ML20133J152
| ML20133J152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1985 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-817 OL, NUDOCS 8510180296 | |
| Download: ML20133J152 (31) | |
Text
.
q\\
E'D ETEp L
jf lS v c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10/14/85 C I7 A10:49 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EidARD ?? er uae
- r, q~ f
- L ?;.
In the. Matter of
(
)
4 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
(
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL (South Texas Project,
(
j Units 1 and 2)
(
CC$NE MQIlgN IQ EEQEEN INE Ed@SE 11 EECQBD1 J1 I.
Introduction On October 7,
- 1985, CCANP received four documents which CCANP had never seen before.
These documents are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 4.
Exhibit 1
is the typed version of the notes taken b/
Mr.
J Thrash of the STNP Management Committee meeting held on December 4,
1980.
Exhibit 2
is the typed version of the notes taken by Mr.
Thrash of the STNP Management Committee meeting held on February 19, 1981. The final version of these minutes is in the record as the first section of CCANP Ex. No. 108.
Exhibit 3
is the typed version of the notes taken by Mr.
l Thrash of the STNP Management Committee meeting held on February 20, 1981. The final version of these minutes is in the record as the second section of CCANP Ex. No. 108.
Exhibit 4
is the typed version of the notes taken by Mr.
Thrash of the STNP Management Committee meeting held on March 19, 1981. The final version of these minutes is in the record an CCANP Ex. No. 169.
Given the importance of these documents to the issues 8510180296 851016 l "
E" Ygq>
litigated in Phase II of this proceedir.a.
CCAhP interrupted its work on the CCANP Proposed Findings at Fact and Conclusions of Law to bring these documents to the attention of the Board and to seek prompt reopening of the record to admit these documents.
II. Discussion The central issue in this proceeding is the character of the Applicants.
In its Partial Initial Decision, the Eoard said that the most important measure of character would be "whether HLLP made material false statements or omissions and whether it addressed questions propounded by the Staff, the parties, and us with candor." PID at 20.
Furthermore, the Board agreed with CCANP "that there may be some character defects that are so serious that they are in fact uncorrectable, at least in the absence of a ' radical change in the control of
[the3 corporation.'
[ footnote omitted] One of these defects might be evidenced by an intentional lack of truthfulness or candor condoned by management.
As we hase observed, the Commission in CLI-80-32 emphast:cd the importance of truthfulness and
- candor, and it enplicitly ' pointed out that a lack of truth f ul' ness or candor could prove disqualifying.
Ccite omitted]
- Further, the Commission cited cases suggesting that willful misrepresentations to the Commission, or representations made with disregard for their
- truth, could be grounds, without more, for license dental."
[ footnote omitted] PID at 23 (emphasis in original).
CCANP contends that Exhibits 1 through 4 contain estdence that Applicants made material false statements and omissions in their prefiled testimony for Phase II.
CCANP further contends that Exhibits 1 through 4 contain evidence that Applicants gave intentionally false or mi sl eadi ng testimony in Phase II in response to questions propounded by the Staff, CCANP, and/or the Board.
This alleged intentional lack of truthfulness and candor was 2
l 1
not merely condoned by management; it is precisely the preilled i
testimony and responses to cross examination of Applicants' senior ' management that is at issue.
Prior to commencement of Phase II hearings, the Board ruled
,- th at :
"The Quadre::
Report was relevant and material to matters before the Board and, as a matter of
- law, should have been turned over under the McGuire doctrine shortly after its receipt by HL&P."
Memorandum' and i
Order (Phase II Hearings on Quadrex-Report Issues) dated February 26, 1985 at 23.
i As a
result of this ruling, the Board adopted a
new i
j contention which raised the question whether Applicants' failure to provide the Quadrex Report to the Board
" reflects adversely on the character and competence of the Applicants and on their ability to manage the J
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant."
1 Id. at 24 (Contention 10)
In prefiled testimony, Applicants' senior management i
testified that the purpose of the Duadrex study was to ascertain j
the status of engineering at STNP.
See e gt
- Goldberg, ff.
Tr.
n 1
4
- 11491, at 4, L.26 - 5, L.8; at 6, L.14 - 7, L.5; Oprea, ff. Tr.
I 14095, at 2, L.23 - 27.
I In response to cross examination, Applicants
- senior
]
management reiterated their prefiled testimony on the purpose of the Quadrex study.
Tr. 11921, L.8 - 11923, L.14 (Jordan); 11583, L.7 - 11584, L.17;
- 12600, L.17 - 12602, L.3 (Goldberg); 14383, L.7 - 11 (Oprea).
At one point, in response to a direct question 4
i as to whether the Quadrex Report was commissioned specifically to I
prepare him for the Phase I licensing
- hearings, Mr.
Goldberg r ep l i ed "rk)",
Tr. 11583, L.7 - 11, although being eble to answer questions at the Phase I hearings might have been "a
side i
3
.-. _. _ - _. _ -, -..~. _
. ~.
benefit." Tr. 11584, L.O - 17.
Exhibit 1 at page 2052 records that Mr.
Goldberg told the December 4,
1980'Mhnagement Committee meeting, also attended by Mr.
Opr ea,
that he expected BLR's construction errors to raise questions ahout B&R's engineering.
Mr. Goldberg further told the meeting that outside engineers were being identified at that time to perform an engineering overview and that this overview would enable Applicants to
" provide strong test [imony3 at
[the]
OCperating] L[icense] hearing." Id.
Mr.
Goldberg was concerned that the question might arise as to how HLLP knew that B&R's engineering work was correct, ld.
Euhlbit 3 at 2091 records that Mr.
Barker told the February 20, 1981 Management Committee meeting, also attended by Mssrs.
4
- Jordan, Oprea, and Goldberg, that an independent review of BLR's engineering was needed, that the engineering review was being performed by Quadrex, and that HL&P needed "to have infotrmation) to meet lictensing] hear [ing] Otuestion]s."
Exhibit 2 at page 81037 records that Mr.
- Goldberg, at the February 19, 1981 meeting of the Management Committee also attended by Mr.
- Oprea, responded to a question regarding the "effect on Ethe] OL hear [1ngs] of Can) adverse COuadren3 audit" by saying that Applicants could "only disclose
[the Ouadren Report]
6 explain solution." Id.
In this same
- meeting, Mr.
Goldberg stated that in the licensing hearings, the ASLB wou l et not believe Applicants or BLR but would believe Quadrex. Id.
Esthibit 4
at 2106 records that Mr.
