ML20042C682
| ML20042C682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1982 |
| From: | Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205100234 | |
| Download: ML20042C682 (22) | |
Text
.
Bd 5/5/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f5 I
Before Administrative Judges:
~3 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman f
- 4 i
s
}i ~
Dr. Walter M. Jordan D
Dr. Linde W. Little k<.
[
~
s. ':7 NAY s 1982 it In the Matter of
)
)
6 1 TAN EDISON C0W ANY )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(
( D ree Mlle Island Nuclear )
(Restart) g Station Unit No. 1)
)
(Reopened Proceedino)
(
May 5, 1982 IEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING LICENSEE'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD h
- ] 14q
~
The Special Nester's Report on the reopened proceeding or cheating
($',E3ses rendered by Judee MiIho1iin ca Apri1 28, 1982. He found that the I
b i
T151 Manager of. 0prations, Michael Ross, had intentionally frustrated 4[ ]i.- prettoring during f.he April 1981 NRC licensing examinations and that Mr.
Rets had in had faith expanded the respective answer keys to provide an unfair advantage to the cWidates. Report at 11 136-183.
By motion of April 30 the Licensee requested that the record be reopened so that the Board itself may hear Mr. Ross' testteony. Licensee also moves that we esfer receiving caseents on the report from May 13 as presently scheduled until et leas)'May 28, or until after any raopene<1 session.
(
On May 3,1982 a quorum of the Board conducted a telephone conf erente call among representatives for the participants in the reopened proceed.
6ag, the Aamodt Faully, Three Mile Island Alert (TMI A), the Commonweal
- h af Pennsylvania, tha NRC Staff and the Licensee. We explained to the
=
1I
./.
participants that, from the outset, the Board has been aware of the important alleoations acainst Mr. Ross and that each member clnsely followed this aspect of the proceedina.
Af ter examining the pertinent evidentiary record, the Board independently arrived at tent at ive contiusions on the issues. Judge Milho11in had provided the Board with advance copies of that portion of his report relatinc *
- the Ross issues, which we have already analyzed.
We informed the parties that as of now, pendino their comments, our view is that we wnuld disacree with the Special Master's conclusions respectinn Mr. Ross. Only the Licensae and the NRC Staff had filed proposed findings on the issues, and no party urged to Judoe Milhollin a findino aoainst Mr. Ross.
Therefor the Boarc already had begun to draft a tentative decision on the koss isstes.
l We also noted that the Licensee has made a persuasive argument f or reopening the recor'd to hear Mr. Ross' version of the events underlytna Judoe Milhollin's findings, but that, in' view of our own tentative conclusions, that step may not be necessary. We proposed instead that the Board serve for comment the tentative final draf t of the relevant portion of its forthcomino initial decision. No party objected.
After receiving a brief explanation of some of the findircs and CD#Clusions'in the proposed tentative final draft, counsel for the Licensee withdrew without prejudice the motion to rennen.
Even thnuch i
they had not filed proposed findnos with the Special Master on the Ross e
I
~
- = _ = _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _. - _.. -. -. - - - - - -
issues, TMIA, Mr. Aamodt and counsel for the Commonwealth expressea interest in the issues and the Board clarified that their (timely and
- /
~
. appropriate) comments would be cohsidered.
All participants except a
the IstC Staff joined in a request for an extension of the coment period.
The Staff did not oppose th'e request.
Accordingly attached hereto is a tentative final draft of that f-fpertion of the forthcomine initial decision in the proceedino pertainino a
5, to the allocations against Mr. Ross. Dr. Jordan contributed to this 2
jf draft, 'and is familiar with 'the analyses and conclusions. Ge has not, homever, read the attached version verbatim.,He concurs in this action.
The attached version is subject to editorial and substantive changes on the Board's initiative, and, of course, the comments of the parties' may influence the final result.
The time for initial comments on the Special Master's Report is extended to May 19, at which time the creeents shall be in the hands of
.the participating parties and the Board. Ser4tno the comments by express over-nf aht service timely on May 18 is acceptable.
Service on the Boarc (4 copies) may be made to the Chairman at the Holiday Inn, Springtown Seulevard, Livermore, California 94550. Reply comments shall be in the r
hands of the participants and the Board on May 25.
