ML20154J028

Memorandum & Order (Staff Motion for Clarification).* Word Directed at Specified Location Modified as Stated for Clarification.Served on 880518

ML20154J028
Person / Time
Site:	05560755
Issue date:	05/18/1988
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	MORABITO, A.J.
References
CON-#288-6348 87-551-02-SP, 87-551-2-SP, LBP-88-10, LBP-88-16, NUDOCS 8805260149
Download: ML20154J028 (4)

Text

.

6 3' W D9}lfilD

~

LBP-88-16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D ?!AY 18 p4,.51 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$c'[ [7Nd.(jt" Tw ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL pg 6'lcr.

Before Administrative Judge:

Charles Bechhoefer SERVED MAY 201988 In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 ALFRED J. MORABITO ) ASLBP No. 87-551-02-SP Senior Operator License for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 May 18, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Motion for Clarification) i This proceeding involves the application by Mr. Alfred J. Morabito for a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. The NRC Staff had denied the license because of Mr.

Morabito's failure to pass both the written and simulator examinations which had been administered to him. In a Decision dated April 20, 1988 (and served one day later, on April 21, 1988), LBP-88-10, 27 NRC ,

I determined that Mr. Morabito had passed both the written and simulator examinations and, accordingly, "directed" that he be issued a SRO license, subject to the standard terms and conditions which govern such licenses.

On May 4,1988, the NRC Staff filed a motion for clarification of one aspect of that Decision. On May 11, 1988 Mr. Morabito filed his response.

um

2 Specifically, the Staff seeks clarification of my direction to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) or, as appropriata.

the Regional Administrator, Region I, to issue a SRO license to Mr.

Morabito. The Staff acknowledges that the Decision is dispositive of all issues in controversy before me (subject to Commission review on its own motion). It points out, however, that there are other issues and requirements in 10 C.T.R. Part 55 that were not in controversy before me and that the Director, NRR or, as appropriate, the Regional Administrator, Region I, must make the necessary findings on issues not in controversy. The Staff seeks clarification on whether my "direction" could be read as precluding the appropriate official from making those findings.  :

For his part, Mr. Morabito suggests that a SRO license should be issued to him consistent with the date of the licenses for other cordidates who were examined at the same time. He states that, insofar

as he was aware, all requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 55 were satisfied at the time the license examination was administered. He indicates that, if a problem were to arise with respect to matters not related to the examination, the Staff could follow well-established procedures for cancelling the license.

The Staff is correct in reading my Decision as not precluding the appropriate official from making the requisite findings on issues not related to the examination, such as are required under 10 C.F.R. il 55.11(a) and (c) (1987). My Decision holds only that Mr. Morabito has fulfilled the examination requirement for a SR0 license, set forth in i

I

. 3 10C.F.R.G55.11(b)(1987). As Mr. Morabito suggests, the record before me demonstrated that, prior to taking his examination, the other requirements would have to be, and had been, satisfied; and, accordingly, after passing the examination, he was entitled to a license. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R.,9 55.10(a)(5)-(7) (1987); Decision, LBP-88-10, 27 NRC at _, (slip op., p. 55); jd., Conclusion of Law

1. 3, 27 NRC at (slip op., p. 60). My "direction" related only to the requirement in 10 C.F.R. 9 55.11(b) (1987) that an applicant pass a prescribed written examination and operating test or simulated operating test. In other words, it was intended to preclude the Staff from any further regrading of the examination, whether or not particular answers may have been contested. But it was not intended to limit the Staff's appropriate exercise of its authority under sett' ions unrelated to the examination requirement, which (to repeat) was the only matter under consideration in this proceeding.

Almost two years have elapsed since Mr. Morabito took his ,

examination. Various factors bearing upon Mr. Morabito's license eligibility, unrelated to the examination, may have changed. Moreover, the terin of the SR0 license which I directed to be issued ran from the date of issuance, not from the date of the licenses for others who were examined at the same time. LBP-88-10, supra, 27 NRC at , n. 142 (slip op., p. 56, n. 142). Contrary to Mr. Morabito's suggestion in his response to the Staff's motion, my "direction" was not intended to preclude the Staff, before issuing a SR0 license, from taking into ,

account information on these other matters which may have developed l

4 during the period during which Mr. Mora51to's appeal was under consideration, to assure itself that all license requirements as of the date of license issuance have been satisfied. If the Staff determines that matters unrelated to the examination would preclude its issuance of a SR0 license, it should, of course, provide Mr. Morabito with a reasonable time to satisfy these other requirements, were he to seek to do so.

To preclude any misconceptions caused by the wording of my Decision, and subject to the understandings set forth above, I am hereby modifying the word "directed" at 27 NRC (slip op., p. 60) to read ,

"directed, subject to the satisfaction by Mr. Morabito of requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. 95 55.11(a) and (c) (1987),".

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PRESIDING OFFICER pan be Iw v' Charles Bechhoefer' 47 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of May, 1988.

_.