ML20040B997
| ML20040B997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1982 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201270150 | |
| Download: ML20040B997 (41) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
's
.1 AM - 1/18/82
'82 JM 22 Pz :32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A
UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CC C iL ; '.g...
...u-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nc. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
(Reopened Proceeding) g
- g.,C*dII 9
l' p\\M Z QS?.Y :
{
drg7Lh,,";a V"
AMODT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT f
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ISSUES RAISED N REOPENED TMI-l RESTART PROCEEDING (SC3MITTED IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDED INITIAL DECISION BY THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD)
SD3 D
S /
I!(
8201270150 320118 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
s TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1
BACKGROUND.................................................
2 REOPENED HEARING Or CHEATING...............................
2 Broad Issue...........................................
3 Particular Issues.....................................
6 Unneedssary Acceleration of Hearing................
8 Violation of Sequestration............................
Effects of Provision of Confidentiality on 8
Development of Full Record...........................
Notable Deficiencies in the Record....................
10 Specific Evidentiary Presentations Required 12 by the Special Master................................
19 Schedule for Findings.................................
6 O
e - 4
.m
+
O e
l 1
s t
BACKGROUND
.- 1.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board received notice beginning on July 28, 1981 that two shift supervisors at TMI-Unit 1 were alleged to have cheated on the NRC licensing examinations given in April 1981.
2.
The~ Boa'rd was then drafting its decision cn the m a n a g ein e n t issues related to the possible restart of TMI-Unit 3 Although the alleged cheating could have possible relevance to the issues of the Board's decision, the Board proceeded with
. c, their decision, serviced on August
?. 7, 1981.
3.
At the time the decision was being uritten, the Board received a full report from the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), however its contents and conclusions were no@
fully onsidered by the Board.
4.
The Board had been provided with preliminary Staff conclusions that the two shift supervisors had confessed
- ;..+.___
t h a t' } tTe f. h a d cheated on NRC and Licen'see exacinations, that t 4;.
_~. u examin1dtfon were unproctored, that the two shift supervisors had k i. e n terminated, and that the Staff was pressing for a e q
~
reexamlind, tion of the remaininF operators and other licensing 1
candidhtds.
The Board decided that these preliminary conclusi challenged the veracity of che Bodrd's findings in their August 27, 1981 decision on TMI-Unit 1 management.
5.
The Board, therefore, retained jurisdiction ove their becision until they could consider the Staff.investigati of the cheating incident and determine whether further actions appear warranted.
Partial Initial Decision, August 27, 1981, paragraphs 43 - 45.
e Q
6.
The Board also noted tha,2 the process by which the SRC tested TMI-Unit candidates for licensing was called into question by the cheating in c id en t.
The Board appended their findings and conc?usions that depended.on the licensing examination to indicate that the Board would recon-sider them after furtFi-information on the cheating incident became available.
Id., parag;aphc 204, 206, 249.-264. 268 - 27) 276.
REOPENED HEARING ON CHEATING 7.
On Spptember 14, 1981 the Board reopened the hearing to hear matters related to cheating.
The Board appointed Judge Gary L.
Milhollin to preside as the master and technical interrogator.
The parties to the proceeding (Licensee, Staff, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Three Mile Isla Alert and the Aamodt Famfly) were directed-to suggest refined issues and exumples of mat'ters which should be examined.
8.
The parties s ub ts i t t e d a number of issues which were conside'ed by the Board.
The following broad issue and..
r twelve r e f in e'd issues were adopted by the Board:
Broad Issue' The broad issue to be heard in the reopened proceeding is the effect of the information on cheating in the NRC April examination on the manage.
ment issues considered or left open in the Partial Initial Decision, recog-nizing that, dopcoding on the facts, the possible nexus of the cneating incident in the NRC examination goes beyond thc cheating by twc part'cular individuals and may involve the issues of Licensee's management integrity, the quality of its operating persor.nel, its ability to staff the facility -
adequately, its training and testing program, and the NRC process by,which the operators would be tested, and licensed.
'~,
-Par.ticular Issues.. -
1.
The extent of cheating,by TMI-1 operator license candidates on the NRC license examinations in April 1981, and-on any other Licensee-or NRC-administered examinations, including but not limited to the following: the Kelly examinations (including Category T) in April 1980; Category T make-up examinations subsequently administered by o
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 quali-
-i fication or mock exam or NRC-administered exam since the accident i
at TMI-2.
~
2.
The adequacy of the Staff's investigation of, and NRC response to,
- the cheating inr.ident and rumors of cheating in the April 1981 NRC
=a-
.i~ examinations.
he adequacy of' Licensee's investigation of, and Licensee's 3.
"5 r
o
~
4
, response to, cheating or possible cheating in the examinations QR
- listed in Issue 1 above.
ii.
- 4. t QIssue 4 has been comt,ined with Issue 3.]
5.
The extent of Licensee management-knowledge of, ercouragement of,
'fegligent failt:re to prevent, and/or involvement in cheating in
-the above mentioned NRC and.Lict.nses examinat:ons.
i s-
=. -...
6.
The existence and extent of Licensee management involvement in
~ cheating as illeged by the Aamodts in paragraph 7 in response to
~ he Board's Order of August 20, 1981.
t 7.
The existence and extent of Licensee knagement constraints' on the NRC investigation of cheating and rumors of cheating in the NRC
- April 1981 examinations.
.,,,_n.,.-
.e.
~
8.
The adequacy of Licensee management resocnse to the incident in July 1.979 referred to in the IE investigation report and involving one of the two operators terminated as a result of cheating on the NRC April 1981 examinations.
9.
The adequacy of Licensee's plans for. improving the administration of future Licensee qualification examinations for licensed
' ^
operators and candidates for operator licenses, including the need for independent administration and grading of such examinations.
10.
The adequacy of the administration of NRC licensing examinations for TMI-1 personnel, including proctoring, grading, and safe-6 guarding the integrity of examination materials; the adequacy of the Staff's review of the administration of Licensee's Category T examinations; and the adequacy of the Staff's planifor retesting operators and monitoring:its NRC examinations to assure proper -
adherence to NRC testing requirements in order to assure that the i purposes of the NRC examinations, because of the na.ture of the
~
questions, cannot be defeated by cheating,' the use of cribr'2 sheets, undue coaching or other evasive' devices.'s.
11.
The' potential impact.of NRC examinations, including retests, and operator' terminations on the adequacy.of staffingof TMI-l! '
operations;.
12.
The, sufficiency of mana'gement criteria and procedures for 'certi-fication of operator license candidates to the NRC with respect to the integrity of such candidates and the sufficiency of the; procedures with respect to the competence of such candidates.
Board Memorandum and Order, October 14, 1981, p a g e s. '2 4.
9.
The Board noted that the refined issues were only examples.
Judge Milho11in was given the authority to add issues under the broad-issue.
This authority'was extended' to adding issues that had been proposed by TMIA and the Aamodte but rejected in wnole or in part by the Board, if the evidence
=
10.
The proposed but wholly rejected issues are as followsi 13.
The extent of cheating by TMI-2 operators on NRC licensed examinatic's.
14.
The extent of cheating by TMI non-lice (
personnel on Licensee administered tests gif since the TMI-2 accident.
15.
The contribution that inadequate train) made to the cheating incident.
Statement of Issues for Reopened Hearing Proposed by Licensee, the NRC Staff, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Aamodts ant page 3.
11.
Judge Milhollin.added the following issue at aheonference of the' parties on October 2, 1981:
Attitude of the NRC Staff.
The Kemeny Comission found
~~
that operator training was greatly deficient: that the It also found
_,- depth of understanding was far too shallow.
that the branch of NRC that monitored operator training was
" weak.and understaffed and that NRC limited itself to It concluded that,no quani.ity of
- N yp."g.iving routine exams".
w g," fixes" would core the basic problem, which it found t
- 3. -.
Because the -
i j _ j the attitude of the people who were involved..
l M
cheating incident occurred af ter the Staff had respoaded to l
3 - the Kemeny Comission and promised to improve, what does i
I t
the possibility of laxity in the Staff's procedures indi-(
l
~
2 cate about the Staff's attituda?
i g
l i.
l The St'aff objected to the inclusion of this issue and motioned Judge Milhollin for recohsideration.or certification to the Bot The motion was denied.
Memorandum and Order, October 27, 1981 M
i L
Unnecessary.
Acceleration of Hearing
' 12.
Judge Milhollin did not add any other issues although evidence developed that would justify additions.
This evidence was that the content of the NRC licensing examination and the TMI training program contributed to cheating.
Justificaf for including these issues is included under Issue-5 amd the added issue *of NRC attitude.
13.
Judge Milhollin is not however at fault in i
failing to expand the issues of the hearing.
He was concerned that the Commission would make their decision regarding restart r
without the conclusions of the Board regarding cheating unless the reopened hearing was expedited.
