ML20035B830
| ML20035B830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000903 |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1993 |
| From: | Biggers E AGRICULTURE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Johnson T NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304050156 | |
| Download: ML20035B830 (12) | |
Text
'" 5 5 l
l United States Soil l
t' Departrnent of Conservaton James M. Hanley Fed. Bldg.
i Agoculture Semce 100 South Clinton St. Rm.771 PO Box 7248 i
1 Syracuse, NT 13261-7248 l,
1 March 24, 1993 i
l Mr. Timothy Johnson National Regulatory Commission 1 Flint No.
11555 Rockville Pike RE: Nuclear Lake Dam I
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Contract No. 50-2C31-2-28
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Enclosed please find the final copy of the minutes of our December 22, 1992 meeting regarding the above-referenced matter.
Thank you for your efforts in helping us get this finalized.
Sinceraly,
! ' h;';.lj ud W
" i e 4 r !
't.
Ytiggers, Jr.
Contracting Ufficer Enclosure 020085
/304050156 930324 PDR ADOCK 07000903
!{
l l
C PDR it e sos conservaton serv.co
,e an sp.ney of tr.
DepartrTenf Of A@rE.WM#9 I
AN COUAL CPPORTUNITY EVPLOYE51 i
I l
MINUTES of MEETING RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 James M. Hanley Federal Building Room 1117 PRESENT:
Edward M.
Biggers, Contracting Officer, USDA, SCS John McManus, Esq., Attorney for: R. P. Densen Peter J. Denger, President, R.P. Densen Peter S. Denger, Superintendent, R.P. Densen Frank J. Bradley, Consultant / Dames & Moore Tom McMullen, Consultant, T.A.McMullen Consultants, Inc.
Tim Johnson, Section Leader, National Regulatory Commission John Byrne, National Park Service, Project Manager, Appalachin Trail Andrew Gross, Health Physicist, Radiation Technical Services Don Lake, State Conservation Engineer, USDA-SCS, Syracuse Abe Repine, Contract Engineer, USDA-SCS, Johnson City.
Meeting opened at 9:00 a.m.
E.Biggers welcomed and introduced everyone, stating that Mr. McManus requested the meeting for Mr. Denger where we could all sit down and get everyone's issues on the table. Ed continued that SCS is the contracting party with Mr. Denger's fire, contracting for the rehabilitation of Nuclear Lake site, in conjunction with the Park Service, and have hired Radiation Technical Services, Mr. Gross's firm, as an independent firm to conduct monitoring and testing at the time.
With this taken care of, J.McManus was invited to speak.
J.McManus: Thanked those present for being sensitive to issues that have been raised and stated: Two issues we see need to be addressed today are:
- 1) site safety, 2) the reasonableness of the contractor's actions. I have handed out a number of binders documenting all correspondence since the default termination and subsequent to the show-cause and exhibits. You've all heard from me on all these issues and it is well documented in correspondence. We have engaged Dames
& Moore Associates and Tom McMullen as third-party independent observer and will let him bring the issues to the forefront as he sees them and we can have an open-line discussion.
T.MCMULLEN : asked: Is it safe or not safe?
T. JOHNSON: "The buildings on that site were used for nuclear fuel testing in the 1960's and 1970's, and the license was terminated after an accident. The National Park Service later bought the property for part of the Apalachin Trail.
After subsequent study two of the buildings and some soil adjacent to one of the buildings were found to have residual radioactive contamination at levels that exceeded those in effect at the time of the license teruination.
It was after this that we placed the site on the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP).
There are 46 sites on th-ET-9 4 1 se are directing a good deal of resources right now to cleaning up these sites. The Pawling site was listed in the SDMP because of the contamination in the two buildings and in the soil adjacent to one of the buildings.
In terms of the dam area, where I understand the construction was taking place, the data from surveys and sampling indicate that there is no contamination in excess of our unrestricted release limits.
It would, therefore, be safe to work in that area.
I see no areas where const ruction would take place that would be unsafe."
I
l
\\
l 1
MINUTES:
RC:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.2 l
J.MCMANUS:
Asked if there was any pollution in the sediment of the lake.
i T. JOHNSON:
"There were reports of nuclear material being disposed of in the l
lake.
Previous studies were performed about 7 years ago and these studies identi fied objects in the bottom of the lake.
