nanorized. Tr. 24, 759 (Brown). 'Ihe Board is struck by the fact that Mr. H was not able to answer this question correctly at the hearing.

(Mr. H believed that the gravitational position of the heat source relative to the heat sink was irrelevant.) Tr. 25, 931-32 (H).

Finally, Professor Trunk indicated that he was "-M" to see such closely menorized language, even from handouts. Tr. 24, 862-63 (Trunk).

'Ihe Board is not convinced that this case can be explained satisfactorily by pointing to the handouts.

c.

Hydrogen Gas Generation (Accident Mitigation Question 4, 11/26/80 and 3/27/81 quizzes. See 'IMIA Ex. 75, at 7-8; Licensee Ex. 66e, 66f, 66g, 66h).

'Ihe Board is perplexed by Mr. G's and Mr. H's responses to this l

l question. One of the sources of hydrogen generation is a reaction l

between aluminum and sodiun hydroxide.

Both operators answered this question incorrectly in the identical manner, in two different ways, on two different exams. First, both operators put only aluminum, omitting sodium hydroxide; next both operators put only sodium hydroxide, omitting aluminum.

l Neither operator could explain the similarity in the initial exam.

l l

Tr. 24, 528; Tr. 24, 531 (Wilson); 'IMIA Ex. 75, at 8.

Both operators explain the second similarity by mting tiat the instructor marked the l !

first response wrong, and wrote sodiun hydroxide above the answer.

Tr.

25, 903 (H); Tr. 25, 753-54 (G). ft. G claims that he understood the correct ssar all along, and that the second part of the reaction was cannonly understood by the operators. However, It. G testified to this

" understanding" with respect to both parts of the reaction (aluminun and sodium hydroxide)_.

Tr. 25, 753-54; Tr. 25, 780-81; Tr. 25, 811-13 (G).

The Board finds It. G's testimony to be somewhat incredible, particularly since no other operators emitted one part of the answer. Tr. 24, 528; Tr. 25, 531 (Wilson).

Mr. H once again provided core credible testimony on this point, to the effect that he must not have understood the reaction at the time.

Tr. 25, 934-35; Tr. 25, 892-94 (H).

The Board once again has serious doubts about these uniquely identical erroneous answers.

d.

' Pressure Instruments (Accident Mitigation, Question Ib. 3,11/26/80 and 3/27/81 quizzes.

(See 'IMIA Ex.

75, at 6-7; Licensee Ex. 66e, f, g, h.)

Only the first of these two quizzes (11/26/80) appears to represent a case of parallel answers.

Both operators produced the same incorrect response, i.e. that narrow range pressure is measured by a forced balance device. Mr. G correctly noted "Rosenant", which is the trade name for the narrow range instnment. Ibwever, the Rosemont instrument does not operate on a forced balance principle. Tr. 24, 785-87 (Brown);

Licensee Ex. 82a, 82b. Apparently, Mr. G continues not to understand this point. Tr. 25, 751-52; Tr. 25, 797-99 (G). Mr. H has the same problem. Tr. 25, 899-900 (H). Mr. H also apparently misunderstood l

l which instrunent measured narrow and which instrtnent measured wide- ;

range pressure, as evidenced by his inverted response on the 3/27/81 quiz.

- Ihe operators' continued misunderstanding of the correct responses to this question, and in particular the unique incorrect responses to the first quiz, tends to support the probability that Mr. G and &. H cooperated in some fashion on this answr.

Mr. Wilson suEgested no eq lanation for this case.

e.

Process Lines (ESAS Question No. 1, 3/27/81 quiz.

See MIA Ex. 75, at 10-11; Licensee Ex. 66e, 66f).

Both operators listed the process lines that are isolated on recetor trip in the same order. However, this order was different from the order listed in the applicable training handout. Tr. 21, 514-15 (Wilson).

Mr. G testified that he deliberately reordered the lines in this fashion (order of inportance), rhther than using the order in the handout. Tr.

25, 756-57; 'IMIA Ex. 75, at 11. 'Ihis would appear to provide a tenable explanation if &. G and Mr..H. learned this order together. However,

&. H could not recall why he listed the lines in this particular sequence. Tr. 25, 898 (H). When Mr. H was directed to the ordinary I

system he used on the exam, he did not in=diately recognize the significance of the ordering. As he studied the sequence further, he i

realized first that the lines were grouped by systen, and later said that it was possible that they were in order of importance. Tr. 23, 936-37 (H).

