ML20137S334

Transcript of 851204 Telcon in Washington,Dc.Pp 10,208-10,227

ML20137S334
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/04/1985
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#485-434 OL, NUDOCS 8512060217
Download: ML20137S334 (22)

Text

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UN11ED STATES O 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-400 OL CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

OYG WA' _

O LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 10208 - 10227 DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1985 g0/

l OhI ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

icial Reporters

' 444 N} orth CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 0512060217 851204 (202)347-3700 PDR A DOCK 05000400 I PDR NATIONWIDE COVERACE

CR25306.0 BRT/ajg 10208 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

__________________,_x In the Matter of:  :

5  :

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and  : Docket No. 50-400 OL 6 NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL  :

POWER AGENCY  :

7 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)  :

8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'

9 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

Suite 402 10 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D. C.

11 Wednesday, December 4, 1985 12 The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter

[~'; 13 convened at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to notice.

14 BEFORE:

15 l

i 16 JAMES L. KELLEY, ESQ., Chairman j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

17 Washington, D. C. 2055L 18 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D. C. 20555 .

O GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 22 23 24 W-F Reporters, Inc.

-- Continued --

25

10209 I APPEARANCES:

('M 2

. 's_) On behalf of the Applicant:

3 THOMAS A. BAXTER, ESQ.

LISA RIDGWAY, ESQ.

4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

5 Washington, D. C.

6 DALE HOLLAR, ESQ.

Associate General Counsel 7 Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 8

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 9 On behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency:

10 JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.

11 Assistant General Counsel 12 and STEPHEN ROCHLIS, ESQ.

() 13 Regional Counsel for Region IV 14 On behalf of the State of North Carolina:

15 .

g N h ca lin kttorney l General's Office l 9

17 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission Staff:

19 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ.

JANICE E. MOORE, ESQ.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 22 23 24 wF nano,ie,,,Inc.

25

7. _ _ .- - ._

l 25306.0 10210 i BRT 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning. This is Judge 3 Kelley. I'm sitting here with Judge Carpenter and Judge 4 Bright, and we have just called the roll. Maybe we could 5 go through the roll once again, tace more. I'll read it 6 off. First, Mr. Eddleman, I talked with him this morning 7 and he couldn't make this time because of a teaching 8 commitment, but I explained to him that the purpose of this 9 was merely to tell the parties certain board determinations, 10 that we are not going to entertain argument and elaborate 11 discussion this morning. So if he missed the call and he 7-12 got the transcript, it seemed to me and it seemed to him 13 that would be okay. Moreover, I'm going to call him 14 tomorrow morning and tell him the substance of what we said 15 and also mail him the transcript. So, on that 16 understanding he agreed that we could proceed, since it was 17 inconvenient to try to shift it around to another time and 18 we have Janice Moore for the Staff. Is Mr. Barth with us?

19 MS. MOORE: Yes, he is, your Honor.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: And Jo Anne Sanford for the North 21 Carolina Attorney General's office; Applicants, Mr. Rochlis, 22 Stephen Rochlis for FEMA, and Mr. Dale Hollar for the 23 Applicant. Is that everybody?

24 MS. LONG: Carol Long with the North Carolina

[^' , 25 Attorney General's office is also on.

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

I 25306.0 10211 L BRT 1 MS. RIDGEWAY: And Ms. Ridgeway is here with l

2 Mr. Baxter.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

s 4 Our purpose this morning, primarily, is to give 5 you a ruling, a bottom line ruling as we have characterized 6 it f rom time to time, on the pending motions from 7 Mr. Eddleman and from the State to subpoena Dr. Bassiouni.

8 We thought that you would all appreciate getting the board's 9 ruling at an early time, so what we intend to do this 10 morning is simply tell you what it is and we'll issue a 11 memorandum in the fairly near future, spelling out our 12 reasons for the conclusions we are reaching here today. We 13 are speaking to the following papers:

14 There is a motion from Mr. Eddleman dated 15 November 12, '85, to subpoena Dr. Bassiouni and others, as i

16 witnesses on Eddleman. There are responses in opposition 17 to that pleading from the Applicants and from the Staff.

