ML20086G299
| ML20086G299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1995 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OLA-3-I-MOSBA48, NUDOCS 9507140220 | |
| Download: ML20086G299 (14) | |
Text
-
~d m,
T A/OSAA /V O 7 0 ' 7 u1 1 TAPE N 253, SIDE 1
[C$[ /AJC voICEy'
, Exhibit ,page of b
, 3 You (inaudible) out jn the
,e % JLN -6 P5 :21 4 vent e7
/
VOICE OFRICBen CBEfARY
/
,/
hat was veg' 00CKE 1NG & SERV 1 6 ente minin '.' BRANCH VOICE: (Inaudib ).
8 VOI : No, 's not ou here today. ,,
F .,/ , VOICE: naudible) a' /
10 / .' VOICEf Yeah, i. has been paint now.
la V.o : Yes t has.
12 -
j' VOICE: ,. (Inaudible) ya's' e of taken cat 13
/
of;'get rid of that problem /
/ / ..'
/
14 / ' VOICE: The'/question is* Where is the
/ ,,
/ /
, / ,- -
15 computer? p/
16 f VOICE: Yeah,,that's the other< question.
,/ . ,,/ / ../
17' I think that's the.one that disappeafed.
s ,
18 VOfcE: Yeah. /'
f' 19 / ,V O I C E : ThaO s all there iss
,..- / ,,' ,..
20 7 VOICE:' I f ound j u s t 'o'ne (inaudible (.
,,,- * , , /'"
21 , VOICE: What's that? '
j 22 VOICE: My wife made up' fresh.
23 VOICE: Oh. .,- ,,,- l
,<"" l 24 VOICE: ,, That 's where it j ust -d'ame- f rom. j
- s. l 25 VOICE: Got a lump,. blem or? I
,- SUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 9Aa H.cl A '3 S
Doc 6et No. S*
- 7 5*cLA 3 Official Exh. No. In 4 in the matter of 5 #G Ef "l-h* St$ft IDENTiflED App licant RECEIVED ie" 132rvenor 7 REJECTED 9507140220 950517 Contg o!!'r PDR ADOCK 05000424 O PDR Contractor DATE M- i ~l-4 f Other Witness 61,'rJ<ci,.4
- N
Exhibit.--- , page_ of _
O
. heb TAEAs
/
1 TAPE 253. PAGE 5. LINE 3 THROUGH PAGE 21. LINE 21 gig CON 5tST#JI W M 2 McCoy: (inaudible) the meeting. We're trying to go through 3 what our positions are. We need to do this by five 4
y>__ o' clock,4s::r we're going to give these positions to the 5
6 NRC, so they can have their team meeting in the meeting, 7 and go over all these divisions and be surea rt -: 2,_r2ru M what they think the concerns are.j B
9 George and I are going to meet with th[e omorrowteam leadermorning, from 10 THAT the NRC to see if we can resolve any misunderstandings -
11 E M ST OR. ===::=ss42where we are at f ault ghe crust purposes zrn co 12 not hitting the targets, 30 wikh that kind of background, George ? = I 7 ^ nc -
m) .
- way DWT You TAkE OVER, 13 Bockhold: Before I go to the specifics, I do have one general 14 thing for everybody. There's still some concern from 15 16 some members of the term thata we are speculating about _ p 17 something, just say we're speculating. I think we all 18 have to be careful about that. If we're not WE SM- speculating,rn 9 =-m say it more as a positive fact, 19 20 (inaudible)~I'd like to taWathat on to help your goal . pp You know, they know when we're speculating, and they O
21 know when we're sure about our fact, okay? The next 22 23 thing I would like to do is just start through the list.
24 We have a package put together, and it's crossed out 25 with diesel record start failures, it's Pete Taylor, George Frederickgl. George Frederick / has provided a new 26 page report. Does everybody have copies?
27 (no response) 26 vetee:SectHOLL: Okay.
