ML20040A942

Reply to Parties' Comments Re Commission Deferment of Restart Decision Until Cheating Decision Issued.Commission Should Not Await ASLB Decision But Make 811214 Decision Immediately Effective.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20040A942
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/20/1982
From:	Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201220329
Download: ML20040A942 (52)

Text

_ _ _ . . . . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _

. .;. LIC 1/20/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.i ' CU BEFORE THE COMMISSION ~^

'82 Jn20 P554, In the Matter of ) R

) GU.

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )

E Docket"No._50-289S'P"jhfg

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Reopened Proceeding)

Station, Unit No. 1) ) l l

i LICENSEE'S REPLY TO COMMENTS OF OTHER PARTIES :

ON WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD AWAIT THE BOARD'S DECISION IN THE REOPENED HEARING'

~~

ON CHEATING BEFORE DECIDING ON l THE RESTART OF TMI-l )

)

j Pursuant to Commission Orders-1/ Licensee and'other- --

. parties have filed with the Commission their. comments-2/on _

1/ Commission Order dated November 30, 1981, as modified by '

Commission Orders dated December 23, 1981, and January 11, 1982. i 2/ Licensee's Comments in Partial Response to Commission Orders e of November 30 and December 23, 1981, and January 11, 1982, dated January 13, 1982; NRC Staff Comments on Whether Commission Should Defer Restart Decision Until Issuance of Licensing Board's Opinion on Operator Cheating Incidents, dated January 13, 1982; Common-wealth of Pennsylvania's Comments on the Effect of the Reopened Operating Cheating Hearing on the Immediate Effectiveness of the ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Plant Design and Emergency Planning, dated January 11, 1982; Union of Concerned Scientists' Comments on Relationship between Reopened Proceeding on Cheating and Immediate Effectiveness, dated January 13, 1982; Aamodt .

Comments that Support Postponement of the Commission Decision on Restart to Receive the opinions of the Board and Parties Concerning the Issues of the Reopened Hearing on Cheating, dated January 9, 1982 (served January 11, 1982); and, TMIA Comments on Why the Commission should Delay Issuing an Immediate Effectiveness Initial Decisions Until AfterDecision the ASLB onIssues the Basis of Two Partb' ~"'

its DecidiO'n' ,

on the Reopened Proceedings Examining Cheating Incid dated January 13, 1982.

"t's'

[,; h  ?

Si i n , m, C i p55 y L~

^ '

5 LS ,

??

/ 3

/ l 8201220329 820120 N ..  ;<

DR ADOCK 05000 Ni y

s whether the Commission should await the decision of the Licensing Board on the implications of the cheating incident in the NRC ,

April, 1981 operator examinations. Pursuant to the same Orders

~ Licensee hereby files its reply to the comments of other parties.

NRC Staff and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _

Both the NRC Staff and the Commonwealth support in accordance with the Licensing Board's recommendation, a deci- -

sion by the Commission on the restart of TMI-1 without awaiting the decision of the Licensing Board (predicted by the Board to 3/

be issued in March of April) on the implications of the cheating _

incident. Both would also adopt the Board's recommendation to limit the restart author'.;ation to 5% power. level pending the Board's decision.

Licensee in its initial set of comments on this ques-tion urged that the Commission, unlike the Board at the time of its December 14, 1981 decision, is now in a position to decide whether the information developed in the reopened hearing raised issues of management competence and technical capability of suf-ficient magnitude to warrant continued suspension of.TMI-l's operating license. The reopened hearing closed on December 10, 1981, and (except for Licensee's and the Staff's reply findings, the last of which are due on January 26, 1982) all proposed findings have been filed by the parties.

3/ Partial Initial Decision (Plant Design and Procedures, ,

Separation and Emergency Planning), December 14, 1981, 1 2014.

Licensee's position is that the reopened hearing did l not develop information which would warrant continued suspension 4/

of TMI-l's operating license.- Neither the~ comments of the NRC Staff nor those of the Commonwealth suggest.otherwise. In fact,

- both have now filed their findings with respect to the reopened -

- _ hearing and neither finds any basis in the reopened. hearing .

for denying the restart of TMI-1.-5/ -

UCS __

i l The UCS comments are far wide of the mark. They urge the Commission to wait on the Licensing Board's. decision in. . _

the reopened hearing on the totally incorrect premise that "the efficacy of the Licensee's training program. for all licensed _ -

personnel is at issue in the reopened proceeding" and that "the Commission must await the Board's determinations on operator i training resulting from the reopened proceeding." The correct fact is that the substantive adequacy of Licensee's training program was thoroughly examined at length in.the main hearing- .

and in the Board's first decision on management issues. The 6/

scope of the reopened hearing was much narrower.-

i 4/ Licensee addresses the views of Intervenor parties on this '

subject in the balance of this reply.

5/ The. Commonwealth's findings do differ markedly from those of 1

Licensee and the Staff in their estimation of the likelihood of i additional cheating on NRC or Company administered examinations and recommend suspension of certain individual operator licenses pending further investigation. The Commonwealth findings do i not, however, recommend continued suspension of the TMI-1 opera-

! ting license. The Staff's findings support full power operation.

6/ UCS' unfamiliarity with the training issues examined in the main hearing and the scope of the reopened hearing is readily l (Footnote continued) '

1 i

_4 It expressly was not the intent of the Board to relitigate issues which had already been litigated at length

~

7/

and which were not affected by the cheating development.

Issues bearing on the efficacy of Licensee's-and the Staff's methods for assuring that the TMI-1 operators 1are properly qualified, e.g., past and present training and. testing administrative procedures, the operator certification pro- - -

cess, and all matters related to operators': cheating on NRC or~other qualifying examinations, including-Licensee management; -

knowledge and the adequacy of the Licensee.and NRC Staff

- - investigations thereof, were deemed admissible- subjects -of. .

inquiry. _

Since virtually all of UCS' comments are based on-the false premise that the Board's decision in the reopened  !

6/ (Footnote cont ' d. )

explained. UCS had no training contentions, did not partic-ipate in the hearing with respect to training testimony or cross-examination, filed no findings on training issues, and' did not participate in the reopened hearing. This does not excuse, however, UCS' careless representations to the Commic-sion as to the scope of the reopened hearing.

1 7/ For example, the Board did not permit a relitigation as to whether the substance of the NRC operator license examinations .

l I

is technically adequate to assure that operators are qualified to operate the plant without endangering the health and safety l of the public. The Board did, however, consider the substance of the examinations in the context of whether the tests, because of their content, are amenable to defeat by some arti-fice or. evasive device which would enable the tested candidate to pass the test without mastering the subject matter, such as cheating, crib sheets, coaching or memorization of preidenti-fled examination questions. See Board Memorandum and Order on October 2,1981 Conference of the Parties Relative to l Reopened Proceeding, October 14, 1981, at 5; Tr. 23,127-28 (Smith); Tr. 23,280 (Milhollin).

j

-5 hearing will re-examine the substantive content of Licensee's training program, which the Board has already considered and found to be satisfactory, further response to the UCS comments 8/

is unnecessary.-

The Aamodts The Aamodt Comments to the Commission, dated January 9, 1982, request that the Commission postpone its decision on the l

restart of TMI-1 until the Commission has received the Licensing l Board's opinion on the implications of the cheating hearings, and until the Commission has received and considered the comments of the parties on the Board's opinion. Licensee opposes the Aamodt request since, in our view, it is not sup-ported by the record upon which the Aamodts reply.

The firs't argument made by the Aamodts in support of their request is that the Commission's use of ~the conclu-sions of the Board in its August 27, 1981 Partial Initial 8/ Licensee cannot let pass, however, UCS' assertion that over Ealf the operator license candidates failed in the November, 1981 NRC examinations to correctly answer a question related to the conditions for terminating high pressure injection. Apart from the fact that these examination answers have not been received in evidence in the reopened hearing and are not relevant to the issues in that hearing, UCS' characteriza-tion of the answers and implications as to the efficacy of Licensee's training program are at odds with the views of the NRC-Staff, the Commonwealth and Licensee. UCS has filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record of the main hearing to consider these examination answers as they may relate to one of the issues covered in the Board's December 14, 1981 decision. The motion has been opposed by the NRC Staff and Licensee and has not yet been ruled upon by the Board. Further discussion of the matter belongs, if at all,

• in comments on making that decision immediately effective. ,

I The subject has nothing to do with the issues in the reopened hearing.

__ -_---------_u

. ... Decision (" Management PID") on management issues _would be. - :

- " invalid," since the Board considered that the April, 1981 -

NRC licensing exam cheating incident " raised considerable:

doubt that the evidence developed during the TMI-Unit 1. . .

restart proceeding was sufficient concerning:the. matters

- of management integrity, its training and testing program,- . _

~

-and the numbers, competency and integrity of. TMI-Unit- 1. . :  ::  ;..- .

licensed operators. (Memorandum and Order, _ August 20, -

2._ This asser

-.-  : 1991, p. 2, ASLB)." Aamodt Comments, at _- m tion inverts the position of the Licensing Board. -

---

After having issued a lengthy and detailed deci- ._ . .;;

sion on Licensee's management capability, the : Licensing: .

Board reopened the TMI-l restart proceeding.to_ determine. . . : ._ ;..

whether the cheating incident or its implications would .

affect the management issues considered or left -open in the Management PID. See Board Memorandum and Order on October 2, 1981 Conference of the Parties Relative to Reopened Proceeding, October 14, 1981, at 2. Contrary to the Aamodts' assertion, the Board did not express

" considerable doubt" that the evidence on which its Management PID was based was sufficient concerning the-matters of management integrity, Licensee's training and testing. program, and the numbers, competency and integrity of TMI-l licensed operators. Rather, the Board recognized the potential for the cheating incident to affect its,_

earlier findings. Specifically, the Board stated:

l l

4

_7_

l_ _ - _- The possible nexus of this cheating -incident to -

issues in this hearing, depending upon the facts, goes beyond cheating by two particular.individ-- -

l uals. We are proceeding with the issuance of j _ ...-- a partial initial decision on management issues.

We do so in order to give the Commission as much l

time as possible to review the partial initial _ _. .

l decision before we issue a subsequent decision on other issues. Also, by issuing our_ findings _

j on training, . staffing, and operator licensing J: . now, the Commission, if it chooses, can. monitor _ .. _ .

'i the IE investigation in the context of its rele-vance to this proceeding. However,. .in.. the par-- -

~

! tial initial decision we retain jurisdiction j to consider further the effect of tdur investiga- .