Tr. 24, 471 - 2 (Milhollin)
On December 2,
- 1981, J6dge Milhollin, seeking more time, inquir of the Licensee!s counsel on Decemb~r.2, 198r whether there were e
any matters which would del'ay restart of the TMI-l plant.
Mentioned among these were the number of operators available to staff lidensed positions in the plant and the' schedule'for'comm@
i to'the Comnission concerning the Board's'second decision ~ez..
Tr. 25, 475 - 25, 478 (Milhollin, Blake).
Judge Milhollin-stats
~
that if there were any development which would.make'the'schedul@
of the hearing more flexible,'.he.would like to know about them.
He stated':
So I guess what I am asking you is simply to keep us informed of any devalopments which may make our schedule such that we could me more flexible in-
- time, in the time constraints we are= operating undeg So if something should develop a week from now or te weeks f r o ~m n o w extraneous to the proceeding which would cause the unit not to be started up, I assume l
I you will let us know.
..It is a request for your continuing surveillance of this subject'so that you can heap us informed.
Tr. 25477 (Milhollia Q
C 14.
At a December 21,.1981 meeting between the Commission and-the Staff, a problem in the steamEgenerators at TMI-1 was identified and described as casting considerable doubt en schedules.
-Mr. Denton stated that it!would be hard to come up with a good estimate for when the plant would be ready. The mode of failure had not been identified, and it was estimated'that itivould 4
several months to identify the problem.
The Staff considered that two months would be too optimistic an estimate-for correcting.this problem, and that there was no guarantee that further problems-woul-
. pe _
not-develop.
The Staff warned that only 800 of the tubes in the steam generator have been tested, and that there are 15,000" tubes all.
Commissioner Ahearne warned that the experience with steam generator problems would indicate that more problems will surface.
It is s'pparant that the accelerated sched_ule for the reopened.
including the schedule for proposing findings j'
hearingJon cheating /became unnecessary sometime prior to December:2 4
!^,
1981. The, Board finds that the Licensee failed to notify.Jbdge
.2 F -
Milhollin[/of]this problem and expected delay as soon as It - de ve l o'pe 6
.a"-
..~
Judge Milh'ollin ~ and the.psrties were, therefore, denied the opportu?
g.. a to pursue.lssues raised by' evidence developed in the bearing.
id[5. ".
- -s r 15 The hearing failed-to:dev~ lop a complete.rscord e
. 5 - -[4 4
4-on the issbes co'nsidered because of the accelerated pace of-tbe pre-hearing matters as well as that of.the hearing.
The initial.
con ference-to refine issues for the hearing was conducted during a singl'e tw ve-hour session. arranged by the Staff to meet a Board Order
~(September 14, 1981) of a September 24, 1981 deadline.
The g..
Discovery' period was too abbreviated to ensure completeness.
Discovery. began on October 2,
1981 with responses to thsse requests to be served on October 15; this was.;notunrea sonable, however on October 16, the parties confered to finalize discovery requests s
..,..-..s.,
a without having had the opportunity to examine the response to the o
initial discovery requests.
Responses to October 16 requests were served by October 26.
After only one week, of November 3 (4 for the Staff), all testi.ony and trial plans were required to be serv The parties had a week or lees to concider the testimony of ninetes prospective witnesses and to relate this to the voluminous quantity of information, generated durin g dis covery.
T h r.
pace of the hearing did not afford the opportunity to the parties to develop a complet@
record.
Violation of Sequestration lo.
Other procedural matters were even more signifi cant in preventing a complete and thorough record.
M~st important o
was the preparation of witnesses by the counsel for the Licensee.
Two witnesses, one an operator and the other an instructor, were pertinent instructed by Licensee's counsel of the/ testimony of a previous witness.
This was in violation of an Order of Sequestration execut by Judge Milhollin on November ~12 1981, and-the spirit of sequest 1a I
tion asEdiscsssed on the record.
Judge Milhollin, however, failed i
2 3 5 ::-
to upholdZafmotion to examine the integri~y af tl e hearing before t
4 -;
proceeding. 'The Board fi[ds that this is'a gross e rror. ' The
- e r_
in d e p e nh e~h t[t e s t imor.y o f the individuals closest to the scene of r
cri}me} we}r e the considered to be crucial to resolving the many ques left op'en by the NRC investigations.
The Board needs to know to in order what degree _that was thwarted by Licensee's coun sel/ to determine whether fbether action is appropriate.
I N
j _
Effects of Provision of C o n f i d e n ud a l i t y on Development of Full Record 17.
The matter of protecting the identities of the operators a t.d other Licensee witnesses was a procedural issue that may have affected the quality of the hearing.
Juuge Milholli:
and the Board supported the position espounsed by several parties
I that the individuals involved in the cheating incidents had no legal-right to confidentiality.
However, after proceeding through the Discovery period and taking of depositions by use of a lettering system, the intervenors agreed to make the accomodation entailed in exchange for the full cooperation of the witnesses testifying.
When the Stipulation of confidentiality was drawn, the exchange of full and forthcoming testimony was'setfort%
in item 10 and discussed on the record to apply to all individuals who claimed the provision-of confidentiality.
Judge Milhollin noted during the testimony of an operator who had confessed to cheating and W, (Mr. 0) that Messers:0/
who were parties to the Stipulation, were presenting inconsistent ' facts'.
Judge Milhollin threatened to w i t h d r aw..th e provision of confidentiality-unless the conflicts in
~
testimonyjcoule be cleared'up.
Judge Milhollin considered that the witnesse[, shielded from public view, did not testify fullyfand in truth.3 Tr. 26, 241 - 26, 247 (Milhollin).
The Commonwealth of 22w
~
Pennsylvania; h_aving taken no position on'the legality of, confident-
- fQFy%-
f-tality,]fQ11[ owed on Judge M11hollin's comments to assert that the "T
Commonweal.th]s position had been based entirely on the premise that~
- 3. fl ' 1
~
the primagy; g6'al o f the' hearing was to-obtain'the truth
'and might
- 4 ;: -
if the full truth did not appear to.be
~
reconsidej t_hei~r position
[
f o r t h c om i(g '.
Tr. 26, 245 (Adler).
The counsel of Mr. O objected i
strenuously to1 withdrawal of confidentiality, supported by arguments of Staff.
Tr. 26, 241 - 26, 247 (McBride, Goldberg).
Although the confli' cts in the testimony of Messers O and W persisted, Judge
~ s ' _~
Milhollin _did not press the issue of withdrawing confidentiality.
The conflicts in Messers 0'and W. testimony'are discussed in paragraph f
.; the Board believes that the agreement of the Stipulation on confidentiality was vio1'ated, and that the gu g%
r-
Stipulation should have been reciuded for Messrs 0 and W.
The privileges that these witnesses had previoesly asserted (the Fifth Amendment, Privacy Act, Freedom of Informatic, Act) could have been~
restored (including immunity to testimony already given).
- Perhaps, these witnesses.would have asserted.those privileges, however in view of the worth of the testimony received from them, nothing much; would have been lost.
On the other hand,.the witnesses, under the pressure of public scrutiny,.may have chosen to reveal the facts concerning'the cheating incidents in which they admitted involvement An additional benefit would have been the warning that this action woulo have constituted to the witnesses who followed and claimed persuaded subsequent witnesi confidentiality.
This. warning may.have,,
to adhere. strictly to the truth; it would, at least, have removed
. w. m co m fo r[tj Er.om those who failed to be candid. The incredulity of tht a
testimony ~of several witnesses protected by the Stipulation is v.=
discusse, djin 3 paragraphs
- : 9.-_
( a.a 3-g w : p..._.
5.51,Nd E
[.--
2-u.
.j"j; Notable Deficiencies in the Record
~
g._ _.
j_j,J[{_18.
The record of the hearing is'further diminished
- *4 ; a by the arder in which the witnesses were presented.
The Licen'see 2
' 2-witneslsds '(management) were presented first, and there was no opportunity to recall any of these witnesses concerning subsequea testimony {~This deficiency is particularly notable concerning the graNing results of -the October licensing examination whi'ch
,q.w-were a~n'tered into the record by the Staff on December 2,
- 1981, a f ter al-1 Licensee witnesses had appeared.
The failure.of the parties,to recall any management witn.sses to address the grading results~of the October licensing examination created a notable deficiency in the r'ecord.
~
...,~m
.s
o 19.
Zssue 11 of.the hearing'is the potential.
impact of the NRC examinations, including retests and operator
~
terminations, on the adequacy of staffing of TMI.
The-Staff:
requeated Mr. Hukill, vice-resident of:TMI-1, to address this issue.
This information-is contained in Mr. Hukill's letters of December 4 and 18, 1981, however these-letters were never A,
made part of the record of the hearing..Thecletters contain
'6 considerable amount.of subjective information including Mr. Hukill's opinions concerning the abilities.of operators J'
who failed the examination and why these operators are qualified 7-
~
1 to function in licensed positions without a license. MF1-Hukill i heedsrto be questioned on his positions sxpressed'in these-1 letters before these letters are incorporated into the record.-
"~
- - ~ ~ ~ - - -
~,....
