ML20126K521

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:58, 11 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Transcript of 900620 Investigative Interview of Gw Alexander (Closed) in Cincinnati,Oh. Pp 1 - 20.W/related Documentation
ML20126K521
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/20/1990
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20126K503 List:
References
FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070160
Download: ML20126K521 (22)
v • d • e


Text

- .- .. ,_

ed .

7R 3 \A _

. OFFICIALTRANSCRWT OF PROCEEDINGS a:-

geng; Nuclear Regulatory Commission l i

Investigative Interview of

Title:

ceorge w. Alexander, Jr. (ctosro)

Docket No.

p 1  !

4 14 CAT 10N.

Cincinnati, Ohio-dam Wednesday, June 20, 1990 Pacts 1 - 20 b

t EXHIBIT h --

ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE10F M PAGE(S) .

p 1612 K St. NV. Suite 300

' 3389'Oj1 wahingtcc, D C 20006 .

a/

9301070160-920707- ' i *) *, V^y (202) 293-3950 -

PDR
F01h RESN1CK92-A-1 pop

[j il{-

., _ , f. .

jg '

\ .

1

' s- 1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

5 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 In the Matter of: t 8 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW t 9 George W. Alexander, Jr. i 10  :

(CLOSED) 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 13 2021 Auburn Avenue 14 Cincinnati, Ohio 15 Wednesday, June 20, 1990 16 17- The above-entitled matter commenced at 2:05 p.m.

18 when were present:

19 RICHARD C. PAUL 20 office of Investigations 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 23 DAVID P. KAMP, ESQ.

24 on behalf of Mr. Alexander 25

~ ~

~^

L ShMNSN"

~ ~ ~ ~

t i

2

,- 1 PR0CEED1NGF sa 2 KR. PAUL For the record, this is an interview of 3 George W. Alexander, Jr. , the spelling of the last name is 4 A-1-e-x-a-n-d-e-r, who is currently employed by the 5 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

6 The location of this interview is Cincinnati, 7 Ohio. Present at this interview in addition to Mr.

8 Alexander are Richard C. Paul, P-a-u-1, Office of 9 Investigations, Nuclear Regulatory commission, and also 10 David Kamp, attorney for Mr. Alexander.

11 As agreed, this interview is being tape recorded 12 by covrt report Gary L. Baldwin. The subject matter of this 13 interview concerns the University of Cincinnati Hospital.

14 Mr. Alexander, please stand and raise your right 15 hand.

16 Whereupon, 17 GEORGE W. ALEXANDER, JR.

10 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 19 was examined and testified as follows:

20 Mr. Alexander, for tho' record would you please 21 give me your current position at the University of 22- Cincinnati?

THE WITNESS: I have a faculty appointment. I am 23 12 4 an associate professor of microradiology and I'm

~

25 - administrative director of nuclear medicine services.

3 MR. PAUL And how long have you been in that

' 1

\' 2 position?

THE WITNESS: 24 years now.

3 MR. PAULt What is your background in radioactive 4

5 materials handling?

THE WITNESSI Huclear medical technology since 6

7 1957.

MR. PAULt And do you have an educational 8

9 background?

THE WITNESS: A BS degree in biology at the 10 11 University of Cincinnati. We opened the first nuclear 12 medicine technology treatment conter in the country.

2 13 MR. PAULt In 1988 did you have -- Were you 14 associated with the radiation safety office in some 15 capacity?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes. I was administrative director 17 of the radiation safety office.

MR. PAULt And at that time my understanding was 18 19 that Mr. Ken Fritz was the radiation officer, is that 20 correct?

THE WITNESSt Correct.

21 MR. PAUL Were you Hr. Fritz' supervisor or did 22 23 you work for him?

THE WITNESS: No. I would work for him, quite 24 25 literally.

. -9 e

e

,k MR. PAULt He was your online supervisor?

g 1

\C' 2 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

3 MR. PAULt And what were your duties within the 4 radiation safety office?

5 THE WITNESS: You can say as administrative-6 director I was -- perhaps of fice manager might be the best 7 vay to term that, budget responsibilities, keeping the 8 official minutes of the radiation safety committee, 9 paperwork, fiscal matters, things like that. ,

10 MR. PAULt At that time, who did Mr. Frits report 11 to? Who was his --

12 THE WITNESS: He would report to the chairman-of .

s. 13 the radiation safety committee and the president of the ,

i 14 university and from there straight to.NRC. .