AND ION M M) 29 McCoy: YO4 kNth)3 One thing I noticed on this is that ou did not put a 30 revision number or anything on these each time it got 31 revised. ANb 1 WenLD 5%GCST TRAT WE Att go 7gggg6g gg7 geg ub n.sT 32 Bockhold: Well, I putMRt TME time cuRREgr and date.htkAGE WE H AVE As REV .i.
33 McCoy: You have time and date?
34 Bockhold: Right here.
35 McCoy: Let's all go through and put it on every one of these.
36 The time and date is 1500 (inaudible).
OR issuf5 37 Bockhold: Okay, so we're going to read -- everybody's going to 38 George Frederic$r item. We're go og to go ahead and O.U 39 40 comment if we've got any questio Why don't we tasa Ast 7p Teresaacome down, and get a new kage, that corporate 41 doesn't have, and fax it to them right away?
1 _
i Exhbit- -,page__ of-l (q) 1 McCoy:
Bill, we're not sure you have the latest package up 2
there, but we're going to fax you a complete copy. It's
- 3. the latest.
4 Shipman: We're sure we don't, XEN.
5 McCoy: Okay, so we'll do it.
6 We can't wait until you get that, but we'll just send it over to you.
7 ltz:sice:5niPuW citzyt !ANDER5TAND. 1 wANT TB 54Y MI 0F 8 Bockhold: On the
- second page, 8- Me[ George's it 9 7 p g g gt) _ whateimmediate means. W' :: 2
. I'm not sure 10 it= notification of the residents f'he revised LER was pre ared.
11 Voice: (inaudible) '
12 Voice: (inaudible) l 13 Bailey: Don't you remenber we wrote that letter on the way back?
14 McCoy: DATE.
Yeah, that's right. Ithasthesame[ day.
15 Bailey: Yes.
16 Bockhold: Mike Horton.
( 17 Your item two, is there a reason for why we have not always renorted-(6eEs BAck TO THE. LATE O -TS (:tNAA61BLd 18 Horton: I'm sure there is, ug3 1 den'T WHAT W AEM 15. dHi WM 4 Wm DesPT Tou Atb A srNTrat TRAT SUMMIT.E5 19 Bockhold: (inaudible) l i
. Mutt 1PLg.10x Es:
20 == = =; ' '^(i@nb1BLE) 21 .a n ~ = - ; - Well, maybe you need to see the documentation Mike.
22 And ggem . Mike and Rick (inaudible) very clearI]f tD screwed up.
L-23 Voice: (inaudible) 4 (INAubl5LE) 24 Bockhold: Well, that's right.
25 We screwed up and we got a fairly 26 massive effort to figure out what was all those failures.
27 Voice: (inaudible) 28 Voice: (inaudible) ORW)S Au.Y WE DEWlEb TBE VlotATION hRMe)Lts (INAntiEtt Youcanr)eadthedocument, (INMIBLh 29 Pockriold: basically, if so thing new 3 '.
31 comes out. You can read the documentation M , and 32 if something new comes out, then you can r- N -- r;r --
33 This is violation number 1 p- --
. Do we want to add Stu Ebneter in here? You otified Brock right, Ken.
' g kIM Nth 1 Mill.f) TO SAY wu mw m b as utst
Exhibit ,page of O
a -
1 McCoy: Bill Shipran.
2 Bockhold: Okay, Bill Shipman notified Brockman.2 r r. You 3 want to add - you have never interviewed?
W EspiETER 4 McCoy: Bill? STEW 5 Shipman: Yes, sir. .,
7 c.Eto, 6 McCoy: What we're talking about is that there's a/ statement in 7 here that says, "Therefore, when Vogtle nagement was 8 aware of the problem in the LER 9006 rev/ NRC Region II 9 was notified including the Chief of Reactor Projects, 10 genBrockman.
11 (inaudible) 12 Well, anyway, I think we should put in here that Stk STEW !
13 >M -) -- g g'a'h-y 14 @Ebneter was notified fi !
15 Shipran: George Hairston called Stu according to George.
N .py : Y rA n. ANb 16 Boc(Knold: So why don' t, want to put the names in at the,the 17 titles? Including Ken Brockman and S u Ebneter.