20.
Another example of the deficie.ncy-in.the record.
caused by'the fa'ilure to recall witnesses is the' unresolved conflii in the testimonies of Staff witness Mr. William Ward of I & E add
- =
~
Intervenors'. iitnesses Mr.
P. (an operator)-and Mr. Husted, tan inst)
S
- f. -
Judge.Milhollin extended'the Staff the' opportunity to1 recall Mr. Wi however theLStaff decline'd.
Judge,Milhollin;;
then failed'to rule'in f a vbr.io f the 'Aamod t.s
'mo t io n' :t o 'r e c a'll Mr. i Tr.
26, 9 9 4 - 7. r ' - ( A a mo d t,' Mil h o llin~)'.' '.
The B6ard;fihds'that Mr. Ward should have been afforded the opportunity of responding to the conflicts with*his.-testimony introduced by the subsequent testimony of Mr.
P.
In~ view of the involvement of Mr. P relative'to rumors of cheating, his associatit with Mr. 0 (operator involved in cheating), his prior ~. kn owled ge of the KK phone call and a'ssocia, tion with KK, and his preparation Footnote 1 - TMIA, mo tioned on January 4, 1982 to enter the Hukill letters'(and an affadaviticoncerning-Licensee's' counsel's represent tiontof certification plans concerning candidates for NRC examinati
~
in February) into the record of the hearing.
The motion did not provide for the cross'-examination of this evidence by the parties, and, therefore, violated the procedural standards of an ASLB hearim
by Licensee's counsel in violation of the Sequestration Order (see paragraph 16).
21.
The Board finds that any failure to develop a ccoplete record is totally the responsibility of Judge Milholl Judge Milhollin absolved the parties by his statement on the first day of the hearing that he considered it his duty to see that there was a complete record, regardless of the contribution of the Intervenors.
Tr. 23, 467 (MilhcIlin).
22.
Judge Milhollin specified the evidentiary p r a s e n't a t ion s that he would require and the witnesses whom he and the Board. wished.to question.
These are as follows:
Specific evidentiary presentations required by the Special Master
~
At the conference, the parties were furnished a list of specific evi -
dentiary presentations which the Special Master proposed to require..
After argument from the parties concerning the proper scope of these re-M-quirements, objections to the requirements were disposed of by rulingsng:
from the bench.
As modified by these rulings, the. presentations are.re-re-quired to cover-the following ' questions:
(1) n general, is the Licensee's examination'and certification' pro -
gram adequate to insure that qualified personnel sit -for the NRC exams?
e t
4
?-
-sw (a)
Why didn't the Licensee discover the cheating on. the mock exams?
(b) Why didn't other persons who sat for the examination on which cheating occurred, and who were'in a position to ob-serve the cheating, report it? Were management-level employees in a position to observe the cheating?
Did they learn of.it later and fail to report it? For ~ example, the instructor for licensed operator training is reported to have refused to answer questions by investigators concern-ing whether reference material was covertly brought into the examination room, or to reveal the details of rumors of cheating which he may have heard.
(c). What is the practice of allowing re-examinations of those :: l who. fail initially on the various examinations which the~
Licensee gives? What is the' purpose of this practice? -. -
t (d(;H.ow does the Licensee administer its examinations.so' as to..'.
prevent cheating'or other devices which ' defeat the ' purpose:Is :
of the examinations?rsi (2)
In general, hre the NRC examinations administered in such a way ?-
as to insure that operating ~ personnel are qualified for7theira ~
..g.
positions?-
(a)
Proctorino..Has it been adequate in the past? '9ill it be adequate in the future? When were proctors present during the TMI examinations? What did they do while present and absent? What arrar.gements for proctoring did they make._
. during their absence? ' What instructions were. they given by.
their superiors? What instructions did they give.to.the' -
ex amir.ees?
m '
94 =
-9
W s.
nerWvemt%MWWtwe punaWue adequate in the future? Who graded the TMI exams? Why wasn't the cheating detected?
(c)
Other monitoring.
To what extent does NRC evaluate or mon' tor the Licensee's testing program?
Is NRC's interest confined to its own examination? NRC was to have evaluated s.
the " Category T" examination.
What is NRC's procedure for.
, doing so? Would NRC have detected cheating on the "Cate-1 gory T" examination?
(d)
Integrity of the examination.
What has been NRC's proce-
~
dure for preventing examinees or their instructors from discovering what questions will be-aske! on examinations?
Are the same questions repeated from one examination to the next?
Do responses to the questions require fresh analysis
- by the examinee, or can the responses be memorized? To 1
I what extant are candidates " coached"? Mock and actual ex-
~
aminations are to be compared.
The bank of questions main--
j Ijf*ftatiidd by NRC is to be furnished, together'w th'the exami~-
_ = 1 ^- ~ =_- ;
m--
n.
.tions mentioned in issue (1) above.
- es
,QQ0ral __ tests.
How will the oral test be given and graded?'
At the-con.f rence the parties were also furnished a list of spec'ific 7 *g :.p p witnessesf,whom;.the_ Licensing Board wishes to question, and a list of addi-tional witnejses 'who will. ba asked to appear before me.
The former are Messrs. Arnold, Boger, Davis, Hukill, Kelly, Newton,, and M. Ross.
The latter are Mr. Husted, the persons who administered the licensee's " mock"
-12 _-
examination {all NRC proctors at the TMI examinations, all,.the SR0 exami-
-s=.
nees, the persons ^ who took the NRC and Licensee examinations in rooms where cheating ocr.ccred, the person whose work appears to have been copied from on the make-up " Category T" examination, and any other pe.rsons who '
appear to have cheated on this latter examination.
Mem5randum and Order Following a Conference ^Among the Parties, October 8, 1981, pa geg 6, 7,
8, 9!
. ~. -.
1 23.
The Board finds that Judge Milhollin examined
-the witnesse,s who' appeared'beiore him in a thorough manner conce
-the evidence-he rought. 'However, Judge Milhollin did not facilid the appearancu of
- a. number of witnesses that either he or the-Bog indicated that they would call.
This-included Mr. Monte Davis, 9
the NRC consul ant who discovered the cheating on the,NRC exam'ine 4
e N'
that other graders,' including Staff personnel, failed to dets g
Mr. Davis' brief comments, signaling the cheating on the examina1 are the sing.le input he has had-in th'e hearing.
The comments wes provocative and the parties deserved an explanation why Mr. Davig thought that. ' crib sheets' or slides had been used and that mana:
ment va s-invo1ved.
A mo, tion to, call Mr,.
D ay i_s, wa,s d e n,i e d.
Staf.
Staff Ex. 24; -
Tr.
(Clewe t t, Milhollin)'.
that Judge Milholli'n' s t a t ed. vo ~ ld - b e '; o u
j asked to appear before him did.not r appear. as witne s ses.
These were the Associated Technical Training Services (ATTS) personnel.
who administered the." mock"-lic'ensing-e minationi j n s t.. prior to.t :
the NRW examination, two prectors of'the li~Eensing exaninationigd F'
~
in April. 1981, ten operators whoJtook the SRO licensing' examinat (Messrs.
B, E,f R, Z,
3, E, BB, FF, QQ 'and RR)~,7the'per. sons'who to any exami a t'i o n s.' i n w h i c'h chea~ ting'occurredl(an' undefined numbeh,
~
that included Messrs.- Q, R,
Z, S.,
C, X,and QQ), and persons who appeared to have c' heated on the Category T examinat' ion (Messrs.
S, Y and MM).
The Board finds that these individuals could have i
provided valuable informatio'n regarding their eye-witness account of the events which surrounded the' cheating incidents.- Judge Milhollin called a single witness,-Mr. YY (an NRC informant and.
former TMI en.p l a y e e ), in addition to those witnesses ~ sponsored P
by'the'other parties.
i w
25.
The Licensee and Staff registered their objections to the Intervenors calling the number of witnesses indicated in their trial plans.
Tr.
(Blake, Goldbeg These witnesses were to a large measure the same witnesses, however fewer in number, that the Board and Judge Milhollin~
specified in their evidentiary presentation plans.
26.
The Aamodts had planned to call the followim additional witnesses:
WW and KK (both primhr'ily involved in allegations concernin solicitations of information during s
examinations), operator V (who obtai6ed high grades on examing i
tions but resigned), operator T (whose wife's name was connect with several rumors), and two members of the Ct' ice of Inspect and Auditor Messrs. Ronald Smith and James Cummings, who had been involved in the preliminary investigation.
The Aa,odts also planned to pr'esent the following witnesser:
Mr. H a r r-y Williams, a former guard at TMI, who had witnessed cheating op test; D.r. ; B r.u c e Molholt, a professor aho had administered and; graded' numerous tests of an essay type ;. and Professor-Charles' Holzinger an outstanding'exper.t in detecting minimal e'vidence of cheating.
