ML20078G334
| ML20078G334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V40-N03, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V40-N3, NUDOCS 9411160001 | |
| Download: ML20078G334 (20) | |
Text
_
NUREG-0750 Vol. 40, No. 3 Pages 133-145 NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY 1 COMMISSION ISSUANCES Sea:emaerF99L j
9i k.
1i
%N
,1Wj
,,h dh U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
esA"e888$ "2 3
0750 R PDR
i
,n:
I Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 37082 1
Washington, DC 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues.
4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
I
- Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical information Service Springfield, VA 22161 i
i 1
)
I l
l Errors in this pub lication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555-0001
)
(301/415-6844) l 7_
NUREG-0750 Vol. 40, No. 3 Pages 133-145 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES September 1994 l
This report includes the issuances received during the specified perioo from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPkM).
The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any independent legal significance.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUL' TORY COMMISSION A
Prepared by the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services l
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
)
(301/415-6844)
)
i
--o.
-d--
J,---,
1-COMMISSIONERS Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers E. Gail de Planque D Paul Cotter, Jr., Chief Administrativo Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel A
CONTENTS Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station)
Docket 50-312-DCOM (Decommissioning Plan)
ORDER, CLI-94-14, September 2,1994.
. 133 Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Iloards CIIEME FRON CORPORATION (Bert Avenue, liarurd Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Newburgh 11 eights and Cuyahoga lleights, Ohio)
Docket 40-8724-MLA (ASLBP No. 94-695-03-MLA)
(Source Material License No. SUB-1357)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-94-30, September 1,1994 135 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
(Wgtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Dockets 50-424-OLA-3,50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3)
(Re: License Amendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-94-31, September 9,1994 137 l
l l
l hkh i
4 1
=,.
1 jCOmmlSSIOn IlSSuanCOS I
i l
~
I
-~..,-.
m
-w
.e-w w
m
_~
Cite as 40 NRC 133 (1994)
CLi-94-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers E. Gail de Planque In the Matter of Docket No. 50-312-DCOM
)
(Decommissioning Plan)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station)
September 2,1994 l
i The Commission lifts its earlier restriction on the Nuclea-Regulatory Com-mission Staff's ability to issue a decommissioning order, givea that no issue remains for adjudication and the Licensing Board terminated the proceeding.
ORDER The Commission in a Memorandum and Order issued March 3,1993, CLl-93-3, 37 NRC 135, reconsideration denied. CLI-93-12, 37 NRC 355 (1993),
granted the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) discretionary intervention, remanded this proceeding to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and directed that the NRC Staff withhold issuance of a decommissioning order pending a resolution of the proceeding by the Licensing Board. CL1-93 3, 37 NRC at 152,155. The Licensing Board in LBP-94-23, 40 NRC 81 (1994), granted the intervenor ECO's request to withdraw from this proceeding and terminated the proceeding. The Commission does not discern any matter warranting sua sponte review. In the absence of any remaining issue for adjudication, the Commission lifts its earlier restriction on the Staff's ability to issue a dect.mmissioning order.
133
.~
~
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission JOllN C.110YLE Acting Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2d day of September 1994.
e l
l a
I 134
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,* Chief Administrative Judge Vacant,
- Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Executive)
Frederick J. Snon,* Deputy Chlet Administrative Judge (Technical)
Members Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleason*
Marshall E. Miller Charles Bechhoefer*
Dr. David L. Hetrick Thomas S. Moore
- Puta B. Bloch*
Emest E. Hill Dr. Peter A. Morris G. Paul Dollwerk 111*
Dr Frank E Hooper Thomas D. Murphy
- Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Richard R. Parizek Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Charles N. Kelber*
Dr. Harry Rein Dr. Richard E Cole
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Lester S. Rubenstein Dr. Thomas E. Elleman Dr. Peter S. Lam
- Dr. David R. Schink Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. James C. Lamb til Ivan W. Smith
- Dr. Harry Foreman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. George E TKiey Dr. Richard E Foster Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1
- Permanont panel members i
1
l Cite as 40 NRC 135 (1994)
LB P-94-30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
1 l
i James P. Gleason, Presiding Officer Jerry R. Kline, Special Assistant in the Matter of Docket No. 40-8724-MLA (ASLBP No. 94-695-03-MLA)
(Source Material License No. SUB-1357)
CHEMETRON CORPORATION l
(Bert Avenue, Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Newburgh Heights and Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio)
September 1,1994 j
l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
(Motion to Dismiss Proceeding)
On July 7.1994 the Presiding Officer granted a 3-week period to the Earth Day Coalition (Coalition) to supplement a deficient hearing request.