15 MR. PAULt And that period 1988, who was the 16 chairman of the radiation safety committee?

17 THE WITNESS -I believe - Dr. Jerome F. . Wiot.

18 MR. PAULt Is he still currently the chairman? >

19 THE WITNESS: No, sir, he's not. -

. 20- MR. PAUL Who is?

21 THE WITNESS - Judy-Harmony.until last Friday, 22 She's a Ph.D. ontologist, I .believe. Dr. Jim, Lazar is now I 23- believe the chairman.- t 24 MR. PAUL So if I understand you correctly, _- part >

~.

25 of your duties vers to take the minutes of the radiation ll

-n,re,- r, v w ..an,,,,.r,,,,,-~,-, ,wrw-, ,-,,,,,-,,,.-,ra,,,,ew,-,-, ,~,----w-n,--,sv -,>, ,,-n.,,,----, .. w e m a w -+ .. .s u ne, , v ,-vw-,w>,,,-.Ya

o ,

5 safety committee.

[ 1

\.- THE WITNESS: We had a secretary for that purpose 2

3 but I was the keeper of the minutes. I kind of orchestrated 4 the paperwork, if you wish.

5 MR. PAULt Did you attend the meetings on a 6 regular basis?

7 THE WITNESS Yes.

8 MR. PAULt How often did they hold the meetings?

9 THE WITNESS: Quarterly. Sometimes we had more 10 frequently neetings than just quarterly but for the most 11 part they were quarterly.

12 MR. PAULt In the timeframe of the summer of 1988,

/

13 do you recall how many health physics technicians were 14 employed in the radiation safety unit?

15 THE WITNESS: As best I can remember, I would say 16 five, four to five.

17 MR. PAULt And did you have any responsibility as

18. to direction of these health physics technicians?

19 THE WITNESSt No, sir.

20 MR. PAULt -How actually handled the day-to-day 21 supervision of these employees?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Fritz was-the radiation safety-22 23 officer and Mr. Jason, who is the deputy radiation safety 24 officer. We made a clear split between technical and A..

25- administrative aspects of the department.

m_

6 MR. PAUL: At this time I would like to show you a

(

1

    1. 2 memorandum dated June 30th 1988.on the University of 3 Cincinnati letterhead and it's to radiation. safety personnel t

4 at the University of Cincinnati and it's from George W.

5 Alexander, Jr., and Kenneth M. Fritz, . I'll make this 6 attachment one to the interview.

7 Could you look at this?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

9 MR. PAUL: Do you recall that memorandum?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir,.I do.

11 MR. PAULt Did you author-it?

THE WITNESS: It was more or less a group eff">rt.

12 13 There were other people involved, such as Ken Fritz, legal 14 counsel, et cetera. Specifically who at that particular 15 time I do not remember._ _I was certainly a part of--it.

16 MR. PAUL: So you did discuss this with the 17 university legal counsel?

18 THE WITNESS: Yes.

19 - MR.. PAUL: And do you recall.who was_the legal 20 counsel?

It would have been Bill Lodge. We 21 THE WITNESSt 22 had a prior memo in_1986_and there was certain' notification 23 and verification through him. =He's_in the personnel-

/~ 24 department at-the university.-

( 25 . MR.= PAUL: Byl" prior' memo," what are you referring

, --, ..m .--.,,.-wm.,.'.e.e w-~e,w-,.h..,,.-,.--r.-r.E,. ,,_.,rme- m , , , ...em s. .w,. .....,w.., ,,e s-..+y-s,,. - - . +.-

g - ~ c=mc

'e 7

- 1 to -- on the same subject?

Tile WITNESS: Yes, sir.

2 MR. PAUht Was this a memorandum superseding the 3

4 earlier memorandum?

5 Tile WITNESS: That's correct.

6 MR. PAULt And what was the reason that this meno 7 was authorized at this time?

8 Ti!E WITNESS: The reason was that we wished to 9 koop radiation safety matters in-house in order to be able 10 to attempt more -- how shall I state it -- take care of 11 problem areas.