Goldberg told the Management Committee meeting on March 19, 1981, also attended try Mr. Oprea, that if the Quadrex audit found significant fault with 4
the BLR engineering effort, the wcrst case scenario would be the plant could not be 11ce7 sed and further work on the project would
, ' t/
be a waste of m o n e y'.
These notations clearly demonstrate that from its inception
.the Ouadrex study was intended to bring in more e:: p er i en c ed engineers to evaluate the technical adequacy of PLR s engineering effort with an ultimate goal of assessing the Itcensability of the plant.
There is ample support for this proposition in the Ouedrex Feport itself, Sgg gigt App. Ex. No. 60 at 1-1
(" purpose of this review was to ascertain the overall technical adequacy of the STP design");
at 1-2, item 1 ("The technical adequacy or inadequecy of the BLR design output was to be determined
....");
at 2-13 14 (the types of information sought during the study):
and 0-1 ("Most Serious Findings are those that pose a
serious threat to plant licensability").
The documents at,tached hereto, however demonstrate that g
there was a direct link in the minds g[ HLLP senigt management between the commissioning of the Quadrex Report, the Phase 1
1/
It is worth noting that once again significant information in the notes of Mr.
Thrash did not find its way into the final minutes.
The final minutes of February 19, 1981 contain practically nothing concerning the dialogue about the Quadren study; the references to the possible impact on the licensing hearings in particular are not in the final minutes.
Ggmgatg CCANP Ex.
No.
108 at 4445 with Exhibit 2 at 81037.
The final minutes of the February 20, 1981 meeting do not reflect Mr.
Barker's remarks about the purposes of the Quadren study. Ggmgare CCANP Ex. No. 108 at 4475 with Exhibit 3 at 2091.
The final minutes of the March 19, 1981 meeting delete all the information about what Duadrex was
- finding, about the possibility of a lengthy suspension of engineering while a new contractor came in, and that one management response to an adverse Quadrex audit might be to scrap the plant as unlicensable.
Ggmgatg CCANP Ex.
No. 109 at 4500 with Exhibit 4 at 2106..
5
operating license hearings, and the ultimate licensability at the plant.
The Quadrex study was never envisioned as a status repcrt s
on whether B6R bngineering could support the construction
- schedule, See eigt Tr.
11273, L.1
-3 (Newman), but rather as an
, effort to find out "whether, beneath all the known prob [lems],
whether Ethe] basic eng[ineelrtingl was acceptable." Exhibit 4 at 2106.
Furthermore, these exhibits make it probable that the Ouadre': Report was not turned over to the ASLB because the Report would have threatened the licensability of
- STNP, a
far more plausible enplanation than the excuses and misrepresentations cffered by the Applicants.
The Applicants have also taken the position that the Quadreu Report was not relevant to the issues in the Phase I licensing hearings.
See Applicants' brief of September 28, 1981:
Tr.
11272, L.21 - 11273, L.11 (Newman); Jordan, ff. Tr. 11908, at 10.
L.20 - 24; Oprea, ff. Tr. 14095, at 12 L.12 - 26; Goldberg, ff.
Tr. 11491, at 3, L.19 - 23; at 54, L.11 - 26; at 70, L.
1-6.
Obviously, if the Quadrex Report was commissioned specifically to be able to answer expected questions in the Phase I
operating license hearings, the Applicants viewed the outcome of the study as relevant to the issues in those hearings.
i All of the documents for which CCANP seeks reopening are I
offered primarily on the issue of Applicants' credibility.
CCANP recogni:es that Applicants can argue that CCANP could have gntten E::hibi t 9 1 - 4 during discovery, that CCANP did not pursue auch discovery, and that CCANP's motion herein 19, therefore, 4
untimely.
6
But the Appeal Board "has long reccentzed that
'a metter mas be of such gravity that the mot ion to reopen should be granted not withstanding that it might have been presented earlier.'"
Memorandun cod Order ( E:: p l enat i on of Ruling on CCANP Motion to
. Reopen Phase I Record) dated June 18, 1985 at IG guott_ng Mermont yggteg Nuclegt Egger Cgtgs (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Feuer Station). ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973).
Since honesty and candor are central aspects of character, since character is a fundamental requirement for a
nuclear
- license, and since character is specifically recognl:ed as an issue in this prceeding, evidence calling into question the credibility of sworn testimony provided to the Licensing Board by the license applicant is perhaps as grave a matter as could be i
imagined in this proceeding.
In addition, the testimony challenged by this evidence is on issues specifically recognized as contested by the ASLB prtor tc the hearing
- whether the failure of Applicants to provide the Duadrex Report to the ASLB shortly after its receipt 6y Applicants reflects adversely on the character and competence cf Applicants.
The proferred evidence rebuts the only defense offered by Applicants - that the purpose of the Ouadrea study was simply to examine BLR's ability to meet the engineering schedule and that the matters examined by Quadrex were not considered by Applicants to be relevant to the Phase I
issues as they supposedly understood them. While there is ample reason, based on the e<1dence in the record, to reject this defense, the proferred evidence offers the clearest direct evidence of the deliberate falseness of this defense.
7
CCANP does not argue that Exhibits 1 through 4 are brought to the ASLB in a timely fashion in relation to the discovery CCANP had available (though they are brottght in a timely fashion in terms of when CCANP first saw the documents).
CCANP does
. contend that tne seriousness of the issues raised by this new evidence is a basis for setting aside the timeliness criterion for recpening the record.
1 As far as addressing a safety issue, the evidence relates to the character issue, which is fundamental to safety.
Regarding the third element on reopening the record, if the Board intended to rely on the current record for a finding that the purpose of the Quadrex study made the study irrelevant to the Phase I
- inquiry, the proferred evidence would change that finding.
If the Board intended to rely on the current record for a
finding that the Appl,1 cants did not consider the Ouadres:
re'.lew as a
matter relevant to the Phase I
- issues, the proferred evidence wculd change that finding.
If the Board intended to rely on the current record for a
finding that the Applicants' failure to provide the Ouadre::
Report to the ASLB shortly after Applicants received it does not reflect adversely on the character and competence of Applicants, I
the proferred evidence would change that finding.
If the Board intended to rely on the current record for a
finding that there was no need to reverse or modify the ficard s Phase I findings on Applicants' honesty and cendor, the preferred evidence would change that finding.
8
For the above and foregoing reasons, LLANP moses the board to reopen the record to acmit the documer ts at tached hereto es Exhibits 1 through 4 Respectful 1y subm1tted.
l h tW Lanny Sinkin Representative for Intervenor, Citizens Conerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.
2022 Porter St.,
N.W.
- 304 Washington, D.C.