3
' o/
The Board is not inclined to recard the f ailure to file proposed
~
i findings before the Special Master as a def ault on the respective Ross issues before us. Normally we would not afford wch weicht to before the Special Master. $ fore the Board when it was not made the advocacy of a position It is apparent, however, that there was insufficient focus on the Ross issues durino the hearino.
h
7
. In related consideration, counsel for 0. W, and VV have reauested thgt they be served with the parties' connents and other pertinent documents. This s
- 1d be done with service upon:
Michael F. McBride Esq.
LeSoeuf Lam, Leity & MacRae 1333 New Naupshire Avenue. N. W., Seite 1100 Washington, D. C.
20036 David E. Cole, Esc.
$stth & Smith, P'.C.
2931 North Front Street Herr 1 shore, Pennsylvania 17110 s
Tha Soard recoontres the standing of 0. W VV and any Licensee employee referred to in the Special Master's Report to co-r.t and we direct the
- Licensee to inform them progtly of this right. Counsel for 0, W and VV
[ have been advised of their. standing.
I IT IS 50 ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
h A 6, w r
' Linda W. Little ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE k
, Chairman Ivan W. Smith ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Gathesda, Maryland May 5,1982 k
l
.l TENTAT!vE FINAL DRArt FOR PARTY CO MENT IRY 5, 1982
- )
a Keeping the Proctor Away From the Examination Roon (Report at 11 137-52)
Broadening the Answer Keys (Report at 11 153-78)
Michael J. Ross, Manager of Plant Operations, reviews and schedules all operations and directs the activities of about 110 operat. ing personnel consisting. of the shif t operating staf f, the radwaste group and sever'al operations engineers. We connented in the "sanagement"
'PID that he may be the most important person of the TMI-1 operating tean ulth respect to public health and safety.
He had testified before the
=
Board five times over many days on a wide variety of design, procedures l
l i
1
and operator training issues. As we noted in the partia! initial decision, we were favorably impressed by his testimony.
Auaust 27 PID 1 155,14 NRC at 416, 439-41.
The allegations against him have the most serious implications of the entire inquiry on cheating.
It is an established practice that NRC operator licensina examiners go over the test questinns' and proposed answer keys with knowledgeable utility officials soon after the examinations are underway so that the validity of the questions and answers to a particular plant may be ascertained. To preserve the integrity of the exam this is not done before the examination, but it must be done soon af ter it begins to afford a timely opportunity to modify questions to be plant spec,1fic.
As might be expected, the company representative reviewing the NRC examination normally would not be a license candidate.
On April 23 and 24,1981 Mr. Ross, and two licensed company training officials, Messrs. Boltr' and Brown, were called upon by NRC examiner Wilson to review with him the questions then being presented in the "B" examinations and the answer keys to both the "A"
and "B" sets.
Unfortunately an unusual situation prevailed then at TMI in that all licensed officials were required by Comission order to be re-licensed.
Mr. Ross, the most knowledgeable company official, and his two colleagues had just taken the "A" set of examinations during the preceding two days, but were the best* qualified to evaluate the answer keys to both the "A"
and "8" sets and the questions for the "B" set.
They had not, of cw ',e, seen the "A" set questions or answer key before they took that ex am.
- - - - =
=
= - - -.- -i
7 This was not a situation of Mr. Ross' making; nc one usert s that he sought out the opportunity or that he should not have rendered any assistance to Mr. Wilson.
No accusations have been made direct ly against Messrs. Soltz and Brown.
In this instance however, the procedure meant that the three company officials had an interested voice in the formation of the questions and answer keys and it meant that the examiner, dile reviewing the test material with them, was not able tc attend to his proctoring responsibilities.
Thus a plausible backoround exists for the very grave allegations made against Mr. Ross by his sole accuser. YY.
YY was formerly employed at TMI-1 as a part of the operrating shift during a period which embraced the April 1981 NRC exams.
In Septoeer 1981 he reported to the NRC inspectors and later testified that Mr. Ross implied that he, Ross, had del.iberately distracted the NRC i
emaniner so that the candidates could cheat, and that Mr. Ross had l
convinced the IRC examiner to expand improperly the answer keys so that scoring would be unfairly liberal.
YY also stated that Mr. Ross is the l
type of persod do would purposely do such a th'ng.
