ML20079G847
| ML20079G847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1982 |
| From: | Slaggie E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F227 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-363, TASK-AII, TASK-SE SECY-82-450, SECY-82-450-83101D, NUDOCS 8211190008 | |
| Download: ML20079G847 (2) | |
Text
_
~
1 o
November 8, 1982
{
SECY-82-450 ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Information)
For:
The Commission From:
E. Leo Slaggie, Acting Solicitor
Subject:
LITIGATION REPORT FOR WEEK OF NOVEMBER 1, 1982 Discussion:
1.
BURSTEIN V. NRC, No. 82-4276, E.D.
LA.
On June 14, 1982, Carole Burstein, plaintiff pro se, filed suit in Federal (District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking to enjoin the NRC from further consideration of the operating license application of Waterford 3 until the NhC could demon-strate a method for safe waste storage and complete insurance coverage for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleged violation by the NRC of her constitutional rights.
The NRC filed a motien to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject' matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Subsequently, Ms. Burstein moved for summary judgment and for a " Declaration l
I
Contact:
X-43224
.Co Q 3 g9enjeyyyn p g.
l l
l P 2. / / / ho o f' M
- c..
i 2
of Unconstitutionality." */
Judge Charles Schwartz held a hearing on the various motions in New Orleans on October 27, 1982.
Beverly Segal repre-sented the Commission.
Prior to oral argument the Court denied the plain-
~ * -
tiff's motion for. summary judgment on the grounds that:there were issues of material fact in controversy, Judge Schwartz then denied the motion for a " Declaration of Unconstitu-tionality" primarily on the grounds that it was incomprehensible.
After oral argument on NRC's motion to dismiss, the Court granted NRC's motion from the bench.
An opinion is to follow.
Ms. Burstein vowed to appeal the dis-missal.
2.
USNRC-v. PANE, U.S.S.Ct. No.82-358 On November 1, the Supreme Court granted the petitions filed by the Commission and Metropolitan Edison Company for review of the D.C. Circuit's decision in PANE v. NRE, the TMI-l psychological impacts case.
The Government's initial brief is due on December 11.
Numerous amici curiae will.be filing briefs in
- /-
Plaintiff moved for a declaration of unconstitu-tionality of.the following:
E 1.
The Table S-3 rule.
2.
Stay of mandate by the D.C. Court of Appeals in NRDC v. NRC to the extent that it reinstated the Table S-3 rule.
-3.
Senate Bill S. 1662.
r i
E i
l
- ,y
.--m,
..r
,.-r.-
--__-,y._
,n,y
- _,,, ~,,
.r.4
,.g 7
y, r-
. -.. ~...... -
~1
%g g
.,g -'
r.
\\,
- s./
November 17, 1982 V%
SECY-82-460 (Information)
For:
The Comissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
RESULTS OF OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS purpose:
To inform the Commissioners of historical and current rates of license issuance and examination failures for Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators.
Discus'sion:
The enclosed tables report pass / fail rates for each NRC licensing examination component (i.e., written, oral and simulator) and licensing action results (i.e., license issuances,denialsandwithdrawals). These results are l
reported for two periods: third quarter FY 82 and from I
fourth quarter FY 80 through third quarter FY 82. The latter reporting period reflects all examination / licensing results since the implementation of the new examination criteria.
Table 2 indicates that the most frequently failed examination component is the written. However, while written examination
~
failures are more prevalent than oral or simulator failures, the quality of each examination component cannot be inferred from these results. The quality (or validity) of each examination component and the licensing examination as a whole.
will be reported after completion of the examination validation that is currently underway.
William
. Dircks Executive Director for Operations 1
Contact:
H. L. Thompson, NRR 49-29595 D. H. Beckham, NRR 49-24868 n
l ~ n 2-l ' 2 9 a / O 2 X,4 i
/,.
. The Commissioners 2-
Enclosures:
1.
Table 1 - Completed 1.icensing Actions for 3rd Quarter FY 82 and for 4th Quarter FY 80 - 3rd Quarter FY 82 2.
Table 2 Pass / Fall Rates for All Reactor Operator and Senior
+
Operator Examinations Administered In 3rd Quarter FY 82 and 4th Quarter FY 80 -
3rd Quarter FY 82 4
D e
4 e
e e
m
.y
.-wg
.m s
y
+p--
r
-.wy.,-
"~
^
^
,?.
ENCLOSURE TABLE 1 Completed Licensing Actions for Third Quarter FY 82h Issued Denied Withdrawal Total Actions R0 106 (77%)
22 (16%)
9 (7%)
137(100%)
SRO 68 (77%)
18 (21%),
2 (2%).
88(100%)
Completed Licensing Actions for Fourth Quarter FY 80 - Third Quarter FY 82N Issued Denied Withdrawal Total RO l
673 (81%)
106 (13%)
57 (6%)
836 (100%)
l SRO 600 (88%)"
54 ( 8%)
27(4%)
681 (100!!)
1 l
/1 Renewal applicants not included in calculations l
l l
6 l
l e
'N
TABLE 2 Pas 3/ Fail Rates for All Reactor Operator and Senior Operator Examinations Administered in Third Quarter FY 82 Written Oral Simulator E
~ Number of Exams Given -
150 135 94
-Passes 123 (82%)
121 (905) 92 (97%)
Failures 27 (18%)-
14 (10%)
2 (3%)
SRo~
Number of Exams Given 108 89 90 Passes 89 (82%)
82 (92%)
84(93%)
Failures 19 (18%)
7(8%)
5 (7%)
[
Pass / Fail Rates for All Reactor Operator and Senior Ooerator Examinations Administer in Fourth Quarter FY 80 - Third Ouarter FY 82 Written Oral Simulator M
~
Number of Exams Given-1321 802 261 Passes 1067 (81%)
745 (93%)
253 (97%)
l Failures 254 (19%)
57 (7%)
8 (3%)
L SRO-Number of Exams Given 753 599 218 l
Passes 615 (62%)
585 (97%)
204 (94%)
Failures 138 (18%)
14 (3%)
1,4 (6%)
..,n.
...n,