ML20107G754

Proposed Findings of Fact on Issue of Licensed Operator Training.Util & Operator Accelerated Retraining Program Review Committee Have Not Fully Addressed Significant Issues Posed in ALAB-772.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20107G754
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/22/1985
From:	Au T PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
CON-#185-726 ALAB-772, SP, NUDOCS 8502260534
Download: ML20107G754 (14)

Text

- '~

i

.4

} NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tHISSION F"ebruaryg.'l85 U C BEFORE THE ATW IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, In the Matter of: .

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY  : RY

!  : Docket No. 50-28 R i (Three Mile Island  : (Restart Remand on - -

Station, Unit No. 1)  : Management , Training):

ri

?-:, g - g <iu

. . i;

, *"*~m~~%._,

Com0NWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING I. . INTRODUCTION On May 24, 1984, the Atomic Safety-and Licensing Appeal Board issued its' decision on the management phase of the TMI-1 restart proceedings. Metro-

, politan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island, Unit 1) ALAlb772,19 N.R.C.1193 (1984).

In ALAB-722, the Appeal Board stated that the issue before the Licensing Board is: "is the instruction adequate to prepare the operators to operate the plant safely?" ALAB-722,,19 N.R.C. at 1232. The Appeal Board determined that the evidentiary record could not support an affirmative finding on this issue. In particular, the Appeal Board was concerned-that:"[T]he deficiencies in operator training,asmanifestedbythecheatingepisodes,maybesymhtamaticof,more extensive failures in the licen'see's overall training program." d I_d. Therefore,

- it was necessary to reopen the record to take additional ~ testimony from the; ,

Operator Accelerated Retraining Program ("0ARP")~ Review Caumittee and others-concerning the adequacy of the training program.

~

In ALAB-722, the Appeal Board posed a number of questions for the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to address:

1. Does the training program actually enhance the operator's knowledge or simply encourage memorization fo'r test-taking purposes?

i

2. Are the Licensee and NRC examinations an effective way to measure an i

operator's ability to run the plant?

3 Do the format and content of the examinations encourage cheating?

,- 4. How do the OARP Review Comnittee and other consultants assess the cheating incidents and Licensee's subsequent changes in its training and testing programs?

5. Are the future audits of the training program sufficient as a quality assurance check?

6. Are the candidates well trained to operate the plant?

~

7. How would the OARP Review Committee strike the balance between the positive and negative aspects of the retraining program?

8. Would the OARP Review Connittee require even greater usage of simula-tors in training and testing?

9.- Do the post-cheating changes in the training program adequately ame-llorate the " lack of commr:ication between top management and the operating

-crews"? 19 N.R.C. at 1,232-37.

2-

The Licensee has an affirmative duty to answer each of these questions as a prerequisite to an ul'.imate finding that the training program adequately prepares the operators to operate the plant safely.

The Comonwealth agrees with the Appeal Board that "[T]he most signifi-cant issue requiring further hearing is training. Because the safe operation of the plant is so heavily dependent upon the operator's skill, the importance of

~

training cannot be overstated. The cheating and related incidents call into question the adequacy and integrity of Licensee's entire training and testing program." ALAB-722, 19 N.R.C. at 1279 The Comonwealth need not, and will not, address all the evidence pre-

! sented on each of these questions. The Connonwealth will address particular i

l problems in th'e testimony which illustrate weaknesses in the record. 'Ihe Com-monwealth will follow the order of the fonnat used by Licensee to address par-ticular subjects.

The Commonwealth believes that the record shows that the Licensee and its consultants have not conducted a sufficiently vigorous inquiry into

(, _

the causes of the cheating incidents, and into the relevance of the cheating ,

incidents on the licensed operator training program.

4 ..

b y: '$ . 3 Y

• i

l l

II. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT A. Licensed Operator Training at 'IMI-1 Impact of Cheating

1. The prepared testimony of Dr. Long (Vice-President of the Nuclear Assurance Division) asserts that management in general, and Dr. Long in particular, accepted " responsibility" for the cheating incidents. ff. Tr.

32,202 at 2-12.

2. There is evidence that a ntacber of procedural changes have been made to make cheating less likely. ff. Tr. 32,202 (Long and coe). The Board does not doubt that these procedural changes improve the training process and insure examination security.