! tion of cheating on our decision. The issues j - _.

of Licensee's management integrity _, the quality :_ : . .1. :r.

i of its operating personnel, its ability to staff I the facility adequately, its training and testing

! program, and the NRC process by which the ,

j-----. -

operators would be tested and licensed, are all _ _ _

1 important issues considered in the partial deci-sion. We will consider carefully :.tdue effect on e . - .- - f r i such issues of the investigations to date and 1 . _ any further information which may_be..dev_ eloped.. -

.. _u i

4 Board Order of August 29, 1981, at 2; see also .Manag.ement PID _ . _ .

I at 1 45. -

The existence of the potential for the cheating i

incident to affect the Management PID, however, does not sup-port the Aamodt's bald assertion that the conclusions reached -

I ~

by the Board in the Management PID are invalid.. In the absence . ,

i

of compelling evidence to the contrary, the Board's findings, .

9/

i based on an extensive record, must be considered controlling.-

t l

9/ This conclusion is particularly compelling here, where the Tocus of the reopened proceeding was not on the substantive adequacy of Licensee's training program -- which was extensively litigated earlier in the restart proceeding and was the subject -

of very detailed findings in the Management PID, see Management PID at 11 163-276 -- but, rather, was on the administrative sufficiency of Licensee's (and the Staff's) procedures for testing and certifying licensed operators, along with an -'

examination of discovered incidents and rumors of cheating.

I

. , , . ~ , - , ~ . . - - - - . . . . . - - , , - - . . . , -

-.n.. , --. , ,--- n ... . , - - . - - - - , . - , --,.

, . The Aamodts cite no evidence in support of their_

request, but simply make the following unsupported assertions:

i --

"managemer.t of TMI-l was woefully inadequate

. . - - and deliberately negligent in testing and -. .

certifying their operators";

" cheating was extensive"; --

-- " training was inadequate for the operators  :. -

~

to confidently pass the NRC licensing exami- -.

nation."  !

- : - - - _ . Aamodt Comments, at 3.

Not only do the Aamodts . fail-to support .

- ~

their serious allegations regarding the adequacy of Licensee's -

- . - management, but they misconstrue Licensee's position in. stating

- that " Licensee has admitted" that managementcof TMI-d. was - --

1

- " woefully inadequate" and " deliberately negligent"_ in. testing .i e

and c'rtifying TMI-l operators. Aamodt Comments, at 3. In the paragraph of Licensee's proposed findings of fact on the re- l opened TMI-l restart proceeding to which the Aamodts refer, a  ;

copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment I, Licensee  :

indeed admitted that its past exam administration and certifi-cation procedures were insufficient, and that it was at fault f

with respect to a 1979 test-related incident at TMI. See

- Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of r:

Law on Issues Raised in Reopened TMI-l Restart Proceeding, at 1 413, a-d. At the same time, however, based on the i

thorough litigation of all facts related to the cheating issue, Licensee's proposed findings reflect that the record supports the conclusion that Licensee's management did not have any prior knowledge of or involvement in the limited i

l i

) incidences of cheating which were uncovered after an intense- - -

~ examination by the parties and independent investigators 2 of virtually hundreds of tests given at TMI since March, 1979,

~::... .. .__ _

nor did Licensee encourage the misconduct which wn? brought ~ -  !

~

- licht. Id. at 1 241. It is also clear that Licend e has - -

l_.,-~- ..

- implement.d new procedures which respond to the shortc6mings:- -

which became apparent when it was discovered that cheating-

)

2 25

--had occurred at TMI. Id. at 11 347-48, 356-65i ~ 2 2 - '- -

2~ l Finally, the Aamodts entirely mischaracterize the

~

potential delay which would result from a Commission decision --

^~

- to await the Licensing Board's findings on th5' matt 5rs raised - - 2 21 -

The Aamodts asseit-that "the ~

~

j

-in~the reopened proceeding.

~

[-- Board's opinion would not be expected to be served much'later 2

! than the deadline the Commission has set for 'the parties to file ~ comments concerning the immediate effectivenes's 6f.the

~

-l j Board's decision of December 14~, 1981," with initial and I- ~

reply comments due January 28 and February 4, respectively.

~

~ ~

Aamodt Comments, at 4. ~~2~~

The current schedule required Licensee;to file its

~

~

~

Proposed findings i by

~

! ~~ initial proposed findings on January 5. -

~ all other parties were filed on January 15, with the exception j of the Aamodts, who requested and received an extension until

~ ^ January' 18. Reply proposed findings by Licensee and the Staff are then due on January 22, except for replies to the Aamodts' proposed findings, which are due on January 26.

1 l

l l

- - __ - _ - _ _ - - - . - _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ - - - _ . - _ _ _ ~ .

Even if one allows only a limited time for the 10/

~

Special Master to issue his report, e.g., a. matter of weeks,--

there still follows from that juncture a series of steps in

-. - the administrative process, each of which in.all likelihood will take several weeks at a minimum: (i) comments to the. t Licensing Board by the parties on the Special: Master's report;

~

~

(ii)~ reply comments by the parties on each otherFs comments; -

(iii) consideration by the Licensing Board of.the.Special _ _

Master's report and the parties' comments; and . (iv) as the

- Aamodts observe in the Comments to the Commission, comments. .

- ~of the parties on the Licensing Board's opinion. Aamodt -

. _ : .:) '

- Comments, at 1. Prior to receiving any of the proposed .

findings of the parties, which amount to several hundred pages, the Licensing Board estimated that its final deci- I sion on cheating would not issue until March or April, 1982. .:

See Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of December 14, 1981 on Emergency Planning Issues, at 1 2014. .In view  ;

of the established proposed findings schedule and the series of steps which precede and follow the Board's decision, we consider it optimistic to assume that the matters raised in the reopened proceeding will be ready for Commission i consideration prior to May,1982. This schedule hardly 10/ The Commission has been advised that the Special Master's  :

report is not expected until early March, 1982. See Summary of Weekly Information Report, Week Ending December 18, 1981, for the Commissioners from T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, '

Office of the Executive Director for Operations, dated Decem-ber 23, 1981.

l

comports with the Aamodt's view that the decision canibe expected shortly after January 28. - --- -

~

~

In summary, the Aamodt's Comments fail to -present ~ ~

-. -- to- the Commission evidence to support their request that ithe Commission should postpone its decision on the-restart :of -TMI-l -

pending its consideration of the matters raised ~.incthe : reopened  : -- --

~~

proceeding. Licensee submits that the evidence developed--during

- the. reopened proceeding fully supports lifting -of :the -Commission's - 1

July 2 and August 9,1979, immediately effecttve -suspension : - '

Orders. In addition, contrary to the Aamodts' -suggestion, - -

- +

- the Licensing Board's decision .on matters related to ) cheating .-- -::.I.

17- --

wil.1 in no event coincide with the timing of :the Commission's - - . -

consideration of the immediate effectiveness -of the Licensing r:- - -

Board's December 14, 1981 partial initial decision. -

TMIA TMIA proffers five rationales in support of its -

position that the Commission should delay issuing a~ decision on the question of immediate effectiveness until insuance of the Licensing Board's decision on matters related to . cheating;

-I .

however, TMIA's arguments are not supported by either the law or the factual record developed in the TMI-1 restart proceeding.-

TMIA first argues that authorizing _ restart,n_ow , _ _ _

would be an abuse of the Commission's discretion and, moreover, judicial policy reasons, such as the legal doctrines of exhaus-l tion of administrative remedies, ripeness, and finality,

- demand that the decision be deferred. See TMIA Comments .

on Why the Commission Should Delay Issuing an Immediate - . .

. . Effectiveness Decision on the Basis of Two Partial-Initial.  ;

Decisions Until After the ASLB Issues its Decision on Re . . . . . . . . . .

opened Proceedings Examining Cheating Incidents - ("TMIA Com- _. .:

ments"), dated January 13, 1982, at 1-7. In. making these .. .

.- arguments, TMIA simoly ignores the legal basisufor the! - .

! shutdown status of TMI-1.  :.._:.. .. . .

As the Commission has made perfectly clear, -

this case differs significantly from - -

normal initial operating license cases. -

. Here, a decision by the Commission rather . . :.._ -

. than granting effectiveness to a Licensing - --

Board decision, would be determining, based. . . . .

on that decision and other facts, whether l

the concerns which prompted its original - -

immediate suspension order of August, 1979,_ -

justify a continuation of that suspension. -

If they do not, and the Commission therefore can no longer find that the "public health, safety and interest" mandates the suspension, then the Commission is required by law --

whatever the nature of the Licensing Board's

. decision -- to lift that suspension immediately.

I This is a matter peculiarly within the Commis-sion's knowledge and involving the most discre- -

tionary aspects of its enforcement authority.

Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island, Nuclear, Station, .

Unit No. 1), CLI-81-34, 14 N.R.C. , slip op at 2 (December 23, 1981). It is illogical for TMIA to argue that as a matter cf law, the Commission has only the discretion to exercise its authority in one direction -- delaying its consideration .

of lifcing the immediately effective TMI-l suspension Order.  ;

l With respect to TMIA's judicial policy argument, TMIA's acknowledgement of the appellate process which will  !

t 6

~~ suraly follow action by the Commission on therTMI-l license -

c

- suspension clearly demonstrates the tremendous importance 1 9

- of a~ prompt Commission decision, in view of the' indeterminate

[----- amount of time which will .be involved in court-resolution-of:- - --

a challenge to a decision authorizing restart. - -- 1 - - -

TMIA's third argument is that the Licensing:-Board!s. 7 _. -

--  : 1 recommendation of even 5% power operation, without regard to- - -~:'r the outcome of the cheating hearing, was improper. This-asser-j l- tion is unfounded, as well as irrelevant, in view of the-fact-~

p that it is the Commission, not the Licensing Board, that:hasi- - .

the authority to make such a decision; and certainly,;the _, ..

i Commission has the technical expertise to reach such a deter --  :  :

mination. --

\ - ..

Moreover, the conclusion by the technical members i

j of the Licensing Board panel, Dr. Jordan and Dr. Little, that' operation at 5% of design power level would facilitate testing

] ,

of many nuclear safety devices and system but would essen-i

- tially eliminate the possibility of an accident having serious l consequences for the public health and safety, see partial

~ ~~ ~ ~

Initial Decision of December 14, 1981, at 1 2021, ha's'~as its ~

foundation the commission's own regulations, which allow a licensing board's decision authorizing issuance of an l operating license to become effective up to 5% of rated i

power prior to Commission consideration of whether to stay i

,i 1

l i

i

the effectiveness of the decision. See 10 C.F.R.: S: 2.764

. as amended, 46 Fed. Reg. 47764-66 (Sept. 3 0, : 19 81) . . _ In __

- permitting fuel loading and low-power testing prior to a. _

_.. Commission immediate effectiveness determination,c one of- ..