Without YY's testloony there would be very little direct evidence against Mr. Ross, particularly with respect to the proctoring allegation, but Judge j
l Milhellin's analysis includes his findings relative to other circumstances surrounding the episodes.
He concludes that Mr. Ross did act te prevent prectoring and that Ross in bad faith brought about an expansion of the answer keys. We disagree with both conclusions.
In our evaluation of the evidentiary record below we fird f
Mr. Ress' denial more credible than YY's accusations, and that the overall evidentiary record fevors Mr. Ross.
c
.s.
The hesic allegation against Mr. Ross is founded on YY's laference drawn from a statement attributed by him to Ross.
According to VY,'hets said that he, Ross:
5 he[,ptten the IWtC to enpand the answer keys so as to give
[
..the:etaminees more latitude in their answers and also that he
'hed %gt the proctor out of the room for a very long period of time. The inference ! [YY] drew was that by both actions he seqe it easier for the people taking the test.
t YY's statement to MC, Staff Ex. 27, Enclosure 1.
l j'
i The statement even as recalled b) YY is equivocal.
It is
}
subject to a completely benign inference in that it could mean t' hat Mr.
I'
. toss influenced the MC to accurate'ty anpand the, answer keys to fairly 3
provide more latitude and that this process took a very long time.
As l
r equivocal as the statement is. YY equivocated even more in explaining the 2
3 conversation from which the statement derived. He explained to the NRC
]
investigators that while he believed that Ross had admitted deliberately facilitating cheating, it was also "possible that he could have been hragging." J,d,.
It is clear from a revtew of YY's stataments and the l'
later testimony that whv i he and others use the term " bragging", or such, they.are referri,ng to untruthful bragging.
l
{'
At the hearing YY testified that while he does not regard Ross' 4)14ged incriminating statement as untruthful bragging, others might have regarded the statement as untrue.
He testified that he had therefore clarified his statement to state also that Ross "could have f
been bragging.' Tr. 26,015-16.
i
't i
L
__ _ j
i r
Also in his ~ testimony YY repeated his general allegation the he believed Mr. Ross would have and did act deliberately to 7,;
$fest11tatecheating. Tr. 26.011, 26.015-16. However in other portions 3 ltY J. r:. hts. testimony he seese to state that any unf air advantage to the test SWdates v.s an incidental result of normal procedures.
He stated:
l i
["'
q
.. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of Mr.
Ross expanding the answer kg to any MRC exam in order to give the tl, examinees an unfair advantage in passing the exam?
A In.sy statement I said and I st111 feel that Me
~
6.'
Ross empended the aesver kdy under normal procedures.
It was h
explained to me the that is a norm'al procedure, but I fee F.
he also expanded th answer itey 'and in doing that act of h
espansion he was able to fac111 sate keeping the proctor from F
the rees for along period of time; and that keeping the
?
tretter from the roes I understand is a normal thing, bu+
i Teel that since the proctor was out of the room, that the
~
examinees might have had an unfair advantage which the'y would tot have if the proctor was in the room all the time, i
Trk26,022.
l i_
6 In his testimony YY also explained that he did not report
~
,the reputed coeversation untti some five monthr, later.
Tr. 2G,024-25.
3 b'
e i
r' j;
.,p',i_
2, ir r
j*
.O '
n
[
. i He stated that at the time he had been bothered because of the type of conversation, but that he had more or less become calloused by that type of conversation. Tr. 26,024 And i he further explainee, the type of I
conversation to which he referred did not involv'e cheatino, but breening.
Tite clear meaning of YY's testimony is that, at the time the statement was made, he did not believe that Mr. Ross was admitting that he facilitated cheating.
J
_/
"Q You said, I think, earlier that you had become I think you saa' 5
callous towards conversations involving cheatinc.
Is that correct or is that not correct?
"A No, that is not correct. My statement was that I had become calloused to certain types of conversation in the shif t superviscr t office, and I think that statement was referrino to the braoqino that Mr. Ross did or the conversations that he had, the type'of conversations that he had. He was a bio talker." Tr. 26,030.
e 9
v.
t Y
- y 4
1.n i 44.
%f
.~
~
1 1
--Z-7 y_~_7-
]
- E--
T ~
l-~
, l It was not unt11 YY learned that 0 anc W were fired fc.r cheating, five months later, that YY may have decided that Ross had admitted to taproper actions.
