ML20082Q261

Response to ASLB 810820 Order Re Submission of Views on Investigation of Cheating.Prehearing Should Be Scheduled to Decide Scope of Hearing & Discuss Prehearing Matters

ML20082Q261
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/08/1981
From:	Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20079F037	List: ML20082Q261
References
FOIA-83-424 NUDOCS 8312120088
Download: ML20082Q261 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

I I

LIC 9/B/81 e.

U N I T E D S T y r c_ p y I.M r.E T.C.3...

s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

Before'the Atomic Safety

- and Licensing Board l.

In the Matter of

)

t

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50 ~ 89 SP.)

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

?

f Station, Unit No.)1)

)

f

.]

t 3*

/

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TOjBOARD ORDER "2

g RE IVE.TO THE SUBMTSSJetf OF VIEWS ON THE

. INVESTIGATION OF CHE.ATING,

~

Dated Aueust 20, 1981

.i

a...

.y On August 20, 1981, the Board issued an order recuestiffe

,f._

r parties with an interest in management issues to advise the' Boar

=. _:..

..~,. _.y.,. y y _ ;. u_... 6

.~

of 'the'ir views of-whether forther actichs'should be Gkeqin"thiis'

. b..,. f.

e

.- : __.__ _ _-.m._.-

proceeding with. respect to the cheating incident in NPC'examina-b

. t. - -

f

• tions iast April.

• We pref ace our v-lews with san' account' cd ah, tions Lc.

w. -

1

. :t

--taken by Licensee since the potentia 1 that coerators had: cheated P-

. -.2

-.4 y

~

on NRC exa.ms was first disclosed *tb. Licensee 8s.'maiagement on*

O 9

g

~~

.. July 27th.

? -

T p-s

.'..__..,_ During the period of the HRC investigation, Licen see' re frain,ed,

..?

.. a from any. investigation of its own which might interfer s ;o.

g-r give th.e 4.o appeerance of interference with'NRC's investig'ation, a lthough on; bugust 4 th, shortly after NRC's interviews were comple bed,. U

('

.Mr. Arnold, President of GPU Nuclear Corporation, held meeti'ngs x.,

8312120088 830919

~. '

{\\.'y PDR FDIA Y'.

DDROSHOG3-424 PDR J

m,..,.._

1 4-

,k

_1

. L-i 2.

L. ? -

3 l

e i..

. ! s.

• 1 with the operators during which he urged that they ' in; form him of.

t any knowledge they might'have of cheating by any of the' examinee's.

g.-

Individual meetings vecre held as well, with 'the two operators no,*

longer in th Company's employ, during which the same urging was,,

made.

No information was forthcoming as a result of t;hese requests.

t

.r Since the completion of the NRC investigation, Li.censee has.'

t y

not undertaken to duplicate the NRC investigation of aither#the fln l

,: NRC examination ~last April or the mock examinations a iminis'f.ered' 1 by -

howeverl,[

ATTS earlier the sam;e month.

A:

Licensee's management h as, l.

i conducted follow-on interviews with personnel who wer a asso'ciated'.

t, with rumors of cheating which rumors Licensee's manag ament dis-

.a closed to NRC investigators on. July 28th upon first l =arninh of.y *

,i, them Licensee is satisfied that neitlier: of the two operators

(^

3.-

-.-,o_ W..

q-j c. -,, :-

.tw.., ~ ~.

.y. a

'whose fiames surfaced - during th'ese investig=aEichs' ~chea-:ed 6rMnew *3 s. 3:

p_..

j

3. _

/k..

of any ~ cheating i~n the NRC examinati'on-; -

\\ :. -

N.

, k-Licensed has, in -addition - reviewed forc 'vidence of ch'eatin M5

o

--. f e

m w ::-

s the examination _...,iven by.its consu. ltant,--

sg POS..(the Kelly ex.a.ms),'

"at the conclusion (of the -OARP pz'.och am, including the special Cate\\

~

series o~f make-up _ Cat

• k

. gory T test' given at. that,tifne, and a T

l 3

tests subsequently give.rr by Licensen 's training depar" ment to

~

_,t _. t. - ' " - - -l-e r. 3; e p __

... ~ erators cand ~ candiclates who.either did not.'taketlie Melly examina-J.

oc

.. r.

u :' - 1. -

• ==5 s n.; : T

.=.: -

f-f

\\

tions or failed to get a 90% grade on the Catego,ry T~ portion of '. 3 y

a the examinations.

