ML20195F102

Certificate Re Reporting of Prehearing Conference on 860325- 26.Served on 860603

ML20195F102
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/03/1986
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#286-429 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8606090351
Download: ML20195F102 (3)

Text

--

J t , 3.'

}'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA sM ,q, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r

\

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

, l Before Administrative Judges: - Jug

_e 0738 %

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson i,* nhnog -

Emmeth A. L~uebke '

,- 'sen E JerrjpHarbour q 3 Ido t ,&

In the Matter of- ) Docket Nos. 50-443-0L

-) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, _et _al .

) (Offsite Emergency Planning)

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 3, 1986 CERTIFICdfl0NOFLICENSINGBOARD eggnD 3 (Regarding Reporting of Seabrook Prehearing Conferener on March 25_-26, 1986)

The Licensing Board on May 30, 1986 and again on June 1, 1986

. inquired into the reporting of the prehearing conference of this

~ '

pro'ceeding on March 25-26, 1986 with the reporting company under contract to the NRC. -

This Board does not receive nor esercise control or custody over

,the recordings, notes, stenotype tapes, Jr,emoranda, cassette tapes and

' mat 6riafofanyotherdescriptionused,dopreparethetranscrip.tofthe March 25-26, 1986 conferenceoranyothertranscript.hoducedinthese hearings. The Contfactinh'0fficer or the Project Officer under Section

~

G.2.1 of the contrc6t 6 ave been designated as assuring that the services

' /

' required under the contrse,t are delivered in accordance with the terms of the contract. The contract with the reportidi irm provides in Section H.14.3 as follows:

Final Delivery and Restriction. The contrac' tor further agrees that all work, including shorthano or longhand notes; stenotype tapes, memoranda, and material of every description relating thereto not,

~' ~

8606090351 G60603 i'~

PDR ADOC!'. 05000443 /

O

• PDC 7 ~ .

- - - _ - --- D 3 o 2-

I h

2 covered above or documents not covered under Sub-section L, Security herein, shall be held by the contractor subject to the authority and control of the Commission until the expiration of the contract at which time they shall be delivered to the Commission. The contractor's right of retention and use shall be subject to the security, patent, and use of information provisions, if any, of this contract.

In accordance with the advise of the Chairperron of this Board on I

May 30, 1986, the reporting company was instructed to retain the stenotype notes which the reporter had del,ivered to the company and which the company acknowledged it had in its possession. This Board has requested and can relay to the Appeal Board the assurance that these materials will be retained pendente lite since at the expiration of the

contract on August 15, 1987 these materials will be delivered to the Commission.

The Licensing Board will also describe for the Appeal Board the process used during the March 25-26, 1986 hearings as follows:

1. The reporter recorded on stenotype paper tape the proceeding and simultaneously produced a digital tape (i.e. magnetic cassette tape) for use with a computer. After checking the notes against the first

read out, the reporter erased the magnetic digital tapes for further use, probably several days later.

2. The company advised the Chairperson that erasing the digital cassettes has been the practice of the company in performing its work for the Commission. The practice does not appear inappropriate in view of the fact that the magnetic tape does not contain any matter not on

the stenotype paper tape. Howr. . ne company was requested to retain -

l I

a b

3 these digital tapes for the future Seabrook hearings. Again the company agreed.

3. The method of transcribing the hearings, the Appeal Board is reminded, may change, i.e. the reporter may use shorthand or a steno mask. To anticipate this, the company has been made aware of the need to preserve in the future all materials regardless of the method used and they have agreed.

This Board has performed its function's and duties with diligence and specifically rejects that there has been delay in the exercise of a du ty.1 The Board has considered its duty without regard to position of party or attempt to coerce it.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS'NG BOARD D .

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpertory)'

Administrative Judge v

, Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thi.s 3rd day of June, 1986 9

I We agree with the Appeal Boards' footnote 1.

_-