Tr. 26,024-25.
Moreover it is signific 3nt j
that when at last YY's perception of Ross' meaning changed to its prese
- version, he had just learned that 0 and W were, in his view, utifairly treated by Met Ed management (Tr. 26,018; 26.025).
In sum: YY heard Mr. Ross make a statement, which even according to YY's recounting of it, as cited above (1
), was hardly an assission of misconduct. Any sinister meaning depended upon YY's l
interpretation. Giving YY's testimony the greatest force, YY believed that Ross' statement truthfully implied cheating but that others could reasonably have inferred untruthful bragging.
Giving YY's s'tatement the t
a v
t l
i
8-proper force, even he did not think the reputed stnemer.t m as ar.
admission of cheating when made.
He possibly ;3:re tc that opinio1 fi ve sonths later.
Then his perception of the statement was influenced b m.
news that two of his former co-workers were in h's view unf a i' I, f.re '
Even then, it is not clear from his testimony, one way or the ether,
4 whether YY finally believed that Mr. Poss deliberately 'acilitate' cheating. YY's allegations wer'e probably honestly made: there is no evidence strong enough to indicate malice.
But his testimony and perceptions of the meaning of the conversation attributed to Ross are to subjective, internally contradictory, and unreliable o be accepted by the Board.
i Others, 4G, KK, and RR, recalled stater.ents by Ross (which could have been the basis of YY's inferences), to the eff ect that the candidates were not to worry in that they did all right on the exam and e
I that he, Ross, "... took care of that job".
See Staff Ex. 27, at 24, 26-27; Rebort at 11 143-44. Tnose witnesses inferred from Ross' coments that he had f airly broadened the answer keys, and that, apparently by joking, he was seeking to cheer his crew. M.
This would have been a very understandable message from Ross to his crew after months of training and a week of examinations.
It does not indicate to the Board a necessarily improper motive. The views of GG, KK and RR seem more reasonable to the Board than the inferences drawn by YY.
Mr. Ross denied that he deliberately hindered proctor'nc Or that he improperly influenced the answer keys.
He admittee howe <er. tu' he could have made the statements remembered as benign by GG, Kt, au 3, and which also could have been the remarks overheard by YY.
Repo-t a*
i
r_._
9 Ij' L
[
41 144 and 140. His testimony was not straiohtforward enouch to per saaca w
Judge Milho11tn. It is true that his testimony was uncertain on tne I
h(.
sattar. But it must be recalled that Mr. Ross had to defend hur: elf k
igninst YY's accusaticas without even knowing who made the accusations or
/
-h.
uhy he made them. YY testified after Mr. Ross testified.
To
~
4I
, meet the charges completely, he had to postulate their bases.
This is, ef course, a due process consi,deration. But its frenediate significance g.
is that Mr. Ross' defense testimony must be measured in licht of the
[~
f act th'at he has not been confronted with all the specifics of the accu-Y, 6
Sations. Mr. Ross did however know the essence of the charoes agatnst b
s,:
h im. He was provided an excised copy of YY's initial statement to the
{W.i 0
MC. The statement was similar to his testimony.
Having found that YY's accusattnns are incredible, Mr. Ross' t
defense becomes less important. Nevertheless, there are other aspects to Eif the issue uhtch Judge Milhollin appropriately has evaluated. He com-mented that' Mr. Ross has made some esculpatory statements which do not i
)
sguare with the record. For example, Mr. Ross minimized the amount of 2
3
_/. Wile many company witnesses were assioned code letters to protect their identitles from the public, they knew each other's actua!
identity even though seguestered as witnesses.
In YY's case, how-(
seer, the code letters were used to protect his identity from s
Licensee's personnel, including nr". Ross. See Yr. 24,215; 24,217; i
L N,011 12. To this day. Mr. Ross may not tnow the fu11 detatis I
of the charges against hisi or who made them.
J I
.w.
changes en the answer keys due to his requests and the wnount of time the review teek. Report at 1 146.
