ML20128A841
| ML20128A841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-198 OL, NUDOCS 8505240339 | |
| Download: ML20128A841 (50) | |
Text
T l ORIGINAL
'~~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nd In the matter of:
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
Docket No. 50-400-OL 50-401-OL ID k/- TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL Location: Bethesda, Maryland Date: Tuesday, May 21, 1985 Pages: 7587-7634 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES
-g Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
( ,
Suite 921 0\ Washington, D.C. 20006
~
8505240339 050521 PDR ADOCK 05000400 T PDR m
g;;; -
7587-w:
, ,t -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[><X)'.- ,, 2L ) NUCLEAR.REGULATORYLCOMMISSION Ic ..
..... _1 _ _._ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _
In the' Matter of:
~
4: :
^
5 y '3 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ~ COMPANY"and : Docket Nos.
s
's NORTH CAROLINA = EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER : 50-400-_0L AGENCY ~ : 50-401-OL '
7- -
. , . . ~. :
Shearon'-Harris Nuclear Power Plant, :
- s' Units 1 & 2'
- t.
.10 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL .. C 11 4350 East We'st Highway Fourth Floor
- 12 ' Bethesda, Maryland-(/T ' Is Tuesday, May 21, 1985 U .
14 The telephone conference-call in the above-
- [ a 15 entitle'd matterLwas convened-at'10:00,a.m., pursuant to
, . te notice.
8' 17- APPEARANCES:
-.al[ Board Members:
. is .
- g , , .1, . JAMES L. KELLEY, Esq., Ch&irman Administrative Law Judge yI. go ' ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Unshington,'D.C. 20555-1 21' r Y GLENN 0. BRIGHT Administrative Law Judge 4 -
gg '
Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board Panel 23 Washington, D.C.
, 24 JAMES H. CARPENTER
.{'- as Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1
l f
i i . .
,j..
..j
. '7588' I '
1:
APPEARANCES,[ Cont'd:
_ . ,x .
,J ([ :2 - STEVENfCROCKETT, .
Law Clerk, U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 3 _ Washington, D.C. ~20555
^
4: For the.NRC Staff:
l4 .
- o. . 5 CHARLESBARTH, Esq., and g JANICE MOORE, Esq.,tand BRAD JONES, Esq.
e s- .
. U.S. . Nuclear Regulatory Conunission-7 Washington, D.C. 20555 m '
.s ' WELLS,EDDLEMAN,; Pro Se .,.
718-A Iredell, Street h -g. Durham, North Carolina 27705
'to For the Applicants:
it - ~ ANDREW H. McDANIEL, Esq..' . ;
!* Carolina Power & Light Company
, 12 P.O. Box:1551 l Raleigh, North; Carolina;' >
e
~ '
l
'ym, -gg , ,
' 'v -I THOMAS A. BAXTER,-Esq.,.and *
' 14 JOHN H. O'NEILL, Esq., and '
l DELISSA RIDGEWAY, Esq. .
"[
'Is Shaw,-Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge :
1800 M Street, Northwest
'Is - Washington,'D.C.-
8 17 For the Intervenors:
f
'S L. .* la JOHN RUNKLE i- { Conservation Council of North Carolina y -) is -307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina -27514' l ,
e
_r ;.
I- 21 jz 1
.. ?
2 ,
l 24 -
l
-.'[ ,,
7589 1 P ROCEED i NGS
,m f ]' 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning, this is Judge Kelley 8 'here. We are on the record with a court reporter and both 4 Judge Bright and Judge Carpenter are here. Also Steve 5 Crockett, the law clerk that has been assisting us on the
- 6 amergency planning material particularly.
7 Why don't we call the roll next. Just a minute, 1 8 understand Mr. Baxter is not with us, is Mr. O'Neill here?
g MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
10 A VOICE: Mr. Baxter is on the line with us.
.11 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, he is with us?
12 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir, r ~ N. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. McDaniel?
(%,/I 14 MR. McDANIEL: Yes, I am here, Judge.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Is Mr. Barth here?
16 A VOICE: Yes. So is Ms. Moore.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman?
18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes.
1g JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Road, I understand, has not been 20 reached. Mr. Read, you are not with us? Okay.
i 21 Mr. Guild called in just a short while ago. He is in 22 Chicago and he is out there, I believe,,on the Braldwood 23 case. I know at least that he is working on that case and he 24 Indicated that he was not involved in emergency planning and 1
Ox_/ 25 didn't feel he had to be involved in this if we were not going I
7 E
7590 1 to do any more than touch peripherally on the Van Vo matter,
/ \
\~- 2 which I think is the case.
8 Mr. Runkle? ,
4 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Do we have Brad Jones?
- 6. MR. JONES' Yes.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Dale Holler?
e MR. HOLLER: I'm here.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Anybody else?
10 (No response.)
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We scheduled this phone conference, 12 as you will recall, a couple of weeks ago and at that time the
( , la primary purpose of it was to discuss the import of the 01 14 investigation on the Van Uo allegations, We were assuming at 15 that time that we were going to receive the report in a day or 16 two and that you would have had it now for a week or so to 17 look it over.
-18 As matters have developed, we, the Board, actually 19 received the report yesterday afternoon. It consists of a 20 one-page transmittal to the Board from 01, a nine- or ten-page 21 single spaced report and then two rather thick volumes of 22 exhibits which I haven't looked at yet. I assume they are the 23 Interview results for the most part.
(' 24 in any event, here is what we are going to do with these 25 papers. We sent down the transmittal and the report itself to
7591 1 H Street asking them to serve it to the service list. And v
\
2 .they presumably will do that today and you should have it 3 tomorrow or the next day in your hand via the usual route.
4 The couple volumes of exhibits are, as i Indicated, 5 bulky. It did not seem to us that we had to serve every 6 person on the service list, which is 15 to 20 people the 7 last time I looked, but that rather we could serve or make 8 available some Xerox copies of those exhibits which we are now 9 making out here in Bethesda.
10 Let me tell you what we thought we would do and then 11 If there are other comments, we can hear them. We thought we 12 would make available out here toward the end of the day a. copy
.O 13
( for the applicants, a copy for the staff. We thought we would L
14 express mall a copy to Mr. Guild and that we would also mall 15 copies to Mr. Eddleman and Mr. Runkle, because of his past 16 Interest in these matters, but that that would be the extent 17 of our distribution. Now, obviously, the applicants can make 18 some more copies and send some down to Raleigh if they want 19 to, but we thought we would not.
20 Does that seem like a satisfactory approach to 21 distributing the exhibits? Is that okay with the applicants?
l
, 22 MM. O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff?
24 MS. NOORE: Yes, sir.
( 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, does that sound all right?
7592 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, fine.
A i )
'w /
2 JUDGE KELLEY: So, we will do that and then our thought 3 was that we ought to arrange a subsequent telephone conference 4 so that we could hear the parties on the import of this 01 5 investigation and what effect, if any, it ought to have on 6 present Contention 41.G.
7 1 believe, just to resista' bel'.efly, we let in 41.0, the 8 rather narrow version directed just to Mr. Van Vo's allegation 9 of harassment. And we said we would consider whether we ought 10 to expand that contention in the light of whatever graw out of 11 our invitation to the site workers to come forward with
~
12 anything further they might have concerning harassment. When (Oj 13 we later discovered that 01 was doing this investigation, wo 14 said that we would consider that also for the same purpose.