- the. reasons given by the Commission for thisnpolicy:is the=.  :

fact that . . _ _

such activities involve minimal risk to the _:. ; ._: .

public health and safety, in view of the limited power level and correspondingly limited snounts _ __

of fission products and decay heat, and greater _. -

time available to take any necessary corrective - __ _

action in the event of an accident. -

11/

46 Fed'. Reg. 47765 (Sept. 30, 1981).-- Similar.; language - ~ _

describing the Commission's policy with respect _ to fuel --

loading and low-power testing licenses is contained _in the -  ;-

Commission's recently proposed amendment to a-.section ofrits . ..

-12/

offsite emergency planning regulations, 10 C.F.R. S'50.57. -

11/ While the immediate effectiveness rule, setting forth a detailed procedure for the effectiveness of initial operating license decision, explicitly was hcid inapplicable to-the TMI-l restart proceeding, which involved " extraordinary circumstances,"

the rationale for the Commission's satisfaction _ that fuel _ loading and low-power testing licenses can be issued prior to Commission review without jeopardizing the public health and safety neverthe-less remain the same in all circumstances. See 46 Fed. Reg. 47765 __.

(Sept. 30, 1981).

12/ In its Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking to 16 CFR Part 50, the Commission states:

The Commission's position is that several factors contribute to a substantial reduction in risk and

potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to the higher risks in contihuous full power operation. First, the fission product inventory generated during low power testing is much less than during full power operation due to the lower level of reactor activity and short period of operation.

Second, at low power, there is a reduction in the required capacity of systems designated to mitigate (Footnote continued) i

TMIA also argues that Licensee will :not : suffer from - -

delayed consideration by the Commission of whether .the TMI-l __

l l _

license suspension can be lifted. Licensee-disagrees. There 1

1 are a number of potential causes of delay which -reasonably -- .  ::-

can be anticipated from a decision by the Commission to defer: .  : . n-consideration of immediate effectiveness, pendingnits considera-

) tion of matters related to cheating. Rather than repeat its- .; -.

1 .

argument here, Licensee refers the Commission to Licensee's. ._ - - . .

p -

Reply to UCS Motion to Extend Deadline for Immediate Effec-I tiveness Comments, January 5, 1982, at 8-10. _,

Finally, TMIA states that evidence "provides sub-

~

- ;i: n _ ; _. -

^

stantial basis for challenging the integrity of the training i: . ..-_.-- --

and testing process, to the point where it has become dangerously

! deficient," and " indicates that management's integrity and com-1 :_ . _

q petence is severely inadequate." TMIA Comments, at 10. A

~

n review of the specific bases for TMIA's assertio'~~es'tablishes, however, that TMIA's claim is groundless. TMIArs distortion of the record is apparent at times from the_very.' citations '._- __

to whi~h c TMIA refers. In other instances, Licensee refers

, - - the Commission to excerpts, attached to this Reply, from Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions .of Law on Issues Raised in Reopened TMI-l Restart Proceeding l - .

--12/ (Footnote cont'd. )

l the consequences of an abnormal occurrence under j full power operation. Third, the time scale for

taking actions to identify accident causes and .

mitigate accident consequences is much longer than

! at full power.

46 Fed. Reg. at 61132-33 (December 15, 1981).

1

- ~. -

, . (" Licensee's Findings") , which include detailed discussions .

and citations from the record concerning the " evidence" referred to by TMIA. Certainly, it is easy.for TMIA to ~

muddy the waters with a series of highly incriminating:

.. allegations about Licensee's management. But the issue. . .

here is whether TMIA provides evidentiary support.for.its. ~ : . ..:.

serious allegations.  ; _ .: ..

The first specific criticism articulated by.TMIA... ._.

is that "there is evidence to indicate that; cheating-is - -

widespread and accepted at TMI, particularly during weekly-training quizzes, (pp. Al-A5) at which time- the- CAT-T..(or _ -

" lessons learned") exams are typically administered.";:TMIA  ;

l Comments, at 11. TMIA refers, here, to six. attached,; mis-- ~

i cellaneous transcript pages -- single pages:from two different witnesses, and three pages from one. witness who. testified 13/

during the reopened proceeding.- Licensee. submits that a review of these isolated transcript pages does not support .

the far-reaching, deprecatory proposition for.which they are cited. Moreover, in Licensee's view, it is absolutely clear

! that the quiz problem identified by TMIA no. longer exists _ _4 at TMI due to Licensee's exam administrative procedure, _

14/

a _ fact to which TMIA appears completely oblivious.- See Attachment A.

13/ The page number of TMIA attachment A3 is illegible; Hence, it is unclear who is testifying here.

14/ For example, TMIA's allegation is stated in the present tense.

i

, - - . - , . - - ~ , - - . - . , , , , - - - - . . . ,-n__,.-- - . - - - - - . - - _ . , - , - , , , , . - ,--.--n,m ,

l

, l l

~ '

The same problems are present with respect:to TMIA's~ -

next several assertions regarding the seriousness. with. which -  :~-

~ ~

~

quizzes and exams are taken at TMI. TMIA Comments,. at: 11. .: --

~

-Here, again, Licensee notes that TMIA quotes' three licensed 1 - ::J-1 operators out of the eighteen who testified,- .that- the' testimony : t .: - -

)

~' ' '

is all in the past and not the present tense, that Attachments- r: i:

A8 and A9 to TMIA's Comments do not appear to support -the - I 1

proposition for which they are cited, and that, in any:-event,- - - ;-----j the material is taken entirely out of context. : Agairr, Licensee --  :: :

1 would refer the Commission to portions of its- proposed findings . -

IJ -

-for :a description of the record on the subject; of- taking: exams  ; - -l . ;

seri~ously . See Attachment'B. - : : - -- - ; J- .'r:

- J:

1:~-- With respect to the allegation that :"[s]ome blamed - ~ - - - :;

management for possibly forcing individuals to cheat :(A14-)-,"'

TMIA Comments, at 11, Licensee believes the reference to which- - -

TMIA refers speaks for itself; namely that, contrary to TMIA's --

assertion, one operator felt that management shared in some in- --

articulated manner some of the responsibility for the. NRC- exam -

cheating incident, although he did not think- there was any reason- -

for the two individuals in question to have cheated. See ulso - --. 1-Attachment C. With respect to the alleged lack'of understanding

- ~of " basic concepts" by TMI-1 operators, TMIA Comments , at ll, TMIA's reference at best supports the proposition that one concept was not understood by two operators. Moreover,_, no _evi_d_ enc.e _ _ .

is presented on the " basic" nature of the principle. Licensee  !

next strenuously takes issue with TMIA's suggestion that l

)

i f________ _ -___ _ __ - _ _ . _-_ _ _ _ -

I

. memorization and coaching are improperly encouraged by Licensee. .

Here~ again, TMIA's citations are insubstantial -- one refers to a repeat of "at least 2 or 3 questions" out of.over a- .

- hundred on an RO and SRO exam, and ignores the_ detailed _. . .

testimony by the Staff documenting this question;-the other  : -

c

- example refers to a summary review session conducted.by.  : .

Licensee prior to the re-do of the Category _T: exam, after -

the subject had been repeatedly taught to the:TMI-1. operators: - _ . .

over an extended period of time. See generally Attachment D. _

'~

-The 1979 incident to which TMIA refers, TMIA Comments-

. . at 11, was the subject of a number of witnesses _' testimony. u - -- - .

- Licensee agrees with TMIA that it did not at_the: time, and .  :-

does not now, consider this incident to bo an-:. example:of :-- .

cheating; rather, Licensee considered it evidence of an-employee's improper conduct and poor j udgment. _ In stating ,

that no disciplinary action was taken at the time, TMIA ignores several of the pages to which it had just referred -- .

A19 and A20 -- as well as a salary chart that was placed.

into evidence during the proceeding. See generally -

Attachment E. -

l The evidence which TMIA cites in support of-the .

proposition that " rumors of cheating on NRC - exams. have been 1

circulating at least since 1977," TMIA Comments, at.ll, does not support that proposition: one of TMIA's citations refers to "a" rumor "a couple of years ago"; more aggregiously, the transcript page before the second reference to which TMIA

cites clearly states that the witness heard a. rumor.after.the

.. ._two individuals who cheated on the April, 1981 examinations had left Licensee's employ, which was in August of 1981.

. Licensee notes that the statements by TMIA that_ _

_ " cheating episodes were numerous and took many._ forms".is not _ _

supported by a citation to the record. TMIA again misrepre- _ _ _ _

_ sents the record in citing to the transcript at page_25,988 ,,

(A26) in support of the proposition that the_ .Off,1ce. of _

. Inspection and Enforcement ("OIE") did not investigate _

some. cheating episodes. .

Perhaps the.most serious manipulati.on of.the record.

by TMIA is TMIA's statement that, "In the face,o.f all this.,". _ _ . - -- _. ..

. _ . referring to the discovered incidents, rumors _ of and. attitudes about cheating which surfaced after July of 1981, ". Licensee _

. management continued to certify individuals .to_ take the_NRC exams, even if it meant withholding from the NRC information

.regarding a candidate's known involvement in cheating," citing

_here to tne testimony of a Staff witness, Lawrence Crocker, _

on a license certification which occurred in 1979! ._

The major citations to which TMIA refers in support of its statement that, " Evidence also shows that management pursued cheating rumors haphazardly, if at all, even during

'in-dep.th' company investigations" are excerpts from the testinony of Mr. Henry Hukill, the Vice-President in charge i

of TMI-1, who was not responsible for Licensee's follow-up investigation of allegations or unsubstantiated rumors of l

l 1

cheating. See TMIA Comments, attached pages A32-A36. See generally Attachment F. Moreover, a review of_ all of the referenced citations does not support TMIA's sweeping asser-

- tion, which is then followed by another, related serious .

15/

allegation- for which no record support is .even claimbd. , .

TMIA Comments, at 12. In the next sentence, concerning _ ..

- management constraints on NRC's investigations, TMIA again mischaracterizes the witness' testimony to which TMIA refers -

at attachment A40 to its own Comments. . _u Licensee agrees with TMIA that serious allegations

- with respect to the TMI-l Manager of Operations were raised- :_ ._

during the hearing. What TMIA ignores, howeverr is the -_.

. overwhelming evidence of this individual's innocence. -See .

Attachment G.

Finally, Licensee would agree that operator cheating _

has safety implications. However, contrary to TMIA's assertion, we believe that the NRC Staff's new procedure for detecting cheating on NRC exams is sufficient. See Attachment.H. ..

