ML20063M186

Motion for Licensee to Show Good Cause Why Licensing Exams Were Left Unattended & Why Facts Withheld from Parties.Nrc Must Show Good Cause Why Issue Can Be Resolved by Described Actions

ML20063M186
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/03/1982
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20063M187	List: ML20063M186 ML20063M188 ML20063M191
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8209100177
Download: ML20063M186 (8)

Text

Em - $7agyz

..A.

UNITED STA TES OF AEEMTED NUCLEAR REGULA TORY C010d! MON EEFORE 'lHE A'IOMIC SAFETYMINUElbf E0ARD CFFICE OF SECRETACf GCCKETING & SERylCr.

In the Matter of

) DN2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket 50-289 SP

('ihree Mile Island Nuclear

)

Generating Station, Unit 1)

AAMODT MOTION FOR 'IHE NRC STAFF AND THE LICENSEE TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE AND/OR REOPENING OF RECORD A matter that relates to the investigation of cheating at TMI was revealdd in a: NRC Memorandum dated August 17, 1982 of an Inspection Report, 50-289/82-07, dated July 1, 1982.

A ttachments 1 and 2 respectively.

'lhe matter is discussed on page 17 of the Report.

A ttachment 3.

'lhis matter cons. itutes t

~

new information which directly 'r41ates to a specific issue of the reopened proceeding, to the issues of the reopened proceeding in general, and to the Board's confidence ihat quelity asstfrince practices, conditions to restsrt,.will beefnstituted, lhe me;t:ter,1 n addition, i

raises ~ questions of the integrity of.the Licensee's upper-management and the NRC Staff in that this information was withheld from the purview of the reopened proceeding for over three tuonths.

We note that the Staff's memorandum was received by us on September 2, the day following the Commission's deadline for filing of comments on the reopened proceeding to be considered by the Commission in their decision concerning whether the restart of Unit 1 is made imme'dia tely effective.

8209100177 820903 PDR ADOCK 05000289 D3C3 0

PDR

o The new information is 'tha t one of Licensee 's employees, a radiological assessor, reported to upper-management of Licensee on hay 5 and 7,1982 that Radiation Worker Examinations and their answer keys were lef t unattended and unsecured in the TMI Training Department..

The employee informed the on-site NRC staff on May 11, 1982.

Id.

4 The Licensee must show good cause why the examinations were unattended in view of the testimony of Dr. Robert Iong,.then Director of. Training, GPU Nuclear. Attachment 4.

This testimony was entered into the record of the hearing at 24,925.

The Licensee must show good cause why this matter was withheld from the parties to the reopened 4

proceeding until this time.

Th 3 Licensee must show good cause why upper-management did not inform the NRC Staff.

The NRC Staff must show good cause why they withheld this information for over three months.

They must show good cause why the issue can be resolved by.the actions described.

They must show good cause why this violation was not detected bg the on-site NRC insp,ection staff.

They must show that viola tions reported by the NRC Staff in June of workers being in high radiation areas a

without authorization were not related to the lax

~

administration of the Radiation Worker Permit tests.

We cannot locate these reports in our files at this time, however our recollection is that the violations related to more than one event and involved more than one worker.

v Y,,, *

,.,..o

.4 Unless the licensee and NRC Staff can show good cause, the hearing should be reopened to ascertain all the facts, with licensee 's emplo'yee, the radiological assessor, called as a prime witness.

In any event, the information being pertinent to the reopened proceeding

6. 7 and having > occurred during the time when the issues were under consideration, should be entered into the record of

."h the hearing ~by stipula tion.