For this purpos~e Licensee._..,contracned ylth

- g -

a

\\

Edward V..- Trunk, Assistant Professor 'of Engineering at'The Pennsy;-:

1

. =. :

. q

• vania State Universitiy, to review and. compare 'all of these ;~.

I

~

.s V.3. -

t

s. ~.

e

- -. w--

i

2 I

f.

examinations.

Mr.. Trunk reported the results of his review:ho c..

.- r.

s.

Licensee late in the day of September 2, 1981.

'J

?

-l' t.

, With respect to 'the Kelly exam.inations, Mr. Trun) e.-

reported

• y that.the " exams reviewed were signifiedntly independent in ::Ianner v

and substance to preclude any possibility that cheating of 3ny g

4 cooper.ative effort had taken place."-

.,i jyr With respect to the make-up Category T exams, how 44_

ever,R

~

Mr.. Trunk reported that several cases of strong parallelism'kar' k,

s detected.

.,g s =

While characterizing most of the cases as inconclusive,'8

\\.

he identified a.few cases that appeared suspect.

' Lice n s e e '.s. 'mana d.--

so

.s.

\\.e ment has reviewed Mr. Trunk's report and all of the ir,stanc E of $

i Ep*

similaritles in answers identified by him.

Licensee's.initj.'al (

t

. a.~. '

evaluation indicates that some of the. similarities car,ber(adily{..

- exp*lained by. comparison. with training and -instruction documefits.ndti -

g

...-W J..

. - Q.:

kno..wn ~ to M. r. Trunk.~... 0thers may fall iin this category... gyp _ y=1..

ifterid'i-lK.'

- - _,a. -,,.9 g_

.Licens,ee completes. its review of other training do.cume e.

nts and:.'

,l

. 'f y-

..3.

instruction, but Lic'ensee must assume. at-this time. tha t this', fur -

U

- vy - :.

s.

.s

.nsu w

r. review Gill'not remove all r,e'sidual. doubts about chea tiWg.i.

g._

the'

_,p one case in particular, involvin'g i~dentical', short, ess ay-typ.e,T ~ ~

f..f.

~

. s e.

answers to two questions, the similarities are such as to suggest 6

g.

- ~. : ~..Qs that. no likely_ explanation except cheating will'be for th'c'emin'g tl.. _ '...

i

=.-.W-- -....

& ~~

' ~

t.'. - M. b,~Eif That case involved.the same operator found to have_

copied:. the +

,. ^

.e i ".--- i;'.T;.

answers of another in.the NRC e5camination.

~,

t

... N,.,..

's Simultaneous 'with the review of t' e make-up examination,p.

?f n

j-4

-D;-

Licensee's 17.anacemen. t instituted a review of the hanner in bhich

~

s.g

. r.. r

.,4 -

. ;,,, n

.,z _ - -

-. m = _

.i______,

~

_ _2

_ b_-

.A

s

^

4 t,

.,u the examinations were administered.

The review disclosed suffi-t.'

cient looseness.. in the administration of the examinati ons th'at.

i-i the possibility of cheating could not be ruled out on j

the basis of sup,ervision or proctoring pf.the examinations.

The r.emay}also.;

have been inadequate instructions to examinees,

.T.

includ ing, fa'.j. lure!i ;

to instruct grcups taking the exaaninations at one sess 4.'

3-ion not; to c

4 discuss the examination with individuals taking the ex y,

aminat;dn li ct a later time..

.y a

NN.. i j...

l t.

.p.,. -

.I s.

~

Licensee's management does not believe its investigatichs

>~.

to date provide a basis for taking additional individual dis ~i-.g. p[...-

f B

pli.na' y action, but clearly, action to correct progra:mnatid r

,efi-

..y.

ciencies is necessary.

Modification of training's pro:edd Ej:forlh h the administering'of exams, quizzes and exercises is c;etiledr.for.

... % p.

Y

'd..-:.

'P.

