ML20236K167
| ML20236K167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1998 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| SP-98-050, SP-98-50, NUDOCS 9807090204 | |
| Download: ML20236K167 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
.+.
?
= an nu UNITED STATES j
Ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
_o e
%m,*
June 15,1998 t
l
\\
ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA l
TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98-050)
L v
L^
.Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
1 INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION......
l PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...XX REVISION TO OSP INTERNAL PROCEDURE D.24, " ANNUAL MEETINGS WITH AGREEMENT STATES BETWEEN IMPEP l
REVIEWS" TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION........
TECHNICAL INFORMATION.......................
l' j
. OTH ER I N FORMATION...............................
Supplementary information: I have enclosed for your review and comment a revision to OSP Intemal Procedure D.24, " Annual Meetings With Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews."
The document has been revised to incorporate comments from Agreement States and lessons leamed while completing annual meetings this year.
Revisions include adding more detail to the steps taken in scheduling the meetings, expanding kl H
. meeting topics to include greater opportunity for discussion on NRC's regu!atory program, and l
specifying more guidance involving the follow-up on recommendations and suggestions made l
at previous IMPEP reviews.
Agreement State views on the frequency of meetings with NRC during the interval between IMPEP reviews are also requested. Initially, NRC staff e'timated that the resources required to conduct annual meetings would be minimal and tha*. the budgeted resources for the IMPEP program would be sufficient to support annual meetings. Experience to date, however, has indicated that two full days of travel are often required to conduct the one day meeting and that preparation and documentation activities may require significantly more than one week of effort.
~ Currently budgeted resources are not sufficient to support continued expendi'ure of effort at that rate.- Agreement States are requested to comment on the value of conducting meetings at
]
- the annual frequency during those years when an IMPEP review is not scheduled. Comments are also requested on whether that value would be significantly impacted by reducing the l
frequency to one meeting held midway between the last and the next scheduled IMPEP i
reviews. For an Agreement State program that is on a four-year IMPEP frequency, the 1
{a*1 r) 0 9807090204 990615 1 ? ~5~.
bi h
PDR STPRO ESGOEN o#
l w
PDR 1
j
1 SP 050 - "JUN 151998 NRC/ Agreement State meeting would be conducted two years since the last, and before the next, IMPEP review.
We request your comments by July 10,1998.
This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration 04/30/01. The estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0029), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information."
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Lance J. Rakovan TELEPHONE:
(301)415-2589 FAX:
(301) 415-3502 i
INTERNET:
LJR2@N GOV
)
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated 1
i 1
l
[
l l
i
g * *.a y I'
l SP-98450 - JUN 151998 NRC/ Agreement State meeting would be conducted two years since the last, and before the next, IMPEP review.
We request your comments by July 10,1998.
I This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration 04/30/01. The
' estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records
' Management Branch (T-0 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0029), Office of Management and Budget, L
Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information."
If you have any auestions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
. POINT OF CONTACT:
Lance J. Rakovan-TELEPHONE:
-(301)415-2589 FAX:
(301) 415-3502..
INTERNET:'
LJR2@NRC. GOV -
L OriginalSianedBy:
ll PAULH.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated L
l Distribution:
l DlR RF -
s DCD (SP03)L l
SDroggitis 1PDR (YES.L) (NO__)
A/S File -
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
g DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\.SP98050.wpd
- Ta recoln a cop ' of thee document, indicato in the box: "C" = ' N q pout attachment /endosure "E" = Cop t with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE
-OSP l-OSI ':DJh 4 OSP:D ()g /
l l
NAME LRakovan:nb PLohaus V W 4" RBangart j%
- DATE,
-06/08/98
- 06/08/98
- 06/ l( /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4-. '
a a..
.g OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS INTERNAL PROCEDURE DIVISION I Post-Agreement D.24 Annual Meetings With
- Activities Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews 1.
' Introduction This procedure describes the general objectives and procedures for an annual meeting Uith
- Agreement States, including scheduling, assigning personnel, conducting, and reporting.
