ML20238D113
| ML20238D113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05560402 |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1987 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5251 SP, NUDOCS 8801040105 | |
| Download: ML20238D113 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:3
; $2.7) ,
, DOCKETED USNRC Decembeg8g9]f pg gg ~~
~ ~
UNITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION grc s H;;r Tra 00cKiTN; A ' . M. BEFORE THE ADMINISTR ATIVE JUDGE "N In the Matter of )
)
D AVID W. HELD ) Docket No. 55-60402
)
(Senior Operator License for ) Beaver Valley Nuclear Power ) Station, U nit 1) ) NRC ST AFF REQUEST FOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW C AUSE WHY THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED I. THE MOTION The N R C staff (Staff) respectfully requests the Presiding Officer to issue to Mr. Held an order to show cause why this proceeding should not be terminated due to recent events which appear to obviate the need to . I hold a hearing in connection with this matter. j i l l II. BACKGROUND 1 This proceeding concerns an application by David W. Held for a Se-nior Reactor Operator (SRO) license for the Beaver Valley Nuclesr Power Station (B V N PS), Unit 1. Mr. Held presently holds an operator's license for Unit I and an SR0 license for BVNPS, Unit 2 and is employed at Unit
- 2. This proceeding concerns only Mr. Held's application for an SR0 li-cense for Unit 1. In 1986, in accord with the three requirements for a p proval of a p plications for operator licenses set out in 10 C.F.R.
8801040105 871210' 2 SECY TIC 55 0556 c 9 '1
P l q' t9 } ;) ( tr i-( , <, , y 1 1 1 . t l .,
) l' i k ( r ,f d .8 h
\ ', '
b . .
,y ) \ Q V^ . ( 1:,;y
~
- t ,) ^ ,- 4 \,
6 55.11, M M' H p (1) submittqdi e"Ehnca(ot ph,vrica~ij bralth (2) tock
, j 1 f> ,
11 y h w ntten and 'operp5ng er/nination/ frr l> nit 1 y, d (!? pres (ented a state-L ment from Duquesdp LipSt Company (DLI.) th3t' r. Hsidbervices would , j T'. r. '
, , i ,.
M r.We b,1 be utilized as an Sb0 on Unit 1. did hot.eeceive a passing j grade on the simuletd examination as reqEred ,bi ' ' N.li(b) and in a wr. i
' !.(*j 5 .
./.' \, N ' ,
' /
letter dated Ceptembf 2, 1986, > way"rDnied. %n $20 licens'e for(Unit 1. After three rehevli s,' b7 his examination n esults by t.he Staff., and a 'd4ter- ' t s y; r g mination that aY,%ssyng grade ms st'll not w'arranted, hd requ hdk a > y i e
; \- , y %; ).. [n' hearing to d$1 test the examinabb resi; Pts. The pending yrtceedig con t ,
I s cerns Mr. Held's examination'r r
\ )'ade, .tdich he asserts ( g s 'ohldt bea'passNg_
l ,1 .a i, one. If this hearing were to ploceed t; . a. determinatha that' Mr6 h'sid '
'V y ..
e i had in' fact nMsed the simulator test bhcauseiof recent esS;d it voulc5 .; ()
/ -
r 4 , p 5 l J j E still nott he e hopso,f c . ' ' riate to issue ( ui S f'O licen!H to Mr.v ileid. . ' DL C has , y, th recently a6ised the , Staff that if has wfiOdrawn its yd% ment of utilizai ! ( 'p i fy 30f,i Mr. Held on Unit l\so that tht circumshncENn which this prd- i p"
' y *, /' a ,
was founded have funda A a.ntall.y : hanged. (See: Letter, dated ceeding;4 . y ,) N@ ember 12, 1987, fromY J D. Sieber }o II;S. Nuckar Regubtory Com-r y , 3
> 'l t f I (i I/ t A r /gsfon to 10 C.F.R, Part 55 became effective May ?5,1987 -52 Feb. 5 Reo. 9453 et jse i Th3 references herein are to the provisions
/
E Sf To TT.R. PaTt 55 in; effect at the time of Mr. Heg d's applicathn s for WO license. f This ,appttach is consistent with thet rulin g by ,the '" ,
- Adm,inisty..ive Judgp irl another proceeding concerning anothergpjr- s ator @eese. (See: ASL'6 P No. 87-551-02-SP Memorandum chd Pe-y 3
der, '.Wqtad A u g u s t,:J5, 1987). However, the req uirementsi.'f94 operator > licensep arj not substantially changed by the new Part 4h , in reprd to the section: of Part 55 discussed herein. Ne verthic a, .
