Text

Forwards Revised Schedule for Emergency Planning Phase of Hearing.Schedule Takes Into Account Prefiled Testimony Filed by Parties,But Not Intervenors Exhaustive Request for Subpoenas
	ML20084D004
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/25/1984
From:	Mcgarry J; BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Hooper F, Lazo R, Margulies M; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	NUDOCS 8405010118
	Download: ML20084D004 (22)
	v • d • e

D CCLMETED LAW OrricES Or USNo.C BISHOP. LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STR E E?, N. W.

IN NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D. C. 2 0 0 36 iS ER OOM (202) 857-9800 26 anOAOway NEW YORM NEW YORM 10004

' FFICE Quei.a4G400 TELEX 440574 INTLAW UI 000'.iEltr6reMissf.7 BRANCH April 25, 1984 J

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Frank F.

Hooper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Michigan Washington, DC 20555 School of Natural Resources Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Dr. Robert M.

Lazo Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Duke Power Company, et al.,

(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units Tand 2)

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414.

Gentlemen:

In a conference call of April 2, 1984, Applicants advanced a hearing schedule.

Tr. 45-48, 4/2/84.

Applicants have given this matter further consideration, taking into account the pre-filed testimony submitted by the parties. If As a' result, a

revised schedule is attached.

Applicants wish to point out that the approach they suggest is not unique.

Rather, the Licensing Board which heard the safety and environmental issues.in this i

2 If This proposed, schedule does not take into account Inter-venors' exhaustive request for subpoenas.

However, Appli-cants maintain that no subpoenas should issue.

Applicants seek to voice their opposition in either a conference call prior to the May 1, 1984 hearing or at the hearing itself.

8405010118 840425

~4 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G

PDR h'

w.

.-e-

-,-,-,,..-,---r-v n

o BISHOP, LIBERMAN. COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS April 25, 1984 Page Two proceeding followed a similar course after several weeks of hearings had elapsed.

See, e.g., Tr. 6265-66, 11/8/83; Tr.

6543, 11/9/83; Tr. 8939-41, 8949-50, 12/1/83; Tr. 11,932-35, 1/30/84, copies of which are attached.

See also the in-camera transcripts, e.g.,

IC Tr. 756, 12/15/83; IC Tr. 1001-03, 12/16/83 Applicants maintain that the course suggested in the re-vised schedule is warranted, particularly in light of the fact that the commencement of the emergency planning phase of this case on May 1, 1984, will mark the 46th day of hearings.

In this regard Applicants draw the Board's attention to authorities cited by Applicants during the safety phase of this case.

See Tr. 1708-1711, a copy of which is attached.

These authorities, along with the authority set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.718, enable this Board to strictly manage this proceeding and to approve the schedule advanced by Applicants.

Very truly yours,

@ lWal th 3 so J. Michael McGar y, III Counsel for Duke Power Company enclosures cc:

Service list 1."

e b

l l

l i

l l

SCHEDULE 5/1 Introduction / opening remarks Applicants' Panel on EPC 1 and 7 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 9:30 - 10:45 Introduction Int State

- 15 min 10:45 - 11:00 Break Staff

- 30 min 11:00 - 11:30 Introduction Bd

- 30 min 11:30 -

1:30 Intervenors Int

- 15 min 1:30 -

2:30 Lunch 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2:30 -

2:45 State App 2:45 -

3:15 Staff 3:15 -

3:45 Board 3:45 -

4:00 Intervenors 4:00 -

4:15 Break 4:15 -

5:15 Applicants 5/2 Applicants' Panel on EPC 3 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 9:00 - 10:00- Intervenors Int State

- 15 min 10:00 - 10:15 State Staff

- 15 min 10:15 - 10:30 Break Bd

- 30 min 10:30 - 10:45 Staff Int

- 15 min 10:45 - 11:15 Board 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 11:15 - 11:30 Intervenors App 11:30 - 12:30 Applicants 12:30 -

1:30 Lunch Applicants' Panel on EPC 6 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:30 -

2:30 Intervenors Int State

- 15 min 2:30 -

2:45 State Staff

- 15 min 2:45 -

3:00 Staff Bd

- 30 min 3:00 -

3:15 Break Int

- 15 min 3:15 -

3:45 Board 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 3:45 -

4:00 Intervenors App 4:00 -

5:00 Applicants 5/3 Applicants' Panel on EPC 8 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 8:00 - 10:00 Intervenors Int State