II.
Oblectives
- The objectives of this procedure are:
A.
Establish procedures for scheduling and conducting an annual one day meeting -
with each Agreement State not scheduled for an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review that fiscal year.
B.
identify the NRC staff and requested State staff who should participate in an annual meeting, including staff responsible for leading the meeting.
C.
Define the scope of activities and potential discussion topics for annual meeting.
D.
Identify methods and timing for documenting and comrnunicating the results of
'the meeting to the State.
i E.
Specify the appropriate steps to take when concerns are raised during an annual i
meeting.
' lli.
Backaround
.1 In their respective Management Review Board (MRB) meetings, Agreement States consistently commented on the need for NRC presence on a more frequent basis than once every four uyears. At the September 1993 Annual Agreement States Meeting, the issue of conducting a mid-cycle or annual meeting was discussed. In SECY-96-234, " Status Report on
- Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program," November 12, 1996, it was proposed that an annual one day meeting with each of those Agreement States not scheduled for IMPEP review in that year take place in order to help all parties remain knowledgeable of their respective prcgrams'and to conduct planning for the next IMPEP review.
D.24.3 '
Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98 7
^
i
_m
Ef..
.e g-h IV.
~ Procedures.
A.
. RSAOs are responsible for scheduling meetings with each of those Agreement
' States in their Region not scheduled for an IMPEP review each fiscal year. The senior IMPEP project manager will inform the RSAOs of the proposed IMPEP L
' schedule fo'r each year.
w B.
The RSAO for the Agreement State will coordinate with the Agreement State
- management and the OSP Agreement State Project Officer (ASPO), to select a suitable date for the meeting and notify the senior IMPEP project manger and Regional management, as requ! red by regional procedure or practice.
L C.
The RSAO will coordinate with Agreement State program management and the AMO to develop'a draft agenda for the meeting.. y
(
D.
The RSAO will consult with the State Program Director and the ASPO to estimate the length of the meeting.
E.
In scheduling and planning for the meeting, the RSAO should assure that State
- attendance at the meeting will include at least one radiation control program
' representative who can speak on behalf of the State program. Preferably, the d
State Program Director will attend the meeting. State program staff attendance at the meeting will be determined by the State.
F.
The.RSAO will send a' letter to the State Program Director a minimum of 60 days
-4 i
before the date of the meeting. The letter should include the draft agenda that was developed jointly with the. Agreement State.' The letter should confirm the date of the meeting and include the draft agenda. The letter.should also roquest any comments on the draft agenda and the identification of any additional l
discussion topics. Distribution for the letter.should include appropriate Regional management, the Deputy Director, OSP, the ASPO, and the senior IMPEP
(
project manager. A sample letter is attached as Appendix A.
L l-G.
The RSAO will normally serve as lead for the meeting. If the RSAO cannot i
serve as lead, the RSAO will reschedule the meeting, or request that the ASPO or the previous IMPEP review team leader assume lead responsibility.
L H.
The ASPO will normally attend the meeting. An alternate OSP staff member may attend the meeting if the ASPO cannot attend.
' l.
If the RSAO is unfamiliar with an Agreement State for any reason (e.g., there is a new RSAO or the RSAO was not a member of the previous IMPEP review team), OSP and Regional management may choose to send an OSP or Regional staff member of the most recent IMPEP team to the meeting. This decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. The RSAO will continue to act L as lead for the meeting, if in attendance.
D.24.4 Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98 l
= _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _.
.A
' J.'
To prepare for the meeting, the RSAO should be familiar with all of the recommendations and suggestions made during the most recent IMPEP review.
- The RSAO should obtain a detailed printout of all State Nuclear Material Event Database.(NMED) data since the last IMPEP review or annual meeting. The
(
RSAO should also be familiar with all allegations referred to the State for handling since the last IMPEP review or annual meeting (obtained from Allegation Management System),- and any regulations the State is overdue in adopting as detailed in the Regulation Assessment Tracking System (RATS).
