ML20129E065
| ML20129E065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1985 |
| From: | Brockman K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E064 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507160724 | |
| Download: ML20129E065 (25) | |
Text
r-0 ENCLOSURE MEETING
SUMMARY
Licensee: Georgia Power Company Facility: Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
SUBJECT:
HATCH REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS On April 23, 1985, representatives of Georgia Power Company (GPC) met with NRC Region II personnel in Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss the requalification examination conducted at Plant Hatch during the week of March 11, 1985
~
(0L-50-321/85-01). The meeting was held at the request of Georgia Power Company.
The attendance list is attached as Attachment A to this summary.
After opening remarks by Mr. J. Badgett, Mr. C. T. Moore presented Georgia Power's analysis of selected examination items. This analysis was limited to Section VIII of the Senior Operator written exam (Administrative Procedures, Conditions, and Limitations). It was the opinion of GPC that this section was the most substantive for displaying items whose impact was significant. The specific methodology by which the evaluation was made, the deduced implications on the accelerated requalification training program, and the resultant concerns with specific questions (to include corrective recommendations) constituted the GPC presentation. The briefing vu-graphs are enclosed as Attachment B and provide a more detailed description of the presentation.
Attachment C is a by-item response to the concerns and recommendations presented by Georgia Power. No modifications to the March 1985, requalification exam will be made. The concerns expressed, however, will be factored ~into future test item construction as part of the Region's effort to improve examination quality.
Additionally, Georgia Power's request for waiver of the operating tests scheduled for July, 1985, is under consideration.
Upon completion of the GPC presentation, Commission representatives reaffirmed the Commission commitment to assist Plant Hatch in ensuring that their operating personnel are both trained and qualified. Final accelerated requalification program evaluation was confirmed for July 1985.
hech Kenneth y /Brockman O'/3/8r Oate A. Attendance List B. Presentation Vu-Graphs C. Specific Item Responses 8507160724 850503 PDR ADOCK 05000321 O PDR
c
, e ATTACHMENT A ATTENDANCE LIST
- t GeorgiaPowerfaNeany J. J. Badgett, Corporate Nuclear Training Manager C. T. Moore, Manager of Training - Plant Hatch H. Nix, General Manager - Plant Hatch .
General Electric Company ,
D. Janecek, Manager, Nuclear Training Services l
General Physics W. E. Burns, Nuclear Engineer & Evaluation Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II ,
P. R. Bemis, Director, . Division of Reactor Safety K. E. Brockman, Reactor Engineer V. L. Brownlee, Chief, Projects Branch 2 A. F. Gibson, Chief, Operations Branch J. Munro, Reactor Engineer B. A. Wilson, Chief, Operator Licensing Section s
l f
}
r i
[ e
, ,f l
l .
1 l
! ATTACHMENT B MARCH 1985 i 1
4 NRC EXAM ANALYSIS 1
TRAINING DEPARTMENT '
PLANT HhTCH 1
I
AGENDA O OVERVIEW G EVALUATION O TRAINING PROGRAM STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES O CONCERNS WITH NRC EXAM G RECOMMENDATIONS l
G OVERVIEW DUE TO RESULTS OF SRO EXAM, SECTION 8 WAS ANALYZED QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT PERFORMED TO IDENTIFY QUESTIONS WITH LOW SCORES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT PERFORMED INDEPENDENT OF QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS THEN COMPARED TO IDENTIFY:
- AREAS OF NEEDED TR AINING IMPROVEMENTS
EXAM LENGTH -
4 HOURS
- EXTENDED 25 MINUTES BY NRC
- NRC DOES NOT TIME V ALID ATE EX AMS
- STRESS ON OPER ATORS BY TIME LIMIT FOR NON-TIME V ALID ATED EX AM C AN AFFECT RESULTS
O EVALUATION SPECIFIC QUESTIONS (AVERAGE 550%)
6 QUESTIONS ID$NTIFIED -
QUESTION AVERAGE COMMENTS NO.
8.04 42% - ROTE MEMORIZATION OF T/S
- NOT OPERATION ALLY ORIENTED NO NEED TO KNOW (CAN LOOK IT UP)
NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVES 8.0 6 a 33% -
NUMBER OF RESPONSES NOT SPECIFIED NOT CLEAR NO REFERENCE MATERI AL PROVIDED
w,-v-n ------,--,,.-e-nn, ,,,------,.-,m- - , - , - - , - , - -- - . , , . - - , - , -
EV ALU ATlON Continued...
QUESTION AVERAGE COMMENTS NO. .