~

e

- '"c 4 T,i:

Moreover, bd@iit'use-of, Licensee 's own lack of. adequate procedu)P- f,-7. 'r ~-

7 -

e--

~

~

• y

• . }.( k

~

es for. administering the make-up examinations and because

~

of's'

' :.7 ?B ?la "\\ NJ

t'ies which probably cannot be accounted for in some, albeit!)f50

0

.=.:

~

P "'

answers to questions on make-up Category T examina.

.y Q;?'. l.j "h..

\\

tion r-a admig.tste r id (7.

by Lice'nsee, Licensee will require, that all operators-4.gS.n.1.. gi.

.~ r-and candida esh':e

. ~,;+.;

who did not take the Kelly eraminations, t o,7, $.g m.. g,;..r.

or who failed e-a, y o

pa'ss th

-c Kally, Category T examination with a grade of at least 9.. s. 2 +;n ; ~.u.

n 0 %,. ~ t'ak e.

^'ni

---a'new Catehoryy-Q 3,.

~

examination.

.. :,s. ~:

pt ? 2.

Lic~'ensee has so ad' vised the' 'NR' *C h h.$ 1_

~

-;,a. " - ~ 7.

- i

- ]:y -.-

1

~.,,

~ * '

', :; Q,j:

p; C 2.1

, f->

5taff.

~

k ;i-p.f..

.No information has come to Licensee's attention to al te$ :the' f q-conclusions of the NRC's investication of cheating on 'the HRC ex;ar.s

\\.j -

g

~,

b^

1 (T

or, the ATTS mock exams or to, sugg'est that management pe}rsonne.l hag e

th f;g s.

'_1," } ^_~ :.~ l L.. ~

?

1-

i l

s,

i any awareness of cheating or rumors of cheating whict weie)52ot promptly passed to the NRC.

However, under the circ umsta$ces described above, Licensee believes the Board will wis h to Yeopen i:

9 the record on management issues for the receipt of ft y.

5 J

rther le~videsc,e

.u Such' Ovidenc'e sliould in our view be limited to matter

.y -

s bearing oqI

?. -

(

Licensee's management capabilities.

y,wepuggels,g More particularl

~

~

that any further ev. idence should be ad' dressed to g;

(a) the pasy

~.

. w. 3

. administration of company exams,. (b) the adequacy of Licainfe.e's i,

r-management response to the discovery of cheating on tne NRk..

, 9*

' xamina' tion, and. (c) e

~

management. plans for the adminis t: ratio;n of.

e-1

...y r.-

futur,e tests and examinations.

In view of-both the l imitedR f

i A,9 number of inconclusive similariti.es involved and the-generi'idsh m.

comings of test administration revealed, we see manage. ment! ~--

a1 s

administrative practices, (a) above, to be the proper focus-h.,,D ~

.%.xv..n.:-

~

. past actions rather than a review of individual.

_t e s. t-r e s u.-..lts.who t

n.

g u.,._..e :.. y...

. scrutiny in public, regardless, of. ciutcome, would.inev:

r.

.tablyQresuLc7_.,: ;.'-

.,in distress and unfa.irness to innocenE~ individuals-L x.,-n.

m:::. -_

g-p

_ -'. L

=:f.C 4 y. ;.

7.- 4. -- -. -

....m.

=,. ~..

.s

-.. ~. '

.2..?.,: '.A.U$-?.

.h*.,C. ;

..In. t. h. e e. vent t.he Board order. s. the record reop_ e.

y nedtjLi,cen.se.e. Gy.%._

,.7.

.2 3 ---

g.,

sug5ests that the Board promptly schedule ~a prehearing 3.

, 3,7 ;

cppoy,tuni n

...y, fox" the parties to discuss.and.

e.. Board.to decide the, a._

s..

.,,.a cop '*ofit:

4.

hearing.and any p_,wcr o, in,,g, ma.

-.c J

rehear tters.

Further, should t he Board r

- 3.!iM!E3M-Aly G3VG'EH.;-

order

• reopening on this subject, Licensee.would'have r o 'o. t.-i a.

bj8ctionp 7.

w..

t.

~:

n y..

- c~-

to'the'appo[ntment of Professor Milhollin'as noticed h[thef; 1

a 2

...

4.

.s Beard's order of August 24, 1981'.'

, y;_

~..

-,u.