If Mr. H maaorized the lines according to a logical order, it seems that Mr. H should at least have remembered what system he used.

l f.

lessons learned - (Questions 1 & 2, 11/26/80 and

'3/27/81 quizzes. See 'IMIA Ex. 75, at 3-5; Licensee Ex. 66e, 66f, 66g, % ).

Mr. G and W. H had repeated parallel answrs on two questions -

related to the major areas of weakness noted by the 'IMI Lessons learned Task Force.

In the first question, both operators responded with the same two out of five possible answers.

&. H could not explain why he selected these two answers. Tr. 25, 889 (H). Mr. G told &. Wilson that these were the two most important of the five possible answers.

MIA Ex. 75, at 4.

At the hearing, W. G testified first that there was no particular reason why he chose these two, but that maybe they represented the most important answer. Tr. 25, 750 (G).

Iater, however, Mr. G testified that his response was the only correct answer. Tr. 25, 807-08 (9).

Bis detracts considerably frcm the credibility of &. G's explanation.

In response to the second Imons Imarned question, both operators indicated that " operator trnining" was the prirary deficiency in the area of operational safety. Apparently, Mr. Wilson accepted the. opinions of &. G and &. H that this was the only correct answer to the question.

EIA Ex. 75, at 5; Tr. 24, 520 (Wilson). On the witmess stand, &. G repeated this explanation. Tr. 25, 751 (G).

&. H, on the other hand, testified that it was not the only response, but was the only response he could think of.

Tr. 25, 691-92 (H).

In fact, operator training is not the only possible response to this question, as evidenced by the fact r. hat the response m marked incorrect on same occasions. EA Licensee Ex. 66f.

(Apparently, even the training instructors did not censistently understand the correct response to this question.) Compare Licensee Ex. 66e with Licensee Ex. 66f. See also Tr. 24, 755-58 (Brown).

55. All of these factors increase the probability of cooperation on these questions.

s III. THE ADEQUACY OF THE NRC STAFF'S INVESTIGATION OF CHEATING BY 'IMI-l OPERATOR LICENSE CANDIDATES.

56. Based on the infomaticn discussed on Part I, above, the adequacy of the staff's investigation of the various cheating incidents involving operators who have not been terminated. Where the evidence tends to indicate that cheating is likely to have occurred, the Board cannot find reasonable assurance that a given operator can safely operate the plant absent a finding that an adequate investigation has deonstrated that the operator is more likely to be innocent than guilty. For purposes of this inquiry, the burden of proof is on the. Licensee. Therefore the adequacy of the staff's investigation of each of the incidents discussed in Part I is analyzed below.

(1) DD (Husted)

57. As.noted in Part I, the incident involving Mr. P gnd Mr. DD (Mr.

Husted) was not mentioned in any of the staff's Reports of Investigation.

(Tr. 25, 416-18 (Ward). This provides sme insight into the Staff's treatment of the incident.

58. Essentially, the staff conducted no_ follow-up investigation of 4

the information unveiled during Mr. P's interview.

In fact, the NRC investigators never even confronted Mr. Husted with the specific allegation that he solicited information frcxn Mr. P during 'the NRC exam. Tr. 25, 414-15 (Ward); Tr. 26, 948 (Husted). The Staff's explanation for this omission was that Mr. Husted had already been interviewed twice and asked general questions about cheating. Tr. 25, 414-15 (Ward). The Board does not believe that vague questions about cheatirg are an adequate substitute for a detailed probe into a specific incident.

4.

59. The Staff witnesses also testified that they made a conscious decision that the information involving Mr. Husted was not important for two reasons. First, no information was actually supplied by &. P.

Therefore, the incident involved only "attenpted cheating." Tr. 25, 414-15 (Ward). From the standpoint of Mr. Husted's integrity, the Board sees no distinction between en attenpted and successful solicitation.

An intent to cheat is evidenced by the solicitation alone.

Second, the NRC investigators determined that the incident was isolated and not of a conspirational nature, as was the incident involving Mr. U.

Tr. 25, 416 (Ward). Therefore, the incident was not relevant to the " main thrust" of the investigation. See also Tr. 25, 340 (Ward).

60. The Board agrees that some forms of cheating are more severe and may have broader implications.than others.

See, e.g., Tr. 25, 343-34 (Ward). However, the Board disagrees that this justifies ignoring incidents that are not at the top of the perceived priority list.

Chairman Palladino requested the staff to conduct a full investigation.

