ML20080D379
| ML20080D379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1980 |
| From: | Brunner J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090101 | |
| Download: ML20080D379 (9) | |
Text
-
MINUTES - Mtating betbeta NRC and Cohhumtrs Powar, Company 4
relativo to NRC review of. Midland OL Aeolication
-w The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. on June 13,-1980, by D.S.
Hood, NRC Mid1snd Project Manager.
Present from the NRC,were R. Purple (Deputy Director Division of Licensing), R. Tedesco (Assis(ant Director Division of Licensing), A. Schwencer (Acting Chief Licensing Branch 3),
R. Mattson, W. Lovelace, D. Scaletti, W. Haass, J. Ki= ball, W. Olmstead,
and W. Paton.
Present from Consumers Power Company were S. Howell, J.
Cook, G. Keeley, T. Sullivan, D. Bud:ik, M. Miller, and J. Brunner.
Af ter introducing the Consu=ers people, Mr. Howell briefly reviewed the history of the Midla,nd project, noting that it is the oldest plant in the re-view chain. Howell explained the reason for Consumers Power Company's decision to site the plant at Midland, namely - the supoly of process steam to Dow Chemical, and pointed out, that the siting choice was in line with govern =ent policies en-couraging cogeneraticr. nd pollution reduction.
Howell further stated that the Midland project has the apparent support of the state, Dow Chemical, the MPSC, and the governor. He noted that the overt opposition of the Attorney General is consistent with the AG's political opposition to all moves on the part of Consu=ers Power Company.
Howell assured those present that Conse:ers Power Company is having no financial difficulties with Midland construction at the present ti=e, but that securities hearings - as opposed to rate hearings-at the NTSC are cocplicated by interventions by anti-nuke interests.
With regard to licensing, Howell stated that Consumers does not blame all delays which have occurred on the accident at TMI-2.
Rather,*a multiplicity of fretors including pre-and-pos TMI-2 regulatory changes have. delayed Midland.
Howell centioned that based on actual experience with other projects of sinilar vintage, initial projections of Midland lag times had been reasonable at the time they were made.
Finally, Howell pointed to Consumers record in conscien-tiously applying the NRC's post Crystal River and TMI-2 experience, including a decision to co==it to NUREG 0578, an aggressive response to 50.54f questions on 3 & W sensitivity, and continued monitoring of other iMI-2 requirements.
Leading to the matter to be discussed by the next Consu=ers speaker, Howell stated that Consu=ers Power Co=pany had reviewed its schedule and cost projections in a detailed manner.
Following his introduction, Mr. Cook de=onstrated graphically the increase in regulations to which Midland is subject.
This prompted a question from Mr.
Tedesco of the NRC staff concerning the extent to which scheduling delays could be attributed to TMI-2.
Cook, Howell, Keeley, and.Sullivan repeated Howell's earlier point that Consu=ers Power Company did not regard TMI-2 as the only delay factor.
All pointed to the watershed effect of increased regulatory re-quire =ents on plant design and construction.
In apparent response to Howell's and Cook's responses to Tedesco's question, Mr. Mattson of the staff =entioned an earlier agreement between the SRC and Consu=ers Power Co=pany ' relating to Consumers' review of Regulatory Guides.
Matt'on also specifically stated that the NRC policy on implementation dates s
,was to avoid placing construction requirements beyond those for operating plants if delayed start-up would result.
(NUREG 0660).
8402090101 831031 PDR FOIA ROSENBA83-498 PDR o
Q
t
-~
[
Minutes'
'l -
"O
'y)
KRC/CPCo
~~ ' - ' '
(6/13/80),
Ns Mr. Cook, af ter acknowledging Mattson's comments, continued to explain the factors involved in increased cost projections.
He emphasized the large overhead factor - a direct consequence of delays - and explained that the end date in Forecast 6 was not the result of a detailed analysis, but rather the result of the need to choose an end date 'for cost projections.
Cook went on to explain detailed schedule analyses which had been under-taken after Forecast 6, including a scope analysis of long lead-time items and a bulk analysis.
A third scheduling path, that of licensing, was also examined.
