ML20076H037
| ML20076H037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1983 |
| From: | Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309010280 | |
| Download: ML20076H037 (2) | |
Text
_
B8CKETED USNRC UNION OF
~83 AUG 30 P12:09 CONCERNED 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.. S.1101.. Washi h[d2hh$d2 2%-5600 ERANCH August 26, 1983 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky, Ccmnissioner Thcznas M. Roberts, Comnissioner James K. Asselstine, Conutissioner Frederick M. Bernthal, Conmissioner Gentimen:
It is our understanding that the staff is reviewing ite[ns bearing on the ccrnpetence and integrity of GPU managment, in order to determine whether the Appeal Board record should be reopened on these issues.
We wish to bring to your attention a matter with serious implications for the asseasment of the competence - and possibly integrity - of GPU managment.
It involves what appears to be an additional false representation made by then 'IMI Station tunager Cary Miller, in an Aug. 3,1979 letter to the NRC in which he recertified then Unit 2 Supervisor of Operations W (W had previously cheated on his requalification examination).
The representation which we raise here is in addition to those identified during the Appeal Board proceedings, and we are uncertain whether the Comnission recognized this matter when it recently proposed a S140,000 fine for false statments made during this incident. This matter concerns the question of whether W was ever fully retested on all the sections which he had previously failed.
In any event, irrespective of the Commission's conclusions to date with respect to this matter, our analysis of the available evidence does strongly suggest that, in addition to having cheated, W may not in fact have been fully retested on all required sections.
'Ibe letter containing the false statments asserted that W, having failed to attain 80% on two sections of his requalification exam, entered an accelerated requalification program and passed it.
According to testimony given by Miller, he recertified W to the NRC based upon the 99.8% overall score W received on his accelerated requalification exam. While Miller earlier testified that W had been given a " separate test" on Section A material (one of the sections on which he had previously cheated but which was not listed as a " failed" section), no separate test was ever administered.
Miller now claims that the accelerated requalification program covered all of W's previously deficient categories, Sections A, E, arr3 H.
Critical to this new explanation, therefore, is that the accelerated requalification program did in fact cover Section A, and that Miller knew this at the time he sent the certifying letter to NRC.
How2ver, there appears to be no evidence that W was retested on Section A.
In spite of this fact, GPU confirmed to the NRC that W had been requalified in its Aug. 3 letter. W again applied for i
8309010280 830826 PDR ADOCK 05000289 p
G PDR Main Office: 26 Church Street. Cambridge, Manachusetts 02238. (617) 547-5552 l
)
d (nother license renewal on Nov mber 15, 1979, and he renained licensed as a Senior Reactor Operator until Dec. 4, 1981.
Previous investigations have focused on three aspects of the August 3 recertification letter:
1.
We letter reported that W had failed two sections of his previous exam, when in truth he had failed three sections; 2.
We letter reported that W had achieved a score of 89.1% on Section A, when in truth he had cheated on Section A (it also reported that W achieved a score of 64% for Section H when actually he had cheated on this one also); 3.
We letter did not inform the NRC that W had cheated on his previous exam.
We now raise the possibility of an additional false material statement: te letter recertified W to the NRC based upon his successful empletion of an accelerated requalification program, when in truth Section A may not have been included.
If this is the case, and managenent did not know that W was not qualified, this has serious implications for its empetence.
If managenent did know, then its integrity is implicated as well. This matter has significance for the present proceeding because to this date, GPU has either not discovered this serious mistake, or if it has, has not so notified the Comission.
We have discussed this matter in some detail with references to the available evidence in "UCS Comnents on ' Investigation of W and 0 Incident"',
submitted to you on July 21, 1983. Evidence to support our conclusions can be found in our discussion on pp.10-18. However, because these comnents dealt specifically with the Speaker Report, the significance of this particular false representation may not have received the attention from you which it requires.
We urge you to review our material and address this matter which adds considerable weight to the seriousness of the incident.
Very truly yours, SWn/0khad-f$f j
Ellyn R. Weiss General Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists cc:
'IMI-l Service List A
_