, l. the new rule isefference'a along with the former rule to demot).stratt US.s essential sin 9artt/. , , f j n 1
\ l - *3 . .
s
. . , (. , i '
g
, e 6
g
;. , 't V ,
k f 0 $ j t j f I
\
,.s \
k 5 E(. ' t *
/ s '
A L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . I
V i ,, 4 , . t g _
- 3 ~- 'r I
mission, attached). In view of thirf event, Mr. Held's application fails to , meet two of the three requirements of f 55.11 (s 55.31-33) and no demon-k
} ,j .
stration of compliance appears possible. Moreover, even if it were deter- i ,, I' -{ mined that an SR 0. license for Unit 1 should be issued to Mr. Held it r
!t i ) >
appears that the license would become inactive for lack of utilization after four months. 1ee, 10' C .7,9. : 9.55.31(e) ($55.53(e)(f)). E Accordingly, even. if Mr. Held were to' prevail in this proceeding by 's '
.s . 1 proving he should have received a passing grade on the simulator exami-nation , any license he would receive would become inactive because of t failure to show utilization of his services on- Unit 1. In view of the 4
November 12,1987 letter from Mr. Sieber, Mr. Held would not appear to , s qualify for reactivation'd :Furthermore, it does not appear that it would - r be appropriate to issue a license in the first place because of the with-drawal of the certificasn of utilization. l
; , x ;
i D III. DIS C U SS10ji
, . +' r A. The Requirements for Approval of Applications for Operator Licenses The Ccmmission's regulations concerning reactor operator licenses' are set out in 10 C.F.R. Part 55. These regulations implement the require-ment for regulation of operator licenses in Section 107 of the Atomic Ener-gy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 6 2137.' The required contents of an application for an operator license concerning the health. > ~
2/ By letters dated September 28 and October 13, 1987, Staff counsel L' . notified the Administrative Judge and Mr. Held that the Staff had inquired about DLC's intent to utilize Mr. Held on BVNPS, Unit 1.
', 4
% 6
4 q
~
trainin g and education of an a p plicant are set out in 5 55.10 w$ (955.21-31). The requirements for approval of an application for SRO ) Nicense are set out in 5 55.11 (6 55.31-33). Section 55.30 (i 55.51) f f describes the conditions for issuance of operator licenses. For approval
'} i
/of a license application the Commission must find that (1) the applicant's i physical condition and general health are not such as might cause opera-tional errors endangering public health and safety, (2) the applicant has j 4 p,assed a written examination and operating test as prescribed by the Commission , and (3) the applicant's services as a licensed operator or senicr operator will be utilized on the facility for which he seeks a license
- s. or on a similar facility within the U nited States. 10 C.F.R.
r ;; l55.11(a),(b),(c). Notwithstanding the indication that a license may be used on more than one facility, 6 55.31(b) (6 55.53(b)) limits each license to the facility for which it-is issued. For issuance of licenses, Section o, 55.30($55,51) states that: On determining that an application meets the' requirements of the Act and the regulations of the Commission, the Commis- ) sion will issue a license in such form and containing such
. con ditions and limitations as it deems a ppropriate and
'N necessary.
/ As previously stated, Mr. Held had, at the time of his request for hearing, satisfied the two requirements for good health and the utility's statement of utilization on U nit I set out in 655.11(a) and (c)
(6 55.33(a)(1) and E 55.31(a)(4)). The only impediment to approval of Mr. Held's license application was the failing grade on the simulator exam-ination contrary to the requirement of 9 55.11(b) (0 55.33(a)(2)). The recent withdrawal of the statement of utilization of Mr. Held on B V NPS, Unit I by DLC, changes the prior status of Mr. Held's application. Even i i
L. l' if Mr. Held could demonstrate in this proceeding that he should receive a passing grade on his examination, in light of the recent DLC letter, it does not appear possible for Mr. Held to fully comply with the the re-quirements for approval of applications in 5 55.11 (6 55.31-33) so as to ebtain the license he seeks, pursuant to 5 55.30 (55.51). E Moreover, even if Mr. Held were to convince the A administrative Judge that he qualified for a license, the fact that DLC will not employ Mr. Held at Unit I would result in only short term license authorization.
-3/ Under the revised Part 55 the certification of utilization is no longer inclu ded as a fin din g required for a p proval of an a pplication.