8.08 33% - ROTE MEMORIZATION OF MTN-01
- NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVES NOT OPER ATION ALLY ORIENTED
- UNCLEAR l l
8.11 50% -
ROTE MEMORIZATION i OF MNT-01 PICK OUT PHR ASE TH AT ISN'T IN MNT-01 ONLY 1 WORD WRONG IN CORRECT CHOICE
- TESTED WHO MWO RETURNED TO UNCLEAR NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVES
- , , - - . - , - - - , , . , - - . , . , - . - - - ,,,.g ---3,,y,y- -
,, ym-,,-m3 .,, - - - - - ._--,------w# -
-r,wr.-.y-4wr-eyow-w- -w w--w-wy-r r -
w*
EV ALU ATION Continued ...
i QUESTION AVERAGE COMMENTS 4
. NO.
l 8.13 33% -
F AIR QUESTION l 4
8.16 50% -
F AIR QUESTION !
l AVERAGES :
oSRO EX AM 80.9%
- SECTION 8 66.8%
SECTION 8 SCORES RANGE OF SCORES
> 80% 1 70-80% 2 i
< 70% 3 1
-w-, - - , - - - - . - - , ,o ---- . , , , -- , - - < - . - - - w-r - - r-,---
EV ALU ATION Continued ...
QUESTION AVERAGE COMMENTS NO.
8.13 33% -F AIR QUESTION 8.16 50% -F AIR QUESTION AVERAGES o SRO EX AM 80.9%
o SECTION 8 66.8%
SECTION 8 SCORES R ANGE OF SCORES
> 80% 1 70-80% 2
<70% 3
EVALUATION OF ALL i SECTION 8 QUESTIONS l 37.5% SUPPORTED BY GPC LEARNING OBJECTIVES 75% OBJECTIVE (25% SUBJECTIVE) 60% MEMORY (40% COMPREHENSION) 62.5% OPER ATION ALLY ORIENTED 15% INCOMPLETE (DID NOT H AVE EVERY THING STUDENT NEEDED) 47.5% LACKED CLARITY 17.5% T.S. DEFINITIONS
l O TRAINING PROGRAM STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
- STRENGTHS
-WEAKNESSES
- NEED ADDITION AL EMPH ASIS ON
- HNP-514 (LOCKED V ALVES) l
- NEED ADDITION AL PR ACTICE AND l
F AMILI ARITY WITH OPER ABILITY IN MODES 4/5 l
O CONCERNS WITH NRC EXAM QUESTIONS 8.04, 8.06 a, 8.0 8, l and 8.11 HAD 3 IDENTIFIED !
WEAKNESSES EACH l AVERAGE SCORE OF 4
. QUESTIONS 38.4%
ABILITY TO ANSWER THESE
~DOES NOT REFLECT ABILITY TO HOLD SRO LICENSE l
l '3/4 NOT SUPPORTED BY l OBJECTIVES
- 1 QUESTION WAS SUPPORTED BUT SOMEWH AT OPEN-ENDED
! AND LACKED CL ARITY l
l l
O RECOMMENDATIONS NRC DELETE QUESTIONS 8.04, 8.06a, 8.08 AND 8.11 FROM GRADING WAIVER JULY ORAL AND SIMULATOR EXAMS BASED ON NOVEMBER '83 AND MARCH '84 PERFORMANCES i
1
- _ . . . - - - . . , . . - -.--n-,.. , _ . - . _ , . - _ . , , _ . . , - , . . , . , _n-,.n, , ,-- - . . , - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----,,--m- - - - ---------- - - -, - - - .
99tstieo__YalutL - D9L - --QCY- - ILB- _0LD______CIJ_ ___805 eQE______eyg . g____
8.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .80 1 100.00s 8.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .80 1 100.00%
8.03 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 40 .50 100.00%
8.04a .25 .25 O O O O O. .20 .04 16.67%
0.04b .5 O O .25 .25 0 .25 .20 .13 50.00%
8.04c .25 .25 0 .25 .25 0 .25 .20 .17 66.675 8.04d .25 .25 0 0 0 .25 0 .20 .08 33.33%
8.05 1.50 .56 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1 1.20 1.25 83.33%
8.06a .2 1.17 0 .67 .67 .33 1.16 1.60 .67 33.33%
8.06b i 1 1 .99 1 1 1 .80 .98 98.33%
8.07 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.08 1 O O O 1 1 0 .80 .33 33.33%
8.09a .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 0 .40 42 83.33%
8.09b .50 0 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 40 42 83.33%
8.09c .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 40 .50 100.00%
8.09d .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 0 .50 40 .42 83.33%
8.10 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 .00 .83 83.33%
8.11 1 O O 1 1 0 1 .80 .50 50.00%
8.12 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.13 1 0 1 1 O O O .80 .33 33.33%
8.14 1 O O 1 1 1 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.15a 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 .80 .67 66.67%
8.15b 1 O O .75 1 1 1 .80 .63 62.50%
__0t16______1________1 __1 O O 9________1__ __ .t00______tD9_______D9t995 Sub 20 10.42 12 14.82 16.17 12.08 14.66 16 13.36 66.79%
% 52.10% 60.00% 74.10% 80.85% 60.40% 73.30% 66.79%
At Total 79 55.97 63.75 63.22 70.07 63.23 67.06 63.20 63.88 80.86%
% 70.85% 80.70% 80.03% 88.70% 80.04% 84.89% 80.86%
NRC EX AM AN ALYSIS - SECTION 8
( All Questions included)