18 We have from the State of North Carolina a petition to 19 intervene as an interested state, coupled with a motion 20 which would also request a subpoena for Dr. Bassiouni.

21 We have, in addition, at the board's request, we 22 asked the Staff to attempt to procure copies of certain 23 documents for us, for the parties, from Dr. Bassiouni, and 24 Ms. Moore attempted to do that and she wrote us a letter, 25 enclosing a cover letter from Dr. Bassiouni dated November

(])

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lk33 M 646

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

i 4

i 25306.0 10212 1 11, a document entitled -- and this is-the same thing that 2 was read into the record at the hearing -- the document 3 itself, though, is entitled, "EI review of prefiled 4 testimony, Eddleman extension, 6733, Shearon Harris nuclear l 5 power plant hearing," that is a seven-page double-spaced 6 document from Dr. Bassiouni and his colleagues.

j. 7 In addition, we have a study, also known as an r 8 Abschluesbericht, apparently produced at the University of

! 9 Bonn sometime in '62, and this is referred to by 10 Dr. Bassiouni in his review and it apparently has to do .

L l 11 with a study of the effects of sirens on arousing people.

i. 12 We are unable to serve you on that because our copy is in 13 German.

14 Mrs. Moore, again very kindly, undertook to get ,

4 15 that study translated and we spoke yesterday and I [

16 understand it has been done and is in the mail, so to speak, t .

] 17 so that the board and parties will have an English version  !

1 l 18 of this, what I'll call the " German study." That was the l 19 other thing that we received from the Staff at our request, 4

20 and that's before us in making these rulings.

1 21 Mr. Eddleman's motion, turning to that first, of

)

i 22 November 12, asks the board to subpoena Dr. Bassiouni; in  !

1 23 addition his, I'll call it his team of experts, a group of ,

i 24 several people who work with him, and also two present l

i i

() 25 employees of CP&L, Mr. Black and Mr. Furr. The request is i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

4 202 347.J00 Nadonwide Coversee 800.))6 4646  ;

25306.0 10213 RT 1 for a subpoena or, in the alternative, that the board call 2 these people as witnesses. And our ruling is that we are 3 denying this motion. We find no warrant for calling 4 Dr. Bassiouni as a witness on any basis, whether as a board 5 witness, whether as a late witness for Mr. Eddleman, or 6 whether as a rebuttal witness for Mr. Eddleman.

7 Again, we'll spell tais out in the memorandum we 8 are providing -- we'll be providing you with, fairly soon.

9 We are simply saying this morning that the ruling is that 10 the motion is denied.

11 The North Carolina petition to intervene, ex 12 although rather belated, since this case is going on for a

( )

13 good long time, we will grant, particularly in the absence 14 of any opposition.

15 The North Carolina motion to call Dr. Bassiouni, 16 which recites some of the same grounds as Mr. Eddleman's, 17 and some new grounds, is also denied. The denial of the 18 motion is subject to the following conditions: The 19 Applicants suggested that they would have no objection to 20 admitting into evidence, without cross-examination, the 21 following documents:

22 1, the ATR review that I previously referred to, 23 as if it were presented under oath.

24 Secondly, Dr. Bassiouni's article in " Power 25 Engineering," a copy of which was attached to the

([ \

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6

o c i

25306.0 10214 l

1 Applicant's statement.

2 And thirdly, the German study. And the 3 Applicant's proposition was, I'll simply repeat that, these 4 documents be entered into evidence that they could be cited 5 as a basis for findings. However, there would be no 6 further hearing and no cross-examination on those documents.

7 It seems to the board that that's a sensible compromise to 8 be struck under the circumstances.

9 We did not hear any opposition to that course of 10 action. I'll simply ask the parties whether they have any.

11 I have already indicated it is our disposition to put them 12 in but we pan hear comments of a negative sort if anybody 13 wants to make them.

l 14 Staff? Ms. Moore? Any objection to the l 15 admission of those documents?