In explaining his asserted failure to rese the changes, Mr. Ross over-estimated the time from the changes to his tettlaony. We do not attribute these faulty recollections by Mr. b to e failure 'of candor. Each questioned point was precisely ascertainable, as he must have known. Faced with charges, true or not, f. there is a natural tendency for persons to recall events and to testify I in a light favorgble to their innocence. 4 9 5 f,E Newever, we do not understand the rasis for Mr. Ross' testleeny that he has never learned whether the changes in the answer keys were adopted (Tr. N,332) in light of the large number of changes [ actually made, and in light of the testimony that he informed the control reos operators that such changes were fairly made. g Report at 11 1 @. ber is his testimony persuasive that he did not know that one 4 'of the two esteinetton rooms was unproctored during his review of the i ~.. 5. M gnostfees gnd mener keys with W. Wilson. Report at 1 149. From his [.gsperhive, Judge'Milho111asayhavebeenjustifiedinfindingthatMr. E l. - Ross' testfeeny on these specifics was incredible. The Board however is [ not M to attribute this to votruthfulness. As we noted above, we 4 M, sgrygd Mr. Ross ever many d4ys during the main proceeding and we have .( l er'sul views concerning his credibility. Within our experiences it is og 3 uncommon phenomenen for truthful and credible witnesses, perhaps because of the fallibility of human perceptions and memories, to render some unbelievable testimony. We have reviewed all of Mr. Ross' testimony ed un attribute the questioned testimony to confusion or to other r,eknown het honorable reasons, - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
s' l I Considering the specific accusations against Mr. Ross, and considering the inherent opportunity to adversely affect the validity of i e the esaminations made possible by company reiriew of NRC answer keys, Judge M11hellin very commendably analyzed a sampling of the April 1981 l IstC operator exam questions. Report at 11 153 78. From the "A" ex ans he y selected eleven questions where answer-key changes were made at the {' suggestion of the company revieworp and one where an attempt to change f, the enswer key was re.jected by the IWIC examiner. I EC f, l y 'As to nine of the examples Judge Milhollin correctly found s L,n the the changes were appropriately made in the direction of accuracy. t, i. 4 As to one ption E.3 (the sixth analyred by him), he found that the f' examisdr came to the exam with insufficient data. He therefore eccepted answer 'dets from the reviewers and an answer-key change. While i. Judge Milhollin does not question the change, he is unsettled by doubts 5 il . east the acevrecy of the supplied information. This question however is not used by Jedes Wilhollin as an example of inwoper offorts by Mr. Ross L and'the other company reviewers. Report at 1 169. We agree with this s concInsion also. One of the two remaining questions analyzed, Question 8.5.a. , speared the purpose'of the No. I seal by-pass line. The answer must , tat %ds how opening the line effects the seal. Report at 1 154 The o cegany reviewers persuaded Mr. Wilson to drop his original answer key to the encond part. M., opening the 1.ine "... prevents bindino and contact of Seal faces." Atthehingofthereviewers,Mr. Wilson added
, a bearing-coeling effect to the answer key. The examiner accepted the change because, in part, the reviewers rgued that the training covered enly the bearing-cooling effect and not t% effect upon the seal f aces. Judge M11ho111n found that the change was improper, and sh)uld not have been accepted. We agree that the change was improper. As a result of 5( the change, the three company reviewers and six other candidates received D$, better scores than they deserved. Eight other candidates mention the Pje seal faces, a fact dich adequately supports Judge Milho111n's conclusion ( that the seal-face effect had also been covered in training contrary to the reported representations of the reviewers. The remaining question sampled, Question C.." 5 (the fourth 8 - enslyzed by Judge M11ho111n), noted that pH control is important to F t stalmize cerrosten of priary and secondry components and that primary b($ pH can vry from 6.6 to 8.5. Candidates were directed to: " Describe the c. f M effects tha determine primary pH and esise it to vary in this p b manner." Emphasis added. The answer key required as a part of the I answer:
- 8eric acid and lithiue hydroxide concentrations compete."
Report at 1 161. The reviewers agued for a change dich would permit reporting only the manner of controlling lithium hydroxide, but Mr. Ifilson refused to change. The rejected change matched the answers given h by Str. Ross, another reviamer, Mr. Soltz, and thrh candidates. The l E i { majority it the candidates answered in accordance with the NRC answer key. 9
l.. Judge Milhollin finds that Mr. %ss and Mr. Belt? moro;m ly argued for the change'. Report at 1 166. We agree thct the proposed change was properly rejected but we cannot find that the attempt was unconscionable in view of the difference between the chemistry lectare; in training (the correct answer) and actual plant practice. It is clear I however that the answer based upon actual plant practice would not 1 respond literally to the question.
- k Mr. Ross' and his colleagues' successful ef fort to ch n e f,
the seal-face question (8.5.a) and their attempt to change the primary pH f guestion (C.2.b) is the basis for Jtdge Milhollin's conclusion that they k,' acted in bad faith. Report at 1
- 77. ' However, only Mr. Ross and the l'(
corporate Licensee ~~is held culpaale in Judge Milhollin's f tnal conclusions. Report at 11 178, 322-24. The Board believes that Judge h LJ Milho111n placed too much significance on the two cited answer-key [ 8 situations. The analysis must go beyond the inferences drawn from the h. f possible benefits to Mr. Ross from the change or atteropted change and the ti, reasons said to have been given for the changes. F The central issue is whether the proposals were made in mod faith; not whether they were correct. Neither Mr. Ross nor the other i> reviewer who testified. W. Or'own, was guestioned as to their reasons for u the pr0 posed Changes, or whether Mr. Wilson's account of the episodes is accurate. Judge Milhollin relied upon Mr. Wilson's testimony on this v y. f 1 f l I' a-
7 14 - l sub-issue. For analysis, however, we assume, arguendo, that Mr. wilson l accurately recounted the change proposals, and impute to Mr. Ross, n tne s. senter official present, the responsibility for the proposals. r As to both enamples, even though the changes did or could x ~ have benefited Mr. Ross, we may assume that when he very recently had given.the twspective answers' on the examinations, he believed they were correct and adequate. He would be in good f aith in 3rguing for the changes unless somehow by then he came to believe that they were wronc or ~' t f inadequate. True, there is the possibility that Mr. Ross knew that his answers Wwn given were incomplete (as compared to incorrect), and that h he staply could not think 01' the full answers. From our. observations of Mr. Ross' casuman'd of the technology of the' plant, we do not believe that this possibility on these particular questions is very likely. 6 .I s 0 ( e ?. _ s d O 9 "9
- "'a-'
___,,[' __._ ~, _. _ _, _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _
4 There to aho the p'ossibility that Mr. Ross became aw-e that his answers -were istong uh faced with the original NRC answer keys. In that event continued argument for the changes would be in bad f aith..But we adhere j- , to our belief that the company reviewers probably believed that their m ensuers were correct and couplete when they gave them during the "A" f N '- i tests. + E. L 'As to the first question, on its face we might'have found -3 r d j! ~ gu.th$ the otti face /betring-Cooling differences were so clear that Mr. t,, [ . Set $', adWeCaty of thd Change ses apt totally forthright. However, as p,. j [. ' I
- ureng m-the M preposed by his seight sees to be now, the belief that t
4 + tt,4was-complete ad[d correct was talen apparently shared t,y both of the r e y a, Kfev14eers en'd sta ether candidates. Only eight candidates had the AIII$eerNet anguert $lerefore aest af these affected by the change s e. 'AttitMd b it M ete and correct. Moreover, the fetc examiner %46s b l ' r/ 2.Y.,, F
- t It eust he reca11eo that there was h3 $.fielte.petteved the ebenge ups proper.
'I a sense of ergenpy hing the reviou and what seems clear to us 3 m 1- . t. < F' 1 p Jhee,$s.- pet ha,ve been'te shelous then. This, we believe, may explain 3 J.1 ' the W es Niner eccepted the change. Thus, we cannot find that Mr. Ross u. , g; > t [j. heep's. the ties he urged the change, if he did urge it, that the change I;,. .was urseg. .c
- _%.n, o p
- 4f)...f.
As noted eove, as agree with Judge Milho111n's conclusions
- h;'
the the tesfafece answer must have been covered during training. ) Neuever, se de not agree with the inference & awn by him that the t i l w .7 .7
7 J. M. r i interviewers were in bad f aith when (according to Mr. Wilson) they roue, [ that the seal-face ensuer had not been covered. Report at 1 155. If, in l' fact, the reviewers had reestered or known that the answer had been ? covered during trainine, they certainly would also have reme#.,ared o-c knoun that portion of the answer itself. Obviously they either had Fi fergetten or never had known about the training. There is no evidence that Mr..Sess er the other reviewers acted in bad f aith on the 5: seaf-face /bearias cooling guestion.- 4 (.:, A simiker analysis pertains to his putative unsuccessfu' attoppt to change the primary pH answer key except that fewer agreed with 4-j [ his. view.. Still, several candidates did moree with him; and our own view hc . f the presosed change convinces us that his position was not irrational. i o (b a Thus esod faith must be inferred. Accordingly, as to Mr. Ross, we find to be unfounded all of x 3 -l' the charges leveled against him personally. Consequently we do not
- .j
lopete any misconduct to the Licensee with respect to the answer-key y k
- y' eptsedes.
- t
~ e 3. E. ! t I s
g- - 4 i U5179 STATES OF AfERICA NUCLEAR MSIR.ATORY C0f8415510N l i l i la the IIstter of b ! TAI EDISBN CS FANY ) Docket No. 50-289 s [-(Three fille Island umsleer (Restert) ~ 5tatten. Unit'1) (Reopened Proceedina) "~ e I e l l GRETESYIIOTIFICATION l 8 (t l (. [l This,is letanded solely as a courtesy and convenience to provide extrc I 1 j? p :Sles to these actified. Offtctal service will be separate from the p '.. {
- ceertesy notification and util be made by the Office of the Secretary of r
c [ ' the Cassission. l j h ',, I hereby, certify th'at I have today provided copies of the Scard's [ 7 IEfWRAMWI AS M ESAASIM LICElt5EE'S IIOTION TO ltE0 PEN THE RECORD, r ( L e i d)S ldeded thts date.E the ' persons designated (*) er (**) on the attached f' i 50: Walling List. l E.,.,.. ? 0 i Deris M.' floran l ! ~ ' Clert to the Atomic Safety } end Licensing Stard Bethesda. flukylead I!, Iter 5. 1982 I 'i j i I A ?. '
MAILING LIST George F. Troubridge, Esq. Mr. John E. Minnich, Ch a i r-, o f Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Dauphin County Board of Ccvr < +, j 1800 M 5treet, N. W.. Dauphin County Courthc.;se Washington, D. C. 20036 Front and Market Stre+ s Harrisburg. Pennsylv a-ia l' Counsel for MC Staff Office of Enacutive Legal Director Mr. Marv in I. Lewis i U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Conenission 6504 Braoford Terrace Washington, D. C. 20555 Phil adelphi a, Pennsylv am c, C.-. Ms. Mr.jorie M. Aanodt Jordan D. Cunningh e, Esq. R. O. 5 Fox, Farr & Cunningne Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylv ani a m NYPIRG William S. Jordan, III, Esc. 5 Seeksan Street Harmon & Weiss New York, N. Y. 10038 1725 Eye Street. N. W., Suite kh Washington, D. C. 20006
- k. Robert Q. Pollard John A. Levin, Esc.
p Montpeller Street Assistant Counsel Belttapre, Maryland 21218 Pennsylvania Pub 1ic Utiiity Cw1ssi-P. O. Box 3265 Robert W. Adler, Esq. Harrisburg, Pennsylv ania 17.m Assistant Attorney General Ms. Loutse Bradford 506 Executive Moose .P.O. Boa 257 TM1 Alert, Inc. Marrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvanta 17:02 Consumer Advocate Thomas J. Germine, Esq. Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General 1425 Strauberry Square Division of Law - Room 316 Marrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 1100 Raymond Boulevard Ellyn~ R.. Weiss, Esq.. Maroon & Welst Michael F. McBride, Esq. 1725 Eye Street, R. W., Suite 506 LeBoeuf Lamb, Leiby & Mu a. a J Washington, D. C. 20006 Suite 1100 1333 New Hampshire Avenae, h. Nr..SteseN C. Shelly Washington, D. C. 20036 bies'ofConcernedScientists 1725 Ese Street. N. W., Suite 601 David E. Cole, Esq. i Washingten. D. C. ItN106 , Setth & Saith, P C. 2931 North Front Stree'. Or. Judith H. Johnsrud Herrisburg, Pennsylvaria 1 " 11 + i Gr. Chaencey Envtrennental itten on Nucleer Power John Clewett, Esq. 433 Orlando Avenue 5tste College, Pennsy1yania 16801 The Chri5t1: Inst 1tu;e 1324 North Capitol 5'r** Washington. D. C. .' 3 : a Special Messenger Express Mail _}}