15 So, now, we are in a situation where we have had discovery on 16 present 41.0. We have had two letters come in in response to 17 the site invitation. And we now have Ol's assessment of the 18 Van Vo allegations, l
l 19 So, it seems to us that it is time to decide whether 20 there ought to be any expansion of 41.0 or whether it ought to 21 be treated as it is. And we would be happy to hear people in l 22 a phone conference on that subject. If the parties or some of l
23 them would rather write a pleading, I suppose that's okay, s 24 too. But it seems to us that it would lend itself D') sufficiently to a telephone discussion and might also be a 25
. . . .-. . _ ~ - . . . . ~ . _ . . -- _.- -.
!t 7593 h
1 little bit more expeditious as a way to proceed. I will i 4
\~ / 2 ask the parties about that.
3 Mr. .O'Neill, is that a satisfactory approach from your N
?- standpoint?
5 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. We would be happy to have a 6 conference call as soon as the Board is available, even at 7 the end of this week if we have an opportunity to see the 8 material.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I be specific on a suggested time we 10' can discuss this.' It seems to us, since we are doing some 11 malling here and this is Tuesday, we were going to suggest a 12 week from s Thursday, May 30th, in the morning, 10:00.
) 13 MR. EDDLENAN Excuse me, Judge, this is Wells Eddleman. I am 14 going to bdJtsed up in a conference all day May 30th and 31st, o .,w 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you want to make it the 29th7, 16 MR.,1UDLEMAN: pardon me?
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Wednesday, the 29th.
l 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: The 29th would be possible. You know, you 19 are talking about two volumes. I don't know if I will be able 1
20 to get a review fast enough. I know Mr. Guild has to work.all 21 week on that case out in the Midwest. So we will try if you 22 set the 29th. We would actually prefer early the next week,-l l
23 ,t h i nk .
I 24 JUDGE'~KELLEY: Well. I-guass my concern is that we get
! s 25 this done. fairly quickly. I would say this, and let me
e 7594 1 say again. 1 have not read those exhibits. I assume they are
.O k-- 2 largely interview summaries. That kind of stuff reads pretty 3 fast. .T h e report itself you can read in ten minutes because 1
4 it is ten pages long.
5 My assumption would be that half a day would carry you 6 through that report for purposes of having a decent hold on 7 what's in it.
8 So, we would like to go ahead next week and I think it is.
9 a matter of -- well, let's see, the 29th is a Wednesday, 10 correct?
11 HR. EDDLEMAN: Right.
I 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, do you prefer Tuesday?
' p}
, 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, sir.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: You can't do it Yhursday or Friday,
[;. 15 that's out?
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thursday and Friday'are out.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's aake it Wednesday on the 29th in the 18 afternoon, 2:00, 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Oh, my gosh, Judge, that runs into my 20 teaching schedule.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: What time would you prefer?
22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Either sometime that morning, if possible, 23 or after 3:30 in the afternoon.
}
v 24 JUDGE KELLEY: 10:00 in the morning. How's that?
25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, again, until I see these
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ = -
7595 1 reports I don't know how much cross correlation I am going to
, 1
's -
2 have to make with the information in-it. It may be easy or it 3 may take a long time, but if the Board really wants to go on 4 the 29th, then I will go along with you. I just can't say at 5 this point how much preparation we will need. If I think I am 6 running into a big problem, I guess I will call you and see 7 what we come up with. Right now l don't have any good basis 8 for accepting it, but I will go along with you because you are 9 the Board.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we like to be reasonable. And again 11 we haven't studied the report in detall, but I think that if 12 you have this report in hand by the end of this week, Thursday fN 18 or Friday, that ought to be ample time to discuss it.
.(v) 14 So, let's proceed on that basis and if you feel, having 15 looked at it to some extent, that you don't have enough time 16 to be ready for a discussion on Wednesday,.then why don't you 17 call me by Monday, no later than Monday, and we can discuss 18 that. But I think that you probably have enough time, you and 19 Mr. Guild. So let's go with the next Wednesday, the 29th 20 discussion.
21 Now, when we say discussion, let's be clear that we 22 are not going to start on page 1 he report is ten pages and-
. 28 that can warrant some fairly careful discussion, I suppose.
(g 24 but the underlying exhibits, that's pretty much backup t /
V 25 material. We don't envision talking, at the outside, all
7596
,, 1 parties more than an hour about this topic. We think we
(] -2 _can decide it on that basis.
8 If you think, Mr. Eddleman, or other parties, that that 4 kind of a time frame is not sufficient, then we will talk 5 about writing pleadings and we can do It that way. But we 6 would prefer to get on the phone, hear from the staff, 7 the applicants and the intervenors inside of an hour as to 8 what this means for.what we ought to do now. And then we 9 will decide what to do.
10 MR. O'NEILL: Judge Kelley, I understand when you say 11 what we ought to do, there are two matters on the table. One 12 is whether or not this report serves as a basis for expanding
( IS 41.G as presently admitted.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. l 15 MR. O'NEILL: And the second issue would be how we.should 16 move forward on the litigation of this contention and 17 applicants continue to take the position that we shouid do 18 that the week of June 24th and wrap this up.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: We are going to come to that second 20 point. I think we can wrap up the first point now. We
. 21 will have the conference discussion next Wednesday at 1 0 : 0 0'.
22 Now, I would just point out, Mr. Eddleman, that Mr. Guild 28 felt that he didn't need to be in this phone call and we will 24 be talking from now on about emergency planning matters, but 1 25 think that what has been said here is pretty straightforward.
7597 l
i I assume you can pass that on to him and that he will be
(,, 2 prepared -- we already told him there will be a phone call
-3 next week. We will have to change the time. We told him l 4 Thursday the 30th. We will have to call him back and tell him 5 the 29th. But in terms of what we are going to do, I will
'6 ' rely on you to convey that to him.
7 MR. O'NEILL: I can do that, Judge.
8 MR. JONES: Judge Kelley. I just want to let you know you 9 do not have to call me on that day because I w i l l ' tne i n 10 Washington and I will join Mr. Barth and Ms. Moore.
~
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
12 Now, as.to the second point that Mr. O'Ne'lli adverted 18 to. Should we, upon discussion of this 01 report, conclude-14 'that there should be some modification, expansion of the 15 contention, then we would be in-a discovery mode presumably 16 again and we wouldn't be talking about schedules. On the 17 other hand, should we conclude that the 01 report does 18 not support such an expansion, then the question would be when 19 to proceed to try 41.G as presently stated.
20 The applicants have suggested, I believe, previously 21 and Mr. O'Neill mentioned again-that they favor going ahead.
22 after the emergency planning contentions are heard whenever 23 they are finished in the week of the 24th. Is that a correct 24 statement of your position, Mr. O'Neill?
25 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. And the other possibility
i 7598 l'
1 is-Mr. Guild'said he had some personal. problems the first week
- 1. m, 2 of. July. We certainly would have no problems in litigating 8 41.0 first, if that's more convenient for Mr. Eddleman and-4 Mr. Guild to do that starting first thing on the week of the~ ,
L 5 '24th and then do the emergency planning contentions following 6 41.G. 'But we think'that we have this opportunity, this 7 contention as originally admitted, and if it is not modified t
8 or expanded, was one that the Board _ contemplated a hearing on !
91 lin _ Apr i l or May and we see no reason to let this linger.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: And you are suggesting that this approach
'11 of possibly doing 41.0 and then emergency planning is 12 something you are'willing to do at the-option of the 18 intervenors and the other parties, is that right?