In conclusion, Licensee agrees with TMIA that the

" evidence" presented in its Comments is "only a sampling of _

the evidence presented during the reopened proceeding," TMIA Comments, at 12; however, this biased sampling -- which pre-sumably- is the best evidence in support of TMIA's position --

15/ Specifically, TMIA states: "ThesecompanyinvestkatIons were sorely inadequate and nonthorough, leading one to question the sincerity of management to detect cheating at all."

l

,y - - - _

i doesinot support the conclusion urged by TMIA that the @ mmissich- - -- ,

should defer consideration of whether the TMI-1-operating' license

- should remain suspended pending its consideration of the -Board's  !

'-- -- decision on cheating.

^

Thus, insofar as the evidence:which'- - - - -

f t

~

-- TMIA relies upon in support of its numerous;-sweeping allegations --l i

- of Licensee's management constitute "only" i samplihg of the - -

-f

~

l

- evidence presented during the reopened procEedisg7,ithe-Com - l

~

mission can rest assured that the record do s-dot-suppcet-

. t

-l

~

continued suspension of the TMI-l operating 11icehse.~ The-

. i

--Commission can also have confidence in this conclusion given -

-l t

- ~'

- -the painstakingly detailed review of virtua11 hundreds of

~

examinations by the numerous parties to the; reopen &dipror-- -- T !

- ~~

-- - -- - ceeding, with testimony by Licensee managemerit-witabsses; - -  !

independent investigators, training staff, 19-TMI-l operator ,

licensees or candidates, staff members of NRR who were  ;-- -- - -

intimately involved in the NRC examination process at TMI-l over- the past year, and OIE and the Office of Inspector and~ -'

"" Auditor ("OIA") investigators who conducted investigations -

of cheating at TMI-1. - - --

For all the reasons stated above, Licensee urges - l the Commission to proceed with its decision on the immediate --

~

)

effectiveness of the Licensing Board's December 14, 1981-- j partial.~ initial decision without awaiting the Board's decision l

1 ,

l 1

I i

. on matters raised in the reopened hearing. - -'

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE h., h o

. George F. Trc. rbridge Ernest'L. Blaxe, Jr.

Deborah B. Bauser

- Counsel for Licensee

. 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 4

f 5

f Y

i.

[

l i

I  !

s I

l l ,

l  !

4 l '

h ,

k

l 1

e i  : - -  :- . . . : )

i i

j .. _

l 1

ir i

i 1

4 i

4 1

a i

(

ATTACHMENTS A-I

{ (EXCERPTS FROM LICENSEE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

, OF LAW ON ISSUES RAISED IN REOPENED i TMI-l RESTART PROCEEDING) i j

I i

l l

t 1  :

i i

.i 4

J

. - - , ..-,-.-n n. .- . ~ - , , . . , . , ,

i l

, Attachment A l l

C. Current Training Administrative Practices .- -

l

. 347. In response to the discovery of cheating on the NRC examinations in April, 1981, and to ensure that all exams n . administered by Licensee test the ability of- 'he. individual and  ;-

prevent misconduct which would defeat thir purpose,. Licensee . ..

. .has draf ted and instituted a training procedure.,. effective. - _- .

October 20, 1981, and applicable to the administration of all- -. - ,

. - exams administered by the Training & Education. Dep'artment or 1 under its direction, viz. , by contractors.. - See Lic.: Ex.- 63. -

Included in this procedure are the following: major require- -

ments-( .

(1) exams must be secured by compliance with - -

. delineated procedures, e.g., typists must return all draf t .

exam sheets to the individual requesting thertyping;.

(2) all exams must be accompanied by a " Written Examination Certification Cover Sheet" which, among other things, specifies whether the exam is open- or closed. book, l

specifies rules of conduct, identifies authorized reference materials, and provides a space for students to sign a statement that their work is their own; (3) instructor / examiner procedures are specified for ensuring that the physical environment in which the. exams

_ are taken does not compromise the exam process , e .c . , no l

unauthorized materials are present, students are not sitting close together, and seating charts are made for

" major" exams , such as the requalification exams;

-176-

(4) all tests are required to be 100% proctored; -

1

-\

(5) rules on students leaving the exam room during

. . .1 the exam are provided; and i

'~ ~ ~ ~

student misconduct is required to be immediately

~

(6)

~~ ~

... reported to Training supervisory personnel orally and in

~

writing; the written report is given to 'he Ma' nager of

~ "

t

..: __+-- .- :... :  :.. . : .:.: . .

Training, who reports it in writing to the Human Resources Department (GPU Nuclear's personnel department), and

.. .. .. ~- . . :. . . .

~

notifies an individual in the student's supervisory chain,

-}'~ as well as the Director of Training & Education,Nr.Long.

~

~ ~ ~~ ~

Lic. Ex. 63; Long, ff. Tr. 24,921, at 25-26.

~

348. Dr. Long discussed the new exam administration procedures with the Training Department at TMI in a meeting '

~ convened for the training manager, supervisors:, instructors and.:.:

~ -

~

~~

administrative personnel the week of October 19, 1981. In th'is _,

meeting, Dr. Long emphasized that it was incumbent upon Ehem as

~~

teachers to ensure the integrity of Licensee's examination

~~ .

While his department is

~

proce.ts. Long, ff. Tr. 24,921, at 26.

not the disciplinary function in the organization, Dr. Lon'g

~

~ ~

believes that it is clearly his department's responsibility to approach examinations with the appropriate attitude, and to j

) take measures to protect the efficacy of the exams his 1 .