Cook stated that the scope analysis shows favorable lead times relative to an 11/83 target date in areas which received specific attention. Further, the schedule as a whole evidences a good chance of improvement into the su=ser of 1983. The bulk analysis identified a bottleneck in the auxiliary building. Nevertheless, it was felt that this analysis also promises a good chance of improvement over an 11/83 target date.
Cook stated that detailed job schedules would be avail-able by the end of July or in August.
With regard to licensing, Cook mentioned that the analysis indicates that licensing is presently on the critical path.
Following Cook's lead, Mr. Sullivan introduced documentary infor=ation which. demonstrated licensing as being critical path. The licensing schedule produced by Sullivan was generated by working backwards from an 11/83 construc-tion target date.
Licensing intervals were based on Consumers Power Ccapany's best expert judgment and represented an amalgam of judgments from attorneys and proj ect leaders.
The schedule supported Consumers Power Company's con-clusion that licensing beca=e critical path in May of 1981.
Mr. Tedesco took mild issue with some of Consumers Power Company's licensing intervals, noting specifically that the four months for ACRS review could run parallel with other activities.
Sullivan argued that the dropping of a few months from the schedule would not change the basic need for immediate NRC action.
Mr.
Olmstead, an NRC staf f lawyer, admitted that Consumers Power Company had apparent conservatisms in its schedule.
Olmstead thought that the one year allotted for a hearing was unrealistically short, supporting the thrust of Conseners Power Ccopany's argument.
In response, Te'desco voiced the opinion that licensing could be expedited if necessary, and he further asserted that the NRC would make full use of prior re-views so as not to have to re-do pre-moratorium work.
Tedesco instructed Daryl Hood to establish a review plan and to work on a list of open items relating to the Midland project. Tedesco stated that such a battle plan would reduce uncertainties in the review process. However, Tedesco indicated that at the present time the NRC could not put Midland at high priority except with respect to the soils issue.
v.
-'s--w a m.
,,,gy pyp.,
y__,,,,
'^
Minutes NRC/CPCo (6/13/80)
.. Mr. Keeley then addressed the soils question, giving a brief overview of historical events, ending with Consu=ers response to the December,1979 Show Cause Order.
In response to inquiries from Consumers Power Company, Mr. Hood indicated that no staff SER on soils would be issued prior to the pre-hearing conference.
Mr. Miller pointed out that most of the issues for the SER were clearly identified and need not depend on the pre-hearing conference for de-finition. Miller stated that licensing would lag at least 6 months from ACRS review.
Since the fix would take 24 conths, Mr. Howell stated that the SER must be issued by this summer to prevent start-up delays. Consumers Power Company also voiced the hope that the NRC would, in the future, avoid in-convenience and delay similar to that caused when jurisdiction of the soils issue was shifted from the region to Washington.
Mr. Sullivan then addressed the question of B & V sensitivity.
Hood stated that a letter had been sent regarding Consumers Power Company's pro-posed fix in this respect.
However, preliminary indications were that the letter would be inconclusive as to the adequacy of the proposed solution.
Sullivan ended his presentation by pointing out certain recent NRC publica-tions which had erroneously placed Midland at an unrealistically high position on lists of stations with respect to surrounding population, densities or popu-lation growth rates.
Sullivan specifically mentioned the ACRS letter on ATWS as an example of an incorrect placement of Midland in comparison with other reactor sites. With regard to this problem, Mr. Schwencer suggested that the parties arrange a conference call with Mr. Grimes of the NRC to apprise Gri=es of Consumers Power Company's objections.
Mr. Cook then ended his part of the presentation with a brief review of Midland proiect reorganization, further evidencing Consumers Power Company's renewed co==it=ent to a prompt completion of the Midland plant.
Schwencer ended the meeting with a review of NRC action items on Midland.
In to the an earlier exchange Schwencer had prc=ised to schedule a date for a visit site by the caseload forecast panel.
He repeated this commitment at the end of meeting as an action item.
Other NRC action items mentioned by Schwencer include:
(1) the Grimes phone call to be arranged, (2) DES dates on Midland to be shortly issued, (3) review plan to be established, (4) a letter to be sent to CPCo on the anchor bolts question, and (5) another meeting on Midland scheduling to be held within the next three to four weeks.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:00 o' clock A.M.