18 Voice: And George, you all talked to the resident.
19 Bockhold: I talked to the resident. 1 Tel.KED TD TRE RESIDENE 20 McCoy: That's the next paragraph. It's af ter " notification of 21 the resident and Region II" -- The revised LER was 22 prepared, 23 Bockhold: Why don't you say3 Georgef=p -L- g;in (egK, ucirl-) ggw p,g,T- 7, Vtu 24 " - - < ^ ' gathe residents, Ken Brockman and Stu Ebneter?'
25 IGN - I thinK J.
26 IT wh5 m 4:'e of the notified
__.4 b Ron Aiello, but I can't remembeg. AT Thn residents.
peggy, 27 Voice: (inaudible) m 28 Bockhold: " Including the NRC residents, Ken Brockman. ' Why don't 29 you say including the NRC residents, and NR Region II, 30 Ken Brockman and Stu Ebneter. Y = --- W ust move the 31 sentence up. After notification of the NRC the revised 32 LER was prepared. g .g3 g 33 McCoy: ygg The only thing 3I think on 34 LER wasn't in so.e form o g 'fnotsure I
- - ' ' ' ' he
- ' ' -revised
---'^^
35 p g n T10t F '- c t : :: :r r-^r " "4^- _-- --"'-'-- I think smR, 36 Egg, what brought it to our attention was the LER 1 CRIT had 37 numbers on it that,sza different than the original WRS)DN.
/'~ 38 GEtag. L, g
( THE FACT THAT 1
Exhibit ,page Of p
C/ WE I414HT WANT TO SAT ltl57EAD OF "]E RE "THE REVISED LEA WAS suBMITTEb.
1 Voice: (inaudible)
WERE 2 Bockhold: We struggled through about four or five different revs.
3 The LERs are different.
4 McCoy: (inaudible). On this paragraph two, we're going to have 5
to :xx M AK E. TM AT (IN AublSLE) .
6 Bockhold: wt'At 601% TO MAVE To lhE Cl.ONE TBING ON THE5E PA?ER515 EAR (IN AR0lBl.t),
Well, item :::=-
7 Voice: (inaudible)b (IN ARb1BLE)
B Bockhold: Company's position on the NRC issue -- "After thorough 9 (wwagi, review - "
10 %:dee: Mo f ;
(inaudible)
Att TBAT,THE TH AT tssuE.
's NOTASouT IN THE BERE DIESELS AT ALL.ANDTHE LETTEA5 AK 11 Fredericks: That's what wo(ries me, =F-- j-- =a l rj rr - n 12 (inaudible). L S E E. Irl5ERT .i tim
~
13 HEM-McCoy: Jim Bailey, did you[msEn that2 &MESTl0N'? 4 14 Bailey: M b T.T We prepared it here; -_JIt[wasapprovedbyHairston.
15 !4cCoy: I guess we would say that I repared that.
16 I worked with you on the preparation right?
- 17 utee
- ?>A\t.Ei'. Cx Lh (.DRRECT.
18 ken McCoy: So why don't we say that 19 prepared the letter whic McCoy and Jim Bailey was signed by :cg6reA6E IlMcTON
$ 20 IT Rev 0 3 IT IN BtR*m6 HAM.
Fredericks: On the in[tial LER 90-06,f who pr ared that? Who
. 21 approved i 22 the PRB m/c2123r, and who reviewed n the PRB? I can get i 23 embership from various meetings. There's gonna 24 be quite a few. I can also get who prepared it from the 4
NSAC staff. I think ycu4 approved it is obvious it dgME 25 out under Hairston's signature, iWHo l Mt. EVERY 26 McCoy: That's right. We have a blue sheet with 27 ER. - r- Up t->twsERTl C25555, A 'I.T MAS TME REVIEW ut THERE. WE c AN 1.cet AT THAT AWD
- f 28 Predericks: Theset une nextREVIEWED question that TAT IDNE.
haveI Knee tha,t wsu. Tw Wrr involves slutE AEmi wr corporate 29 30 is: Who prepared the cover letter forAE39006 rev one?