20008 (202) 966-2141 IG Dated: October M, 1995 Washington, D.C.
UNITED 3TA!L: Z TJ
- C-_.,
NUCLEAR FEGULtJUR< COMMiGC10N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFCTY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter at
(
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
(
Dociet Nos. 50-499 CL POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
)
50-499 OL (South Teuas Project, t
Units,I and 2)
(
CERll((C@lE DE SEbylCE I
hereby certify that copies of CCANP MOTION TO REOPEN THE PHASE II RECORD:
II Were served by hand delivery
(+i or deposit in the U.S.
- Mail, tirst class postage paid to the following individuals And entitles on the leth day of October 1985.
Charles Bechheefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.
Atomic Satety and Licer. sing Board State of Tenas U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Washington, D.C.
20555 P.
O.
Bon 12548, Capitol Sta.
Austin. Tenas 78711 Dr. James C.
Lamb. III Administrative Judge Oreste Russ Pir+o, Esquire 31?. Woodhaven Road Offtce cf the Enec. Leg. Dir.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
D.C.
20555 Frederick J.
Shon Adntnistrative Judge Maurice Aaelr ad.
Esquire U.
S.
Nuclear Reguletory Commission 1615 L Street. NW, Suite 1990 Washington.
D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20026 Melbert Schwa-:, Esquire Bater and botts Mrs. Pegg / Buchorn 300 One Shell Pla:a E>ecutive Director, C.E.U.
Houston, Tenas 77002 Route 1,
Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
William S.
Jordan, III, Esq.
D.C.
20555 Harmon, Weiss t< Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20009 Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Pat Coy Washington, D.C.
20555 5106 Casa Oro San Antento, Tenas 78233 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ray Goldstein U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1001 Vaughn Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
20555 807 Bra:os Austin, leyas 78701 W %. Y. ----
Lenny; Sinkin i
s E
i'
.b.
a
' 9 l
- p'h 2051 Eancock Pokorny 1:10 4 Lee to EA Poston von Rosenberg Hardt STP M/C Bay City CFL Borchelt Range Ford, Moore Cattlemen's Motel I
EP oprea Goldberg Barker Briskin Beeth I
[1:37)
Bar'ker - mejor items Aws - still proceeding according to second release (*12 part program *)
INN f%
C Sope to get release - to schedule -
Em 1 - sign in
- So welders working 2 - Agenda (u/C) 3*
(Barker) after first of year ASME - on 11/21 tot release on lia scope
- now have 15 working
- next plan to NRC - later in Dec. - would allow pro) to work SO (Cost to uncover & test - 4 to S Mill)
Complex concrete
- CCE Cone overlooked audit for 14 mos.
Sarker thinks Ref NRC anxious to Lab
&1 low Pro) to
- audit completed 26 Nov i
I:;;, g,qv-ibe neve re,o,t wul be good i
but can't get until late Dec.)
11:49)
PTL has written this up (to S&R) for NRC Barker - hope to get NRC clearance next week 11:53)
CO re restart -
- NAC anxious to restart so can test Proj performance under full throttle E re proced. for restart - Sarker explained 6 scheduled pours, soms on 1 & some en 2 Barker to 3c - Meet w/ Region 4 11/18 Goldberg. Barker & Crete, et al from B&R (Go described earlaer meeting he, et al had w/ R4)
Reg 4,(syfert & seidel) felt R&R still does not have religion Ngt views not getting down to troops 12:02)
Barker & Go orpressed thetr own opin - same as 34 cited example of Saltere111 at Nov. 7 CEO meet (tech compet regardless of procedures a spec vio1?)
Coldberg analogiaea to ralstery - orders shouted from on hign (but ne ectporals or ogte demanding JC cited run-in performanceh - esp **(
w/ Cuerts can't ';: - p.as, anto work went to Crete (have to have attat.se in constr & agt I
to start withe (2:23 Endl C0 there have been some improvement but not good enough re spectre in background?
Poston
- I can understand syfert's concern
- But if PM thinks there's a prob -
that's worse RL doesn't,believe a new cast of characters would help at R&R Coldberg thinks Leasburg is good
@M Saltere111 strong has just hired new atst. for Nawks.
00 *,ti-o
~
s 2052 Poston Q re who is strong concrets man?
11:30]
(Fraley. McIntyre or (blank])
as sea culpos from Grote
=
- need results free R.1,. wanted cooper. from Goldberg assess of
' meg 4 vs. Other regions (Ans)* met worst - Reg 1 is.
- about same as 2 = Atlanta.
- This proj. vs. ether proj.7 (no ans)
Poston raised Q about TU's oper org.
00 emplained late Jan ELP meets w/ NBC (2:38) von R wondered why TU has so little trouble w/ B&R & we have so much
= 00 ans G&E are engra N
6 ELP is P. Ngr j
Back to 2a - Proj - ready late.LSched '81 f
Intog Level III - Constr. complete f Briskin *what does,*,,,,g*
'heceeeensee 3a1. of Engr & Precure by June job process
- von R & Poeton thinke asan7 plant will be up I
& syncronised before Level III fine tunedBarker - can't do too much until get rame-up under way 7 i
- hanger design taking twice the no. of asahours orig Overtina li.a assumed.
to 1Gt nanpower? L,Tr{ing to freese "souston*(St'.7) at 900-1000 (3:02) 2e Site t
Pn Staff & controls b
Esh 4 2d 1991 C.F. (See control 4078) t 2e Will know when reforecast sched will be out next me.
84A laid off 100 prior to Thanksgiving Eardt Q = why have constr. og.
natis & supp
- labor overrun every so. since baseline 1,2 force & constr. cut back?
Seeth Q - any more layoffs? (before Christmas) 13:10) aaneesk = ry g a y report en *gelag slow' La engineering?
eeldherg L ehinha eenett errors will raise ener. Os.
2 (seed seerview by more
. estes = eben j
mea peerase seseas iAdestifying teet et 08. haastag) h new (00 = hire 34 week Jan.7) 13:1$1 Poston 0 re who has done pipe whip analysis )P EDS w
eeldtese esarried atest 9: Euw esse SL&P mace ghet BSE empt serveet?
th&ahe E.P has seep to goetty?
7 Saa's engs.
1
)
80 thinha sac pay make major tasy (of test) ensky aest yest = empt?
= ahow easse esop11amee 7
Poston When did temp.
i surve escuraton
- widenin, 004'&.
l take place?
e
~
2053
/
Poston Q re who screwed up on beam ends (Sarker=
365)
(failure to give adequate weight to temperature transient) re eoet of fix. (Sarker didn't know) sancock Q = will this he separately cost acctd (Yes)
(3:30)
Goldberg said would check into = Berker said any be in 55e report har Sudget frosen at Oct level (and manpower) Sarker noted new
- manager of indirects' (3:55 End!