14 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. particularly in lightHof the 15 fact that the intervenors have pretty much said they are not 16 availabie in July. Mr. Eddleman,'Mr. Runkle have rate
~
17 hearing. Mr. Guild has vacation plans. And given that 18 conflict, we believe that moving forward on 41.G that week of t
19 June 24th perhaps first might make a lot of sense.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Ms.~ Moore, what is'your, reaction to that,-
t 21 .or Mr. Barth?
i)
.22 MS. MOORE: I really can't speak for our availability at 28 this point, if they are going to participate in the hearing.
/~N -24 .I have to speak to them first. We could be prepared to U 25~ address that on a conference call on the 29th.
l -u -
+- - , , . , , , , - , . ,--------..n.v. ,. -mna,..,,, ..- ,,,,-~-- ,,---,--, ,--.~,, .
7599 j_ 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Just as a point of information, this was
-( I
\- 2 something that interested me, Mr. Hayes, the Director of 01, 3 was at the Licensing Panel annual meeting last week and 4 he was explaining lots of things and talking about their 5 procedures and I asked him in a case where one of their 6 investigators goes out and talks to a whole bunch of people 7 about some allegations, and that particular matter later goes 8 to hearing, will the 01 investigator be available as a 9' witness. And his answer was, "Over my dead body," or 10 something like that.
11 Now, you can call him and he comes or he doesn't come,
^
12 but his basic position is that we ought to be calling'the lq ) 13 witnesses and not his person. And what he said, by the 14 way, wasn't on the record, I am just passing it on as a 15 matter of interest. So I am not sure, having heard Mr. Hayes' 16 views on the point, whether they are going to be terribly 17- anxious to send investigators to such a hearing, but, anyway, 18 we will just have to abide the event there.
19 1 certainly would encourage you, M6. Moore, to look into
~20 that and see what they r,ay .
21 MS. MOORE: I will do that.
22 MH. BAXTER: -Judge Kelley, just a supplement to 23 Mr. O'Neill's comments on going with going with 41.0 first. 1 24 do understand that some of the FEMA witnesses would not be UN 25 available after the 4th of July, so that approach would work
7600
,_ 1 only if we could finish the issues up before the 4th.
/ i
'*' 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we were going to come in a minute to 3 how long we thought these issues would take, but I think that 4 is a consideration also,'sure.
5 JUDGE CARPENTER: What about Van Vo's availability?
6 JUDGE KELLEY: We would also have to consider, 7 Mr. Eddleman, l' t seems to me in terms of pursuing this further 8 as to, say, whether 41.G might come first or so on, we have to 9 first_ decide whether 41.G is now constituted as what we are 10 going to litigate. And we will know that after the next phone 11 conference. But we have surfaced these considerations now and 12 -we know the applicant's preference. And we can take that into (w/ ) 13 account and then decide it, if we end up with the present 14 version of 41.0 for litigation.
15 Now, Mr. Eddleman, did you comment on this proposal 16 of doing 41.G first?
17 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, Judge.
'18 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you speak to that?
19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Guild and I have had some probable 20 scheduling difficulties in going wi+h it the week of the 24th 21 just because of our ability to get together physically and
'22 review the evidence. I don't know how long he is going to be 23 tied up in the Midwest'. It looks like that may change, but we
/N '24 'are not sure yet. I probably will be able to give you a U)
-25 better answar to that next week.
k 7601
- 7_ - 1 I would also like to point out that there is a pending f
~
2 . motion to. compel discovery, which the staff may moot out.by ;
3 producing documents which have to do with this 01 report.
4 What information the staff has brought in to Mr. Van Vo. If 5
- Mr'. Hayes takes the same attitude toward releasing that 6 information that he reportedly did about producing witnesses,
~
7 we may have to en through some of that. But I would like to
. 8 really be able to check with the staff attorneys about that 9 abd see how that's going to go. That may impact the timing to also. ,
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, as a next matter, between now and 12 the next time we talk, could Ms. Moore and Mr. Eddleman 18 revisit the discovery requ'est and determine the extent to 14 which'the report and the exhibits satisfy that request, or are 15 there other things, and what's left of that potential dispute
- 1. 16 and then you can let us know,-perhaps, when we' talk next.
- 17. MS. MOORE: I will do that.
18 ,
MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: One other thing, Mr. E.d d l eman . What can 20 you tell us about Mr. Van Vo's availabliity for a hearing in
, . 21 late June, let's say?
4
- 22 MR. EDDLEMAF: Judge, I don't know at this point. I 23 would have to check with Mr. Guild, who is his counsel, and 24 see what his schedule is, but we had not, as far as I know, 25 found that out for sure.
7602 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Is he living in Texas?
fg.
kslm 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe so, Judge.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: My understanding has been that Mr. Guild 4 has been your counsel for discovery purposes up to this 5 point. Do you contemplate that he will he participating 6 in a hearing?
7 MR. GUILD: I hope to have his assistance, but we 8 haven't been able to work'that out on a definite basis 9 yet.
10' JUDGE KELLEY: Would he be counsel or would he not be 11 counsel?. I guess that is what my question is.
12 MR. GUILD: -Judge, I don't know at this p'o i n t .
.[A 13 -JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it will have to be clarified, 14 then.
- 15. With that, let's pass on to the emergency planning
~16 matters that we wanted to raise. And one is we had two 17 contentions on which we had deferred a ruling on summary 18 disposition motions, Eddleman 213 and EpJ-2. And we have now 19 been advised by separate letters from Ms. Ridgeway that there 20 will be no wpposition papers filed by Mr. Eddleman in the case:
21' of 213 and by Mr. Read in the case of EPJ-2.
22 Am I correct about the status of these things.
23 Mr. Eddleman? Is that right?
~
24 MR. EDDLEMAN: I beg your pardon?
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Do I' state that correctly that you do not
, - n- - , - . - . - . , ,- - - - - . , - ,. . - - , . , - - - - -
7603
~1- propose to file opposition to the 213 motion?
f As-2 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right. I did have an opportunity 3 to see one of the signs and I don't think the warning print on 4 the top line is anywhere near large enough to attract people's 5 attention, but I don't see any purpose in going to hearing on 6 that.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Read isn't with us, but we have the 8 letter from Ms. Ridgeway and we haven't heard anything to the 9 contrary and assume that that states the situation.
10 MR. BAXTER: Ms. Ridgeway is on the phone with us now.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Just restating, Ms. Ridgeway, Mr. Read 12 advised you that he would not file an opposition on the motion 13 for sunnary disposition on EpJ-2?
14 MS. RIDGEWAY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
15- JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we have looked over the motion
-16 papers ourselves and we are aware that we are not receiving 17 opposition, so we are granting those motions for sunmary 18 disposition.
19 And that leaves us, then, with three contentions or
-20 in some cases parts of contention for hearing. We have 21 pending two proposed contentions from Mr. Eddleman on the 22 brochure 227.CC and 227.DD and we received an opposition 23 pleading from the applicants just the other day.
24 Mr. Barth called me yesterday about the staff's response Cs l 25 and I suggested that he have until today and then raise it
7604 1 now. ~You said you would.be ready tomorrow. Does it still l
2 look.that way, Mr-. Barth?
3 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor, prior to this telephone 4 , conversation, I talked to Mr. Eddleman and-he has no objection 5 and the applicants have no objection to extending our time to 6 file until tomorrow on 227.CC and 227.DD.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So ordered.
O MR. BARTH: Thank you, Your Honor.
9 . JUDGE KELLEY: Those are extended accordingly.
10 Now, Mr. Eddleman,-you will be getting the staff's 11 . response at the end of this week. ,You are not required to 12 file a response to that, but we have in -- we authorize such
()
/~
la pleadings and you filed a number of responses. Have you 14 received the applicant's pleading yet?