31 That's the transmittal letter that Mr. Hairston signed. (gg He wants to know what the attempt of that paragraph 32 W5 ME8M'ID N ;
f 33 1N 1
nhn'M clarifying 2 the LER Rft200 4rev O.
A 34 He's not sure tis actually did anything to clarify the g)c(,
I diesel start that was described in the original LER.
4 (7
'V IT \
FREDEMtt ; dim IS Mm bl Ey TnERE.1 G hn :
3 A
i
. we I - _ __ . - . . - . _ . _ _ __ ._
1 Exhibit , page of INSERT 1 1 Frederick:
2 I started work on some of this, for instance, 3
there's an open question on, who prepared the 4
slides for the 4/9 presentation; who prepared them and who rs.! J them?
5 6 Bockhold: The slides, I did.
b 8 Frederick: Both? 'A ~ 1 WkO, 9
10 Bockhold: I worked with Jimmy Paul 11 ash and Ken Burr. The 12 three of us worked on it I might have put the 13 bullets down and then Ken Burr to make sure that the, uh, organized e uence was correct.
14 15 Frederick:
16 Uh, the second question was who prepared and who approved the confirmatory action letter?
i i
i 4
O r-. , , - - - - , , , ,, . . , , . -,e v . , - - e n n - . ~- -. -, ~,, --.--.,n--,,,~-,,,m - ,
. t n\\hc Exhibit- ,page of-O~
- 1 Fredericks: MEM, 2 but -- I need to talk to, and I think it's Harry Majors, 3
to Jack Stringfellow.
and he may be out of town, and I may have to talk 4 McCoy:
5 Why don't you all go ahead and pull that piece of correspondence? Do you have a copy of M 6 Voice: (inaudible) L ZT DoWN HERE?
7 McCoy:
8 Okay, so efter the meeting, George will give you a call.
9 You all cza. see if you can figure out what the question is and what the answer is.
10 Fredericks:
M EMEMPM 11 Here's the last one for you im. r records show that 12 the LER9006 rev O, " Bleg on the 18th of April, did 13 'not say anything about subsequentra test program. After 14 George's approval between the 18th and the 19th =- '
15 WHEN IT WAS - athere was a change made, and the words, 16 MMTTEh
- subsequent to the test program,' were included. The 17 number of diesel starts was changed to coincide with the 18 number of starts in the April 9th i235t. EB4 wants to know 19 LETTE V who Put the words, ' subsequent to the test programa in p here. Initially I've been told it happened in the O 20 21 telephone conversation between two groups. One ir 14 corporate and one on the plant sids, SITE..
22 Bockhold: TMAT 23 Ken McCoy if you remember I believe it happened etween a group in your office and me. And we had som i
, 24 l 25 discussions about it, and given the fact titsy thought 26 un,A4b I. the slides that I made the presentation,zas correct, __ w m !
27 gg e 4 thinking more about it, because~we talked to WE ;
Pete Taylor about it some. I thought that, youknow -- I 28 thought our discussion tha 29 ww-+=+9mm' clarifying words 30 and my initial thought was 31 to the facts and they were basicawere no material change orrect and that's 32 why I agreed with it.
corporate --
pe change that as initiated in l (
j 33 Voice: 'TMSE WERE NY (inaudible) 34 McCoy: Bill does that sound like your recollections.
l 35 Shipman: Yes, sir.
4 36 McCoy:
{ 37 All right, let's get that down in writing here for George. That's my recollection too. In general terms 1, 38 39 don't remember the specific words but I do remember the 3 discussion.
40 Shipman:
O 41 There response.
was a lot of word engineering that went into that 4
.1 3
- . . .- .- - . -- - _ ~ _ _-
1 1
Exhibit ,page of-O.
~
1 McCoy:
2 Okay, now that response was prepared after we did the QA l audit and d:tti a that information/?
3 Bockhold: No, Mc3 N#. '
4 h L 1 m -
1 l
/ HE T
5 Bockhold: Let me bring you up togsequence of events. !
6 1GR4F: EdCU Okay.