K.
As appropriate, the scope of discussions during the meeting should include (but is not limited to):
1.
State action on all open IMPEP review findings that have not been recommended for closure at a previous annual meeting.
2.
Strengths and/or weaknesses of State and NRC programs as identified by the State or NRC including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses.
3.
Estus of recently completed State program or policy changes under development or recently completed including:
a.
Changes in program staff b.
Program reorganizations c.
Legislative changes d.
Redistribution of responsibilities e.
Changes in program budget / funding.
4.
Status of NRC program changes similar to those in 3. above, that could
~
impact Agreement States.
~
5.
. Any internal program audits /self assessments conducted by the State or NRC.
)
i 6.
Status of all allegations previously referred by NRC to the State program
]
for action, and methods used to resolve allegations that have been I
closed.
7.
Compatibility of State regulations.
- 8. -
NMED reporting including event follow-up and closure information.
9.
Schedule for the next IMPEP review.
D.24.5 Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98
l I
L.
During the course of the meeting discussions, all of the common and applicable non-common performance indicators should be addressed to determine if any of -
the actions detailed in step R. are necessary.
(-
M.
For open IMPEP review findings that the RSAO and ASPO conclude have been i
resolved, a recommendation for closure should be included in the meeting summary letter. Formal closure will be completed at the time of the next IMPEP review.
N.'
The annual meeting is for discussions, information exchange, identification of '
potential areas of improvement for both NRC and Agreement State programs, and assessment of IMPEP review planning, not for a formal evaluation. The annual meeting is not intended to include reviews of licensing, inspection, incident or allegation files. Review of some documents, however, may be useful -
during the meeting to clarify points made in discussions (for example, summary printouts of inspection information, close-out letters in allegation or incident files, etc.).
O.
During the meeting, NRC representatives should request introductions to new staff or to staff that they have not met.
P.
As time permits, open idea exchanges between NRC and State staff not in
. attendance at the meeting is encouraged.
~
. Q.
The meeting lead should dispatch a summary letter of the meeting to the State Program Director within 30 days and provide a copy to appropriate Regional management, the Deputy Director, OSP, the ASPO, and the senior IMPEP project manager. The letter should include a list of meeting attendees, a general synopsis of what was discussed during the meeting, the status of all open recommendations and suggestions, and a detailed summary identifying any key
. facts or changes, both positive and negative, from the meeting which could affect the focus and timing of future IMPEP reviews, or program implementation by NRC or the State. The State should be requested to provide comment if they believe that the letter content does not accurately reflect the meeting discussions. A sample letter is attached as Appendix B.
R.
The ASPO should identify any action item (s) identified during the meeting that have not been resolved at the time of the summary letter dispatch and notify the OSP controlled ticket coordinator. The action (s) will be formally ticketed and assigned as necessary.
S.
If concerns about a State program are raised during the meeting:
1.
The RSAO and ASPO should immediately inform OSP and Regional i
management, and recommend a course of action.
D.24.6 Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98
~
l l
l-
- 2..
OSP and Regional management along with the RSAO and ASPO will agree on a course of action. Possible actions include altering the schedule for the next IMPEP review of the specific State, conducting a special review of selected program areas, or setting up additional correspondence or meetings with the State.
3.
Once a formal course of action has been decided, an additionalletter l
signed by the Director, Office of State Programs should be sent to the State Program Director along with the meeting summary letter. The letter should include an explanation of the specific course of action decided l
upon by OSP and Regional management, the RSAO, and the ASPO, as well as a detailed summary of the reasons behind the decision. A sample l
letter is attached as Appendix C.
i i
l Attachments:
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C D.24.7 -
Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98
-J
<.~
Appendix A y
- [ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR]
Dear (Director]:
Since [ State) is not scheduled for an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review for FY [ year], we request a meeting, no longer than one day, to discuss your Agreement State program and share programmatic information. This letter confirms that, after previous coordination, the meeting is scheduled for [date) and 'will be held in your offices.