P 16 MS. MOORE: Staff has no objection.

l 17 MR. ROCHLIS: FEMA has no objection.

18 JUDGE KELLEY: How about the State? Any 19 objection to the admission of those documents?

20 MS. LONG: This is Karen Long for the State. I 21 have a question, whether you put in the German study, will 22 l you put it in in German or in the English translation?

(

23 JUDGE KELLEY: I was going to come to that point.

24 That's a legitimate question, certainly in that context.

() 25 Our contemplation would be to put in the English version k

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nation *kle Coverase 800 3 % 6646

25306.0 10215 RT 1 but again, we understand it's in the mail. I would like to 2 add a further comment with regard to the German study. The 3 board hasn't obviously read it in English and we didn't get 4 very far reading it in German.

5 It's possible that when we do read it, we may 6 think it is germaine. We may want some further comment on 7 it. Conceivably we may even want to call a witness to 8 testify about it, but we feel we can go ahead without 9 Dr. Bassiouni, because Dr. Bassiouni doesn't have any 10 particular association with the study -- he didn't conduct 11 it, didn't write it up -- and we feel that we can go ahead 12 i and make that determination now. We are simply dropping a 13 caveat that once we have read the German study, if it seems 14 germaine and it raises questions, we may want to come back 15 and reconsider whether something further ought to be done 16 with respect to it. We are not indicating that, of course, 17 that we will do that. Only the possibility that we might.

18 Similarly, I suppose if the parties saw the 19 Gerraan study in English and felt that some further point 20 ought to be made, they could file papers. But that's the 21 proposition that we put to you now.

22 Ms. Long, you were saying -- you raised the 23 question about putting it in in English. Did that satisfy 24 your point?

[~'l 25 MS. LONG: It did. And I guess our position is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6644 i

9 s

a 25306.0 10216 1 we do not officially object to the admission of the ATR>

2 review or the German study and translation, although we 3 have strong reservations that any party prejudiced by those  !

4 would not have an opportunity to cross-examine. We do j i

5 object to the article --

4 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me?  ;

7 MS. LONG: We object to the article in " Power 8 Engineering."

9 JUDGE KELLEY: You object to that. And what is 10 your basis for objection?

i 11 MS. LONG: We are not sure it's relevant without

, 12 further explanation by Dr. Bassiouni, and he has not 13 commented on that in any way, or any of the other two 14 admitted documents.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you familiar with the record 16 in the case? Ms. Long? ,

17 MS. LONG: Yes.

2 18 JUDGE KELLEY: There was considerable testimony i

19 in there about informal alerting, was there not? l 20 MS. LONG: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

i j 21 JUDGE KELLEY: There was considerable testimony 22 in that case about informal alerting.

L 23 MS. LONG: Yes.

l 24 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm calling it informal alerting.

() 25 I'm referring to the phenomena that when you hear the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646 j

l 25306.0 10217 BRT l )

l 1 sirens you call Aunt Martha.

t

! 2 MS. LONG: I think he called it Aunt Minnie.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't understand your relevance 4 objection, frankly. I think the Applicants, from their 5 point of view -- I won't speak for them -- but, well, 6 Mr. Baxter, do you want to speak to the relevance of the l 7 " Power Engineering" article?

8 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's our view 9 that the positions Dr. Bassiouni took in that article about

! 10 the validity of informal notification, the extent to which 11 it ought to be relied upon, directly contradict what he 12 said in his statement and that is one of the bases for our O 13 offer that we have available to us countervailing evidence.

l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: So, it's impeachment in that 15 sense?

16 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.

17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

18 MS. LONG: I understand that it's impeachment 19 and I understand because it raises questions of 20 contradiction without having Dr. Bassiouni available, the 21 Court has denied the motion to subpoena him in any form, 22 that it creates conflict in the record and I think it 23 underscore: the original reason why we made the motion to 24 have somebody produce Dr. Bassiouni. There are just too

(} 25 many questions arisen by conflicting evidence.