The Coalition's petition failed to demonstrate that the Commission's standing requirements were met or that the concerns asserted were germane to the subject inatter of the proceeding.8 The hearing request concerned Chemetron Corporation's application for a license amendment. No supplement having been filed by the Coalition and the time period having expired, the Licensee moves 3 3rr L.HP-9420,40 NRC 17.1819 (1994) 135
that the Coalition's petition be denied and the proceeding be dismissed.2 7he Chemetron motion is granted herein.
ORDER I
1.
The request by the Earth Day Coalition for a hearing on Chemetron Corporation's license amendment is denied.
2.
The motion of the Chemetron Corporation for a dismissal of this pro-ceeding is granted.
(
I James P. Gleason, Presiding Officer ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
Rockville, Maryland September 1,1994 l
l I
1 1
2 Chemetmn Corporaimn Motmn to thsnuss huece&ng (Aug 15.1994) The NRC Staff respons-inacates no objc(ime to the Chenrtron nagnon ( Aug 18, BW4) 136
Cito as 40 NRC 137 (1994)
LB P-94-31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
i Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter Thomas D. Murphy in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3)
(Fie: License Amendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
September 9,1994 1he Board denied a Staff motion for reconsideration, setting forth standards for motions for reconsideration. Such motions must be filed within 10 days of the date of issuance of the motion being challenged. The Board also adopted the substantive standard that a motion for leave to reargue or rehear a motion will not be granted unless it appears that there is some decision or some principle of law that would have a controlling effect and that has been overlooked or that there has been a misapprehension of the facts.
1he Board said that it is appropriate to require the Staff to answer requests for admissions concerning the truth of findings in its own report. which contains important collateral facts. It also is appropriate to require the Staff to release segregable facts on which decisions have been made, even if those facts are contained in predecisional documents. Facts that are inextricably intertwined with opinions in predecisiorial documents need not be released.
It is appropriate to require the Staff to reveal the names of individuals involved in completing important Staff work. Interrenors may only call as witnesses Staff 137 1
l
members who are necessary to their case, but an important step in helping them to determine if testimony is necessary is to find out who was involved. For the same reason, it is appropriate to require the Staff to disclose the name of an individual who may have filed a formal differing professional opinion.
A stay shall not be granted when the only harm to a party is a strategic loss through complying with a request for admissions. However, a party may delay the need to respond by filing a motion for an extensien of time.
RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; TlMEt,1 NESS Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the date of issuance of a challenged order.
RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; SUliSTANTIVE STANDARD A motion for leave to reargue or rehear a motion will not be granted unless it appears that there is some decision or some principle of law that would have a controlling effect and that has been overlooked or that there has been a misapprehension of the facts.
RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIONS; COLLATERAL FACTS It is appropriate to require the Staff to answer requests for admissions concerning the truth of findings in its own report, which contains important collateral facts.
RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS; RELEASE OF SEGREGAllLE FACTS REQUIRED lt also is appropriate to require the Staff to release segregable facts on which decisions have been made, even if those facts are contained in predecisional documents. Facts that are inextricably intertwined with opinions in predecisional documents need not be released.
RUI.ES OF PRACTICE: INTERROGATORIES TO STAFF; NAMES OF STAFF
'ihe Staff must respond to interrogatories requesting the names of Staff involved in issuing a key report or involved in issuing a formal differing professional opinion.
U8
l RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY AND EXTENSION OF TIME COMPARED A stay shall not be granted when the only harm to a party is a strategic loss through complying with a request for admissions. However, a party may delay the need to respond by filing a motion for an extension of time.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion for Reconsideration: Admissionst Second Order)
The Board has received "NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Clarification and R quest for a Stay Pending Ruling and Appeal of LBP 26." September 6,1994 (Motion). We have determined that it is appropriate to decide this motion before responses are filed. The motion shall be denied. Staff may file a motion for an extension of time within which to file its response to LU P-94-26.
I.