_a He pectfully su mitted, t

w September 3,1982

1. 1. 1. 11

.j arjorib M. Aamodt y

1 I

Addendum:

The particular issue of the integrity of the Radiation Worker Permit tests is di'scussed in the following places:

(

l July 27 PID, at page 89 t

l 2he Report of the Special Master at pages 94 and 95 i

Aamodt Findings, filed March 4,1982, at pages 91-93 Aamodt Comments on the Report of the Special bbster, s

filed May 24, 1982, a t page s 17, 18.

i Aamodt Comments (to the Commission, filed August 20, 1982, a t page. 16 i

Aamodt Exceptions, filed August 20, 1982, nos. 160, 161 L

A 4,,

UNITED STATES p,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[-

t WASHINGTON, D. c. 20555

,/

August 17, 1982

+...+

Docket No. 50-289 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Atomic Safety and Licensin'g Appeal Board for' TMI-1 Restart FROM:

Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing, NRR

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICATION - (BN-82-84) - TMI-1 RESTAR

~ j The dnclosed inspection report (IR 50-289/82-07) concerns an incident by the Licensee's staff and were reported to the NR May 11,1982 (Item 7, page 17 of the enclosure).

to the reopendd proceeding on cheating wherein Licensee's examThis issue re administration practices were examined.

As noted in the inspection

~

by the Licensee as a result of this incident. report, Region 1 co Gus Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of ticensing a

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page 4

6

.s n

l' S

4 JUL O 11932 Docket No. 50-289 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill Director, TMI-l P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Inspection 50-289/82-07 This refers to 'the routine safety inspection condulted by Messrs. R. Conte and D. Haverkamp of this office on May ll, 1982, through June 8, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-50 and to the discussions of our findings held by Messrs R. Conte and D. Haverkamp with Mr. R. Toole and other members of the GPU Nuclear staff at the conclusion of th'e inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representa-tive records, interviews with personnel, measurements made by the inspector, and observations by the inspector.

l Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that one of your activities was not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set

(

forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.

This violation has been categorized by severity level in accordance with the NRC Enforcement policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix-C) published in the Federal. Register Notice (47 FR 9987) dated March 9,1982.

You are requ.i, red to respond to this letter and in preparing your response, you should follow the instructions in Appendix A.

I l

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

subj,ect to the clearance procedures of the Office of Mana.gement and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written II t

application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter.

Such application must be consistent with the 8207220566 820701 PDR ACCCX 05C00299 G

PDa

./FICIAL RECORD COPY

~

A ttachment 3

, by the PID to verify the ' licensee calculation of the wa level.

This item is unresolved pending licensee evaluation of the transmitter location with respect to the flood level reference point and the NRC staff verificatio of the wat,er level calculation (289/82-07-05).

There is one significant i Task LM-9, which'is unreso.ncomplete work list item related to i

lved and requires correction prior to i

TMI-1 restart.

junction boxes and transmitters associated with th modification to'be properly bolted closed (289/82-07-06).

7.

Uncontrolled Training Examinations While conducting a review of radiation worker training records on May 5,1982, the licensee's Radiological Assessor observed that (1) cadiation worker examinations were on an open shelf in t worker training supervisor's work area (cubicle) which was left unattended (2 answer keys wer)e in the same unattended cubic

~

filing cabinet that had no lock, and (3 during and after normal working hours. )The Radiological Ass i

7, 1982, and to the NRC site staff on Mayreported these 11, 1982.

corrective actions being taken. subsequently informed the NRC This included a Training and Education bepartment review of practices for assuring examination security b Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek.

The licensee concluded that the reported May 5,1982, observations 1

conditions in any other training sections.regarding security o l

incident attributable to a single individual's practices.It appeared to be an is actions taken at TMI included (1) development and use beginning The corrective May 10, 1982, of new General Employee Training exams on a day to day not in use, (2) initiating development of a new s increased attention to com addition, various concer(ns)pletion and implementation bank examinations, and 3 reprimand of the cognizant supervisor.

In were identified which will be addressed by Training and Educa Department personnel.

1 D'etails of the licensee's review, corrective actions and related c were described in training department memorandum to the Vice Presiden Nuclear Assurance, dated May 21, 1982.