Defer Darker i
Ford - moster wanted to relinquish charm. cf PR committee to Ford - Poston said M/C would take under advisement.
Went over budget = let draft Vie. Center 93.000 rev. to 110+
Ford had no (posson requested in writing) record of what Oprea wants '80 budget compared w/'Il was desmaaseedfor.=Isiek for '807 Bardt remembered M/C telling PRC (Range remembered 77R)? to spend more (1507) than
- wanted Find Ford wants to meet (along w/ Beeth) w/ M/C es ao Poston does not want to meet w/ PR more than 3 a year.
Didn't know Ford = re all out effort for May 4 (Lic. hear.
where date I warned Ford & Beeta not to get came from tied to this.
13:50)
Ford te oder in Vis. Center
= haven't spent 10E for sep. sys.
= can bring water up to potable for 3R w/ caveat that Joe Moore supervise Ford = needs hand held speaker (8370)
& geiger counter (put in '91 budget)
Gall in front C.T. Q = Who is ELP rep on PRC
[4:03 End)
Sorch & Reage Ford left = Seeth stayed Sarker resumed to 3d = Control 8078 re 3e - Mgt. C. meetings =
- Prop for meetings takes a lot of time
= ehange meeting time?
00 felt CIO meetings? (to guarterly)
=
min. would be (meetings w/CEOs a roaching dog CIos every other o pony show = a 1 in month.
so report)
= posten would like to have more meetings, w/ fewer people.
Aange suggested
. Moor.e wanted to dispense w/
Partie rope sit BS items", e.g. minutes, etc & get in on regular down to hard eere conett press.
= sarker reiterated that ELP & Ben 3,,
spend too much time on M/C (owners)
Will liberg re weekly meetings f10most shift to i wanted site -
I*
list on Thurs =
= general? feeling would in Jan.
be disruptive for parties' reps to (Briskin said 86R would bring st) in 80,,4 00 strong that ELP has its hands full w/B4R = bas little time
'UE to devote to advising parties ?
,m
205.i (4:25)
R.L. didn't think now is time to restrucICEO meetings - until CEOs can see if B6R can make it tif can't, result will be earth shakieg).
feels adv. of having CIos = get asa sr. nat.
Briskin eseg. beving no agenda or having agenda set by participante =
esamented on how much time Guerts speeds getting ready for CEO asetings.
14:47) 3riskin re 10 most wanted.
doesn't think M/C should be von R involved in reminded SA as worried i
about ILP as 84R Status Sarker sugg. 1 rep each 6
p partic attend no review meet (Dec 10)
= at site. 0800-1000 (10 acet
- wanted)
+ walk thru (General agreement)+ status (4:571 mancock sugg. housekeeping M/C es me. at Corpus, SA, C0A or souston, separate from site /84R meeting triakia sugg M/C sending only a single rep.
80 each partic. sent pria rep only.
l 15:05)
January meettag = 7 (no dates set yet)
(Proj review meet Thur Jan. 22 = walk thru 21st need 1:20 Taur. 22 Jan Cattlemen's 9:00 Fri 22 Jan Site Proj walk thru 2-5 1/21 Proj. rev 8-12 1/22 Admen,-neet-7 GO sugg Dec 9 - eft.
- Austin 2:00 Thur Feb 19 1:20 Feb Fri 20 9:00 Mar. Thur Mar 19 1:20 Are Fri 20 9:00 i
44 84 (Salt Endl l
15:18-$s29)
Barker & CT re oil well -
($s23)
Barker, Briekia & Seeth left IS = CAL reports Range =
Fia. C. Looked at fin. rep.
I rept'd en did not leek at Mgt Ltr.
L/C pos (neut C&L will took up '80 undertaking 1tr send revised
'*'8b** ****
able C6L will
=
d*Y **
= costs furn t
l
[ e U up w/
- j*j'****
asegg = enly deafa C04 will be I
of Audit usts
% (draft to fin.
e.)
14:05 Endl 80,,,,~,6 s
)
Secy draft letter to CAL (work w/ Range) l e
_ _ 1_,
.L f.
2005
- letter from C0A 12 go beyond E:,P (to
- go ty*
86R defer IC
'(6:20 End) f Re Exh. N/ CIA 4 Range 1
' t oprea 1
( SA 1 (von Rosenberg)
Defeated proposal rejected gxh o assadment I'
gg. yeeton req. PM furnish info to Brownsville (4:35 Rad) i a
e 4
g lt
!a a
NM l
004' 9 4
0
ExH;EIT ;
I p7 Principal Alternate Other STP M/C CCA Bancock Muehlenbeck Pokorny h3 I
D g
SA Poston von Rosenberg Eardt 88Y City Mcwhirter C72.
Borchelt Aange Moore y
o,rea oold,er, illh-g Proj. Barker Briskia (1:51)
, w/rs Ea. 1 = Sign in Ia. 2 - Agenda
[1:41)
Goldberg -
Best month II.7 will take charge of CE0's meeting Ex. 3 = Barker's (1:451 Barker to !! - Referecast - Ad3 in 4 complete for Jan (and)
%,g g
1 2
Total identical 72%
23.8%
63.5%
w/Dec 27 Constr.
1 Pal (el Power Block) 6.it Jan (was SO+ thm tarker thought J
this was a typo
/
Dec.)
43.97 Co'.dberg to Engr.
= physical (Briskia esplained donom.
- 7 Mill to 9 Mill el MErs.
Jan
$8.8 Unit 1 & Comuson Moore requested short, written description
'I h 20.2 (vs. 23 in)
Total 43.2 (Jan 45)
To end To end Dec Jan el Power Block SJ.4 44,9 S3.3 e1 & Common 40.6 58.8 02 FB 23.3 20.2 Total 45.S 43.2 (2:10)
Barker still contended this an error
- didn't wane to report on it Fri until 52.7 can check number.
Goldberg = thing that was wrong with previous eyetem - 34R kept using Spring '79 ' Baseline
- von See Q re separate control room (ala TM23 = Le it in the danos.
(Gold = nol (2:11]
3riskin = we have geared up a reforecast plan -
prelim no. by June 1 incl.
81035 i
detail after that J new a rash analysis senedale finalised in sept 00450 l
l l
I
[2:25]
von R. Eardt, Gold et al disc. re productivity.