STANDARDS FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
'The only mention of " reconsideration" in the procedural regulations is in 10 C.F.R. f 2.771, Petition for reconsideration. That section applies to petitions for reconsideration of a final decision of a presiding officer. By analogy, it suggests that motions for reconsideration may be filed under similar conditions pursuant to the general authority to file motions.
Petitions for reconsideration of a final decision must be filed within 10 days after the date of the decision. This Licensing Board applies that time period by analogy and limits such motions to 10 days after the decision being challenged.
In this instance, the petition is untimely because the decision was issued August 22 and was served on the Staff on that very day, and the petition was filed September 6. (Despite the untimeliness of the Motion, we also will consider its merits )
Unlimeliness in motions for reconsideration will not be tolerated since the issues addressed in such motions already have been considered and they represent additional delay in a case. That this elapsed period is untimely for an ordinary motion is clear to this Board since the analogous time period in the regulations is forfinal decisi<ms. which are far more difficult to respond to in the form of a motion for reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration are special exceptions to the rule of finality.
Generally, when a tribunal decides an issue it is put to rest. This is necessary 139 1
l i
l 1
in order to avoid continuous argument between litigious panies about already i
resolved ismes. It is sound law that a nuion for leave to reargue or rehear a notion will not be granted unless it appears that there is sorne decision or some principle of law which would have a controlhng effect and which has been overlooked or that there has teen a misapprehension of the facts.8 We adopt that principle as our own because it is a reasonable way to balance the desire to avoid error against the interest in finality of decisions.
II. IlOARD IS CONCERNED
'The Board is concerned at the posture that the Staff continuously takes in this proceeding because it is the Staff that is the principal impediment to reaching an efficient conclusion to this case. It is now over 4 years since the Site Area iimergency at Vogtle. Staff issued a Notice of Violation on May 9,1994, and is still involved in evaluating the comments of Georgia Power: and is awaiting comments from Mr. Allen Mosbaugh.' Until n finishes this process, the Staff does not know w hat positions to take in this proceeding. Therefore, it is pressed into the uncomfortaHe and unconstructive position of comtantly arguing that it should not be required to take a position.
In the instant motion, the Staff is resisting stating whether it will admit the facts relied on in the Office of Investigation Report on the Vogtle Site Area Emergency. All the findings of fact in that report were implicitly found relevant to the diesel generator issue by a respected Staff office after a lengthy investigation. Yet Staff is suggesting that before it should be required to admit or deny the truth of those findings. Intervenor first should certify whether these facts are relevant.d While the Staff is claiming that responding to this request for admissions is a momentous task, we note that Georgia Power has quietly completed the task of 8 56 Am Jur 2J 22. Morum Rules. emd Orden i 27 (1971) Note aim thal new evidence may not be presented in a mntwn for reconuderanon % ben there is an intervemng change of law or facts. a rn *on to renew rnay be m order t. -her than a nwtion for reconuderanna 56 Am Jur. 2d supp 24-25 (rf authonty that motions for reconnaderaen 1 are always an onter unni hnal Judgmeno 2 g. 4 ' omer and sia naned inihvuluah liled rephes on July 31. IW4 I Tr S/ Wit.618 d Motion) 12 33 T he facts ctied by the Litervenor mere cited m the ol Report and are therefore comidered relevam Rrtpests fnt adasuom runnermng the transenptson nf oder tape panages. not reed m the of Rep <wt. must be accompamed by athirne) rettihtanons of reirsurnt 140 1
1
)
responding to precisely the same request for admissions that the Staff resists.5 We are taken aback by the unwillingness of the Staff to verify facts contained in its own report.*
t III. FACTS We find the Staff filing confusing because it seems to state that it is being l
required to respond to items that are not facts. Yet Staff does not define what v
a fact is. In trying to disentangle this confusion, we have unsuccessfully tried j
to determine how it defines facts. Its confusion seems related to how to define a fact. It seems to think that facts to which it must stipulate must be either
" major" facts or must be determinative of the case. Instead, the rule is that a i
question is one of fact if - in a case tried to a jury - it properly falls within the traditional afabit of the jury.7
+
We note that in a contentious case like this one, admissions are likely to be obtained only with respect to collateral facts, thus gradually reducing the area of the unknown a little. An example of this principle is provided by the interrogatory cited in the Motion on page 7. Staff is being asked to admit or deny whether Mr. Aufdenkampe made the following statement:
AUFDENKAMPE sand that he had always assuned that the nunibers (1H and 19) in the Apnl 9,1990 letter carne frotn the Apnl 9,1990 presentation, and that he could not recall if flAILEY had told hun that (Extubti 38, p. 26.)