- 15 min 10:00 - 10:15 State Staff

=^30 min 10:15 - 10:30 Break 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 10:30 - 11:00 Staff Bd Int

- 15 min 11:00 - 12:00 Board 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 12:00 - 12:15 Intervenors App 12:15 -

1:15 Applicants 1:15 -

2:15 Lunch

i Applicants' Panel on EPC 9 4

1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2:15 -

3:15 Intervenors Int 15 min 3:15 -

3:30 State State 15 min 3:30 -

3:45 Staff Staff 30 min 3:45 -

4:00 Break Bd 15 min 4:00 -

4:30 Board Int 30 min 4:30 -

4:45 Intervenors App 4:45 -

5:15 Applicants 5/4 Applicants' Panel on EPC 11 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 9:00 - 10:15 Intervenors Int 15 min 10:15 - 10:30 Break State 30 min 10:30 - 12:15 Intervenors Staff 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 12:15 -

1:15 Lunch Bd 15 min 1:15 -

1:30 State Int 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:30 -

2:00 Staff App 2:00 -

3:00 Board 3:00 -

3:15 Break 3:15 -

3:30 Intervenors i

3:30 -

4:30 Applicants 5/7 Applicants' Panel on EPC 14/15 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 10:00 - 11:30 Intervenors Int 15 min 11:30 - 11:45 Break State 30 min 11:45~-

1:15 Intervenors Staff 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:15 -

2:15 Lunch Bd 15 min 2:15 -

2:30 State Int 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2:30 -

3:00 Staff App 3:00 -

4:00 Board 4:00 -

4:15 Break 4:15 -

4:30 Intervenors 4:30 -

5:30 Applicants 5/8 Applicants' Panel on EPC 18 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 9:00 - 10:00 Intervenors Int 15 min 10:00 - 10:15 State State 15 min 10:15 - 10:30 Staff Staff 30 mln 10:30 - 10:45 Break Bd Int

- -15 min 10:45 - 11:15 Board 30 min 11:15 - 11:30 Intervenors App 11:30 - 12:00 Applicants 12:00 -

1:00 Lunch e

I, 1!

Intervenors' Panel on EPC 1 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:00 -

2:00 Applicants App 15 min 2:00 -

2:15 State State 15 min 2:15 -

2:30 Staff Staff 30 min 2:30 -

3:00 Board Bd 15 min 3:00 -

3:15 Break App 30 min 3:15 -

3:30 Applicants Int 3:30 -

4:00 Intervenors 5/9 Intervenors' Panel on EPC llSI 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 9:00 - 11:00 Applicanta App 15 min 11:00 - 11:15 Break State 30 min 11:15 - 11:30 State Staff 30 min 11:30 - 12:00 Staff Bd 15 min 12:00 - 12:30 Board App 30, min 12:30 - 12:45 Applicants Int 12:45 -

1:15 Intervenors 1:15 -

2:15 Lunch Staff Panel on EPC 14/15 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 2:15 -

4:15 Intervenor Int 15 min 4:15 -

4:30 Break State 30 min 4:30 -

4:45 State App 30 min 4:45 -

5:15 Applicants Bd 15 min 5:15 -

5:45 Board Int 30 min 5:45 -

6:00 Intervenors Staff 6:00 -

6:30 Staff l

1/

Applicants view Intervenors' Panel to consist of Ms. Andrews,

Ms. Pittard and Mr. Rutledge.

If the Panel approach is not

~

used by Intervenors, 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months should be allocated for j

Ms. Andrews,1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months for Ms. Pittard and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months for Mr. Rutledge.

I 2,/

Applicants view Intervenors' Panel to consist of Mr. Twerry, Mr. Riley and Mr.4.Sholly.