Gold to putting up cable trays vs. painting I
re keeping electric 77 going free undisciplined to better will be slow Shkar Bristia = aan unio 3 acre NE per unit I
groductivity 1ess
- (more 8 beeps calling unit rates"?
per ME)
(ME/CT)
[2:22)
Bancock = back to schedule for reforecast Is 7 achievable by June 1 Briskin re crawl, walk, run our June 1 will have I
assumptions re accel.
)
Eaacock to 8 I 5 days = 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week (single shift) our argument in '79 Barker was baseline can be Laproved l
wanted to (but we didn't taprove) l defar ans. -
(meeting next wk.)
to what?
whan En pro) do. 6 support, re overtime, suit, etc.
Gold = constraints will be in engr.
= doubts there will be constr restraints, except possibly welders?
[2:401 Borchelt asked Barker why he Ci 40 9 thought June est any better thaa *1ast Fall' & this ran 77 3,,
predicted Aug '81 Sarker re productivity I
g Barker re personnel Leasburg out last Fri (to go to
( = Carl Crane interia rept.
i VDCC
- '.iec'*=
bt key people
[JackBerringtonresignedoffmid-March i
i
\\
~ opportunity (eg. ownership) in new Co.
(2:47)
Goldberg noted one good prospect had I
been interviewed - 2 acre lined up.
we espect recean. w/in a week.
I Barker - Barer resigned for opport. elsewhere l
[2:30)
Sarker to templea concrete enactly en sched I
have poured 269 CY Jan 170 CT Feb 79
- today.
Briskia - onky IICRs were discussed away
= no written ones.
Barker = new release en A8ME welding -
?? re substitulon for other work 7
- re numbers of welders = still good
[2l
)
Bardt =
A*I"L#
aore last file 'N 3Y )
me?
New I
operator = sech (171 tag.
MOM 83
- after work Bardt = do you have.nough work for these 00451 welders to do?
J
i
.(Sarker said something g
about R&R weattag 512's permission to increase welders' wages) 8*'A
Oprea Q re complete release coner %
& A8ME **18 /
N, c
re1 ease en Aws mow) estended weld. preg to early Apr (them full release)
Goldberg thought full release on coact early May.
Ford's Q re pour at top of done?
- PR wanted to have ' Press Day
- soldberg/sarker felt no probles w/ press so long as Ford lets Leon English know so be caa let 34A know.
(3:02]
Briskinreengrwkplanh as Fe 27 for '81
/
work plan.
There will be impacts but they can he assessed vis a vis plan.
Called M.S.
3:05-1809 re su I 49-01 t.o Dr. (blank)
& Cowan
& Scott (3:10 Rad)
(3s 0)
Goldberg was discusslag ELF's audit
- review?'
sq of &&A's engiacerlag
/'
= ekoeks a balances what did
= pereennel Gold say Range Q re ausside engineers?
while I was Goldberg cited Laterface prettens between out about B&R & outside engineers people working on hired?
supports for obsolete
~
fluid systes layouts.
Bardt a will this he an operabi,11ty audit (Gold = mo)
Oprea - U re systans Latogration Gold = explained what B&R doing.
= re design freese (can't de untti operations saalysis complete)
Banesek = time frase en audit?
Gold = esopletion 34 wk in Mar.
. eg.4,. a. dug g:n e>;
a " -
3 (St34,= can saly disclose e eglais solution)
' oprea didn't think would affect may hearings.
Baneesk = how reception la 8427 Aas = set love is blece started out as gentlemanly under-standing
}
aew bitter defense 7 '
1 Oprea = as late as last 7 1 tried to do end around 4 avoid whole, 81037'
- thin, Gold = in hearing, board won't believe contractor utility L
They will believe people we've hired (3:251 00452
. __ w m
(3:251 von K Q re 900 enges
- how stack up w/ other nue plants Ocid thinks 504 high for 2 units Oprea*= but what are they doing Barker - 690 include secy's etc.
,7 on vendor surveillance 7 re cable trays?
thinks 300 working on finit.
Rancock - is the work on fixit sep. accounted for.
Gold - In Jan. B&R lost a hired 81 toch people out of 800 (engr & design)
Jan. traditional turnover month Feb will be more of a telitale Souston has lowest unemployment nuclear act attractive to young.
Sorchelt Basile Seeth Ford had
- gone?
sriskin - SsR lest 7 out of 14 planners (when?
Re CI - Barker to *CL Bearings' 7 (secting Tuesday)
??
Oprea re exit Laterview re ILP operating capabL11ty - GO had passed out a book.let of what had been furn to IrRC
- 100 on board in oper.
Rear sched. for May 11 77 (had NBC attorney there) felt thcught would have no prob.
Barker Status of Show caase 166 out of 276 closed out.
4s awaiting close-out TTJ Muehlenbeck What about other 667 Bristia - on sched Many will continue except 17 for life of 3o2.
(3:441 Eardt - what about isCRs ete 19 point program 77 (3:451 Barker re III
' Major probleas' tall 10 will be discussed at Fri meetiag)
Faintings s Coatings - has been missanaged had major impact incompetence in engt, constr Ford &
Beeth a proj. agt.
back Bardt - when first obvious a pach Barker - last susumer.
but we've had stop work for 3 years Sarker - ELP brought in Ebasco Borchelt s Basile hack to help re specs Goldberg, Sarker a Coaste couldn't apply
- Briskin out had to blast off la Sept ELF imposed TM1 requirteents.
[3:51 Endl Sreak.
(4:03]
poston re fuel items 1 Chev. As s2 same as Exh es 81038 i
i 22 Jan al except correettons made CF and L still not made CE 7 -
(attach sketch)
Op moved. RL 2d - approved 00453 (4:10 End)
_ -,~ - - _ _, -
2 Chev, status report coal land to trade for uran. land instead of cash buy-out.
(4:12)
Mcwhirter gave report on amounts delivered to daLw weia, etc.
BNFL JCf" Gje
.$se up 74 8]
Eardt -
S.A. aseds fuel acctg. method see 9.3.7.
- hasn't sectg. cosas. studied (Yes) has dropped I
- What does Palo verde do?
Eardt - APS covers shortages each partic een bays
=--
Fin. C.
M/C instructed Fin. C (Range) to establish 9.3 7 s.:hed to meet 5 Mar.
- wants Eardt or McWh to jota S.A. weats to know what is involved. Legally, in selling g decision,is made to sell -
Bardt passed out Exh S Figure 1 3
Wow comes Calf a w have settled to 75-80 F. Coeus. est.
STP parties have opportunity to subst G for w G will talk abcnt deliv starting '89
.. deferring W's '84 re 8 - w's pro) costs (by D&M) above market C's prices below then market
'89 '94 Oprea Q re what is
. future
- market *?