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 80 4 336 6646 s

25306.0 10218 RT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: What important conflict do you 2 discern, Ms. Long?

3 MS. LONG: The important conflict appears to be, 4 as Mr. Baxter stated, Dr. Bassiouni stated one thing in his 5 statement, which you have said CP&L has agreed to put into 6 evidence, and apparently has said another thing in " Power 7 Engineering," just from the surface of those two documents.

8 As we all know, this is a complex area. It's 9 possible he can reconcile them in some way that would be 10 satisfactory to the record, but as he is not available to 11 be directly questioned about this, that reconciliation is m 12 absent.

~

13 JUDGE KELLEY: Why is that important, Ms. Long?

14 MS. LONG: I don't see how the board can rely on 15 either of these things if they were going to put them into I

16 evidence.

17 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, if you stipulate the matter 18 into evidence, Ms. Long, there are all sorts of grados of 19 ovidence here in terms of probative weight.

20 I, frankly, have my doubts about -- speaking for 21 myself -- about Dr. Bassiouni's, the weight of his evidence 22 on the issue of formal notification, because frankly, he's 23 not a sociologist, as far as I know he's only a sound 24 engineer.

[) 25 But we have one piece that suggests one thing ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6

l-25306.0 10219 l BRT 1 and another thing that suggests another. If it isn't worth 2 much weight in the first place, why should we call him?

3 MS. LONG: I understand your position but I 4 renew my objection.

5 . JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. We'll take it into l 6 consideration.

7 I think that covers that. Dr. Carpenter has a 8 question about one aspect of the record. I'll turn it over 9 to him.

l 10 DR. CARPENTER: Good morning. The comment I 11 want to make is primarily addressed to Staff and FEMA. It 12 will sound like I'm reading because I am.

O 13 In this proceed -- to repeat, the comments I'm 14 going to make are addressed primarily to Staff and FEMA and 15 it will sound as though I'm reading because I am.

16 In this proceeding, Mr. Keith, Applicant's 17 witness, performed extensive computation and presented the 18 results in terms of a map of predicted night-time sound 19 level distribution, Applicant's Exhibit 46.

20 Dr. Lee, FEMA's witness, performed analogous and 21 similarly extensive computations. However, Dr. Lee did not 22 present the result of his work in terms of sound level 23 intensities as a function of position in the Harris EP2, 24 but rather Dr. Lee limited his testimony to a table 1 on

(} 25 distribution of households by siren sound levels.

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646

.-m.______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

25306.0 10220 RT 1 This aspect of Dr. Lee's testimony seems to the 2 board to be undesirable. The reasons are,1: In making 3 findings, the board and the parties cannot compare the 4 testimony of the two witnesses in a quantitative numerical 5 sense; 2, in view of NUREG 0654, appendix 33, and a l 6 Commission decision on emergency planning 12 NRC 636, 1980, j 7 it may be hypothesized that the board may find that 8 dif ferent performance criteria are applicable within five 9 miles of Harris and in the outer five- to 10-mile area.

10 Tabulations for the whole EP2 will not provide the board or 11 others any information or data on the probable sound levels 12 of individual houses within five miles of Harris.

)

13 The board therefore asks NRC Staff and FEMA to 14 remedy this situation by filing a copy of the results, in 15 terms of Dr. Lee's work, in terms of the map.

16 Is what I just said clear? Staff and FEMA?

17 MS. MOORE: Yes, it is.

18 JUDGE KELLEY: Comments?

19 MS. MOORE: I'll defer to Steve Rochlis.

20 MR. ROCHLIS: I think it's reasonable, your 21 Honor. We'll get with Dr. Lee. I don't know what the time --

22 I don't know how much time he's going to need. I don't 23 know what the lead time requirements are going to be but 24 we'll try to get what you asked for.