12 We had a series of incidents where some of the

( 13 technicians hsd gone to local news media and a letter was 14 sent to the college of medicine. A letter was sent to the 15 president of the university without the RSO's or the deputy 16 RSO's knowledge.

17 With that in mind, it was to keep them from going 18 to these individuals and then having- to answer af ter tha 19 fact.

MR. PAUL: So this memoranda was in response to 20 21 this series of events?

22 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say it-was.in response..

23 Instead, I would say it was a memo written to express the

  • 24 chain of command, if you wish, on how to report problems and

' Y..

25 particularly in-house. It had nothing to do with outside.

-_____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _

8 e' 1 MR. PAULt At that time were you familiar at all 2

with the NRC's policy as far as employees being able to 3 freely contact the NRC?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

4 5 MR. PAULt And I believe there's an NRC form 6 that's posted.

THE WITNESS: That is to employees.

7 8 MR. PAULt Was that posted there at that time?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. In fact, NRC visitations 9

was that 10 were looked upon -- I remember one specifically 11 all notices to employees were posted throughout the 12 university and medical system.

13 MR. PAUL Did you sea this po.'cy or this 14 procedure as set forth in your memorandum in any way 15 conflicting with NRC policy?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not. The intent was 16 17 never there and to my knowledge I never heard anyone say is anything about it until the allegations ccme up.

19 MR. PAULt Was Mr. Fritz a co-author of the 20 memorandum?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

21 MR. PAULt As far as your understanding, he agreed 22 23 with what's detailed in the memorandum?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

24 k s How was.the particular memorandum z

25 MR. PAULt

9 Was that at a nesting or ~~

~

1 presented to the employees?

J". THE WITNESS:

This would be at a meeting with 2

3 radiation health technicians with Mr. Fritz and myself.

MR. PAULt And was there a signature required on 4

5 the memo?

THE WITNESS: We requested the signature and it 6

7 also had along with it, I believe, a dress code, vacation 8

and sick leave policy so there were three items that were 9 addressed at this particular meeting.

10 We further asked if there were questions from the 11 technicians at that time and they said no.

12 MR. PAULt Subsequent to the issuance of the r memorandum, did you ever get any feedback from the 8

13 14 technicians themselves regarding this policy?

15 THE WITNESS: No, sir,_not until I heard about it 16 through the -11egations which took place -- I should say 17 things that were written to the radiation safety committee 18 in January of '89. That's the first I heard of this.

MR. PAULt Was this an official policy of the 19 20 university or --

THE WITNESS:

It encompasses the policy of the 21 22 university, yes, sir.

MT. , PAULt And you we.e in a position where you 23 24 had the ability to issue policy?

t THE WITNESS: When you say " issue policy" --

25

, m-- y y,- m - ,w w -

y

- i

,10 l 1 MR,. PAULt Or make policy.

f-'

C THE WITNESS: I would answer that question this t 2

3 way. I think that as far as radiation safety is concerned, 4

the radiation safsty committee is the only one that issue 5 policy, certainly not me.

i 6 MR. PAULt Was the radiation safety committee  ;

7 aware of the memorandum? i 8 THE WITNESS They were aware of this at the next >

9 nesting after this went out.

10 MR. PAULt Do you recall when that meeting was?  ;

THE WITNESS: I do not, no, sir.

11 12 MR. PAULt Do you recall if there .was a health 13 physics technician by the stame-of THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

14 15 MR. PAULt AndthebestIunderstand,lUflleft 16 employment of the University of cincinnati sometina earlier 17 than -- sometime before the issuance of-this memorandum. -

'Yes,-sir, l

18 THE WITNESS:

19 MR. PAULt Do you recall how much earlier?' IX) you-20 recallwhen%1 eft?

21 THE WITNESS I probably-can if you want me to 22 look it up.

23 MR. PAULt Sure, if.you don't mind.-

J 24 THE WITNESS I could;give_you,an approximate date-k 25' a,nyhow.

Ithinkthiswould-havebeenin'83or'84.-$1Hlwas-i

~ ~ ~ ~ ^

^Z E ~ ~__

- _ .1.

11 1 -- This is an official )inMayof'84soitwould have been after that.