[ASPO], Office of State Programs assigned as Project Officer for [ State), will be the other NRC (representative in attendance.
Based on our previous discussions, the likely topics for discussion at the meeting. include:
1; State action on all open IMPEP review findings that have not been.
recommended for closure at a previous annual meeting. [ List recommendations and suggestions from previous IMPEP review here or on a separate page.)
- 2.
. Strengths and/or weaknesses of State and NRC programs as identified by the State or NRC including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses.
3.
Status of recently completed State program or policy changes'under E
. development or recently completed including:
a.
Changes in program staff b.
Program reorganizations c.
Legislative changes d.
Redistribution of responsibilities e.
Changes in program budget / funding.
i 4.
Status of NRC program changes that could impact Agreement States.
5.
Any _ internal program audits /self assessments conducted by the State or NRC.
~ 6.'
Status of all allegations previously referred by NRC to the State program for
. action, and methods used to resolve allegations that have been closed.
.7.
' Compatibility of State regulations.
8.
NMED reporting including event follow-up and closure information.
D.24.8 Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98
r_-_-_-_.-__,_-__
.l 9.
Schedule for the next IMPEP review.
1 If there are any additional specific topics you would like to cover, if you would like to focus on a l
specific area, or if you have additional comments on the agenda, please let me know.
If you have any questions, please call me at (RSAO phone number), or e-mail to [RSAO e-mail i
(
address).
Sincerely,
[RSAO) i cc:
[ SLO) 1
[ASPO) l i
J l
i 1
l i
i l
l
.i t
r i
l D.24.9 Revision 1 Draft l
06/15/98 l
l i.
I l
l l
l l
o_-
a
r Appendix B
[ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR]
Dear [ Director]:
This year's annual meeting with (State] was held on [date]. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status'of [ State's] Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by [ASPO and/or other OSP staff] from the NRC's Office of State Programs, [any additional NRC staff in attendance including Regional staff] and me. Specific topics and issues of importance discussed at the meeting included (list a few topics discussed at the meeting that were particularly noteworthy].
I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary,' Including any' specific actions that L will be taken as a result of the meeting.'
If you feel that our conclusions ' S not accurately ' summarize the meeting discussion, or have d
any additional remarks about the meeting in gene'ral, please~ contact me [RSAO phone number], or e-mail to (RSAO e-mail address] to discuss your comments.
L Sincerely,
[RSAO]
Enclosure:
f As stated -
cc:
-- [ SLO)
[ASPO]
[
)
jL D.24.10 -
Revision 1 Draft 06/15/98 l
L
__l__L___--_______
.__ ____~
l l-AGREEMENT STATE ANNUAL MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR (STATE]
DATE OF MEETING: [DATE]
l 1
ATTENDEES:
NRC STATE
[RSAO)
(ASPO]
]
DISCUSSION:
[ List main discussion topics of importance individually, including the status of all open IMPEP review findings that have not been recommended for closure at a previous annual meeting.]
I CONCLUSIONS:
Conclusion #1: (conclusion as applicable]
Action #1: (as applicable]
' Conclusion #2: (conclusion as applicable]
Action #2: [as applicable]
Conclusion #3: (conclusion as applicable]
Action #3: (as applicable]
4 l
i i
i l
1 l
l D.24.11 Revision 1 Draft t
06/15/98 i
i 1
( -
i i
Appendix C I
[ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR) i
+
l
Dear [ Director):
i
. This letter is to inform you that concerns about your program have been raised due to l
discussions at the [date of meeting) annual meeting with [ State). The annual meetings were.
=
created to help all parties involved remain knowledgeable of both_ an Agreement State's L
. radiation control program and the NRC's materials program and to conduct planning for the next IMPEP review. In the case that concerns are raised due to discussions at an annual meeting, the NRC may alter the schedule for the next IMPEP review of the State, conduct a.
special review of selected program areas, or set up additional correspondence or meetings with i
the State.