Resp 5ctfu11y-submitted, iEi 3.. gj.... '__ -.;-f, f. l E, ~

. w

=....

QQ,je v,

J :::

,Q c. - { j Ernest L.

Blake, Jr.

,i{

....= -._=.=.:m m-

.:.g. -...--- - ---

Coun s e l... f or Li c e n s e e

-. - - ---==xr -

i- -.: -..;

5 e x... :_

L-.

-.m

..._..__m.,,

.,-__,.m_m._____.._._.,-_m-.-_t_._.,

__m_.

km

o UNITED STATES OF AMErtICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY CUffi!SSION BEFORE THE AT0f1IC SAFETY AND LICEriSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

NETROPULITAN EDISON CuMPANY, ET AL.

)

Ducket No. 50-289

)

Resta.t (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)

)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD APPOINTHENT OF PROFESSOR MILHOLLIN AS SPECIAL MASTER Un August 24, 1981, the Board issued a " Memorandum and Order" which stated that in the event it decided to reopen the record to require into the cheating incident involving former Licensee employees, it would be assisted by Professor Gary L. Milhollin. The Board. requested the parties to present their views on this appointment in their responses to the Board's August 20, 1981 Oroer. Although the Staff does not at this time take a position as to whether the record on this issue should be reopened, it does not oppose Professor Milhollin's appointment as a technical interrogator or

~

Special Master under the provisions of 10 CFR 9 2.722(a) in the event that the Board reopens the record.

Respectfully submitted, h& 5 hmms Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of September,1981 M

0 4e l

{\\'T

/

$k g -

i

.O.

UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICEfhSINGBOARD In the Matter of HETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

)

Docket No. 50-289

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.

)

Unit 1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

~

l hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD APP 0INTMENT OF PROFESSOR MILHOLLIN AS SPECIAL MASTER".in the above-captioned proceed-Ing have been served on the following by deposit first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through depositin the Uni'ted States mall, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of September, I.,981:

Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman (2)*

Administrative Judge Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Department of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

Strawberry Square,14th Floor U.S. Huclear Regulatory Comission Harrisburg, PA 17127 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. Steven C. Sholly Adr.iinistrative Judge Union of Concerned Scientists 881 W. Outer Drive 1725 I Street,it.W., Suite 601 Washington, DC 20006 Oak Ridge TN 37830 Dr. Linda W. Little Mr. Thomas Gerusky Administrative Judge Bureau of Radiation Protection 5000 Hermitage Drive Department of Environmental Resources Raleigh, NC 27612 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. Marvin I.- Lewis 1800 N Street N.W.

6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, DC 20006 Philadephia, PA 19149 Robert Adler Esq.

505 Executive, House Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN:

J.G. Herbein, Vice P.O. Box 2357 President Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 542 l

Readin'g, PA 19603 l

Honorable Mark Cohen 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA. 17120

e Ms. Jane Lee John Li vin, Esq.

R.D. #3, Box 3521 PA Public Utilitics Co.: mission Etters, PA 17319 Box 3265' Ms. Gail B.,Phelps Al(GRY Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

j 245 West Philadelphia Street Fox, rarr and Cunningham

)

York, PA 17404 2320 North 2nd Street liarrisburg, PA 17110 i

John E. Minnich, Chairman Dauphin Co. Board of Comraissioners Hs. Louise Bradford Dauphin County Courthouse

' Till ALERT Front and Market Streets 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, PA 17101' Harrisburg, PA 17102

\\

Robert Q. Pollard Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss 609 Montpelier Street William S. Jordan, III Baltimore, MD 21218 Sheldon Harman & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.

Chauncey Kepford Suite 506 j

Judith H. Johnsrud Washington, DC 20006 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Thomas J. Germine, Deputy 1

433 Orlando Avenue Attorney General State College, PA 16801 Division of Law - Room 316 100 Raymond Boulevard

!!s. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Newark, N.J.

07102 Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponecent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i

2610 Grendon Drive Panel Wiluington, DE 19808 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555

,Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. f5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1

Coatesville, PA 19320 Panel (5)*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l

Senator Allen R. Carter, Chairman Washington, DC 20555 Jo nt Legislative Comittee on Docketing and Service Section (1)*

Post Office Box 142 Office of the Secretary Suite 513 Senate Gressette Bldg.