Issued by James E. Brunner Attorney for Consumers Power Company CC:
SSHowell, P26-336B DM3udzik, P14-617 JWCook, P14-113 JLBacon, M-1085A GSKeeley, P14-408B MIMiller, (Isham, Lincoln & Beale)
TJSullivan, P24-624
6 %e r KE..far7ms-Jg Aq, i 'ut ?nu u
<qA l -407"'am f,_
8'/0 - 79
.,~
V
~
6.0 SCII I LE Figures 57 through c0 show the schedules of the four =ajcr re=edial activities. The work on bearing piles for the Service Water Fu=p structure (Figure 57) will coc=ence as soon as the administrative activities were c =pleted, probably this fall, and should be ec=pleted s0=eti=e in early 1980. Since this is an independent activity it is expected to have no i= pact on the overall project schedule.
Figure 58 covering the Unit 1 and 2 Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration areas and the Unit i and 2 Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits indicates that this work should ec=plete about =id 1980; however, the actual schedule would probably extend 2-3 =enths beyond the dates shcun. Again this is a separate activity and would no. have an i= pact en the overall project schedule; however, it should be noted that this work would probably cause so=e additional work for construction due to congestion in the areas where other activities were taking place. It is not expected to be a =ajor proble=.
Figure 59 sh=ws the borated water storage tanks activities however,
_this is a =ethod of c =pleting this activity and =ay not be the final
=ethod.
This particular =ethod includes a te=porary cross tie between the two borated water storage tanks (Unit 1 and Unit 2) and would take until =id 1981 for final ce=pletion. This =ay be the =ost critical schedule activity as far as the overall project schedule is cencerned, in that flushing activities and testing activities are taking place in the same time fra=e as the preload. After further evaluation, this schedule =ay be =odified so=ewhat.
Figure 60 shcws the per=anent plant devatering syste=.
We had previously infor=
the NF.C that because of the prelcading activities there could be an overall i= pact of two =enths on the project schedule. At this ti=e, because of a revised testing philosphy, the Unit 1 and 2 Diesel Generater I
turnovers need not take place until Nove=ber Of 1980 and August of 1980 respectively. This actually allows so=e float time in the schedule.
O
.wn
N....
r
'4.-
2 S
g 6.0 u.
- gz-:.
Approximately six months had been allocated in the schedule for dewatering the power block area to the design depth and about three months had been allowed after that tine for recharge rate testing.
This would allow all activities to complete prior to Unit 2 fuel load, and again, would not impact the overall project schedule. The major problem being that of site congestion and interference with other site activities. This is a construction problem and one that does not see's to be a major obstacle at this time.
e T-e
- M E".M?_"h D L--
2 _m-
.Mihhe.1J
..Oh..
. _ - - -hw y-w m% g W'
mv.y w-m
- 7.,.
. c,$.
,t*,'
4 i *j.
y.;
g
. =-
7 y
b
- I -
t' r
n
)
a J
s Q,
O
= -
y a
Sd 3
4 7
4 l
s d
O ci j
b n
)
J t
Y w
d-J c::. i Q
O f
O G ;
WJh
$W O
I
?
h h!
b l
m i
(?
m oo S 3 b3
- $u ;
G i 2-F o
.p.
Z f
7 ip G
c
+
j' I
D-l G
- a
.f3 i
a.'
Es i
i I
i
( ) _ _- --
l 1
l
)
~-
i d-o I
S w$
.q 8
5.
l N
m.
- 4'E e
g O
n m-,,. --n.x.,-m
-a.
o m.,w
a'
~
.p.
p I
,g_.
~ $' ~'- -
u.
-~
- g,.
- 5.
e r
e 8
t il af h
/
S,_
gw 45
/
3 E
- 5 wg l
g.
3.p_ _ _ _ _.--
i V
3.nr g
9 0
QM d
s n
2 e
()
es I
7 a
g d2 2
o 2$
cc :
2 o
c h$
d.;
2
$2 J
1 d
W Q
u g-2 E
F i j
].