10 C.F.R. 6 55.33. However, the certification of need is required under 9 55.31(a)(4) and a finding by the Commission of compliance with these requirements of the Act and the regulations is still man-datory under i 55.51. With respect to the requirement for "need", Section 55.31(a)(4) states that an applicant for operator's license shall: " Provide evi-dence . . . of the facility licensee's need for an operator or a senior operator to perform assigned duties. An authorized representative of the facility licensee shall certify this evidence on Form N R C-398." Form 398 (attached) requires the facility docket number for the li-cense and a certification by the utility that the applicant needs the license for assigned duties. See also, Statement of Consideration, 52 Fed. Reg 9456 which states: Applications for an operator license require the facility licensee to certify that there is a need for the applicant to perform assigned duties. Several commenters were concerned that the "need" was not clearly defined. The requirements are intended to sim ply have the facility licensee's management internally review the need for the license before the application is made. It is not clear from these words that this calls only for certification at the time of application, rather than a certification valid at the time of ist.uance of the license. There is little rationale to support the former view.
l
. Section 55.11(c) (S 55.31(a)(4)) anticipates the provision of 6 55.31(e)
(5 55.53(e) and (f)) which states: If a licensee has not been actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator for a period of four months or longer, he shall, prior to resuming activities licensed pursu-ant to this part, demonstrate to the Commission that his knowledge and understanding of facility operation and admin-istration are satisfactory. The Com mission may accept as evidence, a certification by an authorized representative of the facilit by w hich the licensee has been employed. g licensee In additon, the new 9 55.55(a) states: Each operator licnese and senior operator license expires... upon determination by the facility licensee that the licensed individual no longer needs to maintain a license. Therefore, in view of the November 12 letter, it appears that even if licensed , Mr. Held could not be certified to undertake license activities with respect to Beaver Valley Unit 1. Mr. Held's right to a hearing stems from Section 189a. of the Act. 42 U . S . C . 6 2239, a n d 10 C . F. R . 9 2.103 ( b ) . These provisions for hear-ing concern the issuance or denial of licenses. This proceeding concerns whether or not Mr. Held has complied with the requirements for an SRO license in Part 55 of the Commission's regulations. Mr. Held sought a hearing to demonstrate that he had complied with the requirement to pass prescribed examinations. Now, in view of the withdrawal by DLC of its certification of utilization, Mr. Held would have to demonstrate that he not only passed the examinations but also that his services would be utt-4/
~
It should be noted that under the revised rule, 5 55.53(e) and (f), Mr. Held's license would become inactive in three months without use. i
lized as an SR O at B V NPS Unit 1. Since DL C has stated otherwise and since it does not appear that Mr. Held could dispute this statement, it does not appear that Mr. Held could demonstrate com plia nce with 5 55.11(c) ($ 55.31(a)(4)) or that a license, if issued would provide a valuable asset. Absent compliance with 6 55.11(c) ($ 55.31(a)(4)) it is not clear that a license could be issued, but even if issued, without ac-tive use at Unit 1, the license would have no apparent value for Mr. Held in the absence of a certification by the license under s 55.53 which would permit Mr. Held to undertake licensed activities. C onseq uently , in the present circumstances concerning Mr. Held's application for S R 0 license for Unit 1, there appears to be no remedy available for Mr. Held, even if he were to prevail regarding his examina-tion g ra de , since he would not be employed on Unit I and his license would soon become inactive absent certification by DLC, which has stated it will not employ, and presumably would not certify, Mr. Held for use of a license for U nit 1. Thus, it is not clear that a remedy exists for Mr. Held. If no remedy is available, no proceeding should be initiated or s ustained . Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, U nits 1 and 2), A L A B-781, 20 NRC 819, 836 (1984); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pow-er Station ) , Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al. (Seabrook Station . U nits 1 and 2) AL A B-421, 6 N R C 25, 32 (1977). T herefore, unless Mr. Held can demonstrate that a continuation of this proceeding is justified by an available remedy which would provide him a valuable right under the C om mission's regulations, the Staff believes the proceeding should be terminated.
. III. C O N C L U SIO N For the reasons explained above, the Presiding Officer should issue an Order to Show Cause why this proceeding should not be terminated.