If the Panel approach is not used

~

by Intervenors, l hour should be allocated for Mr. Twerry, l

2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months for Mr. Riley and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months for Sholly.

i l

e

4 i

5/10 Staff Panel on EPC 11 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 9:00 - 10:30 Intervenors Int State -

15 min 10:30 - 10:45 Break 30 min 10:45 - 12:15 Intervenors App 30 min 12:15 -

1:15 Lunch Bd 15 min 1:15 -

1:30 State Int Staff -

1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:30 -

2:00 Applicant 2:00 -

2:30 Board 2:30 -

2:45 Intervenors 2:45 -

3:00 Break 3:00 -

4:00 Staff

'5/11 FEMA 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 9:00 - 10:30 Intervenors Int State -

15 min 10:30 - 10:45 Break 30 min 10:45 - 12:15 Intervenors App 30 min 12:15 -

1:15 Lunch Bd 15 min 1:15 -

1:30 State Int Staff -

1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 1:30 -

2:00 Applicants 2:00 -

2:30 Board 2:30 -

2:45 Intervenors 2:45 -

3:00 Break 3:00 -

4:00 Staff O

O

6265

' Tcko 4 4 11/8/83 Simons 1

JUDGE KELLEY:

We are back on the record.

2 We have a brief announcement.

We have given 3

further consideraticn to the question of time for completing 4

the various witnesses that are now coming before us, the 5

nine witnesses, and I won't repeat all the considerations 6

that go into this judgment.

I think we are all familiar 7

with them.

But here is what we have decided.

8 I will be a little bit more precise in a minute, 8

but we believe that the examination of Mr. Rockholt and 10 Cauthen should be completed today.

We are prepared to 11 allocate all day tomorrow if necessary to Mr. Ross.

12 To indicate our reasoning, here is the way we

?

13 broke it down.

We figure that Palnietto goes another hour 14 with Mr. Rockholt.

That will be upwards of two and a half 15 or close to three hours with him, allowing a half hour to 16 forty-five minutes for the remainder of the process.

17 We pick up after lunch with Mr. Cauthen about 1:30 or so 18 and we can run to 4: 30 with a couple of breaks and allow 18 two and half hours for Mr. Cauthen.

Another fourty-five 8

minutes would b ing us to the 5:15 to 5:30 range and we could 21-complete his examination.

Then tomorrow on a 9 to 5:30 type day with 23 approaching six hours, if necessary, of cross on Mr. Ross and an hour or so for the other questioning, we could then 25 complete those three witnesses.

We think that is a reasonable

i 6266 4-F allocation of time.

We would just add that the hours and g

2 times I just mentioned as just what goes into our reasoning 3

and coming up with this conclusion.

4 If Palmetto wishes to allocate dif ferently, they 5

are free to do so.

For example, if you want to go another 6

hour after lunch with Mr. Rockholt, you are free to do that.

7 but you would have to have an hour less either on her. Cauthen 8

or Mr. Ross.

That is up to you.

The same with the other 9

two.

You can shuffle your time as you wish the rest of today 10 and tomorrow on those three witnesses.

11 We will take a look at the remaining three and 12 have some announcement to make tomorrow about them.

13 MR. GUILD:

Mr. Chairman?

14 JUDGE KELLEY:

Yes.

15 MR. GUILD:

Those times don't seem unreasonable 16 to me to start out with.

The only thing I would ask that 17 you note is that we have now set at least two hours tonight 18 and probably more than two hours tonight in this in camera 19 session.

I face a very difficult problem of being present 23 and participating in that session and then spending the 21 rest of what is a very limited amount of time getting ready 22 to expeditiously complete Mr. Ross tomorrow.

g I would only ask that the Board give sone considera<

24 tion to the fact that we will be running what will be an 25 extraordinarily long day today when we add the night session.

V i

,q 6543 11/9/83 1

A No.

l 2

JUDGE KELLEY:

Time is up, Mr. Guild.

We will 3

take a 10-minute break, d

MR. GUILD:

Mr. Chairman, I ask the record 5

reflect I do have additional questions for the witness.

6 JUDGE KELLEY:

Well, you should have paced I

7 yourself better.

Cross-examination by Palmetto is 8

concluded.

A 10-minute break.

9 (Recess.)

10 JUDGE KELLEY:

Okay.

Back on the record.

Il We will now have a series of questioning by 12 different people starting with the NRC Staff.

13 Mr. Johnson?

l Id MR. JOHNSON:

Yes, sir.

15 BY MR. JOHNSON:

16 Q

I would like to direct you to Page 4 of your 17-prefiled terstimoS~ Line 11 yot say, After discussing

~~

18 the large amount of bad welds on Class C systems that this l'

individual who was fired had done, you say it makes me 20 wonder if there are other welds made that are unsafe.

We 21 inspectors could only check the outside.