The concerns about your program include:
[ list in detail each individual concern about the program)
Due to these concerns, the NRC will [give a detailed description of what action will be taken).
We ask that you respond to this letter in writing within 30 days. If you have any questions, please contact [RSAO), RSAO of Region [ region), or me.
i Sincerely,
[ Director, Office of State Programs) cc:.
[RSAO)
[ SLO) l
[ASPO]
l i
i I
I 1
L i
D.24.12 Revision 1 Draft 1
p, 06/15/98 3
J-
_a______-_____.______.
SP -2--
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me
[he individual
~
named below.
.)
^
POINT OF CONTACT:
' Lance J. Rakovan TELEPHONE:
(301) 415-2589
/
FAX:
.f (301) 415-3502
/
INTERNET:
. LJR2@NRC. GOV Paul H/Lohaus, Deputy. Director o
Officelof State Programs
Enclosure:
{
As stated
.j
'l
/
i
/
/
J
./
8 U
/
/'
j a.
Distribution:
g-DIR RF DCD (SP03)
L
! SDroggit POR (YES.4)(NO _)
A/S File' L DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\ MEETINGS.L 8 / G:llMPEP\\D24REV 1.DFT Ta receive e cor, ) of this document, Indiccte in the trx: 'C' = $ k out attacntnenthnclosure "E" = CoprEth attachment / enclosure "W" = No copv OFFICEL OSP
/,l OSi%d$ss J
OSP:D NAME.
LRakovan:nb 7-PLohaulN RBangart DATE 06/8 /98'
.06/ 3 /98 06/
/98 -
~
,s
- /i j
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS FAX: (301) 415-3502 13 NUMBER OF PAGES: F including this page DATE:
June 16,1998 TO:
RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS IN AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA FROM:
PAUL H. LOHAUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS
SUBJECT:
SP-98-050 REVISION TO OSP INTERNAL PROCEDURE D.24, " ANNUAL MEETINGS WITH AGREEMENT STATES BETWEEN IMPEP REVIEWS" VERIFICATION - 415-3340
a,,,
~
< TIMER COMMUNICATION CARD >
[
06-16-1998(TUE) 15:27
\\;
NO.
- RESERVED ITEM RESRV.DATE CALL DESTINATION STATION
'152705_ SROAOCAST 6-16 15:27 18:30 AL AR AZ CA
- A
. U-CO
- (J CO WASTE FL OA j
IA IL KS j
KY CRCPD 1
l l'
KY
.lj f 1
LA MA MD ME MS f1C ND NE Mi NM NV NY DOL NYSERDA NY DEC j
NY DOH I
]
NY CITY m
,1 SC WASTd i
SC TN TX TX BRC i
W j
WA REO I REG II REO III RIV RSLO RIV RSAO RIV WC
< TRANSACTION REPORT >
06_ie-1998<Tue> 2u 06 E
ESROADCAST 3
NO.
DATE-TIME DESTINATION STATION PQ.