Respectfully submitted, Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of December, 1987 I l 4
)
)
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Awo.eabyOMB DATE 7.ECElYED (Ts be e;#npIsted N Q FO W 398 aiso.ome Ly mes 44 7 **#"*** MA'd" PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT - LICENSEE l. 1 APPLICAhiT $ FULL NAME ftast, fusf. tr*fdle) 4 TYPE OF APPLICATION IT avahcab#e bones) 1-HOT e. REAPPLICATION f. WAIVER REOUESTED l l IJusth on reversel ADDRES$ OR Rf D NUMBER 2-COLD 1-FIRST 1-wRITTsw tcessey)
~
e NEW 2-$ECOND 3 0PERATWO
~
CIT v STATE ZIP CODE b. RENEWAL 3-THIRD 3+EUQleluTY
- c. UPGRADE e.oyngn 2 Cttl2ENSHIP 3 BIRTH DATE d. MULTI. UNIT i
l e UNITED STATES
~
b OTHER (Spec 48 l l l l 6 TYPE OF LICENSE APPLIED FOR S PREVIOU$ LICENSEISI HELD ., e OPERATOR e DOCKET t# UMBER , y. b LICENSE NUM8ER y f *
- 7 D*jEg d FACILITY DOCKET NUMBER b SENIOR OPERATOR 66 g g l
- s. LIMITED $RO le p Fuel Hamferi l l g i i I
- 7. NAME Of APPLICAlwT $ EMPLOYER 10 CURRENT PostTION AT FACILITY a PLANT $ SUPERINTENDENT L AUXILIARY UNIT OPERATORI
~
ADDRESS b. ASSISTANT PLANT $ SUPERINTENDENT guy ofgg'a n
~ INONLfCENSED OPERATORf C SHIFT $UPERVISOR
~
Cliv TATE ZIP CODE d. STAFF ENGINEER j OTHER (Spec #rl o SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR /$HIFT ENGINEER S NAME OF APPLICANT $ FACILITY F AC L DOCKET _ f. INSTRUCTOR g $ENIOR CONTROL ROOM 9 ADDtTIONAL FACILITV DOCKE16 iMufr*-Urwr L#censess OPERATOR h CONTROL ROOM OPERATOR
- 11. EDUCATION e HIGH SCHOOL e MAJOR AREAfS) OF STUDY V 8
.9"s v"g a'e"s Ndfg 1 DG CODE ( ,,used d VOCATIONAL / TECHNICAL io,To@ws ca9,$o GRADUATE ENGINEERING theNfA fuer sens ~' obrasned l TYPE OF TRAINING YES NO GED EQUIVALENCY 0-NONE
~
wo 01HtR l-CERTIFICATE 2-WWM
- b. NUMBER OF YEARS Of COLLEGE 3-BACHELOR e-MASTER l 6- DOCTOR AL
- 12. T R AINING 13. EXPERIENCf a MONTH AND VI AR D NUMBER e. MONTH AND YEAR 'b NUMBER
- ROM To II > ROM TO 1-NUCLE AR POWER PLANT FUNDAMENTALS NAyy fCJassroom7 1-RO 2-PLANT SYSTEMS 2- EDOW/PPWO CLASSROOM 3-fWS /PPWS OBSERVATION 4-ER$/CRW 3-OPERATING PRACTICE 5-OTHER (SpecW)
CONTROL ROOM OPERATIONS ON SHIFT POSSit SIMULATOR E,PERATING tinctuaes CJessroom) $-OPERATOR
$1MULATOR NAME158 "p*
@ 7-SUPERvlSOR N* 8-PLANT STAFF Y "-M[.fr N,e l l YES l l No Q .h , -kk 9-OTHER (Spec @)
h we vym a w**6..n # , I
. . % 3. t COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR fincludmp Rosserch/ Test Reactor; M:. . _ _ YO A=d 10-REACTOR OPERATOR (Leensed) 4- SRO INSTRUCTION 11-$ENIOR OPERATOR #Leensed)
S-EXTRA PERSOE ON $HIFT 12-$HIFT $UPERvlSOR (Leensed) 5- RE QUALIFICATION 13-STAFF / SHIFT ENGINEER (Lkenned) 7-OTHER (spec #rt 14- Aux./EOulP. (NONLICENSED1 OPERATOR i$ PLANT STAFF 16-OTHER (SpecW1 14 FACILfTY OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM
- e. ORADUATE OF INPO ACCREDITED OPERATOR b. CERTIFIED ON NRC Form 474.1"$1MULATION F ACILITY CERTIF6
- TRAINING PROCAAM. ATION"I OR NRC APPROVED StMULATION FACILITY t$ USED IN THE OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM.
l YES l lNO lVES l )NO Q. FOR MNEWALS ONLY tHOURS OPERATED FACILITY; a .^ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ , _ .
, _ , , , , n-, ,
r .
- 14. EXTEIlENCE DETAILS e POSITION TITLE FROM 10 b FACluTY c. DUTIES e
- 17. COMMENTS iSpec4 the nem number to wnsch you are esecover#ngs t15%C FORM Ms. CERTIFICATION OF MED8 CAL EXAMINATION SY FACILITY LICENSEE 18 ATTACHED. l Any falsa statement or ommesson an this document. mcluding attachments may be subsect to cwd and crirtunal sancteoris.