i It should be pointed out that the numbers "18 and 19" are key numbers in this 4
case. They are numbers of consecutive successful starts provided by Georgia Power to the NRC on April 9,1990. It is those numbers that Intervenor claims to have been inaccurate, it is based on this evidentiary statement and 219 others that the Office of Investigation concluded:
i Bned on the evidence developed dunng this investigation, a is concluded that on Apnl 9, i
1990.110CKHOLD debberately presented incornplete and inaccurate information to NRC
{
regardmg the test ng of the VEGP [Vogtlel Unit i EDGs [Enwrgency Diesel Generators) i conducted nuhsequent to a March 20.1990 SAE { Site Area EniergencyJ at VEOP.
8 l
8 Motum at 10 a 14 We disapee with Staff's analyus of the effs
'ia Power admisuons. f.ven af GeorF a i
Power tuu not adnuned a parucular fact. an adnumon by the Stah.
p 4:.ncful he examptr, Intervenir could entrodute evidente of an tral admusmn of a Georgia Power offu e that pinnt. Intervennr nught dioose to seu sf tir Staff had admmed str fact Wuhout str staff admissum further proof nught be sniroduced
'In its Motam at 6 n 10, tlw Staff rases a giawtum concerning amNguay of our Order We are not aware, howeser. of any punion of our Order that creases this ambiguity Ts Staff may rely on the order.1.HP 94 26.
40 NRC at u6 7 isnnt Gelhavn and Wilhan i Robinson. Jr. Summan ludgmod m Adswaarruth Ad udgarum. M4 Harv. L
/
Rev 612 (19711 at 613
of Report. in Caw No 2Mn20R at 42 141 l
Although the Staff of the Commission appears to have veered away from this finding of the Office ofInvestigations? we are an independent adjudicatory body that rnust decide whether or not the Office of Investigation's point of view is correct. Hence, we must look at the underlying facts and ascertain for ourselves whether we consider them to be true. If tl.c Staff admits facts (or refuses to adrc.it them and then explains the reasons for their refusal), this will be very helpful to the decisional process.'*
IV. ONIX THE FACTS i
We also are concerned that the Motion does not faithfully respond to our Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-26, Staff Responses to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions, Second Set of Interrogatories, August 22,1994 (LBP-94 26). For example, we ordered the release of factual information (that is not inextricably intertwined with opinions) that was considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in issuing a Notice of Violation to Georgia Power. We note this factual information, even though found in predecisional documents, is available under the Freedom of Information Act and is not privileged. We said:
I intervenor should be provided with any document or portion or a document that has not already been disclosed and that cont:nns segregable [ emphasis aJded] factual nformation that was crmuderrd by any perum Oncludmg Commiwioners and their staffs) in deGding whether or rmt to issue the NOV.
The Staf f characterins this order as requiring "various predecisional doc-uments."" What it does not state is that our order was carefully limited to discovery of the facts on which a decision was made. Such factual information is not exempt from disclosure. Furthermore, only important facts are required to be disclosed. Staff must disclose only those facts that this agency considered in deciding whether or not to issue a Notice of Violation concerning the very same facts as are before us in this case.i2 We conclude that the facts that are
' Vogtle Courananng Group Analym. I ebruary 9.1994. al 2 3" staff agtears in he concerned that a taist "idenuly every document that supports its answers to an adnussion."
hmon at 21 thmever, tion reymrenrnt appears to seem from Interverkw's I trst Request for Adnussions to NRC Staff IW) 17.1994) As we read the request. e g al page 9.18 the reqmrement for documemauon apphes only i
whrn the Staff idenutes a scnicine or statenrnt that is saud to be not true or not accunne. It is ennrely reasonable that when Staff asavows an of finding that il pronde a compicte explanatt.m and documentainm We conuder i
ttus sci of interrogatories to be both skdWully drahed and reasonable in its reqmrements
'Wuon at 18 12 staff also objetted in the diwhaure of fa is timt may have been consulcred by the Comnusuon However they prendnt rm austurny for this propimtwn We are not aang for any dadosure concerning how the darlosed taas mere conudered in the deouon protess Thus. dockned f.uts could have been consdered cetter by the Staff or the comnunum we do not require dnclaure of opmmns or of prehrmnary dncussions aw of any of the traditmnally prointed predernional mforman,m.