DURATION MODE' RESULT 1423 6-16 18:30 334 206 5387 13- 0*05'18" NORM.E OK 1424 18:35 1 501 661 2468 13 O* 05 ' 09 * ' NORM. E OK 1425 18:41 602 437 0705 13 0*05'19" NORM.E OK 1426 18:46 9163243610 13 O*05*06*
NORM.E OK 1427 18:52 303 343 3697 13 0*05'55' NORM.E OK 1428 18:59 904 487 0435 13 0*05'50" NORM.E OK 1429 19:06 404 362 2653 13 0*05'13" NORM.E OK 1430 19:11 IA 13 0*05'12' NORM.E OK 1431 19:17-217 524 4724
'13 0'OS*14*
NORM.E OK 1432 19:22 913 296 0984 13 O*06'06" NORM.E OK 1433 19:30
'502 564 6533 13-O'05'08" NORM,E OK 1434 19:35 LA 13 0'05'53" NORM.E OK 1435 19:42 6177272098 13 0*05'48" NORM.E OK 1436 19:48 410 631 3198 13 0*05'58" NORMAL OK 1437 19:54 ME 13 O*07'49" NORMAL OK 1438 20:02 601+354+6167 13 0*08'09" NORMAL OK 1439 20:11 919 571 4148 13 O*06'02" NORMAL OK 1440 20:17 701 328 5200 13 0*05'08*
NORM,E OK-1441 20:23 402 471 9449 13 0*05'08" NORM.E-OK 1442 20:28 603 225 2325 13 0*05'19' NORM.E OK 1443 20:34 5058271544 13 O*07'48' NORMAL OK 1444
'20:43-516 485 7406 13 0'05'16*
NORM.E OK 1445-20:49 NYSERDA 13 0*06'02" NORMAL OK 1446 20:55 518 457 2225 13 O*05'12" NORM.E OK 1447 21:01 518 458 6434 13 O*05'16' NORM.E OK 325 2*24'18" L.
l L
i i
L i
l
.I
s.
< TRANSACTION REPORT >
06-16-1998(TUE) 23:12 C
BROADCAST 3
NO.'
DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PO.
DURATION MODE RESULT 1448.
6-16 21:07 NY CITY 13 O*05'16" NORM.E OK 1449 21:12 OH 13 O*05'22" NORM.E
.OK 1450 21:18 4057025101 13 O*05'39" NORM.E OK 1451 21:24 503 731 4081 13 O'05'09" NORM.E OK
'1452 21:29 PA 13 O*05'13" NORM.E OK 1453 21:35 401 277 2456 13 O*05'14*
NORM.E OK 1454 21:40 7996726 13 O*05'08" NORM.E OK 1455 21:46 8037377412 13 O*05'15' NORM.E OK 1456 21:52 615 532 7938 13 O'05'13" NORM.E OK 1457 21:57 512 239 2007 13 O*05'16" NORM.E OK 1458 22:03 5128346708 13 O*05'45" NORM.E OK 1459 22:09 801 533 4097 - 3 9 i
O*Oi*50" NORM.E UO10 1460 22:11 360 753 1496 13 O*05'07" NORM.E OK 1461 22:16 610 337 5269 13 O'05'12' NORM,E OK 1462 22:22 404 562 4955 13 O*05'08" NORM.E OK 1463 22:27 7085151096 13 O'07'56*
NORM.E OK 1464 22:36 817 860 8122 13 O'05'13" NORM.E OK 1465 22:41 8608188 13 O*05'07" NORM.E OK 1466 22:47 5109750381 13 O'05'18*
NORM.E OK 1467 22:53 502 227 7862 13 O'06*07*
NORMAL OK 1468 23:10 CO WASTE O
UOOO 1469 23:12 NV O
UOOO 248 1*45'28"
- l.....
a V TRANSACTION REPORT >
,,_1,_1,,,cy, 1,33 l^
C.BROAOCAST 3
NO.
DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG.
DURATION MODE
. RESULT 15424 6-18 16:36 801 533 4097 13 O*16*57". NORM.E OK 13 0'16'57' l
t 1 *
\\
t I
s
< TRANSACTION REPORT >
06-18-1998(THU) 15:57 TRANSMIT 3
E-NO. -
DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PO.
DURATION MODE RESULT 1540-6-18' 15:46 7026875751 13 e.08 34' NORMAL OK 13 O*OS'34*
l
-I l
I 1
t i.
- l..
(
I o-__-__-_________-___________________________________________________
. _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ = _ _ - - _ _ _
.?
g
<. TRANSACTION REPORT >
06-18-1998 (THJ) 15:40 C ' T R A N S t-1 I T 3-
. NO.
DATE Tite DESTINATION STATION PO.
DURATION f100E RE E T 1539 6-18 15:34 3037595355 13 0'05'25' NORef.E OK 23 0*05'25" i
I l
ll' l
l 1,
.