[4:40) von Ros re
.G&W
= STP escluded fios buying of E 4 M111 #
If G can make deal w/STF release w, act G will pay w 10% of rev.
tied to 6 w wift ist G off STF If G caa's mL e deal w/STF G sunt deliv to w at 17 1/24 under Se akt. (NUEICC).
July 15 a can't modify
~ Enh M between now & July 15.
Poston - what is risk of taking?
Oprea - cautioned Euribut w shouldn't benefit 174 could be eaten up by 4 yrs carryLag cost for early deliv.
what incentive for w to give STF any break?"
Cprea - have you studied delay effects?
Eardt Yes - see Fig 4.
R.L. - to 10 yrs W & Chev S 81033 Eardt/McW = w & Chev run thru '97 7 mill S w/'04 '06 starts
+ initial load QQ.151 em.
'O what do we have (sue wk?)
es Gulf-w ees1.~ '
I (5:001 oprea O re 8 effect of rig 4 Newh ans. re ut. yaylor presen or W worth 99 31.00
$NI ""
23.507 Bardt thinks G would prefer to deal w/us rather than w?
Oprea Q = what about after 19957 (5:07)
Chart to M/C feel actions req'd (Ex. 7)
Distributed by McWhitter w/ CIA Option - W notice must be rec'd by July 1 reply by 30 days thereafter (Parties refused to sell option for 8 Mill)
If CEA used after Chev, would not be needed until a
(5:241 aNFL 10/81 4 9/82 in Apr '01 will specify Sept 82 V
then 2 aoaths saten.
McWh would 1the to store until (blankl '84, when would be eye for enrichment RL Q re present worth factor McWh 10 1/2 Range - CFL & ELF nearly twice that Bardt - Sow long wculd G.W approvals Ishe?
(La June?)
COA - 3 wks (RLE) e 7
Change 7 to " consider" frena -
- required" - Wo draft blurb in sin but leave?
d Late flash of 81 Power 31ock 4
$3.3 (5:45 Ead!
Apr meet 23 & 24 April ??
(5s47 Ead!
I e
l 81040
-~
_ewaarg e 4 m e+ em e
- =**=8
E*HIEIT T W' e 20Di CQA Eancock Muehlenbeck Pokorny Site SA Poston voa Rosenberg Spruce Bardt CFL norchelt Range Basile ELP
'Oprea Goldberg
- "'" aer.
,roseo,.a,her
.,isua, oglish,.la Baas Feehaa,
.,gp.
g Pieper, Rica, Grote, Salterelli, Broom Gibeos, Guerts, Crane, Cook (Pieper, et al arv. 9:12)
Ex. 1 51ga in Ex. 2 Barker's Ag.
i (0920]
Sarker put up Esh. 3 (0925)
- Exh. 4
- Enh. 5 l0926)
$1 pers. discussed Leasburg diff. to 5errington replace Carl Crane = interim c natr. site syr.
"S&R has been charged w/ resp. to find suitaale* rep 1.
(09281 92 Concrete = on e5hed.
- $3 Weld a staffing adequate (dise here re reject rates = Q by Moore Report on show-cause coussits 276 close out 186 44 awaiting linc
+
4ff
[9:33 Endl Ato Barker (cont'd) re Exh $
04 1981 Work plan (working on) 05 Reforecast plaa - Target June '81
= detailed backup Sept '81 (will provide M/C ASAP w/ assumptions of reforecast
+ what accelleration)
(9:351 66 Engia. sev6es =
seed inder review of 34R engr.
Goodres = thee. Sv. Corp.
= As April '91
-.need to have info se meet lie beer ce
= these will be impact en '91 work plan best is szitical a aust be done.
67 OL Bearings =
= eempleted silestone w/
NaC = oper. capab. audit
= meeting 17 Feb = exit interview rOprea = described audit not only w/eper 100 people at ELEP on board = NRC
8' ""
corrective a"' tionN
_ well pleased, thinks c
from show-cause.
ELP ahead of game
=
RL Q = ultimate staffing oprea - 350 for 2 units 81051 Nker also reported on Water pesources 84 insp of reservoir a IC Pond.
00445 (9:421
{p:42}
Joe Moore Q re infiltration of ground 20D2 water?
3arker didn't know ans, but thought CK.
CO cited, stud &es?
made by 3&R before site acquired.
Go recalled recent/ review b
E C y Jim Avers I W re - Yes (indiv. haveis there local anxiety?
talked to Moore)?
.(f:48!
Barker - to Ex 4 *Ma) Probs' R&B have el Manpower Centz & Planning now dev.
. changes in reporting ben sys.
mann. Sevel wil 02 Pipe hangers,l depend on Work Plan!
supports, restraints.
= S&R charged w/ resp of coming up w/a plan to coord engr, coating.
imbeds, etc.
63 Conduit Separation NRC's App R STP nethod is analyse 20' separation rerouting barriers construct 04 Soil str. interaction ( $5%
Resolution w/NRC -
NRC may employ new method Bringing in new consultantsSTP trying to show its met We think NRC off beseebesd If we're forced to use NRC's method, would have sa3.
impact = study complete in May.
lE Q - is this result ofindiv's ideosyncracies
= or order, or wnat?
[9:55)
Barker (contd) re Ex 4 05 Engr plan-design assur. & control.
- put some and to changes Cable Tray Supports = assure proper procedures.
64
= improper applic of sta
- icad. design verif.
thefore installation
- 4 weeks into 40 weet review prograa
- Lapset is Am. Bridge = constr delay.
67
- vendor fatted to meet
- have had meetings w/Am. Sr.
specs
- hired Nu-Tech tosxpect reply corresp.
assist B&R
= some of the beams are 48 Eilti-boltsLabedded in concr.
Testing prog not run in accordance w/ specs?
Test prog now going satis.
Do bolts already inst.
seet require?
09 paint & coating Fear doing things not proper
- 3&R charged w/ resp to [ blank!?
Assist to see ifpropriety of teewespect sure prep.can e.ep redues Late NRC quidance per NRC.
910 RVAC = elow getting started 81052 sannsen (10031 D0446
2005 1
~11003}
Sasker - objective in '91 is to get betts: sequencing a more efficient util of effort.
1 Jordan asked if 10 Ma3 Probs had been 'prioritised" - No all major.
(10001 Guerts Em 7 Constr 1 6 Co m a
~
- s c,
eat.d ia -rt fran revised unit rates.
Achieved production obj in Jan.