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, I have, Judge.
16 JUDGE'KELLEY: Do you want to respond to it?
17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Ifm not sure yet. If l'can, just leave 10 the option open as I did on 213. After i get both the staff's 19 and the applicant's, I think I can decide better what I need 20 to do. And I will let you know by phone, if that's all right, 21 and I will let them know if I am going to file a response, and 22' otherwise just. assume that none is coming.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I guess there is a possibility
~
24 If you. wanted to make a brief response, if you wanted to do it
'25
. on the phone on the 29th, that would be all right.
7605
_ 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. That's another option.
.i i s-
+
.2 JUDGE KELLEY: It's an option. if you read the papers 3 .over and you are not going to respond, let us know and 4 we will know that, but if you want -- I say brief, well, we 5 are really going to focus on the Van Uo material on the phone 6 next week and not allocate a lot of time for other things, but
- 7. If you wanted a few minutes for that purpose, that would 8 probably be doable.
9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't anticipate a real long response to 10 any of this stuff.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: So, the emergency planning contentions in 4
12 question are 57.C.10 and EpJ-4B and we said last time that we
("')s T 13 would begin those on Monday, the 24th. We didn't set an exact 14 place and I will come in a moment to the other one, the siren 15 thing where FEMA ran out of money and Ms.' Moore was going to d
16 come back and tell us if they found any money or if they could 17 proceed. But the two I just mentioned, we would propose to 18 begin on the 24th.
19 We have checked around at available places and have been 20 fortunate to obtain the hearing room in APEX at the Ramada 21 Inn. And none'of us- are real crazy about that, but it i
22 is out there in the zone and if we have a bus driver witness, 28 it might be a useful place to have it. And the other places
-24 in town we prefer weren't available, so we are going to set 25 that as a place.
7606 1 We would like to be very specific to start that about
(~s
- 2 10:00 on Monday morning in APEX and those two contentions, 3 that's adult bus drivers and protective factors of commercial 4 . buildings, if I can sort of shorthand the two of them. I 5 would like to hear what the parties have in mind for planning.
6' purposes, but it struck ~us that they are pretty narrow and 7 that we felt.that we could probably do those in two days, 8 Monday-Tuesday. That's our tentative thinking at least.
9 As to filing testimony -- again, this is without
-10 prejudice to this notion of doing the Van Uo hearing first.
11 If that goes to hearing, but just putting that to one side for 12 one moment and talking about emergency planning -- we will put f)
N_-
-1 3 all this up.for comment in a minute -- but we would favor 14 simultaneous filing of testimony by all parties. The 20th is 15 a little late but maybe not too late. The 15th, from our.
16 standpoint, might be better.
17 We would also-like to.have all proposed exhibits numbered 18 and copied and exchanged between the parties and served on the 19 Board at that time so that we can minimize arguments over 20 exhibits and just sheer shuffling of paper when it comes to 21 the, hearing room. We are not talking about cross-examination 22 material-that you might just use for a question or two but 23 which you are not going to put in as an exhibit, but your 24 exhibits should be copied and exchanged at 'the same time as 25 the testimony, 1
--.n,. _ . . . , . . - , . , . , . . . - . . . - -
7607
_ 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I-don't know --
\'} 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute, Mr. Eddleman. I was trying 3 to state a proposition. I will restate it briefly and then we 4 will ask comments from the parties, okay.
5 What we are saying is June 24th, 10:00 in the morning at 6 APEX. We would like testimony filed on the 15th. It could be 7 a little later. Simultaneous filing and also filing of ,
8 exhibits. Mr. Baxter, how does that strike you?
9 MR. BAXTER: The 24th is certainly fine. I had 10 understood, Judge Kelley, that the last time it was_ called, 11 you he,d established June 10th as the deadline for simultaneous 12 filing of testimony and I certainly support exchanging rm
() 13 exhibits at that time also.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it just shows that I should have 15 reread that transcript. I'm sure you are right, Mr. Baxter.
16 i guess we'can reconsider. If the 10th is fine with 17 everybody, obviously it is fine with the Board. You favor the 18 10th, is that correct?
19 MR. BAXTER: I don't have a preference for it. I mean, 1 20 will take the additional time if you are giving it out. But i 21 just wanted to remind you that that is what you said.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: I appreciate that, embarrassing as it is.
23 Staff?
'S 24 MS. MOORE: We had also understood that it would be (V )
25 the 1 0 t h'. I continue to favor that date so that everybody can
i 7608 i
1 exchange the testimony and get a chance to read it. <
,m
-i i
\m l 2 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess part of my thing is saying 3 the 15th or even later is I thought it would be pretty 4 short. These are not the biggest contentions I have ever 5 seen.
6 MS. MOORE: Well, that's true. I have no strong feelings 7 about it. We were just preparing in terms of the 10th.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Mr. Eddleman, you were going 9 to say earlier, maybe about something else?
- 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I do have a strong preference 11 for keeping the 10th because there are some other things that 12 I have to do in between there that will limit my amount of E
~
18 time to study It.
'd 14 The question I wanted to raise earlier -- well, there was 15 another matter, too, that I think fits into the general 16 discussion but it is not about evidence, and that is the 17 question of an evening hearing for the public limited 18 appearances on emergency planning. APEX, it looks like that 19 is a convenient place to do it. And if we could get that 20 scheduled at some point later on in this, I think that needs J
21 to be handled.
22 As to the profiling of proposed exhibits, my problem in 23 simultaneous filing is I don't know what they are going to say f- g 24 and I don't know what I would like to get in the record to ;
k I J
25 oppose that. I think if you say something like profile all 1
7609 3 ; 1 .the testimony on the 10th simultaneously, file proposed
[ b
-t i N/^ 2 exhibits on the 18th simultaneously, something like that i 3 could probably handle.
4 MR. BAXTER: Judge Kelley, we have been through this 5 before this proceeding. Mr. Eddleman confuses the opportunity 6 for rebuttal testimony with the obligation to file a direct 7 case. Simultaneous-filing and. testimony is a requirement. I 8 also don't know what he is going to file on that day and I 9 also cannot anticipate. He knows a lot more about my case 10 ' f r on summary disposition motions than I certainly do about 11 his.
12 1 think the exhibits ought to be filed on the same time
(
) 13 and then if the parties see some need for rebuttal, unforeseen 14 evidence, they can raise that with the Board as soon as they 15 become aware of it.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: We are talking about contentions on which 17 summary disposition motions were filed?-
18 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: l'would think, Mr. Eddleman, that the 20 thrust of the applicant's case is already known to you from 21' those motions.
22- MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, like I said, to the degree to which 23 they were denied, that's the degree to which they are going 24 forward. And I don't know if they might not come up with 25 something else, m
7510 p., _
1 . JUDGE KELLEY: I am just suggesting that they got denied
(\/ l-2 because --
they may have been denied, I will put it this way, 8 Just because we thought there was some disputed fact there and 4 not that we disagreed with it. It doesn't necessarily mean 5 that Mr. Baxter, if he files a motion and a stack of 6 affidavits, doesn't still think he has a good case even if he 7 lost.the motion. I dare say that what you have seen in that 8 motion is a pretty good indication of what his case is.
9 Well, anyway, we seem to have the June 10th by 10 acclimation-for filing of testimony. And the Board believes 11 that we ought to have filing of exhibits at the'same time 12- subject to the understanding that if something comes up as a O( / 18 surprise, you can point that out and seek leave to file 14 something in addition by way of rebuttal.
15 Now, we will put out a confirmatory order on these basic 16 points. You won't have to pick through the transcript to find 17 these things, but that's our ruling on those matters as to
. 18 timing and filing.