() 25 DR. CARPENTER: An additional thought: In ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coversee 800 3 % 6646

25306.0 10221

• BRT l

1 Dr. Lee's testimony he says that he overlaid contour maps 2 on a map prepared by CP&L which shows the houses; 3 Applicant's Exhibit 46 shows sound level, function of 4 position, and also shows the location --

5 MS. MOORE: This is Janice Moore. Might I make 6 a comment? We would appreciate an opportunity to speak 7 with FEMA witnesses. I believe there may be a reproduction i

8 problem with that map, in terms of actually physically 9 getting it reproduced.

10 MR. ROCHLIS: I think we did mention that at one 11 time.

12 MS. MOORE: If that's the case, is the board

( 13 requesting we serve copies of this map on all parties?

14 DR. CARPENTER: Yes.

15 MS. MOORE: We would like an opportunity to talk 16 to our witnesses and then get back to the board to tell you l 17 whether it is in fact feasible to do it.

l 18 I believe, and I'm just speaking from 1

! 19 recollection -- perhaps Mr. Rochlis may remember -- that 20 the map, because of the way it was done by FEMA, is 21 extremely large.

22 MR. ROCHLIS: That's correct.

23 MS. MOORE: I believe it takes up the floor of a 24 fairly large room. And that's why I'm hesitating. We 25 don't hesitate at all to agree to the board's request

(]}

i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646

25306.0 10222 RT 1 except that it may not be feasible for us to do it.

2 DR. CARPENTER: Where is this remarkable map 3 located?

4 MS. MOORE: It's in the offices of IAEL.

5 DR. CARPENTER: And they are?

6 MS. MOORE: International Energy Associated 7 Limited, FEMA's primary contractor in this matter.

8 DR. CARPENTER: Where are their offices?

9 MR. ROCHLIS: The Watergate Building, Washington.

10 DR. CARPENTER: You just look into this and 11 maybe you could write us back a quick letter. If you have

~ 12 problems, let us know what they are. If there's really no 13 big problem then we'll get a copy. Conceivably I suppose 14 we could go down and look at it, if the board wanted to.

15 ' MS. MOORE: I'm sure that could be arranged if 16 necessary, yes.

17 l DR. CARPENTER: You can consider that in the 18 letter. Can you get back to us in a week, say, and let us 19 know what the problems are if there are any?

20 MR. ROCHLIS: That seems reasonable. Can we 21 have a FAX copy of Dr. Carpenter's comments?

22 DR. CARPENTER: I guess. But it will be in the 23 transcript.

24 MR. ROCHLIS: Okay. I don't know what the i 25 tt'enaround time of .the transcript is, whether we'll get it ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800136-M86

25306.0 10223

._ B RT 1 in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

2 DR. CARPENTER: We'll have it tomorrow.

3 MR. ROCHLIS: Okay.

4 MS. MOORE: I'll undertake to get the requisite 5 pages to Mr. Rochlis.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: We just have one other small 7 point. Dr. Carpenter referred to a Commission study which 8 only came to our attention recently. The citation is 12 9 NRC 636, entitled "In the matter of final rule on emergency 10 planning," I think it is. My Xerox is kind of dim.

11 Anyway, it's a four-page Commission decision in 12 December 1980, having to do with a petition by Duke Power 13 and others to reduce the size of the EPZ for emergency 14 notification purposes and I won't get into it except to say 15 that in the course of it, on page 638, there appears to be 16 a Commission endorsement of the NUREG 654 idea that -- well, 17 it says, in terms of 100 percent of the population, within 18 five miles. And then some lesser unspecified percentage 19 outside five miles, and out to 10. So, without making any 20 board judgment on it at this point, to the extent it's at 21 all debatable, it does seem to suggest a Commission 22 endorsement of more intensive notification efforts in the 23 first five miles. We mention this only because, to repeat, 24 we hadn't seen it before. I don't know if the parties have

' ]; 25 cited it to us and it seems to us to have some significance.