Probably '84 or early '85.

2 MR. PAULt Didyouhaveanyparticipationin%

3 4 4 leaving?

THE WITNESS I' was in attendance concerning this.

5 MR. PAULt Do you recall Why% 1ef t?

6 7 THE WITHESS: I believe that left -- I don't 8

know what specific statements the university made relative 9 to leaving. I don't know. M 10 (% Was there any connection betvoen 11 MR. PAUL 1 12 t$$2 and this particular policy?

THE WITNESS:

I think that certainly the policy 13 14 which was written in '86 and this one were probably somewhat 15 initiated by his type of actions.

We consistently fought fires. I mean it's a heck 16 17 of a thing to wake up and find yourself o'1 television or in 18 the newspapers in the morning when you knew nothing about 19 it.

MR. PAUL: Not having seen the earlier memorandum, 20 21 were you the author of that earlier memorandum, also?

22 THE WITNESS: A group effort again but that 23 memorandum, i. hat particular one, I am absolutely positive 24 Bill Lodge did approve.

25 MR. PA'JLt What was the difference -- What was the

<+ m4%

, _ _ _ _ _ _ . a % - _ ._ , in 1 a= ,

i

, 12 ,

1 change --

" THE WITNESS: I've got it here.

2 3 MR. PAUL Actually they're pretty much the same.

THE WITNESSt Yes, sir.

4 5 HR. PAUL Was the June 30th '88 memorandum 6 reiteration of that policy?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, and the subsequent 8 notification process was a reiteration of both of them but 9 perhaps spelled out a little bit more clearly.

10 MR. PAULt could I get a copy of that after this 11 meeting?

12 THE WITNESS: Surely.

In regards to the earlier memorandum,

( 13 MR. PAULt 14 -vas there any concerns expressed by the health. physics 15 technicians regarding the earlier memo?

f THE WITNESS No, sir. There has never been any 16 17 concern expressed until January of '89 and yet consistently all during this period, beginning;with up until the 18 19 present, NRC has been notified many, many times of problems 20 by these techs so I think that kind of speaks for itself.

21 .)C1. PAULt Did you have any-participation in the NRC inspection in August of '887 First off, do'you recall 22 23 it?

24 THE WITNESS: - August of '8P. NRC has -- You have -

to.please understand that they have-been here constantly for 25,

__ ___._ .. _.- i._ . _ . _ . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ - _ _

, .. _.. . - . .~ ,

~

13 1 about three years now so to pinpoint a date -- Perhaps I 2 did. I really don't remember that. l 3 MR. PAULt Do you remember at all the -- Did you f 4 participate at all in the inventory of the sealed sources ,

5 that the university --

6 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

7 MR. PAULt Do you ever recall in this timeframe ,

8 that there was an issue of missing sources?

9 THE WITNESS: No, sir, not until July of '89-did I  !

10 ever hear anything about that.

11 MR. PAULt In reading the_ memorandum it's my -.

4 12 understanding then that the radiation safety committee f

13 actually set policy within'-- as to radiation safety.and'it 14 - was implemented by Mr. Fritz and yourself.

THE WITNESSt That's correct. By Mr...Fritz, not l 15 i 16 me.

17 MR. PAULt. So just for the chronology, I believe 18 it was early '89 or late '88 that the health physics t

19 technicians came forward with numerous concerns.

4 20 THE WITNESS ' Y e s ,_ s i r' .

21 . )G1. . PAULt And was it at that time that they went 22 before^the radiation' safety committee?

23 THE.WITNFSS: _I believe that wasLin January of- ,

24 1989,'that's. correct, and the allegations that were made -- +

25 We had a special radiation safety committee, a subcommittee

'.4 vier y y gpp+ya.-g ry9--y- -

.y w g- q-rp gy ,,y . , sa g -,++g 9.-- y,,y pg ,+yrv. g ywW y g--y- -piv. r. pwwwamii.m-y yy e. gmywg-yv, -

---ygsvgie-vrw-y c- ,*

, ., ~m .

14

1 was formed of which I was a part of that subcommittee and we 2 addressed all of those concerns and this was one of the 3 concerns.