U.S., Nuclear R'egulatory Comission Columbia, SC 29202 Washington, DC 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman

• Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555

[

u.,

Daniel I. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff l

l m

l LIC 9/8/81 l

e.

i UNITED gTAmrc. M ;,Mr.ET.C.3,...

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM. MISSION Before'the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

1. '

l In the Matter of

)

+

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-1 89 SP.)

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

i-

' 't.

Station, Unit No.)1)

)

?

~

,,..f 3

i

(

LICENSEE' S RESPONSE TOjBOARD ORDER 3

BELATJVE. TO THE SUBMISSWg OF VIEWS ON THE

.}.

INVESTIGATION OF CHEATING, 3

Dated August 20, 1981

./

i...

'V On August 20,.1981, the Board issued an Order requestih'f._

a" parties with an interest in management issues to advise the' Board.,,.

.- s. _. n._ y.,-

_ z = ;. u_.

--,of their views ofmhether fGrther actions'should be iiEke'Cin"thiiJ l

...dy _ I %

e

~

..._ _.. a -.a._.-

proceeding with. respect to the cheating incident in NPC'examina b b tions iast April.

• We pref ace our views. with san' accoun.t' of, a'ptionls

. g..

l*.;

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

..... :4..-

-taken by Licensee since the potentia 1 that ocerators had' cheated t-

_ ~

2.--.,J -. ]

-g 4

on NRC exams was first disclosed'tb. d.censee's'ma6agement on*

O 9

g

? -

E

.. July 27th.

,?,

s

~

s During the period of the NRC investigation, Licensee~ refrained

-l-Jh.

...2

.g from any. investigation of ~its own which might interfers or give the p

appeerance of interference with'NRC's investigation, although on August 4th, shortly after NRC's interviews were comple ted,

-)

N

- ofGPUNuclearCorporation,heldr.eeti(ngs,h p.r. Arnold, President E

"W & - &z Qg

. ;f-l-f;L O

n

._..+.

_ _ _ -b

g. -

s

_1

o e

n.e i '~

.t with the operators during which he urged that they' inform him of.'

-l any knowledge they might'have of che,ating by any of the ' examinee's'.

~

Individual meetings were held as well, with 'the two operators n longer in the company's employ, during which the same urging wa;

~

No information was forthcoming as a reshlt of these'reque$t.cl made.

t

,r

., 3 since the completion of the NRC investigation, Licenses has.'.

s 3

not undertaken to duplicate the NRC investigation'of either#t h e !l g dministeredlb NRC, examination last April or the mock. examinations c

, by -

as,howeverl,l

.z.

l t

ATTS earlier the sam;e month.

Licensee's management h l

l 's conducted follow-on interviews with personnel who were asso'ciated'-

t,

~

with rumors of cheating which rumors Licensee's management dis-closed to NRC investigators on. July 28th upon first 1+ainin'g of.! *'

f,g them

. Licensee in satisfied that neither: of the two operato.;rs

(

n-.,

q-C.

' rm, -ma,?t.'_'~~

.,,~%

,o-.\\.--=.

Qm

.-=

'whose ita.mes surfaced during these. investigaEi5hs'~chea ed'erMnew v.. -

~

_-= ~.. ; ; ___,.

, p._.

1 s.

.?-

o'f any ' cheating i~n the NRC examinati'on I " "'

j ' ' '. '

('

<g '.

y.

4 Licensee has, in -additionf-reviewed force'vidence of ch'hatin W,..i w

.~...,_ 3...

w

\\

..=.

r the examination... as given by its, consultant, PQS..(the Ke.Lly ex.ans),

'at the con'citjtsion.of -the OARP-pf.ocfz:ain,' including the speci.1 Cat - -

y.

)

. gory T test' given at. that,tifne, and a series o~f make-up Category T.