3 There is no evidence, however, that the " primary cause" of cheating was the failure to provide full-time proctoring for written examina-tions, other than Dr. Long's statement in prepared testimony. ff. Tr. 32,202 at 3

4. Dr. Iong did not initiate, and management did not undertake,'any forinal study of the causes of cheating following the issuance of the Licensing -

Board's decision in 1982. Tr.' 32,344-45 (Long). 'Ihe Licensee also did not initiate additional research on the causes of cheating.' Tr. 32,345 (Long). It is therefore presumptuous to assert, as Dr. Iong did, that the primary cause of cheating was the failure to provide full-time proctoring for written-

~

examinations.

i W

I(,

. -. . . - - - ..- . . . _ - . = _ - _ _ - . . .- ..-_-_-

5. The record suggests other deep-rooted reasons for cheating. Among the causes may have been operator resentment of the re-examination process.

Tr. 32,289-90 (Long). Another possibility is a lack of adequate preparation or l training for the examination. .Tr. 33,481-83 (Leonard).

6. The Board does not disagree with the management actions undertaken to prevent cheating in the future. ff. Tr. 32,202 at 5-12. However, these may only be " ministerial fixes," as noted by the Appeal Board in ALAB-772, n. 47.

! This Board does not believe that management has probed very deeply into the l cheating incidents to determine the root causes of cheating. There is no com-i petent evidence that supports the view that the causes of cheating at 1MI were highly situational, as the prepared testimony suggests, ff. Tr. 32,202 at 4 (Long). Dr..Long, Dr. Coe, and Mr. Newton (Licensee's managers) do not have the-i education, experience or training to determine the root causes of cheating, and have offered no expert opinion concerning these causes.

5 Management Response to Cheating 4

7. Although management has improved the mechanisms for-

, management / employee connunications (Licensee Proposed Findings 67-70),

Licensee's implementation of the measures falls short of complete and candid.

communications with licensed operators concerning significant events related to the cheating incidents.

8. A recent example of the inadequacyLof management / employee com-munications is the treatment of Mr. Frederick. Mr. Frederick ma_the supervisor of licensed operator . training, h as removed at the direction of Mr. Hukill (Vice President, Unit 1) in August,1984. UCS Itzhibit 1.

5 y, y

_e

9. Licensee management did not fonnally comunicate management action with respect to Mr. Fredcrick to the operators. No explanation or briefing was given to the operators for Mr. Frederick's removal from his position. Tr.

33,484-86 (Ross). Although the operators may have heard the reasons for Mr.

Frederick's removal from the instructors, this method of comunication does not contribute to effective management / employee relations.

10. As a result of the management action taken with respect to Mr. Frederick, the instructors in the licensed operator training program perceived some " unfairness" in the personnel action. Although this perception of " unfairness" was not specifically directed toward management, but toward the regulatory process, it is apparent that the entire basis for the action, as evi-dent in UCS Exhibit 1, was not explained to the instructors. Tr. 33,489-94 (Newton). The record does not show what the perception of the operating crews were to this action.

11. The RHR Report (" Priority Concerns of Licensed Nuclear Operators at TMI and Oyster Creek and Sugges*:ed Action Steps") ipdicated operators were dissatisfied with the overall training program in 1983 In particular, the operators perceive the requalification licensing requirement as a heavy burden, and the operators are " turned off" by the training. UCS Exhibit 6, at 11.

4

12. Although the operator attitude survey performed by RHR represents a

" data point" at a particular time, the survey showed a long history of problems in management implementation of remedial actions.' In particular, the RHR Report notes:

6

.- -. . -. - - - - - - - = - _ - -- - .- . -

[.

I i

i Implementation-A Chronic and Pivotal Issue We strongly recommend that we have continuing dialogue with top management both directly and through its representatives

in the planning and implementation of action steps.

l Implementation is important now that expectations have been l raised again by our recent interviews and survey. Operators in the small groups have been spontaneously inquiring whether i anything will come of these interviews. They have been through several such meetings before. From some previous inquires they have seen no action and from others, temporary

action which quickly petered out. There is expressed pessimism that this intervention will lead to any lasting i improvements in areas of their concern. Visible action j steps are likely to hold down operator turnover just as lack

of action is likely to increase it.

I i In terms of management credibility, this is a critical phase.

l It is also a critical phase because it is where previous efforts have stalled.

UCS Exhibit 6, at 15 l

Additionally, the RHR Report notes:

l Only one in five [ operators] believe that GPU Nuclear manage-ment is as concerned about its employees and organizational j issues as it is about public relations and technical issues.

! Nine out of ten deny that their management work together as a team. Four out of five see management as not sufficiently in i touch with what is going on at their level. .This last is across all subcategories. Two out of three deny that manage-L ment has comunitted to an accountable organization'which -

resolves problems at the correct level. Even more disagree i

that management sees to it that there is cooperation 'between departments.. Only trainees at TMI agree.to this.

The amall group discussions provide more insight into the .

