ML20040C051

Motion for Admission of Addl Encl Findings.Findings Submitted Late Due to Unavailability of Transcripts

ML20040C051
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/20/1982
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201270207
Download: ML20040C051 (5)

Text

_

l

• D 0

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR hEGULATORY COMMISSION [T T' BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD REOPENED HEARING ON CHEATING ....nn n

.- , . rL

. w .. . a In the Matter of )

METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. Docket 50 - 289 h (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) ,

Generating Station, Unit 1) )

HECEiVED

d. -9 g.L JAN 2 G 1982 > .

MOTION FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF FINDINGS M C LM tarm tn.2. ,

A Eurx evarm n .O Po Tx

,s The Aamodts motion for the admission

• sj W

additional pages of findings due to the unavailability of transcripts.

These pages are numberedcled4!$f!#d,'

The Aamodts believe that these findings-have: not -

been covered by the findings of the other parties.

The Aamodts were not able to service these findings in a timely manner due to the unavailability of transcripts as discussed in their findings paragraphs 32(a) through 34(a) on -

pages 19 and 20. Due to misunderstanding that all the transcripts of the heating would be available to them after January -1, .19 82 by arrangement with other parties, the Aarodts were further hindered.

These adlitionel findings will be in the han is of the Licensee and Staff on January 21, 1982 and shoulc cause these parties no undue burden in responding.

The additional findings are significant in their import on resolution of issues in the hearing.

% 63 Re ,ectfully subcitted, 5

' ~

/a' p f p s llha l{

w.u8 Tanuary 20, 1982 Marjo M. Aamodt f h07e203pg

e

~

r 9

4 Issue 1 - The Extent of Cheating

37. 'Two shift supervisors, Messrs. O and W, were suspected of cheating on an NRC licensing examination given at THI-Unit 1 on April 23 and 24, 1981. Staff Ex. 24 (not paginated).

These individuals denied any culpability during two interviews conducted on July 27 and 30, 1981.by'qthe Office of Inspection and' Enforcement (I&E). Staff Ex. 27, at 9-11, 41-45. On July 31, 1981 Mr.cW;admitteE that he had provided dishonest information during his two previous interviews. Mr. W stated that he had received from and given answers to Mr. O during both the days of the examination.

- During a " mock" NRC exanination given on two days in early April 1981, Mr. W explained..that Mr. O had invited him to use his answer sheets. . .Mrr W admitted copyin~g: f rod.-Mr. O's answer sheets on both days of the " mock" examination. Id. 48, 49. Mr. O also a'dmitted lying to the I&E investigators during two previous interviews and explained that he allowed Mr. W to look at his papers, hcweverMr. O asserted that.he was unaware (at that tim.e) t h a t'. r. W copied from them. Id. at 46, 47. ,"

, 3fauring cross-examination on December 5, ,

1981, Mr. O maintained that he had not cheated: :0'did n'ot': consider his failure to keep W from using his (O's) papers or to report W.'s be-havior to be cheating. Despite O's rationalization, o revealed that he was well aware that allowing 0 to copy was wrong. "It aakes.

you a little nervous when the proctor is sitting right there.."

r. 26, 229 - 27, 230 (O). It appears t' hat O's own morale code told him what he was doing was not right, but u evidently f elt it was acceptable to the.other operators in the room. He must also have felt that cheating was acceptable to management since he was described as loyal and ex temely concerned about his position. s

[.

y

a . . d" #

• ~

< EE - MANAGER OF PLANT OPERATIONS

'7 6. Considdrable cross-examination was conducted concer'ning Mr. EE's review of the April NRC examination. EE stated that he participated in thefreview (to certify the clarity of questio:

and the correctness of answers) after he had taken his examinations on first two days'. .This-would mean that, although EE saw both the questions and answers to the examination he took, that it was Ross ff. 24, 127, not until after he had taken his own examination.

at 1 - 3. Three independent sources of evidence appear to refute the conclusion, infra. The first is that Mr. S reported to.I & E during the initial 1. investigation that he sharedva table with EE during the third day of the examination period. Staff Ex. 26. at

31. Mr. S, during his interview with Mr. Eukill, recalled ~ glancing i

at EE's paper as he (S) went to the bathroom. S indiedted that he looked at EE's paper long enough to see the answer to a question, and S stated that he felt at the time that EE's. answer was not as correct as his own, however he.must have been mistaken since EE scored higher than S. TMIA Ex. 56 f f . - - 2 3 ', 918. The second is that Mr'.*GG,.kho took the eiaminations on the first'and second days, the examination testified that EE drove him hoze after/on ond of-those days, and that Mr. Ross discussed his review of the answer keys for the examination. Tr. 25, 689 / The third is that EE's examinations show a large numberoof corrections and additions after his initial Staff Ex. 35, 36 ff. 25,600 throughout.

response.

77. Some less definitive, but corroborating evidence follows: First, there evidently were cases where more than two people sat at a table during the April NRC examination, in that EE was in the examination area all four days an.d had no Tr. 24, 142 (Ross). The initial definitive knowledge otherwise.

k .-

investigation had described the seating es " shoulder-to-shoulder".

Staff Ex. 24. ..The recollec'tions of other operators concerning the seating and those preseht in the room'where S took.his. test, may have not been completely forthcoming. S certainly appeared to be candid in his remarks about observing EE's paper. These

~~ ~ -

78.*~Mr.-GG testified in an dnguarded manner. He w the first witness to openly discuss the administration of weekly tests. Tr. 25, 685 (GG). Other witnesses corroborated his testimon There is no reason to doubt his recollection of events following the examination; ths information was freely volunteered. Tr. 25, 6E ge5 (GG). Also GG's shift assigtmentg from 3 to 11 on days three and four

79. Further, EE testified that he did go back over his work to make additions and corrections. EE stated that he spent two and one-half hours reviewing his own examination.

Tr. 24, 301 (Ross).

80. EE, although he had considerable time to think about the timetable of events', was- unsure in what order the A and B forms of the examination were reviewed on the third day.

Tr. 24, 160 (Ross).

81. Other testimony of EE lacked credibility.

For instance, EE stated that he had not had a chanke to ask Messrs.

sf O and W why they cheated on the NRC examination, yet Rose viewed l these examinations at the time of his first I & E interview.

1 Tr. 24, 256,'24, 192 (Ross). REke stated that he had no independ-ent knowledge of the incidents of cheating or rumors described in l

the I & E reports, yet Mr. Toole went to EE with the story of KK's telephone call prior to KK's interview by I & E. Staff Ex. 27, at professed

32. EE's/ limited knowledge does not fit with the reason he gave for not remembering to whom he made remarks concerning " broadening

. _ . _ - _ _ _ - - -.--- m.e .:

p .

4 '

1 the answer key". EE could not recollect to whom he had spoken, because of the number of operators and others with whom he come in contact. Tr. 24, 175 - 24, 177 (Ross). EG Ross also stated that "You hear things in a power plant. They talk a lot." Tr. 24, 207 (Ross).

i

82. EE was reluctant tosidentify the location t

of DD '.s: of fice although it kould be expected that he would able to supply that information. Tr. 24',i203'(Ross).

1 -

83. EE admits that it is possible that he said, "I took care of that job" in describing his input to the review of-the answe 5.6 keys. Rgas's comment was made shortlycafter his review, Yet Ross indicatcd that hs teve'r. knew whether the changes he suggested during the review were accepted. Tr. 24, 179; 24, 161 (Ross).

d L

I I

I i

l '

l l

I-J

. - - . . - - .- : . _- --:-_.---____.