19- Ms. Moore, what about the sirens issue and the FEMA 20 consultant problem?
21 MS. MOORE: Before we get to that, Your Honor, I would 22 like to make one request and that is, as you know, previously 28 in the other hearings in this proceeding we have gotten a
[S
?'
24 ruling from the Board that cross-examination exhibits will be 25 made available prior to their use. And I would like that
7611
,_s 1 ruling carried over into this proceeding. They don't have to
\
2 .beEfiled at the same time as the profiled testimony. But i 8 just wanted it to be made clear that they will be supplied in 4 advance of their use. .I think it was the morning of their use
~
5 or 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before they were to be used, something like that.
6 Does that rule still apply to this part of the proceeding?
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think it is a useful rule.
8 Why don't we be as precise as we can. prior to doesn't 9 help. That can be one minute before. Do you mean the morning ^
'10 of the day in question? Do you mean 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before, or what 11 would you like to see?
12 MS, MOORE: My preference is 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before.
) IS JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman?
14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I don't have any problem with 24 15 hours for the things that are easy to anticipate. It is what 16 is called.a little technical or logistical problem getting the 17 stuff to them 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before 10:00 Monday morning, but i 18 think that probably could be handled.
19 The problem is when you go through a line of questions 20 and the person gives you an answer that you don't expect.and 21 -you.have to pull out a document and get it copied up and make 22 it available and that has come up in some of these past 28 matters. In other words, I don't want to be foreclosed 24 from using a document that I have got because the parties 25 already know what kind of documents have been exchanged on
r -+
7612
^
. I discovery. I presume everybody has been served with them, i p.
! )
\ss/ 2 have. That you couldn't use it because you didn't put 3 it in their hand 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before or alternatively I would have 4 to hand them the whole stack of documents 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think we have to have a good faith
'6 rule operating here, too, because I think it is quite possible 7 with this group of parties. Those you in fact intend to use, O copy them up and distribute a copy so that the other side 9 knows whatever time we hit upon. It may be that you might 10 come to the hearing with a big egg crate full of paper and not 11 know until a certain point that something has popped up that 12 you want to use. And I assume that the other parties and the 13 Board don't want the whole egg crate or whatever else that it 14 comes in.
15 in this case, if you do know you are going to use 16 something, you expect to, you really think you might, then 17 provide the copy. That seems to me to be reasonable and the 18 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is really, something like that is kind of necessary.
19 1 mean, just before doesn't do any good because then we all 20 stop and look at the thing. It just holds up the hearing. If_
21 you get it the first thing in the morning, the hearing starts 22 right away, if there is only one lawyer really on something, 23 they have to stop, too, so the sort of night before rule to 24 get -any benef i t out of this exchange, you have to do is +he 25 day before it seems to me. Any comment from the applicant?
t 7613 1 MR. BAXTER: We concur in the staff's suggestion that (X)/.
y, 2 these be exchanged in advance, recognizing that there can 8 be unforeseen circumstances which Mr. Eddleman can point out
, 4 at the time. And we agree with you that the night before 5 really.is necessary to make it useful.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I think we have heard 7 from everybody and really heard enough on this. So, we 8 will adopt a rule for this hearing, which is that copies of 9 documents a party intends to use in cross-examination should 10 be made available to the other parties no later than the close 11 of the preceding day, so you have it the night before. In the 12 case of material you expect -- we are only' talking about two
- m 18 days here on these two contentions possibly.
14 in the case of that first day of hearing, it ought to be 15 in the hands of the parties the preceding Friday, I would 16 think. Let's make it the preceding Friday, recognizing that 17 surprises or unexpected _ twists and turns can occur and you may 18 want to use something that you haven't given a copy of because 19 it really is a surprise. And we will use a rule of reason in 4
20 enforcing this rule, but we think it will facilitate the whole 21 process if everybody recognizes it and attempts to comply with 22 it as best they can.
-23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, we have been discussing this in the f' 24 light of the emergency planning contentions, but I presume 25 that the staff and applicants would want it to also apply to
7614
- 1 hearing on 41.G,-if that is brought into this.
lNs) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I assume so.
8 MR. EDDLEMAN: 'There may be a lot greater logistical 4 difficulty in us complying with it. It may make it a lot 5 ' harder for us to do that the week of the 24th. I just 6 want to-raise that matter now.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we raise it again after we talked 8 about the Van tha thing next week.
It is just awfully hard to 9 get any further down that road right now when you haven't seen 10 this report and we haven't heard you out on what effect it 11_ ought to have. But I understand your point and it is duly 12 noted. Let's speak to it again next week.
/
i j 13- Let's see. Ms. Moore, back to FEMA and the sirens.
14 MS. MOORE: Yes. I did talk with FEMA again. They have 15- reviewed the process and reviewed the time that it will take
, 16 them to make the contractual arrangements, stick with the 17 proposed witnesses, obtain and speak with them and do some 18 study that they need to do and collect some information they 4
19 need to gather and prepare their testimony. And they have 20 concluded that they could file testimony on. September 2nd'and
.21 go to hearing any time there after.that. Act'ually, September 22 3rd, I'm sorry, September 2nd is Labor Day. And that's really 28 the earliest that they could accomplish all of those things.
, 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comments from the applicants?
25 .MR. BAXTER: We are not thrilled, but I don't know that
i 7615 1 we can do much about it at this point, Judge Kelley. We think N- 2 that this testimony will be important to this issue and S therefore we think the hearing ought-to be scheduled to 4' accommodate their testimony.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you propose that we set some at least
'6 tentative date here and now?
1 7 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, Judge Kelley, your speaker 8 phone cut out and I missed the first part of.your sentence.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess I am putting a question to all 10 three parties in interest here. In light of what Ms. Moore 11 has said, in light of the apparent importance of the FEMA 12 testimony, and accepting, then, that they really can't (n) la deliver until the 3rd of September with a written position, 14 should we here and now set at least a tentative date to hear 15 the matter? Ms. Moore?
16 MS. MOORE: .That would be fine with me, Your Honor.
17 I will make one statement. The FEMA was supposed to 18 _ send me a letter setting this out and I :. ave not received it 19 yet, so I would just like to caveat what I said, that.if they 20 . change it, I could get back to the Board. This was my 21 understanding as of Friday.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't we go ahead and set a tentative 28 date based on your 3 September expectation?
24 MS. MOORE: Okay.
N 25 JUDGE KELLEY: What would you suggest?
, . , - n . , , - , - - - - . - , . .--
. _ . - . - n., . . , . , . . , - - .,-.-~n.., , . ,
7616 1 MS. MOORE: I lost September on my calendar, I'm afraid.
\
q/
\~- 2 JUDGE KELLEY: It comes right after August. (Laughter) 8 MR. BAXTER: September the ?6th is a Monday.
4 MS. MOORE: What about either the 17th or the 24th of 5 September?
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, in this instance, we just got through 7 saying, and I think correctly, that in the case of filing 8 testimony and exhibits, talking about Mr. Eddleman's not 9 knowing what's coming and then I said well, yes, you do, 10 you have a motion for summary disposition and that's the 11 case.
12 This FEMA material, though, and this contractor, O i l 18 apparently having some not unique knowledge, at least sort of-Q.
14 unusual, should we have this testimony in hand and let the 15 parties read it? .ls it fair to require simultaneous testimony 16 of'everybody else if this FEMA testimony apparently has some 17 particularly useful quality in which nobody has'seen before?