Other than that 1

22 incident of..this particular welder, is there anything in l

1 23,

particular that you are basing your judgment on?

24 A

No.

I just wrote in there that I did wonder if

)

1 25 -

they have ways of finding bad welds.

You know, random I

I I

i a

e 8939 12/1/83.

Ljoyl P, E Q g E E E I, H g g 1

2 JUDGE KELLEY:

Ne have sone announcements and 3

rulings to make at this point.

I realize we are cuttino into 4

the previously scheduled time.

I think we will have some 5

flexibility today, but in any event, we will start the clock 6

running when we cet the first witness on the stand.

7 Three items:

One, a schedule to carry throuch 8

the case: second, some information on the subject of INPO, 9

composition of the panel, time allocation; and thirdly, a 10 ruling on last nicht's discussion of certain documents relat-11 ing to the Jackson.VcKensie matter.

12 First of all, we are going to aive you now a 13 schedule carryina throuch several days, which is broken out

- (\\

14 by day, sometimes half-days and subject matter.

It is not is further broken down by time allocation.

We will deal with 16 that -- except on one case, on Ib1PO, we do have time alloca-17 tions -- on the others we will deal with that as we ao alonc.

. 18 In offect, we have time allocations, but right now we just 19 have a schedule in terms of days and subject matter.

20 Beginning tomorrow, December 2, the Staf f 's case 21 would begin, as we previously indicated, and we are allocatina L"

22 a maximum of three days for the Staff, that is, the 2nd through

~

73 the 5th, and Tucsday the 6th.

We think it nicht take a little 24 less, but that is a maximun ficure.

- 25 Wendesday the 7th we will devote to the INPO canel,

.s

F 8940 i

just the one day.

On Thursday the 8th we would begin the ijoy2 2

technical issues, the three technical issues, and we have 3

allocated a day and one-half to each of the thre.: is sue s, as 4

follows:

all day Thursday on nurber 16 concerhino t!'e spent 5

fuel pools, and half of Friday.

Friday af ternoon we will 6

begin embrittlement, No. 44.

The followino Monday, the 12th, 7

would be on embrittlement.

e Tuesday the 13th would be on number 17, atmospheric conditions, and also half of Wednesday. Wednesday af ternoon 9

10 the 14 th would becin the in camera matters.

We expect it may 11 co beyond that.

We are not coina to schedule days for in 12 camera beyond that, for the self-sufficient reason that we 13 have not ruled on the motions to strike, and it is just 14 speculation.

Mr. McGar.ry had some on that tooic depending on 1

15 what happens.

16 It seems to us this carries you up to that point, 17 and we will, following our rulinos early next week on the is motions to strike, be in a much better position to nake an 19 allocation for that.

20 A change from what we talked about before.

We have 21 just got to moverall rebuttal to the very end, so that will 22 take, we expect, no more than one day on that, but in any

.'23 event, whatever day it comes on, it is the last day.

Fo that 24 is a breakout by day and subject matter, with a certain 25 open-endedness at t!:e end until we get a fix on the motions

,I

F 1

e 8941 i

to strike.

Now acain, we will take up the cuestion of time

, goy 3 2

allocation within those da9s at a later point.

3 Mr. Johnson, on that subject -- raybe you can tell us now or you can tell us later -- we want to :nake sorne 4

5 time allocations with recar d to the Staf f's case.

I know 6

you have described it, maybe w.re than once, but for our 7

convenience, can you tell us now or maybe later, have you e

cot one panel or two panels, who, when and so forth so we can 9

do that?

10 MR. JOHNSON:

I ca n t'.o it richt now, I believe.

11 JUDGE KELLEY:

Why don't.you ao ahead.

1 12 MR. JOHNSON: Ottr panel on Contention 6 consists

,,pE 2 13 of Mr. Van Doorn, Mr. Bryant and Mr. "axwell, and they are 4

14 available for cross-examination durino the period you 15 mentioned.

16 JUDGE KELLEY:

You would have the three in one 17 panel throuchout?

18

%1 R. JOHNSON:

Yes, sir.

19 WDGE KELLEY:

And it would be ap to the cross 20 examiner to pick his topic, is that right?

21 MR. JOHNSON:

Co r rec t.

JUDGE KELLEY:

One panel for however Iont-it takes.

22 23 MR. JOHNSON:

I think that is the nost efficient way 21 to do it.

25 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.

