ML20137D398
| ML20137D398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1984 |
| From: | Fitti C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137D333 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-853 NUDOCS 8508220469 | |
| Download: ML20137D398 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ - - - _ .
i *
(
.:ym,O' (
a UNITED s1 ATEs
~j,']ikf-((,jr NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION e,1 ATOMIC sAF ETY AND LICENstNG BOARD PANE L y.,j .
nsacios. o c. nw, October 3, 1984 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: John C. Hoyle Assistant Secretary of the Comission, ECY l
FROM: Charles J. Fitti h/ l Executive Secretary, ASLBP -
SUBJECT:
STEN 0 GRAPHIC REPORTING CONTRACT . 'b FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE At Judge Cotter's request, I have reviewed Mr. Chilk's memorandum addressed to Judge Cotter and received on October 3,1984.
The ASLBP supports the position to discontinue FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE. In taking that position the ASLBP is not stating that all transcripts received by ASLBP judges have been unsatistactory. Somt have been satisfactory; in fact one judge complimented the reporter who took a short telephone conference on the quality of the transcript.
The ASLBP position is based on. individual events during the course of the contract period to data and a survey made on October 2, 1984. The results of which indicated the majority of the transcripts received by the ASLBP in approximately the last three months were not satisfactory.
The number of transcripts mentioned by the judges in the survey covered 22 transcripts, 14 of which were not acceptable, although they sometimes stated the numbers as approximations. In any event the nature of the survey was not necessarily to account for every transcript but was to get a reaction from the Panel concerning the quality of FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE's work for the ASLBP.
Prior to the survey ASLBP judges had complained about an assortment of inadequacies. They include: incorrectly identified speakers and hearing attendees, garbled and unintelligible transcripts - 'beyond reconstruction, incorrect words, lack of covers, etc.
We spoke specifically to Work Order 122 and 115 in a memorandum dated September 27, 1984 (copy attached). On several occasions during the past three months we have stated our view to the contract officer that specific transcripts were unsatisfactory or of poor quality.
The ASLBP feels the requirements of this contract are beyond the capability of FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE, despite what may be their declared intentions.
Enclosures:
As stated cc: B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
R. M. Lazo 8500220469 050000 PDR FOIA E. W. Leins BIRD 84-853 PDR
6 g"% ( (
k
' i., '
g j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (gw+
- .((.g;[j j A10MIC SAFETY AND LICENslNG BOARD PANEL wAssiscios, o.c. rosss October 3, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: John C. Hoyle j Assistant Secretary of the Comission ECY I FROM: Charles J. Fitti /
Executive Secretary, ASLBP -
SUBJECT:
STEN 0 GRAPHIC REPORTING CONTRACT . 'd FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE l At Judge Cotter's request, I have reviewed Mr. Chilk's memorandum l addressed to Judge Cotter and received on October 3,1984. !
l The ASLBP supports the position to discontinue FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE. In taking that position the ASLBP is not stating that all transcripts received by ASLBP judges have been unsatisfactory. Some i have been satisfactory; in fact one judge complimented the reporter who i took a short telephone conference on the quality of the transcript. 1 The ASLBP position is based on individual ' events during the course of i the contract period to data and a survey made on October 2,1984. The I results of which indicated the majority of the transcripts received by the ASLBP in approximately the last three months were not satisfactory.
The number of transcripts mentioned by the judges in the survey covered 22 transcripts,14 of which were not acceptable, although they sometimes stated the numbers as approximations. In any event the nature of the survey was not necessarily to account for every transcript but was to get a reaction from the Panel concerning the quality of FREESTATE
)
REPORTING SERVICE's work for the ASLBP. <
Prior to the survey ASLBP judges had complained about an assortment of inadequacies. They include: incorrectly identified speakers and hearing attendees, garbled and unintelligible transcripts -- beyond reconstruction, incorrect words, lack of covers, etc.
We spoke specifically to Work Order 122 and 115 in a memorandum dated September 27, 1984 (copy attached). On several occasions during the past three months we have stated our view to the contract officer that specific transcripts were unsatisfactory or of poor quality.
The ASLBP feels the requirements of this contract are beyond the capability of FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE, despite what may be their declared intentions.
Enclosures:
As stated fpfA g M S3 cc: B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
R. M. Lazo bb /
f E. W. Leins P. A. Sullivan
FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE QUESTION: Does the ASLBP wish to discontinue FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE?
Ms. Sullivan called all users on 10/1/84 to determine their feelings on the FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE. In response, Charles Fitti told Patricia Sullivan that he suspected the ASLBP would be in favor of discontinuing FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE. However, he said he would check with the Panel Members and verify what he understood to be their feelings on the matter.
On October 2,1984, Charles Fitti asked the Panel Members listed below the following question: During the past three months have you used the FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE? Specifically, have you had any hearings or conference calls in the Washington, D.C. area during the last three months? If the Panel Member responded yes, he was asked how he evaluated the transcript. He was also asked if he favored ending the FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE and replacing it with another reporting service. Not everyone responded directly to the last question with a specific yes or no.