Recently these objects were l
investigated and evaluated by divers and some radiologic surveys were performed.
j This ark was performed by Radiation Technical Services (RTS).
The obj ects were I
identified as rocks, stumps, a boat, and a Jeep.
I haven't really had a chance l
to look at the report of this investigation yet as it was handed to me just before this meeting.
Previous lake sediment samples taken and analyzed by l
Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) and the RTS study show that there is no i
contamination in the lake that exceeds our limits for unrestricted release."
l T.MCMULLEN:
What do you mean for unrestricted release?
f T. JOHNSON: That we would allow the site to be used for anything.
l l
T.MCMULLEN: Where is this stuff going to be? So I think you can understand j
ahm.t t% o, informed - to know if this is all okey, then let's get on with the job.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) deals with hazardous waste.
i l
l T. JOHNSON: "The material that NRC licenses does not include RCRA hazardous l
wastes."
l T.MCMULLEN:
I think if it was radioactive the responsibility would be l
tremendous and would be a liability.
i l
T. JOHNSON: "I can only speak for the radioactive materials that we license, and j
not for hazardous chemical materials."
i T.MCMULLEN: ( Addresses John re NRC (National Park Service) l l
J.MCMANUS: We have some real problems with the real contract problems going out on a job bid and Peter had no knowledge of this site.
We don't see anything that would alert anyone that this had been a site where there had been a nuclear l
explosion or RTC would be checking on this job. I can honestly say they wouldn't l
even bid it in the first place.
How did these guys get you there? He opened i
the bidding process -- a dirt moving job.
There are many things to be done here.
Now we look back and in hindsight and we see another contractor out there j
who USDA contracted with and checking 'why are these people doing these things l
and at one point in time RTS people are doing their job and find something either in the materials or on the truck and find conditions and stop work.
At that time Peter gets upset and looks for help on how to avoid subjecting his l
enployees to an unknown or known hazard...want to bring in some outside people l
and evaluate whether the site was safe.
And that's when Dames & Moor 2 people were called and they felt were it their employees they would want to have further testing done.
I made the of fer t o Ed, the Contracting Officer, that l
we'd like to come in at Peter's expense and look at the area where the trucks i
were and see if they felt there was any contamination there.
For what-l ever reason, the Park Service and SCS denied that request.
I don't know why.
j Eut why would vou refuse te let these people to come in and test this for our l
own peace of mind?
l 1
1 4
(
a l
.1
MINUTES:
RC:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.3 E.BICCERS:
Good question. The reason we chose not to honor that request is based on the information we have available to us.
We felt there is not further need to do get one more test; it would reiterate what other tests have already 1
proved to date.
Even if it is at the contractor's expense - my hesitation is f
really immaterial based on the consideration of my technical experts and all the j
parties concerned from the government experts, we felt it would serve no greater l
l good.
I A. CROSS: Our attorney has been very concerned about this idea of a meeting and wanted us to get a definite reason and what to accomplish and the time.
I don't want to be involved in a fishing expedition.
Is there a set purpose we have here?
J. MCMANUS: We are needing to avoid the negative ramifications of court, which we feel is wrong, and if we can do that I feel both my client and the government is better off.
T.MCMULLEN: We want to avoid litigation if we can. This is an informal gathering.
Let's pretend we are trying to get on with our lives and get this man back in business; no more bonding; can't bid any more work; we're out of luck, S.O.L.
I mean at this point and time how do we get him back in business?
Ed, your answer is a good answer.
A little humor, however. I never knew the Federal government to turn down anything that was free. Especially to avoid a possible dilemma, and if our specialists say the testing is alright, this man is saying we'll get back in there and turn dirt.
I was appa1. led you turned this offer down.
I felt because of the prospective T for D it would be possible to turn the T for D into a T for C.
Because of the ongoing request from Chevron and previous owners and from the Oak Ridge Reports, that maybe because of the large size of the Federal government, something fell between the cracks.
T.11cMu11en asked Frank Bradley to give his opinion.
F.BRADLEY Well, I read the document.. 0ak Ridge Associated Universities Site Survey report and field notes of Mr. Bill Jordan, and field notes indicated he did detect activity in a couple of areas. He made measurements and the measurements were in agreement with the RadTech Contract, but they lack definitiveness, as to units and were not specific as to released standards. The Oakridge Site Survey indicated there were several locations around the building where they did find plutonium 239 and 240.