Tr. 25, 281 (Baci). With respect to Mr. Husted's integrity, and hence his right to hold a license to operate TMI-1, the Board feels that the incident involving Mr. P is extrenely important and should not have been dismissed sumnrily by the investigators.

(2) FF (Shipman)

61. The staff's investigation of this incident is detailed in the October 28, 1981 Report of Investigation. Staff Ex. 28. Essentially, the Staff's position regarding this incident is as follows:

Beyond FF's acknowledgement of his misconduct, he maintained that he was unable to recall either the identity of the other individual or the specific question he was asked. lacking any logical leads, i

) __

the NRC plans no further investigative action in this matter.

Staff Dc. 28, at 8.

62. The Board views this attitude as completely unacceptable.

There were only 8 individuals in the roca opposite Mr. Shipman's during the April 1981 NRC exam. Lic. E:c. 83. The Staff's basis for not interviewing these individuals is that 5 of these individuals had been interviewed previously, and made general denials of cheating. Tr. 25, 371-72 (Ward)

(referring to " time contraints" and " cost-benefit" principles in terms of investigation time). Tr. 25, 362 (Baci). 4;ain, the Board does not agree that general questions on cheating are a substitute for a probe of specific circumstances. Nor does the Board believe that 5 out of 8 is sufficient when there is a very high probability that one of the 8 individuals actually cheated, as is the case here. Finally, It. Shipman testified that there ma'y have been a secretary in the vicinity of the coffee pot at the time of.the incident. Tr. 26, 368-69 (Shipman).

See also Tr. 25, 850 (HH). No effort was made to contact this potential source of inforration.

63. The Board finds that the Staff's investigation of this incident was not adequate.

(3)

U_

64. The NRC Staff indeed focused considerable attention on Mr. U during the course of their investigations, and interviewed Mr. U on a ntmber of occassions. See Staff Ex. 28; Staff Ex. 29. The Staff failed, however, to investigate a nur:ber of leads. For example, as noted above, it appears that a secretary was stationed near the coffee.

s machine during the April 1981 NRC exams. No effort was made to pursue this lead. More astoundingly, the Staff failed to interview Mr. O regarding his potential in n ivsent in the Mr. U phone call. Tr. 26, 258-59(0).

In addition, the Staff conducted no independent investigation of the wealth of rumors involving potential cheating by Mr. U on exams.

EA Tr. 26, 700 (P); Tr. 25, 436 (Ward). The Staff on the one hand testified that the Mr. U matter may have involved a serious conspirational set of circumstances. Tr. 25, 416 (DD). Yet the Staff exerted little effort to determine, for example, who placed the mysterious phone call to Mr. KK.

Tr. 24, 333 (Ward).

65. The Board discussed a large amount of information that indicates that Mr. U may have been guilty of misconduct in a nunber of respects.

Yet the Staff appears to have dropped its investigation of Mr. U prematurely.

Based on the Staff's investigation, the Board finds little assurance of Mr. U's innocence.

(4) GG and (5) G and H

66. The Staff conducted no_ independent review of the potential incidents of cheating uncovered by Professor Trunk. This amission was based on the Staff's limited resources and a perception that these incidents lacked "inmediacy" to the April exam. Tr. 25, 335-39 (Ward).

1 The Board disagrees strongly with the Scaff's disregcrd of information involving potcatial cheating by operators who are eligible to receive licenses to operate TMI-1. Obviously, the Staff's actions provide no assurance that individuals GG, G and H can and will operate the plant in a safe and responsible manner.

, l

s IV. THE ADEQUACY OF LICENSEE'S INVESTIGATION OF CHEATING BY TMI-l OPERATOR LICENSE CANDIDATES

67. The Licensee does not have the primary responsibility to investigate cheating on the NRC exam. That responsibility lies with the NRC. However, the Board believes that the Licensee has at least equal responsibility as the staff to investigate potential misconduct in Licensee's internal training program. In addition, Licensee has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that 1MI-l is operated in a manner that safeguards public health and safety. Therefore, the Board is also interested in the adequacy of Licensee's investigations of cheating.

68. The Board is particularly interested in Licensee's investigation of the various incidents and persons discussed in Part I above. A ccxnpletely adequate investigation into an incident or individual by the Licensee might provide the requisite reasonable assurance that an operator can and will safely operate the plant. Therefore, the adequacy of the Licensee's investigation of each of the incidents discussed in Part I is u mlyzed below.

(1) DD (Husted)

69. The Licensee did not learn of the incident involving -P and DD until Mr. Ward's testinony during the hearing. Therefore, Licensee conducted no investigation of this incident.