1

~~~3 i.

. : tests subsequently given-by Licensen's training depar". ment to -

.3

_... a._ _....,...

....z.

g...v.. u..

operators-and ' candidates who either did not :takethe :te: ".y exami'w.q..l

.. t i-- '

=5

, i..

.Q=

4=

l tions or f. ailed to get a 904 grade on the Category T' portion.' of *

~

'g I

the examinations.

For this purposb,~ Licensee. contract e d '.w i t h' d

t

~f. -

i 53 Edward V.- Trunk, Assistant Professor 'of Engineering af The Pennsy-I s

u -

=-..

g

+

vania State University, to review and-comoare 'all of f.hese ;~,

O A

g.

~

s..

(&.

=

e.

.:s

..k

• ~

.. i 3-g.

i.-

examinations.

Mr.. Trunk reported the results of his review 4to i.

Licensee late in the day of September 2, 1981.

2 F

l, s u

q

, With respect to 'the Xally exam,inations, Mr. Trun): reported that.the " exams reviewed were significantly independe:it in panner,,

y and sub' stance to preclude any possibility that cheati:igor[ny Q

.'s g,..

cooperative effort had taken place."-

f 1;

ever,44 With respect to the make-up Category T exams, how J

Mr., Trunk reported that several cases of strong paral:.elism e r e'

.g :

}-

detacted.

While characterizing most of the cases as inconclusive,'i

, y.

he identified a.few cases that appeared suspect.

Lice n s e e ',s. manage.-

to

. 4!

>a ment iias reviewed Mr. Trun'x's report and all of the ir,stanc5hiof b i

7p

j. -

similarities in answers identified by him.

Licensee't init[a1

{

evaluation indicates that some of the. similarities car be r,eadil

' - exclained by. comparison' with training and in'struction documiiiits $dti.

- =-

- (_.;

.gg g. j =2 kno.wn to M.r. Tr.unk-J.

.Cthers may falllin this category aftern:!T.- 4 ~.'

q.

--. ;. g..

,I 1

a e.

L, icens,ee. completes. its review of other training docume nt. s and L.'

. ms :

. t -

- m ".

A instruction., but Lic.ensee must assume. at-this time-tha t-th,,.~ fur- $

~. -

n...

m-

~

.. ~ *.. -

, : ~ s 'i.o

'3'.=.'

. ther.revieia Gill.'not remove al'1 r,e'sidual. doubts. about efhiati'it'g.(. gl -

.'M on_e case in particular, involving i'ddntical, short, essay-typf' ~

~.J l

,s.

~

o answers to two questions, the similarities are s~ ch as to sdggest C

u

.. -. 94

- =

-1 "-. '............

~

thc. oinin.ii.....

that. no likely explanation except cheating will be for

=.' - )

?

ied th,.=. k?

That case involved.t'he same operator found to have cop i

e: :

.yTG'.Q i

answers of another in.the NRC e5camination.

l ' :.,.

v-

.g k,

Simultaneous 'with the review of the make-up examinatiob.7,-

d

' Licensee's management instituted a review of the ir. anne lr in d.iT hich s

.c 4

t

., v,.

'.s.

7 1. t

'b*--

.A --

es

.- i 1

't I

=

the examinations were administered.

The review discic: sed suffi-L.?

n.

cient. loos.e. ness..in the administration of the examinations th'at the possibility of cheating could not be ruled out on the basis

..s.

.n of supervision or. proctoring pf.the examinations.

The remay}alsoj h

have been inadequate instructions to examinees, includ ing, f a].lurd {,

4,,

to instruct groups taking the examinations at one session not; to' I'l e-e

-discuss the examination with individuals taking the examinai;z2on ' 'i at a later time..

1;;

he t

3...,.

2.,. -

.d

.n u.

-. Licensee's management does not believe its investigatio'ns

~

p.

to date provide a basis for taking additional individual dis 'i-(g..

,,.j, i +

s.

plina'ry action, but clearly,ac. tion to correct programmatid,4ef.i-f<..[j

.g

.t ciencies is necessary.

Modification of training's pro :eNd:Pj.1'ot h*..[.

~

... t the administering ~of exams, quizzes anc exercises is c;!Liled_yoh. h.... -

w]s q.

.4

.. _a