27.
The Aamodts' pre.vailed'in calling'the'additic witnesses employed by the Licensee, and the Staff provided Mr. Resner of OIA instead of Messrs. Smith and Cummings.
Judg Milhollin ruled against the receipt of Mr. William's testimony and failed to provide any other witness relative to the Licens administration of tests to non-licensed personnel.
Judge Milh considered Mr. Williams competent to put his testimony into th record, however considered the " threats" of the Licensee and S to lenEthen the proceeding by responding'with counter-witnesse l
k_
Judge Milhollin stated his disappointment with the Licensee and' Staff.for indicating that such response was necessary.
Tr. 25, 032 (Milhollin).
The Licensee and Staff threatened to oppose the examination of Professor Holzinger's; testimony;.
both parties indicated that in the event Professor Holzinger's testimony was admitted, they planned extensive' cross-examinatios
'.,/ :.
Licensee thseatened to lengthen the proceeding by referring to o
- =
a 38 page cross-examination plan.
The Aamodts proposed, in-view of the threats of the Staff and the Licensee, to abide by
~... -
the desires of Judge Milhollin and the other parties to hear Professor Holzinger.
No other party nor. Judge Millhollin expressed an interest.
Tr. 267 544 26, 546 (Blake, Milhollin, Goldberg, Aamodt, Adler, Bradford)._ Dr. Molholt presented l
testimony and was the single,11ndependen't-expert wi t n e s's t wh o :
i testified in the hearing. -
28.
TMIA had indicated'their desire to produce c 1
a s.'a witness' Harold Wayne.Hartman, a.former TMI,-2 l~icensedac:
_n operator who alleged cheating ~ occurred on NRC" ora 1 e x amin a t io n's t Mr. Hartman vas under a Dep~artment of-Justice order, as a witnet in a DOJ proceeding concerning' alle ged. f alsifi' cation' of l'eak: e_c l
rates at TMI.-
Although TMIA reported-dif ficulties in producing" Mr. Hartman, Judge failed to recognize'the' potential' imp'ortance i
of Mr. Hartman's appearance.
Tr. 26, 346
- 26. 348 (Blske, Aamt 29.
Judge Milhollin was aware of "important constr on the proceeding.
They were to complete the hearing and to reo i
an opinion to the Board to coincide with t'he Cormission's schedy to decide whether TMI-l should be restarted.
Tr. 24,.471.- 24, (Milhollin~).
These constraints became-moot, unbekno'wn to i
Judge Milhollin,-due to the serious problem with the steam genc0 i
s i.-
,..~. - -. -....
_ _~ __.. _ _
at TMI-1. -see : paragraph 14.
+
30.
Judge Milhollin considered that there was a limited-time to hear witnesses.
He expressed concern.that time there would not be sufficient time to hear the operatorg whose testimony could supply. specific facts.
Such was the case.
Only 13 of the 36 candidates who took the licensing.
examinat, ion during which two operators were known to ' cheat appeared as witnesses.
Tr. 24, 433 (Milhollin).
31.
Judge Milhollin observed that cross-examine.
of Licensee's management witnesses was extensive and-not vers productive.
Id.
Cross-examination of these witnesses consus over eight and one-half days of the hearing.
Less than three days were used cross-examining Staff witnesses.
Staff.'and Licensee witnesses filed.17 3 pages-- of -te stimony with', ~in : sev :
cases, voluminous references.
In view of'the volume of pre--
testimony, the time consumed to examine,' Staff and Licensee witnessesivas not e x ce s s ive '.
Th e~ 't ime: allo t t ed. wa s. simply,' t.0
~
.5 p
short:.7 t
~
r
~ 32.-
The par. ties endeavored ~in all-ways.to expee the heari g'.{^5 Judge ~ Milhollin' recognized the; cooper.ative: att) of the pa$[t iA s in this regard.
Tr. 23, 468: (Milhollin).n 33.
TMIA'an'd' the: Aamodt s: contrib' ted. to' accle re u
i of the hearing-by deposing a number of potential witnesses:
included operators U and I TMIA deposed Mr. P o l'o n',- M r. Mil 2
and KK.
The Aamodts deposed V, T,
A, HH, DD, P,
Mr. Brown, Mr. S c h i l'e, Mr. LaVie, Mr. Ross and Mr.-Toole.
.The Aamodts-also.provided Mr. Williams for a three hour deposition by tht t
Staff and Licensee.
I.
___s
~
9 4< v--,
w w-9 y..-i,*
ye-r
-+--y m--
c c<
e v
v
+ - - +
r 34.
The Aamodts attempted to develop information concerningthe accelarated attrition of operators.
Neither the prefiled testimony of Licensee or Staff witnesses addressed this matter although it was relevant to Issue 11.
A number of operators left prior to the retest given in October 1981.
The Licensee opposed the Aamodt's discovery in this matter, however the Aamodt's were supported by Judge Milhollin's ruling in the third week of the hearing.
Due to burden of the on-going hearing and the.onstraint that Licensee would contact these former employees first, the Aamodts were no; able to make a complete report of their f indin gs on the record.
Five of the former employees had left the state, however they were contacted by telephone.
The burden of providing this information was.
unduly placed on.the Aamodts, and this information is incompletG Schedule for Findings 31.
The Licensee proposed a schedule f o r f i lin~g'. r s findings of fact which wa,s agreed upon by ' t h e 'p a r t i e s'.'
The' Lic~en findings were to be servdd' on Jan'uary 5.,
1982, followed in ten das
..==- -
by service'of~
~
the fin d in'g s of the' intervening parties'(TNIA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and-the Aamodts)..
The Staff and the Licensee then have a week to reply.'
x 32.
The transcripts of the proceedin_g were to be placed ~in Public Document. Rooms, including'those of the sessions.2:
~A misunderstanding'concerning the availabij in camera to the public of the in camera seesion transcripts led to a considerable delay in receipt of the transcripts f ollowin g the_
november 18, 1981 session.-
As of December 30, 1981, no transcrif m
w
for the November-19_-through December 10 sessions were -available 3
at the - Pub 1'ic Document Room in Philadelphia.
During the Aamodti visit to the Public Document : Room in Washingt6n;,'D.
C.,
the 4
December 10, 1981 session transcript could not be located; this was on January 4, 1982.
33.
The Aanodts contacted Ch~ airman of the. Board.
. - 1.;
u Ivan Smith 6n December 17, 1981 to describe the inavailability o' transcripts.
( Ch a i r c rin Smith contributed some of the delay to c ot. f u s io n about the availability of in camera t r an s.. r ip t s to.the public.) 'The Aamodts contacted to explain the problem that this had caused and to request that transcripts be placed in a document room that was.more convenien to the Aamodts.
The request was denied, however' availability of
~ 'transcrifte in Harrisburg and PhiladelphYs was checked-Ehe tran n - = _-
cripts cere. all. available 'at-those- ~ laces on D e c e'm b e r. 3 1, 1981.
p
{[
34.
The Aamodts have been unable to date'to
.7, a.a. ; a
~
view the; transcripts for the November 21 and December'10 session
-,jxQ 1
.~
~ ^
On JanuarMdl, 1982, the Aamodts centacteI Ch'airma~n~ Smith tM ~
requestan'2xtension for filing findings Afte'r negotiation
~
~
&sM -2.~
with the Licensee and the Staff, an additional two days were j
- I I i
?
., has still not granted.1;Thje Aamodts now find,that'the e~ tension x
3-<-
provided. sufficient. time to complete the task.
In view of the unavailability of the transcripts to the Aamodts, they are filin
~s e -
l-findings;as agreed, however they reserve the rig h t.. t o make addit J
in as timely'and_expeditie2s fashion as_possible.
i,2 -
a
{
Footnote 2 Tr.
.. _... 26, 066 (hilhollin). - -
, 3,- Free Library of Philadelphia Footnote Footnote 4 - Commission Building, 1717 H Street, N..W.
e-.
iMM "
- - ~ - - ~ ~ -
2-
O
- S m
?/
O
[b G
4
- e em emm
-w e
M
-m-s w-,**'.
- . J,
- = ~ - - - -4,g s
5
.. &.?
. _ ~~
_~-* -. -
'^"
{
.d.'
T.
.~.-;
m -
w--a.
,P
%.-.,_=,.-..-
m.
.....a-a.
O::
r %v
--s
-- -- -, w -<
3._
- a-. --- ~
e
~,.
.~
t e
4
.a-s
%-;: ; ( -.us, 2.. s - - c.72 -..-"'".
e
=w.., _,,, _, -
-=.,.=. _. --
1 u --. --.
4=-+-.e a
..-.smE s.
-'1, W
~
4I
, L L.mh_
-. :.?
2'
~
.-n-
_ - 2r -
g n' R
t',.
.,"u'..~s.--li:.
_ _. ~. p-.