S. .
I f
92tSL12c__Yelut/ _ D96- - -- QCY- - -
- TL E --- - OLD _____CIJ _RQ5,,,,,,0Q3_ _ _,9yg,,,,,,,3,,,,
8.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .80 1 100,oys 8.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .80 1 100.00%
8.03 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 40 .50 100.00%
- 8. OS - 1.50 . 5:3 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1 1.20 1.35 83.33%
8.06b 1 1 1 .90 1 1 1 .80 .98 98,33%
8.07 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.09a .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 0 .40 .42 83.33%
8.09D .50 0 . *O
. .50 .'.> .50 .50 .40 42 83.33%
8.09c .50 .50 .50 .50 .30 .50 .50 40 .50 100.00%
8.09d .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 0 .50 40 42 8 3. 33y.
8.10 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 .80 .83 83.33%
8.12 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.13 1 0 1 1 O O O .80 .33 33.33%
8.14 1 O O 1 1 1 1 .80 .67 66.67%
8.15a 1 1 0 1 1 1 O .80 .67 66.67%
8.15b 1 O O .75 1 1 1 .80 .63 62.50%
__0t1&______1________1_______ 1 O O________9________1_______t09______tL9_______00t99%
Sub 8 15 8.50 12 12.65 13 10.50 12 12 11.44 76.28%
% 56.67Y. 80.00% 84.33% 86.67% 70.00% 80.00% 80.00% 76.28%
At Total 74 54.05 63.75 61.05 66.90 61.65 64.40 59.20 61.97 83.74%
_ % 73.04% 86.15% 82.50% 90.41% 83.31% 87.03% 80.00% 83.74%
NRC EX AM AN ALYSIS - SECTION 8 .
( 8.4, 8.6 a, 8.8, 8.11 Removed) m .
- h I
e e
I f-<!. ,
z
.9-l .85 -
.8-f '
! E 0
.75 -
1 b$ .7-l *
.65 -
l l .6- -
~
.55 - -
l .5 4 5 6 80% AVE 1 2 3 i
/
/
! )O -
i lu g
. 85 -
.8-
. 75 -
[ .7-b$ . 65 -
t
.6-l . 55 -
~
. A -
1 2 3 4 5 6 80% AVE I
i
- 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATION g PAGE
__________________________________________________________S QUESTION 8.03 ( .50) ,' .
STATE who can de'el'are the unit / plant to be in an emer3ency con- -
dition (classification). .
NOTE' Identify by Position Title and any special required qual-ifications. E
. . 4.'.
QUESTION 8 . 0 4 ' ' ~- (1.00) -
Unit 2 Technical Specifications specify the frequency intervals for the Performance of Surveillance requirements. This is accom- '
plished by use of FREQUENCY NOTATION. -
COMPLETE the followins Table. (D0 NOT INCLUDE GRACE PERIODS) ..
NOTATION .
FREQUENCY a) S At least once per _______ hours. .
b) Q At least once per days.
- c) M At least once per
_______ days.
d) , ___ At least once per 18 months.
DUESTION 8.05 (1 50) '
- s. Unit 2 Technical Specifications define SHUTDOWN MARCIN as...
' Shutdown Marsin shall be the amount of reactivity by which the reactor is soberiticair or would be soberitical from its present condition, assumins...' '
, LIST the three conditions ,which complete the definition of SHUT-DOWN MARGIN.
we =
,, , . r, , J N V,$.'
- -s
. . aif
~ Qi
~
^***y i, =, t e *
.?h,i.$ .
. . = g e.
.T.
. , >.; .:&..-?.M, .
,. cQGi,fj '
'A. ..~
~
~
- 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
's . . , .