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nation *ide coverage 800 33M64

25306.0 10224 CRT 1 So you might, putting your findings together, if you want 2 to include some reference to this if you think it's 3 pertinent, please do so.

4 I believe that's all we have this morning. Let 5 me just ask the parties, then. l 6 Ms. Moore, anything else for the Staff?

7 MS. MOORE: Staff has nothing else, your Honor.

8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter?

9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Judge Kelley. Our proposed 10 findings are to be due this Friday and therefore we would 11 very much appreciate knowing whether those three documents

12 are in or out of the record. We, of course, would be happy 13 not to have any of them. Our office was made in the spirit 14 of accommodation.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. I understand. Hold 16 on just a moment.

17 This is Judge Kelly again, I'm back on. I 18 indicated earlier the board had previously concluded, 19 subject to comment, that the admission of the three 20 documents under the circumstances we described was a 21 reasonable thing to do. The only argument we've heard 22 against it is that there is a conflict in the testimony of 23 Dr. Bassiouni, on the subject of what we called informal l

l 24 alerting as between his ATR statement he provided in this

() 25 case and his earlier article'in Power Engineering, and we l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

s 25306.0 10225 RT.

1 feel that Dr. Bassiouni's testimony on that particular 2 subject, considering his background, is not of primary 3 importance in the case. The fact that that conflict may 4 stay in the record would, in our opinion, be insignificant.

5 So, we are going to order the admission of the three 6 documents in evidence as previously outlined.

7 We were at Mr. Baxter. Did that take care of 8 your point?

9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. Thank you.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you need another couple of 11 days? Do you want the weekend? Hello?

fx 12 MR. BAXTER: Yes. I would have to get back to 13 you if we do. Right now the schedule is set up with 14 everyone's agreeing.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, perhaps among the parties --

16 and I'll mention this to Mr. Eddleman -- with the admission 17 of this new material the party having to file first has a 18 new burden, kind of at the lith hour, so the board is 19 offering Mr. Baxter a little more time, at least over the 20 weekend, if he wants it for that purpose. But he'll have 21 to get back to us. I would like it understood, though, 22 that we can simply grant that couple or three-day extension 23 if Mr. Baxter wants it, without any further discussion.

24 Is there any objection to that?

25 MS. LONG: No.

[)

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800 33HM6

25306.0 10226 BRT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Baxter?

2 MR. BAXTER: No, sir.

3 MR. HOLLAR: Judge Kelly, this is Dale Hollar.

4p Just a point of clarification. Does your ruling on Yo 5l Mr. Eddleman's motion extend to the motion to subpoena 6 h

, Mr. Black and Mr. Furr?

7 ?UDGE KELLEY: Yes. Yes. The motion is denied 8 in its entirety.

9 MR. HOLLAR: Thank you.

10 ; JUDGE KELLEY: There are some dif ferent reasons 11 j for Black and Furr which we'll state in the memorandum,

-s 12 which I think in substance are the fact that the Black /Furr

! l 13 allegations, whatever may underlie them, they are outside l

14 the scope of this extension. So that we think that's a 15 pretty straightforward basis for that denial but we'll be 16 spelling that out further in the order we'll issue.

17 Anything else, Mr. Hollar?

18 MR. HOLLAR: No, Mr. Chairman.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis?

20 MR. ROCHLIS: Nothing from me, Mr. Chairman.

21 JUDGE KELLEY: Ms. Sanford?

MS. SANFORD: No, sir.

22 l 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That covers everybody then.

24 Okay. I guess that takes care of it. Thanks

/ 25 for your time this morning. Don't think of it as good-bye, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646

25306.0 10227 BRT 1 but rather as auf Wiedersehen. Good-bye.

2 (Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the phone conference 3 was concluded.) ,

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 O 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in th9 matter of NAME OF PROCEEDING: CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

DOCKET NO.: 50-400 OL

. PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.

l DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1985 I

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l (sigt) .t. d' (TYPED ,/

l JOE DREITNER l

Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTPRS, INC.

Reporter's Affiliat on O

i

, ,