18 Ms. Moore, what do you think of that?
19 MS. MOORE: Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure that FEMA will 20 have anything really unique to say. It is just that they are' 21 using their contractor people to discuss a particular issue 22 that was framed and that will be our direct case. I assume 28 each party has their direct case to present. So I wouldn't g 24 see that FEMA's presentation of testimony would require any
,,)
25 special filing differences. If anyone is surprised, they
..= . - _ . . -.
7617-1' could always. request the right for rebuttal.
' p
( 2 JUDGE-KELLEY: What I am thinking of here, and this is
.8 just recollection here, speaking for myself, I read it 4 sometime back, but the thrust of the summary disposition 5 motion was that the proposal is sound because i t complies with 6 certain FEMA guidelines and for acoustical characteristics 7 and decibels above ambient and all of that. And we came back 8 and said well, that's all very interesting but will it wake 9 peopfe up in the middle of the night.
10 And I thought, from what you were saying before, that 11 FEMA is going to come in and say whether it will do that. And 12
.we have yet to hear any testimony on that subject, as far as I
/~') 18 can recall. Maybe I misapprehend.
(G Maybe that's not what they 14 are going to come in and tell us, or perhaps they are going to' 15 not bring in anything that we haven't seen in some form. Can s
16 you tell me, Ms. Moore?
17 MS. MOORE: Well, yes. I am sure that'they will.ccme in 18 something along that lines because it is their criteria that 19 we are talking about here. But that's part of our direct 20 case. And Mr. Eddleman has his direct case that would say no, 21 they won't and the applicants have their direct case saying.
22 whichever way they choose to speak. And those are all direct 28 cases. And if there i s a surprise in what FEMA has to say,
~ 24 then it would seem to me that is appropriate for rebuttal at 25 that time.
4
- - -. ,- -. ,,,,-.,r -
-- *- ----~i-e-=v-,---+w---- --e-------e--- --- - r---= e-- a e-- e-~ =-----+-w--~~<----------+v---m-'
7618 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Do the applicants favor simultaneous rm l
.kj) 2 f i I a ,7g?
8 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Judge Kelley, we do. I don't really 4 see that there is a lot of difference in most of the other 5 issues.
. 6 MR. BARTH: Judge Kelley, may I make a comment here?
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Please do.
8 MR. BARTH: In our discussions with FEMA, Ms. Moore 9 and I have talked to these people, and to the best of our 10 -knowledge, there is not going to be any kind of secret 11 information disclosed. We are just going to talk about our 12 current knowledge in the trade and I can't conceive any 18
(/^)'s secrets would come out. The regulations require simultaneous 14 filings of direct cases, and I can see no difference between 15 this and the direct case on the concrete or the pipe hangings 16 or anything else.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, l.may have been guilty of 18 introducing the word secret. I don't think that is an 19 accurate word in the context. I am simply reflecting my own 20 reaction at the motion stage where i kept looking for evidence
- <- 21 that people would be awakened in the night and I couldn't find 22 any. And then I thought well, maybe FEMA will give us some, 28 but perhaps you are indicating that they are going to talk
/' 24 about standards, is that right?
h 25 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor. I think that they will have
. . ~ . __ _,_ _ .. . _ . . . . _
7619 1 to address the question the Board has raised. But that kind
. ,.m i
\m 2 of question does not require any secret or unknown 3 information, it is publicly available. And insofar as 4 Mr. Eddleman has a direct case that they won't wake up, that's 5 his problem.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: If it is so available, I wonder why it 7 wasn't in the motion for summary for disposition, but be that 8 _ as i t ruay .
9 Mr. Eddleman, what is your view on this point? (Jou l d you 10 favor simultaneous filing or staggered filing after FEMA?
11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I can't say for sure right now, but 12 .I can say, based on the responses to interrogatories that I
,s 1'd have sent out from FEMA, those have been spare to say the
('v) 14 least I could say about it and not really informative.
15 And the typical practice of all the parties in this case when 16 they are going to file testimony is well, you know, you don't 17 get prediscovery on it, even if part of it is responsive to 18 the interrogatories that are open, that is that require 19 supplementation when you get information and so on. You just 20 file it and say well, this is when we got it and this is when 21' you get it.
22 So I can't really'say, I guess, unless and until 1 28 see if they are updated interrogatory responses or until they
-w 24 file it. But obviously, if I am required to f ile simultaneous V
25 with them, I'm stuck on that point. So, I guess for that
7620 1 reason, I would prefer to get maybe an extra week or something D.
A m- 2 like that. But I don't know that there is a firm basis for it
-9 right now.
4 JUDGE KELLEYi All right. Hold on just a moment. 1 5 am just going to push our mute button for just a minute.
?
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Th'is is Judge Kelley back on the audio.
8 We think, under the circumstances, we should set a 9 simultaneous filing date for both testimony and exhibits, but 10 we recognize that not knowing that much about what FEMA is 11 going to produce here, that there may be something that wasn't 12 really brought out or brought out very fully in discovery.
() 18 And in that case, if Mr. Eddleman or some other party wants to 14 argue on a cause basis to file some additional testimony a 15 week later, that will be acceptable.
16 So we will set the 3rd as the filing date for all parties 17 including FEMA. And then we need to set a hearing date. We 18 have had a nominee. Ms. Moore, did you suggest the 17th or 19 the 24th?
20 MS. MOORE: I would suggest the 24th.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Is the 24th acceptable to 22 the applicants?
28 MR. BAXTER: We propose the earlier week, the 17th or the 24 18th.
v 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Any special reason, just general
-_ _ _ ~- ..._. -
.u
, 7621 1 principle? ;
, ,.m i 2 MR. BAXTER: Just general principle. We are unhappy 8 about the delay in general and we would just like to see the 4
process advanced as much as possible. Fifteen days is the 5 regulatory requirement for profiling testimony. The 15th onto 6 the 3rd would get us through Wednesday, the 18th, and 7 hopefully one contention can be tried in that amount of time, 8 three days.
9 .Mr. Eddleman?
10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, for several reasons, and, of 11 course I don't know about the time pressure, I frankly 12 expect this is going to be delayed again, but i don't know if 18 we need to get into that. But because of the matter we just J
14 discussed about possible things coming up in FEMA's testimony 15 that might need more evaluation and a possible response and 16 time to deal with that.
17 And also a question I wanted to ask Ms. Moore earlier and 18 didn't get in, this seemed the logical place to put it in, 1
, 19 take it that her discussions with FEMA didn't take into 20 account the concerns expressed by some of the residents around 21 the. plant as to the performance of the stren. And a couple of 22 them in that public meeting on Sunday down in APEX said things 23 Ilke "If I had been indcors and asleep, I know I wouldn't have
("N 24 heard it because I didn't hear it when I was just in my house 5
25 normally."
i
7622 1 And there were a number.of people who raised this and I
,[ .
sd - 2 don't know what effect that will have on FEMA's testimony or 8- filing time, if any. But I would think that under these 4 circumstances, that kind of ccmplexities there are in this 5 thing, the 24th would be better for my purposes. Any date we 6 pick in September is go:ng to interfere with my teaching l
7 ' schedule, but I have gotten used to that by now. l 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's break off for a moment.
9 (Discussion off the record.)
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We are back on. We will set the 11 24th as the date for hearing, the exact place exact time to be 12 set-later.
-Qe' 18 MS. MOORE: Excuse me. Your Honor. We missed that. Your 14 speaker. phone cut in a little bit on us.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: The Board is setting the 24th as-a hearing 16 date, the exact place and the exact' time to be established.