Judge Bechhoefer Judge Lawrenson Judge Bright Deputy Chief Judge Lazo Judge Cole Judge Margulies Chief Judge Cotter Judge Miller Judge Linenberger Judge Paris Judge Luebke Judge Smith ;
Judge Frye Deputy Chief Judge Shon Judge Harbour Judge Kelley Judge Kline The following judge was present but, not available in his office at the time his office was visited in the survey: Judge Carpenter. .
I The following judges were not present in the ASLBP offices or October 2, 1984:
Judge Brenner Judge Grossman Judge Hoyt Judge Wo 'e Judge Bloch Judge Morris Judge Bechhoefer: Did not use FREESTATE REPORTING SERVICE.
l
\
i
Judge Bright: Said he had only limited use of FREESTATE, and what would be the point of changing if we had more of the same?
Point value 1: Not acceptable or competent category.
Judge Cole: Did not use FREESTATE.
Chief Judge Cotter: Did not use FREESTATE.
Judge Frye: Did not use FREESTATE.
Judge Harbour: Did not use FREESTATE.
Judge Kelley: Said FREESTATE had done several (I un6 rstand that to be at least three times) teleconferences for him.
A more recent one was fairly good, it was next to the last one, it was a short one. He thought the next transcript of a teleconference, which was a much longer one, was terrible. He also said he -
thought it was interesting that the excellent short one and the subsequent long teleconference were both done by the same reporter and transcriber. The conclusion was that FREESTATE was not reliable.
Point value: 1 Not acceptable or not competent 1 Acceptable 1 Excellent Judge Kline: Said he had used the service once but, he had not read the transcript therefore, he could not comment.
He referred me to Judge Sheldon Wolfe, who was not present.
Judge Lawrenson: Said he had used FREESTATE service twc times and one of the times the transcript was not acceptable. He -
thought two times was not a very good sample but, it is a 507, failure. That did not sound too good.
Point value: 1 Not acceptable or not competent 1 Probably acceptable but, poor quality Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Lazo: Did not use FREESTATE.
Judge Linenberger: Said he had used their service one time and he
I would rank them on a scale of 10 at 4 for that one transcript. He added he really could not i judge them on one event. !
1 Point value: 1 Probably acceptable but, poor quality.
Judge Luebke: Did not use FREESTATE.
Judge Margulies: Said he had used FREESTATE for one teleconference which was 16 pages long. He thought their work adequate, but he really did not think it was a very good sample.
, Point value: I acceptable Judge Miller: Said they were not competent. Some of their teleconferences were OK. He was in favor of -
better, but not more of the same from someone else. He said he had used them more than 5 il times.
Point value: 5 Not acceptable; not competent.
Judge Paris: Said he had used FREESTATE only once, for a teleconference. In some aspects they had something to be desired (meaning, they " lack" something). They did not know ASLBP format, they incorrectly identified the Board as the NRC Staff, there was not a proper cover on the transcript, which he likes since it helps him identify a transcript from all the other case papers. He admitted there was a poor telephone connection in the case of two persons participating in the conference, which was not the fault of the reporter. He said the ELD participant interpreted what may have been lost by the telephone problem for the reporter, since the ELD person could hear everyone very well. He admired how the reporter corrected for his own blunder when he inadvertently cut himself out of the conference so that he could hear but, could not be heard. He did not think one telephone conference was a very good measure by which to determine to change the service.
Point value: 1 Probably acceptable but, poor quality.
4
_ _ ___ 1 a
e l
Judge Smith: Said he used the service 5 or 6 times. He first said they were totally inadequate for evidentiary hearings. Later, he came back and said the most recent transcript he received was acceptable and he thought he should say that, in fairness. He also said the company is not set up for evidentiary hearings. They are set up for conferences, where people are gathered around a table (I am certain he was not referring to an ACRS meeting situation). He also pointed out that the reporter never saw the finished product, the work was transcribed by someone else. I said I knew that, and I thought that was poor quality control. I had spoken to that several times.
Point value: 6 Not acceptable, not competent 1 Acceptable Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Shon: Said he had only one transcript. His initial reaction was that he did not use FREESTATE at all, but he then found a FREESTATE transcript on his shelf. Actually, he did not really remember the transcript that well and he was sorry but, he did not think he could be very helpful.
Point value: 0 Judge Wolfe: (On10/3/84). Said he used FREESTATE once. He was not too clear on their work product presently but, he thought they were probably OK. He thought one time not a good measure of their capability.
Point value: 1 Acceptable Charles Fitti discussed the information he had collected from the members with Judge Cotter. Judge Cotter said, follow the majority.
Charles Fitti replied he would then say the ASLBP position is one which supports discontinuing FREESTATE service, although by that we are not saying that they never performed satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, in one instance, they were complimented for their excellence. The majority was determined from t1e number of times the service was used rather than a majority of views among the Panel Members.
The number of times the service was used was taken completely from the members recollection and may or may not be identical to the actual record of usage in three months in which FREESTATE was under contract with NRC.
's .
Conclusion Not acceptable, not competent 14 Probably acceptable but poor quality 3 i Acceptable 4 Excellent 1 Not acceptable Acceptable 14 8 Total 22
/
e 1 N CJF 4