4 MR. PAULt The memo?

5 THE WITNESS: Right.

6 MR. PAULt Specifically as to the memo and the 7 policy it sets forth, how was this handled by the radiation 8 cafety committee? Did they look into the specific issue as 9 to this allegation?

10 THE WITNESS: Not really look into it because I 11 believe that everyone felt across the board that it in no 12 vay involved NRC.

13 1 mean it's -- As I told Mr. Kamp, this was so 14 cross-grained to me not to be able to call NRC about 15 something that you don't even consider it. I never have. I 16 personally view it as a regulatory agency and people who can 17 help you, not deter you.

18 MR. PAULt It's my understanding they brought --

19 by "they" I mean the health physics technicians brought it 20 to the committee as a concern, is that right?

21 THE WITNESS That's correct.

22 MR. PAULt Was there any follovup taken by the 23 committee to address this concern?

/ 24 THE WITNESSt Yes, sir, and that was in written 25 form.

~ ~ _

-'T

15

~ MR. PAUL: I believe it was authored by Dr. Wlot.

1 i Dr. Wlot, yes, sir.

'# 2 THE WITNESS:

3 MR. PAUL At that time as a result of the radiation safety committee taking action as to this issue,

~

4 5 was it your understanding that the health physics 6 technicians were satisfied with the resolution of this 7 problem?

8 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. I still never heard 9 them say they couldn't call NRC directly.

10 MR. PAUL Regarding the subsequent issues that 11 came up in August of '89 regarding -- First, were you aware 12 of the issue that came up regarding the withholding of 13 inventory cards from the NRC?

14 THE WITNESS: No, sir, not until July of '89.

15 MR. PAUL: And how did you become aware of it?

16 THE WITNESS: I was witness to a conversation 17 between the RSO and the deputy RSo, like I'm sitting over 18 there in that chair listening to the conversation, and 19 something was said I believe that Mr. Estes had filed a 20 letter with the Department of Labor and also NRC relative 21 to, I believe, some missing inventory cards, et cetera.

22 I wrote this down specifically because I thought that perhaps someone may ask the question. Again I was not 23 24 involved in this but I did hear it.

(,

25 Ken Fritz asked Prince Jason what Ray Estes was

- - . . ~ .,

i \

,16 talking about in his letter and he said he did not know.

- 1 2

Ken asked Jason is there enything missing and 3 Jason taid no, there is nothing missing. I had no 4 invo ? ve n s n'-. I really didn't even know what they were 5 talking aboat.

6 KR. PAUL: When did you make the note?

7 THE WITNESS: At the time because the sequence of 8 $,hings going down, I would lose my brains if --

MR. PAUL: Was it common for you to make notes of 9

10 conversations?

11 THE WITNESS: I write everything down as a general 12 rule.

13 MR, PAUL: Did this conversation take place after 14 the issue came out or was this --

15 THE WITNESS: This was after. I believe he filed 16 that letter in June.

17 MR. PAUL: Fritt did or --

18 THE WITNESS: No, this would have been Ray Estes.

19 MR. PAUL: Filed his Department of Labor 20 complaint?

21 THE WITNESSi That's correct and that was in June, 22 I believe.

23 MR. PAUL: And that's the first that the issue 24 regarding missing sources came up that yo.u were aware of?

You always 25 THE WITNESS: That I ever beard about.

W~

L_w - g w. ~~ -

's -

17 hear something about a microcurie source or'something, where J'~ 1 4 2 is it and you'll find it and that sort of thing but this was 3 a little bit different.

4 KR. PAULt Did you have any further participation 5 in the evens as far as notification of Dr. Wiot and the 6 follovup that was done on it?

THE WITHESS:

I had nothing to do with it, period.

7 8 KR. PAULt We'll go off the record.

9 (Discussion off the record.)

10 MR. PAUL: Back on the record.

11 As a result of this memorandum or policy that are 12 detailed f rom '86 on, was any disciplinary action ever taken r

Do you C 13 against an employee as a result of this policy?

14 recall?

THE WITNESS:

I think Ray Estes had I think a 15 16 Department of Labor investigation and no discriminatory was 17 action or punitive damage, however you want to state it, 18 ever taken against him.