......n_--
a.m
.s-e*',.-
4 l
,....e_.-
f_).--.c,A,--M
.r -J:T "..._.
s "w,.sa m.
-i ee.
,.w e
7 e
y...
-}.
' ~ ~ ~'"7 D -
_1 i
-g'y
=
-.. ~
+
-o.
g
.ew a..-
2.
1 ;%--
+
. t
..e m.
.a.-
e.g e
+ -
.I
.e M-1 m
- - - :. x
..m w,
.au em-4m*-.-i--
-e^
'q
, "m.,.
_7 e
e
=M
-4 ese C*-'e-***
- -. - - - - ~ -. -.
s
,v-
- fa
Extensiveness of Cheating of Operators O and W Evidence of Others Withholding Information Concerning Observatic
- 37. Dr. Bruce Molholt testified concerning the extensiveness of the cheating of Messrs. O and W on the senior (reactor operator) portion (SRO) of the licensing examination.
There was exact coincidence in 87 percent of their riswers.
Thei were 67 separate questions or parts of questions addressed on the SRO examination.
Dr. Molholt did not examine 5 of these, which are figures.
Of the remaining 62 questions or parts of questions, 54 were answered by 0 and W in identical or nearly identical fashion.
Thi's.collasien~took placA over nearly seven 1
hours in the same room with four other candidates.
Lic. Ex. 83.
The tabl s occupied by the other candidates were behind 0 and W.
Dr. Molholt concludes that it is hardly possible to imagine that these other operators were unaware of what O and R were doingc.
The other operators are Messrs.
A, I,
S and Z.
Molholt, ff. 25, at 1,
3; Lic. Ex. 83.
-3 8.. Messrs. A and I denied observing any.c.ollusior between 0 abd W'during the lic en sin g' exa mina t ion ~.
Mr."A satra-
~
(W was to O's left).during both d'ays.of the cirectly behind.0 examination.
Mr. A described the~ room as quiet: and recalled no conversations other than some grumblings about the examination.
~.-
Footnote Dr. Bruce Molholt has literally corrpcted thousanc of essay type tests and term papers.
He has developed expertise in spotting work that is the result of copying.
Dr. Molholt is presently Adjunct Associate Professor., Department of Health Edue:
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.; he has held other teaching positions as Assistant Professor of Microbioloby, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas from 1969 until 1972 and as Associate Professor of Microbiology and Surgery, Medical College of Wiscon<
Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1976 until 1978.
Resume, Molholt, ff. 25, 185.
O Mr. A claimed con fid'entiality and appeared.in camera.
Tr. 26,.039
~
26, 040; 26, 043.
Mr. A had been interviewec by 1&E on July 28, 19 concerning any observations of cheating; this was prior to the confessions of 0 and W.
A did not report-any irregularties at that time, not even the fact that the testing room was unproctored for long periods of time.
Mr. A not.odly staced that he was not aware of any lack of coverage by proctors, but'that coverage was complete, "end-to-end".
Mr. A has known o since 1969 and expressed feelings of sympathy and understanding of the 0 and W cheating.
It is unlikely that A would turn-in ~ 'co-workers'df long-standing, parr.icularly in view of.his. feelings, and once,.
havin g' taken' that p o s.i t i~o n, reverse himself~at detriment to.
3 himself.
I 6 E did not expect that witnesses, once having testi-fled to a fact, would: change their testimony without, compelling
't
~
- Staff Ex. 26, at 27;. Lic~ensee Ex.2 85,~at 6; T.r.-' 2 6 d5 4"( A' reasons.
(Ward).
Tr.7.
s
. ~
- 39. The eestimonies of - xr and 1 concerning t h e...
. =
.. = -
their recollection of people;in the' hall'and office's in.the'vicini
~
of the testing rooms is tainted by clear interest of A~and I: :
to protect their friends.
The Identity.of per sods-in-the !.
11 and in Mr. Husted's office'was of great importance in answsring.questi
~
~
. raised by allegation and rumors.
Mr. A's'and Mr. I's testimonies that they did not recall seeing anyone in the halls'or office-on their trips to the bathroom and coffee'ma' hine is clearly 1.ot c
forthcoming in view of Mr.
T.' s report that "there must'have been 40 penplc down there".
Mr. T identified them as trainees, -
. _. ]
m auxiliary operators and other operators (presumably licensed),
and Mr.
U.
Both A and I remembered quite precisely the number of trips they made out of the room, and the style o f b~oth ind ivid ual indiscussing matters not directly related to the cheating incident, was to be informative and detailed.
Tr. 26, 043 (A); 26, 534 - 6 (1 26, 618 (T), 26, 045 - 26, 059 /A); 26, 560 (1).
- 40. Mr. I sat directly behind Mr. W'(0 was to Wis left) during the GRO exam.
Mr. I testified similarly to Mr.
A, finding the room quiet, but observing no conversation or other activity between 0 and W.
Mr. I explained that he "was not watching" O and W.
However, Mr. I remembers that he left the room at least four times, and it seems unlikely that he found no time ~to lo
- around during~an examination of nearly 'seven hou~rs duration.
Mr. I considers O a friend; he has also worked with him at TMI since 1969.
Mr. I and Mr..A are necessari2y lodg. acquaint.
~
ances.through w'ork.
It would be unlikely that Mr..I w o 'u l d ' 'u p s'e t. r Mr.'A's~ testimony, given to I6E before the confession o f O' o'r Wr. F L i c'.
Ex.
Tr. 26, 533, 35 - 7 (I); Lic. Ex. 85, at 6.
-... - - - -. - - 83;..
3
-~ -
41.
In-vieiTTf'the extensive chL :ing by of'an d
'F-
~
that involved passing of papers and whisper *.ng' it is
~
that the other operators who took the SRO examination with then did not notice what was going on.
Collaboration between 0 and W~was also extensive on the reactor operator examination; amot those who shared the room, Messrs.
Q,R, 00, HH C, S,
2, A and I,
thece had to be some, if not all, who observed the irregularities.
Lic.
Es.
S3.
C and Z were not interviewed by I&E or in the hearing S, P and Q were interviewed by 16E, but were never asked any specifi questions doncerning the cheating of 0 and W.
Tr.
(Ward!
i l
i I
- 42..The I&E investigators were troubled that O and W could have. cheated with no mbservation.
They felt that highly likely that other people had noticed.
The investi-it was may have gators noted that peer group loyaltL/ caused people.to fail to report cr.
admit what they had seen. Irhe loyalty among TMI-l
- ^
personnel was described rs exceptional, stronger than at i
ot or facilities.
Another reason the investigators considered, was. that thea0 und W collusion was, not considered wrong at.the time, perhaps:being viewed as.a cooperative. effort.
Tc. 25, 384 - 25, 386 (Ward).
- 43. The I&E investigation itselfprevented evidence from being-f611y-developed.
The investigator s admitted that it is rare ~ Eo' nave somebody ccme forward and report cheating.
At the timejf their interviews of Messrs. Q, R",
00, S and A,(all-of 1
j whom had t-akendth' : licensing examination. in the~same room as O an0 e
i
..j[d.C" 2.
?=
W),0 an[d T 6rPdenying any involvement in cheating.
I&E was, 3r 2
sens,e),).)ecting the other eperators to come forward and-in a it 1
. report _th) ~ heating of 0 and W.
A's I&E shoul'd have expected,
- ; W.
..y:
~ ~ ~ '
the
.therp;dKd"not.
The investigators fu~rther statdd'(as noted 21.v f
paragr$hh' " ) that witnesses lock themselves into their in prior testimony, which can only being loo sened. by-d ramat ic
=,
t qr -
methods.of investigation or overwhelming ~ evidence.
I&E ' decided i
against (he use of lie detectors or use of specific, repeated o
interroga ion.
S t af f Ex.' 26, at 23 - 31; Tr. 25, 387, 2 5,3Y3 - (Wt 1
4 P
r g_e is - +-
m e a
Further Evidence of Rithholding of Information-
~^
and Other Cheating Behavior
- 44. Mr. Robert Arnold, vice-president of GPU
~ Nuclear, stated that cheating had to be considered in.its broadest sense,' pres 6mably.to assure highJendugh" standards fcr personnel. entrusted with the operation of nuclear power facility <
Mr. Arnold considered withhciding of teformation conc'erning.
cheating as* cheating behavior.
ihe record of the hearing" is replete with clear evidence-of withholding of~information add /or lying.
This behavior is erident on the part of the operators
' 'C who shared the testing rocms with 0 and W.
Qthers who have withheld information and/or 1.ied are FF, DD, VK and T.
- 45. In the case of FF, three I&E investigators shared the view that FF was not truthful in stating that he did not remembe~r the identity of the person who solicited an answer
- u
?
to a question during the NRC licensing examination-in April 1981e The investigators found FF"s memory too selective, in that FF i
'A k
_ could 1re_membe r[the
~
'and details other than$5o asked the
~
r event
).