I42 r
i 4
required to be disclosed are necessary to a full and fair consideration of this Case.
]
V.
NAMFS OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN CREATING TIIE NOV i
We consider the di: closure of the names of the professionals involved in creating the NOV to be important and necessary discovery in this case.
intervenor in this case can call only witnesses that it demonstrates to be necessary to its case. However, it cannot determine what witnesses are necessary unless it can obtain information about what individuals are involved. We have not been told of any agency need to keep these identities secret. Hence, we assume that there is no special need to keep confidential any of the names of people professionally involved in issuing the NOV."
VL DOCUMENT REQUESTS l
As we interpret the Request for Admissions, the only documents that are requested are those that are necessary to support a Staff answer that it does not admit the truth of an 01 Finding." We find that it is necessary to the determination of this case that the Staff provide ruch documentation for the disavowal of a prior Staff finding. We therefore will order that the documents be produced.
Vil DIFFERING PROFFSSIONAL OPINION When we required that a dif fering professional opinion be produced in discovery, our principal purpose was to require that if a differing professional t
opinion were formally filed" then that fact should be made known so that we could determine whether testimony from that individual was necessary tc, the decision in this case. We required only that differing professional opinions be disclosed, and we will not alter our opinion in that regard.'6 Again, we do not t
U Although Staff suggested that our order required disclosmg as well the names of secretanal Staff. we thmk that a8Fumem more tongue m ctrek than a serious concern about what was miended We would aho pettrat the Maff to krep confidenhal the nanrs of any paralegals iwolved H.kr Imervenda rirst Reqirst for Admissions to NRC staff (May 17, IWM) As we read the request. c g.. at page 9,18. the reqmrrment for dotunwntation upphes only when the staff idennhes a sentence or statenrra that as said to tw not tme or not accurate U Moine at il n 28 IA The Sta!I. as servams of the pubhe, is mterested in developing a full and fair factual record. In a crse where a company's reputainm as bemg 6alled mto questmn. we would espect the $raff to nuke known important dissentmg sews that rmght change the Duasd's new of the endence in our opmmn. the staff *wms" only when the whole truth is renaled 143 l-6 i
t require that opinions or preliminary discussions be disclosed. If these matters are inextricably intertwined with facts, then neither the opinions nor the facts need be disclosed.
VIII. STAY 1hc principal harrn to Stalf from complying with our order is strategic, requiring it to evaluate the Office of Investigation's work and to state point i
by point whether it is still considered to be correct. There is not even the remotest chance that the Staff is being required to divulge privileged material.
We are not persuaded that this kind of " hardship" is sufficient to support the issuance of a stay. Given that no Staff opinions and no privileged documer ts are being released, there would not appear to be grounds either for a stay or for I
an interh>cutory appeal. Hence, we will not grant a stay pending appeal."
IX, EXTENSION OF TIME 1he Board is vitally conccrned about maintaining the schedule and complet-ing this case expeditiously. However, several portions of Staff's Motion appear to be in the nature of an incomplete argument for an extension of time. Within 5 calendar days, the Statf may file such a motion, with supporting estimates of Staff capabilities and suggested deadline dates for its filings. Staff should discuss its request with the parties and attempt to clicit their agreement. If nec-essary, we would convene a telephone prehearing conference to consider this request for an extension of time.
X.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 9th day of September 1994. ORDERED that:
1.
The "NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Clarification and Request for a Stay Pending Ruling and Appeal of LBP-94-26," September 6,1994, is denied both because it is untimely and because it is lacking in merit.
2.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board determines that it is necessary to the fair determination of this case that the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory U staff ts not required to respond usual Septeniber 22 and me me withng to consider a trumon for an cutenuon of ume beyond that daw. If the Staff hics an appeal. there mill be unple une for the Comnusuon to apply the May cetter a and to decide whether or not to isuse a Hay 144 1
l l
4
6 Commission produce documents to demonstrate its reasons for not admitting to the truth of findings of the Office of Investigations.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
Peter B. Bloch, Chair.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
Rockville, Maryland l
)
l d
s s
a f
f 145 r
t i
e
..m.
'