,e fuel load date -
potent slippage 18 aos
- conduit probs (can inst very little serious in '91) overcome eene b lay in cable tray supports a pipe hangers have Pete Boscola a
on from Comanche Peak to manage hangers a supports (one man la charge of engr, procure, const etel Moore-Guerts colloquy re t ing cred for pipe if one d welded, but no credit for temp supp or hangers Guerts - real manhours i
La valves a supports.
Jordan Q re 18 months - doesn't include corrective effort?
E Q
77 re whether June sat will include accel?
(10231 Guerts re Em 8 - Constr 2 20.2 los potential 19.8 #
proyress in el t will require
. N @ engr loc of
$=* *= a u ef of ra a
teactor cavity g,
g gg (depends on solving findhafes of vent prob on Unit il robars.
hDiffsettprob on Aux hidg.
- poeten Q = what fizes?
Guerts to Em 9 - Overall I
1 i'
Em 10 Constr Pro) Ngt Manheur Analysts 1/31/81 I
{0.659 CP 1.77 gQg 00447
~ ~
~
.~
2001 Poston Q re 2.8 mill Mus Guerts re nos (in Jan. reportl
' January status
- re Ex. 11Feehan Q is "intermed sched" same as *werk plan
- Yes Level IV *ery detailed Engr is limiting - very tight. gear train Guerts re Em 11 (cont'd)Goldberg - won't 64 it be *11fe to the
- 110381 bitter end* that engr will be barely ahead of constr Guerts - Yes, eegr t complete went be as important as engr supporting constr sched.
Sorchelt Q re when confident w/ $/3 Guerts - Sep:
Goldberg said
- will not vary from June apprec.
- have promised oarly
- Eancock - will need data base to support in pab11c forums.
Spruce - will it include overtime & double shitt (in Junel Yes Rambling disc. re
- meeting current sched some other
= Poston Q - what do you start with7 e.g. Goldberg - if accel prog require S6R to hire 500 pipe stress analysts.
would be unrealistic Poston - why?
- can't hire
- work in?
L ng disc here re whetner wait till Sept Sob
. for better fig or go w/ reas good Gibson fig in June - some designs will not be complete until after Sept G4erts (cont'd) re Ex. 11 4 June nos (10551
~G.O. by may 1 M/C should know degree of support for June nos.
- CPL has June in prospectus
= ELP has *sid-summer
- Poston Q reposs of advancing i by delayir.g 2 ?
Guerts said no -a/c engr.
I Gold - re blitsing certain areas as soon as engt & ma;.orials restraint cleared up (11:003 Ken Cook re engr.
Sav-64 Re Am Bridge
- insp. steel on site 232 NCRs 81054
- no repair ordered I
so far.
Statis eval will be made w/the hope of lowering accept criteria.
00448 (process 28 weeks from next week
2003 Re silti-solts - comp 1ste f
testing Apr 20 ton schedl Mx. Drawing types as of 1/31/01 1
E 2
71.98 vs. 71.07 (Dec)
Asc 23.75 vs. 23.60 (much less ef fort)
(110$ End!
gge (U04]
Cook Em 14 - Engr 4 complete 72
'1/31/
This includes only drawings By and Mar we will
- act specs have implemented our engt agt plan (working on since oct.) - issue next week Ex 1 65.0 Engr hours Ex 16 expended 43.S rotecass merchelt
& 24 age left No Perf Rev.
g Em 17 Tabulation lower.as St.7 (2 pages) 241 Clinton 63.5 earned GS.
Act ME exp ferocast 9.6 mill ME to complete (1112 Endl k
Cgac1.
,,,,,g Sarker - asked if any B&R Cs (no)
Bancock to Gold's tightly coupled O
death ed us do part enteriaq most dangerous period I
'80 reasons gone now next 6 acaths crucial leaning on Goldberg & Cuerts.
but they will have to have resources Austin down to last walta.
(111$ End)
Ex. 18 - agenda for site tour i
1 1
NM 00443 i
l<.
J ExHIEIT 4 N.M 2105 8CCC STP M/C 1830 19 March 41 Bay City. Texas COA Bancock Pokorny Cattlemen's not SA Poston Bardt 1
C'PL Range seoore, Basile NM# /[/
tard, stuench ELP Oprea Goldberg ther Left 2:00 (to pick up Seeth Borchelt)
+ Secy riskin q after Beeth
= 14 3:44) back 4:40 4:30 Ex. 1 - Sign In 2 - Agenda (Poston) 3 - Sarker's List 4 - C&L agree 5 - Prelim. St. of expense
[2 c21 Barker - report on period ending 2/28/01 4 Complete Ener.
Unit 1 1.2 (73.2)
Jan was 72.
( 1426 Comm. 1.9 (65.4)
Act in Feb.
1 P. Sik
(.5) 55.2 Act. 2/28 This 1.9 may Constr.
53.3 1/31 result from Sched unreported (Total (1 3) 56.1 Act
.5 44.4 l
(2:14]
Sarker re personnel changes Cffer to prospect certd to rept (easburg Thinks has accepted 7 (Eas passed physical)
Others will Martin has been made agr of constr Fraley report to Fowler Thompson (Fla. PsL)
Goldberg - where we're heading like st. Lucie Interwoven K'er & Utility
- If didn't wear diff.
colored hats couldn't tell which is which.
(2:21]
Barker - re engr.
- need more qual. leaders at Squad boss level.
- can't say we're estisfied
- they have such enormous probe facing them, we can't let up.
Poston - who is best asR engr expert?
Goldberg - salterelli
(
's resp. is resp.
for all asa power block engr.
- incl. Com. Pk.
Pokorny noted Eawks' statement this a.m. re "no work this next 30 days a/c Quadrex*
81065 Goldberg - natural to try to lay off when you have trouble.
R.L. feels turnover result of outsiders' perception of BR enge (bsd)
- bring in outside resources, whose people have loyalty to parent organisation 00456 m
_ h
- re extreme turnover prob 210i i
sugg. joint venture w/ssW or C&E (Goldberg said wouldn't p..L. - wou do unless it started overl Gold - no,ldn't audit make this easier?
only a few weeks to
[2:30) pulse
- audit has turned up w/. apprehenthe most sensitive ar R.L. - how long would an outside firm ron part of tech. su get blame.
Gold - auditors feel SA engt had 2 good equire years 73-73 mL - require a 12-10 uo 5 had Gold - might be longer..
- pause *7 73-80 (2:33)
Moore - observed weaknesses of squad bGold th mouth to engr.
Oproa - such as?
osses etc.
1 Imbeds put, g g pai* ting t
a
- now
., out to paint.