- 17. later.
f 18' MS. MOORE: Thank you.
l l 19 JUDGE KELLEY: On a kind of unrelated subject, the drug 20 use contention, we had a discovery request from Mr. Runkle, 1 21 think went out May 1 or so. Where are we on that? Are we any 2R further along on that, Mr. Runkle?
23- MR. RUNKLE: I was going to raise that issue as part of
' /~ 24 this conference call. I will be contacting the applicants and i
\
25 staff this afternoon on that as part of discovery.
7623 1 JUDGE KELLEY: But from your perspective, the discovery 3
2 is not wrapped up at this points is that true? I a MR. RUNKLE: Oh, no, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLCY: Should we raise it again next week after 5 you talk to the staff?
-6 MR. BAXTER: I don't quite' understand Mr. Runkle's 7 sort of cryptic remarks. The responses to the; interrogatories
, 8 that the parties had all filed were due yesterday. We duly 9 mailed ours to his yesterday and I assume, since he hasn't 10 contacted me, that he had done the same.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, so the applicants have made their-12' responses.
) 18 Mr. Runkle, have you responded to the applicants?
14 MR. RUNKLE: No, I haven't. I expect to contact'them t
15 this afternoon,
~
16 MR. BARTH: I really think that is unfair. The parties.
17 should be seeking extensions, if they are going to, ahead of 18 time. Now we have-the situation'where our answers can be 19 'available to Mr. Runkle and it wasn't supposed to work 20 out that way.
-21 MR. RUNKLE: The answers to the staff, Your Honor, 22 are also overdue.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me get a little fuller picture 24 just where we are.
^}
%/
I understand the applicants have mailed it 25 their responses yesterday.
m 7624 1 Now,- is it the case that there were outstanding m/ 2 Interrogatories between the three parties, that is to say 8 Mr. Runkle handed interrogatories to the applicants, which 4 they have answered, the applicants had interrogatories from 5 Mr. Runk l e ,' wh i ch he has not yet answered; Mr. Runkle had 6 interrogatories to the staff.
7 Now, Mr. Barth, are those answered?
8 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor, there were no interrogatories 9 to the staff, it was staff interrogatories to Mr. Runkle which 10 are overdue now.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm sorry. There were no interrogatories 12 from Mr. Runkle to you?
r~y
(
D) IS MR. BARTH: You are correct, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: But there teare interrogatories from you to 15 Mr. Runkle?
16 MR. BARTH: Correct, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, you are in the position 18- of having answers due to two parties at this points is that 19 right?
20 MR. BARTH: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Due or overdue?
'22 MR. BARTH: Overdue.
'23 JUDGE KELLEY: They were due yesterdays is that ccrrect?
r 24 MR. BARTH: The responses to applicants were due
(
\,_,
25 yesterday.
1 7625 ;
1 JUDGE KELLEY: And the staff's were due yesterday. l rN
%, 2 Mr. Barth? l l
8 MR. BARTH: They were due before yesterday, I believe for 4 Mr. Runkle to answer.
5 MR. BAXTER: Staff filed five'or six days before 6 appilcant.
7' 'MR. BARTH: Correct.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. dunkle, any comment?
9 MR. RUNKLE: None really. I have not had the opportunity 10 to answer the staff's interrogatories. They were almost 11 impossible to' answer until I got responses from the 12 applicants.
O
( %18 MR. O'NEILL: All our interrogatories asked, Your Honor,
~ V) 14 were for his direct tapes.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: We are having a little hearing 16 difficulty. Mr. Runkle, your voice is coming in kind of' low.
17 At least I think the Board has some notion now of who was 18 serving paper on whom. I suppose the parties, if Mr. Runkle 19 is overdue, he can seek to negotiate something with the 20 parties, or parties can take whatever approach they think.is 21 in their interest to take. I don't know what else the Board 22 can do right now. There is nothing pending before us.
28 Any comment from any party on that proposition?
(~N .24 Mr. Baxter?
i~ ,)'
25 MR. BAXTER: No, you are correct. There is nothing
7626
__ - ~1 pending before you at the moment. We have just assuming that iO
! j-
\~/ 2. other parties _were complying with the-regulatory schedules.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems a reasonable assumption.
4- MR. CAXTER: If we need to file a motion to compel, 5 we will do that but we don't have one filed now.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I guess I would suggest.this: That 7 parties seek to -- the simple way here, I guess, Mr. Runkle, 8 is for you to answer those interrogatories very quickly. And 9 if that is semehow a problem, then discuss it with the 10 parties.
11 The Board is just going to leave it to the parties 12 .right now as to how this will work itself out. So we have (Q.
w/ -
f_ 13 nothing further on the subject at the moment, on_the subject 14 of drugs, unless anybody else does.
I 15 MR. JONES: I did have a question in terms of witnesses-16 or trying to figure out when potential witnesses -when they 17 can take vacation and when_they can't and so am 1 l have a 18 handle on July. Were there some weeks in August that were 19 definitely going to be not available for a hearing?.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think the Board indicated that we-21 weren't available the third week. As of now, there isn't 22 anything in the way of a hearing in August that I am aware of.
23 MR._ JONES: Nothing was scheduiei. I didn't-know what 24 the time frame was for the drug contention. That's the one 25 that --
II 7627 j JUDGE 1;ELLEY: l 1 I don't think it's got one, unless I
- -~s* .
(
J% 2 'am misrecollecting. We are in the process of wrapping up the 8- 1 discovery in some fashion and then we can talk about whether 4 'we are going to have ---if my recollection serves me, and it 5 doesn't always, but I think last time we raised the subject'of 6 where are we on drugs and specifically what about suneary 7 disposition motions. And then the response was well, we don't 8; know what we are going to do in that regard until discovery is 9 over. And that's still true, so we don't know whether-that's i
10 something anyone contemplates.
It Any further intelligence at this point, Mr. Baxter, 12 on that point, or Mr. O'Neill?
(O; 13 MR. BAXTER: No , Judge Keliev. I would have hoped we 14 would be through with discovery very shortly, but still that 15 we would be able to maybe address this. subject next Wednesday.
-15 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the Board would encourage all 17 parties to resolve these discovery matters so that next
- 18. Wednesday we can have some discussion of next steps after 19 discovery on the drug contention. And we will assume'that 20 that's on the agenda.
21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I am not directly involved in 22 this,.but just so everybody knows this for scheduling
.23 purposes, the last week of August is our planning meetings at
/ '24 'the start school,'which is the worst thing for me to miss.
U 25 So, if we ever get to the point where we are talking about
7628 1 putting a hearing into that week, I would really prefer
! )..
\/ 2 the'first'two weeks of_Augus't, if that were possible.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We can bear that in mind. Thank 4 you,.Mr. Eddleman. We will give everybody a chance to 5 add.on, but we don't have anything else, except to say again 6 that we will put out a little confirmatory order of the basic
-7 scheduling points we just went over, times for hearing, times O for filing and so on. And we,will again hear from you next 9 Wednesday morning on the 29th at 10:00, primarily to talk
.1 0 about the Van Vo material, but also at least one or ~two other 11 things that we have put off until that time.
J-12 Anything else from the applicants?-
j% I
'$ 18 MR. BAXTER: No, sir.
V 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff?
.15 MS. MOORE: Yes, Judge Kelley. I just want to raise one 16 concern, which I probably should have raised earlier when we 4
17 wcre talking about the staff would be glad to negotiate with te Mr. Eddleman on this discovery motion on Mr. Van Vo's 19- allegations. I have one concern and that is that Mr. Eddleman 20 is indeed represented by Mr. Guild. And I would l ike to hear 21 from Mr. Guild, but'l have his consent to speak to h!s client 22 on that matter.