(2) FF (Shipman)

70. The Licensee's treatment of this incident was siinilar to the Staff's. The Licensee made no attenpt to interview the eight (8) possible suspects in an attenpt to identify the questioner. Tr. 23,990-91;.

o 24,070 (Hukill).

W. Hukill agrees that this investigation would be appr6priate, Tr. 23,990-91, and is concerned that all of the facts underlying this incident were not uncovered. Tr. 24,070. Licensee plans no further actions, however, to investigate this matter. Tr.

23,831 (Arnold).

(3) U

71. The Licensee to some extent filled the holes in the Staff's investigation of rumors involving &. U.

Mcwever, this investigation essentially was limited to interviews of Mr. NNN, W. T and Mr. U.

See, e.g., Camorwealth Ex. 8, 9; Wilson, ff. Tr. 24,478, at 15-17. The Licensee argues that its lack of general investigative authority precluded a more extensive inquiry. Tr. 24,610 (Wilson). khile this may be true, it also provides no additional assurance that the rumors involving Mr. U are not true. Essentially, Licensee's investigation closed with W. U's denials of cheating. Camorwealth Ex. 9, at 2.

Both the Licensee and the staff appear to believe that a denial of cheating by the accused constitutes proof of innocence. The Board cannot agree with this philosophy, particularly in view of the fact that both Mr. O and Mr. W denieu cheating i

on a number of occasions before they confessed.

l (4)

GG and (5) G and H

72. Based on the analysis of these individuals in Part 1 :bove, it is clear that the Board views Licensee's followup investigation of the Trunk parallelisms to be inadequate. Primarily, the Board disagrees i

l with Licensee's philosophy of believing oral denials by the operators in the face of cubstantial physical evidence. See generally Wilson, ff.

Tr. 24,478, at 4-9,10-12; Tr. 24,564-65; 24,507-08l(Wilson).

l

73. The Board also concludes that Licensee's investigation is nat adequate to provide reasonable assurance that GG, G and H can operate the plant safely for the following additional reasons:

1.

Licensee's investigation was conducted by an attorney associated with GPU for sme thirteen (13) years.

Id., at 1-3.

khile this does not automatically bias the results, it certainly cannot qualify the review as an indeoendent analysis, particularly in view of the subjective nature of the process and the Board's disagreenents with Mr.

Wilson's judgment.

2.

Professor Trunk was not asked to participate in the followup investigation. Tr. 24,488-89 (Wilson). See also Tr. 24,629 (Wilson). _ In. fact, Professor Trunk was never, even asked for bottom line conclusions regarding GG, G and H, Tr. 24,605 (Wilson), even though he had determined that there were open items regarding these individuals.

Trunk, ff. Tr. 24,831, at 10-11. The Board feels that Professor Trunk could have added substantial expertise and independent analysis to the followup investigations.

3.

At least one parallelism was neither detected by Professor Trunk nor investigated by Mr. Wilson. Tr. 24,863-66; 24,876; 24,880 (Trunk); Tr. 25,938-39 (H); Tr. 25,777-78 (G); Tr. 24,601 (Wilson).

(ATOG Question No. 1, 11/26/80 quiz, Lic. Ex. 66g, h).

4.

Mr. Wilson conducted the entire followup investigation along with his legal associate Mr. Lloyd. Other msnbers of upper GPU managenent did not substantively review the results. Tr. 23,955-56 (Hukill); Tr. 23,880 (Arnold). s

5.

'Ihe operator's denials were purely cral, and did tut involve sworn stat ments. Tr. 24,563 (Wilson).

6.

No interviews were conducted of any other indi"iduals who took the subject quizzes. Tr. 24,532-33 (Wilson).

7.

&. Wilson did not review the suspect's acad m ic histories.

Tr. 24,526 (Wilson).

8.

&. Wilson did not use GPU technical personnel to determine whether answers given were technically credible. Tr. 24,599 (Wilson).

I s

V. CONCLUSIONS OF IM The board concludes that there is no reasonable assurance at this time that IMI-l can be operated safely by the following individuals:

(1)

DD (2)

U (3)

GG (4;

G (5)

H 7he Board directs the staff to suspend the licenses of these individuals prior to restart (for those individuals passed the October exam), and not to issue such a license in the future (for those who failed the October exam), until the Staff can certify to the Cmmission sufficient information to denonstrate that these individuals are innocent of cheating. The Cmmission has the authority to suspend licenses pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 555.40(b). In addition, the Board directs the Staff to

. conduct a ccruplete investigaticn.of potential suspects in the incident involving Mr. Shipman. Finally, while the Board does not believe there is any evidence of cheating by operator P that would warrmt license suspenaion, the Board does note numerous reservations regarding Mr. P's credibility on the witness stand.