Rts survey and analysis indicate beta act'ivity and there was alpha activity as well.
And one thing that was not done and I think should have been done was specific testing for these isotopes.
In addition, when I read the Site Decommissioning Management Plan that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had documented, it would appear they were in negotiation with Chevron Corp and later I understand the park Service is the owner of the property and remediation is to be underaken.
The survey of Oak Ridge indicated that over 50 anomolies were detected in the lake and indicated that additional testing was necessary.
Since Mr. Denger was working on the dam, I assumed it would be prudent to have some nuclear testing done.
Apparently some testing had been done.
I think once the site has been fully characterized and decontaminated, it would be safe to work there.
A. CROSS:
Stated No. 2 in the handout was reversed also. (Model II not Model 12 on field notes.
[ r [,
p ( Yhp t
Y p
rm
- x v
y/.-
EiUUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.4 a
T. MCMULLEN: I'm sure you're right, Andy.
How did he get there in the first place - how did Peter get there and not know what was there.
Ed, you're the Contracting Officer.
Take this thing and administer it.
We wouldn't find fault with that.
The fault and root cause is the fact that the contract clauses did did not have this information in it.
You can go to Harpers Ferry and the library and read all this stuff, but when a contractor bids he can only look at tunne1 vision and say, 'what is in this...a nuclear explosion?' or, after his bid's in force - then these things start coming out.
It appears on the surface as we got deeply into it, f ault-it was not right to withhold inforeation regarding this.
I think another thing that should be done, these people don't have any badges, and you know scuddlebutt and as these things start coming up because someone would have said something - and people get scared; dominoes start to f all and that 's where we are now.
Where can we go from here?
A CO (Contracting Officer) is a 2,000 lb. gorilla. We also know you have i>osses, and this thing goes up as well as down. What we've tried to do is give future options.
E.BIGGERS: Andy has asked for the purpose of the meeting, and you shared your side.
I'll give you my version too.
We understand that a Determination for Default has already taken place based on the facts as we know them.
I also understand that if any information is brought forth, this Termination for Default can be changed into a Termination for Conversion if I so choose.
I haven't so chosen at this point. Here is what I would like to get out of this meeting today.
I too would like to avoid litigation, but I would like to hear from the interested parties their concerns; those who have a strongly held opinion.
I would like to hear those today - I've been over this situation many times - I want to know if there is anything new I need to hear, to determine if I need to reverse my decision. To be sure if you want to add to the scenerio, do it.
J.BYRNE: Asked if it was an option to convert the T for D to a T for C.
E.BIGGERS: Let the T for D stand.
J.MCMANUS: Asked if it was an option to go back to work.
E.BIGGERS: We can go to the surety - the principle who is absent today - we look to them to provide a contractor or to present a solution because of this action, or they can kick it back to us and we do a follow-on reprocurement, and at that time we'd be in a position to do that.
After today and we process all of the information received here, our next communication should be with the surety to see what avenue they pursue.
T.MCMULLEN: Inquired regarding a T for D.
E.BIGGERS: If we convert to a T for C and we end up negotiating that being a different set of ci rcumstances.
I would really rather not talk about that syatem at this time."
J.MCMANUS: Asked if SCS would be willing too reverse the Termination for Default and let his client go back to work.
E.BIGGERS: I never like to say never. That possibility is very very remote.
T.MCMULLEN: It is remote, but it is a possibility?
+
n p;
f'D MIRUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.5 E.BIGCERS: Yes it is a possibility. We have a high hazard, unsafe dam and we have a situation that was very scarey the way it is left, and we could have a real catastrophe.
We're real concerned to fix that dam.
I understand the contractor is concerned about contract completion and saf ety of hi s people.
J. BYRNE :
That's the reason we have two contractors.
Believe me, the safety aspects - those of radiological contamination are just as high on our priority list al so.
I don't understand why the contractor doesn't have a high confidence level in the reports at RTS when the purpose was to give that security to everyone.
So what 1 don't understand with those things in place, why is there a l
problem? Wha t is the definition of a site? Dutchess County? 1200 acres? Con-l struction limits? Oak Ridge Lab found material and when you say the site is contaminated, you don't mean Dutchess County. You're talking about the limited I
site and I'm glad you clarify your terms.