TW ci 7 Bockhold: Let me bring everybody up to/sequenf[of events because 8
it now involves corporate. Bill, can you hear me?
9 lt3I2!&:SHIPA8Ah Yes.
- 10 Bockhold: THG Okay, the sequence of events: On the wy/ekend, me, Jimmy 11 12 Paul, and Ken Burr and George Fredericlys, and some 13 others worked on transparencies that w were going to 14 use in our conference that occurred o Monday. ORAf.
15 Basically, Jimmy Paul came up with 3 number,ta 16 and Ken Burr and I came up with the sequence.gWeof put starts it 17 together into general terms, when swe._could discuss that. 9 From that point on, then we went to the conference with O 18 19 gg_
the NRC. We presented the slide.
about the number of astarts araof the We really didn't talk conference 20 21 got sidetracked with bunch other issues. atOn all te e
! 22 airplane ride back, you, being .ttm corporate, and Ken UN 23 McCoy, and George HairAon and whoever revised the i 24 letter and sent it out that evening. It was dated the i 25 9th. It was Monday evening. Something like 10 days i 26 later, the 19th okay, on the 18th, the PRB came to me i 27 with a minor re; vision, took the numbers up from 18 and j 28 19, respectively to a total of 20. I okayed that, and i 29 that went to corporate. On the 20th, becausepthe
' numberpfgoing up I think we felt that it wouId be_ op 30 g_
- 31 better to keep tbe LER consistent with the presentation.
32 we loweM the number to 18 because of again, word iingineering.
l 33 p the diesels =-- We didn't b-_part.want to have 18 and 19 and break ;
j 34 discussion about cne preceding And then there was some j j 35 sentence, about the comprehensive testing of the engine logic y AND...
i i 36 McCoy:
- 37 One thing that I would like to add to that. As I itza tots, the words were at least 18 --
e AT tMST THE b AE (Alt.1 38 Bockhold: 3 pordssay--
i 39 McCoy:
40 When the thing was brought up, to 20, it didn't change the accuracy of what was in there. . .
41 Sockhold: That's correct.
i i
1 .
,1 Exhtit ,page of 1
yIF THAT'S WRERE IT LAME. FRM. THEN TAE MESTite WAS WBETHER
, 1 VW85&.: Me.(sy:
4
_ fim-uri; hie)4 WAS THE. REMlM. M W N MS MD '
- 2 Bockhold
- i 4 3 And why I think we came up with 20, and I'm only j 4 guessing at this point, and George is supposed to find out.
- 5 But why I think it was 20 was that we probably had
- 6 within that week, we had another diesel start. In one j 7 case we probably had two, and one engine we had another i diesel start. But I don't remember why the PRB had 20; ,
8 do you remember, John?
l 'SE i 9 Aufdenkampe: eA, E1;Il45ERT
.;;; T mTW0] L LL -Le x;;;; " '"" -^^d Fm=
j 10 11 [Sth April ; Iw..;ard and 6 L..k th; n;=t;;_ ' em leiiei ;;;
, dd:d the - wf the en t; tht.
j 12 Bockhold: i 13 Well, that corresponds with why I would guess 20 would be okay, I se;you know, we had another engine start --
) 14 Aufdenkampe:
i
' 15 But then there were some questions in the PRB_about - -- s
- 16 whether 20 was an accurate number or notg That's when ,
17 we had a phone call Friday night with you and Alan and !
me and Bill Shi na Paul Rus and Jim Bailey.g_
i 18 Bockhold:
i 19 Okay, so you were -- I don't remember, you know, that all those people were in on it.
l 20 McCoy: Yeah.
- i 21 Bockhold: JoLKnolb '
1 22 So everybody then agreed on at least 18? E;11, m -
i 691ven the facts, if the transparency had been correct.