1 operators' perception of management.- This still leaves a lot to be imderstood which could not be gathered by talking to or i surveying operators. One would have to. explore this issue

• with managers themselves. There is.always griping about management among the rank and. file and a good deal of this cannot be taken at face value. Management is a convenient' target. There is invariably a mixture of'sospegosting'on the one hand and of the workers accurate perception of some real .

deficiencies._ These need to be disentangled. ,

UCS Exhibit 6, at 34

.j n

(7' -

B

. y,~ .

' & _, ;;l <

i 3- . .

i i'

13 Whether Licensee management has corrected all the problems j-' identified in the RHR Report is not entirely clear frce the record. Dr. Long l considered the findings of the RHR Report to be significant; but Dr. Iong did j not specifically address the' findings of the RHR Report in his testimony. Tr.

32,347-48. Licensee management has prepared a formal response to the RHR Report recommendations. Licensee Training Exhibit 1. Dr. Long stated further that i Licensee management has " addressed" 48 of the 50 findings in the RHR Report.

f Tr. 32,347. Nevertheless, there is no evidence from RHR, the OARP Review Comittee, or others, that the problems ~ identified in the 1983 RHR Report have been solved.

14. Whether Licensee anagement has paid serious attention to the RHR Report is an open question. Licensee management apparently did not believe the RHR Report was important enough to give a copy of the RHR Report to the OARP Review Committee or brief the Committee on the Report when the Comittee met in -

i j May-June, 1984. However, Licensee management thought that its " response" to the RHR Report was important enough to have the OARP Review Comittee review the

" response" prior to testifying. Tr. 32,037-38; 33,293-297.

B. The Reconstituted OARP Review Committee's Assessment of the THI-1 Licensed Operator Training Prcar i The Committee's Findings

15. ALAB-772 requests the OARP Review Caumittee to assess-the cheating.

incidents.- In its prepared testimony, the OARP Review Committee discusses cheating as an issue of personal morality.- The testimony did not examine'the causes of. cheating. ff. Tr. 31,749.at 5-6.

m 4

16. The OARP Review Comittee does not consider its views, as presented on pages 5-6 of its prepared testimony as expert testimony on the causes of cheating at IMI. Rather it is a " philosophic discussion" based on the extensive experience of the members of the Committee. Tr. 32,032 (Uhrig).

17. Indeed, none of the members of the Comittee considered himself to be an expert on the subject of cheating. Tr. at 32,027-32. The Comittee did not consult any persons with expertise on cheating incidents. Tr. at 32,027.

18. Dr. Christiansen, who is an experimental psychologist, stated that cheating is a response motivated by a need. He could not identify the "need" to cheat in the TMI context, other than a need to get the NRC certification.

Tr. 32,033-37.

19. Dr. Regan, as a witness presented by UCS, has developed expertise in the areas of human engineering, educational psychology, and training system analysis. ff. Tr. 33,532; Tr. 32,782. Dr. Regan testified, in response to cross-examination by the Licensee, that it is possible that a person cheats because he has a perception that the material on which he is being tested is not i

relevant to his job. Tr. 32,772-73 Dr.-Regan_did not believe that people i

would cheat if they knew the answers to the questiori that they were cheating on.

Tr. 32,771; 32,803-04. Dr. Regan also postulated that if cheating were fairly.

widespread and if it is winked on by lower management people, cheating would be'-

easily rationalized in the trainee's mind. Tr. 32,771-73 His testimony supports the view that there could be institutional causes of cheating.

20. Based on the Board's review of direct' testimony by managers of the-TMI licensed operator training program, the Board does not share the conclusion 9

m .

i i

! by the OARP Review Connittee that strong and effective comunication between company management and the persons involved in the licensed operator training program, has been instituted. See ff. Tr. 31,749, at 21-24.

f 21. The OARP Review Committee's members conducted extensive interviews

) to determine the trainees' attitudes and morale. ff. Tr. 31,749, at 31.

i l 22. Dr. Gardner, Dr. Christensen, and Mr. Kelly conducted extensive i

interviews of operators and instructors between the preparation of the Special Report and the preparation of prepared testimony for this hearing. The purpose of these interviews was to elicit the opinions of personnel.in the training program on the broad range of issues relating to attitude, perceptions, morale, and training instruction. The Cannittee members believe that the responses were honest and not evasive. See Licensee Proposed Findings 245.

23 Even in the most recent operator interviews, the OARP Review Cannittee members (Kelly and Gardner) report that attitudes were positive and morale high. Tr. 32,038-42.

24. It appears that-the Cennittee members did not discover any attitude of resentment or any perception of " unfairness" in policy among the personnel in the training program. This impression by the Comnittee is contradicted by testimony by the managers of the training program-(Ross, Newton, Leonard). See, Tr. 33,480-508; 33,520-522; see Commonwealth Proposed Findings 7-14.