19s. I c2rufy under pensity of persury that the enformaten m the tiocument and attachments a sus and cor act. i amo authorse the NRC to submn the resuns of exammstens to my employers for use in prope mp settameng programs. as necessary. I SIGNAT URE- APPUCANT I DATE
- b. I certW thei the above named endiveduas has successfully completed the tecdaty hrensees requirements to be hcensed as en Operator /Senaar Operator pursuern to Tam 10. Code of Federal Reguteimas, Port 66.
and that the endwaGual has e need for an Opersior/ Senior Operator hearise to perform he/her ensegned duteos and that the faceny emoi be maae evadable for emarrunsten. I also cerufy under pensity of persury that the mformelen m the document and attachments a true end correct.
. I SIGNATURE-TRAINING COORDINATOR I DATE SIGNATURE-SENIOR MANAGEMENT ftEPRESENT ATIVE ON SITE 3 OAYE
- c. RENEWAL ONLY, I certify that the Steve named andevedual meets tfe approved repuelefecatson program Iwerb f vceptene notedm #ern f71 as requeed by Secten 60.64 4H of 10 CFR 60 and that s/he has de-charged he/her hcensed raeponsabenes competeney and safety. 4 ano comfy under penalty of perjury that the enformaten en the oocument and ettschments is true end correct.
t f SIGNATURE-TRAINING COORDINATOR 3 DAT4 SIGNATURE-SENIOR MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON SITE l DATE FOR NRC USE i WAIVER (Chece or compfese tems. as apphcanses MEETS REQUIREMENTS GORY GRANTED BV Of NI D BY
,a i _tp ,g p s p g 310% gg t93gg e tn3 pg n 3% DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS WIJTTEN SIGNATURE-REVIEWER DATE OPEMTING fuGlBil37V OTHE3 alRC somas 30 0447)
" a J w_ ^ T_"_ _#~**T._'.:__^.._'-_~__--_-_-__
__ - *?. ~~ 2***'**^****r'*^ ~ ~ ' ' * " " ~ ' ~ - ' " - - - ~ - ~
.. , = w
.. m p w..u
.12 '87 13:27 NRC. KING OF PRUSSIA P02 Vogis le g g / % i
- g .z.
( am umtcompany m,:n--- wn,,n a,,-
. ,, p-D ~ il /4 4 C.*.l'.!!" l ,,o, November 12,1 1987 676991 ND3VEN: 5219i U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Com:tissions Attn: Document Control Desk Washington; D.C. 20555'
REFERENCE:
a Beaver Valley Power Station, Units.No. 1 and.2 Docket Nos.:- 50-334'/50-412, ticonse .Nos.1DPR-66/NPF-73 NRC ; Letter
Reference:
10/30/87', Need For A Senior. Operator 11censel on Beaver Valley, Unit No.1 Gentlemen ? By letter idated , october 30, .1967, the-NRC 1cquosted.that. Duquesne Light company determina the need for Mr. D. Held.to hold a. Senior Operator License on Beaver Valley Unit No. 1. (, - Inasmuch as tMr. Heldt he?.ds , a current license:en Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 and*is performing licensed duties on Unit.No. 2 and is .not participating ' in the license retraining progra n for Unit No. 1, Duquesne . Light
- Company has determinedithat there is no longer.a
- need to hold a Senior Reactor' Operator's Licenseton Beaver. Valley Unit No. 1. Therefore, Duquesne Light Company respectfully. withdraws its- facility certification accompanying Mr4 Held's application for license on : Beaver ! Valley Unit :No.1.
- ~ Very mruly yours/
*e i <
.(D. Sieben ,
smfI ces Mr. W.iT. Russell,:NRC,. Region 41 Mr. R.IM. Gallo, NRC,iRegion.1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector,.BVPS' Mr. W. iS. Lacay,i BVP5 Mr. D. : Held, Duquesne Light Company : 1' t- . Ic.
00U(E). D EU UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGk gc 30 p8 58 in the Matter of )
)
DAVID W. HELD )
) Docket No. 55-60402 (Senior Operator License for )
Beaver Valley Nuclear Power ) Station, Unit 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 18th day of December, 1987. Peter B. Bloch, Esq. David W. Held Administrative Judge RD 1 Box 353 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hookstown, PA 15050 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Jay Gutierrez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555* USNRC, Region i 631 Park Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal King of Prussia, PA 19406* j Board Panel ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section Washington, L.C. 20555* Office of the Secretary . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* l l t P11 Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff
- - - _ - _ _ _ -}}