PAGE
..~-
QUESTION B.06 (3.00)
- a. The followin's ' data was taken on Unit 2 during a single day of operation at Operational Condition 1:
Identified Leakage Unidentified Leakage Shift 1: 0400 5020 gal '
604 gal t 0800 4940 gal 1020 gal Shift 2: 1200~ . 5040 gal 900 gal 1600 5340 gal. 1032 gal Shift 3: 2000 5840 gal- 1100 gal 2400 4640 gal .. . _ L 1248 gal (
Indicate any TS (or other) limit (s) that was(were) e::c e e ded .
Justify your answer (s).
(2 FO:
b) What is the definition of " Pressure Boundary Leakage?' (1.0; QUESTION 8.07 (1.00)
Temporary changes to operating procedures should be minimi:ed.
Under which one of the fc11owing conditions is a temporary chan3e . #
permitted and warranted, as the proper corrective action?
'L - a. The addition of a CAUTION is necessary to prevent possible . . . <
equipment damage.
- b. A correction is required to a valve / electrical. lineup.
- c. The plant physical conditions assumed by a procedure are .
incorrect and prevent its completion as written.
- d. A procedural step is determined to be unnecessary and should be deleted.
e
..g.
.-:};
s
.O g
- O 4
..~-.
v '
.h
.. L
- ' . .'.T2.a
.. :.. a .
- 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITAfIONS PAGE QUESTION 8.08 (1 00) ..
Per Administrative Procedure MNT-01-Or _ ' Maintenance Program',
EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ...(CHOOSE ONE) '
- a. ... is maintenance that must be performed to. maintain safe operating conditions, as determined by the Operations Super- 7f' visor On Shift. . , ,
- b. ... may be performed without issuance, or approval, of a q Maintenance Work Order (MWO), or procedure.
- c. ... must be approved by the General Mcnager or Deputy General. .
Manager -AND- the OSOS or SS on duty. )^ h4
- d. ... may be worked on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> /dayr 7 day / week scheduler upon --
the specific approval of the General Manager.
QUESTION 8.09 (2.00) -
Answer the follo' wing TRUE or FALSE questir.ns with regard to the control of Lifted Wires and Temporary Jumv ars (HNP-504 and HNP-9).
, s. A lifted wire or jumper that is required by Tech Specs, such -
as placin3 an inoperable channel in the tripped condition, does NOT require PRB approval. .(0.5
- b. When lifting wires or installing jumpers not requiring a 'J and LW' sheetr "J and LW' tags must still be placed on the jumpers and/or lifted wires. -
(0.5
- c. The final approval to activate a 'J and LW' clearance sheet on a safety system that is required to be operable by Tech Specs is
- provided by two members of the plant staffe one of whom must be a licensed SRO. (0.5
- d. For surveillance procedures requiring the use of temporary
- 1 u.'
Jumper's, independent vert,fication is ONLY required on system ~
restoration and NOT on initia1 installation. ,
(o,5 q::x..
- r
'- "_ j 0.k..
f -
% .I
, , . .. .. j -
- - 2.1,.E Cat: di:
- w
. *..~. *
.. 45=n'll I '
- 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS PAGE :
a
~ .
..s .g -
DUESTION 8,.10 (1.00)
HNp-501,
- Equipment' Clearance and Ta93i n3 Provides instructions for the proper method of requestin's and issuin3 clearances and hold '
tags. Which of the following accurately describes the clearance process? -
- a. When a maintenance project will require a clearance for more than one shift, the Shift Supervisor can release the sub-clearance to the
' Maintenance Foreman't by name release is not required in this case.
- b. Any clearance which requires the normal electrical lineup of the plant to be modified, will be issued by the Shift Supervisor in the form of written Switching Orders, per HNP-X-1646.
- c. If a new MWO has identical isolation boundaries to a previously '-
released MWO/ Clearance, the new MWO may be added to the clearance.
- d. When restoring a safety-related component to service, if NOT covered by procedure or surveillance requirement, INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of the release is REGUIRED.
. QUESTION 8.11 (1.00) ;
% Procedure MNT 01-0, ' Maintenance Program', designates certain responsibilities for the Shift Supervisor in returning components / .
systems to service after maintenance activities. Which of the following is NOT one of these responsibilities.?
- a. The Shift Superviscr will EVALUATE the inspections and tests -
performed to. deter,mine if the system or component may be returned to service.
<b. The Shift Supervisor will PLACE the system ~ or component in ope a s t i ore and DOCUMENT its operational status by signing the MWD.
- c. The Shift Supervisor will attach a copy of any LCO report gen- J-ersted as a resvit of the work activity to the MWD package, once the MMO is closed out. . .