-. 3, 7 - m
=w a
J questidn.'.The. investigators were surprised that FF could not eyes rememberjviy of the phys. cal characterisEics of the person.
~ = ~ 3 2 :,-
The - inveit ijdt'o'r s assumed that the p e r s o'n soliciting"at' answer.
.,a,,
amongjt{e--eight ?xaminets taking 'th t e s t ' 'in. t h e " smoking" was 7
,(sifce"FF was in the'"non-smoking" oom'and'the' ground ruleg room were t h a.t. o n e person could leave-the room at a time).
This may
~
be an in alid assumption since proctors, who rc a y have enforced
~
^4 rules on : absence from the rooms, were not always present in the 1
only testing._
however that would/have _ involved an additional rooms.
nine persons.
The investigators wcre concerned that FF could nog identify the individual withi.n such a small g r c, u p.
'This is particula _rly surprising since FF has been employed at TMI since
-n
,,m
.me
since 1976 and his j ob bringc him in close contact with-the operatcrs.and other candidates-for licensing.
Tr. 25, 368 -
~
25,_370 (Baci);;25, 376 (Ward);'Lic.
Er'.
8 3.; _ L i c. Ex. 85, at '.
Tr. 25' 453 (Ward).
--.... ~
- -:.... = -
46.
Mr. William Ward, Chief of'the Investigations 3
branch, I&E, stated that in his opinion DD was nit truthful in an important respect.
DD had been inter. viewed by I&E during
~
their first investigation becaute DD as an instructor represented the training department and had taken the examination.
DD, according to the investigators, declined to answer questions concerning tte possibility of reference material being covertly brought into the test roome, he refused to reveal any specifics about rumors he had heard, and he would not explain his reluctanc to discuss these issues.
In a subsequent interview, DD explained
.2
.?
4 that tije previous investigators'_ questions were too broad to be 1.
appropr4)te_1y answered.
Mr. 7ard, after discussing both these 3-.
interviews with the investigators, concluded that DD's explanatio
.71 of whyshe had not answered questions durinF the first interview 3m was untr thful.
Tf. 25, 313 '(Ward), 25, 309 (Bact).
3i fiist interview of'DD,'the investigator must
}497.In'the have. asked sperific questions (as contrasted: to the policy of-
-a general questions used in other interview) in that DD would not have suggested the questions (listed in the summary of the intervi Footnote' Mr. Ward's later explanation (in answers to Licens counsel) of his view concerning Mr. Husted's truthfulness is not
~
cased on the same reasons, therefore does not affect Mr. Ward's earlier conclusien.
Also,Mr. Wrrd's acknowledgement that he was not aware that DD responded (that he (DD) did not bring any notes and did not know about other.peop1'e)does not affect Mr.
~
Ward's conclusion. The answer was not responsive to the intervie questions (see paragraph
) and appears flippant as Licensee concedes is descriptive of DD's responses at tines.
Lic. Find. 2
---_A-_1.-_----a---
y andfthen have refused to discuss them.-
The interviewer must then'have proposed these questions.
The questions asked were material.be covertly brought into the. testing a.
Could reference room?
b.
What rumors did you hear?
c.
What individuals were implicated by the rumors?
Question (a) was phrased as a theoretical situation, however the interviewer' indicates that he-invited "iscussion d
as opposed to a' definitive answer..
?
Staff.Ex. 26, at 39; Staff Ex_ 27, at 16.
DD's' explanation of why he'did not-answer the investigaters' questions in the -first interview is clearly not truthful, simply based on a-. c a r e f u l
.~ r reading of the cummary of the interview.
Id.
- 48. Mr. DD. developed further evidence of-his untruthfulness and withholding of information'during.hisitestimo during the hearing.
DD testified that he intentionallye did not-answer the question (de'eignated as (b) in theEprevious paragraph
~
because he decided that1 1t was not important.
Tr. 2 6,{ 9 32. (DD)'. -
n n..,
TheFefore,y DD';s'~bxplanation.innhis s e cond _ in t erview;,twhyYhel,a :
s we r q u e s t.i o n s ' in h i rl f i r s t in t e r view).i s,( b y -D.D ':s'.
refused to a j
l un truth f ul',Idod firmin g'.'Mrs. Ward 'st upinion* a s. set own. account, an
~
g
{.
out in paragraph ~
' :... There is no other; conclusion'than-that f
-.d~'--
~ * *
' DD, deliberately withheld information'since. he' understood the.
the investigator's questions,and he was aware at the time'(of th first interview) of the convdrsation~of " passing ~ papers", refers to it as unconfirmed hearsay.
Staff Ex. 26, at 39 ; i-Tr.? 2 6,,
924 Tr. 26, 931'(DD). <.~;
W t
t d'
' ~ ' " *
- 49. DD stated that'he had insisted during his
~
second interview that the investigator (Mr. Matekas) write down every question that he asked.
DD claimed that he then read the question and wrote his answer down, and he agreed to the answer as $t was written down.
Tr. 26967 (DD).
DD'was~qu'sti6ned sever >
e
. times concernind'this signed statement.
Tr. 26, 967 8,
- 26. 97 (DD); Later, in response to_ questioning by Licensee's counsel, DD could not recall whether'he signed a statement, and maintained this posture upon subsequent questioning.
Tr. 26, 974 -5 (DD).
50.The fact remains that DD claimed that the secon' interview by I6E was conducted by written-out questions and,answe, The Staff failed to provide such a document in response to discovr n' r was: such a document included in requests made by the Aamodts, o
of the second round of I&E'iEEerviews.
The Staff the report _
claimed in response to an Aamodt motion to obtain the questi~ons
. _ =
and answers (referred to-by DD), that the investigator'has_no 79.. :--
knokledh2$dfJsuch a document.
Tr. 26,i9l76 - 9 (Aamcdt, Milhollin e
- :e
~
Goldberg [j Aamodt Motion, dated Decemb[r 11, 1981; ' S t a'f f.~Re spon s
~
- q dated Dec_ ember 1981.
It appears unlikely in view of the EQ35
~
.-p r o min e n c,e, 'o f the controversy surroundidg DD's' attitude toward-3
==a the fiP:s t i~ntsrview, that DD would have Moldnteerea--the'l'formati
~
n about the signed statement of the second interview.
This matter a
m i
needs t o ;be' inse s tiga t ed rather than resolved through legal argus +. -
since the-truth of the matter could resolve'a serious conflict in testimo$n pytween Mr. Ward, on the one h_and, and DD and P on the 4
other. This is full'y discussed in paragraph
~
~
- 51. The testimon'y of DD is of particular importane because of ane allegation that DD's office was used by.Mr. U to
-- solicit information during the licensing examination in April.
j
~
e
+.-+=-a.=-
e.-
9 ad-%
.e-
y 7
w-wa w
-yr d
1r 1r-
~
q lt is also significant in that ~0D has been employed at TMI i,
since 1974. F,u r t h e r serious flaws are apparant in DD's testimony.
did :not remember a single person with whom he took the examination on Tr. 26, 915 (DD).
April 23, 1981./ He did not report the ; octoring conditions during the first interview, although he was seated so that he t h' e proctor,come and go.
DD was aware-that the pr6ctor 4
could see was-out of the room.
Tr Tr. ' 2 6,- 9 33 ~ ~4, (DD).
He carried a calculato-and r.ase into the testing room, but failed to provide this information in answer te question (a) concer'ning possibilitier for bringing in reference material.
Tr. 26, 974 (DD).
He change (
his recollection of where the conservation of " passing papers" occurred, when confronted with a diagram of.the training. area.
Tr. 26924,7 (DD).
He changed his story that he o ve r h e a r d ': th e i
..e conservation from his office to as he was passing b; the water-cooler.' >Tri Id.
He could not recall how many individuals were
~
engaged in-the conversation, although he claims hc phssed by enem.
Tr. 267 9;31?(DD).
He stated in his.seco'd interview that the time n
, -. - ~.
_p period]inpsh,1ch he heard.:h e conservation was during the NRC....
_ n =,_; =
.e
- 2.....
~-
3.n
= -
ex arain a,t igt however he testfied in the' hearing that.it was a L
we e k t o[.tIen;2d a y s after the examination period.
Staff-Ex. 27, at 1
.s 3.,
..' d.i Tr. 26 924S(DD).
. - - [,5 i.~.~. 2.
. ge -
,5 2.
The number of inconsistencies in'the'testiuony 2
ofJDD-should be noted ~ in view of the udght accorded DL's words
-A.i i
in the. Licen u:e 's Froposed-Findings of Fact paragraphs 14.3. - 105.
I Paragraph 63 is particularly noteworthy.
It is quoted: verbatim, be contrued as a finding or conclusion of'the but should not Aamodt. Findings.
Mr. Husted is DD.
Licenace Proposed Finding 163.
Finally.
i.
Mr. Rested consi'stently and believeably denied cheating on the NRC-exam.
This clearly supports.P's position.
