ML20151X416
| ML20151X416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1988 |
| From: | Zwolinsky J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808250346 | |
| Download: ML20151X416 (3) | |
Text
-
'8 o
UNITED STATES
'g
[
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.I L
,:j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C
..... /e DG 191988 gv MEMORANDUM FOR: Joseph Scinto, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Hearings FROM:
John A. Zwolinski, Deputy ' Director Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH DAVID W. HELD LICENSED OPERATOR AT BEAVER VALLEY 2 On August 17, 1988, I spoke with Mr. Held regarding the suggestion provided by Chairman Zech that his examination results and any other materials associated with failure of the simulator portion of the examination administered on July 20, 1986 be expunged in lieu of a formal hearing as ordered by the Commission. Mr. Held declined my offer and provided a number of comments for my, and others consideration.
[As background, Mr. Held possesses a reactor operator license for Unit 1 of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station.
In July 1986 Mr. Held took written and operating (oral and simulator) examinations administered by NRC Region I examiners to five applicants for a SR0 license for Beaver Valley Unit 1.
By letter dated September 3, 1986, Mr. Held was notified that he had passed the written examination and oral portion of the operating examination but had failed the simulator examination and his application for a SR0 license was denied.
Over time correspondence has been generated by the staff and Mr. Held regarc.ing his performancc on the simulator portion of the examination.
This culminated in a request for hearing which was judged moot as the licensee (Duquesne Light) withdrew their certification of need.
It is my understanding that should a licensee present that they do not have a need, NRC can no longer act on an application for license.
Further, as a statement of fact, Mr. Held has subsequently passed an NRC administered examination for Unit 2 and is currently an SR0 for that unit.]
Key points made during the conversation with Mr. Held are:
He presented the thought that his examination results are very good, he is proud of them and they should stand on the record.
He presented the thought that the NRC examiner 3 were not representing the facts regarding his performance on the simulator accurately.
He believes that over time he has always represented the facts, however, our examiners have changed their stories as to why he failed.
DN 8808250346 000019 PDR A')DCK 05000412 V
PNU
p.
Joseph Scinto AUG 19 1933 He presented the thought that Duquesne Light is seeking to establish a supervisory position in which, as a prerequisite to be considered for such a position, an individual must have held a SR0 license on each unit.
He, therefore, wants very much to have passed the examination regardless of whether a license can be issued.
He presented the thought that his peers, supervisors and training department staff consider him a "top-notch" performer, always having a good knowledge level and a clear, acceptable basis for decisions he makes.
He presented the thought that Duquesne Light had been coerced by NRC to "pull" their certification of need for him to hold a license on Unit 1.
He presented the thought that he would prefer to work on Unit 1 over Unit 2.
He presented the thought that he has all along been seeking a "fair" airing of his position and if going to a hearing is the only way for this to occur, so be it.
At the time of the call I had not reviewed the record and I informed him that it was my intention to review the record and confirm the direction to be taken.
His examination has been through an informal appeal process both in Region I and Headquarters.
To ensure that the conversation was not hostile or adversarial, I did request his views of the new requalification examination.
In this area he remains skeptical but sees it as an improvement.
Mr. Held was highly appreciative of the offer extended to expunge the record, however, he felt that in so doing this would serve only as a convenience to NRC and of no benefit to him.
As a postscript, I called Mr. Held on August 18, 1988, to reconfirm his initial rejection of our offer to expunge the record. He reit rated that he did not consider this to be a viable option.
1 John
. Zwolinski, Deputy Director Divisi n of Licensee Performance and uality Evaluation, NRR cc:
T. flartin J. Hannon C. Woodhead
c.
_.-4.-
.s 7
- I 7
~
' Distribution and concurrence for memo to Joseph Scinto dated
'. DISTRIBUTION:-
MM1; filet PDR
- LPDR DLPQ RF JZwolinski~
JRoe-
\\
C
/
$Fol
' TELEPHONE CONVERSATION D. HELD
,o 0FC
- DDIR:DLP NAME :JZwolinski:rh L DATE :8/\\9/88 i
i