We will work on that. f?e will I

8949 e

1 That is the composition of the panel.

There pec 3-1 2

is the separate cuestion of hos the one day of questioning l

3 this panel is to be allocated, and as you can see, that question is af fected by the context in which this ma3 $Nr d

5 ariscs, and that context, as we know, is a motion to reopen 6

discovery that it is for the Board to resolve whether. good 7

cause for reopening exists.

8 By contrast, it is not an evidentiary presenta-9 tion by the parties.

The Board came away, having read the to INPO report with some doubts about whether good cause existed, !

11 and we want our doubts addressed, but with the assistance 12 of the parties, the Board intends to take a lead role in 13 questioning.

f Y.,

l Id With those considerations in mind, here is our 15 schedule for the day.

We would becin at 9:00 o' clock and 16 ask for an overview of the way in which the report was 17 compiled and what it represents in the minds of the aut aors J

18 and things of that nature.

Seemingly, the nost appropriate people are Mr. Evans and Mr. White.

l l'

l 20 At 9:30, the Board would begin the questioninc 21 process.

We expect that to take from 9:30 to 11:15, with 22 a break sandwiched in between.

I 23 Then following the Board's cuestions, we havo 24 divided Up equal amounts of time among the Applicants, 23 Palmetto'and the Staff in that sequence, the same sequence h'

8950 en 4

y 1

we have had here.

We have the Applicants from 11:15 to

,qc 3-2 y

2 12:30.

We have an hour break for lunch.

We have Palmetto 3

from 1:30 to 2:45 with a fifteen-minute break, the Staf f 4

from 3:00 o' clock to 4:15, the Sta te of South Carolina f rom 5

4:15 to 4:30, another fif teen-minute break, and the Board i

o from 4:45 to 5:30.

7 That is our schedule and our allocaticn1 for the 8

INPO day.

9 MR. GUILD:

Mr. Chairman, may I raise a question?

10 I understood f rom what Mr. McGarry said yesterday 11 or perhaps the day before, that they intend to offer, in 12 effect, prefiled testimony for their panel membours.

I am 13 just anticipating tomorrow. I appreciate the Boacrd's approach e:

14 that this is sort of a motions hearino.

15 JUDGE KELLEY:

It is kind of mini-bearing.

16 MR. GUILD:

An amolification of the cJecision on a

17 a motion.

I think that is not an inappropriate sway to 18 handle it, and it certainly appears to solve a good number of my problems about how to view this evidence and what 19 20 our burdens are.

21 But sort of looking at the alternative, if this R

22 evidence is to be seen as substantive evidence --

23 MR. MC GARRY:

We don't have any prefiled 24 testimony.

I may have misspoken, or you may have 25 misunderstood me.

11,'332 1/30/84 1-8 g

the same format that we followed on the In Camera hearings 1

bef re Christmas.

2 We do in this instance have two panels to be 3

heard from today instead of one.

Ne were hearing then f rom 4

ne applicant panel and now the staf f has a panel on these 5

subjects.

So at least the two today.

6 There will be two panels on each of the two 7

subjects today.

Tomorrow there will just be the staf f 8

panel on the three subjects as we understand it.

But it 9

is our intention to call the applicant's panel first and to 11 through the questioning process, call the staf f's panel second and go through the questioning process and then call 12 13 the witness, as we did last time, the primary purpose being for the witness to do, well, two things, to state his 14 15 evaluation, having heard the presentation and having 16 heard the submission, what the witness thinks, and whether 17 Mr. Nunn being the witness today, whether your concerns have 13 been answered or whether they haven't been answered and 19 Why-Then there would also be an opportunity for 20 2:

21 counsel apd the Board to ask Mr. Nunn follow-up questions

'21 on his earlier statement if they wish to do that.

23 The time and sequence that we propose to ar

..ow lookinq just at t he 24 follow 18 as follows.

de 25 first order of business, namely, iaminations, and was are o

11,933 i

skina at the times for the panels and the sequence of 9stioning and the times for each party or the Board to h quastions.

Our sort of overall estimate is that laminationc I

uld probably take a bit longer than foreman override.

It I

e the issue that has drawn more ettention and concern from i

ie Board.

I I

We propose to cut out for the laminations nstion from, and here we are at 10 o' clock, till probably tound 3 with a lunch break in there.