Respectfully submitted,

( Al A,'

BERT W. ADLER Attorney for the C

ealth of Pennsylvania UNIED STAES OF AIERICA NUCLEAR REGUIAIORY 00tESSION BEFORE WE AIGEC SAFE 1Y AIO LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

MEBOPOLITAN EDISON (INPAtW,

)

Docket No. 50-289

('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear

)

(Restart)

Station, Unit Ib.1)

)

anunCAE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached "Cormonwealth of Pennsylvania's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Iaw on Issues Raised in the Reopened Hearing en Operator Cheating" were served on the persons on the attached service list. The Licensee's and the Staff's copies were picked up by the Licensee on January 14, 1982. All other parties were served by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 18th day of January,1982.

ROBERT W. ADLER Assistant Counsel Comconwealth of Pennsylvania l

I I

I l

l l

l

a LNIIED SDCES OF AMRICA MX2ZAR REIK2AICRT 02MISSICH BE70RE THE AT(MIC SAFEN AfD UQ2EING BOARD In the Matter of

)

MEIROEDUTAN EDISON CINANY,

)

Docket No. 50-289 (Ihrer IfLle Island :aw1-r

)

(Restart)

Station, thit No.1)

)

SERVICZ UST Docketing and Service Section Mr. Steven C. Sho ny Office of the Secretary thion of Concerned Scientists U.S. Nelear Reg'21atory Ccmaission 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 601 Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20006 Inn W. Saith, Esquire, 'b4-Ms. Imuise Bradford Atcmde Safety and Licaising Board Panel TC Alert U.S. Nclear Rmralator, reien 315 Peffer Street Washington, D.C.

M 55 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17102 Dr. % 1ter H. Jordan Ellyn R. Weiss Armir Safety and Lic esing Board Panel Sheldon, Har:non, Raien=n & Weiss 881 West Outer Drive 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Linda W. Little Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire (PAZE)

Ataxic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Sheldon, Har:non, Roisman & Weiss 5000 Her::itage Drive 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 F=1mi e, North Carolina 27612 Washington, D.C.

20006 George F. Trowbridge, Es @ e Janas A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Shaw, Pitt:mmn, Potts & Trowbridge Office of the Executive Imgal Director 1800 11 Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Rann1==7 Caumission E shington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C.

20555 Ms. Marjorie !L Aaciode Join A. Imvin, Es@e R.D. #5 Assistant Counsel Coatesville, Pemsylvaaia 19320 Pemsylania Public Utility Cocmissicxt P.O. Box 3265 Ms. Gail Bradford Harrisburg, Pemsylvmia 17120 Anti-tael=e croup Bapresenting York (A GtI)

Rcbert L. Krupp, Es@e 245 W. P541=datphia Street Assistant Solicitor, County of Dauphin Yczk, Pennsylvania 17404 P.O. Box P, 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pemsyhania 17108 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Q ai m n r~14e4m for & clear Power John E. ML*rtich. Q)ai= man Plant Postponsmane Dauphin County Board of r=4maioners 2610 Grendon Drive Daphin County Courthouse Wilmington, Delausre 19808 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pamsylvania 17101 Mr. Robert Q. Pollard 609 & ntpelier Street Jordan D. o - 4nah=n Esquire Balttspre. Maryland 21218 Attorney for Newberry Ibunship T.M.I. Steering Concittee Walter W. Cohen, Esquire 2320 North Second Street Consmer Advocate Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Dwi int of Justice Straherry Square, 14th Floor l'arvin I. Imris Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17127 6504 Bradford Terrace P"1=dalphia, Pemsylvania 19149 Dr. chamcey Espferd Judith H. Jdrisrad Jane Ime Ehviromancal r~11*'m on Nclear R.D. 3, Box 3521 Power Etters, Pamsylvania 17319 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pemsylvania 16801 21ocas J. Ge==ine, Esquire Daouty Attorney General, Division of law Professor Gary Milhollin Room 316, 1100 Rayrend Boulevard i

1815 Jeffersen Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 l

M=di ns, Wisconsin 537H l

l

, -,

ML20040B993

Text

Navigation menu

Search