5@:: r$
(
a e
w
~g 2
s4 n
f y d @, _
d G.
d E
5
$3-g
{-
D*
=
M C
7
(.)--
It e
h 4 JU 2
s i grd 5 y 3,
/
l 4
Wg r4
______ MM -_ _a, y
d C p 4
g l
r 3
g 9
4 W
sa?c t }a k@-
j_d Rege 6
t skNU k
h h
I-s!o? sir ew a o d
I S
.n s
.... ".h RV
__._ 3
%o.-
45 nm:n n O
e
-. * - =
,.____.,.eC'..
w,
~~;,y,
,,,,..L, p 'r w y,,,
h
~
N 44 7y,
.s
- s, e
e i
af
?.
m, g
54I
- -3 E
g
,7_________________
8 o._,
g e
a 2
Kg S
g i
38 Id
,c-M N
J3'
[a aa g< 5,-
4
.-8
'9 2
{
t
- 5 r
(6 Q
1 d u a
cr 4
- 5
/'-4 m.i it b r ;-
Sg Q
~
$+
2
{-
o 3
- r ns t
gas i
r ss a
d'
$' ;r d
3 6
g a
E !
s1 ao u
S N,i
- [2 Ijf
[
a a
5h5f
-O i
8 1l 2
p?
h s; $o
,a a.
e --
e-h $ n0Q hb-i s
l C
L __ _ _ _ N._ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _.. _ _.
. zu 59 O
e
. 6 6
- 864 3
=wm rw y
= ~
um r = _ _ _
+4M-M
I.. ^..
I g-
.ag
(
a$
4
$h 3
3 g
4 i
i 125 5 3'
'*i lG
^
d O
s 9
9 s
3 7
g o
l us l
a d
9 Q
$l 6
[ $ A, a\\
Ej i$6
)
i a
E 8-3 as 3,
I a
o m 22 4
3 l
W5 I$$59' L.
p g-!
g se ac i
o f.10 3_.
=.{**)ag R !
~
g a.
g a
l b
3 % II'O i
af d!
r2 s 41-i,s p
a A
g.
5,
=
f O-- E-O l
I 3
s 20 v
i t
Va
=
f E
e.g {o 2
i s
i t
a Ka4 A
S
,i
@T d>,-
4 is
,d H
e g
h fIk h
o e
y Ns
.l-s f k
O sm 4 g--
Q ch m.
-en 3,
i i
es.T
- g. o -
[
p.a...
nmz u
(
. ~...
..e
,s.
. ~. _
[pantcy
'o UNITED STATES
[
3-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION..,
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,g
,p
[
JUL 101979 Docket Nos:
50-329 50-330 APPLICANT:
Consumers Power Coinpany FACILITY:
Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 18, 1979 MEETING ON REVIEW STATUS OF MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2 On June 18, 1979 the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland with management personnel from Consumers Power Company (the applicant) to discuss the status of the safety and environmental reviews for Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2.
Attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
The applicant announced that the fuel load date for Unit 2 (the first unit scheduled for operation) has been changed from November 1980 to June 1981, i
while the fuel load date for Unit 1 remains at November 1981. This results i
from a revised preoperational testing philosophy by which construction of both Units 1 and 2 will be completed at essentially the same time (about May 1981) and testing on both units will be perfonned prior to loading fuel in either unit. The applicant stated that site construction is now proceed-ing to this revised schedule and that construction activities for Unit I continues to run ahead of the previous schedule.
The applicant stated that the revised philosophy has the advantage of improved utilization of manpower during testing and subsequent corrective actions. Completion of both units at the same time eases security require-ments during that period when Unit 2 is operating and Unit 1 would otherwise have been under construction. The applicant has also experienced some increase in work scope affecting Unit 2, including small piping and cable,.
The applicant noted its disagreement with the revised estimate of November 1981 for completion of construction for Unit 2 made by the staffs Caseload Forecast Panel. The applicant requested that a site visit by the Panel be scheduled as soon as possible to resolve differences in the ~esti-mates. The staff replied that the licensing schedule for Midland was-presently being affected by restructuring ofaccident at Three Mile Island, priorities a Unit 2 (TMI-2) as discussed l
March 28, 1979 in a June 13, 1979 meeting between the Director of NRR and affected utilities.
l Under this restructuring, the review of the Midland Plant, except for the a
Q itvu W O
2..
o -
s.