Under1ining added.
. ~ - -. -
i
.,__..s L-
.This' conclusion by Licensee clearly: reflects on management, in view of. -the flippant attitude of DD, acknowledged by Licenseg and the numerous in cim s i s t e n c i e s in LD's testimony; cited above.
This is duscussed further under; Issue 3.
on-
- 53. Licensee's conclusion depending /DD's credibili telates to Mr. Ward's assertion that DD asked P for an? answer to a question on the NRC licensing examination given April: 24, 1 Tr. 25, 316 - 7 (Ward)
The Warc-DD-P allegation _is recounted in Licensee's. Findings' paragraphs, 143
.165.
The recounting-is flawed with omissions which.haverled?to totally misleading.
conclusions.
Licensee Proposed Findings of Fact, January 5, 196
- 54. Mr. Ward stated, on December ~1,I981, that P reluctantly revealed, during an I&E interview on-Septemberf23i question $.
~
that a-fellow examinee.DD asked for"the answer-to one on the Senior Reactor Operator examination ( S R O )'. -
Tr. 25,-516 )
Ward stated that.it had lengthy interviewing.to " drag".this'inff
-. a
=
~
ation out o_f P '. : Ward'said that1 he " p lay ~e d. o f f " ' P ' s'.'e xp r e.s s e d ' u i
..q vehemence that the proctor's 'ab sen ca,.f r om-the 't e s t in g!:r,ooma.pla ct position where.another> examinee could ~ solicit
- answers.ra.
P in a
,-c..
1 25, 3217 (Ward).: P denied'providing'an answer t o DD 's' 'q'ue s th Tr.
Tr. 2 5, ' 3'16~ ~ (Wa r d ).
Ward. attributed P's [eluctance to r sve alct '
the matter to a loyalty P.had~to his' peers and company, rather; than to P's possible< culpability in providing'an answer..-
Tr. 25, 321 (Ward.
'nclude any account of'the DD-P.'
i
- 55. Ward did not
~
solicitation in the I&E reports.
Tr. 25, 418 (Ward).
Ward did not report this matter to Licensee.
Tr. 25, 419-(Ward).
Mr. Ward's expinnation of his failure to report th~e ED-P'tolici<
tation was not satisfactory, however disc ~ussion'of this' aspect.
' is included more appropriately'under Issues 2 and 10.
.-56.
Licencee's counsel violsted the sequestration Order of the hearing and conveyed the Ward testimony'to DD and'
'rtthe-following morning.
Tr. 26, 948 - 9.(DD, Blak0
. P ithattnight o
paragraph 16..The violation 26, 712 (P); 26, 910 (Blake); see of sequestration of the. testimony of witnesses has tainted the record.
The extent to which the record has been tainted is presently not known, and discovery of this in f o rm a ti or; has not been supported so far.
- 57. Although there are significant questions left open concerning the Ward-DD-P interviews and testimonies, the l
evidence on the record clearly supports a conclusion that DD and P lied under oath and that DD solicited P during the, licens_ing examination,'as i M r i c W a r d _ t ey_t.i f i e d.
. l.
_8. Mr. Ward is a Chief Examiner with I6E and is 5
experi~ented in cohducting interviews.
Ward,.ff. 25, 274, at to brikg false witness [against P and DD.--
~
He hidIko reason 2=:.-
f a c]t,} M r'.~ Vard intentionally withheiL the informatica until-In 4
it wa'sF. eli c] t e d by a d ir'e c t question ~ during the'hcaring.
Tr. 25, 1
-.::=
^
--(Ward)bjPJe~ould not think of any reason why Mr. Ward,wohld pro I
_3--
_y
=. - -.
f'l]~e lnformation concerning P'or;DD.
.Tr.
(P).
vide a
,- ~ 4 -. =
TAlthour;bedo t c so ; s t ated5by Mr t iWa rd, the DD-P situation could be-l considered-..~ misfeasance by NRC and contrary to NRC interests.)
^
i
- '3- ~;. 59. Mr. Ward was certain _that P had made the allegation.about DD, and mai.ntained this' certainty despite I "2 leaging cyoss-examination by Licensee counsel.
Tr._25, 462 (Ward)
Judge Milhollin noted that there was no. ambiguity-in the Ward statemen Tr. 26, 693 (Milhollin).
~
- 60. Mr. Ward described th.e P interview concerning e
4=
..==a-
- mee==-**
'the DD allegation as extended.
Tr. 25,'321 (Ward).
Ward'
't took quite a bit of interviewing to drag the statedIthat i
information out of him, and'that after the after DD's $nvolveme was revealed, that we pursued it a bit further.
Tf.'25, 463 (Ward).
Ward relates _that P discussed.the content of the quess and' chat P'could not' remember precisely thi content.
Id.
- 61. P's version of the Ward interview is in-consistent.
P' claims that Ward made a suggestive statement that DD had solicited P and assured P that he (Ward) wasLnot-interested in this information.
P r'ecalled that.he attempted f
to reply, but Mr.-Baci interrupted to ask another question.
Tr. 26, 692 - 3 (P).
P relates that he did not have a chance to answer and decided to let the matter " slide".
Tr.
26,_ 692 (
It is incre'dible that.Mt. Ward would make an_. impugning remark 6 4
an d P; DD/for which. Ward apparantly had'notevidence.and t h e h n o t !; a l. loo deny
.:p the allegation.
It is also' incredible-that P wou a.
have expressed livid anger about the-possiblityfof such an all;
~
___ gym ation, ~~d"then let such ansuggestion " slide".
Tr.
~
an 2
- 2. -1
~e.~~. 62. Further evidence of P's~ culpability centers s
4,. ;'
a r o u n d J :t h e.,_b a s i s for his anger that proctors were not in'the-r(
a t P claimed that'his anger was caused by' fear that_he would have n n to retak~e_the. licensing examination.
However, PTfelt that the only t e sf infg
~
situation where his honesty could be questioned w
'the SRO..(xamination which he took alone with DD.
He maintaine-
- 7 - -.
this pos},tijn although he knew that O&W were not absolved of n -
cheating"because other examinees had not noticed or reported cheaking, nor.had 0'bsen, protected from the solicitation o the W because of_the presence of others.
Tr. 26, 736; 26, 734 (P) am 8
4 y
-'m o m in policy of.both the NRC and the company.
Before'the investigatiol l
j i
P belie'ved that the administration of NRC examinations would never i
be investigated.
Tr. 26, 730 (P).
P also believed that noone would be" concerned about the solicitation of an answer during an examination, as long as the answer was not given.
Tr. 26, 733 (
P renlized*sometine after the investigations began and before his 4
I&E interview, that the company was interested in solicitation wherter or not an answer was given.
Tr.:26,1733
.4 (P)!
He considered that 0 was fired for j ust such an action. Tr. 26, 734 (P:
P stated that 0*c,va sr. fi r e d. f or n o t reporting W's use of O'.s work during the licensing examination.
'd.
- ~..
- 64. The question remains why P would tell Mr. Ward j
i f P was concerned about'his culpability.
P relates..that Mr. Warde accorded littletimportance"totsncheathypothetical eventy..Tr."26,"69 (P):.
Fu rt hermore,' Ward a'ppeared. L'o know about the'solic~itation.'"Idj
. 1 In that.. case;.DD'Would hav'e'already provid'ed.the information','s6."
t ha t-d enial on> P? s" par t would have. bee'n 'seri'ous.a.
.~.. ~...,.
,n
. - =:
7 4 6 5 '.. ' -
DD 'a'n d ' P we r e t h e 'o n l y "e x a m in e 'e s 'in.th e-h e
" smoker's" room.on April.24,'1981. - The"' proctor was out: of the'-
room for e x t e n d e d
- p e r i o d s'..'
L i c'.i.E x.'~ 8 3. U..
N~
~
The ' opportunity was present for~ solicitation'as Ps n'oted: in his- -
first/ interview with,1&EJ~ Staff Ex.
26~at '39.
66.P.*did not. express a strong conviction ~that he would refu e an answer to another examinee.
He~ indicated that;.
i fa fri'end, someone you' had known.f or years, asked for~ answer, it~ would be difficult 'for'him to refuse.
He 'f elt 't ha t'. he may -
have been inclined, like 0,- to allow his work to be used.
Tr. 26, 731;'26, 729 (P)'.
S'ince P told.Mr.-Ward.that..DD solicited question.
an, answer to.a/
and P'and DD have been associated at TNI since~.-
- 1974, P,
in all likelihood, provided answer.
Lic: Ex. 85, at 4.
$W e
3.
g ge, pup 9
T-I
- 67. Licensee arguments against the culpability
'ecause Mr. Ward of P and DD are baseless.
To reason that v
did not report and vigorously pursue the DD-P allegation, Mr.
Ward's memory is faulty, is absurd.
The second argument, that Mra:. Ward's recollection is faulty regarding discussion of the question DD. asked, is based on two invalid assumptions.