23 D i Aufdenkampe: Everybody agred that based on what you identified as
! 24 j 25 the starting point for counting that the 18 and 19 were correct.
i t
26 !!m*hrdA : E 5Ef. I NSERT 3)
Gimy ranvaa da ym_' herr A st?
j 27 e m ruooy --
Mrs 9 51e) Ycu teld 28 Vatae: M..;udiulu) 29 Tutte: MaseSiMB) j 30 - 3 5 53i E M W : I; J - y--n I th ; : b::i;;ily ;rv r-m_ y - -
t 31 Aufdenkampe: Based on that issue, or based on that statement
' 32 ever w = agreed j
1Secy b fMT 33 vsEta: Feeten: okaY- 11 AND M (.INAublM.E). .
! 34 YD1I:s:htthb; Mb %@ ELSE 35 Priday evening phone call with John, and Alan, and Bill Shipman.
j 36 c.
v5ttakNWmPf:W) h swaw, Jim hm, Snic was (iNasu')
7 i
4
.- __ =. . . - . . - ..
i
! . l
! I I
l Exhibit ,page of i
?
l'; INSERT 2 l' 1 Aufdenkampe: Yeah, it was Tom, Tom Webb wrote the LER and what i 2
he did was take the numbers from the April 9
- 3 letter and worked from April 9th forward and added 5
4 the rest of them on to that.
1 1
l 1
l l
l l
l I
l i
i t
1 l
i 1
l
- _ . - . . . . . , - - , _ _ _ . ~ . . . - . . . - _ , _ . , , .
i I
's
\
- O Exhibit ,page of 4
t INSERT 3
.' Bockhold: r 1
Okay, George, did you hear that?
- 2 i 3 Frederick
- Part of it.
- 4
] 5 Bockhold: What John just said.
j 6 7 Aufdenkampe: You told everybody, well everybody there, that the 8
18 and 19 were based on completion of the 1 9 comprehensive test program.
- 10 11 Bockhold: Associated with the logic.
12 13 Aufdenkampe: I don't recall that.
, 14 15 Bockhold:
j 16 Yeah well, that's basically what the transparency said.
d s
i 4 i I .
- \ '
i l
.' l 3'
1 l
l r
bI
(
i, s
. . , , . - - - . . . - - - -,-.,..-,, -, , - . . -....-,a--- .- ,,n .,, ,-.n. --.- , - . , . , n,. ,.,,,,,...-...,c.- -
Exhibit ,page Of O '
=
,o 70 %
1 Bockhold: That was the p one call.
2 ay so the trail of fact is j that I believ the transpa2/ency, is correct.
3 Tom Webb adde And then 4
5 mind, appearedsome to be numbero confuring. on, but that appeared, in my And there was some pscusslotl, - =: : ;--_-iau that John went. on about it, okay, that then !!
6 7 we got at least la becausegtransparengess 2s correct.
8 Ag g e other words got X- ^i = completi~on of the test s
9 program was, in my ind, that was associated with the 10 logic and the cont ol testing which really didn't 11 involve diesel st res at all. It involved the air i system.
IA HEAE ON WHAT THE 12 McCoy: (inaudible) l 13 McCoy: (inaudible)
E 14 shipman: Yeah, t 15 LER c way this thing originally came up was when the 16 up with I think, it was 21 and 22, or something 17 like that. George Hairston asked a question, "Well, we 18 went to Atlanta, and we told them 18 and 19, and now the 19 numbez) 21 and 22. Are we sure that the numbers's 20 right?' You know, we had this conference call that John's talking about to try to make sure the numberk WA5 O 21 22 usa:a right.
it, Coming out of that phone call, as I recall the decision 23 we said, " greaterwasthanthat 18."we would be completely safe g ,
24 Aufdenkampe:
25 Given what we identified as the starting point for that count.
26 lastch 3EtHotD: Right.
27 Fredericks:
28 What -- where unza the confusion factors, Bill, was when we threw in the starting point.
29 L 4
That's whatM HA5 klND of TRROWrJ A AeWKr.Y IN THE WRENCll y CA DE WRENCH 30 v e r- - ,,
-- m e)
IN TRE MMKEY; WRMEVER You WMT To (ALL IT.