J.MCMANUS:
What concerned us is that they would pick up something that would set of f the hells and whistles and alarms and we do have something here - it 's not really clear.
He was probably just seeing background. We talked to high level people and they talked to the health physicist and I haven't seen that anything that would cause the delay in the truck to be taken.
T.MCMULLEN: Where would we pick it up; how would he pick it up?
J.BYPSE:
My main concern is to get that job done efficiently, economically, and make sure people are safe... radiological safety and dam safety.
That's why I'm here.
It is Mr. Bigger's decision.
T.MCMULLEN: I appreciate that.
The safety of the dam.
What do you mean?
J.BYRNE:
The safety - it is work that needs to be done urgently.
T.MCMULLEN:
Put a drain and take the tractor out of this lake? I didn't know it was an urgent thing.
I thought it was done to drain the lake or further expansion or increase or widening of the spillway.
J.MCMANUS:
To increase the structure and to repair material weaknesses and to control a siphen.
D. LAKE:
It is to bring it in line with NYS dan safety requirements.
The structure itself right now is deficient because it was built in '36 or somewhere around there; it has a strength; it does have a concrete core in there and this is to bring it in line.
J. BYRNE:
I don't mean to say the dam would fail tomorrow.
I think there are events that would threaten the dam and because of NYS standards we are going to increase changes of eliminating catastrophic f ailure.
I'm anxious to get that in place.
T.MCMULLEN:
I appreciate that, sir.
E.BICCERS: asked Abe to explain the procedure for soliciting for construction work under bid in the Federal government.
Y',,
MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAEE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.6 M
ABE: Ed puts the paper out on the street, advertises in the appropriate tech-nical bulletins; technical places; places where contractors could
..nd out about the job.
Section L - any contractor wants to have questions asked about the site, we set the date 7/22-23 in the solicitation package. We showed the site, asked questions and questions were worked up and sent to people with them; how is this contract going to relate to this contractor.
Ed's phone number, my phone number are on documents and then the bid is opened.
ED: How do you gain access to the site?
ABE: To go through with Mr. Robson's permission. That's the long road.
Mr.
Robson's the gatekeeper. There's a long road, a locked gate and the gatekeeper is at it.
It's a closed Federal f acility with a fenced entrance.
T. MULLEN:
Abe, part of the documents.
ABE:
Mr. Lake's shop.
I'm just the doer and we understand that Peter did not come to the site at that meeting but I did look back at the bid document and I looked at it from a construction contract administration.
MCMANUS: Wha t do I see and do I have sufficient information here to bid this and whether I go to the site or not I should have enough information without ever having gone there.
The real flaw is there was no mention of there being a possibility or that there will be another contractor working...others would have backed off within 40-50 miles of this site.
If they could read that maybe know there was an explosion. This material did not have the background in it.
I would say the big flaw would be in the bid documents.
There was no mention of the word nuclear other than Nuclear Lake.
I don't see anything in the bid docu-ments that there would be testing and that the government would see to it they were taking steps to check amounts.
Abe, you were there and the other bidders...well...were there alot of people?
l ABE: There were four.
On the 22nd two of those submitted bids.
I'm assuming there were four and the other two did not bid.
MCMULLEN: Did that question come up about another contract from the four contractors at that original bid meeting?
ABE: It was discussed and that all records showed it was safe.
T.MCMULLEN:
So, if Peter has asked about it, that information would have been available?
ABE: They had the journal history.
T.MCMULLEN: What?
ABE:
In Pawling, there's the history of Nuclear Lake.
There wasn't any inspection information provided then that he could not have gotten from the bid documents or general knowledge in the area.
T.MCMULLEN: But the bid documents did not address that and Ed, that is where these people will hang their hats.
That's where the government's weakspot was and in not letting what we offered before was refused and the T for D be con-verted.
MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.7 T.MCMULLEN: I think the government has shown good faith for the sake of our employees. We also find in the contract RTS protects personnel, etc., but we saw none of that in the other documents. Not intentional, but perhaps a slip-in-the-crack sort of thing. Anybody have anything to offer towards a possible solution?
J.MCMANUS: I will approach Fd Bigger's conment that if he sees anything addi-tional that warrents reconsideration today that he would possibly reconsider the T for D to T for C.