. s.,
soils settlement matter, is suspended until January 1980. The staff also noted that no schedule information for remedial actions due to settlement of structures other than the diesel generator building has been provided to date. The TMI-2 accident and settlement matter are not factors in the Forecast Panel's latest estimate; however, these must be considered in any realistic assessment of construction completion. The staff stated that a site visit by the Panel would be scheduled in the near future, consistent with our schedule for obtaining estimates for the schedular impact of the TMI-2 accident and the soils settlement matter.
Further discussions of the soil settlement matter are scheduled for a July 18, 1979 meeting. The applicant also noted that settlement of the diesel generator building with the 20-foot sand preload has essentially stopped, and therefore the achievable consolidation of fill underneath the building has essentially been reached.
The applicant described a special safety task force consisting of eleven full-time members, which it has established to review the TMI-2 accident and other generic items for implications to the Midland Plant. This task force will continue to update the FSAR, including the open items resulting from the staff's review of the Midland FSAR which are identified in a March 30, 1979 staff letter, and will submit monthly amendments to this end.
The staff acknowledged that its review of these amendments must be postponed in most branches under the present conditions, but encouraged the applicant to con-tinue these and such measures as will provide for a more efficient and timely review once resumed.
The restructuring of NRC priorities due to TMI-2 has also impacted the environmental review of the Midland Plant.
The staff estimates that the Draft Environmental Statement will be issued during the last quarter of 1979.
Mr. Dino Scaletti has replaced Mr. O. Lynch as Environmental Project Manager for the staff's review of Midland 1 & 2.
RL kDO Darl S. Hoo, Project Manager Light Water Reactors, Branch #4 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page
ym murau.:..p.,w.a.
.u
=. a.m. = : -
ryr -
ty=*
-W
,1i>-
~.'
sp: -
'.s r.
May 11, 1979 m
.NEMORANDUM FOR:
Darl Hood, Project Manager LWR-4, Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
'Sybil M. Kari
. Analysis and Planning Branch, MPA
SUBJECT:
CASELOAD PANEL ESTDtATE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE FOR MIDLAND UNIT 2 j.,.
~
In connection with preparing the annual agency caseload projections (relative to all plants under construction) the Panel re-examined the estimates of construction completion date made for Midland at the F. arch 1978 site visit. You will recall that at that time the staff had concluded that a November 1980 fuel loading date appeared to be realisticaand achievable.
Sased'on the most recent percentage complete reported to.us by the licensee (57% as of January 1979) it appeared that some additional 32-33 months would be required to complete construction. We therefore, tentatively revised our planning estimate for Midland Unit 2 to a November 1981 date and planned to do a more plant-specific evaluation in April or early May.
However, in the meantime other events occurred, particularl'y the issues related to soil settlement and the THI accident which will no doubt
~
affect the critical path of construction completion. We believe it would be more useful to NRR management to have a more precise estimate once the impact of.the above issues 'n the construction schedule can be 7.~
evaluated.
If you. agree, we believe a site vitit would be useful in about 3-6 months and in the meantime suggest that the' November 1981
^ <
date, albeit a rough indication, be used for. determining NRR priority of the Midland OL review.
{
/
~
Sybil M Kari, Chairman
~'
.t
.- /.
Caseload Forecast Panel C' 'r' f
cc:
R. Boyd, NRR bec: NHaller Y'A D. Vassalo, NRR HBassett
- x -
H. Berkow, NRR SConver j $.^ J 2 M WLovelah APB:DIAP e ersec +
.5N
.dk......
7 i w...*
5 11-79 3,.
san n l:l he rcrx ns o.m acu ouo
.=h
~~~'
~ ~ ' ~== "'
.. (w w. 4 a s.y....
..; y. ;. "..,"*., -.,.,
..~.,,., g. ;
=
. -- m.,, gkl. g,,.;.
- j,w. s yr.
,e
.. m,3,.<,
NN
'g-F
-G EW l
~
\\
eqy,3 -
l g.... r.
wwc l
C C b.: ',. in,.