That means allocating

.)ur hours on the point which in turn means breaking down l

Ome for the two panels and then havino the conclud'ing time 9r the witness, Mr. Nunn.

I don't have on here richt now the for Mr. Nunn's l

ppearance, but we did do a breakdown of the panels and would Itke to do that and then we will get to the time

)

llocation for,the witnesses appearance finally.

P It would run like this.

I believe this is

~

This Mr. Nunn j

ssentially the same sequence we used before.

s coming as a Soard witness.

The Board would be first.

~~

I.will read the,acquence.and then go back to he times.

The Board would be first, followe'd by the staff, r

i followed by Pa1metto, followed by the State of South Carolina t

1 followed by the applicants and' completed by the Board, and I

"I pw: timers are as follows.

j i

i i

8 r

k

1 pp -

11,934 I

The Board's lead off time is 15 minutes, the j.10 2

r.taff's time is 20 minutes, Palmetto and CESG -- and, Mr.

l Riley, are you participating in today's sequence?

3 MR. RILEY:

If possible, yes.

4 I

S JUDGE KELLEY:

Well, this will be combined time o

for Palmetto and CESC of 30 minutes, the State five minutes, 7

the applicants 15 minutes, and the Board completing with to have more questions on the end than on 8

20.

We expect 9

the front.

10 That allocates about 105 minutes and if we 11 multiply that by two with two panels, you come up with three 17 hours1.967593e-4 days 0.00472 hours 2.810847e-5 weeks 6.4685e-6 months and a half for that process.

That does not include 13 Mr. Nunn's appearance nor does it include cof fee breaks.

l I

14 i

so we see that as pretty well taking care of l the day and using such time as we have available.

15 i

Now those are our preliminary matters and we 16 would be prepared to have Mr. McGarry call the company's I

17 18 panel if there are not other procedural things to discuss.

Mr. Guild.

10 l

XI MR.eGUILD:

A couple of things, Judge.

If we The l

can just s' peak to this scheduling point a moment.

L 22 vay I calculate it it boils down to a Palmetto cross of D

four minutes per Duke Power witness on the question of 24 11minations.

M Judge, you know, you have heard us on this point

i

, ^%^

y s

s 11,935 1-11 1

be fore, and that is just totally.nadequate to be able' to

p s

2 do the job at hand.

I

],\\

3 Be thdt as it may, if the Board would" entertain 4

some flexibility between th'e laminations and the foreman

~

q 5

override issue, we would certainly be of the view that the ! D

,o

% i 6

best 5 I of all possible worlds would br, c.7 stake virtdaBly all 7

of the foreman override. time and put it jnto the laminatioWs 8

issue.

~, ;,

.\\.

N 3

9 g

t

2x I say that reserving our objectCon ttS the time c%

,\\

o 10 allocation principle at the outset.

What we would like to 11 do I guess it this.

We would like to try gro see if we could_

l 2

12 i shift some of that time back to laminations to try to get.

9 4

l

.t

'h 13 us a little more flexibility if that would be open to the h

I f

Board.

14 2

Y q'

15 :

l-JUDGE KE!., LEY: ( "Well, the record will show we 16 have been saying from day one of this edSe Ithat if y6,u (Jant

. ' ' ',N S3;

=

to shif t your time around generally speakinc yoo can ;do' it.

17 s

..s t,y

- s 18

.s

)

If you want to shift some "cime;%.:aeay f rom.' foreman ' overz idu at

3. 4

,.s 19

,g toward laminations, yoE eIci do it.

{ 3, h t

s se 20 Iadon't know if you want to[siy right now if 21

~

you want"to add 10 or 15lor whatever 'oy 'i you want to go 5-s g

Ns

-22 ahead with your 30 and se#how yos estand.

23 I micht be better r thtnk to go ahead and s

.,. s 24 underway with the undersbandibh that you can do an add-i get s

25 on, and we will need to\\ tie i@tsdo,wn to titre frames.

f

\\

.j e'

(

Y h,1 3

- u

V 1708 10/4/83 t

i ou hird group of witnesses are the Hoopingarner/McAfee witnesus 2'a nd they are a panel of three.

And I clearly thinic that those N

3 three in'dividuals can speak, as a panel, to the Hoopengarner/

4 McAfee concerns.

Their testimony is one piece of t'estimony x

s 5

ML20084D004

Text

Navigation menu

Search