1 MR. EDDLEMAN:
23 I think we can arrange for that,
/~N 24 Ms. Moore. We will be in touch.
25 MS. MOORE: Okay. It is just a concern from my
s 7529 1 i
I standpoint.
(' 2, MR. EDDLEMAN:
l' understand, thank you.
8 MS; MOORE: Okay.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: There is one other point. I was going to 5 ask you next, Mr. Eddleman, but you have mentioned having a 6 limited appearance session in connection with_the hearing on 7 the 24th. l-don't know that the Board had really addressed 3 that one way or the other. We did have the one session out 9 there last fall is there reason to think on your part, 10 Mr. Eddleman, that there will be a lot of interest in people 11 coming to another session?
'12 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe, if my memory serves, that we p) 13 had talked earlier about one session on the general matter, 14 the environmental safety and management and another one 15 specifically on emergency planning to be held in APEX.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: So your suggestion.that the one we held 17 last fall was indeed in APEX but it wasn't particularly on 18 emergency planning?
1g MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, Judge. And I had understood there 20 was going to be another one and I have heard some people 21
~
expresc interest in it. Now, I haven't gone out and beaten 22 bushes or anything like that, but I think there are some 23 people who want to have an opportunity to make some limited
(~5g 24 appearances on this issue. And I had been assuming, and I'm N -l 25 not sure, but I think that this is in early discussions that
7630 x'
1 we have had, the Board parties, that the logical time to do
/
~l'r h f ~
V- 2 that was when we had the hearings on the emergency planning 3 contentions.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: There is some logic in that. I agree. Do 5 applicants have any comments on that?
6 MR. BAXTER: No, I don't recall the discussion. I 7 do recall a couple of limited appearance statements. We were 8' devoted to emergency planning last fall, but I don't have any
- 9 objection to having another session.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the staff have any thoughts on the
'- 11 subject?
12 MS. MOORE: We don't have any objection to having '
r
( 18 another session. I can't recall the exact details of
_N_ "
14 discussions that we had. I just don't remember.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Now, if the Board thinks that that 16 is a good idea on the assumption that we will actually be in 17 APEX on Monday and Tuesday, the 24th and the 25th, is there a.
18 preference between Monday or Tuesday evening, or for some 19 other time? Mr. Eddleman?
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judgu, Monday or Tuesday seem to be
+
21 logical times to me. If we have to put it in a different l
l 22 time in that week for the Board's or other parties'
]
23 convenience, that's okay with me, too.
/~' 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Applicants or staff have any comment (N
25 or preference for time?
~,-
i 7631 I
. .., i
. 1 MR. BAXTER: I would propose Monday evening just to
, ('
< _ 2; make sure -- that's one night we know for sure we are going to 3- 'be there.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: .Okay. Staff?
5 MS. MOORE: We would agree with Monday night.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Just one other thing, really a 7 comment.
G Mr. Eddleman,. Mr. Runkle, and you might pass on to 9- other representatives and groups, particularly if we did 10 decide to have another session down there, it is, in our 11 experience, not real easy to get the word out on these 12 things and we would hope that the organizations particularly
) 13 would make some' effort on a word of mouth basis to advertise 14 the fact that it is being done. I guess we have nothing else-
~
15 for this morning.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 JUCGE KELLEY: Judge Bright makes a point about 18 . location. We expect to be in APEX Monday and Tuesday. If we
-19 are in a mode to try the Van Vo matters, then we do have a 20 hold on the Civic Center, as we understand it, Wednesday, 21 Thursday, Friday of that week, as needed. So, that's where we 22 would expect to go if we continue with further hearings.
U 23 That's all we have. Applicants, anything else?
24 MR. BAXTER: No, sir.
L 4 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff?
, , . ~ . . _ _ . , _ - _ .
-m-.m. _ . . , . . _ , . . , . . . .- . , . - _ . - _ - . . _ . . . . , . , . - . _ . , , , , . .
r 7632 1 MS. MOORE: No, sir.
k.,- 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I have two questions I wanted to 3 raise. I had asked the staff earlier-about getting copies of-4- this IDI report, and I didn't know if there was any progress 5 on that on when it might be served.
6 The other thing is I know we don't have a representative 7 of FEMA on the line, but I understand the NRC's rules changed, 8 the final rule was put in on May the 8th-reinstating the right 9 of intervenors to litigate problems that occur during the 10 emergency planning exercise and wanted to know if the 11 transcripts of the public hearing and the public critique'and 12 also FEMA's evaluation sheets for the exercise would be made
.'(Ol_ 18 available to the parties.
%)
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Those are questions to Ms. Meere?
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. I think that the staff is 16 the closest thing to FEMA that is present here.
17 MS. MOORE: I think I would have to say right-now I just 18 don't know. I will have to check with FEMA and find out 19 exactly what they are making available.
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I would like to request those things 21 that I mentioned, please.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you let us know next week, perhaps?
23 MS. MOORE: Yes, I am not sure -- evaluation sheets, are fs 24 yois talking about, Mr. Eddleman, the things that are prepared (v) 25 by the individual --
7633
'1 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right. The individual evaluators.
/ .
3A /~ 2 MS. MOORE: Your Honor, discovery is not really open on 3 any issues'that I know of on emergency planning. And this is 4 in the form of.a discovery request, as'far as I can.make out.
5 Whether.the other things are going to be publicly available'is 6 another question and I can check on that one.
7 MR. EDDLEMAN: What I am asking is, if they are going to 8 be publicly available, I think it would be in the interest of 9 all parties for FEMA to expedite getting them to the parties 10' in this proceeding, simply so that if we are going to make 11 contentions, they will come in earlier and we can have time to 12 deal with them.
^s 13 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, let me take this in reverse 14 order. The IDA request by Mr. Eddlemar., I am checking
.15 into it. I don't know what he is talking about. l will try 16 to find out. If it is a publicly available document, I will 17 see that he gets a copy with copies to all the parties.
18 in regard-to the results of the FEMA exercise, Ms. Moore 19 and I will check with FEMA and whatever they will make 20 publicly available, we will see that it is served on all 21 the parties.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. That sounds helpful.
28 MR. BARTH: Thank you.
("% 24 JUDGE KELLEY: When does this exercise take place?
\ -
25 MS. MOORE: It already has, Your Honor.
7634 1 .MR. BARTH: Last Friday and Saturday.
(~N. !
e 1 -
\m/ -2 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, it did? I think on that note, 3 then --
4 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, excuse me. I did forget 5~ something. It was mentioned at the public hearing on this 6 ' exercise,. that the use of the sirens in the mock accident were 7 not the official test of the sirens. And so I guess I could 8 ask' if there is any public information available on when that 9 test ~is going to be.done or its results, that we ask FEMA to 10 supply that, too.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: You can ask. Mr. Barth, can you check on 12 it?
_l 13 MS. MOORE: tJe w i I I check on it, Your Honor.
14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We will hear you all next Wednesday 16 morning at 10:00.
17 Thank 'j o u . Goodbye, 18 (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the telephone conference ~
19 was concluded.)
20 21 22 23 24
\
\_. ,
25
k ') '-
1- CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3' 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6- before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7 matter of: Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency 8
9 Name of Proceeding: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 10 11 Docket No. 50-400-OL and 50-401-OL (A) 12 place: Bethesda, Maryland 13 Date: Tuesday, May 21, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
19 (Signature) /
jj (Typed Name of Rep ter) Sally V. Weeks 20 21 22 .
[~\
-%Y_
23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
24 25