19 MR. PAULt Did you participate at all in any 20 discussions that resulted in Mr. Fritz and Mr. Jason being 21 suspended?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. I was called to Dr. Wiot's 22 23 office at the same time they were as a witness to that 24 suspension. '

And what did Dr. Wiot give as the 25 MR. PAULt

" *M "* 4

  • _

1.

18 1 reason for their suspension?

L5 2 THE WITNESS: He simply stated they were going to 3 be put on administrative leave.

4 MR. PAULt He didn't give a reason?

THE WITNESS Let me see what.I have here. Each 5

6 to be placed on administrative leave with pay pending ,

7 outcome of a current investigation relating to 8 irregularities of the university radiation safety program.

9 MR. PAULt Dr. Wiot didn't elaborate?

10 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

11 MR. PAULt Did he just read the letter to them?

THE WITNESS: Ho. This was done for my records on 12 13 that, after the fact.

14 MR. PAULt Dut at the time he --

15 THE WITNESS He did relate to them that there was 16 something about some missing records and I think they asked 17 -- let me think.

18 I think Ken wanted to know from Jason what was the 19 problem and this went back and forth a couple of times and 20 then there was something said about missing records and that 21 was kind of it.

22 MR. PAULt As to this issue of the missing records 23 and missing sources, is my understanding correct that you

/' 24 have no firsthand knowledge of this?

%s 25 THE WITNESS: No knowledge whatsoever.

1 -

., , , N 'np. r-ema 19

" 1 HR. PAUL: One other thing. There was -- It was

2 my understanding that Dr. Silberstein chaired a subcommitteo 3 to look into the --

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that was the subcommittee I was 5 referring to.

6 MR. PAUL: Did Dr. Silberstein discuss with you 7 this particular memo that we made attachment one?

Yes, sir. At that point ~~ that 8 THE WITNESS:

9 meeting was I believe held in February of 1989 and what I 10 had been instructed to do af ter that meeting was to revise 11 the memo but to make sure that we had legal counsel on it as 12 well, which had always been our way of proceeding.

13 I sont a copy of that memo to Bill Lodge and 14 apparently in the university system -- you went to school 15 there, you'll understand that it got lost.

16 It got down to about May and I still had not heard 17 anything and at that point in time was when we took the bull 18 by the horns and went ahead and directed the new one and 19 that submitted in July with legal counsel interpretation.

20 KR. PAUL: This new policy, the one that was 21 detailed in '89, is the current policy?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

22 23 MR. PAUL: We'll go off the record.

24 (Discussion off the record.)

[

25 MR. PAUL: Back on the record.

20

'" 1 Mr. Alexander, have I or any other NRC e representative here threatened you in any manner or offered 2

3 you any reward in return for this statement?

4 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

5 MR. PAUL Have you given the statement freely and 6 voluntarily?

THE WITNESSt Yes, sir.

7 8 MR. PAUL Is there anything further you would 9 care to add for the record on the matter?

THE WITNESS: I would only say that if that-10 11 notification process memo was improperly worded, then I am 12 truly sorry, but the intent was never to restrict f

' 13 information being provided to NRC.

14 MR PAUL: The interview is concluded.

15 (Whereupon the matter concluded at 2:37 p.m.)

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 1

\

. .. -. .- - _.~ . ... . . . . - - - . -.- -- ..- .- - - . - . - . . . . - . . - - - . .

i AJ l

< . 4  %

+ ..

f*

REPORTER'S CgRTIFICATE the attached proceed-This is to certify that ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission  :

s in the matter-oft I""***A*"

i NAME OF PROCEEDING:

DOCKET NUMBER Cincinnati, Ohio PLACE OF PROCEEDING:

were held as herein apperts,.and that this is thereof-for the file iof the original transcriptthe United States Nuclear Regulato taken by me and thereafter reduced by me or under the direction of the court;_ is a truereport-ing company, and that-the transcriptforegoing proceedings.

and accurate record of the lY QCary L. Baldwin Official-Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

h 3

T y 9- --

9 -- e- -.we pr wa -.mrs.yo4__(g y _a g g,,..w,9 ,: .e,i,9 s. p.,. 79_ ,y, , , y .,y ,,,tyg g.-gu- -.g34 yHag p g.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126K521&oldid=2905957"