(Noore a,Basile & Muench had AL returned to Q of pause that wouldgone on tour yestrday - w/Bris be necess if BA can' Gold constr 2 yrs.t do job.
+
eagt 2-3
- feels conste might to accept job if esgr could get out front -
(242) t I
Gold agrees engt major prob but constr (small by comparison) also needs work engra resp for procurement failure (didn't use proper specs)
Basile - if Quadres does audit Gold - worst case, plant can't& finds fault, what do y be lic. - further work would be waste of $
= best, clums
- in between,y but QK assess how much constr. work force.t
- we have to know whether,beneath all of the obvious probe is acc,eptablewhether basik angr Oprea - once findings are.
up work ??
in, may divide Gold - errors of design may be offs extreme conservatism =.'.et by
[2:48) wrongs result in right ans to poston - when is Quad work to be compl Gold -
started in Jan ete?
pre-meetings in Feb Started Mar $
As of yest.
compi mech areas to ASME codes computer codes
- 777 seis.
Remaias IVAC press stress Elec Instr a contr.
EDS - sub. Work (can't bring in Pre 11a reportoutsiders as an island; Wr. report (verbal-oral) Apr 13 private 1tr Quad. M Gold 20 Critique audit w/ S&R May 4 eval. of BR toch agt.
gg Final report 18 Poston - Q re resources devoted to lic Gold - ties up a lot of key peopleensing.
00457 r
-...--n.-m----,-
gm.,
,--,,---i
]
Q
~
210 Bardt Q
- What has stopped product of constr. draviaqs?
Gold - have thousands of
- human computers *, who need close
& continuous supervis.
e.g. - cable tray supports piled up 2 years of garbage w/o engr. supv.
(takas 54 of supv. to they don't have the Stkeep 954 working)
Eardt Q ~ why do we,have the thousands
[2:57]
Barker - now have 890+ engrs. working.
Gold - auditors think"5A appears to welcome help
- 12 someone comes in it will-would like to have be *our* problem
- auditors wonder why owners want to bail out? (OK to tell a w/gua at his head, to run guy, but what if he has 2 broken legs)
- 54R attitude = why not let these guys come in a do what will be paid to do posson - reminded to '79 alternatives
- aid saa or
- kick off job?
Gold - between Guerts &
se to be someone who can help,there's bound penhant I haven't seen his should know somethine, since he's a CEO Moore Q is the prob no auc esper or
- commo Gol(t 1/2 is,/n sanse poston requested high spots on Em 3 have covered Engr. Rev.
1331 Work plaa -
I T***1 I U"At 1 20+t Unit -
Jan 5-9 Sched Q Ach.
G.0. what is Engr &
Main Feb gg, patat & Coat
},.. - 1.5 causeos eauns
/
Barker said 40-41 week cable tray support
- g. Standards *)
fh, est. La Dec. is understated T**h M tha t by factor of 31:
were given to 3 ma ago d
,,g,
g,,,,,
a spec. sugg.
,,.t work.
of person to help w/ cab tr supp.
Esa rejected
- now Then no re-W ak CN.
13:191 Barker - re standards ' cookbook
- for can yr Gold a recounted that he had sugg, to supp.
B6R that they buy standards.
Long Basile-Go-teeth disc here re NUS. Ibasco, BA, Hallib etc.
- early '70s was Eb. intended to engr arm ( nual of 3R7 What NOS role?
s BA needs some one per;;on in SA to helpTuerts tsalterelli s Grote not devoted l
to STp full time) gg i
- where do I go in S&R (Does 34A know g should buy help?)
sardtQ-ifyousubb.1out
{
gli cab e tr supp design, verific 00458 feb &
done sooner? erection, would it be
,,_---,.m-,
w,,--
- -w+. --.e-w-c
,+,.,---__y_
---e-.~.,y--'
"-pw_9y
-m.w
.,pww
~ _ - -
=
\\
2100 Gold - all 4 77
- 1s2 maybe, but who looks?
can find plenty of people to sell warm bodies, but
{4/j won't talk g
resp.
F Poston' - stoos, salt or sawks 7 Pieper
\\
(needs help)
Rice Gold.
Beeth felt
/ %
sawks looks to Pisper Pa 8cre powerful Grote Salt Grote doesn't like the amt of than F.
I I
sine he has to spend now Guests Rawks i
i (3:48 Indl l
Get chart Gold - made 1.3 vs. planned 1.45 Feb4 tomorrow Jan & Feb.
OK f
Exh 4 3/20 4
i (3:54 Endl (3:541 Posson Q re bow much detail about Em 3 tomorrow Barker - Cable tray prob. expansion
- Paintings & Coatings severe Basile Q re impact of rework -
Gold 15% of all resources to vendor
- 4 Barker - could be Son +
Briskia -
Rework conduit s/c app k Opraa - Basile wants quantification like ILP did several weeks ago Gold - Gibson working on splitting out constr.
7 re engr Poston - What about Referecast plan -
Briskin a we've been meeting w/3R every other Fri
- present time 3 wks behind
- Guerts made commit to make up by end of no (dibson didn't know about)
{
- 34R furn list of documents by June 1 24-2 8*
I 2/ 7
- by June 1 will have dates s s p,*
- no risk analysis or backup.
Cyres Q re sched for risk analysis (July 20) don't want nos w/o backup l
Briskin re gyrations (7) i
- result of June 1 3.7
- if Sept i fewer gyrations 4f g I mentioned 1 332 this as To.
- "P****A*"
E/
in public domain now (4:18 End)
Eardt reviewed request for assumptions in study Briskip - will get soon w/o dates & nos.
I4:181 Poston re OL sched -
NM (4:30 End)
Disc. re sched.
14:30)
Eardt to W Exh. N 500,000 0
- avail, of
- uran 531 (Mkt. 25) i
.sther Yve 00459 i
dis:.
m
~
i
- l l
2109 i
Eave to notify fin.y April 3 Wb 4
C. has been briefed Get write-up from Ea.edt SA studying Will have to do by phone Prob take deliv. 12/31/81
= re Gulf /W
= stiT1 pursuing
- consult
( Dames & Moore I
f l Dave Robertson C M an C need to get on board
& N. Max.
i w/o delay Proja.
(agree w/ Gulf must be exec
& W released l
by July 15) i G.O. - what happens if no agree?
3rgy S.A. wants auth to retain eenswh CK Discuss re Jan & Feb sins defer gg Revise 3 & 4 re " excess *,
will
- f"*1 do
( 4 : 50,, End!
Adjourn e
I j
.l d
i 1
00460 I
i
- -- -