- m. %..e,.p.a r w
./
in ont coemmtee tps noc e u, w 4.e.sm we aetot e rstrt 'M 6457 e
p,, ciwa.:
July 2't.1951 tit. J G Keppler. Regtens) rif rec t or l'
of fice of Inspection pod Enf ertes ent US Reticar Kerulatory Comiss3cn Kegion III 799 Koesevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDtMD PROJICT INHIDI ATE ACTIC4i 1.LTIER DATED 5/22/51 1II.E:
0.4.2
$ERIALt 13604^-
Letter J G Keppler to J W tenk dated May.22.1981 Ec f e r ente r.:
1)
"Inmediate
- 2).1.et t er J k' Cook te J G r.cppl e r t Subject dated 5/22/B1" Serial 12012 deted S/29/51 Action Lettet ref er enc e ! vas an Irwellate Action 1.et t er (I AI) which identified seven actie provide Correffivt st t son with reptd Conr.utrer s Fever had eFreed t c undet t ske t tiwhich d3d not have the required Cemit ted te cro.13 1.cre piping end piping supper t.e Meierence 2 docuwented the completico
( CTDC' r ).
Prelirinery Decipa Celevist funnof the IAL and provided CPUFtzett s Pover'fi 6thedule for there are proper t.lPC's f or all o f t he first four items con:pletlen of the revirvs. pcrettsery to assure that soall Lore pjping isnretries.
on July 26 ner.ber s of t he Midlend Projec t Msnese,eent Tete s:et vs th Mr. A. n. Davis
'and es trer mScr e of yeur staff.
We reviered tie status of the cc.ltviational Your feciew te upptade r.! ! wall lipr e piping calcu)nt ions to full CPDC status.
of July 2I.th ec1cuir,tfens for 1.226 piping leo.2etr ics inf oir ed t hat 1senetrics still retained an of f ic e van bsd been reviewed and upgraded te Crl< stat us and 14I. represented the c to be checked. This effert pipe stress analysin per sonnr1 verking an everage of 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> per wek since ent tre calculet fenal 1evjev.
rceJoer having subrt ant f ally torg' Jet ed ihe Kay 22.
this eifort has estabiinhed tbest t he orig 5nel esiculatlens. even without a
, ccupicted cc<et s he e t, vere technically adequete although in procedural non-ce;crilance.
,/
~
having. con:ricted our review by July 24th, Crrneur::ts is identi-I Av e ' result of not by CTDC's end are plat ing a hold on the f urther uct of The identity of all such dravsnp u)11 f, backed by a CrDC.
l time an each of them 1983. vith physical retraction f rom the field to te be coupleted by July 28 cos:pleted try July 10.
Y
-qu4
f
~
2
' A y.re,,pe
~
r.t. J. G. F.etple r
~
rile: 0.4.2 Serlot IMOs '
-I
~~
~
~
'~
July 27. 1951 The secent r. u t t er: ef.m u e disto =?ler vitt your trtaff on.'uly.'"., 10$! vas te recuent cur in-place drawinE r ent rels c e nrectiini the t ed-11ning process.
During that discussion, it was tecegnited that the precedur8 required sone tedif tutine te f ully doc ent all the me t t.7delepy dt cusse.! In out t r e se nt a t f or..
Rest fens will tw de af ted f er sub:1r.tsi to Reglen Ill fvr your review by August 3. 1991.
An add i t ion a l c l a r l f f t.a t ien ::a f e in cur eeet inn oc July 2I., 1991 was that ut have identifled all==171 tert'rirint and hanEer s whic h were ins t el l e:8 vit h*ut crDC's. and as pset o f c ur r e sponaa-te Re ference 1 ve are well sleng in Trf r erits CrDC's fer these hangers.
f.
We sptr e tat ed tlee cpr: r tunity te mee t with your staf f to discuss thesc itaues.
and here yev f.h.u e cur view that this t ype cf session was of sif tual bevi f f t and can be utilized in tbc future a= apprepriets.
0 O'{ Y Y
t_.
.s.
\\
VF.Elyr
/
CI:
bCook, l'SNFL Resident I n = r e r. t er
~
Midland Xueleer riant (1) t O
e e
t l
5 lle l
~
_e__.
1
~ ~ ' - -
- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - *
-