One ie that P forgot"the question becabse he said he did.
The other 8 that P's correction of statements in the I&E interview means that P observes and remembers details.
A third argument that
~ -
F's concern about his honesty and' appearance of honesty are pas of P's character has no basis in the record and Licensee cites 4
no record evidence.
A fourth argument that'Mr.-P would not hat told 16E inve s t ig a t or s that DD asked him a question.and then de-it enithe., stand is not illogical once P< realized t_ hat th,is in-formation was of importanc'e.and that DD had not confessed to iG A fifth' argument that DD denied cheating h'as'do weight in view-
,. '? ::& ' ~
of t h e,'{p r s,i s t,e n t denials of 0 and W.
A' sixth argument that.
YTV Mr.
P-answered an unrelated question of,Mr. Baci's and Mr. Ward 22 a.
believed.:that answer to be to his quest,i,on is aga.in patently...
absurd. D;Such confusion would not be understandable, even on G
-c-i
-s investigators.., The failure of I&E to part of.less experienced n >:
f report-the event was not - due to any uncertainty on their part
~
was about-the details of the event, as/ carefully explained by u
'M r. Ward.-
.Lic. Findings 158 - 164.
'.' ~
Further' evidence of the lack of credibilit
~
68.
of P as a witness is the change'P made.li_n his'I6E ihterview
~
c oD
'ce rnin g when KK told him.abont the phone call during the NRC
~
examination.
At the time of the interview, September 23, 1981 P reporteu that KK told him-about the call Buring the first T
- 2 e
' + - -
w-
-=ww-T
-w e
approximately two months prior.
P changed I&E investigation, or that date to September 16, 1981 or a week before his interview.
~
Staff Ex. 27, at 40; Tr. 26, 695 - 6 (P).
P pu: on the record an unbelievable account concerning his knowledge of tumors discussed by his wife, Mrs. T and NNN.
Tr. 26, 697 - 8.
P also does not recall encountering any oper ators in the halls during the examin-ation time alt' hough he left the room a number of times, and T testified that about 40 operators were in the area.
Tr. 26, 695 (P) 26, 618 (T).
Later, however P believes he saw Mr. U on one or both days that P took the licensiag examination Tr. 26, 703 (P)
Then P remembers seeing U sbveral times.
Tr. 26, 711 (U).
- 69. The B6ard finds _thht the. evidence iscover-whelming-, that DD, an instructor in the TMI Training'Dep'artment,-
solicited Mr.
P, a shi f t ' 'sup e rvi sor, for-the answer to a question.
on the SRO licensing examination in April 1981.
Mr. P and Mr. DD have lied:under oath in denying this events
~~'
3.-
a a v i ' o r, - d e lib'e r'a t e ly -
7 0..M r. KK,- a shift technical s
withheld information during'the'first inv e s t iga t ion'-o f,the' 'che a't in g '
incident.'
It"vas not until.the'second I&E'i6vestigation',^when' r KK was,in't'erviewed c on c e r n in g'.an o t h e r' ma t t er,- th a t' KK J.E reported a telephone that he had received during~the April licensin examination.
The caller,.who identified himself as Mr. U.,' a s k e d = -
for~thd answer..to a question,. purportedly to assist Mr. O on the licensing at 29.~~
ex' amin 3rion.
Staff Ex.'.27,... -..
71.KK r'easons that he checked with 0 shortly-after the-incident, and O angrily denied any involvement._ Jr.
Tr. 26,474(KK).
KK felt that since O denied.any involvement, the ' phone caller was lieing
o a rumor when KK heard
. 71. At the end of August, stationed outside the examination rooms to that someone was assist examinees, KK connected this with the phone call he had received during the examinations, however KK made no effort to report the event. KK.heu6d tha rumor from several sources.
Tr. 26, 487 - 8 (KK).
The rumor was of serious proportions, stationed
^
someone was being that most of the operators knew /
to assist them during the examination.
Tr. 26, 489 (KK).
should report the
- 72. KK considered w' nether he phone call at the time of the second I6E investigation.-
Tr. 26, 503 (KK).
A concern was that there was a possibility awareness that employment,!. indicating his of termination of information. Tr. 26, 499.(KK).
intentionally withholding he was
- 73. KK vent tb management about the phon ~d< call Tr. 26, 503 (KK)p He F.
the morning of his interview with I&E.
felt that I6E might ask him about the rumor which'was closely if that happened he'would64 relat'ed to]the phone ca11,'and that he'should tell
~
have to t e l L _I 6 E.
Id.
In that event, KK felt
~~
KK clehrly indicates'that.if thel I
managemeIt beforehand.
-Id.-
interview for'him,.that he would have I&EhadnotIscheduled an forward with the ~information at that time'.
Id.
not come I
possibic
- 74. KK' withheldr inf ormation / concerningca attempt to cheat.
At the time of the call, KK failed to attem although hothing would have preventf investigate the matter, to him from walking'to the examination area.
Tr. 26, 505 (KK).
asking Mr. @
extent.of h'is responsibility was KK felt that' the a few days later whether 0 had been involved.
Id.
KK never spoke with U about the matter.-
Tr. 26, 278 (U).
t
.- w O
- 75. Regarding the culpability of U concerning the phone call received by KK:
There is no record evidence that refutes the allegation.
There is no reason to believe that the incident did not occur.
A rumor that corresponded existed in-
~
dependently since KK did not discuss the event, except with 0.
Staff Ex. 27, at 29.
Discussion with others was before the inter-view.
Tr. 26, 472 -3 (KK);
Tr. 26, 695 (P).
Mr. O's denial lacks weight in view of the lack'of dredibility of his other testimony.
T r :.~ f (0); Staff Ex. 26, at U vas in DD's office during the' time 0 was taking the examinations,.
and U was sure he called someone during that time. Staff Ex. 27, at 37.
Mr. U conceded that he could'have called KK and asked him a questi6n, and that he may have sufd that the. tests were.
going on.
Id.,
at 38.
Mr. 00' believed that U~was".at the coffee stand to provide answers to examinees.
.Tr.
(00).
6
.+w D
E
sam-1.-u-a
~ -= m
_.s a
my m."a a
a------aa-a-
---2--a,-1 m-
- - -.--s..
.nu s r--
a-wea-nuw-a
--- --+----
J1-/ n N
g' 4
I l
r O I
4 1
I n
O s
a y
r 9
P se I
{
]
s- -
a f
I f
. 3 hh,
,, -u
-q
= = egum
- T w
4,,
w
-e-
?
~
7
__ y_
e e
e, m9 e,.
+
9 a
- ~
9 m~>'"
- o o
ae u-d
- a*
-4 6e e,
=
-,.^
m
~
m w.
a h
we4*w
,*N g
8 g
}*
4 d
N t
.w i-e-
-a.,
i J
- =
i
=
a.
=
. e
-ee
~
w i
a.
- a I
"2" 4
_.,J
'I em m
1 4-w.*~ -rv
-m-p w,y-wwwt-
--m,---
em--g.,e y,.--
+m-r.
- wy
+q g'y e p gtayws-e 5 e.
e-
~ --
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EUCLF; AR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company, Three Mile Island
'82 AM 22 P4 03 Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket 50-289 SP s3 _
Q This is to certify that the documenq_AAMODT OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON I'SSUESy~ RAISED PROPOSED FINDINGS IN REOPENED THI-l RESTART PROCEEDING were served by hand fo farties g
marked with an
- on'Janudry 18, 1982 and by deposit in U.
S. Mail First Clas's for the remaining parties.
- Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin
- 0ffice of Executive Legal c-c/o Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Atomic
- Director, U.
S.
Nuclear Safety and Licensing Board Regulatory Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Administrative Judge Ivan W.
- Smith, Office of the Secretary Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
- Board, U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Steven C.
Sholly Administrative Judge Linda W.
Little Union of Concerned Scientists Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1725 Eye St.,
N.
W. Suite 601 5000 Hermitage Drive Washington, D.
C.
20006 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Robert Adler, Esq.
Administrative Judge Walter H.
Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 505 Executive House P.
O. Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3'7830 Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Cary L.
Edles, Chairman Louise Bradford Atomic Safety and Li' censing Appeal TMIA
- Board, U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
315.Peffer St.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Jane Lee John H.
Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appehl R.
D.
3, Box.3521 Board U. S '. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Etters, Pa. 17319 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ellyn R.
Weiss Sh=1 don, Harmon, Roisman & Weisc Christine N.
Kohl 1725 I Street, N.
W.
Suite 506 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Board, U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
D.
C.
20006 Washington, D.
C.
2n555 Professor Gary Milho111n 1815 Jefferson Street Reginald L.
Cotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Madison, Wisconsin 53711
' Board, U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms, Gail Bradford ANGRY 245 W.
Philadelphia Street
- GeorgeLF.nTrowbridgd,' Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
York, Pa. 17404 bO36
}vE i b. Lund) a ington C.
.f 9
L
-.