-- 4 t,- -

.- c Moreoverr be'6a'us~e of, Licensee's own lack of. adequate p rocedu es '

'52

~ ~..

e

,t s., p.**y

• ,,4

- for. administering the make-up examinations and because of'sim la

\\ >.b.

, t'ies which probably cannot be accounted foi in some,

< s:

a.Lbeit edw

. l,C

-(,,

s adm % b.fcji_b

__=_ :.

.y answers to questions on make-up -cateoory T examination inistand Q

-J-

- jTQM.y14

' by Lice ~nsee, Licenses will require,that all operators and cahdidatest'.

.~ n

' '+. $.::. p. W.- -

who did not take the Kelly eraminations, or who' failed td'.'"p'a'sY 'theN$

o

.7.:.. ?, n. ;.. ~ :. -

Kelly Category T examination with a grade of at least 9 0 %,.~ t'a k e '

' '-R m-

... ;,.;s

, A. ; *.

' ---a'new Category;T examination.

Licensee has so advised. t h......; :

.a..

.gf.,. 7 e NgC -l,

,4

_. _ _ -~,

np _.

.a p j. _,

Staff.

~ ' '

N ' s-

4

f..

No information. has come to Licensee's attention tt alteN th'e' g, i

'v:. r,. s

.concl.usions of the NRC's investigation of che.ating on 'the NRC exam, w.,

s or, the ATTS mock exams or to, sugg^est that managementpe\\rsonne,l'h

.y.

s.

3

-.x ;

,.2

. _. _ _ _ _ = - -

~

7. -

- 1 _ _ __. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _. _. ^-

.-s..--.

I

.e 4

t any awareness of cheating or rumors of cheating which wei e.' hot promptly passed to the NRC.

However, under the circ umstahces t-des.cribed above, Licensee believes the Board will wish to feopen

.a.

2..

• 5 the record on management issues for the receipt of further; s' vide,Q; c,.,

Such' evidenc'e~ sliould in our view be limited to matter s bear,in.g o.I -

y.

Licensee's management capabilities.

More particularly, wa

• ugge s,t, -

that any further evidence should be addiressed to (a) the pasi 2

. s -

..v.. 1.-

. administration of company exams, (b) the adequacy of Licainfee's i, -

,, f..

management response to the discovery of cheating on t ne NRk.

s..

'examina'tlon, and. (c) management. plans for the adminis t: ratio....

.g. :.

n of.

e-

....:y,.

futur,e tests and examinations.

In view of-both the l i.mited@4 l

. &p~.

t number of inconclusive similarit3.es involved and the- ;teneri.,c' sh te _.

comings of test administration revealed, we see management

.,f t-

_: s,

. administrative practices, (a) above, to bin the proper focusTof.. [_ ~

...1%

~.

.r

.. -.u. --

e sul'g%...-whos,*.

.past actions rather than a review of individual. jest-e

i., q.y m.. k. ~ _..

.tablys e. s..ul

• 9,.-

.. scrutiny in pub. li.c, regardless -of. outcome, would.inevt r.

r

.c u ;;g.

-g-. _.

.in distress and unfa.irness to i.nn.ocenE individuals L._ ',. i -%. - >.E...y_

~

.g..-

m,. - --

q,Wg-7 l.

m{...

...a

?

L.

'..,;;c Arig:

Q

.r.a. g.

2....-

. In.the e.ventethe Board orders the record reopene@ Licensee -y&

t,

(.,-

.}. g..--

=-

sugjests that the Board promptly schedule ~ a prehearint oppoppuni t

F

. scop @..>,.a3 fot the parties to discuss.and. tihe Board-to decide the r.o.fi t3

t. -

spcr o r -.

~

hearing.and any p_rehearin>.,g, matters.

Further, should t he Board -

J 3 jim!20M-AIV 03Vi333H 3-

.M 1A.

order = reopening on this subject, Licensee.would have r o hbj8ctionp 1.

' 1 c -

~..:~

-. V *, y -

\\.- ;=

to' the' appointment of Professor Milhollin'as noticed bythef.?

e.-

scard's order of August 2 4, 1 9 8 1~. '-

- ~ ~

" '..?;4 1 -

C

-, $. J Respeetfully. submitted,

_;. f, V L..

K,.

~

.=r

$g..

....), QQ) :f

' m..~

s._

• ,.: _ ^

• J

.f. - l,5

-i

-2.

Ernest L.

Blake, Jr.

.J,i- '

_ Counsel... for Licensee i._._f

..-- -. ; -m _

-m-n. -- --..- -.. ~ -. - -. - - - - - -

,w=~...

q.

-7 t.-

k i-

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