With that in mind, I would ask Frank, is there any additional information that you would like to bring to the attention of Ed con-cerning nuclear testing in order to share the f acts.
F.BRADLEY:
Is this unsafe?
Mr. Denger has refused to return because of possible radiation. He has refused to enter the site again to take possession of his equipment. As we have all heard additional testing was offered of the area and up to the gate for radiation with appropriately calibrated testing device.
If it's not safe we'll find out.
In which case, if Mr. Denger has done everything within reason for the safety of his workers and the safety of the public to hire experts to look at the facts of this case, and his expert is telling him the information is insufficient in order to make a decision.
I think we are all looking at the same 50 anomolies from the Oak Ridge report, KRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan and Ed Bigger's show-cause letter.
A. CROSS: I sent it out...
the NDL survey from 1992.
J.MCMANUS: Well after having (seen) the NDL exhibit report does your opinion vary in any way?
T. JOHNSON: What is the NDL Report?
A. CROSS: NDL is a company in Peekskil that was hired.
It was in the back of the Site Monitoring Plan.
T. JOHNSON: And it said in effect?
A. GROSS: Essentially just an additional study done at the site.
What happened was it was included after the fact...
T.J0FINSON: When was this done?
A. GROSS: 6/10/92 and it's mainly addressed Nuclear Lake Project and Whaley Lake, but SCS took the samples.
J.BYRNE: I just wanted to know. Mr. Bradley was talking:
F.BRADLEY: This survey basically checked the lake itself, but the not the various anomalies in center of the lake. It doesn't specifically address any of the anomalies...but analyzed specifically for plutonium.
It was a good survey.
It said the.re wasn't any plutonium in the lake bottom in the areas checked.
This work did not cover anything on the shore, around the lodge - where Mr. Denger parked his equipment or at the construction site.
a MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.8 T. JOHNSON: "Our next action on the site will be to conduct a walkover survey and take sampics in the area where the dam construction is taking place. We are l'
trying to arrange for this work to take place and we are in the process of contracting with Dak Ridge Institute for Science and Education to do this work."
l J.MCMANUS: Wha t is the priority of and when?
j T. JOHNSON:
"This is a high priority activity that we want completed by the end or *,,aary 1993."
J.MCMANUS: Question still remains - why would the government refuse, at this man's expense, tc allow him to conduct his own testing to protect his people -
Oak Ridge is being paid for its services.
E.BICCERS: I had no idea they were being paid.
J.MCMANUS:
It is my understanding because the allegation was raised, the government was going to do more testing.
J.BYRNE: What was the timing of the requesting of the contractors to do this testing?
J.MCHANUS:
It was after the show cause.
E.BIGCERS: The contract and the information is downstairs.
J.BYRNE: That might be the simple answer.
J.HCMANUS:
10/28; we requested additional testing.
F.BRADLEY: Before Mr. Denger would go back on the property, he wanted to h4ve
'a i s
.n test and this would prove if this was safe or unsafe, because up to that time all we had was the Oak Ridge Report and Radiation Technical Services Survey Reports.
J.MCMANUS: I think it's apparent that the contract with RTS testing had not been done to his (Denson's) satisfaction that he could not send his employees back on the site.
T. JOHNSON: Well, normally the practice of releasing equipment uses procedures similar to the ones used by RTS.
J.MCMANUS: Frenkly, before Nuclear Lake there wasn't a file in our of fice and that's where we hired Dames & Moore to advise us what action to take.
Especiall.y when you are dealing something we don't understand we hire experts and they tell you (about) the site and then based on the reports done so far a quertion remains.
Given the history of the site... plutonium explosion in '72 anJ wi t h t h+it they cannot send people back without further testing.
If you go to the Board on this RP Denson will be able to have testing done.
So we can either do it now rather than later; and hopefully we won't have to go to the Board and can save everyone a lot of a o~y.
E.BIGCERS: Well you'll have to allow me soma tEv i. Most all I've heard here and get back to you whether or not we you've introduced something (new).
I understand the concerns to the Board on this.
Let me restate them.
You would like for me to allow Denger to test and you would like for the T for D to be converted to a T for C.
Have I missed anything?
y yv r
~ MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.9 T.MCMULLEN: Do you understand the financial impact it has?