instructors administer. Id. We agree.

~~~

349. With respect to ensuring that the training staff has the proper attitude towards the examination process, Licensee's Vice President of Nuclear Assurance, Mr. Herbein, l

l

! -177-

Attcchm:nti B 275. The partiec cnd the Sp3cial Mnstor quhotioncd virtually all of the control room perscnnel at length- as to.

their attitudes about the subjects covered in the Hukill

. meetings, viz., their views on, cheating generally, their

, involvement in or knowledge of cheating, the O and ,W incident, -

management's expectations and standards of' conduct', and the NRC '

re-exam process. There was a clear recognition: by' these-

. witnesses of the wrongdoing of Messrs. O and W. S e e ',- e . g . , Tr.

25,917 (Mr. H): Tr. 25,993 (Mr. 00); Tr. 26,317 (Mr. V); Tr.

26,579, 26,581 (Mr. I). However, because of the perceived

.. capabilities of 0 and W, and their many years in- Licensee's -  :

employ, many of the operators felt that 0 and W should have -

been. removed from nuclear-related activities, but not fired. - - .--

See, e.g., Tr. 25,767-68 (Mr. G); Tr. 26,018 (Mr._YY); Tr. -

___ 26,310 (Mr. V); Tr. 26,532, 26,570-71 (Mr. I); but see Tr..

25,917 (Mr. H). While most of the operators had not thought cheating on a test would result in termination of employment,

. it was evident that this was not an issue which was.given any -

thought prior to July,'1981. Nor did we find that control room personnel perceived that management was in any way lax about

'its employees' conduct. See Tr. 25,686, 25,718 ( Mr . GG ) ;' Tr .

25,841, 25,853 (Mr. HH); Tr. 26,093, 26,149-50 (Mr. W); Tr.

(

26,388 (Mr. Shipman); Tr. 26,463 (Mr. WW); Tr. 26,581 (Mr. I);

Tr. 26,863-64 (Mr. U). (Interestingly, Mr. O stated that he recognized that his conduct might result in termination.of his t

employment. Tr. 26,250 (Mr. 0). See also Tr. 26,719 (Mr. P).)

-128-

i 276. In general, the operators were quito bitter 1 about the re-examination requirement, perceiving it as discrim- .

inatory. Tr. 25,687 (Mr. GG); Tr. 25,843 (Mr. HH); Tr. ,,

26,114-15 (Mr. W); Tr. 26,308 (Mr. V); Tr. 26,559, 26,588-89 ,

(Mr. I).

Nevertheless, they viewed their training . as adeguat_e, . . . _ .

and the examination process as a serious undertaking to which . ,

they.. were personally committed as licensed _ opera _ tors . See, .. :.-

e.g., Tr. 25,719 (Mr. GG); Tr. 25,858-59, 25,862 (Mr. HH); .T r .. ,

25,k6-67,25,946 (Mr. H); Tr. 26,031 ( Mr . . YY) ; Tr". 26,048-49 (Mr . A) ; Tr. 26,250, 26,277-78 (Mr. O); Tr. 26,309, 26,319-20 .

(Mr. V); Tr. 26,413 (Mr. Shipman); Tr. 26,522-24 (Mr. KK); T.r . ,,,

26,804 (Mr. U). .. _ . ,. .

277. In addition to the meetings held and letter , . . . . ....: , . . . . .

~ sent by Mr. Hukill to his staff, comparable one-on-one. _

interviews were conducted with and letters were sent to . .

individuals from their respective divisions who were candidates for NRC licenses at TMI-l by Mr. John Herbein, Vice President, Nuclear Assurance, and Mr. Richard Wilson, Vice Presid_ent, . .. .

Technical Functions. Arnold, ff. Tr. 23,590, at 9.. (Reporting to Mr. Herbein is the Training & Education Department of GPU , ,

Nuclear Corporation, of whom the TMI-l licensed operator

^

instructors, i.e., Messrs. Brown, Boltz and Husted, are a part.

See organizational chart ff. PID 1 54. The TMI-1 shift technical advisors report to the Systems Engineering Department of Mr. Richard Wilson's Technical Functions Division of GPU ,

Nuclear Corporation. See PID 1 513.) During the interviews 1

-129-D

_m_ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - , - - - - - _ - - . - - , , - ,- -

i I Attachm:nt C I

v. Statcmont of Mr. I --

140.

An additional incident merits our brief ~~ '

attention.

During the September 24, 1981 OIE interview of Mr".

j Ronald J. Toole, Operations'and Maintenance' Director at TMI-1, 1_ Mr. Toole mentioned that Mr. I had been agitated and ups~et l-1 about the termination of Messrs. O and W ah'd' had ' stated 'to him '

~

t-4 that _ . .

1 the people responsible for the cheatihg" of O' and' W were'.. -- -

j still around. Mr. Toole did not perceive Mh'.' ~I's remarks to -

t i

__. mean that Mr. I believed other cheaters were still at' TMI-l~,' ' *~ '~

but rather, that TMI management was respon'sible for Messrs. O's'

, and W's perceived need to cheat. Mr. Toole r' elated these' - ~

j j . . remarks to Mr. John Wilson on September 22, 1981' in' re'spon' se to' ' ~ ~ '

. . the latter's questions on cheating rumors. Staff'Ex. 27, at

~

32.

l 141. On September 24, 1981, the same day as Mr. '~

~

~

Toole's OIE interview, OIE interviewed Mr. I and asked him i

j about the statement that Mr. Toole had attributed to him. Mr.

i I did not specifically recall the conversation in questich',' but ~~ ~

j i

remembered that he had spoken to Mr. Toole when~ he was upset I

4 about the termination of Messrs. O and W. Mr '. I's statement j

t conveyed his belief that TMI management personnel had' failed to uphold their duty to prepare O and W adequately for the NRC 4

exams. .This failure, in Mr. I's view, had resulted in the 1

i termination of two fine employees, whereas the' management personnel were still at TMI.

Mr. I did not mean to imply that

he had any direct or indirect knowledge that others were i

i

involved in the 0 and W chocting incident. In fact, he _;

~ specifically denied such knowledge. Staff Ex. 27, at 35 and -

. Enclosure 9; see Tr. 26,576-77 (Mr. I). '

142.

We find both Messrs. Toole's and I's explana- - -.-

. tions credible and we agree with the OIE investigators that- no. .

further action on this matter is warranted.

See-Staff Ex27~,: .  ::

at 47. --

-- : : :i :' : :.

vi. Possible Solicitation of -

Mr. P During NRC Exam -

-- : 'i- :-

143. The final incident we shall discuss- concerns- ~ -

r. :

, . the testimony of NRC witness Ward, Mr. Husted,~ a licensed - -

operator instructor at TMI-1, and Mr. P, a shift supervisor!at - ::-

TMI-1,. .the latter two of whom were the only individuals taki~ng.- '

the NRC SRO "B" exam in the smokers room on April 24, 1981.

The record reveals a conflict between Mr. Ward's testimony and . ..- .

Mr. P's concerning P's interview by NRC investiga' tion on ~

September- 25, 1981. Mr. Ward's recollection is that Mr e -P -

during the interview stated that Mr. Husted solicited an -answer. . .

from him, whereas Mr. P's recollection is that he never -stated I

{

such a thing because Mr. Husted did not solicit an answer from him. Mr. Husted consistently has maintained that he ,did not- .

cheat on the April NRC exam and specifically that he solicited no answer. from Mr. P during that exam or any other. Staff Ex.

26, at 39; Staff Ex. 27, at 16; Tr. 26,937 (Husted). .

144. Mr. P was interviewed on September 25, 1981 by Mr. Baci and Mr. Ward, although Mr. Baci was not present during

. trustworthinese is aboolutoly nacessary on the part of all -

~

individuals,

_ from the top to the bottom, in an organization. .

Hukill, ff. Tr. 23,913, at 3-6. Cheating, lying, falsification' '

~

_ of records, or any other conddet which reflects a willingness ~

to compromise the integrity of one's actions is~ totally - -

~

_ unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Id.'at'3;'Tr. 23;985 2- - -

(Hukill). -' -

237. Mr. Hukill's testimony reflected the degree of

. . concern and responsibility he felt for the ; cheating which took'--' '

place on the April,1981 NRC operator license exams. While Mr. ..

Hukill did not assume his responsibilities as the ' ' ' - ~~2 Vice-President in charge of TMI-l until Septem6er of 1980,- ~

~

having arrived on-site in June of 1980, see Tr. 24,008 ~

~ '

(Hukill), he nevertheless felt that he bore some responsibility -

- for.what had occurred since he did not clearly articulate his

• views on this question of ethics to the TMI-l staff when he arrived but, rather, assumed such a view t'o be commonplace.

Bukill, ff. Tr. 23,913, at 4-5; Tr. 23,981, 24,010-17 -

(Hukill). In this respect, he felt somewhat naive. Eukill, ff. Tr. 23,913, at 2.

Mr. Hukill also was concerned about the degree to which Mr. O and Mr. W felt " driven" to cheat. Id. at

11. While he had reached no conclusion on this subject after having spent considerable time thinking about it, Mr. Hukill nevertheless faulted himself for not having sat down with each j exam candidate prior to the April, 1981 NRC exam and ensured that they were ready (substantively and emotionally) to take

-110-

the exams. Id.; Tr. 24,010-17 (Hukill). (O'n the other ' hand ; --- --- -

based on what he knew at the time he testified, Mr. Bukill ~

~

1 2~~

believed the exam candidates had been ready to take the April NRC exam _s, at least substantively.

_ _ __ Tr. 24,017'(Hukill).') -

238. Management can be faulted for n'ot' cl'early l - -

~

_ . enunciating its views on cheating, or safeguarding against such' ' ;-

conduct because, as Mr. Arnold recognized, these omissions resulted in very serious consequences. We do not believe, --

_ _ , however., that it reflects a careless attitude by ; Licensee 's - -- ~

_.nanagement about the trust placed in them, or an inattention' to- -

, their duties and responsibilities. Moreover,- we find it - --

~ ~

- '-I~

~

difficult to fault Licensee's management for tih'eir ; assumptions -- - E with regard to honesty, which we believe to be -fairly common. - -

~

~

4e do, however, have criticisms, as expressed in 11 315-20, -

_356-66_,. infra, with regard to the certification process Mri '

Hukill utilized to verify that operators were qualified to sit for the April 1981 NRC exams, and the absence of a TMI exam administrative procedure. See 11 325-33, infra. - -

239. In general, however, we are confident that the

. standard of conduct by which Licensee's employees will be judged by Mr. Arnold and Mr. Hukill is very high. -See r s.q.,

Tr. 23,616 (Arnold); Tr. 23,985 (Hukill). It was very clear, for example, that while Mr. Hukill would be willing to accept

' some failings or shortcomings in his staff, he would not tolerate acts of misconduct which we consider unacceptable, e.c., another cheating incident by Mr. Shipman, discussed at 51 -

j 102-13 above. It was also clear that Mr. Eukill perceived his 2

-111-

Attacnm:nt D

^

.techniqua. Id. at 3.

Tho Octobar SRO exam 0'waro~ graded by'NRC examiners in the Operator Licensing Branch's- headquarters- ~

office. Id. at 3. All examinations were reviewed Inr Operator - ~

. . . - . Licensing Branch supervision; per Examiners' Standard ES-109i that includes a review for cheating. Id. - - -- - -  !

396. The October exams were safeguarded prior to

~

2 '- - -

,, _ their . administration in accordance with regular Staff proce- - 2;-

dures. Id. at 4.

397. The issue of the degree to which examination --- 2 questions repeat themselves from license exam to exam was - - -

.. - . discussed at length by all of the Operator Licensing- Branch- ---

-staff witnesses. See Collins, f f . Tr . 25,113', at- 5 ; Boge r , -f f . - - - - - -

Tr. 25,480, at 5; Tr. 25,138 (Collins); Tr. 25,537 ( Boger) ; Tr.2- --

25,585-90 (Wilson). Again, our interest in this subject- --

~

focused on whether TMI-1 candidates who took the exam in April ~ '

' . or, more importantly, in October, could have memorized the ~

~~~

answers to prior exams and through this technique , passed the exams.

398. There is a conscious effort not to repeat exam '

questions from exam to exam at a given facility. Tr. 25,537 .

~

(Boger). Nevertheless, some questions will reappear, particu-l larly with regard to concepts and systems that are important l enough to be covered on every exam. Boger, ff. Tr. 25,480, at t

5. While the witnesses had difficulty assigning a percentage to the number of questions which could have been available to t

TMI-l candidates prior to the April exams, Mr. Wilson thought i l  !

! -205-

..[. - tho p.erco.ntago would ba quito small becausa of -the site __ -- - - .

.sp.e.cific nature of the exam. Tr. 25,585 (WilsonF. In -compar-: - - -

ing the Cetober examinations with all examinations administered -- - r

. . _ -since April of 1981 at B&W-designed facilities ,7 ' Mr . ~ Collins-  :- - --

determined that less than 4% of the questions o6 the- two- RO and :

2

__...SRO exams given at TMI-l in October were similar to questions:- - ::24

- _ _ _ :given :at these other facilities. Collins, ffsi Tr.125,113ir at : -

~

5. -

-.- = :. : r . - :399. Finally, the Staff presented testimony- on th'e'-- --- : :-

nature of the oral examination process, duscribing: its- purpose,:~ - - -

how oral: exams typically are conducted, the ~ efforts -to- minimiz -  :-- :

__. . . ing " coaching" by one oral examinee of the n' ~xt:eexami' hee,- -and : -  : .__ r

. the

grading-method used by the Staff. Boge r!, ff .- Tr . 25,4 80,  : --  ;

. . _ . at 7-12. -- :: - - - - - -:_.:

i

_- . ;400. The four to six hour oral exam: focuses on :the : _

,  :.-l candidate's ability to read and interpret the controlrinstru- -

i

_. _ mentation of the facility and to manipulate -the control - - _

equipment in a safe and competent manner, along with his I l

knowledge of how to operate the facility, including under -

i

- emergency conditions, and his knowledge of radiological-safety .

practices and the purpose and function of radiation monitoring. .

f equipment. Id. at 7-8. Each candidate is evaluated by an examiner in a one-on-one situation. Id. at 8. - 'The -candidates -

. responses are evaluated and recorded on an Operator Examination.

Report, See Staff Ex. 31, which indicates whether each answer .

is satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory. Id. at-8, 11-12.

p

-206- .

'I

. Soo Lic. Ex. 64, resulta on Category T exam.c for Maccrc. G,- E, .

FF and 00; Tr. 25,699 (Mr. GG); Tr. 25,756-59-( Mr '. . G )~.t. T r. .

26,003-04 (Mr. 00); Tr. 26,404-05 (Shipman). Moreover, round 2 of the Category T was given as 2 nonproctored, closed book, .

. take-home test. See Tr. 24,808 (Brown); Tr:. 26,001 (Mr. 00_). .

344. We were somewhat relieved to hear from Mr. -

-l Newton that when he realized that some operators were not ..: . -

grasping the Category T subject matter or placing sufficient

. importance on it, he required in July, 1981, that the test be -

formally administered and that the content of- the test be -

substantially changed. Tr. 24,813-16 (Newton); Tr. 26,003 (Mr.  ;

- 00 ) . .In addition, a fourth Category T makeup quiz was adminis- -

tered in November,1981, af ter the discovery of cheating on the  : -

April,1981 NRC examinations and the concerns about collusion on the Category T makeup tests were raised through Mr. Trunk'.s . . . . .

investigations. Arnold, ff. Tr. 23,590, at 8.

o 345. The fourth category T quiz.was taken by all operators who did not pass the Category T portion of the Kelly .  !

exam, or who did not take the Kelly exam. Brown, ff. Tr. .