31 Shipman: How about a monkey wrench in the works?
DECIDED 32 Fredericks: Yeah. What happened was when we[sram:str to define the 33 starting point, we fuzzed m the4 picture up. WE.
15 34 Bockhold: Yeah, I think, you know, hindsig 35 36 gg would have beena h to leave th 20/20.t- -- m" M It first little part of that phrase out completely. !
ImsY : 1.ET ME ASK A Quf5DcN. Tw's WRAT ut4 Astin. l 37 Fredericks: r-. ^'+=%. ere did that.phZIEk come from?
38 1Dziz:r: DoASY: That Friday night meeting [ ~Dets ANTSebV VEAhREE W ITA E ~. i - JenWs AttoLLEtitNI l O 39 Aufdenkampe:
~s I knowfe" finitely 555 Alan, George, and Bill Shipman
^ ~ " ~ " '
1 ~
Oumas w .
i
. l O exhiett .9 oe or 1 Voice: (inaudible) 2 Aufdenkampe: Bill, do you remember who else was there with you on 3 that Friday phone call?
4 Shipman: No, I don' t remember, but I know there were several of 5 us. Louis just said he was involved, and Paul, and Jim, '
6 and Jack were involved. This was one of those, "We've 7
got to get this thing right so George will sign it out,
- 8 last minute exercise S l 9 Voice: (inaudible) g s o W p4TRAu.T fYfAY L'~
kILE l 10 Shipman: 11 r > - -
- -d body up here and 4 4n-uninie) body 11 down there that was available on the phone call.
12 Fredericks: Well, I think I can describe that one.
13 N: BeckHcLb: Okay.
14 vrytem: FAswatt: czagr.I CAN TALK To JIM 1 Alt.EY AFTER TRE MEETJM6 ON Tile OTHEA ONE.
(
\
15 Vcice:. Mcl.ey : h m- - ' "i 1-3 eKAY.
Is TREAE WC #EED t# TM5?
16 McCoy: rmmnm)[anything else that[in~ d N-) --
17 251t'e:kkueLD: (inaudible)3 WE'LL TALK ABouT THAT AFTER THE MEETIN4.
[ INSERT] WELL 3 WE'fLE 60106 TO HAVE TD f 18 McCoy:
. _ give him sit i we got. wgg f 19 Y5Ita: b dM4LD. TINb,A DtAV , WE 'Ll. M5T GWE TREM WHAT WE 60T At 5:ce.
VE ST i;6Di 20 ustmb:5wunwnut: ;
Whatwe[' reviewed [ir_::iciei --
21 T5tr-> : Ac.LDy : .I
22 h5wmanwsLDER: [ 1NsERT ' udible) 4] NE 'RE 6OING TO NAVE A LOT Of COMfENTS (t
- 23 Ystca: I :::'t nas . ihi; ii.== isi:) - -
d 24 Yatre: (.inaun O H)
- - 25 Vaire
- (in=uninPe) 4 26 Bockhold: This LER, about (inaudible) -- so it's not (inaudible).
27 28 It doesn't coordinate with anything, so we're not going to give him that one.
O
\'
Actoy: ORAY.
< LET'S 40 DN TD THE NEXT ONE.
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . - . 9 4
l L
Exhibit W age
,p lY of _/ i l
l INSERT 4 1 1 McCoy: The problem is they're going to have an exit on 2 !
3 Friday and they have got to decide and we got to decide whether we understand their issues and they 4
5 understand our positions, and get that all 6
resolved tomorrow. Now, the NRC is meeting at 5:00. We won't have another team meeting probably 7
8 until tomorrow afternoon and so we've got to be 9 sure we understand the team members' concern and 10 what we've written down as the NRC issue, fully 11 expresses their concern, uh, for one thing, and 12 they need, each of their people need to know what l 13 facts we have and what information we have at this point.
14 We can continue to work after that. I 15 guess the exposure on this (inaudible) is that (inaudible conversation).
(:) '
O
--