- d. If the operational test (s) are UNSATISFACTORY, the Shift Super- '
visor will return the NWO, with amplifying remarks, to the Maintenance Foreman in charge of the work activity, to allow for further cor-rective maintenance to be performed. *
.9
- % 'g
- i
- l:,:.? :
l 2
'Yf e
a ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC ITEM RESPONSES Utility Comment: The examination was limited to a four-hour time period.
Mitigating factors were:
Time was extended 25 minutes by the NRC NRC does not time validate exams Stress on operators by time limit for non-time validated exam can affect results NRC Resolution: The examination was limited to a four-hour time period. This was based upon the guidance presented in NUREG 1021, ES-601, ". . . the length of the examination should be about 60% of that for a standard licensing examina-tion." This coincided with the exam scope being 80 points, as compared to the 120 point /6-hour time limit for the replacement exam which was given concur-rently. The 25 minute extension was for dissemination of clarifying information.
The stress that is imposed upon operators by a time limit is acknowledged. As a by-product of Three Mile Island, the examination format was redesigned to intentionally add time consideration. This guidance from the Commission will be maintained until the requirement is changed.
Utility Comment: Concerning Question 8.04 Required Rote Memorization of T/S Not Operationally Oriented No Need to Know Not Supported by Objectives NRC Resolution: While knowing the definition of surveillance frequencies does not directly impact reactor safety, it is an item which the operator deals with everyday. At Plant Hatch the surveillance program is directed via a computerized system; however, it remains the SR0's responsibility to ensure that reference information provided to him does not cause him to violate T/S. The SR0 should be familiar with whether a shiftly surveillance is required every 8,12, or 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as an example. It is agreed that the topic was not specifically addressed by GPC learning ob.iectives; but, it is an item of daily contact for the operational staff and should have posed no problem.
Utility Comment: Concerning Question 8.06(a)
Number of responses required was not specified Data was not clear No reference material was provided NRC Resolution: NUREG 1021 indicates that a question should be specific in letting an examinee know the depth of answer elicited. For example, if 10 automatic actions occur for a given condition, he should be told if only 5 are required to receive full credit. In this case, all violations of leakage limits were being asked for. This required the candidate to know how many limits there are and then, to evaluate against them. The question asked him to list
E . .
Attachment C 2 e
"every" limit violated. This was explicit. The data provided the candidates was potentially confusing -- this was corrected by proctor clarification to all examinees and will be made more straight-forward and recognizable for any future applications. Reference material was specifically not provided as this question investigated whether the ' candidate knew the plant's leakage LCOs. This intention was .further supported since the facility had recently experienced an event wherein i . plication of the leakage limits was done improperly. Finally, the unit is under Commission Order, causing extra conservatism on leakage limit applica-tions, and this information is not readily available via the T/S.
Utility Comment: Concerning Question 8.08 Required rote memorization of MTN-01 Not supported by objectives Not operationally oriented Unclear NRC Resolution:. The . objective of this question was to identify whether the candidate was familiar with his responsibilities and allowed actions, as applies to Emergency Maintenance. MTN-01 is a recently released procedure. It estab-lished new administrative procedures and formats for maintenance activities and, in general, revamped the conduct of maintenance activities at the plant. The Senior Operator should be " familiar" with this new system. Major changes in plant. operations is one of the key goals of requalification training; it is considered that this question was both relevant and oriented to the operating environment.
Utility Connent: Concerning Questions 8.11:
Required rote Memorization of MTN-01 Pick out phrase that isn't in MTN-01 Only one word wrong in correct choice Tested who MWO returned to Unclear ~
Not supported by objectives NRC Resolution: As with Question 8.08 the staff considers this topic to be important. The question did not require memorization, but instead required the operator to " recognize" which activity he did not have the authority to allow.
It did not test who an MWO was returned to, but whether the Shift Supervisor had the authority to re-release an MWO after failing an OPTEST. The responsibilities and authorities of the. Shift Supervisor in administering the maintenance program are considered to be both valid and important concepts.
Utility Recommentation: Delete Questions 8.04, 8.06(a), 8.08, and 8.11 from grading.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation denied. The Commission, as specifically described above, considers all questions to be relevant and " human factors-wise" acceptable. The level of knowledge elicited is considered proper for the Senior Operator. Suggestions for improving these questions for future use will be incorporated by the Operator Licensing Staff.
i i
Attachment C 3 Utility Recommendation: Waive July oral and simulator exams based on November 1984, and March 1985, performance.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation under consideration. While the performance of GPC personnel on the oral and simulator exams has been above 90%, the sample has been biased toward those operators who daily run the plant. Evaluation must be made to identify the applicability of extrapolating these results for all licensed personnel. Resolution will be made no later than June 15, 1985.
l l
L