24,695, at 1. The fourth makeup was preceded by a fairly l short, but comprehensive review session. Id. at 2; Lic. Exs.

t l

69C and 69D; Tr. 25,745-46 (Mr. G). From our review of the examination (along with the fif th makeup test administered to the one individual who failed to achieve 90 percent on the.

l fourth makeup), as well as our understanding that Licensee's ,

new exam administrative procedures were utilized and that the l

-174-l

f' Staff approved of the exam, we are satisfied th'at' dhe opera' tors ' ~

were~ sufficiently tested on this subject matter, ~given the ~ - ~

2 th'orough' and conceptual nature of the test'. Se'e' L'ic. Exs. 69k '

and 69B; Brown, ff. Tr. 24,695, at 3-4; Tr. 26,'407'-09

' ~ ~

.. '~

.-p (Shipman).

Nevertheless, we find it highly inapp opr~i' ate th'at

~

'L'ic'ensee waited until such a late juncture - at least unti;l

• 2 ~ * ' '

'~~2 ~

'Jul'y,1981, and not until November ,1981 fo'r m'any 55 tih'ei~' ~#~=~

' ~ ~

operators -- to properly test operators on 'th'is ma,t'erial.2 ---

~~2 ~

~

Moreover~, the repetition on the first two uIaIk'e'u'pI'thsts oY wh'at -~

~ ~

~ ~i appear to be less important Category T-related i~ssue's' (see,  ; 2 ~

e.g., Tr. 26,406-09 (Shipman), Tr. 25,74 5 ~( M~r'. ' G) )~,- most

' ~

assuredly encourages memorization, rather than understan~ ding, - ~ - " "

of the subject matter. It also results in indiv'iduals' focusing -

- ~ - - '

' "- ' ~

on passing the exam, rather than increasing 'their ~ grasp of th'e- ' ~'-

~ ~

' ~

'" 1; -~2" subject matter, i.e., coaching. - -

346. In conclusion, while we are gen'erally confident

~

that Li~censee's training program does not~ rely upon c~oachin'g ~

its stud ~ents to pass NRC examinations, rather than genuinely ~ '

educating them, we fault Licensee for not having focused -

earlier on the importance of the Category T examinations, and

~

~ '

for not treating that test accordingly. We are satisfied, -

however, that the TMI-1 centrol room staff have now been adequately tested on these materials, based o'n the earlier Kelly results and the November, 1981 Category T exam results.

See Brown, ff. Tr. 24,695, attached grades.

-175-1

Attachment E ,

311. Mr. O's involvemant in the April,1981 NRC ~ exam ~ '

, cheating incident makes it difficult objectively now to' judge' Mr. Miller's views of O in July, 1979. By all ' accounts, however, Mr. O was held in thi highest regard both by manage-ment and his peers. Miller, ff. Tr. 24,358~, at'4i T~. r

~

23,756-57 (Arnold). This extraordinary respect for Mr'. 0, '

• 1 together with Mr. Miller's other cited bases and the fact ~ that

~

nothing like this had ever occurred at TMI according to both -

Mr. Miller and the training department personnel, leads the ~

~ ~

~ ~~

Board to accept Mr. Miller's decision not to take further action with respect to 0.as reasonable. ~~ ~

312. As for.vy, the Licensee took disciplln~ary

~

1 action. Mr. Miller explained the basis for' his recom- - ~ ~

mendations. Miller, ff. Tr. 24,350, at 5-6. As'Mr. Miller viewed it, even though the training department's written ~

instructions to Mr. VV in the cover sheet did not explicitly dictate that he himself perform the make-up work, the training departmenc's policy was clearly that these exams were~ to be -

done individually and Mr. VV's decision to perform otherwise was very poor judgment. Id. at 5. Furthermore, while Mr. -

Miller accepted VV's representation that he was not attempting to deceive the training department (or he would have recopied the answers provided by 0 into his own hand), Mr. Miller's i

position was that vv's having involved Mr. O represented an unacceptable lack of regard for the importance that Mr. v' v should have attached to his completion of the test. Id.

l -150-

i Finally, Mr. Miller thought that VV's lack of regard was 1

g. .further demonstrated by his past poor record of -attendance at ; . . .

training sessions and his tardiness in completing-make-up. .

.. _ . assignments. Id. -

I 213. Mr. Miller's initial recomm~endation was that. . .

i j-: Mr. VV should be suspended for a week without pay and r letter . .. ;.

l

}.. describing the situation should be placed in: Mr.. VV's file. ._.-: -

! _I_d .

Af ter discussions with his boss Mr. Herbein,- Mr.. Miller 7- ,

. agreed to recommend a two-week suspension rathec. than .a - .

j one-week suspension. Id. The recommendation was_ then reviewed 7

by Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold was not aware that the make-up . - -

i j ..

assignment involved was an FSR requirement that needed to be -

l...

. fulfilled for continued licensing of Mr. VV;..Tr. 23,707-08  :

l . (Arnold). Nevertheless, based on his understanding that..it was .  :-

1 merely a typical make-up assignment for missed. training, and: - .

l his awareness of the involvement of Mr. O as well as Mr. VV's -

past performance in training and as a supervisor, Mr. Arnold .

1

4. cecided that VV should be relieved of his supervisory operating . _,

j line position, a decision concurred in by Mr.. Miller..and.Mr.

l Berbein. Miller, ff. Tr. 24,356, at 6; Tr. 24,451-52-(Miller);

J Tr. 23,732 (Arnold). Mr. VV was relieved of.his position,

{

I initially was assigned to a team investigating the TMI-2 .

i

' accident where his detailed technical knowledge of the TMI-2 unit could be utilized, see Tr. 23,773-75~(Arnold), and finally i

was placed in a Unit 2 non-supervisory technical interface l position with outside consultants, again where his knowledge of

-151-

that-unit could ba put to advantage. Tr. 23,771-72 (Arnold.).~ - -- :

l __ . No witness criticized the appropr.iateness of Licensee 's- . -  : - - - -

i disciplinary actions of Mr. VV. We concur. that such stern-l

l. - . action was appropriate. To the' extent there is doubt over the.

l l-- -impact' on Mr. VV of this move , salary comparisons of Mr. 'VV.'s - --

- progress with that of his counterparts in 1979 at Unit 1- and - --  :

~

. the individual who replaced vv at Unit 2 provide a benchmr7k.: -  :

These comparisons, which Special Master Milhollin asked .

Licensee to provide for the record, show that. both Mr.: VV's:- -  :. -

counterpart at Unit 1 and his replacement at Unit 2 have had -

salary increases since the July,1979 incident twice. that oE

Mr. VV, and whereas Mr . VV's salary in July,1979,

_was- thei r. -

. highest of . the three, he now is the lowest.. See Lic..Exs. Bla - '

and 81b. .

- -.- .- 314. One final aspect of the Mr. VV disciplinary. - .

action that received considerable attention during cross-examination is the degree of, or lack.of, public. notice to its other employees of the action Licensee took on. Mr. VV. Mr.

j Crocker of the NRC expressed his opinion that the Licensee's organization could have profitted by management's officially .

noticing this action. Crocker, ff. Tr. 25,081, at 5;.Tr.084-85 l (Crocker). At first blush, it appears that is the case.

l l Making a public example of Mr. VV in this instance may have l '

~

'provided a clear signal to other employees of management.'s disapproval of VV's behavior. On the other hand, this 1ncident was viewed as unique by training and by management. Miller,

-152-

l f f.- T2. 24,358, at 6; TMIA Ex. 66; Tr. 24i457-58 (Millerj. ' ' '

_ . .: - Furthermore, as Mr. Arnold pointed out, manage' ment's'ict56ds~ ' ~

could have been misinterpreted and, in Mr. VV's~ case,'there

. .  :  : .: were. unique reasons why management was hesitant to mEke 'in ~

.::-  : example of him.

~

Tr. 23,732-34 ( Arnold) . - 5ccording to Mr.' -

~'

Arnold, the Licensee does not make it a prac't' fee' to disseminate

. . t

. : individual employee personnel matters between an empIoye'e' and -

_ . _- the Company. Tr. 23,730, 23,896 (Arnold). In any event, with-

- : : 1.

the~ vibrant communications channels among- e'mp1'oyee's a't TMI, as

evidenced by the closeness particularly among operators and the

- ~

active ~ rumor mill .(see section II.E, supra-) ,2 'i t l's' ~n~o't reasona-

ble . to expect that replacing the head of the 'o' peta tor's' at Unit -

- - .. :2 would not be well known among all the operators; ~and 'the'

~ ~

reasons for the action as well, with or without bulletin-coard

..-.. publicity by management. See Tr. 23,737-38 (Arnoldt. ' ~ ~

~

~-- ~ ~ ~

315. The third question which grew out of this issue was whether Licensee appropriately certified Mr. ;VV for ' renewal of his license in August, 1979, af ter the incident- The ' '

~

-. certification was sent to NRC in Auguste after Mr. VV had ~

completed the accelerated training program' including retesting in the sections he had failed on the FSR make-up assignment and the sections in which Mr. O had provided answers. Miller, ff.

Tr. 24,358, at 6; TMIA Ex. 74. The certification letter te NRC, however, did not discuss the involvement of Mr.'O in Mr.'

VV's FSR make-up exams. See TMIA Ex. 74.

316. NRC's witness, Mr. Crocker, faulted Licensee on two grounds for certifying Mr. VV. The first ground was that

-153-

Attachm:nc F

_ 269. Mr. Eukill also mat on a number of occasions --- --

! with the TMI-l operations staff. Following-Mr.-Arnold's - -

initial meeting, Mr. Hukill met with each of the licensed -

. operators, by shift, in the plant, for approximately one- to- two- -

-hours. Bukill, ff. Tr. 23,913, at 10. At these meetings,- Mr. --

. .Bukill _ reviewed the following subjects: (1) the facts related: --- -

to cheating, as he understood them at tha t : time ; - ( 2) his- - -

standard of conduct, i.e., actions he would not- tolerate,. such _.__ -

- _ .as cheating and falsifying records; (3) thei basis' for -- - - - - - - -

Licensee's decision to rapidly resolve the: 0- and W cheating -

incident; (4) his concerns about individuals: feeling " driven"~ - -

to cheat, and the. management's responsibility: to-ensure that - - - -- -

individuals were ready to take the operator-license- exams; and: -

(5) reaffirmation of his intention to use six shifts, although -

five shifts would probably be necessary for.a period of time. .-

Id. at 11. Mr. Bukill also requested feedback from these groups. Id. See also Tr. 25,701-02 (Mr. GG); Tr. 25,852 (Mr.