$91,000 worth of
-work; the government rightly so hasn't paid them for that.
$91,000 already down.
This nan is out well in excess of $150,000.
Now with the T for D he is refused minimum bonds in the public arena.
Now the government has a situation where they won't use or allow the use of this money; $500,000, you now have an additional $360,000 from the bonding company. The government hasn't spent anything yet.
J.HCMANUS:
To summarize, the bonding company desires to align with the contractor.
T.MCMULLEN: I just want to make sure the others...he wouldn't have a choice -
and put in a box with no way out to continue to (work).
It's a plea.
Let's get on with our lives and work this thing out and the best solution T for C and get on with that and turn it all over and go on.
T for D decision is not in the best interest of the government or the contractor.
I think we are all aware of the importance of the financial impact.
J.BYRNE: Would you rephrase or restate your request?
T.MCMULLEN: That the government...
J.BYRNE: What about the testing?
T.MCMULLEN : What tests are for background contamination? What do you plan to test and where and what's the criteria for the results?
J.MCMANUS: If upon additional testing by Dames & Moore, it doesn't appear the site is determined to be ultimately safe, the Termination for Default doesn't support the previous information and it assures the contractor he can go on.
Then if there is a continuation we all... What we are saying then, the testing that has been performed is inadequate to absolutely insure the safety of RP.Denson and in light of information that has come to awareness on the site.
J.BYRNE: Is testing related to reformation of the contract? What is the testing you're talking about and is it also related to the administrative appeals you're making?
T.MCHULLEN : Assume this man is not going back on site until he is assured it is safe through additional tests. We are looking at T for C which is within the discretion of Ed Biggers. We have to get the equipment out of there and we should be permitted to test around the ground.
J.MCMANUS: T for C is not connected to allowing these people to come in and to test. TAB 3 was submitted by Dames & Moore. The work site and the staging area.
E.BICCERS: The area as defined by SCS in the contract?
J.HCMANUS: No. The two questions are this: Will the government convert T for D?
If yes, we don't go to Board. If no, will the government reconsider and go in with their own team and test?
MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.10 T. JOHNSON: Would you accept NRC testing as a substitude for Dames & Moore?
J.MCMANUS:
Let's say we have T for C, yes, we'll be able to accept the NRC subsitute testing. If we don't get a T for C or a supplement agreement, we will have to have our nwn testing.
(J. MCMANUS then shots maps to J.BYRNE.)
J.BYRNE: For plutonium 239/240 and safe level, what is that?
F.BRADLEY: It is very clear in the bid documents.
A. CROSS: That's USDA's document.
F.BRADLEY: Testing for radionuclides according to standards.
If NRC will do sampling and designate that the site is clean and if it goes another way we have a situation none of us expect.
And, if that test is conclusive we will accept the result.
J.BYRNE: Yes.
T for D to T for C and the contractor would go back to work and you'd do that after some additional testing for safety?
T.MCMULLEN: We are here to cooperate and try to find a solution to this.
E.BICCERS: With that I say we digest this and I'll come back to you with a response.
J.MCMANUS: When?
E.BIGCERS: That's kind of hard to say.
J.HCMANUS: Can we say within 30 days?
E.BICCERS: We can give you some indication within 30 days.
l
)
T.MCMULLEN:
If we could have an indication of the 15, 18, 20 of January, so we l
could get an idea of how to proceed. Do you have any of the reports?
T. JOHNSON: There are no reasons they should be withheld from you.
J.BYRNE: We investigated the work area before the contract.
T.MCMULLEN: We understand you know all about this place. We know this site has been intensely worked on since '72 but we wish we'd known something in the bid document.
J.BYRNE: Any questions? What equipment is there besides vehicles?
A. REPINE: Three tractors, I hydraulic excavator, 1 dump truck, fuel tank, construction trailer.
OP-A
- 9
- v' gN~
MINUTES:
RE:
NUCLEAR LAKE CONSTRUCTION December 22, 1992 Pg.ll ED:
I ask that you would take that equipment off the site and to give us 10 days and have Andy's people on site to monitor.
TOM:
That's it Ed.
We'll be glad to remove it if the ground is not contaminated and the equipment...
ED.
"I'll factor that into this.
TOM: Are we having fun yet?...
i l
l
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -