ML20052F278
| ML20052F278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205120310 | |
| Download: ML20052F278 (9) | |
Text
.
3 V ~ & e/)
(\\ \\
l l
$)-
- Osj,
.\\\\
4 f
May 7, 1982
/
Note to: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
Subject:
THI-1 RESTART -
SUMMARY
OF SPECIAL MASTER'S FINDINGS AND THEIR IMPACT, AND THE STAFF'S PROPOSED RESPONSE Per your request through Tom Rehm, attached is an outline of the Special Master's significant findings, the impact of those findings on restart, and our proposed response.
Please note in particular Section G on the Special Master's findings concerning the adequacy of the OIE investigation of cheating.
M Guy H. Cunningham, III cc:
H. Denton, NRR R. DeYoung, OIE V. Stello, ED0 5
Nt :0 ELD
- 0 ELD_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _6. gv
- 0 ELD
- 0 ELD
/
yy NAME :MWagne[/pk :o
- Christenbury:GCunningham :
DATE :5/ r7/82
- 5/7 /82
- 5/7/82
- 5/ /82 8305120310 820507 hDRADOCK 05000289 PDR
SUMMARY
OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHEATING, THEIR IMPACT, AND PROPOSED RESPONSE I
A.
Extent of Cheating 1.
O and W Finding
- 0 and W were found to have cheated on the NRC April 1981 exam.
q
- Special Master recommended that 0 and W be criminally prosecuted.
Iinpact of Finding
- The employment of 0 and W with GPU has already been terminated.
- No impact as far as restart, but Special Master's recommendation of prosecution, if adopted by Licensing Board, would be inconsistent with the decision of the Department of Justice which has already declined to prosecute in this matter.
Proposed Response
- The Staff's comments should urge the Licensing Board not to
~
accept the recommendation to prosecute based on record evidence indicating that D0J has already considered the matter and determined not to prosecute.
2.
G and H Finding
- G and H were found to have cheated on Licensee's weekly quizzes.
- Special Master recommended that Licensee be prohibited from using G and H as operators.
Impact of Finding
- G and H are unavailable as operators; does not appear to affect Licensee's ability to meet staffing conditions for restart, i
since enough additional operators have been licensed to compensate for their unavailability.
Proposed Response r
- Staff comments:
evidence leaves too much doubt to remove G and H as operators and does not support ade.otion of Special i
itaster's findings or recoramendations.
7e-_.----m.-
9e..ii--9 y
, - ~
y.m
+
y
.-r--rr,+- -
--m=
q-m m,
m-7-
- en 5
3.
S and Y Finding
- S and Y were found not to have cheated.
Impact of Finding
- None - consistent with Staff's views and position at hearing.
Proposed Response
- None 4.
GG, W and MM Finding i
~ GG, W and MM were found to have cheated on a Licensee weekly quiz.
- Special Master recommended that some undefined " lesser sanction" be imposed.
Impact of Finding
- There is no impact on restart.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments: evidence does not support finding of cheating or need for any punishment.
Staff urges Licensing Board not to adopt Special Master's findings.
5.
Mr. Shipman Finding
- Mr. Shipman voluntarily admitted answering a brief question for someone at the coffee stand, but is found to have lied about not knowing the identity of the other person.
l
- Special Master recommended Mr. Shipman not be used as an operator until he identifies the other person or gives a good i
excuse for not doing so.
Impact of Finding
- Mr. Shipman is unavailable as an operator; does not cause inadequate staffing for restart.
t l
l
Proposed Response
- Staff comments should point out the inadvisability of removing this person on the basis of virtually no evidence that he lied and the impossibility of his ever meeting the requirement imposed on him.
Staff urges the Licensing Board not to adopt Special Master's findings.
6.
Mr. Husted Finding
- Mr. Husted was found to have cheated during the NRC exam by soliciting an answer.
- Special Master recommends an undefined " lesser sanction."
Impact of Finding
- There is no direct impact on operation.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
insufficient and ambiguous evidence not sufficient to fird cheating.
Urge Licensing Board not to adopt Special Master's findings.
7.
U Finding
- U was found to have cheated on NRC exam by offering assistance.
- Special Master recommends an undefined "It sser sanction."
Impact of Finding
- There is no direct impact on operation.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
insufficient evidence to find cheating.
Staff urges Licensing Board not to adopt Special Master's finding.
8.
VV and 0 in 1979 Finding
- VV and 0 were found to have cheated.
Impact of Finding
- There is no direct inpact, since O's employment has been terminated and VV has an unlicensed position at THI-2.
Proposed Response
- None
-a_
B.
Management's Involvement in' Cheating 1.
Mr. Ross Finding
- Contrary to the Special Master's conclusions, the Licensing Board _ itself concluded that he did not intentionally keep an NRC proctor out of room to aid examinees and did not intentionally broaden the NRC answer key.
The Board intends to reject the Special Master's findings as to Ross.
2.
The Definition of Management Finding
- It was found that " upper" management was not involved in cheating, but management of operations staff was.
Impact of Finding
- Special Master casts doubt on mid-level management integrity and competence; TMI-1 cannot be operated with existing operations staff.
Propose Response
- Staif comments:
the evidence does not support the findings of the Special Master.
Staff urges Licensing Board not to adopt those findings.
C.
Licensee's Response to the Cheating 1.
Management Constraint on NRC Investigation Finding
- It was found that management's presence during the NRC interviews of the first investigation were improper and impeded the flow of information.
Impact of Finding
- There is no practical impact on operation.
Proposed Response j
- There are no Staff comments (dealt with below under subject G, NRC Response to Cheating).
2.
Licensee's investigation Finding
- Licensee's investigation was found to be inadequate.
i
. Impact of Finding
- There is no direct impact on operation.
Proposed Response
- There are no Staff comments.
3.
Mr. John Wilson Finding i
- Mr. John Wilson was found to have submitted intentionally misleading testimony about Licensee's investigation.
I impact of Finding
- There is no direct impact, but reflects on Licensee's integrity.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
evidence is grossly insufficient to support finding of knowingly submitting misleading testimony. -The Staff urges the Board to reject Special Master's finding.
D.
Licensee's Training and Testing Program Finding 1
- The Licensee's training and testing program was found to be l
weak in content, ineffective in instruction, and poorly I
administered.
1 Impact of Finding
- The Board's prior findings that Licensee's training and testing program was adequate would have to be modified.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
training and testing program was not an issue in the reopened proceeding so Licensee had no opportunity to address this issue per se. While some areas of Licensee's training program have w'eaknesses, ultimate test of the adequacy l
of training is the fiRC operator license exam (written & oral) and they should be relied upon to show whether operators are competent or not.
I
' E.
Licensee's System For Certifying Candidate Finding
- Licensee's system for certifying candidates was found unreliable in April 1981 because 0 and W who were certified had previously cheated; otherwise found acceptable.
Impact of Finding
- There is no impact on operation.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
since Licensee did not know 0 and W had previously cheated, there was no evidence of bad faith by Licensee.
Licensee's current certification system has shown to be significantly improved.
F.
The NRC Examination 1.
Proctoring and Grading Finding
- The April '81 exam was at times unproctored and at times proctored by inattentive proctors; NRC failed to detect cheating by 0 and W on the R0_ exam; Staff's new procedures are adequate.
Impact of Finding
- There is no impact since reexams were administered under new, adequate procedures.
Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
agree that the NRC's April exam was inadequately administered, but emphasize new, adequate procedures found by Special Master to be adequate to assure no cheating.
2.
Content of the NRC Examination l
Finding
- The NRC was found to rely too much on Licensee for correct answers; exams encourage mtmorization and may not measure ability to operate plant safely.
- Special Master recommends that the Commission take steps to assure that exams test the knowledge operators need to operate the plant, to reduce reliance on the Licensee for correct answers, and to avoid memorization as being the primary means of preparing for the exam.
L
_7_
d Impact of Finding
- In the worst case, assuming the " content" of the October and January re-exams were the same, these findings could lead to the voiding of the re-exams if the Commission agreed with the findings.
~--
Propased Response
- Staff comments:
(1) the content of NRC exams expressly was not an issue in this proceeding; (2) the Special Master entirely overlooked the uncontroverted evidence concerning the oral exams and the simulator exams, all of which must be passed to qualify for an NRC license.
The oral and simulator exams are not susceptible to memorized answers and are specifically designed to test for the type of operational knowledge that the Special Master found to be inadequately covered by the written exams.
G.
NRC (0!E's) Response to Cheating Finding
- Special Master found Staff's investigation into cheating by 0 and W and into the telephone call to KK thorough and effective, i
but in other respects was inadequate, e.g., not reporting and further investigating the Husted solicitation, not further investigating the Shipman incident, and not reading carefully and following up on the Trunk Reports; also criticized Staff for allowing Licensee managment to be present during interviews of the first investigation.
Impact of Finding j
- There is no direct impact on operation.
l Proposed Response
- Staff comments:
evidence establishes sound basis for NRC Staff's policy decisions not to further investigate certain incidents:
(a) decision not to include Hpsted incident in report, and to not investigate it further, was fully justified due to priorities of investigation (Husted's conc.ent was at i
most an unsuccessful attempt) and limited resources; (b) five of eight operators in smoking room had already been interviewed by NRC and denied cheating, so there was limited utility in interviewing them again to confront them with this particular incident; (c) while the evidence cited by the Special 11 aster shows that fir. Ward had not personally read one of the Trunk reports, Mr. Ward's testimony makes clear that his office in fact reviewed all of the Trunk reports, and
found their methodology and analysis adequate.
In addition, 0IE's decision not to conduct an independent followup of Licensee's investigation of cheating on its weekly training quizzes is justified based on a cost-benefit analysis.
Only options available to Staff during first investigation were to proceed with Licensee management present or not conduct any interviews, so, in light of need for prompt interviews, Staff's decision to proceed was the only reasonable one; Special Master overlooked testimony by Staff that it feels it was able to obtain all the necessary information even with management present.
t