Based on review of this memorandum and discussions with senior licensee man'agement, the determined that adequate corrective measures have been taken or p to resolve both the specific problem identified on Ma more general issues raised by the licensee's review. y 5,1982, and the no further questions concerning this matter.

The inspector had t

l l

l

A tta chment 4, page 1 39 A.

Administration of Examinations Procedure In order to ensure tha t all exams administered by the Training & Education Department test the ability of the individual and prevent conduct which would defeat this purpose,

I have i,nstituted, ef fective October 20, 1981, the following rules applicable to - all exams administered by the Training &

Education Department:

(1) specific methods are provided for ensuring that exams are secured, e.g.,

typists must return all draft exam sheets to the individual requesting the typing; (2) all exams are accompanied by a " Written Examination certification Cover Sheet" which, among other things, specifies whether the exam is open or closed book, specifies rules of conduct, identifies authorized reference materials, and provides a space for students to sign a statement tha t their work is their own; (3) instructor / examiner procedures are specified fo r ensuring tha t the physical environment in which the exams are taken does not compromise the exam process, e.g., no unauthorized materials are present, students are not sitting close together, seating char ts are made for " major" exams, such as the requalification exams; (4) 100% proctoring is maintained; (5). rules on students leaving the exam room during the examination are provided; and A t ta chmen t 4, pa ge 2 (6) misconduct is required to - be immedia tely reported to Training supe'rvisory personnel orally and in writing; the written report is given to' the Manager of-Training who reports' it in writing to the Human i

i

'Re, sources Department (GPU Nuclear's personnel

{

d epa r tmen t), and notifies an individual in the student's supervisory chain, as well.as the Director of Training & Education.

I have discussed this new procedure with the Training Department at TMI in a meeting which I convened for, the training manager, supervisors, instructors and administrative personnel the week of October 19, 1981.

In this meeting, I emphasized tha t it is incumbent upon us as teachers to ensure the integrity of out examination process.

While we are not the disciplinary function in the organization, it is clearly our responsibility to approach examinations with the appropriate attitude, and to take measures to protect the efficacy of the exams we administer.

In addition to my emphasis on the responsibility of our l

l instructors to preserve the integrity of the programs they t

teach, Mr. Herbein, the Vice President of Nuclear Assurance, l

has voiced his opinion on this subject through individual 1

letters sent to and meetings held with all licensed training personnel in GPU Nuclear.

In addition to specifically asking each individual to endorse the Company's position with regard to the importance of the NRC examinations and other regulatory requirements, Mr. Herbein has discussed the reliance management

', page $

)V has placed and will continun to place on tho instructors' relaying information they know about misconduct such as cheating.

I understand Mr. Hukill has conducted essentially the came interview process with licensed members of his staff.

B.

GPU Nuclear Policy Regarding Cheating, Fraud and Misconduct The Office of the President of GPU Nuclear has instituted a policy which clearly defines what constitutes cheating, fraud and misconduct, and states GPU Nuclear's policy regarding these activities.

The policy makes clear that no GPU Nuclear employee shall cheat, perpetrate a fraud, or falsify any company document, report, test or examination in the conduct and discharge of his assigned responsibilities without disciplinary action being taken by the Company, in those instances where such becomes known to the Company.

The severity of such disciplinary action is dependent upon the facts of. each case, and. it is clearly stated. that charges of known or suspected misconduct may warrant immediate suspension of the individ ual( s) involved, subj ec t to further disciplinary action up to and including discharge.

The policy also makes clear that all personn~el are responsible for reporting all perceived acts of chea ting, fraud or misconduct.

It is the responsibility of the Director of Human Resources to investi-gate all such reports.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of upp'er management, e.g.,

Mr. Hukill, with the counsel of Messrs.

Arnold and Clark with respect to TMI-1, to determine the appropriate disciplinary action for TMI personnel who are found to have violated this policy.. -..