ML20238D199

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration).* NRC 871211 Motion in Response to 871124 Order Denied,Subj to Clarification & Mod of Rhetorical Questions Encompassed by Question 2.c(iv).Served on 871218

ML20238D199
Person / Time
Site:	05560755
Issue date:	12/17/1987
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#188-5153 87-551-02-SP, 87-551-2-SP, SP, NUDOCS 8801040147
Download: ML20238D199 (5)

Text

.- . . - - - - - _ _ - _ _ .

il52 .

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Before Administrative Judge: [0CKIifUrib/i/[j$['

Charles Bechhoefer BRANCH SERVED DEC 181981 In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 ALFRED J. MORABITO ASLBP No. 87-551-02-SP Senior Operator License for )

Beaver Valley Power St& tion, Unit 1 ) December 17, 1987

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration)

The NRC Staff on December 11, 1987 moved for reconsideration of certain of the questions posed by my November 24, 1987 Order.1 Specifically, the Staff claims that the questions deal with the Staff's procedures for administering examinations, that examination of these procedurn is beyond my authority (according to one of my prior rulings) and, for that reason,'the questions relate to a matter outside the scope of this proceeding. For reasons set forth below, I am modifying and clarifying one of the questions but in other respects denying the Staff's motion.

I Specifically, the Staff seeks reconsideration of questions 1.a(i)-(ii), b, c, d, f, and 2.c(iv) at pp. 4-7 of the Attachment to the Order.

8901040147 871217 5 p SECY LIC55 0556 o 3s

~ ---- - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

L I 2 The prior ruling cited by the Staff is my Memorandum and Order (RulingonVariousMotions),LBP-87-23,26NRC (August 25,1987).

In that Memorandum and Order, I ruled that I did not have authority to put into effect five specified cjeneral measures which had been proposed by Mr. Morabito as means of improving the operator license process. I noted that there were other procedural methods available "to change the methods and procedures for examining and licensing nuclear power plant operators, or senior operators." 26 NRC at (slipop.at5).

I held that my jurisdiction was limited to detennining whether Mr.

Morabito should have been granted the senior operator license which he is seeking. I went on to note, however, that in determining whether Mr.

Morabito passed the written and the simulator examination, I could take into account arguments presented to me that the license examination process is faulty and in need of revision. M.

This ruling does not support the Staff's present motion. The questions for which the Staff seeks reconsideration are not aimed at a change in the operator examination process or system. They are intended to ascertain what the current sys' tem entails and how that system operates or should operate if carried out properly. Further, they are intended to uncover information which would indicate whether the process was properly carried out for Mr. Morabito's examination. A number of Mr. Morabito's claims appear to create a substantial question as to whether the process was properly carried out for Mr. Morabito's examination. In my view, Mr. Morabito has a right to expect that his examination would be administered and graded in accord with governing

4 3

principles or standards and consistent with principles and standards established by NRC with respect to Mr. Morabito's and other similar examinations.

I now turn to the specific' questions to which the Staff objects (all of which relate to the simulator examination).

la.(i) and (ii), and b. These questions seek to uncover the method of grading utilized by the Staff in Mr. Morabito's examination,  !

and whether those methods were consistent with general practices followed by the Staff with respect to other examinations.

Ic. This question relates specifically to the grading of Mr.

Morabito's examination. ,

ld This question also relates specifically to the propriety of a practice followed in Mr. Morabito's examination and how the practice affected Mr. Morabito's grade under standards in effect at the time of the examination.

1.f. This question relates specifically to whether and how certain procedures were followed with respect to Mr. Morabito's examination. It does not seek to change any of the procedures, which are mandated by the Operator License Standards. If the procedures were not followed, or not properly followed, the effect on Mr. Morabito's examination could be substantial.

2.c(iv). This question seeks to establish whether Mr.

Morabito was properly graded with respect to his knowledge of the immediate action steps of emergency procedures, and particularly whether Mr. Morabito was held to a higher standard than other candidates in

.s t

4

[

1

{

similar examinations. To ascertain the practices followed in similar examinations, the question sought an adequate statistical base for the required answers. In establishing that base (i.e., "all simulator )

l examinations for Beaver Valley,' Unit 1"), it in effect substantially  !

)

reduced the scope of the rhetorical questions posed by Mr. Morabito. ]

Upon further review, I will permit the Staff to answer rhetorical questions 2a-c using any number of examinations which can reasonably be categorized as statistically significant. Examples which may deviate from practices generally followed (if any) should of course not be excluded. The Staff's answer will, of course, be subject to examination by Mr. Morabito at the oral presentation and review by me for adequacy.

As for rhetorical question 2d, this question is intended to be answered only with respect to simulator examinations, and the grading practices used by the Staff for such examinations. For clarity, the question is hereby modified to inquire whether a candidate who makes an error which is quickly rectified by communicative interaction with another operator would necessarily receive a "U" rating with respect to knowledge of the immediate actions of emergency procedures. Again, the Staff may determine (subject to examination by Mr. Morabito and my review) a statistically significant number of examinations to determine the grading practices followed for situations involving the interactions of reactor operators and balance of plant operators with respect to the immediate action steps of emergency procedures.

_ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

d 5

I am issuing this Order at an early date, without awaiting Mr.

Morabito's response, in order to permit the Staff to respond adequately without any further postponement of their response time. For the most part, this Order does not affect the information to be provided by the 1

Staff. To the extent Mr. Morabito may object to the clarification and modification of question 2.c(iv) provided herein, he may file such an objection at an early date, with a view to possible further reconsideration.

For the reasons stated, and subject to the clarification and l

modification of the rhetorical questions encompassed by question 2.c(iv), the Staff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PRESIDING OFFICER du s a Charles Bechhoefer /

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of December, 1987.

.