EH); Tr. 25,912 (Mr. B). .

270. From his attendance at the meetings held by Mr.

Arnold, as well as his own meetings with groups of operators, Mr. Bukill determined that he, and others in management positions in GPU Nuclear Corporation, had to make it clear to the operators that the NRC licensed operator examinations, and Licensee's mock exams, were an objective measure of an - '

operator's knowledge. While they were not the only gauge used  ;

by Licensee, or by the NRC, to determine whether an operator

-125 -

wc.0  ; ggalified, they wore nocascary. Hukill, ff. Tr._23,913, qt ,_, __-

12.,_

It was also important to Mr. Eukill that he - stress. to: the , _ .__

, operators that regardless of the operators.' - attitude about

_ these exams, he placed significance on them,, and would not. _. _

_s tolerate misconduct in taking the exams, or. in: partic.ip.ating in .. .,

the TMI operator training and testing program. ..Id. .: . .. . . . . . . . . .

271. Mr. Hukill began his effort;to r ensure that.the ;  ; - .

. operators understood his position on these -issues- by_ di scussing.. - . . .

_;,,, _his viewpoint at several bi-monthly managers meetings._. Id.___., _. ;e-Attending the managers meetings were the TMI-1 Managers,_ as well .as onsite managers from GPU Nuclear's, support groups.-

Id.- . -

. ..at 12-13. Letters were the'n sent by Mr. Hukill;_to his: , _- - -

operations staff emphasizing the importance gf . fulfilling.

r,egulatory requirements, and the need to adopt:a: proper.

attitude _towards the operator training, testing;and .NRC:1_icense.

exam process. Id. at 13 and attached letter.

272. During the weeks of October.5 and 12, Mr.

Hukill met individually with every TMI-1 licensed operator candidate on the plant staff who took the NRC examinations in- ,,

April, 1981. At these meetings, Mr. Eukill fogused on a number of subjects. First, he discussed Mr. Arnold's. letter regarding the importance of regulations and Licensee management's commitment. to them, and the issues raised in his own letter to l the operators. Id. at 13. Mr. Hukil'1 informed-each individual l

l that Licensee expected them to be straightforward and honest and relied upon their being truthful if the individual was

-126-l l .

.intarview2d by regulatory agency parsonnel, or.if they ware . .

called to testify in the TMI-l restart proceedings. He also -

omphasized his view that the NRC written exams. provide a means.

by which the NRC and plant management can ensure and verify'. .

that operators have a certain minimum knowledge level. . .. .

Finally, he reviewed with each candidate his personal responsi-t

..bility as.a licensed operator for the health and safety.of the .  ;!

public. Id. at 13-14. .

I 273. During his individual interviews widh opera . - _i tors, which generally lasted from one to two. hours, Mr. Bukill f

csked each individual whether he had cheated on the NRC,. Kelly,  !

. ATTS or Category T exams, and whether he knew.of anyone who.had. . . . 4 ch> ated on these exams. With the exception. of :Mr . : Shipman's . ..

disclosure, discussed in 11 102-13, supra, the. answer given by. .

I cach_ individual to both of these questions was "no". .Id. at 14.

274. During these meetings, Mr. Hukill took abbre-viated notes which primarily indicated whether, in his mind, the individual understood and agreed with Licensee's policies on the subjects discussed and whether the individual had heard.

rumors. See TMIA Ex. 60; Tr. 23,934-42, 23,950-58 (Hukill).

It was not Mr. Hukill's purpose to identify nor did he pursue rumors which may have surfaced among the operators. Tr.

23,938-42, 23,952, 23,956, 23,958 (Hukill);.Tr. 25,975-77 (Mr.

00). By interviewing all the operators individuallyp Mr . ,

Bukill pursued.not merely whdt people had heard, but rather what each individual knew or had himself observed.

-127-

t , ,

Attachment G i

] cllogsd statGmanto of Mr. Rocs, Mr. Pardi'of'ATTS, and Messis.' ' '

Paul F. Collins, Ronald E. Maines, and Bruce ' A. Wils'on,'of NRR, the NRC Staff personnel involved in making the' ' April exam administration arrangements. Based on their invest'igations', a detailed report was published by OIE on this~ 'and 'one other ~ ~

T ellegation,' discussed in 11114-27, supra. 'Se'e' 'S taff Ex . '27. '

?-- --- -

- 225. Mr. Ross acknowledged that~ Ife' inay"indee'd' ha've'

~ ~ ' ' ~

spoken to his staff about his review of thean'swer geys;

-however,'he does not remember a specific conversation on th'is ~

~

subject. Staff Ex. 27, at 12; Tr. 24,175-77,'24,3'02-03, 24,331 (Ross). -During the OIE investigation and while on' the stand',

~

' Mr. Ross stated that he may have commented on' how long the '

1 reviews had taken, but there was no question in~ his mind that' '"

] his ' description of the time involved would have b en an 1

observation and not a description of an attempt'oh'his part to .

i distract the proctor. Mr. Ross categorically denied that he i

had ever attempted or would ever attempt to keep an NRC proctor

! from doing his job. Staff Ex. 27, at 12-13i'Ross, ff. Tr'. ~

24,127, at 3.

a

226. It was NRC Staff examiner Bruce A. Wilson's opinion, based on his seven year association with Mr. Ross, that Mr. Ross would never countenance any plan to lure him (Mr. 1 Wilson) from his proctoring. Staff Ex. 27, at 9. Mr. Ronald E. Maines, the other NRC examiner involved in administering the April, 1981 NRC exams, had neither knowledge nor suspiciod of any Licensee attempts to keep him from the room that he was --

-102-

~

cacignad to proctor. Id. at 11. Mr . Bact,. tha OIE. .. '_.

. investigator who interviewed Messrs. Ross and. YY, stated that

. .ho could understand Mr. Ross discussing the situation in a .

. fashion which would be interpreted by Mr. YY in the way be .

. described it. However, it was Mr. Baci's opinion that Mr...

.Ross' version of the facts was probably closer to .the truth.. . .  :

Tr. 25,437-38 (Baci). . . __.

227. Extensive cross-examination of Mr. Ross and Mr.. -

Bruce Wilson concerning the specific changes. to the exams which . . .

ware suggested by Mr. Ross indicated that the. substantial., but . . .

not extensive changes were prompted by TMI-1 plant design

. . modifications, NRC Staff misinformation about. .the. facilityr and__ __..:

.. the fact . that the exam was based in part on training. material. . . .

. Licensee -had sent to the Staf f which was outdated at the time of the exams. See Tr. 24,268-301 (Ross); Tr. 25,591-632,__

25,673, 25,676-82 (Wilson); Staff Exs. 33, 34, 35 and 36. Mr.

Wilson recalled no instances where one of the Licensee exam .

reviewers recommended a change to the answer key which,-in Mr. .

Wilson's view, would have made the answer key less accurata or complete. Tr. 25,678 (Wilson).

228. A number of individuals who would have been .

present in the control room at the time of the Ross conversa-tion recalled by YY were questioned on this subject. It was

' the recollection of Messrs. KK and GG that Mr. Ross had discussed his review of the exams, but that they understood Mr.

Ross to be reassuring his staf f about the fairness of the exam. i l

1

-103-  ;

i l

Id. at 24, 26; see also Tr. 25,688-89 (Mr. GG). Mr. RR

"~ ~~

- recalled Mr. Ross discussing this subject in an effort to cheer.

~ . -

up individuals who were depressed about the exams. ~

S'taff Ex.

~

27 at 27. Messrs. Newton, Pardi, QQ, and WW were unaware of

- -this rumor.

Id. at 15, 17, 18, 25. Finally,'on cross-1 examination, Mr. W -- the individual Mr. YY identified as-having knowledge of the " midnight requisition" incident -- ,

-recalled an incident involving obtaining a desk. Contrary to

+

Mr. YY's testimony, it was Mr. W's recollection ~ that Mr. Ross . ..

-- ~

had -properly authorired appropriation of an unused desk from ... . _.

TMI-2 to be used at TMI-1; however, the operators who Mr. W .. .

- sent to get the desk decided on their own not tog ' o all the hay'

- ~ ~ ~ ' ~

-- ~

over to- Unit 2 to get the designated desk, but ' ins ~tead took an ~ ~

unoccup'ied desk from a TMI-1 office. Tr. 26,161-63 (Mr. W).

' ~

' ~ ~ ~

l As Mr. W recalled it, this led to a fuss, but the problem

• centered on the operators who took the shortcut, not on Mr.

Ross.- In Mr. W's opinion, Mr. Ross is not' the type of individual who would instruct his people in writing not to appropriate materials from other locations in the plant and then verbally order them on a " midnight requisition." Tr.

26,161-62 (Mr. W). -

~~

229. In summary, the OIE investigators were unable

~

to corroborate the allegations of the informant, Mr. YY, and discovered no evidence which would lead them to conclude that Mr. Ross was guilty of any misfeasance and/or malfeasance.

l Staff Ex. 27, at 46. We are satisfied that OIE conducted a

-104-

- thorough investigction of this allegation, . and. endorso .ths: .. . . .

conclusions they reached. .

- 230. While we are satisfied that Licensee. managem.ent - .

.did not directly know of or encourage cheating, nor. were. they

- - involved in any manner in the cheating incidents described in Section II, supra, the question of management's- negligent- - -

failure to prevent this misconduct is a much. more difficul-t . ..- --

question to resolve. As we discuss in detail,.see Sec. tion IV, . _ ,

= infra r there were serious shortcomings in Licensee's. adminisn . . __ ;;...

trative practices which we discuss in our findings-on . .

- ' Licensee's verificat, ion of operators' qual _ifications. ..In .:_ -

addition to focusing' on Licensee's procedures, . however:,. we. have- _

~

carefully considered the attitude of Licenseet managemen.t. ab.out ...l the April, 1981 cheating incident, and the- conduct Licensee's: . .

management appears to expect and demand from- its- empl.oyees,;

1 particularly its licensed operators. In so doing, we have made an effort to understand whether management.. held an atti.tude l cbout integrity on the job, or about getting something done at  :

whatever cost -- e.g., exams -- which could have played.a part --

in the cheating which has occurred. l r

231. We consider the matter of management attitude and ethics perhaps to be of the most vital. importance in our resolution of the facts of this case. As we stated in the PID,  ;

in considering whether Licensee's organization is qualified to .

operate TMI-1, the attitude of mar.agement towards the responsi-i bility which would be entrusted to it was of major concern to i

-105-

Attachmrnt H I

\

facilitated both consistency in grades, an6 detection'~of ~ '-

- ~ ~

identical answers when a small number of papers'was involved.

- ~

-Since~miny of the sets of exams administered by the Operator- ~

Licensing Branch involved ten .or fewer candidates, reasonabl'e

~ ..

~ '

~~- - issurance was provided that identical answers-would'bedetec-

~ ~~~

~

Collins readily admitted,' howeveri' thatl~fa r ~

~ ~ ~

ted. Id. Mr. ~ -

- ~

~

--larger groups of candidates, such as the n&mber of individ' uais' i ~

-who took the TMI-l operator license exams ' in ~ April,198i, the

~

~

2

-probabi-lity of detection decreases. 5 - '2- ---~ ~~ 2 2 Id. __ i-384. As a result of the cheating which'tock place at -~

- -TMI-1, the Staff's grading procedures have Seen ~ revised to -

~

include a-more formal check for cheating.':Ths new irading-' - I

- 7 ' criteria, set forth in Examiners' Standard 'ES-109, s5e Staf f

- ~

- 7 ' - ' ~ ~

~

-Ex. ~25, requires, inter alia, that examiners riview in detail - ~ ~

the answers and the grades assigned for one ' question -in 50'% of .

~

the exam categories for 50% of the candidates, inspecting for indications of cheating or collusion. Collins, ff. Tr. 25,109, at 4; Staff Ex. 25. This quality assurance check is designed

~

to increase the probability of detecting (but not elimin'ite-the possibility of) cheating on exams. Tr. 25,122-26 (Collins).

~

In Mr. Collins' view, the ES-109 audit procedure, which takes

( one day per exam to satisfy, combined with the Staff's new 100%

proctoring requirement and procedure for ensuring that exa-

~

j minees are not sitting in close proximity to each other, as ~

1 l described below, constitute sufficient safeguards against cheating on NRC operator license exams. Tr. 25,124, 25,165-67 (Collins).

-198-

Accacamenc I l l

the responcibilitioc cvory liconeco in thic technology muot- -'

exercise.

To the extent we are aware of past shortcomings in Licensee's and the Staff's approach to the administration of - --

tests, we address those failings in these findings and conclu -

sions.

412. The evidence supports the view that cheating

~

was not an accepted practice at TMI-l nor prom 6ted, encouraged or condoned by Licensee management. We conclude management was 1

not involved in cheating. - - -

413. We do have a number of rather serious criti-cisms of Licensee, and of the Staff: -

a. . We conclude Licensee's failure to have, ~

adequately proctored its examinations, particularly wbekly-- -

quizzes, was a serious oversight, although7ene'which is not incomprehensible in view of the overall organization .

upheaval at TMI-l in the past two years, the focus of the

~

. training department on restructuring. the programs they administered, and the general assumption that honesty was demanded and required, based on management's (e.g.,

Messrs. Arnold and Hukill) past experience. We fault the 9

Staff, too, for this shortcoming, which in our view ,

requires minor attention in contrast to the trouble which the absence of proctoring can cause, as we now well know.

b. While we doubt that the TMI training department understcod the confusion among operators that existed as to the method by which exams and quizzes should

-212-

t

) . .

1 . .

~ ~

ba taksn at TMI, never tholoas , this confusio'n' ex'is't'e"d',' ~and

~ '

- -- ' ~

i - - -

2 2 ~ - for this we again fault Licensee.

'~ ~ ' ' '

l... . .

Licensee's failure to f'o'rmal'ize'it's

~~ ~~~

!-- ~ ~~ ~ ~

~

c.

l -. .-. ' -

.. . . - : .. . ~

~~~

l-certification procedures Tor NRC license exam candidates i

was inappropriate. -

j~~ - ..

We fault Licensee particularly foi ~its ~

! d.

4 ... . _

" re-certification of an individual in 1979 w'ithout' simulta-

~

' ~ ' ' ' ' ' '

F

!-~

~

neously informing the Staff of the individual's misconduct~

i ~ ~

in handing in an examination taken in part 'by another i-

licensed operator. In this regard we find instructive of i

the current management attitude, the fdcthcomidi ~ dis-

~

j.

b. . ~~

(-~~- . closure of this incident by Licensee to the Staff at'the ~~

i.

]"-'-- - - beginning of the 1981 cheating incident indestigation. ~ ' ~

i. .

- ~

414. While some of the rumors conce[nfdg ~

j _._ _

I

~

ind'iv'iduals which surf aced during OIE's and License 5's investi- .

i

] gations have not been fully resolved, we do not believe they i

j can'be. Rumors by their nature are elusive. We conclude that i

b' further pursuit of these matters would not be a fruiEful use of ~

3 5

1 Staff or Licensee resources. We are satisfied that the Staf f 's '

} ~

] and Licensee's investigations were thorough. Most importantly,

' ~

~

we are satisfied that the evidence establishes not only that j

j Licensee's management was not involved in any way in the

' discovered incidences of cheating at TMI , but that it vigor-ously pursued all instances of cheating or possible cheating it i uncovered and promptly alerted NRC of them. Licensee also has

taken appropriate individual disciplinary action where I

circumstances warranted.

i

-213-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..::

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .v,g- _

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

'82 JM120 P3:54-In the Matter of ) - ,

) 7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50 2'8'9'Sd.6'

) (Restart)

.(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Reopened Proceeding)

Station, Unit No. 1) ) ._

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _. __,

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Licensee's ,

Reply to Comments of Other Parties on Whether the Commission i

Should Await the Board's Decision in the Reopened Hearing..on. . _

. Cheating Before Deciding on the Restart of TMI-1" with Attach-ments A-I were served this 20th day of January, 1982, by hand delivery to the persons identified with one asterisk and  !

deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the other persons on the attached Service List.

1

& M /> . 4 - v es  ;

Deborah B. Bauser  !

l i

+

1

.~ ,

UNTIED STATES OF AMCA . _ _ _ __.

NUCLEAR REGUIldCIE CCNMISSION

. _ ' ._~~~:__ -..-

BEEURE THE CCNMISSICN y-In the Mat +J.r of ) -

) .::- -._;  :: .

METIOPOLITAN EDISCN CCMPANY ) Docket No. 50--289

) - . (Bestart).. .

(2:ree Mile Island Nuclear Station, ) -  :-- -

Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LISI'

• Wnzic J. P=11 =<*4 m, Quimn_ Ara min +<-trative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Nima

- UaS. Nuclear-Begulatory o = i=sion A+ rvnir- Safety ~ & r 4can=4ng Board '-

Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nucleer.Begulatory Osmtimaien - ..

Washington, D.C.' 20555 - -

~ ~~ ~ ~-"

_ *Victcr Gilinsky, em m4=sioner -

tf.S. melear Begulatory Cbmo.usien AAmini=trative Jud~e' g Walter H. Jordad

'~

Wastiington, D.C.

20555 Atcznic Safety. & Tie =n=%g Board -

, g - -- - _, ,

• Peter A. Bradford, cam 4 =sloner 552 North Ocean Blvd.

U.S. Nhela=v Begulatcry CcImimmim F - ,- e Beach, ' Florida 33062 -

Wa=hington, D.C. 20555 A* mini =trative Judge Linda W. Little

• John F. Aba= = , emmi ==ioner Atcznic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Begulatory 0:mnission 5000 Hennitage Drive Washington, D.C. 20555 Baleigh, North Carolina 'r.7612

• Ihcznas M. Boberts, emmicsioner A* mini =trative Judge Gary L. M4N114n U.S. Nuclear Begulatory rmmi== ion c/o Ivan W. Smith, Quimn, Atanic Safety Washingtcri, D.C. 20555 and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Begulatory rm mi=sion Jamini=trative A:dge Gary J. Edles, N4wum w .hington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & rd mnaing Appeal Board - -

U.S. Nuclear Begulatory W =sion OF#4ca of the Executive Iegal Directcr (4)

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory emm4 =sicn Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative madge John H. Buck Atcaic Safety ' &Licensing Appeal Board Docketing & Service Section (3)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory o m ission Office of the Secetruy -

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regula*ary Ccmnissicn ,

Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Ad:ninistrative Judge Orh N. Kohl .

Atanic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Atcznic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory rmniasien U.S. Nuclear Begulatcry Ccmrission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washingten, D.C. 20555 Aininistrative Judge Beginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety & Licensing A w, .al Board Panel Atanic Safety & Licensing Appeal Beard U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Cannission U.S. Nuclear Peculatory Ccmnissicn Washingten, D.C. 20555 Wasi.i.r h D.C. 20555 .

Pchert.Mler, F. squire Ellyn R. Weiss, EL~uire Farin W. Carter, Esqui:e William S. Jordan, III, Escuire Assistant Attorney Gera'.al Ha=cn & Weiss 505 Executive Ecuse 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 P. O. Bcx 2357 Washington, D.C. 20006 Harr M', PA 17120 _

Steven C. Shony Union of rencamael Scientists _

~

- . At*q General of New Jersey Attn 'Ihanas.J. Ge'21.ne, Esquire 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,_ Suite 601 Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C.- 20006 Divwinn of Law - Ibcm 316 .

1100 Raynend Boulevard Marvin I. Imwis

.- Newark, New Jersey 07102 6504 Bradford Terrace PS41=Aalphia, PA 19149 John A. Isvin, Esquim Assistant Counsel Gail Phelps Pennsylvania Pehlie Utility Ccmaission ANGRY - -

P.. O.-.Bcx 3265 245 West Phi 1=aalphia Street R=M chq, PA 17120 Ycrk, PA 17404 Jchn E. Minnich, 'bai man Ncenan Aamodt. . _.

~ Dauphin Ca:rif Board of rmmi=sioners R. D. 5 2. . : -- _ n : : - -

nmmhin Ccunty Courthouse Coatesville, PA -19320-Frcnt and Market Streets . __

Earristurg, PA 17101 Icuise Bradford

'IMI ALERr Walter W. Cchen, Esquin -

1011 Green Street Cbnsumer Mvocate ham =hrg, PA 17102 ~

M#4ca of Censumer Mvocate 1425 Strawberry Square Chauncey Fepford R= M ch mg, PA 17127 Judith J. Johnsrud Emri.mnmental.Ccalition an Nuclear Power Jordan D. n=4rsham, Esquire 433 Orlando Avemae Fox, Farr & Cunningham State College, PA 16801 2320 North Seccnd Street Barrisburg, PA 17110 acbert Q. Pollard 609 I&.u W er Street Baltimcre, MD 21218 l

e