25. The discrepancy in teetimony indicates that the interviewees were:r not being fully candid in their interviews with the OARP Revii4. Committee. Y Moreover, this discrepancy indicates'that the OARP Review Caumittee's conclusion 10

that there are no negative aspects of operator attitudes, morale, and perceptions is inaccurate. Tr. 32,040-042 (Kelly).

26. The Board beli, eves that the OARP Review Comittee's consideration of the cheating incident and related problems is the weakest part of the Cannittee's testimony. The Comittee specifically avoided rendering any opinion conerning the causes of cheating. Tr. 32,035-36 (Uhrig). The Comittee also did not offer an opinion concerning how the cheating incidents would have changed their earlier judgments: "The Comittee determined that it would not be feasible or useful to attempt to determine what each member would have thought had they known that conditions existed that subsequently permitted cheating to occur on NRC and Licensee exams." ff. Tr. 31,749, at 5-6.

27 Due to this shallow examination of the cheating incidents, as well as the failure to detect any problems in operator morale, attitudes, or percep-tions, one is led to the conclusion that the OARP Review Comittee did not answer the question: are the deficiencies in operator training, as manifested by the cheating episodes, symptomatic of more extensive failures in the overall-training program? Tr. 32,034 (Uhrig).

4 1

11

III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Board should find that the Licensee and the OARP Review Consnittee have not fully addressed the significant issues posed to them by the Appeal Board in ALAB-772.

i Respectfully submitted,

\ loe, b'[ -

THO4AS Y. AU f Assistant Counsel Canunonwealth of Pennsylvania 505 Executive House, P.O. Box 2357 101 South Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-7060 Dated: February 22, 1985 t

4

.t..

4

)

9 12

INITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSIW 00CKETES Usuo BEFORE THE COMISSIN ggg In the Matter of ME.T ROPOLITAN EDISW CTPANY,  : JCL ;,

Docket No. 50-289 .. .

T

('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear  : (Restart) ..^' . f', ' P j.i Station, Unit No. 1)  : * "

.:3/

• v

. a 4 :. . , . , , ,

u.KrmCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Cmmonwealth of Pennsyl-vania's Proposed Findings of Fact on the Issue of Licensed Operator Training have been served on the persons listed on the attached Service List by First Class U.S. Mail

• this 22nd day of February, 1985.

e ku, y'-

'IHOfAS Y. AU / '

Assistant Counsel f

• Addressees marked by "*" are being served by Federal Express, next day delivery.

9 4

% r INITED STAIES CF AMERICA NUCT. EAR BEGULATORY CCW.ISSICN Before the Cmmissim In the Matter of:

!T.ucGMTLITAN EDISW CWPANY, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mf.le Island Nuclear ) (Pastart)

Station, thit No.1) )

SERVICE LIST

• Docketing and Service Section ANGRYTDE PIRC Office of the Secretary 1037 Maclay Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory emmf asion Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 u==hington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Louise Bradford, IMI Alert

• Ivan W. Smith 1011 Green Street AA=4niatrative law Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Atanic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Raon1*nry re=niasion Mf.chael F. McBride, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 laBoeuf, Iamb, Iaiby & MacRae 133 New Hampshire Ave., N. W. Suite 1100

• Shelden J. Wolfe u..Mngton, D. C. 20036 Adninistrative Jud Aemic Safety and :pelcansing Board David E. Cole, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Raon1*ery Carmissicxt Smith & Smith, P.C.

u..Mngeon, D.C. 20555 2931 N. Front St.

. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Mastave A. L4 -t--ra s, Jr.

Administrative Jud MLchael W. Maupin, Esquire Atanic, Safety and :pelcansing Board Hunten & W4114-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camdssion 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. B m 1535

'% F. Trowbridge, E=dm Richmond, Virginia 23212 Shaw, Pittmm, Potts & Trowbridge y%

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 h Onis@ Instine 1324 North Capitol Street

• Jack Goldberg/Iois Finkelstein .

Washington, D. C. 20002

. Office of the Rwacnrive Imgal Director U.S. Nuclear n nlean Cannission %sizio L. Palladina, Onnizman Washington, D.C! 20555 U.S. Itclear Caumission Ellyn R. Weiss e, . . 055 Harmon & Weiss h e , a ,.,

% n 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 h M.411ty Pro M 1555 Connecticut Averase, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 Henry D. Hukill, Vice-President GPU 1helaar G r, u %ccad.c ' Safety ed Licensing Appeal Board

.P. O. Een 480 U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Comed.ssica MLddletoun, Pamsylvania 17057 Washington, D.C. -20555 '

Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. #5 Costaaville, Pennsylvania 19320

.